AG-2026.06-339·astro-ph.CO·cross-listed: astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
Mock Catalogs of Strongly Lensed Gravitational Waves via a Halo Model Approach with Space-borne Detectors
Authors
- Mingqi Sun
- Kai Liao
- Youkai Li
- Tonghua Liu
- Hengyu Wu
- Shaoqi Hou
- Tao Yang
- Xilong Fan
- Marek Biesiada
Abstract
Future space-borne gravitational-wave (GW) detectors, such as LISA and DECIGO, are expected to detect a large number of GW events, a fraction of which may be strongly lensed by intervening galaxies or galaxy clusters. In this work, we develop a comprehensive framework to simulate strongly lensed GWs in the context of space-borne detectors. Based on realistic astrophysical models for both the source population and the lens distribution, we construct mock catalogs of lensed GW events, referred to as \textbf{GW-LMC-Space}. Our results show that, for a four-year LISA observation, the expected number of lensed events ranges from $0$ to $131$, depending on the adopted formation model of massive black hole binaries (MBHBs). The corresponding lensing probability for MBHBs can reach up to $\sim 0.3\%$. For DECIGO, we find that the number of lensed events in a one-year observation is expected to lie in the range of $0$--$44$, with a lensing probability of $\sim 0.15\%$ for stellar-mass binary black holes (BBHs), binary neutron stars (BNSs), and neutron star--black hole binaries (NSBHs). We further show that the overlap of lensed signals is a common feature in space-borne detectors, which can significantly affect both the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) estimation and event identification. These results highlight the importance of accounting for signal overlap in the analysis of strongly lensed GW events in future space-borne GW observations.
Submitted
8 June 20263 days ago
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2606.08899
Chat with this PDF
Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.
Community
Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.