GSpyNetTree: a signal-vs-glitch classifier for gravitational-wave event candidates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Despite achieving sensitivities capable of detecting the extremely small amplitude of gravitational waves (GWs), LIGO and Virgo detector data contain frequent bursts of non-Gaussian transient noise, commonly known as ‘glitches’. Glitches come in various time-frequency morphologies, and they are particularly challenging when they mimic the form of real GWs. Given the higher expected event rate in the next observing run (O4), LIGO-Virgo GW event candidate validation will require increased levels of automation. Gravity Spy, a machine learning tool that successfully classified common types of LIGO and Virgo glitches in previous observing runs, has the potential to be restructured as a compact binary coalescence (CBC) signal-vs-glitch classifier to accurately distinguish between glitches and GW signals. A CBC signal-vs-glitch classifier used for automation must be robust and compatible with a broad array of background noise, new sources of glitches, and the likely occurrence of overlapping glitches and GWs. We present GSpyNetTree, the Gravity Spy Convolutional Neural Network Decision Tree: a multi-CNN classifier using CNNs in a decision tree sorted via total GW candidate mass tested under these realistic O4-era scenarios.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".