Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 43 references

Restoration of the Lorentz symmetry of particle propagator in the ghost condensate model

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A tuned Lorentz-violating tensor makes ghost-condensate phantom excitations obey the standard dispersion relation ω²=k² for every background value, removing the tree-level gradient instability.

desk verdict A correct but ultimately tuned tree-level construction of Lorentzian dispersion in a ghost condensate; the one-loop section is not reproducible and should not be the basis for the paper's stronger claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.03882 v1 pith:Q7MTJTX3 submitted 2025-09-04 gr-qc

Suppanat Supanyo , Pitayuth Wongjun , Lunchakorn Tannukij This is my paper
classification gr-qc
keywords ghostcondensatephantomfieldLorentzviolationsymmetryrestorationdispersionrelationgradientinstabilitydarkenergyone-loopself-energy
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 seeks to show that a long-standing pathology of ghost condensate models for phantom dark energy can be removed by making Lorentz violation an explicit ultraviolet feature. In the standard ghost condensate, the kinetic coefficients of the particle excitation depend on the background field's time derivative, so the excitation is a ghost or suffers a gradient instability except in a narrow healthy window. The paper's claim is that if the new interaction is built from a fixed tensor B_μν chosen with the ratio B_ii = −3B_00, the two kinetic coefficients become exactly equal and opposite for every background value. The excitation then obeys the normal Lorentzian dispersion relation ω²=k² in any background, and the tree-level gradient instability disappears. The paper also computes the one-loop self-energy and shows that the restoration is only approximate in the ultraviolet, with small Lorentz-violating corrections appearing in the propagator.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Lorentz-violation tensor B_μν = diag(B_00, −3B_00, −3B_00, −3B_00), inserted into the ghost condensate Lagrangian as (B_μν∂^μϕ∂^νϕ)^2/(4M_LV^4). The tuned spatial-to-temporal ratio B_ii = −3B_00 is what forces the quadratic coefficients A_00 and A_ii to satisfy A_00 = −A_ii for all values of the background φ̇_c; that equality is exactly the condition for the kinetic term to be proportional to η^{μν}∂_μχ∂_νχ and hence for the dispersion ω² = k². The secondary machinery is the one-loop self-energy computed from the cubic and quartic vertices, whose function f(ω,k) shows that the restoration breaks down at energies approaching the Lorentz-violation scale M_LV and

What would settle it

Measure the propagation speed c_p² = −A_ii/A_00 of the phantom-field excitation as the background value φ̇_c is varied. The paper predicts c_p² = 1 for all φ̇_c under the tuned ratio; any data showing c_p² varying with φ̇_c, or a region with c_p² < 0, would falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a specific explicit Lorentz-violating source in the ultraviolet can restore Lorentz symmetry in the low-energy propagator of the ghost condensate. The source is the diagonal tensor B_μν with spatial entries B_ii = −3B_00, entering the Lagrangian through the quartic interaction (B_μν ∂^μ φ ∂^ν φ)^2/(4M_LV^4). With this tuning, the coefficients A_00 and A_ii of the quadratic kinetic term for the excitation χ satisfy A_00 = −A_ii for every background value φ̇_c, so the kinetic term takes a manifestly Lorentz-invariant form and the dispersion relation is ω² = k². Consequently the tree-level gradient instability of the standard ghost condensate is absent in all b

