Partially massless spin 2 and supersymmetry

Yu. M. Zinoviev

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Partially massless spin 2 and supersymmetry

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper constructs explicit minimal cubic interaction vertices coupling a partially massless spin-2 field to its superpartners — a massive spin-3/2 field and massless spin-3/2 gravitini — showing that a partially massless supergravity…

desk verdict Useful explicit vertices for partially massless spin-2 supermultiplets, but the printed Eq. (74) has a coefficient factor that breaks the claimed invariance until fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04982 v1 pith:3FG5EIEG submitted 2024-12-06 hep-th

Yu. M. Zinoviev This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-th PACS 04.65.+e11.30.Pb

keywords partiallymasslessspin23/2supersymmetrysupergravitycubicinteractionverticesframe-likemultispinorformalismunfoldedequationsdeSitterspace

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

Partially massless spin-2 fields, which sit between massless and massive gravitons in de Sitter space, have two natural superpartners: a massless spin-3/2 gravitino and a massive spin-3/2 field with a special mass. This paper asks whether these pairs can interact consistently and constructs explicit cubic vertices that respect all gauge symmetries of the free theory. For the self-interaction of partially massless spin 2 with its massive spin-3/2 partner, a minimal one-derivative vertex exists, resembling the structure of ordinary supergravity. For localizing the global supersymmetry with two massless spin-3/2 fields, a minimal vertex again exists, forming the seed of a putative partially massless N=2 supergravity. The analogous vertex with a massive partner also exists but unavoidably contains higher-derivative terms, so the paper provides the first concrete building blocks for a partially massless supergravity.

What carries the argument

The construction rests on the frame-like multispinor formalism, a coordinate-free description in which fields are differential forms carrying undotted and dotted spinor indices, together with the unfolded-equation deformation procedure. A partially massless spin-2 field is described by one-forms $\Omega$, H, and A plus Stueckelberg zero-forms B, with gauge-invariant curvatures R, T, and B; massive and massless spin-3/2 fields are described by one-forms Phi and zero-forms phi with curvatures F and C. The argument proceeds by classifying possible cubic vertices through the abelian-form ansatz (Eq. 27), writing the most general one-derivative ansatz (Eq. 30) and requiring cancellation of all gauge variations, and, for the localization problem, deforming the unfolded equations in the presence of an external massless gravitino Psi while fixing deformation parameters by self-consistency. The gauge-invariant curvatures and their differential identities are the machinery that lets variations be compensated by corrections to the gauge transformations, yielding the explicit vertices.

What would settle it

Compute the commutator of two corrected supertransformations in the deformed theory of Eq. (74): if the algebra closes only with terms that cannot be absorbed into the existing gauge transformations or curvatures, the vertex is not a genuine seed of a supergravity. A sharper test is to try to extend the cubic vertex (38) to quartic order while preserving all gauge invariances; an obstruction there would show that the minimal vertex is only an artifact of the cubic truncation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that the partially massless spin-2 supermultiplet admits consistent cubic interactions in both channels. Using the frame-like multispinor formalism, the author writes the most general ansatz for cubic vertices built from gauge-invariant curvatures, brings it to abelian form via field redefinitions, and fixes the corrections to the gauge transformations order by order. The result is an explicit minimal vertex (Eq. 38) for the self-interaction of partially massless spin 2 with a massive spin-3/2 field at the special mass value, with no more than one derivative. A second explicit minimal vertex (Eq. 74) couples partially massless spin 2 to two massless spin-3/2 fields with opposite signs of their cosmological terms, localizing the global supersymmetry; this is presented as part of what could be called partially massless N=2 supergravity. For the remaining channel, coupling to a massive spin-3/2 partner, a consistent cubic vertex (Eq. 107) exists but contains higher-derivative terms, so it is not minimal. In each case the vertex is checked against the full set of gauge symmetries of the free theory.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the chosen ansatze — the abelian form for cubic vertices and the specific deformations of the unfolded equations — capture every consistent interaction with this field content, so that vertices found within them are the only ones and vertices not found do not exist.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A minimal one-derivative self-interaction vertex for partially massless spin 2 and massive spin 3/2 exists at the special mass value, giving a concrete starting point for a partially massless supergravity action.
The global supersymmetry between partially massless spin 2 and two massless spin-3/2 fields can be localized through an external gravitino, producing a minimal cubic vertex that can serve as the first piece of partially massless N=2 supergravity.
The coupling to a massive spin-3/2 partner necessarily involves higher derivatives, so the corresponding supergravity, if it exists, will not be of the standard two-derivative form.
If all four fields of the supermultiplet are kept dynamical, consistency forces the introduction of an external gravitino, pointing toward partially massless bi-supergravity rather than N=2 supergravity.
The existence of these vertices at cubic order does not by itself guarantee a fully nonlinear theory; consistency at higher orders remains open.

