On the analogue of Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet theory in 3+1 dimensions

Giorgi Tukhashvili

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 32 references

On the analogue of Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet theory in 3+1 dimensions

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · 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 four-dimensional trace-anomaly effective action can reproduce the background equations, and up to anomalyon mixing the quadratic and cubic perturbations, of Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity on flat FRW backgrounds…

desk verdict The paper's central FRW correspondence rests on a solution (22) that does not actually solve the anomalyon equation (20) unless an unstated constraint on H is imposed, so the main claim is not currently demonstrated. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.00108 v1 pith:SYBXWE3U submitted 2025-05-30 gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-th

Giorgi Tukhashvili This is my paper

classification gr-qcastro-ph.COhep-th PACS 04.50.Kd04.62.+v

keywords traceanomalyEinstein-Gauss-BonnetanomalyoneffectiveactionFRWcosmologycosmologicalperturbationshigher-curvaturegravityCasimirenergy

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 the four-dimensional local effective action reproducing the trace anomaly can serve as an intrinsically four-dimensional counterpart of Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet (EGB) gravity. On spatially flat FRW backgrounds, once the extra integration constant called the Casimir energy is set to zero, the anomalyon scalar has an exact solution that makes the Friedmann equations of the two theories identical. The paper further shows that the quadratic and cubic Lagrangians for scalar and tensor perturbations in the anomaly action contain the corresponding EGB perturbations, the only differences coming from anomalyon-metric mixing and $c^2$-dependent terms. If correct, this gives a self-consistent route to higher-curvature gravitational effects in four dimensions without the divergent coefficients or dimensional limits used in earlier EGB proposals.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the anomalyon, the scalar field $\sigma$ in (17), whose specially tuned kinetic terms keep it out of the anomalous trace equation while still making it dynamical. The key identity is equation (18), $2R-\gamma^2E=-[T]$, which becomes the EGB trace equation under the replacements $\kappa^2\leftrightarrow -\gamma^2$ and $n\to4$. On FRW, the load-bearing object is the exact background solution (22), $\sigma=\log(\sqrt{12}\,\bar M/(c a))$, which forces the Casimir energy to vanish and erases the anomalyon from the Friedmann equation; the same solution controls the $c^2$-proportional deviations in the perturbation Lagrangians.

What would settle it

Compute the same anomaly action on a spatially flat FRW background with a nonzero Casimir energy $\rho_c$: equation (20) admits no $\sigma=\log(\sqrt{12}\,\bar M/(c a))$ solution, and the Friedmann equation (19) differs from the EGB equation (6) by $\rho_c/a^2$. This direct calculation is enough to show the claimed equivalence is confined to zero-Casimir initial data rather than holding generically.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the trace anomaly action (17) reproduces EGB theory after the dictionary $\kappa^2\leftrightarrow -\gamma^2$, $n\to4$. At covariant level, the anomalous equation $2R-\gamma^2E=-[T]$ coincides with the trace of the EGB metric variation; this is background-independent. On spatially flat FRW, setting $\rho_c=0$ integrates the anomalyon equation of motion to $\sigma=\log(\sqrt{12}\,\bar M/(c a))$, and with this solution the time-time Friedmann equation (19) becomes the EGB equation (6). The scalar and tensor perturbation Lagrangians (24) and (25) contain the EGB perturbation Lagrangians (14) and (15), with additional pieces originating from anomalyon-scalar mixing and from the scale $c$. The author presents these extra pieces as the necessary price of having an intrinsically four-dimensional theory, since exact EGB is excluded in four dimensions by Lovelock's theorem.

Load-bearing premise

The entire correspondence collapses if the integration constant known as the Casimir energy (dark radiation), $\rho_c$, is not exactly zero: then equation (20) has no solution of the form (22), and the Friedmann equation gains a $\rho_c/a^2$ term that is absent in EGB.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The trace anomaly effective action is an intrinsically four-dimensional higher-curvature theory: no divergent coefficient and no $n\to4$ limit is needed to obtain EGB-like dynamics.
On the $\rho_c=0$ FRW background, background expansion and the quadratic and cubic perturbation Lagrangians of the anomaly action reproduce the EGB results up to anomalyon-mixing and $c^2$-suppressed terms.
The extra mixings between anomalyon and metric perturbations mark precisely the obstruction identified by Lovelock's theorem, so the correspondence is an approximation on a special background rather than a theory equivalence.
The tensor (gravitational wave) speed is sub-luminal in EGB but seemingly super-luminal in the anomaly action, and flipping the sign of $\gamma^2$ simply moves the issue into the anomalyon sector.

Reading between the lines

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

Because FRW is conformally flat and the anomalyon is tied to spontaneously broken conformal symmetry, the same type of matching could plausibly occur on other conformally flat backgrounds; testing non-conformally flat geometries such as Bianchi or black-hole metrics is the natural next step and is left open by the paper.
The map $\pi\to-\psi$ between anomalyon and conformal-mode fluctuations hints that a nonlinear field redefinition might recast the anomaly action's four-derivative terms as pure metric Gauss-Bonnet terms; the paper does not claim such an equivalence.
Phenomenological uses of EGB on cosmological backgrounds, such as modified gravitational-wave propagation, should be read as statements about this zero-Casimir anomalyon background, not as generic predictions of a four-dimensional EGB 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

Quick take: the main FRW correspondence is not established. The claimed solution (22) to the anomalyon equation (20) does not satisfy (20) for arbitrary H. Substituting (22) with rho_c=0 forces H^2 = c^2 a^4/(48 gamma^2), a constraint the paper never states or uses. On that constrained trajectory H is proportional to a^2, so epsilon = -1, contradicting the assumed epsilon >= 0 in the tensor sector and changing the perturbation results. This is a load-bearing error, not a minor slip.

What is genuinely good: the covariant trace identity (18), which matches the EGB trace to the anomalous equation, is exact and a neat observation. The paper is well-organized, and the perturbation calculations in the supplemental material are extensive. The idea that the trace anomaly effective action could serve as an intrinsic 4D analogue of EGB is worth taking seriously, and the paper correctly distances itself from the failed Glavan–Lin regularization.

Beyond the central flaw, the quadratic and cubic perturbation Lagrangians are presented as outputs of xPert/xPand with no derivation or deposited code, so an independent check would be needed even if the background were sound. The tensor superluminality is dismissed by pointing to a companion paper; that is thin. The paper itself acknowledges the correspondence is fragile—any deviation from rho_c=0 or the special sigma destroys it—but the issue is more basic: the special sigma is not a solution of the stated equations except on a trajectory never shown to be consistent with the Friedmann equation and the source.

Who gets value: people working on the trace anomaly effective action or searching for 4D EGB substitutes might find the covariant observation useful, but the cosmological correspondence needs major reworking. I would still send this to a serious referee because the idea is worth checking, but I would expect the referee to return with exactly this objection. As it stands, the paper should not be published without a corrected derivation or an explicit, consistent treatment of the constrained trajectory.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper argues that the local effective action reproducing the conformal trace anomaly can, on specific backgrounds, behave like four-dimensional Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet theory. The first observation is algebraic: the anomalous equation (18), 2R - gamma^2 E = -[T], coincides with the trace of the metric variation in EGB, Eq. (3), after the replacement kappa^2 -> -gamma^2 and the limit n -> 4. The second observation is dynamical: on spatially flat FRW, setting the Casimir energy rho_c = 0 in the anomalyon equation (20) is claimed to yield the solution (22), sigma = log(sqrt(12) Mbar/(c a)), for which the Friedmann equation (19) takes the EGB form, and the quadratic and cubic perturbation Lagrangians (24), (25), (S2), and (S4) are claimed to contain the EGB perturbations with additional anomalyon-mixing terms. The paper is explicit that exact EGB cannot exist in four dimensions and that the correspondence is background-specific.

Significance. If the correspondence were fully established, it would be conceptually interesting: it would offer an intrinsically four-dimensional higher-curvature theory, motivated by the trace anomaly, that reproduces several EGB features without introducing divergent coefficients or violating Lovelock's theorem, at the cost of an additional scalar degree of freedom. The covariant trace matching between (18) and (3) is clean and exact, and the idea of using the trace anomaly action as a window into higher-curvature gravitational physics is attractive. The paper is also honest about the deviations at the four-derivative level and about the background-dependence of the construction. However, the central dynamical claim rests on the solution (22), and that solution is not shown to solve the full system of equations; this is a load-bearing gap. The perturbation comparison is therefore not currently established on a consistent background.

major comments (3)

[The effective action describing the trace anomaly, Eqs. (20) and (22)] The statement that setting rho_c = 0 allows (20) to be 'trivially integrated' to (22) is not correct for arbitrary H. Substituting sigma0 = log(sqrt(12) Mbar/(c a)) into (20) with rho_c = 0 gives (c^2 a^2/3) H^2 - 16 gamma^2 H^4/a^2 = 0, i.e., H^2 = c^2 a^4/(48 gamma^2). The general solution of the first-order equation (20) is e^sigma = a(C ± Mbar tau/gamma), not (22); the latter is obtained only when H satisfies this special constraint. The paper neither states nor imposes this constraint, and it is not derived from the Friedmann equation (19) because the source omega0 has not been specified. Since (22) is the background on which the perturbation Lagrangians (24), (25), (S2), and (S4) are computed, the paper has not demonstrated that this background solves the full system (19)-(21). The author should either impose the constraint H^2 = c^2 a^4/(48 gamma^2) and exhibit a source omega0 satisfying the Friedmann and conservation equations on that trajectory, or revise the claim that (22) is a solution of the anomalyon equation.
[Perturbations, Eqs. (24), (25), and definition of epsilon] On the constrained trajectory H^2 = c^2 a^4/(48 gamma^2), one has H' / H^2 = 2, so epsilon = 1 - H'/H^2 = -1. The EGB comparison in Eqs. (14)-(16) and the tensor-speed discussion assume epsilon >= 0, and the perturbation Lagrangians (24) and (25) treat epsilon as a free parameter. If the background for the anomalyon is indeed (22), then epsilon is fixed to -1, which is outside the assumed range. The claimed equivalence of the quadratic and cubic perturbation Lagrangians with EGB perturbations is therefore not demonstrated on the only background for which the anomalyon takes the form (22); the comparison must be redone with epsilon = -1 and the constrained H.
[The effective action describing the trace anomaly, paragraph on the full effective action] The paper states that the full trace anomaly effective action contains the term sqrt(g) sigma W^2 in addition to (17), and says it will be ignored as 'not relevant.' On a conformally flat FRW background the Weyl tensor vanishes only at zeroth order; at quadratic order the term sigma0 W^(2)2 contributes to the same tensor two-point Lagrangian (25), and at cubic order pi W^(2)2 contributes to the cubic interactions claimed to match EGB. The paper provides no argument that these contributions vanish or are subdominant. Thus the perturbation equivalence is established, at most, for the truncated action (17), not for the full trace anomaly effective action. This gap is load-bearing for the central claim and needs to be addressed.

minor comments (3)

[Throughout] There are several typographical issues: 'Bardeeen' should be 'Bardeen', 'refferred' should be 'referred', 'anomlayon' should be 'anomalyon', 'FR W' should be 'FRW', and 'Friedman' should be 'Friedmann' in the summary and discussion.
[Perturbation results, Eqs. (24), (25), (S1)-(S4)] The perturbation Lagrangians are stated as outputs of the xPert and xPand packages without a derivation or a reproducibility artifact. For a letter this is acceptable, but making the computation notebook or a step-by-step reduction available would materially help verification of the claimed coincidences, especially because the background is nontrivial.
[Eq. (22) and the consistency condition] The consistency condition Mbar e^{-sigma} < 1 stated after (17), when combined with the proposed solution (22), restricts the scale factor to c a < sqrt(12). This restriction is not discussed in the main text, and it should be reconciled with the remark that the c^2 terms in (25) may become subdominant in an expanding universe.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Coincidences are genuine, not fitted: (18)=(3) and (19)=(6) are direct identities with disclosed parameter identifications, and the perturbation matches are computed term-by-term.

