Preprint
Article

This version is not peer-reviewed.

MIsCORE-RIUD: Paper III — Control-Native Evidence for Partially Shared Dynamics in Recurrent Gravitational-Wave Post-Model Paths

Submitted:

07 October 2026

Posted:

09 October 2026

You are already at the latest version

Abstract
Residual analyses of gravitational-wave observations commonly ask whether post-model data are compatible with detector noise or contain coherent excess power. Paper III asks a different question: once recurrent merger-local morphology has been converted into frozen connected multiscale paths, do those paths exhibit repeatable family-level dynamics that remain unusual when controls are allowed to construct their own maps and paths? The confirmatory panel contains 13 frozen events. Each event contributes 1,000 controls, and each control passes through preprocessing, feature construction, a free path search, trajectory formation, frozen family classification, and the hypothesis statistic. Three prelocked hypotheses are tested. In the canonical analysis, corrected empirical p-values are 0.005994 for multistep trajectories under raw/M5 (H1), 0.002997 for oscillatory trajectories under raw/M5 (H2), and 0.026973 for quasi-stationary trajectories under raw/M3 (H3). A separately regenerated internal computational replication uses 13,000 newly generated controls and 1,000 valid population draws with zero technical invalids; corrected p-values are 0.009990, 0.002997, and 0.045954, respectively. The two nulls are not pooled. H1 and H2 therefore support a shared dynamical representation across distinct morphology families, while H3 supports a separate and less stable regime. A separately frozen compact-law audit is negative after search correction (search-aware p=0.089910; fixed-law p=0.677323), preventing the family-level result from being promoted to one universal trajectory law. The supported conclusion is recurrent, partially shared path dynamics in the frozen panel. Physical origin, catalog-wide prevalence, exhaustive systematic exclusion, and Beyond-GR interpretation are not established.
Keywords: 
;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  

Results at a Glance

Hypothesis Frozen representation Events Canonical corrected p Internal corrected p Interpretation
H1 multistep, raw/M5 4 0.005994 0.009990 replicated; clear support
H2 oscillatory, raw/M5 3 0.002997 0.002997 replicated; most stable
H3 quasi-stationary, raw/M3 3 0.026973 0.045954 replicated; boundary-adjacent
Compact law best-3-of-4 selected law - 0.089910 fixed-law 0.677323 not supported

1. Introduction

Most gravitational-wave residual analyses are framed as goodness-of-fit or excess-power problems. Those tests are indispensable, but they do not exhaust the scientific role of post-model data. RIUD (Residual Is Undiscovered Data) treats the residual layer as unclassified rather than pre-classified: detector noise, waveform mismatch, conditioning effects, known but unmodeled physics, or a different physical origin remain competing explanations until structure has been defined and tested.
Paper I established a recurrent merger-local observational morphology and explicitly retained failed physical interpretations. Paper II raised the object from localized cells to connected multiscale paths and tested the frozen coordinates by fixed projection into H1/L1 raw strain. Paper III begins only after that path population is frozen. Its question is narrower and harder: do the observed paths exhibit recurring dynamics that remain unusual when null controls receive comparable freedom to construct paths of their own?
This distinction matters because a coordinate-only null can underestimate the search freedom of a path-based analysis. If the observed branch is allowed to discover a path but the null branch is evaluated only at the observed coordinates, the comparison no longer asks whether the dynamical organization itself is unusual. Paper III therefore uses a control-native design in which every control independently constructs its map, searches for a path, forms a trajectory, receives a frozen family classification, and only then contributes to the population statistic.

