pith. sign in

arxiv: 2406.03568 · v3 · submitted 2024-06-05 · 🌀 gr-qc · astro-ph.HE

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

Elise M. S\"anger , Soumen Roy , Michalis Agathos , Ofek Birnholtz , Alessandra Buonanno , Tim Dietrich , Maria Haney , F\'elix-Louis Juli\'e
show 11 more authors
Geraint Pratten Jan Steinhoff Chris Van Den Broeck Sylvia Biscoveanu Prasanta Char Anna Heffernan Prathamesh Joshi Atul Kedia R. M. S. Schofield M. Trevor Michael Zevin
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 23:56 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc astro-ph.HE
keywords gravitational wavestests of general relativityneutron star black hole mergerpost-Newtonian phasedipole radiationEinstein-scalar-Gauss-BonnetGW230529
0
0 comments X

The pith

The GW230529 neutron-star merger signal is consistent with general relativity and tightens the bound on dipole radiation by a factor of 17.

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

The paper examines the long inspiral of GW230529_181500, a neutron star merging with a lower-mass-gap compact object, to search for deviations from general relativity in the gravitational-wave phase. It applies parameterized tests that add agnostic corrections to post-Newtonian coefficients and finds the data consistent with GR for every coefficient tested. Assuming the primary is a black hole produces the strongest limit yet on the -1PN dipole term, seventeen times tighter than the previous neutron-star-black-hole event. The same data also maps to an upper bound on the Gauss-Bonnet coupling length in Einstein-scalar-Gauss-Bonnet gravity. The analysis flags two practical difficulties: correlations between tidal effects and certain deviation parameters, and a degeneracy between the 0PN deviation and the chirp mass.

Core claim

The signal is consistent with GR for all deviation parameters. Assuming the primary is a black hole yields |δφ̂_{-2}| ≲ 8×10^{-5} (∼17× tighter than GW200115) and, in ESGB, ℓ_GB ≲ 0.51 M_⊙.

What carries the argument

Agnostic corrections to post-Newtonian phase coefficients, implemented through the FIT and TIGER frameworks on quasicircular waveform models that include higher modes, spins, and tides.

If this is right

  • The -1PN dipole bound is now seventeen times stronger than the limit from GW200115.
  • The 0.5PN and 1PN deviation parameters also receive improved constraints from this event.
  • Mapping the agnostic -1PN result produces an upper limit ℓ_GB ≲ 0.51 M_⊙ on the Gauss-Bonnet coupling, tighter than prior constraints.
  • The analysis explicitly identifies tidal correlations and 0PN-chirp-mass degeneracy as sources of potential bias in future tests.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Future tests will need waveform models that jointly vary tides and deviation parameters to reduce the reported correlations.
  • The chirp-mass degeneracy implies that independent mass measurements from electromagnetic counterparts could sharpen 0PN tests.
  • The improved bound on dipole radiation suggests that additional neutron-star–mass-gap events will further restrict scalar-tensor and other modified-gravity scenarios.

Load-bearing premise

Any non-GR effects appear only as corrections to the post-Newtonian phase coefficients, and the chosen waveform models capture the signal without introducing biases that mimic or mask deviations.

What would settle it

A statistically significant detection of |δφ̂_{-2}| larger than 8×10^{-5} in a future similar event with comparable signal-to-noise ratio would contradict the consistency reported here.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2406.03568 by Alessandra Buonanno, Anna Heffernan, Atul Kedia, Chris Van Den Broeck, Elise M. S\"anger, F\'elix-Louis Juli\'e, Geraint Pratten, Jan Steinhoff, Maria Haney, Michael Zevin, Michalis Agathos, M. Trevor, Ofek Birnholtz, Prasanta Char, Prathamesh Joshi, R. M. S. Schofield, Soumen Roy, Sylvia Biscoveanu, Tim Dietrich.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The posterior distributions for the different deviation parameters δφˆn,δφˆn(l) for GW230529. The blue histograms are obtained with TIGER using the IMRPhenomX waveform family. The orange posteriors are results from FTI using the SEOBNRv4 waveform family. The filled violins are for BBH waveforms models, while the dashed lines are BNS models which include tidal effects on both components, and the red solid l… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The 2D posterior between the chirp mass Mc and the 0PN deviation parameter δφˆ0 using the SEOBHM waveform model (or￾ange). The green dot indicates the maximum likelihood values ob￾tained with a GR run. The dark green line is the expected degeneracy between Mc and δφˆ0 based on the GR maximum likelihood chirp mass MGR c as per Eq. (6). We see that the posterior follows the ex￾pected correlation. can take an… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The 2D posteriors between the tidal deformability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The mismatch between the maximum likelihood waveform [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The likelihood for non-GR waveforms as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The results for the 0PN analysis using di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The posteriors for the chirp mass Mc and 0PN deviation parameter δφˆ0 for zero-noise injections of the maximum likelihood waveform from the corresponding GR run (green), compared to the posteriors obtained for GW230529 with the different waveform models. Left shows the posteriors obtained with FTI and right shows the results from TIGER. We see that the results from the GR injections are biased towards high… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The bounds for the different deviation parameters δφˆn,δφˆn(l) obtained with GW230529 (green stars) compared to previously obtained bounds. We show the results obtained with the BBH waveforms as a proxy for an NSBH with realistic tides, as discussed in Sec. IV B. The orange triangles and red diamonds are bounds from GWTC-2 and GWTC-3 respectively, obtained by combining the posteriors for different events t… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Top: Posteriors for the ESGB coupling ℓGB obtained by reweighting the δφˆ−2 posterior. Bottom: Posteriors for the Einstine￾scalar-Gauss Bonnet coupling ℓGB from the theory-specific test. The top axes show a slightly different definition of the ESGB coupling √ αGB = ℓGB/(2π 1/4 ) that is also commonly used. B. Theory-specific test for ESGB Due to the flexibility of the FTI framework, we can not only use it … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

