Local well-posedness of the initial value problem in Einstein-Cartan theory

Filipe C. Mena; Paulo Luz

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Local well-posedness of the initial value problem in Einstein-Cartan theory

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 This paper claims that the Einstein-Cartan field equations—Einstein gravity with a torsion-carrying connection—admit a locally well-posed initial value problem in Gevrey class 2, with the solution determined by data on a spacelike Cauchy…

desk verdict First local well-posedness claim for Einstein-Cartan is plausible and technically substantial, but the advertised equivalence between the reduced hyperbolic system and the full field equations is not proven. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22590 v1 pith:L66G774B submitted 2025-05-28 gr-qc

Paulo Luz , Filipe C. Mena This is my paper

classification gr-qc MSC 83C0535L72 PACS 04.20.Ex04.50.Kd

keywords Einstein-Cartantheorytorsioninitialvalueproblemlocalwell-posednessconstraintpropagationGevreyclassnon-strictlyhyperbolicsystemsn+1formalism

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 aims to prove that the Einstein-Cartan field equations—Einstein gravity with a connection that carries torsion—form a locally well-posed initial value problem. The argument splits spacetime into space plus time, derives constraint and evolution equations from generalized Gauss-Codazzi-Ricci identities, proves that the constraints propagate, and casts the evolution in a quasilinear non-strictly hyperbolic form under a generalized harmonic gauge that fixes lapse and shift. Local existence and uniqueness then follow for sufficiently regular initial data, specifically data in Gevrey class 2, with the domain of dependence determined by the light cone. The result gives Einstein-Cartan theory the same Cauchy-problem standing that Einstein's equations have in general relativity, and it reduces to the classical statement when torsion is switched off.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the $n+1$ splitting of a torsionful Lorentzian manifold: from the generalized Gauss-Codazzi-Ricci embedding equations, the field equations are separated into constraint equations and evolution equations for the induced metric $h_{ab}$, the symmetric part of the second fundamental form $K_{(ab)}$, and two torsion components, $S_{ai}{}^{i}$ and $S_{ab0}$; the remaining torsion components are treated as given. The hyperbolic reduction uses a gauge condition on the lapse that turns the evolution equations into a quasilinear system whose principal operator is triangular with diagonal entries $\Box_h$ and $L_0$, and a characteristic determinant with repeated factors. Well-posedness is then supplied by a theory of non-strictly hyperbolic systems, which requires Gevrey class 2 regularity—functions that are $C^\infty$ with derivatives growing at a controlled rate, strictly between smooth and analytic.

What would settle it

Compute $L_0$ of the residuals of equations (46) and (48) along solutions of the evolution equations (51) and (118), with the hypermomentum held fixed as prescribed; if either residual becomes nonzero immediately off the initial slice for generic Gevrey-regular data, the reduced quasilinear solution is not a full Einstein-Cartan solution and Theorem 1 fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is Theorem 1: given initial data on a Cauchy hypersurface satisfying the constraint equations (43)-(44), a stress-energy tensor satisfying the conservation laws (41), and a hypermomentum tensor satisfying (45)-(48), and assuming one of three regimes—both torsion components $S_{ai}{}^{i}$ and $S_{ab0}$ nonzero, $S_{ai}{}^{i}$ zero, or $S_{ab0}$ zero—the unique local solution of the reduced quasilinear system is a unique local solution of the full Einstein-Cartan equations (39)-(40). The torsion enters the characteristic determinant and produces repeated characteristics, so the system is not strictly hyperbolic; well-posedness holds in Gevrey class 2 rather than in Sobolev spaces. Because the constraints are shown to propagate, the construction is geometric: the solution is determined by data on the initial slice, and its causal domain is the light cone. When the torsion is set to zero, the statement reduces to the classical local well-posedness of the Einstein equations.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the algebraic relations (45)-(48) tying the hypermomentum to the torsion components continue to hold away from the initial slice under the evolution equations, even though the hypermomentum is prescribed ab initio; the paper asserts this bridge but does not prove the propagation of those algebraic constraints.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The Einstein-Cartan system is locally well-posed: for each admissible set of initial geometric data, stress-energy, and hypermomentum, a unique solution exists in a neighborhood of the initial slice and is causal.
The constraint equations are preserved by the evolution, so no extra data beyond the initial slice are needed and the space of admissible Cauchy data is constrained only by the constraints themselves.
Generically the system is non-strictly hyperbolic with repeated characteristics, so well-posedness requires Gevrey-class 2 data; Sobolev-type regularity may be insufficient in the presence of torsion.
In the limit of vanishing torsion, the theorem reproduces the classical well-posedness of the Einstein equations, confirming that the result is a genuine extension rather than a separate theory.

