Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

The paper establishes that closed superforms in supergravity, when contracted with the odd vector field of a preserved supersymmetry, produce equivariantly closed polyforms on supersymmetric backgrounds, tracing the origin of supersymmetric

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 13:43 UTC pith:OZ7GP2LH

load-bearing objection A genuinely useful superspace identity that reproduces the known 4d N=2 polyforms, but the central projection from superspace to the bosonic background is sketched rather than proved. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2605.17919 v2 pith:OZ7GP2LH submitted 2026-05-18 hep-th gr-qcmath-phmath.MP

Superform Approach to Equivariant Localization in Supergravity

Michele Galli , Christian Kennedy , Parth Raina , Gabriele Tartaglino-Mazzucchelli This is my paper
classification hep-th gr-qcmath-phmath.MP PACS 04.65.+e
keywords equivariant localizationsuperformssupergravitysupersymmetric backgroundspolyformsKilling spinorsN=2 conformal supergravityBPS observables
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper claims that every closed superform in supergravity—an object encoding a supersymmetric invariant—automatically produces an equivariantly closed polyform on any supersymmetric background, by contracting it with the odd vector field that generates the preserved supersymmetry. The key identity (d−ι_Ξ)e^{ι_ϵ}J = e^{−ι_ϵ}(d+L_ϵ)J turns closure and invariance of the superform into equivariant closure of the polyform, and after projecting to spacetime with ϵ identified with a Killing spinor, this is exactly the condition used in equivariant localization. The authors verify the mechanism explicitly in off-shell 4d N=2 conformal supergravity, constructing the polyforms for vector and linear multiplets, chiral Lagrangians, and BF couplings. If correct, the result gives a systematic geometric explanation for why supersymmetric theories admit localization, and a practical tool for computing BPS observables in higher-derivative supergravities and holography.

Core claim

The central discovery is that superspace encodes the equivariant structure of supergravity: given a closed superform J (dJ=0) that is invariant under the supersymmetry generated by an odd vector field ϵ (L_ϵ J=0), the polyform J(ϵ)=e^{ι_ϵ}J satisfies (d−ι_Ξ)J(ϵ)=0 in superspace, with Ξ=½{ϵ,ϵ}. The triple-bar projection—setting θ=0, dθ=0, restricting to supersymmetric field configurations, and identifying ϵ^α with a commuting Killing spinor—yields (d−ι_ξ)J(ϵ)=0 on the bosonic background, where ξ is the Killing vector constructed from the spinor bilinear. The paper constructs the resulting polyforms for the field strengths of the vector and linear multiplets, for the chiral/F-term action, and

What carries the argument

The key identity is e^{ι_ϵ} d e^{ι_ϵ} = d + ½ ι_{ {ϵ,ϵ} } + L_ϵ for an odd vector field ϵ on a supermanifold, which rearranges to (d−ι_Ξ)e^{ι_ϵ}J = e^{−ι_ϵ}(d+L_ϵ)J. Applied to a closed, ϵ-invariant superform J, it yields the superspace equivariant closure condition (d−ι_Ξ)J(ϵ)=0, where J(ϵ)=e^{ι_ϵ}J is the supersymmetric polyform. The triple-bar projection—double-bar projection of the superform combined with restriction to supersymmetric bosonic configurations and identification of ϵ with a Killing spinor—converts Ξ into the Killing vector ξ and produces the bosonic equivariant closure (d−ι_ξ)J(ϵ)=0. The interior product with an odd vector field is non-nilpotent (ι_ϵ²≠0), which is exactly w

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on the assumption that the superspace equivariant closure (d−ι_Ξ)J(ϵ)=0 survives projection to the bosonic spacetime—that the projected bracket Ξ|| equals the Killing vector ξ, that all projected fermionic fields vanish, and that L_ϵJ=0 is captured by the background supersymmetry conditions—so that the bosonic equivariant closure (d−ι_ξ)J(ϵ)=0 genuinely holds on the spacetime where localization theorems apply.

What would settle it

Take a specific supersymmetric background with non-trivial Weyl or R-symmetry curvature (e.g., a squashed sphere in Euclidean 4d N=2 conformal supergravity) and compute the polyform J(ϵ) from the closed chiral superform (A16) directly in components, without assuming the flat-torsion-only condition. If (d−ι_ξ)J(ϵ)=0 fails (or requires an unexpected modification of ξ), the projection argument is incomplete and the general mechanism does not hold as stated. A positive check would instead confirm the claim and sharpen the range of validity.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Every BPS observable expressed as a closed superform in a supergravity theory admits an equivariantly closed polyform on supersymmetric backgrounds, so the localization problem reduces to known superspace cohomology.
  • The construction reproduces and extends recent equivariant polyforms in 4d N=2 higher-derivative supergravity, including chiral and BF actions, giving a unified derivation.
  • The lowest-degree component of a polyform is controlled by the highest-gravitino term in the superform expansion; this gravitino-counting criterion predicts which terms (e.g., Fayet-Iliopoulos or gauging data) contribute to fixed points, and can lead to non-renormalization theorems.
  • The mechanism is expected to extend to other dimensions and off-shell supergravities, including Chern-Simons, Wess-Zumino, higher-form, and boundary couplings, with gauge choices playing a role as in the BF example.
  • For holography, the existence of these polyforms provides a geometric first step toward equivariant localization of supergravity observables and exact computations on the gravity side of AdS/CFT.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the projection step from superspace to the bosonic body is made fully rigorous, the identity (6) would provide a universal explanation for the 'coincidence' that so many supergravity invariants admit equivariantly closed polyforms, since closed superforms are the standard building blocks of supersymmetric invariants.
  • One testable extension is to construct the analogous polyforms for hypermultiplets or for Euclidean backgrounds with non-trivial topology (e.g., S^4, AdS), where the equivariant closure can be checked against the known localization results; a failure there would pinpoint where the flat-torsion assumption bites.
  • The paper's gravitino-counting criterion suggests a purely algebraic rule: terms whose superform expansion has at most two gravitini start at degree two and therefore only contribute to 'bolt' fixed-point loci. This could be checked against the nut formula for 4d N=2 higher-derivative supergravity.
  • The identity (6) may have applications beyond supergravity: it is a superfield analogue of the standard Cartan model in equivariant cohomology, so a similar construction could produce equivariantly closed forms in other geometric settings with fermionic directions, such as curved supersymmetric quantum mechanics.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a superspace mechanism behind equivariant localization in supergravity. The main algebraic identity, Eq. (6)-(10), shows that for any odd vector field ϵ and a closed ϵ-invariant superform J, the polyform J(ϵ)=e^{ι_ϵ}J satisfies (d−ι_Ξ)J(ϵ)=0 in full superspace, with Ξ=1/2{ϵ,ϵ}. The paper then argues that after a triple-bar projection to a bosonic supersymmetric background, this becomes the equivariant closure condition (d−ι_ξ)J(ϵ)=0, where ξ is the Killing vector built from the Killing spinor. This mechanism is applied to off-shell 4d N=2 conformal supergravity: the authors construct equivariantly closed polyforms for the vector multiplet, linear multiplet, on-shell vector multiplet, chiral Lagrangian, and BF coupling, reproducing and extending recent results in the literature. The central claim is that closed superforms generate equivariantly closed polyforms on supersymmetric backgrounds, providing a geometric route to localization.

Significance. If the projection step from superspace to the bosonic body can be made rigorous, the result is a significant conceptual advance: it would explain the origin of the recently discovered equivariantly closed polyforms in supergravity and offer a systematic way to generate them from the well-developed superform formalism. The algebraic identity (6)-(10) is elegant and self-contained, and the explicit polyforms for the vector, linear, chiral, and BF systems are concrete, nontrivial, and reproduce known formulas. These are genuine strengths. However, the central claim as stated in the abstract is stronger than what is demonstrated, because the passage from the exact superspace identity to the bosonic equivariant closure is asserted rather than proved and is explicitly deferred by the authors. The paper is therefore best viewed at present as a well-motivated mechanism with supporting examples rather than a fully established general theorem.

major comments (3)
  1. [From superforms to equivariantly closed polyforms: generalities, Eqs. (10)-(14)] The central claim, stated in the abstract, is that closed superforms generate equivariantly closed polyforms on supersymmetric backgrounds. The proof establishes (10) in full superspace, but the passage to the bosonic body in (11) is only sketched. The text itself says "it is not hard to argue", "we expect these arguments to be general", and "a direct component-field derivation is still expected". To make the claim load-bearing, the authors need to prove that the triple-bar projection commutes with the operations in (10) in the required sense. Specifically, one must show (i) Ξ|| equals the Killing vector ξ built from the Killing spinor, including the coefficient and the contribution of the structure-group term Λ in (12); (ii) L_ϵ J=0 projects exactly onto the background supersymmetry conditions (16)-(18) and not onto further constraints on the θ-dependence of ϵ or on J; and (iii) (d−ι_Ξ)
  2. [The 4d N=2 case, Eqs. (19)-(24)] The equivariant closure of the displayed polyforms is asserted with statements like "one can show" and "readily prove". Since these examples constitute the main evidence for the general mechanism, at least one complete derivation should be given, either from the superspace identity (10) and the projection (13), or by a component calculation using (16)-(18). In particular, the BF gauge condition (25) is introduced to guarantee L_ξ v=0; the paper should show explicitly how this condition follows from L_ϵ V=0 and how it is compatible with the projection. As written, the reader cannot distinguish between a derivation from the proposed mechanism and a direct check of the ansatz.
  3. [Eq. (13) and footnote [79]] The projection formula (13) assumes that only the flat dimension-zero torsion contributes. This assumption is not verified for the 4d N=2 conformal supergravity backgrounds used later, and the footnote merely states that it can be extended. In conformal superspace the dimension-zero torsion may receive additional contributions from the Weyl multiplet; the authors should either prove that these contributions drop out of the combination ι_ϵ^2 T^A E_A|, or state the general torsion conditions under which (13) holds. As it stands, the general mechanism is conditional on an unproven technical assumption.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (13) and Eq. (21)] The coefficient in the proportionality (13) is not fixed, while (21) later gives ξ^a = -2i(ϵ^i σ_a \barϵ_i). Please make the relation between these two formulas explicit, as the overall coefficient matters for the gauge condition (25).
  2. [Eq. (11)] The triple-bar projection is defined verbally rather than formally. Please define it as a precise operation on superforms and fields (θ=0, dθ=0, all fermionic fields set to zero) to avoid ambiguity with the double-bar projection used in (4).
  3. [Eq. (14)] The statement that odd-rank mixed components vanish on a bosonic background is not immediate for all superform components; a brief justification would improve readability.
  4. [Eq. (6)] The derivation of the key identity via (8) is compressed. A one-line verification of the vanishing of the third-order term, using the graded bracket identities, would make the proof easier to follow.
  5. [Conclusion] The closing statement that the "ectoplasm" of supergravity "appears to encode substantial information about the topology of the bosonic body" is evocative but imprecise; consider making the mathematical claim precise or softening it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the central mechanism is a superspace algebra identity applied to closed invariant superforms; the projection to bosonic backgrounds is asserted rather than derived, but that is an open gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that applying (d−ι_Ξ)e^{ι_ϵ}J = e^{−ι_ϵ}(d+L_ϵ)J to a closed and ϵ-invariant superform J yields an equivariantly closed polyform after triple-bar projection. This is a genuine algebraic derivation: the identity (9)–(10) is proven from Cartan's formula, and closure follows from the assumptions dJ=0 and L_ϵJ=0. The subsequent projection to the bosonic body, Eq. (11), is not fully derived — the paper says 'it is not hard to argue' and expects 'a direct component-field derivation' — but this is an unproven assumption or gap, not a circular step, because it does not assume the polyform closure it aims to establish. No parameter is fitted to target data, and no prediction is used to define the construction. The polyforms for the vector multiplet, linear multiplet, chiral action, and BF action are checked explicitly using supersymmetry conditions (16)–(18); these checks are self-contained component computations. Self-citations appear (e.g., [54], [60], [74]) but they are for standard superspace techniques and superform expressions, not for the claimed mechanism or for a uniqueness result that forces the conclusion. The paper also reproduces and extends results of [21], an external benchmark, which provides independent support rather than circularity. Overall, the derivation chain is not circular; the main caveat is the asserted, rather than proven, triple-bar projection, which is a correctness risk, not a circularity risk.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No fitted parameters or new entities. The construction relies on standard superspace calculus and existing closed-superform descriptions of 4d N=2 multiplets; the only paper-specific simplification is the flat dimension-zero torsion assumption in the projection argument.

