2 like evetns [40]. They show future prospects of detection II. PARAMETER ESTIMATION METHODS of deviations from GR assuming boson stars. We note, however, that the above works do not consider both ef- A. ECO features fects simultaneously but focus on only one of them1. The aim of this work is to give model-independent tests There are several features of ECOs that differ from BH of strong-field gravity regimes from the measurements of (see Refs. [4] for review). In this paper, we focus on the tidal deformability and SIQM via GWs from compact bi- tidal deformability and SIQM. nary inspirals. One motivation to think about BH mim- ickers is to modify the BHs in GR to be compatible with the stringy paradigm as to BH information loss. If we 1. Tidal deformability assume something like a firewall, only the small region near the horizon might be modified, or in other words In the compact binary inspiral, at the leading order, practically only the absorbing boundary condition across the tidally induced quadrupole moment tensor Qij;Tidal the horizon might be modified. This change of boundary is proportional to the companion's tidal field Eij as condition may also result in the modification of tidal de- Qij;Tidal = −λEij. The information about the EOS (or formability, unless the modification is restricted to a re- structure) can be quantified by the tidal deformability ally tiny region in the vicinity of the horizon, e.g., within parameter λ [6]. The leading order tidal contribution the Planck distance from the horizon. (Thus, we think to the GW phase evolution (relative 5PN order) arises non-trivial tidal deformability will not necessarily imply through the symmetric contribution of tidal deformation, smaller compactness.) the binary tidal deformability [6, 7, 47] In this paper, we reanalyze the data around six 4 4 16 (m1 + 12m2)m Λ1 + (m2 + 12m1)m Λ2 low-mass events identified as BBH; GW151226, Λ~ = 1 2 ; (1) 13 (m + m )5 GW170608, GW190707 093326 (hereafter 1 2 GW190707), GW190720 00836 (hereafter GW190720), which is a mass-weighted linear combination of the both GW190728 064510 (hereafter GW190728), and component tidal parameters, where m1;2 is the compo- GW190924 021846 (hereafter GW190924), using an nent mass and Λ1;2 is the dimensionless tidal deformabil- 5 inspiral-only waveform model with both tidal and SIQM ity parameter of each object defined as Λ1;2 = λ1;2=m1;2. terms, and present constraints on the binary tidal For the waveform models used in this paper, the tidal deformability and SIQM at the same time. We focus effects to the gravitational-wave phase are dominated on the inspiral regime because post-inspiral regimes of by the symmetric contributions, Λ~ terms, and the an- binary ECOs are not modeled well. Since the inspiral tisymmetric contributions, δΛ~ terms, are always sub- regime can be accurately described by post-Newtonian dominant [48, 49]. The tidal deformability can char- (PN) formula [5, 42, 43], we use PN inspiral-only acterize the compact objects. Λ for BHs in classical waveform model. GR vanishes as shown for Schwarzschild BH [50, 51] The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In and for Kerr BH [52{54]. For NSs, Λ is a few hun- Sec. II, we explain the methods of Bayesian parameter dred, depending on EOS [8, 47, 55{57]. Upper bound on ~ estimation for GWs including waveform models used to the binary tidal deformability Λ by GW170817 is about analyze. In Sec. III, we present results of our analysis 900 [13, 58] (see also [16, 17] for reanalysis). ECOs differ of GWTC-2 events by using TF2g Tidal SIQM waveform from BHs in classical GR in having nonzero tidal de- model. Section IV is devoted to a summary and conclu- formabilities [38, 39, 59]. It is intriguing that Λ is nega- sion. In Appendix A, we show the results for seven events tive for gravastars [60, 61]. added GW190814 by using the TF2 Tidal SIQM wave- form model. Here, TF2 is the abbreviation of TaylorF2, which is the PN waveform model for point-particle and 2. SIQM spin effects [42, 44, 45] and TF2g is an extended waveform model of TF2 obtained by Taylor-expanding the effective- For a compact object with mass m and the dimen- one-body formula [46]. sionless spin parallel to the orbital angular momentum, χ = S=m2, where S is the magnitude of the spin angular We employ the units c = G = 1, where c and G are momentum of the aligned component, the spin-induced the speed of light and the gravitational constant, respec- quadrupole moment scalar is given by [10] tively. 