1: \section{Analysis}\label{sec:Analysis}
2:
3: The goal of the analysis is either to identify significant events
4: in the signal region or, in the absence of significant events, to
5: set a limit on the strength of the associated gravitational wave
6: signal. Simulations and background data were used to determine the
7: detection efficiency for various ad-hoc and model-based waveforms
8: (Section~\ref{sec:Efficiencies}) and the false alarm rate of the
9: detection algorithm respectively.
10:
11: The analysis takes advantage of the information provided by the
12: astrophysical trigger. The trigger time determined when to perform
13: the analysis. As discussed below, the time window to be analyzed
14: around the trigger time was chosen to accommodate most current
15: theoretical predictions and timing uncertainties. The source
16: direction was needed to calculate the attenuation due to the LIGO
17: detector's antenna pattern for the astrophysical interpretation.
18:
19: The two co-located and co-aligned Hanford detectors had very similar
20: frequency-dependent response functions at the time of the trigger.
21: Consequently, the detected arrival time and recorded waveforms of a
22: gravitational wave signal should be essentially the same in both
23: detectors. It is natural then to consider cross-correlation of the
24: two data streams as the basis of a search algorithm. This conclusion
25: can also be reached via a more formal argument based on the maximum
26: log-Likelihood ratio test~\cite{Anderson01,Mohanty04}.
27:
28: The schematic of the full analysis pipeline is shown in
29: Figure~\ref{fig:PIPE}. The underlying analysis algorithm is
30: described in detail in Ref.~\cite{Mohanty04}.
31: \begin{figure}[!t]
32: %\includegraphics[angle=0,width=84mm, bb={0 0 1204 903}]{Fig/PIPE.png}
33: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=84mm]{PIPE.eps}
34: \caption{The schematic of the analysis pipeline } \label{fig:PIPE}
35: \end{figure}
36: The background data, the signal region data and the simulations are
37: all processed identically. The background region consists of the
38: data where we do not expect to have a gravitational wave signal
39: associated with the GRB. We scan the background to determine the
40: false alarm distribution and to set a threshold on the event
41: strength that will yield an acceptable false alarm rate. This
42: threshold is used when scanning the signal region and simulations.
43: In order to estimate our sensitivity to gravitational waves,
44: simulated signals of varying strength are added to the detector data
45: streams.
46:
47: The signal region around the GRB trigger is scanned to identify
48: outstanding signals. If events were detected above threshold, in
49: this region, their properties would be tested against those
50: expected from gravitational waves. If no events were found above
51: threshold, we would use the estimated sensitivity to set an upper
52: limit on the gravitational wave strain at the detector.
53:
54: The output from each interferometer is divided into 330~sec long
55: segments with a 15~second overlap between consecutive segments (both
56: ends), providing a tiling of the data with 300~second long segments.
57: In order to avoid edge effects, the 180~sec long signal region lies
58: in the middle of one such 300~sec long segment. This tiling method
59: also allows for adaptive data conditioning and places the
60: conditioning filter (see Sec.~\ref{sec:DataConditioning} below)
61: transients well outside of the 300 second long segment containing
62: the signal region.
63:
64: \subsection{Choice of signal region}\label{sec:Signal_region}
65:
66: Current models suggest~\cite{Meszaros03} that the gravitational wave
67: signature should appear close to the GRB trigger time. We
68: conservatively chose the duration and position of the signal region
69: to over-cover most predictions and to allow for the expected
70: uncertainties associated with the GRB trigger timing. A 180 second
71: long window (see Figure~\ref{fig:HETE}), starting 120 seconds before
72: the GRB trigger time is sufficient; roughly ten times wider than the
73: GRB light curve features, and wide enough to include most
74: astrophysical predictions. Most models favor an ordering where the
75: arrival of the gravitational wave precedes the GRB
76: trigger~\cite{Meszaros03}, but in a few other cases the
77: gravitational wave arrival is predicted to be
78: contemporaneous~\cite{Araya-Gochez03,Putten04} to the arrival and
79: duration of the gamma rays (i.e after the GRB trigger). The 60
80: second region after the GRB trigger time, is sufficient to cover
81: these predictions and also contains allowance for up to 30 seconds
82: uncertainty on trigger timing, which is a reasonable choice in the
83: context of the HETE light curve. Figure~(\ref{fig:HETE}) shows a
84: signal rise time of order $10~s$, precursor signals separated from
85: the main peak, and significant structure within the main signal
86: itself. Effects due to the beaming dynamics of the GRB and the
87: instrumental definition of the trigger time can also be significant
88: contributors to the timing uncertainty.
89:
90: \subsection{Search algorithm}\label{sec:SearchAlgorithm}
91:
92: \subsubsection{Data Conditioning}\label{sec:DataConditioning}
93:
94: The data-conditioning step was designed to remove instrumental
95: artifacts from the data streams. We used an identical data
96: conditioning procedure when processing the background, the signal
97: region and the simulations.
98:
99: The raw data streams have narrowband lines, associated with the
100: power line harmonics at multiples of 60Hz, the violin modes of the
101: mirror suspension wires and other narrow band noise sources. The
102: presence of lines has a detrimental effect on our sensitivity
103: because lines can produce spurious correlations between detectors.
104: In addition, the broadband noise shows significant variations over
105: timescales of hours and smaller variations over timescales of
106: minutes and seconds due to alignment drift and fluctuations. The
107: background data must portray a representative sample of the
108: detector behavior around the time of the trigger. Broadband
109: non-stationarity can limit the duration of this useful background
110: data and hence the reliability of our estimated false alarm rate.
111:
112: Our cross correlation based algorithm performs best on white
113: spectra without line features. We use notch filters to remove the
114: well-known lines, such as power line and violin mode harmonics
115: from both data streams. Strong lines of unknown origin with
116: stationary mean frequency are also removed at this point. We also
117: apply a small correction to mitigate the difference between the
118: phase and amplitude response of the two Hanford detectors.
119:
120: We bandpass filter and decimate the data to a sampling rate of
121: 4096~Hz to restrict the frequency content to the ${\simeq}80$~Hz to
122: ${\simeq}2048$~Hz region, which was the most sensitive band for both
123: LIGO Hanford detectors during the S2 run.
124:
125: In order to properly remove weaker stationary lines and the small
126: residuals of notched strong lines, correct for small slow changes
127: in the spectral sensitivity and whiten the spectrum of the data,
128: we use adaptive line removal and whitening. As all strong lines
129: are removed before the adaptive whitening, we avoid potential
130: problems due to non-stationary lines and enhance the efficiency of
131: the follow up adaptive filtering stage. The conditioned data has a
132: consistent white spectrum without major lines and sufficient
133: stationarity, from segment to segment, throughout the background
134: and signal regions.
135:
136: The end result of the pre-processing is a data segment with a flat
137: power spectral density (white noise), between $\simeq$80~Hz and
138: $\simeq$2048~Hz. The data conditioning was applied consistently
139: after the signal injections. This ensures that any change in
140: detection efficiency due to the pre-processing is properly taken
141: into account.
142:
143: \subsubsection{Gravitational Wave Search Algorithm}\label{sec:Algorithm}
144:
145: The test statistics for a pair of data streams are constructed as
146: follows. We take pairs of short segments, one from each stretch,
147: and compute their cross-correlation function. The actual form of
148: the cross-correlation used ($\widetilde{C}^{m,n}_{k,p,j}$) is
149: identical to the common Euclidean inner product:
150: \begin{equation}
151: \widetilde{C}^{m,n}_{k,p,j}= \sum_{i=-j}^{j} H_m[k+i]
152: H_n[k+p+i]~,~
153: \end{equation}
154: where the pre-conditioned time series from detector ``x" is ${\bf
155: H}_x=\{H_x[0],H_x[1],\ldots\}$ and i,k,p and j are all integers
156: indexing the data time series, with each datum being (1/4096)~s
157: long. As we now only consider the two Hanford detectors ``m" and
158: ``n" can only assume values of 1 ($H_1$) or 2 ($H_2$). There are
159: therefore three free parameters to scan when searching for
160: coherent segments of data between a pair of interferometers (m,n):
161: 1. the center time of the segment from the first detector (k); 2.
162: the relative time lag between the segments from the two detectors
163: (p); and 3. the common duration of segments (2j+1) called the
164: integration length.
165:
166: The optimum integration length to use for computing the
167: cross-correlation depends on the duration of the signal and its
168: signal-to-noise ratio, neither of which is {\em a priori} known.
169: Therefore the cross-correlation should be computed from segment
170: pairs with start times and lengths varying over values, which
171: should, respectively, cover the expected arrival times (signal
172: region) and consider durations of the gravitational wave burst
173: signals~\cite{Muller2004,Fryer2004,Fryer2002,Zwerger1997,Dimmelmeier2002,Burrows1996}
174: ($\sim$O(1-128ms)).
175:
176: Hence we apply a search algorithm~\cite{Mohanty04} that processes
177: the data in the following way.
