1 / 31

Stochastic Group Summary and Plans

Detailed summary of the Stochastic Group's work on gravitational waves, including detection strategies, analysis details, and preliminary results. Plans for future research and paper submissions outlined.

redgar
Download Presentation

Stochastic Group Summary and Plans

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. Stochastic Group Summary and Plans Vuk Mandic LSC Meeting MIT, 11/05/06

  2. Stochastic Background of Gravitational Waves • Energy density: • Characterized by log-frequency spectrum: • Related to the strain power spectrum: • Strain scale:

  3. Detection Strategy • Cross-correlation estimator • Theoretical variance • Optimal Filter Overlap Reduction Function For template: Choose N such that:

  4. Analysis Details • Data divided into segments: • Yi and i calculated for each interval i. • Weighed average performed. • Sliding Point Estimate: • Avoid bias in point estimate • Allows stationarity (Δσ) cut |σi±1 – σi| / σi <  • Data manipulation: • Down-sample to 1024 Hz • High-pass filter (~40 Hz cutoff) • 50% overlapping Hann windows: • Overlap in order to recover the SNR loss due to windowing. i Yi i i+1 i+2 i-1

  5. S4 H1L1 Isotropic • Combined H1L1 + H2L1: • Ω0 σΩ = (-0.8 4.3) × 10-5 • 90% UL: 6.5 × 10-5 • H0 = 72 km/s/Mpc • 51-150 Hz (includes 99% of inverse variance) • Paper submitted to ApJ. • Resubmit with minor revisions. • 1st S4 paper • 1st ApJ paper

  6. S4 H1L1 Radiometer Flat spectrum in Ω • Design optimal filters for point-like sources on the sky: • Avoid overlap reduction at high frequencies. • S4 H1L1 result nearly completed (S. Ballmer): • Review Committee approved preliminary results to be presented at the Texas Symposium in December 2006. • Goal for the paper: final draft to be circulated to the LSC by the end of 2006. • Paper geared toward PRD. • Successfully injected and recovered 5 point-sources at SNR=10. • Isotropic search could not detect these sources! S. Ballmer Simulated Sources

  7. S4: ALLEGRO-LLO • Cross-correlating ALLEGRO and LLO: • Strain sensitivity similar around 915 Hz. • Overlap reduction very small. • 90% upper limit: Ω0 < 1.02 • Strain < 1.5 × 10-23 • ~100× better than the previous limit at these frequencies. • Review committee approved preliminary results to be presented at GWDAW XI. • Paper is still under review, should be available to the LSC by the end of the year. • Paper geared toward CQG. • At the moment, there are no plans to repeat this experiment during S5.

  8. S4 H1H2 FSR • Strain sensitivity of interferometers at free-spectral-range (FSR) frequency is similar to low-frequency region. • Cross-correlate H1 and H2 at (Rochester group): • 37.5 kHz: H1 sensitivity similar to DC, H2 ~130× worse than DC. • 75 kHz: H1, H2 sensitivities similar to DC. • Acquire at 262 kHz, heterodyne to FSR frequencies, use 200 Hz around FSR. • Results are nearly finalized: • Internal review to start in 2-3 weeks. • First draft of the paper should be available soon. • Remaining issues: • Calibration to be reviewed. • Estimate of the time-jitter in the fast channels. Very Preliminary Results 1 FSR S4 ALLEGRO-LLO 2 FSR S4 LHO-LLO A. Melissinos

  9. S5 H1L1 Isotropic Coh = CSD2 / PSD1 / PSD2 • First pass at H1L1: • Time-shift: defining cuts blindly. • Analyzed up to Apr 3, 2006. • σΩ = 1.67 × 10-5(H0 = 72 km/s/Mpc) • Coherence much cleaner than S4. • Online H1L1 analysis • Also done with time-shift. • Calibration and DQ cuts not optimal. • As of Oct 11 2006: • σΩ = 4.75 × 10-6 • BBN integral bound:1.5 × 10-5 Frequency (Hz) σ Days into the run

