pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.08179 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-09 · 🌀 gr-qc

Recognition: unknown

GW231123: False Massive Graviton Signatures from Unmodeled Point-Mass Lensing

Baoxiang Wang, Tao Yang

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 17:08 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc
keywords gravitational wavesgraviton masspoint-mass lensingGW231123modified gravitywaveform recoveryparameter estimation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Unmodeled point-mass lensing produces a spurious massive-graviton signal in the GW231123 data.

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

This paper shows that the apparent signal for a massive graviton in the gravitational wave event GW231123 comes from not accounting for point-mass lensing in the analysis. When the data are analyzed assuming no lensing, a nonzero graviton mass appears, but including lensing removes the signal. Tests with simulated lensed signals that have zero graviton mass reproduce the same false signal when analyzed without lensing. This matters because it reveals a way that standard gravity tests can be misled by lensing effects, and it supports GW231123 as a lensed event rather than evidence for new physics in gravity.

Core claim

In the real GW231123 data, an unlensed IMRPhenomXPHM analysis yields an apparent nonzero graviton mass posterior. We show that this anomaly is naturally explained by unmodeled point-mass lensing: once lensing is included, the apparent graviton mass signal disappears. In GW231123-like injection-recovery tests, a lensed NRSur7dq4 signal with zero graviton mass, recovered with the same unlensed IMRPhenomXPHM template, produces a similarly pronounced spurious graviton mass posterior, whereas lensing-included analyses with IMRPhenomXPHM, IMRPhenomXO4a, and NRSur7dq4 remain mutually consistent with no evidence for nonzero graviton mass. The similarity between the injected and real data posteriors.

What carries the argument

The injection-recovery comparison showing that a point-mass lensed zero-graviton-mass waveform recovered with an unlensed template produces the same biased graviton mass posterior as the real data.

If this is right

  • Including lensing in the analysis eliminates the apparent graviton mass signal.
  • Lensing-included recoveries with different waveform models are consistent with zero graviton mass.
  • Unmodeled lensing can mimic the effects of modified gravitational wave propagation.
  • This provides a concrete failure mode for propagation-based tests of gravity on lensed candidates.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Analyses of future strong-lensing candidates should jointly fit for lensing and modified-gravity parameters to avoid similar misinterpretations.
  • The same bias could appear in other propagation tests such as those for the speed of gravity if lensing is ignored.
  • Routine inclusion of point-mass lensing templates in parameter estimation pipelines would reduce false positives in gravity tests.

Load-bearing premise

The lensed NRSur7dq4 injection with zero graviton mass produces a posterior similar enough to the real data when recovered unlensed with IMRPhenomXPHM.

What would settle it

A substantial mismatch between the graviton mass posterior from the real GW231123 data and the posterior from recovering a lensed zero-mass NRSur7dq4 injection with the unlensed IMRPhenomXPHM template would falsify the explanation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.08179 by Baoxiang Wang, Tao Yang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Left: unlensed and lensed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Left: unlensed and lensed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

GW231123 is the strongest current candidate for a lensed gravitational wave event and a unique case for testing how point-mass lensing affects propagation-based tests of gravity. In the real GW231123 data, an unlensed IMRPhenomXPHM analysis yields an apparent nonzero graviton mass posterior. We show that this anomaly is naturally explained by unmodeled point-mass lensing: once lensing is included, the apparent graviton mass signal disappears. In GW231123-like injection-recovery tests, a lensed NRSur7dq4 signal with zero graviton mass, recovered with the same unlensed IMRPhenomXPHM template, produces a similarly pronounced spurious graviton mass posterior, whereas lensing-included analyses with IMRPhenomXPHM, IMRPhenomXO4a, and NRSur7dq4 remain mutually consistent with no evidence for nonzero graviton mass. The similarity between the injected and real data posteriors shows that unmodeled point-mass lensing can mimic modified gravitational wave propagation. These results identify a concrete failure mode in tests of gravity and strengthen the interpretation of GW231123 as a lensed candidate.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper claims that the apparent nonzero graviton mass posterior obtained from an unlensed IMRPhenomXPHM analysis of the GW231123 event is an artifact induced by unmodeled point-mass lensing. Injection-recovery tests are presented in which a lensed NRSur7dq4 signal (true m_g = 0) recovered with the same unlensed IMRPhenomXPHM template produces a comparably pronounced spurious graviton-mass posterior, while analyses that include lensing (using IMRPhenomXPHM, IMRPhenomXO4a, or NRSur7dq4) remain consistent with zero graviton mass. The similarity of the injected and real-data posteriors is used to argue that unmodeled lensing can mimic modified gravitational-wave propagation.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the work identifies a concrete and previously under-appreciated failure mode in propagation-based tests of gravity with gravitational waves: unmodeled point-mass lensing can induce spurious signals that mimic a massive graviton. The controlled injection tests with known zero graviton mass provide an independent grounding that strengthens the interpretation of GW231123 as a lensed candidate and supplies a cautionary example for future analyses of strong-lensing candidates.

