Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Improved Constraints on Modified Gravity with Eccentric Gravitational Waves

T0 review · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that in Jordan-Brans-Dicke-Fierz theory, adding orbital eccentricity to gravitational-wave templates first degrades and then, above e0≈0.03, improves the projected bound on the coupling ω, with future detectors beating…

desk verdict Careful waveform construction and a plausible but PN-limited forecast; the missing higher-PN ST terms could shift the headline recovery curve, so read the Fisher numbers as provisional. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07089 v1 pith:5JBEPLVG submitted 2019-08-19 gr-qc

Sizheng Ma , Nicolas Yunes This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc MSC 83C3583C2583B05 PACS 04.30.-w04.25.Nx04.50.Kd
keywords eccentricgravitationalwavesBrans-Dicketheoryscalar-tensorgravitypost-circularapproximationFishermatrixmodifiedtestswaveparameterestimationfrequency-domainwaveform
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks whether orbital eccentricity helps or hurts future gravitational-wave tests of modified gravity, using Jordan-Brans-Dicke-Fierz scalar-tensor theory as the test case. It constructs an analytic frequency-domain waveform for eccentric inspirals whose scalar-tensor Fourier phase is worked out to $O(e_0^8)$ in the post-circular expansion, and it verifies the general-relativistic sector of that waveform against a 3PN accurate numerical model. A Fisher forecast then shows that for initial eccentricities between roughly $10^{-4}$ and $10^{-2}$ the inferred bound on the coupling $\omega$ degrades by a factor of a few and worsens at worst, because the eccentricity parameter and the scalar-tensor parameter become partially covariant; once $e_0\gtrsim 0.03$ the degeneracy breaks and the bound improves again. The result matters because it implies that ignoring eccentricity in modified-gravity templates does not merely lose sensitivity: in the mildly eccentric regime it actively overstates the constraint one would obtain.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the new frequency-domain waveform, specifically the Brans-Dicke phase correction $\Xi^{\rm BD}$ of Eq. (37): an expansion of the stationary-phase Fourier phase in the post-circular approximation to $O(e_0^8)$ and leading Newtonian order, proportional to $b=(5/48)S^2/\omega$. Its $-1$PN frequency dependence is what makes the eccentricity and the modified-gravity parameter covary in the Fisher matrix. Around it stand two supporting tools: an analytic maximization of the overlap over coalescence time and mean anomaly for multi-harmonic waveforms, and a 3PN accurate eccentric time-domain numerical model in general relativity used to calibrate the maximum eccentricity up to which the analytic model is trustworthy.

What would settle it

Evolve an eccentric black-hole-neutron-star inspiral in full scalar-tensor theory numerically, Fourier-transform the strain, and compare the phase with Eq. (37) over the $1$–$10$ Hz band relevant to third-generation ground-based detectors or the $0.1$–$0.5$ Hz LISA band; if the phase disagreement integrated over the band exceeds $1/\mathrm{SNR}$ for a loud event, the predicted deterioration-then-recovery curve is not robust. The cleanest variant is to compute the 1PN scalar-tensor eccentric phase corrections and check whether they change the $e_0$–$b$ covariance by more than the Fisher forecast's reported suppression factors.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that mild eccentricity first weakens and then strengthens projected constraints on Jordan-Brans-Dicke-Fierz theory. The paper derives the scalar-tensor correction to the stationary-phase Fourier phase of an eccentric inspiral to $O(e_0^8)$ at leading Newtonian order, and this correction enters at $-1$PN order relative to the leading general-relativistic term. In a Fisher analysis of a future signal consistent with general relativity, that term creates a partial covariance between $e_0$ and the scalar-tensor parameter $b$, so the inferred lower bound on $\omega$ drops as $e_0$ grows from $10^{-4}$ toward $10^{-2}$; above $e_0\approx 0.03$ the covariance weakens and the bound recovers. With third-generation ground-based detectors the recovered constraints can beat the current solar-system bound by roughly an order of magnitude, and LISA reaches comparable or better levels for the intermediate-mass-ratio sources studied.

