Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 103 references

Correlated parity violation in gravity and electromagnetism from five-dimensional spacetime

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that in a five-dimensional teleparallel Kaluza-Klein theory, a single parity-violating coupling produces both gravitational and electromagnetic parity violation, with the exact background-independent dispersion-shift…

desk verdict A clean unification result whose central factor-6 prediction currently rests on crucial algebra the paper does not show. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09299 v1 pith:MCFC7UZN submitted 2026-08-10 gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-th

Haomin Rao , Yunlong Zheng , Qi-Zhe Hou , Jian-Wen Ou , Changyong Zhu This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.COhep-th PACS 04.50.-h04.30.-w98.80.-k
keywords parityviolationKaluza-KleintheoryteleparallelgravityNieh-YantermelectromagneticChern-Simonsgravitationalwavebirefringencecosmicdimensionalreduction
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 tries to show that parity violation need not be an independent property of light and of gravity. Working in five-dimensional Kaluza-Klein spacetime, the authors construct the simplest parity-violating term in two geometric frameworks: Riemannian geometry and teleparallel geometry, where gravity is described by torsion rather than curvature. In Riemannian geometry the reduction is complicated and includes the ghost-prone gravitational Chern-Simons term, but in teleparallel geometry the same construction reduces to exactly two ghost-free four-dimensional operators: the Nieh-Yan term for gravity and the electromagnetic Chern-Simons term, with coefficients fixed by one five-dimensional coupling. The result a sympathetic reader should care about is a sharp, background-independent prediction: the helicity-dependent dispersion shift of electromagnetic waves is exactly six times that of gravitational waves, $\Delta\omega^2_{\mathrm{EM}}=6\,\Delta\omega^2_{\mathrm{GW}}$. That relation is the paper's falsifiable handle on the idea that gravity and electromagnetism share a common geometric origin.

What carries the argument

The central object is the five-dimensional teleparallel parity-violating action $S_{\mathrm{TPV}}$, the simplest torsion-quadratic parity-odd scalar of the form $\eta_{AB}\hat{\varepsilon}^{\bar\mu\bar\nu\bar\rho\bar\sigma\bar\lambda}\hat{T}^A_{\bar\mu\bar\nu}\hat{T}^B_{\bar\rho\bar\sigma}n_{\bar\lambda}$, where $n_{\bar\lambda}$ is the normalized vector field pointing along the compact fifth dimension. Under the cylinder condition and the tetrad decomposition of Eq. (26), this one action carries the argument: the four-dimensional torsion supplies the Nieh-Yan term, the parity-odd torsion-squared gravitational operator, while the mixed tetrad components $\hat{T}^5_{\mu\nu}=\sqrt{2}(\phi F_{\mu\nu}+2\nabla_{[\mu}\phi\,A_{\nu]})$ supply the electromagnetic Chern-Simons term. The relative coefficient 2 between the two terms in Eq. (36) is what later produces the factor six in Eq. (44).

What would settle it

Directly recompute the full dimensional reduction of Eq. (35) without skipping the torsion-decomposition algebra and check whether the four-dimensional effective action is exactly Eq. (36); alternatively, observe a gravitational wave together with a polarized electromagnetic counterpart from the same source and test whether $\Delta\omega^2_{\mathrm{EM}}/\Delta\omega^2_{\mathrm{GW}} = 6$ over the same propagation interval.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Restated on the paper's own terms: the five-dimensional torsion-quadratic action $S_{\mathrm{TPV}}$ in Eq. (35), built from the five-dimensional Levi-Civita tensor, two torsion two-forms, and the preferred direction $n_{\bar\lambda}$ along the compact fifth dimension, dimensionally reduces to the four-dimensional action in Eq. (36), whose only parity-violating terms are the Nieh-Yan term and the standard electromagnetic Chern-Simons term. No gravity-electromagnetism mixing, quartic electromagnetic couplings, or higher-derivative operators appear. On a flat FRW background, the gravitational sector shows velocity birefringence with dispersion $\omega_A^2 = k^2\left[1 + c\,p_A(\ln\phi)'/k\right]$, and the electromagnetic sector has $\omega_A^2 = k^2\left[1 + 6c\,p_A(\ln\phi)'/k\right]$, which together yield Eq. (44). The factor six is fixed by the tensor contraction in the five-dimensional action and does not depend on the cosmological background.

