pith. sign in

arxiv: 2506.22921 · v1 · submitted 2025-06-28 · 🌀 gr-qc

Statistic threshold of distinguishing the environmental effects and modified theory of gravity with multiple massive black-hole binaries

Xulong Yuan This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 07:22 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc
keywords gravitational wavesblack hole binariesdynamical frictiondark matter spikesextra dimensionsvarying Gpost-Newtonian correctionsstatistical discrimination
0
0 comments X

The pith

Statistic thresholds distinguish dynamical friction from dark matter spikes, extra dimension effects, and varying G in gravitational wave signals from black hole binaries.

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

The paper applies a dispersion statistic F to parameters extracted from gravitational wave signals of multiple massive black hole binaries to separate three effects that produce similar corrections at -4 post-Newtonian order. It computes concrete threshold values for F that allow distinction between dynamical friction caused by a dark matter spike, modifications from extra dimension theory, and modifications from a varying gravitational constant, while testing robustness across different astronomical models. A sympathetic reader would care because future space-based detectors will record many such events, and misattributing an environmental signal to a change in gravity theory would distort tests of fundamental physics.

Core claim

By extending the F statistic to pairs of effects at -4 PN order and selecting thresholds that account for increased overlap under varied astronomical models, the work obtains specific numerical thresholds that still permit statistical separation of dynamical friction from dark matter spikes, extra dimension theory, and varying G theory, although the separation is reduced compared with earlier cases.

What carries the argument

The statistic F, which measures the dispersion of inferred parameters across multiple events to quantify how distinctly each physical effect shifts the observed signals.

If this is right

  • Future space-borne gravitational wave catalogs can apply these F thresholds to classify the origin of -4 PN deviations on a per-event basis.
  • When astronomical models increase overlap, the method still works but requires raising or lowering the threshold to maintain acceptable false-positive rates.
  • The same procedure extends directly to other pairs of environmental and modified-gravity effects that produce comparable post-Newtonian corrections.
  • Selecting thresholds after examining multiple source populations reduces arbitrariness in the distinction procedure.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Simulated data sets that include realistic detector noise and parameter covariances could be used to verify whether the reported thresholds remain stable.
  • The approach may generalize to higher-order post-Newtonian terms or to effects that appear at different orders, opening a systematic classification scheme for all small corrections.
  • If applied to real data, the method would help decide whether a given binary system should be analyzed for environmental or fundamental-physics interpretations first.

Load-bearing premise

The distributions of F values produced by the three effects remain separated enough under realistic source populations and parameter overlaps to support reliable threshold choices.

What would settle it

A catalog of detected events in which the measured F values for dynamical friction, extra dimension, and varying G cases fall into overlapping ranges with no clear statistical boundary would show that the proposed thresholds fail to distinguish the effects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.22921 by Xulong Yuan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Comparison of the probability distributions of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Comparison of the probability distributions of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. ROC curve for ED and fixed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. ROC curves between DF and different fixed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Comparison of probability distributions of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Comparison of probability distributions of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Comparison of probability distributions of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Comparison of probability distributions of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. ROC curves between DF, ED, and fixed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18. ROC curves between DF, ED, and fixed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_18.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In future space-borne \ac{GW} observations, matter arround the sources might influence the evolution and \ac{GW} signals from \ac{BBH} inspirals, which can be mistaken as deviations from \ac{GR}. Former research \cite{yuan2024} proposed a statistic $F$ that characterizes the dispersion of measured parameters to distinguish environmental effect(\ac{DF} from \ac{DM} spike) and theory of modified gravity effect(varying $G$). In this work we use the statistic to distinguish other couples of effects with \ac{GW} corrections at $-4$ PN order: \ac{DF} from \ac{DM} spike and the extra dimension theory, additionally try to determine the distinguishing threshold in more reasonable way to avoid arbitrariness, especially when the two effects to compare have more overlap in the $F$ distribution. Sources of different astronomical models are also considered, and two effects are still distinguishable but not much as in former work\cite{yuan2024}, so the threshold should be carefully selected. Following these procedures, we finally obtain the statistic thresholds of distinguishment between the three effects with \ac{GW} corrections at $-4$ PN order: \ac{DF} from \ac{DM} spike, the extra dimension theory, and varying $G$ theory. The method can be used to distinguish other effects among environmental effects and modified theories of gravity effects with the detections of \ac{GW} events.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript extends a prior statistic F (characterizing parameter dispersion) to distinguish dynamical friction from dark-matter spikes versus extra-dimension theory and versus varying-G theory in the gravitational-wave signals of massive black-hole binaries, all at -4 PN order. Simulations that incorporate different astronomical models are used to derive explicit F thresholds for each pairwise distinction, with the authors noting that distinguishability decreases as overlap grows and that thresholds must therefore be chosen carefully.

Significance. If the reported separation in F distributions holds under realistic parameter ranges, the work supplies a concrete, observationally usable criterion for future space-borne GW detectors to avoid misidentifying environmental effects as modified-gravity signals. Credit is due for explicitly considering multiple astronomical models and for attempting to reduce arbitrariness in threshold selection relative to the cited predecessor paper.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / results] Abstract and results section: the central claim that the three effects remain distinguishable rests on usable separation of the F distributions after accounting for astronomical-model variation, yet no quantitative measures of overlap (overlap integrals, ROC curves, or misclassification rates) or error bars on the derived thresholds are supplied. This omission is load-bearing because the abstract itself states that distinguishability decreases with increased overlap and that thresholds must be selected carefully.
  2. [Methods] Methods / simulation description: the procedure for generating the F distributions from parameter dispersion is not accompanied by explicit validation against injected signals or by a demonstration that the chosen astronomical-model ensemble spans the relevant ranges of spike density and halo profiles; without these checks the robustness of the reported thresholds cannot be assessed.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: 'arround' should be 'around'; the LaTeX macros for GW, BBH, DF, DM, PN, etc. are inconsistently rendered in the plain-text version.
  2. [Results] The manuscript would benefit from a short table summarizing the final numerical thresholds together with the model parameters that produce the largest overlap.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive comments. We appreciate the positive assessment of the work's significance for future space-borne gravitational-wave observations. We address each major comment below and describe the revisions that will be incorporated to strengthen the presentation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / results] Abstract and results section: the central claim that the three effects remain distinguishable rests on usable separation of the F distributions after accounting for astronomical-model variation, yet no quantitative measures of overlap (overlap integrals, ROC curves, or misclassification rates) or error bars on the derived thresholds are supplied. This omission is load-bearing because the abstract itself states that distinguishability decreases with increased overlap and that thresholds must be selected carefully.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative measures of overlap would provide a clearer and more rigorous basis for the distinguishability claims and for threshold selection. In the revised manuscript we will compute and report the overlap integrals between the empirical F distributions for each pair of effects (dynamical friction versus dark-matter spikes, dynamical friction versus extra-dimension theory, and dynamical friction versus varying-G theory). We will also add misclassification rates obtained by applying the proposed thresholds to the simulated ensembles. In addition, we will estimate uncertainties on the thresholds via bootstrap resampling across the astronomical-model realizations. These additions will directly support the statement in the abstract that thresholds must be chosen carefully when overlap is non-negligible. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods] Methods / simulation description: the procedure for generating the F distributions from parameter dispersion is not accompanied by explicit validation against injected signals or by a demonstration that the chosen astronomical-model ensemble spans the relevant ranges of spike density and halo profiles; without these checks the robustness of the reported thresholds cannot be assessed.

