Progress and Preliminary Results of TAMA Data Analysis
Transcript of Progress and Preliminary Results of TAMA Data Analysis
Progress and Preliminary Results of
TAMA Data Analysis8th GWDAW,
Milwaukee WI, USA, 16th Dec. 2003
Nobuyuki KandaDepartment of PhysicsOsaka City University
and
the TAMA collaboration
2
Outline1. Detector status
Search for GW :2. Burst GW3. Inspiral Gravitational Wave4. Black-hole QNM ringdown GW5. Continuous GW from SN1987 remnant
Data Qualify :6. Online veto study
Cooperation :7. LIGO-TAMA coincidence analysis
8. Remarks
3
Detector status (briefly)
4
Detector Statusthe TAMA collaboration
National Astronomical Observatory (NAOJ), Institute for Cosmic Ray Research (ICRR), The University of Tokyo,
High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), University of Electro-Communications, Osaka City University, Osaka University,
Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics, Kyoto University, Niigata University, Hirosaki University, Tohoku University, Hiroshima University,
Tokyo Denki University, National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, Tokai University
5
Latest Sensitivity
10-21
10-20
10-19
10-18
10-17
10-16
10-15
10-14
10-13
h e
quiv
alen
t no
ise
spec
trum
[/s
qrt(
Hz)]
101 102 103 104 Frequency [Hz]
h equivalent noise spectrum of TAMA300
2001/06 (DT6) 2002/08/31 (DT7) 2003/02/20 (DT8) 2003/11/04 (DT9)
h ~ 2 x 10-21 [/√Hz] @ 1kHz
6
Observable Range
* for optimal incident direction
567
1
2
3
4
567
10
2
3
4
567
100
2
3
Obse
rvab
le D
ista
nce
with
SNR
=10
[kpc
]
0.1 1 10 100mass of accompanying star [Msolar]
Distance of detecting inspirals with SNR=10 2003/11/04 (DT9)
Inspiral QNM ringdown
0.5Msolar-32.6kpc
1.4Msolar-72.5kpc
2.7Msolar-96.3kpc
10Msolar-21.9kpc
Range with SNR = 10 for inspiral GW and BH ringdown GW
7
CommissioningData Taking period actual data amount take note
DT1 8/6 - 7/1999 ~3 + ~7 hours continuous lock first whole system test
DT2 9/17 - 20/1999 31 hours first Physics run
DT3 4/20 - 23/2000 13 hours
-- 8/14/2000 World best sensitivity h ~ 5x10-21 [1/√Hz]
DT4 8/21 - 9/3/2000 167 hours stable long run
DT5 3/1 - 3/8/2001 111 hours
Test Run 1 6/4 - 6/6/2001Longest stretch of continuous lock
is 24:50keep running all day
DT6 8/1 - 9/20/20011038 hours
duty cycle 86%full-dressed run
DT7 8/31 - 9/2/2002 24 hours with duty cycle 76.7%Recycling,
h ~ 3x10-21 [1/√Hz],Simultaneous obs with LIGO & GEO
DT8 2/14 – 4/14/20031168 hours,
duty cycle 81.1%coincidence obs with
LIGO S2
DT910/31(Actually 11/
28)/2003 – 1/5/2003
weekday: night timeweekend: full time
partial coincidence run with LIGO S3trying ‘crewless’ operation
8
DT9 – on going –
9
Search for GW events
10
Search for GW:
Burst Gravitational Wave
1. Target SourceSupernova core collapseFrequency band : a few 100 Hz – a few kHzWithout strict waveform assumption
2. Excess power filterSpectrogramIntegration : Df - Dt
3. Non-Gauss noise rejectionSpike like <–> level drift
11
Burst GW:
Excess power filterraw data signal Spectrogram (t-f plane)
Integration for Frourie domainDf = 500 Hz, Dt =200 msec
12
Noise behaviormean power VS 2nd moment of power fluctuationraw data -> time slicej-th time slices -> parameter
