![\"results-29-0\"](\"https://i.ibb.co/zJXbKb7/results-29-0.png\")
I tried to visualize the spectrogram either by MelSpectrogram or CQT, but cannot find obvious difference between positive and negtive samples, only some signals/noise at low freqence is common and obvious, didn't see clear shapes/patterns on what's the target singal like in positive samples.
\nI'm wondering if this gravitational wave is not visible by human eye, or my visualization code has some problem?
", "messages": [ { "id": "1491063", "postDate": "08/26/2021 05:56:27", "content": "I tried to visualize the spectrogram either by MelSpectrogram or CQT, but cannot find obvious difference between positive and negtive samples, only some signals/noise at low freqence is common and obvious, didn't see clear shapes/patterns on what's the target singal like in positive samples.
\nI'm wondering if this gravitational wave is not visible by human eye, or my visualization code has some problem?
", "rawMarkdown": "I tried to visualize the spectrogram either by MelSpectrogram or CQT, but cannot find obvious difference between positive and negtive samples, only some signals/noise at low freqence is common and obvious, didn't see clear shapes/patterns on what's the target singal like in positive samples. \n\nI'm wondering if this gravitational wave is not visible by human eye, or my visualization code has some problem?", "votes": null }, { "id": "1491075", "postDate": "08/26/2021 06:09:52", "content": "you are right this gravitational wave is not clearly visible by human eye because of noise and this is the main challenge in this competition - \"detecting gravitational waves from such noisy data\"
", "rawMarkdown": "you are right this gravitational wave is not clearly visible by human eye because of noise and this is the main challenge in this competition - \"detecting gravitational waves from such noisy data\"", "votes": null }, { "id": "1491167", "postDate": "08/26/2021 07:43:47", "content": "If you want to QC your preprocessing by eye, here are some easy examples:
\n098a464da9 is a super clean signal you should be able to see in the raw data000a5b6e5c is a signal that emerges nicely in spectrograms after some processingThanks a lot @anjum48 , 098a464da9 is indeed very clean. And 000a5b6e5c is not so clean, only after I applied amplitude_to_db() then I can see it cleanly, may I ask if you are processing the same way, to_db is necessary here? Thanks.
", "rawMarkdown": "Thanks a lot @anjum48 , 098a464da9 is indeed very clean. And 000a5b6e5c is not so clean, only after I applied amplitude_to_db() then I can see it cleanly, may I ask if you are processing the same way, to_db is necessary here? Thanks.", "votes": null }, { "id": "1491327", "postDate": "08/26/2021 09:59:01", "content": "I'm not using amplitude_to_db() in my pipeline, but maybe I should be! I'll have to do some experiments :)
There are few cases where the wave is clearly visible, but in most of them it is faint.
", "rawMarkdown": "There are few cases where the wave is clearly visible, but in most of them it is faint.", "votes": null }, { "id": "1494991", "postDate": "08/29/2021 08:05:06", "content": "As pointed by most, the signal isn't always visible indeed since the \"signal to noise\" ratio is small.
\nIn this notebook, there is a very clear signal (file 0/0/2/0021f9dd71.npy):
",
"votes": null
},
{
"id": "1561064",
"postDate": "10/27/2021 09:53:51",
"content": "Hey All,
\nThank you all for taking part in our competition. The participation has been overwhelmingly positive. We are currently conducting a survey to gauge the demographic and outreach achieved. Kindly spare 2min and fill in this survey https://forms.gle/QP9L16niPexozyhu5.
\nThank you all,
\nRegards,
\nChris
you are right this gravitational wave is not clearly visible by human eye because of noise and this is the main challenge in this competition - \"detecting gravitational waves from such noisy data\"
", "votes": null, "replies": [] }, { "id": 1491167, "author_name": "anjum48", "author_url": "", "post_date": "08/26/2021 07:43:47", "content": "If you want to QC your preprocessing by eye, here are some easy examples:
\n098a464da9 is a super clean signal you should be able to see in the raw data000a5b6e5c is a signal that emerges nicely in spectrograms after some processingThanks a lot @anjum48 , 098a464da9 is indeed very clean. And 000a5b6e5c is not so clean, only after I applied amplitude_to_db() then I can see it cleanly, may I ask if you are processing the same way, to_db is necessary here? Thanks.
", "votes": null, "replies": [] }, { "id": 1491327, "author_name": "anjum48", "author_url": "", "post_date": "08/26/2021 09:59:01", "content": "I'm not using amplitude_to_db() in my pipeline, but maybe I should be! I'll have to do some experiments :)
There are few cases where the wave is clearly visible, but in most of them it is faint.
", "votes": null, "replies": [] }, { "id": 1494991, "author_name": "yassinealouini", "author_url": "", "post_date": "08/29/2021 08:05:06", "content": "As pointed by most, the signal isn't always visible indeed since the \"signal to noise\" ratio is small.
\nIn this notebook, there is a very clear signal (file 0/0/2/0021f9dd71.npy):
Hey All,
\nThank you all for taking part in our competition. The participation has been overwhelmingly positive. We are currently conducting a survey to gauge the demographic and outreach achieved. Kindly spare 2min and fill in this survey https://forms.gle/QP9L16niPexozyhu5.
\nThank you all,
\nRegards,
\nChris
",
"1561064": "Hey All,\n\nThank you all for taking part in our competition. The participation has been overwhelmingly positive. We are currently conducting a survey to gauge the demographic and outreach achieved. Kindly spare 2min and fill in this survey https://forms.gle/QP9L16niPexozyhu5.\n\nThank you all,\n\nRegards,\nChris"
},
"source": "meta"
}