Weyl-invariant Einstein-Cartan gravity with a heavy ALP: Higgs Inflation and $\alpha$-attractors

Georgios K. Karananas; Mikhail Shaposhnikov; Sebastian Zell

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Weyl-invariant Einstein-Cartan gravity with a heavy ALP: Higgs Inflation and $\alpha$-attractors

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Heavy axion lets the Higgs drive inflation in a scale-free gravity theory.

desk verdict Clear two-parameter reduction to Higgs inflation and α-attractors in Weyl-invariant EC gravity; the tuned couplings are unprotected, but the paper deserves refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.15927 v1 pith:EH34XSPY submitted 2025-07-21 hep-ph astro-ph.COgr-qchep-th

Georgios K. Karananas , Mikhail Shaposhnikov , Sebastian Zell This is my paper

classification hep-phastro-ph.COgr-qchep-th MSC 83D0583F05 PACS 04.50.Kd98.80.Cq14.80.Va

keywords WeylinvarianceEinstein-CartangravityHiggsinflationalpha-attractorsaxion-likeparticlenonminimalcouplingslow-rolltorsion

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 tries to establish that, in Weyl-invariant Einstein-Cartan gravity coupled to the Standard Model and equipped with an axion-like particle of gravitational origin, the Higgs boson itself can be the inflaton once that axion-like particle is heavy and decouples. The authors reduce the theory to a single-field scalar-tensor system and show that its kinetic function $K(h)$ is controlled by three nonminimal couplings. For two special choices of those couplings, $K(h)$ takes exactly the metric-Higgs-inflation form or a quadratic-pole form of the $\alpha$-attractor type; in both cases the slow-roll predictions are $n_s \approx 1 - 2/N$ and $r \approx 12/N^2$, consistent with Planck and BICEP data. The broader point is that a purely gravitational, scale-free framework can already accommodate the known Higgs-inflation attractors without adding an extra inflaton by hand.

What carries the argument

The central object is the single-field kinetic function $K(h)$, equation (24), obtained after integrating out torsion and Weyl-rescaling to the Einstein frame. It encodes how the Higgs becomes an inflaton: its large-$h$ behaviour is set by the combinations of $\zeta_h$ and $c_{aa}$ appearing in the denominator, so by tuning those couplings one can arrange either a flat plateau (metric Higgs inflation) or a quadratic pole at $h = M_P/\sqrt{\alpha}$ ($\alpha$-attractors). The argument also uses the potential $V(h) = \lambda h^4 M_P^4/[4(M_P^2+\xi_h h^2)^2]$ and the slow-roll parameters for a non-canonical field, but $K(h)$ carries the entire mechanism: the special relations (33) and (44) are what convert the generic stiff $h^{-6}$ kinetics into an attractor.

What would settle it

Compute the renormalization-group running of the nonminimal couplings $\zeta_h$ and $c_{aa}$ from the inflationary scale down to low energies starting from the boundary values (33) or (44); if the $\beta$ functions pull the combination $\xi_h + 24(c_{aa}+\zeta_h^2)$ away from its pole-enhancing value by an order-one amount, the large-field kinetic function returns to $K(h)\sim h^{-6}$ and slow-roll inflation fails. Alternatively, a measurement of $n_s$ and $r$ at percent-level precision that falls outside both predictions (42) and (56) would rule out this inflationary branch.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the Weyl-invariant Einstein-Cartan theory of ref. [1], once its gravitational axion-like particle is heavy and decoupled, reduces at tree level to a single-field scalar-tensor theory whose kinetic function $K(h)$ (eq. 24) is controlled by the nonminimal couplings $\xi_h$, $\zeta_h$, and $c_{aa}$. For generic values, $K(h)\sim h^{-6}$ at large field values, giving a steep potential that cannot support slow roll. The discovery is that two one-parameter families make inflation work. Setting $c_{aa} = (1 \mp 24\zeta_h)/144$ and $\zeta_h = \pm (1+6\xi_h)/12$ turns $K(h)$ into exactly the metric-Higgs-inflation kinetic function and the whole action into the vanilla Higgs inflation action; setting instead $\zeta_h = \pm (1 + 6\alpha + 6\xi_h)/12$ with $\alpha>0$ produces a quadratic pole $K(h) \propto (M_P^2/\alpha - h^2)^{-2}$ of the $\alpha$-attractor type. Both choices yield $n_s \approx 1 - 2/N$ and $r \approx 12/N^2$.

Load-bearing premise

The whole inflationary picture rests on the assumption that two precisely tuned relations among the theory's coupling constants, equations (33) and (44), hold exactly at the energy scale of inflation; the paper offers no symmetry or dynamical mechanism that would keep quantum corrections from shifting those couplings back to the generic steep regime.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For the choice (33), the Einstein-frame theory is exactly the vanilla Higgs inflation action, so established Higgs-inflation results apply unchanged, including the requirement $\xi_h \sim 10^{3-4}$ from CMB normalization when $\lambda \sim 10^{-2}$.
For the choice (44), inflation occurs near the pole $h \to M_P/\sqrt{\alpha}$, and the observables $n_s \approx 1-2/N$, $r \approx 12/N^2$ are independent of $\alpha$ and $\xi_h$ at leading order.
Both branches are observationally indistinguishable from each other at leading order and are consistent with Planck and BICEP constraints; distinguishing them would require higher-order effects or additional observables.
The heavy-ALP limit ($\tilde f \to \infty$, $\phi=0$) can be implemented either in the original fields or in the diagonalized variables of Appendix B, with identical conclusions.
With the ALP decoupled, the cosmological-constant piece is controlled by $f$ and can be made negligible ($f \ll \lambda < 1$), so the standard $\lambda h^4$ potential alone drives inflation.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the special relations (33) and (44) are imposed at tree level with no protecting symmetry or fixed point, quantum corrections are likely to shift $\zeta_h$ and $c_{aa}$; computing their renormalization-group running would directly test whether the inflationary window survives.
The leading-order degeneracy of the two branches suggests that higher-order corrections to $n_s$ and $r$, or the running of the tensor tilt, are the natural observables for distinguishing metric Higgs inflation from the alpha-attractor branch in this theory.
If the ALP is not heavy, the two-field dynamics of eq. (20) may interpolate between the single-field attractors found here and the ALP-driven inflation studied in ref. [78]; this paper does not analyse that interpolation.