major comments (1)
  1. The load-bearing step is the asserted quantitative similarity between the spurious graviton-mass posterior recovered from the lensed NRSur7dq4 injection (unlensed IMRPhenomXPHM) and the posterior obtained from the real GW231123 data. The manuscript describes this as 'similarly pronounced' but does not report overlap integrals, Jensen-Shannon divergence, or direct numerical comparison of medians and credible-interval widths. Without such metrics it remains possible that waveform-model mismatch between NRSur7dq4 and IMRPhenomXPHM, rather than lensing, dominates the bias.
minor comments (1)
  1. The abstract and results sections should explicitly state the prior ranges and sampling settings used for the graviton-mass parameter in all recovery runs to allow direct reproduction of the reported posteriors.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive review and for recognizing the significance of our results. We address the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The load-bearing step is the asserted quantitative similarity between the spurious graviton-mass posterior recovered from the lensed NRSur7dq4 injection (unlensed IMRPhenomXPHM) and the posterior obtained from the real GW231123 data. The manuscript describes this as 'similarly pronounced' but does not report overlap integrals, Jensen-Shannon divergence, or direct numerical comparison of medians and credible-interval widths. Without such metrics it remains possible that waveform-model mismatch between NRSur7dq4 and IMRPhenomXPHM, rather than lensing, dominates the bias.

    Authors: We agree that the current manuscript presents the similarity between the real-data and injection posteriors only qualitatively. In the revised version we will add quantitative metrics: the medians and 90% credible intervals for the graviton-mass parameter in both cases, together with the Jensen-Shannon divergence between the two one-dimensional posteriors. These additions will appear in the text and in an updated version of the relevant figure. We also note that the recovery template (IMRPhenomXPHM) is identical for the real data and the injection, and that the bias disappears when lensing is modeled with the same waveform family; this isolates the effect to unmodeled lensing rather than model mismatch alone. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; injection-recovery tests provide independent grounding for the lensing explanation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim rests on controlled injections of lensed NRSur7dq4 signals (true m_g=0) recovered with unlensed IMRPhenomXPHM, which produce a spurious graviton-mass posterior qualitatively similar to the real GW231123 data. This is a standard simulation-based demonstration rather than any self-definitional loop, fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or load-bearing self-citation. The derivation chain compares external data posteriors against known-truth injections and does not reduce the result to its own inputs by construction. No enumerated circularity patterns are present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

From the abstract alone, the central claim depends on the domain assumption that the chosen waveform models and point-mass lensing accurately represent the signals and that posterior similarity indicates causation. No new free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Waveform models such as IMRPhenomXPHM and NRSur7dq4 accurately represent the gravitational wave signals under point-mass lensing.
    Used in both the real data analysis and the injection-recovery tests described.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5508 in / 1380 out tokens · 81032 ms · 2026-05-10T17:08:05.520484+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. 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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    O. A. Hannuksela, K. Haris, K. K. Y. Ng, S. Kumar, A. K. Mehta, D. Keitel, T. G. F. Li, and P. Ajith, Astro- phys. J. Lett.874, L2 (2019), arXiv:1901.02674 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2019

  2. [2]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO), Astrophys

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

    work page arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, KAGRA, VIRGO), Astrophys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, KAGRA, VIRGO), Astrophys. J.970, 191 (2024), arXiv:2304.08393 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Janquartet al., Mon

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

    work page arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Chakraborty and S

    A. Chakraborty and S. Mukherjee, Astrophys. J.990, 68 (2025), arXiv:2503.16281 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2025), arXiv:2512.16347 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Haris, A

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

    work page arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    A. K. Y. Li, R. K. L. Lo, S. Sachdev, J. C. L. Chan, E. T. Lin, T. G. F. Li, and A. J. Weinstein (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. D107, 123014 (2023), arXiv:1904.06020 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  9. [9]

    Janquart, O

    J. Janquart, O. A. Hannuksela, H. K., and C. Van Den Broeck, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.506, 5430 (2021), arXiv:2105.04536 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  10. [10]

    Goyal, H

    S. Goyal, H. D., S. J. Kapadia, and P. Ajith, Phys. Rev. D104, 124057 (2021), arXiv:2106.12466 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  11. [11]

    C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D57, 2061 (1998), arXiv:gr- qc/9709011 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2061

  12. [12]

    Constraining Lorentz- violating, modified dis- persion relations with gravitational waves

    S. Mirshekari, N. Yunes, and C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D 85, 024041 (2012), arXiv:1110.2720 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2012

  13. [13]

