Detection, sky localization, and early warning for binary neutron star mergers by detectors located in China of different configurations in a third generation detector network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work shows the results of an evaluation of the impact that a detector located in China, with a noise budget comparable to that of a proposed high-frequency detector with a 20 km arm length, an Einstein Telescope (ET) or a Cosmic Explorer (CE), could have on the network of ET-CE in terms of detection rate, localization, and providing an early warning alert for simulated binary neutron stars (BNSs). The results indicate that a three-detector network including a Chinese detector could identify at least 4.4% more BNS mergers than an ET-CE network alone. The localization uncertainty could be reduced by a factor of more than 5 on average compared to the ET-CE network. With a three-detector network involving a Chinese detector, up to 89% of BNS mergers could be located within 10 square degrees of the sky 10 minutes prior to the merger. The assessment suggests that the potential for early warning signals is highest when the Chinese detector is similar to ET, whereas the sources are detected with the highest signal-to-noise ratio and localized to the smallest regions when the detector is more akin to CE. Interestingly, the C20N network (comprising $\mathrm{ET}+\mathrm{CE}+\mathrm{C}20$) can achieve comparable localization performance as the ET network while outperforming the ETCN network (featuring the $\mathrm{ET}+\mathrm{CE}+\mathrm{an}$ ET-like detector in China) in terms of detection capabilities, especially at large distances, indicating that adding a 20 km kilohertz detector in China to the ET-CE network would make significant contributions at least as adding an ET-like detector in China to multimessenger astronomy for almost all BNS observations.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".