Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Scaling Symmetry and Carrollian Gravity

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that matter-coupled scaling-Carroll gravity, built as a gauge theory with relaxed special conformal symmetry, yields a single multiplet that interpolates between dynamical Carroll, Aristotelian, and fracton gravity regimes

desk verdict The b_a Stückelberg mechanism is a genuine new organizing idea for Carrollian/Aristotelian/fracton gravity, but the gauge-fixing section has a concrete gap—eq. (5.31) does not follow from direct substitution—that needs fixing before the specific dynamical claims are trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.20736 v3 pith:P6NTHGRM submitted 2025-12-23 hep-th

Hamid Afshar , Mehdi Ahmadi-Jahmani This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords scaling-CarrollalgebraCarrolliangravityextrinsiccurvatureconformalconstructioncompensatingscalarAristotelianfractongaugetheoryStückelbergmechanism
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 tries to establish that matter-coupled scaling-Carroll gravity, formulated as a gauge theory, contains a family of gravitational regimes within one multiplet. By deliberately relaxing Carrollian special conformal transformations, the authors keep a spatial vector field b_a in the gravity multiplet; after fixing dilatation symmetry, this vector shifts under Carroll boosts by the trace of the extrinsic curvature K. That shift is the mechanism that lets the theory interpolate: unfixed boosts give dynamical Carroll gravity, gauge-fixing b_a=0 gives Aristotelian gravity, and compensating boosts with a hypersurface-orthogonality condition gives a fracton gauge theory. The payoff would be a common origin for these three descriptions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the gauged scaling-Carroll algebra with connection Aμ = Hτμ + Pa eμa + Ga ωμa + ½ Jab ωμab + D bμ, together with the curvature constraint R0a^a(P)=0, which fixes b0 = -K/d. This identification converts the spatial component ba of the dilatation gauge field into a Stückelberg field whose Carroll-boost transformation is δG ba = (1/d) K λa. The same boost parameter λa, after field redefinitions, becomes the vector gauge parameter of the fracton phase, while the symmetric tensor Sab (the symmetric part of the boost spin connection) supplies the fracton tensor gauge field.

What would settle it

Compute the Carroll-boost transformation of ba in a version of the theory where R0a^a(P)=0 is replaced by a different constraint; if the shift is not proportional to K, the Stückelberg mechanism and the three-regime interpolation collapse. Alternatively, construct an explicit K≠0 solution that satisfies all field equations but cannot be gauge-fixed to ba=0 — that would break the claimed reduction to Aristotelian gravity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a conformal construction based on gauging the anisotropic scaling-Carroll algebra — with Carrollian special conformal transformations excluded and a compensating scalar field added — produces an enlarged gravity multiplet (τμ, eμa, ba, Sab). After gauge-fixing the scaling symmetry, the spatial vector ba acquires a Stückelberg-type shift under Carroll boosts proportional to the trace K of the extrinsic curvature. Because that shift exists, the extrinsic curvature is no longer forced to vanish, and the same underlying gauge structure can be reduced to dynamical Carroll gravity (boosts unfixed), Aristotelian gravity (gauge fixing ba=0), or a fracton gauge theory couple

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the curvature constraint R0a^a(P)=0 that identifies the time component of the dilatation gauge field with -K/d; if that identification is replaced or relaxed, the Stückelberg shift of ba and the claimed interpolation between phases no longer follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The extrinsic curvature Kab is no longer constrained to vanish by the equations of motion; dynamical Carroll geometries with non-zero K become possible.
  • For K≠0, boost-invariant combinations can be built from the shifting vector ba, opening torsional Carroll geometries beyond standard conformal Carroll frameworks.
  • Gauge fixing ba=0 reduces the multiplet to Aristotelian gravity with clock one-form, spatial vielbein, and symmetric tensor Sab, reproducing torsionless, twistless-torsional, and torsional Aristotelian geometries.
  • Imposing τ∧dτ=0 and compensating the boost with ba recasts the same theory as a fracton gauge theory, with Aa and Aab as vector and tensor gauge fields and the boost parameter as a vector-charge gauge parameter.
  • The framework implies that Carroll, Aristotelian, and fracton descriptions are not separate theories but gauge choices or reductions of one scaling-Carroll gauge structure.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial: because ba is pure Stückelberg for K≠0, the Carroll and Aristotelian descriptions may be physically equivalent on-shell wherever K≠0; a direct comparison of their degrees of freedom would test this.
  • Editorial: the fracton gauge transformations acquire curvature-dependent terms proportional to Kab that vanish in flat space; these terms likely generate new curved-space fracton invariants that flat-space fracton models do not see.
  • Editorial: the same conformal-compensator strategy plausibly transfers to the Galilean side (Newton-Cartan or Hořava-Lifshitz), where an analogous vector would interpolate between Galilean and fractonic phases.
  • Editorial: the solution Kab = δab/(C(x)+ζ t) suggests the construction admits cosmological-type Carrollian solutions with extrinsic curvature evolving linearly in time; scanning the parameter ζ is a concrete way to look for them.
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.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper gauges the anisotropic (z-)scaling Carroll algebra with a compensating scalar field, imposes curvature constraints, and solves them to obtain a Carroll gravity multiplet. After gauge fixing the dilatation by setting the scalar to one, the multiplet contains a vector field b_a descending from the dilatation gauge field and a symmetric tensor S_ab from the boost connection, with b_a transforming under Carroll boosts by a shift proportional to the trace K of the extrinsic curvature. The paper identifies several regimes — dynamical Carroll gravity, Aristotelian gravity, and a fracton gauge theory coupled to Aristotelian geometry — and claims to derive a non-trivial time-dependent solution for the extrinsic curvature from the gauge-fixed kinetic action. The appendices contain extensive transformation-rule checks.

Significance. If the dynamical claims were established, the paper would provide a useful unified framework connecting Carrollian, Aristotelian, and fractonic regimes through a single gauged scaling-Carroll construction. The kinematic multiplet construction in Sections 3--4, especially the Stückelberg-like shift of b_a under boosts proportional to K, is interesting and builds on prior work [11,25] without being circular. The paper also includes detailed hand-written invariance checks in the appendices, which is a strength. However, the concrete dynamical evidence in Section 5.4 contains two serious gaps: Eq. (5.31) does not follow from the stated substitution, and the derivation of the crucial constraint (5.35) is not shown and appears incompatible with the displayed Lagrangian. The claimed non-vanishing extrinsic-curvature solution and the associated regime unification therefore are not currently established.

major comments (2)
  1. [5.4, Eq. (5.31)] Direct substitution of φ=1 into (5.12), using (5.9) and the solved value b0=-K/d in (3.19), gives L^(2)_Kin = (w^2/2d^2) e K^2, with no ∂0K term. Since the identity (A.8), e^{-1}∂_μ(eτ^μ)=-K, implies ∫e∂0K = ∫eK^2 up to a total derivative, the legitimate equivalent form is (w^2/2d^2)e∂0K. Equation (5.31), with coefficients w/(2d) and w(w-z)/(2d^2), is not equivalent to that result. For the scale-invariant weight w=(z-d)/2 it even has the opposite sign. Unless an additional, unstated counterterm is being included, (5.31) is not the φ=1 limit of (5.12), and the invariant decomposition built on it is not justified.
  2. [5.4, Eq. (5.35)] The passage from varying I1+ζI2 with respect to S^ab to the constraint (5.35) is not shown. From the explicit expressions (5.33)-(5.34), S^ab enters only through the boost connection inside D0b_a (see (3.15) and (4.7)), and every such term is multiplied by b_a or b_b. Varying with respect to S^ab therefore gives terms that are at least linear in b_a; in the gauge b_a=0 the S-variation vanishes identically. No such gauge condition or equation of motion for b_a is imposed before (5.35). Thus the b-independent algebraic equation (5.35) cannot be obtained from the displayed Lagrangian. This step is load-bearing: it produces the non-trivial solution (5.36) and underlies the conclusion that the extrinsic curvature is no longer forced to vanish by the S_ab equation of motion. The derivation must be supplied or the claims revised.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (2.16)] The notation 'D0 = ∂0 + w/d K' is confusing: it should be written as an operator acting on ϕ, e.g. D0ϕ = (∂0 + wK/d)ϕ, and the origin of the +wK/d term from b0=-K/d should be stated explicitly.
  2. [Section 5.3, text near Eq. (5.23)] The text says 'R(G,J) is given in (3.25)', but the numerical invariant R(G,J) is defined in Eq. (3.27); Eq. (3.25) is the boost transformation of a curvature component. Please correct the cross-reference.
  3. [Eq. (5.41)] The notation 'Aaa' should be written as A^a{}_a or A_a^a to avoid confusion with a generic component A_aa.
  4. [Appendix A, Eq. (A.1)] The transformation rule for the inverse spatial vielbein is displayed ambiguously: 'δ_G e^μ_a = 0 = δ_G τ^μ' followed by 'δ_G e^μ_a = -λ^a τ^μ' appears to contain a typo in index placement. Please clarify.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central Stückelberg mechanism and regime splittings follow from an explicit gauging computation, not from fitted inputs or a self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing claim is that after relaxing Carrollian special conformal transformations, the dilatation vector b_a acquires a boost shift proportional to the trace of the extrinsic curvature K, and that subsequent gauge choices interpolate between Carroll, Aristotelian and fracton regimes. The derivation of this mechanism is self-contained: the constraint R_0a^a(P)=0 in (3.10) is solved for b_0 = -K/d in (3.19) using the definition K = -Ω_0a^a, and the boost transformation δ_G b_a = -λ_a b_0 in (3.21) then yields δ_G b_a = (1/d) K λ_a. No parameter is fitted to data, and the result is not assumed by construction. The Carroll/Aristotelian/fracton splittings in Section 4 are explicit gauge choices and field redefinitions (b_a=0, M_a = d b_a/K, A_a and A_ab), with transformation rules derived from the gauge algebra rather than imported from an external uniqueness theorem. The self-citations, notably [11], supply the classification of conformal Carroll algebras, but the algebra used is written out explicitly in (3.1)-(3.3) and the gauging computation does not reduce to the citation; it is therefore not load-bearing circularity. The skeptic's concern about Eq. (5.31) is a possible computational gap, not an equivalence-by-construction: direct substitution φ=1 into (5.12) produces a K^2 term, whereas (5.31) also contains ∂_0 K, so this is a correctness issue for the derived invariants rather than a circular-input issue. Since the requested score measures circularity, not arithmetic consistency, the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

