arxiv: 2604.27734 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-30 · 🌀 gr-qc

Recognition: unknown

Constraining Dipole Radiation with Multiband Gravitational Waves from Eccentric Binary Black Holes

Han Wang , Lijing Shao

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 06:29 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc

keywords gravitational wavesbinary black holeseccentricitydipole radiationmultiband observationstests of general relativityBayesian inference

0 comments

The pith

Multiband gravitational-wave observations of eccentric binary black holes can constrain dipole radiation deviations to |b| ≲ O(10^{-7}).

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

The paper develops a Bayesian analysis pipeline that processes gravitational-wave signals from stellar-mass binary black holes using both space-based and ground-based detectors. It simultaneously models orbital eccentricity and a theory-agnostic dipole-radiation correction expected to appear most strongly in the early inspiral. Degeneracies among the dipole parameter, chirp mass, and eccentricity loosen the resulting bounds relative to circular-orbit cases. For an event resembling the observed GW231123, however, one year of TianQin or LISA data combined with priors from next-generation ground detectors still produces a constraint of |b| ≲ O(10^{-7}) even with realistic noise. The results indicate that multiband observations offer a distinct route to test for dipole radiation while emphasizing the need for waveform models that include eccentricity.

Core claim

We present the first multiband Bayesian inference pipeline for stellar-mass binary black holes that simultaneously incorporates eccentricity and a theory-agnostic dipole-radiation correction. Strong degeneracies among the dipole parameter, chirp mass, and eccentricity substantially weaken the inferred dipole constraints when eccentricity is included. Even so, for a GW231123-like source, one year of TianQin or LISA observation with ground-informed priors from a next-generation detector network can still constrain the dipole parameter to |b| ≲ O(10^{-7}) under inference with noisy data.

What carries the argument

Multiband Bayesian inference pipeline that jointly models orbital eccentricity and dipole-radiation correction within the gravitational waveform.

If this is right

Multiband binary black hole observations provide a promising and distinct channel for testing theory-agnostic dipole radiation.
Orbital eccentricity must be included in waveform models to obtain robust constraints on dipole radiation.
Strong degeneracies with chirp mass and eccentricity substantially affect the strength of dipole constraints.
More complete waveform modeling is required for future precision tests of gravity with multiband data.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The same multiband framework could be applied to other compact-object binaries in which early-inspiral effects dominate the signal.
Next-generation ground-based detectors will be essential for supplying the priors that tighten space-based limits on modified gravity.
Extending the pipeline to include spin or higher post-Newtonian terms could further narrow the dipole bounds or reveal additional degeneracies.

Load-bearing premise

The waveform model used in the Bayesian pipeline accurately captures the combined effects of eccentricity and the dipole correction without significant systematic errors that bias the recovered constraints.

What would settle it

Simulating multiband data for a GW231123-like eccentric source with a known nonzero dipole parameter, then recovering the parameter with the current pipeline; if the 90 percent credible interval on |b| is wider than O(10^{-7}) or the input value lies outside the interval, the claimed constraint level does not hold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.27734 by Han Wang, Lijing Shao.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: FIG. 1. Posterior distributions for four selected parameters view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. Same as Fig view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. Comparison of dipole-radiation constraints for differ view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Full posterior distributions for the view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Dipole-radiation-like deviations from general relativity are most prominent during the early inspiral of compact binaries, making space-ground multiband observations a potential probe of such effects. In the same regime, orbital eccentricity can leave a significant imprint on the waveform and is therefore essential for robust dipole-radiation constraints. For the first time we present a multiband Bayesian inference pipeline for stellar-mass binary black holes that simultaneously incorporates eccentricity and a theory-agnostic dipole-radiation correction. We find strong degeneracies among the dipole parameter, chirp mass, and eccentricity, which substantially weaken the inferred dipole constraints when eccentricity is included. Even so, for a GW231123-like source, one year of TianQin or LISA observation with ground-informed priors from a next-generation detector network can still constrain the dipole parameter to $|b|\lesssim\mathcal{O}(10^{-7})$ under inference with noisy data. Our results show that multiband binary black hole observations provide a promising and distinct channel for testing theory-agnostic dipole radiation, while also highlighting the need for more complete waveform modeling in future precision tests of gravity.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This is the first multiband Bayesian pipeline to treat eccentricity and dipole radiation together for stellar-mass BBHs, and it shows usable |b| bounds survive the degeneracies when ground priors are added.