Reading between the lines

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

If the minimal vertices extend to quartic order, they would provide the first fully nonlinear example of a partially massless supergravity; the known no-go results for pure partially massless gravity suggest the extension is the main risk.
The higher-derivative vertex in the massive-partner channel hints that the massive spin-3/2 partner may require a conformal or higher-derivative formulation rather than standard supergravity, which could change the unitarity analysis in de Sitter space.
A direct test would be to compute on-shell scattering amplitudes from Eq. (74) and check whether they satisfy the expected soft limits or positivity bounds; this would distinguish a genuine supergravity vertex from an accidental gauge-invariant coupling.
The requirement that the two massless gravitini have opposite signs of their lambda-terms suggests that the resulting N=2 theory, if completed, would be chiral in a specific sense, which could have implications for matter couplings.

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

The paper does what it says: it constructs explicit cubic vertices for partially massless spin-2 interacting with its two superpartners, and it clears up the earlier puzzle about the singular massive limit — the vertex exists only at the special mass value. Section 3 gives a minimal, one-derivative self-interaction vertex with the massive spin-3/2, and the construction is careful and systematic. That part looks solid and is a genuine step toward partially massless supergravity.

The localization constructions in Sections 4 and 5 are also competently done, and the paper is honest about when higher derivatives are unavoidable. But there is a real problem in Section 4. The η-invariance check introduces ΔL1 with coefficient a0 and then fixes a0 = a1 to get the cancellation in Eq. (64). The final vertex in Eq. (74), however, prints the same term with coefficient a1/2. As written, the variation is only half of what is needed, so the vertex is not invariant under η-transformations. This is almost certainly a typo, not a conceptual failure — the derivation before it is explicit — but it makes the central formula internally inconsistent, and it must be corrected before the result is usable. A referee should ask for that fix and for a re-check of the full gauge variation with the corrected coefficient.

The softer weakness is the repeated assertion that the ansatze for the deformations are exhaustive, so the “only possible vertices” and minimality claims rest on unproven completeness. That is a standard limitation in this constructive approach, but it should be stated more carefully. The overlap with [32] is also only mentioned in passing; a short explicit comparison would help.

The citation pattern is fine: heavy self-citation, but to the author’s own established formalism, not to the new result. The math is long and not machine-checked, but the style is transparent and the steps are checkable by hand.

Who is this for? Higher-spin and supergravity people working on partially massless fields in (A)dS. It deserves a serious referee — the construction is new and concrete — but the referee should insist on fixing Eq. (74) and on softening the exhaustiveness claims. After a minor revision, this is a citable building block.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs cubic interaction vertices for a partially massless (PM) spin-2 field coupled to spin-3/2 fields in four-dimensional (A)dS space, using the frame-like multispinor formalism. Section 3 obtains a minimal self-interaction vertex for PM spin-2 with a massive spin-3/2 (Eq. 38). Section 4 constructs a minimal vertex localizing global supersymmetry between PM spin-2 and a massless spin-3/2 (Eq. 74). Section 5 constructs a higher-derivative vertex for the special case of massive spin-3/2 at M=0 (Eq. 107). The constructions are explicitly checked against the gauge symmetries of the free theories.

Significance. If correct, these vertices are the first concrete steps toward partially massless supergravity, providing explicit data for further consistency checks and potential no-go theorems. The paper's strength is its systematic, explicit derivation of vertex coefficients using the unfolded formalism; the results are falsifiable and amenable to independent verification. However, the classification relies on asserted exhaustiveness of the ansätze, and the central vertex of Section 4 suffers from internal inconsistencies as printed, undermining the main claim until corrected.

major comments (3)

