Lovelock type brane gravity from a minimal surface perspective

Efra\'in Rojas; G. Cruz

Lovelock type brane gravity from a minimal surface perspective

T0 review · 0 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Lovelock-type brane gravity is exactly the Dirac–Nambu–Goto action of a world volume shifted a fixed distance along its normal, so its equation of motion is a minimal-surface condition.

desk verdict A clean geometric reinterpretation of Lovelock brane gravity as DNG on a parallel worldvolume; the central algebra checks out, and the stated limits are honest. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.12399 v2 pith:HVIIRBUX submitted 2024-12-16 hep-th gr-qc

Efraín Rojas , G. Cruz This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-thgr-qc MSC 53C4283E15

keywords Lovelock-typebranegravityminimalsurfacesparallelworldvolumesDirac–Nambu–Gotoactionextrinsiccurvatureinvariantssecond-orderequationsdisformaltransformationsgeometric

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's aim is to show that Lovelock-type brane gravity (LBG), a theory of extended objects whose invariants are antisymmetric products of the first and second fundamental forms, is the same dynamics as an ordinary Dirac–Nambu–Goto (DNG) brane living on a neighbouring world volume. The construction takes a brane world volume $m$ and shifts every point by a fixed distance $\alpha$ along its unit normal to form a parallel world volume $m^*$; the geometry of $m^*$ is determined entirely by the fundamental forms of $m$ through the matrix $\delta + \alpha K$. The paper proves that the DNG action built from the volume of $m^*$ expands exactly into the LBG action on $m$, with the Lovelock-type invariants appearing as principal minors of the extrinsic-curvature matrix. Therefore the LBG equation of motion is just the vanishing-mean-curvature condition for $m^*$, which explains why it is second order in derivatives and carries a single transverse degree of freedom. If correct, this gives LBG a concrete geometric interpretation and lets one import Hamiltonian and quantum methods from the DNG model.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the one-parameter family of parallel world volumes, $X^{*\mu}(x) = X^{\mu}(x) + \alpha n^{\mu}(x)$, which turns every geometric quantity of $m^*$ into a function of the fundamental forms of $m$ via the matrix $\Lambda^a{}_b = \delta^a{}_b + \alpha K^a{}_b$. The determinant identity $\sqrt{-g^*} = \sqrt{-g}\,\det\Lambda$ is expanded with generalized Kronecker deltas, so the LBG invariants $L_s$ arise as principal minors of $K^a{}_b$ and the Lovelock-type brane tensors $J^{ab}_{(s)}$ are their cofactors. These tensors are symmetric and divergence-free in a flat Minkowski background; they carry the linear momentum density of the extended object, and their contraction with extrinsic curvature generates the next invariant, $J^{ab}_{(s)}K_{ab} = L_{s+1}$. The proof culminates by expressing the inverse of $\Lambda$ in terms of the $J$ tensors, Eq. (62), which converts the starred minimal-surface condition into the LBG equation.

