Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 64 references

Identifying multiple images of gravitational-wave sources lensed by elliptical lensing potentials

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Elliptical galaxy lenses can split gravitational waves into four images, and three-image templates match those signals far better than two-image templates.

desk verdict Solid, useful extension of quasi-GO to SIE lensing; the 10^5 M_sun threshold is plausible but rests on an expansion validated only for SIS, and the mismatch study is idealized. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.18750 v2 pith:EVREGOFW submitted 2025-06-23 gr-qc astro-ph.HEhep-th

Saif Ali , Michael Kesden , Lindsay King This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.HEhep-th
keywords gravitationallensingwavessingularisothermalellipsoidgeometricalopticswavewaveformmismatchtemplatebanksmicrolensing
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 asks when the simple geometrical-optics picture of gravitational-wave lensing remains valid for elliptical galaxy lenses and how many images a search template needs. Using the singular isothermal ellipsoid (SIE) lens model, an elliptical generalization of the isothermal sphere that can produce up to four images, the authors show that the geometrical-optics approximation holds above roughly $10^5\,M_\odot$ for ground-based detector frequencies, with wave-optics effects becoming significant at lower masses or near caustics. They then show that templates built from three of the four images reproduce the lensed waveform much better than the standard two-image templates, reducing mismatch from $O(10^{-1})$ to $O(10^{-2})$ by factors between 1.5 and 5. If correct, this provides a quantitative rule for when discrete-image templates are valid and argues that future lensed-GW searches should include three-image template families.

What carries the argument

The central object is the first-order quasi-geometrical-optics expansion of the lensing amplification factor, Eq. (16) from reference [58], in which each image carries a correction $i\Delta^{(j)}/w$; the real coefficient $\Delta^{(j)}$ (Eq. 17), built from third and fourth derivatives of the Fermat potential at the image, measures how soon diffraction erodes the stationary-point approximation. Setting $\Delta^{(j)}/w \sim 1$ turns into the per-image minimum lens mass $M_{Lz,\min}^{(j)} = |\Delta^{(j)}|/(8\pi f_{\min})$ (Eq. 27). The second part of the machinery is the template comparison: the 2L, 3A, and 3B amplification factors of Appendix A, whose non-oscillatory overlaps predict the ordering $\epsilon_{3A} < \epsilon_{3B} < \epsilon_{2L}$ when the fourth-image flux ratio $I_4 < 1$.

What would settle it

Numerically evaluate the full diffraction integral for the SIE lens at source positions near the fold, cusp, and Einstein cross for frequencies around $w \approx \Delta^{(j)}$, and compare the resulting amplification factors with the quasi-GO prediction; if the fractional error $|F_{\rm GO}/F_{\rm WO}-1|$ stays below unity at masses below $10^5\,M_\odot$, or exceeds unity above it, the threshold in Eq. (27) is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For the SIE lens, the paper establishes a per-image breakdown criterion from a first-order quasi-geometrical-optics expansion of the diffraction integral: image $j$ remains in the geometrical-optics regime when the dimensionless frequency $w=8\pi M_{Lz}f$ exceeds the coefficient $\Delta^{(j)}$, so the whole lens is in the geometrical-optics regime when $M_{Lz} > \max_j |\Delta^{(j)}|/(8\pi f_{\min})$ (Eq. 27). For ground-based detectors with $f_{\min}=20\,\mathrm{Hz}$, this yields a threshold of roughly $10^5\,M_\odot$, with higher masses required near caustics. In the four-image region, the paper classifies events into 14 microlensing and macrolensing classes depending on which inter-image time delays exceed the in-band event duration. Waveform mismatch analysis shows that three-image templates, type 3A (two minima and one saddle) and type 3B (one minimum and two saddles), outperform two-image (2L) templates by factors of 1.5 to 5, with 3A best near the major cusp, 3B best near the minor cusp, and, for lens masses above $10^7\,M_\odot$, diffraction effects are negligible and mismatches drop by an additional factor of roughly three.

