Arxiv:1906.10901V3 [Gr-Qc] 15 Sep 2019

Frequency response of time-delay interferometry for space-based gravitational wave antenna

Chunyu Zhang,1, ∗ Qing Gao,2, † Yungui Gong,1, ‡ Dicong Liang,1, § Alan J. Weinstein,3, ¶ and Chao Zhang1, ∗∗ 1School of Physics, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei 430074, China 2School of Physical Science and Technology, Southwest University, Chongqing 400715, China 3LIGO Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125, USA Abstract Space-based gravitational wave detectors cannot keep rigid structures and precise arm length equality, so the precise equality of detector arms which is required in a ground-based interferometer to cancel the overwhelming laser noise is impossible. The time-delay interferometry method is applied to unequal arm lengths to cancel the laser frequency noise. We give analytical formulas of the averaged response functions for tensor, vector, breathing and longitudinal polarizations in

diﬀerent TDI combinations, and obtain their asymptotic behaviors. At low frequencies, f f∗, the averaged response functions of all TDI combinations increase as f 2 for all six polarizations. The one exception is that the averaged response functions of ζ for all six polarizations increase as

4 f in the equilateral-triangle case. At high frequencies, f f∗, the averaged response functions of all TDI combinations for the tensor and breathing modes fall off as 1/f 2, the averaged response functions of all TDI combinations for the vector mode fall off as ln(f)/f 2 , and the averaged response functions of all TDI combinations for the longitudinal mode fall as 1/f. We also give LISA and TianQin sensitivity curves in different TDI combinations for tensor, vector, breathing and longitudinal polarizations. arXiv:1906.10901v3 [gr-qc] 15 Sep 2019

∗ [email protected]

† [email protected]

‡ Corresponding author. [email protected]

§ [email protected]

¶ [email protected] ∗∗ chao [email protected]

1 I. INTRODUCTION

Gravitational waves (GWs) are disturbances of space-time predicted by Einstein’s general relativity. In Einstein’s theory of general relativity, GWs propagate at the speed of light with two transverse polarization states. In alternative theories of gravity, GWs may have up to six polarizations and the propagation speed may differ from the speed of light [1–9]. The detections of GWs by the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) Scientific Collaboration and the Virgo Collaboration opened a new window to test general relativity and probe the nature of gravity in the strong field regime [10–16]. The ground-based detectors, such as Advanced LIGO [17, 18], Advanced Virgo [19] and KA- GRA [20, 21], operate in the high frequency band (10-104 Hz). However, there are many important gravitational wave (GW) sources such as coalescing galactic binaries, coalescing supermassive black hole binaries, and secondary GWs from ultra-slow-roll inflation [22, 23] emitting GWs with low frequency (mHz-1Hz). The detection of low frequency GWs will help address numerous astrophysical, cosmological, and theoretical problems. The proposed space-based detectors such as LISA [24, 25], TianQin [26], and TaiJi [27] probe GWs in the frequency band of millihertz, while DECIGO [28] operates in the frequency band of 0.1 to 10 Hz.

For ground-based interferometric GW detectors, we do not need to worry about the frequency dependence of the antenna response because the wavelength of in-band GWs is larger than the arm length of the detector. For space-based interferometric GW detectors, the distance between spacecraft (SC) is comparable or even larger than the wavelength of in-band GWs and it is impossible to maintain the precise equality of the arm lengths. Since in the interferometric measurements, laser frequency noise dominates the expected GW signals by several orders of magnitude, it experiences different time delays in the arms and hence will not cancel out when the beams are recombined. Time-delay interferometry (TDI) proposed in [29, 30] is a technique applied to unequal arm lengths that significantly reduces this laser frequency noise. By synthesizing virtual equal arm interferometric measurements with TDI, the laser frequency noise was brought below the GW signals [31]. Furthermore, a rigorous and systematic procedure based on algebraic geometrical methods and commutative algebra was proposed to cancel the laser frequency noise [32]. In the first generation of TDI, a static array is assumed. The second generation of TDI applies to a rotating and flexing

2 configuration with arm lengths varying linearly in time. Recently, the effects of the flexing- filtering coupling on the TDI residual laser noise for LISA was considered [33]. In [34], the authors discussed the clock-noise calibration of the phase fluctuations of the onboard ultrastable oscillators for the second generation formulation of TDI. For more discussion on TDI algorithm and its application to LISA, please see [35–53] and references therein. In this paper, we discuss the frequency response of TDI combinations for space-based GW interferometers by averaging the transfer functions over source directions and polarizations. For equal arm space-based interferometric detectors without optical cavities, an analytical formula for the averaged response function of the tensor mode was derived in [54] and the generalization to other polarizations was obtained in [55]. The averaged response function for all six possible polarization was also discussed in [56] by numerical simulation. For LISA, the averaged response functions of TDI combinations for all six possible polarization were obtained with numerical simulation in [57]. An analytical formula for the averaged response function of the tensor mode for unequal arm space-based GW detectors was derived in [58]. The purpose of this paper is to extend the discussions on the averaged response functions in [54, 55, 58] to different TDI combinations for all polarizations so that analytical expressions are derived to understand the asymptotic behaviors of the averaged response functions. The paper is organized as follows. In Sec.II we discuss the antenna response functions of TDI combinations. The analytical formulas for averaged response functions of different TDI combinations are derived and the asymptotic behaviors of the averaged response function are analyzed in Sec.III. The discussion on the averaged response functions for equal arm space-based interferometric GW detectors to massive gravitons and the analytical formulas for different TDI combinations are presented in AppendixesV andV. In Sec.IV, we give the sensitivity curves for LISA and TianQin. The paper is concluded in Sec.V.

II. ANTENNA RESPONSE FUNCTIONS

A. Polarization tensors

For a GW propagating along the direction Ω(ˆ θ, φ), we introduce two perpendicular unit vectorsp ˆ andq ˆ to from the orthonormal coordinate system such that Ωˆ =p ˆ qˆ. To account × for the rotational degree of freedom around Ω,ˆ we introduce the polarization angle ψ to form

3 two new orthonormal vectors,

rˆ = cos ψpˆ + sin ψq,ˆ sˆ = sin ψpˆ + cos ψq.ˆ (1) −

With the orthonormal basis, the six polarization tensors are deﬁned as

+ × e =r îrˆj sîsˆj, e =r îsˆj +s îrˆj, ij − ij x ˆ ˆ y ˆ ˆ eij =r îΩj + Ωirˆj, eij =s îΩj + Ωisˆj, (2) b l ˆ ˆ eij =r îrˆj +s îsˆj, eij = ΩiΩj.

P A A In terms of the polarization tensor, the GW signal is hij(t) = A eijh (t), where A = +, , x, y, b, l stands for the six polarizations. ×

B. The transfer function for one-way transmission

Figure1 shows the schematic geometry for one-way Doppler tracking. The laser beams

travel between SC1 and SC2 with the distance L along the unit directionn ˆ, the one-way distance change due to GWs propagating along the unit direction Ωˆ is [58]

ˆ X A sin[ωL(1 nˆ Ω)/2] −iωL(1−nˆ·Ω+2Ωˆ ·~r2/L)/2 A δL = nˆinˆjeij − · e h (f) ω(1 nˆ Ω)ˆ A,i,j − · (3) X A A = Lnˆinˆje T (ω, nˆ Ω)ˆ h (f), ij · A,i,j

where ω = 2πf is the angular frequency of GWs. We take the speed of light c = 1, and the transfer function T (ω, nˆ Ω)ˆ for one-way Doppler tracking is [59, 60] ·

sin[ωL(1 nˆ Ω)ˆ /2] ˆ T (ω, nˆ Ω)ˆ = − · e−iωL(1−nˆ·Ω+2Ω·~r2/L)/2 · ωL(1 nˆ Ω)ˆ − · (4) 1 h i ˆ = sinc ωL(1 nˆ Ω)ˆ /2 e−iωL(1−nˆ·Ω+2Ω·~r2/L)/2, 2 − ·

where sinc(x) = sin(x)/x, ~r2 is the location of SC2. In the low frequency limit, ω 0, we → have T (ω, nˆ Ω)ˆ 1/2. For GWs with the propagation speed vgw diﬀerent from the speed · → of light c, the transfer function is presented in AppendixV. As discussed in AppendixV, the eﬀect of propagation speed is negligible for space-based GW detectors, so we do not consider it for TDI.

4 FIG. 1. One-way Doppler tracking. GWs propagate along Ωˆ and the laser beam transmits along

nˆ between two spacecrafts SC1 located at ~r1 and SC2 located at ~r2. The arm length between SC1

and SC2 is L.

C. Response functions

Figure2 shows the schematic conﬁguration of a space-based, unequal arm interferometric

GW detector. The SC is labeled as 1, 2, 3, and SC1 is located at the origin. The arm lengths between SC pairs are L1, L2, L3 and the unit vectors with the indicated orientation along the optical paths aren ˆa, where La andn ˆa are opposite to SCa and the index a = 1, 2, 3

labels the SCs. Note that L1nˆ1 + L2nˆ2 = L3nˆ3. Following [31, 39], we denote yab as the relative frequency ﬂuctuations time series measured from reception at SCb with transmission from SCd (d = a and d = b) along La as shown in Fig.3. For example, y31 is the relative 6 6 frequency ﬂuctuations time series measured from reception at SC1 with transmission from

SC2 along L3, and the other ﬁve one-way relative frequency time series are obtained by cyclic permutation of the indices: 1 2 3 1. Similarly, the useful notation for delayed → → → data streams are: y31,2 = y31(t L2), y31,23 = y31(t L2 L3) = y31,32. − − − By using Eqs. (3) and (4), we get the GW response for the six TDI signal [31]

gw δLa X i j A A yab (TD) = = ganˆanˆaeijTab(TD)h (f), (5) − Le − A,i,j 1 1 −iu1(1−µ1)/2−i(µ3u3+TD) T12(TD) = sinc u1(1 µ1) e , (6) 2 2 − 1 1 −iu2(1−µ2)/2−i(µ2u2+TD) T23(TD) = sinc u2(1 µ2) e , (7) 2 2 − 1 1 −iu3(1−µ3)/2−i(µ3u3+TD) T32(TD) = sinc u3(1 µ3) e , (8) 2 2 −

5 1 1 T (T ) = sinc u (1 + µ ) e−iu3(1+µ3)/2−iTD , (9) 31 D 2 2 3 3 1 1 T (T ) = sinc u (1 + µ ) e−iu1(1+µ1)/2−i(µ2u2+TD), (10) 13 D 2 2 1 1 1 1 T (T ) = sinc u (1 + µ ) e−iu2(1+µ2)/2−iTD , (11) 21 D 2 2 2 2 where ga = La/Le, Le is the expected arm length, u = ωLe, ua = ωLa = gau, µa =n ˆa Ω,ˆ · gw and TD is the corresponding time delay. For example, TD = u1 + u2 for y23,12. Note that to recover the results for yab in [30, 31], we need to multiply Eq. (5) by u because we use the fractional change δL/L.

