Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 50 references

2d theory for asymptotic dynamics of 4d (self-dual) Einstein gravity

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A chiral 2d action on the momentum-space celestial sphere exactly produces the infrared dynamics of 4d self-dual Einstein gravity: BMS charges, the w1+∞ algebra, both stress tensors, and soft-graviton dressing.

desk verdict A workmanlike companion paper with genuinely new OPE and dressing computations, but the action's defining data are inconsistent between the main text and Appendix A, so the OPEs are not anchored to one Lagrangian as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00918 v2 pith:NSNPIDKX submitted 2024-12-01 hep-th

Wei Bu , Sean Seet This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords celestialholographyself-dualgravityasymptoticsymmetriesBMSalgebraw1+∞softgravitondressingtwistortheory2dchiral
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that one explicit chiral two-dimensional action, defined on the momentum-space celestial sphere $CP^1_\lambda$, reproduces the infrared dynamics of four-dimensional self-dual Einstein gravity. If true, the asymptotic sector of gravity in flat spacetime becomes accessible to ordinary 2d conformal-field-theory computations: the action's currents generate the BMS supertranslation and superrotation charges, its current algebra contains the $w_{1+\infty}$ algebra, its holomorphic and anti-holomorphic stress tensors act on primaries with the standard conformal OPEs, and a $U(1)$ invariance forces gravitationally coupled states to carry soft-graviton clouds. The action itself is not derived in this paper; it is taken from a companion twistor-space derivation, and the present work works out its consequences.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the action (1), $S=\int_{CP^1} dz\wedge\left(\Phi^a\bar\partial\alpha_a+\Lambda^a\bar\partial\beta_a+h^a J_a+\tilde h^a\tilde J_a\right)$, built from free fields obeying the OPEs (3), with the metric, structure constants, and shift function fixed by (7)--(9). The index $a=(\Delta,s,k)$ packages a continuous dilatation mode, an integer $U(1)$ mode, and an integer singularity degree; this mode data is what carries the 4d spacetime dependence into the 2d theory. The mechanism works by Wick-contracting the bilinear currents into the algebra (4)--(6), then using the large-$r$ localisation (23) to identify the momentum-space sphere coordinate $\lambda^\alpha$ with the Bondi angle on null infinity, so that gauge transformations of the 2d currents act as BMS diffeomorphisms on asymptotic gravitational data.

What would settle it

Compute the commutator of two superrotation charges built from the current $Y_{SR}$ in (27), using the OPE (4) with the mode-number cutoff that regulates $\kappa^2\propto\mathrm{vol}(M)$. If the result is not the Virasoro commutator (33) after the cutoff is removed, the claimed BMS algebra is an artifact of the regularization rather than a property of the 2d theory.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the central discovery is that the principal-chiral-model-like action (1), with fields labelled by mode numbers $a=(\Delta,s,k)$ on $CP^1_\lambda$, is a Lagrangian description of the asymptotic sector of 4d self-dual gravity. Using only the free-field OPEs (3), the paper derives the current algebra (4)--(6), whose $JJ$ OPE contains the $w_{1+\infty}$ algebra and whose linear combinations $f_{ST}$ and $Y_{SR}$ generate supertranslations and superrotations on on-shell data. It identifies the holomorphic stress tensor (41) as the response to a Beltrami differential, constructs the anti-holomorphic stress tensor (52) through a shadow transform of the subleading soft graviton, and verifies that both act on currents with the standard conformal OPEs. Finally, the diagonal current $J^{1,1,-1}$ defines a $U(1)$ charge whose invariance is restored only when every gravitationally coupled operator is dressed with the exponentiated soft mode (61), recovering the necessity of soft-graviton dressing.

Load-bearing premise

The action (1) is taken, not derived here, to be a faithful and cutoff-regulatable encoding of the asymptotic phase space of 4d self-dual gravity; if that encoding, or the large-r identification of the momentum-space sphere with the sphere at null infinity, fails, the OPEs and the BMS, stress-tensor, and dressing conclusions do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the action is correct, BMS charges are ordinary 2d current-algebra charges: supertranslations and superrotations follow from linear combinations of the $J^a$ currents without solving the 4d Einstein equations.
  • The $w_{1+\infty}$ algebra appears as the closed subsector of the $JJ$ OPE (4) obtained by restricting mode numbers to $\mathrm{Im}(\Delta)=0$, giving the celestial symmetry algebra a Lagrangian origin.
  • The holomorphic and anti-holomorphic stress tensors satisfy the expected conformal OPEs, so conformal weights and central charges are 2d data: $c=2\kappa^2$ (to be regulated) and $\bar c=0$.
  • Requiring $U(1)$ invariance under the charge (58) forces each gravitationally coupled operator to be dressed by the soft mode $h_0$ as in (61), so soft-graviton dressing follows from a symmetry principle.
  • The same PCM construction with different structure constants covers self-dual Yang-Mills, making the action a common template for asymptotic-symmetry Lagrangians in gauge theory and gravity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves the identification $\lambda\sim w$ at leading order in $1/r$; checking the first subleading $O(1/r^{3/2})$ corrections from Appendix D would test whether the 2d theory can compute celestial OPE coefficients beyond leading order.
  • The divergent double-pole coefficient $\kappa^2\propto\mathrm{vol}(M)$ is handled by a mode-number cutoff; a natural extension is to verify that BMS charge commutators, conformal weights, and the dressing phase are independent of the cutoff, turning the Green-Schwarz-style cancellation into a genuine renormalisation condition.
  • The quotient of partition functions between Minkowski space and self-dual Taub-NUT, floated in the discussion, would give a concrete vacuum-subtraction formula for radiation entropy; this is a computation the 2d action makes possible, not a result established here.
  • Because the action is chiral and encodes gravitons as $(0,1)$-forms, the anti-holomorphic stress tensor is non-local (a shadow transform); this suggests the full celestial CFT is not a local 2d theory and that the action is best viewed as its chiral half.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an explicit two-dimensional chiral action on the momentum-space celestial sphere, with fields labeled by mode numbers (Δ, s, k), and claims that this action exactly reproduces the infrared sector of 4d self-dual Einstein gravity. The main results are: the currents of the action generate BMS supertranslation and superrotation charges (Section III); the current algebra contains the w_{1+∞} algebra and the holomorphic and anti-holomorphic stress tensors act on primaries with the expected OPEs (Sections II and IV); and demanding a U(1) invariance forces hard particles to be dressed with a soft graviton cloud (Section V). The action and its interpretation are summarized in Section II, with a derivation sketch in Appendix A and the full derivation deferred to the companion paper [24].

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper provides a rare and valuable object in celestial holography: an explicit action principle for the asymptotic soft sector of self-dual gravity, from which standard 2d CFT techniques recover BMS charges, w_{1+∞}, stress tensors, and soft dressing. The proposed mode decomposition on the momentum-space celestial sphere and the dictionary to Bondi coordinates are concrete and checkable, and the dressing argument in Section V is a compact derivation of a physically expected effect. The paper is also honest about several subtleties, including the divergent central charge, the need for a regulator, and the non-local definition of the anti-holomorphic stress tensor. However, in its current form the central claims are not fully anchored: the defining data of the action are given inconsistently in the main text and the appendix, and several load-bearing OPEs are asserted rather than derived in the manuscript.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section II, Eqs. (8)-(9) and Appendix A, Eqs. (A8)-(A9)] The action is not uniquely defined. The main text defines c(a) := −Δ − s/2 and structure constants with δ(s1+s2+s3−1) and a factor (s3 + Δ3/2), while Appendix A defines c(a) := Δ − s/2 and structure constants with δ(s1+s2+s3+1) and (s3 − Δ3/2). Since the currents J^a in Eq. (2) and the OPEs (4)–(6) depend directly on these data, the two presentations give different Lagrangians. The paper must either state which data are correct, prove that the two sets are equivalent after a relabeling/redefinition, or recompute all subsequent OPEs with a single consistent choice. As it stands, the results of Sections III–V are not supported by one well-defined action.
  2. [Section II, after Eq. (9); Section IV, Eq. (56)] The central OPEs are asserted to follow from the action, but the derivation is deferred to [24,25] and the action's own data are inconsistent, as noted above. Moreover, the double pole in the JJ OPE has coefficient κ² ∝ vol(M), which diverges, and the text states that this divergence is removed by a cutoff without showing that the OPEs or the derived BMS charges are regulator-independent. Because the subsequent claims—BMS charges, stress tensor OPEs, and dressing—are all built on these OPEs, the paper needs either a self-contained derivation of (4)–(6) from the action or a precise statement of which data and regulator are used and why the infrared results are independent of the cutoff.
  3. [Section IV, Eqs. (55)-(56)] The anti-holomorphic stress tensor is defined through a non-local integral transform, and the paper admits that the ¯T¯T self-OPE is 'slightly subtle' because the two integrated variables must be made to coincide. The claimed result, including central charge ¯c = 0, is not demonstrated in the manuscript; the text refers to section 4.1 of [46] and to a heuristic 'open up the definition' argument. Since the abstract explicitly claims that both chiral and anti-chiral stress tensors act with the expected conformal OPEs, this is a load-bearing point. A complete derivation, or at least a precise statement of the regularization used for the coincident-point limit, is required.
  4. [Section III, after Eq. (27); Section II, Eqs. (23)-(25)] The identification of the momentum-space celestial sphere with the Bondi sphere is used to translate 2d current results into BMS transformations. The localization argument in Eqs. (23)–(25) and Appendix D is given for Re(Δ) > 1/2, but the supertranslation and superrotation currents in Eq. (27) involve Δ values outside the normalizability range 1 + iR, as the paper itself notes. The manuscript should explain how the large-r localization and the identification λ ∼ w extend to these non-normalizable modes, since otherwise the extraction of the BMS algebra from those currents is not justified.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III, first paragraph] The first two sentences of Section III are duplicated almost verbatim; one of them should be removed.
  2. [Section II, Eq. (7) and Appendix A, Eq. (A5)] The ordering of the mode numbers is inconsistent: the main text writes a = (Δ, s, k) ∈ (1+iR, Z, Z), while Appendix A writes a = (k, Δ, s) ∈ (Z, 1+iR, Z+). This makes the sign conventions in the structure constants harder to follow and should be aligned.
  3. [Section II, Eq. (15) and Appendix A, Eq. (A6)] The pairing rule for the k-modes appears different in the main text (δ_{k1,k2}) and in the appendix (δ_{k1+k2,k3}). If these are meant to be the same rule expressed in different conventions, the relation should be stated explicitly.
  4. [Section IV, Eq. (53)] The shadow transform is introduced via references, but the conventions for the conformal weight and the integration measure are not spelled out; a short definition would make the claimed OPE coefficients in Eq. (55) directly checkable.
  5. [Section V, Eq. (61)] The dressing operator depends on a reference spinor ι^α, and the text notes that this amounts to a choice of endpoint of the dressing line. The physical consequence of this choice is not discussed; at minimum the authors should state whether physical correlators are independent of ι^α.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Self-cited action-data already encode the w1+∞/BMS target, and the paper's two definitions of c(a) and f disagree; the 'reproductions' are consistency checks rather than independent predictions.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section I, second paragraph]
    "The 2d action was originally derived using twistor space techniques starting from the self-dual sector of 4d Einstein gravity by the two authors [24], we intend to omit the detail and refer interested readers there."

    Equation (1) is the sole input for every subsequent result in the paper (current algebra, BMS charges, stress tensor, dressing). The paper does not re-derive it; it explicitly defers to the authors' own companion paper [24]. Appendix A confirms the deferral: 'A full derivation is available in [24,25]' and only sketches the replacement h -> h + delta-bar(...)Lambda without deriving the structure constants. If [24] were not accepted, the action would be an unsupported ansatz and the claimed IR dynamics would not follow. The supporting citation is neither external nor machine-checked, so the central premise is load-bearing self-citation.

  2. self citation load bearing [Section II, after Eqs. (4)-(6)]
    "With specific choices of the domain of a, and the data c(a), κa1a2 , f a1a2 a3 , it was shown in [24, 25] that the J, ˜J OPEs are as given above (this is a nontrivial constraint on c(a)), giving the asymptotic symmetry algebra of Yang-Mills, the S-algebra [25] or the asymptotic symmetry algebra of gravity, (including the w-algebra) [24] from this PCM-like action."

    The OPEs (4)-(6) are the foundation of the paper's central claims: Eq. (4) is said to contain w1+∞, Section III builds the BMS charges from these currents, and Sections IV-V use OPEs built on the same algebra. The paper does not compute these OPEs for the stated data; it cites the authors' own [24,25] both for the OPE form and for the constraint on c(a). The later recovery of w1+∞/BMS therefore verifies a structure imported, by self-citation, into the input data rather than derived from an independent first-principles computation in this paper.

1 more flagged steps
  1. other [Section II Eqs. (8)-(9) vs Appendix A Eqs. (A8)-(A9)]
    "c(a) := −∆ − s/2 . (9) and c(a) := ∆ − s/2 . (A9); Eq. (8): δ(s1+s2+s3−1),0 ... (k2(s3+∆3/2)−k3(s2+∆2/2)); Eq. (A8): δ(s1+s2+s3+1),0 ... (k2(s3−∆3/2)−k3(s2−∆2/2))."

