MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2806836424 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.99.042001

Improving astrophysical parameter estimation via offline noise subtraction for Advanced LIGO

2019· article· en· W2806836424 on OpenAlexaff
J. C. Driggers, S. Vitale, A. P. Lundgren, M. Evans, K. Kawabe, S. E. Dwyer, K. Izumi, R. M. S. Schofield, A. Effler, D. Sigg, P. Fritschel, M. Drago, A. Nitz, B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, C. Adams, R. X. Adhikari, V. B. Adya, A. Ananyeva, S. Appert, K. Arai, S. M. Aston, Corey Austin, S. Ballmer, D. Barker, B. Barr, L. Barsotti, J. Bartlett, I. Bartos, J. C. Batch, A. S. Bell, J. Betzwieser, G. Billingsley, J. Birch, Sébastien Biscans, C. D. Blair, D. G. Blair, R. Bork, A. F. Brooks, H. Cao, G. Ciani, F. Clara, S. J. Cooper, P. Corban, S. T. Countryman, P. B. Covas, M. J. Cowart, D. C. Coyne, A. Cumming, L. Cunningham, K. Danzmann, C. F. Da Silva Costa, E. J. Daw, D. DeBra, R. DeSalvo, K. L. Dooley, S. Doravari, T. B. Edo, T. Etzel, T. M. Evans, H. Fair, A. Fernandez-Galiana, E. C. Ferreira, R. P. Fisher, R. Frey, V. V. Frolov, P. Fulda, M. Fyffe, B. Gateley, J. A. Giaime, K. D. Giardina, E. Goetz, S. Gras, C. Gray, H. Grote, K. E. Gushwa, E. K. Gustafson, R. Gustafson, E. D. Hall, G. Hammond, J. Hanks, J. Hanson, T. Hardwick, I. W. Harry, M. C. Heintze, A. W. Heptonstall, J. Hough, R. W. L. Jones, S. Kandhasamy, S. Karki, M. Kasprzack, S. Kaufer, R. Kennedy, N. Kijbunchoo, W. Kim, E. J. King, P. J. King, J. S. Kissel, W. Z. Korth, A. Królak, M. Landry, B. Lantz, M. Laxen, J. Liu, N. A. Lockerbie, M. Lormand, M. MacInnis, D. M. Macleod, Szabolcs Márka, Z. Márka, A. S. Markosyan, E. Maros, P. Marsh, I. W. Martin, Д. В. Мартынов, K. Mason, T. J. Massinger, F. Matichard, Nergis Mavalvala, R. McCarthy, D. E. McClelland, S. McCormick, L. McCuller, J. McIver, D. J. McManus, T. McRae, G. Mendell, E. L. Merilh, P. M. Meyers, R. Mittleman, K. Mogushi, D. Moraru, G. Moreno, C. M. Mow–Lowry, G. Mueller, N. Mukund, A. Mullavey, J. Münch, T. J. N. Nelson, P. Nguyen, L. K. Nuttall, J. Oberling, M. Oliver, P. Oppermann, Richard J. Oram, B. O’Reilly, D. J. Ottaway, H. Overmier, J. R. Palamos, W. Parker, A. Pele, C. J. Perez, M. Phelps, V. Pierro, I. M. Pinto, M. Pirello, M. Principe, L. Prokhorov, O. Puncken, V. Quetschke, E. A. Quintero, H. Radkins, P. Raffai, K. E. Ramirez, S. Reid, D. H. Reitze, N. A. Robertson, J. G. Rollins, V. J. Roma, C. L. Romel, J. H. Romie, M. P. Ross, S. Rowan, K. Ryan, T. Sadecki, E. J. Sanchez, L. E. Sanchez, V. Sandberg, R. L. Savage, James A. Sellers, D. A. Shaddock, Thomas Shaffer, B. Shapiro, D. H. Shoemaker, B. J. J. Slagmolen, J. R. Smith, B. Sorazu, A. P. Spencer, K. A. Strain, D. B. Tanner, R. Taylor, M. Thomas, P. Thomas, K. A. Thorne, E. Thrane, K. Toland, C. I. Torrie, G. Traylor, M. Tse, D. Tuyenbayev, G. Vajente, G. Valdés, S. Vass, A. Vecchio, J. Veitch, K. Venkateswara, G. Venugopalan, T. Vo, C. Vorvick, M. Walker, R. L. Ward, J. Warner, B. Weaver, R. Weiss, P. Weßels, B. Willke, C. C. Wipf, J. Worden, H. Yamamoto, C. C. Yancey, Hang Yu, Haocun Yu, L. Zhang, M. E. Zucker, J. Zweizig

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCalifornia Institute of TechnologyMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyScience and Technology Facilities CouncilNational Science Foundation
KeywordsLIGOGravitational waveNoise (video)ObservatorySensitivity (control systems)PhysicsSpinsGravitational-wave observatorySubtractionAstronomyAstrophysicsComputer scienceAcousticsElectronic engineeringArtificial intelligenceEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Advanced LIGO detectors have recently completed their second observation run successfully. The run lasted for approximately 10 months and led to multiple new discoveries. The sensitivity to gravitational waves was partially limited by laser noise. Here, we utilize auxiliary sensors that witness these correlated noise sources, and use them for noise subtraction in the time domain data. This noise and line removal is particularly significant for the LIGO Hanford Observatory, where the improvement in sensitivity is greater than 20%. Consequently, we were also able to improve the astrophysical estimation for the location, masses, spins, and orbital parameters of the gravitational wave progenitors.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.438 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations109
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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