On May 29, 2023, the LIGO Livingston observatory detected the gravitational-wave signal GW230529_181500 from the merger of a neutron star with a lower mass-gap compact object. Its long inspiral signal provides a unique opportunity to test general relativity (GR) in a parameter space previously unexplored by strong-field tests. In this work, we performed parameterized inspiral tests of GR with GW230529_181500. Specifically, we search for deviations in the frequency-domain GW phase by allowing for agnostic corrections to the post-Newtonian coefficients. We performed tests with the Flexible Theory Independent and Test Infrastructure For General Relativity frameworks using several quasicircular waveform models that capture different physical effects (higher modes, spins, tides). We find that the signal is consistent with GR for all deviation parameters. Assuming the primary object is a black hole, we obtain particularly tight constraints on the dipole radiation at $-1$PN order of $|\delta\hat{\varphi}_{-2}| \lesssim 8 \times 10^{-5}$, which is a factor $\sim17$ times more stringent than previous bounds from the neutron star--black hole merger GW200115_042309, as well as on the 0.5PN and 1PN deviation parameters. We discuss some challenges that arise when analyzing this signal, namely biases due to correlations with tidal effects and the degeneracy between the 0PN deviation parameter and the chirp mass. To illustrate the importance of GW230529_181500 for tests of GR, we mapped the agnostic $-1$PN results to a class of Einstein-scalar-Gauss-Bonnet (ESGB) theories of gravity. We also conducted an analysis probing the specific phase deviation expected in ESGB theory and obtain an upper bound on the Gauss-Bonnet coupling of $\ell_{\rm GB} \lesssim 0.51~\rm{M}_\odot$ ($\sqrt{\alpha_{\rm GB}} \lesssim 0.28$ km), which is better than any previously reported constraint.

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 paper analyzes the GW230529 signal from a neutron star–lower mass-gap compact object merger using parameterized post-Newtonian tests of GR. It fits agnostic deviations to the inspiral phase coefficients (δφ̂_k for k = −2, −1, 0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2) with multiple quasicircular waveform models that include higher modes, spins, and tides, reports consistency with GR, obtains |δφ̂_{-2}| ≲ 8×10^{-5} (∼17× tighter than GW200115) assuming the primary is a black hole, and maps the −1PN result to an ESGB bound ℓ_GB ≲ 0.51 M_⊙.

Significance. If the reported bounds remain stable after the acknowledged tidal correlations and 0PN–chirp-mass degeneracy are fully quantified, the result would supply the tightest inspiral-phase constraint on dipole radiation from any single event and the strongest ESGB coupling limit to date, demonstrating the value of long-inspiral NS–BH signals for strong-field tests.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and discussion of challenges] Abstract and the section discussing challenges: the headline bounds on δφ̂_{-2} and the ESGB mapping are presented without a quantitative demonstration that the limits are stable when tidal parameters are varied or when the 0PN term is marginalized differently from chirp mass; the text explicitly flags both effects as potential biases yet reports the numerical limits without showing the shift under those variations.
  2. [ESGB mapping paragraph] The ESGB mapping paragraph: the ℓ_GB bound is obtained by mapping the agnostic −1PN posterior through an external phase-correction formula rather than by fitting the theory-specific waveform directly to the data; while this is a valid post-processing step, the paper does not propagate the full posterior covariance or the noted degeneracies through the mapping, leaving the quoted ℓ_GB ≲ 0.51 M_⊙ without an associated systematic uncertainty.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states the signal is 'consistent with GR for all deviation parameters' but does not specify the exact credible-interval thresholds used to reach that conclusion; adding a brief statement of the criterion would improve clarity.
  2. [Tables/figures] Table or figure captions listing the waveform models should explicitly note which models include tidal effects and which do not, to allow readers to trace the impact of the flagged tidal correlations.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below, providing clarifications on the analysis and indicating revisions where appropriate to strengthen the presentation of results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and discussion of challenges] Abstract and the section discussing challenges: the headline bounds on δφ̂_{-2} and the ESGB mapping are presented without a quantitative demonstration that the limits are stable when tidal parameters are varied or when the 0PN term is marginalized differently from chirp mass; the text explicitly flags both effects as potential biases yet reports the numerical limits without showing the shift under those variations.

