Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 13 cited by

GW231123, the most massive black-hole merger detected so far, is better explained by gravitational lensing and diffraction from a compact microlens embedded in a galaxy than by an unlensed binary, with evidence at about 2.6 sigma.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 15:13 UTC pith:EOWFHSTJ

load-bearing objection A careful, honest case for wave-optics lensing in GW231123, but the FAP estimate is not yet robust to waveform systematics; deserves peer review as an intriguing case, not as a detection. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.17631 v2 pith:EOWFHSTJ submitted 2025-12-19 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.COgr-qc

Across the Universe: GW231123 as a magnified and diffracted black hole merger

Srashti Goyal , Hector Villarrubia-Rojo , Miguel Zumalacarregui This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA astro-ph.COgr-qc PACS 04.30.-w98.62.Sb
keywords gravitational lensinggravitational wavesblack hole mergerswave opticsmicrolensingGW231123intermediate-mass black holescompact dark matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper argues that GW231123, the most massive black-hole binary yet seen by the current ground-based detectors, is not what it appears to be. The authors claim the signal is better explained by gravitational lensing: diffraction by a compact point mass of a few hundred solar masses embedded in the gravitational potential of a galaxy, which magnifies and delays part of the wavefront. Under that model the source-frame total mass drops from 190-265 to 100-180 solar masses, the conflicting results between waveform families disappear, and the need for extreme spins vanishes. The evidence is quantified as a log10 Bayes factor of 2.82 in favor of lensing and a false-alarm probability below 1% (~2.6 sigma), estimated from unlensed injections into Gaussian noise. The paper labels the finding interesting but not yet conclusive.

Core claim

The central claim is that the GW231123 strain is better fit by a wave-optics lensing model than by an unlensed binary. The model combines a point-mass microlens with an external quadratic potential representing a macroscopic galaxy lens; the best fit is driven by an interference feature delayed by about 20 ms that geometric-optics images alone cannot reproduce. The data favor the lensed hypothesis with a log10 Bayes factor of 2.82 using the most reliable numerical-relativity waveform family, and the paper bounds the false-alarm probability of this evidence below 1%, about 2.6 sigma, from 100 unlensed injections into simulated Gaussian noise. Accepting the model shifts the inferred source to

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the embedded point-lens model: a geometric time-delay potential built from a quadratic external potential (convergence and shear, representing the galaxy) plus a logarithmic point-mass term (the microlens). Lensing diffraction is encoded in the amplification factor, computed as a diffraction integral over the image plane and decomposed into geometric-optics images plus a wave-optics residual. The external potential rescales under a mass-sheet transformation, leaving a degeneracy between distance and projected density that a singular-isothermal-sphere assumption breaks. What this machinery does is reproduce the ~20 ms diffractive feature in the data, which geometric

Load-bearing premise

The evidence stands or falls on whether the ~20 ms oscillatory feature that the lensed model fits is really wavefront diffraction, rather than a non-Gaussian detector glitch or an artifact of imperfect waveform models; the paper's own <1% false-alarm estimate assumes Gaussian noise.

