\section{Introduction}
Stochastic thermodynamics \cite{Jarzynski.1997.PRL,Sekimoto.1998.PTPS,Seifert.2012.RPP} provides a rigorous framework for investigating the physical properties of small systems.
On theoretical grounds, it is known that thermodynamic costs place fundamental limits on the performance of real-world systems, ranging from living organisms to artificial devices.
Investigating such trade-off relations provides insights into the optimal design principles for such systems.

In recent years, powerful inequalities known as thermodynamic uncertainty relations (TURs) have been discovered for nonequilibrium systems \cite{Barato.2015.PRL,Gingrich.2016.PRL}.
They assert a trade-off between the current fluctuation and dissipation quantified via entropy production; i.e., a high precision of currents is unattainable without increasing the associated entropy production.
Originally, TURs imposed the following bound in steady-state systems:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\avg{\phi}^2}{\Var{\phi}}\le\frac{\avg{\sigma}}{2},\label{eq:con.TUR}
\end{equation}
where $\phi$ is an arbitrary time-integrated current, $\avg{\phi}$, $\Var{\phi}:=\avg{\phi^2}-\avg{\phi}^2$ are its mean and variance, respectively, and $\avg{\sigma}$ is the average entropy production.
This bound was first derived for biomolecular processes \cite{Barato.2015.PRL} and later proven for continuous-time Markov jump processes \cite{Gingrich.2016.PRL,Horowitz.2017.PRE} and overdamped Langevin systems \cite{Pigolotti.2017.PRL,Dechant.2018.JSM}.
Subsequently, the violation of the original bound has been found for other dynamics, e.g., for discrete-time Markov chains \cite{Proesmans.2017.EPL}, transport systems \cite{Agarwalla.2018.PRB}, and underdamped dynamics \cite{Chun.2019.PRE,Vu.2019.PRE.Underdamp}.
TURs have been intensively refined in other contexts that include both classical and quantum systems \cite{Pietzonka.2016.PRE,Polettini.2016.PRE,Garrahan.2017.PRE,Barato.2018.NJP,Macieszczak.2018.PRL,Brandner.2018.PRL,Hasegawa.2019.PRE,Koyuk.2019.PRL,Terlizzi.2019.JPA,Vu.2019.PRE.Underdamp,Barato.2019.JSM,Gupta.2019.arxiv}.
A remarkable application of TURs is the estimation of entropy production \cite{Li.2019.NC}.
By observing various fluctuating currents, a lower bound on entropy production can be inferred.

In this paper, we focus on extending the applicability of TURs that have been derived for currents in steady-state systems.
Considering general Langevin systems driven by an arbitrary time-dependent control protocol, we derive uncertainty relations for both current and noncurrent observables that satisfy a scaling condition.
We prove for both overdamped and underdamped systems that the observable fluctuation is bounded by entropy production and a kinetic term.
Notably, the derived bounds are not static; however, they are dynamic with respect to the observables and are tighter than the original for a broad class of observables.
When the target system is unidirectionally affected by other systems, we prove a tighter bound for observables in the target system.
That is, fluctuations of the observables are not constrained by the dissipation costs of other systems but by the information flows between them and the target system.
Our results allow the investigation of arbitrary Langevin systems, ranging from relaxation processes to externally controlled systems such as stochastic heat engines.
We apply the results to investigate three systems: a dragged Brownian particle, a Brownian gyrator, and a stochastic underdamped heat engine.

Recent studies have made advances in generalizing TURs.
It has been shown that a TUR is a direct consequence of the detailed fluctuation theorem, regardless of the underlying dynamics \cite{Hasegawa.2019.PRL,Vu.2019.arxiv.Feedback,Timpanaro.2019.PRL}.
This bound is more applicable than the original, i.e., it holds for arbitrary currents and arbitrary dynamics as long as the fluctuation theorem is provided.
However, it pays the cost of a weaker predictive power.
A generalization to systems with a broken symmetry, known as the hysteretic TUR, has been conducted \cite{Proesmans.2019.JSM,Potts.2019.PRE}.
This bound requires the evaluation of currents and entropy production in the backward process, having the following form:
\begin{equation}
\frac{(\avg{\phi}+\avg{\phi}_{\rm b})^2}{\Var{\phi}+\Var{\phi}_{\rm b}}\le\exp\bra{\frac{\avg{\sigma}+\avg{\sigma}_{\rm b}}{2}}-1,\label{eq:hys.TUR}
\end{equation}
where $\avg{\cdot\cdot}_{\rm b}$ denotes averages taken over an ensemble in the backward experiment.
Another extension that holds for arbitrary dynamics reads \cite{Vu.2019.PRE.Delay,Falasco.2019.arxiv}
\begin{equation}
\frac{\avg{\phi}^2}{\Var{\phi}}\le\frac{e^{\avg{\tilde{\sigma}}}-1}{2},\label{eq:rev.TUR}
\end{equation}
where $\avg{\tilde{\sigma}}$ is the Kullback--Leibler divergence between distributions of the forward path and its reversed counterpart in the system.
However, $\avg{\tilde{\sigma}}$ is not equal to the entropy production $\avg{\sigma}$, except in steady-state systems with time-reversal symmetry.
Despite the generalities of Eqs.~\eqref{eq:hys.TUR} and \eqref{eq:rev.TUR}, it is difficult to infer the entropy production from these bounds.

\section{Main results}
For the sake of simplicity, we will describe our results with one-dimensional systems.
The generalization to multidimensional systems is straight-forward.
Unlike in most previous studies, where the system is assumed to be in a stationary or in a transient regime, here, the system starts from an arbitrary distribution at time $t=0$ and is subsequently driven by an external control protocol $\lambda$ up to time $t=\tau$.
When $\lambda$ is absent, it becomes a relaxation process.
Let $\Gamma$ denote the trajectory of system states during this time interval and $\phi(\Gamma)$ be a trajectory-dependent observable which can be time-symmetric.
We aim to derive a bound on the relative fluctuation of $\phi(\Gamma)$.

We consider observables that satisfy the scaling condition: $\phi(\theta\Gamma)=\theta^\kappa\phi(\Gamma)$ for some constant $\kappa>0$ and for all $\theta\in\mathbb{R}$.
Given a trajectory $\Gamma=[x(t)]_{t=0}^{t=\tau}$, this can be satisfied with a current $\phi(\Gamma)=\int_{0}^{\tau}dt\,x^{\kappa-1}\circ\dot{x}$ or a noncurrent observable $\phi(\Gamma)=\int_{0}^{\tau}dt\,x^\kappa$.
Here, $\circ$ denotes the Stratonovich product and the dot indicates the time derivative.
Moreover, $\phi$ can be a discrete-time observable, e.g., $\phi(\Gamma)=\sum_{i}c_ix(t_i)^\kappa$, where $0\le t_i\le\tau$ is the predetermined time and $c_i$ is an arbitrary coefficient.
From a practical perspective, measurements are discretely performed in most cases; thus, the acquisition of continuous-time observables may be difficult.
Consequently, a bound on such discrete-time observables provides a useful tool with regard to thermodynamic inference problems.
It is noteworthy that these noncurrent observables cannot be applied with the TURs previously reported.
Hereafter, we consider these three types of observables.

\subsection{Bounds for a full system}
First, we consider a general overdamped Langevin system, whose dynamics are governed by the following equation:
\begin{equation}
\dot{x}=F(x,\lambda)+\xi,
\end{equation}
where $F(x,\lambda)$ is the total force and $\xi$ is a zero-mean Gaussian white noise with variance $\avg{\xi(t)\xi(t')}=2D\delta(t-t')$.
Here, $D>0$ denotes the noise intensity.
Throughout this work, Boltzmann's constant is set to $k_{\rm B}=1$.
Let $\rho(x,t)$ denote the probability distribution function of the system being in state $x$ at time $t$.
Then, its time evolution can be described using the Fokker-Planck equation as $\partial_t\rho(x,t)=-\partial_xj(x,t)$, where $j(x,t)=F(x,\lambda)\rho(x,t)-D\partial_x\rho(x,t)$ is the probability current.
The dynamical solution of this differential equation is uniquely determined if the initial distribution $\rho(x,0)=\rho_{\rm i}(x)$ is given.

As our first main result, we prove that the observable fluctuation is bounded as
\begin{equation}
\frac{\avg{\phi}^2}{\Var{\phi}}\le \frac{1}{\kappa^2}\bra{2\avg{\sigma}+\chi_{\rm o}+\psi_{\rm o}},\label{eq:odp.TUR}
\end{equation}
where $\chi_{\rm o}:=\avg{\int_0^\tau dt\,\Lambda_{\rm o}(x,t)}$ is a kinetic term and $\psi_{\rm o}:=\avg{(x\partial_x\rho_{\rm i}/\rho_{\rm i})^2}_{\rho_{\rm i}}-1$ is a nonnegative boundary value that can be neglected for long observation times.
Here, $\Lambda_{\rm o}=[(\partial_x[xF])^2-4F\partial_x(xF)-4D\partial_x^2(xF)]/2D$ is a function in terms of force and position.

Next, we consider a general underdamped Langevin system, where inertial effects cannot be neglected.
The system consists of a particle being in contact with an equilibrium heat bath.
Its dynamics are described by the following equations:
\begin{equation}
\dot{x}=v,~m\dot{v}=-\gamma v+F(x,\lambda)+\xi,
\end{equation}
where $m$, $\gamma$ are the mass and friction coefficient of the particle, respectively.
Let $\rho(x,v,t)$ be the phase-space probability distribution function of the system at time $t$.
Assuming that the system evolves from an initial distribution $\rho(x,v,0)=\rho_{\rm i}(x,v)$;
then, $\rho(x,v,t)$ follows the Fokker-Planck equation, $\partial_t\rho(x,v,t)=-\partial_xj_x(x,v,t)-\partial_vj_v(x,v,t)$, where $j_x(x,v,t)=v\rho(x,v,t)$ and $j_v(x,v,t)=1/m[-\gamma v+F(x,\lambda)-D/m\partial_v]\rho(x,v,t)$ are probability currents.
Since the position $x$ and the velocity $v$ are the freedom degrees of the system, the trajectory can be written as $\Gamma=[x(t),v(t)]_{t=0}^{t=\tau}$.

For observables that satisfy the scaling condition, we prove that
\begin{equation}
\frac{\avg{\phi}^2}{\Var{\phi}}\le \frac{1}{\kappa^2}\bra{2\avg{\sigma}+\chi_{\rm u}+\psi_{\rm u}},\label{eq:udp.TUR}
\end{equation}
where $\chi_{\rm u}:=\avg{\int_0^\tau dt\,\Lambda_{\rm u}(x,v,t)}$ is a kinetic term and $\psi_{\rm u}:=\avg{[(x\partial_x\rho_{\rm i}+v\partial_v\rho_{\rm i})/\rho_{\rm i}]^2}_{\rho_{\rm i}}-4$ is a nonnegative boundary term that can be neglected for large $\tau$.
Here, $\Lambda_{\rm u}=[\bra{F-x\partial_xF}^2-4\gamma^2v^2+8\gamma D/m]/2D$.
Inequality \eqref{eq:udp.TUR} is our second main result.
The detailed derivations of the bounds and the generalization to the multidimensional case are presented in Appendix \ref{app:deriv.fullsys} and \ref{app:multidimen}, respectively.

