Pith.

High Energy Physics - Theory · arXiv:hep-th/0602166 v2 · submitted 17 Feb 2006 · 52 references

Parent form for higher spin fields on anti-de Sitter space

Glenn Barnich, Maxim Grigoriev

PDF · arXiv · The abstract, sentence by sentence · Cite

The paper says

“We construct a first order parent field theory for free higher spin gauge fields on constant curvature spaces. As in the previously considered flat case, both Fronsdal's and Vasiliev's unfolded formulations can be reached by two different straightforward reductions.”

more of the abstract

The parent theory itself is formulated using a higher dimensional embedding space and turns out to be geometrically extremely transparent and free of the intricacies of both of its reductions.

from the abstract

Pith says

Machine review · deepseek-v4.1-flash · 13 Nov 2026 · what was read was not recorded · not checked by a person

Reviewed in 2026 with later literature in view.

It can be wrong. Challenge this review or reply to it.

Holds up. A solid, technically careful extension of the authors' flat-space parent theory to AdS; the one real soft spot is the asserted rather than demonstrated match to Vasiliev's unfolded equations. This line is wrong

2 major objections · 8 minor

How often objections from reviews like this one are right: not yet measured

Are you an author? What you can do.

Not checked: figures, code, what the 52 references say.

The paper says, at §4.1, Eqs. (4.13)-(4.14)

The review did not quote this passage.

Pith says: Objection 1 of 2 · major

The central object of the paper, the parent BRST operator Ω_T, is written only up to 'terms cubic in ghosts'. The constraint algebra (4.16) does determine these terms by the standard BRST rule, and the nilpotency check via the shift Y' = Y + V in (4.17) is a legitimate independent verification, so this is not a gap in the derivation.

more of objection 1

It is, however, a reproducibility issue for a paper whose main claim is that this operator defines the parent theory: a reader cannot write down (4.14) in closed form without reconstructing the cubic terms from (4.16). I would ask the authors to either display the cubic terms explicitly or add one sentence stating precisely which rule (e.g. the standard f^{ab}_c c^†_a c^†_b b^c ordering prescription) generates them from (4.16), so that the operator is fully specified in the text.

The paper says, at §4.4.3, Eq. (4.61)

The review did not quote this passage.

Pith says: Objection 2 of 2 · major

The second headline reduction culminates in the sentence 'Up to conventions and normalization factors, these equations indeed coincide with the unfolded form of higher spin equations [39, 27].' The identification is made by structural comparison: the field content (rectangular two-row Young tableaux, with the stated inequalities on the number of indices contracted with y^b versus a†^b) is matched in §4.4.3, and the shape of (4.59)-(4.60) is matched to the unfolded equations.

more of objection 2

The structural evidence is substantial and I do not doubt the conclusion, but the match is not backed by an explicit dictionary. Since this is one of the two claims in the abstract, I would ask for either a worked low-spin comparison (s = 2 and s = 3 would suffice, since the coefficients in (4.59)-(4.60) and the projector P_R are the only places where a mismatch could hide) or an explicit statement of which conventions and normalizations differ and how. Without that, the claim reads as 'reaches a system of the same type' rather than 'reaches Vasiliev's formulation'.

8 minor objections

The paper says, at §2.3, Eq. (2.9)

Pith says: minor objection 1 of 8

The ghost-number assignment for the generalized Lagrange multiplier is written self-referentially as 'gh(w*_a) = −gh(w*_a) − 1'; it should presumably read gh(w*_a) = −gh(w_a) − 1.

The paper says, at §4.3.2, after Eq. (4.33)

Pith says: minor objection 2 of 8

The statement that 'all the formulations of higher spin gauge fields on AdS described in this paper are Lagrangian by using suitable generalized auxiliary fields' rests on the existence of an inner product making Ω hermitian, which the text invokes only as 'assuming the appropriate reality condition'.

more of objection 2

Given that the paper's stated motivation in Section 1 is the compatibility between Lagrangian and interaction, one or two sentences specifying this reality condition and confirming that it survives the reductions would be valuable.

show 6 more

The paper says, at §4.4.3, Proposition 4.4

Pith says: minor objection 3 of 8

Proposition 4.4 asserts the existence of φ with (h − m)φ = 0, S̄†φ = 0 and a boundary condition, while Proposition C.2, cited as the model for its proof, constructs A with φ = (h − m)A. The two statements are related but not identical, and the phrase 'completely similar' leaves the reader to reconstruct the passage between them; one sentence making the relation explicit would help.

The paper says, at §4.2, after Eq. (4.17)

Pith says: minor objection 4 of 8

The remark that the shift Y → Y + V is legitimate because the BRST operator is polynomial in Y, followed by 'in general one is not allowed to do such a change of variables in the representation space', is compressed. Since V = lδ^(d) is a constant shift, the distinction being drawn is presumably between constant shifts and general X-dependent redefinitions; stating this explicitly would remove an apparent tension.

The paper says, at §4.3.1, after Eq. (4.23)

Pith says: minor objection 5 of 8

The operators O and P entering [T̂0, Ω̂_{ξ=0=π}] = O T̂0 and Ω̂²_{ξ=0=π} = P T̂0 are not given. At least their degree structure, or the reason they are not needed for the reduction, would make this passage easier to follow.

The paper says, at §4.4.1, Eq. (4.35)

Pith says: minor objection 6 of 8

The cohomology result (4.35) is stated for d + 1 ≥ 3, but the restriction d ≥ 3 appears only in Appendix C.2. It should be stated in the main text where the result is used, since the whole unfolded reduction depends on it.

The paper says, at §4.3.2, Eqs. (4.30)-(4.33)

Pith says: minor objection 7 of 8

A flat-space limit check (l → ∞) of the reduced operator Ω̂ against the flat-space BRST operator of ref. [26] is not given and would be a cheap and convincing consistency check of the 1/l² corrections in (4.31).

The paper says, at References

Pith says: minor objection 8 of 8

Reference [13] (de Alwis and Ohta) appears in the bibliography but is never cited in the text; either cite it or remove it. There are also typographical errors: 'spacce' in Proposition 3.1, 'untiled' for 'untilded' in §4.3.1, 'Lagrange multiplies' in §2.3, and 'described by a differentials' in §2.2.

What would settle it

Expand equations (4.59)-(4.61) for the first few spins (s=2,3) and compare term-by-term with Vasiliev's unfolded equations [27,39] in the same frame; if the set of terms (not just normalization) matches, the identification is established; if extra or missing terms appear, the 'up to conventions' claim is not supported.

from the skeptic's reading

How the review went

4 readings by deepseek-v4.1-flash · 13 Nov 2026

  1. Reader holds up confidence moderate
  2. Skeptic partly agrees 3 min 57 s · 33,014 tokens read, 13,417 written
  3. Editor wrote the verdict above 22 s · 34,013 tokens read, 1,030 written
  4. Referee minor revision: 2 major objections, 8 minor 2 min 5 s · 33,405 tokens read, 6,244 written

Not run on this paper: the simulated authors' defence.

Pith did not check this review's objections against the paper.

The review in full

The review in brief, machine-written

The thing to know: this is the AdS version of the parent theory Barnich, Grigoriev, Semikhatov and Tipunin built in flat space (ref [26]), and the extension is not cosmetic. The embedding-space covariantization, the shift Y -> Y+V in the constraint generators, and the sp(4) subalgebra that now includes the extra generators S-bar-dagger, h and the rest are real work. The payoff is that one BRST operator (4.14) reduces both to the Fronsdal/Buchbinder-Pashnev-Tsulaia BRST description and to Vasiliev's unfolded form, with two intermediate systems along the way that are new formulations in their own right. The appendices do the cohomology honestly: Propositions 3.1, 4.2, 4.4, 4.5 come with proofs, and the component equations (4.38, 4.43, 4.52, 4.61) are written out. I could follow the structure and check internal consistency; I did not redo the algebra in C.1-C.2 line by line, and I doubt many referees will either, but nothing I checked looked wrong or hand-waved past a hard step. One place where the paper is more careful than it needs to be: the discussion around (4.33), where the naive xi-elimination fails to be nilpotent off the trace constraint and the authors introduce Omega_mod to fix it. That is the kind of detail people usually bury; here it is stated plainly. On the reader's worry about the local-only surface reduction in Section 3.3: I think that concern is overstated. The authors say outright that the radial elimination is local and loses geometric data, and that the AdS parent theory is not equivalent as a local field theory to the flat theory in one dimension more. But the AdS parent theory is then defined intrinsically by the data (3.17) on AdS, so nilpotency and the reductions do not inherit the locality caveat. The stress-test note is right on this. The genuine soft spot is the end of Section 4.4.3: (4.61) is said to coincide with Vasiliev's equations 'up to conventions and normalization factors', and that identification is by structural comparison (rectangular two-row Young tableaux, matching equation shape), not by an explicit dictionary. If a coefficient in (4.59) or (4.60) or the projector PR is off, the claim weakens from 'reaches Vasiliev' to 'reaches something of the same type'. The structural evidence is strong enough that I would not call this a flaw, but it is the step a referee should actually check. Who should read it: anyone working on unfolded formulations, BRST first-quantized higher spin, or the relation between Lagrangian and unfolded descriptions on constant curvature. It is a tool-building paper, not a result that will travel outside the subfield. Worth a serious referee, and worth citing if you work in this corner.

