Numerical Study of Scalar Field Theory on the Fuzzy Onion

Juraj Tekel; Matej Hrmo; Samuel Kov\'a\v{c}ik

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 28 references

Numerical Study of Scalar Field Theory on the Fuzzy Onion

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A scalar field theory on the fuzzy onion shows the same three phases as the fuzzy sphere, with all layers aligned and phase boundaries of the form $|b|=k_1+k_2\sqrt{c}$.

desk verdict First HMC phase diagram for the fuzzy onion, with a credible layer-aligned three-phase picture, but the radial Laplacian is underspecified and the critical boundary is an extrapolation—needs major revision before I'd trust the boundaries. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08855 v1 pith:54PDB3DS submitted 2026-08-09 hep-th

Matej Hrmo , Samuel Kováčik , Juraj Tekel This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-th

keywords fuzzyonionscalarfieldtheorysphereHamiltonianMonteCarlophasediagramnoncommutativegeometrymatrixmodeldynamicaltransitions

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 sets out to determine whether scalar field theory defined on the fuzzy onion—a three-dimensional stack of concentric fuzzy spheres with increasing radii—has the same phase structure as the well-studied scalar field theory on a single fuzzy sphere. Using Hamiltonian Monte Carlo simulations of the matrix action, it identifies three phases on 10- and 20-layer onions: disordered, uniformly ordered, and non-uniform (striped). The central finding is that on a given onion all layers settle into the same phase, and the phase diagram is bounded by two curves, a uniform-phase boundary and a critical boundary between the disordered and non-uniform regimes, each empirically fitted by $|b|=k_1+k_2\sqrt{c}$. If these results hold, the fuzzy onion provides a three-dimensional noncommutative geometry whose phase structure is controlled and comparable to lower-dimensional fuzzy-space physics despite strong radial inter-layer coupling and small-$N$ layers. The paper also documents dynamical transitions in which eigenvalues spontaneously switch between minima, blurring sharp phase-transition lines.

What carries the argument

The central object is the fuzzy onion matrix model: a block-diagonal field matrix $\Psi$ of concentric fuzzy spheres of radii $\lambda,2\lambda,\dots,M\lambda$, with angular kinetic terms on each layer and a radial Laplacian built from two resizing maps $U$ and $D$ that add or remove polarisation-tensor components to move a field between neighbouring layers. The radial derivative is defined as the symmetric difference $D\Phi^{(N+1)}-U\Phi^{(N-1)}$ over $2\lambda$, the second radial derivative analogously, giving $K_R=\partial_r^2+2R^{-1}\partial_r$; this is what couples layers and makes the observed phase alignment and dynamical transitions possible. The numerical machinery is Hamiltonian Monte Carlo applied to the action of Eq. (3.10), with observables being the eigenvalue trajectories per layer and the central support $\rho_\varepsilon(0)$, the fraction of eigenvalues inside $(-\varepsilon,\varepsilon)$, whose linear growth in $b$ is extrapolated to define the critical curve.

