Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 75 references

Scalar Field on a higher-spin Background via Fedosov quantization

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes a single gauge-invariant action, $S[\phi]=\operatorname{Tr}_A(F\star W_\phi)$, that couples a complex scalar to any conformal higher-spin background and reproduces the familiar Noether coupling when the connection is…

desk verdict Genuinely new covariant scalar–CHS action; the trace-domain gap is real but patchable. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.20459 v1 pith:ELECFE4E submitted 2024-12-29 hep-th

Thomas Basile , Shailesh Dhasmana , Evgeny Skvortsov This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th MSC 53D55
keywords conformalhigher-spingravityFedosovquantizationdeformationWignerfunctionFeigin–Felder–ShoikhetcocyclescalarmattercouplingcurrentsWeylsymmetry
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper proposes a manifestly covariant action coupling a massless complex scalar field to a background of conformal higher-spin fields, the higher-spin relatives of the graviton, on an arbitrary spacetime. The proposed action is $S[\phi]=\operatorname{Tr}_A(F\star W_\phi)$, where $F$ is a covariantly constant section of the Weyl bundle encoding the background, $W_\phi$ is a curved-space Wigner function built from the scalar, and $\operatorname{Tr}_A$ is the invariant trace from the Feigin\textendash Felder\textendash Shoikhet cocycle. The paper argues that invariance under the full higher-spin gauge algebra follows from the cyclicity of this trace, and that when the Fedosov connection is linear in momenta the action reduces to $\int |e|\, \phi^*(\hat f\phi)$, recovering the Noether coupling of the scalar to gravity and higher-spin sources. If correct, this closes the remaining gap in covariant formulations of conformal higher-spin gravity, whose matter coupling had previously been written only around flat space. The same construction is proposed as a phase-space formulation of quantum mechanics on curved spaces.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Fedosov connection $D=d+\frac{1}{\hbar}[A,\cdot]_\star$ on the Weyl bundle of spacetime, together with the Feigin\textendash Felder\textendash Shoikhet trace $\operatorname{Tr}_A$. The connection is flat by construction, and its flat sections are exactly the lifts of symbols on the cotangent bundle; it turns the fiberwise Moyal\textendash Weyl product into an associative star product on $T^*X$. The scalar enters through the associated Fock bundle, where the same connection defines flat sections $\Phi$ identified with wave functions, and the quantization map $\hat f\phi=\rho(F)\Phi|_{y=0}$ converts symbols into differential operators. The trace built from the Feigin\textendash Felder\textendash Shoikhet cocycle has two properties that carry the argument: invariance under gauge transformations of $A$ and cyclicity under the star product, both up to boundary terms. These properties are what make the expression $F\star W_\phi$ into a gauge-invariant action.

