Pure electromagnetic-gravitational interaction in Ho\v{r}ava-Lifshitz theory at the kinetic conformal point

Alvaro Restuccia; Francisco Tello-Ortiz

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 47 references

Pure electromagnetic-gravitational interaction in Ho\v{r}ava-Lifshitz theory at the kinetic conformal point

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read At the kinetic conformal point, compactified 4+1 Horava-Lifshitz gravity has a low-energy limit that is exactly Einstein-Maxwell theory, with no extra scalar fields.

desk verdict A careful formal construction of a scalar-free Horava-Lifshitz electro-gravity theory, but the 'Kaluza-Klein reduction' label overstates matters because the dilaton is frozen by fiat rather than by a proven consistent truncation. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06581 v1 pith:QBNDG4VX submitted 2019-08-19 hep-th

Alvaro Restuccia , Francisco Tello-Ortiz This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-th

keywords Horava-LifshitzgravityKaluza-KleinreductionEinstein-Maxwelltheorykineticconformalpointelectromagnetic-gravitationalcouplingnon-projectablesecond-classconstraintsanisotropicscaling

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 constructs an anisotropic theory of electromagnetism coupled to gravity by compactifying $4+1$-dimensional Horava-Lifshitz gravity at its kinetic conformal point on a circle and reducing to $3+1$ dimensions. Its central claim is that the reduced theory propagates exactly the degrees of freedom of Einstein-Maxwell theory -- the transverse-traceless graviton and the transverse photon -- with no scalar field. At low energies the gauge-vector equations deviate from the covariant Maxwell equations only by terms proportional to $\beta-1$, so $\beta=1$ recovers Maxwell; at $\beta=1$, $\alpha=0$, the whole low-energy theory is exactly Einstein-Maxwell theory in the ADM gauge $P=0$ (vanishing trace of the leaf momentum). If the claim is right, Horava-Lifshitz gravity at the kinetic conformal point supplies a candidate UV framework for gravity plus electromagnetism whose infrared limit is the tested physics of general relativity and Maxwell's equations.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the Kaluza-Klein reduction of the $4+1$ Horava-Lifshitz action at the kinetic conformal point $\lambda=1/4$, followed by freezing the dilaton $\varphi=1$, $p=0$ in the canonical action. The $4$-metric splits into a $3$-metric $\gamma_{ij}$, a gauge vector $A_i$ and the dilaton $\varphi$; the coupling $\beta$ controls both the speed $\sqrt{\beta}$ of all propagating modes and the deviation from Maxwell, which enters only through $\beta-1$. The pivotal identity is that at $\beta=1$, $\alpha=0$, the reduced Hamiltonian with the term $-\frac12 P^2$ added is the Einstein-Maxwell Hamiltonian, with $P=0$ acting as the ADM gauge condition. This identity carries the equivalence argument.

What would settle it

Compute the full $4+1$ dilaton equation of motion from the Hamiltonian (18) and evaluate it on a non-trivial solution of the reduced $3+1$ field equations at $\varphi=1$, $p=0$; if $\delta S_{4+1}/\delta\varphi$ does not vanish identically there, the ground-state reduction is inconsistent and the exact Einstein-Maxwell equivalence fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper derives a consistent $3+1$ non-projectable theory whose Hamiltonian is given by (22), with second-class constraints $P=0$ and the Hamiltonian constraint, alongside the usual momentum and Gauss constraints. Its linearized excitations obey $\ddot{\xi}^T_i - \beta\Delta \xi^T_i = 0$ and $\ddot{h}^{TT}_{ij} - \beta\Delta h^{TT}_{ij} = 0$, so only transverse photons and transverse-traceless gravitons propagate, both at speed $\sqrt{\beta}$. When $\beta=1$ the gauge-vector field equations reduce to $\nabla_\mu F^{\mu\nu}=0$ on the foliation; when additionally $\alpha=0$, adding the term $-\tfrac12 P^2$ to the reduced Hamiltonian makes it exactly the Einstein-Maxwell Hamiltonian, and the constraint $P=0$ is precisely the trace-free gauge used in the ADM formulation. The paper thus claims an exact infrared equivalence, not merely a matching of linearized spectra.

