Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 61 references

Ghost-free modification of the Polyakov action and Hawking radiation

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a ghost-free non-local deformation of the Polyakov action leaves the Hawking energy flux at infinity unchanged on a fixed two-dimensional black-hole background, while shifting diagonal stress components and entropy.

desk verdict A clean, internally consistent result for ghost-free modifications of the Polyakov action in 2D: the Hawking flux at infinity is provably unchanged on a fixed background, but the whole framework rests on an explicitly unproven quantization assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.01494 v2 pith:VG54GZS7 submitted 2019-09-03 hep-th gr-qc

Jens Boos , Valeri P. Frolov , Andrei Zelnikov This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thgr-qc
keywords ghost-freeformfactorPolyakovactionHawkingradiationfluxtwo-dimensionalblackholeconformalanomalyeffectivestress-energytensorentropynon-locality
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks whether making a quantum matter field non-local, in a way that introduces no extra ghost degrees of freedom, changes the Hawking radiation of a two-dimensional black hole. It studies a ghost-free deformation of the Polyakov effective action in which the kinetic operator $\Box$ is replaced by $\Box\,e^{(-\ell^{2}\Box)^{N}}$, written in local form with an auxiliary scalar field. The central finding is that on a fixed black-hole background the outgoing energy flux measured at infinity is the same as in the local theory, because the flux comes from the state-dependent part of the stress tensor, and that part is insensitive to the non-locality scale $\ell$. The diagonal components of the stress tensor and the quantum correction to the black-hole entropy do change. The result matters because it identifies which semiclassical black-hole observables can be altered by ghost-free non-locality and which are not.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the ghost-free form factor $A = \Box\, e^{(-\ell^{2}\Box)^{N}}$ inserted into the local auxiliary-field form of the Polyakov action, where the auxiliary field $\phi$ satisfies $A\phi = R$. Because the exponential form factor does not create new poles, the homogeneous solutions of $A\phi=0$ coincide with the zero modes of $\Box$; hence the state-dependent part of the stress tensor, built from those zero modes, is independent of $\ell$. The second piece of machinery is the standard integral formula that expresses the asymptotic Hawking flux of a stationary conserved two-dimensional stress tensor as an integral of its trace plus a horizon boundary term; the non-local correction has finite $T^{r}{}_{r}$ at the horizon, so $f\,T^{r}{}_{r}\to 0$ there and the correction drops out of the flux integral. For the dilaton example, the paper constructs the spectral representation of $e^{s\Box}R$ from eigenfunctions of $\Box$ to compute the modified trace and the entropy shift.

What would settle it

Quantize the non-local scalar field on the two-dimensional dilaton black hole background directly, for example by constructing the retarded Green function and the full quantum stress tensor from the mode functions of $\Box\,e^{(-\ell^{2}\Box)^{N}}$, and evaluate the outgoing flux at infinity with the trace-integral formula; any surviving $\ell$-dependence in that flux, or any extra pole in the quantized propagator, would falsify the paper's conclusion that non-locality is invisible in the Hawking flux for a fixed background.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that for a ghost-free modification of the Polyakov action — replacing $\Box$ by $\Box\,e^{(-\ell^{2}\Box)^{N}}$ in the auxiliary-field representation — the effective stress-energy tensor splits into a state-independent piece that depends on $\ell$ and a state-dependent piece built from zero modes of the original $\Box$ operator that does not. In a static two-dimensional black-hole background, the off-diagonal components that carry energy flux belong entirely to the state-dependent piece, so on a fixed background the energy flux of Hawking radiation at infinity coincides with the standard Polyakov result. The non-local scale $\ell$ changes only diagonal components of the stress tensor, and it shifts the quantum contribution to the black-hole entropy by a finite, state-independent amount. The paper works out the GF$_1$ case in detail and argues the structure holds for the whole GF$_N$ family; it then illustrates the construction on a two-dimensional dilaton black hole, where the needed quantity $e^{s\Box}R$ is obtained explicitly from a continuous spectral decomposition. The flux statement is explicitly conditional on neglecting back-reaction of the stress tensor on the metric.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise, which the paper states in the introduction it does not prove, is that inserting the ghost-free form factor into the classical auxiliary-field action yields the correct quantum effective action with no new propagating degrees of freedom after quantization; if this equivalence fails, the flux-invariance claim need not apply to a genuinely quantized non-local theory.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On a fixed two-dimensional black-hole background, the late-time Hawking energy flux cannot distinguish a local conformal field from its ghost-free non-local deformation.
  • The non-local correction to the stress tensor is confined to the diagonal components, so back-reaction would change the black hole's mass and surface gravity even though the fixed-background flux formula is unchanged.
  • The ghost-free modification adds a finite, state-independent correction to the quantum black-hole entropy, vanishing as $\ell\to 0$ and growing with the non-locality scale; in the dilaton example it grows roughly as $s^{3.4}$ for small $s=(2\lambda\ell)^2$.
  • The invariance of the flux is tied to the zero-mode structure that is common to all choices of vacuum state, not to a special property of one state.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper: if back-reaction is included, the $\ell$-dependent diagonal stress could shift the effective horizon location and surface gravity, so the flux seen by a distant observer after self-consistent evaporation might indirectly depend on $\ell$ even though the fixed-background flux does not.
  • Beyond the paper: the same split between unmodified zero-mode fluxes and modified diagonal components may extend to higher-dimensional Killing-horizon spacetimes whenever the flux-carrying components of the stress tensor are controlled by zero modes of the unmodified wave operator.
  • Beyond the paper: a pointlike quantum detector coupled to the ghost-free field is a natural complementary test, since its excitation rate is expected to be insensitive to $\ell$; comparing that observable with the stress-tensor flux statement would probe whether both insensitivities share the same origin.
  • Beyond the paper: the explicit spectral construction for the dilaton black hole can be reused to compute other $\ell$-dependent quantities on the same background, such as the interior stress tensor or entanglement entropy, where non-local effects are likely to be strongest.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies a ghost-free (GF) modification of the two-dimensional Polyakov effective action. The authors rewrite the Polyakov action locally with an auxiliary field and replace the d'Alembertian by the ghost-free operator A = □ e^{P(□)}, P(z)=(-ℓ²z)^N, focusing on N=1. They compute the trace and the full stress-energy tensor of the induced effective action, showing it splits into a state-dependent part that coincides with the local Polyakov result and a state-independent nonlocal correction. From this split they conclude that, on a fixed two-dimensional black hole background, the energy flux of Hawking radiation at infinity is unchanged by the non-locality, while diagonal stress components and the black hole entropy acquire ℓ-dependent corrections. They work out the example of a two-dimensional string-inspired dilaton black hole, solving the relevant spectral problem for □ and providing explicit numerical results for the trace correction and entropy shift.

Significance. If the identification of the modified auxiliary-field action as the quantum effective action is accepted, the paper provides a concrete and internally consistent example in which non-locality changes the vacuum stress-energy tensor and entropy but leaves the Hawking flux invariant on a fixed background. The derivation of the trace, the use of the Christensen–Fulling representation, and the spectral analysis for the dilaton background are valuable and appear technically sound. The paper is also commendable for making explicit the split between state-dependent and state-independent contributions, and for the detailed numerical implementation of the spectral representation.

major comments (3)
  1. The central object W_GF is postulated, not derived, as the quantum effective action of a ghost-free scalar field. The paper explicitly states in Section I that no rigorous quantization prescription is proposed, and that the action (23) is obtained by inserting the form factor into the classical auxiliary-field action. However, the abstract and the conclusion state the Hawking-flux-invariance result without this qualification. Because Hawking radiation is a quantum effect, the claim is load-bearing: if the true one-loop effective action of a GF scalar differs from (23) by scheme-dependent terms such as Tr(-ℓ²□), the flux-invariance conclusion could change. I ask the authors to either (i) provide a derivation of W_GF from integrating out a GF scalar field in 2D, or (ii) clearly label the central results as conditional on the model defined by (20)-(23), including in the abstract and summary. A concrete test would be to compute the one-loop determinant for the GF scalar and compare its trace anomaly with Eq. (31).
  2. [Section III.C, Eq. (32)] The full stress-energy tensor (32) is stated without a step-by-step derivation. The trace (31) is derived using the operator-exponential variation (30), but the metric variation of the full action, including the terms involving □ inside the form factor, is not shown. Since all subsequent conclusions—the split (37)-(39), the state-dependence argument, and the horizon-regularity discussion—rely on (32), the authors should provide a detailed derivation in an appendix or in the main text, and explicitly demonstrate that the resulting tensor is conserved, ∇_μ T^{μν}=0, and that T^{μν}_{(χ)} is traceless.
  3. [Section V, Eqs. (52)-(54)] The statement that the correction components ~T and ~Tr_r are 'regular and finite' at the horizon is asserted for a generic static black hole but demonstrated only for the specific dilaton model of Section VI. The Christensen–Fulling flux argument in Section V uses exactly this regularity to conclude that f ~Tr_r vanishes at the horizon. Please either provide a general proof for smooth static two-dimensional horizons, or restrict the general flux-invariance statement to the class of backgrounds for which this regularity is established.
minor comments (4)
  1. There is a typo: 'ΨpΨk≈p∼' should read 'ΨpΨk ∼ ...'.
  2. The use of '≈' in the series representation of e^{s□}R is unclear; clarify that the truncation is an approximation valid for small s and state the ordering of corrections.
  3. The power-law exponent 3.4 for the small-s entropy correction is presented without derivation or error estimate; please state whether this is a numerical fit and assess its accuracy.
  4. Given the conditional character of the model, the sentence 'We demonstrate that the effective stress-energy tensor is modified...' could be more precise by adding 'within the ghost-free model defined by the action (20)-(23)'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the Hawking-flux claim is derived from the model's equations and the shared zero-mode structure; ℓ is an input, not a fitted parameter.

full rationale

The central claim, that the ghost-free modification does not change the Hawking flux at infinity on a fixed background, is a derived consequence of the proposed action, not an input. The non-locality scale ℓ appears freely in the form factor A = □ e^{P(□)} (Eq. 21), and no parameter is fitted to the flux. The argument rests on two explicit computations: (i) zero modes of A coincide with zero modes of □, since e^{ℓ²□} acts as the identity on functions annihilated by □ (Eq. 36), and (ii) the state-dependent part of the stress tensor T^(χ)_μν (Eq. 39) contains no ℓ and so reproduces the Polyakov flux terms. The regularity argument for the correction at the horizon in Section V uses the Christensen–Fulling conservation equations and the vanishing of f T^r_r at the horizon, not an assumed flux value. The paper's own caveat in Section I, that it does not propose a rigorous quantization prescription for non-local theories, is a modeling limitation: the auxiliary-field action (20)–(23) is postulated as the effective action, and all results are conditional on that identification. That is a legitimate foundational caveat, but it is not circularity, because the flux-invariance claim is not assumed in that action. Self-citations, such as [40] for the GF_N nomenclature and [35] for standard Polyakov stress-tensor formulas, are background references and are not load-bearing for the paper's main conclusion. No fitted-input-called-prediction, no uniqueness-imported-from-authors, and no ansatz-smuggled-via-citation pattern is present. The derivation is self-contained within the model it defines.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results depend on the input parameters ℓ and N, on standard conformal-anomaly results, on Myers's entropy formula, and on the explicitly acknowledged quantization assumption. No constants are fitted to data; the power-law fit in Eq. (102) is a numerical observation, not an input.

free parameters (2)
  • ℓ (non-locality scale)
    Introduced by hand in the ghost-free form factor P(z) = (-ℓ²z)^N in Eq. (21). All non-local corrections are functions of ℓ, or s = (2λℓ)². It is a theory parameter, not fitted to data.
  • N (order of ghost-free form factor)
    Positive integer in P(z) = (-ℓ²z)^N, Eq. (21); the paper works out GF1 explicitly and comments on general N. A model choice, not fitted.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Variation of the exponential of an operator: δ(e^B) = ∫_0^1 dξ e^{(1-ξ)B} δB e^{ξB} for self-adjoint B.
    Invoked in Section III.B, Eq. (30), to compute the trace of the stress-energy tensor.
  • domain assumption The Myers Noether charge formula applies to non-local effective actions and gives the entropy as S_GF = (1/12) φ at the horizon.
    Used in Section IV, relying on Ref. [43]. This is an external result assumed valid for the ghost-free action in local representation.
  • standard math The trace anomaly of a conformal massless scalar field in 2D is T = 2bR with b = 1/(48π).
    Starting point of Section II, Eq. (3), a standard result from Polyakov.
  • domain assumption After quantization, the ghost-free modification does not introduce new poles in propagators, so the effective action can be obtained by the form-factor substitution.
    Section I: the authors explicitly state they do not provide a rigorous quantization and 'reasonably expect' no extra poles. This is the load-bearing model assumption.
  • domain assumption Zero modes of the ghost-free operator A coincide with zero modes of □ for the static modes considered.
    Section III.D, Eq. (36). They argue the form factor acts as identity on on-shell solutions; a more explicit proof would require showing e^{ℓ²□} commutes with harmonic functions.
  • domain assumption The eigenfunctions Ψ_p of the □ operator on the dilaton background form a complete orthonormal set with the scalar product ⟨f,g⟩ = ∫_0^1 dR f g / R.
    Section VI.C, Eq. (81). This completeness and normalization underlies the spectral representation of F(s,R).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ghost-free modification of the Polyakov action and Hawking radiation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VG54GZS7

@misc{pith2026190901494,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ghost-free modification of the Polyakov action and Hawking radiation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VG54GZS7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.01494}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper we discuss possible effects of non-locality in black hole spacetimes. We consider a two-dimensional theory in which the action describing matter is a ghost-free modification of the Polyakov action. For this purpose we write the Polyakov action in a local form by using an auxiliary scalar field and modify its kinetic term by including into it a non-local ghost-free form factor. We demonstrate that the effective stress-energy tensor is modified and we study its properties in a background of a two-dimensional black hole. We obtain the expression for the contribution of the ghost-free auxiliary field to the entropy of the black hole. We also demonstrate that if the back-reaction effects are not taken into account, such a ghost-free modification of the theory does not change the energy flux of the Hawking radiation measured at infinity. We illustrate the discussed properties for black hole solution of a 2D dilaton gravity model which admits a rather complete analytical study.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.01494 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Left: The non-local GF corrections to the trace plotted over the distance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Ghost-free correction to the black hole entropy ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ghost-free contributions to the trace Having derived the explicit form of F (s,R ), we may now insert (87) into (31). In order to study the contribu- tion of GF modification to the trace anomaly we split it to the local term TPol coming from the Polyakov action and a GF correction ∆T T =TPol + ∆T, T Pol = 1 24πR, ∆T = 1 24π [F (s,R )−R] + s 48π 1∫ 0 dξF [(...

    work page

  2. [2]

    (94) E. Quasi-local approximation Let us note that the function F (s,R ) can, at least for- mally, be expressed in the form of the following series F (s,R ) =es□R = ∞∑ n=0 sn□n n! R≈ N∑ n=0 sn□n n! R (95) =R +s∂rf∂rR + 1 2s2(∂rf∂r)2R +O ( sN+1) . This representation by construction satisfies the bound- ary condition F (0,R ) = R. One might expect that for ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    numerical

    Ghost-free contribution to the black hole entropy In the case of dilaton gravity (55)–(57) we can now compute the quantum corrections to the black hole en- tropy due to non-locality. As before, we split the entropy corrections into a well known local part, see (42), as well as a non-local correction term ∆S, SGF =SPol + ∆S. (98) The Polyakov contribution ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    We collect here useful formulae which are used in the main body of the paper

    General relations The geometry of a two-dimensional static spacetime is rather simple. We collect here useful formulae which are used in the main body of the paper. Let us consider a two-dimensional metric gµν which admits a Killing vector ξµ such that ξ(µ;ν) = 0. (A1) We denote f =−ξµξµ. (A2) We assume that the spacetime is asymptotically flat and normali...

    work page

  5. [5]

    (A17), result in a special form of the effective stress-energy tensor related to a special choice of the cor- responding quantum state

    The stress-energy tensor We demonstrate now that different choices of zero mode functions χ in a solution for the auxiliary field ϕ, see Eq. (A17), result in a special form of the effective stress-energy tensor related to a special choice of the cor- responding quantum state. a. Boulware vacuum Let us put ϕ =− lnf. The calculations give b−1tµ ν = diag (f′2 2...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Tomboulis, (1997), arXiv:hep-th/9702146 [hep-th]

    E. Tomboulis, (1997), arXiv:hep-th/9702146 [hep-th]

    arXiv 1997

  7. [7]

    Biswas, E

    T. Biswas, E. Gerwick, T. Koivisto, and A. Mazumdar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 031101 (2012), arXiv:1110.5249 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2012

  8. [8]

    Modesto, Phys

    L. Modesto, Phys. Rev. D86, 044005 (2012), arXiv:1107.2403 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2012

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    Biswas, A

    T. Biswas, A. Conroy, A. S. Koshelev, and A. Mazumdar, Class.Quant.Grav. 31, 015022 (2014), arXiv:1308.2319 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  2. [10]

    I. L. Shapiro, Phys. Lett. B744, 67 (2015), arXiv:1502.00106 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Castardelli dos Reis, G

    S. Castardelli dos Reis, G. Chapiro, and I. L. Shapiro, 14 Phys. Rev. D100, 066004 (2019), arXiv:1903.01044 [gr- qc]

    2019 arXiv

  4. [12]

    T. G. Ribeiro, I. L. Shapiro, and O. Zanusso, Phys. Lett. B782, 324 (2018), arXiv:1803.06948 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Biswas, T

    T. Biswas, T. Koivisto, and A. Mazumdar, JCAP 1011, 008 (2010), arXiv:1005.0590 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Biswas, T

    T. Biswas, T. Koivisto, and A. Mazumdar, in Pro- ceedings, Barcelona Postgrad Encounters on Fundamen- tal Physics (2013) pp. 13–24, arXiv:1302.0532 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Biswas, A

    T. Biswas, A. Mazumdar, and W. Siegel, JCAP 0603, 009 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0508194 [hep-th]

    2006 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Edholm, A

    J. Edholm, A. S. Koshelev, and A. Mazumdar, Phys. Rev. D94, 104033 (2016), arXiv:1604.01989 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Conroy, A

    A. Conroy, A. Mazumdar, S. Talaganis, and A. Teimouri, Phys. Rev. D92, 124051 (2015), arXiv:1509.01247 [hep- th]

    2015 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Modesto and L

    L. Modesto and L. Rachwa l, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D26, 1730020 (2017)

    2017

  11. [19]

    Buoninfante, A

    L. Buoninfante, A. S. Koshelev, G. Lambiase, and A. Mazumdar, JCAP 1809, 034 (2018), arXiv:1802.00399 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  12. [20]

    A. S. Koshelev, J. Marto, and A. Mazumdar, Phys. Rev. D98, 064023 (2018), arXiv:1803.00309 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Kilicarslan, Turk

    E. Kilicarslan, Turk. J. Phys. 43, 126 (2019), arXiv:1811.00843 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Kilicarslan, Phys

    E. Kilicarslan, Phys. Rev. D99, 124048 (2019), arXiv:1903.04283 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  15. [23]

    V. P. Frolov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 051102 (2015), arXiv:1505.00492 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  16. [24]

    V. P. Frolov and A. Zelnikov, Phys. Rev. D93, 064048 (2016), arXiv:1509.03336 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  17. [25]

    V. P. Frolov, A. Zelnikov, and T. de Paula Netto, JHEP 06, 107 (2015), arXiv:1504.00412 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  18. [26]

    J. Boos, V. P. Frolov, and A. Zelnikov, Phys. Rev. D97, 084021 (2018), arXiv:1802.09573 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    de la Cruz-Dombriz, F

    l. de la Cruz-Dombriz, F. J. Maldonado Torralba, and A. Mazumdar, Phys. Rev. D99, 104021 (2019), arXiv:1812.04037 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Buoninfante and A

    L. Buoninfante and A. Mazumdar, Phys. Rev. D100, 024031 (2019), arXiv:1903.01542 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Kilicarslan, Phys

    E. Kilicarslan, Phys. Rev. D98, 064048 (2018), arXiv:1808.00266 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

    B. L. Giacchini and T. de Paula Netto, JCAP 1907, 013 (2019), arXiv:1809.05907 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  23. [31]

    J. Boos, V. P. Frolov, and A. Zelnikov, Phys. Lett.B782, 688 (2018), arXiv:1805.01875 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  24. [32]

    J. Boos, V. P. Frolov, and A. Zelnikov, Phys. Rev. D99, 076014 (2019), arXiv:1901.07096 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  25. [33]

    V. P. Frolov and A. Zelnikov, Phys. Rev. D98, 084035 (2018), arXiv:1809.00417 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Buoninfante, A

    L. Buoninfante, A. Mazumdar, and J. Peng, (2019), arXiv:1906.03624 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  27. [35]

