Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Waveform geometry explains why ppE tests catch generic GR deviations.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 22:14 UTC pith:CDOV22NC

load-bearing objection Useful geometric picture and SVD construction, but Bayes-factor equations have a real notation slip and the quantitative claims only live at unit residual SNR. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2602.17524 v2 pith:CDOV22NC submitted 2026-02-19 gr-qc

Inspiral tests of general relativity and waveform geometry

Brian C. Seymour , Jacob Golomb , Yanbei Chen This is my paper
classification gr-qc
keywords gravitational wavestests of general relativityparameterized post-Einsteinian frameworkwaveform geometryparameter estimation biasFisher matrixBayes factorsingular value decomposition
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper claims that parameterized post-Einsteinian (ppE) tests of general relativity are not accidentally flexible but geometrically guaranteed to catch generic smooth deviations from GR. When a GR template is fitted to a slightly modified signal, the GR parameters (masses, spins, coalescence time and phase) shift to absorb the component of the deviation that lies along the waveform manifold; only the perpendicular residual remains observable. Different ppE power-law phase deviations become strikingly similar after this projection—overlapping by 40–100% for a GW150914-like signal—so any individual ppE term captures most of the signal of a generic dephasing. The paper derives Bayes factors for mismodeled searches in terms of the residual SNR and the overlap between perpendicular deviations, and proposes an SVD basis built from the perpendicular residuals to break the degeneracies. If true, this explains both the past success of ppE tests and why multiparameter fits are so degenerate, and it offers a data-driven route to orthogonal tests.

Core claim

The central claim is that the detectability of a deviation from GR is governed entirely by the portion of the waveform deviation perpendicular to the GR waveform manifold. Using the standard linearized bias formalism, the paper shows that only deviations parallel to the manifold bias the estimated GR parameters; after those parameters are refit, the measurable residual is Δh⊥, with signal-to-noise ρ⊥ = ∥Δh⊥∥. The Bayes factor for a ppE search against a generic beyond-GR signal is then set by the overlap O between the perpendicular ppE template and the true perpendicular residual, with captured SNR ρ⊥_ppE = O ρ⊥. Because the perpendicular residuals of different ppE orders are highly correlate

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the geometry of the waveform signal manifold under the noise-weighted inner product. The bias equation Δθ = Γ⁻¹(∂h|Δh) is rewritten geometrically: only the parallel component Δh∥ = Δθ_bias ∂h contributes to the parameter bias, leaving the perpendicular residual Δh⊥ as the observable evidence against GR. Two derived quantities carry the argument: the residual SNR ρ⊥ and the overlap O between the perpendicular residuals of the true deviation and the ppE template, which together set Bayes factors and distinguishability z-scores. The SVD template construction uses a packing operator that maps complex frequency-domain residuals into real vectors so that the noise-weighted inn

Load-bearing premise

The framework assumes the maximum-likelihood estimate is sharply peaked and that after refitting the GR parameters the residual dephasing is smaller than about a radian (∥Δh⊥∥ ≲ 1), with Gaussian noise; if residual dephasing is large or noise is non-Gaussian, the bias, overlap, and Bayes-factor results do not follow.

What would settle it

Take a simulated loud binary black hole signal and inject a beyond-GR dephasing strong enough that the perpendicular residual exceeds a radian (ρ⊥ well above 1) while keeping the total SNR high; then perform full Bayesian inference with a ppE template and compare the recovered Bayes factor and effective residual SNR to the paper's formulas. If the captured residual SNR stops following O·ρ⊥ or the z-score scaling saturates below the predicted linear-in-ρ⊥ behavior, the linear-bias assumption is violated.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Parameterized tests are robust: a search at any single ppE order will capture most of the residual SNR of a generic smooth dephasing, so current constraints are not strongly degraded by not knowing the true deviation's PN order.
  • Multiparameter ppE fits are intrinsically degenerate because the perpendicular residuals of different orders overlap by ≳40% for heavy binary black hole signals; the covariance matrix is ill-conditioned and simultaneous constraints are weak.
  • The Bayes factor for a ppE search against a generic beyond-GR signal is controlled by ρ⊥ and O, so the evidentiary value of a candidate deviation is set by the perpendicular residual, not the raw waveform difference.
  • An SVD basis built from the perpendicular ppE residuals provides orthonormal templates that can detect deviations with less degeneracy, and the same geometric treatment extends to amplitude-plus-phase deviations and multiple detectors.
  • The distinguishability of two beyond-GR models is set by the lost residual SNR ρ_diff = ρ⊥√(1−O²), with a z-score that scales linearly with the residual SNR when it is large.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The overlap numbers depend on which GR parameters are allowed to bias; if spins are not measured or are ignored, the ppE residuals become even more alike. This suggests the flexibility of ppE tests is partly a consequence of spin degrees of freedom absorbing low-frequency phase differences, and could be probed by comparing overlap matrices across events with different masses or spin priors.
  • The linear-bias regime limits the framework to small residual dephasing; for loud future detections with strong deviations (or non-Gaussian glitches), the predicted Bayes-factor scalings could break. One could stress-test this by injecting a large nonviolent-nonlocality-like deviation in simulated data and checking whether the SVD templates still identify the correct direction.
  • The geometric decomposition could serve as a principled way to separate astrophysical mimics (eccentricity, precession, glitches) from genuine GR violations: compute their perpendicular projections and overlaps against ppE residuals to see when they are intrinsically distinguishable.
  • Because the SVD basis is data-driven and detector-dependent, one could also use the lowest-singular-value directions as a guard against unknown systematic errors, or to search for deviations that are orthogonal to all standard ppE terms.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a geometric interpretation of parameterized (ppE) tests of general relativity using the Cutler–Vallisneri bias formalism. It argues that after the GR parameters are biased, only the component of a beyond-GR deviation perpendicular to the GR waveform manifold contributes to detectability, and that the perpendicular residuals of different ppE templates overlap strongly (≈40–100% for a GW150914-like signal). This is used to explain the apparent flexibility of ppE tests in capturing generic smooth dephasing, to derive Bayes factors relating bGR and ppE models, and to propose a new SVD-based orthogonal template basis. Numerical overlap matrices, phase-residual plots, and an illustrative nonviolent-nonlocality example are provided, along with reproducible Python notebooks.

Significance. If the central geometric claim holds, the paper provides a useful and intuitively clear explanation for a known but poorly understood phenomenon: parameterized tests of GR are highly degenerate yet surprisingly effective at capturing smooth deviations. The explicit overlap computations, the connection to Bayes factors, and the SVD proposal are potentially valuable for designing future tests, especially with next-generation detectors. The paper also makes reproducibility a strength by shipping notebooks for the main figures. However, the quantitative claims rely on the linearized Fisher/Cutler–Vallisneri regime, and there are internal inconsistencies in the Bayes-factor derivation that must be resolved before the results can be relied upon.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IID and App. C, Eqs. (27)–(33), (C10)–(C16), (C31)] The symbol ∆h⊥_ppE is used with two different meanings. In Sec. IID (after Eq. 29) it is the best-fit captured vector Δµ_bias(∂µh)⊥, and y in Eq. (27) is the noise projection onto that vector. In App. C2 (before Eq. C10) the same symbol is defined as the component perpendicular to both GR and ∂µh, i.e. the residual after ppE fitting. The claimed correlation E[xy]=√(1−O²) after Eq. (31) is true only for the App. C definition of y; with the main-text definition E[xy]=O. Thus Eq. (31) is not self-consistent with the definitions it cites. The z-score algebra in App. C is also incorrect: from Eqs. (C25)–(C26), |O|√(μ1²+μ2²)=√(1+O²−2O√(1−O²)), not √(1+O²−2O)√(1−O²); this error propagates to Eqs. (32)–(33). Please reconcile the definitions and correct the algebra.
  2. [Sec. IIA, App. A, Figs. 5–7 and 11] The central quantitative claims are made in the linearized Cutler–Vallisneri regime. Appendix A states that the bias equations are valid when the residual component satisfies ∥∆h⊥∥ ≲ 1 radian. All overlap computations normalize injected residuals to ∥∆h⊥∥=1 (Figs. 3–7, 11), i.e. at the edge of that regime. A detectable GR deviation in a real search would typically have residual SNR >1 (often ≳8), where the ML shift is not guaranteed to remain small and the perpendicular residual structure can change. The paper provides no calculation or numerical injection study at larger ρ⊥ showing that the 40–100% overlaps persist. The abstract's claim that ppE tests are 'flexible and sensitive' for generic deviations is therefore not established in the regime where they would actually be used. Please either extend the analysis beyond the linear regime or explicitly qualify the claim.
  3. [Sec. IV] The SVD construction is presented as a way to 'enhanc[e] the detection of potential deviations' (abstract), but no detection statistic, injection-recovery study, or comparison with standard ppE or PCA approaches is provided. Figures 9–10 show the SVD modes, but not their detection performance. As written, the SVD section is a proposal; the claimed enhancement is unsupported. A quantitative validation (e.g., false-alarm/detection probability for the SVD templates versus the original ppE basis) is needed to support the conclusion.
minor comments (5)
  1. [App. C2, Eq. (C10)] The evidence 'p(s_GR|ppE)' should presumably be 'p(s_bGR|ppE)', since the injection is a bGR signal. The same typo appears in the accompanying text.
  2. [Eq. (A7)] 'error of(∆θ_raw_bias) error ∼ ...' has a doubled word; it should read 'error of ∆θ_raw_bias ∼ ...'.
  3. [Eq. (29) and App. C] To avoid the ambiguity noted in Major 1, please introduce distinct notation for the captured ppE vector and the residual after ppE fitting, e.g., ∆h⊥_ppE^cap and ∆h⊥_ppE^res, and use them consistently throughout Sec. IID and App. C.
  4. [Fig. 5 caption] 'All extrinsic parameters measured' is ambiguous; do you mean they are included in the Fisher matrix and allowed to be biased? Clarify to avoid confusion with actual measurement.
  5. [Sec. IIIB, Eq. (47)] The nonviolent-nonlocality phase deviation is taken from the authors' previous paper [54]. This is fine as an illustrative example, but a sentence noting that the example is meant to be representative rather than exhaustive would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the paper applies the external Cutler–Vallisneri formalism and performs direct overlap computations; the one self-citation is illustrative, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is not circular. Section II reviews and applies the Cutler–Vallisneri / Vallisneri bias equations (Eqs. 4-15), which are external results; the decomposition of Delta h into parallel and perpendicular parts is an algebraic consequence of the linearized maximum-likelihood equations, not an input that is later repackaged as a prediction. The claim that 'only deviations parallel to waveform manifold bias the parameter estimation' (Eq. 13) is a restatement of the standard projection structure, and the detectability statement based on Delta h_perp is attributed to Vallisneri [72]. Section III computes overlaps and residual SNRs directly from waveforms (Figs. 5-7); these are numerical evaluations, not fitted parameters renamed as predictions. The nonviolent-nonlocality example in Sec. IIIB cites the authors' own Ref. [54], but it is used as an illustrative application and the relevant phase formula is restated in the paper; the geometric flexibility claim already rests on the independent overlap computations in Sec. IIIA. The SVD construction is explicitly built from the perpendicular ppE residuals and is presented as such ('By construction, the SVD vectors lie in the subspace that is perpendicular to GR'), so it does not smuggle in an ansatz or import a uniqueness theorem. Appendix A does flag an important validity limitation on the whole framework: the expansion is controlled by the smallness of the residual mismatch, ||Delta h_perp|| <~ 1, not the total mismatch. That is a scope restriction and a correctness risk for extrapolation to high residual SNR, but it is not circular reasoning: the paper's equations and overlap computations are what they claim to be within that stated regime. No step in the derivation reduces to its own inputs by definition, and no load-bearing conclusion depends on a self-citation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced; SVD modes are constructed test templates rather than new forces, particles, or conserved quantities. The ledger is dominated by the standard linear-signal, Gaussian-noise, flat-prior assumptions inherited from the Fisher-matrix literature, plus a self-cited NVNL waveform used only as an example.

free parameters (2)
  • Per-template normalization ||∆h⊥_k|| = 1 = 1
    Each ppE residual is normalized to unit SNR before computing overlaps/SVD (Fig. 3 caption, Sec. IV), an ad hoc weighting that determines the SVD basis and overlap values; equal weight is a choice, not derived from data.
  • GW150914-like source parameters and PSD = GW150914 event values; O3 Livingston PSD
    Overlaps and SVD depend on chosen source parameters and detector sensitivity; the authors note strong dependence (App. E), so these are hand-picked inputs from the literature.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Stationary Gaussian noise with known PSD S_n(f); likelihood is quadratic; maximum-likelihood estimate is sharply peaked and parameter errors are small.
    Used to derive bias Eqs. (7)-(8), Bayes factors, and all geometric statements (Sec. IIA).
  • domain assumption Linear/Fisher approximation: θ_ML − θ_t ≪ 1 and residual mismatch ∥∆h⊥∥ ≲ 1; the raw bias formula may fail otherwise.
    Required for the Cutler-Vallisneri bias; App. A explicitly limits validity to small residual phase, not small total phase.
  • domain assumption The bGR signal is a small phase perturbation h(f) = h_GR(f) e^{iΔΨ(f)} (Eq. 41), and ppE deviations are power-law phase terms with coefficients δφ_k.
    Defines the search space; amplitude deviations, logarithmic or screened terms, and essential singularities are not covered, as the paper itself notes (intro and Sec. IIIB).
  • domain assumption Flat priors for all extra parameters in Bayes-factor prefactors; Occam-factor width set by Δλ_prior and Δμ_prior.
    Needed for Eqs. (24)-(31) prefactors; prior choice affects absolute Bayes factors, not the geometric SNR terms.
  • ad hoc to paper The nonviolent-nonlocality phase deviation Eq. (47) from the authors' prior paper [54] is a representative generic deviation.
    Used as an example of a non-ppE deviation; it comes from self-cited previous work and is not independently benchmarked here.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 29161 in / 33057 out tokens · 309312 ms · 2026-08-02T22:14:28.620706+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The phase evolution of gravitational waves encodes critical information about the orbital dynamics of binary systems. In this work, we test the robustness of parameterized tests against unmodeled deviations from general relativity. We demonstrate that these parameterized tests are flexible and sensitive in detecting generic deviations in the waveform using the Cutler-Vallisneri bias formalism. This universality arises from examining the inherent geometry of the waveform signal and understanding how biases manifest. We show how Bayes factors are governed by the intrinsic geometry of the waveform signal manifold when parameterized tests are used to approximate generic violations of GR. We use the singular value decomposition to propose templates that are orthogonal to parameterized tests, identifying degeneracies and enhancing the detection of potential deviations. More broadly, the geometric framework developed here clarifies -- at a fundamental level -- how subtle waveform effects (including orbital eccentricity, spin precession, waveform systematics, and instrumental glitches) can mimic one another in data, and when they are intrinsically distinguishable.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.17524 by Brian C. Seymour, Jacob Golomb, Yanbei Chen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Illustration of degeneracy when testing GR. We [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. In this plot, we visually show how the ppE tests [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Residual amplitude for ppE injected deviations from GR for a GW150914-like detection. On the left and right, we [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. This figure shows how the ppE behave after GR parameter projection. On the left, we show the ppE dephasing for a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The overlap between deviations injected (y-axis) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The overlap between deviations injected (y-axis) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The ppE phase deviations (colored) and the nonvio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. We show the visualization of the SVD operation. For our choice of the SVD, we use [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Demonstration of the SVD on different ppE waveform deviations. In transparent solid, different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Construction of SVD multiparameter tests. We start by orthogonalizing the ppE deviations from GR. Next, we [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Residual amplitude for ppE injected deviations from GR for a GW170817-like detection. On the left is case of non [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Dynamics of Relativistic Binaries in Structured and Stochastic Environments: A Lagrange-Fourier-Hansen Framework

    gr-qc 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A new framework projects perturbations onto resonant frequencies via Hansen coefficients to produce efficient coupled ODEs for orbital elements in GW-driven relativistic binaries, demonstrated on tidal fields and accr...

  2. Black Hole Binary Detection Landscape for the Laser Interferometer Lunar Antenna (LILA): Signal-to-Noise Calculations & Science Cases

    astro-ph.HE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    LILA can detect IMBH binaries at redshifts 20-30, IMRIs, and provide months-to-years early warnings with high-SNR events for gravity tests.

  3. The Impact of Spin Priors on Parameterized Tests of General Relativity

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Spin prior choices propagate into tests of GR via the 1.5PN deviation parameter δφ̂3 in a non-trivial, event-dependent way, with stronger effects for short-inspiral events and partial degeneracy with χ_eff when the de...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

128 extracted references · 104 linked inside Pith · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Bayes factor for a correctly modeled theory We will first derive the Bayes factor for the case of a beyond-GR (bGR) injection where we have perfectly modeled the bGR morphology. If we injects bGR = hbGR(θt, λt), in the Fisher matrix limit the likelihood is p(s bGR |δθ µ) =Ne −|n|2/2+(G−1) µν (n|hµ)(n|hν )/2−Gµν δθµδθν /2 , (C3) whereG µν = (h µ|hν)is the(...

  2. [2]

    The GR evidence is the same as in Eq

    Bayes factor for a mismodeled theory Let us now turn to the case that we are using a ppE model to search for beyond GR morphology which has mismodeled it. The GR evidence is the same as in Eq. (C6) while the evidence for ppE is equal to p(s GR |ppE) = (2π)(m+1)/2p |H −1|Q α ∆θα prior × Ne−|n|2/2−|∆h⊥ppE|2/2−x|∆h⊥ppE|+(H −1)αβ nαnβ , (C10) whereH αβ is the...

  3. [3]

    Bayes factor between two beyond GR theories Finally, let us compute the Bayes factor that compares a beyond GR signal to that of a parameterized model as we did in Eq. (31). This can be done using BbGR ppE sbGR = BGR bGR BGR ppE sbGR ,(C17) since the Bayes factors are the ratio of the evidences. This results in the expression BbGR ppE sbGR = ∆λstat∆µprior...

  4. [4]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), GWTC-2: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and VirgoDuringtheFirstHalfoftheThirdObservingRun, Phys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), GWTC-2: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and VirgoDuringtheFirstHalfoftheThirdObservingRun, Phys. Rev. X11, 021053 (2021), arXiv:2010.14527 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    (C27) Since the difference between two noncentral chi-square random variables is not a well known distribution, this is the most simplified form for the Bayes factor here

    Therefore, we have derived the expression for the Bayes factor between two theories BbGR ppE sbGR = ∆λstat∆µprior ∆λprior∆µstat e(w1+µ1)2/2−(w2+µ2)2/2 . (C27) Since the difference between two noncentral chi-square random variables is not a well known distribution, this is the most simplified form for the Bayes factor here. While Eq. (C27) depends on two r...

