Detectability of lensed gravitational waves in matched-filtering searches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gravitational lensing by compact, small-scale intervening masses causes frequency-dependent distortions to gravitational-wave events. The optimal signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) is often used as a proxy for the detectability of exotic signals in gravitational-wave searches. In reality, the detectability of such signals in a matched-filtering search requires comprehensive consideration of match-filtered SNR, signal-consistency test value, and other factors. In this work, we investigate for the first time the detectability of lensed gravitational waves from compact binary coalescences with a match-filtering search pipeline, GstLAL. Contrary to expectations from the optimal-SNR approximation approach, we show that the strength of a signal (i.e., higher optimal SNR) does not necessarily result in higher detectability. We also demonstrate that lensed gravitational waves with wave optics effects can suffer significantly, from $~90\%$ (unlensed) to $<1\%$ (lensed) detection efficiency, due to downranking by the signal-consistency test values. These findings stress the need to extend current template banks to effectively search for lensed gravitational waves and to reassess current constraints on compact dark matter scenarios.
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 | 0.009 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".