LIGO-G040455-00-Z Status of the LIGO-TAMA Joint Bursts Search Patrick Sutton LIGO Laboratory, Caltech, for the LIGO-TAMA Joint Working Group.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

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

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,

LIGO-G Z Status and Plans for the LIGO-TAMA Joint Data Analysis Patrick Sutton LIGO Laboratory, Caltech, for the LIGO-TAMA Joint Working Group.

LIGO-G Z Update on the Analysis of S2 Burst Hardware Injections L. Cadonati (MIT), A. Weinstein (CIT) for the Burst group Hannover LSC meeting,

GWDAW /12/16 - G Z1 Report on the First Search for BBH Inspiral Signals on the S2 LIGO Data Eirini Messaritaki University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

LIGO-G Z Coherent Coincident Analysis of LIGO Burst Candidates Laura Cadonati Massachusetts Institute of Technology LIGO Scientific Collaboration.

Current status of Joint LIGO-TAMA Inspiral Analysis In collaboration with: Patrick Brady, Nobuyuki Kanda, Hideyuki Tagoshi, Daisuke Tatsumi, the LIGO Scientific.

G Z April 2007 APS Meeting - DAP GGR Gravitational Wave AstronomyKeith Thorne Coincidence-based LIGO GW Burst Searches and Astrophysical Interpretation.

Paris, July 17, 2009 RECENT RESULTS OF THE IGEC2 COLLABORATION SEARCH FOR GRAVITATIONAL WAVE BURST Massimo Visco on behalf of the IGEC2 Collaboration.

S.Klimenko, G Z, December 21, 2006, GWDAW11 Coherent detection and reconstruction of burst events in S5 data S.Klimenko, University of Florida.

LIGO- G Z 03/23/2005LSC Meeting March BlockNormal Near-Online S4 Burst Analysis Keith Thorne Penn State University Relativity Group (Shantanu.

LIGO-G Z LIGO Scientific Collaboration 1 Upper Limits on the Rate of Gravitational Wave Bursts from the First LIGO Science Run Edward Daw Louisiana.

Adapting matched filtering searches for compact binary inspirals in LSC detector data. Chad Hanna – For the LIGO Scientific Collaboration.

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

LIGO-G Z The AURIGA-LIGO Joint Burst Search L. Cadonati, G. Prodi, L. Baggio, S. Heng, W. Johnson, A. Mion, S. Poggi, A. Ortolan, F. Salemi, P.

LIGO-G M GWDAW, December LIGO Burst Search Analysis Laura Cadonati, Erik Katsavounidis LIGO-MIT.

M. Principe, GWDAW-10, 16th December 2005, Brownsville, Texas Modeling the Performance of Networks of Gravitational-Wave Detectors in Bursts Search Maria.

S.Klimenko, December 2003, GWDAW Performance of the WaveBurst algorithm on LIGO S2 playground data S.Klimenko (UF), I.Yakushin (LLO), G.Mitselmakher (UF),

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)

Upper Limits from LIGO and TAMA on Gravitational-Wave Bursts on Gravitational-Wave Bursts Patrick Sutton (LIGO laboratory, Caltech), Masaki Ando (Department.

S.Klimenko, August 2005, LSC, G Z Constraint likelihood analysis with a network of GW detectors S.Klimenko University of Florida, in collaboration.

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.

Searches for gravitational-wave bursts with LIGO Erik Katsavounidis MIT for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration Amaldi-6 Conference Okinawa, Japan June 23,

LIGO-G Z Results of the LIGO-TAMA S2/DT8 Joint Bursts Search Patrick Sutton LIGO Laboratory, Caltech, for the LIGO-TAMA Joint Working Group.

15 Dec 2005GWDAW 10 LIGO-G Z1 Overview of LIGO Scientific Collaboration Inspiral Searches Alexander Dietz Louisiana State University for the LIGO.

LIGO-G Z Results from LIGO's Second Search for Gravitational-Wave Bursts Patrick Sutton LIGO Laboratory, Caltech, for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration.

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.

LIGO-G Data Analysis Techniques for LIGO Laura Cadonati, M.I.T. Trento, March 1-2, 2007.

LIGO- G D Experimental Upper Limit from LIGO on the Gravitational Waves from GRB Stan Whitcomb For the LIGO Scientific Collaboration Informal.

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

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

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

S.Klimenko, G Z, December 21, 2006, GWDAW11 Coherent detection and reconstruction of burst events in S5 data S.Klimenko, University of Florida.

GWDAW10, UTB, Dec , Search for inspiraling neutron star binaries using TAMA300 data Hideyuki Tagoshi on behalf of the TAMA collaboration.

LIGO-G Z Confidence Test for Waveform Consistency of LIGO Burst Candidate Events Laura Cadonati LIGO Laboratory Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

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 Z Upper Limits from LIGO and TAMA on Gravitational-Wave Bursts Patrick Sutton LIGO Laboratory, Caltech for the LIGO and TAMA Collaborations.

