Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Non-locality in Quadrupolar Gravitational Radiation

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper derives a modified quadrupole radiation formula for a nonlocal extension of General Relativity and shows that a massless scalar mode could be visible near a critical coupling.

desk verdict A solid new quadrupole formula buried under an unsupported ET detection claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13629 v2 pith:UWMQC4Q2 submitted 2024-12-18 gr-qc astro-ph.HEhep-th

Salvatore Capozziello , Maurizio Capriolo , Amodio Carleo , Gaetano Lambiase This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.HEhep-th MSC 83C3583D0583C25 PACS 04.30.-w04.50.Kd
keywords nonlocalgravityquadrupoleradiationgravitationalwavesstress-energypseudotensormasslessscalarmodebinarysystemEinsteinTelescopeRBox^{-1}correction
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

The paper asks whether gravitational-wave observations can tell nonlocal gravity apart from General Relativity. It derives, for the action $R + aR\Box^{-1}R$, the full gravitational-wave stress-energy pseudotensor and then integrates it to get the total quadrupole power emitted by a binary system. The result is a modified quadrupole formula, Eq. (3.21), that reduces to Einstein's formula when $a=0$ but otherwise includes an additional scalar-field contribution controlled by $a$. The authors further estimate the strain of the scalar breathing mode and find that, for a small window of couplings just below $a=1/6$, even the weak scalar radiation from a $100M_\odot$ binary could become visible to the Einstein Telescope.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the localized form of the nonlocal action: auxiliary scalar field $\phi = \Box^{-1}R$ and Lagrange multiplier $\lambda$ turn the integro-differential equations into a scalar-tensor-like system. Solving this system in the far zone with a nonrelativistic source links the tensor field $\theta_{\mu\nu}$ and the scalars $\phi$, $w$ to the source's quadrupole tensor $Q_{ij}$; the Noether current then yields the gravitational-wave stress-energy pseudotensor whose average over wavelengths gives the emitted power. The central identity is the modified quadrupole formula Eq. (3.21), with the factor $(6a-1)$ in the denominators controlling both the scalar contribution and the divergence at $a=1/6$.

What would settle it

Measure the orbital-period decay of a binary pulsar to better than the GR prediction and compare with Eq. (3.22); any statistically significant deviation fixes $a$. Conversely, if $a$ is fixed by other observations and the Einstein Telescope sees no scalar strain in the predicted window, the pole-region prediction fails. A cleaner calculation-level check is to compute the next-order correction in $a$ near $a=1/6$: if the divergence or negative luminosity persists, the linearized result (3.21) is not physical there.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the nonlocal correction $R\Box^{-1}R$ leaves an observable fingerprint in the quadrupole radiation of binaries. In the linearized theory the nonlocal term behaves like a massless scalar degree of freedom; when the field equations are solved with a matter source, the scalar contributes an extra term to the radiated power so that the total luminosity is $P_{\text{tot}} = \frac{G}{5c^5}\left[\left(1 + \frac{a}{3(6a-1)}\right)\langle \dddot{Q}_{ij}\dddot{Q}^{ij}\rangle + \left(\frac{1+7a}{3(6a-1)}\right)\langle \dddot{Q}^2\rangle\right]$, with $a=0$ recovering the standard quadrupole formula. The same calculation gives a scalar strain amplitude that grows as $a$ approaches $1/6$, suggesting that the Einstein Telescope's low-frequency band could probe this otherwise extremely faint mode.

