New superparticle models in AdS superspaces

Emmanouil S. N. Raptakis; Nowar E. Koning

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

New superparticle models in AdS superspaces

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read New superparticle models in 3D and 2D AdS superspaces follow from a one-parameter quadratic deformation of the supersymmetric interval.

desk verdict New 2D/3D AdS superparticle actions, with a load-bearing gap: the promised proof of 3D equivalence to the embedding formalism is only a leading-order assertion with no calculation. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.17897 v2 pith:2C25YOXF submitted 2025-06-22 hep-th gr-qcmath-phmath.MP

Nowar E. Koning , Emmanouil S. N. Raptakis This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-thgr-qcmath-phmath.MP PACS 04.65.+e11.30.Pb

keywords anti-deSittersuperspacesuperparticlemodelsintervaldeformationtorsionsuperfieldtwo-derivativeactionconformallyflatframe(pq)AdSembeddingformalism

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 proposes new two-derivative superparticle models—supersymmetric worldline particles—moving in three- and two-dimensional anti-de Sitter (AdS) superspaces. The construction starts from the standard AdS supersymmetric interval and adds a one-parameter quadratic term built from the dimension-one torsion superfield $S_{IJ}$ and the spinor components of the supervielbein; at parameter $\omega=0$ it returns the standard model. In three dimensions the resulting action is claimed to be the same as the embedding-formalism superparticle action when $\alpha=-\omega/(8S^2)$. In two dimensions the same deformed interval exists only for the $N$-extended AdS superspace, since $(p,q)$ AdS superspaces with $p\neq q$ are ruled out by integrability. If correct, the paper supplies new classical worldline actions for superparticles in these low-dimensional AdS backgrounds, extending the recent four- and five-dimensional models down to 3D and 2D.

What carries the argument

The central object is the deformed AdS-supersymmetric interval, a one-parameter quadratic form in the supervielbein one-forms. In three dimensions it reads $ds^2=\eta_{ab}E^aE^b+(i\omega/S^2)S_{IJ}\varepsilon_{\alpha\beta}E^\alpha_I E^\beta_J$; in two dimensions it is $ds^2=E^{++}E^{--}+(i\omega/S^2)S_{IJ}E^{+I}E^{-J}$. The deformation is carried by the dimension-one torsion superfield $S_{IJ}$, which is Lorentz-invariant and covariantly constant on the AdS backgrounds considered, together with the spinor supervielbein components $E^\alpha_I$ (or $E^{+I},E^{-I}$); $\omega$ is a real dimensionless parameter. This object does the work of the argument: it is invariant under the AdS superisometries, it reduces to the standard interval at $\omega=0$, and when inserted into an einbein worldline action it produces the proposed two-derivative superparticle models.

What would settle it

Compute the complete expansion of both three-dimensional actions, (2.15) and (2.18), in the same Poincaré-like coordinates and check whether all fermionic terms beyond leading order match under $\alpha=-\omega/(8S^2)$; any mismatch at higher order would falsify the claimed equivalence. In two dimensions, the claim that $p\neq q$ AdS superspaces do not exist could be tested by searching for a solution of constraints (3.1) and (3.2a) with $p\neq q$ and nonzero $S_{IJ}$; finding one would overturn the construction's 2D limitation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that the deformed intervals (2.13) and (3.11) define new two-derivative superparticle models, with actions (2.15) and (3.12), in the three- and two-dimensional AdS superspaces. The 3D action is built from $ds^2=\eta_{ab}E^aE^b+(i\omega/S^2)S_{IJ}\varepsilon_{\alpha\beta}E^\alpha_I E^\beta_J$, and the paper argues that this supergravity-frame model coincides with the embedding-formalism model (2.18) once $\alpha=-\omega/(8S^2)$. The 2D action uses $ds^2=E^{++}E^{--}+(i\omega/S^2)S_{IJ}E^{+I}E^{-J}$; here consistency forces $p=q=N$, so the construction applies to the $N$-extended AdS superspace. The paper also sketches an extra $(N,0)$-specific deformation for $N\ge5$ built from the super-Cotton tensor $X_{IJKL}$, which lies beyond the one-parameter family.

