Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 87 references

Constraint on gravitational-wave polarizations for space-based detectors with time-delay interferometry

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For space-based detectors, the realistic time-delay-interferometry readout weakens tensor-mode polarization constraints but improves the constraints on vector and scalar polarizations.

desk verdict A competent but incremental FIM sensitivity forecast for TDI-era polarization constraints; the central quantitative claims rest on a five-parameter Fisher matrix and the genuinely new numbers are conditional on that choice. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.14870 v1 pith:PCNEAXMQ submitted 2025-07-20 gr-qc

Tong Jiang , Chunyu Zhang This is my paper
classification gr-qc PACS 04.30.-w04.80.Nn95.55.Ym
keywords gravitationalwavesextrapolarizationstime-delayinterferometryparametrizedpost-EinsteinianframeworkFisherinformationmatrixspace-baseddetectorsmassiveblackholebinaries
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 space-based gravitational-wave observatories can constrain the extra polarization modes that non-Einsteinian theories of gravity allow, and how the realistic time-delay interferometry (TDI) readout changes those constraints. Working in the parametrized post-Einsteinian (ppE) framework and using a Fisher information matrix, it claims that the constraints on vector and scalar polarizations are intrinsically much weaker than on the tensor mode, but that the second-generation TDI (A,E,T) combination improves the detector's ability to bound the extra modes relative to a simplified equal-arm interferometer readout. The mechanism is that low-frequency signal cancellation lowers the SNR in TDI, which weakens the tensor-mode constraint, while the amplitude-level signatures of the vector and scalar modes are affected differently and benefit relative to the tensor mode. The paper also claims that vector-mode constraints are stronger than scalar-mode constraints, and that the TDI improvement for the vector mode is smaller because its waveform depends on the inclination angle. If correct, this matters for how LISA, Taiji, and TianQin data should be interpreted when testing modified gravity.

What carries the argument

The central object is the second-generation TDI (A,E,T) combination, three noise-cancelling channels built from time-delayed combinations X, Y, and Z, together with the ppE waveform that carries the five polarization parameters. The A,E,T channels define the frequency-domain response for each polarization, and the Fisher information matrix, built from the derivatives of these responses with respect to the five parameters, supplies the quoted parameter errors. The comparison quantity is the ratio $R_{\alpha_i}$, defined as the error on parameter $\alpha_i$ normalized by the tensor error $\Delta\alpha_Q/\alpha_Q$, computed with TDI and divided by the same quantity without TDI; this isolates the effect of TDI from the overall SNR.

What would settle it

Perform a full Fisher-matrix or Bayesian analysis on the same 100 simulated sources with the extrinsic parameters — sky location, polarization angle, inclination, luminosity distance, masses, and initial phase — included as free parameters; if the ratios $R_{\alpha_Q}>1$ and $R_{\alpha_{V,B,L}}<1$ do not persist, or the vector-versus-scalar ordering changes, the paper's central comparison fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, in the parametrized post-Einsteinian (ppE) framework, the five ppE parameters $\alpha_D$, $\alpha_Q$, $\alpha_V$, $\alpha_B$, and $\alpha_L$ — which encode dipole radiation and the tensor, vector, scalar-breathing, and scalar-longitudinal polarizations — are constrained with very different precision by space-based detectors. For the tensor parameter $\alpha_Q$, the constraint error scales inversely with the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), so because the second-generation TDI (A,E,T) combination suppresses the low-frequency SNR through signal cancellation, the tensor-mode constraint is degraded relative to the simplified equal-arm interferometer readout, and the degradation grows with source mass. Once the SNR factor is divided out, the constraints on the vector and scalar parameters improve with TDI: the ratio factors $R_{\alpha_V}$, $R_{\alpha_B}$, and $R_{\alpha_L}$ fall below 1. The improvement is least for the vector mode, whose amplitude depends on the inclination angle, while the scalar breathing and longitudinal modes, having identical ppE waveform forms, show nearly identical improvement. Overall, the vector mode is better constrained than the scalar modes, though still far weaker than the tensor mode, and a network of detectors gives only a small further improvement.

