Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 6 cited by

Parameter estimation of microlensed gravitational waves with Conditional Variational Autoencoders

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A conditional variational autoencoder trained on a million simulated microlensed binary-black-hole signals estimates the point-mass lens parameters $t_M$ and $y$ from whitened detector data in about four seconds, with calibrated 95%…

desk verdict First CVAE for microlensed GW parameter estimation is a solid, honest methods paper; the core fast-calibrated-PE claim holds on simulated data, but the 'no penalty on accuracy' hybrid-prior claim needs softening. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00566 v2 pith:WW6FOX5M submitted 2024-11-30 gr-qc astro-ph.COastro-ph.HEastro-ph.IM

Roberto Bada-Nerin , Oleg Bulashenko , Osvaldo Gramaxo Freitas , José A. Font This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.COastro-ph.HEastro-ph.IM
keywords conditionalvariationalautoencodergravitationalwavemicrolensingpointmasslensparameterestimationBayesianinferencedeeplearningbinaryblackholelow-latencysearch
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

The paper asks whether a conditional variational autoencoder (CVAE) can replace expensive Bayesian sampling for the two parameters that describe microlensing of a gravitational-wave signal by a point-mass lens: the characteristic lensing time $t_M$ (equivalently the redshifted lens mass) and the source position $y$. Training on a million simulated, noise-whitened signals from binary black hole mergers, the CVAE produces posterior samples for both parameters in about four seconds per waveform, whereas Bilby needs hours. The authors report that the posteriors are well calibrated, with roughly 95% of true values inside the 95% credible intervals across SNR levels. They also show that feeding the CVAE's 95% credible intervals to Bilby as priors for the lens parameters cuts Bilby's average runtime by 47.9% without a measurable accuracy penalty. If this transfer to real data holds, it would make low-latency microlensing follow-up practical for LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA searches.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the conditional variational autoencoder, adapted from prior gravitational-wave work: a shared convolutional block encodes the whitened time series; a recognition encoder and an encoder define Gaussians in a two-dimensional latent space; and the decoder outputs the parameters of a truncated Gaussian over the two lensing parameters $\Lambda_L = \{t_M, y\}$. The waveform side uses the point-mass lens transmission factor $F(f)$, computed with the full wave-optics hypergeometric solution at low frequencies and the geometric-optics limit at high frequencies, multiplied by an IMRPhenomXPHM binary-black-hole waveform. During testing the recognition encoder is discarded, and the same time series is passed through the encoder and decoder many times to produce posterior samples.

What would settle it

Run the trained CVAE on real O3/O4 candidate gravitational-wave events, or on injections placed in real noise segments, and compare the coverage of its 95% credible intervals for $t_M$ and $y$, as well as its point estimates, against full Bilby posteriors for the same events. If coverage drops materially below 95% or the point estimates drift, the calibration and speed claims would be shown not to transfer.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a CVAE—a variational autoencoder that conditions on the observed time series—can estimate the microlensing parameters of a point-mass lens from whitened detector data accurately enough to serve both as a standalone rapid estimator and as a prior generator for Bayesian inference. The model maps a four-second, two-detector whitened time series to a truncated Gaussian posterior over $\{t_M, y\}$, and the paper demonstrates on 1000 held-out injections that coverage tracks the nominal credible levels. Compared with Bilby running the same waveform model, the CVAE completes inference in seconds rather than hours, and using its 95% credible intervals as uniform priors in Bilby shortens Bayesian runs by an average of 47.9% while the distributions of posterior draws stay statistically equivalent under a KS test. The paper further notes that the model handles near-unlensed signals and weak-lensing geometries with $y > 1$, which earlier identification studies did not cover.

Load-bearing premise

The accuracy and calibration claims rest on the premise that Gaussian noise built from O3a power spectral densities, plus the point-mass lens and IMRPhenomXPHM waveform model used in training, is representative enough of real LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA data that measured performance will carry over; the paper itself identifies simulating data with real detector noise as essential future work.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Microlensing parameter estimation can be done in about four seconds per event, making real-time screening of LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA candidates feasible.
  • CVAE-generated 95% credible intervals for $t_M$ and $y$ can shrink Bilby runtimes by roughly 48% on average, with no detectable change in posterior accuracy.
  • The model stays calibrated for near-unlensed signals ($t_M$ near zero) and weak-lensing geometries ($y > 1$), regions that earlier identification studies did not cover.
  • A hybrid workflow—fast amortized neural posterior followed by focused Bayesian refinement—becomes a practical template for lensing searches.
  • The KS analysis indicates that posterior distributions from CVAE-informed and uninformed Bilby runs agree, apart from one waveform where the prior truncated a low-probability tail.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the 48% runtime gain suggests that neural-prior proposals could accelerate other slow gravitational-wave inference problems where a cheap, calibrated estimator already covers the high-probability region, such as searches with eccentric or precessing source models.
  • The observed error accumulation at high $y$ and high $t_M$ in the scatter plot may reflect a physical boundary near the hybrid wave-optics/geometric-optics transition rather than pure stochastic scatter; this could be tested by retraining with the matching frequency shifted.
  • A decisive deployment test would be running the trained CVAE on the first real microlensing candidate during an alert: its four-second posterior could be computed online, and only candidates whose posteriors disagree with unmodelled behaviour would need full Bayesian follow-up.
  • The paper's architecture already takes source parameters as conditioning inputs, so extending the same encoder-decoder to estimate $d_L$, $m_1$, and $m_2$ jointly with the lens parameters is a natural next step that would turn this into a fully lensing-aware parameter-estimation tool.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper trains a Conditional Variational Autoencoder (CVAE) to estimate the two point-mass microlensing parameters y and t_M from simulated lensed binary black hole waveforms. The model is trained on 10^6 injected signals with Gaussian noise colored by O3a PSDs, validated on 2e4 signals, and tested on 1000 held-out signals. The authors report approximate 95% coverage and a p-p plot close to diagonal on the test set, inference times of about 4 seconds per waveform versus tens of thousands of seconds for Bilby, and a hybrid scheme in which the CVAE's 95% credible intervals are used as uniform priors for Bilby, reducing average runtime by roughly 48%. They claim no degradation of accuracy in this hybrid scheme while acknowledging in Section VI that simulating data with real detector noise remains future work.

