Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 56 references

Three-dimensional Green's functions show GR post-Born lensing corrections matter only for extreme geometries such as hierarchical triples.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-11 06:57 UTC pith:OAZSXYZM

load-bearing objection Clean 3D Green’s-function method for weak-field GW lensing with new finite-distance and O(G^{2}) results; scalar assumption is the main scope limit, not a flaw in the math. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.05491 v1 pith:OAZSXYZM submitted 2026-07-06 gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-th

Three-dimensional wave optics for weak-field lensing of gravitational waves

Mariana Carrillo-Gonz\'alez , Alan Heavens , Lorne Whiteway This is my paper
classification gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-th
keywords gravitational-wave lensingwave opticsBorn approximationpost-Born correctionsGreen's functionhierarchical triplesfinite-distance effectsFLRW propagation
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.

Gravitational-wave lensing is usually reduced to a two-dimensional diffraction integral on a thin lens plane under the paraxial approximation. This paper replaces that reduction with a three-dimensional perturbative Green's function method that works for weak potentials that need not be thin, and that covers both wave and geometric optics. Position-space integrals are rewritten as Fourier (momentum-space) integrals familiar from scattering amplitudes, so the Born approximation appears directly in three dimensions and can be extended order by order. For a Schwarzschild lens the authors compute the leading Born term together with new O(G^{2}) post-Born pieces that include genuine general-relativistic corrections to the potential and finite-distance corrections beyond the usual small-angle expansion. Those GR corrections are controlled by the single small parameter GM ω b / χ_eff; they are negligible for ordinary weak-lensing geometries but can become order-one when the source sits very close to the lens, as in hierarchical triples. The same framework embeds the calculation in an expanding universe, recovers the standard flat-space limit, and shows that Hubble-scale and tail corrections remain tiny for the frequencies of interest. The practical payoff is a clear map of when the Born, large-distance and paraxial approximations may safely be used, and a systematic route for treating more general lensing potentials.

Core claim

In the weak-field regime the general-relativistic post-Born corrections to the three-dimensional wave-optics amplification factor are controlled by the dimensionless parameter GM ω b / χ_eff (equivalently GM ω √(1−θ_S·θ_O)). That parameter is tiny for standard weak-lensing configurations, so the corrections can be ignored, but it can become appreciable in extreme geometries such as hierarchical triples with very small source–lens separations; finite-distance and non-paraxial effects must then be kept as well.

What carries the argument

A perturbative Green's function solution of the inhomogeneous Helmholtz equation for a scalar waveform, with position-space Born and post-Born integrals recast as three-dimensional Fourier transforms that evaluate to known scattering-amplitude master integrals; the same machinery yields a closed-form resummation of the finite-distance prefactor corrections.

Load-bearing premise

The gravitational-wave waveform is treated as a scalar field that ignores spin-dependent polarization and helicity-mixing effects, which are known to matter precisely in the hierarchical-triple regime where the new corrections become interesting.

What would settle it

Compute the full three-dimensional amplification factor (Born + post-Born GR + finite-distance resummation) for a concrete LISA-band hierarchical triple with source–lens separation of a few AU and compare it, both in amplitude and phase, against the corresponding naive two-dimensional paraxial formula; a clear, order-unity dephasing and amplitude mismatch that disappears only when the three-dimensional terms are restored would confirm the claim.

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

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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a three-dimensional perturbative Green’s-function method for weak-field gravitational-wave lensing that does not require a thin-lens projection. Starting from the scalar Helmholtz equation on a weak potential, the authors rewrite the Born and post-Born integrals as Fourier transforms familiar from scattering amplitudes, evaluate them for a Schwarzschild lens through O(G^{2}), and keep finite-distance corrections beyond the usual paraxial expansion. They show that the genuine GR post-Born pieces are controlled by ϵ_GR ∼ GM ω b/χ_eff (or GM ω √(1−θ_S·θ_O)), recover known thin-lens and Coulomb limits as checks, regulate the infrared-sensitive Newtonian recursion with a Yukawa potential, and embed the construction in FLRW, estimating Hubble and tail corrections. Benchmark tables and a hierarchical-triple example illustrate when the three-dimensional and post-Born effects matter.

