Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 39 references

Dynamical Barbero--Immirzi field coupled to quintessence: gravitational-wave propagation constraints and next-generation forecasts

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 This paper claims that a dynamical Barbero–Immirzi field coupled to quintessence adds two observable redshift-dependent parameters to gravitational-wave propagation, and uses dark-siren data to constrain both for the first time.

desk verdict The paper's new two-parameter GW propagation ansatz is a legitimate idea, but the central friction equation is not derived and vanishes in the isolated limit, so the constraints and forecasts do not follow. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09487 v1 pith:SHE5H7JK submitted 2026-08-10 gr-qc

Zhi-Fu Gao , Hui Wang , Luiz Carlos Garcia de Andrade , Na Wang , Guo-Qiang Jin , Zhou-Jian Cao This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc MSC 83C3583D0583F05
keywords Barbero–Immirziparameterdynamicalscalarfieldgravitational-wavepropagationquintessencedarksirensEinstein–Cartan–Holstgravitymodifiednext-generationdetectors
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

The paper aims to show that a dynamical Barbero–Immirzi field coupled to quintessence changes the way gravitational-wave amplitudes decay with distance, adding two redshift-dependent parameters to the standard propagation formula. It derives the modified GW equation in Einstein–Cartan–Holst gravity, parametrizes the correction by $\xi_{\mathrm{BI}}$ (isolated BI effect) and $\xi_{\mathrm{coup}}$ (coupling effect), and obtains the first simultaneous 90% bounds from GWTC-3 dark sirens: $|\xi_{\mathrm{BI}}|\lesssim 0.7$ and $|\xi_{\mathrm{coup}}|\lesssim 0.13$. The paper then forecasts that a 10-year Einstein Telescope–Cosmic Explorer campaign would shrink these uncertainties to about $3\times10^{-2}$ and $1.2\times10^{-2}$, tightening the corresponding microscopic parameters to $\gamma_{\mathrm{dyn}}\lesssim10^{-12}$ and $\beta\lesssim10^{-3}$. If right, gravitational-wave propagation becomes a direct observational window onto a quantum-gravity-inspired scalar and its link to dark energy.

What carries the argument

The central object is the effective GW friction coefficient $\Gamma_{\mathrm{eff}}(z)$ defined in Eq. (18), summed over the BI and quintessence fields, and its dimensionless form $\delta_{\mathrm{eff}}(z)=\Gamma_{\mathrm{eff}}/H$. That is parametrized as two power-law kernels $(1+z)^{n_1}$ and $(1+z)^{n_2}$ with amplitudes $\xi_{\mathrm{BI}}$ and $\xi_{\mathrm{coup}}$, which enter the observable ratio $\Xi_0(z)=[d_{\mathrm{gw}}^L/d_{\mathrm{em}}^L]^2$ through the exponential integral $\Xi_0=\exp(2\xi_{\mathrm{BI}} I_{n_1}+2\xi_{\mathrm{coup}} I_{n_2})$, where $I_n(z)=\int_0^z (1+z')^{n-1}/E(z')\,dz'$. The mechanism doing the work is the redshift growth difference: because $n_2>n_1$, the coupling term steepens at high $z$, giving a handle to separate the two parameters.

What would settle it

Take the background equations (10)–(11), solve them numerically for the Ratra–Peebles tracker, and evaluate $d\rho_i/dt+3H(\rho_i+p_i)$ for $i=\gamma,\phi$; if both vanish identically, then $\Gamma_{\mathrm{eff}}$ in Eq. (18) is zero and the central observable $\Xi_0(z)$ reduces to unity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the GW friction term in Einstein–Cartan–Holst gravity with a dynamical Barbero–Immirzi scalar $\gamma(x)$ and a quintessence scalar $\phi(x)$ coupled minimally via $\beta\,\phi^2\gamma^2$ is not a single deviation but a two-parameter structure: $\delta_{\mathrm{eff}}(z)=\xi_{\mathrm{BI}}\,(H_0/H)\,(1+z)^{n_1}+\xi_{\mathrm{coup}}\,(H_0/H)\,(1+z)^{n_2}$. Integrating the damped oscillator gives $\Xi_0(z)=\exp[2\xi_{\mathrm{BI}} I_{n_1}(z)+2\xi_{\mathrm{coup}} I_{n_2}(z)]$, so that the ratio of GW to EM luminosity distance carries a redshift-dependent imprint whose coupling term grows faster than the isolated term ($n_2\approx2.5$ vs $n_1\approx1$ for the Ratra–Peebles tracker with $\alpha=1$). The paper uses the GWTC-3 dark-siren measurement $\Xi_0=1.2\pm0.7$ to report $\xi_{\mathrm{BI}}=0.0\pm0.7$ and $\xi_{\mathrm{coup}}=0.00\pm0.13$ at 90% credibility, and a Fisher forecast for 10 years of ET+CE data giving $\sigma(\xi_{\mathrm{BI}})\approx3\times10^{-2}$ and $\sigma(\xi_{\mathrm{coup}})\approx1.2\times10^{-2}$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that Eq. (18) is the correct tensor-mode friction term; if the slowly rolling BI and quintessence fields each satisfy energy-momentum conservation, the numerators in that expression are zero and the claimed GW correction vanishes, and the paper does not derive Eq. (18) from its own linearized equation (13).

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • GW distance measurements become a two-parameter test: any deviation of $\Xi_0$ from unity that grows with redshift is decomposed into an isolated BI part and a BI–quintessence coupling part.
  • If the model is correct, current data already limit the coupling to $\beta\lesssim0.1$ and the dynamical BI field to $\gamma_{\mathrm{dyn}}\lesssim10^{-8}$ (for order-unity BI–torsion coupling).
  • A 10-year ET+CE campaign would tighten these to $\beta\lesssim10^{-3}$ and $\gamma_{\mathrm{dyn}}\lesssim10^{-12}$, a regime that starts to probe the canonical loop-quantum-gravity value $\gamma_0\approx0.274$.
  • The predicted stronger redshift growth of the coupling-induced effect means high-redshift events carry most of the discriminating power, so next-generation detectors with many events at $z\gtrsim1$ are the natural place to look.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Strictly speaking, Eq. (18) is asserted rather than derived from Eq. (13): if each scalar conserves energy-momentum individually, the numerators in $\Gamma_{\mathrm{eff}}$ vanish and the whole two-parameter signal disappears, so the constraints would instead apply to whatever mechanism generates the friction.
  • One could test the assumed tracker behavior on its own: with ET+CE redshift-resolved data, the recovered value of $n_2$ would tell whether the Ratra–Peebles potential with $\alpha\approx1$ is the right model.
  • The same two-kernel parametrization plausibly applies to other dark-energy scalar couplings, making GW propagation a generic probe of scalar–tensor theories beyond the specific BI origin.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that a dynamical Barbero-Immirzi field coupled to quintessence modifies gravitational-wave propagation through an effective friction term, parametrized by two dimensionless amplitudes xi_BI and xi_coup. It uses the GWTC-3 dark-siren measurement of Xi_0 to derive 90% constraints |xi_BI| <= 0.7 and |xi_coup| <= 0.13, and it forecasts that a 10-year ET+CE campaign would reach sigma(xi_BI) ~ 3e-2 and sigma(xi_coup) ~ 1.2e-2, which it translates into microscopic bounds gamma_dyn <= 1e-12 and beta <= 1e-3. The entire phenomenological chain rests on Eq. (18), which defines the effective friction as the sum of fractional non-conservation rates of the BI and quintessence fields.

