Abstract
The Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) has the potential to reveal wonders about the fundamental theory of nature at play in the extreme gravity regime, where the gravitational interaction is both strong and dynamical. In this white paper, the Fundamental Physics Working Group of the LISA Consortium summarizes the current topics in fundamental physics where LISA observations of gravitational waves can be expected to provide key input. We provide the briefest of reviews to then delineate avenues for future research directions and to discuss connections between this working group, other working groups and the consortium work package teams. These connections must be developed for LISA to live up to its science potential in these areas.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Gravity is at the forefront of many of the deepest questions in fundamental physics. These questions include the classical dynamics and quantum nature of black holes (BHs), the matter and antimatter asymmetry of the observable universe, the processes at play during the expansion of the universe and during cosmological structure formation, and, of course, the intrinsic nature of dark matter and dark energy, and perhaps of spacetime itself. These questions are cross-generational and their answers are likely to require cross-disciplinary explorations, instead of being the purview of a particular sub-discipline.
The recent observations of gravitational waves (GWs) are beginning to help us dig deeper into these questions, opening new research paths that enable the fruitful interaction of fundamental theory and observation. GWs have the potential to examine largely unexplored regions of the universe that are otherwise electromagnetically obscure. Examples of these regions include the vicinity of BH horizons, early phases in the formation of large-scale structure, and the hot big bang. Moreover, GWs can complement electromagnetic (EM) observations in astronomy and cosmology, thus enabling “multi-messenger” astrophysics and creating a path toward a better understanding of our universe.
The Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) has the potential to contribute enormously in this quest, as this instrument is uniquely positioned to observe, for the first time, long-wavelength GWs (Amaro-Seoane et al. 2017), and therefore, new sources of GW radiation. Why is this? Because LISA can provide new information about gravitational anomalies, perhaps related to the quantum nature of gravity, about quantum-inspired effects in BH physics, and even about beyond the standard model, particle physics. Examples of the information that could be gained abound, but one concrete example is the following. LISA has the potential to constrain (or detect) the activation of scalar or vector degrees of freedom around black holes, which arise in certain modified gravity theories inspired by quantum gravity. This is because these fields typically carry energy-momentum away from BH binaries, forcing them to spiral faster into each other than predicted in GR. This faster rate of inspiral then modifies the time evolution of the GW frequency, and therefore, its phase, which LISA is particularly sensitive to.
GW observations with LISA will complement the information we have gained (and will continue to gain) with ground-based GW interferometers, such as the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO), Virgo and KAGRA. This complementarity arises because ground-based instruments operate at higher frequencies than LISA, and therefore, they can hear GWs from a completely different type of sources. This, in turn, implies LISA is uniquely positioned to detect supermassive BH (SMBH) mergers, extreme mass-ratio inspirals (EMRIs), galactic binaries, and SGWB, none of which ground-based detectors are sensitive to. The GWs emitted by some of these sources (such as those emitted by SMBH mergers) will be extremely loud, generating signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) in the thousands, which will allow us to prove fundamental physics deeply. Other GWs will be less loud, but they will be extremely complex, as is the case for waves generated by EMRIs; these waves will contain intricate amplitude and phase modulations that will encode the BH geometry in which the small compact object zooms and whirls. The observation of GWs with LISA will also complement observations with pulsar timing arrays and EM observations of the B-mode polarization in the cosmic microwave background (CMB), which can inform us about fundamental physics at even lower frequencies.
The goal of this white paper is threefold. First, we aim to identify those topics in fundamental physics beyond the current standard models of particle physics, gravity and cosmology that are particularly relevant for the scientific community, in order to delineate and sharpen LISA’s potential in each of these areas. The organization of this article reflects this identification of topics, with each section covering one area. The range of areas is illustrated in Fig. 1. Second, within each section we summarize the state of the art of each of these areas, both from a theoretical and an observational point of view. In order to keep this article both manageable and useful, rather than presenting an extensive detailed review of each topic, we have opted for sufficiently concise “reviews”, referring to excellent recent articles in Living Reviews in Relativity and elsewhere for more details (see e.g., Barack et al. 2019). Put differently, the philosophy behind this white paper is to strive towards completion in terms of what are relevant branches of fundamental physics for LISA that we think ought to be explored further, rather than providing extensive background and technical details on each of the topics. Third, each section then assesses what must be done in order for LISA to live up to its scientific potential in these areas of fundamental physics. This is primarily where the living part of this article enters, which should be viewed in a LISA-specific context. Finally, we bring these different strands together and identify possible synergies in a roadmap section at the end.
In closing, let us note that this article is part of a series of LISA working group (WG) articles. Some of the topics discussed here are of interest to several WGs organized within the LISA Consortium. Strong synergies exist between the Fundamental Physics WG, the Cosmology, the Astrophysics, and the Waveform modelling WGs, each of which approaches the topics discussed in this article from different, complementary angles. One of the intended goals of this article is to promote these synergies and connect the WGs, specially the fundamental physics one to the LISA work package groups, so that the ideas presented here can be implemented and deployed in future LISA data analysis.
1.1 Abbreviations
We here list a set of abbreviations commonly used in this review article:
-
BH = Black hole
-
BBH = Binary black hole
-
BMS = Bondi–Van der Burg–Metzner–Sachs
-
CMB = Cosmic microwave background
-
DM = Dark matter
-
dCS = Dynamical Chern–Simons
-
ECO = Exotic compact object
-
EdGB = Einstein-dilaton-Gauss–Bonnet
-
EdM = Einstein-dilaton-Maxwell.
-
EEP = Einstein equivalence principle
-
EM = Electromagnetic
-
EMRI = Extreme mass-ratio inspiral
-
EsGB = Einstein-scalar-Gauss–Bonnet gravity
-
FLRW = Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker
-
GR = General relativity
-
GW = Gravitational waves
-
IMBH = Intermediate-mass black hole
-
IMR = Inspiral-merger-ringdown
-
LIGO = Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory
-
LISA = Laser Interferometer Space Antenna
-
LLI = Local Lorentz invariance
-
LPI = Local position invariance
-
MCMC = Markov Chain Monte Carlo
-
MBH = Massive black hole
-
NS = Neutron star
-
QNM = Quasinormal model
-
PBH = Primordial black hole
-
PN = Post-Newtonian
-
ppE = Parameterized post-Einsteinian
-
ppN = Parametrized post-Newtonian
-
SCO = Stellar compact object
-
SEP = Strong equivalence principle
-
SGWB = Stochastic gravitational wave background
-
SMBH = Supermassive black hole
-
SNR = Signal-to-noise ratio
-
TeVeS = Tensor-vector-scalar gravity
-
WD = White dwarf
-
WG = Working group
-
WEP = Weak equivalence principle
Henceforth, we use geometric units in which \(G = 1 = c\).
2 Tests of general relativity
2.1 Tests of Gravity and its fundamental principles
GWs and some of their major sources—BHs and relativistic stars—are among the most groundbreaking predictions of GR. It is hence rather intuitive that GW observations should offer unique insights into the workings of gravity and the fundamental principles that underpin GR.
2.1.1 The equivalence principle
The various versions of the equivalence principle are commonly used as a theoretical foundation of GR and as guiding principles for tests of gravity (Will 1993).
The Weak Equivalence Principle (WEP) postulates that the trajectory of a freely falling test body is independent of its structure and composition, providing the fact that there are no external forces acting on this body such as electromagnetism. The Einstein Equivalence Principle (EEP) goes one step further and combines the WEP, Local Lorentz Invariance (LLI), and Local Position Invariance (LPI). The LLI is connected with the assumption that the outcome of any local non-gravitational test experiment is independent of the velocity of the freely-falling frame of reference where this experiment is performed. The LPI requires that the outcome of such an experiment is independent of where and when it is performed. The Strong Equivalence Principle (SEP) is equivalent to the EEP with the WEP extended to self-gravitating bodies and the LLI and LPI to any experiment.
The EEP dictates the universality of couplings in the standard model because of LLI and LPI. The SEP takes this even further and implies that the gravitational coupling is fixed as well. Testing the SEP is often considered synonymous to testing GR itself (Will 1993). If the SEP is fulfilled, the only field that is a mediator of the gravitational interaction should be the spacetime metric. Conversely, the existence of new fields mediating gravity would generically lead to violations of the SEP (which might appear only in specific systems, depending on how elusive the fields are).
2.1.2 Lovelock’s theorem and GR uniqueness
The discussion above already suggests strongly that testing GR (classically) amounts to looking for new fields. An independent way to reach the same conclusion is to start from Lovelock’s theorem (Lovelock 1972): Einstein’s field equations are unique, assuming that we are working in four dimensions, diffeomorphism invariance is respected, the metric is the only field mediating gravity, and the equations are second-order differential equations. Violating any of these assumption can circumvent Lovelock’s theorem and lead to distinct alternative theories of gravity. However, the vast majority of themFootnote 1 will share one property: they will contain one or more additional fields (see e.g., Sotiriou 2015b). Demonstrating this mathematically might require compactifying spacetime down to 4-dimensions, introducing additional fields to restore diffeomorphism invariance, and performing field redefinitions.
The realization that testing the SEP and looking for deviations from GR largely amounts to looking for new fields allows one to understand intuitively how compact objects and GWs can be used to probe such deviations. When the new fields have a nontrivial configuration around a BH or compact star, the latter can be thought of as carrying a ‘charge’ (this might not be a conserved charge associated to a gauge symmetry). Field theory intuition tells us that accelerating charges radiate. Hence, binaries beyond GR will exhibit additional GW polarizations. Emission in extra polarizations affects the rate of energy loss and, in turn, the orbital dynamics. So, the pattern of emission of conventional polarizations will also be affected. In Sect. 2.2.1 we discuss how the structure of BHs—primary sources for LISA—can be affected by new fields, whereas in the rest of Sect. 2.2 we discuss how deviations from GR can be imprinted in different parts of the waveform or affect GW propagation.
2.2 Testing GR with compact objects
2.2.1 BHs beyond GR and theories that predict deviations
There exist no-hair theorems for a wide range of alternative theories of gravity (Bekenstein 1997; Doneva and Yazadjiev 2020; Hawking 1972; Herdeiro and Radu 2015; Hui and Nicolis 2013; Sotiriou 2015a; Sotiriou and Faraoni 2012) stating that the quiescent, isolated BHs are indistinguishable from their GR counterpart. If the additional fields can be excited, quasinormal mode (QNM) ringing can still be distinct from GR (Barausse and Sotiriou 2008; Molina et al. 2010; Tattersall and Ferreira 2018) and hence offer a possibility of test theories that are covered by no-hair theorems. Models that manage to circumvent no-hair theorems are expected to lead to more prominent deviations from GR in GW signals, as they can posses additional charges and exhibit additional interactions that can affect all parts of the waveform.
Scalar fields coupled to the Gauss–Bonnet invariant or the Pontryagin density (dynamical Chern–Simons gravity) are known to lead to BH hair (Benkel et al. 2017, 2016; Campbell et al. 1992; Delgado et al. 2020b; Delsate et al. 2018; Kanti et al. 1996; Sotiriou and Zhou 2014a, b; Stein 2014; Yagi et al. 2012c; Yunes and Pretorius 2009a; Yunes and Stein 2011) which can be observed with LISA (Maselli et al. 2020a; Yagi and Stein 2016; Yagi et al. 2012b). Such couplings are expected in low-energy limits of quantum gravity (see e.g., Ashtekar et al. 1989; Jackiw and Pi 2003; Metsaev and Tseytlin 1987) and are part of the Horndeski class of scalar-tensor theories (Kobayashi 2019). A coupling to the Pontryagin density is the leading-order parity violating term in gravity in the presence of a (pseudo) scalar (Alexander and Yunes 2009; Jackiw and Pi 2003), while the linear coupling with the Gauss–Bonnet invariant is the only term inducing hair for shift-symmetric (aka massless) scalars (Delgado et al. 2020b; Saravani and Sotiriou 2019; Sotiriou and Zhou 2014a) and the leading correction for GW emission (Witek et al. 2019). A nonlinear coupling with the Gauss–Bonnet invariant has recently been shown to give rise to BH spontaneous scalarization triggered by curvature (Blázquez-Salcedo et al. 2018; Collodel et al. 2020; Cunha et al. 2019; Doneva and Yazadjiev 2018; Macedo et al. 2019; Silva et al. 2018, 2019) or spin (Berti et al. 2021; Dima et al. 2020; Doneva et al. 2020a, b; Herdeiro et al. 2021; Hod 2020). The full set of Horndeski theories that can give rise to BHs scalarization has been identified in Antoniou et al. (2018).
Attempts have also been made to circumvent no-hair theorems by relaxing their assumptions. For example, superradiance can support long-lived scalar clouds for very light scalars (Arvanitaki and Dubovsky 2011; Brito et al. 2015b) or lead to hairy BHs for complex scalars with a time dependent phase (Collodel et al. 2020; Delgado et al. 2019; Herdeiro et al. 2018a; Herdeiro and Radu 2014b; Herdeiro et al. 2015; Kleihaus et al. 2015); long-lived scalar “wigs” can be formed around a Schwarzschild BH (Barranco et al. 2012, 2014); configurations with time-dependent scalar fields can be supported by some non-trivial cosmological boundary conditions (Babichev and Charmousis 2014; Berti et al. 2013; Clough et al. 2019; Hui et al. 2019; Jacobson 1999); BHs immersed in an inhomogeneous scalar field were considered in Healy et al. (2012); scalarization can be induced by matter surrounding a BH (Cardoso et al. 2013a, b; Herdeiro et al. 2018b).
BHs in Lorentz-violating theories, such as Einstein-aether theory (Jacobson 2007; Jacobson and Mattingly 2001) and HoVision Res.ava gravity (Blas et al. 2010; Horava 2009b; Sotiriou 2011), will generically carry hair, as the field that breaks Lorentz symmetry will have to be nontrivial and may backreact on the geometry (see, however, Adam et al. 2021; Ramos and Barausse 2019). In such theories, new fields can propagate superluminally or even instantaneously (Bhattacharyya et al. 2016a; Blas and Sibiryakov 2011), even when all known constraints are satisfied (Emir Gümrükçüoǧlu et al. 2018; Sotiriou 2018). Indeed, BHs in Lorentz-violating theories can have a nested structure of different horizons for different modes (Barausse et al. 2011; Eling and Jacobson 2006) and potentially a universal horizon that traps all signals (Barausse et al. 2011; Bhattacharyya et al. 2016b; Blas and Sibiryakov 2011). GW observations can probe this richer causal structure and yield novel constraint on Lorentz symmetry breaking.
Hairy BHs have been studied in a variety of other scenarios and theories, including generalized Proca theories (Babichev et al. 2017; Heisenberg et al. 2017; Herdeiro et al. 2016; Kase et al. 2018; Minamitsuji 2017; Rahman and Sen 2019; Santos et al. 2020) and massive gravity theories (Berezhiani et al. 2012; Comelli et al. 2012; Rosen 2017).
2.2.2 Tests with GW propagation
The propagation of GWs provides a clean test of their kinematics. In GR, gravitons are massless spin-2 particles, while in alternative gravity theories, they might be massive (Abbott et al. 2016b; Hassan and Rosen 2012; de Rham et al. 2011; Will 1998), or even have a Lorentz-violating structure in the dispersion relation (Blas et al. 2010; Horava 2009b; Jacobson 2007; Jacobson and Mattingly 2001; Kostelecký and Mewes 2016; Mirshekari et al. 2012; Shao 2020; Sotiriou 2011). Modifications to the dispersion relation could lead to frequency-dependent, polarization-dependent, direction-dependent propagating velocities of GWs. Eventually, while these components travel at different velocities, the gravitational waveforms received on the Earth are distorted, with respect to their original chirping structure at generation (Kostelecký and Mewes 2016; Will 1998). Therefore, a matched-filter analysis allowing the possibility of the modified GW propagation in the waveform will reveal the nature of graviton kinematics (see e.g., Abbott et al. 2016b) and provide stringent constraints on the mass of the graviton and on Lorentz symmetry violations. The binary neutron star (NS) merger GW170817 has already provided a strong, double-sided bound on the speed of GWs to a part in \(10^{15}\) (Abbott et al. 2017e). However, Lorentz-violating theories have multidimensional parameter spaces and generically exhibit additional polarizations (Sotiriou 2018). The speed of these other polarizations remains virtually unconstrained (Emir Gümrükçüoǧlu et al. 2018; Oost et al. 2018). A combination of multiple GW events can also be used to simultaneously constrain a set of beyond-GR parameters (Shao 2020).
GWs travel over cosmological distances before they reach the detector. On a Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) background, we can describe GWs by \(h_{ij}\), the transverse and traceless perturbation of the spatial metric, \(g_{ij} (\mathbf{x},t) = a^2(t) \left[ \delta _{ij} + h_{ij} (\mathbf{x},t) \right] \). In Fourier space, the most general modification of the GW propagation equation can be written as (assuming spatially flat models) (Barausse et al. 2020; Ezquiaga 2021; Ezquiaga and García-Bellido 2018)
where \(H \equiv \dot{a} /a\) is the Hubble rate. The parameters \(c_{\mathrm{T}}\), \(\Gamma \) and D respectively describe the speed of propagation of the wave, the damping of its amplitude and additional modifications of the dispersion relation. Scale-independent modifications, described by a k-independent \(\Gamma \), are discussed in Sect. 5. One expects a single observation to exclude \(\Gamma \gtrsim L^{-1}\) and \(D \gtrsim f L^{-1} \), where L is the distance to the source and f the GW frequency, although the detailed constraints are also controlled by the frequency dependence of these quantities. \(c_{\mathrm{T}}\), \(\Gamma \) and D will depend on the theory of gravity and on the cosmological background. Hence, one can translate bounds on these parameters into bounds on a given model. For example, the speed of GW bound has severely constrained generalized scalar-tensor theories (Ben Achour et al. 2016; Crisostomi et al. 2016; Deffayet et al. 2011; Gleyzes et al. 2015; Horndeski 1974; Langlois and Noui 2016; Zumalacárregui and García-Bellido 2014) under the assumption that they account for dark energy (Baker et al. 2017; Creminelli and Vernizzi 2017; Ezquiaga and Zumalacárregui 2017; Lombriser and Taylor 2016; McManus et al. 2016; Sakstein and Jain 2017) (see also de Rham and Melville 2018). Relaxing this assumption (Antoniou et al. 2021; Franchini and Sotiriou 2020; Noller et al. 2020) can lift the constraint.
GW propagation tests can also reveal potential couplings and decays of gravitons into other particles (e.g., Creminelli et al. 2020) or oscillations between different states (analogous to neutrino oscillations). The latter are expected in bigravity models (Hassan and Rosen 2012), where a massless and a massive spin-2 fields interact in a specific way to avoid ghost degrees of freedom. The lightest tensor mode is the one that couples to matter and its speed can be constrained as above if there is a prompt EM counterpart. Its amplitude determines the ratio between the luminosity distance of GWs and the one of EM radiation, which oscillates as a function of redshift. Using several astrophysical population models for the population of massive black hole binaries (Barausse 2012; Klein et al. 2016) and performing a \(\chi ^2\) analysis, it was found that oscillation effects can be observed for masses \(m\gtrsim 2 \times 10^{-25}\,\)eV (Belgacem et al. 2019c). Thus LISA will provide a \(\sim 3\) order of magnitude improvement in mass sensitivity over the current LIGO/Virgo limit, which probes \(m \gtrsim 10^{-22}\)eV (Max et al. 2017), due to the larger oscillation baseline and the lower detection frequency.
2.2.3 Tests of GR with MBH coalescence
a. Inspiral: LISA will observe very long inspiral phases and it will therefore allow for high precision tests of gravity (Berti et al. 2005). This stage can be modelled using approximate techniques such as the low-velocity, weak-field PN expansion (Poisson and Will 2014), or the parameterized post-Einsteinian approach (ppE) (Yunes and Pretorius 2009b), that is better suited in certain cases for alternative theories of gravity. Even though tests of the GR nature of the waveforms can be performed without linking to specific alternative theories of gravity within the PN or ppE approaches, connecting the predictions of the different generalizations of Einstein’s theory with the possible deviations in the GR expectation values of the PN or ppE parameters is an inseparable part of testing the possible violations of the GR fundamental symmetries (Berti et al. 2018).
Using the inspiral observations, LISA will be able to improve the constraints on different non-GR predictions, such as the scalar dipole radiation, Lorenz symmetry, mass of the graviton, etc., by several orders of magnitude better compared to LIGO/Virgo (Chamberlain and Yunes 2017). Many alternative theories of gravity predict non-zero tidal deformation of BHs (Cardoso et al. 2017) and that can be also tested using the inspiral waveforms.
Even more intriguing is the possibility for multiband GW observations of BBH mergers. The separation between the two members of a BBH determines the frequencies of the emitted GW signal. A binary that will be in the observational band of LISA at large separation can several years later enter the band of ground-based detectors. Using LISA observations and assuming GR, one can then obtain high-accuracy predictions of the time when the binary will become observable by ground-based detectors as well as its position on the sky (Sesana 2016). Any deviation of the former, observed by a ground based detector, would imply a breakdown of GR. For example, joint observations of a LIGO/Virgo and LISA of a GW150914-like event could improve constraints on BBH dipole emission by 6 orders of magnitude (Barausse et al. 2016; Toubiana et al. 2020). The possibility of observing the same system more than once for a prolonged period will offer the opportunity to test completely nonlinear predictions of some generalized scalar-tensor theories, such as dynamical BH scalarization (Khalil et al. 2019).
b. Ringdown: In GR, numerical simulations have shown that the end state of a BBH merger is a Kerr BH (e.g., Boyle et al. 2019; Healy and Lousto 2020; Jani et al. 2016) in agreement with the earlier analytical studies proving that the Kerr metric is the unique stationary, asytmptotically flat, axially symmetric BH spacetime (Bunting 1983; Carter 1971; Mazur 1982; Robinson 1975) (see Chrusciel et al. 2012; Heusler 1996 for a review). Before reaching the final Kerr state, the BH emits GWs in QNMs, which are labeled by their overtone numbers, n, and angular numbers (l, m) and are determined by these numbers (l, m, n) plus the mass M and spin parameter a of the Kerr BH (Berti et al. 2009). Measuring several of these QNMs would allow for “BH spectroscopy,” in which a perturbed Kerr BH is identified by the spectrum of QNMs in its ringdown GWs (Berti et al. 2006; Detweiler 1980a; Dreyer et al. 2004). Specifically, for a given BBH merger, the number and amplitude of QNMs excited during the ringdown is determined by the individual BHs and their orbital parameters prior to merger (Kamaretsos et al. 2012). If at least two of the QNMs can be measured from the ringdown of a BH, then by knowing which modes were excited, one can verify that the two QNM frequencies and two QNM damping times are both consistent with the same mass M and spin a parameters of the remnant Kerr BH, within the errors of the observation (Berti et al. 2006; Dreyer et al. 2004). For a high SNR massive BBH event measured by LISA, this “no hair” (or “final-state”) test can be performed to verify the remnant is consistent with a Kerr BH to high precision (e.g., Gossan et al. 2012).
If the underlying gravity theory differs from GR, the ringdown of a BBH merger will also typically differ from the ringdown in GR. Computing the QNMs in modified theories is typically challenging, as is performing NR simulations of BBH mergers in modified gravity theories (both of which have only been performed in a handful of cases, e.g., Blázquez-Salcedo et al. 2016; Cardoso and Gualtieri 2009; Okounkova 2020; Okounkova et al. 2020). This makes it difficult to look for deviations in a particular modified theory. Parametrized tests are instead used to look for deviations. In Tattersall et al. (2018), deviations from linear perturbations about a Schwarzschild BH in GR were parametrized at the level of a diffeomorphism-invariant action that encompassed a large range of possible theories that lead to second-order equations of motion. A more phenomenological approach to the test for deviations from GR during ringdown is to perform a parametrized test in which the QNM frequencies are given by the Kerr values plus small deviations, in a “post-Kerr” expansion (Glampedakis et al. 2017). There are also procedures to try to combine the deviation parameters from multiple BBH events measured by LISA (Maselli et al. 2020b). With more detailed predictions from specific theories, parametrized constraints could be converted into constraints on a particular theory.
c. Merger: The merger phase of a BBH inspiral is arguably when the nonlinear effects of gravity truly manifest themselves. This makes it a very challenging regime to model, requiring full nonlinear evolutions of the field equations. A model-independent self-consistency test, such as the IMR consistency test (Ghosh et al. 2016a, 2017) could be used in order to avoid having to model the merger in alternative theories of gravity. However, having theory-specific waveforms that include the merger is essential. It can provide more stringent constraints and it is necessary for interpreting them physically. It can also be used to quantitatively explore deviations from GR that do not affect other parts of the waveform—e.g. new fields that are highly excited by nonlinear effects and decay rapidly—and guide and calibrate parametrizations.
Numerical simulations beyond GR have only been performed in a handful of cases, most notably for scalar nonminimally coupled to curvature invariants (Benkel et al. 2016, 2017; Cayuso and Lehner 2020; East and Ripley 2021; Okounkova et al. 2017, 2019b, 2020; Silva et al. 2021b; Witek et al. 2019) and for Einstein–Maxwell-dilaton theory (Hirschmann et al. 2018). Establishing whether the initial value problem is well-posed in alternative theories is particularly challenging (Cayuso et al. 2017; Kovács and Reall 2020; Papallo and Reall 2017; Ripley and Pretorius 2019b; Sarbach et al. 2019). So far, known simulations have circumvented this problem by adopted Effective Field Theory inspired treatments: either working perturbatively in the new coupling constants (Benkel et al. 2016, 2017; Okounkova et al. 2017, 2019b, 2020; Witek et al. 2019) or adopting a scheme similar to the Israel-Stewart treatment of viscous relativistic hydrodynamics, in which additional fields are introduced to render the system hyperbolic and then exponentially ‘damped’ so that the evolution equation match the initial system asymptotically (Cayuso et al. 2017). Nonlinear evolution beyond GR is one of the major challenges in GW modelling.
2.2.4 Test of GR with EMRIs (non-null tests)
GW observations of EMRIs offer the opportunity to probe gravity in a mass range which is unique to LISA. In such systems a stellar mass object orbits around a more massive component, with typical mass ratios of the order of \(q\sim 10^{-5} -10^{-7}\), leading to a large number of accumulated cycles before the merger, proportional to \(\sim 1/q\). The signal produced by the slow inspiral provides a detailed map of the spacetime that will be able to pinpoint deviations from GR predictions (if any) and requires detailed knowledge of the emitted waveform to avoid spurious systematics (Barack and Pound 2019; Pound 2015a).
Despite progress within GR (Pound et al. 2020), tests of gravity with EMRIs have been so far limited to systematic calculations in modified theories, in which the different couplings to the gravity sector require, in general, a theory-by-theory analysis. These additional degrees of freedom, introduced as scalar, vector or tensor modes, activate extra emission channels that modify the binary phase evolution. These changes are expected to leave a detectable footprint in the emitted signal and be augmented by the large number of cycles followed by EMRIs. Calculations for non GR theories with non minimally coupled scalar fields have mainly investigated the changes in the emitted flux within the adiabatic approximation, for some orbital configurations (including generic orbits) around spinning BHs (Blázquez-Salcedo et al. 2016; Canizares et al. 2012; Cardoso et al. 2011; Fujita and Cardoso 2017; Pani et al. 2011a; Yunes et al. 2012). These works have shown how, depending on the magnitude of the couplings, in some cases the accumulated GW phase can be large to produce hundreds of cycles of difference in the binary evolution compared to GR. The projected constraints inferred by LISA on the parameters of non-GR theories using approximate waveforms (Canizares et al. 2012; Yunes et al. 2012), and modelling beyond the adiabatic approximation, i.e., taking into account self-force calculations (Zimmerman 2015), requires further work.
Drastic simplifications in the EMRI modelling beyond GR have been recently proven to hold for a vast class of theories, for which no-hair theorems or separations of scales provide a decoupling of the metric and scalar perturbations (Maselli et al. 2020a). This result allows one to describe the background spacetime as in GR, rendering all the modifications induced by the modified theory to be universally captured by the scalar field’s charge only. It has already been used to show that the latter can be measured with unprecedented precision (Maselli et al. 2022). In this framework waveform modelling beyond GR can take advantage of all the efforts devoted so far to study the evolution of scalar charges around Kerr BHs (Barack and Burko 2000; Castillo et al. 2018; Detweiler et al. 2003; Diaz-Rivera et al. 2004; Gralla et al. 2015; Nasipak et al. 2019; Warburton 2015; Warburton and Barack 2010, 2011).
2.2.5 Gravitational memory and BMS symmetry
GR predicts that the passage of a GW causes a permanent displacement in the relative position of two inertial GW detectors. This phenomenon is known as the displacement memory effect (Christodoulou 1991; Ludvigsen 1989; Payne 1983; Thorne 1992) (see Compère 2019a; Strominger 2018 for an account of historical references). Studies on the detection of the displacement memory effects in actual experiments have been presented in Favata (2009b, 2009a, 2010, 2011). More recently, prospects for the memory effect detection with LISA have been discussed in Islo et al. (2019) using SMBH binaries undergoing coalescence (See also Sect. 3). In addition to the displacement memory effect, other and subdominant effects such as the spin memory and center of mass memory effects can also take place (Flanagan et al. 2019; Nichols 2017, 2018; Pasterski et al. 2016). Generalizations of the memory effect, not necessarily motivated or associated to a symmetry, which should in principle be measurable, have also been discussed in Compère (2019b); Flanagan et al. (2019), and further memory effects with logarithmic branches have been inferred from graviton amplitude calculations (Laddha and Sen 2019; Sahoo and Sen 2019).
Measurement of memory effects would not only act as a test of GR (Flanagan et al. 2019; Hou and Zhu 2021; Nichols 2017, 2018; Tahura et al. 2021a, b), but it could also potentially shed light on puzzling infrared aspects of quantum field theories. Ideally isolated systems in GR can be described by asymptotically flat spacetimes. At null infinity, the symmetry group of asymptotically flat spacetimes in GR is known to be larger than the Poincare group of symmetries. It contains the original infinite-dimensional Bondi–Van der Burg–Metzner–Sachs (BMS) group which is a semi-direct product of the Lorentz group and of an infinite-dimensional group of “angle dependent translations” called supertranslations (Bondi et al. 1962; Sachs 1962). Further extensions of the BMS group have also been proposed (Barnich and Troessaert 2010; Campiglia and Laddha 2015). BMS supertranslations can be related to the gravitational memory effect in that the relative positions of two inertial detectors before and after the passage of a GW differ by a BMS supertranslation. In addition, perturbative quantum gravity admits remarkable infrared identities among its scattering amplitudes, the soft theorems, that have been demonstrated to be the Ward identities of BMS symmetries (Strominger and Zhiboedov 2016; Strominger 2018). The classical limit of the quantum soft theorems are equivalent after a Fourier transformation to the memory effects (Strominger and Zhiboedov 2016). Measuring memory effects therefore directly probes the infrared structure of quantum gravity amplitudes.
The detection of GW bursts with memory with the LISA instrument could be considered from SMBH binary mergers. Over a SMBH binary lifetime, memory undergoes a negligible growth prior to merger (corresponding to the slow time evolution of the binary’s inspiral), rapid accumulation of power during coalescence, and eventual saturation to a constant value at ringdown. Islo et al. (2019) study a simulation-suite of semi-analytic models for the SMBH binary population with a signature of a memory signal from a SMBH binary approximated in the time domain by a step-function centered at the moment of coalescence and assuming a simple power-law model to emulate any environmental interaction which could influence the coalescence timing (e.g., final parsec problem Begelman et al. 1980). SMBH could stall before reaching a regime where GW radiation can drive the binary to coalesce). Considering SMBH binaries at \(z < 3\) with masses in the range \((10^5 - 10^7)M_\odot \) and with mass ratios in the range 0.25–1, LISA prospects could be SNR \(> 5\) events occurring 0.3–2.8 times per year in the most optimistic environmental interaction model, and less than once per million years in the most pessimistic. As shown in Klein et al. (2016); Sesana et al. (2007) (and discussed in the Astrophysics WG White Paper by Amaro-Seoane et al. 2022), most massive BBHs coalescences whose inspiral signature yields LISA SNR \( > 5\) lie beyond \(z = 3\) for a 3-year LISA lifetime, meaning that the results of this study may be interpreted as lower limits on the number of LISA memory events.
2.3 Burning questions and needed developments
Let us now summarize some important questions that ought to be further investigated in the context of tests of GR, without being however exhaustive.
-
Even in theories where black holes deviate from Kerr, or strong field dynamics deviates from GR, deviation can be very small once consistency and known viability constraints are imposed or once the dependence of any new charge on the mass or the spin are taken into account. Further work is needed to pin down theories and scenarios that could lead to deviations that are observable by LISA.
-
LISA inspiral observations will allow to put severe constraints on different non-GR predictions. This, however, will require a more accurate and complete development of GW waveforms including non-GR effects.
-
Numerical simulations with a systematic inclusion of non-GR effects for the merger and ringdowns phase have to be performed such as to get more adequate templates to be then used once data will be available.
-
Similarly more detailed studies of the EMRIs waveforms including non GR effects have to be performed in a systematic way.
-
GW propagation tests are sensitive to potential couplings and decays of gravitons into other particles. Due to the larger oscillation baseline and lower frequency range LISA could improve substantially present LIGO/Virgo bounds. Present studies are preliminary and further analysis could be useful.
3 Tests of the nature of BHs
3.1 The Kerr hypothesis
In vacuum GR, the Carter–Robinson (Carter 1971; Robinson 1975) uniqueness theorem, with later refinements (see Chrusciel et al. 2012 for a review), establishes that the Kerr geometry (Kerr 1963) is the unique physically acceptable equilibrium, asymptotically flat BH solution. This led to the more ambitious proposal that, regardless of the initial energy-matter content available in a gravitational collapse scenario, the dynamically formed equilibrium BHs belong to the Kerr family (in the absence of gauge charges) (Ruffini and Wheeler 1971). Accordingly, (near-)equilibrium astrophysical BH candidates are well described by the Kerr metric. This working proposal is the Kerr hypothesis. Testing the Kerr hypothesis is an important cornerstone of strong-gravity research in which GW science, and, in particular, LISA, are expected to give key contributions.
Deviations from the Kerr hypothesis, that we shall refer to as non-Kerrness, require either modified gravity (discussed in Sect. 2 and also below with a different twist) or non-vacuum GR (discussed in Sect. 3.2.1). Moreover, two approaches are, in principle, possible for studying non-Kerrness. The most explored one is theory dependent: to consider specific choices of matter contents or modified gravity models, compute the BH solutions (which, generically, will be non-Kerr), and finally explore the different phenomenology of a given model. The second one is theory agnostic: to consider parametrized deviations from the Kerr metric, regardless of the model they solve (if any). The latter has been fruitfully employed in studying BH phenomenology in stationary scenarios, e.g., Cardoso et al. (2014b); Johannsen and Psaltis (2011), but its application in the study of dynamical properties is more limited, given the potential lack of an underlying theory.
A substantial departure from the Kerr hypothesis is to admit deviations from, or even the absence of, a classical horizon. This leads to hypothetical exotic compact objects (ECOs) with a compactness comparable to that of (classical) BHs (see Cardoso and Pani 2019 for a review). One motivation for such a dramatic scenario is that, from Penrose’s theorem (Penrose 1965), a classical BH (apparent) horizon implies the existence of spacetime singularities, under reasonable energy (and other) conditions. Thus, the absence of (or deviations from) a classical horizon could circumvent the singularity problem. Another motivation is that quantum corrections may be relevant at the horizon scale, even for small-curvature supermassive objects (Almheiri et al. 2013; Giddings 2006; Lunin and Mathur 2002a, b; Mathur 2005, 2009a, b; Mayerson 2020).
In this context it is also interesting that current LIGO/Virgo GW observations (especially the recent GW190814; Abbott et al. 2020d and GW190521; Abbott et al. 2020c, e, respectively in the lower-mass and upper-mass gap forbidden for standard stellar-origin BHs) do not exclude the possibility that ECOs might co-exist along with BHs and NSs. Models of ECOs are discussed in Sect. 3.2.2.
3.2 Deviations from the Kerr hypothesis
3.2.1 BHs in non-vacuum GR
There is a large class of models wherein (covariant) matter-energy is minimally coupled to Einstein’s gravity. These models obey the EEP (cf. Sect. 2.1.1) and fall into the realm of GR.
Including minimally coupled matter fields, with standard kinetic terms and obeying some energy conditions (typically the dominant) can be quite restrictive for the admissible BH solutions. In many models it prevents the existence of non-Kerr BHs. This has been typically established by model-specific no-hair theorems. Historically influential examples are the Bekenstein no-scalar and no-massive-vector hair theorems (Bekenstein 1972) (see Herdeiro and Radu 2015 for a review). Nonetheless, non-standard kinetic terms (e.g. Skyrme hair; Luckock and Moss 1986), negative energies (e.g. interacting real scalar hair; Nucamendi and Salgado 2003), non-linear matter models (e.g. Yang–Mills hair; Bizon 1990) or symmetry non-inheritance between the geometry and matter fields (e.g. synchronised bosonic hair; Herdeiro et al. 2016; Herdeiro and Radu 2014b) allow the existence of new families of BHs with hair, Footnote 2 co-existing with the vacuum Kerr solution.
The viability and relevance of any “hairy” BH model should be tested by dynamical considerations: besides demanding well posedness of the matter model, the non-Kerr BHs must have a dynamical formation mechanism and be sufficiently stable to play a role in astrophysical processes. Asymptotically flat BHs with Yang-Mills hair, for instance, are known to be perturbatively unstable (Zhou and Straumann 1991) whereas BHs with Skyrme hair are perturbatively stable (Heusler et al. 1992). However, both these fields are best motivated by nuclear physics, in which case the corresponding BH hair is, likely, astrophysically negligible (except, possibly, for small primordial BHs (PBHs)).
Potentially astrophysically relevant hairy BHs in GR occur in the presence of hypothetical (ultra-light) massive bosonic fields (such as the QCD axion, axion-like particles, dark photons, etc). These ultralight fields could be a significant component of the dark matter (Arvanitaki et al. 2010; Essig et al. 2013; Hui et al. 2017; Marsh 2016) and are predicted in a multitude of scenarios beyond the standard model of particle physics (Essig et al. 2013; Hui et al. 2017; Irastorza and Redondo 2018; Jaeckel and Ringwald 2010), including extra dimensions and string theories. They naturally interact very weekly and in a model-dependent fashion with baryonic matter, but their gravitational interaction is universal. The superradiant instability of Kerr BHs (Brito et al. 2015b), in the presence of (complex) ultralight bosonic fields (East and Pretorius 2017; Herdeiro and Radu 2017), or mergers of self-gravitating lumps of such ultraligh bosons (Sanchis-Gual et al. 2020) (known as bosonic stars—see Sect. 3.2.2) form BHs with synchronised bosonic hair. These BHs are themselves afflicted by superradiant instabilities (Ganchev and Santos 2018; Herdeiro and Radu 2014a), but possibly on long timescales, even cosmologically long (Degollado et al. 2018), which can render them astrophysically relevant. Superradiance triggered by real ultralight bosonic fields, on the other hand, leads to other effects, such as a SGWB, continuous GW sources from isolated BHs, effects in compact binaries, BH mass-spin gaps, etc, all relevant for LISA science (cf. Sect. 4.1).
3.2.2 ECOs: deviations from (or absence of) a classical horizon
ECOs (Giudice et al. 2016) is a generic name for a class of hypothetical dark compact objects without a classical BH horizon that, nonetheless, can mimic the phenomenology of BHs at the classical level. They may be described by their compactness (i.e. the inverse of their—possibly effective—radius in units of the total mass), reflectivity (as opposed to the perfect absorption by a classical BH horizon), and possible extra degrees of freedom related to additional fields (Cardoso and Pani 2019). Their compactness should be comparable to that of BHs; they may be (albeit need not be) ultracompact, i.e., possess bound photon orbits, such as light rings. If they do, they could be further classified according to whether the typical light-crossing time of the object is longer or shorter than the instability time scale of circular null geodesics at the photon sphere, which in turn depends on the object compactness and internal composition (Cardoso and Pani 2019).
Several models of ECOs have been conceived in order to overcome conceptual issues associated to BHs, such as their pathological inner structure and the information loss paradox. Under general conditions, Penrose’s theorem (Penrose 1965) implies that an apparent horizon always hides a curvature singularity wherein Einstein’s theory breaks down. Moreover, in the semi-classical approximation, BHs are thermodynamically unstable and have an entropy which is far in excess of a typical stellar progenitor (Hawking 1976). It has been argued that GWs may provide smoking guns for ECOs (Barausse et al. 2018; Cardoso and Pani 2017, 2019; Cardoso et al. 2016a, b; Giudice et al. 2016).
ECOs fall into two classes: some models are solutions of concrete field theories coupled to gravity, with known dynamical properties; other models are ad hoc proposals (to different extents) put forward to test phenomenological responses without a complete embedding in a concrete model. In the former case their maximum compactness is constrained by the Buchdahl’s theorem, when its hypotheses apply (Cardoso and Pani 2019). In the latter case details about the dynamical formation of the ECOs are unknown. But, as a general principle, it has been argued that quantum effects in the near would-be horizon region could prevent the formation of a horizon in a variety of models and theories (Giddings 2006; Lunin and Mathur 2002a, b; Mathur 2005, 2009a, b; Mayerson 2020; Mazur and Mottola 2004).
Amongst the first class of ECOs one of the most studied examples corresponds to bosonic stars. These are self-gravitating solitons, composed of either scalar (Jetzer 1992; Kaup 1968; Ruffini and Bonazzola 1969) or vector (Brito et al. 2016), massive complex fields, minimally coupled to Einstein’s gravity—see also Herdeiro et al. (2019); Herdeiro and Radu (2020); Herdeiro et al. (2017) for comparisons. Bosonic starsFootnote 3 arise in families of models with different classes of self-interactions of the bosonic fields, e.g., Colpi et al. (1986); Delgado et al. (2020a); Grandclement et al. (2014); Guerra et al. (2019); Kleihaus et al. (2005); Minamitsuji (2018); Schunck and Mielke (2003) and different field content, e.g., Alcubierre et al. (2018); they may also be generalized to modified gravity, e.g., Herdeiro and Radu (2018). Bosonic stars circumvent Derrick type no-soliton theorems (Derrick 1964) due to a symmetry non-inheritance between matter and geometry, as the latter is static/stationary and the former includes a harmonic time dependence (but with a time-independent energy-momentum tensor). Some bosonic stars are dynamically robust (Liebling and Palenzuela 2017), in particular perturbatively stable, with a known formation mechanism known as gravitational cooling (Di Giovanni et al. 2018; Seidel and Suen 1994). These can be evolved in binaries yielding gravitational waveforms, e.g., Bezares et al. (2017); Liebling and Palenzuela (2017); Palenzuela et al. (2008, 2017); Sanchis-Gual et al. (2019), that can be used—together with PN approximations (Pacilio et al. 2020)—as a basis to produce waveform approximants for GW searches. Their typical GW frequency depends crucially on the mass of the putative ultralight bosonic field and, depending on the range of the latter, the signal can fall in the frequency band of either LIGO/Virgo or LISA. Recently it was argued that one particular GW event, GW190521 (Abbott et al. 2020c), is well mimicked by a very eccentric collision of spinning Proca stars (Bustillo et al. 2021).
Bosonic stars have a cousin family of solitons in the case of real bosonic fields, called oscillatons (Seidel and Suen 1994). They have a weak time-dependence and slow decay, but can be very long lived, at least for spherical stars (Page 2004). Collisions of oscillatons and the corresponding waveforms have also been obtained, e.g., Clough et al. (2018).
Bosonic stars are the prototypical example of ECOs which are not meant to replace all BHs in the universe, but could in principle “co-exist” with them and be exotic sources for LISA. They could also be especially interesting for the BH seed problem at large redshift. Indeed, just like ordinary NSs, bosonic stars have a maximum mass beyond which they are unstable against gravitational collapse and classically form an ordinary BH. Other models that share the same features are anisotropic stars (Bayin 1982; Bowers and Liang 1974; Letelier 1980) (see Raposo et al. 2019a for a recent fully covariant model). Like bosonic stars, anistropic stars can evade Buchdahl’s theorem due to their large anisotropies in the fluid.
A more ambitious first-principle model of ECO—aiming instead at replacing the classical horizon completely—emerges in the fuzzball proposal (Lunin and Mathur 2002a, b; Mathur 2005, 2009a). In the latter the classical horizon is replaced by smooth horizonless geometries with the same mass, charges, and angular momentum as the corresponding BH (Balasubramanian et al. 2008; Bena and Warner 2013, 2008; Mathur 2005; Myers 1997). These geometries represent some of the microstates in the low-energy (super)gravity description. For special classes of extremal, charged, BHs (Horowitz et al. 1996; Maldacena et al. 1997; Strominger and Vafa 1996) one can precisely count the microstates that account for the BH entropy, thus providing a regular, horizonless, microscopic description of a classical horizon. In the fuzzball paradigm, all properties of a BH geometry emerge in a coarse-grained description which “averages” over the large number of coherent superposition of microstates, or as a ‘collective behavior’ of fuzzballs (Bena et al. 2019b, a; Bianchi et al. 2018, 2019, 2020b). Crucially, in this model quantum gravity effects are not confined close to the BH singularity, rather the entire interior of the BH is “filled” by fluctuating geometries, regardless of its curvature. It is worth noticing that, while being among the most motivated models for ECOs, fuzzballs anyway require beyond-GR physics confined at the horizon scale.
While microstate geometries emerge from a consistent low-energy truncation of string theory, other more phenomenological models sharing similar phenomenology have been proposed. For example, gravitational vacuum stars, or gravastars, are dark energy stars whose interior spacetime is supported by a negative-pressure fluid which is compensated by a thin shell of an ultrarelativistic positive-pressure fluid. Gravastars are not endowed with an event horizon and have a regular interior. Their model has been conceived in order to overcome the surprisingly huge BH entropy and to provide a model for a thermodynamically stable dark compact object (Mazur and Mottola 2004). The negative pressure might arise as a hydrodynamical description of one-loop QFT effects in curved spacetime, so gravastars do not necessarily require exotic new physics (Mottola and Vaulin 2006). In these models, the Buchdahl limit is evaded both because the internal effective fluid is anisotropic (Cattoen et al. 2005; Raposo et al. 2019a) and because the negative pressure violates some of the energy conditions (Mazur and Mottola 2015). Gravastars can also be obtained as the BH-limit of constant-density stars, past the Buchdahl limit (Posada and Chirenti 2019; Mazur and Mottola 2015). In this regime such configurations were found to be dynamically stable (Posada and Chirenti 2019).
Other models of ECOs include: wormholes (Damour and Solodukhin 2007; Lemos et al. 2003; Morris and Thorne 1988; Visser 1995), collapsed polymers (Brustein and Medved 2017; Brustein et al. 2017), nonlocal stars in the context of infinite derivative gravity (Buoninfante and Mazumdar 2019), dark stars (Barceló et al. 2009), naked singularities and superspinars (Gimon and Horava 2009), 2-2 holes (Holdom and Ren 2017), and quasi-BHs (Lemos and Weinberg 2004; Lemos and Zaslavskii 2008) (see Carballo-Rubio et al. 2018; Cardoso and Pani 2019 for some reviews on ECO models). Finally, it is worth mentioning that some of the existing proposals to solve or circumvent the breakdown of unitarity in BH evaporation involve changes in the BH structure, without doing away with the horizon. Some of the changes could involve “soft” modifications of the near-horizon region, such that the object still looks like a regular GR BH (Giddings 2013, 2017; Giddings et al. 2019), or drastic changes in the form of “hard” structures localized close to the horizon such as firewalls and other compact quantum objects (Almheiri et al. 2013; Giddings et al. 2019; Kaplan and Rajendran 2019). A BH surrounded by some hard structure—of quantum origin such as firewalls, or classical matter piled up close to the horizon—behaves for many purposes as an ECO.
Despite the wealth of models, ECOs are not without challenges. In addition to the lack of plausible concrete formation mechanisms in many models, there are other generic problems. One issue is that spinning compact objects with an ergoregion but without an event horizon are prone to the ergoregion instability when spinning sufficiently fast (Friedman 1978; Yoshida and Eriguchi 1996). The endpoint of the instability could be a slowly spinning ECO (Brito et al. 2015b; Cardoso et al. 2008) or dissipation within the object could lead to a stable remnant (Maggio et al. 2017, 2019a). Another potential issue is that ultracompact ECOs which are topologically trivial have not one but at least a pair of light rings, one of which is stable, for physically reasonable matter sources (Cunha et al. 2017). Such stable light rings have been argued to source a spacetime instability at nonlinear level (Cardoso et al. 2014a; Keir 2016), whose timescale or endpoint, however, are unclear.
3.3 Observables and tests
3.3.1 Inspiral-based test with SMBH binaries, IMBH binaries, and EMRIs
a. Non-gravitational emission channels by extra fundamental fields: An obvious difference between BHs and certain models of ECOs is that the latter could be charged under some gauge fields, as in the case of current fuzzball microstate solutions, quasi-BHs, and potentially other models that arise in extended theories of gravity. These fields might not be electromagnetic and can therefore avoid current bounds on the charge of astrophysical compact objects coming from charge neutralization and other effects (Barausse et al. 2014; Cardoso et al. 2016c). In addition, their effective coupling might be suppressed, thus evading current constraints from the absence of dipole radiation in BBHs (see Sect. 2). A detailed confrontation of given charged ECO models with current constraints on dipolar radiation remains to be done.
b. Multipolar structure & Kerr bound: The multipole moments of a Kerr BH satisfy an elegant relation (Hansen 1974)Footnote 4,
where \(\mathcal {M}_\ell \) (\(\mathcal {S}_\ell \)) are the Geroch–Hansen mass (current) multipole moments (Geroch 1970; Hansen 1974), \(\mathcal {M}={{\mathcal {M}}}_0\) is the mass, \(\chi \equiv {\mathcal {J} }/{\mathcal {M}^2}\) the dimensionless spin, and \(\mathcal {J}=\mathcal {S}_1\) the angular momentum. The multipole moments of the Kerr BH are non-trivial, but Eq. (2) implies that they are completely determined by its mass and spin angular momentum. Thus, there is a multipolar structure, but not multipolar freedom (unlike, say, in stars).
Furthermore, introducing the dimensionless quantities \(\overline{{{\mathcal {M}}}}_\ell \equiv \mathcal{M}_\ell /{{\mathcal {M}}}^{\ell {+}1}\) and \(\overline{{\mathcal {S}}}_\ell \equiv {{\mathcal {S}}}_\ell /{{\mathcal {M}}}^{\ell {+}1}\), the only nonvanishing moments of a Kerr BH are
for \(n=0,1,2,\ldots \). The fact that \({{\mathcal {M}}}_\ell =0\) (\({{\mathcal {S}}}_\ell =0\)) when \(\ell \) is odd (even) is a consequence of the equatorial symmetry of the Kerr metric, whereas the fact that all multipoles with \(\ell \ge 2\) are proportional to (powers of) the spin—as well as their specific spin dependence—is a peculiarity of the Kerr metric.
Non-Kerr compact objects (BHs or ECOs) will have, in general, a different multipolar structure. Differences will be model dependent, but can be considerable in some cases, e.g. for boson stars (Ryan 1997b) and BHs with synchronised scalar hair (Herdeiro and Radu 2014b). For ECOs, the tower of multipole moments is, in general, richer. The deformation of each multipole depends on the specific ECO’s structure, and in general vanishes in the high-compactness limit, approaching the Kerr value (Glampedakis and Pappas 2018; Pani 2015; Raposo and Pani 2020; Raposo et al. 2019b). In particular, a smoking gun of the “non-Kerrness” of an object would be the presence of moments that break the equatorial symmetry (e.g. the current quadrupole \({{\mathcal {S}}}_2\) or the mass octopole \({{\mathcal {M}}}_3\)), or the axisymmetry (e.g. a generic mass quadrupole tensor \({{\mathcal {M}}}_{2m}\) with three independent components (\(m=0,1,2\)), as in the case of multipolar boson stars (Herdeiro et al. 2021) and of fuzzball microstate geometries (Bena and Mayerson 2020, 2021; Bianchi et al. 2020a, 2021).
The multipolar structure of an object leaves a footprint in the GW signal emitted during the coalescence of a binary system, modifying the PN structure of the waveform at different orders. The lowest order contribution, entering at 2PN order is given by the intrinsic (typically spin-induced) quadrupole moment (Barack and Cutler 2007). LISA can be able to detect deviations in the multipole moments from supermassive binaries for comparable and unequal mass systems. So far proposed tests of the Kerr nature have been based on constraints of the spin-induced quadrupole \(M_2\) (Barack and Cutler 2007; Krishnendu et al. 2017), spin-induced octopole \(S_3\) (Krishnendu and Yelikar 2019), and current quadrupole \(S_2\) (Fransen and Mayerson 2022).
GW signals emitted by EMRIs will provide accurate measurements of the spin-induced quadrupole at the level of one part in \(10^4\) (Babak et al. 2017a; Barack and Cutler 2007), and of the equatorial symmetry breaking current quadrupole at the level of one part in \(10^2\) (Fransen and Mayerson 2022). A rather generic attempt to constrain the multipole moments of an axisymmetric and equatorially symmetric central object with EMRIs has been done in Ryan (1995, 1997a) by mapping gauge-invariant geodesic quantities into multipole moments in a small-orbital velocity expansion. Constraining the radiative multipole moments of the entire binary system has been discussed in Kastha et al. (2018, 2019); these constrain deviations from the GR expectation of the binary system without explicitly parametrizing the compact objects’ multipole structure.
c. Tidal heating: The compact objects in the binary produce a tidal field on each other which grows as the bodies approach their final plunge and merger. If the bodies dissipate some amount of radiation, these tides backreact on the orbit, transferring rotational energy from their spin into the orbit. This effect is known as tidal heating. For BHs, energy and angular momentum absorption by the horizon is responsible for tidal heating. This effect is particularly significant for highly spinning BHs and mostly important in the latest stages of the inspiral. Tidal heating can contribute to thousands of radians of accumulated orbital phase for EMRIs in the LISA band (Bernuzzi et al. 2012b; Datta and Bose 2019; Datta et al. 2020; Harms et al. 2014; Hughes 2001; Maggio et al. 2021; Taracchini et al. 2013). If at least one binary member is an ECO instead of a BH, dissipation is in general smaller than in the BH case or even negligible, therefore significantly reducing the contribution of tidal heating to the GW phase. This would allow to distinguish between BBHs and binary involving other compact objects. For LISA binaries, constraints of the amount of dissipation would be stronger for highly spinning objects and for binaries with large mass ratios (Datta et al. 2020; Maggio et al. 2021; Maselli et al. 2018). For EMRIs in the LISA band, this effect could be used to put a very stringent upper bound on the reflectivity of ECOs, at the level of \(0.01\%\) or better (Datta et al. 2020; Maggio et al. 2021). Absence of a horizon can also produce resonances that can be excited during EMRIs (Cardoso et al. 2019c; Macedo et al. 2013b; Maggio et al. 2021; Pani et al. 2010).
d. Tidal deformability: Tidal effects in compact binaries modify the dynamical evolution of the system, accelerating the coalescence. This modifies the orbital phase, and then in turn the GW emission (Hinderer et al. 2018; Poisson and Will 2014). The imprint on the waveform is encoded in a set of quantities which, as a first approximation, can be assumed to be constant during the coalescence (Hinderer et al. 2016; Maselli et al. 2012; Steinhoff et al. 2016): the tidal Love numbers (Binnington and Poisson 2009; Damour and Nagar 2009; Hinderer 2008). These numbers can be thought of as the specific multipole moment induced by an external tidal field, in a way akin to the electric susceptibility in electrodynamics. The main contribution in the GW signal from a binary is given by the quadrupolar term \(k_2\), connected to the tidal deformability \(\lambda =\frac{2}{3}k_2 R^5\), or in its dimensionless form \({\tilde{\lambda }}=\frac{2}{3} k_2 {{\mathcal {C}}}^5\), where R and \({{\mathcal {C}}}\) are the object radius and compactness, respectively.
The tidal Love numbers depend on the internal composition of the central object. So far, they have been used to constrain the properties of the nuclear equation of state through GW observations of binary NSs (Abbott et al. 2018a). For a fixed equation of state, i.e. composition, the Love numbers depend on the object compactness only.
The tidal Love numbers of a BH in GR are precisely zero. This was shown explicitly for Schwarzschild BHs, for both small (Binnington and Poisson 2009; Damour and Nagar 2009) and large (Gürlebeck 2015) tidal fields. The same result was shown to be valid for slowly rotating BHs up to the second (linear) order in the spin for axisymmetric (generic) tidal fields (Landry and Poisson 2015; Pani et al. 2015a, b; Poisson 2015). Very recently, this result was extended to any tidal Love number of a Kerr BH with arbitrary spin (see Charalambous et al. 2021, 2021; Chia 2021; Hui et al. 2021; Le Tiec and Casals 2021; Le Tiec et al. 2021 for literature on this topic).
For ECOs, the tidal Love numbers are generically different from zero. In analogy with the NS case they depend on the ECO’s structure, and may be used to trace back the underlying properties of each model (Cardoso et al. 2017; Giddings et al. 2019; Herdeiro et al. 2020; Johnson-McDaniel et al. 2020; Maselli et al. 2018, 2019; Pani 2015; Porto 2016; Raposo et al. 2019a; Sennett et al. 2017; Uchikata et al. 2016). For nonrotating BH mimickers, featuring corrections at the horizon scale and that approach the BH compactness, the Love numbers vanish in the limit \({{\mathcal {C}}}_\text {ECO}\rightarrow {{\mathcal {C}}}_\text {BH}\), often logarithmically (Cardoso et al. 2017).
LISA will be able to measure the tidal Love numbers of BH mimickers (Maselli et al. 2018), which are otherwise unmeasurable by current and future ground based detectors (Cardoso et al. 2017). In the comparable-mass case, this measurement requires highly-spinning supermassive ECO binaries up to \(10\,\mathrm{Gpc}\). LISA may also be able to perform model selection between different families of BH mimickers (Maselli et al. 2019), although this will in general require detection of golden binaries (i.e. binaries with a very large SNR) (Addazi et al. 2019). For a large class of slowly-rotating ECOs with compactness \({{\mathcal {C}}} \lesssim 0.3\), LISA can measure the Love numbers with very good accuracy below 1% (Cardoso et al. 2017). For (scalar) boson stars a recent study proposed a new data analysis strategy to consistently include several corrections (multipolar structure, tidal heating, tidal Love numbers) in the inspiral signal from boson star binaries, improving the accuracy on the measurement of the fundamental parameters of the theory by several orders of magnitude compared to the case in which the effects are considered independently (Pacilio et al. 2020).
Finally, EMRI observations can set even more stringent constraints, since the measurement errors on the Love number scale as \(q^{1/2}\), where \(q\ll 1\) is the mass ratio of the binary (Pani and Maselli 2019). A simplistic Newtonian estimate (that should be corroborated by a more sophisticated modelling and data analysis) suggests that in this case the tidal Love number of the central object can be constrained at the level of one part in \(10^5\) (Pani and Maselli 2019).
e. Integrability/Chaos: One particular probe of extreme gravity that is tailor-made for EMRI signals relates to chaos. For Hamiltonian systems, chaos refers to the non-integrability of the equations of motion, i.e. the non-existence of a smooth analytic function that interpolates between orbits, and has nothing to do with a system being non-deterministic (Levin 2006).
EMRIs in GR can be approximated, to zeroth-order, as geodesics of the Kerr spacetime, and the latter has enough symmetries to guarantee that geodesics are completely integrable and thus non-chaotic. Beyond the zeroth-order approximation, however, other effects, such as the spin of the small compact object, could break the integrability of the systems even within GR (Zelenka et al. 2020). In some modified theories, even the geodesic orbital motion might not be integrable (Cárdenas-Avendaño et al. 2018; Lukes-Gerakopoulos et al. 2010). This is also true for some models of ECOs, such as spinning scalar boson stars and non-Kerr BHs in GR (Cunha et al. 2016). In this sense, the presence of large chaotic features in the GWs emitted by EMRIs could signal a departure from the SEP, a violation of the Kerr hypothesis, or an environmental effect.
Modifications to GR are expected to change the fundamental frequencies of the orbital motion of test particles, which will be then be imprinted on the GWs emitted by the system. A careful study of the evolution of these fundamental frequencies will allow us to understand the importance of chaos to GR and to the observations of GWs from EMRIs (Cárdenas-Avendaño et al. 2018; Destounis et al. 2021; Gair et al. 2008; Lukes-Gerakopoulos et al. 2010).
f. Motion within ECOs: If the ECO interior is made of weakly-interacting matter, a further discriminator of the absence of a horizon (or of a hard surface) would be the motion of test particles within the object and its peculiar GW signal, most notably as in the case of an EMRI moving inside a supermassive ECO. This motion can be driven by a combination of the self-gravity of the central object, accretion, and dynamical friction, etc. The study of geodesic motion inside solitonic boson stars was analyzed in e.g., Kesden et al. (2005). The effects of accretion and drag were included in Barausse et al. (2014), Barausse et al. (2015), Macedo et al. (2013a) and Macedo et al. (2013b). These effects are model independent to a certain extent, since they mostly depend on the density profile. For this reason they also share some similarities with environmental tests of dark matter (see Sect. 4). In general, they could be a smoking-gun signature for the existence of structures in supermassive ultracompact objects.
3.3.2 Ringdown tests
a. QNMs: Similarly to what was discussed in Sect. 2, measuring the ringdown modes in the post-merger signal of a binary coalescence provides a clean and robust way to test GR and the nature of the remnant. If the latter is a Kerr BH in GR, its (infinitely countable) QNM spectrum is entirely determined only in terms of its mass and spin. Thus, detecting several QNMs provides us with multiple independent null-hypothesis tests, and would allow us to perform GW spectroscopy (Berti et al. 2009; Kokkotas and Schmidt 1999). From a more theoretical perspective, the study of the QNMs of compact objects is crucial to assess their linear stability.
The ringdown waveform originates from the perturbed remnant object, and consists of a superposition of (complex) QNMs, whose amplitudes depend on the binary progenitors and on the underlying theory. As previously discussed, the fundamental QNM frequency and damping time have been measured by LIGO/Virgo only for a few events, providing an independent measurement of the mass and spin of the remnant which is in agreement with what inferred from the inspiral-merger phase (Abbott et al. 2019b, 2021b). Among the entire second GW transient catalogue (Abbott et al. 2021b) the first GW event, GW150914, remains among those for which the fundamental QNM of the remnant has been measured with the highest precision (roughly \(3\%\) and \(7\%\) for the frequency and damping time, respectively). More recently, the importance of overtones has attracted considerable attention, especially because they allow one to start the fitting of the ringdown signal closer to the peak of the signal, improving mass and spin measurements (Isi et al. 2019a). Overtones are particularly useful for tests of GR with equal-mass binaries (for which other angular modes can be suppressed) (Bhagwat et al. 2020; Jiménez Forteza et al. 2020; Ota and Chirenti 2020), but a detailed study for LISA remains to be done. Overall, tests of the no-hair theorem rely also on the ability to estimate the starting time of the ringdown when the signal is dominated by the QNMs of the remnant and on the modelling of higher modes (Baibhav et al. 2018; Bhagwat et al. 2018, 2020; Brito et al. 2018; Giesler et al. 2019; Jiménez Forteza et al. 2020; Ota and Chirenti 2020).