Significance. The paper addresses a timely problem: fast parameter estimation for gravitational-wave microlensing in the wave-optics regime. The use of a held-out test set means the central CVAE calibration claim is not circular, and the runtime measurements are concrete. If the hybrid-prior scheme could be shown to preserve frequentist coverage, the reported 48% speedup would be practically valuable for follow-up analyses. The work appears to be the first application of CVAEs to lensed gravitational-wave parameter estimation and is a reasonable complement to existing Bayesian pipelines. However, the strength of the conclusions is currently limited by the idealized noise assumption, the oracle-prior setup for the Bilby comparison, and insufficient statistical evidence for the 'no penalty on accuracy' claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section V (Table I and text preceding Fig. 8)] The Bilby comparison uses true values as priors for all parameters except y and tM ('To accelerate Bilby's convergence, we use the true values as priors for all parameters except y and tM'). This makes both the runtime comparison and the hybrid accuracy test unrealistic for actual parameter estimation, where source parameters are unknown. Since both Bilby configurations share these oracle priors, the 47.9% runtime saving is demonstrated only in this contrived setting, and the accuracy comparison may be dominated by the supplied true source parameters rather than by the CVAE prior. Please rerun at least a subset of the events with standard broad priors for the source parameters, or explicitly restrict the claims to the oracle-prior setup used here.
  2. [Section V (Figs. 7 and 8, and abstract claim)] The claim that the hybrid CVAE+Bilby scheme incurs 'no penalty on accuracy' is not supported by the evidence presented. The uniform prior constructed from the CVAE's 95% interval gives zero prior mass to true values outside that interval, which for a calibrated estimator excludes the true value in about 5% of events by construction. The manuscript itself notes a 'noticeable accumulation of errors at higher values of y and tM' in Fig. 7, and Fig. 8 shows waveform 9 with a significantly higher KS statistic attributed to prior truncation. The comparison uses only 16 converged runs out of 20, excludes four non-converged uninformed runs, and the KS statistic is insensitive to a small number of truncated tails. Please report the number of test events whose true values fall outside the CVAE 95% interval, conditional coverage in the high-y/high-tM regime, and a comparison metric with known sensitivity to tail behavior, such as the frequentist coverage of the Bilby+CVAE posterior.
  3. [Section V (Figs. 5 and 6)] The calibration evidence is presented qualitatively: the p-p plot is described only as 'satisfactory' and 'close to the diagonal', and the SNR-binned coverage bars in Fig. 6 are not accompanied by confidence intervals or a numerical test. Given that the calibration claim is central to the paper's usefulness, please quantify the p-p plot (e.g., the maximum deviation or a KS statistic with uncertainty) and add binomial error bars to the coverage percentages.
  4. [Section IV and Section VI] The training and evaluation are performed exclusively on Gaussian noise colored with O3a PSDs, and Section VI lists 'simulating the data using detector noise' as essential future work. Consequently, the abstract's statements about accurate parameter estimation and the practical value for low-latency searches should be explicitly qualified as holding for the Gaussian-noise simulation setup. As written, a reader could infer transferability to real LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA data, which the current experiments do not demonstrate.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including 'extremeley' and 'refrences' in Section I, 'transmision factor' in Section IV, and 'monitorize' in Section V; a careful proofread is needed.
  2. [Throughout] The abbreviation for Conditional Variational Autoencoder is used inconsistently as both 'CVAE' and 'CV AE'; please choose one form and use it consistently.
  3. [Section V (Table III)] The claim of 'up to five orders of magnitude faster inferences' is not supported by Table III, where the maximum speed ratio is 145063/4 ~= 3.6e4, i.e., about 4.6 orders of magnitude.
  4. [Section V and Appendix A] The CVAE inference time of 4 seconds is measured on an NVIDIA A40 while Bilby runs on a CPU cluster, and it is unclear whether the 4 seconds includes model loading, data preprocessing, and the generation of 8000 posterior samples; please clarify the measurement protocol.
  5. [Section IV (Fig. 3)] The caption of Fig. 3 refers to a 'noise-masked' version of the waveform, but the masking procedure is not defined in Section IV; please define it or move the definition to the figure caption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: held-out CVAE predictions are genuine, and the hybrid prior double-use is a statistical limitation rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is empirical rather than formal, and the central estimation claim survives circularity review. The CVAE is trained on 10^6 simulated waveforms with known lens parameters and tested on 1000 disjoint waveforms (Sec. IV); the network weights are the only fitted quantities, and the p-p plot (Fig. 5), SNR-binned coverage (Fig. 6), and scatter diagnostics (Fig. 7) are genuine held-out evaluations. The hybrid Bilby+CVAE prior in Sec. V is a data-dependent prior: the 95% credible interval of the CVAE posterior for the same waveform is used as a uniform prior for Bilby. This is a 'double use of data' and a legitimate statistical limitation, but it is not a circular reduction in the sense of the rubric: the Bilby posterior is still likelihood-dominated within the prior support, and the paper's accuracy check compares posterior samples from informed and uninformed Bilby runs via KS statistics rather than claiming the prior itself is a prediction of the truth. The accuracy check is weak (20 waveforms, four exclusions, aggregate KS not tail-sensitive), and Fig. 7 shows error clustering at high y and tM; these are correctness and robustness concerns, not circularity. The only self-citations that are load-bearing, Refs. [63,67] used for the hybrid transmission factor matching frequency, supply an explicitly described waveform approximation whose matching point is transparently stated (fm = 2.25/(tM tau21)) and is not invoked as an external uniqueness theorem or to forbid alternatives. No equation reduces to itself, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and the paper does not import a uniqueness result from the authors' prior work. Consequently, the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result is an empirical machine-learning estimator, so the main free parameters are the trained network weights and the user-chosen prior ranges for the lensing parameters. The waveform and noise models are taken from the literature and define the scope of the claim; no new physical entities are introduced. The data-dependent prior construction is a methodological assumption rather than an invented entity.

