pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.24526 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-27 · 🌀 gr-qc · astro-ph.HE

Recognition: unknown

Tests of scalar polarizations with multi-messenger events

Sk Md Adil Imam , Macarena Lagos
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 01:59 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc astro-ph.HE
keywords gravitational wavesscalar polarizationtests of general relativityGW170817multi-messenger astronomypolarization angleparameterized post-Einsteinian
0
0 comments X

The pith

Multi-messenger data from GW170817 yields mild evidence for a scalar polarization mode when electromagnetic polarization constraints are added.

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

The paper extends the gravitational waveform model for the binary neutron star merger GW170817 to include an extra scalar breathing mode and amplitude modifications to the standard tensor modes. Bayesian analysis is performed separately for the quadrupole and dipole angular harmonics, with two models of frequency evolution, while folding in the polarization angle limit measured from the gamma-ray burst afterglow. The resulting posterior shows the scalar amplitude offset from zero at roughly two standard deviations for the quadrupole case, but consistent with zero for the dipole case, and the electromagnetic angle constraint shrinks the allowed ranges for the non-general-relativity parameters by tens of percent.

Core claim

We perform a parameterized test of GR using the parameterized post-Einsteinian framework applied to GW170817, incorporating for the first time the polarization angle constraints from the gamma-ray burst afterglow alongside other electromagnetic counterpart information. We extend the GR waveform by adding a scalar breathing mode and modifications to the tensor modes, introducing three non-GR parameters. We perform Bayesian inference for both quadrupole ℓ = |m|= 2 and dipole ℓ = |m|= 1 angular harmonics, with two frequency evolution models. For ℓ = |m|= 2, we find mild preference for a scalar mode (scalar amplitude deviates from zero at ∼ 2 σ), while for the ℓ = |m|= 1, we find no preference.

What carries the argument

Parameterized post-Einsteinian waveform extended by a scalar breathing mode whose amplitude and phase are jointly constrained with electromagnetic polarization angle limits.

If this is right

  • Scalar modes, if confirmed, would require metric gravity theories with more than two tensor degrees of freedom.
  • Electromagnetic polarization follow-up can improve bounds on scalar and tensor amplitude modifications by 30 to 60 percent compared with gravitational-wave data alone.
  • The quadrupole harmonic carries more sensitivity to the scalar mode than the dipole harmonic under the same analysis setup.
  • Repeated application to future events with long-term afterglow monitoring would produce progressively tighter limits or detections.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Routine long-term gamma-ray burst monitoring could become a standard tool for sharpening polarization tests of gravity.
  • The same joint-analysis technique could be applied to other polarization states, such as vector modes, once corresponding electromagnetic observables are identified.
  • If the two-sigma preference persists across additional events, it would motivate targeted searches for correlated scalar signals in the existing catalog of binary mergers.

Load-bearing premise

The polarization angle measured from the gamma-ray burst afterglow can be applied directly to the gravitational wave signal without large systematic errors from the burst emission or propagation.