What would settle it

For an explicit world volume with a non-diagonal extrinsic-curvature matrix in flat Minkowski spacetime, compute both $\sqrt{-g^*}$ and $\sqrt{-g}\,\det(\delta^a_b + \alpha K^a_b)$ from a numerical embedding, and compare the two sides of Eq. (66): because the proof reduces to this determinant and cofactor expansion, any mismatch, or any surface with $g^{*ab}K^*_{ab} = 0$ whose base world volume fails the LBG equation, would settle the equivalence claim as false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is an exact equivalence of actions and equations of motion. Equation (41) rewrites the DNG action on a parallel world volume $m^*$, whose embedding is $X^* = X + \alpha n$, as the integral over the original world volume $m$ of $\sqrt{-g}$ times the finite series $1 + \sum_{s=1}^{p+1} (\alpha^s/s!) L_s$, where $L_s$ are the Lovelock-type brane invariants built from symmetric products of the extrinsic curvature. Equation (66) then shows that the minimal-hypersurface condition for $m^*$, $g^{*ab} K^*_{ab} = 0$, is equivalent to $\sum_{s=0}^{p} (\alpha^s/s!) J^{ab}_{(s)} K_{ab} = 0$, the LBG equation of motion. The paper therefore claims that the two descriptions are the same physical system seen from two geometries, with the same second-order dynamics and one transverse degree of freedom, and that conservation of the tensors $J^{ab}_{(s)}$ follows from reparametrization invariance of the original world volume.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes the ambient spacetime is flat Minkowski space and the brane world volume has codimension one, so the Gauss-Codazzi identities contain no ambient-curvature or extra-normal terms; if either condition fails, the exact equality between the shifted DNG action and the LBG action receives corrections and Eq. (66) no longer holds in the form written.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the equivalence is correct, every solution of the LBG equation on $m$ corresponds to a minimal timelike hypersurface $m^*$ in the ordinary DNG sense, so the apparent higher-order geometric content of LBG is only superficial: its dynamics is that of a standard volume-minimizing brane one shift away.
The series in $\alpha$ terminates at $s = p+1$ because the world volume has dimension $p+1$; the expansion is finite without any auxiliary or topological condition.
The linearized LBG perturbation equation can be written as a Jacobi equation for a minimal hypersurface, with the mass-like term $M^2_{(s)}$ expressed in LBG invariants, providing a covariant stability analysis for brane solutions.
For $p = 3$ in five-dimensional flat spacetime, the LBG action reduces to a finite combination of a constant term, the trace of extrinsic curvature, the world-volume Ricci scalar, and the cubic invariant $L_3$; the paper suggests this last term can mimic acceleration effects familiar from Gauss–Bonnet-type cosmological models.
With matter included, the equation of motion becomes $(\sum_{s=0}^{p} (\alpha^s/s!) J^{ab}_{(s)} - T^{ab}_m) K_{ab} = 0$, so every solution of pure Lovelock gravity with matter is also a solution of LBG, giving the theory a built-in Lovelock limit.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper, pushing the shift $\alpha$ to a field $\Phi(x)$ turns the relation between $m$ and $m^*$ into a disformal transformation; proving that the resulting scalar-tensor theory is degenerate and second order would connect the brane construction to a known family of scalar-tensor theories, a step the paper only sketches.
Beyond the paper, because the equivalence relies on flat codimension-one embedding, a curved ambient spacetime would add curvature terms to the Gauss–Codazzi identities; testing whether the LBG invariants need correction in that setting would pin down how robust the minimal-surface interpretation is.
Beyond the paper, the DNG picture suggests quantizing the ordinary volume action on $m^*$ and pulling the result back to $m$, giving a possible route to LBG transition amplitudes that bypasses higher-derivative Hamiltonian formulations if the correspondence survives at the quantum level.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Bottom line: this paper does what it says. The central equivalence — DNG action on the parallel worldvolume m* equals the LBG action on m, and K*=0 is exactly the LBG equation of motion — is derived explicitly and the load-bearing algebra is consistent. I spot-checked (15), (18), (62), (65), and (66), and the chain holds. The determinant expansion and the inverse-matrix formula via the LBT are clean. The new content is the full geometric dictionary: g*_ab = Λ^c_a Λ^d_b g_cd, K*_ab = Λ^c_a K_cb, and the interpretation of the Lovelock-type brane invariants as principal minors of det(K^a_b). I don't see that explicit correspondence in the earlier LBG papers, so this is a genuine bridge, not a repackaging.

The paper is honest about its scope. The flat, codimension-one assumption is stated up front in Sec. II and it is exactly what makes the Gauss-Codazzi translations exact. The varying-distance section is clearly exploratory; the assertion that the fundamental forms are unchanged for Φ(x) is not something I would lean on, but it does not feed the central theorem. The cosmological and dark-matter passages are labeled as conjectures and are separable from the derivation.

Soft spots are real but minor. Several long tensor computations are summarized rather than shown; the notation is dense enough that a referee will need to verify (65) and the linearized equation (69) line by line. I checked the 2x2 example for (65) and the p=0 case for the boundary-term claim in Appendix A; both work. The upper limit of the series in (59) is explained, and the explanation is correct. The paper also cites its own prior work for the LBI/LBT definitions, but it reproduces the definitions and the relevant identities, so that's not a problem.

Who gets value: people working on brane gravity, Regge-Teitelboim models, and Lovelock-type cosmological models. The link to DNG Hamiltonian/quantum approximations is a plausible route, though not developed here. I'd send this to a referee with expertise in extrinsic geometry and brane actions. It deserves serious review, not desk rejection. My own verdict is close to accept after a careful pass on the summarized computations.