Load-bearing premise

The argument freezes the Kaluza-Klein dilaton to its ground state, $\varphi=1$, $p=0$, inside the canonical action; if the full $4+1$ equations of motion do not force this slice, the reduced theory is a restricted sector rather than pure Einstein-Maxwell dynamics.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

At $\beta=1$ the anisotropic field equations for the gauge vector are exactly the Maxwell equations on the gravitational background; at $\beta\neq1$ the deviation is proportional to $(1-\beta)$, and in the gauge $\Lambda_i=0$ the equations are Maxwell-like with speed $\sqrt{\beta}$.
The theory propagates no scalar modes for any $\beta$ and $\alpha$: the Horava-Lifshitz scalar is absent at $\lambda=1/4$ and the dilaton is frozen, so no dipolar gravitational radiation is predicted.
The second-class constraint $P=0$ is not imposed by hand; it arises as a primary constraint, and it protects $\lambda=1/4$ from quantum corrections.
At $\beta=1,\alpha=0$, restricting the potential to quadratic spatial derivatives, the path integral of the reduced theory equals the path integral of Einstein-Maxwell in the gauge $P=0$, provided there are no gauge anomalies.
All propagating modes share the speed $\sqrt{\beta}$, so multimessenger observations of coincident gravitational and electromagnetic waves constrain $\beta-1$.

Reading between the lines

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

The ground-state truncation of the dilaton is the step that needs independent justification; if the parent theory's equation of motion forces the dilaton away from $\varphi=1$, the pure EM-gravity sector is an effective low-energy slice rather than the full quantum theory.
The same construction should work for non-abelian gauge fields by reducing a higher-dimensional Horava-Lifshitz theory on a suitable internal space, suggesting a general mechanism that turns second-class trace constraints into gauge-fixing conditions.
The $z=4$ electromagnetic terms in the potential will modify photon dispersion at high energies; computing those corrections and comparing with gamma-ray burst time-of-flight bounds would give a concrete observational test of the framework.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know. First, at the level of the 3+1 theory, the paper does what it claims: it writes down a non-projectable Horava-Lifshitz action for gravity plus a U(1) vector, works through the constraint system explicitly, shows the propagating modes are only the transverse-traceless graviton and the transverse photon, and proves that for β=1, α=0 the low-energy Hamiltonian (quadratic potential) is the Einstein-Maxwell Hamiltonian in the P=0 gauge. The constraint algebra is laid out in enough detail to follow, the perturbative wave equations make the degree-of-freedom count transparent, and the path integral measure comparison is a nice formal check. That is genuinely useful for people working on Horava-Lifshitz models and on modified gravity with vector fields.

The weak point is the route from 4+1 to 3+1. The Hamiltonian (18) is the full 4+1 theory; equation (22) is obtained by setting φ=1 and p=0 inside the canonical action. That is a phase-space truncation, not a consistent Kaluza-Klein reduction. The authors' own introduction says that doing this in the field equations in their earlier paper restricted the physical degrees of freedom; doing it in the action does not remove that restriction, it hides it. Unless the φ and p equations of motion are checked—they are not, and for generic Einstein-Maxwell backgrounds they fail, since the dilaton equation reduces to a condition like F^2=0 when R=0—the 3+1 theory is not the reduction of the 4+1 theory. It is a separate model. The authors do state in the conclusions that they regard the 3+1 theory as the complete theory and the higher-dimensional construction as a geometrical mechanism. That is a legitimate way to define the model, but then the title and abstract should say so rather than claiming a Kaluza-Klein reduction. A referee should push them on this.

Two smaller items: the quantum protection of the kinetic conformal point is cited rather than derived, and renormalizability of the reduced 3+1 theory is deferred. Both are acceptable in a formal paper, but they should be flagged as assumptions. There is also a typo in section VI where equation (39) is referenced when (38) is meant.

