Static multipolar Einstein-vector-Gauss-Bonnet black holes

Burkhard Kleihaus; Jutta Kunz

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 71 references

Static multipolar Einstein-vector-Gauss-Bonnet black holes

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper constructs static, axisymmetric, asymptotically flat black holes in Einstein-vector-Gauss-Bonnet theory that carry vector hair in multipoles 0 through 3, with electric branches persisting to arbitrarily large coupling and…

desk verdict Valuable map of new EvGB solution branches, but the headline claim about magnetic endpoints needs numerical underpinning. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.11900 v1 pith:FALVX2DP submitted 2026-08-12 gr-qc hep-th

Burkhard Kleihaus , Jutta Kunz This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qchep-th

keywords Einstein-vector-Gauss-BonnettheoryvectorizedblackholesspontaneousvectorizationmultipolarholehairGauss-BonnetcouplingstaticaxisymmetricSchwarzschildbifurcation

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 tries to establish that static, asymptotically flat, axisymmetric black holes in Einstein-vector-Gauss-Bonnet theory can carry nontrivial vector hair arranged in an arbitrary angular multipole, not just the spherically symmetric monopole found before. It constructs fundamental radial branches for $\ell=0,1,2,3$ in both the electric and magnetic sectors, each bifurcating from Schwarzschild at a discrete value of the Gauss-Bonnet coupling. The electric branches are claimed to persist to arbitrarily large coupling, while the magnetic branches exist only on finite coupling intervals that end at critical solutions. A sympathetic reader would care because static nonspherical black holes are forbidden in vacuum general relativity, and these solutions show how a curvature-coupled vector field can evade that no-go result.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the vector-field perturbation on the Schwarzschild background. Writing $A_t=\gamma_\ell(r)P_\ell(\cos\theta)$ for the electric sector and $A_\phi=\gamma_\ell(r)\tilde P_\ell(\cos\theta)$ for the magnetic sector, where $\tilde P_\ell$ is derived from Legendre polynomials, reduces the vector equation to radial eigenvalue problems. Their discrete eigenvalues $\lambda_\ell/M^2$ are the bifurcation points where a new branch of vectorized black holes appears. The quadratic coupling $\lambda A_\mu A^\mu R^2_{\rm GB}$ is what makes the GR black hole unstable at these couplings; once the vector field is nonzero, the same coupling sources the metric deformations that produce the axisymmetric horizon and the additional parity-preserving multipoles.

What would settle it

Search below the reported $\lambda_{\rm cr,\ell}$ on a magnetic branch with a different numerical method, such as a high-order spectral solver with adaptive resolution; finding a regular, asymptotically flat solution there would falsify the finite-interval claim, while finding an upper endpoint on an electric branch would contradict the claim that electric branches extend to arbitrarily large $\lambda/M^2$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within the quadratic coupling model $S=\frac{1}{16\pi}\int (R-F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}+\lambda A_\mu A^\mu R^2_{\rm GB})\sqrt{-g}\,d^4x$, the paper discovers a multipolar sequence of vectorized black holes: for each angular mode $\ell=0,\ldots,3$ (radial node number $n=0$) there is an electric branch with $A_t\neq 0$ and a magnetic branch with $A_\phi\neq 0$, both bifurcating from the Schwarzschild black hole. The perturbative separation of variables produces eigenvalue problems whose discrete solutions give the bifurcation couplings $\lambda_\ell/M^2$ listed in Table 1. The nonlinear continuations then split: electric branches increase in coupling without detected endpoint, while magnetic branches run only down to $\lambda_{\rm cr,\ell}$ and stop at critical solutions (Table 2). In the full nonlinear solutions the asymptotic vector field develops additional multipole moments, but equatorial symmetry keeps even-$\ell$ and odd-$\ell$ moments in separate sectors.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the nonlinear solver's loss of convergence exactly marks the end of the physical solution family, so the magnetic critical endpoints reflect genuine non-existence rather than a numerical breakdown.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The theory contains static, asymptotically flat, axisymmetric black holes with vector hair for $\ell=0,1,2,3$ in both electric and magnetic sectors.
Electric branches continue to arbitrarily large $\lambda/M^2$ along the fundamental radial mode, so no upper bound on the coupling appears in the electric sector.
Magnetic branches exist only on $\lambda_{\rm cr,\ell}\le\lambda\le\lambda_\ell$ and end at critical solutions, so there is a maximal coupling for static magnetic vectorization.
Nonlinearities generate higher multipole moments of the same parity as the bifurcating mode, giving even and odd moment sectors that never mix.
These stationary configurations provide explicit examples of static nonspherical black holes without rotation, in contrast to vacuum general relativity.