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

Punchline: the algebra is right, and the paper's two parameter reductions are genuinely new. I checked the denominator of the kinetic function (24): relation (33) zeroes the h^2 and h^4 terms and leaves exactly (34), and (44) produces the quadratic-pole form (45). These subclasses were missed in the earlier inflation study [78] of the same framework, so the paper adds something concrete.

What the paper does well beyond that: the single-field reduction with a decoupled heavy ALP is set up cleanly. Setting ϕ=0 is justified by the ALP limit, and Appendix B shows that the diagonalized action reproduces the same reduced action; the slow-roll parameters are written out explicitly, and the paper is transparent that generic parameter values give K ~ 1/h^6 and no inflation. The tuning required to get working inflation is not hidden; it is stated as a condition.

The soft spot is exactly what the stress-test note says. The relations (33) and (44) are imposed by hand. No symmetry, no dynamical mechanism, and no RG analysis is given to preserve them at the inflationary scale. The combinations C2 = 1+12ξh+144caa and C4 = 24ζh^2+(ξh+24caa)(1+6ξh) vanish on the chosen surface, but nothing protects them from quantum corrections. If they shift slightly, K(h) reverts to ~1/h^6 and slow roll fails, as the paper's own eqs. (26)-(31) show. So this is a tree-level proof of principle rather than a complete model with radiative stability. That said, I don't read the paper as circular: it is reverse-engineering couplings to hit known attractor predictions, which is a legitimate first step. The CMB normalization fixes the overall scale, and the attractor predictions (42)/(56) are not free parameters tuned to data.

The paper has no code or data, but the formulas are explicit enough for independent re-derivation. It is aimed at people working on scale/Weyl-invariant gravity, metric-affine gauge theories, and Higgs inflation. Deserves serious peer review; the referee should ask for either a stability analysis or an explicit statement that this is a protected-but-unexplained special surface. Do not desk-reject.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes inflationary dynamics in Weyl-invariant Einstein-Cartan gravity coupled to the Standard Model Higgs, in the regime where the gravitational axion-like particle (ALP) is heavy and decouples. After deriving the single-field Einstein-frame action, characterized by a nontrivial kinetic function K(h), the authors show that two special choices of the nonminimal couplings (ξh, ζh, caa) convert K(h) into exactly the kinetic function of metric Higgs inflation (Eq. (34)) or into a quadratic-pole α-attractor form (Eq. (45)). The corresponding slow-roll parameters and CMB observables are computed, yielding ns ≈ 1 − 2/N and r ≈ 12/N^2 in both cases. Appendices provide the background equations and the decoupling of the ALP in diagonalized variables.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a concrete gravitational embedding of both metric Higgs inflation and α-attractor inflation, with the SM Higgs as the inflaton and a heavy ALP of gravitational origin. The exact reduction to the known kinetic functions is a nontrivial tree-level result and is clearly presented. The paper is also transparent about the required parameter choices. However, the absence of any discussion of the quantum stability of the tuned relations limits the scope to a tree-level proof of principle; this is the main factor preventing a higher recommendation.

major comments (2)

[Sec. 3, Eq. (29)] The general slow-roll parameter ε(h) in Eq. (29) is dimensionally inconsistent as printed: the numerator contains terms of mixed mass dimension and the denominator has dimension mass^2, so ε has dimension mass^{-2}. Substituting the metric-Higgs tuning (33) into (29) does not reproduce the correct result (37); instead it gives a divergent ε at large h. The correct expression derived from (27) and (24) is ε(h) = (4/3) [6 M_P^4 + (1+12ξh+144caa) M_P^2 h^2 + (24ζh^2+(ξh+24caa)(1+6ξh)) h^4] / [h^2 (M_P^2 + (ξh+24(caa+ζh^2)) h^2)], which is dimensionless and reduces to (37) and (47) in the special cases. Equations (30)–(32) require analogous corrections. Since these formulas are the basis for the claim that slow-roll requires tuned parameters, they must be fixed.
[Secs. 3.1 and 3.2, Eqs. (33) and (44)] The tuned relations (33) and (44) are the only inputs that make the kinetic function (24) flat enough for slow-roll. The paper provides no symmetry, dynamical mechanism, or renormalization-group analysis that would preserve these relations at the inflationary scale h ~ M_P/√ξh, where ξh ~ O(10^3–10^4). The combinations appearing in the denominator of (24) involve ξh, ζh, and caa, which are independent couplings that generically run; a small shift in, say, 1 + 12ξh + 144caa or 24ζh^2 + (ξh+24caa)(1+6ξh) would restore the steep 1/h^6 behavior of K(h) and destroy inflation. The paper should either compute the one-loop beta functions for these couplings, identify a protecting symmetry, or quantify the required fine-tuning. Without this, the statement that it is 'straightforward to Higgs-inflate the Universe' is only a tree-level proof of principle.

minor comments (4)

