← Recent

AG-2024.07-244·gr-qc

Robust and improved constraints on higher-curvature gravitational effective-field-theory with the GW170608 event

Authors

  • Haoyang Liu
  • Nicolás Yunes

Abstract

Effective field theory methods allow us to modify general relativity through higher-curvature corrections to the Einstein-Hilbert action, while preserving Lorentz invariance and the number of gravitational degrees of freedom. We here construct an approximate inspiral-merger-ringdown waveform model within the cubic, parity-preserving class of effective-field-theory extensions to Einstein's theory for the gravitational waves emitted by quasi-circular binary black holes with aligned/anti-aligned spins. Using this waveform model, we first explore the detectability of non-Einsteinian effective-field-theory effects through an extended version of effective cycles to illustrate the need to include non-Einsteinian amplitude corrections. We then use this model to analyze the GW170608 event in a full Bayesian framework, and we place new improved and more robust constraints on the coupling constants of the effective field theory. Our Bayesian model selection study disfavors the non-Einsteinian theory with a (log) Bayes factor of $\log \mathcal{B}^{\text{EFT}}_{\text{GR}} = -2.81$. Our Bayesian parameter estimation study places the constraints $\barα_1=0.87^{+1.95}_{-1.03}$ and $ \barα_2=-0.35^{+4.12}_{-2.92}$ at $90\%$ confidence on the coupling parameters of the effective-field theory. These constraints are $3.5$ stronger than previous constraints, informative relative to the prior, and independent of the choice of prior on the coupling parameters of the modified theory.

Submitted

12 July 20241 year ago

Version

v1

License

CC-BY-4.0

DOI

10.48550/arXiv.2407.08929

Cite this preprint

Imports into BibLaTeX, Zotero, Mendeley, EndNote.

PDF

Open PDF

Opens in a new tab · v1.

Chat with this PDF

Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.

Community

Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.