  6. [6]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Obser- vation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  7. [7]

    B.P.Abbottet al.(LIGOScientific, Virgo),GW170817: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Neu- tron Star Inspiral, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 161101 (2017), arXiv:1710.05832 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), GWTC- 1: A Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog of Compact Binary Mergers Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the First and Second Observing Runs, Phys. Rev. X9, 031040 (2019), arXiv:1811.12907 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  9. [9]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Tests of gen- eral relativity with binary black holes from the second LIGO-Virgo gravitational-wave transient catalog, Phys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Tests of gen- eral relativity with binary black holes from the second LIGO-Virgo gravitational-wave transient catalog, Phys. Rev. D103, 122002 (2021), arXiv:2010.14529 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  10. [10]

    Abbottet al.(KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the Second Part of the Third Observing Run, Phys

    R. Abbottet al.(KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the Second Part of the Third Observing Run, Phys. Rev. X13, 041039 (2023), arXiv:2111.03606 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Tests of general relativity with GW150914, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 221101 (2016), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 121, 129902 (2018)], arXiv:1602.03841 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  12. [12]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Tests of General Relativity with GW170817, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 011102 (2019), arXiv:1811.00364 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  13. [13]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Tests of General Relativity with the Binary Black Hole Signals from the LIGO-Virgo Catalog GWTC-1, Phys. Rev. D 100, 104036 (2019), arXiv:1903.04467 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  14. [14]

    Aasiet al.(LIGO Scientific), Advanced LIGO, Class

    J. Aasiet al.(LIGO Scientific), Advanced LIGO, Class. Quant. Grav.32, 074001 (2015), arXiv:1411.4547 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  15. [15]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), Tests of General Relativity with GWTC-3 (2021), arXiv:2112.06861 [gr-qc]

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), Tests of General Relativity with GWTC-3 (2021), arXiv:2112.06861 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  16. [16]

    Yunes, K

    N. Yunes, K. Yagi, and F. Pretorius, Theoretical Physics Implications of the Binary Black-Hole Mergers GW150914 and GW151226, Phys. Rev. D94, 084002 18 (2016), arXiv:1603.08955 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  17. [17]

    R. Nair, S. Perkins, H. O. Silva, and N. Yunes, Funda- mental Physics Implications for Higher-Curvature The- ories from Binary Black Hole Signals in the LIGO-Virgo Catalog GWTC-1, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 191101 (2019), arXiv:1905.00870 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  18. [18]

    H. O. Silva, A. M. Holgado, A. Cárdenas-Avendaño, and N. Yunes, Astrophysical and theoretical physics impli- cations from multimessenger neutron star observations, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 181101 (2021), arXiv:2004.01253 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  19. [19]

    Fritschelet al., Report of the lsc post-o5 study group, LIGO Document: LIGO-T2200287 (2022)

    P. Fritschelet al., Report of the lsc post-o5 study group, LIGO Document: LIGO-T2200287 (2022)

    2022

  20. [20]

    Acerneseet al.(VIRGO), Advanced Virgo: a second- generation interferometric gravitational wave detector, Class

    F. Acerneseet al.(VIRGO), Advanced Virgo: a second- generation interferometric gravitational wave detector, Class. Quant. Grav.32, 024001 (2015), arXiv:1408.3978 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  21. [21]

    Akutsuet al.(KAGRA), Overview of KAGRA: De- tector design and construction history, PTEP2021, 05A101 (2021), arXiv:2005.05574 [physics.ins-det]

    T. Akutsuet al.(KAGRA), Overview of KAGRA: De- tector design and construction history, PTEP2021, 05A101 (2021), arXiv:2005.05574 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2021

  22. [22]

    B. Iyer, T. Souradeep, C. Unnikrishnan, S. Dhurand- har, S. Raja, and A. Sengupta,LIGO-India: proposal of the consortium for Indian initiative in gravitational- wave observations (IndIGO), Tech. Rep. (LIGO Tech. Rep. LIGO-M1100296-v2 https://dcc. ligo. org/LIGO- M1100296-v2/public, 2013)

    2013

  23. [23]

    M.Saleemet al.,ThesciencecaseforLIGO-India,Class. Quant. Grav.39, 025004 (2022), arXiv:2105.01716 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  24. [24]

    Punturoet al., The Einstein Telescope: A third-generation gravitational wave observatory, Class

    M. Punturoet al., The Einstein Telescope: A third-generation gravitational wave observatory, Class. Quant. Grav.27, 194002 (2010)

    2010

  25. [25]

    R. X. Adhikariet al., Ligo voyager upgrade concept, LIGO Document: LIGO-T1400226 (2024)

    2024

  26. [26]

    R. X. Adhikariet al.(LIGO), A cryogenic silicon interferometer for gravitational-wave detection, Class. Quant. Grav.37, 165003 (2020), arXiv:2001.11173 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  27. [27]

