Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

A tangent-bundle formalism yields explicit all-orders geodesic deviation equations.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 14:39 UTC pith:N6VR33R2

load-bearing objection Nice tangent-bundle approach to all-orders geodesic deviation, but the central Q-tensor definition as printed kills the entire expansion—almost certainly a typo, yet it must be fixed before the paper is usable. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2509.23600 v1 pith:N6VR33R2 submitted 2025-09-28 gr-qc

Geodesic deviation to all orders via a tangent bundle formalism

Joon-Hwi Kim This is my paper
classification gr-qc MSC 53Z0583C10
keywords geodesic deviationtangent bundle formalismJacobi propagatorscovariant Lie derivativeall-orders expansionRiemann curvaturefinite separationtidal effects
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper sets out to replace the standard bitensor approach to geodesic deviation with a manifestly covariant calculus on the tangent bundle, treating the deviation as the unit-time flow of a geodesic spray. The central achievement is an explicit all-orders formula for the Jacobi propagators, the tensors that map the deviation vector and its derivative at a reference observer to those at a nearby free-falling particle. The formula is an infinite sum over ordered partitions, with coefficients given by products of binomial coefficients and each term built from iterated covariant derivatives of the Riemann tensor contracted with the separation. From it the paper derives the exact all-orders geodesic deviation equation and its Lagrangian, stated explicitly to tenth order in the separation and matching known lower-order results. A sympathetic reader would care because the higher-order tidal terms are what connect the elementary geodesic deviation equation to gravitational-wave detector analysis and relativistic two-body problems.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the Jacobi propagators (the tensors that transport the deviation vector and its covariant derivative from a reference observer to a nearby test particle) admit a fully explicit all-orders expansion in terms of the Riemann tensor and its covariant derivatives. The expansion is obtained by exponentiating a covariant Lie derivative, written as exp(L) acting on the one-form dx^mu, where L is the covariant Cartan derivative built from the geodesic spray vector field. This yields Eq. (21), an infinite sum over ordered integer partitions, with coefficients that are products of binomial coefficients and terms that are products of Q-tensors built from y-contracted Ri

What carries the argument

The central object is the geodesic spray vector field N on the tangent bundle, whose unit-time flow maps the observer (x, y) to the deviated particle (z, y′). The computation is carried by the covariant Lie derivative L = D i_N + i_N D, where D is the covariant exterior derivative and i_N is the interior product. This operator satisfies a dressing identity: exponentiating L of any tensor-valued form equals the value at the deviated point parallel-transported back to the observer via Wilson lines. The expansion is organized into Q-tensors, defined for each integer ℓ as a contraction of ℓ copies of the separation vector with a covariant derivative of the Riemann tensor at the observer, and pro

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes the geodesic flow can be expanded as a formal power series in the separation vector, which requires real-analyticity of the spacetime and convergence of the infinite sums for finite separations; convergence is never proved.

What would settle it

Evaluate the series in Eq. (21) in a spacetime of constant curvature, where all Q_tensors with ℓ greater than 2 vanish and the infinite sum reduces to a closed expression, then compare the resulting Jacobi propagator with the exact geodesic-deviation solution obtained by direct integration of the geodesic equation; any disagreement or divergence for finite separation would falsify the all-orders claim. Alternatively, numerically integrate the full geodesic equation in Schwarzschild or de Sitter spacetime for a moderate separation and check whether the O(y^10) truncated GDE converges to the exa