Load-bearing premise

In the three-dimensional case, the paper's identification of its supergravity-frame action with the embedding-formalism action rests on an asserted leading-order agreement, with no calculation shown and no definition of the expansion parameter; if the two actions differ beyond that order, the parameter identification $\alpha=-\omega/(8S^2)$ would not by itself show that the models are the same.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If correct, the 3D action (2.15) supplies a supergravity-frame counterpart of the embedding-formalism $(p,q)$ AdS superparticle, so the same dynamics can be computed in either approach once $\alpha=-\omega/(8S^2)$.
At $\omega=0$ both new actions reduce to the standard non-deformed superparticle in AdS superspace, so the deformation is a one-parameter extension of known worldline dynamics.
In 2D, the nonexistence of $(p,q)$ AdS superspaces with $p\neq q$ means the deformed-interval construction applies only to the $N$-extended AdS superspace; consequently there is no $(p,q)$ superparticle of this type when $p\neq q$.
For 3D $(N,0)$ superspaces with $N\ge5$, the additional deformation (4.2) built from the super-Cotton tensor would give a richer, multi-parameter family of superparticle models, though the full analysis is not carried out here.
The two-dimensional model (3.12) is formulated without an embedding-formalism counterpart, so if correct it stands as an independent interval-based action for 2D $N$-extended AdS superspace.

Reading between the lines

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

If the same quadratic-deformation recipe works in every AdS superspace whose geometry carries a dimension-one torsion superfield, then superparticle dynamics on AdS may be organized by this universal interval deformation rather than by case-by-case coordinate constructions.
A natural next step would be to quantize the deformed actions and compare the resulting spectrum or mass-shell condition with the known supermultiplet structure on 3D and 2D AdS; the $\omega$-dependence of any physical observable would provide a sharp test of whether the deformation is observable or a gauge artifact.
The unproven higher-order agreement in the 3D comparison could be settled by direct computation; if it fails, the supergravity-frame model may still be a consistent deformation, but its advertised equivalence to the embedding formalism would have to be weakened.
The 2D result that only $p=q$ AdS superspaces exist within conformal supergravity suggests that any superparticle dynamics for $(p,0)$ or other 2D AdS superspaces would require a different geometric setup, such as the supergroup coset spaces mentioned in the introduction.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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

Colleague,

This paper gives you the 2D and 3D versions of the deformed-interval superparticle actions that Koning, Kuzenko, and Raptakis built for 4D and 5D. What is actually new: the 3D deformed interval (2.13) and action (2.15), the 2D interval (3.11) and action (3.12), and a small structural result that 2D (p,q) AdS superspaces exist only for p=q. The superspace algebra in the main text and appendices is consistent, and the p=q derivation from equation (3.2) is credible. The appendices are a useful self-contained review of the 3D and 2D conformal supergravity frames. The citation pattern is fine: the authors lean on their earlier work, but those papers are the actual foundation for this construction, not padding.

The soft spot is real and it is in the text. The introduction promises that the 3D model is "derived ... from the embedding formalism and prove their equivalence." Section 2.3 does not do that. It says the two models "can be shown to coincide to leading order provided one fixes α = −ω/(8S²)," and no calculation is shown. The expansion parameter is not defined. It could be an expansion in Grassmann variables, in S, or in the coordinate z^{-1}; those are different expansions. Fixing α from a leading-order match only identifies the two actions at that order, so the advertised proof is not there. This does not sink the 3D construction—the action (2.15) is still a well-defined proposal and a natural analogue of the 4D/5D models—but it means the paper's main cross-check for the 3D case is incomplete.

The 2D construction is cleaner in one way: no embedding formalism exists for those superspaces, so the absence of an embedding check is not a flaw. What would strengthen the paper is a full-order comparison in Section 2.3, or at least a precise statement of which expansion is used and evidence that the higher orders match by symmetry.

I would send this to a serious referee. The new actions and the p=q no-go are worth refereeing, and the missing matching calculation is exactly the kind of thing a referee can demand in revision. If the authors supply that, this is a solid subfield contribution. If they cannot, the 3D claim should be downgraded to a proposal plus a leading-order consistency check.