What would settle it

Compute the trace difference $\operatorname{Tr}_A(F\star W_\phi)-\operatorname{Tr}_A(W_\phi\star F)$, equivalently the gauge variation of (3.21), for a closed curved spacetime such as $S^n$ with a nonzero spin-3 background $h_{abc}$ and a compactly supported scalar, working to the first order in curvature where the Fedosov lifts and the trace are explicitly known. If the result is not a total derivative in $x$ and $p$, the claimed invariance is false; if it vanishes, the construction passes its most direct explicit test.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the coupling of a free massless complex scalar to an off-shell conformal higher-spin background admits a manifestly covariant action, not just an order-by-order construction over flat space. The construction works as follows: lift the scalar $\phi$ to a covariantly constant section $\Phi$ of the Fock bundle using the Fedosov connection; form the curved Wigner function $W_\phi=W[\Phi,\Phi]$; multiply the lifted background symbol $F$ by $W_\phi$ with the Moyal\textendash Weyl star product in the fiber; and take the Feigin\textendash Felder\textendash Shoikhet trace. The result $S[\phi]=\operatorname{Tr}_A(F\star W_\phi)$ is claimed to be well-defined and invariant under the higher-spin gauge transformations up to boundary terms, and to reduce to $\int |e|\,\phi^*(\hat f\phi)$ when the connection $A$ is linear in $p$. The examples show that $f=p^2+\frac{\hbar^2}{4(n-1)}R$ gives the conformal Laplacian, and that adding $h_{a_1\cdots a_s}p^{a_1}\cdots p^{a_s}$ produces the covariant higher-spin currents and the expected Fradkin\textendash Tseytlin gauge transformations with Weyl weight $s-2$ for a spin-$s$ field.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands on the paper's reliance, cited from the literature rather than proved here, that the Feigin–Felder–Shoikhet trace is cyclic and gauge-invariant up to boundary terms when evaluated on the specific infinite formal power-series sections $F$ and $W_\phi$ that appear in the action; if cyclicity fails on those sections, the claimed invariance of (3.21) collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The coupling of a free complex scalar to a conformal higher-spin background now has a manifestly covariant, background-independent action on any spacetime, instead of an order-by-order expansion around flat space.
  • With the connection taken purely gravitational, the formula reproduces the conformally coupled scalar: the symbol of the conformal Laplacian is $p^2+\frac{\hbar^2}{4(n-1)}R$, Weyl transformations are realized by gauge parameters, and the scalar carries Weyl weight $-\frac{n-2}{2}$.
  • For higher-spin sources $h_{a_1\cdots a_s}$, the action yields the Noether coupling $\int |e|\, h^{a_1\cdots a_s}J_{a_1\cdots a_s}$ and the gauge variation $\delta h_{a_1\cdots a_s}=2\nabla_{(a_1}\xi_{a_2\cdots a_s)}+2\eta_{(a_1a_2}\sigma_{a_3\cdots a_s)}+(s-2)\sigma h_{a_1\cdots a_s}+\cdots$, fixing the Weyl weight $s-2$.
  • The same data define a phase-space formulation of quantum mechanics on a curved space, with the Feigin\textendash Felder\textendash Shoikhet cocycle as the trace, flat Fock sections as wave functions, and the Wigner function given by the same fiberwise formula as in flat space.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper flags Paneitz, Fradkin\textendash Tseytlin, and GJMS operators as recoverable by choosing symbols like $F=(p^2)^k+\cdots$, but does not derive them; a direct next test is to run eq. (3.21) with this symbol and reproduce, say, the Paneitz operator in $n$ dimensions.
  • Because the construction is stated for cotangent bundles but the trace, wave functions, and Wigner function are defined fiberwise, the same formulas should extend to arbitrary symplectic manifolds once a polarization is chosen; this is the authors' own hint, not a theorem proved in the paper.
  • Since the Feigin\textendash Felder\textendash Shoikhet trace exists in odd dimensions too, the action (3.21) is a candidate matter coupling in odd-dimensional conformal higher-spin theories, where the anomaly argument for the background action does not apply; the paper does not pursue this direction.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a manifestly covariant action coupling a complex scalar field to a conformal higher-spin background. Section 2 reviews Fedosov quantization of T*X, the lift of symbols to covariantly constant sections of the Weyl bundle, and the Feigin-Felder-Shoikhet (FFS) trace. Section 3 introduces a curved Wigner function W_phi in (3.16) and defines the action S = Tr_A(F * W_phi) in (3.21), claiming gauge invariance via cyclicity of the FFS trace and reduction to S = ∫ |e| phi*(b_f phi) in (3.22) when A is linear in p. Section 4 reproduces the conformal Laplacian with alpha = hbar^2/(4(n-1)) and beta = -1, and derives gauge transformations of metric-like higher-spin fields as well as covariantized higher-spin currents. The construction aims to solve the open problem of covariant matter coupling in conformal higher-spin gravity.

