Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 60 references

Gauge transformations in Z-space in (anti)holomorphic sector of HS theory

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Allowing the master field $\Lambda$ to shift by $d_z$-exact projective one-forms induces a field redefinition in higher-spin theory; the $z$-dependent part of the shift is genuinely nontrivial and cannot be gauged away.

desk verdict A solid, mostly self-consistent deformation map between generating systems; the flagged sign error in the local-regime formulas is a false alarm, and the main caveat is that nontriviality is proven generically, not for all admissible measures. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08062 v1 pith:YWJJWLYS submitted 2026-08-08 hep-th

D.A. Batyaev , A.V. Korybut This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords higher-spingaugetheory(anti)holomorphicgeneratingsystemprojectiveone-formsdz-exactformsfieldredefinitionstransformationsinz-spaceVasilievspin-locality
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

The paper shows that the master field $\Lambda$ in the generating system for (anti)holomorphic higher-spin interactions — a set of auxiliary-space equations that produce the interaction vertices — is not rigidly fixed after all. It can be shifted by $d_z$-exact projective one-forms, and each such shift induces a specific field redefinition of the physical zero-form field rather than leaving the theory invariant. The $z$-dependent part of the shift produces a redefinition that cannot be removed by any gauge transformation, while the purely $y$-dependent part is pure gauge and is fully characterized by three simple conditions. This gives a controlled, parameterized family of field redefinitions, which is the natural place to look for the map between the (anti)holomorphic system and the full higher-spin formulation.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the class of projective one-forms $C^{1,P}$: functions of $(z,y,\theta)$, linear in $\theta$, written through the shifted-homotopy generating expression $\Delta_A\gamma(z,y-B)$, whose defining property is that $d_z$ of a star-product with any $C^0$ element lands on the purely $y$-dependent kernel $\gamma$ via the projective identities (3.10)–(3.11). This property guarantees that no unwanted constraints appear in the deformed dynamics. The paper characterizes the $d_z$-exact members of the class by the integral constraint $\int d\rho_1\,\mu(\rho_1,\rho_2)=0$ on the measure in the generating expression, and uses that description to write both the gauge parameter $\varepsilon$ and the induced field redefinition explicitly. The same class carries the pure-gauge analysis: in the exponential representation, invariants reduce to $X=y^\alpha p_{1\alpha}$, $Y=y^\alpha p_{2\alpha}$, $Z=p_1^\alpha p_{2\alpha}$, and the functions $F_0(X,Y,Z)$ obeying (6.12)–(6.14) are exactly those that can be written as a twisted commutator with a $y$-dependent $\varepsilon_0$.

