Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 131 references

Parameterized and Consistency Tests of Gravity with Gravitational Waves: Current and Future

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · 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 Future and multi-band gravitational-wave observations could tighten tests of general relativity by orders of magnitude.

desk verdict A competent, clearly written proceedings review of theory-agnostic GW tests of GR, but the headline projections rest on an unpublished companion paper and should be treated as preliminary. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07103 v4 pith:GOFAXBSC submitted 2019-08-19 gr-qc astro-ph.HE

Zack Carson , Kent Yagi This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.HE
keywords gravitationalwavestestsofgeneralrelativityparameterizedpost-Einsteinianformalisminspiral-merger-ringdownconsistencytestmulti-bandobservationsmodifiedtheoriesgravityFisherinformationmatrixfuturegravitational-wavedetectors
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

Gravitational-wave astronomy has so far found no statistically significant deviations from general relativity, but current detectors are limited by noise rather than by any fundamental barrier. This paper shows that two theory-agnostic tests—parameterized post-Einsteinian (ppE) waveform tests and the inspiral-merger-ringdown consistency test—stand to improve enormously with next-generation instruments. For a GW150914-like binary black hole, combining upgraded ground-based detectors such as Cosmic Explorer with space-based detectors such as LISA, TianQin, B-DECIGO, or DECIGO would tighten projected bounds on several modified theories of gravity by several orders of magnitude, and would shrink the 90% credible region of the consistency test by roughly four orders of magnitude. A sympathetic reader should take away that the next generation of observatories is the key to seeing whether strong-field gravity deviates from general relativity.

What carries the argument

The central object is the parameterized post-Einsteinian (ppE) waveform, which writes the frequency-domain signal as the GR waveform times an amplitude correction $(1+\alpha u^a)$ and a phase correction $e^{i\beta u^b}$, with $u=(\pi \mathcal{M} f)^{1/3}$ the binary's effective velocity; the ppE parameters $(\alpha,a,\beta,b)$ encode generic non-GR effects that can be mapped onto specific modified theories. For projections, the machinery is the Fisher information matrix, which converts detector noise curves and a GR template into expected $1\sigma$ measurement errors on the waveform parameters. For the IMR consistency test, the same Fisher framework is applied separately to the inspiral and merger-ringdown portions before numerical-relativity fits translate component masses and spins into remnant mass and spin estimates presented in the $(\epsilon,\sigma)$ plane.

What would settle it

Run full Bayesian parameter estimation on simulated GW150914-like signals injected into Cosmic Explorer and LISA noise curves and compare the resulting 90% credible areas in the $(\epsilon,\sigma)$ plane with the Fisher-based forecasts of $3.6\times10^{-4}$ and $5.0\times10^{-5}$; if the Bayesian areas are substantially larger, the projected orders-of-magnitude improvements are optimistic.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a set of projected bounds: using Fisher-matrix forecasts with injected GR signals, the authors find that a future third-generation ground detector alone can improve current constraints on ppE parameters and on theories such as EdGB gravity, dCS gravity, scalar-tensor theories, noncommutative gravity, time-varying G and mass theories, and massive gravitons by several orders of magnitude, with space-based detectors best for low-frequency (negative post-Newtonian-order) corrections and ground-based detectors best for high-frequency (positive post-Newtonian-order) corrections. Multi-band observation of the same event in both bands improves bounds over either band alone and even makes some theories, like dCS gravity, testable in a regime where single-band observations would violate the small-coupling approximation used to derive the waveform corrections. For the IMR consistency test, the 90% credible area for a GW150914-like event shrinks from about 0.25 with LIGO O1 to $3.6\times10^{-4}$ with Cosmic Explorer and to $5.0\times10^{-5}$ when LISA is added, and the paper verifies that its simplified Fisher-based contours agree with Bayesian analyses for O1 within about 10%.

Load-bearing premise

The projections assume that today's statistical forecasting tools, applied to simulated general-relativity signals and assumed detector noise curves, accurately predict how tightly future detectors will measure modified-gravity parameters.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the projections hold, a single GW150914-like event observed by Cosmic Explorer would shrink the IMR consistency-test credible region by about three orders of magnitude relative to LIGO O1.
  • Adding a space-based detector such as LISA to the same event would further shrink that region by a factor of roughly seven to ten, depending on the space detector.
  • Multi-band observations would make it possible to constrain non-GR corrections at both negative and positive post-Newtonian orders in a single event, and would bring dCS gravity into the regime where valid bounds can be placed.
  • Projected bounds on theories such as EdGB gravity, scalar-tensor theories, noncommutative gravity, time-varying G, and massive graviton would approach or beat current non-GW constraints, providing the first strong-field probes of these theories.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The Fisher-Bayesian agreement demonstrated for a single O1 event is not a guarantee for future events; a natural stress test is to run full Bayesian analyses on simulated Cosmic Explorer and LISA events, and if those credible regions grow faster than the Fisher forecasts, the multiplicative gains would be somewhat smaller.
  • The multi-band synergy described here points toward stacking many events, since statistical errors shrink with event number; hierarchical multi-event combination could push the same tests below the single-event forecasts in this paper.
  • The paper's formalism assumes non-precessing, circular binaries, so extending these forecasts to precessing or eccentric binaries could change which theories are best constrained, especially for space-based detectors that observe long inspirals.
  • Early space-based detection of an inspiral could be used to schedule ground-based detectors and electromagnetic follow-up, making the multi-band test not only a statistics boost but also a coordination tool.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This proceedings paper reviews two theory-agnostic approaches to testing general relativity with gravitational waves: parameterized post-Einsteinian (ppE) waveform tests and inspiral-merger-ringdown (IMR) consistency tests. It describes the Fisher-matrix formalism (Eqs. (2)-(8)), summarizes current bounds from LIGO/Virgo events, and presents projected future bounds for upgraded ground-based detectors (Cosmic Explorer) and space-based detectors (LISA, TianQin, B-DECIGO, DECIGO), including multi-band observation combinations. The central claim is that future single-band and multi-band GW observations can improve constraints on modified-gravity parameters such as the EdGB coupling, dCS coupling, scalar-tensor dipole radiation, graviton mass, and others by several orders of magnitude, and that the IMR consistency test's resolving power between GR and non-GR effects improves by a similar amount. The paper is a concise review that draws heavily on the authors' own prior work, including an in-preparation manuscript cited as [88].

