Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 2 cited by

Interactions of a Continuous-Spin Field with a Spin-1/2 Particle

T0 review · 4 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 Spin-1/2 matter can couple to a continuous-spin field through superfield currents that satisfy the CSP continuity condition and reduce to Yukawa and QED interactions in the limit $\rho\to 0$.

desk verdict The scalar-like current in Eq. (3.8) is new and works, but the main vector-like current in Eq. (3.10) fails the paper's own continuity condition, so the central result does not hold as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.14770 v1 pith:SUU7RGWZ submitted 2025-05-20 hep-th hep-ph

Shayarneel Kundu , Alessandro Russo , Philip Schuster , Natalia Toro This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thhep-ph
keywords continuous-spinparticlesworldlineformalismsupersymmetricspin-1/2matterCSPcurrentsspinCasimirQEDdeviationsYukawainteraction
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

Continuous-spin particles (CSPs) are the most general massless particles allowed by Lorentz symmetry, carrying a continuous parameter $\rho$ and an infinite tower of helicity states rather than a single fixed spin. This paper asks whether a spin-1/2 fermion can couple to such a field without violating the constraints needed for a consistent interaction. Working in the supersymmetric worldline formalism, it constructs one scalar-like and one vector-like current that both satisfy the CSP continuity condition and are invariant under worldline supersymmetry. In the limit $\rho\to 0$, these currents become the familiar Yukawa and QED currents for spin-1/2 matter. If the construction is sound, there is no principled obstruction to CSPs interacting with matter that has spin, and the currents provide a starting point for computing small deviations from QED should the photon be a CSP.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a pair of superfield current elements in $\eta$-space, each carrying an exponential phase factor $e^{-i\rho\, \eta\cdot D_\tau X/(k\cdot D_\tau X)}$. This phase is chosen so that the operator $(-ik\cdot\partial_\eta + \rho)$ annihilates the current, which is exactly the continuity condition (3.7) that keeps the CSP from being sourced in unphysical modes. Supersymmetry invariance is guaranteed by the worldline superfield structure: $X^\mu$ and the auxiliary $\tilde{X}$ are weight-0 superfields, their covariant derivatives $D_\theta$ and $D_\tau$ are defined to return weight-0 superfields, and integrals $\int d\tau\, d\theta\, \sqrt{\Lambda}$ of weight-1 products are SUSY-invariant. The scalar-like current uses $\tilde{X}$ to carry the fermion spin, while the vector-like current contains Grassmann-odd $D_\theta X$ factors, which is the mechanism by which the particle's spin couples to the CSP's spin structure.

