Consistent Eccentricities for Gravitational-wave Astronomy: Resolving Discrepancies between Astrophysical Simulations and Waveform Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Detecting imprints of orbital eccentricity in gravitational-wave (GW) signals promises to shed light on the formation mechanisms of binary black holes. To constrain the formation mechanisms, distributions of eccentricity derived from numerical simulations of astrophysical formation channels are compared to the estimates of eccentricity inferred from GW signals. We report that the definition of eccentricity typically used in astrophysical simulations is inconsistent with the one used while modeling GW signals, with the differences mainly arising due to the choice of reference frequency used in both cases. We also posit a prescription for calculating eccentricity from astrophysical simulations, by evolving ordinary differential equations obtained from post-Newtonian theory and using the dominant (ℓ = m = 2) mode’s frequency as the reference frequency; this ensures consistency in the definitions. On comparing the existing eccentricities of the binaries present in the Cluster Monte Carlo catalog of globular cluster simulations with the eccentricities calculated using the prescription presented here, we find a significant discrepancy at e ≳ 0.2; this discrepancy becomes worse with increasing eccentricity. We note the implications this discrepancy has for existing studies and recommend that care be taken when comparing data-driven constraints on eccentricity to expectations from astrophysical formation channels.
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 | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".