Charting GLOBs in Asymptotically Safe Gravity

Alessia Platania; Francesco Del Porro; Jonas Pfeiffer; Samuele Silveravalle

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 142 references

Charting GLOBs in Asymptotically Safe Gravity

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Asymptotic safety predicts the Weyl-squared coupling of gravity and filters which black-hole alternatives are allowed.

desk verdict A genuine first step from asymptotically safe RG flow to a concrete black-hole-alternative phase diagram, with a central number that is honest but truncation-dependent. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.14309 v1 pith:WVH2JQ2D submitted 2025-09-17 gr-qc hep-th

Francesco Del Porro , Jonas Pfeiffer , Alessia Platania , Samuele Silveravalle This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qchep-th

keywords asymptoticsafetyEinstein-WeylgravityWeyl-squaredWilsoncoefficientfunctionalrenormalizationgroupnon-Gaussianfixedpointwormholesnakedsingularitiesblackholealternatives

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 establish that a UV completion of gravity can be turned into a concrete filter on which black holes and their alternatives are allowed. Working in the Einstein-Weyl truncation, it computes the renormalization-group flow projected onto Newton's coupling and the Weyl-squared coupling and finds a unique trajectory from the non-Gaussian fixed point to the infrared. That trajectory predicts the Wilson coefficient of the Weyl-squared term, giving $m_2 = 1.4013\,m_{\mathrm{Pl}}$, and therefore selects one slice of the known phase diagram of static, spherically symmetric solutions. The result is a proof of principle: asymptotic safety, if correct, does not just modify black holes in some vague way but fixes the effective theory and disfavors certain spacetime types, notably attractive naked singularities.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Einstein-Weyl truncation, an effective action containing only the Einstein-Hilbert term and the Weyl-squared term, $\Gamma_{\mathrm{EW}} = \frac{1}{16\pi G_N}\int d^4x\sqrt{-g}\left(R - \frac{1}{2G_{C_2}}C^2\right)$. The argument runs through the two-dimensional RG flow obtained by projecting the quartic-order $\beta$ functions onto the dimensionless couplings $\{g, g_{C_2}\}$; the non-Gaussian fixed point with its single relevant eigendirection selects a unique separatrix, and the prescription of subtracting the logarithmic IR running (slope $b = 0.5358$ at $k_0 = m_{\mathrm{Pl}}$) turns that separatrix into a definite Wilson coefficient. The same coefficient then fixes the scale $m_2$ in the weak-field metric, which is what maps the classical solution space onto a constrained 'phase diagram' of GLOBs.

What would settle it

Compute the fixed point of the full quartic-order system without projecting out the cosmological constant and $R^2$ couplings (or add cubic operators such as the Goroff-Sagnotti term). If the non-Gaussian fixed point shifts significantly or acquires more than one relevant direction, the claimed uniqueness of $m_2$ fails and the phase-diagram constraints no longer follow. Observationally, finding a macroscopic attractive naked-singularity mimicker with the shadow signature listed in the paper inside the supposedly disfavored region would also count against the prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, within the Einstein-Weyl truncation, asymptotic safety is fully predictive in the gravitational sector: the projected $\beta$ functions have a non-Gaussian fixed point at $(g_*, g_{C_2,*}) = (1.0053, 0.7277)$ with one relevant direction (critical exponent $\theta_1 = 2.6165$), so there is exactly one UV-complete trajectory and hence exactly one low-energy effective action. Subtracting the universal logarithmic infrared running of the Weyl-squared coupling at the Planck scale fixes the Wilson coefficient $G_{C_2} = 0.5092\,m_{\mathrm{Pl}}^{-2}$, equivalently $m_2 = 1.4013\,m_{\mathrm{Pl}}$. This number sets the scale of the axes in the classical phase diagram of Einstein-Weyl gravity, and the self-consistency condition derived from a refined weak-field expansion restricts the reliable region to Planckian deviations from Schwarzschild. In that region, attractive (Bachian) naked singularities are disfavored, while wormholes (for negative Yukawa charge) and repulsive naked singularities (for positive Yukawa charge) survive as the possible gravitational localized objects.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the two-dimensional projection of the quartic-order $\beta$ functions, obtained by setting the cosmological constant and the Ricci-squared coupling to zero, faithfully represents the UV critical surface of asymptotic safety; if other operators join the fixed point, the unique trajectory and the prediction $m_2 = 1.4013\,m_{\mathrm{Pl}}$ would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The Weyl-squared Wilson coefficient is no longer a free EFT parameter; asymptotic safety predicts $G_{C_2} = 0.5092\,m_{\mathrm{Pl}}^{-2}$ in this truncation.
Because $m_2 \simeq 1.4\,m_{\mathrm{Pl}}$ is Planckian, all reliably computable deviations from Schwarzschild are confined to Planckian length scales, making macroscopic GLOBs nearly indistinguishable from ordinary black holes.
Attractive naked singularities are excluded from the consistent region of the phase diagram, while wormholes ($S_2^- < 0$) and repulsive naked singularities ($S_2^- > 0$) remain possible.
In this truncation the asymptotic safety condition leaves zero free parameters in the gravitational sector aside from the overall mass scale, illustrating how UV completeness can predict low-energy physics.
The same mechanism gives a template for constraining the spacetime landscape with other UV completions or larger truncations.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural extension, which the authors point to but do not perform, is to include the $R^2$ and cubic operators in the projection; if those operators change the fixed-point coordinates or add a second relevant direction, the unique prediction for $m_2$ would be lost, so the two-dimensional projection is the critical assumption to test.
The subtraction-scale dependence (positivity of $G_{C_2}$ requires $\xi \gtrsim 0.15$ if $k_0 = \xi\,m_{\mathrm{Pl}}$) suggests a sharp test: a form-factor computation that keeps the logarithmic running inside the effective action would either confirm $m_2 \simeq 1.4\,m_{\mathrm{Pl}}$ or shift it, and the phase-diagram slice would move accordingly.
If a future calculation drove $G_{C_2}$ to zero, the paper's framework would predict that all beyond-Schwarzschild GLOBs become unobservably close to Schwarzschild; conversely, a detected macroscopic object with the large-Yukawa-charge features of a repulsive naked singularity would count against the asymptotic-safety scenario in this truncation.
The phase-diagram analogy invites a dynamical question the paper leaves open: whether varying the mass or Yukawa charge can actually move a solution between phases, which would make the 'phase' language more than pictorial.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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

Worth a look: this is the first concrete attempt I know of to take an actual FRG beta function from asymptotically safe gravity, extract a Wilson coefficient with a defined subtraction prescription, and feed it into the Einstein-Weyl phase diagram. The specific number is m_2 = 1.4013 m_Pl (G_C2 = 0.5092 m_Pl^{-2}), and the resulting phase-diagram slice is genuinely new. The internal logic is coherent: the NGFP is a saddle, the unique UV-complete trajectory is found by shooting, and the log-subtraction follows the published prescription.

The paper is upfront about what it is not: a full calculation, a statement about the full theory space, or a resolution of the ghost issue. The weak-field consistency conditions in Sec. 3.2 are a nice addition; they give a principled reason to mistrust the classical diagram far from Schwarzschild.

The main soft spot is exactly where the stress test goes: the projection in Sec. 4.2 onto the {g, g_C2} plane is not shown to be a closed subspace of the full flow. Setting Lambda and the R^2 coupling to zero is a truncation, not a demonstrated invariant subspace. The paper states the limitation but does not quantify how the fixed point, critical exponent, or the extracted m_2 would shift if those couplings were turned on. The abstract's 'unique ultraviolet-complete trajectory' inherits this caveat. This is not an external superstring objection; it is an internal consistency check the paper's own setup invites.

