Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

A new look at multi-gravity and dimensional deconstruction

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that standard multi-gravity cannot arise from deconstructing higher-dimensional GR because the lapse is gauge-fixed before discretisation; keeping the lapse free yields scalar-tensor multi-gravity, which recovers 5D brane…

desk verdict A novel free-lapse deconstruction of GR into scalar-tensor multi-gravity, with a solid FLRW continuum-limit check, but ghost-freedom and strong-coupling remain open, so the central claim is conditional. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.16442 v2 pith:5M7ZSENS submitted 2025-01-27 hep-th gr-qc

Kieran Wood This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thgr-qc PACS 04.50.Kd11.25.Mj98.80.-k
keywords dimensionaldeconstructionmulti-gravitylapsefunctionscalar-tensorbranecosmologyHamiltonianconstraintmassivegravityRandall-Sundrum
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's central claim is that the usual story linking ghost-free multi-gravity to higher-dimensional gravity is incomplete: to obtain standard multi-gravity one must gauge-fix the lapse to one before discretising the extra dimension, which throws away the piece of the theory that enforces the higher-dimensional Hamiltonian constraint. The paper constructs an improved deconstruction that leaves the lapse free, and the resulting 4D theory — dubbed scalar-tensor multi-gravity (STMG) — is standard multi-gravity dressed with one scalar field per lattice site, representing the value of the lapse on each hypersurface. As a check, it shows that with an FLRW ansatz the STMG field equations, Bianchi constraint, and new scalar equations reduce in the continuum limit to the bulk Einstein equations, momentum constraint, and Hamiltonian constraint of 5D Randall-Sundrum brane cosmology, including the Israel junction conditions at the boundaries. The author concludes that STMG, not standard multi-gravity, is the 4D theory that arises from deconstructing 5D GR, and generalises STMG to arbitrary dimension as a modified-gravity theory in its own right. The main caveat, flagged in the paper, is that ghost-freedom at all sites and validity up to the 5D Planck scale remain to be proven.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the discretised lapse: instead of gauge-fixing $N=1$ before discretisation, the new construction keeps $N$ as a collection of scalar fields $N_i$ on the lattice sites and places the average lapse $(N_i+N_{i+1})/2$ on the links between metrics. The interaction coefficients $\beta^{(i,j)}_m(N)$ depend on these scalars, which preserves the ghost-free structure of the multi-vielbein and multi-metric potential while adding the missing scalar degrees of freedom. The scalar equations of motion are the new item; in the continuum they enforce the higher-dimensional Hamiltonian constraint, which is exactly what standard multi-gravity lacks. The Stückelberg fields play their familiar role as the discretised shift vectors.

What would settle it

Compute the decoupling-limit strong-coupling scale of the chain STMG tuned to reproduce 5D GR: if it stays near $\Lambda_{\rm SC}\sim(M_{(5)}/L)^{1/2}$ rather than $M_{(5)}$, or if a Boulware-Deser ghost appears beyond two sites with generic lapse scalars, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, dimensional deconstruction of 5D GR gives a theory with $N$ interacting metrics $g^{(i)}_{\mu\nu}$, Stückelberg fields encoding the shift vectors, and $N$ scalar fields $N_i$ encoding the lapse. Writing the discretised extrinsic curvature on each link with the average lapse $(N_i+N_{i+1})/2$ in the denominator, and promoting every interaction coefficient $\beta^{(i,j)}_m$ to a function of the scalars, yields an action whose continuum limit is the full 5D GR action with unfixed lapse. The crucial new ingredient is the scalar field equations, which are absent in standard multi-gravity and which become the 5D Hamiltonian constraint in the continuum; the Bianchi constraint becomes the momentum constraint, and the metric equations become the dynamical equations and boundary junction conditions. The paper argues that this is the sense in which STMG is the correct 4D avatar of 5D GR.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands on the assumption that STMG is ghost-free and remains valid up to the 5D Planck scale; the paper explicitly defers the strong-coupling calculation and extrapolates ghost-freedom from the $N=1,2$ cases.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, standard multi-gravity is not the 4D theory descending from 5D GR; STMG with chain interactions and coefficients $\beta^{(i,i+1)}_m=2/(N_i+N_{i+1})\bar\beta_m$ is.
  • The STMG continuum limit recovers every piece of 5D brane cosmology — dynamical equations, momentum and Hamiltonian constraints, and Israel junction conditions — so deconstruction can faithfully reproduce higher-dimensional gravity, not just a truncated version of it.
  • STMG's new scalar equations forbid non-zero cosmological-constant proportional vacuum solutions with all scalars equal to one; de Sitter and anti-de Sitter vacua exist but require site-dependent lapse scalars.
  • If the deferred strong-coupling check succeeds, the missing-lapse pathologies of standard multi-gravity would be resolved, providing a 4D theory whose EFT validity extends to the higher-dimensional Planck scale rather than stopping at the lower scale $\Lambda_{\rm SC}$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A likely check of the paper's logic is the linear spectrum: for coefficients tuned to pure GR in the continuum, the $N$ scalar modes should reduce to a single massless radion, with the massive combinations removed by a discrete symmetry inherited from diffeomorphisms along the extra dimension; the paper notes this expectation but does not compute it.
  • The new scalar equations may change black-hole and cosmological phenomenology beyond the proportional branch, since the scalar VEV profiles become part of the solution space; this is an extension the paper gestures at but does not develop.
  • Because mass-varying massive gravity and the bi-metric Starobinsky model are special cases of STMG, existing inflationary and dark-energy constraints on those models can be reinterpreted as constraints on the deconstruction-scale parameters of STMG.
  • If STMG reproduces AdS brane worlds in the continuum, the boundary sites might admit a holographic description that could survive outside the continuum limit, connecting deconstruction to the Gregory-Laflamme instability and swampland-type arguments; the paper lists these as open questions.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper argues that standard multi-gravity cannot be the dimensional deconstruction of 5D GR because the lapse is gauge-fixed before discretisation, losing the Hamiltonian constraint and the y-diffeomorphism invariance of the higher-dimensional theory. It proposes an improved deconstruction that keeps the lapse as dynamical scalar fields Ni, yielding a theory dubbed 'scalar-tensor multi-gravity' (STMG). With an FLRW ansatz and the GR-tuned interaction coefficients of Eqs. (3.39)–(3.43), the paper shows in Appendix A that the STMG field equations, Bianchi constraint, and scalar equations reproduce the 5D Randall-Sundrum brane cosmology equations, Israel junction conditions, momentum constraint, and Hamiltonian constraint in the continuum limit. It then generalises STMG to arbitrary dimension and interaction structures, derives the field equations in Jordan and Einstein frames, and shows that proportional vacuum solutions with all scalars fixed to unity only admit Λ=0, while varying scalars allow dS/AdS vacua.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a valuable contribution: it identifies a concrete 4D theory that encodes the lapse/Hamiltonian constraint of the higher-dimensional theory, potentially resolving the anomalously low strong-coupling scale of standard multi-gravity and sharpening the connection between deconstruction and massive gravity. The explicit continuum-limit calculations in Appendix A are careful and detailed, and the derivation of the modified Bianchi constraint and the scalar equations is a useful addition to the literature. However, the central claim is conditional on two unproven assumptions: ghost freedom of generic STMG for N≥3 and validity up to the 5D Planck scale. The paper explicitly defers these checks to future work, so the identification of STMG as the deconstructed theory is not yet established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1 and §5] The paper's central claim requires STMG to be a ghost-free EFT valid up to the 5D Planck scale, but this is not demonstrated. Section 3.1 extrapolates ghost freedom from the N=1 mass-varying massive gravity and the N=2 bi-metric Starobinsky model, while the N≥3 chain with ω=0 Brans-Dicke couplings Ni R(i) has not been through a Hamiltonian constraint analysis; the non-minimal couplings alter the kinetic structure, so standard multi-gravity no-ghost theorems do not automatically apply. Section 5 then states that 'STMG remains ghost free' as a fact, which is stronger than the 'expect' in Section 3.1. Since the strong-coupling calculation is explicitly deferred in Sections 2.3 and 5, the identification of STMG as the deconstruction of 5D GR is not yet established; a Hamiltonian analysis for N=3, or failing that a decoupling-limit calculation, is needed before the central claim can be accepted.
  2. [§3.2 and Appendix A] The FLRW consistency check is partly circular: the interaction coefficients β_m(N) in Eq. (3.39) are chosen precisely so that the continuum action (3.1) reduces to 5D GR when α1=α2=α3=0. Recovering the RS brane cosmology equations in Appendix A is therefore a consistency check of the discretisation scheme (including the inverse-average-lapse choice in Eq. (3.5)) rather than an independent confirmation that STMG is the unique 4D theory arising from deconstruction. The paper should state this limitation explicitly and, if possible, test a non-GR-tuned β_m(N) against the corresponding known continuum theory (e.g. the Horndeski-type theory of [77]) to demonstrate that the scheme has discriminating power.
  3. [§4.2, Eqs. (4.31)–(4.32)] The derivation of the Λ=0 result for proportional solutions assumes ∂f/∂φ|φ=1 = −1, which is not satisfied by the GR-tuned choice β_m = 2/(Ni+Ni+1) β̄_m of Eq. (3.39); at Ni=Ni+1=1 the derivative is −1/2. This means the relation between V and W in Eq. (4.31) is off by a factor of 1/2 as written. The conclusion Λ=0 appears to survive in D=4 because the algebra is homogeneous in this factor, but the proof as stated is incorrect and should be corrected (or the normalisation of f clearly specified) before the claim that 'the end result is the same for chain-type interactions' can be assessed.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Appendix A] The abstract contains the typo 'FLR W ansatz' and Appendix A.1 contains 'correpsonding'; both should read 'FLRW' and 'corresponding', respectively.
  2. [§2.2 and throughout] The spelling of 'Deser-van Nieuwenhuisen' is inconsistent with the standard 'Deser-van Nieuwenhuizen' used elsewhere; please unify the spelling, and note that 'Horn- deski' in §2.2 should be 'Horndeski'.
  3. [References] Reference [105] is listed as 'in preparation' and should be replaced by a citable published reference or removed from the bibliography.
  4. [§3.1, Eqs. (3.11)–(3.13)] The statement that 'we have dropped the tildes on Tijkl' is easy to miss; please use a distinct notation or explicitly state in the text that all Tijkl from this point onward are scalar-dependent, so that the reader is not confused by the change of convention.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the continuum-limit recovery of brane cosmology is an explicitly labelled consistency check of a deliberately GR-tuned discretisation, and the genuinely new scalar-field results are derived, not fitted.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation proceeds by (i) constructing a deconstructed action whose interaction coefficients are chosen so that the continuum action is 5D GR (Eqs. 3.7-3.10 with alpha_1=alpha_2=alpha_3=0, and Eq. 3.39), and (ii) checking that the STMG field equations with an FLRW ansatz reproduce the known 5D brane-cosmology equations. The paper itself calls this a 'consistency check' (Section 3.2), not a prediction, so the recovery is a verification that the discretisation prescription (3.5) is consistent rather than a fitted input disguised as a prediction. The genuinely new results - the scalar field equations (3.21), the modified Bianchi constraint (3.20), and the proof that proportional solutions with all phi_i=1 force Lambda=0 (Section 4.2) - are derived consequences of the action, not fitted quantities. The self-citations to [60,77] for the bottom-up expansion and to [48,49] for black-hole solutions are either reproduced in the text or are not load-bearing for the paper's central deconstruction claim. The paper explicitly defers the strong-coupling and general-N ghost-freedom proofs to future work, and the ghost-freedom expectation is presented as an extrapolation from existing N=1 and N=2 analyses rather than as a circularly assumed input. There is therefore no step in which a claimed output is equivalent by definition or by fitting to its own input.

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

The core construction rests on standard ADM/deconstruction technology plus two paper-specific choices: the average-lapse discretisation and the GR-tuned interaction coefficients. The largest unproven burden is that generic STMG remains ghost-free and strongly coupled only at scales at or above the 5D Planck scale.

free parameters (1)
  • β̄_m interaction coefficients (m=0,1,2) = β̄0=-6M(5)^3/δy, β̄1=3M(5)^3/δy, β̄2=-M(5)^3/δy
    Chosen by hand so that the continuum action reduces to 5D GR with α1=α2=α3=0. They are fixed by the target continuum theory, not by data.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption ADM decomposition of the 5D metric and identification of discretised lapse and shift with scalar and Stückelberg fields
    Section 2.2; standard framework inherited from the deconstruction literature.
  • domain assumption Pairwise, chain-type (acyclic) interactions are the only structures that are ghost-free and admit a sensible continuum limit
    Sections 2.1 and 2.2; based on cited ghost analyses and used throughout the construction.
  • ad hoc to paper The extrinsic curvature discretisation uses the inverse average lapse, 2/(Ni+Ni+1)
    Section 3, Eq. (3.5); the author calls it a 'natural and minimal choice' and justifies it through the RS cosmology check.
  • ad hoc to paper Generic STMG with N>2 and arbitrary scalar-dependent interaction coefficients remains ghost free
    Section 3.1; asserted by analogy with N=1,2 proofs, with no explicit Hamiltonian analysis for the general case.
  • ad hoc to paper The strong-coupling scale of STMG is high enough that the continuum limit is valid up to the 5D Planck scale
    Sections 2.3 and 5; explicitly stated as a necessary check that is deferred to future work.
invented entities (1)
  • Scalar fields Ni (φi) in scalar-tensor multi-gravity
    purpose: Represent the deconstructed lapse function; their equations encode the higher-dimensional Hamiltonian constraint
    The only evidence for these fields is the paper's own continuum-limit consistency check and solution analysis; no external prediction or observational handle is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A new look at multi-gravity and dimensional deconstruction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5M7ZSENS

@misc{pith2026250116442,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A new look at multi-gravity and dimensional deconstruction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5M7ZSENS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.16442}
}
read the original abstract

It has long been understood that certain theories of ghost free massive gravity and their multi-graviton extensions can be thought of as arising from a higher dimensional theory of gravity, upon discretising the extra dimension. However, this correspondence between standard multi-gravity and extra dimensional gravity holds only when one discretises the extra dimension after gauge fixing the lapse function associated to the various lower dimensional hypersurfaces. The lapse provides crucial structure to the extra dimensional theory: in pure general relativity (GR), it ensures full diffeomorphism invariance of the theory, and enforces its Hamiltonian constraint. Thus, upon deconstruction, important information related to the extra dimension is missing in the resulting multi-gravity theory; as a result one could never hope to recover higher dimensional GR in its entirety upon taking the appropriate continuum limit. Here, we develop an improved deconstruction procedure that maintains the free lapse, and show that the resulting deconstructed theory is essentially multi-gravity equipped with additional dynamical scalar fields, whose field equations encode the Hamiltonian constraint in the extra dimensional theory. As an example, we explicitly demonstrate that - with an FLRW ansatz for the metrics in this new theory - one may recover all of the equations and constraints of 5-dimensional brane cosmology upon taking the continuum limit. We then treat the deconstructed theory as an entity in its own right, and generalise it to arbitrary dimension and interaction structures beyond those admitting a well-defined continuum limit. We dub this theory `scalar-tensor multi-gravity', and show that the new scalar equations change the structure of some simple solutions that were previously allowed in standard multi-gravity, in a manner that exactly mirrors what we expect from higher dimensional GR.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Existence of ghost-eliminating constraints in multivielbein theory

    hep-th 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Under an equal-boost restriction and an assumed common 3+1 slicing, multivielbein theory possesses tertiary constraints that kill the ghost momenta, supporting a 2+5(N−1) mode count.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

120 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [77]

    Deconstructing higher order clockwork gravity

    A. Avgoustidis, F. Niedermann, A. Padilla, and P. M. Saffin, Deconstructing higher order clockwork gravity, Physical Review D 103 (2021), no. 12 124007, [arXiv:2010.10970]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  2. [1]

    Randall and R

    L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimension , Physical review letters 83 (1999), no. 17 3370, [ hep-ph/9905221]. – 54 –

    arXiv 1999

  3. [2]

    Randall and R

    L. Randall and R. Sundrum, An alternative to compactification , Physical Review Letters 83 (1999), no. 23 4690, [ hep-th/9906064]

    arXiv 1999

  4. [3]

    Fierz and W

    M. Fierz and W. E. Pauli, On relativistic wave equations for particles of arbitrary spin in an electromagnetic field , Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 173 (1939), no. 953 211–232

    1939

  5. [4]

    S. N. Gupta, Gravitation and electromagnetism, Physical Review 96 (1954), no. 6 1683

    1954

  6. [5]

    Weinberg, Photons and gravitons in perturbation theory: Derivation of maxwell’s and einstein ’s equations, Physical Review 138 (1965), no

    S. Weinberg, Photons and gravitons in perturbation theory: Derivation of maxwell’s and einstein ’s equations, Physical Review 138 (1965), no. 4B B988

    1965

  7. [6]

    Deser, Self-interaction and gauge invariance , General Relativity and gravitation 1 (1970), no

    S. Deser, Self-interaction and gauge invariance , General Relativity and gravitation 1 (1970), no. 1 9–18

    1970

  8. [7]

    Feynman, Feynman lectures on gravitation

    R. Feynman, Feynman lectures on gravitation. CRC Press, 2018

    2018

Show all 120 references
  1. [8]

    D. G. Boulware and S. Deser, Classical general relativity derived from quantum gravity, Annals of Physics 89 (1975), no. 1 193–240

    1975

  2. [9]

    D. G. Boulware and S. Deser, Can gravitation have a finite range? , Phys. Rev. D 6 (Dec, 1972) 3368–3382

    1972

  3. [10]

    Van Nieuwenhuizen, On ghost-free tensor lagrangians and linearized gravitation , Nuclear Physics B 60 (1973) 478–492

    P. Van Nieuwenhuizen, On ghost-free tensor lagrangians and linearized gravitation , Nuclear Physics B 60 (1973) 478–492

    1973

  4. [11]

    de Rham and G

    C. de Rham and G. Gabadadze, Generalization of the fierz-pauli action , Phys. Rev. D 82 (Aug, 2010) 044020, [ arXiv:1007.0443]

    2010 arXiv

  5. [12]

    de Rham, G

    C. de Rham, G. Gabadadze, and A. J. Tolley, Resummation of massive gravity , Physical Review Letters 106 (jun, 2011) [ arXiv:1011.1232]

    2011 arXiv

  6. [13]

    S. F. Hassan and R. A. Rosen, On non-linear actions for massive gravity , Journal of High Energy Physics 2011 (2011), no. 7 1–22, [ arXiv:1103.6055]

    2011 arXiv

  7. [14]

    S. F. Hassan and R. A. Rosen, Resolving the ghost problem in nonlinear massive gravity, Physical review letters 108 (2012), no. 4 041101, [ arXiv:1106.3344]

    2012 arXiv

  8. [15]

    S. F. Hassan, R. A. Rosen, and A. Schmidt-May, Ghost-free massive gravity with a general reference metric, Journal of High Energy Physics 2012 (2012), no. 2 1–26, [arXiv:1109.3230]

    2012 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Hassan, A

    S. Hassan, A. Schmidt-May, and M. von Strauss, Proof of consistency of nonlinear massive gravity in the st¨ uckelberg formulation, Physics Letters B 715 (2012), no. 4-5 335–339, [arXiv:1203.5283]

    2012 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Golovnev, On the hamiltonian analysis of non-linear massive gravity , Physics Letters B 707 (2012), no

    A. Golovnev, On the hamiltonian analysis of non-linear massive gravity , Physics Letters B 707 (2012), no. 3-4 404–408, [ arXiv:1112.2134]

    2012 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Klusoˇ n,Nonlinear massive gravity with additional primary constraint and absence of ghosts , Physical Review D 86 (2012), no

    J. Klusoˇ n,Nonlinear massive gravity with additional primary constraint and absence of ghosts , Physical Review D 86 (2012), no. 4 044024, [ arXiv:1204.2957]

    2012 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Klusoˇ n,Note about hamiltonian formalism for general nonlinear massive gravity action in st¨ uckelberg formalism, International Journal of Modern Physics A 28 (2013), no

    J. Klusoˇ n,Note about hamiltonian formalism for general nonlinear massive gravity action in st¨ uckelberg formalism, International Journal of Modern Physics A 28 (2013), no. 30 1350160, [ arXiv:1209.3612]. – 55 –

    2013 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Kugo and N

    T. Kugo and N. Ohta, Covariant approach to the no-ghost theorem in massive gravity, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics 2014 (2014), no. 4 043B04, [arXiv:1401.3873]

    2014 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Arkani-Hamed, H

    N. Arkani-Hamed, H. Georgi, and M. D. Schwartz, Effective field theory for massive gravitons and gravity in theory space , Annals of Physics 305 (2003), no. 2 96–118, [hep-th/0210184]

    2003 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Creminelli, A

    P. Creminelli, A. Nicolis, M. Papucci, and E. Trincherini, Ghosts in massive gravity , Journal of High Energy Physics 2005 (2005), no. 09 003, [ hep-th/0505147]

    2005 arXiv

  16. [23]

    S. F. Hassan and R. A. Rosen, Bimetric gravity from ghost-free massive gravity , Journal of High Energy Physics 2012 (2012), no. 2 1–12, [ arXiv:1109.3515]

    2012 arXiv

  17. [24]

    S. F. Hassan and R. A. Rosen, Confirmation of the secondary constraint and absence of ghost in massive gravity and bimetric gravity , Journal of High Energy Physics 2012 (2012), no. 4 1–16, [ arXiv:1111.2070]

    2012 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Hinterbichler and R

    K. Hinterbichler and R. A. Rosen, Interacting spin-2 fields , Journal of High Energy Physics 2012 (2012), no. 7 1–34, [ arXiv:1203.5783]

