pith. sign in

arxiv: 2607.02495 · v1 · pith:NLCEEJ42new · submitted 2026-07-02 · ✦ hep-th

BRST-BV approach to fields in Poincare patch of AdS

R.R. Metsaev This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-04 02:49 UTC · model glm-5.2

classification ✦ hep-th
keywords BRST-BV formalismAnti-de Sitter spacehigher-spin fieldspartially-massless fieldscontinuous-spin fieldsosp(d,1|2) algebraPoincaré patchdefining equations
0
0 comments X

The pith

AdS field Lagrangians reduce to algebra

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

The paper claims that the BRST-BV Lagrangian for free fields in the Poincaré patch of Anti-de Sitter space can be built from a single universal BRST charge Q whose form is fixed once a particular spin operator B_Â is known. The operator B_Â is itself determined by a set of purely algebraic equations (the defining equations, Eq. 2.8), so constructing the full Lagrangian—including gauge transformations and the AdS mass operator—reduces to solving those algebraic equations rather than working through differential-geometric or field-theoretic machinery. The author applies this framework to totally symmetric massless, massive, and partially-massless fields of arbitrary integer spin, and to continuous-spin fields, providing explicit solutions for B_Â in each case. Both constrained (traceless) and unconstrained formulations are developed, and the resulting BRST-BV Lagrangian is shown to match the metric-like Lagrangian written in terms of the modified de Donder divergence. A realization of the full so(d,2) AdS symmetry algebra on the space of fields and antifields is also given.

Core claim

The central object is the spin operator B_Â, which satisfies the defining equations (2.8)—a closed set of algebraic (anti)commutation relations involving B_Â, the osp(d,1|2) generators M_ÂB, and the second-order Casimir C₂ of so(d,2). Once B_Â is found, it determines the AdS mass operator A (Eq. 2.7), which in turn fixes the BRST charge Q (Eq. 2.4), and hence the entire BRST-BV Lagrangian. The paper provides explicit solutions: B_Â = 0 for massless fields, a nontrivial oscillator expression for massive and partially-massless fields (Eq. 4.24), and another for continuous-spin fields (Eq. 5.6). The framework also yields a BRST-BV form of the fourth-order Casimir C₄ of so(d,2) (Eq. 2.15), whose

What carries the argument

BRST-BV formalism with antifields; osp(d,1|2) superalgebra generators M_ÂB as spin operators; the defining algebraic equations (2.8) for the spin operator B_Â; Poincaré parametrization of AdS; oscillator realizations of the relevant algebras

If this is right

  • If the defining equations (2.8) remain tractable for mixed-symmetry fields, the framework would give a uniform Lagrangian construction for all bosonic AdS fields without case-by-case differential-geometric work.
  • The algebraic nature of the construction makes it a natural starting point for studying interactions, since cubic and higher vertices in the BRST-BV approach are built from the same nilpotent charge Q.
  • The uniform solutions (valid for towers of fields) could streamline AdS/CFT calculations where infinite towers of higher-spin fields appear.
  • The BRST-BV realization of so(d,2) symmetries on the field-antifield space provides a systematic way to verify representation-theoretic data (Casimir eigenvalues, unitarity bounds) directly from the Lagrangian.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The fact that B_Â = 0 for massless fields but is nontrivial for massive, partially-massless, and continuous-spin fields suggests that B_Â encodes the departure from the massless (highest-symmetry) case, and its complexity tracks how far a field is from being gauge-theoretically trivial.
  • If the defining equations (2.8) can be reformulated as representation-theoretic conditions on osp(d,1|2) modules, one might classify all admissible AdS field types by the representation content of B_Â rather than by solving the equations case by case.
  • The matching with the modified de Donder divergence suggests that the modified de Donder gauge is the natural gauge condition associated with this BRST-BV structure, which could simplify perturbative calculations in higher-spin theory.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that the algebraic defining equations for the spin operator B_Â can always be solved in closed form for arbitrary field symmetry types, but provides explicit solutions only for totally symmetric fields; whether the equations remain tractable for mixed-symmetry fields is not addressed.

