CLASSIFYING X-RAY BINARIES: A PROBABILISTIC APPROACH
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In X-ray binary star systems consisting of a compact object that accretes material from an orbiting secondary star, there is no straightforward means to decide whether the compact object is a black hole or a neutron star. To assist in this process, we develop a Bayesian statistical model that makes use of the fact that X-ray binary systems appear to cluster based on their compact object type when viewed from a three-dimensional coordinate system derived from X-ray spectral data where the first coordinate is the ratio of counts in the mid- to low-energy band (color 1), the second coordinate is the ratio of counts in the high- to low-energy band (color 2), and the third coordinate is the sum of counts in all three bands. We use this model to estimate the probabilities of an X-ray binary system containing a black hole, non-pulsing neutron star, or pulsing neutron star. In particular, we utilize a latent variable model in which the latent variables follow a Gaussian process prior distribution, and hence we are able to induce the spatial correlation which we believe exists between systems of the same type. The utility of this approach is demonstrated by the accurate prediction of system types using Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer All Sky Monitor data, but it is not flawless. In particular, non-pulsing neutron systems containing "bursters" that are close to the boundary demarcating systems containing black holes tend to be classified as black hole systems. As a byproduct of our analyses, we provide the astronomer with the public R code which can be used to predict the compact object type of XRBs given training data.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".