Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 91 references

Generalized Uncertainty Principle mimicking dynamical Dark Energy: matter perturbations and gravitational wave data analysis

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the generalized uncertainty principle acts as an early-universe dark-energy term, delays structure formation, and is bounded to β ≲ 10^39 by primordial gravitational-wave and BBN data.

desk verdict Solid matter-perturbation extension of GUP cosmology, but the PGW-derived beta<10^39 bound rests on an O(x) Hubble rate used outside its validity regime, plus an unshown BBN conversion. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.10043 v1 pith:VSNFRVO2 submitted 2025-02-14 gr-qc hep-thquant-ph

Giuseppe Gaetano Luciano , Yassine Sekhmani This is my paper
classification gr-qchep-thquant-ph
keywords generalizeduncertaintyprincipleminimumlengthquantumgravityphenomenologydynamicaldarkenergymatterperturbationstop-hatsphericalcollapseprimordialgravitationalwavesBigBangnucleosynthesisbound
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 argues that the generalized uncertainty principle (GUP)—a proposed deformation of quantum mechanics that introduces a minimum length—can be promoted from a microphysical relation to a cosmological model by feeding its modified entropy-area law into the thermodynamics of spacetime. In that model the GUP contributes a dynamical dark-energy density of the form $\rho_{\mathrm{DE}} \sim \beta H^4$ alongside the cosmological constant, so the early universe expands faster than in ΛCDM while the present epoch reduces to standard cosmology. Applying the top-hat spherical-collapse model, the authors find that larger β suppresses the growth of matter perturbations and delays structure formation. They then compute the relic density of primordial gravitational waves and show that the GUP correction enhances the spectrum at high frequencies; imposing the Big Bang nucleosynthesis bound on that spectrum yields $\beta \lesssim 10^{39}$, a constraint on the GUP parameter that is more restrictive than most existing cosmological and astrophysical bounds. If the prediction is right, next-generation high-frequency gravitational-wave detectors would be a direct probe of quantum-gravity phenomenology.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the GUP-deformed entropy-area relation $$S_\$\beta$(A) = \frac{A}{$4l_p^{2}$}\left[1 - \frac{\$\beta$ \pi $l_p^{2}$}{4A}\log\left(\frac{A}{$4l_p^{2}$}\right)\right],$$ derived from the GUP uncertainty relation through a black-hole absorption argument. Inserting this entropy into the first law of thermodynamics on the apparent horizon yields the GUP-modified Friedmann equations, whose new ingredient is a dynamical dark-energy density $\rho_{\mathrm{DE}} = M_p^2 \Lambda + \tilde{\beta} H^4$ with $\tilde{\beta}=3\beta/(256\pi)$. The same density controls the linear growth equation for $\delta_m$ and the horizon-crossing factors in the primordial-gravitational-wave relic-density formula; the gravitational-wave spectrum is what converts the parameter $\beta$ into an observable, BBN-sensitive quantity.

What would settle it

Compute the primordial gravitational-wave spectrum from the exact GUP-modified Friedmann equation rather than the linearized Hubble rate, and compare the BBN constraint; if the exact spectrum does not keep rising through $10^2$–$10^3$ Hz, the claimed $\beta < 10^{39}$ bound and its enhancement mechanism fail. A null measurement by a planned next-generation detector of the predicted high-frequency boost would independently challenge the bound.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a single dimensionless parameter β in the GUP controls a coherent set of early-universe deviations from general relativity. Through the GUP-deformed entropy, the apparent horizon of the FRW universe acquires an effective dark-energy component $\rho_{\mathrm{DE}} = M_p^2 \Lambda + \tilde{\beta} H^4$ with $\tilde{\beta}=3\beta/(256\pi)$, which behaves like a quintessence field at high redshift and relaxes to a cosmological constant today. In the top-hat spherical-collapse framework, this correction enters the growth equation for the density contrast $\delta_m$ with β-dependent terms, producing a slower rise of $\delta_m$ and delayed structure formation. For primordial gravitational waves, the same modified Hubble rate changes the horizon-crossing factors in the relic-density formula, enhancing $\Omega_{\mathrm{GW}}h^2$ at frequencies approaching $10^3$ Hz; the requirement that this enhancement not violate the BBN bound on the gravitational-wave energy density gives $x < O(10^{-85})$, equivalent to $\beta < O(10^{39})$.