Significance. If the scaling and the three-dimensional finite-distance results hold, the paper supplies a clean, systematically extendable framework that clarifies the regime of validity of the Born, large-distance, and paraxial approximations used throughout the GW-lensing literature. The explicit control parameter for GR post-Born corrections, the closed-form finite-distance resummation of the Green’s-function prefactor (App. C), the recovery of the Takahashi et al. Fresnel resummation from the three-dimensional phase expansion (App. D), and the Yukawa-regulated post-Born calculation are concrete technical advances. The hierarchical-triple LISA benchmark shows a regime where the usual 2D diffraction integral is dephased and amplitude-incorrect relative to the full 3D result, which is of direct interest for future space-based detectors. The scalar-wave restriction is a genuine scope limitation, but it is stated clearly and does not undercut the derived control parameter within that scope.

major comments (2)
  1. The scalar-wave assumption (Sec. 2 after Eq. 2; reiterated in Sec. 5) is load-bearing for the hierarchical-triple claim that is the paper’s main observational motivation (Tables 3–4, Fig. 2). The authors themselves note that recent hierarchical-triple work finds polarization dependence and helicity mixing. The manuscript should either (i) quantify, even roughly, how large those spin-2 corrections are expected to be relative to the finite-distance and GR post-Born pieces already computed, or (ii) reframe the hierarchical-triple discussion more carefully as a controlled scalar starting point whose quantitative reliability for LISA-band triples remains to be checked. Without that, the claim that the new 3D corrections “become relevant” in that geometry is only partially supported.
  2. Sec. 3.4 and Eq. (49): the Newtonian post-Born hierarchy is stated as a consistency requirement, yet Tables 1–2 show that several of the benchmark scenarios (LIGO, ET, LISA, L.H.T.) violate it. The text correctly points to the exact Hostler–Pratt/Coulomb solution (Eq. 48) as the way to resum, but the amplification factors actually plotted and tabulated for those scenarios appear to use only the Born + GR post-Born pieces. The paper should either recompute the benchmarks with the resummed Newtonian factor or clearly mark which rows are outside the stated perturbative domain so that the reader does not over-interpret the numerical entries.
minor comments (5)
  1. Notation for two-dimensional versus three-dimensional vectors (arrows vs boldface) is introduced late (Eq. 25) and is not used uniformly in the early sections; a short notational paragraph would help.
  2. Fig. 2 caption and the surrounding text refer to “finite-distance Fresnel corrections through quartic order”; it would be useful to state explicitly which of Δ2, Δ3, Δ22, Δ4 are retained in each curve so that the figure is self-contained.
  3. The FLRW tail estimate (Eqs. 89–90) uses the approximate B of Jokela et al.; a one-sentence remark on how sensitive the O(H0/ω) conclusion is to that fit would strengthen the claim that tails remain negligible.
  4. A few typographical inconsistencies remain (e.g., “Friedman-Lemâitre” vs standard “Friedmann–Lemaître”; occasional missing spaces after commas in the abstract and introduction).
  5. The path-integral derivation in App. A is a useful cross-check; a forward pointer from Sec. 2 would make it easier for readers who prefer that language.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No load-bearing circularity: 3D Born/post-Born results follow from Fourier integrals of the Helmholtz Green’s function; self-citation is only a small-angle consistency check.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. 3.3, after Eq. (40)]
    "In the small-angle limit, where the result reduces to the standard two-dimensional lens-plane description, we recover the GR corrections analyzed in Carrillo Gonzalez et al. (2026). This new result follows from simple three-dimensional Fourier transforms of the effective wave equation, rather than from evaluating one-loop scattering integrals."