Load-bearing premise

The mass threshold rests on trusting the first-order quasi-geometrical-optics correction to mark where the geometrical-optics approximation breaks down, even though that correction is checked against exact wave optics only for the spherical lens and not for the elliptical one.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For lens masses below roughly $10^5\,M_\odot$ at ground-based frequencies, or for sources close to caustics, geometrical-optics templates will be inadequate and wave-optics effects must be included.
  • At lens masses above $10^7\,M_\odot$, diffraction effects become negligible for ground-based detectors, and waveform mismatches fall by an additional factor of roughly three.
  • Using three-image templates reduces waveform mismatch from $O(10^{-1})$ to $O(10^{-2})$, typically by factors of 1.5 to 5 compared with two-image templates.
  • The relative merit of 3A versus 3B templates is set by the brightness of the fourth image: 3A wins when $I_4<1$, while 3B wins when $I_4>1$.
  • Four-image lensed events can be sorted into 14 microlensing and macrolensing classes, and the fraction of events in each class shifts dramatically with lens mass, with classes 6 and 7 dominating at $10^7\,M_\odot$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same per-image $\Delta^{(j)}$ criterion could be applied to other non-axisymmetric lens models, such as SIE potentials with external shear or power-law ellipsoids, to test whether the $10^5\,M_\odot$ threshold is robust.
  • If three-image templates are folded into search pipelines, the detection volume for lensed events inside the tangential caustic should grow; this could be tested with injected lensed signals in realistic noise before any real event is found.
  • For future space-based detectors with lower frequency floors, the minimum lens mass scales as $1/f_{\min}$, so wave-optics corrections become relevant for more massive lenses than for the LVK band, and the paper's class taxonomy maps directly onto that regime.
  • If most galaxy-scale lenses are approximately SIE-like, the mass-dependent class fractions in Table I imply that the first catalog of lensed gravitational-wave events could be used to infer the lens mass function from the observed mix of event classes.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper extends gravitational-wave (GW) lensing studies from axisymmetric models to the singular isothermal ellipsoid (SIE) lens model. Using Takahashi's O(1/w) quasi-geometrical-optics expansion, it derives a lens-mass threshold, Eq. (27), below which the GO approximation for a given SIE image is claimed to fail, and uses this threshold to map GO validity in the two-image and four-image regimes. It then classifies four-image events into 14 macrolensing/microlensing classes and computes waveform mismatches between simulated four-image signals and two-image (2L) and three-image (3A, 3B) templates, reporting that three-image templates reduce median mismatches by factors of 1.5-5. An analytic extreme-GO overlap calculation in Appendix A is presented to explain the template ranking.

Significance. If the central criterion is correct, the paper provides the first quantitative GO-validity mass scale for elliptical GW lenses and a concrete, physically motivated template-ranking result relevant to future lensed-GW searches. The paper's strengths include a parameter-free analytic overlap derivation in Appendix A, clear use of glafic to obtain SIE image properties, and a falsifiable threshold statement. However, the central mass threshold relies on an extrapolation of a first-order expansion to a regime not independently validated by wave-optics computations, and the mismatch numbers are obtained in an idealized setting. With these points addressed, the paper would be a useful contribution to the lensed-GW template literature.

