Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

A compact binary that gravitationally lenses its own signal can, from a single observed chirp, yield both the orbital distance to the central black hole and the black hole's redshifted mass.

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 17:33 UTC pith:EYF4DNGY

load-bearing objection The d_LS–t_E relation is clean, but the new MBH-mass formula from the modulation period misses a chirp-evolution term that shifts the result by tens of percent; fixable, but as written it is not the promised mass measurement. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2512.08898 v3 pith:EYF4DNGY submitted 2025-12-09 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA

Self-lensing of moving gravitational-wave sources can break the microlensing crossing timescale degeneracy

Helena Ubach This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA
keywords gravitational lensinggravitational wavesmicrolensingself-lensingmassive black holescompact binary coalescencegeometrical opticswave optics
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 argues that when a compact binary orbits a massive black hole and the black hole lenses the binary's own gravitational-wave signal, the usual microlensing degeneracy in the Einstein-radius crossing timescale is broken. For a circular Keplerian orbit, the crossing timescale depends only on the orbital distance, t_E = 2 d_LS / c, so the width of the resulting Paczynski-like envelope directly measures that distance. The gravitational-wave signal additionally carries an interference pattern between two lensed images, and the period of that modulation, combined with the signal frequency and the crossing timescale, yields the redshifted black hole mass. If correct, a single lensed chirp could simultaneously constrain the source's orbital distance, the lens mass, and, with the impact parameter, the orbital inclination, helping identify the astrophysical environments where merging binaries form.

Core claim

The paper shows that in the self-lensing geometry—a compact binary on a circular Keplerian orbit around a massive black hole that lenses the GW signal—the Einstein radius crossing timescale is t_E = 2 d_LS / c (Eq. 2), independent of the black hole mass. The lensed waveform is constructed as two interfering images that are magnified by sqrt(mu1) and sqrt(mu2) and separated by a time delay; as the source moves behind the lens, this produces a Paczynski-like amplification envelope whose width gives d_LS, while the period T of the interference modulation gives the redshifted black hole mass through M_MBH,z ≈ 2.5e6 M_sun (t_E/[100 s]) (f T)^{-1} (Eq. 16). The paper further derives the observabil

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the two-image geometrical-optics decomposition of the point-mass lens: h(t) = sqrt(mu1) h_UL(t+t1) + sqrt(mu2) h_UL(t+t1+Delta t) e^{-i pi/2}, with magnifications and time delay evaluated at the instantaneous source position y(t). Combined with the self-lensing Keplerian relation t_E = 2 d_LS / c, this gives a shape whose width is mass-independent and an interference modulation whose period is inversely proportional to the redshifted MBH mass. The modulation-period relation T ≈ (d_LS / (2 R_S (1+z))) (1/f) is the link that turns a measured period into a mass.

Load-bearing premise

The lensed waveform is assembled by taking static-lens magnifications and time delays at each instantaneous source position and adding the two images as if the chirp frequency were constant over the time delay; if this quasi-static matching fails, the mass formula needs correction.

What would settle it

Compute the full wave-optics integral h(t) = ∫ df h_UL(f) F(f, y(t)) e^{i2πft} for a moving chirp and compare the resulting modulation envelope with the period predicted by Eq. (16); a significant departure for realistic chirp rates would falsify the mass formula. Alternatively, search a known loud chirp for the simultaneous envelope width and modulation pattern predicted by Eqs. (2) and (16).