    2012 arXiv

  19. [26]

    de Rham, Massive gravity, Living reviews in relativity 17 (2014), no

    C. de Rham, Massive gravity, Living reviews in relativity 17 (2014), no. 1 1–189, [arXiv:1401.4173]

    2014 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Hinterbichler, Theoretical aspects of massive gravity , Reviews of Modern Physics 84 (2012), no

    K. Hinterbichler, Theoretical aspects of massive gravity , Reviews of Modern Physics 84 (2012), no. 2 671, [ arXiv:1105.3735]

    2012 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Schmidt-May and M

    A. Schmidt-May and M. von Strauss, Recent developments in bimetric theory , Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 49 (2016), no. 18 183001, [arXiv:1512.00021]

    2016 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Arkani-Hamed, A

    N. Arkani-Hamed, A. G. Cohen, and H. Georgi, (de) constructing dimensions , Physical Review Letters 86 (2001), no. 21 4757, [ hep-th/0104005]

    2001 arXiv

  23. [30]

    C. T. Hill, S. Pokorski, and J. Wang, Gauge invariant effective lagrangian for kaluza-klein modes, Physical Review D 64 (2001), no. 10 105005, [ hep-th/0104035]

    2001 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Arkani-Hamed, A

    N. Arkani-Hamed, A. G. Cohen, and H. Georgi, Electroweak symmetry breaking from dimensional deconstruction, Physics Letters B 513 (2001), no. 1-2 232–240, [hep-ph/0105239]

    2001 arXiv

  25. [32]

    M. D. Schwartz, Constructing gravitational dimensions , Physical Review D 68 (2003), no. 2 024029, [ hep-th/0303114]

    2003 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Arkani-Hamed and M

    N. Arkani-Hamed and M. D. Schwartz, Discrete gravitational dimensions , Physical Review D 69 (2004), no. 10 104001, [ hep-th/0302110]

    2004 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Deffayet and J

    C. Deffayet and J. Mourad, Multigravity from a discrete extra dimension , Physics Letters B 589 (2004), no. 1-2 48–58, [ hep-th/0311124]

    2004 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Deffayet and J

    C. Deffayet and J. Mourad, Deconstruction of gravity, International Journal of Theoretical Physics 44 (2005) 1743–1752

    2005

  29. [36]

    De Rham, A

    C. De Rham, A. Matas, and A. J. Tolley, Deconstructing dimensions and massive gravity, Classical and Quantum Gravity 31 (2013), no. 2 025004, [ arXiv:1308.4136]

    2013 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Arnowitt, S

    R. Arnowitt, S. Deser, and C. W. Misner, The dynamics of general relativity , General Relativity and Gravitation 40 (2008) 1997–2027, [ gr-qc/0405109]. – 56 –

    2008 arXiv

  31. [38]

    P. Brax, C. van de Bruck, and A.-C. Davis, Brane world cosmology, Reports on Progress in Physics 67 (2004), no. 12 2183, [ hep-th/0404011]

    2004 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Langlois, Brane cosmology, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement 148 (2002) 181–212, [hep-th/0209261]

    D. Langlois, Brane cosmology, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement 148 (2002) 181–212, [hep-th/0209261]

    2002 arXiv

  33. [40]

    S. F. Hassan, A. Schmidt-May, and M. von Strauss, On consistent theories of massive spin-2 fields coupled to gravity , Journal of High Energy Physics 2013 (2013), no. 5 1–32, [arXiv:1208.1515]

    2013 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Baldacchino and A

    O. Baldacchino and A. Schmidt-May, Structures in multiple spin-2 interactions , Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 50 (2017), no. 17 175401, [arXiv:1604.04354]

    2017 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Lovelock, The einstein tensor and its generalizations , Journal of Mathematical Physics 12 (1971), no

    D. Lovelock, The einstein tensor and its generalizations , Journal of Mathematical Physics 12 (1971), no. 3 498–501

    1971

  36. [43]

    M. F. Paulos and A. J. Tolley, Massive gravity theories and limits of ghost-free bigravity models, Journal of High Energy Physics 2012 (2012), no. 9 1–18, [arXiv:1203.4268]

    2012 arXiv

  37. [44]

    De Rham, A

    C. De Rham, A. Matas, and A. J. Tolley, New kinetic interactions for massive gravity?, Classical and Quantum Gravity 31 (2014), no. 16 165004, [arXiv:1311.6485]

    2014 arXiv

  38. [45]

    De Rham, A

    C. De Rham, A. Matas, and A. J. Tolley, New kinetic terms for massive gravity and multi-gravity: a no-go in vielbein form , Classical and Quantum Gravity 32 (2015), no. 21 215027, [ arXiv:1505.00831]

    2015 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Matas, Cutoff for extensions of massive gravity and bi-gravity , Classical and Quantum Gravity 33 (2016), no

    A. Matas, Cutoff for extensions of massive gravity and bi-gravity , Classical and Quantum Gravity 33 (2016), no. 7 075004, [ arXiv:1506.00666]

    2016 arXiv

  40. [47]

    S. F. Hassan, A. Schmidt-May, and M. von Strauss, Metric formulation of ghost-free multivielbein theory, arXiv preprint (2012) [arXiv:1204.5202]

    2012 arXiv

  41. [48]

    K. Wood, P. M. Saffin, and A. Avgoustidis, Black holes in multimetric gravity , Physical Review D 109 (2024), no. 12 124006, [ arXiv:2402.17835]

    2024 arXiv

  42. [49]

    K. Wood, P. M. Saffin, and A. Avgoustidis, Black holes in multimetric gravity. ii. hairy solutions and linear stability of the non-and partially proportional branches , Physical Review D 111 (2025), no. 2 024057, [ arXiv:2410.10976]