What would settle it

If the defining equations (2.8) fail to admit consistent solutions for mixed-symmetry fields, or if the resulting BRST charge fails to be nilpotent beyond the totally symmetric sector, the claim of a universal framework would be undermined.

read the original abstract

We use the Poincare parametrization of AdS space to develop a general BRST-BV approach for free fields. A general expression for the BRST-BV Lagrangian of fields with arbitrary masses and symmetry types is obtained. We apply this general framework to study totally symmetric massless, massive, and partially-massless fields with arbitrary integer spin and a continuous-spin field. For these fields, both the constrained and unconstrained BRST-BV formulations are developed. In addition, we demonstrate the matching between the obtained BRST-BV Lagrangian and the metric-like Lagrangian formulated in terms of the modified de Donder divergence. Finally, a realization of AdS space symmetries is obtained within the space of fields and antifields entering the BRST-BV formulation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 9 minor

Summary. The paper develops a BRST-BV Lagrangian formulation for free fields in the Poincaré patch of AdS, using a universal BRST charge Q (Eq. 2.4) whose form is determined by algebraic defining equations (2.8) for a spin operator B_Â. The framework is applied to totally symmetric massless, massive, partially-massless, and continuous-spin fields, with both constrained and unconstrained formulations. The author verifies consistency through Casimir eigenvalue matching (C₂ and C₄) and demonstrates matching with previously obtained metric-like Lagrangians in Appendix D. The approach builds on the author's prior light-cone gauge and metric-like results (Refs. [4,5,6,7,8]).

Significance. The paper provides a unified algebraic framework for constructing BRST-BV Lagrangians in AdS, reducing the problem to solving the defining equations (2.8) for the spin operator B_Â. The explicit closed-form solutions for totally symmetric fields (massless, massive, partially-massless, continuous-spin) in Sections 3–5, including both constrained and unconstrained formulations, constitute a concrete and falsifiable contribution. The matching with metric-like Lagrangians (Appendix D) and the verification of C₄ Casimir eigenvalues provide independent checks. The uniform solutions valid for towers of fields are a notable feature with potential applications to higher-spin theory.

