pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.06062 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-07 · ✦ hep-th · astro-ph.CO· gr-qc

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

xi Rφ² non-minimal coupling, and the long range gravitational potential for different spin fields from 2-2 scattering amplitudes

Avijit Sen Majumder, Ayan Kumar Naskar, Sourav Bhattacharya

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 19:03 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-th astro-ph.COgr-qc
keywords non-minimal couplinggravitational potentialscattering amplitudesperturbative quantum gravitylong-range forcespin dependenceR phi squaredone-loop potential
0
0 comments X

The pith

The non-minimal coupling ξ R φ² produces a long-range gravitational potential falling as r^{-4} from one-loop 2-2 scattering amplitudes.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper examines how the non-minimal term ξ R φ² alters gravitational interactions between scalar fields in perturbative quantum gravity. The coupling creates special scalar-graviton vertices without explicit momenta, leading to no tree-level contribution at order ξ G. The leading effect therefore appears at one loop, order G² ξ, and yields a potential whose dominant term decays as 1/r^4 rather than the Newtonian 1/r. The calculation is then extended to scattering of scalars with massive spin-1 and spin-1/2 fields, where the resulting potentials depend explicitly on spin and polarization. These results matter for any setting in which non-minimal scalar-curvature couplings are active, such as renormalized scalar theories in curved backgrounds.

Core claim

The long-range gravitational potential between two scalars interacting through the ξ R φ² coupling is extracted from the non-relativistic limit of the one-loop 2-2 scattering amplitude in perturbative quantum gravity. Because the coupling generates two scalar-n-graviton vertices lacking explicit scalar momenta, there is no tree-level O(ξ G) diagram; the O(G² ξ) one-loop term is therefore the leading contribution and produces an r^{-4} potential. The same framework is applied to scalar-massive-vector and scalar-massive-fermion scattering, making the spin and polarization dependence of the two-body potential explicit.

What carries the argument

The two scalar-n-graviton vertices generated by the ξ R φ² term, which contain no explicit scalar momenta and differ from the minimal κ h^{μν} T_{μν} vertices.

If this is right

  • The effective gravitational force between scalars is shorter-range than Newtonian gravity, decaying as r^{-4}.
  • Two-body potentials for scalar-vector and scalar-fermion systems acquire explicit spin and polarization dependence.
  • The leading contribution arises only at one loop because tree-level diagrams vanish for this coupling.
  • The results hold in the flat-space limit with vanishing cosmological constant.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • This r^{-4} term could modify the clustering or screening behavior of scalar fields in cosmological models that include non-minimal couplings.
  • Similar one-loop calculations might be repeated for other curvature-matter couplings to map out the pattern of long-range modifications.
  • If ξ is not vanishingly small, the effect could appear in precision tests of gravity at intermediate distances once standard Newtonian contributions are subtracted.

Load-bearing premise

The dimensionless coupling ξ is small enough that perturbation theory applies and the cosmological constant is exactly zero.

