Bounce solutions with quantum vacuum effects of massive fields and subsequent Starobinsky inflation

Ilya L. Shapiro; Samuel W. P. Oliveira; Wagno Cesar e Silva

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Bounce solutions with quantum vacuum effects of massive fields and subsequent Starobinsky inflation

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that the quantum trace anomaly of radiation plus a large R^2 term can produce a nonsingular trans-Planckian bounce followed by an inflationary phase, without new fields or modified gravity.

desk verdict A candid extension of the authors' bounce program that deserves refereeing but whose bounce-to-Starobinsky claim leans on an approximate effective action exactly where the paper admits the approximation is weakest. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.02281 v1 pith:BFG2HNT5 submitted 2025-02-04 gr-qc hep-th

Wagno Cesar e Silva , Samuel W. P. Oliveira , Ilya L. Shapiro This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qchep-th PACS 04.62.+v98.80.-k

keywords cosmologicalbouncetraceanomalymassivefieldsR^2gravityinflationeffectiveactionFLRWcosmologysemiclassical

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to show that the quantum trace anomaly of ordinary matter is enough to make a contracting universe bounce without a singularity, and that adding the $R^{2}$ term used in inflationary cosmology connects that bounce to a later inflationary phase. It extends an earlier anomaly-driven bounce by treating field masses as small perturbations through a conformal Stückelberg field. Numerical solutions indicate that even unrealistically large masses leave the bounce essentially unchanged, so the massless approximation is safe near the bounce. The paper also finds that the pure vacuum-anomaly bounce is unstable during contraction and therefore cannot stand alone, while the radiation-anomaly bounce combined with the $R^{2}$ term can provide a viable pre-inflationary history. The authors present this as a route from quantum vacuum effects to a complete nonsingular cosmology.

What carries the argument

The central object is the anomaly-induced effective action for quantum matter on an FLRW background, written in terms of the conformal factor σ = ln a. Its trace-anomaly part generates the higher-derivative and radiation terms in the modified Friedmann equations, specifically the trace equation splitting into Einstein-Hilbert, higher-derivative, and radiation sectors. The paper uses the conformal Stückelberg trick, replacing masses by powers of an auxiliary field χ, to define small-mass corrections through the coefficients f̃ and g̃, and then integrates the trace anomaly to obtain the approximate effective action (11). In the third scenario, a classical $R^{2}$ term with coefficient a4 ≈ 5 × $10^{8}$ is added, producing a fourth-order equation for σ whose numerical integration yields the bounce and the subsequent inflationary phase.

What would settle it

Compute the one-loop effective action for massive fields on the FLRW background without the small-mass approximation and check whether the resulting fourth-order Friedmann equation still admits a nonsingular bounce with the $R^{2}$ term included; if the exact massive action leads to a singularity or no bounce, the central claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the anomaly-induced effective action, previously used to produce a radiation-driven bounce with massless fields, continues to admit nonsingular bounce solutions when small masses are included as perturbations, and that these masses have negligible effect on the dynamics of the scale factor. In the pure vacuum-anomaly scenario the bounce is unstable in the contracting phase, which rules out that version as a realistic model. When an $R^{2}$ term with a large coefficient is added to the action, numerical solutions show a trans-Planckian bounce followed by a phase compatible with $R^{2}$ inflation; however, bounce solutions that omit the radiation term are fine-tuned and dynamically unstable, so the radiation anomaly remains the load-bearing ingredient for the bounce.

Load-bearing premise

The entire construction rests on the approximate effective action (11), which treats masses as small perturbations and replaces a global rescaling parameter by a local conformal factor; if this approximation breaks down at the trans-Planckian bounce point, the bounce solutions and the claim that masses are irrelevant would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If masses are truly negligible near the bounce, the massless trace-anomaly description used in earlier work is justified even when the underlying matter fields are massive.
The pure vacuum-anomaly bounce is not viable because linear perturbations grow during contraction, so any acceptable bounce of this type must include the radiation anomaly.
Adding the R^2 term shifts the bounce solutions to lower energies and connects them to an R^2 inflationary phase, so a single anomaly-radiation mechanism can provide both the bounce and the initial conditions for inflation.
The R^2 bounce without radiation exists only for fine-tuned initial conditions and is dynamically unstable, meaning the radiation term is necessary for a robust bounce.
The mass corrections from f̃ and g̃ alter the de Sitter-like solutions only slightly, implying that the running of G and Λ due to massive fields is not essential at the bounce.

Reading between the lines

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

A direct test of the approximation in Eq. (11) would be to compute the exact one-loop effective action for massive fields on the FLRW background and check whether the resulting fourth-order Friedmann equation still admits a nonsingular bounce; if the exact massive action leads to a singularity or no bounce, the central claim fails.
The stability of the R^2 bounce is left unresolved, since the paper says cosmological perturbations require future work; one can infer that the model is not yet a complete alternative to singularity-free inflation.
A testable extension is to compute scalar and tensor power spectra through the bounce into the inflationary phase; if the contraction phase generates excessive anisotropy, the model would be constrained by cosmic microwave background observations.
The negligible-mass result suggests that any matter content with masses below roughly 10^16 GeV will not alter the bounce, a claim that could be checked with mass-dependent beta functions beyond the small-mass approximation.

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

This is a legitimate continuation of the authors' anomaly-driven bounce program, not a breakthrough. What's new: a first stability analysis of the contracting phase for the vacuum-anomaly model, a check of massive-field corrections, and a numerical study of an R^2 term with a Starobinsky-sized coefficient. The paper is honest about what it finds: scenario i is unstable in contraction, and the authors say that model cannot be seriously considered. That is a useful result to have on record. The massive-field corrections turn out to be negligible, which is plausible and likely robust.

The soft spot is the one the paper itself flags. The whole analysis rests on the approximate effective action (11), with its non-conformally-invariant integration constant S_c. In Section 3 the paper says (11) should be treated as an approximate expression. In Section 7 it concedes that the bounce in the perturbative regime occurs in the deep trans-Planckian regime, where vacuum quantum and quantum gravity effects cannot be ignored. The central claim, that adding R^2 converts the anomaly-driven bounce into a bounce followed by Starobinsky inflation, is therefore supported only by an approximation evaluated exactly where the neglected terms are least controlled. This is not an external objection; the paper's own text makes the point.

The numerics are explicit but not accompanied by code or data, which is a reproducibility gap. That is not fatal for a theory paper, but it means checking the results requires reimplementation. The stability analysis of scenario i is the most solid part of the paper, even though it undermines that scenario. The R^2 scenario is the least settled: stability is not established, and the bounce sits beyond the regime where the effective action is justified.

My take: this deserves peer review, not desk rejection. A referee with the effective-action background should judge whether (11) is good enough at bounce energies. I would not cite it as evidence of a working bounce-to-inflation model; I would cite it as a case study in where the anomaly-induced action breaks down. I would probably bring it to the reading group if we are discussing trans-Planckian issues in bouncing cosmology.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper extends the authors' earlier work on anomaly-induced cosmological bounces in two directions: it introduces small masses for quantum fields using the conformal Stückelberg trick, and it adds a large R^2 term to the classical gravitational action. The effective action for massive fields is given in Eq. (11), and the paper derives modified Friedmann equations, performs a linear stability analysis of the conformal factor, and presents numerical bounce solutions for three scenarios: (i) vacuum anomaly contributions, (ii) radiation anomaly alone, and (iii) radiation plus a large R^2 term. The central physical claim is that the trace anomaly of ordinary fields, together with an R^2 term with a large coefficient, can produce a nonsingular trans-Planckian bounce that is later followed by Starobinsky inflation, without introducing new fields or modifying gravity beyond adding R^2.

Significance. If established, the paper would show a conceptually economical route: the quantum trace anomaly of ordinary matter provides the bounce, and a classical R^2 term both shadows the problematic vacuum quantum effects and connects the bounce to the Starobinsky inflationary phase. The manuscript is commendably transparent about its limitations: it explicitly reports that scenario i is unstable in contraction, that Eq. (11) is an approximate expression with a non-conformally-invariant integration constant S_c, and that the stability of scenario iii is not established. The paper also provides explicit parameter values and initial conditions for its numerical solutions, which aids reproducibility and critical examination. However, several load-bearing approximations are asserted rather than quantified, and the promised connection to Starobinsky inflation is not actually demonstrated in the solutions, so the central claim is not yet fully supported.

major comments (4)

[Section 3, Eq. (11)] The entire analysis rests on the approximate effective action (11), whose limitations the authors themselves state: the integration constant S_c is not conformally invariant and the expression 'should be treated as an approximate expression.' Since the bounce in scenario iii is explicitly trans-Planckian (abstract and Section 6), this approximate action is being used precisely in the regime where it is least secure. The paper should quantify the error, for example by identifying the small parameter that controls the omission of S_c and of mass-dependent threshold terms, or by comparing with an exact one-loop computation in a restricted setting. Without such a consistency check, the existence and detailed properties of the bounce are not established beyond the approximate equations.
[Section 6, Eq. (33) and Fig. 3] The central claim states that the model yields a bounce and 'subsequent Starobinsky inflation.' However, no numerical solution is shown to demonstrate the inflationary phase. Eq. (33) is solved and bounce solutions are plotted, but the solutions are not extended to show that H(t) approaches the Starobinsky attractor, nor are the number of e-folds or the exit from inflation discussed. The statement that without radiation Eq. (33) reduces to the Starobinsky results is insufficient, because the bounce solution must actually connect to that regime. Please provide a long-time numerical solution showing the transition explicitly, or clearly state that the inflationary connection is only conjectural.
[Section 6, Eq. (32)] In the scenario iii action (32), the vacuum anomaly terms proportional to w, b, and c from Eq. (11) are omitted, with the assertion that the large a4 R^2 term 'shadows' them. This neglect is plausible given a4 ≈ 5 × 10^8 and |w|,|b|,|c| of order 10^-4 in Planck units, but the comparison is not made. Because the bounce is trans-Planckian, the relative magnitudes of a4 R^2 and the vacuum anomaly terms should be estimated explicitly at the bounce curvature. Without this, neglecting the vacuum anomaly contributions remains an unchecked assumption rather than a justified approximation.
[Section 6, Fig. 4 and Section 7] Scenario iii is presented as the physically interesting model, but its stability is not analyzed. The text notes that solutions without radiation are sensitive to initial conditions and that stability 'requires an extensive numerical analysis,' deferred to future work. Since the authors correctly use the stability analysis to reject scenario i, linear stability is a key viability criterion for bouncing models. An analysis of at least the radiation-supported bounce solutions in scenario iii is needed before the central claim can be considered established.

minor comments (6)

[Section 4, Eqs. (29) and (31)] The use of commas as decimal separators (e.g., '1, 50 ± i (3, 57)' and '1, 46 ± i (3, 47)') is unusual for an English-language journal; please replace them with periods for clarity and consistency.
[Section 6, Eq. (32)] The coefficient a4 for the R^2 term should be given a notation that is clearly distinguished from the higher-derivative vacuum coefficients a1, a2, and a3 introduced in Eq. (7), or the relationship should be stated explicitly.
[Figure 3] The parameter values for the intermediate curves between the two extreme cases are not specified. Please list the values of a4, βg^2 F̄^2, and Λ used for each curve, or provide a table/caption describing the family of solutions.
[Section 5] The physically motivated bounds on tilde f and tilde g (e.g., tilde f < 10^-6) are introduced only after the numerical results; stating these bounds when the parameters are defined in Eq. (10) would put the parameter choices in context.
[Section 6, around Fig. 4] The text says 'the bounce is possible only in the presence of the radiation term,' but earlier in the same section it states that solutions arise even without radiation given fine-tuned initial conditions. Please clarify the distinction between existence with fine-tuning and generic existence with radiation.
[Abstract and Section 7] The abstract's phrase 'trans-Planckian bounce' may be misleading, since Section 7 frames the trans-Planckian nature of the bounce as a problem. Please clarify whether the bounce scale in scenario iii is intended to be trans-Planckian and whether this is a concern or a feature.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the bounce solutions are numerical outputs of the derived effective equations, and the paper's self-citations are background rather than load-bearing reductions.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular. The bounce equation in scenario iii, Eq. (33), is obtained by direct variation of the action (32), which combines Einstein-Hilbert, a4 R^2, and the anomaly-induced radiation term. The large coefficient a4 is not fitted to produce a bounce; it is fixed by the Starobinsky inflation requirement a4 = 5e8 (refs. [4,37]), and the radiation coefficient beta g^2 Fbar^2 is stated as an input. The paper then integrates the ODE numerically and reports which parameter/initial-condition choices yield bounce solutions; the existence of the bounce is an output, not an input. Similarly, the massive-field contributions enter through the fixed coefficients (10) taken from the prior conformal-trick formalism, and the smallness of their effect is checked rather than assumed in the conclusions. Self-citations to [12,14,15,17] are used for background formulas and prior bounce solutions, but the load-bearing effective actions and equations are either re-derived in this paper or trace to standard anomaly literature (e.g., [18,19,22,23]); no uniqueness theorem or self-citation is invoked to forbid alternatives. Finally, the paper explicitly warns that Eq. (11) is an approximate expression because Sc is not conformally invariant, and that the bounce sits in the deep trans-Planckian regime where the approximation is least controlled. That is an honest validity caveat, not a circular reduction of the result to its inputs. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained in the sense required by this review: no fitted parameter is renamed a prediction, and no central claim reduces by definition to an earlier self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

All numerical results depend on free parameters and domain assumptions. The anomaly coefficients are standard QFT inputs, not fitted. The main unquantified premise is the reliability of the approximate effective action (11) at trans-Planckian energies, and the neglect of vacuum higher-derivative terms in the R^2 scenario. No new physical entities are introduced; the Stückelberg field is an auxiliary device.

free parameters (6)

a4 (R^2 coefficient) = approximately 5e8
Chosen to match Starobinsky inflation scale; controls the size of the R^2 term in scenario iii.
beta_g^2 Fbar^2 = 0.1 (Planck units)
Sets the strength of the anomaly-induced radiation term in scenarios ii and iii.
tilde{f} = 1e-3 (also tested 0 and larger)
Mass-squared parameter for fermions; paper notes the physically motivated bound is below 1e-6 but uses larger values to probe sensitivity.
tilde{g} = 1e-2 (also 0)
Mass-quartic parameter for scalars and fermions; chosen for numerical exploration.
Lambda = 1e-8 (also 0)
Cosmological constant in Planck units; chosen small per standard assumptions.
Initial conditions = sigma(0)=0, sigma_dot(0)=-1e-2 Htilde or 1e-2, etc.
Numerical bounce solutions depend on chosen initial values; the paper notes some cases require fine-tuning.

assumptions (5)

standard math The trace anomaly coefficients (w, b, c, beta) for massless fields are the known one-loop beta functions from QFT in curved spacetime.
Used in Eqs. (9) and (10) to build the effective action; standard results cited from [22,23].
domain assumption Masses of quantum fields are small enough to be treated as perturbations via the conformal Stückelberg trick.
Required to use the anomaly-induced action for massive fields; explicitly stated at the start of Section 3.
ad hoc to paper The integration constant S_c in Eq. (11) does not affect conformal-factor dynamics.
The authors state S_c does not contribute in the massless case and that Eq. (11) is approximate; this is an unverified assumption for massive fields.
domain assumption Semiclassical treatment of gravity remains valid at the trans-Planckian bounce.
The bounce occurs above the Planck scale, where quantum gravity effects are usually expected; the authors acknowledge this concern and use an R^2 term to try to shadow other vacuum effects.
ad hoc to paper For scenario iii, the large R^2 term dominates and other higher-derivative vacuum terms can be neglected.
Action (32) drops the w, b, c vacuum terms; the paper relies on a4 being large enough to make them irrelevant.

invented entities (1)

Auxiliary Stückelberg scalar chi
purpose: Restores local conformal invariance in the massive-field effective action.
The paper states chi is auxiliary and should not be quantized; it is a mathematical device, not a new physical field.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bounce solutions with quantum vacuum effects of massive fields and subsequent Starobinsky inflation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BFG2HNT5

@misc{pith2026250202281,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bounce solutions with quantum vacuum effects of massive fields and subsequent Starobinsky inflation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BFG2HNT5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.02281}
}

abstract

We extend the previous work about the cosmological solutions with bounce without modifications of gravity or introducing an extra scalar field. The main finding was that the bounce is possible in the initially contracting Universe filled with matter. After a strong contraction, matter gains the equation of state close to the one of radiation, such that the effect on matter on the evolution of the FLRW metric disappears at the classical level. However, this effect comes back owing to the quantum trace anomaly in the matter/radiation sector. In the present contribution, we explore the weak impact of massive fields on the anomaly-driven bounce solution and discuss the role of the vacuum terms. The masses are assumed small and regarded as small perturbations, which enables using trace anomaly even in this case. On the other hand, by adding the $R^2$ term to the action, we arrive at the model with the trans-Planckian bounce and subsequent Starobinsky inflation. In such a framework, using the numerical analysis, we consider three scenarios providing bounce solutions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.02281 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Numerical solutions for the conformal factor σ(t) in scenario i). Here, we assumed the initial conditions: σ(0) = 0, σ˙(0) = −10−2H, ˜ σ¨(0) = 0, ... σ (0) = 0. The right plot shows the Hubble parameter H(t). closer one gets to the transition point, the higher the typical energy becomes, and the less relevant the mass effects of the fields are. -20 -10 0 10 20 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 t conformal factor -20 -10 0 10 20 -0.15… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Numerical solutions for the conformal factor σ(t) in scenario ii), where the higher-derivative terms are neglected. We assumed the value βg2F¯2 = 0.1 in the Planck units and the initial conditions σ(0) = 0 and ˙σ(0) = −10−1H˜ . The right plot shows the Hubble parameter H(t). In the scenario ii), the equation for the trace is given by TEH − Trad = 0, where we also assume k = 0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Set of numerical solutions for the conformal factor σ(t) in scenario iii), which includes the contribution from the R2 -term. We assumed the initial conditions: σ(0) = 0, σ˙(0) = 10−2 , σ¨(0) = 0, ... σ (0) = 0. The smaller plot shows a zoom in the region around the bounce point, for the interval −20 ≤ t ≤ 20 in Planck units. However, it is important to mention that the bounce solutions that do not take into account… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Numerical solutions for the conformal factor σ(t) in scenario involving a large coefficient for the R2 -term (a4 ≈ 5 × 108 ). We assumed the initial conditions: σ(0) = 0, σ˙(0) = 10−2 , σ¨(0) = 0, ... σ (0) = 0, and the interval −480 ≤ t ≤ 480 in the Planck units. cosm…

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

Gravitational Bounce from the Quantum Exclusion Principle
gr-qc 2025-05 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

A closed collapsing fluid ball with a hypothetical maximum density bounces into exponential expansion, which the authors equate with inflation and dark energy, predicting a small negative curvature.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Peebles, Principles of Physical Cosmology (Princeton Univ

P.J.E. Peebles, Principles of Physical Cosmology (Princeton Univ. Press, 1993)

work page 1993
[2]

Weinberg, Cosmology (Oxford University Press Inc., New York, 2008)

S. Weinberg, Cosmology (Oxford University Press Inc., New York, 2008)

work page 2008
[3]

Baryshev and P

Yu. Baryshev and P. Teerikorpi, Fundamental Questions of Practical Cosmology (Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg London New York, 2012)

work page 2012
[4]

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

work page 1980
[5]

Guth, The inﬂationary Universe: a possible solution to the horizo n and ﬂatness problems, Phys

A.H. Guth, The inﬂationary Universe: a possible solution to the horizo n and ﬂatness problems, Phys. Rev. D23 (1981) 347

work page 1981
[6]

Linde, A new inﬂationary Universe scenario: a possible solution of the horizon, ﬂatness, homogeneity, isotropy and primordial monopole pr oblems, Phys

A.D. Linde, A new inﬂationary Universe scenario: a possible solution of the horizon, ﬂatness, homogeneity, isotropy and primordial monopole pr oblems, Phys. Lett. B108 (1982) 389

work page 1982
[7]

Penrose, Gravitational collapse and space-time singularities, Phys

R. Penrose, Gravitational collapse and space-time singularities, Phys. Rev. Lett. 14 (1965) 57. Gravitational collapse: the role of general relativity, Riv. Nuovo Cimento 1 (1969) 252

work page 1965
[8]

Hawking, Occurrence of singularities in open universes, Phys

S.W. Hawking, Occurrence of singularities in open universes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 15 (1965) 689; Singularities in the Universe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 17 (1966) 443

work page 1965

Show all 37 references

[9]

Coles and F

P. Coles and F. Lucchin, Cosmology: The Origin and Evolution of Cosmic Structure (Wiley-VCH, Second edition, 2002)

2002
[10]

Novello and S

M. Novello and S. E. P. Bergliaﬀa, Bouncing cosmologies, Phys. Rept. 463 (2008) 127, arXiv:0802.1634. 16

2008 arXiv
[11]

Battefeld and P

D. Battefeld and P. Peter, A Critical review of classical bouncing cosmologies, Phys. Rept. 571 (2015) 1, arXiv:1406. 790

2015
[12]

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
[13]

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

2000 arXiv
[14]

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

2024 arXiv
[15]

Pelinson, I.L

A.M. Pelinson, I.L. Shapiro, and F.I. Takakura, On the stability of the anomaly-induced inﬂation, Nucl. Phys. B648 (2003) 417, arXiv:hep-ph/0208184

2003 arXiv
[16]

Netto, A.M

T.d.P. Netto, A.M. Pelinson, I.L. Shapiro, and A.A. Starobinsky, From stable to un- stable anomaly-induced inﬂation, Eur. Phys. J. C76 (2016) 544, arXiv:1509.08882

2016 arXiv
[17]

Shapiro and J

I.L. Shapiro and J. Sol` a, Massive ﬁelds temper anomaly-induced inﬂation: the clue to graceful exit?, Phys. Lett. B530 (2002) 10, arXiv:hep-ph/0104182

2002 arXiv
[18]

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
[19]

Pelinson and I.L

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

2011 arXiv
[20]

Ferrero, S.A

R. Ferrero, S.A. Franchino-Vi˜ nas, M.B. Fr¨ ob and W.C.C. Lima, Universal Deﬁ- nition of the Nonconformal Trace Anomaly, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132 (2024) 071601, arXiv:2312.07666

2024 arXiv
[21]

Shapiro, Eﬀective action of vacuum: semiclassical approach , Class

I.L. Shapiro, Eﬀective action of vacuum: semiclassical approach , Class. Quant. Grav. 25 (2008) 103001, arXiv:0801.0216

2008 arXiv
[22]

Buchbinder and I.L

I.L. Buchbinder and I.L. Shapiro, Introduction to Quantum Field Theory with Appli- cations to Quantum Gravity (Oxford University Press, 2021)

2021
[23]

Birrell and P.C.W

N.D. Birrell and P.C.W. Davies, Quantum ﬁelds in curved space (Cambridge Univer- sity Press, Cambridge, 1982)

1982
[24]

Fradkin and A.A

E.S. Fradkin and A.A. Tseytlin, Conformal anomaly in Weyl theory and anomaly free superconformal theories, Phys. Lett. B134 (1984) 187. 17

1984
[25]

Fradkin and A.A

E.S. Fradkin and A.A. Tseytlin, Asymptotic freedom on extended conformal super- gravities, Phys. Lett. B110 (1982) 117; One-loop beta function in conformal super- gravities, Nucl. Phys. B203 (1982) 157

1982
[26]

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

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

2008 arXiv
[27]

Gorbar and I.L

E.V. Gorbar and I.L. Shapiro, Renormalization Group and Decoupling in Curved Space, JHEP 02 (2003) 021, hep-ph/0210388

2003 arXiv
[28]

Carneiro, E.A

D.F. Carneiro, E.A. Freitas, B. Gon¸ calves, A.G. de Lima and I.L. S hapiro, On useful conformal tranformations in General Relativity , Grav. and Cosm. 40 (2004) 305; gr- qc/0412113

2004
[29]

Shapiro, Primer in tensor analysis and relativity (Springer, NY, 2019)

I.L. Shapiro, Primer in tensor analysis and relativity (Springer, NY, 2019)

2019
[30]

Mamaev and V.M

S.G. Mamaev and V.M. Mostepanenko, Isotropic cosmological models determined by vacuum quantum eﬀects, Sov. Phys. JETP 51 (1980) 9

1980
[31]

E. S. Fradkin and A. A. Tseytlin, One loop eﬀective potential in gauged O(4) super- gravity and the problem of the Λ term, Nucl. Phys. B234 (1984) 472

1984
[32]

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

1977
[33]

Asorey, E.V

M. Asorey, E.V. Gorbar and I.L. Shapiro, Universality and ambiguities of the confor- mal anomaly, Class. Quant. Grav. 21 (2004) 163, hep-th/0307187

2004 arXiv
[34]

Barvinsky, G.H.S

A.O. Barvinsky, G.H.S. Camargo, A.E. Kalugin, N. Ohta, and I.L. Sh apiro, On the local term in the anomaly-induced action of Weyl quantum gra vity, Phys. Rev. D108 (2023) 086018, arXiv:2308.05251

2023 arXiv
[35]

Pelinson, Revisiting the modiﬁed Starobinsky model with cosmologica l constant, Int

A.M. Pelinson, Revisiting the modiﬁed Starobinsky model with cosmologica l constant, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D18 (2009) 1355, arXiv:0903.1970

2009 arXiv
[36]

Wolfram Research, Inc., Mathematica, (Version 12.0, Champaign, IL, 2019)

2019
[37]

Starobinsky, The perturbation spectrum evolving from a nonsingular init ially de- Sitter cosmology and the microwave background anisotropy, Sov

A.A. Starobinsky, The perturbation spectrum evolving from a nonsingular init ially de- Sitter cosmology and the microwave background anisotropy, Sov. Astron. Lett. 9 (1983) 302. 18

1983

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Peebles, Principles of Physical Cosmology (Princeton Univ

P.J.E. Peebles, Principles of Physical Cosmology (Princeton Univ. Press, 1993)

work page 1993

[2] [2]

Weinberg, Cosmology (Oxford University Press Inc., New York, 2008)

S. Weinberg, Cosmology (Oxford University Press Inc., New York, 2008)

work page 2008

[3] [3]

Baryshev and P

Yu. Baryshev and P. Teerikorpi, Fundamental Questions of Practical Cosmology (Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg London New York, 2012)

work page 2012

[4] [4]

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

work page 1980

[5] [5]

Guth, The inﬂationary Universe: a possible solution to the horizo n and ﬂatness problems, Phys

A.H. Guth, The inﬂationary Universe: a possible solution to the horizo n and ﬂatness problems, Phys. Rev. D23 (1981) 347

work page 1981

[6] [6]

Linde, A new inﬂationary Universe scenario: a possible solution of the horizon, ﬂatness, homogeneity, isotropy and primordial monopole pr oblems, Phys

A.D. Linde, A new inﬂationary Universe scenario: a possible solution of the horizon, ﬂatness, homogeneity, isotropy and primordial monopole pr oblems, Phys. Lett. B108 (1982) 389

work page 1982

[7] [7]

Penrose, Gravitational collapse and space-time singularities, Phys

R. Penrose, Gravitational collapse and space-time singularities, Phys. Rev. Lett. 14 (1965) 57. Gravitational collapse: the role of general relativity, Riv. Nuovo Cimento 1 (1969) 252

work page 1965

[8] [8]

Hawking, Occurrence of singularities in open universes, Phys

S.W. Hawking, Occurrence of singularities in open universes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 15 (1965) 689; Singularities in the Universe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 17 (1966) 443

work page 1965