Explaining the GWSkyNet-Multi Machine Learning Classifier Predictions for Gravitational-wave Events
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract GWSkyNet-Multi is a machine learning model developed for the classification of candidate gravitational-wave events detected by the LIGO and Virgo observatories. The model uses limited information released in the low-latency Open Public Alerts to produce prediction scores indicating whether an event is a merger of two black holes (BHs), a merger involving a neutron star (NS), or a non-astrophysical glitch. This facilitates time-sensitive decisions about whether to perform electromagnetic follow-up of candidate events during LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA (LVK) observing runs. However, it is not well understood how the model is leveraging the limited information available to make its predictions. As a deep learning neural network, the inner workings of the model can be difficult to interpret, impacting our trust in its validity and robustness. We tackle this issue by systematically perturbing the model and its inputs to explain what underlying features and correlations it has learned for distinguishing the sources. We show that the localization area of the 2D sky maps and the computed coherence versus incoherence Bayes factors are used as strong predictors for distinguishing between real events and glitches. The estimated distance to the source is further used to discriminate between binary BH mergers and mergers involving NSs. We leverage these findings to show that events misclassified by GWSkyNet-Multi in LVK’s third observing run have distinct sky areas, coherence factors, and distance values that influence the predictions and explain these misclassifications. The results help identify the model’s limitations and inform potential avenues for further optimization.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".