free parameters (5)
  • CVAE network weights = not reported (millions of parameters)
    The encoder, decoder, recognition network, and convolutional block are trained on one million simulated waveforms; the posterior estimate depends entirely on these fitted weights.
  • Prior range for y = [0.01, 3.0]
    The source position parameter is sampled uniformly in this hand-chosen range, defining the training distribution and the valid scope of the model.
  • Prior range for tM = [0.001, 0.2] s
    The lensing timescale is uniformly sampled in this range, corresponding to lens masses 50 < MLz/Msun < 1e4; the model cannot estimate parameters outside this range.
  • Target SNR range = [8, 40]
    The signal-to-noise ratio is drawn uniformly in this interval and the luminosity distance is adjusted to match the target; the reported coverage and posterior widths are conditional on this choice.
  • Hybrid matching coefficient = 2.25
    The transition frequency between wave optics and geometric optics is set at the third oscillation maximum, fm = 2.25/(tM tau21), following Refs. [63,67]; this choice affects the waveform model used for both training and evaluation.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The point-mass lens model with thin-lens approximation describes microlensing of gravitational waves.
    Section II assumes an isolated point mass as the lens and projects it onto a lens plane; this excludes extended lenses and multiple lens planes, limiting real-world applicability.
  • standard math The analytic transmission factor of Eq. (6) and its geometric-optics limit Eq. (10) are accurate for the PML model.
    Equations (6) and (10) are taken from the lensing literature (Deguchi and Watson 1986; Takahashi and Nakamura 2003) and are used to generate all training waveforms.
  • domain assumption The hybrid wave/geometric-optics transmission factor matches at the third oscillation maximum.
    Section II chooses fm = 2.25/(tM tau21) as the matching point, following Refs. [63,67]; this choice is a modeling convenience and could introduce small errors at the transition.
  • domain assumption Detector noise is stationary and Gaussian, with PSDs from O3a.
    Section IV generates noise using Dataset 3 of MLGWSC-1, pure Gaussian noise with O3a PSDs; non-Gaussian transients, glitches, and non-stationarity are absent from training and testing.
  • domain assumption IMRPhenomXPHM accurately models the unlensed BBH waveform.
    Section IV uses IMRPhenomXPHM for all waveform generation; any systematic error in this approximant is inherited by the training data and therefore by the CVAE.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Parameter estimation of microlensed gravitational waves with Conditional Variational Autoencoders." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WW6FOX5M

@misc{pith2026241200566,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Parameter estimation of microlensed gravitational waves with Conditional Variational Autoencoders},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WW6FOX5M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00566}
}
read the original abstract

Gravitational lensing of gravitational waves (GWs) provides a unique opportunity to study cosmology and astrophysics at multiple scales. Detecting microlensing signatures, in particular, requires efficient parameter estimation methods due to the high computational cost of traditional Bayesian inference. In this paper we explore the use of deep learning, namely Conditional Variational Autoencoders (CVAE), to estimate parameters of microlensed binary black hole (simulated) waveforms. We find that our CVAE model yields accurate parameter estimation and significant computational savings compared to Bayesian methods such as Bilby (up to five orders of magnitude faster inferences). Moreover, the incorporation of CVAE-generated priors into Bilby, based on the 95% confidence intervals of the CVAE posterior for the lensing parameters, reduces Bilby's average runtime by around 48% without any penalty on accuracy. Our results suggest that a CVAE model is a promising tool for future low-latency searches of lensed signals. Further applications to actual signals and integration with advanced pipelines could help extend the capabilities of GW observatories in detecting microlensing events.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.00566 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Configuration of the CVAE network for the testing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example of a whitened, lensed BBH waveform from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Probability-probability (p-p) plot comparing the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Train and validation loss evolution during training. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top panel: Bar plots showing the percentage of true values of tM (left) and y (right) inside the 95% confidence intervals, arranged by SNR. Bottom panel: same as top panel but showing average standard deviation of the posteriors for tM (left) and y (right). form the in…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Scatter plots showing the data points (test set wave [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Box plot comparing KS statistics for uninformed/ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

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

  1. Probability of gravitational-wave lensing by intermediate-mass black holes and globular clusters

    astro-ph.CO 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The rate of compound gravitational-wave lensing by intermediate-mass black holes in globular clusters is at most about 10^-3 of galaxy-scale lensed events, disfavoring GW231123 as such an event.

  2. Identifying lensed gravitational waves with physics-informed posterior learning

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Fusing a simulation-trained common-source mass posterior with waveform features raises lensed-event detection efficiency from 20.8% to 35.2% at 1% false-positive rate and lowers the SNR for 50% efficiency from 45.3 to 33.5.

  3. A Guided Unconditional Diffusion Model to Synthesize and Inpaint Radio Galaxies from FIRST, MGCLS and Radio Zoo

    astro-ph.GA 2026-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A masked-guided diffusion model generates and inpaints radio galaxy images from a combined FIRST, MGCLS, and Radio Galaxy Zoo dataset.

  4. Accelerated inference of microlensed gravitational waves with machine learning

    astro-ph.CO 2025-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A neural posterior estimator trained on wave-optics-microlensed gravitational-wave signals recovers source and lens parameters and Bayes factors consistent with Bilby, about 10 times faster.

  5. Accelerating Bayesian Sampling for Massive Black Hole Binaries with Prior Constraints from Conditional Variational Autoencoder

    astro-ph.IM 2025-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    CVAE-derived, narrowed priors accelerate nested-sampling parameter estimation for massive black hole binaries by roughly 6x while keeping posteriors statistically consistent.

  6. Learning from galactic rotation curves: a neural network approach

    astro-ph.CO 2024-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Neural networks trained on simulated rotation curves can infer ultra-light dark matter and baryonic parameters from SPARC dwarf galaxies, with uncertainties comparable to MCMC.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

120 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 6 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Encoder: Maps the input data into a lower-dimen- sional space

  2. [2]

    The goal is to minimize the difference between the input and the output, thereby learning meaningful fea- tures of the data without supervision

    Decoder: Reconstructs the original data from the compressed representation. The goal is to minimize the difference between the input and the output, thereby learning meaningful fea- tures of the data without supervision. Autoencoders are widely used in tasks like data compression, denoising, and anomaly detection [113]. A special type of autoencoders are ...

