A Non-linear Massive Gravity Theory of Geometric Origin

Tamanna Jain; Thibault Damour

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 35 references

A Non-linear Massive Gravity Theory of Geometric Origin

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Torsion bigravity's massive spin-2 field carries nine degrees of freedom at nonlinear order instead of five, so the theory is not the healthy massive gravity it was hoped to be.

desk verdict A plausible but not yet proven five-to-nine dof jump in torsion bigravity: the paper never checks that the reduced action's kinetic Hessian is non-degenerate. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13077 v1 pith:SGYQHF3S submitted 2025-01-22 gr-qc hep-th

Thibault Damour , Tamanna Jain This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qchep-th

keywords torsionbigravitymassivespin-2fielddegreesoffreedomnonlineargravitypropagatingconstraintanalysisFierz-Pauliequation

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

Torsion bigravity is a modified-gravity theory whose spectrum contains a massless spin-2 graviton and a massive spin-2 field coming from a propagating torsion, and the question addressed here is whether that massive field keeps the five degrees of freedom of a healthy Fierz-Pauli field when interactions are included. The paper's central claim is that it does not: in the decoupling limit $c_R\to\infty$, with spatially homogeneous time-dependent fields, the nonlinear dynamics of the torsion field carries nine degrees of freedom rather than five. The extra four degrees of freedom are hidden at low orders, entering only through quartic- and higher-order terms in the reduced action, which is why earlier linear, static, or spherically symmetric studies missed them. If this claim is right, torsion bigravity — and the wider six-parameter torsion gravity class that contains it — fails to define a healthy nonlinear theory of massive gravity.

What carries the argument

The central object is the first-order action $L_1[b_2,A_3]$, which reformulates torsion bigravity by introducing a symmetric, Fierz-Pauli-like tensor $b_{ij}$ as a Lagrange multiplier that enforces $F_{ij}=F_{ij}(A)$ and then integrating out the auxiliary curvature. In spatially homogeneous configurations it takes the Hamiltonian form $p\dot q - pqq - \kappa^2 p^2$, where $q$ stands for the connection components $A_{ijk}$ and $p$ for the components of $b_{ij}$. The load-bearing step is a Hamiltonian constraint analysis of this action: identify which combinations of $A_{ijk}$ appear in the kinetic term, which variables are Lagrange multipliers imposing constraints, and solve those constraints to obtain a reduced action. At linear order the constraints eliminate everything except five canonical pairs; at nonlinear order the constraint solutions acquire dependence on $\dot h_{0a}$ and $\dot{\bar q}$, which creates the new kinetic terms that promote $h_{0a}$ and $\bar q$ to dynamical degrees of freedom.

What would settle it

Run the same Hamiltonian constraint analysis on the full torsion bigravity action with $c_R$ kept finite and spatial gradients included: if the final reduced action lacks the terms $h_{\langle ac\rangle}h_{\langle cb\rangle}\dot h_{0a}\dot h_{0b}$ and $h_{\langle ac\rangle}h_{\langle cb\rangle}(\dot{\bar q})^2\dot h_{0a}\dot h_{0b}$, or if the degree-of-freedom count returns five, the nine-degree-of-freedom claim collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The final result is that the spatially homogeneous nonlinear dynamics defined by the second-order Lagrangian $L_2[b_2]$ involves nine degrees of freedom instead of the five degrees of freedom of a normal Fierz-Pauli massive spin-2 field. Starting from the first-order action $L_1[b_2,A_3]$, a Hamiltonian constraint analysis shows that at linear order the constraints eliminate the variables $q_a$, $\bar h$, $\bar q$, $h_{0a}$, and $\check Q_{[ab]}$, leaving only the five canonical pairs $h_{\langle ab\rangle}, q_{\langle ab\rangle}$. At nonlinear order the same seven Lagrange-multiplier constraints can still be solved, but the solutions for $\bar h$ and $q_a$ depend on the time derivatives $\dot{\bar q}$ and $\dot h_{0a}$; as a result the reduced action contains new kinetic terms $h_{\langle ac\rangle}h_{\langle cb\rangle}\dot h_{0a}\dot h_{0b}$ at quartic order and $h_{\langle ac\rangle}h_{\langle cb\rangle}(\dot{\bar q})^2\dot h_{0a}\dot h_{0b}$ at sextic order. The variables $h_{0a}$ and $\bar q$ therefore become dynamical, requiring initial data for nine fields: $h_{\langle ab\rangle}$, $h_{0a}$, and $\bar q$, together with their time derivatives.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the degree-of-freedom count found with the metric held flat (the decoupling limit $c_R\to\infty$) and with fields depending only on time is representative of the full torsion bigravity theory, including inhomogeneous and metric-coupled solutions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In time-dependent nonlinear regimes torsion bigravity propagates 2 + 9 degrees of freedom (one massless graviton plus nine torsion-field modes) rather than the hoped-for 2 + 5.
The healthy five-degree-of-freedom behavior found in earlier linear, stationary, or spherically symmetric studies does not persist to fully nonlinear time-dependent configurations.
Because torsion bigravity is a three-parameter subfamily of the wider torsion gravity theories, the appearance of the four extra degrees of freedom carries over to that broader class.
The extra modes are hidden at low orders: $h_{0a}$ becomes dynamical at quartic order in the fields and $\bar q$ at quintic/sextic order, so linearized analyses cannot detect them.
The second-order action $L_2[b_2]$ defines a massive gravity theory with a standard Fierz-Pauli mass term but non-Einsteinian kinetic terms, and that theory itself has the same extra-degree-of-freedom problem.

