Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Solutions to the Ricci Flow via Einstein Field Equations

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A quadratic stress-energy deformation of the matter action turns solutions of Einstein's equations into solutions of the Ricci-Bourguignon flow.

desk verdict New explicit Ricci-flow solutions from Born-Infeld and k-monopoles, but the general Einstein/Ricci-flow correspondence rests on an unproven identification of the on-shell metric with the auxiliary flow (17). read the letter →

arxiv 2411.10265 v1 pith:NHXVSWJK submitted 2024-11-15 hep-th

Tommaso Morone , Roberto Tateo This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th MSC 53E2083C05
keywords RicciflowRicci-BourguignonEinsteinfieldequationsstress-energytensordeformationTT-likeBorn-InfeldelectrodynamicsdeSitterspacetimetopologicalmonopoles
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

Ricci flow smooths a manifold by spreading out its curvature, while Einstein's equations tie curvature to matter; this paper claims the two are two sides of the same deformation. If the matter action is deformed so that its $\tau$-derivative is the quadratic stress-energy functional $\frac12\int\sqrt{g}(T_{ab}T^{ab}-\kappa(T^a_a)^2)$, then the on-shell metric solves the Ricci-Bourguignon flow with parameter $\rho=\kappa-d\kappa/2+1/2$. The deformation time $\tau$ becomes the flow time, and the coefficient $\kappa$ selects the flow family: the ordinary Ricci flow, the traceless Ricci flow, or the Yamabe-flow limit. The paper works out closed-form examples—maximally symmetric spacetimes, Maxwell flowing to Born-Infeld, and topological k-monopoles—producing explicit new metrics that satisfy Ricci-flow equations. The payoff is a systematic dictionary: known gravitational solutions can be converted into geometric-flow solutions, and matter deformations acquire a geometric meaning.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the quadratic functional $O^{(2)}_\tau=\frac12(T_{\tau,ab}T^{ab}_\tau-\kappa(T^a_{\tau,a})^2)$ that generates the matter-sector flow (6), a deformation of the type commonly called a TT-like flow. Its equivalent description is an auxiliary flow in metric space, $\frac{dg_{ab}}{d\tau}=2(T_{\tau,ab}-\kappa T^c_{\tau,c}g_{ab})$, integrated through the deformation matrix $\omega^a_{\tau,b}=g^{ac}_0 g_{cb}$, which satisfies $\omega_{\tau_1}\omega_{\tau_2}=\omega_{\tau_1+\tau_2}$ and exponentiates to a full family of metrics from the initial one. Feeding Einstein's equations into this metric flow yields the Ricci-Bourguignon flow (18), while the dressing formula (11) converts the flow equation on actions into a closed-form expression for the deformed action from the initial data.