Significance. If correct, (3.21)-(3.22) provide a background-independent formulation of the scalar coupling to conformal higher-spin fields, going beyond flat-space approaches. The use of the FFS cocycle is well motivated, the derivations are largely explicit, and the recovery of the conformal Laplacian and Weyl weights is a useful consistency check. The derivation is not circular: alpha and beta are fixed by compatibility with known conformal transformation laws rather than by fitting the final action. However, two technical gaps currently prevent the results from being fully established: the FFS trace cyclicity is not justified for the Wigner-function sections used in the action, and the quantization map formula (4.24) is internally inconsistent and undermines the higher-spin current derivation in Section 4.2.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3, Eqs. (3.16), (3.21) and (2.27)-(2.28)] The gauge invariance of (3.21) is claimed to follow from the cyclicity of the FFS trace, but (2.27)-(2.28) are established in [21,22] for covariantly constant sections of the Weyl bundle that are polynomial in p, as defined in (2.2). The Wigner function W_phi in (3.16) contains an oscillatory integral in u and is not polynomial in p; it is a distribution-valued section. The manuscript does not prove that (2.27)-(2.28) extend to F * W_phi, nor does it state fall-off or formal-series conditions that make the boundary terms in (2.27) vanish. Since both the invariance of (3.21) under the transformations (3.2)-(3.4) and the reduction (3.22) rely on these properties for the actual section W_phi, this is a load-bearing gap. The authors should either prove the extension for a suitable class of sections (e.g., Wigner functions of Schwartz-class wave functions, or in a formal distributional sense) or state the precise domain assumptions.
  2. [Section 4.2, Eq. (4.24)] Equation (4.24) is inconsistent with the representation property (2.32) and with the values used in Section 4.1. For l=0, m=2, (4.24) gives rho(p_a p_b) = (hbar^2/2) d_a d_b, whereas (2.36) and (2.32) imply rho(p_a)rho(p_b) = hbar^2 d_a d_b, and (4.3) itself states rho(p^2)|_{y=0} = hbar^2 d_y^2. For l=2, m=2, (4.24) gives rho(y_a y_b p_c p_d)|_{y=0} = (hbar^2/4) delta_((a)^(c delta_b)^d), while (4.3) gives (hbar^2/2) delta_((a)^(c delta_b)^d). Consequently, the coefficients in (4.28) do not follow from (4.24), and the formula (4.29) stated after integration by parts is inconsistent with (4.28): for s=2 the relative coefficients of the three terms differ between the two expressions. The quantization formula and the current derivation must be corrected; this error is localized to Section 4.2 but it invalidates the claimed derivation of the higher-spin currents.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 5, Discussion] The sentence 'while the scalar matter can be coupled to a higher-spin background for any d = 4 the conformal anomaly recipe gives SCHS [hs] only for d even' is garbled; presumably it should read 'for any d' or 'for any even d'.
  2. [Section 2, Eqs. (2.27)-(2.28)] The phrase 'for any covariantly constant sections F and G' is overbroad given the polynomial-in-p class defined in (2.2); the precise class of sections for which the trace properties are known should be stated.
  3. [Section 3, Eq. (3.22)] In the expression 'W[rho(F)Phi, Phi]|_{y=0}', it is ambiguous whether y=0 is evaluated before or after the p-integral; the intended meaning is to apply property (ii) and then set y=0, so the notation should be clarified, for example by writing (∫ d^n p W[rho(F)Phi, Phi])|_{y=0}.
  4. [Appendix A] The sentence 'Given a choice of quantization for the phase space coordinates x^mu -> x-hat^mu and p^mu -> p-hat^mu, where hatted symbols denote the corresponding operator, we want to associate' is incomplete and trails off; it should be finished or deleted.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the action (3.21) is assembled from independent Fedosov/FFS ingredients, and Section 4 fixes coefficients against known conformal and higher-spin results rather than fitting the target action. A missing-proof caveat on trace cyclicity for the oscillatory Wigner section is a rigor gap, not circularity.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained. The action S[phi]=Tr_A(F*W_phi) in (3.21) is built from three independently defined objects: the Fedosov lift (2.20), the Feigin-Felder-Shoikhet invariant trace (2.25), with its explicit cocycle expression in Appendix C, and the curved Wigner section (3.16). Gauge invariance follows formally from the cyclicity (2.28) of that external trace, and no equation of the paper defines the output in terms of the input. The coefficients alpha and beta in Section 4.1 are fixed by matching the known Weyl variation of p^2+alpha R and the known conformal Laplacian, as shown in (4.4)-(4.14); this is a consistency check against an external benchmark, not a fit to (3.21). The higher-spin gauge variation (4.20) and the current (4.29) are derived from the formalism and compared with Fradkin-Tseytlin results, not imported as the paper's own conclusion. The only caveat is a rigor gap rather than circularity: cyclicity (2.28) is stated 'up to boundary terms' for covariantly constant sections, but the paper does not prove the boundary terms vanish for the oscillatory, Schwartz-type Wigner section (3.16) on non-compact or curved X. That is an omitted domain proof and a correctness risk, not a reduction of the central claim to its own assumptions.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The construction leans on Fedosov's existence theorem, the FFS trace theorem, and Weyl calculus; none of these are derived in the paper. The only 'physical' axiom is the choice of defining the off-shell higher-spin background via a covariantly constant Weyl section F of the given form.

