Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

The paper proposes that the unphysical fast modes introduced by well-posed effective field theories can be eliminated uniquely by applying order reduction to initial data rather than to the equations of motion, and that the apparent Lorentz

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

2026-08-02 23:08 UTC pith:ZNAX3F7J

load-bearing objection A genuinely useful paper on order-reduced initial data for EFTs; the BDNK part is solid and actionable, while the gravitational extension is honestly labeled as unfinished. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2602.14541 v2 pith:ZNAX3F7J submitted 2026-02-16 gr-qc hep-thnucl-th

The initial data of effective field theories of relativistic viscous fluids and gravity

Lorenzo Gavassino , \'Aron D. Kov\'acs , Harvey S. Reall This is my paper
classification gr-qc hep-thnucl-th MSC 83C0583C5576Y0535L30
keywords effective field theoryorder reductioninitial datarelativistic viscous hydrodynamicsBDNKwell-posednessEinstein-Gauss-BonnetLorentz invariance
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.

The paper tackles a shared flaw of recent well-posed formulations of relativistic viscous hydrodynamics (BDNK) and higher-derivative gravitational effective field theories: they carry extra degrees of freedom that are unphysical. The proposal is to keep the covariant, well-posed equations unchanged, but fix the initial data for those extra modes by order reduction—replacing higher time derivatives with spatial derivatives using the equations themselves. This makes the initial value problem unique and eliminates the fast spurious modes, at the price of a frame choice that the authors argue is harmless within the EFT's validity. The argument is carried by three theorems for linear theories plus a covariance argument for general observers. If correct, it removes the last ambiguity in simulating BDNK fluids and gives a concrete initialization strategy for gravitational EFTs.

Core claim

The central claim is that the correct way to treat unphysical degrees of freedom in an effective field theory is to apply the standard order-reduction procedure only to initial data, leaving the well-posed covariant equations of motion intact. For a linear EFT of the form Nφ + λMφ = 0, the extra degrees of freedom are exactly the modes whose frequencies diverge as λ→0; there is always a differential operator that lowers the time order of the leading correction to match N; and the slow dispersion relations of the original and reduced equations agree to first order in λ, so fixing initial data by the reduced equation is consistent with the EFT. The apparent breaking of Lorentz or general covar

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is order reduction used as an initial-data prescription rather than an equation-of-motion modification. Where the EFT has time derivatives of order m but physical modes of order n, one repeatedly substitutes lower-order equations into the higher-derivative correction terms; the result is a reduced equation whose highest time derivative is of order n, and this reduced equation (plus its time derivatives) fixes the higher-derivative initial data uniquely in terms of the physical data. Three linear theorems guarantee that the extra modes are fast (frequencies ~1/λ), that a reducing operator always exists, and that physical slow dispersion relations are unchanged to fi

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the EFT prescription that physical initial states must not contain excited fast modes: all the uniqueness claims follow from that, and if a real system's initial state does carry high-frequency content, the order-reduced data would discard physical information.

What would settle it

Find a physical system described by one of these EFTs whose initial state is prepared with a small but nonzero amplitude in a fast mode—for example, a Ruderman–Bludman sound wave with the second time derivative of the field displaced from the order-reduced value by an amount within the EFT error budget. If the parent theory or a UV completion shows that such a state is realizable and that its late-time infrared behavior differs from the order-reduced solution by more than the truncation error, the uniqueness claim fails. A more direct test is to compute the slow-mode dispersion relation of the

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

If this is right

  • BDNK hydrodynamics acquires a unique physically sensible Cauchy problem: initial data for the inverse-temperature four-vector is fixed by the order-reduced equation, so non-hydrodynamic modes are absent and the fluid has the same number of physical degrees of freedom as an ideal fluid.
  • Numerical simulations of relativistic viscous fluids can initialize the time derivative of the temperature or inverse-temperature vector without ambiguity; using only the lowest-order prescription loses order-λ accuracy, while the full reduction attains it.
  • In non-dissipative EFTs such as the Ruderman–Bludman sound-dispersion model, wrong initialization produces persistent oscillations at the UV scale, so the order-reduced data is the only physically acceptable choice.
  • Differences between order-reduced initial data chosen in different Lorentz frames or coordinate systems are of the same order as the EFT truncation error, as long as the observer's gradient length scale satisfies the EFT validity condition; ultrarelativistic observers must instead import data from a frame where the EFT is manifestly valid.
  • For gravitational EFTs such as regularized Einstein–Gauss-Bonnet gravity, the initial data for the higher normal derivatives of the extrinsic curvature can be fixed by order reduction, though solving the resulting order-reduced constraints remains an open problem with perturbative and constraint-damping routes available.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A testable corollary: for any linear EFT satisfying the paper's Theorem 1, order-reduced initial data should be reproducible by projecting a UV-complete initial state onto the slow subspace; a kinetic-theory or holographic model with controlled fast-mode content could check this directly.
  • The criterion that the boost factor times the ratio of the UV scale to the gradient scale be small gives a quantitative operational rule for when a boosted observer may use order reduction; this could matter in heavy-ion or astrophysical settings where fluid frames are highly boosted.
  • The gravitational construction suggests that the central open problem is not the evolution equations but whether the order-reduced constraint equations are solvable; if they are, higher-derivative gravity simulations become feasible.
  • The same logic should extend to gauge theories with constraints, where the constraint equations must be solved modulo the same truncation error; constraint damping may be the practical bridge.

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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper addresses the problem of initial data for well-posed effective field theories (EFTs) that contain additional, unphysical fast degrees of freedom, focusing on BDNK relativistic viscous hydrodynamics and gravitational EFTs such as regularized Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet (EGB) gravity. The proposal is to apply the standard 'reduction of order' procedure not to the equations of motion but only to the initial data: the time derivatives of the fields that correspond to fast modes are expressed in terms of the physical, slowly varying data. The authors argue that this yields a unique, physically correct initialization within the EFT, and that the apparent Lorentz or diffeomorphism breaking is harmless provided one works in frames/coordinate systems where the EFT gradient expansion is manifestly valid. They prove three linear theorems: (1) the additional modes always have frequencies diverging as λ→0; (2) an order-reduction operator exists to lower the time-derivative order to that of the physical sector; (3) the slow dispersion relations of the original and order-reduced equations agree to first order in λ. They then present covariance arguments and work out explicit initial-data prescriptions for causal heat conduction in rotating stars, BDNK hydrodynamics, and regularized EGB gravity. The gravitational part relies on several unproved assumptions about the solvability and character of the order-reduced constraint equations, explicitly flagged by the authors.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper provides a systematic and physically motivated resolution of the initial-data ambiguity for well-posed EFTs of relativistic fluids and gravity, which is directly relevant for numerical implementations of BDNK and for the FHK approach to gravitational EFTs. The linear theorems are elementary but clearly stated and correctly proved, and the explicit formulas for BDNK and EGB initial data are concrete outputs that practitioners can use. The paper is also commendably explicit about its assumptions, especially in the gravitational covariance argument, where it labels the constraint-solvability steps as assumptions rather than disguising them as theorems. However, the advertised scope is broader than what is actually established: the rigorous theorems are linear, while the key applications (BDNK, rotating-star heat conduction) are nonlinear; and the gravitational part, which is a central advertised component, is conditional on unproved existence results for the order-reduced constraints. These gaps make the paper's strongest claims—uniqueness and covariance for gravitational EFTs—defensible but not yet fully closed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV B and V C] The gravitational extension of the central claim is not closed. In Sec. IV B, the argument explicitly assumes that the order-reduced constraints can be solved ('which we assume can be solved') and that an approximate solution can be improved to an exact one by an O(λ^{m+1}) adjustment ('We assume that this can be improved...'). In Sec. V C, the authors state that the order-reduced constraints 'will contain higher than second-order spatial derivatives' and that their 'character is unclear', deferring solution methods to future work. Since the abstract and conclusions present gravity as part of the paper's scope, the uniqueness and covariance statements for gravitational EFTs are not theorems but conditional statements pending an existence and solvability analysis of these constraints. The paper should either provide such an analysis for a nontrivial class (e.g., EGB with the CTT decomposi
  2. [Sec. III and Sec. IV A] The load-bearing premise that 'the initial conditions must be chosen so that these fast modes are not excited' (Sec. III) is an assumption about physical initial states, not a theorem derived from a UV completion. If a real system is prepared with high-frequency content—for example, through coupling to a UV theory or through initial data supplied from external input—order-reduced initial data will discard that physical information, and the claimed uniqueness fails. The same premise is implicitly used in the Lorentz-covariance argument of Sec. IV A. The manuscript would be improved by stating this premise explicitly as an assumption that defines the regime of applicability of the prescription, and by discussing how one should proceed when the initial state is not slowly varying. Without this, the phrase 'only correct initial data' overstates the result; it is the unique initialization con
  3. [Theorems 1-3 and Sec. V B] The rigorous theorems are proven only for linear equations with constant coefficients. The principal applications, especially BDNK hydrodynamics in Sec. V B, are nonlinear. The appendices (A and B) provide only heuristic ODE arguments and are explicit that they are not rigorous. Consequently, the conclusion that the initialization prescription (33) 'remove[s] the final potential roadblock' for BDNK is not established at the same level of rigor as the rest of the paper. I do not believe this is a fatal flaw for a physics journal, but the authors should temper the claim and make clear that, for nonlinear systems, the fastness of the extra modes and the consistency of order reduction are working assumptions supported by linear analysis, not theorems.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Theorem 3 proof] Typo: 'notate' should be 'note' in the sentence 'Also, notate that a similar reasoning applies at higher orders...'.
  2. [Sec. V C] Typo: 'Riemman' should be 'Riemann' in the sentence '...constructed out of the metric tensor, the Riemman tensor...'.
  3. [Appendix B] Minor language: 'the reduction procedure works a follows' should be 'works as follows'.
  4. [Sec. II A and Fig. 1] The description of the red curves in Fig. 1 says they are initialized with different ∂_t T(0) ∼ λk^2, but the figure caption does not state the precise values used. It would help reproducibility to list the initial data or state that they are varied in a small neighborhood as indicated.
  5. [Sec. V B] Equation (33) is complicated and its derivation is only sketched. In particular, the definition of L^j via (M^t)^{-1} requires M^t to be invertible; the paper does not state conditions under which this holds. A brief comment on the invertibility of M^t (e.g., in the physical regime where the ideal-fluid principal symbol is hyperbolic) would be useful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the initial-data reduction is an independent asymptotic prescription; self-citations are not load-bearing, and the only caveats are explicitly assumed solvability steps, not definitional loops.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is not circular. The order-reduced initial data in (3), (6), (26), and (33) are obtained by substituting the leading-order equation of motion into the O(λ) terms—an asymptotic consistency condition. No parameter is fitted to the quantity being 'predicted', and no target prediction is inserted into the input. Theorems 1–3 are self-contained polynomial/implicit-function arguments showing that the extra modes are fast and that the slow dispersion relations agree to first order in λ. The 'uniqueness' of the initial data for the unphysical modes is a direct consequence of the proposed order-reduction procedure, which is exactly the paper's proposal rather than a disguised restatement of a fitted result. Self-citations are present (e.g., FHK [5], Gavassino & Antonelli [23], Gavassino [26]), but they are used for external, published well-posedness or stability results, sometimes with independent co-authors, and are not deployed as an unverified uniqueness theorem to forbid alternatives. The paper itself flags the main gaps: in Sec. IV B it assumes the order-reduced constraints can be solved and that an approximate solution can be improved to an exact one ('we assume that this can be improved to an exact solution of the constraints'), and in Sec. V C it states 'The character of these equations is unclear. We leave to future work the problem of developing methods for solving these equations.' These are explicit assumptions/limitations about gravitational EFTs, not circular reductions; they make the gravitational claim conditional but do not turn the derivation into a self-referential loop. Minor self-citations exist but are not load-bearing, so a low score is appropriate.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The load-bearing content is almost entirely structural. No numbers are fitted and no new entities are posited. The fragility is in the assumptions: EFT validity, suppression of fast modes, and the unproved gravitational constraint-solving steps.

axioms (5)
  • domain assumption EFT gradient-expansion validity: characteristic gradient length scale L is much larger than the UV cutoff lambda.
    Stated in Sec. IV A as the key assumption underlying any EFT; used everywhere to justify neglecting O(lambda^{m+1}) terms.
  • domain assumption Physical initial data must not excite the fast/unphysical modes.
    Enter in Sec. III ('the initial conditions must be chosen so that these fast modes are not excited'); this is the normative premise that makes order-reduced data 'the only correct' choice.
  • domain assumption The BDNK and FHK formulations are well-posed and covariant.
    Background input cited in Sec. I ([1-5]); the paper builds on these results without re-deriving them.
  • domain assumption The retained EFT equations are accurate to order lambda^{m+1} and the truncation error can be neglected when fixing initial data.
    Used in Secs. II-IV to equate the order-reduction error with the EFT truncation error.
  • ad hoc to paper In gravity, the order-reduced constraints can be solved or adjusted to exact data.
    Assumed in Sec. IV B ('We assume that this can be improved to an exact solution of the constraints...') and left open in Sec. V C ('We leave to future work...'). This is an unproved step needed for the covariance-preservation conclusion.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 17328 in / 12609 out tokens · 128543 ms · 2026-08-02T23:08:41.570832+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

There has been recent progress in developing well-posed theories of relativistic viscous hydrodynamics and of gravitational effective field theories. These have in common the feature that they introduce unphysical degrees of freedom. We address the problem of how these should be treated. We propose a ''reduction of order'' approach which is applied not at the level of equations of motion but only to initial data. This specifies uniquely the data for the unphysical modes in terms of the data for the physical modes. We argue that the apparent breaking of Lorentz invariance associated with this approach is not a problem provided one restricts to Lorentz frames for which the assumptions of effective field theory are manifestly valid.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.14541 by \'Aron D. Kov\'acs, Harvey S. Reall, Lorenzo Gavassino.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Comparison between various solutions of (1) (solid lines), under the ansatz [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Comparison between solutions of (4) for various initial data (solid lines), under the ansatz [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 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Nonlinear Causality and Strong Hyperbolicity of Einstein-Israel-Stewart Theories of Transient Relativistic Fluid Dynamics

    nucl-th 2026-07 accept novelty 8.0

    Necessary and sufficient algebraic inequalities fully characterize nonlinear causality of general Israel-Stewart bulk-plus-shear theories, with sufficient conditions for strong hyperbolicity and constraint propagation...

  2. Hydrodynamics without a relaxation gap: memory effects, nonlocality, and superdiffusion

    nucl-th 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A model with unbounded energy-dependent relaxation times shows divergent gradient expansion and nonlocal hydrodynamics, resulting in superdiffusion for singular spectra.

  3. Kerr Black Hole Ringdown in Effective Field Theory

    gr-qc 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Effective field theory yields model-independent corrections to Kerr black hole quasinormal modes that oscillate logarithmically near extremality, indicating discrete scale invariance.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    F. S. Bemfica, M. M. Disconzi, and J. Noronha, Phys. Rev. D100, 104020 (2019)

    2019

  2. [2]

    Kovtun, Journal of High Energy Physics2019, 34 (2019), arXiv:1907.08191 [hep-th]

    P. Kovtun, Journal of High Energy Physics2019, 34 (2019), arXiv:1907.08191 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  3. [3]

    F. S. Bemfica, M. M. Disconzi, and J. Noronha, Phys. Rev. X12, 021044 (2022)

    2022

  4. [4]

    Landau and E

    L. Landau and E. Lifshitz,Fluid Mechanics, v. 6 (Elsevier Science, 2013)

    2013

  5. [5]

    Figueras, A

    P. Figueras, A. Held, and ´A. D. Kov´ acs, (2024), arXiv:2407.08775 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Gavassino, M

    L. Gavassino, M. Antonelli, and B. Haskell, Physical Review D102(2020), 10.1103/physrevd.102.043018

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.043018 2020

  7. [7]

    Mullins, M

    N. Mullins, M. Hippert, L. Gavassino, and J. Noronha, Phys. Rev. D108, 116019 (2023), arXiv:2309.00512 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Gavassino, N

    L. Gavassino, N. Abboud, E. Speranza, and J. Noronha, Phys. Rev. D109, 085013 (2024), arXiv:2401.13852 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    M. P. Heller, A. Serantes, M. Spali´ nski, and B. Withers, (2025), arXiv:2511.08582 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    Geroch, Journal of Mathematical Physics36, 4226 (1995), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.530958

    R. Geroch, Journal of Mathematical Physics36, 4226 (1995), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.530958

    work page doi:10.1063/1.530958 1995

  11. [11]

    Lindblom, Annals of Physics247, 1 (1996), arXiv:gr-qc/9508058 [gr-qc]

    L. Lindblom, Annals of Physics247, 1 (1996), arXiv:gr-qc/9508058 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  12. [12]

    Ba¸ sar, J

    G. Ba¸ sar, J. Bhambure, R. Singh, and D. Teaney, Phys. Rev. C110, 044903 (2024), arXiv:2403.04185 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  13. [13]

    Bhambure, A

    J. Bhambure, A. Mazeliauskas, J.-F. Paquet, R. Singh, M. Singh, D. Teaney, and F. Zhou, Phys. Rev. C111, 064910 (2025), arXiv:2412.10303 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Gavassino, Phys

    L. Gavassino, Phys. Rev. D112, 034026 (2025), arXiv:2505.18815 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Parker and J

    L. Parker and J. Z. Simon, Phys. Rev. D47, 1339 (1993), arXiv:gr-qc/9211002

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  16. [16]

    E. E. Flanagan and R. M. Wald, Phys. Rev. D54, 6233 (1996), arXiv:gr-qc/9602052

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  17. [17]

    Figueras, ´A

    P. Figueras, ´A. D. Kov´ acs, and S. Yao, JHEP10, 150 (2025), arXiv:2505.00082 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Pandya and F

    A. Pandya and F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. D104, 023015 (2021), arXiv:2104.00804 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  19. [19]

    Pandya, E

    A. Pandya, E. R. Most, and F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. D105, 123001 (2022), arXiv:2201.12317 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  20. [20]

    Pandya, E

    A. Pandya, E. R. Most, and F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. D106, 123036 (2022), arXiv:2209.09265 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  21. [21]

    Clarisse, E

    N. Clarisse, E. O. Pinho, T. Patel, F. S. Bemfica, M. Hippert, and J. Noronha, Phys. Rev. D113, 024051 (2026), arXiv:2510.16603 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2026

  22. [22]

    Rauch,Partial Differential Equations, Graduate Texts in Mathematics (Springer New York, 2012)

    J. Rauch,Partial Differential Equations, Graduate Texts in Mathematics (Springer New York, 2012)

    2012

  23. [23]

    Gavassino and M

    L. Gavassino and M. Antonelli, Phys. Rev. D112, 104052 (2025), arXiv:2509.00198 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    S. A. Bludman and M. A. Ruderman, Phys. Rev.170, 1176 (1968)

    1968

  25. [25]

    R. Fox, C. G. Kuper, and S. G. Lipson, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences316, 515 (1970)

    1970

  26. [26]

    Gavassino, Phys

    L. Gavassino, Phys. Lett. B840, 137854 (2023), arXiv:2301.06651 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  27. [27]

    M. M. Disconzi, J. Isenberg, and D. Maxwell, J. Math. Phys.65, 122503 (2024), arXiv:2406.17945 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  28. [28]

    S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis,The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2011)

    2011

  29. [29]

    Schaab and M

    C. Schaab and M. K. Weigel, Astron. Astrophys.336, L13 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9806180

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  30. [30]

    Negreiros, S

    R. Negreiros, S. Schramm, and F. Weber, Phys. Rev. D85, 104019 (2012), arXiv:1201.2381 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  31. [31]

    A. Y. Potekhin, J. A. Pons, and D. Page, Space Sci. Rev.191, 239 (2015), arXiv:1507.06186 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  32. [32]

    M. V. Beznogov, J. Novak, D. Page, and A. R. Raduta, Astrophys. J.942, 72 (2023), arXiv:2206.04539 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    Hiscock and L

    W. Hiscock and L. Lindblom, Physical review D: Particles and fields31, 725 (1985)

    1985

  34. [34]

    Kost ¨adt and M

    P. Kost ¨adt and M. Liu, Phys. Rev. D62, 023003 (2000), arXiv:cond-mat/0010276 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  35. [35]

    Gavassino, Phys

    L. Gavassino, Phys. Rev. X12, 041001 (2022), arXiv:2111.05254 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  36. [36]

    Bea and P

    Y. Bea and P. Figueras, JHEP11, 110 (2024), arXiv:2312.16671 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    R. M. Wald, J. Math. Phys.31, 2378 (1990)

    1990

  38. [38]

    Lee and R

    J. Lee and R. M. Wald, J. Math. Phys.31, 725 (1990)

    1990

  39. [39]

    Iyer and R

    V. Iyer and R. M. Wald, Phys. Rev. D50, 846 (1994), arXiv:gr-qc/9403028

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  40. [40]

    Gundlach, J

    C. Gundlach, J. M. Martin-Garcia, G. Calabrese, and I. Hinder, Class. Quant. Grav.22, 3767 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0504114

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  41. [41]

    Weyhausen, S

    A. Weyhausen, S. Bernuzzi, and D. Hilditch, Phys. Rev. D85, 024038 (2012), arXiv:1107.5539 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  42. [42]

    D. Alic, C. Bona-Casas, C. Bona, L. Rezzolla, and C. Palenzuela, Phys. Rev. D85, 064040 (2012), arXiv:1106.2254 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  43. [43]

    H. S. Reall and C. M. Warnick, J. Math. Phys.63, 042901 (2022), arXiv:2105.12028 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  44. [44]

    ´A. D. Kov´ acs and H. S. Reall, Phys. Rev. D101, 124003 (2020), arXiv:2003.08398 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  45. [45]

    Arest´ e Sal´ o, K

    L. Arest´ e Sal´ o, K. Clough, and P. Figueras, Phys. Rev. D108, 084018 (2023), arXiv:2306.14966 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  46. [46]

    Papallo and H

    G. Papallo and H. S. Reall, Phys. Rev. D96, 044019 (2017), arXiv:1705.04370 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  47. [47]

    Choquet-Bruhat,General Relativity and the Einstein Equations, Oxford Mathematical Monographs (Oxford University Press, United Kingdom, 2009)

    Y. Choquet-Bruhat,General Relativity and the Einstein Equations, Oxford Mathematical Monographs (Oxford University Press, United Kingdom, 2009)

    2009

  48. [48]

    A. D. Kovacs, (2021), arXiv:2103.06895 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  49. [49]

    S. E. Brady, L. Arest´ e Sal´ o, K. Clough, P. Figueras, and A. P. S., Phys. Rev. D108, 104022 (2023), arXiv:2308.16791 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  50. [50]

    Okounkova, M

    M. Okounkova, M. A. Scheel, and S. A. Teukolsky, Class. Quant. Grav.36, 054001 (2019), arXiv:1810.05306 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019