Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 102 references

At subleading order in geometric optics, lensed gravitational waves acquire apparent vector- and scalar-polarization components that are fixed entirely by the leading-order amplitude and the background spacetime curvature.

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

2026-07-31 23:04 UTC pith:HC3F26OZ

load-bearing objection Solid extension of the Cusin-Lagos geometric-optics program with a usable closed system and Schwarzschild numerics; the headline physics is not new, but the framework is, and the numerical claims need error controls. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.24091 v1 pith:HC3F26OZ submitted 2026-07-27 gr-qc

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

Zhao Li , Shaoqi Hou , Wen Zhao This is my paper
classification gr-qc MSC 83C3583C5783C25
keywords gravitational lensinggravitational wavesgeometric opticsNewman-Penrose formalismgravitational wave polarizationWeyl scalarsSchwarzschild lensingtransport equations
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 extends geometric optics for gravitational waves one order beyond the standard limit and asks whether lensing leaves an imprint in the wave's polarization. It argues that the answer is yes: once the short-wavelength amplitude is expanded to subleading order, the curved background forces the propagation direction and the polarization plane to mix, producing non-transverse components. The paper identifies these components with the Newman–Penrose Weyl scalars Ψ2 and Ψ3, which are zero at leading order but generically non-zero at subleading order, and shows that they are 'apparent' modes — completely determined by the leading-order amplitude plus background curvature, not new degrees of freedom. It then assembles a closed system of equations (geodesic deviation, Sachs equations, transport equations for gradients, and amplitude evolution) that can be solved for any lens geometry, and solves it numerically for a Schwarzschild lens. If correct, the framework gives lensed-GW templates with polarization structure that leading-order geometric optics and scalar Kirchhoff diffraction both omit.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that at the first subleading order in the geometric-optics expansion, a gravitational wave lensed by a curved background acquires apparent vector and scalar polarization modes. In Newman–Penrose language, the Weyl scalars Ψ(1)2,SLO and Ψ(1)3,SLO do not vanish; each is proportional to an imaginary part of the leading-order amplitude projected onto the polarization-plane tetrad, multiplied by background optical scalars (σ for the scalar mode, and α−3β+δ for the vector mode). Because these expressions involve only the leading-order amplitude and background curvature, and because the subleading amplitude B is itself sourced by the leading-order amplitude through a tr

What carries the argument

The machinery is a closed, solvable system built on the Newman–Penrose null tetrad. The spin coefficients ρ and σ are obtained from the geodesic-deviation vector ξ±, which avoids direct derivatives of the wave vector; the remaining spin coefficients follow from the Sachs equations; first- and second-order transverse gradients of spin coefficients and of the leading-order amplitude satisfy transport equations; and the subleading amplitude B evolves by an inhomogeneous equation whose source is the GW–background coupling. The payoff is that the gauge-invariant linearized Weyl scalars — Ψ4 from the leading-order amplitude, and Ψ2, Ψ3, Ψ4,SLO from subleading data — can be computed along any null

Load-bearing premise

The calculation sets all first- and second-order transverse gradients of the GW amplitude exactly to zero at the finite source surface, even though the true values decay only as 1/s² and 1/s³ and are small but nonzero at the adopted distance; if those tails matter for the transport equations, the quantitative mode amplitudes could shift.

What would settle it

Numerically integrate the same transport system with the source surface moved from 750M to, say, 1500M or 3000M while keeping the same emitter model, and check whether the computed Ψ3,SLO and Ψ2,SLO amplitudes change by more than the integration error. Alternatively, compare the predicted apparent polarization fraction against a full black-hole scattering calculation in the same Schwarzschild setup.

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

If this is right

  • Lensed gravitational-wave signals should contain small but nonzero apparent vector and scalar polarization content that unlensed signals lack, offering a potential lensing discriminator.
  • The framework enables construction of lensed-GW templates that include polarization evolution, not just magnification and time delay, for use in matched-filter searches.
  • It fills the gap between leading-order geometric optics and the Kirchhoff diffraction integral, both of which neglect the tensorial polarization structure of GWs.
  • The computed amplitude ordering — leading-order tensor, subleading tensor, vector, scalar — gives a practical hierarchy for estimating which apparent modes might be observable.
  • Near-caustic predictions are explicitly unreliable because geometric optics breaks down there; the paper regularizes the singularities but cautions against quantitative use in that region.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the apparent mode amplitudes scale roughly as M λ / L², as earlier estimates suggest, then only high-magnification or low-impact-parameter lensing events would produce measurable polarization; this scaling is not demonstrated numerically in the present paper.
  • The same closed transport system could be extended to Kerr lenses or extended mass distributions; the resulting Ψ2/Ψ3 patterns might then trace lens substructure in a way that scalar-amplitude lensing cannot.
  • A convergence study that moves the source surface outward and checks the stability of Ψ2,SLO and Ψ3,SLO would quantify the zero-initial-gradient truncation error, which the paper leaves unquantified.
  • The apparent modes could serve as a practical lensing-vs-intrinsic-waveform discriminator in event catalogs only if detector response functions to non-plus/cross polarizations are modeled, which the paper does not address.

