Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 minor 35 references

Electric and magnetic Carroll limits of N=1 supergravity are derived by rescaling the Hamiltonian multipliers, yielding ultralocal and gradient-retaining supersymmetric theories whose supercharges square to the Hamiltonian.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-10 09:17 UTC pith:UIS2WWXA

load-bearing objection Clean Hamiltonian derivation of both electric and magnetic Carroll limits of N=1, D=4 supergravity; fills an expected gap without drama.

arxiv 2607.08329 v1 pith:UIS2WWXA submitted 2026-07-09 hep-th

Carroll supergravities

Marc Henneaux This is my paper
classification hep-th
keywords Carroll supergravityelectric limitmagnetic limitHamiltonian formulationconstraint algebraN=1 supergravityCarroll tetradsboost-inert spinors
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper constructs the Carrollian versions of four-dimensional N=1 supergravity by contracting its Hamiltonian formulation. Two distinct limits appear: an electric limit (large gravitational coupling, ultralocal) and a magnetic limit (vanishing coupling, spatial gradients retained). Both preserve local supersymmetry, and in both cases the supersymmetry generators square exactly to the Hamiltonian constraint with no spatial-momentum contribution. The electric theory is rewritten in fully covariant form using Carroll tetrads and boost-inert spinors. The same contraction works for extended supergravities. A reader interested in ultra-relativistic gravity or Carroll holography obtains concrete supersymmetric actions and algebras that keep the positivity-of-energy structure of ordinary supergravity.

Core claim

By rescaling the lapse and the supersymmetry multiplier inside the Hamiltonian action of N=1, D=4 supergravity and taking κ^{2}→∞ (electric) or κ^{2}→0 (magnetic), one obtains two consistent Carrollian supergravity theories. Their first-class constraints satisfy {S_A(x), S_B(y)} = −i δ_AB H δ(x−y) and {H,H}=0, so the supercharges remain square roots of the Hamiltonian alone.

What carries the argument

Hamiltonian contraction with rescaled multipliers N_E=2κ^{2}N (κ^{2}→∞) and N_M=(2κ^{2})^{-1}N (κ^{2}→0). The procedure automatically inherits the first-class property of the original constraints and yields the Carroll constraint algebra.

Load-bearing premise

The limit of the first-class constraint algebra stays first-class and free of singularities once the multipliers are rescaled, simply because the property holds for every finite value of the coupling.

What would settle it

Explicit computation of the Poisson-bracket algebra of the limiting generators HE (or HM) and SE (or SM) that produces either a non-vanishing {H,H}, a second-class pair, or divergent structure functions would falsify the claim that the Carrollian theories remain gauge-invariant.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Both electric and magnetic Carroll supergravities keep the algebraic structure that implies non-negative energy for the global charges.
  • The electric theory admits a covariant Lagrangian written with Carroll tetrads, boost-inert spinors and the Carroll extrinsic curvature.
  • The same Hamiltonian contraction applies without change to extended supergravity models in any dimension for which the Hamiltonian is known.
  • In the magnetic limit the conjugate momenta force the Carroll extrinsic curvature to vanish on shell, as in pure magnetic Carroll gravity.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The ultralocal electric superalgebra may supply a controlled arena in which to test whether supersymmetry softens the known infrared pathologies of Carroll field quantization.
  • Because the magnetic generators remain surface integrals, the positivity argument of ordinary supergravity can be transcribed almost verbatim to magnetic Carroll spacetime, giving a supersymmetric proof of positive energy for that geometry.
  • The boost-inert character of the Carroll spinors suggests that any future gauging of the super-Carroll algebra will automatically produce the correct fermionic transformations for both limits.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

0 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs the electric and magnetic Carrollian limits of N=1, D=4 supergravity by performing Inönü–Wigner-style contractions inside the Hamiltonian formulation. After a concise derivation of the first-order Hamiltonian action in the time gauge (Section 2), the electric limit is obtained by the rescaling N_E=2κ^{2}N, χ_E=2κ^{2}χ with κ^{2}→∞ (Subsection 3.1), while the magnetic limit uses N_M=(2κ^{2})^{-1}N with κ^{2}→0 (Subsection 3.2). The resulting first-class generators are given explicitly: the electric Hamiltonian and supersymmetry generators are ultralocal (spatial derivatives drop), while the magnetic ones retain spatial gradients of the metric and gravitino but lose the quartic terms. Both limits satisfy the simplified algebra {S_A(x),S_B(y)}=-iδ_AB H δ(x-y) with {H,H}=0. Section 4 rewrites the electric theory in covariant form using Carroll tetrads and boost-inert spinors; the magnetic covariantization is left open. Appendices collect the necessary spinor, tetrad and Lie-derivative technology. The method is stated to extend immediately to extended supergravities.

