Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 57 references

Thermal RG Flow of AS Quantum Gravity

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · 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 at infinite dimensionless temperature the Reuter fixed point of asymptotically safe quantum gravity has vanishing Newton-coupling coordinate, so only the symmetric phase survives.

desk verdict A clean scheme-dependent calculation that does not establish the physical high-temperature phase structure because the key T=τk identification is unvalidated. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.02878 v2 pith:525YTM2J submitted 2025-01-06 gr-qc hep-th

E. Nyergesy , I. G. Márián , E. Meskhi , Y. Turovtsi-Shiutev , I. Nandori This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qchep-th
keywords asymptoticallysafequantumgravitythermalrenormalizationgroupReuterfixedpointEinstein-HilberttruncationdimensionlesstemperaturecosmologicalconstantphasetransitionMatsubarafrequencies
topics Quantum Gravity
open problems Quantum Gravity
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 studies asymptotically safe quantum gravity at finite temperature by setting the temperature equal to the running RG scale, $T \equiv k_T = \tau k$, with $\tau$ held fixed along the flow. In the Einstein-Hilbert truncation, the thermal RG equations then have genuine non-trivial fixed points, and the authors track how the Reuter fixed point moves with $\tau$. The central result is that as $\tau \to \infty$ the $g$-coordinate of the Reuter fixed point vanishes, so only the symmetric phase (negative IR cosmological constant) survives at very high temperature. A thermal phase transition at a critical $\tau_c$ connects this high-temperature regime to the broken phase with a positive cosmological constant at low temperatures. This matters because it offers a thermal, running-temperature picture of the early Universe in which asymptotic safety is compatible with a hot symmetric start.

What carries the argument

The central object is the modified thermal RG relation $T \equiv k_T = \tau k$, in which the temperature and the RG scale are identified as running cutoffs for thermal and quantum fluctuations with a fixed dimensionless ratio $\tau$. Under this assumption, the thermal threshold functions are obtained by replacing the zero-temperature momentum integrals by Matsubara sums over frequencies $\omega_m = 2\pi m T$, with a frequency-independent (cylindrically symmetric) regulator. The fixed ratio makes the $\beta$-functions free of explicit $k$-dependence, so genuine non-trivial fixed points can be located and followed as functions of $\tau$; this is what allows the paper to see $g_*(\tau) \to 0$ at large $\tau$ and to construct the critical line separating the symmetric and broken phases.

What would settle it

Recompute the thermal threshold functions with a spherically symmetric (frequency-dependent) regulator instead of the cylindrically symmetric Litim regulator and check whether $g_*(\tau)$ still vanishes as $\tau \to \infty$; alternatively, keep the physical temperature $T$ fixed and let $\tau = T/k$ run, in which case the paper's own argument predicts that non-trivial fixed points disappear, showing that the vanishing of $g_*$ under the running-$T$ scheme is an artifact of that scheme.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Stated on the paper's own terms: in asymptotically safe quantum gravity with the Einstein-Hilbert truncation, the thermal renormalization group built from the relation $T = \tau k$ with constant $\tau$ produces a Reuter (non-Gaussian UV) fixed point whose coordinates $(\lambda_*, g_*)$ depend on $\tau$. The $g$-coordinate vanishes in the high-temperature limit $\tau \to \infty$ while $\lambda_*$ tends to a positive value, meaning that at infinite temperature no non-Gaussian fixed point with finite Newton coupling remains and only the symmetric phase ($\lambda_{k\to0}<0$) survives. For intermediate temperatures the model exhibits a thermal phase transition at $\tau = \tau_c$ and a quantum phase transition controlled by the initial couplings, summarized by a QPT-CPT diagram in the $\tau$--$g_*$ plane. The authors also note that the $\tau \to 0$ limit does not reproduce the standard zero-temperature fixed point because the thermal calculation uses a frequency-independent regulator.

Load-bearing premise

The entire $\tau$-dependence, including the vanishing of $g_*$ at high temperature, rests on the identification $T \equiv k_T = \tau k$ with $\tau$ held fixed during the RG flow; if a real thermal system does not have its temperature running in lockstep with the cutoff, the computed fixed-point trajectory is a scheme artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, at temperatures at or above the Planck scale the early Universe must reside in the symmetric phase of asymptotically safe quantum gravity, with no non-Gaussian fixed point at finite Newton coupling.
  • The IR cosmological constant is negative at large $\tau$ and becomes positive only after a thermal phase transition, so the observed positive cosmological constant in the late Universe is not in conflict with negative cosmological constant expectations from some string-theoretic scenarios.
  • The model exhibits both a thermal phase transition (a critical $\tau_c$ separates phases for a given initial coupling) and a quantum phase transition (the initial couplings relative to the separatrix decide the phase), giving a QPT-CPT diagram analogous to scalar $\phi^4$ and Ising-type models.
  • In the high-temperature limit the product $\tau g_*$ tends to a constant as $g_* \lambda_* \to 0$, suggesting that the combination $g_*\lambda_*$ acts as the scale-invariant quantum parameter controlling the phase structure.
  • The $\tau \to 0$ limit does not recover the zero-temperature flow because of the frequency-independent regulator, so the paper's thermal predictions at very low temperatures carry an explicit caveat that the authors acknowledge.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the identification $T = \tau k$ is taken literally, the vanishing of $g_*$ at large $\tau$ implies that quantum gravitational fluctuations are strongly suppressed at high temperature; a natural next step would be to compute observables such as the graviton propagator or the effective potential in this limit.
  • The same thermal RG scheme could be applied to extended truncations, for example including $R^2$ or higher-curvature terms, to test whether the disappearance of the Reuter fixed point at high $\tau$ persists or is an artifact of the Einstein-Hilbert truncation.
  • Because the $\tau \to 0$ limit fails to reproduce the standard zero-temperature fixed point, the scheme predicts small but non-vanishing thermal corrections to the low-temperature flow; this could be checked by recomputing with a frequency-dependent regulator.
  • The near-constant $\tau g_*$ found as $g_*\lambda_* \to 0$ in Fig. 5 suggests a possible universal scaling relation that could be compared with the corresponding QPT-CPT scaling in scalar field theories or lattice Ising models, offering a testable signature of thermal asymptotic safety.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper applies a modified thermal functional RG scheme, introduced by the authors in Ref. [1], to asymptotically safe quantum gravity in the Einstein-Hilbert truncation. The central modification is Eq. (1), T = k_T = τ k, with the dimensionless temperature τ held fixed along the RG flow, so that the dimensionful temperature T runs with the cutoff scale k. The authors derive thermal threshold functions in Eqs. (13)–(14), compute the thermal RG flow, and identify the τ-dependence of the Reuter fixed point. Their main claim is that in the high-temperature limit τ → ∞ the g-coordinate of the Reuter fixed point vanishes, so that only the symmetric phase of asymptotically safe gravity survives; they interpret the resulting negative IR cosmological constant at high temperatures as consistent with observations because a thermal phase transition occurs at lower temperatures.