  3. [3]

    This term is minimized when there is a high probability of sampling Λ L from µr2 : RL [µ2; ΛL] = − log(r2(ΛL)) (A2)

    The reconstruction term(r2): Computed as the negative log likelihood of the lens parameters ΛL = {tm, y} being a sample of the distribution described by the parameters µr2 . This term is minimized when there is a high probability of sampling Λ L from µr2 : RL [µ2; ΛL] = − log(r2(ΛL)) (A2)

  4. [4]

    We can approximate the KL-divergence as KL [q(z|h, ΛL)||r1(z|h)] ≈ log q(z|h, Λ) r1(z|h)

    The KL-divergence:Computed between the dis- tributions defined by the parameters µq and µr1 , q(z|h, Λ) and r1(z|Λ). We can approximate the KL-divergence as KL [q(z|h, ΛL)||r1(z|h)] ≈ log q(z|h, Λ) r1(z|h) . (A3) Since this is equal to log( q(z|h, Λ)) − log(r1(z|h)), we just have to compute the log probabilities of z being a sample of both distributions. ...

  5. [5]

    Aasi et al

    J. Aasi et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration), Ad- vanced LIGO, Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 074001 (2015), arXiv:1411.4547 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2015

  6. [8]

    B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, S. Abraham, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, LIGO Scientific Collaboration, and Virgo Collaboration, GWTC-1: A Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog of Compact Bi- nary Mergers Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the First and Second Observing Runs, Physical Review X 9, 031040 (2019), arXiv:1811.12907 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2019

  7. [9]

    Abbott, T

    R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, S. Abraham, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, A. Adams, C. Adams, LIGO Scientific Col- laboration, and Virgo Collaboration, GWTC-2: Com- pact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the First Half of the Third Observing Run, Phys- ical Review X 11, 021053 (2021), arXiv:2010.14527 [gr- qc]. 11 CV AE Bilby Bilby + CV AE Time sav...

    arXiv 2021

  8. [10]

    Abbott, T

    R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, LIGO Scientific Collaboration, and the Virgo Collaboration, GWTC-2.1: Deep extended catalog of compact binary coalescences observed by LIGO and Virgo during the first half of the third observing run, Phys. Rev. D 109, 022001 (2024), arXiv:2108.01045 [gr- qc]

    arXiv 2024

Show all 120 references
  1. [11]

    Abbott, T

    R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, Ligo Scientific Collaboration, VIRGO Col- laboration, and Kagra Collaboration, GWTC-3: Com- pact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the Second Part of the Third Observing Run, Physical Review X 13, 0...

    2023 arXiv

  2. [12]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. , Population of Merging Compact Binaries Inferred Using Gravitational Waves through GWTC-3, Physical Review X 13, 011048 (2023), arXiv:2111.03634 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  3. [13]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Tests of gen- eral relativity with binary black holes from the second LIGO-Virgo gravitational-wave transient catalog, Phys. Rev. D 103, 122002 (2021), arXiv:2010.14529 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  4. [14]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO), Search for Lensing Signatures in the Gravitational-Wave Observations from the First Half of LIGO–Virgo’s Third Observing Run, Astrophys. J. 923, 14 (2021), arXiv:2105.06384 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  5. [15]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), Search for gravitational-lensing signatures in the full third observing run of the ligo–virgo network, The As- trophysical Journal 970, 191 (2024), arXiv:2304.08393 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  6. [16]

    Janquart, M

    J. Janquart, M. Wright, S. Goyal, et al., Follow-up anal- yses to the O3 LIGO–Virgo–KAGRA lensing searches, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society526, 3832 (2023), arXiv:2306.03827 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [17]

    J. M. Diego, T. Broadhurst, and G. Smoot, Evidence for lensing of gravitational waves from LIGO-Virgo data, Phys. Rev. D 104, 103529 (2021), arXiv:2106.06545 [gr- qc]

    2021 arXiv

  8. [18]

    Bianconi, G

    M. Bianconi, G. P. Smith, M. Nicholl, D. Ryczanowski, J. Richard, M. Jauzac, R. Massey, A. Robertson, K. Sharon, and E. Ridley, On the gravitational lensing interpretation of three gravitational wave detections in the mass gap by LIGO and Virgo, Mon. Not. Roy. As- tron. Soc. 5...

    2023 arXiv

  9. [19]

    Canevarolo, L

    S. Canevarolo, L. van Vonderen, and N. E. Chisari, Im- pact of lensing of gravitational waves on the observed distribution of neutron star masses, The Open Jour- nal of Astrophysics 7, 10.33232/001c.122856 (2024), arXiv:2404.11480 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [20]

    Janquart, D

    J. Janquart, D. Keitel, R. K. L. Lo, et al. , What is the nature of GW230529? An exploration of the gravitational lensing hypothesis, arXiv e-prints 10.48550/arXiv.2409.07298 (2024), arXiv:2409.07298 [gr-qc]

    2024 doi arXiv

  11. [21]

    Grespan and M

    M. Grespan and M. Biesiada, Strong Gravitational Lensing of Gravitational Waves: A Review, Universe 9, 200 (2023)

    2023

  12. [22]

    Lemon, F

    C. Lemon, F. Courbin, A. More, P. Schechter, R. Ca˜ nameras, et al. , Searching for Strong Grav- itational Lenses, Space Sci. Rev. 220, 23 (2024), arXiv:2310.13466 [astro-ph.GA]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [23]

    Auclair et al

    P. Auclair et al. (The LISA Cosmology Working Group), Cosmology with the Laser Interferometer Space An- 12 tenna, Living Reviews in Relativity 26, 5 (2023), arXiv:2204.05434 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  14. [24]

    K.-H. Lai, O. A. Hannuksela, A. Herrera-Mart ´ ın, J. M. Diego, T. Broadhurst, and T. G. Li, Discover- ing intermediate-mass black hole lenses through gravi- tational wave lensing, Phys. Rev. D 98, 083005 (2018), arXiv:1801.07840 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  15. [25]

    J. Gais, K. K. Y. Ng, E. Seo, K. W. K. Wong, and T. G. F. Li, Inferring the Intermediate-mass Black Hole Number Density from Gravitational-wave Lensing Statistics, ApJ 932, L4 (2022), arXiv:2201.01817 [gr- qc]