mean power of trend:
2nd moment of power fluctuation
Burst GW :
Non-Gauss noise rejection
C2 =12
(< P 2
j >
< Pj >2− 1
)C1 =< Pj >
See the talk by Masaki Ando : “Search results for burst gravitational waves with TAMA data”at Thursday 18th, session “event Search III : Burst”
13
1. Known wave formcoalescence of compact binaries ;NS-NS, NS-BH, BH-BH, PBMACHO
2. Known noise spectrum in Fourier domain3. Linear system
signal: s(t) = n(t) + a h(t)noise component :n(t), GW signal: a h(t)average noise power spectrum: Sh(f)
template waveform: h(t)signal-to-noise ratio:
chi^2 test
Search for GW:
Inspiral Gravitational Wave
ρ(τ ; parameters) = 2∫ f2
f1
h̃∗(f) · s̃(f)Sh(f)
e−i2πfτdf
SNR = ρ/√
2
14
Observable Range for Inspiral GW
56
1
2
3456
10
2
3456
100
2
3
Obse
rvab
le D
ista
nce
with
SNR
=10
[kpc
]
0.1 1 10 100mass of accompanying star [Msolar]
Distance of detecting inspirals with SNR=10 2003/11/04 (DT9) 2003/02/20 (DT8) 2002/08/31 (DT7) 2001/06 (DT6)
0.5Msolar-32.6kpc
1.4Msolar-72.5kpc
2.7Msolar-96.3kpc
10Msolar-21.9kpc
SNR =√
2 A
[4
∫f− 7
3
Sn(f)df
] 12
A = T!c
d
(5µ
96M!
) 12
(M
π2M!
) 13
T− 1
6! T! =(
G
c3
)M!
15
Event (r/√c2) histogram
DT8 search Preliminary result
16
Efficiency for Galactic event
17
Upper limit1. DT2
Range (SNR=10): 3.4 kpcMass region: 0.3 - 10 Msolar Upper limit: 0.59 event/hour (C.L.90%)
2. DT4Range (SNR=10): 17.9 kpcMass region: 1-2 MsolarUpper limit: 0.027 event/hour (C.L.90%)
3. DT6Range (SNR=10): 33.1 kpcMass region: 1-2 Msolar ,Upper limit: 0.0095 event/hour (C.L.90%)
=83 event/yr4. DT8
Range (SNR=10): 42.2 kpc, Detection Efficiency ~60% for Galactic eventMass region: 1-2 Msolar ,Upper limit: 0.0056 event/hour (C.L.90%)
=49 event/yr 1-3 Msolar ,Upper limit: 0.0033 event/hour (C.L.90%)
=29 event/yrSee the talk by Hirotaka Takahashi : “Search for gravitational waves from inspiraling compact binaries
using TAMA300 data”at Wednesday 17th, session “event Search I : Inspiral”
50
40
30
20
10
0
Obs
erva
ble
Rang
e [k
pc]
20032002200120001999year
2
4680.01
2
4680.1
2
468
Uppe
r Lim
it C.
L.90
% [e
vent
/hou
r]
Range Upper Limit for Glactic event Upper Limit for evidence
18
Search for GW:
Black-hole QNM ringdown GW
1. BH formation (by compact binary, etc.)-> quasi-normal mode GW• dumped sinusoidal waveform “ringdown”• mass and Kerr parameter determine the waveform
QNM
h(t) = Ae−π fctQ sin(2πfct)
fct ∼ 3.2 × 104
M[1 − 0.63(1 − a)0.3][Hz]
Q ∼ 2.0(1 − a)−0.45
19
BH ringdown: Observable rangeAssuming the BHs formed from binary coalescence -> Flanagan & Hughes, Phys.Rev.D57
(* perturbation theory may not predict the amplitude... )
567
1
2
3
4567
10
2
3
4567
100
2
3
Obse
rvab
le D
ista
nce
with
SNR
=10
[kpc
]
3 4 5 6 7 8 91
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9100
2 3
mass of accompanying star [Msolar]
Distance of detecting QNM ringdown with SNR=10 2003/11/04 (DT9) 2003/02/20 (DT8) 2002/08/31 (DT7) 2001/06 (DT6)
target mass range
20
Templates for BH ringdown
Design the template bank• Strictly orthogonal and
normalized parameters, which correspond to Physics meaning
• Efficient for Matched Filter algorithm
Minimal match ~98%,# of templates ~800
Nakano et al. (gr-qc/0306082, PRD 68, 102003(2003).)