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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper extends geometric-optics gravitational-wave lensing beyond leading order using the Newman-Penrose formalism. It derives expressions for the linearized Weyl scalars Ψ2, Ψ3, and Ψ4 at subleading order (Eqs. 35–37), showing that lensing generates apparent vector and scalar polarization modes from the leading-order amplitude and background curvature, without new dynamical degrees of freedom. To make the computation practical, the authors combine geodesic-deviation and Sachs equations with transport equations for spin-coefficient and amplitude gradients, closing the system. They apply the framework to Schwarzschild lensing, numerically evolve the resulting equations, and present plots of the polarization-mode amplitudes (Figs. 4–5). The analytical expressions are cross-checked against Ref. [59] for Eq. (35) and Ref. [87] for Eq. (37).

Significance. If the result holds, the paper provides a first-principles route to computing subleading-order polarization corrections for lensed GWs, going beyond both leading-order geometric optics and scalar Kirchhoff diffraction. The analytical core—Eqs. (35)–(36) in particular—is simple and consistent with prior work by Cusin–Lagos and Hou–Fan–Zhu, and the explicit consistency checks are a clear strength. The geodesic-deviation/transport-system construction is an ambitious and potentially useful computational framework. However, the quantitative amplitudes displayed in Fig. 5 rest on two unquantified numerical choices—the truncation of gradient initial data at a finite source surface (Sec. IV C) and the pole-subtraction regularization of caustics (Sec. V)—and on source terms (δΨ1, ¯δΨ1) for which the paper provides no explicit formulas. These gaps prevent the numerical results from being independently checked and currently limit the confidence in the quantitative mode amplitudes, even though the qualitative existence of apparent modes is supported analytically.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV C, before Eq. (80)] The first- and second-order gradients of A are set exactly to zero at the finite source surface D_LS=750M, justified only by 1/s² and 1/s³ decay. At the adopted starting point these tails are nonzero and feed δA, δδA, the source term S in Eq. (81), the subleading amplitude B in Eq. (82), and therefore the plotted Ψ3,SLO and Ψ4,SLO in Eqs. (36)–(37). No error estimate or convergence test in D_LS is given. Please quantify the resulting error, e.g., by varying D_LS over a range and showing that the Fig. 5 curves stabilize, or by including the analytic leading tails in the initial data.
  2. [Sec. V, caustic regularization] For the odd-parity images (β0<1), the numerical integration must pass through caustic singularities. The regularization subtracts α1/(s−sc) and α2/(s−sc)², with α1 and α2 defined by limits at s=sc. This is a choice of finite part; different definitions of the subtracted pole terms or different regularization strategies can shift the finite remainder. The odd-image curves in Fig. 5 inherit this scheme dependence, and the authors themselves caution that near-caustic predictions are unreliable. Please demonstrate scheme-independence of the plotted amplitudes (e.g., by varying the subtraction procedure and comparing) or restrict quantitative claims to the even-parity images.
