Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 89 references

Slowly Rotating and Tidal Deformation of Nonlocal Modified Tolman VII Star

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In a nonlocal-gravity neutron star model, tidal deformability matches GW170817 and GW190425 bounds only for $\alpha \gtrsim 1.6$ and $\beta < 1\,\mathrm{km}^2$, while I-Love-Q universality breaks at $\beta \gtrsim 10\,\mathrm{km}^2$.

desk verdict First I-Love-Q computation for the NEMTVII nonlocal star, cleanly done and honestly reported, but the whole enterprise rests on an unverified reduction of nonlocal gravity to GR with a smeared source. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.20886 v2 pith:GNF5VIR3 submitted 2025-05-27 gr-qc hep-ph

Byon N. Jayawiguna , Piyabut Burikham This is my paper
classification gr-qchep-ph
keywords nonlocalgravityneutronstarTolmanVIIdensitymodeltidalLovenumberdeformabilityI-Love-Qrelationsslowrotationquadrupolemoment
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 asks what happens to neutron-star observables if gravity is nonlocal, with matter density smeared over a length scale $\ell_\beta = \sqrt{\beta}$, using an exactly solvable modified Tolman VII density profile. It shows that the smearing enlarges the star and lowers its compactness, shifting the tidal Love number, tidal deformability, moment of inertia, and quadrupole moment relative to general relativity. The dimensionless I-Love-Q relations remain universal when the density-shape parameter $\alpha$ varies at fixed $\beta$, but become non-universal when $\beta$ itself varies, with clear deviations by $\beta \approx 10\,\mathrm{km}^2$. Against GW170817 and GW190425 tidal bounds, the model survives only for $\alpha \gtrsim 1.6$ with $\beta < 1\,\mathrm{km}^2$, so a successful nonlocal scale must be sub-kilometre.

What carries the argument

The central object is the NEMTVII mass model: the modified Tolman VII density $\rho = \rho_c[1 - \alpha r^2/R^2 + (\alpha-1) r^4/R^4]$ acted on by the nonlocal operator $A^{-2}(\Box) = (1-\Box)^{-1}$, evaluated through a flat-space Green's function integral that produces smeared interior and exterior density and mass functions with exponential tails. This smeared profile feeds the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equations; slow rotation is handled by the Hartle-Thorne expansion at first and second order, and the tidal response by the even-parity $h_2$ master equation, whose surface value gives the tidal Love number $k_2$ and the tidal deformability $\lambda_{\mathrm{tid}}$.

What would settle it

A precise measurement of the tidal deformability of a roughly $1.4\,M_\odot$ neutron star from a future binary inspiral that falls outside the model's allowed $\lambda_{\mathrm{tid}}$ band for $\alpha \gtrsim 1.6$ and $\beta < 1\,\mathrm{km}^2$ would rule out the claimed consistency region.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that in the NEMTVII model, nonlocal smearing with parameter $\beta$ increases the neutron-star radius and lowers compactness relative to the local EMTVII model; consequently $k_2$, $\bar{\lambda}_{\mathrm{tid}}$, $\bar{I}$, and $\bar{Q}$ all shift. For fixed $\beta$, the dimensionless I-Love-Q relations are universal across the density-shape parameter $\alpha$, but changing $\beta$ breaks that universality for $\beta \gtrsim 10\,\mathrm{km}^2$. Comparing the tidal deformability to GW170817 and GW190425 constraints selects $\alpha \gtrsim 1.6$ with $\beta < 1\,\mathrm{km}^2$.

