Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

LensingFlow: An Automated Workflow for Gravitational Wave Lensing Analyses

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper presents LensingFlow, an automated workflow that chains existing gravitational-wave lensing search pipelines together so that whole catalogs of events can be screened with minimal human oversight.

desk verdict A genuine, honest automation-layer paper for GW lensing searches; the MDC proof-of-concept is real but thin on disclosed thresholds and background, so treat the 85% figure as illustrative, not calibrated. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.20256 v2 pith:TZ2N4W3A submitted 2025-07-27 gr-qc astro-ph.IMphysics.data-an

Mick Wright , Justin Janquart , Paolo Cremonese , Juno C.L. Chan , Alvin K.Y. Li , Otto A. Hannuksela , Rico K.L. Lo , Jose M. Ezquiaga
show 13 more authors
Daniel Williams Michael Williams Gregory Ashton Rhiannon Udall Anupreeta More Laura Uronen Ankur Barsode Eungwang Seo David Keitel Srashti Goyal Jef Heynen Anna Liu Prasia Pankunni
This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.IMphysics.data-an PACS 04.30.-w98.62.Sb
keywords gravitationallensingwavesautomatedworkflowmockdatachallengemultipletsearchBayesianparameterestimationAsimovframeworkCBCFlow
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper presents LensingFlow, an automated workflow that chains existing gravitational-wave lensing search pipelines together so that whole catalogs of events can be screened with minimal human oversight. The authors show that on a mock data challenge containing ten detected signals spanning every lensing regime they consider, the workflow correctly flagged the injected lensed systems and reduced the number of event pairs requiring the most expensive joint Bayesian analyses by roughly 85 percent. The motivation is the accelerating rate of gravitational-wave detections: the number of event pairs grows quadratically, so a scalable, reproducible orchestration layer is needed for lensing searches to keep pace.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a threshold-triggered decision graph implemented inside the Asimov ledger: each pipeline's output is compared against a per-pipeline user-defined interest threshold, and the pattern of agreements among low-latency filters automatically starts, prioritizes, or discards high-latency joint parameter estimation. A prioritization manager for the HTCondor scheduler gives the most significant multiplets faster access to computing resources, and CBCFlow metadata is continuously updated as the ledger changes, so all analyses of the same event or pair remain consistent and reproducible.

What would settle it

Rerun LensingFlow on a separate blind mock data challenge where the per-pipeline thresholds are set before inspecting the data and recorded in the ledger; if the workflow fails to identify the injected lensed systems, or if the fraction of pairs sent to joint parameter estimation departs sharply from the previous 85 percent reduction, the claim of a general scalable automation would be falsified. A simpler check is to inspect the released configuration files to see whether threshold values are documented with any statement of their provenance.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

LensingFlow is an orchestration layer built on the Asimov automation framework and the CBCFlow metadata system. It runs low-latency filters first—LensID, Phazap, Posterior_Overlap, galaxy-lens compatibility via Atlenstics, and a fast conditional Golum analysis—and then uses their results to decide automatically whether to launch high-latency joint parameter estimation with Golum and hanabi for multiplets, and Golum Type II and Gravelamps for single events. When two independent low-latency analyses flag a pair above a user-defined threshold, the workflow starts the joint Bayesian analyses; extra confirming pipelines raise scheduler priority, and sufficient disagreement causes the pair to be discarded. In the paper's demonstration on a ten-event mock data challenge, this decision graph reduced the 45 candidate pairs to 6 pairs for joint analysis, an approximately 85 percent reduction in the most computationally demanding step, while still catching all the injected lensed multiplets and single-image events, and it did so with no manual intervention after the initial metadata ingestion.