    Authors: The manuscript explicitly discusses these potential biases in the challenges section and employs multiple waveform models that incorporate tidal effects. The reported bounds on δφ̂_{-2} are shown to be consistent across these models, including those with higher modes and tides. While we did not include explicit quantitative shifts for all variations in the original text, the primary results already marginalize over tidal parameters. To provide the requested demonstration, we will add supplementary material or a dedicated subsection quantifying the stability of the key bounds under tidal variations and alternative 0PN marginalization choices. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [ESGB mapping paragraph] The ESGB mapping paragraph: the ℓ_GB bound is obtained by mapping the agnostic −1PN posterior through an external phase-correction formula rather than by fitting the theory-specific waveform directly to the data; while this is a valid post-processing step, the paper does not propagate the full posterior covariance or the noted degeneracies through the mapping, leaving the quoted ℓ_GB ≲ 0.51 M_⊙ without an associated systematic uncertainty.

    Authors: The manuscript reports both the post-processing mapping of the agnostic −1PN posterior and a separate direct analysis that fits the specific ESGB phase deviation to the data, with the quoted bound obtained consistently from the latter. The direct fit inherently includes the full posterior and degeneracies. For the mapping step, we agree that explicit propagation of covariance would add rigor; we will revise the relevant paragraph to distinguish the two approaches clearly, emphasize the direct-fit result as the primary constraint, and include a brief estimate of associated systematic effects where feasible. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; deviation parameters fitted directly to data

full rationale

The paper fits agnostic PN deviation parameters directly to the GW230529 signal using standard frameworks and multiple waveform models. The resulting bounds (including the ESGB mapping from the -1PN result) are obtained from this fit or from an external theory-specific phase correction; neither step reduces by construction to a self-definition, a fitted input renamed as prediction, or a load-bearing self-citation chain. The analysis is self-contained against external benchmarks with no invoked uniqueness theorems or ansatze smuggled via prior author work.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the chosen waveform approximants and the assumption that non-GR effects are captured by the parameterized PN corrections; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • δφ̂_k for k = -2, -1, 0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2
    Agnostic deviation coefficients at each PN order, fitted to the data.
  • ℓ_GB (or √α_GB)
    Gauss-Bonnet coupling length obtained by mapping the -1PN result; treated as a derived upper limit.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Quasicircular orbit assumption and validity of the post-Newtonian expansion for the inspiral phase
    Invoked when choosing waveform models and when interpreting the parameterized phase corrections.
  • domain assumption The primary object can be treated as a black hole for the purpose of mapping to ESGB
    Explicitly stated when deriving the ℓ_GB bound.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 6003 in / 1625 out tokens · 18609 ms · 2026-05-23T23:56:02.669551+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 14 Pith papers

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

  1. GW240925 and GW250207: Astrophysical Calibration of Gravitational-wave Detectors

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 8.0

    The first informative astrophysical calibration of gravitational-wave detectors is reported using GW240925 and GW250207.

  2. Black-Hole Scattering in Einstein-scalar-Gauss-Bonnet: Numerical Relativity Meets Analytics

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 8.0

    Numerical relativity simulations of black hole scattering in Einstein-scalar-Gauss-Bonnet gravity agree closely with effective-one-body analytic predictions.

  3. Gravitational Memory from Hairy Binary Black Hole Mergers

    gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 8.0

    Gravitational memory from hairy binary black hole mergers in scalar-Gauss-Bonnet gravity differs from GR by a few percent due to altered nonlinear dynamics, with direct scalar contributions suppressed, and including m...

  4. Quadratic gravity corrections to scalar QNMs of rapidly rotating black holes

    gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Leading-order deviations from general relativity in scalar quasinormal modes of rotating black holes are computed numerically up to dimensionless spins of 0.99 in quadratic-curvature scalar-tensor theories.

  5. Black hole mergers beyond general relativity: a self-force approach

    gr-qc 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Self-force theory is extended to compute merger and ringdown waveforms in beyond-GR black hole binaries under the extreme mass-ratio approximation, with first calculations of self-force corrections to the merger waveform.

  6. Constraints on Line-of-Sight Acceleration from O1-O4

    astro-ph.HE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    All known compact binary mergers show line-of-sight accelerations consistent with zero under a new time-domain Doppler-shift model, with current detectors only sensitive to high-acceleration scenarios.

  7. Plunge-Merger-Ringdown Tests of General Relativity with GW250114

    gr-qc 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    GW250114 data constrains GR deviations in merger amplitude to 10% and frequency to 4% at 90% CL, with first bounds on the (4,4) mode frequency at 6%.

  8. Black Hole Spectroscopy and Tests of General Relativity with GW250114

    gr-qc 2025-09 accept novelty 6.0

    GW250114 data confirm the remnant is consistent with a Kerr black hole and bound the dominant quadrupolar mode frequency to within a few percent of the GR prediction, with constraints tighter than prior multi-event catalogs.

  9. Preheating and oscillon formation in Einstein-scalar-Gauss-Bonnet gravity

    gr-qc 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Simulations in Einstein-scalar-Gauss-Bonnet gravity show oscillons form with similar properties to standard cases but trigger EFT breakdown for large couplings via high local curvatures.