Reading between the lines

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

A likely next step is to check whether the algebraic hypermomentum constraints (45)-(48) are themselves propagated by the evolution equations; if they are not preserved for generic prescribed hypermomentum, Theorem 1 would hold only for matter models that enforce these identities.
The three-case structure suggests that physical regimes in which one torsion component vanishes are qualitatively different: those components become constrained rather than dynamical, changing the counting of initial data.
If a specific matter model supplies evolution equations for the hypermomentum, the system may become strictly hyperbolic and the Gevrey-class condition could be relaxed to ordinary Sobolev regularity.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear colleague,

The reader's report is on target, and I'd sharpen it: the missing bridge in Theorem 1 is the real story. The paper genuinely does two useful things. It derives generalized Gauss-Codazzi-Ricci equations for a connection with torsion, and by the authors' own account the Codazzi, Ricci, and mixed equations (30), (34), (35) are new for general torsion. That part looks solid and is self-contained. It also gives a clean symmetrizable hyperbolic proof that the Hamiltonian and momentum constraints propagate (Prop. 1), assuming the evolution equations hold. That is a real step forward for Einstein-Cartan theory.

The soft spot is exactly where the reader puts it. The path from the reduced quasilinear system to the full Einstein-Cartan equations goes through two unproven claims. First, the reduced system contains Eq. (117), a differentiated consequence of the evolution equation (50), but not (50) itself. The authors never show that a solution of (117)-(118) satisfying (50) initially continues to satisfy (50); one needs a residual propagation argument of the standard sort, and it is absent. Second, the Cartan algebraic constraints (45)-(48) tie torsion components to the hypermomentum, which is prescribed ab initio. But the dynamical variables include S_ab0 and S_aii, which are evolved, and no argument shows that the evolution preserves the relations (46) and (48) for a fixed hypermomentum. Section 5.4 simply asserts the correspondence. This is not a minor omission; it is the load-bearing step between a well-posed reduced system and a theorem about the Einstein-Cartan equations.

That said, I do not think the paper is circular or sloppy. The derivations are lengthy but structured, and the geometric results are likely correct. The gap is fixable: either prove the residual propagation and the preservation of the algebraic constraints under appropriate compatibility conditions on the hypermomentum, or restate Theorem 1 for a generalized system where the troublesome torsion components are treated as prescribed inputs.

Who is this for? Mathematical relativists working on well-posedness of modified gravity, and numerical relativists who want a starting point for EC simulations. It deserves a serious referee—the geometric part alone warrants it—but the advertised theorem needs major revision before it can stand as stated.

Recommendation: send to peer review, with an explicit request that the referee check the reduction from the reduced system back to (39)-(40).

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper studies the initial value problem in Einstein-Cartan theory, which couples the metric to a metric-compatible connection with torsion. The authors perform an n+1 decomposition, derive the Gauss-Codazzi-Ricci equations in the presence of torsion, and split the field equations into constraint and evolution equations. They prove that the Hamiltonian and momentum constraints are propagated by the evolution (Proposition 1), and then, after imposing an algebraic gauge, they propose three reduced quasilinear systems corresponding to whether the torsion components S_ab0 and S_ii are nonzero or zero. Using Leray-Ohya theory for non-strictly hyperbolic systems, they claim local well-posedness in Gevrey class 2. The central result is Theorem 1, which asserts that solutions of the reduced systems correspond to solutions of the full Einstein-Cartan field equations (39)-(40).