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

If this is right

  • Measuring the Paczynski-like envelope width of a lensed GW chirp directly yields the orbital distance d_LS of the compact binary from the massive black hole, with no need to know the lens mass or relative velocity.
  • Measuring the interference modulation period T, the instantaneous GW frequency f, and t_E yields the redshifted black hole mass M_MBH,z via a simple analytic formula.
  • The simultaneous extraction of d_LS and M_MBH,z from one signal can distinguish formation environments such as AGN disks, star clusters, and galactic nuclei.
  • The full lensing curve is observable for d_LS ≲ 1e11 m (1 M_sun/M_chirp)^{5/3}, and the modulations are visible for d_LS ≲ 1e4 R_S (1 M_sun/M_chirp)^{5/3}, parameter ranges that overlap in AGN migration traps.
  • If unmodeled, this lensing signature could contaminate overlapping-signal analyses in next-generation ground-based GW detectors, so templates should include the moving-source lensing curve.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is to generalize the circular-orbit formula t_E = 2 d_LS / c to eccentric orbits; the paper notes eccentricity may reintroduce a degeneracy, so a parameterized eccentric model would be the next testable step.
  • Because the modulation period scales as M_BH^{-1}, detectors at higher frequencies could probe lower black hole masses, while future low-frequency detectors could extend the method into the intermediate-mass black hole regime.
  • The quasi-static treatment of a moving source could be tested numerically against the full wave-optics integral; if the adiabatic assumption breaks for steep chirps, Eq. (16) would acquire frequency-dependent corrections.
  • The same two-image interference argument should apply to continuous GW signals, so the mass-measurement route may be transferable beyond chirping CBCs.

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 studies gravitational self-lensing of a chirping GW source (a CBC) in a circular Keplerian orbit around a massive black hole. It shows that in this geometry the Einstein-radius crossing timescale is t_E = R_E/v_orb = 2 d_LS / c, independent of the MBH mass, so measuring the Paczynski-like envelope yields the orbital distance d_LS directly. It then models the lensed waveform as a superposition of two images with instantaneous magnifications and time delay, derives a modulation period T, and proposes a mass formula M_MBH,z ≃ 2.5×10^6 M_sun (t_E/[100 s]) (f T)^{-1} (Eq. 16), claiming simultaneous measurement of d_LS and M_MBH,z. The paper closes with observability conditions and applications to AGN disks and star clusters.

Significance. The idea of using self-lensing of a moving, frequency-dependent GW source to break the t_E degeneracy is novel and potentially important for next-generation ground-based detectors. The t_E = 2 d_LS / c result is clean, transparent, and correct. The paper is also honest about many limitations, including time-dependent phase issues and neglected environmental effects. However, the main new observable — the MBH mass from the interference modulation — rests on an unproven quasi-static waveform model and on a modulation-period derivation that neglects the chirp's frequency evolution. These issues are directly in the central claim, so the paper cannot be accepted as written. With a corrected derivation and a clear justification of Eq. (9), the work could open a useful channel for measuring MBH masses and orbital radii of CBCs in dense environments.

