Braneworlds in Einstein-Scalar-Gauss-Bonnet gravity

Jos\'e Euclides G. Silva; Leandro A. Lessa; Roberto V. Maluf

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 44 references

Braneworlds in Einstein-Scalar-Gauss-Bonnet gravity

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A non-minimal scalar-Gauss-Bonnet coupling can build stable AdS5 thick braneworlds without a bare cosmological constant.

desk verdict A worthwhile ESGB braneworld construction, but the current draft's linear-coupling equation (4.9) is algebraically wrong and the numerics rest on it; worth refereeing as a major revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.21725 v1 pith:R3SEEIIP submitted 2025-08-29 gr-qc

José Euclides G. Silva , Leandro A. Lessa , Roberto V. Maluf This is my paper

classification gr-qc PACS 04.50.-h11.27.+d

keywords Einstein-scalar-Gauss-BonnetgravitythickbraneworldAdS5bulknon-minimalcouplingKaluza-Kleinmodestensorperturbationswarpfactordomainwall

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 tries to show that in five-dimensional Einstein-scalar-Gauss-Bonnet gravity, letting a scalar field multiply the Gauss-Bonnet curvature term changes thick-brane geometry enough to produce an asymptotically anti-de Sitter bulk without adding a cosmological constant by hand. It studies two couplings, a dilaton-like exponential used in its linear approximation and a quadratic one, and claims both give localized brane energy and pressure, a non-topological scalar profile, and a graviton Kaluza-Klein spectrum with a localized massless mode and no tachyonic massive modes. If correct, this would broaden the class of stable braneworld models and reduce reliance on a tuned bulk cosmological constant. The stability conclusion rests on rewriting the tensor perturbation equation as a factorized Schrödinger-like problem, which forces non-negative mode masses.

What carries the argument

The engine is the non-minimal coupling function χ(φ) multiplying the Gauss-Bonnet invariant G. It enters the metric and scalar equations through the tensor J_AB with terms proportional to χ, χ_φ, and χ_φφ, which breaks the first-order formalism used in standard Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet branes. The paper fixes the warp factor analytically as A = −ln cosh(cy) and solves the scalar equation numerically. For stability, the tensor perturbation equation is rewritten via z = ∫B⁻¹dy as a Schrödinger equation with effective potential V_eff = (E/2)² + ∂_z(E/2); its factorized form Q†Q guarantees non-negative masses and a localized zero mode, turning the perturbation system into a stability statement.

What would settle it

Integrate Eq. (4.1) directly with χ = 1 + λφ and the ansatz A = −ln cosh(cy) using the same parameters and compare with Fig. 3; if the solution differs from the one produced by Eq. (4.9), the linear-coupling claim is falsified. Separately, evaluate B(y) = e^A (G/H)^{1/2} along the numerical background: if B changes sign or Φ0(y) does not integrate to a finite norm, the positivity and localization conclusions fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the paper's own terms, the action S = ∫ d^5x √−g [R/(2κ5) − (1/2)(∂φ)^2 − V(φ) + αχ(φ)G], with the warp ansatz A(y) = −ln cosh(cy), yields thick 3-brane solutions for χ ≈ 1 + λφ and χ = −(M²/2)φ² whose asymptotic regions are AdS5. Outside the brane the scalar reaches a nonzero value where the potential is not stationary; the scalar-GB coupling shifts the condition to V_φ = 24α χ_φ c². Inside the brane, the scalar profile is non-topological rather than a domain wall. Perturbing the metric to first order and writing the tensor modes as a Schrödinger equation with a supersymmetric factorization Q†QΦ = m²Φ gives m² ≥ 0 and a normalizable massless graviton, so the paper claims the braneworlds

