Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 71 references

The paper claims that Minimal Massive Gravity can be promoted to an sl(N)-valued higher-spin theory whose linearization around AdS3 yields, for each spin-j > 2 field, two massive modes of spin j and spin j−2, and which admits AdS2×S1 soluti

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 01:10 UTC pith:IDNIAVSD

load-bearing objection First real higher-spin extension of MMG with new Stückelberg structure, hair solutions, and a clean j+(j-2) spectrum; but the central third-way consistency check is explicitly deferred, so the construction is conditional. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2608.00185 v1 pith:IDNIAVSD submitted 2026-07-31 hep-th

Minimal Massive Gravity Coupled to Higher Spins

Franz Ciceri , Nihat Sadik Deger , Bastien Duboeuf , Henning Samtleben This is my paper
classification hep-th
keywords minimal massive gravityhigher-spin gravitysl(N,R) Chern-Simons-like formulationthird-way consistencyStückelberg scalarAdS2×S1 solutionsAdS3 mass spectrumtopologically massive gravity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper tries to establish that Minimal Massive Gravity — a three-dimensional massive gravity distinguished by a parameter regime where the bulk theory and the dual CFT can be simultaneously unitary — can be coupled to a finite tower of higher-spin fields by promoting the fields of its first-order formulation to sl(N,R)-valued ones. The proposed Lagrangian (3.8) and field equations (3.9) reduce to ordinary MMG for N=2 and to higher-spin Topologically Massive Gravity in a limit. Around the AdS3 vacuum, each spin-j > 2 fluctuation splits into two massive modes of spin j and spin j−2 with explicit conformal dimensions, alongside massless gauge modes. At the merger point of the two AdS vacua the theory admits exact AdS2×S1 solutions whose higher-spin hair enlarges the S1 radius — hair that is absent in pure higher-spin Chern-Simons gravity. A Stückelberg formulation with a group-valued scalar in SL(N) restores the higher-spin translations broken by the massive deformation.

Core claim

The central claim is that a higher-spin extension of MMG exists: take the dreibein and the two spin connections of the first-order formulation and promote them to sl(N,R)-valued connections; the same combination of terms that defines minimal massive gravity then defines an interacting theory of gravity with fields of spins 3 through N. Linearizing around the AdS3 vacuum shows the spectrum: for each j > 2 there are two massive modes with conformal dimensions given by (5.28) — one of spin j and one of spin j−2 — plus massless gauge modes at mℓ = ±1. At the merger point (2.10) the field equations admit exact AdS2×S1 solutions for N=3 and N=4 with non-vanishing higher-spin hair; the hair is a ge

What carries the argument

The machinery is the first-order 'Chern-Simons-like' formulation of MMG with three sl(2,R)-valued connections — the dreibein e, and two spin connections ω and ϖ — whose sl(N,R) promotion under the principal embedding (where the adjoint of sl(N) splits into spins 3, 5, …, 2N−1) defines the higher-spin extension. The τ-term coupling e to D[ϖ]e is what breaks the higher-spin translations and produces the massive modes. A group-valued Stückelberg scalar Φ ∈ SL(N) restores those translations, realizing them as a second sl(N) gauge symmetry, with Φ parametrizing the coset SL(N)×SL(N)/SL(N)_diag. The mass spectrum follows from the diagonalized quadratic Lagrangian (5.5), whose fluctuation equation

Load-bearing premise

The proposal stands or falls on whether the sl(N)-valued field equations (3.9) are dynamically consistent — that is, whether all their components are determined without hidden constraints in the sense of 'third-way consistency', a property the paper states for spin-2 MMG but never verifies for the higher-spin extension.

What would settle it

Compute the covariant divergence of the first field equation in (3.9) and check whether it vanishes identically on the other two equations, i.e. whether the third-way consistency condition holds. If an obstruction appears for N=3 — for example a residual term proportional to higher-spin components that is not forced to vanish — the proposed action does not define a consistent theory, even though the constructed solutions and linearized spectrum might still hold as a constrained subset.

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

If this is right

  • MMG's parameter window with simultaneous bulk and boundary unitarity now has a higher-spin extension, so the question of whether higher-spin couplings preserve that unitarity can be studied directly.
  • For each spin-j field, the model predicts two massive propagating modes with explicit conformal dimensions, giving a sharp target for holographic and partition-function checks.
  • The AdS2×S1 solutions provide concrete backgrounds carrying higher-spin hair, generalizing the near-horizon geometry of extremal AdS black holes to higher spins.
  • The TMG limit recovers higher-spin topologically massive gravity, so the model interpolates between known chiral massive higher-spin theories and MMG.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The key open risk is whether the sl(N) field equations (3.9) are third-way consistent; the paper verifies this property for spin-2 MMG but never checks the analogue for the higher-spin extension, and since matter coupling to MMG is known to be obstructed by exactly this consistency requirement, that check is decisive.
  • If third-way consistency fails for N >= 3, the constructed AdS2×S1 solutions and the linearized spectrum might still survive as constrained subsectors, but the full proposal would be over-determined.
  • The Stückelberg scalar Φ suggests a finite-N analogue of the Prokushkin–Vasiliev zero-form master field; making that correspondence precise could connect higher-spin MMG to the unfolded matter-coupled higher-spin program.
  • The angle-excess reading of the hair — where rescaling θ changes the period to 2πR_S1/c1 — provides a coordinate-invariant observable of higher-spin hair that could serve as a signature in broader searches for such solutions.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a higher-spin extension of Minimal Massive Gravity by promoting the sl(2) fields of the first-order action (2.1) to sl(N)-valued forms. The resulting Lagrangian (3.8) and field equations (3.9) reduce to MMG at N=2. A Stückelberg scalar Φ∈SL(N) is introduced to restore the higher-spin translations broken by the massive deformation; gauge-fixing Φ=I returns (3.8). The paper constructs AdS2×S1 exact solutions with higher-spin hair at the merger point (2.10) for N=3,4, and linearizes around AdS3, finding for each spin-j>2 field two massive modes of spin j and j−2 with conformal dimensions (5.28). A TMG limit is also exhibited.