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 Results of the LIGO-TAMA S2/DT8 Joint Bursts Search Patrick Sutton LIGO Laboratory, Caltech, for the LIGO-TAMA Joint Working Group.

TAUP 2007, Sendai, September 12, 2007 IGEC2 COLLABORATION: A NETWORK OF RESONANT BAR DETECTORS SEARCHING FOR GRAVITATIONAL WAVES Massimo Visco on behalf.

LIGO-G Z TFClusters Tuning for the LIGO-TAMA Search Patrick Sutton LIGO-Caltech.

S5 First Epoch BNS Inspiral Results Drew Keppel 1 representing the Inspiral Group 1 California Institute of Technology Nov LSC Meeting MIT, 4 November.

Status of the LIGO-AURIGA Joint Burst Analysis F. Salemi Italy, INFN and University of Ferrara on behalf of the AURIGA Collaboration and the LIGO Scientific.

GWDAW11 – Potsdam Results by the IGEC2 collaboration on 2005 data Gabriele Vedovato for the IGEC2 collaboration.

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.

The first AURIGA-TAMA joint analysis proposal BAGGIO Lucio ICRR, University of Tokyo A Memorandum of Understanding between the AURIGA experiment and the.

LSC Meeting, June 3, 2006 LIGO-G Z 1 Status of inspiral search reviews Alan Weinstein (LIGO Laboratory / Caltech) For the LSC Internal review.

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

Search for gravitational waves from binary inspirals in S3 and S4 LIGO data. Thomas Cokelaer on behalf of the LIGO Scientific Collaboration.

S3 Spinning Binary Black Hole Search: Status Report

The Q Pipeline search for gravitational-wave bursts with LIGO

Igor Yakushin, LIGO Livingston Observatory

r-statistic performance in S2

LIGO Scientific Collaboration meeting

Coherent detection and reconstruction

Maria Principe University of Sannio, Benevento, Italy

Background estimation in searches for binary inspiral

Searching for GRB-GWB coincidence during LIGO science runs

Coherent Coincident Analysis of LIGO Burst Candidates

Status of the LIGO-TAMA Joint Data Analyses

Status and Plans for the LIGO-TAMA Joint Data Analysis

Performance of the WaveBurst algorithm on LIGO S2 playground data

Presentation transcript:

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 ZSutton Bursts Mtg 2004/10/092 Outline l Background l Science with LIGO-TAMA l Analysis Overview l Upper Limits l Remaining Tasks and Schedule

LIGO-G ZSutton Bursts Mtg 2004/10/093 Un-triggered Bursts Analysis l The LIGO S2 un-triggered search for generic GWBs at high frequencies has been carried out jointly with TAMA. »LIGO-only search: Hz »LIGO-TAMA search: Hz l Philosophy of LIGO-TAMA: Use machinery and techniques common with the LIGO-only low-frequency search »ETGs, coincidence, r-statistic, time lags, MDC simulation frames, low false rate (<<1/S2), rate vs strength upper limits, … l Seek optimal ways to combine LIGO and TAMA for best science.

LIGO-G ZSutton Bursts Mtg 2004/10/094 LIGO-TAMA in S2/DT8 LIGO and TAMA look with best sensitivity at different frequencies: l Tune for signals near minimum of envelope, [ ]Hz. Duty cycles: l Take advantage of excellent T1 duty cycle. H174% H258% L137% T181%

LIGO-G ZSutton Bursts Mtg 2004/10/095 Science with TAMA l TAMA-LIGO 4X search has several interesting features: »4X coincidence allows for searches with very low false rates (<1/yr). »Extra time lags allow much more accurate background estimates –LIGO 2-site network = 47 lags in (-115s,+115s) –LIGO-TAMA 3-site network = 47 2 = 2209 lags in (-115s,+115s). »Not yet explored: Extra non-aligned site with long baseline: exploit for sky direction? polarization information? l But 3X searches also valuable: »Can use TAMA as substitute for a missing LIGO detector. »Eg: H1-H2-T1 coincidence allows us to use the large amount of H1- H2 data that would otherwise be lost because of poor L1 duty cycle (Brady, Cadonati, Katsavounidis; also done in joint inspiral search).