[§4.3, Eq. (74)] The final vertex in Eq. (74) lists the η-restoring term with coefficient a1/2, whereas the derivation (Eqs. (63)–(64)) explicitly requires a0 = a1 for the cancellation; with the printed coefficient, the variation δη(∆L1) is only half of what is needed, so the vertex as written is not invariant under η-transformations. Moreover, the signs of the a3 and a5 terms in Eq. (74) differ from those in the candidate L1 (Eq. (61)) used to compute the η-variation in Eq. (62), and no field redefinition is stated to justify this change. These discrepancies make Eq. (74) internally inconsistent with the preceding derivation. Please correct the coefficients and signs, or recompute and display the full invariance check.
[§5.4, Eq. (107)] The final vertex (Eq. (107)) contains terms proportional to 1/m and 1/m^2, introduced via ∆1 (Eq. (104)) and ∆2 (Eq. (106)). The text states that these are 'the only possibility' but does not display the explicit cancellation for all gauge transformations (η, ρ, and supertransformations) after including these terms. Since this vertex is one of the paper's main results, the invariance of Eq. (107) should be demonstrated explicitly or at least the complete variation summarized in an appendix; as printed, the cancellation is only sketched for intermediate steps.
[§3.1–3.4] The classification of vertices rests on the assertion that the most general cubic vertex can be brought to the abelian form (27) via field redefinitions, and that the ansätze (30) and (35) exhaust all vertices with no more than one derivative. This exhaustiveness is asserted rather than proven. While this is common in the constructive formalism, the authors should state it explicitly as an assumption and, if possible, justify it (e.g., by cohomological arguments or by showing that any candidate can be reduced to the given ansatz). This would strengthen the claim that the two vertices for arbitrary mass and the one special-mass vertex are indeed the complete set.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract] The abstract contains typos: 'supermultip let' should be 'supermultiplet' and 'no more that one derivative' should be 'no more than one derivative'.
[Eq. (52)] In Eq. (52), the conditions 'δ1,0 = 0' and 'δ2,0 = 0' appear without explanation; please clarify whether these are definitions, boundary conditions, or constraints on the coefficients.
[Throughout] The paper frequently uses 'h.c.' without writing the full Hermitian conjugate structures. While this is conventional in the field, displaying at least one complete term for each vertex would improve readability and reduce ambiguity.
[References] Reference [37] is cited as an arXiv preprint (2410.16798); if it has appeared in a journal, the published reference should be provided.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the vertices are direct Noether constructions checked by explicit variation, with no fitted input renamed as prediction.

full rationale

The paper is a direct constructive calculation in the frame-like multispinor formalism. Its inputs are the free Lagrangians, gauge transformations, and unfolded equations of Section 2; its outputs are explicit cubic vertices, Eqs. (38), (74) and (107), whose invariance is verified by explicit variation under all gauge symmetries and by supplying compensating gauge corrections. Coefficients are fixed algebraically by cancellation conditions, e.g. c2 = c1, c5 = c4/2, c3 = (4m/a0)c1 in Section 3, and a0 = a1 in Section 4.3. No parameter is fitted to the quantity that is then called a prediction. The supermultiplet field content is imported from external representation-theoretic work, not from the present calculation. The use of field redefinitions to reach abelian form in Section 3.1 cites prior work, including one self-citation, but that classification step is not load-bearing for the explicit vertex: Eq. (38) is checked by direct computation and remains an invariant vertex independently of any classification-completeness claim. The stated ansatze and exhaustiveness assumptions are completeness claims, not circularity; they affect the scope of the classification but not the validity of the explicitly constructed vertices. The apparent a1/2 versus a1 coefficient issue in Eq. (74) is an internal consistency or correctness concern, not an input-output circularity. No derivation step reduces by construction to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the existence of the partially massless spin-2 supermultiplet from [24], the standard frame-like formalism, the zero torsion gauge choice, and the asserted completeness of the ansatze used for vertex construction. No new entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The partially massless spin-2 supermultiplet with massless and specially-massive spin-3/2 superpartners exists (as constructed in [24]).
Starting point of the paper; cited, not re-derived. If false, the field content used throughout is inconsistent.
domain assumption The frame-like multispinor gauge-invariant formulation of massive and partially massless fields ([29]-[31]) correctly describes the degrees of freedom.
All free Lagrangians and gauge transformations in Section 2 rest on this formalism.
standard math The zero torsion conditions T approximately 0 and A approximately 0 (Eq. 4) can be imposed without loss of generality.
Standard gauge choice in frame-like gravity; used to simplify curvature identities throughout.
ad hoc to paper The ansatz for cubic vertices (Eq. 27) and for deformations of the unfolded equations (Eqs. 45-46, 52, 83-84, 91-92) is exhaustive.
The paper asserts that field redefinitions suffice to bring vertices to abelian form and that the chosen ansatze capture all consistent deformations, but no proof of exhaustiveness is given.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Partially massless spin 2 and supersymmetry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3FG5EIEG

@misc{pith2026241204982,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Partially massless spin 2 and supersymmetry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3FG5EIEG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04982}
}

abstract

The very existence of partially massless spin 2 supermultiplet tell us that partially massless spin 2 has two natural superpartners: massless spin 3/2 and massive spin 3/2 with some special value of mass. As for any pair of fields connected by global supertransformations there are two natural questions: existence of the self-interaction and possibility to make supertransformations to be local by switching their interaction with massless spin 3/2 gravitino. At first, we consider a self-interaction for the partially massless spin 2 and massive spin 3/2 which may be considered as the first approximation to partially massless supergravity and provide a direct construction of the minimal (i.e. having no more than one derivative) vertex which resembles usual supergravity. Then we consider localization of global supersymmetry which connects partially massless spin 2 with its two possible superpartners -- massless spin 3/2 and massive with special mass value. For the first case we also managed to construct a minimal vertex having no more that one derivative. Again this vertex can be considered as a part of what can be called partially massless $N=2$ supergravity. As for the second case, the corresponding vertex does exist but it has higher derivative terms.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

A note on partially massless supergravity
hep-th 2024-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

Interactions of partially massless spin-2 with spin-3/2 fields are obstructed at second order unless a massless graviton is added, leading to N=1 conformal supergravity.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[32]

Nicolas Boulanger, Guillaume Lhost, Sylvain Thom´ ee ”Consistent couplings between a massive spin-3/2 ﬁeld and a partially massless spin-2 ﬁeld” , Universe 9 (2023) 482, arXiv:2310.05522

arXiv 2023
[1]

Deser, A

S. Deser, A. Waldron ”Gauge Invariance and Phases of Massive Higher Spins in (A)d S”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 031601, arXiv:hep-th/0102166

arXiv 2001
[2]

Deser, A

S. Deser, A. Waldron ”Partial Masslessness of Higher Spins in (A)dS”, Nucl. Phys. B607 (2001) 577, arXiv:hep-th/0103198

arXiv 2001
[3]

Deser, A

S. Deser, A. Waldron ”Null Propagation of Partially Massless Higher Spins in (A)dS and Cosmological Constant Speculations”, Phys. Lett. B513 (2001) 137, arXiv:hep-th/0105181

arXiv 2001
[4]

Yu. M. Zinoviev ”On Massive High Spin Particles in (A)dS”, arXiv:hep-th/0108192

arXiv
[5]

R. R. Metsaev ”Gauge invariant formulation of massive totally symmetric fermionic ﬁelds in (A)dS space”, Phys. Lett. B643 (2006) 205-212, arXiv:hep-th/0609029

arXiv 2006
[6]

Metsaev ”Light-cone gauge massive and partially-massless ﬁelds in AdS(4)”, Phys

R.R. Metsaev ”Light-cone gauge massive and partially-massless ﬁelds in AdS(4)”, Phys. Lett. B 839 (2023) 137790, arXiv:2212.14728

arXiv 2023
[7]

Partial Masslessness and Conformal Gravity

S. Deser, E. Joung, A. Waldron ”Partial Masslessness and Conformal Gravity”, J. Phys. A46 (2013) 214019, arXiv:1208.1307

work page Pith review arXiv 2013

Show all 37 references

[8]

Deser, E

S. Deser, E. Joung, A. Waldron ”Gravitational- and Self- Coupling of Partially Massless Spin 2”, Phys. Rev. D86 (2012) 104004, arXiv:1301.4181. 17

2012 arXiv
[9]

S. F. Hassan, Angnis Schmidt-May, Mikael von Strauss ”Higher Derivative Gravity and Conformal Gravity From Bimetric and Partially Massless Bim etric Theory”, Universe 1 (2015) 092, arXiv:1303.6940

2015 arXiv
[10]

Yu. M. Zinoviev ”On massive spin 2 interactions”, Nucl. Phys. B770 (2007) 83-106, arXiv:hep-th/0609170

2007 arXiv
[11]

Yu. M. Zinoviev ”Massive spin-2 in the Fradkin-Vasiliev formalism. I. Part ially massless case”, Nucl. Phys. B886 (2014) 712, arXiv:1405.4065

2014 arXiv
[12]

Claudia de Rham, Sebastien Renaux-Petel ”Massive Gravity on de Sitter and Unique Candidate for Partially Massless Gravity”, JCAP 1301 (2013) 035, arXiv:1206.3482

2013 arXiv
[13]

S. F. Hassan, Angnis Schmidt-May, Mikael von Strauss ”On Partially Massless Bimetric Gravity”, Phys. Lett. B726 (2013) 834, arXiv:1208.1797

2013 arXiv
[14]

S. F. Hassan, Angnis Schmidt-May, Mikael von Strauss ”Bimetric Theory and Partial Masslessness with Lanczos-Lovelock Terms in Arbitrary Dim ensions”, Class. Quant. Grav. 30 (2103) 184010, arXiv:1212.4525

arXiv
[15]

Deser, M

S. Deser, M. Sandora, A. Waldron ”Nonlinear Partially Massless from Massive Grav- ity?”, Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 101501, arXiv:1301.5621

2013 arXiv
[16]

Rosen, Andrew J

Claudia de Rham, Kurt Hinterbichler, Rachel A. Rosen, Andrew J . Tolley ”Evidence for and Obstructions to Non-Linear Partially Massless Gravity ”, Phys. Rev. D88 (2013) 024003, arXiv:1302.0025

2013 arXiv
[17]

Taronna ”No unitary theory of PM spin two and grav- ity”, Phys

Euihun Joung, Wenliang Li, M. Taronna ”No unitary theory of PM spin two and grav- ity”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (2014) 091101, arXiv:1406.2335

2014 arXiv
[18]

Rosen ”A non-linear extension of the spin-2 partially massless symmetry”, JHEP 05 (2015) 042, arXiv:1410.8734

Sebastian Garcia-Saenz, Rachel A. Rosen ”A non-linear extension of the spin-2 partially massless symmetry”, JHEP 05 (2015) 042, arXiv:1410.8734

2015 arXiv
[19]

Rosen ”No-go for Partially Massless Spin-2 Yang-Mills”, JHEP 02 (2016) 043, arXiv:1511.03270

Sebastian Garcia-Saenz, Kurt Hinterbichler, Austin Joyce, Er mis Mitsou, Rachel A. Rosen ”No-go for Partially Massless Spin-2 Yang-Mills”, JHEP 02 (2016) 043, arXiv:1511.03270

2016 arXiv
[20]

Nicolas Boulanger, C´ edric Deﬀayet, Sebastian Garcia-Saenz, Lucas Traina ”A the- ory for multiple partially massless spin-2 ﬁelds”, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 101701, arXiv:1906.03868

2019 arXiv
[21]

Euihun Joung, Karapet Mkrtchyan, Gabriel Poghosyan ”Looking for partially-massless gravity”, JHEP 07 (2019) 116, arXiv:1904.05915

2019 arXiv
[22]

Charlotte Sleight, Massimo Taronna ”On the consistency of (partially-)massless matter couplings in de Sitter space”, JHEP 10 (2021) 156, arXiv:2106.00366

2021 arXiv
[23]

Nicolas Boulanger, Sebastian Garcia-Saenz, Songsong Pan, Lu cas Traina ”Cubic inter- actions for massless and partially massless spin-1 and spin -2 ﬁelds”, JHEP 11 (2024) 019, arXiv:2407.05865. 18

2024 arXiv
[24]

Rosen ”Supersymmetric Par- tially Massless Fields and Non-Unitary Superconformal Rep resentations”, JHEP 11 (2018) 166, arXiv:1810.01881

Sebastian Garcia-Saenz, Kurt Hinterbichler, Rachel A. Rosen ”Supersymmetric Par- tially Massless Fields and Non-Unitary Superconformal Rep resentations”, JHEP 11 (2018) 166, arXiv:1810.01881

2018 arXiv
[25]

I. L. Buchbinder, M. V. Khabarov, T. V. Snegirev, Yu. M. Zinov iev ”Lagrangian descrip- tion of the partially massless higher spin N=1 supermultipl ets in AdS4 space”, JHEP 08 (2019) 116, arXiv:1904.01959

2019 arXiv
[26]

Rosen ”N = 2 Supersymmetric Partially Massless Fields and Non-Unitary Superconformal Represen- tations”, JHEP 08 (2021) 115, arXiv:2011.05994