Load-bearing premise

The demonstration assumes that the per-pipeline interest thresholds are fixed in advance and represent realistic search conditions; their values are never given, so if they were chosen after seeing the mock data challenge results, the successful candidate identification and the 85 percent workload reduction would be tuned to that dataset rather than being general properties of the workflow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If LensingFlow works as demonstrated, lensing searches can scale to the thousands of events expected in coming observing runs without per-candidate manual orchestration.
  • The roughly 85 percent reduction in pairs sent to joint parameter estimation would reserve the most expensive Bayesian analyses for a manageable subset of candidates.
  • The modular pipeline interface means new lensing search codes can be added as they are developed, providing a community-standard basis for large-scale lensing surveys.
  • Automated metadata propagation keeps all analyses of the same event or pair consistent, preventing the configuration drift that comes with manual launches.
  • The same workflow can be applied to large simulated injection campaigns, making systematic validation of lensing pipelines feasible.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • My own inference: the per-pipeline interest thresholds are the real scientific dial governing sensitivity, and the paper never reports their values; if they were chosen after inspecting the mock data challenge results, the success statistics would be tuned to that dataset rather than being a general property of the workflow.
  • My own inference: a natural next stress test is a blinded challenge with thresholds fixed in advance and a larger catalog containing near-threshold unlensed events; the workflow's false-dismissal rate in that setting would separate orchestration skill from threshold tuning.
  • My own inference: the decision rule of 'two independent low-latency agreements trigger joint PE' may be weaker than it looks, because several filters share inputs (such as the same unlensed posterior samples), so their agreements are partially correlated and the effective false-alarm rate of the trigger could exceed what the individual pipeline thresholds imply.
  • My own inference: the authors note the restriction to pairs is not technical, so extending the workflow to triplets and higher-order multiplets would let it handle lens systems producing more than two observable images, a regime where the quadratic saving would be even larger.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents LensingFlow, an automated workflow for gravitational-wave lensing analyses built on top of the Asimov automation framework and CBCFlow metadata management. The workflow integrates several existing low-latency and high-latency lensing pipelines, handles both multiplet and single-event analyses, and automates job submission, status checking, metadata storage, and prioritization. As a proof of concept, the authors deploy LensingFlow on a mock data challenge: 16 signals were injected into simulated noise, 10 were recovered by a detection pipeline, and the workflow automatically identified the injected lensed systems and reduced the number of multiplets requiring expensive joint parameter estimation from 45 to 6, a claimed ~85% reduction in computational burden.

Significance. If the workflow performs as claimed, it addresses a genuine and growing need in gravitational-wave astronomy: scaling lensing searches to large catalogs of events with minimal manual intervention. The integration of multiple existing pipelines into a common framework, combined with the use of Asimov and CBCFlow for reproducible metadata and job management, is a valuable community contribution. The code is made publicly available, and the workflow logic is described clearly. However, the validation is limited to a single small mock data challenge, and the quantitative workload-reduction claim depends on per-pipeline thresholds that are never specified. The absence of a background or false-alarm study means the false-positive rate of the automated filter is unknown. The authors are honest in framing this as a proof of concept, but the headline quantitative claim needs stronger support or recalibration.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.2 and Figure 1] The workflow's decision to start high-latency joint parameter estimation depends on a per-pipeline 'user-defined threshold' and a 'minimum two concurring pipelines' rule, but neither the threshold values nor the rationale for the concurrence rule are specified anywhere in the paper. As a result, the ~85% workload reduction reported in Section 4 (45 to 6 pairs) is not reproducible, and it is impossible to determine whether the thresholds were fixed a priori or tuned after inspecting the mock data challenge results. The authors should either report the threshold values and the calibration procedure, or clearly reframe the claim as a mechanism demonstration rather than a measured performance.
  2. [Section 4 and Table 3] The mock data challenge is the only validation, but it is a single realization with 10 recovered events and no background or false-alarm analysis. The paper does not state how often unlensed pairs would pass the two-pipeline concurrence rule, so the false-positive rate of the automated filter is unknown. In fact, Table 3 shows that two non-lensed pairs (MS220425h & MS220510ae and MS220510ae & MS220514y) satisfy the rule and would proceed to joint PE, but the text does not acknowledge these as false positives. The authors should report completeness and false-alarm measures for this MDC, or explicitly label the 85% figure as an illustrative example with unknown generalization.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract vs Section 4] The abstract states the mock data challenge comprises 10 signals, while Section 4 states 16 signals were injected and 10 were recovered by the detection pipeline. Please clarify that the workflow analyzed the 10 recovered events, while the full MDC contained 16 injections.
  2. [Throughout] There are several typos and inconsistencies, including 'consituent' in the abstract, 'menaing' in Section 3.1, 'extened' in Section 3, 'searcehs' in Section 5, and 'Univeristy' in the affiliations. Please proofread the text.
  3. [Table 3 and Section 4] The table uses the label 'Fast Golum' while the text refers to 'Golum operating in a conditional pair-wise PE approach.' Please make the naming consistent and clarify whether 'Fast Golum' is a distinct pipeline or a mode of Golum.
  4. [Section 3.2] The selection criteria (FAR < 1 per year and BBH classification) are stated without justification or discussion of their sensitivity. Since these criteria determine which events enter the workflow, consider noting that they are configurable choices and discussing their potential impact on completeness.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is an orchestration-software demonstration whose claims rest on running externally published pipelines over known mock injections; unspecified thresholds and the single-MDC validation are limitations, not circular reductions.

