Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 147 references

New constraints on modified gravity with dimension-six operators from gravitational waves

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Gravitational-wave timing and the absence of mode splitting bound a dimension-six Lorentz-violating extension of gravity to millimeter scales for nonbirefringent coefficients and to ten-micron scales for birefringent ones.

desk verdict A careful SME gravity paper that genuinely derives dim-6 dispersion relations from the nonlinear action and gives explicit GW-based bounds, but the advertised constraints are narrower than the abstract suggests because of the on-shell vs. arbitrary-momentum Bianchi reduction. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.01118 v1 pith:LK43O4Y4 submitted 2026-08-02 gr-qc hep-phhep-th

Justo López-Sarrión , Carlos M. Reyes , César Riquelme , Marco Schreck This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qchep-phhep-th PACS 04.50.Kd04.60.Bc04.30.-w04.30.Nk
keywords gravitationalwavesLorentzviolationStandard-ModelExtensiondimension-sixoperatorsmodifieddispersionrelationsbirefringenceGW170817GW150914
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 works within the gravitational Standard-Model Extension, the general catalogue of coordinate-invariant terms that break spacetime symmetries, and asks what a particular dimension-six term does to gravitational-wave propagation. That term, two Riemann tensors contracted with a fixed background field, is linearized around Minkowski spacetime to produce modified dispersion relations for the two polarizations, which split into nonbirefringent and birefringent sectors. The paper uses the 1.74-second lead of GW170817 over its gamma-ray burst GRB 170817A to bound the nonbirefringent coefficients to roughly $10^{-5}$ to $10^{-4}\;\mathrm{m}^2$, and the absence of an observable mode split in GW150914 to bound the birefringent coefficients to roughly $10^{-10}$ to $10^{-8}\;\mathrm{m}^2$. Its message is that standard linearized gravity still passes these tests: nonbirefringent modifications are excluded down to millimeters and birefringent ones down to about ten microns.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the eighth-rank background field $(k_R)^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta\mu\nu\rho\sigma}$, which has the symmetries of a product of two Riemann tensors. Linearization and Fourier transformation turn the gravitational-wave equation into a $10\times 10$ matrix whose vanishing determinant yields the dispersion relations. The contracted Bianchi identity $\sum_{\mathrm{cyclic}(\gamma\delta\varrho)} (k_R)^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta\nu\sigma\rho\mu} = 0$ cuts the coefficient space from 210 to 105 components and filters out the topological surface terms. This identity, together with the determinant computation, is the mechanism that converts the action-level modification into testable timing and birefringence predictions.

What would settle it

One concrete test is to observe a binary-black-hole merger like GW150914 with enough time resolution to resolve the two polarization modes: if the modes arrive separated by more than the roughly 0.003 seconds that the paper takes as the no-split threshold, the birefringent bounds fail. A separate check is to construct a solution with a spacetime-dependent $k_R$ and show that the contracted Bianchi identity is violated, which would invalidate the reduction from 210 to 105 coefficients and hence the dispersion relations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the dimension-six operator $(k_R)^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta\mu\nu\rho\sigma} R_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} R_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}$, with a spacetime-constant background field, gives gravitational waves dispersion relations of the form $\omega \approx |\mathbf p|\bigl(1 + \zeta \bar{k}_R |\mathbf p|^2\bigr)$ in the isotropic nonbirefringent case, and analogous birefringent relations in which the two polarizations propagate at different speeds. The linearized second Bianchi identities impose a contracted identity on $k_R$ that reduces the 210 index-symmetry coefficients to 105 observable ones and removes the topological Chern-Simons and Gauss-Bonnet surface terms. On this basis the paper states its headline bounds: nonbirefringent modifications of linearized gravity are excluded at the millimeter level, whereas the sensitivity to birefringence ranges down to 10 microns.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes the background field $k_R$ is effectively constant over the propagation region after linearization, and that the contracted Bianchi identity genuinely reduces its independent components; if $k_R$ carries spacetime dependence, the derived dispersion relations and the bounds built on them do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A future multimessenger event at larger distance with a tighter arrival-time difference would directly strengthen the nonbirefringent bounds, because the sensitivity grows with distance and with the inverse square of the wavelength.
  • A single well-resolved gravitational-wave event that shows no polarization mode splitting bounds birefringent coefficients on its own, without needing an electromagnetic counterpart.
  • If the dispersion relations are correct, a measured frequency-dependent speed difference that scales as frequency squared would point to this dimension-six operator rather than to lower-dimensional Lorentz violation.
  • The same $10\times 10$ wave-operator and determinant machinery can be applied to the second dimension-six term $k_D$ and to higher-dimension operators, giving a template for further constraints.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is to combine all events in existing gravitational-wave catalogs instead of single events; because the birefringent coefficients are anisotropic, a sky-averaged search could beat the single-event bounds.
  • The millimeter and ten-micron length scales could be cross-checked against laboratory short-range gravity experiments that probe the same class of dimension-six coefficients at a very different physical scale.
  • Because only three isotropic nonbirefringent sectors survive (EE, BB, EB), an isotropic signal, if ever observed, would identify one of those three coefficient combinations rather than most other configurations.
  • If $k_R$ is promoted to a spacetime-dependent field, the gravitational Chern-Simons sector becomes physical; a dedicated analysis of time-dependent backgrounds could reveal propagation effects that the constant-background bounds miss.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies gravitational-wave propagation in the gravitational Standard-Model Extension with dimension-six operators of the form k_R R R and k_D nabla-nabla R. After linearizing the action around Minkowski space and discarding the k_D sector, the authors derive modified wave equations and dispersion relations for the trace-reversed metric perturbation. The k_R coefficients are decomposed under SO(3) and, subject to a contracted Bianchi-type identity (Eq. (28)), reduced from 210 to 105 totally-symmetric components. The paper obtains covariant dispersion relations for nonbirefringent and birefringent sectors, identifies isotropic configurations, and derives bounds from the GW170817/GRB170817A arrival-time difference and the absence of mode splitting in GW150914. The reported results constrain nonbirefringent dim-6 coefficients to about 10^-5 to 10^-4 m^2 and birefringent coefficients to about 10^-10 to 10^-8 m^2, corresponding to 'millimeter' and '10 micron' sensitivity.