Load-bearing premise

The central assumption is that nonlocal gravity can be written as Einstein equations with the energy-momentum tensor smeared by $A^{-2}(\Box)$, and that the flat-space Green's function used to evaluate that smearing remains valid inside the curved spacetime of the star.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Tidal deformability measurements from binary neutron star mergers can act as a direct bound on the nonlocal smearing scale, not just on the equation of state.
  • For fixed nonlocal scale, the I-Love-Q relations stay universal, so they cannot discriminate $\alpha$ within this model, but they become a nonlocality detector once $\beta$ exceeds about $10\,\mathrm{km}^2$.
  • The predicted increase in radius with $\beta$ means mass-radius measurements provide an independent cross-check of the allowed parameter region.
  • The roughly linear, equation-of-state-insensitive rotational-to-tidal Love relation is preserved even when other I-Love-Q branches deviate, making it a robust observable.
  • If the nonlocal scale is macroscopic ($\ell_\beta \gtrsim 3\,\mathrm{km}$), deviations from general relativity in $k_2$ and the deformabilities should be detectable in future gravitational-wave events.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the flat-space Green's function evaluation inside the star is replaced by a fully curved-space kernel, the quoted $\alpha \gtrsim 1.6$ and $\beta < 1\,\mathrm{km}^2$ window could shift, so the constraint should be read as model-dependent until that step is checked.
  • The $\beta \gtrsim 10\,\mathrm{km}^2$ breakdown of I-Love-Q universality offers a clean observational test: measuring $I$, $Q$, and $\lambda$ for several neutron stars of different masses and seeing scatter beyond the equation-of-state spread would point to nonlocality.
  • The same formalism could be applied with other ghost-free entire functions $A(\Box)$; whether the universality-breaking threshold is robust to that choice is a testable extension not addressed in the paper.
  • Because nonlocal smearing increases radius, the model predicts systematically larger radii at fixed mass than general relativity, so combining precise radius and tidal measurements on the same star would help separate nonlocal effects from equation-of-state effects.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies slowly rotating neutron stars and tidal deformation in a nonlocal gravity framework, using the NEMTVII density model. It computes the moment of inertia, rotational Love number, quadrupole moment, and tidal Love number k2 via standard perturbative methods, analyzes I-Love-Q universality, and compares tidal deformability with GW170817 and GW190425. The main claims are: (i) for fixed nonlocal parameter beta, the I-Love-Q relations are universal across the model parameter alpha; (ii) varying beta breaks universality for beta greater than about 10 km^2; (iii) consistency with the gravitational-wave tidal constraints requires alpha greater than about 1.6 and beta below 1 km^2.

Significance. If the nonlocal gravity reduction and the NEMTVII density prescription were established, the paper would provide a concrete, falsifiable bridge between nonlocal gravity smearing scales and neutron-star observables. The use of standard Hartle-Thorne and Hinderer perturbation theory, the broad parameter scan, and the explicit comparison with GW170817/GW190425 and mass constraints are strengths. The main results, however, rest on two assumptions imported from prior work: the effective field equation T-tilde = A^{-2}(box)T and the flat-space Green's function evaluation of the smearing. Until these are derived or validated, the quantitative predictions, including radii, Love numbers, and the alpha-beta allowed region, remain conditional.

major comments (4)
  1. [IV.B, Eqs. (45)-(46) and surrounding text] Equation (46) is stated as 'the nonlocal Einstein field equation' with T_{mu nu} = A^{-2}(box) T_{mu nu}, but it is not obtained by varying the action (45). For a nonlocal action of the form A^2(box)R, the field equation contains nonlocal curvature terms rather than simply 8pi A^{-2}(box) T_{mu nu}. Please provide the explicit variation or state clearly that Eq. (46) is a phenomenological definition of the model. This is load-bearing because all subsequent TOV equations and density profiles derive from Eq. (46).
  2. [IV.B, Eq. (51)] The smeared density is evaluated using the flat-space Helmholtz Green's function in the radial coordinate, with the integral extending from 0 to R. The operator defined in Eq. (46), however, is beta g^{mu nu} grad_mu grad_nu on the curved TOV background. The paper refers to Ref. [52] but gives no estimate of the magnitude of omitted metric-dependent terms, no expansion parameter, and no proof that smearing a perfect-fluid T_{mu nu} yields a perfect-fluid energy-momentum tensor as assumed in Eq. (47). Because Eq. (51) determines the density profile (52)-(55), the stellar radius R_N, and hence all compactness-dependent observables, this gap must be addressed.
  3. [IV.B, text after Eq. (55)] The actual radius R_N is defined as the point where the nonlocal density falls to 10^{-7} km^{-2}. This cutoff is an ad hoc input; no physical justification or sensitivity study is given. Since the compactness C = M_N / R_N enters the dimensionless Love numbers, moments of inertia, and the GW constraint comparison, the authors should either derive the radius from the theory, for example from the vanishing of pressure, or demonstrate that the results are insensitive to the cutoff over several orders of magnitude.
  4. [V, Figures 6-7 compared with Eqs. (37)-(38)] The text compares the plotted quantity, labeled lambda_tid, with the GW170817/GW190425 bounds lambda_tid < 800 and lambda_tid < 600. In Eqs. (37)-(38), however, lambda_tid has units of length^5, while the standard observational bound is on the dimensionless tidal deformability Lambda = lambda_tid / M^5 = (2/3) k2 C^{-5}. The plotted values (0 to 4000) and the claimed consistency indicate the figures actually show the dimensionless quantity. Please relabel the figures, for example as Lambda or bar{lambda}_tid, and state the definition explicitly; otherwise the observational comparison cannot be checked.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (41)] In the expression for B2, the first occurrence of 'y' should be 'y_R' (B2 = ... [13 - 11 y_R + C(3 y_R - 2) + 2 C^2 (1 + y_R)]); as written, the dependence on y_R is inconsistent.
  2. [Eqs. (29)-(30)] The notation nu'^2 is ambiguous: it appears to mean (d nu/dr)^2, but nu_2 is also used for a metric perturbation. Please use an unambiguous notation such as (nu')^2.
  3. [V, paragraph on Figures 12-16] The universality claim for fixed beta is supported only visually. Provide a quantitative measure, for example the maximum fractional spread of the I-Love-Q curves across alpha for each beta, to substantiate the claimed universality.
  4. [Introduction and Section II.A] The Introduction contains a duplicated word ('from from GW170817'), and Eq. (5) in Section II.A appears garbled in the typesetting ('(r,r)-(theta,theta)' and the derivative terms); please check the derivation and formatting.
  5. [Eq. (27)] The definition of bar{Q} uses the constant K; please clarify the sign convention and the relation to the standard quadrupole moment to make the bar{Q} -> 1 black-hole limit transparent.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The nonlocal smearing prescription (Eq. 51) is adopted from the authors' own prior work and is load-bearing for all β-dependent results, though the I-Love-Q and GW comparisons are not fitted inputs.

