Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 64 references

A note on partially massless supergravity

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A partially massless spin-2 field with two massless gravitini admits exactly one non-Abelian cubic vertex on AdS4, but the gauge algebra fails to close at second order, and the paper argues that N=1 conformal supergravity is the only…

desk verdict A careful classification of PM spin-2/gravitini cubic vertices with an honest but incomplete argument for the conformal supergravity resolution. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.17713 v2 pith:AVLPEY6B submitted 2024-12-23 hep-th

Nicolas Boulanger , Guillaume Lhost , Sylvain Thomée This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords partiallymasslessspin-2AdS4supergravityBRST-BVdeformationcubicinteractionverticesgaugealgebraobstructionconformalspin-3/2fields
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 asks whether a partially massless spin-2 field — a spin-2 mode whose gauge symmetry fixes its mass in terms of the cosmological constant, so it propagates only on (anti-)de Sitter backgrounds — can interact consistently with spin-3/2 fields around anti-de Sitter spacetime, and whether those interactions can make local the rigid supersymmetry of the shortest partially massless supermultiplet. Using BRST–BV cohomology, it classifies all parity-invariant cubic deformations of the free theory. For a partially massless spin-2 field plus a doublet of massless gravitini — the same helicity spectrum as $\mathcal{N}=2$ pure supergravity — there is exactly one non-Abelian cubic vertex, and its gauge algebra is the $\mathcal{N}=2$ supergravity algebra with the diffeomorphism ghost replaced by the gradient of the PM gauge parameter. That vertex is obstructed at second order: the Jacobi identity fails unless the deformation structure $b_{\Delta\Omega}$ is set to zero. Adding a massless graviton removes the obstruction, and the resulting field content is that of $\mathcal{N}=1$ conformal supergravity, which the paper proposes as the unique consistent theory for this set of fields.

What carries the argument

The engine is the BRST–BV antifield deformation method, a cohomological bookkeeping that turns the classification of consistent interactions into the solving of a master equation; the descent equations read off deformations of the gauge algebra, of the gauge transformations, and of the Lagrangian from terms of antifield number two, one, and zero. The load-bearing comparison is the dictionary $\nabla_\mu C \leftrightarrow \xi_\mu$ between the PM gauge parameter and the diffeomorphism ghost of $\mathcal{N}=2$ supergravity, which turns the unique PM vertex into a minimal-coupling vertex structure with the graviton replaced by the PM field and a symmetric antidiagonal matrix $b_{\Delta\Omega}$ contracting the two gravitini. The obstruction is computed in the antibracket $(a_2,a_2)$; the five terms (5.5)–(5.9) are the explicit failure of the Jacobi identity that blocks the second order.

What would settle it

Take the deformed gauge algebra (4.18) with a concrete nonzero symmetric antidiagonal matrix $b_{\Delta\Omega}$ (for instance two gravitini with $M=\mathrm{diag}(+1,-1)$ and $b_{12}=b_{21}\neq0$), compute the antibracket $(a_2,a_2)$, and check whether any local $b_2$ solves Eq. (5.4); if the five obstructions (5.5)–(5.9) can be cancelled for some nonzero $b$, the paper's obstruction claim would be refuted, and an explicit action satisfying the full master equation to all orders and reducing to (4.16) at cubic order would be a direct counterexample to the claimed uniqueness.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Starting from the free theory of a partially massless spin-2 field $h_{\mu\nu}$ and a doublet of massless real spin-3/2 fields $\varphi^\Delta_\mu$ on AdS4, the paper classifies the possible parity-invariant non-Abelian deformations and finds a single candidate cubic vertex, Eq. (4.16), equivalent to a vertex obtained independently in a different formalism. The associated deformation of the gauge algebra reproduces the structure constants of $\mathcal{N}=2$ pure supergravity once $\nabla_\mu C$ is identified with the diffeomorphism ghost, with one exception: the structure constant that encodes local Lorentz rotations vanishes identically because the diffeomorphism vector is a gradient. At second order the deformation is obstructed: the antibracket of the algebra deformation produces five terms, Eqs. (5.5)–(5.9), which cannot vanish for any nonzero deformation matrix $b_{\Delta\Omega}$, signaling failure of the Jacobi identity and therefore no consistent quadratic completion within this spectrum. The paper also analyzes the enlarged spectrum that adds a massless vector and a massive spin-3/2 field, finds two Abelian vertices but again an obstruction, and concludes that the rigid supersymmetry of the shortest partially massless supermultiplet cannot be made local without extra fields. The extra field that works is the massless graviton: the resulting spectrum is exactly that of $\mathcal{N}=1$ pure conformal supergravity around AdS4, and the paper argues this is the only consistent non-Abelian theory coupling partially massless spin-2 fields to massless and massive spin-3/2 fields.