What would settle it

By explicitly substituting the component currents (3.9) and (3.12) into the eta-space action (3.1) and computing a tree-level 2-to-2 fermion-CSP amplitude, one could check whether the resulting S-matrix respects perturbative unitarity and causality for arbitrarily small $\rho$; violation of either would show that the formal identities are not enough to define a consistent coupling.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the $\eta$-space formulation of Abelian bosonic CSP fields, the paper constructs the first currents coupling a CSP to spin-1/2 matter. The central objects are the current elements of equations (3.8) and (3.10), weight-0 superfields on the worldline, $$ j_S = \tilde{X}\, $e^{{-i\rho\, \eta\cdot D_\tau X/(k\cdot D_\tau X)}}$, \qquad j_V = \sqrt{2}\, $e^{{-i\rho\, \eta\cdot D_\tau X/(k\cdot D_\tau X)}}$ \left[ \eta\cdot D_\$\theta$ X + (k\cdot D_\$\theta$ X)\, i\rho\left(-i\rho\, \frac{\eta\cdot D_\tau X}{k\cdot D_\tau X} - 1\right) \right] . $$ The exponential phase factor makes $(-ik\cdot\partial_\eta + \rho)j=0$ hold, which is the mode-space form of the CSP continuity condition; building $j$ from weight-0 superfields guarantees local worldline supersymmetry. The component expressions (3.9) and (3.12) show how the Grassmann-odd spin variables enter, including $\psi$-dependent and antisymmetric $\eta k$-structures in the vector current. As $\rho\to 0$, the scalar current reduces to the worldline Yukawa current and the vector current reduces to the QED current, so the new couplings are continuous deformations of familiar interactions.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes, without proving it, that satisfying the CSP continuity condition and worldline supersymmetry is sufficient to guarantee that the coupling does not excite unphysical modes of the CSP or the matter; if additional consistency conditions are needed, these currents would not by themselves define a complete physical theory.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At energies much larger than $\rho$, the CSP interaction is dominated by a single primary helicity mode, so the vector-like current reproduces QED-like physics with the extra helicity tower affecting mainly deep-infrared phenomena.
  • In the $\rho\to 0$ limit, the scalar-like and vector-like currents reduce exactly to the Yukawa and QED currents, so the new physics is a smooth deformation of known couplings rather than a discontinuous new interaction.
  • Because the currents are local along the worldline, they can be used to define perturbative vertex operators and to compute on-shell amplitudes with four or more external particles, extending the scalar-matter CSP QED program to spin-1/2 matter.
  • The component-form currents (3.9) and (3.12) are ready to be inserted into $\eta$-space actions for phenomenological studies of spin-1/2 systems, including thermodynamic and rare-transition probes of a photon with small nonzero $\rho$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Our inference: because the $1/\rho$ term in the vector current is a total derivative that drops out of the action, the leading new physics is likely $\rho$-suppressed; this suggests precision low-energy QED measurements rather than high-energy collisions are the cleanest way to bound a photon CSP parameter.
  • Our inference: the spin-dependent terms in the currents suggest that spin-polarized observables, such as fermion spin precession, scattering asymmetries, or spin-dependent energy shifts, could be unusually sensitive probes of small $\rho$ because the leading corrections are tied to the Grassmann-odd $\psi^\mu$ factors.
  • Our inference: the same superfield construction may extend to $N=2$ worldline supersymmetry for a standard helicity-1 photon interacting with a CSP; the paper notes that on-shell three-particle amplitudes with two CSPs and a standard massless particle face obstructions, and an off-shell worldline vertex approach could sidestep them.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper extends the supersymmetric worldline formalism, previously used for scalar matter coupled to continuous-spin fields (CSPs), to spin-1/2 matter. It proposes two currents: a scalar-like current in Eq. (3.8), which reduces to a Yukawa coupling as the spin Casimir rho goes to zero, and a vector-like current in Eq. (3.10), which is claimed to reduce to QED. The central claim is that both currents satisfy the CSP continuity condition (3.7) and worldline supersymmetry, so that they define consistent Abelian CSP couplings to spin-1/2 particles. The paper concludes that no principled obstruction exists to such couplings and suggests phenomenological applications.

Significance. If the vector-like current were correct, this would be a useful step toward CSP phenomenology with fermionic matter and would complement the existing scalar-matter constructions in Refs. [4,5]. The scalar-like current (3.8) appears straightforward and likely satisfies the stated continuity condition. However, the vector-like current (3.10), which is the physically important QED-like case, does not satisfy the paper's own defining condition (3.7). A direct substitution gives a nonzero worldline superfield remainder, and the integrated remainder vanishes only on free on-shell worldlines, not as an operator identity. Because the main new result is invalid as stated, the paper's central conclusion is not established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (3.10)] The vector-like current (3.10) does not satisfy the continuity condition (3.7). Acting with (-i k·d_eta + rho) on (3.10) gives -i(1+rho^2) sqrt(2) exp(-i rho r) (k·D_theta X), with r = (eta·D_tau X)/(k·D_tau X). This remainder is not zero as a superfield and is not a total derivative in theta; its integral over the worldline vanishes only on free on-shell trajectories such as k·z_dot = 0 with the fermion constraint imposed, not as an operator identity on off-shell worldlines. Thus the current (3.10) fails the condition that the paper itself states is required for a consistent CSP coupling, and the claimed rho -> 0 QED limit is not a conserved current.
  2. [Section 3.2, Eq. (3.11)] The small-rho expansion displayed in Eq. (3.11) does not follow from Eq. (3.10). Expanding the phase factor in (3.10) to first order in rho gives -i rho sqrt(2)[r (eta·D_theta X) + (k·D_theta X)], up to sign conventions, but Eq. (3.11) contains a term proportional to r^2 (k·D_theta X) and no (k·D_theta X) term with the same rho order. This mismatch means the leading correction to the vector interaction, which is the main phenomenological output, is not correctly derived from the proposed current.
  3. [Section 3.2, text after Eq. (3.10)] The statement that the term proportional to 1/rho in the small-rho expansion is a total derivative and therefore does not contribute to the action is asserted without proof. This claim is load-bearing because it is needed to make the expansion finite as rho -> 0. No total-derivative identity or integration-by-parts argument is supplied, and in view of the failure of (3.10) to satisfy the continuity condition, the assertion needs explicit verification before the expansion can be trusted.
  4. [Section 3.1, Eq. (3.7)] The paper assumes that satisfying the local continuity condition (3.7) together with worldline supersymmetry is sufficient to guarantee that the interaction does not excite unphysical modes of the CSP or the matter. This sufficiency is stated in Section 3.1 but never demonstrated. If these conditions are necessary but not sufficient, then even a corrected current would not by itself establish a consistent physical coupling, and the conclusion of Section 4 would require additional analysis.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1, after Eq. (3.3)] The cross-reference in the sentence preceding Eq. (3.4), which refers to Eq. (3.8) for the scalar current, should point to Eq. (2.22); Eq. (3.8) is defined later in Section 3.2.
  2. [Section 3.2, Eq. (3.12)] The component-space expression (3.12) is presented without derivation and does not obviously match the superfield current (3.10); in particular, the displayed - (k·z_dot)/rho term and the four-index eta,k tensor structure need to be reconciled with the worldline superfield expansion. Please provide the component reduction or clarify the notation.
  3. [References] Reference [58] is listed with the same arXiv identifier as Ref. [57] (2406.17017); the entry appears to contain an incorrect identifier or duplicate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the currents are constructed to satisfy the stated continuity and SUSY conditions, and the rho→0 QED/Yukawa limits are imposed benchmarks, not fitted predictions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation is a construction, not a fit or a self-referential derivation. The central requirements—the CSP continuity condition (3.7) and worldline supersymmetry—are stated as defining constraints, and the currents in (3.8) and (3.10) are presented as solutions built from an explicit ansatz inspired by the temporal currents of [4]. The reduction to Yukawa and QED couplings at rho→0 is a design criterion stated before the currents are introduced, not a prediction extracted from them. The eta-space formalism is imported from the authors' prior work [3,4], but it is used as a framework rather than as a theorem whose conclusion is the existence of spin-1/2 CSP currents; no load-bearing step reduces to a self-citation. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no equation is shown to be equivalent to another purely by construction beyond the intended constraint-solving. Even if one doubts whether (3.10) actually satisfies (3.7), that is a correctness question, not evidence of circularity. The paper is therefore not circular in the sense defined here.

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

The central construction rests on two established formalisms (the supersymmetric worldline and the eta-space gauge theory) plus a sufficiency assumption about local current conditions. No numerical parameters are fitted, and no new particles or entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The eta-space gauge theory of [3,4], including analytic continuation of [d^4 eta] integrals and the delta-prime projection, is a valid framework for CSP couplings.
    Invoked in Section 3.1 for the action (3.1) and the continuity condition (3.2); the paper does not rederive or justify the distributional calculus for the new spin-1/2 currents.
  • domain assumption The 0+1 dimensional local supersymmetric worldline action (2.1) from [59,60] correctly quantizes to a massless spin-1/2 particle with constraints p^2 = 0 and p dot psi = 0.
    Section 2.1 summarizes the quantization; the underlying derivation is cited, not repeated.
  • ad hoc to paper Local worldline SUSY invariance plus the CSP continuity condition is sufficient to ensure that the interaction does not excite unphysical modes.
    Section 3.1 and Section 3.2 assert this sufficiency without proving it, and the paper later frames the conclusion as evidence rather than a theorem.
  • standard math The covariant derivative operators D_theta and D_tau defined in (2.13) are the unique operators satisfying the stated covariance requirements and multiplication rule for weight-0 superfields.
    Section 2.2 uses these operators to build SUSY-invariant actions; uniqueness and covariance are stated without proof.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Interactions of a Continuous-Spin Field with a Spin-1/2 Particle." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SUU7RGWZ

@misc{pith2026250514770,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Interactions of a Continuous-Spin Field with a Spin-1/2 Particle},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SUU7RGWZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.14770}
}
abstract

We introduce a formalism for coupling a bosonic Continuous-Spin field to familiar spin-1/2 matter. To do this, we describe the matter using the supersymmetric worldline formalism. We construct currents that are local functions of worldline kinematics, and respect both the worldline supersymmetry and the conservation condition required for consistent couplings to Abelian CSP fields. As the spin Casimir $\rho$ of the CSP vanishes, the interactions reduce to that of familiar QED in one case, and to a Yukawa interaction with a spin-1/2 fermion in another case. Our formalism is applicable to computing deviations from QED if the photon is a CSP, thereby enabling a range of phenomenological studies.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. BRST-BV approach to fields in Poincare patch of AdS

    hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

    A universal BRST-BV Lagrangian for free AdS fields is obtained by solving algebraic defining equations for spin operators, with explicit solutions for totally symmetric integer-spin and continuous-spin fields.

