Arxiv:2006.05670V5 [Gr-Qc] 2 Apr 2021 on Parity-Violating (PV) Gravity

Home , TianQin

Joint Observations of Space-based Gravitational-wave Detectors: Source Localization and Implication for Parity-violating Gravity

Qian Hu,1, 2, ∗ Mingzheng Li,1, 2, † Rui Niu,1, 2, ‡ and Wen Zhao1, 2, § 1CAS Key Laboratory for Research in Galaxies and Cosmology, Department of Astronomy, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, China 2School of Astronomy and Space Sciences, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, 230026, China (Dated: April 5, 2021) Space-based gravitational-wave (GW) detectors, including LISA, Taiji and TianQin, are able to detect mHz GW signals produced by mergers of supermassive black hole binaries, which opens a new window for GW astronomy. In this article, we numerically estimate the potential capabilities of the future networks of multiple space-based detectors using Bayesian analysis. We modify the public package Bilby and employ the sampler PyMultiNest to analyze the simulated data of the space-based detector networks, and investigate their abilities for source localization and testing the parity symmetry of gravity. In comparison with the case of an individual detector, we find detector networks can significantly improve the source localization. While for constraining the parity symmetry of gravity, we find that detector networks and an individual detector follow the similar constraints on the parity-violating energy scale MPV. Similar analysis can be applied to other potential observations of various space-based GW detectors.

I. INTRODUCTION network could achieve the significant improvement compared with a single detector [7]. In this work, we study While ground-based gravitational-wave (GW) detec- the localization improvement of detector networks LISA- tors are giving decent probes of high-frequency GWs [1], Taiji and LISA-TianQin with a rigorous Bayesian frame- low-frequency GW detection still remains blank. Sev- work as a complement and verification to the previous eral proposed space-based GW detectors with frequency works. bands around millihertz, aiming at sources including In addition to multi-messenger astronomy, GW detec- Super-massive Black Hole Binaries (SMBHBs), Extreme tion also opens a brand new window for testing various Mass Ratio Inspirals (EMRIs), etc, are going to launch in theories of gravity. With the progress in both theoret- early 2030s [2–4]. Their individual properties were well ical and observational researches, Einstein’s general rel- studied in previous works, but space-based detector net- ativity (GR) is facing difficulties, such as quantization, work is still a largely under-explored domain. Moreover, dark matter and dark energy problems. Therefore, test- limited by complex response of space-based GW detec- ing GR is still an important topic in physical research. tors and accompanying computation burden, most works Detectable GWs are often produced by the densest ob- on space-based GW detectors are based on Fisher infor- jects with extremely high-energy processes (e.g. the co- mation matrix analysis, which can only give a rough es- alescence of binary black holes), and have weak interac- timation of the parameter uncertainties for the potential tions with matter during propagation [8,9]. Thus, GWs observations, if the signal-to-noise ratio of GW detection could carry strong and clean information from those ex- is high enough. In this paper, we investigate the capabili- treme processes, and provide an excellent opportunity to ties of space-based detector networks with a full Bayesian test the gravitational theories. Space-based GW detec- analysis. We choose two aspects to illustrate capabilities tors are expected to detect gravitational radiations from of detector networks: source localization and constraints SMBHBs, which are significantly different from current stellar-mass binary black holes. Hence, it is worthwhile

arXiv:2006.05670v5 [gr-qc] 2 Apr 2021 on parity-violating (PV) gravity. GW source localization is a crucial step in multi- to study the probability of testing gravity theories with messenger astronomy, since the follow-up electromag- space-based GW detectors. In this work, as an exam- netic observations need the guide from GW detection. ple of application, we will investigate this issue from the For ground-based detectors, although rapid sky recon- perspective of parity symmetry of gravity. struction algorithm is used in online searching [5], full Parity symmetry is an important concept in modern Bayesian analysis is still required for further study due physics. It implies the flip in the sign of spatial coordi- to its rigor and reliability [6]. Recent work with Fisher nates does not change physical laws. Since people have information matrix analysis has shown that a LISA-Taiji discovered that weak interaction is not symmetric under parity [10], tests of parity symmetry for other interactions become meaningful and necessary. As for gravity, parity is conserved in GR, but some PV gravitational theories ∗ [email protected] were proposed for different motivations. For example, in † [email protected] string theory and loop quantum gravity, the parity vi- ‡ [email protected] olation in the high-energy regime is inevitable [11–13]. § [email protected] GWs probe physics in the highest energy scale, so it is 2 nature to test parity symmetry with GWs. Parity asym- (localization) andVI (PV gravity). In Sec.VII, we sum- metry in gravity leads to birefringence in gravitational marize our methodology and conclusions. Throughout waves [11, 14–18]: left- and right-hand modes of GW this paper, we set c =h ¯ = 1. evolve differently in the universe. Two kinds to birefringence, amplitude birefringence and velocity birefringence, and their impact on GW waveforms, are well stud- II. PARITY-VIOLATING GRAVITY ied in previous works [14, 15], which makes it possible to probe asymmetry in gravity. The analysis has been ap- Parity-violating gravitational theories are well-studied plied in the current GW events, detected by LIGO & in previous works [14, 20–25]. In this section, we briefly Virgo Collaborations [19]. In this article, we extend this summarize the results of Ref. [14] that gives GW wave- Bayesian analysis to the space-based GW detection by form with PV modification. Considering a general parity- simulating the future GW signals produced by the merg- violating gravitational theory, the action takes the form ers of SMBHBs. We analysis simulated data and obtain Z the potential constraints of parity asymmetry in gravity 1 4 S = d x√g(LGR + LPV + Lothers), (1) provided by the future space-based detectors. We find 16πG that lower bound of parity-violating energy scale MPV can be limited to (1) eV by the effect of velocity bire- where LGR is the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian density R. fringence and (10O−15) eV by that of amplitude birefrin- LPV is the PV term, which is determined by the gravita- gence. O tional theories. Lothers represents the Lagrangian density of the other matters, the scalar field and the modification terms of gravity, which are not relevant to parity viola- This paper is organized as follows. In Sec.II we give tion. In the flat Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) a brief introduction of parity-violating gravity, especially universe, GW is tensorial perturbation of the metric. the GW waveform modifications. In Sec.III the config- We denote spatial perturbation as hij, which satisfies ij uration and response of space-based gravitational-wave the transverse and traceless gauge, i.e. δ hij = 0 and ij detectors are presented. Our method of parameter esti- ∂ih = 0. hij can be determined by the tensor quadratic mation is shown in Sec.IV and results are given in Sec.V action, which reads [26],