The large SNR expected in LISA for ringdown signals of SMBH coalescences provides a unique opportunity to perform BH spectroscopy (Dreyer et al. 2004) and tests of the nature of the remnant. For a single “golden merger” up to redshift \(z=10\) several QNMs can be measured with unprecedented precision (Berti et al. 2016).
Besides introducing deformations in the QNM spectrum, if the remnant differs from a Kerr BH in GR, some further clear deviations in the prompt ringdown are: (i) possible presence of (or contamination from) other modes, e.g. fluid modes (Pani et al. 2009) in stars or extra degrees of freedom (e.g. scalar QNMs for boson stars; Macedo et al. 2013b), some of which—being at low frequency—could be resonantly excited during the inspiral (Cardoso et al. 2019c; Macedo et al. 2013b; Maggio et al. 2021; Pani et al. 2010); (ii) isospectrality breaking between modes that can be identified as even-parity and odd-parity in the zero-spin limit (Maggio et al. 2020). This produces a characteristic “mode doublet” in the ringdown. A generic framework to study the ringdown of a dark compact object was recently proposed in Maggio et al. (2020) by extending the BH membrane paradigm to ECOs.
b. Echoes: GW echoes (Cardoso et al. 2016a, b) in the post-merger signal of a compact binary coalescence might be a clear signature of near-horizon quantum structures (Abedi et al. 2017; Barceló et al. 2017; Cardoso et al. 2016a, b; Oshita and Afshordi 2019; Wang et al. 2020), ultracompact objects (Bueno et al. 2018; Cardoso et al. 2016a), exotic states of matter in ultracompact stars (Buoninfante and Mazumdar 2019; Ferrari and Kokkotas 2000; Pani and Ferrari 2018), and of modified theories of gravity (Buoninfante et al. 2019; Burgess et al. 2018; Delhom et al. 2019) (see Abedi et al. 2020; Cardoso and Pani 2017, 2017, 2019 for some recent reviews). Detecting echoes would give us the tantalizing prospect of probing the near-horizon structure of dark compact objects with the hope, in particular, to shed light on putative quantum properties of BHs (Ikeda et al. 2021).
If sufficiently compact, horizonless objects support quasi-bound modes trapped within their photon sphere (Cardoso et al. 2016a, b; Kokkotas 1995; Kokkotas and Schmidt 1999). For ultracompact objects the prompt ringdown is identical to that of a BH, since the signal is initially due only to the perturbation of the photon sphere, whereas the BH horizon is reached in infinite coordinate time (Cardoso et al. 2016a, b). At late times, a modulated train of GW echoes appears as a result of multiple reflections of the GWs between the object interior and the photon sphere, leaking out to infinity at each reflection. For the case of intermediate compactness, the prompt ringdown can show some differences with the BH case due to the interference with the first GW echoes (Maggio et al. 2020).
The delay time between echoes is related to the compactness of the object through a logarithmic dependence, which allows for tests of Planckian corrections at the horizon scale (Abedi et al. 2020; Cardoso and Pani 2017; Cardoso et al. 2016b; Oshita et al. 2020). The damping factor of subsequent echoes is related to the reflective properties of the compact object (Cardoso and Pani 2019; Maggio et al. 2019a, 2020; Price and Khanna 2017).
Several waveform templates for echo searches in LIGO/Virgo data have been developed, including: (i) templates in time domain based on standard IMR templates with additional parameters (Abedi et al. 2017; Nakano et al. 2017; Wang and Afshordi 2018); (ii) superposition of sine-Gaussians with free parameters (Maselli et al. 2017; iii) frequency-domain templatesFootnote 5 based on the physical ECO parameters (Maggio et al. 2019b; Mark et al. 2017; Testa and Pani 2018). The former were developed for matched-filtered searches. In addition, unmodelled searches based on wavelets adapted from burst searches (Tsang et al. 2018, 2020) and on Fourier windows (Conklin and Holdom 2019; Conklin et al. 2018) have been proposed. For a review on modelling and echo searches, see Abedi et al. (2020).
LIGO/Virgo O1 and O2 events triggered some controversial claims on hints of GW echoes detection. Independent searches found evidence for GW echoes in the O1-O2 events (Abedi and Afshordi 2019; Abedi et al. 2017; Conklin et al. 2018). However, a low statistical significance of such events has been claimed (Nielsen et al. 2019; Westerweck et al. 2018), followed by more recent negative searches (Lo et al. 2019; Tsang et al. 2020; Uchikata et al. 2019). Very recently, using a simplistic template, a dedicated search for echoes has been performed by the LIGO/Virgo Collaboration using the second GW transient catalogue (GWTC-2) (Abbott et al. 2021b), finding no evidence for echoes. This is consistent with independent studies using physically motivated templates, suggesting that that models with almost perfect reflectivity can be excluded/detected with current instruments (\(5\sigma \) confidence level with SNR in the ringdown of \(\approx 10\)), whereas probing values of the reflectivity smaller than \(80\%\) at \(3\sigma \) or more confidence level requires SNRs of \(\mathcal {O}(100)\) in the post-merger phase (Maggio et al. 2019b; Testa and Pani 2018). This makes LISA particularly well suited for echo searches.
c. GWs as messengers from the quantum world: The high sensitivity of LISA or of other advanced detectors will also allows to advance our understanding of quantum gravitational effects. One of the most long-standing ideas in this context is the proposal that the area of BH horizons is quantized in units of the Planck area \(A=\alpha \ell _p^2 N\), where N is an integer characterizing the BH quantum state, \(\alpha \) is an \({{\mathcal {O}}}(1)\) dimensionless coefficient and \(\ell _p\) is Planck’s length (Bekenstein 1974; Bekenstein and Mukhanov 1995; Mukhanov 1986). Transitions between states occur, surprisingly, at frequencies where ground- and space-based detectors operate. Thus, quantum BHs may have different tidal heating properties (Agullo et al. 2021; Cardoso et al. 2019a) or different tidal Love numbers (Brustein and Sherf 2022), and the coalescence of two BHs can lead to late-time echoes in the waveforms (Agullo et al. 2021; Cardoso et al. 2019a).
3.4 Burning questions and needed developments
Several issues discussed in this section need further detailed studies, among which we list the following:
-
A better understanding of the consequences of superradiant instabilities triggered by e.g. real ultralight bosonic fields on the SGWB, on continuous GW sources, and on binaries, which could be detected by LISA.
-
A comprehensive study of possible deviations of multipole moments for SMBH binaries is important to have a good tool at disposal for testing the Kerr nature of the BHs.
-
First-principle models of (possibly stable) ultracompact objects should be developed to provide viable candidates for a BH mimicker.
-
In general for testing the different effects such as tidal heating, tidal deformability, multipole moments, resonances, and ringdown effects, and echoes there is need to develop quite accurate waveforms, with several parameters describing possible deviations, and to perform accurate statistical analysis (e.g. Bayesian model selection), especially in the case of a putative signature of new physics in the data. Clearly, this also requires to develop very accurate GR waveforms.
4 Dark matter and primordial BHs
The fundamental nature of dark matter (DM) is one of the major unresolved questions in physics and cosmology. Its presence is inferred from various observations, such as galaxy rotation curves, gravitational lensing, galaxy cluster dynamics and CMB data (see Bertone et al. 2005a; Bertone and Hooper 2018; Carr et al. 2016 for reviews). These observations constrain its behavior on larger scales: DM must broadly behave as non relativistic, collisionless matter, with an average density in galactic haloes of the order of \(\sim 0.1 ~ {M_\odot ~ \mathrm {pc}^{-3}}\) (\(1 ~ \mathrm {GeV ~ cm^{-3}}\)), low velocity dispersions of order \(\sim 100 ~\mathrm{km ~s^{-1}}\), and it must be interacting weakly, if at all, with baryonic matter and with itself. However, the physical properties of its constituents, in particular their individual masses and spins, remain very poorly constrained.
This section is concerned with models where the DM consists of or is formed from (in the case of PBHs) some type of matter and not where the observed effects arise due to some modification to gravity, such as e.g., Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) (Sanders and McGaugh 2002), which is the topic of Sect. 2. There are two broad categories of dark matter:
-
1.
Particle dark matter, e.g. WIMPs or axions, where the problem of identification lies in determining the mass, spin and fundamental interactions of the particle (or particles).
-
2.
Macroscopic objects, e.g. primordial BHs (PBHs) or exotic compact objects (ECOs), where the distributions of masses and spins, as well as the matter from which they formed, are key aspects to be understood.
Nothing prevents DM from being a combination of several different components drawn from either or both of these categories. Moreover, some models (e.g. axions), are naturally hybrids, where the DM may primarily consist of unbound particles, but also form macroscopic gravitationally bound structures such as boson stars in overdense regions. A further aspect of DM on which observations may shed light is in identifying possible formation mechanisms, e.g. signatures of phase transitions, which often motivate particular DM models.
Several previous reviews have considered the potential for GWs to shed light on the nature of dark matter (Bertone and Tait 2018; Bertone et al. 2020; Giudice 2017). Further, a complementary white paper by the LISA Cosmology WG (Auclair et al. 2022) assesses the prospects of GW observations of DM from a cosmological angle. In this section we focus on the potential for LISA specifically to identify and constrain the particle nature of dark matter and its interactions. We summarise what is known to be possible, highlight promising areas which require further investigation, and detail the work that should be done prior to launch to enable us to correctly interpret the data that we will obtain. Figure 2 summarises the key candidates and regions which may be probed by LISA observations.
Before we proceed we note two caveats. First, effects described in this section may be degenerate with environmental effects described in Sect. 7 and in the waveform modling white paper. Breaking this degeneracy will be a key factor in our ability to accurately identify DM signatures. Second, we have in most cases been optimistic in assuming that LISA measurements will be optimized for the searches we describe and that models can allow for sufficiently precise predictions to proceed. Turning these caveats around, they could both be regarded as a starting point for action items for future work in order to ensure LISA’s science potential will be fully exploited.
We now present a number of interesting particle candidates, or rather categories of candidates, that have been explored so far, without making the above qualifications necessarily explicit in each section. We start by reviewing particle candidates, separated into low mass (sub eV) and high mass cases. This roughly divides cases where wave-like and particle-like behaviour respectively would dominate on astrophysically significant scales. We then turn to macroscopic candidates such as PBHs, where we separate candidates that would clearly be of primordial origin (sub \(M_\odot \)) from those that could arise from stellar evolution. The last two sections review the potential for enhanced signatures from additional fundamental interactions.
4.1 Low mass particles \(m < \text{eV}\)
In the past few years, the possibility that dark matter could be composed of ultralight bosons, with masses ranging anywhere between \(10^{-22}\,\mathrm{eV}\lesssim 1\) eV, has become a popular hypothesis (Ferreira 2021). A non-exhaustive list of theoretical models predicting the existence of such particles includes the well-known QCD axion proposed to solve the strong CP problem of QCD (Peccei and Quinn 1977; Wilczek 1978), axion-like particles arising in “string axiverse” scenarios (Arvanitaki et al. 2010), dark photons (Goodsell et al. 2009; Nelson and Scholtz 2011) and “fuzzy dark matter” (Hui et al. 2017).
Quite remarkably, GW observatories such as LISA could be used to constrain or find evidence for the existence of these particles. This stems from the fact that rotating BHs can become unstable against the production of light bosonic particles, if such particles exist in nature (Brito et al. 2013, 2020; Cardoso et al. 2018a; Damour et al. 1976; Detweiler 1980b; Dolan 2007, 2018; East 2017; Frolov et al. 2018; Moschidis 2016; Pani et al. 2012a, b; Shlapentokh-Rothman 2014; Witek et al. 2013), through a process known as BH superradiance (Brito et al. 2015b; Press and Teukolsky 1972; Zel’dovich 1971, 1972; Teukolsky and Press 1974). The instability spins the BH down, transferring up to a few percent of the BH’s mass and angular momentum to the boson field, forming a long-lived bosonic “cloud” outside the horizon (Arvanitaki and Dubovsky 2011; Arvanitaki et al. 2010, 2015, 2017; Baryakhtar et al. 2017; Brito et al. 2015a, b; Degollado et al. 2018; East 2018; East and Pretorius 2017; Ficarra et al. 2019; Herdeiro and Radu 2014b). Superradiance is most effective when the boson’s Compton wavelength is comparable to the BH’s gravitational radius (Dolan 2007; Witek et al. 2013), meaning that observations of astrophysical BHs in the supermassive to the stellar mass range, allow us to probe bosons with masses in the range \(10^{-21}\)–\(10^{-10}\) eV.
For real bosonic fields, the cloud dissipates over long timescales through the emission of nearly-monochromatic GWs with a typical frequency \(f\sim 2 c^2 m_b/h\), where \(m_b\) is the mass of the field (Arvanitaki and Dubovsky 2011; Arvanitaki et al. 2010, 2015, 2017; Brito et al. 2017a; Baryakhtar et al. 2017; Brito et al. 2017b; East 2018; Siemonsen and East 2020; Yoshino and Kodama 2014). These signals could be observable individually or as a very strong SGWB (Arvanitaki et al. 2015, 2017; Baryakhtar et al. 2017; Brito et al. 2017a, b, 2020; D’Antonio et al. 2018; Ghosh et al. 2019; Isi et al. 2019b; Sun et al. 2020; Tsukada et al. 2019, 2021; Zhu et al. 2020), and could thus be used to constrain the existence of light bosons in the absence of a detection. Current and future Earth-based detectors could detect GWs emitted by bosons in the range \(m_b\sim 10^{-14}\)–\(10^{-11}\) eV, while LISA could be sensitive to bosons of mass \(m_b\sim 10^{-19}\)–\(10^{-15}\) eV. It has also been proposed that LISA observations of BBHs with total masses in the range \(\sim [100,6000]\,M_{\odot }\) will provide sufficient information to enable targeted searches for these monochromatic GW signals with future ground-based GW detectors for masses in the range \(m_b\sim 10^{-14}\)–\( 10^{-12}\) eV (Ng et al. 2020).
Furthermore, since BHs affected by the instability would spin down in the process, accurate measurement of the spin of astrophysical BHs can be used to strongly constrain, or find evidence for, ultralight bosons (Arvanitaki and Dubovsky 2011; Arvanitaki et al. 2015, 2017; Baryakhtar et al. 2017; Brito et al. 2013, 2017a; Cardoso et al. 2018a; Ng et al. 2021; Pani et al. 2012a, b). Requiring that the instability acts on timescales shorter than known astrophysical processes, such as accretion and mergers, current measurements of SMBHs spin using continuum fitting or the Iron K\(\alpha \) (see e.g., Jovanovic 2012) can probe bosons in the mass range \(m_b\sim 10^{-20}\)–\(10^{-17}\) eV, whereas similar measurements for stellar-mass BHs probe the mass range is \(m_b\sim 10^{-12}\)–\(10^{-11}\) eV. LISA is expected to detect binaries and measure the spins of MBHs in the range \(\sim 10^2\)–\(10^7\,M_{\odot }\) and will therefore be able to constrain the existence of light bosons in the intermediate range \(m_b\sim 10^{-16}\)–\(10^{-13}\) eV (Brito et al. 2017a, 2020; Cardoso et al. 2018a).
When the BH-boson cloud system is part of a binary, one may also expect new phenomena that could leave imprints in the GW signal emitted by the binary system. For example, the presence of a companion can result in resonant transitions between energy levels of the cloud (Baumann et al. 2019) or complete tidal disruption (Cardoso et al. 2020), which could lead to a significant dephasing of the binary’s GW signal. In particular, for EMRIs, resonant transitions could lead to long-lived floating orbits (Baumann et al. 2020; Ferreira et al. 2017; Zhang and Yang 2019). The presence of a cloud would also be imprinted in the binary’s GW signal through its spin-induced multiple moment(s) and tidal Love number(s) (Baumann et al. 2019, 2020; De Luca and Pani 2021). For eccentric orbits, resonances can occur over a larger range of frequencies, extending the possibility of detection (Berti et al. 2019). In the case of EMRIs, dynamical friction and the gravitational pull of the cloud may also leave sizable imprints on the GW waveform (Ferreira et al. 2017; Hannuksela et al. 2019; Macedo et al. 2013a; Zhang and Yang 2020).
Ultralight scalars can also form self-gravitating structures. These “dark matter stars” are candidates to describe (dark) haloes in the central part of galaxies (Hui et al. 2017). In this context, it is crucial to understand how such structures respond to external excitations caused by compact objects (e.g. stars or BHs) living in these environments. Stability, proper modes, excitation of resonances, and depletion of the scalar through radiation are amongst the important issues that must be addressed here (Annulli et al. 2020a, b). There is also the potential for distinctive DM density enhancements due to accretion of DM onto BHs (Bamber et al. 2021; Clough et al. 2019; Hui et al. 2019), which is analogous to the case of dark matter spikes for high mass candidates (see Sect. 4.2 below). However, such density enhancements are estimated to be several orders of magnitude weaker than those from a superradiant build up, and concentrated near the BH horizon. They are therefore below LISA sensitivity in the inspiral phase, but may have an impact on merger, something which is yet to be tested using NR simulations. On the other hand, it is also essential to know how the compact objects themselves are affected by the surrounding dark matter. GW dephasing through dynamical friction and scalar radiation deserves a proper and rigorous exploration (Annulli et al. 2020a, b; Hui et al. 2017). In particular, for sources in the LISA band, it was recently found that scalar radiation from these structures affects the gravitational waveform at leading -6 PN order with respect to the dominant quadrupolar term (Annulli et al. 2020a, b).
In summary, LISA has the potential to detect or constrain ultralight DM fields in regions of parameter space complementary to those covered by ground-based GW observations, although more work is needed to build waveform models that incorporate the effects of such fields and are sufficiently accurate to be used for data analysis purposes. It will also be important to explore in more detail BBHs with ultralight boson clouds with full NR simulations in order to understand how the presence of such boson clouds could be imprinted in the late stages of BBH mergers.
4.2 High mass particles \(m > \text{eV}\)
We now discuss what we could learn with LISA about more massive cold DM particles. If one or both the components of a binary system are surrounded by a dense dark matter overdensity, the binary’s inspiral will be driven by both dynamical friction (Chandrasekhar 1943) and GW emission. The densities required to produce an effect observable by LISA are typically higher than the characteristic DM densities in most galaxies (Barausse et al. 2014; Cardoso and Maselli 2020). There are however several mechanisms by which the DM density can be enhanced to such higher levels, notably when a smaller seed BH grows in mass adiabatically in a DM halo to produce a DM “spike” (Ferrer et al. 2017; Gondolo and Silk 1999; Quinlan et al. 1995; Sadeghian et al. 2013; Ullio et al. 2001). DM spikes around SMBHs at the center of galactic halos are prone to disruption by a number of processes, such as major mergers and gravitational interactions with stellar cusps (Bertone and Merritt 2005; Merritt et al. 2002). DM spikes around IMBHs might be more stable over cosmological timescales, and are arguably more promising targets for indirect and GW searches (Bertone et al. 2005b). The density profile of spikes depends on the nature of DM, with warm, self-interacting, or self-annihilating DM candidates leading to shallower profiles with respect to cold, collisionless DM (Alvarez and Yu 2021; Bertone and Merritt 2005; Gondolo and Silk 1999; Hannuksela et al. 2020; Shapiro and Shelton 2016).
The faster rate of inspiral in the presence of DM can be distinguished from the slower inspiral in vacuum, thereby allowing LISA to infer the presence of DM around a binary (Barausse et al. 2014; Eda et al. 2015; Macedo et al. 2013a). The prospects for detecting DM spikes through their influence on the GWs emitted by IMRIs were studied in (Eda et al. 2015), in which the dynamics of the IMRIs were treated in the leading Newtonian limit and the DM distribution was assumed to be static throughout the inspiral. Fisher-matrix forecasts predict that the properties of the DM spike could be mapped precisely for the higher overdensities (comparable to the errors on the detector-frame chirp mass) and to a few tens of a percent for lower overdensities.
Conservation of energy means, however, that the energy dissipated through dynamical friction must be balanced by a corresponding change in the energy of the dark matter distribution. For a range of different DM overdensities around different IMRIs, the energy dissipated when the DM spike is assumed to be static turns out to be a substantial fraction of the binding energy of the spike, rendering the assumption of staticity questionable. In these cases, it is important to jointly evolve both the IMRIs’ orbits and their surrounding distributions of DM (Kavanagh et al. 2020). When this is done, the DM distribution is found to evolve non-trivially, significantly decreasing the amplitude of the dynamical friction force and hence the difference between an inspiral in vacuum and in a DM mini-spike (Kavanagh et al. 2020). Yet for larger DM overdensities, the amplitude of the effect of the DM is seen to remain significant in the coupled evolution of the IMRI and DM spike.
A Bayesian analysis of the detectability (signal-to-noise ratio), discoverability (discrimination against in-vacuum inspiral), and measurability (prospects for measuring the parameters) of dark matter environments shows that inspirals in presence of dark matter can be easily discriminated against in-vacuum inspirals. In case of detection, the DM halo’s density normalization can be distinguished from zero at high significance, with a \(95\%\) credible interval of order 10%. The DM halo’s slope can also be measured, although the posterior exhibits degeneracy with the chirp mass and the mass ratio. Interestingly, unlike in-vacuum inspirals, the mass ratio can be measured even in the Newtonian limit (Coogan et al. 2022).
For EMRIs and IMRIs in vacuum, there is good evidence that gravitational waveforms that are accurate to first post-adiabatic (1PA) order will be sufficient to detect and perform parameter estimation (van de Meent and Pfeiffer 2020). Such vacuum waveforms are under development and are expected to be ready for the beginning of the LISA mission. By contrast, the waveform modelling for IMRIs and EMRIs with surrounding DM spikes coupled to their evolution is only just beginning: the calculations in Kavanagh et al. (2020) assumed circular orbits and worked at leading Newtonian order. A more complete modelling of these systems will be necessary to produce waveforms that are suitable for describing the full range of possible orbits and DM distributions to cover the parameter space of these systems. The possibility of finding a simpler effective description of IMRIs and EMRIs in DM spikes should be investigated in greater detail, in order to decrease the size of the parameter space needed to look for signatures of cold DM substructures. At the other end of the scale, as in the light dark matter case, it may also be interesting to study whether there is any significant impact of these dark matter overdensities on the merger signal using NR simulations.
4.3 PBHs \(m < M_\odot \)
PBHs might originate in the early universe from the collapse of large density perturbations from an enhancement of the scalar curvature perturbation power spectrum generated during inflation (Ivanov 1998; Ivanov et al. 1994; Garcia-Bellido et al. 1996). PBHs may therefore span a wider range of masses compared to stellar BHs, which are expected to have a mass larger than the Chandrasekhar limit, around the solar mass, from stellar evolution.
For masses smaller than about \(10^{-17} M_\odot \), PBHs would have evaporated by now due to the emission of Hawking radiation, and thus do not lead to late-time imprints (Sasaki et al. 2018). For masses larger than this lower limit, while many observational bounds can be set on the PBH abundance in the Universe, these still leave some open windows for PBHs to constitute the totality of DM. A comprehensive review of the constraints on the PBH population can be found in Carr et al. (2021).
For PBHs with masses smaller than about the solar mass, the most stringent constraints on the PBH abundance arise from evaporation limits (Barnacka et al. 2012) and microlensing observations (Alcock et al. 2001; Allsman et al. 2001; Niikura et al. 2019a, b; Oguri et al. 2018; Smyth et al. 2020). Interestingly, there exists an open window for PBHs with masses in the range \((10^{-16} - 10^{-11}) M_\odot \) to account for the totality of the dark matter in the universe (see Carr et al. 2021; Green and Kavanagh 2021 for recent reviews). This range of masses is however notoriously difficult to probe with lensing observations. Indeed it was shown that both femtolensing and microlensing searches are not able to constrain this mass window once the extended nature of the source as well as wave optics effects are properly considered (Katz et al. 2018; Montero-Camacho et al. 2019; Smyth et al. 2020). Also, bounds coming from the survival of white dwarfs (WDs) and NSs after asteroidal mass PBHs capture were shown to be unable to constrain the abundance in this range (Montero-Camacho et al. 2019). Finally, the GWs from mergers of sub-solar mass PBHs, peaking at much higher frequencies compared to the ones testable by LISA, would not lead to an observable signal. However, LISA can search for SGWB signatures of the PBH formation in that interesting window, thus testing the possible nature of dark matter as asteroidal-mass PBHs, as we will describe in the following.
Curvature perturbations, responsible for the PBH production, would also lead to the emission of a second-order induced SGWB due to the intrinsic non-linear nature of gravity (Acquaviva et al. 2003; Mollerach et al. 2004), analysed in details in Ananda et al. (2007), Ando et al. (2018), Bartolo et al. (2018, 2019b, 2019c), Baumann et al. (2007), Bugaev and Klimai (2010), Chang et al. (2020), Clesse et al. (2018), De Luca et al. (2020a), Domènech (2020), Domènech et al. (2020), Espinosa et al. (2018), Fumagalli et al. (2021), García-Bellido et al. (2016, 2017), Inomata and Terada (2020), Kohri and Terada (2018), Wang et al. (2019), Pi and Sasaki (2020), Saito and Yokoyama (2010) and Yuan et al. (2020).Footnote 6 Since the emission mostly takes place when the length scale of the perturbation crosses the cosmological horizon, one can relate the peak of the GW frequency spectrum to the dominant PBH mass \(M_\text {PBH}\) as (Saito and Yokoyama 2010)
There are several current and future experiments searching for this SGWB in various frequency ranges. In the ultra-low frequency range (around nHz), the null detections at Pulsar Timing Array experiments like PPTA (Shannon et al. 2015), NANOGrav (Arzoumanian et al. 2018) and EPTA (Lentati et al. 2015), give rise to stringent constraints on the abundance of GWs (although NANOGrav shows some evidence for a background, as discussed further below). Future experiments like SKA (Dewdney et al. 2009) (see also Moore et al. 2015) will significantly improve the detection sensitivity. These constraints can also be translated into a bound on the amplitude of the comoving curvature perturbations at the corresponding scales (Inomata and Nakama 2019; Ünal et al. 2021). Recently, the Earth-Moon system has been suggested as a detector of SGWB at \(\mu \)Hz frequencies (Blas and Jenkins 2022a, b), providing a complementary probe to LISA for signals in this range.
In the intermediate frequency range (around mHz) the most relevant experiment is LISA. LISA will be able to probe the wavenumbers of the primordial curvature perturbation power spectrum on scales in the range \((10^{10} - 10^{15}) \, \mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}\) (García-Bellido et al. 2016). Moreover, the production of PBHs with masses around \(M_\text {PBH} \sim {{\mathcal {O}}} \left( 10^{-15} - 10^{-8} \right) M_\odot \) would be associated to GW signals with peak frequencies which fall within the LISA sensitivity band. LISA would be therefore able to search for DM candidates in the form of PBHs within this range of masses (Bartolo et al. 2019b; García-Bellido et al. 2016, 2017). Notice that, due to the exponential sensitivity of the PBH abundance to the amplitude of the curvature power spectrum, null detection of a SGWB at LISA would imply the PBH abundance in the corresponding mass range to be negligible.
Physical SGWB spectra would typically have a white-noise (\(\propto f^3\)) behaviour at low frequencies (Cai et al. 2020; Espinosa et al. 2018), a peak corresponding to the frequency provided in Eq. (4) and a high frequencies tail which goes like the squared curvature power spectrum, \(\Omega _\text {GW} (f \gg f_\star ) \sim \mathcal {P}_\zeta ^2 (f)\). PBH formation from multi-field inflationary models (Fumagalli et al. 2020; Palma et al. 2020), and more generally large particle production mechanisms involving a sharp feature, lead to oscillatory power spectra that result in a 10% oscillatory modulation in the peak of the frequency profile of the SGWB (Braglia et al. 2021; Fumagalli et al. 2021), thus representing a potentially observable characteristic of these models.
Recently the NANOGrav Collaboration has published a 12.5 yrs analysis of pulsar timing data reporting strong evidence for a signal whose interpretation in terms of a stochastic common-spectrum process is strongly preferred against independent red-noise signals (Arzoumanian et al. 2020). At the moment, the NANOGrav Collaboration does not yet claim a detection of a SGWB due to the absence of evidence for the characteristic quadrupole correlations. There are several models proposed so far to explain the origin of this SGWB signal. One possibility is provided by the SGWB associated to PBH formation (De Luca et al. 2021b; Domènech and Pi 2020; Kohri and Terada 2021; Vaskonen and Veermäe 2021). The relative PBH abundance in the mass range probed by NANOGrav would be subdominant (Vaskonen and Veermäe 2021). However, the model proposed in De Luca et al. (2021b), where a flat power spectrum of the curvature perturbation (Biagetti et al. 2018; Leach and Liddle 2001; Leach et al. 2001; Wands 1999) leads to a mass function peaked in the asteroidal mass range (De Luca et al. 2020e), a total abundance of DM in the forms of PBHs allowed by observational bounds and hinted by the lensing event candidate in the HSC data (Kusenko et al. 2020; Sugiyama et al. 2021). This scenario predicts a flat SGWB spectrum which would be detectable and tested by LISA (De Luca et al. 2021b).
As discussed in more detail in the complementary white paper of the Cosmology WG (Auclair et al. 2022), LISA will also be able to search for signatures of primordial non-Gaussianity (Biagetti et al. 2018, 2021; Ezquiaga and García-Bellido 2018; Ezquiaga et al. 2020a; Franciolini et al. 2018; Pattison et al. 2021) at small scales. Primordial non-Gaussianity on small scales would have an impact on the shape of the SGWB, leading to potentially detectable signatures in the spectrum of frequencies of the observed monopole signal (Cai et al. 2019a; Unal 2019). Possible small deformations smearing the GWs spectrum can also arise from similar effects (Domcke et al. 2020). Non-Gaussian signatures in the tensor three-point function would in principle be significant, but get washed out by (Bartolo et al. 2019b, c) time-delay effects originating during the propagation of the GWs in the perturbed universe, see Bartolo et al. (2018); Margalit et al. (2020). Non-Gaussian signatures may be detectable by searching for angular anisotropies in the SGWB which, in the absence of non-Gaussianity, are generally undetectable at LISA (Bartolo et al. 2020) given its angular resolution of \(\ell \lesssim 15\) (Baker et al. 2021; Contaldi et al. 2020). However, local scale-invariant non-Gaussianity, constrained by the Planck Collaboration to be \(- 11.1 \le f_\text {NL} \le 9.3\) at 95% C.L. (Planck Collaboration et al. 2020c), would correlate short and long scales and potentially lead to an enhancement of the SGWB, see Cai et al. (2019a, 2019b); Unal (2019); for details, and possible large-scale anisotropies at detection (Bartolo et al. 2020). Now if PBHs constitute a large fraction of the DM, one expects a highly isotropic and Gaussian SGWB due to the strong constraints by CMB observations (Planck Collaboration et al. 2020b) on the isocurvature modes in the DM density fluid, associated to the non-Gaussianity (Young and Byrnes 2015). On the other hand, the detection of a large amount of anisotropy in the signal would imply that only a small fraction of the DM can be accounted by PBHs (Bartolo et al. 2020). Moreover, the propagation of GWs across disconnected regions of the universe may lead to large-scale anisotropies at detection, see e.g., Alba and Maldacena (2016), Bartolo et al. (2019a), Bartolo et al. (2020), Bertacca et al. (2020), Contaldi (2017), Cusin et al. (2017, 2019), Jenkins and Sakellariadou (2018) and Renzini and Contaldi (2019).
In this range of masses, the non detection of a SGWB will rule out the possibility of PBHs being the dark matter in the asteroidal mass range. However, this assumes the standard scenario where GWs are produced at PBH formation and the PBH abundance is exponentially sensitive to the size of the fluctuations. One should investigate whether non standard scenarios would change this conclusion, e.g. the potential role of non-Gaussianity or of other PBH formation mechanisms.
4.4 PBHs \(m > M_\odot \)
For PBHs with masses larger than about a solar mass, LISA should be able to detect merger events of resolved sources, and unresolved signals in the form of a SGWB. The most relevant constraints come from CMB temperature and polarization anisotropies, which are impacted by the emission of ionizing radiation from PBHs accreting gas in the early universe at redshift between \(z \sim (300 - 600)\), for which the PBH abundance is constrained to be below \(f_\text {PBH}(M) \lesssim (M/10 M_\odot )^{-4}\) for masses smaller than \(10^4 M_\odot \) (Ali-Haïmoud and Kamionkowski 2017; Carr et al. 2021; Green and Kavanagh 2021; Serpico et al. 2020). At larger masses, constraints coming from CMB distortions become even more stringent (Nakama et al. 2018).
Late-time constraints can be set from the comparison of emitted EM signals from accreting PBHs with observations of galactic radio and X-ray isolated sources (Gaggero et al. 2017; Manshanden et al. 2019) and X-ray binaries (Inoue and Kusenko 2017), and from Dwarf Galaxy Heating observations (Lu et al. 2021). The totality of these bounds constrain the PBH abundance \(f_\text {PBH}\) (the fraction of the dark matter composed of PBHs) to be below \(f_\text {PBH} \lesssim 10^{-2}\) for masses larger than few tens of \(M_\odot \). A comparable constraint is set by the merger rates observed by the LIGO/Virgo Collaboration (Abbott et al. 2019c). Indeed, for masses around \(30\,M_\odot \), a PBH abundance larger than \(f_{\text{PBH}} \approx 10^{-3}\) would give an expected number of events larger than the one observed. This has been shown in De Luca et al. (2020c), Hall et al. (2020) and Raidal et al. (2019); using the GWTC-1 data and recently in Wong et al. (2021) with the GWTC-2 catalog. Even though PBHs are expected to follow a Poisson distribution at formation in the absence of non-Gaussianities (Ali-Haïmoud 2018; Ballesteros et al. 2018; Desjacques and Riotto 2018; Moradinezhad Dizgah et al. 2019), they may start forming clusters even before the matter-radiation equality for large enough \(f_\text {PBH}\) (Inman and Ali-Haïmoud 2019). Clustering has an impact on the PBH binary formation and subsequent disruption rates (Jedamzik 2020, 2021; Raidal et al. 2019; Trashorras et al. 2021). While ineffective for abundances smaller than \(f_\text {PBH} \lesssim 10^{-2}\), it is expected to reduce the merger rate prediction for larger abundances by an amount which is not enough to evade the LIGO/Virgo bound if one takes into account the fraction of PBHs in dense substructures (De Luca et al. 2020; Tkachev et al. 2020; Vaskonen and Veermäe 2020). Overall, we stress that a complete description of PBH clustering up to very low redshift along with its impact on the GW signals coming from a PBH population still represents one of the main theoretical challenges, which deserves a thorough investigation.
Even if PBHs within this mass range can only account for a small fraction of the dark matter in the universe, they could still both form binaries observable by LISA and act as progenitors of SMBHs, observed at high redshift as large as \(z \gtrsim 6\), through accretion of baryonic particles during the cosmological evolution (Clesse and García-Bellido 2015; Serpico et al. 2020). The presence of a strong phase of accretion through the cosmological history before the reionization epoch has the effect of shifting the corresponding late-time mass function to larger masses relaxing the constraints (De Luca et al. 2020b), even though large uncertainties are present in modelling the accretion for massive compact objects. This is a key challenge to overcome in order to assess the PBH contribution to merging binaries observable by LISA. Though difficult to conclusively associate with PBHs, the observation of events within this range of masses at high redshift by experiments like LISA would help in understanding the physical origin of SMBHs (Volonteri 2010).
Given that PBHs may potentially contribute to current GW data (Franciolini et al. 2021), within this range of masses they need to be distinguished from astrophysical BHs formed after the collapse of stars in the late universe. Various observables could however help in discriminating the two populations. For instance, even though PBHs are expected to form with small spins (De Luca et al. 2019a; Mirbabayi et al. 2020), for PBH binaries in the mass range observable by LISA, the baryonic mass accretion leads to spin growth, potentially increasing their spins for the binary components at the merger time depending on the accretion strength before the reionization epoch (De Luca et al. 2020d), which is still however affected by many uncertainties. It is of crucial importance to investigate in details the correlation between PBH masses and spins induced by baryonic accretion as a discriminant with the prediction for astrophysical BHs. Another possibility is to look for high redshift events (i.e. \(z\gtrsim 30\)) where PBHs can contribute without any astrophysical contamination (Chen and Huang 2020; De Luca et al. 2021; Koushiappas and Loeb 2017).
Furthermore, the massive BBH merger population currently observed at LIGO/Virgo is expected to give rise to a SGWB of unresolved sources with a tail at low frequencies which can be detected by LISA (Chen et al. 2019; Clesse and García-Bellido 2017). The primordial scenario is expected to give a stronger contribution to the SGWB with respect to the astrophysical one, due to the additional contribution given by PBH mergers happening at higher redshift (Raidal et al. 2019). In particular, the PBHs merger rate is expected to increase with redshift, while the one of stellar BHs first increases and peaks at redshift around \(z \sim (1 - 2)\), and then rapidly decreases (Chen et al. 2019). Considering both observations of resolved and unresolved signals may help to break the degeneracy within the two scenarios (De Luca et al. 2021a; Mukherjee and Silk 2021; Mukherjee et al. 2022; Wang and Kohri 2021).
LISA will also be able to detect the inspiral phase of binaries with masses of at least a few tens \(M_\odot \) with a high precision. This mass range, falling in the large mass portion of the window observable by the LIGO/Virgo Collaboration, can be filled by a PBH population. The presence of the known mass gap in the astrophysical BH spectrum and the recent event GW190521 (Abbott et al. 2020c) make the primordial scenario investigated in Clesse and García-Bellido (2020); De Luca et al. (2021); Kritos et al. (2021) potentially relevant (see however Abbott et al. 2020e for different scenarios).
Finally, the detection of GWs from the coalescence of a BBH system including a compact object lighter than a solar mass could indicate primordial origin. Experiments like LISA, which target low frequency regimes, may detect GWs emitted from EMRIs of a SMBH with a light compact PBH, and GW constraints can be set on the PBH abundance from the expected PBH-SMBH merger rate (Guo et al. 2019; Kühnel et al. 2017; Kuhnel et al. 2020). A null-detection during a 5-year operation of the experiment would constrain the PBH abundance to values smaller than \(f_\text {PBH} \lesssim 3 \times 10^{-4}\) for PBHs with masses in the range \((10^{-2} - 1) \, M_\odot \) (Guo et al. 2019).
Another interesting LISA observable with relevance to the DM PBH scenario arises from GW bursts from hyperbolic encounters of PBHs (García-Bellido and Nesseris 2018). This would be particularly relevant for the clustered and broad mass spectrum PBH scenario, where the BHs cover a wide range of masses with a peak \(\sim 1\,M_\odot \) (Carr et al. 2021; Ezquiaga et al. 2018; García-Bellido 2017; García-Bellido and Ruiz Morales 2017), and have a clustered distribution which allows them to evade some, but not all, of the constraints discussed above, see García-Bellido (2018, 2019) for a review.
To summarize, LISA would be sensitive to many different GW signals coming from a PBH population in this mass range. Given its sensitivity to BH mergers at high redshifts and large masses, even reaching the supermassive range, it will complement the reach of ground-based detectors to search for PBHs and inform models of PBH accretion. On the theoretical side, a future goal is to sharpen the predictions for the impact of accretion and clustering on the evolution of PBH binaries and the generation of SMBHs from PBH seeds (Serpico et al. 2020), in order to differentiate between BHs with a primordial origin and those formed from stellar evolution.
4.5 Exotic compact objects
If Exotic Compact Objects (ECOs) exist, they could compose some fraction of the dark matter. ECOs have already been discussed in Sec. 3.2.2, and for those with compactness similar to BHs, the opportunities for LISA to observe and constrain them will be similar to the PBH cases described in Sec. 4.3 and Sec. 4.4 above.
4.6 Signatures from self-interactions
Self-interactions in DM were proposed as a way to solve tensions on small scales between N-body simulations and DM observations (Spergel and Steinhardt 2000), but for hard interactions these are constrained to be of order \(\sigma /m < 1 ~ \mathrm{cm^2 ~ g^{-1}} \sim 10^{-24} \mathrm{cm^2 ~ GeV^{-1}}\) to maintain consistency with structure formation and observations of the Bullet Cluster (Randall et al. 2008). At the upper end of this range, they have a non-negligible effect on structures at typical DM halo densities and velocity dispersions (see Tulin and Yu 2018 for a review). Smaller cross sections would have an impact only in more dense regions, e.g. in DM spikes around BHs, and so self-interacting dark matter (SIDM) could potentially have interesting consequences. However, we have yet to see a model with sufficient capture to realistically manifest these, at least where the SIDM composes the entirety of the DM.
It has been proposed that a small amount of SIDM, composing less than 10% of the DM, with cross section \(\sigma /m \gg \mathrm{1 ~ cm^2 /g}\), could have seeded the initial growth of SMBHs (Pollack et al. 2015), which are a key LISA target. However, it seems unlikely that such a formation mechanism could be identified from LISA observations. SIDM could also undergo dissipative collapse to form compact dark disks (Fan et al. 2013), which could potentially be detectable via their consequent density enhancements in the same way as the superradiant clouds or DM spikes described above.
In the case of light bosonic DM, self-interactions may play an important role in superradiant instabilities and, moreover, are an essential part of some models such as axions, where the massive potential is an approximation to a more general periodic function. Studies of superradiance have mostly treated self-interactions in the bosonic field as negligible, but in Yoshino and Kodama (2012, 2014, 2015) attractive self-interactions were shown to destabilise the superradiant build up, resulting in a so called “bosenova”. Such collapses have been conjectured to result in repeating instabilities, where the fall of the cloud back into the BH prior to saturation results in it being “spun up” again, and thus the superradiant growth resumes. This could weaken constraints that have been derived in the purely massive case, or lead to potentially observable GW signals from the bosenova explosions. The frequency of the bosenova signal would be \(f \sim 1/\Delta t \) where \(\Delta t\) is the duration of the bosenova. This is in the LISA band for SMBHs, but would be below detection sensitivity unless it occurs in our own or a nearby galaxy (Yoshino and Kodama 2012). More work is required to simulate a complete build up and dissipation of the bosonic cloud, to further quantify the GW signals produced and to confirm that the superradiant build up is able to recover. Due to the long timescales involved, such simulations are very challenging, but feasible with current NR tools.
4.7 Multi-messenger signatures
If dark matter particles interact at all with standard model particles, the interaction must be weak, given the constraints that have been imposed by terrestrial direct detection experiments and indirect astrophysical observations (see e.g., Bertone et al. 2005a; Irastorza and Redondo 2018; Kahlhoefer 2017 for reviews). However, some dark matter candidates, such as the QCD axion, have a well defined coupling to standard model matter. In this case, coincident GW and EM signatures, for example, during SMBH mergers or in EMRIs, may provide distinctive signatures. This has been explored in the case of the QCD axion in Edwards et al. (2020), on the basis of LISA observations of dephasing in the GW signal of a NS inspiral around an IMBH embedded within a DM spike. Such observations could identify axions in the mass range \(10^{-7} - 10^{-5}\) eV by matching the signal to radio wave emission from axion-photon conversion. Similar multi-messenger effects could be relevant in other cases, such as where GWs from superradiant clouds or ECOs are detected, see e.g., Amin and Mou (2021); Blas and Witte (2020a, 2020b); Cardoso et al. (2021); Ikeda et al. (2019); for recent work in this direction.
4.8 Burning questions
-
The effects of dark matter on GW signals may often be degenerate with ‘environmental’ astrophysical effects (cf. Sect. 7). It will be absolutely crucial for the success of LISA to devote continual effort to disentangle these as much as possible.
-
LISA has the potential to detect or constrain the presence of both ultralight and heavier dark matter fields in regions of parameter space that are complementary to those covered by ground-based GW observations. However, the waveform modelling for IMRIs and EMRIs embedded in DM halos is but in its infancy. More work is needed to build waveform models that incorporate the effects of DM fields in mergers, covering a significant parameter space, and that are sufficiently accurate for data analysis purposes.
-
Beyond this, it will be important to study BBH dynamics with ultralight boson clouds with full NR simulations in order to understand how the presence, and the dynamics, of such boson clouds could be imprinted in the late stages of BBH mergers.
-
To properly interpret the observables related to PBHs and identify their origin, the impact of non-Gaussianity or novel PBH formation mechanisms in the small mass range, and clustering and accretion in the mass range above \(M_\odot \) up to SMBHs, should be further characterised.
5 Tests of the \(\Lambda \)CDM model and dark energy
The past 20 years have seen the emergence of a standard model of the Universe based on a handful of parameters: the so-called \(\Lambda \)CDM model. This framework can explain coherently a large number of observations but the nature of one of its main components, dark matter, is still unknown, and the observed value of the cosmological constant \(\Lambda \), a crucial element of the model, is still mysterious.
In particular, many cosmological observations indicate that the Universe is currently undergoing accelerated expansion. To explain this observation assuming GR, the \(\Lambda \)CDM model requires that the energy density of the vacuum is comparable to the total energy density of the Universe. However, quantum vacuum fluctuations of all particles contribute to the vacuum energy by an amount which is expected to be many orders of magnitudes larger than its measured value. This mismatch is called the old cosmological constant problem (see e.g., Burgess 2015; Padilla 2015) and it is one of the most disconcerting puzzles in fundamental physics (see e.g., Alberte et al. 2016; Bousso 2008; Charmousis et al. 2012; Kaloper and Padilla 2014).
This situation constitutes a theoretical motivation to consider alternatives to \(\Lambda \)CDM in which one assumes that for some unknown reason the value of \(\Lambda \) is simply zero—dubbed the new cosmological constant problem—and attempts to explain the accelerated expansion by different mechanisms. This has spurred the exploration of variations of the \(\Lambda \)CDM model in which the energy budget of the Universe is dominated by some dynamical dark energy, distinct from a constant \(\Lambda \), or where the observed acceleration is explained by a modification of gravity (see Amendola et al. 2018b; Clifton et al. 2012 for a review). This field of investigation has been rich of interesting theoretical developments and is currently energized by the prospect that a number of forthcoming galaxy surveys will test and tightly constrain these models in the near future (see e.g., Frusciante and Perenon 2020). A second theoretical motivation for considering modified gravity extensions of \(\Lambda \)CDM is the so-called coincidence problem (Zlatev et al. 1999), the observation that the current vacuum energy density is comparable to the matter density, even though the former remains constant in time while the latter dilutes with the expansion.
Quite apart from these theoretical considerations, several tensions have emerged in the \(\Lambda \)CDM model from recent observations. The most notable one is the discrepancy between the values of the Hubble constant measured through CMB (Planck Collaboration et al. 2020a) and large-scale structure (D’Amico et al. 2021; Philcox et al. 2020) observations on the one hand, and those measured by late-time probes (Huang et al. 2020; Jee et al. 2019; Pesce et al. 2020; Riess et al. 2019; Verde et al. 2019) on the other hand. Other milder tensions include the difference between the amplitude of matter fluctuations measured by Planck versus that inferred from weak lensing observations (Heymans and other 2021; Tröster et al. 2020), as well as the lensing excess in the CMB temperature Planck data (Planck Collaboration et al. 2014, 2016, 2020a). While it is possible that these tensions could be accounted for by some yet unknown systematics, several proposals have attempted to explain these discrepancies by new physics.
In this section we summarize how GW astronomy, in particular the LISA mission, can inform theoretical physics in the cosmology area, in particular by probing the fundamental physics underlying the \(\Lambda \)CDM model and its extensions involving dark energy and modified gravity. To this extent this section is complementary to the Sects. 2 and 4 of the White Paper of the LISA Cosmology WG (Auclair et al. 2022), whose main goal is to develop the appropriate methods to probe cosmology with GW observations. In the next subsection we present an overview of the dark energy and modified gravity models of interest for LISA. We then discuss the theoretical implications and the constraints on GWs propagating in a homogeneous universe in Sect. 5.2. We extend this analysis to an inhomogeneous universe in Sect. 5.3, by discussing cosmological tests that involve the cross-correlation of GWs with the large-scale structure of the Universe and the use of the GW lensing to probe the distribution of structures. Future prospects are discussed in Sect. 5.4.
5.1 Dark energy and modified gravity
Dark energy and modified gravity are extensions of the \(\Lambda \)CDM scenario. Although a strict distinction between the two does not exist (Joyce et al. 2016), the former usually refers to adding to the field equations the stress-energy tensor of a fluid responsible for the acceleration, leaving the Einstein tensor unchanged, while the latter refers to either changing the gravitational part of the field equations or adding a non-minimal coupling to matter. Since at low-energy GR is the unique Lorentz-invariant theory of a massless helicity-2 field (Weinberg 1964), in most cases (see e.g., Lin and Mukohyama 2017 for an exception) one must add additional degrees of freedom to those present in GR.
5.1.1 Effective field theory of dark energy
In the simplest case, dark energy and modified gravity rely on the presence of a scalar field that spontaneously breaks time parametrizations, inducing a preferred slicing. Since in cosmology we are interested in studying fluctuations around FLRW solutions, a particularly convenient way to parametrize the action in this case is to use the so-called Effective Field Theory of Dark Energy (Bloomfield et al. 2013; Creminelli et al. 2009; Gleyzes et al. 2013; Gubitosi et al. 2013), which consists in writing the action in terms of all possible operators in this foliation (Cheung et al. 2008; Creminelli et al. 2006). This allows one to describe a large class of models, including f(R) theory (see Sotiriou and Faraoni 2010 for a review), Horndeski theories (Deffayet et al. 2009; Horndeski 1974) and beyond (Ben Achour et al. 2016; Gleyzes et al. 2015; Langlois and Noui 2016; Zumalacárregui and García-Bellido 2014), and Lorentz violating theories (Horava 2009a), in terms of a fewer number of parameters, corresponding to time-dependent functions. More generally, requirements such as locality, causality, unitarity and stability can be automatically enforced on the action so that the predicted signatures are consistent with well-established principles of physics. The generality of this approach has been successfully applied to the implementation of Einstein–Boltzmann solvers such as EFTCAMB (Hu et al. 2014; Raveri et al. 2014) and hi_class (Zumalacárregui et al. 2017) and the derivation of observational constraints and forecasts in a model-independent fashion (see Frusciante and Perenon 2020 for a recent review).
In these extensions of \(\Lambda \)CDM, we can identify two main classes of modifications to the propagation of GWs with observational implications. The first is a scale-independent additional friction term in the propagation equation, discussed in Sect. 5.2.2, which can be traced to the fact that the effective Planck mass that canonically normalizes the graviton can be time-dependent in models of modified gravity. In this case, the effect amounts simply to a rescaling of the graviton amplitude between the time of emission and the one of observation. The second class are scale-dependent modifications such as an anomalous speed of propagation, effects in the dispersion relation, GW decay, etc. These are thoroughly discussed in Secs. 2.2.2 and 6.3.2 and will not be treated here.
5.1.2 Non-local model
Another possibility, leading to scale-independent modifications that have been much investigated recently, is that the long-distance behavior of gravity is modified by quantum effects. The presence of infrared (IR) divergences in space-times of cosmological interest, such as de Sitter (Antoniadis and Mottola 1991; Taylor and Veneziano 1990; Tsamis and Woodard 1995), suggests that, even without adding new degrees of freedom or modifying the fundamental action of the theory, the long-distance dynamics of gravity could be different from that derived from the classical Einstein–Hilbert action. When quantum effects enter into play the relevant quantity, rather than the fundamental action, is the quantum effective action. While the former, according to basic principles of quantum field theory, is local, the latter unavoidably develops non-local terms whenever the spectrum of the theory contains massless particles, such as the graviton.
An extensive series of investigations (see Belgacem et al. 2018b, 2020 for reviews) have eventually led to identify a unique candidate model (the so-called ‘RT’ model originally proposed in Maggiore 2014). Physically, this model corresponds to assuming that IR effects generate a non-local mass term for the conformal mode of the metric. At the conceptual level, this is appealing because of various arguments that identify the conformal mode as the main candidate for producing strong IR quantum effects (Antoniadis and Mottola 1991, 1992). Tentative evidence for the generation of this specific non-local term in the quantum effective action has also emerged from lattice gravity simulations (Knorr and Saueressig 2018). At the phenomenological level, the model passes Solar System tests (Kehagias and Maggiore 2014) and limits on the time variation of Newton’s constant (Belgacem et al. 2019b), it generates a dark energy dynamically (Maggiore 2014), and its cosmological perturbations, in the scalar sector, are well-behaved and quite close to those of \(\Lambda \)CDM (Dirian et al. 2014). The model has been compared to CMB, BAO, SNe and structure formation data, and fits them at the same level as \(\Lambda \)CDM (Belgacem et al. 2018b; Dirian et al. 2016). A main surprise then came from the study of tensor perturbations (Belgacem et al. 2018b, 2019a): The model displays the phenomenon of modified GW propagation that will be discussed below, whose amplitude can be significant. At the redshifts relevant for LISA, the deviations with respect to GR can even be of order \(80\%\) (depending on a free parameter of the model, related to the initial conditions). A complete and up-to-date review of the conceptual and phenomenological aspects of the model is given in Belgacem et al. (2020).
Apart from its specific features, this model also provides an explicit example of a modification of GR that is very close to \(\Lambda \)CDM, at the percent level, for the background cosmological evolution and for the scalar perturbations (therefore complying with existing limits), while at the same time producing very large deviations from GR in the sector of tensor perturbations. In the context of scalar-tensor theories described by the effective field theory of dark energy, a similar case is discussed in Lombriser and Taylor (2016). This shows how the study of GWs on cosmological scales is a genuinely new window, accessible to LISA, that can produce significant surprises.
5.1.3 Early and interacting dark energy
Other interesting models to test with LISA are the so-called early dark energy (Wetterich 2004) and interacting dark energy (Amendola 2000; Wetterich 1995) scenarios. The former consists of a redshift-dependent dark energy component which gives a non-negligible cosmological contribution at early times, in contrast to the more standard dark energy used to explain the late-time cosmic acceleration. The presence of early dark energy in the cosmological energy budget affects the CMB anisotropies and polarization and the inferred constraints can change by varying the epoch at which early dark energy starts to contribute (Pettorino et al. 2013). In the context of LISA, early dark energy can be tested by measuring the distance-redshift relation at high redshift (see Sect. 5.2.2). As such, LISA can be complementary to other cosmological probes, such as the CMB, in helping to resolve the \(H_0\)-tension for which such early dark energy models are candidate solutions (Caprini and Tamanini 2016).
Interacting dark energy is characterized by a direct coupling between dark energy and dark matter, while ordinary matter remains uncoupled from dark energy and gravity is described by the ordinary Einstein–Hilbert action (i.e., in the so-called Einstein frame). It can be motivated, for instance, by the fact that it can alleviate the coincidence problem mentioned in the introduction (Amendola 2000; Wetterich 1995). In this scenario, the propagation of GWs is modified through a change in the Hubble friction arising from an altered cosmic expansion history (Caprini and Tamanini 2016; Dalang and Lombriser 2019). As for early dark energy, interacting dark energy can be tested by LISA by accurately probing the background expansion history and the luminosity distance-redshift relation.
5.1.4 Screening
Modifications of gravity that aim to explain the cosmic acceleration often entail extra light fields which, besides changing the cosmic expansion, manifest themselves at short distances, mediating a fifth force. To pass Solar System and binary-pulsar tests, screening mechanisms are therefore necessary to hide, or strongly suppress, local deviations from GR (see e.g., Joyce et al. 2015). Different types of screening mechanisms have been proposed over the years, all relying on non-linear physics becoming important close to matter sources. Here we discuss only modified gravity models based on a scalar field. In chameleon and symmetron screening (Hinterbichler and Khoury 2010; Khoury and Weltman 2004), non-trivial self-interactions and non-minimal couplings to matter dynamically suppress deviations from GR in high-density environments (see Burrage and Sakstein 2018 for a review), however these theories were shown to have a negligible effect on cosmological scales (Wang et al. 2012). Self-interactions involving one or two derivatives of the field are at the origin of, respectively, k-mouflage (Babichev et al. 2009) and Vainshtein Babichev and Deffayet (2013); Vainshtein (1972) screening. These kinetic types of screening allow to reconcile theories such as Horndeski and DHOST, or massive (bi)gravity, with local tests of gravity. However, it is worth noticing that, until recently, kinetic screening had been thoroughly tested in static/quasi-static configurations, while it was less studied in dynamical settings, e.g. at GW generation (Chu and Trodden 2013; Dar et al. 2019; de Rham et al. 2013b, a). Only very recently, numerical relativity simulations have been performed, which point at a partial breakdown of the screening in black-hole collapse (Bezares et al. 2021; ter Haar et al. 2021) and in the late inspiral and merger of binary neutron stars (Bezares et al. 2022). In more detail, stellar collapse seems (quite surprisingly) to produce a very low frequency signal potentially detectable by LISA, while waveforms from binary neutron stars seem to deviate from their GR counterparts at the quadrupole (but not dipole) multipole order.
In general, when screening is efficient, one can define three gravitational constants. The one experienced by GWs, \(G_{\mathrm{gw}}\);Footnote 7 the one felt by matter appearing in the Poisson equation, \(G_{\mathrm{dyn}}\); the one felt by light intervening in null geodesics, \(G_{\mathrm{light}}\). These three constants are generally different and independent from each other (Dalang and Lombriser 2019; Lombriser and Taylor 2016; Tsujikawa 2019; Wolf and Lagos 2020), even when submitted to the constraints coming from Solar System tests, such as lunar-laser ranging (Williams et al. 2004), which tests \(G_{\mathrm{dyn}}\), and the Cassini bound (Bertotti et al. 2003), which tests a combination of \(G_{\mathrm{dyn}}\) and \(G_{\mathrm{light}}\). However, GW constraints can provide independent relations among them. For instance, in Horndeski theory the combination of Solar System tests and the fact that \(c_{\mathrm{T}}=1\) imposes that \(G_{\mathrm{gw}}\) varies very little with the redshift, implying that observational signatures in distance tests could be challenging (Dalang and Lombriser 2019; Dalang et al. 2020; Lagos and Zhu 2020; Wolf and Lagos 2020) (see Eq. (12) below).
This conclusion, however, is evaded in theories that extend Horndeski gravity, such as GLPV and DHOST theories, where additional parameters can lift the degeneracy. In these theories, even when imposing \(c_{\mathrm{T}} = 1\), the three constants remain independent (Crisostomi and Koyama 2018b; Crisostomi et al. 2019; Dima and Vernizzi 2018; Langlois et al. 2018; Lombriser and Taylor 2016) and there can be effects in the luminosity distance. The recovered degeneracy can, however, be broken again if other constraints are imposed, such as those from the instability of GWs (Creminelli et al. 2020). Another example where these constants remain independent is massive gravity (de Rham et al. 2011) or bigravity (Hassan and Rosen 2012), see Babichev and Crisostomi (2013); Koyama et al. (2011). Finally, non-local models do not rely on screening and hence are not subject to these limitations.
5.2 Homogeneous cosmology
In this subsection we consider GWs propagating on a homogeneous universe; we postpone the discussion of perturbations to the next subsection. We assume a spatially-flat background space-time described by the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) metric,
where a(t) is the cosmological scale factor. We describe GWs as perturbations of the spatial part of the above metric, \(g_{ij} (t,{\varvec{x}}) = a^2(t) \left[ \delta _{ij} + h_{ij} (t,{\varvec{x}}) \right] \), using the traceless and transverse gauge \(h_{ii} = \partial _i h_{ij} =0\). Moreover, we decompose \(h_{ij}\) in its two polarisation modes, \(h_{ij} = h_+ \epsilon ^+_{ij} + h_\times \epsilon ^\times _{ij} \), where \(\epsilon _{ij}^\lambda \) are the polarization tensors.
5.2.1 Standard sirens
Standard sirens are GW sources at cosmological distances which provide a direct measurement of the luminosity distance. Standard sirens which come with an associated EM counterpart that enables one to determine their redshift can be used to infer the luminosity distance-redshift relation, and thus trace the evolution of the Universe independently of other distance ladders.
For inspiraling binaries, at leading order in the PN approximation, the GW strain reads, for the two polarizations (see e.g., Maggiore 2007),
where \(\Phi \) is the phase of the wave, \(\mathcal {M}_{\mathrm{c}} \equiv (1+z) \mu ^{3/5} m^{2/5}\) is the redshifted chirp mass (\(\mu \) is the reduced mass and m the sum of the masses of the two bodies), f is the observed GW frequency, \(\iota \) is the inclination angle of the normal to the orbit with respect to the line of sight and \(d_{\mathrm{L}}\) is the luminosity distance of the source, which for a spatially-flat universe reads \(d_{\mathrm{L}}(z) \equiv (1+z) \int _0^z\frac{c}{H(z')}\,\mathrm {d}z'\), where \(H \equiv \dot{a} /a\) is the Hubble parameter. One factor that hinders the determination of the luminosity distance is its degeneracy with the inclination angle. This degeneracy can be broken if higher order modes are included or if the binary has a precessing spin, in which case the characteristic modulation of the amplitude can disentangle the inclination angle.
Standard sirens with LISA will provide a formidable probe of the cosmic-expansion history, from low and intermediate redshifts of \(z \lesssim 0.1\) and \(0.1 \lesssim z \lesssim 1\) with stellar-mass BBHs and EMRIs, to deep redshifts of \(z\lesssim 10\) for MBBHs. This will naturally place stringent constraints on a great amount of dark energy models (see e.g., Belgacem et al. 2019c; Tamanini et al. 2016). While the low-redshift data will be of particular interest for cosmic acceleration (Lombriser and Taylor 2016), the high-redshift data will provide invaluable constraints on early dark energy (Caprini and Tamanini 2016) in a regime that is not accessible to other observational methods such as large-scale structure surveys.
For this scope, redshift measurements are of primary importance. These can be obtained through a detection of an EM counterpart of the GW event. In the context of LISA only MBHBs are expected to produce counterparts at cosmological distances. There are non-standard scenarios to produce EM counterparts for SOBHBs and IMBHBs, which could be used as multi-band standard sirens.
When an EM counterpart is not available, one can still obtain the redshift information in a statistical way. One method relies on the use of cross-correlation of each GW event with a galaxy catalogue, which provides a set of potential hosts inside the GW localization volume times its redshift uncertainty, computed from the GW distance measurements by taking into account the full prior range on all cosmological parameters (Abbott et al. 2021a; Chen et al. 2018; Schutz 1986; Del Pozzo 2012; Fishbach et al. 2019; Gray et al. 2020; MacLeod and Hogan 2008; Palmese et al. 2020; Soares-Santos et al. 2019; Vasylyev and Filippenko 2020). Combination of multiple events can significantly increase the constraining power of this method, as results from spurious galaxies will eventually average out. On the other hand, one has to properly take into account accurate modelling of the redshift uncertainties of galaxy catalogues, completeness issues—which can be relevant for sources at high redshift—and GW selection effects. The ideal candidates in this case are events with good localization and distance measurement, so that the potential hosts are in limited number (or even unique; Borhanian et al. 2020), at redshifts such that the available catalogues have a sufficient completeness (Del Pozzo et al. 2018).
