Conformal Cauchy Slice Holography: An Alternative Phase Space For Gravity

Rifath Khan

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 30 references

Conformal Cauchy Slice Holography: An Alternative Phase Space For Gravity

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Unique maximal-volume slices make the ADM and Weyl-anomaly phase spaces symplectomorphic; CFT partition functions with imaginary central charge then satisfy the quantum constraints.

desk verdict A serious but conditional paper: the classical equivalence is plausible under stated assumptions, but the examples don't secure the key assumption and the shape dynamics literature is missing. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.14517 v1 pith:NQKHEBHQ submitted 2025-07-19 gr-qc hep-th

Rifath Khan This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qchep-th MSC 83C0583C4553C2135J60 PACS 04.20.Cv04.60.-m11.25.Tq

keywords asymptoticallyanti-deSitterspacetimeADMphasespaceWeylanomalyHamiltonianconstraintmaximalvolumesliceLichnerowiczequationCauchyholographyquantumgravitystates

topics Quantum Gravity

open problems Quantum Gravity

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

This paper argues that in asymptotically Anti-de Sitter spacetimes, the standard ADM (3+1 initial-value) phase space of gravity and matter can be re-described by an alternative phase space in which the Hamiltonian constraint is replaced by the real Weyl-anomaly constraint $W + A$, where $W$ generates local Weyl rescalings of the metric and matter sources and $A$ is the holographic conformal anomaly. The claimed equivalence is symplectomorphic: after gauge fixing, both phase spaces reduce to the same cotangent bundle over conformal classes of metrics, with the conformal-part momentum identified between the two descriptions. The argument requires that every on-shell configuration in the domain of dependence admit a unique maximal-volume slice and that the matter Hamiltonian depend on the conformal factor algebraically with the stated sign conditions. If the claim is right, the difficult Wheeler-DeWitt equation can be bypassed at the classical level, and candidate quantum gravity states can be written non-perturbatively as CFT partition functions continued to imaginary central charge. This matters because it points toward background-independent, UV-complete bulk quantum gravity states living on a single distinguished slice.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the real Weyl-anomaly constraint $W + A$ together with two gauge choices: $K = 0$ (maximal volume) on the ADM side and the covariant conformal decomposition $g_{ab} = \phi^{\alpha}\gamma_{ab}$ with $R[\gamma] = 2\Lambda$ on the alternative side. Here $W = 2\Pi - \Delta_{\Phi}\Phi\,\Pi_{\Phi}$ is the generator of local Weyl transformations, $A$ is the holographic conformal anomaly, and $\alpha = 4/(d-2)$. On the ADM side, $K = 0$ fixes the Hamiltonian constraint and the Lichnerowicz equation determines $\phi$ uniquely, leaving $(\gamma_{ab}, \pi^{ab}, \Phi_i, \Pi_{\Phi_i})$. On the alternative side, $W + A$ fixes the trace momentum $\Pi$, the gauge condition $R[\gamma] = 2\Lambda$ fixes $\phi = 1$, and the momentum split $\Pi^{ab} = \phi^{-\alpha}\Sigma^{ab} + \sqrt{\gamma}\,\phi^{-\alpha}Y^{ab}_\gamma f$ is chosen so that $\Sigma^{ab}$ and $\gamma_{ab}$ remain canonically conjugate; the reduced spaces then carry identical symplectic forms. A second, more abstract proof uses the principle that any two gauge slices on the same constraint surface are symplectomorphic.

What would settle it

Find one on-shell asymptotically Anti-de Sitter solution, with matter satisfying the paper's coefficient assumptions, that contains two distinct maximal-volume slices (or none). The theorem's proof uses uniqueness exactly once, in establishing that $K = 0$ is a valid gauge-fixing condition for the Hamiltonian constraint, so such a configuration would invalidate the reduction on which the symplectomorphism is built.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1: under Assumptions 1 and 2, the phase space $\Gamma_{\mathrm{ADM}} = (P,\omega; H, D_a, G_A)$ and the alternative phase space $\Gamma_{\mathrm{ALT}} = (P,\omega; W + A, D_a, G_A)$ are physically equivalent, meaning their reduced phase spaces are symplectomorphic, $\Gamma_{\mathrm{ADM}}^{\mathrm{red}} \cong_{\mathrm{symp}} \Gamma_{\mathrm{ALT}}^{\mathrm{red}}$, with $\Sigma^{ab}$ identified with $\pi^{ab}$ and all other variables identified trivially. The paper proves this twice: first by explicitly gauge-fixing each phase space and comparing the resulting reduced spaces, and second by applying the general principle that two gauge slices of the same constraint surface are symplectomorphic. It also proves Theorem 2: a holographic CFT partition function $Z^{(c)}_{\mathrm{CFT}}$ that is analytic in the central charge, Wick-rotated to a bulk Cauchy slice with boundary state $\psi_{\mathrm{CFT}}$ and continued to $c \to ic$, satisfies the operator constraints $(\hat{W} + A)\Psi = \hat{D}_a\Psi = \hat{G}_A\Psi = 0$, so $\Psi_{\mathrm{QG}}[g,\Phi] = Z^{(ic)}_{\mathrm{CFT}}[g,\Phi;\psi_{\mathrm{CFT}}]$ is a candidate quantum gravity state. The paper is explicit that satisfying the constraints is a necessary condition, not a complete proof that these functionals are physical quantum gravity states.

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument rests on the geometric premise that every classical on-shell configuration in the domain of dependence contains exactly one maximal-volume slice; if such a slice fails to exist or is not unique, the $K = 0$ gauge-fixing step breaks down and the claimed equivalence between the two phase spaces does not go through.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The Hamiltonian constraint can be replaced, at the classical level, by a local conformal constraint tied to the holographic anomaly; every gauge-invariant observable of the ADM theory has a counterpart in the alternative phase space.
Quantization in the alternative phase space only requires solving the operator constraints $\hat{W} + A$, $\hat{D}_a$, and $\hat{G}_A$, avoiding the second-order functional-differential Wheeler-DeWitt equation and its associated operator-ordering problems.
Any CFT partition function that is analytic in the central charge yields, after continuation to imaginary central charge, a candidate quantum gravity state on the maximal-volume slice, with no gauge fixing and no expansion around a fixed background.
The construction defines a linear map from boundary CFT states to bulk quantum gravity states, which could serve as a new AdS/CFT dictionary once the inherited bulk Hamiltonian is shown to reproduce boundary dynamics.
Because the candidate states are CFT partition functions, bulk UV-sensitive information would be encoded in finite CFT correlators on the maximal slice, giving a UV-complete handle on bulk quantum gravity states.

Reading between the lines

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

My inference: the equivalence is kinematic in the strict sense; the paper leaves the explicit form of the inherited Hamiltonian, its quantization, and a physical inner product for future work, so the full dynamical and quantum dictionary is not yet established.
My inference: the analytic continuation $c \to ic$ suggests the candidate states are complex-valued and may be related to non-unitary or ghostlike dual field theories; testing normalizability under a suitable inner product is the most direct next step.
My inference: the same gauge-slice argument should extend to other mean-curvature fixings, producing a family of phase spaces labeled by the traced extrinsic curvature and providing a robustness check on the symplectomorphism.
My inference: because the closure of $W + A$ depends on $A$ being the holographic anomaly rather than an arbitrary local functional, a generic CFT with a modified central-charge dependence would be expected to fail the operator constraints and therefore not yield a bulk state.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here is the short version: this is a real paper, not a crank submission. The construction is explicit, and the author is honest about what is speculative. But the central equivalence theorem is conditional on a unique maximal volume slice, and the examples that are supposed to guarantee that condition do not actually do so. Also, the paper never engages shape dynamics, which is a serious omission for a claim of this type.

What is actually new: the symplectomorphism between the ADM phase space and the alternative phase space with the real Weyl-anomaly constraint is worked out in detail, and the covariant conformal decomposition with R[γ] = 2Λ is a neat trick. The idea that the Hamiltonian constraint can be traded for a local conformal constraint tied to the holographic anomaly is distinct from the earlier T̄T-based Cauchy slice holography work, and the c → ic analytic continuation to produce states satisfying the real constraint is new. The closure algebra for W + A with the diffeomorphism and matter constraints is nontrivial, and the explicit checks in d = 2 and d = 4 are useful.

