REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 112 references
Interacting Galilean and Finite-Energy Carroll Fermions
T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read One similarity transformation on the massive Dirac action generates both Galilean and Carrollian fermion theories, recovering known models and producing two new two-color systems with unusual symmetries.
desk verdict Useful unified c-power construction for non-Lorentzian fermions with two new two-color models; but the non-removability claim needs a stronger proof and Eq. (99) has a sign/index slip. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The central object is the similarity transformation S = $e^{{-imc²t}}$ diag(1, c^β) applied to the Dirac field, where β ∈ [-1,1] labels three boost classes (β⋆ = -1, 0, +1). This transformation controls the relative scaling of the two Pauli spinor components and, combined with the two conjugation matrices and the two mass scalings (fixed m or fixed ε = 2mc²), determines which terms survive in the limiting actions. The machinery also includes the two-color doubling procedure, in which daggered and undaggered fields are relabeled as independent fields of two colors and the action is made real by adding the Hermitian conjugate; this is the step that produces the two new models. The fermionic gauge symmetry δϵζ2 = 2mϵ, δϵχ2 = ∇̂ϵ that trivializes the new Galilean action is a further load-bearing mechanism.
What would settle it
Perform a canonical (Dirac–Bergmann) analysis of the complex seed density (45) and of the real two-color action (65) and compare the physical phase-space dimensions and energy spectra; if they differ (for example, if the seed propagates degrees of freedom that disappear in the real action), the two-color doubling assumption that produces the new Galilean model is refuted.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
On its own terms, the paper establishes that the massive Dirac action, after the mass- and c-dependent similarity transformation (3) and with the two conjugation choices C1 = iγ0 and C2 = C1γ5, produces in the limits c→∞ and c→0 a family of Galilean and Carrollian fermion actions. The fixed-mass and fixed-ε (ε = 2mc²) scalings distinguish a Bargmann mass from a finite rest-energy parameter. The central discovery is a pair of new real two-color actions: in the Galilean sector, an action with a local fermionic gauge symmetry that lets every local degree of freedom be gauged away; in the Carrollian sector, an action whose equations imply ∂t(∂t + iε)ζa = 0, a square root of the Carroll equation, whose solution contains both zero-energy and finite-energy modes and whose ε is non-removable by a diagonal phase redefinition. The paper also classifies a sufficient set of boost-compatible local interactions, shows that a selected quartic interaction breaks the Galilean gauge symmetry while a Nambu–Jona-Lasinio limit interaction merely deforms it.
Load-bearing premise
The load-bearing premise is that the real two-color actions built in Section 5, by relabeling daggered fields as independent fields and adding the Hermitian conjugate, faithfully represent the physics of the complex seed densities; if this doubling is not a faithful variational principle, both new models are artifacts.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- The construction reproduces the massive Lévy–Leblond theory and its massless descendants, as well as the known electric Carroll fermions, so every one of these previously separate models fits into a single c-power classification.
- The new Galilean two-color action is pure gauge in the free theory: its fermionic gauge symmetry removes all local degrees of freedom, and only a symmetry-breaking interaction such as Mζχ,21Mζχ,12 can restore them.
- The new Carrollian two-color action satisfies the Carroll equation C_C^ε Φ = -∂t(∂t+iε)Φ = 0, contains simultaneous zero- and finite-energy modes, and, unlike the known fixed-ε Carroll models, its energy ε cannot be absorbed by a time-dependent phase redefinition.
- The Nambu–Jona-Lasinio limit interaction is boost-compatible but does not break the Galilean gauge symmetry; it only deforms how the symmetry acts, so the gauge-triviality argument survives in that channel.
- The classification of boost-compatible local interactions gives a concrete recipe for building interacting Galilean and Carrollian fermion field theories with controlled symmetry properties.
Reading between the lines
- Editorial inference: because the two new models rest on the two-color doubling assumption, the cleanest test is to quantize the original complex seed actions and compare against the quantized real two-color actions; a mismatch in the spectrum or the degrees of freedom would show the new systems are artifacts of the doubling.
- Editorial inference: the non-removable ε in the Carrollian model suggests it is a physical energy gap for Carroll particles; if so, the model could serve as a toy laboratory for Carrollian holography, where such a gap would be a measurable observable.
- Editorial inference: the same similarity-transformation construction should extend to higher-spin and anyonic wave equations; if it does, pairs of gauge-trivial Galilean and gap-carrying Carrollian models would be a general feature of non-Lorentzian limits, not a spin-1/2 accident.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper presents a systematic method for deriving Galilean and Carrollian limits of the massive Dirac action. The method uses a mass- and c-dependent similarity transformation (3) with two choices of Dirac conjugation, and then takes c→∞ or c→0 with either fixed mass m or fixed ε=2mc². The resulting limit families are classified in Tables 1–4 and recover known models such as the Lévy–Leblond system and electric Carroll fermions. The new content is in Sec. 5: two-color real extensions of complex seed actions, giving a Galilean model with a fermionic gauge symmetry that removes the local field content (Sec. 5.1) and a Carrollian model whose field equations square-root the Carroll equation C_C^ε Φ = -∂t(∂t+iε)Φ = 0 with an energy parameter claimed to be non-removable (Sec. 5.2.2). Section 6 classifies a sufficient set of boost-compatible local interactions, including Nambu–Jona-Lasinio terms, and studies their effect on the gauge symmetry.
Significance. If the main claims hold, this is a useful contribution to the non-Lorentzian field-theory literature. The derivation is explicit and reproducible: the similarity transformation, the Casimir limits, and the boost-covariance checks in Appendices A.1–A.3 are clearly laid out, and the recovery of the Lévy–Leblond and electric Carroll models provides a nontrivial consistency check. The classification of boost-compatible interactions, including the NJL sectors, is a concrete step toward interacting non-Lorentzian fermion theories. The paper is also honest about some limitations, notably that the quartic interaction analysis in Sec. 6.2.2 does not yet establish restoration of local degrees of freedom. However, the two advertised new models rest on two assumptions that are not fully established: the two-color real-extension prescription of Sec. 5, and the non-removability of ε in Sec. 5.2.2, which is only proven for diagonal phase redefinitions. These are load-bearing for the novelty claims, so the manuscript needs revision before the central claims can be accepted.
major comments (3)
- [Sec. 5.2.2, Eq. (72); abstract and Sec. 7] The claim that 'the energy cannot be removed' is stronger than what is proven. The proof in Sec. 5.2.2 considers only diagonal time-dependent phase redefinitions of the form ζ1=e^{-ia_{ζ1} ε t} etc., and shows that no such diagonal choice removes ε from the complete action. It does not exclude general local field redefinitions, including time-dependent GL(2) transformations that mix the two colors, or redefinitions involving spatial derivatives. Since the color index is introduced in Sec. 5 as an auxiliary label, the natural equivalence class is not obviously restricted to diagonal phases. This gap is load-bearing: if some M(t,x,∂) maps the quadratic form O_ε in (72) to O_0 up to a total derivative, the advertised distinction from the removable-ε models disappears. Please either prove a no-go for a well-defined class of field redefinitions or weaken the abstract and conclusions to state that ε is non-removable by diagonal phase redefinitions.
- [Sec. 5, Eq. (62)] The two-color real-extension prescription is an ad hoc assumption: the daggered fields are relabeled as independent color-2 fields and the Hermitian conjugate is added. The paper notes in Sec. 4.1.1 that treating the dagger as a mere label is necessary to obtain consistent equations, but it does not provide an independent check that the doubled variational principle correctly represents the physics of the complex seed densities (45)–(46), (53), (60)–(61). The interpretation of the color index is also not established beyond 'color only distinguishes the two Dirac fields.' This assumption underpins both new models: the Galilean gauge-trivial model (65) and the Carroll finite-energy model (72). Please provide a consistency check, such as a canonical/Hamiltonian analysis, a derivation from a parent colored theory with a clear physical interpretation, or an explicit statement that these are formal constructions whose physical interpretation remains open.
- [Sec. 6.2.2, Eqs. (97)–(100)] The discussion of the quartic interaction as a means of breaking the fermionic gauge symmetry and potentially restoring local degrees of freedom is incomplete. The paper correctly states that a dedicated analysis is required, but the conclusion presents this as a motivation and as a candidate resolution. Since the count of local degrees of freedom is precisely what the gauge-triviality argument in Sec. 5.1 eliminates, the reader needs at least a Hamiltonian constraint analysis of (97) to see whether the broken-symmetry theory actually propagates degrees of freedom. Without this, the statement that the gauge-fixing argument 'no longer applies' is true but does not establish the physical relevance of the model.
minor comments (5)
- [Sec. 4.1.1, after Eq. (47)] The sentence 'only if the daggered and undaggered fields are treated as element of the dual field space, but independent from ζ and χ' is grammatically awkward and should be rephrased for clarity, since this is a key step leading to the Sec. 5 construction.
- [Sec. 5.2.2, after Eq. (75)] In the degenerate case ε=0, the text says the same equations allow linear Carroll-time dependence 'unless additional boundary or regularity conditions are imposed.' Please specify what conditions would exclude the linear modes, or state that both branches are allowed in the general solution.
- [Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 captions] The captions refer to 'gray area' and 'hatched area,' but in black-and-white printing or with some color-blind readers these may be indistinguishable. Please use line styles or labelled regions instead of relying on shading alone.
- [Table 5] The entry '−ε \barζζ' appears to be a formatting artifact; it should read '−ε N_ζ' with N_ζ = ζ†ζ, consistent with the notation in Sec. 6.1.
- [References] Reference [100] is cited as arXiv:2604.14301 without a journal or publication status; if it has been published, please update the citation.
Circularity Check
No significant circularity: the limit actions and new two-color models are obtained by explicit c-power expansions, not by assuming the target results.
full rationale
The derivation chain is self-contained. The paper starts from the massive Dirac action (1), applies an explicit mass- and c-dependent similarity transformation (3), and then takes c→0 or c→∞ after selecting leading powers of c through normalizations; Tables 1–4 are obtained by direct expansion rather than by assuming the target models. Known Lévy–Leblond and electric Carroll actions are recovered as independent checks (Secs. 3.1.1 and 3.2), not used as inputs. The new two-color real actions (65), (72), and (76) are constructed from the complex seeds (45)–(46), (53), (60)–(61) by explicitly relabeling the daggered variables as independent and adding the Hermitian conjugate; this is an arbitrary construction step, not a parameter that is later renamed as a prediction. No datum is fitted and no target result is invoked in its own derivation. Self-citations, including refs. [50] and [53] by a co-author, are contextual and non-load-bearing; the limit computations and symmetry checks stand on the paper's own equations. The only notable issue is that the proof of non-removability of ε in Sec. 5.2.2 checks only diagonal phase redefinitions and does not rule out more general field redefinitions; that is a rigor gap in a negative claim, not circularity, because the ε-dependence of the action is not inserted by assuming the conclusion.
Assumptions & free parameters
free parameters (4)
- beta =
continuous in [-1,1], classified into beta* = -1, 0, +1
- epsilon =
epsilon = 2 m c^2, held fixed in the scaling limit
- lambda (NJL coupling) =
unfixed; appears in Eqs. (83), (91)
- lambda_M (quartic coupling) =
unfixed; appears in Eq. (96)
assumptions (6)
- domain assumption The contraction procedure adjoins a trivial central u(1)_m factor to the Poincare algebra before taking the limit.