The strongest objection

The paper's central claim is that the BRST operator (4.14) defines a parent theory whose two reductions reproduce Fronsdal's and Vasiliev's formulations. The Fronsdal reduction is matched to the published BRST operator of [37] up to conventions and sign (Section 4.3.2), which is supported. The Vasiliev reduction culminates in (4.61), which the paper says 'Up to conventions and normalization factors, these equations indeed coincide with the unfolded form of higher spin equations [39,27].' This identification is by structural comparison (field content matches: rectangular Young tableaux, two-row; equation shape matches), not by an explicit dictionary. If the coefficients in (4.59)/(4.60) or the projector P_R are off, the reduced system would be a different (though similar) unfolded system, and the claim 'reaches Vasiliev's formulation' would weaken to 'reaches a formulation of the same type.' The structural evidence is strong, so this is a moderate concern, not a fatal one. Separately, the reader's weakest assumption (the local-only surface reduction of Section 3.3) is explicitly acknowledged by the authors ('valid only locally and that geometrical data is lost'; 'does not mean that the parent theory on AdS is equivalent, as a local field theory, to the flat theory in one dimension more'). The AdS parent theory is defined intrinsically by the data (3.17) on AdS, so its nilpotency and reductions do not depend on the surface reduction being globally valid; the reader's claim that 'every downstream claim inherits this local-only status' is not quite right.

The paper is technically solid: the parent BRST operator is built from a flat connection and a cited sp(4) subalgebra (4.16), the cohomology computations are given in the appendices, and the field content of the unfolded reduction matches the known spectrum. The reader's weakest assumption is a real acknowledged limitation, but it is mischaracterized in scope: the AdS parent theory is defined intrinsically by (3.17) data on AdS, so its consistency does not depend on the surface reduction being globally valid. The genuine soft spot is the 'up to conventions and normalization factors' matching to Vasiliev's unfolded equations (4.61), which is asserted rather than proven by an explicit dictionary. This is a real but not verdict-changing gap, since the structural match (rectangular Young tableaux, two-row, equation shape) is strong evidence. Minor presentational gaps: the 'terms cubic in ghosts' in (4.14) are not written explicitly (they are determined by the algebra (4.16)), and the abstract's 'straightforward reductions' understates the intricacy of Appendix C.2. Neither is load-bearing. The verdict should remain ACCEPT with MODERATE confidence; the concrete test above would settle whether the Vasiliev identification is as tight as claimed.

The referee's report

If the construction holds, it is a genuinely useful structural result: a single geometrically transparent object from which both the Fronsdal-type BRST formulation and Vasiliev's unfolded formulation of free higher spins on AdS follow by elimination of generalized auxiliary fields. The paper's stated motivation, relating Vasiliev's interacting theory to a Lagrangian formulation, makes this a timely contribution. The strengths are the explicit cohomological proofs in the appendices, the explicit component equations (4.38), (4.43), (4.52), (4.61), and the new intermediate systems of Sections 4.3.1 and 4.4.2, which are formulations in their own right. The paper is a derivation paper with no numerical or code artifacts; its value is structural and its claims are of the kind that can be checked line by line, which the appendices largely permit.

Pith's reading of the paper (a machine's summary, not the authors')

Free higher-spin gauge fields on anti-de Sitter space have historically been described in two quite different languages: Fronsdal's metric-like wave equations with carefully chosen auxiliary fields, and Vasiliev's unfolded formulation, a first-order free differential algebra in which the fields are organized by their behaviour under the isometry algebra. The two descriptions were known to encode the same physics but not to be reachable from one another by an explicit, step-by-step map. This paper builds a third object, a first-order 'parent' theory formulated on a flat embedding space with the anti-de Sitter surface imposed, and shows that each of the two known formulations is obtained from it by eliminating a different set of fields that the authors prove to be pure gauge or algebraically determined. The interest is not only bookkeeping: if the same parent object touches both languages, then questions posed in one language can be translated into the other, which is exactly what is needed to ask whether Vasiliev's interacting theory admits an ordinary Lagrangian description.

