${\mathcal N}=3$ nonlinear multiplet and supergravity

Emmanouil S. N. Raptakis; Sergei M. Kuzenko

REVIEW 5 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

${\mathcal N}=3$ nonlinear multiplet and supergravity

T0 review · 5 major / 3 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 The paper proposes an N=3 nonlinear multiplet whose coupling to conformal supergravity gives the equations of N=3 Poincaré supergravity, and claims every solution of the latter is also a conformal-supergravity solution.

desk verdict A credible N=3 extension of the N=2 degauging programme, with a real but fixable gap: the central on-shell constraint (4.16) is asserted and the 'routine degauging' to chi=0 is not shown. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11339 v2 pith:T7R5AQWX submitted 2025-01-20 hep-th

Sergei M. Kuzenko , Emmanouil S. N. Raptakis This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-th MSC 83E5081T60 PACS 04.65.+e11.30.Pb

keywords N=3supergravitynonlinearmultipletconformalsuperspaceEinsteinsuper-Bachtensorsuper-Weylspinoroff-shellsuperfields

topics Quantum Gravity

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

The paper proposes an N=3 analogue of the nonlinear multiplet, a constraint-defined matrix superfield that has not appeared before, and couples it to N=3 conformal supergravity. The goal is a compact superspace description of N=3 Poincaré supergravity: after gauge-fixing the R-symmetry, the geometry reduces to a new 'N=3 Einstein superspace' whose structure group is just SL(2,C) and which is described entirely by two dimension-1/2 superfields, the super-Weyl spinor $W_\alpha$ and a spinor isospinor $\chi^i_\alpha$. The central claim is that the equations of motion force $\chi^i_\alpha = 0$, which in turn makes the N=3 super-Bach tensor vanish; every solution of the Poincaré theory would then be a solution of conformal supergravity. A sympathetic reader should care because the result would give N=3 supergravity a geometric formulation as simple as the well-understood N=2 case, with the same compensating-multiplet mechanism extended to three supersymmetries.

What carries the argument

The central object is the N=3 nonlinear multiplet $L^i{}_a$: a primary, dimensionless, uncharged SU(3)-valued matrix superfield satisfying the two differential constraints in (4.1b). Its mechanism is the same as in N=2: it acts as a compensator whose gauge fixing $L^i{}_a=\delta^i{}_a$ eliminates the R-symmetry connections, leaving a supergeometry whose structure group is SL(2,C). What carries the argument is the degauging chain—conformal superspace to SU(3) superspace to Einstein superspace—in which the torsions $S_{ij}$, $Y_{\alpha\beta i}$, and $G_{\alpha\dot\alpha}$ are re-expressed as descendants of $\chi^i_\alpha$, so that the whole on-shell geometry is captured by the pair $(W_\alpha,\chi^i_\alpha)$ and the equation of motion is simply $\chi^i_\alpha=0$.

What would settle it

Expand both sides of the on-shell condition (4.16) to lowest components in a conformally flat background and compare the resulting component equations with the linearised equations of motion of N=3 Poincaré supergravity; if the two do not match, or if a solution of the proposed equations can be exhibited with a non-zero N=3 super-Bach tensor, the central claim is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's proposal is that the N=3 nonlinear multiplet, defined by the unitarity-det condition $L\bar L=1$, $\det L=1$ and the two differential constraints (4.1b), should play the role of compensator in N=3 conformal supergravity. Fixing the local SU(3)$_R$ freedom by $L^i{}_a=\delta^i{}_a$ degauges the covariant derivatives so that the structure group is the Lorentz group alone, and consistency forces all torsion components to be descendants of $\chi^i_\alpha$ and $W_\alpha$. With the super-Weyl gauge $|W|=1$, the proposed on-shell condition (4.16) for the coupled vector and nonlinear multiplets reduces, after what the paper calls a routine degauging, to $\chi^i_\alpha=0$; this is taken to be the equation of motion of N=3 Poincaré supergravity. The paper then states that the Bianchi identities of this geometry imply the vanishing of the N=3 super-Bach tensor, so every solution of these Poincaré equations is a solution of N=3 conformal supergravity.

Load-bearing premise

The whole chain rests on equation (4.16) being the correct superconformal equation of motion for the N=3 nonlinear multiplet, and on the 'routine degauging' that turns it into $\chi^i_\alpha=0$ introducing no hidden constraints; the paper does not derive (4.16) from an action, and it notes in section 4.1 that a weaker constraint set gives a larger multiplet whose extra superfield has no known role.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Every solution of the proposed N=3 Poincaré supergravity equations is a solution of N=3 conformal supergravity, because the equations imply the N=3 super-Bach tensor vanishes.
The on-shell geometry of N=3 Einstein superspace is controlled entirely by the super-Weyl spinor $W_\alpha$, with the spinor isospinor $\chi^i_\alpha$ set to zero.
N=3 Minkowski superspace is the unique maximally supersymmetric background of this geometry; no maximally supersymmetric AdS background exists.
The same nonlinear multiplet should generate a variant N=3 Weyl multiplet of conformal supergravity, extending the N=2 dilaton-Weyl-multiplet logic.