Load-bearing premise

The whole conclusion rests on assuming that any consistent interaction can be built perturbatively, order by order in a coupling constant, from the free theory on a fixed anti-de Sitter background, using only local, parity-invariant deformations of the BRST–BV master equation; if a non-perturbative or non-local completion evades this setup, the uniqueness and obstruction results do not apply.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The rigid supersymmetry of the shortest partially massless supermultiplet in AdS4 cannot be gauged with that field content alone; local consistency forces additional fields into the spectrum.
  • Any parity-invariant non-Abelian deformation of the PM spin-2 plus two-massless-gravitini system must start from the unique cubic vertex (4.16), so there is no alternative cubic structure within the stated assumptions.
  • By itself the cubic vertex is not the seed of a perturbative theory: at second order the deformation parameter $b_{\Delta\Omega}$ must vanish unless new fields modify the algebra.
  • Adding the massless graviton simultaneously cures the Jacobi-identity obstruction and the failure to localize supersymmetry, and the resulting spectrum is that of $\mathcal{N}=1$ conformal supergravity around AdS4.
  • In the massive-sector analysis, the two Abelian vertices coupling a massive spin-3/2, a massless gravitino and a vector exist only in AdS4 and deform the gauge transformations without deforming the gauge algebra, while the minimal electromagnetic coupling of an equal-mass pair of massive spin-3/2 fields is consistent on both AdS4 and dS4.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the obstruction is algebraic and not an artifact of the chosen representation, then alternative formulations (frame-like, light-cone, or Hamiltonian) of the same spectrum should hit the same wall; re-running the classification in a frame-like formulation would test this.
  • The dictionary $\nabla_\mu C \leftrightarrow \xi_\mu$ may be a general translation device between partially massless and massless spin-2 interaction problems; deriving known conformal-gravity vertices purely from PM structures would be a sharp test.
  • The paper's conclusion would gain further weight if the same uniqueness held in dS4, where PM fields are unitary; extending the analysis with the spinor representations adapted to dS4 would show whether conformal supergravity remains the only completion there.
  • The two Abelian vertices found in the massive sector suggest a possible alternative research line: keeping the gauge algebra Abelian and pursuing higher-order Abelian deformations, since the obstruction proven here rules out non-Abelian completions but does not by itself close that door.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies parity-invariant, local, non-Abelian deformations of free theories on a fixed (A)dS4 background whose spectrum contains a partially massless (PM) spin-2 field and spin-3/2 fields, using BRST-BV-Stueckelberg and cohomological deformation methods. Sections 2–3 analyze the shortest PM supermultiplet of Garcia-Saenz–Hinterbichler–Rosen and find two Abelian vertices coupling massless and massive gravitini to a vector field (Eqs. (3.22) and (3.24)) plus a minimal electromagnetic coupling for massive gravitini (Eq. (3.37)); the authors conclude that the rigid supersymmetry of that multiplet cannot be gauged without extra fields. Section 4 classifies cubic non-Abelian deformations of the system consisting of a PM spin-2 field and a doublet of massless gravitini, obtaining a unique vertex (Eq. (4.16)) equivalent to Zinoviev's vertex and a gauge algebra closely resembling that of N=2 supergravity. Section 5 computes a second-order antibracket obstruction (Eqs. (5.5)–(5.9)), interprets it as a Jacobi-identity failure, and argues that adding a massless graviton, another massless gravitino, and a massless vector produces the spectrum of N=1 conformal supergravity, which would resolve both problems.

