Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

This paper claims that the Bekenstein–Hawking area law can be recovered from the representation theory of the quantum corner symmetry group, using coherent states of the boundary algebra in spherically symmetric gravity.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 07:24 UTC pith:H2PX6LMB

load-bearing objection The classical corner-charge part is solid and the three entropy formulas are new, but the 1/4 coefficient is selected by hand-picked central charges, so the area law is fitted rather than derived. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2510.25851 v4 pith:H2PX6LMB submitted 2025-10-29 hep-th gr-qc

From the Corner Proposal to the Area Law

Jerzy Kowalski-Glikman , Ludovic Varrin This is my paper
classification hep-th gr-qc MSC 81R3081S1083C4583C57 PACS 04.60.-m04.70.Dy
keywords corner proposalquantum corner symmetryentanglement entropyBekenstein-Hawking area lawcoherent statesspherically symmetric gravitydilaton gravitycentral charge
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper aims to make the corner proposal concrete: quantum gravity should be built from the representation theory of the algebra of gravitational charges living on a boundary surface. Working in four-dimensional spherical symmetry, which reduces to two-dimensional dilaton gravity, the authors construct coherent states of the quantum corner symmetry group and compute the entanglement entropy obtained when two quantum corners are glued. For a selected subclass of 'classical' coherent states, the entropy is S = A/(4ℓ_p²ε) + ½ ln(A/(4ℓ_p²ε)) + O(ε). The leading term is the Bekenstein–Hawking area law, and the same formula appears for a Schwarzschild horizon, a de Sitter cosmological horizon, and the boundary of a Minkowski causal diamond. If correct, this shows the area law is a semiclassical consequence of boundary symmetry representations, not of quantum fields propagating on a fixed background.

Core claim

The central claim is that the entanglement entropy of a gravitational corner in a classical coherent state is, in the semiclassical limit, S = A/(4ℓ_p²ε) + ½ ln(A/(4ℓ_p²ε)) + O(ε), with the leading term reproducing the Bekenstein–Hawking formula. The derivation chains together three steps. First, the four-dimensional spherically symmetric Einstein–Hilbert action is dimensionally reduced to a two-dimensional dilaton gravity, and the classical Noether charges of the corner are computed (eqs. 54–55). Second, using a symbol-calculus dictionary (eqs. 59–64), these charges are identified with the generators of the quantum corner symmetry group, so the Casimir parameter s of the representation is r

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the quantum corner symmetry group QCS = SL(2,R)⋉H3, the centrally extended symmetry algebra of a codimension-two corner; in two dimensions the corner is a point, leaving the special-linear group plus three Heisenberg generators with a central element. Its positive discrete series representations, labeled by a central charge c and a Casimir parameter s, are realized on a Fock basis and support generalized coherent states. The 'classical' coherent states (c_ζ = −sπ/2) are singled out because their entanglement entropy grows linearly with s. The bridge from representation theory to geometry is the symbol calculus of eqs. (59)–(64), which maps the QCS generators to the

Load-bearing premise

The calculation stands or falls on the per-solution values of the central element c (eqs. 66, 70, 74), which are chosen rather than derived; the leading entropy coefficient is directly proportional to these values, and the dictionary connecting quantum charges to classical metric data is deferred to an unpublished companion paper.

