Background estimation in searches for binary inspiral Patrick Brady - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

background estimation in searches for binary inspiral
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Background estimation in searches for binary inspiral Patrick Brady - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Background estimation in searches for binary inspiral Patrick Brady Inspiral Working Group LIGO Scientific Collaboration G030637-00-Z Inspiral search pipeline Data Quality cuts applied up front Analyze only science mode data


slide-1
SLIDE 1

G030637-00-Z

Background estimation in searches for binary inspiral

Patrick Brady Inspiral Working Group LIGO Scientific Collaboration

slide-2
SLIDE 2

11/10/2003 GWDAW -- 2

G030637-00-Z

1

Inspiral search pipeline

  • Data Quality cuts applied up

front

» Analyze only science mode data

  • Multi-interferometer follow up
  • n coincident triggers.

» (Talk by Bose)

  • Single interferometer vetoes

applied to triggers from each interferometer

» (Talk by Christensen and Shawhan)

  • Background Estimation

» Time slide Hanford data relative to Livingston data

slide-3
SLIDE 3

11/10/2003 GWDAW -- 3

G030637-00-Z

Coincidence criteria

  • Triggers from Livingston are used to search the

corresponding Hanford data

  • Check for coincidence between the Livingston and

Hanford triggers.

  • The coincidence algorithm was:

» 1. Triggers must be coincident in time to within 11 ms. » 2. Each mass parameter in the template must be the same to within 0.03 solar masses. » 3. Compare distances measured at Livingston (DL) and Hanford (DH)

slide-4
SLIDE 4

11/10/2003 GWDAW -- 4

G030637-00-Z

Tuning the amplitude cut

  • Errors in distance estimates

expected to decrease with increasing SNR

  • ε and κ tunable constants

|DL - DH|/DL < ε/ρH + κ Relax amplitude cut to allow detection of these Milky Way events

Missed injections in coincidence

DH/DL

slide-5
SLIDE 5

11/10/2003 GWDAW -- 5

G030637-00-Z

Time-lag results: preliminary results using small bank

Livingston SNR LLO triggers in coincidence with LHO LHO triggers in coincidence with LLO Hanford SNR

Take a closer look at these candidates

slide-6
SLIDE 6

11/10/2003 GWDAW -- 6

G030637-00-Z

Time-lag analysis: SNR in each detector

Large SNR in Livingston coincident with low SNR at Hanford

Livingston SNR Hanford SNR

Coherent two detector SNR=10

slide-7
SLIDE 7

11/10/2003 GWDAW -- 7

G030637-00-Z

Time-lag analysis: triggers versus injections

Livingston SNR Hanford SNR

Raise SNR threshold in Hanford to 6 Simulated injections

  • f binary inspirals in

Andromeda

slide-8
SLIDE 8

11/10/2003 GWDAW -- 8

G030637-00-Z

Time-lag analysis: full bank & adjusted thresholds

  • No. of distinct

candidates after 1 second clustering Two out of 18 time-lags have coincidence in templates of same mass

slide-9
SLIDE 9

11/10/2003 GWDAW -- 9

G030637-00-Z

Time-lag analysis: full bank & adjusted thresholds

slide-10
SLIDE 10

11/10/2003 GWDAW -- 10

G030637-00-Z

Concluding remarks

  • Where to next:

» Complete ~100 time-shifts on playground data » Check for problems with background estimation using time-shifts » Run time-shift analysis on all data to be used in search

– determine network SNR threshold – compare to extrapolation from playground

  • Search for binary inspiral

» Use background estimate from time-shifts on full data set » Search for candidate events » Determine rate limit based on efficiency, background, and number

  • f detections