    2022 arXiv

  16. [26]

    A. K. Meena, Gravitational lensing of gravitational waves: prospects for probing intermediate-mass black holes in galaxy lenses with global minima image, MN- RAS 532, 3568 (2024), arXiv:2305.02880 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [27]

    H. G. Choi, C. Park, and S. Jung, Small-scale shear: Peeling off diffuse subhalos with gravitational waves, Phys. Rev. D 104, 063001 (2021), arXiv:2103.08618 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  18. [28]

    Z. Gao, X. Chen, Y.-M. Hu, J.-D. Zhang, and S.-J. Huang, A higher probability of detecting lensed su- permassive black hole binaries by LISA, Monthly No- tices of the Royal Astronomical Society 512, 1 (2022), arXiv:2102.10295 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  19. [29]

    Guo and Y

    X. Guo and Y. Lu, Probing the nature of dark matter via gravitational waves lensed by small dark matter ha- los, Phys. Rev. D 106, 023018 (2022), arXiv:2207.00325 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  20. [30]

    Suyama, T

    T. Suyama, T. Tanaka, and R. Takahashi, Exact wave propagation in a spacetime with a cosmic string, Phys. Rev. D 73, 024026 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0512089

    2006 arXiv

  21. [31]

    Fern´ andez-N´ u˜ nez and O

    I. Fern´ andez-N´ u˜ nez and O. Bulashenko, Wave diffrac- tion by a cosmic string, Phys. Lett. A 380, 2897 (2016), arXiv:1605.03176 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  22. [32]

    Fern´ andez-N´ u˜ nez and O

    I. Fern´ andez-N´ u˜ nez and O. Bulashenko, Emergence of Fresnel diffraction zones in gravitational lensing by a cosmic string, Phys. Lett. A 381, 1764 (2017), arXiv:1612.07218 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  23. [33]

    Jung and C

    S. Jung and C. S. Shin, Gravitational-Wave Fringes at LIGO: Detecting Compact Dark Matter by Gravita- tional Lensing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 041103 (2019), arXiv:1712.01396 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  24. [34]

    B. Liu, Z. Li, and Z.-H. Zhu, Complementary con- straints on dark energy equation of state from strongly lensed gravitational wave, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 487, 1980 (2019), arXiv:1904.11751 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  25. [35]

    J.-S. Wang, A. Herrera-Mart ´ ın, and Y.-M. Hu, Lens- ing by primordial black holes: constraints from gravi- tational wave observations, Phys. Rev. D 104, 083515 (2021), arXiv:2108.12394 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  26. [36]

    Urrutia and V

    J. Urrutia and V. Vaskonen, Lensing of gravitational waves as a probe of compact dark matter, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 509, 1358 (2021), arXiv:2109.03213 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  27. [37]

    Basak, A

    S. Basak, A. Ganguly, K. Haris, S. Kapadia, A. K. Mehta, and P. Ajith, Constraints on com- pact dark matter from gravitational wave microlens- ing, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 926, L28 (2022), arXiv:2109.06456 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  28. [38]

    Fairbairn, J

    M. Fairbairn, J. Urrutia, and V. Vaskonen, Microlens- ing of gravitational waves by dark matter structures, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2023, 007 (2023), arXiv:2210.13436 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  29. [39]

    Tambalo, M

    G. Tambalo, M. Zumalac´ arregui, L. Dai, and M. H.-Y. Cheung, Gravitational wave lensing as a probe of halo properties and dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 108, 103529 (2023), arXiv:2212.11960 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  30. [40]

    C ¸ alı¸ skan, N

    M. C ¸ alı¸ skan, N. Anil Kumar, L. Ji, J. M. Ezquiaga, R. Cotesta, E. Berti, and M. Kamionkowski, Probing wave-optics effects and low-mass dark matter halos with lensing of gravitational waves from massive black holes, Phys. Rev. D 108, 123543 (2023), arXiv:2307.06990 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  31. [41]

    M. H.-Y. Cheung, K. K. Y. Ng, M. Zumalac´ arregui, and E. Berti, Probing minihalo lenses with diffracted gravitational waves, Phys. Rev. D 109, 124020 (2024), arXiv:2403.13876 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [42]

    S. Jana, S. J. Kapadia, T. Venumadhav, S. More, and P. Ajith, Probing the nature of dark matter using strongly lensed gravitational waves from binary black holes, arXiv:2408.05290 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  33. [43]

    Sereno, A

    M. Sereno, A. Sesana, A. Bleuler, P. Jetzer, M. Volon- teri, and M. C. Begelman, Strong lensing of gravita- tional waves as seen by LISA, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 251101 (2010), arXiv:1011.5238 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  34. [44]

    S.-S. Li, S. Mao, Y. Zhao, and Y. Lu, Gravitational lensing of gravitational waves: A statistical perspec- tive, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 476, 2220 (2018), arXiv:1802.05089 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  35. [45]

    Oguri, Strong gravitational lensing of explosive transients, Rept

    M. Oguri, Strong gravitational lensing of explosive transients, Rept. Prog. Phys. 82, 126901 (2019), arXiv:1907.06830 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  36. [46]

    T. T. Nakamura, Gravitational lensing of gravitational waves from inspiraling binaries by a point mass lens, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1138 (1998)

    1998

  37. [47]

    T. T. Nakamura and S. Deguchi, Wave optics in grav- itational lensing, Progress of Theoretical Physics Sup- plement 133, 137 (1999)

    1999

  38. [48]

    Takahashi and T

    R. Takahashi and T. Nakamura, Wave effects in grav- itational lensing of gravitational waves from chirping binaries, Astrophys. J. 595, 1039 (2003), arXiv:astro- ph/0305055

    2003

  39. [49]

    Matsunaga and K

    N. Matsunaga and K. Yamamoto, The finite source size effect and wave optics in gravitational lensing, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2006, 023 (2006), astro- ph/0601701

    2006

  40. [50]

    Cao, L.-F

    Z. Cao, L.-F. Li, and Y. Wang, Gravitational lensing effects on parameter estimation in gravitational wave detection with advanced detectors, Phys. Rev. D 90, 062003 (2014)