Z (2) 1 3 3 1 ˙ 2 1 2 1 c1 ijk ˙ ˙ c2 ijk 2 S = dtd xa hij 2 (∂khij) + hil∂jhkl + 3 ∂ hil∂jhkl , (2) 16πG 4 − 4a 4 aMPV a MPV

where a = a(τ) is the conformal scale factor and τ is and αµ are functions of time through their dependence conformal time. A dot means derivative with respect to on scalar field φ, which always acts as dark energy to the cosmic time t, which obeys the relation dt = adτ. c1 explain the cosmic acceleration. From cosmological ob- and c2 are dimensionless coefficients, which are functions servations, dark energy should be close to the cosmolog- of cosmic time in general. MPV is the parity-violating ical constant in the late universe, which indicates that energy scale, above which parity symmetry of gravity is the evolution of φ is small. Therefore, we can approx- broken. Equation of motion of the GW can be derived imately treat them as constants in our calculation. In as follows: this work, we consider they are (1) by absorbing ∼ O 00 0 2 them into MPV. Difference in equation of motion of two h + (2 + νA) h + (1 + µA) k hA = 0, (3) A H A circular polarization modes leads to parity asymmetry in GWs, that is to say, right- and left-hand modes have where A = R,L represents right- and left- modes, re- different behaviors during propagation, which is called spectively. k{ is wave-number,} a0/a is the conformal birefringence. It has been proved that ν leads to differ- Hubble parameter. ThroughoutH ≡ this paper, prime de- A ent damping rates of two polarizations in propagation, notes the derivative with respect to the conformal time which induces the different amplitudes of GW signals. τ. The terms ν and µ represent modifications caused A A µ modifies the dispersion relations of GWs, hence two by the PV terms in Lagrangian. In the general PV grav- A polarizations have different velocities. Phenomena men- ity, they take the forms tioned above are called amplitude birefringence and ve- 0 locity birefringence respectively. νA = [ρAαν (τ)(k/aMPV)] / , H (4) µA = ρAαµ(τ)(k/aMPV) .

Here, ρR = 1 and ρL = 1. αν = c1 and αµ = c1 c2 Birefringence in PV gravity induces phase and ampli- are two functions that can− be determined− in a specific− tude modifications in GW waveform. In general, GW model of modified gravity. In the specific models, αν waveform of PV gravity in frequency domain can be ex- 3 pressed as This is the waveform we use in this work. For the background cosmological model, we adopt a flat Planck PV GR iρAδΨ hA (f) = hA (f) (1 + ρAδh) e , (5) cosmology with parameters ΩM = 0.308, ΩΛ = 0.692, H0 = 67.8km/s/Mpc [28, 29]. where

δh(f) = Aν πf, III. SPACE-BASED GW DETECTORS − 2 (6) δΨ(f) = Aµ(πf) /H0 A. Basic Information: Configuration and Noise are amplitude and phase modifications. Generally, both of them exist in PV gravity. Note that δΨ(f) is about In this section we introduce the configurations and 20 orders lager than δh(f)[14], it is reasonable to only noise curves of three proposed space-based GW detec- take δΨ(f) into consideration when considering PV ef- tors, LISA, Taiji and TianQin. These are decisive factors fects. However, in some special cases, say, Chern-Simons for a detector’s response to a coming GW signal. gravity [11, 12], δh(f) exists while δΨ(f) = 0. Therefore, All the three detectors consist of a triangle of three it is also necessary to constrain the amplitude modifica- spacecrafts, but they have different arm length, i.e., the tion. In this work, for simplicity, we only discuss PV separation between two spacecrafts. Arm length deter- GW waveform with only phase modification or ampli- mines the sensitive frequency of a GW detector. Longer tude modification. The former one represents a general arm length corresponds to a lower frequency band (longer case but drops out the minor modification, while the lat- wavelength). LISA has an arm length of 2.5 106 km and ter one represents some special cases like Chern-Simons the designed sensitive frequency is from 10−×4 to 1 Hz [3]. gravity. Taiji’s arm length is 3 106 km, which means Taiji is more × Aν and Aµ are given by sensitive to the lower frequency gravitational waves [7]. TianQin’s arm length is 1.7 105 km [2], so it will be more 1 sensitive at relative higher frequencies.× This is consistent Aν = [αν (0) (1 + z)αν (z)], MPV − with the noise power spectral densities (PSDs) of these Z z 0 0 (7) detectors. For LISA, we follow the new LISA design [30], 1 (1 + z )αµ(z ) Aµ = , p 0 3 in which the PSD is given by MPV 0 ΩM (1 + z ) + ΩΛ " 2# 4Sacc(f) + Sother f where z is redshift of the GW source. One can also Sn(f) = 1 + , (9) rewrite the waveform in plus and cross polarizations via L 1.29f∗ h+ = (hL + hR)/√2, h× = (hL hR)/√2i [27] − where f∗ = c/2πL is the transfer frequency of detector PV GR GR and L is the arm length. The motion of LISA causes h+ (f) = h+ (f) h× (f)(iδh δΨ), − − (8) acceleration noise, which takes the form hPV(f) = hGR(f) + hGR(f)(iδh δΨ). × × + −

" 2 8!# 9 10−30m2Hz3 6 10−4Hz 2.22 10−5Hz Sacc(f) = × 1 + × 1 + × , (10) (2πf)4 f f

−12 1/2 −15 −2 1/2 and other noise is 10 m/Hz for Taiji, and √Sa = 10 ms /Hz , √S = 10−12m/Hz1/2 for TianQin. −23 2 −1 x Sother = 8.899 10 m Hz . (11) × Their noise spectra is shown in Fig.1. As discussed For Taiji and TianQin, we employ a general noise curve before, LISA and Taiji are more sensitive than TianQin for space-based GW detectors [31, 32] at lower frequency because of their longer arms, but less sensitive at higher frequency. In addition to arm length, three GW detectors also 2 −4 Sx 4Sa 10 Hz have diﬀerent orbit designs. For instance, LISA’s cen- Sn(f) = + 1 + L (2πf)4L2 f ter of mass orbits around the Sun in ecliptic plane and " 2# (12) the spacecrafts orbits their center of mass. Both of the f 1 + , two circular motions have the period of one year. Three × 1.29f∗ spacecrafts constitute the shape of an equilateral triangle and the plane of the detector is tilted by 60◦ with −15 −2 1/2 where √Sa = 3 10 ms /Hz , √Sx = 8 respect to the ecliptic [3]. The constellation falls behind × × 4

LISA TianQin Taiji 10 17

18 ) 10 2 / 1 z H ( 2 / 1 n S 10 19

10 20

10 4 10 3 10 2 10 1 100 (a)LISA and Taiji Frequency(Hz)

FIG. 1. Noise power spectra of three space-based GW detectors. Blue, green, red lines represent LISA, Taiji and Tian- Qin, respectively. Taiji and LISA have smaller noise in low frequency band, while TianQin is more sensitive to the rela- tively higher frequencies. the Earth by an angle of 20◦. Taiji has a similar orbit, but it is ahead of the∼ Earth by 20◦. As shown in Fig.2, LISA and Taiji are far apart (about 0.7AU), by which GW localization could be improved [7]. Consider- ing circular orbits, the unit vectors along three arms in ecliptic frame can be derived. We define the x-y plane (b)TianQin as the ecliptic plane and z-axis as perpendicular to x-y plane. Denoting un (n = 1, 2, 3) as the n-th arm defined FIG. 2. Configuration of space-based GW detectors. Upper in Fig. 2 of Ref. [33], it takes the form panel is the LISA-Taiji network configuration [7], in which LISA and Taiji take heliocentric orbits and separated by an 1 ◦ un = ( sin αn(t) cos φ(t) cos αn(t) sin φ(t), angle of 40 . Lower panel is TianQin’s orbit configuration 2 − in the heliocentric-ecliptic coordinate system [2]. The eclip- 1 tic plane is spanned by x and y axes. x axis points toward sin αn(t) sin φ(t) + cos αn(t) cos φ(t), (13) 2 the direction of the vernal equinox. β is the longitude of √3 the perihelion. Normal of TianQin’s detector plane points to sin αn(t)), the reference source RX J0806.3+1527 whose coordinates in 2 ecliptic frame is (θs, φs). with

