MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413452448 · doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1375

Preliminary census of galaxies in the LISA localization volume – I. Searching for LISA candidate massive black hole binary merger hosts using Sloan Digital Sky Survey photometry

2025· article· en· W4413452448 on OpenAlexaff
Carolyn L. Drake, Jessie C. Runnoe, Aaron Stemo, Tamara Bogdanović, Michael Eracleous, John J. Ruan, Kaitlyn Szekerczes, Kate Futrowsky, Weixiang Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstronomy and Astrophysical Research
Canadian institutionsBishop's University
FundersNuclear Safety and Security CommissionNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsSkyGalaxyPhotometry (optics)AstrophysicsAstronomyBinary numberStars

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT With the launch of the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA), we will be able to estimate the sky position, luminosity distance (dL), chirp mass, and mass ratio for detected merging massive black hole binary (MBHB) systems. LISA’s uncertainties on these estimates will evolve over time, and enable electromagnetic (EM) follow-up observations as early as a month from coalescence. In this paper, we create a framework that takes simulated LISA parameter estimates for sky localization and dL for an MBHB and performs a census of matching EM galaxies, or candidate host galaxies. We used this framework to investigate these parameter estimates for simulated MBHB systems with masses of $3\times 10^{5}$, $3\times 10^{6}$, and $1\times 10^{7}$ M$_{\odot }$ at redshifts of 0.3 and 0.5 and used these parameters to select matching galaxies from archival Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) photometry. We found that the number of candidate host galaxies for a simulated MBHB system at a redshift of 0.3 and 1 h from coalescence ranged from tens to thousands. After coalescence, we found that our census numbers dropped to zero for all systems when considering median constraints most likely due to survey limitations. For an MBHB with mass $3\times 10^{6}$ M$_{\odot }$ at 1 h from coalescence, increasing the redshift from 0.3 to 0.5 or varying the sky position within the SDSS footprint resulted in the number of EM counterparts increasing by approximately a factor of 2.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietySame topicAstronomy and Astrophysical ResearchFrench-language works237,207