Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Celestial Quantum Error Correction II: From Qudits to Celestial CFT

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that celestial CFT admits a GKP code whose hard logical states carry quantized BMS hair and are protected from soft-graviton errors.

desk verdict A serious GKP-code construction for celestial holography with a sound single-qudit core, but the advertised N-dependent error threshold does not follow from the paper's own stabilizer algebra. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19653 v3 pith:BMOEJKZW submitted 2024-12-27 hep-th quant-ph

Alfredo Guevara , Yangrui Hu This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thquant-ph
keywords celestialholographyquantumerrorcorrectionGKPcodesBMSsupertranslationhairw1+infinitysymmetrytwistorsigmamodelssoftgravitonsKleinspacetime
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

Celestial holography tries to describe quantum gravity in asymptotically flat spacetimes by a two-dimensional CFT on the celestial sphere, but that description inherits both a degenerate vacuum and infrared divergences from soft radiation. This paper argues that those two features are exactly what a quantum error-correcting code is good for. The authors embed a chain of $N$ qudits in Klein spacetime, show that at finite $N$ it carries a discrete version of celestial symmetries and a Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill (GKP) code, and then take the $N\to\infty$ continuum limit. The result is a celestial CFT whose logical subspace consists of hard states carrying quantized BMS supertranslation hair, and the claim is that soft-graviton insertions inside a small window are correctable errors. If right, this gives an explicit information-theoretic mechanism by which hard scattering data can be protected from the infrared sector of flat-space gravity.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the GKP stabilizer code on a twistor field, dressed with the $w_{1+\infty}$ soft-current hierarchy. The field $\mu_\alpha(z)=\sum_k \mu_\alpha^{(k)}z^{-k-1/2}$ on the celestial torus obeys the OPE $\mu_\alpha(z_1)\mu_\beta(z_2)\sim i\tau\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}/z_{12}$, which is a free symplectic boson; in the $N$-qudit lattice discretization its modes satisfy $\tilde\tau=\tau/N=2\pi/N$, so each site is an $N$-level qudit. The stabilizers $S_\pm^{(k)}=e^{iN\mu_\pm^{(k)}}$ define the code subspace, the logical operators are the generalized Pauli strings $G_\eta$, and the stress tensor $T(z)=:\!\mu_{[+}\partial\mu_{-]}\!:$ together with the composite currents $w^{(p)}_{\alpha_1\ldots\alpha_p}(z)=:\!\mu_{(\alpha_1}\!\cdots\!\mu_{\alpha_p)}\!:$ reproduce the chiral algebra of celestial CFT. The same structure that supplies the symmetries supplies the error model: soft gravitons are identified with momentum-eigenstate displacements $E_\kappa$, and the QEC condition (4.44) states exactly when those displacements can be reversed by measuring the stabilizer syndrome.

What would settle it

Compute the error-correction fidelity for a soft graviton of the opposite helicity, or for a subleading current from the $w_{1+\infty}$ tower, with $\omega\le\Lambda$ and $|w|,|\bar w|<1$: if such an insertion shifts the stabilizer syndrome outside the correctable window or acts as an undetectable logical operation, the QEC claim is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is a continuum-limit identity: the $N\to\infty$ limit of an $N$-qudit GKP code built from a twistor-space $\sigma$ model reproduces a celestial CFT, and the code subspace of that CFT is the space of hard states with quantized supertranslation (BMS) hair. The logical operators are generalized Pauli operators $G_\eta=\exp\!\big(i\oint \frac{dz}{2\pi i}\,\eta(z)\mu(z)\big)$ built from a weight-$1/2$ twistor field $\mu_\alpha(z)$, while the stabilizers $S_\pm^{(k)}=\exp\!\big(N\int_R dz\,z^{k-1/2}\mu_\pm(z)\big)$ measure the soft charges. Errors are Weyl-type displacements $E_\kappa$ whose mode coefficients $\kappa_\pm^{(j)}$ play the role of error syndromes; a soft graviton of energy $\omega$ inserted at celestial position $(w,\bar w)$ is correctable when $|w|,|\bar w|<1$ and $\omega\le\Lambda=\sqrt{\pi/(2N)}$ (equation 4.44). The code therefore claims a precise sense in which infrared fluctuations are reversible while the hard quantum numbers are preserved.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that soft radiation perturbs hard states only by shifting their supertranslation charges in the simple way captured by $E_\kappa$, and only in the positive-helicity (self-dual) sector; if full gravitons couple through other effects, the claimed protection does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Soft radiation in the window $|w|,|\bar w|<1$, $\omega\le\sqrt{\pi/(2N)}$ becomes a correctable error: an observer can measure the stabilizer, read off the soft charges, and reverse the shift, so hard data survives infrared fluctuations.
  • Celestial CFT states acquire a quantized label: only supertranslation charges in the stabilizer lattice $\mathbb{Z}_N$ around $z=0$ can serve as logical states, giving a lattice quantization of BMS hair.
  • The continuum limit reproduces the $w_{1+\infty}$ chiral algebra and the free symplectic-boson OPE, so the code is compatible with the known soft-current tower and twistor sigma model rather than an unrelated toy model.
  • The correctable window shrinks as $N$ grows, so approaching the null boundary makes the code less robust; this gives a concrete renormalization interpretation of $N$ as a distance or cutoff scale.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the same construction extends beyond the self-dual sector, the stabilizer protocol would turn soft dressing into an explicit recovery map, so IR-finite celestial amplitudes could be constructed by dressing, syndrome measurement, and projection instead of by formal inclusive sums.
  • Editorial inference: the finite-$N$ qudit chain can be read as a lattice regulator for the celestial torus; if so, many-body entanglement and computational-complexity measures of the code states could serve as probes of the emergent radial direction, giving a quantitative handle on how the boundary theory emerges.
  • Editorial inference: a direct test of the paper's error model is to feed subleading $w_{1+\infty}$ currents beyond the supertranslation current into the QEC condition; a finite threshold would strengthen the code interpretation, while an unbounded logical shift would mark the boundary of its validity.
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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper constructs a Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill (GKP) type quantum error-correcting code for celestial holography. The physical Hilbert space is a chain of N qudits embedded along a cycle of the Klein-space celestial torus, with a finite-N stabilizer algebra whose large-N limit is claimed to reproduce celestial CFT structures, including the w_{1+∞} algebra of soft currents. The logical subspace is identified with hard states carrying quantized supertranslation hair, and soft graviton insertions are modelled as Weyl-displacement errors E_κ. The central result, stated in §4.4 and the abstract, is that soft-graviton errors with |w|<1, |w̄|<1 and frequency ω ≤ Λ = √(π/(2N)) are correctable, giving an N-dependent infrared cutoff and a notion of protection of quantized BMS hair as N → ∞.