Load-bearing premise

The prediction rests on the unshown algebra that reduces Eq. (35) to exactly Eq. (36), with only the Nieh-Yan term and the electromagnetic Chern-Simons term and the stated relative coefficient 2, together with the imported quadratic actions for the tensor and vector sectors; if that reduction contains extra operators or a different relative coefficient, the factor six in Eq. (44) changes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Parity violation in the gravitational and electromagnetic sectors would no longer be governed by two unrelated parameters: a single five-dimensional coupling $c$ controls both sectors.
  • Joint observations of CMB polarization rotation and gravitational-wave velocity birefringence with matched propagation endpoints could test the relation directly; at leading order the rotation angle and the gravitational-wave WKB phase difference satisfy $\Delta\alpha = 3\,\Delta\Phi^{\mathrm{WKB}}_{\mathrm{GW}}$.
  • The teleparallel construction avoids the ghost instability that limits the Riemannian Kaluza-Klein parity-violating model to low energies, so the 6-to-1 relation is not tied to a cutoff below which the theory must break down.
  • The other parity-odd torsion contractions considered in the paper reduce to gravitational-only parity violation and are ghost-unstable, which singles out Eq. (35) as the viable operator in this class.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the ratio is ever measured, the exact rational factor 6 would fingerprint the single-circle teleparallel Kaluza-Klein construction; other compactifications with different extra-dimensional topology or multiple compact directions would plausibly produce a different rational factor.
  • The ratio is derived at the leading-order WKB level, so a definitive test should compare full waveforms rather than only the leading dispersion relation, since nonlinear or non-eikonal corrections could modify the factor.
  • Because both dispersion shifts are proportional to $(\ln\phi)'$, a stabilized Kaluza-Klein scalar field $\phi$ would erase the signals entirely; detecting the predicted correlation would therefore also probe the dynamics of the radion field between emission and observation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a Kaluza-Klein mechanism that correlates parity violation in the gravitational and electromagnetic sectors. In Riemannian geometry, the simplest five-dimensional parity-violating curvature-squared term is reduced to a set of four-dimensional operators that includes the gravitational Chern-Simons term, which is known to suffer from a ghost instability. In teleparallel geometry, the analogous torsion-squared term is claimed to reduce to exactly two ghost-free four-dimensional operators: the Nieh-Yan term and the electromagnetic Chern-Simons term. From those operators, the authors derive helicity-dependent dispersion relations for gravitational waves (Eq. 39) and electromagnetic waves (Eq. 43), which yield the central prediction Δω²_EM = 6 Δω²_GW (Eq. 44). The paper then discusses CMB polarization rotation and GW velocity birefringence as joint observational tests, with the caveat that the two observables must share matched propagation endpoints.

Significance. If the reduction and the imported quadratic actions are correct, the paper provides a concrete, falsifiable unification scenario: a single five-dimensional parity-violating coupling controls both cosmic birefringence and GW velocity birefringence, with a background-independent numerical ratio. The teleparallel construction avoids the ghost instability of the Riemannian Chern-Simons sector, and the authors are careful about observational conventions, for example in translating the rotation angle to the factor of three rather than six in Δα = 3ΔΦ_WKB_GW. The central novelty is the factor-of-six relation; however, its validity rests on algebraic steps that are not displayed in the manuscript, so the significance is conditional on those steps being confirmed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. V.A, Eq. (36)] Equation (36), the four-dimensional effective action obtained from Eq. (35), is asserted after substituting the torsion decomposition in Eq. (30), but the reduction is not displayed. In particular, the component T^5_{μν} = √2(φF_{μν} + 2∇_{[μ}φ A_{ν]}) in Eq. (30) contains a ∇φ∧A term whose cancellation from the reduced action is not demonstrated. Because the relative coefficient 2 between the Nieh-Yan term and the φ³F-tilde-F term in Eq. (36) directly determines the factor 6 in Eq. (44), this unshown algebra is load-bearing for the central claim and should be exhibited in full or verified by an independent check.
  2. [Appendix A and Secs. V.B–V.C] The quadratic actions used to obtain the central relation, Eqs. (39) and (43), are not derived in this paper. Appendix A states that the tensor-sector results are "carried over from the existing results" without rederivation, and the electromagnetic action in Eq. (43) is written down without showing the perturbative expansion of the φ³F-tilde-F term. Since the coefficient 6 in Eq. (44) depends on the contraction convention and on the time dependence of φ³, the paper should either provide the perturbative derivation or specify precisely which published results, with which conventions, yield Eqs. (39) and (43).
  3. [Sec. V.C and Abstract, Eq. (44)] The relation Δω²_EM = 6 Δω²_GW is characterized in the abstract and conclusions as "exact and background-independent," while Section V.C qualifies it as holding "at the level of the leading-order WKB dispersion equations." The dispersion relations in Eqs. (39) and (43) are themselves linear in c(ln φ)′/k, so the paper should either state the domain of validity consistently or show that the next-order corrections vanish identically.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III.B, Eqs. (20)–(21)] The Riemannian reduction leading to Eq. (21) is also summarized as "a lengthy calculation" with no intermediate steps; a brief outline of the reduction or a supplementary file would improve reproducibility, even though the Riemannian case is not the central claim.
  2. [Throughout] The headings contain typographical errors such as "THEOR Y" and "P ARITY VIOLA TION"; these should be corrected to "THEORY" and "PARITY VIOLATION."
  3. [Sec. VI, text after Eq. (47)] The sentence comparing the Planck PR4 rotation angle to c ln(ϕ0/ϕLSS) would be clearer if the sign convention for pL and pR were restated, since the rotation angle in Eq. (47) is defined with a specific ordering of ω_R and ω_L.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the sixfold EM/GW dispersion ratio is derived algebraically from the chosen five-dimensional action, not fitted; the self-citations that supply ghost-freeness are prior independent derivations.

