- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review D

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Inspiral tests of general relativity and waveform geometry

Brian C. Seymour1,2, Jacob Golomb1, and Yanbei Chen1

PDF

Phys. Rev. D 114, 024059 – Published 22 July, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/nw3l-qld4

Abstract

The phase evolution of gravitational waves encodes critical information about the orbital dynamics of binary systems. In this work, we test the robustness of parametrized tests against unmodeled deviations from general relativity. We demonstrate that these parametrized tests are flexible and sensitive in detecting generic deviations in the waveform using the Cutler-Vallisneri bias formalism. This universality arises from examining the inherent geometry of the waveform signal and understanding how biases manifest. We show how Bayes factors are governed by the intrinsic geometry of the waveform signal manifold when parametrized tests are used to approximate generic violations of GR. We use the singular value decomposition to propose templates that are orthogonal to parametrized tests, identifying degeneracies and enhancing the detection of potential deviations. More broadly, the geometric framework developed here clarifies—at a fundamental level—how subtle waveform effects (including orbital eccentricity, spin precession, waveform systematics, and instrumental glitches) can mimic one another in data, and when they are intrinsically distinguishable.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (129)

  1. B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), Observation of gravitational waves from a binary black hole merger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016).
  2. B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), GW170817: Observation of gravitational waves from a binary neutron star inspiral, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 161101 (2017).
  3. B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), GWTC-1: A gravitational-wave transient catalog of compact binary mergers observed by LIGO and Virgo during the first and second observing runs, Phys. Rev. X 9, 031040 (2019).
  4. R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), GWTC-2: Compact binary coalescences observed by LIGO and Virgo during the first half of the third observing run, Phys. Rev. X 11, 021053 (2021).
  5. R. Abbott et al. (KAGRA, Virgo, and LIGO Scientific Collaborations), 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).
  6. B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), Tests of general relativity with GW150914, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 221101 (2016); 121, 129902(E) (2018).
  7. B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), Tests of general relativity with GW170817, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 011102 (2019).
  8. B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), Tests of general relativity with the binary black hole signals from the LIGO-Virgo catalog GWTC-1, Phys. Rev. D 100, 104036 (2019).
  9. R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), Tests of general relativity with binary black holes from the second LIGO-Virgo gravitational-wave transient catalog, Phys. Rev. D 103, 122002 (2021).
  10. R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo, and KAGRA Collaborations), Tests of general relativity with GWTC-3, Phys. Rev. D 112, 084080 (2025).
  11. N. Yunes, K. Yagi, and F. Pretorius, Theoretical physics implications of the binary black-hole mergers GW150914 and GW151226, Phys. Rev. D 94, 084002 (2016).
  12. R. Nair, S. Perkins, H. O. Silva, and N. Yunes, Fundamental physics implications for higher-curvature theories from binary black hole signals in the LIGO-Virgo catalog GWTC-1, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 191101 (2019).
  13. H. O. Silva, A. M. Holgado, A. Cárdenas-Avendaño, and N. Yunes, Astrophysical and theoretical physics implications from multimessenger neutron star observations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 181101 (2021).
  14. J. Aasi et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration), Advanced LIGO, Classical Quantum Gravity 32, 074001 (2015).
  15. F. Acernese et al. (Virgo Collaboration), Advanced Virgo: A second-generation interferometric gravitational wave detector, Classical Quantum Gravity 32, 024001 (2015).
  16. T. Akutsu et al. (KAGRA Collaboration), Overview of KAGRA: Detector design and construction history, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2021, 05A101 (2021).
  17. B. Iyer, T. Souradeep, C. Unnikrishnan, S. Dhurandhar, S. Raja, and A. Sengupta, LIGO-India: Proposal of the consortium for Indian initiative in gravitational-wave observations (IndIGO), Technical Report No. LIGO-M1100296-v2, LIGO, 2013, https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-M1100296-v2/public.
  18. M. Saleem et al., The science case for LIGO-India, Classical Quantum Gravity 39, 025004 (2022).
  19. P. Fritschel et al., Report of the LSC post-O5 study group, LIGO Document No. LIGO-T2200287, LVK DCC, 2022.
  20. R. X. Adhikari et al., LIGO Voyager upgrade concept, LIGO Document No. LIGO-T1400226, 2024.
  21. R. X. Adhikari et al. (LIGO Collaboration), A cryogenic silicon interferometer for gravitational-wave detection, Classical Quantum Gravity 37, 165003 (2020).