Significance. If the advertised result were established, the paper would provide a concrete flat-space analogue of holographic quantum error correction, connecting the celestial w_{1+∞} symmetry, twistor sigma models, and GKP stabilizer codes. The finite-N construction is explicit and has the merit of being largely self-contained: the stabilizer conditions, the Weyl algebra (4.24), the mode decompositions, and the discrete Virasoro/SU(N) symmetries in the appendices are presented in enough detail to be checked. The paper also makes a falsifiable prediction about the correctable soft-radiation window. However, the quantitative form of that window—and hence the main physical claim—is not actually derived, because of a normalization inconsistency in the QEC condition. The conceptual framework remains valuable, but the central threshold and its interpretation must be revised.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.4, Eqs. (4.38)–(4.43)] The derivation of the N-dependent cutoff Λ in (4.43) is not consistent with the stabilizer algebra. From (4.35) the syndrome phase is e^{2πi κ^{(j)}_±}, so the correctability condition is exactly (4.38), |κ^{(j)}_±| < 1/2, with no factor involving N. Equation (4.39) introduces a factor √(2π/N) as if κ were a physical field fluctuation, but κ is the dimensionless displacement parameter in E_κ; the lattice spacing τ=2π/N affects the eigenvalue shift (4.37), not the bound on κ. Substituting the momentum-eigenstate modes (4.40) into (4.38) gives |w|^{j-1/2} ω < 1/2 for every j, hence |w|<1 and ω<1/2, instead of ω ≤ √(π/(2N)). Obtaining (4.42) would require an implicit rescaling λ̃ → √N λ̃ that is absent from (4.34)–(4.40) and that would change the phase in (4.35). The central claim that only infinitesimally soft radiation is correctable in the large-N limit is therefore not supported by the derivation.
  2. [§4.1–4.2, Eqs. (4.8) and (4.20)] The central term τ in the OPE (4.8) is assumed, not derived from celestial CFT or from the finite-N qudit model. Equation (4.20) merely repackages the mode commutator (3.15) as a contour integral; it does not establish the OPE. Since the stabilizer spacing and the QEC threshold depend on τ, with τ=2π/N, the paper should state explicitly that (4.8) is an input taken from the twistor sigma-model literature and explain the normalization of τ relative to the graviton energy ω. As written, the 'top-down' reconstruction in §4.2 is circular for the part of the construction that determines the threshold.
  3. [§4.1, Eqs. (4.11)–(4.12) and §4.4, Eq. (4.40)] The error model is an ansatz rather than a derived consequence of the gravitational S-matrix. Soft radiation is identified with the Weyl displacement E_κ whose smearing function is a momentum-eigenstate pole κ±(z)=λ̃±/(z-w), and the analysis is restricted to the positive-helicity (self-dual) sector. The paper does not derive this coupling from full quantum gravity, and relations such as (4.41) follow from the assumed algebra rather than from soft-graviton scattering. The claimed robustness 'under errors induced by soft radiation' should therefore be qualified: if other operators, such as negative-helicity modes or non-Weyl couplings, contribute, the protection does not follow. This is a limitation of the derivation, not necessarily an error, but it should be stated more prominently.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§3.1–3.2, Eqs. (3.11)–(3.15)] The notation for the central term is inconsistent: (3.11)–(3.12) define a mode commutator with τ̃=τ/N, and (3.13) sets τ̃=2π/N, but (3.15) uses the same symbol τ for the mode commutator and then sets τ=2π/N. Please rename one of these parameters or clarify the scaling convention.
  2. [§2.2, Eqs. (2.27)–(2.29)] The same normalization issue appears already in the single-qudit toy model: the syndrome shift in (2.27) is 2π ε±/N, so the correctable range is |ε±|<1/2, i.e. |Δs±|<π/N, not ±√τ/2 as suggested by (2.29). The statement about fluctuations of magnitude √τ/2 should be reconciled with the syndrome shift or re-expressed in terms of properly defined phase-space variables.
  3. [Abstract and §5] The abstract and closing remarks state that the N→∞ limit results in hard states with quantized BMS hair forming the logical subspace, but the continuum limit is taken formally; the paper does not identify a concrete Hilbert-space completion or a norm in which the finite-N states converge. A brief caveat would help the reader separate the finite-N code, which is rigorously defined, from the extrapolation to celestial CFT.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the stabilizer and qudit construction is self-contained, and the soft-graviton error identification is an explicit ansatz, not a concealed input.