Significance. If the proposed equations are dynamically consistent, this is a new class of three-dimensional massive higher-spin theories that may combine MMG's unitary parameter window with higher-spin symmetry. The paper's strengths are its explicitness: the algebra and representations are spelled out, the exact solutions are checked componentwise, the mass spectrum is derived in detail, and the TMG limit reproduces known first-order results. The main risk is that the central field equations (3.9) are not verified to be third-way consistent, a property that is nontrivial already in the N=2 MMG case and is not automatically inherited from the sl(N) promotion.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.1, Eq. (3.9); §6] The central consistency property of MMG, third-way consistency, is not verified for the sl(N) extension. For N=2, Eq. (2.5) is consistent only because the divergence of the right-hand side vanishes upon iterated use of the equation itself. The sl(N) field equations (3.9) define a new dynamical system; the Bianchi identities do not by themselves guarantee its consistency, and the paper provides no analogue of the on-shell divergence check. Section 6 explicitly states that a metric-like formulation 'would allow this to be verified explicitly for our higher-spin fields', acknowledging that the verification is absent. This is load-bearing: if (3.9) is overdetermined for N>2, the exact solutions of Section 4 and the spectrum of Section 5 could be artifacts of an inconsistent system. The authors should either prove the consistency directly from (3.9) or provide a metric-like/Hamiltonian constr
  2. [§4.2, Eq. (2.10); §5.2, Eq. (5.29)] The exact AdS2×S1 solutions are constructed at the merger point (2.10). At this point the mass parameter (5.29) evaluates to M_p = -τ - (Λ_m+3λ)/(2τ) = 0 after using (2.10). The linearized analysis of Section 5 explicitly assumes the massive case m^2ℓ^2≠1 and the projection (5.17); at m=0 the fluctuation equations degenerate and the conformal dimensions (5.28) are not applicable. The paper does not discuss the spectrum or fluctuation consistency on the very vacua used for the higher-spin hair solutions. This gap should be addressed, or the scope of (5.28) should be stated to exclude the merger point.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.3, footnote 5] The stated closure relation [δ_ζ1, δ_ζ2] = δ_L3 with L3=[ζ1,ζ2] appears to have a factor error. For constant parameters, Eq. (3.23) gives [δ_ζ1,δ_ζ2]Φ = λ~^2 [[ζ1,ζ2],Φ], which corresponds to δ_LΦ with L=-λ~^2[ζ1,ζ2], not L=[ζ1,ζ2]. Please verify the algebra or adjust the parameter normalization.
  2. [§3.3, Eq. (3.15)] The extended Lagrangian (3.15) assumes λ>0 because λ~=√(3λ). The original MMG Lagrangian (2.1) is defined for general λ; the paper should state explicitly that the Stückelberg formulation only covers the λ>0 branch, even though the unitary window indeed has λ>0.
  3. [§3.2, Eq. (3.14)] The TMG limit is presented at the level of the Lagrangian expansion L=αL_TMG+O(α^2). To justify the statement that the limit 'recovers' TMG, it would be useful to state that the O(α^2) terms drop out of the equations of motion after dividing by α, or to point to the known N=2 treatment; for N>2 this is a small but nontrivial check.
  4. [§4.2.1, Eq. (4.21)] The gauge-invariant spin-3 field φ^(3) is used to show that c3 is genuine hair. It would be helpful to state whether the same conclusion holds for the N=4 spin-4 field Φ^(4) when c5≠0 but c3=0; from (4.32) it appears that Φ^(4) does not vanish, but the text does not spell this out.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the construction is an explicit sl(N) generalization with independently derived spectra and solutions; the one flagged weakness is a missing third-way-consistency verification, which is a rigor issue rather than a circular one.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is not circular. The higher-spin Lagrangian (3.8) is explicitly proposed as a generalization of the known MMG first-order action (2.1), and the field equations (3.9) are simply its variations; solving them is solving the proposed system, not inverting an input. The mass spectrum is derived from the linearized fluctuation equation (5.10) by standard sl(2,R) representation theory: the projection condition (5.16) and the mode equations (5.26) are obtained by direct manipulation of (5.10), not by assuming the spectrum. The mass parameter M_p in (5.29) is read off from the diagonalized quadratic Lagrangian (5.5), a coefficient of the action, not a fitted quantity. The AdS2 x S1 solutions in Section 4 are explicit ansatz solutions of (3.9) with free moduli; the enlargement of the S1 radius is a computed consequence, not a fitted prediction. The self-citations [37,38] are not load-bearing: Section 2 shows that the first-order action (2.1) reduces to the independent MMG metric field equation (2.5) of [28], so the starting point is benchmarked against external work. The higher-spin promotion itself follows the external strategy of [17]. The only flagged weakness is the paper's own acknowledgment in Section 6 that third-way consistency of the sl(N) field equations has not been verified: 'A metric-like formulation... would allow this to be verified explicitly for our higher-spin fields.' This is a correctness/rigor gap, not a circularity, because no equation is being used to define its own output and no fitted parameter is being renamed as a prediction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 6 axioms · 1 invented entities

No constants are fitted to data. The theory-level inputs are MMG couplings (kappa, tau, lambda) and the choice N; the exact solutions carry free moduli c1,c3,c5 and require the merger-point relation (2.10). The central unproven input is the consistency of the promoted field equations (3.9).