αn(t) = 2πt/T π/12 (n 1)π/3 + α0, (14) − − − Thus, giving initial location and direction, the detectors’ coordinates and arm direction vectors in ecliptic frame φ(t) = φ0 + 2πt/T, (15) are determined. where α0 is a constant specifying the orientation of the arms at t = 0, φ0 specifies the detector’s location at t = 0, and T equals to one year. These vectors will be used in B. Response next subsection to calculate the instrument response. As for TianQin (which is also shown in Fig.2), the In this section, we calculate space-based detectors’ re- orbit is more complex. Three spacecrafts orbit around sponse to GWs. All azimuthal variables are defined in the Earth, and the normal of the detector plane points ecliptic frame. to the reference source RX J0806.3+1527 [2]. Previous Generally speaking, a GW detector’s response s(t) is works have derived the trajectory of TianQin in eclip- a linear combination of GW’s polarizations [8] tic frame: the n-th spacecraft’s position vector rn(t) = (xn(t), yn(t), zn(t)), n = 1, 2, 3 (shown in AppendixA). s(t) = F+h+(t) + F×h×(t), (17) Arm direction vectors can be derived from rn(t). Con- sidering u1 as an example, it is defined by where h+(t) and h×(t) are plus and cross polarizations of r2 r1 GW. F+ and F× are antenna response functions, which u1 = − . (16) ij r2 r1 are equal to the contraction of detector tensor D and | − | 5

A GW polarization tensor eij with A = +, , i.e., is the polarization angle.w ˆ is propagation direction of { ×} GW, pointing from the source to the Sun. ij A FA = D eij, (18) The detector tensor, however, worths more discussions. A Detector tensor is related to the tensor product of arm where eij in ecliptic frame is defined by a set of unit vectors m,ˆ n,ˆ wˆ [34, 35], direction vectors. For ground-based GW detectors aim- { } ing at short-duration gravitational wave transient, arm + × direction vectors can be regarded as a constant during a eij =m ˆ imˆ j nînˆj, eij =m ˆ inˆj +n îmˆ j, (19) − GW event, thus detector tensor is also a constant. How- with ever, for space-based GW detectors whose objects are SMBHBs and EMRIs, observation often takes months to mˆ =(cos θe cos φe cos ψe + sin φe sin ψe years. That is to say, detector tensor should be treated cos θe sin φe cos ψe cos φe sin ψe, (20) as a function of time, rather than a constant. In addi- − sin θe cos ψe), tion, since the wavelength of GWs is comparable to the − physical arm length of detector (which is not satisfied for ground-based detectors), the GW frequency also makes nˆ =( cos θe cos φe sin ψe + sin φe cos ψe a difference. In this case, we have [34, 35] − cos θe sin φe sin ψe cos φe cos ψe, (21) − − sin θe sin ψe), 1 Dij(t; f) = uî(t)ûj(t)T (f, uˆ wˆ) vî(t)ˆvj(t)T (f, vˆ wˆ) , 2 · − · wˆ = ( sin θe cos φe, sin θe sin φe, cos θe) , (22) (23) − − − whereu î(t) andv î(t) are unit vectors along the arms of where (θe, φe) are spherical coordinates in solar system detector given in Eq. (13) or (16). T (f, uˆ wˆ) is transfer · with the ecliptic as x-y plane and the Sun at center. ψe function defined as

1 f f f f T (f, uˆ wˆ) = sinc (1 uˆ wˆ) exp i (3 +u ˆ wˆ) + sinc (1 +u ˆ wˆ) exp i (1 +u ˆ wˆ) , · 2 2f ∗ − · − 2f ∗ · 2f ∗ · − 2f ∗ · (24) where sinc(x) sin x/x. Note that in low-frequency limit. ≡ cases (f f∗), transfer function tends to 1. The low- When performing Bayesian analysis, we need GW data frequency approximation is widely used in previous works in frequency domain. It is difficult to do Fourier trans- on LISA and we will also adopt this approximation. This formation directly to Eq. (17), due to antenna pattern is reasonable as the frequency of coalescence of SMB- −3 functions’ dependency on time. To solve this problem, HBs is up-to 10 Hz, while f∗ of the LISA, Taiji and ∼ we adopt stationary phase approximation (SPA). In SPA, TianQin detectors are 0.016, 0.019 and 0.28Hz, respec- frequency domain response can be written as tively. We plot GW waveform from SMBHBs of different masses in frequency domain in Fig.3, from which we find the low-frequency approximation works well for SMBHBs s˜(f) = F+ [t(f)] h˜+(f) + F× [t(f)] h˜×(f), (26) 6 with masses higher than 10 M . In this work, we employ a higher cut-off frequency 10−2Hz, above which data is not included in analysis. that is to say, we can change F+(t) into F+ [t(f)] as a Because of the three-arm design, a single space-based replacement of Fourier transform. The expression of t(f) GW detector can output two independent strains [33]. is given in AppendixB. Here, a tilde denotes the quantity Thus, a detector corresponds to two detector tensors. In in frequency domain. accordance with time delay interferometry, one can define Note that waveform in frequency domain should in- ij ij two detector tensors Da ,De as [36] clude the time delay to the Sun by adding an extra phase term as follows, 1 Dij = (ui uj 2ui uj + ui uj ), a 6 1 1 − 2 2 3 3 (25) wˆ ~r √3 j j ˜ Dij = (ui u ui u ), h+,×(f) = [h+,×(t)] exp 2πif( · + tc t0) , e 6 1 1 − 3 3 F − c − (27) i i i where u , u , u are arm direction vectors for three arms. where means Fourier transform, tc is coalescence time 1 2 3 F Note that, this formula is written in the low-frequency and t0 is the start time of data. 6

can obtain the posterior distribution by

13 105M 10 ~ ~ ~ 106M ~ ~ p(d(t) ϑ)p(ϑ) 14 107M p(ϑ d(t)) = | , (28) 10 | p(d~(t)) 15 10

16 10 ~ ~

| where d(t) is observed data and ϑ is parameter set. The )

f 17 ( 10 + denominator, evidence, is often ignored since it is a nor- h | 18 10 malization constant if we only care about the distribu-

19 10 tion of parameters. We deﬁne inner product between two

20 10 strains as

21 10 D E Z ∞ a˜(f)˜b∗(f) 4 3 ˜ 10 10 0.01 a˜(f) b(f) = 4 df, (29) Frequency(Hz) | < 0 Sn(f)

where a star denotes complex conjugate. Sn(f) is the FIG. 3. |h (f)| of GWs from diﬀerent sources. Blue, orange + PSD of the detector. The likelihood, p(d~(t) ϑ,~ H), takes and green lines are generated from SMBHBs with component | 5 6 7 the form masses of 5 × 10 ,5 × 10 ,5 × 10 M , respectively. Here, we use the waveform template IMRPhenomXHM. " N # 1 X p(d~(t) ϑ,~ H) = exp n˜i(f) n˜i(f) , (30) | −2 h | i i=1

IV. METHODOLOGY on the assumption that the noise is Gaussian [37]. Here, the subscript i denotes the i-th data strain andn ˜i(f) is the noise. For the i-th strain that contains data d˜i(f), A. Bayesian Method we simply have

d˜i(f) =s ˜i(f) +n ˜i(f), (31) Bayesian method is one of the most widely-used ways of parameter estimation in GW astronomy [37]. Given wheres ˜i(f) is detector’s response to GW signals. Thus, observed data and prior distributions of parameters, one the likelihood can be written as