2. Methods

2.1. Scientific Question and Frozen Evidential Boundary

The confirmatory claim is restricted to family-level trajectory dynamics. Paper III does not re-estimate the Paper I morphology, does not reopen the Paper II path selector, does not use the Paper I A2 score as an analysis anchor, and does not combine Paper II and Paper III p-values.
Layer Role in Paper III Inferential status
Observed path assets Frozen 13-event trajectories and family labels Input object
Canonical R27 Primary H1/H2/H3 control-native population test Confirmatory
Separate internal regeneration New controls, new randomization namespace, new population draws Computational replication; unpooled
Historical R27B auxiliary outputs Off-source, injection, detector/waveform and permutation audits Provenance only
Compact-law audit Separate best-three-of-four governing-law question Negative claim boundary
105-entry ledger Engineering and provenance record Not a scientific denominator
The frozen computational workflow recorded the label VALIDATED_PARTIALLY_SHARED_DYNAMICS. In this manuscript, that label is treated as provenance rather than as a substitute for the scientific claim. The scientific claim is limited to recurrent partially shared path dynamics under the specified control-native null.

2.2. Frozen Event Panel and Trajectory Assets

The confirmatory panel contains 13 gravitational-wave events with frozen event identities, path rows, family assignments, and event-relative trajectory coordinates. The observed source is R26C30R6_observed_path_nodes and the time column is tau_s. Path order is preserved. Interpolation, nearest-coordinate matching, tolerance snapping, score-only trajectory reconstruction, family relearning, renaming, and outcome-dependent event substitution are prohibited.
Event Frozen family Paper III role
GW150914_095045 quasi-stationary H3
GW200129_065458 dip-rebound-rise not primary
GW200224_222234 multistep H1
GW230824_033047 oscillatory H2
GW230831_015414 multistep H1
GW230904_051013 oscillatory H2
GW231206_233901 oscillatory H2
GW231221_135041 quasi-stationary H3
GW240629_145256 monotonic-rise not primary
GW240919_061559 quasi-stationary H3
GW240920_124024 multistep H1
GW241006_015333 multistep H1
GW241231_054133 rise-peak-fall not primary
The panel therefore contains four multistep events, three oscillatory events, three quasi-stationary events, and three additional frozen families that remain in the panel but do not enlarge the confirmatory max-T family set. An initially contemplated H4 shared-cluster hypothesis was excluded before the final R27 confirmatory test.

2.3. Frozen Hypotheses and Dynamical Representations

H1 uses the multistep family under raw normalization and the M5 coupled frequency-width ordinary differential equation representation. H2 uses the oscillatory family under the same raw/M5 representation. H3 uses the quasi-stationary family under raw normalization and the M3 first-order power-law representation. Here raw is the frozen R27 trajectory-normalization label; it is not raw H1/L1 detector strain.
The baseline is M0. M3 is a first-order frequency power-basis model, and M5 uses coupled first-order frequency and width derivatives with the [1,f,w] basis. Exact fitted coefficients and row-level frozen exponents are not re-estimated in this manuscript.
Primary observed statistic: REL_IMPROVEMENT = (METRIC_M0 - METRIC_LOCKED) / |METRIC_M0|.
Hyp. Family Representation Events Relative improvement Coeff. stability Event influence
H1 multistep raw/M5 4 0.295609 0.475133 400.229
H2 oscillatory raw/M5 3 0.198292 0.372100 265.856
H3 quasi-stationary raw/M3 3 0.338358 0.585786 147.533
Coefficient stability and event influence are descriptive frozen diagnostics. They are not p-values, are not independent effect-size claims, and do not determine confirmatory support.