Bottom line: this is a solid formal paper with a real gap between the claims and the derivation. It deserves a serious referee, but the referee should require that the dilaton freezing be presented as a choice that defines the model, not as a consequence of the 4+1 theory. With that clarified, the paper is a useful reference.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper constructs a 3+1-dimensional Hořava-Lifshitz theory coupling gravity and electromagnetism by a Kaluza-Klein reduction of 4+1-dimensional HL gravity at the kinetic conformal point λ=1/4. After freezing the Kaluza-Klein dilaton to its ground state in the canonical action, the authors obtain a Hamiltonian with constraints P=0, P_N=0, the momentum constraints (26)-(27), and second-class constraints (28)-(29). They analyze the propagating modes perturbatively, finding only a transverse vector and a transverse-traceless graviton, both with speed √β. At low energy the vector equations reduce to Maxwell for β=1, and for β=1, α=0 the theory is claimed to be exactly Einstein-Maxwell in the ADM gauge P=0. The paper also compares the path-integral measures of the two theories.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper provides a UV-complete candidate for the Hořava-Lifshitz coupling of electromagnetism and gravity with exactly the Einstein-Maxwell degrees of freedom at low energies and no propagating scalar, thereby avoiding the binary-pulsar constraints that plague non-conformal HL theories. The explicit Hamiltonian and constraint analysis (including the perturbative wave equations) is self-contained and reproducible, and the algebraic reduction of the β=1, α=0 system to the ADM form of Einstein-Maxwell is a useful result. However, the significance is conditional on the consistency of the dilaton truncation and on the resolution of the normalization ambiguities in the canonical variables.

major comments (3)

[III, Eq. (18)→(22)] The construction sets the dilaton and its momentum to φ=1, p=0 "at the level of the canonical action". This is a phase-space truncation, and for the reduced 3+1 theory to be the Kaluza-Klein reduction of the 4+1 theory, the truncated sector must be dynamically invariant: the dilaton equation δH/δφ, when evaluated on reduced solutions, must vanish. The paper does not check this. In the low-energy limit with V=0, varying (18) with respect to φ and imposing p=0, φ=1 gives a condition involving R and F^2 that is not satisfied by generic Einstein-Maxwell configurations (for example R=0 with F^2 nonzero). Thus φ=1, p=0 is not a stationary point of the full action, and the reduced theory is a restricted sector rather than the full KK reduction claimed in the abstract and in the Introduction (where the authors say the comparison avoids restricting the physical degrees of freedom). The discussion in Section VII of two interpretations does not repair the abstract's claim; if the 3+1 theory is meant as a fundamental theory rather than a reduction, this should be stated up front.
[III, Eq. (22) vs (35)-(38)] The normalization of the canonical momenta is inconsistent. The kinetic term in (22) is written as N√γ (p_{ij}p^{ij}+p_i p^i)/2 (or with the factor 1/2 on the second term only, depending on the intended parsing). The evolution equations (35) and (36), however, are of the form ˙γ_{ij} = 2N/√γ p_{ij} and ˙A_i = N/√γ p_i, which are the standard relations for weight-1 (density) momenta. For weight-1 momenta the Hamiltonian kinetic term must scale as N/√γ, not N√γ. As written, (22) does not generate (35)-(38). Moreover, the claimed identity H = H_{E-M} in (65) requires that the bracket in (22) become exactly p_{ij}p^{ij} - P^2/2 + p_i p^i/2 after adding -1/2P^2; this holds only for one specific reading of the ambiguous notation in (22). Please clarify the weight conventions and normalize the Hamiltonian consistently.
[VI, Eq. (73)-(76)] The path-integral measure equivalence is asserted without verifying that the matrix {θ_i,θ_j} has the block structure assumed in (75). In particular, the Poisson bracket between θ1=H_N and θ3=H_P is not shown to vanish, nor is the solvability of the elliptic equation (28) for N discussed beyond a reference to boundary conditions. The classical equivalence of Section VI is independent of this, but the quantum claim needs a complete calculation.

minor comments (6)

[III, after Eq. (29)] The constraint list '(24), (25), (28) and (30)' references an equation (30) that does not exist; it should be (29).
[IV, after Eq. (45)] The phrase 'from the constraints (27), (28), (29) and (30)' again references a nonexistent (30); clarify the correct constraint numbers.
[V, Eq. (64)] The term √g ∂_j [Λ^j p_i - Λ_i p^j + √g 4F^{ij}] has an inconsistent density weight if p^i is the weight-1 momentum used in (36); please specify the weight convention for p^i consistently throughout.
[Abstract] Minor grammar: 'the anisotropic field equations for the gauge vector is a deviation' should read 'are a deviation'.
[Throughout] The notation for momenta is inconsistent: sometimes p_i p_i, sometimes p_i p^i, and similarly pijpij vs p_{ij}p^{ij}. Please use a uniform notation with explicit indices.
[Section VII] The sentence 'the Hamiltonian constraint is an elliptic partial differential equation for gT, in the ADM notation' is unclear; define gT and explain the statement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Einstein-Maxwell equivalence is derived by explicit Hamiltonian reduction and constraint addition, with no fitted parameters or retrofitted predictions.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. The paper starts from the 4+1 Hořava-Lifshitz action (2), performs the Kaluza-Klein reduction to obtain (18), and then explicitly chooses the dilaton ground state φ=1, p=0 in the canonical action (Section III). That truncation is a stated construction choice, not a hidden input: Section VII states that the 3+1 formulation is to be taken as the complete theory and the higher-dimensional construction only as a geometrical mechanism. The 'no scalar degrees of freedom' claim is therefore a direct consequence of the ansatz, not a retrofitted prediction. The low-energy Maxwell limit for β=1 is obtained by rewriting the vector field equations (36), (38) and the U(1) constraint (26) into the covariant form (62)-(64), where the deviation is explicitly proportional to β-1; no quantity is fitted. The exact Einstein-Maxwell equivalence at β=1, α=0 is an algebraic identity: because P=0 is a constraint of the theory, adding -1/2 P^2 to (22) is allowed, and the resulting Hamiltonian (65)-(66) is the Einstein-Maxwell Hamiltonian; the field equations then match after imposing the ADM gauge P=0. This is a proof on the constraint surface, not a restatement of the input. Self-citations to [4]-[6] provide background KK and conformal-point results, but the present paper re-derives the constraints and equations it needs; those citations do not assume the EM equivalence. The skeptic's concern that φ=1 may not satisfy the full 4+1 equations is a consistency/correctness risk for the truncation, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The derivation relies on the postulated 4+1 HL action, the foliation and KK topology, a hand-imposed dilaton ground state, and an anomaly-free assumption for the path integral equivalence. The only adjustable low-energy couplings are β and α; the higher-derivative potential V is left unspecified, so any UV claim carries further hidden couplings.

free parameters (3)

β = β=1 for the exact Maxwell limit
The low-energy theory depends on β; the vector-field equations deviate from Maxwell by (β-1) terms, and the exact Einstein-Maxwell equivalence requires β=1. No value is fit to data in the paper.
α = α=0 for the exact Einstein-Maxwell limit
The Hamiltonian and lapse equation depend on α; the exact Einstein-Maxwell equivalence at low energy requires α=0.
Higher-derivative couplings in V = unspecified
The potential V is required to contain all spacelike derivative terms up to z=4 for power-counting renormalizability, but its coefficients are never given; these would be additional free parameters in a full UV definition.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The 4+1 Horava-Lifshitz action S in Eq. (2), including the kinetic term K^μν K_μν - λK^2, βR, αa_μ a^μ and potential V, is the correct starting point.
The entire construction begins from this postulated action; no derivation from string theory or another fundamental principle is given.
domain assumption The spacetime is foliated, globally hyperbolic, and asymptotically flat, with topology M^4 × S^1, and all fields are independent of the extra coordinate x^4.
The KK reduction and the exclusion of cosmological spacetimes (stated in the Introduction) depend on this topology and on the cylindrical projection ∂_4 = 0.
ad hoc to paper The dilaton and its momentum can be set to their ground state φ=1, p=0 in the canonical action without changing the theory.
This truncation eliminates the scalar degree of freedom; its consistency with the parent 4+1 equations of motion is asserted, not derived in the paper.
ad hoc to paper No gauge anomalies arise in the path integral equivalence between the EGHL theory and Einstein-Maxwell theory.
The paper explicitly conditions its path-integral equality on 'provided there are no gauge anomalies' in Section VI.
standard math Standard Dirac constraint analysis and ADM Hamiltonian methods are valid for this constrained system.
The paper uses the Dirac algorithm and ADM decomposition throughout without proof; these are accepted background tools.

invented entities (1)

Fifth spatial dimension in the 4+1 Horava-Lifshitz theory
purpose: Provides the Kaluza-Klein mechanism that generates the electromagnetic gauge field and its higher-derivative couplings in 3+1 dimensions.
The paper explicitly states the higher-dimensional construction is a geometrical mechanism, not necessarily a fundamental extra dimension; no independent experimental handle is offered.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pure electromagnetic-gravitational interaction in Ho\v{r}ava-Lifshitz theory at the kinetic conformal point." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QBNDG4VX

