Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Renormalisation Group approach to General Relativity

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An exact renormalization group equation for classical general relativity reproduces the post-Minkowskian expansion and yields the 1PN two-body action directly, without computing the three-graviton vertex.

desk verdict A genuinely new RG equation for classical gravity that reproduces known PM/1PN results, but the 1PN extraction leans on an unproven conservation assumption for the running stress tensor. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.27676 v2 pith:ZRMHLV2V submitted 2025-10-31 gr-qc hep-th

F. Gutiérrez , K. Falls , A. Codello This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qchep-th
keywords renormalizationgroupgeneralrelativitypost-Minkowskianexpansionpost-Newtoniantwo-bodyproblemeffectiveactiongravitationalwavesstress-energytensor
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 proposes a scale-dependent effective action for two point masses interacting gravitationally, governed by an exact renormalization group (RG) flow equation. The claim is that integrating this flow from the free-particle action down to zero scale produces the full conservative two-body effective action. The paper shows the flow reproduces the first three orders of the post-Minkowskian expansion, and that a simple ansatz recovers the known 1PN Lagrangian. The key step is identifying the first derivative of the running action with a scale-dependent stress-energy tensor and using conservation identities to avoid computing the three-graviton vertex. A sympathetic reader would see this as a possible middle path between numerical relativity and perturbative expansions.

What carries the argument

The scale-dependent effective action S_k[g, x_n] and the flow equation ∂_k S_k = -κ/2 S_k^{(1)}·∂_k G_k·S_k^{(1)}, where G_k = (S_g^{(2)} + R_k)^{-1} is the regulated graviton propagator. The regulator R_k cuts off momenta below k; flowing from k=∞ to k=0 interpolates between free particles and the full effective action. The argument is carried by replacing S_k^{(1)} with the stress-energy tensor T^{μν}_k and using the conservation identity to express the spatial trace integral in terms of the second time derivative of the moment of energy, which supplies the T^{ii} term that would otherwise require the three-graviton vertex.

What would settle it

Compute the 1PN coefficient H_k (the order-G^2 term) using a different regulator and show that the k-integrated value at k=0 changes; or directly compute the divergence of T_k^{μν} for the regulator used in the paper and show it is nonzero at finite k. Either check would settle whether the method's 1PN result is an artifact of the conservation identity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is the flow equation ∂_k S_k = -κ/2 S_k^{(1)}·∂_k G_k·S_k^{(1)} for the running effective action S_k of two point particles. Starting at large k with the free point-particle action and flowing to k=0 gives the effective action of the interacting system. No loops or factors of ℏ appear. The equation is claimed to be exact, with a rigorous derivation deferred to a companion paper. The iterative solution of the flow reproduces the post-Minkowskian expansion order by order, and the 1PN two-body Lagrangian emerges from an ansatz with seven running coefficients whose flows are fixed by the stress-energy tensor of the ansatz.

Load-bearing premise

The 1PN result depends on the scale-dependent stress-energy tensor being conserved, in particular on the identity ∫ d^3x T^{ii} = (1/2) d^2/dt^2 ∫ d^3x T^{00} x^2; the regulator breaks diffeomorphism invariance, so this conservation is not guaranteed, and if it fails at finite k the extracted coefficients would be wrong.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the flow equation is exact, it provides a non-perturbative framework for classical gravitational dynamics, potentially reaching strong-field regimes without full numerical relativity.
  • The method extracts PN coefficients without explicit multi-graviton vertices; a systematic functional expansion could generate higher-order PN terms more cheaply than current effective-field-theory calculations.
  • The same equation can be applied to cosmological structure formation, where similar RG methods are already used.
  • Because the flow reproduces known post-Minkowskian results order by order, it can serve as a cross-check or as a generator of new perturbative orders.
  • The flow equation is classical and defined in a spacetime with one timelike direction, so it tests RG ideas in a regime with directly observable predictions, which may inform quantum-gravity constructions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The conservation assumption for T_k^{μν} is likely the most fragile step; a direct check of whether the regulator breaks conservation at finite k would decide whether the 1PN extraction is regulator-independent.
  • A natural testable extension is to push the ansatz to 2PN; the known 2PN action would provide a sharp falsifier for the method's claimed efficiency.
  • The claim that the equation is exact is not proven in this Letter; the companion paper's derivation is the missing link, and until then the post-Minkowskian reproduction and 1PN recovery are demonstrations of consistency rather than proof of exactness.
  • If the method proves reliable, it suggests a classical analogue of the functional RG where approximations like a derivative expansion could give analytic estimates for strong-field phenomena, including merger dynamics.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a scale-dependent effective action S_k for classical two-body gravity and derives a functional RG flow equation, Eq. (2), which is claimed to be exact. The authors argue that solving this equation from k=∞ (where S_k reduces to the free point-particle action) to k=0 recovers the full post-Minkowskian expansion; they illustrate the first three PM orders diagrammatically. They then present a 'fast track' derivation of the 1PN two-body Lagrangian by promoting seven coefficients in a PN ansatz to k-dependent functions and integrating the flow with the Litim regulator. The final 1PN coefficients (N=1, A=3/2, B=-7/2, C=-1/2, D=F=0, H=-1/2) coincide with the known harmonic-gauge result. The central claims are that Eq. (2) is an exact RG equation for classical GR and that it reproduces both the PM and PN expansions in a computationally efficient way.

Significance. If Eq. (2) is indeed exact and the derived PM/PN results are correct, this would be a novel and potentially powerful tool for classical gravitational dynamics: a loop-free, non-perturbative RG scheme that could complement EFT and amplitude methods. The explicit recovery of the 1PN action and the diagrammatic PM structure are non-trivial consistency checks. The paper is clearly written and the use of the Litim regulator is concrete. However, the exactness of the flow equation is not proven in this manuscript — the derivation is explicitly heuristic and deferred to a companion paper — and the 1PN fast-track relies on assumptions about the scale-dependent stress tensor that are not justified. The significance is therefore conditional: the approach is promising, but the central claims are not yet established to the standard required by the journal.

major comments (4)
  1. [An RG equation for GR, Eq. (2)] The central equation is introduced heuristically: the text states 'After giving an heuristic derivation' and the rigorous derivation is left to a companion paper [26]. Since the exactness of Eq. (2) is the basis for all subsequent claims, this is load-bearing. The equation is not a standard identity (no loop term, no Ward identity), so the label 'exact' is unsupported in this manuscript. Please either provide a derivation or clear theorem with assumptions, or explicitly present Eq. (2) as a conjecture and adjust the abstract/title accordingly.
  2. [Fast track to the 1PN Lagrangian, T^{00},T^{ij} and Eq. (6)] The derivation of T^{ij} uses the virial identity ∫d³x T^{ii} = (1/2) d²/dt² ∫d³x T^{00}x², which is valid only for a conserved stress tensor. The regulator R_k breaks diffeomorphism invariance, and no modified Ward identity is supplied. Moreover, the construction of T^{00} splits the potential energy symmetrically (-N_k/2 for each particle) without justification; this split is not fixed by total energy alone. Since the flow integral samples all k, agreement at k=0 does not validate the finite-k T_k used. A non-conserved or non-unique T_k would change the coefficients A,B,C,D,F,H. This is a load-bearing gap for the 1PN result.
  3. [Recovering the PM expansion and Supplementary Material] The claim that the flow equation 'correctly reproduces the PM expansion' is supported only by diagram topologies. For 2PM and 3PM, the paper lists diagrams and states they coincide with literature topologies, but it does not explicitly compare the algebraic coefficients. Matching topologies is not sufficient to demonstrate that the iterative solution of Eq. (2) yields the known PM coefficients. Please provide explicit coefficient checks for S_2 and at least one non-trivial S_3 term (or a general argument that the iterative solution reproduces the standard expansion).
  4. [Fast track to the 1PN Lagrangian, after Eq. (6)] The final values of A,B,C,D,F are asserted after 'integrating equation (6)', but neither the intermediate flows for these coefficients nor the matching of velocity/acceleration structures is shown. Without this derivation, the 1PN claim is not independently verifiable. Please include the full algebra in the Supplementary Material or an appendix.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] The abstract and introduction call Eq. (2) an exact RG equation, while the main text explicitly says the derivation is heuristic and rigorous proof is deferred to [26]. Please align the wording to avoid overclaiming.
  2. [Recovering the PM expansion] There is a typo: 'Thenth functional derivative' should be 'The nth functional derivative'.
  3. [Eq. (5) and regulator conventions] The propagator convention is inconsistent: earlier Δ^{-1} ∝ 1/(-q²), while Eq. (5) has (q² - R_k)² in the denominator. Please clarify the sign conventions for Lorentzian signature.
  4. [Regulator limits] The condition lim_{k→∞} R_k(p²) = -∞ is not pointwise for the Litim regulator R_k(q²) = (q²-k²)θ(k²-q²), which is only non-zero for q²<k². Please state the limiting behavior more precisely.
  5. [Figure 1 and diagrammatic conventions] The diagrammatic conventions in Figure 2 are compressed and hard to read; please enlarge and label the worldline and graviton propagator clearly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity; PM and 1PN results are solved from the flow, though the exactness proof is deferred to a same-author companion paper.

full rationale

The paper's central derivations are not circular. Eq. (2) is introduced heuristically, with a rigorous derivation deferred to the same authors' companion paper [26]; but the reported PM and 1PN results are obtained by integrating Eq. (2), not by feeding in the known answers. The 1PN coefficients A...H are promoted to k-dependent unknowns, the stress-tensor components are built from the ansatz and the conservation identity, and matching the two sides of Eq. (6) yields flow equations whose k→0 limits are compared—not fitted—to [9]. The PM expansion is explicitly treated as a consistency requirement ('The fundamental requirement of the flow equation is that it must exactly reproduce the standard perturbative series'), and the agreement with [13,14] is a benchmark rather than an input. The only flagged concerns are: (i) the promised proof of exactness in [26] is an in-preparation self-citation, which is a gap in the 'exact' claim but not load-bearing for the actual calculations; and (ii) the use of ∂_μ T_k^{μν}=0 (via the T^{ii} identity) is assumed without a modified Ward identity, despite the regulator breaking diffeomorphism invariance—this is a correctness risk, not a circular reduction. No equation in the derivation is shown to reduce to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's results rest on a small number of assumptions: the exactness of the flow equation (deferred to a companion paper), the conservation of the running stress tensor, and the validity of standard EFT expansions. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Regulator scheme = Litim cutoff R_k(q^2) = (q^2 - k^2) θ(k^2 - q^2)
    The flow equation requires a regulator R_k; the paper adopts the Litim regulator without demonstrating that the 1PN coefficients are regulator-independent. This is a hand-chosen function that could affect the result if the scheme is not universal.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper The flow equation (2) is exact for classical general relativity.
    The derivation is heuristic (starting from a one-loop expression and promoting S_pp^{(1)} to S_k^{(1)} and Minkowski to arbitrary g). Rigorous Polchinski derivation is deferred to companion paper [26] 'In preparation'.
  • domain assumption The scale-dependent stress tensor T_k^{μν} satisfies the standard conservation identity used to derive T^{ii}.
    The regulator breaks diffeomorphism invariance, so conservation of the running stress tensor is not established. Invoked in the section 'Fast track to the 1PN Lagrangian'.
  • domain assumption The 'method of regions' expansion in q_0^2/c^2 is valid for the momentum integral.
    Standard in EFT for classical gravity, but applied here to a non-perturbative flow equation without detailed justification. Cited to [16].
  • standard math Dimensional regularization consistently removes self-energy divergences.
    Common in gravitational EFT; used to neglect self-energy divergencies in the 1PN computation. Cited to [15].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Renormalisation Group approach to General Relativity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZRMHLV2V

@misc{pith2026251027676,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Renormalisation Group approach to General Relativity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZRMHLV2V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.27676}
}
read the original abstract

The detection of gravitational waves has intensified the need for efficient, high-precision modeling of the two-body problem in General Relativity. Current analytical methods, primarily the Post-Minkowskian and Post-Newtonian expansions, are inherently perturbative, while Numerical Relativity remains computationally expensive. In this Letter, we introduce a middle path: an exact renormalization group (RG) equation for classical gravitational systems. After demonstrating that our equation correctly reproduces the Post-Minkowskian expansion, we show how it easily recovers the 1PN two-body action, bypassing the need for complex three-graviton vertex calculations. This establishes the exact RG as a powerful new tool for tackling strong-field dynamics in gravity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.27676 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Diagrammatic representation of the functional RG [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Diagrammatic conventions used in the PM expansion. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 34 linked inside Pith

  1. [26]

    T. R. Morris,The Exact renormalization group and ap- proximate solutions, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A9(1994), 2411- 2450, [arXiv:hep-ph/9308265 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 1994

  2. [1]

    B. P. Abbottet al.[LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collabora- tions],Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger, Phys. Rev. Lett.116(2016), 061102, [arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 2016

  3. [2]

    In this ansatz we introduce seven scale-dependent coefficients, which en- code the running of the gravitational interaction terms

    +B k v1 ·v 2 +C k(n·v 1)(n·v 2) +D k (n·v 1)2 + (n·v 2)2 +F k (n·a 1 −n·a 2)R i +H k G2 N m1m2(m1 +m 2) R2 +O( 1 c4 ), whereR=|x 1 −x 2|andn= x1−x2 R . In this ansatz we introduce seven scale-dependent coefficients, which en- code the running of the gravitational interaction terms. The corresponding leading-order equations of motion for this ansatz area 1...

    2022

  4. [3]

    Aasiet al.[LIGO Scientific Collaboration],Ad- vanced LIGO, Class

    J. Aasiet al.[LIGO Scientific Collaboration],Ad- vanced LIGO, Class. Quant. Grav.32(2015), 074001, [arXiv:1411.4547 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 2015

  5. [4]

    Acerneseet al.[Virgo Collaboration],Advanced Virgo: a 2nd generation interferometric gravitational wave detector, Class

    F. Acerneseet al.[Virgo Collaboration],Advanced Virgo: a 2nd generation interferometric gravitational wave detector, Class. Quant. Grav.32(2015), 024001, [arXiv:1408.3978 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 2015

  6. [5]

    Amaro-Seoaneet al.,Laser Interferometer Space An- tenna, Living Rev

    P. Amaro-Seoaneet al.,Laser Interferometer Space An- tenna, Living Rev. Rel.21(2018), 2, [arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]]

    arXiv 2018

  7. [6]

    Maggiore,Gravitational Waves

    M. Maggiore,Gravitational Waves. Vol. 1: Theory and Experiments, Oxford University Press (2007), doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198570745.001.0001

    arXiv 2007

  8. [7]

    T. W. Baumgarte and S. L. Shapiro,Numerical Rel- ativity: Solving Einstein ’s Equations on the Com- puter, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010), doi:10.1017/CBO9781139193344

    doi:10.1017/cbo9781139193344 2010

Show all 50 references
  1. [8]

    Einstein, L

    A. Einstein, L. Infeld and B. Hoffmann,The Gravi- tational Equations and the Problem of Motion, Annals Math.39(1938), 65–100, doi:10.2307/1968714

    1938 doi

  2. [9]

    Buonanno and T

    A. Buonanno and T. Damour,Effective one-body ap- proach to general relativistic two-body dynamics, Phys. Rev. D59(1999), 084006, [arXiv:gr-qc/9811091]

    1999 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Blanchet,Gravitational Radiation from Post- Newtonian Sources and Inspiralling Compact Binaries, Living Rev

    L. Blanchet,Gravitational Radiation from Post- Newtonian Sources and Inspiralling Compact Binaries, Living Rev. Rel.5(2002), 3, [arXiv:gr-qc/0202016]

    2002 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Jaranowski and G

    P. Jaranowski and G. Sch¨ afer,Third post-Newtonian higher order ADM Hamilton dynamics for two-body point-mass systems, Phys. Rev. D57(1998), 7274–7291, [arXiv:gr-qc/9712075]

    1998 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Poisson and C

    E. Poisson and C. M. Will,Gravity: Newtonian, Post- Newtonian, Relativistic, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2014)

    2014

  6. [13]

    R. A. Porto,The Effective Field Theorist’s Approach to Gravitational Dynamics, Phys. Rept.633(2016), 1–104, [arXiv:1601.04914 [gr-qc]]

    2016 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Foffa and R

    S. Foffa and R. Sturani,Effective Field Theory Meth- ods to Model Compact Binaries, Class. Quant. Grav.31 (2014), 043001, [arXiv:1309.3474v1 [gr-qc]]

    2014 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Levi,Effective Field Theories of Post-Newtonian Gravity: A Comprehensive Review, Rept

    M. Levi,Effective Field Theories of Post-Newtonian Gravity: A Comprehensive Review, Rept. Prog. Phys.83 (2020), 075901, [arXiv:1807.01699 [gr-qc]]

    2020 arXiv

  9. [16]

    W. D. Goldberger and I. Z. Rothstein,An Effective Field Theory of Gravity for Extended Objects, Phys. Rev. D73 (2006), 104029, [arXiv:hep-th/0409156 [hep-th]]

    2006 arXiv

  10. [17]

    I. Z. Rothstein,TASI Lectures on Effective Field Theo- ries, (2003), [arXiv:hep-ph/0308266 [hep-ph]]

    2003 arXiv

  11. [18]

    J. B. Gilmore and A. Ross,Effective field theory calcu- lation of second post-Newtonian binary dynamics, Phys. Rev. D78(2008), 124021, [arXiv:0810.1328 [gr-qc]]

    2008 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Driesse, G

    M. Driesse, G. U. Jakobsen, A. Klemm, G. Mogull, C. Nega, J. Plefka, B. Sauer and J. Usovitsch,Emer- gence of Calabi–Yau manifolds in high-precision black- hole scattering, Nature641(2025) no.8063, 603-607, [arXiv:2411.11846 [hep-th]]

    2025 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Z. Bern, C. Cheung, R. Roiban, C. H. Shen, M. P. Solon and M. Zeng,Scattering Amplitudes and the Con- servative Hamiltonian for Binary Systems at Third Post-Minkowskian Order, Phys. Rev. Lett.122(2019), 201603, [arXiv:1901.04424 [hep-th]]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Z. Bern, D. A. Kosower, R. Roiban, C. H. Shen, M. P. Solon and M. Zeng,Scattering Amplitudes, the Tail Effect, and Conservative Binary Dynamics at Fourth Post-Minkowskian Order, Phys. Rev. Lett.128(2022), 161103, [arXiv:2112.10750 [hep-th]]

    2022 arXiv

  15. [22]

    N. E. J. Bjerrum-Bohr, P. H. Damgaard, L. Plant´ e and P. Vanhove,The Amplitude for Classical Gravitational Scattering at Third Post-Minkowskian Order, JHEP08 (2021), 172, [arXiv:2105.05218 [hep-th]]

    2021 arXiv

  16. [23]

    A. Luna, R. Monteiro, D. O’Connell and C. D. White, The classical double copy for Taub–NUT spacetime, Phys. Lett. B750(2015), 272–277, [arXiv:1507.01869 [hep-th]]

    2015 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Polchinski,Renormalization and Effective La- grangians, Nucl

    J. Polchinski,Renormalization and Effective La- grangians, Nucl. Phys. B231(1984), 269-295 doi:10.1016/0550-3213(84)90287-6

    1984 doi

  18. [25]

    Wetterich,Average Action and the Renormalization Group Equations, Nucl

    C. Wetterich,Average Action and the Renormalization Group Equations, Nucl. Phys. B352(1991), 529-584 doi:10.1016/0550-3213(91)90099-J

    1991 doi

  19. [27]

    Gutierrez, K

    F. Gutierrez, K. Falls, A. CodelloIn preparation

  20. [28]

    Papenbrock and C

    T. Papenbrock and C. Wetterich,Two loop results from one loop computations and nonperturbative solutions of exact evolution equations, Z. Phys. C65(1995), 519-535, [arXiv:hep-th/9403164 [hep-th]]

    1995 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Arnone, A

    S. Arnone, A. Gatti and T. R. Morris,Exact scheme inde- pendence at one loop, JHEP05(2002), 059, [arXiv:hep- th/0201237 [hep-th]]

    2002

  22. [30]

    Arnone, A

    S. Arnone, A. Gatti, T. R. Morris and O. J. Rosten, Exact scheme independence at two loops, Phys. Rev. D 69(2004), 065009, [arXiv:hep-th/0309242 [hep-th]]

    2004 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Codello, M

    A. Codello, M. Demmel and O. Zanusso,Scheme de- pendence and universality in the functional renormal- ization group, Phys. Rev. D90(2014) no.2, 027701, [arXiv:1310.7625 [hep-th]]

    2014 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Berges, N

    J. Berges, N. Tetradis and C. Wetterich,Non-perturbative renormalization flow in quantum field theory and statisti- cal physics, Phys. Rept.363(2002), 223–386, [arXiv:hep- ph/0005122]

    2002

  25. [33]

    Bernard, L

    L. Bernard, L. Blanchet, A. Boh´ e, G. Faye and S. Marsat, Fokker action of non-spinning compact binaries at the fourth post-Newtonian approximation, Phys. Rev. D93 (2016), 084037, [arXiv:1512.02876 [gr-qc]]

    2016 arXiv

  26. [34]

    T. R. Morris and A. W. H. Preston,Manifestly diffeomor- phism invariant classical Exact Renormalization Group, JHEP06(2016), 012, [arXiv:1602.08993 [hep-th]]

    2016 arXiv

  27. [35]

    D. F. Litim,Optimisation of the exact renormalisation group, Phys. Lett. B486(2000), 92–99, [arXiv:hep- th/0005245]. [35]M. Pietroni, G. Mangano, N. Saviano and M. Viel, Coarse-Grained Cosmological Perturbation Theory, JCAP01(2012), 019, [arXiv:1108.5203 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2000

  28. [36]

    Floerchinger, M

    S. Floerchinger, M. Garny, N. Tetradis and U. A. Wiede- mann,Renormalization-group flow of the effective action of cosmological large-scale structures, JCAP01(2017), 048, [arXiv:1607.03453 [astro-ph.CO]]. 7

    2017 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Reuter and F

    M. Reuter and F. Saueressig,Quantum Gravity and the Functional Renormalization Group: The Road towards Asymptotic Safety, Cambridge University Press, 2019

    2019

  30. [38]

    Percacci,An Introduction to Covariant Quantum Gravity and Asymptotic Safety, World Scientific, 2017

    R. Percacci,An Introduction to Covariant Quantum Gravity and Asymptotic Safety, World Scientific, 2017

    2017

  31. [39]

    Manrique, S

    E. Manrique, S. Rechenberger and F. Saueressig,Asymp- totically Safe Lorentzian Gravity, Phys. Rev. Lett.106 (2011), 251302, [arXiv:1102.5012v1 [hep-th]]

    2011 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Biemans, A

    J. Biemans, A. Platania and F. Saueressig,Quan- tum gravity on foliated spacetimes: Asymptotically safe and sound, Phys. Rev. D95(2017) no.8, 086013, [arXiv:1609.04813 [hep-th]]

    2017 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Fehre, D

    J. Fehre, D. F. Litim, J. M. Pawlowski and M. Reichert, Lorentzian Quantum Gravity and the Graviton Spectral Function, Phys. Rev. Lett.130(2023) no.8, 081501, [arXiv:2111.13232 [hep-th]]

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Banerjee and M

    R. Banerjee and M. Niedermaier,The spatial Functional Renormalization Group and Hadamard states on cosmo- logical spacetimes, Nucl. Phys. B980(2022), 115814, [arXiv:2201.02575 [hep-th]]

    2022 arXiv

  35. [43]

    D’Angelo, N

    E. D’Angelo, N. Drago, N. Pinamonti and K. Rejzner,An Algebraic QFT Approach to the Wetterich Equation on Lorentzian Manifolds, Annales Henri Poincare25(2024) no.4, 2295-2352, [arXiv:2202.07580 [math-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    D’Angelo,Asymptotic safety in Lorentzian quan- tum gravity, Phys

    E. D’Angelo,Asymptotic safety in Lorentzian quan- tum gravity, Phys. Rev. D109(2024) no.6, 066012, [arXiv:2310.20603 [hep-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Saueressig and J

    F. Saueressig and J. Wang,Foliated asymptotically safe gravity in the fluctuation approach, JHEP09(2023), 064, [arXiv:2306.10408 [hep-th]]

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Thiemann,Asymptotically safe — canonical quantum gravity junction, JHEP10(2024), 013, [arXiv:2404.18220 [hep-th]]

    T. Thiemann,Asymptotically safe — canonical quantum gravity junction, JHEP10(2024), 013, [arXiv:2404.18220 [hep-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Ferrero and T

    R. Ferrero and T. Thiemann,Relational Lorentzian Asymptotically Safe Quantum Gravity: Showcase model, [arXiv:2404.18224 [hep-th]]. SUPPLEMENT AR Y MA TERIAL

    arXiv

  40. [48]

    Details of the 3PM computation Now lets dive into the 3PM, for that one needs the equation ∂kS3 =−(S a 2 Sb pp + 1 2 Sa 1 Sb 1)∂ kGab (7) We already knowS a 1 from equation (4), so all we have left is to findS a 2 . By taking a derivative of (3) we have ∂kSa 2 =−S ab 1 Sc pp ∂...

  41. [49]

    We take the effective action to be alocal functional of the particle trajectories, Seff =F[x 1(t),x 2(t), ˙x1(t), ˙x2(t), ¨x1(t), ¨x2(t),

    The 1PN Ansatz We now describe the procedure for constructing a complete Post-Newtonian (PN) ansatz for the conservative effective action of the two-body problem in General Relativity. We take the effective action to be alocal functional of the particle trajectories, Seff =F[x...

  42. [50]

    +Bv 1 ·v 2 +C(n·v 1)(n·v 2) +D (n·v 1)2 + (n·v 2)2 +F(n·a 1 −n·a 2)R +H G2 N m2 1m2 R2 + G2 N m2 2m1 R2 +O( 1 c4 )

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.