Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 57 references

A (1+1)-dimensional Lifshitz Weyl Anomaly From a Schr$\mathrm{\ddot{o}}$dinger-invariant Non-relativistic Chern-Simons Action

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The 1+1 Lifshitz Weyl anomaly follows from the torsional Chern-Simons term of a non-relativistic Schrödinger-invariant Chern-Simons action.

desk verdict The paper's central claim—that the tCS term in the NRSCS action generates the 1+1 Lifshitz Weyl anomaly—is a genuine and plausible structural result, but it remains a form-matching exercise because the anomaly coefficient is never fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09159 v2 pith:HSIGE4ND submitted 2019-08-24 hep-th cond-mat.str-el

Amr Ahmadain This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thcond-mat.str-el
keywords LifshitzWeylanomalynon-relativisticChern-SimonstheorySchrödingeralgebratwistless-torsionNewton-CartangeometrytorsionaltermgravityinflowRindlerspacetime
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

Quantum Weyl anomalies record the breakdown of local scale invariance in the quantum effective action. This paper claims that the Weyl anomaly of a $z=2$ Lifshitz field theory in $1+1$ dimensions---an anomaly tied to the time derivative of the torsion/acceleration vector of the foliated non-relativistic geometry---can be obtained as the boundary variation of a torsional Chern-Simons term inside a $2+1$-dimensional non-relativistic Schrödinger-invariant Chern-Simons action. If this is right, the bulk action stays Weyl-invariant while the boundary theory is anomalous, in the same way that a gravitational Chern-Simons term turns a diffeomorphism-invariant bulk into a boundary theory with a Lorentz anomaly. The paper also argues that the $z=1$ Lifshitz anomaly is the curvature scalar of a dual Lorentz connection, a topological invariant, and that restoring Weyl invariance forces the lapse function to become time-independent and yields the Rindler metric of uniformly accelerated observers. The result matters because it connects non-relativistic quantum anomalies to bulk/boundary arguments and to possible anomaly-inflow physics at quantum Hall edges.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the torsional Chern-Simons (tCS) term $L_{\rm tCS}=a\wedge da$ inside the $2+1$-dimensional non-relativistic Schrödinger-invariant Chern-Simons action, where $a_\mu$ is the gauge connection of the Weyl (dilatation) generator of the centrally extended Schrödinger algebra. This term does not affect the bulk equations of motion, but under a Weyl transformation it changes by the boundary term $\sigma\,da$, which is exactly the structure of the $1+1$ Lifshitz Weyl anomaly expressed through the torsion 1-form. The argument also depends on the equivalence of the Chern-Simons action to a Weyl-invariant non-projectable Lifshitz gravity action, on the dictionary between twistless-torsion non-relativistic geometry and the acceleration vector of that gravity theory, and on boundary conditions such as $a_t=0$ or $N^r=N^x=0$ that select the anomaly form. For the $z=1$ case, the central object is the dual Lorentz connection $\star\omega$; its curvature scalar reproduces the anomaly and its integral is a topological invariant.

