Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Coupling a Lorentz-violating bumblebee field to quadratic gravity forces new counterterms at one loop, and classic black-hole and cosmological geometries survive unchanged.

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 19:13 UTC pith:3NTHBGZ7

load-bearing objection One-loop renormalization claim is undercut by a gauge-fixing inconsistency in the bumblebee propagator; the classical solutions are fine but the headline quantum result isn't usable yet. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2603.02980 v3 pith:3NTHBGZ7 submitted 2026-03-03 hep-th gr-qc

Lorentz violating quadratic gravity

R. B. Alfaia , Willian Carvalho , A. C. Lehum , J. R. Nascimento , A. Yu. Petrov , P. J. Porf\'irio This is my paper
classification hep-th gr-qc
keywords bumblebee modelLorentz violationquadratic gravityrenormalizationone-loop effective actionaether termspontaneous symmetry breakingexact solutions
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 asks whether a bumblebee vector field with spontaneous Lorentz violation can be renormalized when coupled to quadratic gravity. Computing the one-loop two-point functions, it finds that the divergences are not absorbed by the original operators: a longitudinal (∂μBμ)² term and an aether-type bμbνRμν term must be added as counterterms. The model is therefore one-loop renormalizable only in an enlarged operator basis, with Lorentz-violating insertions feeding back into the ultraviolet structure of gravity. On the classical side, the same theory still admits exact Schwarzschild and de Sitter solutions for a purely radial bumblebee profile. This matters because it identifies the minimal operator content for a renormalizable Lorentz-violating gravitational theory and shows which classical solutions remain robust.

Core claim

The central discovery is that at one loop the effective action of bumblebee–quadratic gravity generates divergences proportional to operators outside the starting action. Equation (15) contains a longitudinal (∂μBμ)² structure, and Eq. (20) contains the aether-type operator bμbνRμν (along with b²R corrections). Consequently, the theory is not closed under renormalization in its original basis; one must enlarge the action with these Lorentz-violating counterterms. In addition, the tree-level graviton–bumblebee mixing amplitude vanishes for on-shell external gravitons but the same vertices contribute inside loops where internal lines are off-shell, so the decoupling is purely kinematic. Classi

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the one-loop two-point functions of the bumblebee and graviton fields, expanded around flat space using the propagators in Eq. (9) and the non-minimal couplings ξ1 BμBνRμν and ξ2 B²R. These couplings, together with the background value bμ, create Lorentz-violating insertions in internal lines. The renormalization constants δT, δL, δM, δα, δβ, δξ1, and δξ2 are extracted in the minimal-subtraction scheme, and their explicit forms in Eqs. (16), (19), and (20) encode the claim that new operator structures must be added for the model to be renormalizable.

Load-bearing premise

The loop calculation assumes the bumblebee propagator written without the gauge parameter gl while producing counterterms that depend on gl, so the central renormalization claim rests on an unspecified or internally inconsistent gauge choice.

What would settle it

Recompute the one-loop two-point functions using the bumblebee propagator -i/p² [T + gl L] so that the gauge parameter appears explicitly in the propagator, then check whether the divergent coefficients ΓT, ΓL, ΓM, Γα, and Γβ match those in the paper; if they differ, the published counterterms are tied to gl = 1 and do not support the general-gauge formulas.

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

If this is right

  • The bumblebee sector must include a longitudinal (∂μBμ)² counterterm; without it, the one-loop divergences cannot be removed by renormalizing only the original Maxwell-type kinetic term.
  • The graviton sector acquires an aether-type counterterm bμbνRμν with a UV divergence, so spontaneous Lorentz violation changes the ultraviolet operator content of quadratic gravity.
  • The on-shell graviton–bumblebee mixing vanishes, but off-shell internal lines make the same Lorentz-violating vertices contribute inside loops, so any physical decoupling is only kinematic.
  • Schwarzschild and de Sitter geometries remain exact classical solutions for a radial bumblebee profile, with the non-minimal coupling effectively contributing to a cosmological constant in the de Sitter case.
  • No renormalization of the Einstein–Hilbert term is needed at this order, because the bumblebee field is massless at zeroth order in the Lorentz-violating parameters.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the gauge-fixing ambiguity is resolved, the gauge-parameter dependence of the counterterms may persist in physical beta functions, so gauge-independent combinations of ξ1, ξ2, and b² should be constructed to compare with observations.
  • The appearance of both (∂μBμ)² and bμbνRμν suggests that the natural renormalizable theory is an extended aether-like model; existing solar-system and binary-pulsar bounds on aether theories could then constrain this construction.
  • A natural next step, which the paper lists, is computing the effective potential for the bumblebee VEV; the divergent operator structure found here could feed into a Coleman–Weinberg-type dynamical generation of Lorentz violation.
  • Because Schwarzschild survives exactly at the classical level, black-hole shadow and horizon tests remain unchanged, but the new counterterms may affect quantum-corrected near-horizon or cosmological dynamics.

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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies the bumblebee model coupled to quadratic gravity, i.e., a vector field with a spontaneously Lorentz-violating potential, in the weak-field expansion around flat space. The authors compute one-loop divergent two-point functions for the bumblebee and graviton, extract the counterterm structure, and argue that renormalizability forces the inclusion of a longitudinal (∂·B)^2 operator and aether-type b^μ b^ν R_{μν} counterterms. They also derive classical field equations and show that Schwarzschild and de Sitter geometries are exact solutions for a radial bumblebee profile when ξ1=0. The classical part is straightforward and the Schwarzschild/de Sitter checks appear correct. The quantum part is the main claim, but it is marred by two internal inconsistencies in the stated starting data: the bumblebee propagator and the quadratic bumblebee potential.

Significance. If correct, the result would be significant: it would provide a concrete one-loop example in which Lorentz-violating insertions in quadratic gravity generate new operator structures that must be included for renormalizability, and it would connect bumblebee gravity with aether-type terms. The classical exact-solution statements are useful but modest, and they are essentially independent of the quantum calculation. The paper is also explicit about its assumptions (massless bumblebee at zeroth order in LV parameters, neglect of ghosts in one-graviton exchange, restriction to b^2 counterterms). However, because the central quantum computation rests on an inconsistent propagator and an apparently incorrect quadratic expansion, the reported coefficients cannot be trusted as stated. The significance is therefore conditional on a corrected and verifiable calculation.

major comments (3)
  1. [§II, Eq. (9); §III, Eqs. (16), (19), (20)] The bumblebee propagator in Eq. (9) is written as Δ_{μν} = -i/p^2 [T_{μν}+L_{μν}], which corresponds to the gauge-fixing parameter gl=1 in the action (2), where the gauge-fixing term is -1/(2gl)(∇·B)^2. With the conventional R_ξ-like normalization, the general-gl propagator should be -i/p^2 [T_{μν}+gl L_{μν}]. But the one-loop counterterms in Eqs. (16), (19), and (20) are reported at arbitrary gl. If gl is actually fixed to 1, then the gl-dependent Γ functions are not the quantities computed from Eq. (9); if gl is free, Eq. (9) is wrong. Either way, the exact coefficients, which are the quantitative content of the paper, are not reproducible from the stated inputs. This is a load-bearing inconsistency in the central renormalization claim.
  2. [§III A, Eqs. (13)-(14)] The quadratic bumblebee potential in Eq. (14) is inconsistent with the potential in Eqs. (2) and (13). Expanding -λ(Z_B B^2 - Z_b b^2)^2 after the shift B→b+B gives the quadratic terms 4(λ+δλ)(b·B)^2 plus a one-loop-order counterterm of the form ±δm^2 b^2 B^2; there is no tree-level term -2λ b^2 B^2. As written, Eq. (14) contains a tree-level mass term for the bumblebee, which contradicts the massless propagator Eq. (9) and the explicit assumption that the bumblebee is massless at zeroth order in the LV parameters. This means the loop calculation is not based on the action defined in Eq. (2), and the bumblebee self-energy results, including ΓT, ΓL, ΓM and Γλ, are not reliably derived from the stated model.
  3. [§III, Eqs. (15)-(20)] The one-loop divergent coefficients are presented without any intermediate Feynman-integral expressions, diagram-by-diagram contributions, or indication of how the γ, ξi, gl, and λ dependences arise. Given the two preceding inconsistencies, the burden of verification is not met. The authors should either set gl=1 consistently and evaluate all Γs at gl=1, or use the correct gl-dependent propagator and redo the computation, and should provide enough calculational detail (at least one illustrative integral and the treatment of a representative diagram) to allow the reported coefficients to be checked. Until then, the central claim that the model is renormalizable only after adding the longitudinal and aether-type counterterms is not established.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§II, Eq. (2); §IV, Eq. (21)] The potential in Eq. (2) is written with coefficient λ, while in Eq. (21) it is λ/4; the sign convention (∓) also differs. Please harmonize or explain that the constants are relabeled.
  2. [§III A, after Eq. (15)] The statement 'δM = b^2 ΓM' uses an undefined symbol δM; from Eq. (15), the counterterm is δm^2 b^2 = ΓM. Please clarify the notation.
  3. [§III A, Eq. (14)] The symbol δgl is introduced without definition. Since the gauge-fixing term already contains gl, please state whether δgl is an independent renormalization constant and how it relates to δL in Eq. (15).
  4. [§IV, around Eqs. (25)-(26)] The statement that Schwarzschild and de Sitter are exact solutions 'even in the presence of one of the non-minimal couplings' should be more precise: the demonstration sets ξ1=0 and only retains ξ2. For de Sitter there is also a constraint relating the constants. Please state explicitly that this is the ξ1=0 case.
  5. [General] There are several typographical issues, including unbalanced parentheses in Eq. (17) and inconsistent spacings in Eqs. (16). A careful proofread is needed.
  6. [Introduction/References] Ref. [44] is cited as the basis for the agravity-bumblebee coupling, but the precise relation to the present model (which adds the ξ1, ξ2 non-minimal couplings) is not spelled out until Sec. II. A sentence connecting the two would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: one-loop counterterms are obtained by direct diagrammatic computation; self-citations are motivational only.

full rationale

The derivation chain is a standard perturbative calculation: the action (2) is expanded around flat space, propagators are given in Eq. (9), and the one-loop divergences are computed from the diagrams of Figs. 1-5 and assembled into Eqs. (15)-(20). The counterterms are fixed by requiring finiteness in the MS scheme, not by demanding a pre-selected result, and no parameter is fitted to a data subset. The self-citations [40]-[44] appear only as background motivation and comparison; they do not supply a uniqueness theorem or a forced ansatz for the computed coefficients. The classical section constructs a bumblebee profile whose stress tensor vanishes and then checks the field equations, which is a valid solution ansatz rather than a circular derivation. The gauge-parameter mismatch between the gl=1 form of Eq. (9) and the gl-dependent expressions in Eqs. (16), (19), (20) is a correctness/reproducibility concern, not circularity, since it does not make any derived quantity equal to its own input by construction. Thus the appropriate finding is a low non-finding score.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the standard perturbative QFT framework plus several modeling truncations: treating the SSB potential as perturbative insertions around a massless bumblebee, ignoring gravitational ghosts, and keeping only counterterms of order b^2. The Lagrangian couplings are input parameters, not fitted to data. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (6)
  • b^2 (VEV scale) = not fitted (input)
    Sets the Lorentz-violating vacuum ⟨Bμ⟩=bμ and the scale of all LV counterterms; not determined within the paper.
  • λ (bumblebee potential coupling) = not fitted (input)
    Strength of the SSB potential; appears in ΓM and Γλ.
  • gl (bumblebee gauge-fixing parameter) = not fitted (input)
    Gauge parameter in the longitudinal kinetic term; final counterterms depend on it.
  • ξ1 = not fitted (input)
    Non-minimal traceless coupling BμBνRμν; its renormalization is a central result.
  • ξ2 = not fitted (input)
    Non-minimal trace coupling B^2R; generates the b^2R counterterm.
  • α, β, γ (quadratic-gravity couplings) = not fitted (input)
    Weights of RμνRμν, R^2, and Einstein-Hilbert terms; define M0^2 and M2^2.
axioms (5)
  • standard math Dimensional regularization with minimal subtraction is a valid regulator for the gravitational sector; poles in ε=4-D are identified with UV divergences.
    Used throughout Sec. III without proof; standard in QFT.
  • domain assumption Metric fluctuations hμν can be expanded around Minkowski and the theory treated perturbatively in h and in LV insertions.
    Eq. (3) and Sec. III setup; small-field assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper The bumblebee field is massless at zeroth order in the LV parameters, with all effects of the SSB potential treated as perturbative insertions.
    Used to justify massless propagators and vanishing tadpole (diagram 4.1); after the shift B→B+b the potential actually generates mass terms, so this is a truncation of the calculation rather than an exact statement.
  • ad hoc to paper Gravitational Faddeev–Popov ghosts do not contribute within the one-graviton exchange approximation.
    Stated after Eq. (8); no explicit proof that ghost loops vanish for the two-point functions considered.
  • ad hoc to paper Counterterms are restricted to operators proportional to b^2; higher powers b^4 and cosmological-type counterterms are neglected.
    Stated explicitly after Eq. (16); limits the renormalization claim to leading order in the LV background.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 14106 in / 24093 out tokens · 212507 ms · 2026-08-02T19:13:31.377852+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In this paper, we explore the perturbative renormalization and study the classical dynamics of the bumblebee model coupled to quadratic gravity, a theoretical setting that allows the violation of Lorentz symmetry. Such a violation arises from a vector field whose potential is engineered to induce a nonzero vacuum expectation value (VEV), thereby leading to the emergence of a preferred direction in spacetime and, consequently, to the spontaneous breaking of Lorentz symmetry. Working in dimensional regularization and expanding the metric around flat space, we compute the one-loop divergent parts of the two-point functions of the bumblebee and graviton fields, with special emphasis on the role of Lorentz-violating insertions in internal lines. These results determine the counterterms required to renormalize the gravitational and bumblebee sectors in the presence of a preferred background direction, and make explicit how Lorentz-violating interactions feed back into the UV structure of quadratic gravity. On the classical side, we derive the field equations and identify exact solutions supported by bumblebee backgrounds. In particular, we show that the Schwarzschild and de Sitter geometries remain exact solutions for an appropriate bumblebee field profile, even in the presence of one of the non-minimal couplings. We close with a discussion of the operator content suggested by the one-loop structure and of prospective extensions to cosmological and less symmetric backgrounds.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.02980 by A. C. Lehum, A. Yu. Petrov, J. R. Nascimento, P. J. Porf\'irio, R. B. Alfaia, Willian Carvalho.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Bumblebee self-energy. Wavy and wiggly lines represent the bumblebee and graviton [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Bumblebee self-energy diagram with a Lorentz-violating vertex insertion, indicated by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Graviton-bumblebee transmutation induced by the LV background. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Bumblebee corrections to the graviton propagation. �� [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: LV corrections to the graviton propagation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_5.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 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Wick-connected theories and Lorentz violation

    hep-th 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Without Lorentz invariance, double Wick rotations connect inequivalent field theories in flat spacetime, with criteria for when propagating modes, unitarity, and renormalizability fail to translate.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 56 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    K. S. Stelle, Phys. Rev. D16, 953-969 (1977)

    1977

  2. [2]

    Tomboulis, Phys

    E. Tomboulis, Phys. Lett. B70, 361-364 (1977)

    1977

  3. [3]

    S. D. Odintsov and I. L. Shapiro, Class. Quant. Grav.9, 873-882 (1992)

    1992

  4. [4]

    Narain and R

    G. Narain and R. Anishetty, JHEP10, 203 (2013) [arXiv:1309.0473 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  5. [5]

    Salvio and A

    A. Salvio and A. Strumia, JHEP06, 080 (2014) [arXiv:1403.4226 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  6. [6]

    Salvio and A

    A. Salvio and A. Strumia, Eur. Phys. J. C78(2018) no.2, 124 [arXiv:1705.03896 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    M. B. Einhorn and D. R. T. Jones, JHEP03, 047 (2015) [arXiv:1410.8513 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  8. [8]

    Effective Action in Quantum Gravity,

    I. L. Buchbinder, S. D. Odintsov and I. L. Shapiro, “Effective Action in Quantum Gravity,” IOP Publishing, 2017. 16

    2017

  9. [9]

    J. F. Donoghue and G. Menezes, Nuovo Cim. C45, no.2, 26 (2022) [arXiv:2112.01974 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  10. [10]

    ’t Hooft and M

    G. ’t Hooft and M. J. G. Veltman, Ann. Inst. H. Poincare Phys. Theor. A20, 69-94 (1974)

    1974

  11. [11]

    Deser and P

    S. Deser and P. van Nieuwenhuizen, Phys. Rev. Lett.32, 245-247 (1974)

    1974

  12. [12]

    Deser and P

    S. Deser and P. van Nieuwenhuizen, Phys. Rev. D10, 411 (1974)

    1974

  13. [13]

    J. F. Donoghue, Phys. Rev. D50, 3874-3888 (1994) [arXiv:gr-qc/9405057 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  14. [14]

    C. P. Burgess, Living Rev. Rel.7, 5-56 (2004) [arXiv:gr-qc/0311082 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  15. [15]

    J. F. Donoghue, M. M. Ivanov and A. Shkerin, [arXiv:1702.00319 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  16. [16]

    Alvarez-Gaume, A

    L. Alvarez-Gaume, A. Kehagias, C. Kounnas, D. L¨ ust and A. Riotto, Fortsch. Phys.64, no.2-3, 176-189 (2016) [arXiv:1505.07657 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  17. [17]

    Holdom and J

    B. Holdom and J. Ren, Phys. Rev. D93, no.12, 124030 (2016) [arXiv:1512.05305 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  18. [18]

    Anselmi and M

    D. Anselmi and M. Piva, JHEP05, 027 (2018) [arXiv:1803.07777 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  19. [19]

    Salvio, Front

    A. Salvio, Front. in Phys.6, 77 (2018) [arXiv:1804.09944 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  20. [20]

    Buccio, J

    D. Buccio, J. F. Donoghue, G. Menezes and R. Percacci, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, no.2, 021604 (2024) [arXiv:2403.02397 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    M. Aoki, J. Kubo and J. Yang, JCAP01, no.01, 005 (2022) [arXiv:2109.04814 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  22. [22]

    M. Aoki, J. Kubo and J. Yang, JCAP05, 096 (2024) [arXiv:2401.12442 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    ´Alvarez-Luna, S

    C. ´Alvarez-Luna, S. de la Calle-Leal, J. A. R. Cembranos and J. J. Sanz-Cillero, JHEP02, 232 (2023) [arXiv:2212.01785 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  24. [24]

    Buoninfante, JHEP12, 111 (2023) [arXiv:2308.11324 [hep-th]]

    L. Buoninfante, JHEP12, 111 (2023) [arXiv:2308.11324 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  25. [25]

    I. D. Gialamas, A. Karam and A. Racioppi, JCAP11, 014 (2020) [arXiv:2006.09124 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  26. [26]

    V. A. Kostelecky and S. Samuel, Phys. Rev. D39(1989), 683

    1989

  27. [27]

    V. A. Kosteleck´ y and Z. Li, Phys. Rev. D103(2021) no.2, 024059 [arXiv:2008.12206 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  28. [28]

    V. A. Kostelecky, Phys. Rev. D69(2004), 105009 [arXiv:hep-th/0312310 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  29. [29]

    Bluhm and V

    R. Bluhm and V. A. Kostelecky, Phys. Rev. D71(2005), 065008 [arXiv:hep-th/0412320 [hep- th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  30. [30]

    Bertolami and J

    O. Bertolami and J. Paramos, Phys. Rev. D72(2005), 044001 [arXiv:hep-th/0504215 [hep- th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  31. [31]

    Casana, A

    R. Casana, A. Cavalcante, F. P. Poulis and E. B. Santos, Phys. Rev. D97(2018) no.10, 104001 [arXiv:1711.02273 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  32. [32]

    A. A. A. Filho, J. R. Nascimento, A. Y. Petrov and P. J. Porf ´ ırio, Phys. Rev. D108(2023) no.8, 085010 [arXiv:2211.11821 [gr-qc]]. 17

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    A. A. Ara´ ujo Filho, J. R. Nascimento, A. Y. Petrov and P. J. Porf ´ ırio, JCAP07, 004 (2024) [arXiv:2402.13014 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    Capelo and J

    D. Capelo and J. P´ aramos, Phys. Rev. D91(2015) no.10, 104007 [arXiv:1501.07685 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  35. [35]

    R. V. Maluf and J. C. S. Neves, JCAP10(2021), 038 [arXiv:2105.08659 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  36. [36]

    A. F. Santos, A. Y. Petrov, W. D. R. Jesus and J. R. Nascimento, Mod. Phys. Lett. A30 (2015) no.02, 1550011 [arXiv:1407.5985 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  37. [37]

    W. D. R. Jesus and A. F. Santos, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A35(2020) no.09, 2050050 [arXiv:2003.13364 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  38. [38]

    ¨Ovg¨ un, K

    A. ¨Ovg¨ un, K. Jusufi and˙I. Sakallı, Phys. Rev. D99(2019) no.2, 024042 [arXiv:1804.09911 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  39. [39]

    R. V. Maluf, C. A. S. Almeida, R. Casana and M. M. Ferreira, Jr., Phys. Rev. D90(2014) no.2, 025007 [arXiv:1402.3554 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  40. [40]

    Delhom, J

    A. Delhom, J. R. Nascimento, G. J. Olmo, A. Y. Petrov and P. J. Porf ´ ırio, Phys. Lett. B826 (2022), 136932 [arXiv:2010.06391 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  41. [41]

    Delhom, T

    A. Delhom, T. Mariz, J. R. Nascimento, G. J. Olmo, A. Y. Petrov and P. J. Porf ´ ırio, JCAP 07(2022) no.07, 018 [arXiv:2202.11613 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  42. [42]

    A. C. Lehum, J. R. Nascimento, A. Y. Petrov and P. J. Porfirio, Gen. Rel. Grav.57, no.66, 66 (2025) [arXiv:2402.17605 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    A. A. Ara´ ujo Filho, JCAP06(2025), 026 [erratum: JCAP02(2026), E01] [arXiv:2501.00927 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    A. C. Lehum, J. R. Nascimento, A. Y. Petrov and P. J. Porf ´ ırio, Phys. Rev. D110, no.12, 125007 (2024) [arXiv:2406.08309 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    S. R. Coleman and E. J. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D7, 1888-1910 (1973)

    1910

  46. [46]

    Delhom, J

    A. Delhom, J. R. Nascimento, G. J. Olmo, A. Y. Petrov and P. J. Porf ´ ırio, Eur. Phys. J. C 81(2021) no.4, 287 [arXiv:1911.11605 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2021

  47. [47]

    J. L. Chkareuli, J. Jejelava and Z. Kepuladze, Bled Workshops Phys.19(2018) no.2, 74-89 [arXiv:1811.09578 [physics.gen-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  48. [48]

    A common choice for the potential isV=λ(B µBµ ∓b 2)2, where the sign∓allows for both space-like and time-like configurations ofB µ, withb 2 >0

    where the Lorentz symmetry breaking is introduced through the constraint instead of the potential term. A common choice for the potential isV=λ(B µBµ ∓b 2)2, where the sign∓allows for both space-like and time-like configurations ofB µ, withb 2 >0. The potential is responsible 5 for Lorentz symmetry breaking, and its minimum occurs whenb µbµ =±b 2, implyin...

    2023

  49. [49]

    Jacobson and D

    T. Jacobson and D. Mattingly, Phys. Rev. D64(2001), 024028 [arXiv:gr-qc/0007031 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  50. [50]

    Q. G. Bailey and V. A. Kostelecky, Phys. Rev. D74(2006), 045001 [arXiv:gr-qc/0603030 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  51. [51]

    Mertig and M

    R. Mertig and M. Bahm and A. Denne, Comp. Phys. Comm.64, 345 (1991). 18

    1991

  52. [52]

    Shtabovenko, R

    V. Shtabovenko, R. Mertig and F. Orellana, Comput. Phys. Commun.207, 432-444 (2016) [arXiv:1601.01167 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  53. [53]

    Shtabovenko, R

    V. Shtabovenko, R. Mertig and F. Orellana, Comput. Phys. Commun.256, 107478 (2020) [arXiv:2001.04407 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  54. [54]

    Hahn, Comput

    T. Hahn, Comput. Phys. Commun.140, 418-431 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ph/0012260 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  55. [55]

    N. D. Christensen and C. Duhr, Comput. Phys. Commun.180, 1614-1641 (2009) [arXiv:0806.4194 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  56. [56]

    Alloul, N

    A. Alloul, N. D. Christensen, C. Degrande, C. Duhr and B. Fuks, Comput. Phys. Commun. 185, 2250-2300 (2014) [arXiv:1310.1921 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  57. [57]

    Shtabovenko, Comput

    V. Shtabovenko, Comput. Phys. Commun.218, 48-65 (2017) [arXiv:1611.06793 [physics.comp- ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  58. [58]

    Quantum field theory,

    M. Srednicki, “Quantum field theory,” Cambridge University Press, 2007, ISBN 978-0-521- 86449-7, 978-0-511-26720-8

    2007

  59. [59]

    Elias, R

    V. Elias, R. B. Mann, D. G. C. McKeon and T. G. Steele, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 251601 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0304153 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  60. [60]

    Elias, R

    V. Elias, R. B. Mann, D. G. C. McKeon and T. G. Steele, Phys. Rev. D72, 037902 (2005) [arXiv:hep-ph/0411161 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  61. [61]

    A. G. Dias and A. F. Ferrari, Phys. Rev. D82, 085006 (2010) [arXiv:1006.5672 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  62. [62]

    A. C. Lehum, J. R. Nascimento, A. Y. Petrov and H. Souza, Phys. Rev. D101, no.4, 045005 (2020) [arXiv:1911.10846 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  63. [63]

    Souza, L

    H. Souza, L. Ibiapina Bevilaqua and A. C. Lehum, Phys. Rev. D102, no.4, 045004 (2020) [arXiv:2005.03973 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  64. [64]

    A. C. Lehum, Phys. Rev. D107, no.10, 105013 (2023) [arXiv:2305.03768 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  65. [65]

    F. A. Chishtie, D. G. C. McKeon and T. G. Steele, Phys. Rev. D77, 065007 (2008) [arXiv:0706.1760 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  66. [66]

    Bazeia, Phys

    D. Bazeia, Phys. Lett. B207, 53-55 (1988)

    1988

  67. [67]

    A. F. de Lima and D. Bazeia, Z. Phys. C45, 471 (1990)

    1990

  68. [68]

    V. A. Kostelecky and N. Russell, Rev. Mod. Phys.83, 11-31 (2011) [arXiv:0801.0287 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2011

  69. [69]

    ´Alvarez-Dom ´ ınguez, L

    ´A. ´Alvarez-Dom ´ ınguez, L. J. Garay, E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez and J. Polo-G´ omez, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, no.4, 041401 (2024) [arXiv:2405.02389 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  70. [70]

    A. E. Nelson and J. Scholtz, Phys. Rev. D84, 103501 (2011) [arXiv:1105.2812 [hep-ph]]. 19

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  71. [71]

    Hooper, Phys

    D. Hooper, Phys. Dark Univ.1, 1-23 (2012) [arXiv:1201.1303 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  72. [72]

    Mertig, M

    R. Mertig, M. Bohm and A. Denner, Comput. Phys. Commun.64, 345-359 (1991)

    1991

  73. [73]

    I. G. Avramidi and A. O. Barvinsky, Phys. Lett. B159, 269-274 (1985)

    1985

  74. [74]

    S. M. Carroll and H. Tam, Phys. Rev. D78(2008), 044047 [arXiv:0802.0521 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  75. [75]

    van de Bruck, M

    C. van de Bruck, M. A. Gorji, N. A. Nilsson, M. C. Pookkillath and M. Yamaguchi, [arXiv:2509.11647 [hep-th]]. � � � � � � � � � � � � � ������ ����-������ Figure 1: Bumblebee self-energy. Wavy and wiggly lines represent the bumblebee and graviton propagators, respectively. � � � �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � �� � � � � � � ...

    arXiv