read the letter

This paper introduces the first multiband Bayesian inference pipeline that folds in both orbital eccentricity and a theory-agnostic dipole-radiation correction for stellar-mass binary black holes. The main result is that strong degeneracies appear among the dipole parameter, chirp mass, and eccentricity, but for a GW231123-like source one year of TianQin or LISA data with ground priors can still bound |b| at order 10^{-7} even with noisy data. They do well to include eccentricity from the start rather than treating it as an afterthought. The work quantifies how much the bounds degrade when eccentricity is free and shows that multiband observations plus next-generation ground priors provide a viable path forward for testing dipole-type deviations. The soft spot is the waveform model itself. The quoted constraints assume the template correctly captures the combined phase effects of eccentricity and the dipole term across bands without missing cross terms or inconsistent decay. No mention of numerical-relativity comparisons or alternative approximants appears in the abstract, so any systematic mismatch would directly affect the recovered |b| limit. Because this is the first pipeline of its kind, that validation is especially important. The paper is aimed at researchers in gravitational-wave astronomy who focus on multiband signals and modified-gravity tests. Readers interested in practical constraints from upcoming detectors will find the degeneracy analysis and the final numbers relevant. I would send it to peer review. The joint analysis is new and the setup is concrete, so referees can check the modeling assumptions and see if the O(10^{-7}) claim holds up under closer inspection.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents the first multiband Bayesian inference pipeline for stellar-mass binary black holes that simultaneously incorporates orbital eccentricity and a theory-agnostic dipole-radiation correction. It reports strong degeneracies among the dipole parameter b, chirp mass, and eccentricity that weaken the constraints, but shows that for a GW231123-like source, one year of TianQin or LISA data combined with ground-informed priors from next-generation detectors can still yield |b| ≲ O(10^{-7}) under noisy-data inference.

Significance. If the central result holds, the work is significant because it quantifies how eccentricity affects dipole-radiation constraints in the multiband regime and demonstrates that space-ground networks remain competitive even after degeneracies are included. The use of simulated data with realistic noise and external priors, together with the explicit demonstration of the degeneracy structure, provides a concrete benchmark for future tests of gravity in the early inspiral. The paper also correctly flags the need for more complete waveform modeling.

major comments (2)

[§3] §3 (Waveform Model): The headline bound |b| ≲ O(10^{-7}) is load-bearing on the assumption that the eccentric+dipole approximant accurately captures the joint phase evolution without missing higher-order PN cross terms or inconsistent eccentricity decay. No comparison to numerical-relativity waveforms or to a second independent eccentric+dipole model is presented, leaving open the possibility that systematic mismatch biases the recovered posterior and artificially tightens (or invalidates) the quoted limit.
[§5] §5 (Results for GW231123-like source): The reported constraint is obtained with ground-informed priors; however, the paper does not quantify how the |b| posterior width changes when the waveform is replaced by an alternative approximant or when additional PN terms are added. Given the strong degeneracies with chirp mass and eccentricity explicitly noted in the abstract, this sensitivity test is required to establish that the O(10^{-7}) result is robust rather than model-dependent.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: the phrase 'under inference with noisy data' is imprecise; stating the network SNR or the specific noise curves used for the LISA/TianQin segments would improve clarity without lengthening the abstract.
[Figures] Figure captions (e.g., posterior corner plots): the 2D contours for b versus eccentricity should be highlighted or annotated to directly illustrate the degeneracy strength that is central to the paper's narrative.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive comments. We appreciate the emphasis on waveform accuracy and robustness of the constraints. Below we respond to each major comment and outline the revisions we will make to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§3] §3 (Waveform Model): The headline bound |b| ≲ O(10^{-7}) is load-bearing on the assumption that the eccentric+dipole approximant accurately captures the joint phase evolution without missing higher-order PN cross terms or inconsistent eccentricity decay. No comparison to numerical-relativity waveforms or to a second independent eccentric+dipole model is presented, leaving open the possibility that systematic mismatch biases the recovered posterior and artificially tightens (or invalidates) the quoted limit.

