Post on 22-Dec-2015
transcript
AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project 1LIGO-G030081-00-Z
Hardware Burst Injections in E9 S2
Alan Weinstein, CaltechLaura Cadonati, MITShourov Chatterjee, MIT
Sergei Klimenko, UFlaIgor Yakushin, LIGO-LLO
LSC meeting,3/18/03
AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project 2LIGO-G030081-00-Z
Goals of the Burst Injections
test our understanding of the entire signal chain from» GDS excitation point » displacements of test masses » data logged in LSC-AS_Q and related DM and common mode channels » entire burst search analysis chain.
In particular, we need a quantitative comparison between signals injected into the IFO and signals injected into the datastream in software (in LDAS), to validate the efficiency calculation.
Verify that we detect HW injected signals with SNR as expected» Detection confidence
Test our understanding of the dependence on source direction and polarization.
AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project 3LIGO-G030081-00-Z
Injecting signals
The multiawgstream and SIStr facilities developed by I. Leonor, P. Shawhan, D. Sigg are used to inject series of signals into the LSC-ETMX_EXC, and LSC-ETMY_EXC, or DARM_CTRL_EXC
channels of the three interferometers.
The injections during S1, E9 and S2 were/are coordinated by M. Landry, P. Shawhan, S. Marka
Many thanks to all the developers for this immensely important and useful facility!
AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project 4LIGO-G030081-00-Z
Original (ambitious) program:Burst_z and Burst_ang
Burst_z scan, into DARM or ETMX-ETMY: inject sine-Gaussians into all 6 end test masses, with durations of ~ 1
second, spaced 40 seconds apart. Scan 8 logarithmically-spaced central frequencies from 100 - 2000 Hz. Scan ~6 amplitudes from 1 to 100 times the nominal calibrated strain
sensitivity at that central frequency. These 48 bursts should thus take 32 minutes.
Burst_ang scan, exciting both DARM and CARM, with IFO-IFO delays: Choose one central frequency and relatively large amplitude, and scan
over 100 source directions and polarizations (5 in cos, 5 in , 4 in ; all with respect to the mean of the LHO/LLO zenith and orientation). This should take 67 minutes.
AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project 5LIGO-G030081-00-Z
Waveforms, amplitudes
Short, narrow-bandwidth signals (sine-Gaussians) provide the most direct and useful interpretation of IFO and data analysis responses. We envision a "swept-sine calibration" of sine-Gaussians of varying frequency, spanning the LIGO band of interest.
Signal amplitudes should span the range from "barely detectable" to "large, but not so large as to excite a non-linear response". The IFO strain sensitivity varies over the frequency range of interest, so the amplitudes should vary as well.
Signals are injected using the GDS excitation engine, which accepts 16384-Hz time series in units of counts to the coil driver. The frequency dependence of the test mass response must be taken into account.
Each sine-Gaussian has Q ~ 9; total duration ~ Q/f0
Frequency f0 (Hz)Duration (msec)
100
90
153
58
23538
361
25
55416
850
11
13047
2000
4.5
Time from segment start t0 (sec) 20 40 60 80
100
120
140 160
AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project 6LIGO-G030081-00-Z
Ad-hoc signals: (Sine)-Gaussians
These have no astrophysical significance;
But are well-defined in terms of waveform, duration, bandwidth, amplitude
SG 554,
Q = 9
AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project 7LIGO-G030081-00-Z
Schedule of Signal Injections During the S2 Run
Feb 14 2:48 CST, 0:48 PST #
Feb 18 23:00 CST, 21:00 PST
Feb 23 16:00 CST, 14:00 PST
Feb 25 18:00 CST, 16:00 PST *
Mar 2 14:00 CST, 12:00 PST
Mar 3 12:00 CST, 10:00 PST
Mar 7 2:00 CST, 0:00 PST
Mar 12 20:00 CST, 18:00 PST
Mar 15 24:00 CST, 22:00 PST *
Mar 19 23:00 CST, 21:00 PST
Mar 23 3:00 CST, 1:00 PST
Mar 25 22:00 CST, 20:00 PST
Mar 28 20:00 CST, 18:00 PST *
Apr 2 10:00 CST, 8:00 PST
Apr 5 4:00 CST, 2:00 PST
Apr 9 24:00 CST, 22:00 PST *
Apr 11 22:00 CDT, 20:00 PDT
* inserted during the run to make up for lost opportunities
(sometimes the interferometers were just out of lock and injection was pointless or partial)
# The injection time was determined just before the injection
S, Marka,
P. Shawhan,
I. Leonor
AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project 8LIGO-G030081-00-Z
Actually done and analyzed (so far):
DATE ETMx-ETMy ETMx ETMy
Feb 13 (pre-S2) 13 (H1,L1) 8 (H1,L1) 8 (H1,L1)
Feb 17 - - 3 (H1,L1)
Feb 25 - - 3 (H1,H2,L1)
Mar 2 - - 3 (H1)
Mar 7 - - 3 (H1,L1)
• Groups of 8 SG’s, varying amplitudes.
