REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 22 references
Canonical Form of Born-Infeld Inspired Gravity Coupled to Scalar Fields
T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read For finite Born-Infeld scale, Born-Infeld inspired gravity coupled to scalar fields has the same canonical structure as general relativity, with all modifications moved into a complicated matter Hamiltonian.
desk verdict A careful but incomplete Faddeev–Jackiw treatment of Born-Infeld inspired gravity with scalars; the advertised finite-M_BI split is conditional on an unsolved algebraic equation for the auxiliary metric. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The central object is the set of variables and eliminations that make the action tractable: the connection combination $G^\lambda_{\mu\nu}$, which linearises the Ricci tensor and turns metric components into auxiliary fields; the momenta $\Pi^{\mu\nu}$; and the algebraic equation (41) that determines the auxiliary spatial metric $m_{ij}$. The reduction proceeds by first solving the equations of motion for the non-dynamical connection components, then for $N$, $N^i$, and $m_{ij}$ by integrating out non-dynamical variables, following the constrained-system reduction the paper cites from its references. The work this machinery does is to convert the square-root determinantal Born-Infeld action into the form (40), where the multipliers $\Omega$ and $\Omega_i$ multiply combinations $\tilde{C}$ and $\tilde{C}^i$ that match the GR Hamiltonian and momentum constraints up to matter terms.
What would settle it
Take a concrete scalar-field configuration (specified $K_{AB}$, $V$, and field values at a spatial point) and attempt to solve Eq. (41) for a real, positive-definite $m_{ij}$; a configuration with no solution, or with two distinct solutions, would break the claimed canonical form (40) and the GR-constraint interpretation.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The core discovery is that the canonical action (40) obtained after the paper's Hamiltonian-reduction procedure separates into a term $\partial_t h_{ij}\pi^{ij} + p_A \partial_t \phi^A$, identical to GR's gravitational canonical term, plus multipliers $\Omega \tilde{C}$ and $\Omega_i \tilde{C}^i$ in which $\tilde{C}$ and $\tilde{C}^i$ have the same form as the GR Hamiltonian and momentum constraints. Because the matter terms $\mathcal{H}_T$ and $\mathcal{H}_i$ that enter $\tilde{C}$ and $\tilde{C}^i$ have standard Poisson brackets with the gravitational constraints, the constraints remain first class and are interpreted as Hamiltonian and spatial diffeomorphism constraints. All Born-Infeld corrections, including the finite-$M_{BI}$ effects, reside in the matter part, which depends on the auxiliary metric $m_{ij}$ that must be eliminated by solving Eq. (41). In the leading-order $1/M_{BI}^2$ expansion the paper displays the corrected matter Hamiltonian explicitly, while the gravitational part remains unchanged.
Load-bearing premise
The whole construction rests on the assumption that equation (41) can be solved for the auxiliary metric $m_{ij}$ in terms of the true metric and matter fields; the paper states only that this is possible 'at least in principle', without giving a solution or proving existence or uniqueness.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- The gravitational Hamiltonian and momentum constraints of Born-Infeld inspired gravity are first class and have the same Poisson algebra as in general relativity, so standard canonical quantisation routes for GR apply to the gravitational sector.
- All finite-$M_{BI}$ effects are confined to the matter Hamiltonian; in the leading-order expansion they appear as explicit $\mathcal{O}(1/M_{BI}^2)$ corrections to a minimally coupled scalar theory.
- In the absence of matter, the auxiliary metric equation reduces to $h_{ij} = \frac{2}{\lambda} m_{ij}$, recovering the known equivalence of Born-Infeld gravity to Eddington gravity and, in the Einstein limit, to GR.
- The canonical action is linear in the multipliers $\Omega$ and $\Omega_i$, so the same constraint treatment as in GR applies despite the complicated matter form.
- Minimal coupling in the Lagrangian does not imply standard coupling at the Hamiltonian level; the matter sector is strongly modified even for minimally coupled scalars.
Reading between the lines
- If the algebraic solvability of Eq. (41) fails for some matter configuration, the claimed canonical splitting would hold only on a restricted region of phase space; checking this numerically would be a natural test.
- The same reduction could be attempted for non-minimal couplings, such as matter entering the determinant of the Born-Infeld action, where the splitting into GR plus modified matter would likely fail and genuine modifications to the gravitational constraints would appear.
- Because the gravitational constraints are unchanged, one could try to import existing loop or canonical quantisation machinery for GR and treat the complicated matter Hamiltonian as a deformation; this is not pursued in the paper.
- The paper's result suggests that astrophysical or cosmological signatures of Born-Infeld gravity with scalar fields would enter through the matter sector's effective self-interactions rather than through altered constraint propagation.
