Vanishing Metric Commutation Relation and Higher-derivative De Donder Gauge in Quadratic Gravity

Ichiro Oda

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 33 references

Vanishing Metric Commutation Relation and Higher-derivative De Donder Gauge in Quadratic Gravity

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Quadratic gravity's metric tensor may behave as a classical field: all equal-time commutators with its time derivatives vanish identically in the de Donder and higher-derivative de Donder gauges.

desk verdict Extends a striking vanishing-ETCR result to a higher-derivative gauge, but the proof assumes the central commutator coefficient is a c-number without justification. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.10712 v1 pith:DWOPZ32V submitted 2025-07-14 hep-th gr-qc

Ichiro Oda This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-thgr-qc MSC 83C4581T7083D05 PACS 04.60.-m

keywords quadraticgravityhigher-derivativedeDondergaugeequal-timecommutationrelationscanonicaloperatorformalismBRSTmetrictensormicrocausalityrenormalizability

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 in quadratic gravity, quantized in the manifestly covariant canonical operator formalism, the equal-time commutation relations between the metric tensor and any of its time derivatives vanish identically: $[\partial^m g_{\rho\sigma}/\partial t^m, \partial^n g'_{\mu\nu}/\partial t^n]=0$ for all $m,n=0,1,2,\ldots$ in both the usual de Donder (harmonic) gauge and a higher-derivative generalization of it. The point of the generalization is to show that the earlier result in the plain de Donder gauge was not an artifact of that particular gauge choice. If the vanishing is real, the four-dimensional commutator $[g_{\rho\sigma}(x),g_{\mu\nu}(x')]=0$ holds for spacelike separations, so the metric tensor behaves as a classical background field rather than a quantum operator, and microcausality for the metric is automatic. The author connects this to the renormalizability of quadratic gravity and to the metric losing its dual role as both dynamical variable and spacetime geometry.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is the vanishing equal-time commutator family. It is established by combining the canonical conjugate momentum $\pi^{\mu\nu}_K$ of the auxiliary tensor field $K_{\mu\nu}$ (identical in both gauges), the gauge condition $\partial_\mu\tilde g^{\mu\nu}=0$ or its higher-derivative analogue $(aR^\lambda{}_\rho+b\delta^\lambda{}_\rho R)\partial_\sigma\tilde g^{\rho\sigma}=0$, and the BRST transformations. The curvature combination $I^\lambda{}_\rho=aR^\lambda{}_\rho+b\delta^\lambda{}_\rho R$ is rewritten using field equations so that it contains at most first derivatives of the metric; imposing that this combination commutes with the metric in the gauge-fixed theory forces the unknown coefficient $x$ in the candidate equal-time commutator $[\dot g_{\rho\sigma},g'_{\mu\nu}]=x\,\delta^0_\rho\delta^0_\sigma\delta^0_\mu\delta^0_\nu\delta^3$ to vanish. Higher-order cases are then fixed by the same consistency condition together with symmetry and dimensional analysis.

What would settle it

Evaluate the equal-time commutator $[\partial^2 g_{\rho\sigma}/\partial t^2, \partial^2 g'_{\mu\nu}/\partial t^2]$ or a third-derivative equal-time commutator directly from the stated canonical commutation relations, field equations, and higher-derivative gauge condition; a nonzero result on any state would refute the identity. Alternatively, exhibit a state annihilated by the operator multiplying $x$ in Eq. (A.3), since on such a state the conclusion $x=0$ is not forced.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that every equal-time commutator among the metric and its time derivatives, $$[\partial^m g_{\rho\$\sigma$}/\partial t^m, \partial^n g'_{\mu\nu}/\partial t^n]=0 \qquad (m,n=0,1,2,\ldots),$$ vanishes identically in the higher-derivative de Donder gauge $$(aR^\$\lambda${}_\rho + b\delta^\$\lambda${}_\rho R)\,\partial_\$\sigma$ \tilde $g^{{\rho\sigma}}$=0,$$ just as in the ordinary de Donder gauge. From this the paper derives the vanishing four-dimensional commutator $[g_{\rho\sigma}(x),g_{\mu\nu}(x')]=0$ for spacelike separation and, using the global GL(4) symmetry, for arbitrary separation, so the metric field is effectively classical in its own commutation relations. The author reads this as a peculiar feature of quadratic gravity: in general relativity, conformal gravity, and $f(R)$ gravity the analogous equal-time commutators are nontrivial, whereas here the dynamical degrees of freedom are carried by auxiliary and fluctuation fields, not by the metric operator itself.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the operator coefficient multiplying $x$ in the final gauge-consistency equation is not identically zero, and that the pattern seen in the lowest-order commutators continues to all orders; if the coefficient annihilates some states or the induction step fails, the vanishing commutators need not hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The metric components commute with all their time derivatives at equal times, so there is no operator-ordering ambiguity among metric operators in these gauges.
The four-dimensional metric commutator vanishes for spacelike-separated points, and by GL(4) covariance for any separation, making microcausality for the metric trivial.
The metric fluctuation $\phi_{\mu\nu}$ behaves as a classical background, while the quantum gravitational degrees of freedom are the scalar, massless graviton, and massive-ghost modes built from the auxiliary fields.
The phenomenon distinguishes quadratic gravity from general relativity, conformal gravity, and $f(R)$ gravity, where the corresponding equal-time commutators do not vanish; the paper suggests this is tied to renormalizability.
If correct, the long-standing problem of quantizing the spacetime metric itself is circumvented in this formalism, because the metric does not need to be quantized.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper only proves the vanishing in two versions of the de Donder gauge; a natural next check is a non-harmonic gauge, since if the vanishing is gauge-dependent the 'classical metric' picture may be an artifact.
The spacelike-separation argument uses the metric itself to define spacelike separation, which is circular unless one fixes the background metric; the author notes the subtlety but does not resolve it.
Because the all-orders formula is obtained by induction from low-order cases, an explicit computation of a high-order commutator such as $[\partial^3 g_{\rho\sigma}/\partial t^3,\partial^3 g'_{\mu\nu}/\partial t^3]$ would either confirm or break the claimed identity.
If the metric is truly classical in its commutators, then gravitational quantum fluctuations must be described by the auxiliary fields; that would change how observables such as distances and horizons are defined in a quantum theory.

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

Colleague,

Quick take: Oda extends his earlier vanishing-ETCR result for the metric in quadratic gravity from the standard to the higher-derivative de Donder gauge. The new piece is the explicit BRST construction of that gauge and the demonstration, in the low orders, that the commutators still vanish. If the conclusion holds—metric commutes with itself and all derivatives—it is a striking statement about quadratic gravity, essentially removing the metric as a quantum operator. But the general proof has a gap worth taking seriously.

What's good: The paper is transparent about the method. The gauge-extended Lagrangian, the field equations, and the canonical momenta are laid out; the low-order computations for [ḡ,g], [ḡ,ḡ'], and [g̈,ḡ'] are explicit and not just sketched. The construction of the higher-derivative de Donder gauge via BRST-exact terms is legitimate and follows the literature (Fradkin-Tseytlin, Ohta). The self-citation is heavy but not inappropriate; the previous paper is the natural starting point.

The soft spot: Eq. (4.1) assumes the unknown coefficient x in [ḡ,g'] is a c-number. In a nonlinear, interacting canonical theory, such equal-time commutators are generically operator-valued. The paper itself treats the analogous coefficients at the next orders—y, z, w—as operator-valued distributions (Eqs. 4.18, 4.24, 4.27). There's no argument that x is central. If x is an operator X, then Eq. (4.14) only gives I X δ = 0, which does not force X=0. The same issue affects the alternative derivation in Appendix A. The reader's concern about zero modes is this in another guise. This is not a fatal blow—it may be that a separate argument fixes X to zero using the full constraints—but the paper does not supply it.

Also, the jump to the all-order formula (2.27) is by assertion, after checking up to second derivatives. That's acceptable as a conjecture but not as a proof. And the physical conclusion that the metric 'behaves as a classical field' is stronger than what is shown: only the metric self-commutator vanishes, not commutators between metric and other fields.

Who this is for: people working in canonical quantization of higher-derivative gravity, the BRST formalism, and the question of whether quadratic gravity's metric is dynamical. It deserves a serious referee: the question is important, the low-order results are non-trivial, and the gap is specific enough to be fixed. My recommendation: send it to peer review, and ask the referee to focus on the operator-valued nature of the ETCR coefficients and on the induction step. If those are resolved, this is a solid contribution.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper claims that in the manifestly covariant canonical operator formalism of quadratic gravity, all equal-time commutation relations among time derivatives of the metric tensor vanish identically, both in the conventional de Donder gauge and in a higher-derivative de Donder gauge defined by (aR^λ_ρ + bδ^λ_ρ R)∂_σ \tilde g^{ρσ}=0. From this it infers a vanishing four-dimensional commutator [g_{ρσ}(x), g_{μν}(x')]=0 for spacelike separations, suggesting that the metric tensor behaves as a classical background field. The paper constructs the higher-derivative gauge fixing via the BRST formalism, reviews the auxiliary-field formulation of quadratic gravity, and gives detailed computations for the low-order ETCR cases, claiming the general formula (2.27) follows by repeating the procedure.

Significance. If established, the result would be a distinctive structural property of quadratic gravity, with implications for whether the metric is a genuine quantum observable and for the renormalizability of the theory. The paper's explicit construction of the higher-derivative de Donder gauge and its low-order ETCR calculations are useful contributions. However, the central proof has load-bearing gaps: the coefficients in the ETCR ansätze are treated as c-numbers without justification, and the all-orders statement is not actually proved. The main claim is plausible but is not established as it stands.

major comments (3)

[§4, Eq. (4.1)] The ansatz [\dot g_{ρσ}, g'_{μν}] = x δ^0_ρ δ^0_σ δ^0_μ δ^0_ν δ^3 with x a dimensionless constant is unjustified. The canonical CCRs (2.26) fix only the fundamental commutators, while \dot g_{μν} is a complicated function of π_K, the metric, and β through (2.28) and (2.31); in a nonlinear theory such an ETCR is generically operator-valued. Equations (4.5)–(4.15) treat x as a c-number, so if the coefficient is an operator X, Eq. (4.14) becomes I^λ_ρ X δ^3 = 0, which does not imply X = 0. A proof that the coefficient is central, or a derivation of (4.15) that does not rely on this assumption, is required.
[§4, Eqs. (4.14) and (A.3)] Even granting that x is a c-number, the inference from x times the operator coefficient in Eq. (4.14) being zero to x = 0 requires showing that the coefficient I^λ_ρ \tilde g^{00} g_{0ρ} δ^0_μ δ^0_ν δ^3 is not identically zero on the relevant state space. The paper does not provide such a non-degeneracy argument; the coefficient could annihilate all states in a nontrivial sector, and the statement in Eq. (A.3) that the only solution is x = 0 is therefore unsupported.
[§4, after Eq. (4.28)] The all-order formula (2.27) is not established. The text verifies only the low-order cases up to (m,n) = (2,2) and then states that repeating the procedure proves the general result. No induction hypothesis or induction step is formulated, and it is not shown that the ansätze (4.23) and (4.26) exhaust all possible operator structures at higher orders. Since each new order introduces new undetermined coefficients, the all-orders claim requires an explicit inductive argument or an alternative proof.

minor comments (5)

[§4, Eqs. (4.9)–(4.10)] The right-hand sides of Eqs. (4.9) and (4.10) contain a free index σ that does not appear on the left-hand sides; these equations are index-inconsistent as written.
[§4, Eqs. (4.18), (4.24), (4.27)] The symbols y(x,x'), z(x,x'), and w(x,x') are used sometimes as functions and sometimes as differential operators acting on δ^3; the formal status of these objects, including operator ordering, should be stated explicitly.
[§3, Eq. (3.6)] The BRST transformation of the new NL field B_μ in the higher-derivative gauge is not specified; the reader must assume that δ^{(1)}_B B_μ = 0 carries over from Section 2, and this should be stated.
[§5, Eqs. (5.2)–(5.3)] The use of the metric itself to decide spacelike separation is circular; footnote 9 acknowledges the issue, but the subsequent claim that GL(4) symmetry makes Eq. (5.1) valid for arbitrary separations is asserted rather than demonstrated.
[Conclusion] There are typographical errors, notably 'postualtes' for 'postulates', and the reference list has an incomplete entry at [32]; these should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the higher-derivative-gauge ETCR proof is a constraint-solving calculation from the gauge condition and CCRs; self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central derivation in Section 4 is not circular. It starts from the canonical commutation relations, the canonical momenta, the field equations, and the higher-derivative de Donder gauge condition treated as an operator identity. The paper introduces an unknown coefficient x in Eq. (4.1), computes the commutator of the gauge condition with g' through Eqs. (4.2)-(4.14), and then solves for x = 0. This is a constraint-solving argument, not a restatement of the desired vanishing commutator. The gauge condition and the CCRs are inputs, and the vanishing ETCR is a derived consequence. The all-orders formula (2.27) is asserted by saying that the same procedure can be repeated, rather than proved by an explicit induction; that is an unsupported generalization or a proof gap, but it is not circularity. Similarly, the step from Eq. (4.14) to x = 0 assumes that the operator coefficient multiplying x has no zero modes on the relevant states; if that coefficient is not invertible, x need not vanish. This is a mathematical gap about operator-valued coefficients, not a circular reduction. The heavy self-citation, especially to Ref. [17], provides the manifestly covariant canonical formalism and the earlier de Donder-gauge result, but Section 4 reproduces the needed momenta and commutator algebra explicitly and performs the higher-derivative-gauge calculation with the paper's own equations. Thus the novel higher-derivative-gauge claim does not reduce to a self-citation chain. The acknowledged gauge dependence in Section 6 is a limitation, not a circularity. On the whole, the paper's derivation is self-contained relative to its stated canonical formalism, and the identified weaknesses are correctness concerns rather than circular steps.

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

No free parameters are fitted to data. The gauge constants a and b are arbitrary and the result is independent of their values. The paper relies on the standard canonical operator formalism, the first-order auxiliary-field formulation of quadratic gravity from earlier literature, and the BRST quartet mechanism. The main physical interpretation uses the GL(4) symmetry of the de Donder gauge; whether the conclusion survives outside this gauge family is not established.

free parameters (2)

a = arbitrary (unfixed)
Coefficient in the higher-derivative gauge operator A_mu^nu = a R_mu^nu + b delta_mu^nu R (Eqs. 3.2-3.3). It is a gauge parameter, not fitted to data; the claimed vanishing ETCR holds for any a.
b = arbitrary (unfixed)
Second coefficient in the same higher-derivative gauge operator. As with a, it is a gauge parameter and does not affect the final result.

assumptions (5)

standard math Canonical (anti)commutation relations are imposed between fundamental fields and their conjugate momenta, including the BRST quartet structure.
Foundation of the canonical operator formalism; introduced in Section 2 around Eq. (2.26).
domain assumption The Stueckelberg-like vector field A_mu and auxiliary tensor K_mu_nu remove second-class constraints and allow a first-order formulation.
Standard for higher-derivative gravity in this formalism, taken from references [14-16]; assumed without proof here.
domain assumption The gauge-fixing condition is imposed as an operator identity, so its commutator with any local field vanishes.
Used in Eq. (4.2) and throughout Section 4; standard in the Nakanishi-Ojima and Kugo-Ojima formalism.
domain assumption Existence of asymptotic fields and absence of bound states; asymptotic fields obey the quadratic part of the Lagrangian.
Invoked in Section 2 for the physical-mode analysis; the paper explicitly notes this assumption in the conclusions.
domain assumption The GL(4) global symmetry of the de Donder gauge permits any Minkowski-time direction to be chosen as the canonical time.
Needed in Section 5 to extend the spacelike-separated commutator to arbitrary separation.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Vanishing Metric Commutation Relation and Higher-derivative De Donder Gauge in Quadratic Gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DWOPZ32V

@misc{pith2026250710712,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Vanishing Metric Commutation Relation and Higher-derivative De Donder Gauge in Quadratic Gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DWOPZ32V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.10712}
}

read the original abstract

We show that the equal-time commutation relations (ETCRs) among the time derivatives of the metric tensor identically vanish in the higher-derivative de Donder gauge as well as the conventional de Donder gauge (or harmonic gauge) for general coordinate invariance in the manifestly covariant canonical operator formalism of quadratic gravity. These ETCRs provide us with the vanishing four-dimensional commutation relation, which implies that the metric tensor behaves as if it were not a quantum operator but a classical field. In this case, the micro-causality is valid at least for the metric tensor in an obvious manner. This fact might be a manifestation of renormalizability of quadratic gravity in case of the canonical operator formalism.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

[1]

Renormalization of Higher Derivative Quantum Gravity

K. S. Stelle, “Renormalization of Higher Derivative Quantum Gravity”, Phys. Rev. D 16(1977) 953

work page 1977
[2]

Strict Renormalizability as a Paradigm for Fundamental Physics

L. Buoninfante, “Strict Renormalizability as a Paradigm for Fundamental Physics”, arXiv:2504.05900 [hep-th] and references therein. 17

arXiv
[3]

On the Quantum Field Theory of the Gravitational Interac- tions

D. Anselmi, “On the Quantum Field Theory of the Gravitational Interac- tions”, JHEP 06 (2017) 086

work page 2017
[4]

Quadratic Gravity

A. Salvio, “Quadratic Gravity”, Front. in Phys. 6 (2018) 77

work page 2018
[5]

Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics with Indefinite Norm

A. Strumia, “Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics with Indefinite Norm”, MDPI Physics 1 (2019) 17

work page 2019
[6]

Unitarity, Stability and Loops of Unsta- ble Ghosts

J. E. Donoghue and G. Menezes, “Unitarity, Stability and Loops of Unsta- ble Ghosts”, Phys. Rev. D 100(2019) 105006

work page 2019
[7]

On Quadratic Gravity

J. E. Donoghue and G. Menezes, “On Quadratic Gravity”, Nuovo. Cim. C 45 (2022) 26

work page 2022
[8]

Kubo and T

J. Kubo and T. Kugo, ”Unitarity Violation in Field Theories of Lee-Wick’s Complex Ghost”, PTEP 2023 (2023) 123B02

work page 2023

Show all 33 references

[9]

Making Sense of Ghosts

B. Holdom, “Making Sense of Ghosts”, Nucl. Phys. B 1008(2024) 116696

2024
[10]

Remarks on Ghost Resonances

L. Buoninfante, “Remarks on Ghost Resonances”, JHEP 02 (2025) 186

2025
[11]

Kugo and I

T. Kugo and I. Ojima, ”Local Covariant Operator Formalism of Nonabelian Gauge Theories and Quark Confinement Problem”, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 66 (1979) 1

1979
[12]

Nakanishi, ”Indefinite Metric Quantum Field Theory of General Grav- ity”, Prog

N. Nakanishi, ”Indefinite Metric Quantum Field Theory of General Grav- ity”, Prog. Theor. Phys. 59 (1978) 972

1978
[13]

Nakanishi and I

N. Nakanishi and I. Ojima, ”Covariant Operator Formalism of Gauge The- ories and Quantum Gravity”, World Scientific Publishing, 1990 and refer- ences therein

1990
[14]

Kawasaki, T

S. Kawasaki, T. Kimura and K. Kitago, ”Canonical Quantum Theory of Gravitational Field with Higher Derivatives”, Prog. Theor. Phys.66 (1981) 2085

1981
[15]

Kawasaki and T

S. Kawasaki and T. Kimura, ”Canonical Quantum Theory of Gravitational Field with Higher Derivatives. II”, Prog. Theor. Phys. 68 (1982) 1749

1982
[16]

Kawasaki and T

S. Kawasaki and T. Kimura, ”Canonical Quantum Theory of Gravitational Field with Higher Derivatives. III”, Prog. Theor. Phys. 69 (1983) 1015

1983
[17]

Manifestly Covariant Canonical Formalism of Quadratic Gravity

I. Oda, “Manifestly Covariant Canonical Formalism of Quadratic Gravity”, arXiv:2505.09149 [hep-th]

arXiv
[18]

Quantum Scale Invariant Gravity in de Donder Gauge

I. Oda, “Quantum Scale Invariant Gravity in de Donder Gauge”, Phys. Rev. D 105(2022) 066001

2022
[19]

Quantum Theory of Weyl Invariant Scalar-tensor Gravity

I. Oda, “Quantum Theory of Weyl Invariant Scalar-tensor Gravity”, Phys. Rev. D 105(2022) 120618. 18

2022
[20]

Oda and P

I. Oda and P. Saake, ”BRST Formalism of Weyl Conformal Gravity”, Phys. Rev. D 106(2022) 106007

2022
[21]

BRST formalism of Weyl Invariant Gravity and Confinement of Massive Tensor Ghost

I. Oda, “BRST formalism of Weyl Invariant Gravity and Confinement of Massive Tensor Ghost”, PoS CORFU2023 (2024) 158

2024
[22]

Quantum Conformal Gravity

I. Oda and M. Ohta, “Quantum Conformal Gravity”, JHEP 02 (2024) 213

2024
[23]

Conformal Symmetry in Quantum Gravity

I. Oda, “Conformal Symmetry in Quantum Gravity”, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) 887

2024
[24]

BRST Formalism of f (R) Gravity

I. Oda, “BRST Formalism of f (R) Gravity”, arXiv:2410.20270 [hep-th]

arXiv
[25]

Renormalizable Asymptotically Free Quantum Theory of Gravity

E. S. Fradkin and A. A. Tseytlin, “Renormalizable Asymptotically Free Quantum Theory of Gravity”, Nucl. Phys. B 201(1982) 469

1982
[26]

Proof of the Exact Masslessness of Gravitons

N. Nakanishi and I. Ojima, “Proof of the Exact Masslessness of Gravitons”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43 (1979) 91

1979
[27]

Gravitation

C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne and J. A. Wheeler, “Gravitation”, W H Free- man and Co (Sd), 1973

1973
[28]

N. H. Barth, S. M. Christensen, ”Quantizing fourth order gravity theories
[29]

The functional integral”, Phys. Rev. D 28(1983) 1876

1983
[30]

General Procedure of Gauge Fixings and Ghosts

N. Ohta, “General Procedure of Gauge Fixings and Ghosts”, Phys. Lett. B 811(2020) 135965

2020
[31]

Introduction to Quantum Field Theory with Applications to Quantum Gravity

I. L. Buchbinder and I. L. Shapiro, “Introduction to Quantum Field Theory with Applications to Quantum Gravity”, Oxford University Press, 2021

2021
[32]

General Relativity

R. M. Wald, “General Relativity”, The University of Chicago Press, 1984

1984
[33]

Kawasaki and K

S. Kawasaki and K. Kimura, ”A Possible Mechanism of Ghost Confinement in a Renormalizable Quantum Gravity”, Prog. Theor. Phys.65 (1981) 1767. 19

1981

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Renormalization of Higher Derivative Quantum Gravity

K. S. Stelle, “Renormalization of Higher Derivative Quantum Gravity”, Phys. Rev. D 16(1977) 953

work page 1977

[2] [2]

Strict Renormalizability as a Paradigm for Fundamental Physics

L. Buoninfante, “Strict Renormalizability as a Paradigm for Fundamental Physics”, arXiv:2504.05900 [hep-th] and references therein. 17

arXiv

[3] [3]

On the Quantum Field Theory of the Gravitational Interac- tions

D. Anselmi, “On the Quantum Field Theory of the Gravitational Interac- tions”, JHEP 06 (2017) 086

work page 2017

[4] [4]

Quadratic Gravity

A. Salvio, “Quadratic Gravity”, Front. in Phys. 6 (2018) 77

work page 2018

[5] [5]

Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics with Indefinite Norm

A. Strumia, “Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics with Indefinite Norm”, MDPI Physics 1 (2019) 17

work page 2019

[6] [6]

Unitarity, Stability and Loops of Unsta- ble Ghosts

J. E. Donoghue and G. Menezes, “Unitarity, Stability and Loops of Unsta- ble Ghosts”, Phys. Rev. D 100(2019) 105006

work page 2019

[7] [7]

On Quadratic Gravity

J. E. Donoghue and G. Menezes, “On Quadratic Gravity”, Nuovo. Cim. C 45 (2022) 26

work page 2022

[8] [8]

Kubo and T

J. Kubo and T. Kugo, ”Unitarity Violation in Field Theories of Lee-Wick’s Complex Ghost”, PTEP 2023 (2023) 123B02

work page 2023