Reading between the lines

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

If the nine-degree-of-freedom count survives analysis of the full theory, torsion gravity's cosmological and strong-field applications would have to accommodate four additional propagating modes that are likely to be unstable or non-unitary, although the paper does not itself prove they are ghosts.
The mechanism — constraints that eliminate variables at linear order fail at nonlinear order because their solutions acquire velocity dependence — is structurally the same disease as the familiar ghost problem of generic massive gravity; a natural next step is to compute the kinetic signs of the new modes.
The authors note that inhomogeneous solutions could shift the perturbative order at which the new degrees of freedom appear. An instructive extension is to include spatial gradients in the same Hamiltonian reduction; if the extra modes then appear at lower order, the effective validity scale of torsion bigravity would be even lower than the quartic-order onset found here.

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

First thing to know: this paper finds a five-to-nine degree-of-freedom jump in torsion bigravity in nonlinear, time-dependent, spatially homogeneous configurations in the decoupling limit. If correct, it removes torsion bigravity—and by extension the broader six-parameter torsion gravity class—as a candidate healthy geometric origin for massive spin-2 fields. The result is plausible but not yet proven, because the paper never checks that the kinetic matrix of the reduced action is non-degenerate. That missing Hessian computation is the load-bearing gap.

What is new and good: prior work on torsion bigravity looked at linear perturbations, stationary nonlinear solutions, and backgrounds with generic Einstein metrics; the time-dependent nonlinear regime was open. The paper builds a first-order action, solves the constraint chain step by step, and explicitly displays quartic and sextic terms of the form hh \dot h0a \dot h0b and hh(\dot \bar q)^2 \dot h0a \dot h0b. The side-check in footnote 1—applying the same homogeneous-sector method to standard Fierz-Pauli and dRGT massive gravity and getting the known dof counts—gives real confidence that the counting method isn't off-track. The authors also state the limitations of their analysis in the conclusions.

Soft spots: the abstract states 'change from five to nine' without the qualifications attached in the body—decoupling limit, spatially homogeneous sector, perturbative series. That is an overstatement. More substantively, a term containing a velocity in a Lagrangian is not itself proof that the corresponding variable is dynamical. The coefficients are field-dependent; one needs to show the Hessian has full rank on a neighborhood, and there are configurations where the displayed coefficients vanish (det h=0, or certain h0a sectors). The paper asserts the conclusion instead of computing the Hessian. This is fixable, and it is the right thing to ask of the authors. The decoupling limit and homogeneity assumptions also leave open the question of whether constraints in the full theory restore the five-dof count; the authors acknowledge this, but it means the negative conclusion is conditional.

Bottom line: this is serious work, with a clear and honest presentation, and the missing Hessian check is an addressable gap rather than a fatal flaw. It deserves a peer review round, with a specific request for the Hessian calculation and a non-degeneracy proof. I'd bring it to a reading group for the method, but I wouldn't cite it for the 5-to-9 claim until the gap is closed.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies torsion bigravity, a three-parameter subfamily of torsion gravity theories, and claims that in the decoupling limit c_R -> infinity the massive spin-2 torsion sector, described by a non-Einsteinian nonlinear massive gravity action L2[b2], propagates nine degrees of freedom instead of the five of a Fierz-Pauli massive spin-2 field. The authors construct equivalent first- and second-order action formulations, perform a constraint reduction in the spatially homogeneous sector, and identify quartic and sextic velocity terms for h0a and qbar as evidence of the extra degrees of freedom.

