1 Data quality and veto studies for the S4 burst search: Where do we stand? Alessandra Di Credico Syracuse University LSC Meeting, Ann Arbor (UM) June.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

1 S5 Environmental Disturbances: August ‘06 Robert Schofield, U of O Erik Katsavounidis (MIT), Laura Cadonati (MIT), Michele Zanolin (MIT), Dennis Ugolini.

Advertisements

GWDAW9 – Annecy December 15-18, 2004 A. Di Credico Syracuse University LIGO-G Z 1 Gravitational wave burst vetoes in the LIGO S2 and S3 data analyses.

AURIGA-LIGO Activity F. Salemi Italy, INFN and University of Ferrara for the LIGO-AURIGA JWG 2nd ILIAS-GW Meeting, October 24th and 25th, Palma de Mallorca,

GWDAW, Dec 2003 Shawhan, Christensen, Gonzalez1 LIGO Inspiral Veto Studies Peter Shawhan (LIGO Lab / Caltech) Nelson Christensen (Carleton College) Gabriela.

G Z 1 Block-Normal, Event Display and Q-scan Based Glitch and Veto Studies Shantanu Desai for Penn. State Burst Group And Glitch Working Group.

S5 Data Quality Investigation Status John Zweizig LIGO/Caltech LSC/Virgo DetChar Session Baton Rouge, March 21, 2007.

LIGO-G Z LSC March 2004 KYF1 Veto efficiency study of triple coincidence playground WaveBurst events using WaveMon and glitchMon S2 veto triggers.

E12 Report from the Burst Group Burst Analysis Group and the Glitch Investigation Team.

LIGO Reduced Data Sets E7 standard reduced data set RDS generation for future runs decimation examples LIGO-G Z Isabel Leonor (w/ Robert Schofield)

Glitch Group S5 Activities LSC LSU, Baton Rouge August 15, 2006 G Z L. Blackburn, L. Cadonati, S. Chatterji, J. Dalrymple, S. Desai,

D Q 19 March. 2008LSC-Virgo meeting1 Status of Data Quality in Virgo D. Verkindt, LAPP-CNRS on behalf of the Virgo DQ team (M. Bizouard, L. Bosi, S. Chatterji,

LIGO-G Z Detector characterization for LIGO burst searches Shourov K. Chatterji for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration 10 th Gravitational Wave.

3 May 2011 VESF DA schoolD. Verkindt 1 Didier Verkindt Virgo-LAPP CNRS - Université de Savoie VESF Data Analysis School Data Quality and vetos.

| October LIGO Document ID: LIGO-G Multivariate Veto Analysis for Real-time Gravitational Wave.

THE EVENT DISPLAY TOOL Shantanu Desai Penn. State University Scimon Camp, Livingston, LA August 18, 2006.

LIGO-G Z Detector Characterization SummaryK. Riles - University of Michigan 1 Summary of Detector Characterization Sessions Keith Riles (University.

The Role of Data Quality in S5 Burst Analyses Lindy Blackburn 1 for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration 1 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,

LIGO-G Z Peter Shawhan, for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration APS Meeting April 25, 2006 Search for Gravitational Wave Bursts in Data from the.

Analysis of nonstationarity in LIGO S5 data using the NoiseFloorMon output A proposal for a seismic Data Quality flag. R. Stone for the LSC The Center.

Data Quality Vetoes in LIGO S5 Searches for Gravitational Wave Transients Laura Cadonati (MIT) For the LIGO Scientific Collaboration LIGO-G Z.

Glitch Group S5 Activities Laura Cadonati for the Glitch Working Group LSC meeting, Hanford March 21, 2006 G Z.

LIGO-G Z April 2006 APS meeting Igor Yakushin (LLO, Caltech) Search for Gravitational Wave Bursts in LIGO’s S5 run Igor Yakushin (LLO, Caltech)

LSC glitch group report Shourov K. Chatterji for the LSC glitch group LSC/Virgo meeting 2007 October 24 Hannover, Germany LIGO-G Z.

Veto Selection for Gravitational Wave Event Searches Erik Katsavounidis 1 and Peter Shawhan 2 1 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139,

LIGO- G D Burst Search Report Stan Whitcomb LIGO Caltech LSC Meeting LIGO1 Plenary Session 18 August 2003 Hannover.

G Z 1 New Glitches seen/studied in Block-Normal Shantanu Desai Pennsylvania State University for Glitch Working Group and many others Detchar.

Searching for Gravitational Waves from Binary Inspirals with LIGO Duncan Brown University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration.

1 Status of Search for Compact Binary Coalescences During LIGO’s Fifth Science Run Drew Keppel 1 for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration 1 California Institute.

1 LIGO-G Z Glitch and veto studies in LIGO’s S5 search for gravitational wave bursts Erik Katsavounidis MIT for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration.

LIGO- G D E7: An Instrument-builder’s Perspective Stan Whitcomb LIGO Caltech LSC Meeting Upper Limits Plenary Session 22 May 2002 LIGO Livingston.

1 Planning notes from August 2005 Burst Group Face-to-Face Meeting LHO, August 18, 2005 Peter Shawhan, scribe LIGO-G Z.

1 Laura Cadonati, MIT For the LIGO Scientific Collaboration APS meeting Tampa, FL April 16, 2005 LIGO Hanford ObservatoryLIGO Livingston Observatory New.

S.Klimenko, G Z, December 2006, GWDAW11 Coherent detection and reconstruction of burst events in S5 data S.Klimenko, University of Florida for.

Joshua Smith, Elba, Italy Elba, Italy Joshua Smith for the GEO 600 team Picture of GEO in stormy weather?? Or pics of tractors with.

May 29, 2006 GWADW, Elba, May 27 - June 21 LIGO-G0200XX-00-M Data Quality Monitoring at LIGO John Zweizig LIGO / Caltech.

LIGO-G Z Detector Characterization SummaryK. Riles - University of Michigan 1 Summary of Detector Characterization Sessions Keith Riles (University.

S.Klimenko, March 2003, LSC Burst Analysis in Wavelet Domain for multiple interferometers LIGO-G Z Sergey Klimenko University of Florida l Analysis.

LIGO-G Z GWDAW9 December 17, Search for Gravitational Wave Bursts in LIGO Science Run 2 Data John G. Zweizig LIGO / Caltech for the LIGO.

LSC Meeting, August 2002 P. Shawhan / Inspiral U.L. Working GroupLIGO-G Z Vetoes Used in the E7 Inspiral Upper Limit Analysis Part 2 Peter Shawhan,

LIGO-G All-Sky Burst Search in the First Year of the LSC S5 Run Laura Cadonati, UMass Amherst For the LIGO Scientific Collaboration GWDAW Meeting,

Results From the Low Threshold, Early S5, All-Sky Burst Search Laura Cadonati for the Burst Group LSC MIT November 5, 2006 G Z.

Peter Shawhan The University of Maryland & The LIGO Scientific Collaboration Penn State CGWP Seminar March 27, 2007 LIGO-G Z Reaching for Gravitational.

LIGO- G Z AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project1 First look at Injection of Burst Waveforms prior to S1 Alan Weinstein Caltech Burst UL WG LSC meeting, 8/21/02.

LSC Meeting, 10 Nov 2003 Peter Shawhan (LIGO/Caltech)1 Inspiral Waveform Consistency Tests Evan Ochsner and Peter Shawhan (U. of Chicago) (LIGO / Caltech)

LSC meeting – Mar05 Livingston, LA A. Di Credico Syracuse University Glitch investigations with kleineWelle Reporting on work done by several people: L.

S.Klimenko, LSC, Marcht 2005, G Z BurstMon diagnostic of detector noise during S4 run S.Klimenko University of Florida l burstMon FOMs l S4 run.

LIGO-G050197LSC Collab. Mtg, LHO, August 16,20051 S4 Data Quality & S5 Preview John Zweizig LIGO/Caltech.

LIGO-G Z Inspiral Upper Limits Detector Characterization Nelson Christensen Carleton College August 15, 2001.

Online DQ Segments and Triggers John Zweizig LIGO/Caltech.

LIGO-G E S2 Data Quality Investigation John Zweizig Caltech/LIGO.

LIGO-G D S2 Glitch Investigation Report Laura Cadonati (MIT) on behalf of the Glitch Investigation Team LSC meeting, August 2003, Hannover.

LIGO-G W Interferometer and modecleaner transients during the E2 run Rauha Rahkola and Ray Frey University of Oregon Rick Savage LIGO Hanford.

Igor Yakushin, December 2004, GWDAW-9 LIGO-G Z Status of the untriggered burst search in S3 LIGO data Igor Yakushin (LIGO Livingston Observatory)

LIGO- G Z 11/13/2003LIGO Scientific Collaboration 1 BlockNormal Performance Studies John McNabb & Keith Thorne, for the Penn State University.

LIGO-G Z Status of the LIGO-TAMA Joint Bursts Search Patrick Sutton LIGO Laboratory, Caltech, for the LIGO-TAMA Joint Working Group.

LIGO-G Z Peter Shawhan, for the LSC Burst Analysis Group LSC Observational Results Meeting November 4, 2006 The S4 LIGO All-Sky Burst Search.

3/21/2007 LIGO-G Z S5 Data Quality Investigation Status John Zweizig LIGO/Caltech LSC/Virgo DetChar Session MIT, July 25, 2007.

LIGO-G D Glitch Investigation Update Laura Cadonati for the Glitch Investigation Group LSC meeting, Hanford November 12, 2003.

Data Quality Investigation LIGO-G E John Zweizig Caltech/LIGO Liivingston, March 18, 2003.

S5 Data Quality John Zweizig LIGO/Caltech Hanover, October 25, 2007.

LIGO-G05????-00-Z Detector characterization for LIGO burst searches Shourov K. Chatterji For the LIGO Scientific Collaboration 10 th Gravitational Wave.

Inspiral Glitch Veto Studies

S3 Glitch Updates Laura Cadonati

WaveMon and Burst FOMs WaveMon WaveMon FOMs Summary & plans

S2/S3 Glitch Investigation Update

First look at Injection of Burst Waveforms prior to S1

Coherent Coincident Analysis of LIGO Burst Candidates

John Zweizig LIGO/Caltech

Inspiral Waveform Consistency Tests

Status and Plans for the LIGO-TAMA Joint Data Analysis

Presentation transcript:

1 Data quality and veto studies for the S4 burst search: Where do we stand? Alessandra Di Credico Syracuse University LSC Meeting, Ann Arbor (UM) June 5, 2005

2 What happened since the March LSC  Require the coincidence of H1 and H2 lock segments in order to perform Data Quality (DQ) /glitch study (cross talk of the instruments during single IFO operation)  Safety analysis of all KleineWelle (KW) channels: mostly OK but with conditions applied (to trigger significance, AUX/ASQ ratios)  DQ investigations on seismic/acoustic environmental channels and follow-up on their coincidence with KW triggers  Investigation of auxiliary channels related to a particular detector’s misbehavior: “light-dip” effect  Dust monitors study vs KW single counts (DQ/veto work of relevance and in progress)  Undertake the coincidence of H1 and H2 triggers for a separate DQ and glitch studies (couplings of PEM channels is more pronounced)  LIGO Event Display took off the ground  Event-by-event scanning of KW triple coincidence events from S4  BlockNormal channel-by-channel investigations

3 Interferometric channels in all LIGO detectors H1, H2, L1: strain-recording: LSC-AS_Q LSC-DARM_ERR auxiliary: LSC-AS_AS_I LSC-AS_AC LSC-PRC_CTRL LSC-MICH_CTRL LSC-POB_I LSC-POB_Q LSC-REFL_Q LSC-SPOB_I ASC-WFS1QP ASC-WFS2QP ASC-WFS3IP ASC-WFS4IP SUS-ETMX_OPLEV SUS-ETMY_OPLEV SUS-BS_OPLEV Environmental channels: H0:PEM-BSC1_MAG1X H0:PEM-BSC5_MAGX H0:PEM-BSC5_MIC H0:PEM-BSC6_MAGX H0:PEM-BSC6_MIC H0:PEM-BSC9_MIC H0:PEM-BSC10_MAGY H0:PEM-BSC10_MIC H0:PEM-ISCT1_MIC H0:PEM-ISCT4_MIC H0:PEM-ISCT10_MIC H0:PEM-LVEA_MAGX H0:PEM-LVEA_MIC H0:PEM-RADIO_LVEA L0:PEM-EX_MAGX L0:PEM-ISCT1_MIC L0:PEM-ISCT4_MIC L0:PEM-LVEA_MIC L0:PEM-RADIO_LVEA KleineWelle for glitch studies in S4 »KleineWelle was run on a number of IFO and PEM channels during the S4 run »Near real-time statistics and diagnostics remain a good point of departure in order to get the day-by-day picture – ~lindy/s4/reporthttp://lancelot.mit.edu/ ~lindy/s4/report – ~kats/daily.htmlhttp://lancelot.mit.edu/ ~kats/daily.html

4 Our GW trigger pool: global picture  KleineWelle analyzed in near real-time 97% of the sec (~21 days) of common H1- H2 lock acquisition  In L1, >99% of the sec (~21.7 days) were analyzed  Triple coincidence (H1- H2-L1) observation was sec (~16.5 days)

5 Data quality studies - SEISMIC  Extensive work done by Fred Raab and Justin Garofoli. Examined all seismic channels looking for correlations with up-conversion events in the GW channel ( Hz). Selected 4 interesting channels for LHO (LLO). Among those H0:PEM-LVEA_SEISX(Y) are the most interesting in terms of vetoing efficiency for KW triggers.  These seismic events could be correlated with ADC overflows and with transient dips in the stored light in the arm cavity, as measured by the ASC-QPDX_DC and ASC-QPDY_DC channels (Peter Shawhan)

6 Data quality studies - ACOUSTIC  Examined all microphone channels in the frequency band Hz ( at LLO)  Minute trends recorded by PSLmon and a list of minutes with elevated noise stored in files, together with the corresponding average amplitude (John Zweizig)  Correlation of these flags with KW triggers not really strong. Example of best case: H0-PEM- BSC9 »(H1 single) Efficiency of 2.3% (success ratio = 34.1%), dead-time of 1.12% »(H1 coinc) Efficiency ~2 times higher

7 Data quality studies - DUST

8 S4 vetoes  Full analysis results available at :  Relevant preliminary results (auxiliary channels which present a high efficiency in vetoing both single IFO and coincident events) : »H1 – AS_I, AS_AC. PRC_CTRL, POB_I, POB_Q, MICH_CTRL, WFS1_QP »H2 – AS_I, WFS1_QP, WFS2_QP, WFS2_IP, MICH_CTRL, POB_I, PRC_CTRL »L1 – AS_I, PRC_CTRL, POB_I, WFS1_QP, AS_AC

9 Action items on the burst group’s data quality and veto studies front  Repeat KW production – software review reveal a rather minor bug in significance calculation  Investigate oddities  Finalize dust veto/DQ  Repeat veto analysis with safety conditions applied  Find intersection, union (“OR”) of channels  Decide where we draw the line for selecting vetoes (aka threshold, FOMs…)  Repeat glitch analysis for WaveBurst time-lagged triggers  Undertake high-frequency glitch studies for high frequency S4 search  Undertake quantifying frequency dependence of vetoes  Compare notes with BlockNormal findings