major comments (2)
  1. [§IV, Eqs. (14)–(16)] The modulation period is written as T = t/(f Δt), which is the stationary-frequency result. For a chirp, the relative phase of the two images is Φ(t) = 2π f(t) Δt(t) (up to the constant Morse phase), so the local modulation frequency is |dΦ/dt| = 2π |f Δt' + f' Δt|, not 2π f Δt/t. Far from closest approach, Δt' ≃ Δt/t, giving T = 1/[f Δt/t + f' Δt]. For the paper's own Fig. 3 example (f ≈ 15 Hz, t ≈ 400 s, Δt ≈ 80 s, and f' ≈ 0.01–0.02 Hz/s for a 1 M_sun chirp), f' Δt ≈ 1, comparable to f Δt/t ≈ 3. The neglected term changes the inferred mass by the factor 1 + t f'/f: Eq. (16) overestimates M_MBH,z by about 30–50% for these parameters, and the bias grows for larger Δt or larger chirp mass. The correction can be written in terms of measurable quantities (e.g., f'/f from the chirp), but the paper must present the corrected formula and redo the associated figures and conclusions.
  2. [§II.B, Eq. (9)] The lensed waveform is assembled by substituting the instantaneous y(t) into static-lens magnifications and time delays. This quasi-static replacement is not derived or quantified. For a moving source, the two images arriving at observer time t were emitted at source times separated by Δt, so one should evaluate the magnification and delay at the retarded positions, not at t. In the paper's own figures, Δt ~ 80 s while t_E ~ 200 s, so the source moves by about 0.4 in the normalized impact parameter during the delay; this is not a small correction. At a minimum, the authors should state the adiabatic conditions (e.g., Δt/t_E ≪ 1, |dΔt/dt| ≪ 1, |d ln μ/dt| ≪ 2π f) and show that they hold for the quoted examples. Without this, the interference pattern and the period T are not rigorously established.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§IV, Eq. (17)] The scaling of the condition T < t_insp appears incorrect. Using T ∝ 1/f and t_insp ∝ f^{-8/3}, the bound should scale as d_LS ≲ 2×10^4 R_S(1+z) (10 Hz/f)^{5/3} (M_sun/M_chirp)^{5/3}, not with (f/10 Hz). Please correct, or explicitly state that f is fixed at 10 Hz.
  2. [§IV, after Eq. (14)] The 'modulation period' T is not rigorously defined for a nonuniform interference pattern. The text says T is 'formally valid for the radial spacing' and asymptotically matches 'far from the peak.' In an actual measurement, please specify how T is extracted (e.g., zero crossings of the modulation envelope or a windowed Fourier transform) and how t is measured relative to the time of closest approach.
  3. [§V, Eq. (20)] The inclination estimate uses the intrinsic mass M_MBH, while the GW measurement yields the redshifted mass M_MBH,z. Please clarify how a cosmological redshift is handled in Eq. (20) and in the joint parameter extraction.
  4. [§VI] The statement that GO 'holds for large masses' is vague. The GO condition in Eq. (5) depends on y, f, and M_MBH,z; please use it to quantify the regime where the wave-optics corrections to the interference pattern are actually negligible, especially as y0 → 0.
  5. [General] There are a number of small presentation issues: 'refered' in Sec. I; missing spaces in the abstract; the sentence about the period being 'only formally valid for the radial spacing' is confusing; and the notation M_MBH,0 in Sec. II.A is undefined. Please clean these up.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the central relations are algebraic rearrangements of standard lensing definitions; self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's two central results are derived algebraically rather than fitted or defined into existence. Eq. (2), t_E = 2 d_LS/c, follows by substituting R_E = sqrt(2 R_S d_LS) and the Keplerian circular velocity v_orb = sqrt(G M_MBH/d_LS) into t_E = R_E/v_orb; the M_MBH dependence cancels exactly. This is a direct derivation, not a restatement of an output as an input. The mass formula Eq. (16) is obtained by rearranging Eq. (14)/(15), which itself follows from the GO phase difference Delta_t = 4 y R_S(1+z)/c and the crossing trajectory y ∝ t/t_E. All quantities entering the formula are standard lensing parameters and observables (f, T, t_E); no parameter is fit to the target mass and then renamed as a prediction. The quasi-static assembly of the lensed waveform in Eq. (9) is a modeling approximation. The manuscript explicitly flags the time dependence of t_1 and possible phase shifts in Sec. VI, but this is an acknowledged physical limitation, not a circular reduction; the mass formula does not presuppose the value it claims to yield. Self-citations are present ([54] for the GO validity condition and time delay, [50] for contextual self-lensing probabilities), but they are not load-bearing in the circularity sense: [54] supplies standard, separately published lensing expressions that are external to the present derivation, and [50] is used only as contextual probability support in the Discussion. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz smuggling, or renaming of a known result is used to force the central conclusions. The skeptic's concern about the neglected f' Delta_t chirp term is a correctness/accuracy issue, not a circularity issue. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained and no step reduces to its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central relations rest on standard lensing and Keplerian assumptions plus one paper-specific approximation: treating the moving-source lensing quasi-statically. No parameters are fitted to data, and no new physical entities are introduced. The self-citations [54] and [50] are used for standard time-delay/GO formulas and static self-lensing rates; these are externally reproducible results and do not by themselves make the claim circular.

axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The source is in a circular Keplerian orbit around the MBH lens, v_orb = sqrt(G M_MBH / d_LS).
    Used to derive t_E = 2 d_LS/c in Sec. II A; the paper admits in Sec. VI that eccentric orbits would reintroduce a degeneracy in t_E.
  • standard math Geometrical-optics limit with a point-mass lens and two images; magnifications independent of f; time delay dt ~ 4 y R_S (1+z)/c for y <~ 0.5.
    Invoked in Sec. II B from [54]; central to the interference pattern and to Eq. (16).
  • ad hoc to paper Quasi-static/adiabatic replacement of y(t) into static-lens magnifications and time delay in the time-domain waveform.
    This is not justified in the paper; it is load-bearing for Eq. (9) and for the mass-extraction formula.
  • domain assumption Self-lensing distance simplification d_L ~ d_S, giving R_E ~ sqrt(2 R_S d_LS).
    Required for Eq. (2); valid when the source is very close to the lens compared to observer distances.
  • domain assumption Modulation period estimated as T = t/(f dt) [62] and measured far from the peak where y ~ t/t_E.
    Used for Eqs. (14)-(16); the author notes it is only asymptotically valid when y0 is small and far from the peak.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 11983 in / 16400 out tokens · 161355 ms · 2026-08-03T17:33:26.505688+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

When a moving gravitational-wave (GW) source travels behind a massive astrophysical object, its signal is gravitationally lensed, showing a waveform distortion similar to a Paczy\'{n}ski curve. We present a first study on the lensing signature of a massive black hole (MBH) on a frequency-dependent GW signal from a moving compact binary merger (CBC) source, focused on ground-based GW detectors. For both light and GW sources in a Keplerian circular orbit around a MBH lens, the self-lensing geometry breaks the microlensing degeneracy in the Einstein radius crossing timescale $t_{\rm E}$. The duration of the curve ($2 t_{\rm E}$) becomes independent on the MBH mass $M_{\rm MBH}$, and provides a direct value of the orbital distance $d_{\rm LS}$ of the source around the MBH. However, $M_{\rm MBH}$ remains unknown. In GW signals, the redshifted mass $M_{{\rm MBH},z}$ can additionally be analytically inferred from the interference pattern, once the modulation period $T$, the GW frequency $f$, and $t_{\rm E}$ are known: $M_{{\rm MBH},z}\simeq 2.5\times 10^6\,M_\odot\,(t_{\rm E}/[100\,{\rm s}])\,(f\,T)^{-1}$. If this lensing signature is not considered, it may be confused with other waveform distortions, especially in the modeling of overlapping CBC signals in next generation ground-based GW detectors. The observation of one of these curves and its associated parameters may help (1) constrain the orbital distance $d_{\rm LS}$ of sources, especially around low-mass MBHs at the center of star clusters and galaxies, (2) additionally estimate the mass $M_{{\rm MBH},z}$ of these MBHs, and (3) infer the orbital inclination of the binary. Simultaneously obtaining $d_{\rm LS}$ and $M_{{\rm MBH},z}$ through self-lensing can help constrain the astrophysical environments where GW signals come from.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.08898 by Helena Ubach.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schema of the lensing configuration considered in this [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Representation of a GW signal CBC “chirp”, through [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Zoom-in view of Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Amplitude of the signal (envelope curve) as a func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Parameter thresholds to detect [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Summary of the relations between parameters and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.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 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Ringdown and lensing of triple systems

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Numerical relativity simulations of triple black hole systems reveal redshift effects and gravitational lensing in ringdown signals from head-on mergers, with no additional black hole formation from amplified waves.

  2. Ringdown and lensing of triple systems

    gr-qc 2026-05 conditional novelty 6.0

    Head-on black-hole mergers next to a companion show Doppler- and redshift-shifted ringdown, lensing magnification behind the lens, and delayed echo images, with only tentative signs of resonant mode excitation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 51 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Walsh, R

    D. Walsh, R. F. Carswell, and R. J. Weymann, Nature 279, 381 (1979)

    1979

  2. [2]