What would settle it

Compute the Weyl anomaly of a concrete $z=2$ Lifshitz field theory, such as a free $z=2$ Lifshitz scalar coupled to a twistless-torsion non-relativistic background, by heat-kernel or diagrammatic methods. If the coefficient multiplying $\sigma\,\partial_t a_x$ in the one-loop effective action is not $\frac{k}{2\pi}c_2$, or vanishes, then the torsional Chern-Simons term does not reproduce the boundary anomaly and the paper's central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that the torsional Chern-Simons term $L_{\rm tCS}=a\wedge da$, built from the gauge field $a_\mu$ of the Weyl (dilatation) generator of the centrally extended Schrödinger algebra, is precisely the part of the $2+1$-dimensional non-relativistic Schrödinger-invariant Chern-Simons action that produces the $1+1$-dimensional Lifshitz Weyl anomaly. On a manifold with boundary, a Weyl transformation with local parameter $\sigma$ sends $a\to a+d\sigma$, and the tCS action changes by the boundary total derivative $\delta_\sigma S_{\rm tCS}=\frac{k}{2\pi}c_2\int_{\partial M}\sigma\,da$, which has the same form as the anomalous variation $\delta W=-\int dt\,dx\,N\sqrt{h}\,\sigma\,\partial_t a_x$ of the Lifshitz effective action. The bulk solution for the $z=2$ Lifshitz metric is unchanged, so the bulk is Weyl-invariant and the boundary is anomalous---a non-relativistic analogue of the role of the gravitational Chern-Simons term. For $z=1$, the trace of the energy-momentum tensor is identified with the scalar curvature of the dual Lorentz connection, $d\star\omega$, whose integral is a topological invariant; enforcing Weyl invariance of the anomalous effective action gives $\partial_t\partial_x N=0$, and with appropriate spatial boundary conditions the background becomes the Rindler metric.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the coefficient $c_2$ of the torsional Chern-Simons term exactly equals the anomaly coefficient of the 1+1 Lifshitz boundary theory; the paper does not compute this coefficient, so the derivation is formal until that numerical match is established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, the 1+1 Lifshitz Weyl anomaly can be understood as the boundary imprint of a bulk torsional Chern-Simons term, so a Weyl-invariant three-dimensional Lifshitz gravity action supplemented by the tCS term has a Weyl-anomalous two-dimensional boundary theory.
  • The coefficient $c_2$ multiplying the tCS term is then the anomaly coefficient of the boundary theory, and computing it in a concrete Lifshitz field theory, for instance by heat-kernel methods, would turn the formal derivation into an exact one.
  • For $z=1$, the anomaly is tied to the topological invariant $\int d\star\omega$, so the anomaly coefficient should be robust, and canceling the anomaly corresponds to the conservation of a boundary charge.
  • Requiring Weyl invariance of the anomalous effective action forces the lapse function to be time-independent; with the chosen boundary conditions the geometry becomes the Rindler metric, so the torsion/acceleration vector becomes a conserved quantity for uniformly accelerated observers.
  • The structure suggests a torsional version of anomaly inflow in which the tCS term cancels the boundary Weyl anomaly, a mechanism the paper connects to chiral edge modes of fractional quantum Hall states and to thermal Hall physics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A heat-kernel computation in a free $z=2$ Lifshitz scalar would fix the anomaly coefficient; if it matches $\frac{k}{2\pi}c_2$, the torsional Chern-Simons term would provide a predictive non-relativistic bulk dual, extending the paper's formal bulk/boundary analogy into a testable quantitative statement.
  • Because the $z=1$ anomaly is a topological invariant, one might expect the corresponding coefficient in Lifshitz effective actions to be quantized and renormalization-group invariant; it would be worth checking whether Lifshitz anomalies near quantum critical points share this universality.
  • The Rindler-metric result suggests a general principle: any Weyl-invariant completion of a Lifshitz effective action with this anomaly has a time-independent lapse function and hence a conserved acceleration vector; a lattice model with $z=2$ scaling could test whether energy non-conservation indeed accompanies the anomalous phase.
  • The proposed torsional anomaly inflow at quantum Hall edges leads to a concrete prediction: the tCS coefficient should contribute to a universal transport quantity, such as a torsional or thermal Hall response, measurable in a scale-invariant fractional quantum Hall system.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper claims that the (1+1)-dimensional z=2 Lifshitz Weyl anomaly can be derived from a (2+1)-dimensional non-relativistic Schrödinger-invariant Chern-Simons (NRSCS) action on a manifold with boundary. The central step is the torsional Chern-Simons (tCS) term: under a Weyl transformation with parameter σ, the term a∧da is claimed to vary by a boundary term ∫∂M σ da of the same form as the known Lifshitz anomaly (2.21). The paper also discusses the z=1 Lifshitz anomaly as the scalar curvature of a dual Lorentz connection, the cancellation of the anomaly leading to a Rindler metric, and possible applications to fractional quantum Hall edge physics and anomaly inflow. The derivation relies on the equivalence of the NRSCS action to a Weyl-invariant non-projectable Horava-Lifshitz action established in [29], and the anomaly coefficient c2 of the tCS term is not computed.