major comments (2)
  1. [§V, Eq. (27) and Fig. 4] The central GO-validity criterion is not yet adequately supported for the SIE. The O(1/w) expansion in Eq. (16) is tested only against the exact SIS wave-optics result in Fig. 1, and Sec. II explicitly states that computing F(w) for the SIE in the wave-optics regime remains challenging; the paper therefore assumes the expansion carries over. This matters because Eq. (17) has denominators proportional to powers of the Hessian eigenvalues |λ^(a)|, so Δ^(j) diverges when an image approaches the critical curve, and the SIS test—which has only a radial pseudo-caustic—does not exercise the fold/cusp geometry of the SIE. Moreover, the treatment of the y→yr limit is internally inconsistent: Fig. 4 and the text state that M^(2)_Lz(min)→∞, yet also assert that GO remains valid because |µ^(2)|^{1/2}Δ^(2)→0. For the SIS benchmark, Eqs. (22a) and (23) give |µ_-|^{1/2} Δ_- = -1/[8 y^{3/2}(1-y)^{3/2}], which diverges as y→1; hence the claimed limit is not a general property and is not proven for the SIE. A magnification-weighted validity condition, or a direct SIE wave-optics check at representative source positions near the fold and cusp, is needed before Eq. (27), Fig. 7, and Table I can be taken as quantitative.
  2. [§VII, Eq. (33), Table II] The mismatch comparison is an idealized 'known lens parameters' statement, and the reported reduction factors of 1.5-5 should be understood as upper bounds on template performance, not as search-ready template-bank results. The text says the templates are parameterized using the properties of the brightest corresponding images within the true four-image signal, and Eq. (31) maximizes only over tc and φc; no search over lens parameters such as e, y, φ, or M_Lz is performed. The noise power spectral density Sn(f) entering Eq. (33) is never specified, and the numerical results use only e=0.2, fmin=20 Hz, and one source mass configuration. The relative ranking ϵ3A < ϵ3B < ϵ2L may be robust, but the absolute mismatch values and the claim of reducing mismatches from O(10^{-1}) to O(10^{-2}) should either be explicitly qualified as ideal, or supported by a search over lens parameters for representative events.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§III, Eq. (24) and Fig. 1] The validity condition is written as w > max_j Δ^(j), but Δ^(j) can be negative (for the SIS second image, Δ_- is negative), so the largest correction is controlled by max_j |Δ^(j)|. Please use absolute values consistently in the text, Eq. (24), and the Fig. 1 caption. Eq. (27) already does this, which highlights the inconsistency.
  2. [Appendix A, Eq. (A7)] The signal self-overlap expression in Eq. (A7) appears to have the wrong trigonometric functions: cross terms involving the saddle images 3 and 4 and image 1 should contain sin(2πf Δt) rather than cos(2πf Δt), as in Eq. (A11). Since the extreme-GO approximation drops all oscillatory terms, the final overlap estimates are unaffected, but the numerical implementation of the mismatch should be checked.
  3. [§VII, Eq. (33)] The noise power spectral density Sn(f) is never specified. Please name the exact PSD and detector configuration used in the pycbc filter package, since the absolute mismatch values depend on it.
  4. [§IV, Fig. 3 caption] The caption refers to 'eccentricity e' while the text defines e as ellipticity; please use a single terminology throughout.
  5. [References [57] and [58]] References [57] and [58] are the same paper by R. Takahashi (2004) and should be merged.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the GO-validity threshold and mismatch predictions are forward calculations from an external quasi-GO expansion and simulated lensing, not fitted inputs or self-citation chains.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. Equation (27) is a rearrangement of the quasi-GO validity condition Eq. (24) from Takahashi [58], with Delta^(j) computed from derivatives of the SIE Fermat potential; no parameter is fit to the claim being made. The SIS check in Fig. 1 is an external benchmark against the exact wave-optics series Eq. (20). The SIE mass thresholds and event-class fractions are forward simulations using glafic and the time-delay criterion Eq. (30), not inversions of the target predictions. The Appendix A overlap identities (A17)-(A19) are parameter-free analytic consequences of flux ratios and do not assume the numerical mismatch results. The authors' prior work [34] supplies terminology (macrolensing/microlensing) and lens-parameter conventions, but is not the basis for the GO threshold or the template-mismatch conclusion; thus the self-citation is not load-bearing. The main caveat is a correctness risk, not circularity: Sec. II notes that computing F for the SIE in the full wave-optics regime 'remains a challenging task', and the quasi-GO criterion is validated only for SIS, not against exact SIE wave optics. That is an extrapolation, not a circular reduction, so it does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a small number of modeling choices: one ellipticity, one frequency floor, fixed source masses, and the quasi-GO truncation. No new entities are invented, and no parameters are fit to data, but the generality of the conclusions depends on these choices.