    2025 arXiv

  43. [50]

    J. H. Scargill and J. Noller, Strong-coupling scales and the graph structure of multi-gravity theories, Journal of High Energy Physics 2016 (2016), no. 1 1–23, [arXiv:1511.02877]

    2016 arXiv

  44. [51]

    J. H. Scargill, J. Noller, and P. G. Ferreira, Cycles of interactions in multi-gravity theories, Journal of High Energy Physics 2014 (2014), no. 12 1–24, [arXiv:1410.7774]

    2014 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Nomura and J

    K. Nomura and J. Soda, When is multimetric gravity ghost-free? , Physical Review D 86 (2012), no. 8 084052, [ arXiv:1207.3637]

    2012 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Yamashita, A

    Y. Yamashita, A. De Felice, and T. Tanaka, Appearance of boulware–deser ghost in bigravity with doubly coupled matter , International Journal of Modern Physics D 23 (2014), no. 13 1443003, [ arXiv:1408.0487]. – 57 –

    2014 arXiv

  47. [54]

    de Rham, L

    C. de Rham, L. Heisenberg, and R. H. Ribeiro, On couplings to matter in massive (bi-) gravity, Classical and Quantum Gravity 32 (2015), no. 3 035022, [arXiv:1408.1678]

    2015 arXiv

  48. [55]

    de Rham, L

    C. de Rham, L. Heisenberg, and R. H. Ribeiro, Ghosts and matter couplings in massive gravity, bigravity and multigravity , Physical Review D 90 (2014), no. 12 124042, [arXiv:1409.3834]

    2014 arXiv

  49. [56]

    Hassan, M

    S. Hassan, M. Kocic, and A. Schmidt-May, Absence of ghost in a new bimetric-matter coupling, arXiv (2014) [arXiv:1409.1909]

    2014 arXiv

  50. [57]

    Noller and S

    J. Noller and S. Melville, The coupling to matter in massive, bi-and multi-gravity , Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2015 (2015), no. 01 003, [arXiv:1408.5131]

    2015 arXiv

  51. [58]

    Melville and J

    S. Melville and J. Noller, Generalised matter couplings in massive bigravity , Journal of High Energy Physics 2016 (2016), no. 1 1–43, [ arXiv:1511.01485]

    2016 arXiv

  52. [59]

    L¨ uben and A

    M. L¨ uben and A. Schmidt-May,Ghost-free completion of an effective matter coupling in bimetric theory , Fortschritte der Physik 66 (2018), no. 6 1800031, [arXiv:1804.04671]

    2018 arXiv

  53. [60]

    K. Wood, P. M. Saffin, and A. Avgoustidis, Clockwork cosmology, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2023 (2023), no. 7 062, [ arXiv:2304.09205]

    2023 arXiv

  54. [61]

    S. F. Hassan, A. Schmidt-May, and M. von Strauss, Bimetric theory and partial masslessness with lanczos–lovelock terms in arbitrary dimensions , Classical and Quantum Gravity 30 (2013), no. 18 184010, [ arXiv:1212.4525]

    2013 arXiv

  55. [62]

    de Rham and A

    C. de Rham and A. J. Tolley, Vielbein to the rescue? breaking the symmetric vielbein condition in massive gravity and multigravity , Physical Review D 92 (2015), no. 2 024024, [arXiv:1505.01450]

    2015 arXiv

  56. [63]

    S. F. Hassan and A. Schmidt-May, Interactions of multiple spin-2 fields beyond pairwise couplings, Physical Review Letters 122 (2019), no. 25 251101, [arXiv:1804.09723]

    2019 arXiv

  57. [64]

    Flinckman and S

    J. Flinckman and S. Hassan, Mass spectrum and linear perturbations of ghost-free multi-spin-2 theory, arXiv preprint (2024) [arXiv:2410.09439]

    2024 arXiv

  58. [65]

    Noller, J

    J. Noller, J. H. Scargill, and P. G. Ferreira, Interacting spin-2 fields in the st¨ uckelberg picture, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2014 (2014), no. 02 007, [arXiv:1311.7009]

    2014 arXiv

  59. [66]

    Noller and J

    J. Noller and J. H. Scargill, The decoupling limit of multi-gravity: multi-galileons, dualities and more , Journal of High Energy Physics 2015 (2015), no. 5 1–40, [arXiv:1503.02700]

    2015 arXiv

  60. [67]

    Georgi, A tool kit for builders of composite models , Nuclear Physics B 266 (1986), no

    H. Georgi, A tool kit for builders of composite models , Nuclear Physics B 266 (1986), no. 2 274–284

    1986

  61. [68]

    M. R. Douglas and G. Moore, D-branes, quivers, and ale instantons , arXiv preprint (1996) [hep-th/9603167]

    1996 arXiv

  62. [69]

    van Dam and M

    H. van Dam and M. Veltman, Massive and mass-less yang-mills and gravitational fields, Nuclear Physics B 22 (1970), no. 2 397–411. – 58 –

    1970

  63. [70]

    V. I. Zakharov, Linearized gravitation theory and the graviton mass , JETP Lett.(USSR)(Engl. Transl.) 12: 312-14 (5 Nov 1970). (1970)

    1970

  64. [71]

    A. I. Vainshtein, To the problem of nonvanishing gravitation mass , Physics Letters B 39 (1972), no. 3 393–394

    1972

  65. [72]

    Babichev, C

    E. Babichev, C. Deffayet, and R. Ziour, Recovering general relativity from massive gravity, Physical review letters 103 (2009), no. 20 201102, [ arXiv:0907.4103]

    2009 arXiv

  66. [73]

    Babichev, C

    E. Babichev, C. Deffayet, and R. Ziour, The vainshtein mechanism in the decoupling limit of massive gravity , Journal of High Energy Physics 2009 (2009), no. 05 098, [arXiv:0901.0393]

    2009 arXiv

  67. [74]

    Babichev, C

    E. Babichev, C. Deffayet, and R. Ziour, Recovery of general relativity in massive gravity via the vainshtein mechanism , Physical Review D 82 (2010), no. 10 104008, [arXiv:1007.4506]

    2010 arXiv

  68. [75]

    Babichev and C

    E. Babichev and C. Deffayet, An introduction to the vainshtein mechanism , Classical and Quantum Gravity 30 (2013), no. 18 184001, [ arXiv:1304.7240]

    2013 arXiv

  69. [76]

    N. A. Ondo and A. J. Tolley, Complete decoupling limit of ghost-free massive gravity , Journal of High Energy Physics 2013 (2013), no. 11 1–20, [ arXiv:1307.4769]

    2013 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Deffayet and J

    C. Deffayet and J. Mourad, Solutions of multigravity theories and discretized braneworlds, Classical and Quantum Gravity 21 (2004), no. 7 1833, [hep-th/0311125]

    2004 arXiv

  71. [79]

    G. W. Gibbons and S. W. Hawking, Action integrals and partition functions in quantum gravity, in Euclidean Quantum Gravity , pp. 233–237. World Scientific, 1993

    1993

  72. [80]

    J. W. York Jr, Role of conformal three-geometry in the dynamics of gravitation , Physical review letters 28 (1972), no. 16 1082

    1972

  73. [81]

    J. W. York, Boundary terms in the action principles of general relativity , Foundations of Physics 16 (1986), no. 3 249–257

    1986

  74. [82]

    Niedermann, A

    F. Niedermann, A. Padilla, and P. M. Saffin, Higher order clockwork gravity , Physical Review D 98 (2018), no. 10 104014, [ arXiv:1805.03523]

    2018 arXiv

  75. [83]

    C. M. Will, The confrontation between general relativity and experiment , Living reviews in relativity 17 (2014), no. 1 1–117, [ arXiv:1403.7377]

    2014 arXiv

  76. [84]

    de Rham, J

    C. de Rham, J. T. Deskins, A. J. Tolley, and S.-Y. Zhou, Graviton mass bounds , Reviews of Modern Physics 89 (2017), no. 2 025004, [ arXiv:1606.08462]

    2017 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Babichev, L

    E. Babichev, L. Marzola, M. Raidal, A. Schmidt-May, F. Urban, H. Veerm¨ ae, and M. von Strauss, Heavy spin-2 dark matter , Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2016 (2016), no. 09 016, [ arXiv:1607.03497]

    2016 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Brans and R

    C. Brans and R. H. Dicke, Mach’s principle and a relativistic theory of gravitation , Physical review 124 (1961), no. 3 925. – 59 –

    1961

  79. [87]

    Huang, Y.-S

    Q.-G. Huang, Y.-S. Piao, and S.-Y. Zhou, Mass-varying massive gravity , Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology 86 (2012), no. 12 124014, [arXiv:1206.5678]

    2012 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Huang, K.-C

    Q.-G. Huang, K.-C. Zhang, and S.-Y. Zhou, Generalized massive gravity in arbitrary dimensions and its hamiltonian formulation , Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2013 (2013), no. 08 050, [ arXiv:1306.4740]

    2013 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Hinterbichler, J

    K. Hinterbichler, J. Stokes, and M. Trodden, Cosmologies of extended massive gravity, Physics Letters B 725 (2013), no. 1-3 1–5, [ arXiv:1301.4993]

    2013 arXiv

  82. [90]

    I. D. Gialamas and K. Tamvakis, Bimetric starobinsky model , Physical Review D 108 (2023), no. 10 104023, [ arXiv:2307.05673]

    2023 arXiv

  83. [91]

    A. A. Starobinsky, A new type of isotropic cosmological models without singularity , Physics Letters B 91 (1980), no. 1 99–102

    1980

  84. [92]

    I. D. Gialamas and K. Tamvakis, On the absence of ghosts in quadratic bigravity , Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2024 (2024), no. 03 016, [arXiv:2311.14799]

    2024 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Ort ´ ın,Gravity and strings

    T. Ort ´ ın,Gravity and strings . Cambridge university press, 2004

    2004

  86. [94]

    P. Pani, T. P. Sotiriou, and D. Vernieri, Gravity with auxiliary fields , Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology 88 (2013), no. 12 121502, [arXiv:1306.1835]

    2013 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Israel, Singular hypersurfaces and thin shells in general relativity , Il Nuovo Cimento B (1965-1970) 44 (1966), no

    W. Israel, Singular hypersurfaces and thin shells in general relativity , Il Nuovo Cimento B (1965-1970) 44 (1966), no. 1 1–14

    1966

  88. [96]

    Y. V. Shtanov, On brane-world cosmology, arXiv e-print (2000) [hep-th/0005193]

    2000 arXiv

  89. [97]

    R. M. Wald, General relativity. University of Chicago press, 2010

    2010

  90. [98]

    Binetruy, C

    P. Binetruy, C. Deffayet, U. Ellwanger, and D. Langlois, Brane cosmological evolution in a bulk with cosmological constant , Physics Letters B 477 (2000), no. 1-3 285–291, [hep-th/9910219]

    2000 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Shiromizu, K.-i

    T. Shiromizu, K.-i. Maeda, and M. Sasaki, The einstein equations on the 3-brane world, Physical Review D 62 (2000), no. 2 024012, [ gr-qc/9910076]

    2000 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Maartens, Geometry and dynamics of the brane-world , in Reference frames and gravitomagnetism, pp

    R. Maartens, Geometry and dynamics of the brane-world , in Reference frames and gravitomagnetism, pp. 93–119. World Scientific, 2001. gr-qc/0101059

    2001 arXiv

  93. [101]

    N. G. Albornoz, A. Schmidt-May, and M. von Strauss, Dark matter scenarios with multiple spin-2 fields , Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2018 (2018), no. 01 014, [ arXiv:1709.05128]

    2018 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Babichev, L

    E. Babichev, L. Marzola, M. Raidal, A. Schmidt-May, F. Urban, H. Veerm¨ ae, and M. von Strauss, Bigravitational origin of dark matter , Physical Review D 94 (2016), no. 8 084055, [ arXiv:1604.08564]

    2016 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Marzola, M

    L. Marzola, M. Raidal, and F. R. Urban, Oscillating spin-2 dark matter , Physical Review D 97 (2018), no. 2 024010, [ arXiv:1708.04253]

    2018 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Bernal, M

    N. Bernal, M. Dutra, Y. Mambrini, K. Olive, M. Peloso, and M. Pierre, Spin-2 portal dark matter , Physical Review D 97 (2018), no. 11 115020, [ arXiv:1803.01866]. – 60 –

    2018 arXiv

  97. [105]

    K. Wood, L. Heurtier, A. Avgoustidis, and P. M. Saffin, in preparation

  98. [106]

    K¨ onnig, A

    F. K¨ onnig, A. Patil, and L. Amendola, Viable cosmological solutions in massive bimetric gravity, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2014 (2014), no. 03 029, [arXiv:1312.3208]

    2014 arXiv

  99. [107]

    H¨ og ˚ as and E

    M. H¨ og ˚ as and E. M¨ ortsell,Constraints on bimetric gravity. part i. analytical constraints, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2021 (2021), no. 05 001, [arXiv:2101.08794]

    2021 arXiv

  100. [108]

    H¨ og ˚ as and E

    M. H¨ og ˚ as and E. M¨ ortsell,Constraints on bimetric gravity. part ii. observational constraints, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2021 (2021), no. 05 002, [arXiv:2101.08795]

    2021 arXiv

  101. [109]

    Caravano, M

    A. Caravano, M. L¨ uben, and J. Weller,Combining cosmological and local bounds on bimetric theory, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2021 (2021), no. 09 035, [arXiv:2101.08791]

    2021 arXiv

  102. [110]

    Gregory and R

    R. Gregory and R. Laflamme, Black strings and p-branes are unstable , Phys. Rev. Lett. 70 (May, 1993) 2837–2840, [hep-th/9301052]

    1993 arXiv

  103. [111]

    Gregory, Black string instabilities in anti-de sitter space , Classical and Quantum Gravity 17 (2000), no

    R. Gregory, Black string instabilities in anti-de sitter space , Classical and Quantum Gravity 17 (2000), no. 18 L125, [ hep-th/0004101]

    2000 arXiv

  104. [112]

    Gregory and R

    R. Gregory and R. Laflamme, The instability of charged black strings and p-branes , Nuclear Physics B 428 (1994), no. 1-2 399–434, [ hep-th/9404071]

    1994 arXiv

  105. [113]

    Babichev and A

    E. Babichev and A. Fabbri, Instability of black holes in massive gravity , Classical and Quantum Gravity 30 (2013), no. 15 152001, [ arXiv:1304.5992]

    2013 arXiv

  106. [114]

    Brito, V

    R. Brito, V. Cardoso, and P. Pani, Massive spin-2 fields on black hole spacetimes: Instability of the schwarzschild and kerr solutions and bounds on the graviton mass , Physical Review D 88 (2013), no. 2 023514, [ arXiv:1304.6725]

    2013 arXiv

  107. [115]

    Babichev and R

    E. Babichev and R. Brito, Black holes in massive gravity , Classical and Quantum Gravity 32 (2015), no. 15 154001, [ arXiv:1503.07529]

    2015 arXiv

  108. [116]

    Fujii and K.-i

    Y. Fujii and K.-i. Maeda, The scalar-tensor theory of gravitation . Cambridge University Press, 2003

    2003

  109. [117]

    A. G. Riess, A. V. Filippenko, P. Challis, A. Clocchiatti, A. Diercks, P. M. Garnavich, R. L. Gilliland, C. J. Hogan, S. Jha, R. P. Kirshner, et al., Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant , The astronomical journal 116 ...

    1998 arXiv

  110. [118]

    Perlmutter, G

    S. Perlmutter, G. Aldering, G. Goldhaber, R. Knop, P. Nugent, P. G. Castro, S. Deustua, S. Fabbro, A. Goobar, D. E. Groom, et al., Measurements of ω and λ from 42 high-redshift supernovae , The Astrophysical Journal 517 (1999), no. 2 565, [astro-ph/9812133]

    1999 arXiv

  111. [119]

    Brax, Lectures on screened modified gravity, arXiv preprint (2012) [arXiv:1211.5237]

    P. Brax, Lectures on screened modified gravity, arXiv preprint (2012) [arXiv:1211.5237]

    2012 arXiv

  112. [120]

    E. J. Copeland, P. Millington, and S. S. Mu˜ noz, Fifth forces and broken scale symmetries in the jordan frame , Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2022 (2022), no. 02 016, [ arXiv:2111.06357]. – 61 –

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.