  1. ansatz smuggled in via citation [Section IV.B, Eq. (51)]
    "Thus, the modified density can be written as [52] ρ~ = A^{-2}ρ = 1/(2√β x) ∫_0^R dx′ x′ ρ(x′) [e^{−|x−x′|/√β} − e^{−|x+x′|/√β}]. (51)"

    This equation is the only place the nonlocal parameter β enters the background, so it controls the radius, compactness, and every derived quantity (k2, λtid, Ī, Q̄) shown in the paper. It is not derived in the present work: the stated operator in Eq. (46) is the curved-space d'Alembertian □ = β g^{μν}∇_μ∇_ν, but Eq. (51) evaluates the smearing with a flat-space Helmholtz kernel, and the only justification is the citation to the authors' own Ref. [52]. The claimed findings—that β increases the radius, that β ≳ 10 km² breaks I-Love-Q universality, and that α ≳ 1.6 with small β satisfies GW170817/GW190425—are thus consequences of a self-cited ansatz rather than an independent derivation.

full rationale

The paper does not fit α or β to the I-Love-Q or tidal data; it scans the parameter space and compares with the GW170817, GW190425, PSR J0348+0432, and PSR J0740+6620 constraints, so the main universality and consistency claims are not fitted-input predictions. The tidal and rotational perturbation calculations use standard, externally established formalism (Hartle-Thorne and Hinderer), which is independent of the authors' prior work. However, every β-dependent result depends on the smeared density profile Eqs. (52)-(55), which is introduced through Eq. (51) and cited only to the authors' own Ref. [52]; the paper does not derive this flat-space Green's function prescription from the curved-space operator defined in Eq. (46), nor does it quantify the omitted metric-dependent terms. Thus the central observational conclusions inherit an unverified self-cited ansatz. This is a load-bearing self-citation but not a complete circularity, because the relation between the background and the I-Love-Q quantities is computed rather than assumed. Score 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The nonlocal scale beta is a parameter, not an entity. The central computation rests on the nonlocal gravity model from the authors' prior work, with the field equations assumed and the smearing implemented via the flat-space Green's function. The star radius is defined by an arbitrary density cutoff.

