1. Current status of Joint LIGO-TAMA Inspiral Analysis In collaboration with: Patrick Brady, Nobuyuki Kanda, Hideyuki Tagoshi, Daisuke Tatsumi, the LIGO Scientific Collaboration and the TAMA Collaboration Hirotaka Takahashi / Stephen Fairhurst (Osaka Univ. and Niigata Univ. / Univ. of Wisconsin-Milwaukee)

2. Introduction LIGO and TAMA300 performed a coincident observation between Feb. 14 and April 14, 2003. The total amount of LIGO S2 science-mode data (one or more detectors) is 1218 hours. The total amount of TAMA300 DT8 observation data is 1163 hours. We report on the current status of the coincidence analysis to search for gravitational waves from inspiraling compact binaries using LIGO (S2) and TAMA300 (DT8) data. TAMA300 (T1)LIGO Hanford (H1 and H2)LIGO Livingston (L1)

3. Goals of the LIGO-TAMA search The ultimate goal of the search is a detection. We can place an upper limit on compact star inspiral rate in the Milky Way (if no detection). Sensitive to most of the Milky Way. LIGO S2-TAMA DT8 coincidence data in 2003 650 hours 513 hours 135 hours TAMALIGO single site T1 : 1163 hours (L1-nH1-nH2)+(nL1-H1-nH2)+(nL1-nH1-H2)+(nL1-H1-H2) : 785 hours (L1-nH1-nH2-T1)+(nL1-H1-nH2-T1)+(nL1-nH1-H2-T1)+(nL1-H1-H2-T1) : 650 hours nL1 : L1 was not operating

4. 1. We determined our choice of coincidence parameters using the results of Galactic binary neutron star inspiral signals injection. 2. We performed time slide analysis to estimate the background. 3. We injected Galactic binary neutron star inspiral signals into both LIGO and TAMA data to evaluate efficiency. In this talk We focus on what has been learned from playground data. To avoid statistical bias, Tuning of analysis parameters are decided. Test analysis is performed. Playground data : 64 hours (not included upper limit calculation)

5. Tuning coincidence parameters Time windows TAMA-Hanford24.97 msec TAMA-Livingston32.37 msec Timing accuracy ? Since we are planning to test for coincidence between LIGO and TAMA triggers using the time, we decided to check how accurately LIGO and TAMA can determine this quantity. To do this, injected a set of Galactic binary neutron star signals into the LIGO-TAMA playground times. TAMA-Hanford7487 km TAMA-Livingston9703 km The distance between LIGO and TAMA Maximum time delay of the signal

6. Accuracy of coalescence time The triggers of LIGO and TAMA are recorded within 1.5 msec of the injection Detected-Injected End time (msec) LIGO ( 455 injections) Of the 455 injections into analyzed data, 455 had triggers ( ) recorded within 3 ms of the end. Of the 660 injections into analyzed data, 516 had triggers ( ) recorded within 3 ms of the end. Detected-Injected End time (msec) TAMA (660 injections) TAMA-Hanford27 msec TAMA-Livingston35 msec Time windows

7. Tuning coincidence parameters The accuracy of chirp mass Detected-Injected chirp mass (Msol) LIGO ( 455 injections) TAMA (660 injections) H1,H2 〜 0.005 Msol L1 〜 0.005 Msol TAMA 〜 0.05 Msol Chirp mass window 0.05Msol Mass windows Chirp mass window? Reduced mass window? … The accuracy of chirp mass From TAMA-LISM coincidence, reduced mass did not give constraints in coincidence very much. Only the chirp mass was effective. Thus, to begin on chirp mass sounds reasonable. The TAMA collaboration and the LISM collaboration: H.Takahashi et al. PRD 70 042003, (2004)