    Carrillo Gonzalez is an overlapping author of the cited 2026 paper. The citation is used only to confirm that the small-angle reduction of the present 3D GR term matches prior work; the 3D term itself is derived from the Fourier integrals of U^(2) (Eqs. 36–39, App. B) and does not depend on that citation as an input. Not load-bearing for the central claim.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. The amplification factor is obtained from the inhomogeneous Helmholtz equation with the weak-field Schwarzschild potential (Eqs. 2, 9–10), the integral equation with the free Green’s function (Eqs. 5, 12–13), and explicit three-dimensional Fourier integrals (App. B, Eqs. 16–40). The control parameter ϵ_GR ∼ GM ω b/χ_eff (Eqs. 44–45) is read off from the scaling of those integrals, not fitted or imported by definition. Known thin-lens Born and Coulomb results (Takahashi et al. 2005; Hostler–Pratt; Braga et al. 2024) appear only as recovered limits or external checks (Secs. 3.1–3.4, App. D). The sole self-citation to Carrillo Gonzalez et al. (2026) states that the small-angle limit of the new 3D GR term matches a prior calculation; it is not used as an input that forces the 3D answer. There is no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors, and no ansatz smuggled in via citation. Score 1 reflects only that minor confirmatory self-citation; the derivation chain itself is independent.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper is a first-principles weak-field calculation. It imports standard GR and wave-equation machinery, assumes the scalar approximation common in the GW-lensing literature, and introduces no free parameters fitted to data and no new physical entities. The only non-standard modeling choices are the hierarchy |x'|≪r_S,r_O (later partially resummed) and the use of McVittie for the cosmological embedding; both are domain assumptions, not ad-hoc inventions.

axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Gravitational-wave propagation is modeled by a scalar field satisfying the curved-space wave equation, reduced to the inhomogeneous Helmholtz equation (∇²+ω²)φ_ω=4ω²U φ_ω; spin and polarization effects are neglected.
    Stated explicitly in Sec. 2 after Eq. (2); standard in the GW-lensing literature the paper cites, but known to miss helicity-dependent corrections relevant for hierarchical triples.
  • domain assumption The lens potential is weak, so a Born series in U (and its post-Born extension to O(G²)) is valid.
    Foundation of the entire perturbative expansion (Eqs. 5, 12); the paper quantifies breakdown via ε_GR and ε_Newt but does not claim non-perturbative strong-field validity.
  • standard math Flat-space retarded Green’s function G^{(0)}_ω=−(1/4π) e^{iω|x−x′|}/|x−x′| and its FLRW Hadamard generalization (light-cone plus tail).
    Used throughout Secs. 2–4; standard textbook objects.
  • domain assumption Hierarchy |x'|≪r_S,r_O used to expand denominators and phases, later partially resummed.
    Invoked after Eq. (14) and clarified in Apps. C–D; the paper’s own hierarchical-triple benchmark deliberately sits outside the strict hierarchy to illustrate the need for the 3D treatment.
  • domain assumption McVittie metric supplies the leading weak-field Schwarzschild-like mass in FLRW for the cosmological embedding.
    Sec. 4.2; used only outside the horizon and to O(H/ω), as the authors note.
  • standard math Fourier transforms of 1/r^p (including dimensional regularization for p≥3) evaluate to the standard power-law and logarithmic expressions.
    App. B; conventional scattering-amplitude technology.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 29979 in / 3392 out tokens · 38949 ms · 2026-07-11T06:57:29.115774+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We develop a perturbative Green's function approach to gravitational lensing by weak gravitational potentials that need not be localized on a thin lens plane and that applies in both the wave optics and geometric optics regimes. We recast position-space integrals as Fourier, or momentum-space, integrals that appear in scattering amplitude calculations. The method gives the Born approximation directly in three dimensions and can be systematically extended to post-Born orders. For a Schwarzschild lens, we compute the leading Born term and new post-Born contributions arising from the order $\mathcal{O}(G^2)$ correction to the potential, keeping finite-distance corrections beyond the usual paraxial expansion. We show that these general-relativistic corrections are controlled by the parameter $GM\omega\,b/\chi_{\rm eff}$ in the small-angle regime, and are therefore negligible for standard weak-lensing configurations but become relevant in more extreme geometries (such as hierarchical triples with very small source--lens separations). We also discuss higher-order Newtonian corrections, their infrared sensitivity for a long-range potential, and the regulated form of the Newtonian potential given by the Yukawa potential. Finally, we formulate the corresponding calculation in an FLRW background, identifying the leading flat-space limit and estimating the size of curvature-induced corrections including tails. This method clarifies the regime of validity of the Born, large-distance, and paraxial approximations in gravitational-wave lensing and provides a framework for treating generic lensing potentials.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.05491 by Alan Heavens, Lorne Whiteway, Mariana Carrillo-Gonz\'alez.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Comparison between the full three-dimensional amplification fac￾tor and the naive two-dimensional approximation for the controlled LISA hierarchical-triple benchmark with 𝑀 = 106𝑀⊙, 𝜒eff = 1.2 × 10−11 Mpc and 𝑏 = 3.6 × 10−11 Mpc. The vertical line marks the reference point 𝐺𝑀 𝜔 = 1.2 × 10−2 , corresponding to 𝑓 ≃ 3.9 × 10−4 Hz which is used in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Rept.] 10.1016/S0370-1573(00)00082-X , 340, 291