We make several remarks about our main results [Eqs.~\eqref{eq:odp.TUR} and \eqref{eq:udp.TUR}].
These inequalities hold for arbitrary protocol $\lambda$, arbitrary initial distribution $\rho_{\rm i}$, and finite observation time $\tau$; thus, they are also valid for steady-state systems.
Interestingly, the derived bounds involve the scaling power $\kappa$; as $\kappa$ is large enough, the bounds become tighter than the original [Eq.~\eqref{eq:con.TUR}].
Moreover, unlike the reported bounds, which deal only with currents, our bounds are applicable for current, noncurrent, and discrete-time observables, as well as for linear combinations of these observables with the same scaling power.

In addition to entropy production, the bounds contain kinetic terms $\chi_{\set{\rm o,\,u}}$.
They are averages of observables, which can be calculated based on the observed trajectories.
As will be shown later, these terms play an important role in the bounds, i.e., the observable fluctuation cannot be solely bounded by the entropy production, even with the exponential bound $(e^{\avg{\sigma}}-1)/2$.
Furthermore, the fluctuation of a noncurrent observable, $\avg{\phi}^2/\Var{\phi}$, may not vanish in equilibrium, for example, for $\phi(\Gamma)=\int_{0}^{\tau}dt\,x^2$, while entropy production always does, i.e., $\avg{\sigma}=0$.
In this scenario, $\chi_{\set{\rm o,\,u}}$ are the key quantities that constrain fluctuations of such noncurrent observables.

We provide an intuitive explanation regarding why kinetic terms appear in the bounds.
Entropy production, which is quantified via irreversible currents of probability density, characterizes the strength of the currents in the system.
Zero entropy production implies that there is no current in the system.
Therefore, its genuine contribution to the bounds is the constraint on fluctuations of currents.
To constrain fluctuations of noncurrent components (e.g., time-symmetric changes), another complement to entropy production, which is identified here as $\chi$, is necessary \cite{Maes.2017.PRL}.

With respect to attaining the derived bounds, one can show that the exact equality condition cannot be attained (from the equality condition of the Cauchy--Swartz inequality) \cite{Vu.2019.PRE.Underdamp}.
Unlike original TUR, which is saturated near equilibrium \cite{Hasegawa.2019.PRE}, attaining the derived bounds is not ensured in such regimes.
As shown later, the bounds become tight for long observation times.
For short observation times, a gap exists between the fluctuations of the observables and the derived bounds.
This occurs due to the dominance of the boundary terms, $\psi_{\rm o,u}$.

\subsection{Bounds for a subsystem}
\begin{figure}[t]
	\centering
	\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{FIG_IntSys.pdf}
	\protect\caption{Illustration of multipartite interacting systems described by Langevin equations. The target system $\mathcal{X}$ is unidirectionally affected by other systems $\mathcal{Y}_1,\dots,\mathcal{Y}_N$. The total entropy production $\avg{\sigma}$ of the full system (including $\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}_1,\dots,\mathcal{Y}_N$) can be decomposed into nonnegative components as $\avg{\sigma}=\avg{\sigma_x}+\sum_{i=1}^N\avg{\sigma_{y_i}}$, in which each component represents the contribution of the entropy production from each corresponding system.}\label{fig:interacting.systems}
\end{figure}

Let us consider a situation where the target system $\mathcal{X}$ undergoes unidirectional interactions with other systems $\mathcal{Y}_1,\dots,\mathcal{Y}_N$.
Each of these systems is coupled to a distinct thermal reservoir.
We assume that $\mathcal{X}$ does not affect the dynamics of $\mathcal{Y}_i$ for all $i$, while each system $\mathcal{Y}_i$ can arbitrarily affect other systems (see Fig.~\ref{fig:interacting.systems} for the illustration).
An example of this situation is a system that involves continuous-time imperfect measurement and feedback control.
The systems $\{\mathcal{Y}_i\}$ correspond to the errors in the readout when performing measurements on $\mathcal{X}$.
These errors instantly affect the system dynamics of $\mathcal{X}$ via feedback control.
For simplicity, we consider the case $N=1$, and the system states of $\mathcal{X}$ and $\mathcal{Y}$ are represented by variables $x$ and $y$, respectively.
The dynamics of $\mathcal{X}$ and $\mathcal{Y}$ are governed by the following equations:
\begin{align}
\dot{x}&=F_x(x,y,\lambda)+\xi_x,\\
\dot{y}&=F_y(y,\lambda)+\xi_y,
\end{align}
where $\xi_x$ and $\xi_y$ are uncorrelated zero-mean Gaussian white noises satisfying $\avg{\xi_z(t)\xi_z(t')}=2D_z\delta(t-t')$, for each $z\in\{x,y\}$.
Let $\rho_{\rm i}(x,y):=\rho(x,y,0)$ denote the distribution function at time $t=0$.
The corresponding Fokker--Planck equation reads $\partial_t\rho(x,y,t)=-\sum_{z\in\{x,y\}}\partial_zj_z(x,y,t)$, where $j_z=F_z\rho-D_z\partial_z\rho$ is the probability current.

The entropy production of the full system (including both $\mathcal{X}$ and $\mathcal{Y}$) is given by
\begin{equation}
\avg{\sigma}=\int_0^\tau dt\int dxdy\bra{\frac{j_x(x,y,t)^2}{D_x\rho(x,y,t)}+\frac{j_y(x,y,t)^2}{D_y\rho(x,y,t)}}.
\end{equation}
It can be rewritten as $\avg{\sigma}=\avg{\sigma_x}+\avg{\sigma_y}$, where $\avg{\sigma_z}=\int_0^\tau dt\int dxdy\,j_z(x,y,t)^2/D_z\rho(x,y,t)\ge 0$ is the entropy production contribution from $z\in\{x,y\}$.
Moreover, $\avg{\sigma_x}$ can be further decomposed as $\avg{\sigma_x}=\avg{\Delta s_x}+\avg{q_x}/D_x+I_{x}$ \cite{Horowitz.2015.JSM}, where $\avg{\Delta s_x}$ denotes the change in the Shannon entropy of $\mathcal{X}$, $\avg{q_x}$ denotes the heat flow from $\mathcal{X}$ to the reservoir, and $I_{x}$ represents information flow into and out of $\mathcal{X}$.
Note that because of information exchanged between $\mathcal{X}$ and $\mathcal{Y}$, $\avg{\Delta s_x}+\avg{q_x}/D_x$ can be negative.

For arbitrary observables involving only $x$ and satisfying the scaling condition with the scaling power $\kappa$, we can prove that
\begin{equation}
\frac{\avg{\phi}^2}{\Var{\phi}}\le\frac{1}{\kappa^2}(2\avg{\sigma_x}+\chi_x+\psi_x),\label{eq:inter.TUR}
\end{equation}
where $\chi_x:=\avg{\int_0^\tau dt\,\Lambda_x(x,y,t)}$ is a kinetic term and $\psi_x:=\avg{(x\partial_x\rho_{\rm i}/\rho_{\rm i})^2}_{\rho_{\rm i}}-1$ is a nonnegative boundary value.
Here, $\Lambda_x=[(\partial_x[xF_x])^2-4F_x\partial_x(xF_x)-4D_x\partial_x^2(xF_x)]/2D_x$.
Inequality \eqref{eq:inter.TUR} is our third main result.
Note that the bound in Eq.~\eqref{eq:odp.TUR} also holds for this situation when we consider a full system that includes both $\mathcal{X}$ and $\mathcal{Y}$.
The difference between these bounds [Eqs.~\eqref{eq:odp.TUR} and \eqref{eq:inter.TUR}] is that the former contains terms that originate from all the systems, i.e., $\mathcal{X}$ and $\mathcal{Y}$, while the latter only involves contributions from $\mathcal{X}$.
Focusing on the entropy production term, $\avg{\sigma_x}$, the bound in Eq.~\eqref{eq:inter.TUR} implies that the fluctuations of the observables in $\mathcal{X}$ are not constrained by the dissipation in $\mathcal{Y}$ but by that in $\mathcal{X}$, $\avg{\Delta s_x}+\avg{q_x}/D_x$, and the information flow between $\mathcal{X}$ and $\mathcal{Y}$, $I_x$.
This implication agrees with intuition.
In general, the bound in Eq.~\eqref{eq:inter.TUR} is tighter than that in Eq.~\eqref{eq:odp.TUR} and reduces to the same one when there is no interaction between $\mathcal{X}$ and $\mathcal{Y}$.
A bound for underdamped systems can be analogously derived.
The derivation of Eq.~\eqref{eq:inter.TUR} is provided in Appendix \ref{app:deriv.subsys}.

\section{Examples}
In this section, we illustrate our results with the help of three systems, as follows.

\subsection{Dragged Brownian particle}
First, we investigate a dragged Brownian particle confined in a harmonic potential $U(x,\lambda)=c(x-\lambda)^2/2$, where $c>0$ is a constant [see Fig.~\ref{fig:draggedBrownian}(a) for illustration].
The total force is $F(x,\lambda)=-\partial_xU(x,\lambda)$, and the particle position is governed by the following equation:
\begin{equation}
\dot{x}=c(\lambda-x)+\xi.\label{eq:draggedBrownian}
\end{equation}
We consider three cases: (a) a time-linear protocol $\lambda(t)=\alpha t$, (b) a time-periodic protocol $\lambda(t)=\alpha\sin(\beta t)$, and (c) a time-symmetric protocol
\begin{equation}
\lambda(t)=\begin{cases}
\alpha t, & 0\le t\le\tau/2,\\
\alpha(\tau-t), & \tau/2<t\le\tau,
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are positive constants.
We assume that the system is initially in equilibrium with the distribution $\rho_{\rm i}(x)=\exp(-cx^2/2D)$.
We consider three observables: a current representing the particle's displacement $\phi_{\rm c}(\Gamma)=x(\tau)-x(0)$, the final position $\phi_{\rm pos}(\Gamma)=x(\tau)$, and a noncurrent observable $\phi_{\rm nc}(\Gamma)=\int_0^\tau dt\,x$, which represents the area under the trajectory.
These observables satisfy the scaling condition with $\kappa=1$, i.e., $\phi(\theta\Gamma)=\theta\phi(\Gamma)$.
According to the derived bound [Eq.~\eqref{eq:odp.TUR}], inequality
\begin{equation}\label{eq:bound.ex1}
\frac{\avg{\phi}^2}{\Var{\phi}}\le 2\avg{\sigma}+\chi_{\rm o}+\psi_{\rm o}
\end{equation}
should be satisfied for all $\phi\in\set{\phi_{\rm c},\phi_{\rm pos},\phi_{\rm nc}}$.
All the terms in this bound can be analytically calculated in the following.
\begin{figure}[t]
	\centering
	\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{FIG_DiaRes_DBP.pdf}
	\protect\caption{(a) Schematic diagram of the dragged Brownian particle with the control protocol $\lambda$. Bound on fluctuations of the observables under (b) time-linear, (c) time-periodic, and (d) time-symmetric protocols [Eq.~\eqref{eq:bound.ex1}]. The dash-dotted, dashed, dotted, thin and thick solid lines represent the fluctuations $\avg{\phi_{\rm c}}^2/\Var{\phi_{\rm c}}$, $\avg{\phi_{\rm pos}}^2/\Var{\phi_{\rm pos}}$, $\avg{\phi_{\rm nc}}^2/\Var{\phi_{\rm nc}}$, the exponential bound $(e^{\avg{\sigma}}-1)/2$, and the derived bound $2\avg{\sigma}+\chi_{\rm o}+\psi_{\rm o}$, respectively. The derived bound is always satisfied, while the exponential bound is violated for all three cases. The observation time $\tau$ is varied, while the remaining parameters are fixed as $c=1,\alpha=1,\beta=2$, and $D=1$.}\label{fig:draggedBrownian}
\end{figure}