    Reitzeet al., Cosmic Explorer: The U.S

    D. Reitzeet al., Cosmic Explorer: The U.S. Contribu- tion to Gravitational-Wave Astronomy beyond LIGO, Bull.Am.Astron.Soc.51,035(2019),arXiv:1907.04833 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  28. [28]

    Evanset al., A Horizon Study for Cosmic Ex- plorer: Science, Observatories, and Community (2021), arXiv:2109.09882 [astro-ph.IM]

    M. Evanset al., A Horizon Study for Cosmic Ex- plorer: Science, Observatories, and Community (2021), arXiv:2109.09882 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  29. [29]

    Luoet al.(TianQin), TianQin: a space-borne gravi- tational wave detector, Class

    J. Luoet al.(TianQin), TianQin: a space-borne gravi- tational wave detector, Class. Quant. Grav.33, 035010 (2016), arXiv:1512.02076 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  30. [30]

    Maggioreet al.(ET), Science Case for the Einstein Telescope (2020), arXiv:1912.02622 [astro-ph.CO]

    M. Maggioreet al.(ET), Science Case for the Einstein Telescope (2020), arXiv:1912.02622 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  31. [31]

    Branchesiet al., Science with the Einstein Tele- scope: a comparison of different designs (2023), arXiv:2303.15923 [gr-qc]

    M. Branchesiet al., Science with the Einstein Tele- scope: a comparison of different designs (2023), arXiv:2303.15923 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  32. [32]

    Amaro-Seoaneet al.(LISA), Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (2017), arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]

    P. Amaro-Seoaneet al.(LISA), Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (2017), arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  33. [33]

    Auclairet al.(LISA Cosmology Working Group), Cosmology with the Laser Interferometer Space An- tenna, Living Rev

    P. Auclairet al.(LISA Cosmology Working Group), Cosmology with the Laser Interferometer Space An- tenna, Living Rev. Rel.26, 5 (2023), arXiv:2204.05434 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  34. [34]

    Kawamuraet al., Current status of space gravita- tional wave antenna DECIGO and B-DECIGO, PTEP 2021, 05A105 (2021), arXiv:2006.13545 [gr-qc]

    S. Kawamuraet al., Current status of space gravita- tional wave antenna DECIGO and B-DECIGO, PTEP 2021, 05A105 (2021), arXiv:2006.13545 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  35. [35]

    Hu and Y.-L

    W.-R. Hu and Y.-L. Wu, The Taiji Program in Space for gravitational wave physics and the nature of gravity, Natl. Sci. Rev.4, 685 (2017)

    2017

  36. [36]

    Ruan, Z.-K

    W.-H. Ruan, Z.-K. Guo, R.-G. Cai, and Y.-Z. Zhang, Taiji program: Gravitational-wave sources, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A35, 2050075 (2020), arXiv:1807.09495 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  37. [37]

    N. Seto, S. Kawamura, and T. Nakamura, Possibil- ity of direct measurement of the acceleration of the universe using 0.1-Hz band laser interferometer gravi- tational wave antenna in space, Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 221103 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0108011

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  38. [38]

    Satoet al., The status of DECIGO, J

    S. Satoet al., The status of DECIGO, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.840, 012010 (2017)

    2017

  39. [39]

    Agathos, J

    T.G.F.Li, W.DelPozzo, S.Vitale, C.VanDenBroeck, M. Agathos, J. Veitch, K. Grover, T. Sidery, R. Stu- rani, and A. Vecchio, Towards a generic test of the strongfielddynamicsofgeneralrelativityusingcompact binary coalescence, Phys. Rev. D85, 082003 (2012), arXiv:1110.0530 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  40. [40]

    K. A. Kuns, H. Yu, Y. Chen, and R. X. Adhikari, Astro- physics and cosmology with a decihertz gravitational- wave detector: TianGO, Phys. Rev. D102, 043001 (2020), arXiv:1908.06004 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  41. [41]

    K. A. Kuns,Future Networks of Gravitational Wave Detectors: Quantum Noise and Space Detectors, Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Santa Barbara (2019)

    2019

  42. [42]

    Yunes and F

    N. Yunes and F. Pretorius, Fundamental Theoretical Bias in Gravitational Wave Astrophysics and the Pa- rameterized Post-Einsteinian Framework, Phys. Rev. D 80, 122003 (2009), arXiv:0909.3328 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  43. [43]

    Cornish, L

    N. Cornish, L. Sampson, N. Yunes, and F. Pretorius, Gravitational Wave Tests of General Relativity with the Parameterized Post-Einsteinian Framework, Phys. Rev. D84, 062003 (2011), arXiv:1105.2088 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  44. [44]

    Loutrel, P

    N. Loutrel, P. Pani, and N. Yunes, Parametrized post- Einsteinian framework for precessing binaries, Phys. Rev. D107, 044046 (2023), arXiv:2210.10571 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  45. [45]

