40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log  Not logged in ELOG logo
Entry  Fri Oct 8 17:33:13 2021, Hang, Update, SUS, More PRM L2P measurements Screenshot_2021-10-08_17-30-52.png
    Reply  Mon Oct 11 11:13:04 2021, rana, Update, SUS, More PRM L2P measurements 
    Reply  Mon Oct 11 13:59:47 2021, Hang, Update, SUS, More PRM L2P measurements prm_l2p_tf_meas_white.pdfprm_l2p_tf_meas_opt.pdfprm_l2p_fisher_vs_data_white_vs_opt.pdfprm_l2p_Pxx_evol_v2.pdf
Message ID: 16390     Entry time: Mon Oct 11 13:59:47 2021     In reply to: 16388
Author: Hang 
Type: Update 
Category: SUS 
Subject: More PRM L2P measurements 

We report here the analysis results for the measurements done in elog:16388

Figs. 1 & 2 are respectively measurements of the white noise excitation and the optimized excitation. The shaded region corresponds to the 1-sigma uncertainty at each frequency bin. By eyes, one can already see that the constraints on the phase in the 0.6-1 Hz band are much tighter in the optimized case than in the white noise case. 

We found the transfer function was best described by two real poles + one pair of complex poles (i.e., resonance) + one pair of complex zeros in the right-half plane (non-minimum phase delay). The measurement in fact suggested a right-hand pole somewhere between 0.05-0.1 Hz which cannot be right. For now, I just manually flipped the sign of this lowest frequency pole to the left-hand side. However, this introduced some systematic deviation in the phase in the 0.3-0.5 Hz band where our coherence was still good. Therefore, a caveat is that our model with 7 free parameters (4 poles + 2 zeros + 1 gain as one would expect for an ideal signal-stage L2P TF) might not sufficiently capture the entire physics. 

In Fig. 3 we showed the comparison of the two sets of measurements together with the predictions based on the Fisher matrix. Here the color gray is for the white-noise excitation and olive is for the optimized excitation. The solid and dotted contours are respectively the 1-sigma and 3-sigma regions from the Fisher calculation, and crosses are maximum likelihood estimations of each measurement (though the scipy optimizer might not find the true maximum).

Note that the mean values don't match in the two sets of measurements, suggesting potential bias or other systematics exists in the current measurement. Moreover, there could be multiple local maxima in the likelihood in this high-D parameter space (not surprising). For example, one could reduce the resonant Q but enhance the overall gain to keep the shoulder of a resonance having the same amplitude. However, this correlation is not explicit in the Fisher matrix (first-order derivatives of the TF, i.e., local gradients) as it does not show up in the error ellipse. 

In Fig. 4 we show the further optimized excitation for the next round of measurements. Here the cyan and olive traces are obtained assuming different values of the "true" physical parameter, yet the overall shapes of the two are quite similar, and are close to the optimized excitation spectrum we already used in elog:16388

 

Attachment 1: prm_l2p_tf_meas_white.pdf  146 kB  | Hide | Hide all
prm_l2p_tf_meas_white.pdf
Attachment 2: prm_l2p_tf_meas_opt.pdf  146 kB  | Hide | Hide all
prm_l2p_tf_meas_opt.pdf
Attachment 3: prm_l2p_fisher_vs_data_white_vs_opt.pdf  196 kB  | Hide | Hide all
prm_l2p_fisher_vs_data_white_vs_opt.pdf
Attachment 4: prm_l2p_Pxx_evol_v2.pdf  135 kB  Uploaded Mon Oct 11 15:27:10 2021  | Hide | Hide all
prm_l2p_Pxx_evol_v2.pdf
ELOG V3.1.3-