O3a-Spin-Quadrupole-BH-mimicker-test-results/o3a-review-report.md

@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@
 |7.|[GW190707a](https://git.ligo.org/nv.krishnendu/lalsuite/-/wikis/O3a-Spin-Quadrupole-BH-mimicker-test-results/S190707q)<br> person responsible: Krishnendu| Prod0 OK. <br>Anuradha: OK.| Archisman: No mtot railing. SIQM very light railing. **SIGNED OFF!** <br><br> Anuradha: BBH Comparison_All.html page does not open for me. Please fix. Otherwise looks good. <br><br> <br> Krishnendu: BayesCompos added for all the events. <br> comparison_all page works for me <br><br> Archisman: sym 4 chains OK. pos 4 chains OK. <br><br> Anuradha: LogL is a bit different in BBH case. **SIGNED OFF!**| | **SIGNED OFF!**| Yes, reruns finished and results are uploaded|
 |8.|[GW190708a](https://git.ligo.org/nv.krishnendu/lalsuite/-/wikis/O3a-Spin-Quadrupole-BH-mimicker-test-results/S190708ap)<br> person responsible:Saleem | Prod0/5 OK. <br>Anuradha: OK.|Anuradha: LogL is a bit different in BBH case. Otherwise looks good. **SIGNED OFF!**<br><br> Archisman: No mtot railing. SIQM OK. sym 4 chains OK. pos 3 chains OK. **SIGNED OFF!** | | **SIGNED OFF!**|Yes, reruns finished and results are uploaded for all runs. Ready to be reviewed|
 |9.|[GW190720a](https://git.ligo.org/nv.krishnendu/lalsuite/-/wikis/O3a-Spin-Quadrupole-BH-mimicker-test-results/S190720a)<br> person responsible: Krishnendu| Prod0 seems OK. Should we check with PE if L1 flow is finally 20 and not 40 Hz? <br><br> Krishnendu: fixed. [reply PE channel](https://chat.ligo.org/ligo/channels/parameter-estimation/1bypq6rnmpngtjetm8ssw17t3e) <br><br> Archisman: OK. <br>Anuradha: OK.|Anuradha: <br> why t0, cos(alpha), azimuth are different in all the 3 cases from prod run? <br> BBH: The **ACF** for tc, t0, theta_JN, cos(alpha), azimuth, delta, DL, iota look suspicious. <br> pos: The **ACF** for azimuth look suspicious. <br> The **ACF** for cos(alpha), azimuth, a1, cos(theta1) look suspicious. <br><br> <br> Krishnendu: [BH comparison pages](https://ldas-jobs.ligo.caltech.edu/~nv.krishnendu/LSC/lalinference/O3/o3_a_tgr/S190720a/pv2_prod_c01/psd_rerun/cbcBayesCompos/comp_bh/) looks fine for me, for example [theta_JN](https://ldas-jobs.ligo.caltech.edu/~nv.krishnendu/LSC/lalinference/O3/o3_a_tgr/S190720a/pv2_c01_prod/psd_rerun/comp_PE_Prod0/bh_bh/plots/combined_1d_posterior_theta_jn.png) <br> Not sure if we need reruns for ACF issues <br><br> Archisman: So mtot railing. SIQM OK. sym 4 chains; chain 4 may be problematic. pos only 1 chain! **SIGNED OFF!** <br><br>Anuradha: The difference in t0, alpha, azimuth is due to the different choice of the first detector. **SIGNED OFF!**| | **SIGNED OFF!**|Yes, reruns finished and results are uploaded|
-|10.|[GW190728a](https://git.ligo.org/nv.krishnendu/lalsuite/-/wikis/O3a-Spin-Quadrupole-BH-mimicker-test-results/S190728q)<br> person responsible: Saleem| Prod0 OK. <br>Anuradha: OK.| Anuradha: LogL is a bit different in BBH case. Otherwise looks good. <br><br> Archisman: sym mtot bimodal; no railing. SIQM only negative; pos consistent with sym. sym 2 chains; sampling non-identical regions. pos only 1 chain. **NOT OK** <br><br> Archisman (2020-Aug-14): No mtot railing, but sharp fall-off at lower end. pos OK. **Chirp mass bimodal for sym.** The bad samples are coming from a single chain, which can be removed. <br><br> Anuradha: Mc is bimodal but the WFs are sane for the secondary peak and this does not go away with stronger setting. Could be due to either correlation between dks and other parameters or du to noise to both. Saleem has done some investigations [here](https://git.ligo.org/muhammed.saleem/o3siqm-updates/-/blob/master/script/explore_mc_bimodality_injections.ipynb) which look okay. **SIGNED OFF** <br><br> Archisman (2020-09-15): Chirp mass still bimodal for sym. however this feature seems robust across different runs. So OK. **SIGNED OFF!**|The runs already have high specs like srate = 2048, nlive = 2048, maxmcmc = 10000, nparallel = 8. Chains broken due to calibration files removed. Resubmitted the dag (16/7/2020) which seems to be converging (as of 20/7/2020). Reruns started already to compensate in case the resumed runs didn't go well. ||Results from PSD reruns uploaded and reviewed. Waiting for results with more samples.|
+|10.|[GW190728a](https://git.ligo.org/nv.krishnendu/lalsuite/-/wikis/O3a-Spin-Quadrupole-BH-mimicker-test-results/S190728q)<br> person responsible: Saleem| Prod0 OK. <br>Anuradha: OK.| Anuradha: LogL is a bit different in BBH case. Otherwise looks good. <br><br> Archisman: sym mtot bimodal; no railing. SIQM only negative; pos consistent with sym. sym 2 chains; sampling non-identical regions. pos only 1 chain. **NOT OK** <br><br> Archisman (2020-Aug-14): No mtot railing, but sharp fall-off at lower end. pos OK. **Chirp mass bimodal for sym.** The bad samples are coming from a single chain, which can be removed. <br><br> Anuradha: Mc is bimodal but the WFs are sane for the secondary peak and this does not go away with stronger setting. Could be due to either correlation between dks and other parameters or du to noise to both. Saleem has done some investigations [here](https://git.ligo.org/muhammed.saleem/o3siqm-updates/-/blob/master/script/explore_mc_bimodality_injections.ipynb) which look okay. **SIGNED OFF** <br><br> Archisman (2020-09-15): Chirp mass still bimodal for sym. however this feature seems robust across different runs. So OK. **SIGNED OFF!**|The runs already have high specs like srate = 2048, nlive = 2048, maxmcmc = 10000, nparallel = 8. Chains broken due to calibration files removed. Resubmitted the dag (16/7/2020) which seems to be converging (as of 20/7/2020). Reruns started already to compensate in case the resumed runs didn't go well. |**SIGNED OFF!**|Results from PSD reruns uploaded and reviewed. Waiting for results with more samples. <br> results review over and signed-off|
 |11.|[GW190814a](https://git.ligo.org/nv.krishnendu/lalsuite/-/wikis/O3a-Spin-Quadrupole-BH-mimicker-test-results/S190814bv) <br> person responsible: Krishnendu| Archisman: base config file info not available. <br><br> Krishnendu: fixed. <br><br> Archisman: Abhirup, could you please check the base config for this event? |Anuradha: Why t0, azimuth and cos(alpha) are different from Prod run in all the 3 cases? In 'result summary' ks_pos has the link of ks_sym, **please fix.** <br><br> Krishnendu: fixed. <br><br> Anuradha: In pos run, **ACF** for all the spin parameters, all the mass parameters, alpha, delta, tc, iota, azimuth look suspicious. <br><br> Archisman: PE comparison t0, cosalph, and azimuth are different. Mtot bimodal for pos. SIQM mostly neg. sym 4 chains (1 chain very short) OK. pos 2 chains sampling different regions. **NOT OK** |Reruns started ||Yes, reruns finished and results are uploaded|
 |12.|[GW190828a](https://git.ligo.org/nv.krishnendu/lalsuite/-/wikis/O3a-Spin-Quadrupole-BH-mimicker-test-results/S190828j) <br> person responsible: Saleem| Archisman: Mass priors have been increased between Prod0 and Prod5, but no railing with SIQM settings. OK. <br>Anuradha: OK.|Anuradha: LogL is a bit different in BBH case. Which might be okay. **ACFs** for time, iota, ra, dec, and theta_JN are suspicious in the 3 runs. **SIGNED OFF!** <br><br> Archisman: No mtot railing. SIQM OK. sim 4 chains OK. pos 4 chains OK. **SIGNED OFF!**| | **SIGNED OFF!**|Yes, PSD reruns finished and  reviewed.|
 |13.|[GW190828b](https://git.ligo.org/nv.krishnendu/lalsuite/-/wikis/O3a-Spin-Quadrupole-BH-mimicker-test-results/S190828l) <br> person responsible: Saleem| Prod4 OK. **Configs and diffs not found!** <br> Saleem: **Link to configs and diffs have been fixed (16/7/20)**  <br>Anuradha: OK. <br><br> Archisman: OK.| Anuradha:<br>BBH: Awaiting results. <br> pos/sym: **ACF** for time, ra, dec, DL are suspicious. <br><br> Archisman: No mtot railing. SIQM samples mostly neg; pos consistent with sym. sym 4 chains OK; chain 2 may be a bit dirty. pos 4 chains OK; chains 2 & 3 may be a bit dirty. **SIGNED OFF!** <br>Anuradha: **SIGNED OFF!**|||Yes, Reruns finished for ks_pos and ks_sym whose results are ready to be reviewed. BBH runs failed and reruns started (14/7/2020)|
@@ -44,7 +44,7 @@
 |3. |[GW190425z](https://git.ligo.org/nv.krishnendu/lalsuite/-/wikis/O3a-Spin-Quadrupole-BH-mimicker-test-results/S190425z)<br> person responsible: Krishnendu|| Archisman: still running. **Please link intermediate postprocessing pages!** |||<br> Not affected by the PSD difference|
 |4.|[GW190512b](https://git.ligo.org/nv.krishnendu/lalsuite/-/wikis/O3a-Spin-Quadrupole-BH-mimicker-test-results/S190512at)<br> person responsible: Krishnendu||<br> <br> Anuradha: BBH: Why log L is different? <br> <br> Archisman: whys is t0 different? Is the BH run used for comparison a non-spinning run? <br> <br> Archisman (following Krishnendu's first comment): This looks better, thanks! There is a minor mtot railing. We need to decide what to do for runs such as these. <br> <br> Archisman: for symmetric, mtotal is bimodal. **ATTENTION:** Rerun is necessary for this event. Railing of mtotal is clear on this [postproc](https://ldas-jobs.ligo.caltech.edu/~nv.krishnendu/LSC/lalinference/O3/o3_a_tgr/S190512at/pv2_c01_prod/sym/ks/1241719652.42-0/V1H1L1/posplots.html) page. <br> <br> Anuradha (on reruns): <br> BBH: please confirm the Bayes factor<ks_pos> ks is totally unconstrained. It is expected for this kind of event? <br> <br> Archisman (on reruns): mchirp and mtotal are **bimodal**. No mtot railing. SIQM peak at slightly negative value. Totally unconstrained on positive side. Archisman **SIGNED OFF!** <br> Anuradha: **SIGNED OFF!