MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2952706694

An improved pipeline to search for gravitational waves from compact binary coalescence

2015· preprint· en· W2952706694 on OpenAlexfundno aff
S. A. Usman, A. Nitz, I. W. Harry, Christopher M. Biwer, D. Brown, M. Cabero, C. D. Capano, T. Dal Canton, T. Dent, S. Fairhurst, M. S. Kehl, Drew Keppel, B. Krishnan, A. Lenon, A. P. Lundgren, A. B. Nielsen, L. Pekowsky, Harald Pfeiffer, P. R. Saulson, Matthew J. West, J. L. Willis

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCenters for Disease Control and PreventionCanada Research ChairsMax-Planck-GesellschaftSyracuse UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsGravitational waveLIGOPipeline (software)DetectorComputer scienceConstant false alarm rateNoise (video)False alarmFilter (signal processing)WaveformBinary numberAlgorithmStatistical hypothesis testingMatched filterPhysicsStatisticsMathematicsArtificial intelligenceComputer visionTelecommunicationsAstrophysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The second generation of ground-based gravitational-wave detectors will begin taking data in September 2015. Sensitive and computationally-efficient data analysis methods will be required to maximize what we learn from their observations. We describe improvements made to the offline analysis pipeline searching for gravitational waves from stellar-mass compact binary coalescences, and assess how these improvements affect search sensitivity. Starting with the two-stage ihope pipeline used in S5, S6 and VSR1-3 and using two weeks of S6/VSR3 data as test periods, we first demonstrate a pipeline with a simpler workflow. This single-stage pipeline performs matched filtering and coincidence testing only once. This simplification allows us to reach much lower false-alarm rates for loud candidate events. We then describe an optimized chi-squared test which minimizes computational cost. Next, we compare methods of generating template banks, demonstrating that a fixed bank may be used for extended stretches of time. Fixing the bank reduces the cost and complexity, compared to the previous method of regenerating a template bank every 2048 s of analyzed data. Creating a fixed bank shared by all detectors also allows us to apply a more stringent coincidence test, whose performance we quantify. With these improvements, we find a 10% increase in sensitive volume with a negligible change in computational cost.

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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.007

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.356 · 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

Citations11
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research→French-language works237,207→