Noah Bittermann, Sebastian Garcia-Saenz, Kurt Hinterbichler , Rachel A. Rosen ”N = 2 Supersymmetric Partially Massless Fields and Non-Unitary Superconformal Represen- tations”, JHEP 08 (2021) 115, arXiv:2011.05994

2021 arXiv
[27]

I. L. Buchbinder, M.V. Khabarov, T. V. Snegirev, Yu. M. Zinovie v ”Lagrangian formu- lation of the massive higher spin N = 1 supermultiplets in AdS4 space”, Nucl. Phys. B942 (2019) 1-29, arXiv:1901.09637

2019 arXiv
[28]

Yu. M. Zinoviev ”On massive higher spin supermultiplets in d=4”, JHEP 10 (2024) 222, arXiv:2408.08674

2024 arXiv
[29]

Yu. M. Zinoviev ”Frame-like gauge invariant formulation for massive high s pin parti- cles”, Nucl. Phys. B808 (2009) 185, arXiv:0808.1778

2009 arXiv
[30]

D. S. Ponomarev, M. A. Vasiliev ”Frame-Like Action and Unfolded Formulation for Massive Higher-Spin Fields”, Nucl. Phys. B839 (2010) 466, arXiv:1001.0062

2010 arXiv
[31]

Khabarov, Yu

M.V. Khabarov, Yu. M. Zinoviev ”Massive higher spin ﬁelds in the frame-like multi- spinor formalism”, Nucl. Phys. B948 (2019) 114773, arXiv:1906.03438

2019 arXiv
[33]

Yu. M. Zinoviev ”On massive super(bi)gravity in the constructive approach ”, Class. Quant. Grav. 35 (2018) 175006, arXiv:1805.01650

2018 arXiv
[34]

Yu. M. Zinoviev ”On partially massless supergravity”, Phys. Part. Nucl. 49 (2018) 850

2018
[35]

M. V. Khabarov, Yu. M. Zinoviev ”Massive higher spin supermultiplets unfolded”, Nucl. Phys. B953 (2020) 114959, arXiv:2001.07903

2020 arXiv
[36]

Nicolas Boulanger, Cedric Deﬀayet, Sebastian Garcia-Saenz, L ucas Traina ”Consistent deformations of free massive ﬁeld theories in the Stueckelb erg formulation”, JHEP 07 (2018) 021, arXiv:1806.04695

2018 arXiv
[37]

Yu. M. Zinoviev ”On the Fradkin-Vasiliev formalism in d=4”, arXiv:2410.16798. 19

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [32]

Nicolas Boulanger, Guillaume Lhost, Sylvain Thom´ ee ”Consistent couplings between a massive spin-3/2 ﬁeld and a partially massless spin-2 ﬁeld” , Universe 9 (2023) 482, arXiv:2310.05522

arXiv 2023

[2] [1]

Deser, A

S. Deser, A. Waldron ”Gauge Invariance and Phases of Massive Higher Spins in (A)d S”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 031601, arXiv:hep-th/0102166

arXiv 2001

[3] [2]

Deser, A

S. Deser, A. Waldron ”Partial Masslessness of Higher Spins in (A)dS”, Nucl. Phys. B607 (2001) 577, arXiv:hep-th/0103198

arXiv 2001

[4] [3]

Deser, A

S. Deser, A. Waldron ”Null Propagation of Partially Massless Higher Spins in (A)dS and Cosmological Constant Speculations”, Phys. Lett. B513 (2001) 137, arXiv:hep-th/0105181

arXiv 2001

[5] [4]

Yu. M. Zinoviev ”On Massive High Spin Particles in (A)dS”, arXiv:hep-th/0108192

arXiv

[6] [5]

R. R. Metsaev ”Gauge invariant formulation of massive totally symmetric fermionic ﬁelds in (A)dS space”, Phys. Lett. B643 (2006) 205-212, arXiv:hep-th/0609029

arXiv 2006

[7] [6]

Metsaev ”Light-cone gauge massive and partially-massless ﬁelds in AdS(4)”, Phys

R.R. Metsaev ”Light-cone gauge massive and partially-massless ﬁelds in AdS(4)”, Phys. Lett. B 839 (2023) 137790, arXiv:2212.14728

arXiv 2023

[8] [7]

Partial Masslessness and Conformal Gravity

S. Deser, E. Joung, A. Waldron ”Partial Masslessness and Conformal Gravity”, J. Phys. A46 (2013) 214019, arXiv:1208.1307

work page Pith review arXiv 2013