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The Jacobi propagators are now available as explicit, fully contracted infinite series in Riemann curvature and its derivatives, eliminating the need to solve recursion relations for each order.
  • The exact all-orders geodesic deviation equation and its Lagrangian are given explicitly up to O(y^10), which can be used directly in higher-order tidal analyses, gravitational-wave detector modeling, and relativistic orbit calculations.
  • Agreement with the previously known fourth-order geodesic deviation equation and fifth-order Lagrangian at the explicit level confirms the consistency of the new formalism with established bitensor results.
  • The tangent-bundle framework extends beyond gravity: the same covariant-Lie-derivative machinery yields gauge-covariant translations in nonabelian gauge theory, including explicit all-orders expansions in field-strength tensors and Wilson-line identities.
  • The in-in (initial-value) formulation recasts geodesic deviation as a dynamical system on the tangent bundle, which may simplify numerical integration and analytic resummation compared with the two-endpoint boundary-value approach.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the paper treats the flow and all sums as formal power series and assumes real-analyticity, the 'exact finite deviation' statements should be read as formal until convergence is established; the O(y^10) expressions are nevertheless a well-defined asymptotic/perturbative resource for small separations.
  • The binomial-coefficient structure and the paper's footnote on generating functions suggest that the infinite series can be resummed in special spacetimes (e.g., constant curvature), providing a sharp test of the all-orders claim against closed-form Jacobi propagators.
  • The advertised connection to Kerr black-hole spin dynamics via imaginary deviation is programmatic and not proved here; if the follow-up delivers, it would create a new bridge between geodesic deviation and all-orders-in-spin equations of motion, but that link remains an inference from the outlook rather than a result of this paper.
  • The 'molecule' notation could be automated to push the explicit GDE and Lagrangian beyond tenth order, making high-order tidal computations routine; the paper demonstrates the representation but does not fully develop the automation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops an 'in-in' formalism for geodesic deviation in general relativity, based on the flow of a horizontal vector field N on the tangent bundle and on a covariantized Lie derivative. The central claim is an explicit all-orders expansion of the Jacobi propagators, Eq. (21), expressed as infinite sums of products of 'Q-tensors' with coefficients given by products of binomial coefficients. From this expansion the paper derives an all-orders second-order action and the corresponding geodesic deviation equation, and reports explicit results up to O(y^10), with agreement at low orders with Vines (2015). The manuscript also appends a nonabelian gauge-theory analog and discusses possible applications to Kerr spin dynamics.

Significance. If the main formula were correct, the paper would provide a compact, fully expanded all-orders expression for the Jacobi propagators, going beyond Vines' recursion-based treatment. The tangent-bundle approach is conceptually appealing and the paper includes Mathematica notebook checks up to O(y^10), which is a practical strength. However, the significance is currently undermined by a serious flaw in the definition of the Q-tensors and by an unproved coefficient solution; these must be resolved before the claimed results can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (18)] The definition (Q_ℓ)^μ_σ := y^{κ1}…y^{κℓ} R^μ_{κ1 κ2 σ;κ3;…}(x) makes every Q_ℓ vanish identically: the Riemann tensor is antisymmetric in its first two lower indices, so contraction with the symmetric product y^{κ1}y^{κ2} yields zero for all ℓ≥2. Consequently every term in the central expansion Eq. (21) beyond dx^μ + Dy^μ vanishes, and the claimed all-orders result is vacuous as printed. This also directly contradicts Appendix B (e.g., L_2 = u Q_2 u in Eq. (B12)) and the stated agreement with Vines. The intended definition likely places the free index σ between the contracted indices (e.g., y^{κ1}…y^{κℓ} R^μ_{κ1 σ κ2;κ3;…}), which would satisfy the stated symmetry properties and yield nonzero terms, but the printed version must be corrected and the subsequent formulas re-verified.
  2. [Eqs. (19)–(20) and footnote [60]] The closed-form solution Eq. (20) for the recursion coefficients is asserted without proof. Footnote [60] gives a generating function, but no derivation of that generating function, no demonstration that it solves the recursion relations (19), and no induction proof are provided. Since Eq. (20) is the foundation for the explicit all-orders formula Eq. (21), this is a load-bearing gap. The paper should supply a complete proof or a detailed derivation, preferably in an appendix.
  3. [Section 'The All-Orders GDE' and Eq. (31)] The paper states that the explicit GDE up to O(y^10) is contained only in ancillary files. While ancillary machine-checkable files are valuable, the main text should at least state the exact procedure for obtaining the coefficient lists, including how the zero-torsion identities (33) and the y-derivative simplification are applied. The current description is too compressed to allow the reader to reproduce the O(y^10) result independently without re-implementing the entire computation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. 'Geodesic Deviation in Tangent Bundle'] The phrase 'finite geodesic deviation' suggests actual convergence of the infinite sums for finite y, but the paper works with formal power series on a real-analytic manifold and never addresses convergence or the domain of the exponential map. Please clarify whether the results are intended as asymptotic/formal expansions and state this explicitly.
  2. [Footnote [63]] The paper asserts that some coefficients in Vines' O(y^4) GDE are typos. Given that the present manuscript depends on agreement with Vines as a consistency check, a more explicit comparison table would be useful, especially because the claimed discrepancies are not obvious from the cited reference.
  3. [Appendix B] The 'chemical' notation (MoleculePlot3D) may be difficult for readers to parse. Consider adding a short dictionary or at least a clear correspondence table between the graphical notation and the algebraically defined tensors (B24)-(B29).
  4. [Throughout] There are minor typographical issues, e.g., 'an different framework' in the Introduction, and the notation e£N is occasionally confusable with a product e times £N; it might be clearer to consistently write e^{£_N}.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the all-orders Jacobi propagators are derived from the geodesic spray and Cartan calculus, with external matches used only as checks.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained. The paper starts from the geodesic spray N, defines the covariant Lie derivative, uses Cartan's magic formula and the dressing identity to express W dz = e^{£_N^D} dx. Eq. (21) is obtained by a stated recursion with Q-tensors and a closed-form binomial solution; the coefficient solution is not imported from the target result. Vines's recursion is cited as a point of comparison, not as an input: the statements that Eqs. (B1)-(B5) agree with Eq. (83) of Ref. [25] and that Eqs. (B12)-(B15) agree with Eq. (5) of Vines are cross-checks, not premises. The coefficient formula in Eq. (20) is asserted with a generating-function footnote, which is an underived step/proof gap but not a circular reuse; it is independently verified in ancillary notebooks up to O(y^10). No parameters are fitted, no prediction is constructed from a subset of data, and there is no load-bearing self-citation: the only author-self reference is the outlook remark about a follow-up article. The Q-tensor contraction objection raised by a skeptical reader concerns algebraic index symmetry and, if valid, would be a correctness/typo defect, not circularity, because it would not make Eq. (21) equivalent to its inputs. Convergence and analyticity caveats are limitations, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests mostly on standard differential geometry and the stated analyticity assumption. No fitted parameters appear; the einbein in the action is a Lagrange multiplier, not a fitted quantity. No new physical entities are introduced; the Q-tensors and dressing identity are mathematical notation. The main added axiom is the unproved closed-form coefficient solution.

axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Spacetime (M,g) is real-analytic and the geodesic flow exists for the relevant finite deviations.
    Stated at the start of the main text; needed for the formal power series e^{£_N} to make literal sense. Convergence and global validity are not discussed.
  • domain assumption The horizontal vector field N in Eq. (2) generates the geodesic deviation flow, and e^{£_N} acts as the pullback of the unit-time flow.
    This is the central geometric setup, Eqs. (2)-(6). It assumes integral curves and the exponential map are well-defined for arbitrary y.
  • standard math Cartan magic formula and covariant exterior derivative calculus (D^2 = R, zero torsion D dx = 0) are valid.
    Used throughout, e.g., Eq. (8), Fig. 2, and the zero-torsion identities in Eq. (33).
  • ad hoc to paper The recursion for the coefficients c and c' has the stated solution Eq. (20), with the generating function in footnote [60].
    This is a load-bearing unproved assertion; the paper verifies only up to O(y^10) via notebooks and does not provide a derivation of the generating function.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 21339 in / 10846 out tokens · 351244 ms · 2026-08-04T14:39:10.272964+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We establish an in-in formalism for geodesic deviation as an alternative to Synge calculus, based on a covariant calculus of differential forms in tangent bundle. This derives the exact Lagrangian and equations governing the finite geodesic deviation between a free-falling test particle and an arbitrary observer, in terms of infinite sums whose coefficients are products of binomial coefficients. Explicit expressions are provided up to tenth order, finding agreements with the previous fourth-order result.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.23600 by Joon-Hwi Kim.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. A geodesic segment joins two spacetime points [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. A sequence of one-forms originating from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Twisted Feynman Integrals: from generating functions to spin-resummed post-Minkowskian dynamics

    hep-th 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Twisted Feynman integrals are introduced with graded Symanzik polynomials, classified as exponential periods, and shown to have geometry not inferable from generalized Baikov leading singularities.