free parameters (1)
  • AdS2 x S1 hair moduli c1, c3 (N=3); c1,c3,c5 (N=4) = arbitrary real constants
    Free constants in the solution ansatz (4.13)/(4.25); they set the higher-spin hair and the S1 radius (4.19)/(4.34). Not fitted to data.
axioms (6)
  • ad hoc to paper Field equations (3.9) of the sl(N)-valued Lagrangian (3.8) are dynamically consistent (well-posed, no hidden constraints).
    No divergence/third-way consistency check is provided; MMG consistency is nontrivial (Section 2) and [35] shows matter couplings are obstructed, so promotion to sl(N) is not automatic.
  • domain assumption The first-order MMG action (2.1) of [37,38] is the correct starting point.
    The construction builds on this action without re-deriving it.
  • domain assumption Principal embedding sl(2) subset sl(N) describes symmetric higher-spin fields of spins 3,...,N via decomposition (3.4).
    Standard result from [17] used throughout, especially for the solution ansätze and spectrum.
  • ad hoc to paper The Stückelberg scalar Phi in SL(N), with transformations (3.19) and (3.23), restores higher-spin translations and is equivalent to (3.8) at Phi = I.
    The equivalence is demonstrated only via on-shell gauge fixing (Section 3.3.3); off-shell equivalence and global issues are not addressed.
  • ad hoc to paper The AdS2 x S1 hair solutions require the merger-point tuning 3 lambda = tau/kappa - tau^2 (2.10) and the ansätze (4.13)/(4.25).
    This is a special parameter locus; no hair solutions at generic parameters are constructed.
  • standard math Three-dimensional Schouten identity and sl(2) Casimir/decomposition identities used in Section 5.2.
    Standard identities; used to project the fluctuation equation onto [j-2] and [j] components.
invented entities (1)
  • Stückelberg scalar Phi in SL(N) no independent evidence
    purpose: Compensator for higher-spin translations broken by the tau deformation; parametrizes SL(N) x SL(N) / SL(N)_diag and is eaten in the Phi = I gauge.
    Pure gauge degree of freedom: gauge-fixing Phi = I returns action (3.8), so it carries no physical modes or independent falsifiable predictions.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 120 in / 19576 out tokens · 205819 ms · 2026-08-04T01:10:44.879925+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Among three-dimensional massive gravities, Minimal Massive Gravity (MMG) is distinguished by a parameter regime in which the AdS bulk theory and the dual conformal field theory can be simultaneously unitary. We couple MMG to a finite tower of higher-spins by promoting the fields of its first-order formulation to $\mathfrak{sl}(N)$-valued ones. We also present an extended formulation involving a group-valued St\"uckelberg scalar, which realizes the higher-spin translations broken by the massive deformation. We then construct AdS$_2\times$S$^1$ solutions carrying higher-spin hair specific to the massive theory. Finally, we analyse the mass spectrum of the higher-spin modes around AdS$_3$.

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

71 extracted references · 56 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Three-dimensional Einstein gravity: dynamics of flat space,

    S. Deser, R. Jackiw, and G. ’t Hooft, “Three-dimensional Einstein gravity: dynamics of flat space,”Annals Phys.152(1984) 220

    1984

  2. [2]

    Three-dimensional cosmological gravity: dynamics of constant curvature,

    S. Deser and R. Jackiw, “Three-dimensional cosmological gravity: dynamics of constant curvature,”Annals Phys.153(1984) 405–416

    1984

  3. [3]

    (2+1)-dimensional gravity as an exactly soluble system,

    E. Witten, “(2+1)-dimensional gravity as an exactly soluble system,”Nucl. Phys. B311 (1988) 46

    1988

  4. [4]

    Carlip,Quantum gravity in 2+1 dimensions

    S. Carlip,Quantum gravity in 2+1 dimensions. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press, 12, 2003

    2003

  5. [5]

    The Black hole in three-dimensional space-time,

    M. Banados, C. Teitelboim, and J. Zanelli, “The Black hole in three-dimensional space-time,” Phys. Rev. Lett.69(1992) 1849–1851,arXiv:hep-th/9204099

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1992

  6. [6]

    Central Charges in the Canonical Realization of Asymptotic Symmetries: An Example from Three-Dimensional Gravity,

    J. D. Brown and M. Henneaux, “Central Charges in the Canonical Realization of Asymptotic Symmetries: An Example from Three-Dimensional Gravity,”Commun. Math. Phys.104 (1986) 207–226

    1986

  7. [7]

    The largeNlimit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,

    J. M. Maldacena, “The largeNlimit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,”Int. J. Theor. Phys.38(1999) 1113–1133,arXiv:hep-th/9711200 [hep-th]. [Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2,231(1998)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  8. [8]

    Massless higher spins and holography,

    E. Sezgin and P. Sundell, “Massless higher spins and holography,”Nucl. Phys.B644(2002) 303–370,hep-th/0205131

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  9. [9]

    Introduction to the classical theory of higher spins,

    D. Sorokin, “Introduction to the classical theory of higher spins,”AIP Conf. Proc.767no. 1, (2005) 172–202,arXiv:hep-th/0405069

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  10. [10]

    Higher spin gauge theories in any dimension,

    M. A. Vasiliev, “Higher spin gauge theories in any dimension,”hep-th/0409260

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  11. [11]

    Nonlinear higher spin theories in various dimensions,

    X. Bekaert, S. Cnockaert, C. Iazeolla, and M. A. Vasiliev, “Nonlinear higher spin theories in various dimensions,” in1st Solvay Workshop on Higher Spin Gauge Theories, pp. 132–197. 2004.arXiv:hep-th/0503128