  10. Massive scalar fields in eccentric regime: Detectability and constraints from LISA observations of extreme mass-ratio inspirals

    gr-qc 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Computes scalar and tensor fluxes for eccentric EMRIs with massive scalars, quantifies dephasing, and shows via Fisher matrix that LISA can constrain scalar charge and mass.

  11. Minimum mass, maximum charge and hyperbolicity in scalar Gauss-Bonnet gravity

    gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    In scalar Gauss-Bonnet gravity, black hole solutions below a tunable minimum mass lose hyperbolicity in perturbations, corresponding to EFT breakdown, but scalar charge stays bounded above.

  12. Tests of scalar polarizations with multi-messenger events

    gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Bayesian analysis of GW170817 with PPE framework and EM polarization constraints shows mild preference for scalar mode in quadrupole harmonics and improves bounds on non-GR parameters by up to 60%.

  13. Two Parameter Deformation of Embedding Class-I Compact Stars in Linear $f(Q)$ Gravity

    gr-qc 2026-02 conditional novelty 4.0

    A controlled two-parameter deformation in linear f(Q) gravity with gravitational decoupling enlarges the stellar mass window for compact objects while satisfying causality and regularity.

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

    gr-qc 2025-11 conditional novelty 4.0

    Relative binning accelerates TIGER parameterized GR tests by factors of 10-100 while recovering unbiased posteriors on simulated signals and real events like GW150914.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

122 extracted references · 122 canonical work pages · cited by 14 Pith papers · 53 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Observation of Gravitational Waves from the Coales- cence of a 2.5 — 4.5M ⊙ Compact Object and a Neu- tron Star,

    A. G. Abac et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), “Ob- servation of Gravitational Waves from the Coalescence of a 2.5 − 4.5 M⊙ Compact Object and a Neutron Star,” (2024), arXiv:2404.04248 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Prospects for Observing and Localizing Gravitational-Wave Transients with Advanced LIGO, Advanced Virgo and KAGRA

    B. P. Abbott et al. (KAGRA, LIGO Scientific, Virgo, VIRGO), “Prospects for observing and localizing gravitational-wave transients with Advanced LIGO, Advanced Virgo and KA- GRA,” Living Rev. Rel. 21, 3 (2018), arXiv:1304.0670 [gr- qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  3. [3]

    Advanced LIGO

    J. Aasi et al. (LIGO Scientific), “Advanced LIGO,” Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 074001 (2015), arXiv:1411.4547 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  4. [4]

    Does Mat- ter Matter? Using the mass distribution to distinguish neu- tron stars and black holes,

    Maya Fishbach, Reed Essick, and Daniel E. Holz, “Does Mat- ter Matter? Using the mass distribution to distinguish neu- tron stars and black holes,” Astrophys. J. Lett.899, L8 (2020), arXiv:2006.13178 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    Bridging the Gap: Categoriz- ing Gravitational-wave Events at the Transition between Neu- tron Stars and Black Holes,

    Amanda M. Farah, Maya Fishbach, Reed Essick, Daniel E. Holz, and Shanika Galaudage, “Bridging the Gap: Categoriz- ing Gravitational-wave Events at the Transition between Neu- tron Stars and Black Holes,” Astrophys. J. 931, 108 (2022), arXiv:2111.03498 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    GW190814: Gravitational Waves from the Coalescence of a 23 M$_\odot$ Black Hole with a 2.6 M$_\odot$ Compact Object

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), “GW190814: Gravi- tational Waves from the Coalescence of a 23 Solar Mass Black Hole with a 2.6 Solar Mass Compact Object,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 896, L44 (2020), arXiv:2006.12611 [astro-ph.HE]. 16

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    The population of merging compact binaries inferred using gravitational waves through GWTC-3

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), “Pop- ulation of Merging Compact Binaries Inferred Using Gravi- tational Waves through GWTC-3,” Phys. Rev. X 13, 011048 (2023), arXiv:2111.03634 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the Second Part of the Third Observing Run

    R. Abbott et al. (KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), “GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the Second Part of the Third Observing Run,” Phys. Rev. X 13, 041039 (2023), arXiv:2111.03606 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  9. [9]

    Discovery of a Candidate Black Hole - Giant Star Binary System in the Galactic Field,

    Todd A. Thompson et al., “Discovery of a Candidate Black Hole - Giant Star Binary System in the Galactic Field,” (2018), 10.1126 /science.aau4005, arXiv:1806.02751 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2018

  10. [10]

    Jayasinghe, K

    T. Jayasinghe et al., “A unicorn in monoceros: the 3 M⊙ dark companion to the bright, nearby red giant V723 Mon is a non-interacting, mass-gap black hole candidate,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 504, 2577–2602 (2021), arXiv:2101.02212 [astro-ph.SR]

    work page arXiv 2021

  11. [11]

    A pulsar in a binary with a com- pact object in the mass gap between neutron stars and black holes,

    Ewan D. Barr et al. , “A pulsar in a binary with a com- pact object in the mass gap between neutron stars and black holes,” Science383, 275–279 (2024), arXiv:2401.09872 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

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

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), “GW170817: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Neu- tron Star Inspiral,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 161101 (2017), arXiv:1710.05832 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  13. [13]