Referee Report

0 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper claims a geometric derivation of Lovelock-type brane gravity (LBG) from a Dirac-Nambu-Goto (DNG) action on a parallel world volume. Starting from a hypersurface m in flat Minkowski spacetime of codimension one, the authors shift it by a distance α along its unit normal to obtain a parallel surface m*, whose metric and extrinsic curvature are expressed as series in the fundamental forms of m through the matrix Λ = 1 + αK. The determinant expansion of Λ identifies the Lovelock brane invariants L_s, and the paper shows that the minimal-surface condition K* = 0 on m* is equivalent to the LBG equation of motion ∑ (α^s/s!) J^{(s)}_{ab} K^{ab} = 0, Eq. (66). It also derives the inverse-metric relations (62)–(65), the linearized perturbation equation (69), the stress-tensor map (67), and a matter-coupled generalization (71), and it sketches a variable-distance (disformal) extension in Sec. V.A.

Significance. If the central equivalence is correct, the paper provides a clean and useful geometric underpinning for LBG: the Lovelock-type brane equations are exactly the minimal-surface equations of an auxiliary parallel world volume. This is a genuine conceptual simplification: it could make Hamiltonian formulations and quantization strategies for LBG more tractable by mapping them onto known DNG techniques. The main derivation is explicit and self-contained, with matrix identities and variational steps that can be checked directly; the flat-space, codimension-one assumption is stated up front and is precisely what makes the Gauss-Codazzi translations in Sec. IV exact. The paper does not overclaim beyond that setting. The sections on dark-matter-like geometric stresses and disformal/scalar-tensor connections are speculative and would need further work, but they are clearly exploratory and do not affect the main result.

minor comments (6)

[Sec. V.A, after Eq. (80)] The sentence 'the remaining fundamental forms do not undergo any change due to the choice of (75)' is misleading: for a varying-distance embedding with Φ_a ≠ 0 the unit normal to m* is not n, so K*_{ab} and S*_{ab} generally do change. If the statement is meant only for the fundamental forms of m, it should be rephrased; if it is meant for the starred quantities, it is incorrect and should be removed or corrected.
[Eq. (35)] The sign of the first term in δK*_{ab} looks inconsistent: combining Eqs. (7) and (8) gives δK*_{ab} = -∇_a∇_bφ - 2αK^c_{(a}∇_{b)}∇_cφ + S_{ab}φ + £_φ K*_{ab}, while Eq. (35) is printed with a leading plus sign. Please check the sign and the placement of the minus sign.
[Eqs. (64)–(65)] The reduction of (64) to (65) is announced as 'lengthy but straightforward' and is not shown. Since (65) is not used in the main equivalence, either include the derivation in an appendix or remove the formula to avoid an unverifiable step.
[Eq. (79) and surrounding text] The notation Φ_r and Φ_s for powers of the scalar field conflicts with the derivative notation Φ_a and is confusing. Use Φ^r and Φ^s, and clarify that the inverse-matrix formula (62) is being applied pointwise with α replaced by Φ(x).
[Eqs. (41) and (B4)] The determinant expansion is written differently in (41) and (B4): in (41) the sum starts at s=1, while in (B4) the displayed formula appears to include a separate 1 plus a sum starting at s=0. Make the treatment of the s=0 term uniform so that no term is double-counted.
[Eq. (66)] The equivalence K* = 0 ⇔ ∑ (α^s/s!) J^{(s)}_{ab} K^{ab} = 0 implicitly requires det(Λ) ≠ 0. The paper should state explicitly that admissible α excludes det(Λ) = 0, consistently with the earlier caution about maintaining the causal structure of m*.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the DNG-to-LBG equivalence is an algebraic theorem under the stated flat, codimension-one assumptions.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the Dirac-Nambu-Goto action on a world volume shifted by α along its normal equals the Lovelock-type brane gravity action, with K* = 0 equivalent to Σ α^s/s! J^ab_(s) K_ab = 0. This is a self-contained mathematical derivation: Eq. (15) defines g*_ab = gab + 2αKab + α²Sab; Appendix B uses det(1+αK) = 1 + Σ α^s/s! L_s, which is an algebraic identity; and Eq. (62) expresses the inverse of Λ^a_b = δ^a_b + αK^a_b in terms of the cofactor tensors J^a_(s)b. Substituting (62) into ¯g*^ab K*_ab gives Eq. (66) identically, so the minimal-surface equation K* = 0 is equivalent, not fitted, to the LBG equation. The translations L_2 = R, L_4 = R² − 4R_abR^ab + R_abcdR^abcd use the Gauss-Codazzi condition in a flat Minkowski background, which the paper states explicitly in Secs. II and IV; no target result is assumed. The paper cites earlier work by the same group for the definition of the LBI/LBT and for the known form of the LBG equation, but it restates the definitions (43)–(50) and rederives the equation of motion from the DNG variation at (66) and in Appendix A. Those self-citations are therefore not load-bearing. No fitted parameters, data predictions, or uniqueness claims are involved. The central equivalence reduces to an exact algebraic identity under the stated assumptions, so the circularity score is low.

