1 / 16

Joint LIGO-Virgo data analysis Inspiral and Burst

Joint LIGO-Virgo data analysis Inspiral and Burst. Summary of the first project results Overview of the future activities M.-A. Bizouard (LAL-Orsay) on behalf of the LSC-Virgo working group. Hanford. Livingston. Virgo. Goals - introduction. Benefits of using multiple detectors

shanon
Télécharger la présentation

Joint LIGO-Virgo data analysis Inspiral and Burst

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Joint LIGO-Virgo data analysisInspiral and Burst Summary of the first project results Overview of the future activities M.-A. Bizouard (LAL-Orsay) on behalf of the LSC-Virgo working group Hanford Livingston Virgo

  2. Goals - introduction • Benefits of using multiple detectors • Decrease false alarm • Increase sky coverage • Source location reconstruction with at least 3 detectors • Confirm or eventually kill a “golden” candidate • Before real data joint analysis: many issues • Different search pipelines comparison • Different sampling rate and sensitivities • What are the expected benefits and performance of the network? • How well can we estimate signal parameters/source location • Goal of the working group: • Address all the potential issues • Coincidence and coherent analysis • Define a strategy for a burst/inspiral discovery? } Project Ia } Project Ib SIMULATED DATA!

  3. . Coincidence search – simulated data set • Noise: 24 hours of Virgo, Hanford and Livingston noise at nominal sensitivities • Signals: • Inspiral: [1-3] M from 2 Galaxies • NGC 6744 at 10 Mpc • M87 at 16 Mpc (Virgo cluster) Random polarization & orbital plane inclination 2PN chirp inspiral generation • Burst: Galactic center direction • 2 core collapse simulated waveforms • 2 Gaussian peaks • 2 CosineGaussians Random polarization Normalization: only one event seen at SNR > 10 In the 3 ITFs over 24 hours

  4. Inspiral search • Pipelines • Virgo: MultiBandTemplateAnalysis (MBTA) & flat search (Merlino) • LIGO: flat search • Cross-check that all pipelines are working well and have similar performance running on Virgo and LIGO data. • Solve few signal generation discrepancies: • G value must be the same • Chirps length must be computed in the same way at 2PN • inspiral end frequency definition: LSO or ISCO

  5. Inspiral coincidence analysis resultsHanford-Livingston-Virgo network performance MBTA efficiencies • Single interferometer results: • SNR threshold at 6 • False alarm rate 0.1 Hz • Coincidence: • Require time and mass coincidence • Triple coincidence • False alarm in 24 hours: 0 • Double coincidence: • False alarm in 24 hours: 1 • Adding Virgo gives ~25% increase in efficiency for M87 quite high  source location often possible! M87

  6. Inspiral source reconstruction • Timing accuracy and binary parametersdependence issue • Improvement obtained by requesting a mass correlation between the 3 ITFs template triggers (pseudo coherent follow up) Fitted direction using the same template for the 3 ITFs Without asking any mass correlation in The 3 ITFs triggers M87 NGC

  7. Inspiral search – open issues • Timing estimation bias observed in LIGO / Virgo pipelines • Signal: time domain generation both for Virgo and LIGO data sets • Template: LIGO: stationary phase approximation (frequency domain) Virgo: Fourier transform of time domain templates • MBTA / LIGO SNR ratio

  8. Burst search - pipelines • Time frequency • Power Filter (PF), Q Transform (QT), Kleine Welle (KW) • Time domain • Mean Filter (MF), Alternative Linear Fit Filter (ALF) • Correlators • Gaussian templates (PC), Complex Exponential Gaussian templates (EGC) A battery of filters used to cover a large variety of possible waveforms. • Performance comparison: different efficiencies according to the waveform “robustness” tests • Can we gain by combining the different filters? AND/OR analysis?

  9. Burst LIGO-Virgo network sky coverage Source in the direction of the Galactic center Burst SNR seen in each ITF as function of time Virgo and LIGO ITFs do not see the Galaxy center at the same time …  is there an interest of coincidence analysis? 24 hours

  10. Burst coincidence search resultsperformance of the HLV network • Example: A2B4G1 waveform • Single interferometer results: • Best efficiency among 5 filters • False alarm rate 0.1 Hz (~10 000 FA per day) • Coincidence: • Require time (and frequency) coincidence • Double coincidence: • False alarm: 10-6 Hz • Triple coincidence: • False alarm: 10-6 Hz efficiency efficiency efficiency Adding Virgo to LIGO increases the network efficiency by ~50%

  11. Burst AND/OR analysis (on-going work) OR: can we “recover” events by combining several algorithm triggers? At high FAR (0.1Hz) : small efficiency increase At low FAR: no gain … PRELIMINARY!

  12. Filter “robustness” tests Example: PF signal SNR=10 Goal: assess filters performance over a class of signals spanning the duration, central frequency and frequency band parameters Band pass White noise + SineGaussian DFM • Some signal location depends on the parameter’s definition … • A filter can have different efficiency response depending on the waveform … shows that the 3 parameters do not fully describe a signal and/or the response of a filter …

  13. Burst source location • 2 “classical” methods using arrival time and SNR information of triple coincidence triggers. (χ2 minimization and likelihood maximization). • Comparison to be done! • Talks of F. Cavalier & S. Klimenko Example: burst from GC using the χ2 method using triple coincidence events over 24 hours (HLV eff=19%) GC: α GC = 266.4˚ δGC= -28.98˚ Rec: α GC = 266.4˚ +/- 0.70˚ δGC= -28.98˚ +/- 0.97˚ angular error ~ 1˚

  14. Present activities • 2 papers in preparation containing all results obtained so far • Coherent analysis: under test and/or development Burst: • 2 LIGO pipelines (Likelihood and NULL streams methods) • 1 Virgo pipeline (J. Sylvestre PRD 68 (2003)) Inspiral: • 1 LIGO pipeline • 1 Virgo pipeline • LIGO: coherent inspiral parameter estimation (Markov chains) S. Klimenko talk A. Searle talk } S. Bose, S. Dhurandhar & A. Pai Int. J. Mod Phys D9, 25 (2000)

  15. The next project: real data exchange • Project 1 demonstratesthe benefitsandthe feasibilityof a joint data analysis • Pipelines are ready both in LIGO and Virgo Project 2: real data analysis! • 2a : exchange of 3 hours of data for technical validation (S4 and C7 f.i.) • 2b: exchange of 24 hours of coincident real data coincidence and coherent burst and inspiral searches face real noise issues! However, many issues still open: • which data? (similar sensitivity? or at least above few hundreds of Hz)  when? wait for Virgo is back this spring! • joint data analysis coordination: the LSC-Virgo data analysis group • publication policy? • detector knowledge spreading enhancement?

  16. Conclusions • Inspiral and burst pipelines succesfully tested (up to source location reconstruction)! • Coincidence analysis shows clear benefits to add Virgo to LIGO network. • Coherent analysis in progress … Work scientifically sound! Consensus for real data exchange in the next years ! Political agreements to be signed Good prospect for joint data set and analysis in 2006

More Related