MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4300864453 · doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2810

Robust parameter estimation from pulsar timing data

2022· article· en· W4300864453 on OpenAlexafffund
A. Samajdar, G. Shaifullah, Alberto Sesana, John Antoniadis, M. Burgay, Siyuan Chen, I. Cognard, L. Guillemot, James W. McKee, M. B. Mickaliger, G. Theureau

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsUniversity of Toronto
FundersHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeHellenic Foundation for Research and InnovationCollege of Natural Resources and Sciences, Humboldt State UniversityStavros Niarchos FoundationSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungAgence Nationale de la RechercheScience and Technology Facilities CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEuropean CommissionAlexander von Humboldt-Stiftung
KeywordsPhysicsMarkov chain Monte CarloPulsarRobustness (evolution)AlgorithmParameter spaceSampling (signal processing)Monte Carlo methodInferenceGravitational waveAstrophysicsStatistical physicsStatisticsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceDetectorMathematicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Recently, global pulsar timing arrays have released results from searching for a nano-Hertz gravitational wave background signal. Although there has not been any definite evidence of the presence of such a signal in residuals of pulsar timing data yet, with more and improved data in future, a statistically significant detection is expected to be made. Stochastic algorithms are used to sample a very large parameter space to infer results from data. In this paper, we attempt to rule out effects arising from the stochasticity of the sampler in the inference process. We compare different configurations of nested samplers and the more commonly used markov chain monte carlo method to sample the pulsar timing array parameter space and account for times taken by the different samplers on same data. Although we obtain consistent results on parameters from different sampling algorithms, we propose two different samplers for robustness checks on data in the future to account for cross-checks between sampling methods as well as realistic run-times.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.063
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.063
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society→Same topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research→French-language works237,207→