Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 51 references

This paper claims that local scale invariance and the dynamical emergence of a Schrödinger connection are two sides of the same condition.

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 14:44 UTC pith:DK5YSZFW

load-bearing objection The algebra checks out and the caveats are honestly stated, but the 'symmetric teleparallel' label runs ahead of what the Palatini variation actually shows. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.18657 v1 pith:DK5YSZFW submitted 2026-07-21 gr-qc

Scale-invariant Schr\"{o}dinger geometry in symmetric teleparallel gravity

Wei-Zhi Liu , Jing-Ying Wang , Shi-Dong Liang , Hong-Hao Zhang , Tiberiu Harko , Lei Ming This is my paper
classification gr-qc MSC 83D0553B50 PACS 04.50.Kd
keywords scale-invariant gravitySchrödinger geometrysymmetric teleparallel gravitynonmetricitysecond clock effectPalatini formalismmetric-affine gravitylength-preserving connection
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 a locally scale-invariant version of Schrödinger geometry inside symmetric teleparallel gravity and shows that scale invariance and length-preserving affine geometry are not just compatible but forced on each other. Working with the quadratic action S = ∫√−g Q² and the vectorial sector of nonmetricity, it identifies a unique 'Schrödinger scale transformation' that preserves autoparallelism, torsionlessness, and the length-preserving property. The paper then proves that the coefficient conditions making the action scale invariant are exactly the same as the conditions under which the connection field equations reduce the connection to the Schrödinger form (c4 = (2/3)c1 − (1/3)c2 + 4c3, c5 = (4/3)c1 − (2/3)c2 + 4c3). A sympathetic reader would care because this gives a geometric selection mechanism: local scale symmetry alone picks out the connection that avoids the second clock effect, offering a purely geometric resolution of that problem.

Core claim

The central discovery is an exact equivalence of coefficient constraints in the quadratic symmetric-teleparallel action S = ∫√−g Q². Requiring the action to be invariant under the Schrödinger scale transformation yields three linear conditions (26) on the five coupling constants c1,...,c5. Requiring the field equations for the connection to admit a vectorial Schrödinger connection — that is, nonmetricity with Q(λμν)=0 and Q̃λ = −(1/2)Qλ — yields a different-looking set (34). The paper shows the two sets are linearly dependent and share the same solution space, with c4 and c5 fixed in terms of c1, c2, c3. The stated interpretation: in this theory, local scale symmetry and length-preserving af

What carries the argument

The central object is the Schrödinger scale transformation (17), the unique combined Weyl rescaling of the metric and projective transformation of the connection that preserves autoparallelism, torsionlessness, and the Schrödinger condition Q(λμν)=0. Its counterpart is the quadratic action (23) built from the nonmetricity scalar Q. The argument runs through the nonmetricity conjugate P (30): the connection field equation P=0 reduces to algebraic trace conditions (33), and insisting on the Schrödinger form (9) turns these into (34). The equivalence of (26) and (34) is the mechanism: one derivation starts from symmetry, the other from the field equations, and both land on the same two relation

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands on the choice to vary the connection freely, never enforcing the flatness condition that defines symmetric teleparallel gravity; the Schrödinger connection so selected generally has non-vanishing curvature, and the vectorial restriction Ωλμν=0 is a second simplifying assumption.

What would settle it

Compute the Riemann tensor of the vectorial Schrödinger connection (10) in a simple spacetime, say with Qλ = ∂λφ: a non-zero result would confirm the connection is not flat, so a fully constrained STG variation could yield different conditions, potentially breaking the (26)⇔(34) equivalence. Alternatively, solve (33) with coefficients satisfying (26) and look for non-Schrödinger solutions with Q̃λ ≠ −(1/2)Qλ.

