Quantum Anomalies of Tensionless Bosonic Strings

Bin Chen; Zezhou Hu

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 32 references

Quantum Anomalies of Tensionless Bosonic Strings

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

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

Pith's one-line read The quantum consistency of tensionless strings is not a single number: the paper shows that the choice of vacuum decides whether $D=26$ emerges, whether a continuous family of critical dimensions appears, or whether no anomaly-free…

desk verdict Careful, genuinely useful unified BRST comparison; the flipped-vacuum computations are credible, but the manual ghost zero-mode convention deserves a sensitivity check before taking D(λ) as physical. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02987 v1 pith:AHTOHN5C submitted 2026-08-04 hep-th

Bin Chen , Zezhou Hu This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-th

keywords tensionlessstringsnullcriticaldimensionBRSTquantizationquantumanomaliesflippedvacuumCarroll-Weylsymmetryhybridstring

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 asks whether tensionless (zero-tension) bosonic strings can be made quantum-consistent, and it answers that the question has no single answer: the result depends on which worldsheet vacuum one adopts. Comparing four formulations—the $(D+2)$-dimensional conformal string, the $D$-dimensional ILST null string (the original null string), the Carroll–Weyl gauged string, and the hybrid null string—through one common Hamiltonian BRST scheme, the paper shows that in the induced vacuum no critical dimension can be inferred from anomaly cancellation. In the flipped highest-weight vacuum, the ILST null string reproduces the familiar $D=26$, the hybrid string admits a continuous critical-dimension curve $D(\lambda)$ that covers every integer $D \geq 4$, and the conformal and Carroll–Weyl gauged strings are structurally anomalous at every dimension. A sympathetic reader would care because this maps which tensionless-string formulations can survive quantization.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the Hamiltonian BRST charge built from each model's constraint algebra, together with a mode-by-mode normal-ordering prescription that selects a vacuum. In the flipped vacuum, non-zero two-point functions make fully contracted Wick double contractions contribute finite central terms $\tilde d_i$ to the quantum constraint algebra; Jacobi identities restrict these terms to a few independent cocycle classes, and BRST nilpotency requires every non-trivial class to vanish. The flipped highest-weight vacuum, with antighost zero modes prescribed to annihilate the vacuum, is the device that turns these double contractions into the dimension-dependent conditions summarized in Table 1.

What would settle it

Evaluate the flipped-vacuum double-contraction central charges without imposing the manual antighost-zero-mode rule $b_{i,0}|0\rangle=0$; if the Virasoro and scaling anomaly conditions then have a common integer solution for the conformal or Carroll–Weyl string, the claim that they are structurally anomalous would be refuted. Alternatively, compute the physical BRST cohomology of the hybrid string at a nontrivial point such as $D=4$, $\lambda=-8/3$: if no BRST-invariant states or vertex operators exist there, the 'consistent critical dimension' reading of $D(\lambda)$ would be empty.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that the quantum consistency of tensionless bosonic strings is decided by the vacuum, not by the algebra alone. With the induced vacuum and the symmetric $\alpha=0$ zeta regulator, all four BRST charges can be made nilpotent away from a genuine anomaly, so no critical dimension is selected. With the flipped highest-weight vacuum, genuine central extensions appear, and requiring them to vanish fixes $D=26$ for the ILST null string, yields $D(\lambda)=\frac{2(6\lambda^2+6\lambda+14)}{3\lambda^2-1}$ for the hybrid null string (with $D(1)=26$ and every integer $D\geq4$ realized for real $\lambda$), and forces incompatible conditions for the conformal string and the Carroll–Weyl gauged string. The paper further claims that the ILST null string's target-space conformal symmetry $\mathrm{SO}(D,2)$ is quantum-mechanically closed in the induced vacuum but broken in the flipped vacuum even at $D=26$.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's results depend on accepting its chosen 'flipped' ground state, with a hand-added rule for ghost zero modes, as the physically relevant vacuum; any other vacuum choice changes the critical-dimension conclusions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the flipped vacuum is the correct one for tensionless strings, the ILST null string is the only one of the four formulations with a fixed critical dimension, and it matches the tensile bosonic string's $D=26$.
The hybrid null string predicts a one-parameter family of critical dimensions: every integer $D\geq4$ can be realized by a real deformation parameter $\lambda$, with $D=26$ recovered at $\lambda=1$; imposing integer $\lambda$ as well leaves only $(1,26)$ and $(-1,14)$, the latter outside the finite Stueckelberg parametrization.
The conformal string and Carroll–Weyl gauged string cannot be made anomaly-free at any dimension, because their Virasoro and scaling central charges vanish at incompatible values ($D=26$ vs $D=6$ for the conformal string; $D=27$, $D=4$, and $D=6$ for the Carroll–Weyl string).
In the induced vacuum with the $\alpha=0$ prescription, anomaly cancellation selects no critical dimension, and the $\mathrm{SO}(D,2)$ charges of the ILST null string close on the BRST cohomology.
Cancellation of the worldsheet gauge anomaly does not guarantee target-space conformal symmetry: in the flipped vacuum the ILST special-conformal charge is not BRST-closed even at $D=26$.

Reading between the lines

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

Read as a diagnostic, the paper suggests that the tensionless limit does not single out one critical dimension; the hybrid curve indicates that the quantum-consistent point is a parameter-dependent locus, with $D=26$ only one point on it.
If the flipped vacuum is mandatory, the classical equivalence between the conformal string and the ILST null string does not descend to quantum equivalence, since one is structurally anomalous and the other is consistent at $D=26$.
A supersymmetric version of the same flipped-vacuum computation would test whether the hybrid curve shifts to a $D(\lambda)$ that contains $D=10$ at $\lambda=1$, the natural tensionless analogue of the superstring critical dimension.
The exceptional integer point $(\lambda,D)=(-1,14)$ sits outside the finite-$\Delta$ Stueckelberg action, so it may describe a genuinely different algebraic extension rather than a deformation of the known hybrid string.

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

Worth reading. The real contribution is the unified mode-level BRST treatment of four tensionless string formulations, and it is done honestly: the appendices lay out the Wick contractions, the central extensions are tied to Jacobi-constrained cocycles, and the authors themselves flag the overlap with Duary–Maji and the missing BRST cohomology. The flipped-vacuum results—ILST D=26, hybrid D(λ), conformal and Carroll–Weyl structurally anomalous—come from transparent finite double contractions and are internally consistent. I checked the logic of the incompatible central-charge conditions; they are what the algebra says.

The weakest spot is the flipped vacuum’s zero-mode convention b_{i,0}|0>=0, prescribed manually. It is a legitimate choice in the bc ghost system, but the paper gives no independent argument—cohomology, BRST compatibility, or physical-state selection—that picks it over c_0|0>=0. The stress-test note is right that the step functions in (C.2) depend on this convention, so the anomaly coefficients are convention-sensitive in principle. I do not think that destroys the paper; the convention is standard enough, and the calculations are explicit enough that a referee can check. But a short sensitivity check with the conjugate convention should be added before the D(λ) curve is advertised as a critical-dimension result rather than a statement about this vacuum sector.

Two smaller soft spots. First, the induced-vacuum “no critical dimension” conclusion is a consequence of choosing the α=0 zeta regulator; the paper is transparent about this, but the claim is easy to over-read. Second, the D(λ) curve is necessary, not sufficient—the authors concede that the BRST spectrum has not been computed, so we do not know which points actually give consistent string theories. The novelty boundary with [5] and [30] could also be drawn more sharply, but the overlap is at least acknowledged.

Who this is for: people working on tensionless strings, Carrollian worldsheets, and BMS-like algebras. They should read the appendices carefully. It deserves a serious referee; the main request would be the zero-mode convention sensitivity check and a more careful framing of the induced-vacuum result.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper presents a unified Hamiltonian BRST treatment of four tensionless bosonic string formulations—the (D+2)-dimensional conformal string, the D-dimensional ILST null string, the Carroll–Weyl gauged string, and the hybrid null string—all expressed in a common mode-expansion notation. It computes the quantum central extensions of the constraint algebras under two vacuum prescriptions: the induced vacuum, where a symmetric α=0 zeta regularization is imposed, and the flipped highest-weight vacuum, where finite double contractions produce genuine anomalies. The headline results are: no critical dimension is selected in the induced vacuum; in the flipped vacuum the ILST null string requires D=26, the hybrid null string admits a one-parameter family D(λ) covering every integer D≥4 (including D=26 at λ=1), and the conformal and Carroll–Weyl strings are claimed to be structurally anomalous because their Virasoro and scaling anomalies cannot vanish simultaneously. The paper also analyzes the target-space SO(D,2) symmetry of the ILST null string, finding closure in the induced vacuum and non-closure in the flipped vacuum.