Significance. If the derivation stands, the paper is a useful extension of the SME gravitational-wave program: it starts from the nonlinear action rather than from a linearized ansatz, derives the dispersion relations in two independent ways (determinant of the 10x10 matrix and wedge-product method in Sec. III C 1), and provides explicit tables of bounds for a large set of component coefficients. The group-theoretic classification of the 210 coefficients and the identification of the eight isotropic combinations are also valuable reference results. These strengths, plus the explicit cross-checks, make the paper a solid contribution to the literature on Lorentz-violation tests with gravitational waves, provided the main premise about the Bianchi reduction is either rigorously justified or clearly labeled as an assumption.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III A 2, Eqs. (25)-(28)] The reduction from the 210 index-symmetric components of k_R to the 105 totally-symmetric components is the load-bearing step for all subsequent bounds, because Eqs. (36)-(45) and Tables V and VII are derived after Eq. (28). The justification offered, that K p^sigma=0 must hold for arbitrary p^sigma since non-generic wave vectors form a set of measure zero, is not sufficient: the linearized field equations only require the divergence-type consistency condition to hold on-shell, i.e., for momenta satisfying det M-bar = 0. A non-totally-symmetric k_R could in principle satisfy the weaker on-shell condition for the specific plane-wave modes of GW170817 and GW150914 without obeying Eq. (28). This is not merely hypothetical, as the paper itself shows in Sec. III C 3 and Sec. III D that non-totally-symmetric coefficients and spacetime-dependent coefficients (e.g., Chern-Simons with theta = theta_0 t) evade the reduction and produce different dispersion relations. The abstract and Section V should therefore state the constraints as conditional on spacetime-constant, totally-symmetric k_R; otherwise the millimeter and 10-micron claims are not supported by the derivation.
  2. [Sec. III A 2, Eq. (27)] The frequency-domain condition is written as K_{...} p^sigma = 0, but the position-space expression Eq. (26) is preceded by an equation containing two derivatives, partial_sigma partial_rho (Eq. (25)). As written, no p^rho appears in Eq. (27), so the reader cannot verify the step that removes one momentum factor before the 'measure-zero' argument. Please display the contraction with p^rho explicitly, or state the index convention that makes Eq. (27) the correct Fourier transform of Eq. (26).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table I] In the EE and BB rows, the entry '(6x7)/2 = 2115' should presumably read '21' for the number of independent components, with '15' after the Bianchi reduction; the current typesetting is confusing.
  2. [Eq. (35b)] The displayed Lichnerowicz operator contains a term with delta_rho_sigma that is not a valid index structure in the symmetrized expression; one of the delta symbols should carry a mu or nu index. Please correct the typo.
  3. [Sec. III C 1] The text 'amounts to 55 6' should be typeset as the binomial coefficient C(55,6) = 28,989,675; as written it is not readable.
  4. [Sec. IV B] The birefringent bound uses the threshold Delta t < 0.003 s from Ref. [56] and the nonbirefringent bounds use f = 100 Hz and (Delta T)_int = 10 s; these are estimates, and a sentence reporting how Tables V and VII change under reasonable variations of these choices would help the reader assess the robustness of the quoted constraints.
  5. [References] Ref. [139] duplicates Ref. [137], and Ref. [103] appears in the bibliography but does not seem to be cited in the text; please clean up the reference list.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the dispersion relations are derived from the stated action, and the bounds follow from external time-of-flight and mode-splitting data without fitting the target coefficients.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The modified wave equations follow from linearizing the explicitly written action (Eqs. (1), (8), (9), (11)), and the dispersion relations of Eqs. (36)-(45) are obtained by solving det(M)=0 and cross-checked with the wedge-product method; no coefficient is defined in terms of the gravitational-wave data. The 210-to-105 reduction via the Bianchi-type identity Eq. (28) is an internal mathematical argument (with the measure-zero kernel discussion), not an imported uniqueness theorem, and its applicability to totally symmetric k_R is explicitly scoped. The phenomenological bounds in Tables V and VII are obtained by comparing the derived group-velocity modifications to the GW170817/GRB170817A time delay (from Refs. [104-107]) and the absence of an observed mode split in GW150914 with the 0.003 s threshold (from Ref. [56]); these are external benchmarks, not fitted inputs renamed as predictions. The present authors' own prior work (e.g., Refs. [13,14,36,37,50,51,108]) is cited for context, unitarity, or boundary terms, but none of these citations carries the central derivation or the bounds. The assumption of spacetime-constant background fields is stated as a 'mild and reasonable assumption' and the paper explicitly acknowledges the limitations of the linearized and constant-k_R regime, including the possibility of non-totally-symmetric configurations (Sec. III C 3) and spacetime-dependent CS terms (Sec. III D). These are scope limitations or correctness risks, not circular steps. The reader's skepticism about the measure-zero argument is a technical robustness concern about the reduction, but it does not constitute self-definition, self-citation load-bearing, or fitted-input-as-prediction. Hence no pattern of circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The derivation itself is mostly self-contained, but the phenomenological bounds depend on several hand-chosen external inputs, and the theoretical framework relies on the constant-coefficient and Bianchi reduction. No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Intrinsic time delay (Delta T)_int = 10 s
    Chosen by hand in Sec. IV A as a conservative estimate for the delay between gravitational-wave and photon emission in the BNS merger. It sets the asymmetric lower and upper bounds in Eq. (57) and Table V.
  • Gravitational-wave frequency f = 100 Hz
    Chosen in Sec. IV A as a conservative estimate for GW170817. Because the dim-6 correction scales as omega squared, this value directly controls the magnitude of the derived bounds.
  • Birefringent mode-splitting threshold Delta t = 0.003 s
    Adopted from Ref. [56] in Sec. IV B as the maximum unresolved arrival-time difference for the two GW150914 modes. All birefringent bounds in Table VII scale with this number.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The background fields k_R and k_D are nondynamical and break diffeomorphism invariance explicitly.
    Introduced in Sec. II, Eq. (1); the linearized analysis in Sec. III takes k_R as spacetime-constant on Minkowski background, which is a nontrivial idealization.
  • domain assumption Only the k_R operator contributes to the gravitational-wave analysis; the k_D operator is omitted.
    Sec. III states the k_D term is left for future work; all dispersion relations and constraints apply only to the k_R R R operator.
  • domain assumption Photon-sector Lorentz violation is absent.
    Sec. IV A states: 'any kind of Lorentz violation in the photon sector is disregarded in the present work.'
  • domain assumption The Universe is LCDM with Omega_r = 0 = Omega_k, Omega_m = 0.311, Omega_Lambda = 0.689, and H0 = 67.7 km s^-1 Mpc^-1.
    Sec. IV A uses these Planck 2018 parameters in the arrival-time integral of Eq. (52).
  • domain assumption The contracted Bianchi identity Eq. (28) is imposed, reducing k_R from 210 to 105 independent components.
    Sec. III A 2 derives this from the differential Bianchi identities under the assumption that coefficients are constant and no accidental kernel on-shell; it eliminates CS and EGB surface terms. If this reduction fails, the dispersion relations and bounds do not follow.
  • domain assumption Maximum-reach single-coefficient analysis: exactly one k_R coefficient is nonzero at a time.
    Sec. IV A states 'SME coefficients are taken as nonzero, only one at a time.' This gives the strictest possible constraints and ignores cancellation among multiple coefficients.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of New constraints on modified gravity with dimension-six operators from gravitational waves." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LK43O4Y4

@misc{pith2026260801118,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: New constraints on modified gravity with dimension-six operators from gravitational waves},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LK43O4Y4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01118}
}
read the original abstract

The present article deals with gravitational-wave propagation affected by higher-derivative terms that break spacetime symmetries. Two dimension-6 contributions of the gravitational Standard-Model Extension pose our starting point. A linearization of the action implies a wave equation that contains additional terms with spacetime-constant background fields. The modified dispersion relations in covariant form for gravitational waves are derived, where we distinguish between nonbirefringent and birefringent sectors. A classification of the coefficients in terms of sets with index structures resembling those of the electromagnetic fields has proven to be valuable. We constrain the nonbirefringent coefficients based on the measured arrival time difference between the gravitational wave and photons from the events GW170817 and GRB 170817A, respectively. Bounds on the birefringent coefficients result from the absence of a perceivable separation of the two modes in the event GW150914. These findings quantify the extent to which standard linearized gravity is valid based on the modifications considered.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

147 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (14), setting the expression equal to 0, and solving forp 0

    Computation The dispersion relations straightforwardly follow from evaluating the determinant of the(10×10)matrix ¯Min Eq. (14), setting the expression equal to 0, and solving forp 0. Note thatdet( ¯M) = 0is not an identity since the gauge has been fixed. Therefore, the dispersion relations can actually be computed in this way for each controlling coeffic...

