New Population Synthesis Techniques in the Analysis of Interacting Binaries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Novel approaches to understanding the observed properties of interacting binaries containing compact accretors such as neutron stars and white dwarfs are examined. Explaining the evolution of these systems is a computationally challenging problem because the vector space of initial conditions that describes the progenitor binaries is wide-ranging. There are large variations in the chemical abundance (e.g., metallicity), binary mass correlations, and assumed input physics. In this paper we compare two very different strategies to synthesize a specific subset of the currently observed population of compact binaries. Both involve the pre-computing a large grid of representative models. In the first case, the grid of initial conditions is densely packed thereby allowing us to identify the spectrum of initial conditions and the most probable evolutionary channels leading to the formation of the observed binaries. In the second, the grid is accurately interpolated to provide us with the ensemble properties of the currently observed population of interacting binaries (e.g., Cataclysmic Variables). As an example of the utility of the first approach, we have taken advantage of the multicore processing power of the fast, new stellar evolution code known as MESA to compute an extensive grid of binary evolution tracks for low- and intermediate-mass X-ray binaries. The grid is about two orders of magnitude larger than any previous computation of X-ray binary evolution and includes more than 40,000 models. It comprises 60 initial donor masses over the range of 1 to 4 M ⊙ and, for each of these, 700 initial orbital periods over the range of 10 to 250 hours were chosen. Using a 'traceback' analysis, we show how the extremely massive neutron star (1.97 M ⊙ ) in the binary pulsar PSR J1614-2230 is likely to have evolved. We find that the initial donor stars which produce the closest relatives to PSR J1614-2230 are likely to have had a mass of between approximately 3.4 to 3.8 M ⊙ . Nonetheless, we conclude that it is difficult to form high-mass neutron stars unless they are born with masses larger than the 1.4 M ⊙ canonical value.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".