MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4407798673 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adae10

Fast and Efficient Bayesian Method to Search for Strongly Lensed Gravitational Waves

2025· article· en· W4407798673 on OpenAlexaff
Ankur Barsode, Srashti Goyal, P. Ajith

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
FundersDepartment of Atomic Energy, Government of IndiaTata Institute of Fundamental Research
KeywordsPhysicsGravitational waveBayesian probabilityAstrophysicsAstronomyGravitationArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A small fraction of the gravitational-wave (GW) signals from binary black holes observable by ground-based detectors will be strongly lensed by intervening objects such as galaxies and clusters. Strong lensing will produce nearly identical copies of the GW signals separated in time. These lensed signals must be identified against a background of unlensed pairs GW events, some of which may appear similar by accident. This is usually done using fast, but approximate methods that, for example, check for the overlap between the posterior distributions of a subset of binary parameters, or using slow, but accurate joint Bayesian parameter estimation. In this work, we present a modified version of the posterior overlap method dubbed “PO2.0” that is mathematically equivalent to joint parameter estimation while still remaining fast. We achieve a significant gain in efficiency by incorporating informative priors about the binary and lensing populations, selection effects, and all the inferred parameters of the binary. For binary black hole signals lensed by galaxies, our improved method can detect 65% lensed events at a pairwise false alarm probability of ∼2 × 10−6. Consequently, we have a 13% probability of detecting a strongly lensed event above 2.25σ significance during 18 months of observation by the LIGO-Virgo detectors at their current sensitivity. We also show how we can compute the joint posteriors of the lens and source parameters from a pair of lensed events by reweighting the posteriors of individual events in a computationally inexpensive way.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.347 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research→French-language works237,207→