MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4405254854 · doi:10.1103/jd26-8q5w

Merging black holes with Cauchy-characteristic matching: Computation of late-time tails

2025· preprint· en· W4405254854 on OpenAlexafffund
Sizheng Ma, Mark Scheel, Jordan Moxon, Kyle C. Nelli, Nils Deppe, Larry Kidder, William Throwe, Nils L. Vu

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersMinistry of Colleges and UniversitiesGovernment of CanadaNational Science FoundationSherman Fairchild FoundationResnick Sustainability Institute for Science, Energy and Sustainability, California Institute of TechnologyCalifornia Institute of TechnologyInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueInnovation, Science and Economic Development Canada
KeywordsComputationMatching (statistics)Cauchy distributionMathematicsApplied mathematicsAlgorithmMathematical analysisStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cauchy-characteristic matching (CCM) is a numerical-relativity technique that solves Einstein's equations on an effectively infinite computational domain, thereby eliminating systematic errors associated with artificial boundary conditions. Whether CCM can robustly handle fully nonlinear, dynamical spacetimes, such as binary black hole (BBH) mergers, has remained an open question. In this work, we provide a positive answer by presenting nine successful CCM simulations of BBHs; and demonstrate a key application of this method: computing late-time tails. Our results pave the path for systematic studies of late-time tails in BBH systems, and for producing highly accurate waveforms essential to next-generation gravitational-wave detectors.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.376 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D.→Same topicCosmology and Gravitation Theories→French-language works237,207→