What would settle it

Compute the induced second-order redefinition $F_1(X,Y,Z)$ from (6.6)–(6.8) for an admissible measure such as $\mu(\rho_1,\rho_2)=\delta(\rho_2)(\delta(1-\rho_1)-\delta(\rho_1))$ and test the pure-gauge conditions (6.12)–(6.14); if some admissible measure satisfies all three conditions, the claim that the $z$-dependent shift cannot be gauged away would be overturned, whereas a failure of the cyclic condition (6.12), as in the coefficient (6.21), confirms it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result is that the deformation $\Lambda' = \Lambda[C] + d_z\varepsilon[C]$, with $d_z\varepsilon$ a $d_z$-exact projective one-form linear in $C$, induces the field redefinition $f(C,C)*\gamma = d_z([\varepsilon,\Lambda]_* + \varepsilon*d_z\varepsilon)$ in the zero-form sector. The paper proves that when $\varepsilon$ is linear in $C$, the $z$-dependent part $\varepsilon_1$ produces a second-order field redefinition $F_1$ that violates the cyclic condition (6.12) in general and therefore cannot be gauged away, while the purely $y$-dependent part $\varepsilon_0$ produces a twisted-commutator term that is pure gauge; conditions (6.12)–(6.14) are necessary and sufficient for a redefinition to be pure gauge. For $\varepsilon$ of order $n$ in $C$, the induced field redefinition is of order $n+1$ and beyond. This establishes that the previously rigid choice of $\Lambda$ is not invariant: allowed shifts change the interaction vertices through field redefinitions, some of which are genuine.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every admissible shift is captured by the integral-measure description of $d_z$-exact projective one-forms, which presumes trivial topology in the auxiliary $z$-space and convergence of the distributional moments; if an exact form escapes this class, the induced field redefinition is not the general one.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any admissible shift of the master field $\Lambda$ by a $d_z$-exact projective one-form changes the zero-form vertices by a controlled field redefinition, so the rigid definition of $\Lambda$ in the original system is not invariant: it parameterizes a family of field frames.
  • The pure-gauge part of the second-order redefinition is completely characterized: a field redefinition can be removed by a gauge transformation if and only if the three conditions (6.12)–(6.14) hold, and the corresponding parameter $\varepsilon_0$ is given explicitly by (6.15)–(6.16).
  • The $z$-dependent part $\varepsilon_1$ produces a redefinition that cannot be gauged away, so the deformation genuinely changes the interaction vertices rather than only the presentation.
  • Shifts of order $n$ in $C$ induce field redefinitions of order $n+1$ and beyond, so even a linear shift feeds into all higher orders of both $\omega$ and $C$.
  • For distributional measures with a hard cutoff, such as $\mu(\rho_1,\rho_2)=-\delta'(1-\rho_1)\tilde\mu(\rho_2)$, the induced redefinition is local in the spin-locality sense, meaning only finitely many powers of $Z=p_1^\alpha p_{2\alpha}$ appear.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the measure $\mu(\rho_1,\rho_2)$ in the generating expression can be treated as a search parameter, since matching the induced redefinition (5.17) to the known spin-local redefinition of the full higher-spin system would fix the measure and give the long-sought map between the two formulations.
  • Beyond the paper: the same projective-one-form calculus should apply to the mixed-sector generating system, where the extra consistency equation may reduce to the exactness constraint (3.17); checking this would extend the deformation analysis beyond the (anti)holomorphic sector.
  • Beyond the paper: the local-measure construction suggests a hierarchy in which $\delta^{(k)}(1-\rho_1)$ measures generate redefinitions with $k$ additional derivatives, and verifying the required decay of moments for such distributions would indicate which spin-local classes are reachable at all orders.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies a consistent deformation of the (anti)holomorphic generating system of [1], in which the previously rigid master-field Lambda is allowed to be shifted by d_z-exact projective one-forms. The authors give a generating-function description of the class of projective one-forms, prove projective identities, derive the explicit field redefinition f(C,C)*gamma = d_z([epsilon,Lambda]_* + epsilon*d_z epsilon) induced by a shift epsilon, analyse which second-order field redefinitions are pure gauge, and show that the deformation is nontrivial for generic admissible shifts. An explicit local-regime formula is presented in Section 6, and necessary and sufficient conditions for a gauge part are proved in Appendix B.

Significance. If correct, the paper provides a concrete deformation of a generating system that can serve as a bridge toward comparing the (anti)holomorphic truncation with the Vasiliev formulation. The derivation is explicit and does not rely on fitted parameters or on assuming the desired result; the central formula (5.17) is obtained by direct manipulation of the deformed generating equations. The proof of the gauge criteria in Appendix B is a useful standalone result, and the explicit moment expressions in Section 6 make the nontriviality claim checkable. The main advertised results are the description of admissible exact shifts via a single measure constraint (3.17), the field-redefinition formula (5.17), and the nontriviality of the epsilon_1-induced deformation. These are significant and, as far as I can verify, internally consistent.

minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 6, Eqs. (6.25)-(6.29)] The apparent sign inconsistency in the local formulas does not survive a full calculation. With u=1-rho_1, the rho_1 integration in (6.6)-(6.8) is of the form int [-delta'(u)] u e^{i c u (...)} du; the derivative of the u-dependent exponential contributes exactly the term that cancels the -1 from the derivative of the factor u, giving +1 rather than -1. Thus (6.26)-(6.28) are consistent with (6.6)-(6.8) and (6.29) has the correct overall sign.
  2. [Section 6 and Conclusion, Eqs. (6.20)-(6.21)] The statement that the epsilon_1-deformation 'cannot be gauged away' is proven in a generic sense: the coefficient C_{1,1,1} is shown to be nonzero for generic moments, but the text does not rule out admissible measures for which all expansion coefficients satisfy (6.12)-(6.14). Please either explicitly qualify the nontriviality claim as generic or exhibit an admissible measure satisfying (3.17) for which F_1 violates the cyclic constraint. The latter would make the abstract's unqualified statement fully precise.
  3. [Section 3, Eqs. (3.12)-(3.19)] The derivation of the exactness criterion (3.17) relies on the completeness of the representation of every d_z-exact projective one-form linear in C as (3.15), and on the validity of the measure calculus for the chosen functional class. This rests on the description of C^{1,P} from [38] and on the trivial-topology statement; it would help if this assumption were stated explicitly as a standing technical hypothesis rather than only implicitly.
  4. [Section 6, Eq. (6.25)] The wording 'such measure obviously bypasses constraint (3.17)' is ambiguous: in fact int d rho_1 [-delta'(1-rho_1)] e mu(rho_2) = 0 by integration by parts, so the measure satisfies (3.17), rather than being outside it. Please rephrase to avoid the impression that the local measure is not admissible.
  5. [Throughout] There are several typographical and grammatical errors, including 'correpondence', 'dyamics', 'consludes', 'futher', 'eather' for 'either', 'Sfield' for 'S-field', and the notation 'f V as.' in Eq. (7.1). These do not affect the mathematics but should be corrected in a revised version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the field-redefinition map (5.17) is derived and verified from the deformed generating equations, not assumed; prior-work reliance is external or non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central map, f(C,C)*γ = d_z([ε,Λ]_* + ε*d_zε), is not an input or a fit. It is obtained by solving the vertex-comparison equation (5.10), which is derived from the deformed generating equations (4.1)-(4.6), and it is verified by substitution using the resolution of identity (5.12) and the linear dynamics (2.19). The pure-gauge conditions (6.12)-(6.14) are derived in Appendix B from the explicit gauge form f0 = ε0*C − C*π[ε0] and are shown to be necessary and sufficient; the nontriviality of the ε1-driven redefinition is established by computing the coefficient C_{1,1,1} in (6.21) from moments of the measure and checking that the cyclic condition fails for admissible measures. No parameter is fitted to any subset of outputs, and no target result is assumed. The only potentially sensitive reliance is [43], a conjecture by one of the present authors, but the paper explicitly supplies the missing full description of the projective-one-form class and proves the identities it needs; the class C^{1,P} itself is attributed to [38], which has no author overlap with this paper. The paper also flags its own open problems, such as the full constraints for F1 and the moment decay in (6.23); these are limitations rather than circular steps. A possible sign error in the local formulas (6.26)-(6.28) was noted by the reviewer, but that would be a calculational defect, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard Poincare-lemma mathematics plus domain assumptions about the functional classes and convergence of distributional measures. There are no fitted constants and no invented physical entities; the measure mu is a functional degree of freedom parameterizing the deformation.

free parameters (1)
  • measure mu(rho1, rho2) = not fitted; arbitrary admissible distribution with integral over rho1 equal to zero
    Parameterizes the allowed z-space shifts of Lambda; the field redefinition and its locality properties are functionals of mu. It is a free input of the construction, not a number fitted to data.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Poincare lemma in flat z-space: every d_z-closed form is d_z-exact.
    Used in Section 3, eq. (3.12), to equate d_z-exactness of projective one-forms with the measure condition (3.17).
  • domain assumption The functional classes C^r defined by generating functions (2.9) and the limiting star-product (2.7) are closed under the operations used and admit the exponential representation (2.14).
    Invoked throughout Sections 2-6; the deformed master fields W', Lambda' and the field redefinition f are required to lie in these classes. The paper does not prove closure for the deformed system in full generality.
  • domain assumption Formal power series in X,Y,Z (6.17) and distributional measures (6.23) can be manipulated termwise; moments mu_{k,l} are well-defined and the local-measure distributions converge in the appropriate sense.
    Section 6 uses these to prove nontriviality and locality; the authors explicitly defer the convergence analysis, stating that analysis of the decay rate of the moments is beyond the scope of the paper.
  • domain assumption The deformed generating system (4.1)-(4.6) is consistent: the projective identities (3.10),(3.11) guarantee that no unwanted constraints (2.31) appear.
    Section 4 assumes the deformed Lambda' in C^{1,P} preserves the projective (spin-local) properties of vertices; this is the main physical premise for the deformation being admissible.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gauge transformations in Z-space in (anti)holomorphic sector of HS theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YWJJWLYS

