MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4379875475 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.122001

Inferring interference: Identifying a perturbing tertiary with eccentric gravitational wave burst timing

2023· article· en· W4379875475 on OpenAlexfundno aff
I. M. Romero-Shaw, Nicholas Loutrel, M. Zevin

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersH2020 European Research CouncilAmaldi Research CenterAustralian Research CouncilHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeAssociation of Canadian Universities for Research in AstronomySpace Telescope Science InstituteMinistero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della RicercaMonash UniversityAspen Center for PhysicsNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationEuropean CommissionFood Allergy Research and EducationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsGravitational waveBinary numberBinary black holeAstrophysicsSky

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Binary black holes may form and merge dynamically. These binaries are likely to become bound with high eccentricities, resulting in a burst of gravitational radiation at their point of closest approach. When such a binary is perturbed by a third body, the evolution of the orbit is affected, and gravitational-wave burst times are altered. The bursts times therefore encode information about the tertiary. In order to extract this information, we require a prescription for the relationship between the tertiary properties and the gravitational-wave burst times. In this paper, we demonstrate a toy model for the burst times of a secular three-body system. We show how Bayesian inference can be employed to deduce the tertiary properties when the bursts are detected by next-generation ground-based gravitational-wave detectors. We study the bursts from an eccentric binary with a total mass of $60{M}_{\ensuremath{\bigodot}}$ orbiting an $6\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}{10}^{8}{M}_{\ensuremath{\bigodot}}$ supermassive black hole. When we assume no knowledge of the eccentric binary, we are unable to tightly constrain the existence or properties of the tertiary, and we recover biased posterior probability distributions for the parameters of the eccentric binary. However, when the properties of the binary are already well known---as is likely if the late inspiral and merger are also detected---we are able to more accurately infer the mass of the perturber, ${m}_{3}$, and its distance from the binary, $R$. When we assume measurement precision on the binary parameters consistent with expectations for next-generation gravitational-wave detectors, we can be greater than 90% confident that the binary is perturbed. When the orbit of the binary around the tertiary is face-on with respect to the observer, there are large statistical uncertainties on the recovered tertiary properties (${m}_{3}$, ${R}_{3}$, and orbital phase descriptors ${\ensuremath{\omega}}_{0}$ and ${V}_{3,0}$) due to correlations between these parameters in the simple toy model. However, if the orbit is tilted away from face-on, these uncertainties can be substantially reduced. Future models allowing for nonsecular evolution may further decrease measurement uncertainties by breaking more correlations between binary and tertiary parameters.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.424 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D.→Same topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research→French-language works237,207→