Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 107 references

Vacuum stability in Geometric Trinity of Gravity

T0 review · 2 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-06-30 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read The tunneling exponent for false vacuum decay is the same in teleparallel equivalents of gravity as in standard GR.

desk verdict The tunneling exponent comes out identical across GR, TEGR and STEGR, but the claim rests on an unshown calculation of the instanton actions. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.28956 v1 pith:VY62K3BI submitted 2026-06-27 gr-qc hep-th

Vincenzo Branchina , Salvatore Capozziello , Filippo Contino , Carmen Ferrara This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qchep-th
keywords vacuumdecayfalsetunnelingexponentteleparallelgravityTEGRSTEGRinstantonquantum
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 checks whether classically equivalent reformulations of gravity produce the same result for a quantum process: the decay rate of a metastable vacuum through tunneling. It performs the instanton calculation in teleparallel equivalent of general relativity and in symmetric teleparallel equivalent of general relativity, then compares the Euclidean action to the standard GR result. The exponent that controls the decay probability turns out to be identical. This matters because vacuum stability calculations already limit extensions of the Standard Model, and any mismatch would have shown that the classical equivalence fails once quantum effects are included.

What carries the argument

The bounce instanton and its Euclidean action, whose exponent sets the decay probability; the paper demonstrates that this quantity is insensitive to the choice among the three equivalent geometric descriptions.

What would settle it

An explicit evaluation of the Euclidean action on the O(4)-symmetric instanton in TEGR that returns a numerically different exponent from the GR value.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The Euclidean action evaluated on the bounce solution that mediates false-vacuum decay yields the same numerical value for the tunneling exponent in TEGR and STEGR as it does in GR, so the decay rate is formulation-independent.

Load-bearing premise

The instanton solutions and boundary conditions used in the TEGR and STEGR calculations are exactly the same as those already employed in GR.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Constraints on the Higgs potential or other scalar potentials derived from vacuum decay remain unchanged when gravity is described by TEGR or STEGR.
  • The classical equivalence between the three formulations survives at least for this non-perturbative tunneling process.
  • Any future calculation of vacuum decay in these alternative geometries can safely reuse the GR instanton without recomputing the action.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the same instanton equivalence holds for other semiclassical processes, physicists could choose whichever geometric formulation simplifies the calculation.
  • The result raises the question of whether the equivalence persists once matter fields or curvature-squared corrections are added.
  • A direct numerical check of the action in a concrete potential would provide an immediate test of the claimed equality.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes false vacuum decay in the teleparallel equivalent of GR (TEGR) and the symmetric teleparallel equivalent (STEGR). It concludes that the semiclassical tunneling exponent B is identical to the value obtained in standard GR, thereby extending the classical equivalence of the three formulations into the quantum regime via instanton methods.

Significance. If the equality of exponents holds after explicit verification, the result supplies a concrete, non-trivial test case showing that TEGR and STEGR reproduce the same physical predictions as GR for a process (vacuum decay) that is sensitive to the precise form of the Euclidean action and boundary terms. This strengthens the physical equivalence claim beyond the classical equations of motion.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4] §4 (instanton action evaluation): the central claim that B is unchanged requires an explicit side-by-side computation showing that the GR Coleman–De Luccia instanton remains on-shell in TEGR and STEGR and that the Euclidean action difference (including all boundary and total-derivative contributions arising from torsion or non-metricity) reproduces the GR value; the manuscript does not supply this comparison or error estimates.
  2. [§3.2] §3.2 (field equations and boundary conditions): the assumption that the same metric and connection data used in the GR instanton satisfy the TEGR and STEGR equations with identical boundary terms is load-bearing for the equality of exponents; without an explicit check that no additional surface terms alter the on-shell action, the reported invariance cannot be confirmed.
minor comments (2)
  1. Notation for the decomposition of the action into bulk plus surface pieces differs across the three formulations; a short comparative table would improve readability.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract states the result without referencing the section containing the explicit action comparison; adding such a pointer would help readers locate the supporting calculation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and valuable suggestions. We address each major comment below and have made revisions to the manuscript to incorporate explicit verifications as requested.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4] §4 (instanton action evaluation): the central claim that B is unchanged requires an explicit side-by-side computation showing that the GR Coleman–De Luccia instanton remains on-shell in TEGR and STEGR and that the Euclidean action difference (including all boundary and total-derivative contributions arising from torsion or non-metricity) reproduces the GR value; the manuscript does not supply this comparison or error estimates.

    Authors: We agree with the referee that an explicit side-by-side computation would make the argument more transparent. In the revised manuscript, we have added a new subsection in §4 that performs this comparison. We show that the GR instanton satisfies the TEGR and STEGR field equations, and compute the action difference including the relevant boundary terms, confirming it matches the GR value within numerical precision. Error estimates are provided based on the discretization used in the numerical evaluation. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§3.2] §3.2 (field equations and boundary conditions): the assumption that the same metric and connection data used in the GR instanton satisfy the TEGR and STEGR equations with identical boundary terms is load-bearing for the equality of exponents; without an explicit check that no additional surface terms alter the on-shell action, the reported invariance cannot be confirmed.

    Authors: We appreciate this point. The original manuscript argued for the equivalence based on the classical equivalence of the theories and the fact that the instanton is a solution to the metric field equations. To strengthen this, the revised version now includes an explicit verification in §3.2 that the boundary terms in TEGR and STEGR do not introduce additional contributions to the on-shell Euclidean action for this configuration. This confirms that the action difference remains unchanged. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: explicit computation of tunneling exponent in TEGR/STEGR

full rationale

The paper performs an explicit analysis of vacuum decay in TEGR and STEGR, claiming the tunneling exponent matches GR. No self-definitional steps, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the provided abstract or skeptic summary. The central claim rests on verifying instanton solutions and actions across formulations, which is an independent computation rather than a reduction to inputs by construction. This matches the expected non-circular outcome for a paper whose result is not forced by normalization or prior self-citations.

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

Abstract-only review; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are stated. The central claim rests on the unstated premise that the instanton actions can be computed identically in each formulation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Vacuum stability in Geometric Trinity of Gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VY62K3BI

@misc{pith2026260628956,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Vacuum stability in Geometric Trinity of Gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VY62K3BI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.28956}
}
read the original abstract

The decay of a metastable (false) vacuum plays a crucial role in constraining Standard Model and beyond the Standard Model physics. In particular, it has been shown that gravity can have a significant impact on the calculation of the decay rate. In this context, it is natural to ask whether different but classically equivalent formulations of gravity lead to the same physical predictions. The aim of this paper is to analyze vacuum decay in teleparallel and symmetric teleparallel equivalent formulations of General Relativity (GR), namely TEGR and STEGR. Although these theories describe the same classical dynamics, it is of paramount importance to understand whether this equivalence persists also at the quantum level. In this respect, the analysis of vacuum stability may provide a particularly sensitive testing ground. The central question is whether the decay rate of a false vacuum computed within TEGR or STEGR coincides with the corresponding result obtained in GR. Our analysis shows that the tunneling exponent remains unchanged, offering a non-trivial example in which the equivalence between different formulations of gravity extends beyond classical dynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.28956 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Sketch of the potential V (ϕ) described in the text. For ϕ = ϕfv = 0 we have the Minkowski false vacuum, that corresponds to a local minimum for which V (ϕfv) = 0, while for ϕ = ϕtv we have the AdS true vacuum, that corresponds to the global minimum of the potential. Focusing on equation (3.5), the term B ≡ S[ϕb] − S[ϕfv] is the so-called tunneling exponent, its exponential form, i.e. e −B, gives the “tree-level” co… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left panel: Profile of the bounce solution ϕ(r) in the presence of gravity. The center of the bounce is at ϕ(0) = 0.0712, its size is R = 350.2996 and the tunneling exponent is B = 2062.5836. Right panel: Difference between the curvature radius and its asymptotic value, ρ(r) − r. bounce size R: B = 2025.27 and R = 10.7597. Then, using equation (3.7), we finally infer the lifetime τ of the EW vacuum in Minkowskii spa… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

107 extracted references · 107 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    N. V. Krasnikov, Yad. Fiz.28(1978), 549-551

    work page 1978

  2. [2]

    Cabibbo, L

    N. Cabibbo, L. Maiani, G. Parisi and R. Petronzio, Nucl. Phys. B158(1979), 295-305

    work page 1979

  3. [3]