major comments (3)
  1. Remark v after Eq. (2.10) states that relations (2.6)–(2.8) are 'determined by requiring Q²=0 and the invariance of the action under the relativistic so(d,2) symmetry,' but the derivation is not shown. Moreover, Q²=0 is not directly verified for any of the explicit solutions in Sections 3–5. The indirect checks (Casimir eigenvalue matching, metric-like Lagrangian matching) are valuable but do not by themselves establish nilpotency. For the massless case, B_Â=0 (Eq. 3.6) makes Q²=0 plausible, but for the massive/partially-massless case (Eq. 4.24) and the continuous-spin case (Eq. 5.6), where B_Â is nontrivial, a direct verification (or at least an explicit sketch) that Q²=0 holds on-shell or off-shell would substantially strengthen the central claim. At minimum, the author should clarify whether Q²=0 holds in the strong sense or only modulo constraints, and what additional conditions (if)
  2. The abstract and Section 6 state that the framework applies to fields of 'arbitrary symmetry types,' but explicit solutions for B_Â are provided only for totally symmetric fields (Sections 3–5), where the identity (2.16) reduces the nonlinear defining equation (2.8) to the linear equation (2.17). For mixed-symmetry fields, (2.16) does not hold and (2.8) remains a genuinely nonlinear system. The paper does not address whether solutions exist or are constructible in this case. The universality claim would be more accurately stated as applying in principle to arbitrary symmetry types, with explicit verification deferred to future work.
  3. In Section 4.1, remark iii, the author notes that the solution for B_Â (4.24) is valid only on the space of fields satisfying the tracelessness constraint (4.23), implying that Q is nilpotent only on that subspace. This is a weaker result than the massless case where B_Â=0 satisfies (2.17) in the strong sense. The author mentions that a strong-sense solution is 'presented below' but it is unclear where this is done; the unconstrained formulation in Section 4.2 appears to use the same b and b̄ operators. Clarification of where the strong-sense solution appears, or whether it is only partially achieved, is needed.
minor comments (9)
  1. The manuscript contains internal references to unpublished notes, e.g., '(02062026-man-41)' and '(02062026-man-45)' in remarks i and ii after Eq. (2.10). These should be replaced with proper references or removed.
  2. In Section 3.1, there are two remarks both labeled 'i)', and three remarks labeled 'iv)'. Similar numbering issues appear in Section 4.1 (two 'iv)' labels). These should be corrected.
  3. In Section 4.2, the text references '(3.14)' when describing the field content of the unconstrained massive formulation, but the relevant equations are (4.31). This appears to be a copy-paste error.
  4. In Section 5.2, the same issue occurs: the text references '(5.8)' correctly but the shortcut notation 'φ^{η,ρ}_k' is said to be defined in '(3.14)' rather than '(5.8)'.
  5. The reference to 'Ref.' without a number appears in Section 3.1, remark i: 'As noted in Ref., for totally symmetric massless field, the light-cone gauge cousin of the operator B_Â is equal to zero.' A reference should be inserted.
  6. In Appendix D, Eq. (D.1), the notation for the vielbein and spin connection could benefit from a brief clarification of how DA relates to the Poincaré patch coordinates used in the main text, since the main text uses ∂_a and z while Appendix D uses curved indices.
  7. The paper would benefit from a brief discussion of how the kernel K (appearing in Eq. 2.3 and Appendix E) is determined, beyond stating that K=1 for the constrained formulation. The conditions fixing K in the unconstrained case are not clearly stated.
  8. Typo in Section 1: 'The papers is organized as follows.' should read 'The paper is organized as follows.'
  9. In Eq. (2.7), the term '−M_ÂB̂ M_B̂Â' involves a sum over repeated indices; a brief note on the grading conventions for this contraction would help the reader, given the osp(d,1|2) structure.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful reading and constructive comments. We address each major comment in turn and indicate revisions to be made in the revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Remark v after Eq. (2.10) states that relations (2.6)–(2.8) are 'determined by requiring Q²=0 and the invariance of the action under the relativistic so(d,2) symmetry,' but the derivation is not shown. Moreover, Q²=0 is not directly verified for any of the explicit solutions in Sections 3–5. The indirect checks (Casimir eigenvalue matching, metric-like Lagrangian matching) are valuable but do not by themselves establish nilpotency. For the massless case, B_Â=0 (Eq. 3.6) makes Q²=0 plausible, but for the massive/partially-massless case (Eq. 4.24) and the continuous-spin case (Eq. 5.6), where B_Â is nontrivial, a direct verification (or at least an explicit sketch) that Q²=0 holds on-shell or off-shell would substantially strengthen the central claim. At minimum, the author should clarify whether Q²=0 holds in the strong sense or only modulo constraints, and what additional conditions (if

    Authors: The referee is correct that the derivation of the defining equations (2.6)–(2.8) from Q²=0 is not shown in the manuscript, and that direct nilpotency verification for the nontrivial solutions is absent. We will address this in the revision. Specifically: (1) We will add an appendix or a subsection sketching how Q²=0, combined with the requirement of so(d,2) invariance, leads to the defining equations (2.8). The key steps are: expanding Q² in powers of θ, η, and ∂_θ; requiring each coefficient to vanish independently; and using the osp(d,1|2) algebra relations to organize the resulting conditions into the compact form (2.8). (2) Regarding the status of nilpotency for the explicit solutions: we will clarify that for the massless case (B_Â=0), Q²=0 holds in the strong sense (off-shell, without imposing any constraints), as noted in remark i of Section 3.1. For the massive/partially-massless constrained formulation (Section 4.1), we will state explicitly that Q²=0 holds only on the subspace defined by the tracelessness constraint (4.23), as acknowledged in remark iii. For the continuous-spin constrained case (Section 5.1), the situation is analogous: nilpotency holds on the constrained subspace. (3) For the unconstrained formulations (Sections 3.2, 4.2, 5.2), the elimination of the tracelessness constraint via dressed oscillators is designed to restore strong-sense nilpotency. We will add an explicit remark confirming this and sketching the argument: in the unconstrained formulation, the dressed oscillators absorb the trace terms that spoiled strong nilpotency, so that Q²=0 holds off-shell without constraints. (4) We agree that the indirect checks (Casimir eigenvalue matching, metric-like Lagrangian matching) do not by themselves constitute a proof of nilpotency; they serve revision: no

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity found; self-citations provide framework but central construction has independent content verified against external benchmarks

