Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Screening Mechanisms on White Dwarfs: Symmetron & Dilaton

T0 review · 3 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 Symmetron and dilaton screening shrink white dwarfs, and no screened mass-radius curve exceeds Newtonian gravity.

desk verdict First symmetron/dilaton white-dwarf comparison with a real qualitative difference; the universal no-exceed claim needs proof or a caveat. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.05871 v2 pith:WEBGB3YH submitted 2025-05-09 gr-qc astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR

Joan Bachs-Esteban , Ilídio Lopes , Javier Rubio This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR PACS 04.50.Kd97.20.Rp
keywords scalar-tensortheoriesscreeningmechanismssymmetrondilatonwhitedwarfsmass-radiusrelationfifthforcemodifiedgravity
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 asks what two popular screening mechanisms—the symmetron and the dilaton—do to white dwarfs, and answers with a numerical study: both fields make the stellar pressure fall faster than in Newtonian gravity, so screened white dwarfs come out smaller, less massive, and less luminous. The central claim is a no-exceed result: in every configuration explored, no mass-radius curve for symmetron- or dilaton-screened white dwarfs rises above the Newtonian one, extending the authors' earlier chameleon finding. Because the fifth force always adds to gravity rather than opposing it, these mechanisms cannot produce super-Chandrasekhar white dwarfs. The paper also maps where the effects live—symmetrons decouple entirely in the densest stars, dilatons weaken but never switch off—and shows the deviations concentrate at low central densities, marking low-mass white dwarfs as the natural observational target.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the coupled system of equilibrium equations (14)–(18), which joins Newtonian hydrostatic balance with a fifth-force term $-\tilde\rho (A_{,\phi}/A)\sigma$, the scalar field's Klein–Gordon equation with the effective potential $V_{\rm eff}(\phi) = V(\phi) + \rho[A(\phi)-1]$, and the mass equation, integrated with a Chandrasekhar zero-temperature equation of state. Two models plug into this effective potential: the symmetron—a symmetry-restoration field with potential $-\tfrac{1}{2}\mu^2\phi^2 + \tfrac{1}{4}\lambda\phi^4$ and coupling $A = 1 + \phi^2/2M_S^2$, whose field value collapses to zero above the critical density $\rho_S = \mu^2 M_S^2$—and the dilaton—a runaway-potential field with $V = A^4 V_0 e^{-(\phi-\phi_d)/M_P}$ and coupling strength $V_0/(4V_0+\rho)$ that shrinks with density. A custom shooting method fixes the central field value so that the solution asymptotes to the exterior minimum. What drives the conclusion is the sign structure of the computed profiles: because the field rises smoothly from the interior minimum to the higher exterior minimum, both $\phi$ and its gradient are positive inside the star, so equation (16) makes the pressure fall faster than in Newtonian gravity, and the resulting star is always smaller than its Newtonian counterpart.