Alternatively, one can exploit the full three-dimensional spatial cross-correlation between GW sources and the galaxy distribution (Bera et al. 2020; Mukherjee et al. 2021). These techniques are the only possibility for LISA sources that are not expected to produce an EM counterpart, such as EMRIs, SOBHBs, and IMBHBs. Although the cosmological potential of these sources is limited to low and intermediate redshift by the completeness of galaxy catalogues, they will anyway yield interesting constraints on \(H_0\), reaching the percent level in the most optimistic scenarios (Del Pozzo et al. 2018; Kyutoku and Seto 2017; MacLeod and Hogan 2008).
As an alternative to the use of a galaxy catalogue, the redshift information can be obtained from the fact that the GW waveform gives the masses of the binaries redshifted by cosmic expansion. Information about the mass distribution of GW sources can then break this mass-redshift degeneracy and allow a test of the luminosity distance-redshift relation. For stellar-mass BHs, this can be done by exploiting the presence of a mass scale in the population (Farr et al. 2019; Ezquiaga and Holz 2021; You et al. 2021). For binary NSs, it is possible to jointly constrain the parameters of the NS mass function and the cosmological parameters (Taylor and Gair 2012; Taylor et al. 2012).
5.2.2 Luminosity distance
In GR, the observed gravitational strain is inversely proportional to the luminosity distance to the GW source, see eqs. (6) and (7). This can be understood by considering the free propagation of GWs, which in Fourier space is governed by the equation
where \(\lambda = +, \times \) is the polarization index (see above), a prime denotes the derivative with respect to conformal time \(\eta \equiv \int \mathrm {d}t/a(t)\) and \({{\mathcal {H}}}\equiv a'/a\) is the conformal Hubble parameter. This equation can be rewritten by defining \(\chi _\lambda \equiv a h_\lambda \), so that it becomes \( {\chi }''_\lambda +(k^2-a''/{a}) {\chi }_\lambda =0\). For modes well inside the horizon, such as those considered for LISA, the term \(a''/a\) can be neglected and we obtain a frictionless wave equation for \(\chi \). For a spherical wave, the amplitude evolves as \(\chi _\lambda \propto 1/r\), where r denotes the comoving distance to the source, so that \(h_\lambda \propto 1/(a r) = 1/d_{\mathrm{L}}\).
In alternative gravity models, however, the strain is inversely proportional to a “GW luminosity distance”Footnote 8 which is generally different from the one measured with EM signals. To distinguish between the two, in the following we denote the former by \(d_{\mathrm{L}}^{\mathrm{gw}}\) and the latter by \(d_{\mathrm{L}}^{\mathrm{em}}\). Indeed, in non-GR theories the propagation equation (8) is generally modified. Here we consider only scale-independent modifications (see Sects. 2.2.2 and 6.3.2 for scale-dependent ones) and thus one can have (Amendola et al. 2018a; Arai and Nishizawa 2018; Belgacem et al. 2018a, c; Gleyzes et al. 2014; Lombriser and Taylor 2016; Nishizawa 2018; Saltas et al. 2014)
for some function \(\delta (\eta )\). In this case, to eliminate from the equation the term proportional to \( {h}'_\lambda \), we may introduce \({\chi }_\lambda \equiv {\tilde{a}}h_{\lambda }\) with \({\tilde{a}}'/{{\tilde{a}}}={{\mathcal {H}}}[1-\delta (\eta )]\). As before, \(\chi _{\lambda }\propto 1/r\) for a spherical wave and hence \(h_\lambda \propto 1/({\tilde{a}}r)\). In other words, the GW luminosity distance is now related to the EM one by
Non-trivial background cosmological solutions such as self-accelerating ones (Crisostomi and Koyama 2018a; Lombriser and Lima 2017; Lombriser and Taylor 2016) are of particular interest since they are responsible for the peculiar behavior of the friction term, which can change the ratio \(d_{\mathrm{L}}^{\,\mathrm gw}/d_{\mathrm{L}}^{\,\mathrm em}\). For other works studying the damping of GWs see e.g., Deffayet and Menou (2007); Amendola et al. (2018a); Calabrese et al. (2016); Frusciante (2021); Pardo et al. (2018); Visinelli et al. (2018) . A deviation in the friction term has potential signature in LISA (Belgacem et al. 2019c) or third-generation ground based standard sirens observations. GWs detectors are thus a complementary means with other cosmological surveys for constraining the friction term.
In general, the reconstruction of a full function of redshift from the data is challenging and it is convenient to have a useful parametrization (analogous, for instance, to the \((w_0,w_a)\) parametrization of the dark energy equation of state). For modified GW propagation, a convenient parametrization can be given in terms of two parameters \((\Xi _0,n)\) (Belgacem et al. 2018a),
This parametrization reproduces the fact that, as \(z\rightarrow 0\), \(d_{\mathrm{L}}^{\,\mathrm gw}/d_{\mathrm{L}}^{\,\mathrm em}\rightarrow 1\) since, as the redshift of the source goes to zero, there can be no effect from modified propagation. In the limit of large redshifts, in (11) \(d_{\mathrm{L}}^{\,\mathrm gw}/d_{\mathrm{L}}^{\,\mathrm em}\) goes to a constant value \(\Xi _0\). This is motivated by the fact that in typical DE models associated with the cosmic acceleration the deviations from GR only appear in the recent cosmological epoch, so \(\delta (z)\) goes to zero at large redshift and, from (10), \(d_{\mathrm{L}}^{\,\mathrm gw}(z)/d_{\mathrm{L}}^{\,\mathrm em}(z)\) saturates to a constant.Footnote 9
For Horndeski and beyond-Horndeski theories the above discussion simplifies. In this case the damping in Eq. (9) comes from the time dependence of the effective Planck mass \(M_*\) that canonically normalizes the graviton (Gleyzes et al. 2013). In particular, the quadratic action for \(h_\lambda \) reads, using the conformal time, \(S \propto \int \mathrm {d}^3x \mathrm {d}\eta (a M_*)^2 \left[ h_{\lambda }'{}^2 - (\partial _k h_{\lambda })^2 \right] \), which shows that in this case the quantity that satisfies a standard wave equation inside the horizon is \(\chi _\lambda = a M_* h_\lambda \), with an extra \(M_*(\eta )\) in the normalization. This implies that
i.e., the ratio between the GW and EM luminosity distance simply reflects the ratio between the value of the effective Planck mass at the observer (at redshift 0) and the one at the source at redshift z. If these are equal, for instance as a consequence of other constraints (see Sect. 5.1.4 above), then there is no effect (Dalang and Lombriser 2019; Dalang et al. 2020). Another way to see this is by noting that the damping term in Eq. (9) is \(\delta = - \mathrm {d}\ln M_*/\mathrm {d}\ln a\) (see e.g., Bellini and Sawicki 2014; Gleyzes et al. 2014); Eq. (12) then follows from Eq. (10).
In the past, studies of dark energy at the next generation of GW detectors have focused on the DE equation of state. However, while current EM observations show that in modified gravity theories deviations from the \(\Lambda \)CDM cannot be much larger than a few percent, modified GW propagation is a phenomenon accessible only to GW detectors, and therefore currently basically unconstrained. For instance, there are explicit examples of phenomenologically viable modified gravity models that predict a very large effect. In particular, the RT non-local model mentioned above predicts a value of \(\Xi _0\) that, depending on a free parameter of the model (related to the initial conditions) can be as large as \(\Xi _0\simeq 1.8\) (Belgacem et al. 2018b, 2019a), corresponding to a \(80\%\) deviation from the GR value \(\Xi _0=1\). Therefore, as observed in Belgacem et al. (2018a, 2018c) modified GW propagation provides a complementary and more promising observable than those inferred from EM observations.
Constraints on a modified GW luminosity distance were placed after the multi-messenger event GW170817 (Arai and Nishizawa 2018; Belgacem et al. 2018a; Lagos et al. 2019). The first limits on \(\Xi _0\), using dark sirens from the O1-O2-O3a LIGO/Virgo runs have been recently presented in Finke et al. (2021), while constraints using the binary black hole mass distribution were obtained in Ezquiaga (2021). Forecasts on the sensitivity of LISA to \(\Xi _0\) (together with other parameters, such as the parameter \(w_0\) that enters in the parametrization of the DE equation of state) have been performed in Belgacem et al. (2019c), using the coalescence of SMBH binaries. These are expected to produce powerful EM counterparts, since they are believed to merge in a gas rich environment, and are therefore potential standard candles for LISA. The results, using the astrophysical models of Barausse (2012); Klein et al. (2016), which make a range of plausible assumptions for the BH seeds and for the merger delay times, and performing full MCMC exploration of the parameter spaces, confirm the strong potential of LISA for constraining, or detecting, modified GW propagation. As an example, Fig. 3 shows the forecast in the \((\Xi _0,w_0)\) plane, for two different astrophysical scenarios.
To end this discussion, let us remark that in theories beyond GR that feature additional degrees of freedom, be it scalar, vector, or tensor, GWs are expected to exhibit new polarisations. In general, these additional polarisations will interact with the standard ones and such interactions may affect the amplitudes of the standard polarization modes, whose energy could leak into the new ones, thereby changing the measured gravitational distance \(d_{\mathrm{L}}^{\,\mathrm{gw}}\). Over cosmological backgrounds GW mixings only appear when additional tensor modes are present (Caldwell et al. 2016; Jiménez et al. 2020; Max et al. 2017) or cubic interactions are taken into account (Creminelli et al. 2018, 2019). Over general space-times, quadratic mixing with scalars and vector modes are also possible (Dalang et al. 2021; Ezquiaga and Zumalacárregui 2020) (see also discussion in Sect. 2.2.2).
5.2.3 Hubble constant
The present value of the Hubble parameter \(H_0\) is one of the fundamental parameters of the \(\Lambda \)CDM model. Over the last few years, a disagreement has persisted between local measurements obtained from the late-time distance ladder (such as the type Ia supernovae calibrated by cepheids, Riess et al. 2018) and the value inferred from early-time observables such as the CMB (Planck Collaboration et al. 2020b) and the large-scale structure (D’Amico et al. 2021; Philcox et al. 2020) (see e.g., Shah et al. 2021 for a recent review on the Hubble constant tension). In the next decade, GWs will play a crucial role in constraining \(H_0\). The luminosity distance of a BBH and a BNS can be inferred and calibrated using an empirically constructed distance ladder at various distance scales. If combined with the known redshift of the host galaxy, the present rate of \(H_0\) can then be estimated (Schutz 1986), as it is done using type Ia supernovae via the local distance ladder (Riess et al. 2016)
The first standard siren-based \(H_0\) measurement came from the neutron-star merger event, GW170817, with the optical counterpart identification of the host galaxy, NGC 4993. While currently the observations of this merger set a loose constraint of \(H_0= 70 ^{+12}_{-8}\) at 1\(\sigma \) (Abbott et al. 2017a), future detections of additional GW standard sirens, obtained with ground-based second-generation detectors at full sensitivity, have the power to constrain the Hubble parameter to an accuracy of \(\sim 1\%\) with an error that depends on the number of detected events (Chen et al. 2018; Nissanke et al. 2013) and redshift distribution (Dalal et al. 2006). Notably, for nearby sources, the dominant uncertainty comes from the error on the peculiar velocities when correcting the measurement of the observed redshift (Boruah et al. 2021; Nicolaou et al. 2020). A recent work by the LISA Cosmology WG (Belgacem et al. 2019c) forecast \(H_0\) within the \(\Lambda \)CDM scenario using MBH and found the relative error to be 3.8% in the optimistic case for the accuracy of redshift measurement and delensing and 7.7% in the more realistic case (see also Tamanini et al. 2016).
Furthermore, the rate of dark GW events without detection of EM counterpart, such as EMRIs, SOBHBs, or IMBHBs, should be much higher than those with EM counterpart (Lyutikov 2016). To these dark sirens are also added all events whose EM counterpart will be difficult to identify, such as possible well-localised SMBHs at relatively low-redshift (Petiteau et al. 2011). The strategy adopted by GW detectors then consists in estimating the Hubble parameter for each potential host galaxy of the GW, resulting in an average value of \(H_0\) (Chen et al. 2018; Fishbach et al. 2019; Schutz 1986), as done for the GW170814 event (Soares-Santos et al. 2019). In this context, the accurate sky location provided by LISA for the identification of the host galaxy of the GW event is definitely a major advantage (Kyutoku and Seto 2017) and the use of redshift catalogs from large-scale spectroscopic galaxy surveys such as the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) (Aghamousa et al. 2016), 4MOST (de Jong et al. 2012) or Euclid (Amendola et al. 2018b) will therefore be required to improve the Hubble constant measurement. Notably, LISA should be able to observe up to \(\sim \)100 stellar-mass BBHs within 100 Mpc, providing a few % measurement of \(H_0\) (Del Pozzo et al. 2018; Kyutoku and Seto 2016). This number however strongly depends on the performance of LISA at the high end of its frequency band, which is not guaranteed to provide the required sensitivity (Moore et al. 2019). A more promising population of dark sirens may be provided by EMRIs, which depending on the actual rate at which they will be detected, will yield constraints on \(H_0\) at the few to one % level (Laghi et al. 2021).
The current forecasts mentioned here above do not indicate that LISA will be able to contribute to solving the Hubble tension, which by the 2030s is expected to be largely solved by other observations. However they show that LISA will provide strong complementary constraints on \(H_0\), which will be used to corroborate results obtained with other measurements and different techniques. This kind of cross-validation will be extremely important to reinforce our confidence on the actual value of the Hubble constant, especially if hints of deviations from \(\Lambda \)CDM will have been observed.
5.3 Large-scale structure
The launch of LISA will be preceded by several large-scale structure surveys, such as DESI and the Vera C. Rubin Observatory from ground, Euclid and Roman from space, and SKA in the radio band. These instruments will map a large part of the observable universe with unprecedented accuracy. Here we discuss how LISA observations can be combined with these surveys’ data and how the intervening large-scale structure will affect the observed GW signals.
5.3.1 Cross-correlation with large-scale structure
Another possible way to test cosmological models is represented by the cross correlation of GW detections with the large-scale structure (LSS) of the Universe. This was pioneered initially to test dark energy and dark matter models and the distance-redshift relation in Camera and Nishizawa (2013); Oguri (2016); Raccanelli et al. (2016). More recently, this probe became very popular and several different approaches have been suggested and investigated (see e.g., Calore et al. 2020; Cañas Herrera et al. 2020; Raccanelli 2017; Scelfo et al. 2018), looking at both correlations with resolved sources and the SGWB (Alonso et al. 2020; Bertacca et al. 2020; Cusin et al. 2018; Jenkins and Sakellariadou 2018; Jenkins et al. 2019; Mukherjee et al. 2020b; Yang et al. 2021).
For the resolved-event case, the GW\(\times \)LSS correlation can be used for a variety of tests. By measuring the effective bias of the hosts of compact-object mergers, one can get information about the presence and abundance of PBHs. This happens because binary PBHs would preferentially merge in halos with low velocity dispersion, and hence halos with very little or absent star formation, which have a galaxy bias \(b<1\). On the other hand, mergers of compact objects that are the endpoint of stellar evolution naturally happen for the vast majority within star forming-rich halos, which have larger galaxy bias values, \(b>1\), where in the linear bias scheme, b quantifies the mismatch between the distribution of matter and that of galaxies, \(\delta _g=b\delta _m\). Therefore, by measuring the amplitude of the angular cross correlation of galaxy maps with catalogues of compact-object mergers, which directly depends on the bias of the mergers’ hosts, one can statistically probe the abundance of PBH mergers. This information can also be used to discriminate between different astrophysical models (see e.g., Scelfo et al. 2020)
When EM counterparts are available (or the redshift determination of BBHs is available through other methods), the GW\(\times \)LSS correlation can be used to test the distance-redshift relation (Oguri 2016) and models of dark energy and modified gravity (Camera and Nishizawa 2013; Mukherjee et al. 2020a; Raccanelli 2017; Raccanelli et al. 2018).
In the case of the SGWB, the cross correlation with the LSS will be fundamental to understand the observed signal. GWs will experience projection effects that will need to be accounted for in order to observe the signal in the appropriate frame (Bellomo et al. 2021; Bertacca et al. 2020). Moreover, the cross correlation with the LSS can allow us to disentangle the astrophysical SGWB from the primordial one coming from inflation.
5.3.2 Gravitational lensing of GWs
Similarly to EM radiation, GWs experience the gravitational potential of massive objects while traveling across the Universe. This opens the possibility of both probing the distribution of structures in the cosmos and the underlying gravitational interactions. LISA will offer a unique perspective since it will detect high-redshift GWs in a lower frequency band compared to ground-based detectors, increasing the lensing probabilities and the detectability of diffraction effects.
The probability that a GW is lensed depends on the redshift of the source and the distribution of lenses. For high-redshift GWs, intervening matter between the source and the observer can magnify the GW signal and introduce a systematic error in the determination of the luminosity distance. Correcting for this weak-lensing effect will be relevant when inferring cosmological and population parameters from GW standard sirens (Cusin and Tamanini 2021; Fleury et al. 2017; Hirata et al. 2010; Hughes and Holz 2003). A fraction of these GW events will pass close enough to the lens so that lensing will produce multiple images of the same event. LISA could detect a few strongly-lensed massive black-hole binaries during its mission (Sereno et al. 2010). The detection of multiple lensing events could provide new means for cosmography with LISA (Sereno et al. 2011).
In the strong-lensing regime the time delay between the images increases linearly with the mass of the lens, reaching delays of months for a \(10^{12}M_\odot \) galaxy lens. Each of the lensed images will have a different magnification and they will acquire a fixed phase shift depending on how many times the image has crossed a lens caustic (Schneider et al. 1992). The precise measurement by LISA of the phase of long duration signals could be key in distinguishing different types of lensed images (Ezquiaga et al. 2021a).
When time delays between lensed images become shorter than the signal’s duration, interference effects among the images become relevant. This wave-optics regime is achieved when the wavelength of the GW is comparable to the Schwarzschild radius of the lens. Since LISA will observe lower frequencies, diffraction effects will be more relevant than for ground-based detectors (Takahashi and Nakamura 2003). In the diffraction limit the GW waveform can be distorted and one could use these features to identify the event as lensed (Dai et al. 2018). In addition, these distortions may make the GW phase to appear to arrive earlier than an unlensed EM signal (Morita and Soda 2019; Takahashi 2017), although this is only an apparent superluminality (Ezquiaga et al. 2020b; Suyama 2020). This effect has to be taken into account (Ezquiaga et al. 2020b) when for example inferring constraints on the speed of gravity from the possible pre-merger modulated EM brightness of a super-massive BBH (Haiman 2017). If these lensing features distorting the GW waveform are not properly identified, they could be misinterpreted as modified gravity, see e.g., Cusin and Lagos (2020); Ezquiaga et al. (2021a, 2021b); Toubiana et al. (2021)
5.4 Burning questions
We have reviewed several ways in which LISA will contribute to test the \(\Lambda \)CDM model, and to probe the fundamental physics nature of its extensions involving dark energy and modified gravity. There are many open directions.
-
Screening is likely to play an important role, yet largely unexplored. In particular, it would be relevant to understand what happens when a GW propagates from, to, and through screened regions of the Universe. The considerations of Sect. 5.2.2 were made in the context of an idealised homogeneous and isotropic FLRW background space-time and in the absence of extra polarization modes. It is thus natural to wonder which of its conclusions hold as GWs propagate through the actual inhomogeneous Universe or in the presence of extra modes. Theoretical analyses along these lines were initiated in Dalang and Lombriser (2019); Dalang et al. (2020); Lagos and Zhu (2020); Wolf and Lagos (2020) for Horndeski theories.
-
Another direction is to assess how other standard candles such as SMBH binaries and EMRIs will improve, using statistical methods, our measurements of \(H_0\), of the equation of state of dark energy and of the effects on the GW propagation.
-
Moreover, it would be relevant to explore, in terms of forecasts, how the synergy between LISA and large-scale structure surveys will help to improve the redshift estimate of GW sources and the inferred cosmological parameters.
-
Another possible synergy (Piro et al. 2021) is with the Athena observatory (Nandra et al. 2013). Measuring the X-ray signal and optical follow-up will make it possible to identify the host of an individual GW source. The distance-redshift relationship can then be measured to high accuracy (\(1\%\)) to probe the Hubble rate.
-
Finally, we have discussed several effects of lensing of the GWs but their potential to constrain dark energy and modified gravity remains largely unexplored.
6 Model-independent tests
Although one can test a given model of gravity by comparing its predicted GW templates against data, a different approach is to perform model-agnostic tests. There are two main types of such tests. The first one is a consistency test of GR, where assuming that GR is correct one compares the GR waveform with GW data. The second one aims at constraining modified theories of gravity by performing a certain model-independent test and then mapping the outcome to specific modified gravity models. We will discuss these tests in some detail in what follows.
6.1 Consistency tests of GR
Let us first discuss tests to check the consistency of GR predictions with the detected GW signals. We begin with the residual test, which is the most generic, model-independent test that could, in principle, pick up arbitrary departures of the theory from the data. We will then describe a test looking for consistency in the intrinsic parameters of the source (e.g. the merger remnant’s mass and spin) as determined from the early inspiral phase and the late IMR phase of the coalescence event. Finally, we discuss a generalization of the BH no-hair test using the entire IMR waveform, wherein one compares the intrinsic parameters of the source determined from the different multipole modes of the signal.
It is worth noting that consistency tests are also possible by comparing the parameters obtained from the GW signal with those from other techniques in a multi-messenger scenario (Baker et al. 2019). There are already systems observed in GW detectors (with LIGO/Virgo) and EM telescopes (Abbott et al. 2017d). This will become much more prevalent with LISA (Chen et al. 2020; Korol et al. 2017; McGee et al. 2020; Mukherjee et al. 2020a; Wyithe and Loeb 2003). In particular, joint observations of GW systems (Congedo and Taylor 2019; Edwards et al. 2020; McGee et al. 2020), will provide independent estimates of the BH parameters assuming GR, which can be compared for consistency.
6.1.1 Residual tests
A Bayesian inference algorithm can be used to estimate the parameters of a signal/source in the data (Abbott et al. 2020a). Such an algorithm would essentially maximize the likelihood P(d|h), where d is the data and h is the expected signal. The parameters \(\lambda _\alpha ,\) that maximize the likelihood, are deemed to be the best estimate of the signal parameters. If GR gives the correct description of GWs, then the data would be consistent with the waveform predicted by GR. In that case the residual, constructed by subtracting the best-fit waveform from the data, would be consistent with background noise. Failure of GR to accurately describe the data would lead to a residual that is statistically inconsistent with background noise. Such tests have been applied to the existing GW events by the LIGO/Virgo Collaboration (Abbott et al. 2016b, 2019b).
For the test to be effective, it is critical to characterize the statistical properties of the residual. The data from GW detectors is often contaminated by non-stationary and non-Gaussian background. Thus, one cannot simply ask if the residual is consistent with a Gaussian distribution but one must ask if it is consistent with the detector noise at times when no GW signals are known to be present. One can deploy statistical tools such as Anderson-Darling or Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests to compare the residual with the data at other times. Alternatively, one can use a transient detection algorithm, e.g. Bayeswave (Cornish and Littenberg 2015), to estimate the coherent SNR in the residual data at a certain statistical significance and ask what is the probability that one gets an SNR as large as for data sets that contain only noise.
By construction, the residual test is the most generic model-independent method that one can construct. This is because, the test does not require any non-GR waveforms, does not use additional parameters in the waveform to look for deviations (unlike, e.g., in parameterized tests of GR described in Sect. 6.2 below) and is sensitive to departures from GR outside the region where GR waveform has most of its support, (e.g. echoes). Its drawback, however, is that subtle departures from GR cannot be easily identified since the test is not phase coherent and the purely statistical nature will make it difficult to identify the origin of the failure of the theory.
More work is needed to determine how to implement such a residual test in LISA. An approach similar to LIGO/Virgo’s may not work because, unlike LIGO/Virgo currently, LISA will always have a background of sources that are on during the entire observation period. Therefore, removing only the loudest signal from the data will not necessarily lead to a residual that is consistent with noise, i.e. there could be other signals hidden below the loudest one. Work has began to determine how to deal with multiple simultaneous sources in the data for parameter estimation reasons, but similar studies should be undertaken to generalize LIGO/Virgo’s residual tests to LISA.
6.1.2 Inspiral-merger-ringdown (IMR) tests
The orbital dynamics of a BBH essentially consists of three phases: (i) a long adiabatic inspiral phase during which the companion objects slowly spiral in towards each other as they lose energy to GWs, (ii) a rapid plunge-merger phase during which the system cannot be described by orbital dynamics as the horizons of the two BHs merge to form a single horizon, and (iii) a final ringdown phase during which the merger remnant quickly settles down to its final stationary state. An IMR consistency test compares the parameters determined using the inspiral phase of the signal only to those obtained using the late-time merger-ringdown phase (Ghosh et al. 2018, 2016b). If GR correctly describes both the inspiral and the plunge-merger regimes then the parameters determined from these two phases would be consistent with each other, within statistical uncertainties associated with the measurement; any discrepancy would then be a hint of a failure of the theory.
The IMR test currently implemented by the LIGO/Virgo Collaboration (Abbott et al. 2019b, 2016b) translates the intrinsic parameters (the masses and spins) measured in the inspiral phase to the mass \(M_f\) and the dimensionless spin magnitude \(\chi _f\) of the merger remnant using a fitting formula derived from NR simulations. One then plots contours of the (two-dimensional) posterior probability density in the \(M_f\)-\(\chi _f\) plane at different credible intervals. An IMR test therefore checks if the 90% credible contours corresponding to the two different ways of measuring the parameters overlap with each other. Non-overlapping contours could indicate that one of the two phases is not consistent with the GR model. Large BH spins and small mass ratios are potentially more effective in such tests as they break the symmetries that could hide failure of GR in equal-mass systems with non-spinning BH companions. The IMR consistency test will strengthen its power when inspiral observations with LISA is combined with merger-ringdown observations with ground-based detectors through multiband GW observations (Carson and Yagi 2020a, b; Tso et al. 2019).
One can go beyond the consistency check of GR and apply the IMR test to probe specific non-GR theories and spacetimes. Unlike the parameterized tests to be discussed in Sect. 6.2, there is no simple known mapping to convert the information of the theory-agnostic IMR consistency test to bounds on specific theories or spacetimes, and hence the application needs to be done on a case-by-case basis. This has been demonstrated for a string-inspired quadratic gravity theory (Carson and Yagi 2020d) and generic BH spacetimes beyond Kerr (Carson and Yagi 2020c). The IMR tests with multiband GW observations will be able to probe such a theory and spacetimes more accurately than the existing GW and EM observations by a few orders of magnitude.
One problem that must be overcome to carry out such IMR tests with LISA is to develop a more thorough understanding of the mass and spin of the remnant in mergers of intermediate mass ratio systems and systems with non-negligible eccentricity and double-spin precession. Indeed, unlike LIGO/Virgo sources, many LISA binary sources are expected to be eccentric and spin-precessing. Waveform models for such systems are beginning to be developed, but detailed numerical simulations are currently lacking. We refer the interested reader to the waveform modeling white paper (in prep.) for further details.
6.1.3 Multipolar gravitational wave tests
GWs at leading-order in a post-Minkowskian expansion is quadrupolar in GR. However, non-quadrupole (higher order) modes make appreciable contribution to the GWs from BBHs with large mass ratios and misaligned spins—which was indeed the case for GW190412 (Abbott et al. 2020b) and GW190814 (Abbott et al. 2020d). The multipolar structure of the GWs is fully determined by the intrinsic parameters of a binary, e.g. masses and spin angular momenta of the companion BHs in a quasi-circular orbit. One can formulate multiple ways of testing the consistency of the observed GW signal with the expected multipolar structure of GWs from BBHs in GR. This is called a “no-hair” test of BBHs (Dhanpal et al. 2019; Islam et al. 2020) as it is similar to testing the “no-hair” theorems for isolated BHs through mutual consistency of the quasi-normal mode spectrum.
The main idea of this test is to look for consistency of the source parameters determined independently from the quadrupole and higher order modes. We typically use GR waveforms when performing consistency tests, so we do not consider lower-order multipole modes, such as scalar dipole modes discussed in Sect. 2.2.3. In spirit, this idea is similar to checking the consistency of cosmological parameters estimated from the low- and high multipoles of the CMB radiation. There are multiple ways in which the test could be implemented. For example, one could use different intrinsic parameters to describe the phase evolution of the quadrupole and higher-order modes and, as in the IMR consistency test described earlier, check to see if the parameters determined from these modes are consistent with one another. Alternatively, one could introduce additional parameters to describe the amplitude of the higher modes while keeping the amplitude of the quadrupole mode as in GR. Such tests could reveal any modification from GR of the multipolar structure of the binary that is imprinted in the GWs observed at detectors.
An advance that would be useful in this context is the development of a mapping between such generic higher-mode deviations from GR and specific modified theories. Most studies of the dynamics of binary systems outside of GR have been only done to leading PN order in the inspiral. Going beyond leading order would be essential to find the higher-modes discussed above as predicted in a given theory.
6.2 Parametrized tests
We now discuss model-independent tests that introduce generic parameters capturing non-GR effects independent of the underlying gravitational theory. We first present a generic framework, followed by a few examples on how one can use such parameterized tests to probe specific non-GR theories and BH spacetimes beyond Kerr.
Many modified gravity theories have been proposed over the years, and sufficiently accurate gravitational waveform models are only available for a small subset of these theories, when their calculation is even possible at all (Berti et al. 2015). Therefore it is appealing to develop generic “null” tests of Einstein’s theory, following the approach pursued with Solar System tests, where the parametrized PN (PPN) framework proposed by Will and Nordtvedt (Nordtvedt 1968; Nordtvedt and Will 1972; Will 1971; Will and Nordtvedt 1972) has provided a unifying scheme for tests of GR that has been in use for over 50 years.
6.2.1 Inspiral tests
In GW data analysis, a natural generalization of the PPN approach consists of verifying the PN structure of the waveform phase (Arun et al. 2006b). The idea is to decompose the Fourier-domain waveform model into a frequency-dependent amplitude and a frequency-dependent phase, and to then rewrite the phase (schematically, and ignoring logarithmic terms) as \(\Psi _{\mathrm{GR}}(f) = \sum _{n=0}^{7} \alpha _{n} v(f)^{-5+n}\). In GR the PN coefficients \(\alpha _{n}\) are known functions of the parameters of the binary (the individual masses \(m_1\) and \(m_2\) for non-spinning BH binaries of total mass \(m=m_1+m_2\)), and \(v(f) = (\pi m f)^{1/3}\) is the orbital velocity. The idea is to treat all of these coefficients (or just a subset; Arun et al. 2006a) as independent, and find their best-fit values by comparing the above template waveform with the data. One can then check the consistency of the measured masses from each of the above coefficients. This procedure resembles binary pulsar tests in the parameterized post-Keplerian formalism (Damour and Taylor 1992; Stairs 2003), but it has some limitations. There are known modified theories of gravity for which the Fourier phase does not have a leading-order term \(\propto v^{-5}\): these include, for example, theories with dipole emission (\(\propto v^{-7}\)) and variability of the fundamental constants like the gravitational constant G (\(\propto v^{-13}\)). Second, some modified gravity theories may modify the GW amplitude more than the phase: one example is gravitational birefringence (Alexander et al. 2008; Yagi and Yang 2018; Yunes et al. 2010).
One proposal to address these problems is the so-called ppE approach (Yunes and Pretorius 2009b). In this framework, one extends the GR waveform model as follows:
Here \({\tilde{A}}_{\mathrm{GR}}(f)\) and \(\Psi _{\mathrm{GR}}(f)\) represent the most accurate GR models for the Fourier amplitude and phase. The quantities \((\alpha _{\mathrm{ppE}},\beta _{\mathrm{ppE}})\) are ppE constants that control the magnitude of deviations from GR, while (a, b) are real numbers that determine the type of deviation that is being constrained. The ppE approach is similar in spirit to the parametric analysis performed by the LIGO/Virgo Collaboration (Abbott et al. 2019a, 2016b). Different variants and extensions of this idea have been proposed (Cornish et al. 2011; Chatziioannou et al. 2012; Sampson et al. 2013, 2014). Constraints on ppE parameters can be mapped to constraints on specific extensions of GR (Yunes and Siemens 2013; Yunes et al. 2016). Astrophysical bounds on ppE parameters have also been derived using observations of relativistic binary pulsars (Yunes and Hughes 2010), and parametrized tests using the ppE formalism (in particular the amplitude corrections) can also be used to detect deviations from GR in the GW background emitted by BBHs (Maselli et al. 2016; Saffer and Yagi 2020).
In most data analysis applications (including recent tests of GR by the LIGO/Virgo Collaboration, Abbott et al. 2019a, 2016b), one considers variations of a single ppE term. This is often convenient, and it can generally be accurate enough because higher-order terms will not significantly alter the bounds coming from leading-order corrections (see e.g., Chatziioannou et al. 2012; Yunes et al. 2016). However we can expect modifications appearing at different orders to be correlated, and in general it is important to take into account these correlations, because in any specific theory, all modifications of GR will depend on a single coupling constant (or on a finite number of coupling constants).
These parametrized tests of inspiral waveforms can be thought of as generic null tests of GR, although they can be translated into bounds on specific beyond-GR theories on a case-by-case basis (see Sect. 6.2.3). Interestingly, they can be applied to several source classes, including SOBHs, EMRIs and SMBHs. Each source class has distinct advantages and disadvantages: SMBHs are expected to have large SNR, EMRIs should compensate for their lower SNR with the large number (\(\sim 10^5\)) of observable inspiral cycles, and—as we discuss below—SOBHs can be used to test GR modifications at large negative PN orders through multiband observations in conjunction with 3G detectors (such as the Einstein Telescope and Cosmic Explorer) that should be operational by the time LISA flies. Each source class can produce tight constraints on different ppE modifications (and therefore on different modifications of GR), depending on astrophysical event rates and uncertain details on the future network of ground-based interferometers. One of the main challenges facing theorists, astrophysicists and experimentalists is to figure out how this complex interplay between astrophysical event rates, beyond-GR waveform models, ground-based detector developments and data analysis methods will affect our ability to do fundamental physics with LISA.
Multiband observations of stellar-mass BH binaries can play an important role in constraining modified gravity via parametrized tests. This is because “multibanding” allows us to combine the information from the early inspiral dynamics using LISA with late inspiral, merger and ringdown observations using third-generation ground-based detectors. For example, it has been shown that the bounds on dipole GW emission from multibanding can be several orders of magnitude better than bounds coming from either of the bands (Barausse et al. 2016; Perkins et al. 2021; Toubiana et al. 2020). Single-parameter tests at positive PN orders are also expected to improve tremendously, as shown in Carson and Yagi (2020a, 2020b); Gnocchi et al. (2019). The impact of multibanding on multiparameter tests is equally profound: Gupta et al. (2020) shows that multibanding observations may be the only way of carrying out accurate multiparameter tests of GR, where simultaneous measurement of most of the known PN coefficients could be achieved with percentage-level precision.
One important challenge of these parameterized inspiral tests is to extend the mapping between generic deviations and specific theories; we will present two examples below (in Sect. 6.2.3). Indeed, the more such mappings we possess, the more inferences about fundamental physics we will be able to make from parameterized inspiral tests. Another challenge is to determine how to handle parameterically modifications of GR that do not admit a simple PN expansion in the inspiral. Indeed, certain theories of gravity, such as those that predict the sudden activation of dipole radiation at a specific length scale, cannot be exactly modeled as described. The above parameterization may be approximate enough to still be useful, but this needs further study in the LISA context.
6.2.2 Ringdown tests
Any parametrization requires analytical control of the “unperturbed” GR waveform, therefore it is very difficult (if not impossible) to construct parametrizations of the nonlinear merger of compact binaries. However one can attempt to construct parametrized ringdown waveforms based on perturbative treatments of the ringdown in GR.
Such parametrizations are useful because a detailed, ab-initio description of the BH ringdown phase beyond GR is very challenging, especially for rotating BHs. Despite years of efforts and significant advances in the field (Barausse et al. 2014; Cardoso et al. 2019b; Franciolini et al. 2019; Glampedakis and Pappas 2018; Glampedakis and Silva 2019; McManus et al. 2019; Tattersall et al. 2018), the vast majority of theoretical proposals to parametrize ringdown waveforms are currently plagued by certain approximations and assumptions that make them of limited utility in GW data analysis. Modified ringdown waveforms should be built upon the existence of BH solutions different from those predicted by GR (at least in theories where no-hair theorems do not apply), and in addition they must take into account that the perturbations will have different dynamics even for theories which admit the same solutions as GR (Barausse and Sotiriou 2008; Molina et al. 2010; Tattersall et al. 2018). These restrictions reflect the complexity of the problem, and they are of a varied nature. Some calculations were developed in specific modifications of GR, but most of them assume nonrotating BH backgrounds. Most follow-up works that attempt to relax the nonrotating approximation either deal only with scalar (rather than gravitational) perturbations, use the so-called geometric optics approximation, which is only valid in the eikonal (high-\(\ell \)) limit and in the absence of coupling between the metric and other degrees of freedom (but see Silva and Glampedakis 2020 for an attempt to include such a coupling with a small BH rotation), or work in the slow-rotation approximation (Wagle et al. 2021).
One of the most difficult open problems is the modelling of rotating BHs beyond GR (see also Sect. 2.2.1). This is important, because NR and recent GW observations indicate that the spin of the merger remnant is generally large (Abbott et al. 2019c; Berti and Volonteri 2008; Berti et al. 2007; Buonanno et al. 2007; Hofmann et al. 2016). Unfortunately most rotating BH solutions beyond GR are only known either perturbatively, as small-spin expansion around non-spinning backgrounds (Ayzenberg and Yunes 2014; Cano and Ruipérez 2019; Cardoso et al. 2018b; Maselli et al. 2015; Pani et al. 2011b), or they are given in the form of fully numerical solutions of the field equations (Cunha et al. 2019; Herdeiro et al. 2016; Kleihaus et al. 2011; Sullivan et al. 2020, 2021), which makes the application of perturbation theory difficult.
The “miraculous” separability of the master equations for the perturbations in GR (Teukolsky 1972, 1973) is in general absent in modified theories of gravity, so the calculation of QNMs must rely on fits of time-domain waveforms computed from numerical simulations in selected classes of theories beyond GR, which are now possible (at least in the small-coupling limit and for selected theories; Okounkova 2019; Okounkova et al. 2017, 2019b; Witek et al. 2019) but technically challenging.
Rather than attacking the problem “from the ground up”, various groups have considered a data-analysis-first approach, where one parametrizes deviations in the QNM frequencies and damping times (Carullo et al. 2018; Gossan et al. 2012; Maselli et al. 2020b; Meidam et al. 2014). In this framework, beyond-GR QNMs are described in terms of generic shifts from the corresponding Kerr QNM frequencies. Of course, once we set constraints on these shifts, we still need to map the frequency shifts to the new degrees of freedom of the underlying theory of gravity that produced them.
In conclusion, parametrized ringdown is an active research field which is still in its infancy.
6.2.3 Mapping to non-GR theories
Parametrized tests will show its power when bounds on generic, non-GR parameters can be mapped to those on theoretical constants in specific theories that represent violations of fundamental pillars in GR. In this subsection, we discuss two specific example theories, namely scalar-tensor theories and quadratic gravity. Mappings to other modified theories of gravity for both the phase and amplitude corrections can be found, e.g., in Tables I and II of (Tahura and Yagi 2018).
One of the simple examples to which we can relate the parametrized tests of GR concerns scalar-tensor theories. In these theories the leading modification to GR is the presence of a dipolar radiation. Such a radiation is generated by the (dimensionless) scalar charge \(\alpha _A\) of each body that violates the SEP. The parametrized dipolar test on the GW luminosity of \({\dot{E}}_{\mathrm {GW}} = {\dot{E}}_{\mathrm {GR}}\left( 1+B\left( \frac{G m}{r c^2}\right) ^{-1}\right) \) gives a bound on the parameter B where m is the total mass, r is the binary separation and B for scalar-tensor theories is \(B_{\mathrm {ST}} = \frac{5}{96}\left( \alpha _{1}-\alpha _{2}\right) ^{2}\) (Barausse et al. 2016). Scalar charges are typically zero for BHs in scalar-tensor theories and \(B_\mathrm {ST}=0\) for BBHs unless e.g. the scalar field is coupled to the Gauss–Bonnet invariant or some other forms of higher curvature invariant (see Sect. 2.2.1). However, \(B_\mathrm {ST} \ne 0\) for EMRIs if the secondary objects are NSs. Currently the best constraint on B is given by the observation of binary pulsars, \(|B|\lesssim 10^{-7}\) (Shao et al. 2017; Yunes and Hughes 2010). This can be related with the ppE framework in Eq. (13) with \(b_{\mathrm {ST}}=-7/3\) and \(\beta = -\frac{3}{224}\eta ^{2/5}B\). Such a correction enters at \(-1\)PN order to the waveform phase.
Another important example theory that can be tested within the ppE framework is quadratic gravity that introduces quadratic-curvature corrections (coupled to a scalar field) to the Einstein–Hilbert action. Under the small-coupling approximation, the leading-order modification to the Fourier phase \(\Psi (f)\) takes on the ppE form (Yunes and Pretorius 2009b) in Eq. (13), where \(b_{{\mathrm{dCS}}}=-1/3\) in dCS gravity (a 2PN correction) and \(b_{{\mathrm{EdGB}}} = -7/3\) in Einstein-dilaton Gauss–Bonnet gravity gravity (a \(-1\)PN correction). The specific mapping to these two well-motivated theories can be found in Nair et al. (2019); Yagi et al. (2012a) for EdGB, and in Nair et al. (2019); Yagi et al. (2012b) for dCS. From the data presented in first LIGO/Virgo catalogue, GWTC-1 (Abbott et al. 2019c), EdGB’s coupling constant was constrained to \({\alpha }^{1/2}_{\mathrm{EdGB}} \lesssim 5.6\) km (Nair et al. 2019) from single events and \({\alpha }^{1/2}_{\mathrm{EdGB}} \lesssim 1.7\) km (Perkins et al. 2021; Yamada et al. 2019) from combined multiple events, and the latter is better than previous bounds, such as those from BH low-mass x-ray binaries (Yagi 2012). On the other hand, dCS gravity still remains unconstrained from the leading PN order correction to the waveform phase, although recent consistency constraints from the combination of LIGO/Virgo and NICER data require \(\alpha _{\mathrm{dCS}}^{1/2} < 8.5\) km (Silva et al. 2021a). Work on other modified theories within the broad class of quadratic gravity models (Yagi et al. 2016) remains to be done.
Apart from testing specific non-GR theories, one can use the parameterized tests to probe beyond-Kerr BH spacetime in a generic way. For example, it is possible to map the ppE constraints from the inspiral regime to constraints on parametric deviations from the GR BH metric (Cardenas-Avendano et al. 2020; Carson and Yagi 2020c). The modified ringdown frequencies can also be used to place constraints on deviations away from the GR BH metric (Konoplya and Zhidenko 2020; Völkel and Barausse 2020). Similar to the IMR consistency tests discussed in Sect. 6.1.2, one can perform consistency checks between the above BH spacetime tests from the inspiral and ringdown. The two sets of constraints can be compared for discrepancies (which might be an indicator of new physics) or improving the overall constraints (Carson and Yagi 2020c).
6.3 Other model-independent tests
There are other model-independent tests one can perform on GW observations with LISA (some of them have already been applied to the existing GW events by the LIGO/Virgo Collaboration). In this section, we describe three such model-independent tests. First, one can look for additional GW (scalar and vector) polarization modes that are absent in GR. Next, one can study how the modified propagation of GWs affect the amplitude and phase of gravitational waveforms and how one can use multi-messenger observations or the arrival time difference of GWs at different detectors to probe such modified GW propagation. Lastly, one can use the SGWB of either astrophysical or cosmological (primordial) origin to test GR.
6.3.1 Polarization tests
A model-independent test of GR is based on the possibility of detecting additional polarizations, not present in GR. Metric theories of gravity can have up to six polarization modes—two tensorial, two scalar and two vector modes. While in GR only the tensorial polarization modes are present, this is not the case for most of the viable alternative theories of gravity (Will 2014). Such additional polarizations can be detected with the GW observations of inspiraling compact objects (Chatziioannou et al. 2012; Pang et al. 2020; Takeda et al. 2018, 2019). Indeed, ground based detectors have already put an upper limit on such additional polarization modes in a theory-agnostic way (Abbott et al. 2017b, 2019a, b, 2021b; Takeda et al. 2021), including the case with mixed polarizations of standard tensor modes with additional non-GR ones (Chatziioannou et al. 2021; Takeda et al. 2022).
LISA offers new possibilities for testing the non-GR polarizations with an increased sensitivity (Tinto and da Silva Alves 2010). For frequencies larger than roughly \(6 \times 10^{-2}\,\mathrm{Hz}\), the sensitivity of LISA for scalar-longitudinal and vector polarization modes can be up to ten times larger compared to the tensorial or scalar-transverse modes, while in the lower frequency, the sensitivity is of the same order. Therefore, it is expected that LISA will be able to assess the polarization of the detected GWs and thus put strong constraints on modified gravity.
The SGWBs (to be discussed in more detail in Sect. 6.3.3) can also be a powerful test of non-GR polarizations (Callister et al. 2017; Nishizawa et al. 2009). The sensitivities of LISA to circular-polarization modes in this context were addressed in Seto (2006, 2007); Smith and Caldwell (2017). Such modes can appear for example in modifications of GR that lead to parity violation (Alexander and Yunes 2009).
Similar to the parameterized tests in Sect. 6.2, we now discuss how GW polarization tests can be used to probe specific non-GR theories. Below, we focus on a few examples.
In Horndeski theories, which form the most general class of non-degenerate scalar-tensor models leading to second-order equations of motion (Horndeski 1974), three degrees of freedom may propagate under the form of GWs. The first two are the usual plus and cross tensor polarisations (or equivalently the left- and right-handed helicities). Since the observation of GW170817/GRB 170817 (Abbott et al. 2017c, e), these tensor modes are constrained to propagate at the speed of light (see Sect. 6.3.2), which dramatically reduced the parameter space of viable Horndeski models (Baker et al. 2017; Creminelli and Vernizzi 2017; Ezquiaga and Zumalacárregui 2017; Langlois et al. 2018; Lombriser and Taylor 2016; Sakstein and Jain 2017). Stringent constraints may also be obtained from birefrigence effects in lensed GWs (Ezquiaga and Zumalacárregui 2020). However, even in such reduced Horndeski theories, the third degree of freedom, namely scalar waves, may propagate at subluminal speeds. While the tensor (plus and cross) modes produce shearing tidal forces that are transverse to the direction of propagation, scalar waves generally produce triaxial tidal forces. Specifically, in the rest frame of some inertial observer, there exists an orthonormal basis such that the curvature perturbation caused by a scalar wave reads (Dalang et al. 2021)
where \(\mathcal {R}_{1,2,3}\) are three amplitudes and \(\Phi (t)\) is the phase of the scalar wave. Note that the third direction does not necessarily coincide with the direction of propagation of the wave. However, for luminal scalar waves, which only happens for conformally coupled quintessence, then \((\delta R_{0i0j}^{\mathrm{S}})\) reduces to a transverse “breathing” mode, i.e. \(\mathcal {R}_1=\mathcal {R}_2\), and \(\mathcal {R}_3=0\) in the direction of propagation.
Lorentz-violating gravity can have both scalar and vector modes. For example, Einstein-Æther theory has two vector modes and one scalar mode (Foster 2006, 2007; Yagi et al. 2014), while HoVision Res.ava gravity has one scalar mode with no vector modes (Blas and Sanctuary 2011; Yagi et al. 2014). GWs from compact binary inspirals have been derived in Hansen et al. (2015); Zhang et al. (2020), including the additional scalar and vector modes.
f(T) gravity (with T representing a torsion) is a popular modified gravity theory (Cai et al. 2016; Capozziello and De Laurentis 2011; Ferraro and Fiorini 2007) based on the teleparallel equivalent of general relativity (TEGR), see, e.g., Maluf (2013) or Hayashi and Shirafuji (1979) for New General Relativity, which is a variant of the teleparallel formulation. Some f(T) gravity violates local Lorentz invariance (Li et al. 2011a). When a certain boundary term (\(B = 2 \nabla _\mu T^\mu \) for a torsion vector \(T^\mu \)) is taken into account (Bahamonde et al. 2015) one can formulate a theory called f(T, B) gravity which naturally links to f(R) gravity. In the context of GWs these teleparallel theories are interesting models as they contain additional propagating degrees of freedom. While there is some controversy on the number of extra degrees of freedom in f(T) gravity, see Blagojević and Nester (2020); Ferraro and Guzmán (2018a, 2018b); Li et al. (2011b), there is agreement that the theory possesses at least one and up to three additional degrees of freedom. Consequently, these extra degrees of freedom should manifest themselves as extra polarizations. At first order in perturbation theory, extra polarizations only appear in f(T, B) gravity and not in f(T) gravity (Farrugia et al. 2018). Likewise, when considering New General Relativity it was found that up to six possible polarizations may exist, depending on the various parameter choices (Hohmann et al. 2018).
Finally, we comment on probing extra dimensions through polarization tests. Within GR, the structure of the geodesic deviation equation in a general spacetime was first analyzed by Szekeres (1965) who decomposed the Riemann tensor into its canonical components, namely the transverse and traceless component, the longitudinal component, and the Newtonian-type tidal component. This analysis can be extended to a metric theory of gravity in any dimension D (Podolsky and Svarc 2012). In such a case, the gravitational wave in (macroscopic) higher dimension \({D>4}\) is naturally identified as the transverse-traceless component with \({D(D-3)/2}\) independent polarization states. Higher-dimensional gravity also brings new effects. In particular, the presence of extra spatial dimensions into which the GWs could possibly propagate could be (in principle) observable as a violation of the traceless property of the gravitational wave measured by the detector located in our \({D=4}\) spacetime. Such an anomalous behavior could possibly serve as a sign of the existence of higher dimensions. Although this effect has already been described in Podolsky and Svarc (2012) and analyzed in the model of exact plane GWs (and their generalizations within the Kundt family of geometries) (Podolský and Švarc 2013), the specific representation of the violation of the transverse-traceless property in the triangular LISA configuration remains an open problem.
The development of polarization tests in the LISA context is still not mature enough for deployment in a data analysis pipeline. Few studies have been performed to determine how well LISA can constrain the extra polarizations of specific modified theories, given current constraints on the speed of tensor modes. The idea of the construction of null channels has been suggested for LIGO/Virgo (Chatziioannou et al. 2012), but can also be extended for LISA in the ppE framework. The mapping of generic polarization tests to specific modified theories has also not yet been developed.
6.3.2 GW propagation tests
As discussed in Secs. 2.2.2 and 5.2.2 , GW propagation over cosmological distances for generalised theories of gravity and other extensions of \(\Lambda \)CDM can be parametrised by the wave equation (Belgacem et al. 2018c; Gleyzes et al. 2014; Lombriser 2018; Lombriser and Taylor 2016; Nishizawa 2018; Saltas et al. 2014)
where \(h_{ij}\) is the linear traceless spatial tensor perturbation and primes indicate derivatives with respect to \(\ln a\). In addition to the Hubble friction, the damping term may receive a contribution from \(\nu \), which can for instance parametrise an effective Planck mass evolution rate or the impact of extra dimensions. The wave propagation may further be modified by a deviation in its speed \(c_{\mathrm{T}}\) and the mass of the graviton \(\mu \). Finally, there can be a source term \(\Gamma \gamma _{ij}\), which may for instance arise in bimetric theories or from anisotropic stress. The modifications can generally be time and scale, or frequency, dependent, where GR/\(\Lambda \)CDM is recovered in the limit of \(\nu =\mu =\Gamma =0\) and \(c_{\mathrm{T}}=c\). The modifications in Eq. (15) can also be cast into the ppE framework (Yunes and Pretorius 2009b) in Sect. 6.2.1, where the ppE amplitude parameter \(\alpha \) can be expressed as an integral over \(\nu \) while the ppE phase parameter \(\beta \) may be expressed as an integral involving \(c_T\) and \(\mu \) (Mirshekari et al. 2012; Nishizawa 2018).
Late-time constraints on the modified damping term have been forecasted in Amendola et al. (2018a); Belgacem et al. (2018c, 2019c); Lombriser and Taylor (2016) based on standard sirens tests (Holz and Hughes 2005; Schutz 1986), and early-time modifications can be constrained by CMB B-modes (Amendola et al. 2014). So far there has not been much exploration of a possible frequency dependence of \(\nu \) (see, however, Belgacem et al. 2019c for forecasts on oscillations in the GW amplitude).
The GW speed \(c_T\) is constrained by a variety of measurements. The detection of ultra high energy cosmic rays implies a strong constraint on gravitational Cherenkov radiation from a subluminal propagation of the waves as otherwise the radiation would decay away at a rate proportional to the square of their energy \(\mathcal {O}(10^{11}~\text {GeV})\) before reaching us (Caves 1980; Kimura and Yamamoto 2012; Moore and Nelson 2001). For galactic \(\mathcal {O}(10~\text {kpc})\) or cosmological \(\mathcal {O}(1~\text {Gpc})\) origin, the relative deviation in \(c_{\mathrm{T}}\) is constrained to be smaller than \(\mathcal {O}(10^{-15})\) or \(\mathcal {O}(10^{-19})\), respectively. This bound, however, only applies for subluminal propagation, redshifts of \(z\lesssim 0.1\), and modifications in the high-energy regime. Another constraint on \(c_T\) at the subpercent level can be inferred from the energy loss in binary pulsar systems (Brax et al. 2016; Beltran Jimenez et al. 2016). A stringent and prominent direct constraint on deviations of \(c_T/c=1\) of \(\lesssim \mathcal {O}(10^{-15})\) was obtained from the arrival times of the GW from the LIGO/Virgo event GW170817 (Abbott et al. 2017c, e) and its EM counterparts. Photons have been assumed to be massless given the stringent experimental upper bounds on their mass, though we note that some standard-model extensions imply Lorentz-violations that naturally give rise to massive photons (Bonetti et al. 2018; Colladay and Kostelecký 1997, 1998; Spallicci et al. 2021). As anticipated, the measurement left a strong impact across a wide range of cosmic acceleration models (Baker et al. 2017; Battye et al. 2018; Creminelli and Vernizzi 2017; Ezquiaga and Zumalacárregui 2017; Lombriser and Lima 2017; Lombriser and Taylor 2016; McManus et al. 2016; de Rham and Melville 2018; Sakstein and Jain 2017). Importantly, however, the constraint only applies to low redshifts of \(z\lesssim 0.01\) and the LIGO/Virgo frequency range (Battye et al. 2018; de Rham and Melville 2018). In particular, it was argued in de Rham and Melville (2018) that UV completion terms for modified gravity theories naturally recover a luminal speed of gravity in the high-energy limit tested by GW170817 while allowing deviations at lower energies relevant to modifications that could drive cosmic acceleration. Weak bounds on \(c_T\) can be inferred without counterpart emissions from BH mergers (Cornish et al. 2017), from the comparison of the GW arrival times between the terrestrial detectors (Blas et al. 2016), or the CMB B-mode power spectrum (Raveri et al. 2015) for early-time modifications. Constraints on \(c_{\mathrm{T}}\) have also been discussed as forecasts for potential arrival time comparisons with nearby supernovae emissions (Brax et al. 2016; Lombriser and Taylor 2016; Nishizawa and Nakamura 2014; Saltas et al. 2014) (which are however very rare) and LISA eclipsing binary systems (Bettoni et al. 2017).
LISA will provide a twofold improvement over the current GW170817 bound. With the detection of GWs from massive BBHs up to \(z\sim 8\) and their EM counterparts (Tamanini et al. 2016), \(c_T\) will be tested across much larger distances, tightening the current constraint. Furthermore, LISA tests the frequency range below the expected UV transition of modified gravity models (de Rham and Melville 2018). Besides providing a new test of GR at different energy scales, a measurement of the speed of GWs with LISA is thus of particular relevance to cosmic acceleration models.
Frequency dependent modifications in the velocity term of Eq. (15) can also more generally be parametrised with the group velocity \((v_g/c) \simeq 1 + (\alpha - 1) A_{\alpha } E^{\alpha -2} + \mathcal {O}(A_{\alpha }^2)\), where \(\alpha \) and \(A_{\alpha }\) may parametrise quantum gravity effects, extra dimensions, or Lorentz invariance violations (Mirshekari et al. 2012). The parametrisation recovers for instance the effect of a massive graviton for \(\alpha =0\) with \(A_0 = m_g^2 c^4\) and \(m_g=\mu h/c^2\ne 0\), where the group velocity becomes \((v_g/c) \simeq 1 - (m_gc^2/E)^2\). The combination of current LIGO/Virgo sources yields a constraint of \(m_g\le 4.7\times 10^{-23}~\mathrm{eV}/c^2\) (Abbott et al. 2019b). More distant and more massive sources are generally more effective in constraining the dispersion relation and the lower energy range of LISA will be favourable for tightening the bounds on \(m_g\) (Berti et al. 2005, 2011; Stavridis and Will 2009; Toubiana et al. 2020; Will 1998; Yagi and Tanaka 2010). Currently, the strongest bound on the mass of the graviton with \(m_g\le 7\times 10^{-32}~\mathrm{eV}/c^2\) is inferred from weak gravitational lensing (Choudhury et al. 2004).
Finally, the presence of a source term \(\Gamma \ne 0\) further modifies the GW amplitude with an oscillatory correction of order \(\Gamma \gamma _{ij}/(H k)\) (Alexander and Yunes 2009; Nishizawa 2018). The effect can be constrained with LISA standard sirens (Belgacem et al. 2019c).
6.3.3 Stochastic gravitational wave background tests
Astrophysical sources of the SGWB can come from a variety of phenomena (Caprini et al. 2019; Schneider et al. 2010). The first of these sources is the unresolved evolution of stellar BBH, BNS, and BWD systems (Abbott et al. 2016a, 2018b; Farmer and Phinney 2003; Meacher et al. 2015; Zhao and Lu 2021; Zhu et al. 2011b, 2013). Superradiant instabilities are another astrophysical source of the SGWB (Barausse et al. 2018; Brito et al. 2017a, b; Cardoso et al. 2018a; Huang et al. 2019; Yoshino and Kodama 2014). The presence of a population of BH-bosonic condensates can form a GW background, which depend on the formation rate, number density, and spin. Superradiant instabilities occur when scalar field spinning around a BH transfer rotational energy and lead to the formation of a bosonic condensate. Other astrophysical SGWB sources that are less relevant for LISA include r-mode instabilities within NSs (Andersson 1998; Friedman and Morsink 1998; Ferrari et al. 1999; Zhu et al. 2011a), stellar core collapse (Buonanno et al. 2005; Crocker et al. 2017; Kuroda et al. 2014; Mueller et al. 2013; Ott et al. 2013), and magnetars (Marassi et al. 2011; Regimbau and de Freitas Pacheco 2006).
Together, these sources make up a signal whose SNR is too small to be detected as individually-resolved detections, and thus combine to form a SGWB (Allen and Romano 1999; Romano and Cornish 2017). The SGWB can be characterized by the spectral energy density as
where \(\rho _c=3H_0^2/(8\pi )\) is the critical density necessary for a closed universe with Hubble constant \(H_0\), and \(\rho _{\mathrm{GW}}\) is the energy density of all background GWs as a function of frequency. This energy density may be approximated as a power law (Thrane and Romano 2013) given by
where \(\Omega _\beta \) is the GW spectral energy density at a reference frequency \(f_*\) and the various factors of \(\beta \) correspond to different sources for the SGWB. These can be given for binary systems (\(\beta = 2/3\)), r-mode instabilities (\(\beta =2\)), stellar core collapse (\(\beta \) is model dependent), superradiant instabilities (\(\beta =1-7\)), and magnetars (\(\beta = 3\)) (Kuroyanagi et al. 2018). One can use such SGWB spectrum to test GR in a theory agnostic way, in particular the amplitude corrections in the ppE framework (Saffer and Yagi 2020).
A SGWB can also originate from the primordial tensor perturbations generated in the early universe during inflation or via alternative mechanisms such as thermal production. Given a primordial tensor spectrum \({{\mathcal {P}}}_{\mathrm{t}}(k)\), one can compute the SGWB. The spectrum can be given directly by the model under study or, if allowed, in a parametrized form via the tensor spectral index \(n_t\) and its running \(\alpha _t\):
where \(n_t \), \(\alpha _t\) and the tensor-to-scalar ratio r are calculated at the pivot scale \(k_0\), while \({{\mathcal {P}}}_{\mathrm{s}}(k_0)\) is the measured amplitude of the scalar perturbations. During inflation, the running term does not play an important role because \(\alpha _{\mathrm{t}}\ll 1\) and \([\ln (k/k_0)]^2\ll 1\). However, at higher frequencies \([\ln (k/k_0)]^2\) increases and the running term can be large enough to affect the spectrum, an effect consistent with the above parametrization as long as \(\alpha _{\mathrm{t}}\) is small. The relation between the primordial tensor spectrum and the SGWB observed today is
where the transfer function \({{\mathcal {T}}}\), which we do not write here, depends on the history of the universe and on the details of reheating (Kuroyanagi et al. 2015; Turner et al. 1993; Watanabe and Komatsu 2006). When the primordial tensor spectrum is blue-tilted, the amplitude of the SGWB at high frequencies can increase up to the sensitivity threshold of LISA and other interferometers. In general relativity with standard inflation, the tensor spectrum is red-tilted and therefore its associated SGWB is unobservable. However, models beyond the standard paradigm in the matter or gravity sector could have a blue tilt and a large-enough amplitude (Bartolo et al. 2016; Calcagni and Kuroyanagi 2021; Kuroyanagi et al. 2018).
Methods for analyzing the LISA detection of an underlying SGWB signal have been developed in a source agnostic way (Caprini et al. 2019; Flauger et al. 2021; Karnesis et al. 2020; Pieroni and Barausse 2020). For example, a recent work (Pieroni and Barausse 2020) shows that the SGWB from stellar origin BH and NS mergers may be observable with LISA with an SNR of \(\sim 50\). This acts as a foreground noise to other backgrounds. One can employ a principal component analysis to subtract this astrophysical foreground, which enables LISA to detect SGWB that is 10 times weaker than the foreground. Given these methods, and a better understanding of source modelling which may occur by launch, the prospects for detecting and analyzing a SGWB with LISA are promising.
A strategy to separate the astrophysical from the cosmological background in the context of LISA has been proposed in Boileau et al. (2021) using a Bayesian strategy based on an Adaptive Markov chain Monte-Carlo algorithm. This method has been later used in the case of a SGWB produced by a network of cosmic string loops (Boileau et al. 2022), updating a previous study where only the instrument noise was taken into account (Auclair et al. 2020). In particular, it has been shown that given the ability of LISA to simultaneously detect a large number of galactic double white dwarf binaries and a large number of compact binaries, a cosmic string tension (Newton’s constant is denoted by G and the string linear mass density by \(\mu \)) in the \(G\mu \approx 10^{-16}\) (for loop distribution model; Kibble 1985) to \(G\mu \approx 10^{-15}\) (for loop distribution model; Blanco-Pillado et al. 2014; Lorenz et al. 2010; Ringeval et al. 2007) range or bigger could be measured by LISA, with the galactic foreground affecting this limit more than the astrophysical one.
6.4 Burning questions and needed developments
Throughout this section, we have described in passing a few of the many challenges we still face when developing and carrying out model-independent tests. We therefore end this section by presenting a brief summary of the main open problems.
