Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 54 references

Canonical Quantization of Massive Symmetric Rank-Two Tensor in String Theory

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that a massive spin-two field described by the Siegel-Zwiebach string-theory Lagrangian can be quantized in a transverse-traceless gauge whose propagator has a smooth massless limit equal to the massless graviton…

desk verdict Solid Hamiltonian analysis and a real TT-gauge propagator calculation, but the vDVZ-avoidance claim rests on an unexamined assumption about how Stueckelberg fields couple to matter. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03704 v3 pith:ZYJWVJX6 submitted 2019-08-10 hep-th gr-qc

Hayun Park , Taejin Lee This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thgr-qc PACS 11.25.-w11.15.-q
keywords massivesymmetricrank-twotensorSiegel-ZwiebachLagrangianStueckelbergfieldsFierz-Paulitheorytransverse-tracelessgaugevanDam-Veltman-Zakharovdiscontinuityopenbosonicstringfirst-classconstraints
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

This paper argues that a massive spin-two field can be described by the Lagrangian for a massive symmetric rank-two tensor that Siegel and Zwiebach derived from open string field theory, complete with two Stueckelberg fields. A canonical analysis shows that this Lagrangian has only first-class constraints, so it is a genuine gauge theory, and the gauge symmetry survives only in the critical dimension $d=26$. Under one gauge choice the model reduces exactly to the Fierz-Pauli Lagrangian, which the paper therefore treats as a gauge-fixed version rather than an independent theory. The paper then proposes the transverse-traceless gauge as a better choice for small masses, where the Stueckelberg fields decouple and the massive propagator tends smoothly to the standard massless graviton propagator as $m\to 0$. A sympathetic reader would care because this offers a string-theory-derived, ghost-free massive spin-two framework that may sidestep the vDVZ discontinuity.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Siegel-Zwiebach Lagrangian, Eq. (27), built from a symmetric rank-two tensor $h_{\mu\nu}$ together with two Stueckelberg fields $B_\mu$ and $\eta$, whose couplings are fixed by the BRST symmetry of string theory. The first-class constraints of this Lagrangian generate the local gauge transformation in Eq. (28), and requiring those gauge variations to cancel fixes the critical dimension $d=26$. The transverse-traceless gauge condition $\partial_\mu h^{\mu\nu}=0$, $h=0$ is the alternative gauge-fixing mechanism that decouples $h_{\mu\nu}$ from the Stueckelberg fields and produces the propagator in Eq. (58) with a well-defined massless limit. The Fierz-Pauli gauge $B_\mu=0$, $\eta=-h/2$ is the special gauge choice that recovers the Fierz-Pauli Lagrangian.

What would settle it

Compute the $m\to 0$ limit of a physical two-source amplitude in the full gauge-invariant SZ model in the TT gauge with a conserved source of nonzero trace; if the result differs from the massless graviton amplitude or contains a singular residue, the paper's claim that the TT gauge eliminates the discontinuity fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Siegel-Zwiebach Lagrangian $L_{SZ}$, although describing a massive field, is a gauge theory with only first-class constraints, and that its local gauge invariance is a direct consequence of the nilpotency of the BRST operator of open bosonic string theory, valid only at $d=26$. Explicit variation of the action shows cancellation of the gauge variations precisely in that dimension. The Fierz-Pauli Lagrangian is recovered by imposing the gauge conditions $B_\mu=0$ and $\eta=-h/2$, so the second-class constraints and singular Dirac brackets that appear in Fierz-Pauli quantization are artifacts of that gauge choice. In the transverse-traceless gauge, defined by $\partial_\mu h^{\mu\nu}=0$ and $h=0$, the tensor field decouples from the Stueckelberg fields; the scalar $\eta$ becomes auxiliary and the vector $B_\mu$ becomes a free massless U(1) gauge field. The resulting massive propagator, Eq. (58), obeys the transverse-traceless conditions and has a massless limit, Eq. (60), that is exactly the massless graviton propagator in the TT gauge.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the paper's assumption that the Stueckelberg fields $B_\mu$ and $\eta$ do not couple to physical sources; if gauge-invariant coupling forces them to appear in physical amplitudes, the smooth free propagator may not remove the vDVZ discontinuity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Fierz-Pauli Lagrangian is a gauge-fixed version of the Siegel-Zwiebach model, so its second-class constraints reflect a gauge choice rather than the intrinsic structure of a massive spin-two field.
  • In the transverse-traceless gauge the massive spin-two field decouples from the Stueckelberg fields, and the remaining Stueckelberg sector reduces to a free massless U(1) gauge field plus an auxiliary scalar.
  • The massive propagator in the TT gauge satisfies $\partial_\mu h^{\mu\nu}=0$ and $h=0$ and tends to the massless graviton propagator as $m\to 0$, so no vDVZ-type singularity appears in the free-field propagator.
  • Because gauge invariance holds only at $d=26$, four-dimensional applications require placing the open string on a D3-brane, leaving extra vector and scalar degrees of freedom to be interpreted.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The free-propagator calculation does not by itself decide the vDVZ question, because physical amplitudes involve sources; if gauge invariance requires the Stueckelberg fields to couple to a conserved source with nonzero trace, the scalar-exchange channel may survive the $m\to 0$ limit.
  • A concrete check would be to compute a tree-level two-source amplitude in the full gauge-invariant model in the TT gauge and compare its $m\to 0$ residue with the massless graviton amplitude.
  • The same TT-gauge strategy is likely to apply to the closed-string massive symmetric rank-two tensors that appear with asymmetric vacua, where additional Stueckelberg fields are expected.
  • The paper's division of gauges, Fierz-Pauli gauge for the second-class-constraint picture and TT gauge for the smooth-massless-limit picture, suggests that the vDVZ discontinuity is a property of the quantization scheme rather than of massive spin-two interactions, but an interacting extension is needed to settle that.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the canonical Hamiltonian structure of the massive symmetric rank-two tensor Lagrangian of Siegel and Zwiebach (SZ), which arises in open bosonic string theory. It claims that the SZ Lagrangian possesses only first-class constraints, that it is gauge invariant only in d=26, that the Fierz-Pauli (FP) Lagrangian is a gauge-fixed version in the gauge B_mu=0, eta=-h/2, and that in the transverse-traceless (TT) gauge the free massive spin-2 propagator has a smooth massless limit equal to the massless graviton propagator, thereby avoiding the van Dam-Veltman-Zakharov discontinuity. A Proca model is analyzed first as a warm-up.

Significance. If the Hamiltonian claims and the TT propagator result were correct, the paper would offer a useful gauge in which the free massive spin-2 propagator has a smooth massless limit, and an explicit demonstration that the SZ gauge invariance requires the critical dimension. The explicit algebraic check in Appendix A that d=26 is needed is a genuine strength, as is the clean reduction of the SZ Lagrangian to the FP Lagrangian under the gauge (30). However, as written the paper does not establish the physical vDVZ-avoidance claim, and the reduction of the Stueckelberg sector in the TT gauge contains an apparent algebraic error. The paper's central physical conclusion is therefore not yet established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section VII and Eqs. (58)-(60)] The paper's central physical claim, that the TT gauge avoids the vDVZ discontinuity, is not supported. The vDVZ discontinuity is a statement about tree-level amplitudes between conserved sources with nonzero trace, not about the free propagator. Contracting Eq. (58) with conserved sources T and T' removes the p^mu terms and leaves a trace-term coefficient 2/(d-1), the same as in the FP propagator Eq. (42); in d=4 this is the familiar 4/3 enhancement over the massless de Donder result. Moreover, gauge invariance of a matter coupling h_mu_nu T^mu_nu under the epsilon transformation of Eq. (28) requires either T^mu_mu=0 or couplings of B_mu and eta to the source trace; the assertion in Section VII that the Stueckelberg fields 'may not couple to physical sources' is an assumption, not a consequence of the model. The TT gauge condition h=0 is incompatible with non-traceless conserved sources in the massless limit because the trace of the linearized Einstein equation would then be sourced. Eq. (60) is therefore the propagator for TT vacuum perturbations only, and the smooth limit of Eq. (58) does not demonstrate the absence of physical discontinuities. Either an amplitude calculation with conserved sources must be provided, or the vDVZ-avoidance claim should be removed.
  2. [Section VI, Eq. (61)] The quoted Stueckelberg-sector Lagrangian does not follow from Eq. (53). Expanding the B- and eta-dependent terms of Eq. (53) under the TT conditions gives L_B,eta = 1/2 B_mu(□ eta^{mu nu} + ∂^mu ∂^nu) B_nu - eta □ eta + 13/8 m^2 eta^2 + 5/2 m eta ∂·B, up to total derivatives. In particular the B kinetic has +1/2(∂·B)^2, opposite in sign to the -1/2(∂·B)^2 contained in 1/4 F^2, and the eta kinetic is -eta□eta, not -1/2 eta(□-m^2)eta as in Eq. (61). Consequently the longitudinal mode phi of B has a (□)^2 kinetic term and is not a Lagrange multiplier; integrating phi does not simply impose ∂^2 eta=0. The subsequent claims that B and eta decouple and can be trivially integrated, the effective Lagrangian Eq. (66), and the identification of B with a massless U(1) gauge field are therefore not established.
  3. [Section V, after Eqs. (48)-(49)] The statement that the primary and secondary constraints 'form a set of first class constraints' is central to the paper's Hamiltonian analysis, but the constraint algebra is not displayed. The reader is asked to take the closure on faith, and the contrast with the second-class nature of the FP gauge-fixed theory in Section IV makes this a nontrivial assertion. Please provide the full Poisson bracket algebra among phi_0, phi_i, phi_B, chi_0, chi_i, chi_B (or a complete reference) showing that all brackets vanish weakly on the constraint surface.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Introduction and throughout] There are several typos and stylistic issues, e.g., 'Stuckelberg' without the umlaut and 'a a well-behaved' in the Introduction; these should be cleaned up.
  2. [Eq. (33)] The FP gauge-fixing solution contains a denominator (d-8); since the paper's gauge-invariant theory is shown to hold only at d=26, this is harmless, but it would be useful to note explicitly that d=8 is excluded.
  3. [Section VI, Eqs. (56)-(58)] The limit lambda,sigma -> infinity in Eq. (57) is presented without derivation; given the complexity of the coefficients in Eq. (56), a short explanation or a reference to supplementary algebra would help the reader verify the TT propagator.
  4. [Title and Abstract] The paper is titled 'Canonical Quantization' but contains no canonical commutators, physical state conditions, or explicit quantum Hilbert space; the authors should either add a brief statement of what quantization means here or adjust the title/abstract to 'Hamiltonian analysis'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper performs explicit algebraic derivations from an externally cited Lagrangian and does not fit any parameter to its target results.