Significance. If the final uniqueness statement were fully established, the paper would significantly strengthen the case that PM spin-2 fields can only interact with spin-3/2 fields through conformal (super)gravity, complementing earlier no-go results for PM spin-2 couplings. The explicit first-order vertex (4.16), its derivation via BRST-BV cohomology, and the detailed comparison with N=2 supergravity are valuable and independently useful. The paper is also commendably explicit about its free parameters (b_ΔΩ, M_ΔΣ) and about many of its working assumptions. However, the strongest advertised conclusion — that N=1 conformal supergravity is the only consistent completion — is supported only by partial computations and by the authors' own admission that the complete analysis 'has yet to be completed'; the manuscript itself labels several steps as potential or indicative rather than proven.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5, Eqs. (5.5)–(5.9)] The obstruction computation is incomplete as presented. Equation (5.4) requires solving γb2 = −(1/2)(a2,a2) + d(...) in local BRST-BV cohomology, so the obstructions are the classes of the five terms O1–O5 in H(γ|d), not the terms themselves. The paper does not show that O1–O5 are nontrivial classes: no analysis of γ-exactness modulo total derivatives is given, and the ambiguity relations of §3.2 show that apparently nonvanishing combinations of ghosts can be γ-exact in the PM sector. Unless nontriviality in H(γ|d) is established (or the O_i are explicitly shown to be independent), the statement that these obstructions 'cannot vanish' unless b_ΔΩ = 0 is not fully demonstrated.
  2. [§5, after Eq. (5.13)] The proposed cure by the massless graviton is not computed. The paper lists aEH2, aWeyl2, and asugra2 and states that their addition produces new obstruction terms that combine with (5.5)–(5.9) and 'potentially lead to a consistent model at second order'; it also states that the complete analysis 'has yet to be completed'. No solution of the full second-order descent (5.2)–(5.4) for the combined deformation is exhibited, and no proof is given that the combined deformation is unique or that it reproduces N=1 conformal supergravity beyond cubic order. Since the abstract and conclusions present N=1 conformal supergravity as the only consistent theory, this claim currently exceeds what the computation establishes; it should be either proved or explicitly labelled as a conjecture throughout the paper, including the abstract.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The word 'masseless' in the abstract is a typo and should read 'massless'.
  2. [§2.3, after Eq. (2.20)] The sentence 'It is unvariant (up to total derivatives)' contains a typo: 'unvariant' should be 'invariant'.
  3. [§5, Table 3 discussion] The phrase 'relatively ghostly' used for the partially massless spin-2 field is informal and potentially confusing; 'shadow' or 'ghost-like' would be clearer in a journal paper.
  4. [§4.5, Eqs. (4.30)–(4.31)] The rewriting of the cubic action using the matrices (E_a^μ)_ΔΩ is described as 'suggestive', but the text does not explicitly show where the equivalence with Eq. (4.22) is verified; please indicate the calculation or a reference for this equivalence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the PM vertex and its second-order obstruction are derived from the free BRST-BV data; the final "only consistent theory" claim is explicitly conjectural, not a redefinition or fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is self-contained: it starts from the free PM spin-2 plus doublet of massless spin-3/2 fields in AdS4, computes the relevant γ-cohomology (Sec. 4.2), solves the descent equations (4.6)-(4.8) to obtain the vertex (4.16), and then computes the antibracket obstruction (5.5)-(5.9). The vertex is not defined to be Zinoviev's vertex; equivalence to [38] is a post-hoc cross-check. The obstruction statement "unless one trivially sets the deformation structures b_ΔΩ to zero" follows from the displayed algebraic expressions, not from a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The paper explicitly qualifies the conformal-supergravity completion: "While the complete analysis has yet to be completed", "potentially lead to a consistent model at the second order", and "strongly indicate". Thus the final uniqueness claim is a plausible conjecture rather than a derived result; the gap is one of proof completeness and correctness, not circularity. The self-citations ([22], [35], [39]) are to independent prior computations in related sectors and are not used to define the PM vertex found here. No step in the paper reduces, by construction or by self-citation, to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new fields, particles, or forces beyond the known field content. The free parameters are the coupling constants and sign choices in the deformation, which are not fitted to data. The assumptions are standard for the BRST-BV deformation method in fixed AdS backgrounds.

free parameters (2)
  • b_ΔΩ (symmetric anti-diagonal matrix) = not fitted; determined by consistency
    The cubic vertex coupling PM spin-2 to gravitini is parametrized by a symmetric matrix b_ΔΩ. Its form is constrained by consistency, but it is a free coupling constant matrix in the deformation.
  • mass-like matrix M_ΔΣ = diag(±1, ...) = ±1
    The relative signs of the mass-like terms for the spin-3/2 fields are chosen to satisfy the consistency constraints {k^(1), M} = 0, {k^(3), M} = 0, and k^(2) = λ k^(1) M. This is a model choice, not derived from first principles.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The BRST-BV cohomological deformation method classifies all consistent interactions.
    The paper assumes that any consistent interaction can be found perturbatively in the BRST-BV formalism, following Barnich-Henneaux. This is a standard but nontrivial framework assumption.
  • domain assumption AdS4 background with fixed cosmological constant, no backreaction.
    The analysis is performed around a fixed AdS4 background with cosmological constant Λ = -3σλ². Backreaction of the fields on the geometry is not considered.
  • domain assumption The free spectrum of the shortest PM supermultiplet (as in [24]) is the correct starting point.
    The paper relies on the existence of the rigid supersymmetric multiplet found in [24] as motivation and as a constraint on the possible interactions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A note on partially massless supergravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AVLPEY6B

@misc{pith2026241217713,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A note on partially massless supergravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AVLPEY6B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.17713}
}
abstract

We analyse the couplings of a partially massless spin-2 field with a doublet of massless, real spin-3/2 fields. In the flat limit, this spectrum coincides with the spectrum of ${\cal N}=2$ pure supergravity around anti-de Sitter spacetime AdS$_4$. We classify all the possible parity-invariant, non-Abelian deformations of the free theory that lead to a deformation of the Lagrangian. By doing this, we re-derive a non-Abelian vertex recently found in 2412.04982 [hep-th] by Yu. M. Zinoviev following a different approach, and show that the corresponding non-Abelian gauge algebra closely resembles the one of ${\cal N}=2$ supergravity around AdS$_4$. The gauge-algebra deformation is however obstructed, at next order. Then, we add a massless vector field together with a massive spin-3/2 field, and find two nontrivial vertices mixing these fields with a single massless gravitino. Still, the gauge algebra remains obstructed at next order, therefore excluding the possibility to make local the global supersymmetry algebra found in recent works on partially massless supermultiplets in AdS$_4$. Finally, we argue that the two problems encountered are simultaneously solved by the addition of the masseless graviton, leading to ${\cal N}=1$ pure conformal supergravity around AdS$_4$ as the only consistent theory coupling partially massless spin-2 fields to massless and massive spin-3/2 fields.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Deser and R.I

    S. Deser and R.I. Nepomechie, Anomalous Propagation of Gauge Fields in Conformally Flat Spaces, Phys. Lett. B 132 (1983) 321

    work page 1983

  2. [2]

    Deser and R.I

    S. Deser and R.I. Nepomechie, Gauge Invariance Versus Masslessness in De Sitter Space , Annals Phys. 154 (1984) 396 . – 29 –

    work page 1984

  3. [3]

    Higuchi, Forbidden Mass Range for Spin-2 Field Theory in De Sitter Spa ce-time, Nucl

    A. Higuchi, Forbidden Mass Range for Spin-2 Field Theory in De Sitter Spa ce-time, Nucl. Phys. B 282 (1987) 397

    work page 1987

  4. [4]

    Higuchi, Symmetric Tensor Spherical Harmonics on the N Sphere and Their Application to the De Sitter Group SO( N ,1), J

    A. Higuchi, Symmetric Tensor Spherical Harmonics on the N Sphere and Their Application to the De Sitter Group SO( N ,1), J. Math. Phys. 28 (1987) 1553

    work page 1987

  5. [5]

    Deser and A

    S. Deser and A. Waldron, Gauge invariances and phases of massive higher spins in (A)d S, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 031601 [hep-th/0102166]

    arXiv 2001

  6. [6]

    Deser and A

    S. Deser and A. Waldron, Partial masslessness of higher spins in (A)dS , Nucl. Phys. B 607 (2001) 577 [hep-th/0103198]

    arXiv 2001

  7. [7]

    Deser and A

    S. Deser and A. Waldron, Stability of massive cosmological gravitons , Phys. Lett. B 508 (2001) 347 [hep-th/0103255]

    arXiv 2001

  8. [8]

