LIGO Document T1900308-v1

Recording from OpenLVEM telecon on May 23, 2019

Document #:
Document type:
T - Technical notes
Other Versions:
Recording from the telecon
Files in Document:
Notes and Changes:
Chat messages:
09:57:13> *** You are now talking in channel: "OpenLVEM Town Meeting"
10:00:12> "Michael Schimp": Will the recording be publically available?
10:00:16> "Brian O'Reilly [h]": I made the posted talks public. Chat me if there are new slides
10:00:39> "Nicolas Leroy":
10:01:41> "Michael Schimp": thanks!
10:03:58> "Nicolas Leroy":
10:05:06> "Leo Singer (iPhone)": is anyone speaking?
10:05:22> "patrick.brady": yes
10:05:26> "patrick.brady": nicholas
10:06:18> "katsavounidis": The audio bridge is not working properly
10:06:52> "Edo Berger": Are these duty cycles integrated since April 1?
10:07:13> "Brian O'Reilly [h]": @Edo yes
10:08:39> "katsavounidis": the audio bridge is now working OK
10:09:18> "David Williams UCSC": Will the break reduce the overall duration of O3, or will the end of O3 be pushed back as a result of the break?
10:09:59> "David Williams UCSC": thank you
10:14:34> "wheel": where are the files being discussed now?
10:14:50> "Nicolas Leroy":
10:15:12> "Nicolas Leroy": agenda for the call :
10:19:33> "Dave Sand": Are there any 'exceptional event' papers currently being written for O3?
10:20:24> "Dave Sand": thanks!
10:20:36> "Edo Berger": Any update on S190426c in terms of both FAR and various p(astro) values for different configurtions?
10:21:14> "Juan Garcia-Bellido": What happened to S190510g to drop to 42%?
10:22:15> "Edo Berger": Thanks.
10:22:41> "Juan Garcia-Bellido": What about S190518bb classified as BNS
10:23:26> "Juan Garcia-Bellido": Do we take it seriously?
10:23:42> "Brian O'Reilly [h]": S190518bb was retracted -> next talk
10:24:01> "Juan Garcia-Bellido": What does "non-stationarity of noise" mean?
10:24:28> "dahowell [Andy Howell]": What makes GW190425 exceptional?
10:25:15> "katsavounidis": more data collected
10:26:32> "steve.schulze": Hi, given the significant change in the FAR in a few cases, is it possible to make the LIGO data immediately publicly available to teams who want to verify the significance of the detection? E.g., Venumadhav et al. presented a new search pipeline (https/ Of course, there is the issue that other teams could infer the physical parameters for any merger event. This could be resolved with an MoU that does not allow any team except LIGO to publish the results unless LIGO gives permission or the data get public. Having an independent verification would be vital for all EM follow-up.
10:27:56> "Dave Sand": nope, can't hear
10:37:19> "Juan Garcia-Bellido": In slide 9 of S190518bb where is the actual avent, below the noise?
10:37:44> "Juan Garcia-Bellido": No clear chrip...
10:37:55> "Juan Garcia-Bellido": Thanks
10:39:53> "Edo Berger": Do you consider S190518bb to require a revision of the OPA FAR threshold, or is this a unique failure mode? Does it make sense to provide individual detector SNR/FAR (in addition to network FAR) to provide the EM community with a sense of detection robustness?
10:41:12> "Leo Singer": Hand up
10:42:26> "Heinz-Bernd Eggenstein": That EQ is is this, right? . It wasn't registered in near-realtime by seismic networks?
10:42:38> "Leo Singer": Yes
10:44:17> "Peter Shawhan": Hand up
10:45:09> "Kunal P. Mooley": Crude constraints on inclination angle will be useful for EM observers, even if delayed by several days from merger. Is this possible to do?
10:45:42> "Edo Berger": Thanks Leo - can you send aound an lvem email with the name of the parameter you mentioned (CBI?) and an explanation?
10:45:49> "Brian O'Reilly [h]": @Heinz-Bernd Eggenstein - Yes, that appears to be the quake. It did register on our seismometer, but we didn't have that plot at the time of the discussion (due to a technical issue in making it).
10:45:50> "Leo Singer": LOG_BCI=-10 means that the odds ratio is e(10) in favor of incoherence
10:46:29> "Leo Singer": Edo: as Patrick has said, a similar statistic is already incorporated into the FAR.
10:46:50> "Leo Singer": We wouldn't encourage anyone to reinterpret or second-guess the FAR based on other quantities.
10:47:54> "Eleonora": I agreee with Kunal, an estimate of the inclination angle would be important to have
10:48:03> "steve.schulze": thanks
10:50:08> "Leo Singer": Yes
10:50:29> "Leo Singer":
10:50:55> "Daniele Bjørn Malesani": Would you consider adding the averaged distance (and error) directly in the GCN notices? The info is anyway in the skymaps and GraceDB, but would be convenient to have it right away.
10:52:01> "Daniele Bjørn Malesani": Thanks. Will put the request to the appropriate addresses
10:52:20> "Leo Singer": Hand up about GCN circular titles
10:56:15> "Leo Singer": Thank you
10:57:01> "David Williams UCSC": Thank you. These calls are very helpful.
10:57:03> "Kunal P. Mooley": thanks! bye
10:57:03> "Leo Singer": Bye!
10:57:04> "Erik Blaufuss- IceCube": thanks!
10:57:07> "Enzo Brocato": thanks bye
10:57:12> "Fabian Schüssler": bye
10:57:13> "ThierryPradier[ANTARES/KM3NeT]": Bye bye
10:57:17> "APossenti": thanks bye

DCC Version 3.3.0, contact Document Database Administrators