Impact of Bayesian Priors on the Characterization of Binary Black Hole Coalescences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a regime where data are only mildly informative, prior choices can play a significant role in Bayesian statistical inference, potentially affecting the inferred physics. We show this is indeed the case for some of the parameters inferred from current gravitational-wave measurements of binary black hole coalescences. We reanalyze the first detections performed by the twin LIGO interferometers using alternative (and astrophysically motivated) prior assumptions. We find different prior distributions can introduce deviations in the resulting posteriors that impact the physical interpretation of these systems. For instance, (i) limits on the 90% credible interval on the effective black hole spin χ_{eff} are subject to variations of ∼10% if a prior with black hole spins mostly aligned to the binary's angular momentum is considered instead of the standard choice of isotropic spin directions, and (ii) under priors motivated by the initial stellar mass function, we infer tighter constraints on the black hole masses, and in particular, we find no support for any of the inferred masses within the putative mass gap M≲5 M_{⊙}.
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 | 0.059 | 0.240 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".