Load-bearing premise

The forecast stands on the newly derived scalar-tensor phase corrections, which are computed only at leading Newtonian order in the post-Newtonian expansion and are never tested against a numerical scalar-tensor inspiral; if higher-order scalar-tensor terms are comparable to the leading dipole term in the low-frequency band, the covariance and the $e_0\approx 0.03$ recovery curve could shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For initial eccentricities below about $0.01$, analyses that ignore the scalar-tensor eccentric corrections will overstate the projected bound on $\omega$ by a factor of roughly three to five.
  • The bound recovers once $e_0$ exceeds about $0.03$, so future eccentric detections do not monotonically degrade modified-gravity tests; the turning point is a target for waveform development.
  • Third-generation ground-based detectors and LISA can constrain $\omega$ to levels an order of magnitude stronger than the current solar-system bound for the black-hole-neutron-star and neutron-star-neutron-star sources considered.
  • The analytic model is valid up to $e_0\sim 0.14$–$0.22$ for ground-based comparable-mass sources but only up to $\sim 10^{-3}$ for the LISA intermediate-mass-ratio sources, so the LISA forecast does not reach the recovery regime.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The non-monotonic constraint curve is likely generic: any modified-gravity parameter whose phase correction enters at negative post-Newtonian order will partially cross-correlate with $e_0$ at small eccentricity, and the turnover point should shift with the theory's frequency dependence.
  • The degeneracy could in principle be broken independently of waveform accuracy by using astrophysical priors on the initial eccentricity, for example from the formation channels that produce eccentric black-hole-neutron-star mergers, which would restore tighter bounds at low $e_0$.
  • One testable extension is to repeat the Fisher forecast with priors on $e_0$ informed by eccentric-binary population synthesis; the predicted deterioration factor of roughly two to five would shrink if the eccentricity is well constrained.
  • Another consequence left implicit by the paper is that the same $-1$PN scalar-tensor phase will bias estimates of the chirp mass and symmetric mass ratio if analyzed with quasi-circular general-relativistic templates; quantifying that bias is a direct follow-up.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the ST waveform and Fisher forecast are derived from the field-theory flux equations, not fitted or renamed inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The ST-sector phase (Eq. 37) is obtained by solving the Jordan-Brans-Dicke-Fierz flux equations (Eqs. 9-12) from Eardley and Will-Zaglauer, expanding in the small parameters b and e0, and then applying the SPA; the b parameter is not fitted to any target constraint on omega. The Fisher analysis assumes a GR signal (b=0) and estimates the covariance of b and e0 from waveform derivatives, so the reported deterioration and recovery of the omega bound is an emergent model prediction, not an input. The overlap validation in Section IV compares the GR limit (b=0) of the analytic model to an independent 3PN eccentric TaylorT4 model, which tests the post-circular expansion rather than encoding the modified-gravity result. Citations to Yunes et al. [41] and related works supply the GR-phase and post-circular framework, but these are parameter-free prior derivations, and the paper's new ST-sector calculation is carried out explicitly in Eqs. (21)-(37) rather than imported by citation. Footnote 2 explicitly limits the ST sector to leading PN order, and Section IV does not validate the ST terms against a numerical scalar-tensor evolution; these are robustness caveats, not instances of circular reasoning. The minor self-citations in the paper are not load-bearing in the sense required for circularity: the central forecast would stand or fall on the correctness of the derived waveform, not on an unverified self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rely on the validity of the PC, PN, and SPA approximations and on the JBD no-hair theorem, not on fitted parameters or invented entities. The model parameters such as masses, e0, and b are the quantities being estimated, not free parameters tuned to produce the claim.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The post-circular expansion truncated at O(e0^8) accurately represents eccentric inspiral waveforms in the regime studied.
    The analytic model is built on the PC expansion; validity is checked only in the GR limit against TaylorT4 (Section IV), and the 97% match threshold is a convention.
  • domain assumption No-hair theorems hold for JBD black holes, so BH-NS binaries are the relevant sources for ST tests.
    Section II A states s=0.5 for BHs by no-hair theorems; this restricts the source selection and excludes BH-BH binaries.
  • domain assumption The restricted PN approximation with Newtonian amplitudes and 3PN phase suffices for parameter estimation.
    Section III A explicitly keeps amplitudes at Newtonian order and adds PN terms only to the GR sector of the phase.
  • standard math The Fisher information matrix provides reliable projected errors at high SNR.
    Section V A uses the linearized-signal approximation and notes equality with the Cramer-Rao bound in the high SNR limit.
  • standard math The stationary phase approximation with a single stationary point per harmonic is valid.
    Used to construct the frequency-domain waveforms in Section III A.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Improved Constraints on Modified Gravity with Eccentric Gravitational Waves." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5JBEPLVG