other [Section 'The effective action describing the trace anomaly', Eqs. (20)-(22)]
"Setting the Casimir energy rho_c = 0 erases all the trace of the anomalyon from the Friedman eq. (19), while the latter takes the form of what one would expect in EGB theory (6) with the replacement kappa^2 -> -gamma^2. When rho_c = 0, the eq. (20) can be trivially integrated: sigma = sigma_0 = log( sqrt(12) Mbar / (c a) ). (22)"

Substituting (22), with sigma_0' = -H, into (20) at rho_c = 0 forces (c^2 a^2 /12)*4H^2 = (gamma^2/a^2)*16H^4, i.e. H^2 = c^2 a^4/(48 gamma^2), a restriction the paper never states. So (22) is not the general integral of (20): the factorized equation (sigma'-H)^2 [Mbar^2 e^{-2sigma} - (gamma^2/a^2)(sigma'-H)^2] = 0 admits sigma' = H and the u' = -u^2 branch (u = sigma'-H), with (22) only the special case u = -2H. The perturbation coincidences (24)-(25) use Mbar^2 e^{-2sigma_0} = c^2 a^2/12, so they rest on this selected background rather than on the equations of motion. On the required trajectory H proportional to a^2, epsilon = 1 - H'/H^2 = -1, contradicting the epsilon >= 0 assumption used in (25) and the tensor-speed discussion.

full rationale

This is not a case of definitional circularity. The claimed coincidences are genuine algebraic identities: (18) is obtained in [15] as a linear combination of variations of (17) reproducing the quantum trace anomaly [11,12], and its equality with (3) after kappa^2 -> -gamma^2, n -> 4 is a direct identity, not a fit (gamma^2 is declared a free parameter). Likewise (19) with rho_c = 0 equals the EGB Friedmann equation (6) term-by-term; the paper discloses this choice, and the background coincidence does not require the anomalyon solution. The perturbation Lagrangians (24)-(25) and (S2),(S4) are computed with xPert/xPand, and their EGB parts match (14)-(15),(S1),(S3) coefficient-by-coefficient with no fitted parameters; the c^2 deviations and anomalyon mixings are reported honestly. The step that must be flagged is (20)->(22): substituting (22) into (20) with rho_c = 0 forces H^2 = c^2 a^4/(48 gamma^2), a constraint never stated, and the 'trivial integration' is instead a selection (u = -2H) from the branch u' = -u^2; the corresponding trajectory has epsilon = -1, contradicting the epsilon >= 0 used when comparing tensor speeds. Thus the perturbative 'containment' of EGB is contingent on a background that is chosen rather than derived - a correctness and omitted-proof gap for the referee, though not output-equal-to-input circularity. Self-citations ([17] for (19)-(21), [26] for the Nambu-Goldstone interpretation, and [15] for the action) are load-bearing only as computational or interpretive references, and the paper itself flags the main limitations: 'any deviation from this background destroys the correspondences,' the fact that (17) with Mbar = 0 is the n -> 4 EGB limit ([8]), and that super-luminality is deferred to [17]. None of these make the central claim equivalent to its inputs by definition, but the incomplete derivation of (22) prevents the correspondence from being fully established on the stated assumptions.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on several parameters: gamma^2 and Mbar are coupling constants of the effective action, c is an integration constant, and rho_c is tuned to zero. The potential V(omega) is an arbitrary function. The key axioms are that (17) reproduces the anomaly and that the neglected W^2 term does not affect the FRW correspondence. The anomalyon is an existing entity from prior work, not a new postulate of this paper.

free parameters (5)

gamma^2
Coefficient of the anomaly terms in (17); treated as a free parameter and identified with -kappa^2 in the EGB comparison.
Mbar
Cutoff scale of the effective theory; sets the anomalyon kinetic terms and appears in the background solution (22).
c
Integration constant in the solution (22); enters the perturbation Lagrangians (24,25) as c^2; free parameter controlling deviations from EGB.
rho_c = 0
Casimir energy/dark radiation integration constant; set to zero to obtain the background solution (22) on which the correspondence relies.
V(omega)
Potential for the canonical scalar omega; arbitrary function that sources gravity but does not affect the background correspondence once rho_c=0; enters perturbation Lagrangians.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The effective action (17) correctly reproduces the trace anomaly.
Taken from [15]; the theory is constructed to satisfy the anomalous trace equation, not re-derived here.
ad hoc to paper The full effective action includes a sigma W^2 term that is neglected.
The paper states this term is not relevant to the discussion; this neglect is an assumption for the FRW analysis.
domain assumption The background solution (22) remains physically valid under the condition Mbar e^{-sigma} < 1.
This restricts the scale factor range; the correspondence is valid only within this regime.
standard math The computer algebra results from xPert and xPand are correct.
The perturbation Lagrangians are not derived in the text; correctness is assumed from the software tools.

invented entities (1)

anomalyon (sigma)
purpose: Scalar field introduced to produce a kinetic term while preserving the trace anomaly; essential for the FRW solution (22).
Postulated in [15]; no direct observational evidence, though the trace anomaly itself is established. The scalar is an effective degree of freedom, not a observed particle.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the analogue of Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet theory in 3+1 dimensions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SYBXWE3U

@misc{pith2026250600108,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the analogue of Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet theory in 3+1 dimensions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SYBXWE3U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.00108}
}

read the original abstract

Higher curvature corrections to the Einstein-Hilbert term may play an important role in probing the strong-field regime of gravity. In this letter, we demonstrate that the local effective action reproducing the trace anomaly can resemble the Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet theory in four dimensions on specific backgrounds. The two key observations support this claim: 1) the covariant equation of the trace anomaly coincides with the trace of the metric variation in Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet theory, and 2) on the FRW space-time, the Friedmann-like equations in both frameworks coincide, with this correspondence extending to the quadratic and cubic perturbations. As an intrinsically four-dimensional construct, the trace anomaly effective action emerges as a promising framework for exploring higher curvature corrections to Einstein's General Relativity in a self-consistent manner.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

[1]

A New Type of Isotropic Cosmological Models Without Singularity,

A. A. Starobinsky, “A New Type of Isotropic Cosmological Models Without Singularity,” Phys. Lett. B 91 (1980) 99–102

1980
[2]

Renormalization of Higher Derivative Quantum Gravity,

K. S. Stelle, “Renormalization of Higher Derivative Quantum Gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 16 (1977) 953–969

1977
[3]

The Einstein tensor and its generalizations,

D. Lovelock, “The Einstein tensor and its generalizations,” J. Math. Phys. 12 (1971) 498–501

1971
[4]

The four-dimensionality of space and the einstein tensor,

D. Lovelock, “The four-dimensionality of space and the einstein tensor,” J. Math. Phys. 13 (1972) 874–876

work page 1972
[5]

Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet Gravity in Four-Dimensional Spacetime,

D. Glavan and C. Lin, “Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet Gravity in Four-Dimensional Spacetime,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 no. 8, (2020) 081301, arXiv:1905.03601 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2020
[6]

Quantum corrections to gravity,

Y. Tomozawa, “Quantum corrections to gravity,” arXiv:1107.1424 [gr-qc]

arXiv
[7]

Einstein gravity with Gauss-Bonnet entropic corrections,

G. Cognola, R. Myrzakulov, L. Sebastiani, and S. Zerbini, “Einstein gravity with Gauss-Bonnet entropic corrections,” Phys. Rev. D 88 no. 2, (2013) 024006, arXiv:1304.1878 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2013
[8]

Amplitudes and 4D Gauss-Bonnet Theory,

J. Bonifacio, K. Hinterbichler, and L. A. Johnson, “Amplitudes and 4D Gauss-Bonnet Theory,” Phys. Rev. D 102 no. 2, (2020) 024029, arXiv:2004.10716 [hep-th]

arXiv 2020

Show all 32 references

[9]

Is there a novel Einstein–Gauss–Bonnet theory in four dimensions?,

M. G¨ urses, T. c. S ¸i¸ sman, and B. Tekin, “Is there a novel Einstein–Gauss–Bonnet theory in four dimensions?,” Eur. Phys. J. C 80 no. 7, (2020) 647, arXiv:2004.03390 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[10]

Comment on

M. Gurses, T. c. S ¸i¸ sman, and B. Tekin, “Comment on ”Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet Gravity in 4-Dimensional Space-Time”,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 no. 14, (2020) 149001, arXiv:2009.13508 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[11]

Conformal Anomalies and the Renormalizability Problem in Quantum Gravity,

D. M. Capper and M. J. Duff, “Conformal Anomalies and the Renormalizability Problem in Quantum Gravity,” Phys. Lett. A 53 (1975) 361

1975
[12]

Observations on Conformal Anomalies,

M. J. Duff, “Observations on Conformal Anomalies,” Nucl. Phys. B 125 (1977) 334–348

1977
[13]

A Nonlocal Action for the Trace Anomaly,

R. J. Riegert, “A Nonlocal Action for the Trace Anomaly,” Phys. Lett. B 134 (1984) 56–60. 5

1984
[14]

Conformal Anomaly in Weyl Theory and Anomaly Free Superconformal Theories,

E. S. Fradkin and A. A. Tseytlin, “Conformal Anomaly in Weyl Theory and Anomaly Free Superconformal Theories,” Phys. Lett. B 134 (1984) 187

1984
[15]

A new gravitational action for the trace anomaly,

G. Gabadadze, “A new gravitational action for the trace anomaly,” Phys. Lett. B 843 (2023) 138031, arXiv:2301.13265 [hep-th]

2023 arXiv
[16]

regulariza- tion

on different grounds). In this letter, we demonstrate that the effective ac- tion describing the trace anomaly [15] can resemble the Einstein–Gauss–Bonnet (EGB) theory in 4D. The first hint to this claim is that equation (18), describing the trace anomaly, coincides with the t...

2025 arXiv
[17]

Gravity with a generalized conformal scalar field: theory and solutions,

P. G. S. Fernandes, “Gravity with a generalized conformal scalar field: theory and solutions,” Phys. Rev. D 103 no. 10, (2021) 104065, arXiv:2105.04687 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[18]

Inflation with the trace anomaly action and primordial black holes,

G. Gabadadze, D. N. Spergel, and G. Tukhashvili, “Inflation with the trace anomaly action and primordial black holes,” Phys. Rev. D 111 no. 6, (2025) 063529, arXiv:2411.16834 [hep-th]

2025 arXiv
[19]

C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler, Gravitation. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1973

1973
[20]

Curvature Squared Terms and String Theories,

B. Zwiebach, “Curvature Squared Terms and String Theories,” Phys. Lett. B 156 (1985) 315–317

1985
[21]

The Quartic Effective Action for the Heterotic String,

D. J. Gross and J. H. Sloan, “The Quartic Effective Action for the Heterotic String,” Nucl. Phys. B 291 (1987) 41–89

1987
[22]

Theory of cosmological perturbations. Part 1. Classical perturbations. Part 2. Quantum theory of perturbations. Part 3. Extensions,

V. F. Mukhanov, H. A. Feldman, and R. H. Brandenberger, “Theory of cosmological perturbations. Part 1. Classical perturbations. Part 2. Quantum theory of perturbations. Part 3. Extensions,” Phys. Rept. 215 (1992) 203–333

1992
[23]

xPert: Computer algebra for metric perturbation theory,

D. Brizuela, J. M. Martin-Garcia, and G. A. Mena Marugan, “xPert: Computer algebra for metric perturbation theory,” Gen. Rel. Grav. 41 (2009) 2415–2431, arXiv:0807.0824 [gr-qc]

2009 arXiv
[24]

xPand: An algorithm for perturbing homogeneous cosmologies,

C. Pitrou, X. Roy, and O. Umeh, “xPand: An algorithm for perturbing homogeneous cosmologies,” Class. Quant. Grav. 30 (2013) 165002, arXiv:1302.6174 [astro-ph.CO]

2013 arXiv
[25]

Trace anomaly driven inflation,

S. W. Hawking, T. Hertog, and H. S. Reall, “Trace anomaly driven inflation,” Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001) 083504, arXiv:hep-th/0010232

2001 arXiv
[26]

Quantum Effects in the Early Universe. 1. Influence of Trace Anomalies on Homogeneous, Isotropic, Classical Geometries,