    Baumann, G

    D. Baumann, G. Goon, H. Lee and G.L. Pimentel, Partially Massless Fields During Inflation, JHEP 04 (2018) 140 [1712.06624]

    arXiv 2018

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    Franciolini, A

    G. Franciolini, A. Kehagias and A. Riotto, Imprints of Spinning Particles on Primordial Cosmological Perturbations, JCAP 02 (2018) 023 [1712.06626]

    2018 arXiv

  2. [10]

    G. Goon, K. Hinterbichler, A. Joyce and M. Trodden, Shapes of gravity: Tensor non-Gaussianity and massive spin-2 fields , JHEP 10 (2019) 182 [1812.07571]

    2019 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Supernova Cosmology Project collaboration, Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 High Redshift Supernovae, Astrophys. J. 517 (1999) 565 [astro-ph/9812133]

    1999 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Supernova Search Team collaboration, Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant , Astron. J. 116 (1998) 1009 [astro-ph/9805201]

    1998 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Planck collaboration, Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters , Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020) A6 [1807.06209]

    2020 arXiv

  6. [14]

    LIGO Scientific, Virgo collaboration, Tests of General Relativity with GW170817 , Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (2019) 011102 [1811.00364]

    2019 arXiv

  7. [15]

    LIGO Scientific, Virgo collaboration, Tests of general relativity with binary black holes from the second LIGO-Virgo gravitational-wave transient c atalog, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 122002 [2010.14529]

    2021 arXiv

  8. [16]

    LIGO Scientific, Virgo, KAGRA collaboration, Tests of General Relativity with GWTC-3, 2112.06861

    arXiv

  9. [17]

    Zinoviev, Frame-like gauge invariant formulation for massive high sp in particles, Nucl

    Y.M. Zinoviev, Frame-like gauge invariant formulation for massive high sp in particles, Nucl. Phys. B 808 (2009) 185 [0808.1778]

    2009 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Boulanger, A

    N. Boulanger, A. Campoleoni and I. Cortese, Dual actions for massless, partially-massless and massive gravitons in (A)dS , Phys. Lett. B 782 (2018) 285 [1804.05588]

    2018 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Boulanger, C

    N. Boulanger, C. Deffayet, S. Garcia-Saenz and L. Traina, Theory for multiple partially massless spin-2 fields , Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 101701 [1906.03868]

    2019 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Joung, W

    E. Joung, W. Li and M. Taronna, No-Go Theorems for Unitary and Interacting Partially Massless Spin-Two Fields , Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (2014) 091101 [1406.2335]

    2014 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Joung, K

    E. Joung, K. Mkrtchyan and G. Poghosyan, Looking for partially-massless gravity , JHEP 07 (2019) 116 [1904.05915]. – 30 –

    2019 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Boulanger, S

    N. Boulanger, S. Garcia-Saenz, S. Pan and L. Traina, Cubic interactions for massless and partially massless spin-1 and spin-2 fields , JHEP 11 (2024) 019 [2407.05865]

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Boulanger, G

    N. Boulanger, G. Lhost and S. Thom´ ee, Consistent Couplings between a Massive Spin-3/2 Field and a Partially Massless Spin-2 Field , Universe 9 (2023) 482 [2310.05522]

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Garcia-Saenz, K

    S. Garcia-Saenz, K. Hinterbichler and R.A. Rosen, Supersymmetric Partially Massless Fields and Non-Unitary Superconformal Representations , JHEP 11 (2018) 166 [1810.01881]

    2018 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Fradkin and A.A

    E.S. Fradkin and A.A. Tseytlin, Conformal Supergravity, Phys. Rept. 119 (1985) 233

    1985

  18. [26]

    Bobev, A.M

    N. Bobev, A.M. Charles, K. Hristov and V. Reys, Higher-derivative supergravity, AdS 4 holography, and black holes , JHEP 08 (2021) 173 [2106.04581]

    2021 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Becchi, A

    C. Becchi, A. Rouet and R. Stora, Renormalization of Gauge Theories , Annals Phys. 98 (1976) 287

    1976

  20. [28]

    Tyutin, Gauge Invariance in Field Theory and Statistical Physics in Operator Formalism, Lebedev preprint 39 (1975) [ 0812.0580]