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the numerical scalar profiles solve the equations of the claimed model: for χ ≈ 1 + λφ the reduction (4.9) appears to drop the constant part of χ in the A″ coefficient, and the stability argument silently assumes z = ∫B⁻¹dy is globally valid with real nonzero B; if either fails, the displayed solutions do not establish the paper's claims.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If correct, a bulk cosmological constant is not required: the scalar-Gauss-Bonnet coupling itself enforces AdS5 asymptotics and dynamically generates the effective bulk cosmological constant.
The asymptotic scalar vacuum is shifted away from the potential's extremum by an amount set by χ_φ, so vacuum selection depends on geometry as well as on the potential.
The tensor KK spectrum has m² ≥ 0 and a localized massless mode, so four-dimensional Einstein gravity would be recovered on the brane at low energies with no tachyonic instability in this sector.
For the quadratic coupling with small M², the scalar reaches a finite asymptotic vacuum and the potential tends to a negative constant, preserving the AdS5 bulk; with larger M² the solution tends to diverge asymptotically.
The massive KK wavefunctions differ from those of general relativity and standard Gauss-Bonnet gravity, including parity-odd states for the dilaton-like coupling, which would alter massive-graviton phenomenology on the brane.

Reading between the lines

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

The linear-coupling equation in the text, Eq. (4.9), appears to omit the contribution of the constant part of χ ≈ 1 + λφ to the coefficient of A″; redoing the reduction with that term kept could change the scalar profile and the KK stability plots for that case.
The SUSY stability argument assumes the coordinate map z = ∫B⁻¹dy is globally valid with B real and nonzero; a direct numerical check of B(y) > 0 and of the normalization of Φ0 would close that gap.
Only tensor perturbations are treated; scalar and vector metric perturbations could couple to δφ and might alter the stability conclusion, a point the paper itself lists as future work.
The same construction could be tested with other couplings, such as even powers (φ² − φ0²)ⁿ, which the asymptotic analysis already notes would preserve the scalar-field vacuum and cleanly separate geometric effects from the vacuum-shift effect.

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

Dear colleague,

The paper addresses a real gap: thick brane solutions in Einstein-Scalar-Gauss-Bonnet gravity with non-minimal couplings, both exponential and quadratic. The qualitative results—asymptotic AdS5 without an explicit bulk cosmological constant, the solvability bound on Λ, and the localized zero mode—largely echo the authors' earlier cubic gravity paper [41], so the novelty is incremental but genuine. The new part is the explicit numerical construction and the perturbative KK stability analysis.

The problem is the algebra. The load-bearing issue is Eq. (4.9). For the stated coupling χ≈1+λφ, the coefficient of A'' must include the constant part of χ, i.e. a term −24αA'^2. The paper instead writes (3/κ−24αλA'^2)A'' plus a separate −24αλφA'^2A'', dropping that constant contribution. The scalar profile in Fig. 3 and the KK results are computed from Eq. (4.9), so they describe a different model. The generic Eq. (4.1) also has a factor-of-2 error in the χφ A'φ'A'' cross term; subtracting (2.10) and (2.11) gives −48αχφA'φ', not −24. That one is minor by itself but contributes to the pattern.

Smaller typos: Eq. (3.5) uses 1+λφ0 in the denominator for the quadratic coupling, and Eq. (3.9) misses a factor 5c^2 from the scalar EOM (2.12). These don't break the main construction, but they show the displayed equations haven't been carefully checked.

To be fair, the overall method is the standard thick brane procedure: choose a warp factor, solve for φ, read off V, then test stability. The reverse-engineering is not itself a flaw. The stability argument is also standard, though it depends on the unverified assumption that the z-coordinate transformation is globally valid with B real and nonzero.

Who benefits: anyone working on higher-curvature braneworlds or scalar-GB couplings. The paper deserves referee time, but not in this state. It needs a corrected (4.9), re-run numerics, and a careful pass over the asymptotics. I would send it to peer review with the expectation of major revision, not desk reject.

Best, [your name]

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes thick 3-brane solutions in five-dimensional Einstein-Scalar-Gauss-Bonnet gravity with non-minimal scalar-GB couplings χ=e^{λφ} (approximated by 1+λφ) and χ=-M²φ²/2. It fixes the warp factor to A(y)=-ln cosh(cy), solves the scalar equation numerically, and claims that the GB coupling dynamically generates an asymptotically AdS5 bulk, with localized energy density and pressure and a KK spectrum containing a localized massless mode and a tower of non-tachyonic massive modes. A tensor-perturbation analysis is used to argue perturbative stability.