Significance. If the projected numbers are correct, the paper provides a useful and compact illustration of the potential discovery reach of next-generation gravitational-wave detectors for testing gravity. The theoretical framework is standard, the literature coverage is appropriate for a proceedings article, and the presentation of the O1 Fisher-versus-Bayesian comparison for the IMR consistency test (Figure 4, Table 2) is a valuable internal consistency check. However, the main quantitative results—the future ppE bounds and multi-band projections—are not independently reproducible from the text because they are taken from the authors' own unpublished companion paper [88]. This limits the paper's standalone significance and makes the headline claims dependent on external material.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sections 2.3 and 2.4, Figure 2, Table 2] The central future projections are not reproducible from this manuscript. The text states that the future bounds are 'summarized' from refs. [87,88], and the caption of Figure 2 says it is 'taken and edited from [88]' (an 'In preparation' reference). The manuscript does not specify the detector noise curves, frequency cutoffs, priors, the treatment of waveform systematics, the multi-detector Fisher combination beyond Eq. (8), or the detailed ppE-to-theory mappings needed to recompute the plotted bounds. Since the paper's headline claim ('improve upon current bounds on theories beyond general relativity by many orders of magnitude') rests on exactly these numbers, the reader cannot verify the central result from the paper itself. The authors should either include the necessary calculation details in an appendix, cite a published and publicly available version of the companion work, or clearly delimit this paper as a review that defers all quantitative forecasts to [88].
  2. [Section 3.2, Figure 4, Table 2] The Fisher-versus-Bayesian validation performed here covers only the 90% contour area in the (epsilon, sigma) plane of the IMR consistency test. It does not validate the ppE parameter bounds in Figure 2 and Table 1 that support the parameterized-test improvements claimed in Sections 2.3 and 2.4. The O1 comparison shows agreement to about 10% for the IMR contour area, but the ppE bounds for individual theory parameters are a different observable, with different parameter correlations, priors, and waveform dependence. Therefore this validation does not by itself justify the Fisher-based forecasts for ppE parameters. The authors should provide an analogous Fisher-versus-Bayesian check for at least one ppE parameter, or explicitly state why such a check is not feasible, and qualify the projected ppE bounds accordingly.
  3. [Section 2.1 and Figure 2] The regime of validity of the ppE mapping is not treated consistently. For EdGB, dCS, and scalar-tensor theories, the bounds in Figure 2 are meaningful only outside the small-coupling region, as the caption notes. Yet in Section 2.4 the text says that for dCS gravity, multi-band observations make the small-coupling approximation valid and thereby allow bounds 'several orders-of-magnitude stronger than the current constraints.' This statement conflates the validity of the theory mapping with the statistical precision of the Fisher estimate. The authors should clarify, for each theory and detector configuration, whether the projected bound lies inside or outside the regime where the ppE waveform correction itself is a valid perturbative expansion, and whether the Fisher result is therefore physically meaningful.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 1] There are several typos, including 'Einsteins'' which should be 'Einstein's', and 'byy estimated' which should be 'by estimated' or 'estimated'.
  2. [Section 3.3] The sentence beginning 'with upgraded third-generation ground-based GW detectors CE We do not consider...' is missing a period after 'CE'; it should read 'CE. We do not consider...'.
  3. [Section 4] In the open-questions list, 'one needs to to carry out' contains a duplicated 'to'; it should read 'one needs to carry out'.
  4. [Table 1] The table is poorly formatted: the massive-graviton row is split across two rows with confusing alignment, and some entries are difficult to parse. Please reformat the table for clarity.
  5. [References] Reference [88] is cited as 'In preparation' but is a key source for the main quantitative results. If the paper is now available, the reference should be updated; if it is still unavailable, the authors should make clear that all future projections in Sections 2.3, 2.4, and 3.4 are taken from that unpublished work.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Future-forecast results are imported wholesale from the authors' own companion papers ([87,88], the latter 'In preparation'), making the headline orders-of-magnitude improvements load-bearing on self-citation rather than on an in-paper derivation; no definitional or fitted-input circularity is present.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 2.3 'Future Bounds' and Section 2.4 'Multi-Band Bounds' (Figures 2-3); similarly Section 3.4 and Table 2.]
    "In this document, we summarize the results of [87,88], displaying constraints on the following modified theories of gravity ... This figure is taken and edited from [88]. ... The red data points in Figure 2 summarize the results determined in [87,88] ... We refer to [88] for a comprehensive list of constraints presented here for both single- and multi-band observations."

    The paper's headline claim—future single- and multi-band GW observations improve parameterized-test bounds by many orders of magnitude—is not derived in this manuscript. Every future-constraint plot and table is taken from refs. [87,88], both by the same authors, with [88] explicitly '(In preparation)'. The detector noise curves, ppE-to-theory mappings, frequency cutoffs, priors, and multi-detector Fisher combination underlying Figure 2 are not reproduced, so the projected numbers cannot be checked from the text. This makes the authors' own companion papers the sole support for the central forecast.

full rationale

The paper is a proceedings review that consolidates the authors' own recent forecasts. There is no self-definitional reduction: the ppE waveform of Eq. (1) and the Fisher formalism of Eqs. (2)-(8) are standard and are not defined in terms of the future bounds they produce. There is no fitted-input-called-prediction step: the future constraints come from injecting GR signals into assumed detector noise curves, not from fitting parameters to the quantities being predicted. The in-paper O1 Fisher-versus-Bayesian comparison (Figure 4, Table 2) is genuine external validation, although it checks only the IMR contour area, not the ppE parameter bounds that carry the central parameterized-test claims. The main weakness is provenance: the central numerical results of Figures 2 and Table 2 are 'taken and edited from [88]', and [88] is an unpublished companion paper by the same authors, while [87] is also by the same authors. The paper repeatedly says it 'summarizes the results of [87,88]' rather than deriving them, so accepting the headline orders-of-magnitude improvements requires trusting a self-citation chain. This is a reproducibility gap and a self-citation burden, not a logical circularity in the projection methodology; hence the score is moderate rather than high.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted in this review; the injected GW150914-like source parameters are chosen as a scenario, not fitted. The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or fields; it uses existing modified gravity theories. The axioms listed are the standard assumptions of the Fisher forecast and waveform modeling framework.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption GR is the correct theory and the IMRPhenomD waveform accurately models BBH signals
    Used throughout for injections and template waveforms in Fisher forecasts (Section 2.1).
  • domain assumption Fisher information matrix approximates the Bayesian posterior well for loud signals
    The paper relies on Fisher analysis to project future bounds; validated only for O1 events (Section 3.2).
  • domain assumption The small-coupling approximation is valid for the modified gravity theories in the projected detection regimes
    The paper flags that for some detectors the approximation is violated, so bounds are not quoted; this constrains the validity of forecasts (Section 2.3, Figure 2 notes).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Parameterized and Consistency Tests of Gravity with Gravitational Waves: Current and Future." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GOFAXBSC

@misc{pith2026190807103,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Parameterized and Consistency Tests of Gravity with Gravitational Waves: Current and Future},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GOFAXBSC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07103}
}
read the original abstract

Gravitational wave observations offer unique opportunities to probe gravity in the strong and dynamical regime, which was difficult to access previously. We here review two theory-agnostic ways to carry out tests of general relativity with gravitational waves, namely (i) parameterized waveform tests and (ii) consistency tests between the inspiral and merger-ringdown portions. For each method, we explain the formalism, followed by results from existing events, and finally we discuss future prospects with upgraded detectors, including the possibility of using multi-band gravitational-wave observations with ground-based and space-borne interferometers. We show that such future observations have the potential to improve upon current bounds on theories beyond general relativity by many orders of magnitude. We conclude by listing several open questions that remain to be addressed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.07103 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The 90% credible upper bounds on the parameterized post-Einsteinian (ppE) parameter β at each PN order the correction enters, using solar system experiments [56] (cyan star), binary pulsar observations [57] (black dashed), GW150914 with Bayesian [16] (green crosses) and Fisher [58] (red solid) analyses, and GW151226 with a Fisher analysis [58] (blue dotted-dashed). This figure is taken from [39,58]. We next map the … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The 90% upper-bound credible level constraints on the parameters representative of the modified theories of gravity considered in [88] for GW150914-like events. Bounds are presented for Einstein dilaton Gauss–Bonnet (EdGB) gravity, dynamical Chern–Simons (dCS) gravity, scalar tensor theories, noncommutative gravity, varying-G theories, black hole (BH) mass-varying theories, and massive graviton (dynamical and propag… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The (square root of) spectral noise densities p Sn(f) of the gravitational-wave interferometers discussed in this document. The characteristic amplitudes 2 p f | ˜h(f)| for both events GW150914 and GW151226 are also displayed, with four years prior to merger shown as cyan stars. The ratio between 2 p f | ˜h(f)| and p Sn(f) roughly corresponds to the signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR) of the event. Observe how the early ins… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The 90% credible region contours of the transformed probability distributions in the e − σ plane, describing the consistency of the remnant mass and spin general relativity (GR) predictions between the inspiral and merger-ringdown waveforms for GW150914-like events. He…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