  3. [Appendix A / Sec. III B] The transport equations require the gradients of background Weyl scalars beyond Ψ0. Eq. (62f)–(62g) contain δΨ1 and ¯δΨ1, and the simplified system in Appendix C uses P^(+)_1 = (1/2)(δΨ1 + ¯δΨ1) in Eq. (C4d). However, Appendix A only provides explicit formulas for Ψ0 gradients, Eqs. (A15)–(A16), and the numerical procedure described in Sec. V step (5) references only Eq. (A15). Without explicit expressions for δΨ1 and ¯δΨ1 (or a derivation from the Bianchi identities), the pipeline cannot be independently reproduced. Please add these source terms or explain explicitly how they are evaluated.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table I] The caustic locations for the odd-parity images are listed as s_c=1310, 1174, 1084, 1021 M, all larger than D_L=780 M, while the text describes the odd-parity case as having the observer outside the caustic (s_o > s_c). Please clarify the affine-parameter convention and the parity/caustic correspondence so the reader can interpret the plots.
  2. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption lists five curves but does not state which panel corresponds to even/odd parity and does not label β0 values. Adding a legend and explicit parity labels would improve interpretability.
  3. [Sec. II E, Eqs. (35)–(36)] The notation Im(Aμν e^{iΦ/ε}) is used without defining how the tensor index contraction with ¯mμ¯mν is ordered. Please make the contraction explicit, e.g., ¯mμ ¯mν Im(Aμν e^{iΦ/ε}).
  4. [Sec. VI] The conclusion lists 'more rigorous assessment of the tetrad dependence' as future work. Since the Weyl scalars are tetrad-dependent, a short discussion of how the results would change under a different parallel-transported tetrad would help the reader gauge the robustness of the polarization-mode amplitudes.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the subleading polarization scalars are derived from the linearized Riemann tensor and NP gauge conditions, not fitted or imported from prior work.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that subleading-order lensed GWs acquire apparent vector and scalar polarization modes—is obtained by direct NP projection of the linearized Riemann tensor. Equations (35) and (36) express Ψ2,SLO and Ψ3,SLO in terms of the leading-order amplitude Aμν and background spin coefficients, and they follow from the expansion of Eq. (26) together with the gauge conditions (24)–(25), not from any fitted parameter or assumed output. The SLO amplitude Bμν is similarly obtained as the inhomogeneous solution (82) of the transport system whose source is built from the LO amplitude and background quantities. No parameter is fitted to data, and no 'prediction' is statistically forced by an input. The self-citations in the paper are not load-bearing: Ref. [87] is invoked only as a consistency check ('Eq. (37) is consistent with Ref. [87]'), and Ref. [90] fixes the numerical configuration ('Following our previous work [90]'), neither of which supplies the existence or form of the apparent modes. The assertion that the modes cannot be removed by tetrad transformation cites Refs. [58,89], which are not the present authors' work, and the gauge-invariance reasoning is also sketched in Section II E. The numerical truncation of initial gradient data (Sec. IV C: 'It is therefore natural to set their initial values to zero') and the pole-subtraction regularization near caustics (Sec. V) are unquantified approximations and genuine correctness risks, but they are not circular: they do not encode the target result into the derivation. The omission of explicit formulas for δΨ1 and δ̄Ψ1 in Appendix A is an incompleteness for reproducibility, not a reduction of the derivation to its inputs. Overall, the derivation is self-contained at the analytical level, so the circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new particles, fields, or conserved quantities are introduced. The apparent vector/scalar modes are explicitly argued to be non-dynamical propagation effects (Sec. II E, Sec. VI); they are not new entities. The central claim rests on the eikonal-regime domain assumption and on two numerical approximation choices (gradient truncation, caustic regularization) whose errors are not quantified.