Significance. If Theorem 1 were fully established, the paper would provide the first local well-posedness result for the Einstein-Cartan initial value problem, generalizing the classical Choquet-Bruhat-York theorem for general relativity. The explicit derivation of the torsion-corrected Gauss-Codazzi-Ricci equations and the clean symmetrizable hyperbolic system used in Proposition 1 are useful and original contributions. However, the claimed equivalence between the reduced hyperbolic systems and the full Einstein-Cartan equations is not proven, and the treatment of the prescribed hypermomentum is internally inconsistent. The significance of the paper is therefore conditional on closing these gaps.

major comments (3)

[Section 5.4, Theorem 1; Eqs. (117)-(118)] The central equivalence claim is not established. The reduced systems (75), (84), and (87) contain Eq. (117), which is derived in Appendix C after using Eq. (50), but they do not contain Eq. (50) itself. No argument is given that a solution of the differentiated system (117)-(118) satisfies the original evolution equation (50). One would need to show that the residual F_ab := [LHS - RHS of (50)] satisfies a homogeneous linear evolution system with zero Cauchy data. Without such a proof, uniqueness of the reduced solution does not imply that Eq. (50) holds. Moreover, Proposition 1, which is used to propagate the constraints, has as hypothesis that the evolution equations (50) and (51) hold; since the reduced systems do not include (50), Proposition 1 cannot be applied to them as stated. This gap is load-bearing for Theorem 1.
[Section 4.2 and Theorem 1; Eqs. (45)-(48)] The compatibility of the prescribed hypermomentum with the evolution of S_ab0 and S_ii is not addressed. If Delta_ab0 and Delta_ii are prescribed ab initio, Eq. (46) fixes S_ab0 = -8 pi Delta_ab0 and Eq. (48) fixes S_ii, while the reduced systems evolve these torsion components (e.g., Eq. (118) in case 1 and Eq. (82) in case 2). No evolution equation for Delta is specified, and no proof is given that the algebraic relations (45)-(48) are preserved by the torsion dynamics. The statement of Theorem 1 is therefore ambiguous: either Delta is determined by the torsion evolution, contradicting the assumption that it is given ab initio, or Delta is prescribed and the reduced systems are overdetermined. This is a second load-bearing gap.
[Appendix B, Eqs. (104)-(105)] The conservation laws for the stress-energy tensor are assumed, but in the reduced formulation T is given ab initio while the torsion components are evolved. Equations (104)-(105) contain L0 derivatives of S_abc, S_ab0, and K_ab, so they impose constraints on the evolution of the geometric variables. The paper does not prove that these constraints are compatible with the reduced systems or that they are propagated in time. Theorem 1 assumes T verifies Eq. (41), but no argument shows that this is consistent with the reduced evolution equations. This is another unproven compatibility condition that affects the validity of Theorem 1.

minor comments (4)