Significance. If established, the result is a significant negative result for torsion bigravity and, by extension, for the broader class of torsion gravity theories: it would show that the healthy linear spectrum is not preserved at nonlinear order, undermining a geometrically motivated candidate for a consistent massive gravity theory. The paper has clear strengths: it derives the relevant action formulations in detail, validates its homogeneous reduction method against standard Fierz-Pauli and de Rham-Gabadadze-Tolley massive gravity in footnote 1, and explicitly acknowledges the decoupling-limit and homogeneity assumptions. The main weakness is that the central degree-of-freedom count is not actually proven, because the reduced velocity Hessian is never computed.

major comments (2)

[Sec. VIII, Eqs. (8.14)-(8.16)] The derivation of nine degrees of freedom is not complete. The displayed terms show that dot h0a and dot qbar appear nonlinearly in the reduced action, but in a constrained Lagrangian the presence of such terms does not by itself establish that these variables are dynamical. One must compute the Hessian H_IJ = partial^2 L_red' / partial dot q^I partial dot q^J and check its rank after all auxiliary eliminations. Here the coefficient h<ac>h<cb> is field-dependent and vanishes at h<ab>=0, and the cross-coupling (8.15) involves products of velocities, so the Hessian can be degenerate or have configuration-dependent rank. A perturbative existence of a kinetic term is not sufficient: the null space of the Hessian must be analyzed. Footnote 1 checks the homogeneous method on standard massive-gravity actions with Einsteinian kinetic terms, but the present L2[b2] has non-Einsteinian kinetic terms, so that side check does not cover the decisive step. Please add the explicit Hessian determinant/rank computation, or soften the claim to a statement about the appearance of additional velocity terms rather than a definitive count of nine degrees of freedom.
[Abstract and Sec. IX] The abstract states the five-to-nine result without the qualifications used in the body. The actual calculation is performed in the decoupling limit c_R -> infinity and in the spatially homogeneous sector, and Sec. IX explicitly concedes that inhomogeneous solutions might change the perturbative order at which the new degrees of freedom appear. If the conclusion is intended to apply to the full torsion bigravity theory, the paper needs a persistence or continuity argument connecting the decoupled homogenous result to finite c_R and to inhomogeneous configurations. As it stands, the logical gap between the computed sector and the broad statement that 'torsion gravity theories do not define a healthy theory' is not closed; at minimum the abstract and conclusions should state the result as a property of the decoupled, spatially homogeneous sector.

minor comments (3)