178:
179: (1) A three dimensional quantity (${\cal C}_{k,j}[p]$) is
180: constructed:
181: \begin{equation}\label{CCStat}
182: {\cal C}_{k,j}[p] =
183: \left[\left({\widetilde{C}^{1,2}_{k,p,j}}\right)^2 +
184: \left({\widetilde{C}^{2,1}_{k,-p,j}}\right)^2\right]^{1/2}\;,
185: \end{equation}
186: scanning the range of segment center times (k), integration
187: lengths (2j+1) and relative time shifts ($p =
188: 0,\pm1,\pm2,\ldots$). A coherent and coincident signal is expected
189: to leave its localized signature within this three dimensional
190: quantity.
191:
192: We use a fine rectangular grid in relative time shift (p) and
193: integration length (2j+1) space. The spacing between grid points is
194: $\simeq$1~ms for the segment center time (k) and (1/4096)~s for the
195: relative time shift. The spacing of the integration lengths is
196: approximately logarithmic. Each consecutive integration length is
197: ${\simeq}$50\% longer than the previous one, covering integration
198: lengths from ${\simeq}$1~ms to ${\simeq}$128~ms.
199:
200: Introducing small, non-physical relative time shifts (much larger
201: than the expected signal duration) between the two data streams
202: before computing the cross-correlation matrix suppresses the average
203: contribution from a GW signal. This property can be used to estimate
204: the local noise properties, thereby mitigating the effects of
205: non-stationarity in the interferometer outputs. Accordingly, ${\cal
206: C}_{k,j}[p]$ contains the autocorrelation of the coherent signal for
207: relative time shifts at and near p~$=$~0 (called ``\emph{core}"),
208: while far away, in the ``side \emph{lobes}", the contribution from
209: the signal autocorrelation is absent, sampling only the random
210: contributions to the cross-correlation arising from the noise. The
211: optimal choice of the core size depends on the expected signal
212: duration (integration length), the underlying detector noise and it
213: cannot be smaller than the relative phase uncertainty of the
214: datastreams. The core region can reach as far as 5~ms, as it
215: increases with increasing integration length. The size of each side
216: lobe is twice the size of the core region and the median time shift
217: associated with the side lobes can be as large as 325~ms as it is
218: also increasing with increasing integration length. We use the side
219: lobes of ${\cal C}_{k,j}[p]$ to estimate the mean
220: ($\widehat{\mu}_{k,j}$) and variance ($\widehat{\sigma}_{k,j}$) of
221: the local noise distribution, which is also useful in countering the
222: effects of non-stationarity.
223:
224: \begin{figure}[!t]
225: %\includegraphics[angle=0,width=87mm, bb={0 0 650 721}]{Fig/Corrgram.png}
226: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=87mm]{Corrgram.eps}
227: \caption{Examples of corrgram images. The horizontal axes are time
228: (linearly scaled) and the vertical axes are integration length
229: (logarithmically scaled). The color axis, an indicator of the excess
230: correlation, is independently auto-scaled for each quadrant for
231: better visibility, therefore the meaning of colors differ from
232: quadrant to quadrant. The time ticks also change from quadrant to
233: quadrant for better visibility. The rainbow type color scale goes
234: from blue to red, dark red marking the most significant points
235: within a quadrant. The upper two quadrants show the corrgram image
236: of injected Sine-Gaussians (250~Hz,~Q~$=$~8.9). The bottom quadrants
237: are examples of noise. The maximum of the intensity scale is
238: significantly higher for both quadrants with injections, when
239: compared to the noise examples. The top left injection is strong
240: enough to be significantly above the preset detection threshold,
241: while the top right injection is weak enough to fall significantly
242: below the detection threshold.} \label{fig:Corrgram}
243: \end{figure}
244:
245: (2) The three dimensional quantity is reduced to a two dimensional
246: image (see Fig.~\ref{fig:Corrgram}), called a {\em corrgram}, as
247: follows. The values of ${\cal C}_{k,j}[p]$ in the core region are
248: standardized by subtracting $\widehat{\mu}_{k,j}$ and then dividing
249: by $\widehat{\sigma}_{k,j}$. {\em Positive} standardized values in
250: the core region are summed over $p$ to determine the value of the
251: corrgram pixel. Each pixel is a measure of the excess
252: cross-correlation in the core region when compared to the expected
253: distribution characterized by the side lobes for the given (k,j)
254: combination.
255:
256: (3) A list of events is found by recursively identifying and
257: characterizing significant regions (called ``clusters") in the
258: corrgram image. Each event is described by its arrival time, its
259: optimal integration length and its strength (ES). The event's
260: arrival time and its optimal integration length correspond to the
261: most significant pixel of the cluster. The event strength is
262: determined by averaging the five most significant pixels of the
263: cluster, as this is helpful in discriminating against random
264: fluctuations of the background noise.
265:
266: The strength of each event is then compared to a preset detection
267: threshold corresponding to the desired false alarm rate. This
268: detection threshold is determined via extensive scans of the
269: background region.
270: