MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3110141700 · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936724

Velocity correction for Hubble constant measurements from standard sirens

2020· article· en· W3110141700 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Suvodip Mukherjee, Guilhem Lavaux, F. R. Bouchet, Jens Jasche, B. D. Wandelt, S. Nissanke, Florent Leclercq, Kenta Hotokezaka

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomy and Astrophysics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgence Nationale de la RechercheImperial College LondonGrand Équipement National De Calcul IntensifNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekYork UniversityFlatiron HealthPrinceton UniversitySimons Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsHubble's lawAstrophysicsAstronomyConstant (computer programming)Hubble volumeCosmic distance ladderRadial velocityCosmologyStarsGalaxyDark energy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gravitational wave (GW) sources are an excellent probe of the luminosity distance and offer a novel measure of the Hubble constant, H 0 . This estimation of H 0 from standard sirens requires an accurate estimation of the cosmological redshift of the host galaxy of the GW source after correcting for its peculiar velocity. The absence of an accurate peculiar velocity correction affects both the precision and accuracy of the measurement of H 0 , particularly for nearby sources. Here, we propose a framework to incorporate such a peculiar velocity correction for GW sources. A first implementation of our method to the event GW170817, combined with observations taken with Very Large Baseline Interferometry (VLBI), leads to a revised value of H 0 = 68.3 −4.5 +4.6 km s −1 Mpc −1 . While this revision is minor, it demonstrates that our method makes it possible to obtain unbiased and accurate measurements of H 0 at the precision required for the standard siren cosmology.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score0.672

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations100
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstronomy and AstrophysicsSame topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchFrench-language works237,207