2 3 QSpin = −(1 + δκ)χ m ; (2) where δκ denotes deviations from the Kerr BHs in GR. The symmetric combination of the deviation parameters of the respective objects, δκ1;2, is defined as δκs = (δκ1 + 1 The analysis in Ref. [41] have considered both effects at one time δκ2)=2. The SIQM can also characterize the compact for Fisher information matrix analysis. objects. For Kerr BH, we have δκ = 0 [10]. For spinning 3 NS, we have δκ ∼ 2 − 20 [62{64]. ECOs differ from We use an extended model of TaylorF2 [42, 44, 45], BHs, having δκ 6= 0: δκ ∼ 10 − 150 for spinning boson TF2g, as ΨBBH(f), which consists of point-particle and stars [65{68]. Interestingly, δκ for gravastar can take spin parts. For TaylorF2 the 3.5PN-order formulas is negative values [61]. employed for the point-particle part of the phase as sum- marized in [45, 69]. For TF2g, the phase of the point- particle part is extended to the quasi-5.5PN-order, which B. Waveform models for inspiraling exotic compact is derived by the Taylor expansion of the effective-one- objects body formula taking into account the notion in the test particle limit [46]. We set the uncalculated terms at 4PN- We use the post-Newtonian (PN) waveform model, order and beyond to zero. The added higher PN-order which can accurately describe the early inspiral regime terms enable to reduce the tidal deformability biasing. for compact binary coalescences [5, 42]. The frequency- The waveform models for both BBH and binary ECO domain gravitational waveform for binary ECOs can be used in our parameter estimation analyses assume that written as the spins of component objects are aligned with the or- bital angular momentum, and incorporate 3.5PN-order ~ iΨBBH(f)+ΨSIQM(f)+ΨTidal(f) hECO(f) = A(f)e ; (3) formula in couplings between the orbital angular momen- tum and the component spins [70], 3PN-order formula in where A(f) is the amplitude of the GW signal and the point-mass spin-spin, and self-spin interactions [71, 72] phase which consists of the BBH phase ΨBBH(f) and as summarized in [69]. The different PN-order terms for the additional SIQM effect ΨSIQM(f) and tidal effect spin effects could help to break degeneracy between pa- ΨTidal(f). We consider the amplitude formula up to rameters. the 3PN-order as summarized in [69], where the point We also use PN formula for the tidal effects. We em- particle and the spin effects are included for both BBH ploy the 2.5PN-order (relative 5+2.5PN-order) tidal-part and ECO hypotheses and the leading order term is ap- of the phase. Recently, Henry, Faye and Blanchet [73] −1 det 5=6 −7=6 proximately written as ∼ dL (M ) f where dL have derived the complete form up to 5+2.5PN-order for is the luminosity distance to the source, and Mdet = the mass quadrupole, current quadrupole, and mass oc- 3=5 1=5 (1 + z)(m1m2) =(m1 + m2) is the detector-frame tupole contributing to the GW tidal phase. We rewrite it (redshifted) chirp mass, which gives the leading-order only for the mass quadrupole interactions as a function evolution of the binary amplitude and phase, and z is of the dimensionless tidal deformability of each object 5 2 the source redshift. defined as Λ1;2 = λ1;2=m1;2 by , 2 3 X 5 Ψ (f) = x5=2 Λ X4 −24(12 − 11X ) − (3179 − 919X − 2286X2 + 260X3 )x HFB 128η A A A 28 A A A A=1 3=2 +24π(12 − 11XA)x 193986935 14415613 57859 209495 965 −5 − X − X2 − X3 + X4 − 4X5 x2 571536 381024 A 378 A 1512 A 54 A A π i + (27719 − 22415X + 7598X2 − 10520X3 )x5=2 ; (4) 28 A A A 2=3 where x = [πMtot(1 + z)f] is the dimensionless PN current quadrupole and mass octupole have been de- expansion parameter, Mtot = m1 + m2 is the total mass, rived [73] and they provide the correct coefficient of rel- 2 η = m1m2=(m1 + m2) is the symmetric mass ratio, and ative 5+2.5PN-order term. Although it is not imple- XA = mA=Mtot, A=1,2. Here, we do not ignore the anti- mented in our analysis, the difference between the correct symmetric contribution δΛ~ terms, while they are always coefficient and the one we used is numerically very small subdominant on the tidal effects to the GW phase, com- and thus should not change much our results. pared with the symmetric contribution Λ~ terms [48, 49]. The leading order effect due to the SIQM appears as a We set the uncalculated terms at relative 5+2PN-order part of spin-spin interactions in the PN phase at relative to zero. We note that recently the complete GW phases 2 PN order [10], and the leading order additional term up to relative 5+2.5PN-order for the mass quadrupole, for binary ECO is described as 2 2 2 2 75 δκ1m1χ1 + δκ2m2χ2 −1=2 ΨSIQM(f) = x : (5) 64 m1m2 2 We will extend the our analysis by adding the current quadrupole In our analysis, we also incorporate relative 3PN correc- and mass octupole interactions.