" N # 1 X D E p(d~(t) ϑ,~ H) = exp d˜i(f) s˜i(f, ϑ~) d˜i(f) s˜i(f, ϑ~) . (32) | −2 − | − i=1

If the prior probability densities are also set, we can B. Waveform and Parameters obtain the posterior distribution of parameters theoret- ically. Some numerical ways are developed to generate the posterior samples for given data and likelihood, including Markov-chain Monte Carlo method and Nested In this section, we clarify the parameters and the GW sampling method [37]. In this work, we employ a mul- waveform used in this work. timodal nested sampling algorithm Multinest [38, 39]. Nested sampling works with a set of live points generated from prior distributions. After each iteration, the As mentioned in Eq. (8), GW waveform in PV gravity point with the lowest likelihood will be abandoned and is GR waveform with phase and amplitude modifications. the new samples with higher likelihood will be generated. Thus, what we need to do is to choose an appropriate In the end, those live points will be mapped to posterior GR waveform template. Previous studies have shown samples. that the public IMRPhenom waveform with high harmonics works fairly in Bayesian analysis [44]. Subsequent works emphasize that the high harmonics play an impor- Several tools for Bayesian parameter estimation in GW tant role in parameter estimation for space-based GW astronomy have been developed [40–42]. We adopt and detectors [36, 45]. For these reasons, we choose IMRPhe- modify the Python toolkit Bilby [42] in this work with nomXHM [46], a frequency domain model for the GW of sampler PyMultiNest [43]. Codes for this paper could be non-precessing black-hole binaries with high harmonics found in our Github repository. available. One can decompose waveform into spherical 7 harmonic modes [47] spins will not produce significant influence on our conclusions of constraints on PV gravity. Plus, employing X 1 X ∗ ∗ non-spinning GW templates has negligible impact on sky h+ = h`m,+ = (2Y`mh`m +−2 Y h ) , 2 `m `m `,m `,m localization, as previous studies suggest [5, 48]. (33) Prior distributions of the remaining parameters are X i X ∗ ∗ h× = h`m,× = (2Y`mh`m −2 Y h ) , given as follows: 2 − `m `m `,m `,m Component masses: uniform distribution between 5 7 where 2Y`m is spin-weighted spherical harmonics [47]. 10 M and 10 M . Except for the dominant term (`, m) = (2, 2), Luminosity distance: uniform distribution between we also adopt higher modes including (`, m) = 3 5 (2, 1), (3, 3), (4, 4), (5, 5) in our analysis. Note that dif- 10 Mpc and 10 Mpc. ferent modes correspond to different frequency compo- Coalescence time: uniform distribution between nents of GW, thus the function t(f) from SPA differs t 10 s and t + 10 s, where t is the coalescence from modes to modes. We have c c c time− of our injection.

t`m(f) = t22(2f/m) (34) Coalescence phase: uniform distribution in [0, 2π]. where t22(f) is given in AppendixB and Eq. (26) should Polarization angle: uniform distribution in [0, 2π]. be rewritten as X Inclination angle: sine distribution in [0, π]. s˜(f) = F+ [t`m(f)] h˜`m,+(f) + F× [t`m(f)] h˜`m,×(f). `,m Source direction: uniform distribution in the sky, (35) i.e., uniform distribution for φe and cos θe. In general, GWs from compact binary black holes have −2 −2 fifteen basic parameters: masses of two black holes, spins A: uniform distribution in [ 103 Hz , 103 Hz ]. − of two black holes (six components in total), luminos- B: uniform distribution in [ 102 Hz−1, 102 Hz−1]. ity distance dL, coalescence time tc, coalescence phase − φ, inclination angle ι, polarization angle ψe, and source direction which in our work is (φe, θe). There are other two parameters in parity-violating gravity that specify V. LOCALIZATION ABILITY OF DETECTOR velocity and amplitude birefringence respectively. As dis- NETWORKS cussed in Sec.II, to investigate the constraint on parity asymmetry, we consider two cases. (1) GW waveform In this section, we show the results of GW source lo- with only velocity birefringence. We ignore amplitude calization given by different detector networks. We con- modification, since it is a minor factor compared with sider three cases: LISA, LISA-Taiji network and LISA- phase modification. (2) GW waveform with only ampli- TianQin network. We first show parameters can be tude birefringence, as some gravity theories predict only correctly estimated with the Bayesian framework, then amplitude birefringence. present GW localization of sources in different direction. In PV gravity, δh and δΨ are the two modification We simulate 218 seconds (about 3 days) long GW data 6 terms. We choose Aµ/H0 and Aν as additional param- of an SMBHB with masses at order of 10 M and lu- eters in waveform, and denote− them as A and B, respec- minosity distance of 20Gpc. Sampling frequency is set tively. The phase and amplitude modifications can be to 1/16 Hz, which corresponds to the nyquist frequency written as of 0.03125 Hz. This is consistent with the 0.01 Hz cut- off. In order to cross-check the stability of the results, δh(f) = B(πf), we have also considered the cases with sampling frequen- (36) δΨ(f) = A(πf)2. cies of 1/8 Hz and 1/64 Hz, and found the consistent results. With parallel computing using 16 processes, it The posterior distributions of A and B can be easily con- takes the sampler 10 hours to generate the posterior sam- verted to MPV through Eq. (7). ples for one detector, and 24 hours for joint observation A 16-dimensional full Bayesian analysis is extremely of two detectors. As an illustration, we show the cor- computational expensive, especially when higher modes ner plots of LISA and LISA+Taiji network in Fig.4 and are taken into consideration and several data strains 5. The signal-to-noise ratio in LISA is higher than 500, are included (note that one detector produces two data which enables injected parameters to be correctly recon- strains). To lessen computation burden, we only consider structed. Some common correlations between parameters zero-spin black holes, which means we have 9 parame- are also shown, e.g., component masses m1 and m2, lumi- ters in GR and 1 additional modification parameter for nosity distance dL and inclination ι, component masses PV gravity. The major effects of velocity and amplitude and phase φ. Note that, the error bars of joint observa- birefringence take place during propagation, so ignoring tion are reduced compared with a single detector, which 8

+4984.91 4993756.52 5112.14 −

3002343.46+6891.48 106 7023.91 × −

01 ] 3.

M [ 2 .00

m 3

+0.09 .99 0.96 0.09 2 −

05 1. [rad] φ

90 0. +0.01 1.30 0.01 −

32 1. [rad] 30 ι 1.

+0.00 28 1.57 0.00 1. −

572 1. [rad] e θ

568 1. +0.00 0.52 0.00 −

528 0.

[rad] 524 0. e φ

520 0. +0.00 1.05 0.00 −

056 1.

.050 [rad] 1 ψ

.044 1 19997.41+359.65 104 366.15 × −

05 2.

[Mpc] 00 2. L d

95 1. 1126259643.08+1.55 +1.12625964 109 1.49 × −

0 5. [s]

c 5 t 2.

0 0.