[Sec. V, Eq. (5.24)] In the first line of the cubic action, the two contractions beta^j_{kl} beta^{kl}_i and -1/2 beta^j_{kl} beta^{kl}_i appear to be the same expression up to coefficient; please check whether one of the index contractions was intended to be different.
[Introduction, sentence ending '...mass [22, 23].]'] There is a stray closing bracket after the period in the sentence discussing time-dependent torsion perturbations; please correct the punctuation.
[Footnote 1] The footnote stating the side check on standard massive-gravity theories is split across pages in the compiled version; please ensure the footnote text is complete and placed so that it is not visually truncated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the claimed five-to-nine dof change follows from the displayed action by explicit constraint reduction; no step equates the conclusion to an input, and self-citations only supply the starting Lagrangian.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a degree-of-freedom count for the torsion bigravity action in the decoupling limit. The derivation chain is: start from the action (3.3)/(5.1), pass to the first-order action L1 (5.8), reduce the homogeneous first-order system in Sec. VIII, and infer nine dofs from the appearance of nonlinear velocity terms (8.14)-(8.16) in the reduced action. This is a calculation from the stated action, not a restatement of an input. No parameter is fitted to data and then renamed a prediction; no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work; no ansatz is smuggled in by citation in a way that decides the dof count. The self-citations in Refs. [19-20] supply the three-parameter subfamily and notation, but the counting result is new and is obtained by the paper's own constraint analysis. The method is independently checked in footnote 1 against standard Fierz-Pauli and de Rham-Gabadadze-Tolley massive gravity, which supports rather than undermines the counting procedure. The acknowledged restrictions in Sec. IX — decoupling limit, spatial homogeneity, and the possibility that inhomogeneous solutions could change the perturbative order — are limitations on scope, not circular steps. Likewise, the skeptic's concern that the Hessian rank is not explicitly computed is a correctness or rigor concern, not evidence that the derivation is equivalent to its inputs. Under the stated assumptions, the derivation is self-contained.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the decoupling limit and homogeneous reduction (axioms 1-2), on the perturbative constraint-solving and dof-counting procedure (axiom 3), and on the prior derivation of the torsion bigravity action and its linear spectrum (axiom 4). No numbers are fitted and no new entities are introduced; the three-parameter subfamily (c2=c6=0, c3=c4) is a model restriction, not a fitted parameter.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The decoupling limit c_R to infinity, with kappa^2 = c_F/c_F2 fixed and the metric frozen to Minkowski, is a valid probe of the degree-of-freedom content of the full torsion bigravity theory.
The paper analyzes the action (3.3) on a flat background and concludes in Sec. IX that torsion gravity theories are unhealthy, without analyzing the coupled metric-torsion constraints at nonlinear order. If nonlinear metric-sector constraints eliminate the extra dof, the conclusion would fail.
domain assumption The spatially homogeneous ansatz is sufficient to establish the presence of extra dof in the theory.
Sec. IX states the homogeneity ansatz is consistent and 'suffices to conclude' that the theory is unhealthy, while acknowledging inhomogeneous solutions might show the dof at lower order. The persistence of the four extra dof for generic inhomogeneous solutions is not proven.
domain assumption The constraint equations can be solved by formal power series in the fields, and the appearance of terms quadratic in a velocity implies a new dynamical degree of freedom.
Sec. VIII solves the constraints perturbatively (e.g., Eq. (8.8) leading to 0 = Q_abc + nonlinear terms) and infers new dof from terms like (8.14) and (8.16) without displaying the full reduced action or checking the non-degeneracy of the kinetic matrix. Strong-field singularities in (kappa^2+F_(2))^{-1} are set aside in Sec. IV.
domain assumption The torsion bigravity action (2.15) and its linear spectrum (one massless spin-2, one massive spin-2, no scalar) are taken as given from prior literature.
The paper relies on Refs 12-20 for the action and its linear excitation content. This is standard background, not circular, but it is an unproved input.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Non-linear Massive Gravity Theory of Geometric Origin." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SGYQHF3S

@misc{pith2026250113077,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Non-linear Massive Gravity Theory of Geometric Origin},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SGYQHF3S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13077}
}

read the original abstract

We study the number of propagating degrees of freedom, at non-linear order, in torsion gravity theories, a class of modified theories of gravity that include a propagating torsion in addition to the metric. We focus on a three-parameter subfamily of theories (``torsion bigravity") that contains, at linear order, only two physical excitations: a massless spin-2 one (with two degrees of freedom) and a massive spin-2 one (with five degrees of freedom). We study the dynamics of the massive spin-2 field in the limit where the torsion field decouples from the metric. The number of degrees of freedom of the torsion field is found to {\it change, at non-linear order, from five to nine}.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

[1]

Navas et al

S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

2024
[2]

C. M. Will, Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2018)

2018
[3]

Kiefer, Quantum gravity - an unﬁnished revolution (2023) arXiv:2302.13047 [gr-qc]

C. Kiefer, Quantum gravity - an unﬁnished revolution (2023) arXiv:2302.13047 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2023
[4]

Joyce, B

A. Joyce, B. Jain, J. Khoury, and M. Trod- den, Beyond the Cosmological Stan- dard Model, Phys. Rept. 568, 1 (2015) , arXiv:1407.0059 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2015
[5]

Frusciante and L

N. Frusciante and L. Perenon, Eﬀective ﬁeld theory of dark energy: A review, Phys. Rept. 857, 1 (2020) , arXiv:1907.03150 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2020
[6]

Salucci, N

P. Salucci, N. Turini, and C. Di Paolo, Paradigms and Scenarios for the Dark Matter Phenomenon, Universe 6, 118 (2020) , arXiv:2008.04052 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2020
[7]

Berti et al

E. Berti et al. , Testing General Relativity with Present and Future Astrophysical Obser- vations, Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 243001 (2015) , arXiv:1501.07274 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2015
[8]

Cartan, Sur les vari´ et´ es ` a connexion aﬃne et la th´ eorie de la relativit´ e g´ en´ eralis´ ee