**| <br> Krishnendu <br> Yes, this is now being addressed. I used Prod4 results for comparison and which was a non-spinning run. Now it is fixed. <br> <br> Krishnendu: <br> logL difference will not affect this case as well (BFs 53.17 [bh case](https://ldas-jobs.ligo.caltech.edu/~nv.krishnendu/LSC/lalinference/O3/o3_a_tgr/S190512at/pv2_c01_prod/bh/1241719652.42-0/V1H1L1/posplots.html) and 52.14 [ks_pos](https://ldas-jobs.ligo.caltech.edu/~nv.krishnendu/LSC/lalinference/O3/o3_a_tgr/S190512at/pv2_c01_prod/pos/ks/1241719652.42-0/V1H1L1/posplots.html) )<br> <br> Krishnendu: Currently, I am passing the following in the [config file](https://ldas-jobs.ligo.caltech.edu/~nv.krishnendu/LSC/lalinference/O3/o3_a_tgr/S190512at/pv2_c01_prod/config/Prod0_IMRPP_S190512at_Ks_pos.ini) for the mass parameters. The config file for [Prod0 config file](https://git.ligo.org/pe/O3/S190512at/-/tree/master/C01_offline) also uses the same q-min = 0.125, mtotal-min = 40, mtotal-max = 65. In [this](https://ldas-jobs.ligo.caltech.edu/~nv.krishnendu/LSC/lalinference/O3/o3_a_tgr/S190512at/pv2_c01_prod/comp_PE_Prod0_cbcBayesCompPos/bh_bh/), the BH run using our settings is compared with the PE-Prod0 results. Both the runs give almost same mtotal, mchirp posteriors (no prior railing) but for [ks_pos](https://ldas-jobs.ligo.caltech.edu/~nv.krishnendu/LSC/lalinference/O3/o3_a_tgr/S190512at/pv2_c01_prod/comp_PE_Prod0_cbcBayesCompPos/bh_ks_pos/) and[ks_sym](https://ldas-jobs.ligo.caltech.edu/~nv.krishnendu/LSC/lalinference/O3/o3_a_tgr/S190512at/pv2_c01_prod/comp_PE_Prod0_cbcBayesCompPos/bh_ks_sym/) cases there is a difference in the mchip estimate and the total mass shifted to lower mass end. <br> Any suggestion for rerun will be useful <br> <br> Rerun started with extending mtotal from mtotal-min = 20 to mtotal-max = 65 <br> Runs are over and waiting for results <br><br> Krishnendu: <br> On the rerun comments <br> log(BF) from [PE Prod](https://ldas-jobs.ligo.caltech.edu/~daniel.williams/projects/O3/S190512at/Prod0/home.html) run 51.48  and from the [SIQM BH run](https://ldas-jobs.ligo.caltech.edu/~nv.krishnendu/LSC/lalinference/O3/o3_a_tgr/S190512at/pv2_c01_prod/rerun/bh/home.html) is 53.06 <br> ks_pos being unconstrained is not surprising given the nature of [ks_sym posterior](https://ldas-jobs.ligo.caltech.edu/~nv.krishnendu/LSC/lalinference/O3/o3_a_tgr/S190512at/pv2_c01_prod/rerun/ks_sym/plots/ks_sym_1d_posterior_dQuadMonS.png) where negative side is better constrained <br> it is hard to find an explaination for the ks_sym asymetry from the completely unconstrained spin posteriors |Reruns are over. Addressed comments from reviewers <br><br> **SIGNED OFF!**|<br> Yes, reruns are adviced because of the difference in the estimated PSD for the three runs|
 |5.|[GW190521r](https://git.ligo.org/nv.krishnendu/lalsuite/-/wikis/O3a-Spin-Quadrupole-BH-mimicker-test-results/S190521r) <br> person responsible: Saleem|  | <br>Anuradha:<br> BBH: Why log L is different? <br> ks_pos: Why log L is different? q is shifted toward lower side. 1D ks plot is missing on the posplots.html page. <br> ks_sym: Why log L is different? 1D ks plot is missing on the posplots.html page. <br> <br> Archisman: Spins and spin angles are different (expected). Looks good. **SIGNED OFF!** <br><br> Anuradha: looks good. **SIGNED OFF** || **SIGNED OFF!**|<br> Yes, reruns are adviced because of the difference in the estimated PSD for the three runs|