131 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [88]

    Future prospects for strong-field tests of gravity with multi-band gravitational wave observations

    Carson, Z.; Yagi, K. Future prospects for strong-field tests of gravity with multi-band gravitational wave observations. (In preparation)

  2. [1]

    Modified Gravity and Cosmology

    Clifton, T.; Ferreira, P .G.; Padilla, A.; Skordis, C. Modified Gravity and Cosmology. Phys. Rept. 2012, 513, 1–189. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2012.01.001

    doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2012.01.001 2012

  3. [2]

    Beyond the Cosmological Standard Model

    Joyce, A.; Jain, B.; Khoury, J.; Trodden, M. Beyond the Cosmological Standard Model. Phys. Rept. 2015, 568, 1–98, doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2014.12.002

    doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2014.12.002 2015

  4. [3]

    Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND): Observational Phenomenology and Relativistic Extensions

    Famaey, B.; McGaugh, S. Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND): Observational Phenomenology and Relativistic Extensions. Living Rev. Rel. 2012, 15, 10, doi:10.12942/lrr-2012-10

    doi:10.12942/lrr-2012-10 2012

  5. [4]

    The MOND paradigm

    Milgrom, M. The MOND paradigm. arXiv 2008, arXiv:astro-ph/0801.3133

    arXiv 2008

  6. [5]

    Cosmological Tests of Gravity

    Jain, B.; Khoury , J. Cosmological Tests of Gravity. Ann. Phys. 2010, 325, 1479–1516, doi:10.1016/j.aop.2010.04.002. Proceedings 2019, xx, 5 13 of 18

    work page doi:10.1016/j.aop.2010.04.002 2010

  7. [6]

    Cosmological Tests of Modified Gravity

    Koyama, K. Cosmological Tests of Modified Gravity. Rept. Prog. Phys. 2016, 79, 046902, doi:10.1088/0034-4885/79/4/046902

    doi:10.1088/0034-4885/79/4/046902 2016

  8. [7]

    A modification of the Newtonian dynamics as a possible alternative to the hidden mass hypothesis

    Milgrom, M. A modification of the Newtonian dynamics as a possible alternative to the hidden mass hypothesis. Astrophys. J. 1983, 270, 365–370. doi:10.1086/161130

    doi:10.1086/161130 1983

Show all 131 references
  1. [8]

    Constraints on modified gravity from Planck 2015: When the health of your theory makes the difference.JCAP 2016, 1609, 027, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/09/027

    Salvatelli, V .; Piazza, F.; Marinoni, C. Constraints on modified gravity from Planck 2015: When the health of your theory makes the difference.JCAP 2016, 1609, 027, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/09/027

    2015 doi

  2. [9]

    Testing general relativity with pulsar timing

    Stairs, I.H. Testing general relativity with pulsar timing. Living Rev. Relativ. 2003, 6, 5, doi:10.12942/lrr-2003-5

    2003 doi

  3. [10]

    Testing Relativistic Gravity with Radio Pulsars

    Wex, N. Testing Relativistic Gravity with Radio Pulsars. arXiv 2014, arXiv:gr-qc/1402.5594

    2014 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Cosmological Tests of Gravity

    Ferreira, P .G. Cosmological Tests of Gravity. arXiv 2019, arXiv:astro-ph.CO/1902.10503

    2019 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Properties of the Binary Black Hole Merger GW150914

    Abbott, B.P .; Abbott R.; Abbott, T.D.; Abernathy, M.R.; Acernese, F.; Ackley, K.; Adams, C.; Adams, T.; Addesso, P .; Adhikari, R.X.; et al. Properties of the Binary Black Hole Merger GW150914. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2016, 116, 241102, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.241102

    2016 doi

  6. [13]

    GWTC-1: A Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog of Compact Binary Mergers Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the First and Second Observing Runs

    Abbott, B.P .; Abbott, R.; Abbott, T.D.; Abraham, S.; Acernese, F.; Ackley, K.; Adams, C.; Adhikari, R.X.; Adya, V .B.; Affeldt, C.; et al. GWTC-1: A Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog of Compact Binary Mergers Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the First and Second Observing...

    2018 arXiv

  7. [14]

    GW170817: Observation of Gravitational W aves from a Binary Neutron Star Inspiral.Phys

    Abbott, B.P .; LIGO Scientific Collaboration; Virgo Collaboration. GW170817: Observation of Gravitational W aves from a Binary Neutron Star Inspiral.Phys. Rev. Lett.2017, 119, 161101, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101

    2017 doi

  8. [15]

    Tests of general relativity with GW150914

    Abbott, B.P .; Abbott, R.; Abbott, T.D.; Abernathy, M.R.; Acernese, F.; Ackley, K.; Adams, C.; Adams, T.; Addesso, P .; Adhikari, R.X.; et al. Tests of general relativity with GW150914. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2016, 116, 221101, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.221101

    2016 doi

  9. [16]

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

    Abbott, B.P .; Abbott, R.; Abbott, T.D.; Abraham, S.; Acernese, F.; Ackley, K.; Adams, C.; Adhikari, R.X.; Adya, V .B.; Affeldt, C.; et al. Tests of General Relativity with the Binary Black Hole Signals from the LIGO-Virgo Catalog GWTC-1. arXiv 2019, arXiv:gr-qc/1903.04467

    2019 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Available online: https://www.advancedligo.mit.edu/ (accessed on 10 January 2019)

    Advanced LIGO. Available online: https://www.advancedligo.mit.edu/ (accessed on 10 January 2019)

    2019

  11. [18]

    Available online: https://dcc.ligo.org/ligo-T1400316/public (accessed on 10 January 2019)

    Ligo-t1400316-v4: Instrument Science White Paper. Available online: https://dcc.ligo.org/ligo-T1400316/public (accessed on 10 January 2019)

    2019

  12. [19]

    Available online: http://www.et-gw.eu/ (accessed on 10 January 2019)

    The ET Project Website. Available online: http://www.et-gw.eu/ (accessed on 10 January 2019)

    2019

  13. [20]

    The construction and use of LISA sensitivity curves

    Robson, T.; Cornish, N.; Liu, C. The construction and use of LISA sensitivity curves. Class. Quant. Grav. 2019, 36, 105011, doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ab1101

    2019 doi

  14. [21]

