Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 8 minor 99 references

Linearized Horndeski Theory with a Potential in the Solar System Regime

T0 review · 2 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-07-08 · glm-5.2

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

Pith's one-line read Scalar field mass and coupling ζ control Solar System gravity deviations

desk verdict Solid weak-field calculation extending Brans-Dicke-with-potential results to general Horndeski; the main substantive gap is the unstated validity bound on the light-deflection result. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.06467 v1 pith:7VE4G4QV submitted 2026-07-07 gr-qc

Hatice Özer This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc
keywords scalarpotentialregimeveryweak-fieldfieldgenerallight
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

This paper derives the weak-field, linearized equations of Horndeski gravity — the most general scalar-tensor theory with second-order field equations — when the scalar field sits at a potential minimum with a nonzero value. That minimum acts like a cosmological constant, generating effective de Sitter–like background curvature at linear order. The author solves these equations for a static point mass, obtains the metric in isotropic and Schwarzschild-like coordinates, and then computes three classical Solar-System observables: perihelion advance, light deflection, and gravitational redshift. The central finding is that all three observables acquire corrections governed by two parameters: the scalar field mass m_s and an effective coupling parameter ζ (defined by ratios of Horndeski function derivatives at the background value). In the heavy-scalar limit, Yukawa exponential suppression kills the scalar's direct contribution, but geometric terms proportional to the potential minimum K(0) survive and rescale the effective cosmological-constant contribution by ζ-dependent factors. In the light-scalar limit, the scalar is long-ranged and ζ must be large — roughly ζ ≳ 8×10^4, inferred from Cassini sensitivity — to suppress scalar corrections below observational thresholds. The paper shows that even when the scalar field is heavy and locally invisible, the potential minimum leaves a residual imprint on Solar-System gravity through these geometric terms, unless ζ takes special values (ζ = 2 for perihelion, ζ = 4 for parts of light deflection).

What carries the argument

The derivation proceeds by expanding the Horndeski action around a constant background scalar field value φ_0, retaining K(0) as a leading-order curvature source while dropping mixed terms like K(0)h_{μν}. The linearized field equations decouple into a tensor equation (resembling linearized GR with a cosmological constant) and a massive Klein-Gordon equation for the scalar perturbation, yielding Yukawa-type solutions e^{−m_s r}/r. The coupling parameter ζ = G_4(0)[K_{,X}(0) − 2G_{3,ϕ}(0) + 3G_{4,ϕ}^2(0)/G_4(0)] / G_{4,ϕ}^2(0) controls the scalar-tensor mixing strength. The Adkins-McDonnell-Arakida integral method computes perihelion precession; the Rindler-Ishak invariant angular-measurement

What would settle it

If a regime were found where |K(0)|·|h_{μν}| is not negligible compared to retained linear terms — for instance, near compact objects or at radii where the metric perturbation and background curvature are comparable — the field equations would acquire additional source terms altering the Yukawa structure and all ζ-dependent coefficients in the three classical tests, invalidating the derived expressions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central result is that linearized Horndeski gravity with a scalar potential produces a universal two-parameter structure — controlled by the scalar mass m_s and the coupling ratio ζ — across all three classical Solar-System tests. The effective PPN parameter γ takes the form γ = (1 − e^{−m_s r}/ζ)/(1 + e^{−m_s r}/ζ), which reduces to the GR value γ = 1 either when the scalar is very heavy (Yukawa suppression) or when ζ is very large (coupling suppression). However, even in the heavy-scalar limit where the scalar field is dynamically irrelevant, the nonzero potential minimum K(0) generates residual geometric corrections to perihelion advance, light deflection, and gravitationalred

Load-bearing premise

The analysis consistently drops mixed terms like K(0)h_{μν} and K(0)φ, treating them as higher-order because both K(0) and the perturbations are small. This truncation is load-bearing for every derived observable. The paper asserts it holds for Solar-System scales but does not provide a quantitative bound showing the product |K(0)|·|h_{μν}| is negligible compared to the retained terms, leaving the precise domain of validity unverified.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If ζ is not extremely large and the scalar is light, perihelion precession, light deflection, and gravitational redshift all acquire ζ-dependent corrections that could be within reach of next-generation Solar-System tests or lunar laser ranging.
  • The residual K(0)-dependent geometric terms that persist even in the heavy-scalar limit provide a channel through which a scalar potential could leave observable imprints on local gravity without producing a detectable fifth force, distinguishable from a pure cosmological constant by the ζ-dependent prefactor.
  • The special values ζ = 2 (where potential corrections to perihelion vanish) and ζ = 4 (where part of the light-deflection correction vanishes) identify parameter choices where different observables decouple from the scalar sector, which could be used to break degeneracies between model parameters if multiple tests are combined.
  • The intermediate-mass regime (m_s r ~ 1), not solved analytically here, would produce distance-dependent corrections that interpolate between the two limits and could generate distinctive radial profiles in the observables.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The truncation of mixed terms K(0)h_{μν} and K(0)φ is self-consistent only if |K(0)|r^2/G_4(0) remains small compared to |h_{μν}|, which places a quantitative upper bound on the radial range of validity. For Solar-System scales this is likely satisfied given the smallness of the observed cosmological constant, but the paper does not explicitly verify this hierarchy, leaving the domain of validity
  • The ζ ≳ 8×10^4 bound derived from Cassini applies only to the light-scalar regime. In the heavy-scalar regime, ζ is unconstrained by Solar-System tests because Yukawa suppression removes the scalar's direct coupling, but the K(0)-dependent terms still carry ζ-dependent coefficients — meaning future measurements of cosmological-constant-like effects in local gravity could constrain ζ even when the
  • Because the analysis is restricted to the Jordan frame and neglects the Vainshtein mechanism, the results apply to Horndeski subclasses where screening is weak or absent at Solar-System scales. If nonlinear screening were included, the effective ζ could be distance-dependent, potentially relaxing the large-ζ requirement in the light-scalar regime.
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, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 8 minor

Summary. This paper studies the weak-field, linearized regime of Horndeski theory in the presence of a scalar-field potential with a nonvanishing minimum. The minimum acts as an effective cosmological constant, introducing de Sitter-like curvature corrections to the local spacetime geometry. The author derives the linearized field equations for a static point mass, solves them in a convenient gauge, and transforms the solutions into isotropic and Schwarzschild-like coordinates. The resulting metric is then used to compute three classical Solar-System observables—perihelion advance, light deflection, and gravitational redshift. The analysis focuses on two limiting regimes: a very heavy scalar field, where Yukawa suppression recovers GR locally but residual geometric terms proportional to the potential minimum K(0) persist, and a very light scalar field, where sufficiently large values of the coupling parameter zeta suppress scalar corrections to within current observational sensitivity.

Significance. The paper provides a systematic derivation of weak-field observables in a linearized scalar-tensor theory on a non-asymptotically-flat background, extending previous analyses (e.g., in Brans-Dicke theory with a potential) to the Horndeski framework. The use of the Rindler-Ishak method for light deflection in a non-asymptotically-flat spacetime is appropriate and well-executed. The derivation of the effective PPN parameter gamma from the field equations and its subsequent comparison to the Cassini bound is not circular; gamma is computed from the theory and checked against an external observational result. The parameter-dependent structure of the classical tests, controlled by zeta and K(0), is clearly laid out, and the heavy/light scalar-field limits yield analytically tractable, falsifiable predictions.

major comments (2)
  1. Section V, Eq. (73): The light deflection result contains a term proportional to K(0)R^2(ζ-4)r/(12ζR) that grows linearly with the observation distance r. The author acknowledges this term but does not state the explicit quantitative bound required for the perturbative expansion to remain valid. For the expansion to be self-consistent, this term must remain small compared to the Einstein deflection α_E ~ 2m/R, requiring |K(0)|Rr ≪ m. While this is satisfied for realistic Solar-System parameters (as the effective cosmological constant is tiny), K(0) is treated as a free parameter throughout the paper. The validity range of the result for generic K(0) is therefore left unspecified. The author should explicitly state the condition |K(0)|Rr ≪ m (or the equivalent in the relevant variables) and note that it limits the physical interpretability of Eq. (73) for arbitrary parameter choices.
  2. Section III, Eqs. (23)-(24) and surrounding text: The effective PPN parameter gamma is derived from the metric solution, and the author fixes G_4(0) = 1 in the heavy-scalar limit and G_4(0) = (ζ+1)/ζ in the light-scalar limit by comparing to the Newtonian potential. This fixing of G_4(0) is a normalization choice that is standard but should be stated more explicitly as a convention or gauge-fixing of the background value of the Horndeski function, rather than appearing as a derived physical result. The author should clarify that this is a choice of units or coupling normalization, not a dynamical consequence of the field equations.
minor comments (8)
  1. Section I: The phrase 'assessing' is misspelled as 'asessing' in the second paragraph.
  2. Section II: The notation K(0) ≡ K(ϕ_0, 0) is introduced, but it would be clearer to remind the reader at the point of first use in Eq. (7) that this denotes evaluation at the background scalar field value and vanishing kinetic term X=0, to avoid confusion with K evaluated at ϕ=0.
  3. Section IV, Eq. (42): The term O(m_s, m_s^2) appears inside the orbit equation. Since the equation is already written in terms of the variable u=1/r, it would be helpful to clarify whether this O-term refers to corrections from expanding the Yukawa exponential e^{-m_s/u} or from some other source.
  4. Section V, Eq. (62): There appears to be an extra closing parenthesis in the expression (1 + 1/3 cos^2Φ).
  5. Section V, Eq. (66): The text states that the orbit equation is rewritten 'in accordance with Equation (25)', but it appears to refer to the simplification discussed around Eq. (63)-(65) regarding the equivalence of R, r_0, and b at linear order. The cross-reference should be corrected.
  6. Section VII (Conclusions): The sentence beginning 'At the level of current experimental precision...' is somewhat repetitive with the preceding sentence about large ζ suppressing scalar-mediated contributions. Consider consolidating for clarity.
  7. References [9] and [11] appear to be duplicates (both cite Sahni and Starobinsky, Int.J.Mod.Phys. D9, 373 (2000)).
  8. References [45] and [67] appear to be duplicates (both cite H. Ozer and O. Delice, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 326 (2021)).

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful and constructive reading of the manuscript. Both major comments are well-taken and will be addressed in the revised version.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Section V, Eq. (73): The light deflection result contains a term proportional to K(0)R^2(ζ-4)r/(12ζR) that grows linearly with the observation distance r. The author should explicitly state the condition |K(0)|Rr ≪ m (or the equivalent) and note that it limits the physical interpretability of Eq. (73) for arbitrary parameter choices.

    Authors: The referee is correct. The term growing linearly with r in Eq. (73) must remain perturbatively small compared to the Einstein deflection α_E ~ 2m/R for the expansion to be self-consistent. This requires |K(0)|Rr ≪ m, which is the specific instantiation of the general perturbative condition |K(0)|r²/G₄(0) ≪ 1 already stated in Section II, applied to the light-deflection context. We will add an explicit statement of this condition immediately after Eq. (73) in the revised manuscript, noting that it limits the range of r and the allowed values of K(0) for which the result is physically interpretable. We will also remark that for realistic Solar-System parameters, where K(0) corresponds to the observed cosmological constant scale, this condition is satisfied with enormous margin, but for generic (unconstrained) K(0) treated as a free parameter, the condition must be checked. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Section III, Eqs. (23)-(24): The fixing of G₄(0) = 1 in the heavy-scalar limit and G₄(0) = (ζ+1)/ζ in the light-scalar limit should be stated more explicitly as a convention or gauge-fixing of the background value of the Horndeski function, rather than appearing as a derived physical result.