full rationale

The central QEC claim is derived, not assumed. Starting from the canonical bracket [μ^(k)_α, μ^(l)_β] = iτ ε_αβ δ_{k+l} (Eq. 4.20), the stabilizers S^(k)_± = exp(iN μ^(k)_±) and errors E_κ = exp(iΣ_j κ^(j) μ^(−j)) give the commutator phase (4.35) and syndrome shift (4.37); the correctability bound |κ^(j)_±| < 1/2 in (4.38) is the standard GKP condition, a genuine consequence of the algebra. The physical input that soft gravitons act as κ_±(z) = λ̃_±/(z−w) (Eq. 4.40) is stated explicitly as 'consider errors being the momentum eigenstates,' so it is an ansatz rather than a result smuggled in via citation. The equality 'code states = hard states' is checked using (4.32)–(4.33) from the Weyl algebra, not imposed by definition. Self-citations ([15], [34]) serve as background or for independently established w1+∞/twistor results that are also referenced to external works ([2,3,13,14,16,35]); none is load-bearing for the stabilizer-code derivation. One non-circular caveat deserves flagging: the step from the dimensionless κ bound in (4.38) to the 'physical fluctuation' Δκ in (4.39), and the √N appearing in Eq. (4.42) ('|w|^{j−1/2} ω√N < √(π/2)'), is an implicit rescaling not defined in the text. This is an internal-consistency/support problem for the quantitative threshold Λ = √(π/(2N)), not a circularity, because it does not make the conclusion identical to an input. The positive-helicity restriction (Sec. 4.1) is likewise an explicit scope limitation, not circular reasoning.

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

The construction leans on standard GKP error-correction theory, on imported twistor-sigma-model ingredients (the central term in the mu-mu OPE, the free symplectic boson action), on the positive-helicity restriction, and on Hoppe's SU(N) -> Diff(T^2) result. The only explicit free scales are the lattice size N and the central term tau, which is fixed in terms of N by the quantization condition. The paper invents no new forces or particles; its new objects are the hard-state logical subspace and the qudit-chain embedding, neither of which has an independent falsifiable handle outside the model.

free parameters (2)
  • N (number of qudits / lattice size) = N → infinity, with N ∝ R²
    The central scale of the construction; controls the code dimension, the IR cutoff Lambda = sqrt(pi/(2N)), and the lattice spacing on the celestial torus.
  • τ (central term of the mu-mu OPE / phase-space cell area) = τ = 2π/N
    In Section 3.1, tau_tilde = tau/N is set to 2pi/N to obtain an N-dimensional code space; the paper states the value is less important than its scaling (Section 3.1).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The mu_alpha(z) fields satisfy the free-boson OPE mu_alpha(z1) mu_beta(z2) ~ i tau epsilon_alpha_beta / z12, with nontrivial central term tau.
    Imported from the twistor sigma model / w1+infty literature [2,3,34,36]; the paper says the central term 'has arisen recently from many contexts' and is needed 'so that gravitons can be paired' (Section 4.1, eq. 4.8).
  • domain assumption The CFT is restricted to the positive-helicity (self-dual) graviton sector.
    Stated in Section 4.1: 'we will be interested in the positive-helicity sector of graviton states for simplicity'. The full mixed-helicity theory is not treated.
  • domain assumption The field mu(lambda) is meromorphic with singularities only at <lambda+>=0 and <lambda->=0 and at operator insertions, allowing contour deformation between RP1 and S1.
    Needed for the mode decomposition (4.13) and for extracting modes via (A.3); explicitly assumed in Appendix A.
  • standard math Stabilizer quantum error correction: small displacement errors with syndrome |epsilon| < 1/2 are correctable.
    Standard GKP code property, reviewed in Section 2.2; used as the foundation of the construction.
  • domain assumption The large-N limit of SU(N) is isomorphic to Diff(T2) = w1+infty.
    Hoppe's theorem [35], used in Section 4 to identify the boundary symmetry algebra.
invented entities (2)
  • Hard states with quantized supertranslation hair (logical code states)
    purpose: Define the code subspace of the celestial quantum error correction code
    Constructed as G_eta V_(0,0) with integer mode charges eta^(k) in Z_N; no independent falsifiable prediction outside the paper is provided.
  • Chain of N qudits embedded along the x+ cycle of the celestial torus
    purpose: Provide a finite-dimensional physical realization that flows to the celestial CFT code in the continuum limit
    The paper explicitly calls this picture a 'guiding motivation, and even though not strictly necessary for the construction' (footnote 3, Section 1.1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Celestial Quantum Error Correction II: From Qudits to Celestial CFT." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BMOEJKZW

