Paper detail

Are Parametrized Tests of General Relativity with Gravitational Waves Robust to Unknown Higher Post-Newtonian Order Effects?

Gravitational wave observations have great potential to reveal new information about the fundamental nature of gravity, but extracting that information can be difficult. One popular technique is the parametrized inspiral test of general relativity (a realization of the parametrized post-Einsteinian framework), where the gravitational waveform, as calculated in Einstein's theory as a series expansion in the orbital velocity, is parametrically deformed at a given set of orders in velocity. However, most current approaches usually only analyze the data while considering a single, specific modification at a time. Are then constraints placed with a single modification robust to our ignorance of higher post-Newtonian order corrections? We show here that for a wide class of theories, specifically those that admit a post-Newtonian expansion, single-parameter tests are indeed robust. In particular, through a series of full Bayesian parameter estimation studies on several different sets of synthetic data, we show that single-parameter constraints are not degraded but rather are improved by the inclusion of multiple parameters, provided one includes information about the mathematical structure of the series. We then exemplify this with a specific theory of gravity, shift-symmetric scalar Gauss-Bonnet theory, where the waveform has been calculated to higher post-Newtonian orders than leading. We show that the inclusion of these higher order terms strengthens single-parameter constraints, instead of weakening them, and that the strengthening is very mild. This analysis therefore provides strong evidence that single-parameter post-Einsteinian tests of general relativity are robust to ignorance of high post-Newtonian order terms in the general relativistic deformations.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.