Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Dressed Subsystems in Classical Gravity

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper establishes that a subregion of a generally covariant theory is a consistent subsystem—its observables form a closed Poisson algebra—exactly when it is internally dressed, with its boundary fixed by fields inside the region.

desk verdict A genuinely new criterion for gravitational subsystems, but the central 'exactly necessary' claim rests on an unproven Lie group assumption and is only argued one way. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.10450 v1 pith:B7FVBRHG submitted 2025-01-14 physics.class-ph gr-qchep-th

Pranav Pulakkat This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.class-phgr-qchep-th
keywords internallydressedsubsystemsclosedPoissonalgebracovariantphasespacegeneralrelativitygaugefixingrelationalobservablesmicrocausalitysurfacecharges
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 proposes that a gravitational subsystem is genuinely self-contained only when its boundary is located by degrees of freedom living inside the region, a property it calls internal dressing. It argues that internal dressing is exactly the criterion that makes the region's regular observables form a closed Poisson algebra—the bracket of any two stays in the region—and that these observables generate field-dependent gauge transformations on the causal complement. If this is right, it answers the old worry that diffeomorphism invariance leaves no room for localized subsystems in gravity: relational observables can be local enough, provided the relation is internal. The paper also proves that observables in spacelike-separated dressed subsystems commute, and applies the framework to electromagnetic Wilson lines, scalar-dressed models, causal and entanglement wedges, and one-sided boost charges.

What carries the argument

The central object is the internally dressed subsystem, defined by a dynamical reference frame whose constraints are (I) fully fixing $\partial\Sigma$, (II) covariant under diffeomorphisms, and (III) internal to $D(\Sigma)$. In the proof the work is done by the restricted distribution $S'_g(\Sigma)$—flows on the gauge-fixed constraint surface that restrict to gauge transformations inside $D(\Sigma)$—together with its symplectic complement $S'_g(\bar{\Sigma})$. The two formal assumptions that make everything run are that residual gauge transformations preserving $G_k=0$ act as a Lie group on the region, and that the linearized equations obey the two causality axioms of Section 2.1; these give local integrability of $S'_g(\Sigma)$ (Proposition 4.1) and hence the closed Poisson algebra.

What would settle it

Exhibit a gauge-fixed gravitational system that satisfies the internal-dressing constraints $G_k=0$ but whose residual diffeomorphisms do not integrate to a Lie group action on $D(\Sigma)$, and compute the Poisson bracket of two regular observables of that region; a single bracket that is not again a regular region observable would falsify Corollary 6.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a spacetime subregion $D(\Sigma)$ in a generally covariant theory is a genuine subsystem—its regular observables close under the Poisson bracket—precisely when it is internally dressed: when the constraints $G_k=0$ that fix $\partial\Sigma$ are built from fields inside the region. On the gauge-fixed constraint surface the subregion flows form the locally integrable distribution $S'_g(\Sigma)$, and the paper proves (Proposition 4.2) that observables generating flows in $S'_g(\Sigma)$ are exactly the regular observables supported in the region. Because that distribution is involutive, the observables close into an algebra (Corollary 6). Observables in the region thereby generate flows that are gauge transformations on the causal complement, a constrained non-locality that the paper argues is necessary rather than obstructive. Proposition 4.3 then shows that two spacelike-separated internally dressed subsystems have mutually commuting algebras, and the discussion identifies causal and entanglement wedges as natural dressed subsystems when holographic boundary conditions make the fixing diffeomorphisms pure gauge.

Load-bearing premise

The proof leans on an unproven premise: after the conditions that fix the region's boundary are imposed, the leftover gauge transformations act on the region as a smooth group; if this fails, the subregion phase space and the closed-algebra conclusion can fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Internally dressed regions supply a working notion of subsystem in classical general relativity: their regular observables form a closed Poisson algebra and can be evolved self-containedly.
  • Spacelike-separated dressed subsystems commute, so a limited form of microcausality survives in gravity even though generic relational observables do not commute.
  • Gauge fixing inside a region does not create new observables; it re-expresses gauge-invariant observables in a form localized to the region, so subregion phase spaces are consistent without needing new edge-mode degrees of freedom.
  • The same covariant-phase-space technology resolves the standard ambiguity in the subregion symplectic form and identifies the kink transform (a one-sided boost) as a singular generator whose charge is $\frac{A}{4G_N}$ when the surface is extremal.
  • The characterization of locally gauge flows gives a model-independent argument that non-factorization of gauge-theory phase spaces is caused entirely by surface symmetries.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The internal-dressing condition may be the right general principle for defining subsystems in any theory with a local constraint algebra, not only gravity; the paper does not claim this generality.
  • A testable quantum extension is the BRST criterion sketched in Section 6.3: one could compute $[\phi, O]$ in the scalar Z-model in perturbation theory and check that it equals a BRST-exact term exactly when $O$ belongs to the dressed subsystem.
  • If the kink-transform argument is right, the extremality of $\partial\Sigma$ is not a technical convenience but the leading-order classical condition for the subsystem to contain a well-defined one-sided boost charge—possibly the seed of an entanglement-wedge reconstruction statement in the quantum theory.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a covariant phase space framework for defining subsystems in classical gauge and gravitational theories. It proposes that a spacetime subregion is a genuine subsystem when its regular observables form a closed Poisson algebra, and it introduces the notion of an 'internally dressed' subregion: a region whose boundary location is determined by constraints built from fields inside the region. The central claim, stated in the abstract and in Section 4.2 (Proposition 4.2 and Corollary 6), is that internal dressing is exactly what is needed for the subregion observables to close into a Poisson algebra, and equivalently that observables in such a region generate field-dependent gauge transformations on the causal complement. The paper also analyzes surface charges, kink transforms, and prospects for quantization.

Significance. If the main theorem were fully established, this would be a significant conceptual contribution to the old problem of defining relational observables and localized subsystems in general relativity. The paper is careful about several technical points that are often glossed over: it states causality assumptions (Assumptions 1 and 2), introduces distributional flows and currents for singular generators, and discusses the failure of the Frobenius theorem in Fréchet spaces. The proposition-proof structure makes the logical dependencies transparent, and the examples (electromagnetism, scalar dressing models, causal patches) help clarify the intended scope. However, the advertised equivalence is currently conditional on an unproven group-action property for residual diffeomorphisms, and the claimed exactness is not supported by a converse theorem. The significance is therefore prospective: the framework is plausible and worth publishing if the gap is either closed or the claims are appropriately weakened.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.2, Proposition 4.1] The proof of local integrability of S'_g(Σ), and hence Proposition 4.2 and Corollary 6, depends on the unproven premise stated in the paragraph beginning 'Altogether, the constraints G_k = 0...' that the residual gauge transformations act as a Lie group on D(Σ). This property is not derived from the internal-dressing axioms I–III: those axioms constrain the allowed embedding maps X, but they do not restrict the field-dependence of the parameters of diffeomorphisms that preserve G_k = 0. If a residual transformation has parameters that depend on fields in the causal complement, the equivalence relation used in the proof of Proposition 4.1 is not well-defined, and the quotient construction of the subregion phase space can fail. Section 3.2 explicitly notes that unrestricted diffeomorphisms do not act as a Lie group on fields in a subregion, so this is a nontrivial assumption rather than a formality. The paper should either prove this property, at least for the gravitational examples of Section 5.3, or state it as an explicit additional assumption and modify the corresponding claims accordingly.
  2. [Abstract and §4.2] The paper advertises an equivalence and 'exactly what is necessary' for the observables to form a closed Poisson algebra, but only the sufficiency direction is proven. Proposition 4.2 and Corollary 6 show that, under the additional Lie-group assumption, internal dressing implies closure of the algebra. No theorem establishes the converse: that closure of the subregion observable algebra forces the internal-dressing axioms, or that a closed-algebra subsystem must generate field-dependent gauge transformations on the causal complement. The main claim should be restated as a sufficient condition, or a genuine converse theorem should be supplied, before the abstract's 'exactly' claim is retained.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.2, Corollaries 4 and 5] Corollary 5 is followed by two 'Proof.' paragraphs; the second proof ('By Proposition 3.4, the bracket of two such observables...') appears to belong to Corollary 4, and the first proof belongs to Corollary 5. The ordering should be fixed.
  2. [§3.3, proof of Proposition 3.3] In the displayed computation, the expression 'Ω(η + ζ1, χ+ ζ2) = Ω(η1, χ)' uses η1 where η is intended; this is a typographical inconsistency that should be corrected.
  3. [Throughout] There are numerous small typographical errors, including 'fist' for 'first', 'rferred' for 'referred', 'to to prove' for 'to prove', 'dyanmically' for 'dynamically', and 'perturbatibe' for 'perturbative'. A careful proofreading pass is needed.
  4. [§2.2, Assumption 4] The author correctly notes that Assumption 4 is 'the least important' and is not used to prove the other results; nevertheless, it is invoked in the discussion of completeness of regular observables, and the text should state explicitly whether the subsequent claims about completeness depend on it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the internal-dressing criterion is an independent definition, and the closed-algebra result is derived from symplectic complementarity and involutivity, with one non-load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim does not reduce to its own inputs. Section 4.1 defines an internally dressed subsystem by three independent properties (I–III), and Section 4.2 translates these into gauge-fixing conditions G_k=0 supported inside D(Σ). From there, Proposition 4.1 establishes local integrability of S'_g(Σ), Proposition 4.2 characterizes observables supported on Σ as those generating flows in S'_g(Σ), and Corollary 6 derives closure of the Poisson algebra from involutivity and symplectic complementarity. None of these steps assumes that the observables already form a closed algebra; the algebra closure is a conclusion, not an input. The main weakness flagged by the skeptical reader is real but is a rigor/correctness concern, not circularity: Proposition 4.1 relies on the explicitly stated extra assumption that residual gauge-fixed diffeomorphisms act as a Lie group on D(Σ) (Section 4.2, paragraph beginning 'Altogether, the constraints G_k=0 are assumed...'). That assumption is not implied by the internal-dressing axioms I–III, and Section 3.2 itself notes that diffeomorphisms do not generally act as a Lie group on a subregion. This makes the sufficiency proof conditional, but it does not make the argument circular. Likewise, the abstract's 'exactly what is necessary' overstates the result because only the sufficiency direction is proved; again, that is an overclaim, not a circular reduction. The only self-citation, [47], appears in a list of examples of surface symmetry generators in Section 3.1 ('the ADM Hamiltonian... or the smeared electric flux... [18, 38, 46–48]') and is not load-bearing for any central claim. The paper contains no fitted parameters presented as predictions, no uniqueness theorem imported from the author's prior work, and no renaming of a known result as a new derivation. Thus the derivation is self-contained apart from a minor non-load-bearing self-citation, and the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces a new criterion (internal dressing) but no new physical entities, particles, or forces. It fits no numerical parameters to data. The central claim rests on four explicit assumptions plus an implicit Lie group action of residual gauge transformations.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: linearized equations of motion admit a well-posed initial value formulation with local differential constraints.
    Stated in Section 2.1 (page 6). Used to guarantee existence and extension of linearized solutions, underpinning Proposition 3.1 and the local gauge characterization.
  • domain assumption Assumption 2: linearized solutions on complementary domains of dependence that agree to all derivatives at the codimension-2 surface can be glued to a solution on the full domain.
    Stated in Section 2.1 (page 6). Used in Propositions 2.4 and A.2 to establish symplectic complementarity and to prove that flows annihilating subregion observables are locally gauge.
  • domain assumption Assumption 3: solutions that agree to arbitrary derivative order on a partial Cauchy surface can be continuously deformed into each other while preserving the restriction.
    Stated in Section 2.2 (page 12). Needed to define the quotient phase space P(Σ); the author notes it is harder to check in examples.
  • domain assumption Assumption 4: every flow in S(Σ) is generated by some regular observable supported on Σ.
    Stated in Section 2.2 (page 15). Used for completeness of the algebra of regular observables; the author calls it the least important assumption and does not prove it.
  • domain assumption Residual gauge transformations act as a Lie group on D(Σ) after imposing the gauge fixing constraints Gk=0.
    Introduced in Section 4.2 (paragraph beginning 'Altogether, the constraints Gk = 0 are assumed...'). Used to prove local integrability of S'_g(Σ) in Proposition 4.1; not listed among Assumptions 1-4 and not proven.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dressed Subsystems in Classical Gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B7FVBRHG

@misc{pith2026250110450,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dressed Subsystems in Classical Gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B7FVBRHG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.10450}
}
read the original abstract

This paper considers the problem of consistently defining subsystems in gravitational theories. It is argued that a subsystem is a spacetime subregion in which the observables form a closed Poisson algebra. In a generally covariant theory, the location of the subregion must be determined in relation to other degrees of freedom. It is proposed that these degrees of freedom should live within the region, so that an observer can determine its edge by only measuring fields inside of it. This turns out to be equivalent to the property that observables in the subregion generate field-dependent gauge transformations on the causal complement. Furthermore, it is demonstrated that this is \textit{exactly} what is necessary for the observables to form a Poisson algebra and thus to constitute a consistent subsystem. Observables in spacelike separated "dressed subsystems" are shown to commute. Several examples are given in the context of General Relativity. Along the way, new perspectives on the covariant phase space formalism are introduced that clarify well-known issues, such as the factorization of subregions in gauge theories and the unambiguous definition of Noether charges associated with one-sided boosts. Finally, prospects for extending these results to a perturbative quantum setting are discussed.

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. Relational entanglement entropies and quantum reference frames in gauge theories

    hep-th 2025-06 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    Quantum reference frames built from Wilson lines give lattice gauge theories gauge-invariant subsystem factorizations and a hierarchy of relational entanglement entropies.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Haag,Local Quantum Physics, Theoretical and Mathematical Physics, Springer, Berlin (1996), 10.1007/978-3-642-61458-3

    R. Haag,Local Quantum Physics, Theoretical and Mathematical Physics, Springer, Berlin (1996), 10.1007/978-3-642-61458-3

    doi:10.1007/978-3-642-61458-3 1996

  2. [2]

    Komar,Construction of a Complete Set of Independent Observables in the General Theory of Relativity, Phys

    A. Komar,Construction of a Complete Set of Independent Observables in the General Theory of Relativity, Phys. Rev. 111 (1958) 1182

    1958

  3. [3]

    Bergmann and A.B

    P.G. Bergmann and A.B. Komar,Poisson brackets between locally defined observables in general relativity, Phys. Rev. Lett.4 (1960) 432

    1960

  4. [4]

    Bergmann,Observables in General Relativity, Rev

    P.G. Bergmann,Observables in General Relativity, Rev. Mod. Phys.33 (1961) 510

    1961

  5. [5]

    Bergmann,’Gauge-Invariant’ Variables in General Relativity, Phys

    P.G. Bergmann,’Gauge-Invariant’ Variables in General Relativity, Phys. Rev. 124 (1961) 274

    work page 1961

  6. [6]

    Dittrich,Partial and complete observables for Hamiltonian constrained systems, Gen

    B. Dittrich,Partial and complete observables for Hamiltonian constrained systems, Gen. Rel. Grav. 39 (2007) 1891 [gr-qc/0411013]

    arXiv 2007

  7. [7]

    Relational observables, reference frames, and conditional probabilities

    L. Chataignier,Relational observables, reference frames, and conditional probabilities, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 026013 [2006.05526]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Khavkine,Local and gauge invariant observables in gravity, Class

    I. Khavkine,Local and gauge invariant observables in gravity, Class. Quant. Grav.32 (2015) 185019 [1503.03754]. – 39 –

    arXiv 2015

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    Carrozza, S

    S. Carrozza, S. Eccles and P.A. Hoehn,Edge modes as dynamical frames: charges from post-selection in generally covariant theories, SciPost Phys. 17 (2024) 048 [2205.00913]

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Carrozza and P.A

    S. Carrozza and P.A. Hoehn,Edge modes as reference frames and boundary actions from post-selection, JHEP 02 (2022) 172 [2109.06184]

    2022 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Goeller, P.A

    C. Goeller, P.A. Hoehn and J. Kirklin,Diffeomorphism-invariant observables and dynamical frames in gravity: reconciling bulk locality with general covariance, 2206.01193

    arXiv

  4. [12]

    Marolf,Comments on Microcausality, Chaos, and Gravitational Observables, Class

    D. Marolf,Comments on Microcausality, Chaos, and Gravitational Observables, Class. Quant. Grav. 32 (2015) 245003 [1508.00939]

    2015 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Giddings, D

    S.B. Giddings, D. Marolf and J.B. Hartle,Observables in effective gravity, Phys. Rev. D74 (2006) 064018 [hep-th/0512200]

    2006 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Kaplan, D

    M. Kaplan, D. Marolf, X. Yu and Y. Zhao,De Sitter quantum gravity and the emergence of local algebras, 2410.00111

  7. [15]

    Brunetti, K

    R. Brunetti, K. Fredenhagen and K. Rejzner,Quantum gravity from the point of view of locally covariant quantum field theory, Commun. Math. Phys.345 (2016) 741 [1306.1058]

    2016 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Donnelly and S.B

    W. Donnelly and S.B. Giddings,Diffeomorphism-invariant observables and their nonlocal algebra, Phys. Rev. D93 (2016) 024030 [1507.07921]

    2016 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Donnelly and S.B

    W. Donnelly and S.B. Giddings,Observables, gravitational dressing, and obstructions to locality and subsystems, Phys. Rev. D94 (2016) 104038 [1607.01025]

    2016 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Harlow and J.-Q

    D. Harlow and J.-Q. Wu,Covariant phase space with boundaries, JHEP 10 (2020) 146 [1906.08616]

    2020 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Gieres,Covariant canonical formulations of classical field theories, SciPost Phys

    F. Gieres,Covariant canonical formulations of classical field theories, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes 77 (2023) 1 [2109.07330]

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Kriegl and P.W

    A. Kriegl and P.W. Michor,The convenient setting of global analysis, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI (1997)

    1997

  13. [21]

    Lang,Fundamentals of differential geometry, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Springer, New York, NY, 1 ed

    S. Lang,Fundamentals of differential geometry, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Springer, New York, NY, 1 ed. (Sept., 2001)

    2001

  14. [22]

    Wald,On identically closed forms locally constructed from a field, J

    R.M. Wald,On identically closed forms locally constructed from a field, J. Math. Phys.31 (1990) 2378

    1990

  15. [23]

    Dubois-Violette, M

    M. Dubois-Violette, M. Henneaux, M. Talon and C.-M. Viallet,Some results on local cohomologies in field theory, Phys. Lett. B267 (1991) 81

    1991

  16. [24]

    Brandt, N

    F. Brandt, N. Dragon and M. Kreuzer,Completeness and Nontriviality of the Solutions of the Consistency Conditions, Nucl. Phys. B 332 (1990) 224

    1990

  17. [25]

    Jacobson, G

    T. Jacobson, G. Kang and R.C. Myers,On black hole entropy, Phys. Rev. D49 (1994) 6587 [gr-qc/9312023]

    1994 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Compere and D

    G. Compere and D. Marolf,Setting the boundary free in AdS/CFT, Class. Quant. Grav.25 (2008) 195014 [0805.1902]

    2008 arXiv

  19. [27]

    de Rham,Variétés différentiables: Formes, courants, formes harmoniques, Act

    G. de Rham,Variétés différentiables: Formes, courants, formes harmoniques, Act. Sci. et Ind. 1222 (1955)

    1955

  20. [28]

    de Rham,Differentiable Manifolds, Springer Berlin Heidelberg (1984), 10.1007/978-3-642-61752-2

    G. de Rham,Differentiable Manifolds, Springer Berlin Heidelberg (1984), 10.1007/978-3-642-61752-2. – 40 –

    1984 doi

  21. [29]

    Simon,Lectures on geometric measure theory, Centre for Mathematical Analysis, The Australian National University (1984)

    L. Simon,Lectures on geometric measure theory, Centre for Mathematical Analysis, The Australian National University (1984)

    1984

  22. [30]

    Brouder, N.V

    C. Brouder, N.V. Dang and F. Hélein,A smooth introduction to the wavefront set, J. Phys. A 47 (2014) 443001 [1404.1778]

    2014 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Radzikowski,Micro-local approach to the Hadamard condition in quantum field theory on curved space-time, Commun

    M.J. Radzikowski,Micro-local approach to the Hadamard condition in quantum field theory on curved space-time, Commun. Math. Phys.179 (1996) 529

    1996

  24. [32]

    Hollands and R.M

    S. Hollands and R.M. Wald,The Operator Product Expansion in Quantum Field Theory, 2312.01096

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    Witten,APS Medal for Exceptional Achievement in Research: Invited article on entanglement properties of quantum field theory, Rev

    E. Witten,APS Medal for Exceptional Achievement in Research: Invited article on entanglement properties of quantum field theory, Rev. Mod. Phys.90 (2018) 045003 [1803.04993]

    2018 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Peierls,The Commutation laws of relativistic field theory, Proc

    R.E. Peierls,The Commutation laws of relativistic field theory, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A214 (1952) 143

    1952

  27. [35]

    Jordan and W

    P. Jordan and W. Pauli,Zur quantenelektrodynamik ladungsfreier felder, Zeitschrift für Physik 47 (1928)

    1928

  28. [36]

    DeWitt,The global approach to quantum field theory

    B.S. DeWitt,The global approach to quantum field theory. Vol. 1, 2, vol. 114 (2003)

    2003

  29. [37]

    Khavkine,Covariant phase space, constraints, gauge and the Peierls formula, Int

    I. Khavkine,Covariant phase space, constraints, gauge and the Peierls formula, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 29 (2014) 1430009 [1402.1282]

    2014 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Donnelly and L

    W. Donnelly and L. Freidel,Local subsystems in gauge theory and gravity, JHEP 09 (2016) 102 [1601.04744]

    2016 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Speranza,Local phase space and edge modes for diffeomorphism-invariant theories, JHEP 02 (2018) 021 [1706.05061]

    A.J. Speranza,Local phase space and edge modes for diffeomorphism-invariant theories, JHEP 02 (2018) 021 [1706.05061]

    2018 arXiv

  32. [40]

    X. Dong, D. Harlow and D. Marolf,Flat entanglement spectra in fixed-area states of quantum gravity, JHEP 10 (2019) 240 [1811.05382]

    2019 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Kirklin,Unambiguous Phase Spaces for Subregions, JHEP 03 (2019) 116 [1901.09857]

    J. Kirklin,Unambiguous Phase Spaces for Subregions, JHEP 03 (2019) 116 [1901.09857]

    2019 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Noether,Invariant Variation Problems, Gott

    E. Noether,Invariant Variation Problems, Gott. Nachr. 1918 (1918) 235 [physics/0503066]

    1918 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Henneaux,Lectures on the Antifield-BRST Formalism for Gauge Theories, Nucl

    M. Henneaux,Lectures on the Antifield-BRST Formalism for Gauge Theories, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.18 (1990) 47

    1990

  36. [44]

    Avery and B.U.W

    S.G. Avery and B.U.W. Schwab,Noether’s second theorem and Ward identities for gauge symmetries, JHEP 02 (2016) 031 [1510.07038]

    2016 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Regge and C

    T. Regge and C. Teitelboim,Role of Surface Integrals in the Hamiltonian Formulation of General Relativity, Annals Phys. 88 (1974) 286

    1974

  38. [46]

    Brown and M

    J.D. Brown and M. Henneaux,Central Charges in the Canonical Realization of Asymptotic Symmetries: An Example from Three-Dimensional Gravity, Commun. Math. Phys.104 (1986) 207

    1986

  39. [47]

    Pulakkat,On the charge algebra of causal diamonds in three dimensional gravity, JHEP 07 (2024) 251 [2404.03014]

    P. Pulakkat,On the charge algebra of causal diamonds in three dimensional gravity, JHEP 07 (2024) 251 [2404.03014]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Strominger,Lectures on the Infrared Structure of Gravity and Gauge Theory(3, 2017), [1703.05448]

    A. Strominger,Lectures on the Infrared Structure of Gravity and Gauge Theory(3, 2017), [1703.05448]

    2017 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Vitagliano,Secondary Calculus and the Covariant Phase Space, J

    L. Vitagliano,Secondary Calculus and the Covariant Phase Space, J. Geom. Phys.59 (2009) 426 [0809.4164]. – 41 –

    2009 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Fischer and J.E

    A.E. Fischer and J.E. Marsden,Linearization stability of the Einstein equations, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society79 (1973) 997

    1973

  43. [51]

    V. Moncrief,Spacetime symmetries and linearization stability of the Einstein equations I, Journal of Mathematical Physics16 (1975) 493 [https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jmp/article-pdf/16/3/493/19098572/493_1_online.pdf]

    1975

  44. [52]

    Moncrief,Spacetime symmetries and linearization stability of the Einstein equations II, J

    V. Moncrief,Spacetime symmetries and linearization stability of the Einstein equations II, J. Math. Phys. 17 (1976) 1893

    1976

  45. [53]

    De Vuyst, S

    J. De Vuyst, S. Eccles, P.A. Hoehn and J. Kirklin,Linearization (in)stabilities and crossed products, 2411.19931

    arXiv

  46. [54]

    Julia and S

    B. Julia and S. Silva,On covariant phase space methods, hep-th/0205072

    arXiv

  47. [55]

    Wallace,Gauge Invariance through Gauge Fixing, 2404.15456

    D. Wallace,Gauge Invariance through Gauge Fixing, 2404.15456

    arXiv

  48. [56]

    Henneaux and C

    M. Henneaux and C. Teitelboim,Quantization of gauge systems(1992)

    1992

  49. [57]

    Anikin,Contour gauge: Compendium of Results in Theory and Applications, 2405.17452

    I.V. Anikin,Contour gauge: Compendium of Results in Theory and Applications, 2405.17452

    arXiv

  50. [58]

    Mandelstam,Quantum electrodynamics without potentials, Annals Phys

    S. Mandelstam,Quantum electrodynamics without potentials, Annals Phys. 19 (1962) 1

    1962

  51. [59]

    Brown and K.V

    J.D. Brown and K.V. Kuchar,Dust as a standard of space and time in canonical quantum gravity, Phys. Rev. D51 (1995) 5600 [gr-qc/9409001]

    1995 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Bousso, S

    R. Bousso, S. Leichenauer and V. Rosenhaus,Light-sheets and AdS/CFT, Phys. Rev. D86 (2012) 046009 [1203.6619]

    2012 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Harlow,TASI Lectures on the Emergence of Bulk Physics in AdS/CFT, PoS T ASI2017 (2018) 002 [1802.01040]

    D. Harlow,TASI Lectures on the Emergence of Bulk Physics in AdS/CFT, PoS T ASI2017 (2018) 002 [1802.01040]

    2018 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Hubeny and M

    V.E. Hubeny and M. Rangamani,Causal Holographic Information, JHEP 06 (2012) 114 [1204.1698]

    2012 arXiv

  55. [63]

    X. Dong, D. Harlow and A.C. Wall,Reconstruction of Bulk Operators within the Entanglement Wedge in Gauge-Gravity Duality, Phys. Rev. Lett.117 (2016) 021601 [1601.05416]

    2016 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Harlow,The Ryu–Takayanagi Formula from Quantum Error Correction, Commun

    D. Harlow,The Ryu–Takayanagi Formula from Quantum Error Correction, Commun. Math. Phys. 354 (2017) 865 [1607.03901]

    2017 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Hubeny, M

    V.E. Hubeny, M. Rangamani and T. Takayanagi,A Covariant holographic entanglement entropy proposal, JHEP 07 (2007) 062 [0705.0016]

    2007 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Witten,Algebras, regions, and observers., Proc

    E. Witten,Algebras, regions, and observers., Proc. Symp. Pure Math.107 (2024) 247 [2303.02837]

    2024 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Witten,A background-independent algebra in quantum gravity, JHEP 03 (2024) 077 [2308.03663]

    E. Witten,A background-independent algebra in quantum gravity, JHEP 03 (2024) 077 [2308.03663]

    2024 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Folkestad,Subregion independence in gravity, JHEP 05 (2024) 300 [2311.09403]

    r. Folkestad,Subregion independence in gravity, JHEP 05 (2024) 300 [2311.09403]

    2024 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Gomes and A

    H. Gomes and A. Riello,Unified geometric framework for boundary charges and particle dressings, Phys. Rev. D98 (2018) 025013 [1804.01919]

    2018 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Gomes, F

    H. Gomes, F. Hopfmüller and A. Riello,A unified geometric framework for boundary charges and dressings: non-Abelian theory and matter, Nucl. Phys. B 941 (2019) 249 [1808.02074]. – 42 –

    2019 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Gomes and A

    H. Gomes and A. Riello,The quasilocal degrees of freedom of Yang-Mills theory, SciPost Phys. 10 (2021) 130 [1910.04222]

    2021 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Riello,Symplectic reduction of Yang-Mills theory with boundaries: from superselection sectors to edge modes, and back, SciPost Phys

    A. Riello,Symplectic reduction of Yang-Mills theory with boundaries: from superselection sectors to edge modes, and back, SciPost Phys. 10 (2021) 125 [2010.15894]

    2021 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Harlow,Wormholes, Emergent Gauge Fields, and the Weak Gravity Conjecture, JHEP 01 (2016) 122 [1510.07911]

    D. Harlow,Wormholes, Emergent Gauge Fields, and the Weak Gravity Conjecture, JHEP 01 (2016) 122 [1510.07911]

    2016 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Bousso, V

    R. Bousso, V. Chandrasekaran, P. Rath and A. Shahbazi-Moghaddam,Gravity dual of Connes cocycle flow, Phys. Rev. D102 (2020) 066008 [2007.00230]

    2020 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Kaplan and D

    M. Kaplan and D. Marolf,The action of HRT-areas as operators in semiclassical gravity, JHEP 08 (2022) 102 [2203.04270]

    2022 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Dong,Holographic Entanglement Entropy for General Higher Derivative Gravity, JHEP 01 (2014) 044 [1310.5713]

    X. Dong,Holographic Entanglement Entropy for General Higher Derivative Gravity, JHEP 01 (2014) 044 [1310.5713]

    2014 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Wall,A Second Law for Higher Curvature Gravity, Int

    A.C. Wall,A Second Law for Higher Curvature Gravity, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D24 (2015) 1544014 [1504.08040]

    2015 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Bousso, V

    R. Bousso, V. Chandrasekaran and A. Shahbazi-Moghaddam,From black hole entropy to energy-minimizing states in QFT, Phys. Rev. D101 (2020) 046001 [1906.05299]

    2020 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Lewkowycz and J

    A. Lewkowycz and J. Maldacena,Generalized gravitational entropy, JHEP 08 (2013) 090 [1304.4926]

    2013 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Carlip and C

    S. Carlip and C. Teitelboim,The Off-shell black hole, Class. Quant. Grav.12 (1995) 1699 [gr-qc/9312002]

    1995 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Rejzner,Perturbative Algebraic Quantum Field Theory: An Introduction for Mathematicians, Mathematical Physics Studies, Springer, New York (2016), 10.1007/978-3-319-25901-7

    K. Rejzner,Perturbative Algebraic Quantum Field Theory: An Introduction for Mathematicians, Mathematical Physics Studies, Springer, New York (2016), 10.1007/978-3-319-25901-7

    2016 doi

  74. [82]

    Hollands,Renormalized Quantum Yang-Mills Fields in Curved Spacetime, Rev

    S. Hollands,Renormalized Quantum Yang-Mills Fields in Curved Spacetime, Rev. Math. Phys. 20 (2008) 1033 [0705.3340]

    2008 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Witten,Gravity and the crossed product, JHEP 10 (2022) 008 [2112.12828]

    E. Witten,Gravity and the crossed product, JHEP 10 (2022) 008 [2112.12828]. – 43 –

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.