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

The central derivation rests on standard differential-geometry machinery and a few domain restrictions (flat, codimension-1, nondegenerate shift). There are no new physical entities introduced. The free parameters α and α0 set the scale of the theory but are not fitted to data in this work, so they do not reduce the independence of the derivation.

free parameters (2)

α (normal shift distance) = not fitted; arbitrary constant constrained by causal structure
Appears in (13) and (29); it sets the weights of the Lovelock invariants in the action (41). It is a free parameter of the resulting brane theory and would be fitted to data in cosmological applications, but no fitting is performed here.
α0 (overall scale of p=3 action) = not fitted
Introduced in Eq. (73) as the overall tension/scale when writing the effective action for p=3; it is a free scale of the theory.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Flat Minkowski ambient spacetime of dimension N = p+2
Stated in Sec. II; used throughout to write Gauss-Codazzi as R_abcd = K_ac K_bd - K_ad K_bc and to express the LBI as world-volume invariants.
domain assumption The brane is a codimension-1 hypersurface with a single normal direction
Stated in Sec. II; the parallel-surface construction (13) and the scalar LBI require one normal; the authors explicitly leave higher codimension for future work.
domain assumption The transformation matrix Λ = 1 + αK is invertible and m* is a valid timelike hypersurface
Required for the identity sqrt(-g*) = sqrt(-g) detΛ and for the equivalence (66); the paper states in Sec. III that appropriate values of α are mandatory to keep the causal structure.
standard math Gauss-Codazzi and Codazzi-Mainardi integrability conditions for the embedded world volume
Used in Eqs. (23)-(24) for m* and in producing the LBI identities (44)-(49) and the J(s) structure.
standard math Generalized Kronecker delta algebra identities, including the determinant expansion (B2)
Used in Appendix B and Sec. IV to expand det(1+αK) and to derive the inverse matrix (62) and inverse metric (65).
standard math Local isometric embedding theorem
Invoked in Sec. V to justify embedding a 4D Lorentzian manifold in 5D flat space for the cosmological application; cited from [15,16].

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Lovelock type brane gravity from a minimal surface perspective." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HVIIRBUX

@misc{pith2026241212399,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Lovelock type brane gravity from a minimal surface perspective},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HVIIRBUX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.12399}
}

abstract

We explore the correspondence between the parallel surfaces framework, and the minimal surfaces framework, to uncover and apply new aspects of the geometrical and mechanical content behind the so-called Lovelock-type brane gravity (LBG). We show how this type of brane gravity emerges naturally from a Dirac-Nambu-Goto (DNG) action functional built up from the volume element associated with a world volume shifted a distance $\alpha$ along the normal vector of a germinal world volume, and provide all known geometric structures for such a theory. Our development highlights the dependence of the geometry for the displaced world volume on the fundamental forms, as well as on certain conserved tensors, defined on the outset world volume. Based on this, LBG represents a natural and elegant generalization of the DNG theory to higher dimensions. Moreover, our development allows for exploring disformal transformations in Lovelock brane gravity and analyzing their relations with scalar-tensor theories defined on the brane trajectory. Likewise, this geometrical correspondence would enable us to establish contact with tractable Hamiltonian approximations for this brane gravity theory, by exploiting the linkage with a DNG model, and thus start building a suitable quantum version.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

[1]

Carter, Basic brane theory, Class

B. Carter, Basic brane theory, Class. Quant. Grav. 9, 19 (1992)

work page 1992
[2]

Capovilla and J

R. Capovilla and J. Guven, Geometry of deformations of relativistic membranes, Phys. Rev. D 51, 6736 (1995)

work page 1995
[3]