-
Residual tests, as well as other tests, need to be more carefully studied in the context of LISA, due to the expected abundance of sources at multiple frequencies. This is because the LISA data analysis challenge is a global one, in which multiple signals must be estimated simultaneously.
-
Regarding the IMR consistency tests (and for other tests), the challenge is to ascertain that the waveform models used in the measurement process are accurate enough so as not to cause systematics, especially at the large SNRs expected for BBH mergers in LISA. This can affect both the extraction of parameters in the inspiral, as well as the inference of remnant masses and spins in the merger. It is therefore important to control modelling systematics to the required level. Work must begin now to address these issues to either demonstrate the readiness of the waveform models or to establish the required accuracy.
-
We currently lack complete IMR waveform model in non-GR theories, even with simple extension to GR, which prevents us from performing a full mapping between parametrized tests and specific theories. This is partially because we currently lack sufficient NR simulations performed in theories beyond GR. Furthermore, many of non-GR corrections to the inspiral portion have focused on the leading PN contribution, and therefore they neglect among other features, higher harmonics. Higher PN order terms may become important as the binary separation becomes smaller, especially at LISA SNRs.
-
Parameterized ringdown tests need further developments, such as including the BH spin without the slow-rotation approximation and finding more mappings to specific non-GR theories. This also requires that we construct new rotating BH solutions in theories beyond GR at arbitrary rotation.
-
One needs to reveal how the complex interplay between astrophysical event rates, non-GR waveform models, ground-based detector developments and data analysis methods will affect our ability to extract fundamental physics information with LISA.
-
An interesting open problem regarding GW propagation is the mixture of propagation and source effects for extended theories of gravity and the role of screening mechanisms. A PN expansion for the source emission in screened regimes can be performed using a scaling relation (McManus et al. 2017; Perkins and Yunes 2019; Renevey et al. 2020). For some GR extensions the relevant modification in \(\nu \) are in fact determined by the screened environments of emitter and observer rather than the cosmological background, whereas for \(c_T\) screening effects may safely be neglected.
-
Tests that aim to constrain the existence of non-GR polarizations need further development, both from the standpoint of generic (null channel type) tests, as well as from the standpoint of specific examples in given modified theories.
-
The tests described above, for the most part, require a specific or generic model for the signal, but LISA could have access to GWs that are not properly covered by such models. Efforts to develop methods to extract unexpected signals should also be pursued.
-
More detailed analyses are needed to see how well one can remove the astrophysical background from stellar origin BH and neutron star mergers and how much its residuals affect tests of GR.
7 Astrophysical and waveform systematics
The discovery of GWs has provided a powerful new tool to probe gravity in its most extreme regime and to search for signatures of new physics. To do so, however, requires the development of highly accurate waveform templates—our “filters” to identify and interpret gravitational signals. Before being able to claim a discovery of new physics we need to
-
1.
provide more accurate waveforms within GR to reduce systematic errors (and potential misinterpretation) due to modelling systematics;
-
2.
understand astrophysical and environmental effects to avoid misinterpreting deviations from vacuum GR; and
-
3.
construct theory-specific waveforms for targeted tests of (classes of) beyond-GR theories.
A detailed account of the status and challenges of gravitational waveform modelling and their systematics can be found in the LISA Waveform WG white paper (in prep.). Here we give a summary with focus on its relevance for the fundamental physics WG.
7.1 Astrophysics: environmental effects
LISA sources, whether supermassive or stellar-mass, are likely to be surrounded by matter that could limit our ability to place constraints on fundamental physics. In the case of supermassive BBHs the impact of gaseous accretion raises questions regarding our ability to probe fundamental physics, especially in the case of EMRIs. Stellar mass BHs can also be sources for LISA and in this case if they are inside dense stellar clusters, then they could be in the form of hierarchical triplets.
7.1.1 Binary and disk interactions
When a BBH is embedded in a magnetized gaseous disk, binary-disk interactions can induce change in the evolution of the GW phase. Typically the evolution of a binary disk-system is broadly composed of two phases: i) the pre-decoupling phase where the disk is coupled to the binary, and tracks the inspiral of the binary, because the GW timescale is very long compared to the effective disk viscous timescale which controls the inflow velocity of the disk; ii) the post-decoupling phase where the GW timescale becomes shorter than the disk effective viscous timescale and the binary begins to run away from the disk which can no longer track the inspiral of the binary.
a. Comparable mass binaries: Equating the GW timescale with the disk viscous timescale (Milosavljević and Phinney 2005), one finds that the decoupling radius is given by (Gold et al. 2014)
where M is the binary’s total mass, H/R is the disk aspect ratio, with H the disk scale height (or thickness), \(\alpha \) is the Shakura–Sunyaev viscous parameter (Shakura and Sunyaev 1973), and \({{\tilde{\eta }}}=4q/(q+1)^2\) is four times the symmetric mass ratio, with q the binary mass ratio [see also Armitage and Natarajan 2002). Notice that for extreme mass-ratio and intermediate mass-ratio inspirals the decoupling radius can be comparable to the gravitational radius of the binary, and thus affect its evolution if the disk is massive enough (Kocsis et al. 2011; Yunes et al. 2011b). A good understanding of binary-disk interections is important to better understand the binary evolution into the LISA band. For a binary at the decoupling radius, the GW frequency is given by:
which suggests that for typical values of the viscosity parameter, and if the disks are slim (Abramowicz and Fragile 2013), decoupling could occur inside the LISA band, and the effects of binary-disk could be imprinted on the GWs. For example, the binary residual eccentricity when it enters the LISA band is determined at binary-disk decoupling (Roedig et al. 2011). For disk thickness, e.g., \(H/R \sim 0.2\), for a comparable mass the decoupling radius becomes \(a_d\sim 40 GM/c^2\) at \(f_{\mathrm{GW}}\sim 0.01 \mathrm Hz\), i.e., well within the LISA band. The work of (Roedig et al. 2011) suggests that residual eccentricities of up to \(10^{-2}\) in the LISA band are possible. How these effects could affect precision tests of GR has not been studied, yet. Note however that at least for SOBHBs, environmental effects can be significant in gas-rich systems (such as AGN disks) (Caputo et al. 2020; Toubiana et al. 2021). Because these effects typically enter at low frequencies, they are expected to compete with (or even dominate over) non-GR effects such as vacuum dipole emission).
b. EMRIs: EMRIs are thought to form in dense galactic nuclei where a passing by stellar compact object (SCO), or a nascent SCO formed in the accretion disk via fragmentation and/or coagulation of density enhancements (Goodman and Tan 2004; Levin 2007; Milosavljevic and Loeb 2004), can be captured by the central SMBH. It is expected that only EMRIs involving compact enough objects, such as WDs, NSs, stellar-mass BHs or probably the Helium cores of giant stars, can survive to low redshifts (\(z\lesssim 1\)) where EMRIs may be observed (Amaro-Seoane et al. 2007; Barack and Cutler 2004).
A typical EMRI event will be emitting GWs with frequencies ranging between \(10^{-4}\) to \(1\,\mathrm Hz\), which are expected to be in the LISA frequency band for many years, allowing for accurate measurements of the parameters of the system. In particular, a GW event detection with a SNR of \(\sim 30\) will allow us to determine the mass of the SMBH with a precision of \(\sim 10^{-4}\) and the distance to the source with a precision of \(\sim 3\%\) (Gair et al. 2010) (see also Babak et al. 2017a). Moreover, these events can be used to probe cosmological parameters, test GR in the strong field regime (e.g., EMRI may provide a constraint on deviations from the Kerr metric at a level of 0.01–1%; Babak et al. 2017a; Gair et al. 2017), etc. It is, therefore, necessary to assess whether accretion or other SCOs in the vicinity of the EMRI can induce observable changes in the GW frequency. This is especially important for sources in active galaxies with BHs accreting near the Eddington limit, for which the disk mass can be comparable to the secondary object.
Tidal interaction of the SCO with the accretion disk may induce mutual angular momentum exchange that modifies both the disk and the orbit of the SCO (Ward 1997). The nature of this interaction depends basically on the ratio of their masses \(q_\mathrm{CO,disk}\equiv M_{\mathrm{SCO}}/M_{\mathrm{disk}}\). If \(q_{\mathrm{CO,disk}}> 1\), tidal torques exerted by the SCO are strong enough to carve a cavity in the disk. Radial inflow of the gas disk then pushes the SCO inward causing the binary to harden on a time-scale comparable to the viscous timescale \(t_{\mathrm{visc}}\) (Type-II migration) (Gould and Rix 2000; Ward 1997). Furthermore, if the mass of the SCO exceeds the mass of the nearby gas disc, the migration slows down as the matter cannot remove angular momentum away from the binary at a rate on which the gas flows (Ivanov et al. 1999; Syer and Clarke 1995). Analytic work has predicted that the “pile-up” of gas disc around the orbit of the SCO mitigates the slow down, and the hardening timescale is \(t_{\mathrm{hard}}\approx q_{\mathrm{2, disk}}^{\alpha } t_{\mathrm{visc}}\) with a relatively shallow scaling of \(\alpha \approx 0.5\) in a steady-state limit (Ivanov et al. 1999; Syer and Clarke 1995). However, numerical simulations have found no evidence for this pile-up, and instead suggest a simple scaling with \(\alpha \ll 1\) (Duffell et al. 2014; Dürmann and Kley 2017; Kanagawa et al. 2018). On the other hand, if the \(q_{\mathrm{CO,disk}}\lesssim 1\), the SCO is not massive enough to carve the cavity, it will migrate inwards by exciting density waves in the disc (Goldreich and Tremaine 1980; Tanaka et al. 2002) (Type-I migration). However, this mechanism is very sensitive to the temperature and opacity of the disk (Jang-Condell and Sasselov 2005; Menou and Goodman 2004). If the radiative cooling in the dense inner regions surrounding the SCO is inefficient, torques exerted by the disc will induce outward migration, instead of the usual inward migration found in locally isothermal disks, up to regions when the disc opacity is low. As the accretion proceeds, these regions move inward, and hence the SCO’s migration will continue on a timescale much longer than the viscous timescale (Paardekooper and Mellema 2006). A slower migration mechanism has been recently identified (Kocsis et al. 2012). In this case, the gas piles-up significantly outside the orbit of the SCO, but the viscosity increases to the point that in steady-state gas can reach the SCO’s Hill sphere, and is able to flow across its orbit (Type-1.5).
The effect of such interactions on the waveform might be degenerate with the effects due to modifications to GR (Barausse et al. 2014). In such a scenario, the precision with which modifications to GR can be measured with LISA will be significantly affected, since, in order to be detectable, the effect induced by GR modifications should be larger than the environmental effect. Effectively, this induces a lower bound on GR modifications observable with LISA. Development of waveforms beyond GR is in early stages, and the role of astrophysical systematics has not been studied in any detail.
The inspiral part of the waveform will be largely unaffected by the astrophysical interactions as long as the BH resides in a thick disk environment, where densities are low. On the contrary, in thin-disk environments the waveform can be significantly perturbed by certain phenomena. Planetary migration can have a strong influence on the inspiral (Kocsis et al. 2011; Yunes et al. 2011b), while dynamical friction (Barausse and Rezzolla 2008; Derdzinski et al. 2021, 2019) and accretion (Barausse and Rezzolla 2008; Barausse et al. 2014; Cardoso and Maselli 2020) have a weaker but non-negligible effect. The effect of the disk’s gravity can safely be neglected. All this can have a large enough effect to cause systematic errors when performing precision tests of gravity (Barausse et al. 2014).
c. Ringdown: A remarkable feature of the ringdown of GR BHs is the isospectrality of the polar and axial modes (Kocsis et al. 2011; Pani et al. 2013a; Yunes et al. 2011b; Wagle et al. 2021). Any deviation between the axial and polar modes could indicate new physics, but matter distribution around the BH also breaks the isospectrality (Barausse et al. 2014), making it non-trivial to identify GR modifications this way. While a smoking-gun type test is not possible due to this degeneracy, the impact of typical matter distributions around a BH on the ringdown frequencies is very weak. Thus, the lower bounds introduced by the degeneracy is low enough for ringdown-based strong-fields tests of GR to be meaningful (Barausse et al. 2014).
d. Plasma effects: Even in the absence of a massive accretion disk around the binary, recent work suggests that for binaries embedded in a plasma environment, it may be challenging to perform fundamental physics tests that probe plasma-driven superradiant instabilities, EM emission from charged BH binaries and electromagnetically driven secondary modes in the GW ringdown signal (Cardoso et al. 2021). The latter two effects can be relevant also in the case of massive fields propagating in vacuum, and provide an obstacle to tests of modified gravity with massive degrees of freedom. In addition, matter effects can change the tidal-deformability of a vacuum BBH (Cardoso and Duque 2020), which could potentially limit our ability to test for dark compact objects that are not BHs.
7.1.2 Interaction with stellar environments and hierarchical triplets
In recent years interaction of BBHs with a third BH in stellar environments or near a SMBH have revealed new ways to think about LISA sources that exhibit effects which are absent in a standard isolated binary evolution. SMBH triplets can potentially induce binary eccentricities as high as 0.9 (Bonetti et al. 2019) upon entrance in the LISA band, and could be as high as 0.1 at merger. Apart from eccentricity tidal effects induced on the binary by the companion BHs could contribute significantly to the binary waveform (Yang and Casals 2017) by e.g. shifting the innermost stable orbit, and hence the onset of the plunge phase. BH binaries formed through such channels not only would require suitable templates for parameter estimation, but also necessitates an investigation on how eccentricity may affect tests of fundamental physics.
In the case of stellar-mass BBHs, a non-zero graviton mass and dipole emission can be probed (Toubiana et al. 2020) among other pieces of fundamental physics. However, if the binary is in a dense stellar environment or near a SMBH 3 body effects can become important (Blaes et al. 2002; Miller and Hamilton 2002; Naoz et al. 2013; Randall and Xianyu 2018, 2019; Yunes et al. 2011a; Wen 2003), e.g., through Kozai-Lidov mechanism (Kozai 1962; Lidov 1962) oscillations. The extent to which such 3-body effects can provide an obstacle to probing fundamental physics with stellar mass BH binaries has not been investigated, yet.
7.2 Waveform modelling and systematics for EMRIs
The most promising avenue for GW modelling of EMRIs is perturbation theory (gravitational self-force), see e.g., Barack and Pound (2019) for a recent review. The full calculation of the EMRI with perturbation theory is a formidable problem as it requires first-order metric perturbation for the gravitational self-force, second-order metric perturbation for the dissipative part, the evolution of the inspiral and the final calculation of the waveform. The small parameter for the perturbation is the mass ratio q. According to Hughes (2016) reliable templates will require that one keeps track of at least \(O(q^2)\) terms. The state-of-the-art in the calculation of the self-force is the first-order calculation of van de Meent (2018) for generic orbits with spinning BHs, and the second-order calculation for circular orbits and non-spinning BHs (Pound et al. 2020), and including the spin of the secondary (Akcay et al. 2020). The state-of-the-art in fast calculation of EMRI GWs are the augmented kludge waveforms of Chua et al. (2017), the two-timescale expansion approach (Hinderer and Flanagan 2008; Miller and Pound 2021), near-identity transformations (Van De Meent and Warburton 2018), and the self-consistent evolution of Diener et al. (2012).
Apart from not yet having the full self-force calculation to second-order for generic primary BHs that include the spin of the secondary on generic orbits, potential systematics in the calculation involve the internal structure of the secondary (Isoyama and Poisson 2012; Witzany 2019) and non-vacuum backgrounds (Zimmerman and Poisson 2014), e.g., the case where the EMRI is embedded in a dark matter bosonic condensate.
It is worth noting that several of the issues faced by EMRI modelling are also challenges in the case of intermediate mass-ratio inspirals.
7.3 Waveform modelling in GR and systematics for comparable mass binaries
Modelling the gravitational waveform of massive binaries covering their inspiral, merger and ringdown requires a combination of perturbative techniques and NR. In particular, the inspiral is modelled by PN theory, the late inspiral and merger where nonlinear effects of gravity become relevant require full NR, and the ringing down of the final BH is described within black-hole perturbation theory. These different pieces are combined into full IMR waveforms using effective-one-body (EoB) or phenomenological models.
7.3.1 PN waveforms
PN methods are analytic techniques based on a series expansion in weak fields and small velocities that describe the dynamics of a binary during the early inspiral phase. The accuracy of the description is controlled by the PN order, which identifies the relative order to which an expansion has been taken in small velocities and weak fields. While waveforms of non-spinning, quasi-circular binaries are currently known up to 4PN order (Blanchet 2014), those of eccentric, spinning or precessing binaries are currently only available up to 3PN and 3.5PN order, e.g., Moore and Yunes (2019, 2020); Tanay et al. (2021). Efforts to go beyond the current state of the art are under way, see, e.g., Bini et al. (2019, 2020a); Foffa et al. (2019). Although for ground-based GW observatories going to high PN order will be beneficial, a recent analysis of requirements for LISA non-eccentric stellar mass BBHs finds that 3PN order is sufficient for all sources, while for \(\sim \)90% of those sources, waveforms at PN order \(\le 2\) are sufficiently accurate for an unbiased recovery of the source parameters (Mangiagli et al. 2019). However, at this time it is unclear what PN accuracy is required for SMBH binaries. This will be crucial to determine as the high SNR ratio at which LISA is going to detect these binaries implies that the statistical errors are going to be smaller than the systematic errors in the theoretical waveforms. These systematic errors could hinder our ability to perform precision tests of fundamental physics with LISA.
7.3.2 NR waveforms
NR techniques are numerical methods for solving the equations of relativistic gravitation that are particularly suited in regimes where perturbation theory and PN methods fail (see e.g., Alcubierre 2008; Baumgarte and Shapiro 2010a; Bona et al. 2009; Gourgoulhon 2012; Shibata 2015 and references therein). In the case of BBH, NR is the only reliable method for capturing the late inspiral and merger of the binary from first principles. NR methods are used both in the case of GR and in modified gravity, on which we expand further below.
Despite the tremendous strides made by NR since the breakthrough simulations of Baker et al. (2006); Campanelli et al. (2006); Pretorius (2005), NR still faces several challenges: current methods become prohibitively expensive for high mass ratios (\(q\gtrsim 10\)) and near extremal BH spins. As a result, calibration of phenomenological waveforms such as Phenom or EOB (see next section) based on NR methods have systematic errors in the more extreme parts of the parameter space. Such systematic errors can pose challenges when performing precision tests of fundamental physics with LISA. Furthmore, it is known that in some cases numerically generated waveforms exhibit non-convergence at very high grid resolution (Zlochower et al. 2012), which makes it challenging to assess the accuracy of the waveforms. Resolving these non-convergence problems may require new gauge conditions (see e.g., Etienne et al. 2014) or next generation codes. Finally, comparisons in the context of the NRAR Collaboration (Hinder et al. 2014) showed that even when adopting the same methods at the analytic level, different NR codes (i.e. different implementations) do not entirely agree at the finite resolutions typically adopted to generate high-quality NR waveforms. Efforts like the NRAR Collaboration and code comparisons are important to assess the accuracy requirements for LISA. Initial work toward assessing these requirements (Ferguson et al. 2021) (see also Pürrer and Haster 2020) suggests that NR will require a substantial increase in accuracy compared to today’s most accurate waveforms; for example it is found that reaching with NR templates SNRs above 1000, finite-difference NR codes would have to efficiently scale to resolutions of at least \(\Delta x< M/700\) (M being the binary gravitational mass). Reaching resolutions for template indistinguishability is particularly important because residuals resulting from using lower resolution templates can be comparable to those resulting from ignoring higher modes entirely.
7.3.3 Phenom and EoB waveforms
The phenomenological (Phenom) (Ajith et al. 2007, 2008, 2011; García-Quirós et al. 2020; Hannam et al. 2014; Husa et al. 2016; Khan et al. 2016, 2019, 2020; Pratten et al. 2021; Santamaria et al. 2010; Schmidt et al. 2012, 2015) and EOB models (Akcay et al. 2019; Babak et al. 2017b, b; Balmelli and Jetzer 2013; Barausse and Buonanno 2010, 2011; Barausse et al. 2009; Bohé et al. 2017; Buonanno and Damour 1999, 2000; Chiaramello and Nagar 2020; Cotesta et al. 2018; Damour 2001; Damour and Nagar 2007, 2014a, b; Damour et al. 2003, 2008, 2009, 2013; Hinderer et al. 2016; Nagar 2011; Nagar and Rettegno 2019; Nagar et al. 2019, 2020a, b, 2018; Ossokine et al. 2020; Pan et al. 2011; Steinhoff et al. 2016; Taracchini et al. 2012, 2014) are the current state-of-the-art waveforms used in GW data analysis. Using two different waveform models is essential to assess the size of systematic uncertainties in the measurements. The Phenom and EOB modelling approaches are both based on combining information from analytical and NR. For binaries of BHs (and NS-BHs where tidal disruption does not occur; Matas et al. 2020; Thompson et al. 2020), they describe the entire signal from the early inspiral to the ringdown of the final remnant. The Phenom models provide a closed-form description of the frequency-domain signals, although see Estellés et al. (2021) for a time-domain approach. They are focused primarily on efficiency and based on a modular assembly of combined theoretical and numerical insights into the main important features of the waveforms. The EOB models describe both the binary dynamics and waveforms in the time-domain. They are based on incorporating theoretical inputs from a variety of approximation methods into the structure of the model before introducing calibrations to NR. The efficiency of the EOB waveforms is then improved, e.g., by developing reduced-order frequency-domain models (Bohé et al. 2017; Canizares et al. 2015; Field et al. 2014; Lackey et al. 2017; Pürrer 2014, 2016) or using post-adiabatic approximations (Gamba et al. 2021; Nagar and Rettegno 2019); see also García-Quirós et al. (2021) for recent applications to Phenom models.
There is ongoing rapid progress on improving the accuracy and physical realism of the waveform models within GR, as systematic differences are already starting to become noticeable for LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA detections such as Abbott et al. (2020b). For instance, the baseline Phenom model has recently been significantly upgraded for the dominant mode of aligned spin configurations (Pratten et al. 2020). Current models include several physical effects for circular orbits: a set of higher harmonic modes for aligned spins (Cotesta et al. 2018; García-Quirós et al. 2020; London et al. 2018; Nagar et al. 2020b), spin precession (Hannam et al. 2014; Khan et al. 2019; Ramos-Buades et al. 2020b; Schmidt et al. 2015), and spin precession with higher harmonics (Pratten et al. 2021; Khan et al. 2020; Ossokine et al. 2020). Models for nonprecessing binaries with mildly eccentric orbits have also recently been developed (Cao and Han 2017; Chiaramello and Nagar 2020; Liu et al. 2020) and explored (Hinder et al. 2018; Hinderer and Babak 2017; Ramos-Buades et al. 2020a).
The Phenom and EOB models have been widely tested against NR simulations mainly in the regime of comparable masses, i.e. mass ratios below four, and moderately high spins below eighty percent of the maximum, aside from a few more extreme cases. Ongoing efforts to improve the structure of the models aim to include more information from a mix of perturbative approaches involving PN calculations combined with results from scattering calculations within the post-Minkowski approximation and gravitational self-force results (Antonelli et al. 2019, 2020; Bini et al. 2019, 2020b; Khalil et al. 2020). Significant further work is required to turn these theoretical explorations into full, calibrated models, and deploy them for data analysis. While all of these developments mark important advances, waveforms for LISA will require models to account for yet more physics content and have higher accuracy than current waveform models. MBH binary mergers and intermediate mass ratio systems will generically involve eccentricity, arbitrary spins, substantially different masses, and SNR of up to several thousands. The resulting waveforms will have a very rich structure characterized by Fourier harmonics with several different frequencies. Further advances in both analytical and NR will be required as inputs for developing adequate Phenom and EOB models for these sources.
For objects beyond BHs, Phenom and EOB models for the inspiral signals are also available. In this regime, a number of generic spin and tidal effects lead to characteristic GW signatures that depend on the objects’ internal structure. Current models include the matter effects from spin-induced quadrupole moments and tidal deformability (Akcay et al. 2019; Bernuzzi et al. 2012a, 2015b; Bini and Damour 2014; Bini et al. 2012; Damour and Nagar 2010; Damour et al. 2012; Dietrich et al. 2017, 2019a, b; Flanagan and Hinderer 2008; Kawaguchi et al. 2018; Nagar and Rettegno 2019; Nagar et al. 2019, 2018; Vines et al. 2011), and the tidal excitation of fundamental quasi-normal modes (Hinderer et al. 2016; Schmidt and Hinderer 2019; Steinhoff et al. 2016). For the time-domain EOB models, the matter effects are based solely on theoretical results without any additional calibrations to NR. The frequency-domain models can either employ PN results for matter effects on top of the BH baseline, or, as has become standard for current data analysis, a calibrated tidal model based on NR simulations for binary NSs. In all of these models, matter signatures are described in a parametric form, where the characteristic coefficients such as tidal and rotational Love numbers, and quasi-normal mode frequencies encode the fundamental information on the matter. As these matter waveforms describe only the inspiral, they are tapered to zero in practical applications at the predicted merger frequency of double NS systems as determined from fits to NR simulations (Bernuzzi et al. 2015a), or when the fundamental mode resonance is reached. Future work remains on going beyond these restrictions and on enlarging the physics content of the models with matter phenomena. Another effect that has not yet been included are the objects’ absorption coefficients. All of this remaining work presents no fundamental obstacles but will require time and effort to develop the full models. Environmental effects such as from dynamical friction or energy-level transitions in clouds of ultralight fields are not yet included in the Phenom and EOB models. This is in part due to the fact that at present, studies of these phenomena are mainly exploratory. Developing a deeper understanding and more accurate descriptions of the backreaction and evolution of the system during an inspiral will be useful before including these phenomena in the full waveform models.
As discussed in other parts of this white paper, there are many ways to test GR, but let us here focus on three broad classes: parameterized deviations of the waveforms from GR during all epochs, IMR consistency tests, and spectroscopy of the final remnant. For the Phenom models, where the signals are described by closed-form algebraic expressions, it is straightforward to add extra beyond-GR parameters (Abbott et al. 2019a). For the EOB model, a similar approach is used with a slightly different form of parameterized deformations. These are added to reduced-order models of frequency-domain EOB waveforms (Sennett et al. 2020). Current data analysis for these theory-agnostic tests constrain only one deviation parameter at a time, as it is unfeasible to obtain useful information on a very large number of extra parameters in the waveforms. Tests of the consistency of the inspiral and the ringdown with the EOB and Phenom models (Abbott et al. 2019b; Ghosh et al. 2016b) rely on measuring the remnant properties (Hughes and Menou 2005) and comparing with the final mass and spin predicted from the progenitor parameters by fits to NR data (Bohé et al. 2017; Haegel and Husa 2020; Jiménez-Forteza et al. 2017). For spectroscopy using the ringdown of the remnant from a BBH merger, parameterized deformations of the quasi-normal modes, full waveform models can improve the constraints (Brito et al. 2018). Recent work has also started to develop foundations for theory-specific models as examples of non-GR waveforms. For instance, the EOB dynamics for nonspinning binaries have been calculated in scalar-tensor theories of gravity (Julié 2018; Julié and Deruelle 2017), Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton theories (Khalil et al. 2018) and Einstein-scalar-Gauss–Bonnet gravity (Julié and Berti 2019). Significant further work and inputs from NR will be required to develop complete waveforms, and to incorporate the expected physical effects such as spins, mass ratio, and eccentricity.
7.4 Waveform modelling beyond GR and systematics for comparable mass binaries
7.4.1 NR waveforms
Let us now discuss the current systematic errors of NR BBH merger waveforms beyond GR, and how to address these errors in future simulations. In particular, we will focus on recent work in beyond-GR effective field theories of gravity, including dynamical Chern–Simons (dCS) gravity, Einstein-dilaton-Gauss–Bonnet (EdGB), Einstein-scalar-Gauss–Bonnet gravity (EsGB), Einstein-dilaton-Maxwell (EdM), and a flavor of a tensor-vector-scalar gravity as these are the only beyond-GR theories (aside from massive scalar-tensor gravity, which is identical to GR under ordinary initial and boundary conditions; Berti et al. 2015) for which we have non-linear BBH evolutions (Bozzola and Paschalidis 2021; East and Ripley 2021; Hirschmann et al. 2018; Okounkova 2020; Okounkova et al. 2019b, 2020; Witek et al. 2019).
For NR BBH simulations in GR, the greatest source of systematic error is finite numerical resolution (cf. Baumgarte and Shapiro 2010b). To quantify numerical resolution errors, simulations are performed for a series of increasing numerical resolutions, checking for convergence of the resulting gravitational waveforms. The error for a given waveform is reported as the mismatch between the waveform and the waveform from the next-lowest resolution simulation (see, e.g., the methods in Boyle et al. 2019 for technical details). For gravity theories which admit a well-posed initial value problem no approximation to the theory is necessary, and hence numerical accuracy is still the biggest source of systematic errors. For example, this is the case in the recent evolutions in EdM (Hirschmann et al. 2018), which admits a well-posed initial value problem, and in EsGB (East and Ripley 2021), where a well-posed modified Harmonic formulation of the theory is adopted.
BBH simulations beyond-GR, such as in dCS gravity (Okounkova et al. 2020) and Einstein dilaton Gauss–Bonnet gravity (Okounkova 2020) have numerical resolution errors comparable to those of GR (see the convergence analyses in Okounkova et al. 2019a, 2020; Witek et al. 2019), and thus the codes to generate these waveforms must improve in the same way as GR codes in order to be ready for LISA. However, in addition to numerical resolution errors (comparable to those of GR), present beyond-GR NR simulations have additional sources of systematic errors. In order to ensure a well-posed initial value problem (which may not exist in EdGB; Papallo 2017; Papallo and Reall 2017; Ripley and Pretorius 2019b, a, and dCS; Delsate et al. 2015), BBH mergers in quadratic gravity are performed in an order-reduction scheme, where the spacetime metric is expanded about a GR BBH merger spacetime, and one computes the leading-order beyond-GR correction to the metric and gravitational waveform perturbatively. One then obtains the ‘full’ gravitational waveform by combining the background GR metric with the leading-order correction, for a suitable choice of EdGB or dCS coupling constant. The order-reduction scheme operates under the assumption that corrections to GR are small, and that higher-order corrections (such as the second-order correction to the spacetime metric) are negligible. This assumption governs an instantaneous regime of validity, where there is a maximum allowed value of the coupling constant that is allowed in order for the corrections to the spacetime metric to be smaller than the background metric (see Okounkova et al. 2019b for technical details). Thus, the NR simulations performed in this scheme are not valid for all possible physical values of coupling constant.
Additionally, the order-reduction scheme introduces systematic errors through secular dephasing. Since the location of the BHs in the perturbative scheme is governed by GR (with no back-reaction from the beyond-GR fields), the phase of the BBH inspiral in the order-reduction scheme is different from that of the full theory, hence leading to secular dephasing. This is a common feature of perturbative approximations to dynamical systems (Bender and Orszag 1978), and in particular, PN approximations (Will and Maitra 2017) and self-force BH perturbation theory (Pound et al. 2005) encounter these challenges when applying perturbative approaches to long-duration inspirals. Hence, the present beyond-GR waveforms focus primarily on the merger (the phase that is crucial to numerically simulate for tests of GR; Yunes et al. 2016) and ringdown phases, ensuring that the beyond-GR simulation starts late enough so that the secular systematic errors are negligible (Okounkova 2020; Okounkova et al. 2020). Finally, the extraction of GWs themselves is another potential source of systematic errors. For example, it is unclear whether the Newman–Penrose scalars that are commonly adopted in GR, have the same physical interpretation in modified gravity.
Another modified theory where some work has been done is Moffat’s tensor-vector-scalar theory (Moffat 2015). The theory admits a well-posed initial value problem, but for sufficiently small scales, it becomes mathematically equivalent to Einstein–Maxwell theory in vacuum, where BHs carry a “gravitational” (not electric) charge, that is determined by the theory’s coupling constant. First simulations in this context have been performed by Bozzola and Paschalidis (2021). However, a systematic error in this case is whether the approximation of the theory as Einstein–Maxwell in vacuum holds true. Given that the theory admits a well-posed initial value problem, it is straightforward to move beyond this approximation.
Moving forward one would like to obtain NR beyond-GR mergers that are free of these systematic effects by being valid for all values of coupling constants and avoiding secular dephasing. In order to mitigate dephasing growth, one can ‘stitch’ together results for simulations with different starting points of beyond-GR effects (hence different points of zero dephasing), as discussed for the case of EMRIs in Pound and Poisson (2008); Warburton et al. (2012). Similarly, one can apply the multiscale and dynamical renormalization group methods of Galley and Rothstein (2017); Hinderer and Flanagan (2008); Kunihiro (1995); Pound (2015b) to get rid of secular dephasing effects. This is an active area of work.
In order to produce beyond-GR BBH waveforms valid for all values of coupling parameter, one must move beyond perturbative methods and consider simulating BBHs in beyond-GR theories with well-posed initial value problems. Such approaches have been discussed using methods from fluid dynamics in Allwright and Lehner (2019); Cayuso et al. (2017). In particular, Witek et al. (2020) recently derived a 3+1 split for the (non-perturbative) equations of motion of EdGB in a step towards NR simulation.
7.4.2 PN waveforms
Incomplete inspiral waveforms in theories beyond GR may give rise to systematic errors in tests of GR with GWs. The inspiral waveform is computed via the PN method. In most non-GR theories, only the leading PN correction has been computed, which can be mapped to the PPE framework (see Sect. 6.2.1). However, there are certain theories in which corrections to the waveform have been computed also to higher PN orders (Sennett et al. 2016; Shiralilou et al. 2021, 2022; Yunes et al. 2012; Zhang et al. 2020). One such example is the Brans–Dicke theory, which is one of the simplest forms of scalar-tensor theories. The effect of higher PN corrections in this theory to constrain the theoretical coupling constant (Brans–Dicke parameter) has been studied in Yunes et al. (2016). The authors showed that the bound on the Brans–Dicke parameter with GW150914 only changes by \(\sim 10\%\) when one includes higher PN corrections or not. This shows that the higher-order corrections are not important when constraining Brans–Dicke theory, though there may be other non-GR theories where sub-leading PN corrections become important, and thus deriving such corrections is an important direction for future research (see Sect. 6.4).
7.4.3 Effects of bosonic dark matter
The effects of bosonic dark matter in the context of GR are discussed in Sect. 4. Here we discuss effects related to modified gravity.
Ultralight bosonic dark matter around spinning BHs can trigger superradiant instabilities, forming long-lived bosonic condensates outside the horizon which can alter the inspiral GW signal. A number of modified gravity theories with additional (scalar and/or vector) degrees of freedom exhibit phenomena such as dynamical scalarization (see e.g., Benkel et al. 2016; Berti et al. 2021; East and Ripley 2021; Ripley and Pretorius 2019a; Witek et al. 2019 for Einstein-Scalar-Gauss–Bonnet Theories and Fernandes et al. 2019; Herdeiro et al. 2018b; Hirschmann et al. 2018 for Einstein-Scalar-Maxwell theories), where BHs in those theories spontaneously or dynamically acquire scalar hair. How BHs in modified gravity behave around ultra-light bosonic dark matter environments, and what new effects could arise as well as our ability to place constraints on deviations from GR and/or on dark matter has not yet been explored.
7.4.4 EMRI waveforms
With EMRI signals, we expect to be able to detect higher order-independent multipole moments of the central body (Ryan 1995, 1997a) and measure (if any) deviations from GR (Barausse et al. 2020). Most of the work in this direction, has so far considered BH spacetimes with a multipolar structure different from Kerr, such as bumpy BHs (Collins and Hughes 2004), and constructed approximate “kludge” waveforms (Glampedakis et al. 2002; Chua et al. 2017) generated considering geodesics in a perturbed Kerr spacetime with orbital parameters evolved using PN equations that assume radiation-reaction effects as in GR (Apostolatos et al. 2009; Barack and Cutler 2007; Gair et al. 2008; Glampedakis and Babak 2006; Moore et al. 2017).
This approach reproduces the orbit’s main features but not to the precision required to determine that the inspiral is indeed an inspiral into a Kerr BH or not (Gair et al. 2008; Sasaki and Tagoshi 2003). Thus, further work on EMRI waveform modelling will require the consistent inclusion of radiation reaction not described as in GR, additional parameters related to the modification from GR, and environmental effects. Note that the presence of environmental effects may limit our ability to perform proper parameter estimation for some events (Barausse et al. 2014, 2015) if these are not properly taken into account.
These enhanced waveforms will increase model degeneracies that will impact our ability to learn about fundamental physics in the strong-field regime of gravity. That is why it is paramount to fully understand possible discernible features, such as characteristic variations of the amplitude and the energy emission rate (Suzuki and Maeda 2000) or the appearance of prolonged resonances (Apostolatos et al. 2009) in EMRI signals, as well as the development of novel data analysis techniques to extract information.
7.5 Burning questions and needed developments
In this chapter we have discussed how different systematics in the modelling of waveforms and induced by astrophysical environment can affect tests of GR. Below, we summarize the most important salient points.
-
How does (residual) eccentricity induced by binary-disk or hierarchical triplet interactions limit our ability to perform fundamental physics tests with BH binaries?
-
Can accretion, plasma effects or other stellar compact objects in the vicinity of an EMRI induce observable changes in the GW frequency evolution during the inspiral and/or ringdown that can spoil fundamental physics tests?
-
Self-force calculations for generic BBHs in vacuum or embedded in a background (e.g. dark matter boson cloud) at second-order are necessary for proper modelling of EMRIs, so that reliable waveforms are available to test for fundamental physics.
-
What PN accuracy is required for supermassive comparable-mass BH binaries so that we can perform precision tests of fundamental physics with LISA?
-
Development of PN waveforms in beyond-GR theories may need to move beyond leading order corrections. The order to which one should go to constrain theories should be investigated.
-
What is the accuracy level that numerical relativity simulations must reach in order to produce high-fidelity waveforms for LISA?
-
Numerical relativity must push through existing non-convergence problems to achieve high-fidelity waveforms near merger. Moreover, code efficiency and scaling must increase considerably to achieve resolutions necessary to supress systematic errors and to achieve template indistinguishability.
-
Phenom and EOS models must be improved and calibrated against numerical relativity simulations through the entire parameter space of BBHs, and include eccentricity, arbitrary spins, and substantially different masses. Efforts must be made to include environmental effects such as dynamical friction or interactions with clouds of ultralight fields. Additionally, Phenom and EOB models must be extended to modified gravity.
-
Numerical relativity efforts must expand to include more modified theories of gravity (especially those that admit a well-posed initial value problem). Efforts must be made to understand systematic errors of existing approaches that tackle ill-posed modified gravity theories.
-
A combination of the effects of bosonic dark matter and modified gravity must be considered in order to be able to understand how more complex deviations from standard general relativity can take place.
-
Development of waveforms for EMRIs in modified gravity must take place. In particular, further work on EMRI waveform modelling requires the consistent inclusion of radiation reaction in beyond-GR theories, additional parameters related to the modification from GR, and any environmental effects.
-
An important potential source of systematics that has not been included in this section (because no work has been done on this yet), but that is surely important to ensure the robustness of tests of GR are instrumental systematics. These are uncertainties due to calibration errors, data gaps, or other issues with the instrument itself.
8 Future directions
This white paper has been focused on the fundamental physics we can extract from LISA data. The white paper first discussed tests of the theoretical pillars of GR, such as the speed of propagation of GWs and the GW memory. The white paper then moved on to tests of the nature of BHs, discussing constraints on deviations from the Kerr hypothesis and other tests. Next, the white paper summarized tests of GR related to fundamental questions in cosmology, such as tests probing models that attempt to explain dark matter and others that attempt to explain dark energy (as an alternative to a cosmological constant). The white paper then concluded with a discussion of generic tests of GR, and the effects of systematics in all of these tests due to mismodelling and the influence of astrophysical environments.
As we hope this white paper demonstrates, there is a tremendous amount of work yet to be done before LISA flies in order to fully realize and exploit LISA’s scientific potential in this area. The most pressing questions have been discussed at the end of each of the sections summarized above, but let us here touch on a few of the key points. Regarding tests of GR, the most burning questions all involve the development of more detailed models for the GWs emitted in specific modified theories, including not just for the inspiral phases, but also the merger and the ringdown for comparable-mass binaries and EMRIs.
Much more work is also still needed in the context of LISA tests on the nature of BHs. Of particular note is the development of a systematic method to carry out Kerr hypothesis tests through the extraction of multipole moments of SMBHs in binaries. Moreover, the development of accurate waveform models to study the effect of ultralight bosonic fields around SMBHs, as well as the inspiral, merger and ringdown of exotica is needed. Regarding the latter, further studies to determine whether all exotica are a priori possible or whether some theoretical restrictions should be imposed is also important to limit the number of possibilities to study.
The extraction of fundamental physics information related to cosmology with LISA data will also require that we work hard to address several burning questions. Perhaps one of the most important ones is the construction of accurate waveform models that incorporate the effect of ultralight and heavier dark matter fields in the inspiral, merger and ringdown of compact objects of various mass ratios. Another important aspect that needs further studying is the effect of screening in the generation of propagating GWs, which would be particularly important when attempting to constrain modified gravity dark energy models.
Let us now discuss the burning questions related to model-independent tests of GR. As discussed in Sect. 6, perhaps the most important action item here is the development of model-independent modifications to waveform models in all three phases of coalescence. The merger phase, in particular, is not well-understood in enough modified theories to allow for a model-independent parameterization. Another important action item is related to the extension of LIGO/Virgo tests (Abbott et al. 2020a) to the LISA realm, such as the residual test and polarization tests. These tests will be different with LISA because LISA will be sensitive to a large number of sources that will be on during the entire observation, and because of the motion of LISA around the Sun.
Perhaps one of the most important points to consider is to what extent tests of GR will be affected by waveform systematics or other systematics that could be induced by astrophysical environments. Waveform systematics will be particularly problematic for SMBH signals, because of their expected high SNRs. But this could be a problem even for intermediate mass-ratio systems, for which we may not have sufficiently accurate generic waveforms yet. Waveform systematics may also be a problem for EMRIs, although one expects second-order waveform calculations to be complete before LISA flies. However, astrophysical systematics may still be a particular problem for EMRIs, creating a floor to our ability to test GR.
Given all of this, it is hopefully clear that a great amount of work is still needed to extract the most fundamental physics from LISA data and to ensure such inferences are robust. A close collaboration between the LISA fundamental physics WG, and other WGs, such as the waveform modelling and the cosmology, is called for and will be paramount to successfully overcome all these difficulties. We remain nonetheless optimistic that through the infrastructure of the LISA Consortium these collaborations can be organized and structured, so that we can get the most science out of the data, when LISA flies.
Notes
BH “hair” refers to new macroscopic degrees of freedom that are not associated to gauge symmetries, and cannot be computed by flux integrals at infinity.
Often called simply boson stars in the scalar case and Proca stars in the vector case.
For a generic spacetime the multipole moments of order \(\ell \) are rank-\(\ell \) tensors, \({{\mathcal {M}}}_{\ell m}\) and \({{\mathcal {S}}}_{\ell m}\), which reduce to scalar quantities, \({{\mathcal {M}}}_\ell \) and \({{\mathcal {S}}}_\ell \), in the axisymmetric case, see e.g., Bianchi et al. (2020a, 2021) for the general definitions.
Echo templates available at http://www.darkgra.org,https://web.uniroma1.it/gmunu/
Note that even perturbations that do not create PBHs contribute to the GWs produced, and it is the total of all these contributions that must be considered (De Luca et al. 2019b).
This is proportional to the inverse square power of the effective Planck mass appearing in (12) below.
Strictly speaking, interferometers measure the strain of GWs, not their luminosity, although the two are related. In modified gravity this relation is generally different from the GR one.
In a recent LISA Cosmology WG paper (Belgacem et al. 2019c), the predictions of some of the best-studied modified gravity models (such as several examples of Horndeski and DHOST theories, non-local infrared modifications of gravity, or bigravity theories) have been worked out, and it has been found that all these models predict modified GW propagation of the form (9), and the corresponding ratio \(d_{\mathrm{L}}^{\,\mathrm gw}(z)/d_{\mathrm{L}}^{\,\mathrm em}(z)\) is well reproduced by the functional form (11), except in bigravity, where the interaction between the two metric leads to oscillations in \(d_{\mathrm{L}}^{\,\mathrm gw}(z)/d_{\mathrm{L}}^{\,\mathrm em}(z)\).