free parameters (3)
  • Ellipticity e = 0.2 (chosen, not fitted)
    All numerical results for MLz(min), class fractions, and mismatches are computed for e=0.2; no scaling with e or uncertainty is provided, so the mass thresholds and mismatch improvements are conditional on this choice.
  • Minimum GW frequency fmin = 20 Hz
    Eq. (27) defines MLz(min) proportional to 1/fmin; the 20 Hz floor is a choice for current ground-based detectors, and the results would shift for future detectors with lower frequency floors.
  • Source binary masses = MzS=50 Msun, chirp mass M=21 Msun, eta=0.25
    These masses set the inspiral time Eq. (29), the frequency cut Eq. (18), and the waveform used in the mismatch analysis; mismatch magnitudes depend on the waveform and mass ratio.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The SIE lens model adequately represents real galaxy-scale lenses for GW lensing purposes.
    Invoked in Secs. I and IV to justify moving beyond axisymmetric SIS; the numerical results use only one ellipticity e=0.2 and three source angles, so the generality of the conclusions depends on this model assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper The first-order quasi-GO correction in Eq. (16) is sufficient to determine when the GO approximation breaks down for SIE images.
    Sec. II.B imports Eq. (16) from Takahashi (2004) via [58], and Sec. V converts it into the mass threshold Eq. (27); this is validated only for SIS in Fig. 1, not for SIE against full wave optics.
  • domain assumption When MLz exceeds the threshold, a lensed GW is the coherent sum of discrete images with Morse phases and no wave-optics corrections.
    The mismatch analysis in Sec. VII uses the GO amplification factor Eq. (7) for both signal and templates; the presented results hold only in this regime.
  • domain assumption For a volume-limited survey, sources are uniformly distributed in the source plane inside the tangential caustic.
    Used in Sec. VI to convert class maps (Fig. 7) into fractional event rates in Table I; real source distributions may differ.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Identifying multiple images of gravitational-wave sources lensed by elliptical lensing potentials." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EVREGOFW

@misc{pith2026250618750,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Identifying multiple images of gravitational-wave sources lensed by elliptical lensing potentials},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EVREGOFW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.18750}
}
abstract

Real astrophysical lenses typically lack axisymmetry, necessitating the study of gravitational-wave (GW) lensing by elliptical mass distributions to accurately assess detectability and waveform interpretation. We investigate strong lensing using the singular isothermal ellipsoid (SIE) model, which produces two or four images depending on the source's position relative to lens caustics. Employing a quasi-geometrical optics framework, we determine that the geometrical-optics approximation holds reliably for lens masses above approximately $10^5 \, M_\odot$ at GW frequencies relevant for ground-based detectors $(\sim 10^2 \,\text{Hz})$, though wave-optics effects become significant for lower masses or sources near caustics. Our waveform mismatch analysis demonstrates that the use of three-image templates significantly improves our ability to distinguish source signals, reducing mismatches from $O(10^{-1})$ to $O(10^{-2})$, typically by factors between 1.5 and 5 compared to the standard two-image template model. At lens masses above $10^7 \, M_\odot$, diffraction effects become negligible for ground-based detectors, resulting in an additional mismatch reduction by a factor of approximately three. These findings highlight the critical need for multi-image templates in GW searches to enhance detection efficiency and accuracy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.18750 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Fractional error in the amplification factor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The left (right) panel shows the source (image) plane and the caustics (critical curves) for a SIE lens with ellipticity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Flux ratios [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Minimum redshifted lens mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Minimum redshifted lens mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Maximum mass-ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Image classification as a function of source position [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Mismatch between four-image lensed source and templates for different event classes across six different lens masses. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Einstein, Science84, 506 (1936)

    A. Einstein, Science84, 506 (1936)

    work page 1936

  2. [2]

    572,25(2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0111456 [astro-ph]

