Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 114 references

Gravitational Effective Field Theories and Black Hole Mechanics

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Effective field theory corrections to gravity preserve the zeroth law of black hole mechanics to the accuracy of the EFT, with generalized entropy restoring the first and second laws.

desk verdict A carefully written and genuinely novel extension of black-hole EFT results, but the central theorems are conditional on an unproved rigidity conjecture; worth refereeing if that assumption is addressed. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14023 v1 pith:FSIOZLRW submitted 2024-11-21 gr-qc hep-th

Iain Davies This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qchep-th MSC 83C5783C0583C2283D05
keywords effectivefieldtheoryblackholemechanicszerothlawseconddynamicalentropywell-posednessmodifiedharmonicgaugeEinstein-Maxwell
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

This thesis asks whether the laws of black hole mechanics survive when General Relativity is treated as the leading term in an effective field theory (EFT). Its central answer is that they do, but only up to the truncation error of the EFT and with a generalized notion of entropy. The author proves an approximate zeroth law for stationary black holes in EFTs of gravity coupled to electromagnetism and a charged or uncharged scalar field: the surface gravity and the horizon electric potential are constant up to $\mathcal{O}_\infty(l^{N-1/2})$. The thesis also proves a non-perturbative second law for dynamical black holes using a generalized entropy construction, and shows that a modified harmonic gauge gives a locally well-posed initial value problem for the leading Einstein-Maxwell EFT when the higher-derivative terms are small. A sympathetic reader would care because these results put the thermodynamic analogy for black holes on firmer ground in any theory that reduces to General Relativity at low energies.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the boost-weight expansion in Gaussian null coordinates. Near a stationary horizon, quantities in affinely parameterized Gaussian null coordinates carry a boost weight, and positive boost weight quantities vanish on the horizon once the relevant constancy conditions hold; the EFT equations of motion then force the horizon gradient of $\kappa$ and the electric field to descend order by order in $l$. For the well-posedness result, the machinery is a modified harmonic gauge with two auxiliary metrics whose null cones are nested with the physical one; this splits the principal symbol into six eigenvalue groups and permits an explicit symmetrizer, yielding strong hyperbolicity.

What would settle it

A concrete check: construct a stationary, weakly coupled Einstein-Maxwell-scalar black hole with a spherical horizon and test whether $\sup_C |\partial_A\kappa|$ and $\sup_C |V_A|$ both remain bounded by $C\,l^{N-1/2}$ as $l\to 0$; the zeroth-law claim fails if either ratio grows without bound.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that within their regime of validity, gravitational EFTs are not only mathematically well-posed but also continue to obey the thermodynamic laws of black holes, with two amendments: the zeroth law holds only approximately, and the entropy entering the first and second laws must be a generalized dynamical entropy rather than the area entropy. For stationary black holes in EFTs of gravity, electromagnetism and a charged or uncharged scalar field, the thesis proves $\partial_A\kappa = \mathcal{O}_\infty(l^{N-1/2})$ and $V_A = F_{\tau A}|_C = \mathcal{O}_\infty(l^{N-1/2})$ on the horizon, where $l^N$ is the truncation error of the effective Lagrangian. For dynamical black holes that settle to equilibrium, it constructs an entropy that satisfies the second law non-perturbatively up to $\mathcal{O}(l^N)$ terms. Separately, it claims that the leading Einstein-Maxwell EFT admits a strongly hyperbolic formulation in modified harmonic gauge when the higher-derivative terms are small, which gives local well-posedness.

Load-bearing premise

The Rigidity Theorem, that a stationary black hole horizon is a Killing horizon, is assumed to hold in every EFT with matter even though it has been proved only for vacuum gravity EFTs; if a stationary horizon were not a Killing horizon, the surface gravity and the coordinate constructions used throughout the proofs would not be defined.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The zeroth law in EFT is an approximate theorem: surface gravity and electric potential are constant on the horizon up to $\mathcal{O}_\infty(l^{N-1/2})$, an error beyond the accuracy to which the Lagrangian is known.
  • The first law holds for stationary EFT black holes if the horizon entropy is the covariant Noether-charge entropy rather than the area over $4G$.
  • The second law holds non-perturbatively for dynamical EFT black holes that settle to equilibrium, provided the entropy is defined by the generalized construction, with violations bounded by $\mathcal{O}(l^N)$.
  • The leading Einstein-Maxwell EFT has a locally well-posed initial value problem in modified harmonic gauge when the higher-derivative terms are small, placing numerical evolution of such EFTs on firmer ground.
  • The proof avoids assuming analyticity in the UV scale, so it remains valid in time-dependent settings where a naive expansion in $l$ would produce secular growth.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the zeroth-law error is genuinely $\mathcal{O}(l^{N-1/2})$ rather than $\mathcal{O}(l^N)$, the horizon electric field, not the geometry, is the limiting factor; a sharper estimate may be obtainable by exploiting Maxwell's equations on the horizon.
  • The same boost-weight induction is likely to extend to non-abelian gauge fields or $p$-form fields whenever their positive boost-weight components are forced to vanish by the matter equations of motion, but the paper does not perform that extension.
  • Because the generalized dynamical entropy is gauge-dependent beyond order $l^4$, any comparison of black hole entropy across different EFT truncations must fix the same Gaussian null gauge; a fully gauge-invariant entropy current remains open.
  • The well-posedness result for the parity-symmetric theory suggests that parity-violating Einstein-Maxwell EFTs may require a different gauge or fail to be strongly hyperbolic, a testable gap not covered by the thesis.
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. This PhD thesis develops a mathematical framework for effective field theories (EFTs) of gravity and matter, focusing on two issues: well-posedness of the initial value problem for the leading Einstein-Maxwell EFT, and the validity of the laws of black hole mechanics in gravitational EFTs. Chapter 2 proves that a modified harmonic gauge formulation of the leading parity-symmetric Einstein-Maxwell EFT is strongly hyperbolic and hence locally well-posed when the higher-derivative terms are small. Chapters 4-6 prove a zeroth law (Eq. 4.47), a first-law identification via Wald entropy, and a second law (up to O(l^N) terms) for EFTs of gravity coupled to electromagnetism and a charged/uncharged scalar field, using boost-weight techniques and a generalized HKR entropy. The results are carefully qualified by a regime-of-validity definition, but they rely on two explicitly stated assumptions: the extension of the Rigidity Theorem to matter-coupled EFTs (Sec. 3.1) and O(1) constants in standard functional inequalities on the horizon cross-section (Sec. 4.3.1).

Significance. If the stated results hold, this is a substantial contribution to the mathematical physics of gravitational EFTs. The well-posedness result in Chapter 2 extends a nontrivial line of work from scalar-tensor to Einstein-Maxwell EFTs, and does so with a complete, detailed symmetrizer construction. The zeroth and second law results provide the first systematic treatment of black hole mechanics in EFTs with matter fields, and the boost-weight inductive scheme is elegant and likely to be influential. The manuscript is transparent about its assumptions and limitations, which is a genuine strength: the reader is never misled about what is proved versus what is assumed. The main value is therefore conditional, but conditional theorems of this quality are still publishable if the caveats are made prominent.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.1] The Rigidity Theorem is stated to hold in all EFTs studied, including those with matter, even though it has only been proved for vacuum gravity EFTs [67]. This assumption is load-bearing for every subsequent claim: the Killing vector ξ, the surface gravity κ in Eq. (3.12), the Killing-vector GNCs of Sec. 3.4.2, the zeroth law bound ∂_A κ = O∞(l^{N-1/2}) in Eq. (4.47), the first-law identification, and the late-time equilibrium state used in Chapter 5 all require the horizon to be a Killing horizon. Since the proofs in Chapter 4 do not construct ξ but take it as given, the central claims for matter-coupled EFTs are conditional on an open extension of a deep theorem. The manuscript acknowledges this in a single sentence, but the abstract and introduction present the results without this caveat. I recommend that the main theorems be explicitly stated as conditional on this rigidity assumption, or that the claims be restricted to the vacuum case where rigidity is proved.
  2. [Sec. 4.3.1] The assumption that the constants in Sobolev, Poincaré, and elliptic estimates on the compact Riemannian manifold (C, h_AB) are O(1) as l/L → 0 is unproved and is necessary for the central conclusion of the chapter. The inductive loop in Sec. 4.3.4 uses these estimates to upgrade a weak bound on V_A = F_{τA}|_C to the L^∞-type statement V_A = O∞(l^{N-1/2}) in Eq. (4.47). If the constants grow or shrink with l/L, the claimed order in l is not established. This is a technical gap that may be fixable in principle, for example by proving uniform bounds on h_AB and its derivatives under the stated regime-of-validity assumptions, or by stating the zeroth law result in an L^2 norm. As it stands, however, the proof of the main result is conditional on an unverified analytic assumption.
  3. [Secs. 5.2 and 5.4] The claim of a non-perturbative second law (up to O(l^N)) for dynamical black holes in EFTs with electromagnetic and scalar fields relies on the same equilibrium/horizon-completeness assumptions used for the zeroth law, and it inherits the rigidity assumption of Sec. 3.1. Moreover, the entropy construction is shown in Chapter 6 to be gauge-dependent beyond order l^4, so the non-perturbative statement can only hold for a particular choice of affine GNCs or up to the order at which gauge invariance is proven. The discussion in Sec. 5.2 would benefit from a precise theorem-environment stating exactly which assumptions enter the result, including the rigidity assumption, the O(1) constants of Sec. 4.3.1, and the gauge-choice restriction.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.5.1] The notation for the principal-symbol block decomposition (P_gg, P_gm, etc.) is dense; a small table or a summary of the index conventions would make the chapter much more readable for a first-year postgraduate audience.
  2. [Sec. 3.5.3] The properties (i)-(iii) for a dynamical entropy are introduced informally in the text and then referred to by number; labelling them explicitly as a displayed list would improve clarity.
  3. [Sec. 3.1] When the Rigidity Theorem is first invoked, the reference [67] is cited, but the reader is not told that the theorem is restricted to vacuum EFTs until the sentence 'Going forward, we will assume...' . Moving this caveat to the first mention of the theorem would prevent a misleading first reading.
  4. [Sec. 6.4.2] The explicit expressions for s^A in cubic Riemann Lagrangians are relegated to App. 6.7.2; a brief indication in the main text of the structure of these expressions (e.g., which contractions are retained) would help the reader follow the GNC-gauge discussion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the EFT laws are derived from the equations of motion under stated assumptions; prior work by the same group is used constructively and re-derived where load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Chapter 2 proves strong hyperbolicity by an explicit construction of the symmetrizer for the Einstein-Maxwell EFT principal symbol (Secs. 2.5-2.7); although the method is taken from [37], the key steps (eigenspaces V±, Hermitian forms, symmetrizer) are re-derived for the new system rather than assumed. Chapter 4's zeroth law is an induction on the EFT equations of motion: (4.45)-(4.46) are evaluated on the horizon, the coordinate transformation (4.17) is used to show higher-derivative terms have positive boost weight and hence vanish or are small, and elliptic estimates upgrade the order; the final bound (4.47) is a consequence of the EOM and the regime-of-validity bounds (4.8), not an input. Chapter 5 constructs entropy by completing squares in the EOM, so monotonicity follows from the algebra; the HKR starting point [33] is extended, not merely restated. No parameter is fitted to data and renamed a prediction. The one explicitly flagged open assumption is the extension of the Rigidity Theorem to matter-coupled EFTs (Sec. 3.1); this makes the theorems conditional on a conjecture, which is a correctness risk rather than a circular step. Self-citations (e.g., [37], [76], [33]) are to prior constructions with independent contents and are not used to forbid alternatives or to assert the conclusion.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central theorems depend on a cluster of background assumptions: EFT regime of validity, rigidity and smoothness of horizons, topology of horizon cross-sections, and regular perturbation theory. Most are stated explicitly; one set of analytic constants is admitted as unproved. No data are fitted, and no ad hoc physical entities are introduced beyond the auxiliary gauge metrics.

free parameters (1)
  • EFT coupling coefficients c1, c2, c3 and higher-order l^n terms
    Arbitrary coefficients of the 4- and higher-derivative terms in the effective action (Eqs. 2.6 and 4.39). The proofs are required to hold for all values that keep the theory weakly coupled; these coefficients are not fitted to data.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Regime of validity of EFT: fields and their n-derivative quantities bounded by c_n/L^n with L >> l
    Used throughout Chapters 4 and 5. Introduced in Section 1.1.5 and formalized in Section 4.1.2 as O∞(l^k) bounds.
  • domain assumption Rigidity theorem holds for EFTs with matter
    Stated in Section 3.1 and assumed for all EFTs studied, even though only vacuum gravity EFTs are cited as proved.
  • domain assumption Horizon is smooth, its generators extend to infinite affine parameter to the future, and the black hole settles down to equilibrium
    Used for Gaussian null coordinate constructions and for the second law in Sections 3.4 and 3.5.3.
  • domain assumption Horizon cross-section C is closed and simply connected
    Used to define the electric potential globally and to neglect boundary terms in Section 4.3.1.
  • domain assumption c1(φ) is bounded below by a positive constant, so the 2-derivative matter satisfies the null energy condition
    Assumed in Section 4.3 to make the zeroth law argument work for the leading-order matter theory.
  • ad hoc to paper Constants in Sobolev, Poincaré and elliptic estimates on (C, h_AB) are O(1) as l/L goes to zero
    Explicitly assumed in Section 4.3.1 with the admission that this is swept under the rug and taken as another assumption.
  • standard math Standard background tools: strong hyperbolicity implies local well-posedness; boost weight bookkeeping; differential geometry identities
    Used as mathematical infrastructure in Chapters 2 and 4.
invented entities (1)
  • Auxiliary metrics g̃_μν and ĝ_μν
    purpose: Unphysical gauge-fixing metrics introduced in the modified harmonic gauge to split degenerate characteristic eigenvalues and prove strong hyperbolicity
    Introduced in Section 2.3.2 as pure mathematical tools with no physical degrees of freedom, so no independent falsifiable handle is expected.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gravitational Effective Field Theories and Black Hole Mechanics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FSIOZLRW

@misc{pith2026241114023,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gravitational Effective Field Theories and Black Hole Mechanics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FSIOZLRW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14023}
}
read the original abstract

This PhD thesis is submitted to arXiv as a pedagogical resource on gravitational effective field theories and the laws of black hole mechanics. It begins with an introduction to the mathematics and intuition behind effective field theory (EFT) corrections to General Relativity (GR) pitched at the level of a first year postgraduate course. Chapter 3 contains a similarly accessible discussion of the laws of black hole mechanics, their derivation in GR, and why they are a particularly interesting setting in which to apply EFT. The novel research is contained in Chapters 2 and 4-7. The first of these studies the well-posedness of gravitational EFTs. Specifically, we show that a "modified harmonic" gauge produces a strongly hyperbolic formulation of the leading order Einstein-Maxwell EFT so long as the higher derivative terms are small. The latter Chapters are concerned with proving the validity of the laws of black hole mechanics in EFTs of gravity and broad classes of matter fields. We demonstrate that the zeroth law can be proved for EFTs of gravity, electromagnetism and a charged or uncharged scalar field. We find we must modify the statements of the first and second laws by generalizing the formula of black hole entropy from the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy used in GR. For stationary black holes, the Wald entropy is a sufficient definition to satisfy the first law in EFT. For dynamical black holes we show that with further corrections we can prove a non-perturbative second law. We discuss the gauge dependence of this definition of dynamical black hole entropy and provide explicit constructions for specific EFTs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14023 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Four Photon Vertex in EFT: The Feynman graphs contributing the leading [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Cotangent space at a point, showing the null cones of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

114 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [67]

    A stationary black hole must be axisymmetric in effective field theory

    S. Hollands, A. Ishibashi and H. S. Reall, “A Stationary Black Hole Must be Axisymmetric in Effective Field Theory,” Commun. Math. Phys.401 (2023) no.3, 2757-2791 doi:10.1007/s00220-023-04700-1 [arXiv:2212.06554 [gr-qc]]. 174

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  2. [1]

    Théorème d’existence pour certains systèmes d’équations aux dérivées partielles non linéaires,

    Y. Fourès-Bruhat, “Théorème d’existence pour certains systèmes d’équations aux dérivées partielles non linéaires,” Acta Math. 88, 141 - 225, (1952) doi:10.1007/BF02392131

    doi:10.1007/bf02392131 1952

  3. [2]

    On the numerical integration of Einstein’s field equations,

    T. W. Baumgarte and S. L. Shapiro, “On the numerical integration of Einstein’s field equations,” Phys. Rev. D59, 024007 (1998) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.59.024007 [arXiv:gr-qc/9810065 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 1998

  4. [3]

    Evolution of three-dimensional gravita- tional waves: Harmonic slicing case,

    M. Shibata and T. Nakamura, “Evolution of three-dimensional gravita- tional waves: Harmonic slicing case,” Phys. Rev. D 52, 5428-5444 (1995) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.52.5428

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.52.5428 1995

  5. [4]

    Hyperbolicity of the BSSN system of Einstein evolution equations,

    O. Sarbach, G. Calabrese, J. Pullin and M. Tiglio, “Hyperbolicity of the BSSN system of Einstein evolution equations,” Phys. Rev. D66, 064002 (2002) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.66.064002 [arXiv:gr-qc/0205064 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 2002

  6. [5]

    Strongly hyperbolic second order Einstein’s evolution equations,

    G. Nagy, O. E. Ortiz and O. A. Reula, “Strongly hyperbolic second order Einstein’s evolution equations,” Phys. Rev. D 70, 044012 (2004) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.70.044012 [arXiv:gr-qc/0402123 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 2004

  7. [6]

    Proof of the positive mass theorem. II,

    R. Schoen and S.T. Yau, “Proof of the positive mass theorem. II,” Comm.Math. Phys. 79, 231–260 (1981) https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01942062

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01942062 1981

  8. [7]

    A new proof of the positive energy theorem,

    E. Witten, “A new proof of the positive energy theorem,” Comm. Math. Phys. 80, 381 (1981) https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01208277

    doi:10.1007/bf01208277 1981

Show all 114 references
  1. [8]

    TheFourlawsofblackholemechanics,

    J.M.Bardeen, B.CarterandS.W.Hawking, “TheFourlawsofblackholemechanics,” Comm. Math. Phys.31, 161–170 (1973) https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01645742

    1973 doi

  2. [9]

    Particle creation by black holes,

    S.W. Hawking, “Particle creation by black holes,” Comm. Math. Phys. 43, 199–220 (1975) https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02345020 169

    1975 doi

  3. [10]

    The cosmological constant,

    R. Bousso, “The cosmological constant,” Gen Relativ Gravit 40, 607–637 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10714-007-0557-5

    2008 doi

  4. [11]

    Modified Gravity and Cosmology,

    T. Clifton, P. G. Ferreira, A. Padilla and C. Skordis, “Modified Gravity and Cosmology,” Phys. Rept. 513 (2012), 1-189 doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2012.01.001 [arXiv:1106.2476 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2012 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Introduction to modified gravity and gravitational alternative for dark energy,

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, “Introduction to modified gravity and gravitational alternative for dark energy,” eConf C0602061 (2006), 06 doi:10.1142/S0219887807001928 [arXiv:hep-th/0601213 [hep-th]]

    2006 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Gravitational Instability in the Brans-Dicke Cosmology,

    H. Nariai, “Gravitational Instability in the Brans-Dicke Cosmology,” Progress of Theoretical Physics, 42, 3, (1969), 544–554, https://doi.org/10.1143/PTP.42.544

    1969 doi

  7. [14]

    General second order scalar-tensor theory, self tuning, and the Fab Four,

    C. Charmousis, E. J. Copeland, A. Padilla and P. M. Saffin, “General second order scalar-tensor theory, self tuning, and the Fab Four,” Phys. Rev. Lett.108 (2012), 051101 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.051101 [arXiv:1106.2000 [hep-th]]

    2012 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Kaluza-Klein Cosmologies,

    P. G. O. Freund, “Kaluza-Klein Cosmologies,” Nucl. Phys. B209 (1982), 146 doi:10.1016/0550-3213(82)90106-7

    1982 doi

  9. [16]

    Introduction to Effective Field Theory

    C. P. Burgess, “Introduction to Effective Field Theory", Cambridge University Press, (2020) doi:10.1017/9781139048040

    2020 doi

  10. [17]

    Dynamics of the standard model,

    J. F. Donoghue, E. Golowich and B. R. Holstein, “Dynamics of the standard model,” Camb. Monogr. Part. Phys. Nucl. Phys. Cosmol.2 (1992), 1-540 CUP, 2014, doi:10.1017/CBO9780511524370

    1992 doi

  11. [18]

    Effective Lagrangians for Bound State Problems in QED, QCD, and Other Field Theories,

    W. E. Caswell and G. P. Lepage, “Effective Lagrangians for Bound State Problems in QED, QCD, and Other Field Theories,” Phys. Lett. B167 (1986), 437-442 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(86)91297-9

    1986 doi

  12. [19]

    An Effective field theory of QCD at high density,

    D. K. Hong, “An Effective field theory of QCD at high density,” Phys. Lett. B 473 (2000), 118-125 doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(99)01472-0 [arXiv:hep-ph/9812510 [hep-ph]]

    2000 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Effective field theory and the Fermi surface,

    J. Polchinski, “Effective field theory and the Fermi surface,” (1992) [arXiv:hep- th/9210046 [hep-th]]

    1992

  14. [21]

    Effective Field Theory in Condensed Matter Physics,

    R. Shankar, “Effective Field Theory in Condensed Matter Physics,” lecture given at Boston Colloquium for the Philosophy of Science, Boston, Mass., 1996, [arXiv:cond- mat/9703210] 170

    1996

  15. [22]

    Quantum Gravity in Everyday Life: General Relativity as an Effective Field Theory

    C. P. Burgess, “Quantum Gravity in Everyday Life: General Relativity as an Effective Field Theory", Living Rev. Relativ.7, no.5 (2004) doi:10.12942/lrr-2004-5

    2004 doi

  16. [23]

    The effective field theory treatment of quantum gravity,

    J. F. Donoghue, “The effective field theory treatment of quantum gravity,” AIP Conf. Proc.1483 (2012) no.1, 73-94 doi:10.1063/1.4756964 [arXiv:1209.3511 [gr-qc]]

    2012 arXiv

  17. [24]

    An effective formalism for testing extensions to General Relativity with gravitational waves,

    S. Endlich, V. Gorbenko, J. Huang, and L. Senatore, “An effective formalism for testing extensions to General Relativity with gravitational waves,” JHEP09 (2017) 122, [arXiv:1704.01590]

    2017 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Leading higher-derivative corrections to Kerr geometry,

    P.A. Cano and A. Ruipérez, “Leading higher-derivative corrections to Kerr geometry,” J. High Energ. Phys.2019, 189 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05(2019)189

    2019 doi

  19. [26]

    Evolution of Einstein-scalar-Gauss-Bonnet gravity using a modified harmonic formulation,

    W. E. East and J. L. Ripley, “Evolution of Einstein-scalar-Gauss-Bonnet gravity using a modified harmonic formulation,” Phys. Rev. D103 (2021) no.4, 044040 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.044040 [arXiv:2011.03547 [gr-qc]]

    2021 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Does back reaction enforce the averaged null energy condition in semiclassical gravity?,

    E. E. Flanagan and R. M. Wald, “Does back reaction enforce the averaged null energy condition in semiclassical gravity?,” Phys. Rev. D54, 6233-6283 (1996) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.54.6233 [arXiv:gr-qc/9602052 [gr-qc]]

    1996 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Who You Gonna Call? Runaway Ghosts, Higher Derivatives and Time-Dependence in EFTs,

    C. P. Burgess and M. Williams, “Who You Gonna Call? Runaway Ghosts, Higher Derivatives and Time-Dependence in EFTs,” JHEP 08 (2014), 074 doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2014)074 [arXiv:1404.2236 [gr-qc]]

    2014 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Higher-derivative operators and effective field theory for general scalar-tensor theories,

    A. R. Solomon and M. Trodden, “Higher-derivative operators and effective field theory for general scalar-tensor theories,” JCAP02 (2018), 031 doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2018/02/031 [arXiv:1709.09695 [hep-th]]

    2018 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Towards the nonlinear regime in extensions to GR: assessing possible options,

    G. Allwright and L. Lehner, “Towards the nonlinear regime in extensions to GR: assessing possible options,” Class. Quant. Grav. 36 (2019) no.8, 084001 doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ab0ee1 [arXiv:1808.07897 [gr-qc]]

    2019 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Self-Consistent Modeling of Gravitational Theories beyond General Relativity,

    R. Cayuso, P. Figueras, T. França and L. Lehner, “Self-Consistent Modeling of Gravitational Theories beyond General Relativity,” Phys. Rev. Lett.131 (2023) no.11, 111403 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.111403

    2023 doi

  25. [32]

    Effective field theory and classical equa- tions of motion,

    H. S. Reall and C. M. Warnick, “Effective field theory and classical equa- tions of motion,” J. Math. Phys.63 (2022) no.4, 042901 doi:10.1063/5.0075455 [arXiv:2105.12028 [hep-th]]. 171

    2022 arXiv

  26. [33]

    The second law of black hole mechan- ics in effective field theory,

    S. Hollands, Á. D. Kovács and H. S. Reall, “The second law of black hole mechan- ics in effective field theory,” JHEP08 (2022), 258 doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2022)258 [arXiv:2205.15341 [hep-th]]

    2022 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Entropy-current for dynamical black holes in Chern-Simons theories of gravity,

    I. Deo, P. Dhivakar and N. Kundu, “Entropy-current for dynamical black holes in Chern-Simons theories of gravity,” JHEP 11 (2023), 114 doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2023)114 [arXiv:2306.12491 [hep-th]]

    2023 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Well-posed initial value formulation of general effective field theories of gravity,

    P. Figueras, A. Held and Á. D. Kovács, “Well-posed initial value formulation of general effective field theories of gravity,” [arXiv:2407.08775 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  29. [36]

    Well-Posed Formulation of Scalar-Tensor Effective Field Theory,

    Á. D. Kovács and H. S. Reall, “Well-Posed Formulation of Scalar-Tensor Effective Field Theory,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, no.22, 221101 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.221101 [arXiv:2003.04327 [gr-qc]]

    2020 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Well-posed formulation of Lovelock and Horndeski theories,

    Á. D. Kovács and H. S. Reall, “Well-posed formulation of Lovelock and Horndeski theories,” Phys. Rev. D101, no.12, 124003 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.124003 [arXiv:2003.08398 [gr-qc]]

    2020 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Well-posed formulation of Einstein-Maxwell effective field theory,

    I. Davies and H. S. Reall, “Well-posed formulation of Einstein-Maxwell effective field theory,” Phys. Rev. D 106, 104019 (2022)

    2022

  32. [39]

    The Initial Value Formulation of Higher Derivative Gravity,

    D. R. Noakes, “The Initial Value Formulation of Higher Derivative Gravity,” J. Math. Phys.24, 1846-1850 (1983) doi:10.1063/1.525906

    1983 doi

  33. [40]

    One Loop Divergences of Quantized Einstein- Maxwell Fields,

    S. Deser and P. van Nieuwenhuizen, “One Loop Divergences of Quantized Einstein- Maxwell Fields,” Phys. Rev. D10, 401 (1974) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.10.401

    1974 doi

  34. [41]

    TheBlackHoleWeakGravityConjecturewithMulti- ple Charges,

    C.R.T.JonesandB.McPeak, “TheBlackHoleWeakGravityConjecturewithMulti- ple Charges,” JHEP06, 140 (2020) doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2020)140 [arXiv:1908.10452 [hep-th]]

    2020 arXiv

  35. [42]

    QED Vacuum Polarization in a Background Gravitational Field and Its Effect on the Velocity of Photons,

    I. T. Drummond and S. J. Hathrell, “QED Vacuum Polarization in a Background Gravitational Field and Its Effect on the Velocity of Photons,” Phys. Rev. D22, 343 (1980) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.22.343

    1980 doi

  36. [43]

    Horndeski, “Conservation of charge and the Einstein–Maxwell field equations J

    G. Horndeski, “Conservation of charge and the Einstein–Maxwell field equations J. Math. Phys.17 (1980) doi:10.1063/1.522837

    1980 doi

  37. [44]

    Nonlinear electrodynam- ics as a symmetric hyperbolic system,

    F. Abalos, F. Carrasco, É. Goulart and O. Reula, “Nonlinear electrodynam- ics as a symmetric hyperbolic system,” Phys. Rev. D92, no.8, 084024 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.084024 [arXiv:1507.02262 [gr-qc]]. 172

    2015 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Extending the lifetime of 3-D black hole computations with a new hyperbolic system of evolution equations,

    L. E. Kidder, M. A. Scheel and S. A. Teukolsky, “Extending the lifetime of 3-D black hole computations with a new hyperbolic system of evolution equations,” Phys. Rev. D64, 064017 (2001) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.64.064017 [arXiv:gr-qc/0105031 [gr-qc]]

    2001 arXiv

  39. [46]

    On the local well-posedness of Lovelock and Horndeski theories,

    G. Papallo and H. S. Reall, “On the local well-posedness of Lovelock and Horndeski theories,” Phys. Rev. D96, no.4, 044019 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.044019 [arXiv:1705.04370 [gr-qc]]

    2017 arXiv

  40. [47]

    On the hyperbolicity of the most general Horndeski theory,

    G. Papallo, “On the hyperbolicity of the most general Horndeski theory,” Phys. Rev. D 96, no.12, 124036 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.124036 [arXiv:1710.10155 [gr-qc]]

    2017 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Well-posedness of cubic Horndeski theories,

    Á. D. Kovács, “Well-posedness of cubic Horndeski theories,” Phys. Rev. D100, no.2, 024005 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.024005 [arXiv:1904.00963 [gr-qc]]

    2019 arXiv

  42. [49]

    General Relativity,

    R. M. Wald, “General Relativity,” Chicago Univ. Pr., 1984, doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226870373.001.0001

    1984

  43. [50]

    Pseudodifferential Operators and Nonlinear PDE,

    M. E. Taylor, “Pseudodifferential Operators and Nonlinear PDE,” (Birkhäuser, Boston, MA, 1991)

    1991

  44. [51]

    The Einstein-Maxwell system in 3+1 form and initial data for multiple charged black holes,

    M. Alcubierre, J. C. Degollado and M. Salgado, “The Einstein-Maxwell system in 3+1 form and initial data for multiple charged black holes,” Phys. Rev. D80 (2009), 104022 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.104022 [arXiv:0907.1151 [gr-qc]]

    2009 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Causality in gravitational theories with second order equations of motion,

    H. S. Reall, “Causality in gravitational theories with second order equations of motion,” Phys. Rev. D103, no.8, 084027 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.084027 [arXiv:2101.11623 [gr-qc]]

    2021 arXiv

  46. [53]

    The large scale structure of space-time,

    S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, “The large scale structure of space-time,” Vol. 1. Cambridge University Press, (1973)

    1973

  47. [54]

    A Rotating Black Ring Solution in Five Dimensions,

    R. Emparan and H. S. Reall, “A Rotating Black Ring Solution in Five Dimensions,” Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 101101 (2002) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.101101

    2002 doi

  48. [55]

    Gravitational collapse and space-time singularities,

    R. Penrose, “Gravitational collapse and space-time singularities,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 14 (1965) 57–59. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.14.57

    1965 doi

  49. [56]

    Gravitational collapse: The role of general relativity,

    R. Penrose, “Gravitational collapse: The role of general relativity,” Riv. Nuovo Cim. 1 (1969) 252–276. doi:10.1023/A:1016578408204. 173

    1969 doi

  50. [57]

    First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. I. The Shadow of the Supermassive Black Hole,

    K. Akiyama, et al., “First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. I. The Shadow of the Supermassive Black Hole,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 875 (2019) L1. doi:10.3847/ 2041-8213/ab0ec7

    2019

  51. [58]

    High proper-motion stars in the vicinity of sagittariusa∗: Evidence for a supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy,

    A. M. Ghez, B. L. Klein, M. Morris, E. E. Becklin, “High proper-motion stars in the vicinity of sagittariusa∗: Evidence for a supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy,” The Astrophysical Journal 509 (2) (1998) 678–686. doi:10.1086/306528

    1998 doi

  52. [59]

    Monitoring stellar orbits around the Massive Black Hole in the Galactic Center,

    S. Gillessen, F. Eisenhauer, S. Trippe, T. Alexander, R. Genzel, F. Martins, T. Ott, “Monitoring stellar orbits around the Massive Black Hole in the Galactic Center,” Astrophys. J. 692 (2009) 1075–1109. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/692/2/1075

    2009 doi

  53. [60]

    On uniqueness of stationary vacuum black holes,

    P. T. Chrusciel, J. L. Costa, “On uniqueness of stationary vacuum black holes,” Géométrie différentielle, physique mathématique, mathématiques et société (I) : Volume en l’honneur de Jean Pierre Bourguignon, Astérisque, no. 321 (2008), pp. 195-265

    2008

  54. [61]

    Black holes in general relativity,

    S. W. Hawking, “Black holes in general relativity,” Commun. Math. Phys.25 (1972) 152–166

    1972

  55. [62]

    A Higher dimensional stationary rotating black hole must be axisymmetric,

    S. Hollands, A. Ishibashi and R. M. Wald, “A Higher dimensional stationary rotating black hole must be axisymmetric,” Commun. Math. Phys.271 (2007), 699-722 doi:10.1007/s00220-007-0216-4 [arXiv:gr-qc/0605106 [gr-qc]]

    2007 arXiv

  56. [63]

    Symmetries of Higher Dimensional Black Holes,

    V. Moncrief and J. Isenberg, “Symmetries of Higher Dimensional Black Holes,” Class. Quant. Grav. 25 (2008), 195015 doi:10.1088/0264-9381/25/19/195015 [arXiv:0805.1451 [gr-qc]]

    2008 arXiv

  57. [64]

    On the rigidity theorem for spacetimes with a stationary event horizon or a compact Cauchy horizon,

    H. Friedrich, I. Rácz, and R. M. Wald, “On the rigidity theorem for spacetimes with a stationary event horizon or a compact Cauchy horizon,” Commun. Math. Phys. 204 (1998) 691-707

    1998

  58. [65]

    On further generalization of the rigidity theorem for spacetimes with a stationary event horizon or a compact Cauchy horizon,

    I. Rácz, “On further generalization of the rigidity theorem for spacetimes with a stationary event horizon or a compact Cauchy horizon,” Class. Quant. Grav. 17, 153 (2000)

    2000

  59. [66]

    On the uniqueness of smooth, stationary black holes in vacuum,

    A. D. Ionescu and S. Klainerman, “On the uniqueness of smooth, stationary black holes in vacuum,” Invent. Math.175 (2008), 35 doi:10.1007/s00222-008-0146-6 [arXiv:0711.0040 [gr-qc]]

    2008 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Gravitational collapse to extremal black holes and the third law of black hole thermodynamics,

    C. Kehle and R. Unger, “Gravitational collapse to extremal black holes and the third law of black hole thermodynamics,” [arXiv:2211.15742 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  61. [69]

    Theorems on the Uniqueness and Thermal Properties of Stationary, Nonsingular, Quasifree States on Space-Times with a Bifurcate Killing Horizon,

    B. S. Kay and R. M. Wald, “Theorems on the Uniqueness and Thermal Properties of Stationary, Nonsingular, Quasifree States on Space-Times with a Bifurcate Killing Horizon,” Phys. Rept.207 (1991), 49-136 doi:10.1016/0370-1573(91)90015-E

    1991 doi

  62. [70]

    Generalized second law of thermodynamics in black hole physics,

    J. D. Bekenstein, “Generalized second law of thermodynamics in black hole physics,” Phys. Rev. D9 (1974), 3292-3300 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.9.3292

    1974 doi

  63. [71]

    Symmetries of cosmological Cauchy horizons,

    V. Moncrief and J. Isenberg, “Symmetries of cosmological Cauchy horizons,” Com- mun. Math. Phys.89 (1983) no.3, 387-413 doi:10.1007/BF01214662

    1983 doi

  64. [72]

    A Second Law for Higher Curvature Gravity,

    A. C. Wall, “A Second Law for Higher Curvature Gravity,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D24 (2015) no.12, 1544014 doi:10.1142/S0218271815440149 [arXiv:1504.08040 [gr-qc]]

    2015 arXiv

  65. [73]

    An entropy current and the second law in higher derivative theories of gravity,

    S. Bhattacharyya, P. Dhivakar, A. Dinda, N. Kundu, M. Patra and S. Roy, “An entropy current and the second law in higher derivative theories of gravity,” JHEP 09, 169 (2021) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2021)169 [arXiv:2105.06455 [hep-th]]

    2021 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Black hole thermodynamics: general relativity and beyond,

    S. Sarkar, “Black hole thermodynamics: general relativity and beyond,” Gen. Rel. Grav. 51 (2019) 63 [arXiv:1905.04466]

    2019 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Black Hole Zeroth Law in Higher Curvature Gravity,

    R. Ghosh and S. Sarkar, “Black Hole Zeroth Law in Higher Curvature Gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 102, no.10, 101503(R) (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.101503 [arXiv:2009.01543 [gr-qc]]

    2020 arXiv

  68. [76]

    The zeroth law of black hole thermodynamics in arbitrary higher derivative theories of gravity,

    Bhattacharyya, S., Biswas, P., Dinda, A. et al. “The zeroth law of black hole thermodynamics in arbitrary higher derivative theories of gravity,” J. High Energ. Phys.2022, 13 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP10(2022)013 [arXiv:2205.01648 [hep-th]]

    2022 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Global extensions of space-times describing asymptotic final states of black holes,

    I. Racz and R. M. Wald, “Global extensions of space-times describing asymptotic final states of black holes,” Class. Quant. Grav.13 (1996), 539-553 doi:10.1088/0264- 9381/13/3/017 [arXiv:gr-qc/9507055 [gr-qc]]

    1996 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Extrema of mass, stationarity, and staticity, and solutions to the Einstein Yang-Mills equations,

    D. Sudarsky and R. M. Wald, “Extrema of mass, stationarity, and staticity, and solutions to the Einstein Yang-Mills equations,” Phys. Rev. D46 (1992), 1453-1474 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.46.1453

    1992 doi

  71. [79]

    Energy and angular momentum flow into a black hole,

    S. W. Hawking and J. B. Hartle, “Energy and angular momentum flow into a black hole,” Commun. Math. Phys.27 (1972), 283-290 doi:10.1007/BF01645515 175

    1972 doi

  72. [80]

    The ‘Physical process’ version of the first law and the generalized second law for charged and rotating black holes,

    S. Gao and R. M. Wald, “The ‘Physical process’ version of the first law and the generalized second law for charged and rotating black holes,” Phys. Rev. D64 (2001) 084020, [gr-qc/0106071]

    2001 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Black hole entropy is the Noether charge,

    R. M. Wald, “Black hole entropy is the Noether charge,” Phys. Rev. D48 (1993) no.8, R3427-R3431 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.48.R3427 [arXiv:gr-qc/9307038 [gr-qc]]

    1993 arXiv

  74. [82]

    On black hole entropy,

    T. Jacobson, G. Kang and R. C. Myers, “On black hole entropy,” Phys. Rev. D49 (1994), 6587-6598 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.49.6587 [arXiv:gr-qc/9312023 [gr-qc]]

    1994 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Some properties of Noether charge and a pro- posal for dynamical black hole entropy,

    V. Iyer and R. M. Wald, “Some properties of Noether charge and a pro- posal for dynamical black hole entropy,” Phys. Rev. D 50 (1994), 846-864 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.50.846 [arXiv:gr-qc/9403028 [gr-qc]]

    1994 arXiv

  76. [84]

    On the physical process first law for dynamical black holes,

    A. Mishra, S. Chakraborty, A. Ghosh and S. Sarkar, “On the physical process first law for dynamical black holes,” JHEP09 (2018), 034 doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2018)034 [arXiv:1709.08925 [gr-qc]]

    2018 arXiv

  77. [85]

    The Area theo- rem,

    P. T. Chrusciel, E. Delay, G. J. Galloway and R. Howard, “The Area theo- rem,” Annales Henri Poincare2 (2001), 109-178 doi:10.1007/PL00001029 [arXiv:gr- qc/0001003 [gr-qc]]

    2001

  78. [86]

    Increase of black hole entropy in higher cur- vature gravity,

    T. Jacobson, G. Kang and R. C. Myers, “Increase of black hole entropy in higher cur- vature gravity,” Phys. Rev. D52 (1995), 3518-3528 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.52.3518 [arXiv:gr-qc/9503020 [gr-qc]]

    1995 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Physical process first law and increase of horizon entropy for black holes in Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity,

    A. Chatterjee and S. Sarkar, “Physical process first law and increase of horizon entropy for black holes in Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity,” Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 091301 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.091301 [arXiv:1111.3021 [gr-qc]]

    2012 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Generalized second law at linear order for ac- tions that are functions of Lovelock densities,

    S. Sarkar and A. C. Wall, “Generalized second law at linear order for ac- tions that are functions of Lovelock densities,” Phys. Rev. D88 (2013), 044017 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.044017 [arXiv:1306.1623 [gr-qc]]

    2013 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Holographic entropy in- creases in quadratic curvature gravity,

    S. Bhattacharjee, S. Sarkar and A. C. Wall, “Holographic entropy in- creases in quadratic curvature gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 92, 064006 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.064006 [arXiv:1504.04706 [gr-qc]]

    2015 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Reparametrization Symmetry of Local Entropy Production on a Dynamical Horizon,

    S. Bhattacharyya, P. Jethwani, M. Patra and S. Roy, “Reparametrization Symmetry of Local Entropy Production on a Dynamical Horizon,” [arXiv:2204.08447 [hep-th]]. 176

    arXiv

  83. [91]

    Non-minimal coupling of scalar and gauge fields with gravity: an entropy current and linearized second law,

    P. Biswas, P. Dhivakar and N. Kundu “Non-minimal coupling of scalar and gauge fields with gravity: an entropy current and linearized second law,” JHEP2022 36 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12(2022)036 [arXiv:2206.04538v2 [hep-th]]

    2022 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Entropy of dynamical black holes,

    S. Hollands, R. M. Wald and V. G. Zhang, “Entropy of dynamical black holes,” Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) no.2, 024070 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.024070 [arXiv:2402.00818 [hep-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Zeroth and second laws of black hole mechanics in Einstein- Maxwell-scalar effective field theory,

    I. Davies, “Zeroth and second laws of black hole mechanics in Einstein- Maxwell-scalar effective field theory,” Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) no.8, 084051 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.084051 [arXiv:2401.13075 [gr-qc]]

    2024 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Linearised Second Law for Higher Curvature Gravity and Non-Minimally Coupled Vector Fields,

    A. C. Wall and Z. Yan, “Linearised Second Law for Higher Curvature Gravity and Non-Minimally Coupled Vector Fields,” [arXiv:2402.05411 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  87. [95]

    Extension of space-times with Killing horizon,

    I. Racz and R. M. Wald, “Extension of space-times with Killing horizon,” Class. Quant. Grav.9, 2643-2656 (1992) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/9/12/008

    1992 doi

  88. [96]

    Effective Field Theory for Inflation,

    S. Weinberg, “Effective Field Theory for Inflation,” Phys. Rev. D77 (2008) 123541, [arXiv:0804.4291 [hep-th]]

    2008 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Topological censorship,

    J. L. Friedman, K. Schleich and D. M. Witt, “Topological censorship,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 71 (1993), 1486-1489 [erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995), 1872] doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.71.1486 [arXiv:gr-qc/9305017 [gr-qc]]

    1993 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Nonlinear analysis on manifolds, Monge-Ampère equations,

    T. Aubin, “Nonlinear analysis on manifolds, Monge-Ampère equations,” (Springer New York, 1982)

    1982

  91. [99]

    Spin Geometry,

    H. Lawson and M. Michelsohn, “Spin Geometry,” (PMS-38), Volume 38 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990)

    1990

  92. [100]

    Nonlinear analysis on manifolds: Sobolev spaces and inequalities,

    E. Hebey, “Nonlinear analysis on manifolds: Sobolev spaces and inequalities,” (American Mathematical Society, 2000)

    2000

  93. [101]

    Static de-Sitter black holes abhor charged scalar hair,

    An, YP., Li, L. “Static de-Sitter black holes abhor charged scalar hair,” Eur. Phys. J. C83, 569 (2023), https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11758-7

    2023 doi

  94. [102]

    Dilatonic black holes in higher curvature string gravity,

    P. Kanti, N. E. Mavromatos, J. Rizos, K. Tamvakis and E. Winstanley, “Dilatonic black holes in higher curvature string gravity,” Phys. Rev. D54 (1996), 5049-5058 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.54.5049 [arXiv:hep-th/9511071 [hep-th]]

    1996 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Nonperturbative Second Law of Black Hole Me- chanics in Effective Field Theory,

    I. Davies and H. S. Reall, “Nonperturbative Second Law of Black Hole Me- chanics in Effective Field Theory,” Phys. Rev. Lett.132 (2024) no.17, 171402 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.171402 [arXiv:2312.07659 [hep-th]]. 177

    2024 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Introducing Cadabra: a symbolic computer algebra system for field theory problems

    K. Peeters, “Introducing Cadabra: a symbolic computer algebra system for field theory problems” (2018) [arXiv:hep-th/0701238v3]

    2018 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Cadabra2: computer algebra for field theory revisited,

    K. Peeters, “Cadabra2: computer algebra for field theory revisited,” Journal of Open Source Software 3(32) 1118 (2018), https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01118

    2018 doi

  98. [106]

    Cadabra: a field-theory motivated symbolic computer algebra system,

    K. Peeters, “Cadabra: a field-theory motivated symbolic computer algebra system,” Comp. Phys. Commun. 176 (2007) 550-558, [arXiv:cs/0608005v2]

    2007 arXiv

  99. [107]

    Dynamical Black Hole Entropy in Effective Field Theory,

    I. Davies, H. S. Reall “Dynamical Black Hole Entropy in Effective Field Theory,” J. High Energ. Phys.2023, 6 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05(2023)006 [arXiv:2212.09777 [hep-th]]

    2023 arXiv

  100. [108]

    An entropy current for dynamical black holes in four-derivative theories of gravity,

    J. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharyya, A. Dinda and N. Kundu, “An entropy current for dynamical black holes in four-derivative theories of gravity,” JHEP06 (2020), 017 doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2020)017 [arXiv:1912.11030 [hep-th]]

    2020 arXiv

  101. [109]

    HolographicEntanglementEntropyforGeneralHigherDerivativeGravity,

    X.Dong, “HolographicEntanglementEntropyforGeneralHigherDerivativeGravity,” JHEP 01, 044 (2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2014)044 [arXiv:1310.5713 [hep-th]]

    2014 arXiv

  102. [110]

    Black hole entropy and higher curvature interactions,

    T. Jacobson and R. C. Myers, “Black hole entropy and higher curvature interactions,” Phys. Rev. Lett.70 (1993), 3684-3687 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.70.3684 [arXiv:hep- th/9305016 [hep-th]]

    1993

  103. [111]

    Creases, corners and caustics: properties of non-smooth structures on black hole horizons,

    M. Gadioux, H. S. Reall “Creases, corners and caustics: properties of non-smooth structures on black hole horizons,” [arXiv:2303.15512 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  104. [112]

    Local Fluid Dynamical Entropy from Gravity,

    S. Bhattacharyya, V. E. Hubeny, R. Loganayagam, G. Mandal, S. Minwalla, T. Morita, M. Rangamani and H. S. Reall, “Local Fluid Dynamical Entropy from Gravity,” JHEP06(2008), 055doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/06/055[arXiv:0803.2526 [hep-th]]

    2008 arXiv

  105. [113]

    Relativistic Viscous Fluid Dynamics and Non-Equilibrium En- tropy,

    P. Romatschke, “Relativistic Viscous Fluid Dynamics and Non-Equilibrium En- tropy,” Class. Quant. Grav.27 (2010), 025006 doi:10.1088/0264-9381/27/2/025006 [arXiv:0906.4787 [hep-th]]

    2010 arXiv

  106. [114]

    Entropy current and equilibrium partition function in fluid dynamics,

    S. Bhattacharyya, “Entropy current and equilibrium partition function in fluid dynamics,” JHEP08 (2014), 165 doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2014)165 [arXiv:1312.0220 [hep-th]]. 178

    2014 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.