cWB2G prc paper is on trac repository. A very old version that should be probably rewritten.

First comments

Reading the old version, these are some comments:

• Check the earth coordinates of KAGRA and LIGO/India
  Last paper should be Phys. Rew. D 90, 024053 (2014)
• Check if the sensitivity curves have changed
  The same paper gives the same curves we are already using (as it seems comparing the figures)
• Analysis probably should be re-done with an appropriate cWB svn version and configuration parameters: establish which
• Decide which waveform to use and distribution

Past articles/Presentation/Poster

• Klimenko et al, Phys. Rev. D 83, 102001
• Amaldi poster (DCC ligo)
• Past test on wiki page:
  http://www.virgo.lnl.infn.it/Wiki/index.php/PRC_with_LCI_LF_Detectors
  http://www.virgo.lnl.infn.it/Wiki/index.php/PRC_with_LCI_LLF_Detector
  http://www.virgo.lnl.infn.it/Wiki/index.php/PRC_with_LCI_LF_LLF_Detectors
  http://www.virgo.lnl.infn.it/Wiki/index.php/PRC_with_LCT_Detectors
  http://www.virgo.lnl.infn.it/Wiki/index.php/PRC_with_ET_Detectors
  http://www.virgo.lnl.infn.it/Wiki/index.php/PRC_BHBHm50m50_with_LCI_Detector
  http://www.virgo.lnl.infn.it/Wiki/index.php/PRC_BRST_LF_with_L_LCI_Detector

State of the art

Reed paper presents results for 2015HL and 2016HLV, link at DCC. This paper should presents results from 3-fold network to 5-fold network, adding analysis using Invariant Topology detectors.

Last results on source reconstruction are in this wiki page. In particular:

1. The comparison of un-modeled search (row 22) with respect to a previous version link shows little difference, some better, other worse, but not so important. Improvements with respect to 1G still remains.
2. Some not understood aspects remains, in particular on P search (row 21). This search performs a circular constraint adding a transformation on the pixel composing the cluster. In particular this transformation make a projection of the pixels likelihood according to the mean values of all composing the cluster. For an example see the link under the title "G & MASK". It is not still clear why the circular polarization waveform has worse results while linear polarization ones are better.

Results with last pipeline version

I made some simulations of SG for various Q for LHV network. Results report median value of erA[0] over each single sky pixel (Healpix=4) and construct Lars Histogram.

THIS RESULTS ARE MADE WITH FIXED NETWORK SNR ALONG THE SKY

Results show a dependency on frequency according to the sensitivity curve as in the figure:

L1H1V1	Median of erA[0]	90 Percentile of erA[0]
Linear Sine Gaussian, changing of Q
SGQ100 SGQ45 SGQ30 SGQ15 SGQ9  SGQ6 SGQ3 
SGQ9 ​Sample rate and Sky grid limitations
SGQ9  SGQ9_upTDF SGQ9_Healpix8 SGQ9_Healpix_upTDF Benchmark (h) SGQ9 : 0.19 upDTF: 0.26 Healpix: 0.32 Healpix_upTDF: 0.38
Elliptical waveform SGEQ9 Search R
e=1.0 (C) e=0.6 e=0.4 e=0.3 e=0.2 e=0.1 e=0.0 (L)

Comments and other proposal

According to the results, the following comes out:

• For lower frequency (up to 500 Hz) the curves seems following the behaviour of 1/f^2, like in Wen&Chen formula
• For upper frequency, the results are probably related to algorithm approximation, this is quite confirmed by test with upTDF=8 (instead of 4) for SGQ9
• For higher Q, performances worse, because it enters the group error, other than phase error. It would be nice to identify the correlation between the two effects

NOTES FOR INVARIANT DETECTOR PAPER

Starting proposal

• Networks: Starting point could be to analyze networks with L-shape detectors: from 3-fold to 5-fold, following the future starting-on on the detector (L1H1V1 - L1H1V1K1 - L1H1V1K1I1)
• cWB2G:
  standard parameters
  no regulators (delta=gamma=0)
  P search
  Single resolution (?)
• Waveforms:
  Inject with a distribution uniform in volume
  use the same as PhysRevD.83.102001: (SG235Q8d9, SG235Q3, SGC235Q9, WNB_250_100_0d1), for making general consideration of the behaviour of different network
  CBC-like signals, but which parameters?
• Invariant detectors
  Which IT? There should be no so much differences between IT90, IT45, ET, we can make a test comparison performances between these three and then choose one of them
  Network: 3-fold with 1 IT, 3-fold with 2 IT, 4-fold with 1-IT, 4-fold with 2-IT

Paper section

How is the paper now and what should be written in each section:

1. Introduction
   standard introduction about EM follow up, and past literature
2. Advanced network
   list of present and future Adv, description of waveforms, results for 3-4-5 fold
3. Beyond advanced detectors
   description of 3G det, study of triangulation and antenna patterns (introducing IT section) (Join with following section?)
4. Invariant detector topology
   definition of IT, performances
5. Optimal IT network
   comparison of cartesian, big circle, tetrahedron networks with existing ones. (Maintain???)
6. CBC
   Results reporting a test with CBC
7. Conclusions

MDC:

• Waveforms with duration and frequency distributed on interesting values:
  • SineGaussian: f=[70,2000]Hz logarithmically distributed
    Q=[3,100] logarithmically distributed
    Linear and Elliptical (cos(iota) uniformly distributed) -> Two sets
  • White Noise Burst: Uniformly distributed in central frequency [100,2000]Hz, duration [1,100]ms and bandwidth [10,1000]Hz
  • BBH: could be the same population as Reed, Mtot=[15,25] uniformly distributed
    should be use constraint on the chirp mass?
  • I would not use Gaussian.
• Distance distribution: uniform in volume (For SG and WNB difficult to establish a range).