free parameters (3)
  • alpha = not fitted; scanned over [0,2]
    Modified Tolman VII density parameter from prior work; controls the density shape.
  • beta = not fitted; scanned over [0,50] km^2
    Nonlocal parameter of the GUP-inspired nonlocal gravity model; sets the smearing length.
  • density_cutoff = 10^-7 km^-2
    Chosen cutoff to define the star radius where the nonlocal density tail is negligible; affects compactness and all derived quantities.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The nonlocal gravity field equations reduce to R_mu_nu - 1/2 g_mu_nu R = 8 pi T-tilde, with T-tilde = A^{-2}(box)T (Eq. 46).
    This mapping from the nonlocal action is stated without derivation and is taken from the authors' previous work.
  • domain assumption The nonlocal smearing operator acts as (1 - beta nabla^2) in flat space, with the Green's function leading to Eq. (51), even though the star is described by a curved spacetime metric.
    Eq. (51) is the flat-space radial Green's function solution; the paper does not justify using it in the curved TOV context.
  • ad hoc to paper The star radius is defined by the density cutoff rho = 10^-7 km^-2 in the nonlocal density tail.
    Section IV.B states the radius is set when the density approaches a very small cutoff value; the choice affects the compactness and all Love numbers.
  • standard math The standard Hartle-Thorne and Hinderer perturbation equations apply to the nonlocal background metric, with the same matter perturbation formalism.
    Sections II and III review standard methods; this is a standard domain assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Slowly Rotating and Tidal Deformation of Nonlocal Modified Tolman VII Star." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GNF5VIR3

@misc{pith2026250520886,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Slowly Rotating and Tidal Deformation of Nonlocal Modified Tolman VII Star},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GNF5VIR3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.20886}
}
abstract

We investigate the moment of inertia, quadrupole deformation, and tidal deformation within the framework of nonlocal gravity, utilizing the exact modified Tolman-VII (NEMTVII) density model with an isotropic perfect fluid. The Love number~$(k_{2})$ is derived using standard even-parity perturbation theory. Additionally, we explore the observational implications by analyzing the tidal deformability parameter~$( \lambda_{\textrm{tid}} )$ in comparison with the constraints from GW170817, GW190425, PSR J0348+0432, and PSR J0740+6620. We found that the results are consistent with the tidal constraint when $\alpha \gtrsim 1.6$ with the small $\beta$. For slowly rotating object, the dimensionless moment of inertia~$( \bar{I} )$, rotational Love parameter~$( \bar{\lambda}_{\textrm{rot}} )$, and quadrupole moment~$( \bar{Q} )$ are fully determined by the perturbed metric. Our findings reveal that the nonlocal parameter~$( \beta )$ significantly affects the star radius. For a fixed $\beta$ and varying $\alpha$, the $I$-Love-$Q$ relations are found to be universal. For varying $\beta$, the $I$-Love-$Q$ relations become non-universal.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.20886 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Tidal Love number, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4: Dimensionless tidal deformability, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. FIG. 6: The tidal deformability vs mass for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: [Top] Angular velocity relative to the local inertial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Dimensionless moment of inertia, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Dimensionless quadrupole moment, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Dimensionless moment of inertia [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15: Dimensionless quadrupole deformation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_15.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17: Dimensionless rotational tidal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_17.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages

  1. [52]

    B. N. Jayawiguna and P. Burikham, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) no.3, 226

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    ¨Ozel and P

    F. ¨Ozel and P. Freire, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 54 (2016), 401-440

    2016

  3. [2]

    Oertel, M

    M. Oertel, M. Hempel, T. Kl¨ ahn and S. Typel, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89 (2017) no.1, 015007

    2017

  4. [3]

    G. Baym, T. Hatsuda, T. Kojo, P. D. Powell, Y. Song and T. Takatsuka, Rept. Prog. Phys. 81 (2018) no.5, 056902

    2018

  5. [4]

    J. M. Lattimer, Universe 5 (2019) no.7, 159

    2019

  6. [5]

    A. E. H. Love, Proc. R. Soc., A 82, 73 (1909)

    1909

  7. [6]

    Postnikov, M

    S. Postnikov, M. Prakash and J. M. Lattimer, Phys. Rev. D 82 (2010), 024016

    2010

  8. [7]

    M. C. Miller, F. K. Lamb, A. J. Dittmann, S. Bogdanov, Z. Arzoumanian, K. C. Gendreau, S. Guillot, A. K. Hard- ing, W. C. G. Ho and J. M. Lattimer, et al. Astrophys. J. Lett. 887 (2019) no.1, L24

    2019

Show all 89 references
  1. [8]