Load-bearing premise

The quoted errors assume the source's location, orientation, distance, and masses are known exactly; if they are not, the polarization constraints would be weaker than reported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Tensor-mode constraints produced by a realistic TDI analysis will be weaker than those estimated with an equal-arm interferometer approximation, and the gap widens for the most massive binaries.
  • Sensitivity to extra polarization parameters improves when TDI is used, so equal-arm studies underestimate the reach of space-based detectors for modified-gravity tests.
  • Among the extra polarizations, the vector mode is the most promising to constrain, while the scalar breathing and longitudinal modes give identical constraints because their ppE waveforms coincide.
  • For the dipole-radiation parameter $\alpha_D$, constraints are strongest for low-mass sources, where dipole radiation is most efficient.
  • Combining LISA, Taiji, and TianQin improves the extra-polarization constraints only slightly, since the detectors act like near-independent observers.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extending beyond the paper: the quoted errors come from a Fisher matrix with only the five ppE parameters as unknowns, so a full analysis that marginalizes over sky location, polarization angle, inclination, distance, and masses would likely give larger errors; whether the TDI-vs-no-TDI ordering survives that marginalization is an open test.
  • A second extension: because the vector-mode waveform depends on inclination, the angle-averaged TDI improvement would change for a source population with a different inclination distribution, such as a preferentially edge-on population.
  • A third extension: the finding that networks give little improvement suggests that polarization constraints are dominated by the per-detector sensitivity, so future mission design could prioritize a single well-oriented detector over a three-detector network for this specific test.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies how well future space-based gravitational-wave detectors (LISA, Taiji, TianQin, and their network) can constrain non-tensor polarization content, using the parametrized post-Einstein (ppE) framework and second-generation time-delay interferometry (TDI). The authors compute Fisher information matrices for five ppE parameters (α_D, α_Q, α_V, α_B, α_L) for inspiraling massive black hole binaries, comparing the second-generation TDI (A,E,T) combination with a simplified equal-arm Michelson response. The central claims are that constraints on vector and scalar polarizations are much weaker than on the tensor mode; that TDI degrades tensor-mode constraints because of SNR loss at low frequencies; and that, after normalizing by the tensor-mode constraint, TDI improves the relative constraints on extra polarizations, with the vector mode improved less than the scalar modes.

Significance. The paper addresses a timely and relevant question for the LISA/Taiji/TianQin program: how the realistic TDI response affects the ability to test alternative theories of gravity through polarization content. Its strengths include the use of the second-generation TDI response with time-varying arm lengths, the comparison of three detector configurations and their network, and the use of a model-independent ppE waveform family with all six polarizations. The qualitative trends—extra polarizations are harder to constrain than tensor, vector modes are better constrained than scalar modes, and TDI reduces tensor SNR—are plausible and consistent with the general behavior of detector responses. However, the quantitative results are conditional on a reduced Fisher matrix that holds all extrinsic parameters fixed, and the headline 'enhancement' of extra-polarization detectability with TDI is a relative statement that can reverse when viewed in absolute terms. These issues limit the strength of the conclusions as stated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II.E, Eq. (25); Sec. III.A, Tables I and II] The Fisher matrix is computed over only the five ppE parameters (α_D, α_Q, α_V, α_B, α_L). All extrinsic parameters—sky location, polarization angle, inclination, luminosity distance, component masses, and initial orbital phase—are randomly sampled and then held fixed. This is a serious conditioning issue: α_Q is strongly degenerate with chirp mass and initial phase through the phase evolution, while α_V, α_B, and α_L enter through the amplitude and are degenerate with inclination, distance, and polarization angle. The reported errors in Tables I and II are therefore conditional on exactly which parameters are frozen, and the central ratios R_{α_i} normalizing by Δα_Q could change substantially under full marginalization. The manuscript does not state this limitation or test its sensitivity. This is load-bearing because the main comparisons and the abstract's claims derive directly from these numbers.
  2. [Sec. III.A, Fig. 1; Abstract] The statement that 'detectability on extra polarizations will be enhanced with TDI' is presented without the crucial qualification that this is a relative improvement with respect to the tensor mode. The raw errors for extra polarizations generally worsen with TDI. For example, for LISA with M = 2×10^5 M_sun, Table I gives Δα_V = 6.5×10^-3 with TDI, while Table II gives Δα_V = 3.0×10^-3 without TDI; the absolute constraint is worse. The apparent improvement appears only after dividing by the larger Δα_Q, which itself is worse by a factor of four. The abstract and conclusions should state explicitly that TDI improves the constraint on extra polarizations relative to the tensor mode, not absolutely.
  3. [Sec. II.C and II.D, Eqs. (15) and (22); Sec. III.A] The comparison between 'with TDI' and 'without TDI' uses different noise models: the simplified equal-arm Michelson case uses Eq. (15), while the TDI case uses the (A,E,T) noise power spectral densities of Eq. (22). The SNR degradation attributed to 'signal cancellation effects' is therefore not isolated from the change in assumed noise. To support the claim that TDI degrades tensor constraints specifically because of signal cancellation, the authors should either use a common noise model for both responses or explicitly acknowledge that the comparison includes simultaneous changes in both signal response and noise model.
  4. [Sec. II.A, Eqs. (7) and (8)] The Taylor expansion in α_D is central to computing Fisher derivatives at the fiducial value α_D = 0, but the manuscript does not state the order at which the expansion is truncated in the numerical computation. The first form of Eq. (7) contains terms singular in α_D; the second form is regular. Since the Fisher matrix requires derivatives with respect to α_D at zero, the authors should specify the expansion order and confirm that the truncation error does not affect the quoted errors, particularly for the α_D rows of the Fisher matrix.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Tables I and II captions; Sec. III text] The captions of Tables I and II state that the results are 'median values', while the text in Sec. III says 'we take the mean value of 100 GW sources as the results' and Fig. 1 shows mean and 1σ values. This is inconsistent and should be clarified; ideally both median and mean should be reported or the choice justified.
  2. [Sec. II.A, Eq. (5)] There is a typo: 'dimentionless' should be 'dimensionless'.
  3. [Sec. III.A, Fig. 1] The text reports specific R_{α_Q} values for LISA, Taiji, and TianQin, but the figure panels do not include numerical labels. Adding the values on the figure or providing a small table would improve reproducibility and readability.
  4. [Sec. III.B, Fig. 2] The definition F_i = Δα_i / (Δα_Q/α_Q) is described as representing 'constraint ability', but the text sometimes describes larger F as worse and sometimes as better. The manuscript should consistently state that larger F corresponds to weaker constraint relative to the tensor mode, to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the Fisher forecasts are self-contained calculations using external ppE waveforms, TDI response formulas, and published noise curves; self-citations appear only as background and are not load-bearing.