  2. Hydrogen 21 cm Constraints on the Photon's Spin Scale

    hep-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A continuous-spin photon would suppress the hydrogen 21cm transition rate by 1 minus rho squared alpha squared over 6 omega squared, which turns existing in-beam hyperfine data into the bound rho below 1 meV.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [4]

    Interactions of Particles with ”Continuous Spin” Fields

    Philip Schuster, Natalia Toro, and Kevin Zhou. Interactions of Particles with ”Continuous Spin” Fields. JHEP, 04:010, 2023. doi: 10.1007/JHEP04(2023)010

    doi:10.1007/jhep04(2023)010 2023

  2. [58]

    R. R. Metsaev. Interacting massive/massless continuous-spin fields and integer-spin fields. arXiv:2406.17017 [hep-th], May 2025

    arXiv 2025

  3. [1]

    Eugene P. Wigner. On Unitary Representations of the Inhomogeneous Lorentz Group. Annals Math., 40:149–204, 1939. doi: 10.2307/1968551

    doi:10.2307/1968551 1939

  4. [2]

    On the Theory of Continuous-Spin Particles: Helicity Correspondence in Radiation and Forces.JHEP, 09:105, 2013

    Philip Schuster and Natalia Toro. On the Theory of Continuous-Spin Particles: Helicity Correspondence in Radiation and Forces.JHEP, 09:105, 2013. doi: 10.1007/JHEP09(2013)105

    doi:10.1007/jhep09(2013)105 2013

  5. [3]

    Continuous-spin particle field theory with helicity correspondence

    Philip Schuster and Natalia Toro. Continuous-spin particle field theory with helicity correspondence. Phys. Rev. D , 91:025023, 2015. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.025023

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.91.025023 2015

  6. [5]

    Quantum electrodynamics mediated by a photon with continuous spin

    Philip Schuster and Natalia Toro. Quantum electrodynamics mediated by a photon with continuous spin. Phys. Rev. D , 109(9):096008, 2024. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.096008

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.096008 2024

  7. [6]

    A First Look at ”Continuous Spin” Gravity – Time Delay Signatures

    Shayarneel Kundu, Philip Schuster, and Natalia Toro. A First Look at ”Continuous Spin” Gravity – Time Delay Signatures. arXiv:2503.03817 [gr-qc], March 2025

    arXiv 2025

  8. [7]

    On the Theory of Continuous-Spin Particles: Wavefunctions and Soft-Factor Scattering Amplitudes.JHEP, 09:104, 2013

    Philip Schuster and Natalia Toro. On the Theory of Continuous-Spin Particles: Wavefunctions and Soft-Factor Scattering Amplitudes.JHEP, 09:104, 2013. doi: 10.1007/JHEP09(2013)104

    doi:10.1007/jhep09(2013)104 2013

Show all 70 references
  1. [8]

    Unified formulation for helicity and continuous spin fermionic fields.JHEP, 11:050, 2018

    Konstantin Alkalaev, Alexander Chekmenev, and Maxim Grigoriev. Unified formulation for helicity and continuous spin fermionic fields.JHEP, 11:050, 2018. doi: 10.1007/JHEP11(2018)050

    2018 doi

  2. [9]

    R. R. Metsaev. Fermionic continuous spin gauge field in (A)dS space.Phys. Lett. B , 773: 135–141, 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2017.08.020

    2017 doi

  3. [10]

    Bekaert, M

    X. Bekaert, M. Najafizadeh, and M. R. Setare. A gauge field theory of fermionic Continuous-Spin Particles. Phys. Lett. B , 760:320–323, 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2016.07.005

    2016 doi

  4. [11]

    L. P. S. Singh and C. R. Hagen. Lagrangian formulation for arbitrary spin. 2. The fermion case. Phys. Rev. D , 9:910–920, 1974. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.9.910

    1974 doi

  5. [12]

    R. R. Metsaev. Cubic interaction vertices for massive/massless continuous-spin fields and arbitrary spin fields. JHEP, 12:055, 2018. doi: 10.1007/JHEP12(2018)055

    2018 doi

  6. [13]

    Continuous-spin field propagator and interaction with matter.JHEP, 11:113, 2017

    Xavier Bekaert, Jihad Mourad, and Mojtaba Najafizadeh. Continuous-spin field propagator and interaction with matter.JHEP, 11:113, 2017. doi: 10.1007/JHEP11(2017)113

    2017 doi

  7. [14]

    R. R. Metsaev. Cubic interaction vertices for continuous-spin fields and arbitrary spin massive fields. JHEP, 11:197, 2017. doi: 10.1007/JHEP11(2017)197. – 9 –

    2017 doi

  8. [15]

    Strong obstruction of the Berends-Burgers-van Dam spin-3 vertex.J

    Xavier Bekaert, Nicolas Boulanger, and Serge Leclercq. Strong obstruction of the Berends-Burgers-van Dam spin-3 vertex.J. Phys. A , 43:185401, 2010. doi: 10.1088/1751-8113/43/18/185401

    2010 doi

  9. [16]

    Berends, G

    Frits A. Berends, G. J. H. Burgers, and H. van Dam. Explicit construction of conserved currents for massless fields of arbitrary spin.Nucl. Phys. B , 271:429–441, 1986. doi: 10.1016/S0550-3213(86)80019-0

    1986 doi

  10. [17]

    Berends, G

    Frits A. Berends, G. J. H. Burgers, and H. van Dam. On the Theoretical Problems in Constructing Interactions Involving Higher Spin Massless Particles.Nucl. Phys. B , 260: 295–322, 1985. doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(85)90074-4

    1985 doi

  11. [18]

    G. J. Iverson and G. Mack. Quantum fields and interactions of massless particles - the continuous spin case.Annals Phys., 64:211–253, 1971. doi: 10.1016/0003-4916(71)90284-3

    1971 doi

  12. [19]

    G. J. Iverson and G. Mack. Theory of weak interactions with *continuous-spin* neutrinos. Phys. Rev. D , 2:2326–2333, 1970. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.2.2326

    1970 doi

  13. [20]

    A new class of particle in 2 + 1 dimensions.Phys

    Philip Schuster and Natalia Toro. A new class of particle in 2 + 1 dimensions.Phys. Lett. B , 743:224–227, 2015. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2015.02.050

    2015 doi

  14. [21]

    I. L. Buchbinder, S. Fedoruk, A. P. Isaev, and V. A. Krykhtin. Towards Lagrangian construction for infinite half-integer spin field.Nucl. Phys. B , 958:115114, 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2020.115114

    2020

  15. [22]

    Burdík, V

    Č. Burdík, V. K. Pandey, and A. Reshetnyak. BRST–BFV and BRST–BV descriptions for bosonic fields with continuous spin onR1,d−1. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A , 35(26):2050154, 2020. doi: 10.1142/S0217751X20501547

    2020 doi

  16. [23]

    I. L. Buchbinder, S. James Gates, and K. Koutrolikos. Superfield continuous spin equations of motion. Phys. Lett. B , 793:445–450, 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2019.05.015

    2019 doi

  17. [24]

    Rivelles

    Victor O. Rivelles. A Gauge Field Theory for Continuous Spin Tachyons. arXiv:1807.01812 [hep-th], July 2018

    2018 arXiv

  18. [25]

    I. L. Buchbinder, V. A. Krykhtin, and H. Takata. BRST approach to Lagrangian construction for bosonic continuous spin field.Phys. Lett. B , 785:315–319, 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.07.070

    2018 doi

  19. [26]

    Alkalaev and Maxim A

    Konstantin B. Alkalaev and Maxim A. Grigoriev. Continuous spin fields of mixed-symmetry type. JHEP, 03:030, 2018. doi: 10.1007/JHEP03(2018)030

    2018 doi

  20. [27]

    M. V. Khabarov and Yu. M. Zinoviev. Infinite (continuous) spin fields in the frame-like formalism. Nucl. Phys. B , 928:182–216, 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2018.01.016

    2018 doi

  21. [28]

    Skvortsov

    Xavier Bekaert and Evgeny D. Skvortsov. Elementary particles with continuous spin.Int. J. Mod. Phys. A , 32(23n24):1730019, 2017. doi: 10.1142/S0217751X17300198

