Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 41 references

Extending unified gravity to account for graviton-graviton interaction

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 Adding a gauge-invariant graviton self-interaction term to unified gravity makes gravitons sources of gravity and turns the gravitational field equation nonlinear.

desk verdict A transparent algebraic extension of the authors' own 4×U(1) gravity that makes gravitons self-source, but the whole thing leans on a coordinate-fixed spacetime dimension field whose Lorentz covariance is never established. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.07790 v2 pith:M2BLGNSO submitted 2025-07-10 gr-qc quant-ph

Mikko Partanen , Jukka Tulkki This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcquant-ph
keywords unifiedgravitygraviton-gravitoninteraction4×U(1)gaugeinvariancespacetimedimensionfieldnonlineargravitationalequationstress-energy-momentumtensorteleparallelequivalentofgeneralrelativityBRST
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 extends unified gravity, a theory in which gravity is carried by a 4×U(1) tensor gauge field on a flat Minkowski background, so that gravitons interact with one another. The authors add the gauge-invariant term $-i\sum_a T^{a\nu}_g I_a^*D_\nu I_a$, which inserts the stress-energy-momentum tensor of the gravitational field itself into the Lagrangian alongside the Dirac and electromagnetic sources. This makes the gravitational field equation nonlinear: the field's own energy now acts as a source, so gravitational waves can interact with external gravitational potentials. The authors show that the 4×U(1) gauge invariance survives the extension, that the weak-field linearized limit is unchanged, and that the new term introduces a triple-graviton vertex while leaving the relation to teleparallel gravity intact. This is a necessary step for treating problems such as gravitational-wave propagation in external fields, which the original formulation could not describe.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the spacetime dimension field $I^a_g=g_g^{-1/2}e^{-ig_g x_a}$ with $x_a=(ct,-x,-y,-z)$, whose key identity $I^{a*}_g\partial_\nu I^a_g=-i\delta^\mu_a\eta_{\mu\nu}$ turns the QED Lagrangian, written with the matter SEM tensor, into a 4×U(1) gauge theory. Promoting the global U(1) phases to local ones introduces the gravity gauge field $H_{a\nu}$ through the covariant derivative $D_\nu I^a_g=(\partial_\nu-ig'_g H_{a\nu})I^a_g$. The novel mechanism here is the interaction term $L_{\mathrm{gg,int}}=-i\sum_a T^{a\nu}_g I_a^*D_\nu I_a$, which places the SEM tensor of the gravity field itself back into the Lagrangian; together with the gauge-field kinetic term written through the superpotential $S^{\rho\mu\nu}$, it produces the nonlinear terms in Eq. (40).

What would settle it

Perform a Lorentz boost on the coordinates appearing in the spacetime dimension field and check whether the identity $I^{a*}_g\partial_\nu I^a_g=-i\delta^\mu_a\eta_{\mu\nu}$ is preserved; a single frame in which the identity changes form disproves the relativistic status of the theory and of Eq. (40). Alternatively, compute the gravitational-wave phase shift in an external potential from the nonlinear equation and compare it with the pulsar-timing or interferometer observations used to test general relativity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that graviton–graviton interaction in unified gravity is accounted for by letting the stress-energy-momentum tensor $T^{\mu\nu}_g$ of the gravity gauge field appear as part of the total source $T^{\mu\nu}=T^{\mu\nu}_m+T^{\mu\nu}_g$. The mechanism is the gauge-invariant interaction term $L_{\mathrm{gg,int}}=-i\sum_a T^{a\nu}_g I_a^*D_\nu I_a$, built from the spacetime dimension field $I^a_g=g_g^{-1/2}e^{-ig_g x_a}$ and the gravity gauge-covariant derivative. Varying the full Lagrangian yields the nonlinear field equation $P^{\mu\nu,\rho\sigma}\partial^2 H_{\rho\sigma}-P^{\sigma\lambda,\rho\mu\nu,\alpha\beta\gamma}\partial_\rho(H_{\sigma\lambda}\partial_\alpha H_{\beta\gamma})=-\kappa T^{\mu\nu}$, in which the quadratic derivative term and the gravity SEM tensor are the new contributions. The paper argues that the 4×U(1) gauge symmetry and BRST invariance are preserved, that the weak-field limit reproduces the earlier linear unified gravity, and that the extension introduces a triple-graviton vertex whose renormalization consequences are left to future work.