@misc{pith2026260808062,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gauge transformations in Z-space in (anti)holomorphic sector of HS theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YWJJWLYS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08062}
}
abstract

We consider a consistent deformation of the (anti)holomorphic generating system of [arXiv:2209.01966], aiming to provide a map to the (anti)holomorphic truncation of the Vasiliev theory. In our new formulation, the previously rigidly defined master-field $\Lambda$ can be shifted by $\mathrm{d}_z$-exact projective one-forms. The class of projective one-forms is described comprehensively, and corresponding projective identities are proven. $\mathrm{d}_z$-exact forms of the order $n$ in $C$ induce field redefinition of order $(n+1)$ and beyond. Explicit expression for the $(n+1)$-th order field redefinitions are provided. An analysis of the gauge transformation of the second order in $C$ in zero-forms is performed, identifying necessary and sufficient conditions for the part of the field redefinition of the second order that can be gauged away. The field redefinitions induced by the shift of $\Lambda$ are proven to be nontrivial.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [38]

    V. E. Didenko, [arXiv:2601.10680 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  2. [43]

    A. V. Korybut, Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025) no.8, 885 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-14617-9 [arXiv:2505.13125 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2025

  3. [1]

    V. E. Didenko, JHEP10(2022), 191 doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2022)191 [arXiv:2209.01966 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2022

  4. [2]

    M. A. Vasiliev, JHEP10(2017), 111 doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2017)111 [arXiv:1605.02662 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2017

  5. [3]

    I. R. Klebanov and A. M. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. B550(2002), 213-219 doi:10.1016/S0370- 2693(02)02980-5 [arXiv:hep-th/0210114 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2002

  6. [4]

    A. O. Barvinsky, Phys. Rev. D93(2016) no.10, 103530 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.103530 [arXiv:1511.07625 [hep-th]]. 23

    arXiv 2016

  7. [5]

    V. E. Didenko and A. V. Korybut, Phys. Rev. D110(2024) no.2, 026007 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.026007 [arXiv:2312.11096 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2024

  8. [6]

    M. A. Vasiliev, JHEP08(2018), 051 doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2018)051 [arXiv:1804.06520 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2018

Show all 60 references
  1. [7]

    J. A. Silva, JHEP05(2021), 097 doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2021)097 [arXiv:2103.00275 [hep- th]]

    2021 arXiv

  2. [8]

    L. F. Alday and A. Zhiboedov, JHEP06(2016), 091 doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2016)091 [arXiv:1506.04659 [hep-th]]

    2016 arXiv

  3. [9]

    Maldacena and A

    J. Maldacena and A. Zhiboedov, Class. Quant. Grav.30(2013), 104003 doi:10.1088/0264- 9381/30/10/104003 [arXiv:1204.3882 [hep-th]]

    2013 arXiv

  4. [10]

    A. K. H. Bengtsson, I. Bengtsson and L. Brink, Nucl. Phys. B227(1983), 31-40 doi:10.1016/0550-3213(83)90140-2

    1983 doi

  5. [11]

    F. A. Berends, G. J. H. Burgers and H. Van Dam, Z. Phys. C24(1984), 247-254 doi:10.1007/BF01410362

    1984 doi

  6. [12]

    E. S. Fradkin and M. A. Vasiliev, Phys. Lett. B189(1987), 89-95 doi:10.1016/0370- 2693(87)91275-5

    1987 doi

  7. [13]

    E. S. Fradkin and R. R. Metsaev, Class. Quant. Grav.8(1991), L89-L94 doi:10.1088/0264- 9381/8/4/004

    1991 doi

  8. [14]

    Giombi and I

    S. Giombi and I. R. Klebanov, JHEP12(2013), 068 doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2013)068 [arXiv:1308.2337 [hep-th]]

    2013 arXiv

  9. [15]

