Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 57 references

Canonical Deformation of $N=2$ $AdS_{4}$ SUGRA

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Canonically deforming N=2 AdS4 supergravity gives a nonvanishing linear-in-$\theta^{\mu\nu}$ correction, and the paper traces it entirely to an added purely bosonic part of the action rather than to the OSp(4|2)-invariant supergravity…

desk verdict A substantial algebraic computation with a real result, but the linear correction is model-dependent because the classical starting action is not uniquely fixed; the abstract overstates the claim. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.01069 v1 pith:7BVTRSFU submitted 2019-09-03 hep-th

Dragoljub Gočanin , Voja Radovanović This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords MoyalstarproductOSp(4|2)supergroupnoncommutativesupergravitySeiberg-WittenmapAdS4canonicaldeformationgravitinomasstermWigner-Inonucontraction
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 tries to determine what canonical space-time noncommutativity does to N=2 AdS4 supergravity. It shows that, after the Seiberg-Witten expansion and gauge fixing, the first-order (linear in $\theta^{\mu\nu}$) noncommutative correction does not vanish, and it traces that correction to an additional purely bosonic part of the classical action rather than to the OSp(4|2)-invariant supergravity part. In the low-energy limit the full correction reduces to a single mass-like gravitino term that renormalizes the gravitino's classical mass-like parameter. A reader would care because this gives a concrete leading noncommutative signature for an extended supergravity theory, in contrast to N=1 Poincaré supergravity, whose first correction is quadratic.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the gauge superconnection of the orthosymplectic group OSp(4|2)—the supersymmetry group whose connection packages the spin connection, the vierbein, a U(1) gauge potential, and a pair of Majorana gravitini. Deformation is implemented with the Moyal $\star$-product, a deformed multiplication rule realizing $[\hat{x}^\mu,\hat{x}^\nu]=i\theta^{\mu\nu}$, and with the Seiberg-Witten map, a perturbative prescription that expresses every noncommutative field as a series in $\theta$ built from ordinary fields while preserving ordinary gauge invariance order by order. The argument also uses a constrained auxiliary field $\Phi$ that, after gauge fixing, projects the action onto the physical SO(1,3)$\times$U(1) sector, plus a supplementary bosonic action $S_A$ written in terms of an auxiliary field $f$ valued in $so(2,3)$ and a modified field strength $\widetilde{F}_{\mu\nu}$; solving the auxiliary-field equations and inserting the solution into the first-order expansion yields the explicit correction (3.23).

What would settle it

Compute the first-order gauge-fixed noncommutative correction for the action obtained after adding either of the OSp(4|2)-invariant terms S′ or S′′ with generic coefficients; if this correction is not zero or differs from (3.23), the reported linear term is not a unique consequence of N=2 AdS4 SUGRA. A second, independent check is to compute the linear noncommutative correction of N=2 Poincaré SUGRA directly and compare it with the WI-contracted action (3.31).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is an explicit, nonvanishing linear-in-$\theta$ contribution to canonically deformed N=2 AdS4 SUGRA. The construction starts from an OSp(4|2) gauge-invariant action of Yang-Mills type plus a supplementary action invariant under the bosonic SO(2,3)$\times$U(1) sector; after gauge fixing with a constrained auxiliary field in the manner of Stelle and West, the combined action reduces to the full classical N=2 AdS4 SUGRA. When the deformation is performed with the Moyal product and the Seiberg-Witten map, the OSp(4|2)-invariant part yields a vanishing first-order correction in the physical gauge, while the supplementary bosonic action produces the nonzero correction displayed in (3.23). Keeping only terms at most quadratic in derivatives turns this into the mass-like gravitino term (3.30), with parameter of order $l_P\Lambda_{NC}^2/l^4$, and Wigner-Inönü contraction leaves a nontrivial reduced action (3.31).