free parameters (2)
  • alpha (coefficient of curvature term in the scalar-field symbol) = hbar^2/(4(n-1))
    Introduced in the Ansatz f = (1/2)(p^2 + alpha R); fixed by requiring the quantized operator to reproduce the conformal Laplacian and by Weyl invariance.
  • beta (coefficient of w_Weyl gauge parameter) = -1
    Introduced in the Ansatz w_Weyl = beta tau(sigma); fixed by requiring the Weyl variation of the symbol p^2 + alpha R to match the classical Weyl transformation.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math There exists a unique flat connection A = A0 + gamma on the Weyl bundle solving dA + (1/(2 hbar))[A,A]_* = 0, with recursive construction (2.14).
    Proved by Fedosov [40]; used throughout Section 2.
  • standard math The Feigin-Felder-Shoikhet cocycle yields a trace Tr_A on covariantly constant sections of the Weyl bundle that is cyclic and invariant under gauge transformations up to boundary terms (2.25)-(2.28).
    Theorem from [22,23] as applied in [21]; underpins the action (3.21).
  • standard math The quantization map rho and the Wigner function W satisfy properties (3.14) and (3.15) for lifted sections.
    Flat-space Weyl calculus results from Appendix A, extended fiberwise to the curved lift.
  • domain assumption Any conformal higher-spin background coupled to a scalar is described by a flat connection A (purely gravitational) and a covariantly constant section F = p^2 + (hbar^2/(4(n-1))) R + sum_{s>2} h_s p^s, with gauge symmetries (3.2).
    This is the physical input choosing the spectrum of currents and sources; it follows the parent-formulation literature but is not derived from a more fundamental principle.
  • standard math For A linear in p, the trace simplifies to a local expression (2.29) and the action reduces to (3.22).
    Computation presented in Section 3 and Appendix C; follows from the cocycle formulas.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scalar Field on a higher-spin Background via Fedosov quantization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ELECFE4E

@misc{pith2026241220459,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scalar Field on a higher-spin Background via Fedosov quantization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ELECFE4E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.20459}
}
read the original abstract

Conformal higher-spin gravity is the log-divergent part of the effective action of the scalar field coupled to background fields via higher-spin currents, as was defined by Segal and Tseytlin, which can be worked out over the flat space background. We revisit the problem of the scalar field in a higher-spin background and propose a manifestly covariant version thereof. The construction utilizes the Fedosov quantization of the cotangent bundle and the action is written with the help of the trace on a curved phase space that is provided by the Feigin--Felder--Shoikhet cocycle. The same construction allows one to formulate quantum mechanics on a curved space, the phase space being the cotangent bundle.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [21]

    Covariant action for conformal higher spin gravity

    T. Basile, M. Grigoriev, and E. Skvortsov, “Covariant action for conformal higher spin gravity,” J. Phys. A 56 (2023) no. 38, 385402, arXiv:2212.10336 [hep-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  2. [32]

    On induced action for conformal higher spins in curved background

    M. Beccaria and A. A. Tseytlin, “On induced action for conformal higher spins in curved background,” Nucl. Phys. B 919 (2017) 359–383, arXiv:1702.00222 [hep-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  3. [1]

    On limits of superstring in AdS(5) x S**5,

    A. A. Tseytlin, “On limits of superstring in AdS(5) x S**5,” Theor. Math. Phys. 133 (2002) 1376–1389, arXiv:hep-th/0201112

    arXiv 2002

  4. [2]

    Conformal higher spin theory,

    A. Y. Segal, “Conformal higher spin theory,” Nucl. Phys. B 664 (2003) 59–130, arXiv:hep-th/0207212

    arXiv 2003

  5. [3]

    Effective action in a higher-spin background,

    X. Bekaert, E. Joung, and J. Mourad, “Effective action in a higher-spin background,” JHEP 02 (2011) 048, arXiv:1012.2103 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2011

  6. [4]

    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

    work page 1989

  7. [5]

    Area Preserving Diffeomorphisms and Higher Spin Algebra,

    E. Bergshoeff, M. P. Blencowe, and K. S. Stelle, “Area Preserving Diffeomorphisms and Higher Spin Algebra,” Commun. Math. Phys. 128 (1990) 213

    work page 1990

  8. [6]

    Conformal Higher Spin in (2+1)-dimensions,

    C. N. Pope and P. K. Townsend, “Conformal Higher Spin in (2+1)-dimensions,” Phys. Lett. B 225 (1989) 245–250

    work page 1989

Show all 75 references
  1. [7]