Load-bearing premise

The whole calculation keeps only the first term $f(\Box^{-1}R)\approx a\Box^{-1}R$ and treats all fields as small perturbations; near $a=1/6$ that expansion cannot be trusted because the predicted power diverges and turns negative for $3/19<a<1/6$, yet the detection window in Fig. 1 lies exactly there.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If Eq. (3.21) holds, orbital decay of binary pulsars constrains the nonlocal coupling $a$; even small $|a|$ changes the emitted power by $O(a)$.
  • The additional scalar mode is massless, so this form of nonlocality does not introduce a length scale, in contrast to infinite-derivative gravity.
  • For a Keplerian circular binary, the nonlocal correction changes the GR power by the factor $1 - a/[3(1-6a)]$, which is observable in principle for sufficiently large $|a|$.
  • The scalar strain estimate places a potential detection target: $100M_\odot$ black holes at $0.01\,\mathrm{AU}$ emit at about $2\,\mathrm{Hz}$ and, for $a$ just below $1/6$, could fall within Einstein Telescope sensitivity.
  • The GW-SET pseudotensor (2.25) contains a mixed $\phi$-$w$ term that is absent in scalar-tensor and $f(R)$ theories, giving a distinctive signature of nonlocality.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A careful reader will want to check whether the $a=1/6$ region is physical: the linearized expansion used to produce Fig. 1 is not controlled there, and a higher-order or resummed computation would settle whether the detection window survives.
  • Applied to measured orbital decay of Hulse-Taylor and other binary pulsars, Eq. (3.21) should yield an upper bound on $|a|$; if that bound excludes the detection window, the scalar-mode search would be decided independently of detector sensitivity.
  • The same pseudotensor could be used to compute momentum and energy loss in other astrophysical settings, such as recoil or merger kicks, giving additional nonlocal signatures beyond the quadrupole power.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper derives the gravitational-wave stress-energy pseudo-tensor and the quadrupole radiation formula for the non-local gravity model with action R + aR□^{-1}R. Working in the localized auxiliary-field formulation, the authors solve the linearized field equations for the tensor and scalar perturbations, compute the Noether current, and obtain a modified quadrupole formula, Eq. (3.21), which reduces to the standard GR result at a = 0. The paper further claims in Sec. 3.3 and in the abstract that the massless transverse scalar mode may be detectable by the Einstein Telescope for a narrow range of the non-local parameter a near 1/6.

Significance. If taken as a derivation of the modified quadrupole luminosity, the paper is a useful and internally consistent contribution: the algebra from the action through Eq. (3.21) is self-contained, the appendices supply the key intermediate steps, and the GR limit is correctly recovered. The resulting formula is a concrete prediction that could in principle be constrained by binary-pulsar timing, independent of the detectability discussion. However, the paper's advertised observational signature, the Einstein Telescope detection claim, is not supported by the paper's own equations and numbers, and the central physical interpretation near the pole a = 1/6 is not reliable. The strengths are the transparent derivation and the falsifiable form of the modified quadrupole formula; the weakness is the overinterpreted and numerically incorrect detectability analysis.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.3 and Fig. 1] The Einstein Telescope detectability claim is contradicted by the paper's own equations. Eq. (3.22) shows that for 3/19 < a < 1/6 the total radiated power Ptot is negative, and at a = 1/6 it diverges. The paper explicitly excludes a = 1/6 in Sec. 3, stating 'we will not consider this case any more.' The range plotted in Fig. 1, a in [0.165, 0.168], lies almost entirely within the negative-luminosity window (since 3/19 ≈ 0.1579), where the linearized solution (3.7) and the derived amplitude (3.27) are not physically meaningful. A negative radiated power cannot be interpreted as a positive strain amplitude, so the plot and the abstract's claim that the scalar-mode amplitude 'could fall within the low-frequency Einstein Telescope sensitivity' are not justified.
  2. [Sec. 3.3, numerical example] The frequency quoted for the example of two 100 M_sun black holes at L0 = 0.01 AU is not reproducible from Kepler's law. For a circular orbit with separation L0 = 0.01 AU and total mass Mtot = 200 M_sun, the orbital angular velocity is ω ≈ sqrt(GM/R^3) with R = L0/2, giving a gravitational-wave frequency f_GW ≈ 2.5 × 10^-3 Hz, not ≈ 2 Hz as stated. This is roughly three orders of magnitude below the Einstein Telescope's low-frequency sensitivity band, so the comparison in Sec. 3.3 is invalid. Furthermore, Eq. (3.27) with the stated masses, distance r = 100 Mpc, and coalescence time from Eq. (3.31) yields a strain that, away from the pole, is many orders of magnitude smaller than the values shown in Fig. 1; the plotted curve is therefore not actually tied to Eq. (3.27) as the text claims.
  3. [Secs. 3.2 and 3.3] The detectability scenario relies on approaching a = 1/6, but the theoretical framework breaks down there. The first-order truncation f(□^{-1}R) ≈ a□^{-1}R and the linearized perturbation scheme leading to Eqs. (3.1)-(3.7) are only valid for small deviations from GR and away from the pole where the coefficients in Eq. (3.20) diverge. The paper does not discuss this limitation in the context of the detectability claim, and the abstract's assertion that the amplitude could be detectable near the divergence is an overclaim. The modified quadrupole formula (3.21) remains a valid result for a away from this pole and could be constrained by binary pulsar observations, but the ET signature as presented should be removed or substantially revised.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. 3.3] The abstract states that the scalar-mode amplitude 'could fall within the low-frequency Einstein Telescope sensitivity,' but the body of the paper shows the amplitude is 'extremely weak' and the only region where it grows is the excluded, unphysical pole region a ≈ 1/6. The abstract should be made consistent with the limitations discussed in Sec. 3.3.
  2. [Sec. 4] There is a typo in the conclusions: 'the deviation cloud be' should read 'the deviation could be.'
  3. [Various] Several minor spelling issues appear throughout, e.g., 'wavelenghts' in Sec. 2, 'adimensional' in the introduction, and 'dimensionless strain' in Fig. 1; these should be corrected.
  4. [Sec. 3.3] The paper uses |φ| in Eq. (3.27) as the 'strain,' but it is not made clear how the scalar field φ relates to the observable scalar polarization h_s in the detector response. Clarifying this conversion would strengthen the detectability discussion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the modified quadrupole formula is derived from the stated action with a free parameter; the ET-detectability claim has validity problems but none is a circular step.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained: from action (2.3) to localized action (2.4), field equations (2.6)-(2.7), linearized Lagrangian (2.15), Noether current (2.24), GW-SET (2.25), source solutions (3.7)-(3.14), and the angular integrals in Appendix B, Eq. (3.21) is obtained without fitting the free parameter a to any target. The a=0 limit recovering GR is a consistency check, not an input. Self-citations such as [43] ('as already found in [43]') and [28,29] ('See [28,29]') are used for prior derivations and the a=1/6 classification, but Appendix A reproduces the relevant field equations and the mode solution is derived in Eqs. (3.7), so no load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation. The Sec. 3.3 detectability discussion is not a circular step: it extrapolates near the a=1/6 pole, which the paper itself excludes ('we will not consider this case any more') and where Eq. (3.22) gives negative luminosity for 3/19 < a < 1/6. That is a domain-of-validity/correctness concern, not a circular reduction. The score of 1 reflects only the presence of non-load-bearing self-citations.