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

The construction rests on the scaling Carroll gauge algebra and the chosen curvature constraints. No new particles or forces are invented; the apparently new fields b_a and S_ab are components of the dilatation and boost connections that previous conformal constructions discarded.

free parameters (3)
  • dynamical exponent z = arbitrary
    Labels the one-parameter family of scaling Carroll algebras; a modeling choice, not determined by the paper. Appears throughout the gauge connection and invariant Lagrangians.
  • zeta (zeta = w - z) = arbitrary
    Appears in the combination I1 + zeta I2 and in the solution K_ab = delta_ab/(C(x)+zeta t) of the S_ab equation (5.35)-(5.36).
  • alpha (conformal coupling in eq. 2.16) = arbitrary
    Arbitrary coefficient in the conformally coupled scalar action; the paper notes arbitrariness in the combination a2 + d a1.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The scaling Carroll algebra scalcarr_z(d+1) with commutation relations (3.1)-(3.3) is the symmetry algebra.
    The entire gauging procedure is based on this algebra; it is a choice of which symmetries to promote to local symmetries.
  • domain assumption The curvature constraints R_mu nu(H)=0, R_ab^c(P)=0, R_0a^a(P)=0, R_0[ab](P)=0 (eq. 3.10) are imposed to solve for dependent gauge fields.
    This is the standard set of constraints used in Carroll gauging [25]; it determines omega, b_0, etc., and is load-bearing for the shift transformation of b_a.
  • domain assumption Carrollian special conformal transformations are relaxed (the generator C is excluded from the algebra).
    This relaxation is what keeps b_a independent; it is a deliberate modeling choice that departs from [25].
  • domain assumption For the fracton phase, the Frobenius condition tau ^ d tau = 0 (eq. 4.16) is imposed on the clock one-form.
    This foliation condition is introduced specifically to obtain the fracton gauge-field interpretation.
  • standard math Standard differential-geometry identities (Lie derivatives, determinant scaling, anholonomy) are used throughout.
    Background mathematical machinery; not specific to the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scaling Symmetry and Carrollian Gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P6NTHGRM

@misc{pith2026251220736,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scaling Symmetry and Carrollian Gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P6NTHGRM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.20736}
}
read the original abstract