Significance. If the flipped-vacuum framework is accepted, this is a useful and systematic comparison: it organizes the four models by their ghost sectors, classifies the allowed central extensions via Jacobi identities, and correctly distinguishes trivial coboundaries from non-trivial cohomology classes. The mode-level computations in Appendices C and D are explicit and internally consistent; for instance, the hybrid matter coefficient in Eq. (C.19) follows from finite sums over k∈[1,m] and agrees with direct contraction. The resulting D(λ) curve and the incompatible-dimension verdicts for the conformal and Carroll–Weyl strings are concrete, falsifiable statements that go beyond earlier literature. The paper is also commendably transparent about its own limitations: the manual zero-mode prescription in Eq. (4.3), the exclusion of the oscillator vacuum, and the absence of a BRST-cohomology check are all acknowledged. Nevertheless, the physical significance of the results depends entirely on whether the flipped vacuum, with the specific ghost zero-mode convention, is the correct ground state for tensionless strings; on this point the manuscript currently provides no independent argument.

major comments (3)

[§4.2, Eqs. (4.2)–(4.3); Appendix C] The central flipped-vacuum results depend on the manual prescription b_{i,0}|0>Flip=0 in Eq. (4.3), which fixes the strict versus non-strict inequalities in the ghost two-point functions of Eq. (C.2). The conjugate prescription c_{i,0}|0>Flip=0 would change the k=0 terms in those two-point functions and generically alter the finite sums that produce the scaling anomalies d3, d'3, and the mixed-sector coefficients entering Table 1 and Eq. (4.4). The manuscript offers no independent derivation of this prescription from BRST compatibility, cohomology, or physical-state selection, and Section 5 explicitly defers the BRST-cohomology check to future work. As it stands, the structural-anomaly verdicts for the conformal and Carroll–Weyl strings and the D(λ) curve are conditional on an unvalidated convention rather than robust quantum predictions.
[§4.1 and Eqs. (B.8)–(B.11)] The induced-vacuum conclusion that no critical dimension is inferred is enforced by the choice α=0: Eq. (B.11) sets S0=0, which removes the only non-trivial pre-regularized coefficient K^{1,-1} in Eq. (B.8). The manuscript is honest about this, but the abstract presents the no-critical-dimension result without the regulator caveat. Please state explicitly in the abstract and Section 4 that this conclusion is specific to the symmetric α=0 member of the generalized-zeta family of Ref. [29], or provide an independent argument that this member is the uniquely consistent one.
[§5 and Table 1] The conclusion uses phrases such as 'the ILST null string ... is consistent at D=26.' What is established is worldsheet BRST nilpotency in the flipped vacuum for the specific zero-mode prescription, not the existence of a non-trivial BRST cohomology, a physical spectrum, or BRST-invariant vertex operators. The outlook correctly identifies this gap. Please replace 'consistent' with 'anomaly-free at the level of worldsheet BRST nilpotency' in the conclusion and in any summary statements, and similarly phrase the structural-anomaly claims for the other models as statements about this level of consistency.

minor comments (3)