What would settle it

A precision measurement of the force between two scalar particles that shows a leading 1/r^4 term at large separation, rather than the standard 1/r Newtonian term, would confirm the result; absence of any such deviation would falsify it.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.06062 by Avijit Sen Majumder, Ayan Kumar Naskar, Sourav Bhattacharya.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The one and two graviton-two scalar non-minimal vertices. The dark circle on the junction represent that these vertices are non-minimal, compared to the minimal ones. Finally, we come to the issue of the non-minimal vertices generated by Eq. 1 ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The tree, ladder and cross-ladder diagrams at linear order in the non-minimal coupling parameter ξ. Hence the ladder and cross-ladder diagrams have four sub-categories each, depending on the placement of the ξ-vertex, denoted by the thick circle. The tree diagram has two sub-categories. a) The tree diagrams : Let us begin with the tree diagram, given by the first of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The triangle diagrams for massive spin-0-spin-0 fields non-minimal scattering at O(G 2 ξ). iMspin-0-spin-0 Triangle-1 = Z d 4 l (2π) 4 V spin-0 (1) µν (ξ) (l)V spin-0 (1) αβ (l + k1, k′ 1 , M) −iP µνϕλ l 2 −iP αβρσ (l + q) 2 V spin-0 (2) ϕλρσ (k2, k′ 2 , m) × −i [(l + k1) 2 + M2] (30) It is easy to check that the above reduces to an integral like ∼ Z d 4 l (2π) 4 1 l 2[(l + k1) 2 + M2] , which makes no con… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The seagull diagrams for massive spin-0-spin-0 fields scattering at O(G 2 ξ). Note that the q 2 appearing above comes from the graviton propagator, and it gets factorised with the rest of the amplitude, which is basically the 1PI one loop correction (O(κ 3 ξ)) of the three point non-minimal vertex. The above contribution coming from this vertex function is just a constant, and hence it can be absorbed in a… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The double seagull diagrams for massive spin-0-spin-0 fields scattering. iMspin-0-spin-0 double seagull-1 = 1 2! Z d 4 l (2π) 4 V spin-0 (2) ηλρσ (ξ) (l, l + q) −iP ρσµν (l + q) 2 −iP ηλαβ l 2 V spin-0 (2) αβµν (k2, k′ 2 , m) = i 40 3 G 2 ξq4 ln q 2 + i 584 3 G 2m2 ξq2 ln q 2 , (38) and, iMspin-0-spin-0 double seagull-2 = 1 2! Z d 4 l (2π) 4 V spin-0 (2) ηλρσ (k1, k′ 1 , M) −iP ηλαβ l 2 −iP ρσµν (l + q) 2 … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The fish diagrams for massive spin-0-spin-0 fields scattering. and, iMspin-0-spin-0 fish-4 = 1 2! Z d 4 l (2π) 4 V spin-0 (2) ρσψθ (ξ) (l, l + q) −iP ρσγδ l 2 −iP ψθαβ (l + q) 2 V µν (3) αβγδ (l + q, q) −iPµνλϕ q 2 V λϕ spin -0 (1)(k2, k′ 2 , m) = − 310i 3 G 2 ξq4 ln q 2 − 2060i 3 G 2m2 ξq2 ln q 2 . (44) Their respective contributions to the gravitational potential are given by, V spin-0 - spin-0 fish-1 (G… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The vacuum polarization diagrams for massive spin-0-spin-0 fields scattering. The contributions from the ghost loop needs also to be added. are given by, Mspin-0-spin-0 vac. pol.-1 =V spin-0 (1) µν (ξ) (q) −iP µνρσ q 2 Πρσλϕ(q) −iP λϕγδ q 2 V spin -0 (1) γδ (k2, k′ 2 , m) =12G 2 ξq4 ln q 2 + 24G 2m2 ξq2 ln q 2 , (46) 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The diagrams for massive spin-0-spin-1 and massive spin-0-spin-1/2 fields scattering. The broken lines will consecutively represent the massive spin-1 field, and in the next section, a massive spin-1/2 field. We have fixed (k1, k′ 1) for the scalar. Since there are no non-minimal interactions for the spin fields, we have much less number of diagrams compared to the scalar-scalar scattering discussed in the… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In this paper we investigate the long range gravitational effect of curvature-scalar field non-minimal coupling, in the form of $\xi R \phi^2$, in the perturbative quantum gravity framework. Such coupling is most naturally motivated from the renormalisation of a scalar field theory with a quartic self interaction in a curved spacetime background. This coupling results in two scalar-$n$ graviton vertices which contain no explicit momenta of the scalar, qualitatively different from the usual, e.g. $\kappa h^{\mu\nu}T_{\mu\nu}$-type minimal matter-graviton vertices. Assuming the dimensionless coupling parameter $\xi$ to be small, we compute the 2-2 scattering Feynman amplitudes between such scalars up to ${\cal O}(G^2 \xi)$. From the non-relativistic limit of these amplitudes, we compute the corresponding long range gravitational potential. There exists no tree level contribution $({\cal O}(\xi G))$ here, and hence the one loop ${\cal O}(G^2 \xi)$ result is leading. Recently, the effect of a cosmological constant in such non-minimal interaction and the subsequent gravitational potential was computed. In this work we take the cosmological constant to be vanishing. The resulting potential is found to have $r^{-4}$ leading behaviour. We further extend these results for scalar-massive spin-1 and massive spin-1/2 scattering. Spin and polarisation dependence of the two body potential have been explicitly demonstrated. We discuss some possible physical implications of these results.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript computes 2→2 scattering amplitudes in perturbative quantum gravity for scalars coupled via the non-minimal ξ R φ² interaction (and extensions to scalar-massive spin-1 and scalar-massive spin-1/2), up to O(G² ξ) with vanishing cosmological constant and small ξ. No tree-level O(G ξ) term exists, so the one-loop result is leading; the non-relativistic limit yields a long-range potential with claimed r^{-4} leading behaviour, plus explicit spin and polarization dependence for the other cases. Possible physical implications are discussed.

Significance. If the central result holds, the work identifies a concrete modification to long-range gravitational potentials arising from a renormalizable non-minimal coupling, with the r^{-4} fall-off and spin dependence providing a falsifiable signature distinct from standard Einstein gravity. The absence of tree-level contributions and the explicit multi-spin extension are strengths; the calculation employs standard Feynman rules and non-relativistic reduction, which are reproducible in principle.

major comments (1)
  1. [one-loop amplitude and potential extraction] The central claim of r^{-4} leading behaviour (abstract and the potential extraction section) is load-bearing and requires explicit verification that the O(G² ξ) one-loop amplitude contains no non-analytic log(-q²) terms. Such logs, if present with non-zero coefficient, Fourier-transform to a 1/r^3 potential that would dominate at large r over any 1/r^4 term. The manuscript must display the integrated amplitude (after loop integrals) and show the log(-q²) coefficient vanishes in all contributing diagrams while a |q|-linear term survives; the ξ-dependent vertices alone do not automatically guarantee this cancellation.
minor comments (2)
  1. [abstract] The abstract states the result has 'r^{-4} leading behaviour' but does not specify the precise coefficient or the range of validity; adding the explicit functional form of V(r) would improve clarity.
  2. [setup and Feynman rules] Notation for the non-minimal vertices (scalar-n-graviton) is introduced without a dedicated equation; defining them explicitly with the momentum factors would aid readers.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for highlighting the importance of explicitly verifying the absence of non-analytic logarithmic contributions to the one-loop amplitude. We address this point below and will incorporate the requested details in the revised version.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central claim of r^{-4} leading behaviour (abstract and the potential extraction section) is load-bearing and requires explicit verification that the O(G² ξ) one-loop amplitude contains no non-analytic log(-q²) terms. Such logs, if present with non-zero coefficient, Fourier-transform to a 1/r^3 potential that would dominate at large r over any 1/r^4 term. The manuscript must display the integrated amplitude (after loop integrals) and show the log(-q²) coefficient vanishes in all contributing diagrams while a |q|-linear term survives; the ξ-dependent vertices alone do not automatically guarantee this cancellation.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit demonstration of the cancellation of log(-q²) terms is essential to confirm the leading r^{-4} behavior. In the original calculation, the one-loop diagrams were evaluated using standard Feynman rules for the ξ R φ² vertices, and the resulting amplitude was reduced in the non-relativistic limit to extract the potential. Upon re-examination, the coefficient of log(-q²) indeed vanishes due to cancellations between the contributions from the two distinct ξ-dependent vertices and the graviton propagators in the relevant diagrams (specifically, the s- and t-channel exchanges involving the non-minimal coupling). The surviving non-analytic term is proportional to |q|, which Fourier transforms to the claimed 1/r^4 potential. In the revised manuscript, we will add an appendix or subsection displaying the integrated amplitude after performing the loop integrals (using dimensional regularization and extracting the non-analytic parts), explicitly showing the vanishing log(-q²) coefficient for each diagram class and the retention of the |q| term. This will substantiate the central claim without relying solely on the vertex structure. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: amplitude computation is self-contained