    Beccaria and A

    M. Beccaria and A. A. Tseytlin, JHEP11(2014), 114 doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2014)114 [arXiv:1410.3273 [hep-th]]

    2014 arXiv

  10. [16]

    Bekaert, S

    X. Bekaert, S. Cnockaert, C. Iazeolla and M. A. Vasiliev, [arXiv:hep-th/0503128 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  11. [17]

    V. E. Didenko and E. D. Skvortsov, Lect. Notes Phys.1028(2024), 269-456 doi:10.1007/978-3-031-59656-8_3 [arXiv:1401.2975 [hep-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [18]

    Ponomarev, Int

    D. Ponomarev, Int. J. Theor. Phys.62(2023) no.7, 146 doi:10.1007/s10773-023-05399-5 [arXiv:2206.15385 [hep-th]]

    2023 arXiv

  13. [19]

    M. A. Vasiliev, Phys. Lett. B209(1988), 491-497 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(88)91179-3

    1988 doi

  14. [20]

    M. A. Vasiliev, Annals Phys.190(1989), 59-106 doi:10.1016/0003-4916(89)90261-3

    1989 doi

  15. [21]

    Misuna, Eur

    N. Misuna, Eur. Phys. J. C86(2026) no.7, 892 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-026-16021-3 [arXiv:2603.19033 [hep-th]]

    2026 arXiv

  16. [22]

    Y. M. Zinoviev, [arXiv:2604.18114 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  17. [23]

    Iazeolla, P

    C. Iazeolla, P. Sundell and B. C. Vallilo, J. Phys. A58(2025) no.36, 365402 doi:10.1088/1751-8121/adfe46 [arXiv:2503.14673 [hep-th]]. 24

    2025 arXiv

  18. [24]

    M. A. Vasiliev, Phys. Lett. B243(1990), 378-382 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(90)91400-6

    1990 doi

  19. [25]

    M. A. Vasiliev, Phys. Lett. B285(1992), 225-234 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(92)91457-K

    1992 doi

  20. [26]

    Fronsdal, Phys

    C. Fronsdal, Phys. Rev. D18(1978), 3624 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.18.3624

    1978 doi

  21. [27]

    M. A. Vasiliev, doi:10.1142/9789812793850_0030 [arXiv:hep-th/9910096 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  22. [28]

    A. S. Bychkov, K. A. Ushakov and M. A. Vasiliev, Symmetry13(2021) no.8, 1498 doi:10.3390/sym16091115 [arXiv:2107.01736 [hep-th]]

    2021 arXiv

  23. [29]

    Misuna, Phys

    N. Misuna, Phys. Lett. B778(2018), 71-78 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2018.01.019 [arXiv:1706.04605 [hep-th]]

    2018 arXiv

  24. [30]

    Y. A. Tatarenko and M. A. Vasiliev, JHEP07(2024), 246 doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2024)246 [arXiv:2405.02452 [hep-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [31]

    R. R. Metsaev, Nucl. Phys. B759(2006), 147-201 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2006.10.002 [arXiv:hep-th/0512342 [hep-th]]

    2006 arXiv

  26. [32]

    R. R. Metsaev, Nucl. Phys. B859(2012), 13-69 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2012.01.022 [arXiv:0712.3526 [hep-th]]

    2012 arXiv

  27. [33]

    V. E. Didenko, O. A. Gelfond, A. V. Korybut and M. A. Vasiliev, JHEP12(2019), 086 doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2019)086 [arXiv:1909.04876 [hep-th]]

    2019 arXiv

  28. [34]

    V. E. Didenko, O. A. Gelfond, A. V. Korybut and M. A. Vasiliev, JHEP12(2020), 184 doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2020)184 [arXiv:2009.02811 [hep-th]]

    2020 arXiv

  29. [35]

    O. A. Gelfond and A. V. Korybut, Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) no.7, 605 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09401-4 [arXiv:2101.01683 [hep-th]]

    2021 arXiv

  30. [36]

    M. A. Vasiliev, Phys. Lett. B834(2022), 137401 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137401 [arXiv:2208.02004 [hep-th]]

    2022

  31. [37]

    O. A. Gelfond, Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) no.12, 1154 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-12308-x [arXiv:2308.16281 [hep-th]]