What would settle it

A new multi-messenger event with a comparably precise gamma-ray burst polarization angle measurement that returns a scalar amplitude fully consistent with zero at greater than 3 sigma significance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.24526 by Macarena Lagos, Sk Md Adil Imam.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Illustration of how the polarizations +, view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Posterior distribution function (PDF) of the three PPE parameters for various EM priors, as shown in colors, for the view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Joint posterior distributions for αB − ψ (left plot) and α − αB (right plot), in the case “Sky + dL + ι”. These plots are for ℓ = |m| = 2 keeping aT = aS = −2 and b = −7. The green dots, where the dashed lines meet, show the best-fit values. tion. It is worth noting that similar tensions have appeared in other analyses. Parameterized tests and ringdown stud￾ies reported in [26, 101, 102] have found several… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution of the PPE parameters for the “All” case for view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distribution of the PPE parameters for “All” case for view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distribution of the PPE parameters for “All” case for view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution of the parameter αB with all the information for (i) mix : when all the three parameters (ii) pure : only αB (iii) α − αB and (iv)β − αB presents in the waveform for ℓ = |m| = 2 keeping aT = aS = -2 and b = -7. 2. Cut off frequency dependency The modifications are introduced only in the inspiral part of the waveform. So we terminated the waveform above a cutoff frequency f (2,2) c = 0.018/Mz ≈… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Dependency of the PPE parameters on cut off frequency for the “All” case for view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Corner plot for the “All” case for ℓ = |m| = 2 keeping aT = aS = -2 and b = -7 view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Gravitational wave (GW) observations provide a unique opportunity to test Einstein's General Relativity (GR) in the strong-field regime. While GR predicts only two tensor polarization modes, generic metric theories allow up to six independent modes. We perform a parameterized test of GR using the parameterized post-Einsteinian (PPE) framework applied to GW170817, incorporating for the first time the polarization angle constraints from the gamma-ray burst afterglow alongside other electromagnetic (EM) counterpart information. We extend the GR waveform by adding a scalar breathing mode and modifications to the tensor modes, introducing three non-GR parameters. We perform Bayesian inference for both quadrupole $\ell = |m|= 2$ and dipole $\ell = |m|= 1$ angular harmonics, with two frequency evolution models. For $\ell = |m|= 2$ , we find mild preference for a scalar mode (scalar amplitude deviates from zero at $\sim 2 \sigma$), while for the $\ell = |m|= 1$, we find no preference for a scalar mode. The EM constraint on the polarization angle places very tight bounds on non-GR parameters; for instance, in the case $\ell = |m| = 2$, the bound on the scalar (tensor) amplitude modification parameter improves by roughly $60\%$ $(30\%)$, highlighting the impact that long-term follow up of GW events can have on tests of gravity.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims to perform the first parameterized post-Einsteinian (PPE) analysis of GW170817 that folds in electromagnetic polarization-angle constraints from the associated gamma-ray burst afterglow. The waveform is extended by a scalar breathing mode plus tensor modifications (three non-GR parameters total); Bayesian inference is carried out for both quadrupole (ℓ = |m| = 2) and dipole (ℓ = |m| = 1) angular harmonics under two frequency-evolution models. The authors report a mild ~2σ preference for a non-zero scalar amplitude in the ℓ = 2 case, no such preference for ℓ = 1, and substantial tightening (∼60 % for the scalar amplitude parameter, ∼30 % for the tensor one) of the non-GR bounds once the EM angle constraint is included.

Significance. If the mapping between EM and GW polarization angles is robust, the work usefully illustrates how long-term multi-messenger follow-up can tighten polarization tests of gravity beyond what GW data alone provide. The use of actual observational constraints rather than simulated signals is a concrete strength. The reported preference remains only marginal (2σ), however, so the primary advance lies in the demonstrated bound improvement rather than in evidence for new physics.

major comments (1)
  1. [Likelihood construction and EM-data incorporation] The central quantitative claims—the ∼2σ scalar deviation for ℓ = |m| = 2 and the 60 %/30 % bound tightenings—rest on treating the GRB-afterglow polarization angle as a tight, unbiased prior on the GW polarization angle inside the PPE likelihood. The manuscript does not quantify possible systematics arising from jet geometry, magnetic-field orientation, or differential propagation in the presence of a scalar breathing mode or modified tensor propagation; any offset or inflation of the angle uncertainty would directly shift the posterior on the scalar-amplitude parameter and weaken the reported improvements. A dedicated robustness check or systematic-error budget for this mapping is required before the headline results can be considered secure.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that three non-GR parameters and two frequency-evolution models are introduced but does not name them; spelling out the explicit parameter definitions and the two models would aid immediate comprehension.
  2. [Results section] The percentage improvements are given without the corresponding numerical 90 % credible-interval widths before and after the EM constraint; tabulating the actual bounds would make the improvement claim directly verifiable.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address the major comment regarding likelihood construction and EM-data incorporation below, outlining the revisions we will implement to strengthen the analysis.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Likelihood construction and EM-data incorporation] The central quantitative claims—the ∼2σ scalar deviation for ℓ = |m| = 2 and the 60 %/30 % bound tightenings—rest on treating the GRB-afterglow polarization angle as a tight, unbiased prior on the GW polarization angle inside the PPE likelihood. The manuscript does not quantify possible systematics arising from jet geometry, magnetic-field orientation, or differential propagation in the presence of a scalar breathing mode or modified tensor propagation; any offset or inflation of the angle uncertainty would directly shift the posterior on the scalar-amplitude parameter and weaken the reported improvements. A dedicated robustness check or systematic-error budget for this mapping is required before the headline results can be considered secure.