    A Superconformal Theory of Massless Higher Spin Fields in D = (2+1),

    E. S. Fradkin and V. Y. Linetsky, “A Superconformal Theory of Massless Higher Spin Fields in D = (2+1),” Mod. Phys. Lett. A 4 (1989) 731

    1989

  2. [8]

    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,” JHEP 11 (2010) 007, arXiv:1008.4744 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  3. [9]

    Nonlinear Winf inityas Asymptotic Symmetry of Three-Dimensional Higher Spin Anti-de Sitter Gravity,

    M. Henneaux and S.-J. Rey, “Nonlinear Winf inityas Asymptotic Symmetry of Three-Dimensional Higher Spin Anti-de Sitter Gravity,” JHEP 12 (2010) 007, arXiv:1008.4579 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  4. [10]

    New Conformal Higher Spin Gravities in 3 d,

    M. Grigoriev, I. Lovrekovic, and E. Skvortsov, “New Conformal Higher Spin Gravities in 3 d,” JHEP 01 (2020) 059, arXiv:1909.13305 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Matter-free higher spin gravities in 3D: Partially-massless fields and general structure,

    M. Grigoriev, K. Mkrtchyan, and E. Skvortsov, “Matter-free higher spin gravities in 3D: Partially-massless fields and general structure,” Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) no. 6, 066003, arXiv:2005.05931 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  6. [12]

    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,” arXiv:2409.12830 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  7. [13]

    Poincare invariant dynamics of massless higher spins: Fourth order analysis on mass shell,

    R. R. Metsaev, “Poincare invariant dynamics of massless higher spins: Fourth order analysis on mass shell,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A 6 (1991) 359–367

    1991

  8. [14]

    S matrix approach to massless higher spins theory. 2: The Case of internal symmetry,

    R. R. Metsaev, “S matrix approach to massless higher spins theory. 2: The Case of internal symmetry,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A 6 (1991) 2411–2421

    1991

  9. [15]

    Light-Front Higher-Spin Theories in Flat Space,

    D. Ponomarev and E. D. Skvortsov, “Light-Front Higher-Spin Theories in Flat Space,” J. Phys. A 50 (2017) no. 9, 095401, arXiv:1609.04655 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  10. [16]

    Chiral higher spin gravity in (A)dS4 and secrets of Chern–Simons matter theories,

    A. Sharapov and E. Skvortsov, “Chiral higher spin gravity in (A)dS4 and secrets of Chern–Simons matter theories,” Nucl. Phys. B 985 (2022) 115982, arXiv:2205.15293 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  11. [17]

    Chiral higher spin gravity and convex geometry,

    A. Sharapov, E. Skvortsov, and R. Van Dongen, “Chiral higher spin gravity and convex geometry,” SciPost Phys. 14 (2023) no. 6, 162, arXiv:2209.01796 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  12. [18]

    More on Chiral Higher Spin Gravity and convex geometry,

    A. Sharapov, E. Skvortsov, A. Sukhanov, and R. Van Dongen, “More on Chiral Higher Spin Gravity and convex geometry,” Nucl. Phys. B 990 (2023) 116152, arXiv:2209.15441 [hep-th]. 29

    2023 arXiv

  13. [19]

    Scalar scattering via conformal higher spin exchange,

    E. Joung, S. Nakach, and A. A. Tseytlin, “Scalar scattering via conformal higher spin exchange,” JHEP 02 (2016) 125, arXiv:1512.08896 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  14. [20]

    Induced Action for Conformal Higher Spins from Worldline Path Integrals,

    R. Bonezzi, “Induced Action for Conformal Higher Spins from Worldline Path Integrals,” Universe 3 (2017) no. 3, 64, arXiv:1709.00850 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Hochschild cohomology of the Weyl algebra and traces in deformation quantization,

    B. Feigin, G. Felder, and B. Shoikhet, “Hochschild cohomology of the Weyl algebra and traces in deformation quantization,” Duke Mathematical Journal 127 (2005) no. 3, 487–517, arXiv:math/0311303 [math.QA]

    2005 arXiv

  16. [23]

    A Proof of the Tsygan formality conjecture for chains,

    B. Shoikhet, “A Proof of the Tsygan formality conjecture for chains,” Advances in Mathematics 179 (2000) 7–37, arXiv:math/0010321

    2000 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Formality conjecture for chains,

    B. Tsygan, “Formality conjecture for chains,” arXiv:math/9904132 [math.QA]

    arXiv

  18. [25]