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  12. [12]

    How higher-spin gravity surpasses the spin two barrier: no-go theorems versus yes-go examples,

    X. Bekaert, N. Boulanger, and P. Sundell, “How higher-spin gravity surpasses the spin two barrier: no-go theorems versus yes-go examples,”Rev. Mod. Phys.84(2012) 987–1009, arXiv:1007.0435 [hep-th]. 22

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  13. [13]

    Light-Front Higher-Spin Theories in Flat Space,

    D. Ponomarev and E. D. Skvortsov, “Light-Front Higher-Spin Theories in Flat Space,”J. Phys. A50no. 9, (2017) 095401,arXiv:1609.04655 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  14. [14]

    Hypersymmetry inD= 3 of Coupled Gravity Massless Spin 5/2 System,

    C. Aragone and S. Deser, “Hypersymmetry inD= 3 of Coupled Gravity Massless Spin 5/2 System,”Class. Quant. Grav.1(1984) L9

    1984

  15. [15]

    A consistent interacting massless higher spin field theory in D = 2+1,

    M. P. Blencowe, “A consistent interacting massless higher spin field theory in D = 2+1,” Class. Quant. Grav.6(1989) 443

    1989

  16. [16]

    A Chern-Simons action for three-dimensional anti-de Sitter supergravity theories,

    A. Achucarro and P. K. Townsend, “A Chern-Simons action for three-dimensional anti-de Sitter supergravity theories,”Phys. Lett.B180(1986) 89

    1986

  17. [17]

    Asymptotic symmetries of three-dimensional gravity coupled to higher-spin fields,

    A. Campoleoni, S. Fredenhagen, S. Pfenninger, and S. Theisen, “Asymptotic symmetries of three-dimensional gravity coupled to higher-spin fields,”JHEP11(2010) 007, arXiv:1008.4744 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  18. [18]

    Asymptotic W-symmetries in three-dimensional higher-spin gauge theories,

    A. Campoleoni, S. Fredenhagen, and S. Pfenninger, “Asymptotic W-symmetries in three-dimensional higher-spin gauge theories,”JHEP09(2011) 113,arXiv:1107.0290 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  19. [19]

    Spacetime geometry in higher spin gravity,

    M. Ammon, M. Gutperle, P. Kraus, and E. Perlmutter, “Spacetime geometry in higher spin gravity,”JHEP10(2011) 053,arXiv:1106.4788 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  20. [20]

    Towards metric-like higher-spin gauge theories in three dimensions,

    A. Campoleoni, S. Fredenhagen, S. Pfenninger, and S. Theisen, “Towards metric-like higher-spin gauge theories in three dimensions,”J. Phys. A46(2013) 214017, arXiv:1208.1851 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  21. [21]

    Aspects of three-dimensional spin-4 gravity,

    H.-S. Tan, “Aspects of three-dimensional spin-4 gravity,”JHEP02(2012) 035, arXiv:1111.2834 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  22. [22]

    Renormalization of Higher Derivative Quantum Gravity,

    K. S. Stelle, “Renormalization of Higher Derivative Quantum Gravity,”Phys. Rev. D16 (1977) 953–969

    1977

  23. [23]

    Classical Gravity with Higher Derivatives,

    K. S. Stelle, “Classical Gravity with Higher Derivatives,”Gen. Rel. Grav.9(1978) 353–371

    1978

  24. [24]

    Three-dimensional massive gauge theories,

    S. Deser, R. Jackiw, and S. Templeton, “Three-dimensional massive gauge theories,”Phys. Rev. Lett.48(1982) 975–978

    1982

  25. [25]

    Topologically massive gauge theories,

    S. Deser, R. Jackiw, and S. Templeton, “Topologically massive gauge theories,”Ann. Phys. 140(1982) 372–411

    1982

  26. [26]

    Massive gravity in three dimensions,

    E. A. Bergshoeff, O. Hohm, and P. K. Townsend, “Massive gravity in three dimensions,” Phys. Rev. Lett.102(2009) 201301,arXiv:0901.1766 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  27. [27]

