MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104207378 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.83.064008

Gravitational wave extraction in simulations of rotating stellar core collapse

2011· article· en· W2104207378 on OpenAlexaff
Christian Reisswig, Christian D. Ott, Ulrich Sperhake, Erik Schnetter

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersU.S. Department of EnergyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsGravitational collapseGravitational wavePhysicsCore (optical fiber)Extraction (chemistry)AstrophysicsAstronomyOpticsChromatographyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We perform simulations of general relativistic rotating stellar core collapse and compute the gravitational waves (GWs) emitted in the core-bounce phase of three representative models via multiple techniques. The simplest technique, the quadrupole formula (QF), estimates the GW content in the spacetime from the mass-quadrupole tensor only. It is strictly valid only in the weak-field and slow-motion approximation. For the first time, we apply GW extraction methods in core collapse that are fully curvature based and valid for strongly radiating and highly relativistic sources. These techniques are not restricted to weak-field and slow-motion assumptions. We employ three extraction methods computing (i) the Newman-Penrose (NP) scalar ${\ensuremath{\Psi}}_{4}$, (ii) Regge-Wheeler-Zerilli-Moncrief master functions, and (iii) Cauchy-characteristic extraction (CCE) allowing for the extraction of GWs at future null infinity, where the spacetime is asymptotically flat and the GW content is unambiguously defined. The latter technique is the only one not suffering from residual gauge and finite-radius effects. All curvature-based methods suffer from strong nonlinear drifts. We employ the fixed-frequency integration technique as a high-pass waveform filter. Using the CCE results as a benchmark, we find that finite-radius NP extraction yields results that agree nearly perfectly in phase, but differ in amplitude by $\ensuremath{\sim}1%--7%$ at core bounce, depending on the model. Regge-Wheeler-Zerilli-Moncrief waveforms, while, in general, agreeing in phase, contain spurious high-frequency noise of comparable amplitudes to those of the relatively weak GWs emitted in core collapse. We also find remarkably good agreement of the waveforms obtained from the QF with those obtained from CCE. The results from QF agree very well in phase and systematically underpredict peak amplitudes by $\ensuremath{\sim}5%--11%$, which is comparable to the NP results and is certainly within the uncertainties associated with core collapse physics.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.373
Teacher spread0.331 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations88
Published2011
Admission routes1
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