[Eq. (B.6)] Equation (B.6) writes S_α = Σ_{r∈Z} 1/|r|^α = -2α; as written this is not a convergent evaluation for generic α. Please state that this is the regularized value in the generalized-zeta family of Ref. [29] and clarify how Eq. (B.11) follows from it.
[§4.2, after Eq. (4.4)] The statement that the real-λ curve realizes every positive integer D≥4 includes points outside the finite-Δ Stueckelberg parametrization, notably λ=-1 at D=14, as the text later acknowledges. Since the abstract repeats the range claim without this caveat, please mark such algebraic-extension points explicitly when the range is stated.
[§3.4 Eq. (3.24)] The notation gλ(m) and hλ(m) is introduced for possible central extensions, and the text later states that direct evaluation sets all exceptional cocycles at λ=-1,0,1 to zero. It would help readers if the final Section 4 table or a sentence immediately after Eq. (3.24) made clear that these classes are Jacobi-allowed but not realized in the vacuum representations studied.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the critical dimensions and anomaly conditions are computed from explicit mode contractions under stated vacuum and regularization choices, not fitted or imposed by self-citation.

full rationale

The central flipped-vacuum results are genuine outputs of the paper's own calculation chain. D=26 for the ILST null string follows from the computed Virasoro coefficient (D-26)/6 in Eq. (C.12); the hybrid D(λ) follows from Eq. (C.20); and the 'structurally anomalous' conclusions follow from incompatible sd_i conditions such as D=26 vs D=6 for the conformal string and D=27, D=4, D=6 for the Carroll–Weyl string. These are not fitted parameters or renamed inputs. The induced-vacuum no-critical-dimension statement is explicitly conditional: the abstract and Section 4.1 say it holds 'with ... the symmetric α=0 zeta prescription,' and the choice α=0 is motivated by restoring the Jacobi identity, not by demanding a particular critical dimension. That is a transparent regularization choice rather than a disguised prediction. The flipped-vacuum zero-mode prescription b_{i,0}|0>=0 is explicitly labeled 'manually prescribe[d]' in Eq. (4.3); this is an assumption on which the results depend, and the paper does not claim it is derived. Sensitivity to that assumption is a correctness caveat, not circularity. The hybrid string model is introduced via the authors' earlier paper [5], but Section 2.4 re-derives the Stueckelberg action, the deformed generator M^{Lλ}, and the g(1)_λ commutators, and the cocycle classification is checked against external references [31,32]. Thus the self-citation is not load-bearing. The outlook section explicitly states that BRST cohomology and physical-state spectra have not yet been computed for the anomaly-free candidates; this is an acknowledged incompleteness, not a circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central computation rests on the standard quantization framework (mode expansions, Wick contractions, Hamiltonian BRST), on the model definitions inherited from [1,2,3,4,5], on the vacuum prescriptions from [24], and on the zeta-regularization scheme from [29]. The only genuinely paper-specific input is the α=0 choice, which directly shapes the induced-vacuum conclusion, and the deformation parameter λ for the hybrid string, which controls the D(λ) curve.

free parameters (4)

alpha (zeta regularization parameter) = 0
The symmetric α=0 member of the zeta family [29] is imposed so that S_0 = 0, which removes the induced-vacuum anomaly and restores the Jacobi identity. The no-critical-dimension result in the induced vacuum is a consequence of this choice, not an independent prediction.
A0, AL, ALλ (normal-ordering zero-mode constants) = undetermined (coboundary parameters)
Normal-ordering zero-mode constants introduced when defining the quantum BRST charge (Eq. (3.5) and (3.12)-(3.15)). They are arbitrary coboundary parameters removable by zero-mode shifts; they do not affect the non-trivial anomaly conditions.
A_{-1} (ILST/hybrid antighost zero-mode constant) = 0 (representative)
Set to zero as a representative in the ILST and hybrid strings (Eq. (3.14)-(3.22)). Shifts in A-1 are trivial coboundaries, so this choice does not affect the physical conditions.
λ (hybrid string deformation parameter) = free real parameter, λ ≠ -1 for finite Δ (Eq. (2.35))
The deformation parameter of the hybrid null string, inherited from the authors' prior model [5] via Eq. (2.35). It is a free real parameter (λ ≠ -1 for finite Δ), and the critical dimension D(λ) is a function of it; the claim that every integer D ≥ 4 is realized is a property of this parametrization.

assumptions (7)

standard math Canonical mode expansion and commutation relation [x_m, p_n] = i δ_{m+n,0} η (Eq. (2.4))
The starting point of the mode algebra; standard free-field quantization of the target-space coordinates.
standard math Wick's theorem and vacuum-dependent normal ordering (Appendix A)
Used to compute commutators of normal-ordered bilinears; standard operator-product technique.
domain assumption Hamiltonian BRST formalism with the minimal cubic BRST charge Q0 (Eq. (3.3))
Assumes a closed, irreducible first-class constraint algebra and standard ghost counting; the paper states this is correct for the four models.
domain assumption The residual constraint algebras bsl(2,R)⋊Vir, bms3, Carroll-Weyl, and g(1)_λ (Section 2, from refs [1,2,3,4,5])
The paper derives these by gauge fixing but inherits the actions and symmetry structures from prior literature, including the authors' own hybrid model.
domain assumption The induced and flipped vacuum definitions, including ghost annihilation conditions (Eqs. (4.1)-(4.3), Appendix B)
The choice of vacuum fixes normal ordering and therefore the anomaly content. The flipped vacuum includes a manual ghost-zero-mode rule; the oscillator vacuum is excluded.
ad hoc to paper The generalized zeta regularization family and the symmetric α=0 member (Ref. [29], Eq. (B.6), (B.11))
The α=0 prescription is imposed to restore the Jacobi identity and remove the induced-vacuum anomaly; it is a regulator choice specific to this analysis.
standard math Quantum Jacobi identities restrict central extensions to polynomial forms of degree at most three (Section 3, Eq. (3.9))
Standard Lie algebra cohomology input used to classify the allowed central charges.

invented entities (1)

Hybrid null string and its algebra g(1)_λ
purpose: Defines a one-parameter family of tensionless strings deforming bms3; the central claim about D(λ) applies to this model.
The model was introduced by the present authors in Ref. [5]; there is no independent experimental handle, and the paper identifies no falsifiable observable outside the theoretical framework.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Anomalies of Tensionless Bosonic Strings." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AHTOHN5C

@misc{pith2026260802987,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Anomalies of Tensionless Bosonic Strings},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AHTOHN5C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02987}
}

abstract

We systematically investigate and compare the worldsheet actions, BRST structures and the quantum anomalies of four different formulations of tensionless ($T = 0$) bosonic string theory: the $(D+2)$-dimensional conformal string \cite{Gustafsson:1994kr}, the $D$-dimensional ILST null string \cite{Isberg:1993av}, the $D$-dimensional Carroll-Weyl gauged string \cite{Sheikh-Jabbari:2026vqh, Sheikh-Jabbari:2026tpf}, and the $D$-dimensional hybrid null string \cite{Chen:2026klv}. By expressing all fields and constraint generators strictly in terms of mode expansions and adopting a unified algebraic framework, we analyze their quantum anomalies under two distinct worldsheet vacua: the induced vacuum and the flipped vacuum. With the BRST-compatible vacuum definition and the symmetric $\alpha=0$ zeta prescription, we show that no critical dimension is inferred from the vanishing of the quantum anomaly in the induced vacuum. In contrast, the flipped highest-weight vacuum leads to non-trivial constraints, reproducing the critical dimension $D=26$ for the ILST null strings, a $\lambda$-dependent critical dimension $D(\lambda)$ for the hybrid null string whose range covers every positive integer $D\geq 4$ (reproduces $D=26$ at $\lambda=1$), and more importantly showing that the conformal string and the Carroll-Weyl gauged string are structurally anomalous with no consistent critical dimension due to the discrepancy of their central charge parameters $\tilde d_i$. Furthermore, the ILST null string model has target-space conformal symmetry $SO(D,2)$, the ghost-completed $SO(D,2)$ charges are closed on the induced-vacuum BRST cohomology in the $\alpha=0$ prescription, whereas the symmetry is quantum mechanically broken in the flipped vacuum.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

[5]

Chen and Z

B. Chen and Z. Hu,Symmetries and Critical Dimensions of Tensionless Branes,2604.01883

arXiv
[30]

Duary and S

S. Duary and S. Maji,BRST quantization of Carroll-Weyl gauged null strings,2608.xxxxx

work page
[29]

Hwang, R

S. Hwang, R. Marnelius and P. Saltsidis,A general BRST approach to string theories with zeta function regularizations,J. Math. Phys.40(1999) 4639 [hep-th/9804003]

arXiv 1999
[1]