What carries the argument. The load-bearing device is the consistent reduction of a first-quantized BRST system, stated as Proposition 2.1: if the BRST operator couples a subspace $G$ to a subspace $F$ through an algebraically invertible block, the block can be solved away and the system descends to a smaller one, with the reduced differential given by the Schur-complement formula $tilde Omega = Omega^{EE} - Omega^{EF}(Omega^{GF})^{-1}Omega^{GE}$. Applied repeatedly at the level of the first-quantized operator, this turns 'this field is auxiliary' or 'this field is pure gauge' into a homological computation, and it is what licenses the paper to call both reductions 'straightforward'. The second device is the embedding-space construction itself: the anti-de Sitter surface $eta_{AB}X^A X^B + l^2 = 0$ is imposed by treating the radial direction as an internal degree of freedom, and a flat Fedosov-type connection $omega$ with covariantly constant vielbein $e$ and section $V$ (satisfying $dV+omega V=e$) is used to make the whole construction generally covariant before the surface is reached.

Core claim. The paper's central claim is that the nilpotent BRST operator $T$ of equation (4.14), built from the flat-space higher-spin first-quantized particle model extended by embedding-space variables $Y^A$, conjugate momenta $P_A$, and ghosts $c_0,c,c^dagger,xi,mu,nu$, defines a consistent first-order parent field theory for free higher-spin gauge fields on anti-de Sitter space, and that the two known free formulations are its consistent reductions. The constraint algebra carried by this operator is the subalgebra of $sp(4)$ generated by $L=P^2$, $T=a^2$, $S=-Pa$, $S^dagger=-Pa^dagger$, $h=a^dagger a+(Y+V)P$ and $bar S^dagger=(Y+V)a$, with the shift $Y to Y+V$ distinguishing the curved case from the flat one. Reducing to the cohomology of the trace part $Omega_{trace}=c_0 Box + c^dagger S + xi T$ leaves totally traceless fields; reducing further to the cohomology of the $sl(2)$-type operator built from $mu$ and $nu$ gives an intermediate system whose equations are $(nabla+sigma)hat A=0$ and $(nabla+sigma)hat F=-S^dagger hat A$; and the final reduction produces the unfolded equations $(nabla+sigma)F=0$ and $(nabla+sigma)A+sigma bar sigma P_R F=0$. Going the other way, eliminating the embedding-space variables and the ghosts $z,w,mu,nu$ produces the intrinsic-coordinate BRST operator $Omega_{mod}$ of equation (4.33), which the authors identify with the known metric-like description up to conventions and an overall sign.

The premise it rests on. The step that turns the flat embedding-space system into a theory living on anti-de Sitter space works only locally, and the authors say so explicitly: eliminating the radial coordinate loses geometric information, so the anti-de Sitter parent theory is not equivalent as a local field theory to the flat theory in one dimension more, and every reduction downstream inherits that local-only status.

If the paper is right (Pith's inferences, not the authors')

Fronsdal's metric-like formulation and Vasiliev's unfolded formulation of free higher-spin fields on anti-de Sitter space become two reductions of one object, so any statement proved in one language has a translation path into the other.

The intermediate systems constructed along the way, in particular the one of equations (4.43) and (4.45) with fields $hat A$ and $hat F$, are new free-field formulations with fewer variables than the parent but a simpler structure than the unfolded form.

Because the paper shows that the reduced systems arise by elimination of generalized auxiliary fields, and because Section 2.3 gives a general argument turning a Lagrangian reduced system into a Lagrangian extended one via generalized Lagrange multipliers, every formulation in the chain inherits a Lagrangian, at the level of the Batalin-Vilkovisky master action.

The same reduction machinery, applied to the flat parent theory of the authors' earlier work, is recovered as a limiting case, which fixes the normalization of the curved-space generators against the flat ones.

The explicit unfolded equations (4.59) and (4.60), written in intrinsic coordinates with the projectors $P$ and $P^0_R$ onto rectangular Young tableaux, give a concrete coefficient-level match to Vasiliev's equations, so the dictionary between the two formulations is not merely formal.

The paper's stated motivation is that a Lagrangian formulation of Vasiliev's interacting theory is not known; a reader can take the parent theory as a candidate starting point for that problem, since an interaction could in principle be deformed into the parent operator and then pushed through either reduction, but the paper does not attempt this and the deformed reduction would in general be an i

The reduction chain is a statement about free theories only. Whether the intermediate formulations survive coupling is untested here, and the paper's own remark that a reduced differential can become an infinite series with unclear convergence is the natural place to expect trouble.

The trace-removal step behaves differently on curved backgrounds than in flat space: the paper notes that $[S,bar S^dagger]=T$ forces the trace generator into the algebra, so one cannot simply impose tracelessness on the parent or intermediate states, and instead the trace must be removed by passing to cohomology. A reader comparing to the flat case should expect this as the main structural differ

The construction is dimension-agnostic in form but the cohomology statements are stated for $d+1 geq 3$ in the embedding space, so the lower-dimensional cases where higher-spin theories are often studied would need a separate check.

Check this review

Pith stored no record of this review's passes and took no fingerprint of it. Reviews made by code from 13 Nov 2026 on carry both.

How often reviews like this one are right

Reviews like this one: written by deepseek-v4.1-flash, where what was read was not recorded.

How often objections from reviews like this one are right: not yet measured

Every value above, in the review's public record (JSON)

Reviews by people

This review was written by a machine. No person has reviewed this paper on Pith yet. A scientist listed on Pith can review it for a fee, and their review is published here whatever it concludes.

Request a human review

How Pith checks papers · The full audit of this paper

The paper

Abstract

We construct a first order parent field theory for free higher spin gauge fields on constant curvature spaces. As in the previously considered flat case, both Fronsdal's and Vasiliev's unfolded formulations can be reached by two different straightforward reductions. The parent theory itself is formulated using a higher dimensional embedding space and turns out to be geometrically extremely transparent and free of the intricacies of both of its reductions.

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

abstract compiled · 2026-09-23

The authors' main claim, as the classifier picked it out 0.62

“We construct a first order parent field theory for free higher spin gauge fields on constant curvature spaces.”

How the main claim is stated: asserted 1.00

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.12 · states limitation 0.11 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.02 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.03 · compares with prior results 0.89 · mentions code or data availability 0.02

The abstract, sentence by sentence

This table labels the abstract only (arXiv listing abstract v2). The number is the probability the classifier gave the label.

SentenceRoleThe authors' own workStates the main conclusionStrength
We construct a first order parent field theory for free higher spin gauge fields on constant curvature spaces. contribution 1.00 0.96 0.54 asserted 1.00
As in the previously considered flat case, both Fronsdal's and Vasiliev's unfolded formulations can be reached by two different straightforward reductions. result 0.67 0.43 0.20 asserted 1.00
The parent theory itself is formulated using a higher dimensional embedding space and turns out to be geometrically extremely transparent and free of the intricacies of both of its reductions. result 0.37 0.89 0.36 asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.85 · evidence from proof or derivation 1.00

What was examined, and what was not

Sources read

  • arXiv listing abstract v2

Not examined

  • full text
  • figures and tables
  • references and citing sentences
  • relations to other papers

Levels run

  • P abstract

Not run

  • S sections
  • T body sentences
  • C citations
  • R cross-paper relations

How the labels were made

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 2,907 input tokens, $0.0001 reported.