    GW190425: Observation of a Compact Binary Coalescence with Total Mass ∼3. 4M⊙,

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), “GW190425: Ob- servation of a Compact Binary Coalescence with Total Mass∼ 3.4M⊙,” Astrophys. J. Lett.892, L3 (2020), arXiv:2001.01761 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  14. [14]

    The Maximum Mass of a Neutron Star

    Vassiliki Kalogera and Gordon Baym, “The maximum mass of a neutron star,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 470, L61–L64 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9608059

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  15. [15]

    Using gravitational-wave observations and quasi-universal relations to constrain the maximum mass of neutron stars

    Luciano Rezzolla, Elias R. Most, and Lukas R. Weih, “Using gravitational-wave observations and quasi-universal relations to constrain the maximum mass of neutron stars,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 852, L25 (2018), arXiv:1711.00314 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  16. [16]

    The Mass Distribution of Stellar Black Holes

    Charles D. Bailyn, Raj K. Jain, Paolo Coppi, and Jerome A. Orosz, “The Mass distribution of stellar black holes,” Astro- phys. J. 499, 367 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9708032

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  17. [17]

    The Mass Distribution of Stellar-Mass Black Holes

    Will M. Farr, Niharika Sravan, Andrew Cantrell, Laura Krei- dberg, Charles D. Bailyn, Ilya Mandel, and Vicky Kalogera, “The Mass Distribution of Stellar-Mass Black Holes,” Astro- phys. J. 741, 103 (2011), arXiv:1011.1459 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  18. [18]

    The Black Hole Mass Distribution in the Galaxy

    Feryal Ozel, Dimitrios Psaltis, Ramesh Narayan, and Jeffrey E. McClintock, “The Black Hole Mass Distribu- tion in the Galaxy,” Astrophys. J. 725, 1918–1927 (2010), arXiv:1006.2834 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1918

  19. [19]

    Gravitational Vacuum Condensate Stars

    Pawel O. Mazur and Emil Mottola, “Gravitational vacuum condensate stars,” Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 101, 9545–9550 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0407075

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  20. [20]

    Dynamical Boson Stars

    Steven L. Liebling and Carlos Palenzuela, “Dynamical boson stars,” Living Rev. Rel.26, 1 (2023), arXiv:1202.5809 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  21. [21]

    AdS/CFT duality and the black hole information paradox

    Oleg Lunin and Samir D. Mathur, “AdS / CFT duality and the black hole information paradox,” Nucl. Phys. B623, 342–394 (2002), arXiv:hep-th/0109154

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  22. [22]

    Echoes of ECOs: gravitational-wave signatures of exotic compact objects and of quantum corrections at the horizon scale

    Vitor Cardoso, Seth Hopper, Caio F. B. Macedo, Carlos Palen- zuela, and Paolo Pani, “Gravitational-wave signatures of ex- otic compact objects and of quantum corrections at the hori- zon scale,” Phys. Rev. D94, 084031 (2016), arXiv:1608.08637 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  23. [23]

    Primordial Black Holes as Dark Matter

    Bernard Carr, Florian Kuhnel, and Marit Sandstad, “Primor- dial Black Holes as Dark Matter,” Phys. Rev. D 94, 083504 (2016), arXiv:1607.06077 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  24. [24]

    Phenomenology of axionic static neutron stars with masses in the mass-gap region,

    V . K. Oikonomou, “Phenomenology of axionic static neutron stars with masses in the mass-gap region,” Class. Quant. Grav. 41, 085008 (2024), arXiv:2403.09818 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment

    Cli fford M. Will, “The Confrontation between General Rel- ativity and Experiment,” Living Rev. Rel. 17, 4 (2014), arXiv:1403.7377 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  26. [26]

    Testing Relativistic Gravity with Radio Pulsars

    Norbert Wex, “Testing Relativistic Gravity with Ra- dio Pulsars,” arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1402.5594 (2014), arXiv:1402.5594 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  27. [27]

    Constraining nonperturbative strong-field effects in scalar-tensor gravity by combining pulsar timing and laser-interferometer gravitational-wave detectors

    Lijing Shao, Noah Sennett, Alessandra Buonanno, Michael Kramer, and Norbert Wex, “Constraining nonperturbative strong-field effects in scalar-tensor gravity by combining pul- sar timing and laser-interferometer gravitational-wave detec- tors,” Phys. Rev. X 7, 041025 (2017), arXiv:1704.07561 [gr- qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  28. [28]

    Cosmological Tests of Gravity,

    Pedro G. Ferreira, “Cosmological Tests of Gravity,” Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 57, 335–374 (2019), arXiv:1902.10503 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2019

  29. [29]

    Tests of general relativity with GW150914

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), “Tests of gen- eral relativity with GW150914,” Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 221101 (2016), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 121, 129902 (2018)], arXiv:1602.03841 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  30. [30]

    Binary Black Hole Mergers in the first Advanced LIGO Observing Run

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), “Binary Black Hole Mergers in the first Advanced LIGO Observing Run,” Phys. Rev. X 6, 041015 (2016), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.X 8, 039903 (2018)], arXiv:1606.04856 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  31. [31]

    Tests of General Relativity with GW170817

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), “Tests of Gen- eral Relativity with GW170817,” Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 011102 (2019), arXiv:1811.00364 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  32. [32]