What would settle it

One concrete check is to compute the action of the $U$/$D$ radial derivative on a smooth radial function $\varphi(r)$ and take the large-$M$, large-$N$ limit; if $K_R\varphi$ does not approach $\varphi''(r)+2r^{-1}\varphi'(r)$, the phase diagram is not that of the commutative scalar theory. A second check is to run larger-$M$ simulations, such as 40 layers, and see whether the two fitted boundaries $|b|=k_1+k_2\sqrt{c}$ remain stable and whether the linear-growth extrapolation of $\rho(0)$ survives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is that the fuzzy onion reproduces the fuzzy-sphere phase trichotomy at the level of the whole layered system: every layer of a well-thermalised simulation is found in the same phase—disordered, uniform, or non-uniform—rather than a mixture of layer-wise phases. Because the radial part of the Laplace operator couples neighbouring layers through the resizing maps $U$ and $D$, this alignment is nontrivial. The paper further reports that the phase diagram can be split by two boundaries that are not straight lines but follow $|b|=k_1+k_2\sqrt{c}$: the uniform-phase boundary, defined by at least 95% of eigenvalues sharing a sign, and the critical boundary where the central eigenvalue support would vanish, extrapolated from the linear growth of $\rho(0)$. A separate observation is the presence of dynamical phase transitions—spontaneous eigenvalue jumps between the two minima, often cascading from the outermost layer inward—which blur the transition regions and are believed to be intrinsic to the onion construction rather than finite-layer artefacts.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the radial Laplacian built from the resizing maps $U$ and $D$ is the correct discretisation of the commutative radial Laplacian; if it does not reproduce the ordinary three-dimensional Laplacian in the continuum limit, the phase diagram is for a different theory.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If correct, the fuzzy onion gives a three-dimensional noncommutative geometry whose scalar field theory inherits the fuzzy-sphere phases, meaning striped, UV/IR-mixing-type phases persist in three dimensions on this construction.
The empirical boundary formulas $|b|=k_1+k_2\sqrt{c}$ for both the uniform boundary and the critical boundary give concrete predictions for larger-$M$ simulations, which can test whether the fits converge.
The absence of a direct uniform-to-disordered transition in the probed region, with only uniform-to-non-uniform and non-uniform-to-disordered boundaries, separates the onion from a naive stack of independent fuzzy spheres.
The dynamical transitions imply that determining the preferred phase requires comparing the mean action $\langle S\rangle$ across stable initial configurations, rather than trusting a single long run.
If the blurring persists at larger $M$ as the 10- versus 20-layer comparison suggests, the onion has intrinsically metastable regions that any analytical treatment of the model must reproduce.

Reading between the lines

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

Inference: if the resizing-map prescription is the correct discretisation of the three-dimensional radial Laplacian, the same phase alignment may be provable in a large-$N$ limit; testing $U$ and $D$ against an independent spectral definition of the Laplacian would separate definitional artefacts from physics.
Inference: the square-root scaling of the boundaries invites an analytical matrix-model treatment in the spirit of the fuzzy-sphere asymmetric matrix models, whose coefficients $k_1,k_2$ could then be compared parameter-free with these fits.
Inference: the central-support extrapolation defines $b_{\rm crit}$ as the point where the two peaks would separate; direct measurement of the eigenvalue density at larger $M$ and smaller $\varepsilon$ could confirm the linear growth and sharpen the boundary.
Inference: the dynamical transitions suggest the radial effective potential for the order parameter is shallow, so one could compute the action barrier between phase configurations at fixed parameters as a test of metastability.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First, the punchline: this is the first HMC study of the fuzzy onion phase structure, and the layer-aligned three-phase picture is a credible and useful new result. But the radial derivative that defines the kinetic term is underspecified, and the 'critical boundary' is an extrapolated fit, so I would not trust the phase diagram as printed without a revision that fixes both.

What is genuinely new: the observation that all layers lock into the same phase—disordered, uniform, or non-uniform—is nontrivial and makes the onion a useful testbed. The dynamical transitions (eigenvalues hopping between minima, cascading across layers) are a real phenomenon, well documented, and the authors treat them as a distinctive feature rather than a bug. The uniform-phase boundary, defined by a same-sign eigenvalue criterion, is simple and empirically sensible; the sqrt(c) fits for both curves are fine as data summaries.

Where the paper needs work:

1) The radial Laplacian, Eqs. (3.6)-(3.8), is not fully defined. The maps U and D truncate the highest angular momentum on the outer layer, and no boundary condition is given for N=1 or N=M. Without that, the Monte Carlo results are not reproducible, and there is no evidence that this operator approximates the continuum 3D Laplacian (or any controlled limit). This is not pedantic: if the radial part is wrong, the phase boundaries in Fig. 11 belong to a different lattice theory. The fix is straightforward—state the boundary convention and validate K_R against known eigenvalues of the radial Laplacian on a ball, or at least against an independent finite-difference discretization.

2) The critical boundary b_crit(c) is an extrapolation of linear growth in the central support to the point where rho(0)=0. The two peaks never actually separate in the data. The abstract and Fig. 11 present this as a boundary between disordered and non-uniform phases, which oversells an estimate. Soften the language to 'extrapolated critical line' and show how it shifts with M or the fit window.

3) Minor: the 95% same-sign threshold is arbitrary but they do show error bars from that choice. The minimal-action selection among initial conditions is a sensible heuristic, but they don't quantify how often competing stable phases appear or whether the action difference is significant.

