1. Analysis of L1 WaveMon S2 veto triggers
2/15/2019
Analysis of L1 WaveMon S2 veto triggers
Ken Yoshiki Franzen
University of Florida
LSC November 2003 KYF
LIGO-G Z

2. Outline: Introduction Data processing status Produced veto triggers
Veto of Waveburst triggers
Summary and plans
LSC November 2003 KYF

3. WaveMon: Time frequency analysis in the wavelet domain
for documentation
Producing off-line veto triggers from 65 channels (control, ACC, MIC, MAG, V, RADIO, QPD, WFS, AS_DC, SEIS, OPLEV)
LSC November 2003 KYF

4. Using LLO machine alvar (2 x 1 GHz PC)
So far 50 % of L1 S2 locked segments (~two weeks)
Should be finished before December
Need more computing resources on site to run off-time DMT jobs!!!
LSC November 2003 KYF

5. LSC November 2003 KYF

6. 50 % of L1 S2 data: (*): AS_I included SNR Number of triggers
2/15/2019
50 % of L1 S2 data:
SNR
Number of triggers
Dead time fraction (%) 4
(432452)
0.9 (5.0) 5
97004 (231588)
0.6 (3.0) 6
68576 (118867)
0.5 (1.5)
(*): AS_I included
LSC November 2003 KYF
LIGO-G Z

7. L1 time shifted relative H1H2
Studying veto efficiency on triple coincidence off-time WaveBurst triggers
L1 time shifted relative H1H2
Gap: time between each WaveBurst trigger and the nearest in time existing WaveMon trigger
Negative gap: Veto!
LSC November 2003 KYF

8. WaveBurst trigger to nearest WaveMon veto gap distribution:
(all 65 channels except AS_I)
LSC November 2003 KYF

9. Veto efficiency vs. dead time fraction (with and without AS_I)
LSC November 2003 KYF

10. Frequency limit on WB triggers:
LSC November 2003 KYF

11. Confidence limit on WB triggers:
LSC November 2003 KYF

12. Triple coincident (3 IFOs) off-time WaveBurst triggers vetoed
by L1 WaveMon triggers (50 % of S2, red all WB, blue vetoed WB):
Veto SNR 4.0,
e=14.1 %
LSC November 2003 KYF

13. Summary Plans Dead time fraction 0.5-1.0 % without AS_I
2/15/2019
Summary
Dead time fraction % without AS_I
L1 veto efficiency %
Plans
Run WaveMon on H1, H2 data
Apply glitchMon data to WaveBurst triggers
LSC November 2003 KYF
LIGO-G Z