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain — BRST charge Q (2.4) → AdS mass operator A (2.7) → defining equations for B_Â (2.8) → explicit solutions (3.6, 4.24, 5.6) — does not reduce to its inputs by construction. The defining equations (2.8) are stated to follow from Q²=0 and so(d,2) invariance (remark v), and while this derivation is not exhibited explicitly, the solutions are verified against independent data: C₂ and C₄ Casimir eigenvalues from group theory (Eqs. 3.9, D.7-D.9) and matching with metric-like Lagrangians from [4,5,72] (Appendix D). The self-citations to Metsaev's prior work [4,5,6,7,8] provide the conceptual framework (defining equations concept, metric-like Lagrangians, light-cone gauge results) but the BRST-BV construction is genuinely new — the defining equations (2.8) are the BRST-BV counterpart of the light-cone gauge equations, involving different operator structures. The metric-like matching in Appendix D is a consistency check between two independent formulations, not a circular input. The score of 2 reflects the presence of self-citations that frame the approach, but these are not load-bearing in the circular sense: the central claim does not reduce to a self-citation chain, and the explicit solutions carry independent content verified against external benchmarks. The unaddressed solvability of (2.8) for mixed-symmetry fields is a completeness limitation, not a circularity issue.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 2 invented entities

The framework introduces one genuinely new entity (B_Â) and one new structural result (defining equations 2.8). All parameters (E0, m², t, p, q) are representation-theoretic labels, not fitted constants. The axioms are standard BRST and AdS symmetry requirements. No ad hoc constructions are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • E0 (energy parameter) = determined by representation theory (Eq. D.8)
    Not a free parameter in the usual sense; fixed by the so(d,2) representation label for massive fields.
  • m² (mass parameter) = input from representation theory
    Enters the operator B_Nζ (Eq. 4.25) for massive fields; fixed by the choice of representation.
  • t (depth parameter) = integer 1,...,s-1 for partially-massless
    Enters B_Nζ (Eq. 4.25) for partially-massless fields; fixed by representation theory.
  • p, q (continuous-spin labels) = real parameters (Eq. D.9)
    Replace E0 and s for continuous-spin fields; enter B_Nυ (Eq. 5.6). Fixed by representation theory.
axioms (5)
  • standard math Q² = 0 (nilpotency of BRST charge)
    Invoked in remark v after Eq. 2.11 as the condition determining relations (2.6)-(2.8). Standard BRST requirement.
  • domain assumption Invariance under so(d,2) relativistic symmetry
    Invoked in remark v after Eq. 2.11 alongside Q²=0 as the condition fixing the form of the operators. Standard for AdS fields.
  • standard math osp(d,1|2) representation theory fixes M_ÂB̂
    Stated after Eq. 2.4: operators M_ηa, M_ηη are generators of osp(d,1|2) fixed by representation theory.
  • domain assumption Tracelessness constraint (3.5)/(4.23) for constrained formulation
    Imposed in Secs. 3.1, 4.1, 5.1 to select physical degrees of freedom. Standard in higher-spin theory.
  • domain assumption Modified de Donder divergence as gauge condition
    Used in Appendix D to match BRST-BV and metric-like Lagrangians. Based on author's prior work [4,5].
invented entities (2)
  • Spin operator B_Â independent evidence
    purpose: Central new operator entering the AdS mass operator (2.7) and BRST charge (2.4); satisfies defining equations (2.8).
    Falsifiable: its eigenvalues feed into C₄ Casimir (2.15), which is verified against group-theoretic predictions in Secs. 3-5. Also matched to metric-like Lagrangian in Appendix D.
  • Defining equations (2.8) for B_Â independent evidence
    purpose: Algebraic equations that replace the problem of constructing the BRST charge with a purely algebraic problem.
    The equations are derived from Q²=0 and so(d,2) invariance, not postulated. Solutions are verified for multiple field types.

pith-pipeline@v1.0.0 · 34570 in / 3170 out tokens · 182534 ms · 2026-07-04T02:49:06.185398+00:00 · methodology

Review history (4 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 86 canonical work pages · 49 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Gauge Invariance in Field Theory and Statistical Physics in Operator Formalism