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

If this is right

  • Any quadratic symmetric-teleparallel theory with coefficients satisfying (35) is automatically scale invariant and automatically has the Schrödinger connection as its on-shell connection.
  • The second clock effect is avoided by construction: the dynamical connection preserves vector lengths under autoparallel transport, so atomic spectra would not be affected by path-dependent rescaling.
  • The three-parameter family (35) means scale-invariant STG remains a genuine family of theories, not a single isolated model, giving room for phenomenology.
  • The result positions Schrödinger geometry as the length-preserving analogue of Weyl geometry, with the scale transformation acting on the connection in the compensating form (17), useful for building scalar-free scale-invariant gravity.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the connection is genuinely required to be flat (R=0), the unconstrained Palatini variation used here may miss constraints that shift the coefficient conditions; the paper's own conclusion flags this, so the claimed equivalence should be rechecked in a fully constrained STG formulation.
  • The same 'symmetry condition = dynamical condition' pattern might hold for other geometric structures (e.g., Weyl or Yano–Schrödinger connections) in quadratic theories, suggesting a general principle: local scale symmetry can act as a dynamical selector of the connection type.
  • Because the argument is restricted to the vectorial sector (Ωλμν=0), a testable next step is to add the traceless nonmetricity degrees of freedom and see whether the exact equivalence between (26) and (34) survives or becomes a subset of a larger condition.

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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies local scale symmetry in Schrödinger geometry, aiming to realize it in symmetric teleparallel gravity (STG). It identifies a scale transformation (17) on the metric and connection that preserves autoparallelism, torsionlessness, and the Schrödinger affine condition Q_(λμν)=0. It then builds the quadratic action S=∫√−g Q², where Q is the general nonmetricity scalar (22), and shows that Q transforms covariantly, Q′=e^{−φ}Q, iff the five coefficients satisfy the three conditions (26). Using a Palatini variation with respect to the connection, the paper derives the algebraic connection equation P^{νμ}_λ=0 (31), takes traces to obtain (33), and then argues that requiring the vectorial Schrödinger relation (9) yields the two conditions (34). The central claim is that (26) and (34) are linearly dependent and share the three-parameter solution (35), so that local scale invariance exactly coincides with dynamical reduction to the Schrödinger connection. The paper closes by acknowledging that the Omega=0 vectorial restriction is used and that flatness is not preserved by the scale transformation.

Significance. If established, the claimed correspondence between local scale invariance and length-preserving Schrödinger geometry would be a structurally interesting result, offering a new way to avoid the second clock effect in metric-affine gravity. The algebraic derivation is transparent and can be verified step by step: the matrix of the trace equations, the invariance conditions, and the common solution (35) are all explicitly computable with no fitted parameters. The paper also gives a clean derivation of the unique scale transformation within the projective family (13). However, the significance is conditional: the main calculation is performed in an unconstrained metric-affine setting, not in STG as defined by a flat, torsion-free connection. The paper itself concedes that flatness is not preserved and that a fully constrained treatment is left to future work. As it stands, the result is a mathematical equivalence in a generalized Palatini theory rather than an established property of symmetric teleparallel gravity.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV, Eq. (31); Section V] The Palatini variation leading to P^{νμ}_λ=0 is performed with the connection left unconstrained. In STG the connection must satisfy R^λ_{ναβ}=0 and T^λ_{μν}=0. These constraints must be imposed in the variation (e.g. with Lagrange multipliers or by parametrizing the connection as a pure-gauge derivative of a Stückelberg field), and the connection equation is then not the algebraic equation (31). The paper's own Conclusion states that the Schrödinger connection 'does not in general preserve the vanishing Riemann or Ricci curvature' and that a systematic treatment with curvature-free constraints is left to future work. Because the title and abstract promise results 'in symmetric teleparallel gravity', this is a load-bearing gap: the claimed equivalence (26)⇔(34) is currently established only for a general metric-affine Q² theory, not for STG. The variation should also be restricted to sym
  2. [Section II, Eq. (17); Section III, Eq. (28)] The scale transformation (17) does not preserve the STG constraint surface: even if Γ is flat and torsion-free, Γ′ generically has nonvanishing curvature. Therefore S′=S in (28) is only a formal invariance of the action on the unconstrained configuration space, not a symmetry of the constrained STG theory. A symmetry of a constrained theory should map physical configurations to physical configurations; otherwise the local scale invariance claimed in the abstract has not been shown to be realizable within STG.
  3. [Section IV, Eqs. (33)-(35)] The derivation of (34) imposes the desired Schrödinger relation (9) before solving the field equations, so it is not a derivation of dynamical emergence. Solving the homogeneous system (33) directly under (35) gives a 2×2 coefficient matrix [[A,2A],[A,2A]] with A=(5/3)c1−(1/3)c2+6c3. For generic A≠0 this forces Q̃_λ=−(1/2)Q_λ, i.e. (9); but for A=0 the matrix vanishes and (33) imposes no restriction on Q_λ or Q̃_λ. Nontrivial coefficient sets satisfying (26) and A=0 exist, for example c1=1, c2=0, c3=−5/18, c4=−4/9, c5=2/9. In that submanifold the connection is not dynamically reduced to Schrödinger form. Hence the claimed exact coincidence of (26) and (34) is not exact; the statement must be qualified as generic, or the degenerate submanifold must be excluded and discussed.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section II, around Eq. (17)] The word 'unique' should be qualified: uniqueness is established only within the projective family (13) and up to the normalization of φ. More general transformations involving derivatives of the connection or metric could exist.
  2. [Section II, Eq. (8)] The symmetries and trace conditions defining the irreducible component Ω_{λμν} are not stated. Please give them explicitly or cite the standard nonmetricity decomposition so that the expression (8) is unambiguous.
  3. [References] Reference [50] is incomplete: it is listed as 'Other thesis' with no year or arXiv identifier. Please provide full citation details.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Mild self-definitional flavor in the 'dynamical reduction' step; the core algebraic equivalence is independent and self-contained.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Section IV, between Eqs. (33) and (34), and the following Remarkably sentence]
    "If the connection is required to be Schrödinger-type and vectorial, i.e., (9) holds, one arrives at another set of equations for the coefficients from (33) ... Remarkably, the conditions required for scale invariance coincide exactly with those ensuring that the connection is dynamically reduced to Schrödinger form."