@misc{pith2026241219653,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Celestial Quantum Error Correction II: From Qudits to Celestial CFT},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BMOEJKZW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19653}
}
abstract

A holographic CFT description of asymptotically flat spacetimes inherits vacuum degeneracies and IR divergences from its gravitational dual. We devise a Quantum Error Correcting (QEC) framework to encode both effects as correctable fluctuations on the CFT dual. The framework is physically motivated by embedding a chain of qudits in the so-called Klein spacetime and then taking a continuum $N\to \infty$ limit. At finite $N$ the qudit chain 1) enjoys a discrete version of celestial symmetries and 2) supports a Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill (GKP) code. The limit results in hard states with quantized BMS hair in the celestial torus forming the logical subspace, robust under errors induced by soft radiation. Technically, the construction leverages the recently studied $w_{1+\infty}$ hierarchy of soft currents and its realization from a sigma model in twistor space.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.19653 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The left shows a toric Penrose diagram for the flat Klein spacetime [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The quantized phase space, also called stabilizer lattice, is determined by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The choice of the contour C depicted in the complex z1 plane. We choose a physical interval R ⊂ R shown in blue and analytic continue it to the complex plane (the circular contour C shown in magenta). The direct connection with the incidence relation, (4.13) as well as the existence of Lw1+∞ fields, are characteristic of the twistor sigma model proposed in [2]. As we explain further in appendix A even though the inc… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A diamond of the celestial torus. We assume the observer can perform measurements at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Modular Flow of Celestial Conformal Field Theory

    hep-th 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    The work introduces vector flow and modular flows in celestial field theory and Klein CFTs and examines their structures in Lifshitz and exotic field theories.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Strominger, Lectures on the Infrared Structure of Gravity and Gauge Theory

    A. Strominger, Lectures on the Infrared Structure of Gravity and Gauge Theory . Princeton University Press, 2018. arXiv:1703.05448 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2018

  2. [2]

    Twistor sigma models for quaternionic geometry and graviton scattering,

    T. Adamo, L. Mason, and A. Sharma, “Twistor sigma models for quaternionic geometry and graviton scattering,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 27 no. 3, (2023) 623–681, arXiv:2103.16984 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Celestial w1+∞ Symmetries from Twistor Space,

    T. Adamo, L. Mason, and A. Sharma, “Celestial w1+∞ Symmetries from Twistor Space,” SIGMA 18 (2022) 016, arXiv:2110.06066 [hep-th]. 36

    arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Quantum Error Correction: An Introductory Guide,

    J. Roffe, “Quantum Error Correction: An Introductory Guide,” Contemp. Phys. 60 no. 3, (2019) 226–245, arXiv:1907.11157 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

    Entanglement Renormalization,

    G. Vidal, “Entanglement Renormalization,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 no. 22, (2007) 220405, arXiv:cond-mat/0512165

    arXiv 2007

  6. [6]

    Class of Quantum Many-Body States That Can Be Efficiently Simulated,

    G. Vidal, “Class of Quantum Many-Body States That Can Be Efficiently Simulated,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (2008) 110501, arXiv:quant-ph/0610099

    arXiv 2008

  7. [7]

    Entanglement Renormalization and Holography,

    B. Swingle, “Entanglement Renormalization and Holography,” Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 065007, arXiv:0905.1317 [cond-mat.str-el]

    arXiv 2012

  8. [8]

    Bulk Locality and Quantum Error Correction in AdS/CFT,

    A. Almheiri, X. Dong, and D. Harlow, “Bulk Locality and Quantum Error Correction in AdS/CFT,” JHEP 04 (2015) 163, arXiv:1411.7041 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2015

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Holographic quantum error-correcting codes: Toy models for the bulk/boundary correspondence,

    F. Pastawski, B. Yoshida, D. Harlow, and J. Preskill, “Holographic quantum error-correcting codes: Toy models for the bulk/boundary correspondence,” JHEP 06 (2015) 149, arXiv:1503.06237 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  2. [10]