    N.DalalandC.S.Kochanek,Astrophys.J. 572,25(2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0111456 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 2002

  3. [3]

    Oguri, Reports on Progress in Physics 82, 126901 (2019), arXiv:1907.06830 [astro-ph.CO]

    M. Oguri, Reports on Progress in Physics 82, 126901 (2019), arXiv:1907.06830 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    Treu and P

    T. Treu and P. J. Marshall, A&A Rev.24, 11 (2016), arXiv:1605.05333 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    Bartelmann, Classical and Quantum Gravity 27, 233001 (2010), arXiv:1010.3829 [astro-ph.CO]

    M. Bartelmann, Classical and Quantum Gravity 27, 233001 (2010), arXiv:1010.3829 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2010

  6. [6]

    B1422+231: The influence of mass substructure on strong lensing

    M. Bradač, P. Schneider, M. Steinmetz, M. Lombardi, L. J. King, and R. Porcas, Astron. Astrophys.388, 373 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0112038 [astro-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2002

  7. [7]

    Parametric Strong Gravitational Lensing Analysis of Abell 1689

    A. Halkola, S. Seitz, and M. Pannella, Mon. Not. R. As- tron. Soc. 372, 1425 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0605470 [astro-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2006

  8. [8]

    Abbott, T

    R. Abbott, T. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, N. Adhikari, R. Adhikari, V. Adya, C. Affeldt, D. Agarwal, et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.03606 (2021)

    arXiv 2021

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    Abbott, H

    R. Abbott, H. Abe, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, N. Adhikari, R. Adhikari, V. Adkins, V. Adya, C. Affeldt, D. Agarwal, et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.06861 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Abbott, T

    R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, S. Abraham, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, A. Adams, C. Adams, R. X. Adhikari, V. B. Adya, C. Affeldt, and et al., The Astrophysical Journal Letters 913, L7 (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ack- ley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. X. Adhikari, V. B. Adya,et al., Physical review letters121, 161101 (2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    J. K. Lawrence, Nuovo Cimento B Serie6B, 225 (1971)

    1971

  5. [13]

    H. C. Ohanian, International Journal of Theoretical Physics 9, 425 (1974)

    1974

  6. [14]

    T. T. Nakamura and S. Deguchi, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement 133, 137 (1999)

    1999

  7. [15]

    T. T. Nakamura, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 1138 (1998)

    1998

  8. [16]

    Takahashi and T

    R. Takahashi and T. Nakamura, The Astrophysical Jour- nal 595, 1039–1051 (2003)

    2003

  9. [17]

    Oguri, Mon

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

    2018 arXiv

  10. [18]

    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

  11. [19]

    Evans, R

    M. Evans, R. X. Adhikari, C. Afle, S. W. Ballmer, S. Bis- coveanu, S. Borhanian, D. A. Brown, Y. Chen, R. Eisen- stein, A. Gruson,et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.09882 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Maggiore et al

    M. Maggiore et al. , JCAP 03, 050, arXiv:1912.02622 [astro-ph.CO]

    1912 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Kawamura et al

    S. Kawamura et al. , PTEP 2021, 05A105 (2021), arXiv:2006.13545 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Barausse et al

    E. Barausse et al. , Gen. Rel. Grav. 52, 81 (2020), arXiv:2001.09793 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  15. [23]

    K.-H. Lai, O. A. Hannuksela, A. Herrera-Martín, J. M. Diego, T. Broadhurst, and T. G. F. Li, Phys. Rev. D98, 083005 (2018), arXiv:1801.07840 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  16. [24]

    J. M. Diego, Phys. Rev. D 101, 123512 (2020), arXiv:1911.05736 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Oguri and R

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

    2020 arXiv

  18. [26]

    F. Xu, J. M. Ezquiaga, and D. E. Holz, Astrophys. J.929, 9 (2022), arXiv:2105.14390 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  19. [27]

    H. Yu, P. Zhang, and F.-Y. Wang, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 497, 204 (2020), arXiv:2007.00828 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  20. [28]

    O. A. Hannuksela, T. E. Collett, M. Çalışkan, and T. G. F. Li, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 498, 3395 (2020), arXiv:2004.13811 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Sereno, P

    M. Sereno, P. Jetzer, A. Sesana, and M. Volonteri, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.415, 2773 (2011), arXiv:1104.1977 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Liao, X.-L

    K. Liao, X.-L. Fan, X.-H. Ding, M. Biesiada, and Z.-H. Zhu, Nature Commun. 8, 1148 (2017), [Erratum: Na- ture Commun. 8, 2136 (2017)], arXiv:1703.04151 [astro- ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  23. [31]

    S. Cao, J. Qi, Z. Cao, M. Biesiada, J. Li, Y. Pan, and Z.-H. Zhu, Sci. Rep.9, 11608 (2019), arXiv:1910.10365 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Y. Li, X. Fan, and L. Gou, Astrophys. J.873, 37 (2019), arXiv:1901.10638 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Wempe, L

    E. Wempe, L. V. Koopmans, A. Wierda, O. A. Hannuk- sela, and C. v. d. Broeck, arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.08732 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    S. Ali, E. Stoikos, E. Meade, M. Kesden, and L. King, Phys. Rev. D107, 103023 (2023)

    2023

  27. [36]

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

    2021 arXiv

  28. [37]

    J. M. Ezquiaga, D. E. Holz, W. Hu, M. Lagos, and R. M. Wald, Physical Review D 103, 10.1103/phys- revd.103.064047 (2021)

    2021 doi

  29. [38]

    J. C. L. Chan, E. Seo, A. K. Y. Li, H. Fong, and J. M. Ezquiaga, Phys. Rev. D111, 084019 (2025)

    2025

  30. [39]

    H. C. Ohanian, Astrophys. J.271, 551 (1983). 18

    1983

  31. [40]

    E. L. Turner, J. P. Ostriker, and I. Gott, J. R., Astro- phys. J. 284, 1 (1984)

    1984

  32. [41]

    Blandford and R

    R. Blandford and R. Narayan, Astrophys. J.310, 568 (1986)

    1986

  33. [42]

    Kormann, P

    R. Kormann, P. Schneider, and M. Bartelmann, As- tron. Astrophys. 284, 285 (1994)

    1994

  34. [43]

    Asada, T

    H. Asada, T. Hamana, and M. Kasai, Astron. Astrophys. 397, 825 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0211389 [astro-ph]

    2003 arXiv

  35. [44]

    Oguri, PASJ62, 1017 (2010), arXiv:1005.3103 [astro- ph.CO]

    M. Oguri, PASJ62, 1017 (2010), arXiv:1005.3103 [astro- ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  36. [45]

    I. W. A. Browne, P. N. Wilkinson, N. J. F. Jackson, S. T. Myers, C. D. Fassnacht, L. V. E. Koopmans, D. R. Marlow, M. Norbury, D. Rusin, C. M. Sykes, A. D. Biggs, R. D. Blandford, A. G. de Bruyn, K. H. Chae, P. Helbig, L. J. King, J. P. McKean, T. J. Pearson, P. M. Phillips, A...

    2003 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Oguri, N

    M. Oguri, N. Inada, M. A. Strauss, C. S. Kochanek, I. Kayo, M.-S. Shin, T. Morokuma, G. T. Richards, C. E. Rusu, J. A. Frieman, M. Fukugita, D. P. Schneider, D. G. York, N. A. Bahcall, and R. L. White, Astron. J.143, 120 (2012), arXiv:1203.1088 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  38. [47]

    Neira, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2310.04494 (2023), arXiv:2310.04494 [astro-ph.CO]

    F.Dux, C.Lemon, F.Courbin, D.Sluse, A.Smette, T.An- guita, and F. Neira, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2310.04494 (2023), arXiv:2310.04494 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  39. [48]

    G. T. Richards, C. R. Keeton, B. Pindor, J. F. Hennawi, P.B.Hall, E.L.Turner, N.Inada, M.Oguri, S.-I.Ichikawa, R. H. Becker, M. D. Gregg, R. L. White, J. S. B. Wyithe, D. P. Schneider, D. E. Johnston, J. A. Frieman, and J. Brinkmann, Astrophys. J.610, 679 (2004), arXiv:astro- ...

    2004

  40. [49]

    Mishra, A

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

    2021 arXiv

  41. [50]

    More and S

    A. More and S. More, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.515, 1044 (2022), arXiv:2111.03091 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Haris, A

    K. Haris, A. K. Mehta, S. Kumar, T. Venumadhav, and P. Ajith, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1807.07062 (2018), arXiv:1807.07062 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  43. [52]

    Guo and Y

    X. Guo and Y. Lu, Phys. Rev. D102, 124076 (2020), arXiv:2012.03474 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  44. [53]

    A. J. Moylan, D. E. McClelland, S. M. Scott, A. C. Searle, and G. V. Bicknell, inThe Eleventh Marcel Grossmann Meeting On Recent Developments in Theoretical and Ex- perimental General Relativity, Gravitation and Relativis- tic Field Theories (2008) pp. 807–823, arXiv:0710.3140 [gr-qc]

    2008 arXiv

  45. [54]

    Grillo and J

    G. Grillo and J. Cordes, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1810.09058 (2018), arXiv:1810.09058 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  46. [55]

    Feldbrugge, U.-L

    J. Feldbrugge, U.-L. Pen, and N. Turok, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1909.04632 (2019), arXiv:1909.04632 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  47. [56]

    D. L. Jow, U.-L. Pen, and J. Feldbrugge, Mon. Not. R. As- tron. Soc. 525, 2107 (2023), arXiv:2204.12004 [astro- ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  48. [58]

    This correction is proportional to the term ∆(j) given by Eq

    which provides the correction to the GO regime to orderO(w−1). This correction is proportional to the term ∆(j) given by Eq. (17). It follows that for the GO approximation to be valid, all the images must satisfy Eq. (24). We use this prescription to explore the validity of th...

  49. [59]

    Takahashi, Astron

    R. Takahashi, Astron. Astrophys. 423, 787 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0402165 [astro-ph]

    2004 arXiv

  50. [60]

    Schneider, J

    P. Schneider, J. Ehlers, and E. E. Falco,Gravitational Lenses (1992)

    1992

  51. [61]

    Matsunaga and K

    N. Matsunaga and K. Yamamoto, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2006 (01), 023

  52. [62]

    Cutler and E

    C. Cutler and E. E. Flanagan, Phys. Rev. D49, 2658 (1994)

    1994

  53. [63]

    Möller, M

    O. Möller, M. Kitzbichler, and P. Natarajan, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.379, 1195 (2007), arXiv:astro- ph/0607032 [astro-ph]

    2007

  54. [64]

    C. R. Keeton, S. Mao, and H. J. Witt, Astrophys. J.537, 697 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0002401 [astro-ph]

    2000 arXiv

  55. [65]

    A. Nitz, I. Harry, D. Brown, C. M. Biwer, J. Willis, T. D. Canton, C. Capano, T. Dent, L. Pekowsky, A. R. Williamson, S. De, M. Cabero, B. Machenschalk, D. Macleod, P. Kumar, S. Reyes, dfinstad, F. Pannarale, S. Kumar, T. Massinger, M. Tápai, L. Singer, G. S. C. Davies, S. Kha...

    2022

  56. [66]

    Stanzione, B

    D. Stanzione, B. Barth, N. Gaffney, K. Gaither, C. Hempel, T. Minyard, S. Mehringer, E. Wernert, H. Tufo, D. Panda, and P. Teller, inProceedings of the Practice and Experience in Advanced Research Computing 2017 on Sustainability, Success and Impact , PEARC17 (Association for ...

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.