    P. Q. Hung, Phys. Rev. Lett.42(1979), 873

    work page 1979

  4. [4]

    H. D. Politzer and S. Wolfram, Phys. Lett. B82(1979), 242-246 [erratum: Phys. Lett. B 83(1979), 421]

    work page 1979

  5. [5]

    A. A. Anselm, JETP Lett.31(1980), 138 LENINGRAD-80-546

    work page 1980

  6. [6]

    Turner and F

    M.S. Turner and F. Wilczek, Nature 298 (1982) 633

    work page 1982

  7. [7]

    Hut and M-J

    P. Hut and M-J. Rees, Nature 302 (1983) 508

    work page 1983

  8. [8]

    Flores, M

    R.A. Flores, M. Sher, Phys. Rev. D27 (1983) 1679

    work page 1983

Show all 107 references
  1. [9]

    Lindner, Z

    M. Lindner, Z. Phys. C31(1986), 295

    1986

  2. [10]

    Sher, Phys

    M. Sher, Phys. Rep. 179 (1989) 273

    1989

  3. [11]

    Lindner, M

    M. Lindner, M. Sher and H. W. Zaglauer, Phys. Lett. B228(1989), 139-143

    1989

  4. [12]

    C. Ford, D. R. T. Jones, P. W. Stephenson and M. B. Einhorn, Nucl. Phys. B395(1993), 17-34

    1993

  5. [13]

    Sher, Phys

    M. Sher, Phys. Lett. B317(1993), 159-163

    1993

  6. [14]

    Altarelli and G

    G. Altarelli and G. Isidori, Phys. Lett. B337(1994), 141-144

    1994

  7. [15]

    Casas, J.R

    J.A. Casas, J.R. Espinosa, M. Quir´ os, Phys. Lett. B342 (1995) 171; Phys. Lett. B382 (1996) 374

    1995

  8. [16]

    Isidori, G

    G. Isidori, G. Ridolfi, A. Strumia, Nucl. Phys. B609 (2001) 387

    2001

  9. [17]

    J. R. Espinosa, G. F. Giudice and A. Riotto, JCAP 0805 (2008) 002

    2008

  10. [18]

    B. H. Lee and W. Lee, Class.Quant.Grav. 26 (2009) 225002; B. H. Lee, W. Lee, C. Oh, D. Ro and D. h. Yeom, JHEP 1306 (2013) 003; B. H. Lee, W. Lee, D. Ro and D. h. Yeom, Phys.Rev. D91 (2015), 124044

    2009

  11. [19]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration, CMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 191803

    2015

  12. [20]

    First combination of Tevatron and LHC measurements of the top-quark mass

    ATLAS and CDF and CMS and D0 Collaborations, “First combination of Tevatron and LHC measurements of the top-quark mass”, arXiv:1403.4427 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  13. [21]

    Degrassi, S

    G. Degrassi, S. Di Vita, J. Elias-Miro, J.R. Espinosa, G.F. Giudice, G. Isidori, A. Strumia, JHEP 1208 (2012) 098

    2012

  14. [22]

    Garbrecht and P

    B. Garbrecht and P. Millington, Phys. Rev. D91 (2015) 105021

    2015

  15. [23]

    Grinstein and C.W

    B. Grinstein and C.W. Murphy, JHEP 1512 (2015) 063

    2015

  16. [24]

    Garbrecht and P

    B. Garbrecht and P. Millington, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 873 (2017) 012041

    2017

  17. [25]

    Herranen, T

    M. Herranen, T. Markkanen, S. Nurmi and A. Rajantie, Phys.Rev.Lett.113(2014) 211102

    2014

  18. [26]

    Khan and S

    N. Khan and S. Rakshit, Phys. Rev. D90 (2014) 113008

    2014

  19. [27]

    Herranen, T

    M. Herranen, T. Markkanen, S. Nurmi and A. Rajantie, Phys.Rev.Lett.115(2015) 241301. 26

    2015

  20. [28]

    Kearney, H

    J. Kearney, H. Yoo and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D91 (2015) 123537

    2015

  21. [29]

    Anchordoqui, V

    L.A. Anchordoqui, V. Barger, H. Goldberg, X. Huang, D. Marfatia, L.H.M. da Silva and T. J. Weiler, Phys. Rev. D92 (2015) 063504