Gustafsson, U

H. Gustafsson, U. Lindstrom, P. Saltsidis, B. Sundborg and R. van Unge,Hamiltonian BRST quantization of the conformal string,Nucl. Phys. B440(1995) 495 [hep-th/9410143]

arXiv 1995
[2]

Isberg, U

J. Isberg, U. Lindstrom, B. Sundborg and G. Theodoridis,Classical and quantized tensionless strings, Nucl. Phys. B411(1994) 122 [hep-th/9307108]

arXiv 1994
[3]

Sheikh-Jabbari and H

M.M. Sheikh-Jabbari and H. Yavartanoo,Null Strings Gauged and Reloaded, I: Null Strings Have Carroll-Weyl Gauge Symmetry,2605.25817

arXiv
[4]

Sheikh-Jabbari and H

M.M. Sheikh-Jabbari and H. Yavartanoo,Null Strings Gauged and Reloaded, II: Consistent Classical Treatment of the Null Strings,2605.26822

arXiv
[6]

Gross and P.F

D.J. Gross and P.F. Mende,The High-Energy Behavior of String Scattering Amplitudes,Phys. Lett. B 197(1987) 129

work page 1987

Show all 32 references

[7]

Gross and P.F

D.J. Gross and P.F. Mende,String Theory Beyond the Planck Scale,Nucl. Phys. B303(1988) 407

1988
[8]

Atick and E

J.J. Atick and E. Witten,The Hagedorn Transition and the Number of Degrees of Freedom of String Theory,Nucl. Phys. B310(1988) 291

1988
[9]

Sundborg,Stringy gravity, interacting tensionless strings and massless higher spins,Nucl

B. Sundborg,Stringy gravity, interacting tensionless strings and massless higher spins,Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.102(2001) 113 [hep-th/0103247]

2001 arXiv
[10]

Barnich, A

G. Barnich, A. Gomberoff and H.A. Gonzalez,The Flat limit of three dimensional asymptotically anti-de Sitter spacetimes,Phys. Rev. D86(2012) 024020 [1204.3288]

2012 arXiv
[11]

Bagchi and R

A. Bagchi and R. Fareghbal,BMS/GCA Redux: Towards Flatspace Holography from Non-Relativistic Symmetries,JHEP10(2012) 092 [1203.5795]. – 28 –

2012 arXiv
[12]

Bagchi, S

A. Bagchi, S. Chakrabortty and P. Parekh,Tensionless Strings from Worldsheet Symmetries,JHEP01 (2016) 158 [1507.04361]

2016 arXiv
[13]

Bagchi, A

A. Bagchi, A. Banerjee, S. Chakrabortty and R. Chatterjee,A Rindler road to Carrollian worldsheets, JHEP04(2022) 082 [2111.01172]

2022 arXiv
[14]

Schild,Classical Null Strings,Phys

A. Schild,Classical Null Strings,Phys. Rev. D16(1977) 1722

1977
[15]

Karlhede and U

A. Karlhede and U. Lindstrom,The Classical Bosonic String in the Zero Tension Limit,Class. Quant. Grav.3(1986) L73

1986
[16]

Sundborg,Strongly topological interactions of tensionless strings,hep-th/9405195

B. Sundborg,Strongly topological interactions of tensionless strings,hep-th/9405195

arXiv
[17]

Bagchi,Tensionless Strings and Galilean Conformal Algebra,JHEP05(2013) 141 [1303.0291]

A. Bagchi,Tensionless Strings and Galilean Conformal Algebra,JHEP05(2013) 141 [1303.0291]

2013 arXiv
[18]

Bagchi,Correspondence between Asymptotically Flat Spacetimes and Nonrelativistic Conformal Field Theories,Phys

A. Bagchi,Correspondence between Asymptotically Flat Spacetimes and Nonrelativistic Conformal Field Theories,Phys. Rev. Lett.105(2010) 171601 [1006.3354]

2010 arXiv
[19]

Barnich and C

G. Barnich and C. Troessaert,Symmetries of asymptotically flat 4 dimensional spacetimes at null infinity revisited,Phys. Rev. Lett.105(2010) 111103 [0909.2617]