    Authors: We agree that a more explicit treatment of potential systematics in the EM-GW polarization mapping would improve the manuscript. Our current analysis adopts the observed GRB afterglow polarization angle as a Gaussian prior on the GW polarization angle, following standard assumptions for the jet geometry and propagation in the GR limit. We acknowledge that non-GR effects (such as a scalar breathing mode or modified tensor propagation) could in principle introduce additional uncertainties from differential propagation or altered magnetic-field alignments, though these are expected to be subdominant for the small deviations considered. In the revised version, we will add a dedicated subsection discussing these possible systematics and include a robustness check in which the EM angle uncertainty is inflated by a conservative factor (e.g., 2–3) before re-running the Bayesian inference; the resulting shifts in the scalar-amplitude posterior and bound improvements will be reported to quantify the sensitivity. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; results arise from direct Bayesian inference on GW170817 and EM data.

full rationale

The paper applies the standard parameterized post-Einsteinian framework to extend the GR waveform with three non-GR parameters (scalar breathing mode plus tensor modifications) and performs Bayesian inference on the GW170817 event, using EM afterglow polarization angle as an external constraint on the likelihood. No equations are self-definitional, no fitted parameters are relabeled as predictions, and no load-bearing steps reduce to self-citations or ansatzes imported from the authors' prior work. The central claims (2σ scalar preference for ℓ=|m|=2 and bound improvements) are outputs of the data fit rather than tautological re-expressions of the inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim relies on the validity of the PPE parameterization for waveform deviations and the interpretation of EM afterglow data as providing independent polarization constraints applicable to GW signals.

free parameters (3)
  • scalar amplitude modification parameter
    One of three non-GR parameters introduced in the extended waveform and fitted via Bayesian inference to the data.
  • tensor amplitude modification parameter
    Modification to tensor modes, fitted as part of the three non-GR parameters.
  • third non-GR parameter
    The remaining parameter in the set of three non-GR parameters added to the waveform model.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The parameterized post-Einsteinian (PPE) framework accurately parameterizes deviations from GR in gravitational waveforms.
    Used as the basis for extending the GR waveform with scalar and tensor modifications.
  • domain assumption The gamma-ray burst afterglow polarization angle provides an independent and reliable constraint on the GW polarization modes.
    Central to achieving the reported tightening of bounds on non-GR parameters.
invented entities (1)
  • scalar breathing mode no independent evidence
    purpose: To represent an additional polarization mode allowed in generic metric theories beyond GR's two tensor modes.
    Added to the waveform model to enable testing for up to six independent polarization modes.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5553 in / 1681 out tokens · 91533 ms · 2026-05-08T01:59:32.770670+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

111 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages · 7 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    All”. In the leftmost panel of Fig. 2, the posterior distributions of the parameterα are shown. In the case “All

    Frequency evolution:a T =−2,b=−7,a S =−2 We first analyzed the most studied parameter set in the literature, fixinga T =−2,b=−7, anda S =−2. Param- eter estimation was initially performed using only the GW data (case “GW only”), and then refined by incorporating priors from the EM observations. Fig. 2 shows the posterior distributions of the three PPE par...

