MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4401077565 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.023038

Searching for gravitational-wave signals from precessing black hole binaries with the GstLAL pipeline

2024· article· en· W4401077565 on OpenAlexaff
S. Schmidt, Sarah Caudill, J. D. E. Creighton, R. M. Magee, Leo Tsukada, Shomik Adhicary, Pratyusava Baral, A. C. Baylor, K. C. Cannon, B. Cousins, Becca Ewing, Heather Fong, J. George, P. Godwin, Chad Hanna, Reiko Harada, Yun-Jing Huang, R. Huxford, Prathamesh Joshi, James Kennington, Soichiro Kuwahara, Alvin K. Y. Li, D. Meacher, C. Messick, S. Morisaki, Debnandini Mukherjee, Wanting Niu, Alex Pace, Cort Posnansky, Anarya Ray, S. Sachdev, S. Sakon, Divya Singh, Ron Tapia, T. Tsutsui, K. Ueno, A. D. Viets, L. E. Wade, M. Wade

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceScience and Technology Facilities CouncilCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueAustralian Research CouncilNational Research Foundation of KoreaNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekInstituto Nazionale di Fisica NucleareMax-Planck-GesellschaftUniversity of Wisconsin-MilwaukeeInstitute for Computational and Data Sciences, Pennsylvania State UniversityMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyNational Science FoundationMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and TechnologyCalifornia Institute of TechnologyAcademia SinicaMinistry of Science and ICT, South KoreaNational Science and Technology Council
KeywordsSpinsGravitational wavePrecessionPhysicsConsistency (knowledge bases)Binary black holeSIGNAL (programming language)Noise (video)Black hole (networking)Spin (aerodynamics)Pipeline (software)AstrophysicsComputer scienceAstronomyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Precession in binary black holes (BBH) is caused by the failure of the black hole spins to be aligned and its study can open up new perspectives in gravitational wave astronomy, providing, among other advancements, a precise measure of distance and an accurate characterization of the BBH spins. However, detecting precessing signals is a highly nontrivial task, as standard matched filtering pipelines for gravitational wave searches are built on many assumptions that do not hold in the precessing case. This work details the upgrades made to the GstLAL pipeline to facilitate the search for precessing BBH signals. The implemented changes in the search statistics and in the signal consistency test are then described in detail. The performance of the upgraded pipeline is evaluated through two extensive searches of precessing signals, targeting two different regions in the mass space, and the consistency of the results is examined. Additionally, the benefits of the upgrades are assessed by comparing the sensitive volume of the precessing searches with two corresponding traditional aligned-spin searches. While no significant sensitivity improvement is observed for precessing binaries with mass ratio $q\ensuremath{\lesssim}6$, a volume increase of up to 100% is attainable for heavily asymmetric systems with largely misaligned spins. Furthermore, our findings suggest that the primary cause of degraded performance in an aligned-spin search targeting precessing signals is not a poor signal-to-noise-ratio recovery but rather the failure of the ${\ensuremath{\xi}}^{2}$ signal-consistency test. Our work paves the way for a large-scale search for precessing signals, which could potentially result in exciting future detections.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.443 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations13
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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