Significance. If the derivation of Eq. (18) were correct, the paper would present an interesting two-parameter extension of the Belgacem-Maggiore parametrization and the first simultaneous constraints on the isolated and coupling-induced GW friction terms. The idea of using redshift-dependent GW propagation to separate two dark-sector scalar effects is timely, and the forecast methodology with Fisher matrices for ET/CE is standard and clearly described. However, the central propagation equation is not derived from the stated action and is inconsistent with the linearized tensor equation that the paper itself presents. Because the constraints and forecasts are all consequences of that unsupported equation, the paper's main results do not currently follow from the model under study.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II.C, Eq. (13) to Eqs. (17)-(18)] The passage from the linearized tensor equation to the damped-oscillator equation is not justified. Equation (13) contains a mass term a^2 (m_T^2/M_Pl^2) hbar_ij in addition to the standard friction term 2H hbar'_ij, but Eqs. (17) and (18) drop this mass term without explanation and instead introduce a new amplitude-friction term Gamma_eff. A mass term modifies the dispersion relation, not the amplitude damping of the standard Belgacem-Maggiore form, so Eqs. (22)-(24) do not follow from Eq. (13). This is the load-bearing step of the paper, and it is unsupported.
  2. [Sec. II.B and Sec. II.C, Eq. (18)] Equation (18) is inconsistent with the background equations (10)-(11). For beta = 0, the BI and quintessence fields each satisfy the standard Klein-Gordon equation, and using rho_gamma = 1/2 gamma_dot^2 + V_BI(gamma), p_gamma = 1/2 gamma_dot^2 - V_BI(gamma), and the analogous definitions for phi, one obtains d(rho_i)/dt + 3H(rho_i + p_i) = 0 for each component. The numerators in Eq. (18) are therefore identically zero, giving Gamma_eff = 0, in contradiction with the reported nonzero constraint |xi_BI| <= 0.7 from Sec. IV. For beta != 0 the individual numerators do not vanish, but then the first term in Eq. (18) already depends on the coupling through the coupled field equations, so the clean separation into an isolated xi_BI and a coupling xi_coup is not justified.
  3. [Sec. II.D and Sec. V.A, Eqs. (20)-(21), (29)-(30)] The translation from the fitted parameters xi_BI and xi_coup to the microscopic bounds gamma_dyn <= 1e-12 and beta <= 1e-3 is not a derivation but a restatement under the order-one assumptions g_gammaT ~ 1 and <phi^2> ~ M_Pl^2. The abstract and Sec. VI present these microscopic bounds as results of the analysis, whereas Sec. V.C(i) correctly notes that the conversion involves O(1) coefficients that depend on the UV completion. The headline bounds are therefore conditional on unverified assumptions and should not be presented as direct constraints on the Barbero-Immirzi parameter and the coupling beta.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III.B and Appendix B] The text refers to 'Algorithm VI' in Sec. III.B, but no numbered algorithm is given there; the algorithm appears only in Appendix B without a number. This cross-reference should be fixed.
  2. [Fig. 3 and Table II] The table inside Fig. 3 lists sigma(xi_coup) = 1.2e-3 for ET+CE, while Table II lists sigma(xi_coup) = 1.2e-2 for the same configuration. One of these values is a typo and should be corrected.
  3. [Sec. II.A, Eq. (4)] Equation (4) contains the notation '⋆T^a ∧ T^a' without defining the star operator or the torsion two-form T^a in this context, making the displayed field equation difficult to verify.
  4. [References] References [14] and [16] are the same arXiv preprint (arXiv:2404.13517), and reference [11] (Shapiro and Teukolsky) is cited in a context where it does not appear relevant; the reference list should be cleaned up.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

Eq. (18) is the load-bearing circular step: on the paper's own background equations the isolated BI friction vanishes identically, so the two-parameter constraints are fits to an imported ansatz, not predictions of the model.

  1. self definitional [Sec. II.C, Eq. (18) with Eqs. (10)-(11)]
    "Γeff(z)≡ [̇ργ + 3H(ργ + pγ)]/(ργ + pγ) + [̇ρϕ + 3H(ρϕ + pϕ)]/(ρϕ + pϕ). ... The background BI and quintessence fields satisfy ̈γ + 3Ḣγ + dVeff/dγ = 0, ̈ϕ + 3Ḣϕ + dVeff/dϕ = 0."