  10. S5 H1H2 Isotropic • Attempts to estimate and suppress instrumental and environmental correlations • PEM coherence method • Time-shift method • Independent and complementary methods. • Promising in terms of identification of “bad” frequency bands, but it is not clear yet how successful these approaches will be. • Hope to achieve sensitivity within a factor of 2-3 of the best possible. • Analysis of 11/05 – 04/06 data may give σΩ~ 2-3 × 10-6 • S5 H1H2 potential: few × 10-7

  11. S5 H1L1 Radiometer Effect of Deconvolution • R. Ward is taking the lead in this analysis. • Repeat the H1L1 radiometer analysis, but also deconvolve the antenna pattern and estimate errors on the deconvolved map. • Deconvolution of the antenna pattern (S. Mitra, Ph. D. Thesis): • Solved problem. • Also developed a method for calculating the covariance matrix of the deconvolved map. • Goal: Have first results by the March LSC meeting. S. Mitra

  12. Potential LIGO-only S5 papers • S5 H1H2 isotropic, 40-220 Hz • Potentially including results up to ~ 1 kHz. • S5 H1L1 radiometer • Including deconvolution and errors on deconvolved map. • Including S5 LHO-LLO isotropic result. • S5 H1H2 FSR • Relatively straightforward repetition of the S4 FSR analysis. • Better control of the time-jitter. • Efforts toward understanding the noise budget at the FSR.

  13. LSC-VIRGO • Motivation • Multiple comparable all-sky stochastic searches above 200 Hz • Possible improvements over the H1L1 search in the “zeros” of the overlap reduction function. • Better resolution for anisotropic stochastic searches • Bi-weekly telecons • Comparing different (LSC and VIRGO) codes on simulated data. • Recovering software injections with different codes.

  14. Implications: Cosmic Strings • X. Siemens, V. Mandic, and J. Creighton, astro-ph/0610920 • Modified the work of Damour & Vilenkin to include more accurate Universe model and to allow different cosmic string models • Explore accessibility of cosmic string models to different experiments. • Conclusions: • Already exclude some models, with great future potential. • Already more sensitive than BBN for a few models. • Experiments are complementary. • Burst and stochastic LIGO searches: overlap partly, partly complementary. • 1/p dependence. Pulsars CMB BBN LISA S5 Burst S5 H1L1 AdvLIGO S5 H1H2 S4

  15. Implications: Cosmic Strings • X. Siemens, V. Mandic, and J. Creighton, astro-ph/0610920 • Modified the work of Damour & Vilenkin to include more accurate Universe model and to allow different cosmic string models • Explore accessibility of cosmic string models to different experiments. • Conclusions: • Already exclude some models, with great future potential. • Already more sensitive than BBN for a few models. • Experiments are complementary. • Burst and stochastic LIGO searches: overlap partly, partly complementary. • 1/p dependence. CMB Pulsars LISA S5 Burst BBN AdvLIGO S5 H1H2 S5 H1L1

  16. Implications: Cosmic Strings • X. Siemens, V. Mandic, and J. Creighton, astro-ph/0610920 • Modified the work of Damour & Vilenkin to include more accurate Universe model and to allow different cosmic string models • Explore accessibility of cosmic string models to different experiments. • Conclusions: • Already exclude some models, with great future potential. • Already more sensitive than BBN for a few models. • Experiments are complementary. • Burst and stochastic LIGO searches: overlap partly, partly complementary. • 1/p dependence. Pulsars LISA S5 Burst AdvLIGO S5 H1H2

  17. Implications: Cosmic Strings • In some models, loops are large at formation and long lived • Models preferred by some. • Again, exclude parts of the parameter space. • But, pulsar limit is more constraining in this case. • AdvLIGO and LISA will eventually surpass the pulsar bound.

