Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 2 cited by

Accelerated inference of microlensed gravitational waves with machine learning

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A neural posterior estimator recovers microlensed gravitational-wave parameters in hours instead of days, matching full Bayesian sampling on simulated injections.

desk verdict A useful, honestly-flagged proof-of-concept for amortized wave-optics lensed-GW inference, but the headline speedup and catalog-scale claims outrun the three-injection validation. read the letter →

arxiv 2511.08486 v2 pith:BN5KC4S5 submitted 2025-11-11 astro-ph.CO gr-qc

Marienza Caldarola , Srashti Goyal , Nihar Gupte , Stephen R. Green , Miguel Zumalacárregui This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COgr-qc
keywords gravitationalwavesmicrolensingwaveopticsparameterestimationsimulation-basedinferencenormalizingflowsimportancesamplingBayesfactors
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 claims that a machine-learning posterior estimator can make microlensed gravitational-wave inference cheap enough to run on every event in a catalog. The authors train a normalizing-flow network—DINGO, extended to a 17-parameter space—on binary-black-hole waveforms modulated by the wave-optics diffraction factor of an isolated point-mass lens, and show on simulated injections that its posteriors and Bayes factors agree with conventional nested-sampling inference while cutting per-event runtime from about five days to about two hours (or minutes without importance sampling). A 1000-injection probability-probability test shows the network is well calibrated, except for the coalescence time, which occasionally goes bimodal because lensing resembles the interference of two time-delayed images. If right, the method makes background Bayes-factor distributions affordable to compute and turns microlensing searches into a routine screening step for the coming high-rate observing runs.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the frequency-dependent amplification factor F(f) = h_lensed(f)/h_unlensed(f), computed in the wave-optics regime from the diffraction integral; for an isolated point mass it depends on only two parameters—the redshifted lens mass and the impact parameter—and it modulates the base binary-black-hole waveform during training. Around this sits a normalizing-flow neural posterior estimator (DINGO) with group-equivariant time alignment, trained on 10^7 lensed waveforms, whose samples are reweighted by importance sampling so that explicit likelihood evaluations correct the proposal and yield unbiased posteriors and evidences. The 200-term singular-value compression both

What would settle it

Retrain the network with 400 compression terms and rerun the probability-probability calibration plus the three injection comparisons, including impact parameters below 0.2 and lens masses up to 10^4 solar masses at signal-to-noise ratios near 15; if the importance-sampled log Bayes factors disagree with full-waveform nested sampling by more than the combined sampling error, the claim that the current network captures the lensed-signal information is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a single trained neural posterior estimator can perform full Bayesian inference on microlensed gravitational-wave signals, including the two lens parameters (redshifted lens mass and impact parameter) that conventional analysis struggles with because of added dimensionality and expensive diffraction computations. On simulated injections, the network's posteriors and log evidences match those from a standard nested-sampling code once importance sampling is applied, with the per-event cost dropping from about five days to about two hours—and to minutes if the raw network output is used without reweighting. The supporting evidence is a 1000-injection probabilit