No code or data is provided, which makes the missing boundary conditions worse. The paper is for people working on noncommutative geometry and matrix models who want a first numerical map of a candidate 3D fuzzy space; the qualitative phase structure is useful even if the exact boundaries shift.

Overall, the central three-phase structure is plausible and the paper is honest about its limitations. But the missing boundary conditions and the extrapolated critical line are load-bearing. I'd send it for major revision, not reject: the model deserves a first map, and this group is best placed to provide it.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a numerical study of scalar field theory on the fuzzy onion, a three-dimensional matrix geometry made of concentric fuzzy spheres. The authors define a matrix action (3.10) with an angular Laplacian on each layer and a radial derivative built from resizing maps U and D in Eqs. (3.4)–(3.7), and simulate it with Hamiltonian Monte Carlo for 10- and 20-layer onions. From eigenvalue trajectories and distributions they identify three phases—disordered, uniform, non-uniform—and report that all layers align to the same phase, with occasional dynamical transitions between minima. They reconstruct two empirical curves: a uniform phase boundary defined by a 95% same-sign-eigenvalue threshold and a critical boundary obtained by extrapolating linear growth of central support to zero; both are fitted by |b|=k1+k2√c. The phase diagram is shown in Fig. 11.

Significance. If the model definition is taken at face value, this is the first numerical phase diagram for a scalar field on a three-dimensional fuzzy geometry, and the layer-alignment and dynamical-transition observations are novel and potentially valuable for matrix-model approaches to noncommutative field theory. The paper is careful to show eigenvalue distributions for both 10- and 20-layer onions and to compare the two fits, which gives some confidence in the qualitative M-dependence. However, the significance is conditional on two load-bearing points: the radial derivative must be shown to reproduce the continuum radial Laplacian, and the 'critical boundary' must not be presented as an observed phase transition without the extrapolation caveat.

major comments (3)

[§3, Eqs. (3.4)–(3.8)] The radial Laplace operator K_R is not completely defined: for the innermost (N=1) and outermost (N=M) layers, the central differences in (3.6)–(3.7) require layers N=0 and N=M+1, and no boundary convention is stated. Moreover, the map U in (3.4) sets c^{(N+1)}_{N m}=0, so the radial derivative at the maximal angular momentum on each layer is a zero-padded one-sided difference rather than a symmetric finite difference. Without a comparison to known continuum eigenvalues (e.g., the radial Laplacian on a ball) or to an independent discretization, it is not established that K is a discretization of the 3D Laplacian; this is a reproducibility and correctness gap in the model definition that directly affects the phase diagram in Fig. 11.
[§5.2, Figs. 9–10] The critical boundary in Fig. 10 and the abstract is not a measured transition line: it is the zero-intercept of a linear fit to the central support ρ_ε(0), and the text admits that the two peaks do not actually separate in the simulations. The linear-growth assumption is an additional modeling assumption, not a derived result, and no robustness check (e.g., varying ε systematically, using alternative extrapolants, or testing larger M) is presented. This issue is load-bearing because the abstract and Section 6 present the critical boundary as one of the two main phase boundaries.
[§5, Eqs. (5.1) and §5.1] The phase assignment depends on two procedures that are not fully justified. First, the uniform boundary uses an arbitrary 95% same-sign threshold (s95), whose only quoted uncertainty is the effect of moving to a neighboring data point. Second, because simulations with identical parameters converge to different stable phases, the authors select the run with minimal mean action (5.1), but they do not demonstrate that this selection identifies the equilibrium phase rather than a metastable basin, nor do they report action differences or barrier information. These choices propagate directly into the fitted boundary curves in Figs. 7 and 11.

minor comments (5)

