On combining information from multiple gravitational wave sources
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the coming years, advanced gravitational wave detectors will observe signals from a large number of compact binary coalescences. The majority of these signals will be relatively weak, making the precision measurement of subtle effects, such as deviations from general relativity, challenging in the individual events. However, many weak observations can be combined into precise inferences, if information from the individual signals is combined in an appropriate way. In this study we revisit common methods for combining multiple gravitational wave observations to test general relativity, namely (i) multiplying the individual likelihoods of beyond-general-relativity parameters and (ii) multiplying the Bayes factor in favor of general relativity from each event. We discuss both methods and show that they make stringent assumptions about the modified theory of gravity they test. In particular, the former assumes that all events share the same beyond-general-relativity parameter, while the latter assumes that the theory of gravity has a new unrelated parameter for each detection. We show that each method can fail to detect deviations from general relativity when the modified theory being tested violates these assumptions. We argue that these two methods are the extreme limits of a more generic framework of hierarchical inference on hyperparameters that characterize the underlying distribution of single-event parameters. We illustrate our conclusions first using a simple model of Gaussian likelihoods and also by applying parameter estimation techniques to a simulated dataset of gravitational waveforms in a model where the graviton is massive. We argue that combining information from multiple sources requires explicit assumptions that make the results inherently model dependent.
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 | 0.020 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".