    2017 doi

  22. [29]

    Modified Wigner equations and continuous spin gauge field.Phys

    Mojtaba Najafizadeh. Modified Wigner equations and continuous spin gauge field.Phys. Rev. D, 97(6):065009, 2018. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.065009

    2018 doi

  23. [30]

    Yu. M. Zinoviev. Infinite spin fields in d = 3 and beyond.Universe, 3(3):63, 2017. doi: 10.3390/universe3030063

    2017 doi

  24. [31]

    R. R. Metsaev. BRST-BV approach to continuous-spin field.Phys. Lett. B , 781:568–573,

  25. [32]

    Rivelles

    Victor O. Rivelles. Remarks on a Gauge Theory for Continuous Spin Particles.Eur. Phys. J. C, 77(7):433, 2017. doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-4927-1. – 10 –

    2017 doi

  26. [33]

    Rivelles

    Victor O. Rivelles. Gauge Theory Formulations for Continuous and Higher Spin Fields. Phys. Rev. D , 91(12):125035, 2015. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.125035

    2015 doi

  27. [34]

    A comment on continuous spin representations of the Poincare group and perturbative string theory.Fortsch

    Anamaria Font, Fernando Quevedo, and Stefan Theisen. A comment on continuous spin representations of the Poincare group and perturbative string theory.Fortsch. Phys., 62: 975–980, 2014. doi: 10.1002/prop.201400067

    2014 doi

  28. [35]

    How higher-spin gravity surpasses the spin two barrier: no-go theorems versus yes-go examples.Rev

    Xavier Bekaert, Nicolas Boulanger, and Per Sundell. How higher-spin gravity surpasses the spin two barrier: no-go theorems versus yes-go examples.Rev. Mod. Phys., 84:987–1009,

  29. [36]

    Bekaert and J

    X. Bekaert and J. Mourad. The Continuous spin limit of higher spin field equations.JHEP, 01:115, 2006. doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2006/01/115

    2006 doi

  30. [37]

    Khan and Pierre Ramond

    Abu M. Khan and Pierre Ramond. Continuous spin representations from group contraction. J. Math. Phys. , 46:053515, 2005. doi: 10.1063/1.1897663. [Erratum: J.Math.Phys. 46, 079901 (2005)]

    2005 doi

  31. [38]

    Arkady Yu. Segal. Point particle in general background fields vsersus gauge theories of traceless symmetric tensors. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A , 18:4999–5021, 2003. doi: 10.1142/S0217751X03015830

    2003 doi

  32. [39]

    Freedman

    Bernard de Wit and Daniel Z. Freedman. Systematics of Higher Spin Gauge Fields.Phys. Rev. D, 21:358, 1980. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.21.358

    1980 doi

  33. [40]

    Fang and C

    J. Fang and C. Fronsdal. Massless Fields with Half Integral Spin.Phys. Rev. D , 18:3630,

  34. [41]

    Massless Fields with Integer Spin.Phys

    Christian Fronsdal. Massless Fields with Integer Spin.Phys. Rev. D , 18:3624, 1978. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.18.3624

    1978 doi

  35. [42]

    K. Hirata. Quantization of Massless Fields with Continuous Spin.Prog. Theor. Phys., 58: 652–666, 1977. doi: 10.1143/PTP.58.652

    1977 doi

  36. [43]

    L. F. Abbott. Massless Particles with Continuous Spin Indices.Phys. Rev. D , 13:2291, 1976. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.13.2291

    1976 doi

  37. [44]

    L. P. S. Singh and C. R. Hagen. Lagrangian formulation for arbitrary spin. 1. The boson case. Phys. Rev. D , 9:898–909, 1974. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.9.898

    1974 doi

  38. [45]

    Chakrabarti

    A. Chakrabarti. Remarks on lightlike continuous spin and spacelike representations of the poincare group. J. Math. Phys. , 12:1813–1822, 1971. doi: 10.1063/1.1665809

    1971 doi

  39. [46]

    Yngvason

    J. Yngvason. Zero-mass infinite spin representations of the poincare group and quantum field theory. Commun. Math. Phys. , 18:195–203, 1970. doi: 10.1007/BF01649432

    1970 doi

  40. [47]

    I. L. Buchbinder, S. A. Fedoruk, A. P. Isaev, and V. A. Krykhtin. On the off-shell superfield Lagrangian formulation of 4D, N=1 supersymmetric infinite spin theory.Phys. Lett. B , 829: 137139, 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137139