    More on Massive 3D Gravity,

    E. A. Bergshoeff, O. Hohm, and P. K. Townsend, “More on Massive 3D Gravity,”Phys. Rev. D79(2009) 124042,arXiv:0905.1259 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  28. [28]

    Minimal massive 3D gravity,

    E. Bergshoeff, O. Hohm, W. Merbis, A. J. Routh, and P. K. Townsend, “Minimal massive 3D gravity,”Class. Quant. Grav.31(2014) 145008,arXiv:1404.2867 [hep-th]. 23

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  29. [29]

    Minimal massive 3D gravity unitarity redux,

    A. S. Arvanitakis and P. K. Townsend, “Minimal massive 3D gravity unitarity redux,”Class. Quant. Grav.32no. 8, (2015) 085003,arXiv:1411.1970 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  30. [30]

    On asymptotic charges in 3D gravity,

    E. A. Bergshoeff, W. Merbis, and P. K. Townsend, “On asymptotic charges in 3D gravity,” Class. Quant. Grav.37no. 3, (2020) 035003,arXiv:1909.11743 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  31. [31]

    The third way to 3D gravity,

    E. Bergshoeff, W. Merbis, A. J. Routh, and P. K. Townsend, “The third way to 3D gravity,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D24no. 12, (2015) 1544015,arXiv:1506.05949 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  32. [32]

    A review of third way consistent theories,

    N. S. Deger, “A review of third way consistent theories,”J. Phys. Conf. Ser.2191no. 6, (2022) 012008,arXiv:2109.04339 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  33. [33]

    Yang-Mills as massive Chern-Simons theory: a third way to three-dimensional gauge theories,

    A. S. Arvanitakis, A. Sevrin, and P. K. Townsend, “Yang-Mills as massive Chern-Simons theory: a third way to three-dimensional gauge theories,”Phys. Rev. Lett.114no. 18, (2015) 181603,arXiv:1501.07548 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  34. [34]

    Third way to interactingp-form theories,

    M. Broccoli, N. S. Deger, and S. Theisen, “Third way to interactingp-form theories,”Phys. Rev. Lett.127no. 9, (2021) 091603,arXiv:2103.13243 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  35. [35]

    Matter coupling in 3D ’minimal massive gravity,

    A. S. Arvanitakis, A. J. Routh, and P. K. Townsend, “Matter coupling in 3D ’minimal massive gravity,”Class. Quant. Grav.31no. 23, (2014) 235012,arXiv:1407.1264 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  36. [36]

    Matter coupling in minimal massive 3D gravity and spinor-matter interactions in exterior algebra formalism,

    H. Cebeci, “Matter coupling in minimal massive 3D gravity and spinor-matter interactions in exterior algebra formalism,”Class. Quant. Grav.39no. 3, (2022) 035006,arXiv:2004.07476 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  37. [37]

    Minimal massive supergravity,

    N. S. Deger, M. Geiller, J. Rosseel, and H. Samtleben, “Minimal massive supergravity,”Phys. Rev. Lett.129no. 17, (2022) 171601,arXiv:2206.00675 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  38. [38]

    Minimal massive supergravity and new theories of massive gravity,

    N. S. Deger, M. Geiller, J. Rosseel, and H. Samtleben, “Minimal massive supergravity and new theories of massive gravity,”Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 086014,arXiv:2312.12387 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  39. [39]

    On the Hamiltonian form of 3D massive gravity,

    O. Hohm, A. Routh, P. K. Townsend, and B. Zhang, “On the Hamiltonian form of 3D massive gravity,”Phys.Rev.D86(2012) 084035,arXiv:1208.0038 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  40. [40]

    Chern-Simons-like Gravity Theories,

    E. A. Bergshoeff, O. Hohm, W. Merbis, A. J. Routh, and P. K. Townsend, “Chern-Simons-like Gravity Theories,”Lect. Notes Phys.892(2015) 181–201,arXiv:1402.1688 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  41. [41]

    Spin-3 topologically massive gravity,

    B. Chen, J. Long, and J.-B. Wu, “Spin-3 topologically massive gravity,”Phys. Lett. B705 (2011) 513–520,arXiv:1106.5141 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  42. [42]

    Topologically Massive Higher Spin Gravity,

    A. Bagchi, S. Lal, A. Saha, and B. Sahoo, “Topologically Massive Higher Spin Gravity,” JHEP10(2011) 150,arXiv:1107.0915 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  43. [43]