Regge and C

T. Regge and C. Teitelboim, General Relativity ´ a la string: a progress report. Proceedings of the First Marcel Grossman Meeting, Trieste, Italy, 1975, arXiv:1612.05256 (1977)

arXiv 1977
[4]

Lovelock, The Einstein tensor and its generalizations, J

D. Lovelock, The Einstein tensor and its generalizations, J. Math. Phys. 12, 498 (1971)

work page 1971
[5]

Spivak, Introduction to differential geometry: Vols

M. Spivak, Introduction to differential geometry: Vols. 1 to 5 (Publish or Perish, Boston MA, 1970)

work page 1970
[6]

Cruz and E

M. Cruz and E. Rojas, Born–Infeld extension of Lovelock brane gravity, Class. Quant. Grav. 30, 11501 (2013)

work page 2013
[7]

Bagatella-Flores, C

N. Bagatella-Flores, C. Campuzano, M. Cruz, and E. Ro- jas, Covariant approach of perturbations in Lovelock type brane gravity, Class. Quant. Grav. 33, 245012 (2016)

work page 2016
[8]

J. E. Rojas, Holographic relationships in Lovelock type brane gravity, Class. Quant. Grav. 36, 185006 (2019)

work page 2019

Show all 38 references

[9]

Cordero, M

R. Cordero, M. Cruz, A. Molgado, and E. Rojas, Modified geodetic brane cosmology, Class. Quant. Grav. 29, 175010 (2012)

2012
[10]

Rojas, G

E. Rojas, G. Cruz, and J. C. Natividad, Dark energy as a geometrical effect in geodetic brane gravity, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 39, 2450069 (2024)

2024
[11]

R. C. Myers, Higher-derivative gravity, surface terms, and string theory, Phys. Rev. D 36, 392 (1987)

1987
[12]

S. C. Davis, Generalized Israel junction conditions for a Gauss-Bonnet brane world, Phys. Rev. D 67, 024030 (2003)

2003
[13]

Olea, Mass, angular momentum and thermodynamics in four-dimensional Kerr-AdS black holes, J

R. Olea, Mass, angular momentum and thermodynamics in four-dimensional Kerr-AdS black holes, J. High Energy Physics 06, 023 (2005)

2005
[14]

Chakraborty, K

S. Chakraborty, K. Parattu, and T. Padmanabhan, A novel derivation of the boundary term for the action in Lanczos–Lovelock gravity, Gen. Relat. Grav. 49, 1 (2017)

2017
[15]

Friedman, Local isometric imbedding of Riemannian manifolds with indefinite metrics, J

A. Friedman, Local isometric imbedding of Riemannian manifolds with indefinite metrics, J. Math. Mech. 10, 625 (1961)

1961
[16]

Rosen, Embedding of various relativistic Riemannian spaces in pseudo–Euclidean spaces, Rev

J. Rosen, Embedding of various relativistic Riemannian spaces in pseudo–Euclidean spaces, Rev. Mod. Phys. 37, 204 (1965)

1965
[17]

L. P. Eisenhart, An introduction to differential geometry with the use of tensor calculus (Princeton University Press, 1940)

1940
[18]

Wintner, On parallel surfaces, Am

A. Wintner, On parallel surfaces, Am. J. Math. 74, 365 (1952)

1952
[19]

Ne’eman and E

Y. Ne’eman and E. Eizenberg, Membranes and Other Extendons ( p-branes) (World Scientific, 1995)

1995
[20]

Ansoldi, C

S. Ansoldi, C. Castro, and E. Spallucci, On the WKB quantum equivalence between diverse p-brane actions, Class. Quant. Grav. 17, L97 (2000)

2000
[21]

Pavˇ siˇ c, A new approach to the classical and quantum dynamics of branes, Int

M. Pavˇ siˇ c, A new approach to the classical and quantum dynamics of branes, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 31, 1650115 (2016)

2016
[22]

Capovilla and J

R. Capovilla and J. Guven, Helfrich-Canham bending energy as a constrained nonlinear sigma model, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 38, 2593 (2005)

2005
[23]

Arreaga, R

G. Arreaga, R. Capovilla, and J. Guven, Noether currents for bosonic branes, Ann. Phys. 279, 126 (2000)

2000
[24]

Capovilla, R

R. Capovilla, R. Cordero, and J. Guven, Conformal invari- ants of the extrinsic geometry of relativistic membranes, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 11, 2755 (1996)

1996
[25]