We formulate matter-coupled scaling-Carroll gravity as a gauge theory and develop a conformal construction for generating local Carroll-invariant couplings. The construction relaxes Carrollian special conformal symmetry and leads to an enlarged gravity multiplet. After fixing the scaling symmetry, the theory is governed by the trace of the extrinsic curvature, the Carroll boost symmetry, a vector field descending from dilatation, and a symmetric tensor originating from the Carroll boost connection. The vector field acquires a St\"uckelberg-like transformation under Carroll boosts proportional to the trace of the extrinsic curvature. We show that appropriate gauge choices and field redefinitions give rise to Carrollian and Aristotelian descriptions, as well as a tensor-gauge description of the symmetric tensor field coupled to Aristotelian geometry. In the latter description, the Carroll boost parameter plays the role of a vector-valued gauge parameter.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Carrollian limit of NS-NS and Heterotic Supergravity

    hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Ultra-relativistic expansion plus dilaton scaling produces finite covariant Carrollian NS-NS and heterotic supergravity actions, with trivializable Green-Schwarz for the 1-form and finite leading Riem^{2} α' corrections.

  2. Carrollian Quantum Mechanics: Time-like, Space-like and Hybrid Sectors

    hep-th 2026-08 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    A c→0 contraction of the Klein-Gordon equation yields three Carrollian quantum sectors, and the time-like sector shows temporal tunneling with |T|²=1+|R|².

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 46 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Geometry of Zero Signature Space-times,

    M. Henneaux, “Geometry of Zero Signature Space-times,”Bull. Soc. Math. Belg.31(1979) 47–63

    1979

  2. [2]

    Gauging the Carroll Algebra and Ultra-Relativistic Gravity,

    J. Hartong, “Gauging the Carroll Algebra and Ultra-Relativistic Gravity,”JHEP08(2015) 069, 1505.05011

    arXiv 2015

  3. [3]

    Foundations of Carrollian Geometry,

    L. Ciambelli and P. Jai-akson, “Foundations of Carrollian Geometry,”2510.21651

    arXiv

  4. [4]

    Carroll versus Newton and Galilei: two dual non-Einsteinian concepts of time,

    C. Duval, G. W. Gibbons, P. A. Horvathy, and P. M. Zhang, “Carroll versus Newton and Galilei: two dual non-Einsteinian concepts of time,”Class. Quant. Grav.31(2014) 085016,1402.0657

    arXiv 2014

  5. [5]

    Conformal Carroll groups,

    C. Duval, G. W. Gibbons, and P. A. Horvathy, “Conformal Carroll groups,”J. Phys. A47 (2014), no. 33, 335204,1403.4213

    arXiv 2014

  6. [6]

    Carrollian manifolds and null infinity: a view from Cartan geometry,

    Y. Herfray, “Carrollian manifolds and null infinity: a view from Cartan geometry,”Class. Quant. Grav.39(2022), no. 21, 215005,2112.09048. – 26 –

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Conformal Carroll groups and BMS symmetry,

    C. Duval, G. W. Gibbons, and P. A. Horvathy, “Conformal Carroll groups and BMS symmetry,” Class. Quant. Grav.31(2014) 092001,1402.5894

    arXiv 2014

  8. [8]

    Carrollian Conformal Fields and Flat Holography,

    K. Nguyen and P. West, “Carrollian Conformal Fields and Flat Holography,”Universe9(2023), no. 9, 385,2305.02884

    arXiv 2023

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Holography in flat spacetimes: the case for Carroll,

    A. Bagchi, P. Dhivakar, and S. Dutta, “Holography in flat spacetimes: the case for Carroll,” JHEP08(2024) 144,2311.11246

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Celestial holography: An asymptotic symmetry perspective,

    L. Donnay, “Celestial holography: An asymptotic symmetry perspective,”Phys. Rept.1073 (2024) 1–41,2310.12922

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Classification of conformal carroll algebras,

    H. Afshar, X. Bekaert, and M. Najafizadeh, “Classification of conformal carroll algebras,”JHEP 12(2024) 148,2409.19953

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Anisotropic conformal Carroll field theories and their gravity duals,

    E. Despontin, S. Detournay, S. Dutta, and D. Fontaine, “Anisotropic conformal Carroll field theories and their gravity duals,”JHEP09(2025) 056,2505.23755

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Carrollian Physics at the Black Hole Horizon,

    L. Donnay and C. Marteau, “Carrollian Physics at the Black Hole Horizon,”Class. Quant. Grav. 36(2019), no. 16, 165002,1903.09654

    2019 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Carroll black holes,

    F. Ecker, D. Grumiller, J. Hartong, A. Pérez, S. Prohazka, and R. Troncoso, “Carroll black holes,”SciPost Phys.15(2023), no. 6, 245,2308.10947

    2023

  7. [15]