What would settle it

Derive the central element c from the theory and check whether it equals the three chosen values; if it differs, the area law does not follow. Alternatively, apply the same dictionary to a fourth spherically symmetric solution (e.g. Reissner–Nordström) and compute S via the same steps: if the leading term is not A/(4ℓ_p²ε) with the same coefficient, the mechanism fails. Finally, consult the companion paper's symbol calculus: if the expansion of eq. (59) changes order or coefficients, the relation s² = C^cl_QCS + O(ℏ) breaks and the entropy–area formula must be modified.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • The area-proportional term of black hole entropy is recovered without introducing quantum fields on a fixed background; it comes from the representation theory of the corner algebra itself.
  • The same coherent-state entropy formula applies to Schwarzschild, de Sitter, and Minkowski causal diamonds, so the Bekenstein–Hawking coefficient 1/(4ℓ_p²) is universal for spherically symmetric corners.
  • The entropy includes a logarithmic correction ½ ln(A/(4ℓ_p²ε)) that is a direct product of the coherent-state calculation and is not put in by hand.
  • The classical limit of gravity corresponds to ε→0, which is the large-representation-parameter limit s→∞; the divergence in the entropy can be absorbed into a renormalized Planck length.
  • The derivation provides a concrete realization of the corner proposal, showing that semiclassical spacetime geometry can emerge from the quantum algebra of boundary observables.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the values of the central element c in eqs. (66), (70), and (74) are chosen per solution and not derived, the leading entropy coefficient is currently a fit rather than a prediction; a first-principles derivation of c is the natural next step.
  • The sign pattern—negative for Schwarzschild, positive for de Sitter and Minkowski—may reflect the physical difference between a trapped horizon and an observer-dependent horizon; testing this would require a derivation of c.
  • The symbol-calculus dictionary is deferred to a companion paper. If that dictionary is modified, the coefficients in eqs. (67), (71), and (75) change; applying the same method to a non-spherically-symmetric solution, such as Reissner–Nordström, would test the universality of the area law.
  • The logarithmic correction is inherited from the relation S ≈ 2πs, so the area-law argument does not independently predict its coefficient; identifying a regime in which this log could be observed would distinguish the mechanism from other entropic derivations of black hole thermodynamics.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper aims to realize the Corner Proposal for quantum gravity in spherically symmetric four-dimensional spacetimes, equivalently two-dimensional dilaton gravity. It constructs Perelomov coherent states of the Quantum Corner Symmetry (QCS) group, computes their entanglement entropy in the large-parameter limit, and derives classical corner charges by dimensional reduction. A Berezin-symbol dictionary is invoked to relate the representation parameter s to a classical Casimir built from corner charges. For Schwarzschild, de Sitter, and the Minkowski causal diamond, the paper claims that the entanglement entropy of the 'classical' coherent states is S = A/(4 l_p^2 ε) + (1/2) ln(A/(4 l_p^2 ε)) + O(ε), thereby 'recovering' the Bekenstein-Hawking area law in the semiclassical limit.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would provide a concrete realization of the Corner Proposal, deriving the area law from representation theory of boundary symmetries. The dimensional reduction and the computation of classical corner charges (Eqs. 18–55) are presented in detail and appear internally coherent. The paper also benefits from explicitly building on previous representation-theoretic work and from identifying a specific class of coherent states with a large-s entanglement entropy. However, the decisive steps connecting the quantum representation parameter to the classical area are not self-contained: the operator–charge identification and Berezin dictionary are deferred to an unpublished companion paper, and the per-background values of the central charge are chosen by hand. As a result, the claimed prediction of the Bekenstein–Hawking coefficient is not independently established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, Eq. (64)] Eq. (64) is dimensionally inconsistent. With [t_a]=E (Eq. (56)) and [c]=E/L (from Eq. (57)), the term cℏ g^{ab} t_a t_b has dimension E^4 (since [ℏ]=E L), whereas C^cl_QCS must be dimensionless because s^2 is dimensionless. Moreover, for Schwarzschild the chosen central charge c_Sch = −ε²/(32G) (Eq. (66)) is O(ε²), so the c-dependent term cannot generate s ∝ 1/ε as reported in Eq. (67). The same problem affects Eqs. (71) and (75). The derivation from (64) to the claimed s values therefore fails as written.
  2. [Section 4, Eqs. (66), (70), (74)] The central charge c is not derived; it is chosen per background with values that differ in sign and magnitude (c_Sch=−ε²/(32G), c_dS=ε²/(16G), c_Min=ε²/(64G)). Since Eq. (62) sets s² = C^cl_QCS, and Eq. (17) gives S=2πs, the leading entropy coefficient is a direct function of these hand-picked c values. Eq. (58) fixes only the dimension of c, not its value or sign. Without a background-independent rule for c, the 'recovery' of S=A/(4l_p²ε) is a fit, not a prediction.
  3. [Section 4, Eqs. (59)–(64) and footnote 2] The operator–charge identification (63) and the Berezin-symbol expansion (59)–(60), which are the bridge between quantum representation parameters and classical charges, are deferred to the unpublished companion [23]. Footnote 2 states that the classical Casimir is independent of the comoment-map choice, but the proof is again relegated to [23]. As a self-contained letter, the central derivation is not checkable from the present manuscript; the main result rests on an unavailable reference.
  4. [Section 4, text after Eq. (68)] The statement that the ε→0 divergence 'can be absorbed in the renormalization of the Planck length' is asserted without any calculation or scheme. This matters because the divergent 1/ε term multiplies the same area A/(4l_p²); the finite coefficient 1/(4G) is not separately derived. The claimed Bekenstein–Hawking coefficient therefore lacks independent support beyond the chosen c.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Throughout] Several typos and OCR artifacts appear: 'Furthemore' (after Eq. (23)), 'Levi-Civitasymbol' (after Eq. (47)), 'diffeomomrphisms' (Section 2), and 'SL: (2,R)' notation. These should be corrected.
  2. [Section 3, Eq. (17)] The large-s entropy result S_cl ∼ 2πs + (1/2)ln(2πs) is cited from companion work [11]; no derivation or brief justification is given in this letter. Since it is a load-bearing input, a short self-contained explanation would help the reader.
  3. [Section 4, Eq. (58)] The identification c ∼ G⁻¹ fixes only the scaling dimension of c. The sentence 'the only parameter in the theory with these dimensions is the inverse Newton constant' presumes a specific set of dimensionful parameters; this should be stated more carefully to distinguish a dimensional argument from a derivation of c.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged

Per-background central-charge choices (66), (70), (74) set the 1/(4l_p²ε) coefficient through (62)–(64) and (17); the 'recovered' Bekenstein–Hawking term is an input choice, with the semiclassical dictionary deferred to an unpublished self-citation [23].

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Eqs. (62), (64), (66)–(68); text after Eq. (68)]
    "We choose the following value of the central parameter cSch = − ε²/(32G),(66) where ε is dimensionless infinitesimally small parameter. Using equations (5), (54), (55), (62), and (64), we can write the representation parameters as sSch = 2GM²/(ℏε) + O(ε)(67) ... S cl Sch = Ars/(4l²pε) + 1/2 ln(Ars/(4l²pε)) + O(ε)(68) ... We thus recovered the famous Bekenstein-Hawking formula."

    The chain S = 2πs (17), s² = C^cl_QCS (62), and C^cl_QCS = (ρ²₀/4l_p²)[ρ²₀/4l_p² + (1/2)cℏ g^{ab} t_a t_b] (64) makes the leading entropy coefficient a direct function of the central element c. Eq. (58) fixes only the dimension (c ∼ G⁻¹); the values in (66), (70), (74) are bare 'choices' with different signs and magnitudes (−ε²/32G, +ε²/16G, +ε²/64G) and no stated rule. With c = 0 the same formulas give s = ρ²₀/4l_p² and S = A/8l_p², not A/4l_p²ε, so it is the chosen c that upgrades the coefficient to 1/4 and supplies the 1/ε. The area-law 'recovery' is therefore equivalent, by construction, to the input values; the paper says 'we choose' rather than deriving c.

  2. self citation load bearing [Before Eqs. (59)–(64); deferral to Ref. [23]]
    "The mathematically precise procedure underlying the entropy–area correspondence is rather intricate, and in this work we present only the final result. The interested reader is referred to the accompanying paper [23] for a detailed exposition. ... See [23] for details."

    The equation that injects geometry into the entropy calculation is (64): it expresses C^cl_QCS — hence s via (62) and S via (17) — in terms of corner data ρ²₀, t_a, and c. The letter presents (64) as 'the final result' and explicitly defers its derivation to the unpublished companion [23] (L. Varrin, 'To appear'). The Berezin dictionary (59)–(63) is likewise deferred ('See [23] for details'). The central reduction of the letter therefore rests on a self-citation whose content is not available in the paper, so the claimed derivation chain cannot be checked independently of the authors' own unpublished claims.

  3. uniqueness imported from authors [Footnote 2, p. 10 (appended to Eq. (63))]
    "This is a choice of comoment map going from the algebra to the functionals on field space µ : ecs −→ C∞(Γ). One can show [23] that the classical Casimir is independent of this choice."

    The uniqueness claim that would rule out tailoring the dictionary to produce the area law is itself imported from the authors' unpublished companion [23]. As in the main text, the justification is a self-citation ('One can show [23]') rather than a proof in the letter, so the claimed canonicity of the comoment map — a point on which the generality and unavoidability of the entropy–area match depends — is asserted by reference to the authors' own work, not by an externally checkable argument.

full rationale

The letter contains genuine, checkable content: the dimensional reduction of spherically symmetric Einstein–Hilbert gravity to two-dimensional dilaton gravity (18)–(29), the derivation of the classical corner charges (54)–(55), the QCS representation theory, and the coherent-state entropy formula S = 2πs (17), the latter taken from the authors' prior paper [11] but itself an independent computation that does not presuppose the area law. The circularity is localized and specific. The headline result — S = A/(4l_p²ε) in (68), (72), (76), called a recovery of the Bekenstein–Hawking formula — is reached through s² = C^cl_QCS (62), with C^cl_QCS given by (64) as an explicit function of the central element c. The letter never derives c: (58) fixes only its dimension, and (66), (70), (74) are stated as bare per-background 'choices' with three different signs and magnitudes. Because S = 2πs at leading order, the 1/(4l_p²ε) coefficient is a direct function of the chosen c; with c = 0 the same machinery yields S = A/8l_p², not A/4l_p²ε. Thus the area-law prediction reduces by construction to the input values (pattern: fitted input called prediction), and the 1/ε divergence is then verbally declared absorbable into a renormalized Planck length. Second, the semiclassical dictionary (59)–(64) that connects representation data to metric data, and the uniqueness of the comoment map (footnote 2), are deferred to the unpublished self-cited companion [23], making the load-bearing link unverifiable within the letter. This is not total circularity — the framework and calculations are substantive — but the central numerical claim is tuned by hand. Score 7.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 1 invented entities

The load-bearing inputs: the per-example central charge c (the number that fixes the entropy coefficient), the regulator ε, and the operator–charge identification; plus representation-theoretic and semiclassical assumptions inherited from [10, 11] and [23] (unavailable). The dimensional reduction itself is standard and shown in the text. No truly new physical entities — but the central deformation {t_a,t_b}=c is a hat-pulled knob: it does the work and has no independent determination.

free parameters (3)
  • central charge c (per spacetime) = c_Sch = −ε²/(32G); c_dS = ε²/(16G); c_Min = ε²/(64G)
    Chosen by hand for each example (eqs. 66, 70, 74); enters s² = C^cl (eq. 62) and S = 2πs (eq. 17), fixing the area-law coefficient. Three values differ in sign and magnitude with no derivation — the 1/4 coefficient is an input, not an output.
  • infinitesimal parameter ε = ε → 0 (classical limit)
    Dimensionless regulator introduced so that c is infinitesimal; the entropy diverges as 1/ε; the claimed absorption into a renormalized Planck length is asserted (text after eq. 68), not derived.
  • operator–charge identification (comoment map), eq. (63) = l(H)=N^0_1, l(D)=N^0_0, l(K)=−N^1_0, l(X)=t_0, l(P)=t_1
    A choice of which quantum operators represent which classical corner charges; determines the classical Casimir C^cl (eq. 64) and hence s. Independence of the choice is claimed via [23] (not shown).
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Corner Proposal: universal ECS algebra (eq. 1) is the correct starting point for quantum gravity; in 2D it quantizes to QCS = SL(2,R)⋉H₃ (eq. 3)
    The entire framework rests on this proposal from [5–11]; not derived here.
  • domain assumption Entanglement entropy of the glued corner in a classical state is S_cl ∼ 2πs + (1/2) ln(2πs) for s≫1 (eq. 17)
    Taken from the authors' prior paper [11]; it is the functional from which the area law is read off. Not re-derived in this letter.
  • domain assumption Berezin-symbol semiclassical expansion (eq. 59) and the identification l(C_QCS) = s² = C^cl_QCS + O(ℏ) (eqs. 60–62)
    The quantum–classical dictionary at the heart of the paper; its derivation is deferred to the companion paper [23] 'to appear'.
  • ad hoc to paper Dimensional analysis fixes c ∼ G⁻¹ (eq. 58: 'the only parameter in the theory with these dimensions is the inverse Newton constant')
    Only fixes c up to a dimensionless coefficient and sign; the actual coefficients in eqs. (66), (70), (74) are asserted per example.
  • standard math Standard reduction of 4D spherically symmetric EH action to 2D dilaton gravity (eqs. 18–30)
    Conformal transformations and dimensional reduction shown in the text; standard geometric identities. Supporting, not risky.
  • domain assumption 1/16 constant shift in C_QCS (eq. 5) and the Fock-basis representations and gluing condition from [10, 11]
    Representation-theoretic input from prior work; the shift is chosen for positivity.
invented entities (1)
  • Central deformation of the translation charges {t_a, t_b} = c (eq. 57) no independent evidence
    purpose: Makes the classical corner algebra quantize (projective → linear) and supplies the free knob whose value sets the entropy coefficient via eqs. (62), (17)
    No independent determination of c is provided; the per-example values (66), (70), (74) are chosen to reproduce A/(4l_p²ε). This is the graviton-problem structure: the entity that does the work is pulled from a hat.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 9713 in / 30132 out tokens · 279600 ms · 2026-08-04T07:24:50.804348+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From the Corner Proposal to the Area Law." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H2PX6LMB

@misc{pith2026251025851,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From the Corner Proposal to the Area Law},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H2PX6LMB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.25851}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We provide an explicit realization of the Corner Proposal for Quantum Gravity in the case of spherically symmetric spacetimes in four dimensions, or equivalently, two-dimensional dilaton gravity. We construct coherent states of the Quantum Corner Symmetry group and compute the entanglement entropy relative to these states. We derive the classical corner charges and relate them to operator expectation values in coherent states. For a subset of coherent states that we call classical states, we find that the entanglement entropy exhibits a leading term proportional to the area, recovering the Bekenstein-Hawking area law in the semiclassical limit.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Quantum Geometry from Area Fluctuations

    hep-th 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Derives a thermal fluctuation formula for causal-diamond boundary area with a linear term of Verlinde-Zurek scaling interpreted as statistical evidence for discrete quanta of geometry.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 19 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    On Unitary Representations of the Inhomogeneous Lorentz Group,

    E. P. Wigner, “On Unitary Representations of the Inhomogeneous Lorentz Group,” Annals Math. 40(1939) 149–204

    1939

  2. [2]

    Weinberg, The Quantum theory of fields

    S. Weinberg, The Quantum theory of fields. V ol. 1: Foundations. Cambridge University Press, 6, 2005

    2005

  3. [3]

    Black hole entropy is the Noether charge,

    R. M. Wald, “Black hole entropy is the Noether charge,” Phys. Rev. D48(1993) no. 8, R3427–R3431,arXiv:gr-qc/9307038

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  4. [4]

    A General definition of ’conserved quantities’ in general relativity and other theories of gravity,

    R. M. Wald and A. Zoupas, “A General definition of ’conserved quantities’ in general relativity and other theories of gravity,” Phys. Rev. D61(2000) 084027,arXiv:gr-qc/9911095

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  5. [5]

    Local subsystems in gauge theory and gravity,

    W. Donnelly and L. Freidel, “Local subsystems in gauge theory and gravity,” JHEP09(2016) 102, arXiv:1601.04744 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  6. [6]

    Isolated surfaces and symmetries of gravity,

    L. Ciambelli and R. G. Leigh, “Isolated surfaces and symmetries of gravity,” Phys. Rev. D104 (2021) no. 4, 046005,arXiv:2104.07643 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Universal corner symmetry and the orbit method for gravity,

    L. Ciambelli and R. G. Leigh, “Universal corner symmetry and the orbit method for gravity,” Nucl. Phys. B986(2023) 116053,arXiv:2207.06441 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    From Asymptotic Symmetries to the Corner Proposal,

    L. Ciambelli, “From Asymptotic Symmetries to the Corner Proposal,” PoSModave2022(2023) 002,arXiv:2212.13644 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  9. [9]

    Cornering quantum gravity,

    L. Ciambelli, A. D’Alise, V . D’Esposito, D. Djordjevic, D. Fern´andez-Silvestre, and L. Varrin, “Cornering quantum gravity,” PoSQG-MMSchools(2024) 010,arXiv:2307.08460 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    Quantum corner symmetry: Representations and gluing,