A second, lesser issue: the weak-field 'blurring' is heuristic. And the physical reach is limited: with m_2 ~ m_Pl, the modified solutions are Planck-scale deviations from Schwarzschild, so the claim that wormholes dominate is confined to a tiny corner of parameter space. The abstract slightly overstates it.

On the citation pattern: the self-citations are to published work by co-authors (phase diagram [105], subtraction prescription [54,124]), and the RG input is from [34]. No circularity, because G_C2 is computed, not fitted to the phase diagram.

Bottom line: this is a proof-of-principle paper for a program, not a robust prediction about the universe. It is most useful to people working in asymptotic safety or in the Einstein-Weyl/quadratic-gravity classification of compact objects. A serious referee should engage it; the right demand is a quantitative check of truncation dependence, for instance by repeating the extraction with R^2 or R^3 included. I would bring it to reading group and would cite it for the method, but not for the specific value of m_2.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a bridge from asymptotically safe quantum gravity (ASQG) to the space of static, spherically symmetric gravitational objects ('GLOBs'). Using the Einstein-Weyl truncation, the authors project the quartic-order beta functions of Knorr onto the two-dimensional subspace spanned by the dimensionless Newton and Weyl-squared couplings, find a non-Gaussian fixed point at (g*,g_C2*) = (1.0053,0.7277) with one relevant direction, and integrate the unique separatrix to the Gaussian fixed point. After subtracting the IR logarithmic running at the Planck scale, they obtain G_C2 = 0.5092 m_Pl^{-2}, i.e. m_2 = 1.4013 m_Pl (Eqs. 4.12 and 4.15). They combine this value with a revised weak-field consistency condition for the classical Einstein-Weyl phase diagram of [105] and conclude that attractive (Bachian) naked singularities are disfavored, while wormholes and repulsive naked singularities remain possible. The paper is explicitly framed as a proof of principle within a simplified truncation.

Significance. If the central result were robust, this would be a valuable proof of principle: it converts a quantum-gravity input (existence of a UV fixed point and its relevant direction) into an EFT Wilson coefficient and then into statements about admissible black-hole geometries. The paper is transparent about its assumptions, uses published beta functions and a published solution classification rather than fitting the target phase diagram, and the numerical procedure—shooting from the NGFP, matching the IR logarithmic form, and subtracting at a specified scale—is well defined and yields a falsifiable Planckian value for m_2. The main weaknesses are that the projection onto the {g,g_C2} subspace is not shown to be a consistent truncation and that the key phenomenological conclusion is partly a validity-region statement rather than a dynamical exclusion; both are central rather than cosmetic and are addressable in revision.

major comments (3)

[§4.2 (Eqs. 4.1, 4.12)]
[§5, first bullet; abstract]
[§4.1-4.2, Eqs. (4.9)-(4.16)]

minor comments (5)

[Figure 5 caption] The right-panel caption is grammatically incomplete: after 'which, based on Eqs. (4.8) and (4.10),' the sentence trails off before the main verb; it should say that the ratio g_C2(k)/g(k) is used to determine G_C2 via the intersection at k = m_Pl.
[Eq. (3.7)] In Eq. (3.7), the redefinition M = M + M^{(0)} + ... + M^{(4)} uses the same symbol M on both sides; a distinct symbol such as M_tot would avoid confusion.
[§4.2] The projected beta functions are described only as numerical and are not displayed; for reproducibility, the explicit flow equations or an ancillary file containing them and the shooting code should be provided.
[§3.1] 'Extensive analytical and numerical analysis clarified' should be 'Extensive analytical and numerical analyses have clarified' or similar.
[§5] 'A sample of these slices is shown in the top-right and bottom panels' should be 'Samples of these slices are shown...'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the Wilson coefficient is computed from an external RG flow, not fitted to the GLOB phase diagram.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The central input is the two-dimensional projection of the quartic-order beta functions of Knorr [34], which is external to the present authors; the NGFP at (1.0053, 0.7277), the critical exponents, and the unique separatrix are obtained by integrating these beta functions, not by imposing the GLOB phase diagram. The Weyl-squared Wilson coefficient, m2 = 1.4013 m_Pl, is read off from the IR behavior of that same RG flow using the log-subtraction prescription of [54,124], and the paper explicitly checks and discusses the scheme dependence of the resulting value. The classical phase diagram of Einstein-Weyl gravity is taken as an external benchmark from [105] and is used as input, not derived from asymptotic safety; the weak-field consistency conditions of Sect. 3.2 are derived from an explicit double expansion and are not constructed to force the later conclusions. The projection onto the {g, g_C2} subspace and the neglect of Lambda and R^2 couplings are acknowledged truncation limitations, and the paper flags the dependence of the result on this truncation in Sect. 2.2 and Sect. 6. Truncation error and scheme dependence are correctness risks, not circularity: no equation is equivalent to its input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central prediction G_C2 = 0.5092 m_Pl^{-2} rests on the projection of the beta functions of [34] onto the Einstein-Weyl subspace, on the asymptotic safety assumption, on the removal of the ghost as a truncation artifact, on the correctness of the [105] phase diagram, on the new weak-field consistency conditions, and on the static spherically symmetric ansatz. The subtraction scale k0 is the only hand-chosen parameter; its impact is partially quantified. No new physical entities are introduced; 'GLOB' is a collective label.

free parameters (1)

Subtraction scale k0 (xi = k0/m_Pl) = k0 = m_Pl (xi = 1)
The logarithmic running of g_C2 in the IR makes the extracted Wilson coefficient scheme-dependent. The paper chooses k0 = m_Pl to define G_C2 (Sect. 4.1, Eqs. 4.6-4.9) and checks robustness for xi >= 0.15 (Eq. 4.16). This is a hand-chosen renormalization scale, not a quantity fixed by the theory.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The beta functions of [34], specialized to the Einstein-Weyl subspace with cosmological constant and R^2 couplings set to zero, describe the RG flow of the Einstein-Weyl truncation.
The paper does not derive beta functions; it projects the quartic-order flow of [34] (Sect. 4.1). The fixed point values and critical exponents in Eqs. (4.12)-(4.14) depend on this projection.
domain assumption The asymptotic safety scenario holds, i.e., gravity is UV complete via a non-Gaussian fixed point with a finite number of relevant directions.
The entire framework rests on this assumption (Sect. 1 and Sect. 4.2). The paper finds the NGFP numerically within the truncation; the existence of a genuine NGFP in full QG is an active research question.
domain assumption The ghost mode in Einstein-Weyl gravity is a truncation artifact and is removed in the full theory.
Used to justify treating (2.2) as a valid EFT (Sect. 2.2); relies on references [47, 48, 53, 112, 113]. If the ghost is physical, the semiclassical treatment of solutions is questionable.
domain assumption The classification of static spherically symmetric solutions and the phase diagram of [105] are correct.
The paper adopts the phase diagram from [105] (Sect. 3.1) as the basis for the GLOB landscape, revising only its domain of validity.
ad hoc to paper The weak-field double expansion and the consistency conditions of Sect. 3.2 (Eqs. 3.3-3.8) reliably delimit the region where the phase diagram is applicable.
These conditions are new to this paper and are used to blur out the white regions in Fig. 6. The 'smooth increase in uncertainty' prescription is not derived from first principles, only motivated by the expansion.
domain assumption The analysis is restricted to static, spherically symmetric vacuum solutions (metric ansatz 3.1); rotating or time-dependent GLOBs are not addressed.
The phase diagram of [105] is built under this ansatz, and the ASQG constraints are applied only to this class.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Charting GLOBs in Asymptotically Safe Gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WVH2JQ2D