  22. D. Reitze et al., Cosmic Explorer: The U.S. contribution to gravitational-wave astronomy beyond LIGO, Bull. Am. Astron. Soc. 51, 035 (2019).
  23. M. Evans et al., A horizon study for Cosmic Explorer: Science, observatories, and community, arXiv:2109.09882.
  24. M. Punturo et al., The Einstein Telescope: A third-generation gravitational wave observatory, Classical Quantum Gravity 27, 194002 (2010).
  25. M. Maggiore et al. (ET Collaboration), Science case for the Einstein Telescope, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 03 (2020) 050.
  26. M. Branchesi et al., Science with the Einstein Telescope: A comparison of different designs, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 07 (2023) 068.
  27. P. Amaro-Seoane et al. (LISA Collaboration), Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (2017).
  28. P. Auclair et al. (LISA Cosmology Working Group), Cosmology with the laser interferometer space antenna, Living Rev. Relativity 26, 5 (2023).
  29. J. Luo et al. (TianQin Collaboration), TianQin: A space-borne gravitational wave detector, Classical Quantum Gravity 33, 035010 (2016).
  30. W.-R. Hu and Y.-L. Wu, The Taiji program in space for gravitational wave physics and the nature of gravity, Natl. Sci. Rev. 4, 685 (2017).
  31. W.-H. Ruan, Z.-K. Guo, R.-G. Cai, and Y.-Z. Zhang, Taiji program: Gravitational-wave sources, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 35, 2050075 (2020).
  32. N. Seto, S. Kawamura, and T. Nakamura, Possibility of direct measurement of the acceleration of the universe using 0.1-Hz band laser interferometer gravitational wave antenna in space, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 221103 (2001).
  33. S. Sato et al., The status of DECIGO, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 840, 012010 (2017).
  34. S. Kawamura et al., Current status of space gravitational wave antenna DECIGO and B-DECIGO, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2021, 05A105 (2021).
  35. K. A. Kuns, H. Yu, Y. Chen, and R. X. Adhikari, Astrophysics and cosmology with a decihertz gravitational-wave detector: TianGO, Phys. Rev. D 102, 043001 (2020).
  36. K. A. Kuns, Future networks of gravitational wave detectors: Quantum noise and space detectors, Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Santa Barbara, 2019.
  37. N. Yunes and F. Pretorius, Fundamental theoretical bias in gravitational wave astrophysics and the parametrized post-Einsteinian framework, Phys. Rev. D 80, 122003 (2009).
  38. N. Cornish, L. Sampson, N. Yunes, and F. Pretorius, Gravitational wave tests of general relativity with the parameterized post-Einsteinian framework, Phys. Rev. D 84, 062003 (2011).
  39. 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 dynamics of general relativity using compact binary coalescence, Phys. Rev. D 85, 082003 (2012).
  40. M. Agathos, W. Del Pozzo, T. G. F. Li, C. Van Den Broeck, J. Veitch, and S. Vitale, TIGER: A data analysis pipeline for testing the strong-field dynamics of general relativity with gravitational wave signals from coalescing compact binaries, Phys. Rev. D 89, 082001 (2014).
  41. J. Meidam et al., Parametrized tests of the strong-field dynamics of general relativity using gravitational wave signals from coalescing binary black holes: Fast likelihood calculations and sensitivity of the method, Phys. Rev. D 97, 044033 (2018).
  42. N. Yunes, X. Siemens, and K. Yagi, Gravitational-wave tests of general relativity with ground-based detectors and pulsar-timing arrays, Living Rev. Relativity 28, 3 (2025).
  43. K. Chatziioannou, N. Yunes, and N. Cornish, Model-independent test of general relativity: An extended post-Einsteinian framework with complete polarization content, Phys. Rev. D 86, 022004 (2012); 95, 129901(E) (2017).
  44. N. Loutrel, P. Pani, and N. Yunes, Parametrized post-Einsteinian framework for precessing binaries, Phys. Rev. D 107, 044046 (2023).