- ad hoc to paper Only |beta| <= 1 yields Galilean or Carrollian boost sectors.
- standard math The gamma-matrix representation (106) and metric signature (-,+,+,+) are fixed.
- domain assumption In the fixed-epsilon scaling, c->0 forces m->infinity and c->infinity forces m->0 (Eq. (11)).
- ad hoc to paper Real action principles are obtained by treating daggered and undaggered fields as independent and adding the Hermitian conjugate (Sec. 5).
- domain assumption The classified interactions are restricted to products of the boost-scalar bilinears N_u and M_uv, stated as a sufficient but not exhaustive class.
invented entities (1)
-
Two-color fermion index a=1,2
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Interacting Galilean and Finite-Energy Carroll Fermions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C35LRBET
@misc{pith2026260805324,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Interacting Galilean and Finite-Energy Carroll Fermions},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C35LRBET}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05324}
}
read the original abstract
We present a unified derivation of the Galilean and Carrollian limits of the massive Dirac action based on a similarity transformation depending on the mass and the speed of light. The two choices of Dirac conjugation, combined with different mass scalings, generate distinct families of limiting actions. This construction recovers known Galilei and Carroll fermion models and yields new systems, one in each regime. We classify a sufficient set of boost-compatible local (self-)interactions, which includes Nambu--Jona-Lasinio (NJL). The new Galilean free action possesses a local fermionic gauge symmetry that eliminates its local field content. A selected quartic interaction, preserving the Bargmann boost, explicitly breaks the original fermionic gauge symmetry so that the argument that eliminates the field content no longer applies. The NJL limit interaction merely deforms the realization of that gauge symmetry. We show that the energy parameter in several Carroll actions can be eliminated by a time-dependent phase redefinition; conversely, in the new Carrollian extension the energy cannot be removed.
Figures
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
Effective Lagrangians for Bound State Problems in QED, QCD, and Other Field Theories,
W. E. Caswell and G. P. Lepage, “Effective Lagrangians for Bound State Problems in QED, QCD, and Other Field Theories,”Phys. Lett. B167(1986) 437–442
1986
-
[2]
Effective Field Theories for Heavy Quarkonium,
N. Brambilla, A. Pineda, J. Soto, and A. Vairo, “Effective Field Theories for Heavy Quarkonium,”Rev. Mod. Phys.77(2005) 1423,arXiv:hep-ph/0410047
arXiv 2005
-
[3]
D. T. Son and M. Wingate, “General coordinate invariance and conformal invariance in nonrelativistic physics: Unitary Fermi gas,”Annals Phys.321(2006) 197–224, arXiv:cond-mat/0509786
arXiv 2006
-
[4]
Effective field theory for few nucleon systems,
P. F. Bedaque and U. van Kolck, “Effective field theory for few nucleon systems,”Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.52(2002) 339–396,arXiv:nucl-th/0203055
arXiv 2002
-
[5]
Spacetime Symmetries of the Quantum Hall Effect,
M. Geracie, D. T. Son, C. Wu, and S.-F. Wu, “Spacetime Symmetries of the Quantum Hall Effect,”Phys. Rev. D91(2015) 045030,arXiv:1407.1252 [cond-mat.mes-hall]
arXiv 2015
-
[6]
Relativistic fluids, hydrodynamic frames and their Galilean versus Carrollian avatars,
A. C. Petkou, P. M. Petropoulos, D. R. Betancour, and K. Siampos, “Relativistic fluids, hydrodynamic frames and their Galilean versus Carrollian avatars,”JHEP09(2022) 162,arXiv:2205.09142 [hep-th]. 40
arXiv 2022
-
[7]
Aspects of non-relativistic quantum field theories,
S. Baiguera, “Aspects of non-relativistic quantum field theories,”Eur. Phys. J. C84 no. 3, (2024) 268,arXiv:2311.00027 [hep-th]
arXiv 2024
-
[8]
Une nouvelle limite non-relativiste du groupe de Poincar´ e,
J.-M. L´ evy-Leblond, “Une nouvelle limite non-relativiste du groupe de Poincar´ e,”Ann. Inst. H. Poincare Phys. Theor. A3no. 1, (1965) 1–12
1965
Show all 112 references
-
[9]
On an analogue of the Galilei group,
N. D. Sen Gupta, “On an analogue of the Galilei group,”Nuovo Cim. A44no. 2, (1966) 512–517
1966
-
[10]
Possible kinematics,
H. Bacry and J. Levy-Leblond, “Possible kinematics,”J. Math. Phys.9(1968) 1605–1614
1968
-
[11]
Carroll versus Newton and Galilei: two dual non-Einsteinian concepts of time,
C. Duval, G. W. Gibbons, P. A. Horvathy, and P. M. Zhang, “Carroll versus Newton and Galilei: two dual non-Einsteinian concepts of time,”Class. Quant. Grav.31(2014) 085016,arXiv:1402.0657 [gr-qc]
2014 arXiv
-
[12]
Carroll Structures, Null Geometry and Conformal Isometries,
L. Ciambelli, R. G. Leigh, C. Marteau, and P. M. Petropoulos, “Carroll Structures, Null Geometry and Conformal Isometries,”Phys. Rev. D100no. 4, (2019) 046010, arXiv:1905.02221 [hep-th]