    The current J^a in Eq. (2) and the OPEs (4)-(6) depend directly on c(a) and f. Section II defines c(a) = -Delta - s/2 with f containing delta(s1+s2+s3-1) and a factor (s3 + Delta3/2); Appendix A defines c(a) = Delta - s/2 with f containing delta(s1+s2+s3+1) and (s3 - Delta3/2). The paper never says which convention is used for the OPE computations in Sections III-V. The claimed BMS charges, stress-tensor weights and U(1)-charge dressing are therefore not anchored to one consistent action; the derivation chain can be attached to whichever stated data reproduce the desired target, which is a definitional form of circularity.

full rationale

Most of the concrete 2d CFT computations (free-field OPEs for stress tensors, the dressing argument from U(1) invariance) are internally consistent Wick-contraction exercises and would be non-circular if the action were taken as given. However, the paper's central premise—the action (1) and the current-algebra data (7)-(9)—is not re-derived here; it is deferred to the same authors' companion paper [24], and the main OPEs (4)-(6) are likewise cited to [24,25] rather than computed for the stated data. The 'recovery' of BMS and w1+∞ is therefore a check of a target that was used to fix the input data. This is compounded by an internal inconsistency: c(a) and f differ between Section II and Appendix A, so the OPE computations are not anchored to one unambiguous action. These issues make the central claim partially circular and partially unsupported, though the stress-tensor and dressing sections retain independent calculational content. On the rubric, this is a 5 rather than a full 8-10 because the derivations are not simply renaming a single fitted quantity; they are real computations from a proposed action, but the action's provenance and the target algebra are entangled through self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on the companion derivation [24] of the action, on the CP1_λ to CP1_w identification, and on an unspecified regulator for divergent mode sums. No numerical fits to data appear; the free parameters are the regulator and the dressing line endpoint. The axioms listed are the structural premises that must hold for the OPEs and the subsequent BMS, stress tensor, and dressing conclusions to be valid.

free parameters (2)
  • Regulator/cutoff for divergent mode sums = not specified (cutoff on allowed mode numbers referenced to [24,25])
    κ^2 = κ_{a1 a2}κ^{a1 a2} ∝ vol(M) diverges in the JJ OPE and in the central charge c = 2κ^2; the paper says a cutoff is needed but does not specify it or prove cutoff independence.
  • Dressing line endpoint/reference spinor ι^α = arbitrary spinor
    Used in Eq. (61) for the soft dressing operator; the physical result should be independent of this choice, but no independence proof is given.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The PCM-like action (1) is equivalent to the Mason-Wolf twistor action for self-dual gravity on MO × CP1.
    Appendix A sketches this; the full derivation is in [24]. The OPEs and all subsequent results rest on this equivalence.
  • domain assumption The large-r limit identifies the momentum-space celestial sphere CP1_λ with the Bondi position-space sphere CP1_w.
    Used in Section III to interpret 2d gauge transformations as 4d supertranslations and superrotations; see Eqs. (23)-(25) and Appendix D.
  • ad hoc to paper The infinite sums over mode numbers can be regulated by a cutoff while preserving the OPEs and the claimed infrared dynamics.
    The JJ OPE has a double pole with coefficient κ^2 ∝ vol(M) and the central charge diverges; no regulator is specified here.
  • standard math Standard 2d CFT Ward identities relate current insertions to gauge transformations of the bulk graviton modes h.
    Section III relies on Ward identities; this is standard CFT machinery applied to a formal infinite-field theory.
  • ad hoc to paper The U(1) charges Q_φ act only on Φ, Λ, α, β and require a compensating transformation of h, with the dressing operator invariant under the combined action.
    Section V produces soft dressing by imposing this consistency requirement; the choice of dressing line and the invariance are not derived from the bulk action.
invented entities (2)
  • Edge-mode fields Φ^a and Λ^a on CP1_λ
    purpose: Represent singular or large gauge-transformation degrees of freedom of the graviton, repairing twistor scattering states.
    Introduced in [24] and Appendix A; they have no observable signature outside the constructed 2d theory and no external falsifiable handle.
  • Green-Schwarz-type bosonized fields ζ^a
    purpose: Cancel the double-pole anomaly in the gauged J current OPE and make the theory quantum-mechanically consistent.
    Added in Eq. (10); their interpretation on twistor space is explicitly said by the authors to be unclear.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of 2d theory for asymptotic dynamics of 4d (self-dual) Einstein gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NSNPIDKX

