MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3006221529 · doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ab745f

Analytic waveforms for eccentric gravitational wave bursts

2020· article· en· W3006221529 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueClassical and Quantum Gravity · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchSimons FoundationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsWaveformGravitational waveNumerical relativityQuadrupoleFourier seriesFourier transformRepresentation (politics)Series (stratigraphy)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We here present the first analytic effective fly-by (EFB) waveforms designed to accurately capture the burst of gravitational radiation from the closest approach of highly eccentric compact binaries. The waveforms are constructed by performing a re-summation procedure on the well-known Fourier series representation of the two-body problem at leading post-Newtonian order. This procedure results in two models: one in the time-domain, and one in the Fourier domain, which makes use of the stationary phase approximation. We discuss the computational efficiency of these models, and find that the time-domain model is roughly twice as fast as a numerical quadrupole waveform. We compare the time-domain model to both numerical, leading post-Newtonian order, quadrupole waveforms and numerical relativity (NR) fly-by waveforms using the match statistic. While the match is typically >0.97 when compared to the quadrupole waveforms, it is much lower when comparing to the NR fly-by waveforms, due to neglecting relativistic effects within the model. We further show how to use these individual waveforms to detect a repeated burst source.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.534

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations18
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClassical and Quantum GravitySame topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchFrench-language works237,207