MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050444070 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/758/1/63

ON THE MASS RADIATED BY COALESCING BLACK HOLE BINARIES

2012· article· en· W2050444070 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGravitational waveGravitational energyBlack hole (networking)Limit (mathematics)Binary black holeWaveformGravitationGravitational-wave observatoryBinary number

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We derive an analytic phenomenological expression that predicts the final mass of the black-hole remnant resulting from the merger of a generic binary system of black holes on quasi-circular orbits. Besides recovering the correct test-particle limit for extreme mass-ratio binaries, our formula reproduces well the results of all the numerical-relativity simulations published so far, both when applied at separations of a few gravitational radii, and when applied at separations of tens of thousands of gravitational radii. These validations make our formula a useful tool in a variety of contexts ranging from gravitational-wave physics to cosmology. As representative examples, we first illustrate how it can be used to decrease the phase error of the effective-one-body waveforms during the ringdown phase. Second, we show that, when combined with the recently computed self-force correction to the binding energy of nonspinning black-hole binaries, it provides an estimate of the energy emitted during the merger and ringdown. Finally, we use it to calculate the energy radiated in gravitational waves by massive black-hole binaries as a function of redshift, using different models for the seeds of the black-hole population.

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 score0.237
Threshold uncertainty score0.468

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations141
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchFrench-language works237,207