Erratum: Tests of general relativity with binary black holes from the second LIGO-Virgo gravitational-wave transient catalog [Phys. Rev. D <b>103</b>, 122002 (2021)]

A reanalysis of O3a data produced a discrepancy between the value of the graviton-mass upper limit produced in the paper and that in the reanalysis.Furthermore, the bound in the paper is inconsistent with the paper's A 0 posterior.The discrepancy was traced to an error in the kernel density estimation code in connection to the resampling procedure.This error affects only the value of the graviton-mass upper limit.As a result, the correct upper limit for the graviton mass should be m g 3.09 10 -23 eV=c 2 , instead of 1.76 10 -23 eV=c 2 .This represents an improvement over [1] by a factor of 1.5, instead of 2.7.This measurement is comparable to the Solar System bound of 3.16 10 -23 eV=c 2 [2], instead of 1.8 times more stringent as stated in the paper.We thank Tomasz Baka for noticing the bug in our calculation of the bound on the graviton mass and suggesting a correction to the code.An error has been discovered in the results of the parametrized test of gravitational-wave generation with the SEOBNRv4_ROM waveform model.For this waveform model, a flexible theory-independent method [3] is used, including the spin dependence in the normalization of the post-Newtonian (PN) deviation parameters f 3 ; 4 ; 5l ; 6 ; 7 g: 1The posteriors of these deviation parameters for SEOBNRv4_ROM are reweighted to the normalization to the spinindependent part of the PN coefficients used in the article, where the conventionused.This erratum corrects an error in the implementation of the reweighting and presents results following reanalysis.The parameters f -2 ; 0 ; 1 ; 2 ; 6l g are not affected, but slight statistical fluctuations are present in the reanalysis of their population-marginalized posteriors.As a result, Figs. 5-8 and 19 replace Figs.5-8 and 19 in the original article, respectively.Moreover,Table VI in this erratum replaces Table VI in the original article.Additionally, due to an oversight, there is an error in Sec.VA and Appendix C in the description of analyses performed in order to mitigate waveform systematics.It is stated that GW190814 was analyzed with IMRPhenomPv3HM and SEOBNRv4HM_ROM waveform models, and that GW190412 was analyzed with IMRPhenomPv3HM.However, both GW190412 and GW190814 were analyzed with IMRPhenomPv3HM and SEOBNRv4HM_ROM, and the reported results use both waveform models.