Load-bearing premise

The central result depends on using the linearized version of the GUP-corrected Hubble rate all the way up to $10^3$ Hz, although in that regime the correction is no longer small and the unapproximated equation has no real solution; if the full equation is used instead, the claimed high-frequency spectrum and the β bound could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the model is correct, the early universe expands faster than in ΛCDM while matter perturbations grow more slowly, so structure formation is delayed by an amount controlled by β.
  • The GUP-corrected Hubble rate boosts the primordial gravitational-wave spectrum at high frequencies, and planned high-frequency observatories in the band up to $10^3$ Hz would see this as a blue-tilted deviation from standard cosmology.
  • Enforcing the BBN constraint on the gravitational-wave relic density bounds β below about $10^{39}$, which the paper argues is more restrictive than black-hole-shadow, perihelion-precession, and full-cosmology-data limits.
  • The model does not eliminate the cosmological constant: the GUP dark-energy term dilutes too quickly to explain late-time acceleration, so a nonzero Λ remains necessary.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: computing the gravitational-wave transfer function from the full, unlinearized GUP-modified Friedmann equation rather than the linearized expansion could change or remove the high-frequency enhancement, since the linearization is used exactly where the correction is largest; this is a direct numerical test of the β bound.
  • Inference: the same β-dependent suppression of the density contrast predicts a modification of the growth factor $f\sigma_8$ that redshift-space-distortion surveys could measure, giving an independent cross-check outside the gravitational-wave band.
  • Inference: the paper treats only β > 0; for β < 0 the dark-energy correction changes sign, so the same observatories would probe the sign of the GUP parameter through a suppressed rather than enhanced primordial gravitational-wave spectrum.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper derives a GUP-modified entropy-area law, uses it within Jacobson's thermodynamics to obtain Friedmann equations with a dark-energy component ρ_DE = M_p^2 Λ + β̃ H^4, and then expands in the dimensionless parameter x = β̃ G H_0^2. On this background it studies matter-density growth in the top-hat spherical collapse model and computes the relic density of primordial gravitational waves. The central quantitative claim is that BBN consistency in the frequency range 10^-3 to 10^3 Hz requires x < O(10^-85), equivalently β < O(10^39), and that this is one of the strongest cosmological/astrophysical GUP bounds. The matter-perturbation part is internally consistent, but the PGW calculation that produces the headline bound is not.

Significance. If the central result were correct, the bound β < O(10^39) would indeed be a significant improvement over many cosmological and astrophysical constraints and would make high-frequency gravitational-wave searches a meaningful probe of GUP phenomenology. The paper has real strengths: the derivation leading to Eq. (30) is transparent, the conversion from time to scale-factor variables checks out, and the authors are explicit about the linearized, background-level nature of their treatment. However, the claimed PGW enhancement and the BBN bound derived from it rely on the O(x) Hubble rate in a regime where the expansion is invalid; as written, the headline result is unsupported by the paper's own equations.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section IV B, Eqs. (10), (21), Fig. 5] The BBN-saturating curve in Fig. 5 at x=10^-85 is not a solution of Eq. (21). At f=10^3 Hz, horizon crossing occurs deep in the radiation era; with Ωr0≈5×10^-5 and g_*≈100, 1+z≈5×10^22 and the quantity D=1-Ωm0[1-(1+z)^3]-Ωr0[1-(1+z)^4] is D≈Ωr0(1+z)^4≈4×10^86. The correction term in Eq. (21) is (4πx/3)(1-D)^2≈(4πx/3)D^2, which exceeds D by a factor (4π/3)xD≈170 when x=10^-85; the square root in Eq. (21) therefore becomes imaginary, and the O(x) expansion leading to Eq. (21) is invalid. Equivalently, the full Friedmann equation (10) takes the form H^2=H_GR^2+(8π/3)xH^4/H_0^2, which has no real solution once (32π/3)x(H_GR/H_0)^2>1; at f=10^3 Hz this requires x≲10^-88, about three orders of magnitude below the value used for the cyan curve. Thus the high-frequency enhancement and the bound x<O(10^-85) in Eq. (42) are derived outside the regime of validity of the stated equations.
  2. [Section IV B, Eq. (42)] The derivation of the numerical BBN bound is not documented. The text states that 'by ensuring that the BBN constraint is not violated in the considered frequency range' one finds x<O(10^-85), but it does not specify the adopted BBN upper limit on Ω_GW h^2, the frequency integration procedure, the values of g_*(T_hc) and g_*s(T_hc) used in Eq. (39), or the transfer factors (a_hc/a_GR_hc)^4(H_hc/H_GR_hc)^2 evaluated at each frequency. A reader cannot reproduce the number x<O(10^-85) from the material provided, and this is a load-bearing element of the paper's central claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section III] In the sentence preceding Eq. (25), 'very smallest sales' should read 'very smallest scales'.
  2. [Section IV B] The text contains the typo 'red dashsed' and the Fig. 5 caption uses 'dashsed'; both should be 'dashed'.
  3. [Section II B] The notation for the dark-energy equation of state alternates between w_DE in Eq. (14) and ω_DE in Eq. (20) and Fig. 1; please unify it.
  4. [Fig. 2 and Eq. (21)] The quantity Hresc displayed in the Fig. 2 caption is not defined in the text, and the unit is written as 'Km/s/Mpc' with inconsistent spacing; please define the quantity and format the unit correctly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reduction: the GUP parameter is constrained by comparing the computed PGW spectrum with an external BBN bound, not fitted to the spectrum.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is: the GUP (1) gives the entropy-area law (6) via [50]; Eq. (6) yields the modified Friedmann equations (10)-(13); the O(x) Hubble rate (21) follows from these plus the flatness condition; inserting this H into the standard PGW relic-density formula (36) gives Eq. (41); and the constraint x < O(10^-85) is obtained by requiring that the resulting Omega_GW h^2 does not violate the BBN bound. At no point is beta fitted to the PGW spectrum or defined in terms of Omega_GW: the bound is an exclusion against an external limit, and the conversion to beta < O(10^39) is just x = (3/(256*pi))*beta*G*H0^2. The self-citations, e.g., [41] for large-beta parameter ranges, are contextual and not load-bearing, with the alternative external reference [44] alongside. The O(x) expansion in Eq. (21) may be numerically invalid at the BBN-saturating high-frequency point, but that is a correctness or validity concern, not a circular reduction: an unsupported bound is not equivalent to its inputs by construction. The paper is self-contained against external benchmarks such as BBN, Planck normalization, and detector sensitivities, so no significant circularity is found.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces. The GUP-induced dark energy component ρDE ~ β̃H^4 is derived from the chosen entropy-area law rather than postulated as a new entity. The free parameter is the GUP parameter β, and the central claim is an upper bound on it. The main unstated inputs are the thermodynamic conjecture, the horizon-extension of the entropy, the calibration factor, and the validity of the perturbative expansion at high frequencies.

free parameters (1)
  • x = β̃ G H0^2 (equivalently β)
    Free GUP parameter of the model. It is constrained, not fitted: the paper derives an upper bound x < O(10^-85), corresponding to β < O(10^39). The value is not chosen by hand, but the entire analysis is an exploration of this parameter.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The gravity-thermodynamics conjecture: the first law of thermodynamics applied to the apparent horizon yields the modified Friedmann equations, Eqs. (8)-(9).
    Section II A follows [50, 56, 61, 65]. The central claim depends on this to translate the GUP entropy into cosmological dynamics.
  • domain assumption The GUP-modified entropy-area law of Eq. (6) applies not only to black holes but also to the apparent horizon of the Universe.
    Section II A states 'Due to the geometrical and thus universal nature of the law (6)... it can also be extended to the apparent horizon'. The modified Friedmann equations rest on this extension.
  • ad hoc to paper The calibration factor λ = ΔS_min/π = log 2/π in Eq. (4) fixes the coefficient of the logarithmic entropy correction and hence the coefficient β̃ in ρDE.
    Section II, Eq. (4), following [50, 61]. The choice ΔS_min = log 2 for one bit of information sets the normalization of the GUP contribution to the dark energy density.
  • ad hoc to paper The O(x) expansion of the Hubble rate (Eq. (21)) remains valid in the regime used to compute the PGW spectrum and the BBN bound.
    Section IV B uses Eq. (21) up to f = 10^3 Hz. The expansion fails at high frequencies where the GUP correction is non-perturbative, and the full equation (10) has no real solution above a critical density. This is the weakest assumption.
  • domain assumption The GUP modifies only the background Hubble rate, leaving tensor perturbations and the primordial tensor spectrum unmodified.
    Footnote 2 states that quantum gravity effects could also alter linear perturbations but this is deferred. The PGW calculation depends on this assumption for all frequencies considered.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Generalized Uncertainty Principle mimicking dynamical Dark Energy: matter perturbations and gravitational wave data analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VSNFRVO2

@misc{pith2026250210043,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Generalized Uncertainty Principle mimicking dynamical Dark Energy: matter perturbations and gravitational wave data analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VSNFRVO2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.10043}
}
abstract

The Generalized Uncertainty Principle (GUP) stands out as a nearly ubiquitous feature in quantum gravity modeling, predicting the emergence of a minimum length at the Planck scale. Recently, it has been shown to modify the area-law scaling of the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy, giving rise to deformed Friedmann equations within Jacobson's approach. The ensuing model incorporates the GUP correction as a quintessence-like dark energy that supplements the cosmological constant, influencing the dynamics of the early Universe while aligning with the $\Lambda$CDM paradigm in the current epoch. In this extended scenario, we examine the growth of matter perturbations and structure formation employing the Top-Hat Spherical Collapse approach. Our analysis reveals that the profile of the density contrast is sensitive to the GUP parameter $\beta$, resulting in a slower gravitational evolution of primordial fluctuations in the matter density. We also discuss implications for the relic density of Primordial Gravitational Waves (PGWs), identifying the parameter space that enhances the PGW spectrum. Using the sensitivity of the next-generation GW observatories in the frequency range below $10^3\,\mathrm{Hz}$, we constrain $\beta\lesssim10^{39}$, which is more stringent than most other cosmological/astrophysical limits. This finding highlights the potential role of GWs in the pursuit of understanding quantum gravity phenomenology.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.10043 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Plot of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Plot of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Plot of the growth of matter perturbations (density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Plot of the PGW spectrum versus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Plot of the modified PGW spectrum versus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [50]

    Y.-W. Kim, H. W. Lee, Y. S. Myung, and M.-I. Park, Mod. Phys. Lett. A23, 3049 (2008), 0803.0574

    work page Pith review arXiv 2008

  2. [1]

    -1.000 -0.998 -0.996 -0.994 -0.992 �/���� ω�� x 0 2.×10 -44 4.×10 -44 6.×10 -44 8.×10 -44 1.×10 -43 FIG

    0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1. -1.000 -0.998 -0.996 -0.994 -0.992 �/���� ω�� x 0 2.×10 -44 4.×10 -44 6.×10 -44 8.×10 -44 1.×10 -43 FIG. 1: Plot ofωDE versus z, for various values ofx and fixed Ωm0 ≃ 0.3, Ωr0 ≃ 5 × 10−5. where the constant Λ is fixed by the initial condition Ωm0 + Ωr0 + ΩDE,0 = 1, which implies Λ = H 2 0 h 3 (1 − Ωm0 − Ωr0) − 8π ˜βGH 2 0 i . (18) For ...

  3. [2]

    Since G ≃ 10−38 GeV−2, H0 ≃ 10−42 GeV, it is reasonable to expand around x ≪ 1 as long as ˜β ≪ 10122. This is cer- tainly true in string theory, where the GUP parameter is assumed to be of order unity, but also in cosmologi- cal and astrophysical contexts for consistency with the latest experimental data [41, 44]. The energy density in Eq. (17) then becom...

  4. [3]

    Perivolaropoulos and F

    L. Perivolaropoulos and F. Skara, New Astron. Rev.95, 101659 (2022), 2105.05208

    arXiv 2022

  5. [4]

    A. G. Riess et al. (Supernova Search Team), Astron. J. 116, 1009 (1998), astro-ph/9805201

    arXiv 1998

  6. [5]

    Perlmutter et al

    S. Perlmutter et al. (Supernova Cosmology Project), Bull. Am. Astron. Soc. 29, 1351 (1997), astro- ph/9812473

    work page arXiv 1997

  7. [6]

    Weinberg, Rev

    S. Weinberg, Rev. Mod. Phys.61, 1 (1989)

    1989

  8. [7]

    P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra, Astrophys. J. Lett.325, L17 (1988)

    1988

Show all 91 references
  1. [8]

    Sahni and A

    V. Sahni and A. A. Starobinsky, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D9, 373 (2000), astro-ph/9904398

    2000 arXiv

  2. [9]

    E. J. Copeland, M. Sami, and S. Tsujikawa, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D15, 1753 (2006), hep-th/0603057

    2006 arXiv

  3. [10]

    R. R. Caldwell, R. Dave, and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1582 (1998), astro-ph/9708069

    1998 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Coble, S

    K. Coble, S. Dodelson, and J. A. Frieman, Phys. Rev. D 55, 1851 (1997), astro-ph/9608122

    1997 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Brans and R

    C. Brans and R. H. Dicke, Phys. Rev.124, 925 (1961)

    1961

  6. [13]

    Zhao et al., Nature Astron

    G.-B. Zhao et al., Nature Astron. 1, 627 (2017), 1701.08165

    2017 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Oriti and X

    D. Oriti and X. Pang, JCAP12, 040 (2021), 2105.03751

    2021 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Amati, M

    D. Amati, M. Ciafaloni, and G. Veneziano, Phys. Lett. B 197, 81 (1987)

    1987

  9. [16]

    D. J. Gross and P. F. Mende, Phys. Lett. B197, 129 (1987)

    1987

  10. [17]

    Amati, M

    D. Amati, M. Ciafaloni, and G. Veneziano, Phys. Lett. B 216, 41 (1989)

    1989

  11. [18]

    Konishi, G

    K. Konishi, G. Paffuti, and P. Provero, Phys. Lett. B 234, 276 (1990)

    1990

  12. [19]

    Maggiore, Phys

    M. Maggiore, Phys. Lett. B 319, 83 (1993), hep- th/9309034

    1993

  13. [20]

    Capozziello, G

    S. Capozziello, G. Lambiase, and G. Scarpetta, Int. J. Theor. Phys.39, 15 (2000), gr-qc/9910017

    2000 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Kempf, G

    A. Kempf, G. Mangano, and R. B. Mann, Phys. Rev. D 52, 1108 (1995), hep-th/9412167

    1995 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Scardigli, Phys

    F. Scardigli, Phys. Lett. B 452, 39 (1999), hep- th/9904025

    1999

  16. [23]

    R. J. Adler, P. Chen, and D. I. Santiago, Gen. Rel. Grav. 33, 2101 (2001), gr-qc/0106080

    2001 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Hossenfelder, Living Rev

    S. Hossenfelder, Living Rev. Rel.16, 2 (2013), 1203.6191

    2013 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Nouicer, Phys

    K. Nouicer, Phys. Lett. B646, 63 (2007), 0704.1261

    2007 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Park, Phys

    M.-i. Park, Phys. Lett. B659, 698 (2008), 0709.2307

    2008 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Y. C. Ong, JCAP09, 015 (2018), 1804.05176

    2018 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Buoninfante, G

    L. Buoninfante, G. G. Luciano, and L. Petruzziello, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 663 (2019), 1903.01382

    2019 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Buoninfante, G

    L. Buoninfante, G. Lambiase, G. G. Luciano, and L. Petruzziello, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 853 (2020), 2001.05825

    2020 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Chemisana, J

    D. Chemisana, J. Giné, and J. Madrid, Nucl. Phys. B 991, 116225 (2023)

    2023

  24. [31]

    Das and E

    S. Das and E. C. Vagenas, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 221301 (2008), 0810.5333

    2008 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Bosso, S

    P. Bosso, S. Das, and R. B. Mann, Phys. Rev. D96, 066008 (2017), 1704.08198

    2017 arXiv

  26. [33]

    G. G. Luciano and L. Petruzziello, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 283 (2019), 1902.07059

    2019 arXiv

  27. [34]

    G. G. Luciano, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 672 (2021)

    2021

  28. [35]

    Jizba, G

    P. Jizba, G. Lambiase, G. G. Luciano, and L. Petruzziello, Phys. Rev. D 108, 064024 (2023), 2308.12368

    2023 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Buoninfante, G

    L. Buoninfante, G. G. Luciano, L. Petruzziello, and F. Scardigli, Phys. Lett. B 824, 136818 (2022), 2009.12530

    2022 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Bosso and G

    P. Bosso and G. G. Luciano, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 982 (2021), 2109.15259

    2021 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Iorio, B

    A. Iorio, B. Ivetić, S. Mignemi, and P. Pais, Phys. Rev. D 106, 116011 (2022), 2208.02237

    2022 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Pikovski, M

    I. Pikovski, M. R. Vanner, M. Aspelmeyer, M. Kim, and C. Brukner, Nature Phys.8, 393 (2012), 1111.1979

    2012 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Addazi et al., Prog

    A. Addazi et al., Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.125, 103948 (2022), 2111.05659

    2022 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Alves Batista et al., Class

    R. Alves Batista et al., Class. Quant. Grav.42, 032001 (2025), 2312.00409

    2025 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Jizba, H

    P. Jizba, H. Kleinert, and F. Scardigli, Phys. Rev. D81, 084030 (2010), 0912.2253

    2010 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Bosso, G

    P. Bosso, G. G. Luciano, L. Petruzziello, and F. Wagner, Class. Quant. Grav.40, 195014 (2023), 2305.16193

    2023 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Jizba, G

    P. Jizba, G. Lambiase, G. G. Luciano, and L. Petruzziello, Phys. Rev. D 105, L121501 (2022), 2201.07919

    2022 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Zhu, J.-R

    T. Zhu, J.-R. Ren, and M.-F. Li, Phys. Lett. B674, 204 (2009), 0811.0212

    2009 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Giardino and V

    S. Giardino and V. Salzano, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 110 10 (2021), 2006.01580

    2021 arXiv

  40. [47]

    G. G. Luciano, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 1086 (2021), 2111.06000

    2021 arXiv

  41. [48]

    G. G. Luciano and J. Gine, Phys. Lett. B833, 137352 (2022), 2204.02723

    2022 arXiv

  42. [49]

    M.Maggiore, Phys.Rev.D 83, 063514(2011), 1004.1782

    2011 arXiv

  43. [51]

    M. J. Lake, Galaxies7, 11 (2019), 1712.00271

    2019 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Kouwn, Phys

    S. Kouwn, Phys. Dark Univ.21, 76 (2018), 1805.07278

    2018 arXiv

  45. [53]

    L. R. Abramo, R. C. Batista, L. Liberato, and R. Rosen- feld, JCAP11, 012 (2007), 0707.2882

    2007 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Planelles, D

    S. Planelles, D. R. G. Schleicher, and A. M. Bykov, Space Sci. Rev.188, 93 (2015), 1404.3956

    2015 arXiv

  47. [55]

    S. Das, S. Shankaranarayanan, and V. Todorinov, Phys. Lett. B835, 137511 (2022), 2208.11095

    2022 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Marin et al., Nature Phys.9, 71 (2013)

    F. Marin et al., Nature Phys.9, 71 (2013)

    2013

  49. [57]

    Bhattacharyya, S

    S. Bhattacharyya, S. Sen, and S. Gangopadhyay, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 425 (2024), 2308.11215

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Jacobson, Phys

    T. Jacobson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 1260 (1995), gr- qc/9504004

    1995

  51. [59]

    Cai, L.-M

    R.-G. Cai, L.-M. Cao, and Y.-P. Hu, JHEP 08, 090 (2008), 0807.1232

    2008 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Christodoulou, Phys

    D. Christodoulou, Phys. Rev. Lett.25, 1596 (1970)

    1970

  53. [61]

    Amelino-Camelia, M

    G. Amelino-Camelia, M. Arzano, Y. Ling, and G. Man- danici, Class. Quant. Grav. 23, 2585 (2006), gr- qc/0506110

    2006

  54. [62]

    A. J. M. Medved and E. C. Vagenas, Phys. Rev. D70, 124021 (2004), hep-th/0411022

    2004 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Awad and A

    A. Awad and A. F. Ali, JHEP06, 093 (2014), 1404.7825

    2014 arXiv

  56. [64]

    B. Wang, E. Abdalla, and R.-K. Su, Phys. Lett. B503, 394 (2001)

    2001

  57. [65]

    Cai and S

    R.-G. Cai and S. P. Kim, JHEP02, 050 (2005), hep- th/0501055

    2005

  58. [66]

    Eling, R

    C. Eling, R. Guedens, and T. Jacobson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 121301 (2006)

    2006

  59. [67]

    Akbar and R.-G

    M. Akbar and R.-G. Cai, Phys. Lett. B635, 7 (2006), hep-th/0602156

    2006 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Akbar and R.-G

    M. Akbar and R.-G. Cai, Phys. Lett. B648, 243 (2007), gr-qc/0612089

    2007 arXiv

  61. [69]

    A. V. Frolov and L. Kofman, JCAP05, 009 (2003), hep- th/0212327

    2003

  62. [70]

    Sheykhi, B

    A. Sheykhi, B. Wang, and R.-G. Cai, Nucl. Phys. B779, 1 (2007), hep-th/0701198

    2007 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Faraoni, Phys

    V. Faraoni, Phys. Rev. D84, 024003 (2011), 1106.4427

    2011 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Paliathanasis, S

    A. Paliathanasis, S. Pan, and S. Pramanik, Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 245006 (2015), 1508.06543

    2015 arXiv

  65. [73]

    V. F. Mukhanov, H. A. Feldman, and R. H. Branden- berger, Phys. Rept.215, 203 (1992)

    1992

  66. [74]

    Hamber and R

    H. Hamber and R. Toriumi, Galaxies2, 275 (2014)

    2014

  67. [75]

    Aasi et al

    J. Aasi et al. (LIGO Scientific), Class. Quant. Grav.32, 074001 (2015), 1411.4547

    2015 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Acernese et al

    F. Acernese et al. (VIRGO), Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 024001 (2015), 1408.3978

    2015 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Ito and J

    A. Ito and J. Soda, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 766 (2023), 2212.04094

    2023 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Jizba, G

    P. Jizba, G. Lambiase, G. G. Luciano, and L. Mastroto- taro, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 1076 (2024), 2403.09797

    2024 arXiv

  71. [79]

    S. D. Odintsov, S. D’Onofrio, and T. Paul, Phys. Rev. D 110, 043539 (2024), 2407.05855

    2024 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Watanabe and E

    Y. Watanabe and E. Komatsu, Phys. Rev. D73, 123515 (2006), astro-ph/0604176

    2006 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Bernal, A

    N. Bernal, A. Ghoshal, F. Hajkarim, and G. Lambiase, JCAP 11, 051 (2020), 2008.04959

    2020 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Akrami et al

    Y. Akrami et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A10 (2020), 1807.06211

    2020 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Breitbach, J

    M. Breitbach, J. Kopp, E. Madge, T. Opferkuch, and P. Schwaller, JCAP07, 007 (2019), 1811.11175

    2019 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Lewis, A

    A. Lewis, A. Challinor, and A. Lasenby, Astrophys. J. 538, 473 (2000), astro-ph/9911177

    2000 arXiv

  77. [85]

    D’Agostino, M

    R. D’Agostino, M. Califano, N. Menadeo, and D. Vernieri, Phys. Rev. D 108, 043538 (2023), 2305.14238

    2023 arXiv

  78. [86]

    J. C. S. Neves, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 343 (2020), 1906.11735

    2020 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Scardigli and R

    F. Scardigli and R. Casadio, Eur. Phys. J. C75, 425 (2015), 1407.0113

    2015 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Ghosh, Class

    S. Ghosh, Class. Quant. Grav. 31, 025025 (2014), 1303.1256

    2014 arXiv

  81. [89]

    D. Gao, J. Wang, and M. Zhan, Phys. Rev. A95, 042106 (2017), 1704.02037

    2017 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Casadio and F

    R. Casadio and F. Scardigli, Phys. Lett. B807, 135558 (2020), 2004.04076

    2020 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Feng, S.-Z

    Z.-W. Feng, S.-Z. Yang, H.-L. Li, and X.-T. Zu, Phys. Lett. B768, 81 (2017), 1610.08549

    2017 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.