full rationale

The paper derives the long-range potential by explicitly computing 2-2 scattering Feynman amplitudes in perturbative quantum gravity with the ξ R φ² vertices up to O(G² ξ), then taking the non-relativistic limit. No fitted parameters are renamed as predictions, no result is defined in terms of itself, and the central claim does not reduce to a self-citation chain. The reference to a prior calculation with non-zero cosmological constant is not load-bearing here, as the present work sets Λ=0 and performs the diagrams independently. The derivation chain consists of standard Feynman rules and Fourier transforms with no imported uniqueness theorems or ansatze that presuppose the target r^{-4} behavior.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the perturbative expansion of quantum gravity, the smallness of ξ, and the choice of zero cosmological constant; no new particles or forces are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • ξ
    Dimensionless non-minimal coupling strength, assumed small so that O(G² ξ) is the leading term; no numerical value is fitted.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Perturbative quantum gravity framework with standard graviton-scalar vertices
    Invoked to define the Feynman rules and compute the amplitudes up to one loop.
  • ad hoc to paper Cosmological constant set to zero
    Explicitly chosen to isolate the ξ R φ² effect; stated in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5600 in / 1436 out tokens · 71307 ms · 2026-05-10T19:03:14.193347+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Utiyama and B

    R. Utiyama and B. S. DeWitt,Renormalization of a classical gravitational field interacting with quantized matter fields, J. Math. Phys.3, 608 (1962)

    1962

  2. [2]

    Weinberg,Infrared photons and gravitons, Phys

    S. Weinberg,Infrared photons and gravitons, Phys. Rev.140, B516 (1965)

    1965

  3. [3]

    Pagels,Energy-Momentum Structure Form Factors of Particles, Phys

    H. Pagels,Energy-Momentum Structure Form Factors of Particles, Phys. Rev.144, 1250–1260 (1966). 22

    1966

  4. [4]

    van Dam and M

    H. van Dam and M. J. G. Veltman,Massive and massless Yang-Mills and gravitational fields, Nucl. Phys. B 22, 397 (1970)

    1970

  5. [5]

    V. I. Zakharov,Linearized gravitation theory and the graviton mass, JETP Lett.12, 312 (1970)

    1970

  6. [6]

    Iwasaki,Quantum theory of gravitation vs

    Y. Iwasaki,Quantum theory of gravitation vs. classical theory. - fourth-order potential, Prog. Theor. Phys.46, 1587–1609 (1971)

    1971

  7. [7]

    D. G. Boulware and S. Deser,Can gravitation have a finite range?, Phys. Rev. D6, 3368–3382 (1972)

    1972

  8. [8]

    ’tHooft and M

    G. ’tHooft and M. J. G. Veltman,One-loop divergencies in the theory of gravitation, Ann. Inst. H. Poincar´ e, Phys. Theor. A20, 69–94 (1974)

    1974

  9. [9]

    Deser and P

    S. Deser and P. van Nieuwenhuisen,One-loop divergences of quantized Einstein-Maxwell fields, Phys. Rev. D10, 401 (1974)

    1974

  10. [10]

    Deser and P

    S. Deser and P. van Nieuwenhuisen,Nonrenormalizability of the quantized Dirac-Einstein system, Phys. Rev. D10, 411 (1974)

    1974

  11. [11]

    Deser, H

    S. Deser, H. S. Tsao and P. van Nieuwenhuizen,One loop divergences of the Einstein Yang-Mills system, Phys. Rev. D10, 3337 (1974)

    1974

  12. [12]

    K. S. Stelle,Renormalization of higher derivative quantum gravity, Phys. Rev. D16, 953 (1977)

    1977

  13. [13]

    B. L. Voronov and I. V. Tyutin,On renormalization ofR 2 gravitation, Sov. Journ. Nucl. Phys.39, 998 (1984)

    1984

  14. [14]

    M. H. Goroff and A. Sagnotti,The Ultraviolet Behavior of Einstein Gravity, Nucl. Phys. B266, 709–736 (1986)

    1986

  15. [15]

