Reassessing the foundations of Metric-Affine Gravity

J. Fran\c{c}ois; L. Ravera

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Reassessing the foundations of Metric-Affine Gravity

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Once the internal gauge translations of Metric-Affine Gravity are eliminated by the Dressing Field Method, the theory's kinematics is exactly the local Cartan-affine geometry of the frame bundle, not a genuine Yang-Mills gauge theory of…

desk verdict The DFM derivation is clean and worth having, but the paper's 'sole sound foundation' conclusion is undermined by its own field-dependent dressing example. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.05349 v2 pith:YPLOVVS2 submitted 2025-05-08 gr-qc hep-th

J. François , L. Ravera This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qchep-th MSC 83D0553C0581T13 PACS 04.50.Kd11.15.-q

keywords metric-affinegravitygaugetheoriesofCartangeometryDressingFieldMethodtranslationsPoincarétheorysolderingformartificialsymmetry

topics Yang-Mills Mass Gap

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

This paper argues that Metric-Affine Gravity (MAG) and Poincaré gravity, despite their usual presentation as Yang–Mills-type gauge theories of the affine group $GL(n)\ltimes T^n$ or the Poincaré group, are not genuine gauge theories of those groups. Using the Dressing Field Method, it eliminates the internal gauge-translation subgroup $T^n$ and shows that the resulting dressed kinematics—connection $(A,e)$ and curvature $(F,\Theta)$—is exactly the local kinematics of a Cartan-affine geometry on the frame bundle. This matters because it relocates the mathematical foundation of gauge gravity: one should start from Cartan geometry, where translation-like degrees of freedom appear as soldering rather than gauge potentials, and it clarifies the geometric status of "gauge translations" as artificial when introduced by hand. The paper also notes that a field-dependent dressing field built from matter would give $T^n$ substantive content, a route the standard MAG practice does not take.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the Dressing Field Method applied to the normal gauge subgroup $T^n$ of $GL(n)\ltimes T^n$. The dressing field is the $T^n$-valued map $u=(1,\xi)$, transforming as $u^T=T^{-1}u$, and the key relation is the dressed soldering form $e:=V+D\xi=V+d\xi+A\xi$, which the MAG literature calls the "key relation"; its curvature partner is $\Theta:=T+F\xi$. The method turns the bare fields into $T^n$-invariant dressed fields, and because $\xi$ transforms in the fundamental representation of $GL(n)$, the paper's Proposition 1 yields standard residual $GL(n)$ transformations. This is what identifies the dressed kinematics with a Cartan-affine geometry: the dressed connection is the local representative of a Cartan connection, whose defining property is the linear isomorphism $\bar\omega:TP\to\mathfrak g$, with the $T^n$-component providing soldering of the frame bundle to spacetime.

What would settle it

Construct two solutions of a MAG-type theory that share the same dressed soldering form $e=V+D\xi$ and connection $A$ but differ in the bare translation potential $V$, and show they have different observables; the paper's central claim implies such configurations are gauge-equivalent with no physical distinction, so any observable difference would falsify it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the dressed MAG kinematics obtained by applying the Dressing Field Method to the normal subgroup $T^n$ is just the local version of the Cartan-affine geometry $(P,\bar{\omega})$ on the frame bundle $P\to M$ with structure group $GL(n)$. Starting from the bare affine-gauge potential $\bar A=(A,V)$ and curvature $\bar F=(F,T)$, a $T^n$-dressing field $u=(1,\xi)$ produces dressed variables $\bar A^u=(A,e)$ with $e=V+D\xi$ and $\bar F^u=(F,\Theta)$ with $\Theta=T+F\xi$. These transform under the residual $GL(n)$ gauge group exactly as standard gauge fields, with $e$ serving as a soldering form that induces the spacetime metric and $\Theta$ as genuine torsion. Consequently, the paper claims, the elimination of gauge translations—performed in practice through the ad hoc "radius vector"—turns MAG and Poincaré gravity into Cartan-geometric theories; the translation symmetry is fake, not substantive.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion depends on the premise that the radius vector used to remove gauge translations is added by hand as an extra degree of freedom rather than built from the theory's own fields; if it were constructed from a matter field, the translation symmetry would be physically real and the central claim would fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