Load-bearing premise

The derivation stands or falls on the assumption that the added purely bosonic term, with its specific numerical couplings, is the right completion of the classical action; the paper itself concedes that other symmetry-compatible terms that would change the final result are allowed, so an alternative completion would give a different first-order noncommutative correction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The leading noncommutative correction to N=2 AdS4 SUGRA is calculable and is given by (3.23), so the theory makes a definite first-order prediction rather than a quadratic one.
  • At low energy the correction is a mass-like gravitino term (3.30) that renormalizes the classical mass-like term (2.49), shifting the effective gravitino mass parameter by an amount of order $l_P\Lambda_{NC}^2/l^4$.
  • Because the OSp(4|2)-invariant part contributes nothing at first order, the nonvanishing effect is tied to the auxiliary-field mechanism that supplies the U(1) kinetic term; without that bosonic supplement the leading effect would be quadratic.
  • Wigner-Inönü contraction of the corrected action leaves the nontrivial expression (3.31), so the AdS-to-Poincaré contraction is not obviously compatible with canonical deformation; settling this requires a direct computation of the linear correction in N=2 Poincaré SUGRA.
  • Extending the same geometric construction to N>1 AdS4 SUGRA requires additional non-Abelian analogues of the supplementary bosonic action, so the structure of the linear correction will depend on the internal gauge group.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the correction flows entirely from the added bosonic completion, the reported first-order shift is not fixed by OSp(4|2) symmetry alone; the paper explicitly notes that other OSp(4|2)-invariant terms S′ and S′′ would change the final result, so the prediction is tied to a particular choice of classical completion.
  • The low-energy mass-like gravitino term suggests a potential observational handle: in a cosmological or astrophysical setting, canonical noncommutativity would manifest as an effective gravitino mass shift whose scale is set by $\Lambda_{NC}^2/l^4$ times the four-dimensional Planck mass; comparing with gravitino mass bounds would place a constraint on $\Lambda_{NC}$.
  • If the WI-contracted action (3.31) is taken as the Poincaré limit of the deformed theory, several curvature- and field-strength-dependent terms survive the flat limit; a direct comparison with the undeformed Poincaré gauge theory would clarify whether noncommutativity and the Inönü-Wigner contraction genuinely commute.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs the classical action of N=2 AdS4 supergravity from an OSp(4|2) Yang-Mills-type action (2.30) supplemented by a purely bosonic SO(2,3)xU(1)-invariant action (2.40), which is needed to produce the U(1) kinetic term after gauge fixing. It then performs a canonical deformation using the Moyal product and the Seiberg-Witten map, expanding the deformed action to first order in the noncommutativity parameter theta. The main technical results are the vanishing of the OSp(4|2)-invariant part of the linear correction, equation (3.20), the explicit first-order correction (3.23) coming from the supplementary action, and its low-energy reduction to the mass-like gravitino term (3.30). The paper also discusses the Wigner-Inonu contraction and mentions two additional OSp(4|2)-invariant terms S' and S'' that would modify the final result.