Signed reviews
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper derives the canonical form of Born-Infeld inspired gravity minimally coupled to a collection of scalar fields, using the Faddeev-Jackiw approach. After integrating out non-dynamical connection components, the action (32) is reduced by eliminating lapse, shift, and the auxiliary 3-metric. The author claims that for finite M_BI the resulting canonical action splits into a GR gravitational part and a matter part multiplied by the same constraint multipliers Omega and Omega_i, so that the theory has the same constrained structure as GR. The paper explicitly solves this reduction only in the matter-free case and at leading order in 1/M_BI^2, giving Eq. (46). The main advertised finite-M_BI result depends on solving Eq. (41) for the auxiliary metric m_ij, which is not done.
Significance. If the central claim were established, the result would be conceptually interesting: it would show that Born-Infeld inspired gravity minimally coupled to scalar fields possesses the same canonical constraint structure as GR, with all Born-Infeld modifications absorbed into a complicated matter Hamiltonian. The paper is clearly organized and the leading-order expression (46) is explicit and concrete. The derivation up to Eq. (40) is detailed and follows a standard Faddeev-Jackiw reduction. However, the finite-M_BI statement is not actually demonstrated: the key equation (41) is not solved and the first-class nature of the constraints is asserted rather than proven. The significance of the paper therefore depends on a gap that is load-bearing for the main conclusion.
major comments (3)
- [Section 2, Eq. (41)] The central claim for finite M_BI rests on solving Eq. (41) for m_ij as a function of h_ij and the matter fields, but the paper only states that this can be done "at least in principle." No existence, uniqueness, or positivity argument is given, and no explicit solution is provided. Without such a solution, the expressions multiplying Omega and Omega_i in Eq. (40) are not well-defined functions on the phase space spanned by (h_ij, pi_ij, phi_A, p_A), so the advertised split into a GR gravitational part plus a matter part is not established for finite M_BI.
- [Section 2, after Eq. (41)] The paper notes that solving Eq. (41) for h_ij rather than m_ij would lead to a complicated symplectic structure through the term partial_t h_ij(m, phi) pi_ij and through the connection gamma^i_jk depending on m and phi. This is precisely why the chosen route of solving for m_ij is essential, yet the paper gives no argument that the solution m_ij = m_ij(h, phi) preserves the standard symplectic structure or transforms covariantly under spatial diffeomorphisms. The leading-order result (46) uses only the matter-free solution m_ij = (2/lambda) h_ij and therefore does not probe the nonlinear structure of Eq. (41).
- [Conclusion, first-class constraints] The statement that D and D_i are first class is asserted without proof. The justification that the matter sector has "standard Poisson brackets with C and C_i since they are local functions of metric" is insufficient, because the matter sector in Eq. (40) depends on m_ij, which in turn depends on h_ij and phi through the unsolved equation (41). Computing the Poisson brackets of D and D_i therefore requires knowledge of this solution and its functional derivatives, which the paper does not provide. This is a load-bearing gap, since the paper's central conclusion that Born-Infeld gravity has the same canonical structure as GR depends on these constraints being first class.
minor comments (4)
- [References] References [19] and [20] are identical (both cite J. Kluson, "Canonical Analysis of Eddington Gravity," arXiv:2506.16279) and should be consolidated into a single reference.
- [Eq. (41)] Equation (41) contains a typographical error in the denominator "M p 2 M 2 BI", which should presumably read M_p^2 M_BI^2; this should be corrected for clarity.
- [Eqs. (18) and (40)] The quantity H_i is used in Eqs. (35)-(40) but is not defined precisely; Eq. (18) appears to contain a typesetting corruption ("Hi =A ∂iϕA"). The author should explicitly define H_i = p_A ∂_i phi^A and clarify the notation.
- [Eq. (21)] The notation q^{ij} for the inverse of q_ij and the later use of q^{ij} in Eq. (29) is potentially confusing; the author should distinguish clearly between the components q_ij, their inverse, and the density-weighted quantities.