    TianQin: A space-borne gravitational wave detector

    Luo, J.; Chen, L.S.; Duan, H.Z.; Gong, Y.G.; Hu, S.; Ji, J.; Liu, Q.; Mei, J.; Milyukov, V .; Sazhin, M.; et al. TianQin: A space-borne gravitational wave detector. Class. Quantum Gravity 2016, 33, 035010, doi:10.1088/0264-9381/33/3/035010

    2016 doi

  15. [22]

    Science with TianQin: Preliminary Results on Testing the No-hair Theorem with Ringdown Signals

    Shi, C.; Bao, J.; Wang, H.; Zhang, J.d.; Hu, Y.; Sesana, A.; Barausse, E.; Mei, J.; Luo, J. Science with TianQin: Preliminary Results on Testing the No-hair Theorem with Ringdown Signals. arXiv 2019, arXiv:gr-qc/1902.08922

    2019 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Detector configuration of DECIGO/BBO and identification of cosmological neutron-star binaries

    Yagi, K.; Seto, N. Detector configuration of DECIGO/BBO and identification of cosmological neutron-star binaries. Phys. Rev. 2011, D83, 044011, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.109901

    2011 doi

  17. [24]

    Multiband Gravitational-Wave Astronomy: Observing binary inspirals with a decihertz detector, B-DECIGO.PTEP 2018, 2018, 073E01, doi:10.1093/ptep/pty078

    Isoyama, S.; Nakano, H.; Nakamura, T. Multiband Gravitational-Wave Astronomy: Observing binary inspirals with a decihertz detector, B-DECIGO.PTEP 2018, 2018, 073E01, doi:10.1093/ptep/pty078

    2018 doi

  18. [25]

    Black Hole Solutions in String Theory with Gauss-Bonnet Curvature Correction

    Maeda, K.i.; Ohta, N.; Sasagawa, Y. Black Hole Solutions in String Theory with Gauss-Bonnet Curvature Correction. Phys. Rev. 2009, D80, 104032, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.104032

    2009 doi

  19. [26]

    Post-Newtonian, Quasi-Circular Binary Inspirals in Quadratic Modified Gravity

    Yagi, K.; Stein, L.C.; Yunes, N.; Tanaka, T. Post-Newtonian, Quasi-Circular Binary Inspirals in Quadratic Modified Gravity. Phys. Rev. 2012, D85, 064022, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.029902

    2012 doi

  20. [27]

    Chern-Simons modification of general relativity

    Jackiw, R.; Pi, S.Y. Chern-Simons modification of general relativity. Phys. Rev. 2003, D68, 104012, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.68.104012

    2003 doi

  21. [28]

    Chern-Simons Modified General Relativity

    Alexander, S.; Yunes, N. Chern-Simons Modified General Relativity. Phys. Rept. 2009, 480, 1–55, [arXiv:hep-th/0907.2562]. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2009.07.002

    2009 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Gravitational Waves from Quasi-Circular Black Hole Binaries in Dynamical Chern-Simons Gravity

    Yagi, K.; Yunes, N.; Tanaka, T. Gravitational Waves from Quasi-Circular Black Hole Binaries in Dynamical Chern-Simons Gravity. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2012, 109, 251105, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.169902. Proceedings 2019, xx, 5 14 of 18

    2012 doi

  23. [30]

    Fundamental physics implications on higher-curvature theories from the binary black hole signals in the LIGO-Virgo Catalog GWTC-1

    Nair, R.; Perkins, S.; Silva, H.O.; Yunes, N. Fundamental physics implications on higher-curvature theories from the binary black hole signals in the LIGO-Virgo Catalog GWTC-1. arXiv 2019, arXiv:gr-qc/1905.00870

    2019 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Cosmic Black-Hole Hair Growth and Quasar OJ287

    Horbatsch, M.W.; Burgess, C.P . Cosmic Black-Hole Hair Growth and Quasar OJ287. JCAP 2012, 1205, 010, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2012/05/010

    2012 doi

  25. [32]

    Primordial black hole evolution in tensor scalar cosmology

    Jacobson, T. Primordial black hole evolution in tensor scalar cosmology. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1999, 83, 2699–2702, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.2699

    1999 doi

  26. [33]

    Noncommutative Gravity

    Harikumar, E.; Rivelles, V .O. Noncommutative Gravity. Class. Quant. Grav. 2006, 23, 7551–7560, doi:10.1088/0264-9381/23/24/024

    2006 doi

  27. [34]

    Constraining noncommutative spacetime from GW150914

    Kobakhidze, A.; Lagger, C.; Manning, A. Constraining noncommutative spacetime from GW150914. Phys. Rev. 2016, D94, 064033, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.064033

    2016 doi

  28. [35]

    The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment

    Will, C.M. The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment. Living Rev. Relativ. 2014, 17, 4, doi:10.12942/lrr-2014-4

    2014 doi

  29. [36]

    Constraining the evolutionary history of Newton’s constant with gravitational wave observations

    Yunes, N.; Pretorius, F.; Spergel, D. Constraining the evolutionary history of Newton’s constant with gravitational wave observations. Phys. Rev. 2010, D81, 064018, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.81.064018

    2010 doi

  30. [37]

    Parameterized Post-Einsteinian Gravitational Waveforms in Various Modified Theories of Gravity

    Tahura, S.; Yagi, K. Parameterized Post-Einsteinian Gravitational Waveforms in Various Modified Theories of Gravity. Phys. Rev. 2018, D98, 084042, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.084042

    2018 doi

  31. [38]

    Probing the size of extra dimension with gravitational wave astronomy

    Yagi, K.; Tanahashi, N.; Tanaka, T. Probing the size of extra dimension with gravitational wave astronomy. Phys. Rev. 2011, D83, 084036, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.084036

    2011 doi

  32. [39]

    Extreme Gravity Tests with Gravitational Waves from Compact Binary Coalescences: (I) Inspiral-Merger

    Berti, E.; Yagi, K.; Yunes, N. Extreme Gravity Tests with Gravitational Waves from Compact Binary Coalescences: (I) Inspiral-Merger. Gen. Rel. Grav. 2018, 50, 46, doi:10.1007/s10714-018-2362-8

    2018 doi

  33. [40]

    Bounding the mass of the graviton using gravitational wave observations of inspiralling compact binaries

    Will, C.M. Bounding the mass of the graviton using gravitational wave observations of inspiralling compact binaries. Phys. Rev. 1998, D57, 2061–2068, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.57.2061

    1998 doi

  34. [41]

    Constraining Generic Lorentz Violation and the Speed of the Graviton with Gravitational Waves

    Mirshekari, S.; Yunes, N.; Will, C.M. Constraining Generic Lorentz Violation and the Speed of the Graviton with Gravitational Waves. Phys. Rev. 2012, D85, 024041, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.024041

    2012 doi

  35. [42]

    Massive Gravity

    De Rham, C. Massive Gravity. Living Rev. Relativ. 2014, 17, 7, doi:10.12942/lrr-2014-7

    2014 doi

  36. [43]

    Can the graviton have a large mass near black holes? Phys

    Zhang, J.; Zhou, S.Y. Can the graviton have a large mass near black holes? Phys. Rev. 2018, D97, 081501, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.081501

    2018 doi

  37. [44]

    Testing post-Newtonian theory with gravitational wave observations

    Arun, K.G.; Iyer, B.R.; Qusailah, M.S.S.; Sathyaprakash, B.S. Testing post-Newtonian theory with gravitational wave observations. Class. Quant. Grav. 2006, 23, L37–L43, doi:10.1088/0264-9381/23/9/L01

