Weakly-Coupled Trace Anomaly Action for Gravity

Giorgi Tukhashvili; Gregory Gabadadze

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Weakly-Coupled Trace Anomaly Action for Gravity

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that the unique local action reproducing the gravitational trace anomaly is not a viable effective field theory unless spontaneous scale breaking supplies a kinetic term for its scalar.

desk verdict A clear review of the anomalyon program, with one genuinely new appendix; the central no-back-reaction claim is asserted rather than derived, but the paper is worth refereeing for a memorial volume. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.11397 v1 pith:FGCKZRZF submitted 2025-05-16 hep-th gr-qchep-ph

Gregory Gabadadze , Giorgi Tukhashvili This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-thgr-qchep-ph

keywords traceanomalyscaleRiegertactionanomalyoneffectivefieldtheoryspontaneoussymmetrybreakingGalileonconformal

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that the local Riegert action, the unique 4D diffeomorphism-invariant action that reproduces the gravitational trace anomaly, is not a viable effective field theory on its own: its scalar field $\sigma$ has nonlinear interactions but no quadratic kinetic term. That missing kinetic term makes 2-to-2 scattering of $\sigma$ strongly coupled at arbitrarily low energies, and gives $\sigma$ background-dependent kinetic terms that can drive gradient instabilities. Consistency, the paper claims, forces one of two options: cancel the trace anomaly (for example with spin-3/2 states) or add a new sector with spontaneously broken scale invariance whose Goldstone boson supplies the kinetic term. The proposed weakly-coupled total action adds an opposite-sign two-derivative gravitational term for the conformally related metric $\bar{g}=e^{-2\sigma}g$, producing a healthy kinetic term for $\sigma$ without changing the anomaly equation, and making $\sigma$ the "anomalyon."

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the addition of $\bar{S}(\bar{g})=-\bar{M}^2\int\sqrt{\bar{g}}\,R(\bar{g})$ with $\bar{g}_{\mu\nu}=e^{-2\sigma}g_{\mu\nu}$ and $\bar{M}\ll M$. This is the standard two-derivative gravitational action for the barred metric with the opposite sign; expanded in terms of $g$ and $\sigma$, it produces a correct-sign kinetic term for $\sigma$, while its metric variation does not alter the trace-anomaly equation because $\bar{g}$ is invariant under the scale transformations defining the anomaly. The scale $\bar{M}$ is the spontaneous-breaking scale, and $\sigma$ is the anomalyon. At low energies the anomalyon self-interactions are Galileon-like and suppressed by $\bar{M}$, so the forward amplitude is $a s^2/\bar{M}^4$ rather than divergent.

What would settle it

Evaluate the full nonlinear trace of the metric variation of $\bar{S}(\bar{g})=-\bar{M}^2\int\sqrt{\bar{g}}\,R(\bar{g})$ on a nontrivial background such as de Sitter or a Schwarzschild black hole; if this trace does not vanish identically, the anomalyon's kinetic term is sourced in a way that changes the anomaly equation (1.4), so the proposed cure fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Starting from the dimensionally regularized renormalized action with the one-loop counter-term of Eq. (2.3), the paper shows that the unique local 4D action reproducing the trace anomaly, Eq. (3.5), is pathological: the scalar $\sigma$ has nonlinear interactions but no quadratic kinetic term. Regulating it with an infinitesimal kinetic term $-u^2M^2\int\sqrt{g}(\partial\sigma)^2$ gives a forward 2-to-2 amplitude $a s^2/(uM)^4$, so the strong-coupling scale $uM/a^{1/4}$ vanishes as $u\to 0$; without a regulator, $\sigma$'s kinetic term is determined by the background and can have unhealthy signs for ordinary sources such as a planet. The cure is the new term (4.1), $\bar{S}(\bar{g})=-\bar{M}^2\int\sqrt{\bar{g}}\,R(\bar{g})$ with $\bar{M}\ll M$ and $\bar{g}=e^{-2\sigma}g$: because $\bar{g}$ is invariant under the scale and diffeomorphism transformations used to define the anomaly, this term does not shift the trace-anomaly equation, but it gives $\sigma$ a right-sign kinetic term. The total weakly-coupled action is $S_{tot}=S(g)+\bar{S}(\bar{g})+S_A(\bar{g},\sigma)$, in which $\sigma$ is the Goldstone boson of spontaneously broken scale invariance at the scale $\bar{M}$ (the anomalyon), and the forward scattering amplitude becomes $a s^2/\bar{M}^4$.

Load-bearing premise

The whole cure rests on the claim that adding the opposite-sign two-derivative gravitational term for the barred metric leaves the trace-anomaly equation untouched while still giving $\sigma$ a kinetic term; if that invariance claim fails, the anomalous $\sigma$ remains strongly coupled and the proposed fix collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the central claim is correct, the local anomaly action in isolation is not an effective field theory; the anomalyon sector is a necessary ingredient, not an optional extension.
At energies below $\bar{M}$, anomalyon scattering is weak, with forward amplitude $a s^2/\bar{M}^4$, and the sigma field has a healthy conformal kinetic term plus Galileon self-interactions.
A non-cancelled trace anomaly in gravity coupled to the Standard Model would signal new physics: a light scalar (the anomalyon) that is massless during inflation and acquires a mass below $\bar{M}$ in the present universe through non-Abelian gauge interactions.
The scale hierarchy $\bar{M}\ll M$ can be generated by a holographic two-brane geometry, providing a UV completion of the weakly-coupled action.
Alternatively, the trace anomaly could cancel through negative contributions, for example from spin-3/2 states, which would make the anomalyon unnecessary.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: if the anomalyon exists with $\bar{M}$ near observable scales, gravitational-wave observations could see a scalar-polarized extra channel; the paper does not calculate this signature.
Editorial inference: the same no-kinetic-term obstruction should apply to any effective action for scale symmetry written with a nonlinearly transforming scalar; the cure is to recognize that scalar as the Goldstone boson of a spontaneously broken symmetry rather than as an auxiliary field.
Editorial inference: a direct test of the paper's dichotomy is to measure four-graviton or graviton-scalar scattering in a regime where the trace-anomaly contact term dominates; a finite amplitude at arbitrarily low energies would favor the anomalyon sector, while a divergence would demand anomaly cancellation.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this is a review, not a new-results paper. The weakly-coupled action (4.2) and the anomalyon mechanism come from the authors' earlier papers [7,8,9]. The only genuinely new piece is Appendix A, which argues that the Deser-Duff-Isham nonlocal formulation is just another way of writing the standard scale anomaly, not a new anomaly. That appendix is clear and useful—it settles a small literature confusion.

What the paper does well: the one-loop counter-term, the D→4 limiting procedure, and the strong-coupling amplitude (2.9) are all presented with enough detail to check. The Riegert action and its WZ interpretation are standard, but the summary is clean and the three failure modes in Section 3 (strong coupling, background-dependent kinetic terms, constraint instead of dynamics) are laid out honestly. If someone wants a compact account of why the Riegert action is not a healthy EFT, this is a good place to point them.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. The load-bearing step is the assertion in Section 4 that adding Sbar (4.1) does not modify the trace anomaly equation. That is exactly the claim on which the whole resolution rests, and in this paper it is simply asserted with a citation to [7]. The invariance of gbar under the combined scale/diff transformation is true by construction, but the inference from that invariance to "the anomaly equation is unchanged" is not spelled out; a referee should ask for a few lines of algebra or a precise pointer. The "inconsistent" wording in the introduction overstates what is shown—strong coupling and instabilities are not the same as logical inconsistency. And the physical mass of the anomalyon from QCD is anchored to an unpublished reference [25]; that is a minor issue because the paper is a review, but it should be flagged. The hierarchy Mbar<

Overall: for readers interested in trace anomaly effective actions, this is a useful and honest review. The novel appendix earns it a serious read. I'd recommend sending it to peer review, asking for a derivation or a more explicit citation for the invariance claim, and a toning down of "inconsistent." Even if those are not changed, it deserves publication in the memorial volume where it will be read by people who know the context.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the local, diffeomorphism-invariant quantum effective action that reproduces the 4D trace anomaly (the Riegert/Fradkin-Tseytlin action). It argues that this action is not a meaningful effective field theory because the auxiliary scalar sigma has no quadratic kinetic term, leading to strong coupling at arbitrarily low energies, background-dependent instabilities, and a constraint-type equation of motion. The proposed resolution is to add a term Sbar(gbar) = -Mbar^2 ∫√gbar R(gbar), where gbar = e^{-2σ}g, which is claimed to leave the trace anomaly equation unchanged while supplying a healthy kinetic term for sigma, the Nambu-Goldstone boson ('anomalyon') of a spontaneously broken scale-invariant sector at scale Mbar << M. The paper also sketches a holographic completion via the Randall-Sundrum model, discusses the mass and cosmological role of the anomalyon, and appends reviews of local/nonlocal formulations of the trace anomaly in QED, the Schwinger model, and the 2D Polyakov action.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper establishes a nontrivial constraint on any EFT of gravity coupled to the Standard Model: either the trace anomaly must be canceled or an anomalyon sector must exist. The manuscript's strengths include a checkable one-loop counter-term computation, a standard derivation of the anomaly equation, a clear demonstration of the strong-coupling pathology via the D→4 amplitude (Eq. 2.9), and an instructive Appendix A connecting local and nonlocal formulations of the QED trace anomaly. The weakness is that the proposed cure rests on two assertions imported from the authors' prior work, [7] and [8], which are not derived here: the exact invariance of Sbar under the relevant symmetry, and the stability of the hierarchy Mbar << M. The paper is therefore valuable as a programmatic review, but as a self-contained research article the central resolution is not fully established.

major comments (3)

[Section 4, Eq. (4.1)] The central claim that adding Sbar(gbar) does not modify the trace anomaly equation is load-bearing but is asserted only with a citation to [7]. The manuscript does not give the invariance proof: one needs to state the transformation rule (δg = 2ωg, δσ = ω, or the nonlinearly realized scale transformation), verify that gbar is invariant, and then show that the trace of the variation of Stot with respect to g is unchanged once the sigma equation of motion is imposed. The text currently conflates invariance under the combined scale/diff transformation with invariance of the trace of the pure g-variation; these differ by the sigma equation of motion, so the missing derivation is essential.
[Section 1 and Section 4, Eqs. (1.3), (4.1)] The transformation law for sigma used in Section 4 to establish the invariance of gbar appears inconsistent with the scale transformation defined in Section 1. In Eq. (1.3) a canonical scalar transforms multiplicatively, σ → e^{-γ}σ, whereas the combination gbar = e^{-2σ}g is invariant only if σ shifts additively, σ → σ + ω. The paper should clarify which transformation is meant to define the anomaly and reconcile the two rules, since the entire cure depends on this invariance.
[Section 4, Eq. (4.2) and following paragraph] The suppression of the wrong-sign tensor kinetic term from Sbar relies on the hierarchy Mbar << M, which is postulated rather than derived. The manuscript cites the Randall-Sundrum construction of [8] as an external completion, but does not show that quantum corrections from the new sector preserve the hierarchy or that the wrong-sign contributions remain subleading after renormalization. Without an argument for radiative stability, the claim that the theory is weakly coupled below Mbar is not established.

minor comments (4)

[Section 3, after Eq. (3.2)] Typo: 'an re-derived' should be 'and re-derived'.
[Appendix A, Eq. (A.2)] Typo: 'spurious feild' should be 'spurious field'.
[Section 1, paragraph on the literature] Typo: 'Riegert's local cation' should be 'Riegert's local action'.
[Section 4, text about the present-day sigma mass] The claim that the sigma field acquires a non-perturbative mass in the present-day universe is supported only by reference [25], which is listed as 'Work in preparation'. This is not a citable precedent; either provide the mechanism here or cite a published source.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The anomalyon cure is imported from the authors' own prior papers; the strong-coupling problem itself is independently derived.

self citation load bearing [Section 1, paragraph after Eq. (1.4); summarized again in Section 4 around Eq. (4.2)]
"Recent investigations of this question lead to an unexpected conclusion that either the trace anomaly should be canceled in the full theory, or else there has to exist a new sector responsible for spontaneous breaking of the scale symmetry with an associated spin-0 Nambu-Goldstone boson [7–9]."

This is the paper's central claim, repeated as 'without the introduction of the sector with spontaneous symmetry breaking, the full theory is inconsistent in the present case.' Refs. [7], [8], and [9] are all prior papers by the same authors, and the present paper does not derive the necessity of the anomalyon sector here; it cites that conclusion. The load-bearing assertion is thus the self-authored result itself, not an independent derivation.
ansatz smuggled in via citation [Section 4, Eq. (4.1) and following paragraph]
"There is however a more subtle way to introduce the σ kinetic term without introducing extra terms in the trace anomaly equation [7]. ... The existence of the new term, (4.1), would signify the existence of a new sector in the gravitational theory, with σ being a Nambu-Goldstone boson of spontaneously broken scale invariance at the scale ¯M."

The weakly-coupled resolution is Eq. (4.1), an opposite-sign Einstein-Hilbert term for gbar = e^{-2σ} g, chosen precisely so that it produces the missing sigma kinetic term while (by assertion) not changing the anomaly equation. Both the form of the term and the no-modification claim are taken from [7], the authors' own earlier proposal. The 'new sector' is then inferred from the postulated term rather than derived from independent dynamics, so the anomalyon conclusion is an input dressed as an output.

full rationale

Most of the paper's derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular: the one-loop counterterm (2.3), the anomaly equation (2.6), the local Riegert action (3.5), and the strong-coupling and instability arguments of Sections 2-3 are obtained from standard QFT and from external references [2-5]. The circularity is concentrated in the proposed resolution. The claim that consistency requires a spontaneously broken scale sector is imported from the authors' own [7-9], and Eq. (4.1) is an ansatz from [7] whose invariance is asserted, not demonstrated; the resulting 'anomalyon' is read off from the added term. Physical consequences such as the sigma mass are also deferred to [25], 'Work in preparation'. Because the problem being cured is independently established, the paper deserves a moderate score rather than a high one.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard one-loop anomaly calculations plus a postulated new sector. The only free parameter of the new sector is its scale Mbar. The invariance of gbar under scale transformations is the key technical assumption that lets (4.1) add a kinetic term without altering the anomaly equation.

free parameters (1)

Mbar (anomalyon scale) = undetermined; assumed Mbar << M_Pl
Introduced in Eq. (4.1) as the coefficient of the new Einstein-Hilbert term for gbar. All low-energy consequences, including the strong-coupling scale Mbar/a^(1/4), depend on it, and the paper does not derive its value.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The one-loop counter-term (2.3), with coefficients a and c determined by field content, is the unique diff-invariant completion that reproduces the trace anomaly equation (2.6).
Invoked in Section 2 after Eq. (2.4); relies on Capper and Duff uniqueness arguments [1,2].
domain assumption The D to 4 limit via n = -2 epsilon- (Eq. 3.1) yields the local Riegert action (3.2) with no additional terms affecting the anomaly.
Used in Section 3 to pass from the dimensionally regularized action to the 4D local action; quoted from [19,17].
domain assumption gbar = e^{-2 sigma} g is invariant under the scale transformations (1.3), so the new term Sbar(gbar) in Eq. (4.1) does not modify the trace anomaly equation.
This is the hinge of the anomalyon mechanism in Section 4; asserted citing [7], not proven in this paper.
ad hoc to paper A new sector with spontaneously broken scale invariance exists, with Nambu-Goldstone boson sigma at scale Mbar << M_Pl.
The resolution postulates this sector in Section 4; the paper provides no independent evidence for its existence.
domain assumption Higher-dimensional curvature invariants suppressed by M and Mbar do not affect the low-energy strong-coupling or resolution arguments.
Stated in Sections 2 and 4; assumes the analysis is controlled by the terms shown.
domain assumption The D-dimensional amplitudes from [17] with polarization tensor (2.7) are directly applicable to the action (2.4).
Used in Section 2 to exhibit the additional 1/(D-4) divergences in the four-graviton amplitude.

invented entities (1)

Anomalyon (sigma)
purpose: Nambu-Goldstone boson of the new spontaneously broken scale sector; supplies the missing kinetic term for the trace anomaly scalar and renders the effective action weakly coupled.
The paper gives qualitative consequences, but no quantitative falsifiable prediction is stated here, and the non-perturbative mass claim cites unpublished work [25].

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Weakly-Coupled Trace Anomaly Action for Gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FGCKZRZF

@misc{pith2026250511397,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Weakly-Coupled Trace Anomaly Action for Gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FGCKZRZF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.11397}
}

read the original abstract

We discuss a local, diff-invariant quantum effective action for gravity that captures the trace anomaly via a counter-term. We discuss why this counter-term is the most significant among infinitely many possible ones, and show how the counter-term leads to a scattering amplitude that is strongly coupled at arbitrarily low energies. We show how the introduction of a new sector with spontaneously broken scale invariance removes the strong coupling problem, and discuss some physical consequences due to the new sector. Three Appendices summarize quantum effective actions -- highlighting connections between their local, and seemingly non-local formulations -- for the scale anomaly in 4D QED, for the axial anomaly in 2D QED, and for the scale anomaly in a 2D sigma model.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

A Note on the AdS/CFT Equivalence Transformation for Galileons in General Dimensions
hep-th 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The AdS/CFT field redefinition for galileons is extended to all dimensions, and in odd dimensions the tadpole term is shown to be expressible via ordinary invariant terms.
Massive Gravity @ 15
hep-th 2026-07 unverdicted

A status review arguing that ghost-free massive gravity remains a theoretically consistent and phenomenologically viable infrared modification of General Relativity, with open UV questions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[7]

A new gravitational action for the trace anomaly,

G. Gabadadze, “A new gravitational action for the trace anomaly,” Phys. Lett. B843 (2023) 138031,arXiv:2301.13265 [hep-th]. 5Note that the further integration over quantum fluctuations ofρwould give an additional factor of−26, making the overall coefficient in front of the anomaly term to beN−26, [30]. 18

arXiv 2023
[25]

Work in preparation (2025)

work page 2025
[8]

Holography for the trace anomaly action,

G. Gabadadze and M. Porrati, “Holography for the trace anomaly action,” Phys. Rev. D108no. 8, (2023) 085006,arXiv:2306.16018 [hep-th]

arXiv 2023
[1]

Conformal Anomalies and the Renormalizability Problem in Quantum Gravity,

D. M. Capper and M. J. Duff, “Conformal Anomalies and the Renormalizability Problem in Quantum Gravity,” Phys. Lett. A53(1975) 361

work page 1975
[2]

Observations on Conformal Anomalies,

M. J. Duff, “Observations on Conformal Anomalies,” Nucl. Phys. B125(1977) 334–348

work page 1977
[3]

A Nonlocal Action for the Trace Anomaly,

R. J. Riegert, “A Nonlocal Action for the Trace Anomaly,” Phys. Lett. B134(1984) 56–60

work page 1984
[4]

Conformal Anomaly in Weyl Theory and Anomaly Free Superconformal Theories,

E. S. Fradkin and A. A. Tseytlin, “Conformal Anomaly in Weyl Theory and Anomaly Free Superconformal Theories,” Phys. Lett. B134(1984) 187

work page 1984
[5]

On Renormalization Group Flows in Four Dimensions,

Z. Komargodski and A. Schwimmer, “On Renormalization Group Flows in Four Dimensions,” JHEP12(2011) 099,arXiv:1107.3987 [hep-th]

arXiv 2011

Show all 30 references

[6]

Conformal/Poincar´ e Coset, cosmology, and descendants of Lovelock terms,

G. Gabadadze and G. Tukhashvili, “Conformal/Poincar´ e Coset, cosmology, and descendants of Lovelock terms,” Phys. Rev. D102no. 2, (2020) 024054, arXiv:2005.01729 [hep-th]

2020 arXiv
[9]

Inflation with the trace anomaly action and primordial black holes,

G. Gabadadze, D. N. Spergel, and G. Tukhashvili, “Inflation with the trace anomaly action and primordial black holes,” Phys. Rev. D111no. 6, (2025) 063529, arXiv:2411.16834 [hep-th]

2025 arXiv
[10]

C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler, Gravitation. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1973

1973
[11]

The Phantom menaced: Constraints on low-energy effective ghosts,

J. M. Cline, S. Jeon, and G. D. Moore, “The Phantom menaced: Constraints on low-energy effective ghosts,” Phys. Rev. D70(2004) 043543,arXiv:hep-ph/0311312

2004 arXiv
[12]

Radiative Corrections as the Origin of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking,

S. R. Coleman and E. J. Weinberg, “Radiative Corrections as the Origin of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking,” Phys. Rev. D7(1973) 1888–1910

1973
[13]

Nonperturbative evaluation of the anomalies in low-energy theorems,

R. J. Crewther, “Nonperturbative evaluation of the anomalies in low-energy theorems,” Phys. Rev. Lett.28(1972) 1421

1972
[14]

Canonical Anomalies and Broken Scale Invariance,

M. S. Chanowitz and J. R. Ellis, “Canonical Anomalies and Broken Scale Invariance,” Phys. Lett. B40(1972) 397–400

1972
[15]

Canonical Trace Anomalies,

M. S. Chanowitz and J. R. Ellis, “Canonical Trace Anomalies,” Phys. Rev. D7(1973) 2490–2506

1973
[16]

Energy-Momentum-Tensor Trace Anomaly in Spin 1/2 Quantum Electrodynamics,

S. L. Adler, J. C. Collins, and A. Duncan, “Energy-Momentum-Tensor Trace Anomaly in Spin 1/2 Quantum Electrodynamics,” Phys. Rev. D15(1977) 1712

1977
[17]

Amplitudes and 4D Gauss-Bonnet Theory,

J. Bonifacio, K. Hinterbichler, and L. A. Johnson, “Amplitudes and 4D Gauss-Bonnet Theory,” Phys. Rev. D102no. 2, (2020) 024029,arXiv:2004.10716 [hep-th]

2020 arXiv
[18]

Axial and Conformal Anomalies for Arbitrary Spin in Gravity and Supergravity,

S. M. Christensen and M. J. Duff, “Axial and Conformal Anomalies for Arbitrary Spin in Gravity and Supergravity,” Phys. Lett. B76(1978) 571

1978
[19]

Horndeski gravity asD→4 limit of Gauss-Bonnet,

H. Lu and Y. Pang, “Horndeski gravity asD→4 limit of Gauss-Bonnet,” Phys. Lett. B809(2020) 135717,arXiv:2003.11552 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[20]

Spontaneous Breaking of Conformal Invariance and Trace Anomaly Matching,

A. Schwimmer and S. Theisen, “Spontaneous Breaking of Conformal Invariance and Trace Anomaly Matching,” Nucl. Phys. B847(2011) 590–611,arXiv:1011.0696 [hep-th]

2011 arXiv
[21]

A New Type of Isotropic Cosmological Models Without Singularity,

A. A. Starobinsky, “A New Type of Isotropic Cosmological Models Without Singularity,” Phys. Lett. B91(1980) 99–102

1980
[22]

N. D. Birrell and P. C. W. Davies, Quantum Fields in Curved Space. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1982

1982
[23]

Gravity with a generalized conformal scalar field: theory and solutions,

P. G. S. Fernandes, “Gravity with a generalized conformal scalar field: theory and solutions,” Phys. Rev. D103no. 10, (2021) 104065,arXiv:2105.04687 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[24]

A Large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimension,

L. Randall and R. Sundrum, “A Large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimension,” Phys. Rev. Lett.83(1999) 3370–3373,arXiv:hep-ph/9905221

1999 arXiv
[26]

A Quartic Conformally Covariant Differential Operator for Arbitrary Pseudo-Riemannian Manifolds (Summary),

S. M. Paneitz, “A Quartic Conformally Covariant Differential Operator for Arbitrary Pseudo-Riemannian Manifolds (Summary),” SIGMA4(Mar., 2008) 036, arXiv:0803.4331 [math.DG]. 19

2008 arXiv
[27]

Nonlocal Conformal Anomalies,

S. Deser, M. J. Duff, and C. J. Isham, “Nonlocal Conformal Anomalies,” Nucl. Phys. B111(1976) 45–55

1976
[28]

Fermion Determinants, Chiral Symmetry, and the Wess-Zumino Anomaly,

O. Alvarez, “Fermion Determinants, Chiral Symmetry, and the Wess-Zumino Anomaly,” Nucl. Phys. B238(1984) 61–72

1984
[29]

On the Exact Gauge Invariant Calculation of the Fermion Determinant in Massless Two-dimensional QCD,

K. D. Rothe, “On the Exact Gauge Invariant Calculation of the Fermion Determinant in Massless Two-dimensional QCD,” Nucl. Phys. B269(1986) 269–284

1986
[30]

Quantum Geometry of Bosonic Strings,

A. M. Polyakov, “Quantum Geometry of Bosonic Strings,” Phys. Lett. B103(1981) 207–210. 20

1981

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [7]

A new gravitational action for the trace anomaly,

G. Gabadadze, “A new gravitational action for the trace anomaly,” Phys. Lett. B843 (2023) 138031,arXiv:2301.13265 [hep-th]. 5Note that the further integration over quantum fluctuations ofρwould give an additional factor of−26, making the overall coefficient in front of the anomaly term to beN−26, [30]. 18

arXiv 2023

[2] [25]

Work in preparation (2025)

work page 2025

[3] [8]

Holography for the trace anomaly action,

G. Gabadadze and M. Porrati, “Holography for the trace anomaly action,” Phys. Rev. D108no. 8, (2023) 085006,arXiv:2306.16018 [hep-th]

arXiv 2023

[4] [1]

Conformal Anomalies and the Renormalizability Problem in Quantum Gravity,

D. M. Capper and M. J. Duff, “Conformal Anomalies and the Renormalizability Problem in Quantum Gravity,” Phys. Lett. A53(1975) 361

work page 1975

[5] [2]

Observations on Conformal Anomalies,

M. J. Duff, “Observations on Conformal Anomalies,” Nucl. Phys. B125(1977) 334–348

work page 1977

[6] [3]

A Nonlocal Action for the Trace Anomaly,

R. J. Riegert, “A Nonlocal Action for the Trace Anomaly,” Phys. Lett. B134(1984) 56–60

work page 1984

[7] [4]

Conformal Anomaly in Weyl Theory and Anomaly Free Superconformal Theories,

E. S. Fradkin and A. A. Tseytlin, “Conformal Anomaly in Weyl Theory and Anomaly Free Superconformal Theories,” Phys. Lett. B134(1984) 187

work page 1984

[8] [5]

On Renormalization Group Flows in Four Dimensions,

Z. Komargodski and A. Schwimmer, “On Renormalization Group Flows in Four Dimensions,” JHEP12(2011) 099,arXiv:1107.3987 [hep-th]

arXiv 2011