References
Abbott B et al (2016) GW150914: Implications for the stochastic gravitational wave background from binary black holes. Phys Rev Lett 116:131102. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.131102. arXiv:1602.03847 [gr-qc]
Abbott B et al (2017) A gravitational-wave standard siren measurement of the Hubble constant. Nature 551(7678):85–88. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature24471. arXiv:1710.05835 [astro-ph.CO]
Abbott B et al (2017) GW170814: a three-detector observation of gravitational waves from a binary black hole coalescence. Phys Rev Lett 119:141101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.141101. arXiv:1709.09660 [gr-qc]
Abbott B et al (2017) GW170817: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Neutron Star Inspiral. Phys Rev Lett 119:161101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101. arXiv:1710.05832 [gr-qc]
Abbott B et al (2017) Multi-messenger Observations of a Binary Neutron Star Merger. Astrophys J Lett 848:L12. https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9. arXiv:1710.05833 [astro-ph.HE]
Abbott B et al (2018) GW170817: measurements of neutron star radii and equation of state. Phys Rev Lett 121:161101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.161101. arXiv:1805.11581 [gr-qc]
Abbott B et al (2019) Tests of general relativity with GW170817. Phys Rev Lett 123:011102. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.011102. arXiv:1811.00364 [gr-qc]
Abbott B et al (2019) Tests of general relativity with the binary black hole signals from the LIGO-virgo catalog GWTC-1. Phys Rev D 100:104036. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.104036. arXiv:1903.04467 [gr-qc]
Abbott B et al (2021) A gravitational-wave measurement of the hubble constant following the second observing run of advanced LIGO and virgo. Astrophys J 909:218. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/abdcb7. arXiv:1908.06060 [astro-ph.CO]
Abbott BP et al (2016) Tests of general relativity with GW150914. Phys Rev Lett 116:221101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.221101. arXiv:1602.03841 [gr-qc]
Abbott BP et al (2017) Gravitational Waves and Gamma-rays from a Binary Neutron Star Merger: GW170817 and GRB 170817A. Astrophys J 848:L13. https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c. arXiv:1710.05834 [astro-ph.HE]
Abbott BP et al (2018) GW170817: implications for the stochastic gravitational-wave background from compact binary coalescences. Phys Rev Lett 120:091101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.091101. arXiv:1710.05837 [gr-qc]
Abbott BP et al (2019) 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. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.9.031040. arXiv:1811.12907 [astro-ph.HE]
Abbott BP et al (2020) A guide to LIGO-Virgo detector noise and extraction of transient gravitational-wave signals. Class Quantum Grav 37:055002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/ab685e. arXiv:1908.11170 [gr-qc]
Abbott R et al (2020) GW190412: observation of a binary-black-hole coalescence with asymmetric masses. Phys Rev D 102:043015. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.043015. arXiv:2004.08342 [astro-ph.HE]
Abbott R et al (2020) GW190521: a binary black hole merger with a total mass of 150 \(M_\odot \). Phys Rev Lett 125:101102. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.101102. arXiv:2009.01075 [gr-qc]
Abbott R et al (2020) GW190814: gravitational waves from the coalescence of a 23 solar mass black hole with a 2.6 solar mass compact object. Astrophys J Lett 896:L44. https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ab960f. arXiv:2006.12611 [astro-ph.HE]
Abbott R et al (2020) Properties and astrophysical implications of the 150 \(M_\odot \) binary black hole merger GW190521. Astrophys J 900:L13. https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/aba493. arXiv:2009.01190 [astro-ph.HE]
Abbott R et al (2021) Tests of general relativity with binary black holes from the second LIGO-Virgo gravitational-wave transient catalog. Phys Rev D 103:122002. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.103.122002. arXiv:2010.14529 [gr-qc]
Abedi J, Afshordi N (2019) Echoes from the abyss: a highly spinning black hole remnant for the binary neutron star merger GW170817. JCAP 11:010. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2019/11/010. arXiv:1803.10454 [gr-qc]
Abedi J, Dykaar H, Afshordi N (2017) Echoes from the Abyss: tentative evidence for Planck-scale structure at black hole horizons. Phys Rev D 96:082004. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.96.082004. arXiv:1612.00266 [gr-qc]
Abedi J, Afshordi N, Oshita N, Wang Q (2020) Quantum black holes in the sky. Universe 6:43. https://doi.org/10.3390/universe6030043. arXiv:2001.09553 [gr-qc]
Abramowicz MA, Fragile PC (2013) Foundations of black hole accretion disk theory. Living Rev Relativ 16:1. https://doi.org/10.12942/lrr-2013-1. arXiv:1104.5499 [astro-ph.HE]
Acquaviva V, Bartolo N, Matarrese S, Riotto A (2003) Second order cosmological perturbations from inflation. Nucl Phys B 667:119–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0550-3213(03)00550-9. arXiv:astro-ph/0209156
Adam A, Figueras P, Jacobson T, Wiseman T (2021) Rotating black holes in Einstein-aether theory. arXiv e-prints arXiv:2108.00005 [gr-qc]
Addazi A, Marciano A, Yunes N (2019) Can we probe Planckian corrections at the horizon scale with gravitational waves? Phys Rev Lett 122:081301. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.081301. arXiv:1810.10417 [gr-qc]
Aghamousa A, et al. (2016) The DESI experiment part i: science,targeting, and survey design. arXiv e-prints arXiv:1611.00036 [astro-ph.IM]
Agullo I, Cardoso V, del Rio A, Maggiore M, Pullin J (2021) Potential gravitational wave signatures of quantum gravity. Phys Rev Lett 126:041302. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.041302. arXiv:2007.13761 [gr-qc]
Ajith P et al (2007) Phenomenological template family for black-hole coalescence waveforms. Class Quantum Grav 24:S689–S700. https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/24/19/S31. arXiv:0704.3764 [gr-qc]
Ajith P et al (2008) A Template bank for gravitational waveforms from coalescing binary black holes. I. Non-spinning binaries. Phys Rev D 77:104017. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.77.104017, [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 79, 129901 (2009)]. arXiv:0710.2335 [gr-qc]
Ajith P et al (2011) Inspiral-merger-ringdown waveforms for black-hole binaries with non-precessing spins. Phys Rev Lett 106:241101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.241101. arXiv:0909.2867 [gr-qc]
Akcay S, Bernuzzi S, Messina F, Nagar A, Ortiz N, Rettegno P (2019) Effective-one-body multipolar waveform for tidally interacting binary neutron stars up to merger. Phys Rev D 99:044051. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.044051. arXiv:1812.02744 [gr-qc]
Akcay S, Dolan SR, Kavanagh C, Moxon J, Warburton N, Wardell B (2020) Dissipation in extreme-mass ratio binaries with a spinning secondary. Phys Rev D 102:064013. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.064013. arXiv:1912.09461 [gr-qc]
Alba V, Maldacena J (2016) Primordial gravity wave background anisotropies. JHEP 03:115. https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP03(2016)115. arXiv:1512.01531 [hep-th]
Alberte L, Creminelli P, Khmelnitsky A, Pirtskhalava D, Trincherini E (2016) Relaxing the cosmological constant: a proof of concept. JHEP 12:022. https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12(2016)022. arXiv:1608.05715 [hep-th]
Alcock C et al (2001) The MACHO project: microlensing detection efficiency. Astrophys J Suppl 136:439–462. https://doi.org/10.1086/322529. arXiv:astro-ph/0003392
Alcubierre M (2008) Introduction to 3+1 numerical relativity. Oxford University Press
Alcubierre M, Barranco J, Bernal A, Degollado JC, Diez-Tejedor A, Megevand M, Nunez D, Sarbach O (2018) \(\ell \)-Boson stars. Class Quantum Grav 35:19LT01. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/aadcb6. arXiv:1805.11488 [gr-qc]
Alexander S, Yunes N (2009) Chern-Simons Modified General Relativity. Phys Rept 480:1–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2009.07.002. arXiv:0907.2562 [hep-th]
Alexander S, Finn LS, Yunes N (2008) A Gravitational-wave probe of effective quantum gravity. Phys Rev D 78:066005. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.78.066005. arXiv:0712.2542 [gr-qc]
Ali-Haïmoud Y (2018) Correlation Function of High-Threshold Regions and Application to the Initial Small-Scale Clustering of Primordial Black Holes. Phys Rev Lett 121:081304. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.081304. arXiv:1805.05912 [astro-ph.CO]
Ali-Haïmoud Y, Kamionkowski M (2017) Cosmic microwave background limits on accreting primordial black holes. Phys Rev D 95:043534. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.95.043534. arXiv:1612.05644 [astro-ph.CO]
Allen B, Romano JD (1999) Detecting a stochastic background of gravitational radiation: signal processing strategies and sensitivities. Phys Rev D 59:102001. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.59.102001. arXiv:gr-qc/9710117
Allsman R et al (2001) MACHO project limits on black hole dark matter in the 1–30 solar mass range. Astrophys J Lett 550:L169. https://doi.org/10.1086/319636. arXiv:astro-ph/0011506
Allwright G, Lehner L (2019) Towards the nonlinear regime in extensions to GR: assessing possible options. Class Quantum Grav 36:084001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/ab0ee1. arXiv:1808.07897 [gr-qc]
Almheiri A, Marolf D, Polchinski J, Sully J (2013) Black holes: complementarity or firewalls? JHEP 02:062. https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP02(2013)062. arXiv:1207.3123 [hep-th]
Alonso D, Cusin G, Ferreira PG, Pitrou C (2020) Detecting the anisotropic astrophysical gravitational wave background in the presence of shot noise through cross-correlations. Phys Rev D 102:023002. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.023002. arXiv:2002.02888 [astro-ph.CO]
Alvarez G, Yu HB (2021) Density spikes near black holes in self-interacting dark matter halos and indirect detection constraints. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.104.043013, arXiv:2012.15050 [hep-ph]
Amaro-Seoane P, Gair JR, Freitag M, Coleman Miller M, Mandel I, Cutler CJ, Babak S (2007) Astrophysics, detection and science applications of intermediate- and extreme mass-ratio inspirals. Class Quantum Grav 24:R113–R169. https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/24/17/R01. arXiv:astro-ph/0703495
Amaro-Seoane P, et al. (2017) Laser Interferometer Space Antenna. arXiv e-prints arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]
Amaro-Seoane P, et al. (2022) Astrophysics with the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna. Living Rev Relativ 25. arXiv:2203.06016 [gr-qc]
Amendola L (2000) Coupled quintessence. Phys Rev D 62:043511. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.62.043511. arXiv:astro-ph/9908023
Amendola L, Ballesteros G, Pettorino V (2014) Effects of modified gravity on B-mode polarization. Phys Rev D 90:043009. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.90.043009. arXiv:1405.7004 [astro-ph.CO]
Amendola L, Sawicki I, Kunz M, Saltas ID (2018) Direct detection of gravitational waves can measure the time variation of the Planck mass. JCAP 1808:030. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2018/08/030. arXiv:1712.08623 [astro-ph.CO]
Amendola L et al (2018) Cosmology and fundamental physics with the Euclid satellite. Living Rev Relat 21:2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41114-017-0010-3. arXiv:1606.00180 [astro-ph.CO]
Amin MA, Mou ZG (2021) Electromagnetic bursts from mergers of oscillons in axion-like fields. JCAP 2:024. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2021/02/024. arXiv:2009.11337 [astro-ph.CO]
Ananda KN, Clarkson C, Wands D (2007) The Cosmological gravitational wave background from primordial density perturbations. Phys Rev D 75:123518. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.75.123518. arXiv:gr-qc/0612013
Andersson N (1998) A New class of unstable modes of rotating relativistic stars. Astrophys J 502:708–713. https://doi.org/10.1086/305919. arXiv:gr-qc/9706075
Ando K, Inomata K, Kawasaki M, Mukaida K, Yanagida TT (2018) Primordial black holes for the LIGO events in the axionlike curvaton model. Phys Rev D 97:123512. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.123512. arXiv:1711.08956 [astro-ph.CO]
Annulli L, Cardoso V, Vicente R (2020) Response of ultralight dark matter to supermassive black holes and binaries. Phys Rev D 102:063022. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.063022. arXiv:2009.00012 [gr-qc]
Annulli L, Cardoso V, Vicente R (2020) Stirred and shaken: dynamical behavior of boson stars and dark matter cores. Phys Lett B 811:135944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135944. arXiv:2007.03700 [astro-ph.HE]
Antonelli A, Buonanno A, Steinhoff J, van de Meent M, Vines J (2019) Energetics of two-body Hamiltonians in post-Minkowskian gravity. Phys Rev D 99:104004. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.104004. arXiv:1901.07102 [gr-qc]
Antonelli A, van de Meent M, Buonanno A, Steinhoff J, Vines J (2020) Quasicircular inspirals and plunges from nonspinning effective-one-body Hamiltonians with gravitational self-force information. Phys Rev D 101:024024. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.024024. arXiv:1907.11597 [gr-qc]
Antoniadis I, Mottola E (1991) Graviton fluctuations in De Sitter space. JMathPhys 32:1037–1044. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.529381
Antoniadis I, Mottola E (1992) 4-D quantum gravity in the conformal sector. Phys Rev D 45:2013–2025. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.45.2013
Antoniou G, Bakopoulos A, Kanti P (2018) Evasion of no-hair theorems and novel black-hole solutions in Gauss–Bonnet theories. Phys Rev Lett 120:131102. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.131102. arXiv:1711.03390 [hep-th]
Antoniou G, Bordin L, Sotiriou TP (2021) Compact object scalarization with general relativity as a cosmic attractor. Phys Rev D 103:024012. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.103.024012. arXiv:2004.14985 [gr-qc]
Apostolatos TA, Lukes-Gerakopoulos G, Contopoulos G (2009) How to observe a non-Kerr spacetime using gravitational waves. Phys Rev Lett 103:111101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.111101. arXiv:0906.0093 [gr-qc]
Arai S, Nishizawa A (2018) Generalized framework for testing gravity with gravitational-wave propagation. II. Constraints on Horndeski theory. Phys Rev D 97:104038. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.104038. arXiv:1711.03776 [gr-qc]
Armitage PJ, Natarajan P (2002) Accretion during the Merger of Supermassive Black Holes. Astrophys J Lett. 567:L9–L12. https://doi.org/10.1086/339770. arXiv:astro-ph/0201318 [astro-ph]
Arun KG, Iyer BR, Qusailah MSS, Sathyaprakash BS (2006) Probing the non-linear structure of general relativity with black hole binaries. Phys Rev D 74:024006. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.74.024006. arXiv:gr-qc/0604067 [gr-qc]
Arun KG, Iyer BR, Qusailah MSS, Sathyaprakash BS (2006) Testing post-Newtonian theory with gravitational wave observations. Class Quantum Grav 23:L37–L43. https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/23/9/L01. arXiv:gr-qc/0604018 [gr-qc]
Arvanitaki A, Dubovsky S (2011) Exploring the string axiverse with precision black hole physics. Phys Rev D 83:044026. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.83.044026. arXiv:1004.3558 [hep-th]
Arvanitaki A, Dimopoulos S, Dubovsky S, Kaloper N, March-Russell J (2010) String Axiverse. Phys Rev D 81:123530. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.81.123530. arXiv:0905.4720 [hep-th]
Arvanitaki A, Baryakhtar M, Huang X (2015) Discovering the QCD axion with black holes and gravitational waves. Phys Rev D 91:084011. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.91.084011. arXiv:1411.2263 [hep-ph]
Arvanitaki A, Baryakhtar M, Dimopoulos S, Dubovsky S, Lasenby R (2017) Black hole mergers and the QCD axion at advanced LIGO. Phys Rev D 95:043001. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.95.043001. arXiv:1604.03958 [hep-ph]
Arzoumanian Z et al (2018) The NANOGrav 11-year data set: pulsar-timing constraints on the stochastic gravitational-wave background. Astrophys J 859:47. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aabd3b. arXiv:1801.02617 [astro-ph.HE]
Arzoumanian Z et al (2020) The NANOGrav 12.5 yr data set: search for an isotropic stochastic gravitational-wave background. Astrophys J Lett 905:L34. https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/abd401. arXiv:2009.04496 [astro-ph.HE]
Ashtekar A, Balachandran A, Jo S (1989) The CP problem in quantum gravity. Int J Mod Phys A 4:1493. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X89000649
Auclair P et al (2020) Probing the gravitational wave background from cosmic strings with LISA. JCAP 04:034. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2020/04/034. arXiv:1909.00819 [astro-ph.CO]
Auclair P et al (2022) Cosmology with the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna. Living Rev Relativ 25. arXiv:2204.05434
Ayzenberg D, Yunes N (2014) Slowly-Rotating Black Holes in Einstein–Dilaton–Gauss–Bonnet gravity: quadratic order in spin solutions. Phys Rev D 90:044066. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.90.044066, [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 91, 069905 (2015)]. arXiv:1405.2133 [gr-qc]
Babak S, Gair J, Sesana A, Barausse E, Sopuerta CF, Berry CP, Berti E, Amaro-Seoane P, Petiteau A, Klein A (2017) Science with the space-based interferometer LISA. V: extreme mass-ratio inspirals. Phys Rev D 95:103012. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.95.103012. arXiv:1703.09722 [gr-qc]
Babak S, Taracchini A, Buonanno A (2017) Validating the effective-one-body model of spinning, precessing binary black holes against numerical relativity. Phys Rev D 95:024010. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.95.024010. arXiv:1607.05661 [gr-qc]
Babichev E, Charmousis C (2014) Dressing a black hole with a time-dependent Galileon. JHEP 08:106. https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP08(2014)106. arXiv:1312.3204 [gr-qc]
Babichev E, Crisostomi M (2013) Restoring general relativity in massive bigravity theory. Phys Rev D 88:084002. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.88.084002. arXiv:1307.3640 [gr-qc]
Babichev E, Deffayet C (2013) An introduction to the Vainshtein mechanism. Class Quantum Grav 30:184001. https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/30/18/184001. arXiv:1304.7240 [gr-qc]
Babichev E, Deffayet C, Ziour R (2009) k-Mouflage gravity. Int J Mod Phys D 18:2147–2154. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218271809016107. arXiv:0905.2943 [hep-th]
Babichev E, Charmousis C, Hassaine M (2017) Black holes and solitons in an extended Proca theory. JHEP 05:114. https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05(2017)114. arXiv:1703.07676 [gr-qc]
Bahamonde S, Böhmer CG, Wright M (2015) Modified teleparallel theories of gravity. Phys Rev D 92:104042. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.92.104042. arXiv:1508.05120 [gr-qc]
Baibhav V, Berti E, Cardoso V, Khanna G (2018) Black hole spectroscopy: systematic errors and ringdown energy estimates. Phys Rev D 97:044048. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.044048. arXiv:1710.02156 [gr-qc]
Baker J, et al. (2019) Multimessenger science opportunities with mHz gravitational waves. arXiv e-prints arXiv:1903.04417 [astro-ph.HE]
Baker J et al (2021) High angular resolution gravitational wave astronomy. Exp Astron 51(3):1441–1470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10686-021-09712-0. arXiv:1908.11410 [astro-ph.HE]
Baker JG, Centrella J, Choi DI, Koppitz M, van Meter J (2006) Gravitational wave extraction from an inspiraling configuration of merging black holes. Phys Rev Lett 96:111102. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.111102. arXiv:gr-qc/0511103
Baker T, Bellini E, Ferreira PG, Lagos M, Noller J, Sawicki I (2017) Strong constraints on cosmological gravity from GW170817 and GRB 170817A. Phys Rev Lett 119:251301. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.251301. arXiv:1710.06394 [astro-ph.CO]
Balasubramanian V, de Boer J, El-Showk S, Messamah I (2008) Black holes as effective geometries. Class Quantum Grav 25:214004. https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/25/21/214004. arXiv:0811.0263 [hep-th]
Ballesteros G, Serpico PD, Taoso M (2018) On the merger rate of primordial black holes: effects of nearest neighbours distribution and clustering. JCAP 10:043. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2018/10/043. arXiv:1807.02084 [astro-ph.CO]
Balmelli S, Jetzer P (2013) Effective-one-body Hamiltonian with next-to-leading order spin-spin coupling for two nonprecessing black holes with aligned spins. Phys Rev D 87:124036. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.87.124036, [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 90, 089905 (2014)]. arXiv:1305.5674 [gr-qc]
Bamber J, Clough K, Ferreira PG, Hui L, Lagos M (2021) Growth of accretion driven scalar hair around Kerr black holes. Phys Rev D 103:044059. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.103.044059. arXiv:2011.07870 [gr-qc]
Barack L, Burko LM (2000) Radiation reaction force on a particle plunging into a black hole. Phys Rev D 62:084040. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.62.084040. arXiv:gr-qc/0007033
Barack L, Cutler C (2004) Confusion noise from LISA capture sources. Phys Rev D 70:122002. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.70.122002. arXiv:gr-qc/0409010
Barack L, Cutler C (2007) Using LISA EMRI sources to test off-Kerr deviations in the geometry of massive black holes. Phys Rev D 75:042003. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.75.042003. arXiv:gr-qc/0612029
Barack L, Pound A (2019) Self-force and radiation reaction in general relativity. Rept Prog Phys 82:016904. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6633/aae552. arXiv:1805.10385 [gr-qc]
Barack L et al (2019) Black holes, gravitational waves and fundamental physics: a roadmap. Class Quantum Grav 36:143001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/ab0587. arXiv:1806.05195 [gr-qc]
Barausse E (2012) The evolution of massive black holes and their spins in their galactic hosts. Mon Not R Astron Soc 423:2533–2557. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21057.x. arXiv:1201.5888 [astro-ph.CO]
Barausse E, Buonanno A (2010) An Improved effective-one-body Hamiltonian for spinning black-hole binaries. Phys Rev D 81:084024. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.81.084024. arXiv:0912.3517 [gr-qc]
Barausse E, Buonanno A (2011) Extending the effective-one-body Hamiltonian of black-hole binaries to include next-to-next-to-leading spin-orbit couplings. Phys Rev D 84:104027. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.84.104027. arXiv:1107.2904 [gr-qc]
Barausse E, Rezzolla L (2008) The Influence of the hydrodynamic drag from an accretion torus on extreme mass-ratio inspirals. Phys Rev D 77:104027. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.77.104027. arXiv:0711.4558 [gr-qc]
Barausse E, Sotiriou TP (2008) Perturbed Kerr Black Holes can probe deviations from General Relativity. Phys Rev Lett 101:099001. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.099001. arXiv:0803.3433 [gr-qc]
Barausse E, Sotiriou TP, Miller JC (2008) A No-go theorem for polytropic spheres in Palatini f(R) gravity. Class Quantum Grav 25:062001. https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/25/6/062001. arXiv:gr-qc/0703132
Barausse E, Racine E, Buonanno A (2009) Hamiltonian of a spinning test-particle in curved spacetime. Phys Rev D 80:104025. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.85.069904, [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 85, 069904 (2012)]. arXiv:0907.4745 [gr-qc]
Barausse E, Jacobson T, Sotiriou TP (2011) Black holes in Einstein-aether and Horava–Lifshitz gravity. Phys Rev D 83:124043. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.83.124043. arXiv:1104.2889 [gr-qc]
Barausse E, Cardoso V, Pani P (2014) Can environmental effects spoil precision gravitational-wave astrophysics? Phys Rev D 89:104059. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.89.104059. arXiv:1404.7149 [gr-qc]
Barausse E, Cardoso V, Pani P (2015) Environmental Effects for Gravitational-wave Astrophysics. J Phys Conf Ser 610:012044. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/610/1/012044. arXiv:1404.7140 [astro-ph.CO]
Barausse E, Yunes N, Chamberlain K (2016) Theory-Agnostic Constraints on Black-Hole Dipole Radiation with Multiband Gravitational-Wave Astrophysics. Phys Rev Lett 116:241104. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.241104. arXiv:1603.04075 [gr-qc]
Barausse E, Brito R, Cardoso V, Dvorkin I, Pani P (2018) The stochastic gravitational-wave background in the absence of horizons. Class Quantum Grav 35:20LT01. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/aae1de. arXiv:1805.08229 [gr-qc]
Barausse E et al (2020) Prospects for Fundamental Physics with LISA. Gen Relativ Gravit 52:81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10714-020-02691-1. arXiv:2001.09793 [gr-qc]
Barceló C, Liberati S, Sonego S, Visser M (2009) Black Stars. Not Holes. Sci Am 301(4):38–45. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1009-38
Barceló C, Carballo-Rubio R, Garay LJ (2017) Gravitational wave echoes from macroscopic quantum gravity effects. JHEP 05:054. https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05(2017)054. arXiv:1701.09156 [gr-qc]
Barnacka A, Glicenstein J, Moderski R (2012) New constraints on primordial black holes abundance from femtolensing of gamma-ray bursts. Phys Rev D 86:043001. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.86.043001. arXiv:1204.2056 [astro-ph.CO]
Barnich G, Troessaert C (2010) Aspects of the BMS/CFT correspondence. JHEP 05:062. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04260-8. arXiv:1001.1541 [hep-th]
Barranco J, Bernal A, Degollado JC, Diez-Tejedor A, Megevand M, Alcubierre M, Nunez D, Sarbach O (2012) Schwarzschild black holes can wear scalar wigs. Phys Rev Lett 109:081102. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.081102. arXiv:1207.2153 [gr-qc]
Barranco J, Bernal A, Degollado JC, Diez-Tejedor A, Megevand M, Alcubierre M, Núñez D, Sarbach O (2014) Schwarzschild scalar wigs: spectral analysis and late time behavior. Phys Rev D 89:083006. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.89.083006. arXiv:1312.5808 [gr-qc]
Bartolo N, Domcke V, Figueroa DG, García-Bellido J, Peloso M, Pieroni M, Ricciardone A, Sakellariadou M, Sorbo L, Tasinato G (2018) Probing non-Gaussian stochastic gravitational wave backgrounds with LISA. JCAP 11:034. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2018/11/034. arXiv:1806.02819 [astro-ph.CO]
Bartolo N, Bertacca D, Matarrese S, Peloso M, Ricciardone A, Riotto A, Tasinato G (2019) Anisotropies and non-Gaussianity of the cosmological gravitational wave background. Phys Rev D 100:121501. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.121501. arXiv:1908.00527 [astro-ph.CO]
Bartolo N, De Luca V, Franciolini G, Lewis A, Peloso M, Riotto A (2019) Primordial Black Hole Dark Matter: LISA Serendipity. Phys Rev Lett 122:211301. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.211301. arXiv:1810.12218 [astro-ph.CO]
Bartolo N, De Luca V, Franciolini G, Peloso M, Racco D, Riotto A (2019) Testing primordial black holes as dark matter with LISA. Phys Rev D 99:103521. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.103521. arXiv:1810.12224 [astro-ph.CO]
Bartolo N, Bertacca D, De Luca V, Franciolini G, Matarrese S, Peloso M, Ricciardone A, Riotto A, Tasinato G (2020) Gravitational wave anisotropies from primordial black holes. JCAP 02:028. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2020/02/028. arXiv:1909.12619 [astro-ph.CO]
Bartolo N, Bertacca D, Matarrese S, Peloso M, Ricciardone A, Riotto A, Tasinato G (2020) Characterizing the cosmological gravitational wave background: anisotropies and non-Gaussianity. Phys Rev D 102:023527. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.023527. arXiv:1912.09433 [astro-ph.CO]
Bartolo N et al (2016) Science with the space-based interferometer LISA. IV: Probing inflation with gravitational waves. JCAP 12:026. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2016/12/026. arXiv:1610.06481 [astro-ph.CO]
Baryakhtar M, Lasenby R, Teo M (2017) Black Hole Superradiance Signatures of Ultralight Vectors. Phys Rev D 96:035019. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.96.035019. arXiv:1704.05081 [hep-ph]
Battye RA, Pace F, Trinh D (2018) Gravitational wave constraints on dark sector models. Phys Rev D 98:023504. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.023504. arXiv:1802.09447 [astro-ph.CO]
Baumann D, Steinhardt PJ, Takahashi K, Ichiki K (2007) Gravitational wave spectrum induced by primordial scalar perturbations. Phys Rev D 76:084019. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.76.084019. arXiv:hep-th/0703290
Baumann D, Chia HS, Porto RA (2019) Probing ultralight bosons with binary black holes. Phys Rev D 99:044001. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.044001. arXiv:1804.03208 [gr-qc]
Baumann D, Chia HS, Porto RA, Stout J (2020) Gravitational collider physics. Phys Rev D 101:083019. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.083019. arXiv:1912.04932 [gr-qc]
Baumgarte TW, Shapiro SL (2010) Numerical relativity: solving Einstein’s equations on the computer. Cambridge University Press
Baumgarte TW, Shapiro SL (2010) Numerical Relativity: Solving Einstein’s Equations on the Computer. Cambridge University Press
Bayin SS (1982) Anisotropic Fluid Spheres in General Relativity. Phys Rev D 26:1262. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.26.1262
Begelman MC, Blandford RD, Rees MJ (1980) Massive black hole binaries in active galactic nuclei. Nature 287:307–309. https://doi.org/10.1038/287307a0
Bekenstein J (1972) Transcendence of the law of baryon-number conservation in black hole physics. Phys Rev Lett 28:452–455. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.28.452
Bekenstein JD (1974) The quantum mass spectrum of the Kerr black hole. Lett Nuovo Cim 11:467. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02762768
Bekenstein JD (1997) Black hole hair: twenty-five years after. In: Dremin AJ, Semikhatov AM (eds) Second International A.D. Sahkarov Conference on Physics. p 216. arXiv:gr-qc/9605059 [gr-qc]
Bekenstein JD, Mukhanov VF (1995) Spectroscopy of the quantum black hole. Phys Lett B 360:7–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(95)01148-J. arXiv:gr-qc/9505012
Belgacem E, Dirian Y, Foffa S, Maggiore M (2018) Modified gravitational-wave propagation and standard sirens. Phys Rev D 98:023510. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.023510. arXiv:1805.08731 [gr-qc]
Belgacem E, Dirian Y, Foffa S, Maggiore M (2018) Nonlocal gravity. Conceptual aspects and cosmological predictions. JCAP 1803:002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2018/03/002. arXiv:1712.07066 [hep-th]
Belgacem E, Dirian Y, Foffa S, Maggiore M (2018) The gravitational-wave luminosity distance in modified gravity theories. Phys Rev D 97:104066 arXiv:1712.08108 [astro-ph.CO]
Belgacem E, Dirian Y, Finke A, Foffa S, Maggiore M (2019) Nonlocal gravity and gravitational-wave observations. JCAP 1911:022. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2019/11/022. arXiv:1907.02047 [astro-ph.CO]
Belgacem E, Finke A, Frassino A, Maggiore M (2019) Testing nonlocal gravity with Lunar Laser Ranging. JCAP 1902:035. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2019/02/035. arXiv:1812.11181 [gr-qc]
Belgacem E, Dirian Y, Finke A, Foffa S, Maggiore M (2020) Gravity in the infrared and effective nonlocal models. JCAP 04:010. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2020/04/010. arXiv:2001.07619 [astro-ph.CO]
Belgacem E et al (2019) Testing modified gravity at cosmological distances with LISA standard sirens. JCAP 07:024. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2019/07/024. arXiv:1906.01593 [astro-ph.CO]
Bellini E, Sawicki I (2014) Maximal freedom at minimum cost: linear large-scale structure in general modifications of gravity. JCAP 1407:050. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2014/07/050. arXiv:1404.3713 [astro-ph.CO]
Bellomo N, Bertacca D, Jenkins AC, Matarrese S, Raccanelli A, Regimbau T, Ricciardone A, Sakellariadou M (2021) CLASS_GWB: robust modeling of the astrophysical gravitational wave background anisotropies. arXiv e-prints arXiv:2110.15059 [gr-qc]
Beltran Jimenez J, Piazza F, Velten H (2016) Evading the Vainshtein Mechanism with Anomalous Gravitational Wave Speed: Constraints on Modified Gravity from Binary Pulsars. Phys Rev Lett 116:061101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061101. arXiv:1507.05047 [gr-qc]
Ben Achour J, Crisostomi M, Koyama K, Langlois D, Noui K, Tasinato G (2016) Degenerate higher order scalar-tensor theories beyond Horndeski up to cubic order. JHEP 12:100. https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12(2016)100. arXiv:1608.08135 [hep-th]
Bena I, Mayerson DR (2020) Multipole ratios: a new window into black holes. Phys Rev Lett 125:22. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.221602. arXiv:2006.10750 [hep-th]
Bena I, Mayerson DR (2021) Black Holes Lessons from Multipole Ratios. JHEP 03:114. https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP03(2021)114. arXiv:2007.09152 [hep-th]
Bena I, Warner NP (2008) Black holes, black rings and their microstates. Lect Notes Phys 755:1–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-79523-0_1. arXiv:hep-th/0701216
Bena I, Warner NP (2013) Resolving the Structure of Black Holes: Philosophizing with a Hammer. arXiv e-prints arXiv:1311.4538 [hep-th]
Bena I, Heidmann P, Monten R, Warner NP (2019) Thermal Decay without Information Loss in Horizonless Microstate Geometries. SciPost Phys 7(5):063. https://doi.org/10.21468/SciPostPhys.7.5.063. arXiv:1905.05194 [hep-th]
Bena I, Martinec EJ, Walker R, Warner NP (2019) Early Scrambling and Capped BTZ Geometries. JHEP 04:126. https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2019)126. arXiv:1812.05110 [hep-th]
Bender CM, Orszag SA (1978) Advanced mathematical methods for scientists and engineers. International Series in Pure and Applied Mathematics, McGraw-Hill, New York
Benkel R, Sotiriou TP, Witek H (2016) Dynamical scalar hair formation around a Schwarzschild black hole. Phys Rev D 94:121503. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.94.121503. arXiv:1612.08184 [gr-qc]
Benkel R, Sotiriou TP, Witek H (2017) Black hole hair formation in shift-symmetric generalised scalar-tensor gravity. Class Quantum Grav 34:064001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/aa5ce7. arXiv:1610.09168 [gr-qc]
Bera S, Rana D, More S, Bose S (2020) Incompleteness matters not: inference of \(H_{0}\) from binary black hole-galaxy cross-correlations. Astrophys J 902:79. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/abb4e0. arXiv:2007.04271 [astro-ph.CO]
Berezhiani L, Chkareuli G, de Rham C, Gabadadze G, Tolley A (2012) On Black Holes in Massive Gravity. Phys Rev D 85:044024. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.85.044024. arXiv:1111.3613 [hep-th]
Bernuzzi S, Nagar A, Thierfelder M, Brugmann B (2012) Tidal effects in binary neutron star coalescence. Phys Rev D 86:044030. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.86.044030. arXiv:1205.3403 [gr-qc]
Bernuzzi S, Nagar A, Zenginoglu A (2012) Horizon-absorption effects in coalescing black-hole binaries: an effective-one-body study of the non-spinning case. Phys Rev D 86:104038. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.86.104038. arXiv:1207.0769 [gr-qc]
Bernuzzi S, Dietrich T, Nagar A (2015) Modeling the complete gravitational wave spectrum of neutron star mergers. Phys Rev Lett 115:091101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.091101. arXiv:1504.01764 [gr-qc]
Bernuzzi S, Nagar A, Dietrich T, Damour T (2015) Modeling the dynamics of tidally interacting binary neutron stars up to the merger. Phys Rev Lett 114:161103. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.161103. arXiv:1412.4553 [gr-qc]
Bertacca D, Ricciardone A, Bellomo N, Jenkins AC, Matarrese S, Raccanelli A, Regimbau T, Sakellariadou M (2020) Projection effects on the observed angular spectrum of the astrophysical stochastic gravitational wave background. Phys Rev D 101:103513. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.103513. arXiv:1909.11627 [astro-ph.CO]
Berti E, Volonteri M (2008) Cosmological black hole spin evolution by mergers and accretion. Astrophys J 684:822–828. https://doi.org/10.1086/590379. arXiv:0802.0025 [astro-ph]
Berti E, Buonanno A, Will CM (2005) Estimating spinning binary parameters and testing alternative theories of gravity with LISA. Phys Rev D 71:084025. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.71.084025. arXiv:gr-qc/0411129 [gr-qc]
Berti E, Cardoso V, Will CM (2006) On gravitational-wave spectroscopy of massive black holes with the space interferometer LISA. Phys Rev D 73:064030. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.73.064030. arXiv:gr-qc/0512160
Berti E, Cardoso V, Gonzalez JA, Sperhake U, Hannam M, Husa S, Bruegmann B (2007) Inspiral, merger and ringdown of unequal mass black hole binaries: a multipolar analysis. Phys Rev D 76:064034. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.76.064034. arXiv:gr-qc/0703053
Berti E, Cardoso V, Starinets AO (2009) Quasinormal modes of black holes and black branes. Class Quantum Grav 26:163001. https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/26/16/163001. arXiv:0905.2975 [gr-qc]
Berti E, Gair J, Sesana A (2011) Graviton mass bounds from space-based gravitational-wave observations of massive black hole populations. Phys Rev D 84:101501. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.84.101501. arXiv:1107.3528 [gr-qc]
Berti E, Cardoso V, Gualtieri L, Horbatsch M, Sperhake U (2013) Numerical simulations of single and binary black holes in scalar-tensor theories: circumventing the no-hair theorem. Phys Rev D 87:124020. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.87.124020. arXiv:1304.2836 [gr-qc]
Berti E, Sesana A, Barausse E, Cardoso V, Belczynski K (2016) Spectroscopy of Kerr black holes with Earth- and space-based interferometers. Phys Rev Lett 117:101102. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.101102. arXiv:1605.09286 [gr-qc]
Berti E, Yagi K, Yunes N (2018) Extreme gravity tests with gravitational waves from compact binary coalescences: (I) inspiral-merger. Gen Relativ Gravit 50:46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10714-018-2362-8. arXiv:1801.03208 [gr-qc]
Berti E, Brito R, Macedo CFB, Raposo G, Rosa JL (2019) Ultralight boson cloud depletion in binary systems. Phys Rev D 99:104039. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.104039. arXiv:1904.03131 [gr-qc]
Berti E, Collodel LG, Kleihaus B, Kunz J (2021) Spin-induced black hole scalarization in Einstein–Scalar–Gauss–Bonnet theory. Phys Rev Lett 126:011104. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.011104. arXiv:2009.03905 [gr-qc]
Berti E et al (2015) Testing general relativity with present and future astrophysical observations. Class Quantum Grav 32:243001. https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/32/24/243001. arXiv:1501.07274 [gr-qc]
Bertone G, Hooper D (2018) History of dark matter. Rev Mod Phys 90:045002. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.90.045002. arXiv:1605.04909 [astro-ph.CO]
Bertone G, Merritt D (2005) Time-dependent models for dark matter at the Galactic Center. Phys Rev D 72:103502. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.72.103502. arXiv:astro-ph/0501555
Bertone G, Tim Tait M (2018) A new era in the search for dark matter. Nature 562(7725):51–56. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0542-z. arXiv:1810.01668 [astro-ph.CO]
Bertone G, Hooper D, Silk J (2005) Particle dark matter: evidence, candidates and constraints. Phys Rept 405:279–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2004.08.031. arXiv:hep-ph/0404175
Bertone G, Zentner AR, Silk J (2005) A new signature of dark matter annihilations: gamma-rays from intermediate-mass black holes. Phys Rev D 72:103517. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.72.103517. arXiv:astro-ph/0509565
Bertone G, et al. (2020) Gravitational wave probes of dark matter: challenges and opportunities. SciPost Phys Core 3(2). https://doi.org/10.21468/scipostphyscore.3.2.007. arXiv:1907.10610 [astro-ph.CO]
Bertotti B, Iess L, Tortora P (2003) A test of general relativity using radio links with the Cassini spacecraft. Nature 425:374–376. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01997
Bettoni D, Ezquiaga JM, Hinterbichler K, Zumalacárregui M (2017) Speed of gravitational waves and the fate of scalar-tensor gravity. Phys Rev D 95:084029. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.95.084029. arXiv:1608.01982 [gr-qc]
Bezares M, Palenzuela C, Bona C (2017) Final fate of compact boson star mergers. Phys Rev D 95:124005. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.95.124005. arXiv:1705.01071 [gr-qc]
Bezares M, ter Haar L, Crisostomi M, Barausse E, Palenzuela C (2021) Kinetic screening in nonlinear stellar oscillations and gravitational collapse. Phys Rev D 104:044022. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.104.044022. arXiv:2105.13992 [gr-qc]
Bezares M, Aguilera-Miret R, ter Haar L, Crisostomi M, Palenzuela C, Barausse E (2022) No evidence of kinetic screening in simulations of merging binary neutron stars beyond general relativity. Phys Rev Lett 128:091103. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.091103. arXiv:2107.05648 [gr-qc]
Bhagwat S, Okounkova M, Ballmer SW, Brown DA, Giesler M, Scheel MA, Teukolsky SA (2018) On choosing the start time of binary black hole ringdowns. Phys Rev D 97:104065. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.104065. arXiv:1711.00926 [gr-qc]
Bhagwat S, Forteza XJ, Pani P, Ferrari V (2020) Ringdown overtones, black hole spectroscopy, and no-hair theorem tests. Phys Rev D 101:044033. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.044033. arXiv:1910.08708 [gr-qc]
Bhattacharyya J, Coates A, Colombo M, Sotiriou TP (2016) Evolution and spherical collapse in Einstein-Æther theory and Hořava gravity. Phys Rev D 93:064056. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.93.064056. arXiv:1512.04899 [gr-qc]
Bhattacharyya J, Colombo M, Sotiriou TP (2016) Causality and black holes in spacetimes with a preferred foliation. Class Quantum Grav 33:235003. https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/33/23/235003. arXiv:1509.01558 [gr-qc]
Biagetti M, Franciolini G, Kehagias A, Riotto A (2018) Primordial black holes from inflation and quantum diffusion. JCAP 07:032. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2018/07/032. arXiv:1804.07124 [astro-ph.CO]
Biagetti M, De Luca V, Franciolini G, Kehagias A, Riotto A (2021) The formation probability of primordial black holes. Phys Lett B 820:136602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136602. arXiv:2105.07810 [astro-ph.CO]
Bianchi M, Consoli D, Morales J (2018) Probing Fuzzballs with Particles. Waves and Strings. JHEP 06:157. https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP06(2018)157. arXiv:1711.10287 [hep-th]
Bianchi M, Consoli D, Grillo A, Morales JF (2019) The dark side of fuzzball geometries. JHEP 05:126. https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05(2019)126. arXiv:1811.02397 [hep-th]
Bianchi M, Consoli D, Grillo A, Morales JF, Pani P, Raposo G (2020) Distinguishing fuzzballs from black holes through their multipolar structure. Phys Rev Lett 125:221601. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.221601. arXiv:2007.01743 [hep-th]
Bianchi M, Grillo A, Morales JF (2020) Chaos at the rim of black hole and fuzzball shadows. JHEP 05:078. https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05(2020)078. arXiv:2002.05574 [hep-th]
Bianchi M, Consoli D, Grillo A, Morales JF, Pani P, Raposo G (2021) The multipolar structure of fuzzballs. JHEP 1:3. https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP01(2021)003. arXiv:2008.01445 [hep-th]
Bini D, Damour T (2014) Gravitational self-force corrections to two-body tidal interactions and the effective one-body formalism. Phys Rev D 90:124037. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.90.124037. arXiv:1409.6933 [gr-qc]
Bini D, Damour T, Faye G (2012) Effective action approach to higher-order relativistic tidal interactions in binary systems and their effective one body description. Phys Rev D 85:124034. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.85.124034. arXiv:1202.3565 [gr-qc]
Bini D, Damour T, Geralico A (2019) Novel approach to binary dynamics: application to the fifth post-Newtonian level. Phys Rev Lett 123:231104. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.231104. arXiv:1909.02375 [gr-qc]
Bini D, Damour T, Geralico A (2020) Binary dynamics at the fifth and fifth-and-a-half post-Newtonian orders. Phys Rev D 102:024062. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.024062. arXiv:2003.11891 [gr-qc]
Bini D, Damour T, Geralico A (2020) Sixth post-Newtonian local-in-time dynamics of binary systems. Phys Rev D 102:024061. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.024061. arXiv:2004.05407 [gr-qc]
Binnington T, Poisson E (2009) Relativistic theory of tidal Love numbers. Phys Rev D 80:084018. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.80.084018. arXiv:0906.1366 [gr-qc]
Bizon P (1990) Colored black holes. Phys Rev Lett 64:2844–2847. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.64.2844
Blaes O, Lee MH, Socrates A (2002) The Kozai mechanism and the evolution of binary supermassive black holes. Astrophys J 578:775–786. https://doi.org/10.1086/342655. arXiv:astro-ph/0203370
Blagojević M, Nester JM (2020) Local symmetries and physical degrees of freedom in \(f(T)\) gravity: a Dirac Hamiltonian constraint analysis. Phys Rev D 102:064025. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.064025. arXiv:2006.15303 [gr-qc]
Blanchet L (2014) Gravitational Radiation from Post-Newtonian Sources and Inspiralling Compact Binaries. Living Rev Relativ 17:2. https://doi.org/10.12942/lrr-2014-2. arXiv:1310.1528 [gr-qc]
Blanco-Pillado JJ, Olum KD, Shlaer B (2014) The number of cosmic string loops. Phys Rev D 89:023512. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.89.023512. arXiv:1309.6637 [astro-ph.CO]
Blas D, Jenkins AC (2022) Bridging the \({\mu }\)Hz Gap in the Gravitational-Wave Landscape with Binary Resonances. Phys Rev Lett 128:101103. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.101103. arXiv:2107.04601 [astro-ph.CO]
Blas D, Jenkins AC (2022) Detecting stochastic gravitational waves with binary resonance. Phys Rev D 105:064021. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.105.064021. arXiv:2107.04063 [gr-qc]
Blas D, Sanctuary H (2011) Gravitational Radiation in Hořava Gravity. Phys Rev D 84:064004. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.84.064004. arXiv:1105.5149 [gr-qc]
Blas D, Sibiryakov S (2011) Horava gravity versus thermodynamics: The Black hole case. Phys Rev D 84:124043. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.84.124043. arXiv:1110.2195 [hep-th]
Blas D, Witte SJ (2020) Imprints of Axion Superradiance in the CMB. Phys Rev D 102:103018. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.103018. arXiv:2009.10074 [astro-ph.CO]
Blas D, Witte SJ (2020) Quenching Mechanisms of Photon Superradiance. Phys Rev D 102:123018. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.123018. arXiv:2009.10075 [hep-ph]
Blas D, Pujolas O, Sibiryakov S (2010) Consistent Extension of Horava Gravity. Phys Rev Lett 104:181302. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.181302. arXiv:0909.3525 [hep-th]
Blas D, Ivanov MM, Sawicki I, Sibiryakov S (2016) On constraining the speed of gravitational waves following GW150914. JETP Lett 103:624–626. https://doi.org/10.7868/S0370274X16100039. arXiv:1602.04188 [gr-qc]
Blázquez-Salcedo JL, Macedo CFB, Cardoso V, Ferrari V, Gualtieri L, Khoo FS, Kunz J, Pani P (2016) Perturbed black holes in Einstein–Dilaton–Gauss–Bonnet gravity: stability, ringdown, and gravitational-wave emission. Phys Rev D 94:104024. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.94.104024. arXiv:1609.01286 [gr-qc]
Blázquez-Salcedo JL, Doneva DD, Kunz J, Yazadjiev SS (2018) Radial perturbations of the scalarized Einstein–Gauss–Bonnet black holes. Phys Rev D 98:084011. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.084011. arXiv:1805.05755 [gr-qc]
Bloomfield JK, Flanagan EE, Park M, Watson S (2013) Dark energy or modified gravity? An effective field theory approach. JCAP 1308:010. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2013/08/010. arXiv:1211.7054 [astro-ph.CO]
Bohé A et al (2017) Improved effective-one-body model of spinning, nonprecessing binary black holes for the era of gravitational-wave astrophysics with advanced detectors. Phys Rev D 95:044028. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.95.044028. arXiv:1611.03703 [gr-qc]
Boileau G, Christensen N, Meyer R, Cornish NJ (2021) Spectral separation of the stochastic gravitational-wave background for LISA: Observing both cosmological and astrophysical backgrounds. Phys Rev D 103:103529. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.103.103529. arXiv:2011.05055 [gr-qc]
Boileau G, Jenkins AC, Sakellariadou M, Meyer R, Christensen N (2022) Ability of LISA to detect a gravitational-wave background of cosmological origin: the cosmic string case. Phys Rev D 105:023510. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.105.023510. arXiv:2109.06552 [gr-qc]
Bona C, Palenzuela-Luque C, Bona-Casas C (2009) Elements of Numerical Relativity and Relativistic Hydrodynamics. Lecture Notes in Physics, vol 783, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin Heideberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01164-1
Bondi H, van der Burg MGJ, Metzner AWK (1962) Gravitational waves in general relativity. VII. Waves from axi-symmetric isolated systems. Proc R Soc Lond A 269:21. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1962.0161
Bonetti L, dos Santos Filho LR, Helayël-Neto JA, Spallicci ADAM (2018) Photon sector analysis of Super and Lorentz symmetry breaking: effective photon mass, bi-refringence and dissipation. Eur Phys J C 78:811. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6247-5. arXiv:1709.04995 [hep-th]
Bonetti M, Sesana A, Haardt F, Barausse E, Colpi M (2019) Post-Newtonian evolution of massive black hole triplets in galactic nuclei - IV. Implications for LISA. Mon Not R Astron Soc 486:4044–4060. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz903. arXiv:1812.01011 [astro-ph.GA]
Borhanian S, Dhani A, Gupta A, Arun KG, Sathyaprakash BS (2020) Dark Sirens to Resolve the Hubble-Lemaître Tension. Astrophys J 905:L28. https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/abcaf5. arXiv:2007.02883 [astro-ph.CO]
Boruah SS, Hudson MJ, Lavaux G (2021) Peculiar velocities in the local Universe: comparison of different models and the implications for \(H_{0}\) and dark matter. Mon Not R Astron Soc 507:2697–2713. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab2320. arXiv:2010.01119 [astro-ph.CO]
Bousso R (2008) TASI lectures on the cosmological constant. Gen Relativ Gravit 40:607–637. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10714-007-0557-5. arXiv:0708.4231 [hep-th]
Bowers RL, Liang EPT (1974) Anisotropic spheres in general relativity. Astrophys J 188:657. https://doi.org/10.1086/152760
Boyle M et al (2019) The SXS collaboration catalog of binary black hole simulations. Class Quantum Grav 36:195006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/ab34e2. arXiv:1904.04831 [gr-qc]
Bozzola G, Paschalidis V (2021) General relativistic simulations of the quasicircular inspiral and merger of charged black holes: GW150914 and fundamental physics implications. Phys Rev Lett 126:041103. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.041103. arXiv:2006.15764 [gr-qc]
Braglia M, Chen X, Hazra DK (2021) Probing primordial features with the stochastic gravitational wave background. JCAP 3:005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2021/03/005. arXiv:2012.05821 [astro-ph.CO]
Brax P, Burrage C, Davis AC (2016) The speed of Galileon gravity. JCAP 03:004. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2016/03/004. arXiv:1510.03701 [gr-qc]
Brito R, Cardoso V, Pani P (2013) Massive spin-2 fields on black hole spacetimes: instability of the Schwarzschild and Kerr solutions and bounds on the graviton mass. Phys Rev D 88:023514. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.88.023514. arXiv:1304.6725 [gr-qc]
Brito R, Cardoso V, Pani P (2015) Black holes as particle detectors: evolution of superradiant instabilities. Class Quantum Grav 32:134001. https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/32/13/134001. arXiv:1411.0686 [gr-qc]
Brito R, Cardoso V, Pani P (2015b) Superradiance: energy extraction, black-hole bombs and implications for astrophysics and particle physics. Lecture Notes in Physics, vol 906. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19000-6. arXiv:1501.06570 [gr-qc]
Brito R, Cardoso V, Herdeiro CAR, Radu E (2016) Proca stars: gravitating Bose-Einstein condensates of massive spin 1 particles. Phys Lett B 752:291–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2015.11.051. arXiv:1508.05395 [gr-qc]
Brito R, Ghosh S, Barausse E, Berti E, Cardoso V, Dvorkin I, Klein A, Pani P (2017) Gravitational wave searches for ultralight bosons with LIGO and LISA. Phys Rev D 96:064050. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.96.064050. arXiv:1706.06311 [gr-qc]
Brito R, Ghosh S, Barausse E, Berti E, Cardoso V, Dvorkin I, Klein A, Pani P (2017) Stochastic and resolvable gravitational waves from ultralight bosons. Phys Rev Lett 119:131101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.131101. arXiv:1706.05097 [gr-qc]
Brito R, Buonanno A, Raymond V (2018) Black-hole Spectroscopy by Making Full Use of Gravitational-Wave Modeling. Phys Rev D 98:084038. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.084038. arXiv:1805.00293 [gr-qc]
Brito R, Grillo S, Pani P (2020) Black Hole Superradiant Instability from Ultralight Spin-2 Fields. Phys Rev Lett 124:211101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.211101. arXiv:2002.04055 [gr-qc]
Brustein R, Medved AJM (2017) Black holes as collapsed polymers. Fortsch Phys 65:1600114. https://doi.org/10.1002/prop.201600114. arXiv:1602.07706 [hep-th]
Brustein R, Sherf Y (2022) Quantum Love numbers. Phys Rev D 105. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevd.105.024043. arXiv:2008.02738 [gr-qc]
Brustein R, Medved AJM, Yagi K (2017) Discovering the interior of black holes. Phys Rev D 96:124021. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.96.124021. arXiv:1701.07444 [gr-qc]
Bueno P, Cano PA, Goelen F, Hertog T, Vercnocke B (2018) Echoes of Kerr-like wormholes. Phys Rev D 97:024040. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.024040. arXiv:1711.00391 [gr-qc]
Bugaev E, Klimai P (2010) Induced gravitational wave background and primordial black holes. Phys Rev D 81:023517. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.81.023517. arXiv:0908.0664 [astro-ph.CO]
Bunting GL (1983) Proof of the uniqueness conjecture for black holes. PhD thesis, University of New England
Buonanno A, Damour T (1999) Effective one-body approach to general relativistic two-body dynamics. Phys Rev D 59:084006. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.59.084006. arXiv:gr-qc/9811091
Buonanno A, Damour T (2000) Transition from inspiral to plunge in binary black hole coalescences. Phys Rev D 62:064015. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.62.064015. arXiv:gr-qc/0001013
Buonanno A, Sigl G, Raffelt GG, Janka HT, Muller E (2005) Stochastic gravitational wave background from cosmological supernovae. Phys Rev D 72:084001. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.72.084001. arXiv:astro-ph/0412277
Buonanno A, Cook GB, Pretorius F (2007) Inspiral, merger and ring-down of equal-mass black-hole binaries. Phys Rev D 75:124018. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.75.124018. arXiv:gr-qc/0610122
Buoninfante L, Mazumdar A (2019) Nonlocal star as a blackhole mimicker. Phys Rev D 100:024031. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.024031. arXiv:1903.01542 [gr-qc]
Buoninfante L, Mazumdar A, Peng J (2019) Nonlocality amplifies echoes. Phys Rev D 100:104059. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.104059. arXiv:1906.03624 [gr-qc]
Burgess CP (2015) The Cosmological Constant Problem: Why it’s hard to get Dark Energy from Micro-physics. In: 100e Ecole d’Ete de Physique: Post-Planck Cosmology. pp 149–197. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198728856.003.0004. arXiv:1309.4133 [hep-th]
Burgess CP, Plestid R, Rummel M (2018) Effective Field Theory of Black Hole Echoes. JHEP 09:113. https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP09(2018)113. arXiv:1808.00847 [gr-qc]
Burrage C, Sakstein J (2018) Tests of Chameleon Gravity. Living Rev Relativ 21:1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41114-018-0011-x. arXiv:1709.09071 [astro-ph.CO]
Bustillo JC, Sanchis-Gual N, Torres-Forné A, Font JA, Vajpeyi A, Smith R, Herdeiro C, Radu E, Leong SHW (2021) GW190521 as a Merger of Proca Stars: A Potential New Vector Boson of \(8.7 \times 10^{-13}\) eV. Phys Rev Lett 126:081101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.081101. arXiv:2009.05376 [gr-qc]
Cai RG, Pi S, Sasaki M (2019) Gravitational Waves Induced by non-Gaussian Scalar Perturbations. Phys Rev Lett 122:201101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.201101. arXiv:1810.11000 [astro-ph.CO]
Cai RG, Pi S, Wang SJ, Yang XY (2019) Pulsar Timing Array Constraints on the Induced Gravitational Waves. JCAP 10:059. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2019/10/059. arXiv:1907.06372 [astro-ph.CO]
Cai RG, Pi S, Sasaki M (2020) Universal infrared scaling of gravitational wave background spectra. Phys Rev D 102:083528. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.083528. arXiv:1909.13728 [astro-ph.CO]
Cai YF, Capozziello S, De Laurentis M, Saridakis EN (2016) f(T) teleparallel gravity and cosmology. Rept Prog Phys 79:106901. https://doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/79/10/106901. arXiv:1511.07586 [gr-qc]
Calabrese E, Battaglia N, Spergel DN (2016) Testing Gravity with Gravitational Wave Source Counts. Class Quantum Grav 33:165004. https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/33/16/165004. arXiv:1602.03883 [gr-qc]
Calcagni G, Kuroyanagi S (2021) Stochastic gravitational-wave background in quantum gravity. JCAP 03:019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2021/03/019. arXiv:2012.00170 [gr-qc]
Caldwell R, Devulder C, Maksimova N (2016) Gravitational wave-Gauge field oscillations. Phys Rev D 94:063005. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.94.063005. arXiv:1604.08939 [gr-qc]
Callister T, Biscoveanu A, Christensen N, Isi M, Matas A, Minazzoli O, Regimbau T, Sakellariadou M, Tasson J, Thrane E (2017) Polarization-based Tests of Gravity with the Stochastic Gravitational-Wave Background. Phys Rev X 7:041058. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.7.041058. arXiv:1704.08373 [gr-qc]
Calore F, Cuoco A, Regimbau T, Sachdev S, Serpico PD (2020) Cross-correlating galaxy catalogs and gravitational waves: a tomographic approach. Phys Rev Res 2:023314. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.023314. arXiv:2002.02466 [astro-ph.CO]
Camera S, Nishizawa A (2013) Beyond concordance cosmology with magnification of gravitational-wave standard sirens. Phys Rev Lett 110:151103. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.151103. arXiv:1303.5446 [astro-ph.CO]
Campanelli M, Lousto CO, Marronetti P, Zlochower Y (2006) Accurate evolutions of orbiting black-hole binaries without excision. Phys Rev Lett 96:111101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.111101. arXiv:gr-qc/0511048
Campbell BA, Kaloper N, Olive KA (1992) Classical hair for Kerr-Newman black holes in string gravity. Phys Lett B 285:199–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(92)91452-F
Campiglia M (2015) New symmetries for the Gravitational S-matrix. JHEP 04:076. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04260-8. arXiv:1502.02318 [hep-th]
Canizares P, Gair JR, Sopuerta CF (2012) Testing Chern–Simons modified gravity with gravitational-wave detections of extreme-mass-ratio binaries. Phys Rev D 86:044010. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.86.044010. arXiv:1205.1253 [gr-qc]
Canizares P, Field SE, Gair J, Raymond V, Smith R, Tiglio M (2015) Accelerated gravitational-wave parameter estimation with reduced order modeling. Phys Rev Lett 114:071104. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.071104. arXiv:1404.6284 [gr-qc]
Cano PA, Ruipérez A (2019) Leading higher-derivative corrections to Kerr geometry. JHEP 05:189. https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05(2019)189, [Erratum: JHEP 03, 187 (2020)]. arXiv:1901.01315 [gr-qc]
Cao Z, Han WB (2017) Waveform model for an eccentric binary black hole based on the effective-one-body-numerical-relativity formalism. Phys Rev D 96:044028. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.96.044028. arXiv:1708.00166 [gr-qc]
Capozziello S, De Laurentis M (2011) Extended Theories of Gravity. Phys Rept 509:167–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2011.09.003. arXiv:1108.6266 [gr-qc]
Caprini C, Tamanini N (2016) Constraining early and interacting dark energy with gravitational wave standard sirens: the potential of the eLISA mission. JCAP 10:006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2016/10/006. arXiv:1607.08755 [astro-ph.CO]
Caprini C, Figueroa D, Flauger R, Nardini G, Peloso M, Pieroni M, Ricciardone A, Tasinato G (2019) Reconstructing the spectral shape of a stochastic gravitational wave background with LISA. JCAP 12:017. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2019/11/017. arXiv:1906.09244 [astro-ph.CO]
Caputo A, Sberna L, Toubiana A, Babak S, Barausse E, Marsat S, Pani P (2020) Gravitational-wave detection and parameter estimation for accreting black-hole binaries and their electromagnetic counterpart. Astrophys J 892:90. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab7b66. arXiv:2001.03620 [astro-ph.HE]
Carballo-Rubio R, Di Filippo F, Liberati S, Visser M (2018) Phenomenological aspects of black holes beyond general relativity. Phys Rev D 98:124009. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.124009. arXiv:1809.08238 [gr-qc]
Cárdenas-Avendaño A, Gutierrez AF, Pachón LA, Yunes N (2018) The exact dynamical Chern–Simons metric for a spinning black hole possesses a fourth constant of motion: A dynamical-systems-based conjecture. Class Quantum Grav 35:165010. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/aad06f. arXiv:1804.04002 [gr-qc]
Cardenas-Avendano A, Nampalliwar S, Yunes N (2020) Gravitational-wave versus X-ray tests of strong-field gravity. Class Quantum Grav 37:135008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/ab8f64. arXiv:1912.08062 [gr-qc]
Cardoso V, Duque F (2020) Environmental effects in gravitational-wave physics: Tidal deformability of black holes immersed in matter. Phys Rev D 101:064028. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.064028. arXiv:1912.07616 [gr-qc]
Cardoso V, Gualtieri L (2009) Perturbations of Schwarzschild black holes in Dynamical Chern-Simons modified gravity. Phys Rev D 80:064008. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.81.089903, [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 81, 089903 (2010)]. arXiv:0907.5008 [gr-qc]
Cardoso V, Maselli A (2020) Constraints on the astrophysical environment of binaries with gravitational-wave observations. Astron Astrophys 644:A147. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202037654. arXiv:1909.05870 [astro-ph.HE]
Cardoso V, Pani P (2017) Tests for the existence of black holes through gravitational wave echoes. Nature Astron 1:586–591. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-017-0225-y. arXiv:1709.01525 [gr-qc]
Cardoso V, Pani P (2017) Tests for the existence of black holes through gravitational wave echoes. Nature Astron 1:586–591. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-017-0225-y. arXiv:1707.03021 [gr-qc]
Cardoso V, Pani P (2019) Testing the nature of dark compact objects: a status report. Living Rev Relativ 22:4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41114-019-0020-4. arXiv:1904.05363 [gr-qc]
Cardoso V, Pani P, Cadoni M, Cavaglia M (2008) Ergoregion instability of ultracompact astrophysical objects. Phys Rev D 77:124044. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.77.124044. arXiv:0709.0532 [gr-qc]
Cardoso V, Chakrabarti S, Pani P, Berti E, Gualtieri L (2011) Floating and sinking: the imprint of massive scalars around rotating black holes. Phys Rev Lett 107:241101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.241101. arXiv:1109.6021 [gr-qc]
Cardoso V, Carucci IP, Pani P, Sotiriou TP (2013) Black holes with surrounding matter in scalar-tensor theories. Phys Rev Lett 111:111101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.111101. arXiv:1308.6587 [gr-qc]
Cardoso V, Carucci IP, Pani P, Sotiriou TP (2013) Matter around Kerr black holes in scalar-tensor theories: scalarization and superradiant instability. Phys Rev D 88:044056. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.88.044056. arXiv:1305.6936 [gr-qc]
Cardoso V, Crispino LCB, Macedo CFB, Okawa H, Pani P (2014) Light rings as observational evidence for event horizons: long-lived modes, ergoregions and nonlinear instabilities of ultracompact objects. Phys Rev D 90:044069. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.90.044069. arXiv:1406.5510 [gr-qc]
Cardoso V, Pani P, Rico J (2014) On generic parametrizations of spinning black-hole geometries. Phys Rev D 89:064007. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.89.064007. arXiv:1401.0528 [gr-qc]
Cardoso V, Franzin E, Pani P (2016) Is the gravitational-wave ringdown a probe of the event horizon? Phys Rev Lett 116:171101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.171101. arXiv:1602.07309 [gr-qc]
Cardoso V, Hopper S, Macedo CFB, Palenzuela C, Pani P (2016) Gravitational-wave signatures of exotic compact objects and of quantum corrections at the horizon scale. Phys Rev D 94:084031. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.94.084031. arXiv:1608.08637 [gr-qc]
Cardoso V, Macedo CFB, Pani P, Ferrari V (2016) Black holes and gravitational waves in models of minicharged dark matter. JCAP 05:054. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2016/05/054, [Erratum: JCAP 04, E01 (2020)]. arXiv:1604.07845 [hep-ph]
Cardoso V, Franzin E, Maselli A, Pani P, Raposo G (2017) Testing strong-field gravity with tidal Love numbers. Phys Rev D 95:084014. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.95.084014, [Addendum: Phys. Rev. D 95, 089901 (2017)]. arXiv:1701.01116 [gr-qc]
Cardoso V, Dias OJ, Hartnett GS, Middleton M, Pani P, Santos JE (2018) Constraining the mass of dark photons and axion-like particles through black-hole superradiance. JCAP 03:043. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2018/03/043. arXiv:1801.01420 [gr-qc]
Cardoso V, Kimura M, Maselli A, Senatore L (2018) Black holes in an effective field theory extension of general relativity. Phys Rev Lett 121:251105. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.251105. arXiv:1808.08962 [gr-qc]
Cardoso V, Foit VF, Kleban M (2019) Gravitational wave echoes from black hole area quantization. JCAP 08:006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2019/08/006. arXiv:1902.10164 [hep-th]
Cardoso V, Kimura M, Maselli A, Berti E, Macedo CFB, McManus R (2019) Parametrized black hole quasinormal ringdown: decoupled equations for nonrotating black holes. Phys Rev D 99:104077. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.104077. arXiv:1901.01265 [gr-qc]
Cardoso V, del Rio A, Kimura M (2019) Distinguishing black holes from horizonless objects through the excitation of resonances during inspiral. Phys Rev D 100:084046. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.084046, [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 101, 069902 (2020)]. arXiv:1907.01561 [gr-qc]
Cardoso V, Duque F, Ikeda T (2020) Tidal effects and disruption in superradiant clouds: a numerical investigation. Phys Rev D 101:064054. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.064054. arXiv:2001.01729 [gr-qc]
Cardoso V, Guo WD, Macedo CFB, Pani P (2021) The tune of the Universe: the role of plasma in tests of strong-field gravity. Mon Not R Astron Soc 503:563–573. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab404. arXiv:2009.07287 [gr-qc]
Cañas Herrera G, Contigiani O, Vardanyan V (2020) Cross-correlation of the astrophysical gravitational-wave background with galaxy clustering. Phys Rev D 102:043513. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.043513. arXiv:1910.08353 [astro-ph.CO]
Carr B, Kuhnel F, Sandstad M (2016) Primordial black holes as dark matter. Phys Rev D 94:083504. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.94.083504. arXiv:1607.06077 [astro-ph.CO]
Carr B, Clesse S, García-Bellido J, Kühnel F (2021) Cosmic conundra explained by thermal history and primordial black holes. Phys Dark Univ 31:100755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2020.100755. arXiv:1906.08217 [astro-ph.CO]
Carr B, Kohri K, Sendouda Y, Yokoyama J (2021) Constraints on primordial black holes. Rep Prog Phys 84:116902. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6633/ac1e31. arXiv:2002.12778 [astro-ph.CO]