Reading between the lines

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

If the magnetic critical endpoints are genuine, they are natural places to look for horizon degeneracy or a transition to a different black-hole family, since the available parameters shrink to a single point.
A direct stability analysis of these branches would test whether the ghost-type instabilities found in related vector-tensor theories also appear here; until then, the solutions are best read as a classification result rather than a dynamical prediction.
The pattern that magnetic bifurcations occur at smaller $\lambda/M^2$ than electric ones for every $\ell=0,\ldots,3$ suggests a systematic ordering that could be checked at higher $\ell$ and higher radial excitation number.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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

Worth a look if you work on vectorized black holes or Gauss-Bonnet modifications. The paper extends the known EvGB solution space to static, axisymmetric multipolar black holes with ℓ = 1, 2, 3 in both electric and magnetic sectors, and the classification by parity and by even/odd nonlinear moments is a clean and useful result.

What is genuinely new: the ℓ > 0 electric branches, the full magnetic sequence with finite intervals, and the systematic electric-vs-magnetic comparison. The perturbative bifurcation values in Table 1 are computed from a linearized eigenproblem on Schwarzschild, independent of the nonlinear construction, which gives the existence of branches a solid anchor. The paper is also honest about the unresolved dynamical stability, including potential ghost instabilities and the no-go argument in Ref. [71]. That is refreshing and appropriate.

The soft spot is exactly what the stress-test note flags. The finite magnetic intervals and the six-digit critical values in Table 2 rest entirely on the statement that the solver stops converging to regular solutions at the endpoint. No residual norms, grid refinement, or independent code checks are shown. A non-convergent Newton solve can also mean a coordinate breakdown or an ansatz that cannot represent the next branch segment, so the word "critical solution" is doing a lot of work. That said, the interval plots in Figure 4 show physical quantities trending toward singular behavior, which makes it likely the endpoints are genuine; but the claimed precision is not justified by the evidence presented. This is a moderate, addressable weakness, not a fatal one.

Also minor: the perturbative ODEs (26) and (29) are stated without derivation. A short appendix or a reference to a derivation would have helped; without it, a reader who wants to check the eigenvalues has to trust the method.

The citation pattern is appropriate; the authors cite their own prior work where it is directly relevant, and the circularity burden is low because the eigenvalues are computed on the Schwarzschild background, not from the nonlinear solutions.

Who is this for? Anyone mapping the solution space of vector-tensor theories or studying spontaneous vectorization. It is a solid extension of the literature, and I would send it to a referee. My recommendation: engage, but ask the authors to document the numerics—convergence tests, residual behavior near the putative endpoints, and ideally an independent check of at least one branch.

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper studies static, axisymmetric, asymptotically flat black-hole solutions in Einstein-vector-Gauss-Bonnet theory with quadratic coupling λ A_μ A^μ R_GB. The authors compute perturbative bifurcation couplings on the Schwarzschild background for electric and magnetic vector perturbations labeled by angular multipole ℓ=0,1,2,3 on the fundamental radial branch, then solve the nonlinear elliptic equations numerically. They report that the electric branches persist to larger coupling, while the magnetic branches exist on finite intervals λ_cr ≤ λ ≤ λ_ℓ and end at critical solutions. They also note that nonlinearities generate additional multipole moments away from bifurcation, but even- and odd-parity moments remain separated. The paper explicitly defers dynamical-stability questions.

Significance. If the numerical results are trustworthy, the paper gives a clean classification of multipolar vectorized black holes and identifies a striking qualitative asymmetry between electric and magnetic sectors. The perturbative eigenvalue table and the nonlinear branch data are concrete and falsifiable, and the authors are careful to state that stability and dynamical formation are not addressed, citing the recent no-go arguments. The main weakness is that the headline magnetic critical-endpoint result rests entirely on the non-convergence of a single numerical solver, with no convergence or independent-check data; this is exactly the claim that needs the strongest support. I therefore view the paper as a useful contribution that is not yet fully established.

major comments (3)

[3.1, 3.4, Table 2] The finite-interval claim and the critical values λ_cr,ℓ in Table 2 are based solely on the sentence in Section 3.1 that 'the critical endpoints are identified by continuing a branch up to the point where the nonlinear solver ceases to converge to regular black hole solutions.' The paper reports no residual norms, no mesh-refinement or convergence-order studies, no Jacobian/conditioning diagnostics, and no independent solver comparison. Moreover, Figure 4 shows the plotted physical quantities remaining smooth and O(1) at λ_cr, so the non-convergence could be a coordinate breakdown, an ansatz limitation, or an under-resolved branch segment rather than a genuine critical solution. Because the electric-versus-magnetic asymmetry is the central new structural result, please supply convergence evidence and a physical endpoint diagnostic (e.g., horizon quantities, curvature invariants, or an extremal limit) before this claim can be accepted.
[3.2, Eqs. (26), (29)] The perturbative equations are stated without derivation and without displaying the background Schwarzschild metric in the coordinates of Eq. (8). The equations (26) and (29) are the basis for all eigenvalues in Table 1 and hence for the labeling of every branch. Please include the linearized vector-field equation, the explicit background metric (including the relation between r, r_H, and M), the derivation of the ODEs, and a description of the numerical method used to solve the eigenvalue problem, together with error estimates for λ_ℓ/M².
[3.3, Figure 3] The claim that electric branches 'continue to larger values of λ/M²; no upper endpoint was found' is based on a finite numerical scan. To make this meaningful, report the largest λ/M² attained on each branch, the behavior of the solution and control parameters there, and how the branch was continued (e.g., step size, number of grid points). As written, the reader cannot distinguish an open-ended branch from a branch that was not explored far enough.

minor comments (7)

[Abstract] The sentence 'The magnetic branches instead exist only on finite intervals of the coupling' overstates the evidence, which covers only the fundamental branches ℓ=0,...,3; please add this qualification.
[Section 2.1/Eq. (8)] The compactified coordinate x=1−r_H/r is introduced, but the relation between r, r_H and the mass M (and the explicit Schwarzschild background used in the perturbative calculation) is never given; please state it at first use.
[Eq. (18)] The functions P_ℓ and \tilde P_ℓ are used in Eq. (18) but defined only in Section 3.2; add a forward reference or define them at first occurrence.
[Eq. (21)] The quantity \tilde R is called the scalar curvature of the horizon but is not defined; please define it in terms of h_ij to avoid ambiguity with \tilde R in Eq. (7).
[Figure 4] The rows of Figure 4 are described only as 'the first row' and 'the further rows'; label each row with its ℓ value (ℓ=0,2,1,3) in the text.
[Section 3.4] The phrase 'magnetic dipole branch at ℓ=0' is confusing because \tilde P_0 is nodeless in angle; clarify that ℓ labels the angular function H used in the ansatz A_φ=H sin²θ, not the physical multipole of A_φ.
[Tables 1 and 2] The tables quote six significant digits without error estimates or a statement of the numerical tolerance; please add this information or note the precision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the perturbative eigenvalues, nonlinear solutions, and multipole moments are independently obtained; self-citations are methodological and not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is self-contained. The bifurcation couplings lambda_l in Table 1 are computed from the linearized vector-field equations (26) and (29) on the fixed Schwarzschild background, with boundary conditions stated in Section 3.2; these are eigenvalue problems independent of the nonlinear branches. The nonlinear solutions are obtained by solving the coupled PDE system from the action (1), with the vector-field and metric functions extracted rather than imposed, and the multipole moments q_l and mu_l are read off from the asymptotic expansions (18), (30), and (32). The statement that even-l and odd-l moments remain separated follows directly from the equatorial symmetry conditions (15)-(17) imposed in the ansatz, so it is a logical consequence rather than a fitted prediction. The authors' prior work (Refs. [43] and [51]) is cited for the numerical procedure and for the previously known l=0 branches, but the new l=1,2,3 electric and magnetic branches are constructed here, and no uniqueness theorem or central premise is imported from a self-citation. The identification of magnetic critical endpoints by non-convergence of the solver (Section 3.1) is a numerical robustness issue, not a circular reduction: the endpoints are not defined to be equal to the bifurcation data or to any parameter that was fitted as an input. No equation or claim in the paper reduces by construction to its own input, so there is no significant circularity.

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

The central results rest on the chosen model, the static axisymmetric ansatz, the stated boundary conditions, the unproven linearized perturbation equations, and the assumption that the numerical solver correctly identifies regular solutions. No parameters are fitted to data; λ is scanned and eigenvalues are computed independently.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The EvGB action (1) with quadratic coupling λ AµAµ R²_GB defines the theory.
All results are obtained within this specific model; the paper does not derive the action from a more fundamental theory.
domain assumption The static, axisymmetric ansatz (8) with either purely electric (9) or purely magnetic (10) vector field captures all relevant solutions.
Mixed configurations are argued to be inconsistent for static solutions in Section 2.1, but the ansatz itself restricts the solution space.
domain assumption The linear perturbation equations (26) and (29) on the Schwarzschild background are the correct reduced vector equations.
These ODEs are stated without derivation in Section 3.2; the bifurcation eigenvalues in Table 1 depend on them.
domain assumption The boundary conditions (12) to (17) enforce regularity at the horizon, asymptotic flatness, axis regularity, and the chosen equatorial symmetry.
These conditions select the class of regular solutions the numerical solver targets.
domain assumption Convergence of the nonlinear elliptic solver to a regular solution implies existence of a bona fide black hole solution.
No convergence or existence proof is given; the solver is trusted as in previous work, and critical endpoints are inferred from loss of convergence.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Static multipolar Einstein-vector-Gauss-Bonnet black holes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FALVX2DP

@misc{pith2026260811900,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Static multipolar Einstein-vector-Gauss-Bonnet black holes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FALVX2DP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.11900}
}

abstract

We construct and analyze static multipolar black holes in Einstein-vector-Gauss-Bonnet theory with a quadratic coupling function. The vectorized solutions bifurcate from the Schwarzschild black hole at discrete values of the Gauss-Bonnet coupling, obtained from a perturbative eigenvalue problem on the Schwarzschild background and labelled by the angular multipole number $\ell$. We restrict to the fundamental radial branches. The electric sector contains the known spherically symmetric $\ell=0$ branch as well as axisymmetric branches with $\ell>0$. These electric branches extend to larger values of the coupling. The magnetic sector features a sequence of axisymmetric branches, including the previously found magnetic dipole branch at $\ell=0$. The magnetic branches instead exist only on finite intervals of the coupling, ending at critical solutions. Away from the bifurcation point, nonlinearities generate additional multipoles, but even-$\ell$ and odd-$\ell$ moments remain separated.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.11900 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Perturbative magnetic EvGB black holes: (a) radial funct [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Static electric EvGB black holes. The left panels show scaled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Static magnetic EvGB black holes. The left panels show scale [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

[71]

H. W. Chiang, S. Garcia-Saenz and A. Sang, [arXiv:2605.13920 [gr -qc]]. 15

work page Pith review arXiv
[1]

J. F. Donoghue, [arXiv:gr-qc/9512024 [gr-qc]]

arXiv
[2]

C. P. Burgess, Living Rev. Rel. 7, 5 (2004)

2004
[3]

Berti, E

E. Berti, E. Barausse, V. Cardoso, L. Gualtieri, P. Pani, U. Sper hake, L. C. Stein, N. Wex, K. Yagi and T. Baker, et al. , Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 243001 (2015)

work page 2015
[4]

E. N. Saridakis et al. [CANTATA],Modiﬁed Gravity and Cosmology: An Update by the CANTATA Network, (Springer, Cham, 2021)

2021
[5]

Faraoni and S

V. Faraoni and S. Capozziello, Beyond Einstein Gravity: A Survey of Gravitational Theories for Cosmology and Astrophysics , (Springer, Dordrecht, 2011)

2011
[6]

G. W. Horndeski, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 10, 363 (1974)

1974
[7]

Charmousis, E

C. Charmousis, E. J. Copeland, A. Padilla and P. M. Saﬃn, Phys. Re v. Lett. 108, 051101 (2012)

2012

Show all 71 references

[8]

Kobayashi, M

T. Kobayashi, M. Yamaguchi and J. Yokoyama, Prog. Theor. Ph ys. 126, 511 (2011)

2011
[9]

Moura and R

F. Moura and R. Schiappa, Class. Quant. Grav. 24, 361 (2007)

2007
[10]

Kanti, N

P. Kanti, N. E. Mavromatos, J. Rizos, K. Tamvakis and E. Winsta nley, Phys. Rev. D 54, 5049 (1996)

1996
[11]

Torii, H

T. Torii, H. Yajima and K. i. Maeda, Phys. Rev. D 55, 739 (1997)

1997
[12]

Pani and V

P. Pani and V. Cardoso, Phys. Rev. D 79, 084031 (2009)

2009
[13]

