Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

GWDAW11 – Potsdam 21.12.2006 Results by the IGEC2 collaboration on 2005 data Gabriele Vedovato for the IGEC2 collaboration.

Published byMae Short Modified over 8 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "GWDAW11 – Potsdam 21.12.2006 Results by the IGEC2 collaboration on 2005 data Gabriele Vedovato for the IGEC2 collaboration."— Presentation transcript:

1 GWDAW11 – Potsdam 21.12.2006 Results by the IGEC2 collaboration on 2005 data Gabriele Vedovato for the IGEC2 collaboration

2 GWDAW11 – Potsdam 21.12.2006 HighLights 6 month of data [May 20 - Nov 15, 2005] –AURIGA-EXPLORER-NAUTILUS - data exchanged –ALLEGRO - data available only for a follow-up investigation IGEC2 was the only gw observatory in operation Search for GWB signals (wider target signals than IGEC1) was tuned to identify single candidates with high confidence : –only triple coincidences –false alarm rate = 1/century NO CANDIDATES FOUND !!!

3 GWDAW11 – Potsdam 21.12.2006 DATA ANALYSIS PIPELINE : BASED ON TIME COINCIDENCE Fourier amplitude of gwb arrival time Exchange of candidate events using a protocol analogous to the one used in IGEC1 analysis Candidate events lists are produced by each group using a search optimized for  -like signals the amplitude H [Hz -1 ] exchanged is the fourier component of h, gw strain each group added a “secret time shift” to the time of the candidate events no detection efficiency is used !!! Cross check of the filter pipeline on a sample day of raw data. Tuning of the analysis to a possible detection requiring an identification of the candidates with high confidence fixing the three-fold false alarm to 1 over 100 years (an upper limit, at the present sensitivity of the bar detectors, is not an interesting scientific result) “a priori” tuning of the parameters (search thresholds, coincidence window and working periods) by a blind analysis of the background characteristics Exchange of the secret time shifts and search for possible candidates and follow-up investigations.

4 GWDAW11 – Potsdam 21.12.2006 THE DETECTORS AURIGA NAUTILUS EXPLORER ALLEGRO

5 GWDAW11 – Potsdam 21.12.2006 IGEC 1 1997-2000 IGEC 2 2005 FROM IGEC1 TO IGEC2

6 GWDAW11 – Potsdam 21.12.2006 SENSITIVITY OF IGEC2 DETECTORS

7 GWDAW11 – Potsdam 21.12.2006 Detector Acceptance The four antennas are coalligned and the received signals are projected onto detectors in the same way regardless of the source direction

8 GWDAW11 – Potsdam 21.12.2006 DATA EXCHANGE AURIGA- EXPLORER- NAUTILUS MAY 20 –NOV 15, 2005

9 GWDAW11 – Potsdam 21.12.2006 OPERATION TIME – MAY 20 –NOV 15, 2005 (AURIGA- EXPLORER- NAUTILUS) no detector 0.6 days Single 3.6 days Double 45.0 days Triple 130.8 days ALAUEXNA AL0 AU0172.9 EX0151.8158.0 NA0150.2135.3155.0 96 %87 %86 % 180 days Data from ALLEGRO to be added HIGH DUTY FACTOR days of operation

10 GWDAW11 – Potsdam 21.12.2006 AURIGA NAUTILUS EXPLORER IGEC 1 1997-2000 typical values EXPLORER Noise of Detectors vs Time in terms of Fourier component H AURIGA NAUTILUS

11 GWDAW11 – Potsdam 21.12.2006 AMPLITUDE vs TIME OF THE EXCHANGED EVENTS EXPLORER SNR > 4.0 AURIGA SNR > 4.5 NAUTILUS SNR > 4.0

12 GWDAW11 – Potsdam 21.12.2006 AMPLITUDE DISTRIBUTION OF THE EXCHANGED EVENTS EXPLORER SNR > 4.0 AURIGA SNR > 4.5 NAUTILUS SNR > 4.0

13 GWDAW11 – Potsdam 21.12.2006 EXPLORERAURIGA NAUTILUS Integrated time during which the detector exchange threshold has been lower than H t

14 GWDAW11 – Potsdam 21.12.2006 FALSE ALARMS ESTIMATION

15 GWDAW11 – Potsdam 21.12.2006 Coincidence window IGEC1 style |t 1 –t 2 | < bt * sqrt [  2 (t 1 ) +  2 (t 2 )] for the 3 detector pairs bt=4.47 ensure a contribution to false dismissal < 15% according to Byenaimé-Tchebychev For EXPLORER and NAUTILUS the  t was fixed at 10 ms COINCIDENCE WINDOW  t AURIGA