    T. E. Riley, A. L. Watts, S. Bogdanov, P. S. Ray, R. M. Ludlam, S. Guillot, Z. Arzoumanian, C. L. Baker, A. V. Bilous and D. Chakrabarty, et al. Astrophys. J. Lett. 887 (2019) no.1, L21

    2019

  2. [9]

    E. E. Flanagan and T. Hinderer, Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008), 021502

    2008

  3. [10]

    K. S. Thorne, Phys. Rev. D 58 (1998), 124031 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.58.124031 [arXiv:gr-qc/9706057 [gr-qc]]

    1998 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Hinderer, Astrophys

    T. Hinderer, Astrophys. J. 677 (2008), 1216-1220

    2008

  5. [12]

    Hinderer, B

    T. Hinderer, B. D. Lackey, R. N. Lang and J. S. Read, Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010), 123016

    2010

  6. [13]

    Damour, A

    T. Damour, A. Nagar and L. Villain, Phys. Rev. D 85 (2012), 123007

    2012

  7. [14]

    B. P. Abbott et al. [LIGO Scientific and Virgo], Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017) no.16, 161101

    2017

  8. [15]

    B. P. Abbott et al. [LIGO Scientific and Virgo], Phys. Rev. X 9 (2019) no.1, 011001

    2019

  9. [16]

    J. B. Hartle, Astrophys. J. 150 (1967), 1005-1029 doi:10.1086/149400

    1967 doi

  10. [17]

    J. B. Hartle and K. S. Thorne, Astrophys. J. 153 (1968), 807 doi:10.1086/149707

    1968 doi

  11. [18]

    Yagi and N

    K. Yagi and N. Yunes, Science 341 (2013), 365-368 doi:10.1126/science.1236462 [arXiv:1302.4499 [gr-qc]]

    2013 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Yagi and N

    K. Yagi and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) no.2, 023009 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.023009 [arXiv:1303.1528 [gr-qc]]

    2013 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Schwarzschild, K. (1916). Sitzber. Deut. Akad. Wiss. Berlin. Kl. Math.-Phys. Tech. 424

    1916

  14. [21]

    W., Thorne, K

    Misner, C. W., Thorne, K. S., and Wheeler, J. A. (1973). Gravitation, (San Francisco: W H Freeman and Com- pany)

    1973

  15. [22]

    Stuchlik, Acta Phys

    Z. Stuchlik, Acta Phys. Slov. 50 (2000) no.2, 219-228

    2000

  16. [23]

    R. F. Tooper, Astrophys. J. 140, 434 (1964)

    1964

  17. [24]

    Stuchl ´ ık, S

    Z. Stuchl ´ ık, S. Hled ´ ık and J. Novotn´ y, Phys. Rev. D94 (2016) no.10, 103513

    2016

  18. [25]

    R. C. Tolman, Phys. Rev. 55 (1939), 364-373

    1939

  19. [26]

    Burikham, E

    P. Burikham, E. Hirunsirisawat and S. Pinkanjanarod, JHEP 06 (2010), 040 doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2010)040 [arXiv:1003.5470 [hep-ph]]

    2010 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Burikham, S

    P. Burikham, S. Pinkanjanarod and S. Ponglert- sakul, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) no.10, 104018 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.104018 [arXiv:2111.00712 [gr-qc]]

    2022 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Pinkanjanarod and P

    S. Pinkanjanarod and P. Burikham, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) no.8, 705 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09479- w [arXiv:2007.10615 [nucl-th]]

    2021 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Pinkanjanarod, P

    S. Pinkanjanarod, P. Burikham and S. Ponglert- sakul, Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) no.2, 141 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10106-5 [arXiv:2106.13450 [gr-qc]]

    2022 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Demircik, C

    T. Demircik, C. Ecker, M. J¨ arvinen, L. Rez- zolla, S. Tootle and K. Topolski, EPJ Web Conf. 274 (2022), 07006 doi:10.1051/epjconf/202227407006 [arXiv:2211.10118 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2022

  24. [31]

    Spheres with vary- ing density in general relativity,

    M. C. Durgapal and G. L. Gehlot, “Spheres with vary- ing density in general relativity,” Journal of Physics A: General Physics 4, 749–755 (1971)

    1971

  25. [32]

    A. M. Raghoonundun and D. W. Hobill, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) no.12, 124005

    2015

  26. [33]

    C. C. Moustakidis, Gen. Rel. Grav. 49 (2017) no.5, 68

    2017

  27. [34]