Significance. If the calculation is correct, the paper would provide the first explicit leading-order noncommutative correction to an extended AdS supergravity theory, with a concrete low-energy prediction: a theta-dependent mass-like term for the charged gravitino with coefficient 9/(16 l^4 kappa), renormalizing the classical mass-like term (2.49). The contrast with N=1 AdS4 SUGRA, where the linear correction vanishes, is also physically interesting. The paper is honest about the main caveat, explicitly stating in Section 4 that the additional OSp(4|2)-invariant terms S' and S'' "will certainly change our final result." The strength of the paper is the systematic use of the Seiberg-Witten map and the explicit supertrace identities in Appendix B, which make the algebraic structure transparent, although the key cancellation (3.20) and the reduction from (3.23) to (3.30) are not shown in detail.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4 and Abstract] The central claim that "N=2 AdS4 SUGRA has non-vanishing linear NC correction" is not a statement about the unique N=2 AdS4 supergravity theory, because the classical starting action is not uniquely determined. Section 4 explicitly lists two further OSp(4|2)-invariant terms S' and S'' with free parameters a' and a'' that are compatible with the classical N=2 AdS4 SUGRA action after gauge fixing, and states that their NC deformation "will certainly change our final result." Since the linear correction (3.23) is therefore dependent on an arbitrary completion of the classical action, the abstract and the concluding discussion overstate the result as a property of the theory rather than of the particular action (2.47). The authors should either reframe the claim as "for the action constructed in this paper" or provide a principle that uniquely selects the completion (2.40) over the alternatives.
  2. [Section 3, Eq. (3.20)] The vanishing of the OSp(4|2)-invariant part of the linear NC correction, S42^(1)|g.f. = 0, is asserted after "a careful examination" without showing the computation. This result is load-bearing because it is what attributes the entire linear correction to the supplementary bosonic action SA; if S42^(1)|g.f. were nonvanishing, the final action (3.23) and the low-energy term (3.30) would be incomplete. The authors should provide at least a sketch of the supertrace cancellations that occur after gauge fixing, or make the algebraic verification available as supplementary material.
  3. [Section 3, Eqs. (3.23)-(3.30)] The reduction from the long expression (3.23) to the simple low-energy result (3.30) is not demonstrated. The text states that one keeps terms at most quadratic in derivatives, assumes the spin connection and first derivatives of the vierbein are of the same order, and uses the torsion constraint, but the many terms in (3.24)-(3.29) do not obviously cancel to leave only -9 theta^{mu nu}/(16 l^4 kappa) F~_{mu nu}. Since (3.30) is the main physical prediction, the derivation should be shown explicitly, or at least the relevant cancellations should be identified term by term.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section 2.1] There is a typo in the abstract and in the text before Eq. (2.40): "SdS4" should be "AdS4" in the sentence referring to the correct action for N=2 AdS4 SUGRA.
  2. [Section 2.1, Eqs. (2.27)-(2.29)] The symbol D_mu is used both for the SO(2,3) covariant derivative and for the extended derivative defined in (2.27)-(2.28); this reuse is confusing, especially in (2.29) where D_mu Psi_nu is defined in terms of D_mu with a different meaning. A different notation, such as mathcal{D}_mu for the extended derivative, would improve readability.
  3. [Section 3, Eqs. (3.24)-(3.29)] The notation in the long expressions (3.24)-(3.29) is not fully defined; in particular, the meaning of ~F^2, the index conventions for e^a_mu, and the contractions of torsion terms should be stated before the results are presented.
  4. [Section 3, Eq. (3.30)] The equation (3.30) contains a surface term involving F_mu_nu; the text should explicitly state that this term is dropped, and should comment on whether the surface term can affect the derivation of the subsequent WI-contracted action (3.31).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No constructional circularity: the linear NC correction is a genuine Seiberg-Witten computation, but the central result is model-dependent because the paper admits alternative OSp(4|2)-invariant completions with free parameters.

full rationale

I find no step in which a prediction reduces to an input by construction. The classical action (2.47) is assembled by fixing a, b, c and d from the requirement of reproducing standard N=2 AdS4 SUGRA, and the NC correction is then obtained by an explicit Seiberg-Witten expansion. The main result (3.23) and its low-energy limit (3.30) are computed, not fitted: no parameter of the NC calculation is adjusted to force the linear term or its coefficient. The bosonic supplement SA (2.40) is imported from the authors' earlier work [55], but the present paper rederives its gauge-fixed form (2.42)-(2.46), so the self-citation is not load-bearing as an unverified premise. The genuinely important caveat is in Section 4: two further OSp(4|2)-invariant terms S' and S'' with free parameters a' and a'' do not change the classical action after gauge fixing, yet 'NC deformation of S' and S'' will certainly change our final result.' This means the nonvanishing linear correction and especially the coefficient 9/(16 l^4 kappa) in (3.30) are properties of one particular completion of the classical SUGRA action, not of the classical N=2 AdS4 SUGRA data alone. That is underdetermination/model-dependence, not circularity, because the derivation itself is self-contained and does not assume the target result. I also flag that the asserted vanishing of the OSp(4|2)-part correction, S^(1)_42|g.f. = 0 in (3.20), is stated without derivation; this is a missing support issue that would affect the attribution of the linear correction to SA alone, but it is not a circularity. Overall: no constructional circularity; score 2 reflects the admitted non-uniqueness and the presence of a self-citation for the supplementary action, not a reduction of the result to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central calculation rests on standard NC gauge theory machinery and standard spinor and trace identities. The nonstandard input is the bosonic supplement SA, whose parameters are tuned to match the known N=2 AdS4 SUGRA action, and the deliberate omission of additional allowed terms S-prime and S-double-prime. No new physical degrees of freedom are introduced; the auxiliary fields f and Phi are integrated out or gauge-fixed.