  2. [2]

    The linear mapsMcan be combined to form a multilinear map from the wedge product of initial four- vectors to the wedge product of transformed four-vectors {A′,B′,C′,D′}: A′∧B′∧C′∧D′ = (MA)∧(MB)∧(MC)∧(MD) = (M∧M∧M∧M)A∧B∧C∧D := (∧(4)M)A∧B∧C∧D,(34a) or in components A′ µ∧B′ ν∧C′ ρ∧D′ σ = (M α µ ∧M β ν ∧M γ ρ ∧M δ σ ) ×Aα∧Bβ∧Cγ∧Dδ.(34b) 12 Here and in the fol...

  3. [3]

    Explicit findings As discussed in Sec. IIIA, the second Bianchi identities reduce the 210 independent coefficients deduced from in- dex symmetries to the set of 105 components transform- ing under the first representation on the right-hand side of Eq. (16). Consequently,˜Kµ◦ν◦ρ◦σ◦ is rendered totally symmetric. We then obtain the following dispersion re- ...

  4. [4]

    IIIA2 in detail, the second Bianchi identities mandate thatkR be completely sym- metric

    Lack of total symmetry As described within Sec. IIIA2 in detail, the second Bianchi identities mandate thatkR be completely sym- metric. However, it was also explained how the pres- ence of spacetime-dependent scalar fields obstructs that the Bianchi identities are applied. Suitable integrations by parts remove derivatives and generate vector-valued backg...

  5. [5]

    According to the decompo- sitions of Eq

    Isotropic modified propagation While isotropic sets of symmetry-violating coefficients are tied to a specific observer frame only, they play an exceptional role in any study. According to the decompo- sitions of Eq. (32), each sector has at least one isotropic coefficient. Suitable traces over the spatial indices of the coefficients in Tab. I provide rota...

    2017

  6. [6]

    EE sector Compatibility with the symmetries implies theansatz Kansatz EE = (˚kR)1T1 + (˚kR)2T2 +K traceless EE ,(A3a) expressedasafunctionoftheisotropiccoefficients( ˚kR)1,2 governing each of the two isotropic sectors according to the group-theory finding of Eq. (32a). Then, T1·K ansatz EE = (˚kR)1 = 1 3 X i,j (kR)0i0i0j0j,(A3b) T2·K ansatz EE = 5(˚kR)2 =...

  7. [7]

    Hence, the results to be found for BB resemble those of EE

    BB sector The BB sector is dual to EE and vice versa. Hence, the results to be found for BB resemble those of EE. We propose theansatz Kansatz BB = (˚kR)3T1 + (˚kR)4T2 +K traceless BB ,(A6a) such that T1·K ansatz BB = (˚kR)3 = 1 12 X i,j,k,l (kR)ijijklkl ,(A6b) T2·K ansatz BB = 5(˚kR)4 = 1 4 X i,j,k,l (kR)ijklijkl− 1 3(kR)ijijklkl . (A6c) SolvingK BB =K a...

  8. [8]

    EB sector We make theansatz Kansatz EB = (˚kR)5T1 + (˚kR)6T2 +K traceless EB ,(A9a) such that T1·K ansatz EB = (˚kR)5 = 1 6 X i,j,k (kR)0i0ijkjk ,(A9b) T2·K ansatz EB = 5(˚kR)6 = 1 3 X i,j,k (kR)0i0ijkjk− X i,j,k (kR)0i0jkikj . (A9c) As before, the isotropic configurations are solutions of KEB =K ansatz EB , where the traceless part is set to zero: Kii;ii...

Show all 147 references
  1. [9]

    (A13b) In fact, nontrivial solutions toK EG =K ansatz EG and KBG =K ansatz BG were not found to exist

    EG and BG sectors Here, the followingansätzeare proposed: Kansatz EG = (˚kR)7T2 +K traceless EG ,(A12a) Kansatz BG = (˚kR)8T2 +K traceless BG .(A12b) Applying the second projector leads to T2·K ansatz EG = 5(˚kR)7 = 1 2 X i,p q,r ϵpqr(kR)0i0p0iqr,(A13a) T2·K ansatz BG = 5(˚kR)...

  2. [10]

    Näherungsweise Integration der Feldgle- ichungen der Gravitation,

    A. Einstein, “Näherungsweise Integration der Feldgle- ichungen der Gravitation,” Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Math. Phys.)1916, 688 (1916)

    1916

  3. [11]

    Über Gravitationswellen,

    A. Einstein, “Über Gravitationswellen,” Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Math. Phys.)1918, 154 (1918)

    1918

  4. [12]

    Moore,A General Relativity Workbook(University Science Books, 2013)

    T.A. Moore,A General Relativity Workbook(University Science Books, 2013)

    2013

  5. [13]

    Relativistic binary pulsar B1913+16: Thirty years of observations and analysis,

    J.M. Weisberg and J.H. Taylor, “Relativistic binary pulsar B1913+16: Thirty years of observations and analysis,” ASP Conf. Ser.328, 25 (2005), arXiv:astro- ph/0407149

    2005

  6. [14]

    Relativistic measure- ments from timing the binary pulsar PSR B1913+16,

    J.M. Weisberg and Y. Huang, “Relativistic measure- ments from timing the binary pulsar PSR B1913+16,” Astrophys. J.829, 55 (2016), arXiv:1606.02744 [astro- ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Ob- servation of gravitational waves from a binary black hole merger,

    B.P. Abbottet al.[LIGO Scientific and Virgo], “Ob- servation of gravitational waves from a binary black hole merger,” Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  8. [16]

    GWTC-3: Compact binary coalescences ob- served by LIGO and Virgo during the second part of the third observing run,

    R. Abbottet al.[KAGRA, VIRGO and LIGO Sci- entific], “GWTC-3: Compact binary coalescences ob- served by LIGO and Virgo during the second part of the third observing run,” Phys. Rev. X13, 041039 (2023), arXiv:2111.03606 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Gravity, Lorentz violation, and the standard model,

    V.A. Kostelecký, “Gravity, Lorentz violation, and the standard model,” Phys. Rev. D69, 105009 (2004), arXiv:hep-th/0312310

    2004 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Backgrounds in gravita- tional effective field theory,

    V.A. Kostelecký and Z. Li, “Backgrounds in gravita- tional effective field theory,” Phys. Rev. D103, 024059 (2021), arXiv:2008.12206 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Noether identities in grav- ity theories with nondynamical backgrounds and ex- plicit spacetime symmetry breaking,

    R. Bluhm and A. Sehic, “Noether identities in grav- ity theories with nondynamical backgrounds and ex- plicit spacetime symmetry breaking,” Phys. Rev. D94, 104034 (2016), arXiv:1610.02892 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Gravity with ex- plicit spacetime symmetry breaking and the Standard- Model Extension,

    R. Bluhm, H. Bossi, and Y. Wen, “Gravity with ex- plicit spacetime symmetry breaking and the Standard- Model Extension,” Phys. Rev. D100, 084022 (2019), arXiv:1907.13209 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Gravity with explicit dif- feomorphism breaking,

    R. Bluhm and Y. Yang, “Gravity with explicit dif- feomorphism breaking,” Symmetry13, 660 (2021), arXiv:2104.05879 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Hamiltonian formula- tion of an effective modified gravity with nondynamical background fields,

    C.M. Reyes and M. Schreck, “Hamiltonian formula- tion of an effective modified gravity with nondynamical background fields,” Phys. Rev. D104, 124042 (2021), arXiv:2105.05954 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Modified-gravity theories with nondynamical background fields,