full rationale

No load-bearing circular step was found. The ppE waveform amplitudes (Eqs. 4-5) and phase evolution (Eqs. 7-8) are taken from the external ppE literature, and the TDI response and noise power spectral densities (Eqs. 16-22) are standard constructions with cited external sources. The Fisher matrix (Eq. 25) is applied to five ppE parameters without fitting those parameters to data: all fiducial values are fixed at GR values, and the quoted errors are forecast covariances, not predictions of fitted quantities. The comparison ratios R_alpha_i are definitions in Sec. III.A, not derived predictions; normalizing errors relative to Delta alpha_Q is an explicit benchmark choice, not a hidden input. Ref. [45] is a self-citation used only as background support for the fact that a single space-based detector can validate polarizations, and the paper's numerical TDI-versus-no-TDI comparison does not depend on that result; removing it would not alter Tables I-II or Fig. 1. The main caveat is that the Fisher matrix marginalizes over only the five ppE parameters while extrinsic parameters are held fixed; this affects the robustness of the absolute numbers and ratios, but it is a methodological limitation, not definitional circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard ppE waveform parametrization, TDI response theory, and Fisher information asymptotics, all adopted from cited literature. No new physical entity is introduced, and no constants are fitted to data. The main modeling choices are the fiducial ppE parameter values, source masses, and observation window; the main approximations are the Taylor expansion around α_D = 0 and the five-parameter Fisher matrix.