    J. M. Lattimer and M. Prakash, Astrophys. J. 550 (2001), 426

    2001

  28. [35]

    Jiang and K

    N. Jiang and K. Yagi, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) no.12, 124006

    2020

  29. [36]

    Jiang and K

    N. Jiang and K. Yagi, Phys. Rev. D 99, 124029 (2019)

    2019

  30. [37]

    T. K. Chan, A. P. O. Chan and P. T. Leung, Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) no.4, 044017

    2015

  31. [38]

    Posada, J

    C. Posada, J. Hlad ´ ık and Z. Stuchl ´ ık, Phys. Rev. D103 (2021) no.10, 104067

    2021

  32. [39]

    Posada, J

    C. Posada, J. Hlad ´ ık and Z. Stuchl ´ ık, Phys. Rev. D105, 104020 (2022)

    2022

  33. [40]

    Brans and R

    C. Brans and R. H. Dicke, Phys. Rev. 124 (1961), 925- 935

    1961

  34. [41]

    Damour and G

    T. Damour and G. Esposito-Farese, Phys. Rev. D 54 (1996), 1474-1491 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.54.1474 [arXiv:gr-qc/9602056 [gr-qc]]

    1996 arXiv

  35. [42]

    H. O. Silva, H. Sotani, E. Berti and M. Horbatsch, Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) no.12, 124044

    2014

  36. [43]

    Manolidis, doi:10.7936/K7S180MT

    D. Manolidis, doi:10.7936/K7S180MT

    doi

  37. [44]

    Sotani, Phys

    H. Sotani, Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010), 084006

    2010

  38. [45]

    Sotani, Phys

    H. Sotani, Phys. Rev. D 82 (2010), 124061

    2010

  39. [46]

    Sotani, Phys

    H. Sotani, Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012), 124036

    2012

  40. [47]

    K. V. Staykov, D. D. Doneva, S. S. Yazadjiev and K. D. Kokkotas, JCAP 10 (2014), 006

    2014

  41. [48]

    H. O. Silva, C. F. B. Macedo, E. Berti and L. C. B. Crispino, Class. Quant. Grav. 32 (2015), 145008

    2015

  42. [49]

    S. S. Yazadjiev, D. D. Doneva and D. Popchev, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) no.8, 084038

    2016

  43. [50]

    K. V. Staykov, D. Popchev, D. D. Doneva and S. S. Yazadjiev, Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) no.7, 586

    2018

  44. [51]

    Murshid and M

    M. Murshid and M. Kalam, JCAP 09 (2024), 030

    2024

  45. [53]

    M. V. Battisti and G. Montani, Phys. Lett. B 656, 96 (2007)

    2007

  46. [54]

    Shibusa, Int

    Y. Shibusa, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 22, 5279 (2007)

    2007

  47. [55]

    M. V. Battisti and G. Montani, Phys. Rev. D 77, 023518 (2008)

    2008

  48. [56]

    Nozari and S

    K. Nozari and S. Akhshabi, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 19, 513 (2010)

    2010

  49. [57]

    Bojowald and A

    M. Bojowald and A. Kempf, Phys. Rev. D 86, 085017 (2012)

    2012

  50. [58]

    Huang, Acta Phys

    H. Huang, Acta Phys. Sin. 61, 110403 (2012)

    2012

  51. [59]

    Sprenger, P

    M. Sprenger, P. Nicolini and M. Bleicher, Eur. J. Phys. 33, 853 (2012)

    2012

  52. [60]

    M. Isi, J. Mureika and P. Nicolini, JHEP 11, 139 (2013)

    2013

  53. [61]

    A. F. Ali and A. Tawfik, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2013, 18 126528 (2013)

    2013

  54. [62]

    A. N. Tawfik and A. M. Diab, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 23, 1430025 (2014)

    2014

  55. [63]

    J. P. Bruneton and J. Larena, Gen. Rel. Grav. 49, 56 (2017)

    2017

  56. [64]

    J. L. Li and C. F. Qiao, Annalen Phys. 533, 2000335 (2021)

    2021

  57. [65]

    B. N. Jayawiguna, I. Prasetyo, A. Sulaksono and H. S. Ramadhan, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) no.10, 104020

    2022

  58. [66]

    S. De, D. Finstad, J. M. Lattimer, D. A. Brown, E. Berger and C. M. Biwer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) no.9, 091102 [erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) no.25, 259902]