@misc{pith2026241200918,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: 2d theory for asymptotic dynamics of 4d (self-dual) Einstein gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NSNPIDKX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00918}
}
abstract

In this paper, we present a simple chiral 2d theory living on a momentum space celestial sphere whose behaviour exactly produces various IR dynamics of recent resurged interests for 4d (selfdual) Einstein gravity in asymptotically flat spacetimes. We demonstrate how to use simple 2d CFT computations to reproduce 4d BMS algebra and $w_{1+\infty}$ algebra, deduce the form of both chiral and anti-chiral stress tensors and recover the necessity for dressing hard particles asymptotically with soft modes. We further discuss how possible extensions of this 2d theory incorporates further dynamical information of 4d Einstein gravity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.00918 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [24]

    A systematic approach to celestial holography: a case study in Einstein gravity

    W. Bu and S. Seet, (2024), arXiv:2404.04637 [hep-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  2. [46]

    Banerjee and S

    S. Banerjee and S. Pasterski, JHEP 04, 118 (2023), arXiv:2212.00257 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2023

  3. [1]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. 140, B516 (1965)

    1965

  4. [2]

    Bondi, M

    H. Bondi, M. G. J. van der Burg, and A. W. K. Metzner, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 269, 21 (1962)

    work page 1962

  5. [3]

    R. K. Sachs, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 264, 309 (1961)

    work page 1961

  6. [4]

    E. T. Newman and R. Penrose, J. Math. Phys. 7, 863 (1966)

    work page 1966

  7. [5]

    E. T. Newman, Gen. Rel. Grav. 7, 107 (1976)

    work page 1976

  8. [6]

    Pasterski and S.-H

    S. Pasterski and S.-H. Shao, Phys. Rev. D 96, 065022 (2017), arXiv:1705.01027 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2017

Show all 50 references
  1. [7]

    Pasterski, S.-H

    S. Pasterski, S.-H. Shao, and A. Strominger, Phys. Rev. D 96, 065026 (2017), arXiv:1701.00049 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Casali, W

    E. Casali, W. Melton, and A. Strominger, JHEP 11, 140 (2022), arXiv:2204.10249 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  3. [9]

    Banerjee, S

    S. Banerjee, S. Ghosh, and P. Paul, JHEP 02, 176 (2021), arXiv:2008.04330 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  4. [10]

    Adamo, W

    T. Adamo, W. Bu, and B. Zhu, (2023), arXiv:2309.01810 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Sahoo, JHEP 12, 070 (2020), arXiv:2008.04376 [hep- th]

    B. Sahoo, JHEP 12, 070 (2020), arXiv:2008.04376 [hep- th]

    2020 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Sahoo and A

    B. Sahoo and A. Sen, JHEP 01, 077 (2022), arXiv:2105.08739 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Strominger, (2017), arXiv:1703.05448 [hep-th]

    A. Strominger, (2017), arXiv:1703.05448 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Strominger, Phys

    A. Strominger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 221601 (2021)

    2021

  9. [15]

    Guevara, E

    A. Guevara, E. Himwich, M. Pate, and A. Strominger, JHEP 11, 152 (2021), arXiv:2103.03961 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  10. [16]

    Adamo, L

    T. Adamo, L. Mason, and A. Sharma, SIGMA 18, 016 (2022), arXiv:2110.06066 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  11. [17]

    T. He, P. Mitra, A. Sivaramakrishnan, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D 109, 125016 (2024), arXiv:2403.14502 [hep- th]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [18]

    Kapec and A

    D. Kapec and A. Tropper, JHEP 02, 128 (2023), arXiv:2210.16861 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  13. [19]

    Magnea, JHEP 05, 282 (2021), arXiv:2104.10254 [hep- th]

    L. Magnea, JHEP 05, 282 (2021), arXiv:2104.10254 [hep- th]

    2021 arXiv

  14. [20]

    de Boer and S

    J. de Boer and S. N. Solodukhin, Nucl. Phys. B 665, 545 (2003), arXiv:hep-th/0303006

    2003 arXiv

  15. [21]

    Cheung, A

    C. Cheung, A. de la Fuente, and R. Sundrum, JHEP 01, 112 (2017), arXiv:1609.00732 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  16. [22]

    S. Kim, P. Kraus, and R. M. Myers, JHEP 04, 121 (2023), arXiv:2301.02964 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [23]

    Melton, A

    W. Melton, A. Sharma, A. Strominger, and T. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 091603 (2024), arXiv:2403.18896 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Bu and S

    W. Bu and S. Seet, (2023), arXiv:2306.11850 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Bittleston, A

    R. Bittleston, A. Sharma, and D. Skinner, (2022), 10.1007/s00220-023-04828-0, arXiv:2208.12701 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  20. [27]

    K. J. Costello, (2021), arXiv:2111.08879 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Although free-field realizations of these asymptotic sym- metry algebras can be conjured with no canonical choice, the PCM-like actions in [24, 25] are distinguished by be- ing directly derived from twistor actions which have been proven to be classically equivalent to spacetim...

  22. [29]

    We make an explicit choice of the origin and remove it from Minkowski space

  23. [30]

    In different signatures, the conjugation relations be- tween the four projected components are different, in Lorentzian signature, q and ¯q are complex conjugates while v and v′ are real and independent

  24. [31]

    Sparling, Further advances in twistor theory L.J

    G. Sparling, Further advances in twistor theory L.J. Ma- son and L.P. Hughston eds., Pitman Research Notes in Mathematics 231 (1990)

    1990

  25. [32]

    Penrose and W

    R. Penrose and W. Rindler, Spinors and space-time, vol

  26. [33]

    (Cambridge University Press, 1988)

    1988

  27. [34]

    L. J. Mason, JHEP 10, 009 (2005), arXiv:hep- th/0507269

    2005

  28. [35]

    Witten, Adv

    E. Witten, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 253 (1998), arXiv:hep-th/9802150

    1998 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Strictly speaking there is an i ǫ in the poles inherited from the original plane-wave scattering states that fol- lows us through the Mellin transform, so that we have g(w, ¯w)(u ± iǫ)∆ telling us which of I ± we work on, although we will always suppress ± as it is largely irr...

  30. [37]

    It is interesting to note that the inhomogenous part of the supertranslation and the superrotation in fact agrees with the known results if we take the Newman prescrip- tion v = u ⇐ ⇒ λα → wα and δinhom ¯σ⟨λˆλ⟩Dˆλ = ⟨λˆλ⟩∂uN ewman ¯∂χ = ∂u ¯∂χ (66) δinhomST ¯σ = −2 ¯∂2 0 f (67...

  31. [38]

    Barnich and C

    G. Barnich and C. Troessaert, PoS CNCFG2010, 010 (2010), arXiv:1102.4632 [gr-qc]

    2010 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Pasterski, Physics Reports 829, 1–35 (2019)

    S. Pasterski, Physics Reports 829, 1–35 (2019)

    2019

  33. [40]

    Donnay, L

    L. Donnay, L. Freidel, and Y. Herfray, (2024), arXiv:2402.00688 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [41]

    A. Kmec, L. Mason, R. Ruzziconi, and A. Yellesh- pur Srikant, (2024), arXiv:2407.04028 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Note that J∆ ,s generates the Witt algebra, it is perhaps not surprising that the graviton modes that couple to it should induce a stress tensor after summing over all the modes

  36. [43]

    Seet, Twistor Space and Celestial Holography , Ph.D

    S. Seet, Twistor Space and Celestial Holography , Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge U., DAMTP (2024)

    2024

  37. [44]

    Kerr and A

    R. Kerr and A. Schild, General Relativity and Gravita- tion 41, 2485 (2009)

    2009

  38. [45]

    Simmons-Duffin, JHEP 04, 146 (2014), arXiv:1204.3894 [hep-th]

    D. Simmons-Duffin, JHEP 04, 146 (2014), arXiv:1204.3894 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Fotopoulos, S

    A. Fotopoulos, S. Stieberger, T. R. Taylor, and B. Zhu, Journal of High Energy Physics 2020 (2020), 10.1007/jhep03(2020)130. 10

    2020 doi

  40. [48]

    Donnelly and S

    W. Donnelly and S. B. Giddings, Phys. Rev. D 93, 024030 (2016), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 94, 029903 (2016)], arXiv:1507.07921 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Guevara and U

    A. Guevara and U. Kol, (2023), arXiv:2311.07933 [hep- th]

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Bogna and S

    G. Bogna and S. Heuveline, (2024), arXiv:2408.14324 [hep-th]. Appendix A: The twistorial derivation of the PCM-like theory This family of PCM-like actions was systematically de- rived from the twistor actions for self-dual Yang-Mills and for self-dual gravity by introducing ne...

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.