  45. S. Mezzasoma and N. Yunes, Theory-agnostic framework for inspiral tests of general relativity with higher-harmonic gravitational waves, Phys. Rev. D 106, 024026 (2022).
  46. A. K. Mehta, A. Buonanno, R. Cotesta, A. Ghosh, N. Sennett, and J. Steinhoff, Tests of general relativity with gravitational-wave observations using a flexible theory-independent method, Phys. Rev. D 107, 044020 (2023).
  47. S. A. Bhat, P. Saini, M. Favata, C. Gandevikar, C. K. Mishra, and K. G. Arun, Parametrized tests of general relativity using eccentric compact binaries, Phys. Rev. D 110, 124062 (2024).
  48. G. S. Bonilla, P. Kumar, and S. A. Teukolsky, Modeling compact binary merger waveforms beyond general relativity, Phys. Rev. D 107, 024015 (2023).
  49. E. Maggio, H. O. Silva, A. Buonanno, and A. Ghosh, Tests of general relativity in the nonlinear regime: A parametrized plunge-merger-ringdown gravitational waveform model, Phys. Rev. D 108, 024043 (2023).
  50. D. Watarai, A. Nishizawa, and K. Cannon, Physically consistent gravitational waveform for capturing beyond general relativity effects in the compact object merger phase, Phys. Rev. D 109, 084058 (2024).
  51. D. Watarai, A. Nishizawa, H. Takeda, H. Imafuku, and K. Cannon, Observational constraints on the nonlinear regime of gravity with a parametrized beyond-GR gravitational waveform model, Phys. Rev. D 113, 024015 (2026).
  52. Y. Xie, D. Chatterjee, G. Narayan, and N. Yunes, Neural post-Einsteinian framework for efficient theory-agnostic tests of general relativity with gravitational waves, Phys. Rev. D 110, 024036 (2024).
  53. L. Sampson, N. Cornish, and N. Yunes, Mismodeling in gravitational-wave astronomy: The trouble with templates, Phys. Rev. D 89, 064037 (2014).
  54. B. C. Seymour and Y. Chen, Gravitational-wave signatures of nonviolent non-locality, Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 011401 (2026).
  55. E. E. Flanagan and S. A. Hughes, Measuring gravitational waves from binary black hole coalescences: 2. The waves’ information and its extraction, with and without templates, Phys. Rev. D 57, 4566 (1998).
  56. L. Lindblom, B. J. Owen, and D. A. Brown, Model waveform accuracy standards for gravitational wave data analysis, Phys. Rev. D 78, 124020 (2008).
  57. P. Kumar, K. Barkett, S. Bhagwat, N. Afshari, D. A. Brown, G. Lovelace, M. A. Scheel, and B. Szilágyi, Accuracy and precision of gravitational-wave models of inspiraling neutron star-black hole binaries with spin: Comparison with matter-free numerical relativity in the low-frequency regime, Phys. Rev. D 92, 102001 (2015).
  58. K. Chatziioannou, A. Klein, N. Yunes, and N. Cornish, Constructing gravitational waves from generic spin-precessing compact binary inspirals, Phys. Rev. D 95, 104004 (2017).
  59. M. Pürrer and C.-J. Haster, Gravitational waveform accuracy requirements for future ground-based detectors, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023151 (2020).
  60. Q. Hu and J. Veitch, Assessing the model waveform accuracy of gravitational waves, Phys. Rev. D 106, 044042 (2022).
  61. S. T. McWilliams, B. J. Kelly, and J. G. Baker, Observing mergers of non-spinning black-hole binaries, Phys. Rev. D 82, 024014 (2010).
  62. A. Toubiana and J. R. Gair, Indistinguishability criterion and estimating the presence of biases, arXiv:2401.06845.
  63. T. Knapp, K. Chatziioannou, K. Mitman, M. A. Scheel, M. Boyle, L. E. Kidder, and H. Pfeiffer, A comprehensive look into the accuracy of spec binary black hole waveforms, Phys. Rev. D 113, 124001 (2026).
  64. J. E. Thompson, C. Hoy, E. Fauchon-Jones, and M. Hannam, On the use and interpretation of signal-model indistinguishability measures for gravitational-wave astronomy, Phys. Rev. D 112, 064011 (2025).