    2006 doi

  38. [45]

    Probing the non-linear structure of general relativity with black hole binaries

    Arun, K.G.; Iyer, B.R.; Qusailah, M.S.S.; Sathyaprakash, B.S. Probing the non-linear structure of general relativity with black hole binaries. Phys. Rev. 2006, D74, 024006, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.74.024006

    2006 doi

  39. [46]

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

    Mishra, C.K.; Arun, K.G.; Iyer, B.R.; Sathyaprakash, B.S. Parametrized tests of post-Newtonian theory using Advanced LIGO and Einstein Telescope. Phys. Rev. 2010, D82, 064010, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.064010

    2010 doi

  40. [47]

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

    Yunes, N.; Pretorius, F. Fundamental Theoretical Bias in Gravitational Wave Astrophysics and the Parameterized Post-Einsteinian Framework. Phys. Rev. 2009, D80, 122003, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.122003

    2009 doi

  41. [48]

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

    Agathos, M.; Del Pozzo, W.; Li, T.G.F.; Van Den Broeck, C.; Veitch, J.; Vitale, S. TIGER: A data analysis pipeline for testing the strong-field dynamics of general relativity with gravitational wave signals from coalescing compact binaries. Phys. Rev. 2014, D89, 082001, doi:10....

    2014 doi

  42. [49]

    Testing the no-hair theorem with black hole ringdowns using TIGER

    Meidam, J.; Agathos, M.; Van Den Broeck, C.; Veitch, J.; Sathyaprakash, B.S. Testing the no-hair theorem with black hole ringdowns using TIGER. Phys. Rev. 2014, D90, 064009, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.064009

    2014 doi

  43. [50]

    Frequency-domain gravitational waves from nonprecessing black-hole binaries

    Husa, S.; Khan, S.; Hannam, M.; Pürrer, M.; Ohme, F.; Forteza, X.J.; Bohé, A. Frequency-domain gravitational waves from nonprecessing black-hole binaries. I. New numerical waveforms and anatomy of the signal. Phys. Rev. D 2016, 93, 044006, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.044006

    2016 doi

  44. [51]

    Frequency-domain gravitational waves from nonprecessing black-hole binaries

    Khan, S.; Husa, S.; Hannam, M.; Ohme, F.; Pürrer, M.; Forteza, X.J.; Bohé, A. Frequency-domain gravitational waves from nonprecessing black-hole binaries. II. A phenomenological model for the advanced detector era. Phys. Rev. D 2016, 93, 044007, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.044007

    2016 doi

  45. [52]

    Gravitational waves from merging compact binaries: How accurately can one extract the binary’s parameters from the inspiral waveform? Phys

    Cutler, C.; Flanagan, E.E. Gravitational waves from merging compact binaries: How accurately can one extract the binary’s parameters from the inspiral waveform? Phys. Rev. D 1994, 49, 2658–2697, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.49.2658. Proceedings 2019, xx, 5 15 of 18

    1994 doi

  46. [53]

    Gravitational waves from inspiraling compact binaries: Parameter estimation using second-post-Newtonian waveforms

    Poisson, E.; Will, C.M. Gravitational waves from inspiraling compact binaries: Parameter estimation using second-post-Newtonian waveforms. Phys. Rev. D 1995, 52, 848–855, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.52.848

    1995 doi

  47. [54]

    Estimating spinning binary parameters and testing alternative theories of gravity with LISA

    Berti, E.; Buonanno, A.; Will, C.M. Estimating spinning binary parameters and testing alternative theories of gravity with LISA. Phys. Rev. 2005, D71, 084025, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.084025

    2005 doi

  48. [55]

    Constraining alternative theories of gravity by gravitational waves from precessing eccentric compact binaries with LISA

    Yagi, K.; Tanaka, T. Constraining alternative theories of gravity by gravitational waves from precessing eccentric compact binaries with LISA. Phys. Rev. 2010, D81, 064008, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.81.109902

    2010 doi

  49. [56]

    Rosetta stone for parametrized tests of gravity

    Sampson, L.; Yunes, N.; Cornish, N. Rosetta stone for parametrized tests of gravity. Phys. Rev. 2013, D88, 064056, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.064056

    2013 doi

  50. [57]

    Binary Pulsar Constraints on the Parameterized post-Einsteinian Framework

    Yunes, N.; Hughes, S.A. Binary Pulsar Constraints on the Parameterized post-Einsteinian Framework. Phys. Rev. 2010, D82, 082002, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.082002

    2010 doi

  51. [58]

    Theoretical physics implications of the binary black-hole mergers GW150914 and GW151226

    Yunes, N.; Yagi, K.; Pretorius, F. Theoretical physics implications of the binary black-hole mergers GW150914 and GW151226. Phys. Rev. D 2016, 94, 084002, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.084002

    2016 doi

  52. [59]

    Testing Gravity with Gravitational Waves from Binary Black Hole Mergers: Contributions from Amplitude Corrections

    Tahura, S.; Yagi, K.; Carson, Z. Testing Gravity with Gravitational Waves from Binary Black Hole Mergers: Contributions from Amplitude Corrections. arXiv 2019, arXiv:gr-qc/1907.10059

    2019 arXiv

  53. [60]

    Testing General Relativity with Present and Future Astrophysical Observations

    Berti, E.; Barausse, E.; Cardoso, V .; Gualtieri, L.; Pani, P .; Sperhake, U.; Stein, L.C.; Wex, N.; Yagi, K.; Baker, T.; et al. Testing General Relativity with Present and Future Astrophysical Observations. Class. Quant. Grav. 2015, 32, 243001, doi:10.1088/0264-9381/32/24/243001

    2015 doi

  54. [61]

    DECIGO/BBO as a probe to constrain alternative theories of gravity

    Yagi, K.; Tanaka, T. DECIGO/BBO as a probe to constrain alternative theories of gravity. Prog. Theor. Phys. 2010, 123, 1069–1078, doi:10.1143/PTP .123.1069

    2010 doi

  55. [62]

    Tests of General Relativity with GW170817.arXiv2018, arXiv:gr-qc/1811.00364

    Abbott, B.P .; Abbott, R.; Abbott, T.D.; Acernese, F.; Ackley , K.; Adams, C.; Adams, T.; Addesso, P .; Adhikari, R.X.; Adya, V .B.; et al. Tests of General Relativity with GW170817.arXiv2018, arXiv:gr-qc/1811.00364

    arXiv

  56. [63]

    Testing massive-field modifications of gravity via gravitational waves

    Yamada, K.; Narikawa, T.; Tanaka, T. Testing massive-field modifications of gravity via gravitational waves. arXiv 2019, arXiv:gr-qc/1905.11859

    2019 arXiv

  57. [64]

    Solar System Constraints on Gauss-Bonnet Mediated Dark Energy

    Amendola, L.; Charmousis, C.; Davis, S. Solar System Constraints on Gauss-Bonnet Mediated Dark Energy. JCAP 2007, 0710, 004, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2007/10/004

    2007 doi

  58. [65]

    Dilatonic black holes in higher curvature string gravity

    Kanti, P .; Mavromatos, N.E.; Rizos, J.; Tamvakis, K.; Winstanley, E. Dilatonic black holes in higher curvature string gravity. Phys. Rev. 1996, D54, 5049–5058, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.54.5049

