MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2811043152 · doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aada4b

Formation of LISA Black Hole Binaries in Merging Dwarf Galaxies: The Imprint of Dark Matter

2018· article· en· W2811043152 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal Letters · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDark matterDwarf galaxyGalaxySupermassive black holeHaloBlack hole (networking)Milky WayMass ratio

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Theoretical models for the expected merger rates of intermediate-mass black holes (IMBHs) are vital for planned gravitational-wave detection experiments such as the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA). Using collisionless N -body simulations of dwarf galaxy (DG) mergers, we examine how the orbital decay of IMBHs and the efficiency of IMBH binary formation depend on the central dark matter (DM) density profile of the merging DGs. Specifically, we explore various asymptotic inner slopes γ of the DG’s DM density distribution, ranging from steep cusps ( γ = 1) to shallower density profiles ( γ < 1), motivated by well-known baryonic-feedback effects as well as by DM models that differ from cold DM at the scales of DGs. We find that the inner DM slope is crucial for the formation (or lack thereof) of an IMBH binary; only mergers between DGs with cuspy DM profiles ( γ = 1) are favorable to forming a hard IMBH binary, whereas when γ < 1 the IMBHs stall at a separation of 50–100 pc. Consequently, the rate of LISA signals from IMBH coalescence will be determined by the fraction of DGs with a cuspy DM profile. Conversely, the LISA event rates at IMBH mass scales offer in principle a novel way to place constraints on the inner structure of DM halos in DGs and address the core–cusp controversy. We also show that, with spatial resolutions of ∼0.1 kpc, as often adopted in cosmological simulations, all IMBHs stall, independent of γ . This suggests caution should be taken when employing cosmological simulations of galaxy formation to study BH dynamics in DGs.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations51
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal LettersSame topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchFrench-language works237,207