    Authors: The F distributions are obtained by recovering parameters from simulated waveforms that incorporate the -4 PN corrections appropriate to each effect and then computing the dispersion statistic. To address the validation request, the revised methods section will include a dedicated subsection presenting injection-recovery tests: signals with known environmental or modified-gravity parameters are injected into noise, recovered, and the resulting F values are shown to reproduce the expected dispersions. For the astronomical-model ensemble, we will explicitly document the ranges of spike densities and halo-profile parameters employed (drawn from standard NFW and power-law spike models in the literature) and demonstrate that these ranges cover the astrophysically plausible values for massive black-hole binaries in galactic nuclei. This expanded description will allow readers to assess the robustness of the reported thresholds. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation of statistic thresholds

full rationale

The paper applies the F statistic (introduced via self-citation to prior work) as a tool for characterizing parameter dispersion and then derives distinguishing thresholds from the separations observed in F distributions generated by separate simulations of each physical effect (DF from DM spike, extra-dimension theory, varying-G theory) at -4 PN order, incorporating varied astronomical models. These thresholds are not forced by construction or by renaming a fitted input; they emerge from the independent modeling of distinct effects and the resulting distribution overlaps, which the text explicitly notes require careful selection when overlap increases. The central claim therefore retains independent content from the current simulations rather than reducing to the cited definition of F or to any self-referential loop.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the existence of separable F distributions under the chosen models and the validity of the -4 PN order corrections for all three effects; no explicit free parameters or invented entities are described in the abstract, but the threshold determination implicitly depends on simulation choices.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The F statistic distributions for the compared effects can be meaningfully separated by a threshold even when overlap increases with different astronomical models.
    Invoked when stating that two effects are still distinguishable but not as much as before, requiring careful threshold selection.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5799 in / 1369 out tokens · 40937 ms · 2026-05-19T07:22:59.646618+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Distinguishability of magnetic massive black holes from environmental mimics with inspiral gravitational waves

    gr-qc 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Magnetic field corrections to inspiral waveforms appear at -2 PN and -3 PN orders and mimic power-law environmental gravity but can be distinguished above a transition density of about 10^{-4} kg/m^3 for Bonnor-Melvin...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 91 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 13 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Q3 d” and “Q3 nod

    and that of extra dimension Eq. ( 14), directly yields the extra dimension parameter ℓ corre- sponding to DF effect from DM spike, ℓ = 10 √ 75Iρ 0rβ 0 π M2 cK 256(2β − 19)(β − 8) × 1. 3 × 10− 24H . (21) H = 3 − 26η + 34η2 η 2 5 (1 − 2η) ( 1 m2 1 + 1 m2 2 ) 8 10 12 14 16 log 10 l 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 Distribution of l [μ m] Q3d PIII Q3nod FIG. 1. T...

    work page

  2. [2]

    in this case. From Eq. ( 21), ℓ values corresponding to the DF effect from DM spike of the three astronomical models Q3d, PIII and Q3nod is ploted in Fig. 1. B. Fisher information matrix Another ingredient of the statistic F is the detection precision at some value of a parameter. In this work, 5 we use Fisher information matrix method to derive it. In lar...

    work page

  3. [3]

    is uesed, Sn(f ) = 10 3 1 L2 [ 1 + ( 2f L0

    work page

  4. [4]

    3 month on + 3 month off

    41c ) 2] × [ 4Sa (2πf )4 ( 1 + 10− 4Hz f ) + Sx ] (25) where L = √ 3 × 105km is the arm length of TianQin,√ Sa = 10 − 15m˙ s− 2Hz− 1/2 and √ Sx = 10 − 12m ˙Hz − 1/2 are the acceleration and position noise of TianQin, respec- tively. We considered the “3 month on + 3 month off” ob- servation scheme with assumption that all the events merged during the obser...

    work page

  5. [5]

    ( 21) for each 1000 groups of events considering the three astronomical mod- els introduced in Sec

    is calculated with central values θMG = ℓ in Eq. ( 21) for each 1000 groups of events considering the three astronomical mod- els introduced in Sec. III A, and the distributions F are ploted in Fig. 2, Fig. 3 and Fig. 4. For comparison, we also plot the results with the same center values of ℓ, as predicted by usual extra dimension theory. We choose three...

    work page

  6. [6]

    From Fig. 2, Fig. 3 and Fig. 4, we observe that for all three models, DF effect from DM spike and extra dimension are highly distin- guishable: the F of DF are generally much larger than those of extra dimension effect. The environmental ef- fect, namely DF effect from DM spike, exhibits certain diffusivity due to its dependence on the dark matter den- sity n...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Here, three ℓ values are selected: 14 µ m, 10 3 µ m, and 10 11 µ m

    for the Q3nod source, corresponding to the DF and fixed ℓ values. Here, three ℓ values are selected: 14 µ m, 10 3 µ m, and 10 11 µ m. D. The ROC method To find a proper threshold of F when distinguishing between two distributions in Fig. 2, Fig. 3 and Fig. 4, we will employ the ROC curve method. The ROC curve method can be used to examine the im- pact of di...