    2014

  41. [51]

    Christian, S

    P. Christian, S. Vitale, and A. Loeb, Detecting stellar lensing of gravitational waves with ground- based observatories, Phys. Rev. D 98, 103022 (2018), arXiv:1802.02586 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  42. [52]

    J. M. Diego, O. A. Hannuksela, P. L. Kelly, T. Broad- hurst, K. Kim, T. G. F. Li, G. F. Smoot, and G. Pagano, Observational signatures of microlensing in gravita- tional waves at LIGO/Virgo frequencies, Astron. As- trophys. 627, A130 (2019), arXiv:1903.04513 [astro- ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  43. [53]

    K. Liao, M. Biesiada, and X.-L. Fan, The wave nature of continuous gravitational waves from microlensing, As- trophys. J. 875, 139 (2019), arXiv:1903.06612 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  44. [54]

    D. J. D’Orazio and A. Loeb, Repeated gravita- tional lensing of gravitational waves in hierarchical black hole triples, Phys. Rev. D 101, 083031 (2020), arXiv:1910.02966 [astro-ph.HE]. 13

    2020 arXiv

  45. [55]

    Hou, X.-L

    S. Hou, X.-L. Fan, K. Liao, and Z.-H. Zhu, Gravitational Wave Interference via Gravitational Lensing: Measure- ments of Luminosity Distance, Lens Mass, and Cosmo- logical Parameters, Phys. Rev. D 101, 064011 (2020), arXiv:1911.02798 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  46. [56]

    M. H. Y. Cheung, J. Gais, O. A. Hannuksela, and T. G. F. Li, Stellar-mass microlensing of gravitational waves, MNRAS 503, 3326 (2021), arXiv:2012.07800 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  47. [57]

    Cremonese, J

    P. Cremonese, J. M. Ezquiaga, and V. Salzano, Break- ing the mass-sheet degeneracy with gravitational wave interference in lensed events, Phys. Rev. D 104, 023503 (2021), arXiv:2104.07055 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  48. [58]

    Dalang, G

    C. Dalang, G. Cusin, and M. Lagos, Polarization distor- tions of lensed gravitational waves, Phys. Rev. D 105, 024005 (2022), arXiv:2104.10119 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  49. [59]

    A. K.-W. Chung and T. G. F. Li, Lensing of gravita- tional waves as a novel probe of graviton mass, Phys. Rev. D 104, 124060 (2021), arXiv:2106.09630 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  50. [60]

    H. Yu, Y. Wang, B. Seymour, and Y. Chen, Detecting gravitational lensing in hierarchical triples in galactic nuclei with space-borne gravitational-wave observato- ries, Phys. Rev. D104, 103011 (2021), arXiv:2107.14318 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  51. [61]

    E. Seo, O. A. Hannuksela, and T. G. F. Li, Improving Detection of Gravitational-wave Microlensing Using Re- peated Signals Induced by Strong Lensing, ApJ 932, 50 (2022), arXiv:2110.03308 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  52. [62]

    Cremonese, D

    P. Cremonese, D. F. Mota, and V. Salzano, Characteris- tic features of gravitational wave lensing as probe of lens mass model, Annalen der Physik 535, 2300040 (2023), arXiv:2111.01163 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  53. [63]

    Biesiada and S

    M. Biesiada and S. Harikumar, Gravitational lensing of continuous gravitational waves, Universe 7, 502 (2021), arXiv:2111.05963 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  54. [64]

    A. G. Suvorov, Wave-optical Effects in the Microlens- ing of Continuous Gravitational Waves by Star Clusters, ApJ 930, 13 (2022), arXiv:2112.01670 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  55. [65]

    Wright and M

    M. Wright and M. Hendry, Gravelamps: Gravitational Wave Lensing Mass Profile Model Selection, ApJ 935, 68 (2022), arXiv:2112.07012 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  56. [66]

    S. M. C. Yeung, M. H. Y. Cheung, E. Seo, J. A. J. Gais, O. A. Hannuksela, and T. G. F. Li, Detectability of microlensed gravitational waves, MNRAS 526, 2230 (2023), arXiv:2112.07635 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  57. [67]

    Bulashenko and H

    O. Bulashenko and H. Ubach, Lensing of gravita- tional waves: universal signatures in the beating pat- tern, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2022, 022 (2022), arXiv:2112.10773 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  58. [68]

    C ¸ alı¸ skan, L

    M. C ¸ alı¸ skan, L. Ji, R. Cotesta, E. Berti, M. Kamionkowski, and S. Marsat, Observability of lensing of gravitational waves from massive black hole binaries with LISA, Phys. Rev. D 107, 043029 (2023), arXiv:2206.02803 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  59. [69]

    S. Ali, E. Stoikos, E. Meade, M. Kesden, and L. King, Detectability of strongly lensed gravitational waves us- ing model-independent image parameters, Phys. Rev. D 107, 103023 (2023), arXiv:2210.01873 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  60. [70]

    Tambalo, M

    G. Tambalo, M. Zumalac´ arregui, L. Dai, and M. H.-Y. Cheung, Lensing of gravitational waves: Efficient wave- optics methods and validation with symmetric lenses, Phys. Rev. D 108, 043527 (2023), arXiv:2210.05658 [gr- qc]

    2023 arXiv

  61. [71]

    Bondarescu, H

    R. Bondarescu, H. Ubach, O. Bulashenko, and A. Lund- gren, Compact binaries through a lens: Silent versus detectable microlensing for the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA gravitational wave observatories, Phys. Rev. D 108, 084033 (2023), arXiv:2211.13604 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  62. [72]

    Liu and K

    A. Liu and K. Kim, Can we discern millilensed gravitational-wave signals from signals produced by pre- cessing binary black holes with ground-based detectors?, Phys. Rev. D 110, 123008 (2024), arXiv:2301.07253 [gr- qc]

    2024 arXiv

  63. [73]

    A. Liu, I. C. F. Wong, S. H. W. Leong, A. More, O. A. Hannuksela, and T. G. F. Li, Exploring the hidden Uni- verse: a novel phenomenological approach for recovering arbitrary gravitational-wave millilensing configurations, MNRAS 525, 4149 (2023), arXiv:2302.09870 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  64. [74]

