1. 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. 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. 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 –http://lancelot.mit.edu/ ~lindy/s4/reporthttp://lancelot.mit.edu/ ~lindy/s4/report –http://lancelot.mit.edu/ ~kats/daily.htmlhttp://lancelot.mit.edu/ ~kats/daily.html

4. 4 Our GW trigger pool: global picture  KleineWelle analyzed in near real-time 97% of the 1818815 sec (~21 days) of common H1- H2 lock acquisition  In L1, >99% of the 1877685 sec (~21.7 days) were analyzed  Triple coincidence (H1- H2-L1) observation was 1429138 sec (~16.5 days)

5. 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 (70- 110Hz). 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. 6 Data quality studies - ACOUSTIC  Examined all microphone channels in the frequency band 62-118Hz (61-119 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. 7 Data quality studies - DUST

8. 8 S4 vetoes  Full analysis results available at : http://lancelot.mit.edu/~kats/s4_veto_summaries_more.txt http://lancelot.mit.edu/~kats/s4_veto_summaries_more.txt  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. 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