    The target condition, the Schrödinger vectorial relation (9), is inserted into the trace equations (33) to obtain (34). The paper then labels (34) as ensuring 'dynamically reduced to Schrödinger form,' even though the reduction was not derived from the field equations but imposed. This makes the claimed dynamical-emergence side of the coincidence partly an artifact of assuming the conclusion. However, the underlying algebraic equivalence (26)⇔(34) can be verified independently, and the field equations (33) with the solution (35) generically do imply eQ = -1/2 Q, so this is a presentational inversion rather than a fatal circularity.

full rationale

The derivation is essentially self-contained algebra. No data are fitted and no parameter is renamed as a prediction. The scale transformation (17) is derived in Eqs. (14)-(16) from the stated preservation conditions, not imported from a self-citation; prior work by the authors is cited only as context and is not load-bearing. The central equality (26)⇔(34) is a genuine algebraic identity: both conditions reduce to the same coefficient relations (35), and this can be verified directly from the displayed equations. The only circular flavor is the Section IV step where the Schrödinger vectorial condition (9) is assumed in order to derive (34), while the surrounding text claims the Schrödinger form is dynamically forced. Because the same consequence follows generically from (33) together with (35), the paper's main claim is not reduced to its input by construction. The admitted flatness issue in the Conclusion—that the Schrödinger connection 'does not in general preserve the vanishing Riemann or Ricci curvature'—is a scope/correctness limitation for STG, not a circularity, so it is noted but not scored. Overall: no significant circularity beyond the mild presentational inversion in the emergence claim.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central equivalence rests on restricting nonmetricity to its vectorial trace sector and on omitting the flatness constraint. Both choices are stated but not resolved. No new physical entities are introduced; the action coefficients c_i remain partly free.

free parameters (1)
  • c1, c2, c3
    After imposing scale invariance and the dynamical condition, the coefficient space has three free parameters (Eq. 35). The paper does not fix them by any physical principle; they are arbitrary weights of the nonmetricity scalar.
axioms (3)
  • ad hoc to paper Vectorial nonmetricity restriction Ω_{λμν}=0
    Assumed after Eq. (8) 'for simplicity.' The scale-invariance transformation and the coefficient conditions (26) are computed in this restricted sector, so the central equivalence is conditional on this assumption.
  • domain assumption No curvature-free constraint imposed on the affine connection
    The Palatini variation in Section IV varies the connection without enforcing R^λ_{ναβ}=0. The Conclusion admits this and defers the full STG treatment to future work, so the theory is metric-affine rather than strictly symmetric teleparallel.
  • domain assumption Connection transformation restricted to the projective linear form (13)
    The 'unique' scale transformation is unique only within this family of transformations; the paper relies on Sauro, Martini, and Zanusso [49] for the general linear transformation of the connection.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 10360 in / 21634 out tokens · 179922 ms · 2026-08-01T14:44:28.704843+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We construct a locally scale-invariant formulation of Schr\"{o}dinger geometry in symmetric teleparallel gravity. The unique scale transformation preserving autoparallelism, torsionlessness and the Schr\"{o}dinger affine structure is first identified, from which a quadratic scale-invariant action is obtained. Using the Palatini formalism, we show that the conditions required for scale invariance are exactly those ensuring that the affine connection is dynamically reduced to the Schr\"{o}dinger form. Our results establish a direct correspondence between local scale symmetry and length-preserving affine geometry, providing a new geometric framework for scale-invariant metric-affine gravity.