Grinfeld, Introduction to tensor analysis and the calcu- lus of moving surfaces (Springer, 2013)

P. Grinfeld, Introduction to tensor analysis and the calcu- lus of moving surfaces (Springer, 2013)

2013
[26]

Karasik and A

D. Karasik and A. Davidson, Geodetic brane gravity, Phys. Rev. D 67, 064012 (2003)

2003
[27]

Davidson and I

A. Davidson and I. Gurwich, Dirac relaxation of the Is- rael junction conditions: Unified Randall–Sundrum brane theory, Phys. Rev. D 74, 044023 (2006)

2006
[28]

Paston and A

S. Paston and A. Sheykin, Embedding theory as new geometrical mimetic gravity, The Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 1 (2018)

2018
[29]

Cordero, M

R. Cordero, M. Cruz, A. Molgado, and E. Rojas, Quantum modified Regge–Teitelboim cosmology, Gen. Relat. Grav. 46, 1761 (2014)

2014
[30]

Charmousis and J

C. Charmousis and J. F. Dufaux, General Gauss–Bonnet brane cosmology, Class. Quant. Grav. 19, 4671 (2002)

2002
[31]

Bouhmadi-L´ opez and P

M. Bouhmadi-L´ opez and P. V. Moniz, Phantomlike behav- ior in a brane-world model with curvature effects, Phys. Rev. D 78, 084019 (2008)

2008
[32]

Ferrari and G

G. Ferrari and G. Cuoghi, Schr¨ odinger equation for a particle on a curved surface in an electric and magnetic field, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 230403 (2008)

2008
[33]

F. T. Brandt and J. A. S´ anchez-Monroy, Dirac equation on a curved surface, Phys. Lett. A 380, 3036 (2016)

2016
[34]

J. D. Bekenstein, Relation between physical and gravita- tional geometry, Phys. Rev. D 48, 3641 (1993)

1993
[35]

Zumalac´ arregui and J

M. Zumalac´ arregui and J. Garc ´ ıa-Bellido, Transforming gravity: from derivative couplings to matter to second- order scalar-tensor theories beyond the Horndeski La- grangian, Phys. Rev. D 89, 064046 (2014)

2014
[36]

Campuzano, R

C. Campuzano, R. Cordero, M. Cruz, and E. Rojas, On the flat spacetime Galileons and the Born–Infeld type structures, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 24, 1550041 (2015)

2015
[37]

Deffayet and S

C. Deffayet and S. Garcia-Saenz, Degeneracy, matter coupling, and disformal transformations in scalar-tensor theories, Phys. Rev. D 102, 064037 (2020)

2020
[38]

Lovelock and H

D. Lovelock and H. Rund, Tensors, differential forms, and variational principles (Dover Publications, 1989)

1989

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Carter, Basic brane theory, Class

B. Carter, Basic brane theory, Class. Quant. Grav. 9, 19 (1992)

work page 1992

[2] [2]

Capovilla and J

R. Capovilla and J. Guven, Geometry of deformations of relativistic membranes, Phys. Rev. D 51, 6736 (1995)

work page 1995

[3] [3]

Regge and C

T. Regge and C. Teitelboim, General Relativity ´ a la string: a progress report. Proceedings of the First Marcel Grossman Meeting, Trieste, Italy, 1975, arXiv:1612.05256 (1977)

arXiv 1977

[4] [4]

Lovelock, The Einstein tensor and its generalizations, J

D. Lovelock, The Einstein tensor and its generalizations, J. Math. Phys. 12, 498 (1971)

work page 1971

[5] [5]

Spivak, Introduction to differential geometry: Vols

M. Spivak, Introduction to differential geometry: Vols. 1 to 5 (Publish or Perish, Boston MA, 1970)

work page 1970

[6] [6]

Cruz and E

M. Cruz and E. Rojas, Born–Infeld extension of Lovelock brane gravity, Class. Quant. Grav. 30, 11501 (2013)

work page 2013

[7] [7]

Bagatella-Flores, C

N. Bagatella-Flores, C. Campuzano, M. Cruz, and E. Ro- jas, Covariant approach of perturbations in Lovelock type brane gravity, Class. Quant. Grav. 33, 245012 (2016)

work page 2016

[8] [8]

J. E. Rojas, Holographic relationships in Lovelock type brane gravity, Class. Quant. Grav. 36, 185006 (2019)

work page 2019