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. This record as JSON

References (52)
  1. [26] G. Barnich, M. Grigoriev, A. Semikhatov, and I. Tipunin, “Parent field theory and unfolding in BRST first-quantized terms,” Commun. Math. Phys. 260 (2005) 147–181, hep-th/0406192 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  2. [50] O. V . Shaynkman and M. A. Vasiliev, “Scalar field in any dimension from the higher spin gauge theory perspective,” Theor. Math. Phys. 123 (2000) 683–700, hep-th/0003123 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  3. [37] I. L. Buchbinder, A. Pashnev, and M. Tsulaia, “Lagrangian formulation of the massless higher integer spin fields in the AdS background,” Phys. Lett. B523 (2001) 338–346, hep-th/0109067 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  4. [1] M. Fierz and W. Pauli, “On relativistic wave equations for particles of arbitrary spin in an electromagnetic field,” Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A173 (1939) 211–232 on Pith
  5. [2] L. P. S. Singh and C. R. Hagen, “Lagrangian formulation fo r arbitrary spin. 1. The boson case,” Phys. Rev. D9 (1974) 898–909 on Pith
  6. [3] C. Fronsdal, “Massless fields with integer spin,” Phys. Rev. D18 (1978) 3624 on Pith
  7. [4] C. Fronsdal, “Singletons and massless, integral spin fie lds on de Sitter space (elementary particles in a curved space VII),” Phys. Rev. D20 (1979) 848–856 on Pith
  8. [5] W. Siegel, “Covariantly second quantized string,” Phys. Lett. B142 (1984) 276 on Pith
  9. [6] W. Siegel, “Covariantly second quantized string. 2,” Phys. Lett. B149, B151 (1984, on Pith
  10. [7] W. Siegel, “Covariantly second quantized string. 3,” Phys. Lett. B149, B151 (1984, on Pith
  11. [8] W. Siegel and B. Zwiebach, “Gauge string fields,” Nucl. Phys. B263 (1986) 105. 38 BARNICH , G RIGORIEV on Pith
  12. [9] A. Neveu and P. C. West, “Gauge covariant local formulation of bosonic strings,” Nucl. Phys. B268 (1986) 125 on Pith
  13. [10] A. Neveu, H. Nicolai, and P. C. West, “Gauge covariant local formulation of free strings and superstrings,” Nucl. Phys. B264 (1986) 573 on Pith
  14. [11] E. Witten, “Noncommutative geometry and string field th eory,”Nucl. Phys. B268 (1986) 253 on Pith
  15. [12] N. Ohta, “Covariant second quantization of superstrin gs,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 56 (1986) 440 [Erratum–ibid. 56, 1316 (1986)] on Pith
  16. [13] S. P. de Alwis and N. Ohta, “All free string theories are theories of BRST cohomology,”Phys. Lett. B174 (1986) 388 on Pith
  17. [14] C. B. Thorn, “String field theory,” Phys. Rept. 175 (1989) 1–101 on Pith
  18. [15] S. Ouvry and J. Stern, “Gauge fields of any spin and symmet ry,”Phys. Lett. B177 (1986) 335 on Pith
  19. [16] A. K. H. Bengtsson, “A unified action for higher spin gaug e bosons from covariant string theory,”Phys. Lett. B182 (1986) 321 on Pith
  20. [17] M. Henneaux and C. Teitelboim, First and second quantized point particles of any spin, ch. 9, pp. 113–152. Quantum mechanics of fundamental systems 2, Centro de Estudios Cient´ ıficos de Santiago. Plenum Press, 1987 on Pith
show 32 more
  1. [18] N. Bouatta, G. Compere, and A. Sagnotti, “An introducti on to free higher-spin fields,” hep-th/0409068 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  2. [19] M. A. Vasiliev, “Nonlinear equations for symmetric massless higher spin fields in (a)dS(d),” Phys. Lett. B567 (2003) 139–151, hep-th/0304049 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  3. [20] M. A. Vasiliev, “Consistent equation for interacting gauge fields of all spins in (3+1)-dimensions,” Phys. Lett. B243 (1990) 378–382 on Pith
  4. [21] M. A. Vasiliev, “Equations of motion of interacting massless fields of all spins as a free differential algebra,” Phys. Lett. B209 (1988) 491–497 on Pith
  5. [22] M. A. Vasiliev, “Consistent equations for interacting massless fields of all spins in the first order in curvatures,” Annals Phys. 190 (1989) 59–106 on Pith
  6. [23] M. A. Vasiliev, “Conformal higher spin symmetries of 4D massless supermultiplets and osp(L,2M) invariant equations in generalized (super)space,” Phys. Rev. D66 (2002) 066006, hep-th/0106149 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  7. [24] K. B. Alkalaev, O. V . Shaynkman, and M. A. Vasiliev, “On the frame-like formulation of mixed-symmetry massless fields in (a)ds(d),” Nucl. Phys. B692 (2004) 363–393, hep-th/0311164 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  8. [25] E. Sezgin and P. Sundell, “7D bosonic higher spin theory : Symmetry algebra and linearized constraints,” Nucl. Phys. B634 (2002) 120–140, hep-th/0112100. PARENT FORM FOR HIGHER SPIN FIELDS ON ANTI -DE SITTER SPACE 39 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  9. [27] M. A. Vasiliev, “Cubic interactions of bosonic higher spin gauge fields in AdS(5),” Nucl. Phys. B616 (2001) 106–162 [Erratum–ibid. B 652, 407 (2003)], hep-th/0106200 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  10. [28] S. W. MacDowell and F. Mansouri, “Unified geometric theory of gravity and supergravity,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 38 (1977) 739 on Pith
  11. [29] K. S. Stelle and P. C. West, “Spontaneously broken de Sitter symmetry and the gravitational holonomy group,” Phys. Rev. D21 (1980) 1466 on Pith
  12. [30] X. Bekaert, S. Cnockaert, C. Iazeolla, and M. A. Vasiliev, “Nonlinear higher spin theories in various dimensions,” hep-th/0503128 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  13. [31] B. Fedosov, “Deformation quantization and index theor y,”. Berlin, Germany: Akademie-Verl. (1996) 325 p. (Mathematical topics: 9) on Pith
  14. [32] M. Bordemann, N. Neumaier, and S. Waldmann, “Homogeneo us Fedosov star products on cotangent bundles II: GNS representations, the WKB expansion, and applications,” q-alg/9711016 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  15. [33] I. A. Batalin, E. S. Fradkin, and T. E. Fradkina, “Genera lized canonical quantization of dynamical systems with constraints and curved phase space,” Nucl. Phys. B332 (1990) 723 on Pith
  16. [34] M. A. Grigoriev and S. L. Lyakhovich, “Fedosov deformat ion quantization as a BRST theory,”Commun. Math. Phys. 218 (2001) 437–457, hep-th/0003114 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  17. [35] I. A. Batalin, M. A. Grigoriev, and S. L. Lyakhovich, “Star product for second class constraint systems from a BRST theory,”Theor. Math. Phys. 128 (2001) 1109–1139, hep-th/0101089 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  18. [36] A. K. H. Bengtsson, “BRST quantization in anti-de Sitte r space and gauge fields,” Nucl. Phys. B333 (1990) 407 on Pith
  19. [38] A. Sagnotti and M. Tsulaia, “On higher spins and the tens ionless limit of string theory,”Nucl. Phys. B682 (2004) 83–116, hep-th/0311257 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  20. [39] V . E. Lopatin and M. A. Vasiliev, “Free massless bosonicfields of arbitrary spin in d- dimensional de Sitter space,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A3 (1988) 257 on Pith
  21. [40] M. R. Gaberdiel and B. Zwiebach, “Tensor constructions of open string theories I: Foundations,” Nucl. Phys. B505 (1997) 569–624, hep-th/9705038 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  22. [41] G. Barnich and M. Grigoriev, “Hamiltonian BRST and Bata lin-Vilkovisky formalisms for second quantization of gauge theories,” Commun. Math. Phys. 254 (2005) 581–601, hep-th/0310083. 40 BARNICH , G RIGORIEV on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  23. [42] A. Dresse, P. Gr´ egoire, and M. Henneaux, “Path integral equivalence between the extended and nonextended Hamiltonian formalisms,” Phys. Lett. B245 (1990) 192 on Pith
  24. [43] C. B. Thorn, “Perturbation theory for quantized string fields,” Nucl. Phys. B287 (1987) 61 on Pith
  25. [44] M. Bochicchio, “Gauge fixing for the field theory of the bo sonic string,” Phys. Lett. B193 (1987) 31 on Pith
  26. [45] M. Bochicchio, “String field theory in the Siegel gauge, ” Phys. Lett. B188 (1987) 330 on Pith
  27. [46] G. Barnich and M. Henneaux, “Isomorphisms between the B atalin-Vilkovisky antibracket and the Poisson bracket,” J. Math. Phys. 37 (1996) 5273–5296, hep-th/9601124 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  28. [47] G. Bonelli, “On the covariant quantization of tensionl ess bosonic strings in AdS spacetime,” JHEP 11 (2003) 028, hep-th/0309222 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  29. [48] G. Barnich and M. Grigoriev, “BRST extension of the non- linear unfolded formalism,” hep-th/0504119 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  30. [49] M. A. Vasiliev, “Unfolded representation for relativistic equations in (2+1) anti-De Sitter space,” Class. Quant. Grav. 11 (1994) 649–664 on Pith
  31. [51] G. Barnich, N. Bouatta, and M. Grigoriev, “Surface charges and dynamical Killing tensors for higher spin gauge fields in constant curvature spaces,” JHEP 10 (2005) 010, hep-th/0507138 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  32. [52] J.-P. Schneiders, “An introduction toD-modules,” Bull. Soc. Royale Sci. Li`ege, 63(3-4) (1994) 223–295 on Pith
Cited by 19 Pith papers