2019 arXiv
-
[13]
Carrollian amplitudes from holographic correlators,
L. F. Alday, M. Nocchi, R. Ruzziconi, and A. Yelleshpur Srikant, “Carrollian amplitudes from holographic correlators,”JHEP03(2025) 158,arXiv:2406.19343 [hep-th]
2025 arXiv
-
[14]
Carrollian Perspective on Celestial Holography,
L. Donnay, A. Fiorucci, Y. Herfray, and R. Ruzziconi, “Carrollian Perspective on Celestial Holography,”Phys. Rev. Lett.129no. 7, (2022) 071602,arXiv:2202.04702 [hep-th]
2022 arXiv
-
[15]
Carrollian physics and holography,
R. Ruzziconi, “Carrollian physics and holography,”Phys. Rept.1182(2026) 1–87, arXiv:2602.02644 [hep-th]
2026
-
[16]
Carrollian amplitudes and celestial symmetries,
L. Mason, R. Ruzziconi, and A. Yelleshpur Srikant, “Carrollian amplitudes and celestial symmetries,”JHEP05(2024) 012,arXiv:2312.10138 [hep-th]
2024 arXiv
-
[17]
Carrollian motion in magnetized black hole horizons,
F. Gray, D. Kubiznak, T. R. Perche, and J. Redondo-Yuste, “Carrollian motion in magnetized black hole horizons,”Phys. Rev. D107no. 6, (2023) 064009, arXiv:2211.13695 [gr-qc]
2023 arXiv
-
[18]
Carrollian Physics at the Black Hole Horizon,
L. Donnay and C. Marteau, “Carrollian Physics at the Black Hole Horizon,”Class. Quant. Grav.36no. 16, (2019) 165002,arXiv:1903.09654 [hep-th]
2019 arXiv
-
[19]
Carroll black holes,
F. Ecker, D. Grumiller, J. Hartong, A. P´ erez, S. Prohazka, and R. Troncoso, “Carroll black holes,”SciPost Phys.15no. 6, (2023) 245,arXiv:2308.10947 [hep-th]. 41
2023
-
[20]
Kerroll black holes,
F. Ecker, D. Grumiller, L. H¨ orl, M. Leturcq-Daligaux, and A. P´ erez, “Kerroll black holes,”arXiv:2605.15269 [hep-th]
-
[21]
Sourced Carrollian fluids dual to black hole horizons,
S. H¨ usn¨ ugil and L. Lehner, “Sourced Carrollian fluids dual to black hole horizons,” Phys. Rev. D112no. 10, (2025) 104043,arXiv:2508.20284 [gr-qc]
2025
-
[22]
Hall effects in Carroll dynamics,
L. Marsot, P. M. Zhang, M. Chernodub, and P. A. Horvathy, “Hall effects in Carroll dynamics,”Phys. Rept.1028(2023) 1–60,arXiv:2212.02360 [hep-th]
2023 arXiv
-
[23]
Radiation in fluid/gravity and the flat limit,
G. Arenas-Henriquez, L. Ciambelli, F. Diaz, W. Jia, and D. Rivera-Betancour, “Radiation in fluid/gravity and the flat limit,”JHEP01(2026) 086, arXiv:2508.01446 [hep-th]
2026 arXiv
-
[24]
Classical Null Strings,
A. Schild, “Classical Null Strings,”Phys. Rev. D16(1977) 1722
1977
-
[25]
Classical and quantized tensionless strings,
J. Isberg, U. Lindstrom, B. Sundborg, and G. Theodoridis, “Classical and quantized tensionless strings,”Nucl. Phys. B411(1994) 122–156,arXiv:hep-th/9307108
1994 arXiv
-
[26]
Tensionless Strings from Worldsheet Symmetries,
A. Bagchi, S. Chakrabortty, and P. Parekh, “Tensionless Strings from Worldsheet Symmetries,”JHEP01(2016) 158,arXiv:1507.04361 [hep-th]
2016 arXiv
-
[27]
Tensionless Path from Closed to Open Strings,
A. Bagchi, A. Banerjee, and P. Parekh, “Tensionless Path from Closed to Open Strings,”Phys. Rev. Lett.123no. 11, (2019) 111601,arXiv:1905.11732 [hep-th]
2019 arXiv
-
[28]
A tale of three — tensionless strings and vacuum structure,
A. Bagchi, A. Banerjee, S. Chakrabortty, S. Dutta, and P. Parekh, “A tale of three — tensionless strings and vacuum structure,”JHEP04(2020) 061,arXiv:2001.00354 [hep-th]
2020 arXiv
-
[29]
Scale and conformal transformations in galilean-covariant field theory,
C. R. Hagen, “Scale and conformal transformations in galilean-covariant field theory,” Phys. Rev. D5(1972) 377–388
1972
-
[30]
Galilean invariant lee model for all spins and parities,
C. R. Hagen, “Galilean invariant lee model for all spins and parities,”Commun. Math. Phys.21(1971) 219–236
1971
-
[31]
Magnetic moment of a particle with arbitrary spin,
C. R. Hagen and W. J. Hurley, “Magnetic moment of a particle with arbitrary spin,” Phys. Rev. Lett.24(1970) 1381–1384
1970
-
[32]
A Pseudoclassical Description for a Nonrelativistic Spinning Particle. 1. The Levy-leblond Equation,
J. Gomis and M. Novell, “A Pseudoclassical Description for a Nonrelativistic Spinning Particle. 1. The Levy-leblond Equation,”Phys. Rev. D33(1986) 2212
1986
-
[33]
Galilean Quantum Field Theories and a Ghostless Lee Model,
J.-M. L´ evy-Leblond, “Galilean Quantum Field Theories and a Ghostless Lee Model,” Commun. Math. Phys.4(1967) 157–176. 42
1967
-
[34]
Celestial mechanics, conformal structures and gravitational waves,
C. Duval, G. W. Gibbons, and P. Horvathy, “Celestial mechanics, conformal structures and gravitational waves,”Phys. Rev. D43(1991) 3907–3922,arXiv:hep-th/0512188
1991 arXiv
-
[35]
On Galileian isometries,
C. Duval, “On Galileian isometries,”Class. Quant. Grav.10(1993) 2217–2222, arXiv:0903.1641 [math-ph]
1993 arXiv
-
[36]
The maximal kinematical invariance group of the free Schrodinger equation.,
U. Niederer, “The maximal kinematical invariance group of the free Schrodinger equation.,”Helv. Phys. Acta45(1972) 802–810
1972
-
[37]
Schr¨ odinger Symmetry: A Historical Review,