16 GWDAW11 – Potsdam 21.12.2006 THREE-FOLD COINCIDENCES BACKGROUND ALL THE EXCHANGED DATA SNR  4.5 AU SNR  4.0 EX-NA +/- 2200 Time Shift (5 sec) EX-AU & NA-AU Mean number of accidental triples on 131 days Total number of Trials

17 GWDAW11 – Potsdam 21.12.2006 DATA SELECTION To set the background to 1 false alarm per century the background must be reduced by a factor 600 : we decided to perform one composite search made by the OR among 3 different procedures data selection Selection A : based on false alarms statistic & data quality (detection efficiency not available) Selection B :  -like signals (  -like signals are detected with the same amplitude H by each detector) Selection C :  -like signals IGEC1-Style (for comparison)

18 GWDAW11 – Potsdam 21.12.2006 Data Selection A – Same SNR ThresholdsData Selection A – Same SNR Thresholds – SNR > 4.95 for AU, EX & NA Equal data quality Target signals : better detected by NA-EX than AU 0.396 false alarm/century

19 GWDAW11 – Potsdam 21.12.2006 Data Selection B – Different SNR ThresholdsData Selection B – Different SNR Thresholds – AU-SNR > 7.00 : EX-SNR & NA-SNR > 4.25  Target signals :  -like  0.572 false alarm/century

20 GWDAW11 – Potsdam 21.12.2006 AURIGA NAUTILUS EXPLORER AURIGA NAUTILUS EXPLORER AURIGA NAUTILUS EXPLORER Data Selection C – Common Thresholds IGEC1-styleData Selection C – Common Thresholds IGEC1-style – search thresholds @ H=1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, …, 2.4, …, 3.0*10 -21 /Hz target  -like signals 0.134 false alarm/century

21 GWDAW11 – Potsdam 21.12.2006 Integrated time during which the 3 detectors exchange threshold has been lower than search threshold H t Data Selection C – Common Thresholds IGEC1-styleData Selection C – Common Thresholds IGEC1-style OBSERVATION TIMES [Hz -1 ] t

22 GWDAW11 – Potsdam 21.12.2006 AU-SNR=4.95 NA-SNR=4.95 EX-SNR=4.95 AU-SNR=7.00 NA-SNR=4.25 EX-SNR=4.25 COMMON SEARCH THRESHOLS AU-SNR=4.95 NA-SNR=4.95 EX-SNR=4.95 27368 [0.396 FA/C] 515147 AU-SNR=7.00 NA-SNR=4.25 EX-SNR=4.25 515 39507 [0.573 FA/C] 5177 COMMON SEARCH THRESHOLS 1475177 9280 [0.134 FA/C] TOTAL # TRIALS = 19.355.600 # ACCIDENTAL TRIPLE COINCIDENCES = 17.121.189 1 False Alarm/Century Correlation between 3 data selections

23 GWDAW11 – Potsdam 21.12.2006 CUMULATIVE FALSE ALARM DISTRIBUTION of the 3 data selections The accidental coincidences are the “union” of the accidental coincidences for each data selection counting only once the repeated accidental coincidences. Empirical estimate of the probability of a false detection: 3.63  10 -3 over 130 days 1.0 false alarm / century statistical uncertainty: 1   0.02  10 -3 systematic uncertainty below  0.1  10 -3 tested with independent pipelines & different choices of time shifts

24 GWDAW11 – Potsdam 21.12.2006 STATISTICAL DATA ANALYSIS & FOLLOW-UP

25 GWDAW11 – Potsdam 21.12.2006 The null hypothesis will be rejected if at least one coincidence is found in zero lag analysis. If null hypothesis is not confirmed: – the coincidence is not explained by accidental coincidences with 99.637%  0.006% (  3  ) – the coincidence can be due to correlated signal or noise in the 3 detectors – a follow-up a posteriori analysis is necessary to characterize the coincidences TEST THE NULL HYPOTHESIS

26 GWDAW11 – Potsdam 21.12.2006 CONFIDENCE INTERVALS  Confidence belt construction: –Based on Feldman&Cousins construction –the noise model is a Poisson distribution fitting the empirical estimates of the accidental coincidences with mean noise b = 0.00364  0.00006 (  3  ) events observed = 0 Average signals = 0 to 3.09  Set a confidence interval on the mean number of coincidences due to any source of correlated noise or signal assuming a poisson model. observed = 1 Average signals = 0.05 to 5.14

