Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 112 references

Higher-derivative pure-metric gravity theories are intrinsically weakly hyperbolic in the physical sector, for any gauge.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-14 02:27 UTC pith:YQ3K5IPF

load-bearing objection Clean isolation of a weakly hyperbolic physical spin-2 block for pure-metric higher-derivative EFTs; the general-n claim leans on a deferred pencil criterion. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.11879 v1 pith:YQ3K5IPF submitted 2026-07-13 gr-qc hep-th

Higher-derivative gravitational effective field theories are generically weakly hyperbolic

Farid Thaalba , Fernando Abalos , Miguel Bezares This is my paper
classification gr-qc hep-th
keywords higher-derivative gravityeffective field theoryinitial-value problemweak hyperbolicitystrong hyperbolicityprincipal symbolspin-2 modesmatrix pencils
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 studies the initial-value problem for pure-metric gravitational effective field theories that contain more than two derivatives. When the characteristic speeds do not depend on derivatives of the metric, the physical spin-2 sector of the principal symbol always contains a weakly hyperbolic block. The authors isolate that block directly from the characteristic equation, without first reducing the system to first order and without fixing a gauge. Because the obstruction lives in the physical modes, neither a clever choice of coordinates nor the addition of constraints can remove it. The result supplies a structural reason why this large class of theories fails to be strongly hyperbolic, and therefore why the standard energy estimates that guarantee a well-posed initial-value problem for the metric and all its derivatives cannot hold for arbitrary lower-order terms.

Core claim

Any pure-metric higher-derivative gravitational theory whose characteristic velocities are independent of metric derivatives is intrinsically weakly hyperbolic in the physical spin-2 sector, independently of gauge fixing and constraint addition. In that sector the principal block takes the form P_HO = -α_n (λ²-1)^{2+n} I_2, whose eigenvalues have algebraic multiplicity 2(2+n) but geometric multiplicity only 2.

What carries the argument

The 2×2 physical principal block extracted from the characteristic equation by solving the constraint characteristic equations first; the block is independent of gauge and of constraint addition, and its higher-order pencil structure immediately implies unequal algebraic and geometric multiplicities.

Load-bearing premise

That the algebraic test for strong hyperbolicity (equal algebraic and geometric multiplicities of the principal-pencil eigenvalues), already proved for second-order systems, continues to apply without change to the higher-order pencils that appear here.

What would settle it

An explicit pure-metric higher-derivative theory whose characteristic speeds are independent of metric derivatives, yet whose physical 2×2 principal block is uniformly diagonalizable (equal algebraic and geometric multiplicities) for every real spatial wave covector.

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

If this is right

  • No gauge choice or constraint addition can restore strong hyperbolicity for this class of theories in the metric Sobolev norms.
  • Well-posedness, when it exists, can hold only in adapted norms that require extra regularity of the initial data.
  • Numerical evolutions of such theories must expect loss of derivatives and possible reduction of observed convergence order.
  • Field redefinitions that change the PDE order may alter hyperbolicity even if they leave the physical content unchanged.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same block-extraction technique could be used to classify which non-metric or derivative-dependent extensions remain strongly hyperbolic.
  • Adapted-norm well-posedness may still be numerically useful if high-frequency modes are controlled by explicit filtering or stiff regularization.
  • The result suggests a sharp dividing line: pure higher-curvature EFTs versus theories whose principal symbol depends on derivatives, which can form shocks but are not automatically weakly hyperbolic.

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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the initial-value problem for pure-metric higher-derivative gravitational EFTs whose characteristic speeds do not depend on metric derivatives. Using the principal symbol of a diffeomorphism-invariant metric action and the matrix-pencil approach of Abalos–Hilditch, the authors isolate the spin-2 physical sector from the characteristic equation without order reduction or gauge fixing. They show that this sector is spanned by a fixed basis B and that, for the general highest-derivative ansatz L_HO, the physical principal block takes the form P_HO = −α_n (λ²−1)^{2+n} I_2. For n≥0 this block has algebraic multiplicity 2(2+n) and geometric multiplicity 2, so the physical sector is weakly hyperbolic. The obstruction is therefore physical and cannot be removed by gauge choice or constraint addition. Explicit blocks are computed for GR, quadratic gravity and cubic gravity, and the same structure is claimed for arbitrary order.

