Symmetry and equivalence in teleparallel gravity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In theories such as teleparallel gravity and its extensions, the frame basis replaces the metric tensor as the primary object of study. A choice of coordinate system, frame basis, and spin-connection must be made to obtain a solution from the field equations of a given teleparallel gravity theory. It is worthwhile to express solutions in an invariant manner in terms of torsion invariants to distinguish between different solutions. In this paper, we discuss the symmetries of teleparallel gravity theories, describe the classification of the torsion tensor and its covariant derivative, and define scalar invariants in terms of the torsion. In particular, we propose a modification of the Cartan–Karlhede algorithm for geometries with torsion (and no curvature or nonmetricity). The algorithm determines the dimension of the symmetry group for a solution and suggests an alternative frame-based approach to calculating symmetries. We prove that the only maximally symmetric solution to any theory of gravitation admitting a non-zero torsion tensor is Minkowski space. As an illustration, we apply the algorithm to six particular exact teleparallel geometries. From these examples, we notice that the symmetry group of the solutions of a teleparallel gravity theory is potentially smaller than their metric-based analogs in general relativity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".