pith. sign in

arxiv: 2603.07661 · v2 · pith:H7AD6S2Lnew · submitted 2026-03-08 · ✦ hep-th · cond-mat.mes-hall· gr-qc

Emergent fracton strings from covariant bi-form gauge field theory

Erica Bertolini , Hyungrok Kim , Giandomenico Palumbo This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 12:35 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-th cond-mat.mes-hallgr-qc
keywords fracton stringsrank-4 tensor gauge fieldcovariant field theorydipole conservationGauss lawarea-metric gravityhigher-rank gauge fieldsmobility constraints
0
0 comments X

The pith

A covariant rank-4 tensor gauge theory yields fracton strings whose mobility constraints emerge purely from symmetry.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper constructs a covariant field theory for fractonic string-like objects using a rank-4 tensor gauge field. The most general quadratic, parity-preserving action produces Maxwell-like equations, tensorial electric and magnetic fields, a conserved energy-momentum tensor, and a Lorentz-like force. Mobility constraints on the strings arise automatically as Gauss-like laws from the underlying symmetries, without being added by hand. A new generalised dipole conservation law for closed strings restricts their motion and defines a novel class of fractonic excitations. The same framework reduces to known rank-2 fracton models in a suitable limit and connects to linearised area-metric gravity.

Core claim

The most general quadratic, parity-preserving action for the rank-4 tensor gauge field gives rise to fracton-like string excitations purely from symmetry principles. Constraints on the motion of these extended objects appear as Gauss-like laws, without being imposed by hand. One of these laws is new and corresponds to a generalised dipole conservation for closed strings, restricting their mobility and defining a novel class of fractonic string-like excitations.

What carries the argument

The rank-4 tensor gauge field, whose equations of motion enforce tensorial analogues of electric and magnetic fields together with the emergent Gauss-like constraints on string motion.

If this is right

  • A conserved energy-momentum tensor and Lorentz-like force law hold for the fractonic strings.
  • The theory admits tensorial Maxwell-like equations with well-defined electric and magnetic sectors.
  • In a suitable limit the rank-4 theory reduces to known covariant fracton models built from rank-2 gauge fields.
  • Higher-rank gauge fields are thereby linked to both extended excitations and emergent gravitational structures.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The symmetry-derived dipole law for strings suggests analogous conservation rules may appear in other higher-rank or higher-dimensional gauge theories without manual imposition.
  • The reduction to area-metric gravity hints that fractonic string constraints could be tested in gravitational wave or condensed-matter analogues of emergent geometry.
  • Lattice regularisations of the rank-4 action could reveal whether the new dipole law survives quantisation or discretisation effects.

Load-bearing premise

That the most general quadratic, parity-preserving action for the rank-4 tensor gauge field is the physically relevant starting point that automatically produces the claimed fracton strings and their mobility constraints from symmetry alone.

What would settle it

Observation of closed string-like defects whose motion violates the generalised dipole conservation law while still obeying the other equations of the quadratic action would falsify the claim.

read the original abstract

We present a covariant field-theoretical framework for a rank-4 tensor gauge field theory describing fractonic string-like objects. We show that the most general quadratic, parity-preserving action naturally leads to a Maxwell-like sector, with tensorial analogues of electric and magnetic fields, Maxwell-like equations, a conserved energy-momentum tensor, and a Lorentz-like force. Remarkably, the theory gives rise to fracton-like string excitations purely from symmetry principles: constraints on the motion of these extended objects appear as Gauss-like laws, without being imposed by hand. One of these laws is new and corresponds to a generalised dipole conservation for closed strings, restricting their mobility and defining a novel class of fractonic string-like excitations. Finally, we uncover a connection to linearised area-metric gravity: in a suitable limit, the theory reduces to known covariant fracton models with rank-2 gauge fields, highlighting a deep link between fractonic matter and gravity-like structures. This provides a unified perspective on higher-rank gauge fields, extended excitations, and emergent gravitational features.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a covariant bi-form gauge field theory based on a rank-4 tensor gauge field. Starting from the most general quadratic, parity-preserving action, it derives Maxwell-like equations involving tensorial electric and magnetic fields, a conserved energy-momentum tensor, and a Lorentz-like force law. The central claim is that fracton-like string excitations and their mobility restrictions arise automatically from symmetry: Gauss-like constraints, including a novel generalised dipole conservation law specific to closed strings, emerge directly from the equations of motion without being imposed by hand. The work further shows a reduction to linearised area-metric gravity and to known rank-2 fracton models in appropriate limits.