[Introduction, page 3] The word 'analiticity' should be 'analyticity'.
[Theorem 1] The initial data are only said to satisfy the constraint equations (43)-(44), but the torsion components are part of the initial data; the algebraic constraints (45)-(49) should also be listed explicitly among the initial conditions.
[Proposition 2 proof] The characteristic determinant is stated separately for a not equal to b and a equal to b; presenting the full matrix determinant and its factorization would make the Cauchy-regularity argument easier to verify.
[Section 4.2, Eq. (44)] The momentum constraint contains the term 2 S_aij K_ji with a specific index contraction; a short note defining the contraction convention would help readers compare with the torsion-free GR literature.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the well-posedness argument is built from stated field equations, a gauge choice, and external Leray-Ohya theory; self-citations are background only.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain from the n+1 constraints (43)-(48) through the constraint-propagation Proposition 1 to the reduced hyperbolic systems (75), (84), and (87), I find no step in which a claimed prediction is constructed from its own target by definition or by fitting. The propagation argument introduces residual variables Sigma00 and Sigmaa0 and derives a first-order symmetrizable hyperbolic system (69)-(71) for them; the residuals are defined independently of the conclusion, and their vanishing is exactly the constraint equations. The wave equations in Appendix C follow from the Palatini identity, the algebraic gauge (73), and the stated field equations; they are not derived from the well-posedness claim. The Leray-Ohya and Choquet-Bruhat-York results are external, established mathematical theorems that are applied rather than rederived or replaced by self-citation. The authors' prior works are cited only for physical background (e.g., compact objects, singularities, cosmology), and none of those citations is load-bearing for the IVP proof. The skeptic's objection is that Theorem 1 asserts a correspondence between solutions of the reduced system and solutions of (39)-(40) without proving recovery of (50) from (117)-(118) or propagation of the Cartan constraints (45)-(48). That is a genuine completeness or correctness gap, but it is not circularity: the converse direction is not proved, but it is also not assumed as a premise, not built into the definition of the reduced system, and not equivalent to the input by construction. Under the given rubric, non-circular mathematical gaps do not raise the circularity score.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities. It postulates that some torsion components are known functions, which is a modeling input, not an invented object. The main axioms are the foliation assumption, the matter-given-ab-initio assumption, the prescription of certain torsion components, the gauge choice, and the standard non-strict hyperbolicity theory.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The spacetime admits a foliation by spacelike hypersurfaces and the congruence conditions of Lemma 1 hold.
Invoked in Section 3.2 (Lemma 1) to derive the generalized Gauss-Codazzi-Ricci equations, which are the foundation of the n+1 decomposition.
domain assumption Matter is given ab initio: the stress-energy tensor Tαβ verifies the conservation laws (41), and the hypermomentum Δαβγ verifies the Cartan constraints (45)-(48).
Stated in Section 5.4 before Theorem 1; this is the input data for the geometric well-posedness result and is not derived from a specific matter Lagrangian.
ad hoc to paper The torsion components Sa, S0ab, and the traceless part of Sabc are prescribed functions of spacetime rather than determined by the hypermomentum.
Assumed in Section 4.2 after Eq. (52) to close the system; this changes the nature of the theory compared to standard Einstein-Cartan where all torsion components are algebraically fixed by the hypermomentum.
domain assumption The algebraic gauge (73)-(74) is imposed, fixing the densitized lapse.
Used in Section 5 to remove non-hyperbolic terms and derive the quasilinear wave equations for K(ab).
standard math Leray-Ohya well-posedness theory for non-strictly hyperbolic systems applies to the derived Cauchy-regular quasilinear systems.
Invoked in Propositions 2, 3, and 4 to conclude local existence and uniqueness in Gevrey classes; cited to references [35, 36].

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Local well-posedness of the initial value problem in Einstein-Cartan theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L66G774B

@misc{pith2026250522590,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Local well-posedness of the initial value problem in Einstein-Cartan theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L66G774B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22590}
}

abstract

We study the initial value problem in Einstein-Cartan theory which includes torsion and, therefore, a non-symmetric connection on the spacetime manifold. Generalizing the path of a classical theorem by Choquet-Bruhat and York for the Einstein equations, we use a $n+1$ splitting of the manifold and compute the evolution and constraint equations for the Einstein-Cartan system. In the process, we derive the Gauss-Codazzi-Ricci equations including torsion. We prove that the constraint equations are preserved during evolution. Imposing a generalized harmonic gauge, it is shown that the evolution equations can be cast as a quasilinear system in a Cauchy regular form with a characteristic determinant having a non-trivial multiplicity of characteristics. Using the Leray-Ohya theory for non-strictly hyperbolic systems we then establish the local geometric well-posedness of the Cauchy problem, for sufficiently regular initial data. For vanishing torsion we recover the classical results for the Einstein equations.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Higher-derivative gravitational effective field theories are generically weakly hyperbolic
gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

