For the Collaboration GWDAW 2005 Status of inspiral search in C6 and C7 Virgo data Frédérique...
-
Upload
fatima-bayless -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of For the Collaboration GWDAW 2005 Status of inspiral search in C6 and C7 Virgo data Frédérique...
for the Collaboration
GWDAW 2005
Status of inspiral search in C6 and C7 Virgo data
Frédérique MARION
GWDAW 2003 2
C6 & C7 runs
C6 14 days 86% duty cycle
(in science mode) Factor 2 variation in
the horizon over the course of the run
C7 5 days 65% duty cycle Detector sensitivity
also not stationary
Optimally oriented [1.4,1.4] M (SNR=8)
GWDAW 2003 3
Inspiral online analysis
Both pipelines, Merlino and MBTA, ran online during C6 and C7, getting data from online h-reconstruction Monitoring information provided
» Lists of loudest events» Plots for monitoring web pages
MBTA
Hardware injections
GWDAW 2003 4
C6 hardware injections
56 inspiral hardware injections 4 different periods, [1.4,1.4] M, SNR ranging from ~15 to 25
All detected Check timing and mass estimation accuracy Check SNR recovery
~ 10% loss might be due to sensitivity non-stationarityMBTA
GWDAW 2003 5
C7 hardware injections
2 periods of inspiral injections [1.32 , 1.36] M, SNR ~ 20
Detected with good accuracy Issue with some injections having a bad 2
» under investigation
Merlino
GWDAW 2003 6
Smaller variations still present
Non-stationarities: C6
Evolution in time of the frequency at which half of the SNR is integrated Change in the shape of the PSD
± 10% variations on short time scales (~15 min)
GWDAW 2003 7
Non-stationarities: C7
Variations of the PSD on short time scales not obvious to follow with adaptive mechanisms
Same kind of variations observed in C7
GWDAW 2003 8
C6 analysis: quality cuts (I)
C6 first six days Horizon very unstable “Bump” going up and down in 100-300 Hz
region of sensitivity curve (stray beam) Leave this first part of the run aside
Focus on remaining 8 days
Dark fringe spectrum
GWDAW 2003 9
C6 analysis: quality cuts (II)
Skip first five minutes after relock
Use auxiliary channels to identify obvious sources of high SNR triggers, e.g. Saturations in frequency
stabilization loop Glitches on actuator coil
drivers
GWDAW 2003 10
C6 analysis: SNR distribution
[0.9 - 3] M analysis ~ 170 hours of data
Very loud events eliminated by basic quality cuts
Tail of distribution still extends to high values Even strong, the hardware
injections (in red) do not dominate the noise
MBTA
Inspiral injectionsBurst injections
GWDAW 2003 11
MBTA
C7 analysis
[0.9 - 3] M analysis ~ 80 hours of data
C7 SNR distribution slightly better than C6
Merlino
A relatively quiet 10 hours
long period
GWDAW 2003 12
C7 software injections
Systematic studies (efficiency, 2 test) with Merlino on software injections performed during C7 quiet period see poster by L.Bosi
GWDAW 2003 13
hardware injection
noise event
C6: a posteriori vetoes
SNR distribution between low and high frequency bands 2
2 bands
noise event
Shawhan-Ochsner veto Look at output of matched
filter in time domain
GWDAW 2003 14
22 bands < 100
Samples above threshold < 30
Samples above threshold < 30
22 bands< 100
C6: SNR with vetoes
Bulk of distribution unchanged
High SNR tail definitely improved Hardware injections
almost stand out
GWDAW 2003 15
C7: vetoes
Behavior similar to C6
GWDAW 2003 16
C7: SNR with vetoes
Loudest surviving event has SNR < 20
22 bands < 40
Samples above threshold < 30
Samples above threshold < 30
22 bands< 40
GWDAW 2003 17
Conclusion
C6 and C7 data have extra-galactic sensitivity to neutron star inspirals
Not science quality data Detector behavior glitchy and not stationary
Preliminary analysis Two pipelines operational for online and offline analysis Hardware injections, quality cuts, a posteriori vetoes
Pursue investigations Learn as much as we can from those data in order to get prepared
for the science data to come next year