Load-bearing premise

The entire construction rests on the assumed coordinate-dependent phase of the spacetime dimension field, $I^a_g = g_g^{-1/2}e^{-ig_g x_a}$, and on the identity it satisfies; that phase is postulated rather than derived, and the paper never proves the field is Lorentz-covariant, so a failure under Lorentz transformations would invalidate the nonlinear field equation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Gravitational waves acquire self-interaction: a wave's own energy contributes to the source, so wave propagation in an external gravitational potential is modified by terms quadratic in the field.
  • The field equation of gravity becomes nonlinear, with the total SEM tensor as source, so energy, momentum, and angular momentum can flow between the matter/electromagnetic fields and the gravitational field.
  • The 4×U(1) gauge invariance and BRST invariance are preserved, keeping the theory inside the renormalizable-gauge-theory framework of the original formulation.
  • In the weak-field limit the new terms drop out, so the benchmark predictions of unified gravity—lensing, perihelion precession, and redshift—are unchanged.
  • The relation to teleparallel gravity is unchanged: in the Weitzenböck gauge the new interaction term vanishes because $T^{\mu\nu}_g$ is traceless.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A step the paper leaves implicit is an explicit check of Lorentz behavior for the spacetime dimension field; since the phase is built from coordinate-dependent $x_a$ that is not a four-vector, this check will likely decide whether the nonlinear equation is a relativistic field equation.
  • Equation (46) could be used to compute concrete post-linear corrections for gravitational-wave scattering in an external potential, giving numbers that could be compared with general relativity.
  • The renormalizability of the original unified gravity should be re-examined with the triple-graviton vertex included; a one-loop calculation with the new vertex is the natural next test.
  • Because the paper explicitly defers the convergence analysis of the iterative solution, Eq. (47) should be treated as a formal perturbative scheme until that analysis is supplied.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper extends a previously proposed 'unified gravity' (UG) theory to include graviton-graviton interaction. It presents UG in standard four-vector and tensor notation, introduces a new gauge-invariant interaction term L_gg,int = -i Σ_a T^{aν}_g I^{a*}_g D_ν I^a_g, and derives a nonlinear dynamical equation (40) for the gravity gauge field H with the total stress-energy-momentum tensor as a source. The paper also claims a generalized conservation law (29), BRST invariance, and a relation to TEGR. The algebraic steps are mostly coherent: the identity (37) is correct and the interaction term is manifestly gauge invariant.

Significance. If the construction were consistent, the paper would provide a concrete, potentially renormalizable quantum field theory of gravity with self-interacting gravitons, a definite nonlinear field equation, and a triple-graviton vertex. The explicit derivation of the nonlinear equation from a gauge-invariant Lagrangian is a useful step, and the paper correctly identifies that the new term makes the total SEM tensor appear as a source. However, the theory depends on a preferred coordinate system through the spacetime dimension field, and the paper does not establish Lorentz or translational invariance; this undermines the physical validity of the central claim as a Minkowski-spacetime theory of gravity.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II A and II B (Eqs. (9), (10), (37))] The central results, including the identity (37) and the nonlinear equation (40), rely on the spacetime dimension field I^a_g = g_g^{-1/2} exp(-i g_g x_a) with x_a = (ct, -x, -y, -z). The authors explicitly state in Sec. II B that this field is not a four-vector and that x_a is not contracted with any four-vector, and Sec. II A fixes the Cartesian coordinates x^a and forbids applying coordinate transformations to them. No Lorentz transformation law for I^a_g is provided, and no proof is given that the action (27) is invariant under Lorentz transformations of the Greek coordinates x^ν while preserving the form of δ^μ_a in (37). Since the field depends on the coordinate x_a rather than on a Lorentz-invariant quantity, the theory as written is defined in a preferred coordinate frame. Consequently, the gravitational field equation (40) and the conservation law (29) would be frame-dependent unless an additional symmetry is specified. This is a load-bearing gap for the paper's central claim that UG is a Minkowski spacetime theory of gravity with a meaningful nonlinear interaction.
  2. [Sec. II G and II I (Eqs. (23), (28), (29))] The derivation of the generalized conservation law (29) is circular in an important sense. The interaction term (23) is introduced precisely so that the total SEM tensor T^{μν} appears in the Lagrangian, and then Eq. (28) is obtained by varying I^a_g while keeping the gravity gauge field H fixed. Substituting this variation into the action and integrating by parts yields a term proportional to ∂_ν T^{μν}. The conservation law (29) is then asserted by requiring this variation to vanish for arbitrary δφ_μ. However, the action (27) is not invariant under this partial variation; it is invariant only under the combined transformation of I and H. Setting δS=0 for the partial variation is therefore an extra assumption, not a consequence of gauge symmetry. To establish (29), one must show it follows from the equations of motion (for example, by taking the divergence of (40)), which the paper does not do. The physical interpretation that matter-field energy can be converted into gravitational field energy is thus not derived from the gauge structure.
  3. [Sec. III D 2 (Eqs. (46), (47))] The paper states that the iterative procedure (46) 'must converge' to the solution of the exact nonlinear equation (40), and presents (47) as an iterative solution. No convergence proof or error estimate is given, and the paper itself acknowledges that 'detailed study of the convergence properties is left as a topic of further work.' While the iteration is plausible for weak fields, the unconditional statement 'must converge' is unsupported. Since the nonlinear equation is the central result, the status of the iterative solution should be made conditional or justified, or the claim should be weakened.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. II B] There are typos: 'sence' should be 'sense' and 'experession' should be 'expression'.
  2. [Sec. II A] The coordinates x^a are defined as (ct, x, y, z) in Sec. II A, while Eq. (9) uses x_a = (ct, -x, -y, -z). It would be clearer to state explicitly that x_a = η_{ab} x^b.
  3. [General] The paper uses 'graviton-graviton interaction' throughout, but the actual analysis is classical field theory. The connection between the classical nonlinear field equation and the quantum triple-graviton vertex is mentioned only in the conclusion; a short clarifying statement in the introduction would help avoid ambiguity.
  4. [Sec. III D 2] In Eq. (47), the retarded time t_r is defined, but the spatial and temporal arguments of the source terms are not fully specified; explicitly writing T^{ρσ}_m(t_r, r') and T^{ρσ}_g(t_r, r') would improve readability.
  5. [References] Reference [18] contains a typo: 'Mill Walley, CA' should probably be 'Mill Valley, CA'.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the only built-in step is the SEM-tensor conservation law, which is a consistency property of the proposed interaction term rather than a fitted prediction.

  1. self definitional [Sec. II G, Eq. (23); Sec. II I, Eqs. (28) and (29)]
    "The main motivation for the definition of Lgg,int in Eq. (23), as shown in detail in Sec. II I below, is that it leads to the total SEM tensor T μν of the Dirac electron–positron field, the electromagnetic gauge field, and the gravity gauge field, given by the sum of the SEM tensors in Eqs. (3) and (24) as T μν = T μν m + T μν g ."

    The interaction term Lgg,int is explicitly constructed using T_g, the SEM tensor of the gravity gauge field, and the total T is defined as T_m + T_g. The variation of the full Lagrangian (27), which contains −i T^{aν} I* D I by this construction, gives δL|H = (1/g_g) T^{μν} ∂_ν δφ_μ (Eq. 28). Integrating by parts then yields the conservation law ∂_ν T^{μν} = 0 (Eq. 29). Thus the conservation law is the same information that was put into the interaction term; it is a consistency property of the ansatz, not an independent prediction. The paper openly states that this was the motivation, so the step is transparent, but it remains a built-in consequence rather than a derived test of the theory.

full rationale

The paper's central new claim is the nonlinear gravitational field equation (40), obtained from the explicitly written Lagrangian (27)/(38) via the Euler–Lagrange equations. That derivation is self-contained: once the spacetime dimension field and the interaction term are postulated, the equation follows algebraically. The interaction term L_gg,int is an ansatz, not a hidden fit; the manuscript explicitly says the term was introduced to bring T_g into the total SEM tensor. No data are fitted and no observable is relabeled as a prediction. The self-citations to Ref. [16] (base theory, one-loop renormalization, equivalence principles) are not load-bearing for the new extension; the kinetic-term prefactor was previously fixed by Newton's law, which is an external, falsifiable constraint. The coordinate-dependent spacetime dimension field is admittedly not a four-vector, and its Lorentz-transformation behavior is not established; this is a correctness or consistency risk about the base formulation, not a circularity. The paper also leaves convergence of its iterative scheme to future work, another non-circular limitation. Overall, the only mildly circular element is the generalized SEM-tensor conservation law, which is a consistency property of the proposed Lagrangian rather than an independent prediction, so the circularity burden is low.

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

The central claim rests on a small set of postulates: the form of the spacetime dimension field, the equivalence principles, and the new interaction term. No new free parameters are fitted to data.

free parameters (1)
  • gg (scale constant of UG) = arbitrary; cancels from reduced Lagrangian
    Introduced in the spacetime dimension field in Eq. (9). The phase g_g x_a is engineered to produce identity (10). After the equivalence principle g'_g = g_g is imposed, the reduced Lagrangian depends only on the ratio, so this constant does not affect final equations. It is an ad hoc input.
assumptions (6)
  • ad hoc to paper The spacetime dimension field has the form I^a_g = g_g^{-1/2} exp(-i g_g x_a) with x_a = (ct, -x, -y, -z).
    Postulated in Sec. II B to rewrite the QED Lagrangian via identity (10). No independent evidence is given; the coordinate-dependent phase is the origin of the 4xU(1) gauge structure.
  • domain assumption Equivalence principle of mass: m'_e = m_e.
    Taken from Ref. [16] and stated in Eq. (39). Needed to couple the Dirac field to gravity with equal inertial and gravitational mass.
  • domain assumption Equivalence principle of scale: g'_g = g_g.
    Stated in Eq. (39). Needed to reduce the Lagrangian to Eq. (38) and eliminate the explicit scale dependence.
  • domain assumption The gravity gauge field kinetic and superpotential terms are given by Eqs. (20)-(22) from Ref. [16].
    The starting point of the extension; the prefactor 1/κ is fixed by Newton's law in the weak-field limit, not in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The new interaction term L_gg,int in Eq. (23) is gauge invariant and produces the total SEM tensor conservation.
    This is the paper's central postulate. It is constructed so that the total SEM tensor (matter plus gravity) is conserved. The specific form is not derived from any deeper principle.
  • ad hoc to paper The iterative sequence (46) converges to the solution of the exact nonlinear equation.
    Stated without proof; the authors defer the convergence study.
invented entities (1)
  • Spacetime dimension field I^a_g
    purpose: Provides the representation of the generating QED Lagrangian with four U(1) symmetries; it is the field on which the gravity gauge symmetry acts.
    A collection of four phase fields with coordinate-dependent arguments (Eq. 9). It is not an observable particle; it is a technical device with no independent experimental handle.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Extending unified gravity to account for graviton-graviton interaction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M2BLGNSO

@misc{pith2026250707790,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Extending unified gravity to account for graviton-graviton interaction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M2BLGNSO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.07790}
}
read the original abstract

Recently, a gauge theory of unified gravity [Rep. Prog. Phys. 88, 057802 (2025)] has been developed to extend the Standard Model to include gravity. Here we present unified gravity using the ordinary four-vector and tensor field notation of the Standard Model. The main goal of the present work is to extend the original Minkowski spacetime formulation of the theory to account for graviton-graviton interaction. This is a necessary extension for problems involving interactions between gravitational fields, for example, in the propagation of gravitational waves in external gravitational potentials. The 4xU(1) gauge invariance of unified gravity is preserved in this extension.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [16]

    Renormalization of massless Yang-Mills fields,

    G. ’t Hooft, “Renormalization of massless Yang-Mills fields,” Nucl. Phys. B 33, 173 (1971)

    work page 1971

  2. [1]

    (40) can be neglected

    Linearized equation of gravity Assuming the gravity gauge field small, the nonlinear terms associated with the graviton–graviton interaction in Eq. (40) can be neglected. Then, the linearization of Eq. (40) leads to the inhomogeneous wave equation, given by [16, 22] P µν,ρσ∂2H (0) ρσ = −κT µν m . (44) Here H (0) ρσ denotes the gravity gauge field solution...

    work page

  3. [2]

    Iterative approach to the nonlinear equation of gravity Next, we construct an iterative approach for the solu- tion of the nonlinear dynamical equation of the gravity gauge field in Eq. (40). The zeroth-order solution, de- noted by H (0) ρσ , is taken from the linearized equation of gravity in Eq. (44). The first-order solution, denoted by H (1) ρσ , is o...

    work page

  4. [3]

    M. D. Schwartz, Quantum Field Theory and the Standard Model, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2014)

    work page 2014

  5. [4]

    M. E. Peskin and D. V. Schroeder, An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory , CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL (2018)

    work page 2018

  6. [5]

    R. P. Feynman, Quantum Electrodynamics, W. A. Ben- jamin, New York (1961)

    work page 1961

  7. [6]

    Discovery of a pulsar in a binary system

    R. A. Hulse and J. H. Taylor, “Discovery of a pulsar in a binary system.” Astrophys. J. 195, L51 (1975)

    work page 1975

  8. [7]

    Gravity experiments with radio pulsars,

    P. C. C. Freire and N. Wex, “Gravity experiments with radio pulsars,” Living Rev. Relativ. 27, 5 (2024)

    work page 2024

Show all 41 references
  1. [8]

    The confrontation between general relativity and experiment,

    C. M. Will, “The confrontation between general relativity and experiment,” Living Rev. Relativ. 17, 4 (2014)

    2014

  2. [9]

    L. M. C. Bambi and I. Shapiro, Handbook of Quantum Gravity, Springer, Singapore (2023)

    2023

  3. [10]

    Quantum fields in teleparallel gravity: renormalization at one-loop,

    R. Casadio, I. Kuntz, and G. Paci, “Quantum fields in teleparallel gravity: renormalization at one-loop,” EPJ C 82, 186 (2022)

    2022

  4. [11]

    General relativity as an effective field theory: The leading quantum corrections,

    J. F. Donoghue, “General relativity as an effective field theory: The leading quantum corrections,” Phys. Rev. D 50, 3874 (1994)

    1994

  5. [12]

    Infrared behavior of graviton-graviton scattering,

    J. F. Donoghue and T. Torma, “Infrared behavior of graviton-graviton scattering,” Phys. Rev. D 60, 024003 (1999)

    1999

  6. [13]

    Quantum corrections to the Reiss- ner–Nordstr¨ om and Kerr–Newman metrics,

    J. F. Donoghue, B. R. Holstein, B. Garbrecht, and T. Konstandin, “Quantum corrections to the Reiss- ner–Nordstr¨ om and Kerr–Newman metrics,”Phys. Lett. B 529, 132 (2002)

    2002

  7. [14]

    Renormalization of higher-derivative quan- tum gravity,

    K. S. Stelle, “Renormalization of higher-derivative quan- tum gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 16, 953 (1977)

    1977

  8. [15]

    The quantum theory of gravi- tation, effective field theories, and strings: yesterday and today,

    A. Rocci and T. Van Riet, “The quantum theory of gravi- tation, effective field theories, and strings: yesterday and today,” Eur. Phys. J. H 49, 7 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Renormalizable Lagrangians for massive Yang-Mills fields,

    G. ’t Hooft, “Renormalizable Lagrangians for massive Yang-Mills fields,” Nucl. Phys. B 35, 167 (1971)

    1971

  10. [18]

    Gravity generated by four one-dimensional unitary gauge symmetries and the Stan- dard Model,

    M. Partanen and J. Tulkki, “Gravity generated by four one-dimensional unitary gauge symmetries and the Stan- dard Model,” Rep. Prog. Phys. 88, 057802 (2025)

    2025

  11. [19]

    C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler, Gravi- tation, Freeman, New York (1973)

    1973

  12. [20]

    T. A. Moore, A General Relativity Workbook, University Science Books, Mill Walley, CA (2013)

    2013

  13. [21]

    Teleparallel gravity: from theory to cosmology,

    S. Bahamonde, K. F. Dialektopoulos, C. Escamilla- Rivera, G. Farrugia, V. Gakis, M. Hendry, M. Hohmann, J. L. Said, J. Mifsud, and E. D. Valentino, “Teleparallel gravity: from theory to cosmology,” Rep. Prog. Phys. 86, 026901 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    Aldrovandi and J

    R. Aldrovandi and J. G. Pereira, Teleparallel Gravity: An Introduction, Springer, Dordrecht (2012)

    2012

  15. [23]