    C.M. Reyes and M. Schreck, “Modified-gravity theories with nondynamical background fields,” Phys. Rev. D 106, 044050 (2022), arXiv:2202.11881 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Explicit versus spontaneous diffeomorphism breaking in gravity,

    R. Bluhm, “Explicit versus spontaneous diffeomorphism breaking in gravity,” Phys. Rev. D91, 065034 (2015), arXiv:1401.4515 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Gravity theories with background fields and spacetime symmetry breaking,

    R. Bluhm, “Gravity theories with background fields and spacetime symmetry breaking,” Symmetry9, 230 (2017), arXiv:1710.10615 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Spontaneous and explicit spacetime symmetry breaking in Einstein-Cartan the- ory with background fields,

    R. Bluhm and Y. Zhi, “Spontaneous and explicit spacetime symmetry breaking in Einstein-Cartan the- ory with background fields,” Symmetry16, 25 (2024), arXiv:2312.14071 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Spontaneous Lorentz violation, Nambu-Goldstone modes, and gravity,

    R. Bluhm and V.A. Kostelecký, “Spontaneous Lorentz violation, Nambu-Goldstone modes, and gravity,” Phys. Rev. D71, 065008 (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0412320

    2005 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Spacetime symmetry breaking and Einstein- Maxwell theory,

    R. Bluhm, “Spacetime symmetry breaking and Einstein- Maxwell theory,” Phys. Rev. D92, 085015 (2015), arXiv:1508.03888 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Scalar-tensor model of hybrid spacetime symmetry violation in gravity and its Hamiltonian formulation,

    M. Schreck and J.V.V. Santos, “Scalar-tensor model of hybrid spacetime symmetry violation in gravity and its Hamiltonian formulation,” Phys. Rev. D112, 064026 (2025), arXiv:2407.20688 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Finsler,Über Kurven und Flächen in allgemeinen Räumen(Gebr

    P. Finsler,Über Kurven und Flächen in allgemeinen Räumen(Gebr. Leemann & Co., Zürich, 1918)

    1918

  23. [31]

    Bao, S.-S

    D. Bao, S.-S. Chern, and Z. Shen,An Introduction to Riemann-Finsler Geometry(Springer, NewYork, 2000)

    2000

  24. [32]

    Riemann-Finsler geometry and Lorentz-violating kinematics,

    V.A. Kostelecký, “Riemann-Finsler geometry and Lorentz-violating kinematics,” Phys. Lett. B701, 137 (2011), arXiv:1104.5488 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Bipar- tite Riemann-Finsler geometry and Lorentz violation,

    V.A. Kostelecký, N. Russell, and R. Tso, “Bipar- tite Riemann-Finsler geometry and Lorentz violation,” Phys.Lett.B716, 470(2012), arXiv:1209.0750[hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Finsler-like structures from Lorentz- breaking classical particles,

    N. Russell, “Finsler-like structures from Lorentz- breaking classical particles,” Phys. Rev. D91, 045008 (2015), arXiv:1501.02490 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Classical Lagrangians and Finsler struc- turesforthenonminimalfermionsectoroftheStandard- Model Extension,

    M. Schreck, “Classical Lagrangians and Finsler struc- turesforthenonminimalfermionsectoroftheStandard- Model Extension,” Phys. Rev. D93, 105017 (2016), arXiv:1512.04299 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Riemann-Finsler geometry and Lorentz-violating scalar fields,

    B.R. Edwards and V.A. Kostelecký, “Riemann-Finsler geometry and Lorentz-violating scalar fields,” Phys. Lett. B786, 319 (2018), arXiv:1809.05535 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Characteristic tensors for almost Finsler manifolds,

    J.F. Davis, B.R. Edwards and V.A. Kostelecký, “Characteristic tensors for almost Finsler manifolds,” arXiv:2508.21744 [math.DG]. 23

  30. [38]

    Classical kinematics for Lorentz violation,

    V.A. Kostelecký and N. Russell, “Classical kinematics for Lorentz violation,” Phys. Lett. B693, 443 (2010), arXiv:1008.5062 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Classical Lagrangians for momentum dependent Lorentz violation,

    D. Colladay and P. McDonald, “Classical Lagrangians for momentum dependent Lorentz violation,” Phys. Rev. D85, 044042 (2012), arXiv:1201.3931 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Classical kinematics for isotropic, minimal Lorentz-violating fermion operators,

    M. Schreck, “Classical kinematics for isotropic, minimal Lorentz-violating fermion operators,” Phys. Rev. D91, 105001 (2015), arXiv:1409.1539 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Reis and M

    J.A.A.S. Reis and M. Schreck, Leading-order clas- sical Lagrangians for the nonminimal standard- model extension,” Phys. Rev. D97, 065019 (2018), arXiv:1711.11169 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Classical Lagrangians for the nonmin- imal Standard-Model Extension at higher orders in Lorentz violation,

    M. Schreck, “Classical Lagrangians for the nonmin- imal Standard-Model Extension at higher orders in Lorentz violation,” Phys. Lett. B793, 70 (2019), arXiv:1903.05064 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Classical Lagrangians forthenonminimalspin-nondegenerateStandard-Model Extension at higher orders in Lorentz violation,

    J.A.A.S. Reis and M. Schreck, “Classical Lagrangians forthenonminimalspin-nondegenerateStandard-Model Extension at higher orders in Lorentz violation,” Phys. Rev. D103, 095029 (2021), arXiv:2102.10164 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Alterna- tive classical Lagrangians for the Standard-Model Ex- tension,

    J.A.A.S. Reis, M. Schreck, and R. Thibes, “Alterna- tive classical Lagrangians for the Standard-Model Ex- tension,” arXiv:2603.06714 [hep-ph]

  37. [45]

    Reduced geometry and its role in explicit spacetime symmetry violation,

    C.M. Reyes, C. Riquelme, M. Schreck, and A. Soto, “Reduced geometry and its role in explicit spacetime symmetry violation,” Phys. Rev. D111, 124011 (2025), arXiv:2407.19264 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Cosmologywith explicit and spontaneous background fields,

    C.M.Reyes, C.Riquelme, andA.Soto, “Cosmologywith explicit and spontaneous background fields,” JCAP05, 014 (2025), arXiv:2407.13041 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Gödel- symmetric backgrounds and explicit spacetime symme- try breaking,

    C. Riquelme, C.M. Reyes, and A.F. Santos, “Gödel- symmetric backgrounds and explicit spacetime symme- try breaking,” arXiv:2601.20003 [gr-qc]

  40. [48]

    Search for Lorentz vio- lation in short-range gravity,

    J.C. Long and V.A. Kostelecký, “Search for Lorentz vio- lation in short-range gravity,” Phys. Rev. D91, 092003 (2015), arXiv:1412.8362 [hep-ex]

    2015 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Search for Lorentz invariance viola- tion through tests of the gravitational inverse square law at short-ranges,

    C.-G. Shao, Y.-J. Tan, W.-H. Tan, S.-Q. Yang, J. Luo, and M.E. Tobar, “Search for Lorentz invariance viola- tion through tests of the gravitational inverse square law at short-ranges,” Phys. Rev. D91, 102007 (2015), arXiv:1504.03280 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Combined search for Lorentz violation in short-range gravity,

    C.-G. Shao, Y.-J. Tan, W.-H. Tan, S.-Q. Yang, J. Luo, M.E. Tobar, Q.G. Bailey, J.C. Long, E. Weisman, R. Xu, and V.A. Kostelecký, “Combined search for Lorentz violation in short-range gravity,” Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 071102 (2016), arXiv:1607.06095 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Gravitational radiation and the ultimate speed in Rosen’s bimetric theory of gravity,