    Higher symmetries of the Laplacian,

    M. G. Eastwood, “Higher symmetries of the Laplacian,” Annals Math. 161 (2005) 1645–1665, arXiv:hep-th/0206233

    2005 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Vacuum quantum fluctuations in curved space and the theory of gravitation,

    A. D. Sakharov, “Vacuum quantum fluctuations in curved space and the theory of gravitation,” Dokl. Akad. Nauk Ser. Fiz. 177 (1967) 70–71

    1967

  20. [27]

    Conformal Supergravity,

    E. S. Fradkin and A. A. Tseytlin, “Conformal Supergravity,” Phys. Rept. 119 (1985) 233–362

    1985

  21. [28]

    Superconformal Higher Spin Theory in the Cubic Approximation,

    E. S. Fradkin and V. Y. Linetsky, “Superconformal Higher Spin Theory in the Cubic Approximation,” Nucl. Phys. B 350 (1991) 274–324

    1991

  22. [29]

    D = 4 superYang-Mills, D = 5 gauged supergravity, and D = 4 conformal supergravity,

    H. Liu and A. A. Tseytlin, “D = 4 superYang-Mills, D = 5 gauged supergravity, and D = 4 conformal supergravity,” Nucl. Phys. B 533 (1998) 88–108, arXiv:hep-th/9804083

    1998 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Conformal Interactions Between Matter and Higher-Spin (Super)Fields,

    S. M. Kuzenko, M. Ponds, and E. S. N. Raptakis, “Conformal Interactions Between Matter and Higher-Spin (Super)Fields,” Fortsch. Phys. 71 (2023) no. 1, 2200157, arXiv:2208.07783 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [31]

    On conformal higher spins in curved background,

    M. Grigoriev and A. A. Tseytlin, “On conformal higher spins in curved background,” J. Phys. A 50 (2017) no. 12, 125401, arXiv:1609.09381 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Conformal geometry and (super)conformal higher-spin gauge theories,

    S. M. Kuzenko and M. Ponds, “Conformal geometry and (super)conformal higher-spin gauge theories,” JHEP 05 (2019) 113, arXiv:1902.08010 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Generalised conformal higher-spin fields in curved backgrounds,

    S. M. Kuzenko and M. Ponds, “Generalised conformal higher-spin fields in curved backgrounds,” JHEP 04 (2020) 021, arXiv:1912.00652 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Off-shell superconformal higher spin multiplets in four dimensions,

    S. M. Kuzenko, R. Manvelyan, and S. Theisen, “Off-shell superconformal higher spin multiplets in four dimensions,” JHEP 07 (2017) 034, arXiv:1701.00682 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Extended superconformal higher-spin gauge theories in four dimensions,

    S. M. Kuzenko and E. S. N. Raptakis, “Extended superconformal higher-spin gauge theories in four dimensions,” JHEP 12 (2021) 210, arXiv:2104.10416 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Induced action for superconformal higher-spin multiplets using SCFT techniques,

    S. M. Kuzenko, J. La Fontaine, and M. Ponds, “Induced action for superconformal higher-spin multiplets using SCFT techniques,” Phys. Lett. B 839 (2023) 137818, arXiv:2212.00468 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Towards N = 2 superconformal higher-spin theory,

    S. M. Kuzenko and E. S. N. Raptakis, “Towards N = 2 superconformal higher-spin theory,” JHEP 11 (2024) 013, arXiv:2407.21573 [hep-th]. 30

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Unfolding conformal geometry,

    E. Joung, M.-g. Kim, and Y. Kim, “Unfolding conformal geometry,” JHEP 12 (2021) 092, arXiv:2108.05535 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  32. [40]

    A simple geometrical construction of deformation quantization,

    B. V. Fedosov, “A simple geometrical construction of deformation quantization,” J. Diff. Geom. 40 (1994) no. 2, 213–238

    1994

  33. [41]

    B. V. Fedosov, Deformation quantization and index theory . Akademie Verlag, 1996

    1996

  34. [42]

    Cubic Interaction in Conformal Theory of Integer Higher Spin Fields in Four-dimensional Space-time,

    E. S. Fradkin and V. Y. Linetsky, “Cubic Interaction in Conformal Theory of Integer Higher Spin Fields in Four-dimensional Space-time,” Phys. Lett. B 231 (1989) 97–106

    1989

  35. [43]