full rationale

The central prediction Δω²_EM = 6Δω²_GW (Eq. 44) is a direct algebraic ratio of the dispersion shifts in Eqs. (39) and (43), both of which follow from the same 5D parity-violating action Eq. (35) after the stated dimensional reduction (Eq. (36)). No parameter is fitted to the target quantity: the ratio is independent of the coupling c and of the background evolution of a(η) and ϕ(η), so it is not an example of a fitted input being relabeled as a prediction. The reduction of Eq. (35) to Eq. (36) is asserted rather than displayed, and Appendix A states that the tensor quadratic actions are carried over from existing results rather than rederived; this makes the derivation incomplete and places the numerical factor 6 at risk if the reduction contained extra operators or a different relative coefficient, but incompleteness is not circularity. The paper does rely on prior work by its own authors for the ghost-freeness of the Nieh-Yan term and for the instability of the alternative P2, P3, P4 contractions (Refs. [74,75,92,93]), and this is load-bearing for the choice of Eq. (35) as the viable operator. However, those cited results are parameter-free perturbative analyses with assumptions that do not include the present paper's conclusions, so under the review rules they count as independent support rather than circular self-citation. No step in the derivation is defined in terms of its own output, and no known result is merely renamed: the 5D origin of the correlated NY + EM-CS terms is a genuine construction whose observable ratio is a computed consequence.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or dimensions beyond the usual KK fields are introduced. The fifth dimension is standard KK, the PV coupling c is a parameter, and the vector n^mu is fixed by the KK decomposition rather than postulated independently.

free parameters (4)
  • Five-dimensional PV coupling c
    Amplitude of the 5D PV term in Eq. (35); it cancels in the ratio Delta omega^2_EM / Delta omega^2_GW but sets the overall birefringence strength in Eqs. (39) and (43).
  • Compactification length L5
    Length of the compact fifth dimension; it appears as an overall factor in the effective actions and does not affect the sixfold ratio.
  • KK scalar evolution ln[phi(eta0)/phi(etaLSS)]
    The observed CMB rotation angle and GW phase depend on this combination, for example Eq. (47); the model does not fix it without specifying the potential and initial conditions.
  • Matter potential V(phi) in Appendix A
    Introduced in Appendix A to support a consistent FRW background; its form is arbitrary and affects background evolution but not the instantaneous dispersion ratio.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Spacetime is M4 x S1 with the cylinder condition d5 = 0 on all physical fields.
    Sec. II.A imposes compactification and zero-mode reduction; without it the 4D field interpretation and the PV reduction do not apply.
  • domain assumption Gravity is described by teleparallel geometry in the Weitzenbock gauge, with vanishing curvature and nonmetricity.
    Sec. IV adopts the TEGR-style framework; the central clean result does not survive in Riemannian geometry, where the reduction instead yields Chern-Simons gravity with ghosts.
  • ad hoc to paper The five-dimensional PV action Eq. (35) is the simplest torsion-quadratic parity-odd contraction and the correct UV starting point.
    The paper selects this operator among several independent contractions (P2, P3, P4 in Eq. (45)) because it alone yields the clean two-term reduction; this selection is a modeling choice, not derived.
  • domain assumption The ghost-freeness and dispersion properties of the Nieh-Yan term follow from the previous NYTG literature.
    Sec. V.B and Appendix A import existing perturbative results rather than rederiving them; some of these references (Refs. 74, 75, 92, 93) are self-citations.
  • standard math The WKB identification of helicity dispersion shifts from the quadratic actions gives the physical propagation speeds.
    Sec. V.B, V.C, and VI use leading-order WKB dispersion relations; this is standard for birefringence calculations, but the ratio is variable-dependent as the paper notes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Correlated parity violation in gravity and electromagnetism from five-dimensional spacetime." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MCFC7UZN