Any pure-metric higher-derivative gravity EFT with derivative-independent characteristics has a weakly hyperbolic physical spin-2 block that gauge fixing and constraint addition cannot remove.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Avalos, D

G. Avalos, D. McKnight and S. McKnight, ”Gevrey Regularity for a Fluid–Structure Interaction Model”, J Optim Theory Appl 205, 11 (2025)

work page 2025
[2]

On the Cauchy problem for Weyl- geometric scalar-tensor theories of gravity

R. Avalos, I. P. Lobo, T. Sanomiya and C. Romero, “On the Cauchy problem for Weyl- geometric scalar-tensor theories of gravity”, J. Math. Phys. 59, 062502 (2018)

work page 2018
[3]

Einstein’s Equations and Equivalent Hyperbolic Dynamical Systems

A. Anderson, Y. Choquet-Bruhat and J. W. York, “Einstein’s Equations and Equivalent Hyperbolic Dynamical Systems”, In: S. Cotsakis, G.W. Gibbons (eds) Mathematical and Quantum Aspects of Relativity and Cosmology. Lecture Notes in Physics, vol 537. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

work page
[4]

Dynamical systems applied to cosmology: dark energy and modified gravity

S. Bahamonde, C. Boehmer, S. Carloni, E. Copeland, et. al., “Dynamical systems applied to cosmology: dark energy and modified gravity”, Phys. Rept. 775, 1 (2018)

work page 2018
[5]

Friedmann-like universes with weak torsion: a dynamical system approach

J.D. Barrow, C.G. Tsagas and G. Fanaras, “Friedmann-like universes with weak torsion: a dynamical system approach”, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 764 (2019)

work page 2019
[6]

Challenges to global solutions in Horndeski’s the- ory

L. Bernard, L. Lehner and R. Luna, “Challenges to global solutions in Horndeski’s the- ory”, Phys. Rev. D 100, 024011 (2019)

work page 2019
[7]

Blagojevi´ c and F

M. Blagojevi´ c and F. W. Hehl, eds., Gauge Theories of Gravitation: A Reader with Commentaries, (Imperial College Press, London, 2013)

work page 2013
[8]

Parametric manifolds I: Extrinsic Approach

S. Boersma and T. Dray, “Parametric manifolds I: Extrinsic Approach”, J. Math. Phys. 36, 1378 (1995)

work page 1995

Show all 55 references

[9]

Cosmological signatures of torsion and how to distinguish torsion from the dark sector

K. Bolejko, M. Cinus and B. F. Roukema, “Cosmological signatures of torsion and how to distinguish torsion from the dark sector”, Phys. Rev. D 101, 104046 (2020)

2020
[10]

Theoreme d’ existence pour certain systemes d’equations aux derivees par- tielles nonlinaires

Y. Bruhat, “Theoreme d’ existence pour certain systemes d’equations aux derivees par- tielles nonlinaires”, Acta Math. 88, 141 (1952)

1952
[11]

J. Y. Chemin, Perfect Incompressible Fluids, Oxford Lecture Series in Mathematics and its Applications, vol. 14, Clarendon Press/Oxford University Press, New York (1998)

1998
[12]

Analytic and Gevrey class regularity for parametric semilinear reaction-diffusion problems and applications in uncertainty quantification

A. Chernov and T. Le, “Analytic and Gevrey class regularity for parametric semilinear reaction-diffusion problems and applications in uncertainty quantification”, Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 164, 116 (2024)

2024
[13]

Geometrical well posed systems for the Einstein equations

Y. Choquet-Bruhat and J. W. York, “Geometrical well posed systems for the Einstein equations.”, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 321, S´ erie I, 1089 (1995). 26

1995
[14]

Well posed reduced systems for the Einstein equa- tions

Y. Choquet-Bruhat and J. W. York, “Well posed reduced systems for the Einstein equa- tions”. Banach Center Publications, Part 1, 41, 119 (1997)

1997
[15]

Hyperbolicity of the 3+1 system of Einstein equa- tions

Y. Choquet-Bruhat and T. Ruggeri, “Hyperbolicity of the 3+1 system of Einstein equa- tions”, Commun. Math. Phys. 89, 269 (1983)