Load-bearing premise

The whole construction depends on the assumption that the effective theory with a fixed, non-dynamical Lorentz-violating tensor B_μν and no additional ultraviolet operators is the correct description, and that the tuned ratio B_ii = −3B_00 is physically realizable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The phantom field can sit in the observationally interesting w<−1 regime without paying the usual tree-level price of a ghost or a gradient instability.
  • The standard ghost condensate's (□φ)^2 fix-up operator becomes unnecessary because the propagator is already Lorentzian at tree level for every background.
  • Above the scale M_LV the one-loop self-energy dominates, so the restored Lorentz symmetry is an infrared property; near M_LV the propagation speed is modified by loop effects.
  • The model remains explicitly Lorentz-violating in self-interactions even though the propagator looks Lorentz invariant, so TeV-scale Lorentz-violation searches constrain the allowed coupling scale.
  • Because the promotion of B_μν to curved spacetime is non-unique, each of the three gravity couplings gives a different energy density and equation of state, making cosmological predictions depend on the UV embedding.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If B_μν is promoted to a dynamical field, its own fluctuations would likely reintroduce Lorentz violation in the χ propagator, so the restoration presented here may be stable only for a fixed, non-dynamical tensor.
  • The tuning B_ii = −3B_00 can be read as setting the signal speed of the excitation to unity; analogous speed-of-sound tuning appears in condensed-matter analogues where such ratios are controllable, suggesting a possible tabletop test.
  • Comparing the three gravity couplings S1–S3 against observations of cosmic acceleration could indirectly select the correct UV embedding, since they predict different equations of state.
  • The one-loop result predicts a specific energy-dependent dispersion that could be searched for in high-precision time-of-flight experiments if the phantom field couples to Standard Model particles, though the paper only considers gravitational coupling.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies a modified ghost condensate model in which an explicit Lorentz-violating tensor B_{\mu\nu} is introduced in the quartic term of the phantom scalar Lagrangian, Eq. (12). The authors show that if one imposes B_{ii}=-3B_{00}, the quadratic action for the fluctuation \chi has A_{00}=-A_{ii} for all homogeneous backgrounds \dot\phi_c, so the tree-level dispersion relation becomes \omega^2=k^2. They argue that this removes the gradient instability of the standard ghost condensate. They then attempt a one-loop computation of the \chi propagator and claim that Lorentz symmetry is approximately restored at low energies.

Significance. The tree-level algebra in Sec. III is simple and internally consistent: with the tuned ratio B_{ii}=-3B_{00}, the coefficients A_{00} and A_{ii} satisfy the Lorentz-invariant condition and the gradient instability is indeed absent. If this were all, the paper would be a modest observation that a special choice of a fixed Lorentz-violating tensor can make the propagator relativistic. The paper's wider claim, however, rests on the one-loop result of Sec. IV.A, which is not derived in the manuscript. The model also has several free parameters and an ad hoc, non-dynamical B_{\mu\nu}; no mechanism protects the tuned ratio under radiative corrections. The potential value of the paper is therefore limited unless the quantum-level claim is either fully substantiated or removed.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III, Eqs. (28)-(31)] The tree-level restoration is imposed rather than derived. Eq. (28) sets A00=-Aii as a desired condition, and Eq. (29) solves for Bii=-3B00. Consequently, the advertised result \omega^2=k^2 for arbitrary \dot\phi_c (Eq. 32) is a direct consequence of this parameter choice, not an emergent prediction. The paper should present this as a tuned class of Lorentz-violating tensors and state whether any symmetry or UV dynamics enforces Bii=-3B00; otherwise the central claim of 'restoration' is effectively a restatement of the input condition.
  2. [Sec. IV.A, Eqs. (39)-(48)] The one-loop propagator is not derived. Substituting Eq. (46) into Eq. (39) yields a denominator of the form A00(-\omega^2+k^2)-f g/M^8 (up to sign), not the printed (2A00+f/M^8)\omega^2 - (2A00+n f/M^8)k^2. The factor 2 in front of A00 and the numerical coefficient n are unexplained. In addition, the counterterm (45) is written without its coefficient, so the cancellation of the divergence in Eq. (43) cannot be verified. Please provide the full loop integration, the renormalization condition, and the origin of n, or remove the quantum-level restoration claim from the conclusions.
  3. [Sec. III, Eq. (31)] Eq. (31) has B00 in the numerator, while Eq. (22) has (B00)^2. With the correct squared form, A00 vanishes at \dot\phi_c^2 = M_LV^4/(3B00^2). At this background the quadratic Lagrangian is zero and Eq. (32) is singular, so the statement that \chi propagates with \omega^2=k^2 'for all values of the background' is not true unless this point is excluded. Please correct the typo and add the necessary qualification.
  4. [Sec. IV.A, Eq. (48)] The claimed approximate restoration is not controlled for arbitrary backgrounds. The correction terms in Eq. (48) are proportional to f(\omega,k)/M^8, and f contains \dot\phi_c^2. If |\dot\phi_c| is of order or larger than M_LV^2, f/M^8 is not small even for k,\omega\ll M_LV. The domain of validity of the approximation should be stated explicitly; otherwise the conclusion that Lorentz symmetry is 'approximately restored' at low energies is not supported for the 'arbitrary background' emphasized in the paper.
  5. [Sec. III, Eq. (12)] The construction assumes a fixed, non-dynamical B_{\mu\nu} with a tuned ratio and no additional ultraviolet operators. Since the model is an effective theory, loop corrections from the interactions (33)-(34) will generically generate new Lorentz-violating operators that shift A00 and Aii, so the special relation Bii=-3B00 is not radiatively stable. The paper should either identify a symmetry that enforces the ratio or explicitly state this as a strong assumption and limitation of the model.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (21)] The second term on the right-hand side is written as \dot\phi_c^2/(4M^4), but the expansion of the Lagrangian (12) gives \dot\phi_c^4/(4M^4).
  2. [General notation] In several places, 'A_{\mu\nu}\partial^\mu\chi\partial^\mu\chi' should read 'A_{\mu\nu}\partial^\mu\chi\partial^\nu\chi'.
  3. [Fig. 2] The axes are labeled '\phi_c B00/M_LV^2' and 'Bii/B00', but it is unclear whether \phi_c denotes \dot\phi_c, and the units are not specified. The legend and axes should be clarified.
  4. [Sec. IV.C, Eq. (64)] The expression '\nabla^\mu T^i_{\mu\nu}' appears to be a typo; likely it should be '\nabla^\mu T_{\mu\nu}'.
  5. [Sec. IV.A, Eq. (47)] The scale \mu in g(Q^2)=\frac{15\log(\mu^2/Q^2)+46}{14400\pi^2} is never defined. Please specify the renormalization scale.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Central claim reduces to a tuned parameter: Bii=-3B00 is imposed to force A00=-Aii, then ω²=k² is just Eq. (25) under that condition.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. III, Eqs. (27)-(32)]
    "To restore the Lorentz symmetry in the quadratic part, the kinetic energy term has to be reorganized in the form Aµν∂µχ∂µχ = constant × ( ˙χ2 − (∇χ)2) (27) Therefore, the condition A00 = −Aii (28) is desired. As a consequence, the tensor Bµν must have a characteristic property Bii = −3B00, (29) ... With this characteristic choice ... A00 = −Aii = ... (31) ... χ propagates with the dispersion relation ω2 = − Aii A00 k2 = k2, (32)"