MAG and Poincaré-gravity Lagrangians are invariant under the residual $GL(n)$ or $SO(1,3)$ symmetry, not under the full affine or Poincaré group; so claims that these theories arise from gauging the latter are not literally correct.
The "radius vector" introduced in MAG to handle translations is exactly an ad hoc $T^n$-dressing field; in its presence the translation symmetry is artificial and carries no physical signature.
The dressed variables $e=V+D\xi$ and $\Theta=T+F\xi$ are the local soldering form and torsion of a Cartan-affine geometry, which is why the spacetime metric and torsion emerge from Cartan geometry rather than from translation gauge fields.
If instead one builds the dressing field from a dynamical matter field $X$, i.e. $u=u[X]$, the translation group acquires substantive content and residual transformations of the 2nd kind encode changes of reference frame; this is a consistent alternative that standard MAG does not pursue.
The same argument extends to conformal gauge gravity and supersymmetric generalizations: translation-like redundancies are artifacts of a Yang-Mills heuristic, and Cartan geometry supplies the sound foundation.

Reading between the lines

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

If the central claim is right, searches for physical effects of translational gauge charges in metric-affine theories are chasing a redundancy; observational constraints should instead be phrased in terms of torsion and nonmetricity as Cartan-geometric fields.
The field-dependent dressing route suggests a viable alternative research program: genuine $GL(n)\ltimes T^n$ gauge theories with matter in the fundamental representation, where relative translation degrees of freedom become observable through residual 2nd-kind transformations; this could be tested in N-body or cosmological settings.
One can turn the argument into a classification tool: any gravitational theory presented as gauging a group with a translation-like normal subgroup can be reduced by dressing, and the reduction either collapses to Cartan geometry (ad hoc dressing) or reveals physical translation-like degrees of freedom (field-dependent dressing).
A direct extension would apply the same dressing reduction to noncommutative or higher-group translations; the paper's framework predicts the same dichotomy there, but that is not established in the paper.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's my read. The DFM reduction in Section 4 is the real contribution: it derives the dressed MAG potential e = V + Dξ and curvature Θ = T + Fξ from a systematic reduction of the T^n gauge subgroup, rather than positing the radius vector ad hoc. The residual GL(n) transformations (26) are correctly computed, and the Section 2 SES argument properly separates gauge translations from diffeomorphisms, which is worth having on record. The mathematics is checkable and, as far as I can tell, sound.

The soft spot is the interpretive framing. The paper's categorical claim—that MAG is not a genuine gauge theory and that Cartan geometry is the sole sound foundation—does not follow from the DFM calculation. It depends on classifying the T^n dressing as ad hoc. The paper itself makes this clear in Section 5, where it distinguishes substantive from artificial gauge symmetries. But then it constructs a field-dependent dressing u[X] from the existing matter field X (Eqs. 27–30), which makes T^n substantive and generates residual transformations of the 2nd kind. The authors acknowledge this is 'not so bad' and could have empirical consequences, then set it aside because actual MAG model building eliminates T^n before writing Lagrangians. That is a descriptive claim about practice, not a proof that T^n must be fake. The stress-test note lands here correctly: what the paper shows is that MAG as usually practiced reduces to Cartan-affine kinematics under a particular dressing choice, not that this is the only possible choice.

I'd temper the conclusion to 'as usually formulated, MAG is Cartan geometry in disguise' and leave open the field-dependent alternative. The heavy self-citation is defensible—the DFM is their method—but a referee should push on the ad hoc premise. This is not a desk reject; it deserves a serious referee. I'd suggest the referee ask the authors to either weaken the 'sole sound foundation' claim or give a physical argument against field-dependent dressings, since the paper currently concedes the counter-case.