Let $\rho(x,t)$ be the probability distribution function of $x$ at time $t$.
Since the force is linear, the distribution is Gaussian, i.e., $\rho(x,t)=\mathcal{N}(x;\mu(t),\vartheta(t))$, where $\mu(t)$ and $\vartheta(t)$ are the mean and variance, respectively.
The initial conditions are $\mu(0)=0,~\vartheta(0)=D/c$.
From the Fokker--Planck equation, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\dot{\mu}(t)=c\bras{\lambda(t)-\mu(t)},\quad\vartheta(t)=\frac{D}{c}.\label{eq:diff.mu}
\end{equation}
Solving the differential equation [Eq.~\eqref{eq:diff.mu}] with respect to $\mu(t)$, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\mu(t)=c\int_0^tds\,e^{-c(t-s)}\lambda(s).
\end{equation}
Using the Laplace transform, the analytical solution of Eq.~\eqref{eq:draggedBrownian} can be expressed as
\begin{equation}
x(t)=\mu(t)+x_0e^{-ct}+\int_0^tds\,e^{-c(t-s)}\xi(s).\label{eq:odp.sol.x}
\end{equation}
From Eq.~\eqref{eq:odp.sol.x}, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\avg{[x(t)-\mu(t)][x(t')-\mu(t')]}=\frac{D}{c}e^{-c|t-t'|}.
\end{equation}
The observable averages can be analytically calculated, i.e., $\avg{\phi_{\rm c}}=\avg{\phi_{\rm pos}}=\mu(\tau)$ and $\avg{\phi_{\rm nc}}=\int_0^\tau dt\,\mu(t)$.
Analogously, the variances of the observables were obtained as $\Var{\phi_{\rm c}}=2D(1-e^{-c\tau})/c$, $\Var{\phi_{\rm pos}}=D/c$, and $\Var{\phi_{\rm nc}}=2D(e^{-c\tau}+c\tau-1)/c^3$.
The terms in the bound can be analytically calculated as
\begin{align}
\avg{\sigma}&=\frac{c^2}{D}\int_0^\tau dt\,(\lambda(t)-\mu(t))^2,\\
\chi_{\rm o}&=2c\tau-\frac{c^2}{2D}\int_{0}^{\tau}dt\bras{4\mu(t)^2+3\lambda(t)^2-8\lambda(t)\mu(t)},\\
\psi_{\rm o}&=2.
\end{align}
We illustrate the bound [Eq.~\eqref{eq:bound.ex1}] in Fig.~\ref{fig:draggedBrownian}(b)--(d), where the derived bound is always satisfied and the exponential bound is violated.
As seen, for short observation times, a gap exists between the bound and the fluctuation.
However, as $\tau$ is increased, the gap is reduced and the bound becomes tight.

\subsection{Brownian gyrator}
Next, we study a Brownian gyrator \cite{Filliger.2007.PRL}, which is a minimal microscopic heat engine that has recently been experimentally realized in an electronic and a colloidal system \cite{Chiang.2017.PRE,Argun.2017.PRE}.
The system consists of a particle with two degrees of freedom, $\bm{x}=[x_1,x_2]^\top$, trapped in an elliptical harmonic potential $U(\bm{x})=[u_1\bra{x_1\cos\alpha+x_2\sin\alpha}^2+u_2\bra{-x_1\sin\alpha+x_2\cos\alpha}^2]/2$,
where $u_1,u_2>0$ are stiffnesses along its principal axes, and $\alpha$ is the rotation angle.
The particle is simultaneously in contact with two heat baths at different temperatures acting in perpendicular directions [Fig.~\ref{fig:diagrams}(a)].
\begin{figure}[t]
	\centering
	\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{FIG_Dia_BGHE.pdf}
	\protect\caption{Schematic diagrams of (a) the Brownian gyrator and (b) the stochastic underdamped heat engine. A cyclic period consists of four steps: isothermal expansion for a time $\tau_h$ [$(1)\to(2)$], instantaneously cooling the heat bath to temperature $T_c$ [$(2)\to(3)$], isothermal compression for a time $\tau_c$ [$(3)\to(4)$], and instantaneously heating the heat bath to temperature $T_h$ [$(4)\to(1)$]. The solid and dashed lines represent the probability distribution $\rho(x,t)$ and the potential $U(x,\lambda)$, respectively.}\label{fig:diagrams}
\end{figure}
The particle position follows overdamped Langevin equations,
\begin{equation}
\gamma_i\dot{x}_i=-\partial_{x_i}U(\bm{x})+\xi_i,~(i=1,2),
\end{equation}
where $\gamma_i$ is the friction coefficient and $\xi_i$ is the zero-mean Gaussian white noise with covariance $\avg{\xi_i(t)\xi_j(t')}=2\delta_{ij}\gamma_iT_i\delta(t-t')$.
Here, $T_1\neq T_2$ are the temperatures of the heat baths.
In generic cases, i.e., $u_1\neq u_2$, the potential is asymmetric and a systematic gyrating motion of the particle around the potential minimum is induced due to the flow of heat.
The interesting observable is the accumulated torque exerted by the particle on the potential
\begin{equation}
\phi_{\rm t}(\Gamma)=\int_0^\tau dt\bras{x_1\partial_{x_2}U(\bm{x})-x_2\partial_{x_1}U(\bm{x})}.
\end{equation}
This observable is time-symmetric; thus, all TURs previously reported cannot be applied.
Since $\phi_{\rm t}(\theta\Gamma)=\theta^2\phi_{\rm t}(\Gamma)$, the following bound on torque fluctuation should be satisfied:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\avg{\phi_{\rm t}}^2}{\Var{\phi_{\rm t}}}\le\frac{\avg{\sigma}}{2}+\frac{\chi_{\rm o}+\psi_{\rm o}}{4}.\label{eq:bound.ex2}
\end{equation}
We illustrate Eq.~\eqref{eq:bound.ex2} in Fig.~\ref{fig:result}(a).
The fluctuation $\avg{\phi_{\rm t}}^2/\Var{\phi_{\rm t}}$ is numerically evaluated, while $\avg{\sigma}$, $\chi_{\rm o}$, and $\psi_{\rm o}$ are analytically calculated.
As seen, the bound is always satisfied when the observation time $\tau$ is varied.
Positive entropy production is needed to generate a nonzero torque.
However, the fluctuation cannot be bounded solely by entropy production, even with the exponential bound $(e^{\avg{\sigma}}-1)/2$.
\begin{figure}[t]
	\centering
	\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{FIG_Res_BGHE.pdf}
	\caption{(a) Bound on the fluctuation of the accumulated torque [Eq.~\eqref{eq:bound.ex2}]. The system is in steady state, wherein the distribution is Gaussian. The dash-dotted, dashed, and solid lines represent the fluctuation $\avg{\phi_{\rm t}}^2/\Var{\phi_{\rm t}}$, the exponential bound $(e^{\avg{\sigma}}-1)/2$, and the derived bound $(2\avg{\sigma}+\chi_{\rm o}+\psi_{\rm o})/4$, respectively. The derived bound is always satisfied, while the exponential bound is not. The parameters are $\alpha=\pi/4$, $\gamma_1=\gamma_2=10$, $u_1=1$, $u_2=4$, $T_1=1$, and $T_2=4$. (b) Bound on fluctuations of the power output and the accumulated kinetic energy [Eq.~\eqref{eq:bound.ex3}]. The fluctuations $\avg{\phi_{\rm p}}^2/\Var{\phi_{\rm p}},\avg{\phi_{\rm v}}^2/\Var{\phi_{\rm v}}$, the exponential bound $(e^{\avg{\sigma}}-1)/2$, and the derived bound $(2\avg{\sigma}+\chi_{\rm u}+\psi_{\rm u})/4$ are depicted by the dash-dotted, dotted, dashed, and solid lines, respectively. The fluctuations exceed the exponential bound, while they are always smaller than the derived bound. The initial distribution $\rho_{\rm i}$ is a centered Gaussian with variances $\avg{x^2}=10,\avg{v^2}=1$, and $\avg{xv}=0$. The parameters are $m=1,\gamma_c=\gamma_h=0.1,T_c=1,T_h=4,\lambda_c=0.1,\lambda_{h}=2$, and $\tau_c=\tau_h=\tau/2$.}
	\label{fig:result}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Stochastic underdamped heat engine}
Lastly, we consider a stochastic underdamped heat engine comprising a particle trapped in a harmonic potential $U(x,\lambda)=\lambda x^2/2$ \cite{Dechant.2017.EPL} [see Fig.~\ref{fig:diagrams}(b)].
The particle is embedded in a heat bath, whose temperature $T$ is cyclically varied to operate the system as a heat engine.
Its dynamics are described using the Langevin equation,
\begin{equation}
m\dot{v}=-\gamma v-\lambda x+\xi,
\end{equation}
where the noise variance is $\avg{\xi(t)\xi(t')}=2\gamma T\delta(t-t')$.
We employ a time-linear protocol \cite{Blickle.2012.NP}
\begin{equation}
\lambda(t)=\begin{cases}
\lambda_{h}+(\lambda_{c}-\lambda_{h})t/\tau_h, & 0\le t<\tau_h,\\
\lambda_{c}+(\lambda_{h}-\lambda_{c})(t-\tau_h)/\tau_c, & \tau_h\le t<\tau,
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $\tau_h,\tau_c$ are the coupling times to the hot and cold heat baths, respectively, and $\tau=\tau_h+\tau_c$ is the total observation time.
The work $w$ exerted on the particle during the period is equal to $w(\Gamma)=\int_0^{\tau}dt\,\partial_\lambda U(x,\lambda)\dot{\lambda}$.
We consider two observables: the power output $\phi_{\rm p}=-w/\tau$ and the accumulated kinetic energy $\phi_{\rm v}=\int_0^{\tau}dt\,v^2$.
Since $\phi(\theta\Gamma)=\theta^2\phi(\Gamma)$, fluctuations of these observables are bounded as
\begin{equation}
\frac{\avg{\phi}^2}{\Var{\phi}}\le\frac{\avg{\sigma}}{2}+\frac{\chi_{\rm u}+\psi_{\rm u}}{4}\label{eq:bound.ex3}
\end{equation}
for $\phi\in\set{\phi_{\rm p},\phi_{\rm v}}$.
We assume that the initial distribution $\rho_{\rm i}(x,v)$ is Gaussian and illustrate Eq.~\eqref{eq:bound.ex3} in Fig.~\ref{fig:result}(b).
As shown, the derived bound is always satisfied, while the fluctuations cannot be constrained by the exponential bound.

We illustrate the implication of our results for the power output of heat engines.
The original TUR has been exploited to derive a bound on the fluctuation of power output in steady-state heat engines \cite{Pietzonka.2019.PRL}.
It indicates that a steady-state heat engine operating with Carnot's efficiency $\eta_C=1-T_c/T_h$ and delivering work with a finite fluctuation is impossible.
However, our bound does not imply this consequence in the same manner as the original bound.
It has been shown that one can construct a cyclic Brownian heat engine operating with efficiency asymptotically close to $\eta_C$ at nonzero power output with vanishing fluctuations \cite{Holubec.2018.PRL}.
Our bound is applicable to such an engine and such arbitrary heat engines described using Langevin dynamics.

