Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Unveiling Microlensing Biases in Testing General Relativity with Gravitational Waves

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2311.08446 v1 pith:46JTELZF submitted 2023-11-14 gr-qc astro-ph.HE

classification gr-qcastro-ph.HE
keywords microlensingdeviationsmathrmtestsbiasesgravitationalsigmaanalysis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
abstract

Gravitational waves (GW) from chirping binary black holes (BBHs) provide unique opportunities to test general relativity (GR) in the strong-field regime. However, testing GR can be challenging when incomplete physical modeling of the expected signal gives rise to systematic biases. In this study, we investigate the potential influence of wave effects in gravitational lensing (which we refer to as microlensing) on tests of GR using GWs for the first time. We utilize an isolated point-lens model for microlensing with the lens mass ranging from $10-10^5~$M$_\odot$ and base our conclusions on an astrophysically motivated population of BBHs in the LIGO-Virgo detector network. Our analysis centers on two theory-agnostic tests of gravity: the inspiral-merger-ringdown consistency test (IMRCT) and the parameterized tests. Our findings reveal two key insights: First, microlensing can significantly bias GR tests, with a confidence level exceeding $5\sigma$. Notably, substantial deviations from GR $(\sigma > 3)$ tend to align with a strong preference for microlensing over an unlensed signal, underscoring the need for microlensing analysis before claiming any erroneous GR deviations. Nonetheless, we do encounter scenarios where deviations from GR remain significant ($1 < \sigma < 3$), yet the Bayes factor lacks the strength to confidently assert microlensing. Second, deviations from GR correlate with pronounced interference effects, which appear when the GW frequency ($f_\mathrm{GW}$) aligns with the inverse time delay between microlens-induced images ($t_\mathrm{d}$). These false deviations peak in the wave-dominated region and fade where $f_\mathrm{GW}\cdot t_\mathrm{d}$ significantly deviates from unity. Our findings apply broadly to any microlensing scenario, extending beyond specific models and parameter spaces, as we relate the observed biases to the fundamental characteristics of lensing.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Can Eccentric Binary Black Hole Signals Mimic Gravitational-Wave Microlensing?

    gr-qc 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Eccentric BBH signals can masquerade as wave-optics microlensing in quasicircular analyses, but eccentric recovery templates break the degeneracy.

  2. Biases in Tests of General Relativity from Microlensed Gravitational-Wave Signals

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Microlensing in the wave-optics regime can push standard LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA general-relativity tests to false ~4–4.5σ deviations, even for signals that are perfectly consistent with GR.

  3. Parameter estimation of microlensed gravitational waves with Conditional Variational Autoencoders

    gr-qc 2024-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A conditional variational autoencoder trained on simulated microlensed binary black hole signals estimates lens mass and source offset with well-calibrated posteriors, runs about 10,000 times faster than Bilby, and cu...

Pith tools