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

51 extracted references · 41 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    is δl=T λ∇λ(gµνT µT ν) =T λT µT ν∇λgµν +g µνT λT ν∇λT µ +g µνT λT µ∇λT ν =Q λµνT λT µT ν =Q (λµν)T λT µT ν. (5) Therefore, only the totally symmetric part of the non- metricity contributes to the variation of the vector length, and a Schr¨ odinger connection defined byδl= 0 requires Q(λµν) = 0.(6) If a Schr¨ odinger-type nonmetricity is encoded in a metri...

  2. [2]

    F. W. Hehl, J. D. McCrea, E. W. Mielke, and Y. Ne’eman, Metric affine gauge theory of gravity: Field equations, Noether identities, world spinors, and break- ing of dilation invariance, Phys. Rept.258, 1 (1995), arXiv:gr-qc/9402012

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  3. [3]

    F. W. Hehl, G. D. Kerlick, and P. Von Der Heyde, On a New Metric Affine Theory of Gravitation, Phys. Lett. B 63, 446 (1976)

    1976

  4. [4]

    Ivanenko and G

    D. Ivanenko and G. Sardanashvily, The Gauge Treatment of Gravity, Phys. Rept.94, 1 (1983)

    1983

  5. [5]

    Gronwald and F

    F. Gronwald and F. W. Hehl, On the gauge aspects of gravity, inInternational School of Cosmology and Grav- itation: 14th Course: Quantum Gravity(1995) pp. 148– 198, arXiv:gr-qc/9602013

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  6. [6]

    Y. N. Obukhov and J. G. Pereira, Metric affine approach to teleparallel gravity, Phys. Rev. D67, 044016 (2003), arXiv:gr-qc/0212080

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  7. [7]

    T. P. Sotiriou and S. Liberati, Metric-affine f(R) theo- ries of gravity, Annals Phys.322, 935 (2007), arXiv:gr- qc/0604006

    arXiv 2007

  8. [8]

    Capozziello, R

    S. Capozziello, R. Cianci, C. Stornaiolo, and S. Vignolo, f(R) gravity with torsion: The Metric-affine approach, Class. Quant. Grav.24, 6417 (2007), arXiv:0708.3038 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  9. [9]

    Vitagliano, T

    V. Vitagliano, T. P. Sotiriou, and S. Liberati, The dy- namics of metric-affine gravity, Annals Phys.326, 1259 (2011), [Erratum: Annals Phys. 329, 186–187 (2013)], arXiv:1008.0171 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  10. [10]

    Iosifidis,Metric-Affine Gravity and Cosmol- ogy/Aspects of Torsion and non-Metricity in Gravity Theories, Ph.D

    D. Iosifidis,Metric-Affine Gravity and Cosmol- ogy/Aspects of Torsion and non-Metricity in Gravity Theories, Ph.D. thesis (2019), arXiv:1902.09643 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  11. [11]

    Shimada, K

    K. Shimada, K. Aoki, and K.-i. Maeda, Metric-affine Gravity and Inflation, Phys. Rev. D99, 104020 (2019), arXiv:1812.03420 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  12. [12]

    Percacci, Towards Metric-Affine Quantum Gravity, Int

    R. Percacci, Towards Metric-Affine Quantum Gravity, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys.17, 2040003 (2020), arXiv:2003.09486 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  13. [13]

    Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, L

    J. Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, L. Heisenberg, and T. S. Koivisto, The Geometrical Trinity of Gravity, Universe5, 173 (2019), arXiv:1903.06830 [hep-th]. 7

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  14. [14]

    Capozziello, V

    S. Capozziello, V. De Falco, and C. Ferrara, Comparing equivalent gravities: common features and differences, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 865 (2022), arXiv:2208.03011 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  15. [15]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and V. K. Oikonomou, Modi- fied Gravity Theories on a Nutshell: Inflation, Bounce and Late-time Evolution, Phys. Rept.692, 1 (2017), arXiv:1705.11098 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  16. [16]