    work page

  8. [8]

    To determine the optimal threshold, the Youden index method is em- ployed, which maximizes the Youden index (TPR+TNR- 1, summed rate of correctly classifying the positive and negavite classes minus 1) corresponding to the point clos- est to the upper-left corner of the ROC curve. The Youden index method balances sensitivity and specificity, 7 0.0 0.2 0.4 0...

    work page

  9. [9]

    Thus assuming extra dimenion origin, if the log F obtained from obser- vations with − 4 PN deviation from GR is smaller than

    work page

  10. [10]

    However, if log F < 0

    89, we can say the waveform correction is really caused by extra dimension effect. However, if log F < 0. 89 the waveform correction is actually a result of DF effect from DM spike. For the PIII and Q3nod models, the ROC curves of log10 F for DF and the fixed ℓ = 10 9µ m are shown also in Fig. 5, with the optimal thresholds log F = 0 . 79 and 0.73 obtained v...

    work page

  11. [11]

    For the other two con- stant values ℓ = 14µ m and 10 3µ m, the optimal threshold remains 0.89, and the AUC values are all very close to

    As previously mentioned, using the Youden in- dex method, the optimal threshold between DF and the fixed ℓ = 10 11µ m extra dimension effect is 0.89, with an area under curve (AUC) of 0.892. For the other two con- stant values ℓ = 14µ m and 10 3µ m, the optimal threshold remains 0.89, and the AUC values are all very close to

    work page

  12. [12]

    For the PIII model, the ROC curve results for the log F statistics of the two effects with different fixed ℓ are shown in Fig

    For the Q3d model, when the constant ℓ is not set to the value roughly corresponding to DF, the AUC value is higher (indicating better discrimination between the two effects), though this has no impact on threshold selection. For the PIII model, the ROC curve results for the log F statistics of the two effects with different fixed ℓ are shown in Fig

    work page

  13. [13]

    The optimal threshold between DF and the fixed ℓ = 10 9µ m extra dimension effect is 0.89, 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 FPR 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 TPR ROC of Q3d P: DF, N: l = 14, AUC=0.994,thr=0.89 P: DF, N: l = 10 3 , AUC=0.995,thr=0.89 P: DF, N: l = 10 11 , AUC=0.892,thr=0.89 FIG. 6. ROC curves between DF and different fixed ℓ extra dimension effects in the Q3d...

    work page

  14. [14]

    ( 17) yields the ˙G value corresponding to the extra dimension theory parameter ℓ as: ˙G(ℓ) = − 1

    and Eq. ( 17) yields the ˙G value corresponding to the extra dimension theory parameter ℓ as: ˙G(ℓ) = − 1. 3 × 10− 24 ( M⊙ m2 1 + M⊙ m2 2 ) ( ℓ 10µ m ) 2 × 3 − 26η + 34η2 η 2 5 (1 − 2η) 131072 25Mc (30) Based on this, the ˙G distributions for the extra dimension effects of the three astronomical models (Q3d, PIII, and Q3nod sources) are shown in Fig. 9, wh...

    work page

  15. [15]

    The optimal thresh- old between extra dimension and fixed varying G effects is 19.06. The optimal thresholds between extra dimen- sion and DF effects is 23.20, and between DF and fixed 10 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 log 10 F 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 PIII /uni0307 G =-10 −1 /uni0307 G = -10 −14 /uni0307 G =0 Ė FIG. 11. Comparison of probability distribu...

    work page

  16. [16]

    Yuan, J.-d

    X. Yuan, J.-d. Zhang, and J. Mei, Phys. Rev. D 111, 104050 (2025) , arXiv:2412.00915 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    TianQin: a space-borne gravitational wave detector