    1996 doi

  59. [66]

    A New constraint on scalar Gauss-Bonnet gravity and a possible explanation for the excess of the orbital decay rate in a low-mass X-ray binary

    Yagi, K. A New constraint on scalar Gauss-Bonnet gravity and a possible explanation for the excess of the orbital decay rate in a low-mass X-ray binary. Phys. Rev. 2012, D86, 081504, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.081504

    2012 doi

  60. [67]

    Are black holes in alternative theories serious astrophysical candidates? The Case for Einstein-Dilaton-Gauss-Bonnet black holes

    Pani, P .; Cardoso, V . Are black holes in alternative theories serious astrophysical candidates? The Case for Einstein-Dilaton-Gauss-Bonnet black holes. Phys. Rev. 2009, D79, 084031, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.084031

    2009 doi

  61. [68]

    Slowly-rotating stars and black holes in dynamical Chern-Simons gravity

    Ali-Haimoud, Y.; Chen, Y. Slowly-rotating stars and black holes in dynamical Chern-Simons gravity. Phys. Rev. 2011, D84, 124033, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.84.124033

    2011 doi

  62. [69]

    Slowly Rotating Black Holes in Dynamical Chern-Simons Gravity: Deformation Quadratic in the Spin

    Yagi, K.; Yunes, N.; Tanaka, T. Slowly Rotating Black Holes in Dynamical Chern-Simons Gravity: Deformation Quadratic in the Spin. Phys. Rev. 2012, D86, 044037, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.049902

    2012 doi

  63. [70]

    Pulsars and Gravity

    Manchester, R.N. Pulsars and Gravity. Int. J. Mod. Phys. 2015, D24, 1530018, doi:10.1142/S0218271815300189

    2015 doi

  64. [71]

    Mars High Resolution Gravity Fields from MRO, Mars Seasonal Gravity, and Other Dynamical Parameters

    Konopliv, A.S.; Asmar, S.; Folkner, W.M.; Karatekin, Z.; Nunes, D.; Smrekar, S.; Yoder, C.F.; Zuber, M.T. Mars High Resolution Gravity Fields from MRO, Mars Seasonal Gravity, and Other Dynamical Parameters. Icarus 2011, 211, 401–428. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2010.10.004

    2011 doi

  65. [72]

    A New nucleosynthesis constraint on the variation of G

    Copi, C.J.; Davis, A.N.; Krauss, L.M. A New nucleosynthesis constraint on the variation of G. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2004, 92, 171301, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.171301

    2004 doi

  66. [73]

    The Response of primordial abundances to a general modification of G(N) and/or of the early Universe expansion rate

    Bambi, C.; Giannotti, M.; Villante, F.L. The Response of primordial abundances to a general modification of G(N) and/or of the early Universe expansion rate. Phys. Rev. 2005, D71, 123524, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.123524

    2005 doi

  67. [74]

    Chung, K.W.; Li, T.G.F. A Phenomenological Inclusion of Alternative Dispersion Relations to the Teukolsky Equation and its Application to Bounding the Graviton Mass with Gravitational-wave Measurements.arXiv 2018, arXiv:gr-qc/1808.04050

    2018 arXiv

  68. [75]

    Bounding the mass of the graviton using binary pulsar observations

    Finn, L.S.; Sutton, P .J. Bounding the mass of the graviton using binary pulsar observations. Phys. Rev. 2002, D65, 044022, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.65.044022. Proceedings 2019, xx, 5 16 of 18

    2002 doi

  69. [76]

    Bounding the mass of graviton in a dynamic regime with binary pulsars

    Miao, X.; Shao, L.; Ma, B.Q. Bounding the mass of graviton in a dynamic regime with binary pulsars. arXiv 2019, arXiv:astro-ph.CO/1905.12836

    2019 arXiv

  70. [77]

    Binary Black Hole Mergers in the first Advanced LIGO Observing Run

    Abbott, B.P .; Abbott, R.; Abbott, T.D.; Abernathy, M.R.; Acernese, F.; Ackley, K.; Adams, C.; Adams, T.; Addesso, P .; Adhikari, R.X.; et al. Binary Black Hole Mergers in the first Advanced LIGO Observing Run. Phys. Rev. 2016, X6, 041015, doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.6.041015

    2016 doi

  71. [78]

    Model-Independent Constraints on Possible Modifications of Newtonian Gravity

    Talmadge, C.; Berthias, J.P .; Hellings, R.W.; Standish, E.M. Model-Independent Constraints on Possible Modifications of Newtonian Gravity. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1988, 61, 1159–1162. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.61.1159

    1988 doi

  72. [79]

    Mass of the graviton

    Goldhaber, A.S.; Nieto, M.M. Mass of the graviton. Phys. Rev. D 1974, 9, 1119–1121. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.9.1119

    1974 doi

  73. [80]

    Mass of the Graviton

    Hare, M.G. Mass of the Graviton. Can. J. Phys. 1973, 51, 431–433, doi:10.1139/p73-056

    1973 doi

  74. [81]

    Massive spin-2 fields on black hole spacetimes: Instability of the Schwarzschild and Kerr solutions and bounds on the graviton mass

    Brito, R.; Cardoso, V .; Pani, P . Massive spin-2 fields on black hole spacetimes: Instability of the Schwarzschild and Kerr solutions and bounds on the graviton mass. Phys. Rev. 2013, D88, 023514, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.023514

    2013 doi

  75. [82]

    Limit on graviton mass from galaxy cluster Abell 1689

    Desai, S. Limit on graviton mass from galaxy cluster Abell 1689. Phys. Lett. 2018, B778, 325–331, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2018.01.052

    2018 doi

  76. [83]

    Limit on graviton mass using stacked galaxy cluster catalogs from SPT-SZ, Planck-SZ and SDSS-redMaPPer

    Gupta, S.; Desai, S. Limit on graviton mass using stacked galaxy cluster catalogs from SPT-SZ, Planck-SZ and SDSS-redMaPPer. Annals Phys. 2018, 399, 85–92, doi:10.1016/j.aop.2018.09.017

    2018 doi

  77. [84]

    Testing General Relativity with Low-Frequency, Space-Based Gravitational-Wave Detectors

    Gair, J.R.; Vallisneri, M.; Larson, S.L.; Baker, J.G. Testing General Relativity with Low-Frequency, Space-Based Gravitational-Wave Detectors. Living Rev. Rel. 2013, 16, 7, doi:10.12942/lrr-2013-7

    2013 doi

  78. [85]

    Scientific Potential of DECIGO Pathfinder and Testing GR with Space-Borne Gravitational Wave Interferometers

    Yagi, K. Scientific Potential of DECIGO Pathfinder and Testing GR with Space-Borne Gravitational Wave Interferometers. Int. J. Mod. Phys. 2013, D22, 1341013, doi:10.1142/S0218271813410137

    2013 doi

  79. [86]

    Theoretical Physics Implications of Gravitational Wave Observation with Future Detectors

    Chamberlain, K.; Yunes, N. Theoretical Physics Implications of Gravitational Wave Observation with Future Detectors. Phys. Rev. 2017, D96, 084039, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.084039

    2017 doi

  80. [87]

    Multi-band gravitational wave tests of general relativity .arXiv2019, arXiv:gr-qc/1905.13155