Significance. The topic is timely and the paper is clearly structured; the χ=1 limit of standard Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet braneworlds is recovered, and the manuscript connects to a useful literature on scalar-GB gravity and thick branes. However, the central derivations contain multiple algebraic errors: the asymptotic formulas for the quadratic coupling are not reductions of the stated equations, the master equation (4.1) has an incorrect coefficient, and the linearized model is solved with an equation that omits the constant part of χ. The claimed solutions, energy densities, and stability conclusions therefore do not apply to the stated action. As presented, the significance of the results is not established.

major comments (5)

[§3, Eqs. (3.5) and (3.8)] Substituting χ0=-M²φ0²/2 into Eq. (3.2) gives a denominator 8καχ0=-4καM²φ0², not 8κα(1+λφ0). Eq. (3.5) is therefore not the reduction of (3.1) for the quadratic coupling; it uses the linear-coupling denominator. Moreover, for Λ=0, Eq. (3.6) yields c²=1/(4καχ0)=-1/(2καM²φ0²)<0, so no real RS warp factor exists for this coupling without a bulk cosmological constant. Eq. (3.8) is also inconsistent with (3.6): it gives a real value without the square root. The claimed asymptotic AdS5 behavior for the quadratic branch is not derived and, at Λ=0, appears impossible.
[§3, Eq. (3.9)] Setting φ'=φ''=0 and A'=-c, A''=0 in the scalar equation (2.12) gives -Vφ+24αχφ c²(5c²)=0, i.e. Vφ=120αχφ c^4. Eq. (3.9) instead writes Vφ→24αχφ(ϕ0)c², missing a factor 5c². This is not a harmless typo: the asymptotic vacuum shift and the accompanying discussion of the scalar-field vacuum follow from this relation.
[§4, Eq. (4.1)] Subtracting (2.11) from (2.10) and dividing by 2κ gives (3/κ)A''+φ'^2 -24α[χA'^2A'' + 2χφA'φ'A'' + χφA'^2φ'' - χφA'^3φ' + χφφA'^2φ'^2]=0. The printed Eq. (4.1) contains the term -24αχφA'(A''-A'^2)φ', whose coefficient of φ'A'' is -24α instead of -48α. Thus Eq. (4.1) is not the correct subtraction of the displayed field equations for general χ(φ), and all thick-brane solutions obtained from it for non-constant χ do not solve (2.10)-(2.12).
[§4, Eq. (4.9)] For χ=1+λφ, substitution into the printed Eq. (4.1) gives an A'' coefficient (3/κ -24α(1+λφ)A'^2), i.e. (3/κ -24αA'^2 -24αλφA'^2). Eq. (4.9) instead writes (3/κ-24αλA'^2)A'' and a separate -24αλA'^2A''φ, dropping the -24αA'^2 contribution from the constant part of χ. Therefore the equation actually solved for the Fig. 3 scalar profile, and then used for the Fig. 6 densities and for B,C in (5.28)-(5.29), is not the scalar equation of the model with χ≈1+λφ. This invalidates the linear-coupling branch of the paper.
[§5.1, Eqs. (5.18)-(5.27)] The stability argument uses the coordinate transformation z=∫B^{-1}dy with B²=e^{2A}G/H. This is legitimate only if B is real, finite and nonzero over the entire range. The paper imposes G>0 in (5.21) but does not verify H>0 or the regularity of B for the numerical solutions; H in (5.15) contains χφ and χφφ terms not controlled by (5.21). The SUSY argument m²≥0 therefore is not established for the solved profiles. In addition, the massive modes plotted in Figs. 8 and 9 diverge as |y| increases and no normalization or orthogonality is shown, so the claimed tower of physical KK states is not demonstrated.

minor comments (5)

[§4, Eq. (4.7)] The asymptotic potential is written as -6c/k; the denominator should be κ, not k.
[Fig. 3] The two panels have inconsistent captions: the first says α=1 | σ=1 and the second α=0 | c=1; σ is not defined in the text.
[§5.1, last paragraph] The sentence 'the cubic modifications preserves the graviton stability' should refer to the quadratic Gauss-Bonnet terms; the theory is not cubic in curvature.
[§4 and §5] The numerical solutions are presented without the ODE solver, boundary conditions, or the way φ0 is fixed, which substantially limits reproducibility.
[§2] The action (2.1) uses κ5, but the field equations (2.10)-(2.12) and the rest of the paper use κ; the relation between the two is never stated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: ansatz-based construction with V read off and stability from SUSY QM identity; self-citations are contextual only.