    Y.-F. Cai, S. Capozziello, M. De Laurentis, and E. N. Saridakis, f(T) teleparallel gravity and cosmology, Rept. Prog. Phys.79, 106901 (2016), arXiv:1511.07586 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  17. [17]

    Heisenberg, Review on f(Q) gravity, Phys

    L. Heisenberg, Review on f(Q) gravity, Phys. Rept.1066, 1 (2024), arXiv:2309.15958 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    Haghani, T

    Z. Haghani, T. Harko, H. R. Sepangi, and S. Shahidi, Weyl-Cartan-Weitzenboeck gravity as a generalization of teleparallel gravity, JCAP10, 061, arXiv:1202.1879 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  19. [19]

    Harko, F

    T. Harko, F. S. N. Lobo, S. Nojiri, and S. D. Odintsov, f(R, T) gravity, Phys. Rev. D84, 024020 (2011), arXiv:1104.2669 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  20. [20]

    Y. Xu, G. Li, T. Harko, and S.-D. Liang,f(Q, T) gravity, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 708 (2019), arXiv:1908.04760 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  21. [21]

    T. P. Sotiriou and V. Faraoni, f(R) Theories Of Gravity, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 451 (2010), arXiv:0805.1726 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  22. [22]

    Bahamonde, K

    S. Bahamonde, K. F. Dialektopoulos, C. Escamilla- Rivera, G. Farrugia, V. Gakis, M. Hendry, M. Hohmann, J. Levi Said, J. Mifsud, and E. Di Valentino, Teleparallel gravity: from theory to cosmology, Rept. Prog. Phys.86, 026901 (2023), arXiv:2106.13793 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    J. M. Nester and H.-J. Yo, Symmetric teleparallel gen- eral relativity, Chin. J. Phys.37, 113 (1999), arXiv:gr- qc/9809049

    arXiv 1999

  24. [24]

    Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, L

    J. Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, L. Heisenberg, and T. S. Koivisto, Teleparallel Palatini theories, JCAP08, 039, arXiv:1803.10185 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  25. [25]

    M. Adak, M. Kalay, and O. Sert, Lagrange formulation of the symmetric teleparallel gravity, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D15, 619 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0505025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  26. [26]

    Adak, ¨O

    M. Adak, ¨O. Sert, M. Kalay, and M. Sari, Symmetric Teleparallel Gravity: Some exact solutions and spinor couplings, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A28, 1350167 (2013), arXiv:0810.2388 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  27. [27]

    Mol, The Non-Metricity Formulation of General Rel- ativity, Adv

    I. Mol, The Non-Metricity Formulation of General Rel- ativity, Adv. Appl. Clifford Algebras27, 2607 (2017), arXiv:1406.0737 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  28. [28]

    Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, L

    J. Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, L. Heisenberg, and T. Koivisto, Co- incident General Relativity, Phys. Rev. D98, 044048 (2018), arXiv:1710.03116 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  29. [29]

    Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, L

    J. Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, L. Heisenberg, T. S. Koivisto, and S. Pekar, Cosmology inf(Q) geometry, Phys. Rev. D 101, 103507 (2020), arXiv:1906.10027 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  30. [30]

    Weyl, Gravitation und elektrizit¨ at, inDas Rel- ativit¨ atsprinzip: Eine Sammlung von Abhandlungen (Springer, 1918) pp

    H. Weyl, Gravitation und elektrizit¨ at, inDas Rel- ativit¨ atsprinzip: Eine Sammlung von Abhandlungen (Springer, 1918) pp. 147–159

    1918

  31. [31]

    J. T. Wheeler, Weyl geometry, Gen. Rel. Grav.50, 80 (2018), arXiv:1801.03178 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  32. [32]

    Scholz, The unexpected resurgence of Weyl geome- try in late 20-th century physics, Einstein Stud.14, 261 (2018), arXiv:1703.03187 [math.HO]

    E. Scholz, The unexpected resurgence of Weyl geome- try in late 20-th century physics, Einstein Stud.14, 261 (2018), arXiv:1703.03187 [math.HO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  33. [33]

    Pauli,Theory of relativity(Courier Corporation, 2013)

    W. Pauli,Theory of relativity(Courier Corporation, 2013)

    2013

  34. [34]