    For β=0, Veff=V_BI, and with ργ=½γ̇²+V_BI, pγ=½γ̇²−V_BI, the numerator of the first term equals γ̇(γ̈+3Hγ̇+dV_BI/dγ), which vanishes identically by Eq. (10); the same holds for ϕ by Eq. (11). Hence Γeff≡0 by construction in the isolated model, so the 'isolated BI' parameter ξBI introduced in Eq. (19) is identically zero. The reported GWTC-3 constraint |ξBI|≤0.7 is therefore a fit to an effect that the model's own equations set to zero, and for β≠0 the γ-term of Eq. (18) is already proportional to β, destroying the advertised clean ξBI-versus-ξcoup split.

  2. ansatz smuggled in via citation [Sec. II.C, Eqs. (13) and (17)]
    "¯h′′_ij + 2H¯h′_ij + [k² + a²(m_T²/M_Pl²)] ¯h_ij ≃ −16πG a² Π^TT_ij. ... Following the standard derivation of modified GW propagation [21], the tensor amplitude A_p ... satisfies ̈A_p + (3H + Γeff(z)) ̇A_p + ω²A_p = 0."

    The equation actually derived from the action, Eq. (13), contains a mass term a²(m_T²/M_Pl²)¯h and no friction term Γeff. The passage to the damped-oscillator form Eq. (17) silently drops the mass term and imports the friction form from Belgacem-Maggiore [21] by citation. A mass term modifies the dispersion relation rather than producing the standard amplitude friction, so the subsequent Ξ0(z) formula (22) and all current and forecast constraints are constraints on an assumed parametrization, not predictions following from the stated BI–quintessence action.

1 more flagged steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. V.A, Eqs. (29)-(30), with Sec. II.D, Eqs. (20)-(21)]
    "ξBI ∼ g_γT² ⟨(δγ)²⟩/(M_Pl² H0²), ξcoup ∼ β g_γT² ⟨ϕ²⟩⟨γ²⟩/(M_Pl⁴ H0²). ... With g_γT ∼ 1 and ⟨ϕ²⟩ ∼ M_Pl², the relations simplify to γdyn ∼ ξBI, βγdyn ∼ ξcoup, where γdyn ≡ sqrt(⟨δγ²⟩)/M_Pl."

    The headline microscopic bounds γdyn ≲ 10⁻¹² and β ≲ 10⁻³ are obtained by taking the fitted dimensionless parameters ξBI and ξcoup and multiplying by order-one coefficients (g_γT ∼ 1, ⟨ϕ²⟩ ∼ M_Pl²). The paper itself later caveats that the translation involves O(1) coefficients depending on the UV completion, so the 'translation' is a renaming of the fitted ξ values rather than an independent measurement. The microscopic constraints are the same numbers as the input constraints by construction, not outputs of a first-principles calculation.

full rationale

The paper's central observable is defined in Eq. (18) as the sum of non-conservation terms for the BI and quintessence fields. On the paper's own background equations (10)-(11), and with the standard definitions of ρ and p, each numerator vanishes identically in the β=0 limit, so Γeff≡0 and the isolated BI parameter ξBI is zero by construction; the GWTC-3 bound on ξBI is therefore a constraint on a parameter the model itself sets to zero. For β≠0 the two terms in Eq. (18) are both proportional to β and to the coupling-sourced effective potential, so the claimed separation into an isolated BI term and a coupling term is not realized by the equations. Separately, the linearized tensor equation derived in Appendix A, Eq. (13), contains a mass term and no friction term; the friction form (17) is imported from the Belgacem-Maggiore parametrization by citation with the mass term silently dropped, making the whole Ξ0-based analysis an ansatz fit rather than a derivation. Finally, the microscopic bounds on γdyn and β are simply the fitted ξBI and ξcoup values rescaled by O(1) coefficients that the paper admits are UV-dependent, so the 'predicted' fundamental constraints reduce to the fitted inputs. The GWTC-3 datum itself is external and real, but the mapping from that single measured number to the two-parameter BI-quintessence model is not supported by the paper's derived equations; hence the central claim is substantially circular and receives a score of 8.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model introduces a new interaction term and several order-unity assumptions. The fitted xi parameters, the redshift exponents, and the Fisher error model are the main ad hoc inputs; the microscopic translation uses order-unity values for the torsion coupling and quintessence vev. No new particles or new fields are postulated beyond the already-known dynamical BI scalar and quintessence.

free parameters (6)
  • xi_BI (dimensionless BI amplitude parameter) = 0.0 +/- 0.7 (90% CL)
    Free parameter in the delta_eff ansatz Eq. (19); marginalized from the GWTC-3 single-point Gaussian likelihood.
  • xi_coup (dimensionless coupling parameter) = 0.00 +/- 0.13 (90% CL)
    Second free parameter in Eq. (19); strongly degenerate with xi_BI (rho = -0.30).
  • n1, n2 (redshift evolution exponents) = n1 ~ 1, n2 ~ 2.5 (paper), but stated formula gives n2 = 2 for alpha = 1
    Exponents in the delta_eff ansatz; model-dependent and internally inconsistent in the text.
  • sigma_rel(z) = 0.05 + 0.05 z + 0.02 z^2 = coefficients (0.05, 0.05, 0.02)
    Ad hoc distance-error model for ET/CE Fisher forecasts; not derived from instrument sensitivities.
  • alpha (Ratra-Peebles potential exponent) = not fixed; text uses alpha = 1 for n2 ~ 2.5
    Determines n2 and hence the redshift growth of the coupling term; model-dependent and not constrained by the data.
  • g_gammaT and <phi^2>/M_Pl^2 = g_gammaT ~ 1, <phi^2> ~ M_Pl^2
    Order-unity assumptions used in Eqs. (20)-(21) to translate xi values into gamma_dyn and beta.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Einstein-Cartan-Holst action with a dynamical Barbero-Immirzi field gamma(x) back-reacting on the metric
    Section II A, Eq. (1); this is the physical starting point inherited from previous work, not derived here.
  • ad hoc to paper Minimal BI-quintessence coupling beta phi^2 gamma^2 M_Pl^2 with beta > 0
    Section II A; introduced to create a second observable parameter, with no UV completion or independent motivation.
  • domain assumption Ratra-Peebles tracker solution supplies the redshift exponents n1 and n2
    Section II D; the tracker relation is standard, but the paper's n2 values are inconsistent (2.5 vs 2).
  • ad hoc to paper Order-unity values g_gammaT ~ 1 and <phi^2> ~ M_Pl^2
    Section V A; used to map fitted xi values to gamma_dyn and beta, with acknowledged O(1) uncertainties.
  • domain assumption Flat Lambda-CDM background for the electromagnetic luminosity distance
    Section III B and Appendix B; assumed in the Fisher forecasts without marginalizing over cosmological parameters.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamical Barbero--Immirzi field coupled to quintessence: gravitational-wave propagation constraints and next-generation forecasts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SHE5H7JK

@misc{pith2026260809487,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamical Barbero--Immirzi field coupled to quintessence: gravitational-wave propagation constraints and next-generation forecasts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SHE5H7JK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09487}
}
abstract