\section{Conclusion}
Based on information theory, we have derived bounds for both current and noncurrent observables in overdamped and underdamped regimes.
These bounds universally hold for arbitrary protocols and arbitrary initial distributions.
The results demonstrate that the fluctuations of observables are constrained not only by entropy production but also by a kinetic term.
In all studied examples, we have shown that the exponential bound of entropy production, $(e^{\avg{\sigma}}-1)/2$, cannot constrain the fluctuation.
For the case of multipartite systems where the dynamics of the target system are unidirectionally affected by other systems, we have proved a tighter bound.
This bound reveals that the fluctuations of observables in the target system are not constrained by the dissipation costs of other systems but by the information flow between them and the target system.

Our results serve as a useful tool for estimation tasks in general Langevin systems.
Information inequalities have successfully been applied to derive many important thermodynamic bounds, such as the sensitivity-precision trade-off \cite{Hasegawa.2019.PRE}, a quantum TUR \cite{Guarnieri.2019.PRR}, and the speed limit \cite{Ito.2018.arxiv}.
Extending our approach to other classical and quantum systems or finding a hyper-accurate observable \cite{Busiello.2019.arxiv} would be interesting.

\section*{Acknowledgment}
This work was supported by Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) KAKENHI Grant No.~JP16K00325 and No.~JP19K12153.


\section{Introduction} \label{Introduction}
The concept of spontaneous symmetry breaking is a powerful organizational principle for effective theories found throughout different branches of physics. Because objects transforming under such symmetry group $G$ are not in a representation of $G$, the group is often said to be non-linearly realized. The coset construction -- so called because it relates the Goldstones bosons arising from the breaking pattern $G\to H$ to the coset space $G/H$ -- is part and parcel of building theories that non-linearly realize symmetry groups, the machinery for which was first introduced more than 50 years ago in \cite{coleman_structure_1969,callan_structure_1969}.

While the coset construction applied to internal (compact and semisimple) groups is well understood, considerable effort has been made in the last years to study its application to spacetime symmetry groups. After all, the breaking of these groups is at the heart of many concepts of physics, such as cosmology and condensed matter \cite{cheung_effective_2008,nicolis_zoology_2015,nicolis_spontaneous_2012,nicolis_relativistic_2014}. One of the most significant distinctions from internal groups is that a non-linear realization of spacetime symmetries can have fewer degrees of freedom than there are broken generators, the phenomenon of Goldstone inessentially \cite{volkov_phenomenological_1973,ivanov_inverse_1975,mcarthur_nonlinear_2010}.

Given spacetime coordinates $x$ and two kinds of Goldstones $\pi$ and $\xi$, we say $\pi$ is essential if \textit{(a)} it transforms without reference to $\xi$, that is, $\pi\to\tilde\pi(\pi,x)$; and \textit{(b)} $x$ and $\pi$ fully realize the symmetry, meaning their transformations depend on all group parameters. In this case, $\xi$ is unneeded to realize the group and can be discarded: it's inessential.

Goldstone inessentiality can also be formulated in terms of inverse Higgs constraints (IHCs). These are relations built out of the invariants that connect $\pi$ and $\xi$. If this relation includes derivatives of $\pi$ while $\xi$ appears only algebraically, the constraint can be solved to eliminate $\xi$ in terms of $\pi$ and its derivatives.\footnote{In some cases, different kinds of Goldstone might mix, yet an IHC still exists that allows one to be eliminated in favor of the other. The special galileon \cite{hinterbichler_hidden_2015} is an example. Nonetheless, a redefinition of coordinates and fields should unmix the Goldstones; see Section \ref{special galileon}.}

This hierarchy between Goldstones is peculiar, and the question then arises: is such structure unique? That is, given any parametrization (choice of coordinates) for some coset space, can we \textit{uniquely} determine the essentiality of a Goldstone boson? If true, it would mean the coset construction for spacetime symmetries is universal, meaning that different physicists arrive at the same theory regardless of how they choose to parametrize their coset spaces, assuming a common set of rules. On the other hand, the construction would be not unique if the two physicists end up eliminating different degrees of freedom from their theory and arrive at inequivalent actions.

We show the second case can happen. We provide a toy geometrical example in Section \ref{How to draw curves} and then a proper physical example in Section \ref{Poinc to Sitter}, where changing the parametrization changes the essential nature of the Goldstones, leading to different theories.

The reason is that the hierarchical property "$\pi$ transforms without reference to $\xi$" is a kind of structure. Reparametrizing the coset space induces a field redefinition between all objects that is guaranteed to preserve the group product structure, but not necessarily any other structure, including this hierarchical property.  Equivalently, each IHC will always be mapped to a new IHC, but this new constraint might be unusable if it can't be solved. This opens the door for physicists to make different choices of which Goldstones to eliminate (or which IHC to use). We discuss this in more detail in Section \ref{Coset construction universal?}.

In the literature, it's customary to perform the coset construction by means of the distinguished Maurer-Cartan form (e.g. \cite{low_spontaneously_2001,fels_moving_1998}). This is convenient, since we can refrain from explicitly deriving the transformation laws for our objects. But because those transformations are precisely our focus here -- in particular, which kinds of Goldstones transform without reference to the others -- we introduce in Section \ref{coset construction via norm} an alternative method based on \cite{fels_moving_1999} that requires computation of those transformations but dispenses use of the Maurer-Cartan form. Readers interested only in discussions and results are invited to skip it.

\paragraph{Conventions.} We work in $(-+++\ldots)$ signature. All transformations here are treated under the passive viewpoint, meaning we don't pullback the arguments of functions if the dependent variables transform, e.g., $x \to \tilde x(x)$ and $f(x) \to \tilde f(\tilde x)$. Unless said otherwise, quantities written in capital lettters (e.g., $X$ or $\Pi$) are invariant under the symmetry group under consideration.

\section{Non-uniqueness of coset construction}
First, we provide in Section \ref{How to draw curves} a toy geometrical example where the coset construction fails to deliver a unique result. For the interested reader, we discuss the more technical aspects of why this happens for non-semisimple groups in Section \ref{Coset construction universal?}.

\subsection{How to draw curves} \label{How to draw curves}

Suppose two physicists, Rachel and Leo, are asked to build the action for plane curves from the coset $\text{ISO}(2)/\{1\}$, where $\{1\}$ is the trivial group containing only the identity. The two agree on the following common rules:

\begin{itemize}
    \item They will employ reparametrization invariance for their curves.
    \item The resulting action can contain only first or second derivatives.
    \item They should attempt to eliminate inessential degrees of freedom if possible.
\end{itemize}

\paragraph{Rachel's theory.} Rachel decides to parametrize the coset space as $\ell_R = e^{xP_1}e^{yP_2}e^{\theta J}$, where $P_i$ are translation generators and $J$ the rotation one. All the objects $\{x,y,\theta\}$ are functions of some diffeomorphism parameter $\lambda$. She computes the transformation laws of these objects under a Euclidean group element $(a^i,\varphi)$ and finds:

\begin{alignat}{4}
x &\to x \cos(\varphi) - y \sin(\varphi)+a^1, &&    &   \label{transformation of x}     \\
y &\to y \cos(\varphi) + x \sin(\varphi)+a^2, &&  & \label{transformation of y}\\
\theta &\to \theta + \varphi. &&  &
\end{alignat}

Rachel notices that just $x$ and $y$ are sufficient to fully realize the symmetry and that they transform without reference to $\theta$; she keeps them as essential and discards $\theta$ as inessential. Equivalently, she can find the constraint $\tan(\theta)\partial_\lambda x =\partial_\lambda y$, which is algebraic in $\theta$. She then computes the following action:

\begin{equation}
    S_R=\int\mathrm{d} \lambda\sqrt{(x')^2+(y')^2}\,P\left(\frac{-y'x''+x'y''}{((x')^2+(y')^2)^{3/2}}\right),
\end{equation}

where $P$ is some arbitrary function and primes denote $\partial_\lambda$. This is of course familiar from plane geometry; the object inside the $P$ function is the extrinsic curvature $\kappa$ of a curve embedded in Euclidean space.

It is useful to understand how this action represents a prescription for drawing curves on paper. Rachel slides a ruler against the paper in a fixed direction. With the other hand, she holds a pen next to the ruler, allowing the pen to be pushed by it. Reparametrization invariance arises because the speed of the ruler can be removed as a degree of freedom; Rachel's actual degree of freedom is in moving the pen along the direction parallel to the ruler. For linear equations of motion obtained from $P(\kappa)=1$, she doesn't move the pen at all, only letting it be pushed by the ruler, and draws a straight line.

\paragraph{Leo's theory.} Leo then takes the parametrization Rachel used, but to be contrarian, flips the order of the exponentials, writing his as $\ell_L = e^{\theta J}e^{\sigma P_2}e^{\pi P_1}$. His transformation laws are:

\begin{alignat}{5}
\theta &\to \theta+\varphi, &&   &         \\
\pi &\to \pi +a^1\cos(\theta) + a^2 \sin(\theta), && \hspace{1.2cm} & \\ \label{transformation of pi and sigma}
\sigma &\to \sigma +a^2\cos(\theta) - a^1 \sin(\theta), && &
\end{alignat}

\pagebreak[3]

Leo now notices that $\theta$ and $\pi$ form an essential pair: together they fully realize the group, and neither one transforms with reference to the inessential $\sigma$. Leo then discards $\sigma$, which he could also do through the constraint $\sigma \partial_\lambda \theta = \partial_\lambda \pi$, and derives the following action:\footnote{Alternatively, he could've eliminated $\pi$ in favor of $\sigma$ but the final result is the same.}

\begin{equation}
S_L=\int\mathrm{d} \lambda \,\theta'\,F\left(\pi+\frac{-\pi'\theta''+\theta'\pi''}{(\theta')^3}\right).
\end{equation}

Leo's action is more peculiar. The object inside the $F$ function is a notion of torsion $\tau$,\footnote{Different from the torsion of spatial curves.} which we'll discuss shortly. In terms of drawing curves, it works as follows. He places a wheel together with a ruler on the paper. He then rotates the ruler \textit{without slipping} around the wheel, which is kept fixed. Again, the ruler's angular speed can be removed as a degree of freedom; the actual one is in moving the pen parallel to the ruler. For linear equations of motion obtained from $F(\tau)=\tau^2$, Leo doesn't move the pen with respect to the ruler and draws an involute of the wheel. See Figure \ref{fig:Rolling geometry} for visualization.\footnote{Readers familiar with children's toys will recognize this as a spirograph drawing.}

The invariant $\tau$ can be called torsion because it's connected to the winding of the pen around the wheel and thus to the displacement of the pen from its original position after one rotation cycle. A curve that doesn't close after one cycle must necessarily have nonzero torsion.

\paragraph{Inequivalence between the two.}

In Appendix \ref{plane geometry}, we show that no redefinition between Rachel's $(x,y)$ and Leo's $(\theta,\pi)$ exists. Even if we allow for higher derivatives in the action, the two can't be matched. They represent two distinct ways of drawing curves. While not particularly relevant for physics, the point of this example was to show that the coset construction doesn't necessarily produce unique results. Rachel and Leo started from the same coset space and employed the same prescription of removing inessential degrees of freedom, but arrived at inequivalent results.

In the following subsection, we discuss the reason why this can happen. In Section \ref{Poinc to Sitter} we apply the same logic Leo did to produce a physical example in spacetime.

\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{rolltorsion.pdf}
\caption{To draw curves, Leo rolls a ruler without slipping around a fixed wheel while allowing the pen to be pushed by the ruler. In this picture, Leo has kept the pen still with respect to the ruler. The curve is drawn for a full rotation cycle, though we have included only five positions of the ruler to avoid overcrowding the figure.}
\label{fig:Rolling geometry}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Why it's not unique} \label{Coset construction universal?}
We will first briefly review the connection of Goldstone bosons and homogeneous spaces in Section \ref{Goldstones = homo spaces} and the fundamentals of the coset construction in Section \ref{Homo spaces = coset spaces}. Then, in Section \ref{Additional structure}, we discuss inequivalencies that arise in non-semisimple groups.

\subsubsection{Goldstone bosons live in homogeneous spaces} \label{Goldstones = homo spaces}
Perhaps the fundamental property of Goldstone bosons is that a zero background value for one of these bosons can be transformed into a nonzero one under action of the symmetry group $G$:

\begin{equation}
    \pi =0 \quad \to \quad \pi \ne 0,
\end{equation}

so that the actual value of the Goldstone's vacuum is irrelevant. This property goes by the name of transitive group action. Isometry groups of maximally symmetric manifolds act transitively as well: the translations of Minkowski spacetime can move the origin somewhere else, and so can the homotheties (translations plus dilations) of de Sitter spacetime.\footnote{Recall the origin of de Sitter spacetime in conformal time is $-1/\text{Hubble}$, so not invariant under dilations, even though they act linearly.} The points of a maximally symmetry manifold are indistinguishable from each other.

The symmetries that move a field's background are said to be \textbf{broken}, while those that move the origin of spacetime are said to be \textbf{inhomogeneous}. If all \textit{all} inhomegeneous symmetries are \textit{unbroken}, we can collect all spacetime coordinates $x$ and all Goldstones $\pi$ into a single space $Q = \{x,\pi\}$ and the action of $G$ on $Q$ remains transitive. This $Q$ is then called a homogeneous space under $G$. Put another way, a homogeneous space has a single orbit under $G$: the whole space itself.

The $\pi$'s in this context should be seen as just coordinates of the space $Q$, not yet as functions of spacetime. A specific solution of the equations of motion is then the subspace given by the embedding $\pi(x)$.\footnote{As our focus is to build effective actions, we can always do so classically and then quantize the action afterwards. It would be interesting to extend the formalism discussed here to work with operators and Hilbert spaces from the get-go, though we won't do it here.}

\subsubsection{A homogeneous space is equivalent to a coset space \ldots} \label{Homo spaces = coset spaces}

The fact all coordinates and fields live in a homogeneous space turns out to be powerfully constraining for model building, because homogeneous spaces are mostly unique. To specify one such space under the group $G$, we simply need to know the \textbf{stability subgroup} $S$ of the origin of $Q$. That's the subgroup of $G$ that leaves \textit{both} the origin of spacetime \textit{and} the backgrounds of all fields invariant (i.e., unbroken homogeneous symmetries). Then the \textbf{orbit-stabilizer theorem} establishes that $Q$ corresponds to a coset space:

\begin{equation}
    Q \sim \frac{G}{S},
\end{equation}

where $\sim$ means equivalence in the sense that it preserves the group product (i.e., homeomorphism), but not necessarily any additional structure $Q$ might have. Concretely, this means that any $q\in Q$ can be written in terms of some group element $\ell s \in G$ acting on the origin of $Q$, where $\ell \in G$ is called a \textbf{lift} (or coset space representative) and $s\in S$ is an arbitrary stability element.

So for each element in $Q$ there's a corresponding element in $G$, with some $S$-ambiguity, thus intuitively $Q \sim G/S$. But a left coset space has a canonical group action by left multiplication of $g \in G$:

\begin{equation}
    \ell S \to \tilde \ell S \stackrel{\scriptsize\textrm{def}}{=} g \ell S.
\end{equation}

Hence, specifying the full symmetry group $G$ and the stability subgroup $S$ automatically specifies the transformation laws of all coordinates and fields, which by extension fixes all invariants that can be used to build an action. This construction -- mapping the physical entities in $Q$ to some coset space and deriving invariants -- goes by the name of \textbf{coset construction}.

\subsubsection{\ldots up to additional structure} \label{Additional structure}
The orbit-stabilizer theorem guarantees any homogeneous space $Q$ with a $G$-action is equivalent, up to additional structure, to the coset space $G/S$, the key phrase here being "up to additional structure."

Perhaps the first such structure one may think of is topology. This is a valid argument. Nonetheless, in the context of an effective theory, we typically are interested only in expanding fields perturbatively around the vacuum, so that the topology of field space is of little interest. Spacetime itself could have nontrivial topology as well, but by the same token we would prefer to restrict ourselves to local measurements that can't probe such exotica. So although topology might indeed lead to non-trivial physics beyond perturbation theory, we leave it aside in the following.

Typically in physics we have spacetime coordinates $x$ and internal space coordinates $\phi$. Crucially, spacetime is distinguished from internal space, because the $x$'s can only transform among themselves, i.e., $x\to\tilde x(x,g)$ under some $g\in G$. Another way of stating the same thing is that the isometries of a spacetime are intrinsic to the spacetime itself; they can't depend on what you put inside. On the other hand, the $\phi$ are allowed to mix with $x$, i.e., $\phi \to \tilde \phi(\phi,x,g)$; this is simply a non-uniform symmetry for our fields.

Similarly, if $Q$ contains essential Goldstones $\pi$ and inessential ones $\xi$, then by definition the action of $G$ only mixes the $\pi$ among themselves (and possibly the coordinates $x$) without reference to $\xi$.

This kind of hierarchy where some objects transform without reference to others is a type of additional structure.\footnote{It's a kind of fiber bundle structure, though somewhat different from how the concept is used in physics.} Not all field redefinitions will preserve it. For example, replacing $\pi$ by $\bar \pi = \bar \pi(\pi,\xi)$ will typically cause the transformation of $\bar \pi$ to also depend on $\xi$, and now the hierarchy is lost. Equivalently, a coset space parametrization in which an inverse Higgs constraint is algebraic can be mapped to one where the constraint is now differential and typically unsolvable.

This isn't particularly surprising. The orbit-stabilizer theorem only guarantees reparametrizations of the coset space preserve the group product structure, not this kind of hierarchical structure. But since this hierarchy is precisely linked to the removal of physical degrees of freedom, if multiple hierarchies exist then different physics can arise.

Here's one example where inequivalent hierachies for some coset space are possible. Following the Levi decomposition of $G$, any group can be written as $G = R \rtimes L$, so that each symmetry can be classified as belonging to either the radical $R$ or the (semi)simple factor $L$. See Appendix \ref{Levi decomposition} for details. Then when we parametrize the coset space, there are at least two orderings of the exponentials that endow the objects with different hierarchical structure; we leave the proof of this statement for Appendix \ref{Levi ordering}. The two Levi orderings are:

\begin{alignat}{3}
    \ell_R &\stackrel{\scriptsize\textrm{def}}{=} \text{radical symmetries}&&\times\text{simple symmetries},\\
    \ell_L &\stackrel{\scriptsize\textrm{def}}{=} \text{simple symmetries}&&\times\text{radical symmetries}.
\end{alignat}

In $\ell_R$, the radical objects fully realize the group, without reference to the simple ones. In $\ell_L$, the simple ones together with a reduced number of the radicals might fully realize the group. By means of example (both in Sections \ref{How to draw curves} and later in \ref{Poinc to Sitter}), we know that these orderings can swap which Goldstones are essential or inessential, so they can potentially lead to different physics for \textit{any} symmetry breakdown.

Of course, the above assumes $R$ even exists to begin with. If $G$ is a simple group, then the Levi decomposition is trivial and it's not clear if such ambiguities can arise. That they don't for internal groups is well established, but we don't know if that's the case for simple spacetime groups such as the conformal group $\text{SO}(2,D)$ (see also \cite{klein_spontaneously_2017} for possible ambiguities in conformal group breakdown).

\section{Normalization construction} \label{coset construction via norm}

We now describe the general method for constructing objects that realize some symmetry, linearly or non-linearly. The procedure is essentially based on \cite{fels_moving_1998,fels_moving_1999}, and we direct the reader to those references for formal proofs of the method.

The reason why we use this technique rather than the usual one based on the Maurer-Cartan form is to highlight the importance of the transformation laws themselves, which dictate whether additional structure is present for the objects in our theory and, by extension, whether the resulting effective action is unique.

The basic idea is the notion that anything that can be transformed away by the symmetry group cannot, by definition, be an invariant. But the group is finite, so there's only a finite amount of quantities it can transform away before its symmetries have been used up. Anything that remains afterwards is an invariant.

For example, consider a nonrelativistic particle in 3D Euclidean space with position $\vec x$ under the Galilean group. We can spend all three translations moving $\vec x$ to $\vec 0$. Then we can spend all three boosts shifting the velocity $\dot {\vec x}$ to $\vec 0$. Now only rotations remain, but it's impossible to eliminate the acceleration $\ddot {\vec x}$ simply by rotating; at most, we can align it with some preferred axis. Thus $|\ddot {\vec x}|$ is what remains; it's the invariant of the Galilean group.

\paragraph{Step 1.} As input, one must inform the physicist about the full symmetry group of the problem, the broken symmetries, and the inhomogeneous symmetries in spacetime. This determines $G$ and its stability subgroup $S$.

\paragraph{Step 2.} Next, we must parametrize the lift of $G/S$. As discussed in Section \ref{Additional structure}, two convenient choices for non-semisimple groups are given by:

\begin{alignat}{3}
    \ell_R &\stackrel{\scriptsize\textrm{def}}{=} \text{radical symmetries}&&\times\text{simple symmetries},\\
    \ell_L &\stackrel{\scriptsize\textrm{def}}{=} \text{simple symmetries}&&\times\text{radical symmetries}.
\end{alignat}

\paragraph{Step 3.} We now derive the transformed lift $\tilde \ell$  under a group element $g\in G$, following the canonical group action on a coset via the group product: $\ell S\to\tilde\ell S= g\ell S$. This gives the transformation laws $x\to\tilde x$ and $\pi\to\tilde \pi$.

\paragraph{Step 4.} When deriving the transformation laws for the objects in the homogeneous space, we might observe that some transform without reference to the others, meaning the space might have some hierarchical structure. Suppose $Q=\{q,p\}$ with action under $g\in G$:

\begin{align}
    q &\to\tilde q (q;g), \\
    p &\to\tilde p(p,q;g),
\end{align}

where $\tilde q$ depends on \textit{all} parameters of $g$. Then we can construct a new homogeneous space $\bar Q\stackrel{\scriptsize\textrm{def}}{=}\{q\}$ deprived of the $p$'s, which still has a consistent action under $G$. Also, because $\tilde q$ depends on all parameters of $g$, this reduced space still realizes the full group $G$ (i.e., the action is faithful).

If this is possible then we can forget the $p$'s exist and perform the construction solely on the $q$'s, in which case the $p$'s are called inessential and the $q$'s essential. This is equivalent to imposing an inverse Higgs constraint after deriving the invariants, except here we do this from the very beginning.

Which objects are essential or inessential can depend on the ordering selected in step 2. This is because a reparametrization of the lift (i.e., a field redefinition) will not, in general, preserve the hierarchy between objects in the coset space.

\paragraph{Step 5.} The final step is to derive the actual invariants. At this point, we have a (possibly reduced in the previous step) homogeneous space with coordinates and fields, $Q=\{x,\pi\}$ and the transformation rules for $\tilde x$ and $\tilde \pi$ which follow from $\tilde \ell$. We now try to use the group action to set to zero as many objects in $Q$ as possible.

Obviously $Q$ is an homogeneous space, so by definition everything in it can be eliminated. But we know how $x$ and $\pi$ transforms, so we know how $\partial_x \pi$ does too, as well as all higher derivatives. Thus we take our original homogeneous space $Q=\{x,\pi\}$ and extend it with a finite amount of derivatives $\partial_x \pi$, $\partial_x^2 \pi$, and so on.\footnote{Formally, the homogeneous space is a fiber bundle, so it can be prolonged into a jet bundle \cite[Ch.\ 4]{olver_equivalence_1995}.} We then transform those quantities under some special $g_* \in G$ to be determined later. These transformed objects are denoted with capital letters rather than tildes (e.g., $X$ instead of $\tilde x$) due to their special status as putative invariants.

Transforming $(x,\pi)$ under the $g_*$, we schematically have:

\begin{align}
    x   &                            \overset{g_*}{\to} X,      \\
    \pi &                           \overset{g_*}{\to} \Pi,   \\
    \frac{\partial \pi}{\partial x}  &   \overset{g_*}{\to} \frac{\mathrm{d} \Pi}{\mathrm{d} X}, \\
    \frac{\partial^2 \pi}{\partial x^2}  &   \overset{g_*}{\to} \frac{\mathrm{d}^2 \Pi}{\mathrm{d} X^2}, \\
     & \hspace{3mm} \vdots
\end{align}

\begin{enumerate}
\item We start by normalizing $X$ and $\Pi$ to zero,\footnote{We can set it to any constant without affecting the result. For clarity of notation, we set it to zero.} which allows us to solve for some of the parameters of $g_*$. If this completely fixes $g_*$, then ${\mathrm{d} \Pi}/{\mathrm{d} X}$ are the invariants of the theory,\footnote{Notice that setting $\Pi=0$ doesn't imply $\mathrm{d} \Pi=0$.} and we're done.

\item If not, we then attempt to normalize as many of the ${\mathrm{d} \Pi}/{\mathrm{d} X}$ to zero as possible, which lets us fix more of the $g_*$. If $g_*$ is completely fixed by now, then the remaining ${\mathrm{d} \Pi}/{\mathrm{d} X}$ are the invariants we're after. If none remain, then the ${\mathrm{d}^2 \Pi}/{\mathrm{d} X^2}$ are the invariants.

\item If $g_*$ still hasn't been fixed, we repeat the procedure, setting as many of the ${\mathrm{d}^2 \Pi}/{\mathrm{d} X^2}$ to zero as possible, and so on. In the end, when $g_*$ is completely determined (which can always be done since the group is finite-dimensional, so a finite number of normalizations fixes all parameters), the lowest order in derivatives ${\mathrm{d}^n \Pi}/{\mathrm{d} X^n}$ that survived the process are the invariants.

\end{enumerate}
Invariant one-forms then follow by transforming the basis $\mathrm{d} x$ under the $g_*$ found above. By extension we can build the invariant volume form $\mathrm{d} V$:

\begin{align}
    \mathrm{d} x   &                       \overset{g_*}{\to}    \mathrm{d} X,      \\
    \mathrm{d} V &\stackrel{\scriptsize\textrm{def}}{=} \frac{1}{D!} \mathrm{d} X^0 \wedge \mathrm{d} X^1 \wedge \ldots \wedge \mathrm{d} X^D.
\end{align}

An invariant derivative can also be constructed, by inverting the invariant one-form as usual. That is, if $\mathrm{d} X^\alpha = M^\alpha_{\,\beta}\mathrm{d} x^\beta$, then the invariant derivative is $\mathrm{d}/\mathrm{d} X^\alpha = (M^{-1})^\beta_{\,\alpha}\partial_\beta$. Such derivatives
can act on the invariants we obtained to produce higher-order invariants, or act on additional matter fields that don't transform under the group $G$ and weren't part of the construction.

This gives the complete toolbox needed to build the most general invariant action.

Notice that in this procedure, we must use normalization constraints to fix all parameters of the group element $g_*$. However, in many cases, the objects we work with will transform linearly (i.e., in a representation) under some subgroup of $G$, typically the unbroken subgroup or the stability subgroup. In this case, if we contract objects covariantly under this subgroup, the corresponding group parameters will naturally drop out anyway. So these parameters don't need to be fixed, which saves us some time. But it's not always guaranteed that a certain lift parametrization will automatically induce a linear transformation that let us exploit covariance of objects. We encounter such issue in Section \ref{Poinc to Sitter}.

\paragraph{Example: curvature of curves.}
Let's look at the quintessential example of planar curves. The coset space is $\text{ISO}(2)/\{1\}$ and we parametrize the lift as $\ell_R = e^{xP_1}e^{yP_2}e^{\theta J}$. The three generators admit a matrix representation:

\begin{equation}
    P_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0\end{pmatrix} \qquad
    P_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 0\end{pmatrix} \qquad
    J = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & -1 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0\end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}

so that the group product can be easily computed in terms of matrix products. This gives the transformation laws that Rachel found in (\ref{transformation of x},~\ref{transformation of y}). Since $(x,y)$ fully realize the group, we discard $\theta$. We have the following quantities by transforming $x$, $y$ and derivatives of $y$ with respect to $x$, under the special group element $g_*=(a^i_*,\varphi_*)$:

\begin{align}
    X &= x \cos(\varphi_*)-y\sin(\varphi_*)+a_*^1,\\
    Y &= y \cos(\varphi_*)+x\sin(\varphi_*)+a_*^2,\\
    \frac{\mathrm{d} Y}{\mathrm{d} X} &= \frac{y' \cos(\varphi_*)+\sin(\varphi_*)}{ \cos(\varphi_*)-y'\sin(\varphi_*)}, \\
    \frac{\mathrm{d}^2 Y}{\mathrm{d} X^2} &= \frac{y''}{(\cos(\varphi_*)-y'\sin(\varphi_*))^3}.
\end{align}

Normalizing $X=Y=\mathrm{d} Y/\mathrm{d} X=0$ solves for the group element $g_*$:

\begin{equation}
    a^1_* = \frac{-x-yy'}{\sqrt{1+(y')^2}} \qquad a^2_* = \frac{-y + x y'}{\sqrt{1+(y')^2}} \qquad \varphi_* = -\arctan(y'),
\end{equation}

leaving us with the invariant curvature and measure:

\begin{equation}
    \frac{\mathrm{d}^2 Y}{\mathrm{d} X^2} = \frac{y''}{(1+(y')^2)^{3/2}} \qquad \mathrm{d} X = \mathrm{d} x\sqrt{1+(y')^2}.
\end{equation}

\subsection{Coordinate independence}
We can also perform the construction in a coordinate-independent manner. We declare all objects in the homogeneous space, both $x$ and $\pi$, to be functions of $D$ external diffeomorphism parameters $\lambda$. While $\lambda$ transforms under $\text{Diff}(D)$, the basis forms $\mathrm{d} \lambda$ transform under local $\text{GL}(D)$:

\begin{equation}
    \mathrm{d} \lambda^a \to J^a_{\, b} \mathrm{d} \lambda^b,
\end{equation}

where $J$ is the Jacobian of the diffeomorphism. Following a similar logic as before, we can transform $\mathrm{d} \lambda$ under some special Jacobian $J_*$ to be determined to produce the invariant one-forms:

\begin{equation}
    \mathrm{d} \lambda \overset{J_*}{\to} \mathrm{d} \Lambda.
\end{equation}

Now, in addition to fixing the special group element $g_*$, we \textit{also} need to fix the special Jacobian $J_*$. That's $D^2$ extra parameters to fix! Luckily, because $\lambda$ is now our independent variable, we don't work with the quantities $\mathrm{d} \Pi / \mathrm{d} X$, but rather $\mathrm{d} \Pi / \mathrm{d} \Lambda$ and $\mathrm{d} X / \mathrm{d} \Lambda$:

\begin{align}
        \frac{\partial x}{\partial \lambda}  &  \overset{g_*,J_*}{\to}    \frac{\mathrm{d} X}{\mathrm{d} \Lambda}, \\
        \frac{\partial \pi}{\partial \lambda}  &  \overset{g_*,J_*}{\to}  \frac{\mathrm{d} \Pi}{\mathrm{d} \Lambda}.
\end{align}

The $\mathrm{d} X/ \mathrm{d} \Lambda$ now give precisely the extra quantities that can be normalized to convenient values in order to fix the Jacobian.

\paragraph{Example: diffeomorphic curvature of curves.}

As in the previous example, but now we impose diffeomorphism symmetry. Instead of taking derivatives with respect to the form $\mathrm{d} x$, which gets transformed into $\mathrm{d} X$ under the special group element $g_*$, we take derivatives with respect to the form $\mathrm{d} \lambda$, which becomes $\mathrm{d} \Lambda$ under the special Jacobian $J_*$. Importantly, $J$ is an element of \textit{local} $\text{GL}(1)$, so while $\mathrm{d} g=0$, we have $\mathrm{d} J \ne 0$. Thus, our quantities are:

\begin{align}
    X &= x \cos(\varphi_*)-y\sin(\varphi_*)+a_*^1,\\
    Y &= y \cos(\varphi_*)+x\sin(\varphi_*)+a_*^2,\\
    \frac{\mathrm{d} X}{\mathrm{d} \Lambda} &= \frac{1}{J_*}\left[x' \cos(\varphi_*)-y'\sin(\varphi_*)\right],\\
    \frac{\mathrm{d} Y}{\mathrm{d} \Lambda} &= \frac{1}{J_*} \left[y' \cos(\varphi_*)+x'\sin(\varphi_*)\right], \\
    \frac{\mathrm{d}^2 X}{\mathrm{d} \Lambda^2} &= \frac{J_*' \left(\sin (\varphi_* ) y'-\cos (\varphi_* ) x'\right)+J_* \left(\cos (\varphi_* ) x''-\sin (\varphi_* ) y''\right)}{J_*^3}, \\
    \frac{\mathrm{d}^2 Y}{\mathrm{d} \Lambda^2} &= \frac{J_* \left(\sin (\varphi_* ) x''+\cos (\varphi_* ) y''\right)-J_*' \left(\sin (\varphi_* ) x'+\cos (\varphi_* ) y'\right)}{J_*^3}.
\end{align}

Setting $X=Y=\mathrm{d} Y/\mathrm{d} \Lambda=0$ and $\mathrm{d} X/\mathrm{d} \Lambda = 1$ fixes everything:

\begin{equation}
    a_*^1 = \frac{-xx'-yy'}{\sqrt{(x')^2+(y')^2}} \qquad a_*^2=\frac{-yx'+xy'}{\sqrt{(x')^2+(y')^2}} \qquad \varphi_* = -\arctan(y'/x') \qquad J_* = \sqrt{(x')^2+(y')^2}, \label{diff curvature fix}
\end{equation}

so that the invariant curvature and measure are:

\begin{equation}
    \frac{\mathrm{d}^2 Y}{\mathrm{d} \Lambda^2} = \frac{-y'x''+x'y''}{[(x')^2+(y')^2]^{3/2}} \qquad \mathrm{d} \Lambda = \mathrm{d}\lambda \sqrt{(x')^2+(y')^2}.
\end{equation}

Note that $\mathrm{d}^2 X/\mathrm{d} \Lambda^2 = 0$ after imposing \eqref{diff curvature fix} so that the final number of invariant observables is the same as in the problem without diffeomorphism invariance. This is expected since coordinate independence is simply a redundancy in the description; the two problems are physically the same.

\subsection{Quasi-invariants}
The previous procedure concerns the construction of a strictly invariant action. Physics, however, isn't that strict and can tolerate actions that change by a total derivative. Terms that do so are called quasi-invariants, or Wess-Zumino terms.

To find these in $D$ spacetime dimensions, we must locate invariant $(D+1)$-forms $\beta$ that are exact, so $\beta=\mathrm{d} \alpha$, but with $\alpha$ itself not being invariant. Then the invariance of $\beta$ together with $\mathrm{d}^2=0$ imply the quasi-invariance of $\alpha$. And of course $\alpha$ is a $D$-form, so $\int \alpha$ will be a valid supplement to the action.

\pagebreak

We have invariant one-forms given by:

\begin{align}
    \mathrm{d} x   &   \overset{g_*}{\to}     \mathrm{d} X,      \\
    \mathrm{d} \pi &   \overset{g_*}{\to}     \mathrm{d} \Pi,
\end{align}

evaluated under the special group element $g_*$ that we fixed before, and treating $\mathrm{d} \pi$ as an independent form, that is, we don't write $\mathrm{d}\pi^a = \partial_\mu\pi^a \mathrm{d} x^\mu$. Higher forms can be constructed with sufficient applications of the wedge product between the $\mathrm{d} X$ and $\mathrm{d} \Pi$. The procedure is fairly standard, so we simply direct the reader to \cite{goon_galileons_2012} for more detailed instructions.

\section{Extended example: Poincare to de Sitter} \label{Poinc to Sitter}

Let's consider an extended example in spacetime and in higher dimensions that illustrates many of the ambiguities and inequivalencies that can arise when performing the coset construction for spacetime symmetry groups.

\paragraph{Step 1.} Suppose we are given the symmetry breaking pattern $\text{ISO}(1,D) \to \text{SO}(1,D)$. This covers the broken symmetries, but to fully determine the stability subgroup we need to know which symmetries are inhomogeneous in spacetime. There are two canonical options:

\begin{itemize}
    \item Since $\text{ISO}(1,D)$ is the isometry group of Minkowski spacetime $\mathbb{M}^{D+1}$, we could take the spacetime origin to be the origin of $\mathbb{M}^{D+1}$. Then the inhomogeneous transformations are the translations, so that the overall stability group is $S=\text{SO}(1,D)$.
    \item Since $\text{SO}(1,D)$ is the isometry group of de Sitter spacetime $\text{d}\mathbb{S}^D$, we could take the spacetime origin to be the origin of $\text{d}\mathbb{S}^D$. Then the inhomogeneous transformations are the homotheties, so that the overall stability group is $S=\text{SO}(1,D-1)$ (see the next step).
\end{itemize}

The choices are inequivalent; this is trivial to see since the first corresponds to the coset space $\text{ISO}(1,D)/\text{SO}(1,D)$ while the second to $\text{ISO}(1,D)/\text{SO}(1,D-1)$. The first gives rise to the usual embedding of the de Sitter hyperboloid in an ambient Minkowski space; as it has already been explored in \cite{goon_symmetries_2011}, we won't focus on it here. We will thus pick the second option, the coset space $\text{ISO}(1,D)/\text{SO}(1,D-1)$.

\paragraph{Step 2.} Let us now parametrize the lift that connects the elements in our theory to a coset in $\text{ISO}(1,D)/\text{SO}(1,D-1)$. Once again we are presented with inequivalent choices. One option would be to write:

\begin{equation}
    \ell_R = e^{x^\mu P^\mathbb{M}_\mu}e^{\pi P^\mathbb{M}_D}e^{\eta^\mu M^\mathbb{M}_{\mu D}}, \label{Lift for Mink brane in Mink bulk}
\end{equation}

where $P^\mathbb{M}$ are the usual translations of Minkowski space and $M^\mathbb{M}$ Lorentz transformations; the Greek indices $\mu,\nu$ range from 0 to $d=D-1$. But this lift parametrization gives the well known DBI action for a Minkowski brane embedded in Minkowski bulk \cite{goon_symmetries_2011}:

\begin{equation}
    S = \int \mathrm{d}^D x\sqrt{1+(\partial \pi)^2}. \label{mink brane in mink bulk}
\end{equation}

Let's use the other Levi ordering, thus inverting the radical-then-simple order of \eqref{Lift for Mink brane in Mink bulk}. For clarity, we define a new basis for the simple generators:

\begin{align}
    D^{\text{d}\mathbb{S}} &= M^{\mathbb{M}}_{0D},\\
    P_i^{\text{d}\mathbb{S}} &= M^{\mathbb{M}}_{0i}-M^{\mathbb{M}}_{iD},\\
    M^{\text{d}\mathbb{S}}_{\mu\nu} &= M^{\mathbb{M}}_{\mu\nu},
\end{align}

with Latin indices $i,j$ ranging from 1 to $d$. The $D^{\text{d}\mathbb{S}}$ and $P_i^{\text{d}\mathbb{S}}$ generators satisfy the homothety algebra, that is, they are spacetime dilation and space translations, respectively:

\begin{equation}
    [P_i^{\text{d}\mathbb{S}},P_j^{\text{d}\mathbb{S}}] = 0 \hspace{8mm} [P_i^{\text{d}\mathbb{S}},D^{\text{d}\mathbb{S}}] = P_i^{\text{d}\mathbb{S}},
\end{equation}

so that the stability subgroup (unbroken group minus homotheties) is indeed $\text{SO}(1,d)$, as advertised above. We thus write the simple-then-radical lift as:

\begin{equation}
    \ell_L = e^{x^i P^{\text{d}\mathbb{S}}_i} e^{t D^{\text{d}\mathbb{S}}}e^{\xi^\mu P^{\mathbb{M}}_\mu + \pi  P^{\mathbb{M}}_D}.
\end{equation}

\paragraph{Step 3.} We now need the transformation laws, which follow from the group action on a coset element: $\ell S \to  g \ell S$. While straightforward, the computation itself can be tedious (it helps to switch to conformal time $t = -\log(-\tau)$, with Hubble = 1). One concern we encounter is that then $\xi^\mu$ isn't a vector. For instance, it's strictly invariant rather than covariant under a dilation. In principle this isn't an issue; the procedure in Section \ref{coset construction via norm} doesn't require covariance under the unbroken subgroup. By inspection, though, we can see that a field redefinition $\xi^\mu = A^\mu /\tau$ gives the proper covariant transformation for $A^\mu$, so we will make use of this for simplicity. We stress, however, that this step is ad hoc; had we been unable to find this convenient field redefinition, we would have had to perform the full construction, without exploiting covariance.

Under the simple part of the group (unbroken $\text{SO}(1,D)$) we obtain that $x^\mu=(\tau,x^i)$ transform as the (flat slicing) coordinates of de Sitter spacetime in conformal time (see Appendix \ref{dS isometries} for explicit expressions), $\pi$ as a scalar and $A^\mu$ as a vector.

\pagebreak[2]

As for the radical part of the group (broken $\mathbb{R}^{D+1}$), we have:

\begin{align}
    x^\mu &\to x^\mu, \\
    \pi &\to \pi - \theta, \label{pi transformation} \\
    A_\mu &\to A_\mu + \partial_\mu \theta,\label{A transformation} \\
    \theta &\stackrel{\scriptsize\textrm{def}}{=} \frac{1}{\tau}(c + b^i x^j \delta_{ij} + \frac{1}{2}a x^\mu x^\nu \eta_{\mu\nu}), \label{theta definition}
\end{align}

where $a,b^i,c$ are the parameters of the broken translations. Notice how $A^\mu$ transforms as if it were a gauge vector, with $\pi$ its longitudinal mode. However, we aren't interested in imposing gauge invariance, that is, for any choice of $\theta$, but rather only for the specific $\theta$ given above.

For convenience, it is useful to note that $\theta$ satisfies:

\begin{equation}
[\nabla_{(\mu} \nabla_{\nu)} + g_{\mu\nu}]\theta = 0,
\end{equation}

for $\nabla_\mu$ and $g_{\mu\nu}$ the usual geometrical objects of de Sitter space (in this context, $\theta$ is a scalar).

\paragraph{Step 4.} Our bosons are antisocial: $A_\mu$ transforms without $\pi$ and $\pi$ without $A_\mu$, and any by itself still fully realizes the broken translations (and the $x^\mu$ realize the rest of the group). This means we could, in principle, remove either one. For instance, removing the vector would give a dS galileon \cite{hinterbichler_non-linear_2012,goon_galileons_2012}. However, we're interested in investigating whether both can be kept (i.e., if no inverse Higgs constraint needs to be imposed, despite being available), so we will treat neither boson as removable.

\paragraph{Step 5.} To derive invariants, we first transform all objects under some special group element $g_*$, whose specific form will be fixed later:

\begin{align}
    x^\alpha &\overset{g_*}{\to}  X^\alpha,\\
    \pi &\overset{g_*}{\to}  \Pi,\\
    A_\beta &\overset{g_*}{\to} \mathcal A_\beta.
\end{align}

We wish to shift those objects back to the origin of spacetime and field space, so we set $X^0=-1$, $X^i=0$, $\Pi=0$ and $\mathcal A_\mu=0$. This solves for all the group parameters of the Minkowski translations $a,b^i$ and $c$, the dilation $\Lambda$, and the de Sitter translations $d^i$:

\begin{equation}
    a_*=A_0+\pi,\qquad \equi{b_i} = A_i,\qquad c_*=\frac{1}{2}(A_0-\pi) \qquad \Lambda_* = -\frac{1}{\tau} \qquad d_*^i = -x^i.
\end{equation}

The group parameters for the stability group $\text{SO}(1,d)$ remain. However, both $\Pi$ and $\mathcal A_\alpha$, as well as derivatives $\mathrm{d}/\mathrm{d} X^\alpha$, transform covariantly under it, so we don't need to fix those parameters as long as we perform manifestly invariant contractions of the $\alpha,\beta$ indices.

Since we have exhausted the zeroth order objects $\Pi$ and $\mathcal A$, we extend it to their derivatives:

\begin{alignat}{3}
    \partial_\alpha \pi &\overset{g_*}{\to}   \frac{\mathrm{d} \Pi}{\mathrm{d} X^\alpha},\\
    \partial_\alpha A_\beta &\overset{g_*}{\to}   \frac{\mathrm{d} \mathcal A_\beta}{\mathrm{d} X^\alpha},
\end{alignat}

which must be evaluated under the $g_*$ we found above.

\pagebreak

The covariant one-forms $\mathrm{d} X$ are found in a similar manner, from transforming $\mathrm{d} x$ under $g_*$. The result is:

\begin{align}
    \mathrm{d} X^\alpha                                &= \frac{1}{\tau} \delta^\alpha_\mu \mathrm{d} x^\mu,\\
    \frac{\mathrm{d} \Pi}{\mathrm{d} X^\alpha}                &= \tau \delta_\alpha^\mu (A_\mu + \partial_\mu \pi)\label{invariant scalar},\\
    \frac{\mathrm{d} \mathcal A_\beta}{\mathrm{d} X^\alpha}   &= \tau^2 \delta_\alpha^\mu\delta_\beta^\nu(\nabla_\mu A_\nu -\pi g_{\mu\nu}). \label{invariant vector}
\end{align}

These objects live in flat spacetime, so they must be contracted with $\eta_{\alpha\beta}$ or $\varepsilon_{\alpha_1\alpha_2\ldots}$. For ease of notation, we can write the corresponding objects living in the curved de Sitter space together with the volume measure, via the tetrad property $(\tau \delta^\mu_\alpha)(\tau  \delta^\nu_\beta) \eta^{\alpha \beta} = g^{\mu \nu}$:

\begin{align}
    \mathrm{d} V &= \frac{1}{D!} \varepsilon_{\alpha_1\alpha_2\ldots}\mathrm{d} X^{\alpha_1} \wedge \mathrm{d} X^{\alpha_2} \wedge \ldots = \frac{\mathrm{d}^D x}{\tau^D} = \mathrm{d}^D x \sqrt{-g}, \\
    V_\mu &= A_\mu + \partial_\mu \pi, \\
    F_{\mu\nu} &= \partial_{[\mu} A_{\nu]} ,\\
    S_{\mu\nu} &= \nabla_{(\mu} A_{\nu)} - \pi g_{\mu\nu},
\end{align}

where $F_{\mu\nu}$ and $S_{\mu\nu}$ come from splitting \eqref{invariant vector} into its antisymmetric and symmetric parts, and $V_\mu$ is just \eqref{invariant scalar} renamed. The $\mu,\nu$ indices are to be contracted with $g^{\mu \nu}$. Note that $F_{\mu\nu}$ and $V_\mu$ are $\text{U}(1)$-invariant, by accident as that wasn't part of the original construction, but $S_{\mu\nu}$ isn't.

There's another parametrization of these invariants that's more useful. By symmetrizing $\nabla_\mu V_\nu$, we can rewrite $S_{\mu\nu}$ without explicit reference to $A_\mu$:

\begin{equation}
    S_{\mu\nu} = \nabla_{(\mu}V_{\nu)} - [\nabla_{(\mu}\nabla_{\nu)} + g_{\mu\nu}]\pi.
\end{equation}

But $S_{\mu\nu}$ and $V_\mu$ are covariant so the following operator must be covariant as well:

\begin{equation}
    H_{\mu\nu} \stackrel{\scriptsize\textrm{def}}{=} [\nabla_{(\mu}\nabla_{\nu)} + g_{\mu\nu}]\pi.
\end{equation}

In principle, the strictly invariant action (no Wess-Zumino terms yet) then is:

\begin{equation}
    S = \int \frac{\mathrm{d}^D x}{\tau^D} P(V_\mu,H_{\mu\nu};\nabla_\mu),
\end{equation}

where $F_{\mu\nu}$ is implicitly included given $V_\mu$ and $\nabla_\mu$. Making sure the action is healthy, however, further constrains it:

\begin{itemize}
    \item The scalar $\pi$ appears only in $H_{\mu\nu}$, with second derivatives. They need to appear in the special combinations that don't propagate ghosts \cite{goon_galileons_2012,bonifacio_shift_2019}, but we restrict the action to only first derivatives.
    \item Similarly, the vector $V_\mu$ can have kinetic terms of the form $\nabla_\mu V^\mu$ and $\nabla_{(\mu} V_{\nu)}$. Those, too, have to appear in a special combination that does not propagate a ghost, as a massive vector should have only three degrees of freedom. Such generalized Proca theories in curved spacetime have already been derived in \cite{tasinato_cosmic_2014,heisenberg_generalised_2017}; we must simply specialize to the case of de Sitter. This fixes the $V_\mu$ part of the action.
\end{itemize}

After these considerations, the final strictly invariant Lagrangian is simply the generalized Proca one:

\begin{equation}
    \mathcal{L}_{\text{gen.Proca}}(V_\mu;\nabla_\mu),
\end{equation}

described in \cite{tasinato_cosmic_2014,heisenberg_generalised_2017}. Since the decomposition of the invariant $V_\mu$ in terms of the Goldstones is $V_\mu = A_\mu + \partial_\mu \pi$, this theory begs to be rewritten following the usual Stückelberg procedure. Defining the generalized Stückelberg Lagrangian, $\mathcal{L}_{\text{gen.Stück}}(A_\mu,\partial_\mu\pi) \stackrel{\scriptsize\textrm{def}}{=} \mathcal{L}_{\text{gen.Proca}}(A_\mu + \partial_\mu \pi)$, we write the action as:

\begin{equation}
    S=\int \mathrm{d}^D x\sqrt{-g}\,\mathcal{L}_{\text{gen.Stück}}(A_\mu,\partial_\mu\pi;\nabla_\mu).
\end{equation}

It is not unusual that the strict invariants for $\pi$ ended up higher order in derivatives. From the transformation (\ref{pi transformation}), $\pi$ appears to be a galileon. As discussed in \cite{goon_galileons_2012}, galileon invariants tend to be higher order in derivatives. But now the theory has \textit{too much} symmetry. While it's technically $\text{ISO}(1,D)$ invariant, that group gets drowned in the infinite $\text{U}(1)$ gauge group. In order to rescue it while preserving the theory's health, we will use quasi-invariants that break $\text{U}(1)$ but not $\text{ISO}(1,D)$.

\subsection{Adding quasi-invariants} \label{WZ saved us}
In addition to strict invariants, we also have quasi-invariants, or Wess-Zumino terms, that change by a total derivative. For the sake of expediency, we just write down the first three, restoring the Hubble constant $H$:

\begin{align}
    W_1 &= \pi, \\
    W_2 &= (\partial \pi)^2 - DH^2\pi^2,\\
    W_3 &= (\square \pi) \left[ (\partial \pi)^2 -(D-1)H^2\pi^2\right]-\frac{2}{3}D(D-1)H^4\pi^3,
\end{align}

though we will require only $W_2$ for building a healthy theory. Notice these terms appear like the usual galileon operators, except with some corrections due to $H$. Indeed, in the limit $H \to 0$, we get the Minkowski galileons \cite{goon_galileons_2012,nicolis_galileon_2009} as expected from the group contraction.

Looking at $W_2$, the kinetic term has the wrong sign compared to the mass term. This is not a problem, because $(\partial \pi)^2$ also appears in the generalized Stückelberg Lagrangian, so we may hope to combine those two into something with the proper sign. Indeed, we can extract the mass term $-(m^2/2)(A_\mu+\partial_\mu\pi)^2$ from $\mathcal{L}_{\text{gen.Stück}}$ and add it to $q m^2 W_2$ where $q$ is some dimensionless constant. Performing the canonical normalization $\pi_c \stackrel{\scriptsize\textrm{def}}{=} m\sqrt{1-q}\pi$ then gives the following action:

\begin{dmath}
    S = \int \mathrm{d}^D x \sqrt{-g} \left[-\frac{1}{4}F^2-\frac{1}{2}m^2 A^2 -\frac{m}{\sqrt{1-q}} (A \cdot \partial) \pi_c+ \mathcal{L}^{\text{int}}_{\text {gen.Stück}}\\ -\frac{1}{2}(\partial \pi_c)^2-\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{q}{1-q}\right)DH^2 \pi_c^2 +\begin{matrix}\scriptsize\text{other}\\\scriptsize\text{WZ terms}\end{matrix}\right], \label{final action}
\end{dmath}

where $\mathcal{L}^{\text{int}}_{\text{gen.Stück}}$ denotes all generalized Stückelberg interactions. The theory is healthy as long as $0\le q<1$. Furthermore, the special case $q=0$ together with setting all other Wess-Zumino terms to zero restores the $\text{U}(1)$ gauge symmetry.

To sum up, we have a healthy action \eqref{final action} constructed from the \textit{same} coset space as the action for a Minkowski brane embedded in Minkowski bulk \eqref{mink brane in mink bulk}, but the two theories have nothing to do with which other. In particular they don't even have the same number of degrees of freedom: here, the vector Goldstone can be kept, but in the Minkowski brane, it's inessential. Despite their coset constructions parametrizing the same coset space, they represent different physics due to flipping the Levi ordering of the parametrization.

\subsection{No inessential Goldstones} \label{No inessential GBs}
This problem is peculiar in that both Goldstones are essential and inessential: either $\pi$ or $A_\mu$ can be eliminated in favor of derivatives of the other. One way to see this is to return to the transformation laws (\ref{pi transformation}) and (\ref{A transformation}) and recall that the $\pi$ doesn't mix with the $A_\mu$ and vice-versa. We could've eliminated either and straightforwardly derived invariants using only one of them. It might also be instructive to look at this issue from the inverse Higgs constraint (IHC) point of view. Note that in this case the IHCs will \textit{not} be equivalent to integrating out fields via their equations of motion.

To eliminate $A_\mu$, we perform the following covariant normalization:

\begin{equation}
    V_\mu  = 0 \implies A_\mu = -\partial_\mu \pi.
\end{equation}

Alternatively, $\pi$ can be eliminated through the invariant normalization of $g^{\mu\nu}S_{\mu\nu}$:

\begin{equation}
    S  = 0 \implies \pi = \frac{1}{D}\nabla_\mu A^\mu. \label{IHC remove pi}
\end{equation}

For pure scalar theories with extended shift symmetries in de Sitter, see \cite{bonifacio_shift_2019}, while \cite{bonifacio_shift-symmetric_2019} discusses vectors with such symmetries in a similar context. Here we focused on showing that a theory mixing scalar and vectors is possible. Despite the existence of inverse Higgs constraints from a group-theoretical point of view, their usage isn't demanded by the physics.

\section{Discussion} \label{Discussion}
In this paper we have returned to the first principles of the coset construction to investigate its universality when applied to spacetime symmetry groups. We discussed the natural hierarchical structure that Goldstones can acquire when the group $G$ is not semisimple, which dictates which Goldstones are essential and which can be eliminated. By direct example, we showed that an arbitrary reparametrization of the coset space might not preserve this structure, changing which inessential Goldstones can be conveniently removed.

In particular, by reparametrizing the coset space of a Minkowski brane in Minkowski bulk, we constructed a theory for a scalar and vector Goldstones living in de Sitter space and non-linearly realizing the Poincare group. At first sight, one may wonder how this is possible, given that gauge Goldstones that non-linearly realize spacetime symmetries should not exist according to \cite{klein_no-go_2018} (our vector boson isn't gauge, but can of course be decomposed into one plus a scalar). Simply put, the assumptions of the no-go theorem aren't satisfied: our unbroken subgroup is de Sitter, whereas that of \cite{klein_no-go_2018} is Poincare, and \cite{klein_no-go_2018} assumes removal of the inessential Goldstones, which in our case can't be executed. Also, note that transformation for the vector is trivialized in the $H\to 0$ limit, so group contraction doesn't provide a counter-example to the no-go theorem. Indeed, the vector is an example of a symmetry realization unique to de Sitter without analogue in Minkowski, a possibility brought up in \cite{grall_symmetric_2019}.

That the universality of the coset construction isn't protected under transformations that change the Goldstone hierarchy isn't a new fact. In \cite{creminelli_inequivalence_2015}, the authors construct two inequivalent theories related by a map that mixes essential and inessential Goldstones, though they didn't bring up the hierarchy issue. It's not surprising these theories would then have different hierarchical structures.

A possible extension of this work would be to classify \textit{all} possible hierarchical structures for a given coset space with inequivalent physics. We provided two candidates, based on the Levi ordering, but we don't know if they are exhaustive. Furthermore, even if a reparametrization mixes essential and inessential Goldstones, it doesn't necessarily mean the resulting theories will be inequivalent; an example is given in \cite[Sec.\ 4.2]{klein_spontaneously_2017}.

Another avenue of further research is the study of simple spacetime symmetry groups. Nonlinear realizations of such groups can still involve inessential bosons. The basic example is how the breaking of the conformal group down to Poincare gives rise to an essential dilaton and an inessential special conformal boson \cite{hinterbichler_non-linear_2012}. Yet such groups have a trivial Levi decomposition, so wherever it is that their Goldstone hierarchy is coming from, it's not coming from there. Further study to determine whether the coset construction is unique in this case is required.

A last question concerns the issue of UV completion, which we haven't touched upon at all. Given two inequivalent theories derived from the same coset space, it would be interesting to see what the theories look like once the broken symmetries are restored and if they relate in any way.