full rationale

The circularity pass finds no step in which a claimed result is equivalent by construction to an input, nor any load-bearing self-citation. The paper's starting point, the Siegel-Zwiebach Lagrangian (Eq. 27), and the gauge transformation (Eq. 28) are imported from the external reference [15]; that is a normal use of prior work, not a circular derivation. The constraint analysis (Sec. V), the d=26 gauge-invariance check (Appendix A), the Fierz-Pauli reduction (Eqs. 30-31), and the TT-gauge propagator (Eqs. 54-60) are all obtained by explicit algebra from that starting point. No parameter is fitted to the massless propagator; the m-to-0 limit in Eq. (60) is simply the algebraic limit of the derived expression. The decoupling of the Stueckelberg fields in the TT gauge is a direct consequence of imposing ∂μhμν=0 and h=0, and is exhibited in Eqs. (53) and (61)-(64). The only statement that goes beyond the algebra is the physical interpretation in Sec. VII that the Stueckelberg fields 'may not couple to physical sources' and that the smooth free propagator implies no vDVZ discontinuity; that is a physical-correctness concern, specifically about the incompatibility of TT gauge with non-traceless sources and about uncomputed source amplitudes, not a circularity. The self-citations in the reference list (e.g., Refs. [46-51]) concern string path-integral techniques and are not load-bearing for the central derivation. Therefore the analysis is self-contained against its cited input and receives score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central calculation depends on the SZ Lagrangian and its gauge transformation rules, imported from Siegel and Zwiebach's BRST construction. The paper assumes standard constrained Hamiltonian methods and, for the TT gauge, assumes that Stueckelberg fields decouple and can be integrated trivially without residual ghosts. It also assumes the m goes to 0 and lambda, sigma go to infinity limits commute. No parameters are fitted to data and no new physical entities are introduced. The mass m and spacetime dimension are inputs from the string-theory context, not free parameters.

free parameters (1)
  • gauge-fixing parameters lambda and sigma = lambda, sigma go to infinity
    Hand-chosen Lagrangian multipliers in Eq. (53) used to enforce the transverse-traceless gauge; they are gauge artifacts, not data fits. The TT propagator formula (Eq. 56) depends on them, but physical results should not.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Siegel-Zwiebach Lagrangian (Eq. 27) and its gauge transformation rules (Eq. 28 and A2) are correct for the massive rank-two tensor multiplet of open bosonic string theory.
    Adopted from ref [15]; the paper does not rederive them from string field theory, yet they are the starting point for all subsequent claims.
  • standard math Standard Dirac-Bergmann constrained Hamiltonian analysis and Poisson brackets are valid for this system.
    The paper uses the standard first-class/second-class constraint classification and gauge generator construction in Sections II and V without proving these methods.
  • domain assumption Gauge-variation cancellations in Appendix A are complete after discarding surface terms.
    Appendix A cancels terms by integrating by parts and dropping boundary terms; no boundary conditions are stated for the d-dimensional spacetime.
  • domain assumption In the TT gauge the Stueckelberg fields decouple and can be integrated out without residual ghosts or nontrivial Jacobian factors.
    Section VI states the decoupling and integrates B_mu and eta trivially; no Faddeev-Popov determinant for the TT gauge conditions on h_mu_nu is computed.
  • domain assumption The massless limit m goes to 0 and the gauge-fixing limit lambda, sigma go to infinity commute in the propagator.
    Section VI takes lambda, sigma to infinity first (Eq. 57) and then m to 0 (Eq. 60); a different order could produce non-uniform terms.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Canonical Quantization of Massive Symmetric Rank-Two Tensor in String Theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZYJWVJX6

@misc{pith2026190803704,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Canonical Quantization of Massive Symmetric Rank-Two Tensor in String Theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZYJWVJX6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03704}
}
abstract

The canonical quantization of a massive symmetric rank-two tensor in string theory, which contains two Stueckelberg fields, was studied. As a preliminary study, we performed a canonical quantization of the Proca model to describe a massive vector particle that shares common properties with the massive symmetric rank-two tensor model. By performing a canonical analysis of the Lagrangian, which describes the symmetric rank-two tensor, obtained by Siegel and Zwiebach (SZ) from string field theory, we deduced that the Lagrangian possesses only first class constraints that generate local gauge transformation. By explicit calculations, we show that the massive symmetric rank-two tensor theory is gauge invariant only in the critical dimension of open bosonic string theory, i.e., $d=26$. This emphasizes that the origin of local symmetry is the nilpotency of the Becchi-Rouet-Stora-Tyutin (BRST) operator, which is valid only in the critical dimension. For a particular gauge imposed on the Stueckelberg fields, the gauge-invariant Lagrangian of the SZ model reduces to the Fierz-Pauli Lagrangian of a massive spin-two particle. Thus, the Fierz-Pauli Lagrangian is a gauge-fixed version of the gauge-invariant Lagrangian for a massive symmetric rank-two tensor. By noting that the Fierz-Pauli Lagrangian is not suitable for studying massive spin-two particles with small masses, we propose the transverse-traceless (TT) gauge to quantize the SZ model as an alternative gauge condition. In the TT gauge, the two Stueckelberg fields can be decoupled from the symmetric rank-two tensor and integrated trivially. The massive spin-two particle can be described by the SZ model in the TT gauge, where the propagator of the massive spin-two particle has a well-defined massless limit.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03704 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Relations between theories of the spin-two field. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Dirac, Phys

    P. Dirac, Phys. Rev. 114, 924 (1959)

    work page 1959

  2. [2]

    R. P. Feynman, Acta Phys. Polon. 24, 697 (1963)

    1963

  3. [3]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Lett. 9, 357 (1964)

    work page 1964

  4. [4]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev, 135, 1049 (1964)

    work page 1964

  5. [5]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. 38, 988 (1965)

    work page 1965

  6. [6]

    Scherk and J

    J. Scherk and J. H. Schwarz, Phys. Lett. B 52, 347 (1974)

    work page 1974

  7. [7]

    Scherk and J

    J. Scherk and J. H. Schwarz, Nucl. Phys. B 81, 118 (1974)

    1974

  8. [8]

    J. H. Schwarz, Phys. Rep. 89, 223 (1982)

    work page 1982

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Sannan, Phys

    S. Sannan, Phys. Rev. D 34, 1749 (1986)

    1986

  2. [10]

    Lee, EPJ Web of Conferences 168, 07004 (2018)

    T. Lee, EPJ Web of Conferences 168, 07004 (2018)

    2018

  3. [11]

    Lee, Four-Graviton Scattering and String Path Integral in the Proper-time gauge , [hep-th] arXiv:1806.02702 (2018)

    T. Lee, Four-Graviton Scattering and String Path Integral in the Proper-time gauge , [hep-th] arXiv:1806.02702 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Fierz and W

    M. Fierz and W. Pauli, Proc. Roy. Soc. London. A 173, 211 (1939)

    1939

  5. [13]

    Hinterbichler, Rev

    K. Hinterbichler, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 671 (2012)

    2012

  6. [14]

    de Rham, Living Rev

    C. de Rham, Living Rev. Relativity, 17, 7 (2014)

    2014

  7. [15]

    Siegel and B

    W. Siegel and B. Zwiebach, Nucl. Phys. B 263, 105 (1986)

    1986

  8. [16]

    Stueckelberg, Helv

    E. Stueckelberg, Helv. Phys. Acta Vol. 11, 299 (1938)

    1938

  9. [17]

    D. J. Gross and P. F. Mende, Phys. Lett. B 197, 129 (1987)

    1987

  10. [18]

    D. J. Gross and P. F. Mende, Nucl. Phys. B 303, 407 (1988)

    1988

  11. [19]

    S. G. Nibbelink, M. Peloso, and M. Sexton, Eur. Phys. J. C 51, 741 (2007)

    2007

  12. [20]

    Gravitation

    C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler, “Gravitation” (Freeman, San Francisco, 1973)

    1973

  13. [21]

    F. T. Brandt, J. Frenkel and D. G. C. McKeon, Phys. Rev. D 76, 105029 (2007)

    2007

  14. [22]

    P. S. Gribosky, J. F. Donoghue, and B. R. Holstein, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 190, 149 (1989)

    1989

  15. [23]

    Rebhan, Nucl

    A. Rebhan, Nucl. Phys. B 351, 706 (1991)

    1991

  16. [24]

    Blasi and N

    A. Blasi and N. Maggiore, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 614 (2017)

    2017

  17. [25]

    van Dam and M

    H. van Dam and M. Veltman, Nucl. Phys. B 22, 397 (1970)

    1970

  18. [26]

