pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.19281 · v1 · pith:JTHCRPNCnew · submitted 2026-06-17 · ✦ hep-th · gr-qc

Universal Closed Form for Dynamical Love Numbers of Black Holes

Mikhail P. Solon (UCLA) This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 19:47 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-th gr-qc
keywords black holesLove numbersdynamical responserenormalization groupRiemann zetaeffective field theorygravitational perturbationstidal response
0
0 comments X

The pith

Dynamical Love numbers of Schwarzschild black holes admit an exact closed-form expression valid to all orders.

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

The paper shows that the dynamical Love numbers of Schwarzschild black holes, which measure tidal response to time-varying fields, possess a universal closed-form expression that holds for any multipole and spin. This is derived by taking the leading-logarithm solution of the renormalization group equation and lifting its logarithm argument with a specific series of Riemann zeta values that originates in the far-zone scattering phase. A sympathetic reader would care because the result replaces order-by-order perturbative expansions in the gravitational coupling with a single analytic formula, and it applies uniformly to scalar, electromagnetic, and gravitational perturbations.

Core claim

The scheme-independent dynamical response of a Schwarzschild black hole is given exactly by bar F_ell,s over 4 pi R_S to the 2 ell plus 1 equals Phi_ell,s of bar y minus one half eta times Phi prime, with bar y equal to minus one half eta squared tau and tau containing the zeta tower that resums all orders. Phi_ell,s is the leading-log solution to the renormalization group equation, but the running logarithm is lifted to tau equals log(R_S/R) minus 2 times the sum over k greater than or equal to 2 of zeta_k eta to the k minus 1. This tower is universal across multipole and spin because it descends from the same far-zone Gamma(1 minus eta) factor that governs long-range scattering. The result

What carries the argument

The lifted running logarithm tau that resums the leading-log RG solution Phi_ell,s by incorporating the far-zone zeta series from Gamma(1-eta).

If this is right

  • Dynamical Love numbers for any multipole and spin are now given by a single analytic expression rather than by successive perturbative calculations.
  • The same zeta tower links the Love numbers directly to the Newtonian phase in long-range scattering.
  • The factorization into horizon matching, near-zone anomalous dimension, and far-zone dressed log holds for scalar, electromagnetic, and gravitational perturbations alike.
  • Shell effective field theory supplies an independent verification of the formula through order G^15.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar resummation of zeta series from far-zone factors could apply to Love numbers of other black hole spacetimes or to other observables involving long-range gravitational interactions.
  • The closed form may simplify post-Newtonian calculations for binary inspirals by providing exact tidal responses at arbitrary frequencies.
  • Comparison against high-precision numerical solutions of the wave equation for specific frequencies would provide a direct test beyond the EFT verification order.

Load-bearing premise

Lifting the running logarithm in the leading-log RG solution with the specific zeta series from the far-zone Gamma(1-eta) factor produces the correct all-order result without residual scheme dependence or missing contributions from other zones.

What would settle it

An explicit computation of the dynamical Love number for any ell, s, and frequency at an order higher than G^15 that disagrees with the closed-form prediction would falsify the claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.19281 by Mikhail P. Solon (UCLA).

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Factorization of the dynamical response [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Black hole static Love numbers vanish, but their dynamical counterparts do not. We present the scheme-independent dynamical response $\bar{F}_{\ell,s}$ of a Schwarzschild black hole in closed form, to all orders, and for every spin $s$ and multipole $\ell$. The result is $\bar{F}_{\ell,s}/4\pi R_S^{2\ell+1}=\Phi_{\ell,s}(\bar{y})-\tfrac12\eta\,\Phi_{\ell,s}'(\bar{y})$ with $\bar{y}=-\tfrac12\eta^2\tau$ and $\eta=i\omega R_S$. Here $\Phi_{\ell,s}$ is simply the leading-log solution to the renormalization group equation, but lifting the running logarithm to $\tau=\log(R_S/R)-2\sum_{k\ge2}\zeta_k\,\eta^{k-1}$ resums it to all orders. This tower of Riemann zeta values is the Newtonian phase in disguise: it originates from the same far-zone $\Gamma(1-\eta)$ that governs long-range scattering, and is universal across multipole and spin. Our result exhibits a factorization pinned to three ingredients: the hard matching coefficient at the horizon, the anomalous dimension in the near zone, and the dressed log in the far zone. Using shell effective field theory, we independently verify our formula for scalar, electromagnetic, and gravitational perturbations, reaching $\mathcal O(G^{15})$.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims a scheme-independent closed-form expression for the dynamical response (Love numbers) of Schwarzschild black holes valid to all orders in G for arbitrary multipole ℓ and spin s: bar F_{ℓ,s}/(4π R_S^{2ℓ+1}) = Φ_{ℓ,s}(bar y) − (1/2)η Φ'_{ℓ,s}(bar y), with bar y = −(1/2)η² τ and τ the far-zone dressed logarithm containing the zeta tower extracted from Γ(1−η). The derivation factorizes the response into a hard horizon matching coefficient, near-zone anomalous dimension, and far-zone contribution; the leading-log RG solution is lifted by substituting the zeta series for the running logarithm. Independent verification via shell EFT is reported to O(G^{15}) for scalar, electromagnetic, and gravitational perturbations.

Significance. If the central formula holds, the work supplies an exact all-order result for dynamical black-hole responses together with an explicit three-zone factorization and a universal far-zone zeta tower. The O(G^{15}) shell-EFT checks constitute a non-trivial, independent test of the resummation. The result would streamline calculations in black-hole perturbation theory and EFT matching, with potential applications to gravitational-wave observables and scattering amplitudes.

major comments (1)
  1. [Derivation of the closed form (RG flow, far-zone Γ(1−η) matching, and lifting of the logarithm)] The lifting step that replaces the running logarithm by τ = log(R_S/R) − 2 ∑_{k≥2} ζ_k η^{k−1} is presented as yielding the exact all-order, scheme-independent result. This assumption—that no additional logarithms or power-law terms arise from the near-zone or horizon sectors that would require further dressing—is load-bearing for the claim of an exact closed form. The O(G^{15}) shell-EFT verification confirms agreement through that order but does not test whether the resummation continues to hold or whether other zones contribute at higher orders; an explicit argument addressing possible residual scheme dependence beyond the checked order is needed.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states verification for 'three perturbation types' without naming them; the text should explicitly list scalar, electromagnetic, and gravitational perturbations for immediate clarity.
  2. [Main text (RG section)] The definition of Φ_{ℓ,s} as 'the leading-log solution to the renormalization group equation' would benefit from an explicit equation reference or functional form in the main text to aid readers tracing the lifting procedure.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful review and for highlighting the central assumptions underlying our all-order claim. We address the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The lifting step that replaces the running logarithm by τ = log(R_S/R) − 2 ∑_{k≥2} ζ_k η^{k−1} is presented as yielding the exact all-order, scheme-independent result. This assumption—that no additional logarithms or power-law terms arise from the near-zone or horizon sectors that would require further dressing—is load-bearing for the claim of an exact closed form. The O(G^{15}) shell-EFT verification confirms agreement through that order but does not test whether the resummation continues to hold or whether other zones contribute at higher orders; an explicit argument addressing possible residual scheme dependence beyond the checked order is needed.

    Authors: The three-zone factorization isolates the contributions exactly: the horizon supplies a scheme-independent hard matching coefficient with no additional running; the near zone contributes only through the anomalous dimension, which is fully captured by the RG equation whose leading-log solution is Φ; and the far zone supplies the universal dressed logarithm τ via the exact Γ(1−η) factor of Newtonian scattering. Because the zeta tower originates solely from this far-zone Gamma function and is independent of ℓ and s, no further logarithms or power-law corrections are generated by the other sectors. The shell-EFT verification to O(G^{15}) confirms that the pattern persists order by order, consistent with the factorization. We will add a dedicated paragraph in the revised manuscript that spells out this argument and explicitly rules out residual scheme dependence beyond the checked orders. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation grounded by independent EFT verification

full rationale

The paper presents the closed-form dynamical response by starting from the leading-log RG solution for Phi_ell,s and lifting its running logarithm via the specific tau containing the zeta tower extracted from the far-zone Gamma(1-eta) factor. This step is justified in the text as originating from the Newtonian phase in long-range scattering and is presented as producing a scheme-independent all-order result via factorization into horizon matching, near-zone anomalous dimension, and far-zone dressed log. The central claim is then subjected to independent verification via shell EFT computations for scalar, electromagnetic, and gravitational cases up to O(G^15), which serves as external grounding rather than a self-referential fit or self-citation chain. No load-bearing equation reduces by construction to its own inputs, and the result is not equivalent to the leading-log input by definition. This is the normal case of a self-contained derivation against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The derivation rests on the standard renormalization-group structure for tidal response functions and the known far-zone Gamma-function phase that produces the zeta series; no new free parameters or postulated entities are introduced.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The response function obeys a renormalization group equation whose leading-log solution is Phi
    Invoked to define the base function that is then resummed.
  • domain assumption The far-zone scattering phase is governed by Gamma(1-eta) and supplies the universal zeta tower
    Used to construct the dressed logarithm tau.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5776 in / 1371 out tokens · 43194 ms · 2026-06-26T19:47:50.091042+00:00 · methodology

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. Fermionic Love number of higher-dimensional Reissner-Nordstr\"om black holes

    gr-qc 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Fermionic tidal Love numbers for D-dimensional RN black holes remain nonzero for all angular momentum l (except extremal cases) and lose their l-dependence as D grows to infinity.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 21 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    A. E. H. Love, Proc. R. Soc. A82, 73 (1909)

    1909

  2. [2]

    Damour, A

    T. Damour, A. Nagar, Phys. Rev. D80, 084035 (2009). 5

    2009

  3. [3]

    Binnington, E

    T. Binnington, E. Poisson, Phys. Rev. D80, 084018 (2009)

    2009

  4. [4]

    ´E. ´E. Flanagan, T. Hinderer, Phys. Rev. D77, 021502 (2008)

    2008

  5. [5]

    Hinderer, Astrophys

    T. Hinderer, Astrophys. J.677, 1216 (2008), arXiv:0711.2420

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  6. [6]

    Hindereret al., Phys

    T. Hindereret al., Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 181101 (2016), arXiv:1602.00599

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  7. [7]

    S. De, D. Finstad, J. M. Lattimer, D. A. Brown, E. Berger, C. M. Biwer, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 091102 (2018), arXiv:1804.08583

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    Abacet al., arXiv:2503.12263

    A. Abacet al., arXiv:2503.12263

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  9. [9]

    B. Kol, M. Smolkin, JHEP02, 010 (2012)

    2012

  10. [10]

    L. Hui, A. Joyce, R. Penco, L. Santoni, A. R. Solomon, JCAP04, 052 (2021), arXiv:2010.00593

    arXiv 2021

  11. [11]

    H. S. Chia, Phys. Rev. D104, 024013 (2021), arXiv:2010.07300

    arXiv 2021

  12. [12]

    Charalambous, S

    P. Charalambous, S. Dubovsky, M. M. Ivanov, JHEP05, 038 (2021), arXiv:2102.08917

    arXiv 2021

  13. [13]

    R. A. Porto, Fortsch. Phys.64, 723 (2016), arXiv:1606.08895

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  14. [14]

    Charalambous, S

    P. Charalambous, S. Dubovsky, M. M. Ivanov, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 101101 (2021), arXiv:2103.01234

    arXiv 2021

  15. [15]

    L. Hui, A. Joyce, R. Penco, L. Santoni, A. R. Solomon, JCAP01, 032 (2022), arXiv:2105.01069

    arXiv 2022

  16. [16]

    Charalambous, S

    P. Charalambous, S. Dubovsky, M. M. Ivanov, JHEP10, 175 (2022), arXiv:2209.02091

    arXiv 2022

  17. [17]

    L. Hui, A. Joyce, R. Penco, L. Santoni, A. R. Solomon, JHEP09, 049 (2022), arXiv:2203.08832

    arXiv 2022

  18. [18]

    M. M. Ivanov, Z. Zhou, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 091403 (2023), arXiv:2209.14324

    arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    Ben Achour, E

    J. Ben Achour, E. R. Livine, S. Mukohyama, J.-P. Uzan, JHEP07, 112 (2022), arXiv:2202.12828

    arXiv 2022

  20. [20]

    M. Rai, L. Santoni, JHEP07, 098 (2024), arXiv:2404.06544

    arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    Sharma, R

    C. Sharma, R. Ghosh, S. Sarkar, Phys. Rev. D109, L041505 (2024), arXiv:2401.00703

    arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Sharma, S

    C. Sharma, S. Roy, S. Sarkar, arXiv:2511.09670

    arXiv

  23. [23]

    Berens, L

    R. Berens, L. Hui, D. McLoughlin, A. R. Solomon, J. Staunton, arXiv:2510.26748

    arXiv

  24. [24]

    Lupsasca, arXiv:2506.05298

    A. Lupsasca, arXiv:2506.05298

    arXiv

  25. [25]

    Charalambous, S

    P. Charalambous, S. Dubovsky, M. M. Ivanov, JHEP06, 180 (2025), arXiv:2502.02694

    arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Parra-Martinez, A

    J. Parra-Martinez, A. Podo, arXiv:2510.20694

    arXiv

  27. [27]

    Cardoso, E

    V. Cardoso, E. Franzin, A. Maselli, P. Pani, G. Raposo, Phys. Rev. D95, 084014 (2017), arXiv:1701.01116

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  28. [28]

    Baracket al., Phys

    L. Baracket al., Phys. Rev. D108, 024025 (2023), arXiv:2304.09200

    arXiv 2023

  29. [29]

    D. Bini, A. Geralico, C. Kavanagh, A. Pound, D. Usseglio, Phys. Rev. D110, 064050 (2024), arXiv:2406.15878

    arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    M. M. Ivanov, Y.-Z. Li, J. Parra-Martinez, Z. Zhou, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 131401 (2024), arXiv:2401.08752

    arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    M. M. Ivanov, Z. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D107, 084030 (2023), arXiv:2208.08459

    arXiv 2023

  32. [32]

    M. V. S. Saketh, Z. Zhou, M. M. Ivanov, Phys. Rev. D 109, 064058 (2024), arXiv:2307.10391

    arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    Akhtar, Y

    S. Akhtar, Y. F. Bautista, C. Iossa, Z. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D112, 085018 (2025), arXiv:2505.21489

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Y. F. Bautista, A. Guevara, C. Kavanagh, J. Vines, JHEP03, 136 (2023), arXiv:2107.10179

    arXiv 2023

  35. [35]

    Bonelli, C

    G. Bonelli, C. Iossa, D. P. Lichtig, A. Tanzini, Phys. Rev. D105, 044047 (2022), arXiv:2105.04483

    arXiv 2022

  36. [36]

    Consoli, F

    D. Consoli, F. Fucito, J. F. Morales, R. Poghossian, JHEP12, 115 (2022), arXiv:2206.09437

    arXiv 2022

  37. [37]

    Correia, G

    M. Correia, G. Isabella, JHEP03, 144 (2025), arXiv:2406.13737

    arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Y. F. Bautista, A. Guevara, C. Kavanagh, J. Vines, JHEP05, 211 (2023), arXiv:2212.07965

    arXiv 2023

  39. [39]

    Y. F. Bautista, G. Bonelli, C. Iossa, A. Tanzini, Z. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D109, 084071 (2024), arXiv:2312.05965

    arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    Kobayashi, S

    H. Kobayashi, S. Mukohyama, N. Oshita, K. Takahashi, V. Yingcharoenrat, arXiv:2511.12580

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  41. [41]

    Chakraborty, V

    S. Chakraborty, V. De Luca, L. Gualtieri, P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D112, 104015 (2025), arXiv:2507.22994

    arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Caron-Huot, M

    S. Caron-Huot, M. Correia, G. Isabella, M. Solon, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 191601 (2025), arXiv:2503.13593

    arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    M. M. Ivanov, Y.-Z. Li, J. Parra-Martinez, Z. Zhou, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 141401 (2025), arXiv:2504.07862

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Chang, C.-H

    C.-H. Chang, C.-H. Shen, Z. Zhou, arXiv:2604.14112

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  45. [45]

    M. M. Ivanov, Y.-Z. Li, J. Parra-Martinez, Z. Zhou, arXiv:2602.06951

    arXiv

  46. [46]

    Combaluzier–Szteinsznaider, D

    O. Combaluzier–Szteinsznaider, D. Glazer, A. Joyce, M. J. Rodriguez, L. Santoni, arXiv:2511.02372

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  47. [47]

    Kosmopoulos, D

    D. Kosmopoulos, D. Perrone, M. P. Solon, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 211401 (2026), arXiv:2512.04002

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  48. [48]

    W. D. Goldberger, I. Z. Rothstein, Phys. Rev. D73, 104029 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0409156

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  49. [49]

    W. D. Goldberger, I. Z. Rothstein, Phys. Rev. D73, 104030 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0511133

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  50. [50]

    W. D. Goldberger, I. Z. Rothstein, Gen. Rel. Grav.38, 1537 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0605238

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  51. [51]

    K¨ alin, Z

    G. K¨ alin, Z. Liu, R. A. Porto, Phys. Rev. D102, 124025 (2020), arXiv:2008.06047

    arXiv 2020

  52. [52]

    Creci, T

    G. Creci, T. Hinderer, J. Steinhoff, Phys. Rev. D104, 124061 (2021), arXiv:2108.03385

    arXiv 2021

  53. [53]

    Steinhoff, T

    J. Steinhoff, T. Hinderer, T. Dietrich, F. Foucart, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 033129 (2021), arXiv:2103.06100

    arXiv 2021

  54. [54]

    Creci, T

    G. Creci, T. Hinderer, J. Steinhoff, Phys. Rev. D108, 124073 (2023), arXiv:2308.11323

    arXiv 2023

  55. [55]

    M. K. Mandal, P. Mastrolia, H. O. Silva, R. Patil, J. Steinhoff, JHEP02, 188 (2024), arXiv:2308.01865

    arXiv 2024

  56. [56]

    M. K. Mandal, P. Mastrolia, H. O. Silva, R. Patil, J. Steinhoff, JHEP11, 067 (2023), arXiv:2304.02030

    arXiv 2023

  57. [57]

    Creci, I

    G. Creci, I. van Gemeren, T. Hinderer, J. Steinhoff, Sci- Post Phys. Core8, 042 (2025), arXiv:2412.06620

    arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    M. K. Mandal, P. Mastrolia, R. Patil, J. Steinhoff, JHEP 05, 008 (2025), arXiv:2412.01706

    arXiv 2025

  59. [59]

    M. V. S. Saketh, Z. Zhou, S. Ghosh, J. Steinhoff, D. Chatterjee, Phys. Rev. D110, 103001 (2024), arXiv:2407.08327

    arXiv 2024

  60. [60]

    Bhattacharyya, S

    A. Bhattacharyya, S. Ghosh, N. Kumar, S. Kumar, S. Pal, JHEP11, 155 (2025), arXiv:2508.02785

    arXiv 2025

  61. [61]

    Haddad, A

    K. Haddad, A. Helset, JHEP12, 024 (2020), arXiv:2008.04920

    arXiv 2020

  62. [62]

    Aoude, K

    R. Aoude, K. Haddad, A. Helset, JHEP03, 097 (2021), arXiv:2012.05256

    arXiv 2021

  63. [63]

    Accettulli Huber, A

    M. Accettulli Huber, A. Brandhuber, S. De Ange- lis, G. Travaglini, Phys. Rev. D103, 045015 (2021), arXiv:2012.06548

    arXiv 2021

  64. [64]

    Cheung, M

    C. Cheung, M. P. Solon, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 191601 (2020), arXiv:2006.06665

    arXiv 2020

  65. [65]

    Cheung, N

    C. Cheung, N. Shah, M. P. Solon, Phys. Rev. D103, 024030 (2021), arXiv:2010.08568

    arXiv 2021

  66. [66]

    Z. Bern, J. Parra-Martinez, R. Roiban, E. Sawyer, C.- H. Shen, JHEP05, 188 (2021), arXiv:2010.08559. 6

    arXiv 2021

  67. [67]

    X. Kong, F. Ravndal, Phys. Lett. B450, 320 (1999), arXiv:nucl-th/9811076

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  68. [68]

    X. Kong, F. Ravndal, Nucl. Phys. A665, 137 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/9903523

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  69. [69]

    Barford, M

    T. Barford, M. C. Birse, Phys. Rev. C67, 064006 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0206146

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  70. [70]

    A. H. Hoang, A. V. Manohar, I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D64, 014033 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0102257

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  71. [71]

    A. A. Penin, A. A. Pivovarov, Phys. Atom. Nucl.64, 275 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/9904278

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  72. [72]

    R. J. Hill and R. Plestid, Phys. Rev. D109, 056006 (2024), arXiv:2309.15929

    arXiv 2024

  73. [73]

    Correia, T

    M. Correia, T. Gopalka, G. Isabella, A. M. Wolz, arXiv:2511.11794

    arXiv

  74. [74]

    S. G. Avery, B. U. W. Schwab, JHEP04, 053 (2017), arXiv:1609.04397

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  75. [75]

    S. Mano, H. Suzuki, E. Takasugi, Prog. Theor. Phys.95, 1079 (1996)

    1996

  76. [76]

    A. A. Starobinsky, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.64, 48 (1973) [Sov. Phys. JETP37, 28 (1973)]

    1973

  77. [77]

    A. A. Starobinsky, S. M. Churilov, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 65, 3 (1973) [Sov. Phys. JETP38, 1 (1974)]

    1973

  78. [78]

    D. N. Page, Phys. Rev. D13, 198 (1976)

    1976