free parameters (4)
  • Fiducial ppE parameters α_D, α_Q, α_V, α_B, α_L = 0, 96/5, 0, 0, 0
    Chosen to represent GR with quadrupole radiation only; FIM errors are evaluated at this point, so all quoted constraints depend on this choice. These are forecast inputs, not fitted values.
  • Source total masses and redshift = M = 2e4, 2e5, 2e6 solar masses; z = 1
    Benchmark MBHB sources; the frequency band and SNR, and hence the constraints, depend on these choices.
  • Observation window = 60 days before ISCO
    Fixed integration duration sets the lower frequency cutoff and affects all SNR and error estimates.
  • Number of randomly oriented sources = 100
    Median or mean over 100 draws of sky location, inclination, and polarization angle; statistical uncertainty of the reported medians is not quantified in the tables.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption ppE waveforms with amplitudes A_T ∝ M^{5/3}ω^{2/3} and A_{V,B,L} ∝ M^{4/3}ω^{1/3} and shared orbital phase correctly represent modified-gravity GWs.
    Used in Eqs. (4)-(5); the entire constraint analysis inherits this parametrization from Chatziioannou et al. (Ref. [61]) without independent derivation.
  • domain assumption Balance law Eq. (6) with dipole and quadrupole radiation terms gives the orbital frequency evolution in the ppE framework.
    The waveform phase and the FIM derivatives depend on Eq. (6); this is a standard ppE assumption, not derived in the paper.
  • domain assumption Second-generation TDI (A,E,T) combinations cancel laser frequency noise for a rotating, flexing constellation with linearly varying arm lengths, and the response model in Eqs. (16)-(21) is correct.
    Adopted from TDI literature [69-76]; the paper assumes these combinations are the correct signal response for LISA, Taiji, and TianQin.
  • standard math Fisher information matrix inverse gives the covariance of parameter errors in the large-SNR limit.
    Used in Eq. (26); standard asymptotic result, valid only for high SNR and linearized waveforms.
  • ad hoc to paper Taylor expansion of the phase in small α_D remains valid when computing FIM derivatives at the fiducial α_D = 0.
    The paper states 'Since α_D is a small quantity, we use Taylor expansion' near Eqs. (7)-(8), but no convergence or validity check is shown for the derivative at α_D = 0.
  • domain assumption Detector noise PSDs and orbital configurations for LISA, Taiji, and TianQin match the cited values.
    Inputs from Refs. [82-87]; the numerical results inherit any errors in these calibrations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constraint on gravitational-wave polarizations for space-based detectors with time-delay interferometry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PCNEAXMQ

@misc{pith2026250714870,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constraint on gravitational-wave polarizations for space-based detectors with time-delay interferometry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PCNEAXMQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.14870}
}
read the original abstract

Probing extra polarizations in gravitational waves (GWs) with space-based detectors is the most direct method for testing theories of gravity. In this paper, by employing the second-generation time-delay interferometry (TDI) to cancel out the laser frequency noise in a rotating and flexing configuration with arm lengths varying linearly in time, we study the detectors' constraint ability on extra polarizations, and explore the impacts of TDI on the constraint of polarizations. Working in the parametrized post-Einstein (ppE) waveform framework, we find that the constraints on extra polarizations are significantly weaker than those for the tensor mode. For the tensor mode, the constraint ability for the detectors scales with signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). At low frequency, due to signal cancellation effects, the SNR registered is lower for the detectors with TDI method than that with the simplified equal-arm Michelson interferometer method. Therefore, tensor-mode constraints are degraded when TDI is applied. Although the direct detection of extra polarizations remains challenging, the constraint ability of the space-based detectors on the vector mode is better than the scalar modes. Besides, the detectability on extra polarizations will be enhanced with TDI, and the improvement of the constraint on the vector mode is less than scalar modes due to the inclination-dependent waveforms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.14870 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The above panels are the mean and the 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The above panels are mean values of the ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages

  1. [68]

    J. Wu, M. Sun, and J. Li, Constraints and detection capabilities of GW polarizations with space-based detectors in different TDI combinations, arXiv:2411.03631

    arXiv

  2. [1]

    G. M. Harry (LIGO Scientific), Advanced LIGO: The next generation of gravitational wave detectors, Classical Quantum Gravity27, 084006 (2010)

    2010

  3. [2]

    Aasiet al.(LIGO Scientific), Advanced LIGO, Classical Quantum Gravity32, 074001 (2015)

    J. Aasiet al.(LIGO Scientific), Advanced LIGO, Classical Quantum Gravity32, 074001 (2015)

    2015

  4. [3]

    Acerneseet al.(VIRGO), Advanced Virgo: a second-generation interferometric gravita- tional wave detector, Classical Quantum Gravity32, 024001 (2015)

    F. Acerneseet al.(VIRGO), Advanced Virgo: a second-generation interferometric gravita- tional wave detector, Classical Quantum Gravity32, 024001 (2015)

    2015

  5. [4]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 061102 (2016)

    2016

  6. [5]

