What is the nature of GW230529? An exploration of the gravitational lensing hypothesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract On the 29th of May 2023, the LIGO–Virgo–KAGRA Collaboration observed a compact binary coalescence event consistent with a neutron star – black hole merger, though the heavier object of mass 2.5 − 4.5 M⊙ would fall into the purported lower mass gap. An alternative explanation for apparent observations of events in this mass range has been suggested as strongly gravitationally lensed binary neutron stars. In this scenario, magnification would lead to the source appearing closer and heavier than it really is. Here, we investigate the chances and possible consequences for the GW230529 event to be gravitationally lensed. We find this would require high magnifications and we obtain low rates for observing such an event, with a relative fraction of lensed versus unlensed observed events of 2 × 10−3 at most. When comparing the lensed and unlensed hypotheses accounting for the latest rates and population model, we find a 1/58 chance of lensing, disfavoring this option. Moreover, when the magnification is assumed to be strong enough to bring the mass of the heavier binary component below the standard upper limits on neutron star masses, we find high probability for the lighter object to have a sub-solar mass, making the binary even more exotic than a mass-gap neutron star–black hole system. Even when the secondary is not sub-solar, its tidal deformability would likely be measurable, which is not the case for GW230529. Finally, we do not find evidence for extra lensing signatures such as the arrival of additional lensed images, type-II image dephasing, or microlensing. Therefore, we conclude it is unlikely for GW230529 to be a strongly gravitationally lensed binary neutron star signal.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".