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 221101 (2016), arXiv:1602.03841 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2016

  14. [14]

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D100, 104036 (2019), arXiv:1903.04467 [gr- qc]

    work page arXiv 2019

  15. [15]

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D103, 122002 (2021), arXiv:2010.14529 [gr- qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  16. [16]

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and 6 KAGRA Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D108, 122004 (2023), arXiv:2112.06861 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2023

  17. [17]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2026), arXiv:2603.19020 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2026

  18. [18]

    Computationally efficient models for the dominant and sub-dominant harmonic modes of precessing binary black holes

    G. Prattenet al., Phys. Rev. D103, 104056 (2021), arXiv:2004.06503 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2021

  19. [19]

    Varma, S

    V. Varma, S. E. Field, M. A. Scheel, J. Blackman, D. Gerosa, L. C. Stein, L. E. Kidder, and H. P. Pfeiffer, Phys. Rev. Research.1, 033015 (2019), arXiv:1905.09300 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2019

  20. [20]

    J. E. Thompson, E. Hamilton, L. London, S. Ghosh, P. Kolitsidou, C. Hoy, and M. Hannam, Phys. Rev. D 109, 063012 (2024), arXiv:2312.10025 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  21. [22]

    Dai and T

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

    work page arXiv 2017

  22. [23]

    Christian, S

    P. Christian, S. Vitale, and A. Loeb, Phys. Rev. D98, 103022 (2018), arXiv:1802.02586 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2018

  23. [24]

    S. Jung, C. S. Shin,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 041103 (2019), arXiv:1712.01396 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2019

  24. [25]

    J. M. Diegoet al., Astron. Astrophys.627, A130 (2019), arXiv:1903.04513 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2019

  25. [26]

    Pagano, O

    G. Pagano, O. A. Hannuksela, and T. G. F. Li, Astron. Astrophys.643, A167 (2020), arXiv:2006.12879 [astro- ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2020

  26. [27]

    Grespan and M

    M. Grespan and M. Biesiada, Universe9, 200 (2023), arXiv:2304.01914 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  27. [28]

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

    1998

  28. [29]

    T. T. Nakamura and S. Deguchi, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.133, 137 (1999)

    1999

  29. [30]

    Takahashi and T

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

    work page arXiv 2003

  30. [31]

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

    work page arXiv 2021

  31. [32]

    GWMAT: Gravitational Wave Microlensing Analysis Tools,

    A. Mishra, “GWMAT: Gravitational Wave Microlensing Analysis Tools,” (2022),https://git.ligo.org/anuj. mishra/gwmat

    2022

  32. [33]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), Astrophys. J. Lett.993, L25 (2025), arXiv:2507.08219 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  33. [34]

    Mishra, A

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

    work page arXiv 2024

  34. [35]

    Mishra, N

    A. Mishra, N. V. Krishnendu, and A. Ganguly, Phys. Rev. D110, 084009 (2024), arXiv:2311.08446 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  35. [36]

    Skilling, inBayesian Inference and Maximum Entropy Methods in Science and Engineering, Vol

    J. Skilling, inBayesian Inference and Maximum Entropy Methods in Science and Engineering, Vol. 735 (2004) pp. 395–405

    2004

  36. [37]

    C. M. Biwer, C. D. Capano, S. De, M. Cabero, D. A. Brown, A. H. Nitz, and V. Raymond, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac.131, 024503 (2019), arXiv:1807.10312 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2019

  37. [38]

    J. S. Speagle, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.493, 3132 (2020), arXiv:1904.02180 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2020

  38. [39]

    Bilby: A user-friendly Bayesian inference library for gravitational-wave astronomy

    G. Ashton, M. H¨ ubner, P. D. Lasky, C. Talbot, K. Ackley, S. Biscoveanu, Q. Chu, A. Divakarla, P. J. Easter, B. Goncharov, F. Hernandez Vivanco, J. Harms, M. E. Lower, G. D. Meadors, D. Melchor, E. Payne, M. D. Pitkin, J. Powell, N. Sarin, R. J. E. Smith, and E. Thrane, Astrophys. J. Suppl.241, 27 (2019), arXiv:1811.02042 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2019

  39. [40]

    Narola, J

    H. Narola, J. Janquart, Q. Meijer, K. Haris, and C. Van Den Broeck, Phys. Rev. D110, 084085 (2024), arXiv:2308.12140 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  40. [41]

    J. C. L. Chan, L. Maga˜ na Zertuche, J. M. Ezquiaga, R. K. L. Lo, L. Vujeva, and J. Bowman, Phys. Rev. D113, 024041 (2026), arXiv:2511.07186 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2026

  41. [42]

    B. P. Abbottet al., inProceedings of Science, PoS, Vol. GRASS2018 (2020) p. 082

    2020