FIG. 2. Schematic conﬁguration of a space-based, unequal arm interferometric GW detector. The spacecrafts are labeled as 1, 2 and 3, and the spacecraft 1 (SC1) is located at the origin. The optical paths between two SC pairs are denoted by La and the unit vectors along the path aren ˆa, with the index a corresponding to the opposite SC.

FIG. 3. Six data beams yab(t) exchanged between SCs.

The signal in the arm of the interferometric GW detector is

X A s(f) = F hA(f), (12) A

6 where F A is the angular response function for polarization A. Averaging over source direction and polarization angle, we get the averaged response function RA(f), Z π Z 2π Z 2π A 1 A 2 R (f) = 2 F (f, θ, φ, ψ) sin θdθdφdψ. (13) 8π 0 0 0 | | A For the TDI α combination [30, 31], the response functions Fα (f, θ, φ, ψ) are deﬁned as

gw gw gw gw gw gw gw X A α = y y + y y + y y = F (f, θ, φ, ψ)hA(f). (14) 21 − 31 13,2 − 12,3 32,12 − 23,13 α A Similarly, the response functions for other TDI combinations can be derived.

III. ANALYTICAL FORMULAS OF AVERAGED RESPONSE FUNCTIONS

There are six diﬀerent TDI combinations: the six-pulse combination (α, β, γ), the fully symmetric (Sagnac) combination (ζ), the unequal arm Michelson variables (X,Y,Z), the beacon (P, Q, R), the monitor (E,F,G), and the relay (U, V, W )[30, 31]. we show them in Fig.4. Combining Eqs. (5), (13), and (14), we can derive the averaged response functions for all polarizations and all TDI combinations. By assuming uniform distribution of the sources over the celestial sphere, the averaged response functions were plotted in [57] via Monte Carlo integration with 4000 source position/polarization state pairs per Fourier frequency bin and 7000 Fourier bins across the LISA band. In this section, we derive analytical formulas for the averaged response functions and analyze their asymptotic behaviors. We work in the source coordinate system and follow the notation used in [54, 55]. In particular, µ1 = cos θ1 = (µ2 cos σ+sin θ2 sin σ cos )L3/L1 µ2L2/L1, µ3 = cos θ3 = µ2 cos σ+sin θ2 sin σ cos , − µ2 = cos θ2, κ1 = sin θ2 cos σ µ2 sin σ cos , and κ2 = (sin θ2 cos σ µ2 sin σ cos )L3/L1 − − − sin θ2L2/L1. is the angle between the plane containingn ˆ2 and Ωˆ and the plane of the 2 2 2 interferometer, σ is the opening angle between two arms and cos σ = (L +L L )/(2L2L3). 2 3 − 1 Si(x) is the sine-integral function, and Ci(x) is the cosine-integral function. In the low frequency limit, u = ωLe 0, → 4u3 4u5 Si(2u) 2u + + o(u7), → − 9 75 4 6 (15) 2 u 2u 8 Ci(2u) ln(2u) + γE u + + o(u ), → − 6 − 135 where γE is Euler number. In the high frequency limit, u , → ∞ π Si(u) , → 2 (16) Ci(u) 0. → 7 SC2 SC2

SC 3 SC SC1 1 SC3 Michelson (X) Beacon (P)

SC2 SC2

SC1 SC3 SC SC3 Monitor (E) 1 Relay (U)

SC2 SC2

SC 1 SC3 SC1 SC3 Six-Pulse (α) Sagnac (ζ)

FIG. 4. Schematic diagrams for TDI X, P , E, U, α, and ζ with the others in each class determined from cyclic permutation of indices. Solid lines denote the path corresponding to the plus terms, and dashed lines denote the other path corresponding to the minus terms.

A. Unequal arm Michelson combination

The unequal arm Michelson variables X, Y , and Z use only four beams and two laser beams exchanged between two of the SCs are not used. The GW response for X is Xgw = ygw ygw + ygw ygw + ygw ygw + ygw ygw. The GW responses for Y and Z are 32,322 − 23,233 31,22 − 21,33 23,2 − 32,3 21 − 31 obtained by the cyclic permutation of the indices, Y gw = ygw ygw + ygw ygw + 13,133 − 31,311 12,33 − 32,11 ygw ygw + ygw ygw, and Zgw = ygw ygw + ygw ygw + ygw ygw + ygw ygw. 31,3 − 13,1 32 − 12 21,211 − 12,122 23,11 − 13,22 12,1 − 21,2 13 − 23 8 The averaged response functions of X are 2 + 2 × 2 2 1 2 2 2 sin(2u2) u RX (u) =u RX (u) = 2 sin u3 1 + cos u2 2 + sin u2 + 3 3 − u2 u2 2 2 1 2 2 2 sin(2u3) + 2 sin u2 1 + cos u3 2 + sin u3 + 3 (17) 3 − u3 u3 1 Z 2π Z 1 2 sin2 σ sin2 sin u2 sin u3 d dµ2 1 ηX (µ2, µ3), − π − 1 µ2 0 −1 − 3 2 x 2 y 2 1 u R (u) =u R (u) = 4 sin u3 2γE 5 + 2 ln(2u2) 2Ci(2u2) cos(2u2)+ X X − − − 3 2 1 2 4(1 + cos u2) 2 2 sin(2u2) 3 + 2 + 4 sin u2 [2γE 5 + 2 ln(2u3) u2 − u2 u2 − 2 (18) 1 1 2 4(1 + cos u3) cos(2u3) 2Ci(2u3) + 2 sin(2u3) 3 + 2 −3 − u3 − u3 u3 Z 2π Z 1 4 µ2µ3κ1 sin u2 sin u3 d dµ2 ηX (µ2, µ3), 2 p 2 − π 0 −1 (1 µ ) 1 µ − 3 − 2 2 b 2 2 1 2 2 2 sin(2u2) u RX (u) =4 sin u3 1 + cos u2 2 + sin (u2) + 3 3 − u2 u2 2 2 1 2 2 2 sin(2u3) + 4 sin u2 (1 + cos u3) 2 + sin (u3) + 3 (19) 3 − u3 u3 2 Z 2π Z 1 sin u2 sin u3 d dµ2 ηX (µ2, µ3), − π 0 −1 2 l 2 11 u R (u) = sin u3 15 9γE 9 ln(2u2) + γE ln(2u2) cos(2u2)+ X − − 3 − −

(9 + cos(2u2)) Ci(2u2) + (2u2 + sin(2u2)) Si(2u2) 2 1 1 8(1 + cos u2) +8 sin(2u2) 3 2 u2 − u2 − u2 2 11 + sin u2 15 9γE 9 ln(2u3) + γE ln(2u3) cos(2u3) (20) − − 3 − −

+ (9 + cos(2u3)) Ci(2u3) + (2u3 + sin(2u3)) Si(2u3) 2 1 1 8(1 + cos u3) +8 sin(2u3) 3 2 u3 − u3 − u3 Z 2π Z 1 2 2 2 µ2 µ3 ηX (µ2, µ3) sin u2 sin u3 d dµ2 , − π (1 µ2)(1 µ2) 0 −1 − 2 − 3 where

ηX (µ2, µ3) = µ2µ3[cos u2 cos(u2µ2)][cos u3 cos(u3µ3)]+ − − (21) [sin u2 µ2 sin(u2µ2)][sin u3 µ3 sin(u3µ3)]. − − 9 A A Similarly, we can obtain the averaged response functions RY and RZ by cyclic permutation A of arm lengths (u1 u2 u3 u1) from R . The integrals need to be calculated → → → X numerically. From Eqs. (17), (18), (19), and (20), it is easy to show that in the low frequency A 2 2 limit, ω 0, R ω . In the high frequency limit, we find that RX 1/ω for the → X ∝ ∝ 2 tensor and breathing modes, RX 1/ω for the longitudinal mode, and RX ln(ω)/ω for ∝ ∝ the vector mode. The high frequency behaviors are the same as those for the equal arm interferometric GW detector without optical cavities derived in [55]. We show the averaged response functions of the TDI combinations X, Y , and Z for space-based interferometers with equal arm lengths in Fig.5. As shown in Fig.5, at frequencies equal to half-integer multiple of 1/Le, the averaged response functions for all polarizations are zero due to the overall factor sin2 u in Eqs. (17), (18), (19), and (20), so the response of the detector is subtracted to zero at those frequencies. Since a tensor signal propagating perpendicularly to the light beam interacts with the light during the brief instance its wave front crosses the light beam, and a scalar longitudinal wave propagating along the light beam affects the light during the time it travels the entire arm length L, so the averaged response to the scalar longitudinal wave is significantly larger than that to the tensor signal when the wavelength of GWs is shorter than the arm length [57].

