View
28
Download
0
Category
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
RECENT RESULTS OF THE IGEC2 COLLABORATION SEARCH FOR GRAVITATIONAL WAVE BURST. Massimo Visco on behalf of the IGEC2 Collaboration. OUTLINE OF THE TALK. IGEC2 collaboration detectors IGEC2 activity during past years Data analysis methods Results of second data exchange of IGEC2: 2005-2007 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Paris, July 17, 2009
RECENT RESULTS OF THE IGEC2 COLLABORATION RECENT RESULTS OF THE IGEC2 COLLABORATION SEARCH FOR GRAVITATIONAL WAVE BURSTSEARCH FOR GRAVITATIONAL WAVE BURST
Massimo Visco
on behalf of the IGEC2 Collaboration
Paris, July 17, 2009
• IGEC2 collaboration detectors
• IGEC2 activity during past years
• Data analysis methods
• Results of second data exchange of IGEC2: 2005-2007
• Data quality
• Analysis parameters optimization
• Results
• Conclusion and perspectives of the IGEC2 observatory
OUTLINE OF THE TALK OUTLINE OF THE TALK
Paris, July 17, 2009
IGEC2IGEC2
International Gravitational Events Collaboration
ALLEGRO - AURIGA - ROG (EXPLORER-NAUTILUS)
Paris, July 17, 2009
SENSITIVITY OF IGEC DETECTORSSENSITIVITY OF IGEC DETECTORS
•The best sensitivity is reached around 900 Hz
Paris, July 17, 2009
First analysis- from May to November 2005 when no
other observatory was operating. Based on three-fold
coincidences. No detection
Second analysis – from November 16th, 2005 to April
14th, 2007 – Based on three and four-fold coincidences.
No detection
Future analysis - on April 14th 2007 ALLEGRO ceased
data taking. Since then the three European detectors
gathered new data yet to be analyzed.
IGEC2 – search for burst signals 2005- …IGEC2 – search for burst signals 2005- …
Paris, July 17, 2009
• The events selected by each group using filter matched to signals are characterized by Fourier amplitude H and arrival time ti:
h(t)= H · (t- ti)
• The data are exchanged after adding a “secret time shift” to arrival time ti.
• A statistical distribution of the accidental time coincidences number is calculated using lists of candidate events obtained from the original ones adding many different time shifts.
• The analysis parameters (search threshold, coincidence window) are fixed “a priori” using the accidental coincidences analysis.
• Finally the groups exchange the secret times and the search for real
coincidences is performed.
DATA ANALYSIS METHODS DATA ANALYSIS METHODS The analysis is based on time coincidence among candidate events selected
in each detector.
Paris, July 17, 2009
• The analysis is based on a composite search, an OR of five different configurations: four and three-fold coincidences.
• To our knowledge this is the longest reported period of fourfold coincidence observation.
• The background was fixed at 1 event/century equally divided in the four configurations (0.2 event/century each).
• The data of 2007 became available later, they were analyzed using slightly different SNR thresholds.
IGEC 2 IGEC 2 22ndnd period: Nov 16 period: Nov 16thth, 2005 – Apr 14, 2005 – Apr 14thth, 2007, 2007
Paris, July 17, 2009
OPERATION TIME – OPERATION TIME – NOV 16NOV 16thth 2005–APR 14 2005–APR 14thth, 2007, 2007
515 days
Number of detectors in coincidence
Exclusiveobservation
timeAnalyzed time
0 0 d −−−
1 1.6 d −−−
2 31.0 d −−−
3 188.8 d482.4 d
4 293.5 d57% of time with 4 detectors
94% of time useful for analysis
Full coverage
Paris, July 17, 2009
EVENTS AMPLITUDE DISTRIBUTIONSEVENTS AMPLITUDE DISTRIBUTIONS
• SNR > 4.5 for AURIGA• SNR > 4.0 for EXPLORER and NAUTILUS• H > 1.1· 10-21 Hz-1 for ALLEGRO
Paris, July 17, 2009
DATA QUALITY: DISTRIBUTIONS OF EVENTSDATA QUALITY: DISTRIBUTIONS OF EVENTS
•Few events/day with SNR>7
•Few very large events (SNR>30) on the whole period
Paris, July 17, 2009
Analysis target are: • a false alarm low enough to select significant candidate events (1 event /century)• a reasonable detection efficiency for the searched signals (to be evaluated by software injections)
The parameters to be tuned are:• events SNR selection threshold• time coincidence windows
TUNING OF ANALYSIS PARAMETERTUNING OF ANALYSIS PARAMETER
alarmfalse
sig
N
EfficiencyNR
The R factor must be maximized. It depends on shape and energy
of the different signals
Paris, July 17, 2009
TIME UNCERTAINTYTIME UNCERTAINTYThe time windows were chosen large enough to include not only -like signals.