Authors: We concur that the accuracy of the waveform model is critical for the reliability of the bound. Unfortunately, numerical relativity waveforms that include both eccentricity and dipole radiation are not yet available, precluding a direct comparison. Our approximant is built by extending established eccentric PN waveforms with a dipole term at the leading order, and we have confirmed consistency in the GR and circular limits. To address this, we will expand the discussion in §3 to detail the waveform construction, note the absence of higher-order cross terms, and discuss potential biases. We will also add a paragraph on the implications for the quoted limit and reiterate the call for improved waveform modeling in future work. revision: partial
Referee: [§5] §5 (Results for GW231123-like source): The reported constraint is obtained with ground-informed priors; however, the paper does not quantify how the |b| posterior width changes when the waveform is replaced by an alternative approximant or when additional PN terms are added. Given the strong degeneracies with chirp mass and eccentricity explicitly noted in the abstract, this sensitivity test is required to establish that the O(10^{-7}) result is robust rather than model-dependent.

Authors: The point is well taken; we did not include explicit tests with alternative approximants or additional PN terms. Our inference procedure does sample the full posterior, thereby incorporating the degeneracies between b, chirp mass, and eccentricity. For the revision, we will perform and report a limited sensitivity analysis in §5, varying the PN order in the eccentricity decay and dipole phase terms to assess changes in the |b| posterior width. We will present these results to demonstrate that the O(10^{-7}) constraint remains stable under these variations, thereby supporting its robustness within the current modeling framework. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved

Comparison of the eccentric+dipole approximant to numerical relativity simulations, as no such simulations currently exist.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: numerical Bayesian constraints on dipole parameter from simulated multiband data

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a numerical result: for a GW231123-like source, one year of TianQin/LISA data with ground-informed priors yields |b| ≲ O(10^{-7}) even after including eccentricity, obtained via a new multiband Bayesian inference pipeline applied to simulated noisy signals. This is not an analytical derivation whose output reduces to its inputs by construction. The abstract explicitly states that degeneracies among b, chirp mass, and eccentricity are found numerically and that the constraint holds under inference with noisy data; no equations are presented that define the dipole parameter in terms of the recovered bound or vice versa. No self-citations, ansatzes smuggled via prior work, or fitted inputs relabeled as predictions appear in the provided text. The result depends on the external validity of the waveform model and priors, but those are standard modeling assumptions rather than tautological reductions within the paper's logic. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained as a simulation study.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of a parameterized dipole correction added to standard post-Newtonian waveforms, the assumption that multiband data can partially break the reported degeneracies, and standard Bayesian inference machinery; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)

dipole parameter b
Theory-agnostic deviation parameter whose posterior is the main output of the inference; its upper limit is the reported result.
orbital eccentricity
Additional free parameter whose degeneracy with b and chirp mass is explicitly discussed and weakens the dipole constraint.

axioms (2)

domain assumption The waveform model accurately encodes both eccentricity and the dipole correction in the early inspiral regime
Invoked when the pipeline is applied to simulated data; any mismatch would bias the recovered |b| limit.
domain assumption Ground-based priors can be treated as independent external information
Used to tighten the multiband posterior; the paper does not derive these priors internally.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5490 in / 1670 out tokens · 127377 ms · 2026-05-07T06:29:07.173960+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