[Throughout, Eqs. (16)–(18)] The notation in the kinetic-field-space metric is dense and some parentheses are missing; please ensure the equations are typeset unambiguously, since the signs of the coefficients are important for the subsequent cancellations.
[Sec. 3] The phrase 'equivalently, one can set ϕ = 0 in (20)' is too quick; Appendix B supports it, but a one-sentence explanation in the main text of why the minimum of the potential lies at ϕ = 0 in the limit f̃ → ∞ would improve readability.
[Sec. 3.2, Eq. (55)] The condition ξh ≪ αN used for the leading-order expansion (51) should be checked against the values of α and ξh implied by the normalization (55) for N ≈ 60, since the paper does not explicitly verify this consistency.
[Introduction] The reference to the ACT/DESI tension and the sentence 'we prefer to wait until the dust settles' are not elaborated; either substantiate the connection to inflationary predictions or remove the remark.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the special coupling choices are explicit parameter restrictions that reproduce known Higgs-inflation and alpha-attractor actions, and the resulting observables are computed by standard slow-roll rather than fitted to the target predictions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. Starting from the Weyl-invariant Einstein-Cartan action (1), the authors solve the torsion equations of motion, integrate out torsion, Weyl-rescale to the Einstein frame, and obtain the explicit kinetic function K(h) in Eq. (24). The special choices (33) and (44) are stated as parameter restrictions, not as quantities inferred from inflationary observables: Eq. (33) is chosen to make the quadratic and quartic coefficients in the denominator of Eq. (24) vanish, yielding exactly the metric Higgs-inflation kinetic function (34); Eq. (44) is chosen to produce the quadratic pole leading to Eq. (45). These are algebraic conditions on the nonminimal couplings, and the paper explicitly displays the resulting actions (36) and kinetic functions. The inflationary predictions (42) and (56) are then obtained from the standard slow-roll formulas (27) and the e-fold integral (43). The CMB normalization (40) fixes the overall scale (such as xi_h or alpha+xi_h) but does not enter the leading-order shape predictions, so no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. References to the authors' earlier work [1] provide the starting action and equivalence transformations, but the inflationary reduction and predictions are carried out in this paper with explicit equations rather than being imported as an unverified conclusion. The only substantive weakness, that the tuned relations (33)/(44) have no demonstrated radiative stability at the inflationary scale, is a scientific robustness concern about the model's ultraviolet behavior, not a circularity in the derivation. The manuscript itself acknowledges that the asymptotic slow-roll behavior depends crucially on these parameter choices (Eqs. (26)-(32)), which is exactly the intended construction rather than a hidden reuse of the output. Therefore, no step reduces by construction to its inputs, and the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is a tree-level demonstration that two tuned choices of the nonminimal couplings reduce the Weyl-invariant EC theory to known successful inflation models. The main free parameters are the nonminimal couplings ξh, ζh, caa plus α, with ξh (or α+ξh) fixed by the CMB amplitude and the others chosen by hand. The heavy-ALP decoupling and the radiative stability of the tunings are the key auxiliary assumptions. No new entities are introduced beyond the ALP already present in [1].

free parameters (4)

ξh (nonminimal Higgs-Ricci coupling) = O(10^3) to O(10^4) from CMB normalization (40)-(41)
Set by matching the observed scalar perturbation amplitude at horizon exit; standard in Higgs inflation.
α (pole-location parameter) = free; the combination α+ξh is set by (55) via CMB amplitude
Introduced in (44) to define the location of the kinetic pole; drops out of leading-order ns and r but enters the amplitude normalization.
caa (axial torsion squared coupling) = set to (1∓24ζh)/144 in (33) and (44)
Chosen by hand to make the kinetic function match Higgs inflation or a quadratic-pole form.
ζh (Holst-term coupling) = set to ±(1+6ξh)/12 in (33) or ±(1+6α+6ξh)/12 in (44)
Chosen by hand in tandem with caa to realize the desired kinetic structure.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The ALP is heavy enough to decouple during inflation (f̃→∞, setting ϕ=0 in the Einstein-frame action).
Invoked in Sec. 3 to reduce the two-field system to a single-field Higgs model. Appendix B verifies consistency but does not quantify corrections for finite f̃.
domain assumption The SM Higgs in unitary gauge is the inflaton and other SM fields are dynamically irrelevant during inflation.
Used throughout Secs. 3.1 and 3.2; standard single-field slow-roll analysis of eq. (22).
domain assumption The starting action (1) and its equivalence transformations (auxiliary fields, gauge fixing χ=MP/√2, Weyl rescaling) from Ref. [1] are correct.
The paper recaps the derivation of the Einstein-frame action (20) from [1] and relies on it without re-deriving the quantum consistency.
ad hoc to paper The tuned parameter relations (33) and (44) are radiatively stable or hold at the relevant energy scale.
No mechanism or RG analysis is given; the relations are chosen to make the kinetic function match known models. This is the weakest premise.
standard math Single-field slow-roll approximation and the standard curvature perturbation normalization V/ε=5×10^-7 M_P^4 at horizon exit are valid.
Used to derive (41), (55), (42), and (56); standard in inflationary cosmology.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Weyl-invariant Einstein-Cartan gravity with a heavy ALP: Higgs Inflation and $\alpha$-attractors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EH34XSPY

@misc{pith2026250715927,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Weyl-invariant Einstein-Cartan gravity with a heavy ALP: Higgs Inflation and $\alpha$-attractors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EH34XSPY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.15927}
}

read the original abstract

We initiate the analysis of the inflationary dynamics in Weyl-invariant Einstein-Cartan gravity nonminimally coupled to the Standard Model of particle physics. We take the axion-like particle of gravitational origin to be heavy and show that inflation with the Higgs field can be accommodated in this framework.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

The Goldstone Awakens: Unimodular dark energy in scale-invariant $R^2$ gravity
astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

In a scale-invariant R² + unimodular-gravity model, the Goldstone boson of scale symmetry becomes thawing dark energy, with its equation of state fixed by the same coupling that sets the inflationary spectral tilt.
Inflationary assessment of $F(\mathcal{R},\tilde{\mathcal{R}})$ Einstein-Cartan models
gr-qc 2025-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Adding cubic Holst-invariant terms to F(R,R̃) Einstein-Cartan inflation models systematically lowers the predicted spectral index n_s and tensor-to-scalar ratio r, restoring data compatibility in parameter regions whe...
Reheating in geometric Weyl-invariant Einstein-Cartan gravity
gr-qc 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

Reheating temperature and equation-of-state parameter assumptions in Weyl-invariant Einstein-Cartan gravity models significantly alter predicted inflationary observables.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

[78]

