The stochastic gravitational-wave background in the absence of horizons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gravitational-wave astronomy has the potential to explore one of the deepest and most puzzling aspects of Einstein's theory: the existence of black holes. A plethora of ultracompact, horizonless objects have been proposed to arise in models inspired by quantum gravity. These objects may solve Hawking's information-loss paradox and the singularity problem associated with black holes, while mimicking almost all of their classical properties. They are, however, generically unstable on relatively short timescales. Here, we show that this 'ergoregion instability' leads to a strong stochastic background of gravitational waves, at a level detectable by current and future gravitational-wave detectors. The absence of such background in the first observation run of Advanced LIGO already imposes the most stringent limits to date on black-hole alternatives, showing that certain models of 'quantum-dressed' stellar black holes can be at most a small percentage of the total population. The future LISA mission will allow for similar constraints on supermassive black-hole mimickers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".