When do you plan to publish the first results of the S5R5 analysis? It is more than half year since the end of the calculation. Time for post-processing data and writing the short article was enough I think...
I'd guess that time to publish a scientific article isn't proportional to its length :-). Anyway, given the standard author list of the LIGO Science Collaboration, I guess the review process alone would take many months.
It's not just putting the results in human readable form, i.e. writing a paper. What we call "post processing" is a long and tedious process. The people involved are currently looking into the results of S5R3.
From the post-processing pipeline that had to be developed from scratch for the "HierarchicalSearch" application (that differs significantly from the previous one) we get a number of candidates (in the order of tens or hundrets of thousands). Like the work on the detector is about identifying and eliminating noise sources, work on post-processing E@H results is mainly about identifying artifacts and filterimg them out, then look at what remains, again and again. Such artifacts range from instrumental lines of the detectors to artifacts introduced by any of the many programs involved in producing these results. We spent the last month or so fighting with and understanding inconsistencies that turned out to arose just from the different precision some tools print out their results.
In addition to that our manpower is limited, and deadlines for preparing a new run are somewhat stricter than for examining the results of an old one.
Hmm. Do I understand correct that the last publication (http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1705) corresponds to data from S5R1-S5R2 runs ended in September 2007? And the results of the next runs (S5R3 and beyond) are not ready and have never been published yet?
Still, when an estimated expected period of next publication? Judging by the readed out only next year?
And anyway what plans against them, will publish the results of individual runs, or only after processing S5R3-S5R6 (all "Hierarchical search" runs)?
I have to admit that after the workunits rattled through E@H, I'm merely a tech that is consulted if problems arise, but I am not deeply involved in that part of the scientific work anymore.
What I gather from what I've heard is that
* S5R2 and S5R4 results will probably never be looked at. These runs suffered from quite some technical problems. S5R3 and S5R5, respectively, covered the same parameter space with a different setup and presumably better sensitivity.
* Whether an own S5R3 results paper will be published is currently being discussed. The other possibility is that the results of S5R3 (from first year S5 data) will be matched against those of S5R5 (second year) and then a combined 'S5' paper will be written.
* S5R6 covered a different parameter space (higher frequency) and will probably be a separate paper anyway.
* I have no idea of the timescale of papers. I know that in the LSC it can take more than a year from finishing a paper to publication i.e. through all the reviews and editing cycles.
* I personally wouldn't be surprised if the ABP search reaches a higher (discovery) paper rate than the GW search.
Again, I'm not deeply involved in that work. Take my words with a grain of salt.
Thanks for the information.
Maybe not so much as we would like. But something is always better than nothing. :) And at least now there is a some general overview of the entire "field of work".
There is a new link on the homepage leading to an article explaining the differences between the previous S5R* algorithms used for the gravitational waves search and the new "Global correlation" method.
A paper covering the results of S5R3, S5R5 and S5R6 is currently under internal review by the LSC.
A couple of bugs or other problems with the "HierarchicalSearch" application have come up during post processing and review, it is still being investigated whether and how much these affected the results gathered on E@H.
Thank you for that information Bernd, and for re-locating the Tom's query after my silly error! It is good that internal review mechanisms exist to examine the validity of analysis methods - at any stage of their history. :-)
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
RE: When do you plan to
)
I'd guess that time to publish a scientific article isn't proportional to its length :-). Anyway, given the standard author list of the LIGO Science Collaboration, I guess the review process alone would take many months.
CU
HB
This will take a bit. It's
)
This will take a bit.
It's not just putting the results in human readable form, i.e. writing a paper. What we call "post processing" is a long and tedious process. The people involved are currently looking into the results of S5R3.
From the post-processing pipeline that had to be developed from scratch for the "HierarchicalSearch" application (that differs significantly from the previous one) we get a number of candidates (in the order of tens or hundrets of thousands). Like the work on the detector is about identifying and eliminating noise sources, work on post-processing E@H results is mainly about identifying artifacts and filterimg them out, then look at what remains, again and again. Such artifacts range from instrumental lines of the detectors to artifacts introduced by any of the many programs involved in producing these results. We spent the last month or so fighting with and understanding inconsistencies that turned out to arose just from the different precision some tools print out their results.
In addition to that our manpower is limited, and deadlines for preparing a new run are somewhat stricter than for examining the results of an old one.
BM
BM
My favourite software
)
My favourite software engineering book - The Mythical Man Month by Fred Brooks - comes quickly to mind .... :-)
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
Hmm. Do I understand correct
)
Hmm. Do I understand correct that the last publication (http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1705) corresponds to data from S5R1-S5R2 runs ended in September 2007? And the results of the next runs (S5R3 and beyond) are not ready and have never been published yet?
Still, when an estimated expected period of next publication? Judging by the readed out only next year?
And anyway what plans against them, will publish the results of individual runs, or only after processing S5R3-S5R6 (all "Hierarchical search" runs)?
I have to admit that after
)
I have to admit that after the workunits rattled through E@H, I'm merely a tech that is consulted if problems arise, but I am not deeply involved in that part of the scientific work anymore.
What I gather from what I've heard is that
* S5R2 and S5R4 results will probably never be looked at. These runs suffered from quite some technical problems. S5R3 and S5R5, respectively, covered the same parameter space with a different setup and presumably better sensitivity.
* Whether an own S5R3 results paper will be published is currently being discussed. The other possibility is that the results of S5R3 (from first year S5 data) will be matched against those of S5R5 (second year) and then a combined 'S5' paper will be written.
* S5R6 covered a different parameter space (higher frequency) and will probably be a separate paper anyway.
* I have no idea of the timescale of papers. I know that in the LSC it can take more than a year from finishing a paper to publication i.e. through all the reviews and editing cycles.
* I personally wouldn't be surprised if the ABP search reaches a higher (discovery) paper rate than the GW search.
Again, I'm not deeply involved in that work. Take my words with a grain of salt.
BM
BM
Thanks for the
)
Thanks for the information.
Maybe not so much as we would like. But something is always better than nothing. :) And at least now there is a some general overview of the entire "field of work".
Hi all! There is a new
)
Hi all!
There is a new link on the homepage leading to an article explaining the differences between the previous S5R* algorithms used for the gravitational waves search and the new "Global correlation" method.
http://www.2physics.com/2010/07/deepest-all-sky-surveys-for-continuous.html
Have fun
HB
When is the next scientific
)
When is the next scientific paper going to be written for EINSTEIN@HOME? I know there is a list of publications on the front page.
Thx,
Tom
A paper covering the results
)
A paper covering the results of S5R3, S5R5 and S5R6 is currently under internal review by the LSC.
A couple of bugs or other problems with the "HierarchicalSearch" application have come up during post processing and review, it is still being investigated whether and how much these affected the results gathered on E@H.
BM
BM
Thank you for that
)
Thank you for that information Bernd, and for re-locating the Tom's query after my silly error! It is good that internal review mechanisms exist to examine the validity of analysis methods - at any stage of their history. :-)
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal