Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Black holes and neutron stars in massive Hellings-Nordtvedt theory

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In massive Hellings-Nordtvedt theory, the asymptotic vacuum forbids having both curvature couplings at once, splitting the theory into two single-coupling sectors with different black-hole and neutron-star behavior.

desk verdict Useful exact solutions and neutron-star numerics, but the central sector-selection no-go and the Solar-System ℓ1 bounds are both unsupported. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.14711 v2 pith:YHQ6LHDQ submitted 2026-05-14 gr-qc

Zhe Luo , Liang Liang , Zhong-Xi Yu , Hong-Da Lyu , Shoulong Li , Hongwei Yu This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc
keywords Hellings-Nordtvedttheoryvector-tensorgravitybumblebeemodelsspontaneousLorentzsymmetrybreakingnonminimalcurvature-vectorcouplingsstealthblackholesneutronstarsNoethermass
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 whether the monopole-like vacuum structure of a massive vector-tensor theory with a nonzero vector expectation value is generic or coupling-specific. By expanding the static spherical field equations near spatial infinity, the authors find that a potential whose minimum sits at nonzero A² forces one of the two nonminimal curvature-vector couplings to vanish; the theory separates into two single-coupling sectors. The A^μ A^ν R_μν sector reproduces the familiar solid-angle-deficit vacuum, while the A²R sector is asymptotically flat, sporting a Schwarzschild metric with a nontrivial radial vector field. The paper then computes the Noether mass of this stealth black hole, derives Solar-System bounds on the A²R parameter, and constructs slowly rotating neutron stars that deviate appreciably from general relativity in mass, radius, and moment of inertia even when weak-field constraints hold. The upshot is a new, observationally viable corner of a classic theory for studying strong-field gravity with a spontaneous Lorentz-violating vacuum.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the order-by-order expansion of the static, spherically symmetric vacuum field equations in powers of 1/r near spatial infinity, plus the condition that both the potential and its first derivative vanish at the nonzero vector vacuum. This yields the asymptotic branch condition, and consistency at successive orders forces one of the two couplings to zero. The Wald covariant phase-space formalism supplies the Noether charge that converts the metric integration constant into the physical mass.

What would settle it

Numerically integrate the static spherical vacuum equations (7) with both couplings nonzero and boundary data X→b², V→0; any regular asymptotically flat or monopole-like solution would refute the claim that only single-coupling sectors exist. Alternatively, extend the order-by-order expansion to the next two powers of 1/r and check whether the alleged inconsistency appears at higher order.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that in Hellings-Nordtvedt vector-tensor theory with a potential whose minimum sits at a nonzero vector norm A²=b², the asymptotic vacuum field equations cannot be solved order by order when both nonminimal couplings γ1 (to A²R) and γ2 (to A^μA^νR_μν) are nonzero. Consistency at spatial infinity forces exactly one coupling to vanish. With only γ2, the theory reproduces the previously known monopole-like (solid-angle-deficit) asymptotics; with only γ1, the vacuum solution is asymptotically flat, metric-wise identical to Schwarzschild, but carries a nontrivial radial vector field. The paper further shows that the Noether mass of this 'stealth' black hole is M1=(1+ℓ1)m/2,

Load-bearing premise

The sector-selection conclusion rests on the static spherical ansatz with a purely radial vector field and a single asymptotic branch; allow a timelike or mixed vector component, or a different potential branch, and both couplings might survive.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On the asymptotic vacuum branch, the two nonminimal couplings γ1 and γ2 cannot both be nonzero; the Einstein-tensor combination of the two is therefore excluded.
  • In the A²R sector, the black-hole metric is Schwarzschild in the integration constant, but the Noether mass is M1=(1+ℓ1)m/2, so observable mass differs from the geometric parameter.
  • Solar-System tests (perihelion precession, light deflection, Shapiro delay) restrict the A²R parameter to −10⁻⁵ ≲ ℓ1 ≲ 10⁻⁶, a far weaker bound than the one on the Ricci-tensor sector.
  • Neutron stars in the A²R sector, computed with the SLy equation of state and ℓ1=10⁻⁶, show reduced masses, radii, and moments of inertia at low central densities and enhanced values at high densities, with clear differences from the Ricci-tensor sector at high mass.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the sector-selection argument survives beyond the radial-vector ansatz, the A²R sector becomes the only asymptotically flat, weak-field-compatible branch of this theory; this extrapolation is my inference, not a paper claim.
  • The Noether-mass correction found here suggests that other 'stealth' black holes in vector-tensor theories may also carry physical masses different from their metric parameters, so metric-only constraints could be systematically biased.
  • Computing tidal Love numbers and I-Love-Q relations in the A²R sector could provide gravitational-wave discriminators between this sector, GR, and the Ricci-tensor sector; the paper leaves this open.
  • Stability of the new neutron-star and black-hole solutions is unproven; if they prove dynamically unstable, the predicted strong-field deviations would not be observable.
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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies massive Hellings-Nordtvedt theory, a vector-tensor theory with two nonminimal curvature-vector couplings, A^2 R and A^mu A^nu R_mu nu, supplemented by a potential with a nonzero vacuum value of A^2. The central claim is that the asymptotic vacuum condition is incompatible with generic nonzero values of both couplings and instead selects two single-coupling sectors: the A^mu A^nu R_mu nu sector reproduces the known monopole-like asymptotics, while the A^2 R sector admits an asymptotically flat Schwarzschild metric with a nontrivial radial vector field. The paper further computes the Noether mass in the A^2 R sector, derives Solar-System constraints on the Lorentz-violating parameter l1, and constructs slowly rotating neutron-star solutions showing appreciable deviations from GR.

Significance. If the sector-selection theorem were established, the paper would provide a useful classification of vacuum asymptotics in massive vector-tensor theories and a concrete framework for strong-field tests. The exact branch solutions (13)-(14) are simple and likely correct, and the Noether-charge calculation and neutron-star formalism are valuable. However, the central no-go is asserted rather than derived, the vacuum equations used for the asymptotics appear internally inconsistent with the action, and the weak-field constraint derivation rests on a questionable mass normalization. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's main conclusions.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III, after Eq. (12)] The central no-go is asserted, not derived. The paper displays the leading-order equations (9), the branch condition (12), and then states that the field equations 'cannot be solved order by order' for generic gamma1 and gamma2, but the higher-order equations are never shown. At O(r^{-2}) the equations do not obviously exclude both couplings; they admit the continuum relation f0 = (1+ell1)/(1+ell1+ell2). The contradiction must appear at a higher order; those equations and the point at which the recursion fails must be exhibited. Without this, the sector decomposition that underpins the rest of the paper is unsupported.
  2. [Sec. III, Eq. (6)] The ansatz restricts the vector field to a purely radial component, A^(1) = b phi(r) dr. A general static spherically symmetric vector field also admits a timelike component A_t = a(r) dt. No symmetry argument is given to set a = 0. If a timelike component is present, F is no longer zero, Eq. (7d) is modified, and the claimed sector selection could fail. The result should be stated for the radial-vector truncation, or the analysis extended to the full ansatz.
  3. [Sec. III, Eq. (7a) vs Eq. (13)] The displayed vacuum equations appear inconsistent with the action. For gamma2 = 0 and X = b^2 constant, the gamma1 part of Eq. (3) is gamma1 [X G_mu nu + R A_mu A_nu + (g_mu nu Box - grad_mu grad_nu)X], which vanishes on the Schwarzschild metric (13) because R = G = 0 and X is constant. Nevertheless, substituting (13) into (7a) with gamma2 = 0 leaves a residual proportional to gamma1 m/r^3 (plus higher orders) that does not cancel. This suggests a misprint or a derivation error in (7). Since the entire asymptotic no-go is based on (7), the equations must be corrected and the analysis redone.
  4. [Sec. IV B, Eq. (19)] The perihelion scaling is incorrect. The metric (17) is exactly Schwarzschild with mass M_eff = M1/(1+ell1). For fixed observed orbital period, the perihelion advance per century scales as M^{2/3}, not M^2. The ratio to the GR value normalized by M1 is (1+ell1)^{-2/3}, not (1+ell1)^{-2}. Equation (19) and the resulting interval (20) should be corrected. The light-deflection and Shapiro formulas, being linear in M, are correctly written.
  5. [Sec. IV B, Solar-System constraints] The Solar-System bounds are not tests of ell1 as stated. Since the metric (17) has g_tt = -1 + 2 M_eff/r + ..., all orbital and light-bending observables measure M_eff; M1 and ell1 enter only through the choice of mass normalization. Without an independent observational or theoretical determination of M1 (e.g., from a solar model or from identifying the Noether charge with the Sun's total energy), the derived constraints are a convention, not a measurement. The paper should explain what fixes M1 and why the resulting intervals are physical.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] Grammar: 'Our results identify that the A^2 R sector ... as a viable' should read 'identify the A^2 R sector as a viable'.
  2. [Sec. V] The functions F_i and hats F_i are not displayed. For reproducibility, consider providing the explicit ODE system in an appendix or as a supplementary file.
  3. [Sec. V, after Eq. (30)] The statement that rotational corrections to the vector field enter only at order Omega^2 deserves a brief justification. For gamma2 = 0 it holds because A_t = A_phi = 0 makes the t and phi components of the vector equation trivial, but the text should say this explicitly.
  4. [Sec. V, Eq. (40)] After rewriting the potential in terms of ell1 and absorbing b, the relation between the rescaled parameter and the original alpha is unclear. Please state explicitly how alpha transforms.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Solar-System bound on ℓ1 is manufactured by equating the Noether mass with the observed mass; the central asymptotic sector-selection claim is not circular, though it is ansatz-restricted and its order-by-order proof is omitted.