    Bartelmann M., Schneider P., 2001, @doi [Phys. Rept.] 10.1016/S0370-1573(00)00082-X , 340, 291

    doi:10.1016/s0370-1573(00)00082-x 2001

  2. [2]

    F., 2022, @doi [Phys

    Bessa P., Piattella O. F., 2022, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.123513 , 106, 123513

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.106.123513 2022

  3. [3]

    Braga G., Garoffolo A., Ricciardone A., Bartolo N., Matarrese S., 2024, @doi [JCAP] 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/11/031 , 11, 031

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/11/031 2024

  4. [4]

    M., Harte A

    Burko L. M., Harte A. I., Poisson E., 2002, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.65.124006 , 65, 124006

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.65.124006 2002

  5. [5]

    The third wheel: ringdown and lensing of triple systems

    Cardoso V., Ficarra G., Redondo-Yuste J., Sieiro dos Santos J., 2026, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2605.20320 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026arXiv260520320C p. arXiv:2605.20320

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.20320 2026

  6. [6]

    Carrillo Gonzalez M., De Luca V., Garoffolo A., Parra-Martinez J., Trodden M., 2026, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/w2z2-974w , 113, 024024

    work page doi:10.1103/w2z2-974w 2026

  7. [7]

    Chan J. C. L., Dyson C., Garcia M., Redondo-Yuste J., Vujeva L., 2025, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/6h6r-46cd , 112, 064009

    work page doi:10.1103/6h6r-46cd 2025

  8. [8]

    Cusin G., Lagos M., 2020, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.044041 , 101, 044041

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.044041 2020

  9. [9]

    J., Loeb A., 2020, @doi [Phys

    D'Orazio D. J., Loeb A., 2020, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.083031 , 101, 083031

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.083031 2020

  10. [10]

    arXiv:1702.04724

    Dai L., Venumadhav T., 2017, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1702.04724 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017arXiv170204724D p. arXiv:1702.04724

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1702.04724 2017

  11. [11]

    Dalang C., Cusin G., Lagos M., 2022, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.024005 , 105, 024005

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.024005 2022

  12. [12]

    I., Delbourgo R., 1998, @doi [J

    Davydychev A. I., Delbourgo R., 1998, @doi [J. Math. Phys.] 10.1063/1.532513 , 39, 4299

    doi:10.1063/1.532513 1998

  13. [13]

