Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Near-Horizon Symmetries in Einstein-Maxwell theory

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The near-horizon Einstein-Maxwell equations are derived from the charge algebra of horizon symmetries, and the internal boost charge is the horizon area.

desk verdict Solid extension of the Freidel-Oliveri-Pranzetti-Speziale program to Einstein-Maxwell, but the advertised flux-balance derivation of the null Raychaudhuri equation has a sign inconsistency in the supertranslation sector, and the abstract overstates the scope. read the letter →

arxiv 2511.11136 v5 pith:ORDZZ3IP submitted 2025-11-14 hep-th

Gianfranco De Simone This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords near-horizonsymmetriesEinstein-MaxwelltheoryNoetherchargesCarrollianboostsymmetryBarnich-TroessaertbracketRaychaudhuriequationDamourflux-balancelaw
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 establishes that, in Einstein-Maxwell theory around a non-extremal four-dimensional black hole, the near-horizon dynamics are not free-standing equations but consequences of the symmetry charges living on the horizon. By combining the covariant phase space formalism with the generalized Barnich-Troessaert bracket, the author derives the null Raychaudhuri equation, the Damour equation, and the v-component of Maxwell's equations directly from the flux-balance law. The paper also computes the Noether charges in both metric and tetrad formulations and shows that the internal local boost symmetry of the Carrollian fluid description of the horizon is exactly the internal Lorentz boost of an adapted frame, whose charge is the corner area element. If correct, this gives a symmetry-from-charge derivation of horizon equations and reinforces the view that gravitational entropy is a corner charge.

What carries the argument

The central object is the generalized Barnich-Troessaert bracket, a modified charge bracket that includes anomalies, fluxes, and a 2-cocycle term, together with the flux-balance law that equates the bracket (minus the charge of the commutator) to corner constraints. The bracket (1.7)-(1.8) with the cocycle c(ξ,ζ) satisfying (1.9) is what makes the derivation of the Raychaudhuri and Damour equations possible; without it, the charge algebra would not reproduce the Einstein-Maxwell evolution equations. A second key mechanism is the Noetherian split of charges and fluxes, where the local boost charge arises from the anomaly of the boundary Lagrangian.

What would settle it

Compute explicitly the 2-cocycle c(ξ,ζ) entering the generalized Barnich-Troessaert bracket for the near-horizon Einstein-Maxwell phase space and check whether the identity dc(ξ,ζ)=Δξ aζ−Δζ aξ+a[[ξ,ζ]] is satisfied. A single counterexample configuration (e.g., a non-vanishing Maxwell field with the radial expansions (2.33)(2.34)) where the identity fails would invalidate the derivation of the Raychaudhuri and Damour equations from the flux-balance law.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Working in the Newman-Unti gauge with boundary conditions gvv=O(ρ), gva=O(ρ), gab=O(1), the paper solves the Einstein-Maxwell hypersurface equations and obtains the near-horizon metric and Maxwell potential expansions to order ρ². It then constructs the near-horizon symmetry group, the Weyl-BMS group (diff(S)⋉W)⋉T, and computes the leading Noether charges for supertranslations, diffeomorphisms, Weyl super-boosts, and the internal Carrollian boost. The central result is that the generalized Barnich-Troessaert bracket, together with the flux-balance law, reproduces the null Raychaudhuri equation for the longitudinal expansion and the Damour equation for the Hajicek field, with the v-Maxwell eq