  1. self definitional [Sec. IV.A–IV.B, Eqs. (17)–(24)]
    "In terms of the physical mass M1, the Case I black-hole solution in the A^2R sector can be rewritten as ds^2 = -(1 - 2M1/[r(1+ℓ1)])dt^2 + (1 - 2M1/[r(1+ℓ1)])^{-1}dr^2 + r^2(dθ^2+sin^2θdφ^2), ... From Eq. (17), the effective mass entering the weak-field observables is M_eff = M1/(1+ℓ1). The derivation of the Solar-System constraints then reduces to comparing the standard GR predictions written in terms of M_eff with those written in terms of the physical mass M1."

    Equation (17) is exactly Schwarzschild with the only scale M1/(1+ℓ1)=m/2. Matter is minimally coupled, so perihelion advance, light deflection, and Shapiro delay measure m/2 regardless of ℓ1. The paper then writes ΔΦ_HN1 = ΔΦ_GR/(1+ℓ1)^2 etc., where ΔΦ_GR is already calibrated to the observed orbital mass. Equating this to observations is equivalent to declaring that the observed mass is M1, not m/2. Since M1=(1+ℓ1)m/2 by Eq. (16), the −10^-5 to 10^-6 bound on ℓ1 is just the inverse of this normalization choice; any ℓ1 can be absorbed by rescaling m. The constraint is therefore imposed by definition, not derived from the tests.

full rationale

The main derivation chain—field equations (3)–(4), asymptotic expansion (8), leading-order vacuum conditions (9)–(11), and the two Cases I/II—is not circular. Given the radial-vector ansatz (6) and the branch X→b^2, the sector split follows from the asymptotic field equations rather than being assumed. The Noether-mass computation (15)–(16) is a genuine Wald-charge calculation, and the Case II mass reproduces prior cited work. Self-citations (e.g., [29], [50]) are used for comparison or confirmation, not as the load-bearing justification for new results. The circular reduction is confined to Sec. IV.B: the weak-field constraints on ℓ1 are manufactured by identifying the Noether mass M1 with the mass that Solar-System observations measure. But observations actually measure the Keplerian mass m/2 = M1/(1+ℓ1), which is the only scale appearing in the physical metric (17). Thus the formulas (19), (21), and (23) compare a quantity calculated with M_eff against observations of M_eff, while labeling M1 as 'physical mass'; the resulting interval for ℓ1 is an artifact of that labeling and disappears if m/2 is used as the physical mass. Separately, the sentence after Eq. (12) asserting incompatibility for generic γ1,γ2 is an omitted proof—the relevant higher-order equations are not displayed—and the ansatz (6) excludes timelike or mixed vector components. Those are evidentiary gaps or limitations, not circularity, but they weaken the generality of the sector-selection claim. On balance, one key claimed prediction reduces by construction, so the score is 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles or fields are introduced. The free parameters are the coupling-vacuum combination ℓ1 and the potential scale α, plus the underlying vacuum value b that is absorbed into ℓ1. The main unexamined assumption is the radial-only vector ansatz and the imposed asymptotic branch, which the paper does not justify beyond convenience.

free parameters (3)
  • ℓ1 = γ1 b² = 10⁻⁶ (representative)
    The Lorentz-violating parameter in the A²R sector. The paper claims a Solar-System bound −10⁻⁵ ≲ ℓ1 ≲ 10⁻⁶, but this bound is degenerate with mass normalization; the value 10⁻⁶ is chosen by hand for neutron-star calculations.
  • α (vector potential mass scale) = 10⁻⁴ α⋆ and 10⁻² α⋆
    Coefficient in V = α(γ1²+γ2²)(X−b²)². Chosen by hand for the neutron-star calculations; controls how quickly X relaxes to b² outside the star.
  • b (vector vacuum value) = absorbed into ℓ1
    The nonzero minimum of the potential. It is not measured independently; only the combination ℓ1 = γ1 b² enters the A²R-sector equations after rescaling.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Static, spherically symmetric metric ansatz and a purely radial vector field A^(1) = bϕ(r)dr.
    Introduced in Eqs. (5)–(6). The central restriction to two single-coupling sectors is derived only within this ansatz; timelike or mixed vector components are not considered.
  • domain assumption The potential has a zero-energy minimum at nonzero X = b², with V = V_X = 0 there.
    Used in Eqs. (10)–(11) to impose the asymptotic vacuum condition. The paper's sector-selection conclusion depends on this branch of the potential.
  • domain assumption The asymptotic branch condition X|∞ = b² can be imposed as lim ϕ = lim f^(−1/2).
    Eq. (12). This branch is the definition of the bumblebee-type vacuum; other asymptotic branches are not analyzed.
  • standard math Wald covariant phase-space formalism correctly gives the Noether charge for this vector-tensor theory.
    Invoked in Sec. IV A to obtain Eq. (15) and the mass formulas (16). The paper cites [42,43] for the formalism.
  • domain assumption The star is a perfect fluid with the SLy equation of state, and matter is minimally coupled to g_μν.
    Introduced in Sec. V A, Eqs. (26)–(28). The neutron-star results are specific to this matter model and coupling assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Black holes and neutron stars in massive Hellings-Nordtvedt theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YHQ6LHDQ

@misc{pith2026260514711,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Black holes and neutron stars in massive Hellings-Nordtvedt theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YHQ6LHDQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.14711}
}
abstract

