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

@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@
 |3. |[GW190425z](https://git.ligo.org/nv.krishnendu/lalsuite/-/wikis/O3a-Spin-Quadrupole-BH-mimicker-test-results/S190425z)<br> person responsible: Krishnendu| ||  | **event removed from paper** |Not affcted, RA from the prvious runs|
 |4.|[GW190512b](https://git.ligo.org/nv.krishnendu/lalsuite/-/wikis/O3a-Spin-Quadrupole-BH-mimicker-test-results/S190512at)<br> person responsible: Krishnendu| Prod0 OK. <br> Anuradha: OK.| Archisman: No mtot railing; masses bimodal (particularly for sym). SIQM no neg railing; pos unconstrained. **SIGNED OFF!** <br><br> Anuradha: <br> BBH: tc, t0, \rho_ML, logL, mtot, cos(alpha), Mchirp are different. Do we understand why? <br> sym/pos: Why azimuth, t0, cos(alpha) different? <br> In sym run, the **ACF** for Mc, m2, mtot, a, S1z, S2z, chi_eff, chi_p look suspicious. <br><br>Krishnendu: Differences are expected especially on masses as the total mass prior is different from the PE-Prod run <br> ACF issues affected or not? <br><br> Archisman: sym only 1 chain! pos 4 chains OK. <br><br>Anuradha: The difference in t0, alpha, azimuth is due to the different choice of the first detector. The difference in mass is due different prior choice. **SIGNED OFF!**| | **SIGNED OFF!**|Yes, reruns finished and results are uploaded|
 |5.|[GW190521r](https://git.ligo.org/nv.krishnendu/lalsuite/-/wikis/O3a-Spin-Quadrupole-BH-mimicker-test-results/S190521r) <br> person responsible: Saleem| Prod0 OK. <br>Anuradha: OK.|Anuradha: looks good. **SIGNED OFF!**<br><br> Archisman: No mtot railing. SIQM OK. sym 4 chains OK. pos 4 chains OK. **SIGNED OFF!** |  |**SIGNED OFF!**|Yes, reruns finished and results are uploaded |
-|6.|[GW190630a](https://git.ligo.org/nv.krishnendu/lalsuite/-/wikis/O3a-Spin-Quadrupole-BH-mimicker-test-results/S190630ag)<br> person responsible: Krishnendu| Prod0/5 OK. <br> Anuradha: OK.| Archisman: No mtot railing. SIQM sym kink at zero; neg some railing; pos no railing; OK. **pos results currently linking to sym.** <br><br> <br> Krishnendu: fixed <br><br>Anuradha: The Comparison_All.html pages do not open for me. No dkappaS plots. <br><br> <br> Krishnendu: Please see the updated pages. <br><br> Archisman: no mtot railing. sym 4 chains OK. pos 4 chains OK. **Why are there no SIQM plots?** <br><br> Anuradha: Looks good. **SIGNED OFF** <br><br> Archisman: No mtot railing. SIQM looks good on posplots pages. **Ready to be signed off** but why are the SIQM params not plotted on the PE summary pages? | || Yes, reruns finished and results are uploaded |
+|6.|[GW190630a](https://git.ligo.org/nv.krishnendu/lalsuite/-/wikis/O3a-Spin-Quadrupole-BH-mimicker-test-results/S190630ag)<br> person responsible: Krishnendu| Prod0/5 OK. <br> Anuradha: OK.| Archisman: No mtot railing. SIQM sym kink at zero; neg some railing; pos no railing; OK. **pos results currently linking to sym.** <br><br> <br> Krishnendu: fixed <br><br>Anuradha: The Comparison_All.html pages do not open for me. No dkappaS plots. <br><br> <br> Krishnendu: Please see the updated pages. <br><br> Archisman: no mtot railing. sym 4 chains OK. pos 4 chains OK. **Why are there no SIQM plots?** <br><br> Anuradha: Looks good. **SIGNED OFF** <br><br> Archisman: No mtot railing. SIQM looks good on posplots pages. **Ready to be signed off** but why are the SIQM params not plotted on the PE summary pages? <br><br> Archisman (2020-09-15): Looks very good. **SIGNED OFF**| || Yes, reruns finished and results are uploaded |
 |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|