Significance. Carrollian limits of gravity have become a standard tool for exploring ultra-relativistic regimes and flat-space holography. Extending them to supergravity is a natural and timely step. The Hamiltonian route is clean, inherits gauge invariance from the parent theory for every finite κ^{2}, and yields concrete first-class generators together with a transparent constraint algebra that encodes positivity of energy. The electric theory is given a fully covariant formulation; the magnetic case is correctly flagged as more subtle. The construction is parameter-free, free of circular normalizations, and immediately applicable to extended models. These features make the paper a solid, reusable reference for subsequent work on Carrollian supersymmetry, Carroll swiftons, and the quantization of Carroll field theories.

minor comments (4)
  1. The magnetic covariantization is left as an open problem (Subsection 4.3). A short paragraph sketching how the gauging of the super-Carroll algebra is expected to resolve the off-shell issues would help the reader, even if a full construction is postponed.
  2. In the electric generators (3.4)–(3.6) the primes on M′_4 and M′_3 are inherited from the Lorentzian redefinitions; a one-line reminder that these are the same algebraic expressions as in the parent theory would improve readability.
  3. Appendix A.3 introduces Carroll gamma matrices Γ^μ and ρ^μ. A brief remark on how they reduce to the ordinary γ-matrices in a Carroll frame would make the subsequent covariant action (4.21) easier to parse.
  4. A few typographical inconsistencies appear (e.g., “pseudo-Riemmanian”, “fieds”, “supercharges fullfill”). Standard copy-editing will remove them.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: Hamiltonian contraction of established supergravity yields new Carrollian theories by construction-free limits

full rationale

The paper performs an Inönü–Wigner-style contraction of the already-known Hamiltonian formulation of N=1, D=4 supergravity. The electric (N_E=2κ^{2}N, κ^{2}→∞) and magnetic (N_M=(2κ^{2})^{-1}N, κ^{2}→0) rescalings are pure redefinitions of Lagrange multipliers; the resulting generators HE, SE and HM, SM are obtained by dropping or retaining terms according to the power of κ^{2}, not by fitting or by renaming a prior result. First-classness is inherited continuously from the finite-κ^{2} theory and is not assumed by definition. Self-citations (to the pure-gravity Carroll papers and to classic supergravity Hamiltonian literature) supply background geometry and the starting action; they do not encode the target super-Carroll constraint algebra. No fitted parameters, no uniqueness theorem imported from the same authors, and no ansatz smuggled via citation appear. The derivation is therefore self-contained against its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper rests on the standard Hamiltonian formulation of N=1 supergravity, the definition of electric/magnetic Carroll limits already given for pure gravity, and ordinary differential geometry of spinors and tetrads. No free parameters are fitted; the only new objects are the limiting theories themselves, which are derived rather than postulated.

axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The Hamiltonian form of N=1, D=4 supergravity (constraints H, H_k, S, J_(a)(b) first-class) is correct and equivalent to the second-order action.
    Taken from Deser–Kay–Stelle and Pilati; used as the starting point of §2.
  • domain assumption Electric and magnetic Carroll limits are defined by the rescalings N_E=2κ^{2}N (κ^{2}→∞) and N_M=(2κ^{2})^{-1}N (κ^{2}→0) with all other phase-space variables held fixed.
    Imported from the pure-gravity analysis of Henneaux–Salgado-Rebolledo; applied verbatim in §3.
  • domain assumption Carroll spinors transform only under the rotation subalgebra and are inert under Carroll boosts.
    Stated in Appendix A and used to define the transformation rules of the gravitino in the limit.
  • standard math The time gauge is admissible and residual gauge group is SO(3) for both Lorentzian and Carrollian geometries.
    Standard 3+1 decomposition; used throughout §§2–4.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 22752 in / 2338 out tokens · 26749 ms · 2026-07-10T09:17:54.382030+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The electric and magnetic carrollian limits of $N=1$ supergravity in $D=4$ spacetime dimensions are explicitly derived. The approach is general and applies also to extended supergravity models

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages · 13 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    A non-lorentzian primer

    E. Bergshoeff, J. Figueroa-O’Farrill and J. Gomis, “A non-lorentzian primer,” SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes69(2023), 1 doi:10.21468/SciPostPhysLectNotes.69 [arXiv:2206.12177 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.21468/scipostphyslectnotes.69 2023

  2. [2]

    Carrollian physics and holography,

    R. Ruzziconi, “Carrollian physics and holography,” Phys. Rept.1182(2026), 1-87 doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2026.03.005 [arXiv:2602.02644 [hep-th]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2026.03.005 2026

  3. [3]

    Carroll contractions of Lorentz-invariant theories

    M. Henneaux and P. Salgado-Rebolledo, “Carroll contractions of Lorentz-invariant theories,” JHEP11(2021), 180 doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2021)180 [arXiv:2109.06708 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep11(2021)180 2021

  4. [4]

    On the Contraction of groups and their represenations,

    E. Inönü and E. P. Wigner, “On the Contraction of groups and their represenations,” Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.39(1953), 510-524 doi:10.1073/pnas.39.6.510

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.39.6.510 1953

  5. [5]

    Super-Carrollian and Super-Galilean Field Theories

    K. Koutrolikos and M. Najafizadeh, “Super-Carrollian and Super-Galilean Field Theories,” Phys. Rev. D108(2023) no.12, 125014 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.125014 [arXiv:2309.16786 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.125014 2023

  6. [6]

    Supergravity,

    P. Van Nieuwenhuizen, “Supergravity,” Phys. Rept.68(1981), 189-398 doi:10.1016/0370-1573(81)90157-5

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-1573(81)90157-5 1981

  7. [7]

    Supergravity,

    D. Z. Freedman and A. Van Proeyen, “Supergravity,” Cambridge Univ. Press, 2012, ISBN 978-1-139-36806-3, 978-0-521-19401-3 doi:10.1017/CBO9781139026833

    work page doi:10.1017/cbo9781139026833 2012

  8. [8]

    Hamiltonian Formulation of Supergravity,

    S. Deser, J. H. Kay and K. S. Stelle, “Hamiltonian Formulation of Supergravity,” Phys. Rev. D16(1977), 2448 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.16.2448

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.16.2448 1977

  9. [9]

    The Canonical Formulation of Supergravity,

    M. Pilati, “The Canonical Formulation of Supergravity,” Nucl. Phys. B132(1978), 138-154 doi:10.1016/0550-3213(78)90262-6 – 22 –

    work page doi:10.1016/0550-3213(78)90262-6 1978

  10. [10]

    Hamiltonian formulation of D = 10 supergravity theories,

    M. Henneaux, “Hamiltonian formulation of D = 10 supergravity theories,” Phys. Lett. B168 (1986), 233-238 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(86)90970-6

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(86)90970-6 1986

  11. [11]

    Interacting gravitational and spinor fields,

    Dirac, P. A. M. (1962). “Interacting gravitational and spinor fields," in Recent Developments in General Relativity (Pergamon Press, Oxford, and PWN-Polish Scientific Publishers, Warsaw)

    work page 1962

  12. [12]

    The Square Root of General Relativity,

    R. Tabensky and C. Teitelboim, “The Square Root of General Relativity,” Phys. Lett. B69 (1977), 453-456 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(77)90843-7

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(77)90843-7 1977

  13. [13]

    Supergravity and Square Roots of Constraints,

    C. Teitelboim, “Supergravity and Square Roots of Constraints,” Phys. Rev. Lett.38(1977), 1106-1110 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.38.1106

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.38.1106 1977

  14. [14]

    Supergravity Has Positive Energy,

    S. Deser and C. Teitelboim, “Supergravity Has Positive Energy,” Phys. Rev. Lett.39(1977), 249 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.39.249

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.39.249 1977

  15. [15]

    A Simple Proof of the Positive Energy Theorem,

    E. Witten, “A Simple Proof of the Positive Energy Theorem,” Commun. Math. Phys.80 (1981), 381 doi:10.1007/BF01208277

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01208277 1981

  16. [16]

    Asymptotic symmetries in Carrollian theories of gravity

    A. Pérez, “Asymptotic symmetries in Carrollian theories of gravity,” JHEP12(2021), 173 doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2021)173 [arXiv:2110.15834 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep12(2021)173 2021

  17. [17]

    Geometry of Zero Signature Space-times,

    M. Henneaux, “Geometry of Zero Signature Space-times,” Bull. Soc. Math. Belg.31(1979), 47-63 PRINT-79-0606 (Princeton)

    work page 1979

  18. [18]

    Magnetic Carrollian gravity from the Carroll algebra

    A. Campoleoni, M. Henneaux, S. Pekar, A. Pérez and P. Salgado-Rebolledo, “Magnetic Carrollian gravity from the Carroll algebra,” JHEP09(2022), 127 doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2022)127 [arXiv:2207.14167 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep09(2022)127 2022

  19. [19]

    Gauging the Carroll Algebra and Ultra-Relativistic Gravity

    J. Hartong, “Gauging the Carroll Algebra and Ultra-Relativistic Gravity,” JHEP08(2015), 069 doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2015)069 [arXiv:1505.05011 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep08(2015)069 2015

  20. [20]

    Carroll versus Galilei Gravity

    E. Bergshoeff, J. Gomis, B. Rollier, J. Rosseel and T. ter Veldhuis, “Carroll versus Galilei Gravity,” JHEP03(2017), 165 doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2017)165 [arXiv:1701.06156 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep03(2017)165 2017

  21. [21]

    The gauging procedure and carrollian gravity

    J. Figueroa-O’Farrill, E. Have, S. Prohazka and J. Salzer, “The gauging procedure and carrollian gravity,” JHEP09(2022), 243 doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2022)243 [arXiv:2206.14178 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep09(2022)243 2022

  22. [22]

    The Hamiltonian structure of space-time,

    C. Teitelboim,“The Hamiltonian structure of space-time," inGeneral Relativity and Gravitation: one hundred years after the birth of AIbert Einstein, vol. 1, A. Held ed., Plenum Press 1980 (New York)

    work page 1980

  23. [23]

    The Conditions for a Quantum Field Theory to be Relativistic,

    P. A. M. Dirac, “The Conditions for a Quantum Field Theory to be Relativistic," Rev. Mod. Phys.34, 592 (1962)

    work page 1962

  24. [24]

    Commutation Relations and Conservation Laws,

    J. Schwinger, “Commutation Relations and Conservation Laws,” Phys. Rev.130, 406 (1963)

    work page 1963

  25. [25]

    Carroll swiftons

    F. Ecker, D. Grumiller, M. Henneaux and P. Salgado-Rebolledo, “Carroll swiftons,” Phys. Rev. D110(2024) no.4, L041901 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.L041901 [arXiv:2403.00544 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.l041901 2024

  26. [26]

    Carroll stories

    J. de Boer, J. Hartong, N. A. Obers, W. Sybesma and S. Vandoren, “Carroll stories,” JHEP 09(2023), 148 doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2023)148 [arXiv:2307.06827 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep09(2023)148 2023

  27. [27]

    Magic Fermions: Carroll and Flat Bands

    A. Bagchi, A. Banerjee, R. Basu, M. Islam and S. Mondal, “Magic fermions: Carroll and flat bands,” JHEP03(2023), 227 doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2023)227 [arXiv:2211.11640 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep03(2023)227 2023

  28. [28]

    Carrollian superconformal theories and super BMS

    A. Bagchi, D. Grumiller and P. Nandi, “Carrollian superconformal theories and super BMS,” JHEP05(2022), 044 doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2022)044 [arXiv:2202.01172 [hep-th]]. – 23 –

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep05(2022)044 2022

  29. [29]

    Carroll Fermions,

    E. A. Bergshoeff, A. Campoleoni, A. Fontanella, L. Mele and J. Rosseel, “Carroll Fermions,” PoSCORFU2023(2024), 235 doi:10.22323/1.463.0235

    work page doi:10.22323/1.463.0235 2024

  30. [30]

    Quantification hamiltonienne du champ de gravitation : une nouvelle approche,

    M. Henneaux, “Quantification hamiltonienne du champ de gravitation : une nouvelle approche,” Bulletin de la Classe des sciences68(1982) no.1, 940-971 doi:10.3406/barb.1982.57330

    work page doi:10.3406/barb.1982.57330 1982

  31. [31]

    Hamiltonian Formulation of the Theory of Interacting Gravitational and Electron Fields,

    J. E. Nelson and C. Teitelboim, “Hamiltonian Formulation of the Theory of Interacting Gravitational and Electron Fields,” Annals Phys.116(1978), 86 doi:10.1016/0003-4916(78)90005-2

    work page doi:10.1016/0003-4916(78)90005-2 1978

  32. [32]

    On geometrodynamics with tetrad fields,

    M. Henneaux, “On geometrodynamics with tetrad fields,” Gen. Rel. Grav.9(1978) no.11, 1031-1045 doi:10.1007/BF00784663

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00784663 1978

  33. [33]

    Carroll Structures, Null Geometry and Conformal Isometries

    L. Ciambelli, R. G. Leigh, C. Marteau and P. M. Petropoulos, “Carroll Structures, Null Geometry and Conformal Isometries,” Phys. Rev. D100(2019) no.4, 046010 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.046010 [arXiv:1905.02221 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.046010 2019

  34. [34]

    Dérivées de Lie des spineurs,

    Y. Kosmann, “Dérivées de Lie des spineurs,” Annali Mat. Pura Appl.91(1971) no.1, 317-395 doi:10.1007/BF02428822

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02428822 1971

  35. [35]

    Invariance relativiste de la théorie des champs sur un espace-temps courbe,

    P. Spindel, C. Schomblond and M. Henneaux, “Invariance relativiste de la théorie des champs sur un espace-temps courbe," Acad. Roy. Belg. Bull.63(1977) 179 (Appendix). – 24 –

    work page 1977