MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4411329723 · doi:10.1093/mnras/staf962

Accelerated nested sampling with posterior repartitioning and <i>β</i>-flows for gravitational waves

2025· article· en· W4411329723 on OpenAlexaff
Metha Prathaban, H. T. J. Bevins, Will Handley

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
FundersScience and Technology Facilities CouncilKavli Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsGravitational waveScale (ratio)Sampling (signal processing)GravitationStatistical physicsAstrophysicsClassical mechanicsOpticsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT There is an ever-growing need in the gravitational wave community for fast and reliable inference methods, accompanied by an informative error bar. Nested sampling satisfies the last two requirements, but its computational cost can become prohibitive when using the most accurate waveform models. In this paper, we demonstrate the acceleration of nested sampling using a technique called posterior repartitioning. This method leverages nested sampling’s unique ability to separate prior and likelihood contributions at the algorithmic level. Specifically, we define a ‘repartitioned prior’ informed by the posterior from a low-resolution run. To construct this repartitioned prior, we use a $\beta$-flow, a novel type of conditional normalizing flow designed to better learn deep tail probabilities. $\beta$-flows are trained on the entire nested sampling run and conditioned on an inverse temperature $\beta$. Applying our methods to simulated and real binary black hole mergers, we demonstrate how they can reduce the number of likelihood evaluations required for a given evidence precision by up to an order of magnitude, enabling faster model comparison and parameter estimation. Furthermore, we highlight the robustness of using $\beta$-flows over standard normalizing flows for posterior repartitioning. Notably, $\beta$-flows are able to recover posteriors and evidences which are generally consistent with those from traditional nested sampling, even in cases where standard normalizing flows fail.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.280 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society→Same topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research→French-language works237,207→