What would settle it

Run the same parameter estimation on the real data with unlensed templates supplemented by a glitch model capable of producing a ~20 ms transient; if the lensed Bayes factor stops exceeding the unlensed one, or if glitch injections into many noise realizations produce log10 Bayes factors as high as 2.82, the lensing claim is refuted. Alternatively, search for the predicted second macroimage with signal-to-noise near 16 delayed by days: a confident non-detection in overlapping observing time would contradict the ~55% strong-lensing prediction.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If lensing is correct, GW231123 is intrinsically a ~100-180 solar-mass merger at high redshift rather than an extreme ~200+ solar-mass system, and therefore fits the known black-hole binary population.
  • Waveform-approximant disagreements and the inferred extreme spins vanish once lensing is included, suggesting those anomalies were artifacts of forcing an unlensed template.
  • The inferred microlens, with intrinsic mass roughly 190-850 solar masses, is more naturally an intermediate-mass black hole in a galaxy; interpreting it as a dark-matter compact object sits in 1-2 sigma tension with existing stellar-lensing, supernova, quasar, and dwarf-galaxy limits.
  • Under a singular-isothermal galaxy model, the event's redshift is about 0.7-2, and there is a roughly 55% probability that a second, strong-lensed image bright enough to detect (signal-to-noise above 8) arrives days later.
  • The detection is not yet conclusive: the false-alarm bound assumes Gaussian noise, and the analysis is limited to a single compact lens rather than a realistic stellar field.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A targeted search for the predicted second image, with a time delay of about days and signal-to-noise near 16 at the predicted sky location, would be a direct confirmatory test; a confident null search in overlapping observing time would disfavor the singular-isothermal macrolens interpretation.
  • The same embedded-lens analysis could be applied to other high-mass or high-spin outliers in the catalog; if the lensing pattern recurs, the apparent over-abundance of extreme binaries may partly be a selection effect of ignoring diffraction.
  • The ~20 ms diffractive feature is the crux: injecting glitch-like non-Gaussian transients into the pipeline would test whether detector noise can mimic it and could raise or erase the claimed significance.
  • If confirmed, this would be the first gravitational-wave detection in the wave-optics diffraction regime, opening a new way to probe compact-object dark matter at 100-1000 solar masses independently of electromagnetic lensing.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper re-analyzes the O4 event GW231123 under three hypotheses: unlensed, lensing by an isolated point mass (PL), and lensing by a point mass embedded in an external quadrupole potential (embedded PL), the latter combining geometric magnification with wave-optics diffraction. Using three waveform approximants (NRSur7dq4, IMRPhenomXPHM-ST, SEOBNRv5PHM), the authors report log10 B_L^U = 2.82 (NRSur), 5.0 (Phenom), 1.24 (SEOBNR) for embedded-PL versus unlensed, with a false-alarm probability below 1% estimated from 100 unlensed injections into Gaussian noise. Under the lensing interpretation the source-frame total mass drops to approximately 100-180 M_sun, the waveform-dependent posteriors agree, and the microlens mass is 190-850 M_sun. Assuming a singular isothermal sphere macrolens (kappa=gamma) to break the mass-sheet degeneracy, the source redshift is about 0.7-2 and the probability of a second detectable macroimage is about 55%. The paper explicitly labels the result as intriguing but not yet conclusive.

