LIGO Document T1800508-v2
- In summary, we found no reason to veto the candidate. Only one of the core PEM channels was not working at the time of the candidate, and redundant channels provided good coverage. No signals on environmental channels evolved in time and frequency like the candidate. Based on injection and other studies, no signals were present on environmental channels that would produce the candidate through non-linear processes. However, the time-frequency paths of multiple environmental signals crossed the candidate’s long-lasting time-frequency path, and several signals were large enough that further investigations would be needed in order to claim that environmental signals made no contribution to DARM along the time-frequency path of the candidate. The estimates of the maximum environmental signal level in DARM, made from PEM injection studies, reached an SNR of 4. Any environmental contributions to DARM were small enough that they were not visible in DARM Omega Scans. The environmental signals were found to be local and non-correlated environmental noise in the two DARMs is accounted for in time-slide background estimates. Special attention was paid to EM data, including data from external EM observatories.
DCC Version 3.4.1, contact