We investigate the imprints of a dynamical Barbero--Immirzi (BI) field $\gamma(x)$ coupled to a quintessence scalar field $\phi$ on gravitational-wave (GW) propagation. In the framework of Einstein--Cartan--Holst gravity, promoting $\gamma$ to a dynamical scalar introduces a stress--energy that back-reacts on the metric, modifying the GW friction term. A minimal coupling $\propto\beta\,\phi^2\gamma^2$ between the BI field and quintessence leads to a two-parameter extension of the Belgacem--Maggiore parametrization, characterized by $\xBI$ (from the isolated BI field) and $\xcp$ (from the coupling). This is the first study to simultaneously constrain both parameters using GW data. We derive the modified GW propagation equation in the coupled system and identify a distinctive redshift dependence: the coupling-induced term grows faster than the isolated BI term, offering a handle to break degeneracies. Using the LIGO--Virgo--KAGRA GWTC-3 dark-siren constraint $\Xi_0=1.2^{+0.7}_{-0.7}$, we obtain the first simultaneous constraints: $|\xBI|\lesssim0.7$ and $|\xcp|\lesssim0.13$ at 90\% credibility. We then forecast the sensitivity of next-generation detectors Einstein Telescope (ET) and Cosmic Explorer (CE), showing that a 10-year observation campaign can improve these bounds by two orders of magnitude, reaching $\sigma(\xBI)\sim3\times10^{-2}$ and $\sigma(\xcp)\sim1.2\times10^{-2}$. Translated into microscopic parameters, this corresponds to $\gamma_{\rm dyn}\lesssim10^{-12}$ and $\beta\lesssim10^{-3}$, providing a powerful new observational window into the interplay between quantum-gravity phenomenology and dark energy. Our results demonstrate that GW propagation offers a promising avenue to probe the dynamical BI field and its coupling to the dark sector, with implications for loop quantum gravity and modified gravity theories.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09487 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Modified GW propagation factor Ξ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Joint 68% (dark blue, solid) and 95% (light blue, dashed) credible regions for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Forecast 68% (solid) and 95% (dashed) credible regions for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Exclusion regions in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    For the Ratra– Peebles tracker, the coupling-induced term grows as (1 +z) n2 withn 2 ≃2.5 (α= 1), faster than the isolated BI term (n 1 ≃1)

    The minimal coupling∝βϕ 2γ2 introduces a sec- ond parameterξ coup that modifies the redshift de- pendence of GW propagation. For the Ratra– Peebles tracker, the coupling-induced term grows as (1 +z) n2 withn 2 ≃2.5 (α= 1), faster than the isolated BI term (n 1 ≃1)

    work page

  2. [2]

    The parameters are strongly anti-correlated (ρ=−0.30), reflecting the degeneracy at low redshift

    Current GWTC-3 dark-siren data constrain the two-dimensional parameter space to|ξ BI|≲0.7 and |ξcoup|≲0.13 at 90% credibility. The parameters are strongly anti-correlated (ρ=−0.30), reflecting the degeneracy at low redshift

    work page

  3. [3]

    A 10-year observation campaign with ET+CE will 9 improve these bounds by more than an order of magnitude, reachingσ(ξ BI)∼3×10 −2 and σ(ξcoup)∼1.2×10 −2, corresponding toγ dyn ≲ 10−12 andβ≲10 −3

    work page

  4. [4]

    This work establishes GW propagation as a powerful probe of the interplay between quantum-gravity-inspired scalar fields and dark energy

    The LQG valueγ 0 ≃0.274 remains compatible with all current constraints but will be tested by next-generation detectors if the BI–torsion coupling is order unity. This work establishes GW propagation as a powerful probe of the interplay between quantum-gravity-inspired scalar fields and dark energy. Future extensions should include a redshift-dependent Ξ0...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Lorentz invariance and the gravitational field,

    T.W.B. Kibble, “Lorentz invariance and the gravitational field,” J. Math. Phys.2, 212 (1961)

    work page 1961

  6. [6]

    General relativity with spin and torsion: Foundations and prospects,

    F.W. Hehl, P. von der Heyde, G.D. Kerlick, and J.M. Nester, “General relativity with spin and torsion: Foundations and prospects,” Rev. Mod. Phys.48, 393 (1976)

    work page 1976

  7. [7]

    Weinberg,Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity(John Wiley & Sons, 1972)

    S. Weinberg,Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity(John Wiley & Sons, 1972)

    work page 1972

  8. [8]

    Barbero’s Hamiltonian derived from a gener- alized Hilbert–Palatini action,

    S. Holst, “Barbero’s Hamiltonian derived from a gener- alized Hilbert–Palatini action,” Phys. Rev. D53, 5966 (1996)

    work page 1996

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Real Ashtekar variables for Lorentzian signature space-times,

    J.F. Barbero G., “Real Ashtekar variables for Lorentzian signature space-times,” Phys. Rev. D51, 5507 (1995)

    1995

  2. [10]

    Real and complex connections for canonical gravity,

    G. Immirzi, “Real and complex connections for canonical gravity,” Class. Quant. Grav.14, L177 (1997)

    1997

  3. [11]

    Quantized Dirac field in curved Riemann–Cartan background. I. Symmetry prop- erties of the Dirac equation,

    H.T. Nieh and M.L. Yan, “Quantized Dirac field in curved Riemann–Cartan background. I. Symmetry prop- erties of the Dirac equation,” Ann. Phys. (N.Y.)138, 237 (1982)

    1982

  4. [12]

    Remarks on Barbero–Immirzi parameter as a field,

    A. Torres-Gomez and K. Krasnov, “Remarks on Barbero–Immirzi parameter as a field,” Phys. Rev. D79, 104014 (2009) [arXiv:0811.1998]

    2009 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Quantum gravity, torsion, parity violation and all that,

    L. Freidel, D. Minic, and T. Takeuchi, “Quantum gravity, torsion, parity violation and all that,” Phys. Rev. D72, 104002 (2005) [arXiv:hep-th/0507253]

    2005 arXiv

  6. [14]

    The Barbero–Immirzi parameter as a scalar field: K-inflation from loop quantum gravity?

    V.C. Taveras and N. Yunes, “The Barbero–Immirzi parameter as a scalar field: K-inflation from loop quantum gravity?” Phys. Rev. D78, 064070 (2008) [arXiv:0807.2652]

    2008 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Shapiro and S.A

    S.L. Shapiro and S.A. Teukolsky,Black Holes, White Dwarfs, and Neutron Stars: The Physics of Compact Ob- jects(Wiley–VCH, 1983)

    1983

  8. [16]

    Torsion mass generation induced by Einstein–Cartan gravity with a Barbero–Immirzi Higgs field analogue,

    L.C. Garcia de Andrade and Z.-F. Gao, “Torsion mass generation induced by Einstein–Cartan gravity with a Barbero–Immirzi Higgs field analogue,” Eur. Phys. J. C 86, 322 (2026)

    2026

  9. [17]

    Constraining a dynamical Barbero–Immirzi field with GWTC-3 gravitational-wave data,

    Z.-F. Gao, H. Wang, and L.C. Garcia de Andrade, “Constraining a dynamical Barbero–Immirzi field with GWTC-3 gravitational-wave data,” Phys. Lett. B, Un- der review (2026)

    2026

  10. [19]

    Axions in Real-Now-Front Cosmology: Chronon Field Alignment, Temporal Coherence Princi- ple, and Experimental Reinterpretation,

    Z.-F. Gao, H. Wang, L.C. Garcia de Andrade, and X.-F. Yang, “Axions in Real-Now-Front Cosmology: Chronon Field Alignment, Temporal Coherence Princi- ple, and Experimental Reinterpretation,” Symmetry18, 1113 (2026) [DOI:10.3390/sym18071113]

    2026 doi

  11. [20]

    Chern–Simons Electrodynamics and Torsion Dark Matter Axions,

    Z.-F. Gao and L.C. Garcia de Andrade, “Chern–Simons Electrodynamics and Torsion Dark Matter Axions,” arXiv:2404.13517 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  12. [21]

    Physical effects of the immirzi parameter,

    A. Perez and C. Rovelli, “Physical effects of the immirzi parameter,” Phys. Rev. D73, 044013 (2006)

    2006

  13. [22]

    Barbero–Immirzi parame- ter and matter–antimatter asymmetry in Holst gravity,

    R. Aliberti and G. Lambiase, “Barbero–Immirzi parame- ter and matter–antimatter asymmetry in Holst gravity,” Phys. Rev. D93, 047701 (2016)

    2016

  14. [23]

    Capozziello and V

    S. Capozziello and V. Faraoni,Beyond Einstein Gravity: A Survey of Gravitational Theories for Cosmology and Astrophysics, Fundam. Theor. Phys.170, 1 (2010)

    2010

  15. [24]

    Introduction to Modified Gravity and Gravitational Alternative for Dark Energy,

    S. Nojiri and S.D. Odintsov, “Introduction to Modified Gravity and Gravitational Alternative for Dark Energy,” Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys.4, 115 (2007)

    2007

  16. [25]