Significance. If the higher-order multiplicity criterion holds, the result supplies a clean structural explanation for the generic failure of strong hyperbolicity in pure-metric higher-derivative EFTs. The identification of the physical block directly from the constraint characteristic equations, without order reduction, is a useful technical contribution and correctly recovers the known strongly hyperbolic GR block. The explicit low-order calculations (quadratic and cubic) are transparent and parameter-free. The paper therefore clarifies why adapted norms or order-reduced formulations are needed for numerical work in this class of theories, and it places earlier well-posedness results (e.g. Figueras–Held–Kovács) in a broader structural context.

major comments (2)
  1. [Higher-order EFTs of gravity; eqs. (28)–(33)] The headline claim for arbitrary derivative order rests on an unproved extension of the second-order matrix-pencil criterion of Abalos–Hilditch [87]. In the GR section the authors correctly invoke equal algebraic and geometric multiplicities for the second-order pencil. For the quadratic, cubic and general HO blocks (28), (30), (33) they simply assert that the multiplicity mismatch implies weak hyperbolicity “as a generalization of the results in [87]” and that “the generalization to higher-order PDEs is straightforward and left for a follow-up.” Because the abstract and introduction state the result for any theory with more than two derivatives, this deferred step is load-bearing. Either a short proof (or a reduction to a first-order system whose principal matrix inherits the Jordan structure of (λ²−1)^{2+n} I_2) should be supplied, or the claim should be restricted to the orders for wh
  2. [Physical sector; after eq. (15)] The argument that the physical block is completely insensitive to constraint addition is stated but not fully justified for n>0. After introducing the three solutions of the constraint characteristic equation (15), the text asserts that two of them remain unchanged under constraint addition while the third (and the three constraint-preserving evolution equations) can be modified. For higher-order systems the principal symbol of a constraint-addition term can itself be of order n; it is not immediate that such terms cannot mix into the 2×2 physical block once the basis is fixed. A short argument showing that any multiple of the constraints still annihilates the two physical modes δg1, δg2 (or leaves the upper-left block of N|BB unchanged) would close this gap.
minor comments (4)
  1. [General Relativity] The phrase “the generalization of these results to higher-order PDEs is straightforward and left for a follow-up paper” appears in the GR section and is later used to underwrite the general claim; a single forward reference to a companion paper (or an appendix sketch) would make the logical dependence clearer.
  2. [Preliminaries and Discussion] Notation for the order of the system is inconsistent: the original equations are of order q, then n, then m. Unifying to a single letter would improve readability.
  3. [Higher-order EFTs of gravity] In eq. (27) the coefficient of nen f is written (λ²−1)(α0+4β0); a brief remark that this term is still annihilated by the constraint projector S_i would reassure the reader that the physical block remains λ-independent.
  4. [Discussion] The discussion of adapted norms and numerical convergence (refs. [107–110]) is useful but could be shortened; the main structural claim does not depend on it.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Minor load-bearing self-citation: higher-order weak-hyperbolicity claim rests on unproved generalization of co-author Abalos–Hilditch second-order pencil criterion, while the physical-block derivation itself is independent.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [GR section (after eq. 24) and Higher-order EFTs section (after eqs. 28, 30, 33)]
    "Ref. [87] showed that having equal multiplicities implies strong hyperbolicity; thus, the physical sector of GR is strongly hyperbolic. … The generalization of these results to higher-order PDEs is straightforward and left for a follow-up paper. … the system is weakly hyperbolic, as a generalization of the results in [87]."

    The paper’s headline claim for arbitrary derivative order (that every pure-metric higher-derivative EFT is intrinsically weakly hyperbolic) rests on the statement that algebraic multiplicity 2(2+n) > geometric multiplicity 2 of the physical pencil implies weak hyperbolicity. That implication is justified solely by generalizing the second-order matrix-pencil criterion of Abalos–Hilditch [87] (co-author Abalos), without a proof, first-order reduction, or independent higher-order reference supplied in the present text. The generalization is therefore load-bearing for n>0 yet remains an unverified self-citation.

full rationale

The paper’s core structural result—the isolation of a 2 imes2 physical spin-2 block of the form P_HO = −α_n (λ²−1)^{2+n} I_2 from the principal symbol of any diffeomorphism-invariant pure-metric action whose characteristics are derivative-independent—is obtained by direct algebraic manipulation of the characteristic equation (10), the constraint kernel (15), and the basis (16), using only the symmetries (6)–(7) and (A3)–(A6). No parameters are fitted, no uniqueness theorem is imported to force the form of the block, and the computation does not define the block in terms of the hyperbolicity conclusion. The sole circularity-adjacent step is the assertion that unequal algebraic/geometric multiplicities of this higher-order pencil imply weak hyperbolicity “as a generalization of the results in [87]”, where [87] is the second-order matrix-pencil paper by Abalos & Hilditch (overlapping author) and the generalization is explicitly deferred (“straightforward and left for a follow-up”). This is a load-bearing self-citation for the n>0 claim, but it does not render the derivation equivalent to its inputs by construction; the block itself remains an independent, parameter-free calculation. Score 2 reflects a single minor self-citation that is not definitional or predictive circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard PDE hyperbolicity notions, diffeomorphism-invariant metric actions, principal-symbol symmetries, and the matrix-pencil multiplicity criterion. No data-fitted constants enter. The only nonstandard load-bearing pieces are the extension of second-order pencil strong-hyperbolicity criteria to higher-order systems and the restriction to theories whose characteristics do not depend on metric derivatives. No new physical entities are postulated.

axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Strong hyperbolicity of an n-th order system is equivalent to real characteristic speeds with equal algebraic and geometric multiplicities of the principal matrix pencil (generalizing Abalos–Hilditch second-order results).
    Used to conclude weak hyperbolicity from alg. mult. 2(2+n) vs geo. mult. 2 in the physical block; higher-order case is called straightforward and deferred.
  • domain assumption The theories considered have characteristic velocities independent of derivatives of the metric, so the principal symbol N is evaluated on a background without derivative dependence in the speeds.
    Stated in the abstract and introduction as the class under study; excludes many scalar-tensor and derivative-dependent cases.
  • standard math Diffeomorphism invariance of the metric action implies generalized Bianchi identities and the principal-symbol symmetries N_ap(bc1…cn)ef = 0 and N_ab(c1…cne)f = 0.
    Derived in Appendix A following Reall-type arguments; used to separate constraints and restrict the characteristic equation.
  • domain assumption Physical spin-2 modes are the solutions of the constraint characteristic equations that are not pure gauge, and their characteristic structure is invariant under gauge fixing and constraint addition.
    Core of the 'Physical sector' construction; standard in constrained hyperbolic systems but essential to the irremovability claim.
  • domain assumption Highest-derivative contributions to pure-metric EFTs are captured by the ansatz sum_k (α_k R_ab □^k R^ab − β_k R □^k R) for the principal part.
    Used to obtain the general block P_HO; justified as the most general highest-derivative terms with derivative-independent speeds.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 20970 in / 3132 out tokens · 33756 ms · 2026-07-14T02:27:28.688158+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We analyse the initial-value problem of metric higher-derivative effective theories of gravity. We show that any such theory whose characteristic velocities are independent of derivatives of the metric is intrinsically weakly hyperbolic, independently of the gauge fixing. To show this, we identify the spin-$2$ physical sector directly from the characteristic equation; this can be done without introducing an order-reduced formulation, which greatly simplifies the computation. In this sector, every metric theory with more than two derivatives in the equations of motion contains a weakly hyperbolic block. Since this obstruction is physical, no choice of gauge or constraint addition can remove it, providing a structural explanation for the failure of strong hyperbolicity in this broad class of theories.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

112 extracted references · 77 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    M. A. Scheelet al., The SXS collaboration’s third cata- log of binary black hole simulations, Class. Quant. Grav. 42, 195017 (2025), arXiv:2505.13378 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Pretorius, Evolution of binary black hole space- times, Phys

    F. Pretorius, Evolution of binary black hole space- times, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 121101 (2005), arXiv:gr- qc/0507014

    arXiv 2005

  3. [3]

    M.Campanelli, C.O.Lousto, P.Marronetti,andY.Zlo- chower, Accurate evolutions of orbiting black-hole bi- naries without excision, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 111101 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0511048

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  4. [4]

    J. G. Baker, J. Centrella, D.-I. Choi, M. Koppitz, and J. van Meter, Gravitational wave extraction from an inspiraling configuration of merging black holes, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 111102 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0511103. 6

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  5. [5]

    Alcubierre,Introduction to 3+1 numerical relativity, International series of monographs on physics (Oxford Univ

    M. Alcubierre,Introduction to 3+1 numerical relativity, International series of monographs on physics (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2008)

    2008

  6. [6]

