Testing general relativity using quasi-periodic oscillations from X-ray black holes: XTE J1550-564 and GRO J1655-40
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We use the Relativistic Precession Model (RPM) and quasi-periodic oscillation (QPO) observations from the Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer to derive constraints on the properties of the black holes that power these sources and to test general relativity (GR) in the strong field regime. We build upon past techniques by using pairs of simultaneously measured QPOs, rather than triplets, and by including characteristic frequencies from the broad noise components of the power spectra in our fits. We find the inclusion of these broad noise components causes an overestimate in masses and underestimate in spins compared to values derived independently from optical spectra. We extend the underlying space-time metric to constrain potential deviations from the predictions of GR for astrophysical black holes. To do this, we modify the RPM model to a Kerr–Newman–deSitter space-time and model changes in the radial, ecliptic, and vertical frequencies. We compare our models with X-ray data of XTE J1550-564 and GRO J1655-40 using robust statistical techniques to constrain the parameters of the black holes and the deviations from GR. For both sources, using QPO and characteristic frequency data, we constrain particular deviations from GR to be less than one part per thousand.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".