  18. Conclusions • S4 isotropic paper to be published in ApJ soon. • S4 radiometer and ALLEGRO-LLO results approved for conference presentations. • Papers largely reviewed, should be submitted to journals by the March LSC meeting. • S4 FSR results almost finalized • Review should start in 2-3 weeks • S5 H1L1 online analysis already surpassed the BBN integral bound. • Potential LIGO-only S5 papers: • H1H2 isotropic • H1L1 Radiometer, with deconvolution of antenna pattern • S5 H1H2 FSR • Efforts toward LIGO-VIRGO joint stochastic analysis have started • Already excluding some theoretical models. • Intend to continue such studies.

  19. Reach as a Function of Spectral Slope • S3 H1L1: Bayesian 90% UL. • S4 H1L1+H2L1: Bayesian 90% UL. • Expected S5: design strain sensitivity and 1 year exposure. • For H1L1, sensitivity depends on frequency band.

  20. S4 Injections Hardware Injections • Software injections: • Signal added to data in software. • Successfully recovered down to Ω~5×10-5. • Theoretical error agrees with the standard error over 10 trials. • Hardware injections: • Physically moving the mirrors. • Successfully recovered (within errors). Software Injections Hardware Injection

  21. Interferometer Sensitivity • Sensitivity steadily improved over time. • Reached design sensitivity. • Started 1-year long run in November 2005.

  22. Summary of Analyses H1L1 • “conversion”: Bad data segments defined in 60-sec analysis, then converted to 192-sec analysis H2L1

  23. Landscape Cosmic Strings models and Pre-Big-Bang models: - can easily escape other experimental bounds - accessible to LIGO.

  24. Cosmic Strings: Model • Cosmic strings are: • Topological defects formed in the early Universe. • Fundamental strings (in string theory). • Cosmic string cusps, with large Lorentz boosts, can create large GW signals. Integrating over all directions and redshift yields a stochastic background. • Calculation done by Damour & Vilenkin, PRD71, 063510 (2005) • Uncertainties exist. • Some of them can be resolved by improving the calculation (ongoing work with X. Siemens et al). • Three parameters: • String tension: 10-12 < G < 10-6 • Reconnection probability: 10-3 < p < 1 • Efficiency of damping perturbations with GW radiation: 10-13 <  < 10-2

  25. Cosmic Strings: Results

  26. Cosmic Strings: Results

  27. Cosmic Strings: Results

  28. Cosmic Strings: Results

  29. Pre-Big-Bang: Model • Amplification of vacuum fluctuations: • Universe transitions between different regimes. • Super-horizon modes of vacuum fluctuations are amplified. • Inflation: Inflationary phase  RD  MD • Pre-Big-Bang Models: • Dilaton-dominated phase • Stringy phase • Radiation, followed by matter phase. • Three parameters: •  < 1.5 • fs – unconstrained • f1 – high-frequency cutoff ~f3-2 ~f3 fs

  30. Pre-Big-Bang: Results AdvLIGO H1H2 S5 H1L1 S3 • Scan f1 -  plane for fs=30 Hz. • For each model, calculate ΩGW(f) and check if it is within reach of current or future expected LIGO results. • Beginning to probe the allowed parameter space. • Currently sensitive only to large values of f1. • Sensitive only to spectra close to flat at high-frequency. • But, not yet as sensitive as the BBN bound: BBN S5 H1H2 S4 Mandic & Buonanno, PRD73, 063008, (2006).

  31. Pre-Big-Bang: Results • Can also define: • zs = f1/fs is the total redshift in the stringy phase. • gs/g1 = (fs/f1), where 2 = |2 - 3| • gs (g1) are string couplings at the beginning (end) of the stringy phase • Probe fundamental, string-related parameters, in the framework of PBB models. • Assumed f1 = 4.3 × 1011 Hz (relatively large).

More Related