    I. H. Stairs, Testing general relativity with pulsar timing, Living Rev. Relativity6, 5 (2003)

    2003

  7. [6]

    C. M. Will, The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment, Living Rev. 21 Relativity17, 4 (2014)

    2014

  8. [7]

    Wex, Testing Relativistic Gravity with Radio Pulsars, arXiv:1402.5594

    N. Wex, Testing Relativistic Gravity with Radio Pulsars, arXiv:1402.5594

    arXiv

Show all 87 references
  1. [8]

    C. M. Will, The Confrontation between general relativity and experiment, Living Rev. Rela- tivity9, 3 (2006)

    2006

  2. [9]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Binary Black Hole Mergers in the first Advanced LIGO Observing Run, Phys. Rev. X6, 041015 (2016), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.X 8, 039903 (2018)]

    2016

  3. [10]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), The Rate of Binary Black Hole Mergers Inferred from Advanced LIGO Observations Surrounding GW150914, Astrophys. J. Lett.833, L1 (2016)

    2016

  4. [11]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Upper Limits on the Rates of Binary Neutron Star and Neutron Star–black Hole Mergers From Advanced Ligo’s First Observing run, Astrophys. J. Lett.832, L21 (2016)

    2016

  5. [12]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, KAGRA), Constraints on the Cosmic Expansion History from GWTC–3, Astrophys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, KAGRA), Constraints on the Cosmic Expansion History from GWTC–3, Astrophys. J.949, 76 (2023)

    2023

  6. [13]

    N. Seto, S. Kawamura, and T. Nakamura, Possibility of direct measurement of the acceleration of the universe using 0.1-Hz band laser interferometer gravitational wave antenna in space, Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 221103 (2001)

    2001

  7. [14]

    Kyutoku and N

    K. Kyutoku and N. Seto, Gravitational-wave cosmography with LISA and the Hubble tension, Phys. Rev. D95, 083525 (2017)

    2017

  8. [15]

    P. A. Seoaneet al.(eLISA), The Gravitational Universe, arXiv:1305.5720

    arXiv

  9. [16]

    B. P. Abbott and Anonymous (LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaboration 1, 2, 3), Tests of general relativity with gw150914, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 129902 (2018)

    2018

  10. [17]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Tests of General Relativity with GW170817, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 011102 (2019)

    2019

  11. [18]

    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. D100, 104036 (2019)

    2019

  12. [19]

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

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Tests of general relativity with binary black holes from the second LIGO-Virgo gravitational-wave transient catalog, Phys. Rev. D103, 122002 (2021)

    2021

  13. [20]

    D. M. Eardley, D. L. Lee, and A. P. Lightman, Gravitational-wave observations as a tool for 22 testing relativistic gravity, Phys. Rev. D8, 3308 (1973)

    1973

  14. [21]

    Liang, Y

    D. Liang, Y. Gong, S. Hou, and Y. Liu, Polarizations of gravitational waves inf(r) gravity, Phys. Rev. D95, 104034 (2017)

    2017

  15. [22]

    S. Hou, Y. Gong, and Y. Liu, Polarizations of Gravitational Waves in Horndeski Theory, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 378 (2018)

    2018

  16. [23]

    Gong and S

    Y. Gong and S. Hou, Gravitational Wave Polarizations inf(R) Gravity and Scalar-Tensor Theory, EPJ Web Conf.168, 01003 (2018)

    2018

  17. [24]

    Y. Gong, E. Papantonopoulos, and Z. Yi, Constraints on scalar–tensor theory of gravity by the recent observational results on gravitational waves, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 738 (2018)

    2018

  18. [25]

    Y. Gong, S. Hou, D. Liang, and E. Papantonopoulos, Gravitational waves in einstein-æther and generalized teves theory after gw170817, Phys. Rev. D97, 084040 (2018)

    2018

  19. [26]

    Gong and S

    Y. Gong and S. Hou, The Polarizations of Gravitational Waves, Universe4, 85 (2018)

    2018

  20. [27]

    Y. Gong, S. Hou, E. Papantonopoulos, and D. Tzortzis, Gravitational waves and the polar- izations in hoˇ rava gravity after gw170817, Phys. Rev. D98, 104017 (2018)

    2018

  21. [28]

    Hou and Y

    S. Hou and Y. Gong, Gravitational Waves in Einstein-Æther Theory and Generalized TeVeS Theory after GW170817, Universe4, 84 (2018)

    2018

  22. [29]

    Okounkova, W

    M. Okounkova, W. M. Farr, M. Isi, and L. C. Stein, Constraining gravitational wave amplitude birefringence and chern-simons gravity with gwtc-2, Phys. Rev. D106, 044067 (2022)

    2022

  23. [30]

    Belgacem, Y

    E. Belgacem, Y. Dirian, S. Foffa, and M. Maggiore, Gravitational-wave luminosity distance in modified gravity theories, Phys. Rev. D97, 104066 (2018)

    2018

  24. [31]

    Nishizawa, Generalized framework for testing gravity with gravitational-wave propagation

    A. Nishizawa, Generalized framework for testing gravity with gravitational-wave propagation. i. formulation, Phys. Rev. D97, 104037 (2018)

    2018

  25. [32]

    Mirshekari, N

    S. Mirshekari, N. Yunes, and C. M. Will, Constraining lorentz-violating, modified dispersion relations with gravitational waves, Phys. Rev. D85, 024041 (2012)

    2012

  26. [33]

    C. M. Will, Bounding the mass of the graviton using gravitational-wave observations of inspi- ralling compact binaries, Phys. Rev. D57, 2061 (1998)

    1998

  27. [34]

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

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

    arXiv

  28. [35]

    A. A. Shoom, S. Kumar, and N. V. Krishnendu, Constraining mass of the graviton with GW170817, arXiv:2205.15432

    arXiv

  29. [36]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), GW170814: A Three-Detector Observation of 23 Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Coalescence, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 141101 (2017)

    2017

  30. [37]

    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)]

    2016

  31. [38]

    P. C. C. Freire, N. Wex, G. Esposito-Farese, J. P. W. Verbiest, M. Bailes, B. A. Jacoby, M. Kramer, I. H. Stairs, J. Antoniadis, and G. H. Janssen, The relativistic pulsar-white dwarf binary PSR J1738+0333 II. The most stringent test of scalar-tensor gravity, Mon. Not. R. Astr...

    2012

  32. [39]

    Danzmann, LISA: An ESA cornerstone mission for a gravitational wave observatory, Clas- sical Quantum Gravity14, 1399 (1997)

    K. Danzmann, LISA: An ESA cornerstone mission for a gravitational wave observatory, Clas- sical Quantum Gravity14, 1399 (1997)

    1997

  33. [41]

    Hu and Y.-L

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

    2017

  34. [43]

    G¨ ursel and M

    Y. G¨ ursel and M. Tinto, Near optimal solution to the inverse problem for gravitational-wave bursts, Phys. Rev. D40, 3884 (1989)

    1989

  35. [44]

    Chatterji, A

    S. Chatterji, A. Lazzarini, L. Stein, P. J. Sutton, A. Searle, and M. Tinto, Coherent network analysis technique for discriminating gravitational-wave bursts from instrumental noise, Phys. Rev. D74, 082005 (2006)

    2006

  36. [45]

    Zhang, Y

    C. Zhang, Y. Gong, D. Liang, and C. Zhang, Detection of gravitational wave mixed polariza- tion with single space-based detectors, Phys. Rev. D105, 104062 (2022)

    2022

  37. [46]

    Jiang, N

    T. Jiang, N. Dai, Y. Gong, D. Liang, and C. Zhang, Constraint on Brans-Dicke theory from intermediate/extreme mass ratio inspirals, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 12 (2022) 023

    2022

  38. [47]

    Alsing, E

    J. Alsing, E. Berti, C. M. Will, and H. Zaglauer, Gravitational radiation from compact binary systems in the massive Brans-Dicke theory of gravity, Phys. Rev. D85, 064041 (2012)

    2012

  39. [48]

    Yunes, P

    N. Yunes, P. Pani, and V. Cardoso, Gravitational Waves from Quasicircular Extreme Mass- Ratio Inspirals as Probes of Scalar-Tensor Theories, Phys. Rev. D85, 102003 (2012)

    2012

  40. [49]

    K. Yagi, L. C. Stein, and N. Yunes, Challenging the Presence of Scalar Charge and Dipolar Radiation in Binary Pulsars, Phys. Rev. D93, 024010 (2016)

    2016

  41. [50]

    C. M. Will and N. Yunes, Testing alternative theories of gravity using LISA, Classical Quantum 24 Gravity21, 4367 (2004)

    2004

  42. [51]

    Yagi and T

    K. Yagi and T. Tanaka, Constraining alternative theories of gravity by gravitational waves from precessing eccentric compact binaries with LISA, Phys. Rev. D81, 064008 (2010), [Er- ratum: Phys.Rev.D 81, 109902 (2010)]

    2010

  43. [52]

    Berti, V

    E. Berti, V. Cardoso, L. Gualtieri, M. Horbatsch, and U. Sperhake, Numerical simulations of single and binary black holes in scalar-tensor theories: circumventing the no-hair theorem, Phys. Rev. D87, 124020 (2013)

    2013

  44. [53]

    Sotani and K

    H. Sotani and K. D. Kokkotas, Probing strong-field scalar-tensor gravity with gravitational wave asteroseismology, Phys. Rev. D70, 084026 (2004)

    2004

  45. [54]

    Healy, T

    J. Healy, T. Bode, R. Haas, E. Pazos, P. Laguna, D. Shoemaker, and N. Yunes, Late Inspiral and Merger of Binary Black Holes in Scalar-Tensor Theories of Gravity, Classical Quantum Gravity29, 232002 (2012)

    2012

  46. [55]

    Yunes, X

    N. Yunes, X. Siemens, and K. Yagi, Gravitational-wave tests of general relativity with ground- based detectors and pulsar-timing arrays, Living Rev. Relativity28, 3 (2025)

    2025

  47. [56]

    Quartin, S

    M. Quartin, S. Tsujikawa, L. Amendola, and R. Sturani, Constraining Horndeski theory with gravitational waves from coalescing binaries, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 08 (2023) 049

    2023

  48. [57]

    Q. Gao, Y. You, Y. Gong, C. Zhang, and C. Zhang, Testing alternative theories of gravity with space-based gravitational wave detectors, Phys. Rev. D108, 024027 (2023)

    2023

  49. [58]

    Xie, J.-d

    N. Xie, J.-d. Zhang, S.-J. Huang, Y.-M. Hu, and J. Mei, Constraining the extra polarization modes of gravitational waves with double white dwarfs, Phys. Rev. D106, 124017 (2022)

    2022

  50. [59]

    Yunes and F

    N. Yunes and F. Pretorius, Fundamental Theoretical Bias in Gravitational Wave Astrophysics and the Parameterized Post-Einsteinian Framework, Phys. Rev. D80, 122003 (2009)

    2009

  51. [60]

    Cornish, L

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

    2011

  52. [61]

    Chatziioannou, N

    K. Chatziioannou, N. Yunes, and N. Cornish, Model-Independent Test of General Relativity: An Extended post-Einsteinian Framework with Complete Polarization Content, Phys. Rev. D 86, 022004 (2012), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 95, 129901 (2017)]

    2012

  53. [62]

    C. Shi, M. Ji, J.-d. Zhang, and J. Mei, Testing general relativity with TianQin: The prospect of using the inspiral signals of black hole binaries, Phys. Rev. D108, 024030 (2023)

    2023

  54. [63]

    Liu, W.-H

    C. Liu, W.-H. Ruan, and Z.-K. Guo, Constraining gravitational-wave polarizations with Taiji, 25 Phys. Rev. D102, 124050 (2020)

    2020

  55. [64]

    Tahura and K

    S. Tahura and K. Yagi, Parameterized Post-Einsteinian Gravitational Waveforms in Various Modified Theories of Gravity, Phys. Rev. D98, 084042 (2018), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 101, 109902 (2020)]

    2018

  56. [65]

    Yunes and X

    N. Yunes and X. Siemens, Gravitational-Wave Tests of General Relativity with Ground-Based Detectors and Pulsar Timing-Arrays, Living Rev. Relativity16, 9 (2013)

    2013

  57. [66]

    O’Beirne, N

    L. O’Beirne, N. J. Cornish, S. J. Vigeland, and S. R. Taylor, Constraining alternative polar- ization states of gravitational waves from individual black hole binaries using pulsar timing arrays, Phys. Rev. D99, 124039 (2019)

    2019

  58. [67]

    Wu and J

    J. Wu and J. Li, Prospects of constraining on the polarizations of gravitational waves from binary black holes using space- and ground-based detectors, Phys. Rev. D110, 084057 (2024)

    2024

  59. [69]