    Agathos, W

    M. Agathos, W. Del Pozzo, T. G. F. Li, C. Van Den Broeck, J. Veitch, and S. Vitale, TIGER: A data analysis pipeline for testing the strong-field dynamics of general relativity with gravitational wave signals from coalescing compact binaries, Phys. Rev. D89, 082001 (2014), arXiv:1311.0420 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  46. [46]

    J. Meidamet al., Parametrized tests of the strong-field dynamics of general relativity using gravitational wave signals from coalescing binary black holes: Fast likeli- hood calculations and sensitivity of the method, Phys. Rev. D97, 044033 (2018), arXiv:1712.08772 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  47. [47]

    Yunes, X

    N. Yunes, X. Siemens, and K. Yagi, Gravitational-wave tests of general relativity with ground-based detectors and pulsar-timing arrays, Living Rev. Rel.28, 3 (2025)

    2025

  48. [48]

    Chatziioannou, N

    K. Chatziioannou, N. Yunes, and N. Cornish, Model- Independent Test of General Relativity: An Extended post-Einsteinian Framework with Complete Polariza- tion Content, Phys. Rev. D86, 022004 (2012), [Erra- tum: Phys.Rev.D 95, 129901 (2017)], arXiv:1204.2585 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  49. [49]

    Maggio, H

    E. Maggio, H. O. Silva, A. Buonanno, and A. Ghosh, Tests of general relativity in the nonlinear regime: A parametrized plunge-merger-ringdown gravitational waveform model, Phys. Rev. D108, 024043 (2023), arXiv:2212.09655 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  50. [50]

    Mezzasoma and N

    S. Mezzasoma and N. Yunes, Theory-agnostic frame- work for inspiral tests of general relativity with higher- harmonic gravitational waves, Phys. Rev. D106, 024026 (2022), arXiv:2203.15934 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  51. [51]

    A. K. Mehta, A. Buonanno, R. Cotesta, A. Ghosh, N. Sennett, and J. Steinhoff, Tests of general relativ- 19 ity with gravitational-wave observations using a flexible theory-independent method, Phys. Rev. D107, 044020 (2023), arXiv:2203.13937 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  52. [52]

    S. A. Bhat, P. Saini, M. Favata, C. Gandevikar, C. K. Mishra, and K. G. Arun, Parametrized tests of general relativity using eccentric compact binaries, Phys. Rev. D110, 124062 (2024), arXiv:2408.14132 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  53. [53]

    G. S. Bonilla, P. Kumar, and S. A. Teukolsky, Mod- eling compact binary merger waveforms beyond gen- eral relativity, Phys. Rev. D107, 024015 (2023), arXiv:2203.14026 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  54. [54]

    B. C. Seymour and Y. Chen, Gravitational-wave signatures of non-violent non-locality (2024), arXiv:2411.13714 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2024

  55. [55]

    Watarai, A

    D. Watarai, A. Nishizawa, and K. Cannon, Physi- cally consistent gravitational waveform for capturing beyond general relativity effects in the compact ob- ject merger phase, Phys. Rev. D109, 084058 (2024), arXiv:2309.14061 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2024

  56. [56]

    Watarai, A

    D. Watarai, A. Nishizawa, H. Takeda, H. Imafuku, and K. Cannon, Observational constraints on the nonlinear regime of gravity with a parametrized beyond-GR grav- itational waveform model (2025), arXiv:2509.17592 [gr- qc]

    arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    Y. Xie, D. Chatterjee, G. Narayan, and N. Yunes, Neural post-Einsteinian framework for efficient theory- agnostic tests of general relativity with gravita- tional waves, Phys. Rev. D110, 024036 (2024), arXiv:2403.18936 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  58. [58]

    Sampson, N

    L. Sampson, N. Cornish, and N. Yunes, Mismodeling in gravitational-wave astronomy: The trouble with tem- plates,Phys.Rev.D89,064037(2014),arXiv:1311.4898 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  59. [59]

    Pürrer and C.-J

    M. Pürrer and C.-J. Haster, Gravitational waveform ac- curacy requirements for future ground-based detectors, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 023151 (2020), arXiv:1912.10055 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  60. [60]

    E. E. Flanagan and S. A. Hughes, Measuring gravita- tional waves from binary black hole coalescences: 2. The Waves’ information and its extraction, with and with- out templates, Phys. Rev. D57, 4566 (1998), arXiv:gr- qc/9710129

    arXiv 1998

  61. [61]

    Lindblom, B

    L. Lindblom, B. J. Owen, and D. A. Brown, Model Waveform Accuracy Standards for Gravitational Wave Data Analysis, Phys. Rev. D78, 124020 (2008), arXiv:0809.3844 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  62. [62]

    Kumar, K

    P. Kumar, K. Barkett, S. Bhagwat, N. Afshari, D. A. Brown, G. Lovelace, M. A. Scheel, and B. Szilágyi, Ac- curacy and precision of gravitational-wave models of inspiraling neutron star-black hole binaries with spin: Comparison with matter-free numerical relativity in the low-frequency regime, Phys. Rev. D92, 102001 (2015), arXiv:1507.00103 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  63. [63]