@misc{pith2026190807089,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Improved Constraints on Modified Gravity with Eccentric Gravitational Waves},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5JBEPLVG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07089}
}
read the original abstract

Recent gravitational wave observations have allowed stringent new constraints on modifications to General Relativity (GR) in the extreme gravity regime. Although these observations were consistent with compact binaries with no orbital eccentricity, gravitational waves emitted in mildly eccentric binaries may be observed once detectors reach their design sensitivity. In this paper, we study the effect of eccentricity in gravitational wave constraints of modified gravity, focusing on Jordan-Brans- Dicke-Fierz theory as an example. Using the stationary phase approximation and the post-circular approximation (an expansion in small eccentricity), we first construct an analytical expression for frequency-domain gravitational waveforms produced by inspiraling compact binaries with small eccentricity in this theory. We then calculate the overlap between our approximate analytical waveforms and an eccentric numerical model (TaylorT4) to determine the regime of validity (in eccentricity) of the former. With this at hand, we carry out a Fisher analysis to determine the accuracy to which Jordan-Brans-Dicke-Fierz theory could be constrained given future eccentric detections consistent with General Relativity. We find that the constraint on the theory initially deteriorates (due to covariances between the eccentricity and the Brans-Dicke coupling parameter), but then it begins to recover, once the eccentricity is larger than approximately 0.03. We also find that third-generation ground-based detectors and space-based detectors could allow for constraints that are up to an order of magnitude more stringent than current Solar System bounds. Our results suggest that waveforms in modified gravity for systems with moderate eccentricity should be developed to maximize the theoretical physics that can be extracted in the future.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.07089 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (Color Online) Projected constraint on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (Color Online) Spectral noise densities of current and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (Color Online) The normalized match for ground-based detectors as a function of the initial eccentricity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (Color Online) The normalized overlap for LISA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (Color Online) The covariance of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (Color Online) Projected constrains or lower bounds [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (Color Online) Projected constraints on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. (Color Online) Projected constraints on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. (Color Online) The match between a 3PN TalyorT4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

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

    gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Multiband observations of eccentric binary black holes can constrain dipole-radiation deviations from general relativity to |b| ≲ 10^{-7} for a GW231123-like event when combining one year of space-based data with grou...

  2. A parametrized test of general relativity for inspiralling eccentric binaries in LISA

    gr-qc 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    For eccentric black-hole binaries observed by LISA, a parametrized deformation of the periastron-precession rate could be constrained to |δα|≲10^-4 at 90% credibility with the full-model template.

  3. Tidal effects in gravitational waves from neutron stars in scalar-tensor theories of gravity

    gr-qc 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Tidal contributions to neutron-star binary gravitational-wave phase in scalar-tensor gravity involve scalar, tensor, and mixed Love numbers, and generally combine to reduce the net tidal signal below the general-relat...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    smoking-gun

    and to leading Newtonian order in the PN approximation2. We find that the eccentric ST cor- rections, just like in the GR case, introduce negative PN order corrections, relative to the leading Newtonian or- der term in the quasi-circular limit. Such terms are very large at large separations (or small velocities) provided the eccentricity is not vanishingly...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Keeping terms up to O(e8

    and in b≪ 1. Keeping terms up to O(e8

    work page

  3. [3]

    andO(b1), we find τ =τGR +τBD, (34) where τGR is given in Eq. (4.27) of [41] and τBD is τBD =− 5 96 ˜bM (2πMF )−10/3 [ 1 + (785 72 χ−13/9− 1511 72 χ−19/9 ) e2 0 + (87685679 328320 χ−38/9− 5222765 32832 χ−32/9 −5021053 65664 χ−19/9 + 4171333 164160 χ−13/9 ) e4 0 + ( −30003281383 10165760 χ−19/3 + 678205125 369664 χ−17/3 + 291379511317 149713920 χ−38/9 8 −14...