    D., 1964, @doi [J

    Dollard J. D., 1964, @doi [J. Math. Phys.] 10.1063/1.1704171 , 5, 729

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1704171 1964

  14. [14]

    Ellis G. F. R., van Elst H., 1999, in Harvey A., ed., On Einstein's Path: essays in honor of Engelbert Schucking. p. 203 ( @eprint arXiv gr-qc/9709060 ), @doi 10.1007/978-1-4612-1422-9_14

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-1422-9_14 1999

  15. [15]

    Feldbrugge J., 2023, @doi [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stad349 , 520, 2995

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad349 2023

  16. [16]

    P., Hibbs A

    Feynman R. P., Hibbs A. R., 1965, Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals. McGraw-Hill, New York

    1965

  17. [17]

    A., Signer A., 2004, @doi [Nucl

    Forde D. A., Signer A., 2004, @doi [Nucl. Phys. B] 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2004.02.024 , 684, 125

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2004.02.024 2004

  18. [18]

    P., 2011, @doi [Mon

    Frittelli S., Kling T. P., 2011, @doi [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18974.x , 415, 3599

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18974.x 2011

  19. [19]

    D., Rothstein I

    Goldberger W. D., Rothstein I. Z., 2006, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.73.104029 , 73, 104029

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.73.104029 2006

  20. [20]

    Haas R., Poisson E., 2005, @doi [Class. Quant. Grav.] 10.1088/0264-9381/22/15/008 , 22, S739

    work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/22/15/008 2005

  21. [21]

    D., 2020, @doi [Phys

    Hannesdottir H., Schwartz M. D., 2020, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.105001 , 101, 105001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.105001 2020

  22. [22]

    D., 2023, @doi [Phys

    Hannesdottir H., Schwartz M. D., 2023, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.L021701 , 107, L021701

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.l021701 2023

  23. [23]

    H., 1963, @doi [Phys

    Hostler L., Pratt R. H., 1963, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.10.469 , 10, 469

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.10.469 1963

  24. [24]

    Jokela N., Kajantie K., Sarkkinen M., 2022, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.064022 , 106, 064022

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.106.064022 2022

  25. [25]

    S., 2019, @doi [Phys

    Jung S., Shin C. S., 2019, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.041103 , 122, 041103

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.122.041103 2019

  26. [26]

    Kadyrov A., Bray I., Mukhamedzhanov A., Stelbovics A., 2009, @doi [Annals of Physics] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2009.02.003 , 324, 1516

    work page doi:10.1016/j.aop.2009.02.003 2009

  27. [27]

    Kubota K.-i., Arai S., Mukohyama S., 2024, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.044027 , 109, 044027

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.044027 2024

  28. [28]

    P., Faddeev L

    Kulish P. P., Faddeev L. D., 1970, @doi [Theor. Math. Phys.] 10.1007/BF01066485 , 4, 745

    doi:10.1007/bf01066485 1970

  29. [29]

    Li Z., Zhao W., 2025, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/xsxj-9vdw , 112, 083030

    work page doi:10.1103/xsxj-9vdw 2025

  30. [30]

    J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab037e , 873, 37

    Li Y., Fan X., Gou L., 2019, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab037e , 873, 37

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab037e 2019

  31. [31]

    arXiv:2312.08455

    Lippstreu L., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2312.08455 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv231208455L p. arXiv:2312.08455

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2312.08455 2023

  32. [32]

    Mizuno M., Suyama T., 2023, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.043511 , 108, 043511

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.043511 2023

  33. [33]

    Motohashi H., Noda S., 2021, @doi [PTEP] 10.1093/ptep/ptac020 , 2021, 083E03

    work page doi:10.1093/ptep/ptac020 2021

  34. [34]

    T., 1998, @doi [Phys

    Nakamura T. T., 1998, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.1138 , 80, 1138