-|6.|[GW190630a](https://git.ligo.org/nv.krishnendu/lalsuite/-/wikis/O3a-Spin-Quadrupole-BH-mimicker-test-results/S190630ag)<br> person responsible: Krishnendu| |<br>Anuradha: <br>BBH: Why is log L different? <br> ks_pos: Why is log L different? a1, a2 and chi_eff are less constrained. <br> Why is log L different?<br> ks_sym: no comparison page <br> <br> Archisman: where are the comparison pages? I could not find them. <br> <br> Archisman: Sorry, I still cannot find the comparison plots. I get to the following summary page, but I do not see any plot: https://ldas-jobs.ligo.caltech.edu/~nv.krishnendu/LSC/lalinference/O3/o3_a_tgr/S190630ag/pv2_c01_prod/comp_PE_Prod0/bh_ks_pos/home.html <br> <br> Is there an old-school post-processing page for an SIQM run for this event? <br> <br>Anuradha: looks good. **SIGNED OFF!** <br><br> Archisman: No mtot railing. SIQM sharp peak at zero but flat tail on both sides. **SIGNED OFF!** |<br> Krishnendu <br> <br> Please see this page for [PE results](https://ldas-jobs.ligo.caltech.edu/~nv.krishnendu/LSC/lalinference/O3/o3_a_tgr/S190630ag/pv2_c01_prod/) and [here](https://ldas-jobs.ligo.caltech.edu/~nv.krishnendu/LSC/lalinference/O3/o3_a_tgr/S190630ag/pv2_c01_prod/comp_PE_Prod0/) are the comparison page with PE Prod runs <br><br> Please find the cbcBayesCompPos page [here](https://ldas-jobs.ligo.caltech.edu/~nv.krishnendu/LSC/lalinference/O3/o3_a_tgr/S190630ag/pv2_c01_prod/comp_PE_Prod0_cbcBayesCompPos/) <br><br> Krishnendu (answering comments from Anuradha): <br> BBH logL difference again can be ignored everything else inclusing the BFs match here (PE Prod BF 98.82 and SIQM-BBH BFs 98.46 see [here](https://ldas-jobs.ligo.caltech.edu/~nv.krishnendu/LSC/lalinference/O3/o3_a_tgr/S190630ag/pv2_c01_prod/comp_PE_Prod0/bh_bh/home.html)) <br> compared to the BH estimate there is a slight difference in the [chirp-mass](https://ldas-jobs.ligo.caltech.edu/~nv.krishnendu/LSC/lalinference/O3/o3_a_tgr/S190630ag/pv2_c01_prod/comp_PE_Prod0/bh_ks_sym/html/Comparison_chirp_mass.html), [chi_eff](https://ldas-jobs.ligo.caltech.edu/~nv.krishnendu/LSC/lalinference/O3/o3_a_tgr/S190630ag/pv2_c01_prod/comp_PE_Prod0/bh_ks_sym/html/Comparison_chi_eff.html) and I think this is expected.|Comments accounted and **SIGNED OFF!**|<br> Yes, reruns are adviced because of the difference in the estimated PSD for the three runs|
+|6.|[GW190630a](https://git.ligo.org/nv.krishnendu/lalsuite/-/wikis/O3a-Spin-Quadrupole-BH-mimicker-test-results/S190630ag)<br> person responsible: Krishnendu| |<br>Anuradha: <br>BBH: Why is log L different? <br> ks_pos: Why is log L different? a1, a2 and chi_eff are less constrained. <br> Why is log L different?<br> ks_sym: no comparison page <br> <br> Archisman: where are the comparison pages? I could not find them. <br> <br> Archisman: Sorry, I still cannot find the comparison plots. I get to the following summary page, but I do not see any plot: https://ldas-jobs.ligo.caltech.edu/~nv.krishnendu/LSC/lalinference/O3/o3_a_tgr/S190630ag/pv2_c01_prod/comp_PE_Prod0/bh_ks_pos/home.html <br> <br> Is there an old-school post-processing page for an SIQM run for this event? <br> <br>Anuradha: looks good. **SIGNED OFF!** <br><br> Archisman: No mtot railing. SIQM sharp peak at zero but flat tail on both sides. **SIGNED OFF!** |<br> Krishnendu <br> <br> Please see this page for [PE results](https://ldas-jobs.ligo.caltech.edu/~nv.krishnendu/LSC/lalinference/O3/o3_a_tgr/S190630ag/pv2_c01_prod/) and [here](https://ldas-jobs.ligo.caltech.edu/~nv.krishnendu/LSC/lalinference/O3/o3_a_tgr/S190630ag/pv2_c01_prod/comp_PE_Prod0/) are the comparison page with PE Prod runs <br><br> Please find the cbcBayesCompPos page [here](https://ldas-jobs.ligo.caltech.edu/~nv.krishnendu/LSC/lalinference/O3/o3_a_tgr/S190630ag/pv2_c01_prod/comp_PE_Prod0_cbcBayesCompPos/) <br><br> Krishnendu (answering comments from Anuradha): <br> BBH logL difference again can be ignored everything else inclusing the BFs match here (PE Prod BF 98.82 and SIQM-BBH BFs 98.46 see [here](https://ldas-jobs.ligo.caltech.edu/~nv.krishnendu/LSC/lalinference/O3/o3_a_tgr/S190630ag/pv2_c01_prod/comp_PE_Prod0/bh_bh/home.html)) <br> compared to the BH estimate there is a slight difference in the [chirp-mass](https://ldas-jobs.ligo.caltech.edu/~nv.krishnendu/LSC/lalinference/O3/o3_a_tgr/S190630ag/pv2_c01_prod/comp_PE_Prod0/bh_ks_sym/html/Comparison_chirp_mass.html), [chi_eff](https://ldas-jobs.ligo.caltech.edu/~nv.krishnendu/LSC/lalinference/O3/o3_a_tgr/S190630ag/pv2_c01_prod/comp_PE_Prod0/bh_ks_sym/html/Comparison_chi_eff.html) and I think this is expected.|Comments accounted and **SIGNED OFF!**|<br> Yes, reruns are adviced because of the difference in the estimated PSD for the three runs, final runs are signed off|
 |7.|[GW190707a](https://git.ligo.org/nv.krishnendu/lalsuite/-/wikis/O3a-Spin-Quadrupole-BH-mimicker-test-results/S190707q)<br> person responsible: Krishnendu||<br> Anuradha: All the comparison pages have 'Prod0' vs 'Prod4' legends, so I am not sure if I am looking are correct plots. But I do see evidence for Mtot posterior trailing [here](https://ldas-jobs.ligo.caltech.edu/~nv.krishnendu/LSC/lalinference/O3/o3_a_tgr/S190707q/pv2_c01_prod/comp_PE_Prod0/bh_ks_pos/html/Comparison_All.html) <br> <br> Archisman: same question as Anuradha above. Also prod 4 seems to be an aligned spin run. Something rails against the mtot bound, but it is not clear what. Also it seems to slightly fall off near the bound, doesn't it? <br> <br> Archisman: Thanks the comparison page seems fixed! Both the PE and the SIQM run neem to be railing against the prior, but on closer inspection, it seems more likely that the posterior falls off just near the prior edge. The behavior is clearer on the source frame plot. I am happy to sign this off -- are the other reviewers fine with it? <br> <br> mtot prior goes down to 20 but samples only go down to 22-ish; so fine! <br> Anuradha: Looks good. **SIGNED OFF!** | <br> Krishnendu: <br>  <br> Not sure if we need a rerun for this event or not. <br> Base config is the Prod0 ini and there are [no open issues](https://git.ligo.org/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&snippets=&scope=issues&repository_ref=&search=S190707q&project_id=3816&button=) with this event <br>[bh-comparison page with the Prod results](https://ldas-jobs.ligo.caltech.edu/~nv.krishnendu/LSC/lalinference/O3/o3_a_tgr/S190707q/pv2_c01_prod/comp_PE_Prod0_cbcBayesCompPos/bh_bh/) <br><br> Issues regarding the comparison pages are fixed now. <br> Krishnendu: Not hitting the prior boundary [mtotal](https://ldas-jobs.ligo.caltech.edu/~nv.krishnendu/LSC/lalinference/O3/o3_a_tgr/S190707q/pv2_c01_prod/pos/ks/1246527224.18-0/H1L1/1Dpdf/mtotal.pdf) and [mtotal_source](https://ldas-jobs.ligo.caltech.edu/~nv.krishnendu/LSC/lalinference/O3/o3_a_tgr/S190707q/pv2_c01_prod/pos/ks/1246527224.18-0/H1L1/1Dpdf/mtotal_source.pdf)|**SIGNED OFF!**|<br> Yes, reruns are adviced because of the difference in the estimated PSD for the three runs|