  2. Universality in Relativistic Spinning Particle Models

    hep-th 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Four relativistic spinning particle models (vector oscillator, spinor oscillator, spherical top, massive twistor) describe identical physics in free and interacting theories within the spin-magnitude-preserving sector.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 38 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    The Jacobi Propagators The Jacobi propagators with the parallel propagator peeled off are given in Eq. (21). It is then trivial to enumerate them explicitly up to any desired order, sayO(y 10). With the definition of theQ-tensors in Eq. (18), they are Dyµ =Dy µ , (B1) (ιN Rµ ν)y ν = (Q 2)µ σ dxσ , (B2) (ιN D ιN Rµ ν)y ν = (Q 3)µ σ dxσ + (Q2)µ σ Dyσ ,(B3) ...

  2. [2]

    interaction Lagrangian

    The Lagrangian The Lagrangian for the all-orders GDE in isochronous correspondence is given in Eq. (25): L= m 2 (Xu+Y v) 2 − m 2 =m u2 −1 2 +u·v + 1 2 mv2 +m ∞X ℓ=2 1 ℓ! Lℓ .(B11) In the last expression, the bracketed terms can be discarded as a constant plus a total derivative. The term 1 2 mv2, on the other hand, is the standard kinetic energy. Hence it...

  3. [3]

    carbon chains

    The GDE The GDE, in the second-order formulation, is given in Eq. (31). The definition ofX µσ andY µσ is given in Eq. (21). The definition of ´X µνρ and ´Y µνρ is given in Eq. (29). For the reader’s sake, we explicitly spell them out at low orders: X µ σ =δ µ σ + 1 2! (Q2)µ σ + 1 3! (Q3)µ σ + 1 4! (Q4 +Q 2Q2)µ σ + 1 5! (Q5 + 3Q3Q2 +Q 2Q3)µ σ +O(y 6),(B21a...

    2050

  4. [4]

    S. M. Carroll,Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduction to General Relativity. Cambridge University Press, 7, 2019

    2019

  5. [5]

    C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler,Gravitation. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1973

    1973

  6. [6]

    S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis,The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press, 2, 2023

    2023

  7. [7]

    R. M. Wald,General Relativity. Chicago Univ. Pr., Chicago, USA, 1984

    1984

  8. [8]

    Poisson and C

    E. Poisson and C. M. Will,Gravity: Newtonian, post-newtonian, relativistic. Cambridge University Press, 2014

    2014

  9. [9]

    Tensor calculus,

    J. Synge and A. Schild, “Tensor calculus,” 1952

    1952

  10. [10]

    Relativity: the general theory (series in physics),

    J. Synge, “Relativity: the general theory (series in physics),” 1960

    1960

  11. [11]

    Sur l’´ ecart g´ eod´ esique,

    T. Levi-Civita, “Sur l’´ ecart g´ eod´ esique,”Mathematische Annalen97(1927) 291–320

    1927

  12. [12]

    II.—On the geometry of dynamics,

    J. L. Synge, “II.—On the geometry of dynamics,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical or Physical Character226no. 636-646, (1927) 31–106

    1927

  13. [13]

    Geodesics in non-holonomic geometry,

    J. L. Synge, “Geodesics in non-holonomic geometry,” Mathematische Annalen99no. 1, (1928) 738–751

    1928

  14. [14]

    On the neighbourhood of a geodesic in Riemannian space,

    J. L. Synge, “On the neighbourhood of a geodesic in Riemannian space,”Duke Math. J.1(1935) 527

    1935

  15. [15]

    On the deviation of geodesics and null-geodesics, particularly in relation to the properties of spaces of constant curvature and indefinite line-element,

    J. L. Synge, “On the deviation of geodesics and null-geodesics, particularly in relation to the properties of spaces of constant curvature and indefinite line-element,” Annals of Mathematics35no. 4, (1934) 705–713

    1934

  16. [16]

    A modified equation of geodesic deviation,

    D. Hodgkinson, “A modified equation of geodesic deviation,” General Relativity and Gravitation3no. 4, (1972) 351–375

    1972

  17. [17]

    Kinematics of relative motion of test particles in general relativity,

    S. L. Ba˙ za´ nski, “Kinematics of relative motion of test particles in general relativity,” inAnnales de l’IHP Physique th´ eorique, vol. 27, pp. 115–144. 1977