  65. C. Cutler and M. Vallisneri, LISA detections of massive black hole inspirals: Parameter extraction errors due to inaccurate template waveforms, Phys. Rev. D 76, 104018 (2007).
  66. Q. Hu and J. Veitch, Accumulating errors in tests of general relativity with gravitational waves: Overlapping signals and inaccurate waveforms, Astrophys. J. 945, 103 (2023).
  67. C. B. Owen, C.-J. Haster, S. Perkins, N. J. Cornish, and N. Yunes, Waveform accuracy and systematic uncertainties in current gravitational wave observations, Phys. Rev. D 108, 044018 (2023).
  68. V. Kapil, L. Reali, R. Cotesta, and E. Berti, Systematic bias from waveform modeling for binary black hole populations in next-generation gravitational wave detectors, Phys. Rev. D 109, 104043 (2024).
  69. A. Dhani, S. H. Völkel, A. Buonanno, H. Estelles, J. Gair, H. P. Pfeiffer, L. Pompili, and A. Toubiana, Systematic biases in estimating the properties of black holes due to inaccurate gravitational-wave models, Phys. Rev. X 15, 031036 (2025).
  70. L. Capuano, M. Vaglio, R. S. Chandramouli, C. L. Pitte, A. Kuntz, and E. Barausse, Systematic bias in LISA ringdown analysis due to waveform inaccuracy, Phys. Rev. D 112, 104031 (2025).
  71. S. H. Völkel and A. Dhani, Quantifying systematic biases in black hole spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. D 112, 084076 (2025).
  72. M. Vallisneri, Testing general relativity with gravitational waves: A reality check, Phys. Rev. D 86, 082001 (2012).
  73. M. Vallisneri and N. Yunes, Stealth bias in gravitational-wave parameter estimation, Phys. Rev. D 87, 102002 (2013).
  74. S. Vitale and W. Del Pozzo, How serious can the stealth bias be in gravitational wave parameter estimation?, Phys. Rev. D 89, 022002 (2014).
  75. C. J. Moore, E. Finch, R. Buscicchio, and D. Gerosa, Testing general relativity with gravitational-wave catalogs: The insidious nature of waveform systematics, iScience 24, 102577 (2021).
  76. S. Perkins and N. Yunes, Are parametrized tests of general relativity with gravitational waves robust to unknown higher post-Newtonian order effects?, Phys. Rev. D 105, 124047 (2022).
  77. M. Favata, Systematic parameter errors in inspiraling neutron star binaries, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 101101 (2014).
  78. R. S. Chandramouli, K. Prokup, E. Berti, and N. Yunes, Systematic biases in parametrized tests of general relativity due to waveform mismodeling: The impact of neglecting spin precession and higher modes, Phys. Rev. D 111, 044026 (2025).
  79. A. Gupta et al., Possible causes of false general relativity violations in gravitational wave observations, SciPost Phys. Comm. Rep. 5 (2024).
  80. P. Saini, M. Favata, and K. G. Arun, Systematic bias on parametrized tests of general relativity due to neglect of orbital eccentricity, Phys. Rev. D 106, 084031 (2022).
  81. S. A. Bhat, P. Saini, M. Favata, and K. G. Arun, Systematic bias on the inspiral-merger-ringdown consistency test due to neglect of orbital eccentricity, Phys. Rev. D 107, 024009 (2023).
  82. P. Saini, S. A. Bhat, M. Favata, and K. G. Arun, Eccentricity-induced systematic error on parametrized tests of general relativity: Hierarchical Bayesian inference applied to a binary black hole population, Phys. Rev. D 109, 084056 (2024).
  83. P. Narayan, N. K. Johnson-McDaniel, and A. Gupta, Effect of ignoring eccentricity in testing general relativity with gravitational waves, Phys. Rev. D 108, 064003 (2023).
  84. M. Garg, L. Sberna, L. Speri, F. Duque, and J. Gair, Systematics in tests of general relativity using LISA massive black hole binaries, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 535, 3283 (2024).
  85. S. Kejriwal, L. Speri, and A. J. K. Chua, Impact of correlations on the modeling and inference of beyond vacuum–general relativistic effects in extreme-mass-ratio inspirals, Phys. Rev. D 110, 084060 (2024).