Reading between the lines

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

One open question the paper leaves is whether dropping the second constraint in (4.1b) defines a consistent larger multiplet: the extra dimension-1/2 superfield $\phi_\alpha^{ij}$ has no identified role, so the constraint choice, and with it the uniqueness of this formulation, is not settled.
A direct component-level reduction of (4.16) would test whether the degauging to $\chi^i_\alpha=0$ is lossless; if it hides constraints, the claim that all Poincaré solutions are conformal would need qualification.
The same compensator construction, with an SO(2) generator acting on the external index of $L^i{}_a$, is sketched in the paper as a route to N=3 supergravity with a cosmological term; working out that degauging would extend the present result to gauged supergravity.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper does something new and mostly credible. It proposes an N=3 nonlinear multiplet and uses it to build an N=3 Einstein superspace, then gives equations of motion for N=3 Poincaré supergravity in which chi^i_alpha = 0. That is a genuine step beyond the existing N=3 literature, and the structure is a direct but nontrivial extension of the established N=2 program. The new multiplet constraints (4.1), the degauged geometry (4.11), and the final chi=0 formulation are all absent from prior work as far as the citations show. The Bianchi identities and torsion relations are not displayed in full, but they are plausible consequences of the constraints, and the paper is honest about its own limits: it flags the ambiguity in (4.1b), notes the unclear role of phi, and says the variant Weyl multiplet will be discussed elsewhere. The N=2 review is clear and the citation pattern is appropriate.

The soft spot is exactly where the reader put it. Equation (4.16) is introduced with no derivation, no action, and no component-level anchor. The coefficient 8/9 is not fixed by any argument shown; superconformal symmetry alone would leave it free, as the paper itself admits for the cosmological-term ansatz in footnote 13. Then the decisive step is compressed into 'Performing a routine degauging procedure...' — one is expected to accept that substituting |W|=1 and L=delta into (4.16) with the degauged derivatives gives chi=0 and nothing else. That is the load-bearing hinge of the paper's main claim, and it is not displayed. The stress-test note is right: if any residual W-dependent terms survive, the claimed equivalence between Poincaré and conformal supergravity fails or holds only on a submanifold. This is not a fatal flaw for the superspace community, where such symbolic computations are often trusted and then checked later, but the paper would be much stronger with the calculation shown or a component-level comparison. The claim that 'every solution of Poincaré supergravity is a solution of conformal supergravity' should also be softened, since Poincaré supergravity is here identified with the on-shell constraints themselves.

Who is this for? Specialists in extended supergravity, especially those working on N=3 conformal superspace and higher-derivative invariants. It deserves a serious refereeing: a good referee can ask for the missing derivation and the result is likely to survive or be corrected within a revision. The algebraic structure is coherent and the authors are thinking clearly, even if the central step is under-supported as written.

Referee Report

5 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an N=3 nonlinear multiplet L_i^a in conformal superspace and uses it to construct an "N=3 Einstein superspace" geometry whose structure group is SL(2,C) and which is described by two dimension-1/2 superfields, W_alpha and chi_alpha^i. After reviewing the N=2 and N=3 conformal superspace frameworks and their degaugings to U(2), SU(2), U(3), and SU(3) superspaces, the authors gauge-fix the nonlinear multiplet to L_i^a = delta_i^a and derive an Einstein superspace algebra whose torsions are descendants of chi_alpha^i. They then couple this multiplet to an on-shell vector multiplet W^i, propose the superconformal on-shell condition (4.16), gauge-fix |W|=1 and L=delta, and claim that a routine degauging yields chi_alpha^i = 0, which is identified with the equation of motion of N=3 Poincare supergravity. The abstract concludes that the N=3 super-Bach tensor vanishes and hence that every solution of Poincare supergravity is a solution of conformal supergravity.

Significance. If the construction is correct, the paper would provide a new superspace formulation of N=3 Poincare supergravity, a new Einstein superspace geometry, and a striking relation between Poincare and conformal supergravity. The explicit algebra (4.11) and the Bianchi identities (4.10), together with the detailed degauging dictionary in Sections 2 and 3, are useful technical contributions. The paper contains no fitted constants, but it does contain one undetermined coefficient, 8/9 in (4.16), and the main result currently rests on a series of asserted, rather than displayed, calculations. The claimed theorem is therefore not yet established to the standard required for publication.

major comments (5)