    Alcock, C

    C. Alcock, C. W. Akerlof, R. A. Allsman, T. S. Axel- rod, D. P. Bennett, S. Chan, K. H. Cook, K. C. Free- man, K. Griest, S. L. Marshall, H.-S. Park, S. Perlmut- ter, B. A. Peterson, M. R. Pratt, P. J. Quinn, A. W. Rodgers, C. W. Stubbs, and W. Sutherland, Nature365, 621 (1993), arXiv:astro-ph/9309052 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  3. [3]

    Udalski, M

    A. Udalski, M. Szymanski, J. Kaluzny, M. Ku- biak, W. Krzeminski, M. Mateo, G. W. Preston, and B. Paczynski, Acta Astron.43, 289 (1993)

    1993

  4. [4]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

    L. Dai, B. Zackay, T. Venumadhav, J. Roulet, and M. Zaldarriaga, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2007.12709 (2020), arXiv:2007.12709 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  6. [6]

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration, ApJ923, 14 (2021), arXiv:2105.06384 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collabo- ration, and the KAGRA Collaboration, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2304.08393 (2023), arXiv:2304.08393 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Janquart, M

    J. Janquart, M. Wright, S. Goyal, J. C. L. Chan, A. Gan- guly, Á. Garrón, D. Keitel, A. K. Y. Li, A. Liu, R. K. L. Lo, A. Mishra, A. More, H. Phurailatpam, P. Prasia, P. Ajith, S. Biscoveanu, P. Cremonese, J. R. Cudell, J. M. 8 Ezquiaga, J. Garcia-Bellido, O. A. Hannuksela, K. Haris, I. Harry, M. Hendry, S. Husa, S. Kapadia, T. G. F. Li, I. Magaña Hernand...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  9. [9]

    The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collabo- ration, and the KAGRA Collaboration, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2507.08219 (2025), arXiv:2507.08219 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    B. P. Abbottet al., Physical Review X9, 031040 (2019), arXiv:1811.12907 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  11. [11]

    Abbottet al., Physical Review X11, 021053 (2021), arXiv:2010.14527 [gr-qc]

    R. Abbottet al., Physical Review X11, 021053 (2021), arXiv:2010.14527 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  12. [12]

    Abbottet al., Physical Review X13, 041039 (2023), arXiv:2111.03606 [gr-qc]

    R. Abbottet al., Physical Review X13, 041039 (2023), arXiv:2111.03606 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  13. [13]

    Venumadhav, B

    T. Venumadhav, B. Zackay, J. Roulet, L. Dai, and M. Zaldarriaga, Phys. Rev. D101, 083030 (2020), arXiv:1904.07214 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  14. [14]

    Zackay, L

    B. Zackay, L. Dai, T. Venumadhav, J. Roulet, and M. Zaldarriaga, Phys. Rev. D104, 063030 (2021), arXiv:1910.09528 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  15. [15]

    The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, The Virgo Collabo- ration, and the KAGRA Collaboration, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2508.18082 (2025), arXiv:2508.18082 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Li, Phys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  17. [17]

    S.-S. Li, S. Mao, Y. Zhao, and Y. Lu, MNRAS476, 2220 (2018), arXiv:1802.05089 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  18. [18]

    Oguri, MNRAS480, 3842 (2018), arXiv:1807.02584 [astro-ph.CO]

    M. Oguri, MNRAS480, 3842 (2018), arXiv:1807.02584 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  19. [19]

    F. Xu, J. M. Ezquiaga, and D. E. Holz, ApJ929, 9 (2022), arXiv:2105.14390 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  20. [20]

    Mukherjee, T

    S. Mukherjee, T. Broadhurst, J. M. Diego, J. Silk, and G. F. Smoot, MNRAS506, 3751 (2021), arXiv:2106.00392 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  21. [21]

    A. R. A. C. Wierda, E. Wempe, O. A. Hannuksela, L. V. E. Koopmans, and C. Van Den Broeck, ApJ921, 154 (2021), arXiv:2106.06303 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  22. [22]

    Zwicky, Physical Review51, 290 (1937)

    F. Zwicky, Physical Review51, 290 (1937)

    1937

  23. [23]