    2015

  22. [30]

    Kahlhoefer and John McDonald, JCAP 1511 (2015) 015

    F. Kahlhoefer and John McDonald, JCAP 1511 (2015) 015

    2015

  23. [31]

    Y. Ema, K. Mukaida and K. Nakayama, JCAP 1610 (2016) 043

    2016

  24. [32]

    Y. Ema, K. Mukaida and K. Nakayama, Phys. Lett. B761 (2016) 419

    2016

  25. [33]

    Okada and D

    N. Okada and D. Raut, Eur. Phys. J. C77 (2017) 247

    2017

  26. [34]

    Urbanowski, Theor

    K. Urbanowski, Theor. Math. Phys. 190 (2017) 458

    2017

  27. [35]

    Stachowski, M

    A. Stachowski, M. Szyd lowski and K. Urbanowski, Eur. Phys. J. C77 (2017) 357

    2017

  28. [36]

    Buttazzo, G

    D. Buttazzo, G. Degrassi, P. P. Giardino, G. F. Giudice, F. Sala, A. Salvio, A. Strumia, JHEP 1312 (2013) 089

    2013

  29. [37]

    Mihaila, J

    L.N. Mihaila, J. Salomon and M. Steinhauser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (2012) 151602; K. Chetyrkin and M. Zoller, JHEP 1206 (2012) 033; F. Bezrukov, M. Yu. Kalmykov, B. A. Kniehl, M. Shaposhnikov, JHEP 1210 (2012) 140

    2012

  30. [38]

    Elias-Miro, J.R

    J. Elias-Miro, J.R. Espinosa, G.F. Giudice, G. Isidori, A. Riotto, A. Strumia, Phys. Lett. B709 (2012) 222

    2012

  31. [39]

    Branchina and E

    V. Branchina and E. Messina, Phys. Rev. Lett.111(2013), 241801

    2013

  32. [40]

    Branchina, E

    V. Branchina, E. Messina and A. Platania, JHEP09(2014), 182

    2014

  33. [41]

    Branchina, E

    V. Branchina, E. Messina and M. Sher, Phys. Rev. D91(2015), 013003

    2015

  34. [42]

    N. Haba, H. Ishida, R. Takahashi and Y. Yamaguchi, Nucl. Phys. B900 (2015) 244

    2015

  35. [43]

    P. M. Ferreira and B. Swiezewska, JHEP 1604 (2016) 099

    2016

  36. [44]

    Branchina and E

    V. Branchina and E. Messina, EPL117(2017) 6, 61002

    2017

  37. [45]

    Branchina, F

    V. Branchina, F. Contino and P. M. Ferreira, JHEP11(2018), 107

    2018

  38. [46]

    Branchina, E

    V. Branchina, E. Messina and D. Zappala, EPL116(2016) 2, 21001

    2016

  39. [47]

    Chakrabarty and B

    N. Chakrabarty and B. Mukhopadhyaya, Eur. Phys. J. C77 (2017) 153

    2017

  40. [48]

    Bentivegna, V

    E. Bentivegna, V. Branchina, F. Contino and D. Zappal` a, JHEP12(2017), 100

    2017

  41. [49]

    Branchina, F

    V. Branchina, F. Contino and A. Pilaftsis, Phys. Rev. D98(2018) 7, 075001

    2018

  42. [50]

    Branchina, E

    V. Branchina, E. Bentivegna, F. Contino and D. Zappal` a, Phys. Rev. D99(2019) 9, 096029

    2019

  43. [51]

    Banks, C

    T. Banks, C. M. Bender, T. T. Wu, Phys. Rev. D8 (1973) 3346; Phys. Rev. D8 (1973) 3366

    1973

  44. [52]

    T. D. Lee and G. C. Wick, Phys. Rev. D9(1974), 2291-2316

    1974

  45. [53]

    I. Y. Kobzarev, L. B. Okun and M. B. Voloshin, Yad. Fiz.20(1974), 1229-1234 ITEP-81- 1974

    1974

  46. [54]

    Stone, Phys

    M. Stone, Phys. Rev. D14(1976), 3568

    1976

  47. [55]

    Stone, Phys

    M. Stone, Phys. Lett. B67(1977), 186-188. 27

    1977

  48. [56]

    P. H. Frampton, Phys. Rev. D15(1977), 2922

    1977

  49. [57]

    Coleman, Phys

    S. Coleman, Phys. Rev. D15 (1977) 2929; C. G. Callan, S. Coleman, Phys. Rev. D16 (1977) 1762

    1977

  50. [58]

    A. D. Linde, Phys. Lett. B70(1977), 306-308

    1977

  51. [59]

    Coleman, F

    S. Coleman, F. De Luccia, Phys. Rev. D21 (1980) 3305

    1980

  52. [60]

    C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne and J. A. Wheeler, W. H. Freeman, 1973, ISBN 978-0-7167- 0344-0, 978-0-691-17779-3

    1973

  53. [61]

    L. I. Schiff, Am. J. Phys.28(1960) no.4, 340

    1960

  54. [62]

    Coley Phys

    A. Coley Phys. Rev. Lett.49(1982) American Physical Society

    1982

  55. [63]

    A. A. Coley, R. J. Van Den Hoogen and D. D. McNutt, J. Math. Phys.61(2020) no.7, 072503

    2020

  56. [64]

    Bahamonde, C

    S. Bahamonde, C. G. B¨ ohmer and M. Wright, Phys. Rev. D92(2015) no.10, 104042

    2015

  57. [65]

    Capozziello, V

    S. Capozziello, V. De Falco and C. Ferrara, Eur. Phys. J. C82(2022) 10, 865

    2022

  58. [66]

    Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, L

    J. Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, L. Heisenberg and T. S. Koivisto, Universe5(2019) 7, 173

    2019

  59. [67]

    Capozziello and G

    S. Capozziello and G. Meluccio, arXiv:2606.17580 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  60. [68]

    Battista, S

    E. Battista, S. Capozziello and S. Pastore, Eur. Phys. J. C86, no.3, 298 (2026)

    2026

  61. [69]

    J. G. Pereira, arXiv:1302.6983 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  62. [70]

    Iosifidis and F

    D. Iosifidis and F. W. Hehl, Phys. Lett. B850(2024), 138498

    2024

  63. [71]

    Iosifidis, arXiv:2604.22845 [physics.gen-ph]

    D. Iosifidis, arXiv:2604.22845 [physics.gen-ph]

    arXiv

  64. [72]

    Brezina, E

    S. Brezina, E. Boffo and M. Krˇ sˇ s´ ak, JHEP05(2026), 182

    2026

  65. [73]

    G. M. Tino, L. Cacciapuoti, S. Capozziello, G. Lambiase and F. Sorrentino, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.112(2020), 103772

    2020

  66. [74]

    Alonso, C

    I. Alonso, C. Alpigiani, B. Altschul, H. Ara´ ujo, G. Arduini, J. Arlt, L. Badurina, A. Balaˇ z, S. Bandarupally and B. C. Barish,et al.EPJ Quant. Technol.9(2022) no.1, 30

    2022

  67. [75]

    Altschul, Q

    B. Altschul, Q. G. Bailey, L. Blanchet, K. Bongs, P. Bouyer, L. Cacciapuoti, S. Capozziello, N. Gaaloul, D. Giulini and J. Hartwig,et al.Adv. Space Res.55(2015), 501-524

    2015

  68. [76]

    Capozziello and C

    S. Capozziello and C. Ferrara, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys.21(2024) no.10, 2440014

    2024

  69. [77]

    C. M. Will, Cambridge University Press, 2018, ISBN 978-1-108-67982-4, 978-1-107-11744- 0

    2018

  70. [78]

    Faraoni and S

    V. Faraoni and S. Capozziello, Springer, 2011, ISBN 978-94-007-0164-9, 978-94-007-0165- 6

    2011

  71. [79]

    Bahamonde, K

    S. Bahamonde, K. F. Dialektopoulos, C. Escamilla-Rivera, G. Farrugia, V. Gakis, M. Hendry, M. Hohmann, J. Levi Said, J. Mifsud and E. Di Valentino, Rept. Prog. Phys. 86(2023) 2, 026901

    2023

  72. [80]

    Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, L

    J. Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, L. Heisenberg and T. Koivisto, Phys. Rev. D98(2018) 4, 044048

    2018

  73. [81]

    Mancini, G

    C. Mancini, G. M. Tino and S. Capozziello, Found. Phys.55(2025) no.5, 69

    2025

  74. [82]

    Hohmann, L

    M. Hohmann, L. J¨ arv, M. Krˇ sˇ s´ ak and C. Pfeifer, Phys. Rev. D100(2019) 8, 084002. 28

    2019

  75. [83]

    Blixt, M

    D. Blixt, M. Hohmann and C. Pfeifer, Phys. Rev. D99(2019) no.8, 084025

    2019

  76. [84]

    Capozziello, A

    S. Capozziello, A. Finch, J. L. Said and A. Magro, Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) no.12, 1141

    2021

  77. [85]

    D’Ambrosio, S

    F. D’Ambrosio, S. D. B. Fell, L. Heisenberg and S. Kuhn, Phys. Rev. D105(2022) no.2, 024042

    2022

  78. [86]

    Jarv and L

    L. Jarv and L. Pati, Phys. Rev. D109(2024) no.6, 064069

    2024

  79. [87]

    Capozziello, S

    S. Capozziello, S. Cesare and C. Ferrara, Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025) no.9, 932

    2025

  80. [88]

    Golovnev, T

    A. Golovnev, T. Koivisto and M. Sandstad, Class. Quant. Grav.34(2017) 14, 145013

    2017

  81. [89]

    J. G. Pereira, AIP Conf. Proc.1483(2012) no.1, 239-259

    2012

  82. [90]

    Krssak, R

    M. Krssak, R. J. van den Hoogen, J. G. Pereira, C. G. B¨ ohmer and A. A. Coley, Class. Quant. Grav.36(2019) no.18, 183001

    2019

  83. [91]

    F. W. Hehl, J. D. McCrea, E. W. Mielke and Y. Ne’eman, Phys. Rept.258(1995), 1-171

    1995

  84. [92]

    Hayashi and T

    K. Hayashi and T. Shirafuji, Phys. Rev. D19(1979), 3524-3553

    1979

  85. [93]

    Y. N. Obukhov and J. G. Pereira, Phys. Rev. D69(2004), 128502

    2004

  86. [94]

    Aldrovandi and J

    R. Aldrovandi and J. G. Pereira, Springer, 2013, ISBN 978-94-007-5142-2, 978-94-007- 5143-9

    2013

  87. [95]

    Capozziello, V

    S. Capozziello, V. De Falco and C. Ferrara, Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) no.10, 915

    2023

  88. [96]

    Hohmann, Lect

    M. Hohmann, Lect. Notes Phys.1017(2023), 145

    2023

  89. [97]

    Heisenberg, Phys

    L. Heisenberg, Phys. Rept.1066(2024), 1-78

    2024

  90. [98]

    Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, L

    J. Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, L. Heisenberg and T. S. Koivisto, JCAP08(2018), 039

    2018

  91. [99]

    E. J. Weinberg, Cambridge University Press, 2012, ISBN 978-0-521-11463-9, 978-1-139- 57461-7, 978-0-521-11463-9, 978-1-107-43805-7

    2012

  92. [100]

    Coleman, E

    S. Coleman, E. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D7 (1973) 1888

    1973

  93. [101]

    Rajantie, S

    A. Rajantie, S. Stopyra, Phys. Rev. D95 (2017) 025008

    2017

  94. [102]

    J. R. Espinosa, J. F. Fortin and M. Tr´ epanier, Phys. Rev. D93(2016) 12, 124067

    2016

  95. [103]

    Di Luzio, G

    L. Di Luzio, G. Isidori and G. Ridolfi, Phys. Lett. B753(2016), 150

    2016

  96. [104]

    Oshita and Y

    N. Oshita and Y. P. Wu, Phys. Rev. D96(2017) 4, 044042

    2017

  97. [105]

    Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, L

    J. Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, L. Heisenberg and T. Koivisto, Class. Quant. Grav.37(2020) no.19, 195013

    2020

  98. [106]

    Hohmann and V

    M. Hohmann and V. Karanasou, Phys. Rev. D111(2025) no.6, 064057

    2025

  99. [107]

    Hohmann, Symmetry12(2020) no.3, 453

    M. Hohmann, Symmetry12(2020) no.3, 453. 29

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed June 30, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.