full rationale

LensingFlow does not derive a physical result from first principles; it presents an automated workflow that launches and monitors existing, previously published lensing analysis pipelines. The central demonstration is a mock data challenge with deliberately injected lensing signatures, and the statement that the workflow 'identified the candidates' means that the constituent pipelines flagged those known injected systems and that the workflow routed them into follow-up analyses. No equation in the paper reduces a predicted quantity to an input by construction: the low-latency statistics (Posterior_Overlap, Phazap, LensID, Golum conditional, Atlenstics, Gravelamps) are taken from the pipelines themselves, and the workflow's threshold-and-concurrence logic is an operational routing rule rather than a fitted model. The per-pipeline thresholds are described only as 'user-defined' and their values are not given, and there is no background/FAP study, so the ~85% workload reduction is not yet shown to generalize; however, this is a validation and robustness limitation, not circularity. Self-citations to the authors' own pipeline papers (e.g., Goyal et al. 2021; Janquart et al. 2021; Lo & Magana Hernandez 2023; Wright & Hendry 2022) are references to externally published methodology used as input components, and the pipelines' outputs are generated in the MDC rather than assumed. The cited results are independent support under the stated rules, and no load-bearing argument reduces to those citations alone. Overall, the workflow logic is self-contained in the descriptive sense appropriate to a software paper, and the circularity burden is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The workflow itself introduces no new physical entities or free parameters beyond the per-pipeline thresholds and selection criteria; the physics is inherited from the cited pipelines and standard lensing formalism. The main unverified assumptions are that the MDC is representative of real search conditions and that the user-defined thresholds are not tuned to the test set.

free parameters (2)
  • per-pipeline interest thresholds = not specified
    The workflow triggers high-latency follow-up when a pipeline reports support above a 'user-defined threshold' (Section 3.2). The threshold values are not given, so the MDC results cannot be assessed without knowing whether they were set before or after inspecting the data.
  • selection criteria cutoff (FAR < 1 per year, BBH classification) = FAR < 1 per year
    Events are filtered into the lensing sub-library based on search-pipeline FAR and BBH classification (Section 3.2). These are standard but arbitrary choices that affect which events are analyzed.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Standard lensing phenomenology (Eqs. 1 and 2) correctly describes all regimes searched.
    The workflow relies on the image model of Eq. 1 and the diffraction integral of Eq. 2, which are assumed to describe the injected mock signals and real signals.
  • domain assumption The mock data challenge is representative of real detection and unlensed PE stages.
    Section 4 states the injections were made into Gaussian noise with O4 PSD and analyzed with gstLAL; this assumes the noise model and search pipeline behavior mirror real conditions, which the demonstration does not validate.
  • domain assumption The constituent pipelines (LensID, Phazap, Posterior_Overlap, Atlenstics, Golum, hanabi, Gravelamps) produce correct results as described in their source papers.
    LensingFlow orchestrates existing pipelines; the proof-of-concept inherits their individual validity. No independent check of each pipeline's output is presented beyond the MDC summary.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LensingFlow: An Automated Workflow for Gravitational Wave Lensing Analyses." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TZ2N4W3A

@misc{pith2026250720256,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LensingFlow: An Automated Workflow for Gravitational Wave Lensing Analyses},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TZ2N4W3A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.20256}
}
read the original abstract