    Paczynski, ApJ304, 1 (1986)

    B. Paczynski, ApJ304, 1 (1986)

    1986

  24. [24]

    Paczynski, Acta Astron.45, 345 (1995), arXiv:astro- ph/9504099 [astro-ph]

    B. Paczynski, Acta Astron.45, 345 (1995), arXiv:astro- ph/9504099 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 1995

  25. [25]

    Y. Wang, A. Stebbins, and E. L. Turner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 2875 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9605140 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  26. [26]

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

    1998

  27. [27]

    Takahashi and T

    R. Takahashi and T. Nakamura, ApJ595, 1039 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0305055 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  28. [28]

    K. Liao, M. Biesiada, and X.-L. Fan, ApJ875, 139 (2019), arXiv:1903.06612 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  29. [29]

    Sun and X

    D. Sun and X. Fan, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1911.08268 (2019), arXiv:1911.08268 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1911

  30. [30]

    Hou, X.-L

    S. Hou, X.-L. Fan, K. Liao, and Z.-H. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 101, 064011 (2020), arXiv:1911.02798 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  31. [31]

    Biesiada and S

    M. Biesiada and S. Harikumar, Universe7, 502 (2021), arXiv:2111.05963 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  32. [32]

    De Paolis, G

    F. De Paolis, G. Ingrosso, and A. A. Nucita, A&A366, 1065 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0011563 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  33. [33]

    Guo and Z

    X. Guo and Z. Cao, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2024, 084 (2024), arXiv:2401.01581 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    Suyamprakasam, S

    S. Suyamprakasam, S. Harikumar, P. Ciecieląg, P. Figura, M. Bejger, and M. Biesiada, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2503.21845 (2025), arXiv:2503.21845 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    X.-Y. Yang, T. Chen, and R.-G. Cai, J. Cosmology As- tropart.Phys.2025,069(2025),arXiv:2410.16378[astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Li, W.-L

    Y.-Z. Li, W.-L. Xu, Y.-G. Chen, and W.-H. Lei, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2506.04196 (2025), arXiv:2506.04196 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    D. J. D’Orazio and A. Loeb, Phys. Rev. D101, 083031 (2020), arXiv:1910.02966 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  38. [38]

    H. Yu, Y. Wang, B. Seymour, and Y. Chen, Phys. Rev. D 104, 103011 (2021), arXiv:2107.14318 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  39. [39]

    Narayan and M

    R. Narayan and M. Bartelmann, arXiv e-prints , astro- ph/9606001 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9606001 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 1996

  40. [40]

    Lee, Universe3, 53 (2017), arXiv:1711.05298 [astro-ph.IM]

    C.-H. Lee, Universe3, 53 (2017), arXiv:1711.05298 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  41. [41]

    Gould, Journal of Korean Astronomical Society52, 121 (2019), arXiv:1905.06770 [astro-ph.EP]

    A. Gould, Journal of Korean Astronomical Society52, 121 (2019), arXiv:1905.06770 [astro-ph.EP]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  42. [42]

    Refsdal, MNRAS134, 315 (1966)

    S. Refsdal, MNRAS134, 315 (1966)

    1966

  43. [43]

    Gould, ApJ421, L75 (1994)

    A. Gould, ApJ421, L75 (1994)

    1994

  44. [44]

    Gould, ApJ542, 785 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0001421 [astro-ph]

    A. Gould, ApJ542, 785 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0001421 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  45. [45]

    Gould, ApJ421, L71 (1994)

    A. Gould, ApJ421, L71 (1994)

    1994

  46. [46]

    R. J. Nemiroff and W. A. D. T. Wickramasinghe, ApJ 424, L21 (1994), arXiv:astro-ph/9401005 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  47. [47]

    Rahvar, Phys

    S. Rahvar, Phys. Rev. D101, 024015 (2020), arXiv:1908.01361 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  48. [48]

    Rahvar, A

    S. Rahvar, A. Mehrabi, and M. Dominik, MNRAS410, 912 (2011), arXiv:1008.1033 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  49. [49]