Significance. If the embedded-PL interpretation holds, this would be the first wave-optics diffraction signature in gravitational-wave data, with consequences for the BBH mass distribution, intermediate-mass black holes, compact dark matter, and strong-lensing follow-up. The analysis is technically careful: the lensed waveform is an independent forward model, the mass-sheet degeneracy and SIS assumption are stated explicitly, the posterior multimodality is documented, and the paper uses public O4 data with a reproducible Bilby/GLoW pipeline and gives falsifiable predictions (second-image probability about 55%; dark-matter abundance in 1-2 sigma tension with existing limits). The authorial restraint is a strength: the conclusion is labeled 'intriguing but not yet conclusive'. The main weakness is that the quantitative significance rests on a Gaussian-noise, single-approximant injection calibration, and the Bayes factor varies by roughly two orders of magnitude across approximants, so the robustness of the central claim remains to be established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III (Fig. 2); abstract] The headline significance (FAP < 1%) rests on an injection study in which 100 unlensed NRSur signals are injected into Gaussian noise and re-analyzed with the same NRSur-based model set. Because the injection generator and recovery model share the same approximant, the test cannot probe whether the ~20 ms diffractive feature that drives the embedded-PL likelihood (App. A, Fig. S2) is absorbing waveform systematics. The unlensed posterior lies in the high-spin region where NRSur, Phenom, and SEOBNR visibly disagree, and the paper itself concedes that injection studies are needed to determine whether detector noise can mimic diffraction signatures. Please add cross-approximant injections (e.g., SEOBNR- or Phenom-generated signals analyzed with the NRSur model set) and/or injections into real O4 noise segments, or re-state the FAP as conditional on both the waveform and the Gaussian-noise a
  2. [Sec. III (Table I)] The evidence is strongly approximant-dependent: log10 B_L^U = 2.82 (NRSur), 5.0 (Phenom), 1.24 (SEOBNR), i.e., odds from about 17:1 to 10^5:1. The decision to quote NRSur is grounded in the unlensed NR validation of Ref. [1], but that validation does not automatically transfer to the lensed/diffractive likelihood. Moreover, under NRSur the embedded PL has a lower Bayes factor than the isolated PL (2.82 vs 2.91) despite a better fit (Delta log L = 6.3 vs 4.8), so the more physical model is not the preferred one even with the quoted approximant. The claimed ~2.6 sigma significance should be reported using the smallest Bayes factor across approximants, or the approximant dependence should be propagated into the significance.
  3. [Sec. IV.A (Fig. 3); abstract] The post-lensing agreement of the three waveform posteriors is presented as supporting the lensing hypothesis (abstract: 'removes discrepancies between different waveform approximants'; Sec. IV.A: 'not only favoured, but also removes many unusual features'). With 2-4 additional flexible lens parameters in nested models, posterior broadening and absorption of systematic offsets between approximants is a generic expectation; Fig. 3 therefore does not constitute independent evidence for lensing. The evidence for lensing must rest on the Bayes factors and the injection-based FAP. I recommend either demonstrating that an equally flexible nuisance model does not produce the same reconciliation, or de-emphasizing this point in the abstract and conclusions.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract; Sec. III] 'False alarm probability ... bounded below <1%' is garbled; it should read 'bounded above by 1%' or simply 'less than 1%'. Also, with 100 injections and zero exceedances, the empirical FAP < 1% has a 95% Clopper-Pearson upper limit around 3%; quoting the interval would be more informative.
  2. [Table I and caption] The notation is confusing: rows such as y and M_L(1+z_L) show embedded-PL values in the main columns and isolated-PL values in parentheses, while other rows (theta_L, gamma~, kappa) apply only to the embedded PL. The caption should spell out which rows refer to which model and what the parentheses mean.
  3. [References] Reference [59] is an incomplete placeholder ('arXiv:2509.xxxx'); references [94], [104], and [125] appear without author or group names. The bibliography should be completed before publication.
  4. [Sec. I] Typographical errors: 'refered' should be 'referred' (twice in Sec. I); 'redshfit' should be 'redshift'; 'F AP' is written with a spurious space in several places in Sec. III.
  5. [Sec. IV.A] The statement that '16% of the posterior [is] at redshifts beyond the nominal detector horizon' would benefit from a definition of the horizon criterion used (SNR threshold, detector configuration, etc.).
  6. [Sec. IV.B and App. D] The dark-matter abundance constraints (f_c > 5.2% embedded; > 6.4% isolated at 90% c.l.) are stated in Sec. IV.B as 'excluded' by other probes, but App. D and Fig. S5 describe the same comparison as a 1-2 sigma tension for the embedded-PL case. Please reconcile these two statements.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the lensed-waveform likelihood is an independent forward model and the claimed predictions are stated posterior projections, not fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is the embedded point-lens (PL) diffractive waveform model: Fermat potential Eq. (1) and amplification factor Eq. (2) define lensed waveforms from physical lens parameters (convergence, shear, microlens mass, position). This is a forward model independent of the GW231123 data; the Bayesian likelihood is computed by interfacing Bilby with the public GLoW code (Ref. [56]) under explicit priors (lens mass log-uniform in [10,1e5], y uniform in [0.05,5], gamma-tilde in [0,1], theta_L in [0,pi/2]). The reported log10 Bayes factors (2.82 NRSur, 5.0 Phenom, 1.24 SEOBNR) are posterior odds between nested models, not quantities rebuilt from the lensing hypothesis itself. The FAP<1% estimate comes from injecting 100 unlensed NRSur signals into Gaussian noise and recomputing Bayes factors: this is a noise-background calibration, not a fit of the observed Bayes factor. The authors explicitly note the limitation that injections use Gaussian noise and that 'Bayes factors may change if the data contains micro-glitches or non-Gaussian noise'; this is a robustness caveat, not circularity. The 'predictions' (source redshift 0.7-2, second-image probability ~55%, dark-matter abundance) are transparent posterior projections from fitted lens parameters under stated assumptions (SIS macrolens, first macroimage, lens-redshift weighting), so they are consequences of the model rather than inputs. The self-citations, including Ref. [59] (an unreleased 'arXiv:2509.xxxx' companion), are not load-bearing: the present paper describes its own GLoW interface and parameter-estimation config, and the wave-optics physics is standard and publicly code-verified. The mass-sheet degeneracy is acknowledged in Eq. (5) and does not hide a circular identification. Overall, the derivation does not reduce to its inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the embedded point-lens model, the diffraction integral, the choice of NRSur as reliable waveform, the SIS relation to break the mass-sheet degeneracy, and the Gaussian-noise assumption in the false-alarm estimate. No new fundamental entities are introduced: the microlens is an inferred astrophysical object (possible IMBH or compact dark matter), and the DM interpretation is explicitly tested against external bounds.