[Section 4.2, Eq. (4.16)] The on-shell condition for the nonlinear multiplet is introduced with the words "on-shell the nonlinear multiplet satisfies" and no derivation is given. No action, prepotential variation, or component-level N=3 reduction fixes the coefficient 8/9 or the trace structure in (4.16). This should be contrasted with the N=2 equation (2.55b), which is supported by the component construction of reference [6] and by the prepotential variation (2.57). The authors' own footnote 13 shows that superconformal symmetry alone determines such equations only up to a parameter. Since (4.16) is the sole input to the main degauging, its status must be established by an explicit consistency check or clearly labelled as a conjectural ansatz.
[Section 4.2, Eqs. (4.16)-(4.18)] The step described as "Performing a routine degauging procedure" is not displayed. To substantiate the central claim one must substitute the gauge conditions |W|=1 and L_i^a=delta_i^a into (4.16), use the degauged derivative (4.7) together with the constraints (4.1), and show that the resulting equation is equivalent to chi_alpha^i = 0 with no residual W-dependent constraints. Footnote 11 also asserts that (4.16) implies flatness of the U(1)_R connection, but that implication is not proved. If any extra terms survive, the claimed equivalence between Poincare and conformal supergravity would fail, or would hold only on a submanifold. Please provide the full calculation.
[Abstract and Section 4.2, after Eq. (4.18)] The paper's central claim that chi_alpha^i = 0 implies vanishing of the N=3 super-Bach tensor B_i^j is not derived. The super-Bach tensor is defined in (3.6) in conformal superspace; after degauging one must show explicitly that the corresponding expression in Einstein superspace vanishes when chi_alpha^i = 0. The text merely states that the background is "dictated by the super-Weyl spinor W_alpha". This is a load-bearing step: without it, the statement that every solution of Poincare supergravity is a solution of conformal supergravity does not follow from the displayed equations. Please supply the Bianchi-identity derivation that leads from chi=0 to B_i^j=0.
[Section 4.1, last paragraph and Eq. (4.1b)] The definition of the N=3 nonlinear multiplet is not uniquely motivated. The authors themselves note that omitting the second constraint in (4.1b) yields a larger multiplet containing an additional dimension-1/2 superfield phi_{alpha ij} whose role is unclear. Since the Einstein superspace geometry (4.11) and all subsequent equations of motion are derived from the particular combination of constraints in (4.1b), this choice must be justified, ideally by a component-level check or by showing that the larger multiplet is inconsistent. In the present form, the central result depends on an arbitrary selection among possible constraints.
[Section 4.2, Eqs. (4.19)-(4.21)] The auxiliary calculation leading from the constraints and (4.16) to (4.19), and then to the reduced equation (4.21), is also omitted; the text says "one may derive" and "it may be shown". This consistency check is not needed for the main degauging if that calculation is displayed, but if it is intended to support the on-shell condition (4.16), it should either be presented in the body of the paper or relegated to an appendix with sufficient detail for the reader to verify it.

minor comments (3)

[Section 4.2, after Eq. (4.17)] The text refers to "the gauge conditions (2.59)" when it should refer to the gauge conditions (4.17).
[Title page] The affiliation line contains LaTeX spacing artifacts ("Austr alia" and "ed u.au") that should be corrected in the final version.
[Section 2.5, Eq. (2.55b)] The statement following (2.55b) that the explicit form of the equation is fixed by superconformal symmetry is somewhat terse; a brief indication of how the coefficient 3/2 is fixed would help the reader appreciate the analogous N=3 discussion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central step is an asserted constraint followed by an unshown degauging, which is a verification gap rather than an equation reducing to its own input.

full rationale

The paper's main implication runs from the proposed on-shell constraint (4.16), \bar L_a{}^j \nabla^j_\alpha L_i{}^a + (8/9)\nabla^i_\alpha \log|W|^2 = 0, through the gauge (4.17) and a 'routine degauging procedure', to \chi^i_\alpha = 0 and hence the vanishing of the N=3 super-Bach tensor. This chain is not circular in the prohibited sense: no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no equation is exhibited as identical to its own input by construction. The coefficient 8/9 and the trace structure of (4.16) are asserted rather than derived from an action or a component reduction, and the degauging is not displayed; these are completeness and correctness gaps, not circular reductions. The text says only 'On-shell the nonlinear multiplet satisfies the superconformal constraint' and then 'Performing a routine degauging procedure...', so the reader cannot verify the step, but the absence of a displayed calculation is not evidence that the conclusion was inserted by definition. The dependence on the authors' earlier N=3 conformal superspace construction [12] is a normal citation to a separate published, parameter-free derivation whose stated assumptions do not include the target result; the self-cited uniqueness theorem [58] in Section 5 supports only the remark about maximally supersymmetric backgrounds and is not load-bearing for the central implication. Therefore no specific circular step can be quoted, and the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central construction rests on the prior N=3 conformal superspace of [12] (same authors), on new nonlinear multiplet constraints whose uniqueness is explicitly open, and on on-shell compensator equations that are proposed rather than derived from an action. These are formal assumptions, not free parameters fitted to data; the only hand-chosen constant flagged is the 8/9 in (4.16).