Circularity Check
No circular reduction found: the GR-plus-matter canonical split is derived in-text by explicit Faddeev-Jackiw elimination; the finite-M_BI claim is conditional on the unproven solvability of Eq. (41), which is a load-bearing gap rather than a circle.
full rationale
Walking the full derivation chain, I find no step in which the claimed result is the input by construction. The action (1) is carried through an explicit Legendre transform (9), elimination of the connection components via Eqs. (10)-(15) with every step written out (not merely cited), redefinition of variables (17)-(28), and elimination of lapse, shift, and the auxiliary 3-metric to reach (40); the GR-plus-matter split is a direct algebraic rearrangement rather than a fitted or defined-in result. There are no fitted parameters, no predictions, and the paper invokes no uniqueness theorem, so the fitted-input and imported-uniqueness patterns do not apply. The self-citations ([4], and the duplicated [19]=[20] referring to the author's own Eddington analysis) are methodological: the text says the procedure 'can be almost identically applied' from [20], but because Eqs. (10)-(31) reproduce that analysis in full, the citation is corroborating rather than load-bearing, and the matter-free limit is checked against the external, well-known Eddington/GR equivalence [3]. I therefore score the minor self-citation at 2 rather than treating it as circular. What the skeptic identifies is a real but different defect: the central finite-M_BI assertion is conditional on Eq. (41) being solvable for m_ij as a function of (h_ij, φ_A, p_A), which the paper supports only with 'at least in principle', giving no existence, uniqueness, positivity, or covariance argument; without such a solution, D and D_i in (40) are not defined phase-space functions. Likewise the first-class character of D and D_i is asserted in the closing summary ('it is easy to see ... since they are local functions of metric') without computing the brackets, and the leading-order check (46) uses only the matter-free solution (44) and never probes the nonlinear structure of (41). These are completeness/correctness gaps, not circular reductions; the paper also contains a possible algebraic inconsistency in the matter-free check itself (substituting (44) into (43) forces λ=2). No step equates the output to its own input.
Assumptions & free parameters
assumptions (4)
- domain assumption The Faddeev-Jackiw procedure of solving equations of motion for non-dynamical variables and substituting back is equivalent to the Dirac constraint analysis for this system.
- domain assumption The component Pi^{00} is nonvanishing, so divisions by Pi^{00} in equations (11), (14), (19) are allowed.
- ad hoc to paper The auxiliary metric equation (41) admits a solution m_ij = m_ij(h, phi) that yields a well-defined canonical theory.
- domain assumption The three-metric h_ij is invertible and det h is nonzero so that relations (20)-(22) hold.
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Canonical Form of Born-Infeld Inspired Gravity Coupled to Scalar Fields." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QE7ATB4V
@misc{pith2026250723424,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Canonical Form of Born-Infeld Inspired Gravity Coupled to Scalar Fields},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QE7ATB4V}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.23424}
}
read the original abstract
In this short note we find canonical form of Born-Infeld inspired gravity coupled to scalar fields using Faddeev-Jackiw approach. We show that canonical form of the action splits into two parts: First part has the same form as General Relativity canonical action while the matter part has complicated form as a consequence of the structure of Born-Infeld gravity action.
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
Eddington gravity with matter: An emergent perspective
S. Chakraborty and T. Padmanabhan,“Eddington gravity with matter: An emergent perspective,” Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) no.6, 064033 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.064033 [arXiv:2012.08542 [gr-qc]]
work page Pith review arXiv 2021
-
[2]
The Mathematical Theory of Relativity
A.S. Eddington,"The Mathematical Theory of Relativity", Cambridge University Press (1924); E. Schrodinger,"Spacetime Structure", Cam- bridge University Press (1950)
work page 1924
-
[3]
Eddington’s theory of gravity and its progeny,
M. Banados and P. G. Ferreira,“Eddington’s theory of gravity and its progeny,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010), 011101 [erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (2014) no.11, 119901] doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.011101 [arXiv:1006.1769 [astro-ph.CO]]. 12
arXiv 2010
-
[4]
Some Remarks about Modified Eddington Gravity
