Paper detail

Effect of Type II Strong Gravitational Lensing on Tests of General Relativity

Gravitational wave (GW) observations of binary black hole (BBH) coalescences provide a unique opportunity to test general relativity (GR) in the strong-field regime. To ensure the reliability of these tests, it is essential to identify and address potential sources of error, particularly those arising from missing physics in the waveform models used in GW data analysis. This paper investigates potential biases in these tests arising from strong gravitational lensing, an effect not currently incorporated into the standard framework for GR tests. In the geometric optics approximation, strong lensing produces three types of images: Type I, Type II, and Type III. While Type I and Type III images do not distort the signal, Type II images introduce a characteristic phase shift that can mimic GR deviations for signals with higher-order modes, precession, or eccentricity. We assess the response of four standard GR tests on simulated Type II lensed BBH signals, including the two parameterized tests (TIGER and FTI), the modified dispersion relation test and the inspiral-merger-ringdown consistency test. We focus on precessing waveforms for binaries with total masses of $20M_{\odot}$ and $80M_{\odot}$, and dimensionless spins of 0.5 and 0.95, considering a fixed signal-to-noise ratio of 25 using the design A+ sensitivity of the LIGO-Virgo network. Our findings indicate that more mass-asymmetric and higher-spin binaries show larger false deviations from GR in the TIGER and modified dispersion relation tests when applying GR tests to Type II lensed signals. These results highlight the risk of false GR violations as detector sensitivity improves in future observational runs. Therefore, it is crucial to consider the possibility of strong lensing before drawing conclusions about deviations from GR in GW signals.

preprint2026arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.