\section{Introduction}

Well known issues with theoretical understanding of the gravitational interaction, ranging from hard problems of quantum gravity to overwhelmingly dark contents of the Universe, motivates us to seek a viable modified gravity model \cite{Clifton:2011jh}. Apparently a viable model should be theoretically meaningful, comply with existing experimental constraints, and ideally help us with some problems in quantum gravity and/or cosmology. However, even the first condition is often an obstacle. It is not so easy to modify gravity without inducing ghosts or other severe drawbacks.

It is natural in such a situation to try starting from another, though equivalent, formulation of General Relativity (GR). One option of this sort is actually known from the very early days. Exploiting the concept of absolute parallelism, as did Einstein\footnote{In an attempt at a unified theory,
10 components of the tetrad were to represent the gravitational metric, and
the remaining 6 were to be associated with electromagnetism. However, the latter 6 components are pure gauge, due to the inherent Lorentz invariance of the teleparallel structure. It comes without curvature, hence the name. The geometric foundations had been laid by Cartan \cite{Goenner2004}.}
 himself, one may describe gravity equivalently in terms of torsion instead
of the curvature, with the underlying field being the tetrad instead of the metric. This approach is known as teleparallel gravity. One of its advantages is that it allows to define the gravitational energy momentum tensor \cite{moller} Lorentz-covariantly \cite{newtensor}. In general, as the tetrad is intimately related to the gauge potential of translations, the field strength of which is the torsion, teleparallelism is a natural way to possible understanding of the gauge nature of gravity  \cite{blagojevic,Aldrovandi:2013wha}.

A covariant metric action must contain second derivatives, but since this is not the case for a teleparallel tetrad action, it has been thought to be better suited for modifications because going, for example, to non-linear functions of the Lagragian density \cite{Linder:2010py} should not induce new, potentially pathological degrees of freedom. However, it turns out not to be that simple \cite{LSB1,LSB2,LSB3}. Setting the connection to vanish in the pure-tetrad formulation has broken the local Lorentz invariance. The effects add up to a mere surface term in the teleparallel equivalent of GR, but this fails to be the case in non-linear generalisations. Broken Lorentz invariance strikes back in the form of new degrees of freedom. Other issues have been encountered and discussed in for example \cite{Ferraro:2011us,Tamanini:2012hg,Ong:2013qja,Chen:2014qtl}.

The observation of the inviability of the pure-tetrad teleparallelism is not new at all (see e.g. \cite{kop}),
nor the fact that ''all the problematic features of the teleparallel theory become irrelevant by turning, as one should, to the full Poincar\'e gauge theory'' \cite{Blagojevic:2013xpa}. Nevertheless, while teleparallel modifications of gravity have become, especially due to the dark energy problem in cosmology, popular in recent years, we don't, however, find the paramount issue of the Lorentz invariance yet quite clarified in this context \cite{f(T)review}.
In recent discussions it has been pointed out that one can effectively restore the local Lorentz invariance by
inserting an appropriate spin connection into the action since it will only introduce a surface term \cite{Krssak:2015rqa,Krssak:2015lba,Krssak}. An important prerequisite is that the spin connection has to be flat, or purely inertial. This is basically what one should understand as teleparallel gravity in the first place. It is covariant by construction, though not manifestly so in the gauge where the spin connection is set to zero. Any other gauge choice introduces a non-zero spin connection due to the inhomogeneous transformation: this is what is missed in the pure-tetrad formulation, where only the tetrad is transformed.

In this paper we aim at clarifying these points. In particular, we will focus on the technical problem of the variational formulation. In Sections II and III we give a brief but hopefully pedagogical introduction to teleparallel gravity. In Section IV we consider various covariantisations of the (pure-tetrad) teleparallel models and discuss extensions in Section V. In Section VI we also treat the case of $f(T)$ explicitly at the level of equations of motion. In Section we VII conclude with a summary.

\section{Tetrads and connections}

In the tetrad formulation, the metric at each point is associated with the set of tangent vectors via
\begin{equation}
\label{metric}
g_{\mu\nu}=e^a_{\mu}e^b_{\nu}\eta_{ab}
\end{equation}
which defines the tetrad fields $e^a_{\mu}$ up to local Lorentz rotations. Since we are interested in non-degenerate metrics, we assume that $e^a_{\mu}$ form a non-degenerate matrix, and inverse tetrads $e^{\mu}_{a}$ can be defined as the inverse matrix so that $e^a_{\mu}e^{\mu}_{b}\equiv\delta^a_b$ and $e^a_{\mu}e^{\nu}_{a}\equiv\delta^{\nu}_{\mu}$ with
$$g^{\mu\nu}=e_a^{\mu}e_b^{\nu}\eta^{ab}$$
for the inverse metric.

The inverse tetrad can be viewed as a (reference) frame field. It represents a basis of tangent vectors at a given point of the spacetime manifold. It is a basis in which the quadratic form $g_{\mu\nu}$ acquires its canonical form $\eta_{ab}$ which is easily seen from $g_{\mu\nu}e^{\mu}_a e^{\nu}_b=\eta_{ab}$. Since such a basis always exists, it guarantees the tetrad representation (\ref{metric}) can always be found, locally. However, there may exist topological obstructions to global existence of a frame field. For instance, there are no smooth vector fields on a sphere, let alone a full set of those. Just like one cannot nicely comb a hairy ball, a tetrad description might not be globally possible for manifolds with non-trivial topology.

Now we can, if we want, consider every tensor with Latin indices instead of spacetime ones with the relation between the two being understood as
\begin{equation}
\label{getrans}
{\mathcal T}^{a_1,\ldots,a_n}_{b_1,\ldots,b_m}\equiv e^{a_1}_{\alpha_1}\cdots e^{a_n}_{\alpha_n}{\mathcal T}^{\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n}_{\beta_1,\ldots,\beta_m} e^{\beta_1}_{b_1}\cdots e^{\beta_m}_{b_m}.
\end{equation}
One can also say that we have a copy of the tangent space at each point with the canonical metric $\eta_{ab}$ in it, and the tetrads realise an isomorphism between the two (pseudo)normed linear spaces via $A^{\mu}\to A^a=e^a_{\mu}A^{\mu}$.

Moreover, we can now have two types of the connection coefficients, $\Gamma^{\alpha}_{\mu\beta}$ for the usual tensors and $\omega^a_{\hphantom{a}\mu b}$ for those with tangent space indices. The latter of course must transform as a connection, whilst the tetrad by construction transforms as a tensor.
Therefore, under a Lorentz rotation $\Lambda$,
\begin{equation}
\label{omtransL}
e^a_\mu  \longrightarrow \Lambda^a_c e^c_\mu\,, \quad
\omega^a_{\hphantom{a}\mu b} \longrightarrow \Lambda^a_c \omega^c_{\hphantom{a}\mu d}(\Lambda^{-1})^d_b-(\Lambda^{-1})^a_c\partial_{\mu}\Lambda^c_b\,.
\end{equation}
In order to freely change the nature of the indices by the tetrads, we wish this procedure to commute with taking a covariant derivative. Obviously, this goal would be achieved by the following requirement
\begin{equation}
\label{covconst}
\partial_{\mu}e^a_{\nu}+\omega^a_{\hphantom{a}\mu b}e^b_{\nu}-\Gamma^{\alpha}_{\mu\nu}e^a_{\alpha}=0
\end{equation}
which can be referred to as vanishing of the "full covariant derivative" of the tetrad. With this understanding in mind, we can conveniently use tensors with indices of both types, and the covariant derivatives would be unambiguously defined for a tensor even if we are allowed to transform from one type to another. The recipe is that we use $\Gamma$-terms for Greek indices, and $\omega$-terms for Latin indices: $\bigtriangledown_{\mu}T^{a\alpha}=\partial_{\mu}T^{a\alpha}+\Gamma^{\alpha}_{\mu\beta}T^{a\beta}+\omega^a_{\hphantom{a}\mu b}T^{b\alpha}$.

Condition (\ref{covconst}) is solved straightforwardly to obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{Gamma}
\Gamma^{\alpha}_{\mu\nu}=e_a^{\alpha}\left(\partial_{\mu}e^a_{\nu}+\omega^a_{\hphantom{a}\mu b}e^b_{\nu}\right)\equiv e_a^{\alpha}\ {\mathop\mathfrak D}_{\mu}e^a_{\nu}
\end{equation}
with $ {\mathop\mathfrak D}_{\mu}$ being the Lorentz-covariant (with respect to the Latin index only) derivative. Relation (\ref{Gamma}) can also be reversed to obtain the spin connection
$$\omega^a_{\hphantom{a}\mu b}=e^a_{\alpha}\Gamma^{\alpha}_{\mu\nu}e^{\nu}_b-e^{\nu}_b\partial_{\mu}e^a_{\nu}$$
which corresponds to a given affine connection on the manifold. In particular, one can find the spin connection $\mathop\omega\limits^{(0)}$ which corresponds to the Levi-Civita connection $\mathop\Gamma\limits^{(0)}(g)$ of a given metric $g$.

Basically, if (\ref{Gamma}) is valid, then both $\Gamma^{\alpha}_{\mu\beta}$ and $\omega^a_{\hphantom{a}\mu b}$ represent one and the same connection in different disguises. This conclusion is further substantiated by comparing the curvatures for both connections,
\begin{equation}
\label{spinRiemann}
R^a_{\hphantom{a}b\mu\nu}(\omega)=\partial_{\mu}\omega^a_{\hphantom{a}\nu b}-\partial_{\nu}\omega^a_{\hphantom{a}\mu b}+\omega^a_{\hphantom{a}\mu c}\omega^c_{\hphantom{c}\nu b}-\omega^a_{\hphantom{a}\nu c}\omega^c_{\hphantom{c}\mu b}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{metricRiemann}
R^{\alpha}_{\hphantom{\alpha}\beta\mu\nu}(\Gamma)= \partial_{\mu}\Gamma^{\alpha}_{\nu\beta}-\partial_{\nu}\Gamma^{\alpha}_{\mu\beta} +\Gamma^{\alpha}_{\mu\rho}\Gamma^{\rho}_{\nu\beta}-\Gamma^{\alpha}_{\nu\rho}\Gamma^{\rho}_{\mu\beta}\,,
\end{equation}
which after a simple calculation gives
\begin{equation}
\label{corrRiemann}
R^{\alpha}_{\hphantom{a}\beta\mu\nu}(\Gamma)=e^{\alpha}_a R^a_{\hphantom{\alpha}b\mu\nu}(\omega) e^b_{\beta}\,.
\end{equation}
In other words, the two Riemann tensors are related by mere change of the types of indices. Therefore, those are one and the same tensor under our conventions which are common for all the tensors we use.

Note also that the non-metricity in this formalism (with the vanishing of the "full covariant derivative" of the tetrad) is automatically equal to zero because
\begin{equation}
\label{Qzero}
\bigtriangledown_{\alpha}g_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{ab}\left(\partial_{\alpha}\left(e^a_{\mu}e^b_{\nu}\right)-\Gamma^{\beta}_{\alpha\mu}e^a_{\beta}e^b_{\nu}-\Gamma^{\beta}_{\alpha\nu}e^a_{\mu}e^b_{\beta}\right)=-e^b_{\mu}e^c_{\nu}\left(\eta_{ab}\omega^a_{\hphantom{a}\alpha c}+\eta_{ac}\omega^a_{\hphantom{a}\alpha b}\right)=0
\end{equation}
where we have used (\ref{metric}), (\ref{covconst}), and the assumption that the matrices $\omega^{\cdot}_{\hphantom{a}\alpha \cdot}=\omega^a_{\hphantom{a}\alpha b}$ belong to the Lie algebra of the group $SO(1,3)$.
A completely different approach is needed for incorporating symmetric teleparallel gravity \cite{NesterYo,Adak:2005cd}.