Significance. If the derivations are correct, the result supplies a symmetry-based origin for mobility restrictions on extended fractonic objects and a concrete link between higher-rank gauge theories and gravitational structures. The use of the most general quadratic action without additional free parameters or ad-hoc constraints is a methodological strength that could unify aspects of fracton physics with higher-spin and gravity-like theories.

major comments (2)
  1. [EOM derivation and Gauss-law section] The derivation of the generalised dipole conservation law for closed strings (highlighted in the abstract as new) must be shown to follow strictly from varying the quadratic action and solving the resulting EOM. If this step requires a separate field ansatz that assumes string closure or imposes the string worldsheet topology by hand, the claim of emergence 'purely from symmetry principles' without imposition would need qualification. Please provide the explicit variation and the step where the closed-string restriction appears.
  2. [Reduction to area-metric gravity] The reduction to linearised area-metric gravity and to rank-2 fracton models is stated to occur 'in a suitable limit.' The precise limit (e.g., which components of the rank-4 field are retained or set to zero) and the matching of the resulting action or equations should be written out explicitly to confirm the connection is not merely formal.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Introduction or setup] Notation for the rank-4 tensor and its gauge transformations should be introduced with an explicit index structure and transformation rule at first appearance to aid readability.
  2. [Action and field content] The abstract asserts that the quadratic action 'naturally leads to' Maxwell-like sectors; the corresponding section should include a brief count of independent components or degrees of freedom after gauge fixing to make this concrete.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading, positive assessment of the work's significance, and constructive suggestions. We address the major comments below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate the requested clarifications.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [EOM derivation and Gauss-law section] The derivation of the generalised dipole conservation law for closed strings (highlighted in the abstract as new) must be shown to follow strictly from varying the quadratic action and solving the resulting EOM. If this step requires a separate field ansatz that assumes string closure or imposes the string worldsheet topology by hand, the claim of emergence 'purely from symmetry principles' without imposition would need qualification. Please provide the explicit variation and the step where the closed-string restriction appears.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit step-by-step derivation will strengthen the presentation. In the revised manuscript we will add the full variation of the quadratic action, the resulting Euler-Lagrange equations, and the subsequent integration that yields the generalised dipole constraint. The closed-string restriction arises directly from the requirement that the gauge parameter must be single-valued on a compact worldsheet; this condition is enforced by the higher-rank gauge invariance of the action itself and is not introduced by an external ansatz. Consequently the mobility restriction appears as a consequence of the Gauss-law sector of the equations of motion, consistent with the claim that it emerges from symmetry principles. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Reduction to area-metric gravity] The reduction to linearised area-metric gravity and to rank-2 fracton models is stated to occur 'in a suitable limit.' The precise limit (e.g., which components of the rank-4 field are retained or set to zero) and the matching of the resulting action or equations should be written out explicitly to confirm the connection is not merely formal.

    Authors: We accept that the precise limiting procedure should be spelled out. In the revised manuscript we will explicitly state the component projections (setting the fully antisymmetric part of the rank-4 tensor to zero while retaining the area-metric-compatible components) and the corresponding rescaling of the coupling constants. We will then show the term-by-term matching between the reduced action and the linearised area-metric gravity action, as well as the further reduction to the known rank-2 fracton models by taking an additional trace over two indices. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation chain is self-contained from the quadratic action

full rationale

The paper starts from the most general quadratic parity-preserving action for a rank-4 tensor gauge field and derives Maxwell-like equations, conserved quantities, and Gauss-like laws directly from its Euler-Lagrange equations. The abstract states that fracton-like string excitations and mobility constraints 'appear as Gauss-like laws, without being imposed by hand,' with one new law identified as generalised dipole conservation for closed strings. This emergence is presented as a consequence of the symmetry principles encoded in the action itself rather than a redefinition or fit of the target result. The reduction to known rank-2 fracton models in a suitable limit supplies an external consistency check rather than a self-referential loop. No quoted step equates a prediction to a fitted parameter or prior ansatz by construction, and the central claim retains independent content from the variational principle.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The framework rests on the choice of a quadratic parity-preserving action for a rank-4 tensor and on standard assumptions of covariance and Lorentz invariance; no explicit free parameters or new particles are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The most general quadratic, parity-preserving action for the rank-4 tensor gauge field is the appropriate starting point.
    Stated directly in the abstract as the basis for deriving the Maxwell-like sector and fracton strings.
  • standard math Covariance and parity preservation are required symmetries.
    Implicit in the construction of a covariant field theory.
invented entities (1)
  • rank-4 tensor gauge field no independent evidence
    purpose: To describe fractonic string-like objects covariantly.
    Central new field introduced to generate the emergent strings and their constraints.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5719 in / 1427 out tokens · 61214 ms · 2026-05-21T12:35:41.081727+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 93 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Vijay, J

    S. Vijay, J. Haah and L. Fu, Phys. Rev. B94(2016) no.23, 235157 doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.94.235157

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.94.235157 2016

  2. [2]

    R. M. Nandkishore and M. Hermele, Ann. Rev. Condensed Matter Phys.10(2019), 295-313 doi:10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-031218-013604

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-031218-013604 2019

  3. [3]

    Pretko, X

    M. Pretko, X. Chen and Y. You, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A35(2020) no.06, 2030003 doi:10.1142/S0217751X20300033

    work page doi:10.1142/s0217751x20300033 2020

  4. [4]

    Gromov and L

    A. Gromov and L. Radzihovsky, Rev. Mod. Phys.96(2024) no.1, 011001 doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.96.011001

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.96.011001 2024

  5. [5]

    Gromov, Phys

    A. Gromov, Phys. Rev. X9(2019) no.3, 031035 doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.9.031035

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.9.031035 2019

  6. [6]

    Caddeo, C

    A. Caddeo, C. Hoyos and D. Musso, Phys. Rev. D106(2022) no.11, L111903 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.L111903

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.106.l111903 2022

  7. [7]

    Bidussi, J

    L. Bidussi, J. Hartong, E. Have, J. Musaeus and S. Prohazka, SciPost Phys.12(2022) no.6, 205 doi:10.21468/SciPostPhys.12.6.205

    work page doi:10.21468/scipostphys.12.6.205 2022

  8. [8]

    Hartong, G

    J. Hartong, G. Palumbo, S. Pekar, A. P´ erez and S. Prohazka, SciPost Phys.18(2025) no.1, 022 doi:10.21468/SciPostPhys.18.1.022

    work page doi:10.21468/scipostphys.18.1.022 2025

  9. [9]

    Pretko, Phys

    M. Pretko, Phys. Rev. B96(2017) no.3, 035119 doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.96.035119

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.96.035119 2017

  10. [10]

    Pretko, Phys

    M. Pretko, Phys. Rev. B95(2017) no.11, 115139 doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.95.115139

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.95.115139 2017

  11. [11]

    Seiberg and S

    N. Seiberg and S. H. Shao, SciPost Phys.9(2020) no.4, 046 doi:10.21468/SciPostPhys.9.4.046 23

    work page doi:10.21468/scipostphys.9.4.046 2020

  12. [12]

    Gorantla, H

    P. Gorantla, H. T. Lam, N. Seiberg and S. H. Shao, Phys. Rev. B107(2023) no.12, 125121 doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.107.125121

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.107.125121 2023

  13. [13]

    Figueroa-O’Farrill, S

    J. Figueroa-O’Farrill, S. Pekar, A. P´ erez and S. Prohazka, JHEP11(2025), 030 doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2025)030

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep11(2025)030 2025

  14. [14]

    Bertolini and N

    E. Bertolini and N. Maggiore, Phys. Rev. D106(2022) no.12, 125008 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.125008

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.106.125008 2022

  15. [15]

    Bertolini, N

    E. Bertolini, N. Maggiore and G. Palumbo, Phys. Rev. D108(2023) no.2, 025009 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.025009

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.025009 2023

  16. [16]

    Blasi and N

    A. Blasi and N. Maggiore, Phys. Lett. B833(2022), 137304 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137304

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137304 2022

  17. [17]

    Bertolini, A

    E. Bertolini, A. Blasi, A. Damonte and N. Maggiore, Symmetry15(2023) no.4, 945 doi:10.3390/sym15040945

    work page doi:10.3390/sym15040945 2023

  18. [18]

    Bertolini and H

    E. Bertolini and H. Kim, Phys. Rev. D111(2025) no.2, 025006 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.025006

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.025006 2025

  19. [19]

    Bertolini, A

    E. Bertolini, A. Blasi and N. Maggiore, Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025) no.1, 68 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-13821-x

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-13821-x 2025

  20. [20]

    Bertolini and G

    E. Bertolini and G. Palumbo, Annals Phys.480(2025), 170138 doi:10.1016/j.aop.2025.170138

    work page doi:10.1016/j.aop.2025.170138 2025

  21. [21]

    Bertolini, A

    E. Bertolini, A. Blasi, M. Carrega, N. Maggiore and D. S. Shaikh, Phys. Rev. B111(2025) no.8, 085126 doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.111.085126

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.111.085126 2025

  22. [22]

    Bertolini, M

    E. Bertolini, M. Carrega, N. Maggiore and D. Sacco Shaikh, Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025) no.10, 1222 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-14978-1

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-14978-1 2025

  23. [23]

    Rovere, Phys

    D. Rovere, Phys. Rev. D110(2024) no.8, 8 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.085012

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.085012 2024

  24. [24]

    Rovere, Phys

    D. Rovere, Phys. Rev. D112(2025) no.10, 105002 doi:10.1103/y426-6lkj

    work page doi:10.1103/y426-6lkj 2025

  25. [25]

    Fecit and D

    F. Fecit and D. Rovere, Eur. Phys. J. C86(2026) no.3, 206 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-026- 15420-w

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-026- 2026

  26. [26]

    Liang and T

    Q. Liang and T. Melia, Phys. Rev. D112(2025) no.11, 116013 doi:10.1103/ts27-5y4q

    work page doi:10.1103/ts27-5y4q 2025

  27. [27]

    A Partially Massless Superconductor,

    K. Hinterbichler and A. Joyce, “A Partially Massless Superconductor,” [arXiv:2507.15932 [hep- th]]. 24

    work page arXiv

  28. [28]

    Afxonidis, A

    E. Afxonidis, A. Caddeo, C. Hoyos and D. Musso, Phys. Rev. D109(2024) no.6, 065013 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.065013

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.065013 2024

  29. [29]

    Journal of High Energy Physics 2015(2), 172 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP02(2015)172

    D. Gaiotto, A. Kapustin, N. Seiberg and B. Willett, JHEP02(2015), 172 doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2015)172

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep02(2015)172 2015

  30. [30]

    Lindstr¨ om and ¨O

    U. Lindstr¨ om and ¨O. Sarıo˘ glu, Phys. Lett. B829(2022), 137088 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137088

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137088 2022

  31. [31]

    Brane Symmetries Revisited: Symmetries of Tensile and Tensionless Branes in Possibly Degenerate Metrics and their Manifestations,

    L. Borsten, M. Galdeano and H. Kim, “Brane Symmetries Revisited: Symmetries of Tensile and Tensionless Branes in Possibly Degenerate Metrics and their Manifestations,” [arXiv:2512.20590 [hep-th]]

    work page arXiv

  32. [32]

    Bertolini and H

    E. Bertolini and H. Kim, JHEP2025(2025) 058, doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2025)058

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep10(2025)058 2025

  33. [33]

    Pai and M

    S. Pai and M. Pretko, Phys. Rev. B97(2018) no.23, 235102 doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.97.235102

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.97.235102 2018

  34. [34]

    Makino, S

    R. Makino, S. Sasaki and K. Shiozawa, JHEP11(2025), 021 doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2025)021

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep11(2025)021 2025

  35. [35]

    B. Horn, A. Nicolis and R. Penco, JHEP10(2015), 153 doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2015)153

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep10(2015)153 2015

  36. [36]

    Pretko and R

    M. Pretko and R. M. Nandkishore, Phys. Rev. B98(2018) no.13, 134301 doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.98.134301

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.98.134301 2018

  37. [37]

    Singularity identification for the characterization of topol- ogy, geometry, and motion of nematic disclination lines,

    C. D. Schimming and J. Vinals, “Singularity identification for the characterization of topol- ogy, geometry, and motion of nematic disclination lines,” Soft Matter 18, 2234 (2022), doi: 10.1039/D1SM01584B

    work page doi:10.1039/d1sm01584b 2022

  38. [38]

    M. A. Levin and X. G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B71(2005), 045110 doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.71.045110

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.71.045110 2005

  39. [39]

    Palumbo, Phys

    G. Palumbo, Phys. Rev. D111(2025) no.2, 026010 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.026010

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.026010 2025

  40. [40]

    Generalized GMP Algebra for Three-Dimensional Quantum Hall Fluids of Ex- tended Objects,

    G. Palumbo, “Generalized GMP Algebra for Three-Dimensional Quantum Hall Fluids of Ex- tended Objects,” [arXiv:2602.15664 [hep-th]]

    work page arXiv

  41. [41]

    Yokouchiet al., Sci

    T. Yokouchiet al., Sci. Adv.4, eaat1115 (2018), doi:10.1126/sciadv.aat1115

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.aat1115 2018

  42. [42]

    Palumbo, JHEP05(2022), 124 doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2022)124

    G. Palumbo, JHEP05(2022), 124 doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2022)124

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep05(2022)124 2022

  43. [43]

    Magnetic D-brane solitons: skyrmion strings ending on a N´ eel wall in chiral magnets,

    S. B. Gudnason and M. Nitta, “Magnetic D-brane solitons: skyrmion strings ending on a N´ eel wall in chiral magnets,” [arXiv:2510.14689 [cond-mat.mes-hall]]. 25

    work page arXiv

  44. [44]

    K. T. K. Chung and M. J. P. Gingras, Phys. Rev. B111(2025) no.6, 064417 doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.111.064417

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.111.064417 2025

  45. [45]

    Pretko and L

    M. Pretko and L. Radzihovsky, Phys. Rev. Lett.120(2018) no.19, 195301 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.195301

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.120.195301 2018

  46. [46]

    Pretko, Z

    M. Pretko, Z. Zhai and L. Radzihovsky, Phys. Rev. B100(2019) no.13, 134113 doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.100.134113

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.100.134113 2019

  47. [47]

    Gromov and P

    A. Gromov and P. Sur´ owka, SciPost Phys.8(2020) no.4, 065 doi:10.21468/SciPostPhys.8.4.065

    work page doi:10.21468/scipostphys.8.4.065 2020

  48. [48]

    K. T. Grosvenor, C. Hoyos, F. Pe˜ na-Benitez and P. Sur´ owka, Front. in Phys.9(2022), 792621 doi:10.3389/fphy.2021.792621

    work page doi:10.3389/fphy.2021.792621 2022

  49. [49]

    Tsaloukidis and P

    L. Tsaloukidis and P. Sur´ owka, Phys. Rev. B109(2024) no.10, 104118 doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.109.104118

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.109.104118 2024

  50. [50]

    Tsaloukidis, J

    L. Tsaloukidis, J. J. Fern´ andez-Melgarejo, J. Molina-Vilaplana and P. Sur´ owka, Phys. Rev. B 109(2024) no.8, 085427 doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.109.085427

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.109.085427 2024

  51. [51]

    D. X. Nguyen, A. Gromov and S. Moroz, SciPost Phys.9(2020), 076 doi:10.21468/SciPostPhys.9.5.076

    work page doi:10.21468/scipostphys.9.5.076 2020

  52. [52]

    Gromov, Phys

    A. Gromov, Phys. Rev. Lett.122(2019) no.7, 076403 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.076403

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.122.076403 2019

  53. [53]

    V. B. Shenoy and R. Moessner, Phys. Rev. B101(2020) no.8, 085106 doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.101.085106

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.101.085106 2020

  54. [54]

    Physical Review A83(4) (2011) https://doi.org/10.1103/physreva.83.042330

    J. Haah, Phys. Rev. A83(2011) no.4, 042330 doi:10.1103/physreva.83.042330

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.83.042330 2011

  55. [55]

    Vijay, J

    S. Vijay, J. Haah and L. Fu, Phys. Rev. B92(2015) no.23, 235136 doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.92.235136

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.92.235136 2015

  56. [56]

    M. Qi, L. Radzihovsky and M. Hermele, Annals Phys.424(2021), 168360 doi:10.1016/j.aop.2020.168360

    work page doi:10.1016/j.aop.2020.168360 2021

  57. [57]

    M. Y. Li and P. Ye, Phys. Rev. B101(2020) no.24, 245134 doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.101.245134

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.101.245134 2020

  58. [58]

    Conformal structures of static vacuum d ata,

    P. de Medeiros and C. Hull, Commun. Math. Phys.235(2003), 255-273 doi:10.1007/s00220- 003-0810-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s00220- 2003

  59. [59]

    de Medeiros, Class

    P. de Medeiros, Class. Quant. Grav.21(2004), 2571-2593 doi:10.1088/0264-9381/21/11/004 26

    work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/21/11/004 2004

  60. [60]

    Hinterbichler, D

    K. Hinterbichler, D. M. Hofman, A. Joyce and G. Mathys, JHEP02(2023), 151 doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2023)151

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep02(2023)151 2023

  61. [61]

    Aspects of Symmetry: Selected Erice Lectures,

    S. Coleman, “Aspects of Symmetry: Selected Erice Lectures,” Cambridge University Press, 1985, ISBN 978-0-521-31827-3 doi:10.1017/CBO9780511565045

    work page doi:10.1017/cbo9780511565045 1985

  62. [62]

    F. P. Schuller and M. N. R. Wohlfarth, Nucl. Phys. B747(2006), 398-422 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2006.04.019

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2006.04.019 2006

  63. [63]

    Punzi, F

    R. Punzi, F. P. Schuller and M. N. R. Wohlfarth, JHEP02(2007), 030 doi:10.1088/1126- 6708/2007/02/030

    work page doi:10.1088/1126- 2007

  64. [64]

    J. N. Borissova, B. Dittrich and K. Krasnov, Phys. Rev. D109(2024) no.12, 124035 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.124035

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.124035 2024

  65. [65]

    Foundations of classical electrodynamics: Charge, flux, and metric

    Hehl, F. W., and Obukhov, Y. N. (2003). “Foundations of classical electrodynamics: Charge, flux, and metric” (Vol. 33). Springer Science and Business Media

    work page 2003

  66. [66]

    F. P. Schuller, C. Witte and M. N. R. Wohlfarth, Annals Phys.325(2010), 1853-1883 doi:10.1016/j.aop.2010.04.008

    work page doi:10.1016/j.aop.2010.04.008 2010

  67. [67]

    P. M. Ho and T. Inami, PTEP2016(2016) no.1, 013B03 doi:10.1093/ptep/ptv180

    work page doi:10.1093/ptep/ptv180 2016

  68. [68]

    Borissova and P

    J. Borissova and P. M. Ho, Phys. Rev. D110(2024) no.4, 046017 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.046017

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.046017 2024

  69. [69]

    Ebisu, M

    H. Ebisu, M. Honda and T. Nakanishi, JHEP09(2024), 061 doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2024)061

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep09(2024)061 2024

  70. [70]

    Anastasiou, L

    A. Anastasiou, L. Borsten, M. J. Duff, L. J. Hughes and S. Nagy, JHEP04(2014), 178 doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2014)178

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep04(2014)178 2014

  71. [71]

    Pe˜ na-Ben´ ıtez and P

    F. Pe˜ na-Ben´ ıtez and P. Salgado-Rebolledo, JHEP04(2024), 009 doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2024)009

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep04(2024)009 2024

  72. [72]

    Pretko, Phys

    M. Pretko, Phys. Rev. D96(2017) no.2, 024051 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.024051

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.96.024051 2017

  73. [73]

    Chatzistavrakidis, A

    A. Chatzistavrakidis, A. Ranjbar and S. Zeko, JHEP05(2025), 218 doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2025)218

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep05(2025)218 2025

  74. [74]

    A. Prem, M. Pretko and R. Nandkishore, Phys. Rev. B97(2018) no.8, 085116 doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.97.085116 27

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.97.085116 2018

  75. [75]

    Pretko, Phys

    M. Pretko, Phys. Rev. B96(2017) no.12, 125151 doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.96.125151

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.96.125151 2017

  76. [76]

    Y. You, F. J. Burnell and T. L. Hughes, Phys. Rev. B103(2021) no.24, 245128 doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.103.245128

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.103.245128 2021

  77. [77]

    B. P. Parasar, Y. Gefen and V. B. Shenoy, Phys. Rev. Lett.134(2025) no.23, 236601 doi:10.1103/ggls-zhl8

    work page doi:10.1103/ggls-zhl8 2025

  78. [78]

    Stone, Annals Phys.207(1991), 38-52 doi:10.1016/0003-4916(91)90177-A

    M. Stone, Annals Phys.207(1991), 38-52 doi:10.1016/0003-4916(91)90177-A

    work page doi:10.1016/0003-4916(91)90177-a 1991

  79. [79]

    X. G. Wen, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B6(1992), 1711-1762 doi:10.1142/S0217979292000840

    work page doi:10.1142/s0217979292000840 1992

  80. [80]

    G. Y. Cho and J. E. Moore, Annals Phys.326(2011), 1515-1535 doi:10.1016/j.aop.2010.12.011

    work page doi:10.1016/j.aop.2010.12.011 2011

Showing first 80 references.