    BMS supertranslations and Weinberg’s soft graviton theorem,

    T. He, V. Lysov, P. Mitra, and A. Strominger, “BMS supertranslations and Weinberg’s soft graviton theorem,” JHEP 05 (2015) 151, arXiv:1401.7026 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  3. [11]

    The Soft S-Matrix in Gravity,

    E. Himwich, S. A. Narayanan, M. Pate, N. Paul, and A. Strominger, “The Soft S-Matrix in Gravity,” JHEP 09 (2020) 129, arXiv:2005.13433 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Notes on Conformal Soft Theorems and Recursion Relations in Gravity,

    A. Guevara, “Notes on Conformal Soft Theorems and Recursion Relations in Gravity,” arXiv:1906.07810 [hep-th]

    1906 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Holographic symmetry algebras for gauge theory and gravity,

    A. Guevara, E. Himwich, M. Pate, and A. Strominger, “Holographic symmetry algebras for gauge theory and gravity,” JHEP 11 (2021) 152, arXiv:2103.03961 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  6. [14]

    w1+∞ Algebra and the Celestial Sphere: Infinite Towers of Soft Graviton, Photon, and Gluon Symmetries,

    A. Strominger, “ w1+∞ Algebra and the Celestial Sphere: Infinite Towers of Soft Graviton, Photon, and Gluon Symmetries,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 no. 22, (2021) 221601

    2021

  7. [15]

    Celestial Quantum Error Correction I: Qubits from Noncommutative Klein Space,

    A. Guevara and Y. Hu, “Celestial Quantum Error Correction I: Qubits from Noncommutative Klein Space,” arXiv:2312.16298 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  8. [16]

    Encoding a qubit in an oscillator,

    D. Gottesman, A. Kitaev, and J. Preskill, “Encoding a qubit in an oscillator,” Phys. Rev. A 64 (2001) 012310, arXiv:quant-ph/0008040

    2001 arXiv

  9. [17]

    (2, 2) Scattering and the celestial torus,

    A. Atanasov, A. Ball, W. Melton, A.-M. Raclariu, and A. Strominger, “(2, 2) Scattering and the celestial torus,” JHEP 07 (2021) 083, arXiv:2101.09591 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Ambidextrous light transforms for celestial amplitudes,

    A. Sharma, “Ambidextrous light transforms for celestial amplitudes,” JHEP 01 (2022) 031, arXiv:2107.06250 [hep-th]. 37

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Celestial OPE blocks,

    A. Guevara, “Celestial OPE blocks,” arXiv:2108.12706 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  12. [20]

    Four-point correlators of light-ray operators in CCFT,

    Y. Hu, L. Lippstreu, M. Spradlin, A. Y. Srikant, and A. Volovich, “Four-point correlators of light-ray operators in CCFT,” JHEP 07 (2022) 104, arXiv:2203.04255 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Celestial conformal colliders,

    Y. Hu and S. Pasterski, “Celestial conformal colliders,” JHEP 02 (2023) 243, arXiv:2211.14287 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Detector operators for celestial symmetries,

    Y. Hu and S. Pasterski, “Detector operators for celestial symmetries,” JHEP 12 (2023) 035, arXiv:2307.16801 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Quantum error correction and orthogonal geometry,

    A. R. Calderbank, E. M. Rains, P. W. Shor, and N. J. A. Sloane, “Quantum error correction and orthogonal geometry,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 78 (1997) 405–408, arXiv:quant-ph/9605005

    1997 arXiv

  16. [24]

    A Class of quantum error correcting codes saturating the quantum Hamming bound,

    D. Gottesman, “A Class of quantum error correcting codes saturating the quantum Hamming bound,” Phys. Rev. A 54 (1996) 1862, arXiv:quant-ph/9604038

    1996 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Soft Factorization in QED from 2D Kac-Moody Symmetry,

    A. Nande, M. Pate, and A. Strominger, “Soft Factorization in QED from 2D Kac-Moody Symmetry,” JHEP 02 (2018) 079, arXiv:1705.00608 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Hyperbolic vacua in Minkowski space,