free parameters (5)
  • Redshifted microlens mass M_L(1+z_L) = median 576 +1012/-344 M_sun (NRSur embedded PL)
    Constrained by the wave-optics diffraction pattern; directly determines the inferred intrinsic lens mass and the DM abundance interpretation.
  • Rescaled external shear gamma~ = median 0.66 +0.20/-0.61 (NRSur embedded PL)
    Parameterizes the anisotropic external potential; central to the magnification model and to the SIS-based redshift inference.
  • Rescaled microlens offset y~ = median 1.5 +1.7/-0.88 (NRSur embedded PL)
    Sets the projected source-lens separation and the microimage time delays; fit to the diffraction ripples.
  • Microlens orientation theta_L = median 0.5 +0.51/-0.41 (NRSur embedded PL)
    Angle of the microlens relative to the external shear; fourth lens parameter in the embedded PL model.
  • Detectability threshold y_cr = 1.5 (varied 1-2)
    Hand-chosen from Ref [32]; converts the detection into a dark-matter abundance constraint, affecting the secondary fc bounds.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption The Fermat potential of a point mass embedded in a quadratic external potential (Eq. 1) describes the lensing environment of GW231123.
    This is the core lens model, assuming a single compact object plus smooth convergence/shear; realistic stellar fields contain many objects.
  • standard math Wave-optics diffraction integral (Eq. 2) and geometric-optics decomposition (Eq. 4) apply to GW frequencies.
    Standard lensing theory used to compute the amplification factor F(w).
  • domain assumption The unlensed signal is described by one of three BBH waveform approximants; NRSur is the only reliable one at high spins.
    Bayes factors vary by template; the headline BF is from NRSur, so waveform systematic error is a key uncertainty.
  • domain assumption The source is at a type I macroimage and the macrolens is a singular isothermal sphere with kappa=gamma (Eq. 6).
    Breaks the mass-sheet degeneracy and enables redshift/distance and second-image predictions; if false, those numbers change.
  • domain assumption False-alarm distribution estimated from 100 unlensed injections into Gaussian noise.
    No non-Gaussian glitches or waveform-systematic mimics are included; FAP<1% may be optimistic.
  • domain assumption Intrinsic microlens mass assumes flat mass function and lens redshift weighting p(zL|zS) (Eq. S2).
    Converts redshifted to intrinsic mass; affects the 188-850 M_sun range and DM abundance comparison.
  • domain assumption Poisson k=1 self-calibration for compact dark-matter abundance with y_cr=1.5.
    Used to derive fc constraints; assumes the event is truly lensed and the threshold is known.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 21791 in / 22857 out tokens · 236640 ms · 2026-08-03T15:13:55.711652+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

GW231123 appears as the most massive binary black hole (BBH) ever observed by the LIGO interferometers with total mass $190-265 M_\odot$. A high observed mass can be explained by the combination of cosmological redshift and gravitational magnification if the source is aligned with a gravitational lens, such as a galaxy. Small-scale objects such as stars and remnants diffract the signal, distorting the wavefront and providing additional lensing signatures. Here we present an analysis of GW231123 combining for the first time the effects of diffraction by a small-scale lens and gravitational magnification by an external potential, modelled as an embedded point-mass lens (PL), finding an intriguing case for the lensing hypothesis. Lensing is favoured by the data, with a false alarm probability of the observed Bayes factors bounded below $<1\%$, or $\sim 2.6 \sigma$ confidence level. Including lensing lowers the total source mass of GW231123 to $100-180 M_\odot$, closer to BBHs reported so far, and also removes discrepancies between different waveform approximants and the need for high component spins. We reconstruct all source and lens properties, including the microlens mass $190-850 M_\odot$, its offset, the magnitude of the external gravitational potential and its orientation. The embedded PL analysis leads to a lighter microlens compared to the isolated PL. Within our assumptions, the reconstruction is complete up to an ambiguity between the distance and projected density (mass-sheet degeneracy). Assuming a single galaxy as the macroscopic lens allows us to infer the total amplification of the signal, placing the event at redshift $0.7-2$, and predict the probability $~55\%$ of forming an additional detectable image due to strong lensing by the macrolens. We discuss the implications of our findings on the source and nature of the microlens, including a possible dark matter origin.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.17631 by Hector Villarrubia-Rojo, Miguel Zumalacarregui, Srashti Goyal.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Diffracted and magnified GWs. Top left: A small [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. False alarm probability of observing Bayes Factors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. 1D marginalised posterior distributions of ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. GW231123 total source-frame mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 13 Pith papers

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

  1. Wave-optics gravitational wave lensing in modified gravity

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 8.0

    In a curvature-coupled propagation framework for modified gravity, gravitational-wave lensing in wave optics shows persistent infrared interactions that prevent the amplification factor from approaching unity at zero ...