@misc{pith2026250914309,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Charting GLOBs in Asymptotically Safe Gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WVH2JQ2D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.14309}
}

read the original abstract

Computing the gravitational effective action provides a direct route to charting the landscape of admissible black hole spacetimes and their alternatives, which we will collectively call "gravitationally localized objects" (GLOBs). In this work, we provide a proof of principle of this idea within the framework of asymptotically safe gravity. Focusing on the Einstein-Weyl truncation, we identify the unique ultraviolet-complete trajectory emanating from the asymptotically safe fixed point and use it to extract the Wilson coefficient of the Weyl-squared term. This allows us to chart the corresponding GLOBs in a "phase diagram", showing that wormholes dominate a large portion of it, whereas the classical Bachian naked singularities become disfavored. Our results illustrate how quantum gravity can constrain effective field theory and the associated set of allowed spacetimes, yielding a rich landscape of beyond-general-relativity solutions rather than a single alternative to classical black holes.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

142 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

[105]

Explicit black hole solutions in higher-derivative gravity

Jiri Podolsky et al. “Explicit black hole solutions in higher-derivative gravity”. In: Phys. Rev. D98.2 (2018), p. 021502.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.021502. arXiv: 1806.08209 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2018
[34]

The derivative expansion in asymptotically safe quantum gravity: general setup and quartic order

Benjamin Knorr. “The derivative expansion in asymptotically safe quantum gravity: general setup and quartic order”. In:SciPost Phys. Core4 (2021), p. 020.doi: 10.21468/SciPostPhysCore.4.3.020. arXiv:2104.11336 [hep-th]

arXiv 2021
[1]

Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 2024

Cosimo Bambi, Leonardo Modesto, and Ilya Shapiro, eds.Handbook of quantum gravity. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 2024

2024
[2]

Lectures in quantum gravity

Ivano Basile et al. “Lectures in quantum gravity”. In:SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes (2025), p. 98.doi:10 . 21468 / SciPostPhysLectNotes . 98. arXiv:2412 . 08690 [hep-th].url:https://scipost.org/10.21468/SciPostPhysLectNotes.98

doi:10.21468/scipostphyslectnotes.98 2025
[3]

Visions in Quantum Gravity

Luca Buoninfante et al. “Visions in Quantum Gravity”. In:SciPost Phys. Comm. Rep.(2025), p. 11.doi:10.21468/SciPostPhysCommRep.11. arXiv:2412.08696 [hep-th]

arXiv 2025
[4]

Black Holes Inside and Out 2024: visions for the future of black hole physics

Niayesh Afshordi et al. “Black Holes Inside and Out 2024: visions for the future of black hole physics”. In: ed. by Luca Buoninfante et al. Oct. 2024. arXiv:2410.14414 [gr-qc]. – 21 –

arXiv 2024
[5]

Towards a non-singular paradigm of black hole physics

Raúl Carballo-Rubio et al. “Towards a non-singular paradigm of black hole physics”. In:JCAP05 (2025), p. 003.doi:10 . 1088 / 1475 - 7516 / 2025 / 05 / 003. arXiv: 2501.05505 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2025
[6]

Vacuum nonsingular black hole

I. Dymnikova. “Vacuum nonsingular black hole”. In:Gen. Rel. Grav.24 (1992), pp. 235–242.doi:10.1007/BF00760226

doi:10.1007/bf00760226 1992

Show all 142 references

[7]

Formation and evaporation of regular black holes

Sean A. Hayward. “Formation and evaporation of regular black holes”. In:Phys. Rev. Lett.96 (2006), p. 031103.doi:10 . 1103 / PhysRevLett . 96 . 031103. arXiv: gr-qc/0506126

2006 arXiv
[8]

Polchinski.String theory

J. Polchinski.String theory. Vol. 1: An introduction to the bosonic string. Cam- bridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press, Dec. 2007.isbn: 978-0-511-25227-3, 978-0-521-67227-6, 978-0-521-63303-1.doi:10.1017/ CBO9780511816079

2007
[9]

Polchinski.String theory

J. Polchinski.String theory. Vol. 2: Superstring theory and beyond. Cambridge Mono- graphs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press, Dec. 2007.isbn: 978- 0-511-25228-0,978-0-521-63304-8,978-0-521-67228-3.doi:10.1017/CBO9780511618123

2007 doi
[10]

Loop quantum gravity

Carlo Rovelli. “Loop quantum gravity”. In:Living Rev. Rel.1 (1998), p. 1.doi: 10.12942/lrr-1998-1. arXiv:gr-qc/9710008

1998 arXiv
[11]

A short review of loop quantum gravity

Abhay Ashtekar and Eugenio Bianchi. “A short review of loop quantum gravity”. In: Rept. Prog. Phys.84.4 (2021), p. 042001.doi:10.1088/1361-6633/abed91. arXiv: 2104.04394 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[12]

Robert Percacci.An Introduction to Covariant Quantum Gravity and Asymptotic Safety. Vol. 3. 100 Years of General Relativity. World Scientific, 2017.isbn: 978- 981-320-717-2, 978-981-320-719-6.doi:10.1142/10369

2017 doi
[13]

2019.isbn: 978-1-107-10732-8, 978-1-108-67074-6

Martin Reuter and Frank Saueressig.Quantum Gravity and the Functional Renor- malization Group: The Road towards Asymptotic Safety.CambridgeUniversityPress, Jan. 2019.isbn: 978-1-107-10732-8, 978-1-108-67074-6

2019
[14]

Form Factors in Asymptoti- cally Safe Quantum Gravity

Benjamin Knorr, Chris Ripken, and Frank Saueressig. “Form Factors in Asymptoti- cally Safe Quantum Gravity”. In:Handbook of Quantum Gravity. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 2023, pp. 1–49.doi:10.1007/978-981-19-3079-9_21-1. arXiv: 2210.16072 [hep-th]

2023 arXiv
[15]

Asymptotic Safety of Gravity with Matter

Astrid Eichhorn and Marc Schiffer. “Asymptotic Safety of Gravity with Matter”. In: Handbook of Quantum Gravity. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 2023, pp. 1–

2023
[16]

The Functional f(R) Approximation

Tim R. Morris and Dalius Stulga. “The Functional f(R) Approximation”. In:Hand- book of Quantum Gravity. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 2023, pp. 1–33. doi:10.1007/978-981-19-3079-9_19-1. arXiv:2210.11356 [hep-th]

2023 arXiv
[17]

Perturbative Approaches to Nonperturbative Quantum Gravity

Riccardo Martini, Gian Paolo Vacca, and Omar Zanusso. “Perturbative Approaches to Nonperturbative Quantum Gravity”. In:Handbook of Quantum Gravity. Singa- pore: Springer Nature Singapore, 2023, pp. 1–46.doi:10.1007/978-981-19-3079- 9_25-1. arXiv:2210.13910 [hep-th]. – 22 –

2023 arXiv
[18]

Quantum Gravity and Scale Symmetry in Cosmology

C. Wetterich. “Quantum Gravity and Scale Symmetry in Cosmology”. In:Handbook of Quantum Gravity. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 2023, pp. 1–68.doi: 10.1007/978-981-19-3079-9_26-1. arXiv:2211.03596 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[19]

Black Holes in Asymptotically Safe Gravity

Alessia Platania. “Black Holes in Asymptotically Safe Gravity”. In:Handbook of Quantum Gravity. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 2023, pp. 1–65.doi:10. 1007/978-981-19-3079-9_24-1. arXiv:2302.04272 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[20]

The Functional Renormalization Group in Quantum Gravity

Frank Saueressig. “The Functional Renormalization Group in Quantum Gravity”. In: Handbook of Quantum Gravity. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 2023, pp. 1– 44.doi:10.1007/978-981-19-3079-9_16-1. arXiv:2302.14152 [hep-th]

2023 arXiv
[21]

Quantum Gravity from Dynamical Met- ric Fluctuations

Jan M. Pawlowski and Manuel Reichert. “Quantum Gravity from Dynamical Met- ric Fluctuations”. In:Handbook of Quantum Gravity. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 2023, pp. 1–70. arXiv:2309.10785 [hep-th]

2023 arXiv
[22]