full rationale

The paper does not contain a circular derivation. It fixes the warp factor A(y) = -ln cosh(cy) by ansatz, solves the scalar-field equation (4.1)/(4.9)/(4.10) for phi(y), and then reads off the scalar potential V from Eq. (4.6). Because V is not prescribed independently, the construction of thick-brane solutions is an inverse problem; no output is equivalent to an independently fixed input, and no parameter fitted to a data subset is later called a prediction. The asymptotic-AdS5 statements and the bound on the cosmological constant follow algebraically from Eqs. (3.1)-(3.6), not from assuming the conclusion. The perturbative stability conclusion follows from the supersymmetric QM identity Q-dagger Q Phi = m^2 Phi, which forces m^2 >= 0 for normalizable modes; this is a mathematical theorem, not an imported uniqueness result. The self-citations [41] and [44] are used only for context and for writing the standard Schroedinger form; they are not load-bearing. The manuscript does contain apparent algebraic errors (most notably Eq. (4.9) seems to drop the constant part of chi approximately 1 + lambda phi, and Eqs. (3.5)/(3.8) have incorrect coefficients), but such inconsistencies are correctness issues, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central construction is a reverse-engineered brane solution: A(y) is chosen, φ(y) is solved, and V(y) is read off. Thus the 'potential' is a derived quantity, not an independent input. The model has several hand-picked dimensionless parameters (α, λ, M, c) and the asymptotic vacuum value φ0 that fixes Λ. No new fields or particles are introduced.

free parameters (5)

α (Gauss-Bonnet coupling) = 0.1 or 1, depending on the plot
Controls the strength of the GB term; chosen by hand, not constrained by data.
λ (linear coupling exponent) = 0.1
Controls the linear coupling strength in χ≈1+λφ; the linear approximation may be questionable at λ=0.1.
M (quadratic coupling mass parameter) = M^2 = 10^-4 or 10^-3
Controls the quadratic coupling strength; chosen small to ensure asymptotic convergence.
c (warp factor inverse length) = 1
Sets the brane thickness in the ansatz A=-ln cosh(cy); chosen by hand.
φ0 / V(φ0) (asymptotic scalar vacuum and potential) = Not specified explicitly; sets the bulk cosmological constant
The potential is not specified a priori; its asymptotic value is part of the constructed solution and effectively sets Λ = 2κV(φ0).

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The 5D metric has the warped form ds^2 = e^{2A(y)} η_{μν} dx^μ dx^ν + dy^2, with the scalar field depending only on y.
This is the standard thick brane ansatz (Section 2, Eq. (2.9)), which restricts the solution space.
ad hoc to paper The warp factor is chosen as A(y) = -ln cosh(cy).
This specific ansatz is not derived from the equations; it is imposed to obtain regular thick brane solutions. It satisfies A''<0 at the core and A'→-c asymptotically.
domain assumption Asymptotically the scalar field approaches a constant φ0 with φ'→0, and the potential V(φ0) is nonvanishing.
Used to derive the asymptotic relation (3.1) and the bound on the cosmological constant.
domain assumption The transverse-traceless gauge can be imposed on tensor perturbations, and the scalar perturbation decouples from the TT tensor sector.
Invoked in Section 5 to derive Eq. (5.12). For nonminimally coupled scalars, this decoupling requires that the background has the assumed symmetry; the paper does not prove it explicitly.
standard math The supersymmetric quantum mechanics argument implies m²≥0 if the operator Q†Q is self-adjoint on a suitable Hilbert space.
Used in Section 5.1. The argument requires well-posed boundary conditions, which are not established for the divergent massive modes.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Braneworlds in Einstein-Scalar-Gauss-Bonnet gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/R3SEEIIP