free parameters (5)
  • source-lens distance D_LS = 750M
    Chosen demonstration value, identical to the authors' prior work [90]; not fitted to any data. The qualitative conclusion persists across β0 values.
  • observer-lens distance D_L = 780M
    Chosen demonstration value, as in [90].
  • source angular offset β0 = {0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8} × θE
    Scanned demonstration parameter; the paper does not claim these are astrophysically preferred.
  • source inclination ψ = π/6
    Representative value; affects absolute amplitudes but not the existence of the apparent modes.
  • congruence initial opening constants c± = 1 (argued without loss of generality)
    Normalization of the geodesic-deviation initial conditions; the paper argues ρ and σ are independent of c± (Sec. III A).
axioms (7)
  • standard math Linearized Einstein equation in vacuum with Lorenz + traceless gauge (Eqs. 2-3) governs GW propagation
    Standard GR perturbation theory; the basis of the whole derivation.
  • domain assumption Short-wavelength eikonal expansion is valid: λ̅ ≪ R with ε ∼ λ̅/R (Eq. 4)
    Defines the regime of validity; fails near caustics, as the paper itself notes in Sec. V.
  • domain assumption A parallel-transported null tetrad exists and is used (Eq. 11)
    Standard NP choice; forces κ=ε=π=0 and τ=ᾱ+β.
  • domain assumption Background Weyl scalar Ψ(0)0 is real, decoupling the GD system (Eq. 50)
    Paper: 'This is a special case, but it is sufficient for the consideration of this work' (Sec. III A). True for Schwarzschild but restricts generality.
  • domain assumption Emitter asymptotic form of spin coefficients (Eq. 75) and integration constants cQ=1/2, c+=0, c-=-cotψ/√2 (Eq. 77)
    Standard point-source asymptotics from Chandrasekhar [74]; fixes the integration constants.
  • ad hoc to paper First- and second-order gradients of A are set to exactly zero at the finite emitter surface (Sec. IV C)
    Truncation of 1/s² and 1/s³ tails; unquantified error injected into the transport system.
  • ad hoc to paper Caustic singularities are regularized by subtracting 1/(s-sc) and 1/(s-sc)² poles, integrating the singular parts analytically (Sec. V)
    Regularization choice; accuracy of the residual numeric integral is not demonstrated.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 24940 in / 20682 out tokens · 167786 ms · 2026-07-31T23:04:21.239476+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In this work, we study the gravitational lensing of gravitational waves (GWs) by extending the geometric-optics approximation to higher order. With the help of the Newman-Penrose formalism, we reexpress the GW propagation equations as a series of scalar equations and present explicit expressions for the Weyl scalars that describe the GW polarizations. By combining the approaches of solving geodesic deviation and transport equations, we construct a solvable system of equations that describes the evolution of GW polarization along null geodesics. This framework fills the gap left by the leading-order geometric optics and the Kirchhoff diffraction integral, neither of which captures the polarization characteristics of GWs during the lensing process. This work applies the above framework to a Schwarzschild lensing configuration. Through a rigorous theoretical formulation and detailed numerical analysis, our results reveal the emergence of apparent vector and scalar modes in lensed GW signals, which originate from the smearing of the polarization plane and distortion of the wavefront and do not represent genuine dynamical degrees of freedom but rather arise as the propagation effects imposed by gravitational lensing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24091 by Shaoqi Hou, Wen Zhao, Zhao Li.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Numerical solutions for the spin coefficients along the null geodesic for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Numerical solutions for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Integrand of Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Evolution of the GW amplitudes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Evolution of the linearized Weyl scalars along the GW paths, computed from Eqs. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.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

102 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    T etrad, derivative, and spin coefficients The tetrad formalism [73, 74] is a powerful tool for investigating GW propagation and polarization. In this formal- ism, the basic geometric quantities of general relativity, the metric, connection, and Riemann tensor, are replaced by a null tetrad together with the spin coefficients, Weyl scalars, and Ricci scal...

  2. [2]

    Commutators Applying the commutator [e µ (a)∂µ, eν (b)∂ν] to an arbitrary scalar fieldϑgives ϑ,(a)(b) −ϑ ,(b)(a) =η (c)(d) γ(c)(b)(a) −γ (c)(a)(b) ϑ,(d) .(A9) Expressing the Ricci rotation coefficients in terms of the spin coefficients leads to the following commutator relations, [D,∆] = (γ+ ¯γ)D−¯τδ−τ ¯δ,(A10a) [D,δ] =τD−ρδ−σ ¯δ,(A10b) [D, ¯δ] = ¯τD−ρ ¯δ...

  3. [3]

    W eyls scalars In the NP formalism, the spacetime geometry is encoded in the Ricci scalars and Weyl scalars, which are, respec- tively, the projections of the Ricci tensor and the Weyl tensorC µναβ onto the null tetrad. In this work, the Ricci tensor has been set to zero due to the vacuum spacetime, such that the Weyl tensor is exactly the Riemann tensor,...

  4. [4]

    The commutator is defined as [∇ α,∇ β]≡ ∇α∇β − ∇β∇α

    Sachs equations Sachs equations are derived from the Ricci identity, which is [∇α,∇ β]eµ (a) =−R µ λβαeλ (a),(A12) 21 where∇ α andR α βµν are the covariant derivative operator and Riemann tensor compatible with the background. The commutator is defined as [∇ α,∇ β]≡ ∇α∇β − ∇β∇α. Projecting Eq. (A12) onto the NP tetrad yields 18 identities [74], Dρ+ρ 2 +σ¯...