By software injection we tested the response also to damped sinusoids:h(t)=h0 sin(2 f0 t) e-t/ (t)
Statistical uncertainty: 95% of coincidences retrieved with a 25 ms windows
Systematic biases: the time bias is within 15 ms for <30 ms
Paris, July 17, 2009
TIME COINCIDENCE WINDOWTIME COINCIDENCE WINDOW
The maximum light travel time between detectors is:
2 ms for European detectors 20 ms European - United States detectors
The chosen time windows were:
40 ms for European detectors coincidences60 ms for European - United States detectors coincidences
Paris, July 17, 2009
Example of threefold coincidence EX-NA-AU
SNR SELECTIONSNR SELECTION• Once the time windows were fixed, we tuned the SNR thresholds to the required false alarm.
• We used different thresholds for each configuration and for each detector: equal for ALLEGRO, EXPLORER, NAUTILUS and higher by a factor 1.5-1.8 for AURIGA
Selected threshold configuration to have
0.2 event/century
Paris, July 17, 2009
BACKGROUND EVALUATION BACKGROUND EVALUATION
• In order to highlight possible data correlation the background analysis was implemented using more than one time shift.
• We used 13 different time shifts from 0.12s to 3s. • For each shift value we performed about 12 million of time
lags.
Averaged false alarms with their
standard deviations
The experimental false alarm error is larger
than the statistical oneBut this does not effect
our analysis
Paris, July 17, 2009
BACKGROUND EVALUATION BACKGROUND EVALUATION
• A precise evaluation of errors, including systematic effects, was made possible by calculating false alarms with different time shifts.
Configuration P(N=0) P(N=1) P(N=2) P(N=3)
AL AU EX0.998049 ± 0.000046 (1.949±0.046) · 10-3 (2.02±0.49) · 10-6 <8·10-8
0.998049 ± 0.000047 (1.949± 0.047) · 10-3 (1.904± 0.091) · 10-6 (1.241±0.088) ·10-9
AL AU NA0.997840 ± 0.000102 (2.15±0.10) · 10-3 (2.23±0.35) · 10-6 <8· 10-8
0.997840 ± 0.000102 (2.19± 0.10) · 10-3 (2.34±0.22) · 10-6 (1.69±0.24) · 10-9
AL EX NA0.998299 ± 0.000057 (1.700±0.057) · 10-3 (1.49± 0.29) · 10-6 <8· 10-8
0.998299 ± 0.000057 (1.700±0.057) · 10-3 (1.448±0.097) · 10-6 (8.24±0.83) · 10-10
AU EX NA0.998325 ± 0.000034 (1.674±0.034) · 10-3 (1.51±0.26) · 10-6 <8 · 10-8
0.998325 ± 0.000034 (1.674±0.034) · 10-3 (1.40±0.057) · 10-6 (7.85±0.48) · 10-10
AL AU EX NA0.998402 ± 0.000024 (1.598±0.024) · 10-3 (2.1±3.9) · 10-7 <9 ·10-8
0.998403 ± 0.000024 (1.595±0.023) ·10-3 (1.275±0.038) · 10-6 (6.79±0.30) · 10-10
• Each first row contains experimental occurrence probability from time shifts
• Each second row contains Poisson probability using the experimental mean
• The two values are fully compatible
Paris, July 17, 2009
FINAL RESULTSFINAL RESULTS
NO COINCIDENCE given a false alarm of 1/century
• The collaboration established a priori to make available the coincidences found with no selection, at high false alarm, for further analysis with other experiments.
ConfigurationOperation time
(days) Accidental
numberCoincidences
number
AL AU EX 361.8 4.29±0.01 3
AL AU NA 390.6 5.15±0.01 5
AL EX NA 308.7 10.23±0.01 8
AU EX NA 308.7 2.34±0.01 4
AL AU EX NA 293.5 (7.66±0.01)·10-3 0
Paris, July 17, 2009
CONCLUSIONCONCLUSION
• Nowadays interferometric detectors have reached a sensitivity at least one order of magnitude better than bar detectors and no further upgrade is scheduled.
•The IGEC observatory is presently capable of unattended, low cost operations with high duty cycle and low false alarm.
•Interferometric detectors have scheduled up-grades in the near future and an important increase in sensitivity is expected.
• At present the role of bar detectors is to guarantee the coverage for rare but powerful events with specific attention to the periods not covered by interferometers.
Recommended