B. Beacon combinations P , Q, R

For the TDI Beacon combinations P , Q and R, one SC emits a laser only and does not receive the laser from the other two SCs. The GW response for P is P gw = ygw ygw 32,2 − 23,3 − ygw + ygw + ygw ygw + ygw ygw . The GW responses for Q and R are obtained by 12,2 13,3 12,13 − 13,12 23,311 − 32,211 the cyclic permutation of the indices. The analytical expressions for the averaged response functions of P are presented in Appendix1. From Eqs. (43), (44), (45) and (46), it is easy to see that in the low frequency limit, RA ω2. In the high frequency limit, we P ∝ 2 ﬁnd that RP 1/ω for the tensor and breathing modes, RP 1/ω for the longitudinal ∝ ∝ 2 mode and RP ln(ω)/ω for the vector mode, which are the same as those for the equal ∝ arm interferometric GW detector without optical cavities derived in [55]. We show the averaged response functions of the TDI Beacon combinations P , Q and R for space-based interferometers with equal arm lengths in Fig.5. From Fig.5, we see that the averaged

10 X,Y,Z P, Q, R 1 1 10− 10− 3 3 10− 10−

R R 5 5 2 10 2 R+ R 1/u − R+ R 1/u 10− | × | × Rx Ry ln(u)/u2 Rx Ry ln(u)/u2 | 7 | 7 Rb 1/u 10− Rb 1/u 10− Rl u2 Rl u2 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 2 1 0 1 2 10− 10− 10− 10 10 10 10− 10− 10− 10 10 10 u u E,F,G U, V, W 10 1 1 − 10− 3 10− 3 10−

R 5 R 10 2 5 2 − R+ R 1/u R+ R 1/u | × 10− | × Rx Ry ln(u)/u2 Rx Ry ln(u)/u2 7 | | 10− Rb 1/u 7 Rb 1/u Rl u2 10− Rl u2 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 2 1 0 1 2 10− 10− 10− 10 10 10 10− 10− 10− 10 10 10 u u

α, β, γ 0 ζ 10 2 1 R+ R 1/u 2 | × 10− Rx Ry ln(u)/u2 10− | Rb 1/u 3 4 10− 10− Rl u4 6 R 5 R 10− 2 10− R+ R 1/u | × 8 Rx Ry ln(u)/u2 10− 7 | Rb 1/u 10 10− 10− Rl u2 12 3 2 1 0 1 2 10− 3 2 1 0 1 2 10− 10− 10− 10 10 10 10− 10− 10− 10 10 10 u u

FIG. 5. Averaged response functions of diﬀerent TDI combinations for tensor, vector, breathing

and longitudinal modes. We assume equal arm lengths with L1 = L2 = L3 = Le. After multiplying u2 due to the deﬁnition we used in Eq. (5), these results are consistent with Fig. 3 in [57]. response functions for all polarizations are very small at frequencies equal to integer multiples 2 of 1/Le due to the factor 1 cos u and sin u in Eqs. (43), (44), (45), and (46). −

C. Monitor combinations

For the TDI monitor combinations E, F , and G, one spacecraft only receives laser and will not emit laser beams to the other two spacecrafts. The GW response for E is Egw = ygw ygw ygw + ygw + ygw ygw ygw + ygw. The GW responses for F and G 12,21 − 13,31 − 12,3 13,2 31,11 − 21,11 − 31 21 are obtained by the cyclic permutation of the indices. The analytical expressions for the averaged response functions of E are presented in Appendix2. From Eqs. (51), (52), (53), and (54), it is easy to see that in the low frequency limit, RA ω2. In the high frequency E ∝ 2 limit, we ﬁnd that RE 1/ω for the tensor and breathing modes, RE 1/ω for the ∝ ∝ 11 2 longitudinal mode and RE ln(ω)/ω for the vector mode, which are the same as those ∝ for the equal arm interferometric GW detector without optical cavities derived in [55]. We show the averaged response functions of the TDI monitor combinations E, F and G for space-based interferometers with equal arm lengths in Fig.5. From Fig.5, we see that the averaged response functions for all polarizations are very small at frequencies equal to 2 integer multiples of 1/Le due to the factor 1 cos u and sin u in Eqs. (51), (52), (53), and − (54).

D. Relay combinations

For the TDI relay combinations U, V , and W , one spacecraft receives laser beam from another one, and emits a laser beam to the remaining one. The GW response for U is U gw = ygw ygw ygw + ygw ygw + ygw ygw + ygw. The GW responses for V 21,113 − 21,3 − 12,123 13,1 − 13,23 32,11 − 32 12 and W are obtained by the cyclic permutation of the indices. The analytical expressions for the averaged response functions of U are presented in Appendix3. From Eqs. (59), (60), (61), and (62), it is easy to see that in the low frequency limit, RA ω2. In the high U ∝ 2 frequency limit, we ﬁnd that RU 1/ω for the tensor and breathing modes, RU 1/ω ∝ ∝ 2 for the longitudinal mode and RU ln(ω)/ω for the vector mode, which are the same as ∝ those for the equal arm interferometric GW detector without optical cavities derived in [55]. We show the averaged response functions of the TDI monitor combinations U, V and W for space-based interferometers with equal arm lengths in Fig.5. From Fig.5, we see that the averaged response functions for all polarizations are very small at frequencies equal to 2 integer multiple of 1/Le due to the factor 1 cos u cos 2u and sin u in Eqs. (59), (60), (61), − and (62).

E. The α, β, γ (six-pulse) combinations

For the TDI combinations α, β, and γ, all six laser beams are used. The GW response for α is αgw = ygw ygw + ygw ygw + ygw ygw . The GW responses for β and γ 21 − 31 13,2 − 12,3 32,12 − 23,13 are obtained by the cyclic permutation of the indices. The analytical expressions for the averaged response functions of α are presented in Appendix4. From Eqs. (66), (67), (68), and (69), it is easy to see that in the low frequency limit, RA ω2. In the high frequency α ∝ 12 2 limit, we ﬁnd that Rα 1/ω for the tensor and breathing modes, Rα 1/ω for the ∝ ∝ 2 longitudinal mode and Rα ln(ω)/ω for the vector mode, which are the same as those ∝ for the equal arm interferometric GW detector without optical cavities derived in [55]. We show the averaged response functions of the TDI combinations α, β, and γ for space-based interferometers with equal arm lengths in Fig.5. From Fig.5, we see that the averaged response function for breathing mode is almost zero at frequencies equal to integer multiples

of 1/Le because the integral term almost cancels the constant 4+4/3 in Eq. (68).

F. Fully symmetric (Sagnac) combination

The fully symmetric (Sagnac) TDI combination ζ uses all six laser beams. The GW response for ζ is ζgw = ygw ygw + ygw ygw + ygw ygw . The analytical expressions 32,2 − 23,3 13,3 − 31,1 21,1 − 12,2 for the averaged response functions of ζ are presented in appendix5. From Eqs. (74), (75), (76) and (77), it is easy to see that in the low frequency limit, RA ω2. However, for the ζ ∝ A 4 equilateral-triangle case L1 = L2 = L3 = Le, R ω . In the high frequency limit, we ﬁnd ζ ∝ 2 that Rζ 1/ω for the tensor and breathing modes, Rζ 1/ω for the longitudinal mode ∝ ∝ 2 and Rζ ln(ω)/ω for the vector mode, which are the same as those for the equal arm ∝ interferometric GW detector without optical cavities derived in [55]. We show the averaged response functions of the TDI Sagnac combination ζ for space-based interferometers with equal arm lengths in Fig.5. From Fig.5, we see that the averaged response function for

breathing mode is very small at frequencies equal to integer multiple of 1/Le because the integral term almost cancels the constant 4+4/3 in Eq. (76).

IV. SENSITIVITY CURVES

Armed with the averaged response functions for diﬀerent TDI combinations, we are ready to plot the sensitivity curves. For LISA, the single-link optical metrology noise is [61]

" 4# −11 2 2mHz −1 POMS = (1.5 10 m) 1 + Hz , (22) × f

and the acceleration noise is " 2#" 4# −15 −2 2 0.4mHz f −1 Pa = (3 10 m s ) 1 + 1 + Hz . (23) × f 8mHz

13 2 2 4 Dividing them by Le and Le(2πf) respectively, we get the shot and proof mass noises " # 2mHz4 Sshot =3.6 10−41 1 + Hz−1, y × f " #" # (24) Hz4 0.4mHz2 f 4 Sproof mass =9.24 10−52 1 + 1 + Hz−1. y × f f 8mHz

−24 2 For TianQin, the position and acceleration noises are Sx = 10 m /Hz and Sa = 10−30m2s−4/Hz [26]. So the shot and proof mass noises are

Sshot =3.33 10−41 Hz−1, y × Hz2 (25) Sproof mass =2.14 10−50 Hz−1. y × f

The noises in TDI combinations are [31]

α 2 2 proof mass shot Pn = [8 sin (3πfL) + 16 sin (πfL)]Sy + 6Sy , (26)

ζ 2 proof mass shot Pn = 24 sin (πfL)Sy + 6Sy , (27)

X 2 2 proof mass 2 shot Pn = [8 sin (4πfL) + 32 sin (2πfL)]Sy + 16 sin (2πfL)Sy , (28)

P 2 2 proof mass 2 2 shot Pn = [8 sin (2πfL) + 32 sin (πfL)]Sy + [8 sin (2πfL) + 8 sin (πfL)]Sy , (29)

E 2 2 proof mass 2 2 shot Pn = [32 sin (πfL) + 8 sin (2πfL)]Sy + [8 sin (πfL) + 8 sin (2πfL)]Sy , (30)

U 2 2 2 proof mass Pn =[16 sin (πfL) + 8 sin (2πfL) + 16 sin (3πfL)]Sy (31) 2 2 2 shot + [4 sin (πfL) + 8 sin (2πfL) + 4 sin (3πfL)]Sy ,

The sensitivity curve for the tensor mode is

k k k Pn 1 Pn Sn = + × = + , (32) Rk + Rk 2 Rk

14 where k = α,ζ,X,P,E,U. The sensitivity curve for the vector mode is

k k k Pn 1 Pn Sn = x y = x . (33) Rk + Rk 2 Rk The sensitivity curve for the breathing mode is

k k Pn Sn = b . (34) Rk The sensitivity curve for the longitudinal mode is

k k Pn Sn = l . (35) Rk Figure6 shows LISA sensitivities of different TDI combinations and Fig.7 shows TianQin sensitivities of different TDI combinations. As noted in [57], there is a lack of sensitivity of the TDI combinations α and ζ to the breathing mode at frequencies equal to integer multiples of 1/Le. However, for the unequal arm Michelson, beacon, monitor and relay TDI combinations, at frequencies where the signal is lost the noises also cancel out, so there is no problem of lack of sensitivity at those frequencies. In Ref. [57], the sensitivity is defined as the GW amplitude required to achieve a signal-to-noise ratio 5 in a one-year integration time, so the amplitude is about 5√3.17 10−8 = 8.9 10−4 smaller. Taking into account × × this factor and the difference in the assumption about noise levels and arm lengths, the results in Fig.6 are consistent with those shown in Fig. 4 in Ref. [57].

