Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 54 references

The Proper Motion of Strongly Lensed Binary Neutron Star Mergers in LIGO/Virgo/Kagra can be Constrained by Measuring Doppler Induced Gravitational Wave Dephasing

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The two images of a lensed neutron-star merger carry a phase shift that reveals the source's transverse velocity.

desk verdict A credible LVK-era feasibility forecast for Doppler dephasing in lensed BNS, but the headline 'velocity measurement' only goes through with external lens mass information and a zero lens velocity assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.03547 v2 pith:6EEWV2MN submitted 2025-02-05 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HEgr-qc

Lorenz Zwick , Johan Samsing This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GAastro-ph.HEgr-qc
keywords gravitationalwavesstronglensingbinaryneutronstarmergersDopplerdephasingpropermotionLIGO/Virgo/KagraBayesianparameterestimationGW
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 shows that when a binary neutron star merger is strongly lensed into two images, the two gravitational-wave signals arrive with slightly different frequencies because the source is seen along two different lines of sight, and this differential Doppler effect imprints a measurable phase difference on the waveforms. Using a semi-analytic detectability criterion and a Bayesian inference pipeline, the authors argue that at the planned A+ sensitivity of LIGO/Virgo/Kagra a source with magnification $\mu=200$ at redshift $z_{\rm S}=1$ becomes marginally detectable when its transverse velocity is around $1800\,\mathrm{km/s}$, while at the proposed A# sensitivity typical sources moving faster than roughly $2000\,\mathrm{km/s}$ should show detectable dephasing. The practical consequence is that the first gravitational-wave measurement of a source's transverse proper motion could come from the first few strongly lensed neutron-star mergers, and non-detections would constrain the relative motion of the source-lens system. This matters because it turns gravitational-wave observations into a probe of the dynamical environment of merging neutron stars without requiring electromagnetic light.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Doppler-induced dephasing between the two lensed gravitational-wave images, quantified by the phase shift $\delta\phi$ of Equation (4). Because the phase shift grows as $f^{5/3}$, the long inspiral of a low-mass neutron-star binary produces a much larger accumulated dephasing than a black-hole merger would. Detectability is assessed with the $\delta\mathrm{SNR}$ criterion, which compares a reference image waveform to the same waveform multiplied by $\exp(i\delta\phi)$; values above a few indicate a detectable perturbation. The numerical validation is a joint Monte Carlo Markov Chain inference over the reference and Doppler-shifted waveforms, using third post-Newtonian, non-spinning frequency-domain waveforms, with the two image magnifications approximated by their geometric mean. The source population enters through the expected magnification and redshift distributions, and the angular separation $\theta$ is set by the Einstein radius of a lens of mass $M_{\rm L}$.

What would settle it

Take a strongly lensed neutron-star merger detected at A# sensitivity with a known lens mass near $10^{14}\,M_\odot$, magnification $\mu\approx 100$, and source redshift $z_{\rm S}\approx 1.4$, and measure the phase difference between the two images. If the inferred transverse velocity is consistent with zero at the precision where the paper predicts $\delta\mathrm{SNR}>3$, the central detectability claim would be refuted; conversely, detecting a phase difference that scales with the image angular separation as predicted would confirm it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that Doppler-induced dephasing between the two images of a strongly lensed binary neutron star merger is detectable with current-generation LIGO/Virgo/Kagra instruments, and that it can be used to constrain the relative transverse velocity of the source-lens system. For a chirping equal-mass binary, the dephasing is $$ \delta\phi \approx 0.1\,\mathrm{rad}\,\left(\frac{\$\theta$}{25''}\right)\left(\frac{1.4\,M_\odot}{m}\right)^{5/3}\left(\frac{10\,\mathrm{Hz}}{f}\right)^{5/3}\left(\frac{v_{\rm Dop}}{1500\,\mathrm{km/s}}\right), $$ so low-mass neutron-star binaries accumulate a sizable phase shift during their long inspiral. At A+ sensitivity, a one-$\sigma$ source with $\mu=200$ and $z_{\rm S}=1$ reaches $\delta\mathrm{SNR}\approx 1$ at $v_{\rm Dop}\sim 2600\,\mathrm{km/s}$, corresponding to a source transverse velocity of $v_{\rm S}\sim 1800\,\mathrm{km/s}$; at A# sensitivity, the most likely source parameters of $\mu=100$ and $z_{\rm S}=1.4$ are expected to show detectable dephasing for $v_{\rm S}\gtrsim 2000\,\mathrm{km/s}$. The authors validate the semi-analytic criterion with a joint Bayesian estimate of both waveforms, showing that the 50% posterior contour tracks $\delta\mathrm{SNR}=1$ despite marginalization over six additional parameters, and they conclude that a first measurement of a source's transverse velocity via gravitational-wave dephasing is likely only a few years away.

Load-bearing premise

The claimed velocity measurement assumes that the lens mass, and hence the image angular separation, is known well enough to break the degeneracy between $\theta$ and $v_{\rm Dop}$; the paper's Bayesian demonstration fixes $M_{\rm L}=10^{14}\,M_\odot$, and without such external knowledge the gravitational-wave signal alone only constrains their product.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A first measurement of gravitational-wave dephasing, and thus of a source's transverse proper motion, is likely to come from the first few strongly lensed neutron-star mergers observed at A+ or A# sensitivity.
  • At A# sensitivity, roughly half of the expected strongly lensed neutron-star population should show detectable dephasing; at A+, a smaller but substantial fraction, about 15% with critical source velocity below $3000\,\mathrm{km/s}$, is accessible.
  • If no dephasing is found in a lensed event, the non-detection translates directly into an upper limit on the source-lens relative transverse velocity.
  • Ignoring Doppler dephasing when searching for lensed signals can cause a single lensed event to be misidentified as two unrelated sources with different chirp masses, so future searches must model the effect.
  • A detection provides a 'dark', gravitational-wave-only constraint on the transverse velocity of the host galaxy inside its cluster, independent of electromagnetic follow-up.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If dephasing is measured in several events, the resulting transverse-velocity constraints could be assembled into a peculiar-velocity field of neutron-star merger hosts at cosmological distances, complementing galaxy redshift surveys.
  • Because the gravitational-wave signal alone only fixes the product of angular separation and Doppler velocity, the velocity interpretation depends on identifying the lens and knowing its mass; the paper notes this limitation, and external multi-messenger information or a detailed lens model would be needed to break the degeneracy.
  • The $f^{5/3}$ scaling implies that future lower-frequency detectors, such as deci-Hertz or Einstein Telescope-class instruments, would see far larger dephasing, making the same observable a routine tool for peculiar-motion measurements.
  • A non-detection in the first several A# events would push typical transverse velocities below about $2000\,\mathrm{km/s}$, providing a dynamical constraint on high-redshift cluster velocity dispersions.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper argues that the Doppler-induced dephasing between the two strongly lensed gravitational-wave images of a binary neutron star merger can be detected with the planned A+ and proposed A# LVK sensitivities. Using the dephasing formula of Samsing et al. (2024b), it computes the δSNR detectability criterion over the source-lens parameter space, finding that a one-sigma source at μ=200 and z_S=1 reaches δSNR≈1 at v_Dop≈2600 km/s for A+, which it translates to a source transverse velocity v_S≈1800 km/s. A Bayesian MCMC pipeline with a zero-dephasing injection is used to validate the δSNR contours. The paper concludes that a first measurement of the relative transverse velocity of a lensed NS-NS source is likely only a few years away.