[§4] The notation after rescaling is unclear: the authors say a is set to 1 and b,c are rescaled, but the figures use b and c without indicating whether these are the rescaled parameters; please state this explicitly and list the values of M and λ used in each run.
[§4] No HMC acceptance rate, step size, or autocorrelation time is reported, which makes it difficult to judge the quality of the 10^6-step runs, especially since dynamical transitions occur over long timescales.
[Fig. 7 caption] The displayed fits '|b| = -0.72+4.49 c' and '|b| = -0.68+4.24 c' appear inconsistent with the stated fit form |b|=k1+k2√c; please correct the typo.
[§5, before Eq. (5.1)] The statement that 'the role of free energy is played by the action S(Ψ)' is imprecise; mean action alone does not determine the free-energy difference between phases in a metastable or non-equilibrium simulation, so please clarify the criterion used.
[References] Reference [23] is cited as an unpublished manuscript without an arXiv number or journal reference; please provide a complete citation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the phase boundaries are empirical fits to new simulation data, not derived from the fitted quantities, and the self-citations only introduce the model rather than serving as load-bearing evidence.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are numerical observations: phases are identified from simulated eigenvalue distributions, dynamical transitions are read off from eigenvalue trajectories, and the two phase boundaries are least-squares fits of the form |b|=k1+k2*sqrt(c) to measured boundary points (Fig. 7 and Fig. 10). These fits are explicitly labeled as empirical parametrizations, not as predictions from a first-principles derivation. The 'critical' boundary in Sec. 5.2 is obtained by linearly extrapolating the measured central support to zero; this is a data-analysis procedure on the same simulation data, but it is not presented as a derived prediction from an independent input, so it does not reduce by construction. The action (3.10) and the radial derivative (3.6)-(3.8) are the definition of the model under study, not a claim derived from the results. Citations [18] and [23] are self-citations that introduce the fuzzy onion construction and an initial HMC feasibility study, but they are not invoked as evidence for the new phase diagram and no uniqueness theorem from the authors is used to exclude alternatives. The incompleteness of boundary conventions in the radial derivative definition is a potential correctness or reproducibility gap, not a circular step: no equation in the paper is equivalent to its input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The comparison with the fuzzy sphere phase structure is an external benchmark, and the paper's own numerical results are new data. Therefore the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, symmetries, or conserved quantities are introduced. The fuzzy onion model itself comes from prior work [18]; this paper only simulates it. The free parameters are the empirical fit coefficients and the arbitrary thresholds used to define phase boundaries.

free parameters (4)

k1, k2 for uniform boundary fit = M=10: k1=-0.72, k2=4.49; M=20: k1=-0.68, k2=4.24
Least-squares fit |b| = k1 + k2 sqrt(c) to the 95% same-sign phase boundary data in Fig. 7.
k1, k2 for critical boundary fit = M=10: k1=-0.08, k2=2.67; M=20: k1=0.06, k2=2.44
Least-squares fit to the extrapolated central-support zero-crossing in Fig. 10.
s95 same-sign threshold = 0.95
Uniform phase defined as at least 95% of eigenvalues sharing the same sign; arbitrary threshold used to identify the boundary in Fig. 7.
epsilon for central support = not specified
Central support rho_epsilon(0) depends on a fixed epsilon > 0 whose value is not given; affects the linear growth and hence b_crit.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The resizing maps U and D (3.4)-(3.5) and the symmetric-difference radial derivatives (3.6)-(3.7) define the correct radial Laplacian in the continuum limit.
No derivation or numerical check that K_R + K_L reproduces the commutative 3D Laplacian; the entire phase diagram depends on this construction.
domain assumption 10^6 HMC thermalization steps and 10^6 measurement steps are sufficient for ergodicity.
Initial-condition sensitivity is acknowledged, and minimal-action selection is used, so ergodicity is not established.
ad hoc to paper The central-support growth is linear and can be extrapolated to rho(0)=0 to locate the critical boundary.
Section 5.2: the two peaks 'should separate but they do not'; the critical boundary is obtained from a linear fit, not from observed phase separation.
domain assumption The phase with minimal mean action <S> is the thermodynamically preferred phase.
Section 5 uses <S> to select among initial-condition-dependent stable phases without proving it orders the phases correctly.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Numerical Study of Scalar Field Theory on the Fuzzy Onion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/54PDB3DS

@misc{pith2026260808855,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Numerical Study of Scalar Field Theory on the Fuzzy Onion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/54PDB3DS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08855}
}

read the original abstract

We study the behaviour of the scalar field theory on the fuzzy onion model -- a three-dimensional matrix model consisting of concentric fuzzy spheres of gradually increasing radii. We use a numerical method of Hamiltonian Monte Carlo simulations to study the phase structure of this theory. We identify the field phases, investigate and describe a phenomenon of dynamical phase transitions and attempt to reconstruct phase transition lines. We compare the results with the well-studied phase structure of the fuzzy sphere. Finally, we identify two boundaries on the phase transitions of the theory, a uniform phase boundary and a critical boundary between the disordered and non-uniform phase.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

[1]

Amelino-Camelia, J.R

G. Amelino-Camelia, J.R. Ellis, N.E. Mavromatos, D.V. Nanopoulos and S. Sarkar,Tests of quantum gravity from observations of gamma-ray bursts,Nature393(1998) 763 [astro-ph/9712103]

arXiv 1998
[2]

Amelino-Camelia,Quantum-Spacetime Phenomenology,Living Rev

G. Amelino-Camelia,Quantum-Spacetime Phenomenology,Living Rev. Rel.16(2013) 5 [0806.0339]

arXiv 2013
[3]

Jacob and T

U. Jacob and T. Piran,Lorentz-violation-induced arrival delays of cosmological particles, JCAP01(2008) 031 [0712.2170]

arXiv 2008
[4]

Burns, D

E. Burns, D. Svinkin, E. Fenimore, D.A. Kann, J.F.A. Fernandez, D. Frederiks et al.,GRB 221009A: The BOAT,Astrophys. J. Lett.946(2023) L31 [2302.14037]

arXiv 2023
[5]

Doplicher, K

S. Doplicher, K. Fredenhagen and J.E. Roberts,The quantum structure of spacetime at the Planck scale and quantum fields,Commun. Math. Phys.172(1995) 187 [hep-th/0303037]

arXiv 1995
[6]

Hossenfelder,Minimal Length Scale Scenarios for Quantum Gravity,Living Rev

S. Hossenfelder,Minimal Length Scale Scenarios for Quantum Gravity,Living Rev. Rel.16 (2013) 2 [1203.6191]

arXiv 2013
[7]

Connes,Noncommutative Geometry, Academic Press (1994)

A. Connes,Noncommutative Geometry, Academic Press (1994)

1994
[8]

Douglas and N.A

M.R. Douglas and N.A. Nekrasov,Noncommutative field theory,Rev. Mod. Phys.73(2001) 977 [hep-th/0106048]

arXiv 2001

Show all 28 references

[9]

Szabo,Quantum field theory on noncommutative spaces,Phys

R.J. Szabo,Quantum field theory on noncommutative spaces,Phys. Rept.378(2003) 207 [hep-th/0109162]

2003 arXiv
[10]

Hoppe,Quantum Theory of a Massless Relativistic Surface and a Two-Dimensional Bound State Problem, Ph.D

J. Hoppe,Quantum Theory of a Massless Relativistic Surface and a Two-Dimensional Bound State Problem, Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1982

1982
[11]

Snyder,Quantized space-time,Phys

H.S. Snyder,Quantized space-time,Phys. Rev.71(1947) 38

1947
[12]

Seiberg and E

N. Seiberg and E. Witten,String theory and noncommutative geometry,JHEP09(1999) 032 [hep-th/9908142]

1999 arXiv
[13]

Madore,The fuzzy sphere,Class

J. Madore,The fuzzy sphere,Class. Quant. Grav.9(1992) 69. – 15 –

1992
[14]

Grosse and P

H. Grosse and P. Presnajder,The construction of noncommutative manifolds using coherent states,Lett. Math. Phys.28(1993) 239

1993
[15]

Grosse, C

H. Grosse, C. Klimcik and P. Presnajder,Towards finite quantum field theory in noncommutative geometry,Int. J. Theor. Phys.35(1996) 231 [hep-th/9505175]

1996 arXiv
[16]

Balachandran, S

A.P. Balachandran, S. Kurkcuoglu and S. Vaidya,Lectures on fuzzy and fuzzy SUSY physics, World Scientific(2007) [hep-th/0511114]

2007 arXiv
[17]

Steinacker,Emergent geometry and gravity from matrix models: an introduction,Class

H. Steinacker,Emergent geometry and gravity from matrix models: an introduction,Class. Quant. Grav.27(2010) 133001 [1003.4134]

2010 arXiv
[18]

Kov´ aˇ cik and J

S. Kov´ aˇ cik and J. Tekel,Fuzzy onionlike space as a matrix model,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 105004 [2309.00576]

2024 arXiv
[19]

Kov´ aˇ cik and D

S. Kov´ aˇ cik and D. O’Connor,Triple Point of a Scalar Field Theory on a Fuzzy Sphere, JHEP10(2018) 010 [1805.08111]

2018 arXiv
[20]

Garcia Flores, X

F. Garcia Flores, X. Martin and D. O’Connor,Simulation of a scalar field on a fuzzy sphere, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A24(2009) 3917 [0903.1986]

2009 arXiv
[21]

Ydri,New algorithm and phase diagram of noncommutativeφ4 on the fuzzy sphere, Journal of High Energy Physics2014(2014)

B. Ydri,New algorithm and phase diagram of noncommutativeφ4 on the fuzzy sphere, Journal of High Energy Physics2014(2014)

2014
[22]

Tekel,Asymmetric hermitian matrix models and fuzzy field theory,Phys

J. Tekel,Asymmetric hermitian matrix models and fuzzy field theory,Phys. Rev. D97 (2018) 125018 [1711.02008]

2018 arXiv
[23]

Kov´ aˇ cik, J

S. Kov´ aˇ cik, J. Tekel and M. Hrmo,The fuzzy onion: An initial study, 2024

2024
[24]

Steinacker,Quantum Geometry, Matrix Theory, and Gravity, Cambridge University Press (4, 2024), 10.1017/9781009440776

H.C. Steinacker,Quantum Geometry, Matrix Theory, and Gravity, Cambridge University Press (4, 2024), 10.1017/9781009440776

2024 doi
[25]

Martin,A matrix phase for theϕ 4 scalar field on the fuzzy sphere,Journal of High Energy Physics2004(2004) 077–077

X. Martin,A matrix phase for theϕ 4 scalar field on the fuzzy sphere,Journal of High Energy Physics2004(2004) 077–077

2004
[26]

Panero,The numerical approach to quantum field theory in a non-commutative space, PoSCORFU2015(2016) 099 [1601.01176]

M. Panero,The numerical approach to quantum field theory in a non-commutative space, PoSCORFU2015(2016) 099 [1601.01176]

2016 arXiv
[27]

Hammou, M

A.B. Hammou, M. Lagraa and M.M. Sheikh-Jabbari,Coherent state induced star product on r3 λ and the fuzzy sphere,Physical Review D66(2002)

2002
[28]

Vitale and J.-C

P. Vitale and J.-C. Wallet,Noncommutative field theories onR 3 λ: towards uv/ir mixing freedom,Journal of High Energy Physics2013(2013) . – 16 –

2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Amelino-Camelia, J.R

G. Amelino-Camelia, J.R. Ellis, N.E. Mavromatos, D.V. Nanopoulos and S. Sarkar,Tests of quantum gravity from observations of gamma-ray bursts,Nature393(1998) 763 [astro-ph/9712103]

arXiv 1998

[2] [2]

Amelino-Camelia,Quantum-Spacetime Phenomenology,Living Rev

G. Amelino-Camelia,Quantum-Spacetime Phenomenology,Living Rev. Rel.16(2013) 5 [0806.0339]

arXiv 2013

[3] [3]

Jacob and T

U. Jacob and T. Piran,Lorentz-violation-induced arrival delays of cosmological particles, JCAP01(2008) 031 [0712.2170]

arXiv 2008

[4] [4]

Burns, D

E. Burns, D. Svinkin, E. Fenimore, D.A. Kann, J.F.A. Fernandez, D. Frederiks et al.,GRB 221009A: The BOAT,Astrophys. J. Lett.946(2023) L31 [2302.14037]

arXiv 2023

[5] [5]

Doplicher, K

S. Doplicher, K. Fredenhagen and J.E. Roberts,The quantum structure of spacetime at the Planck scale and quantum fields,Commun. Math. Phys.172(1995) 187 [hep-th/0303037]

arXiv 1995

[6] [6]

Hossenfelder,Minimal Length Scale Scenarios for Quantum Gravity,Living Rev

S. Hossenfelder,Minimal Length Scale Scenarios for Quantum Gravity,Living Rev. Rel.16 (2013) 2 [1203.6191]

arXiv 2013

[7] [7]

Connes,Noncommutative Geometry, Academic Press (1994)

A. Connes,Noncommutative Geometry, Academic Press (1994)

1994

[8] [8]

Douglas and N.A

M.R. Douglas and N.A. Nekrasov,Noncommutative field theory,Rev. Mod. Phys.73(2001) 977 [hep-th/0106048]

arXiv 2001