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that both the trained network and the test waveforms use the same 200-term waveform compression, although lensed signals need roughly twice as many terms to be represented faithfully; if that compression error becomes comparable to the lensing signature at lower signal-to-noise ratio or stronger lensing, the claimed match to the full-waveform analysis could fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Posterior samples for a lensed event can be drawn in minutes, and importance-sampling correction takes about two hours per event instead of days, making catalog-scale lensing searches practical.
  • The lensed network applied to unlensed injections recovers evidence matching the unlensed analysis, making Monte Carlo background Bayes-factor distributions—needed to claim significant lensed events—computable at scale for the first time.
  • The marginal posterior at the impact-parameter prior boundary behaves as a rapid lensed-event indicator, so candidates can be screened before expensive sampling.
  • A collapse in importance-sampling efficiency flags out-of-distribution data—a strongly lensed signal analyzed as unlensed, or a glitch—serving as a built-in diagnostic.
  • The pipeline extends to more complex lens models and waveform families, since the lensing transform is applied on the fly during training.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the authors leave implicit is that the amortized network makes population-level lensing studies feasible: the marginal cost per additional event is nearly zero, so lensed-event candidates could be screened across all O(10^5) detections of next-generation runs rather than only the few dozen that receive detailed follow-up.
  • The 200-component waveform compression is the weakest technical point; retraining at 400 components—the level the paper's own mismatch curve indicates lensed waveforms require—and re-running the injection tests would directly measure whether the claimed accuracy is an artifact of shared compression between training and test data.
  • The bimodal coalescence-time posterior suggests a concrete improvement: apply the time-alignment idea to the second, time-delayed image as well, which could sharpen lens-mass estimation and raise sampling efficiency.
  • The sampling-efficiency drop could be turned into a calibrated lensed-event classifier by evaluating epsilon or effective sample size on a large injection population and choosing a threshold; the paper explicitly leaves such classification benchmarking to future work.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper presents a proof-of-concept extension of the DINGO neural posterior estimator to gravitational-wave microlensing by an isolated point mass in the wave-optics regime. The authors train a 17-parameter normalizing-flow model on 10^7 IMRPhenomXPHM signals with GLoW amplification factors, using n=200 SVD components for waveform compression. They validate with a 1000-injection p-p test, compare three injections against Bilby with nested sampling (Table II), and report an approximately order-of-magnitude speedup when DINGO is combined with importance sampling. They also propose using the unlensed network's sample-efficiency drop as an out-of-distribution diagnostic and claim efficient estimation of background Bayes-factor distributions.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper provides a fast amortized inference tool for lensed GWs in the upcoming O5/3G catalog era, building on public code (the DINGO lensing branch and GLoW). The 1000-injection p-p calibration and the use of importance-sampling-corrected posterior and evidence estimates are appropriate methodological choices, and the three Bilby cross-checks are a useful first step. The main value is the demonstration that a 17-parameter NPE can accommodate two extra lensing parameters and that IS can produce evidence estimates. However, the current support for the central 'matching Bilby' claim is based on only three injections and shows systematic logZ offsets, so the significance is conditional on additional validation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. V, Fig. 8] The training and p-p calibration use waveforms compressed with n=200 SVD components, yet Fig. 8 shows that lensed waveforms require about 400 components to reach 10^-4 mismatch. Thus Fig. 4 validates only self-consistency on the truncated waveform family, not fidelity to the full lensed waveforms used by Bilby. The claim that lensed-DINGO posteriors and evidence match Bilby rests on three injections (Table II) at SNR 18, 32, and 35. If the truncation error is comparable to the lensing features at lower SNR or for stronger lensing (y<0.2, high M_Lz), the agreement could degrade. Please quantify the truncation-induced bias, for example by comparing the SVD mismatch against the statistical uncertainty across the prior, or by running Bilby on the truncated waveforms for a broader set of injections.
  2. [Table II, Sec. VI] All DINGO logZ values are systematically lower than Bilby by ΔlogZ ≈ 0.8–1.8 even in the high-n_eff cases (e.g., unlensed injection: 497.9 vs 499.7; lensed y=1.2: 133.9 vs 134.7), and the y=0.2 foreground Bayes factor is off by ΔlogB ≈ 14 (124.9 vs 110.9). The text states that 'the evidence logZ matches with the Bilby', but a systematic offset of 1–2 in logZ is comparable to commonly used significance thresholds and could change screening conclusions. Please report uncertainties on the DINGO evidence estimates and show that the offsets do not affect the scientific conclusions, or temper the matching claim.
  3. [Table II / Fig. 9] The paper states that reliable results require n_eff > 1000 (Sec. VI), yet the lensed y=0.2 DINGO (lensed) result has n_eff = 602 and is nevertheless presented as matching Bilby (Fig. 9: logZ 592.3 vs 593.8). Either this case should be treated as unreliable per the stated criterion, or the criterion should be revisited. As written, the evidence for the strong-lensing regime relies on a case that fails the paper's own reliability threshold.
minor comments (3)
  1. [References] Ref. [85] is incomplete: it lacks a title, journal, and arXiv identifier.
  2. [Table II] The capitalization 'BILBY' in the header is inconsistent with the rest of the text; use 'Bilby'.
  3. [Fig. 6 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'DINGO-IS S (blue)' should be 'DINGO-IS (blue)'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central DINGO-vs-Bilby comparison is an external benchmark, not a fit to its own outputs.