Inflation in Weyl-invariant Einstein-Cartan gravity,

I. D. Gialamas and K. Tamvakis, “Inflation in Weyl-invariant Einstein-Cartan gravity,” Phys. Rev. D111 no. 4, (2025) 044007,arXiv:2410.16364 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2025
[1]

Weyl-invariant Einstein-Cartan gravity: unifying the strong CP and hierarchy puzzles,

G. K. Karananas, M. Shaposhnikov, and S. Zell, “Weyl-invariant Einstein-Cartan gravity: unifying the strong CP and hierarchy puzzles,”JHEP 11 (2024) 146, arXiv:2406.11956 [hep-th]

arXiv 2024
[2]

Matter matters in Einstein-Cartan gravity,

G. K. Karananas, M. Shaposhnikov, A. Shkerin, and S. Zell, “Matter matters in Einstein-Cartan gravity,”Phys. Rev. D104 no. 6, (2021) 064036,arXiv:2106.13811 [hep-th]

arXiv 2021
[3]

Scale and Weyl invariance in Einstein-Cartan gravity,

G. K. Karananas, M. Shaposhnikov, A. Shkerin, and S. Zell, “Scale and Weyl invariance in Einstein-Cartan gravity,”Phys. Rev. D104 no. 12, (2021) 124014, arXiv:2108.05897 [hep-th]

arXiv 2021
[4]

Coupling metric-affine gravity to the standard model and dark matter fermions,

C. Rigouzzo and S. Zell, “Coupling metric-affine gravity to the standard model and dark matter fermions,”Phys. Rev. D108 no. 12, (2023) 124067,arXiv:2306.13134 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2023
[5]

Invariant theoretical interpretation of interaction,

R. Utiyama, “Invariant theoretical interpretation of interaction,”Phys. Rev. 101 (1956) 1597–1607

1956
[6]

Lorentz invariance and the gravitational field,

T. W. B. Kibble, “Lorentz invariance and the gravitational field,”J. Math. Phys.2 (1961) 212–221

1961
[7]

On the analogy between charge and spin in general relativity,

D. W. Sciama, “On the analogy between charge and spin in general relativity,” in Recent developments in general relativity, p. 415. Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1962

1962

Show all 96 references

[8]

On the Gravitational Origin of the QCD Axion,

G. K. Karananas, M. Shaposhnikov, and S. Zell, “On the Gravitational Origin of the QCD Axion,” arXiv:2506.11836 [hep-th]

arXiv
[9]

Fine Tuning Problem and the Renormalization Group,

C. Wetterich, “Fine Tuning Problem and the Renormalization Group,”Phys. Lett. B 140 (1984) 215–222

1984
[10]

On naturalness in the standard model,

W. A. Bardeen, “On naturalness in the standard model,” inOntake Summer Institute on Particle Physics. 8, 1995

1995
[11]

Cosmologies With Variable Newton’s ’Constant’,

C. Wetterich, “Cosmologies With Variable Newton’s ’Constant’,”Nucl. Phys. B302 (1988) 645–667

1988
[12]

Cosmology and the Fate of Dilatation Symmetry,

C. Wetterich, “Cosmology and the Fate of Dilatation Symmetry,”Nucl. Phys. B302 (1988) 668–696, arXiv:1711.03844 [hep-th] . 13

1988 arXiv
[13]

Higgs mechanism without Higgs particle,

H. Dehnen and H. Frommert, “Higgs mechanism without Higgs particle,”Int. J. Theor. Phys. 32 (1993) 1135–1142

1993
[14]

The Cosmon model for an asymptotically vanishing time dependent cosmological ’constant’,

C. Wetterich, “The Cosmon model for an asymptotically vanishing time dependent cosmological ’constant’,”Astron. Astrophys.301 (1995) 321–328, arXiv:hep-th/9408025

1995 arXiv
[15]

Induced gravity inflation in the standard model of particle physics,

J. L. Cervantes-Cota and H. Dehnen, “Induced gravity inflation in the standard model of particle physics,”Nucl. Phys. B442 (1995) 391–412, arXiv:astro-ph/9505069

1995 arXiv
[16]

A Solution to the hierarchy problem from an almost decoupled hidden sector within a classically scale invariant theory,

R. Foot, A. Kobakhidze, K. L. McDonald, and R. R. Volkas, “A Solution to the hierarchy problem from an almost decoupled hidden sector within a classically scale invariant theory,”Phys. Rev. D77 (2008) 035006, arXiv:0709.2750 [hep-ph]

2008 arXiv
[17]

Scale invariance, unimodular gravity and dark energy,

M. Shaposhnikov and D. Zenhausern, “Scale invariance, unimodular gravity and dark energy,” Phys. Lett. B671 (2009) 187–192, arXiv:0809.3395 [hep-th]

2009 arXiv
[18]

Quantum scale invariance, cosmological constant and hierarchy problem,

M. Shaposhnikov and D. Zenhausern, “Quantum scale invariance, cosmological constant and hierarchy problem,”Phys. Lett. B671 (2009) 162–166, arXiv:0809.3406 [hep-th]

2009 arXiv
[19]

Quantum scale invariance on the lattice,

M. E. Shaposhnikov and I. I. Tkachev, “Quantum scale invariance on the lattice,” Phys. Lett. B675 (2009) 403–406, arXiv:0811.1967 [hep-th]

2009 arXiv
[20]

Quantum scale-invariant models as effective field theories,

M. E. Shaposhnikov and F. V. Tkachov, “Quantum scale-invariant models as effective field theories,” arXiv:0905.4857 [hep-th]

arXiv
[22]

Scale-invariant alternatives to general relativity,

D. Blas, M. Shaposhnikov, and D. Zenhausern, “Scale-invariant alternatives to general relativity,” Phys. Rev. D84 (2011) 044001, arXiv:1104.1392 [hep-th]

2011 arXiv
[23]

Higgs-Dilaton cosmology: Are there extra relativistic species?,

J. Garcia-Bellido, J. Rubio, and M. Shaposhnikov, “Higgs-Dilaton cosmology: Are there extra relativistic species?,”Phys. Lett. B718 (2012) 507–511, arXiv:1209.2119 [hep-ph]