    C. Becchi, A. Rouet and R. Stora, Phys. Lett. B 52, 344 (1974). I. V . Tyutin, “Gauge Invariance in Field Theory and Statistical Physics in Operator Formalism,” Lebe- dev Inst. preprint, No 39 (1975) [arXiv:0812.0580 [hep-th] ]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1974

  2. [2]

    Siegel, Phys

    W. Siegel, Phys. Lett. B 149, 157 (1984) [Phys. Lett. B 151, 391 (1985)]. W. Siegel, Phys. Lett. B 149, 162 (1984) [Phys. Lett. 151B, 396 (1985)]. H. Hata, K. Itoh, T. Kugo, H. Kunitomo and K. Ogawa, Phys. Lett . B 172, 186 (1986). A. Neveu and P . C. West, Phys. Lett. B 168, 192 (1986)

    1984

  3. [3]

    I. A. Batalin and G. A. Vilkovisky, Phys. Lett. B 102, 27 (1981). I. A. Batalin and G. A. Vilkovisky, Phys. Rev. D 28, 2567 (1983) [Phys. Rev. D 30, 508 (1984)]

    1981

  4. [4]

    R. R. Metsaev, Phys. Lett. B 671, 128 (2009) [arXiv:0808.3945 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  5. [5]

    R. R. Metsaev, Phys. Lett. B 682, 455 (2010) [arXiv:0907.2207 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  6. [6]

    R. R. Metsaev, Nucl. Phys. B 563 (1999), 295-348 [arXiv:hep-th/9906217 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  7. [7]

    R. R. Metsaev, Phys. Lett. B 590 (2004), 95-104 [arXiv:hep-th/0312297 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  8. [8]

    R. R. Metsaev, Phys. Lett. B 793 (2019), 134-140 [arXiv:1903.10495 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  9. [9]

    M. A. V asiliev, Phys. Lett. B 243 (1990), 378-382 M. A. V asiliev, Phys. Lett. B567 (2003), 139-151 [arXiv:hep-th/0304049 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1990

  10. [10]

    Y . A. Tatarenko and M. A. V asiliev, JHEP 07 (2024), 246 [arXiv:2405.02452 [hep-th]]. Y . A. Tatarenko, Nucl. Phys. B1021 (2025), 117205 [arXiv:2509.02364 [hep-th]]

    work page arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    V . E. Didenko and I. S. Faliakhov, Phys. Rev. D 112 (2025) no.10, 106010 [arXiv:2509.01477]. I. S. Faliakhov, [arXiv:2606.04626 [hep-th]]

    work page arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    V . E. Didenko and N. K. Dosmanbetov, [arXiv:2605.12359 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  13. [13]

    A. V . Korybut, Eur. Phys. J. C 85 (2025) no.8, 885 [arXiv:2505.13125 [hep-th]]

    work page arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    O. A. Gelfond and M. A. V asiliev, [arXiv:2509.22852 [he p-th]]

    work page arXiv

  15. [15]

    V . E. Didenko and A. V . Korybut, JHEP 01 (2022), 125 [arXiv:2110.02256 [hep-th]]

    work page arXiv 2022

  16. [16]

    Skvortsov and Y

    E. Skvortsov and Y . Yin, JHEP 12 (2025), 099 [arXiv:2508.18804 [hep-th]]

    work page arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Amplitudes in self-dual (higher-spin) theories

    M. Serrani and E. Skvortsov, [arXiv:2604.24873 [hep-t h]]. M. Serrani, JHEP 08 (2025), 032 [arXiv:2505.12839 [hep-th]]; [arXiv:2602.12 826 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Guarini, JHEP 06 (2026), 034 [arXiv:2603.06044 [hep-th]]

    R. Guarini, JHEP 06 (2026), 034 [arXiv:2603.06044 [hep-th]]

    work page arXiv 2026

  19. [19]

    M. Cho, E. Joung, T. Oh and T. Tran, [arXiv:2605.27956 [h ep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  20. [20]

    Misuna, D

    N. Misuna, D. Ponomarev and A. Solomin, [arXiv:2604.13 646 [hep-th]]

  21. [21]

    Higher-spin self-dual gravity from holomorphic planes in twistor space

    N. Boulanger, Y . Herfray, L. Mason and N. Parrini, [arXi v:2606.19173 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  22. [22]

