Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 15 cited by

GW231123, the strongest gravitational-wave lensing candidate to date, shows apparent lensing support at about 4σ, below the 5σ threshold, and the paper argues this can be explained by the self-similarity of the signal.

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 15:21 UTC pith:I3Y6IXQW

load-bearing objection Solid and useful, but the headline 4σ is conditional on a specific lens model and the abstract/body simulation counts don't match; still worth a real referee. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2512.16916 v4 pith:I3Y6IXQW submitted 2025-12-18 gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-ph

Discovering gravitational waveform distortions from lensing: A deep dive into GW231123

Juno C. L. Chan , Jose Mar\'ia Ezquiaga , Rico K. L. Lo , Joey Bowman , Lorena Maga\~na Zertuche , Luka Vujeva This is my paper
classification gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-ph
keywords gravitational lensinggravitational wavesGW231123wave-optics diffractionsimulation-based inferenceneural posterior estimationfalse alarm probabilityself-similarity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper tries to determine whether GW231123, the most promising gravitational-wave lensing candidate found so far, can be claimed as a lensed event. The authors use a deep-learning-accelerated parameter estimation pipeline to run 70,000 nonlensed simulations that mimic GW231123's properties, and find that 8% of them favor lensing with Bayes factors above zero. This places the event's apparent support at a false-alarm probability of about 4σ, below the 5σ standard usually required for a discovery claim. They conclude the apparent lensing signal is consistent with the self-similarity of short-duration, high-mass waveforms, where the inferred time delay matches the waveform's own period. If true, the first lensed gravitational wave has not yet been found, and future claims must be backed by event-specific false-alarm calculations, which this method makes computationally feasible.

Core claim

The paper reanalyzes GW231123 assuming a two-image lensing model in which the observed signal is the original chirp plus a fainter, delayed copy with a fixed π/2 phase shift. At face value the event shows strong support for lensing, with log10 Blens = 4.0, larger than previous point-mass lens analyses. However, when compared to 70,000 GW231123-like nonlensed simulations, 8% of those noise-only events also favor lensing, giving GW231123 a false-alarm probability of about 4σ, not the 5σ needed for a claim. The recovered time delay of about 22 ms matches the instantaneous period of the waveform near merger, indicating that the apparent second chirp can be explained by self-similarity of the sho

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the two-image stationary-phase transfer function, F(f>0)=1+√μrel exp(i(2πfΔt−π/2)), which models lensing as a single additional chirp with time delay Δt>0 and relative magnification μrel<1. This parametrization covers point and fold singularities and many near-cusp configurations, and defines what the paper counts as a 'lensed event'. On top of it, the authors build a neural posterior estimator called DINGO-lensing, which compresses detector strain into latent features and uses a normalizing flow to approximate the lensed and nonlensed posteriors, then computes Bayes factors via importance sampling. The speedup — minutes instead of tens of CPU days — is what makes

Load-bearing premise

The entire 4σ bound assumes lensing of GW231123 would look like exactly two images — a fainter, later chirp with a fixed π/2 phase shift — and that the simulated nonlensed population (chirp masses 90–160 solar masses, mass ratios 0.2–1, distances 0.6–8 Gpc, SNR>8) fairly represents the event's noise background.

What would settle it

Take a random subset of the 70,000 GW231123-like nonlensed simulations and recompute their lensing Bayes factors with a conventional nested-sampling code instead of the neural estimator; if GW231123's log10 Blens = 4.0 becomes a 5σ outlier in that distribution, the paper's 4σ bound would be an artifact of the neural approximation.

