Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 9 minor 73 references

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge.

T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. The mark states how deep the mechanical check went, never who wrote it. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · glm-5.2

Flexible mixture models cut evidence for GR by 100x

2026-07-09 20:36 UTC pith:NMOANBRA

load-bearing objection Mixture-model framework for GR tests yields Bayes factors 10-20, not 1000s, suggesting LVK methods overstate evidence for GR the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.07070 v1 pith:NMOANBRA submitted 2026-07-08 gr-qc

Testing General Relativity with GWTC-4.0 through mixture models

Koustav Chandra , Juan Calder\'on Bustillo This is my paper
classification gr-qc PACS 04.80.Cc04.80.Nn02.50.Tt
keywords general relativitygravitational wavesBayesian inferencemixture modelscompact binary mergersBayes factorhierarchical analysisstrong-field gravity
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.

When physicists test Einstein's theory of general relativity against gravitational-wave data, they combine results from many detected black-hole mergers. The standard methods assume that if general relativity is wrong, every event deviates in the same way. This paper argues that assumption is too rigid. The authors introduce a mixture model governed by a single parameter: the fraction of events consistent with GR. This allows some events to satisfy GR while others deviate, without forcing any particular pattern on the deviations. Applied to the latest gravitational-wave catalogue, the data remain consistent with GR being correct for all events. But the evidence in GR's favor drops by one to two orders of magnitude compared to standard analyses. The reason is that the standard methods gain apparent confidence from assumptions the data do not actually support. The mixture model, by being more permissive about how deviations could look, gives a more honest accounting of how strongly the data actually constrain alternatives to GR.

Core claim

The central object is a single-parameter mixture model where a fraction zeta of events follow GR and the remaining fraction 1-zeta deviate, with no constraint on how deviations distribute. The key result is that this flexible framework yields Bayes factors of roughly 10-20 in favor of GR across three different tests (FTI, pSEOBNR, TEOBPM), compared to factors of 100-10000 from standard joint-posterior and hierarchical methods. The gap arises because standard methods force all events to share the same deviation parameter (joint) or to follow a Gaussian population distribution (hierarchical), while the mixture model allows any subset to deviate in any way. The authors show the two standard LVK

What carries the argument

The machinery has three layers. First, each event yields a Bayes factor against GR via the Savage-Dickey density ratio, which compares the posterior density at the GR value (delta=0) to the prior density there. Second, these per-event Bayes factors feed a catalogue-level likelihood: for each event, the likelihood is a weighted sum of the GR evidence and the beyond-GR evidence, with weight zeta on the GR term. Third, the catalogue-level Bayes factor for GR is the posterior density at zeta=1 divided by the prior density there, which is equivalent to the ratio of evidences between the pure-GR model (zeta=1) and the free-zeta model. The authors show in Appendix C that the standard hierarchical

Load-bearing premise

The entire framework rests on per-event Bayes factors against GR estimated via the Savage-Dickey density ratio, which requires evaluating posterior densities at the GR value using a Gaussian kernel density estimator with a small tolerance box. If individual-event posterior samples are noisy or irregular near the GR point, these per-event inputs could carry systematic biases that propagate directly into the catalogue-level result, and the paper does not quantify this error.

What would settle it

If gravitational-wave data from future observing runs contain a genuine, consistent deviation from GR across all events (as in a modified dispersion relation), the mixture model would detect it but would yield a finite Bayes factor, while the hierarchical method would yield an effectively infinite one. In that scenario, the mixture model's extra flexibility would be unnecessary overhead, and the standard framework would be preferred.

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

If this is right

  • As gravitational-wave catalogues grow into the hundreds and thousands of events, the gap between mixture-model and standard-method Bayes factors will widen, making the choice of framework increasingly consequential.
  • The mixture model's ability to absorb spurious single-event deviations (from waveform systematics or instrumental artifacts) without rejecting them will become essential in next-generation detectors where systematics dominate.
  • The scaling relation N_violating >= 1.4/beta provides a concrete planning tool: it tells observers how many modestly anomalous events they need to confirm a real population-level violation, as a function of per-event evidence strength.
  • The framework extends naturally to selection effects (Appendix E), which will be necessary when deviations are large enough to affect detection probabilities.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the mixture model were applied to future catalogues and the Bayes factor remained stuck at O(10-20) even as event counts grew, that would suggest a persistent subpopulation of mildly anomalous events, potentially pointing to waveform systematics rather than genuine GR violations.
  • The framework could be extended to a two-mixture model where the non-GR component is specified by a particular beyond-GR theory, allowing model comparison between specific alternatives rather than a generic catch-all.
  • The observation that standard methods inflate evidence by 1-2 orders of magnitude suggests that previously reported 'decisive' constraints on GR from gravitational waves should be reinterpreted as 'moderate' constraints under more flexible assumptions.