  2. Effective description of lensed gravitational waves diffracted by stellar fields

    astro-ph.HE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    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.

  3. Highly eccentric non-spinning binary black hole mergers: quadrupolar post-merger waveforms

    gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Polynomial models for the (2,2) post-merger waveform amplitudes of eccentric non-spinning binary black holes are constructed from numerical-relativity data as functions of symmetric mass ratio and two merger-time dyna...

  4. Gravitational-wave lensing beyond rays: a disordered-system approach

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A quenched-disorder approach with Schwinger-Keldysh path integrals produces an averaged density matrix for gravitational waves that separates phase-suppressing exponential terms from oscillatory corrections to coheren...

  5. Search for strong lensing of gravitational waves in the binary black hole events from O1-O4a

    gr-qc 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0

    Posterior Overlap 2.0 finds no lensed BBH pairs in O1–O4a (p_L < 0.6% for all pairs) and sets a 90% upper bound of 1.4% on the strong-lensing fraction.

  6. Joint population and strong-lensing inference for resolved gravitational-wave events probes the black-hole merger rate beyond the peak of star formation

    astro-ph.HE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Joint strong-lensing and population inference on resolved gravitational-wave events finds no lensed events and tightens constraints on the black-hole merger rate peak redshift and high-redshift tail.

  7. BB plot: A Tool for Accurate Model Selection Using Bayes factors

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    The BB plot is a new diagnostic that links Bayes factors to their expected distributions under competing hypotheses, enabling validation of calculations and low-cost background estimation for model selection in GW studies.

  8. Toward claiming a detection of gravitational memory

    gr-qc 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A framework using scale separation in the Isaacson description defines observable gravitational memory rise for compact binary coalescences, providing a basis for hypothesis testing in LISA data.

  9. How do the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA's Heavy Black Holes Form? No evidence for core-collapse Intermediate-mass black holes in GWTC-4

    astro-ph.HE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    No evidence for core-collapse formed low-spin IMBHs in GWTC-4, with 90% upper limit on merger rate of 0.077 Gpc^{-3} yr^{-1}, low-spin BH mass truncation at 65 solar masses consistent with pair-instability gap lower e...

  10. How do the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA's Heavy Black Holes Form? No evidence for core-collapse Intermediate-mass black holes in GWTC-4

    astro-ph.HE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    No evidence for core-collapse IMBHs in GWTC-4; heavy BHs from hierarchical mergers, with low-spin mass distribution truncating at ~65 solar masses and PIMG upper edge estimated at 150 solar masses.

  11. Probing globular clusters parameters through gravitational wave lensing with stellar-mass black hole binaries

    gr-qc 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Simulations of wave-optics lensing of GW150914-like signals by globular clusters recover injected velocity dispersion values for favorable alignments when lens and source parameters are jointly estimated.

  12. Polarization Birefringence and Waveform Systematics in GW231123

    astro-ph.HE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Analysis of GW231123 with IMRPhenomXPHM, IMRPhenomXO4a and NRSur7dq4 yields no waveform-independent evidence for polarization birefringence, with 90% upper limits on the derived coefficient of 0.378, 0.097 and 0.273 r...