LIGO-G ZSutton Bursts Mtg 2004/10/096 Data Sets l TAMA doubles total usable data set »Better chance of “getting lucky” in a search »Cut rate upper limits in half »Cost: some loss in efficiency (minor effect) l Response: Analyze all H1-H2-(L1 or T1) data »H1-L1-T1, H2-L1-T1: small amount of data, much higher false rate. Ignore. H1-H2-L1-T1250hr H1-H2-  L1-T1 325hr H1-H2-L1-  T1 62hr total LIGO-TAMA637hr total LIGO-only 3X312hr  L1  L1 not operating  T1  T1 not operating

LIGO-G ZSutton Bursts Mtg 2004/10/097 l 3 independent data sets: »Must derive single upper limit from 3 independent experiments. l No access to TAMA data (only triggers exchanged): »Compare LIGO-TFClusters triggers to TAMA-Power triggers –TFClusters triggers have peak time, duration, SNR, central frequency, and bandwidth. –TAMA triggers have peak time, duration, SNR, but no central frequency or bandwidth. –Coincidence is based on time overlap only. No SNR or frequency comparison. »No r-statistic test with TAMA Analysis: Novel Bits

LIGO-G ZSutton Bursts Mtg 2004/10/098 Analysis Pipeline Use standard bursts pipeline, with slight modifications

LIGO-G ZSutton Bursts Mtg 2004/10/099 Simulations l One set of MDC frames has been exchanged: SG13 »sine-Gaussians »Q = 8.9 »f 0 = {700, 849, 1053, 1304, 1615, 2000}Hz »isotropic sky distribution »random linear polarization »total ~16800 injections, distributed over LIGO 3X times (H1-H2-L1-T1 and H1-H2-L1-nT1)

LIGO-G ZSutton Bursts Mtg 2004/10/0910 Tuning Philosophy l Use single tuning for all three data sets. l Tune for best efficiency at each false rate. »single-IFO: use to fix TFClusters parameters »multi-IFO: select bpp/SNR to match efficiencies l Select multi-ETG rate & r-statistic threshold for << 1 event from background. »beta = 3 (efficiencies not affected) »H1-H2-L1-T1 and H1-H2-nL1-T1 have ~same observation time, so efficiencies are averaged »H1-H2-nL1-T1 dominates false rate.

LIGO-G ZSutton Bursts Mtg 2004/10/0911 H1 H2 L1 T1 LIGO 3X (pre-r-stat) Efficiency vs False Rate From SG13 simulations Effective coincidence windows: 20ms (LIGO-LIGO) 43ms (LIGO-TAMA) Chosen single-IFO operating points H1-H2-L1-T1 H1-H2-nL1-T1

LIGO-G ZSutton Bursts Mtg 2004/10/0912 Full Data Set Results l Full data set box has been opened and final upper limits have been calculated. »No surviving coincidences (after r-statistic) for any of the network combinations. »Rate upper limit of 0.13/day. »h rss 50% = 2x Hz -1/2 averaged over networks, analysis band.

LIGO-G ZSutton Bursts Mtg 2004/10/0913 Network Efficiency SG13 simulations (Q=8.9 SG over [700,2000]Hz, with sky & polarization averaging) Different network combinations have similar efficiency (factor ~2 in 50% point).

LIGO-G ZSutton Bursts Mtg 2004/10/0914 Network Efficiency, by f 0 4X detection SG13 simulations separately by central frequency All about the same.

LIGO-G ZSutton Bursts Mtg 2004/10/0915 Network Efficiency, by f 0 3X detection (no L1) SG13 simulations separately by central frequency All about the same.

LIGO-G ZSutton Bursts Mtg 2004/10/0916 Network Efficiency, by f 0 3X detection (no T1) SG13 simulations separately by central frequency Better at lower frequencies – TAMA limits sensitivity there.

LIGO-G ZSutton Bursts Mtg 2004/10/0917 Upper Limits NetworkT (Ms) NR bck ( nHz )N bck R 90% ( 1/day )h 50% ( Hz -1/2 ) H1-H2-L1-T10.64*0/0 <0.75 <5e x H1-H2-  L1-T1 0.84*3/0<27< x H1-H2-L1-  T /0<165< x Combined**1.63/0n/a< x Full data set, including N before/after the R-Statistic: *TAMA livetimes to be finalized. **Treating all 3 data sets as one experiment (all have N bck ~0).

LIGO-G ZSutton Bursts Mtg 2004/10/0918 R vs h Upper Limits (PRELIMINARY) SG13 simulations (Q=8.9 SG over [700,2000]Hz, with sky & polarization averaging)

LIGO-G ZSutton Bursts Mtg 2004/10/0919 R vs h Upper Limits (PRELIMINARY) Compare to best results from S1, S2 low-frequency searches.

LIGO-G ZSutton Bursts Mtg 2004/10/0920 Summary & Outlook l TAMA-LIGO joint search for GWBs in S2 is in late stages. »High-frequency search complementary to LIGO-only search at low frequencies. »Two main parts: –4X: very low false rate –3X: lots of additional observation time »No GWB candidates survived pipeline. –Rate upper limit of 0.13/day. –h rss 50% = 2x Hz -1/2 averaged over networks, analysis band. l Remaining issues: »livetime to be finalized (account for TAMA veto deadtime) »review (esp TFClusters) l Paper draft in preparation. »Hope to present at GWDAW. l S3? »Exploring value of joint S3 search with LIGO, TAMA, GEO representatives.