M. V. Fischetti, J. B. Hartle, and B. L. Hu, “Quantum Effects in the Early Universe. 1. Influence of Trace Anomalies on Homogeneous, Isotropic, Classical Geometries,” Phys. Rev. D 20 (1979) 1757–1771

1979
[27]

Conformal/Poincar´ e Coset, cosmology, and descendants of Lovelock terms,

G. Gabadadze and G. Tukhashvili, “Conformal/Poincar´ e Coset, cosmology, and descendants of Lovelock terms,” Phys. Rev. D 102 no. 2, (2020) 024054, arXiv:2005.01729 [hep-th]

2020 arXiv
[28]

Dilatonic black holes with Gauss-Bonnet term,

T. Torii, H. Yajima, and K.-i. Maeda, “Dilatonic black holes with Gauss-Bonnet term,” Phys. Rev. D 55 (1997) 739–753, arXiv:gr-qc/9606034

1997 arXiv
[29]

Slowly-Rotating Black Holes in Einstein-Dilaton-Gauss-Bonnet Gravity: Quadratic Order in Spin Solutions,

D. Ayzenberg and N. Yunes, “Slowly-Rotating Black Holes in Einstein-Dilaton-Gauss-Bonnet Gravity: Quadratic Order in Spin Solutions,” Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 044066, arXiv:1405.2133 [gr-qc]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 91, 069905 (2015)]

2014 arXiv
[30]

Chaos in quadratic gravity,

A. Deich, A. C´ ardenas-Avenda˜ no, and N. Yunes, “Chaos in quadratic gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 106 no. 2, (2022) 024040, arXiv:2203.00524 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[31]

Mapping the weak field limit of scalar-Gauss-Bonnet gravity,

B. Elder and J. Sakstein, “Mapping the weak field limit of scalar-Gauss-Bonnet gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 107 no. 4, (2023) 044006, arXiv:2210.10955 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[32]

Binary neutron star mergers in Einstein-scalar-Gauss-Bonnet gravity,

W. E. East and F. Pretorius, “Binary neutron star mergers in Einstein-scalar-Gauss-Bonnet gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 106 no. 10, (2022) 104055, arXiv:2208.09488 [gr-qc]. 6 Supplemental Material: On the analogue of Einstein–Gauss–Bonnet theory in 3+1 dimensions The cubic perturbati...

2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

A New Type of Isotropic Cosmological Models Without Singularity,

A. A. Starobinsky, “A New Type of Isotropic Cosmological Models Without Singularity,” Phys. Lett. B 91 (1980) 99–102

1980

[2] [2]

Renormalization of Higher Derivative Quantum Gravity,

K. S. Stelle, “Renormalization of Higher Derivative Quantum Gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 16 (1977) 953–969

1977

[3] [3]

The Einstein tensor and its generalizations,

D. Lovelock, “The Einstein tensor and its generalizations,” J. Math. Phys. 12 (1971) 498–501

1971

[4] [4]

The four-dimensionality of space and the einstein tensor,

D. Lovelock, “The four-dimensionality of space and the einstein tensor,” J. Math. Phys. 13 (1972) 874–876

work page 1972

[5] [5]

Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet Gravity in Four-Dimensional Spacetime,

D. Glavan and C. Lin, “Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet Gravity in Four-Dimensional Spacetime,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 no. 8, (2020) 081301, arXiv:1905.03601 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2020

[6] [6]

Quantum corrections to gravity,

Y. Tomozawa, “Quantum corrections to gravity,” arXiv:1107.1424 [gr-qc]

arXiv

[7] [7]

Einstein gravity with Gauss-Bonnet entropic corrections,

G. Cognola, R. Myrzakulov, L. Sebastiani, and S. Zerbini, “Einstein gravity with Gauss-Bonnet entropic corrections,” Phys. Rev. D 88 no. 2, (2013) 024006, arXiv:1304.1878 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2013

[8] [8]

Amplitudes and 4D Gauss-Bonnet Theory,

J. Bonifacio, K. Hinterbichler, and L. A. Johnson, “Amplitudes and 4D Gauss-Bonnet Theory,” Phys. Rev. D 102 no. 2, (2020) 024029, arXiv:2004.10716 [hep-th]

arXiv 2020