Recommended: accept for peer review, with the Section 2.3 equivalence as the mandatory revision point.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper extends the deformed-supersymmetric-interval construction of superparticle models, previously applied to 4D and 5D AdS superspaces, to 3D (p,q) and 2D N-extended AdS superspaces. In section 2 the authors define a one-parameter deformation of the interval in AdS(3|p,q), eq. (2.13), build the corresponding worldline action (2.15), present a conformally flat frame, and state that the model agrees with an embedding-formalism action (2.18) to leading order when α = −ω/(8S²). In section 3 they develop the analogous construction in two dimensions, showing that p≠q AdS superspaces do not exist and proposing the deformed interval (3.11) and action (3.12). Section 4 sketches an additional deformation for AdS(3|N,0) with non-zero super-Cotton tensor. Two appendices collect the relevant conformal supergravity conventions.

Significance. The construction is a natural continuation of the authors' earlier work and, if the claims are fully supported, would supply new two-derivative superparticle actions in low-dimensional AdS superspaces. The paper's assets include a clear exposition of the conformally flat frames, the careful reduction of the 3D torsion constraints, and the 2D integrability argument in Eqs. (3.1)-(3.2) that rules out p≠q. The proposed models are concrete and the parametrization of deformations via SIJ is systematic. However, the central cross-check of the 3D model—the advertised equivalence with the embedding formalism—is not actually demonstrated, and the 2D model lacks an analogous check. These gaps currently limit the paper to a proposal plus partial evidence, rather than a completed derivation.

major comments (2)

[Section 2.3, Eq. (2.21)] The text states that the supergravity action (2.15) and the embedding action (2.18) "can be shown to coincide to leading order" with α = −ω/(8S²), but no calculation is shown and the expansion parameter is never defined. This is the load-bearing step promised in the Introduction, which says "We then rederive this model from the embedding formalism and prove their equivalence." The identification of α with −ω/(8S²) only matches a truncation unless the comparison is performed to all orders; if the actions differ at higher order, the claimed equivalence fails. Please supply the explicit order-by-order comparison, or state precisely what notion of equivalence is claimed and prove it.
[Section 3.3, Eq. (3.11)] For the two-dimensional model, the deformed interval is introduced without demonstrating invariance under the AdS isometry supergroup, and no embedding or twistor construction is supplied. Since the defining feature of an AdS-superspace superparticle is that it respects the AdS isometries, the authors should either prove that SIJ E+I E−J is invariant (or equivalently that the action (3.12) has the required symmetries), or clarify the status of this requirement for the proposed model.

minor comments (3)

[Eq. (2.16)] The notation ˙θIJ appearing in the conformally flat expansion is not defined; the contracted spinor indices should be written out explicitly so the expression is unambiguous.
[Abstract and Introduction] The deformation (2.13) is described as a "unique quadratic deformation," but uniqueness is not proved or precisely formulated; the authors should state the class of invariants with respect to which uniqueness is claimed.
[Eq. (3.13b)] The term −D^I_+σ D^J_−σ Π² should be checked for sign and index contraction; as printed it is not manifestly consistent with the lightcone notation of eq. (3.13a).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the deformed intervals are new ansätze, the embedding-formalism match is a parameter identification rather than a fitted prediction, and the cited prior work provides external machinery rather than the target result.

full rationale

The paper's central objects are the deformed intervals (2.13) and (3.11), introduced as one-parameter invariant deformations of the standard AdS supersymmetric intervals; these are ansätze, not outputs of the later comparison. The 3D identification alpha = -omega/(8S^2) (Eq. 2.21) is a parameter redefinition between two independently defined actions, (2.15) and (2.18), not a fit of data that is then renamed as a prediction. The claimed equivalence is asserted only "to leading order" with no displayed calculation and no defined expansion parameter; that is a completeness or correctness gap, not a circular step, because nothing in the derivation assumes the target equivalence. Citations to the authors' prior work ([5], [9], [17], [33]) supply the supergeometry and embedding-formalism machinery, but those works do not themselves contain the new 3D/2D deformed-interval models and are not used to define the target result. The 2D construction has no embedding-formalism check at all, so it cannot be circular in that respect. Thus no self-definitional, fitted-input, or self-citation-load-bearing reduction is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central constructions rest on the known superspace and supergravity frameworks of [5,17,9] and on the choice of a deformation parameter omega. No new particles, forces, or entities are introduced. The only new 'invented' content is the parameter-dependent deformed interval.

free parameters (3)

omega
Real dimensionless parameter introduced by hand to deform the interval in (2.13) and (3.11); it is not determined by the construction.
lambda
Introduced for the 3D (N,0) case with nonvanishing super-Cotton tensor in (4.2); the analysis is deferred, so it is a proposed parameter.
alpha = alpha = -omega/(8 S^2)
Parameter in the embedding formalism action (2.18), fixed in terms of omega by the claimed equivalence (2.21). Not an independent fit.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption 3D (p,q) AdS supergeometry with torsion S_IJ and the conformally flat frame (2.8) from [5]
The deformed interval (2.13) is built from S_IJ, and the expressions (2.16) and (2.17) assume the supervielbein and super-Weyl parameterization of [5].
domain assumption 2D (p,q) conformal supergravity geometry from [17] with the algebra (B.11)
The 2D AdS constraints (3.1), the resulting algebra (3.4), and the conformally flat frame (3.5) are based on this background geometry.
domain assumption Embedding formalism for 3D (p,q) AdS superspaces with bi-supertwistors X,Y,Z from [9]
The model (2.18) and the expressions (2.20) are taken from [9]; the parameter map (2.21) depends on those expressions.
standard math Super-Weyl transformation laws (A.19) and (B.13) are valid
These are used to write the conformally flat frames in Sections 2 and 3; they are standard results from conformal supergravity.
domain assumption The deformation terms (2.13), (3.11) are invariant under AdS superisometries
Stated in Section 2.3; the invariance is asserted because the building blocks (E^a, E^alpha, S_IJ) are superisometry covariant, but no explicit check is shown.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of New superparticle models in AdS superspaces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2C25YOXF

@misc{pith2026250617897,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: New superparticle models in AdS superspaces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2C25YOXF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.17897}
}

abstract

Recently, new superparticle models have been proposed in the $\mathcal{N}$-extended four and five-dimensional anti-de Sitter (AdS) superspaces, AdS$^{4|4\mathcal{N}}$ and AdS$^{5|8\mathcal{N}}$, making use of a unique quadratic deformation to the AdS supersymmetric interval. In this paper we extend these considerations to the three and two-dimensional cases, and propose new two-derivative models for superparticles propagating in these AdS superspaces.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Continuous spin superparticle model
hep-th 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A 4D N=1 continuous spin superparticle action is built and quantized, giving chiral and antichiral superfield constraints with C4 equal to mu squared and an irreducible continuous spin spectrum.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Keck, An Alternative Class of Supersymmetries , J

B.W. Keck, An Alternative Class of Supersymmetries , J. Phys. A 8 (1975) 1819

work page 1975
[2]

Zumino, Nonlinear Realization of Supersymmetry in de Sitter Space , Nucl

B. Zumino, Nonlinear Realization of Supersymmetry in de Sitter Space , Nucl. Phys. B 127 (1977) 189

work page 1977
[3]

E. A. Ivanov and A. S. Sorin, Superfield Formulation of OSp(1,4) Supersymmetry , J. Phys. A 13 (1980) 1159

work page 1980
[4]

E. A. Ivanov and A. S. Sorin, Wess-Zumino Model as Linear Sigma Model of Spontaneously Broken Conformal and OSp(1,4) Supersymmetries , Yad. Fiz. 30 (1979) 853, [Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 30 (1979) 440]

work page 1979
[5]

Kuzenko, U

S.M. Kuzenko, U. Lindstrom and G. Tartaglino-Mazzucchelli, Three-dimensional (p,q) AdS superspaces and matter couplings , JHEP 08 (2012) 024 [ 1205.4622]

arXiv 2012
[6]

Kuzenko and G

S.M. Kuzenko and G. Tartaglino-Mazzucchelli, Conformally flat supergeometry in five dimensions , JHEP 06 (2008) 097 [ 0804.1219]

arXiv 2008
[7]

