Low-energy limit in the anomaly-induced action and the semiclassical cosmological bounce

Ilya L. Shapiro; Nicolas R. Bertini; Wagno Cesar e Silva

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 34 references

Low-energy limit in the anomaly-induced action and the semiclassical cosmological bounce

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Trace-anomaly bounce survives a second-order rewrite.

desk verdict A clean covariant localization of the IR anomaly action, but the bounce it produces sits exactly where the IR approximation is no longer valid. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09720 v1 pith:M7Q2RECL submitted 2026-08-10 gr-qc hep-th

Wagno Cesar e Silva , Nicolas R. Bertini , Ilya L. Shapiro This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qchep-th MSC 81T2081V1783C4783F05

keywords anomaly-inducedeffectiveactiontraceanomalycosmologicalbouncelow-energylimitauxiliaryscalarfieldssemiclassicalgravityFLRWcosmologyperturbations

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

An initially contracting universe filled with radiation can pass through a nonsingular bounce without exotic matter, because the conformal trace anomaly supplies the quantum correction that halts the collapse. This paper constructs the low-energy, covariant, local version of the anomaly-induced effective action: nonlocal operators are absorbed into auxiliary scalar fields, so no higher derivatives appear in the equations of motion. The authors solve the resulting closed system on a flat FLRW background and show that it reproduces the main qualitative features of the bounce found earlier in the non-covariant formulation. The value of the result is that cosmological perturbations around the bounce can now be studied with a second-order action, avoiding the ghost problems of higher-derivative formulations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the low-energy replacement of the Paneitz-operator Green function, $\Delta_4^{-1}\approx \Box^{-2}$, justified when radiation dominates curvature through the inequalities (9). This turns the quartic nonlocal kernel into $\Box^{-2}$ acting on $F^2$ and $\Box R$. A Gaussian sum/difference identity splits that product into two terms, each of which is localized by auxiliary scalar fields $\varphi,\psi$; field redefinitions give $\phi=\int (2/\Box)R$ and $\chi=\int (2/\Box^2)F^2$, and two Lagrange multipliers $\zeta,\xi$ remove the remaining higher derivatives. In the final action (18) the nonlocality is carried by $\phi$ and $\zeta$ (with $\xi=0$ on shell), and the auxiliary fields satisfy second-order equations $\Box\zeta=F^2$, $\Box\phi=2(R+\xi)$, $\Box\xi=0$, $\Box\chi=2\zeta$.

What would settle it

Evaluate $|\Box R|$, $|R^2|$ and $|F^2|$ along the numerical bounce solutions of Figs. 1 and 2 at $t=t_b$. If the inequalities $|\Box R|\gg |R^2|$ and $|F^2|\gg |R^2|$ fail there, the bounce is an artifact of the low-energy approximation rather than a consequence of the full trace anomaly, and the claimed equivalence with the bounce of [11] is broken.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the low-energy part of the anomaly-induced effective action, which is normally nonlocal and fourth-order, can be written as the covariant second-order action (18). The construction starts from the nonlocal representation (7), uses the radiation-dominated low-energy replacement $\Delta_4^{-1}\approx \Box^{-2}$ to isolate the leading $F^2\,\Box^{-2}\,\Box R$ term, and then localizes that term with auxiliary scalars and Lagrange multipliers. The resulting action contains no derivatives higher than second and is classically equivalent to the IR part of the nonlocal action. On a flat FLRW background the system reduces to coupled equations for the Hubble parameter and four auxiliary fields; numerical integration shows a smooth transition through $H=0$ with $a_2>0$, satisfying the local bounce condition, for two independent classes of initial conditions. The paper concludes that the nonsingular bounce is a genuine feature of the localized theory and that the new action is a suitable starting point for analyzing primordial perturbations.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the assumption that the inverse of the quartic conformal operator $\Delta_4$ can be replaced by two inverse wave operators all the way up to the bounce; the paper does not quantitatively verify the radiation-dominance inequalities at the transition point.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Linear cosmological perturbations around the bounce can be derived from the second-order action (18), sidestepping the higher-derivative ghost concerns of the full anomaly action.
The analytical bounce conditions restrict the auxiliary field at the bounce, for instance $-6<\phi_b<-\sqrt{N^2/M^2}$ in the negative branch, giving testable parameter windows for bounce models.
The positive-branch regime produces rapid oscillations of $\phi$ and the scale factor; if this branch is realized, it could imprint oscillations and non-Gaussianities in the cosmic microwave background.
Because the localization procedure treats the external source generically, the same low-energy action can be constructed for metric, electromagnetic, or scalar backgrounds.
The construction requires a positive total matter beta function ($\beta>0$), tying the viability of the bounce to the particle content of the theory.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper does not prove that the local and nonlocal formulations agree outside the tuned, source-induced branch; in the nonlinear regime the homogeneous auxiliary modes must be suppressed by hand, so perturbation results from (18) should be checked against the nonlocal IR action before being trusted.
The reduction $\Delta_4^{-1}\approx\Box^{-2}$ is assumed to hold through the bounce, where curvature is largest; a quantitative check of the inequalities (9) at $t_b$ would decide whether the bounce is a robust trace-anomaly effect rather than an artifact of the IR approximation.
The rapid oscillations seen in the positive-$\phi_b$ branch resemble a parametric-resonance mechanism; if scalar perturbations couple to those oscillations, the primordial power spectrum could acquire distinct features, a testable extension.
The same localization scheme could in principle be applied without the strict IR replacement by keeping more of the Paneitz operator, yielding a second-order covariant action whose bounce solutions could be compared with the full nonlocal theory at higher curvature.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear colleague,

The one thing to know about this paper is that the technical machinery is good but the physical punchline is unsecured. The authors construct a covariant, second-order local version of the low-energy anomaly-induced action using four auxiliary scalars, avoiding higher derivatives. That is a real and useful piece of formalism, and the algebra from the nonlocal action to Eq. (18) checks out. The bounce condition (35) and the evolution equations are consistent, and the numerical exploration—including a surprisingly oscillatory regime for large N^2—is new. I would not be surprised if this local action becomes the standard starting point for perturbation theory in this model.

But the bounce itself is not supported. The whole derivation rests on replacing the Paneitz Green function G by □^{-2}, justified by (9): |□R| >> |R^2...| and |F^2| >> |R^2...|. At a smooth bounce, H=0, R=6\dot H, and □R = 6(2\dot H^2 + \dddot H). For a time-symmetric bounce \dddot H is typically of order \dot H^2 or smaller, so |□R|/R^2 is of order one, not small. In other words, the inequality that makes the IR reduction valid is violated exactly at the point where the bounce is claimed. The paper never checks (9) against its own numerical solutions, and footnote 2 already concedes that the local/nonlocal correspondence is not guaranteed. Until this is addressed, a bounce found in the truncated action may well be an artifact of the truncation rather than a property of the trace anomaly.

Two smaller complaints. The numerics are not reproducible from the text: no code, no numerical method, no tolerances, and the figures are described only qualitatively. And the claim of reproducing the bounce of [11] is qualitative at best; the authors admit an exact quantitative correspondence requires fine-tuning.

Who should read this? Anyone working on effective actions from the trace anomaly or on bounce model building. The formalism is worth having, but the bounce claim needs a serious re-examination. That said, the paper is not a throwaway: the technical content is solid enough to justify a referee's time, and the IR-limit question is sharp and answerable. I would send it to review, but with the expectation that the authors must either check the inequalities at the bounce or soften the claim substantially.

Regards,

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a covariant local second-order action, Eq. (18), that is claimed to be the low-energy limit of the nonlocal anomaly-induced action, Eq. (7), using four auxiliary scalars and the replacement Δ4^{-1} ≈ □^{-2}. It derives the background equations of motion for FLRW cosmology, the local bounce condition, Eq. (35), and presents numerical bounce solutions for two classes of initial data, concluding that the main qualitative features of the earlier bounce solution of Ref. [11] are reproduced without higher derivatives.

Significance. If the low-energy reduction is justified, the second-order local action is a potentially useful framework for studying cosmological perturbations of anomaly-driven bounces, avoiding higher-derivative ghosts in the sub-Planckian regime. The algebraic derivation from Eq. (11) to Eq. (18) is internally consistent, and the analytical bounce condition (35) is a useful consistency check. However, the central approximation on which the action is based is not verified at the bounce, so the significance of the numerical bounce claims is conditional on resolving that issue.

major comments (3)

[Sec. 3, Eqs. (9)-(10); Sec. 4.2] The replacement Δ4^{-1} ≈ □^{-2} in Eq. (10) is justified by the inequalities in Eq. (9), but the numerical bounce solutions are never checked against those inequalities. At a time-symmetric bounce with H_b = 0, one has R_b = 6 \dot H_b and □R_b = -6 \dddot H_b - 24 \dot H_b^2, so |□R_b|/R_b^2 = |\dddot H_b + 4\dot H_b^2|/(6\dot H_b^2). For the near-linear H(t) shown in Fig. 2 this ratio is of order unity, contradicting the first inequality in Eq. (9). Thus the reduction leading to Eq. (18) is not justified at the transition, and the bounce obtained from Eq. (18) may be an artifact of the truncation rather than a consequence of the trace anomaly. The authors should evaluate the inequalities (9) along the numerical solutions and either demonstrate that they hold at the bounce or restrict the claims to the region where the low-energy approximation is valid.
[Sec. 4.2.1, Eq. (45), Fig. 1] The numerical evidence that the localized action reproduces the bounce of Ref. [11] is not reproducible from the text. The asymptotic solutions (38)-(42) and the parameter values in the caption of Fig. 1 do not specify the initial values of all four auxiliary fields and their first derivatives at a_i, nor the integration method, step size, tolerances, or shooting/stitching procedure used for Eq. (45). Without these details, the central claim that the bounce is reproduced cannot be independently verified. The authors should provide the complete initial data, the numerical scheme, and ideally the code or a data table for the displayed solutions.
[Sec. 4.2.2, Eqs. (46)-(49); Sec. 5] The second class of initial conditions, Eq. (46), sets ζ_b = χ_b = ξ_b = 0, which is not the nonlocal completion; indeed, footnote 2 concedes that local/nonlocal correspondence is not guaranteed in the nonlinear regime. The bouncing solutions in Figs. 2 and 3 therefore demonstrate the dynamics of the truncated local action, not equivalence with the parent anomaly-induced action (7). The conclusions should distinguish more sharply between the first class, which is intended as a test of the IR reduction, and the second class, which tests only the robustness of the truncated system. As written, the abstract and conclusions overstate the implication of these numerical results.

minor comments (5)

[Eq. (9)] The notation "R^2...." is unclear; please specify the curvature-squared invariants that are assumed small (e.g., R^2, R_{αβ}R^{αβ}, R_{αβμν}R^{αβμν}) and state the inequalities in a coordinate-invariant way.
[Sec. 4.2.1, Eqs. (38)-(42)] The derivation of the asymptotic auxiliary-field solutions is compressed; a few intermediate steps showing how Eqs. (26)-(29) reduce to (38)-(41) would improve readability.
[Fig. 1 caption] The caption states that the two branches are stitched together but does not explain how the expanding branch is obtained; please clarify whether it is generated by time reversal of the contracting branch or by separate integration with H_c = +0.1.
[Sec. 4.2.2] The phrase "the first derivative of the auxiliary fields can be taken vanishing" should be rephrased as "are set to zero" or "are taken to vanish," since these conditions are chosen rather than derived.
[References] Reference [34] appears in the reference list but is not cited in the text; either cite it where relevant or remove it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the bounce is obtained by integrating the localized anomaly-induced action; self-citations are comparison and initial-condition references, not load-bearing inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is explicit and self-contained: the trace anomaly (1) determines the nonlocal covariant action (7); the low-energy truncation (10) is an approximation justified by the inequalities (9); the localization via auxiliary fields (13)-(18) is a mathematical rewriting of that truncated action; and the bounce is obtained by solving the resulting FLRW equations (24)-(29). No step defines its output in terms of the claimed result. The integration constants M^2 and N^2 are fixed by initial conditions in Appendix A, not fitted to produce the bounce, and the paper transparently distinguishes the contraction-phase initial data (Sec. 4.2.1) from the at-the-bounce consistency test (Sec. 4.2.2), the latter being an independent robustness check with the allowed interval (48) derived from the field equations. Citations of the authors' previous work [10,11] provide the earlier bounce solution for comparison and the reference scale am in Eq. (43), but the numerical system is integrated forward from a contracting phase and reaches H=0 dynamically rather than having the bounce inserted as an ansatz. The main caveat—whether the IR inequalities (9) remain valid at the bounce—is a correctness or approximation-validity concern, not a circular reduction, so it does not raise the circularity score.

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

The central claim depends on a standard quantum field theory result (the trace anomaly and its effective action), an explicit low-energy approximation, and a branch-selection condition that removes homogeneous modes. The auxiliary scalar fields are invented to localize the action, but they carry no independent evidence and their physical status is purely instrumental. The free parameters are integration constants and numerical choices, not fits to external data.

free parameters (5)

kappa (anomaly coupling) = 0.1 in numerical examples
Sets the strength of the anomaly-induced correction in the field equations (20). It derives from the beta function and gauge coupling, so it is a physical input, but its numerical magnitude is chosen by hand.
M^2 (magnetic integration constant) = 0.5 in examples
Integration constant from solving the gauge field equations (Appendix A), fixing the standard radiation part of F^2 = M^2/a^4. Chosen for the numerical runs.
N^2 (electric integration constant) = 0, 10, 20, 40 times M^2 in different runs
Integration constant from the electric field solution; produces the anomalous N^2/(phi^2 a^4) term that drives the oscillatory behavior. Chosen by hand in the numerical examples.
lambda (initial contraction distance) = 10^4 in examples
Ratio ai/am that sets how far from the bounce the numerical integration starts; chosen to ensure stable evolution and stay in the asymptotic regime.
a0 (reference scale) = 1
Normalization of the scale factor in the asymptotic contraction phase; used to set initial conditions.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The trace anomaly formula (1) and the nonlocal effective action (7) from the literature (refs [15,16,18]) describe the one-loop quantum effects of conformal matter on a curved background.
The paper builds directly on this standard result in Section 2 without re-deriving it.
ad hoc to paper Low-energy inequalities (9): |Box R| >> |R^2...| and |F^2| >> |R^2...|.
Introduced in Section 3 to justify G approximately Box^{-2}; the validity of this approximation at the bounce is not quantitatively established.
ad hoc to paper Homogeneous modes of the auxiliary fields are set to zero (Ai = Bi = 0, Eq. (42)) to match the nonlocal theory.
Footnote 2 admits this removes extra degrees of freedom absent in the original nonlocal formulation; it restricts the solution space and is a source of underdetermination.
ad hoc to paper Time symmetry around the bounce, Eq. (36): first derivatives of all auxiliary fields vanish at t_b.
Used to derive the simple local bounce condition (37); it selects a symmetric branch of solutions and is not generic.
domain assumption FLRW metric and homogeneous background (Eq. 23).
Standard cosmological ansatz used in Section 4; the bounce analysis is restricted to this background.

invented entities (1)

Auxiliary scalar fields phi, chi, zeta, xi
purpose: Render the nonlocal low-energy anomaly-induced action (11) into a local, second-order covariant form (18); they encode the nonlocal structures via their equations of motion (22).
These are mathematical rewritings of the nonlocal action. On shell they reduce to nonlocal expressions (19), reducing the number of physical degrees of freedom, but no direct observational handle is proposed. They are not claimed to be real physical scalars.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Low-energy limit in the anomaly-induced action and the semiclassical cosmological bounce." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M7Q2RECL

@misc{pith2026260809720,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Low-energy limit in the anomaly-induced action and the semiclassical cosmological bounce},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M7Q2RECL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09720}
}

read the original abstract

In the recently proposed scenario, the cosmological bounce occurs because the initially contracting Universe is not empty. In the region close to singularity, matter contents of the Universe heat up and effectively become radiation. Then, the trace anomaly automatically provides bounce if the overall beta function in the matter sector is positive. Independent of the remaining open questions on the quantum field theory side, it is interesting to consider this model from the cosmological perspective. In the present work, we develop the general formalism which is a necessary step for exploring the primordial cosmological perturbations. The main technical development is the formulation of the low-energy version for the nonlocal part of the effective action. The complete form of this action can be done local using two auxiliary scalars. In our new version, there are more scalars, but this enables one to avoid higher derivatives.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09720 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Plots of the scale factor, the Hubble parameter, and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Plots of the scale factor, the Hubble parameter, and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

[11]

e Silva and I.L

W.C. e Silva and I.L. Shapiro, Semiclassical bounce with strong minimal assumptions, Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) 043540, arXiv:2402.18785

arXiv 2024
[1]

Novello and S.E.P

M. Novello and S.E.P. Bergliaﬀa, Bouncing cosmologies, Phys. Rept. 463 (2008) 127, arXiv:0802.1634

arXiv 2008
[2]

Battefeld and P

D. Battefeld and P. Peter, A Critical review of classical bouncing cosmologies, Phys. Rept. 571 (2015) 1, arXiv:1406.2790

arXiv 2015
[3]

Ellis and R

G.F.R. Ellis and R. Maartens, The emergent universe: inﬂationary cosmology with no sin- gularity, Class. Quant. Grav. 21 (2004) 223, gr-qc/0211082

arXiv 2004
[4]

Ellis, J

G.F.R. Ellis, J. Murugan and C.G. Tsagas, The emergent universe: an explicit construction, Class. Quant. Grav. 21 (2004) 233, gr-qc/0307112

arXiv 2004
[5]

D. M. Capper, M. J. Duﬀ and L. Halpern, Photon corrections to the graviton propagator, Phys. Rev. D10 (1974) 461; D. M. Capper and M. J. Duﬀ, Neutrino corrections to the graviton propagator, Nucl. Phys. B82 (1974) 147

work page 1974
[6]

Duﬀ, Observations On Conformal Anomalies, Nucl.Phys

M.J. Duﬀ, Observations On Conformal Anomalies, Nucl.Phys. B125 (1977) 334

work page 1977
[7]

Starobinski, A new type of isotropic cosmological models without singula rity, Phys

A.A. Starobinski, A new type of isotropic cosmological models without singula rity, Phys. Lett. B91 (1980) 99

1980

Show all 34 references

[8]

Anderson, Eﬀects of quantum ﬁelds on singularities and partilce horiz ons in the early Universe, I and II Phys

P. Anderson, Eﬀects of quantum ﬁelds on singularities and partilce horiz ons in the early Universe, I and II Phys. Rev. D28 (1983) 271; P. R. Anderson, Phys. Rev. D29 (1984) 615

1983
[9]

Fabris, A.M

J.C. Fabris, A.M. Pelinson and I.L. Shapiro, Anomaly-induced eﬀective action for gravity and inﬂation, Grav. Cosmol. 6 (2000) 59, gr-qc/9810032. 19

2000 arXiv
[10]

e Silva and I.L

W.C. e Silva and I.L. Shapiro, Bounce and stability in the early cosmology with anomaly- induced corrections, Symmetry 13 (2021) 50, arXiv:2012.10554

2021 arXiv
[12]

Peter and N

P. Peter and N. Pinto-Neto, Primordial perturbations in a nonsingular bouncing univer se model, Phys. Rev. D66 (2002) 063509. hep-th/0203013

2002 arXiv
[13]

F. de O. Salles and I.L. Shapiro, Do we have unitary and (super)renormalizable quantum gravity below the Planck scale? . Phys. Rev. D89 084054 (2014); 90, 129903 (2014) [Erratum], arXiv:1401.4583

2014 arXiv
[14]

Simon, Higher-derivative Lagrangians, nonlocality, problems, a nd solutions, Phys

J.Z. Simon, Higher-derivative Lagrangians, nonlocality, problems, a nd solutions, Phys. Rev. D41 (1990) 3720

1990
[15]

Riegert, A non-local action for the trace anomaly, Phys

R.J. Riegert, A non-local action for the trace anomaly, Phys. Lett. B134 (1984) 56

1984
[16]

Fradkin and A.A

E.S. Fradkin and A.A. Tseytlin, Conformal anomaly in Weyl theory and anomaly free su- perconformal theories, Phys. Lett. B134 (1984) 187

1984
[17]

Buchbinder and I.L

I.L. Buchbinder and I.L. Shapiro, Introduction to quantum ﬁeld theory with applications to quantum gravity, (Oxford University Press, 2021)

2021
[18]

Shapiro and A.G

I.L. Shapiro and A.G. Jacksenaev, Gauge dependence in higher derivative quantum gravity and the conformal anomaly problem, Phys. Lett. B324 (1994) 286

1994
[19]

P. O. Mazur and E. Mottola, Weyl cohomology and the eﬀective action for conformal anomalies, Phys. Rev. D64 (2001) 104022

2001
[20]

Molina-Paris and M

C. Molina-Paris and M. Visser, Minimal conditions for the creation of a Friedman-Robertson- Walker universe from a ’bounce’, Phys. Lett. B455 (1999) 90, gr-qc/9810023

1999 arXiv
[21]

Peter and N

P. Peter and N. Pinto-Neto, Has the Universe always expanded?, Phys.Rev. D65 (2001) 023513, gr-qc/0109038

2001 arXiv
[22]

Ford, The classical singularity theorems and their quantum loopho les, Int

L.H. Ford, The classical singularity theorems and their quantum loopho les, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 42 (2003) 1219, gr-qc/0301045

2003 arXiv
[23]

Rubakov, The null energy condition and its violation, Phys

V.A. Rubakov, The null energy condition and its violation, Phys. Usp. 57 (2014) 128, arXiv:1401.4024

2014 arXiv
[24]

Ijjas and P.J

A. Ijjas and P.J. Steinhardt, Classically Stable Nonsingular Cosmological Bounces, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (2016) 121304, arXiv:1606.08880

2016 arXiv
[25]

Giannotti and E

M. Giannotti and E. Mottola, Trace anomaly and massless scalar degrees of freedom in gravity, Phys. Rev. D79 (2009) 045014, arXiv:0812.0351. 20

2009 arXiv
[26]

Pelinson and I.L

A.M. Pelinson and I.L. Shapiro, On the scaling rules for the anomaly-induced eﬀective actio n of metric and electromagnetic ﬁeld, Phys. Lett. B694 (2011) 467, arXiv:1005.1313

2011 arXiv
[27]

Gross and F

D.J. Gross and F. Wilczek, Ultraviolet behavior of non-abelian gauge theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 30 (1973) 1343

1973
[28]

Politzer, Reliable perturbative results for strong interactions, Phys

H.D. Politzer, Reliable perturbative results for strong interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 30 (1973) 1346

1973
[29]

Paneitz, A quartic conformally covariant diﬀerential operator for a rbitrary pseudo Rie- mannian manifolds, MIT preprint - 1983; SIGMA 4 (2008) 036, arXiv:0803.4331

S. Paneitz, A quartic conformally covariant diﬀerential operator for a rbitrary pseudo Rie- mannian manifolds, MIT preprint - 1983; SIGMA 4 (2008) 036, arXiv:0803.4331

2008 arXiv
[30]

Balbinot, A

R. Balbinot, A. Fabbri and I.L. Shapiro, Anomaly induced eﬀective actions and Hawk- ing radiation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (1999) 1494, hep-th/9904074; Vacuum polarization in Schwarzschild space-time by anomaly induced eﬀective acti ons, Nucl. Phys. B559 (1999) 301, hep-th/9904162

1999 arXiv
[31]

Fabris, A.M

J.C. Fabris, A.M. Pelinson and I.L. Shapiro, On the gravitational waves on the background of anomaly-induced inﬂation, Nucl. Phys. B597 (2001) 539, hep-ph/0208184

2001 arXiv
[32]

Mottola and R

E. Mottola and R. Vaulin, Macroscopic eﬀects of the quantum trace anomaly, Phys. Rev. D74 (2006) 064004, arXiv:gr-qc/0604051

2006 arXiv
[33]

Asorey, W.C

M. Asorey, W.C. e Silva, I.L. Shapiro, and P.R.B. do Vale , Trace anomaly and induced action for a metric-scalar background, EPJ C83 (2023) 157, arXiv:2202.00154

2023 arXiv
[34]

Bludman and M.A

S.A. Bludman and M.A. Ruderman, Induced Cosmological Constant Expected above the Phase Transition Restoring the Broken Symmetry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38 (1977) 255. 21

1977

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [11]

e Silva and I.L

W.C. e Silva and I.L. Shapiro, Semiclassical bounce with strong minimal assumptions, Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) 043540, arXiv:2402.18785

arXiv 2024

[2] [1]

Novello and S.E.P

M. Novello and S.E.P. Bergliaﬀa, Bouncing cosmologies, Phys. Rept. 463 (2008) 127, arXiv:0802.1634

arXiv 2008

[3] [2]

Battefeld and P

D. Battefeld and P. Peter, A Critical review of classical bouncing cosmologies, Phys. Rept. 571 (2015) 1, arXiv:1406.2790

arXiv 2015

[4] [3]

Ellis and R

G.F.R. Ellis and R. Maartens, The emergent universe: inﬂationary cosmology with no sin- gularity, Class. Quant. Grav. 21 (2004) 223, gr-qc/0211082

arXiv 2004

[5] [4]

Ellis, J

G.F.R. Ellis, J. Murugan and C.G. Tsagas, The emergent universe: an explicit construction, Class. Quant. Grav. 21 (2004) 233, gr-qc/0307112

arXiv 2004

[6] [5]

D. M. Capper, M. J. Duﬀ and L. Halpern, Photon corrections to the graviton propagator, Phys. Rev. D10 (1974) 461; D. M. Capper and M. J. Duﬀ, Neutrino corrections to the graviton propagator, Nucl. Phys. B82 (1974) 147

work page 1974

[7] [6]

Duﬀ, Observations On Conformal Anomalies, Nucl.Phys

M.J. Duﬀ, Observations On Conformal Anomalies, Nucl.Phys. B125 (1977) 334

work page 1977

[8] [7]

Starobinski, A new type of isotropic cosmological models without singula rity, Phys

A.A. Starobinski, A new type of isotropic cosmological models without singula rity, Phys. Lett. B91 (1980) 99

1980