    2018

  59. [67]

    One loop divergencies in the theory of gravitation,

    G. ’t Hooft and M. J. G. Veltman, “One loop divergencies in the theory of gravitation,” Ann. Inst. H. Poincare A Phys. Theor. 20, 69-94 (1974)

    1974

  60. [68]

    One Loop Di- vergences of Quantized Einstein-Maxwell Fields,

    S. Deser and P. van Nieuwenhuizen, “One Loop Di- vergences of Quantized Einstein-Maxwell Fields,” Phys. Rev. D 10, 401 (1974)

    1974

  61. [69]

    Nonrenormalizabil- ity of the Quantized Dirac-Einstein System,

    S. Deser and P. van Nieuwenhuizen, “Nonrenormalizabil- ity of the Quantized Dirac-Einstein System,” Phys. Rev. D 10, 411 (1974)

    1974

  62. [70]

    The Ultraviolet Behavior of Einstein Gravity,

    M. H. Goroff and A. Sagnotti, “The Ultraviolet Behavior of Einstein Gravity,” Nucl. Phys. B 266, 709-736 (1986)

    1986

  63. [71]

    Nicolini, [arXiv:1202.2102 [hep-th]]

    P. Nicolini, [arXiv:1202.2102 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  64. [72]

    Gaete, J

    P. Gaete, J. A. Helayel-Neto and E. Spallucci, Phys. Lett. B 693 (2010), 155-158

    2010

  65. [73]

    J. R. Mureika and E. Spallucci, Phys. Lett. B 693 (2010), 129-133

    2010

  66. [74]

    J. W. Moffat, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 126 (2011), 43

    2011

  67. [75]

    Modesto, J

    L. Modesto, J. W. Moffat and P. Nicolini, Phys. Lett. B 695 (2011), 397-400

    2011

  68. [76]

    M. Isi, J. Mureika and P. Nicolini, JHEP 11, 139 (2013) doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2013)139 [arXiv:1310.8153 [hep-th]]

    2013 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Kempf, G

    A. Kempf, G. Mangano and R. B. Mann, Phys. Rev. D 52, 1108-1118 (1995)

    1995

  70. [78]

    Sprenger, P

    M. Sprenger, P. Nicolini and M. Bleicher, Eur. J. Phys. 33 (2012), 853-862

    2012

  71. [79]

    Modesto, Phys

    L. Modesto, Phys. Rev. D 86, 044005 (2012)

    2012

  72. [80]

    Biswas, E

    T. Biswas, E. Gerwick, T. Koivisto and A. Mazumdar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 031101 (2012)

    2012

  73. [81]

    Damour and A

    T. Damour and A. Nagar, Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009), 084035

    2009

  74. [82]

    Cardoso, E

    V. Cardoso, E. Franzin, A. Maselli, P. Pani and G. Ra- poso, Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) no.8, 084014

    2017

  75. [83]

    B. P. Abbott et al. [LIGO Scientific and Virgo], Astro- phys. J. Lett. 892 (2020) no.1, L3

    2020

  76. [84]

    Antoniadis, P

    J. Antoniadis, P. C. C. Freire, N. Wex, T. M. Tauris, R. S. Lynch, M. H. van Kerkwijk, M. Kramer, C. Bassa, V. S. Dhillon and T. Driebe, et al. Science 340 (2013), 6131

    2013

  77. [85]

    H. T. Cromartie et al. [NANOGrav], Nature Astron. 4 (2019) no.1, 72-76

    2019

  78. [86]

    Fonseca, H

    E. Fonseca, H. T. Cromartie, T. T. Pennucci, P. S. Ray, A. Y. Kirichenko, S. M. Ransom, P. B. Demorest, I. H. Stairs, Z. Arzoumanian and L. Guillemot, et al. Astrophys. J. Lett. 915 (2021) no.1, L12

    2021

  79. [87]

    D. D. Doneva and G. Pappas, Astrophys. Space Sci. Libr. 457 (2018), 737-806

    2018

  80. [88]

    Stuchl ´ ık and J

    Z. Stuchl ´ ık and J. Vrba, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 136 (2021) no.9, 977

    2021

  81. [89]

    Posada and Z

    C. Posada and Z. Stuchl ´ ık, Class. Quant. Grav.40 (2023) no.13, 135009

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.