Significance. If made fully rigorous, the proposal that the boundary Lifshitz Weyl anomaly originates from the bulk torsional Chern-Simons term would be a genuinely useful structural insight, analogous to the gCS/gravitational-anomaly correspondence. The paper also contains interesting observations connecting the z=1 anomaly to the Lorentz anomaly of 1+1 CFTs and to the dual Lorentz connection, and it explicitly frames the anomaly-inflow and quantum-Hall questions. The strength of the paper is its clear identification of the relevant tCS term and its careful comparison with the known anomaly structure. Its main weakness is that the central derivation is a form-matching exercise with an undetermined coefficient, as the authors themselves concede in Section 3.2; the claim that the anomaly is 'derived' is therefore stronger than what is actually shown. The paper is exploratory and would benefit from a more precise statement of what is established and what remains conjectural.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eqs. (3.12)-(3.13); Section 2.3, Eq. (2.17)] The transformation law assumed in the bulk derivation is δσ a = dσ, while the boundary anomaly (2.21) is written in terms of the geometric torsion vector a_x = ∂_xN/N. Under the anisotropic Weyl transformation (2.17), δN = zσN, the correct variation is δa_x = z∂_xσ, not dσ (and not z∂_xσ + σa_x). For z=2 this introduces a factor 2 in the boundary variation of a∧da relative to (2.21). Because c2 is left arbitrary, the factor can be absorbed into the coefficient, but the paper should explicitly justify the identification of the bulk Weyl gauge connection with the boundary torsion vector and state the resulting matching condition. As written, Eq. (3.13) does not "precisely" match (2.21). The specific σa∧da bulk term that one might worry about does not survive; the actual discrepancy is a factor z.
  2. [Section 3.2, after Eq. (3.13)] The paper concludes that the tCS term added to a 3D Weyl-invariant HL action plays a role analogous to the gCS term and that the Lifshitz anomaly is derived. However, the coefficient c2 is a free parameter, and the text explicitly states that "without knowing the exact value of the coefficient c2 and matching it with that of the anomaly computed in an example Lifshitz field theory... it would be difficult to claim the derivation is exact." This is a load-bearing limitation: any anomaly of the same form can be matched by choosing c2, so the argument establishes a structural similarity rather than a derivation of the anomaly coefficient. The abstract and conclusions should be toned down to reflect this.
  3. [Section 4.2, Eq. (4.19)] The equation of motion obtained by setting the Weyl anomaly (2.21) to zero is ∂_t a_x = 0, i.e. ∂_t(∂_xN/N) = 0. The paper instead writes ∂_t∂_xN = 0. The general solution N(x,t) = N1(x) + N2(t) does not satisfy ∂_t(∂_xN/N) = 0 unless N2(t) is constant. The subsequent discussion of a stationary chiral boson and the Rindler metric should be based on the correct equation of motion. The Rindler solution N = αx does satisfy ∂_t a_x = 0, so the physical conclusion may survive, but the derivation needs to be corrected.
  4. [Section 3.2, Eq. (3.13) versus Eq. (2.21)] The boundary term in Eq. (3.13) is written as ∫dxdt σ(∂_t a_x - ∂_x a_t), while the anomaly (2.21) is -∫dtdx N√h σ ∂_t a_x after setting a_t = 0. The boundary measure N√h is missing in (3.13), and the sign is opposite. If the boundary term is to equal the variation of the boundary effective action, the correct invariant measure should appear. In addition, the reduction from the full tCS term in (3.2) to a∧da after integrating out the special-conformal connection is stated rather than shown; the role of the radial component a_r and its transformation law are not specified, which is needed to make the bulk reduction well-defined.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.3, Eq. (2.17)] The transformation rule for the spatial metric is printed as "h ij = 2σhij"; it should be δh_{ij} = 2σh_{ij} (or with the appropriate index placement).
  2. [Section 3.2, first paragraph] The text says "integrating out the connection β" and later refers to the equation of motion df = -2b∧f, but the connection β is not introduced and the relation between β and b is not defined. This makes the reduction to the a∧da form difficult to follow.
  3. [Section 2.3.2] The text refers to "Section 3.3" for a discussion of G = SO^+(1,1), but the paper has no Section 3.3; the intended reference is probably Section 3.1 or Section 4.2.
  4. [Section 5.1] The name "Floreannini-Jackiw" should be "Floreanini-Jackiw", and the equation number for the FJ action should be checked.
  5. [Section 4.1, Eq. (4.8)] The coefficient a in the first line of Eq. (4.8) is introduced without definition; it should be identified as an anomaly coefficient or removed for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the tCS boundary variation is an independent bulk computation, and the undetermined coefficient is an acknowledged limitation rather than a fitted input.