    Modified gravitational-wave propagation and standard sirens,

    E. Belgacem, Y. Dirian, S. Foffa, and M. Maggiore, “Modified gravitational-wave propagation and standard sirens,” Phys. Rev. D98, 023510 (2018)

    2018

  17. [26]

    Cosmology and modified gravity with dark sirens from GWTC-3,

    M. Mancarella, A. Finke, S. Foffa, E. Genoud- Prachex, F. Iacovelli, and M. Maggiore, “Cosmology and modified gravity with dark sirens from GWTC-3,” arXiv:2203.09238 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  18. [27]

    GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coales- cences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the Second Part of the Third Observing Run,

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collabo- ration and Virgo Collaboration and KAGRA Collaboration),“GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coales- cences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the Second Part of the Third Observing Run,” arXiv:2111.03606 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  19. [28]

    Non- local gravity. Constrained by homogeneity,

    E. Belgacem, Y. Dirian, S. Foffa, and M. Maggiore, “Non- local gravity. Constrained by homogeneity,” JCAP07, 024 (2019)

    2019

  20. [29]

    A gravitational-wave standard siren measurement of the Hubble constant,

    B.P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), “A gravitational-wave standard siren measurement of the Hubble constant,” Nature551, 10 85 (2017)

    2017

  21. [30]

    One-Loop Effective Action for Gauss–Bonnet Gravity in de Sitter Space,

    G. Cognola, E. Elizalde, S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov, and S. Zerbini, “One-Loop Effective Action for Gauss–Bonnet Gravity in de Sitter Space,” Phys. Rev. D77, 046006 (2008)

    2008

  22. [31]

    Dark Photons and Tachyonic Instability Induced by Barbero– Immirzi Parameter and Axion–Torsion Transmutation,

    Z.-F. Gao, B.-P. Li, and L.C. Garcia de Andrade, “Dark Photons and Tachyonic Instability Induced by Barbero– Immirzi Parameter and Axion–Torsion Transmutation,” Eur. Phys. J. C85, 433 (2025)

    2025

  23. [32]

    Is There a Chiral Dark Dynamo in the Universe Induced by Quantum Correction, Nieh–Yan Gravity and Barbero– Immirzi Field?

    Z.-F. Gao, B.-P. Li, and L.C. Garcia de Andrade, “Is There a Chiral Dark Dynamo in the Universe Induced by Quantum Correction, Nieh–Yan Gravity and Barbero– Immirzi Field?” arXiv:2502.04727 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Constraining the Braking Indices of Magne- tars,

    Z.-F. Gao, X.-D. Li, N. Wang, J.-P. Yuan, and Q.- H. Peng, “Constraining the Braking Indices of Magne- tars,” MNRAS456, 55 (2016)

    2016

  25. [34]

    The Dipole Magnetic Field and Spin-down Evolutions of the High Braking Index Pulsar PSR J1640–4631,

    Z.-F. Gao, N. Wang, H. Shan, X.-D. Li, and H. Wang, “The Dipole Magnetic Field and Spin-down Evolutions of the High Braking Index Pulsar PSR J1640–4631,” ApJ 849, 19 (2017). APPENDIX A: DET AILED DERIV A TION OF THE LINEARIZED GW EQUA TION This appendix provides the step-by-st...

    2017

  26. [35]

    Generate N redshift samples z_i from dN/dz ~ (1+z)^2.7

  27. [36]

    Compute dL_em(z_i) for flat LCDM

  28. [37]

    Set dL_gw(z_i) = dL_em(z_i) * sqrt(Xi0(z_i; 0, 0))

  29. [38]

    Assign relative error sigma_rel(z_i) = 0.05 + 0.05*z_i + 0.02*z_i^2

  30. [39]

    Build Fisher matrix: F_ab = sum_i [dXi/dtheta_a * dXi/dtheta_b] / sigma_rel(z_i)^2

  31. [40]

    1-sigma errors: sigma(theta_a) = sqrt(Cov_aa) Output: sigma(xi_BI), sigma(xi_coup), correlation coefficient

Pith tools

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