    Authors: We agree with the referee that the fixing of G₄(0) is a normalization choice (essentially a choice of units for the gravitational coupling), not a dynamical consequence of the field equations. In the heavy-scalar limit, setting G₄(0) = 1 amounts to normalizing the effective gravitational constant to its measured Newtonian value. In the light-scalar limit, the choice G₄(0) = (ζ+1)/ζ similarly ensures that the effective Newtonian potential matches the observed value after accounting for the unsuppressed scalar contribution. Both are conventions that fix the units of the background gravitational coupling. We will revise the text in Section III to state this explicitly, clarifying that these are normalization choices made to align the weak-field metric with the observed Newtonian limit, not results derived from the field equations. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity found; derivation is self-contained with minor non-load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain proceeds from the Horndeski action (Eq. 1) through linearized field equations (Eqs. 7–8), to metric solutions (Eqs. 17–24), to geodesic equations and classical observables (perihelion advance Eqs. 52–57, light deflection Eqs. 73/78, gravitational redshift Eqs. 80–82). Each step follows from the previous one without algebraic reduction to its own inputs. The fixing of G_4(0) by matching to the Newtonian potential (Section III: G_4(0)=1 for heavy scalar, G_4(0)=(ζ+1)/ζ for light scalar) is a standard calibration of an effective coupling constant to the observed Newtonian limit — a normalization step, not a circular prediction. The effective PPN parameter γ (Eq. 27) is computed from the ratio of metric components derived from the field equations, and is then compared to the external Cassini observational bound (γ_obs−1 = (2.1±2.3)×10⁻⁵, ref. [71]) to estimate ζ≳8×10⁴. This is a genuine derivation checked against an external benchmark, not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The self-citations to [44] (Ozer & Delice 2018) are used for structural comparison with BDV/BDΛ theories and to note that the Horndeski ζ reduces to the Brans-Dicke form in the appropriate limit; these are contextual comparisons, not load-bearing for the present derivation, which is carried out independently from the Horndeski action. The PhD thesis [43] is cited only for the basic observation that a potential minimum can mimic a cosmological constant. No step in the central derivation chain reduces to a self-citation that is itself unverified, and no 'prediction' is algebraically equivalent to a fitted input by construction.

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

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, dimensions, or conserved quantities. All entities (scalar field, Horndeski functions, effective cosmological constant from potential minimum) are standard within the Horndeski framework. The parameter zeta is a reformulation of existing Horndeski function derivatives, not a new entity.

free parameters (4)
  • zeta = not fitted; constrained to zeta >= 8e4 via Cassini sensitivity in light-scalar regime
    Effective coupling parameter defined by Eq. 26 in terms of Horndeski function derivatives; not fitted to data but bounded using Cassini as a sensitivity reference.
  • m_s = not fitted; two limiting regimes (m_s >> 1 and m_s << 1) analyzed
    Scalar field mass defined by Eq. 14 in terms of potential second derivative and Horndeski function derivatives; treated as a model parameter with two asymptotic limits.
  • K(0) = not fitted; related to cosmological constant via K(0) = -2*Lambda*G_4(0)
    Background value of the potential at its minimum; acts as effective curvature source. Not fitted but treated as a small perturbative parameter.
  • G_4(0) = set to 1 (heavy scalar) or (zeta+1)/zeta (light scalar)
    Fixed by matching to the Newtonian limit in Section III; this is a post hoc normalization choice rather than a prediction.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The background scalar field phi_0 sits at a stable minimum of the effective potential, implying K_{,phi}(0) = 0 and m_s^2 > 0.
    Stated in Section II (Eq. 9 and surrounding text). Required for stability of perturbations and for the scalar field to acquire a well-defined mass.
  • ad hoc to paper Mixed perturbative terms such as K(0)*h_{mu nu} and K(0)*phi are negligible compared to leading-order terms.
    Stated in Section II. This truncation is the basis for the linearized field equations (Eqs. 7-8). The paper asserts |K(0)|r^2/G_4(0) << 1 at Solar-System scales but does not bound the mixed terms quantitatively.
  • domain assumption The Vainshtein mechanism and other nonlinear screening effects can be consistently neglected at Solar-System scales.
    Stated repeatedly in Sections I and II. This restricts validity to the linearized regime; many viable Horndeski models rely on Vainshtein screening for Solar-System consistency.
  • domain assumption The Jordan frame is the appropriate frame for analyzing Solar-System weak-field phenomenology.
    Discussed in Section II. The author argues the Einstein frame requires disformal transformations that complicate analysis. This is a standard choice but limits the scope.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Linearized Horndeski Theory with a Potential in the Solar System Regime." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7VE4G4QV

@misc{pith2026260706467,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Linearized Horndeski Theory with a Potential in the Solar System Regime},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7VE4G4QV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.06467}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, the weak-field behavior of linearized Horndeski theory is studied, with emphasis on the role of a scalar potential with a nonvanishing minimum. In this regime, the minimum of the potential acts as an effective source of background curvature and produces a contribution similar to a cosmological constant. The analysis is restricted to the linear approximation, where nonlinear screening effects such as the Vainshtein mechanism can be consistently neglected. Within this framework, the consistency of the theory with Solar-System phenomenology in the weak-field limit is examined, and possible deviations from General Relativity depending on the model parameters are discussed. To this end, the linearized field equations for a static point mass are derived, the corresponding geodesic motion is investigated, and the resulting weak-field effects in classical Solar-System observables, including perihelion advance, light deflection, and gravitational redshift, are analyzed. The analysis further focuses on the limiting regimes of very light and very heavy scalar fields. In the very light scalar field regime, consistency with Solar System phenomenology requires sufficiently large values of the coupling parameter zeta, thereby suppressing the scalar contribution at local scales and keeping deviations from General Relativity negligible. In the very heavy scalar field regime, the scalar-mediated interaction acquires a short range and becomes dynamically suppressed, leading to weak-field predictions that are practically indistinguishable from those of General Relativity. Nevertheless, geometric terms associated with the minimum of the scalar potential may persist at linear order in the metric perturbations, depending on the value of zeta.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.06467 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The plane graph corresponding to the orbit equation given in equation (3). The one-sided deflection angle is given by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 99 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    They arise from the difference in the effective gravitational potential generated by the central mass, evaluated between the emission point r and the observation pointr 0

    (80) In the given expression, the terms independent of the exponential term correspond to those appearing in the general relativistic limit of the model. They arise from the difference in the effective gravitational potential generated by the central mass, evaluated between the emission point r and the observation pointr 0. In the GR limit, corresponding ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    (81) The Yukawa-type corrections in Eq.(79), associated with the local potential, decay exponentially and effectively vanish in this limit. Hence, for a heavy scalar field, the gravitational redshift due to mass reduce to the standard GR prediction, whereas the cosmological background contribution remains present, as it is not subject to Yukawa suppressio...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Similar consistency also holds in BDΛ or BDV theories [44]

    (82) The first three terms arise directly from the Schwarzschild metric and describe the mass–dependent gravitational redshift, reproducing GR result, as expected in the heavy scalar field limit. Similar consistency also holds in BDΛ or BDV theories [44]. With 1 ζ =χG 4,ϕ(0), the coefficient 1−2χG 4,ϕ(0) becomes 1− 2 ζ and therefore tends to unity for the...

    work page

  4. [4]

    C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne and J. A. Wheeler, (Freeman, NY, 1974)

    work page 1974

  5. [5]

    C. M. Will, iving Rev. Relativ. 17, 4 (2014)

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    C.M Will, 2nd Edition, Cambridge University Press (2018)

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    T. P. Sotiriou and V. Faraoni, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 451 (2010)

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rept. 505, 59 (2011)

    work page 2011

Show all 99 references
  1. [9]

    S.Capozziello and M.De Laurentis, Phys. Rept. 509, 167 (2011)

    2011

  2. [10]

    Clifton, P

    T. Clifton, P. G. Ferreira, A. Padilla and C. Skordis, Phys. Rep. 513, 1 (2012)

    2012

  3. [11]

    Turner,Phys

    M. Turner,Phys. Rep., 333, 619 (2000)

    2000

  4. [13]

    Padmanabhan, Phys

    T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rep., 380, 235 (2003)

    2003

  5. [14]

    Sahni, A

    V. Sahni, A. Starobinsky, Int.J.Mod.Phys. D9, 373 (2000)

    2000

  6. [15]

    Upadhye, M

    A. Upadhye, M. Ishak, P Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. D 72, 063501 (2005)

    2005

  7. [16]

    Aldering, G

    S.Perlmutter, S. Aldering, G. Goldhaber, R.A. Knop , P. Nugent, P.G. Castro, et al., The Astrophysical Journal, 517, 565–586 (1999)

    1999

  8. [17]

    A. G. Riess et al. Astron. J. 116, 1009 (1998)

    1998

  9. [18]

    A. G. Riess et al. Astron. J. 117, 707 (1999)

    1999

  10. [19]

    D. J. Eisenstein et al. (SDSS Collaboration) Astrophys. J. 633, 560 (2005)

    2005

  11. [20]

    J 594, 1 (2003); R.A.Knop et al.,Ap

    J.L.Tonry, et al., Ap. J 594, 1 (2003); R.A.Knop et al.,Ap. J 598, 102 (2003)

    2003

  12. [21]

    Weinberg., Reviews of Modern Physics, 61(1), 1–23 (1989)

    S. Weinberg., Reviews of Modern Physics, 61(1), 1–23 (1989)

    1989

  13. [22]

    R. J. Adler , B. Casey , O. C. Jacob, Am. J. Phys. 63, 620 (1995)

    1995

  14. [23]

    Jordan, Schwerkraft und Weltall, Vieweg (Braunschweig) (1955)

    P. Jordan, Schwerkraft und Weltall, Vieweg (Braunschweig) (1955)

    1955

  15. [24]

    Brans, R

    C. Brans, R. Dicke, 1961, Phys. Rev. D 124, 925 (1961)

    1961

  16. [25]

    Fujii, K

    Y. Fujii, K. Maeda, The scalar-tensor theory of gravitation (Cambridge University Press, (2007)

    2007

  17. [26]

    Horndeski, Int

    G.W. Horndeski, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 10, 363 (1974)

    1974

  18. [27]

    Ostrogradsky, Mem

    M. Ostrogradsky, Mem. Acad. St.Petersbourg 6(4), 385 (1850)

  19. [28]

    Linde, Phys

    A. Linde, Phys. Lett. B 108, 389 (1982)

    1982

  20. [29]

    E. J. Copeland, M. Sami and S. Tsujikawa, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 15, 1753 (2006)

    2006

  21. [30]

    Pechlaner and R

    E. Pechlaner and R. Sexl, Commun. Math. Phys. 2 165 (1966)

    1966

  22. [31]

    R. V. Wagoner, Phys. Rev. D 1 3209 (1970)

    1970

  23. [32]

    K. S. Stelle, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 9 353 (1978)

    1978

  24. [33]

    C. M. Will Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) (revised edn) (1993)

    1993

  25. [34]

    P. J. Steinhardt and C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D 52 628 (1995)

    1995

  26. [35]

    Barros A and C

    A. Barros A and C. Romero, 1Phys. Lett. A 245 31 (1998)

    1998

  27. [36]

    G. J. Olmo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 261102 (2005)

    2005

  28. [37]

    G. J. Olmo, Phys. Rev. D 72 083505 (2005)

    2005

  29. [38]

    G. J. Olmo, Phys. Rev. D 75 023511 (2007)

    2007

  30. [39]

    Perivolaropoulos, Phys

    L. Perivolaropoulos, Phys. Rev. D 81 047501 (2010)

    2010

  31. [40]

    C. P. L. Berry and J. R. Gair, Phys. Rev. D 83 104022 (2011)

    2011

  32. [41]

    C. P. L.Berry and J. R. Gair, Phys. Rev. D 85 089906 (2012)

    2012

  33. [42]

    Alsing, E

    J. Alsing, E. Berti,C. M. Will and H. Zaglauer, Phys. Rev. D 85 064041 (2012)

    2012

  34. [43]

    Hohmann, L

    M. Hohmann, L. Jarv, P. Kuusk and E. Randla, Phys. Rev. D 88 084054 (2013)

    2013

  35. [44]

    Hohmann, L

    M. Hohmann, L. Jarv, P. Kuusk and E. Randla, Phys. Rev. D 89 069901 (2014)

    2014

  36. [45]

    Eddington, F

    A. Eddington, F. W. Dyson, C. Davidson, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. A 220, 291 (1920)

    1920

  37. [46]

    Ozer, PhD thesis, Istanbul University Physics Department, (2018)

    H. Ozer, PhD thesis, Istanbul University Physics Department, (2018)

    2018

  38. [47]

    Ozer and O

    H. Ozer and O. Delice, Class. Quantum Grav. 35, 065002 (2018). 19

    2018

  39. [48]

    Ozer and O

    H. Ozer and O. Delice, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 58, 28 (2026)

    2026

  40. [49]

    Ozer and O

    H. Ozer and O. Delice, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 326 (2021)

    2021

  41. [50]

    Babichev and C

    E. Babichev and C. Charmousis, JHEP 08, 106 (2014)

    2014

  42. [51]

    Cisterna, T

    A. Cisterna, T. Delsate and M. Rinaldi, Phys. Rev. D 92, 044050 (2015)

    2015

  43. [52]

    S. K. Jha, A. Rahaman and A. K. Dubey, Phys. Rev. D 107, 084052 (2023)

    2023

  44. [53]

    Nesseris, D

    S. Nesseris, D. Sapone and J. Garcia-Bellido, Phys. Rev. D 91, 023004 (2015)

    2015

  45. [54]

    M. R. Setare, S. M. M. Rasouli and H. Moradpour, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 1325 (2025)

    2025

  46. [55]

    A. R. dos Santos, F. S. N. Lobo and M. A. Anacleto, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 546 (2023)

    2023

  47. [56]

    Hou and Y

    S. Hou and Y. Gong, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 247 (2018)

    2018

  48. [57]

    P. A. Gonz´ alez, E. Papantonopoulos, J. Saavedra, and Y. V´ asquez, Phys. Rev. D 95, 064046 (2017)

    2017

  49. [58]

    Della Monica, I

    R. Della Monica, I. de Martino, D. Vernieri, and M. De Laurentis, arXiv:2212.05082 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  50. [59]

    Sakstein, Int

    J. Sakstein, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D27, 1848008 (2018)

    2018

  51. [60]

    I. I. Shapiro, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 789 (1964)

    1964

  52. [61]

    R. H. Dicke and H. M. Goldenberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 18, 313 (1967)

    1967

  53. [62]

    Berti et al., Class

    E. Berti et al., Class. Quantum Grav. 32, 243001 (2015)

    2015

  54. [63]

    Kobayashi, Rept

    T. Kobayashi, Rept. Prog. Phys. 82, 086901 (2019)

    2019

  55. [64]

    De Felice, T

    A. De Felice, T. Kobayashi, and S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Lett. B 706, 123 (2011)

    2011

  56. [65]

    Minamitsuji, Phys

    M. Minamitsuji, Phys. Rev. D 94, 084039 (2016)

    2016

  57. [66]

    Babichev, C

    E. Babichev, C. Charmousis, and A. Lehbel, Class. Quantum Grav. 33, 154002 (2016)

    2016

  58. [67]

    H. O. Silva, A. Sakstein, L. Gualtieri, T. P. Sotiriou, and E. Berti, Phys. Rev. D 99, 064011 (2019)

    2019

  59. [68]

    N. A. Lima and P. G. Ferreira, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 1401, 039 (2014)

    2014

  60. [69]

    Heisenberg, Phys

    L. Heisenberg, Phys. Rept. 796, 1–113 (2019)

    2019

  61. [70]

    Ozer and O

    H. Ozer and O. Delice, Eur. Phys. J. C, 81, 326 (2021)

    2021

  62. [71]

    G. W. Horndeski, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 10, 363 (1974)

    1974

  63. [72]