    C.M. Caves, “Gravitational radiation and the ultimate speed in Rosen’s bimetric theory of gravity,” Annals Phys.125, 35 (1980)

    1980

  44. [52]

    Lower bound on the propagation speed of gravity from gravitational Cherenkov radiation,

    G.D. Moore and A.E. Nelson, “Lower bound on the propagation speed of gravity from gravitational Cherenkov radiation,” JHEP09, 023 (2001), arXiv:hep- ph/0106220

    2001

  45. [53]

    Constrain- ing the new Aether: Gravitational Cerenkov radiation,

    J.W. Elliott, G.D. Moore, and H. Stoica, “Constrain- ing the new Aether: Gravitational Cerenkov radiation,” JHEP08, 066 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0505211

    2005 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Constraints on gen- eral second-order scalar-tensor models from gravita- tional Cherenkov radiation,

    R. Kimura and K. Yamamoto, “Constraints on gen- eral second-order scalar-tensor models from gravita- tional Cherenkov radiation,” JCAP07, 050 (2012), arXiv:1112.4284 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Grav- itational Cherenkov radiation from extended theories of gravity,

    M. De Laurentis, S. Capozziello, and G. Basini, “Grav- itational Cherenkov radiation from extended theories of gravity,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A27, 1250136 (2012), arXiv:1206.6681 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Constraints on Lorentz violation from gravitational Čerenkov radia- tion,

    V.A. Kostelecký and J.D. Tasson, “Constraints on Lorentz violation from gravitational Čerenkov radia- tion,” Phys. Lett. B749, 551 (2015), arXiv:1508.07007 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Constraint on modified dispersion relations for gravitational waves from gravi- tational Cherenkov radiation,

    S. Kiyota and K. Yamamoto, “Constraint on modified dispersion relations for gravitational waves from gravi- tational Cherenkov radiation,” Phys. Rev. D92, 104036 (2015), arXiv:1509.00610 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  50. [58]

    DatatablesforLorentz and CPT violation,

    V.A.KosteleckýandN.Russell, “DatatablesforLorentz and CPT violation,” Rev. Mod. Phys.83, 11 (2011), arXiv:0801.0287 [hep-ph]

    2011

  51. [59]

    Perturbative S-matrix unitarity and higher-order Lorentz violation,

    J. López-Sarrión, C.M. Reyes, and C. Riquelme, “Perturbative S-matrix unitarity and higher-order Lorentz violation,” Phys. Rev. D108, 015012 (2023), arXiv:2303.09689 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Tree- level unitarity, causality, and higher-order Lorentz and CPT violation,

    J. López-Sarrión, C.M. Reyes, and C. Riquelme, “Tree- level unitarity, causality, and higher-order Lorentz and CPT violation,” Phys. Rev. D106, 095006 (2022), arXiv:2206.05784 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Unitarity in Stück- elberg electrodynamics modified by a Carroll-Field- Jackiw term,

    M.M. Ferreira, J.A. Helayël-Neto, C.M. Reyes, M. Schreck, and P.D.S. Silva, “Unitarity in Stück- elberg electrodynamics modified by a Carroll-Field- Jackiw term,” Phys. Lett. B804, 135379 (2020), arXiv:2001.04706 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Causality and stability for Lorentz-CPT violating electrodynamics with dimension-5 operators,

    C.M. Reyes, “Causality and stability for Lorentz-CPT violating electrodynamics with dimension-5 operators,” Phys. Rev. D82, 125036 (2010), arXiv:1011.2971 [hep- ph]

    2010 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Constraining generic Lorentz violation and the speed of the gravi- ton with gravitational waves,

    S. Mirshekari, N. Yunes, and C.M. Will, “Constraining generic Lorentz violation and the speed of the gravi- ton with gravitational waves,” Phys. Rev. D85, 024041 (2012), arXiv:1110.2720 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Projected con- straints on Lorentz-violating gravity with gravita- tional waves,

    D. Hansen, N. Yunes, and K. Yagi, “Projected con- straints on Lorentz-violating gravity with gravita- tional waves,” Phys. Rev. D91, 082003 (2015), arXiv:1412.4132 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Testing local Lorentz invariance with gravitational waves,

    V.A. Kostelecký and M. Mewes, “Testing local Lorentz invariance with gravitational waves,” Phys. Lett. B757, 510 (2016), arXiv:1602.04782 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Lorentz and diffeo- morphism violations in linearized gravity,

    V.A. Kostelecký and M. Mewes, “Lorentz and diffeo- morphism violations in linearized gravity,” Phys. Lett. B779, 136 (2018), arXiv:1712.10268 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Nonminimal Lorentz violation in linearized gravity,

    M. Mewes, “Nonminimal Lorentz violation in linearized gravity,” arXiv:1906.02267 [gr-qc]

    1906 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Signals for Lorentz violation in gravi- tational waves,

    M. Mewes, “Signals for Lorentz violation in gravi- tational waves,” Phys. Rev. D99, 104062 (2019), arXiv:1905.00409 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Modifications to plane gravitational waves from minimal Lorentz violation,

    R. Xu, “Modifications to plane gravitational waves from minimal Lorentz violation,” Symmetry11, 1318 (2019), arXiv:1910.09762 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Fermionic Lorentz violation and its im- plications for interferometric gravitational-wave de- tection,

    M. Schreck, “Fermionic Lorentz violation and its im- plications for interferometric gravitational-wave de- tection,” Class. Quant. Grav.34, 135009 (2017), arXiv:1603.07452 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Neutron star structure in the minimal gravitational Standard-Model Extension and the implication to continuous gravitational waves,

    R. Xu, J. Zhao, and L. Shao, “Neutron star structure in the minimal gravitational Standard-Model Extension and the implication to continuous gravitational waves,” Phys. Lett. B803, 135283 (2020), arXiv:1909.10372 [gr- qc]

    2020 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Precession of spheroids under Lorentz violation and observational consequences for neutron stars,

    R. Xu, Y. Gao, and L. Shao, “Precession of spheroids under Lorentz violation and observational consequences for neutron stars,” Phys. Rev. D103, 084028 (2021), arXiv:2012.01320 [gr-qc]. 24

    2021 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Signatures of Lorentz violation in continuous gravitational-wave spectra of ellipsoidal neutron stars,

    R. Xu, Y. Gao, and L. Shao, “Signatures of Lorentz violation in continuous gravitational-wave spectra of ellipsoidal neutron stars,” Galaxies9, 12 (2021), arXiv:2101.09431 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Classical radiation fields for scalar, elec- tromagnetic, and gravitational waves with spacetime- symmetry breaking,

    Q.G. Bailey, A.S. Gard, N.A. Nilsson, R. Xu, and L. Shao, “Classical radiation fields for scalar, elec- tromagnetic, and gravitational waves with spacetime- symmetry breaking,” Annals Phys.461, 169582 (2024), arXiv:2307.13374 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Nontenso- rial gravitational wave polarizations from the tenso- rial degrees of freedom: Linearized Lorentz-violating theory of gravity,

    S. Hou, X.L. Fan, T. Zhu, and Z.H. Zhu, “Nontenso- rial gravitational wave polarizations from the tenso- rial degrees of freedom: Linearized Lorentz-violating theory of gravity,” Phys. Rev. D109, 084011 (2024), arXiv:2401.03474 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Mea- suring the speed of gravitational waves from the first and second observing run of Advanced LIGO and Ad- vanced Virgo,

