MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6894094903 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.7254674

A joint model fitting of GW and EM data of merger: breaking model degeneracies in GW1707817

2022· article· en· W6894094903 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGamma-ray bursts and supernovae
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAfterglowLIGOGamma-ray burstGaussianJet (fluid)Light curveFlux (metallurgy)Curve fittingJoint (building)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On August 17, 2017, Advanced LIGO and Virgo observed GW170817, the first gravitational-wave (GW) signal from a binary neutron star merger. It was followed by a short-duration gamma-ray burst, GRB 170817A, and by a non-thermal afterglow emission, opening the way for multi-messenger studies. In this work, a combined simultaneous fit of the electromagnetic (EM, specifically, the afterglow) and GW domains is implemented, both fitting the EM data with a GW-informed prior and fitting the EM and GW domains simultaneously. This fits are mathematically the same, but modelling the GW posterior instead of using the actual distribution in the former can lead to incorrect results. We treat the viewing angle as a common parameter shared across the two domains. In the EM afterglow modelling this parameter and the jet opening angle are correlated, leading to high uncertainties on their values. The joint EM+GW analysis eases this degeneracy, reducing the uncertainty compared to an EM-only fit. We also apply our methodology to a hypothetical GW170817-like event occurring in the next GW observing run at 136.5 Mpc, so that the afterglow flux is about one order of magnitude fainter, leaving only the peak of the light curve visible. The EM-only fit cannot constrain the viewing angle nor the jet opening angle, while folding the GW data into the analysis leads to tighter constraints only on the viewing angle. Moreover, it is impossible to identify the geometry of the jet, which can either be a top hat or a Gaussian structured jet.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)→Same topicGamma-ray bursts and supernovae→French-language works237,207→