@misc{pith2026250821725,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Braneworlds in Einstein-Scalar-Gauss-Bonnet gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/R3SEEIIP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.21725}
}

abstract

We explore the features of a thick braneworld model in five dimensions governed by a Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity with a non-minimal coupling to a dynamical scalar field. We consider two possible scalar-GB coupling function $\chi(\phi)$, one parity-even and another parity-odd function of the scalar field $\phi$. For both choices, the scalar-Gauss-Bonnet non-minimal coupling produces a warped asymptotically $AdS_5$ spacetime even in the absence of a bulk cosmological constant. Outside the brane core, a negative cosmological constant is bounded by the scalar-GB coupling function. For a thick 3-brane configuration, we found solutions with localized brane energy density and pressure that dynamically produce a bulk cosmological constant. The corresponding scalar field solutions exhibit a non-topological (domain wall) behavior. In order to probe the 3-brane stability solution, we employed a perturbative analysis, by perturbing the thick brane solutions up to first-order. The Kaluza-Klein (KK) tensorial gravitational modes possess a localized massless mode and a tower of non-tachyonic diverging massive modes, what renders the solutions stable at least at the perturbative level.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

[41]

L. A. Lessa, R. V . Maluf, J. E. G. Silva and C. A. S. Almeida, JCAP 05 (2024), 123

work page 2024
[1]

C. M. Will, Living Rev. Rel. 17 (2014), 4

work page 2014
[2]

Berti, E

E. Berti, E. Barausse, V . Cardoso, L. Gualtieri, P. Pani, U. Sperhake, L. C. Stein, N. Wex, K. Yagi and T. Baker, et al. Class. Quant. Grav. 32 (2015), 243001

work page 2015
[3]

’t Hooft and M

G. ’t Hooft and M. J. G. Veltman, Ann. Inst. H. Poincare A Phys. Theor. 20 (1974), 69-94

work page 1974
[4]

M. H. Goroff and A. Sagnotti, Nucl. Phys. B 266 (1986), 709-736

work page 1986
[5]

A. G. Riess et al. [Supernova Search Team], Astron. J. 116 (1998), 1009-1038

work page 1998
[6]

D. J. Gross and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 277 (1986), 1

work page 1986
[7]

Bojowald and G

M. Bojowald and G. M. Paily, Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012), 104018

work page 2012

Show all 44 references

[8]

K. S. Stelle, Phys. Revi. D 16.4 (1977): 953

1977
[9]

Salvio, Front

A. Salvio, Front. in Phys. 6 (2018), 77

2018
[10]

T. P. Sotiriou and V . Faraoni, Rev. Mod. Phys.82 (2010), 451-497. – 15 –

2010
[11]

Lovelock, J

D. Lovelock, J. Math. Phys. 12 (1971), 498-501

1971
[12]

Lovelock, J

D. Lovelock, J. Math. Phys. 13 (1972), 874-876 doi:10.1063/1.1666069

1972 doi
[13]

Padmanabhan and D

T. Padmanabhan and D. Kothawala, Phys. Rept. 531 (2013), 115-171

2013
[14]

T. P. Sotiriou, Class. Quant. Grav. 32 (2015) no.21, 214002

2015
[15]

Mignemi and N

S. Mignemi and N. R. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D 47 (1993), 5259-5269

1993
[16]

C. G. Callan, Jr., I. R. Klebanov and M. J. Perry, Nucl. Phys. B 278 (1986), 78-90

1986
[17]

Kanti, N

P. Kanti, N. E. Mavromatos, J. Rizos, K. Tamvakis and E. Winstanley, Phys. Rev. D54 (1996), 5049-5058 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.54.5049 [arXiv:hep-th/9511071 [hep-th]]

1996 arXiv
[18]

Benkel, T

R. Benkel, T. P. Sotiriou and H. Witek, Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) no.12, 121503

2016
[19]

Benkel, T

R. Benkel, T. P. Sotiriou and H. Witek, Class. Quant. Grav. 34 (2017) no.6, 064001

2017
[20]

H. O. Silva, J. Sakstein, L. Gualtieri, T. P. Sotiriou and E. Berti, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) no.13, 131104

2018
[21]

T. P. Sotiriou and S. Y . Zhou, Phys. Rev. Lett.112 (2014), 251102

2014
[22]

D. D. Doneva and S. S. Yazadjiev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) no.13, 131103

2018
[23]