In particular, absence of non-metricity leads to antisymmetry of the Riemann tensor with respect to interchange of the first two indices, $R_{\alpha\beta\mu\nu}=-R_{\beta\alpha\mu\nu}$. In terms of the tetrad formulation (\ref{spinRiemann}) it follows from the antisymmetry of the spin connection coefficients with raised (or lowered) Latin indices, $\omega^{a\hphantom{\mu}b}_{\hphantom{a}\mu}=-\omega^{b\hphantom{\mu}a}_{\hphantom{b}\mu}$. And in the usual metric formalism the same conclusion can be achieved by noticing that from the basic definitions one derives the following identities:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left[\bigtriangledown_{\mu}\ ,\ \bigtriangledown_{\nu}\right]A^{\alpha} & = &
R^{\alpha}_{\phantom{\alpha}\beta\mu\nu}A^{\beta}-T^{\beta}_{\hphantom{\beta}\mu\nu}\bigtriangledown_{\beta}A^{\alpha},\\
\left[\bigtriangledown_{\mu}\ ,\ \bigtriangledown_{\nu}\right]A_{\alpha}
& =& -R^{\beta}_{\phantom{\beta}\alpha\mu\nu}A_{\beta}-T^{\beta}_{\hphantom{\beta}\mu\nu}\bigtriangledown_{\beta}A_{\alpha}
\end{eqnarray*}
with $T^{\beta}_{\hphantom{\beta}\mu\nu}$ being the torsion tensor, see below. Now it is obvious that, if the metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ commutes with covariant derivatives, then the first two indices of the Riemann tensor enjoy the antisymmetry property even the in presence of torsion.

\section{Teleparallel vs pure-tetrad gravity}

In GR, the spin connection represents both gravitation and inertial effects. The equivalence principle guarantees the existence of a local frame,
where such a connection vanishes.

In teleparallelism, gravitation is described in terms of torsion instead of curvature. The spin connection is then associated solely with
inertia. This interpretation is naturally inherited from special relativity: considering the equation of motion for free a particle in the Minkowski space, $d u^a/ds=0$, one obtains, in a general class of frames, $d u^a/ds = \omega^a_{\phantom{a}\mu b}u^b u^\mu$, where $\omega^a_{\phantom{a}\mu b}$ is just the teleparallel spin connection.
Accordingly, it is always (barring topological
complications) possible to choose a global class of frames where $\mathop\omega\limits^{\mathfrak W}{\vphantom{\omega}}^a_{\hphantom{a}\mu b}=0$.
Obviously, in this frame the field strength of the connection (\ref{spinRiemann}), and the spacetime curvature (\ref{metricRiemann}), vanish.
A Lorentz transformation (\ref{omtransL}) introduces a non-zero inertial connection\footnote{To further substantiate the interpretation as inertia, switch off gravity by setting the Newton's constant to zero. The anholonomy of the tetrads, $[e_a,e_b] = f^c_{\phantom{c}ab}e_c$, then determines
the spin connection as $\omega^a_{\mu b} = \frac{1}{2}(f_{b\phantom{a}c}^{\phantom{b}a} + f_{c\phantom{a}b}^{\phantom{c}a} - f^a_{\phantom{a}bc})e^c_\mu$.
This also shows that the spin connection of teleparallel gravity is not arbitrary. }, but no curvature.
An equivalent description of general relativity is then given in terms of the torsion tensor
\begin{equation}
\label{torsion}
T^{\alpha}_{\hphantom{\alpha}\mu\nu}\equiv\Gamma^{\alpha}_{\mu\nu}-\Gamma^{\alpha}_{\nu\mu}
\end{equation}
instead of curvature.
Below we outline the ingredients of this approach that are needed in the following study of the action formulation. For a more thorough introduction to teleparallel gravity, see \cite{Aldrovandi:2013wha}.

\subsection{The formulation of teleparallel gravity}

Assuming that $\bigtriangledown_{\alpha}g_{\mu\nu}=0$, one can follow the standard textbook derivation of the Levi-Civita connection and prove that
\begin{equation}
\label{Gammvar}
\Gamma^{\alpha}_{\mu\nu}=\mathop\Gamma\limits^{(0)}{\vphantom{\Gamma}}^{\alpha}_{\mu\nu}(g)+K^{\alpha}_{\hphantom{\alpha}\mu\nu}
\end{equation}
where $\mathop\Gamma\limits^{(0)}{\vphantom{\Gamma}}^{\alpha}_{\mu\nu}(g)$ is the Levi-Civita connection of the metric $g$, while the tensor $K$
\begin{equation}
\label{contortion}
K_{\alpha\mu\nu}=\frac12\left(T_{\alpha\mu\nu}+T_{\nu\alpha\mu}+T_{\mu\alpha\nu}\right)=\frac12\left(T_{\mu\alpha\nu}+T_{\nu\alpha\mu}-T_{\alpha\nu\mu}\right),
\end{equation}
is known under the name of contortion. It is obviously antisymmetric with respect to two indices:
\begin{equation}
\label{Ksymm}
K_{\alpha\mu\nu}=-K_{\nu\mu\alpha}.
\end{equation}

Substituting connection (\ref{Gammvar}) into the the definition of curvature, we get
\begin{equation}
\label{Riemmvar}
R^{\alpha}_{\hphantom{\alpha}\beta\mu\nu}(\Gamma)=R^{\alpha}_{\hphantom{\alpha}\beta\mu\nu}(\mathop\Gamma\limits^{(0)})+ \mathop\bigtriangledown\limits^{(0)}{\vphantom{\bigtriangledown}}_{\mu}K^{\alpha}_{\hphantom{\alpha}\nu\beta}-\mathop\bigtriangledown\limits^{(0)}{\vphantom{\bigtriangledown}}_{\nu}K^{\alpha}_{\hphantom{\alpha}\mu\beta} +K^{\alpha}_{\hphantom{\alpha}\mu\rho}K^{\rho}_{\hphantom{\rho}\nu\beta}-K^{\alpha}_{\hphantom{\alpha}\nu\rho}K^{\rho}_{\hphantom{\rho}\mu\beta}
\end{equation}
for the Riemann tensor with  $ \mathop\bigtriangledown\limits^{(0)}{\vphantom{\bigtriangledown}}_{\mu}$ being the covariant derivative associated to $\mathop\Gamma\limits^{(0)}{\vphantom{\Gamma}}^{\alpha}_{\mu\nu}(g)$. Making the necessary contractions we obtain the scalar curvature
\begin{equation}
\label{telepid}
R(\Gamma)=R(\mathop\Gamma\limits^{(0)})+2 \mathop\bigtriangledown\limits^{(0)}{\vphantom{\bigtriangledown}}_{\mu}T^{\mu}+\mathbb T
\end{equation}
where the torsion vector is
\begin{equation}
\label{Tvector}
T_{\mu}\equiv T^{\alpha}_{\hphantom{\alpha}\mu\alpha}=-T^{\alpha}_{\hphantom{\alpha}\alpha\mu},
\end{equation}
and the torsion scalar can be written in several equivalent ways:
\begin{equation}
\label{Tscalar}
{\mathbb T} \equiv  \frac12 K_{\alpha\beta\mu}T^{\beta\alpha\mu}-T_{\mu}T^{\mu}
= \frac12 T_{\alpha\beta\mu}S^{\alpha\beta\mu}
=  \frac14 T_{\alpha\beta\mu}T^{\alpha\beta\mu}+\frac12 T_{\alpha\beta\mu}T^{\beta\alpha\mu}-T_{\mu}T^{\mu}
\end{equation}
with the superpotential
\begin{equation}
\label{superpot}
S^{\alpha\mu\nu}\equiv K^{\mu\alpha\nu}+g^{\alpha\mu}T^{\nu}-g^{\alpha\nu}T^{\mu}
\end{equation}
which satisfies the antisymmetry condition $S^{\alpha\mu\nu}=-S^{\alpha\nu\mu}$. One can also write it down in terms of three possible irreducible representations of the Lorentz group (vector, axial (fully antisymmetric) and pure tensor parts), all with non-zero coefficients \cite{Aldrovandi:2013wha} which shows, in particular, that ${\mathbb T}$ is a non-degenerate quadratic form of the torsion components.

As stated above, the teleparallel equivalence principle allows to exploit the Weitzenb{\" o}ck connection given by $\mathop\omega\limits^{\mathfrak W}{\vphantom{\omega}}^a_{\hphantom{a}\mu b}=0$ or
\begin{equation}
\label{GWeitz}
\mathop\Gamma\limits^{\mathfrak W}{\vphantom{Gamma}}^{\alpha}_{\mu\nu}= e^{\alpha}_a \partial_{\mu}e^a_{\nu}
\end{equation}
which is obviously curvature-free, $R^{\alpha}_{\hphantom{\alpha}\beta\mu\nu}(\mathop\Gamma\limits^{\mathfrak W})=0$.
We can denote the determinant of $e^a_{\mu}$ by $\| e\|$, and see from (\ref{telepid}) that the action
\begin{equation}
\label{telepact}
S_{\mathfrak W}=-\int d^4 x \| e\|\cdot {\mathbb T}
\end{equation}
is equivalent to the action of GR, $\int d^4 x \sqrt{-g}\cdot R(\mathop\Gamma\limits^{(0)})$, modulo the surface term if the Weitzenb{\" o}ck, or any other inertial, connection is assumed. Moreover, if one forgets about the underlying geometry and views these actions as functionals of fields $e^a_{\mu}$, then those are simply equal (modulo surface terms). In particular, for the teleparallel equivalent of GR the local Lorentz invariance is restored even with the fixed connection at the level of the action up to the surface terms.\footnote{It is thus more precise to say that the teleparallel equivalent of GR is {\it quasi Lorentz invariant}, when the surface terms are taken into account. In principle the theory can be built to include a term that cancels this boundary term, as was discussed in the Ref. \cite{Bahamonde:2015hza}. There the approach was also extended to $f(T)$-theories. If the functional dependencies on the $T$-term and the boundary term are matched suitably, this yields Lorentz invariant versions of $f(T)$-theories.}

The historical version of the theory \cite{moller}, which is sometimes referred to as ''pure-tetrad (teleparallel) gravity'', can be  defined by absence of the spin connection. Note that this definition blatantly breaks local Lorentz invariance because the connection is not a tensor, and it's vanishing is not a
covariant condition (whereas, the vanishing of the curvature is). More formally, if in a chosen frame the spin connection vanishes, then according to the formula (\ref{omtransL}), it must acquire the form of a purely inertial connection $\omega^a_{\hphantom{a}\mu b}=-(\Lambda^{-1})^a_c\partial_{\mu}\Lambda^c_b$ in other frames. In consistent teleparallel gravity, the connection (\ref{GWeitz}) is not a definition but a - physically motivated - gauge choice.
The connection is always purely inertial and subject to the rule (\ref{omtransL}).

A big portion of current literature is written solely in terms of the Weitzenb{\" o}ck connection (\ref{GWeitz}).
Often the pure-tetrad approach is assumed explicitly, often it is not clear what is assumed.
The practical difference of the approaches is that the Lorentz transformation in the pure-tetrad version takes into account only the first
part of (\ref{omtransL}), but leaves the spin connection trivial. As it should be clear at this point, this lacks conceptual support.
One has to regard a pure-tetrad model as valid description of physics in only a single, fixed frame.
Bestowed an inertial connection, the model would become able to describe the same physics in any locally Lorentz rotated frame,
with the spin connection coefficients then representing the inertial effects of choosing an anholonomic coordinate system.

\subsection{Equations of motion with fixed connection}

In this subsection, we derive the equations of motions for the pure-tetrad gravity.
We then have an arbitrary, though fixed, spin connection. In particular,
we have the following first order variations for the inverse tetrad, measure, metric and torsion:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{inve}
\delta e^{\mu}_a & = & -e^{\mu}_b e^{\nu}_a \delta e^b_{\nu},\\
\label{edetvar}
\delta\|e\| & = & \|e\|\cdot e^{\mu}_a \delta e^a_{\mu},\\
\label{emetvar}
\delta g_{\mu\nu} & = & \eta_{ab}\left( e^a_{\mu}\delta  e^b_{\nu}+ e^a_{\nu} \delta e^b_{\mu}\right),\\
\label{einvvar}
\delta g^{\mu\nu} & = & -\left(g^{\mu\alpha}e^{\nu}_{a}+g^{\nu\alpha}e^{\mu}_{a}\right)\delta e^a_{\alpha},\\
\label{etorvar}
\delta_e T^{\alpha}_{\hphantom{\alpha}\mu\nu} & = & -e^{\alpha}_a T^{\beta}_{\hphantom{\beta}\mu\nu}\delta e^a_{\beta}+e^{\alpha}_a \left({\mathop\mathfrak D}_{\mu}\delta e^a_{\nu}-{\mathop\mathfrak D}_{\nu}\delta e^a_{\mu}\right).
\end{eqnarray}
It is quite simple to find the first order variations of the following quadratic combinations of torsion components:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{1evar}
\delta_e (T_{\mu}T^{\mu}) & =  & -2\left(T^{\beta}T^{\alpha}_{\hphantom{\alpha}\beta\mu}+T^{\alpha}T_{\mu}\right)e^{\mu}_a \delta e^a_{\alpha}+2\left(T^{\alpha}e^{\mu}_a-T^{\mu}e^{\alpha}_a \right)\cdot {\mathop\mathfrak D}_{\alpha}\delta e^a_{\mu}\\
\label{2evar}
\delta_e (T_{\alpha\mu\nu}T^{\mu\alpha\nu}) & = & 2\left(T^{\beta\mu\alpha}-T^{\alpha\mu\beta}\right)T_{\mu\alpha\nu} e^{\nu}_a \delta e^a_{\beta}+\left(T^{\alpha\hphantom{\mu}\beta}_{\hphantom{\alpha}\mu}-T^{\beta\hphantom{\mu}\alpha}_{\hphantom{\beta}\mu}\right)e^{\mu}_a \cdot{\mathop\mathfrak D}_{\alpha}\delta e^a_{\beta}\\
\label{3evar}
\delta_e (T_{\alpha\mu\nu}T^{\alpha\mu\nu}) & = & 4T_{\alpha}^{\hphantom{\alpha}\mu\nu}e^{\alpha}_a \cdot{\mathop\mathfrak D}_{\mu}\delta e^a_{\nu}-4T^{\alpha\mu\nu}T_{\alpha\mu\beta}e^{\beta}_a \delta e^a_{\nu}
\end{eqnarray}
These should be enough to derive equations of motion for any conceivable  model of interest.

In particular, for the teleparallel equivalent of GR (\ref{telepact}) we have
$$\delta_e S=-\int d^4 x \|e\|\cdot\left(-2S^{\alpha\mu\nu}T_{\alpha\beta\nu}e^{\beta}_a \delta e^a_{\mu}+{\mathbb T}e^{\mu}_a \delta e^a_{\mu} -2S_{\beta}^{\hphantom{\beta}\mu\alpha}e^{\beta}_a {\mathop\mathfrak D}_{\alpha}\delta e^a_{\mu}\right)$$
with the Lorentz-covariant derivative ${\mathop\mathfrak D}$ being equal to the ordinary one, since $\omega^b_{\hphantom{b}\alpha a}=0$ in the Weitzenb{\" o}ck case. We need to perform integration by parts in the last term which gives
$$2\delta e^a_{\mu}\cdot \left(\partial_{\alpha}\left(\|e\|\cdot S_{\beta}^{\hphantom{\beta}\mu\alpha}e^{\beta}_a\right)-\|e\|\cdot \omega^b_{\hphantom{b}\alpha a}S_{\beta}^{\hphantom{\beta}\mu\alpha}e^{\beta}_b\right)=2\|e\|\cdot\left(\mathop\bigtriangledown\limits^{(0)}{\vphantom{\bigtriangledown}}_{\alpha} S_{\beta}^{\hphantom{\beta}\mu\alpha}-K^{\nu}_{\hphantom{\nu}\alpha\beta}S_{\nu}^{\hphantom{\nu}\mu\alpha}\right)\cdot e^{\beta}_a\delta e^a_{\mu}$$
where we have used the antisymmetry of $S$ and corrected for the difference between $\Gamma$ and $\mathop\Gamma\limits^{(0)}$ by the second term on the right hand side. Indeed, due to the antisymmetry of $S$ we have
$$\mathop\bigtriangledown\limits^{(0)}{\vphantom{\bigtriangledown}}_{\nu} S_{a}^{\hphantom{a}\mu\nu}=\frac{1}{\|e\|}\partial_{\nu}\left(\|e\|S_a^{\mu\nu}\right)-\mathop\omega\limits^{(0)}{\vphantom{omega}}^b_{\hphantom{b}\nu a}S_{b}^{\hphantom{b}\mu\nu}$$
and correct for the different connection by noting that $\omega^b_{\hphantom{b}\nu a}-\mathop\omega\limits^{(0)}{\vphantom{omega}}^b_{\hphantom{b}\nu a}=K^b_{\hphantom{b}\nu a}$.

Finally, using the non-degeneracy of tetrads, we get the equations of motion in the form
\begin{equation}
\label{telepeom}
\mathop\bigtriangledown\limits^{(0)}{\vphantom{\bigtriangledown}}_{\alpha} S_{\beta}^{\hphantom{\beta}\mu\alpha}-S^{\alpha\mu\nu}\left(T_{\alpha\beta\nu}+K_{\alpha\nu\beta}\right)+\frac12 {\mathbb T}\delta^{\mu}_{\beta}=0
\end{equation}
which can be shown to be equivalent to general relativity by direct substitution of
$$R^{\alpha}_{\hphantom{\alpha}\beta\mu\nu}(\mathop\Gamma\limits^{(0)})=-\left( \mathop\bigtriangledown\limits^{(0)}{\vphantom{\bigtriangledown}}_{\mu}K^{\alpha}_{\hphantom{\alpha}\nu\beta}-\mathop\bigtriangledown\limits^{(0)}{\vphantom{\bigtriangledown}}_{\nu}K^{\alpha}_{\hphantom{\alpha}\mu\beta} +K^{\alpha}_{\hphantom{\alpha}\mu\rho}K^{\rho}_{\hphantom{\rho}\nu\beta}-K^{\alpha}_{\hphantom{\alpha}\nu\rho}K^{\rho}_{\hphantom{\rho}\mu\beta}\right)$$
into the Einstein equation,
$$G^{\mu}_{\beta}=0.$$

The coupling to matter can be prescribed consistently \cite{Obukhov:2002tm}. Bosonic fields interact with the metric (\ref{metric}), and variation with respect to tetrads gives the energy momentum tensor with one index renamed to Latin. However, the fermionic fields require spin connection, and the most reasonable way to do that is to use the $\mathop\omega\limits^{(0)}$ connection. In the pure-tetrad teleparallel gravity this seems somewhat ad hoc, but in a larger context of e.g. Poincar{\' e} theory, the prescribed connection can be viewed as the full (i.e. Cartan) connection whose difference from the vertical (i.e. Ehresmann) connection is indeed the contortion.

\section{Covariant teleparallel gravity}

As described above, the pure-tetrad gravity makes use of the Lorentz-breaking, a.k.a. Weitzenb{\" o}ck prescription (\ref{GWeitz}) for connection. It is relatively benign when dealing with the teleparallel equivalent of general relativity\footnote{A local Lorentz violation of this sort, is not catastrophic from an experimental viewpoint. Theoretically, it's very unpleasant indeed, and it goes against the very idea of tetrads which calls for the freedom of choice of the frames. However, it is not the same as violating the Lorentz invariance for the physical fields which correspond to elementary particles. If one considers a regime in which the gravitational interaction of particles is negligible and one can see that they move freely in a Minkowski space with zero curvature and zero torsion, then it is not observable whether it was necessary to choose some special fixed frame for tetrads or not.}, but strikes back in the form of new degrees of freedom with any attempts at generalisation like that of $f(T)$ \cite{f(T)review}. Of course, it can be made superficially covariant by admitting an arbitrary inertial spin connection into the action (\ref{telepact}), which is kept fixed and not varied while deriving the equations of motion. This is similar to hiding a fundamental anisotropy by explicitly introducing a fixed vector field in the direction of the anisotropy into the action.

However, a stronger statement can be made. As claimed in \cite{Krssak} and repeated in the review paper \cite{f(T)review}, the model can be Lorentz-covariantised by allowing for a spin-connection as a new variable because the spin-connection enters the teleparallel action only as a surface term. In other words, the variation with respect to the spin connection does not produce additional equations of motion. It is crucial that the spin connection here should be understood as a purely inertial one. Otherwise, as is easily seen from (\ref{telepid}), the scalar curvature of the spin connection pops up. In fact, arguments against a trivial covariantisation, without the constraint on inertiality, were already given in \cite{kop,LSB3,Krssak:2015rqa}.

In the rest of this Section we consider several approaches to variations with respect to the spin connection in actions of the teleparallel type. Though restricting for simplicity to the action corresponding to GR in some explicit examples, the conclusions are generalised in the following Section.

\subsection{Variation with respect to independent connection}

Variations with respect to the spin connection coefficients can be derived exactly since
\begin{equation}
\label{omtorvar}
\delta_{\omega} T^{\alpha}_{\hphantom{\alpha}\mu\nu}=\delta\omega^{\alpha}_{\hphantom{\alpha}\mu\nu}-\delta\omega^{\alpha}_{\hphantom{\alpha}\nu\mu},
\end{equation}
is an exact relation for $\delta\omega^{\alpha}_{\hphantom{\alpha}\mu\nu}\equiv e^{\alpha}_a e_{\nu}^b \delta\omega^{a\hphantom{\mu}}_{\hphantom{a}\mu b}$. We have
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{omtorvecvar}
\delta_{\omega}T_{\mu}=\delta_{\omega} T^{\alpha}_{\hphantom{\alpha}\mu\alpha} & = & -\delta\omega^{\alpha}_{\hphantom{\alpha}\alpha\mu},\\
\label{1omvar}
\delta_{\omega}\left(T^{\mu}T_{\mu}\right) & = & -2T_{\alpha}\delta\omega_{\mu}^{\hphantom{\mu}\mu\alpha}+\delta\omega_{\mu}^{\hphantom{\mu}\mu\alpha}\cdot\delta\omega^{\nu}_{\hphantom{\nu}\nu\alpha},\\
\label{2omvar}
\delta_{\omega}\left(T^{\alpha\mu\nu}T_{\mu\alpha\nu}\right) & = & 2\left(T_{\mu\alpha\nu}-T_{\alpha\mu\nu}\right)\delta\omega^{\alpha\mu\nu}-\left(\delta\omega_{\alpha\mu\nu}-3\delta\omega_{\mu\alpha\nu}\right)\cdot\delta\omega^{\alpha\mu\nu},\\
\label{3omvar}
\delta_{\omega}\left(T^{\alpha\mu\nu}T_{\alpha\mu\nu}\right) & = & 4T_{\alpha\mu\nu}\delta\omega^{\alpha\mu\nu}+2\left(\delta\omega_{\alpha\mu\nu}-\delta\omega_{\mu\alpha\nu}\right)\cdot\delta\omega^{\alpha\mu\nu}.
\end{eqnarray}
where we have used that, given the symmetry properties, there are only two independent contractions of $T$ and $\delta\omega$, namely $T_{\mu\alpha\nu}\delta\omega^{\alpha\mu\nu}$ and $T_{\alpha\mu\nu}\delta\omega^{\alpha\mu\nu}$, and similarly for contractions of two $\delta\omega$-s.

Suppose now that we want to covariantise the teleparallel action by allowing for an arbitrary spin connection in the torsion scalar,
\begin{equation}
\label{covart}
S=-\int d^4 x \| e\|\cdot {\mathbb T}(e,\omega),
\end{equation}
and varying independently with respect to both variables $e$ and $\omega$.

Using the variations (\ref{1omvar}) -- (\ref{3omvar}) and relation (\ref{Tscalar}), we have
$$\delta_{\omega} S=-\int d^4 x \| e\|\cdot\left(T^{\mu}_{\hphantom{\mu}\alpha\nu}+2T_{\nu}\delta_{\alpha}^{\mu}\right)\delta\omega^{\alpha\hphantom{\mu}\nu}_{\hphantom{\alpha}\mu}.$$
The equation of motion is
$$T^{\mu}_{\hphantom{\mu}\alpha\nu}+T_{\nu}\delta_{\alpha}^{\mu}-T_{\alpha}\delta_{\nu}^{\mu}=0$$
which (in dimension $d\neq 2$) entails $T_{\mu}=0$ upon tracing, and totally
$$T^{\mu}_{\hphantom{\mu}\alpha\nu}=0.$$
Therefore this covariantisation procedure does not give a desired result.