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

We obtain analytical formulas for the averaged response functions of massive gravitons for tensor, vector, breathing and longitudinal polarizations. For space-based GW detectors, the frequency is much larger than the mass of gravitons constrained by the observations, so the propagation speed of GWs does not differ much from the speed of light and its effect on the averaged response functions is negligible. On the other hand, because the distance between SCs is comparable or even larger than the wavelength of in-band GWs and it is impossible to keep the precise equality of the arm lengths, the TDI technique is needed to reduce the laser frequency noise by synthesizing virtual equal arm interferometric measurements. We give analytical formulas for the averaged response functions of different TDI combinations for tensor, vector, breathing, and longitudinal modes which are consistent

15 16 X,Y,Z(LISA) 16 P, Q, R(LISA) 10− 10− Tensor Tensor 17 Vector 17 Vector 10− 10− Breathing Breathing

n Longitudinal n Longitudinal

S 18 S 18 10− 10− √ √ 19 19 10− 10−

20 20 10− 4 3 2 1 0 10− 4 3 2 1 0 10− 10− 10− 10− 10 10− 10− 10− 10− 10 f/Hz f/Hz

16 E,F,G(LISA) 16 U, V, W (LISA) 10− 10− Tensor Tensor 17 Vector 17 Vector 10− 10− Breathing Breathing

n Longitudinal n Longitudinal

S 18 S 18 10− 10− √ √ 19 19 10− 10−

20 20 10− 4 3 2 1 0 10− 4 3 2 1 0 10− 10− 10− 10− 10 10− 10− 10− 10− 10 f/Hz f/Hz

14 α, β, γ(LISA) ζ(LISA) 10− 12 15 Tensor 10− Tensor 10− Vector Vector 16 14 10− Breathing 10− Breathing n Longitudinal n Longitudinal

S 17 S 10− 16

√ √ 10− 18 10− 18 19 10− 10− 20 20 10− 4 3 2 1 0 10− 4 3 2 1 0 10− 10− 10− 10− 10 10− 10− 10− 10− 10 f/Hz f/Hz

FIG. 6. LISA sensitivities of diﬀerent TDI combinations for tensor, vector, breathing and longitu-

9 dinal polarizations. We take L1 = L2 = L3 = 2.5 10 m. × with those obtained by numerical simulation. With the analytical expressions, we obtain the asymptotic behaviors of the transfer functions. At low frequencies, f f∗ = 1/(2πLe), the averaged response functions of all TDI combinations increase as f 2 for all six polarizations. The one exception is that the averaged response functions of ζ for all six polarizations 4 increase as f in the equilateral-triangle case. At high frequencies, f f∗, the averaged response functions of all TDI combinations for the tensor and breathing modes fall off as 1/f 2, the averaged response functions of all TDI combinations for the vector mode fall off as ln(f)/f 2 , and the averaged response functions of all TDI combinations for the longitudinal mode fall as 1/f. By using the analytical expressions for the averaged response functions of all TDI combinations, we plot the frequency dependent response functions for tensor, vector, breathing and longitudinal polarizations with equal arms, we also plot the LISA and TianQin sensitivity curves with different TDI combinations for tensor, vector, breathing and longitudinal polarizations.

16 16 X,Y,Z(TQ) 16 P, Q, R(TQ) 10− 10− Tensor Tensor 17 Vector 17 Vector 10− 10− Breathing Breathing

n Longitudinal n Longitudinal

S 18 S 18 10− 10− √ √ 19 19 10− 10−

20 20 10− 4 3 2 1 0 1 10− 4 3 2 1 0 1 10− 10− 10− 10− 10 10 10− 10− 10− 10− 10 10 f/Hz f/Hz

16 E,F,G(TQ) 16 U, V, W (TQ) 10− 10− Tensor Tensor 17 Vector 17 Vector 10− 10− Breathing Breathing

n Longitudinal n Longitudinal

S 18 S 18 10− 10− √ √ 19 19 10− 10−

20 20 10− 4 3 2 1 0 1 10− 4 3 2 1 0 1 10− 10− 10− 10− 10 10 10− 10− 10− 10− 10 10 f/Hz f/Hz

16 α, β, γ(TQ) ζ(TQ) 10− 12 Tensor 10− Tensor 17 Vector Vector 10− 14 Breathing 10− Breathing n Longitudinal n Longitudinal

S 18 S 10− 16

√ √ 10− 19 18 10− 10− 20 20 10− 4 3 2 1 0 1 10− 4 3 2 1 0 1 10− 10− 10− 10− 10 10 10− 10− 10− 10− 10 10 f/Hz f/Hz

FIG. 7. TianQin sensitivities of diﬀerent TDI combinations for tensor, vector, breathing, and

8 longitudinal polarizations. We take L1 = L2 = L3 = 1.73 10 m. ×

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grants No. 11875136 and 11605061, the Major Program of the National Natural Sci- ence Foundation of China under Grant No. 11690021. A.J.W. acknowledges funding from the U.S. National Science Foundation, under Cooperative Agreement No. PHY-1764464. Q.G. acknowledges the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities under Grants No. XDJK2017C059 and No. SWU116053, the ﬁnancial support from China Schol- arship Council for sponsoring her visit to California Institute of Technology, and the hospi- tality of California Institute of Technology.

17 THE TRANSFER FUNCTION FOR MASSIVE GRAVITONS

For GWs with the propagation speed vgw which is diﬀerent from the speed of light c, the transfer function T (f, nˆ Ω)ˆ for a single round trip in the arm is [57, 62] · 1 f f T (f, nˆ Ω)ˆ = sinc (1 nˆ Ωˆ/(vgw/c)) exp i (3 +n ˆ Ωˆ/(vgw/c)) · 2 2f ? − · − 2f ? · (36) f f +sinc (1 +n ˆ Ωˆ/(vgw/c)) exp i (1 +n ˆ Ωˆ/(vgw/c)) , 2f ? · − 2f ? · where f ? = c/(2πL) is the transfer frequency, L is the arm length of the detector and here we write out c explicitly. For massive gravitons, the propagation speed for GWs is

q 2 2 vgw(ω) = c 1 m /ω . − g Choosing the source coordinate system, we calculate the averaged angular response function for equal arm interferometric GW detectors without optical cavities in the arms, and the results are Z 2π Z π + × 1 3 R (u) = R (u) = H(u) 2 d dθ1 sin (θ1) − 16πu 0 0 (37) 2 2 2 sin (θ2) 2 sin (σ) sin () η(u), × − Z 2π Z π b 1 3 2 R (u) = 2H(u) 2 d dθ1 sin (θ1) sin (θ2)η(u), (38) − 8πu 0 0

Rx(u) =Ry(u) 2 vgw 2 2 u 2 u = 5 12vgw cos(u) 4vgw u 1 sin + u u + 4 cos 12u − vgw vgw + 2 2 3v2 u3 cos(2u) + 6 2 9v2 u3 − gw − gw 3 2 u 2 u +2u 6vgw u + 2 sin(u) sin 12vgwu sin(u) cos vgw − vgw 3 vgw 2 u u + 2 1 vgw [u + sin(u) cos(u)] Si u + Si u (39) 2u − vgw − − vgw 3 vgw 2 2 1 vgw + 2 5 9vgw + 1 vgw cos(2u) ln − 4u − − 1 + vgw u u +Ci u + Ci u vgw − vgw − 1 Z 2π Z π 2 d dθ1 sin(θ1) sin(2θ1) cos(θ2) − 8πu 0 0

[cos(σ) sin(θ1) sin(σ) cos(θ1) cos()] η(u), × − 18 4 5 4 l vgw u vgw u 2vgw u R (u) = 3 sin(u) cos 4 sin(u) sin 4 cos(u) cos u vgw − u vgw − u vgw 2 3 vgw 2 vgw 2 2 2 2 u + 2 (3vgw + 1) cos(2u) 5 (2u vgw 2vgw + u ) cos(u) sin 12u − u − vgw 2 vgw 4 2 + 2 2 1 9vgw + 6vgw 4(1 vgw)u − − 5 u 4 u +2vgw sin(u) sin( ) + 2vgw cos(u) cos( ) (40) vgw vgw cos(2u) + 9 5 u u 1 vgw + 2 vgw Ci u + Ci u + ln − 8u vgw − vgw − 1 + vgw u + sin(u) cos(u) 5 u u + 2 vgw Si + u Si u 4u vgw − − vgw Z 2π Z π 1 2 2 2 d dθ1 sin(θ1) cos (θ1) cos (θ2)η(u), − 8πu 0 0 where 2 vgw 3 2 3 2 2 2 u H(u) =− 5 3u 7 9vgw + u 5 3vgw cos(2u) 12u vgw sin(u) cos 24u − − − vgw 2 2 2 u + 6uvgw sin(u) u + 2 vgw u sin − vgw 3 2 3 2 u + 6 cos(u) 4vgwu 4vgw 2vgwu sin − − vgw 3 2 2 3 u (41) +6 cos(u)(u vgw + 4uvgw u ) cos − vgw v + gw v2 1 v2 1 cos(2u) + 9v2 1 16u2 gw − gw − gw − u u 1 vgw Ci u + Ci u + ln − × vgw − vgw − 1 + vgw 2u + sin(2u) 2 2 u u + 2 vgw vgw 1 Si + u Si u , 16u − vgw − − vgw

η(u) = [cos(u) cos(uµ1)][cos(u) cos(uµ2)]µ1µ2 { − − (42) 2 2 + [sin(u) µ1 sin(uµ1)][sin(u) µ2 sin(uµ2)] /[(1 µ )(1 µ )], − − } − 1 − 2

µ1 = cos θ1/vgw, µ2 = cos θ2/vgw, cos θ2 = cos σ cos θ1 + sin σ sin θ1 cos . In the massless or high frequency limit, vgw = c and we recover those results in [55]. In the low frequency + × x y 2 and massless limits, mg ω 2πf∗, we get R = R = R = R = sin σ/5 and b l 2 A R = R = sin σ/15. On the other hand, in the limit ω mg, we get R = 0. We show → 19 the results of the averaged response function for equal arm interferometric GW detectors without optical cavities in the arms in Fig.8. Since the observations constrain the mass of −23 gravitons to be mg 5.0 10 eV [63] and space-based GW detectors operate in the mHZ ≤ × frequency, we have mg ω and the eﬀect of the propagation speed is negligible as shown in Fig.8.