free parameters (6)
  • a = a = i l/(4 kappa^2)
    Introduced in Eq. (2.30); fixed by requiring the Einstein-Hilbert term normalization in (2.38).
  • b = b = -a/2
    Introduced in Eq. (2.30); fixed by the cancellation of gravitino curvature terms needed for local supersymmetry in (2.35)-(2.38).
  • c = c = 1/(32 l)
    Appears in the supplementary bosonic action (2.40); must be real and is chosen together with d to normalize the U(1) kinetic term in (2.46).
  • d = d = i/(192 l)
    Appears in the supplementary bosonic action (2.40); must be purely imaginary and with c gives the correct prefactor for the U(1) field strength squared term.
  • a' = not fixed, effectively set to zero
    Additional OSp(4|2)-invariant term S-prime in Section 4; its NC deformation is not computed and would change the final result.
  • a'' = not fixed, effectively set to zero
    Additional OSp(4|2)-invariant term S-double-prime in Section 4; same caveat as a-prime.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math 4D Clifford algebra, Fierz identities, and trace formulas in Appendix B are correct and sufficient for the supertrace evaluations.
    The derivation of (2.35), (2.41), and (3.23) relies on these identities, which are quoted but not proved.
  • domain assumption The Seiberg-Witten map with universal enveloping algebra-valued fields gives a consistent first-order deformation of OSp(4|2) gauge theory.
    Section 3 assumes the UEA/SW approach for non-Abelian gauge groups; this is standard in the NC gauge theory literature but is not re-derived.
  • domain assumption Stelle-West constrained auxiliary field gauge fixing, with phi_5 = l and all other components zero, is a valid physical gauge and yields the known SUGRA action.
    Used at (2.32), (2.35), and (2.42); follows the program of reference [30].
  • ad hoc to paper The supplementary action SA (2.40) is the correct completion of the classical action even though it breaks OSp(4|2) invariance.
    The paper states there seems to be no OSp(4|2)-invariant way to include the f-field procedure; SA is chosen to reproduce the known U(1) kinetic term after gauge fixing.
  • domain assumption The low-energy approximation keeps only terms up to quadratic in derivatives and imposes the torsion constraint on the extended torsion.
    Assumptions are stated before Eq. (3.30); they select the single mass-like term from the full correction (3.23).
  • ad hoc to paper The exclusion of the additional terms S-prime and S-double-prime does not affect the first-order NC correction.
    Section 4 says S-prime and S-double-prime are allowed but not included, and their NC deformation would change the final result; the paper's headline claim therefore rests on this exclusion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Canonical Deformation of $N=2$ $AdS_{4}$ SUGRA." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7BVTRSFU

@misc{pith2026190901069,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Canonical Deformation of $N=2$ $AdS_4$ SUGRA},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7BVTRSFU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.01069}
}
abstract

It is known that one can define a consistent theory of extended, $N=2$ anti-de Sitter (AdS) Supergravity (SUGRA) in $D=4$. Besides the standard gravitational part, this theory involves a single $U(1)$ gauge field and a pair of Majorana vector-spinors that can be mixed into a pair of charged spin-$3/2$ gravitini. The action for $N=2$ $AdS_{4}$ SUGRA is invariant under $SO(1,3)\times U(1)$ gauge transformations, and under local SUSY. We present a geometric action that involves two "inhomogeneous" parts: an orthosymplectic $OSp(4\vert 2)$ gauge-invariant action of the Yang-Mills type, and a supplementary action invariant under purely bosonic $SO(2,3)\times U(1)\sim Sp(4)\times SO(2)$ sector of $OSp(4\vert 2)$, that needs to be added for consistency. This action reduces to $N=2$ $AdS_{4}$ SUGRA after gauge fixing, for which we use a constrained auxiliary field in the manner of Stelle and West. Canonical deformation is performed by using the Seiberg-Witten approach to noncommutative (NC) gauge field theory with the Moyal product. The NC-deformed action is expanded in powers of the deformation parameter $\theta^{\mu\nu}$ up to the first order. We show that $N=2$ $AdS_{4}$ SUGRA has non-vanishing linear NC correction in the physical gauge, originating from the additional, purely bosonic action. For comparison, simple $N=1$ Poinacar\'{e} SUGRA can be obtained in the same manner, directly from an $OSp(4\vert 1)$ gauge-invariant action. The first non-vanishing NC correction is quadratic in $\theta^{\mu\nu}$ and therefore exceedingly difficult to calculate. Under Wigner-In\"{o}n\"{u} (WI) contraction, $N=2$ AdS superalgebra reduces to $N=2$ Poincar\'{e} superalgebra, and it is not clear whether this relation holds after canonical deformation. We present the linear NC correction to $N=2$ $AdS_{4}$ SUGRA explicitly, discuss its low-energy limit, and what remains of it after WI contraction.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bayen, M