Where the soft spots are, in order of importance. First, the load-bearing Assumption 1 is not secured. The paper claims that minimally coupled scalars with negative total potential satisfy the strict generic strong energy condition, but the relevant combination in Eq. (6) picks up a positive contribution from tangential gradients of the scalar. Arbitrarily large gradients on otherwise allowed data violate the inequality, so there are matter sectors satisfying Assumption 2 where the theorem has no domain. This is not a hole in the proof of the theorem—it is a hole in the advertised applicability. Second, the proof of constraint closure relies on a formal ε → 0 limit; the counterterm transformation is complex, and the limit is taken inside Poisson brackets. A rigorous treatment would strengthen the paper. Third, the existence and uniqueness of the function f in Eq. (121) is asserted without proof; that is an auxiliary elliptic problem, but it needs a reference or a lemma. Finally, Theorem 2 is honest in calling the states 'candidate,' but analytic continuation of Z_CFT to imaginary central charge is not demonstrated for any actual CFT, so the quantum construction is formal. And the absence of any reference to shape dynamics is a major gap: the idea of replacing the Hamiltonian constraint with a conformal constraint is the core of that program, and the author needs to explain what is genuinely different.

Who this is for: people working on canonical quantum gravity and bulk reconstructions in AdS/CFT. It deserves a serious referee, but the referee should ask for a thorough discussion of shape dynamics and a careful statement of the domain of validity of Assumption 1. I would not cite it myself until those points are resolved, but it is a legitimate candidate for peer review.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an alternative Hamiltonian phase space for asymptotically AdS gravity in which the Hamiltonian constraint is replaced by the real Weyl-anomaly constraint W+A, while the momentum and matter-gauge constraints are retained. Under two assumptions (unique maximal volume slices and algebraic conformal-factor dependence of H_matter with sign conditions), Theorem 1 claims that the ADM phase space and the alternative phase space are physically equivalent, meaning their reduced phase spaces are symplectomorphic. The argument gauge-fixes K=0 in the ADM formulation, solves the Lichnerowicz equation, re-enlarges the phase space with a conformal-factor/momentum pair, and imposes W+A=0 with a Yamabe-type gauge condition. Theorem 2 states that a CFT partition function analytically continued to imaginary central charge satisfies the quantized constraints and therefore furnishes candidate quantum gravity states. The paper includes explicit anomaly examples, a covariant conformal decomposition, two proofs of the equivalence, a translation dictionary, and a discussion of inherited dynamics and UV completeness.

Significance. If Theorem 1 holds under its assumptions, the paper establishes a concrete classical connection between the Hamiltonian constraint and a local conformal-anomaly constraint, and it opens a route to background-independent quantum-gravity states built from CFT partition functions without T\bar T deformation. The paper is commendably explicit: it gives a constructive symplectomorphism, openly lists limitations, and works out several anomaly examples. However, the applicability to standard matter is undercut by an inconsistency between Assumption 2 and the stated scalar-field examples, and a key elliptic step in the covariant conformal decomposition is asserted rather than proved. The skeptical concern that scalar gradients can violate Eq. (6) does not survive computation: for a minimally coupled scalar the tangential-gradient terms cancel in T_{\hat t\hat t}+T/(d-1), leaving a normal-square term plus a potential term; the genuine issue for scalars is Assumption 2, not the strong-energy condition.

major comments (3)

[Section 2, Eq. (30)] The list of matter examples is inconsistent with Assumption 2. For a minimally coupled scalar, 2κ√g H_matter = κΠ_Φ² + κ φ²√γ γ^{ab}∂_aΦ∂_bΦ + 2κ φ^{2d/(d−2)}√γ V(Φ) for d>2. The gradient term has the positive coefficient κ√γ γ^{ab}∂_aΦ∂_bΦ and lies in the C_j group (m_j=2 > −α), so C_j > 0, violating the required C_j ≤ 0. A negative potential does not cure this because it sits at a different power of φ. Consequently, Proposition 2's sub/supersolution argument does not apply to the claimed scalar-field examples, and the theorem as stated does not cover them. Either Assumption 2 must be revised or the examples must be restricted to matter sectors that genuinely satisfy the stated sign conditions.
[Section 4.6, Eqs. (121)–(122)] The existence and uniqueness of f solving Y_γ f = Π/√γ with the stated boundary condition is asserted without proof or reference. This step is load-bearing: the canonical split (117), the symplectic potential (129), and the identification of Σ^{ab} as conjugate to γ^{ab} all depend on the invertibility of Y_γ = −2Λ − (d−1)∇²_γ on the relevant asymptotically hyperbolic function spaces. Please supply an elliptic-theory argument or a precise citation covering existence, uniqueness, and the limiting boundary condition on ∂Σ.
[Section 4.1, Eq. (67)] The sign choice for the counterterm coefficient a_Λ is asserted as the choice giving the 'correct' anomaly sign and then deferred to the references. This sign determines the anomaly A entering W+A and is essential for the match with CFT states in Theorem 2. The equivalence in Theorem 1 may be insensitive to the sign, but the candidate-state construction is not; the sign should be justified explicitly rather than left as an ad hoc choice.