C. Duval, M. Henkel, P. Horvathy, S. Rouhani, and P. Zhang, “Schr¨ odinger Symmetry: A Historical Review,”Int. J. Theor. Phys.63no. 8, (2024) 184,arXiv:2403.20316 [hep-th]
2024 arXiv
-
[38]
Ultralocal quantum field theory,
J. R. Klauder, “Ultralocal quantum field theory,”Acta Phys. Austriaca Suppl.8(1971) 227–276
1971
-
[39]
J. R. Klauder,Beyond conventional quantization. Cambridge University Press, 12, 2005
2005
-
[40]
Ultralocal spinor field models,
J. R. Klauder, “Ultralocal spinor field models,”Annals Phys.79(1973) 111–130
1973
-
[41]
Asymptotic symmetries and dynamics of three-dimensional flat supergravity,
G. Barnich, L. Donnay, J. Matulich, and R. Troncoso, “Asymptotic symmetries and dynamics of three-dimensional flat supergravity,”JHEP08(2014) 071, arXiv:1407.4275 [hep-th]
2014 arXiv
-
[42]
Non-relativistic fields from arbitrary contracting backgrounds,
E. Bergshoeff, J. Rosseel, and T. Zojer, “Non-relativistic fields from arbitrary contracting backgrounds,”Class. Quant. Grav.33no. 17, (2016) 175010, arXiv:1512.06064 [hep-th]
2016 arXiv
-
[43]
Flat Holography: Aspects of the dual field theory,
A. Bagchi, R. Basu, A. Kakkar, and A. Mehra, “Flat Holography: Aspects of the dual field theory,”JHEP12(2016) 147,arXiv:1609.06203 [hep-th]
2016 arXiv
-
[44]
Carroll versus Galilei Gravity,
E. Bergshoeff, J. Gomis, B. Rollier, J. Rosseel, and T. ter Veldhuis, “Carroll versus Galilei Gravity,”JHEP03(2017) 165,arXiv:1701.06156 [hep-th]
2017 arXiv
-
[45]
Non-Relativistic Gravity and its Coupling to Matter,
D. Hansen, J. Hartong, and N. A. Obers, “Non-Relativistic Gravity and its Coupling to Matter,”JHEP06(2020) 145,arXiv:2001.10277 [gr-qc]
2020 arXiv
-
[46]
Galilean subdynamics and the dual resonance model,
L. C. Biedenharn and H. Van Dam, “Galilean subdynamics and the dual resonance model,”Phys. Rev. D9(1974) 471–486
1974
-
[47]
Constructing Carrollian field theories from null reduction,
B. Chen, R. Liu, H. Sun, and Y.-f. Zheng, “Constructing Carrollian field theories from null reduction,”JHEP11(2023) 170,arXiv:2301.06011 [hep-th]. 43
2023 arXiv
-
[48]
Galilean covariant Lagrangian models,
E. S. Santos, M. de Montigny, F. C. Khanna, and A. E. Santana, “Galilean covariant Lagrangian models,”J. Phys. A37(2004) 9771–9789
2004
-
[49]
Carroll theories from Lorentzian light-cone theories,
S. Majumdar, “Carroll theories from Lorentzian light-cone theories,”JHEP02(2026) 258,arXiv:2507.03081 [hep-th]
2026
-
[50]
Carroll fermions from null reduction: A case of good and bad fermions,
S. Majumdar, A. Sharma, and S. Singha, “Carroll fermions from null reduction: A case of good and bad fermions,”arXiv:2605.05334 [hep-th]
-
[51]
Studies on Carrollian quantum field theories,
A. Sharma, “Studies on Carrollian quantum field theories,”Class. Quant. Grav.43 no. 4, (2026) 045006,arXiv:2502.00487 [hep-th]
2026
-
[52]
Quantization of interacting Galilean field theories,
K. Banerjee and A. Sharma, “Quantization of interacting Galilean field theories,”JHEP 08(2022) 066,arXiv:2205.01918 [hep-th]
2022 arXiv
-
[53]
Galilean fermions: Classical and quantum aspects,
A. Sharma, “Galilean fermions: Classical and quantum aspects,”Phys. Rev. D107 no. 12, (2023) 125009,arXiv:2301.04538 [hep-th]
2023 arXiv
-
[54]
Null reduction and dynamical realization of Carrollian conformal symmetries,
A. Saha, R. Banerjee, and S. Gangopadhyay, “Null reduction and dynamical realization of Carrollian conformal symmetries,”Eur. Phys. J. C86no. 1, (2026) 72, arXiv:2510.06896 [hep-th]
2026
-
[55]
Interacting Conformal Carrollian Theories: Cues from Electrodynamics,
K. Banerjee, R. Basu, A. Mehra, A. Mohan, and A. Sharma, “Interacting Conformal Carrollian Theories: Cues from Electrodynamics,”Phys. Rev. D103no. 10, (2021) 105001,arXiv:2008.02829 [hep-th]
2021 arXiv
-
[56]
Renormalization of Galilean Electrodynamics,
S. Chapman, L. Di Pietro, K. T. Grosvenor, and Z. Yan, “Renormalization of Galilean Electrodynamics,”JHEP10(2020) 195,arXiv:2007.03033 [hep-th]
2020 arXiv
-
[57]
Carroll Symmetry, Dark Energy and Inflation,
J. de Boer, J. Hartong, N. A. Obers, W. Sybesma, and S. Vandoren, “Carroll Symmetry, Dark Energy and Inflation,”Front. in Phys.10(2022) 810405, arXiv:2110.02319 [hep-th]
2022 arXiv
-
[58]
Revisiting the Carrollian scalar field,
D. Rivera-Betancour and M. Vilatte, “Revisiting the Carrollian scalar field,”Phys. Rev. D106no. 8, (2022) 085004,arXiv:2207.01647 [hep-th]
2022 arXiv
-
[59]
Carroll Expansion of General Relativity,
D. Hansen, N. A. Obers, G. Oling, and B. T. Søgaard, “Carroll Expansion of General Relativity,”SciPost Phys.13no. 3, (2022) 055,arXiv:2112.12684 [hep-th]
2022 arXiv
-
[60]
Non-relativistic expansion of the Einstein–Hilbert Lagrangian,
D. Hansen, J. Hartong, and N. A. Obers, “Non-relativistic expansion of the Einstein–Hilbert Lagrangian,” in15th Marcel Grossmann Meeting on Recent Developments in Theoretical and Experimental General Relativity, Astrophysics, and Relativistic Field Theories. 5, 2019.arXiv:1905...
2019 arXiv
-
[61]
BMS 3 (Carrollian) field theories from a bound in the coupling of current-current deformations of CFT 2,
P. Parekh, D. Tempo, and R. Troncoso, “BMS 3 (Carrollian) field theories from a bound in the coupling of current-current deformations of CFT 2,”JHEP09(2023) 083, arXiv:2307.06367 [hep-th]
2023 arXiv
-
[62]
Non-Lorentzian expansions of the Lorentz force and kinematical algebras,
J. L. V. Cerdeira, J. Gomis, and A. Kleinschmidt, “Non-Lorentzian expansions of the Lorentz force and kinematical algebras,”JHEP01(2024) 023,arXiv:2310.15245 [hep-th]
2024 arXiv
-
[63]
Toward Carrollian quantization: Renormalization of Carrollian electrodynamics,
A. Mehra and A. Sharma, “Toward Carrollian quantization: Renormalization of Carrollian electrodynamics,”Phys. Rev. D108no. 4, (2023) 046019, arXiv:2302.13257 [hep-th]
2023 arXiv
-
[64]
AdS3 Carroll gravity: asymptotic symmetries and C-thermal configurations,
L. Avil´ es, O. Fuentealba, D. Hidalgo, and P. Rodr ´ ıguez, “AdS3 Carroll gravity: asymptotic symmetries and C-thermal configurations,”JHEP05(2025) 174, arXiv:2503.18818 [hep-th]
2025 arXiv
-
[65]
Carroll fermions of arbitrary spin,
A. Campoleoni and L. Mele, “Carroll fermions of arbitrary spin,”arXiv:2607.21124 [hep-th]
-
[66]
Galilean electromagnetism,
M. Le Bellac and J.-M. L´ evy-Leblond, “Galilean electromagnetism,”Il Nuovo Cimento B (1971-1996)14no. 2, (1973) 217–234
1973
-
[67]
Forty years of galilean electromagnetism (1973–2013),
G. Rousseaux, “Forty years of galilean electromagnetism (1973–2013),”Eur. Phys. J. Plus128(2013) 81
2013
-
[68]
Gyromagnetic Ratio and Galilean Symmetries in the Light Cone Formulation. 1. Formulation Based on the Bargmann-Wigner Field Equations,
E. Elizalde and J. Gomis, “Gyromagnetic Ratio and Galilean Symmetries in the Light Cone Formulation. 1. Formulation Based on the Bargmann-Wigner Field Equations,” Nuovo Cim. A35(1976) 336
1976
-
[69]
Gyromagnetic Ratio and Galilean Symmetries in the Light Cone Formulation. 2. Galilean Invariant Equations for Several Spin Field Equations,
E. Elizalde and J. Gomis, “Gyromagnetic Ratio and Galilean Symmetries in the Light Cone Formulation. 2. Galilean Invariant Equations for Several Spin Field Equations,” Nuovo Cim. A35(1976) 347–366
1976
-
[70]
Null Killing vector dimensional reduction and Galilean geometrodynamics,
B. Julia and H. Nicolai, “Null Killing vector dimensional reduction and Galilean geometrodynamics,”Nucl. Phys. B439(1995) 291–326,arXiv:hep-th/9412002
1995 arXiv
-
[71]
Bargmann Structures and Newton-cartan Theory,
C. Duval, G. Burdet, H. P. Kunzle, and M. Perrin, “Bargmann Structures and Newton-cartan Theory,”Phys. Rev. D31(1985) 1841–1853
1985
-
[72]
THE DIRAC AND LEVY-LEBLOND EQUATIONS AND GEOMETRIC QUANTIZATION,
C. Duval, “THE DIRAC AND LEVY-LEBLOND EQUATIONS AND GEOMETRIC QUANTIZATION,”Lect. Notes Math.1251(1987) 205–221. 45
1987
-
[73]
Non-Lorentzian theories with and without constraints,
E. A. Bergshoeff, J. Gomis, and A. Kleinschmidt, “Non-Lorentzian theories with and without constraints,”JHEP01(2023) 167,arXiv:2210.14848 [hep-th]
2023 arXiv
-
[74]
Super-Carrollian and Super-Galilean Field Theories,
K. Koutrolikos and M. Najafizadeh, “Super-Carrollian and Super-Galilean Field Theories,”Phys. Rev. D108no. 12, (2023) 125014,arXiv:2309.16786 [hep-th]
2023 arXiv
-
[75]
Dynamics of Carrollian scalar fields,
L. Ciambelli, “Dynamics of Carrollian scalar fields,”Class. Quant. Grav.41no. 16, (2024) 165011,arXiv:2311.04113 [hep-th]
2024 arXiv
-
[76]
Constructing Carrollian CFTs,
N. Gupta and N. V. Suryanarayana, “Constructing Carrollian CFTs,”JHEP03(2021) 194,arXiv:2001.03056 [hep-th]
2021 arXiv
-
[77]
Carroll covariant scalar fields in two dimensions,
A. Bagchi, A. Banerjee, S. Dutta, K. S. Kolekar, and P. Sharma, “Carroll covariant scalar fields in two dimensions,”JHEP01(2023) 072,arXiv:2203.13197 [hep-th]
2023 arXiv
-
[78]
The nuts and bolts of the BMS Bootstrap,
A. Bagchi, M. Gary, and Zodinmawia, “The nuts and bolts of the BMS Bootstrap,” Class. Quant. Grav.34no. 17, (2017) 174002,arXiv:1705.05890 [hep-th]
2017 arXiv
-
[79]
On Galilean conformal bootstrap,
B. Chen, P.-X. Hao, R. Liu, and Z.-F. Yu, “On Galilean conformal bootstrap,”JHEP 06(2021) 112,arXiv:2011.11092 [hep-th]
2021 arXiv
-
[80]
Bulk reconstruction in flat holography,
B. Chen and Z. Hu, “Bulk reconstruction in flat holography,”JHEP03(2024) 064, arXiv:2312.13574 [hep-th]
2024 arXiv
-
[81]
Momentum Space Correlation Functions in 2D Galilean Conformal Algebra,
A. Chetia, N. Kajuri, and C. Prakash, “Momentum Space Correlation Functions in 2D Galilean Conformal Algebra,”arXiv:2512.21733 [hep-th]
-
[82]
On Galilean conformal bootstrap. Part II.ξ = 0 sector,
B. Chen, P.-x. Hao, R. Liu, and Z.-f. Yu, “On Galilean conformal bootstrap. Part II.ξ = 0 sector,”JHEP12(2022) 019,arXiv:2207.01474 [hep-th]
2022 arXiv
-
[83]
Carrollian Conformal Theories in Momentum Space,
R. Marotta, A. Shekar, and M. Verma, “Carrollian Conformal Theories in Momentum Space,”arXiv:2512.06881 [hep-th]
-
[84]
Newtonian Gravity and the Bargmann Algebra,
R. Andringa, E. Bergshoeff, S. Panda, and M. de Roo, “Newtonian Gravity and the Bargmann Algebra,”Class. Quant. Grav.28(2011) 105011,arXiv:1011.1145 [hep-th]
2011 arXiv
-
[85]
3D Newton–Cartan supergravity,
R. Andringa, E. A. Bergshoeff, J. Rosseel, and E. Sezgin, “3D Newton–Cartan supergravity,”Class. Quant. Grav.30(2013) 205005,arXiv:1305.6737 [hep-th]
2013 arXiv
-
[86]
Torsional Newton–Cartan geometry and the Schr¨ odinger algebra,
E. A. Bergshoeff, J. Hartong, and J. Rosseel, “Torsional Newton–Cartan geometry and the Schr¨ odinger algebra,”Class. Quant. Grav.32no. 13, (2015) 135017, arXiv:1409.5555 [hep-th]. 46
2015 arXiv
-
[87]
Hoˇ rava-Lifshitz gravity from dynamical Newton-Cartan geometry,
J. Hartong and N. A. Obers, “Hoˇ rava-Lifshitz gravity from dynamical Newton-Cartan geometry,”JHEP07(2015) 155,arXiv:1504.07461 [hep-th]
2015 arXiv
-
[88]
A Schr¨ odinger approach to Newton-Cartan and Hoˇ rava-Lifshitz gravities,
H. R. Afshar, E. A. Bergshoeff, A. Mehra, P. Parekh, and B. Rollier, “A Schr¨ odinger approach to Newton-Cartan and Hoˇ rava-Lifshitz gravities,”JHEP04(2016) 145, arXiv:1512.06277 [hep-th]
2016 arXiv
-
[89]
Newton–Cartan (super)gravity as a non-relativistic limit,
E. Bergshoeff, J. Rosseel, and T. Zojer, “Newton–Cartan (super)gravity as a non-relativistic limit,”Class. Quant. Grav.32no. 20, (2015) 205003, arXiv:1505.02095 [hep-th]
2015 arXiv
-
[90]
Lie Algebra Expansions and Actions for Non-Relativistic Gravity,
E. Bergshoeff, J. M. Izquierdo, T. Ort ´ ın, and L. Romano, “Lie Algebra Expansions and Actions for Non-Relativistic Gravity,”JHEP08(2019) 048,arXiv:1904.08304 [hep-th]
2019 arXiv
-
[91]
A non-lorentzian primer,
E. Bergshoeff, J. Figueroa-O’Farrill, and J. Gomis, “A non-lorentzian primer,”SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes69(2023) 1,arXiv:2206.12177 [hep-th]
2023 arXiv
-
[92]
Review on Non-Relativistic Gravity,
J. Hartong, N. A. Obers, and G. Oling, “Review on Non-Relativistic Gravity,”Front. in Phys.11(2023) 1116888,arXiv:2212.11309 [gr-qc]
2023 arXiv
-
[93]
Magnetic Carrollian gravity from the Carroll algebra,
A. Campoleoni, M. Henneaux, S. Pekar, A. P´ erez, and P. Salgado-Rebolledo, “Magnetic Carrollian gravity from the Carroll algebra,”JHEP09(2022) 127,arXiv:2207.14167 [hep-th]
2022 arXiv
-
[94]
Gauging the Carroll Algebra and Ultra-Relativistic Gravity,
J. Hartong, “Gauging the Carroll Algebra and Ultra-Relativistic Gravity,”JHEP08 (2015) 069,arXiv:1505.05011 [hep-th]
2015 arXiv
-
[95]
Field Theories on Null Manifolds,
A. Bagchi, R. Basu, A. Mehra, and P. Nandi, “Field Theories on Null Manifolds,” JHEP02(2020) 141,arXiv:1912.09388 [hep-th]
2020 arXiv
-
[96]
Nonrelativistic particles and wave equations,
J.-M. Levy-Leblond, “Nonrelativistic particles and wave equations,”Commun. Math. Phys.6(1967) 286–311
1967
-
[97]
Carroll fermions,
E. A. Bergshoeff, A. Campoleoni, A. Fontanella, L. Mele, and J. Rosseel, “Carroll fermions,”SciPost Phys.16no. 6, (2024) 153,arXiv:2312.00745 [hep-th]
2024 arXiv
-
[98]
Quantization of Carrollian fermions,
E. Ekiz, E. O. Kahya, and U. Zorba, “Quantization of Carrollian fermions,”Phys. Rev. D111no. 10, (2025) 105019,arXiv:2502.05645 [hep-th]
2025 arXiv
-
[99]
The Carrollian kaleidoscope,
A. Bagchi, A. Banerjee, P. Dhivakar, S. Mondal, and A. Shukla, “The Carrollian kaleidoscope,”Eur. Phys. J. C86no. 4, (2026) 429,arXiv:2506.16164 [hep-th]. 47
2026 arXiv
-
[100]
Carroll fermions, expansions and the lightcone,
A. Bagchi and S. Mondal, “Carroll fermions, expansions and the lightcone,” arXiv:2604.14301 [hep-th]
-
[101]
Quantization as a Consequence of the Symmetry Group: An Approach to Geometric Quantization,
V. Aldaya and J. A. de Azcarraga, “Quantization as a Consequence of the Symmetry Group: An Approach to Geometric Quantization,”J. Math. Phys.23(1982) 1297
1982
-
[102]
Cohomology, central extensions, and (dynamical) groups,
V. Aldaya and J. A. de Azc´ arraga, “Cohomology, central extensions, and (dynamical) groups,”Int. J. Theor. Phys.24no. 2, (1985) 141–154
1985
-
[103]
Spin and exotic Galilean symmetry,
C. Duval and P. A. Horvathy, “Spin and exotic Galilean symmetry,”Phys. Lett. B547 (2002) 306–312,arXiv:hep-th/0209166. [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 588, 228–228 (2004)]
2002 arXiv
-
[104]
Linear differential equations for a fractional spin field,
J. L. Cortes and M. S. Plyushchay, “Linear differential equations for a fractional spin field,”J. Math. Phys.35(1994) 6049–6057,arXiv:hep-th/9405193
1994 arXiv
-
[105]
Bosonized supersymmetry of anyons and supersymmetric exotic particle on the non-commutative plane,
P. A. Horvathy, M. S. Plyushchay, and M. Valenzuela, “Bosonized supersymmetry of anyons and supersymmetric exotic particle on the non-commutative plane,”Nucl. Phys. B768(2007) 247–262,arXiv:hep-th/0610317
2007 arXiv
-
[106]
Bosons, fermions and anyons in the plane, and supersymmetry,
P. A. Horvathy, M. S. Plyushchay, and M. Valenzuela, “Bosons, fermions and anyons in the plane, and supersymmetry,”Annals Phys.325(2010) 1931–1975,arXiv:1001.0274 [hep-th]
2010 arXiv
-
[107]
Planar Carrollean dynamics, and the Carroll quantum equation,
L. Marsot, “Planar Carrollean dynamics, and the Carroll quantum equation,”J. Geom. Phys.179(2022) 104574,arXiv:2110.08489 [math-ph]
2022 arXiv
-
[108]
Carroll/fracton particles and their correspondence,
J. Figueroa-O’Farrill, A. P´ erez, and S. Prohazka, “Carroll/fracton particles and their correspondence,”JHEP06(2023) 207,arXiv:2305.06730 [hep-th]
2023 arXiv
-
[109]
One-loop quantum effects in Carroll scalars,
K. Banerjee, R. Basu, B. Krishnan, S. Maulik, A. Mehra, and A. Ray, “One-loop quantum effects in Carroll scalars,”Phys. Rev. D108no. 8, (2023) 085022, arXiv:2307.03901 [hep-th]
2023 arXiv
-
[110]
Carroll limit of the Dirac Lagrangian,
M. B. Stakenborg, “Carroll limit of the Dirac Lagrangian,” Master’s thesis, Utrecht University, 8, 2023
2023
-
[111]
Magic fermions: Carroll and flat bands,
A. Bagchi, A. Banerjee, R. Basu, M. Islam, and S. Mondal, “Magic fermions: Carroll and flat bands,”JHEP03(2023) 227,arXiv:2211.11640 [hep-th]
2023 arXiv
-
[112]
Conformal Carroll groups and BMS symmetry,
C. Duval, G. W. Gibbons, and P. A. Horvathy, “Conformal Carroll groups and BMS symmetry,”Class. Quant. Grav.31(2014) 092001,arXiv:1402.5894 [gr-qc]. 48
2014 arXiv
Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.