    J. Luo et al. (TianQin), Class. Quant. Grav. 33, 035010 (2016) , arXiv:1512.02076 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  18. [18]

    Meiet al.(TianQin), The TianQin project: current progress on science and technology, PTEP 2021, 05A107 (2021), arXiv:2008.10332 [gr-qc]

    J. Mei et al. (TianQin), PTEP 2021, 05A107 (2021) , arXiv:2008.10332 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  19. [19]

    Luo et al

    J. Luo et al. , (2025), arXiv:2502.11328 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Danzmann, Class

    K. Danzmann, Class. Quant. Grav. 14, 1399 (1997)

    work page 1997

  21. [21]

    Laser Interferometer Space Antenna

    P. Amaro-Seoane et al. (LISA), (2017), arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  22. [22]

    Hu and Y.-L

    W.-R. Hu and Y.-L. Wu, Natl. Sci. Rev. 4, 685 (2017)

    work page 2017

  23. [23]

    Klein, E

    A. Klein, E. Barausse, A. Sesana, A. Petiteau, E. Berti, S. Babak, J. Gair, S. Aoudia, I. Hinder, F. Ohme, and B. Wardell, Phys. Rev. D 93, 024003 (2016)

    work page 2016

  24. [24]

    H.-T. Wang, Z. Jiang, A. Sesana, E. Barausse, S.-J. Huang, Y.-F. Wang, W.-F. Feng, Y. Wang, Y.-M. Hu, J. Mei, and J. Luo, Phys. Rev. D 100, 043003 (2019)

    work page 2019

  25. [25]

    Preliminary study on parameter estimation accuracy of supermassive black hole binary inspirals for TianQin

    W.-F. Feng, H.-T. Wang, X.-C. Hu, Y.-M. Hu, and Y. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 99, 123002 (2019) , arXiv:1901.02159 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  26. [26]

    J. R. Gair, M. Vallisneri, S. L. Larson, and J. G. Baker, Living Rev. Rel. 16, 7 (2013) , arXiv:1212.5575 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  27. [27]

    Barausse et al., Prospects for Fundamental Physics with LISA, Gen

    E. Barausse et al. , Gen. Rel. Grav. 52, 81 (2020) , arXiv:2001.09793 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2020

  28. [28]

    K. G. Arun et al. (LISA), Living Rev. Rel. 25, 4 (2022) , arXiv:2205.01597 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  29. [29]

    S. E. Perkins, N. Yunes, and E. Berti, Phys. Rev. D 103, 044024 (2021) , arXiv:2010.09010 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  30. [30]

    P. A. Seoane et al. (LISA), Living Rev. Rel. 26, 2 (2023) , arXiv:2203.06016 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2023

  31. [31]

    Space Based Gravitational Wave Astronomy Beyond LISA

    J. Baker et al. , Bull. Am. Astron. Soc. 51, 243 (2019), arXiv:1907.11305 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  32. [32]

    Science with the space-based interferometer eLISA. III: Probing the expansion of the Universe using gravitational wave standard sirens

    N. Tamanini, C. Caprini, E. Barausse, A. Sesana, A. Klein, and A. Petiteau, JCAP 04, 002 (2016) , arXiv:1601.07112 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  33. [33]

    Zhu, Y.-M

    L.-G. Zhu, Y.-M. Hu, H.-T. Wang, J.- d. Zhang, X.-D. Li, M. Hendry, and J. Mei, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 013247 (2022) , arXiv:2104.11956 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2022

  34. [34]

    Auclair et al

    P. Auclair et al. (LISA Cosmology Work- ing Group), Living Rev. Rel. 26, 5 (2023) , arXiv:2204.05434 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  35. [35]

    Astro2020 Science White Paper: Cosmology with a Space-Based Gravitational Wave Observatory

    R. Caldwell et al. , Bull. Am. Astron. Soc. 51, 67 (2019), arXiv:1903.04657 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  36. [36]

    Zhu, L.-H

    L.-G. Zhu, L.-H. Xie, Y.-M. Hu, S. Liu, E.-K. Li, N. R. Napolitano, B.-T. Tang, J.-d. Zhang, and J. Mei, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 65, 259811 (2022) , arXiv:2110.05224 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2022