99 00 01 90 05 28 30 32 95 00 05 .0 .5 .0 .984 .992 .000 2. 3. 3. 0. 1. 1. 1. 1. .568 .572 .520 .524 .528 .044 .050 .056 1. 2. 2. 0 2 5 4 4 5 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 9 6 4 6 10 10 +1.12625964 10 10 × × × m1 [M ] × m2 [M ] φ [rad] ι [rad] θe [rad] φe [rad] ψ [rad] dL [Mpc] tc [s]

FIG. 4. Posterior distributions generated with single LISA observation. The yellow solid lines are injected values, and the blue dashed lines are 5% and 95% percentiles. implies that joint observation could significantly improve to the three spacecrafts of LISA are roughly equal be- the parameter constraints. cause LISA’s detector plane is tilted by 60◦ with respect to the ecliptic plane. Therefore, a single LISA may fail GW source localization depends on the time difference to localize the source in such a direction if observation of GW signal’s arrival in each detector, which is called duration is not long enough. By contrast, different detec- triangulation information. However, sources in some spe- tors in a detector network may be separated by at most cific directions produce much weaker triangulation infor- 0.7AU and can avoid the overhead binaries problem. mation, which makes localization difficult. For example, ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ overhead binaries [45], from θe = 60 and φe close to We simulate three GW sources with θe = 30 , 60 , 90 . LISA’s mass center’s φe. The distances from the source The 90% credible areas of posterior distributions of 9

+2199.49 5000782.45 2189.36 −

2998535.44+2411.78 106 2338.12 × − 004 3. ]

M .000 [ 3 2 m

996 2. +0.03 0.98 0.03 −

00 1. [rad] φ

95 0. +0.01 1.30 0.01 − 31 1.

30 1. [rad] ι

29 1. +0.00 1.57 0.00 −

572 1. [rad] e

θ 568 1.

0.52+0.00 564 0.00 1. −

525 0.

524 [rad] 0. e φ

523 0. +0.00 1.05 0.00 −

051 1.

.048

[rad] 1 ψ

045 1. 20103.35+149.26 104 155.41 × −

025 2. [Mpc] L d 000 2. 1126259642.55+0.47 +1.12625964 109 0.45 × −

2 3. [s]

c .4 t 2

6 1.

95 00 29 30 31 .6 .4 .2 .996 .000 .004 .996 .000 .004 0. 1. 1. 1. 1. .564 .568 .572 .523 .524 .525 .045 .048 .051 .000 .025 1 2 3 4 5 5 2 3 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 +1.12625964 109 106 106 104 × m1 [M ] × m2 [M ] × φ [rad] ι [rad] θe [rad] φe [rad] ψ [rad] dL [Mpc] × tc [s]

FIG. 5. Posterior distributions generated with LISA and Taiji joint observation. The yellow lines are injected values, and blue dashed lines are 5% and 95% percentiles.

(θe, φe) are shown in Fig.6. As anticipated, due to the standable. As mentioned above, in this article, we set much longer baselines, the detector networks could signif- a high frequency cut-oﬀ of 0.01 Hz. From Fig.1, we ﬁnd icantly reduce the localization area. Typical 90% credible that in this frequency range, Taiji has the much lower area of a single LISA is (10−1) deg2, while for detec- noise level, which can produce the larger SNRs in this −2O 2 ◦ tor networks it is (10 ) deg . In the special θe = 60 frequency band for the given event, hence the improve- case, detector networksO can bring an improvement of four ment on source localization is more distinct. On the other orders of magnitude. hand, the main advantage of TianQin is at the higher frequency range of f > 0.03Hz, which is more sensitive to Note that, LISA+Taiji network gives stronger improve- detect the BBHs with component mass less than 105M . ments than LISA+TianQin network, which is under- 10

31.0 30.2

LISA 30.5 30.1 LISA&Tianqin LISA&Tianqin

) ) LISA&Taiji e e

e 30.0 e r r 30.0 g g e e

d LISA&Taiji d ( (

e e

φ 29.5 φ 29.9

29.0 29.8 LISA

28.5 29.7

28.75 29.00 29.25 29.50 29.75 30.00 30.25 30.50 30.75 89.6 89.7 89.8 89.9 90.0 90.1 90.2 90.3 θe (degree) θe (degree)

◦ ◦ (a)θe = 30 (b)θe = 90

105

100 LISA

95 ) e

e LISA&Taiji

r 90 g e d (

e 85 LISA&Tianqin φ

58 60 62 64 66 68 70 θe (degree)

◦ (c)θe = 60

FIG. 6. The 90% credible contours of posterior distribution of (θe, φe) for GW sources in three directions. Results of diﬀerent detector networks are plotted in diﬀerent color. For each panel, the true location is indicated by a red star. 90% credible ◦ 2 2 2 areas for the case with θe = 30 are 0.54 deg , 0.034 deg , 0.20 deg for LISA, LISA+Taiji network, LISA+TianQin network, ◦ 2 2 2 ◦ respectively. For the case with θe = 60 , they are 160.3 deg , 0.035 deg and 0.22 deg , respectively. For the case with θe = 90 , they are 0.11 deg2, 0.019 deg2 and 0.079 deg2, respectively.

VI. CONSTRAINTS ON PV GRAVITY in our ﬁducial model. In the Bayesian analysis, we add the PV parameters to the parameter set and obtain their distributions. Note that, the expected values of these PV We will show the constraints on PV gravity given by parameters are zero – our intention is to investigate the detector networks in this section. In Sec.IV, we de- capabilities of constraining PV gravity of detector net- ﬁned two parameters A and B in parity-violating GW works, so we focus on the error bars of PV parameters, waveforms and explained two cases to consider. Here, we which are not sensitive to the injected values. inject GW signals from SMBHBs with the same masses With an additional PV parameter, the sampling time and distance as in previous section, and set A = B = 0 increases by roughly 50%. Upper panel of Fig.7 shows 11