Randall and R

L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (1999), 3370-3373

1999
[24]

J. E. G. Silva and C. A. S. Almeida, Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011), 085027

2011
[25]

Y . X. Liu, L. Zhao and Y . S. Duan, JHEP04 (2007), 097

2007
[26]

Y . X. Liu, X. H. Zhang, L. D. Zhang and Y . S. Duan, JHEP02 (2008), 067

2008
[27]

Zhong, K

Y . Zhong, K. Yang and Y . X. Liu, JHEP09 (2022), 128

2022
[28]

J. M. Hoff da Silva and R. da Rocha, Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010), 024021

2010
[29]

J. E. G. Silva, L. J. S. Sousa, W. T. Cruz and C. A. S. Almeida, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 31 (2022) no.04, 2250030

2022
[30]

A. R. P. Moreira, J. E. G. Silva, F. C. E. Lima and C. A. S. Almeida, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) no.6, 064046

2021
[31]

J. E. G. Silva, R. V . Maluf, G. J. Olmo and C. A. S. Almeida, Phys. Rev. D106 (2022) no.2, 024033

2022
[32]

Binetruy, C

P. Binetruy, C. Charmousis, S. C. Davis and J. F. Dufaux, Phys. Lett. B 544 (2002), 183-191

2002
[33]

Kofinas, R

G. Kofinas, R. Maartens and E. Papantonopoulos, JHEP 10 (2003), 066

2003
[34]

Maeda, V

H. Maeda, V . Sahni and Y . Shtanov, Phys. Rev. D76 (2007), 104028 [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009), 089902]

2007
[35]

Bazeia, A

D. Bazeia, A. Lobao, L. Losano, R. Menezes and A. Y . Petrov, Phys. Rev. D92 (2015) no.6, 064010

2015
[36]

Herrera-Aguilar, D

A. Herrera-Aguilar, D. Malagon-Morejon, R. R. Mora-Luna and I. Quiros, Class. Quant. Grav. 29 (2012), 035012

2012
[37]

Farakos and P

K. Farakos and P. Pasipoularides, Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007), 024018

2007
[38]

German, A

G. German, A. Herrera–Aguilar, D. Malagon–Morejon, I. Quiros and R. da Rocha, Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) no.2, 026004

2014
[39]

Na Xu, Jing Chen, Yu-Peng Zhang, and Yu-Xiao Liu, Phys. Rev. D, 107 (2023), 124011

2023
[40]

V . I. Afonso, D. Bazeia and L. Losano, Phys. Lett. B 634 (2006), 526-530

2006
[42]

Giovannini, Class

M. Giovannini, Class. Quant. Grav. 23 (2006), L73

2006
[43]

Giovannini, Phys

M. Giovannini, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002), 064008. – 16 –

2002
[44]

D. M. Dantas, D. F. S. Veras, J. E. G. Silva and C. A. S. Almeida, Phys. Rev. D92 (2015) no.10, 104007. – 17 –

2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [41]

L. A. Lessa, R. V . Maluf, J. E. G. Silva and C. A. S. Almeida, JCAP 05 (2024), 123

work page 2024

[2] [1]

C. M. Will, Living Rev. Rel. 17 (2014), 4

work page 2014

[3] [2]

Berti, E

E. Berti, E. Barausse, V . Cardoso, L. Gualtieri, P. Pani, U. Sperhake, L. C. Stein, N. Wex, K. Yagi and T. Baker, et al. Class. Quant. Grav. 32 (2015), 243001

work page 2015

[4] [3]

’t Hooft and M

G. ’t Hooft and M. J. G. Veltman, Ann. Inst. H. Poincare A Phys. Theor. 20 (1974), 69-94

work page 1974

[5] [4]

M. H. Goroff and A. Sagnotti, Nucl. Phys. B 266 (1986), 709-736

work page 1986

[6] [5]

A. G. Riess et al. [Supernova Search Team], Astron. J. 116 (1998), 1009-1038

work page 1998

[7] [6]

D. J. Gross and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 277 (1986), 1

work page 1986

[8] [7]

Bojowald and G

M. Bojowald and G. M. Paily, Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012), 104018

work page 2012