axioms (5)
  • standard math Graded Cartan calculus on supermanifolds: Cartan formula L_X={d,ι_X}, graded commutator identities (7)-(8), and the operator expansion e^A B e^{-A}.
    Used in the proof of the key identity (6) and closure equation (10); standard mathematical background.
  • domain assumption Existence of off-shell 4d N=2 conformal superspace with closed superforms F, H, J_chiral, J_BF as constructed in [30,31,54,73,74,83].
    The construction takes these closed superforms as input; the paper does not re-derive them.
  • domain assumption Supersymmetric backgrounds are defined by Killing spinor equations (16)-(18) and vanishing fermionic fields; the odd Killing vector ϵ is a superisometry.
    Equivariant closure J(ϵ) on the bosonic body requires these background conditions; they are imposed, not derived.
  • ad hoc to paper Only the flat dimension-zero torsion contributes in the projection formula (13); footnote [79] states this can be relaxed.
    The identification Ξ|| ∝ Killing vector ξ rests on this simplification; a general torsion would modify ξ.
  • domain assumption For L_ϵ J=0 on multiplet superforms, component fields must satisfy supersymmetry conditions; for the BF polyform this requires the gauge condition ξ^a v_a = (S̄φ - S φ̄) (Eq. 25).
    The closure of J_BF(ϵ) is conditional on this gauge choice, which fixes a symmetry rather than adding data.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 14317 in / 17907 out tokens · 160123 ms · 2026-08-02T13:43:58.168850+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We identify a superspace mechanism behind equivariant localization in supergravity. We show that closed superforms generate, on supersymmetric backgrounds, equivariantly closed polyforms. After presenting the general mechanism, we construct such polyforms for vector and linear multiplets, and for chiral and BF action principles, in off-shell $4d$ $\mathcal{N}=2$ conformal supergravity, reproducing and extending recent results. Our construction provides a geometric first step toward equivariant localization of BPS observables in supergravity, including higher-derivative theories, and holography.

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Airy functions from quantum M-theory

    hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 8.0

    Airy function partition functions for M2-brane theories are derived from relative equivariant localization of quantum M-theory, with the 11D Chern-Simons term giving the cubic term and X₈ giving the charge shift.

  2. Airy functions from quantum M-theory

    hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    Relative equivariant localization of quantum M-theory reproduces the Airy partition functions of ABJM and toric Calabi-Yau M2-brane theories, up to prefactor and non-perturbative corrections.

  3. Ten-dimensional localization

    hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    Equivariantly closed polyforms for type II Page fluxes and actions enable direct 10D localization of on-shell actions and flux quantization for minimally supersymmetric backgrounds.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

106 extracted references · 9 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Pestun, M

    V. Pestun, M. Zabzine, F. Benini, T. Dimofte, T. T. Du- mitrescu, K. Hosomichi, S. Kim, K. Lee, B. Le Floch and M. Marino,et al.J. Phys. A50, no.44, 440301 (2017), arXiv:1608.02952 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  2. [2]

    M. F. Atiyah and R. Bott, Topology23(1984), 1-28

    1984

  3. [3]

    Berline and M

    N. Berline and M. Vergne, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris S´ er. I Math.295(1982) no. 9, 539–541

    1982

  4. [4]

    Benetti Genolini, J

    P. Benetti Genolini, J. P. Gauntlett and J. Sparks, Phys. Rev. Lett.131(2023) no.12, 121602

    2023

  5. [5]