@misc{pith2026190806581,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pure electromagnetic-gravitational interaction in Ho\vrava-Lifshitz theory at the kinetic conformal point},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QBNDG4VX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06581}
}

abstract

We introduce the electromagnetic-gravitational coupling in the Ho\v{r}ava-Lifshitz framework, in $3+1$ dimensions, by considering the Ho\v{r}ava-Lifshitz gravity theory in $4+1$ dimensions at the kinetic conformal point and then performing a Kaluza-Klein reduction to $3+1$ dimensions. The action of the theory is second order in time derivatives and the potential contains only higher order spacelike derivatives up to $z=4$, $z$ being the critical exponent. These terms include also higher order derivative terms of the electromagnetic field. The propagating degrees of freedom of the theory are exactly the same as in the Einstein-Maxwell theory. We obtain the Hamiltonian, the field equations and show consistency of the constraint system. The kinetic conformal point is protected from quantum corrections by a second class constraint. At low energies the theory depends on two coupling constants, $\beta$ and $\alpha$. We show that the anisotropic field equations for the gauge vector is a deviation of the covariant Maxwell equations by a term depending on $\beta-1$. Consequently, for $\beta=1$, Maxwell equations arise from the anisotropic theory at low energies. We also prove that the anisotropic electromagnetic-gravitational theory at the IR point $\beta=1$, $\alpha=0$, is exactly the Einstein-Maxwell theory in a gravitational gauge used in the ADM formulation of General Relativity.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

[1]

K. S. Stelle, Phys. Rev. D 16, 953 (1977)

1977
[2]

Hoˇ rava,Phys

P. Hoˇ rava,Phys. Rev. D 79, 084008 (2009)

work page 2009
[3]

D. Blas, O. Pujolas and S. Sibiryakov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 181302 (2010)

work page 2010
[4]

Bellor ´ ın, A

J. Bellor ´ ın, A. Restuccia and F. Tello-Ortiz, Phys. Rev. D 98, 104018 (2018)

work page 2018
[5]

Bellor ´ ın, A

J. Bellor ´ ın, A. Restuccia and A. Sotomayor, Phys. Rev. D 87, 084020 (2013)

work page 2013
[6]

Bellor ´ ın and A

J. Bellor ´ ın and A. Restuccia, Phys. Rev. D 94, 064041 (2016)

work page 2016
[7]

Charmousis, G

C. Charmousis, G. Niz, A. Padilla and P. M. Saﬃn, JHEP 0908, 070 (2009)

work page 2009
[8]

Power-counting renormalizability of generalized Horava gravity

M. Visser, (2009) arXiv:0912.4757 [hep-th]. 20

work page Pith review arXiv 2009

Show all 47 references

[9]

Papazoglou, T

A. Papazoglou, T. P. Sotiriou, Phys. Lett. B 685, 197 (2010)

2010
[10]

Orlando and S

D. Orlando and S. Reﬀert, Class. Quant. Grav. 26, 155021 (2009)

2009
[11]

F. W. Shu and Y. S. Wu, (2009) arXiv:0906.1645 [hep-th]

2009 arXiv
[12]

Benedetti and F

D. Benedetti and F. Guarnieri, JHEP 1403, 078 (2014)

2014
[13]

Contillo, S

A. Contillo, S. Rechenberger and F. Saueressig, JHEP 1312, 017 (2013)

2013
[14]

D’Odorico, F

G. D’Odorico, F. Saueressig and M. Schutten, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 171101 (2014)

2014
[15]

D’Odorico, J

G. D’Odorico, J. W. Goossens and F. Saueressig, JHEP 1510, 126 (2015)

2015
[16]

A. O. Barvinsky, D. Blas, M. Herrero-Valea, S. M. Sibiry akov and C. F. Steinwachs, Phys. Rev. D 93, 064022 (2016)

2016
[17]

A.Wang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 26, 1730014 (2017)

2017
[18]

S.Shin and M.I.Park, JCAP 1712, 033 (2017)

2017
[19]

Hartong and N

J. Hartong and N. A. Obers, JHEP 1507, 155 (2015)

2015
[20]

D.Blas, O.Pujolas and S.Sibiryakov, Phys. Lett. B 688, 350 (2010)

2010
[21]

Jacobson and D

T. Jacobson and D. Mattingly, Phys. Rev. D 64, 024028 (2001)

2001
[22]

Jacobson, Phys

T. Jacobson, Phys. Rev. D 81, 101502 (2010)

2010
[23]

Jacobson, Phys

T. Jacobson, Phys. Rev. D 89, 081501 (2014)

2014
[24]