\subsection{Teleparallel action with inertial spin connection}

A better idea would be to vary the spin connection in the inertial class only. The latter can be imposed by demanding
\begin{equation}
\label{inertial}
\omega^a_{\hphantom{a}\mu b}=-(\Lambda^{-1})^a_c \partial_{\mu}\Lambda^c_b
\end{equation}
 where $\Lambda$ is an arbitrary Lorentz matrix and varying
\begin{equation}
\label{covtelep}
S_{{\mathfrak W}^{\prime}}=-\int d^4 x \| e\|\cdot {\mathbb T}(e,\omega(\Lambda))
\end{equation}
with respect to $e$ and $\Lambda$. Literally it means that there exists a frame in which $\omega=0$ (Weitzenb{\" o}ck), however one is allowed to make a local Lorentz rotation by an arbitrary matrix field $\Lambda^a_b (x)$ whose values belong to Lorentz group and which produces connection coefficients given by (\ref{inertial}). Explicit calculations are given below. However, the essence is very simple. Varying the spin connection with tetrads fixed does not change the Levi-Civita connection, and from (\ref{telepid}) it follows that
$$\delta_{\Lambda}\mathbb T=\delta_{\Lambda} R(\omega)-2\mathop\bigtriangledown\limits^{(0)}{\vphantom{\bigtriangledown}}_{\mu}(\delta_{\Lambda} T^{\mu})$$
where $\delta_{\Lambda}(...)=\delta_{\omega}(...)\cdot \delta_{\Lambda}\omega$.
And since $R(\omega(\Lambda))\equiv 0$, variation $\delta_{\omega}S_{{\mathfrak W}^{\prime}}$ of the action (\ref{covtelep}) is a surface term and does not produce any new equation of motion. The model, though locally Lorentz covariant, is then equivalent to teleparallel gravity.

Let us give this statement some more details. The variation $ \delta_{\Lambda}\omega$ is performed by applying an arbitrary Lorentz transformation to $\Lambda$ which can be written as $\Lambda\to (\exp{\lambda})\cdot\Lambda$ and $\Lambda^{-1}\to\Lambda^{-1}\cdot\exp(-\lambda)$ where $\lambda^a_b$ is a (infinitesimal) matrix from the algebra of the Lorentz group\footnote{It is {\it not} the variation which corresponds to rotation $e\to (\exp{\lambda})\cdot e$. However, every two inertial connections are different by a choice of the matrix $\Lambda$, and since the Lorentz group is indeed a group one can convert one into another multiplying by a suitable group element.}, $\lambda^{ab}=-\lambda^{ba}$ with $\lambda^{ab}\equiv\eta^{bc}\lambda^a_c$. Then, at the first order,
\begin{equation}
\label{inertvar}
\delta\omega^a_{\hphantom{a}\mu b}=-(\Lambda^{-1})^a_c (\partial_{\mu}\lambda^c_d)\Lambda^d_b.
\end{equation}
In the Weitzenb{\" o}ck frame with $\Lambda=I$ we simply have $\delta\omega^a_{\hphantom{a}\mu b}=-\partial_{\mu}\lambda^a_b$. Otherwise one can also look at the variation (\ref{inertvar}) differently:
\begin{equation*}
-\delta\omega^a_{\hphantom{a}\mu b}=\partial_{\mu}\left((\Lambda^{-1})^a_c\lambda^c_d\Lambda^d_b\right)- (\partial_{\mu}(\Lambda^{-1})^a_c)\lambda^c_d\Lambda^d_b-(\Lambda^{-1})^a_c \lambda^c_d(\partial_{\mu}\Lambda^d_b)={\mathfrak D}_{\mu}{\tilde\lambda}^a_b
\end{equation*}
where ${\tilde\lambda}^a_b\equiv(\Lambda^{-1})^a_c\lambda^c_d\Lambda^d_b$ is the Lorentz  transformation of $\lambda$ to another frame, and $\mathfrak D$ is the Lorentz-covariant derivative with flat connection (\ref{inertial}).

Now, let us look at the variation of the 4-divergence of the torsion vector:
$$\delta_{\omega}\left(\|e\| \mathop\bigtriangledown\limits^{(0)}{\vphantom{\bigtriangledown}}_{\mu}T^{\mu}\right)=\delta_{\omega}\left(\vphantom{\int}\partial_{\mu}\left(\|e\|T^{\mu}\right)\right)=-\partial_{\mu}\left(\|e\|e^{\alpha}_a\delta\omega^{a\hphantom{\alpha}b}_{\hphantom{a}\alpha}e^{\mu}_b\right).$$
One can differentiate the right hand side, and using $\partial_{\mu}\|e\|=\|e\|\cdot e^{\beta}_c\partial_{\mu}e^c_{\beta}$, and $\partial_{\mu}e^{\alpha}_a=-e^{\beta}_a e^{\alpha}_c\partial_{\mu}e^c_{\beta}$ and analogously for $\partial_{\mu}e^{\mu}_b$, we get
$$-\partial_{\mu}\left(\|e\|\cdot e^{\alpha}_a\delta\omega^{a\hphantom{\alpha}b}_{\hphantom{a}\alpha}e^{\mu}_b\right)=\|e\|\cdot\left(\vphantom{\int}e^{\alpha}_c(\partial_{\mu}e^c_{\beta})\delta\omega^{\beta\hphantom{\alpha}\mu}_{\hphantom{\beta}\alpha}+(e^{\mu}_c\partial_{\mu}e^c_{\beta}-e^{\mu}_c\partial_{\beta}e^c_{\mu})\delta\omega^{\alpha\hphantom{\alpha}\beta}_{\hphantom{\alpha}\alpha}-e^{\alpha}_a e^{\mu}_b\partial_{\mu}\delta\omega^{a\hphantom{\alpha}b}_{\hphantom{a}\alpha}\right)$$
with $\delta\omega^{\beta\hphantom{\alpha}\mu}_{\hphantom{\beta}\alpha}\equiv e^{\beta}_a e^{\mu}_b\delta\omega^{a\hphantom{\alpha}b}_{\hphantom{a}\alpha}$. Given the antisymmetry of $\omega$ and the definition of the Weitzenb{\" o}ck torsion ${\mathop T\limits^{\mathfrak W}}{\vphantom{T}}^{\mu}_{\hphantom{\mu}\alpha\nu}=e^{\mu}_c\partial_{\alpha}e^c_{\nu}-e^{\mu}_c\partial_{\nu}e^c_{\alpha}$ we derive from this relation
\begin{equation}
\label{Identity}
\| e\|\cdot\left({\mathop T\limits^{\mathfrak W}}{\vphantom{T}}^{\mu}_{\hphantom{\mu}\alpha\nu}+2{\mathop T\limits^{\mathfrak W}}{\vphantom{T}}_{\nu}\delta_{\alpha}^{\mu}\right)\delta\omega^{\alpha\hphantom{\mu}\nu}_{\hphantom{\alpha}\mu}=2\partial_{\mu}\left(\|e\|\cdot e^{\alpha}_a\delta\omega^{a\hphantom{\alpha}b}_{\hphantom{a}\alpha}e^{\mu}_b\right)+\|e\|\cdot e^{\alpha}_a e^{\mu}_b\left(\partial_{\alpha}\delta\omega^{a\hphantom{\mu}b}_{\hphantom{a}\mu}-\partial_{\mu}\delta\omega^{a\hphantom{\alpha}b}_{\hphantom{a}\alpha}\right).
\end{equation}

This is an identity.  Suppose now, for simplicity, that we were making the variation around the pure Weitzenb{\" o}ck frame with $\omega=0$, $\Lambda=I$, and $\delta\omega^{a\hphantom{\mu}b}_{\hphantom{a}\mu}=-\partial_{\mu}\lambda^{ab}$. Then in the left hand side of (\ref{Identity}) we have our variation $\delta_{\omega}S_{{\mathfrak W}^{\prime}}$, while the right hand side shows that it vanishes given that appropriate boundary conditions for $\delta\omega$ are applied.

 Obviously, it should also be true for generic flat connections since, modulo surface terms, the action was locally Lorentz invariant. Explicitly it can be checked by substituting
 \begin{equation} \label{substitute}
T^{\alpha}_{\hphantom{\alpha}\mu\nu}={\mathop T\limits^{\mathfrak W}}{\vphantom{T}}^{\alpha}_{\hphantom{\alpha}\mu\nu}+\omega^{\alpha}_{\hphantom{\alpha}\mu\nu}-\omega^{\alpha}_{\hphantom{\alpha}\nu\mu}
\end{equation}
into the identity (\ref{Identity}) which produces new $\omega\cdot\delta\omega$ terms in the left hand side. And those are precisely the ones which turn the last term in the right hand side into the linear variation of the curvature:
\begin{equation}
\label{Identitycov}
\| e\|\cdot\left(T^{\mu}_{\hphantom{\mu}\alpha\nu}+2T_{\nu}\delta_{\alpha}^{\mu}\right)\delta\omega^{\alpha\hphantom{\mu}\nu}_{\hphantom{\alpha}\mu}=2\partial_{\mu}\left(\|e\|\cdot e^{\alpha}_a\delta\omega^{a\hphantom{\alpha}b}_{\hphantom{a}\alpha}e^{\mu}_b\right)+\|e\|\cdot e^{\alpha}_a e^{\mu}_b\eta^{bc}\left({\mathfrak D}_{\alpha}\delta\omega^{a}_{\hphantom{a}\mu c}-{\mathfrak D}_{\mu}\delta\omega^{a}_{\hphantom{a}\alpha c}\right).
\end{equation}
Relation (\ref{Identitycov}) is a covariant version of identity (\ref{Identity}). Of course, all that we have done is just that we have explicitly checked that
$$\delta_{\omega}\mathbb T=-\delta_{\omega}\left(2 \mathop\bigtriangledown\limits^{(0)}{\vphantom{\bigtriangledown}}_{\mu}T^{\mu}\right)+\delta_{\omega} R(\omega)\,,$$
in accordance with (\ref{telepid}). In the left hand side of (\ref{Identitycov}) we have the variation $\delta_{\omega}S_{{\mathfrak W}^{\prime}}$.
The $\delta_{\omega} R(\omega)$ term vanishes since our variations are still performed in the flat class, and the conclusion is unchanged. Again, in doing the explicit calculation one would obtain from partial derivatives of $\delta\omega$ given by (\ref{inertvar}) the terms on the form $(\Lambda^{-1})(\partial\lambda)(\partial\Lambda)=(\Lambda^{-1})(\partial\lambda)\Lambda\cdot(\Lambda^{-1})(\partial\Lambda)=(\delta\omega)\cdot\omega$ which make compensation for spin connection terms in full $\mathfrak D$-derivatives. Detailed calculations are a bit time consuming, but nevertheless the main idea is quite clear.

To summarise, one may incorporate an inertial connection, parameterised by a Lorentz matrix, into the action without inducing new equations of motions. The variation of the action with respect to inertial spin connection is a surface term and vanishes identically given appropriate boundary conditions. This is a peculiar feature of the teleparallel equivalent of General Relativity. In Section V we will see that, for extended models, the variation does not vanish identically. However, it vanishes if the field equations for tetrads are satisfied.

\subsection{Lagrange multiplier approach}

Equivalently, one could also impose $R^a_{\hphantom{a}b\mu\nu}=0$ with a Lagrange multiplier instead of condition (\ref{inertial}).
This is of course, the usual and perfectly legitimate way to fix the gauge.
Then the action would be
\begin{equation}
\label{Lagrtelep}
S_{\mathfrak{LW}}=-\int d^4 x \| e\|\cdot \left({\mathbb T}(e,\omega)+\lambda_a^{\hphantom{a}b\mu\nu}R^a_{\hphantom{a}b\mu\nu}(\omega)\right)
\end{equation}
where $\lambda_a^{\hphantom{a}b\mu\nu}$ is a Lagrange multiplier with the symmetry properties $\lambda^{ab\mu\nu}=-\lambda^{ab\nu\mu}$ and $\lambda^{ab\mu\nu}=-\lambda^{ba\mu\nu}$.