  13. The impact of waveform systematics and Gaussian noise on the interpretation of GW231123

    gr-qc 2026-01 accept novelty 4.0

    The high mass and high spin magnitudes inferred for GW231123 using NRSur7dq4 are robust to waveform systematics and Gaussian noise.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

132 extracted references · 103 linked inside Pith · cited by 12 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, (2025), arXiv:2507.08219 [astro-ph.HE]

    K. LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, (2025), arXiv:2507.08219 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    D. V. Martynov, E. D. Hall, B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott,et al., Physical Review D93, 112004 (2016)

    2016

  3. [3]

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

    R. Abbottet al.(KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), Phys. Rev. X13, 041039 (2023), arXiv:2111.03606 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  4. [5]

    Fishbach, D

    M. Fishbach, D. E. Holz, and B. Farr, Astrophys. J. Lett.840, L24 (2017), arXiv:1703.06869 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  5. [6]

    Borchers, C

    A. Borchers, C. S. Ye, and M. Fishbach, As- trophys. J.987(2025), 10.3847/1538-4357/addec6, arXiv:2503.21278 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  6. [7]

    Stegmann, A

    J. Stegmann, A. Olejak, and S. E. de Mink, (2025), arXiv:2507.15967 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  7. [8]

    Tanikawa, S

    A. Tanikawa, S. Liu, W. Wu, M. S. Fujii, and L. Wang, (2025), arXiv:2508.01135 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  8. [9]

    Bartos and Z

    I. Bartos and Z. Haiman, (2025), arXiv:2508.08558 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  9. [11]

    Li and X.-L

    G.-P. Li and X.-L. Fan, (2025), arXiv:2509.08298 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  10. [12]

    Paiella, C

    L. Paiella, C. Ugolini, M. Spera, M. Branchesi, and M. A. Sedda, (2025), arXiv:2509.10609 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  11. [13]

    Croon, J

    D. Croon, J. Sakstein, and D. Gerosa, (2025), arXiv:2508.10088 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  12. [14]

    De Luca, G

    V. De Luca, G. Franciolini, and A. Riotto, (2025), arXiv:2508.09965 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  13. [15]

    L. Dai, T. Venumadhav, and K. Sigurdson, Phys. Rev. D95, 044011 (2017), arXiv:1605.09398 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  14. [16]

    Oguri, Mon

    M. Oguri, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.480, 3842 (2018), arXiv:1807.02584 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  15. [17]

    Oguri, Rept

    M. Oguri, Rept. Prog. Phys.82, 126901 (2019), arXiv:1907.06830 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  16. [18]

    Broadhurst, J

    T. Broadhurst, J. M. Diego, and G. Smoot, (2018), arXiv:1802.05273 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  17. [19]

    J. M. Diego, T. Broadhurst, and G. Smoot, Phys. Rev. D104, 103529 (2021), arXiv:2106.06545 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  18. [20]

    P. T. H. Pang, O. A. Hannuksela, T. Dietrich, G. Pagano, and I. W. Harry, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.495, 3740 (2020), arXiv:2002.04893 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  19. [21]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  20. [22]

    Magare, S

    S. Magare, S. J. Kapadia, A. More, M. K. Singh, P. Ajith, and A. N. Ramprakash, Astrophys. J. Lett. 955, L31 (2023), arXiv:2302.02916 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  21. [23]

    Farah, J

    A. Farah, J. M. Ezquiaga, M. Fishbach, and D. Holz, (2025), arXiv:2507.07964 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  22. [24]

    Christian, S

    P. Christian, S. Vitale, and A. Loeb, Phys. Rev. D98, 103022 (2018), arXiv:1802.02586 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  23. [25]

    Dai, S.-S

    L. Dai, S.-S. Li, B. Zackay, S. Mao, and Y. Lu, Phys. Rev. D98, 104029 (2018), arXiv:1810.00003 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  24. [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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  25. [27]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  26. [28]

    G. F. Lewis, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.497, 1583 (2020), arXiv:2007.03919 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  27. [29]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  28. [30]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  29. [31]

    Oguri and R

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  30. [32]

    Mishra, A

    A. Mishra, A. K. Meena, A. More, and S. Bose, 14 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society531, 764 (2024), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/531/1/764/57707112/stae836.pdf

    2024

  31. [33]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  32. [34]

    Chakraborty and S

    A. Chakraborty and S. Mukherjee, Astrophys. J.984, 107 (2025), arXiv:2410.06995 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  33. [35]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  34. [36]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  35. [37]

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

    arXiv 2025

  36. [38]

    Jung and C

    S. Jung and C. S. Shin, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 041103 (2019), arXiv:1712.01396 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  37. [39]

    H. G. Choi, C. Park, and S. Jung, Phys. Rev. D104, 063001 (2021), arXiv:2103.08618 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  38. [40]

    Oguri and R

    M. Oguri and R. Takahashi, Astrophys. J.901, 58 (2020), arXiv:2007.01936 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  39. [41]

    Urrutia and V

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  40. [42]