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

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), “Tests of General Relativity with the Binary Black Hole Signals from the LIGO- Virgo Catalog GWTC-1,” Phys. Rev. D 100, 104036 (2019), arXiv:1903.04467 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  33. [33]

    Tests of General Relativity with Binary Black Holes from the second LIGO-Virgo Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), “Tests of general relativity with binary black holes from the second LIGO- Virgo gravitational-wave transient catalog,” Phys. Rev. D103, 122002 (2021), arXiv:2010.14529 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  34. [34]

    Tests of General Relativity with GWTC-3

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), “Tests of General Relativity with GWTC-3,” arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2112.06861 (2021), arXiv:2112.06861 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  35. [35]

    Genzel, F

    Reinhard Genzel, Frank Eisenhauer, and Stefan Gillessen, “Experimental studies of black holes: status and fu- ture prospects,” Astron. Astrophys. Rev. 32, 3 (2024), arXiv:2404.03522 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2024

  36. [36]

    Beyond the Hellings-Downs curve: Non-Einsteinian gravitational waves in pulsar timing array correlations,

    Reginald Christian Bernardo and Kin-Wang Ng, “Beyond the Hellings-Downs curve: Non-Einsteinian gravitational waves in pulsar timing array correlations,” arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2310.07537 (2023), arXiv:2310.07537 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  37. [37]

    Novel tests of gravity using nano-Hertz stochas- tic gravitational-wave background signals,

    Enrico Cannizzaro, Gabriele Franciolini, and Paolo Pani, “Novel tests of gravity using nano-Hertz stochas- tic gravitational-wave background signals,” arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2307.11665 (2023), arXiv:2307.11665 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  38. [38]

    Mach’s principle and a relativistic theory of gravitation,

    C. Brans and R. H. Dicke, “Mach’s principle and a relativistic theory of gravitation,” Phys. Rev.124, 925–935 (1961)

    work page 1961

  39. [39]

    Second-order scalar-tensor field equations in a four-dimensional space,

    Gregory Walter Horndeski, “Second-order scalar-tensor field equations in a four-dimensional space,” Int. J. Theor. Phys.10, 363–384 (1974)

    work page 1974

  40. [40]

    Einstein-Aether Waves

    T. Jacobson and D. Mattingly, “Einstein-Aether waves,” Phys. Rev. D 70, 024003 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0402005

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  41. [41]

    Gauss-Bonnet dark energy

    Shin’ichi Nojiri, Sergei D. Odintsov, and Misao Sasaki, “Gauss-Bonnet dark energy,” Phys. Rev. D71, 123509 (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0504052

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  42. [42]

    f(R) theories

    Antonio De Felice and Shinji Tsujikawa, “f(R) theories,” Liv- ing Rev. Rel. 13, 3 (2010), arXiv:1002.4928 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  43. [43]

    Chern-Simons modification of gen- 17 eral relativity,

    R. Jackiw and S. Y . Pi, “Chern-Simons modification of gen- 17 eral relativity,” Phys. Rev. D 68, 104012 (2003), arXiv:gr- qc/0308071

    work page arXiv 2003

  44. [44]

    Chern-Simons Modified General Relativity

    Stephon Alexander and Nicolas Yunes, “Chern-Simons Mod- ified General Relativity,” Phys. Rept. 480, 1–55 (2009), arXiv:0907.2562 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  45. [45]

    An effective formalism for testing extensions to General Relativity with gravitational waves

    Solomon Endlich, Victor Gorbenko, Junwu Huang, and Leonardo Senatore, “An effective formalism for testing exten- sions to General Relativity with gravitational waves,” JHEP 09, 122 (2017), arXiv:1704.01590 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  46. [46]

    Theoretical Physics Implications of the Binary Black-Hole Mergers GW150914 and GW151226

    Nicolas Yunes, Kent Yagi, and Frans Pretorius, “Theoret- ical Physics Implications of the Binary Black-Hole Merg- ers GW150914 and GW151226,” Phys. Rev. D 94, 084002 (2016), arXiv:1603.08955 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  47. [47]

    Constraints on Einstein-dilation-Gauss-Bonnet gravity from black hole-neutron star gravitational wave events,

    Zhenwei Lyu, Nan Jiang, and Kent Yagi, “Constraints on Einstein-dilation-Gauss-Bonnet gravity from black hole- neutron star gravitational wave events,” Phys. Rev. D 105, 064001 (2022), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 106, 069901 (2022), Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 106, 069901 (2022)], arXiv:2201.02543 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  48. [48]

    Gravitational-wave constraints on scalar-tensor gravity from a neutron star and black-hole binary GW200115,

    Hiroki Takeda, Shinji Tsujikawa, and Atsushi Nishizawa, “Gravitational-wave constraints on scalar-tensor gravity from a neutron star and black-hole binary GW200115,” (2023), arXiv:2311.09281 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  49. [49]

    Silva, A

    Hector O. Silva, Abhirup Ghosh, and Alessandra Buo- nanno, “Black-hole ringdown as a probe of higher-curvature gravity theories,” Phys. Rev. D 107, 044030 (2023), arXiv:2205.05132 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  50. [50]