Useful for anyone working on gauge-theoretic gravity foundations, and the DFM derivation will likely be cited independently of the interpretive claims.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper argues that Metric-Affine Gravity (MAG) and Poincaré gravity, when the gauge translation subgroup T^n is eliminated via the Dressing Field Method (DFM), reduce to the kinematics of a Cartan-affine geometry on the frame bundle of spacetime. Section 2 reviews principal bundle geometry and the short exact sequence (Eq. (4)) to argue that gauge translations are vertical automorphisms and therefore cannot be identified with diffeomorphisms. Section 3 reviews the DFM, emphasizing the distinction between field-dependent dressing fields (which give substantive gauge symmetry) and ad hoc dressing fields (which make the symmetry artificial). Section 4 applies the DFM to MAG: with an ad hoc dressing field u (the radius vector, Eq. (21)), the dressed connection and curvature (Eqs. (22)-(23)) become standard GL(n) gauge fields, and the dressed soldering form e is identified with the familiar 'key relation' of MAG. Section 5 then discusses the status of T^n, acknowledging that a field-dependent dressing u[X] (Eqs. (27)-(30)) would give T^n substantive content, but dismissing this option as not what MAG/PG model building usually does. The paper concludes that the actual MAG kinematics is just the local version of a Cartan-affine geometry, and that Cartan geometry is the sole sound foundation for gauge theories of gravity.

Significance. The technical core of the paper is largely sound and useful. The SES argument in Eq. (4) correctly blocks the naive identification of gauge translations with diffeomorphisms, and the DFM computation in Section 4 is transparent: the dressed fields in Eqs. (22)-(23) and their residual transformations in Eq. (26) follow straightforwardly from the general DFM rules. The paper also provides a clear and honest treatment of the distinction between field-dependent and ad hoc dressings, and it explicitly acknowledges in Section 5 that a field-dependent dressing would change the conclusion. If the conditional version of the claim is accepted, the paper offers a clean derivation of a known structural fact: under the standard radius-vector elimination of T^n, MAG kinematics is Cartan-affine geometry. The significance of the paper is therefore real but narrower than its categorical framing suggests: it is a careful clarification of the status of gauge translations in MAG, not a proof that MAG 'cannot be understood as a genuine gauge theory' in all circumstances.

major comments (3)

[Section 5, Eqs. (27)-(30)] The paper's own field-dependent dressing u[X] contradicts the unconditional thesis stated in the abstract and Introduction. In Section 5 the authors construct u[X] from the matter field X and acknowledge that this gives T^n substantive content via residual transformations of the 2nd kind (Prop. 2, Eq. (10)); they even say 'This view is not so bad' and dismiss it only on the grounds that 'this is not what MAG/PG model building is usually about.' This is an appeal to practice, not a proof that T^n is fake. The derivation in Section 4 only supports the conditional claim: if one chooses the ad hoc radius-vector dressing of Eq. (21), then T^n is artificial and the dressed kinematics reduces to GL(n) Cartan geometry. Please rephrase the abstract, Introduction, and concluding section to state this conditionality explicitly, or provide an independent argument that excludes field-dependent dressings from consideration.
[Section 3 (definition of dressing field)] In Section 3 the paper states that 'a dressing field should be extracted/built from the (bare) field content' and that only then do the dressed fields 'have a natural interpretation as relational variables.' By this standard, the ad hoc radius-vector dressing used in Section 4 is not a dressing of the original MAG theory but an extension of it with new degrees of freedom, as the paper itself notes in connection with the Stueckelberg trick (footnote 4). Consequently, the claim that the DFM shows MAG kinematics 'reduces' to Cartan geometry conflates a genuine field-dependent dressing (which preserves T^n content) with a Stueckelberg-style extension (which changes the theory). The conclusion should explicitly distinguish these two operations and should not present the ad hoc choice as the unique DFM procedure.
[Section 2 (SES argument and conclusion)] The SES argument around Eq. (4) correctly shows that gauge translations are vertical automorphisms and hence act trivially on M; this is a solid technical result. However, the paper uses this to conclude that 'Cartan geometry is the sole sound foundation for gauge theories of gravity' and that gauging the affine or Poincaré groups is 'a priori misguided.' This is an evaluative step beyond the mathematics: the SES rules out identifying T^n with Diff(M), but it does not by itself rule out other frameworks, such as teleparallel gravity or Einstein-Cartan theory, in which a soldering form is introduced as an independent field rather than as a dressed translation potential. To make this part of the thesis load-bearing, the authors would need to define 'sound foundation' and show that Cartan geometry uniquely satisfies that definition among viable gravitational gauge frameworks; as written, it is an assertion rather than a consequence of the derivation.

minor comments (5)