E. Cartan, Sur les vari´ et´ es ` a connexion aﬃne et la th´ eorie de la relativit´ e g´ en´ eralis´ ee. (premi` ere partie), Annales Sci. Ecole Norm. Sup. 40, 325 (1923)

work page 1923

Show all 35 references

[9]

Cartan, Sur les vari´ et´ es ` a connexion aﬃne et la th´ eorie de la relativit´ e g´ en´ eralis´ ee

E. Cartan, Sur les vari´ et´ es ` a connexion aﬃne et la th´ eorie de la relativit´ e g´ en´ eralis´ ee. (premi` ere partie) (Suite)., An- nales Sci. Ecole Norm. Sup. 41, 1 (1924)

1924
[10]

Weyl, A Remark on the coupling of gravitation and electron, Phys

H. Weyl, A Remark on the coupling of gravitation and electron, Phys. Rev. 77, 699 (1950)

1950
[11]

F. W. Hehl, P. Von Der Heyde, G. D. Kerlick, and J. M. Nester, General Relativity with Spin and Torsion: Foun- dations and Prospects, Rev. Mod. Phys. 48, 393 (1976)

1976
[12]

Sezgin and P

E. Sezgin and P. van Nieuwenhuizen, New Ghost Free Gravity Lagrangians with Propagating Torsion, Phys. Rev. D 21, 3269 (1980)

1980
[13]

Hayashi and T

K. Hayashi and T. Shirafuji, Gravity from Poincare Gauge Theory of the Fundamental Par- ticles. 1. Linear and Quadratic Lagrangians, Prog. Theor. Phys. 64, 866 (1980) , [Erratum: Prog.Theor.Phys. 65, 2079 (1981)]

1980
[14]

Hayashi and T

K. Hayashi and T. Shirafuji, Gravity From Poincare Gauge Theory of the Fundamental Par- ticles. 4. Mass and Energy of Particle Spectrum, Prog. Theor. Phys. 64, 2222 (1980)

1980
[15]

Sezgin, Class of Ghost Free Gravity Lagrangians With Massive or Massless Propagating Torsion, Phys

E. Sezgin, Class of Ghost Free Gravity Lagrangians With Massive or Massless Propagating Torsion, Phys. Rev. D 24, 1677 (1981)

1981
[16]

V. P. Nair, S. Randjbar-Daemi, and V. Rubakov, Massive Spin-2 ﬁelds of Geometric Origin in Curved Spacetimes, Phys. Rev. D 80, 104031 (2009) , arXiv:0811.3781 [hep-th]

2009 arXiv
[17]

bad” nonlinear Fierz-Pauli mass term, or a “good

V. Nikiforova, S. Randjbar-Daemi, and V. Rubakov, Infrared Modiﬁed Gravity with Dynami- cal Torsion, Phys. Rev. D 80, 124050 (2009) , arXiv:0905.3732 [hep-th] . tions to the usual massive-gravity theories (containing ei ther a “bad” nonlinear Fierz-Pauli mass term, or a “good”...

2009 arXiv
[19]

Nikiforova and T

V. Nikiforova and T. Damour, Infrared modiﬁed grav- ity with propagating torsion: instability of torsionfull de Sitter-like solutions, Phys. Rev. D 97, 124014 (2018) , arXiv:1804.09215 [gr-qc]

2018 arXiv
[20]

Damour and V

T. Damour and V. Nikiforova, Spheri- cally symmetric solutions in torsion bi- gravity, Phys. Rev. D 100, 024065 (2019) , arXiv:1906.11859 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[21]

Nikiforova, Absence of a Vainshtein radius in torsion bigravity, Phys

V. Nikiforova, Absence of a Vainshtein radius in torsion bigravity, Phys. Rev. D 101, 064017 (2020) , arXiv:2001.07148 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[22]

Nikiforova, Spherically symmetric pertur- bations of a Schwarzschild black hole in tor- sion bigravity, Phys

V. Nikiforova, Spherically symmetric pertur- bations of a Schwarzschild black hole in tor- sion bigravity, Phys. Rev. D 104, 024032 (2021) , arXiv:2103.11156 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[23]

Nikiforova, Perturbations of a Schwarzschild black hole in torsion bi- gravity, Phys

V. Nikiforova, Perturbations of a Schwarzschild black hole in torsion bi- gravity, Phys. Rev. D 105, 064060 (2022) , arXiv:2201.02259 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[24]