    Chatziioannou, A

    K. Chatziioannou, A. Klein, N. Yunes, and N. Cornish, Constructing Gravitational Waves from Generic Spin- Precessing Compact Binary Inspirals, Phys. Rev. D95, 104004 (2017), arXiv:1703.03967 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  64. [64]

    J. E. Thompson, C. Hoy, E. Fauchon-Jones, and M. Hannam, On the use and interpretation of signal- model indistinguishability measures for gravitational- wave astronomy (2025), arXiv:2506.10530 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  65. [65]

    Hu and J

    Q. Hu and J. Veitch, Assessing the model waveform ac- curacy of gravitational waves, Phys. Rev. D106, 044042 (2022), arXiv:2205.08448 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  66. [66]

    S. T. McWilliams, B. J. Kelly, and J. G. Baker, Observ- ing mergers of non-spinning black-hole binaries, Phys. Rev. D82, 024014 (2010), arXiv:1004.0961 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  67. [67]

    Toubiana and J

    A. Toubiana and J. R. Gair, Indistinguishability cri- terion and estimating the presence of biases (2024), arXiv:2401.06845 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  68. [68]

    Knapp, K

    T. Knapp, K. Chatziioannou, K. Mitman, M. A. Scheel, M. Boyle, L. E. Kidder, and H. Pfeiffer, A comprehen- sive look into the accuracy of SpEC binary black hole waveforms (2025), arXiv:2510.06393 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  69. [69]

    Dhani, S

    A. Dhani, S. H. Völkel, A. Buonanno, H. Estelles, J. Gair, H. P. Pfeiffer, L. Pompili, and A. Toubiana, Systematic Biases in Estimating the Properties of Black Holes Due to Inaccurate Gravitational-Wave Models, Phys. Rev. X15, 031036 (2025), arXiv:2404.05811 [gr- qc]

    arXiv 2025

  70. [70]

    Cutler and M

    C. Cutler and M. Vallisneri, LISA detections of massive black hole inspirals: Parameter extraction errors due to inaccurate template waveforms, Phys. Rev. D76, 104018 (2007), arXiv:0707.2982 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  71. [71]

    Hu and J

    Q. Hu and J. Veitch, Accumulating Errors in Tests of General Relativity with Gravitational Waves: Overlap- ping Signals and Inaccurate Waveforms, Astrophys. J. 945, 103 (2023), arXiv:2210.04769 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  72. [72]

    C. B. Owen, C.-J. Haster, S. Perkins, N. J. Cornish, and N. Yunes, Waveform accuracy and systematic un- certainties in current gravitational wave observations, Phys. Rev. D108, 044018 (2023), arXiv:2301.11941 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  73. [73]

    Kapil, L

    V. Kapil, L. Reali, R. Cotesta, and E. Berti, Systematic bias from waveform modeling for binary black hole pop- ulationsinnext-generationgravitationalwavedetectors, Phys. Rev. D109, 104043 (2024), arXiv:2404.00090 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  74. [74]

    Vitale and W

    S. Vitale and W. Del Pozzo, How serious can the stealth bias be in gravitational wave parameter estimation?, Phys. Rev. D89, 022002 (2014), arXiv:1311.2057 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  75. [75]

    Kuntz, and E

    L.Capuano, M.Vaglio, R.S.Chandramouli, C.L.Pitte, A. Kuntz, and E. Barausse, Systematic bias in LISA ringdown analysis due to waveform inaccuracy, Phys. Rev. D112, 104031 (2025), arXiv:2506.21181 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  76. [76]

    S. H. Völkel and A. Dhani, Quantifying systematic bi- ases in black hole spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. D112, 084076 (2025), arXiv:2507.22122 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  77. [77]

    Vallisneri, Testing general relativity with gravita- tional waves: a reality check, Phys

    M. Vallisneri, Testing general relativity with gravita- tional waves: a reality check, Phys. Rev. D86, 082001 (2012), arXiv:1207.4759 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  78. [78]

    Vallisneri and N

    M. Vallisneri and N. Yunes, Stealth Bias in Gravitational-Wave Parameter Estimation, Phys. Rev. D87, 102002 (2013), arXiv:1301.2627 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  79. [79]

    A. Guptaet al., Possible causes of false general rel- ativity violations in gravitational wave observations, SciPostPhys.Comm.Rep.10.21468/SciPostPhysComm- Rep.5 (2024), arXiv:2405.02197 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  80. [80]

    C. J. Moore, E. Finch, R. Buscicchio, and D. Gerosa, Testing general relativity with gravitational-wave cat- alogs: The insidious nature of waveform systematics, iScience24, 102577 (2021), arXiv:2103.16486 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

Showing first 80 references.