    Avalos, F

    R. Avalos, F. Dahia, and C. Romero, A Note on the Problem of Proper Time in Weyl Space–Time, Found. Phys.48, 253 (2018), arXiv:1611.10198 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  35. [35]

    Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, L

    J. Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, L. Heisenberg, and T. Koivisto, The coupling of matter and spacetime geometry, Class. Quant. Grav.37, 195013 (2020), arXiv:2004.04606 [hep- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  36. [36]

    M. P. Hobson and A. N. Lasenby, Weyl gauge theories of gravity do not predict a second clock effect, Phys. Rev. D102, 084040 (2020), arXiv:2009.06407 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  37. [37]

    C. Pala, O. Sert, and M. Adak, Weyl covariance, sec- ond clock effect and proper time in theories of symmet- ric teleparallel gravity, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 17 (2023), arXiv:2202.10165 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  38. [38]

    Quiros, Nonmetricity theories and aspects of gauge symmetry, Phys

    I. Quiros, Nonmetricity theories and aspects of gauge symmetry, Phys. Rev. D105, 104060 (2022), arXiv:2111.05490 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  39. [39]

    Quiros, Gauge invariant approach to nonmetricity the- ories and the second clock effect (2022), arXiv:2201.03076 [gr-qc]

    I. Quiros, Gauge invariant approach to nonmetricity the- ories and the second clock effect (2022), arXiv:2201.03076 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  40. [40]

    Schr¨ odinger,Space-time structure(Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 1985)

    E. Schr¨ odinger,Space-time structure(Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 1985)

    1985

  41. [41]

    Klemm and L

    S. Klemm and L. Ravera, Schr¨ odinger connection with selfdual nonmetricity vector in 2+1 dimensions, Phys. Lett. B817, 136291 (2021), arXiv:2008.12740 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  42. [42]

    Ming, S.-D

    L. Ming, S.-D. Liang, H.-H. Zhang, and T. Harko, From the Weyl-Schr¨ odinger connection to the accelerating Uni- verse: Extending Einstein’s gravity via a length pre- serving nonmetricity, Phys. Rev. D109, 024003 (2024), arXiv:2310.05591 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  43. [43]

    Csillag, A

    L. Csillag, A. Agashe, and D. Iosifidis, Schr¨ odinger connections: from mathematical foundations towards Yano–Schr¨ odinger cosmology, Class. Quant. Grav.41, 235005 (2024), arXiv:2402.06167 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    Csillag, R

    L. Csillag, R. Hama, M. Jozsa, T. Harko, and S. V. Sabau, Length-preserving biconnection grav- ity and its cosmological implications, JCAP12, 034, arXiv:2407.13024 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  45. [45]

    Chaudhary and S

    H. Chaudhary and S. Hussain, Yano-Schr¨ odinger hy- perfluid: Cosmological implications, JHEAp49, 100447 (2026), arXiv:2503.23115 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  46. [46]

    L. Ming, H. Chaudhary, S.-D. Liang, H.-H. Zhang, and T. Harko, Schr¨ odinger-typef(Q, T) gravity-nonmetricity driven cosmological evolution from inflation to the late Universe (2025), arXiv:2511.18866 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    Iosifidis and T

    D. Iosifidis and T. Koivisto, Scale transformations in metric-affine geometry, Universe5, 82 (2019), arXiv:1810.12276 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  48. [48]

    Iosifidis, Linear Transformations on Affine- Connections, Class

    D. Iosifidis, Linear Transformations on Affine- Connections, Class. Quant. Grav.37, 085010 (2020), arXiv:1911.04535 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  49. [49]

    Vazirian, M

    R. Vazirian, M. R. Tanhayi, and Z. A. Motahar, Weyl- invariant extension of the Metric-Affine Gravity, Adv. High Energy Phys.2015, 902396 (2015), arXiv:1310.1452 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  50. [50]

    Sauro, R

    D. Sauro, R. Martini, and O. Zanusso, Projective trans- formations in metric-affine and Weylian geometries, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys.20, 2350237 (2023), arXiv:2208.10872 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  51. [51]

    Boudet,Theoretical and Phenomenological Aspects of Projective-Invariant Metric-Affine Theories of Gravity, Other thesis

    S. Boudet,Theoretical and Phenomenological Aspects of Projective-Invariant Metric-Affine Theories of Gravity, Other thesis