Significance. If the modified thermal scheme embodied in Eq. (1) could be independently justified, the paper would provide a thermal phase diagram for asymptotically safe gravity and a concrete prediction for the high-temperature fate of the Reuter fixed point. The derivation of the thermal threshold functions and the numerical fixed-point trajectories are explicit and reproducible in spirit. However, the central claim is tied to a nonstandard and, as presented, unvalidated relation between temperature and RG scale; moreover, the authors explicitly acknowledge that the τ → 0 limit of their thermal flow does not reproduce the standard zero-temperature Reuter fixed point. The significance of the paper is therefore conditional on an external justification or benchmark for the scheme, which the manuscript does not supply.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III, Eq. (1)] The central claim that g* → 0 as τ → ∞ rests entirely on the modified thermal RG relation T = k_T = τ k with τ held constant over the flow. In the standard thermal FRG convention, which the authors cite in Refs. [27] and [29], the physical temperature T is fixed and the dimensionless ratio τ_k = T/k runs trivially with the cutoff, ∂_t τ_k = −τ_k. A trajectory at fixed τ in the present scheme corresponds to a dimensionful temperature that changes with k, so it does not describe a physical system at a fixed temperature. The paper provides no independent derivation, no comparison with the fixed-T thermal FRG, and no external benchmark for Eq. (1). Consequently, the computed τ-dependence of the Reuter fixed point, including g* → 0, is a property of the chosen scheme, not an established physical prediction. I ask the authors to either provide a physical justification for Eq. (1) or to demonstrate that the qualitative high-temperature behavior is unchanged in a fixed-T thermal FRG calculation.
  2. [Section III, after Eq. (14)] The authors acknowledge that the τ → 0 limit of their thermal flow does not coincide with the zero-temperature Reuter fixed point shown in Figs. 1 and 2, and attribute this to the use of a frequency-independent, cylindrically symmetric regulator in the thermal threshold functions. This acknowledged disagreement is a direct manifestation of regulator/scheme sensitivity of the fixed-point calculation. Since the high-temperature limit g* → 0 is obtained from the same threshold functions (13)–(14), the central result needs a robustness check against regulator choice, for example by repeating the computation with a different shape function or with a frequency-dependent regulator that reduces correctly to the zero-temperature Litim regulator.
  3. [Section IV and Figs. 4–5] The statement that g* vanishes as τ → ∞ is based on numerical fixed-point locations for finite τ (up to τ = 1000 in Fig. 5), but the paper does not provide an extrapolation procedure, an error estimate, or an asymptotic analysis of Eqs. (13)–(14) in the large-τ limit. Because the abstract and conclusions present g* → 0 as a definitive result, the authors should quantify the convergence, for instance by fitting g*(τ) at large τ and stating whether the decay is algebraic or exponential, and ideally derive the leading large-τ behavior analytically from the thermal threshold functions.
  4. [Section III, Figs. 3–5] The fixed-point coordinates are reported without numerical uncertainty or truncation-error control. The Einstein-Hilbert truncation retains only two couplings, and the phase structure of asymptotically safe gravity is known to be sensitive to the truncation order in other FRG studies. Since the main qualitative claim concerns the disappearance of the g-coordinate of the Reuter fixed point, the authors should provide evidence that this behavior is not an artifact of the two-coupling truncation, for example by checking a higher-order truncation or by estimating the truncation error.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section III, Eqs. (13)–(14)] The notation y ≡ z is introduced after the Matsubara summation, but the relation between the integration variables in the threshold functions (10)–(11) and in (13)–(14) is not explained; a short sentence clarifying the variable change would improve readability.
  2. [Section III, Fig. 4 caption] The caption defines the critical line g*(τ_c) but does not explain how τ_c is determined for a given initial point; the main text describes this, but the caption could reference that definition.
  3. [Introduction and Section III] The abbreviation QPT-CPT is used without spelling out the terms; it should be defined at first use as 'quantum phase transition–classical phase transition'.
  4. [Throughout] The notation for the fixed-point coordinates is inconsistent: g*, λ*, g⋆, and λ⋆ are all used; a single convention would reduce confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No construction-level circularity; the g*->0 result is a computed fixed-point limit, with a self-cited but transparent thermal-RG scheme as the main caveat.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained conditional on the thermal RG scheme: the beta functions (5)-(6) are standard AS-gravity results (Refs. [2,3]), the threshold functions (13)-(14) are obtained from (10)-(11) by the standard Matsubara replacement (12) together with Eq. (1), and the vanishing of the Reuter g-coordinate at tau->infinity is a numerically computed fixed-point property (inset of Fig. 4), not a quantity fitted to that outcome or defined to equal it. No equation in the paper sets g*(tau) identically to zero by construction; the limit emerges from the flow. The acknowledged failure of the tau->0 limit to reproduce the zero-temperature flow (Sec. III) is a regulator/scheme sensitivity, not a circular reduction, because the finite-temperature flow is not asserted to be identical to the zero-temperature flow. The only circularity-adjacent concern is that the defining relation T = k_T = tau k with tau held fixed is imported from the authors' own Ref. [1] and is not independently validated; the paper transparently labels it as a proposal. This is a load-bearing assumption and a correctness/scheme-choice risk, but it does not make the computed g*(tau) result equivalent to its input by construction. Under the standard thermal FRG convention (partial_t tau = -tau), the conclusion is not reproduced; that is a physicality concern, not a circularity. Therefore score 2: no construction-level circularity, with a minor self-citation burden.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on an ad hoc scale-setting relation from the authors' own prior work, a truncation choice, and a Euclidean regulator assumption. There are no fitted numerical constants in the derivation, but the τ parameter is an externally chosen control variable. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • τ (dimensionless temperature) = variable
    Introduced as the constant ratio T/k; not fitted to data, but the entire thermal flow depends on it as an external control parameter.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper The temperature parameter is tied to the running RG scale as T = k_T = τ k with τ constant (Eq. 1).
    This is the defining assumption of the modified thermal RG, carried over from the authors' Ref. [1]; no independent physical derivation is given.
  • domain assumption Einstein-Hilbert truncation (Eq. 2) is a sufficient approximation to asymptotically safe quantum gravity for the claimed high-temperature phase structure.
    The beta functions are computed within this truncation; the paper does not estimate the effect of higher-order curvature terms.
  • domain assumption Euclidean signature and frequency-independent (cylindrically symmetric) regulators capture the relevant thermal physics.
    The authors rely on Euclidean lattice results and note that the τ → 0 limit differs from zero temperature because of the regulator choice.
  • domain assumption The sign of the IR cosmological constant distinguishes symmetric from broken phase, following Ref. [32].
    Used to label phases and to interpret the high-temperature limit.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Thermal RG Flow of AS Quantum Gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/525YTM2J