    C. Bona, C. Palenzuela-Luque, and C. Bona-Casas,El- ements of Numerical Relativity and Relativistic Hydro- dynamics: From Einstein ’s Equations to Astrophysical Simulations, 2nd ed., Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 783 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2009)

    2009

  7. [7]

    Shibata,Numerical Relativ- ity(WORLD SCIENTIFIC, 2015) https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9692

    M. Shibata,Numerical Relativ- ity(WORLD SCIENTIFIC, 2015) https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9692

    doi:10.1142/9692 2015

  8. [8]

    T. W. Baumgarte and S. L. Shapiro,Numerical Rel- ativity: Solving Einstein ’s Equations on the Computer (Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  9. [9]

    Palenzuela, Introduction to Numerical Relativity, Front

    C. Palenzuela, Introduction to Numerical Relativity, Front. Astron. Space Sci.7, 58 (2020), arXiv:2008.12931 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  10. [10]

    Hilditch, Solving the Einstein Equations Numerically (2025) arXiv:2405.06035 [gr-qc]

    D. Hilditch, Solving the Einstein Equations Numerically (2025) arXiv:2405.06035 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    M. W. Choptuik, Universality and scaling in gravita- tionalcollapse ofamasslessscalarfield,Phys. Rev.Lett. 70, 9 (1993)

    1993

  12. [12]

    M. W. Choptuik, E. W. Hirschmann, S. L. Liebling, and F. Pretorius, Critical collapse of the massless scalar field in axisymmetry, Phys. Rev. D68, 044007 (2003), arXiv:gr-qc/0305003

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  13. [13]

    Gundlach, D

    C. Gundlach, D. Hilditch, and J. M. Martín-García, Critical Phenomena in Gravitational Collapse, (2025), arXiv:2507.07636 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Centrella, J

    J. Centrella, J. G. Baker, B. J. Kelly, and J. R. van Me- ter, Black-hole binaries, gravitational waves, and nu- merical relativity, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 3069 (2010), arXiv:1010.5260 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  15. [15]

    Lehner and F

    L. Lehner and F. Pretorius, Numerical Relativity and Astrophysics, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.52, 661 (2014), arXiv:1405.4840 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  16. [16]

    Bambi, Y

    C. Bambi, Y. Mizuno, S. Shashank, and F. Yuan, eds., New Frontiers in GRMHD Simulations, Springer Series in Astrophysics and Cosmology (Springer, 2025)

    2025

  17. [17]

    Foures-Bruhat, Theoreme d’existence pour certains systemes derivees partielles non lineaires, Acta Mat.88, 141 (1952)

    Y. Foures-Bruhat, Theoreme d’existence pour certains systemes derivees partielles non lineaires, Acta Mat.88, 141 (1952)

    1952

  18. [18]

    Choquet-Bruhat and R

    Y. Choquet-Bruhat and R. P. Geroch, Global aspects of the Cauchy problem in general relativity, Commun. Math. Phys.14, 329 (1969)

    1969

  19. [19]

    Sbierski, On the Existence of a Maximal Cauchy Development for the Einstein Equations: a De- zornification, Annales Henri Poincare17, 301 (2016), arXiv:1309.7591 [gr-qc]

    J. Sbierski, On the Existence of a Maximal Cauchy Development for the Einstein Equations: a De- zornification, Annales Henri Poincare17, 301 (2016), arXiv:1309.7591 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  20. [20]

    A. D. Rendall, Theorems on existence and global dy- namics for the Einstein equations, Living Rev. Rel.8, 6 (2002), arXiv:gr-qc/0505133

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  21. [21]

    Sarbach and M

    O. Sarbach and M. Tiglio, Continuum and Dis- crete Initial-Boundary-Value Problems and Einstein’s Field Equations, Living Rev. Rel.15, 9 (2012), arXiv:1203.6443 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  22. [22]

    Isenberg, The Initial Value Problem in General Relativity, inSpringer Handbook of Spacetime, edited by A

    J. Isenberg, The Initial Value Problem in General Relativity, inSpringer Handbook of Spacetime, edited by A. Ashtekar and V. Petkov (2014) pp. 303–321, arXiv:1304.1960 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  23. [23]

    HADAMARD, Sur les problemes aux derivees par- tielles et leur signification physique, Princeton univer- sity bulletin , 49 (1902)

    J. HADAMARD, Sur les problemes aux derivees par- tielles et leur signification physique, Princeton univer- sity bulletin , 49 (1902)

