Data quality up to the third observing run of advanced LIGO: Gravity Spy glitch classifications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Understanding the noise in gravitational-wave detectors is central to detecting and interpreting gravitational-wave signals. Glitches are transient, non-Gaussian noise features that can have a range of environmental and instrumental origins. The Gravity Spy project uses a machine-learning algorithm to classify glitches based upon their time–frequency morphology. The resulting set of classified glitches can be used as input to detector-characterisation investigations of how to mitigate glitches, or data-analysis studies of how to ameliorate the impact of glitches. Here we present the results of the Gravity Spy analysis of data up to the end of the third observing run of advanced laser interferometric gravitational-wave observatory (LIGO). We classify 233981 glitches from LIGO Hanford and 379805 glitches from LIGO Livingston into morphological classes. We find that the distribution of glitches differs between the two LIGO sites. This highlights the potential need for studies of data quality to be individually tailored to each gravitational-wave observatory.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".