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 / 9 minor

Summary. This manuscript introduces a Bayesian mixture-model framework for combining tests of General Relativity (GR) across catalogues of gravitational-wave events. The model introduces a single parameter ζ representing the fraction of events consistent with GR, allowing the remaining fraction to deviate without imposing a population distribution on the deviation parameters. The authors apply the method to publicly available LVK results from O1–O4a for three parametrised tests (FTI, pSEOBNR, TEOBPM). They find the data consistent with all events satisfying GR, but with Bayes factors of O(10–20) that are substantially smaller than those from standard LVK hierarchical or joint-posterior analyses. The paper argues this reflects the greater flexibility of the mixture model and recommends its adoption as standard practice.

Significance. The central methodological contribution is clean and well-motivated: the mixture-model likelihood (Eqs. 2–5) is a natural and minimal relaxation of existing catalogue-combination frameworks, and Appendix C explicitly shows the hierarchical model is a restricted case (ζ=0 with a Gaussian population prior). The toy-model validation (Section III) and the mock-catalogue test (Section V) demonstrate that the method recovers genuine violations when present and does not sacrifice sensitivity relative to hierarchical methods under their own assumptions. The practical recommendation—that standard LVK frameworks may overstate evidence for GR by imposing overly restrictive structure on how deviations manifest—is timely and actionable for the GW testing community. The authors provide publicly available code and use only public LVK data products, enhancing reproducibility.

major comments (3)
  1. Section II, Eq. (5) and Appendix A: The catalogue-level Bayes factor B^{ζ=1}_{ζ≠1} is computed as the posterior density p(ζ=1|{d}), which depends entirely on the per-event Bayes factors B^{GR}_{bGR,k}. These per-event factors are estimated via a Savage–Dickey density ratio using a Gaussian KDE with a tolerance box of half-width ε (Appendix A, Eqs. A1–A2). The manuscript does not specify the value of ε, does not report systematic uncertainties on the per-event Bayes factors, and does not provide a sensitivity analysis showing how the catalogue-level results change under variations of ε or KDE bandwidth. This matters most for inconclusive events (B_k ≈ 1), which have outsized influence on the slope of ln L near ζ=1. For the pSEOBNR test, where the catalogue-level Bayes factor is only ~5–8, an O(1) systematic shift in a few per-event factors could materially change the strength of the paper
  2. Section IV, pSEOBNR subsection and Figure 3: The three analyses shown (O4a with SEOBNR baseline, O4a with NRSur7dq4 baseline, and O1–O4a with NRSur7dq4) yield Bayes factors of ~5, ~5, and ~8 respectively, but the abstract and conclusion quote a value of ~10 for pSEOBNR. The origin of the ~10 figure is unclear from the text and figures. The authors should clarify which analysis the abstract value refers to, or reconcile the discrepancy.
  3. Section IV, FTI subsection and Table I: The mixture-model Bayes factors for the FTI test range from ~5 to ~20 across the ten deviation parameters, but the abstract quotes ~20. It would help to state in the main text (not only the table) which parameter drives the ~20 value and to clarify that the abstract figure represents the upper end of the range rather than a typical value, so the reader is not misled.
minor comments (9)
  1. Section II, Eq. (6): The symbol ρ is introduced as 'the maximum network SNR that GR templates can recover.' This is slightly ambiguous; clarifying whether this is the matched-filter SNR or the optimal SNR would help.
  2. Figure 1 caption: The y-axis label reads 'p( = 1|{dk})' with ζ missing. Please fix.
  3. Figure 2: The y-axis label '( |{dk})' is missing ζ. Several figure captions throughout have similar formatting issues with ζ not rendering.
  4. Section III: The drop at ~600 events for F̄=10^{-3} is attributed to a loud event, but the text says 'the evidence if favour of GR keeps growing' (should be 'in favour').
  5. Appendix B, Eq. (B7): The derivation assumes ζ_true → 1, but the text also discusses ζ_true ~ 0.9 (10% violating). The approximation ln(1−ζ_true) ≈ −(1−ζ_true) is reasonable at the 10% level but the reader should be told the regime of validity more explicitly.
  6. Section V, Figure 5: The axes are labelled δω220 and δτ220 but the text uses δ̂f220 and δ̂τ220 elsewhere. Please harmonise notation.
  7. The abstract states Bayes factors of ~20, ~10, and ~15 for FTI, pSEOBNR, and TEOBPM respectively, but the TEOBPM text (Section IV) reports 13.7. Please reconcile.
  8. Reference [68] (Islam et al.) has an incomplete DOI ('10.1103/48ck-2fff'). Please verify.
  9. The code link is given as '/githubicon' which appears to be a placeholder. Please provide the full URL.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the mixture-model derivation is self-contained Bayesian statistics, inputs are independently computed from public LVK data, and the claim that existing frameworks are restricted cases is a mathematical identity.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained at every load-bearing step. (1) The mixture-model likelihood (Eq. 2) follows directly from standard Bayesian mixture theory: L(dk|ζ) = ζ·Z_GR(dk) + (1-ζ)·Z_bGR(dk). The catalogue-level posterior (Eq. 5) is obtained by assuming event independence and taking the product—no hidden assumptions. (2) The catalogue-level Bayes factor B^{ζ=1}_{ζ≠1} = p(ζ=1|{d})/π(ζ=1) is the Savage-Dickey ratio applied to ζ, a standard identity. (3) Per-event Bayes factors B^GR_bGR,k are computed via the Savage-Dickey density ratio (Appendix A) from publicly available LVK posterior samples—these are external inputs, not fitted within this paper. (4) The claim in Appendix C that the hierarchical framework is a restricted case (ζ=0 with constrained prior) is a mathematical identity: substituting ζ=0 and π(δ|Λ) into Eq. (4) yields Eq. (C3) by construction, but this is a legitimate derivation showing the relationship between models, not a circular argument. (5) The Section V mock-catalogue test constructs synthetic events from GW191109 posteriors and shows both methods detect the deviation—this is a validation, not a fitted-input-called-prediction pattern. The self-citations ([36], [52], [71]) are non-load-bearing: they concern ringdown analysis methodology, robustness against waveform systematics, and a related derivation, none of which are premises for the mixture-model framework itself. The central empirical claim—that Bayes factors are smaller than LVK values—is a consequence of the model's greater flexibility (Occam's penalty on ζ), which the paper transparently acknowledges and validates in Section V. No step reduces to its own inputs by definition or by fit.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities or postulated particles. The framework operates entirely within existing parametrized GR test infrastructure. The only model parameter is ζ, which is a statistical mixing fraction, not a physical constant. The tolerance ε and KDE bandwidth are numerical implementation choices, not physical parameters.

