P1900092 v3: Suggestions related to GRB coincidence
Referring to https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-P1900092-v3, circulated on March 27...
-
Cases 3 and 4 have both GW-only skymaps and GW-GRB-combined skymaps. However, in both cases there is a statement about the "preferred skymap" which is a GW-only one; that is odd particularly in the latter case (case 4), since we are relying on the GRB connection for the GW event candidate to be significant enough to be announced. That should be reworked, maybe to be clearer about which are GW-only skymaps (in a Circular constructed when there's a GRB too). -
In case 3 there is a statement "One skymap is available at this time", which is false if there is one GW-only skymap AND one GW-GRB combined skymap. (Similar issue in case 4.) -
Why is there no combined skymap given in case 4 (sub-threshold GW event combined with GRB)? Is that intentional? -
In the GRB-with-sub-threshold-GW case (case 4) I recommended putting the GRB identifier first on the subject line. I think that is the right thing to do if the GRB has already been announced in its own Circular; then the GCN Circulars archive at Goddard will group them nicely. But if our Circular is the first one to mention the GRB, then it would be better to use a case-3-like subject line, mentioning our GW candidate first. Hmm. Advocates should be careful with this. -
The subject lines for cases 5 and 6 (the medium-latency examples) are problematic; writing "LIGO/Virgo GRB E1122" sounds like LIGO/Virgo discovered the GRB! If the GRB has already been announced with some identifier, that should be used. Ray Frey adds: "... our drafts for O2 didn't say this. Standard wording would be something like: GRB 190326A: [further] LIGO/Virgo Analysis
where [further] would be included if RAVEN had previously found an association." -
It would be nice to provide a link to the GRB's GCN Notice.
Edited by Min-A Cho