What would settle it

The most direct check is numerical: hunt for legitimate shooting solutions with a sign change in the field gradient $\sigma(r)$ inside or just outside the star—for instance with a dilaton offset $\phi_d \neq 0$ or a symmetron that relaxes to its exterior minimum with damped oscillations. A profile with $\sigma(r) < 0$ anywhere produces an outward fifth force, and if such a solution also placed part of the mass-radius curve at or above the Newtonian one, the no-exceed claim would fail. Observationally, a single white dwarf with mass and radius above the Newtonian curve would already contradict the paper's prediction, since all three mechanisms can only push the curve downward.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that symmetron and dilaton screening shrink white dwarfs and can never inflate them: no mass-radius curve for screened stars exceeds the Newtonian prediction. Solving the scalar-tensor equilibrium equations in the Newtonian approximation with a Chandrasekhar equation of state, the authors find that both fields make the pressure drop more steeply in low-density white dwarfs, which lowers the equilibrium mass, radius, and luminosity. In the densest stars the effect is suppressed: the symmetron sits at zero throughout the core and fully decouples above the critical density $\rho_S = \mu^2 M_S^2$, while the dilaton takes a smaller but nonzero value, so its coupling weakens without vanishing. The authors stress that this no-exceed behaviour unifies all three screening mechanisms they have studied—symmetron, dilaton, and chameleon—meaning none of them can produce the overmassive 'super-Chandrasekhar' white dwarfs hinted at by some observations.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the scalar field rises monotonically from its central value to its exterior value with no extra extrema, so its gradient is positive everywhere and the fifth force always adds to gravity; the paper's evidence for this monotonicity is computational rather than a proof, and if the field ever overshot its exterior minimum the force could point outward and the no-exceed result could fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • No screening mechanism in this family—symmetron, dilaton, or chameleon—can explain super-Chandrasekhar white dwarfs; the upper end of the mass-radius curve is always bounded by the Newtonian one.
  • Massive white dwarfs screened by a symmetron are observationally indistinguishable from Newtonian stars, since the field vanishes and decouples above the critical density, while dilaton effects weaken but never switch off.
  • The deviations concentrate at low central densities, so the low-mass end of the white-dwarf mass-radius relation is where symmetron and dilaton signals would appear first.
  • Dilaton-screened white dwarfs have lower luminosities than Newtonian ones because their masses are smaller, while their mean specific heat is essentially unchanged.
  • Asteroseismology of white dwarfs is proposed as the tool to constrain the symmetron and dilaton parameter spaces, which remain much less constrained than the chameleon's.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural generalisation the paper does not pursue: the no-exceed conclusion should survive for any screening model whose coupling function $A(\phi)$ increases monotonically between the two minima, and would fail only if the field profile developed an overshoot or an extra extremum that made the gradient negative somewhere—a check worth running for models with oscillatory relaxation to the exterio
  • Because symmetron mass-radius curves for different $\mu$ cross at low masses, mass and radius alone cannot separate the potential scale from the coupling strength; the paper's own luminosity and cooling curves suggest thermal observables could break this degeneracy.
  • The density-dependent contrast is the cleanest observational handle: if the explored parameter ranges are physical, deviations should appear first among the least massive white dwarfs, so precision radii for low-mass samples from astrometric surveys could confirm or exclude these models—a test the paper motivates but does not perform.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies the equilibrium structure of white dwarfs in scalar-tensor theories with symmetron and dilaton screening. The authors adopt a Newtonian stellar-structure framework, a Chandrasekhar equation of state, and a shooting method to solve the coupled ODEs for mass, pressure, and scalar field for central densities from 7e4 to 1e10 g cm^-3. They find that both fields steepen the pressure drop in low-density white dwarfs and that the effect weakens in massive stars, with symmetrons decoupling completely above a critical density. They conclude that no mass-radius curve for symmetron-, dilaton-, or chameleon-screened white dwarfs exceeds the Newtonian prediction, and they discuss implications for luminosity and cooling. The paper compares the symmetron and dilaton results with previous chameleon work and identifies parameter-dependent differences among the three mechanisms.

Significance. If correct, the main result provides a clear phenomenological benchmark: symmetron and dilaton screening cannot make white dwarfs overmassive or overlarge relative to Newtonian gravity in the studied parameter range, and massive symmetron-screened stars should be indistinguishable from Newtonian ones. The paper is the first direct symmetron/dilaton comparison in white dwarfs, and it is transparent about its numerical setup: the parameter ranges are stated, the shooting method is described in pseudocode (Appendix A), and the scalar-field profiles are displayed. These features make the results falsifiable and easy to reproduce. The principal weakness is that the headline no-exceed claim is stated as a general consequence for all three mechanisms, while the evidence is a numerical survey over a limited grid together with an unproven monotonicity assumption about the scalar-field gradient.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.1, Eqs. (16)-(18)] The no-exceed conclusion follows from Eq. (16) only when the product (A,phi/A)sigma is non-negative. The text in Sec. 4.1 asserts that sigma > 0 because there are no additional extrema between the two minima and cites Figure 4 as computational evidence. This is not a proof. The system (17)-(18) is nonlinear, with an r-dependent effective potential; for the symmetron, dVeff/dphi = (rho/M_S^2 - mu^2)phi + lambda phi^3 is non-monotone, so standard comparison arguments do not apply and overshoot (sigma < 0) is not obviously excluded. If sigma < 0 in any shell, the scalar term in Eq. (16) reduces the pressure gradient, and the conclusion that all screened mass-radius curves lie below the Newtonian one could fail. Please either provide a rigorous monotonicity argument, or systematically search a much wider parameter space for sigma < 0 solutions, and in the absence of such a proof state the conclusion as a numerical result for the computed configurations rather than as a general theorem.
  2. [Sec. 4 vs. Sec. 3.3] The background density used in the numerics is inconsistent between sections. Section 3.3 states that the galaxy density is rho_G = 1e-24 g cm^-3 and that the stellar radius is set by rho(R) = rho_inf = rho_G, while Section 4 says with a background density of rho_inf = 2e-9 g cm^-3. These values differ by fifteen orders of magnitude. Since the exterior minimum of the effective potential and the field profile outside the star depend on this boundary condition, the numerical results are not reproducible as written. Please clarify which value was actually used and include a sensitivity test to this boundary condition.
  3. [Abstract and Sec. 4] The universal wording that no mass-radius curve for screened white dwarfs exceeds the Newtonian prediction in any of these three mechanisms is not supported by the parameter coverage. The symmetron scan fixes M_S = 1e-2 M_P and only varies mu over a factor of five; the dilaton scan varies a_2 from 10 to 1e4 and V_0 by three orders of magnitude. These ranges are far from the observational constraints quoted in Sec. 4 (M_S < 1e-4 M_P, mu > 1e-56 M_P, a_2 > 1e6, V_0 < 1e-120 M_P^4), and the statement that key conclusions remain valid for parameters that further suppress the field is not demonstrated for all parameter directions. The abstract and conclusions should either be restricted to the computed parameter ranges or accompanied by an explicit argument that the no-exceed property is parameter-independent.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figures 2 and 3] The dilaton parameter sets are inconsistent: the text in Sec. 4.2 says the curves are for (a_2 = 10, V0 = 1e-85) and (a_2 = 1e3, V0 = 1e-87), but the captions list (a_2 = 1e2, V0 = 1e-85) and (a_2 = 1e3, V0 = 1e-87). Please make the text and captions agree.
  2. [Figure 5, bottom panel] The caption states a_2 = 1e2 and V0 = 1-10 x 1e-85 M_P^4, whereas the legend and the surrounding text use four paired values, (a_2 = 10, V0 = 1e-85) through (a_2 = 1e4, V0 = 1e-88). The caption should be corrected.
  3. [Sec. 3.3] The radius definition is described both as the point where the pressure falls below a tolerance and as the point where rho(R) = rho_inf; since rho_inf is nonzero but very small, the two definitions are not identical. A short clarification would help the reader reproduce the surface condition.
  4. [Sec. 3.1, Eqs. (22)-(23)] The thin-shell factor Delta R/R is introduced for the symmetron but only a sketch of its derivation is given; a reference to the full derivation would be useful for readers unfamiliar with the symmetron literature.
  5. [Figures 2 and 3] The Newtonian reference curves should be identified explicitly in every panel, since the color scheme changes between panels and the legend is not repeated in each panel.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the symmetron and dilaton mass-radius curves are computed from the scalar-tensor equilibrium ODEs, not fitted to the reported stellar outputs, and the chameleon comparison drawn from the authors' prior paper is not load-bearing for the new derivation.

full rationale

The paper's central results are obtained by numerically integrating the coupled hydrostatic and scalar-field equations (14)-(18) with a Chandrasekhar equation of state, using a shooting method to enforce the scalar boundary condition at infinity. The model parameters (MS, mu, lambda for the symmetron; a2, V0 for the dilaton) are chosen from theoretical estimates such as Eq. (21) and the requirement that the scalar interaction range be of stellar radius; they are not fitted to the mass, radius, or luminosity values that the paper reports. The no-exceed conclusion follows from Eq. (16), where the fifth-force term A,phi/A sigma adds to the Newtonian force when A,phi and sigma are nonnegative. The paper asserts sigma > 0 because the field has no extra extrema between the interior and exterior minima, citing Figure 4 as computational evidence; this is an unproven monotonicity assumption and therefore a correctness risk, but it is not circular, since the gradient positivity is not defined in terms of the MR-curve result being derived. The only same-group citation is reference [42], used for the already-known chameleon behavior; the symmetron and dilaton calculations here are self-contained and would stand independently even if the chameleon comparison were removed. Thus no prediction reduces by construction to a fitted input or to a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central computation rests on domain assumptions imported from stellar physics and modified gravity: Newtonian hydrostatic equilibrium, a cold Chandrasekhar EoS, rest-mass-dominated matter with T ~ -rho, the chosen model potentials and coupling functions, and the boundary condition that the scalar field reaches its effective minimum at infinity. The most fragile entry is the monotonic-gradient assumption used to prove that pressure always drops faster. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • Symmetron cutoff scale M_S = 10^-2 M_P
    Chosen in Section 3.1 so a typical 0.5 solar-mass white dwarf is screened by the thin-shell criterion; it exceeds the local-gravity bound M_S < 10^-4 M_P noted in Section 4.
  • Symmetron potential mass scale mu = 1 to 5 x 10^-41 M_P (scanned)
    Five values are scanned so the symmetron interaction range is of order the stellar radius; the values are chosen for computational feasibility, not fitted to data.
  • Symmetron self-coupling lambda = Set by Equation (21), e.g. ~10^-74 for the reference pair
    Derived from the condition that the vacuum fifth force is comparable to gravity, so lambda is not independent of mu and M_S.
  • Dilaton coupling a2 = 10^1 to 10^4 (scanned)
    Scanned across four decades; the values are below the solar-system constraint a2 >= 10^6, chosen for computational feasibility.
  • Dilaton potential scale V0 = 10^-85 to 10^-88 M_P^4 (scanned)
    Scanned so the dilaton interaction range is of order the stellar radius; the values are far above the cosmological bound V0 <= 10^-120 M_P^4.
  • Dilaton coupling minimum phi_d = 0
    Set to zero by a field redefinition, so it carries no independent physical content.
  • Ambient density rho_infinity = 10^-24 g cm^-3 in Section 3.3, but 2 x 10^-9 g cm^-3 in Section 4
    Needed for the exterior boundary condition; the inconsistency between sections is a red flag, though any value far below the critical density leaves the qualitative results unchanged.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Newtonian hydrostatic equilibrium is valid for all white dwarfs considered, up to central density 10^10 g cm^-3.
    Used to write Equations (14)-(18); justified by P0/rho0 ~ 10^-3 and by a TOV comparison referred to [42], not shown in this paper.
  • domain assumption The cold, zero-temperature Chandrasekhar equation of state with Ye = 0.5 describes the stellar matter.
    Equation (12) from [38]; neglects Coulomb, magnetic, finite-temperature, and envelope corrections, which the authors estimate change radii by 5-40 percent but not the qualitative conclusions.
  • domain assumption The matter trace is approximated by the rest-mass density, T = 3P - rho ~ -rho.
    Used in the effective potentials (20) and (26) and in the field equation (18); valid in the Newtonian limit where pressure is negligible.
  • domain assumption The scalar field sits at the minimum of the effective potential in the stellar interior and at the homogeneous exterior background at infinity.
    Required for the shooting boundary conditions in Section 3.3 and for the estimate of the central field value in Section 3.4.
  • ad hoc to paper The scalar field profile is monotonic with sigma > 0 everywhere, with no extra extrema between the interior and exterior minima.
    Stated in Section 4.1 and used to conclude pressure always declines faster, hence no mass-radius curve exceeds Newtonian; if violated, the central no-exceed conclusion could fail.
  • domain assumption Symmetron field values satisfy phi << M_S and dilaton field values satisfy phi << M_P, so the coupling functions can be expanded to leading order.
    Used in Equations (19), (24), (20), and (26); standard in the symmetron and dilaton literature.
  • domain assumption The empirical luminosity-temperature relation L/M = 9.743 x 10^-21 T^2.56 L_sun/M_sun describes white dwarf cooling.
    Adopted from [57] in Equation (34) to compute cooling times; this is input microphysics, not derived in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Screening Mechanisms on White Dwarfs: Symmetron & Dilaton." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WEBGB3YH

@misc{pith2026250505871,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Screening Mechanisms on White Dwarfs: Symmetron & Dilaton},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WEBGB3YH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.05871}
}
read the original abstract