  37. [37]

    C. Shi, J. Bao, H. Wang, J.-d. Zhang, Y. Hu, A. Sesana, E. Barausse, J. Mei, and J. Luo, Phys. Rev. D 100, 044036 (2019) , arXiv:1902.08922 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2019

  38. [38]

    C. Shi, M. Ji, J.-d. Zhang, and J. Mei, Phys. Rev. D 108, 024030 (2023) , arXiv:2210.13006 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  39. [39]

    Kong and J.-d

    Y.-L. Kong and J.-d. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 110, 024059 (2024) , arXiv:2401.12066 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    Tan, J.-d

    J. Tan, J.-d. Zhang, H.-M. Fan, and J. Mei, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 824 (2024) , arXiv:2402.05752 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  41. [41]

    Rahman, S

    M. Rahman, S. Kumar, and A. Bhattacharyya, JCAP 01, 046 (2023) , arXiv:2212.01404 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  42. [42]

    Gupta et al., (2024), 10.21468/SciPostPhysCommRep.5 , arXiv:2405.02197 [gr-qc]

    A. Gupta et al., (2024), 10.21468/SciPostPhysCommRep.5 , arXiv:2405.02197 [gr-qc]

    work page doi:10.21468/scipostphyscommrep.5 2024

  43. [43]

    Dhani, S

    A. Dhani, S. V¨ olkel, A. Buonanno, H. Estelles, J. Gair, H. P. Pfeiffer, L. Pompili, and A. Toubiana, (2024), arXiv:2404.05811 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    S. Y. Lau, K. Yagi, and P. Ar- ras, Phys. Rev. D 111, 024039 (2025) , arXiv:2409.17418 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    M. Garg, L. Sberna, L. Speri, F. Duque, and J. Gair, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 535, 3283 (2024) , arXiv:2410.02910 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2024

  46. [46]

    R. S. Chandramouli, K. Prokup, E. Berti, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D 111, 044026 (2025) , arXiv:2410.06254 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

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

    N. Yunes and F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. D 80, 122003 (2009) , arXiv:0909.3328 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  48. [48]

    Tahura and K

    S. Tahura and K. Yagi, Phys. Rev. D 98, 084042 (2018)

    work page 2018

  49. [49]

    P. D. Scharre and C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D 65, 042002 (2002)

    work page 2002

  50. [50]

    Berti, A

    E. Berti, A. Buonanno, and C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D 71, 084025 (2005)

    work page 2005

  51. [51]

    K. Yagi, L. C. Stein, N. Yunes, and T. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. D 85, 064022 (2012)

    work page 2012

  52. [52]

    Yunes, K

    N. Yunes, K. Yagi, and F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. D 94, 084002 (2016)

    work page 2016

  53. [53]

    K. Yagi, N. Yunes, and T. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 251105 (2012)

    work page 2012

  54. [54]

    Projected Constraints on Lorentz-Violating Gravity with Gravitational Waves

    D. Hansen, N. Yunes, and K. Yagi, Phys. Rev. D 91, 082003 (2015) , arXiv:1412.4132 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  55. [55]

    Constraining non-commutative space-time from GW150914

    A. Kobakhidze, C. Lagger, and A. Man- ning, Phys. Rev. D 94, 064033 (2016) , arXiv:1607.03776 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  56. [56]

    Yunes, F

    N. Yunes, F. Pretorius, and D. Spergel, Phys. Rev. D 81, 064018 (2010)

    work page 2010

  57. [57]

    K. Yagi, N. Tanahashi, and T. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. D 83, 084036 (2011)

    work page 2011

  58. [58]

    Testing Brans-Dicke gravity using the Einstein telescope

    X. Zhang, J. Yu, T. Liu, W. Zhao, and A. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 95, 124008 (2017) , arXiv:1703.09853 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  59. [59]

    Shao, Phys

    L. Shao, Phys. Rev. D 101, 104019 (2020) , arXiv:2002.01185 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  60. [60]