2012 arXiv
[24]

Higgs-Dilaton Cosmology: an effective field theory approach,

F. Bezrukov, G. K. Karananas, J. Rubio, and M. Shaposhnikov, “Higgs-Dilaton Cosmology: an effective field theory approach,”Phys. Rev. D87 no. 9, (2013) 096001, arXiv:1212.4148 [hep-ph]

2013 arXiv
[25]

Spontaneously broken scale invariance and minimal fields of canonical dimensionality,

A. Monin and M. Shaposhnikov, “Spontaneously broken scale invariance and minimal fields of canonical dimensionality,”Phys. Rev. D88 no. 6, (2013) 067701

2013
[26]

Higgs mass naturalness and scale invariance in the UV,

G. Marques Tavares, M. Schmaltz, and W. Skiba, “Higgs mass naturalness and scale invariance in the UV,”Phys. Rev. D89 no. 1, (2014) 015009,arXiv:1308.0025 [hep-ph]

2014 arXiv
[27]

Inflation and Dark Matter in the Higgs Portal of Classically Scale Invariant Standard Model,

V. V. Khoze, “Inflation and Dark Matter in the Higgs Portal of Classically Scale Invariant Standard Model,”JHEP 11 (2013) 215, arXiv:1308.6338 [hep-ph]

2013 arXiv
[28]

Inflation from Broken Scale 14 Invariance,

C. Csaki, N. Kaloper, J. Serra, and J. Terning, “Inflation from Broken Scale 14 Invariance,” Phys. Rev. Lett.113 (2014) 161302, arXiv:1406.5192 [hep-th]

2014 arXiv
[29]

Higgs-Dilaton cosmology: Universality versus criticality,

J. Rubio and M. Shaposhnikov, “Higgs-Dilaton cosmology: Universality versus criticality,” Phys. Rev. D90 (2014) 027307, arXiv:1406.5182 [hep-ph]

2014 arXiv
[30]

Manifestly scale-invariant regularization and quantum effective operators,

D. M. Ghilencea, “Manifestly scale-invariant regularization and quantum effective operators,” Phys. Rev. D93 no. 10, (2016) 105006,arXiv:1508.00595 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[31]

Dark matter and neutrino masses from a scale-invariant multi-Higgs portal,

A. Karam and K. Tamvakis, “Dark matter and neutrino masses from a scale-invariant multi-Higgs portal,” Phys. Rev. D92 no. 7, (2015) 075010,arXiv:1508.03031 [hep-ph]

2015 arXiv
[32]

Cosmological Constraints on Higgs-Dilaton Inflation,

M. Trashorras, S. Nesseris, and J. Garcia-Bellido, “Cosmological Constraints on Higgs-Dilaton Inflation,” Phys. Rev. D94 no. 6, (2016) 063511,arXiv:1604.06760 [astro-ph.CO]

2016 arXiv
[33]

Scale invariant alternatives to general relativity. II. Dilaton properties,

G. K. Karananas and M. Shaposhnikov, “Scale invariant alternatives to general relativity. II. Dilaton properties,”Phys. Rev. D93 no. 8, (2016) 084052, arXiv:1603.01274 [hep-th]

2016 arXiv
[34]

Scale-Independent Inflation and Hierarchy Generation,

P. G. Ferreira, C. T. Hill, and G. G. Ross, “Scale-Independent Inflation and Hierarchy Generation,” Phys. Lett. B763 (2016) 174–178, arXiv:1603.05983 [hep-th]

2016 arXiv
[35]

On the geometrical interpretation of scale-invariant models of inflation,

G. K. Karananas and J. Rubio, “On the geometrical interpretation of scale-invariant models of inflation,”Phys. Lett. B761 (2016) 223–228, arXiv:1606.08848 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[36]

Dark Matter from a Classically Scale-InvariantSU (3)X,

A. Karam and K. Tamvakis, “Dark Matter from a Classically Scale-InvariantSU (3)X,” Phys. Rev. D94 no. 5, (2016) 055004,arXiv:1607.01001 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[37]

Weyl Current, Scale-Invariant Inflation and Planck Scale Generation,

P. G. Ferreira, C. T. Hill, and G. G. Ross, “Weyl Current, Scale-Invariant Inflation and Planck Scale Generation,”Phys. Rev. D95 no. 4, (2017) 043507, arXiv:1610.09243 [hep-th]

2017 arXiv
[38]

No fifth force in a scale invariant universe,

P. G. Ferreira, C. T. Hill, and G. G. Ross, “No fifth force in a scale invariant universe,” Phys. Rev. D95 no. 6, (2017) 064038,arXiv:1612.03157 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[39]

Standard Model with spontaneously broken quantum scale invariance,

D. M. Ghilencea, Z. Lalak, and P. Olszewski, “Standard Model with spontaneously broken quantum scale invariance,”Phys. Rev. D96 no. 5, (2017) 055034, arXiv:1612.09120 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[40]

Electroweak vacuum stability in the Higgs-Dilaton theory,

A. Shkerin, “Electroweak vacuum stability in the Higgs-Dilaton theory,”JHEP 05 (2017) 155, arXiv:1701.02224 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[41]

Emergent scale symmetry: Connecting inflation and dark energy,

J. Rubio and C. Wetterich, “Emergent scale symmetry: Connecting inflation and dark energy,” Phys. Rev. D96 no. 6, (2017) 063509,arXiv:1705.00552 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[42]

A minimal scale invariant axion solution to the strong CP-problem,

A. Tokareva, “A minimal scale invariant axion solution to the strong CP-problem,” Eur. Phys. J. C78 no. 5, (2018) 423,arXiv:1705.10836 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[43]

Higgs-dilaton cosmology: An inflation–dark-energy connection and forecasts for future galaxy surveys,

S. Casas, M. Pauly, and J. Rubio, “Higgs-dilaton cosmology: An inflation–dark-energy connection and forecasts for future galaxy surveys,”Phys. Rev. D97 no. 4, (2018) 043520, arXiv:1712.04956 [astro-ph.CO]

2018 arXiv
[44]

Inertial Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking 15 and Quantum Scale Invariance,

P. G. Ferreira, C. T. Hill, and G. G. Ross, “Inertial Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking 15 and Quantum Scale Invariance,”Phys. Rev. D98 no. 11, (2018) 116012, arXiv:1801.07676 [hep-th]

2018 arXiv
[45]

Inflation in a scale invariant universe,

P. G. Ferreira, C. T. Hill, J. Noller, and G. G. Ross, “Inflation in a scale invariant universe,” Phys. Rev. D97 no. 12, (2018) 123516,arXiv:1802.06069 [astro-ph.CO]

2018 arXiv
[46]

Gravity, Scale Invariance and the Hierarchy Problem,

M. Shaposhnikov and A. Shkerin, “Gravity, Scale Invariance and the Hierarchy Problem,” JHEP 10 (2018) 024, arXiv:1804.06376 [hep-th]

2018 arXiv
[47]

Fifth forces, Higgs portals and broken scale invariance,

C. Burrage, E. J. Copeland, P. Millington, and M. Spannowsky, “Fifth forces, Higgs portals and broken scale invariance,”JCAP 11 (2018) 036, arXiv:1804.07180 [hep-th]

2018 arXiv
[48]

Scalaron the healer: removing the strong-coupling in the Higgs- and Higgs-dilaton inflations,

D. Gorbunov and A. Tokareva, “Scalaron the healer: removing the strong-coupling in the Higgs- and Higgs-dilaton inflations,”Phys. Lett. B788 (2019) 37–41, arXiv:1807.02392 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[49]

Vanishing trace anomaly in flat spacetime,

Z. Lalak and P. Olszewski, “Vanishing trace anomaly in flat spacetime,”Phys. Rev. D 98 no. 8, (2018) 085001,arXiv:1807.09296 [hep-th]

2018 arXiv
[50]

Weyl gauge symmetry and its spontaneous breaking in the standard model and inflation,

D. M. Ghilencea and H. M. Lee, “Weyl gauge symmetry and its spontaneous breaking in the standard model and inflation,”Phys. Rev. D99 no. 11, (2019) 115007, arXiv:1809.09174 [hep-th]

2019 arXiv
[51]

Scale transformations in metric-affine geometry,

D. Iosifidis and T. Koivisto, “Scale transformations in metric-affine geometry,” Universe 5 (2019) 82, arXiv:1810.12276 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[52]

Scale-invariant alternatives to general relativity. III. The inflation-dark energy connection,

S. Casas, G. K. Karananas, M. Pauly, and J. Rubio, “Scale-invariant alternatives to general relativity. III. The inflation-dark energy connection,”Phys. Rev. D99 no. 6, (2019) 063512, arXiv:1811.05984 [astro-ph.CO]

2019 arXiv
[53]

Dilaton-assisted generation of the Fermi scale from the Planck scale,

A. Shkerin, “Dilaton-assisted generation of the Fermi scale from the Planck scale,” Phys. Rev. D99 no. 11, (2019) 115018,arXiv:1903.11317 [hep-th]

2019 arXiv
[54]

To Positivity and Beyond, where Higgs-Dilaton Inflation has never gone before,

M. Herrero-Valea, I. Timiryasov, and A. Tokareva, “To Positivity and Beyond, where Higgs-Dilaton Inflation has never gone before,”JCAP 11 (2019) 042, arXiv:1905.08816 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[55]

Weyl R2 inflation with an emergent Planck scale,

D. M. Ghilencea, “Weyl R2 inflation with an emergent Planck scale,”JHEP 10 (2019) 209, arXiv:1906.11572 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[56]

Spontaneous Conformal Symmetry Breaking in Fishnet CFT,

G. K. Karananas, V. Kazakov, and M. Shaposhnikov, “Spontaneous Conformal Symmetry Breaking in Fishnet CFT,”Phys. Lett. B811 (2020) 135922, arXiv:1908.04302 [hep-th]

2020 arXiv
[57]

Palatini quadratic gravity: spontaneous breaking of gauged scale symmetry and inflation,

D. M. Ghilencea, “Palatini quadratic gravity: spontaneous breaking of gauged scale symmetry and inflation,”Eur. Phys. J. C80 no. 12, (4, 2020) 1147, arXiv:2003.08516 [hep-th]

2020 arXiv
[58]

Scale symmetry, the Higgs and the Cosmos,

J. Rubio, “Scale symmetry, the Higgs and the Cosmos,”PoS CORFU2019 (2020) 074, arXiv:2004.00039 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[59]

Dynamically induced Planck scale and 16 inflation in the Palatini formulation,

I. D. Gialamas, A. Karam, and A. Racioppi, “Dynamically induced Planck scale and 16 inflation in the Palatini formulation,”JCAP 11 (2020) 014, arXiv:2006.09124 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[60]

One residue to rule them all: Electroweak symmetry breaking, inflation and field-space geometry,

G. K. Karananas, M. Michel, and J. Rubio, “One residue to rule them all: Electroweak symmetry breaking, inflation and field-space geometry,”Phys. Lett. B811 (2020) 135876, arXiv:2006.11290 [hep-th]

2020 arXiv
[61]

Gauging scale symmetry and inflation: Weyl versus Palatini gravity,

D. M. Ghilencea, “Gauging scale symmetry and inflation: Weyl versus Palatini gravity,” Eur. Phys. J. C81 no. 6, (2021) 510,arXiv:2007.14733 [hep-th]

2021 arXiv
[62]

Gravitational Contact Interactions and the Physical Equivalence of Weyl Transformations in Effective Field Theory,

C. T. Hill and G. G. Ross, “Gravitational Contact Interactions and the Physical Equivalence of Weyl Transformations in Effective Field Theory,”Phys. Rev. D102 (2020) 125014, arXiv:2009.14782 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[63]