1 1 10− 10−

2 10−

) 2 ) 10− u u ( ( 3 t 10− v R mg = 0 R mg = 0 23 23 4 m = 5 10− 3 m = 5 10− 10− g × 10− g × 21 21 m = 5 10− m = 5 10− g × g × 20 20 5 mg = 5 10− mg = 5 10− 10− × × 2 0 2 2 0 2 10− 10 10 10− 10 10 u u

2 10− ) 3 ) u 10− u ( ( 2 l b 10− R R mg = 0 mg = 0 4 23 23 10− mg = 5 10− mg = 5 10− × × 21 21 m = 5 10− m = 5 10− g × g × 20 20 5 m = 5 10− m = 5 10− 10− g × g × 2 0 2 2 0 2 10− 10 10 10− 10 10 u u

FIG. 8. Averaged response functions of massive gravitons for tensor, vector, breathing, and longitudinal polarizations. We consider equal arm interferometric GW detectors (L = 1.73 108 m for × TianQin is used) without optical cavities in the arms.

20 AVERAGED RESPONSE FUNCTIONS

1. Beacon combinations P , Q, R

The averaged response functions of P are

2 + 2 × 4 2 sin(2u1) 2 8 u RP =u RP = [1 cos u1 cos(u2 u3)] 2 + 3 + sin u1 − − 3 − u1 u1 3 Z 1 Z 2π 2 2 sin(2u2) sin(2u3) 1 0 2 2 + 3 + 3 + dµ2 d ηP − u2 − u3 u2 u3 8π −1 0 2(g /g )2 sin2 σ sin2 4(g /g )κ κ sin2 σ sin2 + 1 3 1 η1 + 3 1 1 2 (43) − 1 µ2 P (1 µ2)(1 µ2) − 1 − 1 − 3 2(g /g )2 sin2 σ sin2 2 sin2 σ sin2 + 1 3 1 1 η2 − 1 µ2 − 1 µ2 P − 1 − 3 2 sin2 σ sin2 + 1 η3 , − 1 µ2 P − 3

2 x 2 y 14 4 u RP =u RP = 2 [1 cos u1 cos(u2 u3)] 2γE + 2 2 Ci(2u1) ln(2u1) − − − 3 u1 − − 1 2 2 28 4 4 + 3 sin(2u1) + 2 sin u1 4γE + 2 + 2 2 Ci(2u2) u1 − u1 − 3 u2 u3 − 1 2 1 2 + Ci(2u3) ln(4u2u3) + 3 sin(2u2) + 3 sin(2u3) − u2 − u2 u3 − u3 (44) Z 1 Z 2π ( 2 1 µ1 0 µ1µ2κ2 1 + dµ2 d η + η 2 ζ 2 p 2 ζ 2π −1 0 1 µ1 (1 µ ) 1 µ − − 1 − 2 2 2 ) κ1κ2 + (g3/g1) sin σ sin µ1µ3 µ µ κ + η2 + 2 3 1 η3 , 2 2 ζ 2 p 2 ζ (1 µ1)(1 µ3) (1 µ ) 1 µ − − − 3 − 2

2 b 4 2 sin(2u1) 2 8 2 2 u RP =2[1 cos u1 cos(u2 u3)] 2 + 3 + 2 sin u1 2 2 − − 3 − u1 u1 3 − u2 − u3 Z 1 Z 2π (45) sin(2u2) sin(2u3) 1 0 1 2 3 + 3 + 3 + dµ2 d ηP + ηP + ηP + ηP , u2 u3 4π −1 0

21 2 l 37 4 1 2 2 u RP =[1 cos u1 cos(u2 u3)] 4γE 2 + cos(2u1) + 3 sin(2u1) − − 6 − − u1 2 u1 − u1 2 37 4 4 + 4 Ci(2u1) ln(2u1) + u1Si(2u1) + sin u1 8γE 2 2 − 3 − − u2 − u3 1 2 2 2 2 + cos(2u2) + cos(2u3) + 3 sin(2u2) + 3 sin(2u3) 2 u2 − u2 u3 − u3 (46) + 4 Ci(2u2) + Ci(2u3) ln(4u2u3) + u2Si(2u2) + u3Si(2u3) − 1 Z 1 Z 2π µ4 µ2µ2 + dµ d 1 η0 + 1 2 η1 4π 2 (1 µ2)2 P (1 µ2)(1 µ2) P −1 0 − 1 − 1 − 2 µ2µ2 µ2µ2 + 1 3 η2 + 2 3 η3 , (1 µ2)(1 µ2) P (1 µ2)(1 µ2) P − 1 − 3 − 2 − 3 where

0 2 η = 2(1 µ )[cos u1 cos(u2 u3)][cos(u1µ1) cos u1] cos(u1µ1 + u2µ2 u3µ3) (47) P − 1 − − − − 1 1 1 1 η =8(1 + µ2) sin u1 sin (u2 u2µ2) (1 + µ1) sin (u1 u1µ1) sin (u1 u2 + u3) P 2 − 2 − 2 − × 1 cos (u1µ1 + u2µ2 + u3 2u3µ3) (48) 2 − − 1 1 1 (1 µ1) sin (u1 + u1µ1) sin (u1 + u2 u3) cos (u1µ1 + u2µ2 u3) − 2 2 − 2 − 2 1 1 1 η =8(1 + µ3) sin u1 sin (u3 u3µ3) (1 µ1) sin (u1 + u1µ1) sin (u1 + u2 u3) P 2 − − 2 2 − × 1 cos (u1µ1 u2 + 2u2µ2 u3µ3) (49) 2 − − − 1 1 1 (1 + µ1) sin (u1 u1µ1) sin (u1 u2 + u3) cos (u1µ1 + u2 u3µ3) 2 − 2 − 2 −

3 2 1 1 1 ηP = 8(1 + µ2)(1 + µ3) sin u1 sin (u2 u2µ2) sin (u3 u3µ3) cos (u2 u2µ2 − 2 − 2 − 2 − (50) u3 + u3µ3) −

A A Similarly, we can obtain the averaged response functions RQ and RR through the cyclic permutation u1 u2 u3 u1. → → → 22 2. Monitor combinations

The averaged response functions of E are

2 + 2 × 4 2 sin(2u1) 2 8 u RE =u RE = [1 cos u1 cos(u2 u3)] 2 + 3 + sin u1 − − 3 − u1 u1 3 Z 1 Z 2π 2 2 sin(2u2) sin(2u3) 1 0 2 2 + 3 + 3 + dµ2 d ηE −u2 − u3 u2 u3 8π −1 0 2(g /g )2 sin2 σ sin2 4(g /g )κ κ sin2 σ sin2 + 1 3 1 η1 + 3 1 1 2 (51) − 1 µ2 E (1 µ2)(1 µ2) − 1 − 1 − 3 2(g /g )2 sin2 σ sin2 2 sin2 σ sin2 + 1 3 1 1 η2 − 1 µ2 − 1 µ2 E − 1 − 3 2 sin2 σ sin2 + 1 η3 , − 1 µ2 E − 3

2 x 2 y 14 4 u RE =u RE = 2[1 cos u1 cos(u2 u3)] 2γE + 2 2 Ci(2u1) ln(2u1) − − − 3 u1 − − 1 2 2 28 4 4 + 3 sin(2u1) + 2 sin u1 4γE + 2 + 2 2 Ci(2u2) u1 − u1 − 3 u2 u3 − 1 2 1 2 +Ci(2u3) ln(4u2u3) + 2 sin(2u2) + 2 sin(2u3) − u2 − u2 u3 − u3 (52) Z 1 Z 2π ( 2 1 µ1 0 µ1µ2κ2 1 + dµ2 d η + η 2 E 2 p 2 E 2π −1 0 1 µ1 (1 µ ) 1 µ − − 1 − 2 2 2 ) κ1κ2 + (g3/g1) sin σ sin µ1µ3 µ µ κ + η2 + 2 3 1 η3 , 2 2 E 2 p 2 E (1 µ1)(1 µ3) (1 µ ) 1 µ − − − 3 − 2

2 b 4 2 sin(2u1) 2 8 2 2 u RE =2[1 cos u1 cos(u2 u3)] 2 + 3 + 2 sin u1 2 2 − − 3 − u1 u1 3 − u2 − u3 Z 1 Z 2π (53) sin(2u2) sin(2u3) 1 0 1 2 3 + 3 + 3 + dµ2 d ηE + ηE + ηE + ηE , u2 u3 4π −1 0 { }

23 2 l 37 4 1 2 2 u RE =[1 cos u1 cos(u2 u3)] 4γE 2 + cos(2u1) + 3 sin 2u1 − − 6 − − u1 2 u1 − u1 2 37 4 4 + 4 Ci(2u1) ln(2u1) + u1Si(2u1) + sin u1 8γE 2 2 − 3 − − u2 − u3 1 + cos(2u2) + cos(2u3) + 4 Ci(2u2) + Ci(2u3) ln(4u2u3) 2 − (54) 2 2 2 2 3 sin(2u2) 3 sin(2u3) + u2Si(2u2) + u3Si(2u3) − u2 − u2 − u3 − u3 1 Z 1 Z 2π µ4 µ2µ2 + dµ d 1 η0 + 1 2 η1 4π 2 (1 µ2)2 E (1 µ2)(1 µ2) E −1 0 − 1 − 1 − 2 µ2µ2 µ2µ2 + 1 3 η2 + 2 3 η3 , (1 µ2)(1 µ2) E (1 µ2)(1 µ2) E − 1 − 3 − 2 − 3 where

