Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

False positives for gravitational lensing: the gravitational-wave perspective

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2407.12974 v1 pith:UE5C3QNR submitted 2024-07-17 gr-qc astro-ph.HEphysics.data-an

False positives for gravitational lensing: the gravitational-wave perspective

classification gr-qc astro-ph.HEphysics.data-an
keywords lensingfalsepositivescaredetectiongravitationalgravitational-wavemitigate
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

For the first detection of a novel astrophysical phenomenon, scientific standards are particularly high. Especially in a multi-messenger context, there are also opportunity costs to follow-up observations on any detection claims. So in searching for the still elusive lensed gravitational waves, care needs to be taken in controlling false positives. In particular, many methods for identifying strong lensing rely on some form of parameter similarity or waveform consistency, which under rapidly growing catalog sizes can expose them to false positives from coincident but unlensed events if proper care is not taken. And searches for waveform deformations in all lensing regimes are subject to degeneracies we need to mitigate between lensing, intrinsic parameters, insufficiently modelled effects such as orbital eccentricity, or even deviations from general relativity. Robust lensing studies also require understanding and mitigating glitches and non-stationarities in the detector data. This article reviews sources of possible false positives (and their flip side: false negatives) in gravitational-wave lensing searches and the main approaches the community is pursuing to mitigate them.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Identifying lensed gravitational waves with physics-informed posterior learning

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Fusing a simulation-trained common-source mass posterior with waveform features raises lensed-event detection efficiency from 20.8% to 35.2% at 1% false-positive rate and lowers the SNR for 50% efficiency from 45.3 to 33.5.

  2. Toward claiming a detection of gravitational memory

    gr-qc 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 6.0

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

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

    gr-qc 2025-12 conditional novelty 5.0

    GW231123's apparent gravitational-lensing signal has a false-alarm probability around 4σ, so the event cannot be claimed as lensed under the two-image wave-optics model.

  4. False Alarm Rates in Detecting Gravitational Wave Lensing from Astrophysical Coincidences: Insights with Model-Independent Technique GLANCE

    gr-qc 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Simulations of unlensed binary black hole mergers show that ~0.01% of event pairs are falsely classified as lensed by GLANCE at SNR threshold 1.5 with time delays of ~1000 days or more.