Load-bearing premise

The derivation leans on the lemma from the covariant phase space formalism that a 2-cocycle c(ξ,ζ) exists satisfying (1.9); if that identity does not hold for the near-horizon phase space with electromagnetic fields, the flux-balance derivation of the horizon equations does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, the near-horizon Einstein equations are not independent but are fixed by the representation theory of the corner charge algebra, strengthening the holographic dictionary for black hole horizons.
  • The equality of the Carrollian internal boost charge with the Lorentz boost charge, equal to the area element, gives a concrete Noether-charge interpretation of Bekenstein-Hawking area in the near-horizon phase space.
  • The derivation of the v-component of Maxwell's equations from the same flux-balance law shows that electromagnetic dynamics are also encoded in the symmetry algebra, not just gravity.
  • The charge algebra forms a consistent representation of the Weyl-BMS group, which can be used as the starting point for a Carrollian field-theory description of near-horizon degrees of freedom.
  • The absence of a derivation of the spacelike Einstein equations E⟨ab⟩=0 indicates that a spin-2 symmetry generator is missing; closing this gap would enlarge the near-horizon symmetry group.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One can conjecture that a complete derivation of E⟨ab⟩=0 would require spin-2-like generators on the corner, suggesting that the full near-horizon symmetry algebra is larger than the Weyl-BMS group and might be the near-horizon counterpart of the generalized BMS algebra of null infinity.
  • The leading-order vanishing of the electric Noether charge with a subleading non-zero value implies that electromagnetic memory near the horizon shows up only at subleading order; measuring this subleading charge might yield a near-horizon electromagnetic memory effect similar to Weinberg's soft photon theorem.
  • Because the boost charge equals the area element and the Raychaudhuri equation is derived from the flux-balance law, the author's version of the generalized second law could be recast as a statement about the positivity of flux in this charge algebra; testing whether the flux is always non-negative for physical radiative fields could connect horizon thermodynamics to the flux-balance law.
  • The reliance on the 2-cocycle lemma suggests that one can probe the validity of the result by checking whether the cocycle identity survives higher-order corrections in the radial expansion; if it fails, the derivation would need further subtractions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper undertakes a covariant phase space (CPS) analysis of Einstein–Maxwell theory near a four-dimensional non-extremal black hole horizon. It computes Noether charges and fluxes in both metric and first-order (Einstein–Cartan) formulations, identifies the Carrollian internal boost charge with a Lorentz boost charge, and claims that the near-horizon Einstein equations can be derived from the generalized Barnich–Troessaert flux-balance law. The concrete dynamical results are the null Raychaudhuri equation, the Damour equation, and the v-component of the Maxwell equations, obtained from the charge algebra of near-horizon supertranslations and diffeomorphisms.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper provides a useful link between near-horizon charge algebra and horizon dynamics, and strengthens the reading of the internal Carrollian boost as a Lorentz boost with charge equal to the area element. The computation includes explicit near-horizon metric and Maxwell expansions, and the charge/flux expressions match known results in the metric and tetrad formulations. These are genuine strengths. The main advertised derivation, however, is narrower than the abstract states: only a subset of the near-horizon Einstein equations is obtained, and the supertranslation part of the derivation is not internally consistent as written. The result is therefore promising but requires substantial correction before the central claim is established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.4, Eqs. (3.71)–(3.73)] The supertranslation sector is internally inconsistent. Using the transformations from §3.1 (δ_T κ = T∂_vκ, δ_T θ^(ℓ)=T∂_vθ^(ℓ), δ_T q_ab=2T K^(ℓ)_ab), the flux formula (3.65) evaluates to I_{T1}F_{T2} = −∫T1T2(∂_vκ + ∂_vθ^(ℓ) + K^(ℓ)² + 2|∂_vA|²)√q, not the printed (3.72), which has −K^(ℓ)². With the printed signs, combining (3.71) and (3.72) in the bracket (3.68) gives ∫T1T2[(∂_v−κ)θ^(ℓ) − K^(ℓ)² + 2|∂_vA|²]√q, in conflict with (3.73). With the corrected +K² sign, one obtains ∫T1T2[(∂_v−κ)θ^(ℓ) + K^(ℓ)² + 2|∂_vA|²]√q, which is the on-shell-zero Raychaudhuri combination. The derivation can be repaired, but the equations as printed do not close.
  2. [§1 and §3.4] The 2-cocycle K(ξ,ζ) is introduced in (1.7)–(1.8), with c(ξ,ζ) defined through (1.9), but it is never computed or constrained for the near-horizon phase space. The flux-balance derivation (3.69) and the summary algebra (3.80) implicitly set K=0 for supertranslations. If K is nonzero, the combination computed in (3.73) is not the full bracket and the conclusion that the Raychaudhuri combination vanishes cannot be attributed to the bracket. Since this is the load-bearing structural point for the paper's main result, the author must either evaluate K explicitly for the Einstein–Maxwell near-horizon phase space or justify, from the conditions of the lemma in [58], that K and c vanish under the stated boundary conditions.
  3. [Abstract and Conclusion, §4] The abstract claims that 'the near-horizon Einstein equations can be obtained from the flux-balance law.' The Conclusion explicitly states that a derivation of the spacelike Einstein equations E_ab=0 is lacking. What is actually derived from the flux-balance law is the null Raychaudhuri equation (2.53), the Damour equation (2.54), and the v-component of the Maxwell equations (2.57). The abstract should be reworded to name this subset, and the word 'prove' should be tempered to reflect that these equations were already obtained in Section 2.3.2 and are here re-derived from the charge bracket.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (3.65)] The notation δ q_ab vs δ q^ab is ambiguous. The sign of the K² term in (3.65)/(3.72) depends on whether the variation is taken of the covariant or contravariant metric. Please specify explicitly, as this ambiguity is directly related to the sign inconsistency in §3.4.
  2. [Eq. (2.50) and (2.51)] The traceless part d⟨ab⟩ is used before being defined. Also, in the cross term of (2.51) the index structure of (D_b+2π_b)K^(n)ba appears to have a missing contraction; please clarify.
  3. [Appendix B and §3.3] The identification of the Carrollian internal boost with the Lorentz boost is based on equality of the Noether charges (B.16)–(B.17) with (3.50)–(3.51). This is good evidence, but the wording 'acts exactly as a Lorentz boost' is stronger than the charge computation alone shows. Please clarify whether the full symmetry transformation, not just the charge, is being identified.
  4. [§3.4, after Eq. (3.79)] The summary algebra (3.80) is presented as an on-shell statement. It would help to state explicitly which equalities hold only after imposing the Raychaudhuri/Damour/Maxwell equations, and which hold identically from the bracket computation.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity in the flux-balance derivation; the boost-charge correspondence is definitional, and the Raychaudhuri bracket has a non-circular sign inconsistency.