    1902

  24. [24]

    Abbottet al.(KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the Second Part of the Third Observing Run, Phys

    R. Abbottet al.(KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the Second Part of the Third Observing Run, Phys. Rev. X13, 041039 (2023), arXiv:2111.03606 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  25. [25]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), GWTC- 1: A Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog of Compact Binary Mergers Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the First and Second Observing Runs, Phys. Rev. X9, 031040 (2019), arXiv:1811.12907 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  26. [26]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), GWTC-2: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and VirgoDuringtheFirstHalfoftheThirdObservingRun, Phys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), GWTC-2: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and VirgoDuringtheFirstHalfoftheThirdObservingRun, Phys. Rev. X11, 021053 (2021), arXiv:2010.14527 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  27. [27]

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO), GWTC-2.1: Deep extended catalog of compact binary coalescences observed by LIGO and Virgo during the first half of the third observing run, Phys. Rev. D109, 022001 (2024), arXiv:2108.01045 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  28. [28]

    Bertiet al., Testing General Relativity with Present and Future Astrophysical Observations, Class

    E. Bertiet al., Testing General Relativity with Present and Future Astrophysical Observations, Class. Quant. Grav.32, 243001 (2015), arXiv:1501.07274 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  29. [29]

    Endlich, V

    S. Endlich, V. Gorbenko, J. Huang, and L. Senatore, An effective formalism for testing extensions to Gen- eral Relativity with gravitational waves, JHEP09, 122, arXiv:1704.01590 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  30. [30]

    Baracket al., Black holes, gravitational waves and fundamental physics: a roadmap, Class

    L. Baracket al., Black holes, gravitational waves and fundamental physics: a roadmap, Class. Quant. Grav. 36, 143001 (2019), arXiv:1806.05195 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  31. [31]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), Tests of General Relativity with GWTC-3, Phys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), Tests of General Relativity with GWTC-3, Phys. Rev. D112, 084080 (2025), arXiv:2112.06861 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    K. G. Arunet al.(LISA), New horizons for fundamen- tal physics with LISA, Living Rev. Rel.25, 4 (2022), arXiv:2205.01597 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  33. [33]

    Colpiet al.(LISA), LISA Definition Study Report, (2024), arXiv:2402.07571 [astro-ph.CO]

    M. Colpiet al.(LISA), LISA Definition Study Report, (2024), arXiv:2402.07571 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    Yunes, X

    N. Yunes, X. Siemens, and K. Yagi, Gravitational- Wave Tests of General Relativity with Ground- Based Detectors and Pulsar-Timing Arrays, (2024), arXiv:2408.05240 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    Abacet al.(ET), The Science of the Einstein Tele- scope, (2025), arXiv:2503.12263 [gr-qc]

    A. Abacet al.(ET), The Science of the Einstein Tele- scope, (2025), arXiv:2503.12263 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Barausseet al., Prospects for Fundamental Physics with LISA, Gen

    E. Barausseet al., Prospects for Fundamental Physics with LISA, Gen. Rel. Grav.52, 81 (2020), arXiv:2001.09793 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  37. [37]

    Capozziello and M

    S. Capozziello and M. De Laurentis, Extended The- ories of Gravity, Phys. Rept.509, 167 (2011), arXiv:1108.6266 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  38. [38]

    C. P. Burgess, Quantum gravity in everyday life: Gen- eral relativity as an effective field theory, Living Rev. Rel.7, 5 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0311082

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  39. [39]

    Kobayashi, Horndeski theory and beyond: a review, Rept

    T. Kobayashi, Horndeski theory and beyond: a review, Rept. Prog. Phys.82, 086901 (2019), arXiv:1901.07183 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  40. [40]

    Padmanabhan and D

    T. Padmanabhan and D. Kothawala, Lanczos-Lovelock models of gravity, Phys. Rept.531, 115 (2013), arXiv:1302.2151 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  41. [41]

    T. P. Sotiriou and V. Faraoni, f(R) Theories Of Gravity, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 451 (2010), arXiv:0805.1726 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  42. [42]

    Clifton, P

    T. Clifton, P. G. Ferreira, A. Padilla, and C. Skordis, Modified Gravity and Cosmology, Phys. Rept.513, 1 (2012), arXiv:1106.2476 [astro-ph.CO]. 7

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  43. [43]