In this work, we present LensingFlow. This is an implementation of an automated workflow to search for evidence of gravitational lensing in a large series of gravitational wave events. This workflow conducts searches for evidence in all generally considered lensing regimes. The implementation of this workflow is built atop the Asimov automation framework and CBCFlow metadata management software and the resulting product therefore encompasses both the automated running and status checking of jobs in the workflow as well as the automated production and storage of relevant metadata from these jobs to allow for later reproduction. This workflow encompasses a number of existing lensing pipelines and has been designed to accommodate any additional future pipelines to provide both a current and future basis on which to conduct large scale lensing analyses of gravitational wave signal catalogues. The workflow also implements a prioritisation management system for jobs submitted to the schedulers in common usage in computing clusters ensuring both the completion of the workflow across the entire catalogue of events as well as the priority completion of the most significant candidates. As a first proof-of-concept demonstration, we deploy LensingFlow on a mock data challenge comprising 10 signals in which signatures of each lensing regime are represented. LensingFlow successfully ran and identified the candidates from this data through its automated checks of results from consituent analyses.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Leveraging the null stream to detect strongly lensed gravitational waves

    gr-qc 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A joint null stream across a detector network can identify strongly lensed gravitational wave image pairs by testing whether two signals are related by the lensing transfer.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2015, Class

    Aasi, J., et al. 2015, Class. Quant. Grav., 32, 074001, doi:10.1088/ 0264-9381/32/7/074001

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2016, Phys. Rev. Lett., 116, 061102, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102 —. 2020, Living Reviews in Relativity, 23, doi:10.1007/ s41114-020-00026-9

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.061102 2016

  3. [3]

    2021a, Tests of General Relativity with GWTC-3.https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.06861

    Abbott, R., Abe, H., Acernese, F., et al. 2021a, Tests of General Relativity with GWTC-3.https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.06861

    arXiv

  4. [5]

    2023a, Physical Review X, 13, doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.041039

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T., Acernese, F., et al. 2023a, Physical Review X, 13, doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.041039

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.041039

  5. [6]

    2023b, The Astrophysical Journal, 949, 76, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac74bb Abbott,R.,Abbott,T.D.,Acernese,F.,etal.2023c,Phys.Rev.X,13,011048, doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.13.011048

    Abbott, R., Abe, H., Acernese, F., et al. 2023b, The Astrophysical Journal, 949, 76, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac74bb Abbott,R.,Abbott,T.D.,Acernese,F.,etal.2023c,Phys.Rev.X,13,011048, doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.13.011048

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac74bb

  6. [7]

    2024, Astrophys

    Abbott, R., et al. 2024, Astrophys. J., 970, 191, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ ad3e83

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ 2024

  7. [8]

    2015, Class

    Acernese, F., et al. 2015, Class. Quant. Grav., 32, 024001, doi:10.1088/ 0264-9381/32/2/024001 Akutsu,T.,etal.2021,PTEP,2021,05A101,doi:10.1093/ptep/ptaa125

    doi:10.1093/ptep/ptaa125 2015

  8. [9]

    2005, Phys

    Allen, B. 2005, Phys. Rev. D, 71, 062001, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71. 062001 Allen,B.,Anderson,W.G.,Brady,P.R.,Brown,D.A.,&Creighton,J.D.E. 2012, Phys. Rev. D, 85, 122006, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.122006

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.71 2005

Show all 50 references
  1. [10]

    2019, Astrophys

    Ashton, G., et al. 2019, Astrophys. J. Suppl., 241, 27, doi:10.3847/ 1538-4365/ab06fc —. 2024,CBCFlow.https://cbc.docs.ligo.org/projects/ cbcflow/index.html

    2019

  2. [11]

    2025, Astrophys

    Barsode, A., Goyal, S., & Ajith, P. 2025, Astrophys. J., 980, 258, doi:10. 3847/1538-4357/adae10

    2025

  3. [12]

    Binney, J., & Tremaine, S. 1989, Galactic dynamics, doi:10.1515/ 9781400828722 Biwer,C.M.,Capano,C.D.,De,S.,etal.2019,Publ.Astron.Soc.Pac.,131, 024503, doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaef0b RASTI000, 000–000 (2025) 8Wright et. al

    2025 doi

  4. [13]

    Cannon, K., Caudill, S., Chan, C., et al. 2021, SoftwareX, 14, 100680, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.softx.2021.100680 Cao,Z.,Li,L.-F.,&Wang,Y.2014,Phys.Rev.D,90,062003,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.90.062003 Chakraborty,A.,&Mukherjee,S.2025.https://arxiv.org/abs/2503. 16281

    2021

  5. [14]

    Cheung, M. H. Y., Gais, J., Hannuksela, O. A., & Li, T. G. F. 2021, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 503, 3326, doi:10.1093/mnras/stab579 Christian,P.,Vitale,S.,&Loeb,A.2018,Phys.Rev.D,98,103022,doi:10. 1103/PhysRevD.98.103022