2.4. Control-Native Population Null

Each of the 13 observed events contributes 1,000 controls. A control is not evaluated at the observed path. Instead, the control-native sequence is:
control input -> preprocessing / feature construction -> free path search -> trajectory -> frozen family classification -> hypothesis statistic
This is the central design feature of Paper III. It preserves the principal path-search freedom that could otherwise make an observed family appear artificially rare.
Figure 1. Control-native null architecture. Each null control constructs its own feature map and PATH before trajectory and family evaluation; the observed branch remains frozen.
Figure 1. Control-native null architecture. Each null control constructs its own feature map and PATH before trajectory and family evaluation; the observed branch remains frozen.
Preprints 236982 g001
The null is unconditional. If a frozen family is absent from a population draw, its statistic is set to zero rather than discarded. If the family is present but the frozen leave-one-event-out requirement is insufficient, the statistic is also set to zero. Only genuine technical failures are invalid.
The canonical design contains 13,000 controls, 1,000 valid population draws, and 0 technical invalid draws. Empirical p-values use the plus-one rule p=(b+1)/(N+1), where b is the number of null draws at least as extreme as the observed statistic and N=1,000. Reported corrected values are the frozen selection-aware/max-T results over H1/H2/H3; they are not Bonferroni approximations.

2.5. Separately Regenerated Internal Computational Replication

A second full statistical run was generated under the same frozen scientific design but with a new randomization namespace, newly generated control-native controls and trajectories, new population draws, and an isolated output tree. It contains 13 event branches, 13,000 newly generated controls, 1,000 valid hypothesis draws, and 0 technical invalids.
The internal run does not import or pool the canonical null distribution, canonical p-values, or final verdict. It is evidentially separate from the canonical computation but is not an independent external-team replication.

2.6. Use of AI-Assisted Tools

Large language models were used for code assistance, literature navigation, terminology clarification, manuscript drafting support, and consistency checking. All research questions, methodological decisions, experiment selection, data interpretation, and final scientific claims were determined and approved by the author. The author reviewed the manuscript and takes responsibility for its contents.

3. Results

3.1. Canonical R27 Population Test

All three prelocked hypotheses pass the corrected alpha=0.05 threshold in the canonical analysis. H1 has raw p=0.003996 and corrected p=0.005994. H2 has raw and corrected p=0.002997. H3 has raw p=0.002997 and corrected p=0.026973.
The result is partially shared rather than universal. H1 and H2 are distinct morphology families but share the same raw/M5 dynamical representation. H3 is supported under a different raw/M3 representation.

3.2. Separate Internal Regeneration

The regenerated run preserves the overall family-level conclusion. H1 has raw p=0.006993 and corrected p=0.009990. H2 again has raw and corrected p=0.002997. H3 has raw p=0.009990 and corrected p=0.045954.
Hyp. Canonical raw Canonical corr. Internal raw Internal corr. Internal exceedance Interpretation
H1 0.003996 0.005994 0.006993 0.009990 9/1000 corrected replicated; clear support
H2 0.002997 0.002997 0.002997 0.002997 2/1000 corrected replicated; most stable
H3 0.002997 0.026973 0.009990 0.045954 45/1000 corrected replicated; boundary-adjacent
H2 is the most stable family across the two unpooled runs. H1 remains clearly below threshold. H3 also passes the frozen threshold in both runs, but the internal corrected value is boundary-adjacent; it should not be presented as equally robust to H1 and H2. No combined p-value is computed.

4. Negative Compact-Law Audit

Family-level dynamical recurrence does not imply one compact governing law. The governing-law development corridor contained 58 candidate relations, reduced to 7 consensus candidates and then to one selected top candidate. The selected relation improved 3 of 4 discovery events and had term stability=1.0 before the required selection-aware null.
In the separately frozen best-three-of-four audit, the observed subset BCD selected A_MONOTONE_DEC_MASS_SCALED. The selection-aware control-native null produced 89 exceedances among 1,000 draws, giving p=0.089910. The corresponding fixed-law p-value was 0.677323. The locked verdict was BEST3OF4_PARTIAL_RELATION_NOT_SUPPORTED.
Claim boundary: recurrent family-level dynamics are supported; the tested compact universal trajectory law is not.

5. Discussion

The principal result is a change in scientific object. Paper I established a recurrent local morphology. Paper II established connected multiscale paths and fixed-coordinate support after a representation change. Paper III shows that the frozen paths are not merely a list of unrelated shapes: controls that receive their own path-search freedom seldom reproduce the same family-level dynamical improvements.
The evidence does not support the opposite extreme either. A single compact governing law does not survive its search-aware audit. The most defensible description is therefore a small set of recurrent dynamical regimes: H1 and H2 share one representation, while H3 supports a separate and weaker regime.
Several causal explanations remain possible, including waveform incompleteness, source-parameter mismatch, higher-mode or precession structure not absorbed by the selected description, detector or conditioning effects that survive the completed controls, or unmodeled source physics. Paper III does not assign probabilities among these explanations.
The negative compact-law result is scientifically useful rather than merely disappointing. It prevents the observed family-level recurrence from being rewritten as a universal physical equation. In other words, the paper establishes dynamical organization at an intermediate level: stronger than isolated event morphology, weaker than a universal governing law.

6. Limitations and Claim Boundary

Supported by Paper III Not established by Paper III
Three prelocked family-level hypotheses pass selection-aware empirical nulls in canonical and separate internal runs. Physical identity of the structures.
H1 and H2 share raw/M5; H3 supports raw/M3. One universal dynamical or physical law.
Null controls construct their own maps, paths and trajectories. Catalog-wide prevalence or blind prospective detection rate.
Separate internal regeneration reproduces the family-level conclusion with 0 technical invalid draws. Independent external-team replication.
A selected compact law fails after search correction. GR violation or Beyond-GR detection.
The frozen 13-event panel is not a random sample of the complete gravitational-wave catalog. The confirmatory family set is designed rather than exhaustive. No finite control bank spans every detector, calibration, waveform, conditioning, or astrophysical alternative. Paper III is not a raw-strain free-search discovery, and Paper II and Paper III p-values are not combined.

7. Conclusion

Across a frozen 13-event path panel, three prelocked morphology families show model improvements that are rare under controls allowed to construct their own maps, paths, and trajectories. The canonical analysis and a separately regenerated internal computational run both support multistep raw/M5, oscillatory raw/M5, and quasi-stationary raw/M3 dynamics at the frozen corrected threshold, with H3 explicitly weaker and boundary-adjacent in the regenerated run.
The supported scientific conclusion is recurrent partially shared path dynamics, not one universal law. The separate compact-law audit is negative after search correction. Paper III therefore occupies a specific position in the RIUD sequence: it raises a frozen path population into a recurrent dynamical object while preserving the boundary between empirical organization and physical law.

Author Contributions

Jae-Hyun Min conceived the RIUD framework, designed the analysis, directed the computational workflow, interpreted the frozen outputs, and wrote the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The detector data and catalog products used in this analysis are publicly available through the Gravitational Wave Open Science Center and the associated LVK catalog releases. A public RIUD numerical/provenance release is available at Zenodo, DOI 10.5281/zenodo.22104279. That release represents Papers I-III through integrated numerical results, chronology, lineage, crosswalk, and provenance records, while complete historical raw-source executable packages for Papers I-III remain separate archival assets. The canonical and separately regenerated Paper III null results reported in this manuscript are not pooled. The working control bank, analysis code, and internal replication archive are retained by the author; the internal regeneration is not presented as independent external-team replication. A public RIUD numerical/provenance release is available as RIUD_PIV_SXS_GR_RELEASE_R1_20260826 at Zenodo DOI 10.5281/zenodo.22104279. That release contains integrated numerical results, chronology, lineage, crosswalk, and provenance records for Papers I-III, together with the broader frozen release package. It does not constitute a complete historical raw-source re-execution package for Paper III; full re-execution still requires the separate historical Paper III source archive. No dedicated public Paper III control-bank/code package is claimed in this revision. The present preprint therefore distinguishes public provenance availability from complete external package-level reproducibility.

Acknowledgments

I acknowledge the public data and software infrastructure provided by the Gravitational Wave Open Science Center and the LIGO, Virgo, and KAGRA collaborations.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no competing interests.