    Bosonic conformal higher-spin fields of any symmetry,

    M. A. Vasiliev, “Bosonic conformal higher-spin fields of any symmetry,” Nucl. Phys. B 829 (2010) 176–224, arXiv:0909.5226 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Pseudo-differential operators and deformation quantization,

    B. Fedosov, “Pseudo-differential operators and deformation quantization,” in Quantization of Singular Symplectic Quotients, pp. 95–118. Springer, 2001

    2001

  37. [45]

    Parent field theory and unfolding in BRST first-quantized terms,

    G. Barnich, M. Grigoriev, A. Semikhatov, and I. Tipunin, “Parent field theory and unfolding in BRST first-quantized terms,” Commun. Math. Phys. 260 (2005) 147–181, arXiv:hep-th/0406192

    2005 arXiv

  38. [46]

    First order parent formulation for generic gauge field theories,

    G. Barnich and M. Grigoriev, “First order parent formulation for generic gauge field theories,” JHEP 01 (2011) 122, arXiv:1009.0190 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Parent formulation at the Lagrangian level,

    M. Grigoriev, “Parent formulation at the Lagrangian level,” JHEP 07 (2011) 061, arXiv:1012.1903 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Parent formulations, frame-like Lagrangians, and generalized auxiliary fields,

    M. Grigoriev, “Parent formulations, frame-like Lagrangians, and generalized auxiliary fields,” JHEP 1212 (2012) 048, arXiv:1204.1793 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Off-shell gauge fields from BRST quantization,

    M. Grigoriev, “Off-shell gauge fields from BRST quantization,” arXiv:hep-th/0605089

    arXiv

  42. [50]

    Higher order singletons, partially massless fields and their boundary values in the ambient approach,

    X. Bekaert and M. Grigoriev, “Higher order singletons, partially massless fields and their boundary values in the ambient approach,” Nucl. Phys. B 876 (2013) 667–714, arXiv:1305.0162 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Type-B Formal Higher Spin Gravity,

    M. Grigoriev and E. D. Skvortsov, “Type-B Formal Higher Spin Gravity,” JHEP 05 (2018) 138, arXiv:1804.03196 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  44. [52]

    M. P. R. Engeli, Traces in deformation quantization and a Riemann-Roch-Hirzebruch formula for differential operators. PhD thesis, ETH Zurich, 2008

    2008

  45. [53]

    A Quartic Conformally Covariant Differential Operator for Arbitrary Pseudo-Riemannian Manifolds (Summary),

    S. Paneitz, “A Quartic Conformally Covariant Differential Operator for Arbitrary Pseudo-Riemannian Manifolds (Summary),” Symmetry, Integrability and Geometry: Methods and Applications (2008) 036, arXiv:0803.4331 [math.DG]

    2008 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Asymptotic Freedom in Extended Conformal Supergravities,

    E. S. Fradkin and A. A. Tseytlin, “Asymptotic Freedom in Extended Conformal Supergravities,” Phys. Lett. B 110 (1982) 117–122

    1982

  47. [55]

    Conformally Invariant Powers of the Laplacian, I: Existence,

    C. R. Graham, R. Jenne, L. J. Mason, and G. A. J. Sparling, “Conformally Invariant Powers of the Laplacian, I: Existence,” Journal of the London Mathematical Society s2-46 (1992) no. 3, 557–565

    1992

  48. [56]

    Conformal higher spin theory and twistor space actions,

    P. H¨ ahnel and T. McLoughlin, “Conformal higher spin theory and twistor space actions,” J. Phys. A 50 (2017) no. 48, 485401, arXiv:1604.08209 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Conformal higher spin scattering amplitudes from twistor space,

    T. Adamo, P. H¨ ahnel, and T. McLoughlin, “Conformal higher spin scattering amplitudes from twistor space,” JHEP 04 (2017) 021, arXiv:1611.06200 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Notes on Higher-Spin Diffeomorphisms,

    X. Bekaert, “Notes on Higher-Spin Diffeomorphisms,” Universe 7 (2021) no. 12, 508, arXiv:2108.09263 [hep-th]. 31

    2021 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Fourier Integral Operators. I,

    L. H¨ ormander, “Fourier Integral Operators. I,” inMathematics Past and Present Fourier Integral Operators, pp. 23–127. Springer, 1985

    1985

  52. [60]

    Fourier integral operators. II,

    J. J. Duistermaat and L. H¨ ormander, “Fourier integral operators. II,” in Mathematics Past and Present Fourier Integral Operators, pp. 129–215. Springer, 1994