  5. [5]

    ∆Ψ2 −δΨ 3 + 2νΨ1 −3µΨ 2 + 2(β−τ)Ψ 3 +σΨ 4 = 0

    Bianchi identities Projecting the Bianchi identityR αβ[γδ;λ] = 0 onto the NP tetrad yieldsR (a)(b)[(c)(d)|(e)] = 0, which is written as DΨ1 − ¯δΨ0 −4αΨ 0 + 4ρΨ1 = 0, DΨ2 − ¯δΨ1 −λΨ 0 −2αΨ 1 + 3ρΨ2 = 0, DΨ3 − ¯δΨ2 −2λΨ 1 + 2ρΨ3 = 0, DΨ4 − ¯δΨ3 −3λΨ 2 + 2αΨ3 +ρΨ 4 = 0, ∆Ψ0 −δΨ 1 + (4γ−µ)Ψ 0 −2(β+ 2τ)Ψ 1 + 3σΨ2 = 0, ∆Ψ1 −δΨ 2 +νΨ 0 + 2(γ−µ)Ψ 1 −3τΨ 2 + 2σΨ3 ...

  6. [6]

    (A16d) Appendix B: Analytical solution to the geodesic equations The analytical solution of the geodesic equations can be expressed in terms of elliptic integrals [96]

    Gradient of W eyl scalars By projecting the first-order covariant derivatives of the Weyl tensor onto the NP tetrad, we have the first-order gradients of the Weyl scalars: −DΨ0 = (∇λCµναβ )kλkµmνkαmβ,(A15a) 22 −∆Ψ0 = (∇λCµναβ )nλkµmνkαmβ + 4γΨ0 −4τΨ 1,(A15b) −δΨ0 = (∇λCµναβ )mλkµmνkαmβ + 4βΨ0 −4σΨ 1,(A15c) −¯δΨ0 = (∇λCµναβ ) ¯mλkµmνkαmβ + 4αΨ0 −4ρΨ 1.(A15...

  7. [7]

    Wambsganss, Living Reviews in Relativity1, 12 (1998)

    J. Wambsganss, Living Reviews in Relativity1, 12 (1998)

    1998

  8. [8]

    Bartelmann, Classical and Quantum Gravity27, 233001 (2010)

    M. Bartelmann, Classical and Quantum Gravity27, 233001 (2010)

    2010

  9. [9]

    Dodelson,Gravitational lensing(Cambridge University Press, 2017)

    S. Dodelson,Gravitational lensing(Cambridge University Press, 2017)

    2017

  10. [10]

    Refregier, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics41, 645 (2003)

    A. Refregier, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics41, 645 (2003)

    2003

  11. [11]

    Maggiore,Gravitational waves: Volume 1: Theory and experiments, Vol

    M. Maggiore,Gravitational waves: Volume 1: Theory and experiments, Vol. 1 (Oxford university press, 2008)

    2008

  12. [12]

    Pet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys

    Abbott B. Pet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 061102 (2016)

    2016

  13. [13]

    S. Cao, J. Qi, Z. Cao, M. Biesiada, W. Cheng, and Z. Zhu, A&A659, L5 (2022)

    2022

  14. [14]

    R. K. L. Lo and I. Maga˜ na Hernandez, Phys. Rev. D107, 123015 (2023)

    2023

  15. [15]

    K. Liao, X. Ding, M. Biesiada, X. Fan, and Z. Zhu, The Astrophysical Journal867, 69 (2018)

    2018

  16. [16]

    K. Liao, S. Tian, and X. Ding, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society495, 2002 (2020)

    2002

  17. [17]

    Guo and Y

    X. Guo and Y. Lu, Phys. Rev. D106, 023018 (2022)

    2022

  18. [18]

    M. H. Cheung, K. K. Y. Ng, M. Zumalac´ arregui, and E. Berti, Phys. Rev. D109, 124020 (2024)

    2024

  19. [19]

    S. Jana, S. J. Kapadia, T. Venumadhav, S. More, and P. Ajith, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 111402 (2025)

    2025

  20. [20]

    T. Yang, B. Hu, R. Cai, and B. Wang, The Astrophysical Journal880, 50 (2019)

    2019

  21. [21]

    Y. Li, X. Fan, and L. Gou, The Astrophysical Journal873, 37 (2019)

    2019

  22. [22]

    Wanget al., The Astrophysical Journal974, 7 (2024)

    Q. Wanget al., The Astrophysical Journal974, 7 (2024)

    2024

  23. [23]

    S. Cao, G. Covone, and Z. Zhu, The Astrophysical Journal755, 31 (2012)

    2012

  24. [24]