    E. I. Buchbinder, S. M. Kuzenko and I. B. Samsonov, [arXi v:2509.06604 [hep-th]]

    work page arXiv

  23. [23]

    A. K. H. Bengtsson, Nucl. Phys. B 333, 407 (1990)

    1990

  24. [24]

    I.L.Buchbinder, A.Pashnev, M.Tsulaia, Phys. Lett. B 523, 338 (2001) [arXiv:hep-th/0109067]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  25. [25]

    K. B. Alkalaev and M. Grigoriev, Nucl. Phys. B 835, 197 (2010) [arXiv:0910.2690 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  26. [26]

    Bekaert, N

    X. Bekaert, N. Boulanger, Y . Goncharov and M. Grigoriev , J. Math. Phys. 65 (2024) no.4, 042301

    2024

  27. [27]

    R. R. Metsaev, Nucl. Phys. B 936 (2018), 320-351 [arXiv:1807.07542 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  28. [28]

    Causality of higher-spin interactions on the (A)dS lightcone, with application to the static patch,

    J. Kozaki, J. Lang and Y . Neiman, JHEP 05 (2026), 128 [arXiv:2510.22532 [hep-th]]. J. Kozaki and Y . Neiman, [arXiv:2606.17380 [hep-th]]

    work page arXiv 2026

  29. [29]

    Light-Front Bootstrap for Chern-Simons Matter Theories,

    E. Skvortsov, JHEP 06 (2019), 058 [arXiv:1811.12333 [hep-th]]

    work page arXiv 2019

  30. [30]

    de Mello Koch, G

    R. de Mello Koch, G. Kemp and H. J. R. V an Zyl, JHEP 04 (2024), 079 [arXiv:2403.07606 [hep-th]]. R. de Mello Koch and H. J. R. V an Zyl, JHEP 09 (2024), 022 [arXiv:2406.18248 [hep-th]]; R. de Mello Koch, P . Roy and H. J. R. V an Zyl, JHEP 07 (2024), 086 [arXiv:2405.04148 [hep-th]]; JHEP 06 (2024), 081 [arXiv:2403.19391 [hep-th]]. JHEP 09 (2024), 195 [ar...

    work page arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    A. K. H. Bengtsson, Phys. Lett. B 182 (1986), 321-325

    1986

  32. [32]

    A. I. Pashnev, Theor. Math. Phys. 78 (1989), 272-277

    1989

  33. [33]

    On the geometry of higher-spin gauge fields

    D. Francia and A. Sagnotti, Class. Quant. Grav. 20 (2003), S473-S486 [arXiv:hep-th/0212185]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  34. [34]

    On higher spins and the tensionless limit of String Theory

    A. Sagnotti and M. Tsulaia, Nucl. Phys. B 682 (2004), 83-116 [arXiv:hep-th/0311257 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  35. [35]

    D. P . Sorokin and M. A. V asiliev, Nucl. Phys. B 809 (2009), 110-157 [arXiv:0807.0206 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  36. [36]

    Supersymmetric Reducible Higher-Spin Multiplets in Various Dimensions

    D. Sorokin and M. Tsulaia, Nucl. Phys. B 929 (2018), 216-242 [arXiv:1801.04615 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  37. [37]

    Maxwell-like Lagrangians for higher spins

    A. Campoleoni and D. Francia, JHEP 03 (2013), 168 [arXiv:1206.5877 [hep-th]]. D. Francia, G. L. Monaco and K. Mkrtchyan, JHEP 04 (2017), 068 [arXiv:1611.00292 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  38. [38]

    S. E. Konstein and M. A. V asiliev, Nucl. Phys. B 331 (1990), 475-499

    1990

  39. [39]

    R. R. Metsaev, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 6, 2411 (1991)

    1991

  40. [40]

    More on Quantum Chiral Higher Spin Gravity,

    E. Skvortsov, T. Tran and M. Tsulaia, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) no.10, 106001 [arXiv:2002.08487]. E. D. Skvortsov, T. Tran, M. Tsulaia, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, no. 3, 031601 (2018) [arXiv:1805.00048]

    work page arXiv 2020

  41. [41]

    Y . M. Zinoviev, [arXiv:hep-th/0108192 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  42. [42]

    Y . M. Zinoviev, Nucl. Phys. B 808 (2009), 185-204 [arXiv:0808.1778 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  43. [43]

    D. S. Ponomarev and M. A. V asiliev, Nucl. Phys. B 839 (2010), 466-498 [arXiv:1001.0062 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  44. [44]

    I. L. Buchbinder and V . A. Krykhtin, Nucl. Phys. B 727, 537 (2005) [hep-th/0505092]. I. L. Buchbinder, V . A. Krykhtin, P . M. Lavrov, Nucl. Phys. B762, 344 (2007) hep-th/0608005

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  45. [45]

    A.J.Fegebank and S.M.Kuzenko, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) no.10, 105014 [arXiv:2406.02573] E. I. Buchbinder, A. J. Fegebank and S. M. Kuzenko, [arXiv:26 04.19155 [hep-th]]

    work page arXiv 2024

  46. [46]

    Null Propagation of Partially Massless Higher Spins in (A)dS and Cosmological Constant Speculations

    S. Deser and A. Waldron, Phys. Lett. B 513 (2001), 137-141 [arXiv:hep-th/0105181 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  47. [47]

    E.D.Skvortsov and M.A.V asiliev, Nucl. Phys. B 756 (2006), 117-147 [arXiv:hep-th/0601095]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  48. [48]

    R. R. Metsaev, Phys. Lett. B 839 (2023), 137790 [arXiv:2212.14728 [hep-th]]

    work page arXiv 2023

  49. [49]

    I. L. Buchbinder, S. A. Fedoruk and V . A. Krykhtin, Eur. P hys. J. C 86 (2026) no.5, 544

    2026

  50. [50]

    Basile, S

    T. Basile, S. Dhasmana and E. Skvortsov, JHEP 05 (2023), 136 [arXiv:2212.06226 [hep-th]]

    work page arXiv 2023

  51. [51]

    Supersymmetric Partially Massless Fields and Non-Unitary Superconformal Representations

    S. Garcia-Saenz, K. Hinterbichler and R. A. Rosen, JHEP 11 (2018), 166 [arXiv:1810.01881]. N.Bittermann, S.Garcia-Saenz, K.Hinterbichler, R.Rosen , JHEP 08 (2021), 115 [arXiv:2011.05994]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  52. [52]

    Buchbinder, M.Khabarov, T

    I.L. Buchbinder, M.Khabarov, T. Snegirev, Y . Zinoviev, JHEP 08 (2019), 116 [arXiv:1904.01959]

    work page arXiv 2019

  53. [53]

    Partially-massless higher-spin algebras and their finite-dimensional truncations

    E. Joung and K. Mkrtchyan, JHEP 1601, 003 (2016) [arXiv:1508.07332 [hep-th]]. C. Brust and K. Hinterbichler, JHEP 02 (2017), 086 [arXiv:1610.08510 [hep-th]]. C. Brust and K. Hinterbichler, JHEP 01 (2017), 126 [arXiv:1610.08522]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  54. [54]

    V . A. Letsios, J. Phys. A 57 (2024) no.13, 135401 [arXiv:2206.09851 [hep-th]]. V . A. Letsios, JHEP05 (2023), 015 [arXiv:2303.00420 [hep-th]]

    work page arXiv 2024

  55. [55]

    On the cubic interactions of massive and partially-massless higher spins in (A)dS

    E. Joung, L. Lopez and M. Taronna, JHEP 07 (2012), 041 [arXiv:1203.6578 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  56. [56]

    Joung, K

    E. Joung, K. Mkrtchyan and G. Poghosyan, JHEP 07 (2019), 116 [arXiv:1904.05915 [hep-th]]

    work page arXiv 2019

  57. [57]

    Non-abelian cubic vertices for higher-spin fields in anti-de Sitter space

    N. Boulanger, D. Ponomarev and E. D. Skvortsov, JHEP 05 (2013), 008 [arXiv:1211.6979 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  58. [58]

    Y . M. Zinoviev, JHEP 10 (2025), 132 [arXiv:2507.05744 [hep-th]]

    work page arXiv 2025

  59. [59]

