Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

LIGO-G030659-00-Z 1 S2/E10 pulsar injection analysis Réjean Dupuis University of Glasgow 13 November 2003 LSC Meeting, LHO.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "LIGO-G030659-00-Z 1 S2/E10 pulsar injection analysis Réjean Dupuis University of Glasgow 13 November 2003 LSC Meeting, LHO."— Presentation transcript:

1 LIGO-G Z 1 S2/E10 pulsar injection analysis Réjean Dupuis University of Glasgow 13 November 2003 LSC Meeting, LHO

2 LIGO-G Z 2 Outline 1.S2 injections and parameter estimation 2.Preliminary look at E10 data

3 LIGO-G Z 3 Signal is sum of two different pulsars, P1 and P2 P1: Constant Intrinsic Frequency Sky position: latitude (radians) longitude (radians) Signal parameters are defined at SSB GPS time which corresponds to a wavefront passing: LHO at GPS time LLO at GPS time In the SSB the signal is defined by f = Hz fdot = 0 phi = 0 A+ = 1.0 x Ax = 0 [equivalent to iota=pi/2] P2: Spinning Down Sky position: latitude (radians) longitude (radians) Signal parameters are defined at SSB GPS time: SSB , which corresponds to a wavefront passing: LHO at GPS time LLO at GPS time In the SSB at that moment the signal is defined by f= fdot = [phase=2 pi (f dt+1/2 fdot dt^2+...)] phi = 0 A+ = 1.0 x Ax = 0 [equivalent to iota=pi/2] S2 Pulsar Injection Parameters

4 LIGO-G Z 4 For each signal all parameters were successfully inferred (except a constant 90 degrees phase shift) Four plots were produced for each signal: 1.posterior probability density function of h 0 given the data (marginalized over the other parameters) 2.confidence contour plot of \cos\iota vs h 0 with levels at 67%, 95%, 99%, and 99.9% 3.confidence contour plot of polarisation angle \psi vs h 0 with levels at 67%, 95%, 99%, and 99.9% 4.confidence contour plot of phase \phi_0 vs h 0 with levels at 67%, 95%, 99%, and 99.9% Coherent analysis using data from all sites showed that phase was conserved between sites Full results (with larger images) are posted at (lsc/lsconly) Time Domain Bayesian Analysis

5 LIGO-G Z 5 L1: p(h 0 | B k ) p(h 0,cos  | B k )p(h 0,  0 | B k ) p(h 0,  | B k ) H1: H2: Results for signal P1

6 LIGO-G Z 6 p(h 0 | B k ) p(h 0,cos  | B k )p(h 0,  0 | B k ) p(h 0,  | B k ) L1: H1: H2: Results for signal P2

7 LIGO-G Z 7 Joint Coherent Analysis p(a|all data) = p(a|H1) p(a|H2) p(a|L1) Signal P1Signal P2 individual IFOs all IFOs

8 LIGO-G Z 8 E10 Pulsar injection parameters Pulsar 0 f  Hz  0  2.66   0.77 cos   0.80 RA  1.25 DEC  Pulsar 1 f  Hz  0  1.28   0.36 cos   0.46 RA  0.65 DEC  Pulsar 2 f  Hz  0  4.03   cos   RA  3.76 DEC  0.06 Pulsar 3 f  Hz  0  5.53   0.44 cos   RA  3.11 DEC  Pulsar 4 f  Hz  0  4.83   cos   0.28 RA  4.89 DEC  Injected a total of 10 pulsars; 5 to be reserved for blind searches Locked data only available from H1 and H2

9 LIGO-G Z 9 Pulsar 1 p(h 0 | B k ) H1 in black H2 in red PDFs are peaked near h 0 = Approx. 850 minutes of locked data on last day of E10 Injected h 0 = ?

10 LIGO-G Z 10 Pulsar 1 - p(h 0,cos  | B k ) H1 H2 Injected: cos   0.46 Y-axis range: -1 to 1

11 LIGO-G Z 11 Pulsar 1 - p(h 0,  0 | B k ) H1H2 Injected:  0  1.28 Y-axis range: 0 to 2pi

12 LIGO-G Z 12 Pulsar 1 - p(h 0,  | B k ) H1 H2 Injected:   0.36 Y-axis range: -pi/4 to pi/4

13 LIGO-G Z 13 To do Study E10 data more carefully Use MCMC approach for semi-blind search Analyze S3 data


Download ppt "LIGO-G030659-00-Z 1 S2/E10 pulsar injection analysis Réjean Dupuis University of Glasgow 13 November 2003 LSC Meeting, LHO."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google