Follow-up analyses to the O3 LIGO–Virgo–KAGRA lensing searches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Along their path from source to observer, gravitational waves may be gravitationally lensed by massive objects leading to distortion in the signals. Searches for these distortions amongst the observed signals from the current detector network have already been carried out, though there have as yet been no confident detections. However, predictions of the observation rate of lensing suggest detection in the future is a realistic possibility. Therefore, preparations need to be made to thoroughly investigate the candidate lensed signals. In this work, we present some follow-up analyses that could be applied to assess the significance of such events and ascertain what information may be extracted about the lens-source system by applying these analyses to a number of O3 candidate events, even if these signals did not yield a high significance for any of the lensing hypotheses. These analyses cover the strong lensing, millilensing, and microlensing regimes. Applying these additional analyses does not lead to any additional evidence for lensing in the candidates that have been examined. However, it does provide important insight into potential avenues to deal with high-significance candidates in future observations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".