|
|
|
**Attendance**:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anand, Soumen, Arun, Haris, and Nathan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Agenda:**
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Soumen: Overview of the analysis and codes.
|
|
|
|
* Discuss the review plan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Minutes**
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Presentation by Soumen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Haris: How are you computing the FAP? Is it against H_0(data=noise) or against H_22(data= h_22)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> Anand, Soumen: Current results are with H_0. But, if you do the analysis with residual data instead of full, then it is okay to compute FAP with H_0.
|
|
|
|
> Nathan has sent an email to residuals/BayesWave people. Let's wait for their reply.
|
|
|
|
> If we want to try ourselves: Residual computation code: https://git.ligo.org/james-clark/gw-compare
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Haris: What are the statements and plots proposing for the paper?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> Anand: Will check with the PWT and finalize the statements by the next call.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Haris, Nathan: Should we stick with GraceDB parameters or PE Max values?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> Anand: As the PE results are available we can use them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Nathan: The event parameters are hardcoded in the current script. It would be good if we have a general set of code which can take event name and parameters as input.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> Soumen: Will reorganize the codes in a few days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Haris: Why the analysis on GW190414 restricted only to L1 detector?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> Anand: Should add results of other detectors for completeness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
***Next call: 11/11/2019, Monday 5PM IST(11:30 UTC)****
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