27 GWDAW11 – Potsdam 21.12.2006 Additional checks for mistakes in the network analysis It will not affect the confidence of the rejection of the null The follow-up results will be interpreted in terms of likelihood or “degree of belief” (subjective confidence) by the collaboration Investigation on h(t) data will try to discriminate among known possible sources (gravitational waves, electromagnetic or seismic disturbances, …). The h(t) data will be used to implement network coherent tests based on cross-correlation Data from ALLEGRO will be added, in particular h(t) and list of candidates. IGEC2 will investigate on simultaneous observations by other kind of detectors (neutrinos, gamma, x …) FOLLOW-UP PLANNED ANALYSIS

28 GWDAW11 – Potsdam 21.12.2006 RESULTS 95% coverage Burst amplitude H at detector [Hz -1 ] Burst Rate detectable [year -1 ] On September 25, once defined all the analysis parameters, the secret time shifts were exchanged No candidate event was found and the null hypothesis was not rejected One of the data subset has been used to calculate the uninterpreted upper limit to be compared with the previous one of IGEC1

29 GWDAW11 – Potsdam 21.12.2006 Strengths: 3 bar detectors easily survey with high duty cycle and very low false alarms: possible identification of single candidates at low SNR with very high confidence IGEC2 searches for a broader class of signals than IGEC1 The blind search in the statistical sense makes the statistical interpretation non-controversial Weaknesses: IGEC2 (as IGEC1) lacks a measurement of detection efficiency –Interpretation of the confidence interval in terms of equivalent gravitational waves from a selected source model was NOT possible –The tuning of the analysis considered only generic predictions of the detection efficiency Poor sensitivity with respect to LIGO  IGEC2 upper limits not interesting any more Short term opportunities: improved methodologies of network data analysis have already been tried (coherent data analyses) IGEC2 has been requested to collaborate with LIGO during its current scientific run FINAL REMARKS

30 GWDAW11 – Potsdam 21.12.2006 CUMULATIVE FALSE ALARM AU-NA/EX TIME SHIFT DISTRIBUTION of the 3 data selections False alarms are uniformely distributed regardeless of the time shift of EX & NA respect to AU Measurement of statistical uncertainty on mean accidental coincidences EX Time Shift NA Time Shift

Download ppt "GWDAW11 – Potsdam 21.12.2006 Results by the IGEC2 collaboration on 2005 data Gabriele Vedovato for the IGEC2 collaboration."

Similar presentations

GWDAW 11 - Potsdam, 19/12/2006 1 Coincidence analysis between periodic source candidates in C6 and C7 Virgo data C.Palomba (INFN Roma) for the Virgo Collaboration.

GWDAW 11 - Potsdam, 19/12/ Coincidence analysis between periodic source candidates in C6 and C7 Virgo data C.Palomba (INFN Roma) for the Virgo Collaboration.
GWDAW9 – Annecy December 15-18, 2004 A. Di Credico Syracuse University LIGO-G040529-00-Z 1 Gravitational wave burst vetoes in the LIGO S2 and S3 data analyses.

GWDAW9 – Annecy December 15-18, 2004 A. Di Credico Syracuse University LIGO-G Z 1 Gravitational wave burst vetoes in the LIGO S2 and S3 data analyses.
AURIGA-LIGO Activity F. Salemi Italy, INFN and University of Ferrara for the LIGO-AURIGA JWG 2nd ILIAS-GW Meeting, October 24th and 25th, Palma de Mallorca,

AURIGA-LIGO Activity F. Salemi Italy, INFN and University of Ferrara for the LIGO-AURIGA JWG 2nd ILIAS-GW Meeting, October 24th and 25th, Palma de Mallorca,
GWDAW-8 (December 17-20, 2003, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA) Search for burst gravitational waves with TAMA data Masaki Ando Department of Physics, University.

GWDAW-8 (December 17-20, 2003, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA) Search for burst gravitational waves with TAMA data Masaki Ando Department of Physics, University.
G.A.Prodi - INFN and Università di Trento, Italy International Gravitational Event Collaboration igec.lnl.infn.it ALLEGRO group:ALLEGRO (LSU)http://gravity.phys.lsu.edu.

G.A.Prodi - INFN and Università di Trento, Italy International Gravitational Event Collaboration igec.lnl.infn.it ALLEGRO group:ALLEGRO (LSU)
LIGO-G030691-00-Z Coherent Coincident Analysis of LIGO Burst Candidates Laura Cadonati Massachusetts Institute of Technology LIGO Scientific Collaboration.

LIGO-G Z Coherent Coincident Analysis of LIGO Burst Candidates Laura Cadonati Massachusetts Institute of Technology LIGO Scientific Collaboration.
The “probability event horizon” and probing the astrophysical GW background School of Physics University of Western Australia Research is funded by the.