This work provides the first comparison of the symmetron and dilaton fields in white dwarfs. We show how these screening mechanisms behave inside {such stars} and their impact on stellar properties. Employing a custom-developed shooting method, we solve the scalar-tensor equilibrium equations in the Newtonian approximation. We consider a Chandrasekhar equation of state and examine a range of potential mass scales and coupling strengths for both fields. Both fields enhance the pressure drop in low-density white dwarfs, leading to smaller stellar masses, radii, and luminosities. Unlike chameleon models, their effects are suppressed in more massive stars, with symmetron fields fully decoupling and dilaton fields weakening but not vanishing. Consequently, no mass-radius curve for screened white dwarfs exceeds the Newtonian prediction in any of these three mechanisms. The mass-radius deviations are generally more pronounced at lower densities, depending on model parameters. Due to their common runaway potential, we confirm that dilaton and chameleon fields display similar field and gradient profiles. In contrast, due to their environment-dependent coupling, the dilaton and symmetron mechanisms exhibit stronger density-dependent screening effects. These findings highlight both phenomenological differences and theoretical similarities among these mechanisms, motivating asteroseismology studies to constrain the symmetron and dilaton parameter spaces.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.05871 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Radial pressure profiles of WDs screened by the symmetron (top) and dilaton (bottom) mechanisms. For the symmetrons, defined by Equation (19), we consider MS = 10−2 MP, µ = 1 × 10−41 MP (dashed) and µ = 5 × 10−41 MP (dotted), with the corresponding λ values given by Equation (21). The dilaton model is characterised by Equations (24) and (25), with parameters ϕd = 0, a2 = 101 , V0 = 10−85 M4 P (dashed) and a2 = 103 ,… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Mean specific heat c¯V as a function of temperature T of WDs screened by the symmetron (top) and dilaton (bottom) mechanisms. For the symmetron model, defined by Equation (19), we consider MS = 10−2 MP, µ = 1 × 10−41 MP (dashed) and µ = 5 × 10−41 MP (dotted), with the corresponding λ values given by Equation (21). The dilaton model is characterised by Equations (24) and (25), with parameters ϕd = 0, a2 = 102 , V0 = … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Luminosity L as a function of time t of WDs screened by the symmetron (top) and dilaton (bottom) mechanisms. For symmetron fields (see Equation (19)), we consider MS = 10−2 MP, µ = 1 × 10−41 MP (dashed) and µ = 5 × 10−41 MP (dotted), and the corresponding λ couplings given by Equation (21). For dilaton fields (see Equations (24) and (25)), we choose ϕd = 0, a2 = 102 , V0 = 10−85 M4 P (dashed) and a2 = 103 , V0 = 10−… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Scalar field (top) and scalar field gradient (bottom) profiles for the symmetron (left) and dilaton (right) mechanisms. The radial coordinate is normalised by the stellar radius R of the respective star, while the gradient is scaled by the same factor. We consider the …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top panel: MR curves for symmetron-screened WDs with MS = 10−2 MP, µ = 1 − 5 × 10−41 MP, and the corresponding λ values determined by Equation (21). Bottom panel: MR curves for dilaton-screened WDs with ϕd = 0, a2 = 102 , and V0 = 1 − 10 × 10−85 M4 P . In both panels, …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. White dwarfs in minimal dilatonic gravity

    gr-qc 2026-08 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    White dwarfs in minimal dilatonic gravity are sub-Chandrasekhar for all scalar Compton lengths, with maximum mass dropping from 1.425 to 1.09 solar masses at λΦ = 500 km.

  2. Temperature effects on white dwarfs in modified gravity

    gr-qc 2026-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Finite temperature makes theoretical white dwarf models in scalar-tensor gravity larger at the same mass, creating a degeneracy with modified gravity signatures.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Tests of chameleon gravity

    Burrage, C.; Sakstein, J. Tests of chameleon gravity. Living Rev. Relativ. 2018, 21, 1–58. [CrossRef]

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Testing Screened Modified Gravity

    Brax, P .; Casas, S.; Desmond, H.; Elder, B. Testing Screened Modified Gravity. Universe 2021, 8, 11. [CrossRef]

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Screened Scalar Fields in the Laboratory and the Solar System

    Fischer, H.; Käding, C.; Pitschmann, M. Screened Scalar Fields in the Laboratory and the Solar System. Universe 2024, 10, 297. [CrossRef]

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2018

    Will, C.M. Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2018

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Primordial black holes from fifth forces.Phys

    Amendola, L.; Rubio, J.; Wetterich, C. Primordial black holes from fifth forces.Phys. Rev. D 2018, 97, 081302. [CrossRef]

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Primordial dark matter halos from fifth forces

    Savastano, S.; Amendola, L.; Rubio, J.; Wetterich, C. Primordial dark matter halos from fifth forces. Phys. Rev. D 2019, 100, 083518. [CrossRef]

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Observational constraints on early coupled quintessence

    Goh, L.W.K.; Bachs-Esteban, J.; Gómez-Valent, A.; Pettorino, V .; Rubio, J. Observational constraints on early coupled quintessence. Phys. Rev. D 2024, 109, 023530. [CrossRef]

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    The Cosmon model for an asymptotically vanishing time dependent cosmological ‘constant’

    Wetterich, C. The Cosmon model for an asymptotically vanishing time dependent cosmological ‘constant’. Astron. Astrophys. 1995, 301, 321–328. [CrossRef]

    work page 1995

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    Growing neutrinos and cosmological selection

    Wetterich, C. Growing neutrinos and cosmological selection. Phys. Lett. B 2007, 655, 201–208. [CrossRef]

    2007

  2. [10]

    Quintessence cosmologies with a growing matter component

    Amendola, L.; Baldi, M.; Wetterich, C. Quintessence cosmologies with a growing matter component. Phys. Rev. D 2008, 78, 023015. [CrossRef]

    2008

  3. [11]

    Dynamics of neutrino lumps in growing neutrino quintessence.Phys

    Casas, S.; Pettorino, V .; Wetterich, C. Dynamics of neutrino lumps in growing neutrino quintessence.Phys. Rev. D 2016, 94, 103518. [CrossRef]

    2016

  4. [12]

    Higgs-Dilaton Cosmology: From the Early to the Late Universe

    Garcia-Bellido, J.; Rubio, J.; Shaposhnikov, M.; Zenhausern, D. Higgs-Dilaton Cosmology: From the Early to the Late Universe. Phys. Rev. D 2011, 84, 123504. [CrossRef]

    2011

  5. [13]

    No fifth force in a scale invariant universe.Phys

    Ferreira, P .G.; Hill, C.T.; Ross, G.G. No fifth force in a scale invariant universe.Phys. Rev. D 2017, 95, 064038. [CrossRef] Universe 2025, 11, 158 22 of 23

    2017

  6. [14]

    Scale-invariant alternatives to general relativity

    Casas, S.; Karananas, G.K.; Pauly, M.; Rubio, J. Scale-invariant alternatives to general relativity. III. The inflation-dark energy connection. Phys. Rev. D 2019, 99, 063512. [CrossRef]

    2019

  7. [15]

    Fifth forces and broken scale symmetries in the Jordan frame

    Copeland, E.J.; Millington, P .; Muñoz, S.S. Fifth forces and broken scale symmetries in the Jordan frame. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2022, 2, 16. [CrossRef]

    2022

  8. [16]

    Screening Long-Range Forces through Local Symmetry Restoration

    Hinterbichler, K.; Khoury, J. Screening Long-Range Forces through Local Symmetry Restoration. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2010, 104, 231301 . [CrossRef] [PubMed]

    2010

  9. [17]

    The Dilaton and Modified Gravity .Phys

    Brax, P .; van de Bruck, C.; Davis, A.C.; Shaw, D. The Dilaton and Modified Gravity .Phys. Rev. D 2010, 82, 063519. [CrossRef]

    2010

  10. [18]

    Chameleon cosmology

    Khoury, J.; Weltman, A. Chameleon cosmology. Phys. Rev. D 2004, 69, 044026. [CrossRef]

    2004

  11. [19]

    To the problem of nonvanishing gravitation mass

    Vainshtein, A.I. To the problem of nonvanishing gravitation mass. Phys. Lett. B 1972, 39, 393–394. [CrossRef]

    1972

  12. [20]

    Massive Galileons and Vainshtein screening

    Burrage, C.; Coltman, B.; Padilla, A.; Saadeh, D.; Wilson, T. Massive Galileons and Vainshtein screening. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2021, 2021, 50. [CrossRef]

    2021

  13. [21]

    k-Mouflage gravity

    Babichev, E.; Deffayet, C.; Ziour, R. k-Mouflage gravity. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 2009, 18, 2147–2154. [CrossRef]

    2009

  14. [22]

    The effective field theory of K-mouflage

    Brax, P .; Valageas, P . The effective field theory of K-mouflage. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2016, 2016, 20. [CrossRef]

    2016

  15. [23]

    Screening fifth forces in k-essence and DBI models.J

    Brax, P .; Burrage, C.; Davis, A.-C. Screening fifth forces in k-essence and DBI models.J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2013, 2013, 20 . [CrossRef]

    2013

  16. [24]

    Dynamics of Screening in Modified Gravity

    ter Haar, L.; Bezares, M.; Crisostomi, M.; Barausse, E.; Palenzuela, C. Dynamics of Screening in Modified Gravity. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2021, 126, 091102. [CrossRef]

    2021

  17. [25]

    Generalized K-essence inflation in Jordan and Einstein frames

    Luongo, O.; Mengoni, T. Generalized K-essence inflation in Jordan and Einstein frames. Class. Quantum Gravity 2024, 41, 105006. [CrossRef]

    2024

  18. [26]

    Healing the cosmological constant problem during inflation through a unified quasi-quintessence matter field

    D’Agostino, R.; Luongo, O.; Muccino, M. Healing the cosmological constant problem during inflation through a unified quasi-quintessence matter field. Class. Quantum Gravity 2022, 39, 195014. [CrossRef]

    2022

  19. [27]

    Stellar Structure and Tests of Modified Gravity

    Chang, P .; Hui, L. Stellar Structure and Tests of Modified Gravity. Astrophys. J. 2011, 732, 25. [CrossRef]

    2011

  20. [28]

    Stellar oscillations in modified gravity

    Sakstein, J. Stellar oscillations in modified gravity. Phys. Rev. D 2013, 88, 124013. [CrossRef]

    2013

  21. [29]

    Nonlinear dynamical stability of infrared modifications of gravity.Phys

    Brito, R.; Terrana, A.; Johnson, M.; Cardoso, V . Nonlinear dynamical stability of infrared modifications of gravity.Phys. Rev. D Part. Fields Gravit. Cosmol. 2014, 90, 124035. [CrossRef]

    2014

  22. [30]

    Relativistic Stars in Beyond Horndeski Theories

    Babichev, E.; Koyama, K.; Langlois, D.; Saito, R.; Sakstein, J. Relativistic Stars in Beyond Horndeski Theories. Class. Quant. Grav. 2016, 33, 235014. [CrossRef]

    2016

  23. [31]

    Highly compact neutron stars and screening mechanisms: Equilibrium and stability

    de Aguiar, B.F.; Mendes, R.F. Highly compact neutron stars and screening mechanisms: Equilibrium and stability. Phys. Rev. D 2020, 102, 024064 . [CrossRef]

    2020

  24. [32]

    Neutron Stars in the Symmetron Model

    de Aguiar, B.F.; Mendes, R.F.P .; Falciano, F.T. Neutron Stars in the Symmetron Model. Universe 2021, 8, 6. [CrossRef]

    2021

  25. [33]

    On the impact of nonlocal gravity on compact stars

    Panotopoulos, G.; Rubio, J.; Lopes, I. On the impact of nonlocal gravity on compact stars. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 2023, 32, 2250139. [CrossRef]

    2023

  26. [34]

    Dynamical chameleon neutron stars: Stability, radial oscillations, and scalar radiation in spherical symmetry

    Dima, A.; Bezares, M.; Barausse, E. Dynamical chameleon neutron stars: Stability, radial oscillations, and scalar radiation in spherical symmetry. Phys. Rev. D 2021, 104, 084017. [CrossRef]

    2021

  27. [35]

    White dwarfs and revelations

    Saltas, I.D.; Sawicki, I.; Lopes, I. White dwarfs and revelations. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2018, 2018, 28. [CrossRef]

    2018

  28. [36]

    White dwarf mass-radius relation in theories beyond general relativity

    Alam, K.; Islam, T. White dwarf mass-radius relation in theories beyond general relativity. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2023, 8, 81. [CrossRef]

    2023

  29. [37]

    Metric-affine effects in crystallization processes of white dwarfs

    Kalita, S.; Sarmah, L.; Wojnar, A. Metric-affine effects in crystallization processes of white dwarfs. Phys. Rev. D 2023, 107, 044072. [CrossRef]

    2023

  30. [38]

    Compact Objects in Astrophysics: White Dwarfs, Neutron Stars and Black Holes ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007

    Camenzind, M. Compact Objects in Astrophysics: White Dwarfs, Neutron Stars and Black Holes ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007

    2007

  31. [39]

    A white dwarf catalogue from Gaia-DR2 and the Virtual Observatory .Mon

    Jiménez-Esteban, F.M.; Torres, S.; Rebassa-Mansergas, A.; Skorobogatov , G.; Solano, E.; Cantero, C.; Rodrigo, C. A white dwarf catalogue from Gaia-DR2 and the Virtual Observatory .Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2018, 480, 4505–4518. [CrossRef]

    2018

  32. [40]

    Fundamental parameter accuracy of DA and DB white dwarfs in Gaia Data Release 2

    Tremblay, P .E.; Cukanovaite, E.; Gentile Fusillo, N.P .; Cunningham, T.; Hollands, M.A. Fundamental parameter accuracy of DA and DB white dwarfs in Gaia Data Release 2. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2018, 482, 5222–5232. [CrossRef]

    2018

  33. [41]

    The 100 pc White Dwarf Sample in the SDSS Footprint

    Kilic, M.; Bergeron, P .; Kosakowski, A.; Brown, W.R.; Agüeros, M.A.; Blouin, S. The 100 pc White Dwarf Sample in the SDSS Footprint. Astrophys. J. 2020, 898, 84. [CrossRef]

    2020

  34. [42]

