Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 497

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 150 of the 150 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Fundamental theoretical bias in gravitational wave astrophysics and the parametrized post-Einsteinian framework

Open access
Yunes, Nicolás, Pretorius, Frans·2009·Physical Review D
DOI 10.1103/physrevd.80.122003
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We consider the concept of fundamental bias in gravitational wave astrophysics as the assumption that general relativity is the correct theory of gravity during the entire wave-generation and propagation regime. Such an assumption is valid in the weak field, as verified by precision experiments and observations, but it need not hold in the dynamical strong-field regime where tests are lacking. Fundamental bias can cause systematic errors in the detection and parameter estimation of signals, which can lead to a mischaracterization of the Universe through incorrect inferences about source event rates and populations. We propose a remedy through the introduction of the parametrized post-Einsteinian framework, which consists of the enhancement of waveform templates via the inclusion of post-Einsteinian parameters. These parameters would ostensibly be designed to interpolate between templates constructed in general relativity and well-motivated alternative theories of gravity, and also include extrapolations that follow sound theoretical principles, such as consistency with conservation laws and symmetries. As an example, we construct parametrized post-Einsteinian templates for the binary coalescence of equal-mass, nonspinning compact objects in a quasicircular inspiral. The parametrized post-Einsteinian framework should allow matched filtered data to select a specific set of post-Einsteinian parameters without a priori assuming the validity of the former, thus either verifying general relativity or pointing to possible dynamical strong-field deviations.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/physrevd.80.122003

Cites

150 of 150 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 150 references

Cited by

See all 497

Metadata

Authors
Yunes, N., & Pretorius, F.
Venue
Physical Review D
Publisher
American Physical Society (APS)
Published
2009-12-14
Volume
80
Issue
12
ISSN
  • 0556-2821 (ISSN-L)
  • 1550-7998
  • 1550-2368
DOI
10.1103/physrevd.80.122003
OpenAlex
W2003018730
Cited by
497
References
150
FWCI
7.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Fundamental theoretical bias in gravitational wave astrophysics and the parametrized post-Einsteinian framework. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1103/physrevd.80.122003
The paper
Yunes, N., & Pretorius, F. (2009). Fundamental theoretical bias in gravitational wave astrophysics and the parametrized post-Einsteinian framework. Physical Review D. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevd.80.122003

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.