full rationale

I walked the claimed derivation chain: lensed waveforms are produced with GLoW from the wave-optics point-lens amplification factor (Eqs. 1-3); DINGO's neural posterior estimator is trained on simulated injections drawn from the stated priors (Sec. V); and the resulting posteriors and log-evidence values are compared with Bilby under the exact Gaussian likelihood (Eq. 7, Table II, Figs. 5-7, 9-10). The central validation is against Bilby, an independent nested-sampling code using the exact likelihood, and the network is not fitted to Bilby's outputs. The p-p calibration in Fig. 4 validates internal calibration rather than fidelity to full-waveform lensing, but the paper does not present it as the primary external check; the Bilby comparison is. The SVD truncation concern (Fig. 8 shows n=200 used while ~400 components are needed for 10^-4 mismatch) is a real, honestly stated systematic-error risk, not a circular reduction: the comparison target remains external to the training procedure. Self-references to DINGO and GLoW are tool attributions, not load-bearing arguments; DINGO has been reviewed by the LVK collaboration and GLoW is public and benchmarked, and the unresolved self-references [43,44] are contextual substantiation for existing candidates, not inputs to the inference claim. No equation or fitted parameter reduces by construction to another equation or to a self-citation. Circularity score: 1, reflecting only the expected use of the authors' own previously validated tools.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The network result rests on standard scalar-diffraction lensing theory, the analytically known point-mass amplification factor, the assumed signal and noise models, and the consistency conditions of simulation-based inference and importance sampling. The paper's own contributions sit on top of these; the hand-chosen SVD truncation and lens prior bounds are the choices that most directly shape the demonstrated performance.

free parameters (3)
  • SVD basis size n=200 = 200
    Chosen 'for computational simplicity' (Sec. V). Fig. 8 shows lensed waveforms need ~400 components for 10^-4 mismatch, so the training family is a lossy reconstruction; this bounds the fidelity of everything the network learns.
  • Lens prior ranges = log10(MLz) in [1,4] M_sun; y in [0.1,5]
    Hand-chosen training priors (Table I). The lensing-detection indicator p(y=5|d) relies on y hitting the prior boundary; lens masses above 10^4 M_sun (GO regime, per Ref [85]) are excluded by design.
  • Reliability threshold n_eff > 1000 = 1000
    Hand-set criterion in Sec. VI for trusting DINGO Bayes factors; the strong-lensing test case (y=0.2) itself has n_eff=602, below the threshold, yet its evidence is presented as matching Bilby.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math The diffraction integral of Eq. (2) is the correct model for wave-optics lensing of GW strain.
    Section II; standard scalar-diffraction result (Schneider, Ehlers and Falco [9]).
  • standard math The point-mass lens amplification factor F(w) (hypergeometric series, GLoW [40]) is exact for an isolated point lens and is the correct physical model for the microlensing signals studied.
    Section II; analytically known result; GLoW additionally validated in [40].
  • domain assumption IMRPhenomXPHM accurately represents the unlensed BBH signal.
    Section V: all training and test waveforms use this approximant. Waveform-model error is not propagated into the claimed speedup/accuracy.
  • domain assumption Detector data are stationary Gaussian noise with fixed O3 HLV PSDs.
    Section V and all three test injections. Real noise non-stationarity and glitches are outside the demonstration; the out-of-distribution diagnostic is argued by analogy ('such as lensed signals or instrumental glitches'), not tested on glitches.
  • standard math NPE trained by minimizing the KL loss in Eqs. (9)/(10) converges to the true posterior given sufficiently expressive flows and i.i.d. draws from p(theta)p(d|theta).
    Section IV; established SBI consistency result (cites [60-63]) on which the entire inference claim rests.
  • standard math Importance-sampling weights w_i from Eq. (11) give unbiased evidence via normalization Eq. (14).
    Section IV; textbook IS, valid as long as the proposal support covers the posterior; n_eff gauges this.
  • ad hoc to paper The 200-component SVD basis preserves the inference-relevant content of lensed waveforms.
    Section V/Fig. 8: lensed waveforms need ~400 components for 10^-4 mismatch; 200 is adopted 'for computational simplicity'. If the truncation discards lensing information, the lensed posteriors are biased toward the simplified family.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Accelerated inference of microlensed gravitational waves with machine learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BN5KC4S5

@misc{pith2026251108486,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Accelerated inference of microlensed gravitational waves with machine learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BN5KC4S5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.08486}
}
abstract