free parameters (1)

Coefficient 8/9 in the nonlinear multiplet on-shell condition (4.16)
The form of equation (4.16) is asserted to be fixed by superconformal symmetry; no derivation or action principle is shown. The coefficient affects the resulting chi=0 equation of motion.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The N=3 conformal superspace constraints and Bianchi identities of [12] are correct and describe the off-shell N=3 Weyl multiplet.
Section 3.1, equations (3.3)-(3.7), are taken as the starting point; [12] is by the same two authors and is not re-proved here.
ad hoc to paper The constraints (4.1) define the N=3 nonlinear multiplet, including the particular combination of constraints in (4.1b).
Section 4 proposes these constraints as new; dropping the second constraint gives a larger multiplet with an unclear role, so the chosen set is an assumption.
ad hoc to paper The on-shell compensator equations (4.15) and (4.16) are the equations of motion of N=3 Poincare supergravity.
Section 4.2 states these on-shell conditions without an action or comparison to component-level N=3 Poincare supergravity; the conclusion chi=0 follows from them.
domain assumption The classification theorem of [58] describing maximally supersymmetric backgrounds of N=3 Einstein superspace is valid.
Section 5 uses [58] to conclude N=3 Minkowski superspace is the unique maximally supersymmetric background.

invented entities (2)

N=3 nonlinear multiplet L^i_a
purpose: Serves as a compensator that breaks the SU(3)_R gauge freedom and enables the reduction to an SL(2,C) structure group.
Defined in Section 4 by the new constraints (4.1). No external falsifiable handle, such as a matching component action or scattering prediction, is provided.
N=3 Einstein superspace geometry with the spinor isospinor chi^i_alpha
purpose: Provides the curved superspace in which N=3 Poincare supergravity equations reduce to chi=0.
Constructed in Section 4.1 by degauging SU(3) superspace; no comparison to existing N=3 supergravity component data is given, so there is no independent evidence.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ${\mathcal N}=3$ nonlinear multiplet and supergravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T7R5AQWX

@misc{pith2026250111339,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: $\mathcal N=3$ nonlinear multiplet and supergravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T7R5AQWX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11339}
}

abstract

We propose an ${\mathcal N}=3$ nonlinear multiplet coupled to conformal supergravity and use it to formulate the equations of motion for ${\mathcal N} = 3$ Poincar\'e supergravity. These equations, which are naturally described in a new curved supergeometry with structure group $\mathsf{SL}(2,\mathbb{C})$, imply that the ${\mathcal N} = 3$ super-Bach tensor vanishes, and thus every solution of Poincar\'e supergravity is a solution of conformal supergravity. The aforementioned superspace formulation, which we refer to as $\mathcal N=3$ Einstein superspace, is described in terms of two dimension-$1/2$ superfields: (i) the super-Weyl spinor $W_\alpha$; and (ii) a spinor isospinor $\chi_\alpha^i$.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Six-dimensional $\mathcal{N}=(2,0)$ Conformal Superspace
hep-th 2025-06 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

A new off-shell 6D N=(2,0) conformal superspace is constructed, and its unique Bach tensor superfield is derived up to overall scaling.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[6]

Structure of N= 2 Supergravity,

B. de Wit, J. W. van Holten and A. Van Proeyen, “Structure of N= 2 Supergravity,” Nucl. Phys. B 184, 77 (1981) [erratum: Nucl. Phys. B 222, 516 (1983)]

work page 1981
[1]

Consistent supergravit y with complex spin 3/2 gauge ﬁelds,

S. Ferrara and P. van Nieuwenhuizen, “Consistent supergravit y with complex spin 3/2 gauge ﬁelds,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 37, 1669 (1976)

work page 1976
[2]

Minimal set of auxiliary ﬁelds in SO(2 ) extended supergravity,

E. S. Fradkin and M. A. Vasiliev, “Minimal set of auxiliary ﬁelds in SO(2 ) extended supergravity,” Phys. Lett. B 85, 47 (1979)

work page 1979
[3]

Transformation Rules of N=2 Supergravity Multiplets,

B. de Wit, J. W. van Holten and A. Van Proeyen, “Transformation Rules of N=2 Supergravity Multiplets,” Nucl. Phys. B 167, 186 (1980)

work page 1980
[4]

Minimal set of auxiliary ﬁelds and S- matrix for extended supergravity,

E. S. Fradkin and M. A. Vasiliev, “Minimal set of auxiliary ﬁelds and S- matrix for extended supergravity,” Lett. Nuovo Cim. 25, 79 (1979)

work page 1979
[5]

Multiplets of Linearized SO(2) Supe rgravity,

B. de Wit and J. W. van Holten, “Multiplets of Linearized SO(2) Supe rgravity,” Nucl. Phys. B 155, 530 (1979). 32

work page 1979
[7]

Extended conformal su pergravity,

E. Bergshoeﬀ, M. de Roo and B. de Wit, “Extended conformal su pergravity,” Nucl. Phys. B 182, 173 (1981)

work page 1981
[8]

The improved tensor mu ltiplet in N = 2 supergravity,

B. de Wit, R. Philippe and A. Van Proeyen, “The improved tensor mu ltiplet in N = 2 supergravity,” Nucl. Phys. B 219, 143 (1983)

work page 1983

Show all 64 references

[9]

On N = 2 supergravity and projective superspa ce: Dual formulations,

S. M. Kuzenko, “On N = 2 supergravity and projective superspa ce: Dual formulations,” Nucl. Phys. B 810, 135 (2009) [arXiv:0807.3381 [hep-th]]

2009 arXiv
[10]

New higher-derivative couplings in 4D N = 2 supergravity,

D. Butter and S. M. Kuzenko, “New higher-derivative couplings in 4D N = 2 supergravity,” JHEP 03, 047 (2011) [arXiv:1012.5153 [hep-th]]

2011 arXiv
[11]

Extended superconfor mal higher-spin gauge theories in four di- mensions,

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

2021 arXiv
[12]

N = 3 conformal superspace in four dimensions,

S. M. Kuzenko and E. S. N. Raptakis, “ N = 3 conformal superspace in four dimensions,” JHEP 03, 026 (2024) [arXiv:2312.07242 [hep-th]]

2024 arXiv
[13]

The N = 3 Weyl multiplet in four dimensions,

J. van Muiden and A. Van Proeyen, “The N = 3 Weyl multiplet in four dimensions,” JHEP 01, 167 (2019) [arXiv:1702.06442 [hep-th]]

2019 arXiv
[14]

Comment on “The N =3 Weyl multiplet in four dimensions

S. Hegde and B. Sahoo, “Comment on “The N =3 Weyl multiplet in four dimensions”,” Phys. Lett. B 791, 92 (2019) [arXiv:1810.05089 [hep-th]]

2019 arXiv
[15]

N = 3 conformal supergrav ity in four dimensions,

S. Hegde, M. Mishra and B. Sahoo, “N = 3 conformal supergrav ity in four dimensions,” JHEP 04, 001 (2022) [arXiv:2104.07453 [hep-th]]

2022 arXiv
[16]

Conformal supergravity,

E. S. Fradkin and A. A. Tseytlin, “Conformal supergravity,” Ph ys. Rept. 119, 233 (1985)

1985
[17]

N=1 Conformal Superspace in Four Dimensions,

D. Butter, “N=1 Conformal Superspace in Four Dimensions,” An nals Phys. 325, 1026 (2010) [arXiv:0906.4399 [hep-th]]

2010 arXiv
[18]

N=2 Conformal Superspace in Four Dimensions,

D. Butter, “N=2 Conformal Superspace in Four Dimensions,” JH EP 10, 030 (2011) [arXiv:1103.5914 [hep-th]]

2011 arXiv
[19]

Superspace approaches to N = 1 supergravity,

S. M. Kuzenko, E. S. N. Raptakis and G. Tartaglino-Mazzucche lli, “Superspace approaches to N = 1 supergravity,” in: Handbook of Quantum Gravity , C. Bambi, L. Modesto, I. Shapiro (Eds.), Springer, Singapore (2023), [arXiv:2210.17088 [hep-th]]

2023 arXiv
[20]

Covariant Superspace Approaches to N = 2 Supergravity,

S. M. Kuzenko, E. S. N. Raptakis and G. Tartaglino-Mazzucche lli, “Covariant Superspace Approaches to N = 2 Supergravity,” in: Handbook of Quantum Gravity , C. Bambi, L. Modesto, I. Shapiro (Eds.), Springer, Singapore (2023), [arXiv:2211.11162 [hep-th]]

2023 arXiv
[21]

Conformal (p, q) super geometries in two dimensions,

S. M. Kuzenko and E. S. N. Raptakis, “Conformal (p, q) super geometries in two dimensions,” JHEP 02, 166 (2023) [arXiv:2211.16169 [hep-th]]

2023 arXiv
[22]

Conformal supergravity in three dimensions: New oﬀ-shell formulation,

D. Butter, S. M. Kuzenko, J. Novak and G. Tartaglino-Mazzuc chelli, “Conformal supergravity in three dimensions: New oﬀ-shell formulation,” JHEP 09, 072 (2013) [arXiv:1305.3132 [hep-th]]

2013 arXiv
[23]

Conformal supergravity in three dimensions: Oﬀ-shell actions,

D. Butter, S. M. Kuzenko, J. Novak and G. Tartaglino-Mazzuc chelli, “Conformal supergravity in three dimensions: Oﬀ-shell actions,” JHEP 10, 073 (2013) [arXiv:1306.1205 [hep-th]]. 33