    The paper first writes the dispersion relation ω² = −(Aii/A00)k² in Eq. (25). It then declares that Lorentz restoration requires A00 = −Aii (Eq. 28) and solves for the tensor ratio Bii = −3B00 (Eq. 29) to enforce this condition. Substituting the enforced condition A00 = −Aii into Eq. (25) gives ω² = k² identically. Thus the headline prediction of Lorentzian propagation for arbitrary background is not independently derived from the UV structure; it is the chosen tuning restated. The removal of the gradient instability is likewise a direct consequence of the same imposed relation.

full rationale

The main tree-level result is circular by construction: the characteristic Lorentz-violation tensor ratio Bii = −3B00 is selected specifically to make A00 = −Aii, and Eq. (32) is simply Eq. (25) evaluated at that enforced condition. No independent argument shows that UV physics must produce this ratio; it is an ansatz fitted to the desired outcome. The one-loop self-energy calculation is a separate computation and is not itself circular, but it does not provide independent support for the tree-level restoration, and the paper's own Eq. (48) is not straightforwardly obtained from Eq. (39) combined with Eq. (46), which is a correctness concern rather than a circularity. There are no load-bearing self-citations or imported uniqueness theorems. The overall score of 6 reflects that the paper's central advertised prediction reduces to a fitted input, while other parts retain independent calculational content.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The model relies on a fixed, non-dynamical tensor B_mu_nu whose spatial to temporal ratio is chosen by hand to enforce the Lorentzian propagator. The scale M_LV and the background velocity phi_dot_c are free parameters, and no independent evidence constrains the invented Lorentz-violating structures.

