MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009374092 · doi:10.17307/wsc.v1i1.101

Searching for Gravitational Waves from Sub-Solar Mass Black Holes

2015· article· en· W2009374092 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Madeline Wade, J. D. E. Creighton

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Wisconsin Space Conference · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of TorontoPennsylvania State UniversityUniversity of PennsylvaniaWisconsin Space Grant Consortium
KeywordsGravitational wavePhysicsLIGOBinary black holeGravitational microlensingGravitational-wave observatoryAstronomyAstrophysicsSolar massBlack hole (networking)GalaxyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We are searching for gravitational-wave signals from sub-solar mass black hole binary systems in initial Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) data. The most likely candidates for such systems are primordial black holes that have formed from the collapse of quantum fluctuations in the early universe. Primordial black holes have not yet been ruled out by microlensing experiments, but the allowable masses have been restricted. The gravitational- wave strain from such an inspiralling binary system is well modeled with the post- Newtonian formalism. Therefore, a modeled search for gravitational-wave signals is employed. The search technique is known as matched filtering and is implemented using a codebase that is well-suited for fast searches with long signals. One of the biggest challenges in performing this search is dealing with the heavy computational burden. The gravitational-wave signals from such low-mass binary systems are long (about 10 minutes) and require a large number of models, or templates, spread across the parameter space. A large effort has been focused on speeding up the search while using a reasonable amount of computational resources.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.204
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Wisconsin Space ConferenceSame topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchFrench-language works237,207