    Mirshekari, N

    S. Mirshekari, N. Yunes, and C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D 85, 024041 (2012)

    work page 2012

  61. [61]

    Chamberlain and N

    K. Chamberlain and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D 96, 084039 (2017)

    work page 2017

  62. [62]

    Lin, J.-d

    X.-y. Lin, J.-d. Zhang, L. Dai, S.-J. Huang, and J. Mei, Phys. Rev. D 108, 064020 (2023) , arXiv:2304.04800 [gr-qc] . 14

    work page arXiv 2023

  63. [63]

    Tambalo, M

    G. Tambalo, M. Zumalac´ arregui, L. Dai, and M. H.-Y. Cheung, Phys. Rev. D 108, 103529 (2023) , arXiv:2212.11960 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  64. [64]

    Çalışkan, L

    M. C ¸ alı¸ skan, L. Ji, R. Cotesta, E. Berti, M. Kamionkowski, and S. Marsat, Phys. Rev. D 107, 043029 (2023) , arXiv:2206.02803 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  65. [65]

    Camilloni, T

    F. Camilloni, T. Harmark, G. Grignani, M. Orselli, and D. Pica, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 531, 1884 (2024) , arXiv:2310.06894 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  66. [66]

    Tahelyani, A

    D. Tahelyani, A. Bhattacharyya, and A. S. Sengupta, Phys. Rev. D 111, 083041 (2025) , arXiv:2411.14063 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  67. [67]

    Chowdhuri, R

    A. Chowdhuri, R. K. Singh, K. Kangsabanik, and A. Bhattacharyya, Phys. Rev. D 109, 124056 (2024) , arXiv:2306.11787 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  68. [68]

    Can environmental effects spoil precision gravitational-wave astrophysics?

    E. Barausse, V. Cardoso, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D 89, 104059 (2014) , arXiv:1404.7149 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  69. [69]

    Gondolo and J

    P. Gondolo and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1719 (1999)

    work page 1999

  70. [70]

    K. Eda, Y. Itoh, S. Kuroyanagi, and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 221101 (2013)

    work page 2013

  71. [71]

    K. Eda, Y. Itoh, S. Kuroyanagi, and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. D 91, 044045 (2015)

    work page 2015

  72. [72]

    Y.-L. W. Gen-Liang Li, Yong Tang, SCIENCE CHINA Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy 65, 100412 (2022)

    work page 2022

  73. [73]

    Cardoso, Vitor and Maselli, Andrea, A & A 644, A147 (2020)

    work page 2020

  74. [74]

    Caneva Santoro, S

    G. Caneva Santoro, S. Roy, R. Vicente, M. Haney, O. J. Piccinni, W. Del Pozzo, and M. Martinez, (2023), arXiv:2309.05061 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  75. [75]

    Speri, A

    L. Speri, A. Antonelli, L. Sberna, S. Babak, E. Barausse, J. R. Gair, and M. L. Katz, Phys. Rev. X 13, 021035 (2023) , arXiv:2207.10086 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  76. [76]

    Coogan, G

    A. Coogan, G. Bertone, D. Gaggero, B. J. Kavanagh, and D. A. Nichols, Phys. Rev. D 105, 043009 (2022)

    work page 2022

  77. [77]

    P. S. Cole, G. Bertone, A. Coogan, D. Gaggero, T. Karydas, B. J. Kavanagh, T. F. M. Spieksma, and G. M. Tomaselli, Nature Astron. 7, 943 (2023) , arXiv:2211.01362 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  78. [78]

    Mezzasoma and N

    S. Mezzasoma and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D 106, 024026 (2022)

    work page 2022

  79. [79]

    Garc ´ ıa-Quir´ os, M

    C. Garc ´ ıa-Quir´ os, M. Colleoni, S. Husa, H. Estell´ es , G. Pratten, A. Ramos-Buades, M. Mateu-Lucena, and R. Jaume, Phys. Rev. D 102, 064002 (2020)

    work page 2020

  80. [80]

    Chandrasekhar, APJ 97, 255 (1943)

    S. Chandrasekhar, APJ 97, 255 (1943)

    work page 1943

Showing first 80 references.