    The teleparallel equivalent of general rel- ativity,

    J. W. Maluf, “The teleparallel equivalent of general rel- ativity,” Ann. Phys. 525, 339 (2013)

    2013

  16. [24]

    Light deflection in unified gravity and measurable deviation from general relativ- ity,

    M. Partanen and J. Tulkki, “Light deflection in unified gravity and measurable deviation from general relativ- ity,” arXiv:2505.14446 (2025)

    2025

  17. [25]

    Perihelion precession of planetary orbits solved from quantum field theory,

    M. Partanen and J. Tulkki, “Perihelion precession of planetary orbits solved from quantum field theory,” arXiv:2506.14447 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Atomic Dirac energy-level dynamics and redshift in the 4×U(1) gravity gauge field,

    M. Partanen and J. Tulkki, “Atomic Dirac energy-level dynamics and redshift in the 4×U(1) gravity gauge field,” arXiv:2506.22057 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  19. [27]

    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, The Classical Theory of Fields , Pergamon, Oxford (1989)

    1989

  20. [28]

    J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, Wiley, New York (1999)

    1999

  21. [29]

    Corrigendum: Gravity gen- erated by four one-dimensional unitary gauge symme- tries and the Standard Model (2025 Rep. Prog. Phys. 88 057802),

    M. Partanen and J. Tulkki, “Corrigendum: Gravity gen- erated by four one-dimensional unitary gauge symme- tries and the Standard Model (2025 Rep. Prog. Phys. 88 057802),” Rep. Prog. Phys. 88, 069501 (2025)

    2025

  22. [30]

    V. B. Berestetskii, E. M. Lifshitz, and L. P. Pitaevskii, Quantum Electrodynamics, Pergamon, Oxford (1982)

    1982

  23. [31]

    Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields: Volume 2, Modern Applications, Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge (1996)

    S. Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields: Volume 2, Modern Applications, Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge (1996)

    1996

  24. [32]

    Feynman diagrams for the Yang-Mills field,

    L. Faddeev and V. Popov, “Feynman diagrams for the Yang-Mills field,” Phys. Lett. B 25, 29 (1967)

    1967

  25. [33]

    Renormalization of gauge theories,

    C. Becchi, A. Rouet, and R. Stora, “Renormalization of gauge theories,” Ann. Phys. 98, 287 (1976)

    1976

  26. [34]

    Gauge invariance of sponta- neously broken non-Abelian theories in the Bogolyubov- Parasyuk-Hepp-Zimmermann method,

    M. Z. Iofa and I. V. Tyutin, “Gauge invariance of sponta- neously broken non-Abelian theories in the Bogolyubov- Parasyuk-Hepp-Zimmermann method,” Theor. Math. Phys. 27, 316 (1976)

    1976

  27. [35]

    BRST-antifield quantization: A short review,

    A. Fuster, M. Henneaux, and A. Maas, “BRST-antifield quantization: A short review,” Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 2, 939 (2005)

    2005

  28. [36]

    Gauge algebra and quan- tization,

    I. Batalin and G. Vilkovisky, “Gauge algebra and quan- tization,” Phys. Lett. B 102, 27 (1981)

    1981

  29. [37]

    Quantization of gauge theories with linearly dependent generators,

    I. A. Batalin and G. A. Vilkovisky, “Quantization of gauge theories with linearly dependent generators,” Phys. Rev. D 28, 2567 (1983)

    1983

  30. [38]

    Costello, Renormalization and Effective Field Theory, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI (2011)

    K. Costello, Renormalization and Effective Field Theory, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI (2011)

    2011

  31. [39]

    Henneaux and C

    M. Henneaux and C. Teitelboim, Quantization of Gauge Systems, Princeton University Press, Princeton (1992)

    1992

  32. [40]

    Antibracket, anti- fields and gauge-theory quantization,

    J. Gomis, J. Par ´ ıs, and S. Samuel, “Antibracket, anti- fields and gauge-theory quantization,” Phys. Rep. 259, 1 (1995)

    1995

  33. [41]

    Poisson and M

    E. Poisson and M. W. Clifford, Gravity: Newto- nian, Post-Newtonian, Relativistic , Cambridge Univer- sity Press, Cambridge (2014)

    2014

Pith tools

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