    A Gauge Field Theory of Continuous-Spin Particles

    P . Schuster and N. Toro, JHEP 10 (2013), 061 [arXiv:1302.3225 [hep-th]]. P . Schuster and N. Toro, Phys. Rev. D 91, 025023 (2015) [arXiv:1404.0675 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  60. [60]

    X.Bekaert, M.Najafizadeh, M.R.Setare, Phys. Lett. B 760, 320 (2016) [arXiv:1506.00973 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  61. [61]

    The unitary representations of the Poincar\’e group in any spacetime dimension,

    X. Bekaert and N. Boulanger, SciPost Phys.Lect.Notes 30 (2021), 1 [arXiv:hep-th/0611263]

    work page arXiv 2021

  62. [62]

    Continuous Spin Representations of the Poincar\'e and Super-Poincar\'e Groups

    L. Brink, A. M. Khan, P . Ramond and X. z. Xiong, J. Math. Ph ys. 43, 6279 (2002) [hep-th/0205145]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  63. [63]

    X.Bekaert and E.Skvortsov, Int.J.Mod.Phys.A 32, no.23n24, 1730019 (2017) [arXiv:1708.01030]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  64. [64]

    continuous spin

    P . Schuster, N. Toro and K. Zhou, JHEP 04 (2023), 010 [arXiv:2303.04816 [hep-th]]. P . Schuster and N. Toro, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) no.9, 096008 [arXiv:2308.16218 [hep-th]]. S. Kundu, A. Russo, P . Schuster and N. Toro, JHEP 11 (2025), 125 [arXiv:2505.14770 [hep-th]]

    work page arXiv 2023

  65. [65]

    R. R. Metsaev, JHEP 1711, 197 (2017) [arXiv:1709.08596 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  66. [66]

    Bekaert, J

    X. Bekaert, J. Mourad and M. Najafizadeh, JHEP 1711, 113 (2017) [arXiv:1710.05788 [hep-th]]

    work page arXiv 2017

  67. [67]

    Rivelles,A gauge field theory for continuous spin tachyons, arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.01812

    V . O. Rivelles, “A Gauge Field Theory for Continuous Spi n Tachyons,” arXiv:1807.01812 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv

  68. [68]

    R. R. Metsaev, JHEP 12 (2018), 055 [arXiv:1809.09075 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  69. [69]

    R. R. Metsaev, JHEP 09 (2025), 002 [arXiv:2505.02817 [hep-th]]

    work page arXiv 2025

  70. [70]

    R. R. Metsaev, JHEP 03 (2026), 061 [arXiv:2510.05011 [hep-th]]. 26

    work page arXiv 2026

  71. [71]

    Schuster, G

    P . Schuster, G. Sundaresan and N. Toro, Phys. Rev. D 111 (2025) no.5, 056019 [arXiv:2406.14616] S. Kundu, P . Schuster and N. Toro, Phys. Rev. D 113 (2026) no.7, 076017

    work page arXiv 2025

  72. [72]

    R. R. Metsaev, Phys. Lett. B 767 (2017), 458-464 [arXiv:1610.00657 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  73. [73]

    R. R. Metsaev, Phys. Lett. B 773 (2017), 135-141 [arXiv:1703.05780 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  74. [74]

    M. V . Khabarov and Y . M. Zinoviev, Nucl. Phys. B928 (2018), 182-216 [arXiv:1711.08223 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  75. [75]

    R. R. Metsaev, Phys. Lett. B 868 (2025), 139778 [arXiv:2507.05194 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  76. [76]

    R. R. Metsaev, J. Phys. A 51 (2018) no.21, 215401 [arXiv:1711.11007 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  77. [77]

    K. B. Alkalaev and M. A. Grigoriev, JHEP 03 (2018), 030 [arXiv:1712.02317 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  78. [78]

    R. R. Metsaev, Phys. Lett. B 820 (2021), 136497 [arXiv:2105.11281 [hep-th]]

    work page arXiv 2021

  79. [79]

    A. K. H. Bengtsson, JHEP 10 (2013), 108 [arXiv:1303.3799 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  80. [80]

    R. R. Metsaev, Phys. Lett. B 781 (2018), 568-573 [arXiv:1803.08421 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

Showing first 80 references.