MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2521347650 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.95.024038

Complete waveform model for compact binaries on eccentric orbits

2017· article· en· W2521347650 on OpenAlexafffund
E. A. Huerta, P. Kumar, Bhanu Agarwal, D. George, Hsi-Yu Schive, Harald Pfeiffer, Roland Haas, Wei Ren, Tony Chu, Michael Boyle, Daniel A. Hemberger, Mark Scheel, Béla Szilágyi

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsUniversity of Toronto
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignSimons FoundationCanada Foundation for InnovationCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchCanada Research ChairsNational Centre for Supercomputing ApplicationsNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsGravitational waveNumerical relativityEccentricity (behavior)WaveformParameter spaceBinary numberBinary black holeGeneral relativityGravitationOrbital eccentricityClassical mechanicsCoalescence (physics)AstrophysicsGeometryQuantum mechanicsStars

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a time domain waveform model that describes the inspiral, merger and ringdown of compact binary systems whose components are nonspinning, and which evolve on orbits with low to moderate eccentricity. The inspiral evolution is described using third-order post-Newtonian equations both for the equations of motion of the binary, and its far-zone radiation field. This latter component also includes instantaneous, tails and tails-of-tails contributions, and a contribution due to nonlinear memory. This framework reduces to the post-Newtonian approximant TaylorT4 at third post-Newtonian order in the zero-eccentricity limit. To improve phase accuracy, we also incorporate higher-order post-Newtonian corrections for the energy flux of quasicircular binaries and gravitational self-force corrections to the binding energy of compact binaries. This enhanced prescription for the inspiral evolution is combined with a fully analytical prescription for the merger-ringdown evolution constructed using a catalog of numerical relativity simulations. We show that this inspiral-merger-ringdown waveform model reproduces the effective-one-body model of Ref. [Y. Pan et al., Phys. Rev. D 89, 061501 (2014).] for quasicircular black hole binaries with mass ratios between 1 to 15 in the zero-eccentricity limit over a wide range of the parameter space under consideration. Using a set of eccentric numerical relativity simulations, not used during calibration, we show that our new eccentric model reproduces the true features of eccentric compact binary coalescence throughout merger. We use this model to show that the gravitational-wave transients GW150914 and GW151226 can be effectively recovered with template banks of quasicircular, spin-aligned waveforms if the eccentricity ${e}_{0}$ of these systems when they enter the aLIGO band at a gravitational-wave frequency of 14 Hz satisfies ${e}_{0}^{\mathrm{GW}150914}\ensuremath{\le}0.15$ and ${e}_{0}^{\mathrm{GW}151226}\ensuremath{\le}0.1$. We also find that varying the spin combinations of the quasicircular, spin-aligned template waveforms does not improve the recovery of nonspinning, eccentric signals when ${e}_{0}\ensuremath{\ge}0.1$. This suggests that these two signal manifolds are predominantly orthogonal.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.505
Teacher spread0.450 · 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

Citations129
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D.Same topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchFrench-language works237,207