Fierz and W

M. Fierz and W. Pauli, On relativistic wave equations for particles of arbitrary spin in an electromagnetic ﬁeld, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 173, 211 (1939)

1939
[25]

van Dam and M

H. van Dam and M. J. G. Veltman, Massive and massless Yang-Mills and gravitational ﬁelds, Nucl. Phys. B 22, 397 (1970)

1970
[26]

A. I. Vainshtein, To the problem of nonvanishing gravi- tation mass, Phys. Lett. B 39, 393 (1972)

1972
[27]

D. G. Boulware and S. Deser, Can gravitation have a ﬁnite range?, Phys. Rev. D 6, 3368 (1972)

1972
[28]

Damour and I

T. Damour and I. I. Kogan, Eﬀective Lagrangians and universality classes of nonlinear bigravity, Phys. Rev. D 66, 104024 (2002) , arXiv:hep-th/0206042

2002 arXiv
[29]

Babichev, C

E. Babichev, C. Deﬀayet, and R. Ziour, The Vainshtein mechanism in the Decoupling Limit of massive gravity, JHEP 05, 098 , arXiv:0901.0393 [hep-th]

arXiv
[30]

de Rham, G

C. de Rham, G. Gabadadze, and A. J. Tolley, Resummation of Massive Grav- ity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 231101 (2011) , arXiv:1011.1232 [hep-th]

2011 arXiv
[31]

S. F. Hassan and R. A. Rosen, Bimetric Grav- ity from Ghost-free Massive Gravity, JHEP 02, 126 , arXiv:1109.3515 [hep-th]

arXiv
[32]

Bellazzini, G

B. Bellazzini, G. Isabella, S. Ricossa, and F. Riva, Massive gravity is not pos- itive, Phys. Rev. D 109, 024051 (2024) , arXiv:2304.02550 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[33]

de Rham, Massive Gravity, Living Rev

C. de Rham, Massive Gravity, Living Rev. Rel. 17, 7 (2014) , arXiv:1401.4173 [hep-th]

2014 arXiv
[34]

de Rham, G

C. de Rham, G. Gabadadze, and A. J. Tolley, Ghost free Massive Gravity in the St¨ uckelberg language, Phys. Lett. B 711, 190 (2012) , arXiv:1107.3820 [hep-th]

2012 arXiv
[35]

S. F. Hassan and R. A. Rosen, Conﬁrmation of the Secondary Constraint and Absence of Ghost in Massive Gravity and Bimetric Gravity, JHEP 04, 123 , arXiv:1111.2070 [hep-th] . 14

arXiv
[36]

S. F. Hassan and R. A. Rosen, Resolving the Ghost Problem in non-Linear Massive Gravity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 041101 (2012) , arXiv:1106.3344 [hep-th]

2012 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Navas et al

S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

2024

[2] [2]

C. M. Will, Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2018)

2018

[3] [3]

Kiefer, Quantum gravity - an unﬁnished revolution (2023) arXiv:2302.13047 [gr-qc]

C. Kiefer, Quantum gravity - an unﬁnished revolution (2023) arXiv:2302.13047 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2023

[4] [4]

Joyce, B

A. Joyce, B. Jain, J. Khoury, and M. Trod- den, Beyond the Cosmological Stan- dard Model, Phys. Rept. 568, 1 (2015) , arXiv:1407.0059 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2015

[5] [5]

Frusciante and L

N. Frusciante and L. Perenon, Eﬀective ﬁeld theory of dark energy: A review, Phys. Rept. 857, 1 (2020) , arXiv:1907.03150 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2020

[6] [6]

Salucci, N

P. Salucci, N. Turini, and C. Di Paolo, Paradigms and Scenarios for the Dark Matter Phenomenon, Universe 6, 118 (2020) , arXiv:2008.04052 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2020

[7] [7]

Berti et al

E. Berti et al. , Testing General Relativity with Present and Future Astrophysical Obser- vations, Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 243001 (2015) , arXiv:1501.07274 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2015

[8] [8]

Cartan, Sur les vari´ et´ es ` a connexion aﬃne et la th´ eorie de la relativit´ e g´ en´ eralis´ ee

E. Cartan, Sur les vari´ et´ es ` a connexion aﬃne et la th´ eorie de la relativit´ e g´ en´ eralis´ ee. (premi` ere partie), Annales Sci. Ecole Norm. Sup. 40, 325 (1923)

work page 1923