    Carson, Z.; Yagi, K. Multi-band gravitational wave tests of general relativity .arXiv2019, arXiv:gr-qc/1905.13155

    1905 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Future Prospects for Probing Scalar-Tensor Theories with Gravitational Waves from Mixed Binaries

    Carson, Z.; Seymour, B.C.; Yagi, K. Future Prospects for Probing Scalar-Tensor Theories with Gravitational Waves from Mixed Binaries. arXiv 2019, arXiv:gr-qc/1907.03897

    2019 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Synergy between ground and space based gravitational wave detectors for estimation of binary coalescence parameters

    Nair, R.; Jhingan, S.; Tanaka, T. Synergy between ground and space based gravitational wave detectors for estimation of binary coalescence parameters. PTEP 2016, 2016, 053E01, doi:10.1093/ptep/ptw043

    2016 doi

  83. [91]

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

    Barausse, E.; Yunes, N.; Chamberlain, K. Theory-Agnostic Constraints on Black-Hole Dipole Radiation with Multiband Gravitational-Wave Astrophysics. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2016, 116, 241104, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.241104

    2016 doi

  84. [92]

    Multiband Gravitational-Wave Astronomy: Parameter Estimation and Tests of General Relativity with Space- and Ground-Based Detectors.Phys

    Vitale, S. Multiband Gravitational-Wave Astronomy: Parameter Estimation and Tests of General Relativity with Space- and Ground-Based Detectors.Phys. Rev. Lett. 2016, 117, 051102, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.051102

    2016 doi

  85. [93]

    Bounding Alternative Theories of Gravity with Multi-Band GW Observations

    Gnocchi, G.; Maselli, A.; Abdelsalhin, T.; Giacobbo, N.; Mapelli, M. Bounding Alternative Theories of Gravity with Multi-Band GW Observations. arXiv 2019, arXiv:gr-qc/1905.13460

    2019 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Prospects for Multiband Gravitational-Wave Astronomy after GW150914

    Sesana, A. Prospects for Multiband Gravitational-Wave Astronomy after GW150914. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2016, 116, 231102, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.231102

    2016 doi

  87. [95]

    Multiband gravitational-wave event rates and stellar physics.Phys

    Gerosa, D.; Ma, S.; Wong, K.W.K.; Berti, E.; O’Shaughnessy , R.; Chen, Y .; Belczynski, K. Multiband gravitational-wave event rates and stellar physics.Phys. Rev.2019, D99, 103004, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.103004

    2019 doi

  88. [96]

    What we can learn from multi-band observations of black hole binaries

    Cutler, C.; Berti, E.; Jani, K.; Kovetz, E.D.; Randall, L.; Vitale, S.; Wong, K.W.K.; Holley-Bockelmann, K.; Larson, S.L.; Littenberg, T.; et al. What we can learn from multi-band observations of black hole binaries. arXiv 2019, arXiv:astro-ph.HE/1903.04069

    2019 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Detection of IMBHs with ground-based gravitational wave observatories: A biography of a binary of black holes, from birth to death

    Amaro-Seoane, P .; Santamaria, L. Detection of IMBHs with ground-based gravitational wave observatories: A biography of a binary of black holes, from birth to death. Astrophys. J. 2010, 722, 1197–1206, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/722/2/1197

    2010 doi

  90. [98]

    Optimizing LIGO with LISA forewarnings to improve black-hole spectroscopy

    Tso, R.; Gerosa, D.; Chen, Y. Optimizing LIGO with LISA forewarnings to improve black-hole spectroscopy. arXiv 2018, arXiv:gr-qc/1807.00075

    2018 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Expanding the LISA Horizon from the Ground

    Wong, K.W.K.; Kovetz, E.D.; Cutler, C.; Berti, E. Expanding the LISA Horizon from the Ground. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2018, 121, 251102, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.251102. Proceedings 2019, xx, 5 17 of 18

    2018 doi

  92. [100]

    Are stellar-mass black-hole binaries too quiet for LISA? arXiv 2019, arXiv:astro-ph.HE/1905.11998

    Moore, C.J.; Gerosa, D.; Klein, A. Are stellar-mass black-hole binaries too quiet for LISA? arXiv 2019, arXiv:astro-ph.HE/1905.11998

    2019

  93. [101]

    Synergy between ground and space based gravitational wave detectors

    Nair, R.; Tanaka, T. Synergy between ground and space based gravitational wave detectors. Part II: Localisation. JCAP 2018, 1808, 033, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2018/08/033

    2018 doi

  94. [102]

    Testing general relativity using golden black-hole binaries

    Ghosh, A.; Ghosh, A.; Johnson-McDaniel, N.K.; Mishra, C.K.; Ajith, P .; Del Pozzo, W.; Nichols, D.A.; Chen, Y.; Nielsen, A.B.; Berry, C.P .L.; et al. Testing general relativity using golden black-hole binaries. Phys. Rev. 2016, D94, 021101, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.021101

    2016 doi

  95. [104]

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

    Ghosh, A.; Johnson-McDaniel, N.K.; Ghosh, A.; Mishra, C.K.; Ajith, P .; Pozzo, W.D.; Berry, C.P .L.; Nielsen, A.B.; London, L. Testing general relativity using gravitational wave signals from the inspiral, merger and ringdown of binary black holes. Class. Quantum Gravity 2017,...

    2017 doi

  96. [105]

    Golden binaries for LISA: Robust probes of strong-field gravity

    Hughes, S.A.; Menou, K. Golden binaries for LISA: Robust probes of strong-field gravity. Astrophys. J. 2005, 623, 689–699, doi:10.1086/428826

    2005 doi

  97. [106]

    Late Inspiral and Merger of Binary Black Holes in Scalar-Tensor Theories of Gravity

    Healy, J.; Bode, T.; Haas, R.; Pazos, E.; Laguna, P .; Shoemaker, D.; Yunes, N. Late Inspiral and Merger of Binary Black Holes in Scalar-Tensor Theories of Gravity. Class. Quantum Gravity 2012, 29, 232002, doi:10.1088/0264-9381/29/23/232002

    2012 doi

  98. [107]

    Neutron-star mergers in scalar-tensor theories of gravity

    Barausse, E.; Palenzuela, C.; Ponce, M.; Lehner, L. Neutron-star mergers in scalar-tensor theories of gravity. Phys. Rev. 2013, D87, 081506, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.081506

    2013 doi

  99. [108]

    Coalescence of binary neutron stars in a scalar-tensor theory of gravity

    Shibata, M.; Taniguchi, K.; Okawa, H.; Buonanno, A. Coalescence of binary neutron stars in a scalar-tensor theory of gravity. Phys. Rev. 2014, D89, 084005, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.084005

    2014 doi

  100. [109]

    Numerical simulations of single and binary black holes in scalar-tensor theories: Circumventing the no-hair theorem

    Berti, E.; Cardoso, V .; Gualtieri, L.; Horbatsch, M.; Sperhake, U. Numerical simulations of single and binary black holes in scalar-tensor theories: Circumventing the no-hair theorem. Phys. Rev. 2013, D87, 124020, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.124020

    2013 doi

  101. [110]

    Black Hole Dynamics in Einstein-Maxwell-Dilaton Theory

    Hirschmann, E.W.; Lehner, L.; Liebling, S.L.; Palenzuela, C. Black Hole Dynamics in Einstein-Maxwell-Dilaton Theory. Phys. Rev. 2018, D97, 064032, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.064032