  2. [2]

    All” case in Fig. 4. Here also the breathing mode amplitude parameterα B has dou- ble peaks for the case “Sky+d L+ι

    Frequency evolution:a T =−2,b=−7,a S = 0 Analogously to the previous section, we analyze the pos- terior distribution of the three PPE parameters (α, β, α B) when the breathing mode has a quadrupolar angular de- pendence. The difference is that now the frequency evolu- tion of the scalar waveform has a powera S = 0 instead of aS =−2. Notice that the tenso...

  3. [3]

    5 shows the PPE parameter distributions for the “All” scenario

    Frequency evolution:a T =−2,b=−7,a S =−2 Fig. 5 shows the PPE parameter distributions for the “All” scenario. We obtainα= (−0.987 +2.265 −2.047)×10 −3 and β= 6.41 +6.87 −6.61 ×10 −7 (both at 95% CI), withβcompa- rable to theℓ=|m|= 2 case. The scalar amplitude αB = 0.01+3.50 −3.50 ×10 −3 (95% CI) shows significant improve- ment over theℓ=|m|= 2 case. All p...

  4. [4]

    Frequency evolution:a T =−2,b=−7,a S = 0 We repeated the analysis witha S = 0, incorporating all information via priors as in theℓ=|m|= 2 case. Fig. 6 shows the resulting PPE parameter distributions. The parameterαis constrained to−0.878 +2.284 −2.056 ×10 −3 (95% CI), a 23% improvement over the corresponding case ofℓ=|m|= 2, whileβ= 1.505 +1.819 −5.289 ×1...

  5. [5]

    C. M. Will, Living Rev. Rel.17, 4 (2014), arXiv:1403.7377 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2014

  6. [6]

    J. F. Donoghue, Phys. Rev. D50, 3874 (1994), arXiv:gr- qc/9405057

    work page arXiv 1994

  7. [7]

    Yunes and X

    N. Yunes and X. Siemens, Living Reviews in Relativity16 (2013), 10.12942/lrr-2013-9

    work page doi:10.12942/lrr-2013-9 2013

  8. [8]

    Yunes, K

    N. Yunes, K. Yagi, and F. Pretorius, Physical Review D 94(2016), 10.1103/physrevd.94.084002

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.94.084002 2016

  9. [9]

    J. M. Ezquiaga and M. Zumalac´ arregui, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences5(2018), 10.3389/fs- pas.2018.00044

    work page doi:10.3389/fs- 2018

  10. [10]

    J. Aasi, B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott,et al., Classical and Quantum Gravity32, 074001 (2015)

    2015

  11. [11]

    Acernese, M

    F. Acernese, M. Agathos, K. Agatsuma,et al., Classical and Quantum Gravity32, 024001 (2014)

    2014

  12. [12]

    Somiya, Classical and Quantum Gravity29, 124007 (2012)

    K. Somiya, Classical and Quantum Gravity29, 124007 (2012)

    2012

  13. [13]

    T. G. F. Li, W. Del Pozzo, S. Vitale, C. Van Den Broeck, M. Agathos, J. Veitch, K. Grover, T. Sidery, R. Stu- rani, and A. Vecchio, Physical Review D85(2012), 10.1103/physrevd.85.082003

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.85.082003 2012

  14. [14]

    Sampson, N

    L. Sampson, N. Cornish, and N. Yunes, Physical Review D87(2013), 10.1103/physrevd.87.102001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.87.102001 2013

  15. [15]

    , keywords =

    M. Agathos, W. Del Pozzo, T. Li, C. Van Den Broeck, J. Veitch, and S. Vitale, Physical Review D89(2014), 10.1103/physrevd.89.082001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.89.082001 2014

  16. [16]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collabora- tions), Physical Review Letters116, 221101 (2016)

    2016

  17. [17]

    Baker, E

    T. Baker, E. Bellini, P. Ferreira, M. Lagos, J. Noller, and I. Sawicki, Physical Review Letters119(2017), 10.1103/physrevlett.119.251301

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.251301 2017

  18. [18]

    M. Isi, M. Pitkin, and A. J. Weinstein, Physical Review D96(2017), 10.1103/physrevd.96.042001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.96.042001 2017

  19. [19]

    Probing gravitational wave polarizations with signals from compact binary coalescences

    M. Isi and A. J. Weinstein, “Probing gravitational wave polarizations with signals from compact binary coales- cences,” (2017), arXiv:1710.03794 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  20. [20]

    Callister, A

    T. Callister, A. S. Biscoveanu, N. Christensen, M. Isi, A. Matas, O. Minazzoli, T. Regimbau, M. Sakellariadou, J. Tasson, and E. Thrane, Physical Review X7(2017), 10.1103/physrevx.7.041058

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.7.041058 2017

  21. [21]

    Berti, K

    E. Berti, K. Yagi, H. Yang, and N. Yunes, General Rel- ativity and Gravitation50(2018), 10.1007/s10714-018- 2372-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s10714-018- 2018

  22. [22]

    2018, PhRvD, 98, 022008, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.022008

    H. Takeda, A. Nishizawa, Y. Michimura, K. Nagano, K. Komori, M. Ando, and K. Hayama, Physical Review D98(2018), 10.1103/physrevd.98.022008

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.022008 2018

  23. [23]

    B. P. Abbott and et al., Physical Review D100(2019), 10.1103/physrevd.100.104036

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.104036 2019

  24. [24]

    R. e. a. Abbott, Physical Review D103(2021), 10.1103/physrevd.103.122002

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.122002 2021

  25. [25]

    A. K. Mehta, A. Buonanno, R. Cotesta, A. Ghosh, N. Sen- nett, and J. Steinhoff, Physical Review D107(2023), 10.1103/physrevd.107.044020

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.044020 2023

  26. [26]

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

    E. M. S¨ anger, S. Roy, M. Agathos, O. Birnholtz, A. Buo- nanno,et al., “Tests of general relativity with gw230529: a neutron star merging with a lower mass-gap compact object,” (2024), arXiv:2406.03568 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    Abbottet al.(The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collaboration, and the KAGRA Collaboration), Phys

    R. Abbottet al.(The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collaboration, and the KAGRA Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D112, 084080 (2025)

    2025

  28. [28]

    S. S. Madekar, N. Johnson-McDaniel, A. Gupta, and A. Ghosh, Classical and Quantum Gravity (2025), 10.1088/1361-6382/adf02a

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6382/adf02a 2025

  29. [29]

    Accelerating parameter estimation for parameterized tests of general relativity with gravitational-wave observations

    D. Kumar, I. Gupta, and B. Sathyaprakash, “Accelerating parameter estimation for parameterized tests of general relativity with gravitational-wave observations,” (2025), arXiv:2511.16879 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    GWTC-4.0: Tests of General Relativ- 10 ity. II. Parameterized Tests,

    T. L. S. Collaboration, the Virgo Collaboration, and the KAGRA Collaboration et al., “Gwtc-4.0: Tests of general relativity. ii. parameterized tests,” (2026), arXiv:2603.19020 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2026

  31. [31]

    A. G. Abac, I. Abouelfettouh, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adamcewicz, S. Adhicary, D. Adhikari, N. Adhikari, R. X. Adhikari, V. K. Adkins,et al.(The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, The Virgo Collaboration, and The KAGRA Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 041403 (2026)

    2026

  32. [32]

    Punturoet al., Class

    M. Punturoet al., Class. Quant. Grav.27, 194002 (2010)

    2010

  33. [33]

    Reitzeet al., Bull

    D. Reitzeet al., Bull. Am. Astron. Soc.51, 035 (2019)

    2019

  34. [34]

    D. A. Shaddock, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia26, 128–132 (2009). 11

    2009

  35. [35]