    W. Melton, F. Niewinski, A. Strominger, and T. Wang, “Hyperbolic vacua in Minkowski space,” JHEP 08 (2024) 046, arXiv:2310.13663 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Infrared Divergences in QED, Revisited,

    D. Kapec, M. Perry, A.-M. Raclariu, and A. Strominger, “Infrared Divergences in QED, Revisited,” Phys. Rev. D 96 no. 8, (2017) 085002, arXiv:1705.04311 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Celestial amplitudes from UV to IR,

    N. Arkani-Hamed, M. Pate, A.-M. Raclariu, and A. Strominger, “Celestial amplitudes from UV to IR,” JHEP 08 (2021) 062, arXiv:2012.04208 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Coherent spin states and emergent de Sitter quasinormal modes,

    K. Parmentier, “Coherent spin states and emergent de Sitter quasinormal modes,” JHEP 06 (2024) 109, arXiv:2312.08430 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Holography of the photon ring,

    S. Hadar, D. Kapec, A. Lupsasca, and A. Strominger, “Holography of the photon ring,” Class. Quant. Grav. 39 no. 21, (2022) 215001, arXiv:2205.05064 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    The Heisenberg representation of quantum computers,

    D. Gottesman, “The Heisenberg representation of quantum computers,” in 22nd International Colloquium on Group Theoretical Methods in Physics , pp. 32–43. 7, 1998. arXiv:quant-ph/9807006

    1998 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Light-ray operators in conformal field theory,

    P. Kravchuk and D. Simmons-Duffin, “Light-ray operators in conformal field theory,” JHEP 11 (2018) 102, arXiv:1805.00098 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Gravity from holomorphic discs and celestial Lw1+∞ symmetries,

    L. Mason, “Gravity from holomorphic discs and celestial Lw1+∞ symmetries,” Lett. Math. Phys. 113 no. 6, (2023) 111, arXiv:2212.10895 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Towards Gravity From a Color Symmetry,

    A. Guevara, “Towards Gravity From a Color Symmetry,” arXiv:2209.00696 [hep-th]. 38

    arXiv

  27. [35]

    Diffeomorphism Groups, Quantization and SU(infinity),

    J. Hoppe, “Diffeomorphism Groups, Quantization and SU(infinity),” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 4 (1989) 5235

    1989

  28. [36]

    Moyal deformations, W 1+∞ and celestial holography,

    W. Bu, S. Heuveline, and D. Skinner, “Moyal deformations, W 1+∞ and celestial holography,” JHEP 12 (2022) 011, arXiv:2208.13750 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Non-perturbative Double Copy in Flatland,

    C. Cheung, J. Mangan, J. Parra-Martinez, and N. Shah, “Non-perturbative Double Copy in Flatland,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 129 no. 22, (2022) 221602, arXiv:2204.07130 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Celestial chiral algebras, colour-kinematics duality and integrability,

    R. Monteiro, “Celestial chiral algebras, colour-kinematics duality and integrability,” JHEP 01 (2023) 092, arXiv:2208.11179 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Extended BMS Algebra of Celestial CFT,

    A. Fotopoulos, S. Stieberger, T. R. Taylor, and B. Zhu, “Extended BMS Algebra of Celestial CFT,” JHEP 03 (2020) 130, arXiv:1912.10973 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Celestial holography meets twisted holography: 4d amplitudes from chiral correlators,

    K. Costello and N. M. Paquette, “Celestial holography meets twisted holography: 4d amplitudes from chiral correlators,” JHEP 10 (2022) 193, arXiv:2201.02595 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Self-dual black holes in celestial holography,

    E. Crawley, A. Guevara, E. Himwich, and A. Strominger, “Self-dual black holes in celestial holography,” JHEP 09 (2023) 109, arXiv:2302.06661 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    The 4d/2d correspondence in twistor space and holomorphic Wilson lines,

