MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3088848087 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.063016

Physical approach to the marginalization of LIGO calibration uncertainties

2021· article· en· W3088848087 on OpenAlexafffund
S. Vitale, C.‐J. Haster, L. Sun, B. Farr, E. Goetz, Jeff Kissel, C. Cahillane

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersAustralian Research CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCalifornia Institute of TechnologyMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsLIGOCalibrationPhysicsDetectorGravitational waveSkyEstimatorNeutron starComputer scienceAstrophysicsOpticsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The data from ground-based gravitational-wave detectors such as Advanced LIGO and Virgo must be calibrated to convert the digital output of photodetectors into a relative displacement of the test masses in the detectors, producing the quantity of interest for inference of astrophysical gravitational-wave sources. Both statistical uncertainties and systematic errors are associated with the calibration process, which would in turn affect the analysis of detected sources, if not accounted for. Currently, source characterization algorithms either entirely neglect the possibility of calibration uncertainties or account for them in a way that does not use knowledge of the calibration process itself. We present physiCal, a new approach to account for calibration errors during the source characterization step, which directly uses all the information available about the instrument calibration process. Rather than modeling the overall detector's response function, we consider the individual components that contribute to the response. We implement this method and apply it to the compact binaries detected by LIGO and Virgo during the second observation run, as well as to simulated binary neutron stars for which the sky position and distance are known exactly. We find that the physiCal model performs as well as the method currently used within the LIGO-Virgo Collaboration, but additionally it enables improving the measurement of specific components of the instrument control through astrophysical calibration.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.426 · 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

Citations46
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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