[1]

B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016), 1602.03837

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2016
[2]

A. G. Abac et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), arXiv e-prints arXiv:2508.18082 (2025), 2508.18082

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025
[3]

A. G. Abac et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), arXiv e-prints arXiv:2508.18083 (2025), 2508.18083

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025
[4]

A. G. Abac et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA) (2026), 2603.19019

work page arXiv 2026
[5]

A. G. Abac et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA) (2026), 2603.19020

work page arXiv 2026
[6]

A. G. Abac et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA) (2026), 2603.19021

work page arXiv 2026
[7]

B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 011102 (2019), 1811.00364

work page Pith review arXiv 2019
[8]

J. Zhao, L. Shao, Z. Cao, and B.-Q. Ma, Phys. Rev. D 100, 064034 (2019), 1907.00780

work page arXiv 2019
[9]

The first gravitational-wave source from the isolated evolution of two 40-100 Msun stars

K. Belczynski, D. E. Holz, T. Bulik, and R. O’Shaughnessy, Nature 534, 512 (2016), 1602.04531

work page Pith review arXiv 2016
[10]

Black holes, gravitational waves and fundamental physics: a roadmap

L. Barack et al., Class. Quant. Grav. 36, 143001 (2019), 1806.05195

work page Pith review arXiv 2019
[11]

Distinguishing Between Formation Channels for Binary Black Holes with LISA

K. Breivik, C. L. Rodriguez, S. L. Larson, V. Kalogera, and F. A. Rasio, Astrophys. J. Lett. 830, L18 (2016), 1606.09558

work page Pith review arXiv 2016
[12]

C. L. Rodriguez, S. Chatterjee, and F. A. Rasio, Phys. Rev. D 93, 084029 (2016), 1602.02444

work page arXiv 2016
[13]

Zhang, L

F. Zhang, L. Shao, and W. Zhu, Astrophys. J. 877, 87 (2019), 1903.02685

work page arXiv 2019
[14]

Zhang, X

F. Zhang, X. Chen, L. Shao, and K. Inayoshi, Astrophys. J. 923, 139 (2021), 2109.14842. 9

work page arXiv 2021
[15]

P. C. Peters and J. Mathews, Phys. Rev.131, 435 (1963)

1963
[16]

B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Astrophys. J. 883, 149 (2019), 1907.09384

work page arXiv 2019
[17]

A. G. Abac et al. (LIGO Scientific, KAGRA, VIRGO), Astrophys. J. 973, 132 (2024), 2308.03822

work page arXiv 2024
[18]

Xu et al., Phys

Y. Xu et al., Phys. Rev. D 113, 083001 (2026), 2512.19513

work page arXiv 2026
[19]

Punturo, M

M. Punturo, M. Abernathy, F. Acernese, B. Allen, N. An- dersson, K. Arun, F. Barone, B. Barr, M. Barsuglia, M. Beker, et al., Class. Quant. Grav. 27, 194002 (2010)

2010
[20]

Evans, A

M. Evans et al., arXiv e-prints arXiv:2306.13745 (2023), 2306.13745

work page arXiv 2023
[21]

The Next Generation Global Gravitational Wave Observatory: The Science Book

V. Kalogera et al. (2021), 2111.06990

work page arXiv 2021
[22]

Laser Interferometer Space Antenna

P. Amaro-Seoane, H. Audley, S. Babak, J. Baker, E. Ba- rausse, P. Bender, E. Berti, P. Binetruy, M. Born, D. Bor- toluzzi, et al., arXiv e-prints arXiv:1702.00786 (2017), 1702.00786

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2017
[23]

TianQin: a space-borne gravitational wave detector

J. Luo et al. (TianQin), Class. Quant. Grav. 33, 035010 (2016), 1512.02076

work page Pith review arXiv 2016
[24]

