1 / 8

Reviewing the NS Inspiral S2 paper Inspiral review committee:

Reviewing the NS Inspiral S2 paper Inspiral review committee: V. Kalogera, W. Kells, A. Weinstein (chair), A. Wiseman. What we are reviewing.

dthurman
Download Presentation

Reviewing the NS Inspiral S2 paper Inspiral review committee:

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. Reviewing the NS Inspiral S2 paper Inspiral review committee: V. Kalogera, W. Kells, A. Weinstein (chair), A. Wiseman Inspiral Review, LSC meeting, Mar. 2004

  2. What we are reviewing • We have a rather mature first draft of a BNS S2 paper: “Upper limit on the coalescence rate of Galactic and extragalactic binary neutron stars established from LIGO observations”, 3/11/04 • There is extensive documentation of the details, in the e-log notebook • The Inspiral Analysis Group has plans for more papers in the coming months: • (i) S2 Binary neutron star paper (present at March LSC) • (ii) S2 Binary black hole search (present at June LSC) • (iii) S3 Binary neutron star incl GEO (present at June LSC) • (iv) S2/S3 MACHO binaries (present at Aug LSC) • (v) S2 LIGO-TAMA search (present at Aug LSC) • (vi) S3 Binary black hole incl GEO (present at Aug LSC) Inspiral Review, LSC meeting, Mar. 2004

  3. Some things to look closely at • The BIG PICTURE: is the IAG addressing the right (astrophysical) questions? Is it covering all the questions it can/should? Is it using appropriate approaches? Is it organizing the papers and analysis sub-groups sensibly? • Astrophysical motivations: Are they adequately articulated in the paper? Are there flaws or concerns in the argument which should be addressed? • Astrophysical models: Are the templates modeled correctly? Are the bank tiled sensibly? • Model dependence: effect of spin; higher order terms; astrophysical effects such as orbital decay? Inspiral Review, LSC meeting, Mar. 2004

  4. things to look closely at (2) • Observation time: is it well understood? Effect of “chunks”, “segments”, chunk edges, overlaps, etc. Data handling: any data drop-outs due to bombed jobs? Due to incorrect overlapping? Forgotton cuts? What assurances / tests do we have? • Data conditioning, filtering, line removal… Sensitivity of result to data conditioning.Effect of spectral features and non-stationarity on the result. • Data quality: Science segments, quality flags, vetoes. Granularity of PSD, calibration calculations. What assurances / tests that these are understood and handled correctly? • Safety of vetoes and cuts – assurances that no loud GWs have vetoed themselves. Inspiral Review, LSC meeting, Mar. 2004

  5. things to look closely at (3) • Hardware injections – understand what they were used for and the checks / assurances they do and do not provide. • Calibration – how well is it understood, quantitatively? Checks & assurances. • Analysis pipeline and event tuning – review of procedure, examination of code, searching for flaws, bugs, mechanisms for data to be lost or double-counted. Sensitivity to different tunings? Inspiral Review, LSC meeting, Mar. 2004

  6. things to look closely at (4) • Single-IFO Cuts: SNR, chisq. Tuning. • Coherent (multi-detector) cuts: dt, matching of masses and D_eff. Handling of H1/H2 vs L1. • Efficiencies, Monte Carlo simulations - review of procedure, examination of code, searching for flaws, bugs… • Calculation of source reach. Model dependence: how well are source populations modeled? Inspiral Review, LSC meeting, Mar. 2004

  7. things to look closely at (5) • Background estimation. Statistics, cut dependence. • Handling and evaluation of loudest triggers. • Statistical analysis for upper limit. • The paper: clear, readable, accurate, complete, succinct? Inspiral Review, LSC meeting, Mar. 2004

  8. The review process • Over the next 2-3 weeks, the committee will examine all aspects of the analysis and the paper, formulate questions and request responses, and prepare a summary report • Expect to meet a couple of times without IAG, and maybe once or twice with IAG chairs and members • We welcome advice, comments, suggestions from all LSC members: ajw@caltech.edu . Inspiral Review, LSC meeting, Mar. 2004

More Related