    1977

  18. [18]

    Dynamics of relative motion of test particles in general relativity,

    S. L. Ba˙ za´ nski, “Dynamics of relative motion of test particles in general relativity,” inAnnales de l’IHP Physique th´ eorique, vol. 27, pp. 145–166. 1977

    1977

  19. [19]

    Geodesic structure,

    A. N. Aleksandrov and K. Piragas, “Geodesic structure,” Teoreticheskaya i Matematicheskaya Fizika38no. 1, (1979) 71–83

    1979

  20. [20]

    Coupled inertial and gravitational effects in the proper reference frame of an accelerated, rotating observer,

    W.-Q. Li and W.-T. Ni, “Coupled inertial and gravitational effects in the proper reference frame of an accelerated, rotating observer,”Journal of Mathematical Physics20 no. 7, (1979) 1473–1480

    1979

  21. [21]

    On tidal phenomena in a strong gravitational field,

    B. Mashhoon, “On tidal phenomena in a strong gravitational field,”Astrophysical Journal, vol. 197, May 1, 1975, pt. 1, p. 705-716.197(1975) 705–716

    1975

  22. [22]

    Tidal radiation,

    B. Mashhoon, “Tidal radiation,”The Astrophysical Journal 216(1977) 591–609

    1977

  23. [23]

    Generalized geodesic deviation equation,

    I. Ciufolini, “Generalized geodesic deviation equation,” Physical Review D34no. 4, (1986) 1014

    1986

  24. [24]

    How to measure the curvature of space-time,

    I. Ciufolini and M. Demianski, “How to measure the curvature of space-time,”Physical Review D34no. 4, (1986) 1018

    1986

  25. [25]

    The Generalized Jacobi equation,

    C. Chicone and B. Mashhoon, “The Generalized Jacobi equation,”Class. Quant. Grav.19(2002) 4231–4248, arXiv:gr-qc/0203073

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  26. [26]

    Tidal dynamics in Kerr spacetime,

    C. Chicone and B. Mashhoon, “Tidal dynamics in Kerr spacetime,”Class. Quant. Grav.23(2006) 4021–4033, arXiv:gr-qc/0602071

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  27. [27]

    On the generalized Jacobi equation,

    V. Perlick, “On the generalized Jacobi equation,”Gen. Rel. Grav.40(2008) 1029–1045,arXiv:0710.2667 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  28. [28]

    Geodesic deviation at higher orders via covariant bitensors,

    J. Vines, “Geodesic deviation at higher orders via covariant bitensors,”Gen. Rel. Grav.47no. 5, (2015) 59, arXiv:1407.6992 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  29. [29]

    Generalized deviation equation and determination of the curvature in General Relativity,

    D. Puetzfeld and Y. N. Obukhov, “Generalized deviation equation and determination of the curvature in General Relativity,”Phys. Rev. D93no. 4, (2016) 044073, arXiv:1511.08465 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  30. [30]

    Measuring the gravitational field in General Relativity: From deviation equations and the gravitational compass to relativistic clock gradiometry,

    Y. N. Obukhov and D. Puetzfeld, “Measuring the gravitational field in General Relativity: From deviation equations and the gravitational compass to relativistic clock gradiometry,”Fundam. Theor. Phys.196(2019) 87–130, arXiv:1811.10474 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  31. [31]

    Persistent gravitational wave observables: general framework,

    E. E. Flanagan, A. M. Grant, A. I. Harte, and D. A. Nichols, “Persistent gravitational wave observables: general framework,”Phys. Rev. D99no. 8, (2019) 084044, 15 arXiv:1901.00021 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  32. [32]

    Generalized geodesic deviation in de Sitter spacetime,

    I. R. Waldstein and J. D. Brown, “Generalized geodesic deviation in de Sitter spacetime,”Class. Quant. Grav.39 no. 11, (2022) 115006,arXiv:2112.02121 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  33. [33]

    Relativistic epicycles: Another approach to geodesic deviations,

    R. Kerner, J. W. van Holten, and R. Colistete, Jr., “Relativistic epicycles: Another approach to geodesic deviations,”Class. Quant. Grav.18(2001) 4725–4742, arXiv:gr-qc/0102099