 |8.|[GW190708a](https://git.ligo.org/nv.krishnendu/lalsuite/-/wikis/O3a-Spin-Quadrupole-BH-mimicker-test-results/S190708ap)<br> person responsible:Saleem ||<br> Anuradha: <br> BBH: Why log L, a1, a1z, and a2z are different? <br>ks_pos: a1z, and a2z are different. a1, a2 are totally unconstrained.  1D ks plot is missing on the posplots.html page. <br> ks_sym: a1z, a2z, a1, a2 are unconstrained. 1D ks plot is missing on the posplots.html page. <br> <br> Archisman: spins are significantly different. Why are spins estimated better for the SIQM run than for the PE run? Otherwise fine. In particular, no mtot railing. <br> <br> Archisman: PE comparison has been performed with Prod 2 which is a non-spinning run. Please fix this. <br><br> Anuradha: <br>BBH: Please confirm the Bayes factor. Why t0 and azimuth are different? <br> ks_pos/ks_sym: Why t0 is different? No mass parameters in the comparison pages. <br><br> Archisman: No mtot railing. SIQM sharp peak with flat tails. Potentially has t0 / altitude issue. Condition to this being still investigated, **SIGNED OFF!** <br> Anuradha: The difference in extrinsic parameters are attributed to difference in PSDs. **SIGNED OFF!**| Saleem:<br> Please see the updated comparison pages where the comparison with prod0 PE run has been made. <br> <br> The 1d-pdf can be seen in the pesummary page or are also linked directly from the table. <br><br> The logBF for [SIQM BBH and PE runs](https://ldas-jobs.ligo.caltech.edu/~muhammed.saleem/LSC/lalinference/O3/S190708ap/C01_run2/pv2/bbh/nest/1246663515.38359-0/L1V1/pesummary/home.html) are 64.38 and 65.3 respectively. <br><br> I am not sure why the t0 issue came up in the pesummary comparison page. The updated cbcBayes comparison pages seems to be all fine.  | |<br> Yes, reruns are adviced because of the difference in the estimated PSD for the three runs|
 |9.|[GW190720a](https://git.ligo.org/nv.krishnendu/lalsuite/-/wikis/O3a-Spin-Quadrupole-BH-mimicker-test-results/S190720a)<br> person responsible: Krishnendu||<br> Anuradha: There is one comparison page given, the label says 'BH comparison page' but when you go inside it has BH and ks_sym legends. So, I am not sure what am I looking at. Since there are no comparison plots, I am not sure if the results are alright. <br> There are evidence for Mtot posterior trailing [here](https://ldas-jobs.ligo.caltech.edu/~nv.krishnendu/LSC/lalinference/O3/o3_a_tgr/S190720a/pv2_prod_c01/comp_ks_bh/) and [here](https://ldas-jobs.ligo.caltech.edu/~nv.krishnendu/LSC/lalinference/O3/o3_a_tgr/S190720a/pv2_c01_prod/sym/ks/1247616534.7-0/V1H1L1/posplots.html) <br> <br> Archisman: Spins and spin angles are different (expected). Why is chirp mass so different? There is a minor railing of mtot against the prior. <br> <br> Archisman: This looks fine to me now. Chirp mass is fine. No mtot railing. <br> <br> Archisman: mtot prior goes down to 20 while samples go down to only about 23. **Krishnendu**, why do you want to rerun this? <br> Anuradha: looks good. **SIGNED OFF!**|<br> <br> Posteriors not hitting the prior boundary[mtotal_det](https://ldas-jobs.ligo.caltech.edu/~nv.krishnendu/LSC/lalinference/O3/o3_a_tgr/S190720a/pv2_c01_prod/sym/ks/1247616534.7-0/V1H1L1/1Dpdf/mtotal.pdf) <bt> [mtotal_source](https://ldas-jobs.ligo.caltech.edu/~nv.krishnendu/LSC/lalinference/O3/o3_a_tgr/S190720a/pv2_c01_prod/sym/ks/1247616534.7-0/V1H1L1/1Dpdf/mtotal_source.pdf) <br> After discussion on 29.05.2020 we decided to have no rerun | **SIGNED OFF!**|<br> Yes, reruns are adviced because of the difference in the estimated PSD for the three runs|