Scale-invariant quadratic gravity and inflation in the Palatini formalism,

I. D. Gialamas, A. Karam, T. D. Pappas, and V. C. Spanos, “Scale-invariant quadratic gravity and inflation in the Palatini formalism,”Phys. Rev. D104 no. 2, (2021) 023521, arXiv:2104.04550 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[64]

Scale-invariance, dynamically induced Planck scale and inflation in the Palatini formulation,

I. D. Gialamas, A. Karam, T. D. Pappas, A. Racioppi, and V. C. Spanos, “Scale-invariance, dynamically induced Planck scale and inflation in the Palatini formulation,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser.2105 no. 1, (2021) 012005,arXiv:2107.04408 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[65]

Higgs-Dilaton inflation in Einstein-Cartan gravity,

M. Piani and J. Rubio, “Higgs-Dilaton inflation in Einstein-Cartan gravity,”JCAP 05 no. 05, (2022) 009,arXiv:2202.04665 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[66]

Inflation in metric-affine quadratic gravity,

I. D. Gialamas and K. Tamvakis, “Inflation in metric-affine quadratic gravity,”JCAP 03 (2023) 042, arXiv:2212.09896 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[67]

Scale invariant Einstein-Cartan gravity and flat space conformal symmetry,

G. K. Karananas, M. Shaposhnikov, and S. Zell, “Scale invariant Einstein-Cartan gravity and flat space conformal symmetry,”JHEP 11 (2023) 171, arXiv:2307.11151 [hep-th]

2023 arXiv
[68]

Torsion induced current-scalaron coupling in Einstein-Cartan gravity,

M. He, M. Hong, and K. Mukaida, “Torsion induced current-scalaron coupling in Einstein-Cartan gravity,” arXiv:2507.12151 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[69]

Particle content of (scalarcurvature)2 gravities revisited,

G. K. Karananas, “Particle content of (scalarcurvature)2 gravities revisited,”Phys. Rev. D 111 no. 4, (2025) 044068,arXiv:2407.09598 [hep-th]

2025 arXiv
[70]

The particle content of (scalar curvature)2 metric-affine gravity,

G. K. Karananas, “The particle content of (scalar curvature)2 metric-affine gravity,” arXiv:2408.16818 [hep-th]

arXiv
[71]

The String landscape, black holes and gravity as the weakest force,

N. Arkani-Hamed, L. Motl, A. Nicolis, and C. Vafa, “The String landscape, black holes and gravity as the weakest force,”JHEP 06 (2007) 060, arXiv:hep-th/0601001

2007 arXiv
[72]

Conformal symmetry: towards the link between the Fermi and the Planck scales,

M. Shaposhnikov and A. Shkerin, “Conformal symmetry: towards the link between the Fermi and the Planck scales,”Phys. Lett. B783 (2018) 253–262, arXiv:1803.08907 [hep-th]

2018 arXiv
[73]

Standard Model Meets Gravity: Electroweak Symmetry Breaking and Inflation,

M. Shaposhnikov, A. Shkerin, and S. Zell, “Standard Model Meets Gravity: Electroweak Symmetry Breaking and Inflation,”Phys. Rev. D103 no. 3, (2021) 033006, arXiv:2001.09088 [hep-th] . 17

2021 arXiv
[74]

The Standard Model Higgs boson as the inflaton,

F. L. Bezrukov and M. Shaposhnikov, “The Standard Model Higgs boson as the inflaton,” Phys. Lett. B659 (2008) 703–706, arXiv:0710.3755 [hep-th]

2008 arXiv
[75]

Superconformal generalizations of the Starobinsky model,

R. Kallosh and A. Linde, “Superconformal generalizations of the Starobinsky model,” JCAP 06 (2013) 028, arXiv:1306.3214 [hep-th]

2013 arXiv
[76]

Superconformal Inflationaryα-Attractors,

R. Kallosh, A. Linde, and D. Roest, “Superconformal Inflationaryα-Attractors,” JHEP 11 (2013) 198, arXiv:1311.0472 [hep-th]

2013 arXiv
[77]

Unity of Cosmological Inflation Attractors,

M. Galante, R. Kallosh, A. Linde, and D. Roest, “Unity of Cosmological Inflation Attractors,” Phys. Rev. Lett.114 no. 14, (2015) 141302,arXiv:1412.3797 [hep-th]

2015 arXiv
[79]

Progress in Einstein-Cartan gravity,

M. Shaposhnikov, “Progress in Einstein-Cartan gravity,” 6, 2025.arXiv:2506.11847 [hep-th]

2025 arXiv
[80]

Geometrical origin of inflation in Weyl-invariant Einstein-Cartan gravity,

G. K. Karananas, “Geometrical origin of inflation in Weyl-invariant Einstein-Cartan gravity,” Phys. Lett. B862 (2025) 139343, arXiv:2501.16416 [gr-qc]

2025 arXiv
[81]

Consistent particle physics in metric-affine gravity from extended projective symmetry,

W. Barker and S. Zell, “Consistent particle physics in metric-affine gravity from extended projective symmetry,” arXiv:2402.14917 [hep-th]

arXiv
[82]

Inflation with Non-Minimal Coupling: Metric versus Palatini Formulations,

F. Bauer and D. A. Demir, “Inflation with Non-Minimal Coupling: Metric versus Palatini Formulations,”Phys. Lett. B665 (2008) 222–226, arXiv:0803.2664 [hep-ph]

2008 arXiv
[83]

Higgs inflation with the Holst and the Nieh–Yan term,

M. Langvik, J.-M. Ojanperä, S. Raatikainen, and S. Rasanen, “Higgs inflation with the Holst and the Nieh–Yan term,”Phys. Rev. D103 no. 8, (2021) 083514, arXiv:2007.12595 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[84]

Higgs inflation in Einstein-Cartan gravity,

M. Shaposhnikov, A. Shkerin, I. Timiryasov, and S. Zell, “Higgs inflation in Einstein-Cartan gravity,”JCAP 02 (2021) 008, arXiv:2007.14978 [hep-ph] . [Erratum: JCAP 10, E01 (2021)]