    Strings near black holes are Carrollian,

    A. Bagchi, A. Banerjee, J. Hartong, E. Have, K. S. Kolekar, and M. Mandlik, “Strings near black holes are Carrollian,”Phys. Rev. D110(2024), no. 8, 086009,2312.14240

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Fractons, dipole symmetries and curved spacetime,

    L. Bidussi, J. Hartong, E. Have, J. Musaeus, and S. Prohazka, “Fractons, dipole symmetries and curved spacetime,”SciPost Phys.12(2022), no. 6, 205,2111.03668

    2022 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Spacetime Subsystem Symmetries,

    S. A. Baig, J. Distler, A. Karch, A. Raz, and H.-Y. Sun, “Spacetime Subsystem Symmetries,” 2303.15590

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    Carrollian origin of spacetime subsystem symmetry,

    O. Kasikci, M. Ozkan, and Y. Pang, “Carrollian origin of spacetime subsystem symmetry,” Phys. Rev. D108(2023), no. 4, 045020,2304.11331

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Carroll/fracton particles and their correspondence,

    J. Figueroa-O’Farrill, A. Pérez, and S. Prohazka, “Carroll/fracton particles and their correspondence,”JHEP06(2023) 207,2305.06730

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Quantum Carroll/fracton particles,

    J. Figueroa-O’Farrill, A. Pérez, and S. Prohazka, “Quantum Carroll/fracton particles,”JHEP 10(2023) 041,2307.05674

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Fracton and non-Lorentzian particle duality: gauge field couplings and geometric implications,

    M. M. Ahmadi-Jahmani and A. Parvizi, “Fracton and non-Lorentzian particle duality: gauge field couplings and geometric implications,”JHEP08(2025) 157,2503.21660

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    A Schrödinger approach to Newton-Cartan and Hořava-Lifshitz gravities,

    H. R. Afshar, E. A. Bergshoeff, A. Mehra, P. Parekh, and B. Rollier, “A Schrödinger approach to Newton-Cartan and Hořava-Lifshitz gravities,”JHEP04(2016) 145,1512.06277

    2016 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Covariant Poisson’s equation in torsional Newton-Cartan gravity,

    M. Abedini, H. R. Afshar, and A. Ghodsi, “Covariant Poisson’s equation in torsional Newton-Cartan gravity,”JHEP04(2019) 117,1903.04206

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Scale invariance in Newton–Cartan and Hořava–Lifshitz gravity,

    D. O. Devecioglu, N. Ozdemir, M. Ozkan, and U. Zorba, “Scale invariance in Newton–Cartan and Hořava–Lifshitz gravity,”Class. Quant. Grav.35(2018), no. 11, 115016,1801.08726

    2018 arXiv

  17. [25]

    A Conformal Approach to Carroll Gravity,

    E. A. Bergshoeff, P. Concha, O. Fierro, E. Rodríguez, and J. Rosseel, “A Conformal Approach to Carroll Gravity,”2412.17752

    arXiv

  18. [26]

    A conformal approach to matter coupled Aristotelian gravity,

    E. A. Bergshoeff, G. Giorgi, J. Rosseel, and P. Salgado-Rebolledo, “A conformal approach to matter coupled Aristotelian gravity,”2507.16943

    arXiv

  19. [27]

    On the ultrarelativistic limit of general relativity,

    G. Dautcourt, “On the ultrarelativistic limit of general relativity,”Acta Phys. Polon. B29 (1998) 1047–1055,gr-qc/9801093. – 27 –

    1998 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Carroll versus Galilei Gravity,

    E. Bergshoeff, J. Gomis, B. Rollier, J. Rosseel, and T. ter Veldhuis, “Carroll versus Galilei Gravity,”JHEP03(2017) 165,1701.06156

    2017 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Carroll contractions of Lorentz-invariant theories,

    M. Henneaux and P. Salgado-Rebolledo, “Carroll contractions of Lorentz-invariant theories,” JHEP11(2021) 180,2109.06708

    2021 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Carroll limit of four-dimensional gravity theories in the first order formalism,

    A. Guerrieri and R. F. Sobreiro, “Carroll limit of four-dimensional gravity theories in the first order formalism,”Class. Quant. Grav.38(2021), no. 24, 245003,2107.10129

    2021 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Carroll Expansion of General Relativity,

    D. Hansen, N. A. Obers, G. Oling, and B. T. Søgaard, “Carroll Expansion of General Relativity,”SciPost Phys.13(2022), no. 3, 055,2112.12684