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  34. [34]

    Worldline deviations and epicycles,

    J. W. van Holten, “Worldline deviations and epicycles,”Int. J. Mod. Phys. A17(2002) 2764,arXiv:hep-th/0201083

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  35. [35]

    Higher order geodesic deviations applied to the Kerr metric,

    R. Colistete, Jr., C. Leygnac, and R. Kerner, “Higher order geodesic deviations applied to the Kerr metric,”Class. Quant. Grav.19(2002) 4573–4590,arXiv:gr-qc/0205019

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  36. [36]

    Higher-order geodesic deviations and the calculus of relativistic orbits,

    R. Colistete Jr, “Higher-order geodesic deviations and the calculus of relativistic orbits,”International Journal of Modern Physics A17no. 20, (2002) 2756–2756

    2002

  37. [37]

    Components of the gravitational force in the field of a gravitational wave,

    D. Baskaran and L. P. Grishchuk, “Components of the gravitational force in the field of a gravitational wave,”Class. Quant. Grav.21(2004) 4041–4062,arXiv:gr-qc/0309058

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  38. [38]

    Epicycles and Poincar´ e Resonances in General Relativity,

    G. Koekoek and J. W. van Holten, “Epicycles and Poincar´ e Resonances in General Relativity,”Phys. Rev. D83(2011) 064041,arXiv:1011.3973 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  39. [39]

    Geodesic deviations: modeling extreme mass-ratio systems and their gravitational waves,

    G. Koekoek and J. W. van Holten, “Geodesic deviations: modeling extreme mass-ratio systems and their gravitational waves,”Class. Quant. Grav.28(2011) 225022, arXiv:1103.5612 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  40. [40]

    On the physical significance of the second geodesic deviation,

    R. Tammelo, “On the physical significance of the second geodesic deviation,”Physics Letters A106no. 5-6, (1984) 227–230

    1984

  41. [41]

    On the pressure of gravitational waves,

    R. Tammelo and T. Mullari, “On the pressure of gravitational waves,”General Relativity and Gravitation38 (2006) 1–13

    2006

  42. [42]

    Taylor’s theorem in the tensor calculus,

    H. S. Ruse, “Taylor’s theorem in the tensor calculus,”Proc. Lond. Math. Soc.32(1931) 87

    1931

  43. [43]

    A characteristic function in Riemannian space and its applications to the solution of geodesic triangles,

    J. L. Synge, “A characteristic function in Riemannian space and its applications to the solution of geodesic triangles,” Proc. Lond. Math. Soc.32(1931) 241

    1931

  44. [44]

    J. L. Synge, ed.,Relativity: The general theory. 1960

    1960

  45. [45]

    The Motion of point particles in curved spacetime,

    E. Poisson, A. Pound, and I. Vega, “The Motion of point particles in curved spacetime,”Living Rev. Rel.14(2011) 7, arXiv:1102.0529 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  46. [46]

    Dynamics of extended bodies in general relativity. I. Momentum and angular momentum,

    W. G. Dixon, “Dynamics of extended bodies in general relativity. I. Momentum and angular momentum,”Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A314(1970) 499–527

    1970

  47. [47]

    Dynamics of extended bodies in general relativity III. Equations of motion,

    W. G. Dixon, “Dynamics of extended bodies in general relativity III. Equations of motion,”Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A277no. 1264, (1974) 59–119

    1974

  48. [48]

    Approximate spacetime symmetries and conservation laws,

    A. I. Harte, “Approximate spacetime symmetries and conservation laws,”Class. Quant. Grav.25(2008) 205008, arXiv:0805.4259 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  49. [49]

    Caustics and wave propagation in curved spacetimes,

    A. I. Harte and T. D. Drivas, “Caustics and wave propagation in curved spacetimes,”Phys. Rev. D85(2012) 124039,arXiv:1202.0540 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  50. [50]

    Reality conditions inducing transforms for quantum gauge field theory and quantum gravity,

    T. Thiemann, “Reality conditions inducing transforms for quantum gauge field theory and quantum gravity,”Class. Quant. Grav.13(1996) 1383–1404,arXiv:gr-qc/9511057

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  51. [51]

    Gauge field theory coherent states (GCS): 1. General properties,

    T. Thiemann, “Gauge field theory coherent states (GCS): 1. General properties,”Class. Quant. Grav.18(2001) 2025–2064,arXiv:hep-th/0005233

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  52. [52]

    Complexifier coherent states for quantum general relativity,

    T. Thiemann, “Complexifier coherent states for quantum general relativity,”Class. Quant. Grav.23(2006) 2063–2118,arXiv:gr-qc/0206037

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  53. [53]

    Coherent states on spheres,

    B. C. Hall and J. J. Mitchell, “Coherent states on spheres,”J. Math. Phys.43(2002) 1211–1236,arXiv:quant-ph/0109086. [Erratum: J.Math.Phys. 46, 059901 (2005)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  54. [54]

    The Large radius limit for coherent states on spheres,

    B. C. Hall and J. J. Mitchell, “The Large radius limit for coherent states on spheres,” inQMath-8: Mathematical Results in Quantum Mechanics, pp. 155–162. 3, 2002. arXiv:quant-ph/0203142

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  55. [55]

    Adapted complex structures and the geodesic flow,

    B. C. Hall and W. D. Kirwin, “Adapted complex structures and the geodesic flow,”Mathematische Annalen350no. 2, (2011) 455–474

    2011

  56. [56]

    Les connexions infinit´ esimales dans un espace fibr´ e diff´ erentiable,

    C. Ehresmann, “Les connexions infinit´ esimales dans un espace fibr´ e diff´ erentiable,”S´ eminaire Bourbaki1(1948) 153–168

    1948

  57. [57]

    Ambitwistor strings and the scattering equations,

    L. Mason and D. Skinner, “Ambitwistor strings and the scattering equations,”JHEP07(2014) 048, arXiv:1311.2564 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  58. [58]

    Covariant coordinate transformations on noncommutative space,

    R. Jackiw and S. Y. Pi, “Covariant coordinate transformations on noncommutative space,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 88(2002) 111603,arXiv:hep-th/0111122

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  59. [59]

    Gravitational Dynamics—A Novel Shift in the Hamiltonian Paradigm,

    A. Ashtekar and M. Varadarajan, “Gravitational Dynamics—A Novel Shift in the Hamiltonian Paradigm,” Universe7no. 1, (2021) 13,arXiv:2012.12094 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  60. [60]

    Covariant Lie derivatives and Fr¨ olicher-Nijenhuis bracket on Lie algebroids,

    A. De Nicola and I. Yudin, “Covariant Lie derivatives and Fr¨ olicher-Nijenhuis bracket on Lie algebroids,”International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics12no. 09, (2015) 1560018

    2015

  61. [61]

    Dynamics of extended bodies in general relativity,

    W. G. Dixon, “Dynamics of extended bodies in general relativity,” inIsolated Gravitating Systems in General Relativity, J. Ehlers, ed. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1979

    1979

  62. [62]

    (b)c 2 = 1,c ′2 = 0

    (a)c α1,α2,···,α p = 0,c ′α1,α2,···,α p = 0 if any of α1, α2,· · ·, αp equals one. (b)c 2 = 1,c ′2 = 0

  63. [63]

    The generating function G(ζ1,· · ·, ζp) = Σαcα1,···,α p (ζ1)α1 · · ·(ζp)αp is determined asG(ζ 1,· · ·, ζp) = ((ζp)2/(ζ1 +· · ·+ζp −1))·(ζ 1/(ζ1 −1)) 2 · (ζ2/(ζ1 +ζ 2 −1)) 2 · · ·(ζp−1/(ζ1 +· · ·ζp−1 −1)) 2

  64. [64]

    A Transport Equation Approach to Calculations of Hadamard Green functions and non-coincident DeWitt coefficients,

    A. C. Ottewill and B. Wardell, “A Transport Equation Approach to Calculations of Hadamard Green functions and non-coincident DeWitt coefficients,”Phys. Rev. D84(2011) 104039,arXiv:0906.0005 [gr-qc]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 101, 029901 (2020)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  65. [65]

    It might be interesting to understand the transformations to other correspondences as gauge transformations in the first-order setup

  66. [66]

    As ourO(y5) Lagrangian in Eq

    TheO(y 4) GDE provided by Vines [25] describes−1 (instead of 4) for the coefficient of the term ´Q2(Q3u, u) and −8 (instead of 8) for the coefficient of the terms ´Q2(v, Q2u) and ´Q2(Q2v, u). As ourO(y5) Lagrangian in Eq. (B15) agrees flawlessly with Eq. (5) in Vines, and since it is explicitly verified in the ancillary fileLow.nbthat the variation theO(y...

