- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review D

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Testing gravity with black hole ringdown amplitudes

Francesco Crescimbeni1,2,*, Xisco Jimenez Forteza3,†, and Paolo Pani1,2,‡

  • *Contact author: francesco.crescimbeni@uniroma1.it
  • †Contact author: f.jimenez@uib.es
  • ‡Contact author: paolo.pani@uniroma1.it
PDF

Phys. Rev. D 113, 044064 – Published 24 February, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/ptg5-f769

Abstract

Black hole ringdowns in extensions of general relativity (GR) generically exhibit two distinct signatures: i) theory-dependent shifts in the standard black-hole quasinormal modes, and ii) additional modes arising from extra fundamental fields—such as scalar, vector, or tensor degrees of freedom—that can also contribute to the gravitational-wave signal. As recently argued, in general both effects are present simultaneously, and accurately modeling them is essential for robust tests of GR in the ringdown regime. In this work, we investigate the impact of extra field-induced modes, which are often neglected in standard ringdown analyses, on the interpretation of gravitational-wave signals. To provide some concrete examples, we focus on dynamical Chern-Simons and Einstein-scalar-Gauss-Bonnet theories, well-motivated extensions of GR, characterized, respectively, by a parity-odd and a parity-even coupling between a dynamical scalar field and quadratic curvature invariants. We show that including extra field-induced modes improves the bounds on these theories compared to standard spectroscopy and also allows for equally constraining complementary tests not based on quasinormal mode shifts. Our analysis highlights the relevance of incorporating extra field-induced modes in ringdown templates and assesses their potential to either bias or enhance constraints on GR deviations.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (103)

  1. O. Dreyer, B. J. Kelly, B. Krishnan, L. S. Finn, D. Garrison, and R. Lopez-Aleman, Classical Quantum Gravity 21, 787 (2004).
  2. S. L. Detweiler, Astrophys. J. 239, 292 (1980).
  3. E. Berti, V. Cardoso, and C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D 73, 064030 (2006).
  4. S. Gossan, J. Veitch, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Phys. Rev. D 85, 124056 (2012).
  5. R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration, VIRGO Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 112, 084080 (2025).
  6. E. Berti et al., Classical Quantum Gravity 32, 243001 (2015).
  7. E. Berti, K. Yagi, H. Yang, and N. Yunes, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 50, 49 (2018).
  8. M. Colleoni, N. V. Krishnendu, P. Mourier, S. Bera, and X. Jiménez-Forteza, arXiv:2403.07682.
  9. V. Cardoso and P. Pani, Living Rev. Relativity 22, 4 (2019).
  10. E. Berti et al., arXiv:2505.23895.
  11. C. V. Vishveshwara, Nature (London) 227, 936 (1970).
  12. K. D. Kokkotas and B. G. Schmidt, Living Rev. Relativity 2, 2 (1999).
  13. E. Berti, V. Cardoso, and A. O. Starinets, Classical Quantum Gravity 26, 163001 (2009).
  14. R. Konoplya and A. Zhidenko, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 793 (2011).
  15. E. W. Leaver, Phys. Rev. D 34, 384 (1986).
  16. R. Brito, A. Buonanno, and V. Raymond, Phys. Rev. D 98, 084038 (2018).
  17. G. Carullo, W. Del Pozzo, and J. Veitch, Phys. Rev. D 99, 123029 (2019); 100, 089903(E) (2019).
  18. M. Isi, M. Giesler, W. M. Farr, M. A. Scheel, and S. A. Teukolsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 111102 (2019).
  19. X. J. Forteza, S. Bhagwat, S. Kumar, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 021001 (2023).
  20. N. Franchini and S. H. Völkel, arXiv:2305.01696.
  21. S. Ma, L. Sun, and Y. Chen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 141401 (2023).
  22. S. Ma, K. Mitman, L. Sun, N. Deppe, F. Hébert, L. E. Kidder, J. Moxon, W. Throwe, N. L. Vu, and Y. Chen, Phys. Rev. D 106, 084036 (2022).
  23. V. Baibhav, M. H.-Y. Cheung, E. Berti, V. Cardoso, G. Carullo, R. Cotesta, W. Del Pozzo, and F. Duque, Phys. Rev. D 108, 104020 (2023).
  24. E. Maggio, L. Buoninfante, A. Mazumdar, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D 102, 064053 (2020).
  25. E. Maggio, P. Pani, and G. Raposo, arXiv:2105.06410.
  26. E. Maggio, Lect. Notes Phys. 1017, 333 (2023).
  27. A. G. Abac et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration, KAGRA Collaboration, and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 111403 (2025).
  28. A. G. Abac et al. (The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, The Virgo Collaboration, and The KAGRA Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 041403 (2026).
  29. T. P. Sotiriou, Lect. Notes Phys. 892, 3 (2015).
  30. G. W. Horndeski, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 10, 363 (1974).
  31. P. Kanti, N. E. Mavromatos, J. Rizos, K. Tamvakis, and E. Winstanley, Phys. Rev. D 54, 5049 (1996).
  32. S. Alexander and N. Yunes, Phys. Rep. 480, 1 (2009).
  33. S. Endlich, V. Gorbenko, J. Huang, and L. Senatore, J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2017) 122.
  34. T. Jacobson and D. Mattingly, Phys. Rev. D 64, 024028 (2001).
  35. P. Horava, Phys. Rev. D 79, 084008 (2009).
  36. L. Heisenberg, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 05 (2014) 015.
  37. C. de Rham, G. Gabadadze, and A. J. Tolley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 231101 (2011).
  38. S. F. Hassan and R. A. Rosen, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2012) 126.
  39. G. Antoniou, L. Gualtieri, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D 111, 064059 (2025).
  40. F. Crescimbeni, X. J. Forteza, S. Bhagwat, J. Westerweck, and P. Pani, SciPost Phys. 20, 025 (2026).
  41. C. Molina, P. Pani, V. Cardoso, and L. Gualtieri, Phys. Rev. D 81, 124021 (2010).
  42. P. Pani, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 28, 1340018 (2013).
  43. J. L. Blázquez-Salcedo, C. F. B. Macedo, V. Cardoso, V. Ferrari, L. Gualtieri, F. S. Khoo, J. Kunz, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D 94, 104024 (2016).
  44. V. Cardoso, W.-D. Guo, C. F. B. Macedo, and P. Pani, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 503, 563 (2021).
  45. J. Lestingi, G. D’Addario, and T. P. Sotiriou, Phys. Rev. D 112, 064070 (2025).
  46. P. Pani and V. Cardoso, Phys. Rev. D 79, 084031 (2009).
  47. V. Cardoso and L. Gualtieri, Phys. Rev. D 80, 064008 (2009); 81, 089903(E) (2010).
  48. P. Pani, E. Berti, and L. Gualtieri, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 241103 (2013).
  49. P. Pani, E. Berti, and L. Gualtieri, Phys. Rev. D 88, 064048 (2013).
  50. L. Pierini and L. Gualtieri, Phys. Rev. D 103, 124017 (2021).
  51. P. Wagle, N. Yunes, and H. O. Silva, Phys. Rev. D 105, 124003 (2022).
  52. P. A. Cano, K. Fransen, T. Hertog, and S. Maenaut, Phys. Rev. D 105, 024064 (2022).
  53. L. Pierini and L. Gualtieri, Phys. Rev. D 106, 104009 (2022).
  54. P. A. Cano, K. Fransen, T. Hertog, and S. Maenaut, Phys. Rev. D 108, 124032 (2023).
  55. P. Wagle, D. Li, Y. Chen, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D 109, 104029 (2024).
  56. A. K.-W. Chung, P. Wagle, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D 107, 124032 (2023).
  57. A. K.-W. Chung, P. Wagle, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D 109, 044072 (2024).
  58. J. L. Blázquez-Salcedo, F. S. Khoo, J. Kunz, and L. M. González-Romero, Phys. Rev. D 109, 064028 (2024).
  59. A. K.-W. Chung and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 181401 (2024).
  60. A. K.-W. Chung and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D 110, 064019 (2024).
  61. O. J. C. Dias, M. Godazgar, and J. E. Santos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 151101 (2015).
  62. A. Maselli, P. Pani, L. Gualtieri, and E. Berti, Phys. Rev. D 101, 024043 (2020).
  63. G. Carullo, Phys. Rev. D 103, 124043 (2021).
  64. A. Maselli, S. Yi, L. Pierini, V. Vellucci, L. Reali, L. Gualtieri, and E. Berti, Phys. Rev. D 109, 064060 (2024).
  65. https://pages.jh.edu/eberti2/ringdown/
  66. https://centra.tecnico.ulisboa.  pt/network/grit/files/ringdown/
  67. S. E. Perkins, R. Nair, H. O. Silva, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D 104, 024060 (2021).
  68. A. K.-W. Chung, K. K.-H. Lam, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D 111, 124052 (2025).
  69. A. K.-W. Chung and N. Yunes, arXiv:2506.14695.
  70. S. Chandrasekhar, The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes (Oxford University Press, New York, 1985).
  71. E. Barausse, V. Cardoso, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D 89, 104059 (2014).
  72. D. Li, A. Hussain, P. Wagle, Y. Chen, N. Yunes, and A. Zimmerman, Phys. Rev. D 109, 104026 (2024).
  73. C. M. Biwer, C. D. Capano, S. De, M. Cabero, D. A. Brown, A. H. Nitz, and V. Raymond, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 131, 024503 (2019).
  74. LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration,Noise Curves for use in simulations pre-O4, Tech. Rep. T2200043-v3 LIGO Document Control Center (DCC), 2022.
  75. L. Blanchet, Living Rev. Relativity 27, 4 (2024).
  76. B. Banihashemi and J. Vines, Phys. Rev. D 101, 064003 (2020).
  77. T. Abdelsalhin, L. Gualtieri, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D 98, 104046 (2018).
  78. E. M. Sänger et al., arXiv:2406.03568.
  79. H. Jeffreys,The Theory of Probability, Oxford Classic Texts in the Physical Sciences (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1939).
  80. A. Gupta et al., SciPost Phys. Community Rep. 5 (2025).
  81. S. Hild et al., Classical Quantum Gravity 28, 094013 (2011).
  82. M. Maggiore et al., J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 03 (2020) 050.
  83. M. Branchesi et al., J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 07 (2023) 068.
  84. A. Abac et al., arXiv:2503.12263.
  85. S. Bhagwat, C. Pacilio, P. Pani, and M. Mapelli, Phys. Rev. D 108, 043019 (2023).
  86. S. A. Usman, J. C. Mills, and S. Fairhurst, Astrophys. J. 877, 82 (2019).
  87. M. Isi and W. M. Farr, arXiv:2107.05609.
  88. M. H.-Y. Cheung, E. Berti, V. Baibhav, and R. Cotesta, Phys. Rev. D 109, 044069 (2024); 110, 049902(E) (2024); 112, 049901(E) (2025).
  89. F.-L. Julié, L. Pompili, and A. Buonanno, Phys. Rev. D 111, 024016 (2025).
  90. M. Okounkova, L. C. Stein, J. Moxon, M. A. Scheel, and S. A. Teukolsky, Phys. Rev. D 101, 104016 (2020).
  91. M. Okounkova, Phys. Rev. D 102, 084046 (2020).
  92. W. E. East and J. L. Ripley, Phys. Rev. D 103, 044040 (2021).
  93. W. E. East and J. L. Ripley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 101102 (2021).
  94. P. Figueras and T. França, Phys. Rev. D 105, 124004 (2022).
  95. L. Aresté Saló, K. Clough, and P. Figueras, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 261104 (2022).
  96. M. Corman, J. L. Ripley, and W. E. East, Phys. Rev. D 107, 024014 (2023).
  97. R. Cayuso, P. Figueras, T. França, and L. Lehner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 111403 (2023).
  98. Z. Hu, D. Doneva, S. Yazadjiev, and L. Shao, arXiv:2511.20301.
  99. H. O. Silva, G. Tambalo, K. Glampedakis, K. Yagi, and J. Steinhoff, Phys. Rev. D 110, 024042 (2024).
  100. J. D. Hunter, Comput. Sci. Eng. 9, 90 (2007).
  101. D. Foreman-Mackey, J. Open Source Softwaare 1, 24 (2016).
  102. T. Bray, The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) data interchange format (2014), 10.17487/RFC8259.
  103. C. R. Harris et al., Nature (London) 585, 357 (2020).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 113, 044064– Published 24 February, 2026
  • Received 13 November 2025
  • Accepted 5 February 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation