MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010218176 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.89.104059

Can environmental effects spoil precision gravitational-wave astrophysics?

2014· article· en· W2010218176 on OpenAlexafffund
Enrico Barausse, Vítor Cardoso, Paolo Pani

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueFundação para a Ciência e a TecnologiaMinistero dello Sviluppo EconomicoIndustry CanadaFP7 People: Marie-Curie ActionsNational Science FoundationGovernment of CanadaEuropean CommissionSan Diego Supercomputer CenterCERN
KeywordsPhysicsAccretion (finance)AstrophysicsGravitational waveGravitationHaloGeneral relativityBlack hole (networking)Dark matterAstronomyGalaxyTheoretical physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

No, within a broad class of scenarios. Gravitational-wave (GW) astronomy will open a new window on compact objects such as neutron stars and black holes (BHs). It is often stated that large signal-to-noise detections of ringdown or inspiral waveforms can provide estimates of the masses and spins of compact objects to within fractions of a percent, as well as tests of general relativity. These expectations usually neglect the realistic astrophysical environments in which compact objects live. With the advent of GW astronomy, environmental effects on the GW signal will eventually have to be quantified. Here we present a wide survey of the corrections due to these effects in two situations of great interest for GW astronomy: the BH ringdown emission and the inspiral of two compact objects (especially BH binaries). We mainly focus on future space-based detectors such as eLISA, but many of our results are also valid for ground-based detectors such as aLIGO, aVirgo, and KAGRA. We take into account various effects such as electric charges, magnetic fields, cosmological evolution, possible deviations from general relativity, firewalls, and the effects related to various forms of matter such as accretion disks and dark matter halos. Our analysis predicts the existence of resonances dictated by the external mass distribution, which dominate the very late-time behavior of merger and ringdown waveforms. The mode structure can drastically differ from the vacuum case, yet the BH response to external perturbations is unchanged at the time scales relevant for detectors. This is because, although the vacuum Schwarzschild resonances are no longer quasinormal modes of the system, they still dominate the response at intermediate times. Our results strongly suggest that both parametrized and ringdown searches should use at least two-mode templates. Our analysis of compact binaries shows that environmental effects are typically negligible for most eLISA sources, with the exception of very few special extreme-mass-ratio inspirals. We show, in particular, that accretion and hydrodynamic drag generically dominate over self-force effects for geometrically thin disks, whereas they can be safely neglected for geometrically thick disk environments, which are the most relevant for eLISA. Finally, we discuss how our ignorance of the matter surrounding compact objects implies intrinsic limits on the ability to constrain strong-field deviations from general relativity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.013
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations606
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmologySame topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchFrench-language works237,207