Pith. Sign in

RECORD

Gravity from self-interaction redux

General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology · Submitted 15 Oct 2009

abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review

The authors' main claim I correct some recent misunderstandings about, and amplify some details of, an old explicit non-geometrical derivation of GR.

how it is stated · asserted 0.96 read the record →

Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗
Cite ▾
arXiv ID0910.2975 (version 3)
Pith IDHBTVRTRO, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review
CitationS.Deser. "Gravity from self-interaction redux." arXiv:0910.2975 (2009). https://pith.science/paper/HBTVRTRO
Claim paper

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Open the compiled record

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 1,592 input tokens, $0.0001 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.13 · human participants 0.02 · controlled comparison 0.02 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.02 · compares with prior results 0.34 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v3. Results and the main claim are underlined; .

I correct some recent misunderstandings about, and amplify some details of, an old explicit non-geometrical derivation of GR.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#sentencerolethe authors' own workstates the main conclusionstrength
s0 I correct some recent misunderstandings about, and amplify some details of, an old explicit non-geometrical derivation of GR. contribution 1.00 0.86 0.28 asserted 0.96

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: position or commentary 0.87 · evidence from proof or derivation 0.93.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read
  • arXiv listing abstract v3
not examined
  • full text
  • figures and tables
  • references and citing sentences
  • relations to other papers
levels run
  • P abstract
not run
  • S sections
  • T body sentences
  • C citations
  • R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

The paper
Original abstract

I correct some recent misunderstandings about, and amplify some details of, an old explicit non-geometrical derivation of GR.

Human review
References
How the literature uses it

33 arXiv papers cite this in 42 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers citing it · 30 sentences without a confident label

Uses its method or tool 1 paper
Cites it as background 11 papers
  • The approach, based on Deser's conjecture [ref] , consists of retrieving the full Einstein's theory including gravitational self-coupling terms in the Fierz-Pauli action.[This idea is indeed older, see e.g. Ref. [ref] .]

    Orbits in bootstrapped Newtonian gravity · Introduction · 0.84

  • It was also shown long ago that General Relativity is in turn the simplest among the (diffeomorphism invariant) consistent completions of the linear Newtonian gravity with the graviton self-coupling [ref] .

    Bootstrapping Newton Gravity · Introduction · 0.93

  • The most well-known ones proposed to use Ward–Takahashi identities [ref] and to bootstrap gravity [ref] .

    FeynGrav and Recent Progress in Computational Perturbative Quantum Gravity · Introduction · 0.85

Discussion

Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.