    Structural Implications of the Chameleon Mechanism on White Dwarfs

    Bachs-Esteban, J.; Lopes, I.; Rubio, J. Structural Implications of the Chameleon Mechanism on White Dwarfs. arXiv 2024, arXiv:2407.04791

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Quintessential Inflation: A Tale of Emergent and Broken Symmetries.Galaxies 2022, 10, 22

    Bettoni, D.; Rubio, J. Quintessential Inflation: A Tale of Emergent and Broken Symmetries.Galaxies 2022, 10, 22. [CrossRef]

    2022

  36. [44]

    The highly collapsed configurations of a stellar mass (Second paper)

    Chandrasekhar, S. The highly collapsed configurations of a stellar mass (Second paper). Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 1935, 95, 207–225. [CrossRef]

    1935

  37. [45]

    Models for Zero-Temperature Stars

    Hamada, T.; Salpeter, E.E. Models for Zero-Temperature Stars. Astrophys. J. 1961, 134, 683. [CrossRef]

    1961

  38. [46]

    Crystallized white dwarf stars in scalar-tensor gravity.arXiv 2024, arXiv:2408.15937

    Vidal, S.; Wojnar, A.; Järv, L.; Doneva, D. Crystallized white dwarf stars in scalar-tensor gravity.arXiv 2024, arXiv:2408.15937. [CrossRef] Universe 2025, 11, 158 23 of 23

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Maximum mass of stable magnetized highly super-Chandrasekhar white dwarfs: Stable solutions with varying magnetic fields

    Das, U.; Mukhopadhyay, B. Maximum mass of stable magnetized highly super-Chandrasekhar white dwarfs: Stable solutions with varying magnetic fields. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2014, 6, 50. [CrossRef]

    2014

  40. [48]

    Relativistic Thomas-Fermi equation of state for magnetized white dwarfs

    Roy, S.K.; Mukhopadhyay, S.; Lahiri, J.; Basu, D.N. Relativistic Thomas-Fermi equation of state for magnetized white dwarfs. Phys. Rev. D 2019, 100, 063008. [CrossRef]

    2019

  41. [49]

    The Potential of White Dwarf Cosmochronology.Publ

    Fontaine, G.; Brassard, P .; Bergeron, P . The Potential of White Dwarf Cosmochronology.Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 2001, 113, 409. [CrossRef]

    2001

  42. [50]

    Gravitation; W

    Misner, C.W.; Thorne, K.S.; Wheeler, J.A. Gravitation; W. H. Freeman: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1973

    1973

  43. [51]

    Symmetron Cosmology

    Hinterbichler, K.; Khoury, J.; Levy, A.; Matas, A. Symmetron Cosmology. Phys. Rev. D 2011, 84, 103521. [CrossRef]

    2011

  44. [52]

    Higgs Phenomenon without Symmetry Breaking Order Parameter

    Frohlich, J.; Morchio, G.; Strocchi, F. Higgs Phenomenon without Symmetry Breaking Order Parameter. Nucl. Phys. B 1981, 190, 553–582. [CrossRef]

    1981

  45. [53]

    Relativistic stars in f(R) and scalar-tensor theories

    Babichev, E.; Langlois, D. Relativistic stars in f(R) and scalar-tensor theories. Phys. Rev. D 2010, 81, 124051. [CrossRef]

    2010

  46. [54]

    Neutron Stars in Screened Modified Gravity: Chameleon vs

    Brax, P .; Davis, A.C.; Jha, R. Neutron Stars in Screened Modified Gravity: Chameleon vs. Dilaton. Phys. Rev. D 2017, 95, 083514. [CrossRef]

    2017

  47. [55]

    Monte Carlo Study of a One-Component Plasma

    Brush, S.G.; Sahlin, H.L.; Teller, E. Monte Carlo Study of a One-Component Plasma. I. J. Chem. Phys. 1966, 45, 1727895. [CrossRef]

    1966

  48. [56]

    Outer Envelopes and Cooling of White Dwarfs

    Koester, D. Outer Envelopes and Cooling of White Dwarfs. Astron. Astrophys. 1972, 16, 459–470

    1972

  49. [57]

    Physics of white dwarf stars

    Koester, D.; Chanmugam, G. Physics of white dwarf stars. Rep. Prog. Phys. 1990, 53, 837. [CrossRef]

    1990

  50. [58]

    Stellar oscillations in scalar-tensor theory of gravity

    Sotani, H.; Kokkotas, K.D. Stellar oscillations in scalar-tensor theory of gravity. Phys. Rev. D 2005, 71, 124038. [CrossRef] Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contribut...

    2005

Pith tools

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