    X. Liu, V.F. He, T.M. Mikulski, D. Palenova, C.E. Williams, J. Creighton, and J.D. Tasson, “Mea- suring the speed of gravitational waves from the first and second observing run of Advanced LIGO and Ad- vanced Virgo,” Phys. Rev. D102, 024028 (2020), arXiv:2005.03121 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Measuring gravi- tational wave speed and Lorentz violation with the first three gravitational-wave catalogs,

    A. Ray, P. Fan, V.F. He, M. Bloom, S.M. Yang, J.D. Tasson, and J.D.E. Creighton, “Measuring gravi- tational wave speed and Lorentz violation with the first three gravitational-wave catalogs,” Phys. Rev. D110, 122001 (2024), arXiv:2307.13099 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Testing Lorentz symmetry with space-based gravitational-wave detectors,

    C.G. Qin, J. Ke, Q. Li, Y. F. Chen, J. Luo, Y.J. Tan, and C.G. Shao, “Testing Lorentz symmetry with space-based gravitational-wave detectors,” Class. Quant. Grav.40, 205005 (2023), arXiv:2310.09224 [gr- qc]

    2023 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Gravitational-wave gener- ation in the presence of Lorentz invariance violation,

    S. Aoulad Lafkih, M.C. Angonin, C. Le Poncin- Lafitte, and N.A. Nilsson, “Gravitational-wave gener- ation in the presence of Lorentz invariance violation,” arXiv:2506.08859 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  72. [80]

    Gravi- tational waves in a minimal gravitational SME,

    A.A. Araújo Filho, N. Heidari, and I.P. Lobo, “Gravi- tational waves in a minimal gravitational SME,” Phys. Lett. B875, 140350 (2026), arXiv:2602.09183 [gr-qc]

    2026

  73. [81]

    Combined search for anisotropic birefringence in the gravitational-wave transient catalog GWTC-1,

    L. Shao, “Combined search for anisotropic birefringence in the gravitational-wave transient catalog GWTC-1,” Phys. Rev. D101, 104019 (2020), arXiv:2002.01185 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Analysis of birefringence and dispersion effects from spacetime-symmetry breaking in gravita- tional waves,

    K. O’Neal-Ault, Q.G. Bailey, T. Dumerchat, L. Haegel, and J. Tasson, “Analysis of birefringence and dispersion effects from spacetime-symmetry breaking in gravita- tional waves,” Universe7, 380 (2021), arXiv:2108.06298 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  75. [83]

    New limits on the Lorentz/CPT symmetry through 50 gravitational- wave events,

    Z. Wang, L. Shao, and C. Liu, “New limits on the Lorentz/CPT symmetry through 50 gravitational- wave events,” Astrophys. J.921, 158 (2021), arXiv:2108.02974 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Testing Lorentz invari- ance of gravity in the Standard-Model Extension with GWTC-3,

    R. Niu, T. Zhu, and W. Zhao, “Testing Lorentz invari- ance of gravity in the Standard-Model Extension with GWTC-3,” JCAP12, 011 (2022), arXiv:2202.05092 [gr- qc]

    2022 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Search for anisotropic, bire- fringent spacetime-symmetry breaking in gravitational wave propagation from GWTC-3,

    L. Haegel, K. O’Neal-Ault, Q.G. Bailey, J.D. Tasson, M. Bloom, and L. Shao, “Search for anisotropic, bire- fringent spacetime-symmetry breaking in gravitational wave propagation from GWTC-3,” Phys. Rev. D107, 6 (2023), arXiv:2210.04481 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Gravitational wave constraints on nonbirefringent dispersions of gravitational waves due to Lorentz violations with GWTC-3 events,

    C. Gong, T. Zhu, R. Niu, Q. Wu, J.L. Cui, X. Zhang, W. Zhao, and A. Wang, “Gravitational wave constraints on nonbirefringent dispersions of gravitational waves due to Lorentz violations with GWTC-3 events,” Phys. Rev. D107, 124015 (2023), arXiv:2302.05077 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Modified gravitational wave propagations in linearized gravity with Lorentz and diffeomorphism violations and their gravitational wave constraints,

    Q. Wang, J.M. Yan, T. Zhu, and W. Zhao, “Modified gravitational wave propagations in linearized gravity with Lorentz and diffeomorphism violations and their gravitational wave constraints,” Phys. Rev. D111, 8 (2025), arXiv:2501.11956 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Propaga- tion effects of Lorentz violation in gravitational waves,

    A.A. Araújo Filho, N. Heidari, and I.P. Lobo, “Propaga- tion effects of Lorentz violation in gravitational waves,” arXiv:2602.19186 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  81. [89]

    Constraining grav- itational wave velocities using gravitational and elec- tromagnetic wave observations of white dwarf bina- ries,

    T.Y. Cao, A. Kumar, and S.X. Yi, “Constraining grav- itational wave velocities using gravitational and elec- tromagnetic wave observations of white dwarf bina- ries,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.533, 551 (2024). arXiv:2408.02235 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Simulation study on constraining gravitational wave propagation speed by gravitational wave and gamma-ray burst joint observation on binary neutron star mergers,

    J. H. Rao, S.X. Yi, L. Tao, and Q.W. Tang, “Simulation study on constraining gravitational wave propagation speed by gravitational wave and gamma-ray burst joint observation on binary neutron star mergers,” Res. As- tron. Astrophys.24, 085004 (2024), arXiv:2405.13314 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Effects of spontaneous Lorentz violation in gravitational waves solutions,

    K.M. Amarilo, M.B.F. Filho, and R.V. Maluf, “Effects of spontaneous Lorentz violation in gravitational waves solutions,” arXiv:1812.04105 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  84. [92]

    Polarizations of gravitational waves in the bumblebee gravity model,

    D. Liang, R. Xu, X. Lu and L. Shao, “Polarizations of gravitational waves in the bumblebee gravity model,” Phys. Rev. D106(2022), 124019 arXiv:2207.14423 [gr- qc]

    2022 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Gravitational waves effects in a Lorentz- violating scenario,

    K.M. Amarilo, M.B.F. Filho, A.A.A. Filho and J.A.A.S. Reis, “Gravitational waves effects in a Lorentz- violating scenario,” Phys. Lett. B855, 138785 (2024), arXiv:2307.10937 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Stability analysis of cosmological perturbations in the bumblebee model: Parameter constraints and gravitational waves,

    X.B. Lai, Y.Q. Dong, Y.Z. Fan, and Y.X. Liu, “Stability analysis of cosmological perturbations in the bumblebee model: Parameter constraints and gravitational waves,” Phys. Rev. D113, 044003 (2026), arXiv:2509.13958 [gr- qc]

    2026

  87. [95]

    Primordial gravitational waves from spontaneous Lorentz symmetry breaking,

    M. Khodadi, G. Lambiase, L. Mastrototaro, and T.K. Poddar, “Primordial gravitational waves from spontaneous Lorentz symmetry breaking,” Phys. Lett. B867, 139597 (2025), arXiv:2501.14395 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Periodic orbits and gravi- tational waveforms of black holes in bumblebee gravity,

    Z. Shi, X. Zhang, and Y. Liu, “Periodic orbits and gravi- tational waveforms of black holes in bumblebee gravity,” arXiv:2603.14413 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  89. [97]

    GW170104: Observation of a 50-solar-mass binary black hole coalescence at redshift 0.2,