    Evolution of Einstein-scalar-Gauss-Bonnet gravity using a modified har- monic formulation,

    William E. East and Justin L. Ripley, “Evolution of Einstein-scalar-Gauss-Bonnet gravity using a modified har- monic formulation,” Phys. Rev. D 103, 044040 (2021), arXiv:2011.03547 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  51. [51]

    No Ev- idence of Kinetic Screening in Simulations of Merging Binary Neutron Stars beyond General Relativity,

    Miguel Bezares, Ricard Aguilera-Miret, Lotte ter Haar, Marco Crisostomi, Carlos Palenzuela, and Enrico Barausse, “No Ev- idence of Kinetic Screening in Simulations of Merging Binary Neutron Stars beyond General Relativity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 091103 (2022), arXiv:2107.05648 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  52. [52]

    Black hole binaries in cu- bic Horndeski theories,

    Pau Figueras and Tiago Franc ¸a, “Black hole binaries in cu- bic Horndeski theories,” Phys. Rev. D 105, 124004 (2022), arXiv:2112.15529 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  53. [53]

    Arest´ e Sal´ o, K

    Llibert Arest ´e Sal ´o, Katy Clough, and Pau Figueras, “Well- Posedness of the Four-Derivative Scalar-Tensor Theory of Gravity in Singularity Avoiding Coordinates,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 261104 (2022), arXiv:2208.14470 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  54. [54]

    Sal´ o, K

    Llibert Arest ´e Sal ´o, Katy Clough, and Pau Figueras, “Punc- ture gauge formulation for Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity and four-derivative scalar-tensor theories in d+1 spacetime dimen- sions,” Phys. Rev. D 108, 084018 (2023), arXiv:2306.14966 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  55. [55]

    Arest´ e Sal´ o, S

    Llibert Arest ´e Sal ´o, Sam E. Brady, Katy Clough, Daniela Doneva, Tamara Evstafyeva, Pau Figueras, Tiago Franc ¸a, Lorenzo Rossi, and Shunhui Yao, “GRFolres: A code for modified gravity simulations in strong gravity,” (2023), arXiv:2309.06225 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  56. [56]

    Corman, J

    Maxence Corman, Justin L. Ripley, and William E. East, “Nonlinear studies of binary black hole mergers in Einstein- scalar-Gauss-Bonnet gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 107, 024014 (2023), arXiv:2210.09235 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  57. [57]

    Corman and W

    Maxence Corman and William E. East, “Black hole- neutron star mergers in Einstein-scalar-Gauss-Bonnet grav- ity,” (2024), arXiv:2405.18496 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  58. [58]

    Numerical binary black hole collisions in dynam- ical Chern-Simons gravity,

    Maria Okounkova, Leo C. Stein, Mark A. Scheel, and Saul A. Teukolsky, “Numerical binary black hole collisions in dynam- ical Chern-Simons gravity,” Phys. Rev. D100, 104026 (2019), arXiv:1906.08789 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2019

  59. [59]

    Okounkova, Numerical relativity simulation of GW150914 in Einstein dilaton Gauss-Bonnet gravity, Phys

    Maria Okounkova, “Numerical relativity simulation of GW150914 in Einstein dilaton Gauss-Bonnet gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 102, 084046 (2020), arXiv:2001.03571 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2020

  60. [60]

    Modelling self-consistently beyond General Relativ- ity,

    Ramiro Cayuso, Pau Figueras, Tiago Franc ¸a, and Luis Lehner, “Modelling self-consistently beyond General Relativ- ity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 111403 (2023), arXiv:2303.07246 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  61. [61]

    Probing beyond-Kerr spacetimes with inspiral-ringdown corrections to gravitational waves,

    Zack Carson and Kent Yagi, “Probing beyond-Kerr spacetimes with inspiral-ringdown corrections to gravitational waves,” Phys. Rev. D 101, 084050 (2020), arXiv:2003.02374 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2020

  62. [62]

    Carson and K

    Zack Carson and Kent Yagi, “Probing Einstein-dilaton Gauss- Bonnet Gravity with the inspiral and ringdown of gravitational waves,” Phys. Rev. D 101, 104030 (2020), arXiv:2003.00286 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2020

  63. [63]

    Inspiral-merger-ringdown waveforms in Einstein- scalar-Gauss-Bonnet gravity within the e ffective-one-body formalism,

    F ´elix-Louis Juli ´e, Lorenzo Pompili, and Alessandra Buo- nanno, “Inspiral-merger-ringdown waveforms in Einstein- scalar-Gauss-Bonnet gravity within the e ffective-one-body formalism,” (2024), in preparation

    work page 2024

  64. [64]

    Detecting the tail ef- fect in gravitational wave experiments,

    Luc Blanchet and B. S. Sathyaprakash, “Detecting the tail ef- fect in gravitational wave experiments,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 1067–1070 (1995)

    work page 1995

  65. [65]

    Testing post-Newtonian theory with gravitational wave observations

    K. G. Arun, Bala R. Iyer, M. S. S. Qusailah, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, “Testing post-Newtonian theory with gravita- tional wave observations,” Class. Quant. Grav. 23, L37–L43 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0604018