    Fairbairn, J

    M. Fairbairn, J. Urrutia, and V. Vaskonen, JCAP07, 007 (2023), arXiv:2210.13436 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  41. [43]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  42. [44]

    Savastano, G

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  43. [45]

    Gil Choi, S

    H. Gil Choi, S. Jung, P. Lu, and V. Takhistov, (2023), arXiv:2311.17829 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  44. [46]

    Urrutia and V

    J. Urrutia and V. Vaskonen, (2024), arXiv:2402.16849 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  45. [47]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  46. [48]

    Brando, S

    G. Brando, S. Goyal, S. Savastano, H. Villarrubia-Rojo, and M. Zumalac´ arregui, (2024), arXiv:2407.04052 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  47. [49]

    Vujeva, J

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

    arXiv 2025

  48. [50]

    Takahashi and T

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  49. [51]

    Leung, D

    C. Leung, D. Jow, P. Saha, L. Dai, M. Oguri, and L. V. E. Koopmans, (2023), arXiv:2304.01202 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  50. [52]

    Feldbrugge, U.-L

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  51. [53]

    Tambalo, M

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  52. [54]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  53. [55]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  54. [56]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  55. [57]

    Wright and M

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  56. [58]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  57. [59]

    Goyal, H

    S. Goyal, H. Villarrubia-Rojo, and M. Zumalacarregui, arXiv:2509.xxxx [astro-ph.HE]

  58. [60]

    O. A. Hannuksela, K. Haris, K. K. Y. Ng, S. Kumar, A. K. Mehta, D. Keitel, T. G. F. Li, and P. Ajith, Astrophys. J. Lett.874, L2 (2019), arXiv:1901.02674 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  59. [61]

    L. Dai, B. Zackay, T. Venumadhav, J. Roulet, and M. Zaldarriaga, (2020), arXiv:2007.12709 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  60. [62]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO), Astrophys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  61. [63]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  62. [64]

    Chakraborty and S

    A. Chakraborty and S. Mukherjee, (2025), arXiv:2503.16281 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  63. [65]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  64. [66]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  65. [67]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  66. [68]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(KAGRA, LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Living Rev. Rel.19, 1 (2016), arXiv:1304.0670 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  67. [69]

    Gwtc-4.0: Searches for gravitational- wave lensing signatures,

    T. L. S. Collaboration, T. V. Collaboration, and T. K. Collaboration, “Gwtc-4.0: Searches for gravitational- wave lensing signatures,” (2025), arXiv:2512.16347 [gr- qc]

    arXiv 2025

  68. [70]

    Chang and S

    K. Chang and S. Refsdal, Nature282, 561 (1979)

    1979

  69. [71]

    J. H. An and N. W. Evans, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 369, 317 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0601457

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  70. [72]

    Schneider, J

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

    1999

  71. [73]

    Dai and T

    L. Dai and T. Venumadhav, (2017), arXiv:1702.04724 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  72. [74]

    J. M. Ezquiaga, D. E. Holz, W. Hu, M. Lagos, and R. M. Wald, Phys. Rev. D103, 064047 (2021), arXiv:2008.12814 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  73. [75]

    E. E. Falco, M. V. Gorenstein, and I. I. Shapiro, The Astrophysical Journal Letters289, L1 (1985)

    1985

  74. [76]

    M. V. Gorenstein, E. E. Falco, and I. I. Shapiro, As- trophys. J.327, 693 (1988)

    1988

  75. [77]

    Wagner, Astron

    J. Wagner, Astron. Astrophys.620, A86 (2018), arXiv:1809.03505 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  76. [78]

    Wagner, Mon

    J. Wagner, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.487, 4492 (2019), arXiv:1904.07239 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  77. [79]

    Kormann, P

    R. Kormann, P. Schneider, and M. Bartelmann, Astron. Astrophys.286, 357 (1994), arXiv:astro-ph/9311011

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  78. [80]

    Oguri, A

    M. Oguri, A. Taruya, Y. Suto, and E. L. Turner, As- trophys. J.568, 488 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0112119

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  79. [81]

    Hilbert, S

    S. Hilbert, S. D. M. White, J. Hartlap, and P. Schnei- der, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.382, 121 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0703803

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  80. [82]

    J. M. Diego, Astron. Astrophys.625, A84 (2019), arXiv:1806.04668 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

Showing first 80 references.