Then the variation of action (\ref{Lagrtelep}) with respect to $\lambda$ yields
$$R^a_{\hphantom{a}b\mu\nu}(\omega)=0$$
which is equivalent to (\ref{inertial}), at least locally. Variation with respect to $e$ results in
\begin{equation*}
\mathop\bigtriangledown\limits^{(0)}{\vphantom{\bigtriangledown}}_{\alpha} S_{\beta}^{\hphantom{\beta}\mu\alpha}-S^{\alpha\mu\nu}\left(T_{\alpha\beta\nu}+K_{\alpha\nu\beta}\right)+\frac12 \left({\mathbb T}+\lambda_a^{\hphantom{a}b\alpha\nu}R^a_{\hphantom{a}b\alpha\nu}\right)\delta^{\mu}_{\beta}=0
\end{equation*}
which is equivalent to (\ref{telepeom}) due to the previous equation. Finally, the variation with respect to $\omega^{a\hphantom{\nu}c}_{\hphantom{a}\nu}$ gives an equation for the Lagrange multiplier:
$${\mathfrak D}_{\mu}\left(\|e\| \lambda_a^{\hphantom{a}b\mu\nu}\right)=0$$
which can be rewritten equivalently as
$$\mathop\bigtriangledown\limits^{(0)}{\vphantom{\bigtriangledown}}_{\mu}\lambda_{\alpha}^{\hphantom{\alpha}\beta\mu\nu}-K^{\gamma}_{\hphantom{\gamma}\mu\alpha}\lambda_{\gamma}^{\hphantom{\gamma}\beta\mu\nu}+K^{\beta}_{\hphantom{\beta}\mu\gamma}\lambda_{\alpha}^{\hphantom{\alpha}\gamma\mu\nu}=0.$$

Therefore we have an equivalent version of covariantised teleparallel gravity together with an equation for the Lagrange multiplier. For this version of teleparallel gravity, see also the book of Blagojevi{\' c} \cite{blagojevic}, and for the implementation in metric-affine gravity, the paper \cite{Obukhov:2002tm}. As the $\lambda_a^{\hphantom{a}b\mu\nu}$ does not enter the equation of motion for the tetrad, we don't need to consider it further, but one may count its degrees of freedom and confirm that the system is consistent.

\subsection{An $\omega$-blind equivalent to GR}

Finally, we would also like to notice that if we take an action
\begin{equation}
\label{newact}
S_{\omega-free}=-\int d^4 x \| e\|\left( \vphantom{\int}{\mathbb T}- e^{\mu}_a R^a_{\hphantom{\alpha}b\mu\nu}(\omega) e^{\nu}_c \eta^{bc}\right),
\end{equation}
then it is equivalent to the Einstein-Hilbert action modulo a surface term, see (\ref{telepid}) with an arbitrary spin connection, not necessarily inertial. The spin connection makes only a superficial appearance here, and one can formulate equations of general relativity in terms of arbitrary spin connection with geometries containing both curvature and torsion. Unfortunately, a quick look at variations shows that a generalisation with non-linear functions of the Lagrangian density in (\ref{newact}) does not give a non-trivial model. However, it is probably the way which should be taken if one aims at having a fully covariant model with an arbitrary spin connection in a pure tetrad formulation.

\section{Extensions and Discussion}

As we have already mentioned in the Introduction, it would be interesting to try making modifications of GR in the teleparallel framework. One natural generalisation of GR in the teleparallel formulation is given by $f(T)$ models, another might be formulated with other torsion scalars,
${\tilde T} =  \frac{c_1}4 T_{\alpha\beta\mu}T^{\alpha\beta\mu}+\frac{c_2}2 T_{\alpha\beta\mu}T^{\beta\alpha\mu}-c_3 T_{\mu}T^{\mu}.$
The breakdown of local Lorentz invariance by the Weitzenb{\" o}ck choice of connection is real here, and new modes appear in the pure-tetrad approach. Of course, by taking into account an arbitrary inertial spin connection achieves the covariance of the proper teleparallel gravity theory. However, the new degrees of freedom remain there. For example, in spherically symmetric cases, a nice spherically symmetric prescription for the tetrad might require non-zero spin connection \cite{Krssak:2015rqa}. Of course, in a rotated frame, one will be able to restore the Weitzenb{\" o}ck connection, but at the price of a more involved solution for the tetrad. In other words, the formulation with arbitrary inertial spin connection resolves the issue of "good and bad tetrads" \cite{Tamanini:2012hg}.

The covariantisation procedure works differently in generalised teleparallel gravities. Since the dependence on the spin connection in generalised models cannot be reduced to a surface term, the variation $\delta_{\omega}$ produces non-trivial equations of motion. However, admissible variations of $\omega$ in the inertial class amount to local Lorentz transformations. Note also that a covariantised action is, by definition, identically invariant under simultaneous local Lorentz transformation of the spin connection and the tetrad (and other non-trivially transforming fields if there are some). Therefore, the stationarity of the action under local Lorentz transformations of the spin connection is equivalent to that under local Lorentz rotations of tetrads. The latter is already ensured given that the equations of motion for the tetrad are satisfied since the local Lorentz rotation is nothing but a special class of variations of the tetrad. We conclude that the field equations for the spin connection, though non-trivial, are redundant with that of the tetrad. We would like to illustrate this very important point in the case of $f(T)$ gravity. In this Section we discuss it at the level of variations, and in the next Section we show how it works with equations of motion.

Let us consider an $f(T)$ model with inertial spin connection,
\begin{equation}
\label{covfT}
S_{f(T)}=-\int d^4 x \| e\|\cdot f\left({\mathbb T}(e,\omega(\Lambda)\right).
\end{equation}
Variation with respect to $\omega$ is easily performed using (\ref{telepid}) and (\ref{omtorvecvar}), and yields
\begin{equation}
\label{ftomvar}
\delta_{\omega} S_{f(T)}=-\int d^4 x \|e\| \left(\mathop\bigtriangledown\limits^{(0)}{\vphantom{\bigtriangledown}}_{\mu} f^{\prime}({\mathbb T})\right) e^{\nu}_a e^{\mu}_b\eta^{cb}\delta\omega^{a}_{\hphantom{a}\nu c}
\end{equation}
which gives non-trivial equations of motion even for purely inertial spin connections and their variations given by (\ref{inertial}) and (\ref{inertvar}).

However, the resulting equation is already contained in the equations which are given by variations with respect to tetrads. Indeed, among the variations of tetrads, one option is $e^a_{\mu}\to \Lambda^a_b e^b_{\mu}$. This is a local Lorentz rotation, and using (\ref{telepid}) we have for this type of variation $f^{\prime} \cdot\delta{\mathbb T}=-2f^{\prime}\cdot \mathop\bigtriangledown\limits^{(0)}{\vphantom{\bigtriangledown}}_{\mu}\delta T^{\mu}$. One can see that the variation of the torsion vector will take the same form as $e^{\nu}_a e^{\mu}_b\eta^{cb}\delta\omega^{a}_{\hphantom{a}\nu c}$ with $\delta\omega$ being the variation of the (inertial) spin connection under the same Lorentz transformation. For example, around the Weitzenb{\" o}ck frame the variation of the spin connection will take the form of $\delta\omega^{a}_{\hphantom{a}\alpha b}=-\partial_{\alpha}\lambda^a_b$ and $\delta T_{\mu}=e^{\alpha}_a (\partial_{\alpha}\lambda^a_b)e^b_{\mu}$. At the same time, an infinitesimal Lorentz rotation of tetrads reads $\delta e^a_{\mu}=\lambda^a_b e^b_{\mu}$. In the torsion vector $\mathop T\limits^{\mathfrak W}{\vphantom{T}}_{\mu}= e^{\alpha}_a \partial_{\mu}e^a_{\alpha}-e^{\alpha}_a \partial_{\alpha}e^a_{\mu}$, the first term is locally Lorentz invariant (and equal to $\frac{1}{\|e\|}\partial_{\mu}\|e\|$), while the variation of the second one is $-e^{\alpha}_a (\partial_{\alpha}\lambda^a_b)e^b_{\mu}$. Therefore, the variation with respect to a purely inertial connection is the same as one gets by a special variation of the tetrads.

Let us discuss it also without the trick of using the identity (\ref{telepid}). Varying the connection we have
$$\delta_{\omega} S_{f(T)}=-\int d^4 x \|e\| f^{\prime}({\mathbb T}) S_{\alpha}^{\hphantom{\alpha}\mu\nu}\delta T^{\alpha}_{\hphantom{\alpha}\mu\nu}=-2\int d^4 x \|e\| f^{\prime}({\mathbb T}) S_{\alpha}^{\hphantom{\alpha}\mu\nu}e^{\alpha}_a e^{b}_{\nu}\delta \omega^{a}_{\hphantom{a}\mu b}$$
Using (\ref{inertvar}), we finally have the variation
$$\delta_{\omega} S_{f(T)}=2\int d^4 x \|e\| f^{\prime}({\mathbb T}) S_{\alpha}^{\hphantom{\alpha}\mu\nu}e^{\alpha}_a (\Lambda^{-1})^a_c (\partial_{\mu}\lambda^c_d)\Lambda^d_b e^{b}_{\nu}$$
which must vanish for arbitrary $\lambda^c_d\in so(1,3)$.

Now we look at the variations with respect to the tetrads, $\delta_e S_{f(T)}=-\int d^4 x\left(f({\mathbb T})\delta\|e\|+\|e\|  f^{\prime}({\mathbb T})\delta {\mathbb T} \right)$. The $\delta S$ must vanish for all possible variations of tetrads. This requirement yields the equations of motion. In particular, it must vanish for variations of the form $e\to (\exp{\tilde\lambda})\cdot e$, or infinitesimally $\delta e^a_{\mu}=\tilde\lambda^a_b e^b_{\mu}$. In such a case, we have $\delta\|e\|=0$, and $\delta_e {\mathbb T}=S_{\alpha}^{\hphantom{\alpha}\mu\nu}\delta_e T^{\alpha}_{\hphantom{\alpha}\mu\nu}$ since $\delta_e g_{\mu\nu}=0$. Taking then into account that in our case $\delta_e T^{\alpha}_{\hphantom{\alpha}\mu\nu}=e^{\alpha}_a\left(({\mathfrak D}_{\mu}{\tilde\lambda}^a_b)e^b_{\nu}-({\mathfrak D}_{\nu}{\tilde\lambda}^a_b)e^b_{\mu}\right)$, we have
$$\left.\delta_{e} S_{f(T)}\vphantom{\int}\right|_{\delta e=\tilde\lambda e}=2\int d^4 x \|e\| f^{\prime}({\mathbb T}) S_{\alpha}^{\hphantom{\alpha}\mu\nu}e^{\alpha}_a({\mathfrak D}_{\mu}{\tilde\lambda}^a_b)e^b_{\nu}.$$
As was shown after the formula (\ref{inertvar}), if we take ${\tilde\lambda}^a_b=-(\Lambda^{-1})^a_c\lambda^c_d\Lambda^d_b$ then
$${\mathfrak D}_{\mu}{\tilde\lambda}^a_b=-(\Lambda^{-1})^a_c (\partial_{\mu}\lambda^c_d)\Lambda^d_b.$$
Now we see that $\left.\delta_{e} S_{f(T)}\vphantom{\int}\right|_{\delta e=\tilde\lambda e}=-\delta_{\omega} S_{f(T)}$. Equations of motion which follow from $\delta_{\omega}$ in the inertial class are already there as a special case of those equations which can be derived by variations of tetrads. This is how it must be since if one makes a local Lorentz rotation self-consistently changing both $e$ and $\omega$, then the covariantised action is invariant which means that the two separate variations do cancel each other.

Let us stress again that it is generic for any models of covariantised (by inertial spin connection) gravities of teleparallel type. Making the variation $\Lambda^a_b \to (\exp(\lambda))^a_c \Lambda^c_b$ in the inertial connection (\ref{inertial}) results in precisely the same change in action, though with the opposite sign, as $e^a_{\mu}\to (\exp(\tilde\lambda))^a_c e^c_{\mu}$ with an appropriate $\tilde\lambda$. This is the bare essence of covariantisation. Making two variations simultaneously implies no change at all if all the derivatives were Lorentz-covariant. Of course, the same conclusion can be derived with the Lagrange multiplier approach.

With usual gauge theories in mind, it might seem strange that the connection did not lead to any new non-trivial equations of motion. Of course, this reflects the freedom of choosing a frame, and the striking difference from the usual gauge theories stems from the requirement of the purely inertial spin connection. In an electromagnetic analogy, it would amount to gauging the global $U(1)$ of Dirac fermions by a pure gauge field. In other words, the covariant derivatives would feature a gradient of a scalar $\partial_{\mu}-ie\partial_{\mu}\phi$ instead of the vector potential $\partial_{\mu}-ieA_{\mu}$. It is nevertheless covariant under local transformations (when $\phi$ is properly shifted simultaneously with the local phase rotation of the spinor) but it is not what we usually call gauging. Obviously, the variation with respect to $\phi$ gives the conservation of the fermion current which was already there to begin with, in the Dirac equation. This would be the analogy to our variation with respect to the purely inertial spin connection. The analogy of the Lagrange multiplier method would be to vary with respect to a general $A_{\mu}$, but impose the vanishing of the electromagnetic curvature $F=0$; and trivially, the analogy of the pure-tetrad Weitzenb\"ock approach would to set $A_{\mu}=0$.
One has to bare in mind that the local Lorentz invariance in teleparallel gravity conceptually very different from the local $U(1)$ invariance in electrodynamics.

Finally, we remark that in gauge gravity, the problem of covariantisation does not end but only properly begins by restoring the Lorentz invariance.
To consider invariance under the full Poincar\'e group, or a larger symmetry group, one first notices that the tetrad $e^a_\mu$ cannot be quite the same as a translation gauge potential $t^a_\mu$, as the former must transform like a tensor, the latter like a connection. However, one may introduce a covariantly transforming vector $x^a$, to define the relation between the two as
$e^a_\mu = \partial_\mu x^a +  t^a_\mu + \omega^a_{\phantom{a}\mu b}x^b$. One then obtains the desired projector object, the tetrad, in a consistent, gauge-invariant manner, and by setting $x^a=0$, one recovers the same result. This is basically the tacit choice one is making if considering teleparallel gravity as a translation gauge theory. But how to justify the choice $x^a=0$ and what is this vector $x^a$? Let us only mention that it is our pedestrian-formalism equivalent of the most interesting objects - from development operators of Cartan geometry through tensorial left-overs of nonlinearly realised connections to the cartwheels of the idealised waywiser - and refer the reader, for the state of art in the geometric formulation of spontaneously broken first order gauge gravity, to Refs. \cite{Westman:2013mf,Zlosnik:2016fit}.

\section{Equations of motion in $f(T)$ gravity}

In the previous Section we explained that for an extended teleparallel model, i.e. the corresponding ''pure-tetrad'' model covariantised by inertial spin connection, the equations of motion for $\omega$ are either redundant to or equivalent with those for the tetrads. Now we will show how it can be checked directly at the level of equations of motion in the simple but very important case of $f(T)$ gravity. We consider an $f(T)$ model with inertial spin connection,
\begin{equation}
S_{f(T)}=-\int d^4 x \| e\|\cdot f\left({\mathbb T}(e,\omega(\Lambda)\right),
\end{equation}
and want to derive equations of motion.

First we look at the variations with respect to tetrads. We have
$$\delta S_e=-\int d^4 x \|e\|\cdot\left(\vphantom{\int}f(\mathbb T)e^{\mu}_a \delta e^a_{\mu} + f^{\prime}(\mathbb T)\delta\mathbb T\right).$$
For inertial spin connections, the identity (\ref{telepid}) reads $\mathbb T=-\mathop R\limits^{(0)}-2{\mathop\bigtriangledown\limits^{(0)}}_{\mu}T^{\mu}$, and
$$\delta S_e=-\int d^4 x \|e\|\cdot\left(\vphantom{\int}f(\mathbb T)e^{\mu}_a \delta e^a_{\mu} - f^{\prime}(\mathbb T)\delta\mathop R\limits^{(0)}+2\left(\partial_{\mu} f^{\prime}(\mathbb T)\right)\delta(g^{\mu\nu}T_{\nu}) \right).$$
Given that $\delta g_{\mu\nu}=2\eta_{ab}e^a_{\mu}\delta e^b_{\nu}$ and $\delta g^{\mu\nu}=-\left(g^{\mu\rho}e^{\nu}_a+g^{\nu\rho}e^{\mu}_a\right)\delta e^a_{\rho}$, we get
\begin{multline*}
\delta S_e=-\int d^4 x \|e\|\cdot\left(\vphantom{\int}f e^{\mu}_a \delta e^a_{\mu} +2\left(\vphantom{\int}\left({\mathop R\limits^{(0)}}{\vphantom{R}}^{\mu\nu}-{\mathop\bigtriangledown\limits^{(0)}}{\vphantom{R}}^{\mu}{\mathop\bigtriangledown\limits^{(0)}}{\vphantom{R}}^{\nu}+g^{\mu\nu}\mathop\square\limits^{(0)}\right)f^{\prime}\right)\eta_{ab}e^a_{\mu}\delta e^b_{\nu}\right.\\
-\left.2\left(\vphantom{\int}\left(\partial^{\mu} f^{\prime}\right)T_{\nu}+\left(\partial_{\nu} f^{\prime}\right)T^{\mu}\right)e^{\nu}_a\delta e^a_{\mu}+2\left(\partial^{\mu} f^{\prime}\right)\delta T_{\mu} \right).
\end{multline*}

Now we need the variation of the torsion (\ref{etorvar})
$$\delta_e T^{\alpha}_{\hphantom{\alpha}\mu\nu} =  -e^{\alpha}_a T^{\beta}_{\hphantom{\beta}\mu\nu}\delta e^a_{\beta}+e^{\alpha}_a \left({\mathop\mathfrak D}_{\mu}\delta e^a_{\nu}-{\mathop\mathfrak D}_{\nu}\delta e^a_{\mu}\right).$$
For later convenience, note that the connection coefficients from the first term on the left hand side make the Lorentz-covariant derivatives in the second term into the full derivatives of $\delta e$. Given that full derivatives of tetrads vanish, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{betteretorvar}
\delta_e T^{\alpha}_{\hphantom{\alpha}\mu\nu} = \bigtriangledown_{\mu}\left(e^{\alpha}_a \delta e^a_{\nu}\right)-\bigtriangledown_{\nu}\left(e^{\alpha}_a \delta e^a_{\mu}\right),
\end{equation}
and in particular
$$\delta_e T_{\mu} = \partial_{\mu}\left(e^{\alpha}_a \delta e^a_{\alpha}\right)-\bigtriangledown_{\alpha}\left(e^{\alpha}_a \delta e^a_{\mu}\right),$$
Accounting for the difference between the actual connection and the Levi-Civita one, we have
$$\delta_e T_{\mu} = \partial_{\mu}\left(e^{\alpha}_a \delta e^a_{\alpha}\right)-{\mathop\bigtriangledown\limits^{(0)}}_{\alpha}\left(e^{\alpha}_a \delta e^a_{\mu}\right)-K^{\alpha}_{\hphantom{\alpha}\alpha\nu}e^{\nu}_a \delta e^a_{\mu}+K^{\nu}_{\hphantom{\nu}\alpha\mu}e^{\alpha}_a \delta e^a_{\nu}.$$

Now the equations of motion can be obtained straightforwardly. They read:
\begin{equation}
\label{fteom}
f^{\prime}(\mathbb T)\cdot{\mathop R\limits^{(0)}}{\vphantom{R}}^{\mu\nu}+K^{\mu\nu\alpha}\partial_{\alpha} f^{\prime}(\mathbb T)-T^{\mu}\partial^{\nu} f^{\prime}(\mathbb T)+\frac12 f(\mathbb T)\cdot g^{\mu\nu}=0
\end{equation}
where we have used $K^{\alpha}_{\hphantom{\alpha}\alpha\nu}=-T_{\nu}$. Note that the higher derivative terms, typical for $f(R)$ gravity, have cancelled each other as it should be.

Unlike the TEGR case, equation (\ref{fteom}) has a non-trivial antisymmetric part:
\begin{equation}
\label{antisym}
T^{\alpha\mu\nu}\partial_{\alpha} f^{\prime}(\mathbb T)+T^{\nu}\partial^{\mu} f^{\prime}(\mathbb T)-T^{\mu}\partial^{\nu} f^{\prime}(\mathbb T)=0
\end{equation}
where we have used $K^{\mu\nu\alpha}-K^{\nu\mu\alpha}=T^{\alpha\mu\nu}$. We should now show that this equation coincides precisely with the one which comes from the variation of the inertial spin connection.

Indeed, we have the variation of the action with respect to inertial spin connection (\ref{ftomvar}) with $\delta\omega^{a\hphantom{\nu}b}_{\hphantom{a}\nu}={\mathfrak D}_{\nu}{\tilde\lambda}^{ab}$ for arbitrary antisymmetric $\tilde\lambda$:
$$\delta_{\omega} S_{f(T)}=-\int d^4 x \|e\| \left(\partial_{\mu} f^{\prime}({\mathbb T})\right) e^{\mu}_a e^{\nu}_b {\mathfrak D}_{\nu}{\tilde\lambda}^{ab}.$$
Integrating by parts, we have
$$\delta_{\omega} S=\int d^4 x \left(\partial_{\mu} f^{\prime}\right)\cdot \left(\vphantom{\int}\partial_{\nu}\left(\|e\|e^{\mu}_a e^{\nu}_b\right)-\|e\|\left(\omega^{c}_{\hphantom{c}\nu a}e^{\mu}_c e^{\nu}_b+\omega^{c}_{\hphantom{c}\nu b}e^{\mu}_a e^{\nu}_c\right)\right){\tilde\lambda}^{ab}.$$
Using $\partial_{\nu}\|e\|=\|e\|{\mathop\Gamma\limits^{(0)}}{\vphantom{\Gamma}}^{\alpha}_{\nu\alpha}$ and vanishing of the full derivative of the tetrad we get:
$$\delta_{\omega} S=-\int d^4 x \|e\|\left(\partial_{\mu} f^{\prime}\right)\cdot\left(K^{\alpha}_{\hphantom{\alpha}\alpha\beta}e^{\mu}_a e^{\beta}_b+\Gamma^{\mu}_{\nu \beta}e^{\beta}_a e^{\nu}_b\right){\tilde\lambda}^{ab}.$$
Due to antisymmetry of $\tilde\lambda$ it reproduces equation (\ref{antisym}).

\section{Conclusions}

As teleparallel models have become, and rightly so, a matter of interest for building non-standard cosmological models,
it is very important to thoroughly understand their dynamics. In this paper we have clarified some subtle issues concerning covariatisations of the ''pure-tetrad'' versions
 of these models. We have seen that there are several methods of approaching teleparallel gravity covariantly. They can be classified according to how the variation of the spin connection is performed.

{\bf 0.} "Weitzenb{\" o}ck variation": $\omega=0$. This is the historical formulation of teleparallel gravity, and it is not covariant.

{\bf 1.} "Fixed omega variation": $\omega$ is totally fixed but arbitrary. It can be thought of as writing the Weitzenb{\" o}ck action in an arbitary frame by substituting the zero connection by a proper quantity of the form of (\ref{inertial}) with a fixed $\Lambda(x)$. Under any fixed choice, the Lagrangian is not invariant, however there is the freedom of making this choice.

{\bf 2.} "Independent variation" of the unrestricted $\omega$, see (\ref{covart}). It results in no gravity at all, $T=0$.

{\bf 3.} "Inertial variation": $\omega$ is varied in the class of inertial spin connections, see (\ref{inertial}) and (\ref{inertvar}). Independent variables are tetrads and Lorentz matrices which parametrise the spin connection. This is a proper covariantisation for both teleparallel equivalent of GR and modified teleparallel models.

{\bf 4.} "Constrained variation": $\omega$ is by itself an independent variable, however its curvature tensor is set to zero with a Lagrange multiplier (\ref{Lagrtelep}). This is equivalent to previous option plus an equation for the Lagrange multiplier.

{\bf 5.} "Compensating variation": decoupled $\omega$, see (\ref{newact}). Strictly speaking, it is no longer a teleparallel model. The spin connection is arbitrary indeed, and gravity can be expressed as a combination of torsion and curvature, in any proportions we like. It works for the various teleparallel equivalents of GR thus introduced. Whether it can be used for modified gravity scenarios, remains to be seen.
\newline
\newline
{\bf Acknowledgements.}
We thank Yen Chin Ong, Martin Kr{\v s}{\v s}{\' a}k, Nicola Tamanini and the anonymous referees for useful comments on the manuscript.
AG was supported by the Dynasty Foundation grant and by Russian Science Foundation (project 16-11-10218). AG is also grateful to Saint Petersburg State University for the travel grant 11.42.1061.2016; and to Universities of Helsinki and Jyv{\" a}skyl{\" a}, and to NORDITA for hospitality and partial support during his visits.


\section{Introduction}

The recently emerged field of {\it chiral quantum optics}~\cite{Lodahl2017} promises new possibilities for manipulation and control of quantum states of matter. The  chiral coupling of quantum sources with photonic excitations can be implemented, for example, through the interaction with a topological edge states \cite{Altshuler2013,Ringel2014}. However, one of the most simplest routes for chiral coupling is employment of transverse spin angular momentum of light (SAM), which has recently attracted significant research interest~\cite{Bliokh2015,Bliokh2015a}. In the simplest set-up of an electromagnetic surface or a waveguide mode, the non-zero optical SAM density emerges due to the $\pi/2$ phase shift between the electric field projections onto the interface plane and to its normal~\cite{Bliokh2015}. Important feature of the electromagnetic waves carrying transverse SAM is the spin-momentum locking: the spin projection is defined by the propagation direction of the wave \cite{Rodriguez-Fortuno2013,VanMechelen2016}. This effect, which can be regarded as spin-orbit coupling, has been studied both theoretically and experimentally in many applications related to nano-optomechanics~\cite{Rodriguez-Fortuno2015,Hayat2015,Petrov2016}, topological photonics with surface waves~\cite{Yuen-Zhou2016}, electromagnetic routing~\cite{Kapitanova2014}, and electromagnetically assisted unidirectional spin transfer~\cite{Coles2016} and others. Moreover, the spin-orbit coupling in quasi-one dimensional photonic structures  can be used to engineer new class of quantum information networks~\cite{Pichler2015,Ramos2016}. The basic model under consideration  is an one-dimensional array of two-level systems (TLS) coupled to a quasi-one dimensional photonic nanostructure (See Fig.~\ref{fig_1}).  The current technology allows  for measuring light scattering on  such one-dimensional TLS arrays consisting of thousands cooled atoms trapped near a optical nanofiber \cite{Chang2014}.  Moreover, in Ref.~\onlinecite{PhysRevLett.117.133603,Sorensen2016} it was shown that the  chiral coupling of atom with nanofiber  mode leads to strong modification of   Bragg reflection spectrum.

In this perspective  the inherent spin-orbit coupling of light in conjunction with the chiral light-matter coupling (which can be achieved be e.g. transverse magnetic field) can allow deterministic transfer of the initial quantum state of the TLS unidirectionally along the channel. Such approach  allows for the engineering of the large scale cascaded quantum networks~\cite{Carmichael1993}, which are immensely in demand in quantum information processing. Despite the importance of this field, the dynamical picture of the excitation transport in an unidirectionally coupled system has not been studied before.

\begin{figure}[!h]
	\centering
	\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{figure1.pdf}
	\caption{Schematic image of the periodic chain of two level systems on top of a waveguide. Initially, one two level system is excited.The excitation can be transferred either by symmetric short range dipole-dipole or radiative coupling, or by asymmetric long-range coupling via the waveguide mode. {The transverse magnetic field $\mathbf{B}$ breaks the symmetry of coupling of the two-level system to left- and right-propagating waveguide mode.}}
	\label{fig_1}
\end{figure}

In this work we focus on the spatio-temporal dynamics of the excited state in such a chiral chain. We adopt the formalism of the Green's function which was proven to be a powerful tool for the studies of quantum dynamics in open systems~\cite{PhysRevLett.117.123901}. We reveal, that under certain approximation the problem of finding the excited states probability amplitude dynamics allows  elegant yet simple analytical solution which agrees well with the rigorous numerical calculations.

\section{Single mode coupling.}
We begin by considering an ensemble consisting of $N$ two-level systems (TLS) forming a one-dimensional linear chain placed parallel to a surface of a photonic/plasmonic nanostructure supporting a single fundamental guided mode. Assuming that coupling is mediated by the guided mode only in the strong spin-locking regime, we formulate the equaitons descibing the dynamics  of the system~\cite{WelschDDC}:
\begin{equation}
\label{DynEq}
\dot C_n(t)=-i\Omega C_n(t)+\sum_{m=1}^{n-1}G_{nm}C_n(t),
\end{equation}
where $C_n(t)$ is the complex probability amplitude of the $n$-th TLS to be excited at time $t$, the diagonal parameter $ \Omega = \Delta_L + i\gamma_{tot}/2$ contians $\Delta_L$ which  is the Lamb Shift and $\gamma_{tot}$ which is the total spontaneous emission rate consisting of two contributions: emission into radiation and guided modes ($\gamma_{tot} = \gamma_{r} + \gamma_{g}$). The  single mode coupling coefficients $G_{nm}$ between the TLSs with number $m$ and $n$ can be written as $G_{nm}=-\dfrac{\gamma_g}{2}e^{i\phi_{nm}}$,  where $\gamma_g/2$ is the coupling strength, $\phi_{nm}=k^{g}(z_{n}-z_{m})$ is the phase acquired by the photon due to the propagation from emitter $m$ to emitter $n$, and $k^{g}$ is the corresponding propagation constant of the guided mode. We assume strong spin-locking regime, which leads to a unidirectional coupling, i.e. $G_{nm}\neq0$ only for $n>m$. The system of equations ~\eqref{DynEq} can be formulated in the matrix form ${\bf \dot C} (t)={\bf \hat M  C}(t)$, with ${\bf \hat{M}}$ being a lower triangular matrix, which means that the problem is already diagonalized and moreover, it is degenerate. All quantum oscillators have equal transition frequencies and lifetimes and, therefore, the system has only one eigenstate in which the last atom is excited. For this state the corresponding eigenfrequency is complex and a single excitation is not transferred between the atoms, it can only decay to the field modes due to the spontaneous emission process, which is significantly different from the case of symmetric coupling \cite{Kornovan2016}.

We focus on the problem of the excitation transport through the TLS chain, and for that we consider the initial condition in which the first atom is excited, while all the rest are in the ground state:  $C_1(0)=1,\ C_n(0)=0, n\ge2$.
Exploiting the triangular form of the matrix $\hat {\bf M}$ and the given form of the initial condition, one can build an exact solution of the problem, which in its compact form can be written as (see Supplementary for the details):
\begin{align}
C_{n}^{1}(t) = e^{-i\Omega t + i \phi_{n1}}L_{n-1}^{(-1)}(\gamma_g t/2)
\label{laguerre}
\end{align}
\begin{figure}[t]
	\centering
	\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{2DDyn1.pdf}
	\caption{The probabilities for different emitters to be excited at particular time moments $P_n(t)$ for a chain of $N=5$ emitters. The solid and dashed lines are for the numerical and analytical results, correspondingly. For numerical case the probabilities were averaged over $20$ distributions of emitters around their regular positions and the distribution is uniform. The regular separation $\Delta z = 2.0\lambda_{0}$, where $\lambda_0$ is the resonant wavelength of the transition, and the maximal deviation from regular positions $a=\lambda_{pl}/2$. The parameters for the numerical case: nanowire radius is $\rho_c=0.05\lambda_0$, $\varepsilon \approx -16.00 + 0.44i$ and $\Delta\rho = \rho_c$.}
	\label{2DDyn}
\end{figure}
here $L_{n}^{(\alpha)}(x)$ is the generalized Laguerre polynomials of degree $n, \alpha$. This simple solution gives all the insights on the one-directional transport in quantum chains, which we would like to briefly discuss here. First, as it was previously shown~\cite{Ringel2014}, in the case of lossless guided mode the excitation dynamics is {\it irrelevant} of the spatial distribution of the emitters along the $z$-coordinate as $|e^{i\phi_{mn}}|=1$. This makes this system to be tolerant with respect to positional fluctuations, which is a consequence of the perfect one-way transport: the phase of the excitation transported between two emitters $k$ and $l$ always sums up giving the total phase  $k^{g}(z_n-z_1)$. However, this irrelevance of the distribution of the quantum emitters on the final result is also due to the enforced initial condition that only a single (the first) emitter is excited. If we impose a very general initial condition ${\bf C}(t=0)=\left( c_1; c_2; c_3; ...; c_N \right)$, which corresponds to the case when a single excitation is distributed among different atoms meaning that $\sum_{i=1}^{N}|c_i|^2=1$, the answer will depend on the atomic positions. Secondly, the time evolution of the $n$-th atom excitation probability $P_n(t)=|C_{n}(t)|^2$ has trivial exponentially decaying factor $e^{-\gamma t}$, and the stationary solution in such system is 0. Finally, the nontrivial temporal dynamics of the $n$-th emiters' excitation depends on the ampitude of the coupling constant $\gamma_g$ through the corresponding Laguerre's polynamial.
According to the Laguerre's polynomials  properties \cite{Arfken1972} the number of local excitation maxima for a particular emitter $n$  equals to the number of emitters positioned before it. This dynamics is  shown in Fig.~\ref{2DDyn} (solid lines) for a chain consisting of  $N=5$ emitters.

\section{Metallic Nanowire}
The analytical model we have proposed bases on the interaction of TLSs via arbitrary guided mode. To support these results we consider the interaction of dipole emmiters trhough the plasmonic modes of nanowire. We adopt exact solution of this problem in terms of Green's function approach.  As  we are interested in the probabilities of excitation being transferred from the first emitter of a chain to the $n$-th $P_{n1} = |\langle e_n | \hat U(t,0) | e_1 \rangle|^2$. Here $\hat U(t,0)$ is the evolution operator for our system and $|e_n\rangle$ are the states, where only $n$-th  is excited initially, while all the rest are in the ground state. We can rewrite the matrix elements of the evolution operator according to ~\cite{Cohen-Tannoudji2007}:

\begin{align}
&\langle e_n| \hat U(t,0) |e_1\rangle = \int\limits_C \dfrac{dp}{2\pi i} e^{-ipt/\hbar} \langle e_n| \hat G (p) | e_1 \rangle,
\label{evolop}
\end{align}
where $\hat G (p) = (p - \hat H)^{-1}$ is the resolvent operator of the Hamiltonian $\hat H$ and the contour $C$ here is traversed in the anticlockwise direction and encloses all complex poles of the resolvent (since we consider a subspace containing only discrete states).

We employ the Green's function approach proposed in Ref.~\onlinecite{Gruner1996} in order to quantize the radiation field in the case of absorptive and dispersive media. The electromagnetic field operator in this case reads as $\hat{\mathbf{E}}^{+}(\mathbf{r}) = i \; \sqrt[]{4 \hbar} \int d\mathbf{r^{\prime}} \int\limits_{0}^{\infty} d\omega^{\prime}\frac{{\omega^{\prime}}^2}{c^2} \sqrt{\varepsilon_I (\mathbf{r^{\prime}}, \omega^{\prime})}\mathbf{G}(\mathbf{r}, \mathbf{r^{\prime}}, \omega^{\prime}) \hat{\mathbf{f}}(\mathbf{r^{\prime}}, \omega^{\prime})$ where the bosonic field operators obey the commutation relation $\left[\hat{f}_i(\mathbf{r^{\prime}}, \omega^{\prime}), \hat{f}^{\dagger}_k(\mathbf{r}, \omega)\right] = \delta_{ik}\delta(\mathbf{r^{\prime}} - \mathbf{r})\delta(\omega^{\prime} - \omega)$.

\begin{figure}[t]
	\centering
	\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{DDI.pdf}
	\caption{Absolute values of the coupling strength $\Sigma^{(sc)}_{kl}(\hbar \omega_0)$ through the nanowire modes for two atoms spaced by $\Delta z$ and placed at a distance $\Delta\rho$ from the surface of the metallic nanowire measured in $\hbar \gamma_0$, where $\gamma_0$ is a free-space spontaneous emission rate. The quantization axis is chosen to be $\mathbf{e_y}$, therefore, $\mathbf{e_{\sigma_+}}=-(i\mathbf{e_{x}+\mathbf{e_{z}}})/\sqrt{2}$, $\mathbf{e_{\sigma_-}}^{ }=-\mathbf{e_{\sigma_+}^{*}}$. The parameters $\rho_c$, $\Delta\rho$, and $\varepsilon$ are the same as for Fig. \ref{2DDyn}.}
	\label{2aDDInt}
\end{figure}

We then find the projections of  the resolvent operator on states with a single atomic excitation which are given by~\cite{Cohen-Tannoudji2007}:

\begin{align}
&\hat P \hat G(p) \hat P = \hat P \dfrac{1}{p - \hat H_0 - \hat \Sigma(p)}\hat P, \label{Projection1}\\
&\hat \Sigma(p)=\hat V + \hat V \hat G(p) \hat V \approx \hat V + \hat V \hat G_0(p=\hbar\omega_0) \hat V,\label{ProjectionApprox}
\end{align}
where $\hat P = \sum_{j=1}^{N}|e_{j}\rangle \langle e_{j}|$ is the projection operator onto the corresponding subspace, $\hat H_0$ is the unperturbed Hamiltonian and $\hat \Sigma(p)$ is the level-shift operator~\cite{Cohen-Tannoudji2007}, known also as self-energy part, which provides us with the correction to the unperturbed Hamiltonian $\hat H_0$ due to the interaction between the quantum emitters.
The exact form of the projected resolvent operator is shown in Eq.~\eqref{Projection1}, while Eq.~\eqref{ProjectionApprox} imposes two approximations: i) we limit ourselves in the calculation of the self-energy only up to the second order in $\hat V$;  ii) we consider a near-resonant interaction between TLS computing $\hat G$ at the resonant frequency $p=\hbar \omega_0$. Within these approximations the matrix elements $\langle e_k|\hat \Sigma (p)|e_l\rangle = \Sigma_{kl}(p)$ show the coupling strength of two emitters with numbers $k$ and $l$. It is defined by the electromagnetic Green's function of the system \cite{Dung2002} and reads as: $\Sigma_{kl}(\omega_0)=-4\pi k_0^2\mathbf{d_{k}^{*}}\mathbf{G}(\mathbf{r_k}, \mathbf{r_l},\omega_0)\mathbf{d_l}$, where $k_0=\omega_0/c$, $\mathbf{d_k}$ is the transition dipole moment and $\mathbf{G}(\mathbf{r_k}, \mathbf{r_l},\omega_0)$ is the classical Green's tensor. By taking the exact Green's function of a metallic nanowire (see Supplementary), we have studied
the interaction strength between two emitters mediated by the propagating surface plasmon-polariton modes (SPP). By introducing an external magnetic field along $y$-axis one can achieve efficient coupling of the emitters with circular transitions only with dipole moment ${\bf d}_{\sigma_+}=-d_0(i{\bf e}_x+{\bf e}_z)/\sqrt{2}$. Due to the spin-locking of the $\sigma_+$ transition with SPP mode the coupling strength between the emmiters is strongly asymetric as one can see from the Fig.~\ref{2aDDInt}. %
The considered nanowire has $\varepsilon \approx -16 + 0.44i$, which corresponds to the silver permittivity at $\lambda_0 = 600$ nm \cite{JC1972}, the nanowire radius $\rho_c = 0.05\lambda_0\approx 30$ nm, and the distance from the fiber surface is $\Delta\rho = \rho_c$.
As the distance between the TLS increases, the interaction through the guided mode of the wire play the dominant role. Any visible oscillations occur due to the interference between the fundamental guided mode and higher-order radiation modes. As can be seen clearly, for such a thin fiber, supporting only one fundamental guided mode with radial eigenvalue $n=0$, the interaction strength is very different for the transition dipole moments rotating in the opposite directions ($\sigma_+$ and $\sigma_-$). Though the TLS transition frequency is far from the SPP resonance the asymmetry of the coupling strength is on the order of 10. This allows us to apply the unidirectional model and compare this to the solution of the numerical one, which is shown in Fig.~\ref{2DDyn} (dashed lines). We get almost perfect correspondence between our simplified model (solid line) and the obtained numerical solution (dashed line), which confirms that all the unique properties of the unidirectional transport formulated before can be observed in realistic structures.

\begin{figure}[t]
	\centering
	\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{3DTransport.pdf}
	\caption{Distribution of excitation between different emitter $n$ in a chain of total $N=15$ emitters. In a computational model parameters $\Delta z$, $\Delta\rho$, $\rho_c$, and $\varepsilon$ are the same as for Fig. \ref{2DDyn}. Yellow circles correspond to exact positions of zeros in dynamics for each emitter for the case of a perfect unidirectionality, while the dark blue lines are zeros of $J_{1}(2\sqrt{(N-1)\gamma_gt/2})$. The inset figure shows analytical results calculated with Eq. \eqref{laguerre}.}
	\label{3DDynamics}
\end{figure}

Now if we plot the excitation probability versus both time $t$ and emitter number $N$ it can observed that there are excitation waves propagating in the chain, which can be indicated by tracking the positions of zeros in dynamics; the fronts of these waves can be described with the help of asymptotic relation connecting the Laguerre polynomials and the Bessel functions for large $n$ and fixed time $t$: $L_{N}^{(\alpha)}(\gamma_gt/2) \approx N^{\alpha/2} e^{\frac{\gamma_gt}{4}} \frac{J_{\alpha}(2\sqrt{N\gamma_gt/2})}{(\gamma_gt/2)^{\alpha/2}}$ and zeros of this function were plotted for the case of continuous $N$ in Fig. \ref{3DDynamics}. Notice that since zeros of the Bessel function are constants, these waves propagate with negative phase velocity as for a larger emitter number $N$ zeros appear at earlier times $t$.

\section{  {Collective Emission}}
In the previous chapters we have considered the redistribuiton of a single excitation initially localized at the first atom in the chain. However, the physical mechanisms lying beyond the emission of specially prepared states could be of interest as well. One of the common cases is the Dicke state having superradiant property. The collective emission of excitation in the case of unidirectional coupling can significantly differ from symmetrical coupling.

For such a collective state  in the absence of retardation the dynamics can be found as
\begin{eqnarray}
	C(t) = \mathbf{C_{init}}^\dagger\mathbf{U(t)}\mathbf{C_{init}},
\end{eqnarray}
with $U_{k,l}(t) = e^{-i\Omega t}L^{(-1)}_{k-l}(\gamma_gt/2) e^{i\phi_{k,l}}$ being a lower triangular matrix (similar to \eqref{evolop}) of probability amplitudes for $k$-th atom to be excited at time $t$, while initially only the $l$-th atom was excited, and $C_{init,l} = \dfrac{e^{i\psi_l}}{\sqrt{N}}$ is a vector of the initial condition. We proceed by considering that atoms in our chain are spaced regularly $\phi_{k,l}=(k-l)\phi$ and that $\psi_l = (l-1)\psi$, where both $\phi$ and $\psi$ are purely real. General answer for the complex phase differences is presented in  the Supplementary. In this case it can be found that $C(t) = \dfrac{e^{-i\Omega t}}{N}\sum\limits_{k=1}^{N}(N-(k-1))e^{i(k-1)\xi}L^{(-1)}_{k-1}(\gamma_gt/2)$ with $\xi = \phi - \psi$. Next we consider sufficiently small times and expand $C(t)$ to the first order in $t$ finally obtaining

\begin{eqnarray}
C(t\to 0)\sim  1 - \left[i\Omega  + \dfrac{\gamma_g}{2} \dfrac{e^{i\xi}\left( N+e^{iN\xi}-Ne^{i\xi}-1\right)}{N\left(e^{i\xi} - 1\right)^2} \right]t \sim\nonumber\\
 1 - \dfrac{\Gamma^{(0)}}{2}t,\qquad
 \label{gammainit}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Gamma^{(0)}$ is the initial spontaneous emission rate being a real part of the expression in square brackets. Its dependence upon $\xi$ is illustrated in Fig. \ref{SR}, a).

\begin{figure}[t]
	\centering
	\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{SRpic.pdf}
	\caption{a) Dependence of the initial spontaneous emission rate $\Gamma^{(0)}$ on $\xi$ for a chain of $N=10$ atoms, when $\gamma_g = \gamma_r = 1.0$. b) Dynamics for the case of out of phase  (blue) and in phase (purple) neighboring emitters. Solid lines represent the exact solution, dashed - exponential with $\Gamma^{(0)}$ given by \eqref{gammainit}. The parameters are the same as for a).}
	\label{SR}
\end{figure}

It is reasonable to proceed by considering the two cases corresponding to the situations when the neighbouring atoms are emitting photons in- and out of phase:

\begin{eqnarray}
&\dfrac{\Gamma^{(0)}}{2} =  \begin{cases}
-i\Omega - \dfrac{\gamma_g}{2}\dfrac{(N - 1)}{2}, &\text{if $\xi = 2\pi m$;} \\
-i\Omega + \dfrac{\gamma_g}{2}\dfrac{(2N - 1 + e^{iN\pi})}{4N}, & \text{if $\xi = \pi (2m + 1)$}.
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}

Notice that for even $N$ in the second case the coefficient $\Gamma^{(0)}$ reaches its absolute minimum. In the limit of strong coupling with the guided mode $\gamma_g \gg \gamma_r$ and large emitter number $N \gg 1$ for the $\xi = 2\pi m$ case $\Gamma^{(0)} = \dfrac{N\gamma_g}{2}$ unlike the  $N\gamma_g$ factor known for the emission of the symmetric Dicke superradiant state \cite{Dicke1954}. For the out-of phase case when $\xi = 2\pi(m+1)$ the initial decay rate is $\Gamma^{(0)} =  \dfrac{\gamma_g}{2}$. The dynamics for both situations are illustrated in Fig. \ref{SR}, b).

Concluding, we have proposed a simple analytical model of the unidirectional quantum transport mediated by spin-locked coupling to an arbitrary waveguide mode. We have obtained the exact analytical solution, showing that the dynamics of the TLS is described by the Laguerre polynomials. The behaviour of the chiral TLS system is fully defined by the amplitude of the coupling coefficient of a single emitter with the waveguide mode. From the obtained solution it immediately follows, that unidirectional system possesses the tolerance with respect to the positional disorder.
Our model also predicts that for systems with perfectly asymmetric coupling, the symmetric Dicke superradiant state in a special case of phase-matched positions of the emitters has the emission rate equal to $N\gamma/2$, contrary to a value $N\gamma$ typical for systems with symmetrical interaction. In order to verify our model, we have performed the simulation of quantum excitation transfer through SPP mode of a metallic nanowire, constructing the evolution operator, basing on the exact electromagnetic Green's function of the system. The exact simulations have shown good agreement with  the proposed analytical model, which allows its application for describing any chiral quantum system unidirectionally coupled to a waveguide mode.

\section*{Acknowledgement}
We are grateful to Mikhail Glazov, Andrey Bogdanov, and  Yuri Kivshar for helpful discussions. The work was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research proj. \# 16-32-60167.

\bibliographystyle{apsrev4-1}