    W. Bu and E. Casali, “The 4d/2d correspondence in twistor space and holomorphic Wilson lines,” JHEP 11 (2022) 076, arXiv:2208.06334 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Quantizing the Non-linear Graviton,

    R. Bittleston, D. Skinner, and A. Sharma, “Quantizing the Non-linear Graviton,” Commun. Math. Phys. 403 no. 3, (2023) 1543–1609, arXiv:2208.12701 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Fault-Tolerant Postselected Quantum Computation: Threshold Analysis,

    E. Knill, “Fault-Tolerant Postselected Quantum Computation: Threshold Analysis,” arXiv:quant-ph/0404104

    arXiv

  37. [45]

    Universal quantum computation with ideal Clifford gates and noisy ancillas,

    S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, “Universal quantum computation with ideal Clifford gates and noisy ancillas,” Phys. Rev. A 71 no. 2, (2005) 022316, arXiv:quant-ph/0403025

    2005 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Many-Body Quantum Magic,

    Z.-W. Liu and A. Winter, “Many-Body Quantum Magic,” PRX Quantum 3 no. 2, (2022) 020333, arXiv:2010.13817 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Conformal field theories are magical,

    C. D. White, C. Cao, and B. Swingle, “Conformal field theories are magical,” Phys. Rev. B 103 no. 7, (2021) 075145, arXiv:2007.01303 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Burns space and holography,

    K. Costello, N. M. Paquette, and A. Sharma, “Burns space and holography,” JHEP 10 (2023) 174, arXiv:2306.00940 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Top-Down Holography in an Asymptotically Flat Spacetime,

    K. Costello, N. M. Paquette, and A. Sharma, “Top-Down Holography in an Asymptotically Flat Spacetime,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 130 no. 6, (2023) 061602, arXiv:2208.14233 [hep-th]. 39

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Asymptotic Dynamics in Perturbative Quantum Gravity and BMS Supertranslations,

    S. Choi, U. Kol, and R. Akhoury, “Asymptotic Dynamics in Perturbative Quantum Gravity and BMS Supertranslations,” JHEP 01 (2018) 142, arXiv:1708.05717 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  43. [51]

    BMS Supertranslation Symmetry Implies Faddeev-Kulish Amplitudes,

    S. Choi and R. Akhoury, “BMS Supertranslation Symmetry Implies Faddeev-Kulish Amplitudes,” JHEP 02 (2018) 171, arXiv:1712.04551 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Infrared finite scattering theory in quantum field theory and quantum gravity,

    K. Prabhu, G. Satishchandran, and R. M. Wald, “Infrared finite scattering theory in quantum field theory and quantum gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 106 no. 6, (2022) 066005, arXiv:2203.14334 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Infrared finite scattering theory: scattering states and representations of the BMS group,

    K. Prabhu and G. Satishchandran, “Infrared finite scattering theory: scattering states and representations of the BMS group,” JHEP 08 (2024) 055, arXiv:2402.00102 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Infrared finite scattering theory: Amplitudes and soft theorems,

    K. Prabhu and G. Satishchandran, “Infrared finite scattering theory: Amplitudes and soft theorems,” Phys. Rev. D 110 no. 8, (2024) 085022, arXiv:2402.18637 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Entanglement, soft modes, and celestial holography,

    H. Z. Chen, R. C. Myers, and A.-M. Raclariu, “Entanglement, soft modes, and celestial holography,” Phys. Rev. D 109 no. 12, (2024) L121702, arXiv:2308.12341 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Entanglement, Soft Modes, and Celestial CFT,

    H. Z. Chen, R. Myers, and A.-M. Raclariu, “Entanglement, Soft Modes, and Celestial CFT,” arXiv:2403.13913 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  49. [57]

    Trigonometric structure constants for new infinite-dimensional algebras,

    D. Fairlie, P. Fletcher, and C. Zachos, “Trigonometric structure constants for new infinite-dimensional algebras,” Physics Letters B 218 no. 2, (1989) 203–206. 40

    1989

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.