Appendix A. Statistical Provenance

The canonical and separate internal nulls are distinct computations and are not pooled. The canonical corrected p-values are H1=0.005994, H2=0.002997, H3=0.026973. The internal corrected p-values are H1=0.009990, H2=0.002997, H3=0.045954. The compact-law audit is a separate negative result with search-aware p=0.089910 and fixed-law p=0.677323.

Appendix B. Execution Accounting

The internal source ledger contains 105 folder-level entries. This is a provenance count, not 105 independent scientific tests. The ledger preserves protocol work, blocked bindings, missing historical producers, technical failures, freeze passes, reconstruction attempts, runtime recovery, follow-on preparation, duplicate captures, and provenance audits. The positive Paper III claim is anchored to the canonical R27 analysis and the separately regenerated internal run; the compact-law audit is a separate negative claim-boundary layer. Integrated numerical, chronology, lineage, crosswalk, and provenance records are represented in the public RIUD numerical release at Zenodo DOI 10.5281/zenodo.22104279, while complete historical Paper III re-execution remains dependent on the separate historical source archive.
Historical R27B auxiliary outputs are retained as provenance only and are not promoted into the confirmatory chain. Their repeated corrected values do not create additional independent evidence.

References

  1. Abbott, B. P.; et al. Observation of gravitational waves from a binary black hole merger. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2016, 116, 061102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Abbott, B. P.; et al. Tests of general relativity with GW150914. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2016, 116, 221101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Abbott, B. P.; et al. Tests of general relativity with the binary black hole signals from the LIGO-Virgo catalog GWTC-1. Phys. Rev. D. 2019, 100, 104036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Cornish, N. J.; Littenberg, T. B. BayesWave: Bayesian inference for gravitational wave bursts and instrument glitches. Class. Quantum Gravity 2015, 32, 135012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Dideron, G.; Mukherjee, S.; Lehner, L. SCoRe: A new framework to study unmodeled physics from gravitational wave data. arXiv 2022, arXiv:2209.14321. [Google Scholar]
  6. Abbott, R.; et al. GWTC-3: Compact binary coalescences observed by LIGO and Virgo during the second part of the third observing run. Phys. Rev. X 2023, 13, 041039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Abbott, R.; et al. Open data from the third observing run of LIGO, Virgo, KAGRA, and GEO. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 267 2023, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Abac, A. G.; et al. GWTC-4.0: An introduction to version 4.0 of the Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog. Astrophys. J. Lett. 2025, 995, L18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Abac, A. G.; et al. Open data from LIGO, Virgo, and KAGRA through the first part of the fourth observing run. Astrophys. J. 2026, 1004, 232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Abac, A. G.; et al. GWTC-4.0: Updating the Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog with observations from the first part of the fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA observing run. Astrophys. J. Lett. 2026, 1004, L22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. LIGO Scientific Collaboration; Virgo Collaboration; and KAGRA Collaboration. GWTC-5.0: Observations from the second part of the fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA observing run and updates to the Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog. arXiv 2026, arXiv:2605.27225. [Google Scholar]
  12. Min, J.-H. MIsCORE-RIUD: Paper I. Recurrent Merger-Local Morphology in Gravitational-Wave Post-Model Data; 2026. [Google Scholar]
  13. Min, J.-H. MIsCORE-RIUD: Paper II. Connected Multiscale Paths in Gravitational-Wave Post-Model Data; 2026. [Google Scholar]
  14. Dideron, G.; Mukherjee, S.; Lehner, L. Detecting unmodeled, source-dependent signals in gravitational waves with SCoRe. Phys. Rev. D. 2025, arXiv:2411.04198111, 064029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Dideron, G.; Mukherjee, S.; Lehner, L. Agnostically decoding gravitational wave model deficiencies in GWTC-3. arXiv 2026, arXiv:2604.27185. [Google Scholar]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.