    2021 doi

  6. [15]

    2022, Noise Curves for use in simulations pre-O4, Tech

    Collaboration, L.-V.-K. 2022, Noise Curves for use in simulations pre-O4, Tech. rep.https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T2200043/public

    2022

  7. [16]

    2018, Phys

    Dai, L., Li, S.-S., Zackay, B., Mao, S., & Lu, Y. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 104029, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.104029

    2018 doi

  8. [17]

    2017, Phys

    Dai, L., Venumadhav, T., & Sigurdson, K. 2017, Phys. Rev. D, 95, 044011, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.044011 Dal Canton, T., et al. 2014, Phys. Rev. D, 90, 082004, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.90.082004

    2017 doi

  9. [18]

    Deguchi, S., & Watson, W. D. 1986, Phys. Rev. D, 34, 1708, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.34.1708

    1986

  10. [19]

    2019, Astron

    Diego, J., Hannuksela, O., Kelly, P., et al. 2019, Astron. Astrophys., 627, A130, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935490

    2019 doi

  11. [20]

    Diego, J. M. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 101, 123512, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 101.123512

    2020 doi

  12. [21]

    M., Holz, D

    Ezquiaga, J. M., Holz, D. E., Hu, W., Lagos, M., & Wald, R. M. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 103, 6, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.064047

    2021 doi

  13. [22]

    M., Hu, W., & Lo, R

    Ezquiaga, J. M., Hu, W., & Lo, R. K. L. 2023, Physical Review D, 108, doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.103520

    2023 doi

  14. [23]

    J., & Ajith, P

    Goyal, S., D., H., Kapadia, S. J., & Ajith, P. 2021, Physical Review D, 104, doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.124057

    2021 doi

  15. [24]

    J., Cudell, J.-R., Li, A

    Goyal, S., Kapadia, S. J., Cudell, J.-R., Li, A. K. Y., & Chan, J. C. L. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 109, 023028, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.023028

    2024 doi

  16. [25]

    A., Haris, K., Ng, K

    Hannuksela, O. A., Haris, K., Ng, K. K. Y., et al. 2019, Astrophys. J. Lett., 874, L2, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab0c0f

    2019 doi

  17. [26]

    K., Kumar, S., Venumadhav, T., & Ajith, P

    Haris, K., Mehta, A. K., Kumar, S., Venumadhav, T., & Ajith, P. 2018, Identifying strongly lensed gravitational wave signals from binary black hole mergers.https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.07062

    2018 arXiv

  18. [27]

    A., K., H., & Van Den Broeck, C

    Janquart, J., Hannuksela, O. A., K., H., & Van Den Broeck, C. 2021a, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1991 Janquart,J.,Haris,K.,Hannuksela,O.A.,&VanDenBroeck,C.2023a,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 526, 3088, doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2838

    doi

  19. [28]

    A., Li, T

    Janquart, J., Seo, E., Hannuksela, O. A., Li, T. G. F., & Broeck, C. V. D. 2021b, Astrophys. J. Lett., 923, L1, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac3bcf Janquart,J.,Wright,M.,Goyal,S.,etal.2023b,Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc., 526, 3832, doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2909

    doi

  20. [29]

    2024, doi:10.1093/mnras/staf049

    Janquart, J., et al. 2024, doi:10.1093/mnras/staf049

    2024 doi

  21. [30]

    Jung, S., & Shin, C. S. 2019, Phys. Rev. Lett., 122, 041103, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.122.041103 Lai,K.-H.,Hannuksela,O.A.,Herrera-Martín,A.,etal.2018,Phys.Rev.D, 98, 083005, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.083005

    2019 doi

  22. [31]

    Li, A. K. Y., Chan, J. C. L., Fong, H., et al. 2023a.https://arxiv.org/ abs/2311.06416 Li,A.K.Y.,Lo,R.K.L.,Sachdev,S.,etal.2023b,Phys.Rev.D,107,123014, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.123014

  23. [32]

    1988, in Proceedings of the 8th Inter- national Conference of Distributed Computing Systems

    Litzkow, M., Livny, M., & Mutka, M. 1988, in Proceedings of the 8th Inter- national Conference of Distributed Computing Systems

    1988

  24. [33]

    Liu, A., Wong, I. C. F., Leong, S. H. W., et al. 2023, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 525, 4149, doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1302

    2023 doi

  25. [34]

    Lo, R. K. L., & Magana Hernandez, I. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 107, 123015, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.123015 LVK Collaborations. 2025, GraceDB.https://gracedb.ligo.org/ superevents/public/O4/

    2023 doi

  26. [35]

    2020, Phys

    McIsaac, C., Keitel, D., Collett, T., et al. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 102, 084031, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.084031 Meena,A.K.,Mishra,A.,More,A.,Bose,S.,&Bagla,J.S.2022,Mon.Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 517, 872, doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2721 Messick,C.,etal.2017,Phys.Rev.D,95,042001,doi:10....