@misc{pith2026260809299,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Correlated parity violation in gravity and electromagnetism from five-dimensional spacetime},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MCFC7UZN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09299}
}
abstract

Parity violation in the gravitational and electromagnetic sectors has been extensively investigated, yet the two are conventionally treated as independent phenomena. This separation, however, may be a four-dimensional prejudice. In higher-dimensional spacetime, gravity and electromagnetism may share a common geometric origin---and so, perhaps, does their parity violation. In this paper, we pursue this idea by constructing parity-violating Kaluza-Klein models in both Riemannian and teleparallel geometries. In Riemannian geometry, the simplest five-dimensional parity-violating term reduces to several complicated four-dimensional terms, including the familiar gravitational Chern-Simons term, which suffers from a ghost instability. In teleparallel geometry, however, the result is strikingly simple. The simplest five-dimensional parity-violating term reduces to only two ghost-free terms---the familiar Nieh-Yan term and the standard electromagnetic Chern-Simons term. Remarkably, the model predicts that the helicity-dependent dispersion shift for electromagnetic waves is exactly six times that for gravitational waves, $\Delta\omega^{2}_{ EM}=6\,\Delta\omega^{2}_{GW}$, a background-independent relation. This relation offers a falsifiable test of unification through joint cosmic microwave background and gravitational wave birefringence observations.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

103 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    B. P. Abbott et al. [LIGO Scientific and Virgo], Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, no.6, 061102 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102 [arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    B. P. Abbott et al. [LIGO Scientific and Virgo], Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, no.16, 161101 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101 [arXiv:1710.05832 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 2017

  3. [3]

    Prob- ing Primordial Gravitational Waves: Ali CMB Polarization Telescope,

    H. Li, S. Y. Li, Y. Liu, Y. P. Li, Y. Cai, M. Li, G. B. Zhao, C. Z. Liu, Z. W. Li and H. Xu, et al. “Prob- ing Primordial Gravitational Waves: Ali CMB Polarization Telescope,” Natl. Sci. Rev. 6, no.1, 145-154 (2019) doi:10.1093/nsr/nwy019 [arXiv:1710.03047 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    Abazajian et al

    K. Abazajian et al. [CMB-S4], Astrophys. J. 926, no.1, 54 (2022) doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1596 [arXiv:2008.12619 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    S. H. S. Alexander and J. Martin, Phys. Rev. D 71, 063526 (2005) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.063526 [arXiv:hep- th/0410230 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2005

  6. [6]

    Satoh, S

    M. Satoh, S. Kanno and J. Soda, Phys. Rev. D 77, 023526 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.023526 [arXiv:0706.3585 [astro-ph]]

    arXiv 2008

  7. [7]

    Nishizawa and T

    A. Nishizawa and T. Kobayashi, Phys. Rev. D 98, no.12, 124018 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.124018 [arXiv:1809.00815 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    LIGO Scientific, Virgo and KAGRA Collaborations, Phys. Rev. X 13, 041039 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041039 [arXiv:2111.03606 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 2023

Show all 103 references
  1. [9]

    Z. C. Zhao, Z. Cao and S. Wang, Astrophys. J. 930, no.2, 139 (2022) doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac62d3 [arXiv:2201.02813 [gr-qc]]

    2022 arXiv

  2. [10]

    T. Zhu, W. Zhao, J. M. Yan, Y. Z. Wang, C. Gong and A. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 110, no.6, 064044 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.064044 [arXiv:2304.09025 [gr-qc]]. 17

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Agazie et al

    G. Agazie et al. (NANOGrav Collaboration), Astrophys. J. Lett. 951, no.1, L8 (2023) doi:10.3847/2041- 8213/acdac6 [arXiv:2306.16213 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    C. Fu, J. Liu, X. Y. Yang, W. W. Yu and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 109, no.6, 063526 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.063526 [arXiv:2308.15329 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Kato and J

    R. Kato and J. Soda, Phys. Rev. D 93, no.6, 062003 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.062003 [arXiv:1512.09139 [gr-qc]]

    2016 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Belgacem and M

    E. Belgacem and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D 102, no.2, 023004 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.023004 [arXiv:2004.05480 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2020 arXiv

  7. [15]

    B. Xu, H. Jiang, R. G. Cai, M. Sasaki and Y. L. Zhang, [arXiv:2604.08141 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  8. [16]

    J. Qiao, T. Zhu, G. Li and W. Zhao, JCAP 04, no.04, 054 (2022) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2022/04/054 [arXiv:2110.09033 [gr-qc]]

    2022 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Li and D

    M. Li and D. Zhao, Phys. Lett. B 827, 136968 (2022) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2022.136968 [arXiv:2108.01337 [gr- qc]]

    2022

  10. [18]

    R. G. Cai, C. Fu and W. W. Yu, Phys. Rev. D 105, no.10, 103520 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.103520 [arXiv:2112.04794 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    C. Gong, T. Zhu, R. Niu, Q. Wu, J. L. Cui, X. Zhang, W. Zhao and A. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 105, no.4, 044034 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.044034 [arXiv:2112.06446 [gr-qc]]

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    M. Li, Y. Tong and D. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 105, no.10, 104002 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.104002 [arXiv:2203.06912 [gr-qc]]

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Zhang, J

    F. Zhang, J. X. Feng and X. Gao, JCAP 10, 054 (2022) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2022/10/054 [arXiv:2205.12045 [gr-qc]]

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Z. Li, J. Qiao, T. Liu, T. Zhu and W. Zhao, JCAP 04, 006 (2023) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/04/006 [arXiv:2211.12188 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    J. Qiao, Z. Li, T. Zhu, R. Ji, G. Li and W. Zhao, Front. Astron. Space Sci. 9, 1109086 (2023) doi:10.3389/fspas.2022.1109086 [arXiv:2211.16825 [gr-qc]]

    2023

  16. [24]

    Cai, Phys

    Y. Cai, Phys. Rev. D 107, no.6, 063512 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.063512 [arXiv:2212.10893 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Z. Chen, Y. Yu and X. Gao, JCAP 06, 001 (2023) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/06/001 [arXiv:2212.14362 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Zhu and Y

    M. Zhu and Y. Cai, JHEP 04, 095 (2023) doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2023)095 [arXiv:2301.13502 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    J. X. Feng, F. Zhang and X. Gao, JCAP 07, 047 (2023) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/07/047 [arXiv:2302.00950 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    H. J. Lin, T. Zhu, S. J. Zhang and A. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 108, no.4, 044005 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.044005 [arXiv:2305.15733 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Zhang, J

    F. Zhang, J. X. Feng and X. Gao, Phys. Rev. D 108, no.6, 063513 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.063513 [arXiv:2307.00330 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    J. Qiao, Z. Li, R. Ji, T. Zhu, G. Li, W. Zhao and J. Chen, JCAP 10, 066 (2023) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/10/066 [arXiv:2307.12886 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    T. C. Li, T. Zhu, W. Zhao and A. Wang, JCAP 07, 005 (2024) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/07/005 [arXiv:2403.05841 [gr-qc]]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Zhang, J

    F. Zhang, J. X. Feng and X. Gao, Phys. Rev. D 110, no.2, 023537 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.023537 [arXiv:2404.02922 [gr-qc]]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Akama and M

    S. Akama and M. Zhu, JCAP 07, 039 (2024) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/07/039 [arXiv:2404.05464 [gr-qc]]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Z. W. Jiang, Y. Cai, F. Wang and Y. S. Piao, JHEP 09, 067 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2024)067 [arXiv:2406.16549 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Z. X. Xiong and D. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 111, no.8, 084020 (2025) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.084020 [arXiv:2409.09382 [gr-qc]]

    2025 arXiv

  28. [36]

    H. Xu, D. Y. Hong, Z. H. Wang and S. Y. Zhou, JCAP 01, 102 (2025) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/01/102 [arXiv:2410.09794 [hep-th]]

    2025 arXiv

  29. [37]

    B. Xu, K. Ding, H. Su, J. Chen and Y. L. Zhang, Phys. Dark Univ. 49, 101980 (2025) doi:10.1016/j.dark.2025.101980 [arXiv:2411.08691 [hep-ph]]

    2025

  30. [38]

    H. Su, B. Xu, J. Chen, C. Liu and Y. L. Zhang, Commun. Theor. Phys. 77, 115403 (2025) doi:10.1088/1572- 9494/add1b9 [arXiv:2503.20778 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2025 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Li and W

    Z. Li and W. Zhao, JHEP 09, 187 (2025) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2025)187 [arXiv:2504.13450 [gr-qc]]

    2025

  32. [40]

    Y. Kang, M. Li and Y. Tong, Phys. Dark Univ. 50, 102148 (2025) doi:10.1016/j.dark.2025.102148 [arXiv:2507.03363 [gr-qc]]. 18

    2025

  33. [41]

    C. Fu, C. Chen and Y. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 113, no.12, L121305 (2026) doi:10.1103/z6cq-trm3 [arXiv:2410.06636 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2026 arXiv

  34. [42]

    J. X. Feng, J. Y. Fang and X. Gao, Phys. Rev. D 113, no.10, 104035 (2026) doi:10.1103/p4rb-nz6m [arXiv:2602.07430 [gr-qc]]

    2026 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Soda and M

    J. Soda and M. Takeuchi, Phys. Rev. D 113, 064044 (2026) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.113.064044 [arXiv:2512.14063 [gr-qc]]

    2026

  36. [44]

    J. J. Song and X. Gao, [arXiv:2607.20317 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  37. [45]

    Horii, T

    Y. Horii, T. Murata and T. Kobayashi, Phys. Rev. D 113, 123539 (2026) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.113.123539 [arXiv:2512.17348 [gr-qc]]

    2026

  38. [46]

    Y. Kang, M. Li and C. Yi, Eur. Phys. J. C 86, 607 (2026) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-026-15828-4 [arXiv:2602.00506 [gr-qc]]

    2026 arXiv

  39. [47]

    J. Gao, Y. Kang, M. Li and Y. Tong, Chin. Phys. C 49, no.8, 085105 (2025) doi:10.1088/1674-1137/ade49f [arXiv:2503.03119 [gr-qc]]

    2025 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Wilczek, Phys

    F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 1799-1802 (1987) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.58.1799

    1987 doi

  41. [49]

    S. M. Carroll, G. B. Field and R. Jackiw, Phys. Rev. D 41, 1231-1240 (1990) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.41.1231

    1990 doi

  42. [50]

    Harari and P

    D. Harari and P. Sikivie, Phys. Lett. B 289, 67-72 (1992) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(92)91363-E

    1992 doi

  43. [51]

    A. Lue, L. M. Wang and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1506-1509 (1999) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.1506 [arXiv:astro-ph/9812088 [astro-ph]]

    1999 arXiv

  44. [52]

    M. Li, J. Q. Xia, H. Li and X. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 651, 357-362 (2007) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2007.06.050 [arXiv:hep-ph/0611192 [hep-ph]]

    2007 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Li and X

    M. Li and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 78, 103516 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.103516 [arXiv:0810.0403 [astro- ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  46. [54]

    M. Li, Y. F. Cai, X. Wang and X. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 680, 118-124 (2009) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2009.08.053 [arXiv:0907.5159 [hep-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Komatsu, Nature Rev

    E. Komatsu, Nature Rev. Phys. 4, 452-469 (2022) doi:10.1038/s42254-022-00452-4 [arXiv:2202.13919 [astro- ph.CO]]

    2022 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Astrophys

    Planck Collaboration, Astron. Astrophys. 641, A1 (2020) doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833880 [arXiv:1807.06205 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2020 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Minami and E

    Y. Minami and E. Komatsu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, no.22, 221301 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.221301 [arXiv:2011.11254 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2020 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Diego-Palazuelos et al

    P. Diego-Palazuelos et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, no.9, 091302 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.091302 [arXiv:2201.07682 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2022 arXiv

  51. [59]

    J. R. Eskilt and E. Komatsu, Phys. Rev. D 106, no.6, 063503 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.063503 [arXiv:2205.13962 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2022 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Kaluza, Sitzungsber

    T. Kaluza, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Math. Phys.) 1921, 966-972 (1921) [arXiv:1803.08616 [physics.hist-ph]]

    1921 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Klein, Z

    O. Klein, Z. Phys. 37, 895-906 (1926) doi:10.1007/BF01397481

    1926 doi

  54. [62]

    M. B. Green and J. H. Schwarz, Phys. Lett. B 149, 117-122 (1984) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(84)91565-X

    1984 doi

  55. [63]

    M. J. Duff, B. E. W. Nilsson and C. N. Pope, Phys. Lett. B 163, 343-348 (1985) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(85)90293-X

    1985 doi

  56. [64]

    M. J. Duff, B. E. W. Nilsson and C. N. Pope, Phys. Rept. 130, 1-142 (1986) doi:10.1016/0370-1573(86)90163-8

    1986 doi

  57. [65]

    Bailin and A

    D. Bailin and A. Love, Rept. Prog. Phys. 50, 1087-1170 (1987) doi:10.1088/0034-4885/50/9/001

    1987 doi

  58. [66]

    J. M. Overduin and P. S. Wesson, Phys. Rept. 283, 303-380 (1997) doi:10.1016/S0370-1573(96)00046-4 [arXiv:gr- qc/9805018 [gr-qc]]

    1997

  59. [67]

    Jackiw and S

    R. Jackiw and S. Y. Pi, Phys. Rev. D 68, 104012 (2003) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.68.104012 [arXiv:gr-qc/0308071 [gr-qc]]

    2003 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Alexander and N

    S. Alexander and N. Yunes, Phys. Rept. 480, 1-55 (2009) doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2009.07.002 [arXiv:0907.2562 [hep-th]]

    2009 arXiv

  61. [69]

    S. Dyda, E. E. Flanagan and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D 86, 124031 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.124031 [arXiv:1208.4871 [gr-qc]]

    2012 arXiv

  62. [70]

    J. W. Maluf, Annalen Phys. 525, 339-357 (2013) doi:10.1002/andp.201200272 [arXiv:1303.3897 [gr-qc]]

    2013 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Bahamonde et al

    S. Bahamonde et al. , Rept. Prog. Phys. 86, no.2, 026901 (2023) doi:10.1088/1361-6633/ac9cef [arXiv:2106.13793 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  64. [72]

    H. T. Nieh and M. L. Yan, J. Math. Phys. 23, 373-374 (1982) doi:10.1063/1.525379

    1982 doi

  65. [73]

    Chandia and J

    O. Chandia and J. Zanelli, Phys. Rev. D 55, 7580-7585 (1997) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.55.7580 [arXiv:hep- 19 th/9702025 [hep-th]]

    1997

  66. [74]

    M. Li, H. Rao and D. Zhao, JCAP 11, 023 (2020) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/11/023 [arXiv:2007.08038 [gr-qc]]

    2020 arXiv

  67. [75]

    M. Li, H. Rao and Y. Tong, Phys. Rev. D 104, no.8, 084077 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.084077 [arXiv:2104.05917 [gr-qc]]

    2021 arXiv

  68. [76]

    W. Zhao, T. Zhu, J. Qiao and A. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 101, no.2, 024002 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.024002 [arXiv:1909.10887 [gr-qc]]

    2020 arXiv

  69. [77]

    V. C. de Andrade, L. C. T. Guillen and J. G. Pereira, Phys. Rev. D 61, 084031 (2000) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.61.084031 [arXiv:gr-qc/9909004 [gr-qc]]

    2000 arXiv

  70. [78]

    A. L. Barbosa, L. C. T. Guillen and J. G. Pereira, Phys. Rev. D 66, 064028 (2002) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.66.064028 [arXiv:gr-qc/0208052 [gr-qc]]

    2002 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Bamba, S

    K. Bamba, S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Lett. B 725, 368-371 (2013) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2013.07.052 [arXiv:1304.6191 [gr-qc]]

    2013 arXiv

  72. [80]

    C. M. Chang and W. F. Kao, Phys. Rev. D 88, 063504 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.063504

    2013 doi

  73. [81]

    C. Q. Geng, L. W. Luo and H. H. Tseng, Class. Quant. Grav. 31, 185004 (2014) doi:10.1088/0264- 9381/31/18/185004 [arXiv:1403.3161 [hep-th]]

    2014 arXiv

  74. [82]

    C. Q. Geng, C. Lai, L. W. Luo and H. H. Tseng, Phys. Lett. B 737, 248-250 (2014) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2014.08.055 [arXiv:1409.1018 [gr-qc]]

    2014 arXiv

  75. [83]

    C. Q. Geng and L. W. Luo, Class. Quant. Grav. 34, no.11, 115012 (2017) doi:10.1088/1361-6382/aa6ca1 [arXiv:1612.00166 [gr-qc]]