AsymptoticSafetyandCosmology

AlfioBonanno.“AsymptoticSafetyandCosmology”.In:Handbook of Quantum Grav- ity. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 2023, pp. 1–27.doi:10.1007/978-981- 19-3079-9_23-1

2023 doi
[23]

Ultraviolet divergences in quantum theories of gravitation

Steven Weinberg. “Ultraviolet divergences in quantum theories of gravitation”. In: General Relativity: An Einstein Centenary Survey. 1980, pp. 790–831

1980
[24]

Quantum Gravity from Causal Dynamical Triangulations: A Review

R. Loll. “Quantum Gravity from Causal Dynamical Triangulations: A Review”. In: Class. Quant. Grav.37.1 (2020), p. 013002.doi:10 . 1088 / 1361 - 6382 / ab57c7. arXiv:1905.08669 [hep-th]

2020 arXiv
[25]

Improvedalgorithmfordynamicaltriangulationsandsimulations of finer lattices

MingweiDaietal.“Improvedalgorithmfordynamicaltriangulationsandsimulations of finer lattices”. In:Phys. Rev. D109.3 (2024), p. 034518.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 109.034518. arXiv:2309.12257 [hep-lat]

2024 arXiv
[26]

The nonperturbative functional renormalization group and its applications

N. Dupuis et al. “The nonperturbative functional renormalization group and its applications”. In:Phys. Rept.910 (2021), pp. 1–114.doi:10 . 1016 / j . physrep . 2021.01.001. arXiv:2006.04853 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

2021 arXiv
[27]

Exact evolution equation for the effective potential

Christof Wetterich. “Exact evolution equation for the effective potential”. In:Phys. Lett. B301 (1993), pp. 90–94.doi:10 . 1016 / 0370 - 2693(93 ) 90726 - X. arXiv: 1710.05815 [hep-th]

1993 arXiv
[28]

Nonperturbativeevolutionequationforquantumgravity

M.Reuter.“Nonperturbativeevolutionequationforquantumgravity”.In:Phys. Rev. D57 (1998), pp. 971–985.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.57.971. arXiv:hep-th/9605030

1998 arXiv
[29]

Non-Trivial Ultraviolet Fixed Point in Quantum Gravity

W Souma. “Non-Trivial Ultraviolet Fixed Point in Quantum Gravity”. In:Progress of Theoretical Physics102 (July 1999), pp. 181–195.doi:10.1143/PTP.102.181

1999 doi
[30]

Renormalization group fixed pointsoffoliatedgravity-mattersystems

Jorn Biemans, Alessia Platania, and Frank Saueressig. “Renormalization group fixed pointsoffoliatedgravity-mattersystems”.In:JHEP05(2017),p.093.doi:10.1007/ JHEP05(2017)093. arXiv:1702.06539 [hep-th]. – 23 –

2017 arXiv
[31]

The Asymptot- ically Safe Standard Model: From quantum gravity to dynamical chiral symmetry breaking

Álvaro Pastor-Gutiérrez, Jan M. Pawlowski, and Manuel Reichert. “The Asymptot- ically Safe Standard Model: From quantum gravity to dynamical chiral symmetry breaking”. In:SciPost Phys.15 (July 2022), p. 105.doi:10.21468/SciPostPhys. 15.3.105. arXiv:2207.09817 [hep-th].url:http...

2022 arXiv
[32]

Curvature dependence of quantum gravity

Nicolai Christiansen et al. “Curvature dependence of quantum gravity”. In:Phys. Rev. D97.4 (2018), p. 046007.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.046007. arXiv:1711. 09259 [hep-th]

2018 doi
[33]

Asymptotic safety of quantum gravity beyond Ricci scalars

Kevin Falls et al. “Asymptotic safety of quantum gravity beyond Ricci scalars”. In: Phys. Rev. D97.8 (2018), p. 086006.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.086006. arXiv: 1801.00162 [hep-th]

2018 arXiv
[35]

Functional renormalization for f(Rµνρσ) quan- tum gravity

Yannick Kluth and Daniel F. Litim. “Functional renormalization for f(Rµνρσ) quan- tum gravity”. In:Phys. Rev. D106.10 (2022), p. 106022.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 106.106022. arXiv:2202.10436 [hep-th]

2022 arXiv
[36]

RobustnessofthederivativeexpansioninAsymptoticSafety

AlessioBaldazzietal.“RobustnessofthederivativeexpansioninAsymptoticSafety”. In: (Dec. 2023). arXiv:2312.03831 [hep-th]

2023 arXiv
[37]

Further evidence for asymptotic safety of quantum gravity

Kevin Falls et al. “Further evidence for asymptotic safety of quantum gravity”. In: Phys. Rev. D93.10 (2016), p. 104022.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.104022. arXiv: 1410.4815 [hep-th]

2016 arXiv
[38]

Fixed points of quantum gravity and the di- mensionality of the UV critical surface

Yannick Kluth and Daniel F. Litim. “Fixed points of quantum gravity and the di- mensionality of the UV critical surface”. In:Phys. Rev. D108.2 (2023), p. 026005. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.026005. arXiv:2008.09181 [hep-th]

2023 arXiv
[39]

Field Parametrization Dependence in Asymptotically Safe Quantum Gravity

Andreas Nink. “Field Parametrization Dependence in Asymptotically Safe Quantum Gravity”. In:Phys. Rev. D91.4 (2015), p. 044030.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91. 044030. arXiv:1410.7816 [hep-th]

2015 arXiv
[40]

Generalized Parametrization Dependence in Quantum Gravity

Holger Gies, Benjamin Knorr, and Stefan Lippoldt. “Generalized Parametrization Dependence in Quantum Gravity”. In:Phys. Rev.D92.8 (2015), p. 84020.doi:10. 1103/PhysRevD.92.084020

2015
[41]

Correlation functions on a curved back- ground

Benjamin Knorr and Stefan Lippoldt. “Correlation functions on a curved back- ground”. In:Phys. Rev. D96.6 (2017), p. 065020.doi:10 . 1103 / PhysRevD . 96 . 065020. arXiv:1707.01397 [hep-th]

2017 arXiv
[42]

Asymptotic safety and field parametrization dependence in thef(R)truncation

Gustavo P. De Brito et al. “Asymptotic safety and field parametrization dependence in thef(R)truncation”. In:Phys. Rev. D98.2 (2018), p. 026027.doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.98.026027. arXiv:1805.09656 [hep-th]

2018 arXiv
[43]

Asymptotically Safe Lorentzian Gravity

Elisa Manrique, Stefan Rechenberger, and Frank Saueressig. “Asymptotically Safe Lorentzian Gravity”. In:Phys. Rev. Lett.106 (2011), p. 251302.doi:10 . 1103 / PhysRevLett.106.251302. arXiv:1102.5012 [hep-th]. – 24 –

2011 arXiv
[44]

Quantum gravity on foliated spacetimes: Asymptotically safe and sound

Jorn Biemans, Alessia Platania, and Frank Saueressig. “Quantum gravity on foliated spacetimes: Asymptotically safe and sound”. In:Phys. Rev. D95.8 (2017), p. 086013. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.086013. arXiv:1609.04813 [hep-th]

2017 arXiv
[45]

Lorentz symmetry is relevant

Benjamin Knorr. “Lorentz symmetry is relevant”. In:Phys. Lett. B792 (2019), pp. 142–148.doi:10 . 1016 / j . physletb . 2019 . 01 . 070. arXiv:1810 . 07971 [hep-th]

2019
[46]

Lorentz invariance violations in the interplay of quantum gravity with matter

Astrid Eichhorn, Alessia Platania, and Marc Schiffer. “Lorentz invariance violations in the interplay of quantum gravity with matter”. In:Phys. Rev. D102.2 (2020), p. 026007.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.026007. arXiv:1911.10066 [hep-th]

2020 arXiv
[47]

Reconstructing the graviton

Alfio Bonanno et al. “Reconstructing the graviton”. In:SciPost Phys.12.1 (2022), p. 001.doi:10.21468/SciPostPhys.12.1.001. arXiv:2102.02217 [hep-th]

2022 arXiv
[48]

Lorentzian Quantum Gravity and the Graviton Spectral Func- tion

Jannik Fehre et al. “Lorentzian Quantum Gravity and the Graviton Spectral Func- tion”. In:Phys. Rev. Lett.130.8 (2023), p. 081501.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.130. 081501. arXiv:2111.13232 [hep-th]

2023 arXiv
[49]

The spatial Functional Renormalization Group and Hadamard states on cosmological spacetimes

Rudrajit Banerjee and Max Niedermaier. “The spatial Functional Renormalization Group and Hadamard states on cosmological spacetimes”. In:Nucl. Phys. B980 (2022), p. 115814.doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2022.115814. arXiv:2201.02575 [hep-th]

2022
[50]

An Algebraic QFT Approach to the Wetterich Equation on Lorentzian Manifolds

Edoardo D’Angelo et al. “An Algebraic QFT Approach to the Wetterich Equation on Lorentzian Manifolds”. In:Annales Henri Poincare25.4 (2024), pp. 2295–2352. doi:10.1007/s00023-023-01348-4. arXiv:2202.07580 [math-ph]

2024 arXiv
[51]

A Lorentzian renormalisation group equation for gauge theories

Edoardo D’Angelo and Kasia Rejzner. “A Lorentzian renormalisation group equation for gauge theories”. arXiv Preprint. Mar. 2023. arXiv:2303.01479 [math-ph]

2023 arXiv
[52]

Self-consistent graviton spectralfunctioninLorentzianquantumgravity

Jan M. Pawlowski, Manuel Reichert, and Jonas Wessely. “Self-consistent graviton spectralfunctioninLorentzianquantumgravity”.In:(July2025).arXiv:2507.22169 [hep-th]

arXiv
[53]

Non-Perturbative Propagators in Quantum Gravity

Benjamin Knorr and Marc Schiffer. “Non-Perturbative Propagators in Quantum Gravity”. In:Universe7.7 (2021), p. 216.doi:10.3390/universe7070216. arXiv: 2105.04566 [hep-th]

2021 arXiv
[54]

Unearthingtheintersections:positivitybounds, weak gravity conjecture, and asymptotic safety landscapes from photon-graviton flows

BenjaminKnorrandAlessiaPlatania.“Unearthingtheintersections:positivitybounds, weak gravity conjecture, and asymptotic safety landscapes from photon-graviton flows”. In:JHEP03 (2025), p. 003.doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2025)003. arXiv:2405. 08860 [hep-th]

2025 doi
[55]

Application of positivity bounds in asymptotically safe gravity

Astrid Eichhorn, Marc Schiffer, and Andreas Odgaard Pedersen. “Application of positivity bounds in asymptotically safe gravity”. In:Eur. Phys. J. C85.7 (2025), p. 733.doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-14449-7. arXiv:2405.08862 [hep-th]

2025 arXiv
[56]

Asymptotic safety, quantum gravity, and the swampland: a con- ceptual assessment

Ivano Basile et al. “Asymptotic safety, quantum gravity, and the swampland: a con- ceptual assessment”. In: (Feb. 2025). arXiv:2502.12290 [hep-th]. – 25 –

2025
[57]

Asymptotic safety of gravity and the Higgs boson mass

Mikhail Shaposhnikov and Christof Wetterich. “Asymptotic safety of gravity and the Higgs boson mass”. In:Phys. Lett. B683 (2010), pp. 196–200.doi:10.1016/j. physletb.2009.12.022. arXiv:0912.0208 [hep-th]

2010 arXiv
[58]

Matter matters in asymptoti- cally safe quantum gravity

Pietro Donà, Astrid Eichhorn, and Roberto Percacci. “Matter matters in asymptoti- cally safe quantum gravity”. In:Phys. Rev. D89.8 (2014), p. 084035.doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.89.084035. arXiv:1311.2898 [hep-th]

2014 arXiv
[59]

Asymptotic safety of gravity with matter

Nicolai Christiansen et al. “Asymptotic safety of gravity with matter”. In:Phys. Rev. D97.10 (2018), p. 106012.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.106012. arXiv:1710.04669 [hep-th]

2018 arXiv
[60]

Top mass from asymptotic safety

Astrid Eichhorn and Aaron Held. “Top mass from asymptotic safety”. In:Phys. Lett. B777 (2018), pp. 217–221.doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.12.040. arXiv: 1707.01107 [hep-th]

2018 arXiv
[61]

Upper bound on the Abelian gauge coupling from asymptotic safety

Astrid Eichhorn and Fleur Versteegen. “Upper bound on the Abelian gauge coupling from asymptotic safety”. In:JHEP01 (2018), p. 030.doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2018)

2018 doi
[62]

Mass difference for charged quarks from asymp- totically safe quantum gravity

Astrid Eichhorn and Aaron Held. “Mass difference for charged quarks from asymp- totically safe quantum gravity”. In:Phys. Rev. Lett.121.15 (2018), p. 151302.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.151302. arXiv:1803.04027 [hep-th]

2018 arXiv
[63]

arXiv:1709.07252 [hep-th]

arXiv
[64]

Asymptotic safety, string theory and the weak gravity conjecture

Senarath de Alwis et al. “Asymptotic safety, string theory and the weak gravity conjecture”. In:Phys. Lett. B798 (2019), p. 134991.doi:10.1016/j.physletb. 2019.134991. arXiv:1907.07894 [hep-th]

2019
[65]

Quarkandleptonmixinginthe asymptotically safe Standard Model

AstridEichhorn,ZoisGyftopoulos,andAaronHeld.“Quarkandleptonmixinginthe asymptotically safe Standard Model”. In: (July 2025). arXiv:2507.18304 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[66]

Cosmologicalα’-corrections from the functional renormalization group

Ivano Basile and Alessia Platania. “Cosmologicalα’-corrections from the functional renormalization group”. In:JHEP06 (2021), p. 045.doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2021)

2021 doi
[67]

Effective asymptotic safety and its predictive power: Gauge-Yukawa theories

Aaron Held. “Effective asymptotic safety and its predictive power: Gauge-Yukawa theories”. In:Front. in Phys.8 (2020), p. 341.doi:10 . 3389 / fphy . 2020 .00341. arXiv:2003.13642 [hep-th]

2020 arXiv
[68]

Renormalization group flows in area-metric gravity

Johanna Borissova et al. “Renormalization group flows in area-metric gravity”. In: (July 2025). arXiv:2507.02034 [gr-qc]

2025 arXiv
[69]

arXiv:2101.02226 [hep-th]

arXiv
[70]

String tension between de Sitter vacua and cur- vature corrections

Ivano Basile and Alessia Platania. “String tension between de Sitter vacua and cur- vature corrections”. In:Phys. Rev. D104.12 (2021), p. L121901.doi:10 . 1103 / PhysRevD.104.L121901. arXiv:2103.06276 [hep-th]

2021 arXiv
[71]

Asymptotic safety of quantum gravity and improved spacetime of black hole singularity by cutoff identification

Hiroki Emoto. “Asymptotic safety of quantum gravity and improved spacetime of black hole singularity by cutoff identification”. In: (2005). arXiv:hep- th/0511075 [hep-th]

2005
[72]

Quantum gravity effects near the null black hole singularity

Alfio Bonanno and Martin Reuter. “Quantum gravity effects near the null black hole singularity”. In:Phys. Rev. D60 (1999), p. 084011.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.60. 084011. arXiv:gr-qc/9811026. – 26 –

1999 arXiv
[73]

Renormalization group improved black hole space-times

Alfio Bonanno and Martin Reuter. “Renormalization group improved black hole space-times”. In:Phys. Rev. D62 (2000), p. 043008.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.62. 043008. arXiv:hep-th/0002196

2000 arXiv
[74]

Asymptotic Safety, Sin- gularities, and Gravitational Collapse

Roberto Casadio, Stephen D. H. Hsu, and Behrouz Mirza. “Asymptotic Safety, Sin- gularities, and Gravitational Collapse”. In:Phys. Lett.B695 (2011), pp. 317–319. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2010.10.060. arXiv:1008.2768 [gr-qc]

2011 arXiv
[75]

Spacetime structure of an evaporating black hole in quantum gravity

A. Bonanno and M. Reuter. “Spacetime structure of an evaporating black hole in quantum gravity”. In:Phys. Rev. D73 (2006), p. 083005.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 73.083005. arXiv:hep-th/0602159

2006 arXiv
[76]

Quantum Gravity Effects in Rotating Black Holes

M. Reuter and E. Tuiran. “Quantum Gravity Effects in Rotating Black Holes”. In: Recent developments in theoretical and experimental general relativity, gravitation and relativistic field theories. Proceedings, 11th Marcel Grossmann Meeting, MG11, Berlin, Germany, July 23-29, 2...

2006 arXiv
[77]

A quantum improvement to the gravitational collapse of radiating stars

F. Fayos and R. Torres. “A quantum improvement to the gravitational collapse of radiating stars”. In:Class. Quant. Grav.28 (2011), p. 105004.doi:10.1088/0264- 9381/28/10/105004

2011 doi
[78]

Black Holes and Asymptot- ically Safe Gravity

Kevin Falls, Daniel F. Litim, and Aarti Raghuraman. “Black Holes and Asymptot- ically Safe Gravity”. In:Int. J. Mod. Phys.A27 (2012), p. 1250019.doi:10.1142/ S0217751X12500194. arXiv:1002.0260 [hep-th]

2012 arXiv
[79]

Black holes in an asymptotically safe gravity theory with higher derivatives

Yi-Fu Cai and Damien A. Easson. “Black holes in an asymptotically safe gravity theory with higher derivatives”. In:JCAP1009 (2010), p. 002.doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2010/09/002. arXiv:1007.1317 [hep-th]

2010 arXiv
[80]

Cosmic Censorship in Quan- tum Einstein Gravity

Alfio Bonanno, Benjamin Koch, and Alessia Platania. “Cosmic Censorship in Quan- tum Einstein Gravity”. In:Class. Quant. Grav.34.9 (2017), p. 095012.doi:10 . 1088/1361-6382/aa6788. arXiv:1610.05299 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[81]

Black hole thermodynamics under the microscope

Kevin Falls and Daniel F. Litim. “Black hole thermodynamics under the microscope”. In:Phys. Rev.D89 (2014), p. 084002.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.084002. arXiv: 1212.1821 [gr-qc]

2014 arXiv
[82]

Structural aspects of asymptotically safe black holes

Benjamin Koch and Frank Saueressig. “Structural aspects of asymptotically safe black holes”. In:Class. Quant. Grav.31 (2014), p. 015006.doi:10 . 1088 / 0264 - 9381/31/1/015006. arXiv:1306.1546 [hep-th]

2014 arXiv
[83]

Nonsingular black holes, the cosmological constant, and asymptotic safety

Ramon Torres. “Nonsingular black holes, the cosmological constant, and asymptotic safety”. In:Phys. Rev. D95.12 (2017), p. 124004.doi:10 . 1103 / PhysRevD . 95 . 124004. arXiv:1703.09997 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[84]

Asymptotically Safe gravi- tational collapse: Kuroda-Papapetrou RG-improved model

Alfio Bonanno, Benjamin Koch, and Alessia Platania. “Asymptotically Safe gravi- tational collapse: Kuroda-Papapetrou RG-improved model”. In:PoSCORFU2016 (2017), p. 058.doi:10.22323/1.292.0058. – 27 –

2017 doi
[85]

Gravitational collapse in Quantum Einstein Gravity

Alfio Bonanno, Benjamin Koch, and Alessia Platania. “Gravitational collapse in Quantum Einstein Gravity”. In:Found. Phys.48.10 (2018), pp. 1393–1406.doi: 10.1007/s10701-018-0195-7. arXiv:1710.10845 [gr-qc]

2018 arXiv
[86]

Asymptoticsafetycastsitsshadow

AaronHeld,RomanGold,andAstridEichhorn.“Asymptoticsafetycastsitsshadow”. In:JCAP1906.06 (2019), p. 029.doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2019/06/029. arXiv: 1904.07133 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[87]

arXiv:2212.07456 [hep-th]

arXiv
[88]

Quantum-improved Schwarzschild-(A)dS and Kerr-(A)dS spacetimes

Jan M. Pawlowski and Dennis Stock. “Quantum-improved Schwarzschild-(A)dS and Kerr-(A)dS spacetimes”. In:Phys. Rev. D98.10 (2018), p. 106008.doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.98.106008. arXiv:1807.10512 [hep-th]

2018 arXiv
[89]

Towards conditions for black-hole singularity-resolution in asymptotically safe quantum gravity

Ademola Adeifeoba, Astrid Eichhorn, and Alessia Platania. “Towards conditions for black-hole singularity-resolution in asymptotically safe quantum gravity”. In:Class. Quant. Grav.35.22 (2018), p. 225007.doi:10.1088/1361- 6382/ aae6ef. arXiv: 1808.03472 [gr-qc]

2018 arXiv
[90]

Dynamical renormalization of black-hole spacetimes

Alessia Platania. “Dynamical renormalization of black-hole spacetimes”. In:Eur. Phys. J. C79.6 (2019), p. 470.doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052- 019- 6990- 2. arXiv: 1903.10411 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[91]

Gravitational antiscreening in stellar interiors

Alfio Bonanno, Roberto Casadio, and Alessia Platania. “Gravitational antiscreening in stellar interiors”. In:JCAP01 (2020), p. 022.doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2020/ 01/022. arXiv:1910.11393 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[92]

InvariantRenormalization-Groupimprovement

AaronHeld.“InvariantRenormalization-Groupimprovement”.In:(May2021).arXiv: 2105.11458 [gr-qc]

arXiv
[93]

Formation and evaporation of quantum blackholesfromthedecouplingmechanisminquantumgravity

Johanna N. Borissova and Alessia Platania. “Formation and evaporation of quantum blackholesfromthedecouplingmechanisminquantumgravity”.In:JHEP03(2023), p. 046.doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2023)046. arXiv:2210.01138 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[94]

Black Holes in Asymptotically Safe Gravity and Beyond

Astrid Eichhorn and Aaron Held. “Black Holes in Asymptotically Safe Gravity and Beyond”. In:Regular Black Holes: Towards a New Paradigm of Gravitational Col- lapse. Ed. by Cosimo Bambi. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 2023, pp. 131– 183.isbn: 978-981-99-1596-5.doi:10.100...

2023 doi
[95]

DustCollapseinAsymp- totic Safety: A Path to Regular Black Holes

AlfioBonanno,DanieleMalafarina,andAntonioPanassiti.“DustCollapseinAsymp- totic Safety: A Path to Regular Black Holes”. In:Phys. Rev. Lett.132.3 (2024), p. 031401.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.031401. arXiv:2308.10890 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[96]

PhasestructureofquantumimprovedSchwarzschild-(Anti)de Sitter black holes

Chiang-MeiChenetal.“PhasestructureofquantumimprovedSchwarzschild-(Anti)de Sitter black holes”. In:Class. Quant. Grav.40.21 (2023), p. 215007.doi:10.1088/ 1361-6382/acfc91. arXiv:2303.04304 [hep-th]

2023 arXiv
[97]

Some thoughts about black holes in asymptotic safety

Alessia Platania. “Some thoughts about black holes in asymptotic safety”. In:Gen. Rel. Grav.57.3 (2025), p. 58.doi:10.1007/s10714-025-03390-5. – 28 –

2025 doi
[98]

Sifting quantum black holes through the principle of least action

Benjamin Knorr and Alessia Platania. “Sifting quantum black holes through the principle of least action”. In:Phys. Rev. D106.2 (2022), p. L021901.doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.106.L021901. arXiv:2202.01216 [hep-th]

2022 arXiv
[99]

Diverging black hole entropy from quantum infrared non-localities

Alessia Platania and Jaime Redondo-Yuste. “Diverging black hole entropy from quantum infrared non-localities”. In:Phys. Lett. B857 (2024), p. 138993.doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138993. arXiv:2303.17621 [hep-th]

2024
[100]

Effective action and black hole solutions in asymptotically safe quantum gravity

Jan M. Pawlowski and Jan Tränkle. “Effective action and black hole solutions in asymptotically safe quantum gravity”. In:Phys. Rev. D110.8 (2024), p. 086011. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.086011. arXiv:2309.17043 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[101]

Dust collapse and horizon formation in quadratic gravity

Luca Buoninfante et al. “Dust collapse and horizon formation in quadratic gravity”. In:JCAP01 (2025), p. 114.doi:10 . 1088 / 1475 - 7516 / 2025 / 01 / 114. arXiv: 2410.05941 [gr-qc]

2025
[102]

Black Holes in Higher-Derivative Gravity

H. Lu et al. “Black Holes in Higher-Derivative Gravity”. In:Phys. Rev. Lett.114.17 (2015), p. 171601.doi:10 . 1103 / PhysRevLett . 114 . 171601. arXiv:1502 . 01028 [hep-th]

2015
[103]

Spherically Symmetric Solutions in Higher-Derivative Gravity

H. Lü et al. “Spherically Symmetric Solutions in Higher-Derivative Gravity”. In: Phys. Rev. D92.12 (2015), p. 124019.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.124019. arXiv: 1508.00010 [hep-th]

2015 arXiv
[104]

Ineffective Higher Derivative Black Hole Hair

Kevin Goldstein and James Junior Mashiyane. “Ineffective Higher Derivative Black Hole Hair”. In:Phys. Rev. D97.2 (2018), p. 024015.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97. 024015. arXiv:1703.02803 [hep-th]

2018 arXiv
[106]

Characterizingblackholemetricsinquadratic gravity

AlfioBonannoandSamueleSilveravalle.“Characterizingblackholemetricsinquadratic gravity”. In:Phys. Rev. D99.10 (2019), p. 101501.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99. 101501. arXiv:1903.08759 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[107]

Black holes and other exact spherical solutions in Quadratic Gravity

Jiri Podolský et al. “Black holes and other exact spherical solutions in Quadratic Gravity”. In:Phys. Rev. D101.2 (2020), p. 024027.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101. 024027. arXiv:1907.00046 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[108]

PhasediagramofEinstein-Weylgrav- ity

SamueleSilveravalleandAlessandroZuccotti.“PhasediagramofEinstein-Weylgrav- ity”. In:Phys. Rev. D107.6 (2023), p. 064029.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.064029. arXiv:2210.13877 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[109]

Nonsymmetricworm- holes and localized big rip singularities in Einstein-Weyl gravity

AlfioBonanno,SamueleSilveravalle,andAlessandroZuccotti.“Nonsymmetricworm- holes and localized big rip singularities in Einstein-Weyl gravity”. In:Phys. Rev. D 105.12 (2022), p. 124059.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.124059. arXiv:2204.04966 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[110]

Isolated Objects in Quadratic Gravity: From Action Principles to Observations

Samuele Marco Silveravalle. “Isolated Objects in Quadratic Gravity: From Action Principles to Observations”. PhD thesis. Trento U., 2024.doi:10.1007/978-3-031- 48994-5. – 29 –

2024 doi
[111]

Probing quadratic gravity with the Event Horizon Telescope

Jesse Daas et al. “Probing quadratic gravity with the Event Horizon Telescope”. In: Astron. Astrophys.673 (2023), A53.doi:10.1051/0004- 6361/202244080. arXiv: 2204.08480 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[112]

Neglected solutions in quadratic gravity

Breno L. Giacchini and Ivan Kolář. “Neglected solutions in quadratic gravity”. In: (Sept. 2025). arXiv:2509.07317 [gr-qc]

2025
[113]

Static Solutions for 4th order gravity

William Nelson. “Static Solutions for 4th order gravity”. In:Phys. Rev. D82 (2010), p. 104026.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.104026. arXiv:1010.3986 [gr-qc]

2010 arXiv
[114]

ClassicalGravitywithHigherDerivatives

K.S.Stelle.“ClassicalGravitywithHigherDerivatives”.In:Gen. Rel. Grav.9(1978), pp. 353–371.doi:10.1007/BF00760427

1978 doi
[115]

Non-perturbative unitarity and fictitious ghosts in quantum gravity

Alessia Platania and Christof Wetterich. “Non-perturbative unitarity and fictitious ghosts in quantum gravity”. In:Phys. Lett. B811 (2020), p. 135911.doi:10.1016/ j.physletb.2020.135911. arXiv:2009.06637 [hep-th]

2020
[116]

Causality, unitarity and stability in quantum gravity: a non- perturbative perspective

Alessia Platania. “Causality, unitarity and stability in quantum gravity: a non- perturbative perspective”. In:JHEP09 (2022), p. 167.doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2022)

2022 doi
[117]

Thegravitationalfieldofastarinquadratic gravity

AlfioBonannoandSamueleSilveravalle.“Thegravitationalfieldofastarinquadratic gravity”. In:JCAP08 (2021), p. 050.doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/08/050. arXiv: 2106.00558 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[118]

On neutron stars inf(R)theories: Small radii, large masses and large energy emitted in a merger

Miguel Aparicio Resco et al. “On neutron stars inf(R)theories: Small radii, large masses and large energy emitted in a merger”. In:Phys. Dark Univ.13 (2016), pp. 147–161.doi:10.1016/j.dark.2016.07.001. arXiv:1602.03880 [gr-qc]

2016 arXiv
[119]

The realistic models of relativistic stars inf(R) =R+αR 2 gravity

Artyom V. Astashenok, Sergei D. Odintsov, and Alvaro de la Cruz-Dombriz. “The realistic models of relativistic stars inf(R) =R+αR 2 gravity”. In:Class. Quant. Grav.34.20 (2017), p. 205008.doi:10.1088/1361-6382/aa8971. arXiv:1704.08311 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[120]

Neutron star masses inR 2-gravity

Fulvio Sbisà et al. “Neutron star masses inR 2-gravity”. In:Phys. Dark Univ.27 (2020), p. 100411.doi:10.1016/j.dark.2019.100411. arXiv:1907.08714 [gr-qc]

2020
[121]

Gravitational quasinormal modes of black holes in quadratic gravity

Georgios Antoniou, Leonardo Gualtieri, and Paolo Pani. “Gravitational quasinormal modes of black holes in quadratic gravity”. In:Phys. Rev. D111.6 (2025), p. 064059. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.064059. arXiv:2412.15037 [gr-qc]. – 30 –

2025 arXiv
[122]

Lichnerowicz Modes and Black Hole Families in Ricci Quadratic Gravity

Hong Lü et al. “Lichnerowicz Modes and Black Hole Families in Ricci Quadratic Gravity”. In:Phys. Rev. D96.4 (2017), p. 046006.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96. 046006. arXiv:1704.05493 [hep-th]

2017 arXiv
[123]

Instability of spherically symmetric black holes in quadraticgravity

Aaron Held and Jun Zhang. “Instability of spherically symmetric black holes in quadraticgravity”.In:Phys. Rev. D107.6(2023),p.064060.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 107.064060. arXiv:2209.01867 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[124]

Instability and backreaction of massive spin-2 fields around black holes

William E. East and Nils Siemonsen. “Instability and backreaction of massive spin-2 fields around black holes”. In:Phys. Rev. D108.12 (2023), p. 124048.doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.108.124048. arXiv:2309.05096 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[125]

Impact of quantum gravity on the UV sensitivity of extremal black holes

Francesco Del Porro, Francesco Ferrarin, and Alessia Platania. “Impact of quantum gravity on the UV sensitivity of extremal black holes”. In: (Sept. 2025). arXiv:2509. 07058 [hep-th]

2025
[126]

Not quite a black hole

Bob Holdom and Jing Ren. “Not quite a black hole”. In:Phys. Rev. D95.8 (2017), p. 084034.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.084034. arXiv:1612.04889 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[127]

2-2-holes simplified

Bob Holdom. “2-2-holes simplified”. In:Phys. Lett. B830 (2022), p. 137142.doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137142. arXiv:2202.08442 [gr-qc]

2022
[128]

Asymptotic Safety: Swampland or Wonderland?