    One loop partition function for Topologically Massive Higher Spin Gravity,

    A. Bagchi, S. Lal, A. Saha, and B. Sahoo, “One loop partition function for Topologically Massive Higher Spin Gravity,”JHEP12(2011) 068,arXiv:1107.2063 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  44. [44]

    High spin topologically massive gravity,

    B. Chen and J. Long, “High spin topologically massive gravity,”JHEP12(2011) 114, arXiv:1110.5113 [hep-th]. 24

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  45. [45]

    Classical aspects of higher spin topologically massive gravity,

    B. Chen, J. Long, and J.-D. Zhang, “Classical aspects of higher spin topologically massive gravity,”Class. Quant. Grav.29(2012) 205001,arXiv:1204.3282 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  46. [46]

    Higher spin gauge interactions for massive matter fields in 3-D AdS space-time,

    S. F. Prokushkin and M. A. Vasiliev, “Higher spin gauge interactions for massive matter fields in 3-D AdS space-time,”Nucl. Phys. B545(1999) 385,arXiv:hep-th/9806236

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  47. [47]

    3-d higher spin gauge theories with matter,

    S. Prokushkin and M. A. Vasiliev, “3-d higher spin gauge theories with matter,” in2nd International Seminar on Supersymmetries and Quantum Symmetries: Dedicated to the Memory of Victor I. Ogievetsky. 12, 1998.arXiv:hep-th/9812242

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  48. [48]

    Higher Spin Gravity with Matter inAdS 3 and Its CFT Dual,

    C.-M. Chang and X. Yin, “Higher Spin Gravity with Matter inAdS 3 and Its CFT Dual,” JHEP10(2012) 024,arXiv:1106.2580 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  49. [49]

    Higher Spins and Matter Interacting in Dimension Three,

    P. Kessel, G. Lucena G´ omez, E. Skvortsov, and M. Taronna, “Higher Spins and Matter Interacting in Dimension Three,”JHEP11(2015) 104,arXiv:1505.05887 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  50. [50]

    An Action for Matter Coupled Higher Spin Gravity in Three Dimensions,

    R. Bonezzi, N. Boulanger, E. Sezgin, and P. Sundell, “An Action for Matter Coupled Higher Spin Gravity in Three Dimensions,”JHEP05(2016) 003,arXiv:1512.02209 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  51. [51]

    Matter-coupled higher spin gravities in 3d: no- and yes-go results,

    A. Sharapov, E. Skvortsov, and A. Sukhanov, “Matter-coupled higher spin gravities in 3d: no- and yes-go results,”JHEP04(2025) 155,arXiv:2409.12830 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    Topological gauge model of gravity with torsion,

    E. W. Mielke and P. Baekler, “Topological gauge model of gravity with torsion,”Phys. Lett. A156(1991) 399–403

    1991

  53. [53]

    Higher spin black holes,

    M. Gutperle and P. Kraus, “Higher spin black holes,”JHEP05(2011) 022, arXiv:1103.4304 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  54. [54]

    Black holes in three dimensional higher spin gravity: A review,

    M. Ammon, M. Gutperle, P. Kraus, and E. Perlmutter, “Black holes in three dimensional higher spin gravity: A review,”J. Phys. A46(2013) 214001,arXiv:1208.5182 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  55. [55]

    Conical defects in higher spin theories,

    A. Castro, R. Gopakumar, M. Gutperle, and J. Raeymaekers, “Conical defects in higher spin theories,”JHEP02(2012) 096,arXiv:1111.3381 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  56. [56]

    Homogeneous solutions of minimal massive 3D gravity,

    J. Charyyev and N. S. Deger, “Homogeneous solutions of minimal massive 3D gravity,”Phys. Rev. D96no. 2, (2017) 026024,arXiv:1703.06871 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  57. [57]

    Supersymmetric backgrounds and black holes inN= (1,1) cosmological new massive supergravity,

    G. Alkac, L. Basanisi, E. A. Bergshoeff, D. O. Devecio˘ glu, and M. Ozkan, “Supersymmetric backgrounds and black holes inN= (1,1) cosmological new massive supergravity,”JHEP10 (2015) 141,arXiv:1507.06928 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  58. [58]

    Supersymmetric solutions ofN= (2,0) topologically massive supergravity,

    N. S. Deger and G. Moutsopoulos, “Supersymmetric solutions ofN= (2,0) topologically massive supergravity,”Class. Quant. Grav.33no. 15, (2016) 155006,arXiv:1602.07263 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  59. [59]

    Supersymmetric solutions ofN= (1,1) general massive supergravity,

    N. S. Deger, Z. Nazari, and O. Sarioglu, “Supersymmetric solutions ofN= (1,1) general massive supergravity,”Phys. Rev. D97no. 10, (2018) 106022,arXiv:1803.06926 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  60. [60]

    Towards non-AdS holography in 3-dimensional higher spin gravity,

    M. Gary, D. Grumiller, and R. Rashkov, “Towards non-AdS holography in 3-dimensional higher spin gravity,”JHEP03(2012) 022,arXiv:1201.0013 [hep-th]. 25

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  61. [61]

    Non-AdS holography in 3-dimensional higher spin gravity – General recipe and example,

    H. Afshar, M. Gary, D. Grumiller, R. Rashkov, and M. Riegler, “Non-AdS holography in 3-dimensional higher spin gravity – General recipe and example,”JHEP11(2012) 099, arXiv:1209.2860 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  62. [62]

    Lobachevsky holography in conformal Chern-Simons gravity,

    M. Bertin, S. Ertl, H. Ghorbani, D. Grumiller, N. Johansson, and D. Vassilevich, “Lobachevsky holography in conformal Chern-Simons gravity,”JHEP06(2013) 015, arXiv:1212.3335 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  63. [63]

    NonlinearW ∞ as asymptotic symmetry of three-dimensional higher spin AdS gravity,

    M. Henneaux and S.-J. Rey, “NonlinearW ∞ as asymptotic symmetry of three-dimensional higher spin AdS gravity,”JHEP12(2010) 007,arXiv:1008.4579 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  64. [64]

    On Higher Derivatives in 3D Gravity and Higher Spin Gauge Theories,

    E. A. Bergshoeff, O. Hohm, and P. K. Townsend, “On Higher Derivatives in 3D Gravity and Higher Spin Gauge Theories,”Annals Phys.325(2010) 1118–1134,arXiv:0911.3061 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  65. [65]

    Unitarity bounds in AdS 3 higher spin gravity,

    A. Castro, E. Hijano, and A. Lepage-Jutier, “Unitarity bounds in AdS 3 higher spin gravity,” JHEP06(2012) 001,arXiv:1202.4467 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  66. [66]

    Unfolded representation for relativistic equations in (2+1) anti-De Sitter space,

    M. A. Vasiliev, “Unfolded representation for relativistic equations in (2+1) anti-De Sitter space,”Class. Quant. Grav.11(1994) 649–664

    1994

  67. [67]

    Kessel,The physics of higher-spin theories

    P. Kessel,The physics of higher-spin theories. PhD thesis, Humboldt U., Berlin, 2016

    2016

  68. [68]

    New unfolded higher spin systems inAdS 3,

    N. Boulanger, D. Ponomarev, E. Sezgin, and P. Sundell, “New unfolded higher spin systems inAdS 3,”Class. Quant. Grav.32no. 15, (2015) 155002,arXiv:1412.8209 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  69. [69]

    The Asymptotic dynamics of three-dimensional Einstein gravity with a negative cosmological constant,

    O. Coussaert, M. Henneaux, and P. van Driel, “The Asymptotic dynamics of three-dimensional Einstein gravity with a negative cosmological constant,”Class. Quant. Grav.12(1995) 2961–2966,arXiv:gr-qc/9506019

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  70. [70]

    Warped AdS 3 black holes,

    D. Anninos, W. Li, M. Padi, W. Song, and A. Strominger, “Warped AdS 3 black holes,” JHEP0903(2009) 130,arXiv:0807.3040 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  71. [71]

    Super-W∞ asymptotic symmetry of higher-spin AdS 3 supergravity,

    M. Henneaux, G. Lucena G´ omez, J. Park, and S.-J. Rey, “Super-W∞ asymptotic symmetry of higher-spin AdS 3 supergravity,”JHEP06(2012) 037,arXiv:1203.5152 [hep-th]. 26

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012