    1994

  53. [61]

    Complete symbolic-calculus for pseudodifferential-operators,

    H. Widom, “Complete symbolic-calculus for pseudodifferential-operators,” Bulletin des Sciences Math´ ematiques104 (1980) no. 1, 19–63

    1980

  54. [62]

    Pseudodifferential Operators and Linear Connections,

    Y. Safarov, “Pseudodifferential Operators and Linear Connections,” Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society 74 (1997) no. 2, 379–416

    1997

  55. [63]

    A deformation-theoretical approach to Weyl quantization on Riemannian manifolds,

    M. J. Pflaum, “A deformation-theoretical approach to Weyl quantization on Riemannian manifolds,” Letters in Mathematical Physics 45 (1998) 277–294

    1998

  56. [64]

    Deformation quantization on cotangent bundles,

    M. J. Pflaum, “Deformation quantization on cotangent bundles,” Reports on Mathematical Physics 43 (1999) no. 1-2, 291–297

    1999

  57. [65]

    Pseudodifferential Weyl Calculus on (Pseudo-)Riemannian Manifolds,

    J. Derezi´ nski, A. Latosi´ nski, and D. Siemssen, “Pseudodifferential Weyl Calculus on (Pseudo-)Riemannian Manifolds,” Annales Henri Poincar´ e21 (2018) 1595–1635, arXiv:1806.01572 [math-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Axial Anomaly Induced Fermion Fractionization and Effective Gauge Theory Actions in Odd Dimensional Space-Times,

    A. J. Niemi and G. W. Semenoff, “Axial Anomaly Induced Fermion Fractionization and Effective Gauge Theory Actions in Odd Dimensional Space-Times,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 51 (1983) 2077

    1983

  59. [67]

    Parity Violation and Gauge Noninvariance of the Effective Gauge Field Action in Three-Dimensions,

    A. N. Redlich, “Parity Violation and Gauge Noninvariance of the Effective Gauge Field Action in Three-Dimensions,” Phys. Rev. D 29 (1984) 2366–2374

    1984

  60. [68]

    Gauge Noninvariance and Parity Violation of Three-Dimensional Fermions,

    A. N. Redlich, “Gauge Noninvariance and Parity Violation of Three-Dimensional Fermions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 52 (1984) 18

    1984

  61. [69]

    Massive fermion model in 3d and higher spin currents,

    L. Bonora, M. Cvitan, P. Dominis Prester, B. Lima de Souza, and I. Smoli´ c, “Massive fermion model in 3d and higher spin currents,” JHEP 05 (2016) 072, arXiv:1602.07178 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Fractional spins, unfolding, and holography. Part I. Parent field equations for dual higher-spin gravity reductions,

    F. Diaz, C. Iazeolla, and P. Sundell, “Fractional spins, unfolding, and holography. Part I. Parent field equations for dual higher-spin gravity reductions,” JHEP 09 (2024) 109, arXiv:2403.02283 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Fractional spins, unfolding, and holography. Part II. 4D higher spin gravity and 3D conformal dual,

    F. Diaz, C. Iazeolla, and P. Sundell, “Fractional spins, unfolding, and holography. Part II. 4D higher spin gravity and 3D conformal dual,” JHEP 10 (2024) 066, arXiv:2403.02301 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  64. [72]

    M. A. De Gosson, Symplectic geometry and quantum mechanics , vol. 166 of Operator Theory: Advances and Applications. Birkh¨ auser Basel, 2006

    2006

  65. [73]

    Weyl calculus and Noether currents: An application to cubic interactions,

    X. Bekaert, E. Joung, and J. Mourad, “Weyl calculus and Noether currents: An application to cubic interactions,” Ann. U. Craiova Phys. 18 (2008) S26–S45

    2008

  66. [74]

    On higher spin interactions with matter,

    X. Bekaert, E. Joung, and J. Mourad, “On higher spin interactions with matter,” JHEP 05 (2009) 126, arXiv:0903.3338 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Riemann–Roch theorem and Lie algebra cohomology,

    B. L. Feigin and B. L. Tsygan, “Riemann–Roch theorem and Lie algebra cohomology,” in Proceedings of the Winter School ”Geometry and Physics” , pp. 15–52. Circolo Matematico di Palermo, 1989. https://eudml.org/doc/221319. 32

    1989

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.