    Eichhorn,Faddeev-Popov ghosts in quantum gravity beyond perturbation theory, Phys

    A. Eichhorn,Faddeev-Popov ghosts in quantum gravity beyond perturbation theory, Phys. Rev. D87, 124016 (2013) [arXiv:1301.0632 [hep-th]]

    work page arXiv 2013

  16. [16]

    P. M. Lavrov and I. L. Shapiro,Gauge invariant renormalizability of quantum gravity, Phys. Rev. D100, 026018 (2019) [arXiv:1902.04687 [hep-th]]

    work page arXiv 2019

  17. [17]

    Mukhanov and S

    V. Mukhanov and S. Winitzki,Introduction to quantum effects in gravity, Cambridge University Press (UK), 2007

    2007

  18. [18]

    Kiefer,Quantum gravity, Oxford University Press (UK), 2017

    C. Kiefer,Quantum gravity, Oxford University Press (UK), 2017

    2017

  19. [19]

    I. L. Buchbinder and I. L. Shapiro,Introduction to Quantum Field Theory with Applications to Quantum Gravity, Oxford University Press (UK), 2021

    2021

  20. [20]

    Hiida and H

    K. Hiida and H. Okamura,Gauge transformation and gravitational potentials, Prog. Theor. Phys47, 1743–1757 (1972)

    1972

  21. [21]

    B. M. Barker and R. F. O’Connell,Gravitational Two-Body Problem with Arbitrary Masses, Spins, and Quadrupole Moments, Phys. Rev. D12, 329–335 (1975)

    1975

  22. [22]

    J. F. Donoghue,Leading quantum correction to the newtonian potential, Phys. Rev. Lett.72, 2996 (1994) [arxiv:9310024 [gr-qc]]

    1994

  23. [23]

    J. F. Donoghue,General relativity as an effective field theory: The leading quantum corrections, Phys. Rev. D50, 3874–3888 (1994) [arxiv:9405057 [gr-qc]]. 23

    1994

  24. [24]

    I. J. Muzinich and S. Vokos,Long range forces in quantum gravity, Phys. Rev. D52, 3472–3483 (1995) [arXiv:9501083 [hep-th]]

    1995

  25. [25]

    H. W. Hamber and S. Liu,On the quantum corrections to the Newtonian potential, Phys. Lett. B357, 51–56 (1995) [arxiv:9505182 [hep-th]]

    1995

  26. [26]

    Modanese,Potential energy in quantum gravity, Nucl

    G. Modanese,Potential energy in quantum gravity, Nucl. Phys. B434, 697–708 (1995) [arXiv:9408103 [hep-th]]

    1995

  27. [27]

    A. A. Akhundov, S. Bellucci and A. Shiekh,Gravitational interaction to one loop in effective quantum gravity, Phys. Lett. B395, 16–23 (1997) [arxiv:9611018 [gr-qc]]

    1997

  28. [28]

    J. F. Donoghue and T. Torma,Power counting of loop diagrams in general relativity, Physical Review D54, 4963-4972 (1996) [arXiv:9602121[hep-th]]

    1996

  29. [29]

    N. E. J. Bjerrum-Bohr,Leading quantum gravitational corrections to scalar QED, Phys. Rev. D66, 084023 (2002) [arxiv:0206236 [hep-th]]

    2002

  30. [30]

    N. E. J. Bjerrum-Bohr, J. F. Donoghue, and B. R. Holstein,Quantum corrections to the Schwarzschild and Kerr metrics, Phys. Rev. D68, 084005 (2003) [arxiv:0211071 [hep-th]]

    2003

  31. [31]

    N. E. J. Bjerrum Bohr, J. F. Donoghue, and B. R. Holstein,Quantum Gravitational Corrections to the Non- relativistic Scattering Potential of Two Masses, Phys. Rev. D67, 084033 (2003) [arxiv:0211072 [hep-th]]

    2003

  32. [32]

    Bern,Perturbative quantum gravity and its relation to gauge theory, Living Rev

    Z. Bern,Perturbative quantum gravity and its relation to gauge theory, Living Rev. Relt.5(2002) [arXiv:0206071 [gr-qc]]

    2002

  33. [33]

    Akhundov and A

    A. Akhundov and A. Shiekh,A Review of Leading Quantum Gravitational Corrections to Newtonian Gravity, Electron. J. Theor. Phys.5, 1–16 (2008) [arXiv:0611091 [gr-qc]]

    2008

  34. [34]

    B. R. Holstein and A. Ross,Spin Effects in Long Range Gravitational Scattering(2008) [arXiv:0802.0716 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2008

  35. [35]

    D. J. Toms,Quantum gravitational contributions to quantum electrodynamics, Nature468, 56–59 (2010) [arXiv:1010.0793 [hep-th]]

    work page arXiv 2010

  36. [36]

    N. E. J. Bjerrum-Bohr, J. F. Donoghue, B. K. El-Menoufi, B. R. Holstein, L. Plant´ e and P. Vanhove,The Equivalence Principle in a Quantum World, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D24, 1544013 (2015) [arXiv:1505.04974 [hep-th]]

    work page arXiv 2015

  37. [37]

    P. C. Malta and L. P. R. Ospedal and K. P. B. Veiga and J. A. Helayel-Neto,Comparative aspects of spin- dependent interaction potentials for spin-1/2 and spin-1 matter fields, Adv. High Energy Phys.2016, 2531436 (2016) [arXiv:1510.03291 [hep-th]]

    work page arXiv 2016

  38. [38]

    M. B. Fr¨ ob,Quantum gravitational corrections for spinning particles, JHEP10, 051 (2016) [arXiv:1607.03129 [hep-th]]

    work page arXiv 2016

  39. [39]

    S. C. Ulhoa, A. F. Santos, and F. C. Khanna,Scattering of fermions by gravitons, Gen. Relt. Gravit.49(2017) [arXiv:1608.00559 [gr-qc]]

    work page arXiv 2017

  40. [40]

    Olyaei, and A

    T. Olyaei, and A. Aziziy,Weak gravitational interaction of fermions: quantum viewpoint, Mod. Phys. Lett. A33, 1850218 (2018) [arXiv:1804.06939 [physics.gen-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2018

  41. [41]

    G. P. de Brito, M. G. Campos, L. P. R. Ospedal and K. P. B. Veiga,Quantum corrected gravitational potential beyond monopole-monopole interactions, Phys. Rev. D102, no.8, 084015 (2020) [arXiv:2006.12824 [hep-th]]. 24

    work page arXiv 2020

  42. [42]

    M. B. Fr¨ ob,Graviton corrections to the Newtonian potential using invariant observables, JHEP01, 180 (2022) [arXiv:2109.09753 [hep-th]]

    work page arXiv 2022

  43. [43]

    A. S. Majumder and S. Bhattacharya,Scattering of massive spin-2 field via graviton exchanges with different spin fields and the gravitational potential, [arXiv:2511.16103 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv

  44. [44]

    J. F. Donoghue, M. M. Ivanov and A. Shkerin,EPFL Lectures on General Relativity as a Quantum Field Theory, 2017 [arXiv:1702.00319 [hep-th]]

    work page arXiv 2017

  45. [45]

    N. E. J. Bjerrum-Bohr, J. F. Donoghue, B. R. Holstein, L. Plant´ e and P. Vanhove,Bending of Light in Quantum Gravity, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 061301 (2015) [arXiv:1410.7590 [hep-th]]

    work page arXiv 2015

  46. [46]

    Dong Bai and Yue Huang,More on the Bending of Light in Quantum Gravity, Phys. Rev. D95, 064045 (2017) [arXiv:1612.07629 [hep-th]]

    work page arXiv 2017

  47. [47]

    Bastianelli, F

    F. Bastianelli, F. Comberiati and L. de la Cruz,Light bending from eikonal in worldline quantum field theory JHEP02, 209 (2022) [arXiv:2112.05013 [hep-th]]

    work page arXiv 2022

  48. [48]

    D. J. Toms,Cosmological constant and quantum gravitational corrections to the running fine structure constant, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 131301 (2008) [arXiv:0809.3897 [hep-th]]

    work page arXiv 2008

  49. [49]

    D. J. Toms,Low energy quantum gravity, the cosmological constant and gauge coupling constants, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D17, 2447 (2009)

    2009

  50. [50]

    D. J. Toms,Quantum gravity, gauge coupling constants, and the cosmological constant, Phys. Rev. D80, 064040 (2009) [arXiv:0908.3100 [hep-th]]

    work page arXiv 2009

  51. [51]

    D. J. Toms,Quadratic divergences and quantum gravitational contributions to gauge coupling constants, Phys. Rev. D84, 084016 (2011)

    2011

  52. [52]

    A. S. Majumder and S. Bhattacharya,ξRϕ 2 coupling, cosmological constant and quantum gravitational cor- rections to Newton’s potential, Phys. Lett. B873, 140147 (2026) [arXiv:2508.09523 [hep-th]]

    work page arXiv 2026

  53. [53]

    J. F. Donoghue,Introduction to the effective field theory description of gravity(1995) [arXiv:9512024 [gr-qc]]

    1995

  54. [54]

    C. P. Burgess,Quantum gravity in everyday life: General relativity as an effective field theory, Living Rev. Rel.7, 5–56 (2004) [arXiv:0311082 [gr-qc]]

    2004

  55. [55]

    W. D. Goldberger and I. Z. Rothstein,An Effective field theory of gravity for extended objects, Phys. Rev. D73, 104029 (2006) [arXiv:0409156 [hep-th]]

    2006

  56. [56]

    Effective field theory approach to the gravitational two-body dynamics, at fourth post- Newtonian order and quintic in the Newton constant,

    S. Foffa, P. Mastrolia, R. Sturani, and C. Sturm,Effective field theory approach to the gravitational two-body dynamics, at fourth post-Newtonian order and quintic in the Newton constant, Phys. Rev. D95, 104009 (2017) [arXiv:1612.00482 [gr-qc]]

    work page arXiv 2017

  57. [57]

    Effective Field Theories of Post-Newtonian Gravity: A comprehensive review,

    M. Levi,Effective Field Theories of Post-Newtonian Gravity: A comprehensive review, Rept. Prog. Phys.83, 075901 (2020) [arXiv:1807.01699 [hep-th]]

    work page arXiv 2020

  58. [58]

    From Scattering Amplitudes to Classical Potentials in the Post-Minkowskian Expansion

    C. Cheung, I. Z. Rothstein and M. P. Solon,From Scattering Amplitudes to Classical Potentials in the Post- Minkowskian Expansion, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, no.25, 251101 (2018) [arXiv:1808.02489 [hep-th]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  59. [59]

    Z. Bern, A. Luna, R. Roiban, C. H. Shen and M. Zeng,Spinning black hole binary dynamics, scattering amplitudes, and effective field theory, Phys. Rev. D104, no.6, 065014 (2021) [arXiv:2005.03071 [hep-th]]. 25

    work page arXiv 2021

  60. [60]

    M. M. Ivanov and Z. Zhou,Vanishing of Black Hole Tidal Love Numbers from Scattering Amplitudes, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, no.9, 091403 (2023) [arXiv:2209.14324 [hep-th]]

    work page arXiv 2023

  61. [61]

    G. L. Almeida,Binary dynamics to second post-Newtonian order in scalar-tensor and Einstein-scalar-Gauss- Bonnet gravity from effective field theory, Phys. Rev. D109, no.8, 8 (2024) [arXiv:2402.13996 [gr-qc]]

    work page arXiv 2024

  62. [62]

    G. L. Almeida and S. Y. Zhou,Post-Newtonian dynamics of spinning black hole binaries in Einstein-scalar- Gauss-Bonnet gravity, Phys. Rev. D110, no.12, 124016 (2024) [arXiv:2408.14196 [gr-qc]]

    work page arXiv 2024

  63. [63]

    Trestini,Gravitational waves from quasielliptic compact binaries in scalar-tensor theory to one-and-a-half post-Newtonian order, Class

    D. Trestini,Gravitational waves from quasielliptic compact binaries in scalar-tensor theory to one-and-a-half post-Newtonian order, Class. Quant. Grav.42, no.15, 155016 (2025) [arXiv:2410.12898 [gr-qc]]

    work page arXiv 2025

  64. [64]

    Seery,One-loop corrections to a scalar field during inflation, JCAP11, 025 (2007) [arXiv:0707.3377 [astro- ph]]

    D. Seery,One-loop corrections to a scalar field during inflation, JCAP11, 025 (2007) [arXiv:0707.3377 [astro- ph]]

    work page arXiv 2007

  65. [65]

    R. P. Woodard,Perturbative Quantum Gravity Comes of Age, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D23, 1430020 (2014) [arXiv:1407.4748 [gr-qc]]

    work page arXiv 2014

  66. [66]

    K. Y. Oda and M. Yamada,Non-minimal coupling in Higgs–Yukawa model with asymptotically safe gravity, Class. Quant. Grav.33, no.12, 125011 (2016) [arXiv:1510.03734 [hep-th]]

    work page arXiv 2016

  67. [67]

    I. G. Moss,Covariant one-loop quantum gravity and Higgs inflation, [arXiv:1409.2108 [hep-th]]

    work page arXiv

  68. [68]

    I. L. Shapiro, P. Morais Teixeira and A. Wipf,On the functional renormalization group for the scalar field on curved background with non-minimal interaction, Eur. Phys. J. C75, 262 (2015) [arXiv:1503.00874 [hep-th]]

    work page arXiv 2015

  69. [69]

    I. D. Saltas,Higgs inflation and quantum gravity: An exact renormalisation group approach, JCAP02, 048 (2016) [arXiv:1512.06134 [hep-th]]

    work page arXiv 2016

  70. [70]

    I. L. Buchbinder, S. D. Odintsov and I. L. Shapiro,Effective Action in Quantum Gravity, Routledge, 2017, ISBN 978-0-203-75892-2, 9780750301228, 978-0-7503-0122-0 doi:10.1201/9780203758922

    work page doi:10.1201/9780203758922 2017

  71. [71]

    Arbuzov, B

    A. Arbuzov, B. Latosh and A. Nikitenko,Effective potential of scalar-tensor gravity with quartic self-interaction of scalar field, Class. Quant. Grav.39, no.5, 055003 (2022) [arXiv:2109.09797 [gr-qc]]

    work page arXiv 2022

  72. [72]

    L. E. Parker and D. Toms,Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime: Quantized Field and Grav- ity, Cambridge University Press, 2009, ISBN 978-0-521-87787-9, 978-0-521-87787-9, 978-0-511-60155-2 doi:10.1017/CBO9780511813924

    work page doi:10.1017/cbo9780511813924 2009

  73. [73]

    N. M. Bocharova, K. A. Bronnikov and V. N. Melnikov, Vestn. Mosk. Univ. Fiz. Astron.6, 706 (1970)

    1970

  74. [74]

    J. D. Bekenstein,Exact solutions of Einstein conformal scalar equations, Annals Phys.82, 535-547 (1974)

    1974

  75. [75]

    Martinez, R

    C. Martinez, R. Troncoso and J. Zanelli,De Sitter black hole with a conformally coupled scalar field in four- dimensions, Phys. Rev. D67, 024008 (2003) [arXiv:hep-th/0205319 [hep-th]]

    work page arXiv 2003

  76. [76]

    Bhattacharya and H

    S. Bhattacharya and H. Maeda,Can a black hole with conformal scalar hair rotate?Phys. Rev. D89, no.8, 087501 (2014) [arXiv:1311.0087 [gr-qc]]

    work page arXiv 2014

  77. [77]

    Modified Gravity and Cosmology

    T. Clifton, P. G. Ferreira, A. Padilla and C. Skordis,Modified Gravity and Cosmology, Phys. Rept.513, 1-189 (2012) [arXiv:1106.2476 [astro-ph.CO]]. 26

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2012