Reviewed papers on Pith that cite this one. The full citation record

  1. On matter-free Higher Spin Gravities in 3d: (partially)-massless fields and general structure hep-th · May 2020
  2. Type-B Formal Higher Spin Gravity hep-th · Apr 2018
  3. Higher Spin Extension of Fefferman-Graham Construction hep-th · Oct 2017
  4. Higher order singletons, partially massless fields and their boundary values in the ambient approach hep-th · May 2013
  5. Parent formulations, frame-like Lagrangians, and generalized auxiliary fields hep-th · Apr 2012
  6. Unified BRST approach to (partially) massless and massive AdS fields of arbitrary symmetry type hep-th · May 2011
  7. FV-type action for AdS(5) mixed-symmetry fields hep-th · Nov 2010
  8. First order parent formulation for generic gauge field theories hep-th · Sep 2010
  9. Gauge fields in (A)dS within the unfolded approach: algebraic aspects hep-th · Oct 2009
  10. Unified BRST description of AdS gauge fields hep-th · Oct 2009
  11. Manifestly Conformal Descriptions and Higher Symmetries of Bosonic Singletons hep-th · Jul 2009
  12. Massless Poincare modules and gauge invariant equations hep-th · Nov 2008
  13. Reducible higher-spin multiplets in flat and AdS spaces and their geometric frame-like formulation hep-th · Jul 2008
  14. Off-shell Gauge Fields from BRST Quantization hep-th · May 2006
  15. Uniformizing higher-spin equations hep-th · Sep 2014
  16. Holography as a Gauge Phenomenon in Higher Spin Duality hep-th · Aug 2014
  17. Notes on the ambient approach to boundary values of AdS gauge fields hep-th · Jul 2012
  18. Cubic interactions of massless higher spins in (A)dS: metric-like approach hep-th · Oct 2011
  19. Snowmass White Paper: Higher Spin Gravity and Higher Spin Symmetry hep-th · May 2022
How the literature uses it

32 arXiv papers cite this in 75 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers citing it · 44 sentences without a confident label

Builds on it 4 papers
  • As a starting point, we recall how the $(A)dS_d+1$ equations of motion can be obtained via radial dimensional reduction of [ref], [ref], [ref] [ref] , and extend the latter correspondence to the Lagrangian level.

    Ambient-space variational calculus for gauge fields on constant-curvature spacetimes · Introduction · 0.80

  • The above homological arguments showing that the linearized parent system is equivalent to the multiplet of linear fields is a straightforward generalization of those given in [ref] , which in turn are substantially based on [ref] (see also [ref] ).

    Type-B Formal Higher Spin Gravity · Off-shell System · 0.94

  • In particular, it is well suited for the extension of the BRST approaches to HS systems studied in [ref] in Cartesian coordinates in flat space or via embedding $AdS$ geometry into a higher dimensional flat space as in [ref] to any coordinates and/or more complicated geometries.

    Unfolding versus BRST and currents in Sp(2M) invariant higher-spin theory · Introduction · 0.89

Uses its method or tool 9 papers
Compares with it 2 papers
  • The only difference with [ref] is that fields are traceful and $ν^1$ is represented in the coordinate rather than the momenta representation.

    Parent formulations, frame-like Lagrangians, and generalized auxiliary fields · Off-shell constraints and gauge symmetries at the nonlinear level · 0.97

  • It is also worth mentioning that if one drops the equivalence relation in [ref], takes $V$ such that $V^2=-1$, and takes as $Φ$ a field on $AdS_n+1$ rather than $n$-dimensional conformal space, the above system is precisely the one from [ref] see also [ref] , which describes partially-massless fields on $AdS_n+1$.

    On the structure of the conformal higher-spin wave operators · Manifestly $o(n, 2)$-invariant description of CHS fields · 0.89

Cites it as background 9 papers

Challenges and discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, or challenge this review formally: a challenge becomes a permanent entry in this paper's record, and its decision is published here.

No comments yet.

Sign in to comment