    work page

  4. [4]

    tempo- ral

    in the PC expansion and to leading Newtonian order in the PN approximation. This is the most accurate (in the PN and PC sense) Fourier phase in Jordan-Brans-Dicke-Fierz theory we can construct as of the writing of this paper. 9 B. Numerical model In the next section, we estimate roughly the maxi- mum initial eccentricity the previous analytical model is v...

    work page 1920

  5. [5]

    (28) must be rescaled as h = √ 3/2(F+h+ +F×h×)

    In addition, because of the triangular shape of the LISA configuration, the strain in Eq. (28) must be rescaled as h = √ 3/2(F+h+ +F×h×). Figure 8 shows the projected constraint onω as a func- tion of initial eccentricity e0, terminating the curve at the maximum initial eccentricity we found in Sec. IV C. As in the ground-based case, the projected constrai...

    work page

  6. [6]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 241103 (2016), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.116.241103

    work page 2016

  8. [9]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), The Astrophysical Journal Let- ters 851, L35 (2017), URL http://stacks.iop.org/ 2041-8205/851/i=2/a=L35

    work page 2017

Show all 74 references
  1. [10]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 141101 (2017), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.119.141101

    2017

  2. [11]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 161101 (2017), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101

    2017

  3. [12]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 241102 (2016), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.116.241102

    2016

  4. [13]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), The Astrophysical Journal Let- ters 818, L22 (2016), URL http://stacks.iop.org/ 2041-8205/818/i=2/a=L22

    2016

  5. [14]

    P. C. Peters and J. Mathews, Phys. Rev. 131, 435 (1963), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRev.131.435

    1963

  6. [15]

    P. C. Peters, Phys. Rev. 136, B1224 (1964), URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.136.B1224

    1964 doi

  7. [17]

    Antonini and H

    F. Antonini and H. B. Perets, The Astrophysical Jour- nal 757, 27 (2012), URL http://stacks.iop.org/ 0004-637X/757/i=1/a=27

    2012

  8. [18]

    Samsing, M

    J. Samsing, M. MacLeod, and E. Ramirez-Ruiz, The Astrophysical Journal 784, 71 (2014), URL http:// stacks.iop.org/0004-637X/784/i=1/a=71

    2014

  9. [19]

    T. A. Thompson, The Astrophysical Journal 741, 82 (2011), URL http://stacks.iop.org/0004-637X/741/ i=2/a=82

    2011

  10. [20]

    W. E. East, S. T. McWilliams, J. Levin, and F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. D 87, 043004 (2013), URL https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.87.043004

    2013 doi

  11. [21]

    R. M. O’Leary, B. Kocsis, and A. Loeb, MNRAS 395, 2127 (2009), 0807.2638

    2009 arXiv

  12. [22]

    Willems, A

    B. Willems, A. Vecchio, and V. Kalogera, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 041102 (2008), URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.041102

    2008 doi

  13. [23]

    Berentzen, M

    I. Berentzen, M. Preto, P. Berczik, D. Merritt, and R. Spurzem, Astrophys. J. 695, 455 (2009), 0812.2756

    2009 arXiv

  14. [24]

    E. A. Huerta, P. Kumar, S. T. McWilliams, R. O’Shaughnessy, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D 90, 084016 (2014), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevD.90.084016

    2014

  15. [25]

    Amaro-Seoane, H

    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 (2017), 1702.00786

    2017 arXiv

  16. [26]

    Martel and E

    K. Martel and E. Poisson, Phys. Rev. D 60, 124008 (1999), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevD.60.124008

    1999

  17. [27]

    D. A. Brown and P. J. Zimmerman, Phys. Rev. D 81, 024007 (2010), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevD.81.024007