minor comments (6)

[Section 5 heading] The heading 'W ave F unction' contains a typo and should read 'Wave Function'.
[Eq. (51) and Eq. (83)] In Eq. (51), 'eZgrav' appears to be a typo for the renormalized partition function, and Eq. (83) is missing a closing bracket in (ω ∂_b ω̃ − ω̃ ∂_b ω).
[Appendix A] The text states 'ω_+|∂Σ = ω_−|∂Σ = 1' and immediately afterwards says both approach 0 at the boundary; the boundary value should be 0.
[Section 5.2] The step bG_A Z_CFT = 0 is stated as a consequence of holographic duality rather than derived; a few sentences explaining how the matter-gauge transformations of the sources are handled in the gravitational path integral would make the argument more transparent.
[Theorem 2] The assumption that Z_CFT^(c) is analytic in the central charge is strong, especially for holographic CFTs where c is often effectively discrete (e.g., N²). The formal nature of the continuation c → ic should be stated explicitly.
[Proposition 6] The proposition that any two gauge slices are symplectomorphic should carry the qualifications stated later in the text (global slices, absence of Gribov obstructions, well-defined reduced phase space); as phrased it is too sweeping.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No harmful circularity: Theorem 1 is a constructive symplectomorphism, and Theorem 2 is an explicitly definitional analytic continuation; minor reliance on earlier self-authored Cauchy-slice construction keeps the quantum-state part from being fully self-contained.

full rationale

The classical equivalence (Theorem 1) is not circular. The alternative constraint W+A is obtained from the Hamiltonian constraint by an explicit counterterm transformation (Eqs. 60-74), and the equivalence is then proven by reducing both phase spaces and exhibiting the symplectomorphism Γ^red_ADM ≅ Γ^red_ALT (Eq. 141), with Σ^ab identified with π^ab; the second proof via Proposition 6 is a gauge-slice argument that does not presuppose the equivalence. The only point where the paper uses the word 'tautological' (Section 4.10) concerns the inherited Hamiltonian, which it explicitly defines by construction, not the kinematic equivalence. Theorem 2 is a direct analytic continuation of the standard Weyl-anomaly equation: since A ∝ c, the substitution c→ic sends (cW−iA)Z=0 to (cW+A)Z=0. This is a definitional manipulation, not an independent prediction, but the paper is transparent about it ("simply removed by hand") and labels the resulting states as mere candidates, adding that further conditions are required. Assumptions 1 and 2 are external geometric and matter conditions; Appendix B openly notes that its example violates the strong energy condition, and the uniqueness theorem is cited to Couch-Eccles-Jacobson-Nguyen [23], not to the present authors. Self-citations to [17] supply the prior Cauchy-slice CFT placement and junction-condition details used in the quantum-state construction; however, the operator constraints in Eq. (166) are re-derived in this paper from standard Weyl anomaly, covariance, and holographic duality, so the central classical claim does not reduce to a self-citation. Overall the derivation chain is constructive; the minor self-citation burden in the quantum part warrants a low nonzero score rather than a clean zero.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on two global assumptions about the matter and geometry (Assumptions 1 and 2), on the standard ADM constraint algebra, on auxiliary existence assumptions for the covariant conformal decomposition, and on the analyticity of the CFT partition function in central charge. No numbers are fitted to data; the counterterm coefficients are fixed by the requirement of eliminating divergent terms, with only a sign choice made by hand.

free parameters (1)

Sign of counterterm coefficient aΛ = chosen (positive sign) to yield the holographic anomaly with the correct sign
In Section 4.1 (Eq. 67), aΛ = ± i ε^{-d} sqrt(|2Λ|(d-1)/(2κ²d)); the sign is fixed by hand to match the CFT anomaly sign (footnote 15). This choice affects the sign of A in the real Weyl-anomaly constraint but is not fitted to data.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption Assumption 1: For every on-shell spacetime configuration in Ω, there exists a unique maximal volume slice.
Stated in Section 2; needed for Proposition 1 (K=0 is a valid gauge-fixing of the Hamiltonian constraint) and hence for the phase space reduction underlying Theorem 1.
domain assumption Assumption 2: The matter Hamiltonian depends on the conformal factor algebraically, with coefficients satisfying Ai ≥ 0, B > 2Λ, Cj ≤ 0.
Stated in Section 2; used in Proposition 2 to guarantee existence and uniqueness of Lichnerowicz solutions on maximal slices.
domain assumption Strict generic strong energy condition (Eq. 6) holds for the matter.
Cited from [23] in Section 2 as the sufficient condition for uniqueness of maximal volume slices (Assumption 1).
domain assumption The CFT partition function Z^(c)_CFT is analytic in its central charge c.
Explicit hypothesis of Theorem 2 (Section 2), needed for the analytic continuation c → ic.
ad hoc to paper The auxiliary equation Y_γ f = Π/√γ (Eq. 122) has a unique solution f with the stated boundary condition (Eq. 121).
Asserted in Section 4.6 without proof or citation; required for the covariant conformal decomposition to be a canonical transformation (Eq. 129).
domain assumption The matter sector does not disturb the ADM constraint algebra (Eq. 17).
Assumed in footnote 11 and Section 3.1; needed for the phase space reduction to proceed in the standard way.
ad hoc to paper The counterterm-modified Hamiltonian captures the Weyl-anomaly constraint in the ε→0 limit, with irrelevant terms decoupling from the Poisson brackets.
Assumed in the proof of Proposition 5 (Section 4.2), where {W-iA, W-iA}=0 is obtained by taking the ε→0 limit of {H_modified, H_modified}=0 and dropping cross terms with X_irrelevant.

invented entities (1)

CFT with imaginary central charge (Z^(ic)_CFT)
purpose: Provides candidate quantum gravity states Ψ_QG satisfying the real Weyl-anomaly constraint (Theorem 2).
The paper assumes analyticity in c and continues c → ic; no concrete imaginary-central-charge CFT is constructed or shown to exist, and no independent falsifiable prediction is provided. The resulting states are admitted by the authors to be only candidates (Section 6.1).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Conformal Cauchy Slice Holography: An Alternative Phase Space For Gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NQKHEBHQ

@misc{pith2026250714517,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Conformal Cauchy Slice Holography: An Alternative Phase Space For Gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NQKHEBHQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.14517}
}

read the original abstract

The phase space of gravitational theories in asymptotically Anti-de Sitter (AAdS) spacetimes consists of geometries, matter configurations, and their conjugate momenta on a Cauchy surface, subject to the Hamiltonian, momentum, and matter-gauge constraints. When a unique maximal volume slice exists in all classical solutions of the bulk equations of motion, and the matter fields satisfy certain conditions, we show that this phase space is physically equivalent to an alternative phase space in which the Hamiltonian constraint is replaced by the real Weyl-anomaly constraint, while the momentum and matter-gauge constraints remain unchanged. A necessary requirement for a functional of the metric and matter configurations to qualify as a valid quantum gravity state is that it satisfies the operator gauge constraints. Partition functions of certain conformal field theories with imaginary central charge, defined on bulk Cauchy slices, satisfy these operator gauge constraints and therefore provide candidate quantum gravity states in the alternative phase space formulation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.14517 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The (d + 1)-dimensional bulk spacetime M has a timelike boundary ∂M. ∂Σ is a (d − 1)-dimensional Cauchy surface of ∂M. The bulk domain of dependence Ω of ∂Σ is represented by the shaded region. All bulk Cauchy surfaces anchored on ∂Σ—that is, sharing the same boundary—lie entirely within Ω. Assumption 1. For every on-shell spacetime configuration in Ω, there exists a unique maximal volume slice. Assumption 2. The ma… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Consider the gravitational path integral: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** The shaded region denotes the finite spacetime region Mϵ with a timelike boundary ∂Mϵ that approaches the conformal boundary ∂M as ϵ → 0. The spacetime metric g and matter fields Φ in Mϵ satisfy Dirichlet boundary conditions on ∂Mϵ, with the induced metric and matter fields fixed to ¯g and Φ, respectively. ¯ When the finite boundary ∂Mϵ is taken to infinity, the metric and matter fields on it reach their asymptotic … view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Two side-by-side geometries. On the left, the shaded region denotes the bulk domain of dependence, where the physics is emergent from the WDW state. All information in this region is encoded in correlation functions of the WDW state. If a semiclassical bulk exists for …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

[1]

The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,

J. M. Maldacena, “The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. , vol. 2, pp. 231–252, 1998

work page 1998
[2]

Anti de Sitter space and holography,

E. Witten, “Anti de Sitter space and holography,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. , vol. 2, pp. 253–291, 1998

work page 1998
[3]

Lectures on ads/cft from the bottom up,

J. Kaplan, “Lectures on ads/cft from the bottom up,” 2016. Lecture notes

work page 2016
[4]

The AdS/CFT Correspondence,

V. E. Hubeny, “The AdS/CFT Correspondence,” Class. Quant. Grav. , vol. 32, no. 12, p. 124010, 2015

work page 2015
[5]

Black hole entropy is the Noether charge,

R. M. Wald, “Black hole entropy is the Noether charge,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 48, no. 8, pp. R3427– R3431, 1993

work page 1993
[6]

Covariant phase space with boundaries,

D. Harlow and J.-Q. Wu, “Covariant phase space with boundaries,” JHEP, vol. 10, p. 146, 2020

work page 2020
[7]

The Dynamics of general relativity,

R. L. Arnowitt, S. Deser, and C. W. Misner, “The Dynamics of general relativity,” Gen. Rel. Grav., vol. 40, pp. 1997–2027, 2008

work page 1997
[8]

Quantum Theory of Gravity. 1. The Canonical Theory,

B. S. DeWitt, “Quantum Theory of Gravity. 1. The Canonical Theory,” Phys. Rev. , vol. 160, pp. 1113–1148, 1967

work page 1967

Show all 30 references

[9]

Quantum Theory of Gravity. 2. The Manifestly Covariant Theory,

B. S. DeWitt, “Quantum Theory of Gravity. 2. The Manifestly Covariant Theory,” Phys. Rev. , vol. 162, pp. 1195–1239, 1967

1967
[10]

Quantum Theory of Gravity. 3. Applications of the Covariant Theory,

B. S. DeWitt, “Quantum Theory of Gravity. 3. Applications of the Covariant Theory,” Phys. Rev., vol. 162, pp. 1239–1256, 1967

1967
[11]

Reconstructing AdS/CFT,

L. Freidel, “Reconstructing AdS/CFT,” arXiv e-prints , p. arXiv:0804.0632, Apr. 2008

2008 arXiv
[12]

Moving the CFT into the bulk with T T ,

L. McGough, M. Mezei, and H. Verlinde, “Moving the CFT into the bulk with T T ,” JHEP, vol. 04, p. 010, 2018

2018
[13]

Holography at finite cutoff with a T 2 deformation,

T. Hartman, J. Kruthoff, E. Shaghoulian, and A. Tajdini, “Holography at finite cutoff with a T 2 deformation,” JHEP, vol. 03, p. 004, 2019

2019
[14]

Expectation value of composite field T anti-T in two-dimensional quantum field theory,

A. B. Zamolodchikov, “Expectation value of composite field T anti-T in two-dimensional quantum field theory,” arXiv e-prints , 1 2004

2004
[15]

T ¯T deformations in general dimensions,

M. Taylor, “ T ¯T deformations in general dimensions,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. , vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 37–63, 2023

2023
[16]

T T and EE, with implications for (A)dS subregion encodings,

A. Lewkowycz, J. Liu, E. Silverstein, and G. Torroba, “ T T and EE, with implications for (A)dS subregion encodings,” JHEP, vol. 04, p. 152, 2020

2020
[17]

Cauchy slice holography: a new AdS/CFT dictio- nary,

G. Araujo-Regado, R. Khan, and A. C. Wall, “Cauchy slice holography: a new AdS/CFT dictio- nary,” JHEP, vol. 03, p. 026, 2023. 44

2023
[18]

Constant mean curvature solutions of the einstein constraint equations on closed manifolds,

J. Isenberg, “Constant mean curvature solutions of the einstein constraint equations on closed manifolds,” Classical and Quantum Gravity , vol. 12, p. 2249, sep 1995

1995
[19]

Solutions of the constraint equations in general relativity satisfying hyperboloidal boundary conditions,

L. Andersson and P. Chrusciel, “Solutions of the constraint equations in general relativity satisfying hyperboloidal boundary conditions,” Dissertationes Mathematicae, vol. 355, pp. 1–100, 1996

1996
[20]

Constant mean curvature solutions of the Einstein-scalar field constraint equations on asymptotically hyperbolic manifolds,

A. Sakovich, “Constant mean curvature solutions of the Einstein-scalar field constraint equations on asymptotically hyperbolic manifolds,” Class. Quant. Grav. , vol. 27, p. 245019, 2010

2010
[21]

A note on the canonical formalism for gravity,

E. Witten, “A note on the canonical formalism for gravity,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys., vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 311–380, 2023

2023
[22]

Asymptotically hyperbolic nonconstant mean curvature solutions of the Einstein constraint equations,

J. Isenberg and J. Park, “Asymptotically hyperbolic nonconstant mean curvature solutions of the Einstein constraint equations,” Class. Quant. Grav. , vol. 14, pp. A189–A202, 1997

1997
[23]

Holographic Complexity and Volume,

J. Couch, S. Eccles, T. Jacobson, and P. Nguyen, “Holographic Complexity and Volume,” JHEP, vol. 11, p. 044, 2018

2018
[24]

Maximal hypersurfaces in asymptotically Anti-de Sitter space- time,

P. T. Chru´ sciel and G. J. Galloway, “Maximal hypersurfaces in asymptotically Anti-de Sitter space- time,” arXiv e-prints , 8 2022

2022
[25]

On the Regularity of solutions to the Yamabe equation and the existence of smooth hyperboloidal initial data for Einsteins field equations,

L. Andersson, P. Chrusciel, and H. Friedrich, “On the Regularity of solutions to the Yamabe equation and the existence of smooth hyperboloidal initial data for Einsteins field equations,”Commun. Math. Phys., vol. 149, pp. 587–612, 1992

1992
[26]

Henneaux and C

M. Henneaux and C. Teitelboim, Quantization of Gauge Systems . Princeton University Press, 1992

1992
[27]

Boundary Schrodinger equation in quantum geometrodynamics,

G. Hayward and K. Wong, “Boundary Schrodinger equation in quantum geometrodynamics,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 46, pp. 620–626, 1992. [Addendum: Phys.Rev.D 47, 4778–4779 (1993)]

1993
[28]

Connecting holographic Wess-Zumino consistency condition to the holographic anomaly,

V. Shyam, “Connecting holographic Wess-Zumino consistency condition to the holographic anomaly,” JHEP, vol. 03, p. 171, 2018

2018
[29]

General Covariance from the Quantum Renormalization Group,

V. Shyam, “General Covariance from the Quantum Renormalization Group,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 95, no. 6, p. 066003, 2017

2017
[30]

The Semiclassical Approximation: Its Application to Holography and the Information Paradox,

R. Khan, “The Semiclassical Approximation: Its Application to Holography and the Information Paradox,” arXiv e-prints , 9 2023. 45

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,

J. M. Maldacena, “The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. , vol. 2, pp. 231–252, 1998

work page 1998

[2] [2]

Anti de Sitter space and holography,

E. Witten, “Anti de Sitter space and holography,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. , vol. 2, pp. 253–291, 1998

work page 1998

[3] [3]

Lectures on ads/cft from the bottom up,

J. Kaplan, “Lectures on ads/cft from the bottom up,” 2016. Lecture notes

work page 2016

[4] [4]

The AdS/CFT Correspondence,

V. E. Hubeny, “The AdS/CFT Correspondence,” Class. Quant. Grav. , vol. 32, no. 12, p. 124010, 2015

work page 2015

[5] [5]

Black hole entropy is the Noether charge,

R. M. Wald, “Black hole entropy is the Noether charge,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 48, no. 8, pp. R3427– R3431, 1993

work page 1993

[6] [6]

Covariant phase space with boundaries,

D. Harlow and J.-Q. Wu, “Covariant phase space with boundaries,” JHEP, vol. 10, p. 146, 2020

work page 2020

[7] [7]

The Dynamics of general relativity,

R. L. Arnowitt, S. Deser, and C. W. Misner, “The Dynamics of general relativity,” Gen. Rel. Grav., vol. 40, pp. 1997–2027, 2008

work page 1997

[8] [8]

Quantum Theory of Gravity. 1. The Canonical Theory,

B. S. DeWitt, “Quantum Theory of Gravity. 1. The Canonical Theory,” Phys. Rev. , vol. 160, pp. 1113–1148, 1967

work page 1967