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.80.1138 1998

  35. [35]

    Nambu Y., Noda S., 2016, @doi [Class. Quant. Grav.] 10.1088/0264-9381/33/7/075011 , 33, 075011

    work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/33/7/075011 2016

  36. [36]

    Nambu Y., Noda S., Sakai Y., 2019, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.064037 , 100, 064037

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.064037 2019

  37. [37]

    ( @eprint arXiv astro-ph/9606001 )

    Narayan R., Bartelmann M., 1996, in 13th Jerusalem Winter School in Theoretical Physics: Formation of Structure in the Universe . ( @eprint arXiv astro-ph/9606001 )

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  38. [38]

    A., Stiskalek R., Zumalac \'a rregui M., 2024, @doi [Phys

    Oancea M. A., Stiskalek R., Zumalac \'a rregui M., 2024, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.124045 , 109, 124045

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.124045 2024

  39. [39]

    Oguri M., 2018, @doi [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/sty2145 , 480, 3842

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2145 2018

  40. [40]

    C., 1974, @doi [Phys

    Peters P. C., 1974, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.9.2207 , 9, 2207

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.9.2207 1974

  41. [41]

    F., 2016, @doi [Phys

    Piattella O. F., 2016, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.024020 , 93, 024020

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.93.024020 2016

  42. [42]

    Pijnenburg M., Cusin G., Pitrou C., Uzan J.-P., 2024, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.044054 , 110, 044054

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.044054 2024

  43. [43]

    K., Bagla J

    Ramesh R., Meena A. K., Bagla J. S., 2022, @doi [J. Astrophys. Astron.] 10.1007/s12036-022-09821-y , 43, 38

    work page doi:10.1007/s12036-022-09821-y 2022

  44. [44]

    E., 1992, Gravitational Lenses , @doi 10.1007/978-3-662-03758-4

    Schneider P., Ehlers J., Falco E. E., 1992, Gravitational Lenses , @doi 10.1007/978-3-662-03758-4

    doi:10.1007/978-3-662-03758-4 1992

  45. [45]

    Schwinger J., 1964, @doi [J. Math. Phys.] 10.1063/1.1931195 , 5, 1606

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1931195 1964

  46. [46]

    Suyama T., Takahashi R., Michikoshi S., 2005, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.72.043001 , 72, 043001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.72.043001 2005

  47. [47]

    J.] 10.1086/503323 , 644, 80

    Takahashi R., 2006, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.1086/503323 , 644, 80

    work page doi:10.1086/503323 2006

  48. [48]

    J.] 10.1086/377430 , 595, 1039

    Takahashi R., Nakamura T., 2003, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.1086/377430 , 595, 1039

    doi:10.1086/377430 2003

  49. [49]

    Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361:200500140 , 438, L5

    Takahashi R., Suyama T., Michikoshi S., 2005, @doi [Astron. Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361:200500140 , 438, L5

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200500140 2005

  50. [50]

    Takizawa K., Asada H., 2022, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.084022 , 105, 084022

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.084022 2022

  51. [51]

    Tanaka S., Suyama T., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1103/c82w-88vk , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025PhRvD.112j3540T 112, 103540

    work page doi:10.1103/c82w-88vk 2025

  52. [52]

    Urrutia J., Vaskonen V., 2021, @doi [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stab3118 , 509, 1358

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3118 2021

  53. [53]

    Willenborg F., Philipp D., L \"a mmerzahl C., 2024, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.044056 , 109, 044056

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.044056 2024

  54. [54]

    Yamamoto K., 2003, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0309696 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003astro.ph..9696Y pp astro--ph/0309696

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0309696 2003

  55. [55]

    Yarimoto H., Oguri M., 2025, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.083541 , 111, 083541

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.083541 2025

  56. [56]

    Yu H., Wang Y., Seymour B., Chen Y., 2021, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.103011 , 104, 103011

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.103011 2021