    Chen and Y

    Z. Chen and Y. Lu, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics26, 062001 (2026)

    2026

  25. [25]

    Mukherjee, B

    S. Mukherjee, B. D. Wandelt, and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. D101, 103509 (2020)

    2020

  26. [26]

    S. Hou, X. Fan, K. Liao, and Z. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D101, 064011 (2020)

    2020

  27. [27]

    S. Hou, X. Fan, and Z. Zhu, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society507, 761 (2021)

    2021

  28. [28]

    X. Fan, K. Liao, M. Biesiada, A. Pi´ orkowska-Kurpas, and Z. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 091102 (2017)

    2017

  29. [29]

    Hariset al., arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.07062 (2018)

    K. Hariset al., arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.07062 (2018)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  30. [30]

    O. A. Hannukselaet al., The Astrophysical Journal Letters874, L2 (2019)

    2019

  31. [31]

    McIsaacet al., Phys

    C. McIsaacet al., Phys. Rev. D102, 084031 (2020)

    2020

  32. [32]

    X. Liu, I. M. Hernandez, and J. Creighton, The Astrophysical Journal908, 97 (2021)

    2021

  33. [33]

    Abbottet al.(The LIGO Scientific Collaboration and the Virgo Collaboration), The Astrophysical Journal923, 14 (2021)

    R. Abbottet al.(The LIGO Scientific Collaboration and the Virgo Collaboration), The Astrophysical Journal923, 14 (2021)

    2021

  34. [34]

    Abbottet al., The Astrophysical Journal970, 191 (2024)

    R. Abbottet al., The Astrophysical Journal970, 191 (2024)

    2024

  35. [35]

    A. G. Abacet al., The Astrophysical Journal Letters993, L25 (2025)

    2025

  36. [36]

    A. G. Abacet al.(The LIGO Scientific Collaboration and The Virgo Collaboration and The KAGRA Collaboration), GWTC-4.0: Searches for Gravitational-Wave Lensing Signatures (2025), arXiv:2512.16347 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    J. C. L. Chanet al., Discovering Gravitational Waveform Distortions from Lensing: A Deep Dive into GW231123 (2025), arXiv:2512.16916 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Goyal, H

    S. Goyal, H. Villarrubia-Rojo, and M. Zumalacarregui, Across the Universe: GW231123 as a magnified and diffracted black hole merger (2025), arXiv:2512.17631 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Chakraborty and S

    A. Chakraborty and S. Mukherjee, The First Model-Independent Upper Bound on Micro-lensing Signature of the Highest Mass Binary Black Hole Event GW231123 (2025), arXiv:2512.19077 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    X. Shan, H. Yang, and S. Mao, GW231123: A Case for Binary Microlensing in a Strong Lensing Field (2025), arXiv:2512.19118 [astro-ph.GA] . 25

    arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Wang and T

    B. Wang and T. Yang, GW231123: False Massive Graviton Signatures from Unmodeled Point-Mass Lensing (2026), arXiv:2604.08179 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  42. [42]

    Yanget al., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society509, 3772 (2021)

    L. Yanget al., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society509, 3772 (2021)

    2021

  43. [43]

    Z. Gao, X. Chen, Y. Hu, J. Zhang, and S. Huang, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society512, 1 (2022)

    2022

  44. [44]

    Linet al., Phys

    X. Linet al., Phys. Rev. D108, 064020 (2023)

    2023

  45. [45]

    Pi´ orkowska, M

    A. Pi´ orkowska, M. Biesiada, and Z. Zhu, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2013(10), 022

  46. [46]

    Guti´ errez and M

    J. Guti´ errez and M. Lagos, Phys. Rev. D112, 123512 (2025)

    2025

  47. [47]

    Y. Yuan, M. Du, X. Lin, H. Zhou, P. Xu, and X. Fan, The Astrophysical Journal997, 11 (2026)

    2026

  48. [48]

    Barsode, K

    A. Barsode, K. N. Maity, and P. Ajith, The Astrophysical Journal998, 294 (2026)

    2026

  49. [49]

    Canitrot, Phys

    P. Canitrot, Phys. Rev. D63, 082005 (2001)

    2001

  50. [50]

    Lindblom, B

    L. Lindblom, B. J. Owen, and D. A. Brown, Phys. Rev. D78, 124020 (2008)

    2008

  51. [51]