Bellor ´ ın and A

J. Bellor ´ ın and A. Restuccia, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 27, 1750174 (2018)

2018
[25]

Bellor ´ ın and A

J. Bellor ´ ın and A. Restuccia, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 49, 132 (2017)

2017
[26]

K. Yagi, D. Blas, N. Yunes and E. Barausse, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 161101 (2014)

2014
[27]

B. P. Abbott et al., Astrophys. J. 848, L12 (2017)

2017
[28]

B. P. Abbott et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 161101 (2017)

2017
[29]

B. P. Abbott et al., Astrophys. J. 848, L13 (2017)

2017
[30]

Barausse, (2019) arXiv:1907.05958v1 [gr-qc]

E. Barausse, (2019) arXiv:1907.05958v1 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[31]

Blas and H

D. Blas and H. Sanctuary, Phys. Rev. D 84, 064004 (2011)

2011
[32]

Jacobson and D

T. Jacobson and D. Mattingly, Phys. Rev. D 70, 024003 (2004)

2004
[33]

Garﬁnkle and T

D. Garﬁnkle and T. Jacobson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 191102 (2011)

2011
[34]

C. M. Will, Living Rev. Rel. 17, 4 (2014)

2014
[35]

Bonetti and E

M. Bonetti and E. Barausse, Phys. Rev. D 91, 084053 (2015), [Erratum: Phys. Rev.D 93 ,029901(2016)]

2015
[36]

J. W. Elliott, G. D. Moore, and H. Stoica, JHEP 08, 066 (2005)

2005
[37]

K. Yagi, D. Blas, E. Barausse, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D 89, 084067 (2014), [Erratum: 21 Phys. Rev.D 90, 069901 (2014)]

2014
[38]

Pires (2018) arXiv:1809.03436 [gr-qc]

L. Pires (2018) arXiv:1809.03436 [gr-qc]

2018 arXiv
[39]

Loll and L

R. Loll and L. Pires, Phys. Rev. D 96, 044030 (2017)

2017
[40]

A. N. Bernal and M. S´ anchez, Commun. Math. Phys. 243, 461 (2003)

2003
[41]

Arnowitt, S

R. Arnowitt, S. Deser and C. Misner, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 40, 1997 (2008)

2008
[42]

Pospelov and Y

M. Pospelov and Y. Shang, Phys. Rev. D 85, 105001 (2012)

2012
[43]

G.t’Hooft and M.J.G.Veltman, Ann. Inst. H. Poincare Phys. Theor. A 20, 69 (1974)

1974
[44]

Kluson, JHEP 1007, 038 (2010)

J. Kluson, JHEP 1007, 038 (2010)

2010
[45]

Donnelly and T

W. Donnelly and T. Jacobson, Phys. Rev. D 84, 104019 (2011)

2011
[46]

Bellor ´ ın and A

J. Bellor ´ ın and A. Restuccia, Phys. Rev. D 84, 104037 (2011)

2011
[47]

Bellor ´ ın, A

J. Bellor ´ ın, A. Restuccia and A. Sotomayor, Phys. Rev. D 85, 124060 (2012). 22

2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

K. S. Stelle, Phys. Rev. D 16, 953 (1977)

1977

[2] [2]

Hoˇ rava,Phys

P. Hoˇ rava,Phys. Rev. D 79, 084008 (2009)

work page 2009

[3] [3]

D. Blas, O. Pujolas and S. Sibiryakov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 181302 (2010)

work page 2010

[4] [4]

Bellor ´ ın, A

J. Bellor ´ ın, A. Restuccia and F. Tello-Ortiz, Phys. Rev. D 98, 104018 (2018)

work page 2018

[5] [5]

Bellor ´ ın, A

J. Bellor ´ ın, A. Restuccia and A. Sotomayor, Phys. Rev. D 87, 084020 (2013)

work page 2013

[6] [6]

Bellor ´ ın and A

J. Bellor ´ ın and A. Restuccia, Phys. Rev. D 94, 064041 (2016)

work page 2016

[7] [7]

Charmousis, G

C. Charmousis, G. Niz, A. Padilla and P. M. Saﬃn, JHEP 0908, 070 (2009)

work page 2009

[8] [8]

Power-counting renormalizability of generalized Horava gravity

M. Visser, (2009) arXiv:0912.4757 [hep-th]. 20

work page Pith review arXiv 2009