2021 arXiv
[85]

Higgs inflation in the Palatini formulation with kinetic terms for the metric,

S. Rasanen, “Higgs inflation in the Palatini formulation with kinetic terms for the metric,” Open J. Astrophys.2 no. 1, (2019) 1,arXiv:1811.09514 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[86]

Higgs inflation and teleparallel gravity,

S. Raatikainen and S. Rasanen, “Higgs inflation and teleparallel gravity,”JCAP 12 (2019) 021, arXiv:1910.03488 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[87]

Coupling metric-affine gravity to a Higgs-like scalar field,

C. Rigouzzo and S. Zell, “Coupling metric-affine gravity to a Higgs-like scalar field,” Phys. Rev. D106 no. 2, (2022) 024015,arXiv:2204.03003 [hep-th]

2022 arXiv
[88]

Removing the cosmological bound on the axion scale,

G. R. Dvali, “Removing the cosmological bound on the axion scale,” arXiv:hep-ph/9505253

arXiv
[89]

Every Poincaré gauge theory is conformal: A compelling case for dynamical vector torsion,

W. Barker, M. Hobson, A. Lasenby, Y.-C. Lin, and Z. Wei, “Every Poincaré gauge theory is conformal: A compelling case for dynamical vector torsion,”Phys. Lett. B 863 (2025) 139316, arXiv:2406.12826 [hep-th]

2025 arXiv
[90]

Planck 2018 results. X. Constraints on inflation,

Planck Collaboration, Y. Akramiet al., “Planck 2018 results. X. Constraints on inflation,” Astron. Astrophys.641 (2020) A10, arXiv:1807.06211 [astro-ph.CO] . 18

2020 arXiv
[91]

Improved Constraints on Primordial Gravitational Waves using Planck, WMAP, and BICEP/Keck Observations through the 2018 Observing Season,

BICEP, Keck Collaboration, P. A. R. Adeet al., “Improved Constraints on Primordial Gravitational Waves using Planck, WMAP, and BICEP/Keck Observations through the 2018 Observing Season,”Phys. Rev. Lett.127 no. 15, (2021) 151301, arXiv:2110.00483 [astro-ph.CO]

2021
[92]

The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Power Spectra, Likelihoods andΛCDM Parameters,

ACT Collaboration, T. Louiset al., “The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Power Spectra, Likelihoods andΛCDM Parameters,” arXiv:2503.14452 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv
[93]

The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Constraints on Extended Cosmological Models,

ACT Collaboration, E. Calabreseet al., “The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Constraints on Extended Cosmological Models,”arXiv:2503.14454 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv
[94]

DESI 2024 III: baryon acoustic oscillations from galaxies and quasars,

DESI Collaboration, A. G. Adameet al., “DESI 2024 III: baryon acoustic oscillations from galaxies and quasars,”JCAP 04 (2025) 012, arXiv:2404.03000 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[95]

DESI 2024 VI: cosmological constraints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations,

DESI Collaboration, A. G. Adameet al., “DESI 2024 VI: cosmological constraints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations,”JCAP 02 (2025) 021, arXiv:2404.03002 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[96]

The BAO-CMB Tension and Implications for Inflation,

E. G. M. Ferreira, E. McDonough, L. Balkenhol, R. Kallosh, L. Knox, and A. Linde, “The BAO-CMB Tension and Implications for Inflation,”arXiv:2507.12459 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv
[97]

Higgs-Dilaton Cosmology: From the Early to the Late Universe,

J. Garcia-Bellido, J. Rubio, M. Shaposhnikov, and D. Zenhausern, “Higgs-Dilaton Cosmology: From the Early to the Late Universe,”Phys. Rev. D84 (2011) 123504, arXiv:1107.2163 [hep-ph] . 19

2011 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [78]

Inflation in Weyl-invariant Einstein-Cartan gravity,

I. D. Gialamas and K. Tamvakis, “Inflation in Weyl-invariant Einstein-Cartan gravity,” Phys. Rev. D111 no. 4, (2025) 044007,arXiv:2410.16364 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2025

[2] [1]

Weyl-invariant Einstein-Cartan gravity: unifying the strong CP and hierarchy puzzles,

G. K. Karananas, M. Shaposhnikov, and S. Zell, “Weyl-invariant Einstein-Cartan gravity: unifying the strong CP and hierarchy puzzles,”JHEP 11 (2024) 146, arXiv:2406.11956 [hep-th]

arXiv 2024

[3] [2]

Matter matters in Einstein-Cartan gravity,

G. K. Karananas, M. Shaposhnikov, A. Shkerin, and S. Zell, “Matter matters in Einstein-Cartan gravity,”Phys. Rev. D104 no. 6, (2021) 064036,arXiv:2106.13811 [hep-th]

arXiv 2021

[4] [3]

Scale and Weyl invariance in Einstein-Cartan gravity,

G. K. Karananas, M. Shaposhnikov, A. Shkerin, and S. Zell, “Scale and Weyl invariance in Einstein-Cartan gravity,”Phys. Rev. D104 no. 12, (2021) 124014, arXiv:2108.05897 [hep-th]

arXiv 2021

[5] [4]

Coupling metric-affine gravity to the standard model and dark matter fermions,

C. Rigouzzo and S. Zell, “Coupling metric-affine gravity to the standard model and dark matter fermions,”Phys. Rev. D108 no. 12, (2023) 124067,arXiv:2306.13134 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2023

[6] [5]

Invariant theoretical interpretation of interaction,

R. Utiyama, “Invariant theoretical interpretation of interaction,”Phys. Rev. 101 (1956) 1597–1607

1956

[7] [6]

Lorentz invariance and the gravitational field,

T. W. B. Kibble, “Lorentz invariance and the gravitational field,”J. Math. Phys.2 (1961) 212–221

1961

[8] [7]

On the analogy between charge and spin in general relativity,

D. W. Sciama, “On the analogy between charge and spin in general relativity,” in Recent developments in general relativity, p. 415. Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1962

1962