1983
[16]

Choquet-Bruhat, General Relativity and the Einstein equations , (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2009)

Y. Choquet-Bruhat, General Relativity and the Einstein equations , (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2009)

2009
[17]

Chu, J.-M

J. Chu, J.-M. Coron, P. Shang and S.-X Tang, ”Gevrey class regularity of a semigroup associated with a nonlinear Korteweg–de Vries equation”, Chin. Ann. Math. Ser. B 39, 201-212 (2018)

2018
[18]

Cauchy problem in the scalar-tensor gravitational the- ory

W. J. Cocke and J. M. Cohen, “Cauchy problem in the scalar-tensor gravitational the- ory”, J. Math. Phys. 9, 971 (1968)

1968
[19]

Strong hyperbolicity in Gevrey classes

F. Colombini, N. Orr` u and G. Taglialatela, “Strong hyperbolicity in Gevrey classes”, Journal of Differential Equations 272, 222 (2021)

2021
[20]

Analysis of big bounce in Einstein–Cartan cosmol- ogy

J. L. Cubero and N. J. Pop lawski, “Analysis of big bounce in Einstein–Cartan cosmol- ogy”, Class. Quantum Grav. 37, 025011 (2020)

2020
[21]

Initial value formulation of dynamical Chern- Simons gravity

T. Delsate, D. Hilditch and H. Witek, “Initial value formulation of dynamical Chern- Simons gravity”, Phys. Rev. D 91, 024027 (2015)

2015
[22]

Evolution of Einstein-scalar-Gauss-Bonnet gravity using a modified harmonic formulation

W. E. East and J. L. Ripley, “Evolution of Einstein-scalar-Gauss-Bonnet gravity using a modified harmonic formulation”, Phys. Rev. D 103, 044040 (2021)

2021
[23]

Feischl, and C

M. Feischl, and C. Schwab, ”Exponential convergence in of hp-FEM for Gevrey regularity with isotropic singularities”, Numer. Math. 144, 323–346 (2020)

2020
[24]

f (R) theories

A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa, “ f (R) theories”, Living Rev. Rel. 13, 3 (2016)

2016
[25]

Cosmological Tests of Gravity

P. Ferreira, “Cosmological Tests of Gravity”, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 57, 335 (2019)

2019
[26]

The Einstein Evolution Equations as a First-Order Sym- metric Hyperbolic Quasilinear System

A. Fischer and J. Marsden, “The Einstein Evolution Equations as a First-Order Sym- metric Hyperbolic Quasilinear System”, Commun. Math. Phys. 28, 1 (1972)

1972
[27]

How does one measure torsion of space-time?

F. W. Hehl, “How does one measure torsion of space-time?”, Phys. Lett. A 36, 225 (1971)

1971
[28]

Well-posed quasi-linear second order hyperbolic systems with applications to nonlinear elastodynamics and general relativity

T. Hughes, T. Kato and J. Marsden, “Well-posed quasi-linear second order hyperbolic systems with applications to nonlinear elastodynamics and general relativity”, Arch. Rat. Mech. Anal. 63, 273 (1976)

1976
[29]

Lorentz invariance and the gravitational field

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

1961
[30]

Torsion driving cosmic expan- sion

J. Kirsch, D.Vasak, A. van de Venn and J. Struckmeier, “Torsion driving cosmic expan- sion”, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 425 (2023). 27

2023
[31]

Well-Posed Formulation of Scalar-Tensor Effective Field Theory

A. D. Kov´ acs and H. S. Reall, “Well-Posed Formulation of Scalar-Tensor Effective Field Theory”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 221101 (2020)

2020
[32]

Well-posed formulation of Lovelock and Horndeski the- ories

A. D. Kov´ acs and H. S. Reall,“ Well-posed formulation of Lovelock and Horndeski the- ories”, Phys. Rev. D 101, 124003 (2020)

2020
[33]