@misc{pith2026250102878,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Thermal RG Flow of AS Quantum Gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/525YTM2J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.02878}
}
abstract

We perform the thermal Renormalization Group (RG) study of the Asymptotically Safe (AS) quantum gravity in the Einstein-Hilbert truncation by relating the temperature parameter to the running RG scale as $T \equiv k_T = \tau k$ (in natural units) in order to determine its thermal evolution in terms of the dimensionless temperature $\tau$ which is associated with the temperature of the expanding Universe. Thus, $k_T$ and $k$ are understood as running cutoffs for thermal and quantum fluctuations, respectively. Quantum effects are taken into account by moving along the thermal RG trajectory with fixed value of $\tau$ producing the quantum effective action at a given dimensionless temperature. The $\tau$-evolution of the dimensionless Newton coupling $g(\tau)$ and the dimensionless cosmological constant $\lambda(\tau)$ results in a vanishing $g$-coordinate of the Reuter (i.e., non-Gaussian UV) fixed point in the high temperature limit ($\tau \to \infty$) which means that only the symmetric phase of AS gravity survives at $\tau = \infty$. Thus, in case of large temperatures the cosmological constant takes on a negative value in the limit $k\to 0$ which was also initially predicted by certain string theories, however, in our approach this is not in disagreement with observations, since during the thermal evolution of the Universe a phase transition occurs and the cosmological constant runs to the expected positive value at low temperatures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.02878 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Zero-temperature RG flow diagram of AS quantum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Identical to Fig. 1 but obtained by the numerical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. QPT-CPT diagram of AS quantum gravity in terms [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Thermal RG flow diagrams of AS quantum gravity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. QPT-CPT diagram in terms of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M´ ari´ an, A

    I.G. M´ ari´ an, A. Trombettoni, I. N´ andori, Phys. Lett. B 858, 139051 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [27]

    J. Braun. J. Phys. G 39, 033001 (2012)

    work page 2012

  3. [29]

    Braun, M

    J. Braun, M. Leonhardt, and M. Pospiech, Phys. Rev. D 96, 076003 (2017)

    work page 2017

  4. [2]

    Reuter, Phys

    M. Reuter, Phys. Rev. D 57, 971 (1998)

    1998

  5. [3]

    Reuter, F

    M. Reuter, F. Saueressig, Phys. Rev. D 65, 065016 (2002)

    work page 2002

  6. [4]

    Lauscher, M

    O. Lauscher, M. Reuter, Phys. Rev. D 66, 025026 (2002)

    work page 2002

  7. [5]

    Platania, Special issue ”Coarse Graining in Quantum Gravity: Bridging the Gap between Microscopic Models and Spacetime-Physics”, arXiv:2003.13656 [gr-qc]