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

If this is right

  • GW231123 cannot be claimed as the first detected lensed gravitational wave: its apparent lensing support is within the noise floor of similar-mass nonlensed events.
  • Future lensing claims must report event-specific false-alarm rates estimated from simulations of nonlensed events with matching source properties, rather than quoting a raw Bayes factor.
  • Because 8% of GW231123-like nonlensed events mimic lensing, isolated high-mass short-duration binaries are prone to false lensing interpretations; searches using this statistic alone will be noisy for that population.
  • The finding that 58% of injected lensed simulations have stronger support than GW231123 implies that genuinely lensed events of this type should be detectable with high significance when the signal is favorable.
  • Projecting about 40% of lensed simulations above 5σ indicates that a first lensed gravitational wave discovery is feasible in upcoming observing runs using this accelerated analysis strategy.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the self-similarity explanation holds, then very high-mass binaries are intrinsically poor targets for standalone lensing searches; combining the two-image statistic with additional discriminators — such as higher-order modes, phase-coherence tests, or external information about a putative lens — could restore sensitivity.
  • The fixed π/2 phase and μrel<1 assumption is a narrow slice of lensing phenomenology: same-parity images or μrel>1 would produce different waveforms, and the 4σ bound does not apply to those cases. A natural next test is a free-phase two-image model on the same event.
  • The same background-simulation machinery could be applied to other waveform distortions that produce apparent extra structure in short signals (e.g., eccentricity or environmental dephasing); elevated false-alarm rates from self-similarity are likely a general feature of few-cycle gravitational-wave signals.
  • If 8% of nonlensed events in a catalog look lensed, then some already-detected events may be misclassified as lensed or overlapping; re-running archived candidates with this fast method could produce a uniform false-alarm census.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents DINGO-lensing, a simulation-based inference pipeline for parameter estimation of gravitationally lensed binary-black-hole signals under the stationary-phase, two-image wave-optics transfer function F(f)=1+sqrt(mu_rel) exp[i(2*pi*f*Delta t - pi/2)]. The authors reanalyze GW231123, the currently most promising lensing candidate, and obtain log10 B_lens = 4.0 in favor of lensing. By computing lensing Bayes factors for 70,000 nonlensed GW231123-like injections, they find that 8% of such signals have log10 B_lens > 0 and that the false-alarm probability at the observed Bayes factor is around 4 sigma. They therefore conclude that, under this lensing model, GW231123 cannot be claimed as a lensed event and that waveform self-similarity of short-duration signals can mimic lensing. They also report that 58% of 1,000 lensed injections have larger lensing support than GW231123, indicating that higher detection statistics are possible.

Significance. If the pipeline is validated, this work removes a major computational barrier to computing lensing false-alarm rates and provides an important cautionary result for GW231123. The paper has several genuine strengths: the false-alarm rate is obtained by direct simulation rather than fitted to the event; the event-level posterior and Bayes factor are checked against bilby (log10 B difference 0.14); the code is public; and the lensing model and its limitations are explicitly stated. However, the central numerical claim rests on the reliability of a neural evidence estimator over a broad background population, and there is an unresolved discrepancy between the abstract's stated simulation campaign and the body of the paper. A careful revision that addresses the validation and presentation issues could make the 4-sigma bound credible.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract vs. 'GW231123: reanalyzing...' section] The abstract claims 'more than 200,000 simulations with 3 different waveform models,' but the body reports 70,000 nonlensed and 1,000 lensed simulations, all with NRSur7dq4. No multi-waveform-model analysis is presented anywhere in the body. This is not a typo: the abstract's quantitative conclusion is linked to a simulation campaign that the paper does not describe. Please either add the missing multi-waveform analysis with exact counts and model names, or correct the abstract to report the actual 71,000 simulations with one waveform model.
  2. ['GW231123: reanalyzing...' (Fig. 4)] The 4-sigma false-alarm probability is computed using DINGO-lensing to evaluate log10 B_lens for 70,000 nonlensed injections. The only validation against a conventional sampler is performed on the real event itself, with a log10 B difference of 0.14. No calibration is shown for the background population, which spans SNR>8, spins up to 0.99, mass ratios 0.2-1, and distances 0.6-8 Gpc. The quoted importance-sampling efficiency of 0.58% for the event also indicates that evidence estimates can be noisy. Because the tail count at log10 B_lens=4.0 sets the p-value, a modest systematic bias in the neural estimator could change the false-alarm rate materially. I request a validation on a subsample of nonlensed background injections using bilby or an independent estimator, with a bias/variance check as a function of SNR and spin.
  3. [Fig. 4 and 'GW231123: reanalyzing...'] With 70,000 background simulations, a one-sided p-value of roughly 3.2e-5 (4 sigma) corresponds to only about two events above the observed threshold. The Poisson error on that tail is large, and the achievable resolution of the false-alarm probability is limited to about 1/70,000 ~ 4.2 sigma. The paper should report the observed tail count at log10 B_lens=4.0, the p-value with a confidence interval, and state the resolution limit. The current phrasing '4-sigma false-alarm probability' and 'cannot exceed 4-sigma' is more precise than the simulation size supports. The result is also conditional on the hand-selected GW231123-like injection population and should be labeled as such.
  4. [After Eq. (2)] The central claim's scope is limited to the two-image stationary-phase lens model of Eq. (2), with lower magnification, opposite parity, and a fixed pi/2 phase. The paper itself states that more complex cases, such as same-parity images or mu_rel > 1, are excluded. The abstract's statement 'the event cannot be claimed as lensed' therefore holds only under this restrictive model. Either the authors should justify that this two-image SPA model covers the relevant lensing configurations for GW231123, or the abstract and title should explicitly qualify the conclusion as conditional on this model. As written, the broad claim overreaches the computed quantity.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 4] The x-axis labels '1-sigma, 2-sigma, 3-sigma, 4-sigma' should be tied to a one-sided Gaussian conversion from a tail probability, or replaced by p-values. The figure also uses a dashed vertical line for GW231123 and small vertical lines for examples; a legend would remove ambiguity.
  2. [Self-similarity discussion] The interpretation that multimodal Delta t posteriors correlate with the waveform period is stated qualitatively. A simple quantitative measure over the 70,000 background simulations, such as the fraction of multimodalities aligned with the instantaneous period, would strengthen this claim.
  3. [DINGO-lensing vs. bilby comparison] The paper reports a log10 B difference of 0.14 but not the actual Bayes factors from both codes or the statistical uncertainty on this difference. Reporting the values would make the validation check more reproducible.
  4. [Footnote [67]] The statement that the waveform starting frequency is set to 0 Hz and that waveforms are generated as far back in time from merger as allowed is non-standard and should be justified, as it affects the effective signal duration and the self-similarity inference.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the 4σ false-alarm rate is a measured simulation output, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim — a ~4σ false-alarm probability for GW231123's lensing support — is not a fitted prediction. It is obtained by training DINGO-lensing on simulated lensed/nonlensed waveforms, computing log10 B_lens for 70,000 GW231123-like nonlensed injections, and measuring the tail probability at the event's log10 B_lens=4.0. This is direct simulation-based calibration, not a parameter fitted to the target event. The model of Eq. (2) is a stated assumption (two-image SPA with Δt>0, μrel<1, π/2 phase), and the authors explicitly defer more complex configurations; using the same model for signal and null is a conditional statement, not a circular reduction. The network validation is described in the companion paper [48] by overlapping authors, and the paper also cross-checks against bilby for GW231123 (log10 B_lens difference 0.14); while the background has not been independently revalidated, that is a robustness/correctness concern, not evidence that the output equals the input by construction. I also note an abstract/body inconsistency (200,000 simulations/3 waveform models vs. 70,000+1,000 with NRSur7dq4), which should be resolved but is a reporting discrepancy rather than circularity. No load-bearing step reduces to a fitted parameter, a self-definition, or an imported uniqueness theorem.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

This paper is not a first-principles derivation; it is a statistical significance analysis. The ledger captures the hand-chosen simulation ranges, the SPA two-image lensing model restrictions, and the waveform/noise assumptions that the 4σ result depends on. The most consequential added structure is Eq. (2), which defines the only lensed waveform family considered.

free parameters (6)
  • GW231123-like simulation chirp mass range = 90–160 M☉
    Hand-chosen to mimic GW231123; affects the null-hypothesis population and therefore the 8% and 4σ rates. Not fitted to data but selected by the authors.
  • Simulation mass ratio range = 0.2–1
    Defines the GW231123-like null population; mass ratio affects waveform duration and self-similarity, hence the false-lensing rate.
  • Simulation luminosity distance range = 0.6–8 Gpc (uniform in comoving volume)
    Sets the distance prior for background injections; influences the SNR distribution and selection of events.
  • SNR selection threshold = >8 (Hanford–Livingston network)
    Used to define GW231123-like detectable events; changes the background ensemble and the false-alarm calculation.
  • Lensing-parameter prior ranges = Δt∈(0,0.1) s, μrel∈(0,1)
    Prior bounds for the lensed hypothesis in the neural network; restrict the alternative model and affect Bayes factors.
  • Training chirp mass range = 30–180 M☉
    Network training domain; if the event's true parameters lie near the boundary, posterior coverage may degrade, affecting the credibility of the significance estimate.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Thin-lens, weak-field linear perturbation, with the Kirchhoff diffraction integral reducing to the stationary-phase two-image transfer function Eq. (2)
    Underlies the entire lensed waveform model. Valid for point/fold/cusp caustics in the interference regime, but excludes same-parity overlapping images and negative-parity single-image distortions.
  • ad hoc to paper The second chirp has lower magnification, opposite parity, and a fixed π/2 phase (Δt>0, μrel<1)
    This parameterization restricts the lensed hypothesis; the authors explicitly defer more complex cases (e.g. μrel>1 due to substructure) to future work.
  • domain assumption Gaussian stationary noise during training, using the average LIGO PSD around the event time
    Real detector noise is non-stationary; the paper notes that non-stationarity would only increase the false-alarm probability, so the quoted 4σ is an upper bound in this scenario.
  • domain assumption NRSur7dq4 is an adequate waveform model for GW231123-like signals
    Chosen for the lowest mismatch against numerical relativity. The abstract states that using different waveform models only lowers the significance, but this is not shown in the main text.
  • ad hoc to paper The simulated 'GW231123-like' population (masses, mass ratios, distances, spins) is representative of the null hypothesis for this event
    The false-alarm probability is computed over this population; if the true event belongs to a different part of parameter space, the 4σ number changes.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 9733 in / 11251 out tokens · 111765 ms · 2026-08-03T15:21:55.302527+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Gravitational waves (GWs) are unique messengers as they travel through the Universe without alteration except for gravitational lensing. Their long wavelengths make them susceptible to diffraction by cosmic structures, providing an unprecedented opportunity to map dark matter substructures. Identifying lensed events requires the analysis of thousands to millions of simulated events to reach high statistical significances. This is computationally prohibitive with standard GW parameter estimation methods. We exploit DINGO-lensing, a deep-learning algorithm that accelerates the inference from CPU days to minutes to thoroughly reanalyze GW231123, the most promising lensing candidate to date. By performing more than 200,000 simulations with 3 different waveform models, we find that its statistical significance is below 4$\sigma$ and the event cannot be claimed as lensed. We observe that 8% of GW231123-like nonlensed simulations favor lensing, which could be explained by the self-similarity of short-duration signals. Still, 58% of GW231123-like lensed simulations have larger support for lensing, showing that higher detection statistics are possible. We show that analyzing simulations with different waveform models only lowers the significance, highlighting the relevance of waveform systematics. Although GW231123 exposes the challenges of claiming the first GW lensing detection, our deep-learning methods have demonstrated to be powerful enough to enable the upcoming discovery of lensed GWs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.16916 by Joey Bowman, Jose Mar\'ia Ezquiaga, Juno C. L. Chan, Lorena Maga\~na Zertuche, Luka Vujeva, Rico K. L. Lo.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Inference for the lensing parameters. We compare [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Source characterization of GW231123 assuming it is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Complementary cumulative distribution function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 15 Pith papers

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

  1. Wave-optics gravitational wave lensing in modified gravity

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 8.0

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

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

    astro-ph.HE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Authors synthesize SVD-based reduced-order models from wave-optics simulations to provide an effective stochastic description of stellar microlensing distortions on lensed gravitational waves.