    Bernabeu, C

    J. Bernabeu, C. Espinoza and N. E. Mavromatos, Phys. Rev. D 81, 084002 (2010)

    2010

  64. [73]

    Bernabeu, C

    J. Bernabeu, C. Espinoza and N. E. Mavromatos, Phys. Rev. D 84, 063523 (2011)

    2011

  65. [74]

    Bertotti, L

    B. Bertotti, L. Iess, P. Tortora, Nature 425, 374–376 (2003)

    2003

  66. [75]

    Perivolaropoulos, Phys

    L. Perivolaropoulos, Phys. Rev. D81, 047501 (2010)

    2010

  67. [76]

    C. M. Will, revised edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, (1993)

    1993

  68. [77]

    Alsing, E

    J. Alsing, E. Berti, C. M. Will, and H. Zaglauer, Phys. Rev. D 85, 064041 (2012)

    2012

  69. [78]

    Arakida, Int

    H. Arakida, Int. J. Theor. Phys.52, 1408 (2013)

    2013

  70. [79]

    G. S. Adkins and J. McDonnell, Phys. Rev. D75, 082001 (2007)

    2007

  71. [80]

    O. I. Chashchina and Z. K. Silagadze, Phys. Rev. D77, 107502 (2008)

    2008

  72. [81]

    S. S. Ovcherenko and Z. K. Silagadze, Ukr. J. Phys.61, 342 (2016)

    2016

  73. [82]

    Rindler and M

    W. Rindler and M. Ishak, Phys. Rev. D76, 043006 (2007)

    2007

  74. [83]

    Ishak and W

    M. Ishak and W. Rindler, Gen. Relativ. Gravit.42, 2247 (2010)

    2010

  75. [84]

    Sereno, Phys

    M. Sereno, Phys. Rev. D77, 043004 (2008)

    2008

  76. [85]

    Schucker, Gen

    T. Schucker, Gen. Relativ. Gravit.41, 1595 (2009)

    2009

  77. [86]

    Khriplovich I B and Pomeransky A A 2008 Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 17 2255

    2008

  78. [87]

    Park, Phys

    M. Park, Phys. Rev. D78, 023014 (2008)

    2008

  79. [88]

    Kantowski, B

    R. Kantowski, B. Chen, and X. Dai, Astrophys. J.718, 913 (2010)

    2010

  80. [89]

    J. N. Islam, Phys. Lett. A97, 239 (1983)

    1983

  81. [90]

    Arakida, Universe,2, 5 (2016)

    H. Arakida, Universe,2, 5 (2016)

    2016

  82. [91]

    Arakida, and M

    H. Arakida, and M. Kasai, Phys. Rev. D85, 023006 (2012)

    2012

  83. [92]

    Bhadra, S

    A. Bhadra, S. Biswas, and K. Sarkar, Phys. Rev. D82, 063003 (2010)

    2010

  84. [93]

    Faraoni, M

    V. Faraoni, M. Lapierre-Leonard, Phys. Rev. D95, 023509 (2017)

    2017

  85. [94]

    Biressa and J

    T. Biressa and J. A. de Freitas Pacheco, Gen. Relativ. Gravit.43, 2649 (2011)

    2011

  86. [95]

    Lebedev and K

    D. Lebedev and K. Lake, arXiv:1308.4931 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  87. [96]

    Lebedev, K

    D. Lebedev, K. Lake, arXiv:1609.05183 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  88. [97]

    Y. K. Lim and Q. H. Wang, Phys. Rev. D95, 024004 (2017)

    2017

  89. [98]

    Simpson, J

    F. Simpson, J. A. Peacock, and A. F. Heavens, Mon. Not. R. Astro. Soc.402, 2009 (2010)

    2009

  90. [99]

    O. F. Piattella, Phys. Rev. D93, 129901(E) (2016)

    2016

  91. [100]

    Kagramanova, J

    V. Kagramanova, J. Kunz, and C. Lammerzahl, Phys. Lett. B634, 465 (2006)

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed July 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.