Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 102 references

Cosmological perturbations and gravitational waves in the general Einstein-vector theory

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes the full stability map and gravitational-wave census of the general Einstein-vector theory on a cosmological background, including the rule that vector gravitational waves are forbidden whenever tensor waves move exac

desk verdict A careful, useful perturbation-theory analysis of Einstein-vector theory on FLRW, with one headline result that is a bit stronger than the actual derivation supports because of a no-fine-tuning caveat. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.12536 v2 pith:6JO6XUP6 submitted 2026-02-13 gr-qc

Xiao-Bin Lai , Yu-Zhi Fan , Yu-Qi Dong , Yu-Xiao Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc PACS 04.30.-w04.50.Kd98.80.-k
keywords generalEinstein-vectortheorycosmologicalperturbationsgravitationalwavesvector-tensorgravitystabilityanalysisscalar-vector-tensordecompositionsuperluminalpropagationGWpolarizationmodes
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

A modified gravity theory adds a vector field that couples directly to spacetime curvature; this paper works out what that theory predicts for cosmological perturbations and for gravitational waves reaching our detectors. The authors show that, in the physically relevant corner of the theory — small coupling constants and very short wavelengths — scalar, vector, and tensor perturbations decouple, and each sector's stability reduces to simple inequalities. The result is a precise census: at most two tensor, two vector, and one scalar gravitational-wave mode can propagate; vector modes are superluminal; and, under a natural no-fine-tuning assumption, vector gravitational waves cannot exist if tensor waves travel at exactly the speed of light. This matters because it converts a candidate gravity theory into mutually exclusive, testable predictions about polarization and speed.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the quadratic action for cosmological perturbations after gauge fixing and elimination of constraint variables. For each sector the paper derives effective actions whose kinetic and gradient coefficients define the stability and propagation speeds: c_t^2 = 1 + beta2 A^2 + 8 beta4 (H A Adot - Adot^2 - A Addot) + O(beta^2) for tensors, c_v^2 = 1 + 2 beta2^2 A^2 / q_t for vectors, and a more complex c_s^2 for scalars. These speeds, together with Eq. (93) for c_t = 1, turn the parameter space into a set of existence statements about gravitational-wave modes. The same quadratic actions yield the ghost, Laplacian, and tachyonic conditions that carve out the stable reg

What would settle it

Solve the system formed by the background vector-field equation together with the luminal-tensor condition (93) for a nontrivial, stable background A(t) with beta2 != 0 and allowed beta1 and beta4. If such a solution exists — for example, an ansatz where A(t) is proportional to 1/H or H and the combination in Eq. (93) vanishes identically — then the no-fine-tuning step breaks and the 'vector gravitational waves forbidden' conclusion no longer follows. Observationally, detecting a vector-polarized gravitational-wave background while the tensor speed is measured to be exactly c within current bo

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the general Einstein-vector theory — a four-dimensional vector-tensor gravity in which a vector field couples bilinearly to curvature polynomials — has a tractable, fully mapped perturbation theory on a homogeneous, isotropic, spatially flat universe. After scalar-vector-tensor decomposition and Hamiltonian reduction that fixes gauge freedom and eliminates nondynamical fields, stability is governed by a small set of conditions: tensor perturbations are automatically stable for small couplings; vector perturbations require beta2 <= 0 when the background vector field is nonzero; scalar perturbations are ghost-free only at large wavenumber and require beta1 + 4

Load-bearing premise

For a time-dependent background vector field, the statement that c_t = 1 forces the couplings to vanish relies on assuming no fine-tuned time evolution of A(t); if some A(t) history satisfies the luminal-tensor condition with nonzero beta2 or beta4, vector modes could coexist with luminal tensor waves and the headline 'vector gravitational waves forbidden' claim would fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If tensor gravitational waves are exactly luminal, vector gravitational waves are absent from the stable parameter space; observing a vector-polarized mode would therefore require tensor waves to deviate from light speed, or a fine-tuned background.
  • Within the small-coupling regime the tensor sector is always stable, so tensor waves impose essentially no parameter constraints beyond the observational speed bound.
  • Vector stability demands beta2 <= 0 when the background vector field is nonzero, and vector modes, when they exist, always propagate superluminally.
  • Scalar gravitational waves exist as a single mode only for a nonzero background vector field with beta1 or beta4 nonzero, and only in the large-wavenumber regime; otherwise the scalar sector has no propagating gravitational-wave degree of freedom.
  • The requirement c_t = 1 restricts the theory to three parameter regions — vanishing background vector field, constant background vector field with beta2 = 0, or beta2 = beta4 = 0 — each with a distinct gravitational-wave polarization content.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A decisive observational program would look for correlated speed and polarization signatures: this theory predicts that a nonzero vector-polarized stochastic background must come with a measurable deviation of the tensor speed from c, so future detectors can search for that correlation directly.
  • The small-wavenumber instability of the scalar sector implies that the theory's cosmological viability depends on the large-wavenumber limit or on an unstated plane-wave condition; extending the same analysis to CMB or large-scale structure scales would be a natural stress test.
  • Equation (93) can be read as a selection rule on the background evolution itself: only histories A(t) that nearly satisfy it are compatible with luminal tensor waves, which ties gravitational-wave speed measurements to the theory's dark-energy background dynamics.
  • The stability condition beta2 <= 0 combined with c_v > 1 means the theory only permits faster-than-light vector modes; a future measurement of a subluminal vector mode, or of vector modes coexisting with exactly luminal tensor modes, would fall outside the stable, non-fine-tuned parameter space.
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.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies cosmological perturbations in the general Einstein-vector theory with a Schutz-Sorkin perfect fluid. It first establishes SVT decoupling on an SO(3)-symmetric cosmological background, derives the background equations, and then analyzes ghost, Laplacian, and tachyonic stability of tensor, vector, and scalar perturbations at linear order. In the small-scale limit |k|→∞, it identifies the number of propagating gravitational-wave modes and their speeds, and applies the GW170817 constraint on the tensor speed. The central claims are that the theory admits at most two tensor, two vector, and one scalar propagating GW modes, that vector modes are superluminal, and that vector GWs are forbidden when tensor GWs propagate exactly at the speed of light.

Significance. If the derivation is correct, this is a useful map of the parameter space of the general Einstein-vector theory and gives testable predictions for GW detectors: two superluminal vector modes when β2≠0 and Ā≠0, a single scalar mode under restrictive stability conditions, and no vector modes when c_t=1 under a no-fine-tuning assumption. The tensor and vector derivations in Secs. IV-V are explicit, and the comparison with the earlier Minkowski-background study (Ref. [86]) adds context. The scalar sector is handled much more opaquely, however, and the headline claim about vector GWs being forbidden when c_t=1 is stated in the abstract without the no-fine-tuning caveat that the body introduces.

major comments (2)
  1. [§IV, Eq. (93); Abstract; §VII] The claim that vector GWs are forbidden when c_t=1 depends on an unstated no-fine-tuning assumption. Eq. (93), β2 Ā² + 8β4(HĀĀ̇ − Ā̇² − ĀÄ) = 0, is a single differential equation for Ā(t). The background equations (59)-(61) do not fix Ā(t); Eqs. (66)-(68) solve for μ0², Ḣ, and Λ0 in terms of Ā. Therefore one may choose Ā(t) satisfying Eq. (93) with β2≠0, in which case Sec. V gives two vector modes with c_v² = 1 + 2β2²Ā²/q_t > 1. The body says 'with no fine-tuning between functions' this forces β2=β4=0, but no proof is given, and the abstract and conclusion state the result unconditionally. This is load-bearing for the paper's key observational signature. Please either prove that no such Ā(t) exists in the allowed parameter space or qualify the claim.
  2. [§VI.B, around Eqs. (136)-(142)] The effective action from which the scalar stability conditions are extracted is omitted: the text says 'Given that this action ... serves merely as an auxiliary construct for the derivation, we omit its explicit form.' Yet Eqs. (140)-(142), and in particular the condition (142) that is reduced to β1+4H²β4<0 and the bound (144), are asserted to follow from that action. This makes a central part of the scalar analysis unverifiable. Please include at least the full kinetic matrix (or the explicit action before constraints are imposed) so that the ghost conditions (140)-(142) can be checked. This is necessary for the claim that the scalar sector is ghost-free only for large |k|.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§II, around Eq. (21)] The assumption that ∇²Q=0 implies Q=0 is used to decouple the perturbation equations. This is valid for nonzero Fourier modes but discards homogeneous modes; state this explicitly.
  2. [Abstract and §I] The abstract says a 'Hamiltonian analysis' is performed, but the body uses second-order Lagrangian effective actions and constraints. Please align the terminology.
  3. [§IV, Eq. (92)] The notation O(β_•²) is informal. Since several coupling constants enter, specify the expansion parameter (e.g., max(|β1|,|β2|,|β4|)) and the sense in which higher-order terms are neglected.
  4. [Tables II and III] The captions could note explicitly that the stability conditions listed are necessary, not sufficient, for the GW-mode claims; the text already makes this point in Sec. VII but the tables are often read independently.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the perturbation/GW derivation is self-contained, self-citations are merely comparative, and the no-fine-tuning caveat is an assumption rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is self-contained. Starting from the action (43), it performs an SVT decomposition, expands to quadratic order, imposes gauge conditions, integrates out nondynamical variables, and derives mode counts and speeds from the resulting quadratic actions (Eqs. (84), (114), (152)). No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then presented as a prediction; the only observational input is the external GW170817 bound on c_t, which is used as a constraint on the parameter space, not as a fitted quantity. The 'three viable regions' for c_t=1 in Table I follow from setting Eq. (93) to zero under the explicitly stated assumption |β1|,|β2|,|β4|≪1. Self-citations (Refs. [47,86]) appear only in comparative remarks ('broadly consistent with those reported in Ref. [86]'; 'stability of Bumblebee theory has been investigated in Refs. [87] and [47]') and are not load-bearing inputs to the calculation. There is no imported uniqueness theorem, no ansatz hidden behind a citation, and no renaming of a known empirical pattern as a derivation. The one noteworthy caveat is the 'no fine-tuning between functions' premise in Sec. IV, used to pass from Eq. (93) to β2=β4=0 when A(t) is time dependent; this makes the headline statement 'vector GWs are forbidden if tensor GWs propagate exactly at the speed of light' conditional on that premise. That is a technical/physical assumption and a possible correctness concern, but it is not circular: the conclusion is not equivalent to the premise by construction, and rejecting the premise would weaken the claim without making the derivation self-referential. Therefore no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper fits no data and introduces no new entities. Central claims rest on the existing GEV action, FLRW symmetry, the Schutz-Sorkin fluid, small couplings, the small-scale limit, and an explicit no-fine-tuning assumption for the c_t=1 case.

free parameters (4)
  • β2 = β2 ≤ 0 (vector stability when Ā≠0)
    Coupling in β2 Gμν Aμ Aν; sign constrained by tachyonic stability (Eq. 118). Not fitted to data.
  • β1 and β4 combination = β1 + 4H²β4 < 0; β1/β4 ≳ -4(H² + 4Ḣ/3) if β4<0
    Scalar ghost-freedom and Laplacian stability conditions (Eqs. 143, 155).
  • Coupling smallness scale = |β1|, |β2|, |β4| ≪ 1
    Assumed from consistency with GR observations; used throughout to satisfy tensor and vector stability.
  • Background vector field Ā(t) = Not fitted; treated as arbitrary time function
    Central results bifurcate on whether Ā=0 or Ā≠0; the background configuration is chosen to respect FLRW symmetry.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption FLRW background with SO(3) symmetry and Āμ=(Ā(t),0,0,0)
    Used throughout; the decoupling proof in Sec. II relies on the SO(3)-symmetric background (Eqs. 1-4).
  • domain assumption Perfect fluid described by the Schutz-Sorkin action (B1), minimally coupled
    Matter sector enters the background equations (59)-(61) and the perturbation actions through this specific action.
  • domain assumption |β1|, |β2|, |β4| ≪ 1
    Justified by absence of observed deviations from GR; makes tensor and vector stability conditions easy to satisfy (Sec. IV, Table I).
  • domain assumption Small-scale / plane-wave limit |k|→∞ is the physically relevant regime
    Scalar stability only holds for large |k| (Eq. 144); the paper restricts GW phenomenology to this regime.
  • ad hoc to paper No fine-tuning between background functions when imposing c_t=1
    Used to reduce Eq. (93) to β2=β4=0; without it, solutions with β2≠0 and c_t=1 may exist.
  • ad hoc to paper If ∇²Q=0 then Q=0 in the SVT decoupling
    Invoked in Sec. II to isolate scalar and vector sectors; fails at zero wavenumber, though the authors argue only dynamics matter.
  • standard math Gauge choices α=0, E=0 and ε=0 completely fix the gauge
    Standard gauge fixing for cosmological perturbations; used in Secs. V B and VI A.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cosmological perturbations and gravitational waves in the general Einstein-vector theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6JO6XUP6

@misc{pith2026260212536,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cosmological perturbations and gravitational waves in the general Einstein-vector theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6JO6XUP6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.12536}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the stability and gravitational waves (GWs) in the four-dimensional general Einstein-vector theory on a cosmological background. To study the stability, we systematically perform a Hamiltonian analysis at the linear perturbation level. The stability conditions are easily satisfied for tensor perturbations, but they impose nontrivial constraints on the parameter space for vector and scalar perturbations. In particular, in the presence of a nonzero background vector field, the scalar sector fails to satisfy the stability conditions in the general parameter space. However, imposing the plane-wave condition relaxes these conditions, making them achievable. In the small-scale limit, we further investigate the GW properties of the general Einstein-vector theory within the stable parameter space, including the number of independent modes, their propagation speeds, and observational constraints from GW experiments. We find that there can be at most two tensor modes, two vector modes, and one scalar mode. Notably, without imposing the plane-wave ansatz, no scalar GWs exist within the stable parameter space. Furthermore, vector GWs are forbidden if tensor GWs propagate exactly at the speed of light.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

102 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [86]

    Lai, Y.-Q

    X.-B. Lai, Y.-Q. Dong, Y.-Q. Liu, and Y.-X. Liu. Polarization modes of gravitational waves in general Einstein-vector theory.Phys. Rev. D, 110(6):064073, 2024

    2024

  2. [1]

    Einstein

    A. Einstein. The foundation of the general theory of relativity.Annalen Phys., 49(7):769–822, 1916

    1916

  3. [2]

    Clifton, P

    T. Clifton, P. G. Ferreira, A. Padilla, and C. Skordis. Modified Gravity and Cosmology.Phys. Rept., 513:1–189, 2012

    2012

  4. [3]

    B. P. Abbott et al. Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger.Phys. Rev. Lett., 116(6):061102, 2016

    2016

  5. [4]

    B. P. Abbott et al. GW150914: The Advanced LIGO Detectors in the Era of First Discoveries.Phys. Rev. Lett., 116(13):131103, 2016

    2016

  6. [5]

    Einstein

    A. Einstein. Erkl¨ arung der Perihelbewegung des Merkur aus der allgemeinen Relativit¨ atstheorie.Sitzungsberichte der preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 831:839, 1915. 35

    1915

  7. [6]

    Dyson, A

    F. Dyson, A. Eddington, and C. Davidson. A Determination of the Deflection of Light by the Sun’s Gravitational Field, from Observations made at the Total Eclipse of May 29, 1919.Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond., A 220:291–333, 1920

    1919

  8. [7]

    R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka. Gravitational Red-Shift in Nuclear Resonance.Phys. Rev. Lett., 3:439–441, 1959

    1959

Show all 102 references
  1. [8]

    R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka. Apparent Weight of Photons.Phys. Rev. Lett., 4:337–341, 1960

    1960

  2. [9]

    R. A. Hulse and J. H. Taylor. Discovery of a pulsar in a binary system.Astrophys. J. Lett., 195:L51–L53, 1975

    1975

  3. [10]

    J. H. Taylor, L. A. Fowler, and P. M. McCulloch. Measurements of general relativistic effects in the binary pulsar PSR 1913+16.Nature, 277:437–440, 1979

    1913

  4. [11]

    Akiyama et al

    K. Akiyama et al. First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. I. The Shadow of the Supermassive Black Hole.Astrophys. J. Lett., 875:L1, 2019

    2019

  5. [12]

    Akiyama et al

    K. Akiyama et al. First Sagittarius A* Event Horizon Telescope Results. I. The Shadow of the Supermassive Black Hole in the Center of the Milky Way.Astrophys. J. Lett., 930(2):L12, 2022

    2022

  6. [13]

    Akiyama et al

    K. Akiyama et al. First Sagittarius A* Event Horizon Telescope Results. VI. Testing the Black Hole Metric.Astrophys. J. Lett., 930(2):L17, 2022

    2022

  7. [14]

    S. Smith. The Mass of the Virgo Cluster.Astrophys. J., 83:23–30, 1936

    1936

  8. [15]

    F. Zwicky. On the Masses of Nebulae and of Clusters of Nebulae.Astrophys. J., 86:217–246, 1937

    1937

  9. [16]

    P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra. The Cosmological Constant and Dark Energy.Rev. Mod. Phys., 75:559–606, 2003

    2003

  10. [17]

    ’t Hooft and M

    G. ’t Hooft and M. J. G. Veltman. One-loop divergencies in the theory of gravitation.Ann. Inst. H. Poincare Phys. Theor. A, 20(1):69–94, 1974

    1974

  11. [18]

    M. H. Goroff and A. Sagnotti. The Ultraviolet Behavior of Einstein Gravity.Nucl. Phys. B, 266:709–736, 1986

    1986

  12. [19]

    Arkani-Hamed, S

    N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, and G. R. Dvali. The Hierarchy problem and new dimensions at a millimeter.Phys. Lett. B, 429:263–272, 1998

    1998

  13. [20]

    Randall and R

    L. Randall and R. Sundrum. A Large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimension.Phys. Rev. Lett., 83:3370–3373, 1999

    1999

  14. [21]

    Randall and R

    L. Randall and R. Sundrum. An Alternative to compactification.Phys. Rev. Lett., 83:4690–4693, 1999

    1999

  15. [22]

    Brans and R

    C. Brans and R. H. Dicke. Mach’s principle and a relativistic theory of gravitation.Phys. Rev., 124:925–935, 1961

    1961

  16. [23]

    V. A. Kostelecky. Gravity, Lorentz violation, and the standard model.Phys. Rev. D, 69:105009, 2004

    2004

  17. [24]

    T. P. Sotiriou and V. Faraoni. f(R) Theories Of Gravity.Rev. Mod. Phys., 82:451–497, 2010

    2010

  18. [25]

    De Felice and S

    A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa. Construction of cosmologically viable f(G) dark energy models.Phys. Lett. B, 675:1–8, 2009

    2009

  19. [26]

    T. Kaluza. Zum unit¨ atsproblem der physik.Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Math. Phys. ), 1921:966–972, 1921

    1921

  20. [27]

    H. A. Buchdahl. Non-linear Lagrangians and cosmological theory.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 150(1):1–8, 1970

    1970

  21. [28]

    Heisenberg

    L. Heisenberg. Review on f(Q) gravity.Phys. Rept., 1066:1–78, 2024

    2024

  22. [29]

    D. M. Eardley, D. L. Lee, and A. P. Lightman. Gravitational-wave observations as a tool for testing relativistic gravity. Phys. Rev. D, 8:3308–3321, 1973

    1973

  23. [30]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov. Introduction to modified gravity and gravitational alternative for dark energy.eConf, C0602061:06, 2006

    2006

  24. [31]

    Famaey and S

    B. Famaey and S. McGaugh. Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND): Observational Phenomenology and Relativistic Extensions.Living Rev. Rel., 15:10, 2012

    2012

  25. [32]

    Y.-Q. Dong, S. Mukohyama, and Y.-X. Liu. Propagation and polarization of gravitational waves on curved spacetime backgrounds in Einstein-Æther theory.arXiv: 2601.13061

  26. [33]

    Y.-Q. Dong, Z. Cao, and Y.-X. Liu. Gravitational Wave Detection Based on Gravitomagnetic Effects.arXiv: 2512.11262

  27. [34]

    Dong, X.-B

    Y.-Q. Dong, X.-B. Lai, Y.-Z. Fan, and Y.-X. Liu. New gravitational wave polarization modes in the torsionless spacetime. Eur. Phys. J. C, 85(11):1249, 2025. 36

    2025

  28. [35]

    Fan, X.-B

    Y.-Z. Fan, X.-B. Lai, Y.-Q. Dong, and Y.-X. Liu. Polarization modes of gravitational waves in scalar-tensor-Rastall theory.Eur. Phys. J. C, 85(1):65, 2025

    2025

  29. [36]

    Liu, S.-P

    J.-Z. Liu, S.-P. Wu, S.-W. Wei, and Y.-X. Liu. Exact Black Hole Solutions in Bumblebee Gravity with Lightlike or Spacelike VEVS.arXiv: 2510.16731

    arXiv

  30. [37]

    Liu, S.-J

    J.-Z. Liu, S.-J. Yang, C.-C. Zhu, and Y.-X. Liu. D-dimensional black holes in extended Gauss-Bonnet gravity.arXiv: 2508.04292

    arXiv

  31. [38]

    G. Chen, S. Guo, J.-S. Li, Y.-X. Huang, L.-F. Li, and P. Xu. Influences of accretion flow and dilaton charge on the images of Einstein-Maxwell-dilation black holes.Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron., 68(6):260413, 2025

    2025

  32. [39]

    Zhang, Z

    C.-Y. Zhang, Z. Zhang, and R. Zheng. Extraction of energy from a black hole in Einstein-Maxwell-scalar theory.Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron., 68(5):250411, 2025

    2025

  33. [40]

    Cao, J.-N

    L.-M. Cao, J.-N. Chen, L.-B. Wu, L. Xie, and Y.-S. Zhou. The pseudospectrum and spectrum (in)stability of quantum corrected Schwarzschild black hole.Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron., 67(10):100412, 2024

    2024

  34. [41]

    Q. Tan, S. Long, W. Deng, and J. Jing. Quasinormal modes and echoes of a double braneworld.JHEP, 02:055, 2025

    2025

  35. [42]

    Y.-P. E, C.-C. Zhu, and Y.-X. Liu. Quasinormal modes of thick branes inf(R) gravity.arXiv: 2512.17208

  36. [43]

    Jia, W.-D

    H.-L. Jia, W.-D. Guo, Y.-X. Liu, and Q. Tan. Quasinormal ringing of de Sitter braneworlds.JHEP, 06:117, 2025

    2025

  37. [44]

    Jia, W.-D

    H.-L. Jia, W.-D. Guo, Q. Tan, and Y.-X. Liu. Quasinormal ringing of thick braneworlds with a finite extra dimension. Phys. Rev. D, 110(6):064077, 2024

    2024

  38. [45]

    Q. Tan, Y. Wu, and L. Liu. Pre-big-bang cosmology cannot explain the NANOGrav 15-year signal.Phys. Rev. D, 111(12):123525, 2025

    2025

  39. [46]

    Q. Tan, Z. C. Chen, Y. Wu, and L. Liu. Pre-Big-Bang cosmology meets gravitational wave astronomy: constraints from advanced LIGO and advanced Virgo’s first three observing runs.Commun. Theor. Phys., 78(2):025408, 2026

    2026

  40. [47]

    Lai, Y.-Q

    X.-B. Lai, Y.-Q. Dong, Y.-Z. Fan, and Y.-X. Liu. Stability analysis of cosmological perturbations in the bumblebee model: Parameter constraints and gravitational waves.Phys. Rev. D, 113(4):044003, 2026

    2026

  41. [48]

    W. Liu, X. Fang, J. Jing, and J. Wang. Lorentz violation induces isospectrality breaking in Einstein-bumblebee gravity theory.Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron., 67(8):280413, 2024

    2024

  42. [49]

    Jin, J.-Y

    S.-J. Jin, J.-Y. Song, T.-Y. Sun, S.-R. Xiao, H. Wang, L.-F. Wang, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang. Gravitational wave standard sirens: A brief review of cosmological parameter estimation.Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron., 69(2):220401, 2026

    2026

  43. [50]

    B. P. Abbott et al. GW170817: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Neutron Star Inspiral.Phys. Rev. Lett., 119(16):161101, 2017

    2017

  44. [51]

    Goldstein et al

    A. Goldstein et al. An Ordinary Short Gamma-Ray Burst with Extraordinary Implications: Fermi-GBM Detection of GRB 170817A.Astrophys. J. Lett., 848(2):L14, 2017

    2017

  45. [52]

    Savchenko et al

    V. Savchenko et al. INTEGRAL Detection of the First Prompt Gamma-Ray Signal Coincident with the Gravitational- wave Event GW170817.Astrophys. J. Lett., 848(2):L15, 2017

    2017

  46. [53]

    Agazie et al

    G. Agazie et al. The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Evidence for a Gravitational-wave Background.Astrophys. J. Lett., 951(1):L8, 2023

    2023

  47. [54]

    Antoniadis et al

    J. Antoniadis et al. The second data release from the European Pulsar Timing Array - III. Search for gravitational wave signals.Astron. Astrophys., 678:A50, 2023

    2023

  48. [55]

    D. J. Reardon et al. Search for an Isotropic Gravitational-wave Background with the Parkes Pulsar Timing Array. Astrophys. J. Lett., 951(1):L6, 2023

    2023

  49. [56]

    Xu et al

    H. Xu et al. Searching for the Nano-Hertz Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background with the Chinese Pulsar Timing Array Data Release I.Res. Astron. Astrophys., 23(7):075024, 2023

    2023

  50. [57]

    Chen, Y.-M

    Z.-C. Chen, Y.-M. Wu, Y.-C. Bi, and Q.-G. Huang. Search for nontensorial gravitational-wave backgrounds in the 37 NANOGrav 15-year dataset.Phys. Rev. D, 109(8):084045, 2024

    2024

  51. [58]

    O4A CATALOG.https://ligo.org/detections/o4a-catalog/, 20250826

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration. O4A CATALOG.https://ligo.org/detections/o4a-catalog/, 20250826

  52. [59]

    Punturo et al

    M. Punturo et al. The Einstein Telescope: A third-generation gravitational wave observatory.Class. Quant. Grav., 27:194002, 2010

    2010

  53. [60]

    Reitze et al

    D. Reitze et al. Cosmic Explorer: The U.S. Contribution to Gravitational-Wave Astronomy beyond LIGO.Bull. Am. Astron. Soc., 51(7):035, 2019

    2019

  54. [61]

    Amaro-Seoane et al

    P. Amaro-Seoane et al. Laser Interferometer Space Antenna.arXiv: 1702.00786

    arXiv

  55. [62]

    Hu and Y.-L

    W.-R. Hu and Y.-L. Wu. The Taiji Program in Space for gravitational wave physics and the nature of gravity.Natl. Sci. Rev., 4(5):685–686, 2017

    2017

  56. [63]

    Luo et al

    J. Luo et al. TianQin: a space-borne gravitational wave detector.Class. Quant. Grav., 33(3):035010, 2016

    2016

  57. [64]

    Tinto and M

    M. Tinto and M. E. da Silva Alves. LISA Sensitivities to Gravitational Waves from Relativistic Metric Theories of Gravity.Phys. Rev. D, 82:122003, 2010

    2010

  58. [65]

    Colpi et al

    M. Colpi et al. LISA Definition Study Report.arXiv: 2402.07571

    arXiv

  59. [66]

    H. V. Helmholtz. ¨Uber integrale der hydrodynamischen gleichungen, welche den wirbelbewegungen entsprechen. 1858

  60. [67]

    Lifshitz

    E. Lifshitz. Republication of: On the gravitational stability of the expanding universe.J. Phys. (USSR), 10(2):116, 1946

    1946

  61. [68]

    J. M. Bardeen. Gauge Invariant Cosmological Perturbations.Phys. Rev. D, 22:1882–1905, 1980

    1905

  62. [69]

    Geng and H

    W.-J. Geng and H. Lu. Einstein-Vector Gravity, Emerging Gauge Symmetry and de Sitter Bounce.Phys. Rev. D, 93(4):044035, 2016

    2016

  63. [70]

    De Felice, J.-M

    A. De Felice, J.-M. Gerard, and T. Suyama. Cosmological perturbations of a perfect fluid and noncommutative variables. Phys. Rev. D, 81:063527, 2010

    2010

  64. [71]

    De Felice, L

    A. De Felice, L. Heisenberg, R. Kase, S. Mukohyama, S. Tsujikawa, and Y.-l. Zhang. Cosmology in generalized Proca theories.JCAP, 06:048, 2016

    2016

  65. [72]

    D. N. Spergel et al. Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) three year results: implications for cosmology. Astrophys. J. Suppl., 170:377, 2007

    2007

  66. [73]

    E. E. Flanagan and S. A. Hughes. The Basics of gravitational wave theory.New J. Phys., 7:204, 2005

    2005

  67. [74]

    Jackiw and S

    R. Jackiw and S. Y. Pi. Chern-Simons modification of general relativity.Phys. Rev. D, 68:104012, 2003

    2003

  68. [75]

    Perlmutter et al

    S. Perlmutter et al. Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 High Redshift Supernovae.Astrophys. J., 517:565–586, 1999

    1999

  69. [76]

    A. G. Riess et al. Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant. Astron. J., 116:1009–1038, 1998

    1998

  70. [77]

    A. G. Riess et al. BV RI light curves for 22 type Ia supernovae.Astron. J., 117:707–724, 1999

    1999

  71. [78]

    Camarena and V

    D. Camarena and V. Marra. Local determination of the Hubble constant and the deceleration parameter.Phys. Rev. Res., 2(1):013028, 2020

    2020

  72. [79]

    S. M. Feeney, D. J. Mortlock, and N. Dalmasso. Clarifying the Hubble constant tension with a Bayesian hierarchical model of the local distance ladder.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 476(3):3861–3882, 2018

    2018

  73. [80]

    Belgacem, Y

    E. Belgacem, Y. Dirian, S. Foffa, and M. Maggiore. Gravitational-wave luminosity distance in modified gravity theories. Phys. Rev. D, 97(10):104066, 2018

    2018

  74. [81]

    Amendola, I

    L. Amendola, I. Sawicki, M. Kunz, and I. D. Saltas. Direct detection of gravitational waves can measure the time variation of the Planck mass.JCAP, 08:030, 2018

    2018

  75. [82]

    Belgacem, Y

    E. Belgacem, Y. Dirian, S. Foffa, and M. Maggiore. Modified gravitational-wave propagation and standard sirens.Phys. Rev. D, 98(2):023510, 2018

    2018

  76. [83]

    B. P. Abbott et al. Gravitational Waves and Gamma-rays from a Binary Neutron Star Merger: GW170817 and GRB 170817A.Astrophys. J. Lett., 848(2):L13, 2017

    2017

  77. [84]

    B. P. Abbott et al. Tests of General Relativity with GW170817.Phys. Rev. Lett., 123(1):011102, 2019. 38

    2019

  78. [85]

    Dyer and K

    E. Dyer and K. Hinterbichler. Boundary Terms, Variational Principles and Higher Derivative Modified Gravity.Phys. Rev. D, 79:024028, 2009

    2009

  79. [87]

    van de Bruck, M

    C. van de Bruck, M. A. Gorji, N. A. Nilsson, M. C. Pookkillath, and M. Yamaguchi. A no-go theorem in bumblebee vector-tensor cosmology.arXiv: 2509.11647

  80. [88]

    B. P. Abbott et al. LIGO: The Laser interferometer gravitational-wave observatory.Rept. Prog. Phys., 72:076901, 2009

    2009

  81. [89]

    Accadia et al

    T. Accadia et al. Virgo: a laser interferometer to detect gravitational waves.JINST, 7:P03012, 2012

    2012

  82. [90]

    Akutsu et al

    T. Akutsu et al. KAGRA: 2.5 Generation Interferometric Gravitational Wave Detector.Nature Astron., 3(1):35–40, 2019

    2019

  83. [91]

    L. Qian, R. Yao, J. Sun, J. Xu, Z. Pan, and P. Jiang. Fast: Its scientific achievements and prospects.The Innovation, 1(3):100053, November 2020

    2020

  84. [92]

    Z. Luo, Y. Wang, Y. Wu, W. Hu, and G. Jin. The Taiji program: A concise overview.PTEP, 2021(5):05A108, 2021

    2021

  85. [93]

    J. D. Brown. Action functionals for relativistic perfect fluids.Class. Quant. Grav., 10:1579–1606, 1993

    1993

  86. [94]

    S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis.The large scale structure of space-time. Cambridge university press, 1973

    1973

  87. [95]

    B. F. Schutz. Perfect Fluids in General Relativity: Velocity Potentials and a Variational Principle.Phys. Rev. D, 2:2762–2773, 1970

    1970

  88. [96]

    Bertolami, F

    O. Bertolami, F. S. N. Lobo, and J. Paramos. Non-minimum coupling of perfect fluids to curvature.Phys. Rev. D, 78:064036, 2008

    2008

  89. [97]

    V. Faraoni. The Lagrangian description of perfect fluids and modified gravity with an extra force.Phys. Rev. D, 80:124040, 2009

    2009

  90. [98]

    de Boer, J

    J. de Boer, J. Hartong, N. A. Obers, W. Sybesma, and S. Vandoren. Perfect Fluids.SciPost Phys., 5(1):003, 2018

    2018

  91. [99]

    J. Ovalle. Decoupling gravitational sources in general relativity: from perfect to anisotropic fluids.Phys. Rev. D, 95(10):104019, 2017

    2017

  92. [100]

    T. Buchert. On average properties of inhomogeneous fluids in general relativity: Perfect fluid cosmologies.Gen. Rel. Grav., 33:1381–1405, 2001

    2001

  93. [101]

    B. F. Schutz and R. Sorkin. Variational aspects of relativistic field theories, with application to perfect fluids.Annals Phys., 107:1–43, 1977

    1977

  94. [102]

    Kase and S

    R. Kase and S. Tsujikawa. Dark energy in scalar-vector-tensor theories.JCAP, 11:024, 2018

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.