    I.V. Tyutin, Gauge Invariance in Field Theory and Statistical Physics in Operator Formalism, Lebedev preprint 39 (1975) [ 0812.0580]

    1975 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Batalin and G.A

    I.A. Batalin and G.A. Vilkovisky, Gauge Algebra and Quantization , Phys. Lett. B 102 (1981) 27

    1981

  22. [30]

    Batalin and G.A

    I.A. Batalin and G.A. Vilkovisky, Quantization of Gauge Theories with Linearly Dependent Generators, Phys. Rev. D 28 (1983) 2567

    1983

  23. [31]

    Batalin and G.A

    I.A. Batalin and G.A. Vilkovisky, Erratum: Quantization of gauge theories with linearly dependent generators, Phys. Rev. D 30 (1984) 508

    1984

  24. [32]

    Stueckelberg, Th´ eorie de la radiation de photons de masse arbitrairement petite, Helv

    E.C.G. Stueckelberg, Th´ eorie de la radiation de photons de masse arbitrairement petite, Helv. Phys. Acta 30 (1957) 209

    1957

  25. [33]

    Ruegg and M

    H. Ruegg and M. Ruiz-Altaba, The Stueckelberg field , Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 19 (2004) 3265 [hep-th/0304245]

    2004 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Boulanger, C

    N. Boulanger, C. Deffayet, S. Garcia-Saenz and L. Traina, Consistent deformations of free massive field theories in the Stueckelberg formulation , JHEP 07 (2018) 021 [1806.04695]

    2018 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Boulanger, B

    N. Boulanger, B. Julia and L. Traina, Uniqueness of N = 2 and 3 pure supergravities in 4D , JHEP 04 (2018) 097 [1802.02966]

    2018 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Barnich and M

    G. Barnich and M. Henneaux, Consistent couplings between fields with a gauge freedom and deformations of the master equation , Phys. Lett. B 311 (1993) 123 [hep-th/9304057]

    1993 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Henneaux, Consistent interactions between gauge fields: The Cohomolo gical approach, Contemp

    M. Henneaux, Consistent interactions between gauge fields: The Cohomolo gical approach, Contemp. Math. 219 (1998) 93 [hep-th/9712226]

    1998 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Zinoviev, Partially massless spin 2 and supersymmetry , 2412.04982

    Y.M. Zinoviev, Partially massless spin 2 and supersymmetry , 2412.04982

    arXiv

  31. [39]

    Boulanger, T

    N. Boulanger, T. Damour, L. Gualtieri and M. Henneaux, Inconsistency of interacting, multigraviton theories, Nucl. Phys. B 597 (2001) 127 [hep-th/0007220]

    2001 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Boulanger, A

    N. Boulanger, A. Campoleoni, I. Cortese and L. Traina, Spin-2 twisted duality in (A)dS , Front. in Phys. 6 (2018) 129 [1807.04524]

    2018 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Pilch, P

    K. Pilch, P. van Nieuwenhuizen and M.F. Sohnius, De Sitter Superalgebras and Supergravity , Commun. Math. Phys. 98 (1985) 105

    1985

  34. [42]

    Townsend, Cosmological Constant in Supergravity , Phys

    P.K. Townsend, Cosmological Constant in Supergravity , Phys. Rev. D 15 (1977) 2802

    1977

  35. [43]

    Fronsdal, Massless Fields with Integer Spin , Phys

    C. Fronsdal, Massless Fields with Integer Spin , Phys. Rev. D 18 (1978) 3624 . – 31 –

    1978

  36. [44]

    Fronsdal, Singletons and Massless, Integral Spin Fields on de Sitter S pace (Elementary Particles in a Curved Space

    C. Fronsdal, Singletons and Massless, Integral Spin Fields on de Sitter S pace (Elementary Particles in a Curved Space. 7. , Phys. Rev. D 20 (1979) 848

    1979

  37. [45]

    Fang and C

    J. Fang and C. Fronsdal, Massless, Half Integer Spin Fields in De Sitter Space , Phys. Rev. D 22 (1980) 1361

    1980

  38. [46]

    Flato and C

    M. Flato and C. Fronsdal, One Massless Particle Equals Two Dirac Singletons: Element ary Particles in a Curved Space. 6. , Lett. Math. Phys. 2 (1978) 421