Gravitational waves (GWs) within the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA sensitivity band can be microlensed by stellar and intermediate-mass black holes, producing a frequency-dependent modulation of the signal amplitude. Microlensing analyses, however, are costly due to the increased dimensionality of the parameter space and waveform computation time. As a proof of concept, we show that the deep-learning-based framework Deep Inference for Gravitational-Wave Observations (DINGO), which employs a simulation-based inference approach to estimate posterior distributions, can perform efficient parameter inference for GW microlensing by an isolated point-mass lens. Using simulated microlensed GW signals, we train a lensed-DINGO network and compare its performance with traditional Bayesian parameter estimation carried out with Bilby. Our framework can be used to rapidly identify microlensed events in large GW catalogs. When the lensed-DINGO network is combined with importance sampling, we find that although sample efficiencies are somewhat reduced compared to the unlensed-DINGO network, owing to the richer structure of microlensed signals, it still achieves $\mathcal{O}(10\times)$ speed-up relative to Bilby. We further show that this framework is useful to efficiently estimate the background Bayes-factor distribution, which is crucial for assessing the significance of candidate lensed events. However, for foreground (lensed) events, the sampling efficiency can sometimes drop when analysed with the unlensed-DINGO network, providing a diagnostic indicator of out-of-distribution data. Our approach can be straightforwardly generalised to more complex and realistic lens models, enabling detailed studies of microlensed GWs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.08486 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Lensing Amplification factor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Frequency domain GW strain amplitude of a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Evolution of the training and validation loss for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. A lensed injection with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. An unlensed injection with DINGO (lensed). Pos [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. A lensed injection with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Mismatch between SVD basis reconstructed wave [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. A lensed injection with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. An unlensed injection with DINGO (unlensed). Posterior distributions comparing DINGO (orange), DINGO-IS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]

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. Effective description of lensed gravitational waves diffracted by stellar fields

    astro-ph.HE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Authors synthesize SVD-based reduced-order models from wave-optics simulations to provide an effective stochastic description of stellar microlensing distortions on lensed gravitational waves.

  2. 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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(Virgo, LIGO Scientific), Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    B. A. et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and V. Col- laboration), Physical Review Letters116, 221101 (2016)

    2016

  3. [3]

    out-of-distribution

    anunlensed injectionwith SNR 32. The waveforms in the H1 detector for these injections is shown in Fig. 2. For all the injections we do parameter inference using DINGO (lensed), DINGO (unlensed) and with Bilby under lensed and unlensed hypothesis (H L andH U ). For DINGO we generate 10 6 samples and then perform IS to get improved results, while computing...

  4. [4]

    Yagi and N

    K. Yagi and N. Yunes, Physical Review D95, 084014 (2017)

    2017

  5. [5]

    B. A. et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and V. Col- laboration), Physical Review Letters123, 111102 (2019)

    2019

  6. [6]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration), Physical Re- view X13, 011048 (2023)

    2023

  7. [7]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration), Physical Re- view D112, 084080 (2025)

    2025

  8. [8]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration), The Astro- physical Journal949(2023), 10.3847/1538-4357/acd4e1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd4e1 2023

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    B. A. et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and V. Col- laboration), Nature551, 85 (2017)

    2017

  2. [10]

    Clowe, M

    D. Clowe, M. Bradac, A. H. Gonzalez, M. Markevitch, S. W. Randall, C. Jones, and D. Zaritsky, Astrophys. J. Lett.648, L109 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0608407

    2006 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Schneider, J

    P. Schneider, J. Ehlers, and E. E. Falco,Gravitational Lenses, Astronomy and astrophysics library (Springer, Berlin, Germany, 1999)

    1999

  4. [12]

    Vegettiet al., Space Sci

    S. Vegettiet al., Space Sci. Rev.220, 58 (2024), arXiv:2306.11781 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A8 (2020), arXiv:1807.06210 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Treu, Ann

    T. Treu, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.48, 87 (2010), arXiv:1003.5567 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Bartelmann and P

    M. Bartelmann and P. Schneider, Phys. Rept.340, 291 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/9912508

    2001 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Reyes, R

    R. Reyes, R. Mandelbaum, U. Seljak, T. Baldauf, J. E. Gunn, L. Lombriser, and R. E. Smith, Nature464, 256 (2010), arXiv:1003.2185 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Natarajan, L

    P. Natarajan, L. L. Williams, M. Bradac, C. Grillo, A. Ghosh, K. Sharon, and J. Wagner, (2024), arXiv:2403.06245 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024

  10. [18]

    Goyal, A

    S. Goyal, A. Vijaykumar, J. M. Ezquiaga, and M. Zumalacarregui, Phys. Rev. D108, 024052 (2023), arXiv:2301.04826 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    T. E. Collett, L. J. Oldham, R. J. Smith, M. W. Auger, K. B. Westfall, D. Bacon, R. C. Nichol, K. L. Masters, K. Koyama, and R. van den Bosch, Science360, 1342 (2018), arXiv:1806.08300 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  12. [20]

    K. C. Wonget al.(H0LiCOW), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.498, 1420 (2020), arXiv:1907.04869 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Goyal, K

    S. Goyal, K. Haris, A. K. Mehta, and P. Ajith, Phys. Rev. D103, 024038 (2021), arXiv:2008.07060 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    S. Jana, S. J. Kapadia, T. Venumadhav, and P. Ajith, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 261401 (2023), arXiv:2211.12212 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    T. Treu, S. H. Suyu, and P. J. Marshall, Astron. Astro- phys. Rev.30, 8 (2022), arXiv:2210.15794 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Takahashi and T

    R. Takahashi and T. Nakamura, Astrophys. J.595, 1039 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0305055

    2003 arXiv

  17. [25]

    G. P. Smithet al., Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A383, 20240134 (2025), arXiv:2503.19973 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    J. M. Diego, O. A. Hannuksela, P. L. Kelly, T. Broad- hurst, K. Kim, T. G. F. Li, G. F. Smoot, and G. Pagano, Astron. Astrophys.627, A130 (2019), arXiv:1903.04513 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Leung, D

    C. Leung, D. Jow, P. Saha, L. Dai, M. Oguri, and L. V. E. Koopmans, Space Sci. Rev.221, 29 (2025), arXiv:2304.01202 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    S. M. C. Yeung, M. H. Y. Cheung, E. Seo, J. A. J. Gais, O. A. Hannuksela, and T. G. F. Li, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.526, 2230 (2023), arXiv:2112.07635 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    M. H. Y. Cheung, J. Gais, O. A. Hannuksela, and T. G. F. Li, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.503, 3326 (2021), arXiv:2012.07800 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Oguri and R

    M. Oguri and R. Takahashi, Phys. Rev. D106, 043532 (2022), arXiv:2204.00814 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Mishra, A

    A. Mishra, A. K. Meena, A. More, S. Bose, and J. S. Bagla, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.508, 4869 (2021), arXiv:2102.03946 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  24. [32]

    X. Shan, G. Li, X. Chen, W. Zhao, B. Hu, and S. Mao, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.68, 219512 (2025), arXiv:2409.06747 [astro-ph.IM]

    2025 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Mishra, A

    A. Mishra, A. K. Meena, A. More, and S. Bose, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.531, 764 (2024), arXiv:2306.11479 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    E. Seo, X. Shan, J. Janquart, O. A. Hannuksela, M. A. Hendry, and B. Hu, Astrophys. J.988, 159 (2025), arXiv:2503.02186 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  27. [35]

    R. K. L. Lo, L. Vujeva, J. M. Ezquiaga, and J. C. L. Chan, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 151401 (2025), arXiv:2407.17547 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Feldbrugge, U.-L

    J. Feldbrugge, U.-L. Pen, and N. Turok, Annals Phys. 451, 169255 (2023), arXiv:1909.04632 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Z. Su, X. Shan, Z. Lyu, J. Zhang, Y. Liu, S. Mao, and H. Yang, (2025), arXiv:2510.17125 [gr-qc]

    2025

  30. [38]

    X. Shan, G. Li, X. Chen, W. Zheng, and W. Zhao, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.66, 239511 (2023), arXiv:2208.13566 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Tambalo, M

    G. Tambalo, M. Zumalac´ arregui, L. Dai, and M. H.-Y. Cheung, Phys. Rev. D108, 043527 (2023), arXiv:2210.05658 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Villarrubia-Rojo, S

    H. Villarrubia-Rojo, S. Savastano, M. Zumalac´ arregui, L. Choi, S. Goyal, L. Dai, and G. Tambalo, Phys. Rev. D111, 103539 (2025), arXiv:2409.04606 [gr-qc]. 12 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 q 1200 1600 2000 2400dL 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 δ 1.350 1.365 1.380 1.395 1.410α 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 ι 0....

