MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388538931 · doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad0560

LIGO–Virgo–KAGRA's Oldest Black Holes: Probing Star Formation at Cosmic Noon With GWTC-3

2023· article· en· W4388538931 on OpenAlexafffund
M. Fishbach, L. A. C. van Son

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal Letters · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsUniversity of Toronto
FundersMinistero dello Sviluppo EconomicoEuropean CommissionNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekNational Science FoundationGovernment of CanadaInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueInnovation, Science and Economic Development Canada
KeywordsLIGONoonPhysicsAstronomyCOSMIC cancer databaseAstrophysicsStar (game theory)Gravitational wave

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In their third observing run, the LIGO–Virgo–KAGRA gravitational-wave (GW) observatory was sensitive to binary black hole (BBH) mergers out to redshifts z merge ≈ 1. Because GWs are inefficient at shrinking the binary orbit, some of these BBH systems likely experienced long delay times τ between the formation of their progenitor stars at z form and their GW merger at z merge. In fact, the distribution of delay times predicted by isolated binary evolution resembles a power law p ( τ ) ∝ τ α τ with slope −1 ≲ α τ ≲ −0.35 and a minimum delay time of τ min = 10 Myr . We use these predicted delay time distributions to infer the formation redshifts of the ∼70 BBH events reported in the third GW transient catalog GWTC-3 and the formation rate of BBH progenitors. For our default α τ = –1 delay time distribution, we find that GWTC-3 contains at least one system (with 90% credibility) that formed earlier than z form > 4.4. Comparing our inferred BBH progenitor formation rate to the star formation rate, we find that at z form = 4, the number of BBH progenitor systems formed per stellar mass was 6.4 − 5.5 + 9.4 × 10 − 6 M ⊙ − 1 and this yield dropped to 0.134 − 0.127 + 1.6 × 10 − 6 M ⊙ − 1 by z form = 0. We discuss implications of this measurement for the cosmic metallicity evolution, finding that for typical assumptions about the metallicity dependence of the BBH yield, the average metallicity at z form = 4 was 〈 log 10 ( Z / Z ⊙ ) 〉 = − 0.3 − 0.4 + 0.3

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations16
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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