  86. N. Yunes, M. Coleman Miller, and J. Thornburg, The effect of massive perturbers on extreme mass-ratio inspiral waveforms, Phys. Rev. D 83, 044030 (2011).
  87. K. Chamberlain, C. J. Moore, D. Gerosa, and N. Yunes, Frequency-domain waveform approximants capturing Doppler shifts, Phys. Rev. D 99, 024025 (2019).
  88. T. Robson, N. J. Cornish, N. Tamanini, and S. Toonen, Detecting hierarchical stellar systems with LISA, Phys. Rev. D 98, 064012 (2018).
  89. H. Yu and Y. Chen, Direct determination of supermassive black hole properties with gravitational-wave radiation from surrounding stellar-mass black hole binaries, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 021101 (2021).
  90. H. Yu, Y. Wang, B. Seymour, and Y. Chen, Detecting gravitational lensing in hierarchical triples in galactic nuclei with space-borne gravitational-wave observatories, Phys. Rev. D 104, 103011 (2021).
  91. A. Laeuger, B. Seymour, Y. Chen, and H. Yu, Measuring supermassive black hole properties via gravitational radiation from eccentrically orbiting stellar mass black hole binaries, Phys. Rev. D 109, 064086 (2024).
  92. B. Deme, B.-M. Hoang, S. Naoz, and B. Kocsis, Detecting Kozai–Lidov imprints on the gravitational waves of intermediate-mass black holes in galactic nuclei, Astrophys. J. 901, 125 (2020).
  93. R. S. Chandramouli and N. Yunes, Ready-to-use analytic model for gravitational waves from a hierarchical triple with Kozai-Lidov oscillations, Phys. Rev. D 105, 064009 (2022).
  94. P. Gupta, H. Suzuki, H. Okawa, and K.-i. Maeda, Gravitational waves from hierarchical triple systems with Kozai-Lidov oscillation, Phys. Rev. D 101, 104053 (2020).
  95. B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), Characterization of transient noise in Advanced LIGO relevant to gravitational wave signal GW150914, Classical Quantum Gravity 33, 134001 (2016).
  96. S. Ghonge, J. Brandt, J. M. Sullivan, M. Millhouse, K. Chatziioannou, J. A. Clark, T. Littenberg, N. Cornish, S. Hourihane, and L. Cadonati, Assessing and mitigating the impact of glitches on gravitational-wave parameter estimation: A model agnostic approach, Phys. Rev. D 110, 122002 (2024).
  97. J. Y. L. Kwok, R. K. L. Lo, A. J. Weinstein, and T. G. F. Li, Investigation of the effects of non-Gaussian noise transients and their mitigation in parameterized gravitational-wave tests of general relativity, Phys. Rev. D 105, 024066 (2022).
  98. G. Ashton, Gaussian processes for glitch-robust gravitational-wave astronomy, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 520, 2983 (2023).
  99. A. Spadaro, R. Buscicchio, D. Vetrugno, A. Klein, S. Vitale, R. Dolesi, W. J. Weber, and M. Colpi, Glitch systematics on the observation of massive black-hole binaries with LISA, Phys. Rev. D 108, 123029 (2023).
  100. A. Pai and K. G. Arun, Singular value decomposition in parametrised tests of post-Newtonian theory, Classical Quantum Gravity 30, 025011 (2013).
  101. K. G. Arun and A. Pai, Tests of general relativity and alternative theories of gravity using gravitational wave observations, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 22, 1341012 (2013).
  102. K. Cannon, A. Chapman, C. Hanna, D. Keppel, A. C. Searle, and A. J. Weinstein, Singular value decomposition applied to compact binary coalescence gravitational-wave signals, Phys. Rev. D 82, 044025 (2010).
  103. K. Cannon, C. Hanna, and D. Keppel, Efficiently enclosing the compact binary parameter space by singular-value decomposition, Phys. Rev. D 84, 084003 (2011).
  104. K. Cannon, C. Hanna, and D. Keppel, Interpolating compact binary waveforms using the singular value decomposition, Phys. Rev. D 85, 081504 (2012).
  105. D. Keppel, Use of singular-value decomposition in gravitational-wave data analysis, Int. J. Mod. Phys. Conf. Ser. 23, 01113 (2013).
  106. M. Tiglio and A. Villanueva, Reduced order and surrogate models for gravitational waves, Living Rev. Relativity 25, 2 (2022).