    A. Platania, Special issue ”Coarse Graining in Quantum Gravity: Bridging the Gap between Microscopic Models and Spacetime-Physics”, arXiv:2003.13656 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2003

  8. [6]

    An Introduction to Covariant Quantum Gravity and Asymptotic Safety, 100 Years of General Relativity; World Scientific: Singapore, Volume 3 (2017)

    Percacci, R. An Introduction to Covariant Quantum Gravity and Asymptotic Safety, 100 Years of General Relativity; World Scientific: Singapore, Volume 3 (2017)

    work page 2017

Show all 57 references
  1. [7]

    Eichhorn, Front

    A. Eichhorn, Front. Astron. Space Sci. 5, 47 (2019)

    2019

  2. [8]

    Reuter, F

    M. Reuter, F. Saueressig, Quantum Gravity and the Functional Renormalization Group: The Road towards Asymptotic Safety (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2019)

    2019

  3. [9]

    Bonanno, A

    A. Bonanno, A. Eichhorn, H. Gies, H. J.M. Pawlowski, R. Percacci, M. Reuter, F. Saueressig, G.P. Vacca, Front. Phys. 8, 269 (2020)

    2020

  4. [10]

    Pawlowski, M

    J.M. Pawlowski, M. Reichert, Front. Phys. 8, 551848 (2021)

    2021

  5. [11]

    Eichhorn, M

    A. Eichhorn, M. Schiffer, Invited chapter for the ”Hand- book of Quantum Gravity” , arXiv:2212.07456 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  6. [12]

    Saueressig, arXiv:2302.14152

    F. Saueressig, arXiv:2302.14152

    arXiv

  7. [13]

    Wetterich, Phys

    C. Wetterich, Phys. Lett. B 301, 90 (1993); T. R. Morris, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 9, 2411 (1994)

    1993

  8. [14]

    Babic, B

    A. Babic, B. Guberina, R. Horvat, H. Stefancic, Phys. Rev. D 71, 124041 (2005)

    2005

  9. [15]

    Hindmarsh, I

    M. Hindmarsh, I. D. Saltas, Phys. Rev. D 86, 064029 (2012)

    2012

  10. [16]

    E. J. Copeland, C. Rahmede, I. D. Saltas, Phys. Rev. D 91, 103530 (2015)

    2015

  11. [17]

    Bonanno, F

    A. Bonanno, F. Saueressig, C. R. Phys. 18, 254 (2017)

    2017

  12. [18]

    Gubitosia, R

    G. Gubitosia, R. Ooijera, C. Ripkena, F. Saueressig, JCAP 1805, 004 (2018)

    2018

  13. [19]

    Platania, F

    A. Platania, F. Saueressig, Found. Phys. 48, 1291 (2018)

    2018

  14. [20]

    Platania, Front

    A. Platania, Front. Phys. 8, 188 (2020)

    2020

  15. [21]

    J. W. Negele, H. Orland, Quantum many-particle systems (Reading, Perseus, 1998)

    1998

  16. [22]

    Sachdev, Quantum phase transitions (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2011)

    S. Sachdev, Quantum phase transitions (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2011)

    2011

  17. [23]

    J. I. Kapusta, Finite-temperature field theory: princi- ples and applications (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2023)

    2023

  18. [24]

    Tetradis and C

    N. Tetradis and C. Wetterich, Nucl. Phys. B 398, 659 (1993)

    1993

  19. [25]

    K. G. Wilson, Phys. Rev. B 4, 3174 (1971); K. G. Wilson, Phys. Rev. B 4, 3184 (1971)

    1971

  20. [26]

    Jakubczyk, J

    P. Jakubczyk, J. Bauer, W. Metzner, Phys. Rev. B 82, 045103 (2010)

    2010

  21. [28]

    Rancon, O

    A. Rancon, O. Kodio, N. Dupuis, P. Lecheminant, Phys. Rev. E 88, 012113 (2013)

    2013

  22. [30]

    M´ ari´ an, A

    I.G. M´ ari´ an, A. Trombettoni, I. N´ andori, arXiv:2407.20704 [hep-th]

  23. [32]

    G´ eg´ eny, K

    F. G´ eg´ eny, K. Sailer and S. Nagy, Class. Quantum Grav., 40 045004, (2023)

    2023

  24. [33]

    Machado, R

    P.F. Machado, R. Percacci, Phys. Rev. D 80, 024020 (2009)

    2009

  25. [34]

    Bonanno, F

    A. Bonanno, F. Guarnieri, Phys. Rev. D 86, 105027 (2012)

    2012

  26. [35]

    Knorr, Class

    B. Knorr, Class. Quantum Gravity 38, 065003 (2021)

    2021

  27. [36]

    Reuter, H

    M. Reuter, H. Weyer, Phys. Rev. D 80, 025001 (2009)

    2009

  28. [37]

    Bonanno, M

    A. Bonanno, M. Conti, S. Cacciatori, Phys. Rev. D 108, 026008 (2023)

    2023

  29. [38]

    D. F. Litim, Phys. Lett. B 486, 92 (2000)

    2000

  30. [39]

    Steib, S

    I. Steib, S. Nagy, J. Polonyi, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 36, 2150031 (2021)

    2021

  31. [40]

    G´ eg´ eny, S

    F. G´ eg´ eny, S. Nagy, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A36, 2250061 (2022)

    2022

  32. [41]

    Steib, S

    I. Steib, S. Nagy, J. Polonyi, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 36, 2150031 (2021); F. G´ eg´ eny, S. Nagy, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 36, 2250061 (2022)

    2021

  33. [42]

    Branchina, V

    C. Branchina, V. Branchina, F. Contino, N. Darvishi, Phys. Rev. D 106, 065007 (2022)

    2022

  34. [43]

    Branchina, V

    C. Branchina, V. Branchina, F. Contino, Phys. Rev. D 107, 096012 (2023)

    2023

  35. [44]

    Steingasser, arXiv:2405.02415 [hep-ph]

    T. Steingasser, arXiv:2405.02415 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  36. [45]

    Steingasser, David I

    T. Steingasser, David I. Kaiser, Phys. Rev. D 108, 095035 (2023)

    2023

  37. [46]

    Reuter, H

    M. Reuter, H. Weyer, Phys. Rev. D 79, 105005 (2009)

    2009

  38. [47]

    Gubitosi, R

    G. Gubitosi, R. Ooijer, C. Ripken, F. Saueressig, JCAP 12, 004 (2018)

    2018

  39. [48]

    Gubitosi, C

    G. Gubitosi, C. Ripken, F. Saueressig, Found. Phys. 49, 972 (2019)

    2019

  40. [49]

    S. Nagy, J. Krizsan, K. Sailer, JHEP 1207, 102 (2012) 7

    2012

  41. [50]

    Christiansen, D.F

    N. Christiansen, D.F. Litim, J.M. Pawlowski, A. Rodi- gast,Phys. Lett. B 728, 114 (2014)

    2014

  42. [51]

    Nagy, Ann

    S. Nagy, Ann. Phys. 350, 310 (2014)

    2014

  43. [52]

    Kachru, R

    S. Kachru, R. Kallosh, A. Linde, S. P. Trivedi, Phys. Rev. D 68, 046005 (2003)

    2003

  44. [53]

    Hertog, G

    T. Hertog, G. T. Horowitz, K. Maeda, JHEP 0305, 060 (2003)

    2003

  45. [54]

    Manrique, S

    E. Manrique, S. Rechenberger, F. Saueressig, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 251302, (2011)

    2011

  46. [55]

    Bonanno, T

    A. Bonanno, T. Denz, J. M. Pawlowski, M. Reichert, SciPost Phys. 12, 001 (2022)

    2022

  47. [56]

    Fehre, D

    J. Fehre, D. F. Litim, J. M. Pawlowski, M. Reichert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 081501, (2023)

    2023

  48. [57]

    J. M. Pawlowski, M. Reichert, Quantum Gravity from Dynamical Metric Fluctuations. In: Bambi, C., Modesto, L., Shapiro, I. (eds) Handbook of Quantum Gravity. Springer, Singapore. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-3079-9 17-1

    2024 doi

  49. [58]

    Laiho, D

    J. Laiho, D. Coumbe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 161301 (2011)

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.