The “probability event horizon” and probing the astrophysical GW background School of Physics University of Western Australia Research is funded by the.
G070212-05-Z April 2007 APS Meeting - DAP GGR Gravitational Wave AstronomyKeith Thorne Coincidence-based LIGO GW Burst Searches and Astrophysical Interpretation.

G Z April 2007 APS Meeting - DAP GGR Gravitational Wave AstronomyKeith Thorne Coincidence-based LIGO GW Burst Searches and Astrophysical Interpretation.
Oct 2006 g.modestino1 Experimental results correlating GW detector data and Gamma Ray Bursts Giuseppina Modestino LNF ROG Collaboration INFN – LN Frascati,

Oct 2006 g.modestino1 Experimental results correlating GW detector data and Gamma Ray Bursts Giuseppina Modestino LNF ROG Collaboration INFN – LN Frascati,
Results from TOBAs Results from TOBAs Cross correlation analysis to search for a Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background University of Tokyo Ayaka Shoda.

Results from TOBAs Results from TOBAs Cross correlation analysis to search for a Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background University of Tokyo Ayaka Shoda.
Statistical problems in network data analysis: burst searches by narrowband detectors L.Baggio and G.A.Prodi ICRR TokyoUniv.Trento and INFN IGEC time coincidence.

Statistical problems in network data analysis: burst searches by narrowband detectors L.Baggio and G.A.Prodi ICRR TokyoUniv.Trento and INFN IGEC time coincidence.
Francesco Salemi - London, October 26th - 27th, 2006 1 VIRGO-bars joint data analysis Francesco Salemi for the VIRGO-bars Collaboration.

Francesco Salemi - London, October 26th - 27th, VIRGO-bars joint data analysis Francesco Salemi for the VIRGO-bars Collaboration.
STATUS of BAR DETECTORS G.A.Prodi - INFN and University of Trento International Gravitational Event Collaboration - 2 ALLEGRO– AURIGA – ROG (EXPLORER-NAUTILUS)

STATUS of BAR DETECTORS G.A.Prodi - INFN and University of Trento International Gravitational Event Collaboration - 2 ALLEGRO– AURIGA – ROG (EXPLORER-NAUTILUS)
Paris, July 17, 2009 RECENT RESULTS OF THE IGEC2 COLLABORATION SEARCH FOR GRAVITATIONAL WAVE BURST Massimo Visco on behalf of the IGEC2 Collaboration.

Paris, July 17, 2009 RECENT RESULTS OF THE IGEC2 COLLABORATION SEARCH FOR GRAVITATIONAL WAVE BURST Massimo Visco on behalf of the IGEC2 Collaboration.
S.Klimenko, G060621-00-Z, December 21, 2006, GWDAW11 Coherent detection and reconstruction of burst events in S5 data S.Klimenko, University of Florida.

S.Klimenko, G Z, December 21, 2006, GWDAW11 Coherent detection and reconstruction of burst events in S5 data S.Klimenko, University of Florida.
LIGO-G030158-04-Z LIGO Scientific Collaboration 1 Upper Limits on the Rate of Gravitational Wave Bursts from the First LIGO Science Run Edward Daw Louisiana.

LIGO-G Z LIGO Scientific Collaboration 1 Upper Limits on the Rate of Gravitational Wave Bursts from the First LIGO Science Run Edward Daw Louisiana.
Searching for gravitational radiation from Scorpius X-1: Limits from the second LIGO science run Alberto Vecchio on behalf of the LIGO Scientific Collaboration.

Searching for gravitational radiation from Scorpius X-1: Limits from the second LIGO science run Alberto Vecchio on behalf of the LIGO Scientific Collaboration.
Silvia Poggi - GW burst detection strategy in non-homogeneus networks Detection strategies for bursts in networks of non-homogeneus gravitational waves.

Silvia Poggi - GW burst detection strategy in non-homogeneus networks Detection strategies for bursts in networks of non-homogeneus gravitational waves.
Coincidences in gravitational wave experiments Pia Astone 4 th Amaldi conference Perth July 8-13, 2001.

Coincidences in gravitational wave experiments Pia Astone 4 th Amaldi conference Perth July 8-13, 2001.
LIGO-G060041-02-Z Peter Shawhan, for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration APS Meeting April 25, 2006 Search for Gravitational Wave Bursts in Data from the.

LIGO-G Z Peter Shawhan, for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration APS Meeting April 25, 2006 Search for Gravitational Wave Bursts in Data from the.

Similar presentations

Ads by Google