    Tinto and J

    M. Tinto and J. W. Armstrong, Cancellation of laser noise in an unequal-arm interferometer detector of gravitational radiation, Phys. Rev. D59, 102003 (1999)

    1999

  60. [70]

    Tinto, G

    M. Tinto, G. Giampieri, R. W. Hellings, P. L. Bender, and J. E. Faller, in7th Marcel Gross- mann Meeting on General Relativity (MG 7)(1994) pp. 1668–1670

    1994

  61. [71]

    J. W. Armstrong, F. B. Estabrook, and M. Tinto, Time-delay interferometry for space-based gravitational wave searches, The Astrophysical Journal527, 814 (1999)

    1999

  62. [72]

    F. B. Estabrook, M. Tinto, and J. W. Armstrong, Time delay analysis of LISA gravitational wave data: Elimination of spacecraft motion effects, Phys. Rev. D62, 042002 (2000)

    2000

  63. [73]

    Tinto, F

    M. Tinto, F. B. Estabrook, and J. W. Armstrong, Time delay interferometry with moving spacecraft arrays, Phys. Rev. D69, 082001 (2004)

    2004

  64. [74]

    Vallisneri, Synthetic LISA: Simulating time delay interferometry in a model LISA, Phys

    M. Vallisneri, Synthetic LISA: Simulating time delay interferometry in a model LISA, Phys. Rev. D71, 022001 (2005)

    2005

  65. [75]

    D. A. Shaddock, M. Tinto, F. B. Estabrook, and J. W. Armstrong, Data combinations ac- counting for LISA spacecraft motion, Phys. Rev. D68, 061303 (2003)

    2003

  66. [76]

    N. J. Cornish and R. W. Hellings, The Effects of orbital motion on LISA time delay interfer- ometry, Classical Quantum Gravity20, 4851 (2003)

    2003

  67. [77]

    Tinto and S

    M. Tinto and S. V. Dhurandhar, TIME DELAY, Living Rev. Relativity8, 4 (2005)

    2005

  68. [78]

    Tinto and S

    M. Tinto and S. V. Dhurandhar, Time-Delay Interferometry, Living Rev. Relativity17, 6 26 (2014)

    2014

  69. [79]

    Tinto and S

    M. Tinto and S. V. Dhurandhar, Time-delay interferometry, Living Rev. Relativity24, 1 (2021)

    2021

  70. [80]

    Muratore, D

    M. Muratore, D. Vetrugno, and S. Vitale, Revisitation of time delay interferometry combina- tions that suppress laser noise in LISA, Classical Quantum Gravity37, 185019 (2020)

    2020

  71. [81]

    L. J. Rubbo, N. J. Cornish, and O. Poujade, Forward modeling of space borne gravitational wave detectors, Phys. Rev. D69, 082003 (2004)

    2004

  72. [82]

    Cutler, Angular resolution of the LISA gravitational wave detector, Phys

    C. Cutler, Angular resolution of the LISA gravitational wave detector, Phys. Rev. D57, 7089 (1998)

    1998

  73. [83]

    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, Fundamentals of the orbit and response for TianQin, Classical Quantum Gravity 35, 095008 (2018)

    2018

  74. [84]

    Robson, N

    T. Robson, N. J. Cornish, and C. Liu, The construction and use of LISA sensitivity curves, Classical Quantum Gravity36, 105011 (2019)

    2019

  75. [85]

    Amaro-Seoaneet al.(LISA), Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, arXiv:1702.00786

    P. Amaro-Seoaneet al.(LISA), Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, arXiv:1702.00786

    arXiv

  76. [86]

    W.-H. Ruan, C. Liu, Z.-K. Guo, Y.-L. Wu, and R.-G. Cai, The LISA-Taiji network, Nat. Astron.4, 108 (2020)

    2020

  77. [87]

    Luoet al.(TianQin), TianQin: a space-borne gravitational wave detector, Classical Quan- tum Gravity33, 035010 (2016)

    J. Luoet al.(TianQin), TianQin: a space-borne gravitational wave detector, Classical Quan- tum Gravity33, 035010 (2016)

    2016

  78. [88]

    T. A. Prince, M. Tinto, S. L. Larson, and J. W. Armstrong, The LISA optimal sensitivity, Phys. Rev. D66, 122002 (2002)

    2002

  79. [89]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck), Planck 2018 results

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. As- trophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.