    2017 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Krssak, R

    M. Krssak, R. J. van den Hoogen, J. G. Pereira, C. G. Boehmer and A. A. Coley, Class. Quant. Grav. 36, no.18, 183001 (2019) doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ab2e1f [arXiv:1810.12932 [gr-qc]]

    2019 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Ferraro and F

    R. Ferraro and F. Fiorini, Phys. Rev. D 75, 084031 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.75.084031 [arXiv:gr-qc/0610067 [gr-qc]]

    2007 arXiv

  78. [86]

    G. R. Bengochea and R. Ferraro, Phys. Rev. D 79, 124019 (2009) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.124019 [arXiv:0812.1205 [astro-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  79. [87]

    E. V. Linder, Phys. Rev. D 81, 127301 (2010) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 82, 109902 (2010)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.81.127301 [arXiv:1005.3039 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2010 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Y. F. Cai, S. Capozziello, M. De Laurentis and E. N. Saridakis, Rept. Prog. Phys. 79, no.10, 106901 (2016) doi:10.1088/0034-4885/79/10/106901 [arXiv:1511.07586 [gr-qc]]

    2016 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Hayashi and T

    K. Hayashi and T. Shirafuji, Phys. Rev. D 19, 3524-3553 (1979) [addendum: Phys. Rev. D 24, 3312-3314 (1982)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.19.3524

    1979 doi

  82. [90]

    Bahamonde, C

    S. Bahamonde, C. G. Boehmer and M. Krssak, Phys. Lett. B 775, 37-43 (2017) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.10.026 [arXiv:1706.04920 [gr-qc]]

    2017 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Krssak and E

    M. Krssak and E. N. Saridakis, Class. Quant. Grav. 33, no.11, 115009 (2016) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/33/11/115009 [arXiv:1510.08432 [gr-qc]]

    2016 arXiv

  84. [92]

    M. Li, Z. Li and H. Rao, Phys. Lett. B 834, 137395 (2022) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137395 [arXiv:2201.02357 [gr-qc]]

    2022

  85. [93]

    Rao and D

    H. Rao and D. Zhao, JHEP 08, 070 (2023) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2023)070 [arXiv:2304.07138 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Hohmann, L

    M. Hohmann, L. Järv, M. Krššák and C. Pfeifer, Phys. Rev. D 100, no.8, 084002 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.084002 [arXiv:1901.05472 [gr-qc]]

    2019 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Hohmann, Int

    M. Hohmann, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 18, no.supp01, 2140005 (2021) doi:10.1142/S0219887821400053 [arXiv:2008.12186 [gr-qc]]

    2021 arXiv

  88. [96]

    A. A. Coley, R. J. van den Hoogen and D. D. McNutt, Class. Quant. Grav. 39, no.22, 22LT01 (2022) doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ac994a [arXiv:2205.10719 [gr-qc]]

    2022 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Izumi and Y

    K. Izumi and Y. C. Ong, JCAP 06, 029 (2013) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2013/06/029 [arXiv:1212.5774 [gr-qc]]

    2013 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Golovnev and T

    A. Golovnev and T. Koivisto, JCAP 11, 012 (2018) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2018/11/012 [arXiv:1808.05565 [gr-qc]]

    2018 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Q. Wu, T. Zhu, R. Niu, W. Zhao and A. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 105, no.2, 024035 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.024035 [arXiv:2110.13870 [gr-qc]]

    2022 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Zaldarriaga and U

    M. Zaldarriaga and U. Seljak, Phys. Rev. D 55, 1830-1840 (1997) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.55.1830 [arXiv:astro- ph/9609170 [astro-ph]]

    1997

  93. [101]

    Kamionkowski, A

    M. Kamionkowski, A. Kosowsky and A. Stebbins, Phys. Rev. D 55, 7368-7388 (1997) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.55.7368 [arXiv:astro-ph/9611125 [astro-ph]]

    1997 arXiv

  94. [102]

    B. G. Keating, M. Shimon and A. P. S. Yadav, Astrophys. J. Lett. 762, L23 (2013) doi:10.1088/2041- 8205/762/2/L23 [arXiv:1211.5734 [astro-ph.CO]]. 20

    2013 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Mirshekari, N

    S. Mirshekari, N. Yunes and C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D 85, 024041 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.024041 [arXiv:1110.2720 [gr-qc]]

    2012 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.