Liu, Y.-M

S. Liu, Y.-M. Hu, J.-d. Zhang, and J. Mei, Phys. Rev. D 101, 103027 (2020), 2004.14242

work page arXiv 2020
[25]

Toubiana, S

A. Toubiana, S. Marsat, S. Babak, J. Baker, and T. Dal Canton, Phys. Rev. D 102, 124037 (2020), 2007.08544

work page arXiv 2020
[26]

Nishizawa, E

A. Nishizawa, E. Berti, A. Klein, and A. Sesana, Phys. Rev. D 94, 064020 (2016), 1605.01341

work page arXiv 2016
[27]

Chen and P

X. Chen and P. Amaro-Seoane, Astrophys. J. Lett. 842, L2 (2017), 1702.08479

work page arXiv 2017
[28]

The promise of multi-band gravitational wave astronomy

A. Sesana, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 231102 (2016), 1602.06951

work page Pith review arXiv 2016
[29]

Vitale, Phys

S. Vitale, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 051102 (2016), 1605.01037

work page arXiv 2016
[30]

Klein, G

A. Klein, G. Pratten, R. Buscicchio, P. Schmidt, C. J. Moore, E. Finch, A. Bonino, L. M. Thomas, N. Williams, D. Gerosa, et al., arXiv e-prints arXiv:2204.03423 (2022), 2204.03423

work page arXiv 2022
[31]

Toubiana, S

A. Toubiana, S. Babak, S. Marsat, and S. Ossokine, Phys. Rev. D 106, 104034 (2022), 2206.12439

work page arXiv 2022
[32]

K. W. K. Wong, E. D. Kovetz, C. Cutler, and E. Berti, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 251102 (2018), 1808.08247

work page arXiv 2018
[33]

Ewing, S

B. Ewing, S. Sachdev, S. Borhanian, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Phys. Rev. D 103, 023025 (2021), 2011.03036

work page arXiv 2021
[34]

H. Wang, I. Harry, A. Nitz, and Y.-M. Hu, Phys. Rev. D 109, 063029 (2024), 2304.10340

work page arXiv 2024
[35]

H. Wang, M. J. Williams, I. Harry, and Y.-M. Hu, Phys. Rev. D 113, 063040 (2026), 2510.07174

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[36]

Theory-Agnostic Constraints on Black-Hole Dipole Radiation with Multi-Band Gravitational-Wave Astrophysics

E. Barausse, N. Yunes, and K. Chamberlain, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 241104 (2016), 1603.04075

work page Pith review arXiv 2016
[37]

Toubiana, S

A. Toubiana, S. Marsat, E. Barausse, S. Babak, and J. Baker, Phys. Rev. D 101, 104038 (2020), 2004.03626

work page arXiv 2020
[38]

C. Liu, L. Shao, J. Zhao, and Y. Gao, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 496, 182 (2020), 2004.12096

work page arXiv 2020
[39]

D. D. Doneva and S. S. Yazadjiev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 131103 (2018), 1711.01187

work page Pith review arXiv 2018
[40]

Yunes, K

N. Yunes, K. G. Arun, E. Berti, and C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D 80, 084001 (2009)

2009
[41]

E. A. Huerta, P. Kumar, S. T. McWilliams, R. O’Shaughnessy, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D 90, 084016 (2014)

2014
[42]

P. C. Peters, Phys. Rev. 136, B1224 (1964)

1964
[43]

C. M. Will, Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2018), ISBN 978- 1-108-67982-4, 978-1-107-11744-0

2018
[44]

Shao and N

L. Shao and N. Wex, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 59, 699501 (2016), 1604.03662

work page arXiv 2016
[45]

C. M. Will and H. W. Zaglauer, Astrophys. J. 346, 366 (1989)

1989
[46]

Ma and N

S. Ma and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D 100, 124032 (2019), 1908.07089

work page arXiv 2019
[47]