  107. S. Datta, M. Saleem, K. G. Arun, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Multiparameter tests of general relativity using a principle component analysis with next-generation gravitational-wave detectors, Phys. Rev. D 109, 044036 (2024).
  108. M. Saleem, S. Datta, K. G. Arun, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Parametrized tests of post-Newtonian theory using principal component analysis, Phys. Rev. D 105, 084062 (2022).
  109. S. Datta, Enhancing the performance of multiparameter tests of general relativity with LISA using principal component analysis, arXiv:2303.04399.
  110. Z.-C. Ma, R. Niu, and W. Zhao, The multi-parameter test of gravitational wave dispersion with principal component analysis, Res. Astron. Astrophys. 24, 055012 (2024).
  111. P. Mahapatra et al., Confronting general relativity with principal component analysis: Simulations and results from GWTC-3 events, Phys. Rev. D 112, 104007 (2025).
  112. A. A. Shoom, P. K. Gupta, B. Krishnan, A. B. Nielsen, and C. D. Capano, Testing the post-Newtonian expansion with GW170817, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 55, 55 (2023).
  113. K. G. Arun, B. R. Iyer, M. S. S. Qusailah, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Testing post-Newtonian theory with gravitational wave observations, Classical Quantum Gravity 23, L37 (2006).
  114. K. G. Arun, B. 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).
  115. S. H. Völkel, N. Franchini, and E. Barausse, Theory-agnostic reconstruction of potential and couplings from quasinormal modes, Phys. Rev. D 105, 084046 (2022).
  116. B. C. Seymour, J. Golomb, and Y. Chen, waveform-geometry-testing-gr, version v1.0.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.20931755 (2026).
  117. C. Cutler and E. E. Flanagan, Gravitational waves from merging compact binaries: How accurately can one extract the binary’s parameters from the inspiral wave form?, Phys. Rev. D 49, 2658 (1994).
  118. M. Vallisneri, Use and abuse of the Fisher information matrix in the assessment of gravitational-wave parameter-estimation prospects, Phys. Rev. D 77, 042001 (2008).
  119. C. L. Rodriguez, B. Farr, W. M. Farr, and I. Mandel, Inadequacies of the Fisher information matrix in gravitational-wave parameter estimation, Phys. Rev. D 88, 084013 (2013).
  120. L. S. Finn, Detection, measurement and gravitational radiation, Phys. Rev. D 46, 5236 (1992).
  121. C. K. Mishra, K. G. Arun, B. R. Iyer, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Parametrized tests of post-Newtonian theory using Advanced LIGO and Einstein Telescope, Phys. Rev. D 82, 064010 (2010).
  122. https://github.com/BrianCSeymour/waveform-geometry-testing-gr/blob/main/ppe-perpendicular-plots.ipynb.
  123. P. Ajith et al., Inspiral-merger-ringdown waveforms for black-hole binaries with non-precessing spins, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 241101 (2011).
  124. P. Schmidt, F. Ohme, and M. Hannam, Towards models of gravitational waveforms from generic binaries II: Modelling precession effects with a single effective precession parameter, Phys. Rev. D 91, 024043 (2015).
  125. https://github.com/BrianCSeymour/waveform-geometry-testing-gr/blob/main/overlap-plots.ipynb.
  126. https://github.com/BrianCSeymour/waveform-geometry-testing-gr/blob/main/ppe-nvnl-overlap.ipynb.
  127. F. Ohme, A. B. Nielsen, D. Keppel, and A. Lundgren, Statistical and systematic errors for gravitational-wave inspiral signals: A principal component analysis, Phys. Rev. D 88, 042002 (2013).
  128. A. Gupta, S. Datta, S. Kastha, S. Borhanian, K. G. Arun, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Multiparameter tests of general relativity using multiband gravitational-wave observations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 201101 (2020).
  129. E. Payne, M. Isi, K. Chatziioannou, and W. M. Farr, Fortifying gravitational-wave tests of general relativity against astrophysical assumptions, Phys. Rev. D 108, 124060 (2023).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 114, 024059– Published 22 July, 2026
  • Received 19 February 2026
  • Accepted 8 June 2026
Article part of CHORUS
Crossmark - Check for updates button

© 2026 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation