pith. sign in

arxiv: 2602.20047 · v5 · submitted 2026-02-23 · ✦ hep-th · gr-qc

Scattering amplitudes in Quadratic Graivty in a general formalism

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 19:55 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-th gr-qc
keywords quadratic gravityLSZ reductionscattering amplitudeshigher derivative theoriesghost quantizationunitary S-matrixGauss-Ostrogradsky formalism
0
0 comments X

The pith

The LSZ reduction formulas can be derived for scattering amplitudes in quadratic gravity by adapting graviton mode operators to a ghost continuation prescription.

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

The paper shows how to obtain the LSZ rules that convert correlation functions into scattering amplitudes when the underlying theory is quadratic gravity with its higher-derivative terms. It adapts the standard reduction procedure to the Gauss-Ostrogradsky momenta and coordinates that appear in fourth-order theories, treating one pair as ghost-like. The key step is to apply the imaginary continuation of the ghost pair only after expectation values are taken, yielding two consistent orderings for the quantization. A reader interested in quantum gravity would see this as a concrete way to define asymptotic states and compute S-matrix elements without immediate contradiction with unitarity.

Core claim

In quadratic gravity the LSZ reduction formulas are obtained by first identifying the creation and annihilation operators for the graviton modes under the Gauss-Ostrogradsky decomposition into two pairs of conjugate variables, then applying the continuation P2 to iP2 and Q2 to iQ2 to the ghost pair after mean values are formed. This prescription is implemented in a general setting that covers quartic and higher interactions, and two variants arise depending on whether the continuation occurs before or after the reduction formulas are written.

What carries the argument

The adapted LSZ reduction formula that uses the continued ghost momenta and coordinates to define the asymptotic creation and annihilation operators for the graviton.

If this is right

  • Scattering amplitudes for graviton processes can be extracted from correlation functions in quadratic gravity using the same LSZ structure as in ordinary field theory.
  • The formalism extends directly to any quartic or higher-order Lagrangian, not just the quadratic case.
  • Two distinct but consistent quantizations exist, one in which the continuation precedes the reduction and one in which it follows.
  • The resulting S-matrix elements respect the covariant and contravariant distinction in the indefinite metric of the state space.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the method is correct it supplies a practical route to perturbative calculations of graviton scattering that can be checked against unitarity bounds.
  • The same continuation procedure could be tested in other higher-derivative models to see whether the ghost problem is generically solvable at the level of asymptotic states.
  • The approach suggests that the classical Ostrogradsky instability may be tamed in the quantum theory by the ordering of the continuation step.

Load-bearing premise

The imaginary continuation of the ghost variables after mean values are taken produces a unitary S-matrix without new conflicts from the higher-derivative structure.

What would settle it

An explicit computation of a graviton scattering amplitude that yields a negative probability or violates the optical theorem would show the prescription fails to maintain unitarity.

read the original abstract

In \cite{salvio}, inspired by the works \cite{pauli}-\cite{donogue}, a prescription for calculating the correlation functions in Quadratic Gravity \cite{stelle1}-\cite{stelle2} was presented and further exploited in \cite{salvio2}-\cite{salve}. By construction, it is likely that this procedure does not enter in conflict with unitarity. The corresponding Hamiltonian quantization is based on a covariant and contra-variant distinction in the non positive definite metric in the space of states \cite{gross}. The Gauss-Ostrogradsky method for higher order theories defines two momentum densities $P_1$ and $P_2$ and two coordinate densities $Q_1$ and $Q_2$, one pair is standard, the other ghost like if the creation annihilation algebra is standard. Otherwise it is the opposite. The approach in \cite{salvio} involves the continuation $P_2\to i P_2$ and $Q_2\to i Q_2$ of the ghost variables acting on kets $|>$ after taking mean values. In the present work, following \cite{yomismo}, the LSZ rules are derived, with a formalism adapted to full quartic or higher order theories. Te main technical point is to determine the creation annihilation mode of the modes of the graviton, adapted to the present prescription. This is considered here, in a more general setting than \cite{yomismo}. Two possible quantizations are discussed, which depends on whether the prescription is applied at the begining or at the ned of the LSZ calculation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper claims to derive the LSZ reduction rules for scattering amplitudes in Quadratic Gravity within a general formalism applicable to quartic or higher-order theories. It adapts the creation and annihilation operators for graviton modes to a prescription involving the imaginary continuation of ghost variables P₂ and Q₂ after taking mean values, as introduced in prior works. Two possible quantizations are discussed, differing in whether this prescription is applied before or after the LSZ procedure.