    2010 doi

  18. [28]

    E. K. Porter and A. Sesana, ArXiv e-prints (2010), 1005.5296

    2010 arXiv

  19. [29]

    Tessmer and A

    M. Tessmer and A. Gopakumar, Phys. Rev. D 78, 084029 (2008), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevD.78.084029

    2008

  20. [30]

    E. A. Huerta and D. A. Brown, Phys. Rev. D87, 127501 (2013), 1301.1895

    2013 arXiv

  21. [31]

    Cutler and M

    C. Cutler and M. Vallisneri, Phys. Rev. D 76, 104018 (2007), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevD.76.104018

    2007

  22. [32]

    B. Sun, Z. Cao, Y. Wang, and H.-C. Yeh, Phys. Rev. D 92, 044034 (2015), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.044034

    2015 doi

  23. [33]

    Wahlquist, General Relativity and Gravitation 19, 1101 (1987), ISSN 1572-9532, URL https://doi.org/ 10.1007/BF00759146

    H. Wahlquist, General Relativity and Gravitation 19, 1101 (1987), ISSN 1572-9532, URL https://doi.org/ 10.1007/BF00759146

    1987 doi

  24. [34]

    Blanchet, 9, 4 (2006), gr-qc/0202016

    L. Blanchet, 9, 4 (2006), gr-qc/0202016

    2006 arXiv

  25. [35]

    Junker and G

    W. Junker and G. Schaefer, MNRAS 254, 146 (1992)

    1992

  26. [36]

    Blanchet and G

    L. Blanchet and G. Schafer, Classical and Quantum Gravity 10, 2699 (1993)

    1993

  27. [37]

    Gopakumar and B

    A. Gopakumar and B. R. Iyer, Phys. Rev. D 65, 084011 (2002), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevD.65.084011

    2002

  28. [38]

    Damour, A

    T. Damour, A. Gopakumar, and B. R. Iyer, Phys. Rev. D 70, 064028 (2004), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevD.70.064028

    2004 doi

  29. [39]

    K. G. Arun, L. Blanchet, B. R. Iyer, and M. S. S. Qu- sailah, Phys. Rev. D 77, 064035 (2008), URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.77.064035

    2008 doi

  30. [40]

    K. G. Arun, L. Blanchet, B. R. Iyer, and M. S. S. Qu- sailah, Phys. Rev. D 77, 064034 (2008), URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.77.064034

    2008 doi

  31. [41]

    K. G. Arun, L. Blanchet, B. R. Iyer, and S. Sinha, Phys. Rev. D 80, 124018 (2009), URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.80.124018

    2009 doi

  32. [42]

    Kr´ olak, K

    A. Kr´ olak, K. D. Kokkotas, and G. Sch¨ afer, Phys. Rev. D 52, 2089 (1995), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevD.52.2089

    1995

  33. [43]

    Favata, Phys

    M. Favata, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 101101 (2014), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett. 112.101101

    2014 doi

  34. [44]

    Moore, M

    B. Moore, M. Favata, K. G. Arun, and C. K. Mishra, Phys. Rev. D 93, 124061 (2016), URL https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.93.124061

    2016 doi

  35. [45]

    Yunes, K

    N. Yunes, K. G. Arun, E. Berti, and C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D 80, 084001 (2009), URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.80.084001

    2009 doi

  36. [46]

    Tessmer, J

    M. Tessmer, J. Hartung, and G. Sch¨ afer, Classical and Quantum Gravity 27, 165005 (2010), 1003.2735

    2010 arXiv

  37. [47]

    Tessmer and G

    M. Tessmer and G. Sch¨ afer, Phys. Rev. D 82, 124064 (2010), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevD.82.124064

    2010

  38. [48]

    Tanay, M

    S. Tanay, M. Haney, and A. Gopakumar, Phys. Rev. D 93, 064031 (2016), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.064031

    2016 doi

  39. [49]

    Moore, T

    B. Moore, T. Robson, N. Loutrel, and N. Yunes, Class. Quant. Grav. 35, 235006 (2018), 1807.07163

    2018 arXiv

  40. [50]