    1978

  39. [47]

    Fronsdal and R.B

    C. Fronsdal and R.B. Haugen, Elementary Particles in a Curved Space. 3 , Phys. Rev. D 12 (1975) 3810

    1975

  40. [48]

    Breitenlohner and D.Z

    P. Breitenlohner and D.Z. Freedman, Stability in Gauged Extended Supergravity , Annals Phys. 144 (1982) 249

    1982

  41. [49]

    Henneaux and C

    M. Henneaux and C. Teitelboim, Quantization of Gauge Systems , Princeton University Press (8, 1994)

    1994

  42. [50]

    Bittermann, S

    N. Bittermann, S. Garcia-Saenz, K. Hinterbichler and R.A. Rose n, N = 2 supersymmetric partially massless fields and other exotic non-unitary supe rconformal representations, JHEP 08 (2021) 115 [2011.05994]

    2021 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Velo and D

    G. Velo and D. Zwanziger, Propagation and quantization of Rarita-Schwinger waves in an external electromagnetic potential , Phys. Rev. 186 (1969) 1337

    1969

  44. [52]

    Johnson and E.C.G

    K. Johnson and E.C.G. Sudarshan, Inconsistency of the local field theory of charged spin 3/2 particles, Annals Phys. 13 (1961) 126

    1961

  45. [53]

    Deser, V

    S. Deser, V. Pascalutsa and A. Waldron, Massive spin 3/2 electrodynamics , Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 105031 [hep-th/0003011]

    2000 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Deser and A

    S. Deser and A. Waldron, Inconsistencies of massive charged gravitating higher spi ns, Nucl. Phys. B 631 (2002) 369 [hep-th/0112182]

    2002 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Zinoviev, On massive spin 2 interactions , Nucl

    Y.M. Zinoviev, On massive spin 2 interactions , Nucl. Phys. B 770 (2007) 83 [hep-th/0609170]

    2007 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Gibbons and M.J

    G.W. Gibbons and M.J. Perry, Quantizing Gravitational Instantons , Nucl. Phys. B 146 (1978) 90

    1978

  49. [57]

    Allen, The Graviton Propagator in De Sitter Space , Phys

    B. Allen, The Graviton Propagator in De Sitter Space , Phys. Rev. D 34 (1986) 3670

    1986

  50. [58]

    Letsios, New conformal-like symmetry of strictly massless fermions in four-dimensional de Sitter space , JHEP 05 (2024) 078 [2310.01702]

    V.A. Letsios, New conformal-like symmetry of strictly massless fermions in four-dimensional de Sitter space , JHEP 05 (2024) 078 [2310.01702]

    2024 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Freedman and A

    D.Z. Freedman and A. Van Proeyen, Supergravity, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK (5, 2012), 10.1017/CBO9781139026833

    2012 doi

  52. [60]

    Metsaev, Massless mixed symmetry bosonic free fields in d-dimensiona l anti-de Sitter space-time, Phys

    R.R. Metsaev, Massless mixed symmetry bosonic free fields in d-dimensiona l anti-de Sitter space-time, Phys. Lett. B 354 (1995) 78

    1995

  53. [61]

    Metsaev, Arbitrary spin massless bosonic fields in d-dimensional ant i-de Sitter space , Lect

    R.R. Metsaev, Arbitrary spin massless bosonic fields in d-dimensional ant i-de Sitter space , Lect. Notes Phys. 524 (1999) 331 [hep-th/9810231]

    1999 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Metsaev, Fermionic fields in the d-dimensional anti-de Sitter space- time, Phys

    R.R. Metsaev, Fermionic fields in the d-dimensional anti-de Sitter space- time, Phys. Lett. B 419 (1998) 49 [hep-th/9802097]

    1998 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Basile, X

    T. Basile, X. Bekaert and N. Boulanger, Mixed-symmetry fields in de Sitter space: a group theoretical glance, JHEP 05 (2017) 081 [1612.08166]. – 32 –

    2017 arXiv

  56. [64]

    V.A. Letsios, Unconventional conformal invariance of maximal depth part ially massless fields on dS 4 and its relation to complex partially massless SUSY , JHEP 08 (2024) 147 [2311.10060]. – 33 –

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.