free parameters (4)
  • B00 = set to 1 in Fig. 3, otherwise unconstrained
    Dimensionless overall scale of the Lorentz-violating tensor; the paper neither predicts nor measures it.
  • Bii/B00 = -3
    Chosen so that the desired condition A00 = -Aii holds; this is the tuning that produces the Lorentzian dispersion claim (Sec. III, Eqs. 28-30).
  • M_LV = arbitrary; can be anywhere from cosmological constant scale to TeV or higher
    Cutoff scale of the effective theory; no constraint, model survives if chi couples only gravitationally (Sec. IV.B).
  • phi_dot_c = arbitrary background value
    The paper claims restoration for any value; in Figs. 2-3 it is varied.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper Effective Lagrangian (12) with a fixed, non-dynamical, isotropic B_mu_nu describes the UV Lorentz-violating physics
    Introduced in Sec. III without a dynamical origin for B_mu_nu; the special ratio (30) is imposed.
  • standard math Standard flat-space QFT and dimensional regularization for the one-loop integrals
    Used in Sec. IV.A to define Feynman rules and subtract divergences.
  • standard math The Y chi_dot term is a boundary term and can be discarded
    Sec. II, Eq. (10).
  • domain assumption Isotropy B11 = B22 = B33
    Sec. III, Eq. (15), chosen to simplify.
invented entities (2)
  • Lorentz-violating background tensor B_mu_nu
    purpose: Provides explicit Lorentz violation in the UV operator so that the quadratic kinetic term can be tuned to a Lorentzian form
    No observable prediction is tied to B_mu_nu; M_LV and B00 are unconstrained and the model escapes detection if chi couples only gravitationally. The special ratio Bii = -3B00 is imposed to obtain the result.
  • UV Lorentz-violating source that generates B_mu_nu
    purpose: Gives the supposed origin of the fixed tensor
    Referenced in Sec. IV.B as 'characteristic source' but never specified; no dynamics or detection channel.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Restoration of the Lorentz symmetry of particle propagator in the ghost condensate model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q7MTJTX3

@misc{pith2026250903882,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Restoration of the Lorentz symmetry of particle propagator in the ghost condensate model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q7MTJTX3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.03882}
}
abstract

The ghost condensate model has been proposed to protect the vacuum state of the cosmological phantom model yielding the gradient instability regime and the spontaneous Lorentz symmetry breaking in the quantum level with the dispersion relation $\omega^2\sim k^4$. In this paper, we point out that the Lorentz symmetry in the propagator can be restored if the explicit Lorentz symmetry-breaking process is promoted. The particle excitation of the phantom field can propagate through spacetime with the Lorentzian dispersion relation $\omega^2=k^2$ in arbitrary background value. Moreover, the tree-level gradient instability regime can be removed under the characteristic Lorentz violation source of ultraviolet physics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.03882 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The energy density, the pressure, the coefficients of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The constraint on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The sketch of the energy density, the pressure, the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Caldwell, Physics Letters B 545, 23 (2002)

    R. Caldwell, Physics Letters B 545, 23 (2002)

    work page 2002

  2. [2]

    below the speed of light (green shading regime), and

    work page

  3. [3]

    The analysis is shown below

    instability (yellow shading regime). The analysis is shown below. 4 0 1/ 3 -6 -4 -2 0 2 ϕc  B00/MLV 2 Bii/B00 A00<0(ghost model) |A 00>0(non-ghost mode) 0<cp 2 <1 cp 2 >1 cp 2 <0 FIG. 2. The constraint on c2 p for arbitrary value of Bii/B00 and ˙ϕc. • Bii/B00 > 0: In the range | ˙ϕc| < M2 LV / √ 3B00, χ is a ghost particle with the superluminal speed, so...

    work page

  4. [4]

    (38) where Bµν = ηµαηνβ Bαβ and aµ = ηµνaν

    , (37) V4χ→0(p1, p2, p3, p4) = 2i M 4 LV BµνBαβ pµ 1 pν 2pα 3 pβ 4 + pµ 1 pν 3pα 2 pβ 4 + pµ 1 pν 4pα 2 pβ 3 . (38) where Bµν = ηµαηνβ Bαβ and aµ = ηµνaν. The propaga- tor from the sum overall 1 particle irreducible diagram is iG = i A00p2 − Π(p2) . (39) Π(p2) can be separated in terms of one loop self-energy amplitude from the three-legged vertex and fou...

    work page

  5. [5]

    K. J. Ludwick, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 32, 1730025 (2017), arXiv:1708.06981 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    S. M. Carroll, M. Hoffman, and M. Trodden, Phys. Rev. D 68, 023509 (2003)

    work page 2003

  7. [7]

    Vikman, Phys

    A. Vikman, Phys. Rev. D 71, 023515 (2005)

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rev. D 72, 023003 (2005)

    2005

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Gen. Rel. Grav. 38, 1285 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0506212

    2006 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Lett. B 637, 139 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0603062

    2006 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Di Valentino, A

    E. Di Valentino, A. Mukherjee, and A. A. Sen, Entropy 23 (2021), 10.3390/e23040404

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    S. X. Tian and Z.-H. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 103, 043518 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    Armendariz-Picon, V

    C. Armendariz-Picon, V. Mukhanov, and P. J. Stein- hardt, Phys. Rev. D 63, 103510 (2001)

    2001

  6. [14]