Kleihaus, J

B. Kleihaus, J. Kunz and E. Radu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 151104 (2011) 12

2011
[14]

T. P. Sotiriou and S. Y. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D 90, 124063 (2014)

2014
[15]

D. D. Doneva and S. S. Yazadjiev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 131103 (2018)

2018
[16]

H. O. Silva, J. Sakstein, L. Gualtieri, T. P. Sotiriou and E. Berti, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 131104 (2018)

2018
[17]

Antoniou, A

G. Antoniou, A. Bakopoulos and P. Kanti, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 131102 (2018)

2018
[18]

Damour and G

T. Damour and G. Esposito-Farese, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 2220 (1993)

1993
[19]

P. V. P. Cunha, C. A. R. Herdeiro and E. Radu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 011101 (2019)

2019
[20]

L. G. Collodel, B. Kleihaus, J. Kunz and E. Berti, Class. Quant. Grav. 37, 075018 (2020)

2020
[21]

A. Dima, E. Barausse, N. Franchini and T. P. Sotiriou, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 231101 (2020)

2020
[22]

Hod, Phys

S. Hod, Phys. Rev. D 102, 084060 (2020)

2020
[23]

D. D. Doneva, L. G. Collodel, C. J. Kr¨ uger and S. S. Yazadjiev, Phys. Rev. D 102, 104027 (2020)

2020
[24]

C. A. R. Herdeiro, E. Radu, H. O. Silva, T. P. Sotiriou and N. Yune s, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 011103 (2021)

2021
[25]

Berti, L

E. Berti, L. G. Collodel, B. Kleihaus and J. Kunz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 011104 (2021)

2021
[26]

D. D. Doneva and S. S. Yazadjiev, Phys. Rev. D 105, L041502 (2022)

2022
[27]

J. L. Bl´ azquez-Salcedo, D. D. Doneva, J. Kunz and S. S. Yaza djiev, Phys. Rev. D 105, 124005 (2022)

2022
[28]

D. D. Doneva, L. G. Collodel and S. S. Yazadjiev, Phys. Rev. D 106, 104027 (2022)

2022
[29]

M. Y. Lai, D. C. Zou, R. H. Yue and Y. S. Myung, Phys. Rev. D 108, 084007 (2023)

2023
[30]

D. D. Doneva, F. M. Ramazano˘ glu, H. O. Silva, T. P. Sotiriou and S. S. Yazadjiev, Rev. Mod. Phys. 96, 015004 (2024)

2024
[31]

G. W. Horndeski, J. Math. Phys. 17, 1980 (1976)

1976
[32]

Tasinato, JHEP 04, 067 (2014)

G. Tasinato, JHEP 04, 067 (2014)

2014
[33]

Heisenberg, JCAP 05, 015 (2014)

L. Heisenberg, JCAP 05, 015 (2014)

2014
[34]

Tasinato, Class

G. Tasinato, Class. Quant. Grav. 31, 225004 (2014)

2014
[35]

Chagoya, G

J. Chagoya, G. Niz and G. Tasinato, Class. Quant. Grav. 33, 175007 (2016). 13

2016
[36]

Z. Y. Fan, JHEP 09, 039 (2016)

2016
[37]

Babichev, C

E. Babichev, C. Charmousis and M. Hassaine, JHEP 05, 114 (2017)

2017
[38]

Chagoya, G

J. Chagoya, G. Niz and G. Tasinato, Class. Quant. Grav. 34, 165002 (2017)

2017
[39]

Heisenberg, R

L. Heisenberg, R. Kase, M. Minamitsuji and S. Tsujikawa, Phys . Rev. D 96, 084049 (2017)

2017
[40]

Heisenberg, R

L. Heisenberg, R. Kase, M. Minamitsuji and S. Tsujikawa, JCAP 1708, 024 (2017)

2017
[41]

Verbin, Phys

Y. Verbin, Phys. Rev. D 106, 2 (2022)

2022
[42]

J. M. S. Oliveira and A. M. Pombo, Phys. Rev. D 103, 044004 (2021)

2021
[43]

Barton, B

S. Barton, B. Hartmann, B. Kleihaus and J. Kunz, Phys. Lett. B 817, 136336 (2021)

2021
[44]

Minamitsuji and K

M. Minamitsuji and K. i. Maeda, Phys. Rev. D 110, 024047 (2024)

2024
[45]

Charmousis, P

C. Charmousis, P. G. S. Fernandes and M. Hassaine, Phys. Rev . D 111, 12 (2025)

2025
[46]

Eichhorn and P

A. Eichhorn and P. G. S. Fernandes, Phys. Rev. D 113, L081501 (2026)

2026
[47]

R. A. Konoplya and A. Zhidenko, Phys. Lett. B 872, 140108 (2026)

2026
[48]

B. C. L¨ utf¨ uo˘ glu, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1076 (2025)

2025
[49]

R. A. Konoplya, D. Ovchinnikov and J. Schee, Phys. Rev. D 113, 024059 (2026)

2026
[50]

P. G. S. Fernandes, [arXiv:2601.21163 [gr-qc]]
[51]

Kleihaus and J

B. Kleihaus and J. Kunz, Phys. Lett. B 879, 140640 (2026)

2026
[52]

F. M. Ramazano˘ glu, Phys. Rev. D 96, 064009 (2017)

2017
[53]

F. M. Ramazano˘ glu, Phys. Rev. D 97, 024008 (2018)

2018
[54]

F. M. Ramazano˘ glu, Phys. Rev. D 99, 084015 (2019)

2019
[55]

F. M. Ramazano˘ glu and K. ˙I. ¨Unl¨ ut¨ urk, Phys. Rev. D100, 084026 (2019)

2019
[56]

Israel, Phys

W. Israel, Phys. Rev. 164, 1776 (1967)

1967
[57]

Kleihaus and J

B. Kleihaus and J. Kunz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 1595 (1997)

1997
[58]

R. M. Wald, General Relativity, (Chicago Univ. Pr., Chicago, USA, 1984)

1984
[59]

Lee and R

J. Lee and R. M. Wald, J. Math. Phys. 31, 725 (1990)

1990
[60]

R. M. Wald, Phys. Rev. D 48, 3427 (1993) 14

1993
[61]

Iyer and R

V. Iyer and R. M. Wald, Phys. Rev. D 50, 846 (1994)

1994
[62]

Hajian and M

K. Hajian and M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, Phys. Rev. D 93, 044074 (2016)

2016
[63]

Ghodrati, K

M. Ghodrati, K. Hajian and M. R. Setare, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 701 (2016)

2016
[64]

Hajian, S

K. Hajian, S. Liberati, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari and M. H. Vahidinia, Phys. Lett. B 812, 136002 (2020)

2020
[65]

Garcia-Saenz, A

S. Garcia-Saenz, A. Held and J. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 131104 (2021)

2021
[66]

H. O. Silva, A. Coates, F. M. Ramazano˘ glu and T. P. Sotiriou, Ph ys. Rev. D 105, 024046 (2022)

2022
[67]

Clough, T

K. Clough, T. Helfer, H. Witek and E. Berti, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 15 (2022)

2022
[68]

Coates and F

A. Coates and F. M. Ramazano˘ glu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 151103 (2022)

2022
[69]

Pizzuti and A

L. Pizzuti and A. M. Pombo, Phys. Dark Univ. 43, 101427 (2024)

2024
[70]

C. Y. Chen, A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa, JCAP 07, 022 (2024)

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [71]

H. W. Chiang, S. Garcia-Saenz and A. Sang, [arXiv:2605.13920 [gr -qc]]. 15

work page Pith review arXiv

[2] [1]

J. F. Donoghue, [arXiv:gr-qc/9512024 [gr-qc]]

arXiv

[3] [2]

C. P. Burgess, Living Rev. Rel. 7, 5 (2004)

2004

[4] [3]

Berti, E

E. Berti, E. Barausse, V. Cardoso, L. Gualtieri, P. Pani, U. Sper hake, L. C. Stein, N. Wex, K. Yagi and T. Baker, et al. , Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 243001 (2015)

work page 2015

[5] [4]

E. N. Saridakis et al. [CANTATA],Modiﬁed Gravity and Cosmology: An Update by the CANTATA Network, (Springer, Cham, 2021)

2021

[6] [5]

Faraoni and S

V. Faraoni and S. Capozziello, Beyond Einstein Gravity: A Survey of Gravitational Theories for Cosmology and Astrophysics , (Springer, Dordrecht, 2011)

2011

[7] [6]

G. W. Horndeski, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 10, 363 (1974)

1974

[8] [7]

Charmousis, E

C. Charmousis, E. J. Copeland, A. Padilla and P. M. Saﬃn, Phys. Re v. Lett. 108, 051101 (2012)

2012