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  66. [66]

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

    K. G. Arun, Bala R. Iyer, M. S. S. Qusailah, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, “Probing the non-linear structure of general relativity with black hole binaries,” Phys. Rev. D 74, 024006 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0604067

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  67. [67]

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

    Nicolas Yunes and Frans Pretorius, “Fundamental Theoretical Bias in Gravitational Wave Astrophysics and the Parameter- ized Post-Einsteinian Framework,” Phys. Rev. D 80, 122003 (2009), arXiv:0909.3328 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  68. [68]

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

    Chandra Kant Mishra, K. G. Arun, Bala R. Iyer, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, “Parametrized tests of post-Newtonian theory using Advanced LIGO and Einstein Telescope,” Phys. Rev. D 82, 064010 (2010), arXiv:1005.0304 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  69. [69]

    Be- yond general relativity: Designing a template-based search for exotic gravitational wave signals,

    Harsh Narola, Soumen Roy, and Anand S. Sengupta, “Be- yond general relativity: Designing a template-based search for exotic gravitational wave signals,” Phys. Rev. D 107, 024017 (2023), arXiv:2207.10410 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  70. [70]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.03274 (2023)

    Abhishek Sharma, Soumen Roy, and Anand S. Sengupta, “Template bank to search for exotic gravitational wave sig- nals from astrophysical compact binaries,” arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2311.03274 (2023), arXiv:2311.03274 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  71. [71]

    Guptaet al., Possible causes of false general relativ- ity violations in gravitational wave observations (2024), arXiv:2405.02197 [gr-qc]

    Anuradha Gupta et al. , “Possible Causes of False General Relativity Violations in Gravitational Wave Observations,” (2024), arXiv:2405.02197 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  72. [72]

    Tests of general relativ- ity with gravitational-wave observations using a flexible theory-independent method,

    Ajit Kumar Mehta, Alessandra Buonanno, Roberto Cotesta, Abhirup Ghosh, Noah Sennett, and Jan Steinho ff, “Tests of general relativity with gravitational-wave observations us- ing a flexible theory-independent method,” Phys. Rev. D 107, 044020 (2023), arXiv:2203.13937 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  73. [73]

    Towards a generic test of the strong field dynamics of general relativity using compact binary coalescence

    T. G. F. Li, W. Del Pozzo, S. Vitale, C. Van Den Broeck, M. Agathos, J. Veitch, K. Grover, T. Sidery, R. Sturani, and A. Vecchio, “Towards a generic test of the strong field dynam- ics of general relativity using compact binary coalescence,” Phys. Rev. D 85, 082003 (2012), arXiv:1110.0530 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  74. [74]

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

    Michalis Agathos, Walter Del Pozzo, Tjonnie G. F. Li, Chris Van Den Broeck, John Veitch, and Salvatore Vitale, “TIGER: A data analysis pipeline for testing the strong-field dynamics of general relativity with gravitational wave signals from co- alescing compact binaries,” Phys. Rev. D 89, 082001 (2014), arXiv:1311.0420 [gr-qc]. 18

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  75. [75]

    Jeroen Meidam et al., “Parametrized tests of the strong-field dynamics of general relativity using gravitational wave signals from coalescing binary black holes: Fast likelihood calcula- tions and sensitivity of the method,” Phys. Rev. D 97, 044033 (2018), arXiv:1712.08772 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  76. [76]

    An improved parametrized test of general relativity with state-of-the-art imrphenomx waveform mod- els,

    Soumen Roy, Maria Haney, Geraint Pratten, Chris Van Den Broeck, et al., “An improved parametrized test of general relativity with state-of-the-art imrphenomx waveform mod- els,” (2024), in preparation

    work page 2024

  77. [77]

    An improved effective-one-body model of spinning, nonprecessing binary black holes for the era of gravitational-wave astrophysics with advanced detectors

    Alejandro Boh ´e et al. , “Improved e ffective-one-body model of spinning, nonprecessing binary black holes for the era of gravitational-wave astrophysics with advanced detectors,” Phys. Rev. D 95, 044028 (2017), arXiv:1611.03703 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  78. [78]

    Cotesta, A

    Roberto Cotesta, Alessandra Buonanno, Alejandro Boh ´e, An- drea Taracchini, Ian Hinder, and Serguei Ossokine, “Enrich- ing the Symphony of Gravitational Waves from Binary Black Holes by Tuning Higher Harmonics,” Phys. Rev. D98, 084028 (2018), arXiv:1803.10701 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2018

  79. [79]

    Cotesta, S

    Roberto Cotesta, Sylvain Marsat, and Michael P ¨urrer, “Fre- quency domain reduced order model of aligned-spin effective- one-body waveforms with higher-order modes,” Phys. Rev. D 101, 124040 (2020), arXiv:2003.12079 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2020

  80. [80]

    Dietrich, A

    Tim Dietrich, Anuradha Samajdar, Sebastian Khan, Nathan K. Johnson-McDaniel, Reetika Dudi, and Wolfgang Tichy, “Im- proving the NRTidal model for binary neutron star systems,” Phys. Rev. D 100, 044003 (2019), arXiv:1905.06011 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2019

Showing first 80 references.