    2025 arXiv

  33. [41]

    S. M. C. Yeung, M. H. Y. Cheung, M. Zumalacarregui, and O. A. Hannuksela, (2024), arXiv:2410.19804 [astro- ph.IM]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    M. H.-Y. Cheung, K. K. Y. Ng, M. Zumalac´ arregui, and E. Berti, Phys. Rev. D109, 124020 (2024), arXiv:2403.13876 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Wright and M

    M. Wright and M. Hendry, (2021), 10.3847/1538- 4357/ac7ec2, arXiv:2112.07012 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Goyal, H

    S. Goyal, H. Villarrubia-Rojo, and M. Zumalacarregui, (), arXiv:2511.xxxxx [astro-ph.CO]

  37. [45]

    Goyal, H

    S. Goyal, H. Villarrubia-Rojo, and M. Zumalacarregui, (), arXiv:251x.xxxxx [gr-qc]

  38. [46]

    Janquartet al., Mon

    J. Janquartet al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.526, 3832 (2023), arXiv:2306.03827 [gr-qc]. 13 0.60 0.75 0.90 q 450 600 750 900dL 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 δ 1.36 1.38 1.40 1.42 α 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 ι 0.8 1.6 2.4 ψ 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0 φ 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 χ1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 χ2 0.6 1.2 ...

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), Astrophys. J. Lett.993, L25 (2025), arXiv:2507.08219 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, KAGRA, VIRGO), Astrophys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, KAGRA, VIRGO), Astrophys. J.970, 191 (2024), arXiv:2304.08393 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO), Astrophys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO), Astrophys. J.923, 14 (2021), arXiv:2105.06384 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  42. [50]

    K. K. Y. Ng, K. W. K. Wong, T. Broadhurst, and T. G. F. Li, Phys. Rev. D97, 023012 (2018), arXiv:1703.06319 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  43. [51]

    F. S. Broekgaarden, S. Banagiri, and E. Payne, As- trophys. J.969, 108 (2024), arXiv:2303.17628 [astro- ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    G. P. Smith, A. Robertson, G. Mahler, M. Nicholl, D. Ryczanowski, M. Bianconi, K. Sharon, R. Massey, 14 J. Richard, and M. Jauzac, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 520, 702 (2023), arXiv:2204.12977 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  45. [53]

    S.-S. Li, S. Mao, Y. Zhao, and Y. Lu, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.476, 2220 (2018), arXiv:1802.05089 [astro- ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Skilling, Bayesian Analysis1, 833 (2006)

    J. Skilling, Bayesian Analysis1, 833 (2006)

    2006

  47. [55]

    A. R. A. C. Wierda, E. Wempe, O. A. Hannuksela, L. ´ e. V. E. Koopmans, and C. Van Den Broeck, Astrophys. J.921, 154 (2021), arXiv:2106.06303 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Ashtonet al., Astrophys

    G. Ashtonet al., Astrophys. J. Suppl.241, 27 (2019), arXiv:1811.02042 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  49. [57]

    J. S. Speagle, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.493, 3132 (2020), arXiv:1904.02180 [astro-ph.IM]

    2020 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Qin, T.-Y

    Z. Qin, T.-Y. Sun, B.-Y. Li, J.-F. Zhang, X. Guo, and X. Zhang, (2025), arXiv:2505.20996 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Santoliquidoet al., (2025), arXiv:2504.21087 [astro- ph.HE]

    F. Santoliquidoet al., (2025), arXiv:2504.21087 [astro- ph.HE]

    2025

  52. [60]

    M. Dax, S. R. Green, J. Gair, J. H. Macke, A. Buonanno, and B. Sch¨ olkopf, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 241103 (2021), arXiv:2106.12594 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Bada-Nerin, O

    R. Bada-Nerin, O. Bulashenko, O. Gramaxo Freitas, and J. A. Font, Phys. Rev. D111, 084067 (2025), arXiv:2412.00566 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  54. [62]

    S. R. Green and J. Gair, Mach. Learn. Sci. Tech.2, 03LT01 (2021), arXiv:2008.03312 [astro-ph.IM]

    2021 arXiv

  55. [63]

    S. R. Green, C. Simpson, and J. Gair, Phys. Rev. D102, 104057 (2020), arXiv:2002.07656 [astro-ph.IM]

    2020 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Gupteet al., (2024), arXiv:2404.14286 [gr-qc]