full rationale

The central step is Eq. (3.13), where the Weyl variation of the tCS action produces the boundary term (k/2π)c2∫∂M σ da. This is a standard Chern-Simons variation under δa=dσ, and the tCS term is not invented to reproduce Eq. (2.21): it is the c2 piece of the NRSCS action of [29], obtained by gauging the extended Schrödinger algebra, an external construction. The matching with (2.21)/(2.29) is a comparison of forms, not a fit of the coefficient; the paper explicitly states that without knowing c2 and matching it to a heat-kernel computation, it would be difficult to claim the derivation is exact. The apparent transformation-law objection also does not succeed: for ax=∂xN/N under δN=zσN, the exact variation is δax=z∂xσ, because the two σax cross terms cancel, so δ(a∧da)=z d(σ da), still a total derivative. The boundary conditions at=0 or Nx=Nr=0 are gauge choices that select the same coordinate system used to write the anomaly as ∂tax; this is not a fit of the target. Reliance on [3] for the anomaly classification and on [29] for the NRSCS/HL equivalence is ordinary external support, not self-citation, and no step in the derivation is defined in terms of the claimed result. The z=1 discussion likewise re-expresses external results from [3] and [31] without reducing the central claim to its input. The main weakness is incompleteness — the coefficient is not matched to a concrete boundary theory — but incompleteness is not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on two borrowed structures: the NRSCS/HL equivalence from [29] and the anomaly classification from [3]. The only hand-chosen constants are the CS coefficients c2 and c3; c2 remains undetermined, which is the main gap. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • c2 (tCS coefficient)
    Coefficient of the torsional Chern-Simons term in the NRSCS action; the boundary anomaly is proportional to (k/2pi)c2, but the paper does not fix it or match it to a field-theory computation. The author states this explicitly in Section 3.2.
  • c3 (omega^d omega coefficient) = 0
    Set to zero by hand in Section 3.2 to isolate the tCS term. This choice is part of the derivation setup.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The NRSCS action (3.2) is equivalent to a 3D non-projectable z=2 Weyl-invariant Horava-Lifshitz gravity action.
    Relied upon in Section 3.1 to interpret the tCS term as a modification of an on-shell HL action; established in [29] and cited, not re-derived here.
  • domain assumption The 1+1 Lifshitz Weyl anomaly takes the form (2.20)/(2.21) as classified in [3].
    Used as the target anomaly in Sections 2 and 3; the paper matches the tCS boundary variation to this known cohomological result.
  • domain assumption The background geometry is twistless torsion Newton-Cartan (TTNC), satisfying the Frobenius condition n^dn = 0.
    Defines the class of geometries in which the anomaly expression (2.20) and the ADM parametrization are valid (Section 2.1).
  • standard math Standard Cartan calculus and Chern-Simons variation identities.
    Used in the derivations, e.g., Cartan's formula in (2.26), CS variation in (3.9)-(3.13).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A (1+1)-dimensional Lifshitz Weyl Anomaly From a Schr$\mathrm{\ddot{o}}$dinger-invariant Non-relativistic Chern-Simons Action." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HSIGE4ND