    L. Ciambelli, J. Kowalski-Glikman, and L. Varrin, “Quantum corner symmetry: Representations and gluing,” Phys. Lett. B866(2025) 139544,arXiv:2406.07101 [hep-th]. 12

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    Entanglement Entropy of Quantum Corners,

    L. Ciambelli, J. Kowalski-Glikman, and L. Varrin, “Entanglement Entropy of Quantum Corners,” arXiv:2507.16800 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  12. [12]

    Orbit method for Quantum Corner Symmetries,

    G. Neri and L. Varrin, “Orbit method for Quantum Corner Symmetries,”arXiv:2507.10683 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  13. [13]

    Physical representations of corner symmetries,

    L. Varrin, “Physical representations of corner symmetries,” Phys. Rev. D111(2025) no. 8, 086003,arXiv:2409.10624 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Coherent and incoherent states of the radiation field,

    R. J. Glauber, “Coherent and incoherent states of the radiation field,” Phys. Rev.131(1963) 2766–2788

    1963

  15. [15]

    Coherent and Squeezed States: Introductory Review of Basic Notions, Properties, and Generalizations,

    O. Rosas-Ortiz, “Coherent and Squeezed States: Introductory Review of Basic Notions, Properties, and Generalizations,”arXiv:1812.07523 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  16. [16]

    Generalized coherent states and some of their applications,

    A. M. Perelomov, “Generalized coherent states and some of their applications,” Soviet Physics Uspekhi20(1977) no. 9, 703

    1977

  17. [17]

    Equivalence classes of minimum uncertainty packets,

    D. Stoler, “Equivalence classes of minimum uncertainty packets,” Phys. Rev. D1(1970) 3217–3219

    1970

  18. [18]

    Two photon coherent states of the radiation field,

    H. P. Yuen, “Two photon coherent states of the radiation field,”Phys. Rev. A13(1976) 2226–2243

    1976

  19. [19]

    A Quantum Source of Entropy for Black Holes,

    L. Bombelli, R. K. Koul, J. Lee, and R. D. Sorkin, “A Quantum Source of Entropy for Black Holes,” Phys. Rev. D34(1986) 373–383

    1986

  20. [20]

    Entropy and area,

    M. Srednicki, “Entropy and area,” Phys. Rev. Lett.71(1993) 666–669,arXiv:hep-th/9303048

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  21. [21]

    Embeddings and Integrable Charges for Extended Corner Symmetry,

    L. Ciambelli, R. G. Leigh, and P.-C. Pai, “Embeddings and Integrable Charges for Extended Corner Symmetry,” Phys. Rev. Lett.128(2022) ,arXiv:2111.13181 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  22. [22]

    Ambiguity resolution for integrable gravitational charges,

    A. J. Speranza, “Ambiguity resolution for integrable gravitational charges,” JHEP07(2022) 029, arXiv:2202.00133 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  23. [23]

    The semi-classical limit on quantum gravity on corners,

    L. Varrin, “The semi-classical limit on quantum gravity on corners,”. To appear

  24. [24]

    General Concept of Quantization,

    F. A. Berezin, “General Concept of Quantization,” Commun. Math. Phys.40(1975) 153–174

    1975

  25. [25]

    Black hole entropy in canonical quantum gravity and superstring theory,

    L. Susskind and J. Uglum, “Black hole entropy in canonical quantum gravity and superstring theory,” Phys. Rev. D50(1994) 2700–2711,arXiv:hep-th/9401070

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  26. [26]

    Black hole entropy and induced gravity,

    T. Jacobson, “Black hole entropy and induced gravity,”arXiv:gr-qc/9404039

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  27. [27]

    On one loop renormalization of black hole entropy,

    D. V . Fursaev and S. N. Solodukhin, “On one loop renormalization of black hole entropy,”Phys. Lett. B365(1996) 51–55,arXiv:hep-th/9412020

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  28. [28]

    Entanglement entropy of black holes,

    S. N. Solodukhin, “Entanglement entropy of black holes,” Living Rev. Rel.14(2011) 8, arXiv:1104.3712 [hep-th]. 13

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011