See the talk by Hiroyuki Nakano : “Effective Search Method for Gravitational Ringing of Black Holes” in ‘poser session’
21
Search for BH ringdown
1. Matched Filter techniquesimilar to ‘Inspiral search’
2. Detection efficiency estimationassumption: amplitude, radiation pattern of fundermental (l=m=2) mode, glactic distribution.Monte-Carlo (embed ringdown GW in real TAMA data)
3. Veto studyreject spurious signals due to noises (spikes, glitch, etc.)
22
Search for BH ringdown
Typical signal amplitude
Detection efficiency by Monte-Carlo
See the talk by Yoshiki Tsunesada : “earch for black hole ringdown gravitational waves in TAMA300 data”at Wednesday 17th, session “event Search I : Inspiral”
0.01
2
4
68
0.1
2
4
68
1
Dete
ction P
robability
1002 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10002
Ringdown frequency fc [Hz]
SNR>10 SNR>20 SNR>30 SNR>40 SNR>50 SNR>100
23
Search for GW:
Continuous GW from SN1987A remnant
1. Assumptions:SN1987A remnant pulser
Large spindown rate 2–3 x10-10 Hz/sSearch range: 934.908 ±0.05 Hz
2. 1200 hours TAMA data (dt4,dt6)3. Upper limit:
h ~ 5 x 10-23 (C.L> 99%)
-> Soida et al. Class. Quant. Grav.Vol.20. No.17(2003)S645
24
Data quality evaluation
25
Data Quality:
Online veto study
Various noise induce at anywhere in the control servo loop
check by calibration signal injectiononline evaluation
26
Online ‘noise budget’ estimation
See the talk by Daisuke Tatsumi : “Online Veto Analysis of TAMA300”at Friday 19th, session “Detector Characterization III”
27
Cooperation : LIGO-TAMA
28
LIGO–TAMA coincidence
1. MOU was approved at Dec.2002for joint analysis, exchange the operation informations, and share some resources.
2. Coincidence observation for S2–DT8overlap duration of all x4 detectors: 250.7 hrs
3. Advantage of Multi-DetectorSky coverage improvementSource direction determination
4. Physics TargetCompact binary coalescenceBurst GW from super-novaeTrigger by external observation as GRB
5. Joint working group kicked off
29
STEP 2
STEP 1
LIGO–TAMA coincidenceCoincidence Schematics
TAMA LIGO(LHO1, LHO2, LLO)
event candidates lists event candidates lists
AND(=coincidence)
event behavior(waveform, amplitude, -> coherence)
upper limit / significancy
upper limit / significancy
search by own data filter evaluatation(efficiency, fake
rate, etc.)
search
See the talk by Patrick Sutton : “Status and Plans for the LIGO-TAMA Joint Data Analysis”at Friday 19th, session “Multi-Detector Analysis”
30
Remarks1. TAMA’s sensitivity and stableness of operation
have been progressed steadily. 2. Data Taking 9 is now held with trying ‘crewless’
operation.3. Following event search tasks are going in
TAMA ;Burst GWInspiral Gravitational WaveBlack-hole QNM ringdown GWContinuous GW from SN1987 remnant
4. Data Qualification is trying as online issue. for noise budget and veto.
5. LIGO-TAMA coincidence analysis are going.