Method Lower Limit of MPV portunities to study the abundant physical processes and test the fundamental properties of gravity in the strong LIGO-VIRGO detections 0.07 GeV gravitational fields. In addition to various ground-based velocity birefringence[19] GW detectors, several space-based detectors, including LISA, Taiji and TianQin, are expected to be launched LIGO-VIRGO detections −13 10 eV in the near future. They are sensitive to the GW sig- amplitude birefringence[50] nals at lower frequency bands, and will open a new win- GW speed[51, 52] 10 eV dow for the GW astronomy. In particular, in comparison Solar system tests[53] 2 × 10−13 eV with the individual detectors, detector networks consist- −10 ing of several detectors might significantly improve the Binary pulsar[54, 55] 5 × 10 eV constraints of various parameters. In this article, by ap- plying Bayesian analysis, we investigate the capabilities TABLE I. Constraint on parity-violating energy scale from of space-based detector networks, and consider two cases different tests. as the examples. The first case is to localize the GW sources with detector networks, and the second is to con- the violin plots of posterior distribution of effective PV strain the parity symmetry of gravity with GWs. parameters. Also, MPV can be calculated by effective As well known, source localization is an important as- PV parameters via Eq. (7) and is showed in the lower pect of GW astronomy as it helps to identify the host panel. Note that injected PV parameters are zero and galaxy of the source and directs observations of electro- the theoretical MPV should be infinite, hence we plot dis- magnetic emission. In this work, we investigate the pos- −1 tribution of MPV instead. Taking the 90% percentiles of sible improvement of GW source localization with the −1 potential observations of future detector LISA, as well MPV as lower limit of MPV in 90% credible level, velocity birefringence effect gives (1) eV and amplitude birefrin- as detector networks consist of LISA, Taiji and Tian- gence effect gives (10−15O) eV. It is reasonable that ve- Qin projects. In analysis, we first simulate GW signals locity birefringenceO effect follows a higher constraint than with the waveform template IMRPhenomXHM, and in- amplitude birefringence because the its physical effect is ject them into various detectors. Then, employing the much stronger. modified Bilby package, we use Bayesian method to es- Compared with the constraints given by ground-based timate physical parameters of the compact binaries and GW detectors [19, 23, 49, 50], limits given by space detec- constrain the parameters of source position. We find that tors are not strong. For example, using LIGO-Virgo de- a detector network can improve the localization area by tections, Ref. [19] gives MPV > 0.07 GeV by constraining one order of magnitude in a three-day observation of com- 6 −13 pact binaries of (10 )M . For GW sources in some velocity birefringence, and Ref. [50] gives MPV > 10 O eV by constraining amplitude birefringence. We summa- special directions, a detector network is crucial to the rize the known constraints on PV gravity in TableI. As successful localization. indicated in Eq. (6), the amplitude and phase modifica- In the second case of testing gravity with GWs, we ex- tion in PV gravity are proportional to the GW frequency tend our previous works on testing the parity symmetry and square of the frequency, respectively. Sensitive fre- of gravity with GWs produced by the stellar-mass com- quency of a ground-based GW detector can be 5-6 orders pact binaries to the case with SMBHBs. By the similar of magnitude larger than space-based GW detectors, so analysis, we constrain the parameters which quantify the the weaker limits are reasonable. velocity birefringence and amplitude birefringence effects Unlike source localization, there is no statistically sig- in PV gravity. We find that the individual space-based nificant improvement of constraining PV gravity if we GW detectors and the detector networks can give the use a detector network. Since detector networks pro- similar constraints: i.e., the lower bound of the PV en- vide much longer baselines and thus the triangulation ergy scale MPV > (1)eV by constraining the velocity O −15 information is enhanced, detector networks can greatly birefringence effect∼ of GWs and MPV > (10 )eV by improve the localization capability. However, the in- constraining the amplitude birefringence∼ O effect of GWs. formation of parity violation lies in the arrival time or Since the space-based detectors are sensitive to the GW amplitude difference of left- and right- hand polariza- signal of lower frequencies, this bound is weaker than tions, which cannot be significantly changed by detec- that derived from the observations of ground-based GW tor networks, in comparison with an individual detector. detectors. Therefore, joint observations do not bring a significant At the end of this paper, we should mention that improvement. we have to simplify the calculation in the following aspects due to the complexity of space-based GW detector’s response and nested sampling’s computational bur- VII. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSIONS den. First, we adopt only three-day GW signals for analysis, which is much less than the realistic duration of The gravitational-wave signals, produced by the co- future GW detection. Second, in Bayesian analysis, we alescence of compact binaries, provide the excellent op- use non-spinning GW waveform to reduce the parame- 12

600 2

400 1

200 ) ) 2 1 − −

z 0 z H H ( 0 ( B A -1 -200

-2 -400

LISA LISA&Taiji LISA&Tianqin LISA LISA&Taiji LISA&Tianqin

10-15 × LISA LISA 5 LISA&Taiji 2.5 LISA&Taiji LISA&Tianqin LISA&Tianqin

4 2.0

3 1.5 PDF PDF

2 1.0

1 0.5

0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1 1 1 1 1015 M − (eV− ) M − (eV− ) | PV | | PV | ×

(a)velocity birefringence (b)amplitude birefringence

FIG. 7. Upper panels show the violin plots for eﬀective PV parameters A and B and lower panels show the distribution of MPV derived from diﬀerent cases. Note that, 90% percentiles are plotted in dashed lines. For velocity birefringence, 90% percentiles correspond to 3.20eV, 4.53eV, 3.24eV for LISA, LISA+Taiji network, LISA+TianQin network, respectively. While for amplitude birefringence, 90% percentiles are 1.85 × 10−15eV, 1.70 × 10−15eV, 1.82 × 10−15eV, respectively.

ter dimensionality. Third, in order to transfer the re- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS sponses of detectors from time domain to frequency domain, we adopt the SPA to simplify our calculation. We We would like to thank Yifan Wang and Yiming Hu should emphasize, these are common problems in com- for several helpful discussions. This work is supported munity when it comes to Bayesian analysis of GW signal by NSFC No.11773028, 11633001, 11653002, 11603020, of space-based detectors, which should be overcome by 11903030, the Fundamental Research Funds for the Cen- various techniques in future works. tral Universities under Grant Nos: WK2030000036 and WK3440000004, the Strategic Priority Research Pro- gram of the Chinese Academy of Sciences Grant No. XDB23010200, and the China Manned Space Program through its Space Application System.

Appendix A: TianQin’s Orbit

Orbit of TianQin in ecliptic frame is given as follows [2]: 13 0 0 1 0 xn(t) = R1 (cos φs sin θs sin (αn β ) + cos (αn β ) sin φs) + R1e1 (cos 2 (αn β ) 3) sin φs − − 2 − − 2 0 0 e1 0 0 + cos (αn β ) cos φs sin θs sin (αn β )] + R1 sin (αn β ) [(3 cos 2 (αn β ) 1) − − 4 − − − 0 0 Re cos φs sin θs 6 cos (αn β ) sin (αn β ) sin φs] + R cos(α β) + (cos 2(α β) 3) × − − − − 2 − − 3Re2 cos(α β) sin2(α β), − 2 − − 0 0 1 0 yn(t) = R1 (sin φs sin θs sin (αn β ) cos (αn β ) cos φs) R1e1 (cos 2 (αn β ) 3) cos φs − − − − 2 − − (A1) 2 0 0 e1 0 0 cos (αn β ) sin φs sin θs sin (αn β )] + R1 sin (αn β ) [(3 cos 2 (αn β ) 1) − − − 4 − − − 0 0 Re sin φs sin θs + 6 cos (αn β ) sin (αn β ) cos φs] + R sin(α β) + sin 2(α β) × − − − 2 − Re2 + (3 cos 2(α β) 1) sin(α β), 4 − − − 0 0 0 zn(t) = R1 sin (αn β ) cos θs R1e1 cos (αn β ) sin (αn β ) cos θs, − − − − − 1 2 0 0 e R1 (3 cos 2 (αn β ) 1) sin (αn β ) cos θs, − 4 1 − − −

where R = 1 AU and e = 0.0167 are the semi-major ciﬁc introduction of the orbit can be found in [2]. axis and the eccentricity of the geocenter orbit around 5 the Sun; R1 = 1.0 10 km and e1 are the semi-major axis and the eccentricity× of the spacecraft orbit around Appendix B: t(f) in stationary phase approximation ◦ ◦ the Earth. θs = 4.7 , φs = 120.5 is the ecliptic coor- − dinates of RX J0806.3+1527. fm equals to 1/year and In stationary phase approximation, the relation t(f) α(t) = 2πfmt + κ0 is the mean ecliptic longitude of the mentioned in Sec.III takes the form [56–60] geocenter in the heliocentric-ecliptic coordinate system. κ0 is the mean ecliptic longitude measured from the ver- 7 nal equinox at t = 0. β is the longitude of the perihelion. 5 −8/3 X i/3 t(f) = tc (πf) τi(πfGm) , αn represents orbit phase of the n-th spacecraft. A spe- − 5/3 256 (GMc) i=0 (B1) with coeﬃcients