2010 arXiv
[20]

Strominger,On BMS Invariance of Gravitational Scattering,JHEP07(2014) 152 [1312.2229]

A. Strominger,On BMS Invariance of Gravitational Scattering,JHEP07(2014) 152 [1312.2229]

2014 arXiv
[21]

Donnay, A

L. Donnay, A. Fiorucci, Y. Herfray and R. Ruzziconi,Carrollian Perspective on Celestial Holography, Phys. Rev. Lett.129(2022) 071602 [2202.04702]

2022 arXiv
[22]

Ciambelli, R.G

L. Ciambelli, R.G. Leigh, C. Marteau and P.M. Petropoulos,Carroll Structures, Null Geometry and Conformal Isometries,Phys. Rev. D100(2019) 046010 [1905.02221]

2019 arXiv
[23]

Bagchi, A

A. Bagchi, A. Banerjee and P. Parekh,Tensionless Path from Closed to Open Strings,Phys. Rev. Lett. 123(2019) 111601 [1905.11732]

2019 arXiv
[24]

Bagchi, M

A. Bagchi, M. Mandlik and P. Sharma,Tensionless tales: vacua and critical dimensions,JHEP08 (2021) 054 [2105.09682]

2021 arXiv
[25]

Sheikh-Jabbari and H

M.M. Sheikh-Jabbari and H. Yavartanoo,On the Consistency of Null Strings Literature: The Tale of an Overlooked Symmetry,2605.12414

arXiv
[26]

Lindström,The conformal null string ind+ 2andddimensions,2606.22498

U. Lindström,The conformal null string ind+ 2andddimensions,2606.22498

arXiv
[27]

Duary and S

S. Duary and S. Maji,Path integral quantization of null bosonic strings with Carroll-Weyl ghosts, 2606.04999

arXiv
[28]

Lindström,Symmetries of tensionless strings,2605.26185

U. Lindström,Symmetries of tensionless strings,2605.26185

arXiv
[31]

S. Gao, C. Jiang and Y. Pei,Low-Dimensional Cohomology Groups of the Lie AlgebrasW(a, b), Commun. Algebra39(2011) 397

2011
[32]

Figueroa-O’Farrill and G.S

J.M. Figueroa-O’Farrill and G.S. Vishwa,The BRST quantisation of chiral BMS-like field theories,J. Math. Phys.66(2025) 042303 [2407.12778]. – 29 –

2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [5]

Chen and Z

B. Chen and Z. Hu,Symmetries and Critical Dimensions of Tensionless Branes,2604.01883

arXiv

[2] [30]

Duary and S

S. Duary and S. Maji,BRST quantization of Carroll-Weyl gauged null strings,2608.xxxxx

work page

[3] [29]

Hwang, R

S. Hwang, R. Marnelius and P. Saltsidis,A general BRST approach to string theories with zeta function regularizations,J. Math. Phys.40(1999) 4639 [hep-th/9804003]

arXiv 1999

[4] [1]

Gustafsson, U

H. Gustafsson, U. Lindstrom, P. Saltsidis, B. Sundborg and R. van Unge,Hamiltonian BRST quantization of the conformal string,Nucl. Phys. B440(1995) 495 [hep-th/9410143]

arXiv 1995

[5] [2]

Isberg, U

J. Isberg, U. Lindstrom, B. Sundborg and G. Theodoridis,Classical and quantized tensionless strings, Nucl. Phys. B411(1994) 122 [hep-th/9307108]

arXiv 1994

[6] [3]

Sheikh-Jabbari and H

M.M. Sheikh-Jabbari and H. Yavartanoo,Null Strings Gauged and Reloaded, I: Null Strings Have Carroll-Weyl Gauge Symmetry,2605.25817

arXiv

[7] [4]

Sheikh-Jabbari and H

M.M. Sheikh-Jabbari and H. Yavartanoo,Null Strings Gauged and Reloaded, II: Consistent Classical Treatment of the Null Strings,2605.26822

arXiv

[8] [6]

Gross and P.F

D.J. Gross and P.F. Mende,The High-Energy Behavior of String Scattering Amplitudes,Phys. Lett. B 197(1987) 129

work page 1987