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

The central formula (3.21) rests on standard linearized-gravity methods and the localization trick for the nonlocal action; the only genuine free parameter is the coupling a. The detectability claim additionally rests on the unverified assumption that perturbation theory holds near the pole at a = 1/6, which the paper's own luminosity formula contradicts.

free parameters (1)
  • a
    Dimensionless coupling of the R□^{-1}R term. It is a free parameter of the theory, not fitted here. It controls the size of the nonlocal corrections in Eq. (3.21), and any observational constraint on nonlocal gravity must bound it. The detectability estimate in Sec. 3.3 chooses a near 1/6 by hand.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The localized action (2.4) with auxiliary fields φ and λ is dynamically equivalent to the nonlocal action (2.3).
    Standard localization trick in nonlocal gravity (Refs. [17, 30]); the paper invokes it in Sec. 2 before deriving field equations. If the localization introduces extra constraints, the GW calculation would change.
  • domain assumption Homogeneous solutions of the scalar equations are set to zero, e.g. w = -aφ is chosen as the 'trivial solution' of □(w + aφ) = 0 (Eq. 2.27).
    Sec. 3.1 relies on this to reduce the pseudo-tensor to (3.15). Any additional homogeneous scalar radiation would add independent contributions to the GW power.
  • domain assumption Linearized perturbation theory around Minkowski with a slowly moving, weakly self-gravitating source; quadrupole approximation valid (T^00 dominated).
    Used throughout Sec. 3 to express θ, φ, w in terms of Q_ij. The detectability estimate also assumes a circular inspiral trajectory L(t) = L0(1 - t/tcoal)^{1/4} (Sec. 3.3).
  • standard math The Noether current (2.22) evaluated on-shell and averaged over wavelengths yields the physical GW stress-energy pseudo-tensor.
    Standard method in GR and modified gravity (Refs. [45, 46, 49]); the paper follows it in Sec. 2. The average removes gauge dependence of the pseudo-tensor.
invented entities (1)
  • Massless scalar polarization from the nonlocal sector (fields φ and w)
    purpose: Additional propagating degree of freedom that contributes to gravitational-wave energy flux and, per the paper's Sec. 3.3, could yield a detectable strain.
    The scalar mode follows from the action and from prior work [36, 43]; it is not invented ad hoc, but there is no external observational confirmation, and the paper's only quantitative handle on it (Fig. 1) is internally inconsistent.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-locality in Quadrupolar Gravitational Radiation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UWMQC4Q2

@misc{pith2026241213629,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-locality in Quadrupolar Gravitational Radiation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UWMQC4Q2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13629}
}
abstract

General Relativity suffers for two main problems which have not yet been overcome: it predicts spacetime singularities and cannot be formulated as a perturbative renormalizable theory. In particular, many attempts have been made for avoiding singularities, such as considering higher order or infinite derivative theories. The price to pay in both cases is to give up locality and therefore they are known altogether as non-local theories of gravity. In this paper, we investigate how to recognize the presence of non-local effects by exploiting the power emitted by gravitational waves in a binary system in presence of non-local corrections as $R\Box^{-1}R$ to the Hilbert-Einstein action. After solving the field equations in terms of the source stress-energy tensor $T_{\mu\nu}$ and obtaining the gravitational wave stress-energy pseudo-tensor, $\tau_{\mu\nu}$, we find that the General Relativity quadrupole formula is modified in a non-trivial way, making it feasible to find a possible signature of non-locality. Our final results on the gravitational wave stress-energy pseudo-tensor could also be applied to several astrophysical scenarios involving energy or momentum loss, potentially providing multiple tests for non-local deviations from General Relativity. We finally discuss the detectability of the massless transverse scalar mode, discovering that, although this radiation is extremely weak, in a small range around the model divergence, its amplitude could fall within the low-frequency Einstein Telescope sensitivity.

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. Inflation in non-local hybrid metric-Palatini gravity

    hep-th 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Non-local hybrid metric-Palatini gravity generically contains ghosts, but a degenerate subclass with metric f(R) gravity plus Palatini non-local terms is ghost-free and can drive slow-roll inflation resembling Starobi...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [39]

    Carleo, Physics Letters B848, 138410 (2024), ISSN 0370-2693, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269323007438

    A. Carleo, Physics Letters B848, 138410 (2024), ISSN 0370-2693, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269323007438

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Pauli and F

    W. Pauli and F. Villars, Rev. Mod. Phys.21, 434 (1949)

    work page 1949

  3. [2]

    Pauli, Nuovo Cim.10, 648 (1953)

    W. Pauli, Nuovo Cim.10, 648 (1953)

    work page 1953

  4. [3]

    G. V. Efimov, Commun. Math. Phys.5, 42 (1967)

    work page 1967

  5. [4]

    G. V. Efimov, Commun. Math. Phys.7, 138 (1968)

    work page 1968

  6. [5]

    G. V. Efimov and O. A. Mogilevsky, Nucl. Phys. B44, 541 (1972)

    work page 1972

  7. [6]

    G. V. Efimov, Int. J. Theor. Phys.10, 19 (1974)

    work page 1974

  8. [7]

    G. V. Efimov, M. A. Ivanov, and O. A. Mogilevsky, Annals Phys.103, 169 (1977)

    work page 1977

Show all 55 references
  1. [8]

    D. A. Eliezer and R. P. Woodard, Nucl. Phys. B325, 389 (1989)

    1989

  2. [9]

    Harms and Y

    B. Harms and Y. Leblanc, Annals Phys.242, 265 (1995),hep-th/9307042

    1995 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Tseytlin, Physics Letters B363, 223 (1995), URL https://doi.org/10.10162F0370-269328952901228-7

    A. Tseytlin, Physics Letters B363, 223 (1995), URL https://doi.org/10.10162F0370-269328952901228-7

    1995

  4. [11]

    Siegel,Stringy gravity at short distances(2003), hep-th/0309093

    W. Siegel,Stringy gravity at short distances(2003), hep-th/0309093

    2003 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Modesto, J

    L. Modesto, J. W. Moffat, and P. Nicolini, Physics Letters B695, 397 (2011), URL https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.physletb.2010.11.046

    2011

  6. [13]

    Modesto, Physical Review D86 (2012), URL https://doi.org/10.1103%2Fphysrevd.86.044005

    L. Modesto, Physical Review D86 (2012), URL https://doi.org/10.1103%2Fphysrevd.86.044005

    2012

  7. [14]

    Modesto and L

    L. Modesto and L. Rachwał, Nucl. Phys. B900, 147 (2015),1503.00261

    2015 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Modesto and I

    L. Modesto and I. L. Shapiro, Phys. Lett. B755, 279 (2016),1512.07600

    2016 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and V. K. Oikonomou, Phys. Dark Univ.28, 100541 (2020), 1911.07329

    2020 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Lett. B659, 821 (2008),0708.0924

    2008 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Bahamonde, S

    S. Bahamonde, S. Capozziello, M. Faizal, and R. C. Nunes, Eur. Phys. J. C77, 628 (2017), 1709.02692

    2017 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Capozziello, A

    S. Capozziello, A. Mazumdar, and G. Meluccio, Phys. Dark Univ.45, 101517 (2024), 2403.11301

    2024 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, M. Sasaki, and Y.-l. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B696, 278 (2011), 1010.5375

    2011 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Capozziello, E

    S. Capozziello, E. Elizalde, S. Nojiri, and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Lett. B671, 193 (2009), 0809.1535

    2009 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Capozziello and M

    S. Capozziello and M. De Laurentis, Phys. Rept.509, 167 (2011),1108.6266

    2011 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Buoninfante, A

    L. Buoninfante, A. S. Koshelev, G. Lambiase, and A. Mazumdar, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2018, 034 (2018), URL https://doi.org/10.1088%2F1475-7516%2F2018%2F09%2F034

    2018

  17. [24]

    Buoninfante, G

    L. Buoninfante, G. Lambiase, Y. Miyashita, W. Takebe, and M. Yamaguchi, Physical Review D 101 (2020), URL https://doi.org/10.1103%2Fphysrevd.101.084019

    2020

  18. [25]

    Edholm,Infinite derivative gravity: A finite number of predictions(2019), 1904.10248

    J. Edholm,Infinite derivative gravity: A finite number of predictions(2019), 1904.10248

    2019 arXiv

  19. [26]

    D. J. Kapner, T. S. Cook, E. G. Adelberger, J. H. Gundlach, B. R. Heckel, C. D. Hoyle, and H. E. Swanson, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 021101 (2007),hep-ph/0611184

    2007 arXiv

  20. [27]

    J. Lee, E. Adelberger, T. Cook, S. Fleischer, and B. Heckel, Physical Review Letters124 (2020), URL https://doi.org/10.1103%2Fphysrevlett.124.101101. – 18 –

    2020

  21. [28]

    Capriolo, International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics19, 2250159 (2022), URL https://doi.org/10.1142%2Fs0219887822501596

    M. Capriolo, International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics19, 2250159 (2022), URL https://doi.org/10.1142%2Fs0219887822501596

    2022

  22. [29]

    Capozziello, M

    S. Capozziello, M. Capriolo, and G. Lambiase, International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics 20, 2350177 (2023),https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219887823501773, URL https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219887823501773

    2023 doi

  23. [30]

    Capozziello and F

    S. Capozziello and F. Bajardi, International Journal of Modern Physics D31 (2021), URL https://doi.org/10.1142%2Fs0218271822300099

    2021

  24. [31]

    Bouché, S

    F. Bouché, S. Capozziello, and V. Salzano, Universe9, 27 (2022), URL https://doi.org/10.3390%2Funiverse9010027

    2022

  25. [32]

    Mashhoon, Symmetry 14, 2116 (2022),2209.05817

    B. Mashhoon, Symmetry 14, 2116 (2022),2209.05817

    2022 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Puetzfeld, Y

    D. Puetzfeld, Y. N. Obukhov, and F. W. Hehl, Physical Review D99 (2019), URL https://doi.org/10.1103%2Fphysrevd.99.104013

    2019

  27. [34]

    Biswas, E

    T. Biswas, E. Gerwick, T. Koivisto, and A. Mazumdar, Physical Review Letters108 (2012), URL https://doi.org/10.1103%2Fphysrevlett.108.031101

    2012

  28. [35]

    Edholm, Physical Review D98 (2018), URL https://doi.org/10.1103%2Fphysrevd.98.044049

    J. Edholm, Physical Review D98 (2018), URL https://doi.org/10.1103%2Fphysrevd.98.044049

    2018

  29. [36]

    Capozziello, M

    S. Capozziello, M. Capriolo, and S. Nojiri, Phys. Lett. B810, 135821 (2020),2009.12777

    2020 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Deser and R

    S. Deser and R. P. Woodard, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 111301 (2007), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.111301

    2007 doi

  31. [38]

    Amendola, Y

    L. Amendola, Y. Dirian, H. Nersisyan, and S. Park, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2019, 045 (2019), URL https://doi.org/10.1088%2F1475-7516%2F2019%2F03%2F045

    2019

  32. [40]

    Capozziello, M

    S. Capozziello, M. Capriolo, and M. Transirico, Annalen der Physik529, 1600376 (2017), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/andp.201600376, URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/andp.201600376

    2017 doi

  33. [41]

    Capozziello, M

    S. Capozziello, M. Capriolo, and M. Transirico, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys.15, 1850164 (2018), 1804.08530

    2018 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Dialektopoulos, D

    K. Dialektopoulos, D. Borka, S. Capozziello, V. B. Jovanović, and P. Jovanović, Physical Review D 99 (2019), URL https://doi.org/10.1103%2Fphysrevd.99.044053

    2019

  35. [43]

    Capozziello and M

    S. Capozziello and M. Capriolo, Classical and Quantum Gravity38, 175008 (2021), URL https://doi.org/10.1088%2F1361-6382%2Fac1720

    2021

  36. [44]

    de Rham, J

    C. de Rham, J. Francfort, and J. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D102, 024079 (2020),2005.13923

    2020 arXiv

  37. [45]

    S. M. Carroll,Spacetime and Geometry(Cambridge University Press, 2019), ISBN 978-0-8053-8732-2, 978-1-108-48839-6, 978-1-108-77555-7

    2019

  38. [46]

    Saffer, N

    A. Saffer, N. Yunes, and K. Yagi, Classical and Quantum Gravity35, 055011 (2018), URL https://doi.org/10.1088%2F1361-6382%2Faaa7de

    2018

  39. [47]

    Inagaki and M

    T. Inagaki and M. Taniguchi,Scalar mode quadrupole radiation from astronomical sources in f (r) modified gravity(2023), 2302.02734

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    M. D. Laurentis and S. Capozziello, Astroparticle Physics35, 257 (2011), URL https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.astropartphys.2011.08.006

    2011

  41. [49]

    Maggiore,Gravitational Waves

    M. Maggiore,Gravitational Waves. Vol. 1: Theory and Experiments(Oxford University Press, 2007), ISBN 978-0-19-171766-6, 978-0-19-852074-0. – 19 –

    2007

  42. [50]

    Kuroda, W.-T

    K. Kuroda, W.-T. Ni, and W.-P. Pan, International Journal of Modern Physics D24, 1530031 (2015), URL https://doi.org/10.1142%2Fs0218271815300311

    2015

  43. [51]

    Decarli, M

    R. Decarli, M. Dotti, R. Falomo, A. Treves, M. Colpi, J. K. Kotilainen, C. Montuori, and M. Uslenghi, The Astrophysical Journal703, L76 (2009), URL https://doi.org/10.1088%2F0004-637x%2F703%2F1%2Fl76

    2009

  44. [52]

    Edholm, Physical Review D95 (2017), URL https://doi.org/10.1103%2Fphysrevd.95.044004

    J. Edholm, Physical Review D95 (2017), URL https://doi.org/10.1103%2Fphysrevd.95.044004

    2017

  45. [53]

    Belgacem, Y

    E. Belgacem, Y. Dirian, A. Finke, S. Foffa, and M. Maggiore, JCAP11, 022 (2019), 1907.02047

    2019 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Maggiore and M

    M. Maggiore and M. Mancarella, Physical Review D90 (2014), URL https://doi.org/10.1103%2Fphysrevd.90.023005

    2014

  47. [55]

    Belgacem, Y

    E. Belgacem, Y. Dirian, A. Finke, S. Foffa, and M. Maggiore, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2019, 022 (2019), URL https://doi.org/10.1088%2F1475-7516%2F2019%2F11%2F022. – 20 –

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.