τ0 = 1,

τ1 = 0, 743 11 τ2 = + η, 252 3 32 τ3 = π, − 5 3058673 5429 617 2 τ4 = + η + η , 508032 504 72 7729 13 (B2) τ5 = η π, − 252 − 3 10052469856691 128π2 6848γ 3147553127 451π2 τ6 = + + + η, − 23471078400 3 105 3048192 − 12 15211 25565 3424 h i η2 + η3 + ln 16(πmf)2/3 , − 1728 1296 105 15419335 75703 14809 2 τ7 = η + η π, − 127008 − 756 378 14 where γ = 0.5772 is the Euler-Mascheroni constant, m is have 2 total mass m1 + m2 of binary. η = m1m2/(m1 + m2) is 3/5 the symmetric mass ratio and Mc = η m is chirp mass. t`m(f) = t(2f/m). (B3) Note that, the time-frequency relation t(f) deﬁned by Eq. (B1) is for the dominant term. For other modes, we

[1] B. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott, S. Abraham, F. Acer- fects of parity violation on non-Gaussianity of primordial nese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, R. Adhikari, V. Adya, C. Af- gravitational waves in Hoˇrava-Lifshitz gravity, Phys. Rev. feldt, and et al., Gwtc-1: A gravitational-wave transient D 88, 063508 (2013), arXiv:1305.0600 [hep-th]. catalog of compact binary mergers observed by ligo and [18] J. Qiao, T. Zhu, W. Zhao, and A. Wang, Polarized virgo during the first and second observing runs, Physi- primordial gravitational waves in the ghost-free parity- cal Review X 9, 031040 (2019), arXiv:1811.12907 [astro- violating gravity, Phys. Rev. D 101, 043528 (2020), ph.HE]. arXiv:1911.01580 [astro-ph.CO]. [2] X. C. Hu, X. H. Li, Y. Wang, W. F. Feng, M. Y. Zhou, [19] Y.-F. Wang, R. Niu, T. Zhu, and W. Zhao, Gravitational- Y. M. Hu, S. C. Hu, J. W. Mei, and C. G. Shao, Fun- Wave Implications for the Parity Symmetry of Gravity in damentals of the orbit and response for TianQin, Class. the High Energy Region, Astrophys. J. 908, 58 (2021), Quantum Gravity 35, 1 (2018), arXiv:1803.03368. arXiv:2002.05668. [3] P. Amaro-Seoane, H. Audley, S. Babak, Baker, and et al., [20] V. A. Kosteleckýand M. Mewes, Testing local lorentz Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA L3 mission invariance with gravitational waves, Physics Letters B proposal) (2017), arXiv:1702.00786. 757, 510–514 (2016), arXiv:1602.04782 [gr-qc]. [4] C. Liu, W.-H. Ruan, and Z.-K. Guo, Constrain- [21] D. Yoshida and J. Soda, Exploring the string axiverse ing gravitational-wave polarizations with Taiji (2020), and parity violation in gravity with gravitational waves, arXiv:2006.04413. International Journal of Modern Physics D 27, 1850096 [5] L. P. Singer and L. R. Price, Rapid Bayesian position (2018), arXiv:1708.09592 [gr-qc]. reconstruction for gravitational-wave transients, Phys. [22] K. Yagi and H. Yang, Probing gravitational parity vio- Rev. D 93, 1 (2016), arXiv:1508.03634. lation with gravitational waves from stellar-mass black [6] B. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ack- hole binaries, Physical Review D 97, 104018 (2018), ley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. Adhikari, arXiv:1712.00682 [gr-qc]. V. Adya, and et al., Properties of the binary neutron star [23] S. H. Alexander and N. Yunes, Gravitational wave probes merger gw170817, Physical Review X 9, 011001 (2019). of parity violation in compact binary coalescences, Phys- [7] W.-H. Ruan, C. Liu, Z.-K. Guo, Y.-L. Wu, and R.-G. Cai, ical Review D 97, 064003 (2018), arXiv:1712.01853 [gr- The lisa-taiji network: Precision localization of coalescing qc]. massive black hole binaries, Research 2021, 1–7 (2021). [24] H. O. Silva, A. M. Holgado, A. Cárdenas-Avendaño,and [8] M. Maggiore, Gravitational Waves Vol. 1 (Oxford Uni- N. Yunes, Astrophysical and theoretical physics impli- versity Press, Oxford, England, 2007). cations from multimessenger neutron star observations [9] M. Maggiore, Gravitational Waves, Vol. 2 (Oxford Uni- (2020), arXiv:2004.01253 [gr-qc]. versity Press, Oxford, England, 2018). [25] L. Shao, Combined search for anisotropic birefringence in [10] T. D. Lee and C. N. Yang, Question of parity conserva- the gravitational-wave transient catalog gwtc-1, Physical tion in weak interactions, Phys. Rev. 104, 254 (1956). Review D 101, 104019 (2020). [11] S. Alexander and N. Yunes, Chern–simons modified gen- [26] P. Creminelli, J. Gleyzes, J. Noreña,and F. Vernizzi, Re- eral relativity, Physics Reports 480, 1–55 (2009). silience of the standard predictions for primordial tensor [12] B. A. Campbell, M. Duncan, N. Kaloper, and K. A. modes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 231301 (2014). Olive, Gravitational dynamics with lorentz chern-simons [27] C. W. Misner, K. Thorne, and J. Wheeler, Gravitation terms, Nuclear Physics B 351, 778 (1991). (W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1973). [13] B. A. Campbell, N. Kaloper, R. Madden, and K. A. Olive, [28] R. Adam, P. A. R. Ade, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. I. R. Physical properties of four-dimensional superstring grav- Alves, F. Argüeso,M. Arnaud, F. Arroja, M. Ashdown, ity black hole solutions, Nuclear Physics B 399, 137–168 and et al., Planck 2015 results. i. overview of products (1993). and scientific results, Astronomy and Astrophysics 594, [14] W. Zhao, T. Zhu, J. Qiao, and A. Wang, Waveform of A1 (2016). gravitational waves in the general parity-violating gravi- [29] P. A. R. Ade, N. Aghanim, M. Arnaud, M. Ashdown, ties, Phys. Rev. D 101, 024002 (2020), arXiv:1909.10887. J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, A. J. Banday, R. B. Barreiro, [15] J. Qiao, T. Zhu, W. Zhao, and A. Wang, Wave- J. G. Bartlett, and et al., Planck 2015 results. xiii. cos- form of gravitational waves in the ghost-free parity- mological parameters, Astronomy and Astrophysics 594, violating gravities, Phys. Rev. D 100, 124058 (2019), A13 (2016). arXiv:1909.03815. [30] E. Belgacem, G. Calcagni, M. Crisostomi, C. Dalang, [16] A. Wang, Q. Wu, W. Zhao, and T. Zhu, Polariz- Y. Dirian, J. M. Ezquiaga, M. Fasiello, S. Foffa, ing primordial gravitational waves by parity violation, A. Ganz, J. Garc´ıa-Bellido,L. Lombriser, M. Maggiore, Phys. Rev. D 87, 103512 (2013), arXiv:1208.5490 [astro- N. Tamanini, G. Tasinato, M. Zumalacárregui,E. Ba- ph.CO]. rausse, N. Bartolo, D. Bertacca, A. Klein, S. Matarrese, [17] T. Zhu, W. Zhao, Y. Huang, A. Wang, and Q. Wu, Ef- and M. Sakellariadou, Testing modified gravity at cosmo- 15