Significance. If the detectability estimates are correct, the paper proposes a genuinely new observable: using strong lensing to measure the transverse proper motion of a GW source through the phase difference between two images. The authors provide concrete, falsifiable predictions (δSNR contours, critical velocity v_crit for A+ and A#) and make a plausible case that the effect is within reach of near-term detectors. The work is an honest attempt to connect a known lensing effect to an achievable LVK measurement, and the numerical pipeline, while limited, is a useful step. However, the headline claim that the source velocity v_S can be constrained depends on breaking the θ×v_Dop degeneracy with external information, and the current text does not propagate that dependence into the abstract or conclusions.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3, Eqs. (1)–(4) and Fig. 4] The headline constraints on the source transverse velocity v_S assume a fixed lens mass M_L=10^14 M⊙ and implicitly set the lens velocity v_L=0. Because the physical observable is θ×v_Dop and θ∝M_L (Eq. 3), a pure GW measurement constrains only M_L v_Dop, not v_S itself. The posterior in Fig. 3 fixes M_L, and the v_crit contours in Fig. 4 are defined with v_L=0. The text acknowledges this degeneracy in §3 ("only a combination of θ×v_Dop can be realistically extracted from a pure GW signal"), but the abstract and conclusions present v_S≈1800 km/s and a "measurement of the relative transverse velocity" without this caveat. The authors should either propagate the full M_L and v_L uncertainty into the derived v_S constraints or clearly restate the headline claims as conditional on external lens identification, a known lens mass, and zero lens velocity. As written, the central claim overstates what the GW signal alone can deliver.
  2. [§2, Eq. (7) and §3, Figs. 2 and 4] The detectability threshold is used inconsistently. In §2, the text states that δSNR values "higher than a few" indicate a detectable perturbation, while the abstract and Fig. 4 treat δSNR≈1 as "marginally detectable." The only numerical justification is the 50% credible contour in Fig. 3, which the authors identify with δSNR=1. A 50% credible region that excludes zero is not a detection in the usual sense; a measurement claim should be based on a higher-confidence contour (e.g., 90% or 99%). The authors should state a single, defensible detection threshold and apply it consistently when computing v_crit and when characterizing a source as "detectable." This directly affects the statement that a first measurement is "likely only a few years away."
  3. [Appendix A, Fig. 5] The MCMC validation only injects a zero-dephasing signal (zero Doppler velocity). This test shows that a zero-dephasing injection is inconsistent with large velocities, which supports the δSNR criterion in one direction, but it does not demonstrate that a nonzero dephasing signal can be recovered with a posterior that peaks at the injected values. Since the central claim is a measurement of v_S, the authors should include at least one injection with a finite v_Dop or v_S and show that the joint posterior recovers the injected value within the expected uncertainty. Without such a test, the numerical evidence for the measurement claim is incomplete.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3, paragraph after Fig. 2] The text says "as in Eq. 8" when referring to the conversion between v_Dop and v_S; this should be Eq. (2), since Eq. (8) defines the waveform difference Δh, not the velocity relation.
  2. [Fig. 4 caption] There is a typo: "v_rit" should be "v_crit".
  3. [Appendix A] The phrase "Monte-Carlo-Markhov-Chain" should be "Monte-Carlo-Markov-Chain," and "paramter" should be "parameter."
  4. [§3, paragraph after Fig. 3] The phrase "the delay time" would be clearer as "the lensing time delay," since the time delay is a standard observable in strong lensing.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the dephasing formula is a parameter-free physical derivation and the theta-times-v_Dop degeneracy is explicitly acknowledged as a limitation, not hidden.

full rationale

The central dephasing relation (Eq. 4) is obtained by integrating the standard Doppler phase shift (Eq. 1), which is attributed to Itoh et al. (2009) as well as to the authors' companion paper Samsing et al. (2024b). The companion derivation is parameter-free and does not assume the detectability result it is used to predict, so the self-citation is not load-bearing in a circular sense. The MCMC exercise (Appendix A) uses the same waveform model for injection and recovery and therefore serves as a self-consistency check of the deltaSNR criterion rather than an independent verification of the dephasing physics; the paper presents it in this limited role and does not rest the central forecast on it. The paper explicitly states in Sec. 3 that 'only a combination of theta times v_Dop can be realistically extracted from a pure GW signal,' and the headline v_S constraints are conditional on fixing the lens mass (M_L = 10^14 M_sun) and on identifying the lens. This is an acknowledged physical degeneracy and limitation, not a case of a fitted parameter being renamed as a prediction or of a result being equivalent to its inputs by construction. No circular step is exhibited.

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

No fitted free parameters or invented entities; the computation rests on standard lensing and dephasing formulas and stated modeling assumptions. The main external inputs are the dephasing formula from Itoh et al. (2009)/Samsing et al. (2024b), the Smith et al. (2023) event-rate distribution, and the A+/A# sensitivity curves.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Doppler dephasing is described by Eq. (1)-(4): δφ ≈ 4π f v_Dop θ T_obs / c, with v_Dop from Eq. (2).
    Adopted from Itoh et al. (2009) and Samsing et al. (2024b); not re-derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption Both lensed images have comparable magnification, μ≈√(μ1 μ2).
    Stated in §2 as a simplifying assumption; not typical for strongly lensed images with μ~100 and could change detectability if ratios are large.
  • domain assumption Lens redshift is set to z_L = 0.5 z_S for all calculations.
    Stated in §2; dephasing is stronger for lenses closer to the source, so this is a conservative choice.
  • domain assumption Waveforms are circular, non-spinning, vacuum 3.0PN; sky response is Q=2/5.
    §2, Eq. (5); neglects eccentricity, spin, higher modes and calibration errors.
  • domain assumption The reference image SNR is high enough that δSNR criteria apply and the merger time is known precisely from merger/ringdown.
    Appendix A; the merger time is assumed measured with high precision, not modeled.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Proper Motion of Strongly Lensed Binary Neutron Star Mergers in LIGO/Virgo/Kagra can be Constrained by Measuring Doppler Induced Gravitational Wave Dephasing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6EEWV2MN

@misc{pith2026250203547,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Proper Motion of Strongly Lensed Binary Neutron Star Mergers in LIGO/Virgo/Kagra can be Constrained by Measuring Doppler Induced Gravitational Wave Dephasing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6EEWV2MN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.03547}
}
abstract

Strongly lensed binary neutron star (NS-NS) mergers are expected to be observed once LIGO/Virgo/Kagra reaches the planned A+ or proposed A\# sensitivity. We demonstrate that the relative transverse velocity of the source-lens system can be constrained by comparing the phase of the two associated gravitational wave (GW) images, using both semi-analytical and numerical Bayesian methods. For A+ sensitivity, a one-sigma NS-NS merger signal in magnification $(\mu=200)$ and redshift $(z_{\rm S}=1)$ will carry a marginally detectable dephasing signature for a source transverse velocity of $\sim 1800$ km/s. This is comparable to the velocity dispersion of large galaxy clusters. Assuming the same population distribution, the most likely source parameters of $\mu=100$ and $z_{\rm S}=1.4$ are always expected to showcase detectable dephasing imprints for A\# sensitivity, provided they are moving with transverse velocities larger than $\sim 2000$ km/s. We conclude that a first measurement of the relative transverse velocity of a source via GW dephasing methods is likely only a few years away.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.03547 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Sketch of the geometry of the source-lens-observer sys￾tem. The different line-of-sights for the two images create a differen￾tial Doppler shift, which manifests as a phase shift between the two GW signals. In our setup, one waveform is chosen to be a reference, while the other is shifted by Eq. 4. as for GW systems (e.g. Itoh et al. 2009; D’Orazio & Loeb 2020; Gondán & Kocsis 2022; Yang et al. 2024; Savastano arXiv… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. shows the contours for the 𝛿SNR of Doppler dephasing as a function of the magnification and the relative Doppler velocity. The range of magnifications is compared to the expected distributions for the O3 and O5 LVK observation runs. The most likely magnification for O5 is 𝜇 ∼ 100, with an approximately a log-normal distribution with standard de￾viation of ∼ 0.3 dex. For a one-sigma source in magnification [PITH_FUL… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Contours of the 𝛿SNR for the Doppler induced dephasing of a strongly lensed NS-NS mergers for A+ sensitivity. The coun￾tours are compared with the marginalised posterior (blue) from a joint parameter inference test over [𝑧S,M,𝜈,𝜙𝑐,𝜇,𝑧L], where the lens mass is assumed to be 𝑀L = 1014 M⊙, proving the robustness of the 𝛿SNR criterion. The posterior contour levels show (0.01,0.1,0.3,0.6) of the maximum posterior likeli… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Full corner plot of a numerical parameter inference run. The injected parameters are 𝑧S = 0.2, 𝑧L = 0.1, 𝑀L = 1014 M⊙, 𝑀 = 3, 𝑞 = 1 and zero Doppler velocity. The results are representative of other numerical tests with different injected parameters. Maggiore, M. 2007,…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2021, Astrophys

    Abbott, R., et al. 2021, Astrophys. J., 923, 14, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac23db

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac23db 2021

  2. [2]

    2023, , 267, 29, 10.3847/1538-4365/acdc9f

    Abbott , R., Abe , H., Acernese , F., et al. 2023, , 267, 29, 10.3847/1538-4365/acdc9f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acdc9f 2023

  3. [3]

    2024, Astrophys

    Abbott, R., et al. 2024, Astrophys. J., 970, 191, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3e83

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3e83 2024

  4. [4]

    A., Ferragamo , A., et al

    Aguado-Barahona , A., Rubi \ n o-Mart \' n , J. A., Ferragamo , A., et al. 2022, , 659, A126, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039980

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039980 2022

  5. [5]

    1989, in Gravitational Lenses, ed

    Birkinshaw , M. 1989, in Gravitational Lenses, ed. J. M. Moran , J. N. Hewitt , & K.-Y. Lo , Vol. 330, 59, 10.1007/3-540-51061-3_36

    work page doi:10.1007/3-540-51061-3_36 1989

  6. [6]

    2002, Living Reviews in Relativity, 5, 3, 10.12942/lrr-2002-3

    Blanchet , L. 2002, Living Reviews in Relativity, 5, 3, 10.12942/lrr-2002-3

    doi:10.12942/lrr-2002-3 2002

  7. [7]

    2014, Living Reviews in Relativity, 17, 2, 10.12942/lrr-2014-2

    ---. 2014, Living Reviews in Relativity, 17, 2, 10.12942/lrr-2014-2

    doi:10.12942/lrr-2014-2 2014

  8. [8]

    2022, Galaxies, 10, 36, 10.3390/galaxies10010036

    Cahillane , C., & Mansell , G. 2022, Galaxies, 10, 36, 10.3390/galaxies10010036

    doi:10.3390/galaxies10010036 2022

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    2025, , 111, 062002, 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.062002

    Capote , E., Jia , W., Aritomi , N., et al. 2025, , 111, 062002, 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.062002

    2025 doi

  2. [10]

    2023, Phys

    C al s kan, M., Anil Kumar, N., Ji, L., et al. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 108, 123543, 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123543

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    M., & Keitel, D

    Chen, A., Cremonese, P., Ezquiaga, J. M., & Keitel, D. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 110, 123015, 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.123015

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    M., & Saslaw , W

    Chitre , S. M., & Saslaw , W. C. 1989, , 341, 38, 10.1038/341038a0

    1989 doi

  5. [13]

    M., & Salzano, V

    Cremonese, P., Ezquiaga, J. M., & Salzano, V. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 104, 023503, 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.023503

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2007.12709, 10.48550/arXiv.2007.12709

    Dai , L., Zackay , B., Venumadhav , T., Roulet , J., & Zaldarriaga , M. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2007.12709, 10.48550/arXiv.2007.12709

    2020 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    W., Sereno , M., & Garmire , G

    De Filippis , E., Bautz , M. W., Sereno , M., & Garmire , G. P. 2004, , 611, 164, 10.1086/422092

    2004 doi

  8. [16]

    J., & Loeb , A

    D'Orazio , D. J., & Loeb , A. 2020, , 101, 083031, 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.083031

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    M., Hu , W., & Lo , R

    Ezquiaga , J. M., Hu , W., & Lo , R. K. L. 2023, , 108, 103520, 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.103520

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    M., & Zumalac\'arregui, M

    Ezquiaga, J. M., & Zumalac\'arregui, M. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 102, 124048, 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.124048

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Hogg , D. W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J. 2013, , 125, 306, 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  12. [20]

    2022, , 515, 3299, 10.1093/mnras/stac1985

    Gond \'a n , L., & Kocsis , B. 2022, , 515, 3299, 10.1093/mnras/stac1985

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    K., & Ajith, P

    Goyal, S., Haris, K., Mehta, A. K., & Ajith, P. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 103, 024038, 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.024038

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    M., & Zumalacarregui, M

    Goyal, S., Vijaykumar, A., Ezquiaga, J. M., & Zumalacarregui, M. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 108, 024052, 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.024052

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    G., et al

    Gupta , I., Afle , C., Arun , K. G., et al. 2024, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 41, 245001, 10.1088/1361-6382/ad7b99

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    2024 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.04603, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.04603

    Hendriks , K., Zwick , L., & Samsing , J. 2024 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.04603, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.04603

    2024 doi arXiv

  17. [25]

    2024 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.08572, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.08572

    Hendriks , K., Atallah , D., Martinez , M., et al. 2024 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.08572, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.08572

    2024 doi arXiv

  18. [26]

    2017, National Science Review, 4, 685, 10.1093/nsr/nwx116

    Hu, W.-R., & Wu, Y.-L. 2017, National Science Review, 4, 685, 10.1093/nsr/nwx116

    2017 doi

  19. [27]

    2009, , 80, 044009, 10.1103/PhysRevD.80.044009

    Itoh , Y., Futamase , T., & Hattori , M. 2009, , 80, 044009, 10.1103/PhysRevD.80.044009

    2009 doi

  20. [28]

    J., Venumadhav, T., & Ajith, P

    Jana, S., Kapadia, S. J., Venumadhav, T., & Ajith, P. 2023, Phys. Rev. Lett., 130, 261401, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.261401

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    2011, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 28, 094011, 10.1088/0264-9381/28/9/094011

    Kawamura , S., Ando , M., Seto , N., et al. 2011, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 28, 094011, 10.1088/0264-9381/28/9/094011

    2011 doi

  22. [30]

    1986, , 166, 36

    Kayser , R., Refsdal , S., & Stabell , R. 1986, , 166, 36

    1986

  23. [31]

    2011, Phys

    Kocsis, B., Yunes, N., & Loeb, A. 2011, Phys. Rev. D, 84, 024032

    2011

  24. [32]

    2020, , 101, 103027, 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.103027

    Liu , S., Hu , Y.-M., Zhang , J.-d., & Mei , J. 2020, , 101, 103027, 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.103027

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    2016, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 33, 035010, 10.1088/0264-9381/33/3/035010

    Luo , J., Chen , L.-S., Duan , H.-Z., et al. 2016, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 33, 035010, 10.1088/0264-9381/33/3/035010

    2016 doi

  26. [34]

    2007, Gravitational Waves: Volume 1: Theory and Experiments , 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198570745.001.0001

    Maggiore , M. 2007, Gravitational Waves: Volume 1: Theory and Experiments , 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198570745.001.0001

    2007

  27. [35]

    2022, , 515, 1044, 10.1093/mnras/stac1704

    More , A., & More , S. 2022, , 515, 1044, 10.1093/mnras/stac1704

    2022 doi

  28. [36]

    2024, , 110, 044054, 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.044054

    Pijnenburg , M., Cusin , G., Pitrou , C., & Uzan , J.-P. 2024, , 110, 044054, 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.044054

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    2015, , 452, 3304, 10.1093/mnras/stv1558

    Proust , D., Yegorova , I., Saviane , I., et al. 2015, , 452, 3304, 10.1093/mnras/stv1558

    2015 doi

  30. [38]

    P., Massey , R., et al

    Robertson , A., Smith , G. P., Massey , R., et al. 2020, , 495, 3727, 10.1093/mnras/staa1429

    2020 doi

  31. [39]

    J., & Liu , C

    Robson , T., Cornish , N. J., & Liu , C. 2019, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 36, 105011, 10.1088/1361-6382/ab1101

    2019 doi

  32. [40]

    J., & Liu , B

    Samsing , J., Hendriks , K., Zwick , L., D'Orazio , D. J., & Liu , B. 2024 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.05625, 10.48550/arXiv.2403.05625

    2024 doi arXiv

  33. [41]

    2024 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.14159, 10.48550/arXiv.2412.14159

    Samsing , J., Zwick , L., Saini , P., et al. 2024 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.14159, 10.48550/arXiv.2412.14159

    2024 doi arXiv

  34. [42]

    2024, , 109, 024064, 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.024064

    Savastano , S., Vernizzi , F., & Zumalac \'a rregui , M. 2024, , 109, 024064, 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.024064

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    P., Bianconi , M., Jauzac , M., et al

    Smith , G. P., Bianconi , M., Jauzac , M., et al. 2019, , 485, 5180, 10.1093/mnras/stz675

    2019 doi

  36. [44]

    P., Robertson , A., Mahler , G., et al

    Smith , G. P., Robertson , A., Mahler , G., et al. 2023, , 520, 702, 10.1093/mnras/stad140

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    2003, , 595, 1039, 10.1086/377430

    Takahashi , R., & Nakamura , T. 2003, , 595, 1039, 10.1086/377430

    2003 doi

  38. [46]

    2020, , 101, 063002, 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.063002

    Tamanini , N., Klein , A., Bonvin , C., Barausse , E., & Caprini , C. 2020, , 101, 063002, 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.063002

    2020 doi

  39. [47]

    Tambalo, G., Zumalac\'arregui, M., Dai, L., & Cheung, M. H.-Y. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 108, 103529, 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.103529

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    Tambalo , G., Zumalac \'a rregui , M., Dai , L., & Cheung , M. H.-Y. 2023, , 108, 043527, 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.043527

    2023 doi

  41. [49]

    J., Fragione , G., & Chatterjee , S

    Tiwari , A., Vijaykumar , A., Kapadia , S. J., Fragione , G., & Chatterjee , S. 2024, , 527, 8586, 10.1093/mnras/stad3749

    2024 doi

  42. [50]

    Vujeva , L., Mar \' a Ezquiaga , J., Lo , R. K. L., & Chan , J. C. L. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.02096, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.02096

    2025 doi

  43. [51]

    2004, , 69, 063001, 10.1103/PhysRevD.69.063001

    Wucknitz , O., & Sperhake , U. 2004, , 69, 063001, 10.1103/PhysRevD.69.063001

    2004 doi

  44. [52]

    M., & Holz , D

    Xu , F., Ezquiaga , J. M., & Holz , D. E. 2022, , 929, 9, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac58f8

    2022 doi

  45. [53]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.16378, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.16378

    Yang , X.-Y., Chen , T., & Cai , R.-G. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.16378, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.16378

    2024 doi arXiv

  46. [54]

    R., & Mayer , L

    Zwick , L., Capelo , P. R., & Mayer , L. 2023, , 521, 4645, 10.1093/mnras/stad707

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.