Glitch Group S5 Activities Laura Cadonati for the Glitch Working Group LSC meeting, Hanford March 21, 2006 G060071-00-Z.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

For the Collaboration GWDAW 2005 Status of inspiral search in C6 and C7 Virgo data Frédérique MARION.

Advertisements

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.

LIGO- G Z March 22, 2006March 2006 LSC Meeting - DetChar 1 S5 Spectral Line Catalogue Status Keith Thorne (PSU) for the Spectral Line Catalogue.

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.

R. Stone for the LSC Center for Gravitational Wave Astronomy Department of Physics and Astronomy University of Texas at Brownsville. GWDAW, Boston, MA,

LIGO Data Quality Monitoring Keith Riles University of Michigan.

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

Enhanced NoiseFloorMon : offline analysis results R. Stone & S. Mukherjee Center for Gravitational Wave Astronomy Department of Physics and Astronomy University.

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 NSF Review LIGO Scientific Collaboration - University of Michigan 1 LSC Participation in Initial LIGO Detector Characterization.

LIGO-G DM. Landry – Amaldi5 July 9, 2003 Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory Monitoring LIGO Data During the S2 Science Run Michael.

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

June 27, 2002 EK 1 Data Analysis Overview Erik Katsavounidis LIGO-MIT PAC12 – June 27, 2002 LIGO-G Z.

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

LIGO-G Z Detector Characterization Summary K. Riles - University of Michigan 1 Summary of the Detector Characterization Sessions Keith.

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

Potsdam, Germany Identification and removal of glitches in GEO 600 Joshua Smith ILIAS WG

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,

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.

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.

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

LIGO- G Z August 16, 2006August 2006 LSC Meeting - DetChar 1 Spectral Line Working Group Report Keith Thorne, Chair.

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.

1 Hierarchical glitch classification analysis. Soma Mukherjee CGWA, UTB LSC/Virgo Det Char, Baton Rouge, March 21, 2007 LIGO-G

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

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

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

S5 BNS Inspiral Update Duncan Brown Caltech LIGO-G Z.

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 Z DMT Status for UL Analysis K. Riles - University of Michigan 1 DMT Monitors -- Status Update for Upper Limits Analysis.

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 Issues K. Riles - University of Michigan 1 Detector Characterization Issues -- S2 Analysis & S3 Planning.

Proposing a DMT monitor for studying microseismic noise and up-conversions S. Mukherjee & R. Grosso UTB & U. Erlangen, Germany LSC Det Char Telecon,

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

Multidimensional classification analysis of kleine Welle triggers in LIGO S5 run Soma Mukherjee for the LSC University of Texas at Brownsville GWDAW12,

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 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.

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

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)

Enhanced NoiseFloorMon : offline analysis results R. Stone & S. Mukherjee Center for Gravitational Wave Astronomy Department of Physics and Astronomy University.

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

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 Z March 21, 2007 March 2007 LIGO/Virgo Meeting - DetChar 1 S5 Spectral Line Cataloguing Keith Thorne for the Spectral Line Working Group.

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

LIGO-G Z Introduction to QScan Shourov K. Chatterji SciMon Camp LIGO Livingston Observatory 2006 August 18.

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

LIGO-G Z The Q Pipeline search for gravitational-wave bursts with LIGO Shourov K. Chatterji for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration APS Meeting.

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

LIGO S6 Detector Characterization Studies

S3 Glitch Updates Laura Cadonati

WaveMon and Burst FOMs WaveMon WaveMon FOMs Summary & plans

S2/S3 Glitch Investigation Update

S4 Online Inspiral Search

Planning for the S4 Run Keith Riles (University of Michigan)

LIGO Scientific Collaboration - University of Michigan

Presentation transcript:

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

2 S5 activities The Glitch Group continued commitment in S5: »Off-site shifts »2 weekly teleconferences »participation at S5-run-coordination and DetChar teleconferences. Goals: »A quasi-online assessment (3-4 days delay) of transient features and correlation as the run proceeds, using online tools developed over the past year. »Feedback to commissioning. »veto definition for online analysis (early stages). Glitch-work related talks at this LSC meeting: »John Zweizig – S5 Data Quality (next talk) »Shourov Chatterji - Q Scan & Applications to Detector Characterization (this afternoon) »Jake Slutsky - S4 AS_I Veto for Inspiral Analysis (wed morning) »Shantanu Desai – S5 Loud Block-Normal Triggers & the Event Display (wed afternoon) »Erik Katsavounidis - S5 KleineWelle Glitch Studies (wed afternoon) »Soma Mukherjee - S5 Offline NoiseFloorMon Studies (wed afternoon) »Duncan Brown - S5 Online Inspiral Glitch Triggers (wed afternoon)

3 Tools and Methods Scan of loudest events Auto-correlogram and cross-correlogram of triggers from different channels Standard veto search (Q-)spectrograms BurstMon – DMT monitor for data “burstiness”, F.O.M.s (S. Klimenko) BlockNormal – loud events, above fixed threshold (S. Desai) KleineWelle – transients on a variety of aux channels (L. Blackburn) InspiralMon – 10 loudest BNS candidates/day (D. Brown) Event Display - see Shantanu Desai’s talk Q-scan – see Shourov’s Chatterji’s talk NoiseFloorMon – slow non-stationarity after line and transient removal (S. Mukherjee) Tools The trigger production is automatized (DMT, ONASYS) Post-processing is at various levels of automatization (~1 day response) Interpretation in the hands of shifters Analysis methods

4 S5 off-site glitch shifts E-notebook: Shift report: Weekly report:

5 Participation The next slides some of the many features so far identified in S5 data. Plots and considerations are drawn from the work of several members of the glitch investigation team. A. Di Credico, L. Blackburn, L. Cadonati, S. Chatterji, J. Dalrymple, S. Desai, J. Garofoli, G. Gonzalez, A. Gretaarson, E. Katsavounidis, S. Klimenko, S. Mukherjee, F. Raab, K. Riles, P. Saulson, P. Shawhan, J. Slusky, M. Zanolin, J. Zweizig

6 The Worst Glitching is at Low Frequency L1 H1 H2 H1

7 H1: pre-post commissioning Day : before commissioning break Day : after commissioning break sec before lock loss 0-30 sec before lock loss sec before lock loss

8 Veto studies are in early stages PRC_CTRL triggers PRC_CTRL Good veto for Higher-freq events In all 3 ifos DARM_ERR triggers Day : before commissioning break Day : after commissioning break PRC_CTRL triggers H1

9 H1 auto-correlation This effect comes and goes, not microseismic (see e.g. march 3-4) Auto correlogram for low significance triggers March 9, high microseismic Day : before commissioning break Day : after commissioning break Auto-correlograms for high significance triggers (>35)

10 H1 ASC-ETMX,Y_P

11 H1 glitchiness often seen in magnetometers 100 sec+ of very noisy data producing many "inspiral glitches" during Mar 4, 2:14 UTC, with glitches having a very weird structure, concentrated in narrow ~200 Hz freq bandnoisy data

12 H2 - ~ 6 sec periodicity H2 jan 4 Autocorrelogram for low significance triggers (>10) high microseismic Always seen in low-significance auto-correlograms Since the maintenance, they show up in loudest event scan

13 H2 pixel fraction H2 frequency Microseismic ( Hz) Anthropogenic (0.3-1Hz)

14 H2 autocorrelations Day : before commissioning break Day : after commissioning break Auto-correlograms for high significance triggers (>35)

15 H2 glitches (examples) This appears in the inspiral search; shows in other channels but nowhere as loud!

16 light dips ASC-QPDY_DC Also showing in AS_I, POB_Q, POB_I, PRC_CTRL, REFL_Q, AS_DC, MICH_CTRL, WFS2 …

17 H1 and H2 H2 when H1 is not locked H1 when H2 is not locked

18 H1-H2 coincidence excess A big transient seen in all magnetometers and volt-meters

19 L1 autocorrelations March 11 Average microseismic Feb 14 – high seismic Structures show in low-significance auto-correlograms But not in high-significance ones

20 Day : before commissioning break

21 L1 – seismic 15 minutes before a train…

22 L1 – planes and helicopters seconds BlockNormal outlier

23 Conclusions The glitch group is finding lots of features, the limit is only manpower. The shift system is a way to do science monitoring offsite and learn about our data and provide feedback to commissioning/run coordination. Contribution/help is welcome!