MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409501459 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.084041

Overtones and nonlinearities in binary black hole ringdowns

2025· article· en· W4409501459 on OpenAlexafffund
Matthew Giesler, Sizheng Ma, Keefe Mitman, Naritaka Oshita, Saul A. Teukolsky, Michael Boyle, Nils Deppe, Larry Kidder, Jordan Moxon, Kyle C. Nelli, Harald Pfeiffer, Mark Scheel, William Throwe, Nils L. Vu

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersMinistry of Colleges and UniversitiesKyoto UniversitySpace Telescope Science InstituteAssociation of Canadian Universities for Research in AstronomyGovernment of CanadaNational Science FoundationSherman Fairchild FoundationJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationInnovation, Science and Economic Development Canada
KeywordsBinary numberPhysicsMaterials scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using high-accuracy numerical relativity waveforms, we confirm the presence of numerous overtones of the $\ensuremath{\ell}=2$, $m=2$ quasinormal mode early in the ringdown of binary black hole mergers. We do this by demonstrating the stability of the mode amplitudes at different fit times, ruling out the possibility that a linear superposition of modes unphysically fits a highly nonlinear part of the waveform. We also find a number of previously unidentified subdominant second-order quasinormal modes in the (2, 2) mode. Even though these modes are mathematically nonlinear, they nevertheless confirm the validity of perturbation theory as a good approximation for describing much of the ringdown.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.377 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations29
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D.Same topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207