Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Resummations for Inflationary Quantum Gravity

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Gravitons created during inflation make quantum loop corrections grow until perturbation theory fails; the paper proposes a combined stochastic and renormalization-group resummation.

desk verdict A candid, well-organized status report on a long-running program, but the abstract promises a completed resummation that the body itself shows is unfinished for pure gravity. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.05077 v1 pith:FVPJDGDY submitted 2025-01-09 gr-qc hep-th

R. P. Woodard This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qchep-th PACS 04.50.Kd95.35.+d98.62.-g
keywords inflationaryquantumgravitysecularlogarithmsdeSitterbackgroundgravitonloopcorrectionsStarobinskystochasticformalismrenormalizationgroupresummationgaugeindependence
topics Quantum Gravity
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

During inflation the expanding spacetime continuously creates gravitons, and loop diagrams built from them grow with the number of e-folds through logarithms of the scale factor, $\ln(a)$. The paper reviews two decades of computations showing that, no matter how small the loop-counting parameter $\kappa^2 H^2$ is, a sufficiently prolonged period of inflation eventually makes these secular logarithms of order one, so ordinary perturbation theory breaks down at late times. Its constructive claim is that the growth has two independent causes — the logarithmic tail of the graviton propagator on de Sitter, and the imperfect cancellation between primitive divergences and their counterterms — and that each requires its own resummation tool: a variant of Starobinsky's stochastic formalism (a Langevin equation for the long-wavelength field) for the tail, and a variant of the renormalization group for the counterterm mismatch. The payoff would be concrete late-time predictions, such as scale-factor powers multiplying the Newtonian potential and the field strengths of inflation-era graviton corrections. A reader should care because these are generic effects of quantum gravity during inflation, independent of any particular matter model.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the propagator of the massless, minimally coupled scalar on de Sitter — and hence of the dynamical graviton — whose logarithmic tail controls the 'active' fields: $$i\Delta_A(x;x') = \frac{1}{4\$pi^{2}$}\frac{1}{aa'\$\Delta$ $x^{2}$} - \frac{$H^{2}$}{8\$pi^{2}$}\ln\!\Big(\frac{1}{$4H^{2}$\$\Delta$ $x^{2}$}\Big) + \dots \;,$$ together with the subtraction identity (9) that turns dimensional-regularization poles into logarithms of $\mu a/2H$. Around these the paper assembles two resummation instruments. The first is a modified stochastic formalism: fields without a tail ('passive') and differentiated fields with a tail are integrated out in a constant active background, leaving a scalar-potential model whose infrared-truncated random field reproduces the leading-logarithm results. The second is a modified renormalization group: combinations of the BPHZ counterterms (e.g. (28)) are treated as curvature-dependent field strength renormalizations, with gamma functions that drive a Callan-Symanzik equation in which $\ln(\mu)$ is replaced by $\ln(a)$ or $\ln(Hr)$. The gauge-independence argument pivots on identities that reduce three- and four-point source/observer diagrams to one-particle-irreducible (1PI) 2-point form, so that a gauge-dependent 1PI 2-point function is corrected by gauge-dependent contributions whose dependence cancels in the sum.

What would settle it

Carry out a dimensionally regulated, fully renormalized one-loop computation of the graviton self-energy on de Sitter in the new gauge (98) and feed it into the corrected linearized Einstein equation; if the gravitational-radiation mode function shows no double logarithm of the form (70), or if the analogous computation in a two-parameter family of gauges shows no cancellation of gauge-parameter dependence like the flat-space Table 1, then the central claim that graviton-induced secular logarithms are real and resummable fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that inflationary graviton loops produce large secular corrections from two distinct mechanisms that had long been conflated: the tail part of the graviton propagator on de Sitter, which carries the logarithmic term of (4), and the mismatch (9) between dimensionally regulated primitive divergences and their fully renormalized BPHZ counterterms, which leaves a logarithm of $\mu a/2H$ behind. The paper argues that each source demands its own resummation technique, and that a synthesis of the two works: a variant of Starobinsky's stochastic formalism in which passive fields and differentiated active fields are first integrated out in a constant background, and a variant of the renormalization group in which certain BPHZ counterterms are read as curvature-dependent field strength renormalizations with definite gamma functions. The paper further argues that the gauge dependence of graviton-loop results is not fatal: gauge-independent predictions follow from including the quantum gravitational correlations of the source and the observer, a procedure fully demonstrated on flat space and now being carried out on de Sitter. On this picture the matter-loop corrections to gravity, which contain no graviton propagators, are already gauge-independent, and the fact that they show the same sorts of large logarithms is presented as strong evidence that the graviton-induced logarithms are real.

Load-bearing premise

The resummation scheme assumes that at leading order each loop contributes exactly one large logarithm, so the dominant secular growth can be captured by keeping only the long-wavelength part of the field; the as-yet-unconfirmed one-loop pure-gravity results show two and three logarithms at one loop, which would break that assumption in precisely the sector the program is meant to handle.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Perturbative quantum field theory on de Sitter cannot provide late-time predictions for inflation, however small $\kappa^2 H^2$ is; resummation becomes mandatory once $Ht$ grows past $\sim \ln(1/\kappa^2 H^2)$.
  • During the de Sitter phase the resummed Newtonian potential and Weyl field strengths acquire power-law dependence on the scale factor, for example $\Psi \to (GM/ar)[aHr]^{-3\kappa^2 H^2/160\pi^2}$ from a minimally coupled scalar loop, and $\Phi \to (Q/4\pi ar)[aHr]^{\kappa^2 H^2/8\pi^2}$ from a graviton loop correction to the Coulomb potential.
  • Matter-loop corrections to gravity are gauge-independent and are resummed by the same renormalization-group variant, with the gamma function set by the matter content: factors of 1, 6 and 12 relative to a conformal scalar for Dirac fermions and photons respectively.
  • Gauge dependence in graviton-loop corrections cancels once source and observer correlations are included; the flat-space demonstration yields a real, causal, gauge-independent modified Maxwell equation, and repeating the demonstration on de Sitter is the test of whether the numerical coefficients of graviton-induced logarithms are physical.
  • If the provisional pure-gravity results (70)–(72) survive a renormalized re-computation, then pure-gravity effects dominate the matter-loop ones, with double and triple logarithms at one loop that stochastic effects would need to reproduce.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that if the provisional double- and triple-logarithm results (70)–(72) survive a dimensionally regulated re-computation, the one-logarithm-per-loop counting on which its stochastic reduction rests is violated for pure gravity, so that sector would need a new resummation ingredient rather than merely the missing 3+1 decomposition step.
  • Because the stochastic reduction drops spatial derivatives when constructing the Langevin kinetic operator, its predictions are best judged against background evolution and radiation, not point-mass potentials; restoring the derivatives in (124)–(125) would be a direct test of whether it can reach the Newtonian-potential sector.
  • On my reading, the numerically robust resummed predictions are the matter-loop ones, which involve no graviton propagators; the graviton-loop coefficients remain subject to confirmation by the gauge-independence program before being used observationally.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript reviews and extends a program for resumming secular logarithms that arise from inflationary graviton loops. The central claim is that two distinct sources of large logarithms—the tail terms in the graviton propagator and the incomplete cancellation between primitive divergences and counterterms—can be resummed by combining a variant of Starobinsky's stochastic formalism with a variant of the renormalization group. The body provides a catalog of published 1-loop and 2-loop results, provisional pure-gravity results, a detailed construction of the stochastic Langevin equation for gravity, and a proposal for removing gauge dependence by including source and observer correlations. The paper is candid about several unfinished steps, but the abstract's blanket statement that resummation 'can be accomplished' is stronger than what the body establishes.

Significance. If the claimed synthesis were fully established, this would be an important contribution: it would provide a nonperturbative late-time description of graviton loop effects in de Sitter space and a route to gauge-independent predictions. The paper is valuable as a status report, and the catalog of dimensionally regulated, BPHZ-renormalized results is a useful reference. Several supporting computations, notably in scalar QED and nonlinear sigma models, have been independently checked, and the resummed power-law forms in Section 4 are explicit and falsifiable. However, the main claim is ahead of the evidence: the pure-gravity stochastic reduction is explicitly incomplete, the conformally coupled scalar case is not explained by the proposed mechanisms, and gauge independence on de Sitter has not yet been demonstrated. These gaps are acknowledged in the text but are in tension with the abstract.

major comments (4)
  1. [3.1, 3.4] The stochastic formalism's leading-logarithm counting rule, stated in Section 3.1 as 'reaching leading logarithm order requires that each pair of free fields must contribute a large logarithm,' is inconsistent with the provisional pure-gravity results (70)-(72), which contain ln^2(a) and ln^3(a) at one loop. Section 3.4 explicitly concedes that step 3 of the Langevin reduction 'has not yet been completed' and that the fully reduced equation 'will not allow one to derive corrections to the gravitational response to a point mass such as (71-72) because spatial derivatives were dropped.' Since these double and triple logarithms are the very objects the stochastic resummation is supposed to capture, the abstract's claim that resummation 'can be accomplished' is not supported for the pure-gravity sector. The authors should either show how multiple logarithms can arise from a single pair of free fields within the stochastic framework, or explicitly restrict the resummation claim to sectors where the reduction is complete and validated.
  2. [4.3.2] The renormalization-group treatment of the massless, conformally coupled scalar does not explain the target logarithms (42)-(43). The needed gamma function (163) is inferred from those logarithms, and the counterterm combination (164) is described in the text as 'tendentious' and not supported by the way factors of ln(a) appear in the self-mass. The stochastic integration (166) yields the wrong coefficient, and the paper admits that the correct term comes from appealing to the exact calculation rather than from the proposed resummation. This case is therefore an open problem, not a success of the combined stochastic-RG method. The manuscript should either provide a first-principles derivation of the required gamma and stochastic contribution, or explicitly move this example to the open-problems list and adjust the abstract accordingly.
  3. [5.3] The gauge-independence program is not yet complete on de Sitter. The flat-space demonstrations in Section 5.1 (Table 1 and the Maxwell example) are convincing, and the de Sitter calculation in the simplest gauge [130] is a useful step. However, Section 5.3 states that the general 2-parameter gauge check is 'far advanced' but not finished. Since the numerical coefficients of graviton-induced logarithms are gauge-dependent, no gauge-independent resummed prediction can yet be claimed for the pure-gravity sector. The abstract's unqualified promise that resummation 'can be accomplished' should be made conditional on completion of this check.
  4. [4.4] The pure-gravity RG gamma function (181) is computed using only the two invariant counterterms (179), but Section 4.4 itself states that noncovariant counterterms 'will almost certainly' be required because of the de Sitter-breaking gauge. The resulting gamma is therefore not fully determined. This matters because the pure-gravity sector is a central target of the paper; equation (181) should be flagged as a partial result pending identification of the noncovariant counterterms and a renormalized computation in the new gauge (98).
minor comments (5)
  1. [4.2.2] The opening sentence of Section 4.2.2 refers to 'a massless, minimally coupled scalar'; it should refer to the massless, conformally coupled scalar, which is the subject of that subsection.
  2. [References] Reference [5] is incomplete: it lists only the authors, with no title, journal, or preprint identifier.
  3. [2.3.2] Equation (39) contains an apparent typographical error: the bracket in '−1/4(D−2/D−1)Rφ]' appears unbalanced.
  4. [4.3.2] The phrase 'Needed γ' in equation (163) is informal; since the required gamma is inferred from the target logarithms, it should be labeled as conjectural (for example, 'Required γ') with an explicit statement that it is not yet derived from the counterterm structure.
  5. [References] Reference [101] is cited as 'preprint in preparation'; this is acceptable in a review, but the text should clearly mark resummations based on it as preliminary rather than established.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Localized circularity: the RG 'explanation' of the conformally coupled scalar logarithms is a reverse-engineered fit ('Needed γ'), while other resummations rest on independent computations; pure-gravity stochastic resummation is openly incomplete.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.3.2, Eqs. (162)-(164)]
    "The gamma function needed for the Callan-Symanzik equation (159) — with ln(µ) replaced by ln(a) — to explain the scalar mode function (42) and exchange potential (43) is, Needed γ = − κ2H2/48π2 =⇒ δZ = − κ2H2/24π2 × µD−4/D−4. There are ways to combine the counterterms to produce this, for example, −2αH2 −βH2 + 1/2γH2 = − κ2H2/24π2 × µD−4/D−4. However, these all seem tendentious and are not supported by the way factors of ln(a) appear in the self-mass [68]."

    The value of γ is solved from the very logarithms it is meant to explain. Equation (42) has late-time coefficient +κ²H²/24π² ln(a) and (43) has +κ²H²/24π² ln(aHr); the Callan-Symanzik equation (159) with 2γ produces a coefficient −2γ ln(a). Setting −2γ = +κ²H²/24π² gives exactly the 'Needed γ = −κ²H²/48π²' in (163). The counterterm combination (164) is then reverse-engineered to match that fitted value. The paper itself concedes the combination is 'tendentious and not supported by the way factors of ln(a) appear in the self-mass', which confirms that this explanation is a fit to the target result rather than an independent derivation.

full rationale

The paper contains one clear, localized instance of fitted input presented as explanation: in Section 4.3.2 the gamma function is chosen so that the Callan-Symanzik equation reproduces the known MCC scalar logarithms, and the counterterm combination is then selected ad hoc to yield that gamma; the author candidly labels it 'tendentious' and unsupported. That is a genuine circular step, but it is not the whole story. Most of the paper's other resummation claims are benchmarked against independent, dimensionally regulated and BPHZ renormalized computations: the stochastic formalism is checked against explicit 1-loop and 2-loop results for scalar potential models and nonlinear sigma models, and the matter-loop-to-gravity RG resummations use counterterm coefficients c1,c2 computed from the corresponding self-energies rather than inferred from the final logarithms. The abstract's broad claim that resummation 'can be accomplished' is weakened by two honestly flagged limitations rather than by circularity alone: the pure-gravity stochastic Langevin reduction is incomplete (Section 3.4, step 3), and the paper explicitly states that the fully reduced stochastic equation cannot derive point-mass responses (71)-(72) because spatial derivatives were dropped. Those are incompleteness and self-consistency issues, not fitted-input circularity. Overall, the central program retains substantial independent content, but the one reverse-engineered RG 'explanation' and the unfinished pure-gravity stochastic step justify a modest circularity score, not a high one.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central new content rests on two domain assumptions (effective field theory and de Sitter-breaking gauge), two ad hoc extensions (stochastic truncation and Donoghue identities on curved space), and the reinterpretation of counterterms as field-strength renormalizations. No new physical entities are posited. Two undetermined constants, the finite cosmological-constant renormalization and the noncovariant counterterm coefficients, enter the pure-gravity sector.

free parameters (2)
  • finite renormalization of the cosmological constant
    Sections 2.3.5 and 3.3 state that conservation of the graviton self-energy probably requires a finite renormalization of the cosmological constant, the value of which is not fixed by the computation.
  • noncovariant counterterm coefficients
    Section 4.4 says 'There will almost certainly be noncovariant counterterms arising from the de Sitter breaking gauge'; their coefficients are unknown and would shift the gamma function (181) and the resummed predictions.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption General relativity is a valid low-energy effective field theory whose long-distance predictions can be computed perturbatively.
    Invoked in section 1 to justify the generic graviton effects and the use of the Einstein-Hilbert action.
  • domain assumption The graviton propagator must break de Sitter invariance, so choosing a non-invariant gauge does not discard physical content.
    Section 2.2 gives three arguments (linearization instability, IR divergences, true propagator requirement); all catalogued calculation results depend on this choice.
  • ad hoc to paper Leading-logarithm behavior is fully captured by the stochastic infrared mode sum truncated at k=aH with a constant active-field background.
    Section 3.1 proves this for scalar potential models through a Yang-Feldman argument; sections 3.4 and 4.3.2 show the extension to gravity and to the conformal scalar is incomplete.
  • ad hoc to paper The Donoghue identities for reducing 3-point and 4-point diagrams to 2-point form can be extended from flat space to de Sitter using general coordinate invariance.
    Section 5.2 states the generalization explicitly (eq. 192) but without a derivation; the gauge-independence argument relies on it.
  • domain assumption BPHZ counterterms can be reinterpreted as curvature-dependent field-strength renormalizations, giving a meaningful gamma function for the Callan-Symanzik equation.
    Section 4 uses this reinterpretation for every matter theory; section 4.3.2 shows it can fail or become tendentious.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Resummations for Inflationary Quantum Gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FVPJDGDY

@misc{pith2026250105077,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Resummations for Inflationary Quantum Gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FVPJDGDY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.05077}
}
read the original abstract

The continual production of gravitons during inflation endows loop corrections with secular logarithms which grow nonperturbatively large during a prolonged period of inflation. The physics behind these effects is reviewed, along with a catalog of the examples which have so far been found. Resummation can be accomplished by combining a variant of Starobinsky's stochastic formalism with a variant of the renormalization group. The issue of gauge independence is also addressed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.05077 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Diagrams which contribute to graviton (wavy lines) loop corrections to the exchange of a massless scalar (solid lines) between two massive scalars (dashed lines). The left hand diagram is i = 0, the center diagram is i = 1, and the right hand diagram is i = 2 (which has four permutations). Now imagine quantum gravitational corrections to the scattering of two massive scalars (ψ) by the exchange of such a massless sc… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Diagrams which contribute to graviton (wavy lines) loop corrections to the exchange of a massless scalar (solid lines) between two massive scalars (dashed lines). The left hand diagram is i = 3 (two permutations), the center diagram is i = 4 (four permutations), and the right hand diagram is i = 5 (four permutations). and massless propagators, i∆m(x; x ′ ) and i∆(x; x ′ ), respectively. For exam￾ple, the final diagr… view at source ↗

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. An Unfinished Collaboration with A. A. Starobinsky

    gr-qc 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Quantum gravitational infrared fluctuations could make the rescaled spatial metric undergo Brownian motion on SL(3,R)/SO(3), producing exponential anisotropy and a quantum violation of cosmic no-hair.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

136 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [130]

    Glavan, S

    D. Glavan, S. P. Miao, T. Prokopec and R. P. Woodard, JHEP 03, 129 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2024)129 [arXiv:2402.05452 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    T. M. C. Abbott et al. [DES], Phys. Rev. D 105, no.2, 023520 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.023520 [arXiv:2105.13549 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2022

  3. [2]

    Kamionkowski and A

    M. Kamionkowski and A. G. Riess, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 73, 153- 180 (2023) doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-111422-024107 [arXiv:2211 .04492 [astro-ph.CO]]

    doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-111422-024107 2023

  4. [3]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. [Planck], Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020) [erratum: Astron. Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)] doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 [arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2020

  5. [4]

    Geshnizjani, W

    G. Geshnizjani, W. H. Kinney and A. Moradinezhad Dizgah, JCAP 11, 049 (2011) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2011/11/049 [arXiv:1107.1241 [astro- ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2011

  6. [5]

    W. H. Kinney, G. Geshnizjani and A. Moradinezhad Dizgah,

  7. [6]

    V. F. Mukhanov and G. V. Chibisov, JETP Lett. 33, 532-535 (1981)

    1981

  8. [7]

    A. A. Starobinsky, JETP Lett. 30, 682-685 (1979)

    1979

Show all 136 references
  1. [8]

    J. F. Donoghue, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 2996-2999 (1994) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.72.2996 [arXiv:gr-qc/9310024 [gr-qc]]

    1994 arXiv

  2. [9]

    J. F. Donoghue, Phys. Rev. D 50, 3874-3888 (1994) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.50.3874 [arXiv:gr-qc/9405057 [gr-qc]]

    1994 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Donoghue, Scholarpedia 12, no.4, 32997 (2017) doi:10.4249/scholarpedia.32997

    J. Donoghue, Scholarpedia 12, no.4, 32997 (2017) doi:10.4249/scholarpedia.32997

    2017 doi

  4. [11]

    S. P. Miao and R. P. Woodard, Phys. Rev. D 74, 024021 (2006) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.74.024021 [arXiv:gr-qc/0603135 [gr-qc]]

    2006 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Glavan, S

    D. Glavan, S. P. Miao, T. Prokopec and R. P. Woodard, Class. Quant. Grav. 31, 175002 (2014) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/31/17/175002 [arXiv:1308.3453 [gr-qc]]

    2014 arXiv

  6. [13]

    C. L. Wang and R. P. Woodard, Phys. Rev. D 91, no.12, 124054 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.124054 [arXiv:1408.1448 [gr-qc]]

    2015 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Glavan, S

    D. Glavan, S. P. Miao, T. Prokopec and R. P. Woodard, JHEP 03, 088 (2022) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2022)088 [arXiv:2112.00959 [gr-qc]]. 40

    2022 arXiv

  8. [15]

    L. Tan, N. C. Tsamis and R. P. Woodard, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. L ond. A 380, 0187 (2021) doi:10.1098/rsta.2021.0187 [arXiv:2107.13905 [gr-qc]]

    2021

  9. [16]

    L. Tan, N. C. Tsamis and R. P. Woodard, Universe 8, no.7, 376 (2022) doi:10.3390/universe8070376 [arXiv:2206.11467 [gr-qc]]

    2022 arXiv

  10. [17]

    A. F. Radkowski, Ann. Phys. 56, no. 2, 319-354 (1970, doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(70)90021-7

    1970 doi

  11. [18]

    ’t Hooft and M

    G. ’t Hooft and M. J. G. Veltman, Nucl. Phys. B 44, 189-213 (1972) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(72)90279-9

    1972 doi

  12. [19]

    C. G. Bollini and J. J. Giambiagi, Nuovo Cim. B 12, 20-26 (1972) doi:10.1007/BF02895558

    1972 doi

  13. [20]

    N. N. Bogoliubov and O. S. Parasiuk, Acta Math. 97, 227-266 (1957) doi:10.1007/BF02392399

    1957 doi

  14. [21]

    Hepp, Commun

    K. Hepp, Commun. Math. Phys. 2, 301-326 (1966) doi:10.1007/BF01773358

    1966 doi

  15. [22]

    Zimmermann, Commun

    W. Zimmermann, Commun. Math. Phys. 11, 1-8 (1968) doi:10.1007/BF01654298

    1968 doi

  16. [23]

    Zimmermann, Commun

    W. Zimmermann, Commun. Math. Phys. 15, 208-234 (1969) doi:10.1007/BF01645676

    1969 doi

  17. [24]

    B. S. DeWitt and R. W. Brehme, Annals Phys. 9, 220-259 (1960) doi:10.1016/0003-4916(60)90030-0

    1960 doi

  18. [25]

    Lifshitz, J

    E. Lifshitz, J. Phys. (USSR) 10, no.2, 116 (1946) doi:10.1007/s10714- 016-2165-8

    1946 doi

  19. [26]

    V. K. Onemli and R. P. Woodard, Class. Quant. Grav. 19, 4607 (2002) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/19/17/311 [arXiv:gr-qc/0204065 [gr-qc]]

    2002 arXiv

  20. [27]

    V. K. Onemli and R. P. Woodard, Phys. Rev. D 70, 107301 (2004) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.70.107301 [arXiv:gr-qc/0406098 [gr-qc]]

    2004 arXiv

  21. [28]

    S. P. Miao, N. C. Tsamis and R. P. Woodard, JHEP 03, 069 (2022) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2022)069 [arXiv:2110.08715 [gr-qc]]

    2022 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Allen and A

    B. Allen and A. Folacci, Phys. Rev. D 35, 3771 (1987) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.35.3771

    1987 doi

  23. [30]

    Allen, Phys

    B. Allen, Phys. Rev. D 34, 3670 (1986) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.34.3670 41

    1986 doi

  24. [31]

    Allen and M

    B. Allen and M. Turyn, Nucl. Phys. B 292, 813 (1987) doi:10.1016/0550- 3213(87)90672-9

    1987 doi

  25. [32]

    S. W. Hawking, T. Hertog and N. Turok, Phys. Rev. D 62, 063502 (2000) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.62.063502 [arXiv:hep-th/0003016 [hep-th]]

    2000 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Higuchi and S

    A. Higuchi and S. S. Kouris, Class. Quant. Grav. 18, 4317-4328 (2001) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/18/20/311 [arXiv:gr-qc/0107036 [gr-qc]]

    2001 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Higuchi and R

    A. Higuchi and R. H. Weeks, Class. Quant. Grav. 20, 3005-3022 (2003) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/20/14/303 [arXiv:gr-qc/0212031 [gr-qc]]

    2003 arXiv

  28. [35]

    I. A. Morrison, [arXiv:1302.1860 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  29. [36]

    Antoniadis and E

    I. Antoniadis and E. Mottola, J. Math. Phys. 32, 1037-1044 (1991) doi:10.1063/1.529381

    1991 doi

  30. [37]

    Folacci, Phys

    A. Folacci, Phys. Rev. D 46, 2553-2559 (1992) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.46.2553 [arXiv:0911.2064 [gr-qc]]

    1992 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Folacci, Phys

    A. Folacci, Phys. Rev. D 53, 3108-3117 (1996) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.53.3108

    1996 doi

  32. [39]

    S. P. Miao, N. C. Tsamis and R. P. Woodard, J. Math. Phys. 50, 122502 (2009) doi:10.1063/1.3266179 [arXiv:0907.4930 [gr-qc]]

    2009 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Kiritsis and C

    E. Kiritsis and C. Kounnas, Nucl. Phys. B 442, 472-493 (1995) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(95)00156-M [arXiv:hep-th/9501020 [hep- th]]

    1995 arXiv

  34. [41]

    T. M. Janssen, S. P. Miao, T. Prokopec and R. P. Woodard, Clas s. Quant. Grav. 25, 245013 (2008) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/25/24/245013 [arXiv:0808.2449 [gr-qc]]

    2008 arXiv

  35. [42]

    S. P. Miao, P. J. Mora, N. C. Tsamis and R. P. Woodard, Phys. Rev. D 89, no.10, 104004 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.104004 [arXiv:1306.5410 [gr-qc]]

    2014 arXiv

  36. [43]

    S. P. Miao, N. C. Tsamis and R. P. Woodard, J. Math. Phys. 52, 122301 (2011) doi:10.1063/1.3664760 [arXiv:1106.0925 [gr-qc]]

    2011 arXiv

  37. [44]

    P. J. Mora, N. C. Tsamis and R. P. Woodard, J. Math. Phys. 53, 122502 (2012) doi:10.1063/1.4764882 [arXiv:1205.4468 [gr-qc]]

    2012 arXiv

  38. [45]

    N. C. Tsamis and R. P. Woodard, Commun. Math. Phys. 162, 217-248 (1994) doi:10.1007/BF02102015 42

    1994 doi

  39. [46]

    R. P. Woodard, [arXiv:gr-qc/0408002 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  40. [47]

    N. C. Tsamis and R. P. Woodard, Annals Phys. 253, 1-54 (1997) doi:10.1006/aphy.1997.5613 [arXiv:hep-ph/9602316 [hep-ph]]

    1997

  41. [48]

    N. C. Tsamis and R. P. Woodard, Phys. Rev. D 54, 2621-2639 (1996) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.54.2621 [arXiv:hep-ph/9602317 [hep-ph]]

    1996 arXiv

  42. [49]

    N. C. Tsamis and R. P. Woodard, Annals Phys. 321, 875-893 (2006) doi:10.1016/j.aop.2005.08.004 [arXiv:gr-qc/0506056 [gr-qc]]

    2006 arXiv

  43. [50]

    S. P. Miao and R. P. Woodard, Class. Quant. Grav. 23, 1721-1762 (2006) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/23/5/016 [arXiv:gr-qc/0511140 [gr-qc]]

    2006 arXiv

  44. [51]

    E. O. Kahya and R. P. Woodard, Phys. Rev. D 76, 124005 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.76.124005 [arXiv:0709.0536 [gr-qc]]

    2007 arXiv

  45. [52]

    S. P. Miao, Phys. Rev. D 86, 104051 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.104051 [arXiv:1207.5241 [gr-qc]]

    2012 arXiv

  46. [53]

    K. E. Leonard and R. P. Woodard, Class. Quant. Grav. 31, 015010 (2014) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/31/1/015010 [arXiv:1304.7265 [gr- qc]]

    2014 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Glavan, S

    D. Glavan, S. P. Miao, T. Prokopec and R. P. Woodard, Class. Qu ant. Grav. 32, no.19, 195014 (2015) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/32/19/195014 [arXiv:1504.00894 [gr-qc]]

    2015 arXiv

  48. [55]

    S. P. Miao, N. C. Tsamis and R. P. Woodard, Phys. Rev. D 95, no.12, 125008 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.125008 [arXiv:1702.05694 [g r- qc]]

    2017 arXiv

  49. [56]

    Glavan, S

    D. Glavan, S. P. Miao, T. Prokopec and R. P. Woodard, Phys. Rev. D 101, no.10, 106016 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.106016 [arXiv:2003.02549 [gr-qc]]

    2020 arXiv

  50. [57]

    K. c. Chou, Z. b. Su, B. l. Hao and L. Yu, Phys. Rept. 118, 1-131 (1985) doi:10.1016/0370-1573(85)90136-X

    1985 doi

  51. [58]

    R. D. Jordan, Phys. Rev. D 33, 444-454 (1986) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.33.444

    1986 doi

  52. [59]

    Calzetta and B

    E. Calzetta and B. L. Hu, Phys. Rev. D 35, 495 (1987) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.35.495

    1987 doi

  53. [60]

    L. H. Ford and R. P. Woodard, Class. Quant. Grav. 22, 1637-1647 (2005) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/22/9/011 [arXiv:gr-qc/0411003 [gr-qc]]. 43

    2005 arXiv

  54. [61]

    Glavan, S

    D. Glavan, S. P. Miao, T. Prokopec and R. P. Woodard, Phys. Lett. B 798, 134944 (2019) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.134944 [arXiv:1908.11113 [gr-qc]]

    2019

  55. [62]

    ’t Hooft and M

    G. ’t Hooft and M. J. G. Veltman, Ann. Inst. H. Poincare A Phys. Theor. 20, 69-94 (1974)

    1974

  56. [63]

    Park and R

    S. Park and R. P. Woodard, Phys. Rev. D 83, 084049 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.084049 [arXiv:1101.5804 [gr-qc]]

    2011 arXiv

  57. [64]

    S. P. Miao, N. C. Tsamis and R. P. Woodard, JHEP 07, 099 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2024)099 [arXiv:2405.00116 [gr-qc]]

    2024 arXiv

  58. [65]

    Boran, E

    S. Boran, E. O. Kahya and S. Park, Phys. Rev. D 90, no.12, 124054 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.124054 [arXiv:1409.7753 [gr-qc]]

    2014 arXiv

  59. [66]

    Boran, E

    S. Boran, E. O. Kahya and S. Park, Phys. Rev. D 96, no.2, 025001 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.025001 [arXiv:1704.05880 [gr-qc]]

    2017 arXiv

  60. [67]

    M. B. Fr¨ ob, Class. Quant. Grav. 35, no.3, 035005 (2018) doi:10.1088/1361-6382/aa9ad1 [arXiv:1706.01891 [hep-th]]

    2018 arXiv

  61. [68]

    Glavan, S

    D. Glavan, S. P. Miao, T. Prokopec and R. P. Woodard, Phys. Rev. D 103, no.10, 105022 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.105022 [arXiv:2007.10395 [gr-qc]]

    2021 arXiv

  62. [69]

    D. M. Capper, Nuovo Cim. A 25, 29 (1975) doi:10.1007/BF02735608

    1975 doi

  63. [70]

    A. J. Foraci and R. P. Woodard, [arXiv:2501.01972 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  64. [71]

    R. P. Woodard, Phys. Lett. B 148, 440-444 (1984) doi:10.1016/0370- 2693(84)90734-2

    1984 doi

  65. [72]

    Feinberg and J

    G. Feinberg and J. Sucher, Phys. Rev. 166, 1638-1644 (1968) doi:10.1103/PhysRev.166.1638

    1968 doi

  66. [73]

    S. D. H. Hsu and P. Sikivie, Phys. Rev. D 49, 4951-4953 (1994) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.49.4951 [arXiv:hep-ph/9211301 [hep-ph]]

    1994 arXiv

  67. [74]

    D. M. Capper and M. J. Duff, Nucl. Phys. B 82, 147-154 (1974) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(74)90582-3

    1974 doi

  68. [75]

    M. J. Duff and J. T. Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2052-2055 (2000) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/18/16/310 [arXiv:hep-th/0003237 [hep-t h]]. 44

    2000 arXiv

  69. [76]

    D. M. Capper, M. J. Duff and L. Halpern, Phys. Rev. D 10, 461-467 (1974) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.10.461

    1974 doi

  70. [77]

    C. L. Wang and R. P. Woodard, Phys. Rev. D 92, 084008 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.084008 [arXiv:1508.01564 [gr-qc]]

    2015 arXiv

  71. [78]

    A. J. Foraci and R. P. Woodard, [arXiv:2412.11022 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  72. [79]

    Deser and P

    S. Deser and P. van Nieuwenhuizen, Phys. Rev. D 10, 401 (1974) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.10.401

    1974 doi

  73. [80]

    Deser and P

    S. Deser and P. van Nieuwenhuizen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 32, 245-247 (1974) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.32.245

    1974 doi

  74. [81]

    N. C. Tsamis, R. P. Woodard and B. Yesilyurt, Phys. Lett. B 849, 138472 (2024) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138472 [arXiv:2312.1591 3 [gr-qc]]

    2024

  75. [82]

    L. Tan, N. C. Tsamis and R. P. Woodard, Class. Quant. Grav. 38, no.14, 145024 (2021) doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ac0233 [arXiv:2103.08547 [g r-qc]]

    2021 arXiv

  76. [83]

    A. A. Starobinsky, Lect. Notes Phys. 246, 107-126 (1986) doi:10.1007/3- 540-16452-9 6

    1986 doi

  77. [84]

    A. A. Starobinsky and J. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. D 50, 6357-6368 (1994) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.50.6357 [arXiv:astro-ph/9407016 [astro-ph ]]

    1994 arXiv

  78. [85]

    N. C. Tsamis and R. P. Woodard, Nucl. Phys. B 724, 295-328 (2005) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2005.06.031 [arXiv:gr-qc/0505115 [gr-qc]]

    2005 arXiv

  79. [86]

    S. P. Miao and R. P. Woodard, Phys. Rev. D 74, 044019 (2006) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.74.044019 [arXiv:gr-qc/0602110 [gr-qc]]

    2006 arXiv

  80. [87]

    Prokopec, N

    T. Prokopec, N. C. Tsamis and R. P. Woodard, Annals Phys. 323, 1324- 1360 (2008) doi:10.1016/j.aop.2007.08.008 [arXiv:0707.0847 [gr-qc]]

    2008 arXiv

  81. [88]

    Candelas and D

    P. Candelas and D. J. Raine, Phys. Rev. D 12, 965-974 (1975) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.12.965

    1975 doi

  82. [89]

    N. C. Tsamis and R. P. Woodard, J. Math. Phys. 48, 052306 (2007) doi:10.1063/1.2738361 [arXiv:gr-qc/0608069 [gr-qc]]

    2007 arXiv

  83. [90]

    Prokopec, N

    T. Prokopec, N. C. Tsamis and R. P. Woodard, Class. Quant. Gr av. 24, 201-230 (2007) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/24/1/011 [arXiv:gr-qc/ 0607094 [gr-qc]]. 45

    2007 doi

  84. [91]

    Prokopec, N

    T. Prokopec, N. C. Tsamis and R. P. Woodard, Phys. Rev. D 78, 043523 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.043523 [arXiv:0802.3673 [gr-qc]]

    2008 arXiv

  85. [92]

    Kitamoto and Y

    H. Kitamoto and Y. Kitazawa, Phys. Rev. D 83, 104043 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.104043 [arXiv:1012.5930 [hep-th]]

    2011 arXiv

  86. [93]

    Kitamoto and Y

    H. Kitamoto and Y. Kitazawa, Phys. Rev. D 85, 044062 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.044062 [arXiv:1109.4892 [hep-th]]

    2012 arXiv

  87. [94]

    Kitamoto, Phys

    H. Kitamoto, Phys. Rev. D 100, no.2, 025020 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.025020 [arXiv:1811.01830 [hep-th]]

    2019 arXiv

  88. [95]

    R. P. Woodard and B. Yesilyurt, JHEP 06, 206 (2023) doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2023)206 [arXiv:2302.11528 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  89. [96]

    Kasdagli, M

    E. Kasdagli, M. Ulloa and R. P. Woodard, Phys. Rev. D 107, no.10, 105023 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.105023 [arXiv:2302.04808 [gr- qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  90. [97]

    R. P. Woodard and B. Yesilyurt, JHEP 08, 124 (2023) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2023)124 [arXiv:2305.17641 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  91. [98]

    S. P. Miao, N. C. Tsamis and R. P. Woodard, Class. Quant. Grav. 41, no.21, 215007 (2024) doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ad7dc8 [arXiv:2405.0 1024 [gr-qc]]

    2024 doi

  92. [99]

    S. P. Miao, N. C. Tsamis and R. P. Woodard, [arXiv:2409.12003 [gr -qc]]

    arXiv

  93. [100]

    R. L. Arnowitt, S. Deser and C. W. Misner, Gen. Rel. Grav. 40, 1997-2027 (2008) doi:10.1007/s10714-008-0661-1 [arXiv:gr-qc/ 0405109 [gr-qc]]

    2008 doi

  94. [101]

    Renormalization Group Resummation of Inflationary Graviton Loop Corrections to Massless Fermions,

    “Renormalization Group Resummation of Inflationary Graviton Loop Corrections to Massless Fermions,” preprint in preparation

  95. [102]

    Glavan, S

    D. Glavan, S. P. Miao, T. Prokopec and R. P. Woodard, JHEP 08, 195 (2023) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2023)195 [arXiv:2307.09386 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  96. [103]

    D. M. Capper, J. Phys. A 13, 199 (1980) doi:10.1088/0305- 4470/13/1/022

    1980 doi

  97. [104]

    Unruh, [arXiv:astro-ph/9802323 [astro-ph]]

    W. Unruh, [arXiv:astro-ph/9802323 [astro-ph]]

    arXiv

  98. [105]

    L. R. Abramo and R. P. Woodard, Phys. Rev. D 65, 063515 (2002) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.65.063515 [arXiv:astro-ph/0109272 [astro- ph]]. 46

    2002 arXiv

  99. [106]

    Geshnizjani and R

    G. Geshnizjani and R. Brandenberger, Phys. Rev. D 66, 123507 (2002) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.66.123507 [arXiv:gr-qc/0204074 [gr-qc]]

    2002 arXiv

  100. [107]

    Garriga and T

    J. Garriga and T. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. D 77, 024021 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.024021 [arXiv:0706.0295 [hep-th]]

    2008 arXiv

  101. [108]

    N. C. Tsamis and R. P. Woodard, Phys. Rev. D 78, 028501 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.028501 [arXiv:0708.2004 [hep-th]]

    2008 arXiv

  102. [109]

    Higuchi, D

    A. Higuchi, D. Marolf and I. A. Morrison, Class. Quant. Grav. 28, 245012 (2011) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/28/24/245012 [arXiv:1107 .2712 [hep-th]]

    2011 doi

  103. [110]

    S. P. Miao, N. C. Tsamis and R. P. Woodard, Class. Quant. Grav . 28, 245013 (2011) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/28/24/245013 [arXiv:1107 .4733 [gr-qc]]

    2011 doi

  104. [111]

    Tanaka and Y

    T. Tanaka and Y. Urakawa, PTEP 2013, 083E01 (2013) doi:10.1093/ptep/ptt057 [arXiv:1209.1914 [hep-th]]

    2013 arXiv

  105. [112]

    Tanaka and Y

    T. Tanaka and Y. Urakawa, PTEP 2013, no.6, 063E02 (2013) doi:10.1093/ptep/ptt037 [arXiv:1301.3088 [hep-th]]

    2013 arXiv

  106. [113]

    Tanaka and Y

    T. Tanaka and Y. Urakawa, Class. Quant. Grav. 30, 233001 (2013) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/30/23/233001 [arXiv:1306.4461 [hep-th]]

    2013 arXiv

  107. [114]

    Tanaka and Y

    T. Tanaka and Y. Urakawa, PTEP 2014, no.7, 073E01 (2014) doi:10.1093/ptep/ptu071 [arXiv:1402.2076 [hep-th]]

    2014 arXiv

  108. [115]

    Glavan, S

    D. Glavan, S. P. Miao, T. Prokopec and R. P. Woodard, Class. Quant. Grav. 34, no.8, 085002 (2017) doi:10.1088/1361-6382/aa61da [arXiv:1609.00386 [gr-qc]]

    2017 arXiv

  109. [116]

    S. P. Miao, T. Prokopec and R. P. Woodard, Phys. Rev. D 96, no.10, 104029 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.104029 [arXiv:1708.06239 [g r- qc]]

    2017 arXiv

  110. [117]

    N. C. Tsamis and R. P. Woodard, Annals Phys. 215, 96-155 (1992) doi:10.1016/0003-4916(92)90301-2

    1992 doi

  111. [118]

    Modanese, Riv

    G. Modanese, Riv. Nuovo Cim. 17N8, 1-62 (1994) doi:10.1007/BF02724514 [arXiv:hep-th/9410086 [hep-th]]

    1994 arXiv

  112. [119]

    Rovelli, Phys

    C. Rovelli, Phys. Rev. D 65, 044017 (2002) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.65.044017 [arXiv:gr-qc/0110003 [gr-qc]]. 47

    2002 arXiv

  113. [120]

    S. B. Giddings, D. Marolf and J. B. Hartle, Phys. Rev. D 74, 064018 (2006) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.74.064018 [arXiv:hep-th/0512200 [he p- th]]

    2006 arXiv

  114. [121]

    S. B. Giddings and D. Marolf, Phys. Rev. D 76, 064023 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.76.064023 [arXiv:0705.1178 [hep-th]]

    2007 arXiv

  115. [122]

    D. R. Green, Phys. Rev. D 78, 064066 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.064066 [arXiv:0804.4450 [hep-th]]

    2008 arXiv

  116. [123]

    Khavkine, Phys

    I. Khavkine, Phys. Rev. D 85, 124014 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.124014 [arXiv:1111.7127 [gr-qc]]

    2012 arXiv

  117. [124]

    Donnelly and S

    W. Donnelly and S. B. Giddings, Phys. Rev. D 93, no.2, 024030 (2016) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 94, no.2, 029903 (2016)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.024030 [arXiv:1507.07921 [hep-th]]

    2016 arXiv

  118. [125]

    Marolf, Class

    D. Marolf, Class. Quant. Grav. 32, no.24, 245003 (2015) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/32/24/245003 [arXiv:1508.00939 [gr-qc]]

    2015 arXiv

  119. [126]

    M. B. Fr¨ ob and W. C. C. Lima, Class. Quant. Grav. 35, no.9, 095010 (2018) doi:10.1088/1361-6382/aab427 [arXiv:1711.08470 [gr-qc]]

    2018 arXiv

  120. [127]

    Becker and C

    M. Becker and C. Pagani, Phys. Rev. D 99, no.6, 066002 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.066002 [arXiv:1810.11816 [gr-qc]]

    2019 arXiv

  121. [128]

    Becker and C

    M. Becker and C. Pagani, Universe 5, no.3, 75 (2019) doi:10.3390/universe5030075

    2019 doi

  122. [129]

    J. F. Donoghue and T. Torma, Phys. Rev. D 54, 4963-4972 (1996) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.54.4963 [arXiv:hep-th/9602121 [hep-th]]

    1996 arXiv

  123. [131]

    Katuwal and R

    S. Katuwal and R. P. Woodard, JHEP 10, 029 (2021) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2021)029 [arXiv:2107.13341 [gr-qc]]

    2021 arXiv

  124. [132]

    N. E. J. Bjerrum-Bohr, Phys. Rev. D 66, 084023 (2002) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.66.084023 [arXiv:hep-th/0206236 [hep-th]]

    2002 arXiv

  125. [133]

    Glavan, S

    D. Glavan, S. P. Miao, T. Prokopec and R. P. Woodard, JHEP 10, 096 (2019) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2019)096 [arXiv:1908.06064 [gr-qc]]. 48

    2019 arXiv

  126. [134]

    S. P. Miao, T. Prokopec and R. P. Woodard, Phys. Rev. D 98, no.2, 025022 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.025022 [arXiv:1806.00742 [g r- qc]]

    2018 arXiv

  127. [135]

    S. P. Miao and R. P. Woodard, Class. Quant. Grav. 25, 145009 (2008) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/25/14/145009 [arXiv:0803.2377 [gr-qc]]

    2008 arXiv

  128. [136]

    R. P. Woodard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 081301 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.081301 [arXiv:0805.3089 [gr-qc]]. 49

    2008 arXiv

Pith tools

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