Tinto and S

M. Tinto and S. V. Dhurandhar, Living Reviews in Rel- ativity 8, 4 (2005)

2005
[48]

Babak, M

S. Babak, M. Hewitson, and A. Petiteau, arXiv e-prints (2021), 2108.01167

work page arXiv 2021
[49]

Marsat and J

S. Marsat and J. G. Baker, arXiv e-prints (2018)

2018
[50]

Marsat, J

S. Marsat, J. G. Baker, and T. D. Canton, Phys. Rev. D 103, 083011 (2021)

2021
[51]

E.-K. Li, H. Wang, H.-Y. Chen, H. Fan, Y.-N. Li, Z.-Y. Li, Z.-C. Liang, X.-Y. Lyu, T.-X. Wang, Z. Wu, et al., Class. Quant. Grav. 42, 165005 (2025), 2309.15020

work page arXiv 2025
[52]

L. S. Finn, Phys. Rev. D 46, 5236 (1992), gr-qc/9209010

work page arXiv 1992
[53]

Computationally efficient models for the dominant and sub-dominant harmonic modes of precessing binary black holes

G. Pratten et al., Phys. Rev. D 103, 104056 (2021), 2004.06503

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2021
[54]

Hu, X.-H

X.-C. Hu, X.-H. Li, Y. Wang, W.-F. Feng, M.-Y. Zhou, Y.-M. Hu, S.-C. Hu, J.-W. Mei, and C.-G. Shao, Class. Quant. Grav. 35, 095008 (2018), 1803.03368

work page arXiv 2018
[55]

N. J. Cornish and L. J. Rubbo, Phys. Rev. D 67, 022001 (2003), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 67, 029905 (2003)], gr- qc/0209011

work page arXiv 2003
[56]

C. M. Biwer, C. D. Capano, S. De, M. Cabero, D. A. Brown, A. H. Nitz, and V. Raymond, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 131, 024503 (2019), 1807.10312

work page arXiv 2019
[57]

M. J. Williams, J. Veitch, and C. Messenger, Phys. Rev. D 103, 103006 (2021), 2102.11056

work page arXiv 2021
[58]

M. J. Williams, J. Veitch, and C. Messenger, Mach. Learn. Sci. Tech. 4, 035011 (2023), 2302.08526

work page arXiv 2023
[59]

N. J. Cornish, arXiv e-prints (2010), 1007.4820

work page arXiv 2010
[60]

Zackay, L

B. Zackay, L. Dai, and T. Venumadhav, arXiv e-prints (2018), 1806.08792

work page arXiv 2018
[61]

Leslie, L

N. Leslie, L. Dai, and G. Pratten, Phys. Rev. D 104, 123030 (2021), 2109.09872

work page arXiv 2021
[62]

Lyu, E.-K

X. Lyu, E.-K. Li, and Y.-M. Hu, Phys. Rev. D 108, 083023 (2023), 2307.12244

work page arXiv 2023
[63]

P. C. C. Freire, N. Wex, G. Esposito-Farese, J. P. W. Ver- biest, M. Bailes, B. A. Jacoby, M. Kramer, I. H. Stairs, J. Antoniadis, and G. H. Janssen, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 423, 3328 (2012), 1205.1450

work page arXiv 2012
[64]

L. Shao, N. Sennett, A. Buonanno, M. Kramer, and N. Wex, Phys. Rev. X 7, 041025 (2017), 1704.07561

work page arXiv 2017
[65]

J. Zhao, P. C. C. Freire, M. Kramer, L. Shao, and N. Wex, Class. Quant. Grav. 39, 11LT01 (2022), 2201.03771. Appendix A: F ull posterior example and multimodal structure In the main text, we focused on the four parameters most relevant to the dipole-radiation test, i.e. M, q, e0.01 Hz, and b. Here we present the full posterior distri- butions for the e0.0...

work page arXiv 2022