Carson Z, Yagi K (2020) Multi-band gravitational wave tests of general relativity. Class Quantum Grav 37:02LT01. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/ab5c9a. arXiv:1905.13155 [gr-qc]
Carson Z, Yagi K (2020) Parametrized and inspiral-merger-ringdown consistency tests of gravity with multiband gravitational wave observations. Phys Rev D 101:044047. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.044047. arXiv:1911.05258 [gr-qc]
Carson Z, Yagi K (2020) Probing beyond-Kerr spacetimes with inspiral-ringdown corrections to gravitational waves. Phys Rev D 101:084050. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.084050. arXiv:2003.02374 [gr-qc]
Carson Z, Yagi K (2020) Probing string-inspired gravity with the inspiral-merger-ringdown consistency tests of gravitational waves. Class Quantum Grav 37:215007. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/aba221. arXiv:2002.08559 [gr-qc]
Carter B (1971) Axisymmetric Black Hole Has Only Two Degrees of Freedom. Phys Rev Lett 26:331–333. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.26.331
Carullo G et al (2018) Empirical tests of the black hole no-hair conjecture using gravitational-wave observations. Phys Rev D 98:104020. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.104020. arXiv:1805.04760 [gr-qc]
Castillo J, Vega I, Wardell B (2018) Self-force on a scalar charge in a circular orbit about a Reissner-Nordström black hole. Phys Rev D 98:024024. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.024024. arXiv:1804.09224 [gr-qc]
Cattoen C, Faber T, Visser M (2005) Gravastars must have anisotropic pressures. Class Quantum Grav 22:4189–4202. https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/22/20/002. arXiv:gr-qc/0505137
Caves C (1980) Gravitational radiation and the ultimate speed in Rosen’s biometric theory of gravity. Annals Phys 125:35–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(80)90117-7
Cayuso J, Ortiz N, Lehner L (2017) Fixing extensions to general relativity in the nonlinear regime. Phys Rev D 96:084043. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.96.084043. arXiv:1706.07421 [gr-qc]
Cayuso R, Lehner L (2020) Nonlinear, noniterative treatment of EFT-motivated gravity. Phys Rev D 102:084008. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.084008. arXiv:2005.13720 [gr-qc]
Chamberlain K, Yunes N (2017) Theoretical physics implications of gravitational wave observation with future detectors. Phys Rev D 96:084039. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.96.084039. arXiv:1704.08268 [gr-qc]
Chandrasekhar S (1943) Dynamical friction. I. General considerations: the coefficient of dynamical friction. Astrophys J 97:255. https://doi.org/10.1086/144517
Chang Z, Wang S, Zhu QH (2020) Gauge Invariant Second Order Gravitational Waves. arXiv e-prints arXiv:2009.11994 [gr-qc]
Charalambous P, Dubovsky S, Ivanov MM (2021) Hidden symmetry of vanishing love numbers. Phys Rev Lett 127:101101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.101101. arXiv:2103.01234 [hep-th]
Charalambous P, Dubovsky S, Ivanov MM (2021) On the vanishing of love numbers for Kerr black holes. JHEP 05:038. https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05(2021)038. arXiv:2102.08917 [hep-th]
Charmousis C, Copeland EJ, Padilla A, Saffin PM (2012) General second order scalar-tensor theory, self tuning, and the Fab Four. Phys Rev Lett 108:051101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.051101. arXiv:1106.2000 [hep-th]
Chatziioannou K, Yunes N, Cornish N (2012) Model-Independent Test of General Relativity: An Extended post-Einsteinian Framework with Complete Polarization Content. Phys Rev D 86:022004. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.86.022004, [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 95, 129901 (2017)]. arXiv:1204.2585 [gr-qc]
Chatziioannou K, Isi M, Haster CJ, Littenberg TB (2021) Morphology-independent test of the mixed polarization content of transient gravitational wave signals. Phys Rev D 104:044005. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.104.044005. arXiv:2105.01521 [gr-qc]
Chen HY, Fishbach M, Holz DE (2018) A two per cent Hubble constant measurement from standard sirens within five years. Nature 562:545. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0606-0. arXiv:1712.06531 [astro-ph.CO]
Chen WC, Liu DD, Wang B (2020) Detectability of ultra-compact X-ray binaries as LISA sources. Astrophys J 900:L8. https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/abae66. arXiv:2008.05143 [astro-ph.HE]
Chen ZC, Huang QG (2020) Distinguishing Primordial Black Holes from Astrophysical Black Holes by Einstein Telescope and Cosmic Explorer. JCAP 08:039. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2020/08/039. arXiv:1904.02396 [astro-ph.CO]
Chen ZC, Huang F, Huang QG (2019) Stochastic Gravitational-wave Background from Binary Black Holes and Binary Neutron Stars and Implications for LISA. Astrophys J 871:97. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aaf581. arXiv:1809.10360 [gr-qc]
Cheung C, Creminelli P, Fitzpatrick AL, Kaplan J, Senatore L (2008) The effective field theory of inflation. JHEP 03:014. https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2008/03/014. arXiv:0709.0293 [hep-th]
Chia HS (2021) Tidal deformation and dissipation of rotating black holes. Phys Rev D 104:024013. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.104.024013. arXiv:2010.07300 [gr-qc]
Chiaramello D, Nagar A (2020) Faithful analytical effective-one-body waveform model for spin-aligned, moderately eccentric, coalescing black hole binaries. Phys Rev D 101:101501. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.101501. arXiv:2001.11736 [gr-qc]
Choudhury S, Joshi GC, Mahajan S, McKellar BH (2004) Probing large distance higher dimensional gravity from lensing data. Astropart Phys 21:559–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.astropartphys.2004.04.001. arXiv:hep-ph/0204161
Christodoulou D (1991) Nonlinear nature of gravitation and gravitational wave experiments. Phys Rev Lett 67:1486–1489. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.67.1486
Chrusciel PT, Lopes Costa J, Heusler M (2012) Stationary Black Holes: Uniqueness and Beyond. Living Rev Relativ 15:7. 10.12942/lrr-2012-7. arXiv:1205.6112 [gr-qc]
Chu YZ, Trodden M (2013) Retarded Green’s function of a Vainshtein system and Galileon waves. Phys Rev D 87:024011. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.87.024011. arXiv:1210.6651 [astro-ph.CO]
Chua AJK, Moore CJ, Gair JR (2017) Augmented kludge waveforms for detecting extreme-mass-ratio inspirals. Phys Rev D 96:044005. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.96.044005. arXiv:1705.04259 [gr-qc]
Clesse S, García-Bellido J (2015) Massive Primordial Black Holes from Hybrid Inflation as Dark Matter and the seeds of Galaxies. Phys Rev D 92:023524. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.92.023524. arXiv:1501.07565 [astro-ph.CO]
Clesse S, García-Bellido J (2017) Detecting the gravitational wave background from primordial black hole dark matter. Phys Dark Univ 18:105–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2017.10.001. arXiv:1610.08479 [astro-ph.CO]
Clesse S, García-Bellido J (2020) GW190425, GW190521 and GW190814: Three candidate mergers of primordial black holes from the QCD epoch. arXiv e-prints arXiv:2007.06481 [astro-ph.CO]
Clesse S, García-Bellido J, Orani S (2018) Detecting the stochastic gravitational wave background from primordial black hole formation. arXiv e-prints arXiv:1812.11011 [astro-ph.CO]
Clifton T, Ferreira PG, Padilla A, Skordis C (2012) Modified Gravity and Cosmology. Phys Rep 513:1–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2012.01.001. arXiv:1106.2476 [astro-ph.CO]
Clough K, Dietrich T, Niemeyer JC (2018) Axion star collisions with black holes and neutron stars in full 3D numerical relativity. Phys Rev D 98:083020. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.083020. arXiv:1808.04668 [gr-qc]
Clough K, Ferreira PG, Lagos M (2019) Growth of massive scalar hair around a Schwarzschild black hole. Phys Rev D 100:063014. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.063014. arXiv:1904.12783 [gr-qc]
Colladay D, Kostelecký VA (1997) Cptviolation and the standard model. Phys Rev D 55:6760–6774. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevd.55.6760
Colladay D, Kostelecký VA (1998) Lorentz-violating extension of the standard model. Phys Rev D 58. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevd.58.116002
Collins NA, Hughes SA (2004) Towards a formalism for mapping the space-times of massive compact objects: Bumpy black holes and their orbits. Phys Rev D 69:124022. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.69.124022. arXiv:gr-qc/0402063
Collodel LG, Doneva DD, Yazadjiev SS (2020) Rotating tensor-multiscalar black holes with two scalars. Phys Rev D 102:084032. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.084032. arXiv:2007.14143 [gr-qc]
Collodel LG, Kleihaus B, Kunz J, Berti E (2020) Spinning and excited black holes in Einstein-scalar-Gauss-Bonnet theory. Class Quantum Grav 37:075018. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/ab74f9. arXiv:1912.05382 [gr-qc]
Colpi M, Shapiro S, Wasserman I (1986) Boson stars: gravitational equilibria of selfinteracting scalar fields. Phys Rev Lett 57:2485–2488. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.57.2485
Comelli D, Crisostomi M, Nesti F, Pilo L (2012) Spherically symmetric solutions in ghost-free massive gravity. Phys Rev D 85:024044. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.85.024044. arXiv:1110.4967 [hep-th]
Compère G (2019) Advanced lectures on general relativity. Lecture Notes in Physics, vol 952. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04260-8
Compère G (2019) Infinite towers of supertranslation and superrotation memories. Phys Rev Lett 123:021101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.021101. arXiv:1904.00280 [gr-qc]
Congedo G, Taylor A (2019) Joint cosmological inference of standard sirens and gravitational wave weak lensing. Phys Rev D 99:083526. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.083526. arXiv:1812.02730 [astro-ph.CO]
Conklin RS, Holdom B (2019) Gravitational wave echo spectra. Phys Rev D 100:124030. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.124030. arXiv:1905.09370 [gr-qc]
Conklin RS, Holdom B, Ren J (2018) Gravitational wave echoes through new windows. Phys Rev D 98:044021. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.044021. arXiv:1712.06517 [gr-qc]
Contaldi CR (2017) Anisotropies of gravitational wave backgrounds: a line of sight approach. Phys Lett B 771:9–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2017.05.020. arXiv:1609.08168 [astro-ph.CO]
Contaldi CR et al (2020) Maximum likelihood map making with the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna. Phys Rev D 102:043502. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.043502. arXiv:2006.03313 [astro-ph.CO]
Coogan A, Bertone G, Gaggero D, Kavanagh BJ, Nichols DA (2022) Measuring the dark matter environments of black hole binaries with gravitational waves. Phys Rev D 105:043009. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.105.043009. arXiv:2108.04154 [gr-qc]
Cornish N, Sampson L, Yunes N, Pretorius F (2011) Gravitational wave tests of general relativity with the parameterized post-Einsteinian framework. Phys Rev D 84:062003. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.84.062003. arXiv:1105.2088 [gr-qc]
Cornish N, Blas D, Nardini G (2017) Bounding the speed of gravity with gravitational wave observations. Phys Rev Lett 119:161102. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161102. arXiv:1707.06101 [gr-qc]
Cornish NJ, Littenberg TB (2015) BayesWave: Bayesian Inference for Gravitational Wave Bursts and Instrument Glitches. Class Quantum Grav 32:135012. https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/32/13/135012. arXiv:1410.3835 [gr-qc]
Cotesta R, Buonanno A, Bohé A, Taracchini A, Hinder I, Ossokine S (2018) Enriching the Symphony of Gravitational Waves from Binary Black Holes by Tuning Higher Harmonics. Phys Rev D 98:084028. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.084028. arXiv:1803.10701 [gr-qc]
Creminelli P, Vernizzi F (2017) Dark Energy after GW170817 and GRB170817A. Phys Rev Lett 119:251302. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.251302. arXiv:1710.05877 [astro-ph.CO]
Creminelli P, Luty MA, Nicolis A, Senatore L (2006) Starting the universe: stable violation of the null energy condition and non-standard cosmologies. JHEP 12:080. https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2006/12/080. arXiv:hep-th/0606090
Creminelli P, D’Amico G, Norena J, Vernizzi F (2009) The effective theory of quintessence: the \(w < -1\) side unveiled. JCAP 02:018. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2009/02/018. arXiv:0811.0827 [astro-ph]
Creminelli P, Lewandowski M, Tambalo G, Vernizzi F (2018) Gravitational wave decay into dark energy. JCAP 1812:025. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2018/12/025. arXiv:1809.03484 [astro-ph.CO]
Creminelli P, Tambalo G, Vernizzi F, Yingcharoenrat V (2019) Resonant decay of gravitational waves into dark energy. JCAP 10:072. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2019/10/072. arXiv:1906.07015 [gr-qc]
Creminelli P, Tambalo G, Vernizzi F, Yingcharoenrat V (2020) Dark-Energy Instabilities induced by Gravitational Waves. JCAP 2005:002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2020/05/002. arXiv:1910.14035 [gr-qc]
Crisostomi M, Koyama K (2018) Self-accelerating universe in scalar-tensor theories after GW170817. Phys Rev D 97:084004. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.084004. arXiv:1712.06556 [astro-ph.CO]
Crisostomi M, Koyama K (2018) Vainshtein mechanism after GW170817. Phys Rev D 97:021301. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.021301. arXiv:1711.06661 [astro-ph.CO]
Crisostomi M, Koyama K, Tasinato G (2016) Extended scalar-tensor theories of gravity. JCAP 1604:044. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2016/04/044. arXiv:1602.03119 [hep-th]
Crisostomi M, Lewandowski M, Vernizzi F (2019) Vainshtein regime in scalar-tensor gravity: Constraints on degenerate higher-order scalar-tensor theories. Phys Rev D 100:024025. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.024025. arXiv:1903.11591 [gr-qc]
Crocker K, Prestegard T, Mandic V, Regimbau T, Olive K, Vangioni E (2017) Systematic study of the stochastic gravitational-wave background due to stellar core collapse. Phys Rev D 95:063015. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.95.063015. arXiv:1701.02638 [astro-ph.CO]
Cunha PV, Herdeiro CA, Radu E (2019) Spontaneously scalarized Kerr black holes in extended scalar–tensor–Gauss–Bonnet gravity. Phys Rev Lett 123:011101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.011101. arXiv:1904.09997 [gr-qc]
Cunha PVP, Grover J, Herdeiro C, Radu E, Runarsson H, Wittig A (2016) Chaotic lensing around boson stars and Kerr black holes with scalar hair. Phys Rev D 94:104023. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.94.104023. arXiv:1609.01340 [gr-qc]
Cunha PVP, Berti E, Herdeiro CAR (2017) Light-ring stability for ultracompact objects. Phys Rev Lett 119:251102. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.251102. arXiv:1708.04211 [gr-qc]
Cusin G, Lagos M (2020) Gravitational wave propagation beyond geometric optics. Phys Rev D 101:044041. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.044041. arXiv:1910.13326 [gr-qc]
Cusin G, Tamanini N (2021) Characterization of lensing selection effects for LISA massive black hole binary mergers. Mon Not R Astron Soc 504:3610–3618. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab1130. arXiv:2011.15109 [astro-ph.CO]
Cusin G, Pitrou C, Uzan JP (2017) Anisotropy of the astrophysical gravitational wave background: analytic expression of the angular power spectrum and correlation with cosmological observations. Phys Rev D 96:103019. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.96.103019. arXiv:1704.06184 [astro-ph.CO]
Cusin G, Dvorkin I, Pitrou C, Uzan JP (2018) First predictions of the angular power spectrum of the astrophysical gravitational wave background. Phys Rev Lett 120:231101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.231101. arXiv:1803.03236 [astro-ph.CO]
Cusin G, Durrer R, Ferreira PG (2019) Polarization of a stochastic gravitational wave background through diffusion by massive structures. Phys Rev D 99:023534. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.023534. arXiv:1807.10620 [astro-ph.CO]
Dai L, Li SS, Zackay B, Mao S, Lu Y (2018) Detecting lensing-induced diffraction in astrophysical gravitational waves. Phys Rev D 98:104029. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.104029. arXiv:1810.00003 [gr-qc]
Dalal N, Holz DE, Hughes SA, Jain B (2006) Short GRB and binary black hole standard sirens as a probe of dark energy. Phys Rev D 74:063006. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.74.063006. arXiv:astro-ph/0601275
Dalang C, Lombriser L (2019) Limitations on Standard Sirens tests of gravity from screening. JCAP 10:013. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2019/10/013. arXiv:1906.12333 [astro-ph.CO]
Dalang C, Fleury P, Lombriser L (2020) Horndeski gravity and standard sirens. Phys Rev D 102:044036. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.044036. arXiv:1912.06117 [gr-qc]
Dalang C, Fleury P, Lombriser L (2021) Scalar and tensor gravitational waves. Phys Rev D 103:064075. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.103.064075. arXiv:2009.11827 [gr-qc]
D’Amico G, Senatore L, Zhang P, Zheng H (2021) The Hubble tension in light of the Full-Shape analysis of Large-Scale Structure data. JCAP 5:072. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2021/05/072. arXiv:2006.12420 [astro-ph.CO]
Damour T (2001) Coalescence of two spinning black holes: an effective one-body approach. Phys Rev D 64:124013. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.64.124013. arXiv:gr-qc/0103018
Damour T, Nagar A (2007) Faithful effective-one-body waveforms of small-mass-ratio coalescing black-hole binaries. Phys Rev D 76:064028. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.76.064028. arXiv:0705.2519 [gr-qc]
Damour T, Nagar A (2009) Relativistic tidal properties of neutron stars. Phys Rev D 80:084035. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.80.084035. arXiv:0906.0096 [gr-qc]
Damour T, Nagar A (2010) Effective One Body description of tidal effects in inspiralling compact binaries. Phys Rev D 81:084016. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.81.084016. arXiv:0911.5041 [gr-qc]
Damour T, Nagar A (2014) A new analytic representation of the ringdown waveform of coalescing spinning black hole binaries. Phys Rev D 90:024054. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.90.024054. arXiv:1406.0401 [gr-qc]
Damour T, Nagar A (2014) New effective-one-body description of coalescing nonprecessing spinning black-hole binaries. Phys Rev D 90:044018. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.90.044018. arXiv:1406.6913 [gr-qc]
Damour T, Solodukhin SN (2007) Wormholes as black hole foils. Phys Rev D 76:024016. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.76.024016. arXiv:0704.2667 [gr-qc]
Damour T, Taylor JH (1992) Strong field tests of relativistic gravity and binary pulsars. Phys Rev D 45:1840–1868. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.45.1840
Damour T, Deruelle N, Ruffini R (1976) On quantum resonances in stationary geometries. Lett Nuovo Cim 15:257–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02725534
Damour T, Iyer BR, Jaranowski P, Sathyaprakash BS (2003) Gravitational waves from black hole binary inspiral and merger: the span of third post-Newtonian effective one-body templates. Phys Rev D 67:064028. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.67.064028. arXiv:gr-qc/0211041
Damour T, Jaranowski P, Schaefer G (2008) Effective one body approach to the dynamics of two spinning black holes with next-to-leading order spin-orbit coupling. Phys Rev D 78:024009. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.78.024009. arXiv:0803.0915 [gr-qc]
Damour T, Iyer BR, Nagar A (2009) Improved resummation of post-Newtonian multipolar waveforms from circularized compact binaries. Phys Rev D 79:064004. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.79.064004. arXiv:0811.2069 [gr-qc]
Damour T, Nagar A, Villain L (2012) Measurability of the tidal polarizability of neutron stars in late-inspiral gravitational-wave signals. Phys Rev D 85:123007. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.85.123007. arXiv:1203.4352 [gr-qc]
Damour T, Nagar A, Bernuzzi S (2013) Improved effective-one-body description of coalescing nonspinning black-hole binaries and its numerical-relativity completion. Phys Rev D 87:084035. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.87.084035. arXiv:1212.4357 [gr-qc]
D’Antonio S et al (2018) Semicoherent analysis method to search for continuous gravitational waves emitted by ultralight boson clouds around spinning black holes. Phys Rev D 98:103017. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.103017. arXiv:1809.07202 [gr-qc]
Dar F, De Rham C, Deskins JT, Giblin JT, Tolley AJ (2019) Scalar gravitational radiation from binaries: Vainshtein mechanism in time-dependent systems. Class Quantum Grav 36:025008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/aaf5e8. arXiv:1808.02165 [hep-th]
Datta S, Bose S (2019) Probing the nature of central objects in extreme-mass-ratio inspirals with gravitational waves. Phys Rev D 99:084001. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.084001. arXiv:1902.01723 [gr-qc]
Datta S, Brito R, Bose S, Pani P, Hughes SA (2020) Tidal heating as a discriminator for horizons in extreme mass ratio inspirals. Phys Rev D 101:044004. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.044004. arXiv:1910.07841 [gr-qc]
de Jong RS et al (2012) 4MOST: 4-metre Multi-Object Spectroscopic Telescope. Proc SPIE 8446:84460T. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.926239. arXiv:1206.6885 [astro-ph.IM]
De Luca V, Pani P (2021) Tidal deformability of dressed black holes and tests of ultralight bosons in extended mass ranges. JCAP 8:032. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2021/08/032. arXiv:2106.14428 [gr-qc]
De Luca V, Desjacques V, Franciolini G, Malhotra A, Riotto A (2019) The initial spin probability distribution of primordial black holes. JCAP 05:018. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2019/05/018. arXiv:1903.01179 [astro-ph.CO]
De Luca V, Desjacques V, Franciolini G, Riotto A (2019) Gravitational waves from peaks. JCAP 09:059. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2019/09/059. arXiv:1905.13459 [astro-ph.CO]
De Luca V, Desjacques V, Franciolini G, Riotto A (2020) The clustering evolution of primordial black holes. JCAP 11:028. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2020/11/028. arXiv:2009.04731 [astro-ph.CO]
De Luca V, Franciolini G, Kehagias A, Riotto A (2020) On the gauge invariance of cosmological gravitational waves. JCAP 03:014. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2020/03/014. arXiv:1911.09689 [gr-qc]
De Luca V, Franciolini G, Pani P, Riotto A (2020) Constraints on primordial black holes: the importance of accretion. Phys Rev D 102:043505. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.043505. arXiv:2003.12589 [astro-ph.CO]
De Luca V, Franciolini G, Pani P, Riotto A (2020) Primordial black holes confront LIGO/Virgo data: current situation. JCAP 06:044. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2020/06/044. arXiv:2005.05641 [astro-ph.CO]
De Luca V, Franciolini G, Pani P, Riotto A (2020) The evolution of primordial black holes and their final observable spins. JCAP 04:052. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2020/04/052. arXiv:2003.02778 [astro-ph.CO]
De Luca V, Franciolini G, Riotto A (2020) On the primordial black hole mass function for broad spectra. Phys Lett B 807:135550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135550. arXiv:2001.04371 [astro-ph.CO]
De Luca V, Desjacques V, Franciolini G, Pani P, Riotto A (2021) GW190521 mass gap event and the primordial black hole scenario. Phys Rev Lett 126:051101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.051101. arXiv:2009.01728 [astro-ph.CO]
De Luca V, Franciolini G, Pani P, Riotto A (2021) Bayesian evidence for both astrophysical and primordial black holes: mapping the GWTC-2 catalog to third-generation detectors. JCAP 05:003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2021/05/003. arXiv:2102.03809 [astro-ph.CO]
De Luca V, Franciolini G, Pani P, Riotto A (2021) The minimum testable abundance of primordial black holes at future gravitational-wave detectors. JCAP 11:039. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2021/11/039. arXiv:2106.13769 [astro-ph.CO]
De Luca V, Franciolini G, Riotto A (2021) NANOGrav data hints at primordial black holes as dark matter. Phys Rev Lett 126:041303. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.041303. arXiv:2009.08268 [astro-ph.CO]
de Rham C, Melville S (2018) Gravitational Rainbows: LIGO and Dark Energy at its Cutoff. Phys Rev Lett 121:221101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.221101. arXiv:1806.09417 [hep-th]
de Rham C, Gabadadze G, Tolley AJ (2011) Resummation of Massive Gravity. Phys Rev Lett 106:231101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.231101. arXiv:1011.1232 [hep-th]
de Rham C, Matas A, Tolley AJ (2013) Galileon Radiation from Binary Systems. Phys Rev D 87:064024. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.87.064024. arXiv:1212.5212 [hep-th]
de Rham C, Tolley AJ, Wesley DH (2013) Vainshtein Mechanism in Binary Pulsars. Phys Rev D 87:044025. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.87.044025. arXiv:1208.0580 [gr-qc]
Deffayet C, Menou K (2007) Probing gravity with spacetime sirens. Astrophys J Lett 668:L143–L146. https://doi.org/10.1086/522931. arXiv:0709.0003 [astro-ph]
Deffayet C, Deser S, Esposito-Farese G (2009) Generalized Galileons: all scalar models whose curved background extensions maintain second-order field equations and stress-tensors. Phys Rev D 80:064015. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.80.064015. arXiv:0906.1967 [gr-qc]
Deffayet C, Gao X, Steer D, Zahariade G (2011) From k-essence to generalised Galileons. Phys Rev D 84:064039. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.84.064039. arXiv:1103.3260 [hep-th]
Degollado JC, Herdeiro CA, Radu E (2018) Effective stability against superradiance of Kerr black holes with synchronised hair. Phys Lett B 781:651–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2018.04.052. arXiv:1802.07266 [gr-qc]
Del Pozzo W (2012) Inference of the cosmological parameters from gravitational waves: application to second generation interferometers. Phys Rev D 86:043011. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.86.043011. arXiv:1108.1317 [astro-ph.CO]
Del Pozzo W, Sesana A, Klein A (2018) Stellar binary black holes in the LISA band: a new class of standard sirens. Mon Not R Astron Soc 475:3485–3492. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/sty057. arXiv:1703.01300 [astro-ph.CO]
Delgado JF, Herdeiro CA, Radu E (2019) Kerr black holes with synchronised scalar hair and higher azimuthal harmonic index. Phys Lett B 792:436–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2019.04.009. arXiv:1903.01488 [gr-qc]
Delgado JF, Herdeiro CA, Radu E (2020) Rotating Axion Boson Stars. JCAP 06:037. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2020/06/037. arXiv:2005.05982 [gr-qc]
Delgado JF, Herdeiro CA, Radu E (2020) Spinning black holes in shift-symmetric Horndeski theory. JHEP 04:180. https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2020)180. arXiv:2002.05012 [gr-qc]
Delhom A, Macedo CFB, Olmo GJ, Crispino LCB (2019) Absorption by black hole remnants in metric-affine gravity. Phys Rev D 100:024016. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.024016. arXiv:1906.06411 [gr-qc]
Delsate T, Hilditch D, Witek H (2015) Initial value formulation of dynamical Chern–Simons gravity. Phys Rev D 91:024027. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.91.024027. arXiv:1407.6727 [gr-qc]
Delsate T, Herdeiro C, Radu E (2018) Non-perturbative spinning black holes in dynamical Chern–Simons gravity. Phys Lett B 787:8–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2018.09.060. arXiv:1806.06700 [gr-qc]
Derdzinski A, D’Orazio D, Duffell P, Haiman Z, MacFadyen A (2021) Evolution of gas disc-embedded intermediate mass ratio inspirals in the LISA band. Mon Not R Astron Soc 501:3540–3557. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staa3976. arXiv:2005.11333 [astro-ph.HE]
Derdzinski AM, D’Orazio D, Duffell P, Haiman Z, MacFadyen A (2019) Probing gas disc physics with LISA: simulations of an intermediate mass ratio inspiral in an accretion disc. Mon Not R Astron Soc 486:2754–2765. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz1026, [Erratum: Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 489, 4860-4861 (2019)]. arXiv:1810.03623 [astro-ph.HE]
Derrick G (1964) Comments on nonlinear wave equations as models for elementary particles. J Math Phys 5:1252–1254. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1704233
Desjacques V, Riotto A (2018) Spatial clustering of primordial black holes. Phys Rev D 98:123533. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.123533. arXiv:1806.10414 [astro-ph.CO]
Destounis K, Suvorov AG, Kokkotas KD (2021) Gravitational-wave glitches in chaotic extreme-mass-ratio inspirals. Phys Rev Lett 126:141102. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.141102. arXiv:2103.05643 [gr-qc]
Detweiler SL (1980) Black holes and gravitational waves. III. The resonant frequencies of rotating holes. Astrophys J 239:292–295. https://doi.org/10.1086/158109
Detweiler SL (1980) Klein-Gordon equation and rotating black holes. Phys Rev D 22:2323–2326. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.22.2323
Detweiler SL, Messaritaki E, Whiting BF (2003) Selfforce of a scalar field for circular orbits about a Schwarzschild black hole. Phys Rev D 67:104016. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.67.104016. arXiv:gr-qc/0205079
Dewdney PE, Hall PJ, Schilizzi RT, Lazio TJLW (2009) The Square Kilometre Array. IEEE Proc 97(8):1482–1496. https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2009.2021005
Dhanpal S, Ghosh A, Mehta AK, Ajith P, Sathyaprakash BS (2019) A no-hair test for binary black holes. Phys Rev D 99:104056. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.104056. arXiv:1804.03297 [gr-qc]
Di Giovanni F, Sanchis-Gual N, Herdeiro CA, Font JA (2018) Dynamical formation of Proca stars and quasistationary solitonic objects. Phys Rev D 98:064044. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.064044. arXiv:1803.04802 [gr-qc]
Diaz-Rivera LM, Messaritaki E, Whiting BF, Detweiler SL (2004) Scalar field self-force effects on orbits about a Schwarzschild black hole. Phys Rev D 70:124018. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.70.124018. arXiv:gr-qc/0410011
Diener P, Vega I, Wardell B, Detweiler S (2012) Self-consistent orbital evolution of a particle around a Schwarzschild black hole. Phys Rev Lett 108:191102. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.191102. arXiv:1112.4821 [gr-qc]
Dietrich T, Bernuzzi S, Tichy W (2017) Closed-form tidal approximants for binary neutron star gravitational waveforms constructed from high-resolution numerical relativity simulations. Phys Rev D 96:121501. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.96.121501. arXiv:1706.02969 [gr-qc]
Dietrich T, Samajdar A, Khan S, Johnson-McDaniel NK, Dudi R, Tichy W (2019) Improving the NRTidal model for binary neutron star systems. Phys Rev D 100:044003. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.044003. arXiv:1905.06011 [gr-qc]
Dietrich T et al (2019) Matter imprints in waveform models for neutron star binaries: Tidal and self-spin effects. Phys Rev D 99:024029. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.024029. arXiv:1804.02235 [gr-qc]
Dima A, Vernizzi F (2018) Vainshtein Screening in Scalar–Tensor Theories before and after GW170817: Constraints on Theories beyond Horndeski. Phys Rev D 97:101302. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.101302. arXiv:1712.04731 [gr-qc]
Dima A, Barausse E, Franchini N, Sotiriou TP (2020) Spin-Induced Black Hole Spontaneous Scalarization. Phys Rev Lett 125:231101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.231101. arXiv:2006.03095 [gr-qc]
Dirian Y, Foffa S, Khosravi N, Kunz M, Maggiore M (2014) Cosmological perturbations and structure formation in nonlocal infrared modifications of general relativity. JCAP 1406:033. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2014/06/033. arXiv:1403.6068 [astro-ph.CO]
Dirian Y, Foffa S, Kunz M, Maggiore M, Pettorino V (2016) Non-local gravity and comparison with observational datasets. II. Updated results and Bayesian model comparison with \(\Lambda \)CDM. JCAP 1605:068. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2016/05/068. arXiv:1602.03558 [astro-ph.CO]
Dolan SR (2007) Instability of the massive Klein-Gordon field on the Kerr spacetime. Phys Rev D 76:084001. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.76.084001. arXiv:0705.2880 [gr-qc]
Dolan SR (2018) Instability of the Proca field on Kerr spacetime. Phys Rev D 98:104006. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.104006. arXiv:1806.01604 [gr-qc]
Domcke V, Jinno R, Rubira H (2020) Deformation of the gravitational wave spectrum by density perturbations. JCAP 06:046. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2020/06/046. arXiv:2002.11083 [astro-ph.CO]
Domènech G (2020) Induced gravitational waves in a general cosmological background. Int J Mod Phys D 29:2050028. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218271820500285. arXiv:1912.05583 [gr-qc]
Domènech G, Pi S (2020) NANOGrav hints on planet-mass primordial black holes. Sci China Phys Mech Astron 65:230411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11433-021-1839-6. arXiv:2010.03976 [astro-ph.CO]
Domènech G, Pi S, Sasaki M (2020) Induced gravitational waves as a probe of thermal history of the universe. JCAP 8:017. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2020/08/017. arXiv:2005.12314 [gr-qc]
Doneva DD, Yazadjiev SS (2018) New Gauss–Bonnet Black Holes with Curvature-Induced Scalarization in Extended Scalar–Tensor Theories. Phys Rev Lett 120:131103. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.131103. arXiv:1711.01187 [gr-qc]
Doneva DD, Yazadjiev SS (2020) No-hair theorems for noncanonical self-gravitating static multiple scalar fields. Phys Rev D 102:084055. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.084055. arXiv:2008.01965 [gr-qc]
Doneva DD, Collodel LG, Krüger CJ, Yazadjiev SS (2020) Black hole scalarization induced by the spin: 2+1 time evolution. Phys Rev D 102:104027. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.104027. arXiv:2008.07391 [gr-qc]
Doneva DD, Collodel LG, Krüger CJ, Yazadjiev SS (2020) Spin-induced scalarization of Kerr black holes with a massive scalar field. Eur Phys J C 80:1205. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08765-3. arXiv:2009.03774 [gr-qc]
Dreyer O, Kelly BJ, Krishnan B, Finn LS, Garrison D, Lopez-Aleman R (2004) Black hole spectroscopy: Testing general relativity through gravitational wave observations. Class Quantum Grav 21:787–804. https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/21/4/003. arXiv:gr-qc/0309007
Duffell PC, Haiman Z, MacFadyen AI, D’Orazio DJ, Farris BD (2014) The Migration of Gap-Opening Planets is not Locked to Viscous Disk Evolution. Astrophys J Lett 792:L10. https://doi.org/10.1088/2041-8205/792/1/L10. arXiv:1405.3711 [astro-ph.EP]
Dürmann C, Kley W (2017) The accretion of migrating giant planets. Astron Astrophys 598:A80. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201629074. arXiv:1611.01070 [astro-ph.EP]
East WE (2017) Superradiant instability of massive vector fields around spinning black holes in the relativistic regime. Phys Rev D 96:024004. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.96.024004. arXiv:1705.01544 [gr-qc]
East WE (2018) Massive Boson Superradiant Instability of Black Holes: Nonlinear Growth, Saturation, and Gravitational Radiation. Phys Rev Lett 121:131104. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.131104. arXiv:1807.00043 [gr-qc]
East WE, Pretorius F (2017) Superradiant Instability and Backreaction of Massive Vector Fields around Kerr Black Holes. Phys Rev Lett 119:041101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.041101. arXiv:1704.04791 [gr-qc]
East WE, Ripley JL (2021) Dynamics of Spontaneous Black Hole Scalarization and Mergers in Einstein–Scalar–Gauss–Bonnet Gravity. Phys Rev Lett 127:101102. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.101102. arXiv:2105.08571 [gr-qc]
East WE, Ripley JL (2021) Evolution of Einstein–Scalar–Gauss–Bonnet gravity using a modified harmonic formulation. Phys Rev D 103:044040. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.103.044040. arXiv:2011.03547 [gr-qc]
Eda K, Itoh Y, Kuroyanagi S, Silk J (2015) Gravitational waves as a probe of dark matter minispikes. Phys Rev D 91:044045. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.91.044045. arXiv:1408.3534 [gr-qc]
Edwards TD, Chianese M, Kavanagh BJ, Nissanke SM, Weniger C (2020) Unique Multimessenger Signal of QCD Axion Dark Matter. Phys Rev Lett 124:161101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.161101. arXiv:1905.04686 [hep-ph]
Eling C, Jacobson T (2006) Black Holes in Einstein-Aether Theory. Class Quantum Grav 23:5643–5660. https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/23/18/009, [Erratum: Class. Quantum Grav. 27, 049802 (2010)]. arXiv:gr-qc/0604088
Emir Gümrükçüoǧlu A, Saravani M, Sotiriou TP (2018) Hořava gravity after GW170817. Phys Rev D 97:024032. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.024032. arXiv:1711.08845 [gr-qc]
Espinosa JR, Racco D, Riotto A (2018) A Cosmological Signature of the SM Higgs Instability: Gravitational Waves. JCAP 09:012. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2018/09/012. arXiv:1804.07732 [hep-ph]
Essig R, et al. (2013) Working Group Report: New Light Weakly Coupled Particles. In: Community Summer Study 2013: Snowmass on the Mississippi. arXiv:1311.0029 [hep-ph]
Estellés H, Ramos-Buades A, Husa S, García-Quirós C, Colleoni M, Haegel L, Jaume R (2021) Phenomenological time domain model for dominant quadrupole gravitational wave signal of coalescing binary black holes. Phys Rev D 103:124060. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.103.124060. arXiv:2004.08302 [gr-qc]
Etienne ZB, Baker JG, Paschalidis V, Kelly BJ, Shapiro SL (2014) Improved Moving Puncture Gauge Conditions for Compact Binary Evolutions. Phys Rev D 90:064032. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.90.064032. arXiv:1404.6523 [astro-ph.HE]
Ezquiaga JM (2021) Hearing gravity from the cosmos: GWTC-2 probes general relativity at cosmological scales. arXiv e-prints arXiv:2104.05139 [astro-ph.CO]
Ezquiaga JM, García-Bellido J (2018) Quantum diffusion beyond slow-roll: implications for primordial black-hole production. JCAP 1808:018. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2018/08/018. arXiv:1805.06731 [astro-ph.CO]
Ezquiaga JM, Holz DE (2021) Jumping the Gap: Searching for LIGO’s Biggest Black Holes. Astrophys J Lett 909:L23. https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/abe638. arXiv:2006.02211 [astro-ph.HE]
Ezquiaga JM, Zumalacárregui M (2017) Dark Energy After GW170817: Dead Ends and the Road Ahead. Phys Rev Lett 119:251304. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.251304. arXiv:1710.05901 [astro-ph.CO]
Ezquiaga JM, Zumalacárregui M (2020) Gravitational wave lensing beyond general relativity: Birefringence, echoes, and shadows. Phys Rev D 102:124048. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.124048. arXiv:2009.12187 [gr-qc]
Ezquiaga JM, García-Bellido J, Ruiz Morales E (2018) Primordial black hole production in critical Higgs inflation. Phys Lett B 776:345–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2017.11.039. arXiv:1705.04861 [astro-ph.CO]
Ezquiaga JM, García-Bellido J, Vennin V (2020) The exponential tail of inflationary fluctuations: consequences for primordial black holes. JCAP 2003:029. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2020/03/029. arXiv:1912.05399 [astro-ph.CO]
Ezquiaga JM, Hu W, Lagos M (2020) Apparent superluminality of lensed gravitational waves. Phys Rev D 102:023531. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.023531. arXiv:2005.10702 [astro-ph.CO]
Ezquiaga JM, Holz DE, Hu W, Lagos M, Wald RM (2021) Phase effects from strong gravitational lensing of gravitational waves. Phys Rev D 103:064047. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.103.064047. arXiv:2008.12814 [gr-qc]
Ezquiaga JM, Hu W, Lagos M, Lin MX (2021) Gravitational wave propagation beyond general relativity: waveform distortions and echoes. JCAP 11:048. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2021/11/048. arXiv:2108.10872 [astro-ph.CO]
Fan J, Katz A, Randall L, Reece M (2013) Dark-disk universe. Phys Rev Lett 110:211302. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.211302. arXiv:1303.3271 [hep-ph]
Farmer AJ, Phinney E (2003) The gravitational wave background from cosmological compact binaries. Mon Not R Astron Soc 346:1197. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2003.07176.x. arXiv:astro-ph/0304393
Farr WM, Fishbach M, Ye J, Holz D (2019) A future percent-level measurement of the hubble expansion at redshift 0.8 with advanced LIGO. Astrophys J Lett 883:L42. https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ab4284. arXiv:1908.09084 [astro-ph.CO]
Farrugia G, Levi Said J, Gakis V, Saridakis EN (2018) Gravitational waves in modified teleparallel theories. Phys Rev D 97:124064. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.124064. arXiv:1804.07365 [gr-qc]
Favata M (2009) Nonlinear gravitational-wave memory from binary black hole mergers. Astrophys J Lett 696:L159. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/696/2/L159. arXiv:0902.3660 [astro-ph.SR]
Favata M (2009) Post-Newtonian corrections to the gravitational-wave memory for quasi-circular, inspiralling compact binaries. Phys Rev D 80:024002. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.80.024002. arXiv:0812.0069 [gr-qc]
Favata M (2010) The gravitational-wave memory effect. Class Quantum Grav 27:084036. https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/27/8/084036. arXiv:1003.3486 [gr-qc]
Favata M (2011) The Gravitational-wave memory from eccentric binaries. Phys Rev D 84:124013. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.84.124013. arXiv:1108.3121 [gr-qc]
Ferguson D, Jani K, Laguna P, Shoemaker D (2021) Assessing the readiness of numerical relativity for LISA and 3G detectors. Phys Rev D 104:044037. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.104.044037. arXiv:2006.04272 [gr-qc]
Fernandes PGS, Herdeiro CAR, Pombo AM, Radu E, Sanchis-Gual N (2019) Spontaneous Scalarisation of Charged Black Holes: Coupling Dependence and Dynamical Features. Class Quantum Grav 36:134002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/ab23a1, [Erratum: Class. Quantum Grav. 37, 049501 (2020)]. arXiv:1902.05079 [gr-qc]
Ferrari V, Kokkotas KD (2000) Scattering of particles by neutron stars: Time evolutions for axial perturbations. Phys Rev D 62:107504. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.62.107504. arXiv:gr-qc/0008057
Ferrari V, Matarrese S, Schneider R (1999) Stochastic background of gravitational waves generated by a cosmological population of young, rapidly rotating neutron stars. Mon Not R Astron Soc 303:258. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02207.x. arXiv:astro-ph/9806357
Ferraro R, Fiorini F (2007) Modified teleparallel gravity: Inflation without inflaton. Phys Rev D 75:084031. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.75.084031. arXiv:gr-qc/0610067
Ferraro R, Guzmán MJ (2018) Hamiltonian formalism for f(T) gravity. Phys Rev D 97:104028. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.104028. arXiv:1802.02130 [gr-qc]
Ferraro R, Guzmán MJ (2018) Quest for the extra degree of freedom in \(f(T)\) gravity. Phys Rev D 98:124037. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.124037. arXiv:1810.07171 [gr-qc]
Ferreira EGM (2021) Ultra-light dark matter. Astron Astrophys Rev 29:7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00159-021-00135-6. arXiv:2005.03254 [astro-ph.CO]
Ferreira MC, Macedo CFB, Cardoso V (2017) Orbital fingerprints of ultralight scalar fields around black holes. Phys Rev D 96:083017. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.96.083017. arXiv:1710.00830 [gr-qc]
Ferrer F, da Rosa AM, Will CM (2017) Dark matter spikes in the vicinity of Kerr black holes. Phys Rev D 96:083014. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.96.083014. arXiv:1707.06302 [astro-ph.CO]
Ficarra G, Pani P, Witek H (2019) Impact of multiple modes on the black-hole superradiant instability. Phys Rev D 99:104019. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.104019. arXiv:1812.02758 [gr-qc]
Field SE, Galley CR, Hesthaven JS, Kaye J, Tiglio M (2014) Fast prediction and evaluation of gravitational waveforms using surrogate models. Phys Rev X 4:031006. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.4.031006. arXiv:1308.3565 [gr-qc]
Finke A, Foffa S, Iacovelli F, Maggiore M, Mancarella M (2021) Cosmology with LIGO/Virgo dark sirens: Hubble parameter and modified gravitational wave propagation. JCAP 8:026. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2021/08/026. arXiv:2101.12660 [astro-ph.CO]
Fishbach M et al (2019) A Standard Siren Measurement of the Hubble Constant from GW170817 without the Electromagnetic Counterpart. Astrophys J Lett 871:L13. https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/aaf96e. arXiv:1807.05667 [astro-ph.CO]
Flanagan EE (2004) Palatini form of 1/R gravity. Phys Rev Lett 92:071101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.071101. arXiv:astro-ph/0308111
Flanagan EE, Hinderer T (2008) Constraining neutron star tidal Love numbers with gravitational wave detectors. Phys Rev D 77:021502. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.77.021502. arXiv:0709.1915 [astro-ph]
Flanagan EE, Grant AM, Harte AI, Nichols DA (2019) Persistent gravitational wave observables: general framework. Phys Rev D 99:084044. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.084044. arXiv:1901.00021 [gr-qc]
Flauger R, Karnesis N, Nardini G, Pieroni M, Ricciardone A, Torrado J (2021) Improved reconstruction of a stochastic gravitational wave background with LISA. JCAP 01:059. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2021/01/059. arXiv:2009.11845 [astro-ph.CO]
Fleury P, Clarkson C, Maartens R (2017) How does the cosmic large-scale structure bias the Hubble diagram? JCAP 03:062. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2017/03/062. arXiv:1612.03726 [astro-ph.CO]
Foffa S, Porto RA, Rothstein I, Sturani R (2019) Conservative dynamics of binary systems to fourth Post-Newtonian order in the EFT approach II: Renormalized Lagrangian. Phys Rev D 100:024048. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.024048. arXiv:1903.05118 [gr-qc]
Foster BZ (2006) Radiation damping in Einstein-aether theory. Phys Rev D 73:104012. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.75.129904, [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 75, 129904 (2007)]. arXiv:gr-qc/0602004
Foster BZ (2007) Strong field effects on binary systems in Einstein-aether theory. Phys Rev D 76:084033. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.76.084033. arXiv:0706.0704 [gr-qc]
Franchini N, Sotiriou TP (2020) Cosmology with subdominant Horndeski scalar field. Phys Rev D 101:064068. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.064068. arXiv:1903.05427 [gr-qc]
Franciolini G, Kehagias A, Matarrese S, Riotto A (2018) Primordial Black Holes from Inflation and non-Gaussianity. JCAP 03:016. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2018/03/016. arXiv:1801.09415 [astro-ph.CO]
Franciolini G, Hui L, Penco R, Santoni L, Trincherini E (2019) Effective Field Theory of Black Hole Quasinormal Modes in Scalar-Tensor Theories. JHEP 02:127. https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP02(2019)127. arXiv:1810.07706 [hep-th]
Franciolini G, Baibhav V, De Luca V, Ng KKY, Wong KWK, Berti E, Pani P, Riotto A, Vitale S (2021) Quantifying the evidence for primordial black holes in LIGO/Virgo gravitational-wave data. arXiv e-prints arXiv:2105.03349 [gr-qc]
Fransen K, Mayerson DR (2022) On Detecting Equatorial Symmetry Breaking with LISA. arXiv e-prints arXiv:2201.03569 [gr-qc]
Friedman JL (1978) Generic instability of rotating relativistic stars. Commun Math Phys 62:247–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01202527
Friedman JL, Morsink SM (1998) Axial instability of rotating relativistic stars. Astrophys J 502:714–720. https://doi.org/10.1086/305920. arXiv:gr-qc/9706073
Frolov VP, Krtouš P, Kubizňák D, Santos JE (2018) Massive Vector Fields in Rotating Black-Hole Spacetimes: Separability and Quasinormal Modes. Phys Rev Lett 120:231103. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.231103. arXiv:1804.00030 [hep-th]
Frusciante N (2021) Signatures of \(f(Q)\)-gravity in cosmology. Phys Rev D 103:044021. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.103.044021. arXiv:2101.09242 [astro-ph.CO]
Frusciante N, Perenon L (2020) Effective field theory of dark energy: A review. Phys Rept 857:1–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2020.02.004. arXiv:1907.03150 [astro-ph.CO]
Fujita R, Cardoso V (2017) Ultralight scalars and resonances in black-hole physics. Phys Rev D 95:044016. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.95.044016. arXiv:1612.00978 [gr-qc]
Fumagalli J, Renaux-Petel S, Ronayne JW, Witkowski LT (2020) Turning in the landscape: a new mechanism for generating Primordial Black Holes. arXiv e-prints arXiv:2004.08369 [hep-th]
Fumagalli J, Renaux-Petel S (2021) Oscillations in the stochastic gravitational wave background from sharp features and particle production during inflation. JCAP 08:030. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2021/08/030. arXiv:2012.02761 [astro-ph.CO]
Gaggero D, Bertone G, Calore F, Connors RMT, Lovell M, Markoff S, Storm E (2017) Searching for Primordial Black Holes in the radio and X-ray sky. Phys Rev Lett 118:241101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.241101. arXiv:1612.00457 [astro-ph.HE]
Gair JR, Li C, Mandel I (2008) Observable Properties of Orbits in Exact Bumpy Spacetimes. Phys Rev D 77:024035. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.77.024035. arXiv:0708.0628 [gr-qc]
Gair JR, Tang C, Volonteri M (2010) LISA extreme-mass-ratio inspiral events as probes of the black hole mass function. Phys Rev D 81:104014. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.81.104014. arXiv:1004.1921 [astro-ph.GA]
Gair JR, Babak S, Sesana A, Amaro-Seoane P, Barausse E, Berry CPL, Berti E, Sopuerta C (2017) Prospects for observing extreme-mass-ratio inspirals with LISA. J Phys Conf Ser 840:012021. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/840/1/012021. arXiv:1704.00009 [astro-ph.GA]
Galley CR, Rothstein IZ (2017) Deriving analytic solutions for compact binary inspirals without recourse to adiabatic approximations. Phys Rev D 95:104054. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.95.104054. arXiv:1609.08268 [gr-qc]
Gamba R, Bernuzzi S, Nagar A (2021) Fast, faithful, frequency-domain effective-one-body waveforms for compact binary coalescences. Phys Rev D 104:084058. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.104.084058. arXiv:2012.00027 [gr-qc]
Ganchev B, Santos JE (2018) Scalar Hairy Black Holes in Four Dimensions are Unstable. Phys Rev Lett 120:171101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.171101. arXiv:1711.08464 [gr-qc]
García-Bellido J (2017) Massive Primordial Black Holes as Dark Matter and their detection with Gravitational Waves. J Phys Conf Ser 840:012032. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/840/1/012032. arXiv:1702.08275 [astro-ph.CO]
García-Bellido J (2018) Primordial Black Holes. PoS EDSU2018:042. https://doi.org/10.22323/1.335.0042
García-Bellido J (2019) Primordial black holes and the origin of the matter-antimatter asymmetry. Phil Trans R Soc Lond A377(2161):20190091. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2019.0091
García-Bellido J, Nesseris S (2018) Gravitational wave energy emission and detection rates of Primordial Black Hole hyperbolic encounters. Phys Dark Univ 21:61–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2018.06.001. arXiv:1711.09702 [astro-ph.HE]
García-Bellido J, Ruiz Morales E (2017) Primordial black holes from single field models of inflation. Phys Dark Univ 18:47–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2017.09.007. arXiv:1702.03901 [astro-ph.CO]
Garcia-Bellido J, Linde AD, Wands D (1996) Density perturbations and black hole formation in hybrid inflation. Phys Rev D 54:6040–6058. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.54.6040. arXiv:astro-ph/9605094
García-Bellido J, Peloso M, Unal C (2016) Gravitational waves at interferometer scales and primordial black holes in axion inflation. JCAP 1612:031. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2016/12/031. arXiv:1610.03763 [astro-ph.CO]
García-Bellido J, Peloso M, Unal C (2017) Gravitational Wave signatures of inflationary models from Primordial Black Hole Dark Matter. JCAP 1709:013. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2017/09/013. arXiv:1707.02441 [astro-ph.CO]
García-Quirós C, Colleoni M, Husa S, Estellés H, Pratten G, Ramos-Buades A, Mateu-Lucena M, Jaume R (2020) Multimode frequency-domain model for the gravitational wave signal from nonprecessing black-hole binaries. Phys Rev D 102:064002. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.064002. arXiv:2001.10914 [gr-qc]
García-Quirós C, Husa S, Mateu-Lucena M, Borchers A (2021) Accelerating the evaluation of inspiral-merger-ringdown waveforms with adapted grids. Class Quantum Grav 38:015006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/abc36e. arXiv:2001.10897 [gr-qc]
Geroch RP (1970) Multipole moments. II. Curved space. J Math Phys 11:2580–2588. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1665427
Ghosh A, Ghosh A, Johnson-McDaniel NK, Mishra CK, Ajith P, Del Pozzo W, Nichols DA, Chen Y, Nielsen AB, Berry CP et al (2016) Testing general relativity using golden black-hole binaries. Phys Rev D 94. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevd.94.021101
Ghosh A, Johnson-McDaniel NK, Ghosh A, Mishra CK, Ajith P, Pozzo WD, Berry CPL, Nielsen AB, London L (2017) Testing general relativity using gravitational wave signals from the inspiral, merger and ringdown of binary black holes. Class Quantum Grav 35:014002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/aa972e
Ghosh A, Johnson-Mcdaniel NK, Ghosh A, Mishra CK, Ajith P, Del Pozzo W, Berry CPL, Nielsen AB, London L (2018) Testing general relativity using gravitational wave signals from the inspiral, merger and ringdown of binary black holes. Class Quantum Grav 35:014002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/aa972e. arXiv:1704.06784 [gr-qc]
Ghosh A et al (2016) Testing general relativity using golden black-hole binaries. Phys Rev D 94:021101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.94.021101. arXiv:1602.02453 [gr-qc]
Ghosh S, Berti E, Brito R, Richartz M (2019) Follow-up signals from superradiant instabilities of black hole merger remnants. Phys Rev D 99:104030. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.104030. arXiv:1812.01620 [gr-qc]
Giddings SB (2006) Black hole information, unitarity, and nonlocality. Phys Rev D 74:106005. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.74.106005. arXiv:hep-th/0605196
Giddings SB (2013) Nonviolent information transfer from black holes: A field theory parametrization. Phys Rev D 88:024018. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.88.024018. arXiv:1302.2613 [hep-th]
Giddings SB (2017) Nonviolent unitarization: basic postulates to soft quantum structure of black holes. JHEP 12:047. https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12(2017)047. arXiv:1701.08765 [hep-th]
Giddings SB, Koren S, Treviño G (2019) Exploring strong-field deviations from general relativity via gravitational waves. Phys Rev D 100:044005. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.044005. arXiv:1904.04258 [gr-qc]
Giesler M, Isi M, Scheel MA, Teukolsky S (2019) Black Hole Ringdown: The Importance of Overtones. Phys Rev X 9:041060. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.9.041060. arXiv:1903.08284 [gr-qc]
Gimon EG, Horava P (2009) Astrophysical violations of the Kerr bound as a possible signature of string theory. Phys Lett B 672:299–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2009.01.026. arXiv:0706.2873 [hep-th]
Giudice GF (2017) Hunting for dark particles with gravitational waves. EPJ Web Conf 164:02004. https://doi.org/10.1051/epjconf/201716402004
Giudice GF, McCullough M, Urbano A (2016) Hunting for Dark Particles with Gravitational Waves. JCAP 10:001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2016/10/001. arXiv:1605.01209 [hep-ph]
Glampedakis K, Babak S (2006) Mapping spacetimes with LISA: Inspiral of a test-body in a ‘quasi-Kerr’ field. Class Quantum Grav 23:4167–4188. https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/23/12/013. arXiv:gr-qc/0510057
Glampedakis K, Pappas G (2018) How well can ultracompact bodies imitate black hole ringdowns? Phys Rev D 97:041502. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.041502. arXiv:1710.02136 [gr-qc]
Glampedakis K, Silva HO (2019) Eikonal quasinormal modes of black holes beyond General Relativity. Phys Rev D 100:044040. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.044040. arXiv:1906.05455 [gr-qc]
Glampedakis K, Hughes SA, Kennefick D (2002) Approximating the inspiral of test bodies into Kerr black holes. Phys Rev D 66:064005. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.66.064005. arXiv:gr-qc/0205033
Glampedakis K, Pappas G, Silva HO, Berti E (2017) Post-Kerr black hole spectroscopy. Phys Rev D 96:064054. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.96.064054. arXiv:1706.07658 [gr-qc]
Gleyzes J, Langlois D, Piazza F, Vernizzi F (2013) Essential Building Blocks of Dark Energy. JCAP 08:025. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2013/08/025. arXiv:1304.4840 [hep-th]
Gleyzes J, Langlois D, Vernizzi F (2014) A unifying description of dark energy. Int J Mod Phys D 23:1443010. https://doi.org/10.1142/S021827181443010X. arXiv:1411.3712 [hep-th]
Gleyzes J, Langlois D, Piazza F, Vernizzi F (2015) Healthy theories beyond Horndeski. Phys Rev Lett 114:211101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.211101. arXiv:1404.6495 [hep-th]
Gnocchi G, Maselli A, Abdelsalhin T, Giacobbo N, Mapelli M (2019) Bounding alternative theories of gravity with multiband GW observations. Phys Rev D 100:064024. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.064024. arXiv:1905.13460 [gr-qc]
Gold R, Paschalidis V, Ruiz M, Shapiro SL, Etienne ZB, Pfeiffer HP (2014) Accretion disks around binary black holes of unequal mass: General relativistic MHD simulations of postdecoupling and merger. Phys Rev D 90:104030. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.90.104030. arXiv:1410.1543 [astro-ph.GA]
Goldreich P, Tremaine S (1980) Disk-satellite interactions. Astrophys J 241:425–441. https://doi.org/10.1086/158356
Gondolo P, Silk J (1999) Dark matter annihilation at the galactic center. Phys Rev Lett 83:1719–1722. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.1719. arXiv:astro-ph/9906391
Goodman J, Tan JC (2004) Supermassive stars in quasar disks. Astrophys J 608:108–118. https://doi.org/10.1086/386360. arXiv:astro-ph/0307361
Goodsell M, Jaeckel J, Redondo J, Ringwald A (2009) Naturally Light Hidden Photons in LARGE Volume String Compactifications. JHEP 11:027. https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2009/11/027. arXiv:0909.0515 [hep-ph]
Gossan S, Veitch J, Sathyaprakash B (2012) Bayesian model selection for testing the no-hair theorem with black hole ringdowns. Phys Rev D 85:124056. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.85.124056. arXiv:1111.5819 [gr-qc]
Gould A, Rix HW (2000) Binary black hole mergers from planet-like migrations. Astrophys J Lett 532:L29. https://doi.org/10.1086/312562. arXiv:astro-ph/9912111
Gourgoulhon E (2012) 3+1 Formalism in general relativity. Lecture Notes in Physics, vol 846. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24525-1
Gralla SE, Porfyriadis AP, Warburton N (2015) Particle on the innermost stable circular orbit of a rapidly spinning black hole. Phys Rev D 92:064029. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.92.064029. arXiv:1506.08496 [gr-qc]
Grandclement P, Somé C, Gourgoulhon E (2014) Models of rotating boson stars and geodesics around them: new type of orbits. Phys Rev D 90:024068. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.90.024068. arXiv:1405.4837 [gr-qc]
Gray R et al (2020) Cosmological Inference using Gravitational Wave Standard Sirens: A Mock Data Challenge. Phys Rev D 101:122001. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.122001. arXiv:1908.06050 [gr-qc]
Green AM, Kavanagh BJ (2021) Primordial Black Holes as a dark matter candidate. J Phys G 48:043001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6471/abc534. arXiv:2007.10722 [astro-ph.CO]
Gubitosi G, Piazza F, Vernizzi F (2013) The Effective Field Theory of Dark Energy. JCAP 1302:032. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2013/02/032. arXiv:1210.0201
Guerra D, Macedo CF, Pani P (2019) Axion boson stars. JCAP 09(09):061. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2019/09/061, [Erratum: JCAP 06, E01 (2020)]. arXiv:1909.05515 [gr-qc]
Guo HK, Shu J, Zhao Y (2019) Using LISA-like Gravitational Wave Detectors to Search for Primordial Black Holes. Phys Rev D 99:023001. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.023001. arXiv:1709.03500 [astro-ph.CO]
Gupta A, Datta S, Kastha S, Borhanian S, Arun KG, Sathyaprakash BS (2020) Multiparameter Tests of General Relativity Using Multiband Gravitational-Wave Observations. Phys Rev Lett 125:201101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.201101. arXiv:2005.09607 [gr-qc]
Gürlebeck N (2015) No-hair theorem for Black Holes in Astrophysical Environments. Phys Rev Lett 114:151102. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.151102. arXiv:1503.03240 [gr-qc]
Haegel L, Husa S (2020) Predicting the properties of black-hole merger remnants with deep neural networks. Class Quantum Grav 37:135005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/ab905c. arXiv:1911.01496 [gr-qc]
Haiman Z (2017) Electromagnetic chirp of a compact binary black hole: A phase template for the gravitational wave inspiral. Phys Rev D 96:023004. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.96.023004. arXiv:1705.06765 [astro-ph.HE]
Hall A, Gow AD, Byrnes CT (2020) Bayesian analysis of LIGO-Virgo mergers: Primordial versus astrophysical black hole populations. Phys Rev D 102:123524. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.123524. arXiv:2008.13704 [astro-ph.CO]
Hannam M, Schmidt P, Bohé A, Haegel L, Husa S, Ohme F, Pratten G, Pürrer M (2014) Simple Model of Complete Precessing Black-Hole-Binary Gravitational Waveforms. Phys Rev Lett 113:151101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.151101. arXiv:1308.3271 [gr-qc]
Hannuksela OA, Wong KW, Brito R, Berti E, Li TG (2019) Probing the existence of ultralight bosons with a single gravitational-wave measurement. Nature Astron 3:447–451. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-019-0712-4. arXiv:1804.09659 [astro-ph.HE]
Hannuksela OA, Ng KCY, Li TGF (2020) Extreme dark matter tests with extreme mass ratio inspirals. Phys Rev D 102:103022. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.103022. arXiv:1906.11845 [astro-ph.CO]
Hansen D, Yunes N, Yagi K (2015) Projected Constraints on Lorentz-Violating Gravity with Gravitational Waves. Phys Rev D 91:082003. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.91.082003. arXiv:1412.4132 [gr-qc]
Hansen R (1974) Multipole moments of stationary space-times. J Math Phys 15:46–52. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1666501
Harms E, Bernuzzi S, Nagar A, Zenginoglu A (2014) A new gravitational wave generation algorithm for particle perturbations of the Kerr spacetime. Class Quantum Grav 31:245004. https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/31/24/245004. arXiv:1406.5983 [gr-qc]
Hassan SF, Rosen RA (2012) Bimetric Gravity from Ghost-free Massive Gravity. JHEP 02:126. https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP02(2012)126. arXiv:1109.3515 [hep-th]
Hawking S (1972) Black holes in the Brans-Dicke theory of gravitation. Commun Math Phys 25:167–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01877518
Hawking SW (1976) Breakdown of Predictability in Gravitational Collapse. Phys Rev D 14:2460–2473. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.14.2460
Hayashi K, Shirafuji T (1979) New General Relativity. Phys Rev D 19:3524–3553. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.19.3524 [Addendum: Phys. Rev. D 24, 3312-3314 (1982)]
Healy J, Lousto CO (2020) Third RIT binary black hole simulations catalog. Phys Rev D 102:104018. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.104018. arXiv:2007.07910 [gr-qc]
Healy J, Bode T, Haas R, Pazos E, Laguna P, Shoemaker D, Yunes N (2012) Late Inspiral and Merger of Binary Black Holes in Scalar-Tensor Theories of Gravity. Class Quantum Grav 29:232002. https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/29/23/232002. arXiv:1112.3928 [gr-qc]
Heisenberg L, Kase R, Minamitsuji M, Tsujikawa S (2017) Hairy black-hole solutions in generalized Proca theories. Phys Rev D 96:084049. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.96.084049. arXiv:1705.09662 [gr-qc]
Herdeiro C, Radu E (2014) Ergosurfaces for Kerr black holes with scalar hair. Phys Rev D 89:124018. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.89.124018. arXiv:1406.1225 [gr-qc]
Herdeiro C, Radu E, Rúnarsson H (2016) Kerr black holes with Proca hair. Class Quantum Grav 33:154001. https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/33/15/154001. arXiv:1603.02687 [gr-qc]
Herdeiro C, Kunz J, Radu E, Subagyo B (2018) Probing the universality of synchronised hair around rotating black holes with Q-clouds. Phys Lett B 779:151–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2018.01.083. arXiv:1712.04286 [gr-qc]
Herdeiro C, Perapechka I, Radu E, Shnir Y (2019) Asymptotically flat spinning scalar, Dirac and Proca stars. Phys Lett B 797:134845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2019.134845. arXiv:1906.05386 [gr-qc]
Herdeiro CA, Radu E (2015) Asymptotically flat black holes with scalar hair: a review. Int J Mod Phys D 24:1542014. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218271815420146. arXiv:1504.08209 [gr-qc]
Herdeiro CA, Radu E (2018) Spinning boson stars and hairy black holes with nonminimal coupling. Int J Mod Phys D 27:1843009. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218271818430095. arXiv:1803.08149 [gr-qc]
Herdeiro CA, Radu E, Sanchis-Gual N, Font JA (2018) Spontaneous Scalarization of Charged Black Holes. Phys Rev Lett 121:101102. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.101102. arXiv:1806.05190 [gr-qc]
Herdeiro CAR, Radu E (2014) Kerr black holes with scalar hair. Phys Rev Lett 112:221101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.221101. arXiv:1403.2757 [gr-qc]
Herdeiro CAR, Radu E (2017) Dynamical Formation of Kerr Black Holes with Synchronized Hair: An Analytic Model. Phys Rev Lett 119:261101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.261101. arXiv:1706.06597 [gr-qc]
Herdeiro CAR, Radu E (2020) Asymptotically flat, spherical, self-interacting scalar. Dirac and Proca stars. Symmetry 12:2032. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12122032. arXiv:2012.03595 [gr-qc]
Herdeiro CAR, Radu E, Rúnarsson H (2015) Kerr black holes with self-interacting scalar hair: hairier but not heavier. Phys Rev D 92:084059. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.92.084059. arXiv:1509.02923 [gr-qc]
Herdeiro CAR, Pombo AM, Radu E (2017) Asymptotically flat scalar, Dirac and Proca stars: discrete vs. continuous families of solutions. Phys Lett B 773:654–662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2017.09.036. arXiv:1708.05674 [gr-qc]
Herdeiro CAR, Panotopoulos G, Radu E (2020) Tidal Love numbers of Proca stars. JCAP 08:029. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2020/08/029. arXiv:2006.11083 [gr-qc]
Herdeiro CAR, Kunz J, Perapechka I, Radu E, Shnir Y (2021) Multipolar boson stars: macroscopic Bose-Einstein condensates akin to hydrogen orbitals. Phys Lett B 812:136027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2020.136027. arXiv:2008.10608 [gr-qc]
Herdeiro CAR, Radu E, Silva HO, Sotiriou TP, Yunes N (2021) Spin-Induced Scalarized Black Holes. Phys Rev Lett 126:011103. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.011103. arXiv:2009.03904 [gr-qc]
Heusler M (1996) Black Hole Uniqueness Theorems. Cambridge Lecture Notes in Physics, Cambridge University Press
Heusler M, Droz S, Straumann N (1992) Linear stability of Einstein Skyrme black holes. Phys Lett B 285:21–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(92)91294-J
Heymans C, other (2021) KiDS-1000 Cosmology: Multi-probe weak gravitational lensing and spectroscopic galaxy clustering constraints. Astron Astrophys 646:A140. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202039063arXiv:2007.15632 [astro-ph.CO]
Hinder I, Kidder LE, Pfeiffer HP (2018) Eccentric binary black hole inspiral-merger-ringdown gravitational waveform model from numerical relativity and post-Newtonian theory. Phys Rev D 98:044015. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.044015. arXiv:1709.02007 [gr-qc]