    Barausse, C

    E. Barausse, C. Palenzuela, M. Ponce, and L. Lehner, Neutron-star mergers in scalar-tensor theories of grav- ity, Phys. Rev. D87, 081506 (2013), arXiv:1212.5053 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  44. [44]

    Palenzuela, E

    C. Palenzuela, E. Barausse, M. Ponce, and L. Lehner, Dynamical scalarization of neutron stars in scalar- tensor gravity theories, Phys. Rev. D89, 044024 (2014), arXiv:1310.4481 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  45. [45]

    J. L. Ripley and F. Pretorius, Hyperbolicity in Spheri- cal Gravitational Collapse in a Horndeski Theory, Phys. Rev. D99, 084014 (2019), arXiv:1902.01468 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  46. [46]

    J. L. Ripley, Numerical relativity for Horndeski grav- ity, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D31, 2230017 (2022), arXiv:2207.13074 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  47. [47]

    Bezares, M

    M. Bezares, M. Crisostomi, C. Palenzuela, and E. Ba- rausse, K-dynamics: well-posed 1+1 evolutions in K- essence, JCAP03, 072, arXiv:2008.07546 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  48. [48]

    Bernard, L

    L. Bernard, L. Lehner, and R. Luna, Challenges to global solutions in Horndeski’s theory, Phys. Rev. D 100, 024011 (2019), arXiv:1904.12866 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  49. [49]

    Aresté Saló, K

    L. Aresté Saló, K. Clough, and P. Figueras, Well- Posedness of the Four-Derivative Scalar-Tensor Theory of Gravity in Singularity Avoiding Coordinates, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 261104 (2022), arXiv:2208.14470 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  50. [50]

    A. H. K. R, J. L. Ripley, and N. Yunes, Where and why does Einstein-scalar-Gauss-Bonnet theory break down?, Phys. Rev. D107, 044044 (2023), arXiv:2211.08477 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  51. [51]

    Cayuso, N

    J. Cayuso, N. Ortiz, and L. Lehner, Fixing extensions to general relativity in the nonlinear regime, Phys. Rev. D96, 084043 (2017), arXiv:1706.07421 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  52. [52]

    Cayuso and L

    R. Cayuso and L. Lehner, Nonlinear, noniterative treat- ment of EFT-motivated gravity, Phys. Rev. D102, 084008 (2020), arXiv:2005.13720 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  53. [53]

    Franchini, M

    N. Franchini, M. Bezares, E. Barausse, and L. Lehner, Fixing the dynamical evolution in scalar-Gauss- Bonnet gravity, Phys. Rev. D106, 064061 (2022), arXiv:2206.00014 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  54. [54]

    Cayuso, P

    R. Cayuso, P. Figueras, T. França, and L. Lehner, Self- Consistent Modeling of Gravitational Theories beyond GeneralRelativity,Phys.Rev.Lett.131,111403(2023), arXiv:2303.07246 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  55. [55]

    G. Lara, M. Bezares, and E. Barausse, UV completions, fixing the equations, and nonlinearities in k-essence, Phys. Rev. D105, 064058 (2022), arXiv:2112.09186 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  56. [56]

    Thaalba, M

    F. Thaalba, M. Bezares, N. Franchini, and T. P. Sotiriou, Spherical collapse in scalar-Gauss-Bonnet gravity: Taming ill-posedness with a Ricci coupling, Phys. Rev. D109, L041503 (2024), arXiv:2306.01695 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  57. [57]

    Thaalba, N

    F. Thaalba, N. Franchini, M. Bezares, and T. P. Sotiriou, Hyperbolicity in scalar-Gauss-Bonnet gravity: A gauge invariant study for spherical evolution, Phys. Rev. D111, 024053 (2025), arXiv:2410.16264 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    Gerhardinger, J

    M. Gerhardinger, J. T. Giblin, Jr., A. J. Tolley, and M. Trodden, Well-posed UV completion for simulat- ing scalar Galileons, Phys. Rev. D106, 043522 (2022), arXiv:2205.05697 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  59. [59]

    de Rham, J

    C. de Rham, J. Kożuszek, A. J. Tolley, and T. Wise- man, Dynamical formulation of ghost-free massive grav- ity, Phys. Rev. D108, 084052 (2023), arXiv:2302.04876 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  60. [60]