    F. Bayen, M. Flato, C. Fronsdal, A. Lichnerowicz, and D. S ternheimer, Deformation theory and quantization I, II 1978 Ann. Phys. 111

    work page 1978

  2. [2]

    Kontsevich, Deformation quantization of Poisson man ifolds 1 2003 Lett

    M. Kontsevich, Deformation quantization of Poisson man ifolds 1 2003 Lett. Math. Phys. 66:157–216

    work page 2003

  3. [3]

    Aschieri, M

    P. Aschieri, M. Dimitrijevi´ c, P. Kulish, F. Lizzi, and J . Wess 2009 Noncommutative Spacetimes (Springer Verlag)

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    Freedman, P

    D.Z. Freedman, P. van Nieuwenhuizen, and S. Ferrara 1976 Phys. Rev. D13 3214

    work page 1976

  5. [5]

    D. Z. Freedman and P. van Nieuwenhuizen 1976 Phys. Rev. Dl4, 912

    work page 1976

  6. [6]

    Deser and B

    S. Deser and B. Zumino 1976 Phys. Lett. 62B 335

    work page 1976

  7. [7]

    Ferrara and P

    S. Ferrara and P. van Nieuwenhuizen 1976 Phys. Rev. Lett. 37

    work page 1976

  8. [8]

    Townsend and P

    P.K. Townsend and P. van Nieuwenhuizen 1977 Phys. Lett. 67B 4

    work page 1977

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Blohmann, M

    P.Aschieri, C. Blohmann, M. Dimitrijevi´ c, F. Meyer, P. Schupp and J. Wess 2005 A Gravity Theory on Noncommutative Spaces, Class. Quant. Grav. 22, 3511

    2005

  2. [10]

    Aschieri, M

    P. Aschieri, M. Dimitrijevi´ c, F. Meyer and J. Wess 2006 Noncommutative Geometry and Gravity Class. Quant. Grav. 23, 1883

    2006

  3. [11]

    Chaichian, P

    M. Chaichian, P. Presnajder A. Tureanu 2005 New Concept of Relativistic Invariance in Noncommutative Space-Time: Twisted Poincar´ e Symmetry and Its Implications Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 151602

    2005

  4. [12]

    A. H. Chamseddine 2001 Deforming Einstein’s gravity, Phys. Lett. B504 33

    2001

  5. [13]

    A. H. Chamseddine 2004 SL(2,C ) gravity with a complex vierbein and its noncom- mutative extension Phys. Rev. D69, 024015

    2004

  6. [14]

    M. A. Cardella and D. Zanon 2003 Noncommutative deforma tion of four-dimensional gravity, Class. Quant. Grav. 20, L95

    2003

  7. [15]

    Buri´ c, T

    M. Buri´ c, T. Grammatikopoulos, J. Madore, G. Zoupanos 2006 Gravity and the Struc- ture of Noncommutative Algebras JHEP 0604 054

    2006

  8. [16]

    Harikumar and V

    E. Harikumar and V. O. Rivelles 2006 Noncommutative Gra vity, Class. Quant. Grav. 23:7551-7560

    2006

  9. [17]

    Buri´ c and J

    M. Buri´ c and J. Madore 2008 Spherically Symmetric Nonc ommutative Space: d = 4, Eur. Phys. J. C58 347

    2008

  10. [18]

    Klammer and H

    D. Klammer and H. Steinacker 2009 Cosmological solutio ns of emergent noncommu- tative gravity Phys. Rev. Lett. 102 221301

    2009

  11. [19]

    Steinacker 2010 Emergent Geometry and Gravity from M atrix Models: an Intro- duction Class

    H. Steinacker 2010 Emergent Geometry and Gravity from M atrix Models: an Intro- duction Class. Quant. Grav. 27 133001. 21

    2010

  12. [20]