Hinder I et al (2014) Error-analysis and comparison to analytical models of numerical waveforms produced by the NRAR Collaboration. Class Quantum Grav 31:025012. https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/31/2/025012. arXiv:1307.5307 [gr-qc]
Hinderer T (2008) Tidal Love numbers of neutron stars. Astrophys J 677:1216–1220. https://doi.org/10.1086/533487. arXiv:0711.2420 [astro-ph]
Hinderer T, Babak S (2017) Foundations of an effective-one-body model for coalescing binaries on eccentric orbits. Phys Rev D 96:104048. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.96.104048. arXiv:1707.08426 [gr-qc]
Hinderer T, Flanagan EE (2008) Two timescale analysis of extreme mass ratio inspirals in Kerr. I. Orbital Motion. Phys Rev D 78:064028. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.78.064028. arXiv:0805.3337 [gr-qc]
Hinderer T, Rezzolla L, Baiotti L (2018) Gravitational Waves from Merging Binary Neutron-Star Systems. In: Rezzolla L, Pizzochero P, Jones DI, Rea N, Vidaña I (eds) The Physics and Astrophysics of Neutron Stars. Astrophysics and Space Science Library, vol 457. Springer, Cham, pp 575–635. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97616-7_10
Hinderer T et al (2016) Effects of neutron-star dynamic tides on gravitational waveforms within the effective-one-body approach. Phys Rev Lett 116:181101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.181101. arXiv:1602.00599 [gr-qc]
Hinterbichler K, Khoury J (2010) Symmetron Fields: Screening Long-Range Forces Through Local Symmetry Restoration. Phys Rev Lett 104:231301. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.231301. arXiv:1001.4525 [hep-th]
Hirata CM, Holz DE, Cutler C (2010) Reducing the weak lensing noise for the gravitational wave Hubble diagram using the non-Gaussianity of the magnification distribution. Phys Rev D 81:124046. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.81.124046. arXiv:1004.3988 [astro-ph.CO]
Hirschmann EW, Lehner L, Liebling SL, Palenzuela C (2018) Black Hole Dynamics in Einstein-Maxwell-Dilaton Theory. Phys Rev D 97:064032. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.064032. arXiv:1706.09875 [gr-qc]
Hod S (2020) Onset of spontaneous scalarization in spinning Gauss-Bonnet black holes. Phys Rev D 102:084060. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.084060. arXiv:2006.09399 [gr-qc]
Hofmann F, Barausse E, Rezzolla L (2016) The final spin from binary black holes in quasi-circular orbits. Astrophys J Lett 825:L19. https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8205/825/2/L19. arXiv:1605.01938 [gr-qc]
Hohmann M, Krššák M, Pfeifer C, Ualikhanova U (2018) Propagation of gravitational waves in teleparallel gravity theories. Phys Rev D 98:124004. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.124004. arXiv:1807.04580 [gr-qc]
Holdom B, Ren J (2017) Not quite a black hole. Phys Rev D 95:084034. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.95.084034. arXiv:1612.04889 [gr-qc]
Holz DE, Hughes SA (2005) Using gravitational-wave standard sirens. Astrophys J 629:15–22. https://doi.org/10.1086/431341. arXiv:astro-ph/0504616
Horava P (2009) Membranes at Quantum Criticality. JHEP 03:020. https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2009/03/020. arXiv:0812.4287 [hep-th]
Horava P (2009) Quantum Gravity at a Lifshitz Point. Phys Rev D 79:084008. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.79.084008. arXiv:0901.3775 [hep-th]
Horndeski GW (1974) Second-order scalar-tensor field equations in a four-dimensional space. Int J Theor Phys 10:363–384. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01807638
Horowitz GT, Maldacena JM, Strominger A (1996) Nonextremal black hole microstates and U duality. Phys Lett B 383:151–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(96)00738-1. arXiv:hep-th/9603109
Hou S, Zhu ZH (2021) Gravitational memory effects and Bondi-Metzner-Sachs symmetries in scalar-tensor theories. JHEP 1:083. https://doi.org/10.1007/jhep01(2021)083. arXiv:2005.01310 [gr-qc]
Hu B, Raveri M, Frusciante N, Silvestri A (2014) Effective Field Theory of Cosmic Acceleration: an implementation in CAMB. Phys Rev D 89:103530. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.89.103530. arXiv:1312.5742 [astro-ph.CO]
Huang CD, Riess AG, Yuan W, Macri LM, Zakamska NL, Casertano S, Whitelock PA, Hoffmann SL, Filippenko AV, Scolnic D (2020) Hubble Space Telescope Observations of Mira Variables in the SN Ia Host NGC 1559: An Alternative Candle to Measure the Hubble Constant. Astrophys J 889:5. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab5dbd. arXiv:1908.10883 [astro-ph.CO]
Huang J, Johnson MC, Sagunski L, Sakellariadou M, Zhang J (2019) Prospects for axion searches with Advanced LIGO through binary mergers. Phys Rev D 99:063013. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.063013. arXiv:1807.02133 [hep-ph]
Hughes S, Holz D (2003) Cosmology with coalescing massive black holes. Class Quantum Grav 20:S65–S72. https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/20/10/308. arXiv:astro-ph/0212218
Hughes SA (2001) Evolution of circular, nonequatorial orbits of Kerr black holes due to gravitational wave emission. II. Inspiral trajectories and gravitational wave forms. Phys Rev D 64:064004. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.64.064004, [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 88, 109902 (2013)]. arXiv:gr-qc/0104041
Hughes SA (2016) Adiabatic and post-adiabatic approaches to extreme mass ratio inspiral. In: 14th Marcel Grossmann Meeting on Recent Developments in Theoretical and Experimental General Relativity, Astrophysics, and Relativistic Field Theories. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789813226609_0208. arXiv:1601.02042 [gr-qc]
Hughes SA, Menou K (2005) Golden binaries for LISA: Robust probes of strong-field gravity. Astrophys J 623:689–699. https://doi.org/10.1086/428826. arXiv:astro-ph/0410148
Hui L, Nicolis A (2013) No-Hair Theorem for the Galileon. Phys Rev Lett 110:241104. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.241104. arXiv:1202.1296 [hep-th]
Hui L, Ostriker JP, Tremaine S, Witten E (2017) Ultralight scalars as cosmological dark matter. Phys Rev D 95:043541. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.95.043541. arXiv:1610.08297 [astro-ph.CO]
Hui L, Kabat D, Li X, Santoni L, Wong SS (2019) Black Hole Hair from Scalar Dark Matter. JCAP 06:038. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2019/06/038. arXiv:1904.12803 [gr-qc]
Hui L, Joyce A, Penco R, Santoni L, Solomon AR (2021) Static response and Love numbers of Schwarzschild black holes. JCAP 04:052. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2021/04/052. arXiv:2010.00593 [hep-th]
Husa S, Khan S, Hannam M, Pürrer M, Ohme F, Jiménez Forteza X, Bohé A (2016) Frequency-domain gravitational waves from nonprecessing black-hole binaries. I. New numerical waveforms and anatomy of the signal. Phys Rev D 93:044006. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.93.044006. arXiv:1508.07250 [gr-qc]
Ikeda T, Brito R, Cardoso V (2019) Blasts of Light from Axions. Phys Rev Lett 122:081101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.081101. arXiv:1811.04950 [gr-qc]
Ikeda T, Bianchi M, Consoli D, Grillo A, Morales JF, Pani P, Raposo G (2021) Black-hole microstate spectroscopy: Ringdown, quasinormal modes, and echoes. Phys Rev D 104:066021. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.104.066021. arXiv:2103.10960 [gr-qc]
Inman D, Ali-Haïmoud Y (2019) Early structure formation in primordial black hole cosmologies. Phys Rev D 100:083528. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.083528. arXiv:1907.08129 [astro-ph.CO]
Inomata K, Nakama T (2019) Gravitational waves induced by scalar perturbations as probes of the small-scale primordial spectrum. Phys Rev D 99:043511. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.043511. arXiv:1812.00674 [astro-ph.CO]
Inomata K, Terada T (2020) Gauge Independence of Induced Gravitational Waves. Phys Rev D 101:023523. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.023523. arXiv:1912.00785 [gr-qc]
Inoue Y, Kusenko A (2017) New X-ray bound on density of primordial black holes. JCAP 1710:034. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2017/10/034. arXiv:1705.00791 [astro-ph.CO]
Irastorza IG, Redondo J (2018) New experimental approaches in the search for axion-like particles. Prog Part Nucl Phys 102:89–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2018.05.003. arXiv:1801.08127 [hep-ph]
Isi M, Giesler M, Farr WM, Scheel MA, Teukolsky SA (2019) Testing the no-hair theorem with GW150914. Phys Rev Lett 123:111102. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.111102. arXiv:1905.00869 [gr-qc]
Isi M, Sun L, Brito R, Melatos A (2019) Directed searches for gravitational waves from ultralight bosons. Phys Rev D 99:084042. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.084042, [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 102, 049901 (2020)]. arXiv:1810.03812 [gr-qc]
Islam T, Mehta AK, Ghosh A, Varma V, Ajith P, Sathyaprakash BS (2020) Testing the no-hair nature of binary black holes using the consistency of multipolar gravitational radiation. Phys Rev D 101:024032. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.024032. arXiv:1910.14259 [gr-qc]
Islo K, Simon J, Burke-Spolaor S, Siemens X (2019) Prospects for Memory Detection with Low-Frequency Gravitational Wave Detectors. arXiv e-prints arXiv:1906.11936 [astro-ph.HE]
Isoyama S, Poisson E (2012) Self-force as probe of internal structure. Class Quantum Grav 29:155012. https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/29/15/155012. arXiv:1205.1236 [gr-qc]
Ivanov P (1998) Nonlinear metric perturbations and production of primordial black holes. Phys Rev D 57:7145–7154. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.57.7145. arXiv:astro-ph/9708224
Ivanov P, Naselsky P, Novikov I (1994) Inflation and primordial black holes as dark matter. Phys Rev D 50:7173–7178. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.50.7173
Ivanov PB, Papaloizou JCB, Polnarev AG (1999) The evolution of a supermassive binary caused by an accretion disc. Mon Not R Astron Soc 307:79. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02623.x. arXiv:astro-ph/9812198
Jackiw R, Pi S (2003) Chern-Simons modification of general relativity. Phys Rev D 68:104012. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.68.104012. arXiv:gr-qc/0308071
Jacobson T (1999) Primordial black hole evolution in tensor scalar cosmology. Phys Rev Lett 83:2699–2702. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.2699. arXiv:astro-ph/9905303
Jacobson T (2007) Einstein-aether gravity: A Status report. PoS QG-PH:020. https://doi.org/10.22323/1.043.0020. arXiv:0801.1547 [gr-qc]
Jacobson T, Mattingly D (2001) Gravity with a dynamical preferred frame. Phys Rev D 64:024028. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.64.024028. arXiv:gr-qc/0007031
Jaeckel J, Ringwald A (2010) The Low-Energy Frontier of Particle Physics. Ann Rev Nucl Part Sci 60:405–437. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.nucl.012809.104433. arXiv:1002.0329 [hep-ph]
Jang-Condell H, Sasselov DD (2005) Type I migration in a non-isothermal protoplanetary disk. Astrophys J 619:1123–1131. https://doi.org/10.1086/426577. arXiv:astro-ph/0410550
Jani K, Healy J, Clark JA, London L, Laguna P, Shoemaker D (2016) Georgia Tech Catalog of Gravitational Waveforms. Class Quantum Grav 33:204001. https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/33/20/204001. arXiv:1605.03204 [gr-qc]
Jedamzik K (2020) Primordial Black Hole Dark Matter and the LIGO/Virgo observations. JCAP 09:022. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2020/09/022. arXiv:2006.11172 [astro-ph.CO]
Jedamzik K (2021) Consistency of Primordial Black Hole Dark Matter with LIGO/Virgo Merger Rates. Phys Rev Lett 126:051302. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.051302. arXiv:2007.03565 [astro-ph.CO]
Jee I, Suyu SH, Komatsu E, Fassnacht CD, Hilbert S, Koopmans LVE (2019) A measurement of the Hubble constant from angular diameter distances to two gravitational lenses. Science 365(6458):1134–1138. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat7371. arXiv:1909.06712 [astro-ph.CO]
Jenkins AC, Sakellariadou M (2018) Anisotropies in the stochastic gravitational-wave background: Formalism and the cosmic string case. Phys Rev D 98:063509. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.063509. arXiv:1802.06046 [astro-ph.CO]
Jenkins AC, O’Shaughnessy R, Sakellariadou M, Wysocki D (2019) Anisotropies in the Astrophysical Gravitational-Wave Background: The Impact of Black Hole Distributions. Phys Rev Lett 122:111101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.111101. arXiv:1810.13435 [astro-ph.CO]
Jetzer P (1992) Boson stars. Phys Rept 220:163–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-1573(92)90123-H
Jiménez JB, Ezquiaga JM, Heisenberg L (2020) Probing cosmological fields with gravitational wave oscillations. JCAP 04:027. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2020/04/027. arXiv:1912.06104 [astro-ph.CO]
Jiménez-Forteza X, Keitel D, Husa S, Hannam M, Khan S, Pürrer M (2017) Hierarchical data-driven approach to fitting numerical relativity data for nonprecessing binary black holes with an application to final spin and radiated energy. Phys Rev D 95:064024. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.95.064024. arXiv:1611.00332 [gr-qc]
Jiménez Forteza X, Bhagwat S, Pani P, Ferrari V (2020) Spectroscopy of binary black hole ringdown using overtones and angular modes. Phys Rev D 102:044053. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.044053. arXiv:2005.03260 [gr-qc]
Johannsen T, Psaltis D (2011) Metric for rapidly spinning black holes suitable for strong-field tests of the no-hair theorem. Phys Rev D 83:124015. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.83.124015. arXiv:1105.3191 [gr-qc]
Johnson-McDaniel NK, Mukherjee A, Kashyap R, Ajith P, Del Pozzo W, Vitale S (2020) Constraining black hole mimickers with gravitational wave observations. Phys Rev D 102:123010. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.123010. arXiv:1804.08026 [gr-qc]
Jovanovic P (2012) The broad Fe K\(\alpha \) line and supermassive black holes. New Astron Rev 56:37–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newar.2011.11.002. arXiv:1112.0172 [astro-ph.CO]
Joyce A, Jain B, Khoury J, Trodden M (2015) Beyond the Cosmological Standard Model. Phys Rept 568:1–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2014.12.002. arXiv:1407.0059 [astro-ph.CO]
Joyce A, Lombriser L, Schmidt F (2016) Dark Energy Versus Modified Gravity. Annu Rev Nucl Part Sci 66:95–122. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-nucl-102115-044553. arXiv:1601.06133 [astro-ph.CO]
Julié FL (2018) Reducing the two-body problem in scalar-tensor theories to the motion of a test particle : a scalar-tensor effective-one-body approach. Phys Rev D 97:024047. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.024047. arXiv:1709.09742 [gr-qc]
Julié FL, Berti E (2019) Post-Newtonian dynamics and black hole thermodynamics in Einstein-scalar-Gauss-Bonnet gravity. Phys Rev D 100:104061. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.104061. arXiv:1909.05258 [gr-qc]
Julié FL, Deruelle N (2017) Two-body problem in Scalar-Tensor theories as a deformation of General Relativity: an Effective-One-Body approach. Phys Rev D 95:124054. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.95.124054. arXiv:1703.05360 [gr-qc]
Kahlhoefer F (2017) Review of LHC Dark Matter Searches. Int J Mod Phys A 32:1730006. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X1730006X. arXiv:1702.02430 [hep-ph]
Kaloper N, Padilla A (2014) Sequestering the Standard Model Vacuum Energy. Phys Rev Lett 112:091304. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.091304. arXiv:1309.6562 [hep-th]
Kamaretsos I, Hannam M, Husa S, Sathyaprakash B (2012) Black-hole hair loss: learning about binary progenitors from ringdown signals. Phys Rev D 85:024018. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.85.024018. arXiv:1107.0854 [gr-qc]
Kanagawa KD, Tanaka H, Szuszkiewicz E (2018) Radial Migration of Gap-opening Planets in Protoplanetary Disks. I. The Case of a Single Planet. Astrophys J 861:140. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aac8d9. arXiv:1805.11101 [astro-ph.EP]
Kanti P, Mavromatos N, Rizos J, Tamvakis K, Winstanley E (1996) Dilatonic black holes in higher curvature string gravity. Phys Rev D 54:5049–5058. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.54.5049. arXiv:hep-th/9511071
Kaplan DE, Rajendran S (2019) Firewalls in General Relativity. Phys Rev D 99:044033. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.044033. arXiv:1812.00536 [hep-th]
Karnesis N, Lilley M, Petiteau A (2020) Assessing the detectability of a stochastic gravitational wave background with LISA, using an excess of power approach. Class Quantum Grav 37:215017. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/abb637. arXiv:1906.09027 [astro-ph.IM]
Kase R, Minamitsuji M, Tsujikawa S (2018) Black holes in quartic-order beyond-generalized Proca theories. Phys Lett B 782:541–550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2018.05.078. arXiv:1803.06335 [gr-qc]
Kastha S, Gupta A, Arun KG, Sathyaprakash BS, Van Den Broeck C (2018) Testing the multipole structure of compact binaries using gravitational wave observations. Phys Rev D 98:124033. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.124033. arXiv:1809.10465 [gr-qc]
Kastha S, Gupta A, Arun KG, Sathyaprakash BS, Van Den Broeck C (2019) Testing the multipole structure and conservative dynamics of compact binaries using gravitational wave observations: The spinning case. Phys Rev D 100:044007. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.044007. arXiv:1905.07277 [gr-qc]
Katz A, Kopp J, Sibiryakov S, Xue W (2018) Femtolensing by Dark Matter Revisited. JCAP 12:005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2018/12/005. arXiv:1807.11495 [astro-ph.CO]
Kaup DJ (1968) Klein-Gordon Geon. Phys Rev 172:1331–1342. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.172.1331
Kavanagh BJ, Nichols DA, Bertone G, Gaggero D (2020) Detecting dark matter around black holes with gravitational waves: Effects of dark-matter dynamics on the gravitational waveform. Phys Rev D 102:083006. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.083006. arXiv:2002.12811 [gr-qc]
Kawaguchi K, Kiuchi K, Kyutoku K, Sekiguchi Y, Shibata M, Taniguchi K (2018) Frequency-domain gravitational waveform models for inspiraling binary neutron stars. Phys Rev D 97:044044. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.044044. arXiv:1802.06518 [gr-qc]
Kenneth Nordtvedt J (1968) Equivalence Principle for Massive Bodies. 2. Theory. Phys Rev 169:1017–1025. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.169.1017
Kenneth Nordtvedt J, Will CM (1972) Conservation Laws and Preferred Frames in Relativistic Gravity. II. Experimental Evidence to Rule Out Preferred-Frame Theories of Gravity. Astrophys J 177:775. https://doi.org/10.1086/151755
Kehagias A, Maggiore M (2014) Spherically symmetric static solutions in a non-local infrared modification of General Relativity. JHEP 1408:029. https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP08(2014)029. arXiv:1401.8289 [hep-th]
Keir J (2016) Slowly decaying waves on spherically symmetric spacetimes and ultracompact neutron stars. Class Quantum Grav 33:135009. https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/33/13/135009. arXiv:1404.7036 [gr-qc]
Kerr RP (1963) Gravitational field of a spinning mass as an example of algebraically special metrics. Phys Rev Lett 11:237–238. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.11.237
Kesden M, Gair J, Kamionkowski M (2005) Gravitational-wave signature of an inspiral into a supermassive horizonless object. Phys Rev D 71:044015. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.71.044015. arXiv:astro-ph/0411478 [astro-ph]
Khalil M, Sennett N, Steinhoff J, Vines J, Buonanno A (2018) Hairy binary black holes in Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton theory and their effective-one-body description. Phys Rev D 98:104010. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.104010. arXiv:1809.03109 [gr-qc]
Khalil M, Sennett N, Steinhoff J, Buonanno A (2019) Theory-agnostic framework for dynamical scalarization of compact binaries. Phys Rev D 100:124013. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.124013. arXiv:1906.08161 [gr-qc]
Khalil M, Steinhoff J, Vines J, Buonanno A (2020) Fourth post-Newtonian effective-one-body Hamiltonians with generic spins. Phys Rev D 101:104034. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.104034. arXiv:2003.04469 [gr-qc]
Khan S, Husa S, Hannam M, Ohme F, Pürrer M, Jiménez Forteza X, Bohé A (2016) Frequency-domain gravitational waves from nonprecessing black-hole binaries. II. A phenomenological model for the advanced detector era. Phys Rev D 93:044007. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.93.044007. arXiv:1508.07253 [gr-qc]
Khan S, Chatziioannou K, Hannam M, Ohme F (2019) Phenomenological model for the gravitational-wave signal from precessing binary black holes with two-spin effects. Phys Rev D 100:024059. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.024059. arXiv:1809.10113 [gr-qc]
Khan S, Ohme F, Chatziioannou K, Hannam M (2020) Including higher order multipoles in gravitational-wave models for precessing binary black holes. Phys Rev D 101:024056. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.024056. arXiv:1911.06050 [gr-qc]
Khoury J, Weltman A (2004) Chameleon cosmology. Phys Rev D 69:044026. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.69.044026. arXiv:astro-ph/0309411 [astro-ph]
Kibble TWB (1985) Evolution of a system of cosmic strings. Nucl Phys B 252:227. https://doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(85)90596-6, [Erratum: Nucl. Phys. B 261, 750 (1985)]
Kimura R, Yamamoto K (2012) Constraints on general second-order scalar-tensor models from gravitational Cherenkov radiation. JCAP 07:050. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2012/07/050. arXiv:1112.4284 [astro-ph.CO]
Kleihaus B, Kunz J, List M (2005) Rotating boson stars and Q-balls. Phys Rev D 72:064002. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.72.064002. arXiv:gr-qc/0505143
Kleihaus B, Kunz J, Radu E (2011) Rotating Black Holes in Dilatonic Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet Theory. Phys Rev Lett 106:151104. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.151104. arXiv:1101.2868 [gr-qc]
Kleihaus B, Kunz J, Yazadjiev S (2015) Scalarized Hairy Black Holes. Phys Lett B 744:406–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2015.04.014. arXiv:1503.01672 [gr-qc]
Klein A et al (2016) Science with the space-based interferometer eLISA: Supermassive black hole binaries. Phys Rev D 93:024003. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.93.024003. arXiv:1511.05581 [gr-qc]
Knorr B, Saueressig F (2018) Towards reconstructing the quantum effective action of gravity. Phys Rev Lett 121:161304. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.161304. arXiv:1804.03846 [hep-th]
Kobayashi T (2019) Horndeski theory and beyond: a review. Rept Prog Phys 82:086901. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6633/ab2429. arXiv:1901.07183 [gr-qc]
Kocsis B, Yunes N, Loeb A (2011) Observable Signatures of EMRI Black Hole Binaries Embedded in Thin Accretion Disks. Phys Rev D 84:024032. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.86.049907. arXiv:1104.2322 [astro-ph.GA]
Kocsis B, Haiman Z, Loeb A (2012) Gas pile-up, gap overflow, and Type 1.5 migration in circumbinary disks: application to supermassive black hole binaries. Mon Not R Astron Soc 427:2680–2700. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22118.x. arXiv:1205.5268 [astro-ph.HE]
Kohri K, Terada T (2018) Semianalytic calculation of gravitational wave spectrum nonlinearly induced from primordial curvature perturbations. Phys Rev D 97:123532. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.123532. arXiv:1804.08577 [gr-qc]
Kohri K, Terada T (2021) Solar-mass primordial black holes explain NANOGrav hint of gravitational waves. Phys Lett B 813:136040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2020.136040. arXiv:2009.11853 [astro-ph.CO]
Kokkotas KD (1995) Pulsating relativistic stars. In: Relativistic gravitation and gravitational radiation. Proceedings, School of Physics, Les Houches, France, September 26–October 6, 1995. pp 89–102. arXiv:gr-qc/9603024 [gr-qc]
Kokkotas KD, Schmidt BG (1999) Quasinormal modes of stars and black holes. Living Rev Relativ 2:2. https://doi.org/10.12942/lrr-1999-2. arXiv:gr-qc/9909058 [gr-qc]
Konoplya R, Zhidenko A (2020) General parametrization of black holes: The only parameters that matter. Phys Rev D 101:124004. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.124004. arXiv:2001.06100 [gr-qc]
Korol V, Rossi EM, Groot PJ, Nelemans G, Toonen S, Brown AG (2017) Prospects for detection of detached double white dwarf binaries with Gaia, LSST and LISA. Mon Not R Astron Soc 470:1894–1910. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stx1285. arXiv:1703.02555 [astro-ph.HE]
Kostelecký VA, Mewes M (2016) Testing local Lorentz invariance with gravitational waves. Phys Lett B 757:510–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2016.04.040. arXiv:1602.04782 [gr-qc]
Koushiappas SM, Loeb A (2017) Maximum redshift of gravitational wave merger events. Phys Rev Lett 119:221104. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.221104. arXiv:1708.07380 [astro-ph.CO]
Kovács AD, Reall HS (2020) Well-Posed Formulation of Scalar-Tensor Effective Field Theory. Phys Rev Lett 124:221101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.221101. arXiv:2003.04327 [gr-qc]
Koyama K, Niz G, Tasinato G (2011) Analytic solutions in non-linear massive gravity. Phys Rev Lett 107:131101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.131101. arXiv:1103.4708 [hep-th]
Kozai Y (1962) Secular perturbations of asteroids with high inclination and eccentricity. Astron J 67:591–598. https://doi.org/10.1086/108790
Krishnendu NV, Yelikar AB (2019) Testing the Kerr Nature of Intermediate-Mass and Supermassive Black Hole Binaries Using Spin-Induced Multipole Moment Measurements. arXiv e-prints arXiv:1904.12712 [gr-qc]
Krishnendu NV, Arun KG, Mishra CK (2017) Testing the binary black hole nature of a compact binary coalescence. Phys Rev Lett 119:091101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.091101. arXiv:1701.06318 [gr-qc]
Kritos K, De Luca V, Franciolini G, Kehagias A, Riotto A (2021) The astro-primordial black hole merger rates: a reappraisal. JCAP 5:039. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2021/05/039. arXiv:2012.03585 [gr-qc]
Kühnel F, Starkman GD, Freese K (2017) Primordial Black-Hole and Macroscopic Dark-Matter Constraints with LISA. arXiv e-prints arXiv:1705.10361 [gr-qc]
Kuhnel F, Matas A, Starkman GD, Freese K (2020) Waves from the Centre: Probing PBH and other Macroscopic Dark Matter with LISA. Eur Phys J C 80:627. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-8183-4. arXiv:1811.06387 [gr-qc]
Kunihiro T (1995) A Geometrical formulation of the renormalization group method for global analysis. Prog Theor Phys 94:503–514. https://doi.org/10.1143/PTP.94.503, [Erratum: Prog. Theor. Phys. 95, 835 (1996)]. arXiv:hep-th/9505166 [hep-th]
Kuroda T, Takiwaki T, Kotake K (2014) Gravitational Wave Signatures from Low-mode Spiral Instabilities in Rapidly Rotating Supernova Cores. Phys Rev D 89:044011. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.89.044011. arXiv:1304.4372 [astro-ph.HE]
Kuroyanagi S, Takahashi T, Yokoyama S (2015) Blue-tilted Tensor Spectrum and Thermal History of the Universe. JCAP 02:003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2015/02/003. arXiv:1407.4785 [astro-ph.CO]
Kuroyanagi S, Chiba T, Takahashi T (2018) Probing the Universe through the Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background. JCAP 11:038. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2018/11/038. arXiv:1807.00786 [astro-ph.CO]
Kusenko A, Sasaki M, Sugiyama S, Takada M, Takhistov V, Vitagliano E (2020) Exploring Primordial Black Holes from the Multiverse with Optical Telescopes. Phys Rev Lett 125:181304. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.181304. arXiv:2001.09160 [astro-ph.CO]
Kyutoku K, Seto N (2016) Concise estimate of the expected number of detections for stellar-mass binary black holes by eLISA. Mon Not R Astron Soc 462:2177–2183. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stw1767. arXiv:1606.02298 [astro-ph.HE]
Kyutoku K, Seto N (2017) Gravitational-wave cosmography with LISA and the Hubble tension. Phys Rev D 95:083525. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.95.083525. arXiv:1609.07142 [astro-ph.CO]
Lackey BD, Bernuzzi S, Galley CR, Meidam J, Van Den Broeck C (2017) Effective-one-body waveforms for binary neutron stars using surrogate models. Phys Rev D 95:104036. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.95.104036. arXiv:1610.04742 [gr-qc]
Laddha A, Sen A (2019) Observational Signature of the Logarithmic Terms in the Soft Graviton Theorem. Phys Rev D 100:024009. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.024009. arXiv:1806.01872 [hep-th]
Laghi D, Tamanini N, Del Pozzo W, Sesana A, Gair J, Babak S, Izquierdo-Villalba D (2021) Gravitational-wave cosmology with extreme mass-ratio inspirals. Mon Not R Astron Soc 508:4512–4531. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab2741. arXiv:2102.01708 [astro-ph.CO]
Lagos M, Zhu H (2020) Gravitational couplings in Chameleon models. JCAP 06:061. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2020/06/061. arXiv:2003.01038 [gr-qc]
Lagos M, Fishbach M, Landry P, Holz DE (2019) Standard sirens with a running Planck mass. Phys Rev D 99:083504. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.083504. arXiv:1901.03321 [astro-ph.CO]
Landry P, Poisson E (2015) Tidal deformation of a slowly rotating material body. External metric. Phys Rev D 91:104018. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.91.104018. arXiv:1503.07366 [gr-qc]
Langlois D, Noui K (2016) Degenerate higher derivative theories beyond Horndeski: evading the Ostrogradski instability. JCAP 1602:034. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2016/02/034. arXiv:1510.06930 [gr-qc]
Langlois D, Saito R, Yamauchi D, Noui K (2018) Scalar-tensor theories and modified gravity in the wake of GW170817. Phys Rev D 97:061501. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.061501. arXiv:1711.07403 [gr-qc]
Le Tiec A, Casals M (2021) Spinning Black Holes Fall in Love. Phys Rev Lett 126:131102. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.131102. arXiv:2007.00214 [gr-qc]
Le Tiec A, Casals M, Franzin E (2021) Tidal Love numbers of Kerr black holes. Phys Rev D 103:084021. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.103.084021. arXiv:2010.15795 [gr-qc]
Leach SM, Liddle AR (2001) Inflationary perturbations near horizon crossing. Phys Rev D 63:043508. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.63.043508. arXiv:astro-ph/0010082
Leach SM, Sasaki M, Wands D, Liddle AR (2001) Enhancement of superhorizon scale inflationary curvature perturbations. Phys Rev D 64:023512. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.64.023512. arXiv:astro-ph/0101406
Lemos JPS, Weinberg EJ (2004) Quasiblack holes from extremal charged dust. Phys Rev D 69:104004. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.69.104004. arXiv:gr-qc/0311051
Lemos JPS, Zaslavskii OB (2008) Black hole mimickers: Regular versus singular behavior. Phys Rev D 78:024040. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.78.024040. arXiv:0806.0845 [gr-qc]
Lemos JPS, Lobo FSN, Quinet de Oliveira S (2003) Morris-Thorne wormholes with a cosmological constant. Phys Rev D 68:064004. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.68.064004. arXiv:gr-qc/0302049 [gr-qcarXiv:gr-qc/0302049 [gr-qc]
Lentati L et al (2015) European Pulsar Timing Array Limits On An Isotropic Stochastic Gravitational-Wave Background. Mon Not R Astron Soc 453:2576–2598. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stv1538. arXiv:1504.03692 [astro-ph.CO]
Letelier PS (1980) Anisotropic fluids with two-perfect-fluid components. Phys Rev D 22:807. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.22.807
Levin J (2006) Chaos and Order in Models of Black Hole Pairs. Phys Rev D 74:124027. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.74.124027. arXiv:gr-qc/0612003
Levin Y (2007) Starbursts near supermassive black holes: young stars in the Galactic Center, and gravitational waves in LISA band. Mon Not R Astron Soc 374:515–524. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11155.x. arXiv:astro-ph/0603583
Li B, Sotiriou TP, Barrow JD (2011) \(f(T)\) gravity and local Lorentz invariance. Phys Rev D 83:064035. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.83.064035. arXiv:1010.1041 [gr-qc]
Li M, Miao RX, Miao YG (2011) Degrees of freedom of \(f(T)\) gravity. JHEP 07:108. https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07(2011)108. arXiv:1105.5934 [hep-th]
Lidov ML (1962) The evolution of orbits of artificial satellites of planets under the action of gravitational perturbations of external bodies. Planet Space Sci 9(10):719–759. https://doi.org/10.1016/0032-0633(62)90129-0
Liebling SL, Palenzuela C (2017) Dynamical Boson Stars. Living Rev Relativ 20:5. https://doi.org/10.12942/lrr-2012-6. arXiv:1202.5809 [gr-qc]
Lin C, Mukohyama S (2017) A Class of Minimally Modified Gravity Theories. JCAP 10:033. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2017/10/033. arXiv:1708.03757 [gr-qc]
Liu X, Cao Z, Shao L (2020) Validating the effective-one-body numerical-relativity waveform models for spin-aligned binary black holes along eccentric orbits. Phys Rev D 101:044049. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.044049. arXiv:1910.00784 [gr-qc]
Lo RKL, Li TGF, Weinstein AJ (2019) Template-based Gravitational-Wave Echoes Search Using Bayesian Model Selection. Phys Rev D 99:084052. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.084052. arXiv:1811.07431 [gr-qc]
Lombriser L (2018) Parametrizations for tests of gravity. Int J Mod Phys D 27:1848002. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218271818480024. arXiv:1908.07892 [astro-ph.CO]
Lombriser L, Lima NA (2017) Challenges to Self-Acceleration in Modified Gravity from Gravitational Waves and Large-Scale Structure. Phys Lett B 765:382–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2016.12.048. arXiv:1602.07670 [astro-ph.CO]
Lombriser L, Taylor A (2016) Breaking a Dark Degeneracy with Gravitational Waves. JCAP 1603:031. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2016/03/031. arXiv:1509.08458 [astro-ph.CO]
London L, Khan S, Fauchon-Jones E, García C, Hannam M, Husa S, Jiménez-Forteza X, Kalaghatgi C, Ohme F, Pannarale F (2018) First higher-multipole model of gravitational waves from spinning and coalescing black-hole binaries. Phys Rev Lett 120:161102. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.161102. arXiv:1708.00404 [gr-qc]
Lorenz L, Ringeval C, Sakellariadou M (2010) Cosmic string loop distribution on all length scales and at any redshift. JCAP 10:003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2010/10/003. arXiv:1006.0931 [astro-ph.CO]
Lovelock D (1972) The four-dimensionality of space and the einstein tensor. J Math Phys 13:874–876. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1666069
Lu P, Takhistov V, Gelmini GB, Hayashi K, Inoue Y, Kusenko A (2021) Constraining Primordial Black Holes with Dwarf Galaxy Heating. Astrophys J Lett 908:L23. https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/abdcb6. arXiv:2007.02213 [astro-ph.CO]
Luckock H, Moss I (1986) Black holes have skyrmion hair. Phys Lett B 176:341–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(86)90175-9
Ludvigsen M (1989) Geodesic deviation at null infinity and the physical effects of very long wave gravitational radiation. Gen Relativ Gravit 21:1205–1212. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00763308
Lukes-Gerakopoulos G, Apostolatos TA, Contopoulos G (2010) Observable signature of a background deviating from the Kerr metric. Phys Rev D 81:124005. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.81.124005. arXiv:1003.3120 [gr-qc]
Lunin O, Mathur SD (2002) AdS / CFT duality and the black hole information paradox. Nucl Phys B 623:342–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0550-3213(01)00620-4. arXiv:hep-th/0109154
Lunin O, Mathur SD (2002) Statistical interpretation of Bekenstein entropy for systems with a stretched horizon. Phys Rev Lett 88:211303. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.211303. arXiv:hep-th/0202072
Lyutikov M (2016) Fermi GBM signal contemporaneous with GW150914 - an unlikely association. arXiv e-prints arXiv:1602.07352 [astro-ph.HE]
Macedo CF, Pani P, Cardoso V, Crispino LC (2013) Into the lair: gravitational-wave signatures of dark matter. Astrophys J 774:48. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/774/1/48. arXiv:1302.2646 [gr-qc]
Macedo CF, Pani P, Cardoso V, Crispino LCB (2013) Astrophysical signatures of boson stars: quasinormal modes and inspiral resonances. Phys Rev D 88:064046. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.88.064046. arXiv:1307.4812 [gr-qc]
Macedo CF, Sakstein J, Berti E, Gualtieri L, Silva HO, Sotiriou TP (2019) Self-interactions and Spontaneous Black Hole Scalarization. Phys Rev D 99:104041. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.104041. arXiv:1903.06784 [gr-qc]
MacLeod CL, Hogan CJ (2008) Precision of Hubble constant derived using black hole binary absolute distances and statistical redshift information. Phys Rev D 77:043512. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.77.043512. arXiv:0712.0618 [astro-ph]
Maggio E, Pani P, Ferrari V (2017) Exotic Compact Objects and How to Quench their Ergoregion Instability. Phys Rev D 96:104047. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.96.104047. arXiv:1703.03696 [gr-qc]
Maggio E, Cardoso V, Dolan SR, Pani P (2019) Ergoregion instability of exotic compact objects: electromagnetic and gravitational perturbations and the role of absorption. Phys Rev D 99:064007. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.064007. arXiv:1807.08840 [gr-qc]
Maggio E, Testa A, Bhagwat S, Pani P (2019) Analytical model for gravitational-wave echoes from spinning remnants. Phys Rev D 100:064056. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.064056. arXiv:1907.03091 [gr-qc]
Maggio E, Buoninfante L, Mazumdar A, Pani P (2020) How does a dark compact object ringdown? Phys Rev D 102:064053. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.064053. arXiv:2006.14628 [gr-qc]
Maggio E, van de Meent M, Pani P (2021) Extreme mass-ratio inspirals around a spinning horizonless compact object. Phys Rev D 104:104026. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.104.104026. arXiv:2106.07195 [gr-qc]
Maggiore M (2007) Gravitational Waves. Vol. 1: Theory and Experiments. Oxford Master Series in Physics, Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198570745.001.0001
Maggiore M (2014) Phantom dark energy from nonlocal infrared modifications of general relativity. Phys Rev D 89:043008. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.89.043008. arXiv:1307.3898 [hep-th]
Maldacena JM, Strominger A, Witten E (1997) Black hole entropy in M theory. JHEP 12:002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/1997/12/002. arXiv:hep-th/9711053
Maluf J (2013) The teleparallel equivalent of general relativity. Annalen Phys 525:339–357. https://doi.org/10.1002/andp.201200272. arXiv:1303.3897 [gr-qc]
Mangiagli A, Klein A, Sesana A, Barausse E, Colpi M (2019) Post-Newtonian phase accuracy requirements for stellar black hole binaries with LISA. Phys Rev D 99:064056. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.064056. arXiv:1811.01805 [gr-qc]
Manshanden J, Gaggero D, Bertone G, Connors RM, Ricotti M (2019) Multi-wavelength astronomical searches for primordial black holes. JCAP 06:026. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2019/06/026. arXiv:1812.07967 [astro-ph.HE]
Marassi S, Ciolfi R, Schneider R, Stella L, Ferrari V (2011) Stochastic background of gravitational waves emitted by magnetars. Mon Not R Astron Soc 411:2549. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17861.x. arXiv:1009.1240 [astro-ph.CO]
Margalit A, Contaldi CR, Pieroni M (2020) Phase decoherence of gravitational wave backgrounds. Phys Rev D 102:083506. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.083506. arXiv:2004.01727 [astro-ph.CO]
Mark Z, Zimmerman A, Du SM, Chen Y (2017) A recipe for echoes from exotic compact objects. Phys Rev D 96:084002. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.96.084002. arXiv:1706.06155 [gr-qc]
Marsh DJE (2016) Axion Cosmology. Phys Rept 643:1–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2016.06.005. arXiv:1510.07633 [astro-ph.CO]
Maselli A, Gualtieri L, Pannarale F, Ferrari V (2012) On the validity of the adiabatic approximation in compact binary inspirals. Phys Rev D 86:044032. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.86.044032. arXiv:1205.7006 [gr-qc]
Maselli A, Pani P, Gualtieri L, Ferrari V (2015) Rotating black holes in Einstein–Dilaton–Gauss–Bonnet gravity with finite coupling. Phys Rev D 92:083014. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.92.083014. arXiv:1507.00680 [gr-qc]
Maselli A, Marassi S, Ferrari V, Kokkotas K, Schneider R (2016) Constraining Modified Theories of Gravity with Gravitational-Wave Stochastic Backgrounds. Phys Rev Lett 117:091102. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.091102. arXiv:1606.04996 [gr-qc]
Maselli A, Völkel SH, Kokkotas KD (2017) Parameter estimation of gravitational wave echoes from exotic compact objects. Phys Rev D 96:064045. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.96.064045. arXiv:1708.02217 [gr-qc]
Maselli A, Pani P, Cardoso V, Abdelsalhin T, Gualtieri L, Ferrari V (2018) Probing Planckian corrections at the horizon scale with LISA binaries. Phys Rev Lett 120:081101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.081101. arXiv:1703.10612 [gr-qc]
Maselli A, Pani P, Cardoso V, Abdelsalhin T, Gualtieri L, Ferrari V (2019) From micro to macro and back: probing near-horizon quantum structures with gravitational waves. Class Quantum Grav 36:167001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/ab30ff. arXiv:1811.03689 [gr-qc]
Maselli A, Franchini N, Gualtieri L, Sotiriou TP (2020) Detecting scalar fields with Extreme Mass Ratio Inspirals. Phys Rev Lett 125:141101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.141101. arXiv:2004.11895 [gr-qc]
Maselli A, Pani P, Gualtieri L, Berti E (2020) Parametrized ringdown spin expansion coefficients: a data-analysis framework for black-hole spectroscopy with multiple events. Phys Rev D 101:024043. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.024043. arXiv:1910.12893 [gr-qc]
Maselli A, Franchini N, Gualtieri L, Sotiriou TP, Barsanti S, Pani P (2022) Detecting fundamental fields with LISA observations of gravitational waves from extreme mass-ratio inspirals. Nature Astron https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-021-01589-5. arXiv:2106.11325 [gr-qc]
Matas A et al (2020) Aligned-spin neutron-star-black-hole waveform model based on the effective-one-body approach and numerical-relativity simulations. Phys Rev D 102:043023. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.043023. arXiv:2004.10001 [gr-qc]
Mathur SD (2005) The Fuzzball proposal for black holes: An Elementary review. Fortsch Phys 53:793–827. https://doi.org/10.1002/prop.200410203. arXiv:hep-th/0502050
Mathur SD (2009) Fuzzballs and the information paradox: A Summary and conjectures. Adv Sci Lett 2:133–150. https://doi.org/10.1166/asl.2009.1021. arXiv:0810.4525 [hep-th]
Mathur SD (2009) The Information paradox: A Pedagogical introduction. Class Quantum Grav 26:224001. https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/26/22/224001. arXiv:0909.1038 [hep-th]
Max K, Platscher M, Smirnov J (2017) Gravitational Wave Oscillations in Bigravity. Phys Rev Lett 119:111101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.111101. arXiv:1703.07785 [gr-qc]
Mayerson DR (2020) Fuzzballs and Observations. Gen Relativ Gravit 52:115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10714-020-02769-w. arXiv:2010.09736 [hep-th]
Mazur PO (1982) Proof of uniqueness of the Kerr–Newman black hole solution. J Phys A 15:3173–3180. https://doi.org/10.1088/0305-4470/15/10/021
Mazur PO, Mottola E (2004) Gravitational vacuum condensate stars. Proc Nat Acad Sci 101:9545–9550. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0402717101. arXiv:gr-qc/0407075 [gr-qc]
Mazur PO, Mottola E (2015) Surface tension and negative pressure interior of a non-singular ‘black hole’. Class Quantum Grav 32:215024. https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/32/21/215024. arXiv:1501.03806 [gr-qc]
McGee S, Sesana A, Vecchio A (2020) Linking gravitational waves and X-ray phenomena with joint LISA and Athena observations. Nature Astron 4:26–31. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-019-0969-7. arXiv:1811.00050 [astro-ph.HE]
McManus R, Lombriser L, Peñarrubia J (2016) Finding Horndeski theories with Einstein gravity limits. JCAP 11:006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2016/11/006. arXiv:1606.03282 [gr-qc]
McManus R, Lombriser L, Peñarrubia J (2017) Parameterised Post-Newtonian Expansion in Screened Regions. JCAP 12:031. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2017/12/031. arXiv:1705.05324 [gr-qc]
McManus R, Berti E, Macedo CF, Kimura M, Maselli A, Cardoso V (2019) Parametrized black hole quasinormal ringdown. II. Coupled equations and quadratic corrections for nonrotating black holes. Phys Rev D 100:044061. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.044061. arXiv:1906.05155 [gr-qc]
Meacher D, Coughlin M, Morris S, Regimbau T, Christensen N, Kandhasamy S, Mandic V, Romano JD, Thrane E (2015) Mock data and science challenge for detecting an astrophysical stochastic gravitational-wave background with Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo. Phys Rev D 92:063002. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.92.063002. arXiv:1506.06744 [astro-ph.HE]
Meidam J, Agathos M, Van Den Broeck C, Veitch J, Sathyaprakash B (2014) Testing the no-hair theorem with black hole ringdowns using TIGER. Phys Rev D 90:064009. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.90.064009. arXiv:1406.3201 [gr-qc]
Menou K, Goodman J (2004) Low - mass proto-planet migration in T-Tauri alpha-disks. Astrophys J 606:520–531. https://doi.org/10.1086/382947. arXiv:astro-ph/0310169
Merritt D, Milosavljevic M, Verde L, Jimenez R (2002) Dark matter spikes and annihilation radiation from the galactic center. Phys Rev Lett 88:191301. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.191301. arXiv:astro-ph/0201376
Metsaev R, Tseytlin AA (1987) Curvature Cubed Terms in String Theory Effective Actions. Phys Lett B 185:52–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(87)91527-9
Miller J, Pound A (2021) Two-timescale evolution of extreme-mass-ratio inspirals: waveform generation scheme for quasicircular orbits in Schwarzschild spacetime. Phys Rev D 103:064048. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.103.064048. arXiv:2006.11263 [gr-qc]
Miller MC, Hamilton DP (2002) Four-body effects in globular cluster black hole coalescence. Astrophys J 576:894. https://doi.org/10.1086/341788. arXiv:astro-ph/0202298
Milosavljevic M, Loeb A (2004) The Link between warm molecular disks in maser nuclei and star formation near the black hole at the Galactic Center. Astrophys J Lett 604:L45. https://doi.org/10.1086/383467. arXiv:astro-ph/0401221
Milosavljević M, Phinney ES (2005) The Afterglow of Massive Black Hole Coalescence. Astrophys J Lett 622:L93–L96. https://doi.org/10.1086/429618. arXiv:astro-ph/0410343 [astro-ph]
Minamitsuji M (2017) Black holes in the generalized Proca theory. Gen Relativ Gravit 49:86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10714-017-2250-7
Minamitsuji M (2018) Vector boson star solutions with a quartic order self-interaction. Phys Rev D 97:104023. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.104023. arXiv:1805.09867 [gr-qc]
Mirbabayi M, Gruzinov A, Noreña J (2020) Spin of Primordial Black Holes. JCAP 03:017. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2020/03/017. arXiv:1901.05963 [astro-ph.CO]
Mirshekari S, Yunes N, Will CM (2012) Constraining Generic Lorentz Violation and the Speed of the Graviton with Gravitational Waves. Phys Rev D 85:024041. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.85.024041. arXiv:1110.2720 [gr-qc]
Moffat JW (2015) Black Holes in Modified Gravity (MOG). Eur Phys J C 75:175. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3405-x. arXiv:1412.5424 [gr-qc]
Molina C, Pani P, Cardoso V, Gualtieri L (2010) Gravitational signature of Schwarzschild black holes in dynamical Chern-Simons gravity. Phys Rev D 81:124021. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.81.124021. arXiv:1004.4007 [gr-qc]
Mollerach S, Harari D, Matarrese S (2004) CMB polarization from secondary vector and tensor modes. Phys Rev D 69:063002. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.69.063002. arXiv:astro-ph/0310711
Montero-Camacho P, Fang X, Vasquez G, Silva M, Hirata CM (2019) Revisiting constraints on asteroid-mass primordial black holes as dark matter candidates. JCAP 08:031. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2019/08/031. arXiv:1906.05950 [astro-ph.CO]
Moore B, Yunes N (2019) A 3PN Fourier Domain Waveform for Non-Spinning Binaries with Moderate Eccentricity. Class Quantum Grav 36:185003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/ab3778. arXiv:1903.05203 [gr-qc]
Moore B, Yunes N (2020) Constraining Gravity with Eccentric Gravitational Waves: Projected Upper Bounds and Model Selection. Class Quantum Grav 37:165006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/ab8bb6. arXiv:2002.05775 [gr-qc]
Moore C, Cole R, Berry C (2015) Gravitational-wave sensitivity curves. Class Quantum Grav 32:015014. https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/32/1/015014. arXiv:1408.0740 [gr-qc]
Moore CJ, Chua AJK, Gair JR (2017) Gravitational waves from extreme mass ratio inspirals around bumpy black holes. Class Quantum Grav 34:195009. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/aa85fa. arXiv:1707.00712 [gr-qc]
Moore CJ, Gerosa D, Klein A (2019) Are stellar-mass black-hole binaries too quiet for LISA? Mon Not R Astron Soc 488:L94–L98. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnrasl/slz104. arXiv:1905.11998 [astro-ph.HE]
Moore GD, Nelson AE (2001) Lower bound on the propagation speed of gravity from gravitational Cherenkov radiation. JHEP 09:023. https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2001/09/023. arXiv:hep-ph/0106220
Moradinezhad Dizgah A, Franciolini G, Riotto A (2019) Primordial Black Holes from Broad Spectra: Abundance and Clustering. JCAP 11:001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2019/11/001. arXiv:1906.08978 [astro-ph.CO]
Morita T, Soda J (2019) Arrival Time Differences of Lensed Massive Gravitational Waves. arXiv e-prints arXiv:1911.07435 [gr-qc]
Morris MS, Thorne KS (1988) Wormholes in space-time and their use for interstellar travel: A tool for teaching general relativity. Am J Phys 56:395–412. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.15620
Moschidis G (2016) Superradiant instabilities for short-range non-negative potentials on Kerr spacetimes and applications. arXiv e-prints arXiv:1608.02041 [math.AP]
Mottola E, Vaulin R (2006) Macroscopic Effects of the Quantum Trace Anomaly. Phys Rev D 74:064004. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.74.064004. arXiv:gr-qc/0604051
Mueller B, Janka HT, Marek A (2013) A New Multi-Dimensional General Relativistic Neutrino Hydrodynamics Code of Core-Collapse Supernovae III. Gravitational Wave Signals from Supernova Explosion Models. Astrophys J 766:43. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/766/1/43. arXiv:1210.6984 [astro-ph.SR]
Mukhanov VF (1986) Are black holes quantized? JETP Lett 44:63–66
Mukherjee S, Silk J (2021) Can we distinguish astrophysical from primordial black holes via the stochastic gravitational wave background? Mon Not R Astron Soc 506:3977–3985. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab1932. arXiv:2105.11139 [gr-qc]
Mukherjee S, Wandelt BD, Silk J (2020a) Multimessenger tests of gravity with weakly lensed gravitational waves. Phys Rev D 101:103509. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.103509. arXiv:1908.08950 [astro-ph.CO]
Mukherjee S, Wandelt BD, Silk J (2020b) Probing the theory of gravity with gravitational lensing of gravitational waves and galaxy surveys. Mon Not R Astron Soc 494:1956–1970. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staa827. arXiv:1908.08951 [astro-ph.CO]
Mukherjee S, Wandelt BD, Nissanke SM, Silvestri A (2021) Accurate precision cosmology with redshift unknown gravitational wave sources. Phys Rev D 103:043520. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.103.043520. arXiv:2007.02943 [astro-ph.CO]
Mukherjee S, Meinema MSP, Silk J (2022) Prospects of discovering subsolar primordial black holes using the stochastic gravitational wave background from third-generation detectors. Mon Not R Astron Soc 510:6218–6224. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab3756. arXiv:2107.02181 [astro-ph.CO]
Myers RC (1997) Pure states don’t wear black. Gen Relativ Gravit 29:1217–1222. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018855611972. arXiv:gr-qc/9705065
Nagar A (2011) Effective one body Hamiltonian of two spinning black-holes with next-to-next-to-leading order spin-orbit coupling. Phys Rev D 84:084028. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.84.084028, [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 88, 089901 (2013)]. arXiv:1106.4349 [gr-qc]
Nagar A, Rettegno P (2019) Efficient effective one body time-domain gravitational waveforms. Phys Rev D 99:021501. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.021501. arXiv:1805.03891 [gr-qc]
Nagar A, Messina F, Rettegno P, Bini D, Damour T, Geralico A, Akcay S, Bernuzzi S (2019) Nonlinear-in-spin effects in effective-one-body waveform models of spin-aligned, inspiralling, neutron star binaries. Phys Rev D 99:044007. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.044007. arXiv:1812.07923 [gr-qc]
Nagar A, Pratten G, Riemenschneider G, Gamba R (2020) Multipolar effective one body model for nonspinning black hole binaries. Phys Rev D 101:024041. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.024041. arXiv:1904.09550 [gr-qc]
Nagar A, Riemenschneider G, Pratten G, Rettegno P, Messina F (2020) Multipolar effective one body waveform model for spin-aligned black hole binaries. Phys Rev D 102:024077. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.024077. arXiv:2001.09082 [gr-qc]
Nagar A et al (2018) Time-domain effective-one-body gravitational waveforms for coalescing compact binaries with nonprecessing spins, tides and self-spin effects. Phys Rev D 98:104052. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.104052. arXiv:1806.01772 [gr-qc]
Nair R, Perkins S, Silva HO, Yunes N (2019) Fundamental Physics Implications for Higher-Curvature Theories from Binary Black Hole Signals in the LIGO-Virgo Catalog GWTC-1. Phys Rev Lett 123:191101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.191101. arXiv:1905.00870 [gr-qc]
Nakama T, Carr B, Silk J (2018) Limits on primordial black holes from \(\mu \) distortions in cosmic microwave background. Phys Rev D 97:043525. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.043525. arXiv:1710.06945 [astro-ph.CO]
Nakano H, Sago N, Tagoshi H, Tanaka T (2017) Black hole ringdown echoes and howls. PTEP 2017:071E01. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptep/ptx093. arXiv:1704.07175 [gr-qc]
Nandra K, et al. (2013) The Hot and Energetic Universe: A White Paper presenting the science theme motivating the Athena+ mission. arXiv e-prints arXiv:1306.2307 [astro-ph.HE]
Naoz S, Farr WM, Lithwick Y, Rasio FA, Teyssandier J (2013) Secular dynamics in hierarchical three-body systems. Mon Not R Astron Soc 431:2155–2171. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stt302. arXiv:1107.2414 [astro-ph.EP]
Nasipak Z, Osburn T, Evans CR (2019) Repeated faint quasinormal bursts in extreme-mass-ratio inspiral waveforms: Evidence from frequency-domain scalar self-force calculations on generic Kerr orbits. Phys Rev D 100:064008. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.064008. arXiv:1905.13237 [gr-qc]
Nelson AE, Scholtz J (2011) Dark Light, Dark Matter and the Misalignment Mechanism. Phys Rev D 84:103501. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.84.103501. arXiv:1105.2812 [hep-ph]
Ng KKY, Isi M, Haster CJ, Vitale S (2020) Multiband gravitational-wave searches for ultralight bosons. Phys Rev D 102:083020. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.083020. arXiv:2007.12793 [gr-qc]
Ng KKY, Hannuksela OA, Vitale S, Li TGF (2021) Searching for ultralight bosons within spin measurements of a population of binary black hole mergers. Phys Rev D 103:063010. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.103.063010. arXiv:1908.02312 [gr-qc]
Nichols DA (2017) Spin memory effect for compact binaries in the post-Newtonian approximation. Phys Rev D 95:084048. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.95.084048. arXiv:1702.03300 [gr-qc]
Nichols DA (2018) Center-of-mass angular momentum and memory effect in asymptotically flat spacetimes. Phys Rev D 98:064032. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.064032. arXiv:1807.08767 [gr-qc]
Nicolaou C, Lahav O, Lemos P, Hartley W, Braden J (2020) The Impact of Peculiar Velocities on the Estimation of the Hubble Constant from Gravitational Wave Standard Sirens. Mon Not R Astron Soc 495:90–97. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staa1120. arXiv:1909.09609 [astro-ph.CO]
Nielsen AB, Capano CD, Birnholtz O, Westerweck J (2019) Parameter estimation and statistical significance of echoes following black hole signals in the first Advanced LIGO observing run. Phys Rev D 99:104012. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.104012. arXiv:1811.04904 [gr-qc]
Niikura H, Takada M, Yokoyama S, Sumi T, Masaki S (2019) Constraints on Earth-mass primordial black holes from OGLE 5-year microlensing events. Phys Rev D 99:083503. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.083503. arXiv:1901.07120 [astro-ph.CO]
Niikura H et al (2019) Microlensing constraints on primordial black holes with Subaru/HSC Andromeda observations. Nature Astron 3:524–534. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-019-0723-1. arXiv:1701.02151 [astro-ph.CO]
Nishizawa A (2018) Generalized framework for testing gravity with gravitational-wave propagation. I. Formulation. Phys Rev D 97:104037. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.104037. arXiv:1710.04825 [gr-qc]
Nishizawa A, Nakamura T (2014) Measuring Speed of Gravitational Waves by Observations of Photons and Neutrinos from Compact Binary Mergers and Supernovae. Phys Rev D 90:044048. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.90.044048. arXiv:1406.5544 [gr-qc]
Nishizawa A, Taruya A, Hayama K, Kawamura S, Ma Sakagami (2009) Probing non-tensorial polarizations of stochastic gravitational-wave backgrounds with ground-based laser interferometers. Phys Rev D 79:082002. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.79.082002. arXiv:0903.0528 [astro-ph.CO]
Nissanke S, Holz DE, Dalal N, Hughes SA, Sievers JL, Hirata CM (2013) Determining the Hubble constant from gravitational wave observations of merging compact binaries. arXiv e-prints arXiv:1307.2638 [astro-ph.CO]
Noller J, Santoni L, Trincherini E, Trombetta LG (2020) Black Hole Ringdown as a Probe for Dark Energy. Phys Rev D 101:084049. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.084049. arXiv:1911.11671 [gr-qc]
Nucamendi U, Salgado M (2003) Scalar hairy black holes and solitons in asymptotically flat space-times. Phys Rev D 68:044026044026. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.68.044026. arXiv:gr-qc/0301062
Oguri M (2016) Measuring the distance-redshift relation with the cross-correlation of gravitational wave standard sirens and galaxies. Phys Rev D 93:083511. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.93.083511. arXiv:1603.02356 [astro-ph.CO]
Oguri M, Diego JM, Kaiser N, Kelly PL, Broadhurst T (2018) Understanding caustic crossings in giant arcs: characteristic scales, event rates, and constraints on compact dark matter. Phys Rev D 97:023518. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.023518. arXiv:1710.00148 [astro-ph.CO]
Okounkova M (2019) Stability of Rotating Black Holes in Einstein Dilaton Gauss-Bonnet Gravity. Phys Rev D 100:124054. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.124054. arXiv:1909.12251 [gr-qc]
Okounkova M (2020) Numerical relativity simulation of GW150914 in Einstein-dilaton-Gauss-Bonnet gravity. Phys Rev D 102:084046. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.084046. arXiv:2001.03571 [gr-qc]
Okounkova M, Stein LC, Scheel MA, Hemberger DA (2017) Numerical binary black hole mergers in dynamical Chern-Simons gravity: Scalar field. Phys Rev D 96:044020. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.96.044020. arXiv:1705.07924 [gr-qc]
Okounkova M, Scheel MA, Teukolsky SA (2019) Evolving Metric Perturbations in dynamical Chern-Simons Gravity. Phys Rev D 99:044019. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.044019. arXiv:1811.10713 [gr-qc]
Okounkova M, Stein LC, Scheel MA, Teukolsky SA (2019) Numerical binary black hole collisions in dynamical Chern-Simons gravity. Phys Rev D 100:104026. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.104026. arXiv:1906.08789 [gr-qc]
Okounkova M, Stein LC, Moxon J, Scheel MA, Teukolsky SA (2020) Numerical relativity simulation of GW150914 beyond general relativity. Phys Rev D 101:104016. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.104016. arXiv:1911.02588 [gr-qc]
Oost J, Mukohyama S, Wang A (2018) Constraints on Einstein-aether theory after GW170817. Phys Rev D 97:124023. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.124023. arXiv:1802.04303 [gr-qc]
Oshita N, Afshordi N (2019) Probing microstructure of black hole spacetimes with gravitational wave echoes. Phys Rev D 99:044002. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.044002. arXiv:1807.10287 [gr-qc]
Oshita N, Tsuna D, Afshordi N (2020) Quantum Black Hole Seismology I: Echoes, Ergospheres, and Spectra. Phys Rev D 102:024045. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.024045. arXiv:2001.11642 [gr-qc]
Ossokine S et al (2020) Multipolar Effective-One-Body Waveforms for Precessing Binary Black Holes: Construction and Validation. Phys Rev D 102:044055. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.044055. arXiv:2004.09442 [gr-qc]
Ota I, Chirenti C (2020) Overtones or higher harmonics? Prospects for testing the no-hair theorem with gravitational wave detections. Phys Rev D 101:104005. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.104005. arXiv:1911.00440 [gr-qc]
Ott CD, Abdikamalov E, Mösta P, Haas R, Drasco S, O’Connor EP, Reisswig C, Meakin CA, Schnetter E (2013) General-Relativistic Simulations of Three-Dimensional Core-Collapse Supernovae. Astrophys J 768:115. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/768/2/115. arXiv:1210.6674 [astro-ph.HE]
Paardekooper SJ, Mellema G (2006) Halting Type I planet migration in non-isothermal disks. Astron Astrophys 459:L17. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20066304. arXiv:astro-ph/0608658
Pacilio C, Vaglio M, Maselli A, Pani P (2020) Gravitational-wave detectors as particle-physics laboratories: Constraining scalar interactions with a coherent inspiral model of boson-star binaries. Phys Rev D 102:083002. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.083002. arXiv:2007.05264 [gr-qc]
Padilla A (2015) Lectures on the Cosmological Constant Problem. arXiv e-prints arXiv:1502.05296 [hep-th]
Page DN (2004) Classical and quantum decay of oscillatons: Oscillating selfgravitating real scalar field solitons. Phys Rev D 70:023002. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.70.023002. arXiv:gr-qc/0310006
Palenzuela C, Lehner L, Liebling SL (2008) Orbital Dynamics of Binary Boson Star Systems. Phys Rev D 77:044036. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.77.044036. arXiv:0706.2435 [gr-qc]
Palenzuela C, Pani P, Bezares M, Cardoso V, Lehner L, Liebling S (2017) Gravitational Wave Signatures of Highly Compact Boson Star Binaries. Phys Rev D 96:104058. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.96.104058. arXiv:1710.09432 [gr-qc]
Palma GA, Sypsas S, Zenteno C (2020) Seeding primordial black holes in multifield inflation. Phys Rev Lett 125:121301. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.121301. arXiv:2004.06106 [astro-ph.CO]
Palmese A et al (2020) A Statistical Standard Siren Measurement of the Hubble Constant from the LIGO/Virgo Gravitational Wave Compact Object Merger GW190814 and Dark Energy Survey Galaxies. Astrophys J Lett 900:L33. https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/abaeff. arXiv:2006.14961 [astro-ph.CO]
Pan Y, Buonanno A, Fujita R, Racine E, Tagoshi H (2011) Post-Newtonian factorized multipolar waveforms for spinning, non-precessing black-hole binaries. Phys Rev D 83:064003. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.83.064003, [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 87, 109901 (2013)]. arXiv:1006.0431 [gr-qc]
Pang PT, Lo RK, Wong IC, Li TG, Van Den Broeck C (2020) Generic searches for alternative gravitational wave polarizations with networks of interferometric detectors. Phys Rev D 101:104055. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.104055. arXiv:2003.07375 [gr-qc]
Pani P (2015) I-Love-Q relations for gravastars and the approach to the black-hole limit. Phys Rev D 92:124030. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.95.049902, [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 95, 049902 (2017)]. arXiv:1506.06050 [gr-qc]
Pani P, Ferrari V (2018) On gravitational-wave echoes from neutron-star binary coalescences. Class Quantum Grav 35:15LT01. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/aacb8f. arXiv:1804.01444 [gr-qc]
Pani P, Maselli A (2019) Love in Extrema Ratio. Int J Mod Phys D 28:1944001. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218271819440012. arXiv:1905.03947 [gr-qc]
Pani P, Sotiriou TP (2012) Surface singularities in Eddington-inspired Born-Infeld gravity. Phys Rev Lett 109:251102. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.251102. arXiv:1209.2972 [gr-qc]
Pani P, Berti E, Cardoso V, Chen Y, Norte R (2009) Gravitational wave signatures of the absence of an event horizon. I. Nonradial oscillations of a thin-shell gravastar. Phys Rev D 80:124047. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.80.124047. arXiv:0909.0287 [gr-qc]
Pani P, Berti E, Cardoso V, Chen Y, Norte R (2010) Gravitational-wave signatures of the absence of an event horizon. II. Extreme mass ratio inspirals in the spacetime of a thin-shell gravastar. Phys Rev D 81:084011. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.81.084011. arXiv:1001.3031 [gr-qc]
Pani P, Cardoso V, Gualtieri L (2011) Gravitational waves from extreme mass-ratio inspirals in Dynamical Chern-Simons gravity. Phys Rev D 83:104048. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.83.104048. arXiv:1104.1183 [gr-qc]
Pani P, Macedo CF, Crispino LCB, Cardoso V (2011) Slowly rotating black holes in alternative theories of gravity. Phys Rev D 84:087501. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.84.087501. arXiv:1109.3996 [gr-qc]
Pani P, Cardoso V, Gualtieri L, Berti E, Ishibashi A (2012) Black hole bombs and photon mass bounds. Phys Rev Lett 109:131102. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.131102. arXiv:1209.0465 [gr-qc]
Pani P, Cardoso V, Gualtieri L, Berti E, Ishibashi A (2012) Perturbations of slowly rotating black holes: massive vector fields in the Kerr metric. Phys Rev D 86:104017. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.86.104017. arXiv:1209.0773 [gr-qc]
Pani P, Berti E, Gualtieri L (2013) Gravitoelectromagnetic Perturbations of Kerr-Newman Black Holes: Stability and Isospectrality in the Slow-Rotation Limit. Phys Rev Lett 110:241103. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.241103. arXiv:1304.1160 [gr-qc]
Pani P, Sotiriou TP, Vernieri D (2013) Gravity with Auxiliary Fields. Phys Rev D 88:121502. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.88.121502. arXiv:1306.1835 [gr-qc]
Pani P, Gualtieri L, Ferrari V (2015) Tidal Love numbers of a slowly spinning neutron star. Phys Rev D 92:124003. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.92.124003. arXiv:1509.02171 [gr-qc]
Pani P, Gualtieri L, Maselli A, Ferrari V (2015) Tidal deformations of a spinning compact object. Phys Rev D 92:024010. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.92.024010. arXiv:1503.07365 [gr-qc]
Papallo G (2017) On the hyperbolicity of the most general Horndeski theory. Phys Rev D 96:124036. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.96.124036. arXiv:1710.10155 [gr-qc]
Papallo G, Reall HS (2017) On the local well-posedness of Lovelock and Horndeski theories. Phys Rev D 96:044019. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.96.044019. arXiv:1705.04370 [gr-qc]
Pardo K, Fishbach M, Holz DE, Spergel DN (2018) Limits on the number of spacetime dimensions from GW170817. JCAP 07:048. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2018/07/048. arXiv:1801.08160 [gr-qc]
Pasterski S, Strominger A, Zhiboedov A (2016) New Gravitational Memories. JHEP 12:053. https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12(2016)053. arXiv:1502.06120 [hep-th]
Pattison C, Vennin V, Wands D, Assadullah H (2021) Ultra-slow-roll inflation with quantum diffusion. JCAP 04:080. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2021/04/080. arXiv:2101.05741 [astro-ph.CO]
Payne PN (1983) Smarr’s zero-frequency-limit calculation. Phys Rev D 28:1894–1897. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.28.1894