[Section 3, Eq. (5)] The definition of the gauge group H is confusing as written; it should define H as the set of H-valued functions on U with pointwise multiplication, and separately define the adjoint action ηγ := γ^{-1} η γ. The current notation `H := {γ, η : U → H | ηγ := γ^{-1} η γ}` suggests the group is defined by the conjugation action, which is not the case.
[Section 4, text before Eq. (17)] The phrase 'the local, field-theoretical representatives of an Ehresmann connection' should be 'the local, field-theoretical representative' (singular), since it refers to the single potential ¯A.
[Section 4.1, after Eq. (24)] The notation ¯Du ¯Xu is introduced without explaining the meaning of the subscript u on the covariant derivative; please add a brief explanation that it is the covariant derivative built from the dressed connection.
[Section 5, first paragraph] The phrasing 'ad hoc dressing field u/radius vector' is informal; consider writing 'ad hoc dressing field u, i.e., the radius vector' for clarity.
[Throughout] The phrase 'a priori' is used in multiple senses (e.g., 'a priori kinematical setup' and 'a priori misguided'); consider using clearer alternatives to avoid ambiguity.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The mathematical reduction of MAG kinematics to Cartan geometry is self-contained, but the 'not a genuine gauge theory' conclusion rests on the authors' own artificial-vs-substantive symmetry criterion and is explicitly conditional on the ad hoc choice of dressing field.

self citation load bearing [Section 5, first paragraph (after Eqs. (21)-(26))]
"But according to the DFM, this means that in MAG (and PG), which is thus the bare GL(n) ⋉ T n kinematics supplemented by an ad hoc dressing field u/radius vector, T n is an artificial gauge symmetry – also called 'fake' gauge symmetry by [50] – with no physical signature."

The classification of T^n as 'artificial' is not derived from the DFM equations; it is imported from the authors' earlier substantive-vs-artificial criterion (refs [35,47]). The paper itself concedes in Section 5 that a field-dependent dressing u[X] built from the existing field X (Eqs. (27)-(30)) would give T^n substantive content through residual transformations of the 2nd kind, and even remarks that this 'is not so bad'. Thus the conclusion that MAG/PG are not genuine gauge theories is not a forced consequence of the computation; it depends on the premise that the only admissible dressing is the ad hoc radius vector.

full rationale

The core dressed-kinematics derivation in Section 4 is self-contained: Eqs. (21)-(23) and (26) are direct computations from the DFM definitions, and the residual GL(n) transformations follow from Proposition 1. No parameter is fitted, no benchmark is needed, and the identification of e := V + Dξ with the Cartan soldering form is algebraic rather than assumed. The paper is also honest about the main limitation: it explicitly acknowledges that a field-dependent dressing u[X] would make T^n substantive, so the 'not a genuine gauge theory' thesis is conditional on MAG practice using an ad hoc radius vector. The circularity is located in the interpretive layer: calling T^n 'fake' invokes the authors' earlier artificial-vs-substantive criterion ([35,47]), and the 'Cartan geometry is the sole sound foundation' framing leans on the authors' own Cartan-geometry review [31]. These self-citations are load-bearing for the normative conclusion but not for the mathematical reduction, hence the score is moderate rather than high.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's derivation relies on standard bundle geometry and the standard MAG kinematic setup, plus the existence and status of a T^n dressing field. There are no fitted parameters and no invented entities. The largest unstated load is the premise that MAG practitioners treat the dressing field ad hoc, which the paper argues from [23] but does not prove for the whole literature.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The MAG gauge group is GL(n) ⋉ T^n with composition (G,t)·(G',t')=(GG', t+Gt').
Section 4, Eqs. (11)-(12); standard MAG kinematics from [23].
domain assumption The MAG potential and field strength have the block matrix form (16) and transform under the gauge group as in (17).
Section 4, Eqs. (16)-(17); standard definitions in the MAG literature.
domain assumption A T^n dressing field u = (1, ξ) exists with transformation u^T = T^{-1}u.
Section 4.1, Eq. (21); existence of the dressing field is the key step. In the ad hoc view it is the radius vector; in the relational view it is built from X.
domain assumption In standard MAG practice the dressing field is ad hoc, not built from the bare fields.
Section 5; the paper asserts MAG model building starts only after eliminating T^n and that the radius vector is introduced by hand, citing [23].
standard math T^n is a normal subgroup of GL(n) ⋉ T^n, so the residual gauge group is the quotient GL(n).
Semidirect product structure used in Section 4.2 to apply Proposition 1 for residual transformations.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reassessing the foundations of Metric-Affine Gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YPLOVVS2

@misc{pith2026250505349,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reassessing the foundations of Metric-Affine Gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YPLOVVS2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.05349}
}

read the original abstract

We reassess foundational aspects of Metric-Affine Gravity (MAG) in light of the Dressing Field Method, a tool allowing to systematically build gauge-invariant field variables. To get MAG started, one has to deal with the problem of "gauge translations". We first recall that Cartan geometry is the proper mathematical foundation for gauge theories of gravity, and that this problem never arises in that framework, which still allows to clarify the geometric status of gauge translations. Then, we show how the MAG kinematics is obtained via dressing in a technically streamlined way, which highlights that it reduces to a Cartan-geometric kinematics.

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

Toward Manifest Relationality in Transformers via Symmetry Reduction
cs.LG 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Transformer attention and parameter optimization can be rewritten on symmetry-reduced relational variables (Gram matrices and invariant parameter composites), removing coordinate redundancies by construction.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

T. T. Wu and C. N. Y ang. Concept of Nonintegrable Phase Fac tors and Global Formulation of Gauge Fields. Phys. Rev. D, 12:3845–3857, 1975

work page 1975
[2]

Hamilton

M. Hamilton. Mathematical Gauge Theory: With Applications to the Standa rd Model of Particle Physics . Universitext. Springer, 1 edition, 2018

work page 2018
[3]

Franc ¸ois

J. Franc ¸ois. Diﬀerential geometry of gauge theory: an introduction. PoS, Modave 2020:002, 2021

work page 2020
[4]

Trautman

A. Trautman. Fiber Bundles, Gauge Field and Gravitation, in General Rela tivity and Gravitation, volume 1. Plenum Press, New-Y ork, 1979

work page 1979
[5]

Eguchi, P

T. Eguchi, P . Gilkey, and A. Hanson. Gravitation, gauge t heories and di ﬀerential geometry. Physics Reports, 66(6):213 – 393, 1980

work page 1980
[6]

G¨ ockeler and T

M. G¨ ockeler and T. Sch¨ ucker.Diﬀerential Geometry, Gauge Theory and Gravity. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press, 1987

work page 1987
[7]

Unzicker and T

A. Unzicker and T. Case. Translation of einstein’s attem pt of a uniﬁed ﬁeld theory with teleparallelism, 2005

work page 2005
[8]

T. Sauer. Field equations in teleparallel space–time: E instein’s fernparallelismus approach toward uniﬁed ﬁeld theory. Historia Mathematica, 33(4):399–439, 2006. Special Issue on Geometry and its Use s in Physics, 1900-1930

work page 2006

Show all 51 references

[9]

H. Weyl. Gravitation and the electron. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 15(4):323–334, 1929

1929
[10]

O’Raifeartaigh

L. O’Raifeartaigh. The Dawning of Gauge Theory . Princeton Series in Physics. Princeton University Press, 1997

1997
[11]

C. N. Y ang and R. L. Mills. Conservation of isotopic spin and isotopic gauge invariance. Phys. Rev., 96:191– 195, Oct 1954

1954
[12]

R. Utiyama. Invariant Theoretical Interpretation of I nteraction. Phys. Rev., 101:1597–1607, Mar 1956

1956
[13]

T. W. B. Kibble. Lorentz invariance and the gravitation al ﬁeld. Journal of Mathematical Physics , 2(2):212– 221, 1961

1961
[14]

D. W. Sciama. The physical structure of general relativ ity. Rev. Mod. Phys., 36:463–469, Jan 1964

1964
[15]

Y . Ne’eman. Gauge theories of gravity. Acta Phys. Polon. B, 29:827–843, 1998

1998
[16]

S. W. McDowell and F. Mansouri. Uniﬁed geometric theory of gravity and supergravity. Physical Review Letters, 38:739–742, 1977

1977
[17]

M. Kaku, P . K. Townsend, and P . V an Nieuwenhuizen. Gauge theory of the conformal and superconformal group. Phys. Lett., 69B:304–308, 1977

1977
[18]