    2020 doi

  27. [36]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 515, 1044–1051, doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1704

    More, A., & More, S. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 515, 1044–1051, doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1704

    2022 doi

  28. [37]

    Nakamura, T. T. 1998, Phys. Rev. Lett., 80, 1138, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.80.1138

    1998

  29. [38]

    T., & Deguchi, S

    Nakamura, T. T., & Deguchi, S. 1999, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl., 133, 137, doi:10.1143/ptps.133.137

    1999 doi

  30. [39]

    H., Dent, T., Dal Canton, T., Fairhurst, S., & Brown, D

    Nitz, A. H., Dent, T., Dal Canton, T., Fairhurst, S., & Brown, D. A. 2017, Astrophys. J., 849, 118, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8f50

    2017 doi

  31. [40]

    1974, Int

    Ohanian, H. 1974, Int. J. Theor. Phys., 9, 425, doi:10.1007/BF01810927 Pagano,G.,Hannuksela,O.A.,&Li,T.G.F.2020,Astron.Astrophys.,643, A167, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038730 Pratten,G.,etal.2021,Phys.Rev.D,103,104056,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 103.104056

    1974 doi

  32. [41]

    M., et al

    Romero-Shaw, I. M., et al. 2020, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 499, 3295, doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2850

    2020 doi

  33. [42]

    2019.https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.08580

    Sachdev, S., et al. 2019.https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.08580

    2019 arXiv

  34. [43]

    Schneider, P., Ehlers, J., & Falco, E. E. 1992, Gravitational Lenses, Astronomy and Astrophysics Library (Springer), doi:10.1007/ 978-3-662-03758-4

    1992

  35. [44]

    Shapiro, I. I. 1964, Phys. Rev. Lett., 13, 789, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett. 13.789

    1964 doi

  36. [45]

    P., & Price, L

    Singer, L. P., & Price, L. R. 2016, Phys. Rev. D, 93, 024013, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.93.024013

    2016

  37. [46]

    Smith, R. J. E., Ashton, G., Vajpeyi, A., & Talbot, C. 2020, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 498, 4492, doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2483 Takahashi,R.,&Nakamura,T.2003,Astrophys.J.,595,1039,doi:10.1086/ 377430 Thorne,K.1982,inLesHouchesSummerSchoolonGravitationalRadiation, 1–57

    2020 doi

  38. [47]

    2023, Phys

    Tsukada, L., et al. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 108, 043004, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.108.043004

    2023

  39. [48]

    K., & Ganguly, A

    Vijaykumar, A., Mehta, A. K., & Ganguly, A. 2022.https://arxiv.org/ abs/2202.06334

    2022 arXiv

  40. [49]

    Wang, Y., Lo, R. K. L., Li, A. K. Y., & Chen, Y. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 103, 104055, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.104055 Williams,D.2025,Asimovdocumentation.https://asimov.docs.ligo. org/asimov/master/index.html Williams,D.,Veitch,J.,Chiofalo,M.L.,etal.2023,JournalofOpenSource Softwa...

    2021 doi

  41. [50]

    2025,LensingFlow.https: //git.ligo.org/lensingflow/lensingflow Wright,M.,Liu,A.,Seo,E.,Wong,I.C.F.,&Janquart,J.2021,Gravelamps

    Wright, M., Janquart, J., & Cremonese, P. 2025,LensingFlow.https: //git.ligo.org/lensingflow/lensingflow Wright,M.,Liu,A.,Seo,E.,Wong,I.C.F.,&Janquart,J.2021,Gravelamps. https://git.ligo.org/mick.wright/Gravelamps

    2025

  42. [51]

    Yeung, S. M. C., Cheung, M. H. Y., Gais, J. A. J., Hannuksela, O. A., & Li, T. G. F. 2021.https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.07635 RASTI000, 000–000 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.