TAMA Data Analysis 8th GWDAW, Milwaukee WI, USA, 16th Dec. 2003 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Progress and Preliminary Results

• f

TAMA Data Analysis

8th GWDAW,

Milwaukee WI, USA, 16th Dec. 2003

Nobuyuki Kanda

Department of Physics Osaka City University and

the TAMA collaboration

2

Outline

• 1. Detector status

Search for GW :

• 2. Burst GW
• 3. Inspiral Gravitational Wave
• 4. Black-hole QNM ringdown GW
• 5. Continuous GW from SN1987 remnant

Data Qualify :

• 6. Online veto study

Cooperation :

• 7. LIGO-TAMA coincidence analysis
• 8. Remarks

3

Detector status (briefly)

4

Detector Status

the TAMA collaboration

National Astronomical Observatory (NAOJ), Institute for Cosmic Ray Research (ICRR), The University of Tokyo, High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), University of Electro-Communications, Osaka City University, Osaka University, Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics, Kyoto University, Niigata University, Hirosaki University, Tohoku University, Hiroshima University, Tokyo Denki University, National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, Tokai University

5

Latest Sensitivity

10-21 10-20 10-19 10-18 10-17 10-16 10-15 10-14 10-13 h equivalent noise spectrum [/sqrt(Hz)] 101 102 103 104 Frequency [Hz]

h equivalent noise spectrum of TAMA300

2001/06 (DT6) 2002/08/31 (DT7) 2003/02/20 (DT8) 2003/11/04 (DT9)

h ~ 2 x 10-21 [/√Hz] @ 1kHz

6

Observable Range

* for optimal incident direction

5 6 7

1

2 3 4 5 6 7

10

2 3 4 5 6 7

100

2 3

Observable Distance with SNR=10 [kpc] 0.1 1 10 100 mass of accompanying star [Msolar]

Distance of detecting inspirals with SNR=10

2003/11/04 (DT9) Inspiral QNM ringdown 0.5Msolar-32.6kpc 1.4Msolar-72.5kpc 2.7Msolar-96.3kpc 10Msolar-21.9kpc

Range with SNR = 10 for inspiral GW and BH ringdown GW

7

Commissioning

Data Taking period actual data amount take note DT1 8/6 - 7/1999 ~3 + ~7 hours continuous lock first whole system test DT2 9/17 - 20/1999 31 hours first Physics run DT3 4/20 - 23/2000 13 hours

• 8/14/2000

World best sensitivity h ~ 5x10-21 [1/√Hz] DT4 8/21 - 9/3/2000 167 hours stable long run DT5 3/1 - 3/8/2001 111 hours Test Run 1 6/4 - 6/6/2001 Longest stretch of continuous lock is 24:50 keep running all day DT6 8/1 - 9/20/2001 1038 hours duty cycle 86% full-dressed run DT7 8/31 - 9/2/2002 24 hours with duty cycle 76.7% Recycling, h ~ 3x10-21 [1/√Hz], Simultaneous obs with LIGO & GEO DT8 2/14 – 4/14/2003 1168 hours, duty cycle 81.1% coincidence obs with LIGO S2 DT9 10/31(Actually 11/ 28)/2003 – 1/5/ 2003 weekday: night time weekend: full time partial coincidence run with LIGO S3 trying ‘crewless’ operation

8

DT9 – on going –

9

Search for GW events

10

Search for GW:

Burst Gravitational Wave

• 1. Target Source

Supernova core collapse Frequency band : a few 100 Hz – a few kHz Without strict waveform assumption

• 2. Excess power filter

Spectrogram Integration : Df - Dt

• 3. Non-Gauss noise rejection

Spike like <–> level drift

11

Burst GW:

Excess power filter

raw data signal Spectrogram (t-f plane) Integration for Frourie domain

Df = 500 Hz, Dt =200 msec

12

Noise behavior

mean power VS 2nd moment

• f power fluctuation

raw data -> time slice j-th time slices -> parameter

mean power of trend: 2nd moment of power fluctuation

Burst GW :