    Weinberg,Gravitation and Cosmology(Wiley, 1972)

    S. Weinberg,Gravitation and Cosmology(Wiley, 1972)

    1972

  36. [36]

    C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler,Gravi- tation(W. H. Freeman, 1973)

    1973

  37. [37]

    D. M. Eardley, D. L. Lee, and A. P. Lightman, Phys. Rev. D8, 3308 (1973)

    1973

  38. [38]

    C. M. Will,Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics(Cambridge University Press, 1993)

    1993

  39. [39]

    Maggiore,Gravitational Waves, Volume 1: Theory and Experiments(Oxford Univ

    M. Maggiore,Gravitational Waves, Volume 1: Theory and Experiments(Oxford Univ. Press, 2008)

    2008

  40. [40]

    B. F. Schutz,A First Course in General Relativity, 2nd ed. (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2009)

    2009

  41. [41]

    J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D70, 083509 (2004)

    2004

  42. [42]

    J. D. Bekenstein and R. H. Sanders, inEAS Publications Series, EAS Publications Series, Vol. 20 (EDP, 2006) pp. 225–230, arXiv:astro-ph/0509519 [astro-ph]

    work page arXiv 2006

  43. [43]

    Jacobson and D

    T. Jacobson and D. Mattingly, Phys. Rev. D70, 024003 (2004)

    2004

  44. [44]

    Einstein-aether theory,

    C. Eling, T. Jacobson, and D. Mattingly, “Einstein-aether theory,” (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0410001 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2005

  45. [45]

    Einstein-aether gravity: a status report,

    T. Jacobson, “Einstein-aether gravity: a status report,” (2008), arXiv:0801.1547 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2008

  46. [46]

    Model-Independent Test of General Relativity: An Extended post-Einsteinian Framework with Complete Polarization Content

    K. Chatziioannou, N. Yunes, and N. Cornish, Phys. Rev. D86, 022004 (2012), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 95, 129901 (2017)], arXiv:1204.2585 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2012

  47. [47]

    A. P. Lightman and D. L. Lee, Phys. Rev. D8, 3293 (1973)

    1973

  48. [49]

    GW170817: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Neutron Star Inspiral

    B. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 161101 (2017), arXiv:1710.05832 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2017

  49. [50]

    K. P. Mooley, A. T. Deller, O. Gottlieb, E. Nakar, G. Hal- linan, S. Bourke, D. A. Frail, A. Horesh, A. Corsi, and K. Hotokezaka, Nature561, 355 (2018), arXiv:1806.09693 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  50. [51]

    Compact radio emission indicates a structured jet was produced by a binary neutron star merger

    G. Ghirlandaet al., Science363, 968 (2019), arXiv:1808.00469 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  51. [54]

    B. P. A. et. al., The Astrophysical Journal Letters848, L12 (2017)

    2017

  52. [55]

    Tests of General Relativity with GWTC-3

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2021), arXiv:2112.06861 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2021

  53. [56]

    B. e. a. Abbott, Physical Review Letters119(2017), 10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101 2017

  54. [57]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 141101 (2017), arXiv:1709.09660 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  55. [58]

    Hagihara, N

    Y. Hagihara, N. Era, D. Iikawa, and H. Asada, Physical Review D98(2018), 10.1103/physrevd.98.064035

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.064035 2018

  56. [59]

    B. e. a. Abbott, Physical Review Letters123(2019), 10.1103/physrevlett.123.011102

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.123.011102 2019

  57. [61]

    Takeda, S

    H. Takeda, S. Morisaki, and A. Nishizawa, Phys. Rev. D 103, 064037 (2021)

    2021

  58. [62]

    A. A. Svidzinsky and R. C. Hilborn, Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. (2021), 10.1140/epjs/s11734-021-00080-6

    work page doi:10.1140/epjs/s11734-021-00080-6 2021

  59. [64]