    J. Boos, V. P. Frolov, and A. Zelnikov, Phys. Lett.B793, 290 (2019), arXiv:1904.07917 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Nicolini and M

    P. Nicolini and M. Rinaldi, Phys. Lett.B695, 303 (2011), arXiv:0910.2860 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Modesto, Y

    L. Modesto, Y. S. Myung, and S.-H. Yi, Phys. Rev. D97, 044016 (2018), arXiv:1710.04367 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Kajuri, Phys

    N. Kajuri, Phys. Rev. D95, 101701 (2017), arXiv:1704.03793 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Kajuri and D

    N. Kajuri and D. Kothawala, Phys. Lett. B791, 319 (2019), arXiv:1806.10345 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  32. [40]

    V. P. Frolov and G. A. Vilkovisky, in Quantum Gravity, edited by M. A. Markov and P. C. West (Plenum press, New York and London, 1981) pp. 267–290

    1981

  33. [41]

    A. M. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. B103, 211 (1981), [,602(1981)]

    1981

  34. [42]

    Luscher, K

    M. Luscher, K. Symanzik, and P. Weisz, Nucl. Phys. B173, 365 (1980)

    1980

  35. [43]

    J. S. Dowker, Class. Quant. Grav. 11, L7 (1994), arXiv:hep-th/9309127 [hep-th]

    1994 arXiv

  36. [44]

    C. W. Misner, K. Thorne, and J. Wheeler, Gravitation (W.H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, 1974)

    1974

  37. [45]

    V. P. Frolov and A. Zelnikov, Phys. Rev. D93, 105048 (2016), arXiv:1603.00826 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  38. [46]

    R. F. Snider, J. Math. Phys. 5, 1580 (1964)

    1964

  39. [47]

    R. M. Wilcox, J. Math. Phys. 8, 962 (1967)

    1967

  40. [48]

    R. C. Myers, Phys. Rev. D50, 6412 (1994), arXiv:hep- th/9405162 [hep-th]

    1994

  41. [49]

    R. M. Wald, Phys. Rev. D48, R3427 (1993), arXiv:gr- qc/9307038 [gr-qc]

    1993

  42. [50]

    S. M. Christensen and S. A. Fulling, Phys. Rev. D15, 2088 (1977)

    1977

  43. [51]

    E. S. Fradkin and A. A. Tseytlin, Nucl. Phys. B261, 1 (1985), [Erratum: Nucl. Phys.B269,745(1986)]

    1985

  44. [52]

    C. G. Callan, Jr., E. J. Martinec, M. J. Perry, and D. Friedan, Nucl. Phys. B262, 593 (1985)

    1985

  45. [53]

    Witten, Phys

    E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D44, 314 (1991)

    1991

  46. [54]

    Mandal, A

    G. Mandal, A. M. Sengupta, and S. R. Wadia, Mod. Phys. Lett. A6, 1685 (1991)

    1991

  47. [55]

    M. D. McGuigan, C. R. Nappi, and S. A. Yost, Nucl. Phys. B375, 421 (1992), arXiv:hep-th/9111038 [hep-th]

    1992 arXiv

  48. [56]

    V. P. Frolov, Phys. Rev. D46, 5383 (1992)

    1992

  49. [57]

    C. G. Callan, Jr., S. B. Giddings, J. A. Harvey, and A. Strominger, Phys. Rev. D45, R1005 (1992), arXiv:hep-th/9111056 [hep-th]

    1992 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Grumiller, W

    D. Grumiller, W. Kummer, and D. V. Vassilevich, Phys. Rept. 369, 327 (2002), arXiv:hep-th/0204253 [hep-th]

    2002 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Fabbri and J

    A. Fabbri and J. Navarro-Salas,Modeling black hole evap- oration (Imperial College Press and World Scientific Pub- lishing, London and Singapore, 2005) pp. 1–334

    2005

  52. [60]

    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Quantum Mechanics , 2nd ed. (Pergamon Press, Bristol, UK, 1965)

    1965

  53. [61]

    A. Baz’, I. Zel’dovich, and A. Perelomov, Scattering, re- actions and decay in nonrelativistic quantum mechanics , NASA technical translation No. v. 502-585 (Israel Pro- gram for Scientific Translations, 1969)

    1969

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.