1 Planning notes from August 2005 Burst Group Face-to-Face Meeting LHO, August 18, 2005 Peter Shawhan, scribe LIGO-G050455-00-Z.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
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.
Advertisements

LIGO-G Z LSC March 2004 KYF1 Veto efficiency study of triple coincidence playground WaveBurst events using WaveMon and glitchMon S2 veto triggers.
Noise Floor Non-stationarity Monitor Roberto Grosso*, Soma Mukherjee + + University of Texas at Brownsville * University of Nuernburg, Germany Detector.
LIGO- G Z AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project1 Use of detector calibration info in the burst group
Glitch Group S5 Activities LSC LSU, Baton Rouge August 15, 2006 G Z L. Blackburn, L. Cadonati, S. Chatterji, J. Dalrymple, S. Desai,
LIGO-G E ITR 2003 DMT Sub-Project John G. Zweizig LIGO/Caltech Argonne, May 10, 2004.
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,
G Z April 2007 APS Meeting - DAP GGR Gravitational Wave AstronomyKeith Thorne Coincidence-based LIGO GW Burst Searches and Astrophysical Interpretation.
LIGO-G Z Detector characterization for LIGO burst searches Shourov K. Chatterji for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration 10 th Gravitational Wave.
S4/S5 Calibration The Calibration team G Z.
LIGO- G Z AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project1 Use of detector calibration info in the burst group
LIGO-G Z Detector Characterization Summary K. Riles - University of Michigan 1 Summary of the Detector Characterization Sessions Keith.
S.Klimenko, G Z, December 21, 2006, GWDAW11 Coherent detection and reconstruction of burst events in S5 data S.Klimenko, University of Florida.
3 May 2011 VESF DA schoolD. Verkindt 1 Didier Verkindt Virgo-LAPP CNRS - Université de Savoie VESF Data Analysis School Data Quality and vetos.
LIGO- G Z 03/23/2005LSC Meeting March BlockNormal Near-Online S4 Burst Analysis Keith Thorne Penn State University Relativity Group (Shantanu.
LSC Meeting, November 4, 2006 LIGO-G D 1 Alan Weinstein (LIGO Laboratory / Caltech) For the LSC Internal review committee: Duncan Brown, Laura.
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.
LIGO-G Z Peter Shawhan, for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration APS Meeting April 25, 2006 Search for Gravitational Wave Bursts in Data from the.
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.
The Analysis of Binary Inspiral Signals in LIGO Data Jun-Qi Guo Sept.25, 2007 Department of Physics and Astronomy The University of Mississippi LIGO Scientific.
Searching for Gravitational Waves with LIGO Andrés C. Rodríguez Louisiana State University on behalf of the LIGO Scientific Collaboration SACNAS
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.
Multidimensional classification of burst triggers from LIGO S5 run Soma Mukherjee for the LSC Center for Gravitational Wave Astronomy University of Texas.
LIGO-G Z Peter Shawhan (U of Maryland) for the LSC LIGO PAC Meeting June 15, 2007 An Overview of LSC Data Analysis Now with VIRGO !
Searching for Gravitational Waves from Binary Inspirals with LIGO Duncan Brown University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration.
LIGO-G Z Status of MNFTmon Soma Mukherjee +, Roberto Grosso* + University of Texas at Brownsville * University of Nuernberg, Germany LSC Detector.
S5 BNS Inspiral Update Duncan Brown Caltech LIGO-G Z.
LIGO-G Z Detector Characterization Summary K. Riles - University of Michigan 1 Summary of the Detector Characterization Sessions Keith.
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.
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.
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.
S.Klimenko, LSC, August 2004, G Z BurstMon S.Klimenko, A.Sazonov University of Florida l motivation & documentation l description & results l.
S.Klimenko, G Z, March 20, 2006, LSC meeting First results from the likelihood pipeline S.Klimenko (UF), I.Yakushin (LLO), A.Mercer (UF),G.Mitselmakher.
LIGO-G Z Detector Characterization Issues K. Riles - University of Michigan 1 Introduction to Detector Characterization Sessions Keith.
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.
First Year S5 Low Mass Compact Binary Coalescences Drew Keppel 1 representing the LIGO/VIRGO Compact Binary Coalescence Group 1 California Institute of.
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 Detector Characterization SummaryK. Riles - University of Michigan 1 Summary of Detector Characterization Sessions Keith Riles (University.
LIGO-G Z Introd. to Detect. Charact. Sessions K. Riles - University of Michigan 1 Introduction to the Detector Characterization.
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.
S5 First Epoch BNS Inspiral Results Drew Keppel 1 representing the Inspiral Group 1 California Institute of Technology Nov LSC Meeting MIT, 4 November.
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.
LIGO-G Z Detector Characterization Summary K. Riles - University of Michigan 1 Summary of the Detector Characterization Sessions Keith.
LIGO-G E S2 Data Quality Investigation John Zweizig Caltech/LIGO.
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 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.
November, 2009 STAC - Data Analysis Report 1 Data Analysis report November, 2009 Gianluca M Guidi Università di Urbino and INFN Firenze for the Virgo Collaboration.
LIGO-G D Glitch Investigation Update Laura Cadonati for the Glitch Investigation Group LSC meeting, Hanford November 12, 2003.
LIGO-G Z Peter Shawhan for the LSC-Virgo Burst Analysis Working Group LSC-Virgo Meeting July 23, 2007 Eyes Wide Open: Searching for Gravitational.
LIGO-G Z The Q Pipeline search for gravitational-wave bursts with LIGO Shourov K. Chatterji for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration APS Meeting.
Data Analysis report November, 2009 Gianluca M Guidi
Advanced Virgo Detector Monitoring and Data Quality
S5 First Epoch BNS & BBH Inspiral Update
Inspiral Analysis Group Results
LIGO Scientific Collaboration meeting
S3 Glitch Updates Laura Cadonati
WaveMon and Burst FOMs WaveMon WaveMon FOMs Summary & plans
Hardware Injections in S4
Planning for the S4 Run Keith Riles (University of Michigan)
Presentation transcript:

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

2 MDC Issues Issues –How to group waveforms into sets –Validation of antenna pattern, etc. –Documentation –Review of GravEn –Additional information to write to log files h(t) injections Need someone to learn how to run the code and to help lead decisions on waveforms, etc.

3 S4 Untriggered Search: Steps to completing search Choice of GW channel and frequency range –DARM_ERR, Hz DQ flags – Finalized now Vetoes –Don’t need AS_I –Need deadtime re-evaluation –Examine remaining 3 events (with Gamma>4) –Subset of vetoes to be determined by looking at efficiency and deadtime contributions R-statistic – apply notch filter at violin mode freq Choice of GS and Gamma thresh – use 1.9, 4.0 Technical documentation GravEn and MDC production need to be reviewed

4 S4 untriggered search: Scope and strategy for paper Scope of analysis and paper –Simulations – SG, Gaussians, WNB now Consider: Inspirals, cusps, whistles, SNe (need conditioning), mergers (need inclination angle variation), ringdowns Add: inspirals (bare), cusps, a few other things –Combining S2/S3/S4 ? Can’t add S3 Paper production –Lead author(s) – Peter Sh, at least for now –Timeline Sept 1: Start writing Sept 15: Analysis has to be done, including simulations Oct 1: Complete draft within group Oct 19: Give draft to reviewers November LSC

5 S2/S3/S4 GRB Analyses One paper containing results from both Isabel’s and Soumya’s analyses –Upper limits on individual events –Tail –Population properties Remaining work –Finish simulations –Technical notes –Code reviews Timescale –First draft by end of September –Technical notes / paper draft to reviewers in mid Oct –Draft to the LSC by November

6 Other S3/S4 Papers? CQG S3 proceedings paper? –Simply a record of what was shown at Amaldi No rigorous upper limit Rough sensitivity –It’s permissible according to LSC rules –The timescale is too short. Could there be a significant extension? Don’t count on it. BlockNormal method paper BlockNormal-based veto paper S4 H1-H2 Q pipeline paper H1-H2 Null stream methods paper LIGO-GEO methods paper(s) LIGO-GEO S4 search paper in the future?

7 S5 Analysis Strategy (1) Online data processing –Purposes: rapid feedback, DQ/veto studies, trigger generation for final analysis Instant search –We want to do this –i.e. high-threshold, say at n times the threshold that would yield a background rate of 0.01 events per S5 run – set using first ~2 weeks of data from the run? –Go ahead and look at zero-lag events –Take OR of mulitple search algorithms? Yes, in principle Fast-track analysis/es for presentation in March 2006 –All-sky general search using ~2 months of data –Don’t update calibration until final version is available –GRB analysis ?

8 S5 Analysis Strategy (2) Eventual offline searches – define later Usual scope issues: frequency range(s), etc. –Would like to search up to ~7 kHz Key strategy issues –The S5 run is long. How to keep up with the data? –Generate and analyze MDCs too as we go. What waveforms? –Write and maintain technical documentation as we go

9 S5 Detector Characterization (1) DMT monitors / figures of merit –BurstMon – may need tweaking or at least explanation Feedback from online analysis –Near-real-time: PowerMon, … –Daily statistics / summary Watch instant analysis on a ~daily basis –Check that threshold still seems reasonable –React to zero-lag events if necessary Prompt generation of data quality information –Generated by existing DMT monitors –Also look for things which should be new DQ flags; implement

10 S5 Detector Characterization (2) Rapid-turnaround diagnosis of glitches –For instant high-threshold (detection) search, OK to look at single-ifo glitches –For final low-threshold search, limit to time-lagged coincidences, or triggers known not to be triple coincidences for making decisions about vetoes; but, it’s OK to see an association with a microphone glitch, say, and then do a systematic study of the veto efficiency of microphone glitches. But really, we should study microphone channels as potential vetoes a priori. –Use aux triggers from GlitchMon, DataQual, KleineWelle, Q, etc.

11 S5 Detector Characterization (3) How to organize? –Well-defined set of people, talking frequently –Web page, electronic notebook –Internal daily/weekly checklist Keith R’s slides: –"War rooms" for each search group –Daily detector elog summaries with key FOMs –More detailed reports on weekly basis for start of S5 –Migration of search FOM studies to control room as we gain experience –Be willing to help track down specific instrumental artifacts –Make scimon instruction pages

12 S5 Analysis Infrastructure * Will we have what we need? –Computing resources Observatories, PSU will have working clusters How to prioritize with respect to other analysis groups –Data availability LHO and LLO data in same place? –Software tools to support analysis summaries, glitch diagnosis, etc. Might want/need to unify/rewrite –Scripts/programs demonstrated to work at intended place

13 S5 Burst Analysis Computing Plan Need to write up a S5 Burst Analysis Computing Plan –What we will run, why (one or more purposes), where we will run, CPU requirements, data availability requirements, where output will go, output disk space requirements, need to publish triggers into LDR? –State software components to be used (and whether they exist, need to be modified, or need to be created); also status of testing at intended location –State priorities –Should document (and attempt to rationalize?) formats and protocols