MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415827906 · doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ae1ac7

Inference with finite time series: II. The window strikes back

2025· article· en· W4415827906 on OpenAlexaff
C. Talbot, S. Biscoveanu, Aaron Zimmerman, Tomasz Baka, Will M. Farr, Jacob Golomb, C. G. Hoy, A. P. Lundgren, Jacopo Tissino, J. Veitch, A. Vijaykumar, M. J. Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueClassical and Quantum Gravity · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics
FundersNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekUniversity of PortsmouthNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationScience and Technology Facilities CouncilNational Science Foundation
KeywordsWindow (computing)InferenceBayes' theoremBayes factorWindow functionTerm (time)Posterior probabilitySIGNAL (programming language)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Smooth window functions are often applied to strain data when inferring the parameters describing the astrophysical sources of gravitational-wave transients. Within the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA collaboration, it is conventional to include a term to account for power loss due to this window in the likelihood function. We show that the inclusion of this factor leads to biased inference. The simplest solution to this, omitting the factor, leads to unbiased posteriors and Bayes factor estimates provided the window does not suppress the signal for signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" overflow="scroll"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>≲</mml:mo> </mml:mrow> <mml:mi>O</mml:mi> <mml:mo stretchy="false">(</mml:mo> <mml:mn>100</mml:mn> <mml:mo stretchy="false">)</mml:mo> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> , but unreliable estimates of the absolute likelihood. Instead, we propose a multi-stage method that yields consistent estimates for the absolute likelihood in addition to unbiased posterior distributions and Bayes factors for SNRs <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" overflow="scroll"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>≲</mml:mo> </mml:mrow> <mml:mi>O</mml:mi> <mml:mo stretchy="false">(</mml:mo> <mml:mn>1000</mml:mn> <mml:mo stretchy="false">)</mml:mo> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> . Additionally, we demonstrate that the commonly held wisdom that using rectangular windows necessarily leads to biased inference is incorrect.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.211
Threshold uncertainty score0.308

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.297
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations9
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClassical and Quantum GravitySame topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchFrench-language works237,207