What would settle it

Take a $d=4$ matter theory whose initial stress-energy tensor has four distinct eigenvalues, for example a real scalar with a generic potential; construct the deformed action via the dressing formula (11), solve the Einstein equations for the on-shell metric $g^*_{ab}(\tau)$, and check whether $dg^*_{ab}/d\tau=-2R^*_{ab}$ (with $\kappa=1/2$) holds. Any mismatch falsifies the general claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the on-shell metric $g^*_{ab}(\tau)$ of the deformed Einstein equations satisfies \[ \frac{dg^*_{ab}}{d\tau}=-2\left(R^*_{ab}-\rho(\kappa)R^*g^*_{ab}\right),\quad \rho(\kappa)=\kappa-\frac{d\kappa}{2}+\frac12, \] whenever the matter action obeys $\partial_\tau S^M_\tau=\frac12\int d^dx\sqrt{g}(T_{\tau,ab}T^{ab}_\tau-\kappa(T^a_{\tau,a})^2)$. Thus $\tau$ plays the role of flow time and $\kappa$ selects which Ricci-Bourguignon flow is realized, including the Ricci flow itself in $d=4$ at $\kappa=1/2$. The paper also establishes the dressing formula $S^M_\tau=S^M_0+(1-n)\tau\int d^dx\sqrt{g_0}O^{(n)}_0$ for homogeneous stress-energy deformations, which makes the deformed action explicit from the initial action. The statement is verified analytically for maximally symmetric spacetimes, for Maxwell theory flowing to Born-Infeld, and for k-monopole configurations.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the on-shell metric $g^*_{ab}(\tau)$, obtained by solving Einstein's equations for the deformed matter action, actually evolves with $\tau$ according to the auxiliary metric flow $dg_{ab}/d\tau=2(T_{\tau,ab}-\kappa T^c_{\tau,c}g_{ab})$; the paper verifies this in the worked examples but does not prove it for a general matter sector.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In $d=4$, the choice $\kappa=1/2$ reduces the deformed Einstein dynamics to the ordinary Ricci flow $dg_{ab}/d\tau=-2R_{ab}$, so the Born-Infeld and k-monopole metrics (45) and (55) are explicit Ricci-flow solutions.
  • Einstein vacua evolve by a Weyl rescaling: de Sitter space flattens as $\tau\to\infty$ and develops a conical singularity at $\tau=-1/\Lambda_0$, with the analogous statement for anti-de Sitter space.
  • The dressing formula $S^M_\tau=S^M_0+(1-n)\tau\int d^dx\sqrt{g_0}O^{(n)}_0$ gives the deformed action in closed form, so the flow can be integrated analytically whenever the initial stress tensor is known.
  • The flow preserves the block-eigenvalue structure (26) of the initial stress-energy tensor, which is why Maxwell, Wu-Yang, and k-monopole sectors remain solvable throughout the flow.
  • Different limits of $\kappa$ reproduce known flow families: $\kappa=1/d$ gives traceless Ricci flows and $\kappa\to\infty$ gives Yamabe flows, both generated by the same Einstein-equation mechanism.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves open whether the correspondence is exhaustive: a natural check is whether every Ricci-Bourguignon flow solution can be represented by some matter deformation satisfying (6), or only those with the block-diagonal structure (26).
  • A numerical implementation on a generic matter sector would test the unproved identification (17) directly; if it passes, the construction becomes a practical generator of Ricci-flow solutions from standard Einstein-matter solvers.
  • The flattening of de Sitter space with growing $\tau$ suggests a toy mechanism for relaxing a cosmological constant, with the conical singularity at negative $\tau$ as a possible boundary state; the paper does not pursue this cosmological reading.
  • Since Appendix B generalizes the dressing to arbitrary stress-energy functionals, the same geometric-flow interpretation may extend beyond Ricci-Bourguignon to flows driven by higher-order or rational stress-energy combinations.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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. The paper proposes that solutions of the Ricci–Bourguignon flow on Lorentzian manifolds can be obtained from solutions of the Einstein field equations by deforming the matter action along a quadratic stress-energy flow of TTbar type. The main claim is that if the matter action satisfies ∂S/∂τ = 1/2∫√g (T_ab T^ab − κ T^a_a T^b_b), then the on-shell metric obeys the Ricci–Bourguignon flow with ρ(κ)=κ−dκ/2+1/2. The authors illustrate the construction with maximally symmetric spacetimes, Born–Infeld electrodynamics obtained from Maxwell theory, and topological k-monopoles, and they provide a proof of the dressing identity for general homogeneous stress-energy functionals in Appendix A.

Significance. If the central correspondence is fully established, the paper offers a genuinely new bridge between geometric flows and gravitational physics, and the explicit analytic solutions in the Born–Infeld and k-monopole examples are valuable and nontrivial. The paper also has real strengths: Appendix A gives a compact proof of the stationarity of √g O under the auxiliary metric flow, and the examples are concrete enough to be checked. However, the most important claim — that the on-shell Einstein metric family automatically satisfies the auxiliary metric flow (17) — is neither proved nor cited as a theorem, and the verifications of (46) and (59) are only asserted. The paper is therefore of interest, but in its present form it overclaims the generality of the correspondence.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, Eqs. (17)–(18)] The step from (17) to (18) is the central bridge of the paper, but it is assumed rather than derived. Equation (17) is introduced as an auxiliary metric flow used in Appendix A to prove stationarity of √g O; the on-shell family g*_ab(τ) is instead selected by the deformed Einstein equations (4). The sentence before (18), stating that 'when gab is dynamical, with its on-shell value being determined by the Einstein field equations', does not provide an argument that the on-shell metric obeys (17). Without such an argument, (18) only shows that any metric satisfying both (4) and (17) is a Ricci–Bourguignon flow, not that every solution of the deformed Einstein equations is one. This is load-bearing for the paper's title and abstract. Please either supply a general proof (for example, by showing that the deformation matrix ω^a_{τ,b} maps solutions of the initial Einstein equations to solutions of the deformed ones) or explicitly reframe the claim as a conjecture or as a property verified in the examples, and adjust the abstract and conclusions accordingly.
  2. [Sections 5 and 6, Eqs. (46) and (59)] The claims that the constructed metrics satisfy the Ricci flow are central to the examples, but they are asserted with 'one can explicitly check' rather than demonstrated. For the Born–Infeld example, Eq. (46) states dg*_ab/dτ = −2R*_ab with a specified q_eff(r), but the derivation of q_eff(r) from the metric (44)–(45) is not shown. Similarly, Eq. (59) for the k-monopole metric is stated without verification. These checks are necessary to establish that the constructed metrics are genuine Ricci-flow solutions and not merely metrics that look like deformations. Please include at least an outline of the computation, or clearly state that the verification is left to the reader.
  3. [Introduction and Conclusions] The introduction says 'we prove that, if Sτ satisfies (6), then the solutions to the Ricci–Bourguignon flow (1) correspond to solutions to the Einstein field equations', and the conclusion repeats 'we have demonstrated' this equivalence. Given the missing proof of the on-shell/auxiliary-flow identification discussed above, these statements are too strong as they stand. The paper should either prove the general statement or carefully delimit the regime in which the correspondence is established (e.g., the examples, or a cited theorem from the TTbar literature).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4 heading] The heading 'Ricci-Bourguigon solitons' contains a typo: it should read 'Ricci–Bourguignon'.
  2. [Eqs. (45), (58)] The notation for hypergeometric functions is inconsistent: Eq. (45) uses ₂F₁ before any definition, while Eq. (58) defines F₁ (the Appell function with different arguments). Please standardize the notation and define all special functions at first use.
  3. [Eq. (46)] The effective charge q_eff(r) = 2q/(1 + sqrt(1 − 4q²τ/r⁴)) is real only when 4q²τ/r⁴ ≤ 1; the physical domain of τ and r, or the appropriate analytic continuation, should be specified.
  4. [Appendix B, Eqs. (A15)–(A16)] In the generalization to multiple operators, the coefficient is written as (1−n) in (A15)–(A16), but for a term with degree n_j it should be (1−n_j). This is likely a typographical omission and should be corrected for clarity.
  5. [Section 2, Eq. (10)] The phrase 'assuming ∂τ Oτ = 0' is confusing: for a homogeneous polynomial of T_τ, the explicit derivative with respect to τ at fixed T and g vanishes, but the total derivative does not. Clarify that this is an explicit-derivative assumption, otherwise the statement appears to contradict the chain-rule calculation in Appendix A.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

The Ricci-Bourguignon 'prediction' (18) is obtained by substituting the Einstein equations into the auxiliary metric flow (17), an identification that is assumed rather than derived; the examples verify it only in special cases.

  1. self definitional [Section 2, sentence between eqs. (17) and (18)]
    "When gab is dynamical, with its on-shell value g∗ab being determined by the Einstein field equations (4), we see that the above flow equation reduces to (18)"

    Equation (17) is introduced in Section 2 as the metric-space rewriting of the deformation (6): from (9) with O(2) given by (16). It is an auxiliary flow, not a consequence of the Einstein equations. Substituting the on-shell EFE (4) into (17) and defining rho(kappa) by (7) gives (18) by pure algebra. Therefore any statement that the on-shell Einstein family g*_ab(tau) 'reduces' to the Ricci-Bourguignon flow assumes that this family obeys (17). The paper does not prove that identification; the sentence after (17) simply asserts it ('we see'). The Ricci-Bourguignon equation is thus built into the definition of the auxiliary flow, and the central correspondence is conditional unless the on-shell dynamics independently satisfy (17).

full rationale

The main mathematical content of Section 2 and Appendix A is a valid lemma about an auxiliary metric trajectory: if g_ab(tau) evolves by (17), then sqrt(g) O^(2) is stationary and the dressing identity (11) holds. The step that claims to connect this to Einstein field equations is the sentence after (17), where the on-shell metric g*_ab is asserted to obey the same auxiliary flow. This assertion is not derived; it is the key identification that makes (18) follow by substitution. In that sense, the derived Ricci-Bourguignon flow is partly contained in the definition of (17) together with the choice rho(kappa) in (7). The paper's examples do provide independent content: for Einstein manifolds, Born-Infeld electrodynamics, and k-monopoles, the deformed on-shell metrics are explicit and the Ricci-flow identities (35), (46), and (59) are checked against the actual curvature tensors, so the correspondence is not purely tautological. The self-citations, mainly to refs. [19], [20], and [33] for deformation-matrix formulas, are used as computational tools and are not the load-bearing justification for the central reduction. On balance, the central claim has partial circularity: the general bridge (17) from EFE solutions to Ricci flow is assumed, while the concrete examples are genuine verifications.

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

The central argument depends on known TTbar flow results and on the unproven identification of the on-shell metric with the auxiliary metric flow. No genuinely new entities are postulated; kappa and initial data parameters are the only freedoms.

free parameters (3)
  • kappa = free real parameter
    Interpolates between Ricci and Yamabe flows via rho(kappa); not fitted, defines a family of deformations.
  • rho(kappa) = kappa - d*kappa/2 + 1/2
    Mapping between the matter deformation parameter and the geometric flow parameter derived from EFE substitution.
  • initial data parameters (m0, q, Lambda0, v, xi) = from known solutions
    Inherited from the initial matter configuration and gravitational solution; not fitted in this paper.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The deformed matter action S_tau satisfies the flow equation (6)
    Central input: existence of TTbar-like flow, taken from prior literature [8-18].
  • ad hoc to paper The on-shell metric evolution is governed by the auxiliary metric flow (17)
    This identification is not proven in general; it is the load-bearing premise of the paper.
  • domain assumption The initial metric g0 solves the Einstein field equations (4)
    Boundary condition for the construction of deformed solutions.
  • standard math sqrt(g) O is stationary along the metric flow
    Proven in Appendix A, assuming partial_tau O = 0 and the flow equation (9).
  • domain assumption Lorentzian signature and d >= 4
    Scope of the paper; Ricci flow on Lorentzian manifolds is formally considered.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Solutions to the Ricci Flow via Einstein Field Equations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NHXVSWJK

@misc{pith2026241110265,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Solutions to the Ricci Flow via Einstein Field Equations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NHXVSWJK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.10265}
}
read the original abstract

We show how solutions to the Ricci flow on Lorentzian manifolds, along with its generalizations, can be linked to Einstein's field equations. The approach involves deformations of the matter sector that are generated by quadratic functionals of the stress-energy tensor. We provide illustrative examples by explicitly constructing analytical solutions within maximally symmetric spacetimes and in the context of Born-Infeld's nonlinear electrodynamics. Finally, we discuss configurations involving global topological monopoles, emphasizing the versatility of this approach across various geometric and physical settings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.10265 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. On the left, the evolution of AdS space-times along [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗

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. Soliton Surfaces and the Geometry of Integrable Deformations of the $\mathbb{CP}^{N-1}$ Model

    hep-th 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Instanton solutions with vanishing energy-momentum tensor remain solutions under analytic TTbar-like deformations, and the deformed CP^{N-1} model is equivalent to the undeformed model on a field-dependent unit-determ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [20]

    Morone, S

    T. Morone, S. Negro, and R. Tateo, Nucl. Phys. B 1005, 116605 (2024), arXiv:2401.16400 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2024

  2. [25]

    Babaei-Aghbolagh, S

    H. Babaei-Aghbolagh, S. He, T. Morone, H. Ouyang, and R. Tateo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 111602 (2024), arXiv:2405.03465 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2024

  3. [27]

    Brizio, T

    N. Brizio, T. Morone, and R. Tateo, (2024), arXiv:2408.06031 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2024

  4. [1]

    R. S. Hamilton, Journal of Differential Geometry 17, 255 (1982)

    work page 1982

  5. [2]

    Chow and D

    B. Chow and D. Knopf, The Ricci Flow: An Introduction (American Mathematical Society, 2006)

    work page 2006

  6. [3]

    Perelman, arXiv preprint math/0211159 (2002)

    G. Perelman, arXiv preprint math/0211159 (2002)

    arXiv 2002

  7. [4]

    Perelman, arXiv preprint math/0303109 (2003)

    G. Perelman, arXiv preprint math/0303109 (2003)

    arXiv 2003

  8. [5]

    Catino, L

    G. Catino, L. Cremaschi, Z. Djadli, C. Mantegazza, and L. Mazzieri, Pacific Journal of Mathematics 287, 337 (2017)

    work page 2017

Show all 42 references
  1. [6]

    Yamabe, Osaka Mathematical Journal 12, 21 (1960)

    H. Yamabe, Osaka Mathematical Journal 12, 21 (1960)

    1960

  2. [7]

    In this paper, we set the reduced Planck mass 8 πGN = 1

  3. [8]

    A. B. Zamolodchikov, (2004), arXiv:hep-th/0401146 [hep-th]

    2004 arXiv

  4. [9]

    Cavagli` a, S

    A. Cavagli` a, S. Negro, I. M. Sz´ ecs´ enyi, and R. Tateo, JHEP 10, 112, arXiv:1608.05534 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  5. [10]

    F. A. Smirnov and A. B. Zamolodchikov, Nucl. Phys. B915, 363 (2017), arXiv:1608.05499 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  6. [11]

    Jiang, Commun

    Y. Jiang, Commun. Theor. Phys. 73, 057201 (2021), arXiv:1904.13376 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  7. [12]

    Taylor, (2018), arXiv:1805.10287 [hep-th]

    M. Taylor, (2018), arXiv:1805.10287 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  8. [13]

    Bonelli, N

    G. Bonelli, N. Doroud, and M. Zhu, JHEP 06, 149, arXiv:1804.10967 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  9. [14]

    Conti, L

    R. Conti, L. Iannella, S. Negro, and R. Tateo, JHEP 11, 007, arXiv:1806.11515 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  10. [15]

    Ferko, Y

    C. Ferko, Y. Hu, Z. Huang, K. Koutrolikos, and G. Tartaglino-Mazzucchelli, (2023), arXiv:2302.10410 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [16]

    Ferko, S

    C. Ferko, S. M. Kuzenko, L. Smith, and G. Tartaglino- Mazzucchelli, Phys. Rev. D 108, 106021 (2023), arXiv:2309.04253 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  12. [17]

    Ebert, C

    S. Ebert, C. Ferko, C. L. Martin, and G. Tartaglino- Mazzucchelli, Phys. Rev. D 110, 046005 (2024), arXiv:2403.18242 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [18]

    Ferko, S

    C. Ferko, S. M. Kuzenko, K. Lechner, D. P. Sorokin, and G. Tartaglino-Mazzucchelli, JHEP 05, 320, arXiv:2402.06947 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  14. [19]

    Conti, J

    R. Conti, J. Romano, and R. Tateo, JHEP 09, 085, arXiv:2206.03415 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  15. [21]

    F. Hao, X. Ran, and M. Yamada, (2024), arXiv:2410.02537 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [22]

    Dubovsky, V

    S. Dubovsky, V. Gorbenko, and M. Mirbabayi, JHEP 09, 136, arXiv:1706.06604 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  17. [23]

    A. J. Tolley, JHEP 06, 050, arXiv:1911.06142 [hep-th]

    1911 arXiv

  18. [24]

    Caputa, S

    P. Caputa, S. Datta, and V. Shyam, JHEP 05, 112, arXiv:1902.10893 [hep-th]

    1902 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Tsolakidis, JHEP 09, 167, arXiv:2405.07967 [hep-th]

    E. Tsolakidis, JHEP 09, 167, arXiv:2405.07967 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    C. D. A. Blair, J. Lahnsteiner, N. A. Obers, and Z. Yan, (2024), arXiv:2410.03591 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Babaei-Aghbolagh, K

    H. Babaei-Aghbolagh, K. B. Velni, D. M. Yekta, and H. Mohammadzadeh, Phys. Lett. B 829, 137079 (2022), arXiv:2202.11156 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Ferko, A

    C. Ferko, A. Sfondrini, L. Smith, and G. Tartaglino- Mazzucchelli, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 201604 (2022), arXiv:2206.10515 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Babaei-Aghbolagh, S

    H. Babaei-Aghbolagh, S. He, and H. Ouyang, JHEP 09, 137, arXiv:2407.03698 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    Hou, JHEP 03, 243, arXiv:2208.05391 [hep-th]

    J. Hou, JHEP 03, 243, arXiv:2208.05391 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    Ferko, J

    C. Ferko, J. Hou, T. Morone, G. Tartaglino-Mazzucchelli, and R. Tateo, (2024), arXiv:2409.18740 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Aldrovandi and J

    R. Aldrovandi and J. G. Pereira, in Conference on Topics in Theoretical Physics II: Festschrift for A.H. Zimerman (1998) arXiv:gr-qc/9809061

    1998 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Aldrovandi, J

    R. Aldrovandi, J. P. Almeida, and J. G. Pereira, J. Geom. Phys. 56, 1042 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0403099

    2006 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Bandos, K

    I. Bandos, K. Lechner, D. Sorokin, and P. K. Townsend, Phys. Rev. D 102, 121703 (2020), arXiv:2007.09092 [hep- th]

    2020 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Ferko, L

    C. Ferko, L. Smith, and G. Tartaglino-Mazzucchelli, Sci- 7 Post Phys. 13, 012 (2022), arXiv:2203.01085 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Babichev, Phys

    E. Babichev, Phys. Rev. D 74, 085004 (2006), arXiv:hep- th/0608071

    2006

  31. [39]

    R. D. Lambaga and H. S. Ramadhan, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 436 (2018), arXiv:1803.03001 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  32. [40]

    J. R. Nascimento, G. J. Olmo, P. J. Porfirio, A. Y. Petrov, and A. R. Soares, Phys. Rev. D 101, 064043 (2020), arXiv:1912.10779 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Babaei-Aghbolagh, K

    H. Babaei-Aghbolagh, K. B. Velni, D. M. Yekta, and H. Mohammadzadeh, JHEP 04, 187, arXiv:2012.13636 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  34. [42]

    K. A. Bronnikov, Phys. Rev. D 63, 044005 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0006014. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL (APPENDICES) In the Supplemental Material accompanying our letter, we prove that the quantity √g O(n) τ is invariant along the metric flow, and we generalize the dressing of bare action...

    2001 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.