• Intra-run injections subject to IFO availability.
AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project 9LIGO-G030081-00-Z
Signal amplitudes
The waveform files have a peak amplitude (at 0.5 secs) of 1.You can read off the ETMx and ETMy signals, peak amplitude in counts. So:
|ETMx-ETMy| (in counts) (~1 nm / ct) (DC calibration, approximate, varies from ~0.5-1.0) (0.744/f0)^2 (pendulum response, where f0 is central SG frequency)/ 4000 m (or 2000 m for H2)will give you a peak amplitude in strain.
# Time Cfg Waveform file ETMX ETMY hpeak (strain)
729154547.000000 1 wfsg100Q9.dat 0.0107060 -0.0104160 3.0e-19
729154567.000000 1 wfsg153Q9.dat 0.0312080 -0.0303660 3.7e-19
729154587.000000 1 wfsg235Q9.dat 0.0227440 -0.0221300 1.1e-19
729154607.000000 1 wfsg361Q9.dat 0.0663000 -0.0645080 1.4e-19
729154627.000000 1 wfsg554Q9.dat 0.1932700 -0.1880460 1.7e-19
729154647.000000 1 wfsg850Q9.dat 0.5634020 -0.5481760 2.1e-19
729154667.000000 1 wfsg1304Q9.dat 6.5694940 -6.3919400 1.1e-18
729154687.000000 1 wfsg2000Q9.dat 19.1507320 -18.6331460 1.3e-18
AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project 10LIGO-G030081-00-Z
SG injections: frequencies, amplitudes
• SG central
frequencies
f0 are color-coded
• Closed circles are
detected bursts;
Open circles are
undetected (H1)
AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project 11LIGO-G030081-00-Z
Analysis
Data were analyzed through the standard Burst pipeline Pre-filtering in datacond, including 100 Hz HPF and whitening
» For the first few injection runs, HPF 150 Hz and S1 whitening
Then, data from each IFO were passed through tfclusters and slope ETG’s
Each ETG returns triggers with start_time and trigger strength tfclusters also returns a central frequency Time resolution:
» tfclusters uses time bins of 1/8 second, start_time is quantized in those units (125 msec)
» Slope is expected to give < 50 msec resolution
AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project 12LIGO-G030081-00-Z
Trigger power (tfclusters)Feb 13 injections
Before frequency consistency cut After frequency consistency cut
L. Cadonati
AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project 13LIGO-G030081-00-Z
TFCLUSTERS central frequency vs injected frequency
The red, off diagonal events are the ones rejected by the frequency cut (background noise). The blue, off diagonal events have large bandwidth, covering the injected frequency, thus pass the frequency cut.
AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project 14LIGO-G030081-00-Z
Timing accuracy
• Injection peaks at 0.5 secs, starts ~10’s of msec before then
• Tfclusters (left) is quantized in bins of 1/8 sec.
• Slope (right) peak is 10 msec before 0.5 sec.
AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project 15LIGO-G030081-00-Z
ETG strength ~ xrms2
10-18
10-17
10-16
10-15
10-14
10-13
10-2
10-1
100
101
102
103
104
105
H1 S2 injections
injection xrms (m/rtHz)
ET
G s
tre
ng
th
10-18
10-17
10-16
10-15
10-14
10-13
1030
1032
1034
1036
1038
1040
1042
H1 S2 injections
injection xrms (m/rtHz)E
TG
str
en
gth
/ x
rms2
• There’s a lot of scatter, but most injections indeed show strength ~ xrms2
• Don’t compare the different colors; they’re different frequencies, and the IFOs have different sensitivities. The black dots are at 100 Hz, and we hpf’ed at 150 Hz!
• Still, a lot of signals were not found – under investigation!
AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project 16LIGO-G030081-00-Z
H1 – L1 cross-correlation
Filtered AS_Q
data streams
554 Hz SG at
hrms ~ 2e-20
Injected in H1 and L1
simultaneously
Correlation coefficient
and confidence
L. Cadonati
AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project 17LIGO-G030081-00-Z
Intra-run injections and stability
02/09/03 02/16/03 02/23/03 03/02/03 03/09/0310
-18
10-17
10-16
10-15
10-14
10-13
H1 S2 injections
S2 day
inje
cti
on
xrm
s (
m/r
tHz
)
02/09/03 02/16/03 02/23/03 03/02/03 03/09/0310
-2
10-1
100
101
102
103
104
105
H1 S2 injections
S2 day
ET
G s
tre
ng
th
• A much more limited set of injections are being done throughout S1.
• Oops! Used different pre-filtering for the 3/7/03 injections!
• Need to run with the new filters on all injections; trying to get the data and filters all available at one ldas…
AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project 18LIGO-G030081-00-Z
Comparison with SW injections
10-16
10-15
10-14
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
H1 S2 injections
injection xrms (m/rtHz)
ET
G s
tren
gth
• Comparison currently only available for latest round of intra-run injections into H1.
• Solid points = HW
• Open diamonds = SW
• Find 45o line connecting points and diamonds of same color (f0)?
• That’s qualitative evidence that HW and SW injections with same (nominal) xrms are found by tfclusters with same strength.
• Much more work, statistics, etc, required to establish this quantitatively!
AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project 19LIGO-G030081-00-Z
Results from WaveBurst
WaveBurst DSO (S. Klimenko, I. Yakushin) cross-correlates data streams from 2 detectors in wavelet basis.
Run on H1 and H2 detectors, using the 23 groups of 8 SG bursts from Feb 13, 2003
Biorthogonal wavelet of 16th order was used WaveBurst TF resolution of 1/32 sec x 16 Hz
AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project 23LIGO-G030081-00-Z
Summary
HW Burst injections, pre-S2 and during S2, are a powerful tool for honing algorithms, building confidence in detection ability, monitoring detection stability, finding problems
Confirms ability to detect bursts at ~ expected level Comparison of HW and SW injections:
qualitatively, in the right ballpark Failure to detect some signals with tfclusters is under
investigation
AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project 24LIGO-G030081-00-Z
Signal sent to GDS system
The signal that is sent to each of the ETMs by the GDS system is a product of factors:
A waveform with units of strain, sampled at 16384 Hz, is input to the system. The peak strain amplitude can be scaled to a desired value. This is multiplied by the arm length (2000 m for H2 and 4000 m for L1), and by
“antenna pattern” factors (for the two ETMs in each of the 3 interferometers) corresponding to a particular source direction and polarization.
From the calibration6, we know how many DAC counts, G, correspond to a motion of 1 nm, at frequencies much below the pendulum frequency (fp = 0.74
Hz). G is typically on the order of 1 nm/count. Since sine-Gaussians are narrow band, with central frequency fc, there is a
factor of (fc / fp )2 to account for the pendulum response to force from the GDS-
controlled coil actuators. (more complicated filtering would be required for broad-band signals).
Relative delays between the three interferometers are calculated based on the source direction (on the order of msec).
AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project 25LIGO-G030081-00-Z
Driver files for injectionsBURST_Z#T_off filename H2_DELAY M_ETMX M_ETMY L1_DELAY M_ETMX M_ETMY H1_DELAY M_ETMX M_ETMY# (s) (s) (s) (s)
40 wf100.dat 1.0000 0.0544 -0.0536 1.0000 0.0275 -0.0291 1.0000 0.0516 -0.0452 80 wf153.dat 1.0000 0.0640 -0.0630 1.0000 0.0647 -0.0686 1.0000 0.1215 -0.1063 120 wf235.dat 1.0000 0.0753 -0.0742 1.0000 0.0761 -0.0807 1.0000 0.2859 -0.2502 160 wf361.dat 1.0000 0.0354 -0.0349 1.0000 0.0716 -0.0760 1.0000 0.6729 -0.5888 200 wf554.dat 1.0000 0.0417 -0.0411 1.0000 0.0674 -0.0715 1.0000 1.5837 -1.3858 240 wf850.dat 1.0000 0.0981 -0.0967 1.0000 0.1587 -0.1683 1.0000 3.7274 -3.2614 280 wf1304.dat 1.0000 0.2310 -0.2275 1.0000 0.4670 -0.4952 1.0000 17.5450 -15.3519 320 wf2000.dat 1.0000 0.5436 -0.5355 1.0000 1.9783 -2.0979 1.0000 61.9395 -54.1970 360 wf100.dat 1.0000 0.2718 -0.2678 1.0000 0.1374 -0.1457 1.0000 0.2581 -0.2258 400 wf153.dat 1.0000 0.3199 -0.3151 1.0000 0.3233 -0.3429 1.0000 0.6074 -0.5315 …
BURST_ANG#T_off filename H2_DELAY M_ETMX M_ETMY L1_DELAY M_ETMX M_ETMY H1_DELAY M_ETMX M_ETMY# (s) (s) (s) (s)
40 wf850.dat 0.0000 1.8795 -1.9080 -0.0000 -3.1329 3.2244 0.0000 71.3846 -64.3627 80 wf850.dat -0.0038 0.7602 -1.8054 0.0038 -2.3396 0.2829 -0.0038 28.8713 -60.9012 120 wf850.dat -0.0038 0.4389 -1.2321 0.0038 -0.9553 0.1659 -0.0038 16.6688 -41.5612 160 wf850.dat -0.0038 0.0000 -0.3286 0.0038 0.6849 0.0045 -0.0038 0.0000 -11.0849 200 wf850.dat -0.0043 1.0065 -1.2559 0.0043 -0.9788 0.6367 -0.0043 38.2277 -42.3656 240 wf850.dat -0.0043 0.7087 -0.4360 0.0043 0.4348 0.7272 -0.0043 26.9171 -14.7080 280 wf850.dat -0.0043 0.2210 0.5007 0.0043 1.7320 0.6229 -0.0043 8.3941 16.8906 320 wf850.dat -0.0043 -0.3259 1.3033 0.0043 2.5650 0.3516 -0.0043 -12.3781 43.9634 360 wf850.dat -0.0042 1.3805 -0.6045 0.0042 -0.0302 1.5366 -0.0042 52.4316 -20.3904
AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project 26LIGO-G030081-00-Z
First look at 8/17/02 injections into L1:LSC-DARM_CTRL_EXC
Beginning with 360 seconds of injections (one every 40 seconds) with scale factors 7.5 and 30
Command: darm_z_burst 713668660 1 Can we see the signals in the time series? Can we see the signals in spectrograms? Can the burst search DSOs see the signals? Do we quantitatively understand the amplitude of the
signals? Do they compare well with software injections into the data stream in LDAS?
AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project 27LIGO-G030081-00-Z
Can we see the signals in the time series?
Surely not, given the very large low frequency noise.
But we can zoom in, A LOT. (eg, zoom in on 235 Hz SG at 121 seconds after start).
Or, we can HP filter the data. (eg, 10th order Butterworth at 120 Hz)
235 Hz wiggle here!
AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project 28LIGO-G030081-00-Z
Can we see the signals in the spectrogram?
Surely not, unless you really zoom in.
But this shows that it’s a pretty quiet stretch of data.
AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project 29LIGO-G030081-00-Z
Zoom in on the spectrogram
100 Hz at 41 sec 153 Hz at 81 sec 235 Hz at 121 sec
361 Hz at 161 sec 554 Hz at 201 sec 2000 Hz at 321 sec
AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project 30LIGO-G030081-00-Z
Can we see it in tfclusters?
tfclusters (J. Sylvestre) is one of our well-tested burst search algorithms, running in LDAS as a wrapperAPI DSO
It calculates excess power in pixels in the t-f plane, then looks for clusters of such pixels.
It generates a list of triggers, with start_time, burst power, central frequency, bandwidth, duration.
AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project 31LIGO-G030081-00-Z
tfclusters triggers
• Triggers in time with injected bursts are indicated in red
• For scale factor 7.5, we find bursts above 150 Hz with large SNR
• Trigger “power” scales like (30/7.5)2 as expected
scale factor 30scale factor 7.5
100 153 235 361 554 850 1304 2000
AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project 32LIGO-G030081-00-Z
Amplitude
The real point of all this is to “cross-calibrate” hardware vs software injections, testing our understanding of all the gain factors.
First check: injections into LLO with scale factors differing by factor 4, show up in tfclusters with “power” differing by ~ 42. OK!
This work is in progress.