F. W. Hehl and Y . N. Obukhov. Conservation of Energy-Mom entum of Matter as the Basis for the Gauge Theory of Gravitation. Fundam. Theor . Phys., 199:217–252, 2020

2020
[19]

Y . N. Obukhov. Poincare gauge gravity: Selected topics . Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. , 3:95–138, 2006

2006
[20]

E. W. Mielke. Geometrodynamics of Gauge Fields. On the Geometry of Yang-M ills and Gravitational Gauge Theories. Mathematical Physics Studies. Springer, 2017

2017
[21]

Y . N. Obukhov. Poincar´ e gauge gravity: An overview. Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. , 15(supp01):1840005, 2018. 12

2018
[22]

F. W. Hehl. Four Lectures on Poincar´ e Gauge Field Theor y. In International School of Cosmology and Gravitation: Spin, Torsion, Rotation and Supergravity , 2023

2023
[23]

F. W. Hehl, J. D. McCrea, E. W. Mielke, and Y . Ne’eman. Met ric-aﬃne gauge theory of gravity: ﬁeld equations, noether identities, world spinors, and breakin g of dilation invariance. Physics Reports, 258(1):1– 171, 1995

1995
[24]

F. W. Hehl and A. Macias. Metric a ﬃne gauge theory of gravity. 2. Exact solutions. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D , 8:399–416, 1999

1999
[25]

Vitagliano, T

V . Vitagliano, T. P . Sotiriou, and S. Liberati. The dynamics of metric-a ﬃne gravity. Annals Phys., 326:1259– 1273, 2011. [Erratum: Annals Phys. 329, 186–187 (2013)]

2013
[26]

Percacci

R. Percacci. Towards Metric-A ﬃne Quantum Gravity. Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. , 17(supp01):2040003, 2020

2020
[27]

Blagojevi´ c, F

M. Blagojevi´ c, F. W. Hehl, and T. W. B. Kibble.Gauge Theories of Gravitation. Imperial College Press, 2013

2013
[28]

Kobayashi

S. Kobayashi. Transformation Groups in Diﬀerential Geometry. Springer, 1972

1972
[29]

R. W. Sharpe. Diﬀerential Geometry: Cartan’s Generalization of Klein’s Erl angen Program, volume 166 of Graduate text in Mathematics. Springer, 1996

1996
[30]

Cap and J

A. Cap and J. Slov´ ak. Parabolic Geometries I: Background and General Theory , volume 1 of Mathematical Surveys and Monographs. American Mathematical Society, 2009

2009
[31]

Franc ¸ois and L

J. Franc ¸ois and L. Ravera. Cartan geometry, supergrav ity, and group manifold approach. Archivum Math., 60:4, 2024

2024
[32]

Kobayashi

S. Kobayashi. On connections of cartan. Canadian Journal of Mathematics, 8:145–156, 1956

1956
[33]

C. M. Marle. The works of Charles Ehresmann on connections: from Cartan c onnections to connections on ﬁbre bundles, in Geometry and Topology of Manifolds , volume 76. Banach Center Publication, 2007

2007
[34]

Franc ¸ois

J. Franc ¸ois. Reduction of gauge symmetries: a new geometrical approach . Thesis, Aix-Marseille Universit´ e, September 2014

2014
[35]

J. T. Franc ¸ois and L. Ravera. Geometric relational fra mework for general-relativistic gauge ﬁeld theories. F ortschritte der Physik, page 2400149, 2024 /12/17 2024

2024
[36]

Franc ¸ois and L

J. Franc ¸ois and L. Ravera. Dressing ﬁelds for supersym metry: the cases of the Rarita-Schwinger and gravitino ﬁelds. Journal of High Energy Physics , 2024(7):41, 2024

2024
[37]

Franc ¸ois and L

J. Franc ¸ois and L. Ravera. Relational Supersymmetry a nd Matter-Interaction Supergeometric Framework. arXiv:2503.19077 [hep-th], 2025

2025 arXiv
[38]

Franc ¸ois and L

J. Franc ¸ois and L. Ravera. Oﬀ-shell supersymmetry via manifest invariance. arXiv:2504.06392 [hep-th], 2025

2025 arXiv
[39]

Franc ¸ois and L

J. Franc ¸ois and L. Ravera. There is no boundary problem . arXiv:2504.20945 [gr-qc], 2025

2025
[40]

P . D. Alvarez, M. V alenzuela, and J. Zanelli. Supersymm etry of a di ﬀerent kind. JHEP, 04:058, 2012

2012
[41]

P . D. Alvarez, L. Delage, M. V alenzuela, and J. Zanelli. Unconventional SUSY and Conventional Physics: A Pedagogical Review. Symmetry, 13(4):628, 2021

2021
[42]

P . D. Alvarez, P . Pais, and J. Zanelli. Unconventional supersymmetry and its breaking. Phys. Lett. B, 735:314– 321, 2014

2014
[43]

Franc ¸ois and L

J. Franc ¸ois and L. Ravera. Unconventional Supersymmetry via the Dressing Field Method. arXiv:2412.01898 [hep-th], 2024. 13

2024 arXiv
[44]

Kobayashi

S. Kobayashi. Theory of connections. Annali di Matematica Pura ed Applicata , 43(1):119–194, December 1957

1957
[45]

Franc ¸ois and L

J. Franc ¸ois and L. Ravera. On the Meaning of Local Symme tries: Epistemic-Ontological Dialectic. Accepted for publication in F oundations of Physics, arXiv:2404.17449 [physics.hist-ph], 2025

2025 arXiv
[46]

Berghofer and J

P . Berghofer and J. Franc ¸ois. Dressing vs. ﬁxing: On ho w to extract and interpret gauge-invariant content. F oundations of Physics, 54(6):72, 2024

2024
[47]

Franc ¸ois

J. Franc ¸ois. Artiﬁcial versus Substantial Gauge Symm etries: A Criterion and an Application to the Elec- troweak Model. Philosophy of Science, 86(3):472–496, 2019

2019
[48]

Franc ¸ois and L

J. Franc ¸ois and L. Ravera. Relational bundle geometri c formulation of non-relativistic quantum mechanics. arXiv:2501.02046 [quant-ph], 2025

2025 arXiv
[49]

Trautman

A. Trautman. On the structure of the Einstein-Cartan eq uations. Symp. Math., 12:139–162, 1973

1973
[50]

Jackiw and S

R. Jackiw and S. Y . Pi. Fake conformal symmetry in confor mal cosmological models. Phys. Rev. D , 91:067501, Mar 2015

2015
[51]

Franc ¸ois

J. Franc ¸ois. Dilaton from tractor and matter ﬁeld from twistor. Journal of High Energy Physics , 2019(6):18, June 2019. 14

2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

T. T. Wu and C. N. Y ang. Concept of Nonintegrable Phase Fac tors and Global Formulation of Gauge Fields. Phys. Rev. D, 12:3845–3857, 1975

work page 1975

[2] [2]

Hamilton

M. Hamilton. Mathematical Gauge Theory: With Applications to the Standa rd Model of Particle Physics . Universitext. Springer, 1 edition, 2018

work page 2018

[3] [3]

Franc ¸ois

J. Franc ¸ois. Diﬀerential geometry of gauge theory: an introduction. PoS, Modave 2020:002, 2021

work page 2020

[4] [4]

Trautman

A. Trautman. Fiber Bundles, Gauge Field and Gravitation, in General Rela tivity and Gravitation, volume 1. Plenum Press, New-Y ork, 1979

work page 1979

[5] [5]

Eguchi, P

T. Eguchi, P . Gilkey, and A. Hanson. Gravitation, gauge t heories and di ﬀerential geometry. Physics Reports, 66(6):213 – 393, 1980

work page 1980

[6] [6]

G¨ ockeler and T

M. G¨ ockeler and T. Sch¨ ucker.Diﬀerential Geometry, Gauge Theory and Gravity. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press, 1987

work page 1987

[7] [7]

Unzicker and T

A. Unzicker and T. Case. Translation of einstein’s attem pt of a uniﬁed ﬁeld theory with teleparallelism, 2005

work page 2005

[8] [8]

T. Sauer. Field equations in teleparallel space–time: E instein’s fernparallelismus approach toward uniﬁed ﬁeld theory. Historia Mathematica, 33(4):399–439, 2006. Special Issue on Geometry and its Use s in Physics, 1900-1930

work page 2006