Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Can we discern millilensed gravitational-wave signals from signals produced by precessing binary black holes with ground-based detectors?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2301.07253 v4 pith:RVM5TFR2 submitted 2023-01-18 gr-qc astro-ph.HE

classification gr-qcastro-ph.HE
keywords signalsmillilensedprecessingbinaryeffectsblackchallengingdiscern
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
abstract

Millilensed gravitational waves (GWs) can potentially be identified by the interference signatures caused by $\sim\!O(10\textrm{--}100)~\textrm{ms}$ time delays between multiple overlapping lensed signals. However, distinguishing millilensed GWs from GWs generated by precessing binary black-hole mergers can be challenging due to their apparent similar waveform shapes. This morphological similarity may be an obstacle to template-based searches to correctly identifying the origin of observed GWs and poses a fundamental question, can we discern millilensed GW signals from signals produced by precessing binary black holes? In this study, we investigate the feasibility of distinguishing between these GWs by performing a proof-of-principle injection study of simulated millilensed precessing GW signals, within the context of ground-based LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA detector network detections. Our findings indicate that it is possible to differentiate between the two effects by comparing signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) computed using templates based on different hypotheses for the target signal. We further show from the parameter estimation study that while lensing magnification is sensitive to precession, it is possible to identify millilensing in precessing GW signals with an SNR of 18. The recovery of precession in the presence of lensing is more challenging but improves significantly for signals with an SNR of 40. Nonetheless, neglecting millilensing effects results in biases in the recovered spins, revealing the importance of accounting for these effects in accurate GW signal analysis.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Probability of gravitational-wave lensing by intermediate-mass black holes and globular clusters

    astro-ph.CO 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The rate of compound gravitational-wave lensing by intermediate-mass black holes in globular clusters is at most about 10^-3 of galaxy-scale lensed events, disfavoring GW231123 as such an event.

  2. GW Microlensing: Degeneracy with Unlensed Precessing and Non-Spinning Gravitational-Wave Signals

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A CNN trained on Q-transform images separates microlensed from unlensed precessing and non-spinning black-hole merger signals with 80–95% accuracy in simulated noise.

Pith tools