MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3200037375 · doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac4dfa

Constraints on Compact Dark Matter from Gravitational Wave Microlensing

2022· article· en· W3200037375 on OpenAlexafffund
S. Basak, A. Ganguly, K. Haris, S. J. Kapadia, A. K. Mehta, P. Ajith

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal Letters · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
FundersMax-Planck-GesellschaftDepartment of Atomic Energy, Government of IndiaInternational Centre for Theoretical SciencesCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchTata Institute of Fundamental ResearchSimons Foundation
KeywordsGravitational microlensingPhysicsDark matterAstrophysicsGravitational waveBinary black holeLIGOBlack hole (networking)ObservableAstronomyPopulationGalaxyComputer scienceQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract If a significant fraction of dark matter is in the form of compact objects, they will cause microlensing effects in the gravitational wave signals observable by LIGO and Virgo. From the nonobservation of microlensing signatures in the binary black hole events from the first two observing runs and the first half of the third observing run, we constrain the fraction of compact dark matter in the mass range 102–105 M ⊙ to be less than ≃50%–80% (details depend on the assumed source population properties and the Bayesian priors). These modest constraints will be significantly improved in the next few years with the expected detection of thousands of binary black hole events, providing a new avenue to probe the nature of dark matter.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations58
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal LettersSame topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchFrench-language works237,207