  67. [67]

    Space-time approach to nonrelativistic quantum mechanics,

    R. P. Feynman, “Space-time approach to nonrelativistic quantum mechanics,”Rev. Mod. Phys.20(1948) 367–387

    1948

  68. [68]

    Efficient calculation of one loop QCD amplitudes,

    Z. Bern and D. A. Kosower, “Efficient calculation of one loop QCD amplitudes,”Phys. Rev. Lett.66(1991) 1669–1672

    1991

  69. [69]

    Field theory without Feynman diagrams: One loop effective actions,

    M. J. Strassler, “Field theory without Feynman diagrams: One loop effective actions,”Nucl. Phys. B385(1992) 145–184,arXiv:hep-ph/9205205

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1992

  70. [70]

    Perturbative quantum field theory in the string inspired formalism,

    C. Schubert, “Perturbative quantum field theory in the string inspired formalism,”Phys. Rept.355(2001) 73–234, arXiv:hep-th/0101036

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  71. [71]

    M. D. Schwartz,Quantum Field Theory and the Standard Model. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139540940

    doi:10.1017/9781139540940 2014

  72. [72]

    Geometric soft theorems,

    C. Cheung, A. Helset, and J. Parra-Martinez, “Geometric soft theorems,”JHEP04(2022) 011,arXiv:2111.03045 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  73. [73]

    Fermion geometry and the renormalization of the Standard Model Effective Field Theory,

    B. Assi, A. Helset, A. V. Manohar, J. Pag` es, and C.-H. Shen, “Fermion geometry and the renormalization of the Standard Model Effective Field Theory,”JHEP11(2023) 201, arXiv:2307.03187 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  74. [74]

    Kahler Geometry and the Renormalization of Supersymmetric Sigma Models,

    L. Alvarez-Gaume and D. Z. Freedman, “Kahler Geometry and the Renormalization of Supersymmetric Sigma Models,” Phys. Rev. D22(1980) 846

    1980

  75. [75]

    The Background Field Method and the Ultraviolet Structure of the Supersymmetric Nonlinear Sigma Model,

    L. Alvarez-Gaume, D. Z. Freedman, and S. Mukhi, “The Background Field Method and the Ultraviolet Structure of the Supersymmetric Nonlinear Sigma Model,”Annals Phys. 134(1981) 85

    1981

  76. [76]

    Strings in Background Fields,

    C. G. Callan, Jr., E. J. Martinec, M. J. Perry, and D. Friedan, “Strings in Background Fields,”Nucl. Phys. B 262(1985) 593–609

    1985

  77. [77]

    Spinning gravitating objects in the effective field theory in the post-Newtonian scheme,

    M. Levi and J. Steinhoff, “Spinning gravitating objects in the effective field theory in the post-Newtonian scheme,”JHEP 09(2015) 219,arXiv:1501.04956 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  78. [78]

    Effective Field Theories of Post-Newtonian Gravity: A comprehensive review,

    M. Levi, “Effective Field Theories of Post-Newtonian Gravity: A comprehensive review,”Rept. Prog. Phys.83 no. 7, (2020) 075901,arXiv:1807.01699 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  79. [79]

    The effective field theorist’s approach to 16 gravitational dynamics,

    R. A. Porto, “The effective field theorist’s approach to 16 gravitational dynamics,”Phys. Rept.633(2016) 1–104, arXiv:1601.04914 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  80. [80]

    Scattering of Spinning Black Holes from Exponentiated Soft Factors,

    A. Guevara, A. Ochirov, and J. Vines, “Scattering of Spinning Black Holes from Exponentiated Soft Factors,” JHEP09(2019) 056,arXiv:1812.06895 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

Showing first 80 references.