    Shibata,Numerical relativity, Vol

    M. Shibata,Numerical relativity, Vol. 1 (World Scientific, 2015)

    2015

  52. [52]

    Hu and J

    Q. Hu and J. Veitch, Phys. Rev. D106, 044042 (2022)

    2022

  53. [53]

    R. S. Chandramouli, K. Prokup, E. Berti, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D111, 044026 (2025)

    2025

  54. [54]

    Guptaet al., SciPost Phys

    A. Guptaet al., SciPost Phys. Comm. Rep. , 5 (2025)

    2025

  55. [55]

    J. Yang, J. Zhong, and T. Yang, Systematic biases in gravitational-wave parameter estimation from neglecting orbital eccentricity in space-based detectors (2026), arXiv:2601.07739 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2026

  56. [56]

    Shanet al., Nature Astronomy9, 916–924 (2025)

    X. Shanet al., Nature Astronomy9, 916–924 (2025)

    2025

  57. [57]

    R. A. Isaacson, Phys. Rev.166, 1263 (1968)

    1968

  58. [58]

    C. R. Keeton and A. O. Petters, Phys. Rev. D72, 104006 (2005)

    2005

  59. [59]

    Sereno and F

    M. Sereno and F. De Luca, Phys. Rev. D74, 123009 (2006)

    2006

  60. [60]

    J. M. Ezquiagaet al., Phys. Rev. D103, 064047 (2021)

    2021

  61. [61]

    Baraldo, A

    C. Baraldo, A. Hosoya, and T. T. Nakamura, Phys. Rev. D59, 083001 (1999)

    1999

  62. [62]

    Takahashi and T

    R. Takahashi and T. Nakamura, The Astrophysical Journal595, 1039 (2003)

    2003

  63. [63]

    Guo and Y

    X. Guo and Y. Lu, Phys. Rev. D102, 124076 (2020)

    2020

  64. [64]

    Cusin and M

    G. Cusin and M. Lagos, Phys. Rev. D101, 044041 (2020)

    2020

  65. [65]

    A. I. Harte, General Relativity and Gravitation51, 10.1007/s10714-018-2494-x (2019)

    work page doi:10.1007/s10714-018-2494-x 2019

  66. [66]

    A. I. Harte, General Relativity and Gravitation51, 10.1007/s10714-019-2646-7 (2019)

    work page doi:10.1007/s10714-019-2646-7 2019

  67. [67]

    S. R. Dolan, Classical and Quantum Gravity25, 235002 (2008)

    2008

  68. [68]

    J. C. L. Chanet al., Phys. Rev. D112, 064009 (2025)

    2025

  69. [69]

    Pijnenburget al., Phys

    M. Pijnenburget al., Phys. Rev. D110, 044054 (2024)

    2024

  70. [70]

    M. V. S. Saketh, R. Ghosh, and A. Mishra, Phys. Rev. D , (2026)

    2026

  71. [71]

    Li and W

    Z. Li and W. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D112, 083030 (2025)

    2025

  72. [72]

    Z. Li, S. Hou, and W. Zhao, Gravitational Lensing of Gravitational Waves: Spin-wave Optics through Black Hole Scattering (2025), arXiv:2512.23933 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  73. [73]

    He and Z

    J. He and Z. Wu, Phys. Rev. D106, 124037 (2022)

    2022

  74. [74]

    Yin and J

    C. Yin and J. He, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 011401 (2024)

    2024

  75. [75]

    Dalang, G

    C. Dalang, G. Cusin, and M. Lagos, Phys. Rev. D105, 024005 (2022)

    2022

  76. [76]

    Garoffolo, Physics of the Dark Universe44, 101475 (2024)

    A. Garoffolo, Physics of the Dark Universe44, 101475 (2024)

    2024

  77. [77]

    Menadeo and M

    N. Menadeo and M. Zumalac´ arregui, Phys. Rev. D111, 104022 (2025)

    2025

  78. [78]

    Postiglione, K

    J. Postiglione, K. E. S. Ford, H. Best, B. McKernan, and M. O’Dowd, The Astrophysical Journal991, 161 (2025)

    2025

  79. [79]

    Newman and R

    E. Newman and R. Penrose, Journal of Mathematical Physics3, 566 (1962)

    1962

  80. [80]

    Chandrasekhar,The mathematical theory of black holes(1983)

    S. Chandrasekhar,The mathematical theory of black holes(1983)

    1983

Showing first 80 references.