    D. D. Doneva, L. Aresté Saló, K. Clough, P. Figueras, and S. S. Yazadjiev, Testing the limits of scalar-Gauss- Bonnet gravity through nonlinear evolutions of spin- induced scalarization, Phys. Rev. D108, 084017 (2023), arXiv:2307.06474 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  61. [61]

    Corelli, P

    F. Corelli, P. Pani, and A. P. Sanna, Gravity with higher-curvature terms and second-order field equa- tions: f(R) meets Gauss-Bonnet, Phys. Rev. D112, 124055 (2025), arXiv:2510.17965 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  62. [62]

    H. L. H. Shum, L. Aresté Saló, F. Thaalba, M. Bezares, and T. P. Sotiriou, Well-posed BSSN-type formula- tion for scalar-tensor theories of gravity with second- order field equations, Phys. Rev. D113, 104001 (2026), arXiv:2512.11034 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2026

  63. [63]

    Papallo and H

    G. Papallo and H. S. Reall, On the local well-posedness of Lovelock and Horndeski theories, Phys. Rev. D96, 044019 (2017), arXiv:1705.04370 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  64. [64]

    Papallo, On the hyperbolicity of the most general Horndeski theory, Phys

    G. Papallo, On the hyperbolicity of the most general Horndeski theory, Phys. Rev. D96, 124036 (2017), arXiv:1710.10155 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  65. [65]

    Á. D. Kovács and H. S. Reall, Well-posed formulation of Lovelock and Horndeski theories, Phys. Rev. D101, 124003 (2020), arXiv:2003.08398 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  66. [66]

    Kożuszek and T

    J. Kożuszek and T. Wiseman, Well-posedness of minimal dRGT massive gravity, JHEP06, 133, arXiv:2410.19491 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  67. [67]

    P. G. LeFloch and Y. Ma, Mathematical Validity of the f(R) Theory of Modified Gravity, (2014), arXiv:1412.8151 [math.AP]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  68. [68]

    P. G. LeFloch and F. C. Mena, A first-order formu- lation of f(R) gravity in spherical symmetry, (2025), arXiv:2512.06908 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  69. [69]

    Luz and F

    P. Luz and F. C. Mena, Local well-posedness of the initial value problem in Einstein–Cartan theory, Class. Quant. Grav.42, 215011 (2025), arXiv:2505.22590 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  70. [70]

    Figueras, A

    P. Figueras, A. Held, and Á. D. Kovács, Well-posed ini- tial value formulation of general effective field theories of gravity, (2024), arXiv:2407.08775 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  71. [71]

    C. P. Burgess, Introduction to Effective Field Theory, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.57, 329 (2007), arXiv:hep- th/0701053

    arXiv 2007

  72. [72]

    J. F. Donoghue, General relativity as an effective field theory: The leading quantum corrections, Phys. Rev. D 50, 3874 (1994), arXiv:gr-qc/9405057

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  73. [73]

    K. S. Stelle, Renormalization of Higher Derivative Quantum Gravity, Phys. Rev. D16, 953 (1977)

    1977

  74. [74]

    D. R. Noakes, THE INITIAL VALUE FORMULATION OFHIGHERDERIVATIVEGRAVITY,J.Math.Phys. 24, 1846 (1983)

    1983

  75. [75]

    G. W. Horndeski, Second-order scalar-tensor field equa- tions in a four-dimensional space, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 10, 363 (1974)

    1974

  76. [76]

    Weinberg, Effective Field Theory for Inflation, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Effective Field Theory for Inflation, Phys. Rev. D77, 123541 (2008), arXiv:0804.4291 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  77. [77]

    Deffayet, S

    C. Deffayet, S. Deser, and G. Esposito-Farese, Gener- alized Galileons: All scalar models whose curved back- ground extensions maintain second-order field equations and stress-tensors, Phys. Rev. D80, 064015 (2009), arXiv:0906.1967 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  78. [78]

    H. S. Reall, Causality in gravitational theories with second order equations of motion, Phys. Rev. D103, 084027 (2021), arXiv:2101.11623 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  79. [79]

    Tanahashi and S

    N. Tanahashi and S. Ohashi, Wave propagation and 8 shock formation in the most general scalar–tensor theories, Class. Quant. Grav.34, 215003 (2017), arXiv:1704.02757 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  80. [80]

    H.S.Reall, N.Tanahashi,andB.Way,ShockFormation in Lovelock Theories, Phys. Rev. D91, 044013 (2015), arXiv:1409.3874 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

Showing first 80 references.