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

    gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

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

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

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

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

  5. The diffraction-lensing interpretation of GW231123 with astrophysical priors

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    GW231123 is better fit by a lower-mass merger diffracted by an isolated ~1000 M_sun lens, but astrophysical priors and a frequentist rate estimate make this lensing interpretation unlikely.

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

    gr-qc 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0

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

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

    astro-ph.HE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

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

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

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

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

  9. Robust parameter inference for Taiji via time-frequency contrastive learning and normalizing flows

    gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A glitch-robust amortized inference framework combining normalizing flows, time-frequency multimodal fusion, and contrastive learning outperforms MCMC for Taiji massive black hole binary parameter estimation under noi...

  10. Mock Catalogs of Strongly Lensed Gravitational Waves via A Halo Model Approach with Ground-based Detectors

    astro-ph.CO 2026-03 accept novelty 6.0

    Composite-halo mock catalogs forecast ~400 doublets + 36 quadruplets (plus ~107 subhalo and ~20 central-image systems) of lensed GWs per year for ET+CE and release the GW-LMC catalog.

  11. Toward claiming a detection of gravitational memory

    gr-qc 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 6.0

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

  12. Gravitational Lensing of Gravitational Waves: Towards a Higher-order Geometric-optics Approach

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    Lensed gravitational waves acquire apparent vector and scalar polarization modes at subleading order in geometric optics, fully determined by the leading-order tensor signal.

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

    gr-qc 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

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

  14. Polarization Birefringence and Waveform Systematics in GW231123

    astro-ph.HE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

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

  15. GW190711_030756 and GW200114_020818: astrophysical interpretation of two asymmetric binary black hole mergers in the IAS catalog

    astro-ph.HE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Two asymmetric BBH mergers are characterized with mass ratios 0.35 and ≤0.20; one shows high spins, negative χ_eff, and strong precession, suggesting an emerging population of massive rapidly spinning systems.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 57 linked inside Pith · cited by 15 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    K. K. Ng, K. W. Wong, T. Broadhurst, and T. G. Li, Phys. Rev. D97, 023012 (2018), arXiv:1703.06319 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  2. [2]

    Oguri, Mon

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  3. [3]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    A. R. A. C. Wierda, E. Wempe, O. A. Hannuksela,et al., Astrophys. J.921, 154 (2021), arXiv:2106.06303 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    G. P. Smith, A. Robertson, G. Mahler,et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.520, 702 (2023), arXiv:2204.12977 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Goyal, K

    S. Goyal, K. Haris, A. K. Mehta, and P. Ajith, Phys. Rev. D103, 024038 (2021), arXiv:2008.07060 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    J. M. Ezquiaga and M. Zumalac´ arregui, Phys. Rev. D 102, 124048 (2020), arXiv:2009.12187 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    Goyal, A

    S. Goyal, A. Vijaykumar, J. M. Ezquiaga, and M. Zumalacarregui, Phys. Rev. D108, 024052 (2023), arXiv:2301.04826 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  9. [9]

    Finke, S

    A. Finke, S. Foffa, F. Iacovelli,et al., Phys. Rev. D104, 084057 (2021), arXiv:2107.05046 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  10. [10]

    A. K.-W. Chung and T. G. F. Li, Phys. Rev. D104, 124060 (2021), arXiv:2106.09630 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  11. [11]

    Tambalo, M

    G. Tambalo, M. Zumalac´ arregui, L. Dai, and M. H.- Y. Cheung, Phys. Rev. D108, 103529 (2023), arXiv:2212.11960 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  12. [12]

    Fairbairn, J

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  13. [13]

    Vujeva, J

    L. Vujeva, J. M. Ezquiaga, R. K. L. Lo, and J. C. L. Chan, Phys. Rev. D112, 063044 (2025), arXiv:2501.02096 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Vujeva, J

    L. Vujeva, J. M. Ezquiaga, D. Gilman,et al., (2025), arXiv:2510.14953 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Madau and M

    P. Madau and M. J. Rees, Astrophys. J. Lett.551, L27 6 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0101223

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  16. [16]

    Sasaki, T

    M. Sasaki, T. Suyama, T. Tanaka, and S. Yokoyama, Class. Quant. Grav.35, 063001 (2018), arXiv:1801.05235 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  17. [17]

    J. Gais, K. K. Y. Ng, E. Seo,et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 932, L4 (2022), arXiv:2201.01817 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  18. [18]

    Basak, A

    S. Basak, A. Ganguly, K. Haris,et al., Astrophys. J.926, L28 (2022), arXiv:2109.06456 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

    Urrutia and V

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  20. [20]

    Barsode, S

    A. Barsode, S. J. Kapadia, and P. Ajith, Astrophys. J. 975, 48 (2024), arXiv:2405.15878 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    Aasiet al.(LIGO Scientific), Class

    J. Aasiet al.(LIGO Scientific), Class. Quant. Grav.32, 074001 (2015), arXiv:1411.4547 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  22. [22]

    Acerneseet al.(VIRGO), Class

    F. Acerneseet al.(VIRGO), Class. Quant. Grav.32, 024001 (2015), arXiv:1408.3978 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  23. [23]

    Akutsuet al.(KAGRA), PTEP2021, 05A101 (2021), arXiv:2005.05574 [physics.ins-det]

    T. Akutsuet al.(KAGRA), PTEP2021, 05A101 (2021), arXiv:2005.05574 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2021

  24. [24]

    Takahashi and T

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  25. [25]

    J. C. L. Chan, E. Seo, A. K. Y. Li,et al., Phys. Rev. D 111, 084019 (2025), arXiv:2411.13058 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    R. K. L. Lo, L. Vujeva, J. M. Ezquiaga, and J. C. L. Chan, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 151401 (2025), arXiv:2407.17547 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Keitel, Phil

    D. Keitel, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A383, 20240128 (2025), arXiv:2407.12974 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Wright, developer of Gravelamps[49]

    Private communication with M. Wright, developer of Gravelamps[49]

  29. [29]

    A. G. Abac et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2025), arXiv:2508.18080 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2025), arXiv:2507.08219 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    A. G. Abac et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2025)

    2025

  32. [32]

    Goyal, H

    S. Goyal, H. Villarubia-Rojo, and M. Zumalacarregui, (2025)

    2025

  33. [33]

    Q. H. et al., (2025)

    2025

  34. [34]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 101102 (2020), arXiv:2009.01075 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2020

  35. [35]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Astrophys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Astrophys. J. Lett.900, L13 (2020), arXiv:2009.01190 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2020

  36. [36]

    I. M. Romero-Shaw, P. D. Lasky, E. Thrane, and J. C. Bustillo, Astrophys. J. Lett.903, L5 (2020), arXiv:2009.04771 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  37. [37]

    Gamba, M

    R. Gamba, M. Breschi, G. Carullo,et al., Nature Astron. 7, 11 (2023), arXiv:2106.05575 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  38. [38]

    Calder´ on Bustillo, N

    J. Calder´ on Bustillo, N. Sanchis-Gual, A. Torres- Forn´ e,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 081101 (2021), arXiv:2009.05376 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  39. [39]

    De Luca, V

    V. De Luca, V. Desjacques, G. Franciolini,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 051101 (2021), arXiv:2009.01728 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  40. [40]

    S. R. Green and J. Gair, Mach. Learn. Sci. Tech.2, 03LT01 (2021), arXiv:2008.03312 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  41. [41]

    S. R. Green, C. Simpson, and J. Gair, Phys. Rev. D102, 104057 (2020), arXiv:2002.07656 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  42. [42]

    M. Dax, S. R. Green, J. Gair,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 241103 (2021), arXiv:2106.12594 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  43. [43]

    Ashtonet al., Astrophys

    G. Ashtonet al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser.241, 27 (2019), arXiv:1811.02042 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  44. [44]

    Gupteet al., Phys

    N. Gupteet al., Phys. Rev. D112, 104045 (2025), arXiv:2404.14286 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    M. Dax, S. R. Green, J. Gair,et al., (2021), arXiv:2111.13139 [cs.LG]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  46. [46]