    Martelli and A

    D. Martelli and A. Zaffaroni, Lett. Math. Phys.114 (2024) no.1, 15

    2024

  6. [6]

    Dabholkar, J

    A. Dabholkar, J. Gomes and S. Murthy, JHEP06 (2011), 019

    2011

  7. [7]

    Hristov, I

    K. Hristov, I. Lodato and V. Reys, JHEP07(2018), 072

    2018

  8. [8]

    S. M. Hosseini, K. Hristov and A. Zaffaroni, JHEP12 (2019), 168

    2019

  9. [9]

    Hristov, JHEP02(2022), 079

    K. Hristov, JHEP02(2022), 079

    2022

  10. [10]

    Hristov, JHEP10(2022), 190

    K. Hristov, JHEP10(2022), 190

    2022

  11. [11]

    Hristov, JHEP02, 110 (2023)

    K. Hristov, JHEP02, 110 (2023)

    2023

  12. [12]

    Colombo, F

    E. Colombo, F. Faedo, D. Martelli and A. Zaffaroni, JHEP01(2024), 095

    2024

  13. [13]

    Hristov,Equivariant localization and gluing rules in 4d N = 2 higher derivative supergravity, in: Wood, D.R., Etheridge, A.M., de Gier, J., Joshi, N

    K. Hristov,Equivariant localization and gluing rules in 4d N = 2 higher derivative supergravity, in: Wood, D.R., Etheridge, A.M., de Gier, J., Joshi, N. (eds) 2024 MA- TRIX Annals, Part I. MATRIX Book Series, vol 7. Springer, Cham

    2024

  14. [14]

    Benetti Genolini, J

    P. Benetti Genolini, J. P. Gauntlett, Y. Jiao, A. L¨ uscher and J. Sparks, Phys. Rev. Lett.133(2024) no.14, 141601

    2024

  15. [15]

    Cassani, A

    D. Cassani, A. Ruip´ erez and E. Turetta, JHEP12, 086 (2024)

    2024

  16. [16]

    Benetti Genolini, J

    P. Benetti Genolini, J. P. Gauntlett, Y. Jiao, A. L¨ uscher and J. Sparks, JHEP08(2025), 211

    2025

  17. [17]

    Colombo, V

    E. Colombo, V. Dimitrov, D. Martelli and A. Zaffaroni, arXiv:2502.15624 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  18. [18]

    Colombo, V

    E. Colombo, V. Dimitrov, D. Martelli and A. Zaffaroni, arXiv:2511.13824 [hep-th]. 6

    arXiv

  19. [19]

    F. Gaar, J. P. Gauntlett, J. Park and J. Sparks, arXiv:2604.09490 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  20. [20]

    Benetti Genolini, C

    P. Benetti Genolini, C. Couzens and A. L¨ uscher, arXiv:2604.26786 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  21. [21]

    Benetti Genolini, F

    P. Benetti Genolini, F. Gaar, J. P. Gauntlett and J. Sparks,arXiv:2604.08656 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  22. [22]

    Castellani, R

    L. Castellani, R. D’Auria and P. Fre,Supergravity and superstrings: A Geometric perspective. Vol. 2: Super- gravity, World Scientific, Singapore, 1991, pp. 680–684

    1991

  23. [23]

    S. J. Gates, Jr.,arXiv:hep-th/9709104 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  24. [24]

    S. J. Gates, Jr., M. T. Grisaru, M. E. Knutt-Wehlau and W. Siegel, Phys. Lett. B421, 203-210 (1998)

    1998

  25. [25]

    S. J. Gates, Jr., Nucl. Phys. B541, 615-650 (1999)

    1999

  26. [26]

    P. S. Howe and D. Tsimpis, JHEP09, 038 (2003)

    2003

  27. [27]

    Berkovits,arXiv:hep-th/0612021 [hep-th]

    N. Berkovits,arXiv:hep-th/0612021 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  28. [28]

    Berkovits and P

    N. Berkovits and P. S. Howe, JHEP06, 046 (2008)

    2008

  29. [29]

    S. J. Gates, Jr. and G. Tartaglino-Mazzucchelli, J. Phys. A43, 095401 (2010)

    2010

  30. [30]

    S. J. Gates, Jr., S. M. Kuzenko and G. Tartaglino- Mazzucchelli, Phys. Rev. D80, 125015 (2009)

    2009

  31. [31]

    Butter, S

    D. Butter, S. M. Kuzenko and J. Novak, JHEP09, 131 (2012)

    2012

  32. [32]

    S. M. Kuzenko and G. Tartaglino-Mazzucchelli, JHEP 03, 113 (2013)

    2013

  33. [33]

    Butter, S

    D. Butter, S. M. Kuzenko, J. Novak and G. Tartaglino- Mazzucchelli, JHEP10, 073 (2013)

    2013

  34. [34]

    S. M. Kuzenko and J. Novak, JHEP02, 096 (2014)

    2014

  35. [35]

    S. M. Kuzenko and J. Novak, JHEP05, 093 (2014)

    2014

  36. [36]

    Arias, W

    C. Arias, W. D. Linch, III and A. K. Ridgway, JHEP 05, 016 (2016)

    2016

  37. [37]

    Castellani, R

    L. Castellani, R. Catenacci and P. A. Grassi, Nucl. Phys. B889, 419-442 (2014)

    2014

  38. [38]

    S. J. Gates, W. D. Linch and S. Randall, JHEP05, 049 (2015)

    2015

  39. [39]

    W. D. Linch and S. Randall, JHEP09, 190 (2015)

    2015

  40. [40]

    Castellani, R

    L. Castellani, R. Catenacci and P. A. Grassi, Nucl. Phys. B899, 112-148 (2015)

    2015

  41. [41]

    Butter, S

    D. Butter, S. M. Kuzenko, J. Novak and S. Theisen, JHEP12, 072 (2016)

    2016

  42. [42]

    Castellani, R

    L. Castellani, R. Catenacci and P. A. Grassi, JHEP10, 049 (2016)

    2016

  43. [43]

    Becker, M

    K. Becker, M. Becker, W. D. Linch, III, S. Randall and D. Robbins, JHEP04, 103 (2017)

    2017

  44. [44]

    Butter, F

    D. Butter, F. Ciceri and B. Sahoo, JHEP01, 029 (2020)

    2020

  45. [45]

    C. A. Cremonini and P. A. Grassi,arXiv:2105.09196 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  46. [46]

    P. A. Grassi, Universe9, no.8, 376 (2023)

    2023

  47. [47]

    P. A. Grassi, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.2531, no.1, 012010 (2023)

    2023

  48. [48]

    Butter, J

    D. Butter, J. Novak, M. Ozkan, Y. Pang and G. Tartaglino-Mazzucchelli, JHEP04(2019), 013

    2019

  49. [49]

    S. J. Gates, M. T. Grisaru, M. Rocek and W. Siegel, Superspace Or One Thousand and One Lessons in Su- persymmetry, Front. Phys.58, 1–548 (1983)

    1983

  50. [50]

    Wess and J

    J. Wess and J. Bagger,Supersymmetry and supergravity, Princeton University Press, 1992

    1992

  51. [51]

    Buchbinder and S

    I. Buchbinder and S. M. Kuzenko. Ideas and methods of supersymmetry and supergravity: Or a walk through superspace, IOP, Bristol (1998)

    1998

  52. [52]

    B. S. DeWitt,Supermanifolds, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2012

    2012

  53. [53]

    S. M. Kuzenko, E. S. N. Raptakis and G. Tartaglino- Mazzucchelli,Superspace Approaches toN= 1Super- gravity, in: Bambi, C., Modesto, L., Shapiro, I. (eds) Handbook of Quantum Gravity. Springer, Singapore, arXiv:2210.17088 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  54. [54]

    S. M. Kuzenko, E. S. N. Raptakis and G. Tartaglino- Mazzucchelli,Covariant Superspace Approaches toN= 2Supergravity, in: Bambi, C., Modesto, L., Shapiro, I. (eds) Handbook of Quantum Gravity. Springer, Singa- pore,arXiv:2211.11162 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  55. [55]

    S. J. Gates, Jr., Nucl. Phys. B184, 381-390 (1981)

    1981

  56. [56]

    Bergshoeff and P

    E. Bergshoeff and P. K. Townsend, Nucl. Phys. B490, 145-162 (1997)

    1997

  57. [57]

    I. A. Bandos, K. Lechner, A. Nurmagambetov, P. Pasti, D. P. Sorokin and M. Tonin, Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 4332- 4334 (1997)

    1997

  58. [58]

    Cederwall, B

    M. Cederwall, B. E. W. Nilsson and D. Tsimpis, JHEP 02, 009 (2002)

    2002

  59. [59]

    Greitz and P

    J. Greitz and P. S. Howe, JHEP08, 146 (2011)

    2011

  60. [60]

    Kennedy and G

    C. Kennedy and G. Tartaglino-Mazzucchelli, JHEP08, 215 (2025)

    2025

  61. [61]

    Or, transforming into an exact form,δ ΛJ= dj Λ

  62. [62]

    Related ideas appear in the mathematical and physical literature on equivariant localization; see, e.g., [1]. To the best of our knowledge, however, the general mecha- nism presented here relating closed superforms to equiv- ariantly closed polyforms is new in the supergravity lit- erature, and constitutes the main result of this Letter

  63. [63]

    de Wit, J

    B. de Wit, J. W. van Holten and A. Van Proeyen, Nucl. Phys. B167, 186 (1980)

    1980

  64. [64]

    de Wit, J

    B. de Wit, J. W. van Holten and A. Van Proeyen, Nucl. Phys. B184, 77 (1981) [erratum: Nucl. Phys. B222, 516 (1983)]

    1981

  65. [65]

    de Wit, J

    B. de Wit, J. W. van Holten and A. Van Proeyen, Phys. Lett. B95, 51-55 (1980)

    1980

  66. [66]

    de Wit, R

    B. de Wit, R. Philippe and A. Van Proeyen, Nucl. Phys. B219, 143-166 (1983)

    1983

  67. [67]

    de Wit and A

    B. de Wit and A. Van Proeyen, Nucl. Phys. B245, 89-117 (1984)

    1984

  68. [68]

    de Wit, P

    B. de Wit, P. G. Lauwers and A. Van Proeyen, Nucl. Phys. B255, 569-608 (1985)

    1985

  69. [69]

    D. Z. Freedman and A. Van Proeyen,Supergravity, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2012

    2012

  70. [70]

    Lauria and A

    E. Lauria and A. Van Proeyen,N= 2Supergravity in D= 4,5,6Dimensions, Lect. Notes Phys.966, 3, 2020

    2020

  71. [71]

    Butter, Annals Phys.325(2010), 1026-1080

    D. Butter, Annals Phys.325(2010), 1026-1080

    2010

  72. [72]

    Butter, JHEP10, 030 (2011)

    D. Butter, JHEP10, 030 (2011)

    2011

  73. [73]

    Butter and J

    D. Butter and J. Novak, JHEP05, 115 (2012)

    2012

  74. [74]

    G. Gold, S. Khandelwal and G. Tartaglino- Mazzucchelli, JHEP02, 196 (2025)

    2025

  75. [75]

    Klare, A

    C. Klare, A. Tomasiello and A. Zaffaroni, JHEP08, 061 (2012)

    2012

  76. [76]

    Cassani, C

    D. Cassani, C. Klare, D. Martelli, A. Tomasiello and A. Zaffaroni, Commun. Math. Phys.327, 577-602 (2014)

    2014

  77. [77]

    Klare and A

    C. Klare and A. Zaffaroni, JHEP10, 218 (2013)

    2013

  78. [78]

    S. M. Kuzenko, PoSCORFU2014(2015), 140

    2015

  79. [79]

    This assumption can be extended

  80. [80]

    Butter, G

    D. Butter, G. Inverso and I. Lodato, JHEP09(2015), 088

    2015

Showing first 80 references.