Ivano Basile and Alessia Platania. “Asymptotic Safety: Swampland or Wonderland?” In:Universe7.10 (2021), p. 389.doi:10 . 3390 / universe7100389. arXiv:2107 . 06897 [hep-th]

2021
[129]

Towardsblack-holesingularity-resolution in the Lorentzian gravitational path integral

JohannaN.BorissovaandAstridEichhorn.“Towardsblack-holesingularity-resolution in the Lorentzian gravitational path integral”. In:Universe7.3 (2021), p. 48.doi: 10.3390/universe7030048. arXiv:2012.08570 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[130]

The Swampland: Introduction and Review

Eran Palti. “The Swampland: Introduction and Review”. In:Fortsch. Phys.67.6 (2019), p. 1900037.doi:10.1002/prop.201900037. arXiv:1903.06239 [hep-th]

2019 arXiv
[131]

Form Factors in Asymptotic Safety: conceptual ideas and computational toolbox

Benjamin Knorr, Chris Ripken, and Frank Saueressig. “Form Factors in Asymptotic Safety: conceptual ideas and computational toolbox”. In:Class. Quant. Grav.36.23 (2019), p. 234001.doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ab4a53. arXiv:1907.02903 [hep-th]

2019 arXiv
[132]

On the fate of singularities and horizons in higher derivative gravity

Bob Holdom. “On the fate of singularities and horizons in higher derivative gravity”. In:Phys. Rev. D66 (2002), p. 084010.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.66.084010. arXiv: hep-th/0206219

2002 arXiv
[133]

Two loop quantum gravity

A. E. M. van de Ven. “Two loop quantum gravity”. In:Nucl. Phys. B378 (1992), pp. 309–366.doi:10.1016/0550-3213(92)90011-Y

1992 doi
[134]

Suppression of spacetime singularities in quantum gravity

Johanna N. Borissova. “Suppression of spacetime singularities in quantum gravity”. In:Class. Quant. Grav.41.12 (2024), p. 127002.doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ad46c0. arXiv:2309.05695 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[135]

The Ultraviolet Behavior of Einstein Grav- ity

Marc H. Goroff and Augusto Sagnotti. “The Ultraviolet Behavior of Einstein Grav- ity”. In:Nucl. Phys. B266 (1986), pp. 709–736.doi:10 . 1016 / 0550 - 3213(86 ) 90193-8

1986
[136]

QUANTUM GRAVITY AT TWO LOOPS

Marc H. Goroff and Augusto Sagnotti. “QUANTUM GRAVITY AT TWO LOOPS”. In:Phys. Lett. B160 (1985), pp. 81–86.doi:10.1016/0370-2693(85)91470-4

1985 doi
[137]

EssentialQuantumEinsteinGravity

AlessioBaldazziandKevinFalls.“EssentialQuantumEinsteinGravity”.In:Universe 7.8 (2021), p. 294.doi:10.3390/universe7080294. arXiv:2107.00671 [hep-th]

2021 arXiv
[138]

Gravitational Two-Loop Counterterm Is Asymptotically Safe

Holger Gies et al. “Gravitational Two-Loop Counterterm Is Asymptotically Safe”. In: Phys. Rev. Lett.116.21 (2016), p. 211302.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.211302. arXiv:1601.01800 [hep-th]

2016 arXiv
[139]

Extremal Kerr Black Holes as Amplifiers of New Physics

Gary T. Horowitz et al. “Extremal Kerr Black Holes as Amplifiers of New Physics”. In:Phys. Rev. Lett.131.9 (2023), p. 091402.doi:10 . 1103 / PhysRevLett . 131 . 091402. arXiv:2303.07358 [hep-th]. – 31 –

2023 arXiv
[140]

Dynamical Formation of Regular Black Holes

Pablo Bueno et al. “Dynamical Formation of Regular Black Holes”. In:Phys. Rev. Lett.134.18 (2025), p. 181401.doi:10 . 1103 / PhysRevLett . 134 . 181401. arXiv: 2412.02742 [gr-qc]

2025 arXiv
[142]

Essential renormalisa- tion group

Alessio Baldazzi, Riccardo Ben Alì Zinati, and Kevin Falls. “Essential renormalisa- tion group”. In:SciPost Phys.13.4 (2022), p. 085.doi:10.21468/SciPostPhys.13. 4.085. arXiv:2105.11482 [hep-th]. – 32 –

2022 arXiv
[167]

arXiv:2206.04072 [hep-th]

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [105]

Explicit black hole solutions in higher-derivative gravity

Jiri Podolsky et al. “Explicit black hole solutions in higher-derivative gravity”. In: Phys. Rev. D98.2 (2018), p. 021502.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.021502. arXiv: 1806.08209 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2018

[2] [34]

The derivative expansion in asymptotically safe quantum gravity: general setup and quartic order

Benjamin Knorr. “The derivative expansion in asymptotically safe quantum gravity: general setup and quartic order”. In:SciPost Phys. Core4 (2021), p. 020.doi: 10.21468/SciPostPhysCore.4.3.020. arXiv:2104.11336 [hep-th]

arXiv 2021

[3] [1]

Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 2024

Cosimo Bambi, Leonardo Modesto, and Ilya Shapiro, eds.Handbook of quantum gravity. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 2024

2024

[4] [2]

Lectures in quantum gravity

Ivano Basile et al. “Lectures in quantum gravity”. In:SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes (2025), p. 98.doi:10 . 21468 / SciPostPhysLectNotes . 98. arXiv:2412 . 08690 [hep-th].url:https://scipost.org/10.21468/SciPostPhysLectNotes.98

doi:10.21468/scipostphyslectnotes.98 2025

[5] [3]

Visions in Quantum Gravity

Luca Buoninfante et al. “Visions in Quantum Gravity”. In:SciPost Phys. Comm. Rep.(2025), p. 11.doi:10.21468/SciPostPhysCommRep.11. arXiv:2412.08696 [hep-th]

arXiv 2025

[6] [4]

Black Holes Inside and Out 2024: visions for the future of black hole physics

Niayesh Afshordi et al. “Black Holes Inside and Out 2024: visions for the future of black hole physics”. In: ed. by Luca Buoninfante et al. Oct. 2024. arXiv:2410.14414 [gr-qc]. – 21 –

arXiv 2024

[7] [5]

Towards a non-singular paradigm of black hole physics

Raúl Carballo-Rubio et al. “Towards a non-singular paradigm of black hole physics”. In:JCAP05 (2025), p. 003.doi:10 . 1088 / 1475 - 7516 / 2025 / 05 / 003. arXiv: 2501.05505 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2025

[8] [6]

Vacuum nonsingular black hole

I. Dymnikova. “Vacuum nonsingular black hole”. In:Gen. Rel. Grav.24 (1992), pp. 235–242.doi:10.1007/BF00760226

doi:10.1007/bf00760226 1992