    2018 doi

  102. [111]

    Numerical binary black hole mergers in dynamical Chern-Simons gravity: Scalar field.Phys

    Okounkova, M.; Stein, L.C.; Scheel, M.A.; Hemberger, D.A. Numerical binary black hole mergers in dynamical Chern-Simons gravity: Scalar field.Phys. Rev.2017, D96, 044020, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.044020

    2017 doi

  103. [112]

    Evolving Metric Perturbations in dynamical Chern-Simons Gravity

    Okounkova, M.; Scheel, M.A.; Teukolsky, S.A. Evolving Metric Perturbations in dynamical Chern-Simons Gravity. Phys. Rev. 2019, D99, 044019, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.044019

    2019 doi

  104. [113]

    Numerical binary black hole collisions in dynamical Chern-Simons gravity

    Okounkova, M.; Stein, L.C.; Scheel, M.A.; Teukolsky, S.A. Numerical binary black hole collisions in dynamical Chern-Simons gravity. arXiv 2019, arXiv:gr-qc/1906.08789

    2019 arXiv

  105. [114]

    Black holes and binary mergers in scalar Gauss-Bonnet gravity: Scalar field dynamics

    Witek, H.; Gualtieri, L.; Pani, P .; Sotiriou, T.P . Black holes and binary mergers in scalar Gauss-Bonnet gravity: Scalar field dynamics. Phys. Rev. 2019, D99, 064035, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.064035

    2019 doi

  106. [115]

    Two-body problem in Scalar-Tensor theories as a deformation of General Relativity: An Effective-One-Body approach

    Julié, F.L.; Deruelle, N. Two-body problem in Scalar-Tensor theories as a deformation of General Relativity: An Effective-One-Body approach. Phys. Rev. 2017, D95, 124054, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.124054

    2017 doi

  107. [116]

    Reducing the two-body problem in scalar-tensor theories to the motion of a test particle: A scalar-tensor effective-one-body approach

    Julié, F.L. Reducing the two-body problem in scalar-tensor theories to the motion of a test particle: A scalar-tensor effective-one-body approach. Phys. Rev. 2018, D97, 024047, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.024047

    2018 doi

  108. [117]

    Hairy binary black holes in Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton theory and their effective-one-body description

    Khalil, M.; Sennett, N.; Steinhoff, J.; Vines, J.; Buonanno, A. Hairy binary black holes in Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton theory and their effective-one-body description. Phys. Rev. 2018, D98, 104010, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.104010

    2018 doi

  109. [118]

    Scalar Tops and Perturbed Quadrupoles: Probing Fundamental Physics with Spin-Precessing Binaries

    Loutrel, N.; Tanaka, T.; Yunes, N. Scalar Tops and Perturbed Quadrupoles: Probing Fundamental Physics with Spin-Precessing Binaries. Class. Quantum Gravity 2019, 36, 10LT02, doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ab15fa

    2019 doi

  110. [119]

    Spin-Precessing Black Hole Binaries in Dynamical Chern-Simons Gravity.Phys

    Loutrel, N.; Tanaka, T.; Yunes, N. Spin-Precessing Black Hole Binaries in Dynamical Chern-Simons Gravity.Phys. Rev. 2018, D98, 064020, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.064020

    2018 doi

  111. [120]

    Probing Screening and the Graviton Mass with Gravitational Waves.Class

    Perkins, S.; Yunes, N. Probing Screening and the Graviton Mass with Gravitational Waves.Class. Quantum Gravity 2019, 36, 055013, doi:10.1088/1361-6382/aafce6

    2019 doi

  112. [121]

    Gravitational radiation from compact binary systems in screened modified gravity

    Zhang, X.; Liu, T.; Zhao, W. Gravitational radiation from compact binary systems in screened modified gravity. Phys. Rev. 2017, D95, 104027, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.104027. Proceedings 2019, xx, 5 18 of 18

    2017 doi

  113. [122]

    Hairy Waves: Gravitational Waves in the presence of Screening Mechanism

    Honardoost, M.; Khosravi, N.; Rahmanpour, N. Hairy Waves: Gravitational Waves in the presence of Screening Mechanism. arXiv 2019, arXiv:gr-qc/1905.12946

    2019 arXiv

  114. [123]

    Graviton mass bounds from space-based gravitational-wave observations of massive black hole populations

    Berti, E.; Gair, J.; Sesana, A. Graviton mass bounds from space-based gravitational-wave observations of massive black hole populations. Phys. Rev. 2011, D84, 101501, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.84.101501

    2011 doi

  115. [124]

    Testing Brans-Dicke gravity using the Einstein telescope

    Zhang, X.; Yu, J.; Liu, T.; Zhao, W.; Wang, A. Testing Brans-Dicke gravity using the Einstein telescope. Phys. Rev. 2017, D95, 124008, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.124008

    2017 doi

  116. [125]

    On combining information from multiple gravitational wave sources

    Zimmerman, A.; Haster, C.J.; Chatziioannou, K. On combining information from multiple gravitational wave sources. Phys. Rev. 2019, D99, 124044, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.124044

    2019 doi

  117. [126]

    A hierarchical test of general relativity with gravitational waves.arXiv 2019, arXiv:gr-qc/1904.08011

    Isi, M.; Chatziioannou, K.; Farr, W.M. A hierarchical test of general relativity with gravitational waves.arXiv 2019, arXiv:gr-qc/1904.08011

    2019 arXiv

  118. [127]

    Observable effects of a scalar gravitational field in a binary pulsar

    Eardley, D.M. Observable effects of a scalar gravitational field in a binary pulsar. Astrophys. J. Lett. 1975, 196, L59–L62. doi:10.1086/181744

    1975 doi

  119. [128]

    Strong Binary Pulsar Constraints on Lorentz Violation in Gravity

    Yagi, K.; Blas, D.; Yunes, N.; Barausse, E. Strong Binary Pulsar Constraints on Lorentz Violation in Gravity. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2014, 112, 161101, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.161101

    2014 doi

  120. [129]

    Constraints on Einstein-AEther theory and Horava gravity from binary pulsar observations

    Yagi, K.; Blas, D.; Barausse, E.; Yunes, N. Constraints on Einstein-AEther theory and Horava gravity from binary pulsar observations. Phys. Rev. 2014, D89, 084067, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.069902

    2014 doi

  121. [130]

    Challenging the Presence of Scalar Charge and Dipolar Radiation in Binary Pulsars

    Yagi, K.; Stein, L.C.; Yunes, N. Challenging the Presence of Scalar Charge and Dipolar Radiation in Binary Pulsars. Phys. Rev. 2016, D93, 024010, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.024010

    2016 doi

  122. [131]

    Scalar Charges and Scaling Relations in Massless Scalar-Tensor Theories

    Anderson, D.; Yunes, N. Scalar Charges and Scaling Relations in Massless Scalar-Tensor Theories. arXiv 2019, arXiv:gr-qc/1901.00937

    2019 arXiv

  123. [132]

    Constraints on Einstein-aether theory after GW170817

    Oost, J.; Mukohyama, S.; Wang, A. Constraints on Einstein-aether theory after GW170817. Phys. Rev. 2018, D97, 124023, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.124023. c© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms a...

    2018 doi

Pith tools

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