    Urrutia, V

    J. Urrutia, V. Vaskonen, and H. Veerm¨ ae, Gravitational wave microlensing by dressed primordial black holes, Phys. Rev. D 108, 023507 (2023), arXiv:2303.17601 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  65. [75]

    Savastano, G

    S. Savastano, G. Tambalo, H. Villarrubia-Rojo, and M. Zumalac´ arregui, Weakly lensed gravitational waves: Probing cosmic structures with wave-optics features, Phys. Rev. D 108, 103532 (2023), arXiv:2306.05282 [gr- qc]

    2023 arXiv

  66. [76]

    Mishra, A

    A. Mishra, A. K. Meena, A. More, and S. Bose, Ex- ploring the impact of microlensing on gravitational wave signals: Biases, population characteristics, and prospects for detection, MNRAS 531, 764 (2024), arXiv:2306.11479 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  67. [77]

    Mishra, N

    A. Mishra, N. V. Krishnendu, and A. Ganguly, Unveil- ing microlensing biases in testing general relativity with gravitational waves, Phys. Rev. D 110, 084009 (2024), arXiv:2311.08446 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  68. [78]

    U. Deka, S. Chakraborty, S. J. Kapadia, M. Arif Shaikh, and P. Ajith, Probing black hole charge with gravitational microlensing of gravitational waves, arXiv:2401.06553 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  69. [79]

    Wright, J

    M. Wright, J. Janquart, and N. Johnson-McDaniel, Ef- fect of Deviations from General Relativity on Searches for Gravitational Wave Microlensing and Type II Strong Lensing, arXiv:2403.08957 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  70. [80]

    A. Chen, P. Cremonese, J. M. Ezquiaga, and D. Keitel, Invariance transformations in wave-optics lensing: im- plications for gravitational-wave astrophysics and cos- mology, arXiv:2408.03856 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  71. [81]

    Villarrubia-Rojo, S

    H. Villarrubia-Rojo, S. Savastano, M. Zumalac´ arregui, L. Choi, S. Goyal, L. Dai, and G. Tambalo, GLoW: novel methods for wave-optics phenomena in gravita- tional lensing, arXiv:2409.04606 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  72. [82]

    Chakraborty and S

    A. Chakraborty and S. Mukherjee, µ-GLANCE: A Novel Technique to Detect Chromatically and Achromatically Lensed Gravitational Wave Signals, arXiv:2410.06995 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  73. [83]

    A. Liu, R. S. Chandramouli, O. A. Hannuksela, N. Yunes, and T. G. Li, Millilensing induced system- atic biases in parameterized tests of general relativity, arXiv:2410.21738 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  74. [84]

    Cuoco, M

    E. Cuoco, M. Cavagli` a, I. S. Heng, D. Keitel, and C. Messenger, Applications of machine learning in grav- itational wave research with current interferometric de- tectors, (2024), arXiv:2412.15046 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  75. [85]

    K. Sohn, H. Lee, and X. Yan, Learning structured out- put representation using deep conditional generative models, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 28, edited by C. Cortes, N. Lawrence, 14 D. Lee, M. Sugiyama, and R. Garnett (Curran Asso- ciates, Inc., 2015)

    2015

  76. [86]

    Gabbard, C

    H. Gabbard, C. Messenger, I. S. Heng, F. Tonolini, and R. Murray-Smith, Bayesian parameter estimation using conditional variational autoencoders for gravitational- wave astronomy, Nature Physics 18, 112–117 (2021), arXiv:1909.06296 [astro-ph.IM]

    2021 arXiv

  77. [87]

    S. R. Green, C. Simpson, and J. Gair, Gravitational- wave parameter estimation with autoregressive neu- ral network flows, Phys. Rev. D 102, 104057 (2020), arXiv:2002.07656 [astro-ph.IM]

    2020 arXiv

  78. [88]

    S. R. Green and J. Gair, Complete parameter in- ference for gw150914 using deep learning, Machine Learning: Science and Technology 2, 03LT01 (2021), arXiv:2008.03312 [astro-ph.IM]

    2021 arXiv

  79. [89]

    M. J. Williams, J. Veitch, and C. Messenger, Nested sampling with normalizing flows for gravitational- wave inference, Phys. Rev. D 103, 103006 (2021), arXiv:2102.11056 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  80. [90]

    M. J. Williams, J. Veitch, and C. Messenger, Impor- tance nested sampling with normalising flows, Machine Learning: Science and Technology 4, 035011 (2023), arXiv:2302.08526 [astro-ph.IM]

    2023 arXiv

  81. [91]

    M. Dax, S. R. Green, J. Gair, J. H. Macke, A. Buonanno, and B. Sch¨ olkopf, Real-Time Gravita- tional Wave Science with Neural Posterior Estimation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 241103 (2021), arXiv:2106.12594 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  82. [92]

    M. Dax, S. R. Green, J. Gair, M. P¨ urrer, J. Wild- berger, J. H. Macke, A. Buonanno, and B. Sch¨ olkopf, Neural Importance Sampling for Rapid and Reliable Gravitational-Wave Inference, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 171403 (2023), arXiv:2210.05686 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  83. [93]

    M. Dax, J. Wildberger, S. Buchholz, S. R. Green, J. H. Macke, and B. Sch¨ olkopf, Flow matching for scalable simulation-based inference (2023), arXiv:2305.17161 [cs.LG]

    2023 arXiv

  84. [94]

    Bayley, C

    J. Bayley, C. Messenger, and G. Woan, Rapid parameter estimation for an all-sky continuous gravitational wave search using conditional varitational auto-encoders, Phys. Rev. D 106, 083022 (2022), arXiv:2209.02031 [astro-ph.IM]

    2022 arXiv

  85. [95]

    T. S. Yamamoto and T. Tanaka, Use of conditional vari- ational auto encoder to analyze ringdown gravitational waves (2020), arXiv:2002.12095 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  86. [96]

    Whittaker, W

    T. Whittaker, W. E. East, S. R. Green, L. Lehner, and H. Yang, Using machine learning to parametrize post- merger signals from binary neutron stars, Phys. Rev. D 105, 124021 (2022), arXiv:2201.06461 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  87. [97]

    K. Kim, J. Lee, R. S. H. Yuen, O. A. Hannuksela, and T. G. F. Li, Identification of lensed gravitational waves with deep learning, The Astrophysical Journal 915, 119 (2021), arXiv:2010.12093 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  88. [98]

    Goyal, D

    S. Goyal, D. Harikrishnan, S. J. Kapadia, and P. Ajith, Rapid identification of strongly lensed gravitational- wave events with machine learning, Phys. Rev. D 104, 124057 (2021), arXiv:2106.12466 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  89. [99]

    Magare, A

    S. Magare, A. More, and S. Choudary, SLICK: Strong Lensing Identification of Candidates Kindred in grav- itational wave data, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2403.02994 (2024), arXiv:2403.02994 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  90. [100]

    Perreault Levasseur, Y

    L. Perreault Levasseur, Y. D. Hezaveh, and R. H. Wech- sler, Uncertainties in Parameters Estimated with Neural Networks: Application to Strong Gravitational Lensing, ApJ 850, L7 (2017), arXiv:1708.08843 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  91. [101]

    C. Jacobs et al., An Extended Catalog of Galaxy-Galaxy Strong Gravitational Lenses Discovered in DES Using Convolutional Neural Networks, ApJS 243, 17 (2019), arXiv:1905.10522 [astro-ph.GA]

    2019 arXiv

  92. [102]

    Ashton, M

    G. Ashton, M. H¨ ubner, P. D. Lasky, et al. , BILBY: A user-friendly Bayesian inference library for gravitational-wave astronomy, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 241, 27 (2019), arXiv:1811.02042 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  93. [103]

    Schneider, J

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

    1992

  94. [104]

    Deguchi and W

    S. Deguchi and W. D. Watson, Diffraction in gravita- tional lensing for compact objects of low mass, The As- trophysical Journal 307, 30 (1986)

    1986

  95. [105]

    Deguchi and W

    S. Deguchi and W. D. Watson, Wave effects in gravita- tional lensing of electromagnetic radiation, Phys. Rev. D 34, 1708 (1986)

    1986

  96. [106]

    A. O. Petters, H. Levine, and J. Wambsganss, Singular- ity theory and gravitational lensing (Birkh¨ auser Boston, 2001)

    2001

  97. [107]

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration, L VK Algorithm Library - LALSuite: : Fast fourier transform routines, Free soft- ware (GPL) (2018)

    2018

  98. [108]

    B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, et al. , Prospects for observing and localizing gravitational- wave transients with Advanced LIGO, Advanced Virgo and KAGRA, Living Reviews in Relativity21, 3 (2018), arXiv:1304.0670 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  99. [109]

    Acernese, M

    F. Acernese, M. Agathos, K. Agatsuma, et al. , Ad- vanced Virgo: a second-generation interferometric grav- itational wave detector, Classical and Quantum Gravity 32, 024001 (2015), arXiv:1408.3978 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  100. [110]

    Acernese, M

    F. Acernese, M. Agathos, L. Aiello, et al., Increasing the Astrophysical Reach of the Advanced Virgo Detector via the Application of Squeezed Vacuum States of Light, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 231108 (2019)

    2019

  101. [111]

    Akutsu, M

    T. Akutsu, M. Ando, K. Arai, et al. , Overview of KAGRA: Detector design and construction history, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics2021, 05A101 (2021), arXiv:2005.05574 [physics.ins-det]

    2021

  102. [112]

    Buikema, C

    A. Buikema, C. Cahillane, G. L. Mansell, et al. , Sensi- tivity and performance of the Advanced LIGO detectors in the third observing run, Phys. Rev. D 102, 062003 (2020), arXiv:2008.01301 [astro-ph.IM]

    2020 arXiv

  103. [113]

    M. Tse, H. Yu, N. Kijbunchoo, et al. , Quantum- Enhanced Advanced LIGO Detectors in the Era of Gravitational-Wave Astronomy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 231107 (2019)

    2019

  104. [114]

    Christensen and R

    N. Christensen and R. Meyer, Parameter estimation with gravitational waves, Reviews of Modern Physics 94, 025001 (2022), arXiv:2204.04449 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  105. [115]

    Cranmer, J

    K. Cranmer, J. Brehmer, and G. Louppe, The fron- tier of simulation-based inference, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 117, 30055 (2020), arXiv:1911.01429 [stat.ML]

    2020 arXiv

  106. [116]

    G. E. Hinton and R. R. Salakhutdinov, Reducing the di- mensionality of data with neural networks, Science 313, 504 (2006)

    2006

  107. [117]

    Berahmand, F

    K. Berahmand, F. Daneshfar, E. Salehi, Y. Li, and Y. Xu, Autoencoders and their applications in machine learning: a survey, Artificial Intelligence Review 57, 28 (2024)

    2024

  108. [118]

    D. P. Kingma and M. Welling, Auto-Encoding Varia- 15 tional Bayes, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1312.6114 (2013), arXiv:1312.6114 [stat.ML]

    2013 arXiv

  109. [119]

    A. A. Neloy and M. Turgeon, A comprehensive study of auto-encoders for anomaly detection: Efficiency and trade-offs, Machine Learning with Applications 17, 100572 (2024)

    2024

  110. [120]

    M. B. Sch¨ afer, O. Zelenka, A. H. Nitz, et al. , Mlgwsc- 1: The first machine learning gravitational-wave search mock data challenge, Phys. Rev. D 107, 023021 (2023), arXiv:2209.11146 [astro-ph.IM]

    2023 arXiv

  111. [121]

    Pratten, C

    G. Pratten, C. Garc ´ ıa-Quir´ os, M. Colleoni, A. Ramos- Buades, H. Estell´ es, M. Mateu-Lucena, R. Jaume, M. Haney, D. Keitel, J. E. Thompson, and S. Husa, Computationally efficient models for the dominant and subdominant harmonic modes of precessing bi- nary black holes, Ph...

    2021 arXiv

  112. [122]

    A. L. Maas, A. Y. Hannun, and A. Y. Ng, Rectifier nonlinearities improve neural network acoustic models, in Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Machine Learning, Vol. 28 (2013) pp. 3–10

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.