    Takeda, S

    H. Takeda, S. Tsujikawa, and A. Nishizawa, Phys. Rev. D109, 104072 (2024), arXiv:2311.09281 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  60. [65]

    Takeda, S

    H. Takeda, S. Morisaki, and A. Nishizawa, Physical Re- view D105(2022), 10.1103/physrevd.105.084019

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.084019 2022

  61. [66]

    D. M. Eardley, D. L. Lee, A. P. Lightman, R. V. Wagoner, and C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. Lett.30, 884 (1973)

    1973

  62. [67]

    Yunes and F

    N. Yunes and F. Pretorius, Physical Review D80(2009), 10.1103/physrevd.80.122003

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.80.122003 2009

  63. [68]

    B. S. Sathyaprakash and B. F. Schutz, Living Reviews in Relativity12(2009), 10.12942/lrr-2009-2

    work page doi:10.12942/lrr-2009-2 2009

  64. [69]

    Aasiet al., Classical and Quantum Gravity32, 074001 (2015)

    J. Aasiet al., Classical and Quantum Gravity32, 074001 (2015)

    2015

  65. [70]

    Acerneseet al., Classical and Quantum Gravity32, 024001 (2014)

    F. Acerneseet al., Classical and Quantum Gravity32, 024001 (2014)

    2014

  66. [71]

    Y. Aso, Y. Michimura, K. Somiya, M. Ando, O. Miyakawa, T. Sekiguchi, D. Tatsumi, and H. Yamamoto (The KA- GRA Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D88, 043007 (2013)

    2013

  67. [72]

    Chatziioannou, N

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

    2012

  68. [73]

    Capozziello, C

    S. Capozziello, C. Corda, and M. F. De Laurentis, Physics Letters B669, 255–259 (2008)

    2008

  69. [74]

    K. J. Lee, F. A. Jenet, and R. H. Price, The Astrophysical Journal685, 1304 (2008)

    2008

  70. [75]

    S. J. Chamberlin and X. Siemens, Phys. Rev. D85, 082001 (2012)

    2012

  71. [76]

    Akamaet al.(LISA Cosmology Working Group), (2026), arXiv:2603.03165 [astro-ph.CO]

    S. Akamaet al.(LISA Cosmology Working Group), (2026), arXiv:2603.03165 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  72. [77]

    Damour and G

    T. Damour and G. Esposito-Far` ese, Physical Review D 54, 1474 (1996)

    1996

  73. [78]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2016

  74. [79]

    Tahura and K

    S. Tahura and K. Yagi, Phys. Rev. D98, 084042 (2018), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 101, 109902 (2020)], arXiv:1809.00259 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2018

  75. [80]

    S. E. Perkins, N. Yunes, and E. Berti, Phys. Rev. D103, 044024 (2021), arXiv:2010.09010 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  76. [82]

    Y. Xie, D. Chatterjee, G. Narayan, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D110, 024036 (2024), arXiv:2403.18936 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  77. [83]

    S. Khan, S. Husa, M. Hannam, F. Ohme, M. P¨ urrer, X. J. Forteza, and A. Boh´ e, Physical Review D93(2016), 10.1103/physrevd.93.044007

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.93.044007 2016

  78. [84]

    doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.084043 , eid =

    A. Buonanno, B. R. Iyer, E. Ochsner, Y. Pan, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Physical Review D80(2009), 10.1103/physrevd.80.084043

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.80.084043 2009

  79. [85]

    Entanglement entropy and the fermi surface,

    K. Schumacher, S. E. Perkins, A. Shaw, K. Yagi, and N. Yunes, Physical Review D108(2023), 10.1103/phys- revd.108.104053

    work page doi:10.1103/phys- 2023

  80. [86]

    Piarulli, S

    M. Piarulli, S. Marsat, E. M. S¨ anger, A. Buonanno, J. Steinhoff, and N. Tamanini, Physical Review D112 (2025), 10.1103/59zd-qvbd

    work page doi:10.1103/59zd-qvbd 2025

Showing first 80 references.