@misc{pith2026190809159,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A (1+1)-dimensional Lifshitz Weyl Anomaly From a Schr$\mathrm\ddoto$dinger-invariant Non-relativistic Chern-Simons Action},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HSIGE4ND}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09159}
}
abstract

The main result of this paper is that the Weyl anomaly of a $z=2$ (1+1)-dimensional Lifshitz effective action can be derived from a (2+1)-dimensional non-relativistic Schr$\mathrm{\ddot{o}}$dinger-invariant Chern-Simons (NRSCS) action which was shown to be equivalent to a specific Weyl-invariant non-projectable Horava-Lifshitz action of gravity. On a manifold with a boundary, we will show that the (1+1)-dimensional Lifshitz Weyl anomaly can be derived from a specific term, the torsional CS (tCS) term, in the NRSCS action built from the gauge fields of the Weyl and special conformal symmetry generators of the centrally-extended Schr$\mathrm{\ddot{o}}$dinger algebra. We also focus on the $z=1$ Lifshitz Weyl anomaly and attempt to elicit its geometric and physical nature, in particular its relationship with the Lorentz anomaly of a (1+1)-dimensional CFT effective actions. We show that it is directly related to the curvature scalar of the dual Lorentz connection, the integral of which is known to be a topological invariant. We also point out that making the anomalous Lifshitz quantum effective action Weyl-invariant amounts to obtaining the equation of motion for a stationary chiral boson which happens to be the spatial-component of the acceleration vector. By putting boundary conditions on the spatial slices, the time dependence of the lapse function in the Arnowitt, Deser and Misner (ADM) decomposition is eliminated and the result is a Rindler metric. We finally discuss several issues related to the (1+1)-dimensional Lifshitz Weyl anomaly regarding edge physics of fractional quantum Hall states and anomaly cancellation by anomaly inflow.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.09159 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Geometrical depiction of the Weyl anomaly. Lie dragging the tangent vector ax(x, t)∂x with end points x1 and x2 defined on a spatial slice Σt at coordinate time t to another slice Σt+dt using the diffeomorphism fdt associated with the vector nµ = N dt. The points x1 and x2 are Lie dragged to fdt(x1) and fdt(x2) respectively, while the vector ax(x, t)∂x is dragged to ax(x, t + dt)∂x. The Lie derivative of the vector … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [29]

    Hartong, Y

    J. Hartong, Y. Lei, N. Obers,Non-Relativistic Chern-Simons Theories and Three-Dimensional Horava-Lifshitz Gravity, Phys. Rev.D 94 065027 [arXiv:1604.08054]

    arXiv

  2. [3]

    I. Arav, S. Chapman and Y. Oz,Lifshitz Scale Anomalies, JHEP 02 (2015) 078 [arXiv:1410.5831]

    arXiv 2015

  3. [1]

    On Ward Identities in Lifshitz-like Field Theories

    P. Gomes, M. Gomes,On Ward Identities in Lifshitz-like Field Theories, Phys. Rev.D 85 (2012) 065010 [arXiv:1112.3887]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2012

  4. [2]

    Anomalous Breaking of Anisotropic Scaling Symmetry in the Quantum Lifshitz Model

    M. Baggio, J. de Boer and K. Holsheimer,Anomalous Breaking of Anisotropic Scaling Symmetry in the Quantum Lifshitz Model, JHEP 07 (2012) 099 [arXiv:1112.6416]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2012

  5. [4]

    Auzzi, S

    R. Auzzi, S. Baiguera and G. Nardelli,On Newton-Cartan trace anomalies, JHEP 02 (2016) 003 [arXiv:1511.08150]. – 25 –

    arXiv 2016

  6. [6]