    Moore and N

    B. Moore and N. Yunes (2019), 1903.05203

    2019 arXiv

  41. [51]

    S. Ma, Z. Cao, C.-Y. Lin, H.-P. Pan, and H.-J. Yo, Phys. Rev. D 96, 084046 (2017), URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.96.084046

    2017 doi

  42. [52]

    Mik´ oczi, B

    B. Mik´ oczi, B. Kocsis, P. Forg´ acs, and M. Vas´ uth, Phys. Rev. D 86, 104027 (2012), URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.86.104027

    2012 doi

  43. [53]

    Yunes and X

    N. Yunes and X. Siemens, Living Rev. Rel. 16, 9 (2013), 1304.3473

    2013 arXiv

  44. [54]

    Brans and R

    C. Brans and R. H. Dicke, Phys. Rev. 124, 925 (1961), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRev.124.925

    1961

  45. [55]

    C. M. Will, IAU Symp. 261, 198 (2010)

    2010

  46. [56]

    D. M. Eardley, Astrophys. J. 196, L59 (1975)

    1975

  47. [57]

    C. M. Will, Astrophys. J. 214, 826 (1977)

    1977

  48. [58]

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

    1989

  49. [59]

    Bertotti, L

    B. Bertotti, L. Iess, and P. Tortora, Nature (London) 425, 374 (2003)

    2003

  50. [60]

    C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D 50, 6058 (1994), URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.50.6058

    1994 doi

  51. [61]

    P. D. Scharre and C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D 65, 042002 (2002), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevD.65.042002

    2002

  52. [62]

    C. M. Will and N. Yunes, Classical and Quantum Gravity 21, 4367 (2004), gr-qc/0403100

    2004 arXiv

  53. [63]

    Yunes, P

    N. Yunes, P. Pani, and V. Cardoso, Phys. Rev. D85, 102003 (2012), 1112.3351

    2012 arXiv

  54. [64]

    Berti, A

    E. Berti, A. Buonanno, and C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D 71, 084025 (2005), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevD.71.084025

    2005 doi

  55. [67]

    S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys. 25, 167 (1972)

    1972

  56. [68]

    T. P. Sotiriou and V. Faraoni, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 081103 (2012), 1109.6324

    2012 arXiv

  57. [69]

    T. B. Littenberg and N. Yunes, Class. Quant. Grav. 36, 095017 (2019), 1811.01093

    2019 arXiv

  58. [70]

    Yunes and E

    N. Yunes and E. Berti, Phys. Rev. D77, 124006 (2008), [Erratum: Phys. Rev.D83,109901(2011)], 0803.1853

    2008 arXiv

  59. [71]

    Yunes, A

    N. Yunes, A. Buonanno, S. A. Hughes, M. Cole- man Miller, and Y. Pan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 091102 (2010), 0909.4263

    2010 arXiv

  60. [72]

    Akmal, V

    A. Akmal, V. R. Pandharipande, and D. G. Ravenhall, Phys. Rev. C58, 1804 (1998), nucl-th/9804027

    1998 arXiv

  61. [73]

    Loutrel, N

    N. Loutrel, N. Yunes, and F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. D 90, 104010 (2014), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.104010

    2014 doi

  62. [74]

    Chatziioannou, N

    K. Chatziioannou, N. Yunes, and N. Cornish, Phys.Rev. D86, 022004 (2012), 1204.2585

    2012 arXiv

  63. [75]

    S. Droz, D. J. Knapp, E. Poisson, and B. J. Owen, Phys. Rev. D 59, 124016 (1999), URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.59.124016

    1999 doi

  64. [76]

    K¨ onigsd¨ orffer and A

    C. K¨ onigsd¨ orffer and A. Gopakumar, Phys. Rev. D 73, 124012 (2006), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevD.73.124012

    2006 doi

  65. [77]

    Chamberlain and N

    K. Chamberlain and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D 96, 084039 (2017), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevD.96.084039

    2017

  66. [78]

    Vallisneri, Phys

    M. Vallisneri, Phys. Rev. D 77, 042001 (2008), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD. 77.042001

    2008 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.