0 2 η = 2(1 µ )[cos u1 cos(u2 u3)][cos(u1µ1) cos u1] cos(u1µ1 + u2µ2 u3µ3), (55) E − 1 − − − −

1 1 1 1 η =8(1 µ2) sin u1 sin (u2 + u2µ2) (1 µ1) sin (u1 + u1µ1) sin (u1 u2 E − 2 − 2 2 − 1 1 1 + u3) cos (u1µ1 + u2µ2 + u3) (1 + µ1) sin (u1 u1µ1) sin (u1 + u2 (56) 2 − 2 − 2 1 u3) cos (u1µ1 + u2µ2 u3 2u3µ3) − 2 − −

2 1 1 1 η =8(1 µ3) sin u1 sin (u3 + u3µ3) (1 + µ1) sin (u1 u1µ1) sin (u1 + u2 E − 2 2 − 2 1 1 1 u3) cos (u1µ1 u2 u3µ3) (1 µ1) sin (u1 + u1µ1) sin (u1 u2 (57) − 2 − − − − 2 2 − 1 +u3) cos (u1µ1 + u2 + 2u2µ2 u3µ3) 2 −

3 2 1 1 1 ηE = 8(1 µ2)(1 µ3) sin u1 sin (u2 + u2µ2) sin (u3 + u3µ3) cos (u2 + u2µ2 − − − 2 2 2 (58) u3 u3µ3) − −

A A Similarly, we can obtain the averaged response functions RF and RG through the cyclic permutation u1 u2 u3 u1. → → → 24 3. Relay combinations

The averaged response functions of U are

2 + 2 × 4 2 sin(2u1) 2 8 u RU =u RU = [1 cos u1 cos(u2 + u3)] 2 + 3 + sin u1 − 3 − u1 u1 3 Z 1 Z 2π 2 2 sin(2u2) sin(2u3) 1 0 2 2 + 3 + 3 + dµ2 d ηU −u2 − u3 u2 u3 8π −1 0 2(g /g )2 sin2 σ sin2 4(g /g )κ κ sin2 σ sin2 + 1 3 1 η1 + 3 1 1 2 (59) − 1 µ2 U (1 µ2)(1 µ2) − 1 − 1 − 3 2(g /g )2 sin2 σ sin2 2 sin2 σ sin2 + 1 3 1 1 η2 − 1 µ2 − 1 µ2 U − 1 − 3 2 sin2 σ sin2 + 1 η3 , − 1 µ2 U − 3

2 x 2 y 14 4 u RU =u RU = 2[1 cos u1 cos(u2 + u3)] 2γE + 2 2 Ci(2u1) ln(2u1) − − 3 u1 − − 1 2 2 28 4 4 + 3 sin(2u1) + 2 sin u1 4γE + 2 + 2 2 Ci(2u2) u1 − u1 − 3 u2 u3 − 1 2 1 2 +Ci(2u3) ln(4u2u3) + 3 sin(2u2) + 3 sin(2u3) − u2 − u2 u3 − u3 (60) Z 1 Z 2π ( 2 1 µ1 0 µ1µ2κ2 1 + dµ2 d η + η 2 U 2 p 2 U 2π −1 0 1 µ1 (1 µ ) 1 µ − − 1 − 2 2 2 ) κ1κ2 + (g3/g1) sin σ sin µ1µ3 µ µ κ + η2 + 2 3 1 η3 , 2 2 U 2 p 2 U (1 µ1)(1 µ3) (1 µ ) 1 µ − − − 3 − 2

2 b 4 2 sin(2u1) 2 8 2 2 u RU =2[1 cos u1 cos(u2 + u3)] 2 + 3 + 2 sin u1 2 2 − 3 − u1 u1 3 − u2 − u3 Z 1 Z 2π (61) sin(2u2) sin(2u3) 1 0 1 2 3 + 3 + 3 + dµ2 d ηU + ηU + ηU + ηU , u2 u3 4π −1 0

25 2 l 37 4 1 2 2 u RU =[1 cos u1 cos(u2 + u3)] 4γE 2 + cos 2u1 ( 3 ) sin 2u1 − 6 − − u1 2 − u1 − u1 2 37 4 4 +4 Ci(2u1) ln(2u1) + u1Si(2u1) + sin u1 8γE 2 2 − 3 − − u2 − u3 1 + cos(2u2) + cos(2u3) + 4 Ci(2u2) + Ci(2u3) ln(4u2u3) 2 − (62) 2 2 2 2 ( 3 ) sin 2u2 3 sin(2u3) + u2Si(2u2) + u3Si(2u3) − u2 − u2 − u3 − u3 1 Z 1 Z 2π µ4 µ2µ2 + dµ d 1 η0 + 1 2 η1 4π 2 (1 µ2)2 U (1 µ2)(1 µ2) U −1 0 − 1 − 1 − 2 µ2µ2 µ2µ2 + 1 3 η2 + 2 3 η3 (1 µ2)(1 µ2) U (1 µ2)(1 µ2) U − 1 − 3 − 2 − 3 where

0 2 η = 2(1 µ )[cos u1 cos(u2 + u3)][cos(u1µ1) cos u1] cos(u1µ1 + u2µ2 u3µ3) U − 1 − − − 1 1 1 1 η =8(1 µ2) sin u1 sin (u2 + u2µ2) (1 µ1) sin (u1 + u1µ1) sin (u1 u2 u3) U − 2 − 2 2 − − × 1 cos (u1µ1 + u2µ2 u3) (63) 2 − − 1 1 1 (1 + µ1) sin (u1 u1µ1) sin (u1 + u2 + u3) cos (u1µ1 + u2µ2 + u3 2u3µ3) 2 − 2 2 − 2 1 1 1 η =8(1 + µ3) sin u1 sin (u3 u3µ3) (1 µ1) sin (u1 + u1µ1) sin (u1 u2 u3) U 2 − − 2 2 − − × 1 cos (u1µ1 + u2 + 2u2µ2 u3µ3) (64) 2 − − 1 1 1 (1 + µ1) sin (u1 u1µ1) sin (u1 + u2 + u3) cos (u1µ1 u2 u3µ3) 2 − 2 2 − −

3 2 1 1 1 ηU =8(1 µ2)(1 + µ3) sin u1 sin (u2 + u2µ2) sin (u3 u3µ3) cos (u2 + u2µ2 − 2 2 − 2 (65) + u3 u3µ3) −

A A Similarly, we can obtain the averaged response functions RV and RW through the cyclic permutation u1 u2 u3 u1. → → → 26 4. The α, β, γ (six-pulse) combinations

The averaged response functions of α are

2 + 2 × 1 1 1 sin(2u1) sin(2u2) sin(2u3) u Rα =u Rα = 2 2 2 2 + 3 + 3 + 3 + − u1 − u2 − u3 2u1 2u2 2u3 1 1 sin u2 1 1 sin u3 2 + cos u2 3 cos(u1 + u3) + 2 + cos u3 3 u2 3 − u2 u3 3 − u3 × Z 1 Z 2π 2 2 2 1 0 2(g3/g1) sin σ sin 1 cos(u1 + u2) + dµ2 d η + 1 η (66) 8π α − 1 µ2 α −1 0 − 1 2(g /g )2 sin2 σ sin2 2 sin2 σ sin2 + 1 3 1 1 − 1 µ2 − 1 µ2 − 1 − 3 4(g /g )κ κ sin2 σ sin2 2 sin2 σ sin2 + 3 1 1 2 η2 + 1 η3 , (1 µ2)(1 µ2) α − 1 µ2 α − 1 − 3 − 3

2 x 2 y 1 1 1 u Rα =u Rα = 6γE 14 + 4 2 + 2 + 2 2 [Ci(2u1) + Ci(2u2) + Ci(2u3) − u1 u2 u3 − 1 2 1 2 ln(8u1u2u3)] + 3 sin 2u1 + 3 sin 2u2+ − u1 − u1 u2 − u2 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 sin 2u3 + 2 cos(u1 + u3) 2 cos u2 3 sin u2 u3 − u3 3 − u2 − u2 − u2 1 2 1 2 (67) + 2 cos(u1 + u2) 2 cos u3 3 sin u3 3 − u3 − u3 − u3 Z 1 Z 2π ( 2 1 µ1 0 µ1µ2κ2 1 + dµ2 d η + η 2 α 2 p 2 α 2π −1 0 1 µ1 (1 µ ) 1 µ − 1 2 − − ) [κ κ + (g /g ) sin2 σ sin2 ]µ µ µ µ κ + 1 2 3 1 1 3 η2 + 2 3 1 η3 , 2 2 α 2 p 2 α (1 µ1)(1 µ3) (1 µ ) 1 µ − − − 3 − 2

2 b 1 1 1 sin(2u1) sin(2u2) sin(2u3) u Rα =4 2 2 + 2 + 2 + 3 + 3 + 3 − u1 u2 u3 u1 u2 u3 1 1 1 + 2 + cos u2 sin u2 cos(u1 + u3) u2 3 − u3 2 2 (68) 1 1 1 + 2 2 + cos u3 3 sin u3 cos(u1 + u2) u3 3 − u3 Z 1 Z 2π 1 0 1 2 3 + dµ2 d ηα + ηα + ηα + ηα , 4π −1 0