J. Kluson, “Some Remarks about Modified Eddington Gravity,” [arXiv:2502.20498 [hep-th]]
-
[5]
Born–Infeld inspired modifications of gravity,
J. Beltran Jimenez, L. Heisenberg, G. J. Olmo and D. Rubiera-Garcia, “Born–Infeld inspired modifications of gravity,” Phys. Rept.727 (2018), 1-129 doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2017.11.001 [arXiv:1704.03351 [gr-qc]]
arXiv 2018
-
[6]
On a covariant Hamilton-Jacobi framework for the Einstein-Maxwell theory,
P. Horava, “On a covariant Hamilton-Jacobi framework for the Einstein-Maxwell theory,” Class. Quant. Grav. 8 (1991), 2069-2084 doi:10.1088/0264-9381/8/11/016
-
[7]
The Theory of gravitation in Hamiltonian form,
P. A. M. Dirac,“The Theory of gravitation in Hamiltonian form,” Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A246 (1958), 333-343 doi:10.1098/rspa.1958.0142
-
[8]
The Dynamics of general relativity,
R. L. Arnowitt, S. Deser and C. W. Misner,“The Dynamics of general relativity,” Gen. Rel. Grav. 40 (2008), 1997-2027 doi:10.1007/s10714- 008-0661-1 [arXiv:gr-qc/0405109 [gr-qc]]
arXiv 2008
Show all 22 references
-
[9]
The energy problem in Einstein’s theory of gravitation,
L. D. Faddeev, “The energy problem in Einstein’s theory of gravitation,” Sov. Phys. Usp. 25 (1982), 130-142 doi:10.1070/PU1982v025n03ABEH004517
1982 doi
-
[10]
The Canonical Structure of the First Order Einstein-Hilbert Action,
D. G. C. McKeon, “The Canonical Structure of the First Order Einstein-Hilbert Action,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 25 (2010), 3453-3480 doi:10.1142/S0217751X10050093 [arXiv:1005.3001 [gr-qc]]
2010 arXiv
-
[11]
The Canonical Structure of the First Order Einstein-Hilbert Action with a Flat Background,
F. Chishtie and D. G. C. McKeon, “The Canonical Structure of the First Order Einstein-Hilbert Action with a Flat Background,” Class. Quant. Grav. 30 (2013), 155002 doi:10.1088/0264-9381/30/15/155002 [arXiv:1304.5613 [gr-qc]]
2013 arXiv
-
[12]
An Analysis of the First Order Form of Gauge Theories,
N. Kiriushcheva, S. V. Kuzmin and D. G. C. McKeon,“An Analysis of the First Order Form of Gauge Theories,” Can. J. Phys.90 (2012), 165-174 doi:10.1139/p11-154 [arXiv:1112.2003 [hep-th]]
2012 arXiv
-
[13]
The Hamiltonian formulation of General Relativity: Myths and reality,
N. Kiriushcheva and S. V. Kuzmin,“The Hamiltonian formulation of General Relativity: Myths and reality,” Central Eur. J. Phys.9 (2011), 576-615 doi:10.2478/s11534-010-0072-2 [arXiv:0809.0097 [gr-qc]]
2011 arXiv
-
[14]
The Hamiltonian of Einstein affine-metric formulation of General Relativity,
N. Kiriushcheva and S. V. Kuzmin, “The Hamiltonian of Einstein affine-metric formulation of General Relativity,” Eur. Phys. J. C 70 13 (2010), 389-422 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-010-1458-4 [arXiv:0912.3396 [gr-qc]]
2010 arXiv
-
[15]
A Canonical Analysis of the Einstein-Hilbert Action in First Order Form,
N. Kiriushcheva, S. V. Kuzmin and D. G. C. McKeon,“A Canonical Analysis of the Einstein-Hilbert Action in First Order Form,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 21 (2006), 3401-3420 doi:10.1142/S0217751X06029545 [arXiv:hep-th/0609219 [hep-th]]
2006 arXiv
-
[16]
Hamiltonian Reduction of Unconstrained and Constrained Systems,
L. D. Faddeev and R. Jackiw,“Hamiltonian Reduction of Unconstrained and Constrained Systems,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 60 (1988), 1692-1694 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.60.1692
1988 doi
-
[17]
(Constrained) quantization without tears,
R. Jackiw, “(Constrained) quantization without tears,” [arXiv:hep- th/9306075 [hep-th]]
-
[18]
Equivalenceof Faddeev-Jackiwand Dirac approaches for gauge theories,
J. A. Garcia and J. M. Pons,“Equivalenceof Faddeev-Jackiwand Dirac approaches for gauge theories,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A12 (1997), 451-464 doi:10.1142/S0217751X97000505 [arXiv:hep-th/9610067 [hep-th]]
1997 arXiv
-
[20]
Canonical Analysis of Eddington Gravity,
J. Kluson, “Canonical Analysis of Eddington Gravity,” [arXiv:2506.16279 [gr-qc]]
-
[21]
Born-Infeld-Einstein theory with matter,
D. N. Vollick, “Born-Infeld-Einstein theory with matter,” Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005), 084026 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.72.084026 [arXiv:gr- qc/0506091 [gr-qc]]
2005
-
[22]
Cosmology of unimodular Born–Infeld-fR gravity,
S. Kibaroğlu, S. D. Odintsov and T. Paul,“Cosmology of unimodular Born–Infeld-fR gravity,” Phys. Dark Univ. 44 (2024), 101445 doi:10.1016/j.dark.2024.101445 [arXiv:2402.08951 [gr-qc]]
2024
-
[23]
Born-Infeld-f (R) gravity,
A. N. Makarenko, S. Odintsov and G. J. Olmo, “Born-Infeld-f (R) gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014), 024066 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.024066 [arXiv:1403.7409 [hep-th]]. 14
2014 arXiv
Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.