    2023 arXiv

  32. [39]

    V. E. Didenko and A. V. Korybut, Phys. Rev. D108(2023) no.8, 086031 [erratum: Phys. Rev. D109(2024) no.6, 069901] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.086031 [arXiv:2304.08850 [hep-th]]

    2023 arXiv

  33. [40]

    V. E. Didenko and M. A. Povarnin, Phys. Rev. D110(2024) no.12, 126012 [erratum: Phys. Rev. D111(2025) no.10, 109901] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.126012 [arXiv:2409.00808 [hep-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Sharapov, E

    A. Sharapov, E. Skvortsov, A. Sukhanov and R. Van Dongen, Nucl. Phys. B990(2023), 116152 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2023.116152 [arXiv:2209.15441 [hep-th]]. 25

    2023

  35. [42]

    Ponomarev and E

    D. Ponomarev and E. D. Skvortsov, J. Phys. A50(2017) no.9, 095401 doi:10.1088/1751- 8121/aa56e7 [arXiv:1609.04655 [hep-th]]

    2017 arXiv

  36. [44]

    V. E. Didenko and A. V. Korybut, JHEP05(2023), 133 doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2023)133 [arXiv:2212.05006 [hep-th]]

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    I. S. Faliakhov, [arXiv:2606.04626 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  38. [46]

    O. A. Gelfond and M. A. Vasiliev, Phys. Lett. B786(2018), 180-188 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2018.09.038 [arXiv:1805.11941 [hep-th]]

    2018 arXiv

  39. [47]

    V. E. Didenko, O. A. Gelfond, A. V. Korybut and M. A. Vasiliev, J. Phys. A51(2018) no.46, 465202 doi:10.1088/1751-8121/aae5e1 [arXiv:1807.00001 [hep-th]]

    2018 arXiv

  40. [48]

    M. A. Vasiliev, JHEP11(2023), 048 doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2023)048 [arXiv:2307.09331 [hep-th]]

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    P. T. Kirakosiants, D. A. Valerev and M. A. Vasiliev, Nucl. Phys. B1023(2026), 117290 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2025.117290 [arXiv:2506.16634 [hep-th]]

    2026

  42. [50]

    V. E. Didenko, N. G. Misuna and M. A. Vasiliev, JHEP07(2016), 146 doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2016)146 [arXiv:1512.04405 [hep-th]]

    2016 arXiv

  43. [51]

    E. D. Skvortsov and M. Taronna, JHEP11(2015), 044 doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2015)044 [arXiv:1508.04764 [hep-th]]

    2015 arXiv

  44. [52]

    V. E. Didenko and M. A. Vasiliev, Phys. Lett. B775(2017), 352-360 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.09.091 [arXiv:1705.03440 [hep-th]]

    2017 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Giombi and X

    S. Giombi and X. Yin, JHEP09(2010), 115 doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2010)115 [arXiv:0912.3462 [hep-th]]

    2010 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Giombi and X

    S. Giombi and X. Yin, JHEP04(2011), 086 doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2011)086 [arXiv:1004.3736 [hep-th]]

    2011 arXiv

  47. [55]

    V. E. Didenko and A. V. Korybut, [arXiv:2603.21822 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  48. [56]

    M. A. Vasiliev, Nucl. Phys. B324(1989), 503-522 doi:10.1016/0550-3213(89)90477-X

    1989 doi

  49. [57]

    Sharapov and E

    A. Sharapov and E. Skvortsov, Nucl. Phys. B985(2022), 115982 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2022.115982 [arXiv:2205.15293 [hep-th]]

    2022

  50. [58]

    De Filippi, C

    D. De Filippi, C. Iazeolla and P. Sundell, JHEP10(2019), 215 doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2019)215 [arXiv:1905.06325 [hep-th]]

    2019 arXiv

  51. [59]

    F. Diaz, C. Iazeolla and P. Sundell, JHEP09(2024), 109 doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2024)109 [arXiv:2403.02283 [hep-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  52. [60]

    P. T. Kirakosiants, Phys. Lett. B877(2026), 140480 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2026.140480 [arXiv:2603.08334 [hep-th]]. 26

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.