Differential Forms and Wave Equations for General Relativity

S. R. Lau, “Differential Forms and Wave Equations for General Relativity”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 7, 857 (1998)

1998
[34]

The mathematical validity of the f (R) theory of modified gravity

P. G. LeFloch and Y. Ma, “The mathematical validity of the f (R) theory of modified gravity”, M´ em. French Math. Soc.,150, 1 (2017)

2017
[35]

Leray, Hyperbolic Differential Equations, Lecture notes, Institute for Advanced Stud- ies, Princeton, New Jersey, 1953

J. Leray, Hyperbolic Differential Equations, Lecture notes, Institute for Advanced Stud- ies, Princeton, New Jersey, 1953

1953
[36]

Equations et Systemes Non-Lineaires hyperboliques non-strict

J. Leray and Y. Ohya, “Equations et Systemes Non-Lineaires hyperboliques non-strict”, Math. Ann. 170, 167 (1967)

1967
[37]

Singularity theorems and the inclusion of torsion in affine theories of gravity

P. Luz and F. C. Mena, “Singularity theorems and the inclusion of torsion in affine theories of gravity”, J. Math. Phys. 61, 012502 (2020)

2020
[38]

Influence of intrinsic spin in the formation of sin- gularities for inhomogeneous effective dust space-times

P. Luz, F. C. Mena and A. H. Ziaie, “Influence of intrinsic spin in the formation of sin- gularities for inhomogeneous effective dust space-times”, Class. Quant. Grav. 36, 015003 (2019)

2019
[39]

Static compact objects in Einstein-Cartan theory

P. Luz and S. Carloni, “Static compact objects in Einstein-Cartan theory”, Phys. Rev. D 100, 084037 (2019)

2019
[40]

Relativistic cosmology and intrinsic spin of matter: Results and theorems in Einstein-Cartan theory

P. Luz and J. P. S. Lemos, “Relativistic cosmology and intrinsic spin of matter: Results and theorems in Einstein-Cartan theory”, Phys. Rev. D 107, 084004 (2023)

2023
[41]

Low-redshift constraints on homogeneous and isotropic universes with torsion

C. M. J. Marques and C. J. A. P. Martins, “Low-redshift constraints on homogeneous and isotropic universes with torsion”, Phys. Dark Univ., 27, 100416 (2020)

2020
[42]

The initial value formulation of higher derivative gravity

D. R. Noakes, “The initial value formulation of higher derivative gravity”, J. Math. Phys. 24, 1846 (1983)

1983
[43]

Paicu and V

M. Paicu and V. Vicol, ”Analyticity and Gevrey-Class Regularity for the Second-Grade Fluid Equations”, J. Math. Fluid Mech. 13, 533–555 (2011)

2011
[44]

On the local well-posedness of Lovelock and Horndeski theories

G. Papallo and H. S. Reall, “On the local well-posedness of Lovelock and Horndeski theories”, Phys. Rev. D, 96, 044019 (2017)

2017
[45]

Causality and hyperbolicity of Lovelock theories

H. S. Reall, N. Tanahashi and B. Way, “Causality and hyperbolicity of Lovelock theories”, Class. Quant. Grav. 31, 205005 (2014)

2014
[46]

Reula, Hyperbolic Methods for Einstein’s Equations, Liv

O. Reula, Hyperbolic Methods for Einstein’s Equations, Liv. Rev. Relativ. 1 (1998) 3

1998
[47]

Hyperbolicity in spherical gravitational collapse in a Horndeski theory

J. L. Ripley and F. Pretorius, “Hyperbolicity in spherical gravitational collapse in a Horndeski theory”, Phys. Rev. D 99, 084014 (2019)

2019
[48]

The Cauchy problem of scalar-tensor theories of gravity

M. Salgado, “The Cauchy problem of scalar-tensor theories of gravity”, Class. Quantum Grav. 23, 4719 (2006). 28

2006
[49]

D. W. Sciama, On the analogy between charge and spin in general relativity , in Recent Developments in General Relativity (Pergamon, Oxford, 1962), ed. Editorial Committee of the Book commemorating the 60th Birthday, in the year 1958, of Leopold Infeld, p. 415

1962
[50]

Can spin avert singularities?