27 2 l 37 1 1 1 1 u Rα = 6γE 2 2 + 2 + 2 + [cos(2u1) + cos(2u2) + cos(2u3)] 4 − − u1 u2 u3 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 + 3 sin(2u1) + 3 sin(2u2) + 3 sin(2u3) u1 − u1 u2 − u2 u3 − u3 1 + 2 [Ci(2u1) + Ci(2u2) + Ci(2u3) ln(8u1u2u3)] + [u1Si(2u1) + u2Si(2u2) − 2 1 4 2 1 +u3Si(2u3)] + γE + 2 Ci(2u2) ln(2u2) cos(u1 + u3) cos u2 2 − 3 u2 − 2 − 2 2 1 + 3 Si(2u2) cos(u1 + u3) sin u2 (69) u2 − u2 − 2 1 4 2 1 + γE + 2 Ci(2u3) ln(2u3) cos(u1 + u2) cos u3 2 − 3 u3 − 2 − 2 2 1 + 3 Si(2u3) cos(u1 + u2) sin u3 u3 − u3 − 2 1 Z 1 Z 2π µ4 µ2µ2 + dµ d 1 η0 + 1 2 η1 4π 2 (1 µ2)2 α (1 µ2)(1 µ2) α −1 0 − 1 − 1 − 2 µ2µ2 µ2µ2 + 1 3 η2 + 2 3 η3 , (1 µ2)(1 µ2) α (1 µ2)(1 µ2) α − 1 − 3 − 2 − 3

where

28 0 2 η = 1 µ [cos u1 cos(u1µ1)] cos (u1µ1 + u2 + u2µ2 u3 u3µ3) (70) α − 1 − − − 1 1 1 1 η =2(1 + µ1) sin (u1 u1µ1) (1 + µ2) sin (u2 u2µ2) cos (u1 + u1µ1 + u2 α 2 − 2 − 2 1 1 + u2µ2 2u3µ3) (1 µ2) sin (u2 + u2µ2) cos (u1 u1µ1 u2 u2µ2 − − − 2 2 − − − 1 1 (71) +2u3 + 2u3µ3)] 2(1 µ1) sin (u1 + u1µ1) (1 + µ2) sin (u2 u2µ2) − − 2 2 − 1 1 1 cos (u1 u1µ1 u2 u2µ2 + 2u3) (1 µ2) sin (u2 + u2µ2) cos (u1 × 2 − − − − − 2 2

+u1µ1 + u2 + u2µ2)] 2 1 1 1 η =2(1 µ1) sin (u1 + u1µ1) (1 + µ3) sin (u3 u3µ3) cos (u1 u1µ1 2u2µ2 α − 2 2 − 2 − − 1 1 + u3 + u3µ3) (1 µ3) sin (u3 + u3µ3) cos (u1 + u1µ1 + 2u2 + 2u2µ2 u3 − − 2 2 − − 1 1 1 (72) u3µ3)] 2(1 + µ1) sin (u1 u1µ1) (1 + µ3) sin (u3 u3µ3) cos (u1 + u1µ1 − 2 − 2 − 2 1 1 +2u2 u3 u3µ3) (1 µ3) sin (u3 + u3µ3) cos (u1 u1µ1 + u3 + u3µ3) − − − − 2 2 − 3 1 1 1 η =2(1 µ2) sin (u2 + u2µ2) (1 + µ3) sin (u3 u3µ3) cos (2u1 + u2 u2µ2 α − 2 2 − 2 − 1 1 +u3 + u3µ3) (1 µ3) sin (u3 + u3µ3) cos (u2 + u2µ2 u3 u3µ3) − − 2 2 − − − (73) 1 1 1 2(1 + µ2) sin (u2 u2µ2) (1 + µ3) sin (u3 u3µ3) cos (u2 u2µ2 u3 2 − 2 − 2 − − 1 1 +u3µ3) (1 µ3) sin (u3 + u3µ3) cos (2u1 + u2 + u2µ2 + u3 u3µ3) − − 2 2 −

A A Similarly, we can obtain the averaged response functions Rβ and Rγ through the cyclic permutation u1 u2 u3 u1. → → → 29 5. Fully symmetric (Sagnac) combination

The averaged response functions of ζ are

2 + 2 × 1 1 1 sin(2u1) sin(2u2) sin(2u3) u Rζ = u Rζ = 2 2 2 2 + 3 + 3 + 3 + − u1 − u2 − u3 2u1 2u2 2u3 1 1 sin u2 1 1 sin u3 2 + cos u2 3 cos(u1 u3) + 2 + cos u3 3 u2 3 − u2 − u3 3 − u3 Z 1 Z 2π 2 2 2 1 0 2(g3/g1) sin σ sin 1 cos(u1 u2) + dµ2 d η + 1 η (74) × − 8π ζ − 1 µ2 ζ −1 0 − 1 2(g /g )2 sin2 σ sin2 2 sin2 σ sin2 + 1 3 1 1 − 1 µ2 − 1 µ2 − 1 − 3 4(g /g )κ κ sin2 σ sin2 2 sin2 σ sin2 + 3 1 1 2 η2 + 1 η3 , (1 µ2)(1 µ2) ζ − 1 µ2 ζ − 1 − 3 − 3

2 x 2 y 1 1 1 u Rζ = u Rζ = 6γE 14 + 4 2 + 2 + 2 2 [Ci(2u1) + Ci(2u2) + Ci(2u3) − u1 u2 u3 − 1 2 1 2 ln(8u1u2u3)] + 3 sin(2u1) + 3 sin(2u2)+ − u1 − u1 u2 − u2 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 sin(2u3) + 2 2 cos u2 3 sin u2 cos(u1 u3) u3 − u3 3 − u2 − u2 − u2 − 1 2 1 2 (75) + 2 2 cos u3 3 sin u3 cos(u1 u2) 3 − u3 − u3 − u3 − Z 1 Z 2π ( 2 1 µ1 0 µ1µ2κ2 1 + dµ2 d η + η 2 ζ 2 p 2 ζ 2π −1 0 1 µ1 (1 µ ) 1 µ − − 1 − 2 2 2 ) κ1κ2 + (g3/g1) sin σ sin µ1µ3 µ µ κ + η2 + 2 3 1 η3 , 2 2 ζ 2 p 2 ζ (1 µ1)(1 µ3) (1 µ ) 1 µ − − − 3 − 2

2 b 1 1 1 sin(2u1) sin(2u2) sin(2u3) u Rζ = 4 2 2 + 2 + 2 + 3 + 3 + 3 − u1 u2 u3 u1 u2 u3 1 1 1 + 2 + cos u2 sin u2 cos(u1 u3) u2 3 − u3 − 2 2 (76) 1 1 1 + 2 2 + cos u3 3 sin u3 cos(u1 u2) u3 3 − u3 − Z 1 Z 2π 1 0 1 2 3 + dµ2 d ηζ + ηζ + ηζ + ηζ , 4π −1 0

30 2 l 37 1 1 1 1 u Rζ = 6γE 2 2 + 2 + 2 + [cos(2u1) + cos(2u2) + cos(2u3)] 4 − − u1 u2 u3 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 + 3 sin(2u1) + 3 sin(2u2) + 3 sin(2u3) u1 − u1 u2 − u2 u3 − u3 1 + 2 [Ci(2u1) + Ci(2u2) + Ci(2u3) ln(8u1u2u3)] + [u1Si(2u1) + u2Si(2u2) − 2 1 4 2 1 +u3Si(2u3)] + γE + 2 Ci(2u2) ln(2u2) cos(u1 u3) cos u2 2 − 3 u2 − 2 − − 2 2 1 (77) + 3 Si(2u2) cos(u1 u3) sin u2 u2 − u2 − 2 − 1 4 2 1 + γE + 2 Ci(2u3) ln(2u3) cos(u1 u2) cos u3 2 − 3 u3 − 2 − − Z 1 Z 2π 4 2 2 1 1 µ1 0 + 3 Si(2u3) cos(u1 u2) sin u3 + dµ2 d 2 2 ηζ u3 − u − 2 − 4π (1 µ ) 3 −1 0 − 1 µ2µ2 µ2µ2 µ2µ2 + 1 2 η1 + 1 3 η2 + 2 3 η3 (1 µ2)(1 µ2) ζ (1 µ2)(1 µ2) ζ (1 µ2)(1 µ2) ζ − 1 − 2 − 1 − 3 − 2 − 3

where

31 0 2 η =(1 µ )[cos u1 cos(u1µ1)] cos(u1µ1 u2 + u2µ2 + u3 u3µ3) (78) ζ − 1 − − − 1 1 1 1 η =2(1 + µ1) sin (u1 u1µ1) (1 + µ2) sin (u2 u2µ2) cos (u1 u1µ1 ζ 2 − 2 − 2 − 1 1 +u2 u2µ2 2u3 + 2u3µ3) (1 µ2) sin (u2 + u2µ2) cos (u1 + u1µ1 − − − − 2 2 1 1 u2 + u2µ2 2u3µ3)] 2(1 µ1) sin (u1 + u1µ1) (1 + µ2) sin (u2 (79) − − − − 2 2 1 1 u2µ2) cos (u1 + u1µ1 u2 + u2µ2) (1 µ2) sin (u2 + u2µ2) − 2 − − − 2 1 cos (u1 u1µ1 + u2 u2µ2 2u3) × 2 − − − 2 1 1 1 η =2(1 µ1) sin (u1 + u1µ1) (1 + µ3) sin (u3 u3µ3) cos (u1 + u1µ1 + 2u2µ2 ζ − 2 2 − 2 1 1 2u2 + u3 u3µ3) (1 µ3) sin (u3 + u3µ3) cos (u1 u1µ1 2u2µ2 u3+ − − − − 2 2 − − − 1 1 1 (80) u3µ3)] 2(1 + µ1) sin (u1 u1µ1) (1 + µ3) sin (u3 u3µ3) cos (u1 u1µ1 − 2 − 2 − 2 − 1 1 u3 + u3µ3) (1 µ3) sin (u3 + u3µ3) cos (u1 + u1µ1 2u2 + u3 u3µ3) − − − 2 2 − − 3 1 1 1 η =2(1 µ2) sin (u2 + u2µ2) (1 + µ3) sin (u3 u3µ3) cos (2u1 u2 + u2µ2 ζ − 2 2 − 2 − 1 1 u3 u3µ3) (1 µ3) sin (u3 + u3µ3) cos (u2 + u2µ2 u3 u3µ3) − − − − 2 2 − − − (81) 1 1 1 2(1 + µ2) sin (u2 u2µ2) (1 + µ3) sin (u3 u3µ3) cos (u2 u2µ2 u3 2 − 2 − 2 − − 1 1 +u3µ3) (1 µ3) sin (u3 + u3µ3) cos (2u1 u2 u2µ2 u3 + u3µ3) − − 2 2 − − −

[1] D. M. Eardley, D. L. Lee, and A. P. Lightman, Phys. Rev. D 8, 3308 (1973). [2] D. Liang, Y. Gong, S. Hou, and Y. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 95, 104034 (2017), arXiv:1701.05998 [gr-qc]. [3] S. Hou, Y. Gong, and Y. Liu, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 378 (2018), arXiv:1704.01899 [gr-qc]. [4] Y. Gong and S. Hou, Proceedings, 13th International Conference on Gravitation, Astrophysics and Cosmology and 15th Italian-Korean Symposium on Relativistic Astrophysics (IK15):

Seoul, Korea, July 3-7, 2017, EPJ Web Conf. 168, 01003 (2018), arXiv:1709.03313 [gr-qc].