Non-Gauss noise rejection

C2 = 1 2

• < P 2

j >

< Pj >2 − 1

• C1 =< Pj >

See the talk by Masaki Ando : “Search results for burst gravitational waves with TAMA data” at Thursday 18th, session “event Search III : Burst”

13

• 1. Known wave form

coalescence of compact binaries ; NS-NS, NS-BH, BH-BH, PBMACHO

• 2. Known noise spectrum in Fourier domain
• 3. Linear system

signal: s(t) = n(t) + a h(t) noise component :n(t), GW signal: a h(t) average noise power spectrum: Sh(f) template waveform: h(t) signal-to-noise ratio: chi^2 test

Search for GW:

Inspiral Gravitational Wave

ρ(τ; parameters) = 2 f2

f1

˜ h∗(f) · ˜ s(f) Sh(f) e−i2πfτd f SNR = ρ/ √ 2

14

Observable Range for Inspiral GW

5 6

1

2 3 4 5 6

10

2 3 4 5 6

100

2 3

Observable Distance with SNR=10 [kpc] 0.1 1 10 100 mass of accompanying star [Msolar] Distance of detecting inspirals with SNR=10 2003/11/04 (DT9) 2003/02/20 (DT8) 2002/08/31 (DT7) 2001/06 (DT6) 0.5Msolar-32.6kpc 1.4Msolar-72.5kpc 2.7Msolar-96.3kpc 10Msolar-21.9kpc

SNR = √ 2 A

• 4
• f − 7

3

Sn(f)d f 1

2

A = T c d

• 5µ

96M 1

2

M π2M 1

3

T

− 1

6

• T =

G c3

• M

15

Event (r/√c2) histogram

DT8 search Preliminary result

16

Efficiency for Galactic event

17

Upper limit

• 1. DT2

Range (SNR=10): 3.4 kpc Mass region: 0.3 - 10 Msolar Upper limit: 0.59 event/hour (C.L.90%)

• 2. DT4

Range (SNR=10): 17.9 kpc Mass region: 1-2 Msolar Upper limit: 0.027 event/hour (C.L.90%)

• 3. DT6

Range (SNR=10): 33.1 kpc Mass region: 1-2 Msolar ,Upper limit: 0.0095 event/hour (C.L.90%) =83 event/yr

• 4. DT8

Range (SNR=10): 42.2 kpc, Detection Efficiency ~60% for Galactic event Mass region: 1-2 Msolar ,Upper limit: 0.0056 event/hour (C.L.90%) =49 event/yr 1-3 Msolar ,Upper limit: 0.0033 event/hour (C.L.90%) =29 event/yr

See the talk by Hirotaka Takahashi : “Search for gravitational waves from inspiraling compact binaries using TAMA300 data” at Wednesday 17th, session “event Search I : Inspiral”

50 40 30 20 10

Observable Range [kpc]

2003 2002 2001 2000 1999

year

2 4 6 8

0.01

2 4 6 8

0.1

2 4 6 8

Upper Limit C.L.90% [event/hour]

Range Upper Limit for Glactic event Upper Limit for evidence

18

Search for GW:

Black-hole QNM ringdown GW

• 1. BH formation (by compact binary, etc.)
• > quasi-normal mode GW
• dumped sinusoidal waveform “ringdown”
• mass and Kerr parameter determine the waveform

QNM

h(t) = Ae−π fct

Q sin(2πfct)

fct ∼ 3.2 × 104 M [1 − 0.63(1 − a)0.3][Hz] Q ∼ 2.0(1 − a)−0.45

19

BH ringdown: Observable range

Assuming the BHs formed from binary coalescence

• > Flanagan & Hughes, Phys.Rev.D57

(* perturbation theory may not predict the amplitude... )

5 6 7

1

2 3 4 5 6 7

10

2 3 4 5 6 7

100

2 3

Observable Distance with SNR=10 [kpc]

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

100

2 3

mass of accompanying star [Msolar] Distance of detecting QNM ringdown with SNR=10 2003/11/04 (DT9) 2003/02/20 (DT8) 2002/08/31 (DT7) 2001/06 (DT6)

target mass range

20

Templates for BH ringdown

Design the template bank

• Strictly orthogonal and

normalized parameters, which correspond to Physics meaning

• Efficient for Matched Filter

algorithm Minimal match ~98%, # of templates ~800

Nakano et al. (gr-qc/0306082, PRD 68, 102003(2003).)

See the talk by Hiroyuki Nakano : “Effective Search Method for Gravitational Ringing of Black Holes” in ‘poser session’

21

Search for BH ringdown

• 1. Matched Filter technique

similar to ‘Inspiral search’

• 2. Detection efficiency estimation

assumption: amplitude, radiation pattern of fundermental (l=m=2) mode, glactic distribution. Monte-Carlo (embed ringdown GW in real TAMA data)

• 3. Veto study

reject spurious signals due to noises (spikes, glitch, etc.)

22

Search for BH ringdown

Typical signal amplitude Detection efficiency by Monte-Carlo

See the talk by Yoshiki Tsunesada : “earch for black hole ringdown gravitational waves in TAMA300 data” at Wednesday 17th, session “event Search I : Inspiral” 0.01

2 4 6 8

0.1

2 4 6 8

1

Detection Probability

100

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1000

2

Ringdown frequency fc [Hz]

SNR>10 SNR>20 SNR>30 SNR>40 SNR>50 SNR>100

23

Search for GW:

Continuous GW from SN1987A remnant

• 1. Assumptions:

SN1987A remnant pulser Large spindown rate 2–3 x10-10 Hz/s Search range: 934.908 ±0.05 Hz

• 2. 1200 hours TAMA data (dt4,dt6)
• 3. Upper limit:

h ~ 5 x 10-23 (C.L> 99%)

• > Soida et al. Class. Quant. Grav.Vol.20. No.17(2003)S645

24

Data quality evaluation

25

Data Quality:

Online veto study

Various noise induce at anywhere in the control servo loop

check by calibration signal injection

• nline evaluation

26

Online ‘noise budget’ estimation

See the talk by Daisuke Tatsumi : “Online Veto Analysis of TAMA300” at Friday 19th, session “Detector Characterization III”

27

Cooperation : LIGO-TAMA

28

LIGO–TAMA coincidence

• 1. MOU was approved at Dec.2002

for joint analysis, exchange the operation informations, and share some resources.

• 2. Coincidence observation for S2–DT8
• verlap duration of all x4 detectors: 250.7 hrs
• 3. Advantage of Multi-Detector

Sky coverage improvement Source direction determination

• 4. Physics Target

Compact binary coalescence Burst GW from super-novae Trigger by external observation as GRB

• 5. Joint working group kicked off

29

STEP 2 STEP 1

LIGO–TAMA coincidence

Coincidence Schematics

TAMA LIGO (LHO1, LHO2, LLO) event candidates lists event candidates lists AND (=coincidence) event behavior (waveform, amplitude, -> coherence) upper limit / significancy upper limit / significancy search by own data filter evaluatation (efficiency, fake rate, etc.) search

See the talk by Patrick Sutton : “Status and Plans for the LIGO-TAMA Joint Data Analysis” at Friday 19th, session “Multi-Detector Analysis”

30

Remarks

• 1. TAMA’s sensitivity and stableness of operation

have been progressed steadily.

• 2. Data Taking 9 is now held with trying ‘crewless’
• peration.
• 3. Following event search tasks are going in

TAMA ;

Burst GW Inspiral Gravitational Wave Black-hole QNM ringdown GW Continuous GW from SN1987 remnant

• 4. Data Qualification is trying as online issue.

for noise budget and veto.

• 5. LIGO-TAMA coincidence analysis are going.