    Armend´ ariz-Pic´ on, T

    C. Armend´ ariz-Pic´ on, T. Damour, and V. Mukhanov, Physics Letters B 458, 209 (1999)

    1999

  7. [15]

    Y.-F. Cai, J. B. Dent, and D. A. Easson, Phys. Rev. D 83, 101301 (2011)

    2011

  8. [16]

    Alishahiha, E

    M. Alishahiha, E. Silverstein, and D. Tong, Phys. Rev. D 70, 123505 (2004)

    2004

  9. [17]

    Huang, G

    M.-x. Huang, G. Shiu, and B. Underwood, Phys. Rev. D 77, 023511 (2008)

    2008

  10. [18]

    Hu, Phys

    W. Hu, Phys. Rev. D 71, 047301 (2005)

    2005

  11. [19]

    Zhao and Y

    W. Zhao and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 73, 123509 (2006)

    2006

  12. [20]

    Y.-F. Cai, E. N. Saridakis, M. R. Setare, and J.-Q. Xia, Phys. Rept. 493, 1 (2010), arXiv:0909.2776 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Y. Yang, X. Ren, Q. Wang, Z. Lu, D. Zhang, Y.-F. Cai, and E. N. Saridakis, Sci. Bull. 69, 2698 (2024), arXiv:2404.19437 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Arkani-Hamed, H.-C

    N. Arkani-Hamed, H.-C. Cheng, M. A. Luty, and S. Mukohyama, JHEP 05, 074 (2004), arXiv:hep- th/0312099

    2004

  15. [23]

    Arkani-Hamed, P

    N. Arkani-Hamed, P. Creminelli, S. Mukohyama, and M. Zaldarriaga, JCAP 04, 001 (2004), arXiv:hep- th/0312100

    2004

  16. [24]

    Anisimov and A

    A. Anisimov and A. Vikman, JCAP 04, 009 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0411089

    2005 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Piazza and S

    F. Piazza and S. Tsujikawa, JCAP 07, 004 (2004), arXiv:hep-th/0405054

    2004 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Arkani-Hamed, H.-C

    N. Arkani-Hamed, H.-C. Cheng, M. A. Luty, S. Muko- hyama, and T. Wiseman, JHEP 01, 036 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0507120

    2007 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Bhattacharya, P

    G. Bhattacharya, P. Mukherjee, A. Singha Roy, and A. Saha, Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 84 (2015), arXiv:1401.6745 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Colladay and V

    D. Colladay and V. A. Kostelecky, Phys. Rev. D 55, 6760 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9703464

    1997 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Colladay and V

    D. Colladay and V. A. Kostelecky, Phys. Rev. D 58, 116002 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9809521. 8

    1998 arXiv

  22. [30]

    V. M. Abazov et al. (D0), Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 261603 (2012), arXiv:1203.6106 [hep-ex]

    2012 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Carle, N

    A. Carle, N. Chanon, and S. Perries, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 128 (2020), arXiv:1908.11256 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Hayrapetyan et al.(CMS), Phys

    A. Hayrapetyan et al.(CMS), Phys. Lett. B 857, 138979 (2024), arXiv:2405.14757 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    S. D. H. Hsu, A. Jenkins, and M. B. Wise, Phys. Lett. B 597, 270 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0406043

    2004 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Manohar and H

    A. Manohar and H. Georgi, Nucl. Phys. B 234, 189 (1984)

    1984

  27. [35]

    B. M. Gavela, E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, and L. Merlo, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 485 (2016), arXiv:1601.07551 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Rastall, Phys

    P. Rastall, Phys. Rev. D 6, 3357 (1972)

    1972

  29. [37]

    Bluhm, Phys

    R. Bluhm, Phys. Rev. D 91, 065034 (2015)

    2015

  30. [38]

    Velten and T

    H. Velten and T. R. P. Caramˆ es, Universe 7, 38 (2021), arXiv:2102.03457 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  31. [39]

    J. M. Pretel, S. E. Jor´ as, R. R. Reis, and J. D. Arba˜ nil, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2021, 055 (2021)

    2021

  32. [40]

    H. R. Fazlollahi, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 923 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    H. R. Fazlollahi, Commun. Theor. Phys. 76, 045402 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, L

    J. Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, L. Heisenberg, and T. Koivisto, Phys. Rev. D 98, 044048 (2018), arXiv:1710.03116 [gr- qc]

    2018 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, L

    J. Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, L. Heisenberg, T. S. Koivisto, and S. Pekar, Phys. Rev. D 101, 103507 (2020), arXiv:1906.10027 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.