    B.P. Abbottet al.[LIGO Scientific and VIRGO], “GW170104: Observation of a 50-solar-mass binary black hole coalescence at redshift 0.2,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 221101 (2017), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 129901 (2018)] arXiv:1706.01812 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Tests of general relativity with the binary black hole signals from the LIGO-Virgo catalog GWTC-1,

    B.P. Abbottet al.[LIGO Scientific and Virgo], “Tests of general relativity with the binary black hole signals from the LIGO-Virgo catalog GWTC-1,” Phys. Rev. D 100, 104036 (2019), arXiv:1903.04467 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Constraints on Lorentz invariance violations from gravitational wave observations,

    A. Samajdar [LIGO Scientific and Virgo], “Constraints on Lorentz invariance violations from gravitational wave observations,” arXiv:1906.05933 [gr-qc]

    1906 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Tests of general relativity with binary black holes from the sec- ond LIGO-Virgo gravitational-wave transient catalog,

    R. Abbottet al.[LIGO Scientific and Virgo], “Tests of general relativity with binary black holes from the sec- ond LIGO-Virgo gravitational-wave transient catalog,” Phys. Rev. D103, 122002 (2021), arXiv:2010.14529 [gr- qc]

    2021 arXiv

  93. [101]

    TestsofgeneralrelativitywithGWTC-3,

    R. Abbottet al.[LIGO Scientific, VIRGO and KA- GRA],“TestsofgeneralrelativitywithGWTC-3,” Phys. Rev. D112, 084080 (2025), arXiv:2112.06861 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Searching for new physics during gravita- tional waves propagation,

    L. Haegel, “Searching for new physics during gravita- tional waves propagation,” arXiv:2106.05097 [gr-qc]. 25

    arXiv

  95. [103]

    Testing general relativity with gravitational waves: Improving and extending modified dispersion relation tests,

    T. Baka, B. Cirok, K. Haris, J. Noller, and N.V. Kr- ishnendu, “Testing general relativity with gravitational waves: Improving and extending modified dispersion relation tests,” Phys. Rev. D113, 064064 (2026), arXiv:2511.00497 [gr-qc]

    2026

  96. [104]

    Comments on graviton propagation in light of GW150914,

    J. Ellis, N.E. Mavromatos, and D.V. Nanopou- los, “Comments on graviton propagation in light of GW150914,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A31, 1675001 (2016), arXiv:1602.04764 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Propagation of gravitational wavesinacosmologicalbackground,

    X. Gao and X.Y. Hong, “Propagation of gravitational wavesinacosmologicalbackground,” Phys.Rev.D101, 064057 (2020), arXiv:1906.07131 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Gravitational wave constraints on spatial covariant gravities,

    T. Zhu, W. Zhao, and A. Wang, “Gravitational wave constraints on spatial covariant gravities,” Phys. Rev. D107, 044051 (2023), arXiv:2211.04711 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  99. [107]

    Con- straintsonHořava-LifshitzgravityfromGRB170817A,

    T. Zhang, F.W. Shu, Q.W. Tang, and D.H. Du, “Con- straintsonHořava-LifshitzgravityfromGRB170817A,” Eur. Phys. J. C80, 1062 (2020), arXiv:2011.00816 [gr- qc]

    2020 arXiv

  100. [108]

    Gravitational wave constraints on Lorentz and parity violations in gravity: High-order spatial derivative cases,

    C. Gong, T. Zhu, R. Niu, Q. Wu, J.L. Cui, X. Zhang, W. Zhao, and A. Wang, “Gravitational wave constraints on Lorentz and parity violations in gravity: High-order spatial derivative cases,” Phys. Rev. D105, 044034 (2022), arXiv:2112.06446 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  101. [109]

    Constraints on parity and Lorentz violations in gravity from GWTC-3 through a parametrization of modified gravitational wave propagations,

    T. Zhu, W. Zhao, J.M. Yan, Y.Z. Wang, C. Gong, and A. Wang, “Constraints on parity and Lorentz violations in gravity from GWTC-3 through a parametrization of modified gravitational wave propagations,” Phys. Rev. D110, 064044 (2024), arXiv:2304.09025 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  102. [110]

    Lorentz symmetry in ghost-free massive gravity,

    V.A. Kostelecký and R. Potting, “Lorentz symmetry in ghost-free massive gravity,” Phys. Rev. D104(2021), arXiv:2108.04213 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  103. [111]

    Gravitational wave signatures of peri- odicmotionnearhigher-derivativeEinstein-Ætherblack holes,

    S. Choudhury, M.K. Hossain, G. Bauyrzhan, and K. Yerzhanov, “Gravitational wave signatures of peri- odicmotionnearhigher-derivativeEinstein-Ætherblack holes,” arXiv:2507.00904 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  104. [112]

    Constraining Lorentz and parity violations in gravity with multiband gravitational wave observations,

    Z.X. Jia, T. Zhu, and Z. Cao, “Constraining Lorentz and parity violations in gravity with multiband gravitational wave observations,” arXiv:2601.03571 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  105. [113]

    GW170817: Observation of gravitational waves from a binary neutron star inspiral,

    B.P. Abbottet al.[LIGO Scientific and Virgo], “GW170817: Observation of gravitational waves from a binary neutron star inspiral,” Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 161101 (2017), arXiv:1710.05832 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  106. [114]

    An ordinary short gamma-ray burst with extraordinary implications: Fermi-GBM detection of GRB 170817A,

    A. Goldsteinet al.“An ordinary short gamma-ray burst with extraordinary implications: Fermi-GBM detection of GRB 170817A,” Astrophys. J. Lett.848, L14 (2017), arXiv:1710.05446 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  107. [115]

    Savchenkoet al.‘INTEGRAL Detection of the first prompt gamma-ray signal coincident with the gravitational-wave Event GW170817,” Astrophys

    V. Savchenkoet al.‘INTEGRAL Detection of the first prompt gamma-ray signal coincident with the gravitational-wave Event GW170817,” Astrophys. J. Lett.848, L15 (2017), arXiv:1710.05449 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  108. [116]

    Gravitational waves and gamma- rays from a binary neutron star merger: GW170817 and GRB 170817A,

    B.P. Abbottet al.[LIGO Scientific, Virgo, Fermi-GBM and INTEGRAL], “Gravitational waves and gamma- rays from a binary neutron star merger: GW170817 and GRB 170817A,” Astrophys. J. Lett.848, L13 (2017), arXiv:1710.05834 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  109. [117]

    The boundary of the grav- itational standard-model extension,

    C.M. Reyes and M. Schreck, “The boundary of the grav- itational standard-model extension,” Phys. Rev. D108, 104013 (2023), arXiv:2305.07060 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  110. [118]

    Short-range gravity and Lorentz violation,

    Q.G. Bailey, A. Kostelecký, and R. Xu, “Short-range gravity and Lorentz violation,” Phys. Rev. D91, 022006 (2015), arXiv:1410.6162 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  111. [119]

    Testing local Lorentz invariance with short-range gravity,

    V.A. Kostelecký and M. Mewes, “Testing local Lorentz invariance with short-range gravity,” Phys. Lett. B766, 137 (2017), arXiv:1611.10313 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  112. [120]

    Signals for Lorentz violation in post-Newtonian gravity,

    Q.G. Bailey and V.A. Kostelecký, “Signals for Lorentz violation in post-Newtonian gravity,” Phys. Rev. D74, 045001 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0603030

    2006 arXiv

  113. [121]

    Orbital effects of Lorentz-violating Standard Model Extension gravitomagnetism around a static body: a sensitivity analysis,