2013 arXiv
[24]

N=6 s uperconformal gravity in three dimensions from superspace,

S. M. Kuzenko, J. Novak and G. Tartaglino-Mazzucchelli, “N=6 s uperconformal gravity in three dimensions from superspace,” JHEP 01, 121 (2014) [arXiv:1308.5552 [hep-th]]

2014 arXiv
[25]

Conformal supergravity in ﬁve dimensions: New approach and applications,

D. Butter, S. M. Kuzenko, J. Novak and G. Tartaglino-Mazzuc chelli, “Conformal supergravity in ﬁve dimensions: New approach and applications,” JHEP 1502, 111 (2015). [arXiv:1410.8682 [hep-th]]

2015 arXiv
[26]

Invarian ts for minimal conformal supergravity in six dimensions,

D. Butter, S. M. Kuzenko, J. Novak and S. Theisen, “Invarian ts for minimal conformal supergravity in six dimensions,” JHEP 1612, 072 (2016) [arXiv:1606.02921 [hep-th]]

2016 arXiv
[27]

D. Z. Freedman and A. Van Proeyen, Supergravity, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press (2012) 607 p

2012
[28]

Lauria and A

E. Lauria and A. Van Proeyen, N = 2 Supergravity in D = 4 , 5, 6 Dimensions, Lect. Notes Phys. 966, Springer, (2020) 2020, 256 p., [arXiv:2004.11433 [hep-th]]

2020 arXiv
[29]

New higher -derivative invariants in N=2 supergravity and the Gauss-Bonnet term,

D. Butter, B. de Wit, S. M. Kuzenko and I. Lodato, “New higher -derivative invariants in N=2 supergravity and the Gauss-Bonnet term,” JHEP 12, 062 (2013) [arXiv:1307.6546 [hep-th]]

2013 arXiv
[30]

Curvature squared invariants in six-dimensionalN = (1, 0) supergravity,

D. Butter, J. Novak, M. Ozkan, Y. Pang and G. Tartaglino-Maz zucchelli, “Curvature squared invariants in six-dimensionalN = (1, 0) supergravity,” JHEP 04, 013 (2019) [arXiv:1808.00459 [hep-th]]

2019 arXiv
[31]

Unconstrained N=2 matter, Yang-Mills and supergravity theories in harmonic superspace,

A. S. Galperin, E. A. Ivanov, S. N. Kalitzin, V. Ogievetsky, E. So katchev, “Unconstrained N=2 matter, Yang-Mills and supergravity theories in harmonic superspace,” Class . Quant. Grav. 1, 469 (1984)

1984
[32]

A. S. Galperin, E. A. Ivanov, V. I. Ogievetsky and E. S. Sokatc hev, Harmonic Superspace, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001

2001
[33]

New hyperk¨ ahler metrics and new supermultiplets,

U. Lindstr¨ om and M. Roˇ cek, “New hyperk¨ ahler metrics and new supermultiplets,” Commun. Math. Phys. 115, 21 (1988)

1988
[34]

N=2 super Yang-Mills theory in pr ojective superspace,

U. Lindstr¨ om and M. Roˇ cek, “N=2 super Yang-Mills theory in pr ojective superspace,” Commun. Math. Phys. 128, 191 (1990)

1990
[35]

Unconstrained oﬀ-shell N=3 super- symmetric Yang-Mills theory,

A. Galperin, E. Ivanov, S. Kalitzin, V. Ogievetsky and E. Sokatc hev, “Unconstrained oﬀ-shell N=3 super- symmetric Yang-Mills theory,” Class. Quant. Grav. 2, 155 (1985)

1985
[36]

N=3 supersymmetric gauge theory,

A. Galperin, E. Ivanov, S. Kalitzin, V. Ogievetsky and E. Sokatc hev, “N=3 supersymmetric gauge theory,” Phys. Lett. B 151, 215 (1985)

1985
[37]

Supersymmetry in a space with a uxiliary dimensions,

A. A. Rosly and A. S. Schwarz, “Supersymmetry in a space with a uxiliary dimensions,” Commun. Math. Phys. 105, 645 (1986)

1986
[38]

On conformal supergravity and harmonic supers pace,

D. Butter, “On conformal supergravity and harmonic supers pace,” JHEP 03, 107 (2016) [arXiv:1508.07718 [hep-th]]

2016 arXiv
[39]

Supergravity in superspace formulation,

J. Wess, “Supergravity in superspace formulation,” in: Proceedings of the International Conference on High Energy Physics, Vol. 1 , A. Zichichi (Ed.), CERN, Geneva, 1979, pp. 462–465

1979
[40]

Const raints for N =2 Superspace From Extended Supergravity in Ordinary Space,

L. Castellani, P. van Nieuwenhuizen and S. J. Gates, Jr., “Const raints for N =2 Superspace From Extended Supergravity in Ordinary Space,” Phys. Rev. D 22, 2364 (1980)

1980
[41]

Supercovariant Derivatives, Super Weyl Gr oups, and N =2 Supergravity,

S. J. Gates, Jr., “Supercovariant Derivatives, Super Weyl Gr oups, and N =2 Supergravity,” Nucl. Phys. B 176, 397 (1980)

1980
[42]

Supergravity in Superspace,

P. S. Howe, “Supergravity in Superspace,” Nucl. Phys. B 199, 309 (1982). 34

1982
[43]

N = 2 Supergravity in Superspace: Solution to the Con- straints,

A. S. Galperin, N. A. Ky and E. Sokatchev, “ N = 2 Supergravity in Superspace: Solution to the Con- straints,” Class. Quant. Grav. 4, 1235 (1987)

1987
[44]

Solution of the Bianchi identities in SU(2) extended su perspace with constraints,

R. Grimm, “Solution of the Bianchi identities in SU(2) extended su perspace with constraints,” in Uni- ﬁcation of the Fundamental Particle Interactions , S. Ferrara, J. Ellis and P. van Nieuwenhuizen (Eds.), Plenum Press, New York, 1980, pp. 509-523

1980
[45]

4D N=2 supergravity and projective superspace,

S. M. Kuzenko, U. Lindstr¨ om, M. Roˇ cek and G. Tartaglino-Ma zzucchelli, “4D N=2 supergravity and projective superspace,” JHEP 0809, 051 (2008) [arXiv:0805.4683]

2008 arXiv
[46]

Extended supersymmetry a nd gauge theories,

R. Grimm, M. Sohnius and J. Wess, “Extended supersymmetry a nd gauge theories,” Nucl. Phys. B 133, 275 (1978)

1978
[47]

On conformal supergravity and projective superspace,

S. M. Kuzenko, U. Lindstr¨ om, M. Roˇ cek and G. Tartaglino-Mazzucchelli, “On conformal supergravity and projective superspace,” JHEP 08, 023 (2009) [arXiv:0905.0063 [hep-th]]

2009 arXiv
[48]

Background harmonic superﬁelds in N=2 supergr avity,

B. M. Zupnik, “Background harmonic superﬁelds in N=2 supergr avity,” Theor. Math. Phys. 116, 964 (1998) [arXiv:hep-th/9803202 [hep-th]]

1998 arXiv
[49]

Correlation functions of conse rved currents in N=2 superconformal theory,

S. M. Kuzenko and S. Theisen, “Correlation functions of conse rved currents in N=2 superconformal theory,” Class. Quant. Grav. 17, 665 (2000) [arXiv:hep-th/9907107 [hep-th]]

2000 arXiv
[50]

Superconform al tensor calculus and matter couplings in six dimensions,

E. Bergshoeﬀ, E. Sezgin and A. Van Proeyen, “Superconform al tensor calculus and matter couplings in six dimensions,” Nucl. Phys. B 264, 653 (1986) Erratum: [Nucl. Phys. B 598, 667 (2001)]

1986
[51]

Hyperdilaton Weyl multiplets of 5D and 6D minimal conformal supergravity,

J. Hutomo, S. Khandelwal, G. Tartaglino-Mazzucchelli and J. Wo ods, “Hyperdilaton Weyl multiplets of 5D and 6D minimal conformal supergravity,” Phys. Rev. D 107, no.4, 046009 (2023) [arXiv:2209.05748 [hep-th]]

2023 arXiv
[52]

Weyl multiplets of N=2 conformal supergravity in ﬁve-dimensions,

E. Bergshoeﬀ, S. Cucu, M. Derix, T. de Wit, R. Halbersma and A. Van Proeyen, “Weyl multiplets of N=2 conformal supergravity in ﬁve-dimensions,” JHEP 0106, 051 (2001) [hep-th/0104113]

2001 arXiv
[53]

N = 2 dilaton Weyl multiplet in 4D supergravity,

D. Butter, S. Hegde, I. Lodato and B. Sahoo, “ N = 2 dilaton Weyl multiplet in 4D supergravity,” JHEP 03, 154 (2018) [arXiv:1712.05365 [hep-th]]

2018 arXiv
[54]

Hyper-dilaton Weyl multiplet of 4D,N = 2 conformal supergravity,

G. Gold, S. Khandelwal, W. Kitchin and G. Tartaglino-Mazzucchelli, “Hyper-dilaton Weyl multiplet of 4D,N = 2 conformal supergravity,” JHEP 09, 016 (2022) [arXiv:2203.12203 [hep-th]]

2022 arXiv
[55]

Component reduction in N=2 supergr avity: the vector, tensor, and vector-tensor multiplets,

D. Butter and J. Novak, “Component reduction in N=2 supergr avity: the vector, tensor, and vector-tensor multiplets,” JHEP 05, 115 (2012) [arXiv:1201.5431 [hep-th]]

2012 arXiv
[56]

Higher deriv ative invariants in four dimensional N = 3 Poincar´ e supergravity,

S. Hegde, M. Mishra, D. Mukherjee and B. Sahoo, “Higher deriv ative invariants in four dimensional N = 3 Poincar´ e supergravity,” JHEP02, 145 (2023) [arXiv:2211.06628 [hep-th]]

2023 arXiv
[57]

Dilaton Weyl multip lets for N = 3 conformal supergravity in four dimensions,

S. Adhikari, A. Aikot, M. Mishra and B. Sahoo, “Dilaton Weyl multip lets for N = 3 conformal supergravity in four dimensions,” [arXiv:2412.14874 [hep-th]]

arXiv
[58]

Symm etries of curved superspace in ﬁve di- mensions,

S. M. Kuzenko, J. Novak and G. Tartaglino-Mazzucchelli, “Symm etries of curved superspace in ﬁve di- mensions,” JHEP 10, 175 (2014) [arXiv:1406.0727 [hep-th]]

2014 arXiv
[59]

Rigid 4D N = 2 supersymmetric backgrounds and actions,

D. Butter, G. Inverso and I. Lodato, “Rigid 4D N = 2 supersymmetric backgrounds and actions,” JHEP 09, 088 (2015) [arXiv:1505.03500 [hep-th]]. 35

2015 arXiv
[60]

All possible gener ators of supersymmetries of the S-matrix,

R. Haag, J. T. Lopuszanski and M. Sohnius, “All possible gener ators of supersymmetries of the S-matrix,” Nucl. Phys. B 88, 257 (1975)

1975
[61]

The conformal group in superspace,

M. F. Sohnius, “The conformal group in superspace,” in Quantum Theory and the Structures of Time and Space, Vol. 2, L. Castell , M. Drieschner and C. F. von Weizs¨ acker (Eds.) , Carl Hanser Verlag, M¨ unchen, 1977, pp. 241-252

1977
[62]

Supertwistors and conformal supersymmetry,

A. Ferber, “Supertwistors and conformal supersymmetry,” Nucl. Phys. B 132, 55 (1978)

1978
[63]

Superconformal symmetry and correlation func tions,

J. H. Park, “Superconformal symmetry and correlation func tions,” Nucl. Phys. B 559, 455-501 (1999) [arXiv:hep-th/9903230 [hep-th]]

1999 arXiv
[64]

Aspects of superconformal symmetry,

E. S. N. Raptakis, “Aspects of superconformal symmetry,” [a rXiv:2403.02700 [hep-th]]. 36

arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [6]

Structure of N= 2 Supergravity,

B. de Wit, J. W. van Holten and A. Van Proeyen, “Structure of N= 2 Supergravity,” Nucl. Phys. B 184, 77 (1981) [erratum: Nucl. Phys. B 222, 516 (1983)]

work page 1981

[2] [1]

Consistent supergravit y with complex spin 3/2 gauge ﬁelds,

S. Ferrara and P. van Nieuwenhuizen, “Consistent supergravit y with complex spin 3/2 gauge ﬁelds,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 37, 1669 (1976)

work page 1976

[3] [2]

Minimal set of auxiliary ﬁelds in SO(2 ) extended supergravity,

E. S. Fradkin and M. A. Vasiliev, “Minimal set of auxiliary ﬁelds in SO(2 ) extended supergravity,” Phys. Lett. B 85, 47 (1979)

work page 1979

[4] [3]

Transformation Rules of N=2 Supergravity Multiplets,

B. de Wit, J. W. van Holten and A. Van Proeyen, “Transformation Rules of N=2 Supergravity Multiplets,” Nucl. Phys. B 167, 186 (1980)

work page 1980

[5] [4]

Minimal set of auxiliary ﬁelds and S- matrix for extended supergravity,

E. S. Fradkin and M. A. Vasiliev, “Minimal set of auxiliary ﬁelds and S- matrix for extended supergravity,” Lett. Nuovo Cim. 25, 79 (1979)

work page 1979

[6] [5]

Multiplets of Linearized SO(2) Supe rgravity,

B. de Wit and J. W. van Holten, “Multiplets of Linearized SO(2) Supe rgravity,” Nucl. Phys. B 155, 530 (1979). 32

work page 1979

[7] [7]

Extended conformal su pergravity,

E. Bergshoeﬀ, M. de Roo and B. de Wit, “Extended conformal su pergravity,” Nucl. Phys. B 182, 173 (1981)

work page 1981

[8] [8]

The improved tensor mu ltiplet in N = 2 supergravity,

B. de Wit, R. Philippe and A. Van Proeyen, “The improved tensor mu ltiplet in N = 2 supergravity,” Nucl. Phys. B 219, 143 (1983)

work page 1983