logical distances with LISA standard sirens, J. Cosmol. of the ringdown, Physical Review D 101, 084053 (2020). Astropart. Phys. 2019 (7), 0, arXiv:1906.01593. [46] C. Garc´ıa-Quirós, M. Colleoni, S. Husa, H. Estellés, [31] S.-J. Huang, Y.-M. Hu, V. Korol, P.-C. Li, Z.-C. Liang, G. Pratten, A. Ramos-Buades, M. Mateu-Lucena, and Y. Lu, H.-T. Wang, S. Yu, and J. Mei, Science with the R. Jaume, Multimode frequency-domain model for the TianQin Observatory: Preliminary Results on Galactic gravitational wave signal from nonprecessing black-hole Double White Dwarf Binaries (2020), arXiv:2005.07889. binaries, Physical Review D 102, 064002 (2020). [32] H. Liu, C. Zhang, Y. Gong, B. Wang, and A. Wang, [47] L. Blanchet, Gravitational radiation from post- Exploring non-singular black holes in gravitational per- newtonian sources and inspiralling compact binaries, turbations, arXiv:2002.06360. Living Rev. Relativ. 17, 1 (2014), arXiv:1310.1528. [33] C. Cutler, Angular resolution of the LISA gravitational [48] B. Farr, C. P. L. Berry, W. M. Farr, C.-J. Haster, H. Mid- wave detector, Phys. Rev. D - Part. Fields, Gravit. Cos- dleton, K. Cannon, P. B. Graff, C. Hanna, I. Mandel, mol. 57, 7089 (1998), arXiv:9703068 [gr-qc]. C. Pankow, and et al., Parameter estimation on gravi- [34] N. J. Cornish and S. L. Larson, Space missions to detect tational waves from neutron-star binaries with spinning the cosmic gravitational-wave background, Classical and components, The Astrophysical Journal 825, 116 (2016), Quantum Gravity 18, 3473 (2001). arXiv:1508.05336. [35] D. Liang, Y. Gong, A. J. Weinstein, C. Zhang, and [49] W. Zhao, T. Liu, L. Wen, T. Zhu, A. Wang, Q. Hu, and C. Zhang, Frequency response of space-based interfer- C. Zhou, Model-independent test of the parity symme- ometric gravitational-wave detectors, Phys. Rev. D 99, try of gravity with gravitational waves, The European 104027 (2019), arXiv:1901.09624. Physical Journal C 80, 630 (2020). [36] S. Marsat, J. G. Baker, and T. D. Canton, Exploring the [50] M. Okounkova, W. M. Farr, M. Isi, and L. C. Bayesian parameter estimation of binary black holes with Stein, Constraining gravitational wave amplitude bire- LISA, arXiv:2003.00357. fringence and chern-simons gravity with gwtc-2 (2021), [37] E. Thrane and C. Talbot, An introduction to Bayesian arXiv:2101.11153 [gr-qc]. inference in gravitational-wave astronomy: Parameter [51] B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, F. Acernese, estimation, model selection, and hierarchical models, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. X. Publ. Astron. Soc. Aust. 36, 10.1017/pasa.2019.2 (2019), Adhikari, V. B. Adya, and et al., Gravitational Waves arXiv:1809.02293. and Gamma-Rays from a Binary Neutron Star Merger: [38] F. Feroz, M. P. Hobson, and M. Bridges, MultiNest: An GW170817 and GRB 170817A, Astrophys. J. Lett. 848, efficient and robust Bayesian inference tool for cosmology L13 (2017), arXiv:1710.05834 [astro-ph.HE]. and particle physics, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 398, 1601 [52] A. Nishizawa and T. Kobayashi, Parity-violating gravity (2009), arXiv:0809.3437. and gq170817, Phys. Rev. D 98, 124018 (2018). [39] J. Skilling, Nested sampling, AIP Con- [53] T. L. Smith, A. L. Erickcek, R. R. Caldwell, and ference Proceedings 735, 395 (2004), M. Kamionkowski, Effects of chern-simons gravity on https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.1835238. bodies orbiting the earth, Phys. Rev. D 77, 024015 [40] J. Veitch, V. Raymond, and et al., Parameter estimation (2008). for compact binaries with ground-based gravitational- [54] N. Yunes and D. N. Spergel, Double-binary-pulsar test of wave observations using the lalinference software library, chern-simons modified gravity, Phys. Rev. D 80, 042004 Phys. Rev. D 91, 042003 (2015). (2009). [41] C. M. Biwer, C. D. Capano, S. De, M. Cabero, [55] Y. Ali-Haimoud, Revisiting the double-binary-pulsar D. A. Brown, A. H. Nitz, and V. Raymond, Py- probe of nondynamical chern-simons gravity, Phys. Rev. CBC inference: a python-based parameter estimation D 83, 124050 (2011). toolkit for compact binary coalescence signals, Publ. As- [56] K. G. Arun, L. Blanchet, B. R. Iyer, and M. S. S. Qu- tron. Soc. Pacific 131, 10.1088/1538-3873/aaef0b (2019), sailah, The 2.5PN gravitational wave polarizations from arXiv:1807.10312. inspiralling compact binaries in circular orbits, Classi- [42] G. Ashton, M. Hübner,P. D. Lasky, C. Talbot, K. Ack- cal and Quantum Gravity 21, 3771 (2004), arXiv:gr- ley, S. Biscoveanu, Q. Chu, A. Divakarla, P. J. Easter, qc/0404085 [gr-qc]. B. Goncharov, and et al., Bilby: A user-friendly bayesian [57] K. G. Arun, L. Blanchet, B. R. Iyer, and M. S. S. Qu- inference library for gravitational-wave astronomy, The sailah, The 2.5pn gravitational wave polarizations from Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 241, 27 (2019). inspiralling compact binaries in circular orbits, Classical [43] J. Buchner, A. Georgakakis, K. Nandra, L. Hsu, and Quantum Gravity 22, 3115 (2005). C. Rangel, M. Brightman, A. Merloni, M. Salvato, [58] C. Van Den Broeck and A. S. Sengupta, Phenomenol- J. Donley, and D. Kocevski, X-ray spectral modelling of ogy of amplitude-corrected post-Newtonian gravitational the agn obscuring region in the cdfs: Bayesian model se- waveforms for compact binary inspiral: I. Signal-to-noise lection and catalogue, Astronomy & Astrophysics 564, ratios, Classical and Quantum Gravity 24, 155 (2007), A125 (2014), arXiv:1402.0004 [astro-ph.HE]. arXiv:gr-qc/0607092 [gr-qc]. [44] L. London, S. Khan, E. Fauchon-Jones, C. Garc´ıa, [59] W. Zhao and L. Wen, Localization accuracy of com- M. Hannam, S. Husa, X. Jiménez-Forteza, C. Kalaghatgi, pact binary coalescences detected by the third-generation F. Ohme, and F. Pannarale, First Higher-Multipole gravitational-wave detectors and implication for cosmol- Model of Gravitational Waves from Spinning and Co- ogy, Phys. Rev. D 97, 064031 (2018), arXiv:1710.05325 alescing Black-Hole Binaries, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 2 [astro-ph.CO]. (2018), arXiv:1708.00404. [60] R. Niu, X. Zhang, T. Liu, J. Yu, B. Wang, and W. Zhao, [45] V. Baibhav, E. Berti, and V. Cardoso, Lisa parameter Constraining Screened Modified Gravity with Space- estimation and source localization with higher harmonics borne Gravitational-wave Detectors, Astrophys. J. 890, 163 (2020), arXiv:1910.10592.