1 / 9

What happened since the March LSC

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. What happened since the March LSC.

jenn
Download Presentation

What happened since the March LSC

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. Data quality and veto studies for the S4 burst search:Where do we stand?AlessandraDi Credico Syracuse UniversityLSC Meeting, Ann Arbor (UM)June 5, 2005

  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. KleineWelle for glitch studies in S4 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 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/report • http://lancelot.mit.edu/~kats/daily.html • http://www.physics.syr.edu/research/relativity/ligo/restricted/dicredic/S4analysis.html

  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. 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. 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. Data quality studies - DUST

  8. S4 vetoes • Full analysis results available at : 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. 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

More Related