    Samsing, L

    J. Samsing, L. Zwick, P. Saini, and J. Takátsy, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2511.19407 (2025), arXiv:2511.19407 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    Ubach, M

    H. Ubach, M. Gieles, and J. Miralda-Escudé, Phys. Rev. D112, 083026 (2025), arXiv:2505.04794 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    G. M. Beskin and A. V. Tuntsov, A&A394, 489 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0208095 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  52. [52]

    Kasuya, M

    S. Kasuya, M. Honda, and R. Mishima, MNRAS411, 1863 (2011), arXiv:1009.2129 [astro-ph.EP]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  53. [53]

    Han, ApJ820, 53 (2016), arXiv:1603.03500 [astro- ph.SR]

    C. Han, ApJ820, 53 (2016), arXiv:1603.03500 [astro- ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  54. [54]

    Bulashenko and H

    O. Bulashenko and H. Ubach, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2022, 022 (2022), arXiv:2112.10773 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  55. [55]

    Samsing, K

    J. Samsing, K. Hendriks, L. Zwick, D. J. D’Orazio, and B. Liu, ApJ990, 211 (2025), arXiv:2403.05625 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    Maggiore,Gravitational Waves: Volume 1: Theory and Experiments(Oxford University Press, 2007)

    M. Maggiore,Gravitational Waves: Volume 1: Theory and Experiments(Oxford University Press, 2007)

    2007

  57. [57]

    McKernan, K

    B. McKernan, K. E. S. Ford, W. Lyra, and H. B. Perets, MNRAS425, 460 (2012), arXiv:1206.2309 [astro- ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  58. [58]

    J. M. Bellovary, M.-M. Mac Low, B. McKernan, and K. E. S. Ford, ApJ819, L17 (2016), arXiv:1511.00005 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  59. [59]

    Secunda, J

    A. Secunda, J. Bellovary, M.-M. Mac Low, K. E. S. Ford, B. McKernan, N. W. C. Leigh, W. Lyra, and Z. Sándor, ApJ878, 85 (2019)

    2019

  60. [60]

    Peng and X

    P. Peng and X. Chen, MNRAS505, 1324 (2021), arXiv:2104.07685 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  61. [61]

    S. H. W. Leong, J. Janquart, A. K. Sharma, P. Martens, P. Ajith, and O. A. Hannuksela, ApJ979, L27 (2025), arXiv:2408.13144 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  62. [62]

    Savastano, F

    S. Savastano, F. Vernizzi, and M. Zumalacárregui, Phys. Rev. D109, 024064 (2024), arXiv:2212.14697 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  63. [63]

    Gangardt, A

    D. Gangardt, A. A. Trani, C. Bonnerot, and D. Gerosa, MNRAS530, 3689 (2024), arXiv:2403.00060 [astro- 9 ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  64. [64]

    Grishin, S

    E. Grishin, S. Gilbaum, and N. C. Stone, MNRAS530, 2114 (2024), arXiv:2307.07546 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  65. [65]

    Rowan, H

    C. Rowan, H. Whitehead, G. Fabj, P. Kirkeberg, M. E. Pessah, and B. Kocsis, MNRAS543, 132 (2025), arXiv:2505.23739 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  66. [66]

    Gondán and B

    L. Gondán and B. Kocsis, MNRAS515, 3299 (2022), arXiv:2110.09540 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  67. [67]

    Takátsy, L

    J. Takátsy, L. Zwick, K. Hendriks, P. Saini, G. Fabj, and J. Samsing, Classical and Quantum Gravity42, 215006 (2025), arXiv:2505.09513 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  68. [68]

    J. S. Santos, V. Cardoso, J. Natário, and M. van de Meent, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 211402 (2025), arXiv:2506.14868 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  69. [69]

    M. J. Michałowski and P. Mróz, ApJ915, L33 (2021), arXiv:2107.00659 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  70. [70]

    Bozza and L

    V. Bozza and L. Mancini, ApJ753, 56 (2012), arXiv:1204.2103 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012