Hellings-Nordtvedt theory is a vector-tensor theory in which a vector field $A_\mu$ is nonminimally coupled to curvature through two independent interactions $A^2{\cal R}$ and $A^\mu A^\nu{\cal R}_{\mu\nu}$. When supplemented by a potential whose zero-energy minimum occurs at nonzero $A^2$, the restricted $A^\mu A^\nu{\cal R}_{\mu\nu}$ sector is known to admit black-hole and neutron-star solutions with a monopole-like asymptotic vacuum structure. We examine whether this structure is a generic consequence of the nonzero vector vacuum or instead relies on the special Ricci-tensor coupling. By analyzing the field equations near spatial infinity, we show that the asymptotic vacuum condition is incompatible with generic nonzero values of both couplings and instead selects two allowed single-coupling sectors. The $A^\mu A^\nu{\cal R}_{\mu\nu}$ sector reproduces the known monopole-like asymptotics, whereas the $A^2{\cal R}$ sector admits an asymptotically flat Schwarzschild metric with a nontrivial radial vector field. We further compute the Noether mass in the $A^2{\cal R}$ sector, derive the corresponding Solar-System constraints, and construct neutron-star configurations. Although the weak-field deviation is constrained to be small, neutron stars can still show appreciable departures from both general relativity and the Ricci-tensor-coupling sector in their masses, radii, and moments of inertia. Our results identify that the $A^2{\cal R}$ sector of massive Hellings-Nordtvedt theory as a viable and useful framework for studying strong-field compact objects with a nonzero vector vacuum while remaining compatible with weak-field tests.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.14711 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The plots illustrate the numerical solutions of the functions ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Mass-radius ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Moment of inertia-mass ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_3.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Geodesics and shadows of the spindle-deformed Kerr black hole

    gr-qc 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    In the spindle-deformed Kerr black hole, null geodesics separate at O(B²) while timelike do not; the deformation shifts the ISCO, can create an OSCO, and enlarges the shadow versus Kerr.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 67 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    − b2VX(X0) 18ℓ1 , f0 = 1, w 2 = 8πw0(ρ0 +P(ρ 0)) 5(1 +ℓ 1ϕ2

  2. [2]

    in” and “ext

    , X 0 =b 2ϕ2 0 .(34) It is worth emphasizing that the difference between the two single-coupling sectors already appears at the level of the central boundary conditions. In theA µAνRµν coupling sector, the solid-angle deficit is not merely an asymptotic property; it is also reflected in the near- center expansion of neutron-star solutions, for which the l...

    2000

  3. [3]

    The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment,

    C. M. Will, “The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment,” Living Rev. Rel.17, 4 (2014) [arXiv:1403.7377 [gr-qc]]. 23

    arXiv 2014

  4. [4]

    Testing General Relativity with Present and Future Astrophysical Observations,

    E. Berti, E. Barausse, V. Cardoso, L. Gualtieri, P. Pani, U. Sperhake, L. C. Stein, N. Wex, K. Yagi and T. Baker,et al.“Testing General Relativity with Present and Future Astrophysical Observations,” Class. Quant. Grav.32, 243001 (2015) [arXiv:1501.07274 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 2015

  5. [5]

    Higher-order theories of gravity: diagnosis, extraction and reformulation via non-metric extra degrees of freedom—a review,

    A. Belenchia, M. Letizia, S. Liberati and E. D. Casola, “Higher-order theories of gravity: diagnosis, extraction and reformulation via non-metric extra degrees of freedom—a review,” Rept. Prog. Phys.81, no.3, 036001 (2018) [arXiv:1612.07749 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    Modified theories of gravity: Why, how and what?,

    S. Shankaranarayanan and J. P. Johnson, “Modified theories of gravity: Why, how and what?,” Gen. Rel. Grav.54, no.5, 44 (2022) [arXiv:2204.06533 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    A systematic approach to generalisations of General Relativity and their cosmological implications,

    L. Heisenberg, “A systematic approach to generalisations of General Relativity and their cosmological implications,” Phys. Rept.796, 1-113 (2019) [arXiv:1807.01725 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    Stellar structure models in modified theories of gravity: Lessons and challenges,

    G. J. Olmo, D. Rubiera-Garcia and A. Wojnar, “Stellar structure models in modified theories of gravity: Lessons and challenges,” Phys. Rept.876, 1-75 (2020) [arXiv:1912.05202 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 2020

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    Sponta- neous scalarization,

    D. D. Doneva, F. M. Ramazano˘ glu, H. O. Silva, T. P. Sotiriou and S. S. Yazadjiev, “Sponta- neous scalarization,” Rev. Mod. Phys.96, no.1, 015004 (2024) [arXiv:2211.01766 [gr-qc]]

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Vector-Metric Theory of Gravity,

    R. W. Hellings and K. Nordtvedt, “Vector-Metric Theory of Gravity,” Phys. Rev. D7, 3593- 3602 (1973)

    1973

  3. [11]

    Static spherical vacuum solutions in the bumblebee gravity model,

    R. Xu, D. Liang and L. Shao, “Static spherical vacuum solutions in the bumblebee gravity model,” Phys. Rev. D107, no.2, 024011 (2023) [arXiv:2209.02209 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Extended thermodynamics of the bumblebee black holes,

    Z. F. Mai, R. Xu, D. Liang and L. Shao, “Extended thermodynamics of the bumblebee black holes,” Phys. Rev. D108, no.2, 024004 (2023) [arXiv:2304.08030 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Probing vector hair of black holes with extreme- mass-ratio inspirals,

    D. Liang, R. Xu, Z. F. Mai and L. Shao, “Probing vector hair of black holes with extreme- mass-ratio inspirals,” Phys. Rev. D107, no.4, 044053 (2023) [arXiv:2212.09346 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Bumblebee Black Holes in Light of Event Horizon Telescope Observations,

    R. Xu, D. Liang and L. Shao, “Bumblebee Black Holes in Light of Event Horizon Telescope Observations,” Astrophys. J.945, no.2, 148 (2023) [arXiv:2302.05671 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Dynamic instability analysis for bumblebee black holes: The odd parity,

    Z. F. Mai, R. Xu, D. Liang and L. Shao, “Dynamic instability analysis for bumblebee black holes: The odd parity,” Phys. Rev. D109, no.8, 084076 (2024) [arXiv:2401.07757 [gr-qc]]

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    The stealth Kerr solution in the bumblebee gravity,

    R. Xu, Z. F. Mai and D. Liang, “The stealth Kerr solution in the bumblebee gravity,” Phys. Lett. B875, 140364 (2026) [arXiv:2601.18809 [gr-qc]]

    2026

  9. [17]

    Electromagnetism and hidden vector fields in modi- fied gravity theories: spontaneous and induced vectorization,

    L. Annulli, V. Cardoso and L. Gualtieri, “Electromagnetism and hidden vector fields in modi- fied gravity theories: spontaneous and induced vectorization,” Phys. Rev. D99, no.4, 044038 (2019) [arXiv:1901.02461 [gr-qc]]. 24

    2019 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Neutron stars in the bumblebee theory of gravity,

    P. Ji, Z. Li, L. Yang, R. Xu, Z. Hu and L. Shao, “Neutron stars in the bumblebee theory of gravity,” Phys. Rev. D110, no.10, 104057 (2024) [arXiv:2409.04805 [gr-qc]]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Probing the vector charge of Sagittarius A* with pulsar timing,

    Z. Hu, L. Shao, R. Xu, D. Liang and Z. F. Mai, “Probing the vector charge of Sagittarius A* with pulsar timing,” JCAP04, 087 (2024) [arXiv:2312.02486 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Ghost of vector fields in compact stars,

    H. O. Silva, A. Coates, F. M. Ramazano˘ glu and T. P. Sotiriou, “Ghost of vector fields in compact stars,” Phys. Rev. D105, no.2, 024046 (2022) [arXiv:2110.04594 [gr-qc]]

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Instability of vectorized stars,

    E. S. Demirbo˘ ga, A. Coates and F. M. Ramazano˘ glu, “Instability of vectorized stars,” Phys. Rev. D105, no.2, 024057 (2022) [arXiv:2112.04269 [gr-qc]]

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Generalization of the Proca Action,

    L. Heisenberg, “Generalization of the Proca Action,” JCAP05, 015 (2014) [arXiv:1402.7026 [hep-th]]

    2014 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Cosmic Acceleration from Abelian Symmetry Breaking,

    G. Tasinato, “Cosmic Acceleration from Abelian Symmetry Breaking,” JHEP04, 067 (2014) [arXiv:1402.6450 [hep-th]]

    2014 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Einstein-Vector Gravity, Emerging Gauge Symmetry and de Sitter Bounce,

    W. J. Geng and H. Lu, “Einstein-Vector Gravity, Emerging Gauge Symmetry and de Sitter Bounce,” Phys. Rev. D93, no.4, 044035 (2016) [arXiv:1511.03681 [hep-th]]

    2016 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Cos- mology in generalized Proca theories,

    A. De Felice, L. Heisenberg, R. Kase, S. Mukohyama, S. Tsujikawa and Y. l. Zhang, “Cos- mology in generalized Proca theories,” JCAP06, 048 (2016) [arXiv:1603.05806 [gr-qc]]

    2016 arXiv

  18. [26]

    On the 4D generalized Proca action for an Abelian vector field,

    E. Allys, J. P. Beltran Almeida, P. Peter and Y. Rodr ´ ıguez, “On the 4D generalized Proca action for an Abelian vector field,” JCAP09, 026 (2016) [arXiv:1605.08355 [hep-th]]

    2016 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Extended vector-tensor theories,

    R. Kimura, A. Naruko and D. Yoshida, “Extended vector-tensor theories,” JCAP01, 002 (2017) [arXiv:1608.07066 [gr-qc]]

    2017 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Gravitational radiation from compact binary systems in the massive Brans-Dicke theory of gravity,