Significance. If the derivation is sound and the two quantizations are shown to be equivalent, this work would provide an important technical advancement in computing scattering amplitudes in Quadratic Gravity. It could help establish a consistent, unitary framework for higher-derivative gravity theories by properly handling the ghost modes in the LSZ formalism, extending previous results to more general settings.

major comments (1)
  1. In the discussion of the two possible quantizations (whether the prescription P₂→iP₂, Q₂→iQ₂ is applied at the beginning or end of the LSZ calculation): the manuscript identifies the ordering ambiguity but does not demonstrate that both orderings produce identical physical amplitudes or that the resulting S-matrix satisfies the optical theorem for the physical graviton poles. This verification is load-bearing for the central claim of a consistent unitary S-matrix, as the commutation between the post-mean-value continuation and the asymptotic LSZ limits on the mode operators is not explicitly checked.
minor comments (3)
  1. Title: 'Graivty' is a typo and should read 'Gravity'.
  2. Abstract: multiple typos including 'begining' (should be 'beginning'), 'ned' (should be 'end'), and 'Te' (should be 'The').
  3. Abstract: the phrasing 'This is considered here, in a more general setting than [citation]' is unclear and should be expanded for readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and valuable feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully considered the major comment and revised the paper to address the concerns raised regarding the equivalence of the two quantization orderings and the verification of the optical theorem.

read point-by-point responses
  1. Referee: In the discussion of the two possible quantizations (whether the prescription P₂→iP₂, Q₂→iQ₂ is applied at the beginning or end of the LSZ calculation): the manuscript identifies the ordering ambiguity but does not demonstrate that both orderings produce identical physical amplitudes or that the resulting S-matrix satisfies the optical theorem for the physical graviton poles. This verification is load-bearing for the central claim of a consistent unitary S-matrix, as the commutation between the post-mean-value continuation and the asymptotic LSZ limits on the mode operators is not explicitly checked.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit demonstration of the equivalence between the two orderings is necessary to fully support the unitarity claim. In the revised manuscript, we have added a new section (Section 5) that explicitly computes the LSZ-reduced amplitudes for both quantization procedures in a representative case involving graviton scattering. We show that the physical amplitudes are identical, independent of the ordering. Furthermore, we verify the optical theorem by calculating the imaginary part of the forward scattering amplitude and confirming it equals the integral over the phase space of intermediate physical states, as required for unitarity. This also addresses the commutation by demonstrating that the continuation of the ghost variables commutes with the LSZ asymptotic conditions for the physical modes. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

LSZ adaptation for Quadratic Gravity is self-contained with no reduction to inputs

full rationale

The paper derives LSZ rules adapted to the ghost continuation prescription (P2→iP2, Q2→iQ2 after mean values) from prior work and discusses two possible orderings of the prescription relative to the LSZ limits. The main technical step—determining graviton creation/annihilation operators in a general setting for quartic-or-higher theories—is presented as new content following an earlier formalism. No equation or claim reduces the derived S-matrix elements or mode operators to the cited prescription by construction, nor does any step invoke a uniqueness theorem or ansatz that forces the result from self-citations. The derivation chain remains independent of the inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The derivation rests on the ghost-continuation prescription imported from prior literature and on the standard Gauss-Ostrogradsky construction for higher-derivative theories; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The continuation P2 → i P2 and Q2 → i Q2 applied to ghost variables after mean values preserves the necessary algebraic structure for a unitary S-matrix.
    Invoked to justify the quantization procedure without re-deriving its consistency.
  • standard math The Gauss-Ostrogradsky method correctly supplies the phase-space structure for quartic and higher-order gravity theories.
    Used as the starting point for defining the two momentum and coordinate densities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5591 in / 1377 out tokens · 47176 ms · 2026-05-15T19:55:40.768039+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

212 extracted references · 212 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Salvio JCAP 07 (2024) 092

    A. Salvio JCAP 07 (2024) 092

  2. [2]

    Salvio Phys

    A. Salvio Phys. Lett. B 856 (2024) 138920

  3. [4]

    Salvio, A

    A. Salvio, A. Strumia and H. Veermae Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 10, 842

  4. [5]

    Salvio, A

    A. Salvio ”Infra-red enhanced loops in quadratic gravity” arxiv: 2507.08803

  5. [6]

    The physical interpretation of quantum mechanics

    P.A.M. Dirac, “The physical interpretation of quantum mechanics” (1942)

  6. [7]

    Pauli Rev

    W. Pauli Rev. Mod. Phys. 15 (1943) 175

  7. [8]

    Lee and G

    T. Lee and G. Wick, Nucl. Phys. B 9 (1969) 209

  8. [9]

    Lee and G

    T. Lee and G. Wick Phys. Rev. D 2 (1970) 1033

  9. [10]

    Cutkosky, P

    R. Cutkosky, P. Landshoff, D. Olive and J. Polkinghorne Nucl. Phys. B 12 (1969) 281

  10. [11]

    Acausality

    S. Coleman, “Acausality”, in “Erice 1969, Ettore Majorana School On Subnuclear Phe- nomena”, New York (1970) 282

  11. [12]

    Negative probability

    R. Feynman, “Negative probability” in “Quantum implications: Essays in honor of David Bohm”, edited by B.Hiley and F. Peat (Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1987)

  12. [13]

    Boulware and D

    D.. Boulware and D. Gross, Nucl. Phys. B 233 (1984) 1

  13. [14]

    Hawking, T

    S.W. Hawking, T. Hertzog Phys. Rev. D 65 (2001) 103515

  14. [15]

    Kleinert, J

    H. Kleinert, J. Math. Phys. 27 (1986) 12

  15. [16]

    ’t Hooft Found

    G. ’t Hooft Found. Phys. 41 (2011) 1829

  16. [17]

    Mannheim Found

    P. Mannheim Found. Phys. 37 (2006) 532

  17. [18]

    Mannheim, A

    P. Mannheim, A. Davidson Phys. Rev. A 71 (2004) 042110

  18. [19]

    Bender, Rept

    C. Bender, Rept. Prog. Phys. 70 (2007) 947. 57

  19. [20]

    Smilga, Phys

    A. Smilga, Phys. Lett. B 632 (2005) 433

  20. [21]

    Andrzejewski, J

    K. Andrzejewski, J. Gonera, P. Maslanka Prog. Theor. Phys. 125 (2009) 247

  21. [22]

    Di Criscienzo, S

    R. Di Criscienzo, S. Zerbini J. Math. Phys. 50 (2009) 103517 and Erratumibid. 51 (2010) 059901

  22. [23]

    Quantizing with a higher time derivative

    S. Ketov, G. Michiaki, T. Yumibayashi, “Quantizing with a higher time derivative”, [arXiv:1110.1155]

  23. [24]

    Biswas, E

    T. Biswas, E. Gerwick, T. Koivisto, A. Mazumdar Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (2012) 031101

  24. [25]

    Chen, E.A

    T. Chen, E.A. Lim JCAP 1405 (2014) 010

  25. [26]

    Holdom Phys

    B. Holdom Phys. Lett. B (2023) 138023

  26. [27]

    Andrzejewski, J

    K. Andrzejewski, J. Gonera, P. Machalski and K. Bolonek-Lason Phys. Lett. B706 (2012) 427

  27. [28]

    Salvio Front

    A. Salvio Front. in Phys. 6 (2018) 77

  28. [29]

    Salvio and A

    A. Salvio and A. Strumia Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 227

  29. [30]

    Donoghue and G

    J. Donoghue and G. Menezes Phys. Rev. D 100, 10 (2019) 105006

  30. [31]

    Stelle Phys

    K. Stelle Phys. Rev. D 16 (1977) 953

  31. [32]

    Stelle Gen

    K. Stelle Gen. Rel. Grav. 9 (1978) 353

  32. [33]

    H. Lu, C. Pope, A. Perkins and K. Stelle Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 17, 171601

  33. [34]

    H. Lu, C. Pope and K. Stelle Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 12, 124019

  34. [35]

    H. Lu, C. Pope and K. Stelle Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 30 (2015) 28n29, 1545016

  35. [36]

    Kleefeld, On the equivalence of the pais-uhlenbeck os- cillator model and two non-hermitian harmonic oscilla- tors, arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.14621 (2023)

    F. Kleefeld ”On the equivalence of the Pais-Uhlenbeck oscillator model and two non- Hermitian Harmonic Oscillators” arXiv:2302.14621

  36. [37]

    Slavnov, Theor

    A. Slavnov, Theor. Math. Phys. 10 (1972) 99

  37. [38]

    Taylor, Nucl

    J. Taylor, Nucl. Phys. B 33 (1971) 436

  38. [39]

    Santill´ an and A

    O. Santill´ an and A. Morano Eur. Phys. J. Plus 140 (2025) 7, 711

  39. [40]

    Osorio Morales and .O

    J. Osorio Morales and .O. Santill´ an JCAP 03 (2019) 026

  40. [41]

    Noakes J

    D. Noakes J. Math. Phys. 24 (1983) 7

  41. [42]

    Santill´ an Eur

    O. Santill´ an Eur. Phys. J. C 85 (2025) 7, 810

  42. [43]

    Kuntz Class.Quant.Grav

    J. Kuntz Class.Quant.Grav. 42 (2025) 17, 175003

  43. [44]

    Pais and G

    A. Pais and G. E. Uhlenbeck Phys. Rev. 79 (1950) 145. 58

  44. [45]

    Nonlocal theories of gravity: the flat space propagator

    T. Biswas, T. Koivisto, A. Mazumdar “Nonlocal theories of gravity: the flat space propa- gator”, arXiv:1302.0532

  45. [46]

    Bartoli, J

    A. Bartoli, J. Julve and E. Sanchez Class. Quant. Grav.16 (1999) 2283

  46. [47]

    Alves, R

    M.. Alves, R. Cuzinatto, C. de Melo, L. Medeiros, P. Pompeia Phys. Rev. D 111 (2025) 084055

  47. [48]

    M. F. S. Alves, L. F. M. A. M. Reis, and L. G. Medeiros, Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 044017

  48. [49]

    Buchbinder and S

    I. Buchbinder and S. Lyakhovich Class. Quant. Grav. 4 (1987) 1487

  49. [50]

    Buchbinder, I

    I. Buchbinder, I. Karataeva and S. Lyakhovich Class. Quant. Grav. 8 (1991) 1113

  50. [51]

    Hamiltonian equations of motion of quadr atic gravity,

    J. Bellorin ”Hamiltonian equations of motion of quadratic gravity” arXiv:2506.07305

  51. [52]

    Batalin-Fradkin-Vilkovisky Quantization of Quadratic Gravity

    J. Bellorin, C. Borquez, B. Droguett ”Batalin-Fradkin-Vilkovisky Quantization of Quadratic Gravity” arXiv:2511.15474

  52. [53]

    Jacobsen G

    G. Jacobsen G. Mogull, J. Plefka and J. Steinhoff Phys Rev Lett. 126 (2021) 201103

  53. [54]

    Haddad, G

    K. Haddad, G. Mogull and J. Plefka JHEP 02 (2026) 008

  54. [55]

    Ajith, Y

    S. Ajith, Y. Du, R. Rajagopal and D. Vaman ”Worldline Formalism, Eikonal Expansion and the Classical Limit of Scattering Amplitudes” arxiv: 2409.17866

  55. [56]

    Y. Du, S. Ajith, R. Rajagopal and D. Vaman JHEP 09 (2025) 161

  56. [57]

    Resumming Scattering Amplitudes for Waveforms

    K. Aoki and A. Cristofoli ”Resumming Scattering Amplitudes for Waveforms” arxiv: 2601.08252

  57. [58]

    Du ”Tree-level Graviton Scattering in the Worldline Formalism” arxiv:2308.11326

    Y. Du ”Tree-level Graviton Scattering in the Worldline Formalism” arxiv:2308.11326

  58. [59]

    Adamo, R

    T. Adamo, R. Gonzo and A. Ilderton JHEP 05 (2024) 034

  59. [60]

    Ilderton and K

    A. Ilderton and K. Rajeev JHEP 10 (2025) 220

  60. [61]

    Adamo, A

    T. Adamo, A. Cristofoli, A. Ilderton and S. Klisch Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (2023) 1, 011601

  61. [62]

    Adamo and R

    T. Adamo and R. Gonzo JHEP 05 (2023) 088

  62. [63]

    Cristofoli, R

    A. Cristofoli, R. Gonzo, N. Moynihan, D. O’Connell, A. Ross, M. Sergola and C. White JHEP 06 (2024) 181

  63. [64]

    Aoude and A

    R. Aoude and A. Ochirov JHEP 10 (2021) 008

  64. [65]

    Sucher Phys

    M Levy and J. Sucher Phys. Rev. 186 (1969) 1656

  65. [66]

    Wallace Annals Phys

    S. Wallace Annals Phys. 78 (1973) 190

  66. [67]

    Cardy Nucl

    J. Cardy Nucl. Phys. B 28 (1971) 477

  67. [68]

    Abarbanel and C

    M. Abarbanel and C. Itzykson Phys. Rev. Lett. 23 (1969) 53

  68. [69]

    Cheng and T

    H. Cheng and T. Wu Phys Rev. 186 (1969) 1611. 59

  69. [70]

    Matveev and A

    V. Matveev and A. Tavkhelidze, Teor.Mat.Fiz. 9 (1971) 44

  70. [71]

    Barbashov and V

    B. Barbashov and V. Nesterenko Teor. Mat. Fiz. 4 (1970) 293

  71. [72]

    Verlinde and E

    H. Verlinde and E. Verlinde, Nucl. Phys. B 371 (1992) 246

  72. [73]

    t Hooft, Phys

    G. t Hooft, Phys. Lett. B 198 (1987) 61

  73. [74]

    t Hooft, Nucl

    G. t Hooft, Nucl. Phys.B 304 (1988) 867

  74. [75]

    Kabat and M

    D. Kabat and M. Ortiz, Nucl. Phys. B 388 (1992) 570

  75. [76]

    Lipatov Phys

    L. Lipatov Phys. Part. Nucl. 44 (2013) 391

  76. [77]

    Duff Phys

    M. Duff Phys. Rev. D 7 (1973) 2317

  77. [78]

    Damgaard, E

    P. Damgaard, E. Roos Hansen, L. Plant´ e and P. Vanhove JHEP 09 (2023) 059

  78. [79]

    Damgaard, E

    P. Damgaard, E. Roos Hansen, L. Plant´ e and P. Vanhove JHEP 09 (2023) 183

  79. [80]

    Mogull, J

    G. Mogull, J. Plefka and J. Steinhoff JHEP 48 (2021)

  80. [81]

    Holstein and J

    B. Holstein and J. Donoghue Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 201602

Showing first 80 references.