A world-wide network of interferometric gravitational wave detectors is currently operational. The detectors in the network are still in their commissioning phase and are expected to achieve their design sensitivity over the next year or so. Each detector is a complex instrument involving many optical, mechanical and electronic subsystems and each subsystem is a source of noise at the output of the detector. Therefore, in addition to recording the main gravitational wave data channel at the output of the interferometer, the state of each detector subsystem is monitored and recorded. The analysis of these subsidiary data serves a dual purpose: first, it helps us to identify the primary sources of noise which could then be either removed altogether or reduced substantially and second, it helps us in vetoing spurious signals at the output of the interferometer. However, since these subsidiary data are both large in volume (1 MB s −1 ) as well as complex in nature, it is not possible to look at all these data manually. We require an online monitoring and analysis tool which can process all the data channels for various noise artefacts such as transients, drifting of narrowband noise sources, noise couplings between data channels etc, and summarize the results of the analysis in a manner that can be accessed and interpreted conveniently. In this paper we describe the GEO 600 online detector characterization system (GODCS), which is the tool that is being used to monitor the output of the GEO 600 gravitational wave detector situated near Hanover in Germany. We describe the various algorithms that we use and how the results of several algorithms can be combined to make meaningful statements about the state of the detector. We also give implementation details such as the software architecture and the storage and retrieval of the output of GODCS. This paper will be useful to researchers in the area of gravitational wave astronomy as a record of the various analyses and checks carried out to ensure the quality and reliability of the data before searching the data for the presence of gravitational waves.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Баласубраманиан et al. (2005) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: