1 / 15

r-statistic performance in S2

r-statistic performance in S2. Laura Cadonati LIGO-MIT LSC meeting – LLO March 18, 2004. D t = + 10 ms. D t = - 10 ms. confidence versus lag. 15. Max confidence: C M ( t 0 ) = 13.2 at lag = - 0.7 ms. 10. confidence. 5. 0. -10. 0. 10. lag [ms].

brac
Download Presentation

r-statistic performance in S2

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. r-statistic performance in S2 Laura Cadonati LIGO-MIT LSC meeting – LLO March 18, 2004

  2. Dt = + 10 ms Dt = - 10 ms confidence versus lag 15 Max confidence: CM(t0) = 13.2 at lag = - 0.7 ms 10 confidence 5 0 -10 0 10 lag [ms] r-statistic Cross Correlation Test For each triple coincidence candidate event produced by the burst pipeline (start time, duration DT) process pairs of interferometers: simulated signal, SNR~60, S2 noise Data Conditioning: » 100-1600 Hz band-pass »Whitening with linear error predictor filters Partition the trigger in sub-intervals (50% overlap) of duration t = integration window (20, 50, 100 ms). For each integration window, time shift up to 10 ms and build an r-statistic series distribution. If the distribution of the r-statistic is inconsistent with the no-correlation hypothesis: find the time shift yielding maximum correlation confidence CM(j) (j=index for the sub-interval)

  3. G12 =max(CM12) • Each point: max confidence CM(j) for an interval twide • Threshold on G: • 3 interferometers: • G=maxj(CM12+ CM13+ CM23)/3 > b • b=3: 99.9% correlation probability • in a single integration window G13 =max(CM13) G23 =max(CM23) G=max(CM12 +CM13+CM23)/3 Testing 3 integration windows: 20ms (G20) 50ms (G50) 100ms (G100) in OR: G=max(G20,G50,G100)

  4. (fchar, hrss) [strain/rtHz] with 50% triple coincidence detection probability (b=3) LHO-4km LHO-2km LLO-4km ~ √2|h(f)| [strain/Hz] Detection Efficiency for Narrow-Band Bursts Sine-Gaussian waveform f0=235Hz Q=9 linear polarization, source at zenith 50% triple coincidence detection probability (beta=3): hpeak = 3.2e-20 [strain] hrss = 2.3e-21 [strain/rtHz] SNR: LLO-4km=8 LHO-4km=4LHO-2km=3

  5. R.O.C. Receiver-Operator Characteristics Detection Probability versus False Alarm Probability. Parameter: triple coincidence confidence threshold b3 Real S2 data Random times 200 ms long

  6. SG 235Hz Q=9 b=3 (2.3e-21/rtHz) b=4 (3.0e-21/rtHz) b=5 (4e-21/rtHz)

  7. MDC Sine Gaussians – beta=4 standalone WB trigger SG 153Hz Q=3 1.6e-20 /rtHz SG 153Hz Q=9 1.9e-20 /rtHz SG 235Hz Q=3 4.9e-21 /rtHz SG 235Hz Q=9 4.9e-21 /rtHz SG 554Hz Q=3 7.6e-21 /rtHz SG 554Hz Q=9 7.9e-21 /rtHz

  8. ~ √2|h(f)| [strain/Hz] Detection Efficiency for Broad-Band Bursts Gaussian waveform t=1ms linear polarization, source at zenith (fchar, hrss) [strain/rtHz] with 50% triple coincidence detection probability LHO-4km LHO-2km LLO-4km SNR > 30 50% triple coincidence detection probability (beta=3): hpeak = 1.6e-19 [strain] hrss = 5.7e-21 [strain/rtHz] SNR: LLO-4km=11.5 LHO-4km=6LHO-2km=5

  9. R.O.C. Receiver-Operator Characteristics Detection Probability versus False Alarm Probability. Parameter: triple coincidence confidence threshold b3 Real data Random times 200 ms long

  10. MDC Gaussians - beta=4 standalone WB trigger GA tau=0.1ms 1.6e-20 /rtHz GA tau=0.5ms 1.1e-20 /rtHz GA tau=1.0ms 1.4e-20 /rtHz GA tau=2.5ms 6.0e-20 /rtHz GA tau=4.0ms 1.2e-20 /rtHz

  11. BH-BH mergers, sky-averaged standalone WB trigger BH-10 7.0e-20 /rtHz BH-20 3.0e-20 /rtHz BH-30 2.5e-20 /rtHz BH-40 2.4e-20 /rtHz BH-50 2.7e-20 /rtHz BH-60 3.4e-20 /rtHz BH-70 4.0e-20 /rtHz BH-80 5.2e-20 /rtHz BH-90 6.9e-20 /rtHz BH-100 8.1e-20 /rtHz NOTE: 2 different polarizations!

  12. Rejection of False Coincidences Tested over the full S2 background (time-lag) events using b=4 • Random events, 0.2 ms long: 99.99 ± 0.01 % • TFClusters: 99.6 ± 0.2 % • WaveBurst: 99.5 ± 0.3 % • BlockNormal > 99.9 % • Power 99.94 ± 0.06 %

  13. False Probability versus Threshold Histogram of G= max (G20, G50, G100) In general: depends on the trigger generators and the previous portion of the analysis pipeline (typical event duration, how stringent are the selection and coincidence cuts) Shown here: TFCLUSTERS 130-400 Hz in the playground background with “loose” coincidence cuts G False Probability versus threshold (G>b) Fraction of surviving events b

  14. False Probability versus Threshold Histogram of G= max (G20, G50, G100) In general: depends on the trigger generators and the previous portion of the analysis pipeline (typical event duration, how stringent are the selection and coincidence cuts) Shown here: TFCLUSTERS 130-400 Hz in the playground background with “loose” coincidence cuts G False Probability versus threshold (G>b) Fraction of surviving events b

  15. False Probability versus Threshold Histogram of G= max (G20, G50, G100) In general: depends on the trigger generators and the previous portion of the analysis pipeline (typical event duration, how stringent are the selection and coincidence cuts) Shown here: TFCLUSTERS 130-400 Hz in the playground background with “loose” coincidence cuts G False Probability versus threshold (G>b) Fraction of surviving events b

More Related