32 [5] Y. Gong, E. Papantonopoulos, and Z. Yi, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 738 (2018), arXiv:1711.04102 [gr-qc]. [6] Y. Gong, S. Hou, D. Liang, and E. Papantonopoulos, Phys. Rev. D 97, 084040 (2018), arXiv:1801.03382 [gr-qc]. [7] Y. Gong and S. Hou, Universe 4, 85 (2018), arXiv:1806.04027 [gr-qc]. [8] Y. Gong, S. Hou, E. Papantonopoulos, and D. Tzortzis, Phys. Rev. D 98, 104017 (2018), arXiv:1808.00632 [gr-qc]. [9] S. Hou and Y. Gong, Universe 4, 84 (2018), arXiv:1806.02564 [gr-qc]. [10] B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]. [11] B. P. Abbott et al. (Virgo, LIGO Scientific), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 241103 (2016), arXiv:1606.04855 [gr-qc]. [12] B. P. Abbott et al. (VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 221101 (2017), arXiv:1706.01812 [gr-qc]. [13] B. P. Abbott et al. (Virgo, LIGO Scientific), Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 141101 (2017), arXiv:1709.09660 [gr-qc]. [14] B. P. Abbott et al. (Virgo, LIGO Scientific), Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 161101 (2017), arXiv:1710.05832 [gr-qc]. [15] B. P. Abbott et al. (Virgo, LIGO Scientific), Astrophys. J. 851, L35 (2017), arXiv:1711.05578 [astro-ph.HE]. [16] B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), “GWTC-1: A Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog of Compact Binary Mergers Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the First and Second Observing Runs,” (2018), arXiv:1811.12907 [astro-ph.HE]. [17] G. M. Harry (LIGO Scientific), Class. Quant. Grav. 27, 084006 (2010). [18] J. Aasi et al. (LIGO Scientific), Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 074001 (2015), arXiv:1411.4547 [gr- qc]. [19] F. Acernese et al. (VIRGO), Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 024001 (2015), arXiv:1408.3978 [gr-qc]. [20] K. Somiya (KAGRA), Class. Quant. Grav. 29, 124007 (2012), arXiv:1111.7185 [gr-qc]. [21] Y. Aso, Y. Michimura, K. Somiya, M. Ando, O. Miyakawa, T. Sekiguchi, D. Tatsumi, and H. Yamamoto (KAGRA), Phys. Rev. D 88, 043007 (2013), arXiv:1306.6747 [gr-qc]. [22] H. Di and Y. Gong, JCAP 1807, 007 (2018), arXiv:1707.09578 [astro-ph.CO].

33 [23] Z. Yi and Y. Gong, JCAP 1803, 052 (2018), arXiv:1712.07478 [gr-qc]. [24] K. Danzmann, Class. Quant. Grav. 14, 1399 (1997). [25] H. Audley et al., “Laser Interferometer Space Antenna,” (2017), arXiv:1702.00786 [astro- ph.IM]. [26] J. Luo et al. (TianQin), Class. Quant. Grav. 33, 035010 (2016), arXiv:1512.02076 [astro- ph.IM]. [27] W.-R. Hu and Y.-L. Wu, Natl. Sci. Rev. 4, 685 (2017). [28] S. Kawamura et al., Class. Quant. Grav. 28, 094011 (2011). [29] M. Tinto and J. W. Armstrong, Phys. Rev. D 59, 102003 (1999). [30] J. W. Armstrong, F. B. Estabrook, and M. Tinto, Astrophys. J. 527, 814 (1999). [31] F. B. Estabrook, M. Tinto, and J. W. Armstrong, Phys. Rev. D 62, 042002 (2000). [32] S. V. Dhurandhar, K. Rajesh Nayak, and J. Y. Vinet, Phys. Rev.D 65, 102002 (2002), arXiv:gr-qc/0112059 [gr-qc]. [33] J.-B. Bayle, M. Lilley, A. Petiteau, and H. Halloin, Phys. Rev. D 99, 084023 (2019), arXiv:1811.01575 [astro-ph.IM]. [34] M. Tinto and O. Hartwig, Phys. Rev. D 98, 042003 (2018), arXiv:1807.02594 [gr-qc]. [35] M. Tinto, J. W. Armstrong, and F. B. Estabrook, Phys. Rev. D 63, 021101 (2001). [36] M. Tinto, J. W. Armstrong, and F. B. Estabrook, Laser interferometer space antenna. Proceedings: 3rd International Symposium, LISA, Golm, Germany, Jul 11-14, 2000, Class. Quant. Grav. 18, 4081 (2001). [37] C. J. Hogan and P. L. Bender, Phys. Rev. D 64, 062002 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0104266 [astro-ph]. [38] M. Tinto, F. B. Estabrook, and J. W. Armstrong, Phys. Rev. D 65, 082003 (2002). [39] T. A. Prince, M. Tinto, S. L. Larson, and J. W. Armstrong, Phys. Rev. D 66, 122002 (2002), arXiv:gr-qc/0209039 [gr-qc]. [40] D. A. Shaddock, M. Tinto, F. B. Estabrook, and J. W. Armstrong, Phys. Rev. D 68, 061303 (2003), arXiv:gr-qc/0307080 [gr-qc]. [41] M. Tinto, F. B. Estabrook, and J. W. Armstrong, Phys. Rev. D 69, 082001 (2004), arXiv:gr- qc/0310017 [gr-qc]. [42] M. Tinto, D. A. Shaddock, J. Sylvestre, and J. W. Armstrong, Phys. Rev. D 67, 122003 (2003), arXiv:gr-qc/0303013 [gr-qc].

34 [43] N. J. Cornish and R. W. Hellings, Class. Quant. Grav. 20, 4851 (2003), arXiv:gr-qc/0306096 [gr-qc]. [44] K. R. Nayak, S. V. Dhurandhar, A. Pai, and J. Y. Vinet, Phys. Rev. D 68, 122001 (2003), [Erratum: Phys. Rev.D70,049901(2004)], arXiv:gr-qc/0306050 [gr-qc]. [45] J. W. Armstrong, F. B. Estabrook, and M. Tinto, 4th LISA Symposium State College, Penn- sylvania, July 19-24, 2002, Class. Quant. Grav. 20, S283 (2003). [46] M. Tinto and S. L. Larson, Phys. Rev. D 70, 062002 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0405147 [gr-qc]. [47] M. Vallisneri, Phys. Rev. D 71, 022001 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0407102 [gr-qc]. [48] K. Rajesh Nayak and J. Y. Vinet, Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004), 10.1103/PhysRevD.70.102003. [49] M. Tinto and S. V. Dhurandhar, Living Rev. Rel. 8, 4 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0409034 [gr-qc]. [50] K. R. Nayak and J. Y. Vinet, Laser interferometer space antenna. Proceedings, 5th Interna- tional LISA Symposium and 38th ESLAB Symposium, Noordwijk, Netherlands, July 12-15,

2004, Class. Quant. Grav. 22, S437 (2005). [51] J. D. Romano and G. Woan, Phys. Rev. D 73, 102001 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0602033 [gr-qc]. [52] M. Tinto and S. V. Dhurandhar, Living Rev. Rel. 17, 6 (2014). [53] G. Wang and W.-T. Ni, Res. Astron. Astrophys. 19, 058 (2019), arXiv:1707.09127 [astro- ph.IM]. [54] S. L. Larson, W. A. Hiscock, and R. W. Hellings, Phys. Rev. D 62, 062001 (2000), arXiv:gr- qc/9909080 [gr-qc]. [55] D. Liang, Y. Gong, A. J. Weinstein, C. Zhang, and C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 99, 104027 (2019), arXiv:1901.09624 [gr-qc]. [56] A. Blaut, Phys. Rev. D 85, 043005 (2012), arXiv:1901.11268 [gr-qc]. [57] M. Tinto and M. E. da Silva Alves, Phys. Rev. D 82, 122003 (2010), arXiv:1010.1302 [gr-qc]. [58] S. L. Larson, R. W. Hellings, and W. A. Hiscock, Phys. Rev. D 66, 062001 (2002), arXiv:gr- qc/0206081 [gr-qc]. [59] N. J. Cornish and S. L. Larson, Class. Quant. Grav. 18, 3473 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0103075 [gr-qc]. [60] F. B. Estabrook and H. D. Wahlquist, Gen. Relat. Gravit. 6, 439 (1975). [61] T. Robson, N. J. Cornish, and C. Liug, Class. Quant. Grav. 36, 105011 (2019), arXiv:1803.01944 [astro-ph.HE]. [62] A. Baut, Phys. Rev. D 92, 063013 (2015), arXiv:1901.09946 [gr-qc].

35 [63] B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientiﬁc, Virgo), “Tests of General Relativity with the Binary Black Hole Signals from the LIGO-Virgo Catalog GWTC-1,” (2019), arXiv:1903.04467 [gr-qc].