    2022

  41. [48]

    Off-shell supersymmetric continuous spin gauge theory.JHEP, 02:038,

    Mojtaba Najafizadeh. Off-shell supersymmetric continuous spin gauge theory.JHEP, 02:038,

  42. [49]

    Supersymmetric Continuous Spin Gauge Theory.JHEP, 03:027, 2020

    Mojtaba Najafizadeh. Supersymmetric Continuous Spin Gauge Theory.JHEP, 03:027, 2020. doi: 10.1007/JHEP03(2020)027

    2020 doi

  43. [50]

    I. L. Buchbinder, A. P. Isaev, and S. A. Fedoruk. Massless Infinite Spin (Super)particles and Fields. Proc. Steklov Inst. Math. , 309(1):46–56, 2020. doi: 10.1134/S0081543820030049. – 11 –

    2020 doi

  44. [51]

    I. L. Buchbinder, M. V. Khabarov, T. V. Snegirev, and Yu. M. Zinoviev. Lagrangian formulation for the infinite spinN=1 supermultiplets ind=4. Nucl. Phys. B , 946:114717,

  45. [52]

    R. R. Metsaev. Mixed-symmetry continuous-spin fields in flat and AdS spaces.Phys. Lett. B, 820:136497, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136497

    2021

  46. [53]

    R. R. Metsaev. Light-cone continuous-spin field in AdS space.Phys. Lett. B , 793:134–140,

  47. [54]

    R. R. Metsaev. Continuous spin gauge field in (A)dS space.Phys. Lett. B , 767:458–464,

  48. [55]

    I. L. Buchbinder, S. A. Fedoruk, A. P. Isaev, and V. A. Krykhtin. BRST construction for infinite spin field onAdS4. Eur. Phys. J. Plus , 139(7):621, 2024. doi: 10.1140/epjp/s13360-024-05430-6

    2024 doi

  49. [56]

    R. R. Metsaev. Continuous-spin mixed-symmetry fields in AdS(5).J. Phys. A , 51(21): 215401, 2018. doi: 10.1088/1751-8121/aabcda

    2018 doi

  50. [59]

    doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2019.04.041

    2019 doi

  51. [60]

    Brink, P

    L. Brink, P. Di Vecchia, and Paul S. Howe. A Lagrangian Formulation of the Classical and Quantum Dynamics of Spinning Particles.Nucl. Phys. B , 118:76–94, 1977. doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(77)90364-9

    1977 doi

  52. [61]

    F. A. Berezin and M. S. Marinov. Particle Spin Dynamics as the Grassmann Variant of Classical Mechanics. Annals Phys., 104:336, 1977. doi: 10.1016/0003-4916(77)90335-9

    1977 doi

  53. [62]

    Mondragon, L

    M. Mondragon, L. Nellen, M. G. Schmidt, and C. Schubert. Yukawa couplings in the worldline formalism. In6th Mexican School of Particles and Fields , pages 338–344, 10 1994

    1994

  54. [63]

    Thermodynamics of continuous spin photons

    Philip Schuster, Gowri Sundaresan, and Natalia Toro. Thermodynamics of continuous spin photons. Phys. Rev. D , 111(5):056019, 2025. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.056019

    2025 doi

  55. [64]

    Probing ”Continuous Spin” QED with Rare Atomic Transitions

    Aidan Reilly, Philip Schuster, and Natalia Toro. Probing ”Continuous Spin” QED with Rare Atomic Transitions. arXiv:2505.01500 [hep-ph], May 2025. – 12 –

    2025 arXiv

  56. [66]

    Brink, Stanley Deser, B

    L. Brink, Stanley Deser, B. Zumino, P. Di Vecchia, and Paul S. Howe. Local Supersymmetry for Spinning Particles.Phys. Lett. B , 64:435, 1976. doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(76)90115-5. [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 68, 488 (1977)]

    1977 doi

  57. [1978]

    doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.18.3630

    doi

  58. [2012]

    doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.84.987

    doi

  59. [2017]

    doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2017.02.027

    2017 doi

  60. [2018]

    doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.04.038

    2018 doi

  61. [2019]

    doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2019.114717

    2019

  62. [2022]

    doi: 10.1007/JHEP02(2022)038

    2022 doi

Pith tools

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