    Auzzi, S

    R. Auzzi, S. Baiguera and F. Filippini,On Newton-Cartan local renormalization group and anomalies, JHEP 11 (2016) 163 [arXiv:1601.06795]

    arXiv 2016

  7. [7]

    I. Arav, Y. Oz and A. Raviv-Moshe,Lifshitz anomalies, Ward identities and split dimensional regularization, JHEP 03 (2017) 088 [arXiv: 1612.03500]

    arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    Fernandes and A

    K. Fernandes and A. Mitra,Gravitational anomalies on the Newton-Cartan background, Phys.Rev. D 96 (2017) 085003

    work page 2017

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Pal and B

    S. Pal and B. Grinstein,Heat kernel and Weyl anomaly of Schrödinger invariant theory, Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) 125001

    2017

  2. [10]

    Auzzi, S

    R. Auzzi, S. Baiguera and G. Nardelli,Trace anomaly for non-relativistic fermions, JHEP 08 (2017) 042 [arXiv:1705.02229]

    2017 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Henkel,Schrödinger invariance and strongly anisotropic critical systems, J

    M. Henkel,Schrödinger invariance and strongly anisotropic critical systems, J. Stat. Phys. (1994) 75, 1023-1061 [arXiv:hep-th/9310081]

    1994 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Ardonne, P

    E. Ardonne, P. Fendley and E. Fradkin,Topological order and conformal quantum critical points, Annals Phys. 310 (2004)493 [arXiv:0311466]

    2004

  5. [13]

    Isakov, P

    S.V. Isakov, P. Fendley, A.W.W. Ludwig and S. Trebst, M. Troyer,Dynamics at and near conformal quantum critical points, Phys. Rev.B 83 (2011) 125114 [arXiv:1012.3806v2]

    2011 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Christensen, J

    M.H. Christensen, J. Hartong, N.A. Obers and B. Rollier,Torsional Newton-Cartan Geometry and Lifshitz Holography, Phys. Rev.D 89 (2014) 061901 [arXiv:1311.4794]

    2014 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Christensen, J

    M.H. Christensen, J. Hartong, N.A. Obers and B. Rollier,Boundary Stress-Energy Tensor and Newton-Cartan Geometry in Lifshitz Holography, JHEP 01 (2014) 057 [arXiv:1311.6471]

    2014 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Hartong, E

    J. Hartong, E. Kiritsis and N.A. Obers,Lifshitz space-times for Schrodinger holography, Phys. Lett. B 746 (2015) 318 [arXiv:1409.1519]

    2015 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Son,Newton-Cartan Geometry and the Quantum Hall Effect, [arXiv:1306.0638]

    D.T. Son,Newton-Cartan Geometry and the Quantum Hall Effect, [arXiv:1306.0638]

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    Geracie, D.T

    M. Geracie, D.T. Son, C. Wu and S.-F. Wu,Spacetime Symmetries of the Quantum Hall Effect, Phys. Rev.D 91 (2015) 045030 [arXiv:1407.1252]

    2015 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Hartong, E

    J. Hartong, E. Kiritsis and N.A. Obers,Schroedinger Invariance from Lifshitz Isometries in Holography and Field Theory, Phys. Rev.D 92 (2015) 066003 [arXiv:1409.1522]

    2015 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Hartong, E

    J. Hartong, E. Kiritsis and N.A. Obers,Field Theory on Newton-Cartan Backgrounds and Symmetries of the Lifshitz Vacuum, JHEP 08 (2015) 006 [arXiv:1502.00228]

    2015 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Horava,Quantum gravity at a Lifshitz point, Phys

    P. Horava,Quantum gravity at a Lifshitz point, Phys. Rev.D 79 (2009) 084008 [arXiv:0901.377]

    2009

  14. [22]

    Horava,Membranes at quantum criticality, JHEP 03 (2009) 020 [arXiv:0812.4287]

    P. Horava,Membranes at quantum criticality, JHEP 03 (2009) 020 [arXiv:0812.4287]

    2009 arXiv

  15. [23]

