Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Microlensing bias on the detection of strong lensing gravitational wave

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 2306.14796 v1 pith:WKIHRIW7 submitted 2023-06-26 astro-ph.CO gr-qc

classification astro-ph.COgr-qc
keywords slgwbiaslensingstrongdetectionmicrolensingparameterparameters
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
abstract

Identifying strong lensing gravitational wave (SLGW) events is of utmost importance in astrophysics as we approach the historic first detection of SLGW amidst the growing number of gravitational wave (GW) events. Currently, one crucial method for identifying SLGW signals involves assessing the overlap of parameters between two GWs. However, the distribution of discrete matter, such as stars and sub-halos, within the strong lensing galaxy can imprint a wave optical (WO) effect on the SLGW waveform. These frequency dependent imprints introduce biases in parameter estimation and impact SLGW identification. In this study, we assess the influence of the stellar microlensing field embedded in a strong lensing galaxy. Our finding demonstrate that the WO effect reduces the detection efficiency of SLGW by $5\%\sim 50\%$ for various false alarm probabilities per pair (${\rm FAP}_{\rm per~pair}$). Specifically, at an ${\rm FAP}_{\rm per~pair}$ of $10^{-5}$, the detection efficiency decreases from $\sim 10\%$ to $\sim 5\%$. Consequently, the presence of the microlensing field can result in missing half of the strong lensing candidates. Additionally, the microlensing WO effect introduces a noticeable bias in intrinsic parameters, particularly for chirp mass and mass ratio. However, it has tiny influence on extrinsic parameters. Considering all parameters, $\sim 30\%$ of events exhibit a $1\sigma$ parameter bias, $\sim 12\%$ exhibit a $2\sigma$ parameter bias, and $\sim 5\%$ exhibit a $3\sigma$ parameter bias.

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. The diffraction-lensing interpretation of GW231123 with astrophysical priors

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

    GW231123 is better fit by a lower-mass merger diffracted by an isolated ~1000 M_sun lens, but astrophysical priors and a frequentist rate estimate make this lensing interpretation unlikely.

  2. Strong field gravitational lensing of particles by a black-bounce-Schwarzschild black hole

    gr-qc 2026-02 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

    For a black-bounce-Schwarzschild black hole, the paper derives the strong-deflection lensing observables for massive particles and quantifies how they differ from photon lensing.

Pith tools