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    The gauging procedure and carrollian gravity,

    J. Figueroa-O’Farrill, E. Have, S. Prohazka, and J. Salzer, “The gauging procedure and carrollian gravity,”JHEP09(2022) 243,2206.14178

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Magnetic Carrollian gravity from the Carroll algebra,

    A. Campoleoni, M. Henneaux, S. Pekar, A. Pérez, and P. Salgado-Rebolledo, “Magnetic Carrollian gravity from the Carroll algebra,”JHEP09(2022) 127,2207.14167

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    On the intrinsic torsion of spacetime structures,

    J. Figueroa-O’Farrill, “On the intrinsic torsion of spacetime structures,”2009.01948

    2009 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Setting the connection free in the Galilei and Carroll expansions of gravity,

    J. Musaeus, N. A. Obers, and G. Oling, “Setting the connection free in the Galilei and Carroll expansions of gravity,”Phys. Rev. D109(2024), no. 10, 104040,2312.13924

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Subdimensional Particle Structure of Higher Rank U(1) Spin Liquids,

    M. Pretko, “Subdimensional Particle Structure of Higher Rank U(1) Spin Liquids,”Phys. Rev. B 95(2017), no. 11, 115139,1604.05329

    2017 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Carroll stories,

    J. de Boer, J. Hartong, N. A. Obers, W. Sybesma, and S. Vandoren, “Carroll stories,”JHEP09 (2023) 148,2307.06827

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Non-Lorentzian theories with and without constraints,

    E. A. Bergshoeff, J. Gomis, and A. Kleinschmidt, “Non-Lorentzian theories with and without constraints,”JHEP01(2023) 167,2210.14848

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Carroll Symmetry, Dark Energy and Inflation,

    J. de Boer, J. Hartong, N. A. Obers, W. Sybesma, and S. Vandoren, “Carroll Symmetry, Dark Energy and Inflation,”Front. in Phys.10(2022) 810405,2110.02319

    2022 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Torsional Newton-Cartan Geometry and Lifshitz Holography,

    M. H. Christensen, J. Hartong, N. A. Obers, and B. Rollier, “Torsional Newton-Cartan Geometry and Lifshitz Holography,”Phys. Rev. D89(2014) 061901,1311.4794

    2014 arXiv

  33. [41]

    The Symmetries of the Carroll Superparticle,

    E. Bergshoeff, J. Gomis, and L. Parra, “The Symmetries of the Carroll Superparticle,”J. Phys. A49(2016), no. 18, 185402,1503.06083

    2016 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Carrollian superconformal theories and super BMS,

    A. Bagchi, D. Grumiller, and P. Nandi, “Carrollian superconformal theories and super BMS,” JHEP05(2022) 044,2202.01172

    2022 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Carrollian structure of the null boundary solution space,

    H. Adami, A. Parvizi, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, V. Taghiloo, and H. Yavartanoo, “Carrollian structure of the null boundary solution space,”JHEP02(2024) 073,2311.03515

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Flat holography and Carrollian fluids,

    L. Ciambelli, C. Marteau, A. C. Petkou, P. M. Petropoulos, and K. Siampos, “Flat holography and Carrollian fluids,”JHEP07(2018) 165,1802.06809

    2018 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Fractons in curved space,

    A. Jain and K. Jensen, “Fractons in curved space,”SciPost Phys.12(2022), no. 4, 142, 2111.03973

    2022 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Fractons on curved spacetime in 2 + 1 dimensions,

    J. Hartong, G. Palumbo, S. Pekar, A. Pérez, and S. Prohazka, “Fractons on curved spacetime in 2 + 1 dimensions,”SciPost Phys.18(2025), no. 1, 022,2409.04525

    2025 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Fracton gauge theories in curved spacetimes,

    E. Afxonidis, A. Caddeo, C. Hoyos, and D. Musso, “Fracton gauge theories in curved spacetimes,”Phys. Rev. D111(2025), no. 10, 105023,2503.08621

    2025 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Fracton gauge fields from higher-dimensional gravity,

    F. Peña-Benítez and P. Salgado-Rebolledo, “Fracton gauge fields from higher-dimensional gravity,”JHEP04(2024) 009,2310.12610

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Worldline Formulations of Covariant Fracton Theories,

    F. Fecit and D. Rovere, “Worldline Formulations of Covariant Fracton Theories,”2508.14591. – 28 –

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.