    N. Gupteet al., (2024), arXiv:2404.14286 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  57. [65]

    M. Dax, S. R. Green, J. Gair, M. P¨ urrer, J. Wildberger, J. H. Macke, A. Buonanno, and B. Sch¨ olkopf, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 171403 (2023), arXiv:2210.05686 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  58. [67]

    M. Dax, S. R. Green, J. Gair, N. Gupte, M. P¨ urrer, V. Raymond, J. Wildberger, J. H. Macke, A. Buo- nanno, and B. Sch¨ olkopf, Nature639, 49 (2025), arXiv:2407.09602 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  59. [68]

    Tambalo, M

    G. Tambalo, M. Zumalac´ arregui, L. Dai, and M. H.-Y. Cheung, Phys. Rev. D108, 103529 (2023), arXiv:2212.11960 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  60. [69]

    Urrutia and V

    J. Urrutia and V. Vaskonen, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 509, 1358 (2021), arXiv:2109.03213 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  61. [70]

    Gil Choi, S

    H. Gil Choi, S. Jung, P. Lu, and V. Takhistov, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 101002 (2024), arXiv:2311.17829 [astro- ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  62. [71]

    Savastano, G

    S. Savastano, G. Tambalo, H. Villarrubia-Rojo, and M. Zumalacarregui, Phys. Rev. D108, 103532 (2023), arXiv:2306.05282 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  63. [72]

    Vujeva, J

    L. Vujeva, J. M. Ezquiaga, D. Gilman, S. Goyal, and M. Zumalac´ arregui, (2025), arXiv:2510.14953 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025

  64. [73]

    Zumalac´ arregui, (2024), arXiv:2404.17405 [gr-qc]

    M. Zumalac´ arregui, (2024), arXiv:2404.17405 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  65. [74]

    C. R. Keeton, (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0102341

    2001 arXiv

  66. [75]

    Brando, S

    G. Brando, S. Goyal, S. Savastano, H. Villarrubia-Rojo, and M. Zumalac´ arregui, Phys. Rev. D111, 024068 (2025), arXiv:2407.04052 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  67. [76]

    Hinshaw and L

    G. Hinshaw and L. M. Krauss, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 320, Sept. 15, 1987, p. 468-476.320, 468 (1987)

    1987

  68. [77]

    D. L. Jow, S. Foreman, U.-L. Pen, and W. Zhu, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.497, 4956 (2020), arXiv:2002.01570 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  69. [78]

    Mishra, A

    A. Mishra, A. K. Meena, A. More, and S. Bose, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society531, 764 (2024), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/531/1/764/57707112/stae836.pdf

    2024

  70. [79]

    J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, Astro- phys. J.490, 493 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9611107

    1997 arXiv

  71. [80]

    Thrane and C

    E. Thrane and C. Talbot, Publications of the Astronom- ical Society of Australia36(2019), 10.1017/pasa.2019.2

    2019 doi

  72. [81]

    J. C. L. Chan, E. Seo, A. K. Y. Li, H. Fong, and J. M. Ezquiaga, Phys. Rev. D111, 084019 (2025), arXiv:2411.13058 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  73. [82]

    M. Dax, S. R. Green, J. Gair, M. Deistler, B. Sch¨ olkopf, and J. H. Macke, (2021), arXiv:2111.13139 [cs.LG]

    2021 arXiv

  74. [83]

    Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys

    K. Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. Lett.875, L1 (2019), arXiv:1906.11238 [astro-ph.GA]

    2019 arXiv

  75. [84]

    A. e. a. Buikema, Phys. Rev. D102, 062003 (2020)

    2020

  76. [85]

    out-of-distribution

    performed a similar study of applying DINGO to lensed events, but by using the GO approximation (interference of two images) to model lensing effects. Since the GO approximation is valid for higher lens masses (andw≫1 see Fig. 1), whereas we limit lens masses toM Lz = 10 4M⊙, ...

    2023

  77. [86]

    Prattenet al., Phys

    G. Prattenet al., Phys. Rev. D103, 104056 (2021), arXiv:2004.06503 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  78. [87]

    C.-L. Chan, L. Magana-Zertuche, J. Ezquiaga, K.-L. Lo, L. Vujeva, and J. Bowman,

  79. [88]

    Hu, (2025), arXiv:2507.05209 [gr-qc]

    Q. Hu, (2025), arXiv:2507.05209 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  80. [89]

    N. Rao, A. Mishra, A. Ganguly, and A. More, (2025), arXiv:2510.17787 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.