MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3217208672 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8675

Gravitational Wave Sources in Our Galactic Backyard: Predictions for BHBH, BHNS, and NSNS Binaries Detectable with LISA

2022· article· en· W3217208672 on OpenAlexaff
Tom Wagg, Floor S. Broekgaarden, S. E. de Mink, Neige Frankel, L. A. C. van Son, Stephen Justham

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsUniversity of Toronto
FundersEuropean Research CouncilNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsGravitational waveAstrophysicsNeutron starMilky WayAstronomyPulsarPopulationMetallicitySupernovaWhite dwarfBlack hole (networking)Stars

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Future searches for gravitational waves from space will be sensitive to double compact objects in our Milky Way. We present new simulations of the populations of double black holes (BHBHs), BH neutron stars (BHNSs), and double neutron stars (NSNSs) that will be detectable by the planned space-based gravitational-wave detector called Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA). For our estimates, we use an empirically informed model of the metallicity-dependent star formation history of the Milky Way. We populate it using an extensive suite of binary population-synthesis predictions for varying assumptions relating to mass transfer, common-envelope, supernova kicks, remnant masses, and wind mass-loss physics. For a 4(10) yr LISA mission, we predict between 30–370(50–550) detections over these variations, out of which 6–154 (9–238) are BHBHs, 2–198 (3–289) are BHNSs, and 3–35 (4–57) are NSNSs. We expect that about 50% (60%) can be distinguished from double white dwarf sources based on their mass or eccentricity and localization. Specifically, for about 10% (15%), we expect to be able to determine chirp masses better than 10%. For 13% (13%), we expect sky-localizations better than 1°. We discuss how the variations in the physics assumptions alter the distribution of properties of the detectable systems, even when the detection rates are unchanged. We further discuss the possibility of multimessenger observations of pulsar populations with the Square Kilometre Array and assess the benefits of extending the LISA mission.

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)0.003
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations53
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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