MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Fast and Accurate Prediction of Numerical Relativity Waveforms from Binary Black Hole Coalescences Using Surrogate Models

2015· article· en· W2105796531 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jonathan Blackman, Scott E. Field, Chad R. Galley, Béla Szilágyi, Mark Scheel, Manuel Tiglio, Daniel A. Hemberger

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSherman Fairchild FoundationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsNumerical relativityWaveformLIGOBinary black holeBinary numberSurrogate modelGeneral relativityAlgorithmAstrophysicsTheoretical physicsGravitational waveQuantum mechanicsComputer scienceStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Simulating a binary black hole coalescence by solving Einstein's equations is computationally expensive, requiring days to months of supercomputing time. Using reduced order modeling techniques, we construct an accurate surrogate model, which is evaluated in a millisecond to a second, for numerical relativity (NR) waveforms from nonspinning binary black hole coalescences with mass ratios in [1, 10] and durations corresponding to about 15 orbits before merger. We assess the model's uncertainty and show that our modeling strategy predicts NR waveforms not used for the surrogate's training with errors nearly as small as the numerical error of the NR code. Our model includes all spherical-harmonic _{-2}Y_{ℓm} waveform modes resolved by the NR code up to ℓ=8. We compare our surrogate model to effective one body waveforms from 50M_{⊙} to 300M_{⊙} for advanced LIGO detectors and find that the surrogate is always more faithful (by at least an order of magnitude in most cases).

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.497
Threshold uncertainty score0.389

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 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

Citations206
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchFrench-language works237,207