Koning, S.M

N.E. Koning, S.M. Kuzenko and E.S.N. Raptakis, Embedding formalism forN -extended AdS superspace in four dimensions , JHEP 11 (2023) 063 [ 2308.04135]

arXiv 2023
[8]

Kuzenko and G

S.M. Kuzenko and G. Tartaglino-Mazzucchelli, Supertwistor realisations of AdS superspaces, Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) 146 [ 2108.03907]

arXiv 2022

Show all 51 references

[9]

Kuzenko and K

S.M. Kuzenko and K. Turner, Embedding formalism for (p, q) AdS superspaces in three dimensions , JHEP 06 (2023) 142 [ 2303.03082]

2023 arXiv
[10]

Koning and S.M

N.E. Koning and S.M. Kuzenko, Embedding formalism for AdS superspaces in five dimensions , JHEP 06 (2025) 16 [ 2406.10875]. 19

2025 arXiv
[11]

Sorokin, Superbranes and superembeddings, Phys

D.P. Sorokin, Superbranes and superembeddings, Phys. Rept. 329 (2000) 1 [ hep-th/9906142]

2000 arXiv
[12]

Bandos and D.P

I.A. Bandos and D.P. Sorokin, Superembedding Approach to Superstrings and Super-p-branes, (2024), DOI [2301.10668]

2024 arXiv
[13]

Bandos, E

I.A. Bandos, E. Ivanov, J. Lukierski and D. Sorokin, On the superconformal flatness of AdS superspaces , JHEP 06 (2002) 040 [ hep-th/0205104]

2002 arXiv
[14]

Howe, J.M

P.S. Howe, J.M. Izquierdo, G. Papadopoulos and P.K. Townsend, New supergravities with central charges and Killing spinors in (2+1)-dimensions , Nucl. Phys. B 467 (1996) 183 [ hep-th/9505032]

1996 arXiv
[15]

Kuzenko, U

S.M. Kuzenko, U. Lindstrom and G. Tartaglino-Mazzucchelli, Off-shell supergravity-matter couplings in three dimensions, JHEP 03 (2011) 120 [ 1101.4013]

2011 arXiv
[16]

Beccaria, H

M. Beccaria, H. Jiang and A.A. Tseytlin, Supersymmetric Liouville theory in AdS 2 and AdS/CFT, JHEP 11 (2019) 051 [ 1909.10255]

2019 arXiv
[17]

Kuzenko and E.S.N

S.M. Kuzenko and E.S.N. Raptakis, Conformal (p, q) supergeometries in two dimensions , JHEP 02 (2023) 166 [ 2211.16169]

2023 arXiv
[18]

Gunaydin, G

M. Gunaydin, G. Sierra and P.K. Townsend, The Unitary Supermultiplets of d = 3 Anti-de Sitter and d = 2 Conformal Superalgebras, Nucl. Phys. B 274 (1986) 429

1986
[19]

Casalbuoni, Relativity and Supersymmetries, Phys

R. Casalbuoni, Relativity and Supersymmetries, Phys. Lett. B 62 (1976) 49

1976
[20]

Brink and J.H

L. Brink and J.H. Schwarz, Quantum Superspace, Phys. Lett. B 100 (1981) 310

1981
[21]

West, Introduction to strings and branes , Cambridge University Press (7, 2012)

P. West, Introduction to strings and branes , Cambridge University Press (7, 2012)

2012
[22]

Claus, M

P. Claus, M. Gunaydin, R. Kallosh, J. Rahmfeld and Y. Zunger, Supertwistors as quarks of SU(2, 2—4) , JHEP 05 (1999) 019 [ hep-th/9905112]

1999 arXiv
[23]

Claus, J

P. Claus, J. Rahmfeld and Y. Zunger, A Simple particle action from a twistor parametrization of AdS(5) , Phys. Lett. B 466 (1999) 181 [ hep-th/9906118]

1999 arXiv
[24]

Claus, R

P. Claus, R. Kallosh and J. Rahmfeld, BRST quantization of a particle in AdS(5) , Phys. Lett. B 462 (1999) 285 [ hep-th/9906195]

1999 arXiv
[25]