    V. I. Zakharov, JETP Lett. 12, 312 (1970)

    1970

  19. [27]

    Proca, Le Journal de Physique et le Radium 7, 347 (1936)

    Al. Proca, Le Journal de Physique et le Radium 7, 347 (1936)

    1936

  20. [28]

    A. S. Vytheeswaran, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 13, 765 (1998)

    1998

  21. [29]

    Park and Y.-J Park, Int

    M.-I. Park and Y.-J Park, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 13, 2179 (1998)

    1998

  22. [30]

    Quantum Field Theory

    C. Itzykson and J. B. Zuber, “Quantum Field Theory”, (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980)

    1980

  23. [31]

    Becchi, A

    C. Becchi, A. Rouet and R. Stora, Ann. Phys. 98, 287 (1976)

    1976

  24. [32]

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

    1975 arXiv

  25. [33]

    is realized in the TT gauge. It may also be worthwhile to investigate the propagation of the gravitational wave using the propagator in the TT gauge in details to explore the possibility of finite mass for graviton. It is apparent that the massive rank-two tensor theory of Sieg...

  26. [34]

    A. I. Vainshtein, Phys. Lett. B. 39, 393 (1972)

    1972

  27. [35]

    Porrati, Phys.Lett

    M. Porrati, Phys.Lett. B 534, 209 (2002)

    2002

  28. [36]

    F. F. Faria, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2019, 7013012 (2019)

    2019

  29. [37]

    Y. S. Myung, Phys. Rev. D 96, 064026 (2017)

    2017

  30. [38]

    D. G. Boulware and S. Deser, Phys. Rev. D 6, 3368 (1972)

    1972

  31. [39]

    D. G. Boulware and S. Desser, Phys. Lett. B, 40, 227 (1972)

    1972

  32. [40]

    D. G. Boulware and S. Deser, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 89, 193 (1975)

    1975

  33. [41]

    Velo and D

    G. Velo and D. Zwanziger, Phys. Rev. 186, 1337 (1969)

    1969

  34. [42]

    Velo and D

    G. Velo and D. Zwanziger, Phys. Rev. 188, 2218 (1969)

    1969

  35. [43]

    Velo, Nucl

    G. Velo, Nucl. Phys. B 43, 389 (1972). 13

    1972

  36. [44]

    P. C. Argyres and C. R. Nappi, Phys. Lett. B 224, 89 (1989)

    1989

  37. [45]

    Porratia, R

    M. Porratia, R. Rahmanb and A. Sagnottib, Nucl. Phys. B 846, 250 (2011)

    2011

  38. [46]

    A. M. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. B 103, 207 (1981)

    1981

  39. [47]

    Lee, Ann

    T. Lee, Ann. Phys. 183, 191 (1988)

    1988

  40. [49]

    Lee, Jour

    T. Lee, Jour. Kor. Phys. Soc. 71, 886 (2017)

    2017

  41. [50]

    Lee, Phys

    T. Lee, Phys. Lett. B 768, 248 (2017)

    2017

  42. [51]

    Lee, Chinese Phys

    T. Lee, Chinese Phys. C 42, 113105 (2018)

    2018

  43. [52]

    Lee, Phys

    T. Lee, Phys. Lett. B 796, 196 (2019)

    2019

  44. [53]

    I. L. Buchbinder, D. M. Gitman, V. A. Krykhtin and V. D. Pershin, Nucl.Phys. B 584, 615 (2000)

    2000

  45. [54]

    I. L. Buchbinder, V. A. Krykhtin and V. D. Pershin, Phys. Lett. B 466, 216 (1999)

    1999

  46. [55]

    Lee, S.-J

    K. Lee, S.-J. Rey and J. A. Rosabal, JHEP 1711, 172 (2017). Appendix A: Gauge Symmetry of Massive Symmetric Rank-Two T ensor Theory It may be instructive to check the local gauge invariance of the massive symmetric rank-two tensor theory LSZ of Siegel and Zwiebach by explicit ...

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.