    Dobrski 2011 On some models of geometric noncommutat ive general relativity Phys

    M. Dobrski 2011 On some models of geometric noncommutat ive general relativity Phys. Rev. D84, 065005

    2011

  13. [21]

    Tomassini, S

    L. Tomassini, S. Viaggiu 2014 Building non-commutativ e space-times at the Planck length for Friedmann flat cosmologies Class. Quant. Grav. 31 185001

    2014

  14. [22]

    Bars, M.M

    I. Bars, M.M. Sheikh-Jabbari and M.A. Vasiliev 2001 Non commutative o⋆(N ) and usp⋆(2N ) algebras and the corresponding gauge field theories Phys. Rev. D64 086004

    2001

  15. [23]

    Bonora, M

    L. Bonora, M. Schnabl, M.M. Sheikh-Jabbari and A. Tomas iello 2000 Noncommutative SO(n) and Sp(n) gauge theories Nucl. Phys. B589 461

    2000

  16. [24]

    Dimitrijevi´ c, V

    M. Dimitrijevi´ c, V. Radovanovi´ c and H.ˇStefanˇ ci´ c, 2012 AdS-inspired noncommutative gravity on the Moyal plane Phys. Rev. D86, 105041

    2012

  17. [25]

    Dimitrijevi´ c and V

    M. Dimitrijevi´ c and V. Radovanovi´ c 2014 Noncommutative SO(2,3) gauge theory and noncommutative gravity Phys. Rev. D89, 125021

    2014

  18. [26]

    Dimitrijevi´ c ´Ciri´ c, B

    M. Dimitrijevi´ c ´Ciri´ c, B. Nikoli´ c and V. Radovanovi´ c 2017 NC SO(2, 3)⋆ gravity: noncommutativity as a source of curvature and torsion Phys. Rev. D96, 064029

    2017

  19. [27]

    Dimitrijevi´ c ´Ciri´ c, B

    M. Dimitrijevi´ c ´Ciri´ c, B. Nikoli´ c and V. Radovanovi´ c 2017 Noncommutative gravity and the relevance of the θ-constant deformation Europhys. Lett. 118 no.2, 21002

    2017

  20. [28]

    S. W. MacDowell and F. Mansouri 1977 Unified geometrical theory of gravity and supergravity Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 739

    1977

  21. [29]

    P. K. Towsend 1977 Small-scale structure of space-time as the origin of the gravitation constant Phys. Rev. D15, 2795

    1977

  22. [30]

    K. S. Stelle and P. C. West 1980 Spontaneously broken de S itter symmetry and the gravitational holonomy group Phys. Rev D21, 1466

    1980

  23. [31]

    A. H. Chamseddine and V. Mukhanov 2010 Gravity with de Si tter and Unitary Tangent Groups JHEP 1003 033

    2010

  24. [32]

    A. H. Chamseddine and V. Mukhanov 2013 Who Ordered the An ti-de Sitter Tangent Group? JHEP 1311 095

    2013

  25. [33]

    Wilczek 1988 Riemann-Einstein structure from volum e and gauge symmetry Phys

    F. Wilczek 1988 Riemann-Einstein structure from volum e and gauge symmetry Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 4851-4854

    1988

  26. [34]

    Seiberg and E

    N. Seiberg and E. Witten 1999 String theory and noncommu tative geometry, JHEP 09, 032

    1999

  27. [35]

    Ulker and B

    K. Ulker and B. Yapiskan 2008 Seiberg-Witten maps to all orders Phys. Rev. D77, 065006

    2008

  28. [36]

    Jurˇ co, S

    B. Jurˇ co, S. Schraml, P. Schupp and J. Wess 2000 Envelop ing algebra valued gauge transformation for non-Abelian gauge groups on non-commut ative spaces Eur. Phys. J. C17, 251

    2000

  29. [37]

    Jurˇ co, L

    B. Jurˇ co, L. M¨ oller, S. Schraml, P. Schupp and J. Wess 2 001 Construction of non- Abelian gauge theories on noncommutative spaces Eur. Phys. J. C21, 383. 22

  30. [38]

    Aschieri, L

    P. Aschieri, L. Castellani and M. Dimitrijevi´ c 2013 No ncommutative gravity at second order via Seiberg-Witten map Phys.Rev. D87, 024017

    2013

  31. [39]

    Manasse and C.W

    F.K. Manasse and C.W. Misner 1963 Fermi Normal Coordina tes and Some Basic Con- cepts in Differential Geometry J. Math. Phys. 4 735-745

    1963

  32. [40]

    Chicone and B

    C. Chicone and B. Mashoon 2006 Explicit Fermi coordinat es and tidal dynamics in de Sitter and Godel spacetimes, Phys. Rev. D74 064019

    2006

  33. [41]

    Klein and E

    D. Klein and E. Randles 2011 Fermi coordinates, simulta neity, and expanding space in Robertson-Walker cosmologies, Annales Henri Poincare 12 303-328

    2011

  34. [42]

    D’Adda, R

    A. D’Adda, R. D’Auria, P. Fr´ e, T. Regge 1980 Geometrical Formulation of Supergrav- ity Theories on Orthosymplectic Supergroup Manifolds Riv. Nuovo Cim. 3: 1

    1980

  35. [43]

    Tomas Ortin 2004 Gravity and Strings , (Cambridge University Press)

    2004

  36. [44]

    Freedman, Professor Antoine Van Proeyen 2012 Supergravity (Cambridge University Press)

    Daniel Z. Freedman, Professor Antoine Van Proeyen 2012 Supergravity (Cambridge University Press)

    2012

  37. [45]

    A. H. Chamseddine, P. C. West Supergravity as a gauge the ory of supersymmetry, Nuclear Physics B 129 (1), 39-44

  38. [46]

    A. H. Chamseddine Massive supergravity from non-linea r realization of orthosymplec- tic gauge symmetry and coupling to spin-1/2—spin-1 multipl et, Nuclear Physics B 131 (4), 494-506

  39. [47]

    A. H. Chamseddine, Massive supergravity from spontane ously breaking orthosymplec- tic gauge symmetry, Annals of Physics 113 (1), 219-234

  40. [48]

    Preitschopf, M.A

    C.R. Preitschopf, M.A. Vasiliev 1997 The Superalgebraic Approach to Supergravity , a talk given at the International Seminar on Supersymmetries and Quantum Symmetries, Dubna, Russia, July 22 - 26, [arXiv:hep-th/9805127v1]

    1997 arXiv

  41. [49]

    P. D. Alvarez, M. Valenzuela and J. Zanelli 2012 Supersy mmetry of a different kind JHEP 1204 058

    2012

  42. [50]

    and Zanelli, J., 2014

    Alvarez, P.D., Pais, P. and Zanelli, J., 2014. Unconven tional supersymmetry and its breaking Physics Letters B , 735, pp.314-321

    2014

  43. [51]

    Freund and I

    P.G.O. Freund and I. Kaplansky 1976 J. Math. Phys. 17 228

    1976

  44. [52]

    Aschieri and L

    P. Aschieri and L. Castellani 2009 Noncommutative supe rgravity inD = 3 and D = 4, JHEP 0906 087

    2009

  45. [53]

    Castellani 2013 OSp(1|4) supergravity and its noncommutative extension Phys

    L. Castellani 2013 OSp(1|4) supergravity and its noncommutative extension Phys. Rev. D 88 025022

    2013

  46. [54]

    Goˇ canin and V

    D. Goˇ canin and V. Radovanovi´ c 2018 Dirac field and grav ity in NC SO(2, 3)⋆ model Eur. Phys. J. C 78 195

    2018

  47. [55]

    Dimitrijevi´ c- ´Ciri´ c, D

    M. Dimitrijevi´ c- ´Ciri´ c, D. Goˇ canin, N. Konjik and V. Radovanovi´ c 2018 Noncommu- tative Electrodynamics from SO(2, 3)⋆ Model of Noncommutative Gravity Eur. Phys. J. C 78 548. 23

    2018

  48. [56]

    Aschieri 2014 Extended gravity from noncommutativi ty Springer Proc

    P. Aschieri 2014 Extended gravity from noncommutativi ty Springer Proc. Phys. 145 151 [arXiv:1207.5060]

    2014 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Aschieri, L

    P. Aschieri, L. Castellani 2013 Noncommutative gauge fi elds coupled to noncommuta- tive gravity Gen. Rel. Grav. 45 581-598. 24

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.