Peccei RD, Quinn HR (1977) CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons. Phys Rev Lett 38:1440–1443. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.38.1440
Penrose R (1965) Gravitational collapse and space-time singularities. Phys Rev Lett 14:57–59. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.14.57
Perkins S, Yunes N (2019) Probing Screening and the Graviton Mass with Gravitational Waves. Class Quantum Grav 36:055013. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/aafce6. arXiv:1811.02533 [gr-qc]
Perkins SE, Nair R, Silva HO, Yunes N (2021) Improved gravitational-wave constraints on higher-order curvature theories of gravity. Phys Rev D 104:024060. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.104.024060. arXiv:2104.11189 [gr-qc]
Perkins SE, Yunes N, Berti E (2021) Probing Fundamental Physics with Gravitational Waves: The Next Generation. Phys Rev D 103:044024. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.103.044024. arXiv:2010.09010 [gr-qc]
Pesce DW et al (2020) The Megamaser Cosmology Project. XIII. Combined Hubble constant constraints. Astrophys J Lett 891:L1. https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ab75f0. arXiv:2001.09213 [astro-ph.CO]
Petiteau A, Babak S, Sesana A (2011) Constraining the dark energy equation of state using LISA observations of spinning Massive Black Hole binaries. Astrophys J 732:82. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/732/2/82. arXiv:1102.0769 [astro-ph.CO]
Pettorino V, Amendola L, Wetterich C (2013) How early is early dark energy? Phys Rev D 87:083009. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.87.083009. arXiv:1301.5279 [astro-ph.CO]
Philcox OH, Ivanov MM, Simonović M, Zaldarriaga M (2020) Combining Full-Shape and BAO Analyses of Galaxy Power Spectra: A 1.6% CMB-independent constraint on H0. JCAP 05:032. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2020/05/032. arXiv:2002.04035 [astro-ph.CO]
Pi S, Sasaki M (2020) Gravitational waves induced by scalar perturbations with a lognormal peak. JCAP 9:037. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2020/09/037. arXiv:2005.12306 [gr-qc]
Pieroni M, Barausse E (2020) Foreground cleaning and template-free stochastic background extraction for LISA. JCAP 07:021. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2020/07/021, [Erratum: JCAP 09, E01 (2020)]. arXiv:2004.01135 [astro-ph.CO]
Piro L et al (2021) Multi-messenger-Athena Synergy White Paper. arXiv e-prints arXiv:2110.15677 [astro-ph.HE]
Planck Collaboration, Ade PAR et al (2014) Planck 2013 results. XVI. Cosmological parameters. Astron Astrophys 571:A16. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201321591arXiv:1303.5076 [astro-ph.CO]
Planck Collaboration, Adam R et al (2016) Planck 2015 results. I. Overview of products and scientific results. Astron Astrophys 594:A1. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201527101. arXiv:1502.01582 [astro-ph.CO]
Planck Collaboration, Aghanim N et al (2020a) Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters. Astron Astrophys 641:A6. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201833910arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]
Planck Collaboration, Akrami Y et al (2020b) Planck 2018 results. X. Constraints on inflation. Astron Astrophys 641:A10. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201833887arXiv:1807.06211 [astro-ph.CO]
Planck Collaboration, Akrami Y et al (2020c) Planck 2018 results. IX. Constraints on primordial non-Gaussianity. Astron Astrophys 641:A9. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201935891. arXiv:1905.05697 [astro-ph.CO]
Podolsky J, Svarc R (2012) Interpreting spacetimes of any dimension using geodesic deviation. Phys Rev D 85:044057. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.85.044057. arXiv:1201.4790 [gr-qc]
Podolský J, Švarc R (2013) Physical interpretation of Kundt spacetimes using geodesic deviation. Class Quantum Grav 30:205016. https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/30/20/205016. arXiv:1306.6554 [gr-qc]
Poisson E (2015) Tidal deformation of a slowly rotating black hole. Phys Rev D 91:044004. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.91.044004. arXiv:1411.4711 [gr-qc]
Poisson E, Will C (2014) Gravity: Newtonian, Post-Newtonian, Relativistic. Cambridge University Press
Pollack J, Spergel DN, Steinhardt PJ (2015) Supermassive Black Holes from Ultra-Strongly Self-Interacting Dark Matter. Astrophys J 804:131. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/804/2/131. arXiv:1501.00017 [astro-ph.CO]
Porto RA (2016) The Tune of Love and the Nature(ness) of Spacetime. Fortsch Phys 64:723–729. https://doi.org/10.1002/prop.201600064. arXiv:1606.08895 [gr-qc]
Posada C, Chirenti C (2019) On the radial stability of ultra compact Schwarzschild stars beyond the Buchdahl limit. Class Quantum Grav 36:065004. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/ab0526. arXiv:1811.09589 [gr-qc]
Pound A (2015) Motion of small objects in curved spacetimes: An introduction to gravitational self-force. Fund Theor Phys 179:399–486. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18335-0_13. arXiv:1506.06245 [gr-qc]
Pound A (2015) Second-order perturbation theory: problems on large scales. Phys Rev D 92:104047. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.92.104047. arXiv:1510.05172 [gr-qc]
Pound A, Poisson E (2008) Osculating orbits in Schwarzschild spacetime, with an application to extreme mass-ratio inspirals. Phys Rev D 77:044013. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.77.044013. arXiv:0708.3033 [gr-qc]
Pound A, Poisson E, Nickel BG (2005) Limitations of the adiabatic approximation to the gravitational self-force. Phys Rev D 72:124001. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.72.124001. arXiv:gr-qc/0509122 [gr-qc]
Pound A, Wardell B, Warburton N, Miller J (2020) Second-Order Self-Force Calculation of Gravitational Binding Energy in Compact Binaries. Phys Rev Lett 124:021101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.021101. arXiv:1908.07419 [gr-qc]
Pratten G, Husa S, Garcia-Quiros C, Colleoni M, Ramos-Buades A, Estelles H, Jaume R (2020) Setting the cornerstone for a family of models for gravitational waves from compact binaries: The dominant harmonic for nonprecessing quasicircular black holes. Phys Rev D 102:064001. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.064001. arXiv:2001.11412 [gr-qc]
Pratten G et al (2021) Computationally efficient models for the dominant and subdominant harmonic modes of precessing binary black holes. Phys Rev D 103:104056. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.103.104056. arXiv:2004.06503 [gr-qc]
Press WH, Teukolsky SA (1972) Floating Orbits, Superradiant Scattering and the Black-hole Bomb. Nature 238:211–212. https://doi.org/10.1038/238211a0
Pretorius F (2005) Evolution of binary black hole spacetimes. Phys Rev Lett 95:121101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.121101. arXiv:gr-qc/0507014
Price RH, Khanna G (2017) Gravitational wave sources: reflections and echoes. Class Quantum Grav 34:225005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/aa8f29. arXiv:1702.04833 [gr-qc]
Pürrer M (2014) Frequency domain reduced order models for gravitational waves from aligned-spin compact binaries. Class Quantum Grav 31:195010. https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/31/19/195010. arXiv:1402.4146 [gr-qc]
Pürrer M (2016) Frequency domain reduced order model of aligned-spin effective-one-body waveforms with generic mass-ratios and spins. Phys Rev D 93:064041. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.93.064041. arXiv:1512.02248 [gr-qc]
Pürrer M, Haster CJ (2020) Gravitational waveform accuracy requirements for future ground-based detectors. Phys Rev Res 2:023151. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.023151. arXiv:1912.10055 [gr-qc]
Quinlan GD, Hernquist L, Sigurdsson S (1995) Models of Galaxies with Central Black Holes: Adiabatic Growth in Spherical Galaxies. Astrophys J 440:554–564. https://doi.org/10.1086/175295. arXiv:astro-ph/9407005
Raccanelli A (2017) Gravitational wave astronomy with radio galaxy surveys. Mon Not R Astron Soc 469:656–670. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stx835. arXiv:1609.09377 [astro-ph.CO]
Raccanelli A, Kovetz ED, Bird S, Cholis I, Muñoz JB (2016) Determining the progenitors of merging black-hole binaries. Phys Rev D 94:023516. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.94.023516. arXiv:1605.01405 [astro-ph.CO]
Raccanelli A, Vidotto F, Verde L (2018) Effects of primordial black holes quantum gravity decay on galaxy clustering. JCAP 8:003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2018/08/003. arXiv:1708.02588 [astro-ph.CO]
Rahman M, Sen AA (2019) Astrophysical Signatures of Black holes in Generalized Proca Theories. Phys Rev D 99:024052. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.024052. arXiv:1810.09200 [gr-qc]
Raidal M, Spethmann C, Vaskonen V, Veermäe H (2019) Formation and Evolution of Primordial Black Hole Binaries in the Early Universe. JCAP 02:018. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2019/02/018. arXiv:1812.01930 [astro-ph.CO]
Ramos O, Barausse E (2019) Constraints on Hořava gravity from binary black hole observations. Phys Rev D 99:024034. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.024034. arXiv:1811.07786 [gr-qc]
Ramos-Buades A, Husa S, Pratten G, Estellés H, García-Quirós C, Mateu-Lucena M, Colleoni M, Jaume R (2020) First survey of spinning eccentric black hole mergers: Numerical relativity simulations, hybrid waveforms, and parameter estimation. Phys Rev D 101:083015. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.083015. arXiv:1909.11011 [gr-qc]
Ramos-Buades A, Schmidt P, Pratten G, Husa S (2020) Validity of common modeling approximations for precessing binary black holes with higher-order modes. Phys Rev D 101:103014. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.103014. arXiv:2001.10936 [gr-qc]
Randall L, Xianyu ZZ (2018) An Analytical Portrait of Binary Mergers in Hierarchical Triple Systems. Astrophys J 864:134. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aad7fe. arXiv:1802.05718 [gr-qc]
Randall L, Xianyu ZZ (2019) Observing Eccentricity Oscillations of Binary Black Holes in LISA. arXiv e-prints arXiv:1902.08604 [astro-ph.HE]
Randall SW, Markevitch M, Clowe D, Gonzalez AH, Bradac M (2008) Constraints on the Self-Interaction Cross-Section of Dark Matter from Numerical Simulations of the Merging Galaxy Cluster 1E 0657–56. Astrophys J 679:1173–1180. https://doi.org/10.1086/587859. arXiv:0704.0261 [astro-ph]
Raposo G, Pani P (2020) Axisymmetric deformations of neutron stars and gravitational-wave astronomy. Phys Rev D 102:044045. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.044045. arXiv:2002.02555 [gr-qc]
Raposo G, Pani P, Bezares M, Palenzuela C, Cardoso V (2019) Anisotropic stars as ultracompact objects in General Relativity. Phys Rev D 99:104072. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.104072. arXiv:1811.07917 [gr-qc]
Raposo G, Pani P, Emparan R (2019) Exotic compact objects with soft hair. Phys Rev D 99:104050. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.104050. arXiv:1812.07615 [gr-qc]
Raveri M, Hu B, Frusciante N, Silvestri A (2014) Effective Field Theory of Cosmic Acceleration: constraining dark energy with CMB data. Phys Rev D 90:043513. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.90.043513. arXiv:1405.1022 [astro-ph.CO]
Raveri M, Baccigalupi C, Silvestri A, Zhou SY (2015) Measuring the speed of cosmological gravitational waves. Phys Rev D 91:061501. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.91.061501. arXiv:1405.7974 [astro-ph.CO]
Regimbau T, de Freitas Pacheco JA (2006) Gravitational wave background from magnetars. Astron Astrophys 447:1. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20053702. arXiv:astro-ph/0509880
Renevey C, Kennedy J, Lombriser L (2020) Parameterised post-Newtonian formalism for the effective field theory of dark energy via screened reconstructed Horndeski theories. JCAP 12:032. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2020/12/032. arXiv:2006.09910 [gr-qc]
Renzini A, Contaldi C (2019) Improved limits on a stochastic gravitational-wave background and its anisotropies from Advanced LIGO O1 and O2 runs. Phys Rev D 100:063527. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.063527. arXiv:1907.10329 [gr-qc]
Riess AG, Casertano S, Yuan W, Macri LM, Scolnic D (2019) Large Magellanic Cloud Cepheid Standards Provide a 1% Foundation for the Determination of the Hubble Constant and Stronger Evidence for Physics beyond \({\Lambda }\)CDM. Astrophys J 876:85. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab1422. arXiv:1903.07603 [astro-ph.CO]
Riess AG et al (2016) A 2.4% Determination of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant. Astrophys J 826:56. https://doi.org/10.3847/0004-637X/826/1/56. arXiv:1604.01424 [astro-ph.CO]
Riess AG et al (2018) Milky Way Cepheid Standards for Measuring Cosmic Distances and Application to Gaia DR2: Implications for the Hubble Constant. Astrophys J 861:126. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aac82e. arXiv:1804.10655 [astro-ph.CO]
Ringeval C, Sakellariadou M, Bouchet F (2007) Cosmological evolution of cosmic string loops. JCAP 02:023. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2007/02/023. arXiv:astro-ph/0511646
Ripley JL, Pretorius F (2019) Gravitational collapse in Einstein dilaton-Gauss-Bonnet gravity. Class Quantum Grav 36:134001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/ab2416. arXiv:1903.07543 [gr-qc]
Ripley JL, Pretorius F (2019) Hyperbolicity in Spherical Gravitational Collapse in a Horndeski Theory. Phys Rev D 99:084014. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.084014. arXiv:1902.01468 [gr-qc]
Robinson D (1975) Uniqueness of the Kerr black hole. Phys Rev Lett 34:905–906. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.34.905
Roedig C, Dotti M, Sesana A, Cuadra J, Colpi M (2011) Limiting eccentricity of subparsec massive black hole binaries surrounded by self-gravitating gas discs. Mon Not R Astron Soc 415:3033–3041. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18927.x. arXiv:1104.3868 [astro-ph.CO]
Romano JD, Cornish NJ (2017) Detection methods for stochastic gravitational-wave backgrounds: a unified treatment. Living Rev Relativ 20:2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41114-017-0004-1. arXiv:1608.06889 [gr-qc]
Rosen RA (2017) Non-Singular Black Holes in Massive Gravity: Time-Dependent Solutions. JHEP 10:206. https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP10(2017)206. arXiv:1702.06543 [hep-th]
Ruffini R, Bonazzola S (1969) Systems of selfgravitating particles in general relativity and the concept of an equation of state. Phys Rev 187:1767–1783. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.187.1767
Ruffini R, Wheeler JA (1971) Introducing the black hole. Phys Today 24(1):30. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3022513
Ryan F (1995) Gravitational waves from the inspiral of a compact object into a massive, axisymmetric body with arbitrary multipole moments. Phys Rev D 52:5707–5718. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.52.5707
Ryan FD (1997) Accuracy of estimating the multipole moments of a massive body from the gravitational waves of a binary inspiral. Phys Rev D 56:1845–1855. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.56.1845
Ryan FD (1997) Spinning boson stars with large selfinteraction. Phys Rev D 55:6081–6091. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.55.6081
Sachs RK (1962) Gravitational Waves in General Relativity. VIII. Waves in asymptotically flat space-time. Proc R Soc Lond A 270:103. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1962.0206
Sadeghian L, Ferrer F, Will CM (2013) Dark matter distributions around massive black holes: A general relativistic analysis. Phys Rev D 88:063522. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.88.063522. arXiv:1305.2619 [astro-ph.GA]
Saffer A, Yagi K (2020) Parameter Estimation for Tests of General Relativity with the Astrophysical Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background. Phys Rev D 102:024001. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.024001. arXiv:2003.11128 [gr-qc]
Sahoo B, Sen A (2019) Classical and Quantum Results on Logarithmic Terms in the Soft Theorem in Four Dimensions. JHEP 02:086. https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP02(2019)086. arXiv:1808.03288 [hep-th]
Saito R, Yokoyama J (2010) Gravitational-Wave Constraints on the Abundance of Primordial Black Holes. Prog Theor Phys 123:867–886. https://doi.org/10.1143/PTP.126.351, [Erratum: Prog. Theor. Phys. 126, 351–352 (2011)]. arXiv:0912.5317 [astro-ph.CO]
Sakstein J, Jain B (2017) Implications of the Neutron Star Merger GW170817 for Cosmological Scalar-Tensor Theories. Phys Rev Lett 119:251303. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.251303. arXiv:1710.05893 [astro-ph.CO]
Saltas ID, Sawicki I, Amendola L, Kunz M (2014) Anisotropic Stress as a Signature of Nonstandard Propagation of Gravitational Waves. Phys Rev Lett 113:191101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.191101. arXiv:1406.7139 [astro-ph.CO]
Sampson L, Cornish N, Yunes N (2013) Gravitational Wave Tests of Strong Field General Relativity with Binary Inspirals: Realistic Injections and Optimal Model Selection. Phys Rev D 87:102001. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.87.102001. arXiv:1303.1185 [gr-qc]
Sampson L, Cornish N, Yunes N (2014) Mismodeling in gravitational-wave astronomy: The trouble with templates. Phys Rev D 89:064037. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.89.064037. arXiv:1311.4898 [gr-qc]
Sanchis-Gual N, Herdeiro C, Font JA, Radu E, Di Giovanni F (2019) Head-on collisions and orbital mergers of Proca stars. Phys Rev D 99:024017. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.024017. arXiv:1806.07779 [gr-qc]
Sanchis-Gual N, Zilhão M, Herdeiro C, Di Giovanni F, Font JA, Radu E (2020) Synchronized gravitational atoms from mergers of bosonic stars. Phys Rev D 102:101504. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.101504. arXiv:2007.11584 [gr-qc]
Sanders RH, McGaugh SS (2002) Modified Newtonian dynamics as an alternative to dark matter. Annu Rev Astron Astrophys 40:263–317. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.astro.40.060401.093923. arXiv:astro-ph/0204521
Santamaria L et al (2010) Matching post-Newtonian and numerical relativity waveforms: systematic errors and a new phenomenological model for non-precessing black hole binaries. Phys Rev D 82:064016. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.82.064016. arXiv:1005.3306 [gr-qc]
Santos NM, Benone CL, Crispino LC, Herdeiro CA, Radu E (2020) Black holes with synchronised Proca hair: linear clouds and fundamental non-linear solutions. JHEP 07:010. https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07(2020)010. arXiv:2004.09536 [gr-qc]
Saravani M, Sotiriou TP (2019) Classification of shift-symmetric Horndeski theories and hairy black holes. Phys Rev D 99:124004. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.124004. arXiv:1903.02055 [gr-qc]
Sarbach O, Barausse E, Preciado-López JA (2019) Well-posed Cauchy formulation for Einstein-æther theory. Class Quantum Grav 36:165007. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/ab2e13. arXiv:1902.05130 [gr-qc]
Sasaki M, Tagoshi H (2003) Analytic black hole perturbation approach to gravitational radiation. Living Rev Relativ 6:6. https://doi.org/10.12942/lrr-2003-6. arXiv:gr-qc/0306120
Sasaki M, Suyama T, Tanaka T, Yokoyama S (2018) Primordial black holes-perspectives in gravitational wave astronomy. Class Quantum Grav 35:063001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/aaa7b4. arXiv:1801.05235 [astro-ph.CO]
Scelfo G, Bellomo N, Raccanelli A, Matarrese S, Verde L (2018) GW\(\times \)LSS: chasing the progenitors of merging binary black holes. JCAP 09:039. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2018/09/039. arXiv:1809.03528 [astro-ph.CO]
Scelfo G, Boco L, Lapi A, Viel M (2020) Exploring galaxies-gravitational waves cross-correlations as an astrophysical probe. JCAP 10:045. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2020/10/045. arXiv:2007.08534 [astro-ph.CO]
Schmidt P, Hinderer T (2019) Frequency domain model of \(f\)-mode dynamic tides in gravitational waveforms from compact binary inspirals. Phys Rev D 100:021501. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.021501. arXiv:1905.00818 [gr-qc]
Schmidt P, Hannam M, Husa S (2012) Towards models of gravitational waveforms from generic binaries: A simple approximate mapping between precessing and non-precessing inspiral signals. Phys Rev D 86:104063. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.86.104063. arXiv:1207.3088 [gr-qc]
Schmidt P, Ohme F, Hannam M (2015) Towards models of gravitational waveforms from generic binaries II: Modelling precession effects with a single effective precession parameter. Phys Rev D 91:024043. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.91.024043. arXiv:1408.1810 [gr-qc]
Schneider P, Ehlers J, Falco E (1992) Gravitational Lenses. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-03758-4
Schneider R, Marassi S, Ferrari V (2010) Stochastic backgrounds of gravitational waves from extragalactic sources. Class Quantum Grav 27:194007. https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/27/19/194007. arXiv:1005.0977 [astro-ph.CO]
Schunck FE, Mielke EW (2003) General relativistic boson stars. Class Quantum Grav 20:R301–R356. https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/20/20/201. arXiv:0801.0307 [astro-ph]
Schutz BF (1986) Determining the Hubble Constant from Gravitational Wave Observations. Nature 323:310–311. https://doi.org/10.1038/323310a0
Seidel E, Suen WM (1994) Formation of solitonic stars through gravitational cooling. Phys Rev Lett 72:2516–2519. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.72.2516. arXiv:gr-qc/9309015
Sennett N, Marsat S, Buonanno A (2016) Gravitational waveforms in scalar-tensor gravity at 2PN relative order. Phys Rev D 94:084003. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.94.084003. arXiv:1607.01420 [gr-qc]
Sennett N, Hinderer T, Steinhoff J, Buonanno A, Ossokine S (2017) Distinguishing Boson Stars from Black Holes and Neutron Stars from Tidal Interactions in Inspiraling Binary Systems. Phys Rev D 96:024002. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.96.024002. arXiv:1704.08651 [gr-qc]
Sennett N, Brito R, Buonanno A, Gorbenko V, Senatore L (2020) Gravitational-Wave Constraints on an Effective Field-Theory Extension of General Relativity. Phys Rev D 102:044056. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.044056. arXiv:1912.09917 [gr-qc]
Sereno M, Sesana A, Bleuler A, Jetzer P, Volonteri M, Begelman M (2010) Strong lensing of gravitational waves as seen by LISA. Phys Rev Lett 105:251101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.251101. arXiv:1011.5238 [astro-ph.CO]
Sereno M, Jetzer P, Sesana A, Volonteri M (2011) Cosmography with strong lensing of LISA gravitational wave sources. Mon Not R Astron Soc 415:2773. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18895.x. arXiv:1104.1977 [astro-ph.CO]
Serpico PD, Poulin V, Inman D, Kohri K (2020) Cosmic microwave background bounds on primordial black holes including dark matter halo accretion. Phys Rev Res 2:023204. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.023204. arXiv:2002.10771 [astro-ph.CO]
Sesana A (2016) Prospects for Multiband Gravitational-Wave Astronomy after GW150914. Phys Rev Lett 116:231102. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.231102. arXiv:1602.06951 [gr-qc]
Sesana A, Volonteri M, Haardt F (2007) The imprint of massive black hole formation models on the LISA data stream. Mon Not R Astron Soc 377:1711–1716. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11734.x. arXiv:astro-ph/0701556
Seto N (2006) Prospects for direct detection of circular polarization of gravitational-wave background. Phys Rev Lett 97:151101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.151101. arXiv:astro-ph/0609504
Seto N (2007) Quest for circular polarization of gravitational wave background and orbits of laser interferometers in space. Phys Rev D 75:061302. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.75.061302. arXiv:astro-ph/0609633
Shah P, Lemos P, Lahav O (2021) A buyer’s guide to the Hubble constant. Astron Astrophys Rev 29:9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00159-021-00137-4. arXiv:2109.01161 [astro-ph.CO]
Shakura NI, Sunyaev RA (1973) Black holes in binary systems. Observational appearance. Astron Astrophys 24:337–355
Shannon R et al (2015) Gravitational waves from binary supermassive black holes missing in pulsar observations. Science 349(6255):1522–1525. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab1910. arXiv:1509.07320 [astro-ph.CO]
Shao L (2020) Combined search for anisotropic birefringence in the gravitational-wave transient catalog GWTC-1. Phys Rev D 101:104019. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.104019. arXiv:2002.01185 [hep-ph]
Shao L, Sennett N, Buonanno A, Kramer M, Wex N (2017) Constraining nonperturbative strong-field effects in scalar-tensor gravity by combining pulsar timing and laser-interferometer gravitational-wave detectors. Phys Rev X 7:041025. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.7.041025. arXiv:1704.07561 [gr-qc]
Shapiro SL, Shelton J (2016) Weak annihilation cusp inside the dark matter spike about a black hole. Phys Rev D 93. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevd.93.123510
Shibata M (2015) Numerical Relativity. World Scientific, Singapore
Shiralilou B, Hinderer T, Nissanke S, Ortiz N, Witek H (2021) Nonlinear curvature effects in gravitational waves from inspiralling black hole binaries. Phys Rev D 103:L121503. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.103.L121503. arXiv:2012.09162 [gr-qc]
Shiralilou B, Hinderer T, Nissanke SM, Ortiz N, Witek H (2022) Post-Newtonian gravitational and scalar waves in scalar-Gauss-Bonnet gravity. Class Quantum Grav 39:035002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/ac4196. arXiv:2105.13972 [gr-qc]
Shlapentokh-Rothman Y (2014) Exponentially growing finite energy solutions for the Klein-Gordon equation on sub-extremal Kerr spacetimes. Commun Math Phys 329:859–891. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00220-014-2033-x. arXiv:1302.3448 [gr-qc]
Siemonsen N, East WE (2020) Gravitational wave signatures of ultralight vector bosons from black hole superradiance. Phys Rev D 101:024019. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.024019. arXiv:1910.09476 [gr-qc]
Silva HO, Glampedakis K (2020) Eikonal quasinormal modes of black holes beyond general relativity. II. Generalized scalar-tensor perturbations. Phys Rev D 101:044051. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.044051. arXiv:1912.09286 [gr-qc]
Silva HO, Sakstein J, Gualtieri L, Sotiriou TP, Berti E (2018) Spontaneous scalarization of black holes and compact stars from a Gauss-Bonnet coupling. Phys Rev Lett 120:131104. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.131104. arXiv:1711.02080 [gr-qc]
Silva HO, Macedo CF, Sotiriou TP, Gualtieri L, Sakstein J, Berti E (2019) Stability of scalarized black hole solutions in scalar-Gauss-Bonnet gravity. Phys Rev D 99:064011. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.064011. arXiv:1812.05590 [gr-qc]
Silva HO, Holgado AM, Cárdenas-Avendaño A, Yunes N (2021) Astrophysical and theoretical physics implications from multimessenger neutron star observations. Phys Rev Lett 126:181101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.181101. arXiv:2004.01253 [gr-qc]
Silva HO, Witek H, Elley M, Yunes N (2021) Dynamical Descalarization in Binary Black Hole Mergers. Phys Rev Lett 127:031101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.031101. arXiv:2012.10436 [gr-qc]
Smith TL, Caldwell R (2017) Sensitivity to a Frequency-Dependent Circular Polarization in an Isotropic Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background. Phys Rev D 95:044036. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.95.044036. arXiv:1609.05901 [gr-qc]
Smyth N, Profumo S, English S, Jeltema T, McKinnon K, Guhathakurta P (2020) Updated Constraints on Asteroid-Mass Primordial Black Holes as Dark Matter. Phys Rev D 101:063005. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.063005. arXiv:1910.01285 [astro-ph.CO]
Soares-Santos M et al (2019) First Measurement of the Hubble Constant from a Dark Standard Siren using the Dark Energy Survey Galaxies and the LIGO/Virgo Binary-Black-hole Merger GW170814. Astrophys J Lett 876:L7. https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ab14f1. arXiv:1901.01540 [astro-ph.CO]
Sotiriou TP (2011) Horava-Lifshitz gravity: a status report. J Phys Conf Ser 283:012034. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/283/1/012034. arXiv:1010.3218 [hep-th]
Sotiriou TP (2015) Black Holes and Scalar Fields. Class Quantum Grav 32:214002. https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/32/21/214002. arXiv:1505.00248 [gr-qc]
Sotiriou TP (2015) Gravity and Scalar Fields. Lect Notes Phys 892:3–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10070-8_1. arXiv:1404.2955 [gr-qc]
Sotiriou TP (2018) Detecting Lorentz Violations with Gravitational Waves from Black Hole Binaries. Phys Rev Lett 120:041104. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.041104. arXiv:1709.00940 [gr-qc]
Sotiriou TP, Faraoni V (2010) f(R) Theories Of Gravity. Rev Mod Phys 82:451–497. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.82.451. arXiv:0805.1726 [gr-qc]
Sotiriou TP, Faraoni V (2012) Black holes in scalar-tensor gravity. Phys Rev Lett 108:081103. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.081103. arXiv:1109.6324 [gr-qc]
Sotiriou TP, Zhou SY (2014) Black hole hair in generalized scalar-tensor gravity. Phys Rev Lett 112:251102. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.251102. arXiv:1312.3622 [gr-qc]
Sotiriou TP, Zhou SY (2014) Black hole hair in generalized scalar-tensor gravity: An explicit example. Phys Rev D 90:124063. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.90.124063. arXiv:1408.1698 [gr-qc]
Spallicci ADAM, Helayël-Neto JA, López-Corredoira M, Capozziello S (2021) Cosmology and the massive photon frequency shift in the Standard-Model Extension. Eur Phys J C 81:4. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08703-3. arXiv:2011.12608 [astro-ph.CO]
Spergel DN, Steinhardt PJ (2000) Observational evidence for selfinteracting cold dark matter. Phys Rev Lett 84:3760–3763. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.3760. arXiv:astro-ph/9909386
Stairs IH (2003) Testing general relativity with pulsar timing. Living Rev Relativ 6:5. https://doi.org/10.12942/lrr-2003-5. arXiv:astro-ph/0307536 [astro-ph]
Stavridis A, Will CM (2009) Bounding the mass of the graviton with gravitational waves: Effect of spin precessions in massive black hole binaries. Phys Rev D 80:044002. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.80.044002. arXiv:0906.3602 [gr-qc]
Stein LC (2014) Rapidly rotating black holes in dynamical Chern-Simons gravity: Decoupling limit solutions and breakdown. Phys Rev D 90:044061. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.90.044061. arXiv:1407.2350 [gr-qc]
Steinhoff J, Hinderer T, Buonanno A, Taracchini A (2016) Dynamical Tides in General Relativity: Effective Action and Effective-One-Body Hamiltonian. Phys Rev D 94:104028. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.94.104028. arXiv:1608.01907 [gr-qc]
Strominger A (2018) Lectures on the infrared structure of gravity and gauge theory. Princeton University Press. arXiv:1703.05448 [hep-th]
Strominger A, Vafa C (1996) Microscopic origin of the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy. Phys Lett B 379:99–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(96)00345-0. arXiv:hep-th/9601029
Strominger A, Zhiboedov A (2016) Gravitational Memory. BMS Supertranslations and Soft Theorems. JHEP 01:086. https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP01(2016)086. arXiv:1411.5745 [hep-th]
Sugiyama S, Takhistov V, Vitagliano E, Kusenko A, Sasaki M, Takada M (2021) Testing stochastic gravitational wave signals from primordial black holes with optical telescopes. Phys Lett B 814:136097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136097. arXiv:2010.02189 [astro-ph.CO]
Sullivan A, Yunes N, Sotiriou TP (2020) Numerical black hole solutions in modified gravity theories: Spherical symmetry case. Phys Rev D 101:044024. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.044024. arXiv:1903.02624 [gr-qc]
Sullivan A, Yunes N, Sotiriou TP (2021) Numerical black hole solutions in modified gravity theories: Axial symmetry case. Phys Rev D 103:124058. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.103.124058. arXiv:2009.10614 [gr-qc]
Sun L, Brito R, Isi M (2020) Search for ultralight bosons in Cygnus X-1 with Advanced LIGO. Phys Rev D 101:063020. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.063020. arXiv:1909.11267 [gr-qc]
Suyama T (2020) On arrival time difference between lensed gravitational waves and light. Astrophys J 896:46. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab8d3f. arXiv:2003.11748 [gr-qc]
Suzuki S, Ki Maeda (2000) Signature of chaos in gravitational waves from a spinning particle. Phys Rev D 61:024005. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.61.024005. arXiv:gr-qc/9910064
Syer D, Clarke CJ (1995) Satellites in discs: regulating the accretion luminosity. Mon Not R Astron Soc 277:758. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/277.3.758. arXiv:astro-ph/9505021
Szekeres P (1965) The Gravitational compass. J Math Phys 6:1387–1391. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1704788
Tahura S, Yagi K (2018) Parameterized Post-Einsteinian gravitational waveforms in various modified theories of gravity. Phys Rev D 98:084042. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.084042 [Erratum: Phys Rev D 101:109902 (2020)]
Tahura S, Nichols DA, Saffer A, Stein LC, Yagi K (2021) Brans-Dicke theory in Bondi-Sachs form: Asymptotically flat solutions, asymptotic symmetries, and gravitational-wave memory effects. Phys Rev D 103:104026. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.103.104026. arXiv:2007.13799 [gr-qc]
Tahura S, Nichols DA, Yagi K (2021) Gravitational-wave memory effects in Brans-Dicke theory: Waveforms and effects in the post-Newtonian approximation. Phys Rev D 104:104010104010. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.104.104010. arXiv:2107.02208 [gr-qc]
Takahashi R (2017) Arrival time differences between gravitational waves and electromagnetic signals due to gravitational lensing. Astrophys J 835:103. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/103. arXiv:1606.00458 [astro-ph.CO]
Takahashi R, Nakamura T (2003) Wave effects in gravitational lensing of gravitational waves from chirping binaries. Astrophys J 595:1039–1051. https://doi.org/10.1086/377430. arXiv:astro-ph/0305055
Takeda H, Nishizawa A, Michimura Y, Nagano K, Komori K, Ando M, Hayama K (2018) Polarization test of gravitational waves from compact binary coalescences. Phys Rev D 98:022008. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.022008. arXiv:1806.02182 [gr-qc]
Takeda H, Nishizawa A, Nagano K, Michimura Y, Komori K, Ando M, Hayama K (2019) Prospects for gravitational-wave polarization tests from compact binary mergers with future ground-based detectors. Phys Rev D 100:042001. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.042001. arXiv:1904.09989 [gr-qc]
Takeda H, Morisaki S, Nishizawa A (2021) Pure polarization test of GW170814 and GW170817 using waveforms consistent with modified theories of gravity. Phys Rev D 103:064037. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.103.064037. arXiv:2010.14538 [gr-qc]
Takeda H, Morisaki S, Nishizawa A (2022) Search for scalar-tensor mixed polarization modes of gravitational waves. Phys Rev D 105:084019. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.105.084019. arXiv:2105.00253 [gr-qc]
Tamanini N, Caprini C, Barausse E, Sesana A, Klein A, Petiteau A (2016) Science with the space-based interferometer eLISA. III: Probing the expansion of the Universe using gravitational wave standard sirens. JCAP 04:002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2016/04/002. arXiv:1601.07112 [astro-ph.CO]
Tanaka H, Takeuchi T, Ward WR (2002) Three-dimensional interaction between a planet and an isothermal gaseous disk. I. Corotation and Lindblad torques and planet migration. Astrophys J 565:1257–1274. https://doi.org/10.1086/324713
Tanay S, Stein LC, Gálvez Ghersi JT (2021) Integrability of eccentric, spinning black hole binaries up to second post-Newtonian order. Phys Rev D 103:064066. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.103.064066. arXiv:2012.06586 [gr-qc]
Taracchini A, Pan Y, Buonanno A, Barausse E, Boyle M, Chu T, Lovelace G, Pfeiffer HP, Scheel MA (2012) Prototype effective-one-body model for nonprecessing spinning inspiral-merger-ringdown waveforms. Phys Rev D 86:024011. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.86.024011. arXiv:1202.0790 [gr-qc]
Taracchini A, Buonanno A, Hughes SA, Khanna G (2013) Modeling the horizon-absorbed gravitational flux for equatorial-circular orbits in Kerr spacetime. Phys Rev D 88:044001. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.88.044001, [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 88, 109903 (2013)]. arXiv:1305.2184 [gr-qc]
Taracchini A et al (2014) Effective-one-body model for black-hole binaries with generic mass ratios and spins. Phys Rev D 89:061502. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.89.061502. arXiv:1311.2544 [gr-qc]
Tattersall OJ, Ferreira PG (2018) Quasinormal modes of black holes in Horndeski gravity. Phys Rev D 97:104047. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.104047. arXiv:1804.08950 [gr-qc]
Tattersall OJ, Ferreira PG, Lagos M (2018) General theories of linear gravitational perturbations to a Schwarzschild Black Hole. Phys Rev D 97:044021. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.044021. arXiv:1711.01992 [gr-qc]
Taylor SR, Gair JR (2012) Cosmology with the lights off: standard sirens in the Einstein Telescope era. Phys Rev D 86:023502. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.86.023502. arXiv:1204.6739 [astro-ph.CO]
Taylor SR, Gair JR, Mandel I (2012) Hubble without the Hubble: Cosmology using advanced gravitational-wave detectors alone. Phys Rev D 85:023535. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.85.023535. arXiv:1108.5161 [gr-qc]
Taylor T, Veneziano G (1990) Quantum Gravity at Large Distances and the Cosmological Constant. NuclPhys B345:210–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(90)90615-K
ter Haar L, Bezares M, Crisostomi M, Barausse E, Palenzuela C (2021) Dynamics of Screening in Modified Gravity. Phys Rev Lett 126:091102. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.091102. arXiv:2009.03354 [gr-qc]
Testa A, Pani P (2018) Analytical template for gravitational-wave echoes: signal characterization and prospects of detection with current and future interferometers. Phys Rev D 98:044018. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.044018. arXiv:1806.04253 [gr-qc]
Teukolsky S, Press W (1974) Perturbations of a rotating black hole. III. Interaction of the hole with gravitational and electromagnet ic radiation. Astrophys J 193:443–461. https://doi.org/10.1086/153180
Teukolsky SA (1972) Rotating black holes: Separable wave equations for gravitational and electromagnetic perturbations. Phys Rev Lett 29:1114–1118. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.29.1114
Teukolsky SA (1973) Perturbations of a Rotating Black Hole. I. Fundamental Equations for Gravitational, Electromagnetic, and Neutrino-Field Perturbations. The Astroph J 185:635–648. https://doi.org/10.1086/152444
Thompson JE, Fauchon-Jones E, Khan S, Nitoglia E, Pannarale F, Dietrich T, Hannam M (2020) Modeling the gravitational wave signature of neutron star black hole coalescences. Phys Rev D 101:124059. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.124059. arXiv:2002.08383 [gr-qc]
Thorne KS (1992) Gravitational-wave bursts with memory: The Christodoulou effect. Phys Rev D 45:520–524. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.45.520
Thrane E, Romano JD (2013) Sensitivity curves for searches for gravitational-wave backgrounds. Phys Rev D 88:124032. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.88.124032. arXiv:1310.5300 [astro-ph.IM]
Tinto M, da Silva Alves ME (2010) LISA Sensitivities to Gravitational Waves from Relativistic Metric Theories of Gravity. Phys Rev D 82:122003. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.82.122003. arXiv:1010.1302 [gr-qc]
Tkachev MV, Pilipenko SV, Yepes G (2020) Dark matter simulations with primordial black holes in the early Universe. Mon Not R Astron Soc 499:4854–4862. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staa3103. arXiv:2009.07813 [astro-ph.CO]
Toubiana A, Marsat S, Barausse E, Babak S, Baker J (2020) Tests of general relativity with stellar-mass black hole binaries observed by LISA. Phys Rev D 101:104038. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.104038. arXiv:2004.03626 [gr-qc]
Toubiana A et al (2021) Detectable environmental effects in GW190521-like black-hole binaries with LISA. Phys Rev Lett 126:101105. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.101105. arXiv:2010.06056 [astro-ph.HE]
Trashorras M, García-Bellido J, Nesseris S (2021) The clustering dynamics of primordial black boles in \( N \)-body simulations. Universe 7:18. https://doi.org/10.3390/universe7010018. arXiv:2006.15018 [astro-ph.CO]
Tröster T et al (2020) Cosmology from large-scale structure: Constraining \(\Lambda \)CDM with BOSS. Astron Astrophys 633:L10. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201936772. arXiv:1909.11006 [astro-ph.CO]
Tsamis NC, Woodard RP (1995) Strong infrared effects in quantum gravity. Annals Phys 238:1–82. https://doi.org/10.1006/aphy.1995.1015
Tsang KW, Rollier M, Ghosh A, Samajdar A, Agathos M, Chatziioannou K, Cardoso V, Khanna G, Van Den Broeck C (2018) A morphology-independent data analysis method for detecting and characterizing gravitational wave echoes. Phys Rev D 98:024023. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.024023. arXiv:1804.04877 [gr-qc]
Tsang KW, Ghosh A, Samajdar A, Chatziioannou K, Mastrogiovanni S, Agathos M, Van Den Broeck C (2020) A morphology-independent search for gravitational wave echoes in data from the first and second observing runs of Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo. Phys Rev D 101:064012. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.064012. arXiv:1906.11168 [gr-qc]
Tso R, Gerosa D, Chen Y (2019) Optimizing LIGO with LISA forewarnings to improve black-hole spectroscopy. Phys Rev D 99:124043. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.124043. arXiv:1807.00075 [gr-qc]
Tsujikawa S (2019) Lunar Laser Ranging constraints on nonminimally coupled dark energy and standard sirens. Phys Rev D 100:043510. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.043510. arXiv:1903.07092 [gr-qc]
Tsukada L, Callister T, Matas A, Meyers P (2019) First search for a stochastic gravitational-wave background from ultralight bosons. Phys Rev D 99:103015. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.103015. arXiv:1812.09622 [astro-ph.HE]
Tsukada L, Brito R, East WE, Siemonsen N (2021) Modeling and searching for a stochastic gravitational-wave background from ultralight vector bosons. Phys Rev D 103:083005. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.103.083005. arXiv:2011.06995 [astro-ph.HE]
Tulin S, Yu HB (2018) Dark Matter Self-interactions and Small Scale Structure. Phys Rept 730:1–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2017.11.004. arXiv:1705.02358 [hep-ph]
Turner MS, White MJ, Lidsey JE (1993) Tensor perturbations in inflationary models as a probe of cosmology. Phys Rev D 48:4613–4622. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.48.4613. arXiv:astro-ph/9306029
Uchikata N, Yoshida S, Pani P (2016) Tidal deformability and I-Love-Q relations for gravastars with polytropic thin shells. Phys Rev D 94:064015. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.94.064015. arXiv:1607.03593 [gr-qc]
Uchikata N, Nakano H, Narikawa T, Sago N, Tagoshi H, Tanaka T (2019) Searching for black hole echoes from the LIGO-Virgo catalog GWTC-1. Phys Rev D 100:062006. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.062006. arXiv:1906.00838 [gr-qc]
Ullio P, Zhao H, Kamionkowski M (2001) A Dark matter spike at the galactic center? Phys Rev D 64:043504. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.64.043504. arXiv:astro-ph/0101481
Unal C (2019) Imprints of Primordial Non-Gaussianity on Gravitational Wave Spectrum. Phys Rev D 99:041301. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.041301. arXiv:1811.09151 [astro-ph.CO]
Ünal C, Kovetz ED, Patil SP (2021) Multimessenger probes of inflationary fluctuations and primordial black holes. Phys Rev D 103:063519. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.103.063519. arXiv:2008.11184 [astro-ph.CO]
Vainshtein AI (1972) To the problem of nonvanishing gravitation mass. Phys Lett 39B:393–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(72)90147-5
van de Meent M (2018) Gravitational self-force on generic bound geodesics in Kerr spacetime. Phys Rev D 97:104033. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.104033. arXiv:1711.09607 [gr-qc]
van de Meent M, Pfeiffer HP (2020) Intermediate Mass-Ratio Black Hole Binaries: Applicability of Small Mass-Ratio Perturbation Theory. Phys Rev Lett 125:181101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.181101. arXiv:2006.12036 [gr-qc]
Van De Meent M, Warburton N (2018) Fast Self-forced Inspirals. Class Quantum Grav 35:144003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/aac8ce. arXiv:1802.05281 [gr-qc]
Vaskonen V, Veermäe H (2020) Lower bound on the primordial black hole merger rate. Phys Rev D 101:043015. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.043015. arXiv:1908.09752 [astro-ph.CO]
Vaskonen V, Veermäe H (2021) Did NANOGrav See a Signal from Primordial Black Hole Formation? Phys Rev Lett 126:051303. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.051303. arXiv:2009.07832 [astro-ph.CO]
Vasylyev SS, Filippenko AV (2020) A Measurement of the Hubble Constant Using Gravitational Waves from the Binary Merger GW190814. Astrophys J 902:149. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/abb5f9. arXiv:2007.11148 [astro-ph.CO]
Verde L, Treu T, Riess AG (2019) Tensions between the early and late Universe. Nature Astron 3:891–895. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-019-0902-0. arXiv:1907.10625 [astro-ph.CO]
Vines J, Flanagan EE, Hinderer T (2011) Post-1-Newtonian tidal effects in the gravitational waveform from binary inspirals. Phys Rev D 83:084051. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.83.084051. arXiv:1101.1673 [gr-qc]
Visinelli L, Bolis N, Vagnozzi S (2018) Brane-world extra dimensions in light of GW170817. Phys Rev D 97:064039. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.064039. arXiv:1711.06628 [gr-qc]
Visser M (1995) Lorentzian wormholes: From Einstein to Hawking. American Institute of Physics, Melville, NY
Völkel SH, Barausse E (2020) Bayesian metric reconstruction with gravitational wave observations. Phys Rev D 102:084025. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.084025. arXiv:2007.02986 [gr-qc]
Volonteri M (2010) Formation of supermassive black holes. Astron Astrophys Rev 18:279–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00159-010-0029-x
Wagle PK, Yunes N, Silva HO (2021) Quasinormal modes of slowly-rotating black holes in dynamical Chern-Simons gravity. arXiv e-prints arXiv:2103.09913 [gr-qc]
Wands D (1999) Duality invariance of cosmological perturbation spectra. Phys Rev D 60:023507. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.60.023507. arXiv:gr-qc/9809062
Wang J, Hui L, Khoury J (2012) No-Go Theorems for Generalized Chameleon Field Theories. Phys Rev Lett 109:241301. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.241301. arXiv:1208.4612 [astro-ph.CO]
Wang Q, Afshordi N (2018) Black hole echology: The observer’s manual. Phys Rev D 97:124044. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.124044. arXiv:1803.02845 [gr-qc]
Wang Q, Oshita N, Afshordi N (2020) Echoes from quantum black holes. Phys Rev D 101:024031. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.024031. arXiv:1905.00446 [gr-qc]
Wang S, Kohri K (2021) Probing Primordial Black Holes with Angular Power Spectrum for Anisotropies in Stochastic Gravitational-Wave Background. arXiv e-prints arXiv:2107.01935 [gr-qc]
Wang S, Terada T, Kohri K (2019) Prospective constraints on the primordial black hole abundance from the stochastic gravitational-wave backgrounds produced by coalescing events and curvature perturbations. Phys Rev D 99:103531. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.103531, [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 101, 069901 (2020)]. arXiv:1903.05924 [astro-ph.CO]
Warburton N (2015) Self force on a scalar charge in Kerr spacetime: inclined circular orbits. Phys Rev D 91:024045. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.91.024045. arXiv:1408.2885 [gr-qc]
Warburton N, Barack L (2010) Self force on a scalar charge in Kerr spacetime: circular equatorial orbits. Phys Rev D 81:084039. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.81.084039. arXiv:1003.1860 [gr-qc]
Warburton N, Barack L (2011) Self force on a scalar charge in Kerr spacetime: eccentric equatorial orbits. Phys Rev D 83:124038. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.83.124038. arXiv:1103.0287 [gr-qc]
Warburton N, Akcay S, Barack L, Gair JR, Sago N (2012) Evolution of inspiral orbits around a Schwarzschild black hole. Phys Rev D 85:061501. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.85.061501. arXiv:1111.6908 [gr-qc]
Ward WR (1997) Protoplanet Migration by Nebula Tides. Icarus 126:261–281. https://doi.org/10.1006/icar.1996.5647
Watanabe Y, Komatsu E (2006) Improved Calculation of the Primordial Gravitational Wave Spectrum in the Standard Model. Phys Rev D 73:123515. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.73.123515. arXiv:astro-ph/0604176
Weinberg S (1964) Derivation of gauge invariance and the equivalence principle from Lorentz invariance of the S-matrix. Phys Lett 9:357–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-9163(64)90396-8
Wen L (2003) On the eccentricity distribution of coalescing black hole binaries driven by the Kozai mechanism in globular clusters. Astrophys J 598:419–430. https://doi.org/10.1086/378794. arXiv:astro-ph/0211492
Westerweck J, Nielsen A, Fischer-Birnholtz O, Cabero M, Capano C, Dent T, Krishnan B, Meadors G, Nitz AH (2018) Low significance of evidence for black hole echoes in gravitational wave data. Phys Rev D 97:124037. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.124037. arXiv:1712.09966 [gr-qc]
Wetterich C (1995) The Cosmon model for an asymptotically vanishing time dependent cosmological ‘constant’. Astron Astrophys 301:321–328 arXiv:hep-th/9408025
Wetterich C (2004) Phenomenological parameterization of quintessence. Phys Lett B 594:17–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2004.05.008. arXiv:astro-ph/0403289
Wilczek F (1978) Problem of Strong P and T Invariance in the Presence of Instantons. Phys Rev Lett 40:279–282. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.40.279
Will C (1993) Theory and experiment in gravitational physics. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511564246
Will CM (1971) Theoretical Frameworks for Testing Relativistic Gravity. II. Parametrized Post-Newtonian Hydrodynamics, and the Nordtvedt Effect. Astrophys J 163:611. https://doi.org/10.1086/150804
Will CM (1998) Bounding the mass of the graviton using gravitational wave observations of inspiralling compact binaries. Phys Rev D 57:2061–2068. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.57.2061. arXiv:gr-qc/9709011 [gr-qc]
Will CM (2014) The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment. Living Rev Relativ 17:4. https://doi.org/10.12942/lrr-2014-4. arXiv:1403.7377 [gr-qc]
Will CM, Maitra M (2017) Relativistic orbits around spinning supermassive black holes. Secular evolution to 4.5 post-Newtonian order. Phys Rev D 95:064003. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.95.064003. arXiv:1611.06931 [gr-qc]
Will CM, Kenneth Nordtvedt J (1972) Conservation Laws and Preferred Frames in Relativistic Gravity. I. Preferred-Frame Theories and an Extended PPN Formalism. Astrophys J 177:757. https://doi.org/10.1086/151754
Williams JG, Turyshev SG, Boggs DH (2004) Progress in lunar laser ranging tests of relativistic gravity. Phys Rev Lett 93:261101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.261101. arXiv:gr-qc/0411113
Witek H, Cardoso V, Ishibashi A, Sperhake U (2013) Superradiant instabilities in astrophysical systems. Phys Rev D 87:043513. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.87.043513. arXiv:1212.0551 [gr-qc]
Witek H, Gualtieri L, Pani P, Sotiriou TP (2019) Black holes and binary mergers in scalar Gauss-Bonnet gravity: scalar field dynamics. Phys Rev D 99:064035. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.064035. arXiv:1810.05177 [gr-qc]
Witek H, Gualtieri L, Pani P (2020) Towards numerical relativity in scalar Gauss-Bonnet gravity: 3+1 decomposition beyond the small-coupling limit. Phys Rev D 101:124055. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.124055. arXiv:2004.00009 [gr-qc]
Witzany V (2019) Spin-perturbed orbits near black holes. arXiv e-prints arXiv:1903.03649 [gr-qc]
Wolf WJ, Lagos M (2020) Standard Sirens as a Novel Probe of Dark Energy. Phys Rev Lett 124:061101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.061101. arXiv:1910.10580 [gr-qc]
Wong KWK, Franciolini G, De Luca V, Baibhav V, Berti E, Pani P, Riotto A (2021) Constraining the primordial black hole scenario with Bayesian inference and machine learning: The GWTC-2 gravitational wave catalog. Phys Rev D 103:023026. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.103.023026. arXiv:2011.01865 [gr-qc]
Wyithe JB, Loeb A (2003) Low - frequency gravitational waves from massive black hole binaries: Predictions for LISA and pulsar timing arrays. Astrophys J 590:691–706. https://doi.org/10.1086/375187. arXiv:astro-ph/0211556
Yagi K (2012) A New constraint on scalar Gauss-Bonnet gravity and a possible explanation for the excess of the orbital decay rate in a low-mass X-ray binary. Phys Rev D 86:081504. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.86.081504. arXiv:1204.4524 [gr-qc]
Yagi K, Stein LC (2016) Black Hole Based Tests of General Relativity. Class Quantum Grav 33:054001. https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/33/5/054001. arXiv:1602.02413 [gr-qc]
Yagi K, Tanaka T (2010) Constraining alternative theories of gravity by gravitational waves from precessing eccentric compact binaries with LISA. Phys Rev D 81:064008. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.81.064008, [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 81, 109902 (2010)]. arXiv:0906.4269 [gr-qc]
Yagi K, Yang H (2018) Probing Gravitational Parity Violation with Gravitational Waves from Stellar-mass Black Hole Binaries. Phys Rev D 97:104018. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.104018. arXiv:1712.00682 [gr-qc]
Yagi K, Stein LC, Yunes N, Tanaka T (2012) Post-Newtonian, Quasi-Circular Binary Inspirals in Quadratic Modified Gravity. Phys Rev D 85:064022. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.85.064022, [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 93, 029902 (2016)]. arXiv:1110.5950 [gr-qc]
Yagi K, Yunes N, Tanaka T (2012) Gravitational Waves from Quasi-Circular Black Hole Binaries in Dynamical Chern-Simons Gravity. Phys Rev Lett 109:251105. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.169902, [Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 169902 (2016), Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 029901 (2020)]. arXiv:1208.5102 [gr-qc]
Yagi K, Yunes N, Tanaka T (2012) Slowly Rotating Black Holes in Dynamical Chern-Simons Gravity: Deformation Quadratic in the Spin. Phys Rev D 86:044037. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.86.044037, [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 89, 049902 (2014)]. arXiv:1206.6130 [gr-qc]
Yagi K, Blas D, Barausse E, Yunes N (2014) Constraints on Einstein-Æther theory and Hořava gravity from binary pulsar observations. Phys Rev D 89:084067. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.89.084067, [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 90, 069902 (2014), Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 90, 069901 (2014)]. arXiv:1311.7144 [gr-qc]
Yagi K, Stein LC, Yunes N (2016) Challenging the Presence of Scalar Charge and Dipolar Radiation in Binary Pulsars. Phys Rev D 93:024010. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.93.024010. arXiv:1510.02152 [gr-qc]
Yamada K, Narikawa T, Tanaka T (2019) Testing massive-field modifications of gravity via gravitational waves. Prog Theor Exp Phys 2019:103E01. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptep/ptz103. arXiv:1905.11859 [gr-qc]
Yang H, Casals M (2017) General Relativistic Dynamics of an Extreme Mass-Ratio Binary interacting with an External Body. Phys Rev D 96:083015. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.96.083015. arXiv:1704.02022 [gr-qc]
Yang KZ, Mandic V, Scarlata C, Banagiri S (2021) Searching for cross-correlation between stochastic gravitational-wave background and galaxy number counts. Mon Not R Astron Soc 500:1666–1672. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staa3159. arXiv:2007.10456 [astro-ph.CO]
Yoshida S, Eriguchi Y (1996) Ergoregion instability revisited - a new and general method for numerical analysis of stability. Mon Not R Astron Soc 282:580–586. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/282.2.580
Yoshino H, Kodama H (2012) Bosenova collapse of axion cloud around a rotating black hole. Prog Theor Phys 128:153–190. https://doi.org/10.1143/PTP.128.153. arXiv:1203.5070 [gr-qc]
Yoshino H, Kodama H (2014) Gravitational radiation from an axion cloud around a black hole: Superradiant phase. Prog Theor Exp Phys 2014:043E02. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptep/ptu029. arXiv:1312.2326 [gr-qc]
Yoshino H, Kodama H (2015) The bosenova and axiverse. Class Quantum Grav 32:214001. https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/32/21/214001. arXiv:1505.00714 [gr-qc]
You ZQ, Zhu XJ, Ashton G, Thrane E, Zhu ZH (2021) Standard-siren Cosmology Using Gravitational Waves from Binary Black Holes. Astrophys J 908:215. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/abd4d4. arXiv:2004.00036 [astro-ph.CO]
Young S, Byrnes CT (2015) Signatures of non-gaussianity in the isocurvature modes of primordial black hole dark matter. JCAP 04:034. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2015/04/034. arXiv:1503.01505 [astro-ph.CO]
Yuan C, Chen ZC, Huang QG (2020) Scalar induced gravitational waves in different gauges. Phys Rev D 101:063018. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.063018. arXiv:1912.00885 [astro-ph.CO]
Yunes N, Hughes SA (2010) Binary Pulsar Constraints on the Parameterized post-Einsteinian Framework. Phys Rev D 82:082002. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.82.082002. arXiv:1007.1995 [gr-qc]
Yunes N, Pretorius F (2009) Dynamical Chern-Simons Modified Gravity. I. Spinning Black Holes in the Slow-Rotation Approximation. Phys Rev D 79:084043. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.79.084043. arXiv:0902.4669 [gr-qc]
Yunes N, Pretorius F (2009) Fundamental Theoretical Bias in Gravitational Wave Astrophysics and the Parameterized Post-Einsteinian Framework. Phys Rev D 80:122003. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.80.122003. arXiv:0909.3328 [gr-qc]
Yunes N, Siemens X (2013) Gravitational-Wave Tests of General Relativity with Ground-Based Detectors and Pulsar Timing-Arrays. Living Rev Relativ 16:9. https://doi.org/10.12942/lrr-2013-9. arXiv:1304.3473 [gr-qc]
Yunes N, Stein LC (2011) Non-Spinning Black Holes in Alternative Theories of Gravity. Phys Rev D 83:104002. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.83.104002. arXiv:1101.2921 [gr-qc]
Yunes N, O’Shaughnessy R, Owen BJ, Alexander S (2010) Testing gravitational parity violation with coincident gravitational waves and short gamma-ray bursts. Phys Rev D 82:064017. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.82.064017. arXiv:1005.3310 [gr-qc]
Yunes N, Coleman Miller M, Thornburg J (2011) The Effect of Massive Perturbers on Extreme Mass-Ratio Inspiral Waveforms. Phys Rev D 83:044030. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.83.044030. arXiv:1010.1721 [astro-ph.GA]
Yunes N, Kocsis B, Loeb A, Haiman Z (2011) Imprint of Accretion Disk-Induced Migration on Gravitational Waves from Extreme Mass Ratio Inspirals. Phys Rev Lett 107:171103. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.171103. arXiv:1103.4609 [astro-ph.CO]
Yunes N, Pani P, Cardoso V (2012) Gravitational Waves from Quasicircular Extreme Mass-Ratio Inspirals as Probes of Scalar-Tensor Theories. Phys Rev D 85:102003. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.85.102003. arXiv:1112.3351 [gr-qc]
Yunes N, Yagi K, Pretorius F (2016) Theoretical Physics Implications of the Binary Black-Hole Mergers GW150914 and GW151226. Phys Rev D 94:084002. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.94.084002. arXiv:1603.08955 [gr-qc]
Zel’dovich YB (1971) Generation of waves by a rotating body. Pis’ma Zh Eksp Teor Fiz 14:270 [JETP Lett. 14, 180]
Zel’dovich YB (1972) Amplification of cylindrical electromagnetic waves reflected from a rotating body. Zh Eksp Teor Fiz 62:2076 [Sov. Phys. JETP 35, 1085]
Zelenka O, Lukes-Gerakopoulos G, Witzany V, Kopáček O (2020) Growth of resonances and chaos for a spinning test particle in the Schwarzschild background. Phys Rev D 101:024037. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.024037. arXiv:1911.00414 [gr-qc]
Zhang C, Zhao X, Wang A, Wang B, Yagi K, Yunes N, Zhao W, Zhu T (2020) Gravitational waves from the quasicircular inspiral of compact binaries in Einstein-aether theory. Phys Rev D 101:044002. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.044002. arXiv:1911.10278 [gr-qc]
Zhang J, Yang H (2019) Gravitational floating orbits around hairy black holes. Phys Rev D 99:064018. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.064018. arXiv:1808.02905 [gr-qc]
Zhang J, Yang H (2020) Dynamic Signatures of Black Hole Binaries with Superradiant Clouds. Phys Rev D 101:043020. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.043020. arXiv:1907.13582 [gr-qc]
Zhao Y, Lu Y (2021) Stochastic gravitational wave background and eccentric stellar compact binaries. Mon Not R Astron Soc 500:1421–1436. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staa2707. arXiv:2009.01436 [astro-ph.HE]
Zhou Zh, Straumann N (1991) Nonlinear perturbations of Einstein Yang-Mills solitons and nonAbelian black holes. Nucl Phys B 360:180–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(91)90439-5
Zhu SJ, Baryakhtar M, Papa MA, Tsuna D, Kawanaka N, Eggenstein HB (2020) Characterizing the continuous gravitational-wave signal from boson clouds around Galactic isolated black holes. Phys Rev D 102:063020. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.063020. arXiv:2003.03359 [gr-qc]
Zhu XJ, Fan XL, Zhu ZH (2011) Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background from Neutron Star r-mode Instability Revisited. Astrophys J 729:59. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/729/1/59. arXiv:1102.2786 [astro-ph.CO]
Zhu XJ, Howell E, Regimbau T, Blair D, Zhu ZH (2011) Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background from Coalescing Binary Black Holes. Astrophys J 739:86. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/739/2/86. arXiv:1104.3565 [gr-qc]
Zhu XJ, Howell EJ, Blair DG, Zhu ZH (2013) On the gravitational wave background from compact binary coalescences in the band of ground-based interferometers. Mon Not R Astron Soc 431:882–899. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stt207. arXiv:1209.0595 [gr-qc]
Zimmerman P (2015) Gravitational self-force in scalar-tensor gravity. Phys Rev D 92:064051. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.92.064051. arXiv:1507.04076 [gr-qc]
Zimmerman P, Poisson E (2014) Gravitational self-force in nonvacuum spacetimes. Phys Rev D 90:084030. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.90.084030. arXiv:1406.5111 [gr-qc]
Zlatev I, Wang LM, Steinhardt PJ (1999) Quintessence, cosmic coincidence, and the cosmological constant. Phys Rev Lett 82:896–899. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.896. arXiv:astro-ph/9807002
Zlochower Y, Ponce M, Lousto CO (2012) Accuracy Issues for Numerical Waveforms. Phys Rev D 86:104056. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.86.104056. arXiv:1208.5494 [gr-qc]
Zumalacárregui M, García-Bellido J (2014) Transforming gravity: from derivative couplings to matter to second-order scalar-tensor theories beyond the Horndeski Lagrangian. Phys Rev D 89:064046. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.89.064046. arXiv:1308.4685 [gr-qc]
Zumalacárregui M, Bellini E, Sawicki I, Lesgourgues J, Ferreira PG (2017) hi_class: Horndeski in the Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System. JCAP 08:019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2017/08/019. arXiv:1605.06102 [astro-ph.CO]
Acknowledgements
E. Berti is supported by NSF Grants No. PHY-1912550 and AST-2006538, NASA ATP Grants No. 17-ATP17-0225 and 19-ATP19-0051, NSF-XSEDE Grant No. PHY-090003, and NSF Grant PHY-20043. D. Blas is supported by a ‘Ayuda Beatriz Galindo Senior’ from the Spanish ‘Ministerio de Universidades’, grant BG20/00228. IFAE is partially funded by the CERCA program of the Generalitat de Catalunya. The research leading of to these results has received funding from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (PID2020-115845GB-I00/AEI/10.13039/501100011033). K. Clough is supported by funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No 693024). A. Cárdenas-Avendaño acknowledges funding from the Fundación Universitaria Konrad Lorenz (Project 5INV1) and from Will and Kacie Snellings. M. Crisostomi and E. Barausse are supported by the European Union’s H2020 ERC Consolidator Grant “GRavity from Astrophysical to Microscopic Scales” (Grant No. GRAMS-815673). P. Fleury received the support of a fellowship from “la Caixa” Foundation (ID 100010434). The fellowship code is LCF/BQ/PI19/11690018. C. Herdeiro thanks the support of the Center for Research and Development in Mathematics and Applications (CIDMA) through the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT - Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia), references UIDB/04106/2020 and UIDP/04106/2020, the projects PTDC/FIS-OUT/28407/2017, CERN/FIS-PAR/0027/2019, PTDC/FIS-AST/3041/2020 and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation (RISE) programme H2020-MSCA-RISE-2017 Grant No. FunFiCO-777740. P. Pani and E. Maggio acknowledge financial support provided under the European Union’s H2020 ERC, Starting Grant agreement no. DarkGRA–757480, and under the MIUR PRIN and FARE programmes (GW-NEXT, CUP: B84I20000100001), and support from the Amaldi Research Center funded by the MIUR program “Dipartimento di Eccellenza” (CUP: B81I18001170001). N.Frusciante was supported by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) through the research grants UIDB/04434/2020, UIDP/04434/2020, PTDC/FIS-OUT/29048/2017, CERN/FIS-PAR/0037/2019, the FCT project “CosmoTests—Cosmological tests of gravity theories beyond General Relativity” with ref. number CEECIND/00017/2018 and the FCT project “BEYLA –BEYond LAmbda” with ref. number PTDC/FIS-AST/0054/2021. L.Lombriser was supported by a Swiss National Science Foundation Professorship grant (No. 170547). S.N. acknowledges support from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. D.N. acknowledges support from the NSF Grant No. PHY-2011784. R.B. acknowledges financial support from FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P., under the Scientific Employment Stimulus - Individual Call - 2020.00470.CEECIND. V. Paschalidis acknowledges support from NSF Grant PHY-1912619 and NASA Grant 80NSSC20K1542 to the University of Arizona. B.S.S. is supported by NSF grants No. AST-2006384 and PHY-2012083. C.F.S. is supported by contracts ESP2017-90084-P and PID2019-106515GB-I00/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 (Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation) and 2017-SGR-1469 (AGAUR, Generalitat de Catalunya). T. P. S. acknowledges partial support from the STFC Consolidated Grant No. ST/P000703/1. M. Ruiz acknowledges support from NASA Grant 80NSSC17K0070 to the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. I.D. Saltas is supported by the Czech Science Foundation GAČR, Grant No. 21-16583M. N. Stergioulas is supported by the ESA Prodex grant PEA:4000132310 “LISA Stochastic Signals Analysis Pipeline”. F.V. acknowledges partial support from CNES. K.Y. acknowledges support from NSF Grant PHY-1806776, NASA Grant 80NSSC20K0523, a Sloan Foundation Research Fellowship and the Owens Family Foundation. K.Y. would like to also acknowledge support by the COST Action GWverse CA16104 and JSPS KAKENHI Grants No. JP17H06358. N. Yunes acknowledges support from NASA Grants No. NNX16AB98G, 80NSSC17M0041 and 80NSSC18K1352, NSF Award No. 1759615, and the Simons Foundation through MPS Award Number 896696. D.D. acknowledge financial support via an Emmy Noether Research Group funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) under grant no. DO 1771/1-1.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Arun, K.G., Belgacem, E., Benkel, R. et al. New horizons for fundamental physics with LISA. Living Rev Relativ 25, 4 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41114-022-00036-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41114-022-00036-9