free parameters (3)
  • ζ
    The GR-consistent fraction ζ ∈ [0,1] is the single free parameter of the mixture model, inferred from data with a uniform prior. It is not fitted to a specific value but is the central inference target.
  • ε (tolerance box half-width)
    Used in the Savage-Dickey density ratio estimation (Appendix A) for integrating posterior density over a small box around δ=0. The paper states it should be 'small compared to the posterior width' but does not specify the exact value used.
  • KDE bandwidth (Scott's rule)
    Used for Gaussian kernel density estimation of posterior densities in the Savage-Dickey computation. Scott's rule is a standard heuristic choice, not derived from the data.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Events are statistically independent
    Equation (4) factorizes the catalogue likelihood as a product of per-event likelihoods. This is standard in gravitational-wave analyses but assumes no correlated systematic errors across events.
  • domain assumption GR is nested within the bGR model at δ=0
    Stated in Section II and used to justify the Savage-Dickey density ratio for computing per-event Bayes factors. This holds for all three tests (FTI, pSEOBNR, TEOBPM) considered.
  • domain assumption Detection probability is independent of whether GR or bGR generated the signal
    Appendix E discusses this assumption explicitly. The main-text analysis adopts Approximation 1 (α_H0 ≈ α_H1), justified by the loudness of analysed events. This is reasonable for current catalogs but may break for future detectors.
  • domain assumption Per-event Bayes factors are reliable point estimates
    The mixture model takes per-event Bayes factors as fixed inputs (Eq. 3). Uncertainty in these estimates (from KDE noise, finite posterior samples) is not propagated through the mixture-model inference.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 21834 in / 2873 out tokens · 278009 ms · 2026-07-09T20:36:02.982443+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Gravitational-wave observations of compact binary mergers have enabled precision tests of gravity in the strong-field dynamical regime. Current approaches combine single-event results that assume deviations from General Relativity (GR) are uniformly distributed across events, limiting their flexibility and potentially biasing the inferred evidence. We introduce a simple mixture-model framework in which a fraction $\zeta$ of events is consistent with GR, while a fraction $1 - \zeta$ deviates from it, without imposing constraints on the population distribution of the deviation parameters. We apply this method to publicly available results from the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA (LVK) collaboration on O1-O4a compact binary mergers obtained through FTI, pSEOBNR, and KerrPostMerger tests. We find that the data are consistent with all events satisfying GR. However, we obtain respective Bayes factors $B^{\zeta=1}_{\zeta \neq 1} \simeq 20 $, $10$ and $15$, which are much smaller than those inferred from existing LVK analyses, indicating that the data require greater flexibility in modelling possible deviations than standard approaches permit. In light of our results, we recommend using flexible mixture models to test GR across compact-merger catalogues, unless there are obvious physical motivations to impose more restrictive models, as in the case of graviton-mass estimates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.07070 by Juan Calder\'on Bustillo, Koustav Chandra.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Toy model demonstration of the mixture model for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Posterior distributions for the GR-consistent fraction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Posterior distributions for the fraction, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Posterior distribution for the GR-consistent fraction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Posterior distribution for the GR-consistent fraction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Posterior distribution on the hyperparameters of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages · 60 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Fundamental Theoretical Bias in Gravitational Wave Astrophysics and the Parameterized Post-Einsteinian Framework

    Nicolas Yunes and Frans Pretorius, “Fundamental Theo- retical Bias in Gravitational Wave Astrophysics and the Parameterized Post-Einsteinian Framework,” Phys. Rev. D80, 122003 (2009), arXiv:0909.3328 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  2. [2]

    Parametrized tests of post-Newtonian theory using Advanced LIGO and Einstein Telescope

    Chandra Kant Mishra, K. G. Arun, Bala R. Iyer, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, “Parametrized tests of post- Newtonian theory using Advanced LIGO and Ein- stein Telescope,” Phys. Rev. D82, 064010 (2010), arXiv:1005.0304 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  3. [3]

    Gravitational Wave Tests of General Relativity with the Parameterized Post-Einsteinian Framework

    Neil Cornish, Laura Sampson, Nicolas Yunes, and Frans Pretorius, “Gravitational Wave Tests of General Rela- tivity with the Parameterized Post-Einsteinian Frame- work,” Phys. Rev. D84, 062003 (2011), arXiv:1105.2088 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  4. [4]

    Towards a generic test of the strong field dynamics of general relativity using compact binary coalescence

    T. G. F. Li, W. Del Pozzo, S. Vitale, C. Van Den Broeck, M. Agathos, J. Veitch, K. Grover, T. Sidery, R. Stu- rani, and A. Vecchio, “Towards a generic test of the strong field dynamics of general relativity using compact binary coalescence,” Phys. Rev. D85, 082003 (2012), arXiv:1110.0530 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  5. [5]

    Singular value decomposition in parametrised tests of post-Newtonian theory

    Archana Pai and K. G. Arun, “Singular value decompo- sition in parametrised tests of post-Newtonian theory,” Class. Quant. Grav.30, 025011 (2013), arXiv:1207.1943 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  6. [6]

    TIGER: A data analysis pipeline for testing the strong-field dynamics of general relativity with gravitational wave signals from coalescing compact binaries

    Michalis Agathos, Walter Del Pozzo, Tjonnie G. F. Li, Chris Van Den Broeck, John Veitch, and Salvatore Vi- tale, “TIGER: A data analysis pipeline for testing the strong-field dynamics of general relativity with gravita- 11 tional wave signals from coalescing compact binaries,” Phys. Rev. D89, 082001 (2014), arXiv:1311.0420 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  7. [7]

    Tests of general relativity with GW150914

    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]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

    Black-hole Spectroscopy by Making Full Use of Gravitational-Wave Modeling

    Richard Brito, Alessandra Buonanno, and Vivien Ray- mond, “Black-hole Spectroscopy by Making Full Use of Gravitational-Wave Modeling,” Phys. Rev. D98, 084038 (2018), arXiv:1805.00293 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  9. [9]

    Tests of General Relativity with GW170817

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  10. [10]

    Tests of General Relativity with the Binary Black Hole Signals from the LIGO-Virgo Catalog GWTC-1

    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]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  11. [11]

    Tests of General Relativity with Binary Black Holes from the second LIGO-Virgo Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog

    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]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  12. [12]

    Constraints on quasi-normal-mode frequencies with LIGO-Virgo binary-black-hole observations

    Abhirup Ghosh, Richard Brito, and Alessandra Buo- nanno, “Constraints on quasinormal-mode frequencies with LIGO-Virgo binary black hole observations,” Phys. Rev. D103, 124041 (2021), arXiv:2104.01906 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  13. [13]

    Tests of General Relativity with GWTC-3

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), “Tests of General Relativity with GWTC-3,” Phys. Rev. D112, 084080 (2025), arXiv:2112.06861 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Parametrized tests of post-Newtonian theory using principal component analysis

    Muhammed Saleem, Sayantani Datta, K. G. Arun, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, “Parametrized tests of post- Newtonian theory using principal component analysis,” Phys. Rev. D105, 084062 (2022), arXiv:2110.10147 [gr- qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  15. [15]

    Tests of general relativity in the nonlinear regime: a parametrized plunge-merger-ringdown gravitational waveform model

    Elisa Maggio, Hector O. Silva, Alessandra Buonanno, and Abhirup Ghosh, “Tests of general relativity in the nonlinear regime: A parametrized plunge-merger- ringdown gravitational waveform model,” Phys. Rev. D 108, 024043 (2023), arXiv:2212.09655 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    Tests of General Relativity with Gravitational-Wave Observations using a Flexible--Theory-Independent Method

    Ajit Kumar Mehta, Alessandra Buonanno, Roberto Cotesta, Abhirup Ghosh, Noah Sennett, and Jan Steinhoff, “Tests of general relativity with gravitational-wave observations using a flexible theory- independent method,” Phys. Rev. D107, 044020 (2023), arXiv:2203.13937 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  17. [17]

    Are Parametrized Tests of General Relativity with Gravitational Waves Robust to Unknown Higher Post-Newtonian Order Effects?

    Scott Perkins and Nicolas Yunes, “Are parametrized tests of general relativity with gravitational waves robust to unknown higher post-Newtonian order effects?” Phys. Rev. D105, 124047 (2022), arXiv:2201.02542 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  18. [18]

    Testing general relativity using higher-order modes of gravitational waves from binary black holes

    Anna Puecher, Chinmay Kalaghatgi, Soumen Roy, Yosh- inta Setyawati, Ish Gupta, B. S. Sathyaprakash, and Chris Van Den Broeck, “Testing general relativity us- ing higher-order modes of gravitational waves from bi- nary black holes,” Phys. Rev. D106, 082003 (2022), arXiv:2205.09062 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

    Tests of General Relativity with GW230529: a neutron star merging with a lower mass-gap compact object

    Elise M. S¨ angeret al., “Tests of General Relativity with GW230529: a neutron star merging with a lower mass- gap compact object,” (2024), arXiv:2406.03568 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    From Source Properties to Strong-Field Tests: a multipronged analysis of GW250114 with an effective one-body model for generic orbits,

    Koustav Chandra, Rossella Gamba, and Danilo Chiaramello, “From Source Properties to Strong-Field Tests: a multipronged analysis of GW250114 with an effective one-body model for generic orbits,” (2025), arXiv:2512.04593 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    A parametrized model for gravi- tational waves from eccentric, precessing binary black holes: theory-agnostic tests of General Relativity with pTEOBResumS,

    Danilo Chiaramello, Nicol` o Cibrario, Jacob Lange, Kous- tav Chandra, Rossella Gamba, Raffaella Bonino, and Alessandro Nagar, “A parametrized model for gravi- tational waves from eccentric, precessing binary black holes: theory-agnostic tests of General Relativity with pTEOBResumS,” (2025), arXiv:2511.19593 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Parametrized spin-precessing inspiral-merger-ringdown waveform model for tests of general relativity

    Lorenzo Pompili, Elisa Maggio, Hector O. Silva, and Alessandra Buonanno, “A parametrized spin-precessing inspiral-merger-ringdown waveform model for tests of general relativity,” (2025), arXiv:2504.10130 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Improved parametrized test of general relativity using the IMR- PhenomX waveform family: Including higher harmon- ics and precession,

    Soumen Roy, Maria Haney, Geraint Pratten, Peter T. H. Pang, and Chris Van Den Broeck, “Improved parametrized test of general relativity using the IMR- PhenomX waveform family: Including higher harmon- ics and precession,” Phys. Rev. D113, 024016 (2026), arXiv:2504.21147 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2026

  24. [24]

    Plunge-Merger-Ringdown Tests of General Relativity with GW250114

    Leonardo Grimaldi, Elisa Maggio, Lorenzo Pompili, and Alessandra Buonanno, “Plunge-merger-ringdown tests of general relativity with GW250114,” Phys. Rev. D113, L061506 (2026), arXiv:2601.13173 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  25. [25]

    GWTC-4.0: Tests of General Relativity. II. Parameterized Tests

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), “GWTC-4.0: Tests of General Relativity. II. Parameter- ized Tests,” (2026), arXiv:2603.19020 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  26. [26]

    Golden Binary Gravitational-Wave Sources: Robust Probes of Strong-Field Gravity

    Scott A. Hughes and Kristen Menou, “Golden binaries for LISA: Robust probes of strong-field gravity,” Astrophys. J.623, 689–699 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0410148

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  27. [27]

    Testing general relativity using golden black-hole binaries

    Abhirup Ghoshet al., “Testing general relativity using golden black-hole binaries,” Phys. Rev. D94, 021101 (2016), arXiv:1602.02453 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  28. [28]

    Testing general relativity using gravitational wave signals from the inspiral, merger and ringdown of binary black holes

    Abhirup Ghosh, Nathan K. Johnson-Mcdaniel, Archis- man Ghosh, Chandra Kant Mishra, Parameswaran Ajith, Walter Del Pozzo, Christopher P. L. Berry, Alex B. Nielsen, and Lionel London, “Testing general relativity using gravitational wave signals from the inspiral, merger and ringdown of binary black holes,” Class. Quant. Grav. 35, 014002 (2018), arXiv:1704.0...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  29. [29]

    BayesWave: Bayesian Inference for Gravitational Wave Bursts and Instrument Glitches

    Neil J. Cornish and Tyson B. Littenberg, “BayesWave: Bayesian Inference for Gravitational Wave Bursts and Instrument Glitches,” Class. Quant. Grav.32, 135012 (2015), arXiv:1410.3835 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  30. [30]

    The BayesWave analysis pipeline in the era of gravitational wave observations

    Neil J. Cornish, Tyson B. Littenberg, Bence B´ ecsy, Kate- rina Chatziioannou, James A. Clark, Sudarshan Ghonge, and Margaret Millhouse, “BayesWave analysis pipeline in the era of gravitational wave observations,” Phys. Rev. D103, 044006 (2021), arXiv:2011.09494 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  31. [31]

    SCoRe: A New Framework to Study Unmodeled Physics from Gravitational Wave Data

    Guillaume Dideron, Suvodip Mukherjee, and Luis Lehner, “New framework to study unmodeled physics from gravitational wave data,” Phys. Rev. D107, 104023 (2023), arXiv:2209.14321 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  32. [32]

    Agnostically decoding gravitational wave model deficiencies in GWTC-3

    Guillaume Dideron, Suvodip Mukherjee, and Luis Lehner, “Agnostically decoding gravitational wave model deficiencies in GWTC-3,” (2026), arXiv:2604.27185 [gr- qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  33. [33]

    Null-stream-based Bayesian Unmodeled Framework to Probe Generic Gravitational-wave Polarizations

    Isaac C. F. Wong, Peter T. H. Pang, Rico K. L. Lo, Tjonnie G. F. Li, and Chris Van Den Broeck, “Null- stream-based Bayesian Unmodeled Framework to Probe Generic Gravitational-wave Polarizations,” (2021), arXiv:2105.09485 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  34. [34]

    Observational Black Hole Spectroscopy: A time-domain multimode analysis of GW150914

    Gregorio Carullo, Walter Del Pozzo, and John Veitch, “Observational Black Hole Spectroscopy: A time-domain multimode analysis of GW150914,” Phys. Rev. D99, 123029 (2019), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 100, 089903 (2019)], arXiv:1902.07527 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  35. [35]

    Analyzing black-hole ringdowns

    Maximiliano Isi and Will M. Farr, “Analyzing black-hole ringdowns,” (2021), arXiv:2107.05609 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  36. [36]

    Black- 12 hole ringdown analysis with inspiral-merger informed templates and limitations of classical spectroscopy,

    Koustav Chandra and Juan Calder´ on Bustillo, “Black- 12 hole ringdown analysis with inspiral-merger informed templates and limitations of classical spectroscopy,” (2025), arXiv:2509.17315 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    Testing mirror symmetry in the universe with ligo-virgo black-hole mergers,

    Juan Calder´ on Bustillo, Adrian del Rio, Nicolas Sanchis- Gual, Koustav Chandra, and Samson H.W. Leong, “Testing mirror symmetry in the universe with ligo-virgo black-hole mergers,” Physical Review Letters134(2025), 10.1103/physrevlett.134.031402

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.134.031402 2025

  38. [38]

    Intrinsic handedness in O1-O4a black-hole mergers: probing orbital precession, remnant retention in dense environments and cosmological mirror asymmetry

    Juan Calder´ on Bustillo, Adri´ an del Rio, Nicol´ as Sanchis- Gual, and Koustav Chandra, “Intrinsic handedness in o1-o4a black-hole mergers: probing orbital precession, remnant retention in dense environments and cosmolog- ical mirror asymmetry,” (2026), arXiv:2606.17752

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  39. [39]

    GWTC-4.0: Updating the Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog with Observations from the First Part of the Fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Observing Run

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), “GWTC-4.0: Updating the Gravitational-Wave Tran- sient Catalog with Observations from the First Part of the Fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Observing Run,” (2025), arXiv:2508.18082 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    4-OGC: Catalog of gravitational waves from compact-binary mergers

    Alexander H. Nitz, Sumit Kumar, Yi-Fan Wang, Shilpa Kastha, Shichao Wu, Marlin Sch¨ afer, Rahul Dhurkunde, and Collin D. Capano, “4-OGC: Catalog of Gravitational Waves from Compact Binary Mergers,” Astrophys. J. 946, 59 (2023), arXiv:2112.06878 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  41. [41]

    New black hole mergers in the LIGO-Virgo O3 data from a gravitational wave search including higher-order harmonics

    Digvijay Wadekar, Javier Roulet, Tejaswi Venumadhav, Ajit Kumar Mehta, Barak Zackay, Jonathan Mushkin, Seth Olsen, and Matias Zaldarriaga, “New black hole mergers in the LIGO-Virgo O3 data from a gravitational wave search including higher-order harmonics,” (2023), arXiv:2312.06631 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  42. [42]

    On combining information from multiple gravitational wave sources

    Aaron Zimmerman, Carl-Johan Haster, and Katerina Chatziioannou, “On combining information from multi- ple gravitational wave sources,” Phys. Rev. D99, 124044 (2019), arXiv:1903.11008 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  43. [43]

    Hierarchical test of general relativity with gravitational waves

    Maximiliano Isi, Katerina Chatziioannou, and Will M. Farr, “Hierarchical test of general relativity with grav- itational waves,” Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 121101 (2019), arXiv:1904.08011 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  44. [44]

    Multidimensional hierarchical tests of general relativity with gravitational waves

    Haowen Zhong, Maximiliano Isi, Katerina Chatziioan- nou, and Will M. Farr, “Multidimensional hierarchi- cal tests of general relativity with gravitational waves,” Phys. Rev. D110, 044053 (2024), arXiv:2405.19556 [gr- qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    Testing General Relativity with Present and Future Astrophysical Observations

    Emanuele Bertiet al., “Testing General Relativity with Present and Future Astrophysical Observations,” Class. Quant. Grav.32, 243001 (2015), arXiv:1501.07274 [gr- qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  46. [46]

    Post-Newtonian dynamics and black hole thermodynamics in Einstein-scalar-Gauss-Bonnet gravity

    F´ elix-Louis Juli´ e and Emanuele Berti, “Post-Newtonian dynamics and black hole thermodynamics in Einstein- scalar-Gauss-Bonnet gravity,” Phys. Rev. D100, 104061 (2019), arXiv:1909.05258 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  47. [47]

    Gravitational-Wave Tests of General Relativity with Ground-Based Detectors and Pulsar-Timing Arrays

    Nicolas Yunes, Xavier Siemens, and Kent Yagi, “Gravitational-Wave Tests of General Relativity with Ground-Based Detectors and Pulsar-Timing Arrays,” (2024), arXiv:2408.05240 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    Klein-gordon geon,

    David J. Kaup, “Klein-gordon geon,” Physical Review 172, 1331–1342 (1968)

    work page 1968

  49. [49]

    GW190521 as a merger of Proca stars: a potential new vector boson of $8.7 \times 10^{-13}$ eV

    Juan Calder´ on Bustillo, Nicolas Sanchis-Gual, Alejandro Torres-Forn´ e, Jos´ e A. Font, Avi Vajpeyi, Rory Smith, Carlos Herdeiro, Eugen Radu, and Samson H. W. Leong, “GW190521 as a Merger of Proca Stars: A Potential New Vector Boson of 8.7×10−13eV,” Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 081101 (2021), arXiv:2009.05376 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  50. [50]

    No evidence that the majority of black holes in binaries have zero spin

    Thomas A. Callister, Simona J. Miller, Katerina Chatzi- ioannou, and Will M. Farr, “No Evidence that the Ma- jority of Black Holes in Binaries Have Zero Spin,” Astro- phys. J. Lett.937, L13 (2022), arXiv:2205.08574 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  51. [51]

    Search templates for gravitational waves from precessing, inspiraling binaries,

    T. A. Apostolatos, “Search templates for gravitational waves from precessing, inspiraling binaries,” Phys. Rev. D52, 605–620 (1995)

    work page 1995

  52. [52]

    On the Potential Observation of False Deviations from General Relativity in Gravitational Wave Observations from Binary Black Holes

    Peter T. H. Pang, Juan Calder´ on Bustillo, Yifan Wang, and Tjonnie G. F. Li, “Potential observations of false deviations from general relativity in gravitational wave signals from binary black holes,” Phys. Rev. D98, 024019 (2018), arXiv:1802.03306 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  53. [53]

    Searching for ringdown higher modes with a numerical relativity-informed post-merger model

    Vasco Gennari, Gregorio Carullo, and Walter Del Pozzo, “Searching for ringdown higher modes with a numerical relativity-informed post-merger model,” Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 233 (2024), arXiv:2312.12515 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  54. [54]

    GWTC-4.0: Tests of General Relativity. III. Tests of the Remnants

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), “GWTC-4.0: Tests of General Relativity. III. Tests of the Remnants,” (2026), arXiv:2603.19021 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  55. [55]

    Data release for gwtc-4.0: Tests of general relativity. iii. tests of the remnants,

    LVK Collaboration, “Data release for gwtc-4.0: Tests of general relativity. iii. tests of the remnants,” https://dcc-llo.ligo.org/LIGO-P2600130/public (2026), lIGO Document P2600130 (DCC)

    work page 2026

  56. [56]

    Data release for gwtc-4.0: Tests of general relativity. ii. parameterized tests,

    LVK Collaboration, “Data release for gwtc-4.0: Tests of general relativity. ii. parameterized tests,” https://dcc-llo.ligo.org/LIGO-P2600129/public (2026), lIGO Document P2600129 (DCC)

    work page 2026

  57. [57]

    Laying the foundation of the effective-one-body waveform models SEOBNRv5: improved accuracy and efficiency for spinning non-precessing binary black holes

    Lorenzo Pompiliet al., “Laying the foundation of the effective-one-body waveform models SEOBNRv5: Im- proved accuracy and efficiency for spinning nonprecessing binary black holes,” Phys. Rev. D108, 124035 (2023), arXiv:2303.18039 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  58. [58]

    SEOBNRv5PHM: Next generation of accurate and efficient multipolar precessing-spin effective-one-body waveforms for binary black holes

    Antoni Ramos-Buades, Alessandra Buonanno, H´ ector Estell´ es, Mohammed Khalil, Deyan P. Mihaylov, Ser- guei Ossokine, Lorenzo Pompili, and Mahlet Shiferaw, “Next generation of accurate and efficient multipo- lar precessing-spin effective-one-body waveforms for bi- nary black holes,” Phys. Rev. D108, 124037 (2023), arXiv:2303.18046 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  59. [59]

    A new analytic representation of the ringdown waveform of coalescing spinning black hole binaries

    Thibault Damour and Alessandro Nagar, “A new ana- lytic representation of the ringdown waveform of coa- lescing spinning black hole binaries,” Phys. Rev. D90, 024054 (2014), arXiv:1406.0401 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  60. [60]

    An analytic family of post-merger template waveforms

    Walter Del Pozzo and Alessandro Nagar, “Analytic fam- ily of post-merger template waveforms,” Phys. Rev. D 95, 124034 (2017), arXiv:1606.03952 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  61. [61]

    Modelling Gravitational Waves from Inspiralling Compact Binaries

    T. Damour, Bala R. Iyer, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, “Modeling gravitational waves from inspiralling compact binaries,” in2nd Edoardo Amaldi Conference on Gravi- tational Waves(1997) pp. 267–271, arXiv:gr-qc/9801014

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  62. [62]

    Effective one-body approach to general relativistic two-body dynamics

    A. Buonanno and T. Damour, “Effective one-body ap- proach to general relativistic two-body dynamics,” Phys. Rev. D59, 084006 (1999), arXiv:gr-qc/9811091

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  63. [63]

    Transition from inspiral to plunge in binary black hole coalescences

    Alessandra Buonanno and Thibault Damour, “Transition from inspiral to plunge in binary black hole coalescences,” Phys. Rev. D62, 064015 (2000), arXiv:gr-qc/0001013

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  64. [64]

    Hierarchical data-driven approach to fitting numerical relativity data for nonprecessing binary black holes with an application to final spin and radiated energy

    Xisco Jim´ enez-Forteza, David Keitel, Sascha Husa, Mark Hannam, Sebastian Khan, and Michael P¨ urrer, “Hierar- chical data-driven approach to fitting numerical relativity data for nonprecessing binary black holes with an appli- cation to final spin and radiated energy,” Phys. Rev. D 95, 064024 (2017), arXiv:1611.00332 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  65. [65]

    The final spin from binary black holes in quasi-circular orbits

    Fabian Hofmann, Enrico Barausse, and Luciano Rez- zolla, “The final spin from binary black holes in quasi- circular orbits,” Astrophys. J. Lett.825, L19 (2016), 13 arXiv:1605.01938 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  66. [66]

    Surrogate models for precessing binary black hole simulations with unequal masses

    Vijay Varma, Scott E. Field, Mark A. Scheel, Jonathan Blackman, Davide Gerosa, Leo C. Stein, Lawrence E. Kidder, and Harald P. Pfeiffer, “Surrogate models for precessing binary black hole simulations with un- equal masses,” Phys. Rev. Research.1, 033015 (2019), arXiv:1905.09300 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  67. [67]

    GW230814: investigation of a loud gravitational-wave signal observed with a single detector

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, KAGRA), “GW230814: Investigation of a Loud Gravitational-wave Signal Observed with a Single Detector,” Astrophys. J. Lett.1004, L23 (2026), arXiv:2509.07348 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  68. [68]

    Analy- sis of gwtc-3 with fully precessing numerical relativ- ity surrogate models,

    Tousif Islam, Avi Vajpeyi, Feroz H. Shaik, Carl-Johan Haster, Vijay Varma, Scott E. Field, Jacob Lange, Richard O’Shaughnessy, and Rory Smith, “Analy- sis of gwtc-3 with fully precessing numerical relativ- ity surrogate models,” Physical Review D112(2025), 10.1103/48ck-2fff

    work page doi:10.1103/48ck-2fff 2025

  69. [69]

    Claude 4.5 sonnet,

    Anthropic, “Claude 4.5 sonnet,” (2025)

    work page 2025

  70. [70]

    The weighted likelihood ratio, linear hypotheses on normal location parameters,

    James M. Dickey, “The weighted likelihood ratio, linear hypotheses on normal location parameters,” Annals of Mathematical Statistics42, 204–223 (1971)

    work page 1971

  71. [71]

    Identifying Proca-star merg- ers via consistent ultralight-boson mass estimates across gravitational-wave events,

    Ana Lorenzo-Medina, Juan Calder´ on Bustillo, and Samson H. W. Leong, “Identifying Proca-star merg- ers via consistent ultralight-boson mass estimates across gravitational-wave events,” Phys. Rev. D112, 124010 (2025), arXiv:2505.07544 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  72. [72]

    A chi-squared time-frequency discriminator for gravitational wave detection

    Bruce Allen, “χ2 time-frequency discriminator for grav- itational wave detection,” Phys. Rev. D71, 062001 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0405045

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  73. [73]

    Searching for Gravitational Waves from Compact Binaries with Precessing Spins

    Ian Harry, Stephen Privitera, Alejandro Boh´ e, and Alessandra Buonanno, “Searching for Gravitational Waves from Compact Binaries with Precessing Spins,” Phys. Rev. D94, 024012 (2016), arXiv:1603.02444 [gr- qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016