    L. Iorio, “Orbital effects of Lorentz-violating Standard Model Extension gravitomagnetism around a static body: a sensitivity analysis,” Class. Quant. Grav.29, 175007 (2012), arXiv:1203.1859 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  114. [122]

    Limits on violations of Lorentz symmetry from Gravity Probe B,

    Q.G. Bailey, R.D. Everett, and J.M. Overduin, “Limits on violations of Lorentz symmetry from Gravity Probe B,” Phys. Rev. D88(2013), 102001 arXiv:1309.6399 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  115. [123]

    New pulsar limit on local Lorentz invariance violation of gravity in the standard-model extension,

    L. Shao, “New pulsar limit on local Lorentz invariance violation of gravity in the standard-model extension,” Phys. Rev. D90, 122009 (2014), arXiv:1412.2320 [gr- qc]

    2014 arXiv

  116. [124]

    Lorentz violation in the gravity sector: The t puzzle,

    Y. Bonder, “Lorentz violation in the gravity sector: The t puzzle,” Phys. Rev. D91, 125002 (2015), arXiv:1504.03636 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  117. [125]

    Inflation as an amplifier: The case of Lorentz violation,

    Y. Bonder and G. Leon, “Inflation as an amplifier: The case of Lorentz violation,” Phys. Rev. D96, 044036 (2017), arXiv:1704.05894 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  118. [126]

    Chern-Simons modification of general relativity,

    R. Jackiw and S.-Y. Pi, “Chern-Simons modification of general relativity,” Phys. Rev. D68, 104012 (2003), arXiv:gr-qc/0308071

    2003 arXiv

  119. [127]

    Martín-García,xAct: Efficient tensor computer al- gebra for the Wolfram Language,http://www.xact.es

    J.M. Martín-García,xAct: Efficient tensor computer al- gebra for the Wolfram Language,http://www.xact.es

  120. [128]

    Spacetime variation of Lorentz-violation co- efficients at a nonrelativistic scale,

    C.D. Lane, “Spacetime variation of Lorentz-violation co- efficients at a nonrelativistic scale,” Phys. Rev. D94, 025016 (2016), arXiv:1605.00512 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  121. [129]

    Extending the Euler-Heisenberg action to include ef- fects of local Lorentz-symmetry violating backgrounds,

    W. Cesar e Silva, J.P.S. Melo, and J.A. Helayël-Neto, “Extending the Euler-Heisenberg action to include ef- fects of local Lorentz-symmetry violating backgrounds,” arXiv:2603.20880 [hep-th]

  122. [130]

    Lorentz-violating extension of the standard model,

    D. Colladay and V.A. Kostelecký, “Lorentz-violating extension of the standard model,” Phys. Rev. D58, 116002 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9809521

    1998 arXiv

  123. [131]

    Perturbative quantum gravity and its relation to gauge theory,

    Z. Bern, “Perturbative quantum gravity and its relation to gauge theory,” Living Rev. Rel.5, 5 (2002), arXiv:gr- qc/0206071

    2002

  124. [132]

    Ex- plicit diffeomorphism violation no-go constraints and discontinuities,

    Q.G. Bailey, K. O’Neal-Ault, and N.A. Nilsson, “Ex- plicit diffeomorphism violation no-go constraints and discontinuities,” Phys. Rev. D110, 084066 (2024), arXiv:2407.04918 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  125. [133]

    HamermeshGroup Theory and Its Application to Physical Problems(Dover Publications, 1989)

    M. HamermeshGroup Theory and Its Application to Physical Problems(Dover Publications, 1989)

    1989

  126. [134]

    Algebraic properties of Riemannian manifolds,

    Y. Chung, C.O. Hwang, and H.S. Yang, “Algebraic properties of Riemannian manifolds,” Gen. Rel. Grav. 55, 92 (2023), arXiv:2206.08108 [math-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  127. [135]

    Two applications of axion electrodynam- ics,

    F. Wilczek, “Two applications of axion electrodynam- ics,” Phys. Rev. Lett.58, 1799 (1987)

    1987

  128. [136]

    Limits on a Lorentz and parity violating modification of electrody- namics,

    S.M. Carroll, G.B. Field and R. Jackiw, “Limits on a Lorentz and parity violating modification of electrody- namics,” Phys. Rev. D41, 1231 (1990)

    1990

  129. [137]

    Signals for Lorentz violation in electrodynamics,

    V.A. Kostelecký and M. Mewes, “Signals for Lorentz violation in electrodynamics,” Phys. Rev. D66, 056005 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0205211

    2002 arXiv

  130. [138]

    Crystallography, Lorentz violation, and the Standard-Model Extension,

    M. Schreck and R.A. Silva Magalhães, “Crystallography, Lorentz violation, and the Standard-Model Extension,” arXiv:2604.17646 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    arXiv

  131. [139]

    Electrodynamics with Lorentz-violating operators of arbitrary dimension,

    V.A. Kostelecký and M. Mewes, “Electrodynamics with Lorentz-violating operators of arbitrary dimension,” Phys. Rev. D80, 015020 (2009), arXiv:0905.0031 [hep- ph]. 26

    2009 arXiv

  132. [140]

    Quantum field theoretic properties of Lorentz-violating operators of nonrenormalizable di- mension in the photon sector,

    M. Schreck, “Quantum field theoretic properties of Lorentz-violating operators of nonrenormalizable di- mension in the photon sector,” Phys. Rev. D89, 105019 (2014), arXiv:1312.4916 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  133. [141]

    Maxwell electro- dynamics modified by CPT-even and Lorentz-violating dimension-6 higher-derivative terms,

    R. Casana, M.M. Ferreira Jr., L. Lisboa-Santos, F.E.P. dos Santos, and M. Schreck, “Maxwell electro- dynamics modified by CPT-even and Lorentz-violating dimension-6 higher-derivative terms,” Phys. Rev. D97, 115043 (2018), arXiv:1802.07890 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  134. [142]

    Maxwell electrodynamics modified by a CPT-odd dimension-five higher-derivative term,

    M.M. Ferreira Jr., L. Lisboa-Santos, R.V. Maluf, and M. Schreck, “Maxwell electrodynamics modified by a CPT-odd dimension-five higher-derivative term,” Phys. Rev. D100, 055036 (2019), arXiv:1903.12507 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  135. [143]

    Constraining the propagation speed of gravitational waves with compact binaries at cosmo- logical distances,

    A. Nishizawa, “Constraining the propagation speed of gravitational waves with compact binaries at cosmo- logical distances,” Phys. Rev. D93, 124036 (2016), arXiv:1601.01072 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  136. [144]

    Lorentz-violation-induced ar- rival delays of cosmological particles,

    U. Jacob and T. Piran, “Lorentz-violation-induced ar- rival delays of cosmological particles,” JCAP01, 031 (2008), arXiv:0712.2170 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  137. [145]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,

    N. Aghanimet al.[Planck], “Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,” Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020) [Erratum: Astron. Astrophys.652, C4 (2021)] arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  138. [147]

    Dantzig and M.N

    G.B. Dantzig and M.N. Thapa,Linear Programming 1: Introduction(Springer, New York, 1997)

    1997

  139. [148]

    Test- ing relativity with high-energy astrophysical neutrinos,

    J.S. Díaz, V.A. Kostelecký, and M. Mewes, “Test- ing relativity with high-energy astrophysical neutrinos,” Phys.Rev.D89, 043005(2014), arXiv:1308.6344[astro- ph.HE]

    2014 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.