Bandos, J

I.A. Bandos, J. Lukierski, C. Preitschopf and D.P. Sorokin, OSp supergroup manifolds, superparticles and supertwistors, Phys. Rev. D 61 (2000) 065009 [ hep-th/9907113]

2000 arXiv
[26]

Zunger, Twistors and actions on coset manifolds , Phys

Y. Zunger, Twistors and actions on coset manifolds , Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 024030 [ hep-th/0001072]

2000 arXiv
[27]

Cederwall, Geometric construction of AdS twistors , Phys

M. Cederwall, Geometric construction of AdS twistors , Phys. Lett. B 483 (2000) 257 [ hep-th/0002216]

2000 arXiv
[28]

Cederwall, AdS twistors for higher spin theory , AIP Conf

M. Cederwall, AdS twistors for higher spin theory , AIP Conf. Proc. 767 (2005) 96 [ hep-th/0412222]

2005 arXiv
[29]

Arvanitakis, A.E

A.S. Arvanitakis, A.E. Barns-Graham and P.K. Townsend, Anti–de Sitter Particles and Manifest (Super)Isometries, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 (2017) 141601 [ 1608.04380]

2017 arXiv
[30]

Arvanitakis, A.E

A.S. Arvanitakis, A.E. Barns-Graham and P.K. Townsend, Twistor description of spinning particles in AdS, JHEP 01 (2018) 059 [ 1710.09557]

2018 arXiv
[31]

Uvarov, Supertwistor formulation for massless superparticle in AdS5×S5 superspace, Nucl

D.V. Uvarov, Supertwistor formulation for massless superparticle in AdS5×S5 superspace, Nucl. Phys. B 936 (2018) 690 [ 1807.08318]. 20

2018 arXiv
[32]

Uvarov, Multitwistor mechanics of massless superparticle on AdS5×S5 superbackground, Nucl

D.V. Uvarov, Multitwistor mechanics of massless superparticle on AdS5×S5 superbackground, Nucl. Phys. B 950 (2020) 114830 [ 1907.13613]

2020 arXiv
[33]

Koning, S.M

N.E. Koning, S.M. Kuzenko and E.S.N. Raptakis, The anti-de Sitter supergeometry revisited , JHEP 02 (2025) 175 [ 2412.03172]

2025 arXiv
[34]

Wess and J

J. Wess and J. Bagger, Supersymmetry and supergravity, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA (1992)

1992
[35]

Buchbinder and S.M

I.L. Buchbinder and S.M. Kuzenko, Ideas and Methods of Supersymmetry and Supergravity or A Walk Through Superspace: A Walk Through Superspace , Taylor & Francis (1998), 10.1201/9780367802530

1998 doi
[36]

Kuzenko, J

S.M. Kuzenko, J. Novak and G. Tartaglino-Mazzucchelli, Higher derivative couplings and massive supergravity in three dimensions, JHEP 09 (2015) 081 [ 1506.09063]

2015 arXiv
[37]

Brooks, F

R. Brooks, F. Muhammad and S.J. Gates, Unidexterous D=2 Supersymmetry in Superspace , Nucl. Phys. B 268 (1986) 599

1986
[38]

Evans and B.A

M. Evans and B.A. Ovrut, The World Sheet Supergravity of the Heterotic String , Phys. Lett. B 171 (1986) 177

1986
[39]

Gates, Jr., M.T

S.J. Gates, Jr., M.T. Grisaru, L. Mezincescu and P.K. Townsend, (1,0) SUPERGRAPHITY, Nucl. Phys. B 286 (1987) 1

1987
[40]

Brown and S.J

M. Brown and S.J. Gates, Jr., Superspace Bianchi Identities and the Supercovariant Derivative , Annals Phys. 122 (1979) 443

1979
[41]

Govindarajan and B.A

S. Govindarajan and B.A. Ovrut, The Anomaly structure of (2,0) heterotic world sheet supergravity with gauged R invariance, Nucl. Phys. B 385 (1992) 251

1992
[42]

Howe, Super Weyl Transformations in Two-Dimensions , J

P.S. Howe, Super Weyl Transformations in Two-Dimensions , J. Phys. A 12 (1979) 393

1979
[43]

Martinec, Superspace Geometry of Fermionic Strings , Phys

E.J. Martinec, Superspace Geometry of Fermionic Strings , Phys. Rev. D 28 (1983) 2604

1983
[44]

Gates, Jr

S.J. Gates, Jr. and H. Nishino, D = 2 Superfield Supergravity, Local (Supersymmetry)**2 and Nonlinear σ Models, Class. Quant. Grav. 3 (1986) 391

1986
[45]

Rocek, P

M. Rocek, P. van Nieuwenhuizen and S.C. Zhang, Superspace Path Integral Measure of the N = 1 Spinning String, Annals Phys. 172 (1986) 348

1986
[46]

Howe and G

P.S. Howe and G. Papadopoulos, N=2, D = 2 SUPERGEOMETRY , Class. Quant. Grav. 4 (1987) 11

1987
[47]

Grisaru and M.E

M.T. Grisaru and M.E. Wehlau, Prepotentials for (2,2) supergravity, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 10 (1995) 753 [hep-th/9409043]

1995 arXiv
[48]

Grisaru and M.E

M.T. Grisaru and M.E. Wehlau, Superspace measures, invariant actions, and component projection formulae for (2,2) supergravity , Nucl. Phys. B 457 (1995) 219 [ hep-th/9508139]

1995 arXiv
[49]

Gates, Jr., M.T

S.J. Gates, Jr., M.T. Grisaru and M.E. Wehlau, A Study of general 2-D, N=2 matter coupled to supergravity in superspace, Nucl. Phys. B 460 (1996) 579 [ hep-th/9509021]

1996 arXiv
[50]

Tartaglino-Mazzucchelli, 2D N = (4,4) superspace supergravity and bi-projective superfields , JHEP 04 (2010) 034 [ 0911.2546]

G. Tartaglino-Mazzucchelli, 2D N = (4,4) superspace supergravity and bi-projective superfields , JHEP 04 (2010) 034 [ 0911.2546]

2010 arXiv
[51]

Bellucci and E

S. Bellucci and E. Ivanov, N=(4,4), 2-D supergravity in SU(2) × SU(2) harmonic superspace Nucl. Phys. B 587 (2000) 445-480 [ hep-th/0003154]. 21

2000 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Keck, An Alternative Class of Supersymmetries , J

B.W. Keck, An Alternative Class of Supersymmetries , J. Phys. A 8 (1975) 1819

work page 1975

[2] [2]

Zumino, Nonlinear Realization of Supersymmetry in de Sitter Space , Nucl

B. Zumino, Nonlinear Realization of Supersymmetry in de Sitter Space , Nucl. Phys. B 127 (1977) 189

work page 1977

[3] [3]

E. A. Ivanov and A. S. Sorin, Superfield Formulation of OSp(1,4) Supersymmetry , J. Phys. A 13 (1980) 1159

work page 1980

[4] [4]

E. A. Ivanov and A. S. Sorin, Wess-Zumino Model as Linear Sigma Model of Spontaneously Broken Conformal and OSp(1,4) Supersymmetries , Yad. Fiz. 30 (1979) 853, [Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 30 (1979) 440]

work page 1979

[5] [5]

Kuzenko, U

S.M. Kuzenko, U. Lindstrom and G. Tartaglino-Mazzucchelli, Three-dimensional (p,q) AdS superspaces and matter couplings , JHEP 08 (2012) 024 [ 1205.4622]

arXiv 2012

[6] [6]

Kuzenko and G

S.M. Kuzenko and G. Tartaglino-Mazzucchelli, Conformally flat supergeometry in five dimensions , JHEP 06 (2008) 097 [ 0804.1219]

arXiv 2008

[7] [7]

Koning, S.M

N.E. Koning, S.M. Kuzenko and E.S.N. Raptakis, Embedding formalism forN -extended AdS superspace in four dimensions , JHEP 11 (2023) 063 [ 2308.04135]

arXiv 2023

[8] [8]

Kuzenko and G

S.M. Kuzenko and G. Tartaglino-Mazzucchelli, Supertwistor realisations of AdS superspaces, Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) 146 [ 2108.03907]

arXiv 2022