    D. Blas, O. Pujol`as and S. Sibiryakova,Models of non-relativistic quantum gravity: the good, the bad and the healthy, JHEP 04 (2011) 018 [arXiv:1007.3503]

    2011 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Cognola, R

    G. Cognola, R. Myrzakulov, L. Sebastiani, S. Vagnozzi and S. ZerbiniCovariant Horava-like and mimetic Horndeski gravity: cosmological solutions and perturbations, Class. Quant. Grav. 33 (2016) 225014 [arXiv:1601.00102]

    2016 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Hartong and N

    J. Hartong and N. Obers,Horava-Lifshitz gravity from dynamical Newton-Cartan geometry, JHEP 07 (2015) 155 [arXiv:1504.07461]. – 26 –

    2015 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Griffin, P

    T. Griffin, P. Horava and C.M. Melby-Thompson, Conformal Lifshitz Gravity from Holography, JHEP05 (2012) 010 [arXiv:1112.5660]

    2012 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Andringa, E

    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]

    2011 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Bergshoeff, J

    E.A. Bergshoeff, J. Hartong and J. Rosseel,Torsional Newton-Cartan geometry and the Schrödinger algebra, Class. Quant. Grav.32 (2015) 135017 [arXiv:1409.5555]

    2015 arXiv

  21. [30]

    Kraus, F

    P. Kraus, F. Larsen, Holographic Gravitational Anomalies, JHEP01 (2006) 022 [arXiv:hep-th/0508218]

    2006 arXiv

  22. [31]

    Obukhov and S

    Y. Obukhov and S. Solodukhin,Dynamical Gravity and Conformal and Lorentz Anomalies in Two Dimensions, Class. Quantum. Grav.7 (1990) 20145-2054

    1990

  23. [32]

    Jensen and A

    K. Jensen and A. Karch,Revisiting non-relativistic limits, JHEP 04 (2015) 155, [arXiv:1412.2738]

    2015 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Geracie, K

    M. Geracie, K. Prabhu, and M. Roberts,Curved non-relativistic spacetimes, Newtonian gravitation and massive matter, J. Math. Phys56 (2015) 103505 [arXiv:1503.02682]

    2015 arXiv

  25. [34]

    Sorokin and S

    D. Sorokin and S. SorokinThree-dimensional (higher-spin) gravities with extended Schroedinger and l-conformal Galilean symmetries, JHEP 1907 (2019) 156 [arXiv:1905.13154]

    2019 arXiv

  26. [35]

    Janiszewski and A

    S. Janiszewski and A. Karch,Non-relativistic holography from Horava gravity, JHEP 1302 (2013) 123 [arXiv:1211.0005]

    2013 arXiv

  27. [36]

    R. A. Bertlmann,Anomalies in quantum field theory, Oxford, UK: Clarendon (1996) 566 p. (International series of monographs on physics: 91)

    1996

  28. [37]

    Son,Toward an AdS/cold atoms correspondence: A Geometric realization of the Schrodinger symmetry, Phys.Rev.D 78 (2008) 046003 [arXiv:0804.3972]

    D. Son,Toward an AdS/cold atoms correspondence: A Geometric realization of the Schrodinger symmetry, Phys.Rev.D 78 (2008) 046003 [arXiv:0804.3972]

    2008 arXiv

  29. [38]

    Balasubramanian and J

    K. Balasubramanian and J. McGreevy,Gravity duals for non-relativistic CFTs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (2008) 061601 [arXiv:0804.4053]

    2008 arXiv

  30. [39]

    Kachru, X

    S. Kachru, X. Liu, and M. Mulligan,Gravity Duals of Lifshitz-like Fixed Points, Phys.Rev. D 78 (2008) 106005 [arXiv:0808.1725]

    2008 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Taylor,Non-relativistic holography, [arXiv:0812.0530]

    [9] M. Taylor,Non-relativistic holography, [arXiv:0812.0530]

    arXiv

  32. [41]

    Horava and C

    P. Horava and C. M. Melby-Thompson,Anisotropic Conformal Infinity, Gen. Rel. Grav.43 (2010) 1391, [arXiv:0909.3841]

    2010 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Myers and V

    R. Myers and V. Periwal,Chiral gravity in two dimensions, Nucl. Phys.B 397, 239 (1992) [arXiv: hep-th/9207117]

    1992 arXiv

  34. [43]

    Floreanini and R

    R. Floreanini and R. Jackiw,Self-Dual Fields as Charge-Density Solitons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 1873 (1987)

    1987

  35. [44]

    Xiao-Gang Wen,Quantum Field Theory of Many-Body Systems: From the Origin of Sound to an Origin of Light and Electrons, Reissue edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2007

    2007

  36. [45]

    Eduardo Fradkin,Field Theories of Condensed Matter Physics, 2nd edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2013. – 27 –

    2013

  37. [46]

    Tong,The Quantum Hall Effect: TIFR Infosys Lectures, http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/qhe/qhe.pdf

    D. Tong,The Quantum Hall Effect: TIFR Infosys Lectures, http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/qhe/qhe.pdf

  38. [47]

    Y. Maio, H. Kirsten,Self-duality of various chiral boson actions, Phys. Rev.D 62 045014 (2000) [arXiv:hep-th/9912066]

    2000 arXiv

  39. [48]

    Gromov, G

    A. Gromov, G. Cho, Y. You, A. Abanov, and E. Fradkin,Framing Anomaly in the Effective Theory of the Fractional Quantum Hall Effect, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 149902 (2015)

    2015

  40. [49]

    Gromov, K

    A. Gromov, K. Jensen, A. Abanov,Boundary effective action for quantum Hall states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016) 126802 [arXiv:1506.07171]

    2016 arXiv

  41. [50]

    Callan, Jr

    C. Callan, Jr. and J. Harvey,Anomalies and fermion zero modes on strings and domain walls, Nucl. Phys.B 250, 427 (1985)

    1985

  42. [51]

    Stone,Gravitational Anomalies and Thermal Hall effect in Topological Insulators, Phys

    M. Stone,Gravitational Anomalies and Thermal Hall effect in Topological Insulators, Phys. Rev. B 85 (2012) 184503 [arXiv:1201.4095]

    2012 arXiv

  43. [52]

    Nomura, S

    K. Nomura, S. Ryu, A. Furusaki, N. Nagaosa,Cross-Correlated Responses of Topological Superconductors and Superfluids, Phys. Rev. Lett.108 (2012) 026802 [arXiv:1108.5054]

    2012 arXiv

  44. [53]

    Gromov and A

    A. Gromov and A. Abanov,Thermal Hall Effect and Geometry with Torsion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 016802 [arXiv:1407.2908]

    2015 arXiv

  45. [54]

    Robinson, F

    S. Robinson, F. Wilczek,Relationship between Hawking Radiation and Gravitational Anomalies, Phys. Rev. Lett.95 011303 [arXiv:gr-qc/0502074]

    arXiv

  46. [55]

    Christensen and S

    S. Christensen and S. Fulling,Trace anomalies and the Hawking effect, Phys. Rev.D 15, 2088 (1977)

    1977

  47. [56]

    Solodukhin,Boundary terms of conformal anomaly, Phys

    S. Solodukhin,Boundary terms of conformal anomaly, Phys. Lett.B 752 (2016)

    2016

  48. [57]

    Padmanabhan,A short note on the boundary term for the Hilbert action, Mod

    T. Padmanabhan,A short note on the boundary term for the Hilbert action, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 29 1450037 (2014)

    2014

  49. [58]

    Boundary terms of the Einstein-Hilbert action

    S. Chakraborty, "Boundary terms of the Einstein-Hilbert action", Fundam. Theor. Phys. 187 43-59, (2017). – 28 –

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.