1. S.Klimenko, December 2003, GWDAW Performance of the WaveBurst algorithm on LIGO S2 playground data S.Klimenko (UF), I.Yakushin (LLO), G.Mitselmakher (UF), M.Rakhmanov(UF) for LIGO collaboration l Introduction l Trigger production l Triple coincidence l Simulation  sine-Gaussian  BH-BH mergers l Summary

2. S.Klimenko, December 2003, GWDAW Introduction l WaveBurst (see S.Klimenko’s talk for details, GWDAW, December 20, 2003) excess power detection method in wavelet domain  flexible tiling of the TF-plane by using wavelet packets  variety of basis waveforms for burst approximation  local in time & frequency, low spectral leakage  use rank statistics  non-parametric  use local T-F coincidence rules for multiple IFOs  coincidence applied before triggers are produced  works better for 2 and more interferometers (but can do analysis with one interferometer as well) Symlet 58 Symlet 58 packet (4,7)

3. S.Klimenko, December 2003, GWDAW Wavelet time-scale(frequency) spectrogram H2:LSC-AS_Q LIGO data WaveBurst allows different tiling schemes including linear and dyadic wavelet scale resolution. currently linear scale resolution is used (  f=const)

4. S.Klimenko, December 2003, GWDAW WaveBurst pipeline wavelet transform, data conditioning, rank statistics channel 1 IFO1 event generation bp wavelet transform, data conditioning rank statistics channel 2,… IFO2 event generation bp “coincidence” band 64-4096 Hz selection cuts: coincidence likelihood L>1.5, cluster likelihood L>4 bp  selection of black pixels (10% loudest) coincidence TF1 TF2

5. S.Klimenko, December 2003, GWDAW Raw Coincidence Rates expect reduce background down to <10  Hz using final selection cuts: r-statistics, event confidence, veto, … ifo pairL1-H1H1-H2H2-L1 triggers293462246936956 lock,sec946529851793699 rate, Hz0.310.230.39 double coincidence samples (S2 playground) raw triple coincidence rates triple coincidence: time window: 20 ms frequency gap: 0 Hz  1.10 ± 0.04 mHz off-time samples are produced during the production stage independent on GW samples

6. S.Klimenko, December 2003, GWDAW “BH-BH merger” band raw triple coincidence rates off-time triple coincidence sample expect BH-BH mergers (masses >10 Mo) in frequency band < 1 kHz (BH-BH band) S2 playground background of 0.15 ± 0.02 mHz expect < 1  Hz after final cuts

7. S.Klimenko, December 2003, GWDAW Simulation l hardware injections l software injection into all three interferometers:  waveform name  GPS time of injection  , ,  - source location and polarization angle  T {L1,H1,H2} - LLO-LHO delays  F+{L1,H1,H2} - + polarization beam pattern vector  Fx {L1,H1,H2} - x polarization beam pattern vector l use exactly the same pipeline for processing of GW and simulation triggers. l sine-Gaussian injections  16 waveforms: 8-Q9 and 8-Q3  F+ {1,1,1}, Fx {0,0,0} l BH-BH mergers (10-100 Mo)  10 pairs of Lazarus waveforms {h+,hx}  all sky uniform distribution with calculation {F+,Fx} for LLO,LHO  –duration f 0 -central frequency

8. S.Klimenko, December 2003, GWDAW hardware injections SG injections [ 100Hz, 153Hz, 235Hz, 361Hz, 554Hz, 850Hz, 1304Hz 2000Hz ] good agreement between injected and reconstructed hrss good time and frequency resolution H1H2 pair

9. S.Klimenko, December 2003, GWDAW detection efficiency vs hrss f o, Hz10015323536155485010342000 h 50%, Q940.20.4.87.57.2-16.- h 50%, Q336.14.6.06.68.610.17.30. x10 -21 hrss(50%) @235 Hz robust with respect to waveform Q

10. S.Klimenko, December 2003, GWDAW timing resolution l time window >= 20 ms  negligible loss of simulated events (< 1%) S2 playground simulation sample  T =4ms 12% loss 1% loss

11. S.Klimenko, December 2003, GWDAW Signal reconstruction reconstructed log10(hrss) mean amplitude frequency l Use orthogonal wavelet (energy conserved) and calibration.

12. S.Klimenko, December 2003, GWDAW BH-BH merger injections l BH-BH mergers (Flanagan, Hughes: gr-qc/9701039v2 1997) duration : start frequency : bandwidth: l Lazarus waveforms (J.Baker et al, astro-ph/0202469v1) (J.Baker et al, astro-ph/0305287v1) all sky simulation using two polarizations and L & H beam pattern functions

13. S.Klimenko, December 2003, GWDAW Lazarus waveforms: efficiency mass, Mo1020304050607080100 hrss(50%) x 10 -20 4.52.42.01.81.51.72.23.47.1 all sky search: hrss(50%)

14. S.Klimenko, December 2003, GWDAW Lazarus waveforms: frequency vs mass l expected BH-BH frequency band – 100-1000 Hz

15. S.Klimenko, December 2003, GWDAW Summary l analysis pipeline is fully operational (production, post- production, simulation). l robust detection of SG waveforms with different Q l pipeline sensitivity (no data conditioning yet)  (5-20). 10 -21 - optimal detection (SG waveforms).  ~2. 10 -20 - all sky BBH merger search (Lazarus waveforms)  plan efficiency study using EOB & ABFH merger waveforms l background: raw triple coincidence rates  full band (4kHz): ~1 mHz  “BH-BH band” (<1kHz): ~0.15 mHz  after all selection cuts expect <1  Hz background rate for full S2 data set