J. Stewart, P. H´ aj ´ ıˇ cek, “Can spin avert singularities?”, Nature Phys. Sci.244, 96 (1973)

1973
[51]

The Cauchy problem for the R+R2 theories of gravity without torsion

P. Teyssandier and Ph. Tourrenc, “The Cauchy problem for the R+R2 theories of gravity without torsion”, J. Math. Phys. 24, 2793 (1983)

1983
[52]

Hyperbolicity in scalar- Gauss-Bonnet gravity: A gauge invariant study for spherical evolution

F. Thaalba, N. Franchini, M. Bezares, and T. P. Sotiriou, “Hyperbolicity in scalar- Gauss-Bonnet gravity: A gauge invariant study for spherical evolution”, Phys. Rev. D 111, 024053 (2025)

2025
[53]

Spin and torsion may avert gravitational singularities

A. Trautman, “Spin and torsion may avert gravitational singularities”, Nature Phys. Sci. 242, 7 (1973)

1973
[54]

Toward Singularity Theorems with Torsion

A. van de Venn, U. Agarwal and D. Vasak, “Toward Singularity Theorems with Torsion”, Phys. Rev. D 110, 064082 (2024)

2024
[55]

Gravitational-Wave Tests of General Relativity with Ground- Based Detectors and Pulsar-Timing Arrays

N. Yunes and X. Siemens, “Gravitational-Wave Tests of General Relativity with Ground- Based Detectors and Pulsar-Timing Arrays”, Living Rev. Rel., 16, 9 (2013). 29

2013

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Avalos, D

G. Avalos, D. McKnight and S. McKnight, ”Gevrey Regularity for a Fluid–Structure Interaction Model”, J Optim Theory Appl 205, 11 (2025)

work page 2025

[2] [2]

On the Cauchy problem for Weyl- geometric scalar-tensor theories of gravity

R. Avalos, I. P. Lobo, T. Sanomiya and C. Romero, “On the Cauchy problem for Weyl- geometric scalar-tensor theories of gravity”, J. Math. Phys. 59, 062502 (2018)

work page 2018

[3] [3]

Einstein’s Equations and Equivalent Hyperbolic Dynamical Systems

A. Anderson, Y. Choquet-Bruhat and J. W. York, “Einstein’s Equations and Equivalent Hyperbolic Dynamical Systems”, In: S. Cotsakis, G.W. Gibbons (eds) Mathematical and Quantum Aspects of Relativity and Cosmology. Lecture Notes in Physics, vol 537. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

work page

[4] [4]

Dynamical systems applied to cosmology: dark energy and modified gravity

S. Bahamonde, C. Boehmer, S. Carloni, E. Copeland, et. al., “Dynamical systems applied to cosmology: dark energy and modified gravity”, Phys. Rept. 775, 1 (2018)

work page 2018

[5] [5]

Friedmann-like universes with weak torsion: a dynamical system approach

J.D. Barrow, C.G. Tsagas and G. Fanaras, “Friedmann-like universes with weak torsion: a dynamical system approach”, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 764 (2019)

work page 2019

[6] [6]

Challenges to global solutions in Horndeski’s the- ory

L. Bernard, L. Lehner and R. Luna, “Challenges to global solutions in Horndeski’s the- ory”, Phys. Rev. D 100, 024011 (2019)

work page 2019

[7] [7]

Blagojevi´ c and F

M. Blagojevi´ c and F. W. Hehl, eds., Gauge Theories of Gravitation: A Reader with Commentaries, (Imperial College Press, London, 2013)

work page 2013

[8] [8]

Parametric manifolds I: Extrinsic Approach

S. Boersma and T. Dray, “Parametric manifolds I: Extrinsic Approach”, J. Math. Phys. 36, 1378 (1995)

work page 1995