From martin.hewitson@aei.mpg.de Mon May  2 09:17:08 2005
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 15:16:26 +0200
From: Martin Hewitson <martin.hewitson@aei.mpg.de>
To: Keith Riles <kriles@umich.edu>
Cc: Steffen Grunewald <steffen.grunewald@aei.mpg.de>, Peter Shawhan <shawhan_p@ligo.caltech.edu>, Stuart Anderson <sba@srl.caltech.edu>, Maria Alessandra Papa <papa@aei.mpg.de>, Brown Duncan <duncan@gravity.phys.uwm.edu>, geo-da@aei.mpg.de, Patrick Brady <patrick@gravity.phys.uwm.edu>, skoranda@gravity.phys.uwm.edu, Erik Katsavounidis <kats@ligo.mit.edu>, Hartmut Grote <hartmut.grote@ipp.mpg.de>
Subject: Re: [Merlin-users] list of quality flags for GEO S4

Hi Keith,

Whether or not to use the chi^2 cut is the subject of some 
investigation. It is likely that this chi^2 cut will remain, however, 
your idea of having an extra DQ flag is fine with me. I have attached 
the segment list without the chi^2 cut.

Cheers,

Martin

Keith Riles wrote:

> Hi Steffen & Martin,
>
> Okay, good. Unless you tell me otherwise, I'll use these intervals to
> define the level-0 GEO science segments. My only concern would be if the
> chi**2 selection requirement were ever relaxed so that more
> data became eligible for analysis. Our DQ infrastructure assumes
> that level-0 segments include all analyzable data. If there is
> a serious prospect of that chi**2 cut being relaxed, I'd suggest
> you generate new intervals without the cut imposed at all, from which
> I would define level-0 segments; I could then use your present list
> to define a CHISQR_V01 DQ flag; that way you can later tighten
> or loosen the chi**2 cut, corresponding to a CHISQR_V02 DQ flag.
>
> Let me know what you prefer.
>
> thanks,
> Keith
>