    Wildberger, M

    J. Wildberger, M. Dax, S. R. Green,et al., Phys. Rev. D 107, 084046 (2023), arXiv:2211.08801 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  47. [47]

    M. Dax, S. R. Green, J. Gair,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 171403 (2023), arXiv:2210.05686 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  48. [48]

    J. C. L. Chan, L. Maga˜ na Zertuche, J. M. Ezquiaga, et al., (2025), arXiv:2511.07186 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    Wright and M

    M. Wright and M. Hendry, The Astrophysical Journal 935, 68 (2022), arXiv:2112.07012 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  50. [50]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  51. [51]

    Villarrubia-Rojo, S

    H. Villarrubia-Rojo, S. Savastano, M. Zu- malac´ arregui,et al., Phys. Rev. D111, 103539 (2025), arXiv:2409.04606 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    J. M. Ezquiaga, R. K. L. Lo, and L. Vujeva, Phys. Rev. D112, 043544 (2025), arXiv:2503.22648 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    [75], where the number of repeated chirps and their phase differences are treated as free parameters

    Our parametrization differs from the phenomenological model in Ref. [75], where the number of repeated chirps and their phase differences are treated as free parameters

  54. [54]

    A. M. Serra and O. Bulashenko, Phys. Rev. D112, 024041 (2025), arXiv:2504.10128 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    Blandford and R

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

    1986

  56. [56]

    Dai and T

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  57. [57]

    J. M. Ezquiaga, D. E. Holz, W. Hu,et al., Phys. Rev. D 103, 6 (2021), arXiv:2008.12814 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  58. [58]

    https://github.com/dingo-lensing/dingo-lensing

  59. [59]

    https://github.com/ezquiaga/modwaveforms

  60. [60]

    O. A. Hannuksela, K. Haris, K. K. Y. Ng,et al., Astro- phys. J. Lett.874, L2 (2019), arXiv:1901.02674 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  61. [61]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO), Astrophys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  62. [62]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KA- GRA), arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2304.08393 (2023), arXiv:2304.08393 [gr-qc]

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KA- GRA), arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2304.08393 (2023), arXiv:2304.08393 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  63. [63]

    Janquartet al., Mon

    J. Janquartet al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.526, 3832 (2023), arXiv:2306.03827 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  64. [64]

    Janquartet al.10.1093/mnras/staf049 (2024), arXiv:2409.07298 [gr-qc]

    J. Janquartet al.10.1093/mnras/staf049 (2024), arXiv:2409.07298 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  65. [65]

    A. G. Abac et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2025), arXiv:2508.18083 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  66. [66]

    Varma, S

    V. Varma, S. E. Field, M. A. Scheel,et al., Phys. Rev. Research.1, 033015 (2019), arXiv:1905.09300 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  67. [67]

    This means that the model will generate waveforms as far back in time from the merger as allowed

    We set the waveform starting frequency at 0 Hz. This means that the model will generate waveforms as far back in time from the merger as allowed

  68. [68]

    LIGO Scientific, Virgo, and KAGRA Collaboration, GW231123: a Binary Black Hole Merger with Total Mass 190-265M ⊙ — Data Release (2025)

    2025

  69. [69]

    Gravitational Wave Open Science Center

  70. [70]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(KAGRA, LIGO Scientific, Virgo, VIRGO), Living Rev. Rel.21, 3 (2018), arXiv:1304.0670 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  71. [71]

    The whitening uses the estimated noise power spectral density for GW231123 from the LIGO Hanford detector [30]

  72. [72]

    Diego, O

    J. Diego, O. Hannuksela, P. Kelly,et al., Astron. Astro- phys.627, A130 (2019), arXiv:1903.04513 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  73. [73]

    Mishra, A

    A. Mishra, A. K. Meena, A. More, and S. Bose, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.531, 764 (2024), arXiv:2306.11479 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  74. [74]

    G. P. Smithet al., Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A383, 7 20240134 (2025), arXiv:2503.19973 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  75. [75]

    A. Liu, I. C. F. Wong, S. H. W. Leong,et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.525, 4149 (2023), arXiv:2302.09870 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023