    J. Alsing, E. Berti, C. M. Will and H. Zaglauer, “Gravitational radiation from compact binary systems in the massive Brans-Dicke theory of gravity,” Phys. Rev. D85, 064041 (2012) [arXiv:1112.4903 [gr-qc]]

    2012 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Gravity, Lorentz violation, and the standard model,

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

    2004 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Exact Schwarzschild-like solution in a bumblebee gravity model,

    R. Casana, A. Cavalcante, F. P. Poulis and E. B. Santos, “Exact Schwarzschild-like solution in a bumblebee gravity model,” Phys. Rev. D97, no.10, 104001 (2018) [arXiv:1711.02273 [gr-qc]]

    2018 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Self-consistent neutron stars in a class of massive vector-tensor gravity,

    Z. Luo, S. Li and H. Yu, “Self-consistent neutron stars in a class of massive vector-tensor gravity,” Phys. Rev. D113, no.6, 064041 (2026) [arXiv:2601.07196 [gr-qc]]

    2026

  24. [32]

    Gravitational Field of a Global Monopole,

    M. Barriola and A. Vilenkin, “Gravitational Field of a Global Monopole,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 25 63, 341 (1989)

    1989

  25. [33]

    Black Holes and Abelian Symmetry Breaking,

    J. Chagoya, G. Niz and G. Tasinato, “Black Holes and Abelian Symmetry Breaking,” Class. Quant. Grav.33, no.17, 175007 (2016) [arXiv:1602.08697 [hep-th]]

    2016 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Solutions in the generalized Proca theory with the nonminimal coupling to the Einstein tensor,

    M. Minamitsuji, “Solutions in the generalized Proca theory with the nonminimal coupling to the Einstein tensor,” Phys. Rev. D94, no.8, 084039 (2016) [arXiv:1607.06278 [gr-qc]]

    2016 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Stealth configurations in vector-tensor theories of gravity,

    J. Chagoya and G. Tasinato, “Stealth configurations in vector-tensor theories of gravity,” JCAP01, 046 (2018) [arXiv:1707.07951 [hep-th]]

    2018 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Thermodynamics of stealth black holes,

    A. Bakopoulos, T. Karakasis and E. Papantonopoulos, “Thermodynamics of stealth black holes,” Phys. Rev. D111, no.2, 024065 (2025) [arXiv:2410.14451 [hep-th]]

    2025 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Dressing a black hole with a time-dependent Galileon,

    E. Babichev and C. Charmousis, “Dressing a black hole with a time-dependent Galileon,” JHEP08, 106 (2014) [arXiv:1312.3204 [gr-qc]]

    2014 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Black hole thermodynamics in Horndeski theories,

    M. Minamitsuji and K. i. Maeda, “Black hole thermodynamics in Horndeski theories,” Phys. Rev. D108, no.8, 084061 (2023) [arXiv:2308.01082 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Revisiting black holes and their thermodynamics in Einstein-Kalb-Ramond gravity,

    Z. X. Yu, H. D. Lyu, M. Huhe and S. Li, “Revisiting black holes and their thermodynamics in Einstein-Kalb-Ramond gravity,” [arXiv:2511.19926 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  32. [40]

    Black Holes in Higher-Derivative Gravity,

    H. Lu, A. Perkins, C. N. Pope and K. S. Stelle, “Black Holes in Higher-Derivative Gravity,” Phys. Rev. Lett.114, no.17, 171601 (2015) [arXiv:1502.01028 [hep-th]]

    2015 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Black hole scalarization in Gauss-Bonnet extended Starobinsky gravity,

    H. S. Liu, H. Lu, Z. Y. Tang and B. Wang, “Black hole scalarization in Gauss-Bonnet extended Starobinsky gravity,” Phys. Rev. D103, no.8, 084043 (2021) [arXiv:2004.14395 [gr-qc]]

    2021 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Quasi-Topological Ricci Polynomial Gravities,

    Y. Z. Li, H. S. Liu and H. Lu, “Quasi-Topological Ricci Polynomial Gravities,” JHEP02, 166 (2018) [arXiv:1708.07198 [hep-th]]

    2018 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Can a star be smaller than a black hole of the same mass?,

    S. Li, H. L¨ u, Y. Gao, R. Xu, L. Shao and H. Yu, “Can a star be smaller than a black hole of the same mass?,” [arXiv:2312.01406 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  36. [44]

    Black hole entropy is the Noether charge,

    R. M. Wald, “Black hole entropy is the Noether charge,” Phys. Rev. D48, no.8, R3427-R3431 (1993) [arXiv:gr-qc/9307038 [gr-qc]]

    1993 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Some properties of Noether charge and a proposal for dynamical black hole entropy,

    V. Iyer and R. M. Wald, “Some properties of Noether charge and a proposal for dynamical black hole entropy,” Phys. Rev. D50, 846-864 (1994) [arXiv:gr-qc/9403028 [gr-qc]]

    1994 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Black holes in vector-tensor theories and their thermodynamics,

    Z. Y. Fan, “Black holes in vector-tensor theories and their thermodynamics,” Eur. Phys. J. C 78, no.1, 65 (2018) [arXiv:1709.04392 [hep-th]]

    2018 arXiv

  39. [47]

    The First law of black hole mechanics in Einstein-Maxwell and Einstein-Yang-Mills theories,

    S. Gao, “The First law of black hole mechanics in Einstein-Maxwell and Einstein-Yang-Mills theories,” Phys. Rev. D68, 044016 (2003) [arXiv:gr-qc/0304094 [gr-qc]]. 26

    2003 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Dyonic (A)dS Black Holes in Einstein-Born-Infeld Theory in Diverse Dimensions,

    S. Li, H. Lu and H. Wei, “Dyonic (A)dS Black Holes in Einstein-Born-Infeld Theory in Diverse Dimensions,” JHEP07, 004 (2016) [arXiv:1606.02733 [hep-th]]

    2016 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Thermodynamics of Static Dyonic AdS Black Holes in theω- Deformed Kaluza-Klein Gauged Supergravity Theory,

    S. Q. Wu and S. Li, “Thermodynamics of Static Dyonic AdS Black Holes in theω- Deformed Kaluza-Klein Gauged Supergravity Theory,” Phys. Lett. B746, 276-280 (2015) [arXiv:1505.00117 [hep-th]]

    2015 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Notes on thermodynamics of Schwarzschild-like bumblebee black hole,

    Y. S. An, “Notes on thermodynamics of Schwarzschild-like bumblebee black hole,” Phys. Dark Univ.45, 101520 (2024) [arXiv:2401.15430 [gr-qc]]

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Taub-NUT-like black holes in Einstein-bumblebee gravity,

    Y. Q. Chen and H. S. Liu, “Taub-NUT-like black holes in Einstein-bumblebee gravity,” Phys. Rev. D112, no.8, 084040 (2025) [arXiv:2505.23104 [gr-qc]]

    2025 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Dyonic RN-like and Taub-NUT-like black holes in Einstein- bumblebee gravity,

    S. Li, L. Liang and L. Ma, “Dyonic RN-like and Taub-NUT-like black holes in Einstein- bumblebee gravity,” [arXiv:2510.04405 [gr-qc]]

  45. [53]

    Static and spherically symmetric black holes in gravity with a background Kalb-Ramond field,

    K. Yang, Y. Z. Chen, Z. Q. Duan and J. Y. Zhao, “Static and spherically symmetric black holes in gravity with a background Kalb-Ramond field,” Phys. Rev. D108, no.12, 124004 (2023) [arXiv:2308.06613 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Improved determination ofγby VLBI,

    S. B. Lambert and C. Le Poncin-Lafitte, “Improved determination ofγby VLBI,” Astron. Astrophys.529, A70 (2011)

    2011

  47. [55]

    A test of general relativity using radio links with the Cassini spacecraft,

    B. Bertotti, L. Iess and P. Tortora, “A test of general relativity using radio links with the Cassini spacecraft,” Nature425, 374-376 (2003)

    2003

  48. [56]

    Self-consistency of compact objects in Lorentz-violating gravity theories,

    L. A. Lessa, R. B. Magalh˜ aes and M. M. Ferreira, Junior, “Self-consistency of compact objects in Lorentz-violating gravity theories,” Phys. Rev. D112, no.6, 064031 (2025) [arXiv:2505.01374 [gr-qc]]

    2025 arXiv

  49. [57]

    A unified equation of state of dense matter and neutron star structure,

    F. Douchin and P. Haensel, “A unified equation of state of dense matter and neutron star structure,” Astron. Astrophys.380, 151 (2001) [arXiv:astro-ph/0111092 [astro-ph]]

    2001 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Analytical representations of unified equations of state of neutron-star matter,

    P. Haensel and A. Y. Potekhin, “Analytical representations of unified equations of state of neutron-star matter,” Astron. Astrophys.428, 191-197 (2004) [arXiv:astro-ph/0408324 [astro- ph]]

    2004 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Neutron stars in Gauss-Bonnet extended Starobinsky gravity,

    Z. Liu, Z. Li, L. Liang, S. Li and H. Yu, “Neutron stars in Gauss-Bonnet extended Starobinsky gravity,” Phys. Rev. D110, no.12, 124052 (2024) [arXiv:2410.14108 [gr-qc]]

    2024 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Radial oscillations of neutron stars in Starobin- sky gravity and its Gauss-Bonnet extension,

    Z. Li, Z. X. Yu, Z. Luo, S. Li and H. Yu, “Radial oscillations of neutron stars in Starobin- sky gravity and its Gauss-Bonnet extension,” Phys. Rev. D112, no.4, 044019 (2025) [arXiv:2507.18916 [gr-qc]]. 27

    2025 arXiv

  53. [61]

    A Massive Pulsar in a Compact Relativistic Binary,

    J. Antoniadis, P. C. C. Freire, N. Wex, T. M. Tauris, R. S. Lynch, M. H. van Kerkwijk, M. Kramer, C. Bassa, V. S. Dhillon and T. Driebe,et al.“A Massive Pulsar in a Compact Relativistic Binary,” Science340, 6131 (2013) [arXiv:1304.6875 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2013 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Stringent constraints on neutron-star radii from multimessenger observations and nuclear theory,

    C. D. Capano, I. Tews, S. M. Brown, B. Margalit, S. De, S. Kumar, D. A. Brown, B. Krishnan and S. Reddy, “Stringent constraints on neutron-star radii from multimessenger observations and nuclear theory,” Nature Astron.4, no.6, 625-632 (2020) [arXiv:1908.10352 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2020 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Slowly rotating neutron stars in scalar-tensor theories with a massive scalar field,

    S. S. Yazadjiev, D. D. Doneva and D. Popchev, “Slowly rotating neutron stars in scalar-tensor theories with a massive scalar field,” Phys. Rev. D93, no.8, 084038 (2016) [arXiv:1602.04766 [gr-qc]]

    2016 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Static and slowly rotating neutron stars in scalar–tensor theory with self-interacting massive scalar field,

    K. V. Staykov, D. Popchev, D. D. Doneva and S. S. Yazadjiev, “Static and slowly rotating neutron stars in scalar–tensor theory with self-interacting massive scalar field,” Eur. Phys. J. C78, no.7, 586 (2018) [arXiv:1805.07818 [gr-qc]]

    2018 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Slowly rotating neutron and strange stars inR 2 gravity,

    K. V. Staykov, D. D. Doneva, S. S. Yazadjiev and K. D. Kokkotas, “Slowly rotating neutron and strange stars inR 2 gravity,” JCAP10, 006 (2014) [arXiv:1407.2180 [gr-qc]]

    2014 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Non-perturbative and self-consistent models of neutron stars in R-squared gravity,

    S. S. Yazadjiev, D. D. Doneva, K. D. Kokkotas and K. V. Staykov, “Non-perturbative and self-consistent models of neutron stars in R-squared gravity,” JCAP06, 003 (2014) [arXiv:1402.4469 [gr-qc]]

    2014 arXiv

  59. [67]

    I-Love-Q,

    K. Yagi and N. Yunes, “I-Love-Q,” Science341, 365-368 (2013) [arXiv:1302.4499 [gr-qc]]

    2013 arXiv

  60. [68]

    I-Love-Q Relations in Neutron Stars and their Applications to As- trophysics, Gravitational Waves and Fundamental Physics,

    K. Yagi and N. Yunes, “I-Love-Q Relations in Neutron Stars and their Applications to As- trophysics, Gravitational Waves and Fundamental Physics,” Phys. Rev. D88, no.2, 023009 (2013) [arXiv:1303.1528 [gr-qc]]

    2013 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Fixing the dynam- ical evolution of self-interacting vector fields,

    M. E. Rubio, G. Lara, M. Bezares, M. Crisostomi and E. Barausse, “Fixing the dynam- ical evolution of self-interacting vector fields,” Phys. Rev. D110, no.6, 063015 (2024) [arXiv:2407.08774 [gr-qc]]

    2024 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Intrinsic Pathology of Self-Interacting Vector Fields,

    A. Coates and F. M. Ramazano˘ glu, “Intrinsic Pathology of Self-Interacting Vector Fields,” Phys. Rev. Lett.129, no.15, 151103 (2022) [arXiv:2205.07784 [gr-qc]]

    2022 arXiv

  63. [71]

    The well-posedness of the Cauchy problem for self-interacting vector fields,

    E. Barausse, M. Bezares, M. Crisostomi and G. Lara, “The well-posedness of the Cauchy problem for self-interacting vector fields,” JCAP11, 050 (2022) [arXiv:2207.00443 [gr-qc]]

    2022 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Coordinate Singularities of Self-Interacting Vector Field Theories,

    A. Coates and F. M. Ramazano˘ glu, “Coordinate Singularities of Self-Interacting Vector Field Theories,” Phys. Rev. Lett.130, no.2, 021401 (2023) [arXiv:2211.08027 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Pervasiveness of the breakdown of self-interacting vector 28 field theories,

    A. Coates and F. M. Ramazano˘ glu, “Pervasiveness of the breakdown of self-interacting vector 28 field theories,” Phys. Rev. D107, no.10, 104036 (2023) [arXiv:2301.02263 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Loss of hyperbolicity and tachyons in generalized Proca theories,

    K. ˙I. ¨Unl¨ ut¨ urk, A. Coates and F. M. Ramazano˘ glu, “Loss of hyperbolicity and tachyons in generalized Proca theories,” Phys. Rev. D108, no.4, 044022 (2023) [arXiv:2306.03554 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Treatments and placebos for the pathologies of effective field theories,

    A. Coates and F. M. Ramazano˘ glu, “Treatments and placebos for the pathologies of effective field theories,” Phys. Rev. D108, no.10, L101501 (2023) [arXiv:2307.07743 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Aspects of time evolution in p-form field theories,

    K. ˙I. ¨Unl¨ ut¨ urk and F. M. Ramazano˘ glu, “Aspects of time evolution in p-form field theories,” Phys. Rev. D110, no.8, 084036 (2024) [arXiv:2406.15321 [gr-qc]]. 29

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.