  1. self definitional [Sec. 3 'Internal boost symmetries'; App. B, Eqs. (B.14), (B.17)]
    "Moreover, performing an analysis via the Einstein-Cartan formulation of gravity in appendix B, we notice that this symmetry acts exactly as a Lorentz boost, yielding the same charge. ... Therefore, from now on, we label this internal boost symmetry by λ = ∂ρξρ = −W. ... from which we obtain ... λ10 = ∂ρξρ ... The charge associated with internal gauge transformations yields the so-called internal Lorentz boost charge given by λ10 and reads QECλ = −∫ d2σ√q W."

    The EC Lorentz boost parameter is not independently determined: the adapted-frame gauge conditions fix λ10 = ∂ρξρ, while the internal boost parameter was previously labeled by the same quantity, λ = ∂ρξρ = −W. Substituting this into the EC charge formula gives QECλ = −∫W√q, which is the same integral as the metric Carrollian boost charge Qcλ = −∫W√q. The claimed 'precise correspondence' is therefore a definitional identification of the two boost parameters rather than a derived result.

full rationale

The central derivation of the null Raychaudhuri and Damour equations from the generalized Barnich-Troessaert bracket is not circular: the charges and fluxes used in (3.71)-(3.72) are computed from the Einstein-Maxwell Lagrangian and pre-symplectic potential, and the target equations emerge by imposing representability of the charge algebra, not by inserting (2.53)-(2.54) as inputs. The reliance on [58] for the cocycle lemma and on [51] for the internal boost charge is external, not self-citation. Two caveats are non-circular: the Conclusion explicitly defers E_ab, so the abstract's 'near-horizon Einstein equations' overstates the derived set; and, as written, (3.71)-(3.73) are algebraically inconsistent — combining (3.71)-(3.72) yields a −K^2 term while (3.73) has +K^2, and K(ξ,ζ) is neither computed nor constrained — which is a correctness problem, not a circularity. The only step that reduces by construction is the boost-charge identification discussed above.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new free parameters fitted to data and no new physical entities. It relies on standard covariant phase space and null-boundary frameworks, with the main structural assumption being the generalized Barnich-Troessaert bracket machinery from [58].

assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Covariant phase space formalism: pre-symplectic potential θ, Noether charge q_ξ, Noetherian flux F_ξ, and anomalies a_ξ, A_ξ obey the identities in Section 1.
    Imported from references [53-59]; the paper relies on this framework without deriving it.
  • domain assumption Generalized Barnich-Troessaert bracket and flux-balance law, including the 2-cocycle K and the lemma for c(ξ,ζ) in sec. 3.2 of [58].
    This is the central tool of Section 3.4; the derivation of Raychaudhuri and Damour equations assumes it.
  • domain assumption Near-horizon metric ansatz (2.18) in Newman-Unti gauge with boundary conditions (2.21).
    The whole analysis is restricted to this class of metrics; standard in null-hypersurface literature [62,63].
  • domain assumption The internal boost symmetry acts as δ_λ ℓ = λℓ, δ_λ n = -λ n, δ_λ q = 0 (3.20).
    This is the Carrollian boost symmetry established in [40,51]; the paper uses it to define the boost charge.
  • domain assumption In the Einstein-Cartan formulation, the charge associated with diffeomorphisms and internal gauge transformations is Q_EC = ∫_S (ι_ξ ω^{10} + λ^{10}) √q d^2σ (B.15), from [78].
    The identification of the Lorentz boost charge relies on this formula.
  • standard math The relation ∂_v(θ^(ℓ)√q) = ((θ^(ℓ))^2 + ∂_vθ^(ℓ))√q used in (3.46).
    Follows from the definition θ^(ℓ) = (1/2) q^{ab} ∂_v q_ab and ∂_v√q = √q θ^(ℓ); verified.
  • domain assumption The solution space from hypersurface equations (Section 2.3.1) is used to evaluate leading-order charges, i.e., the on-shell expansions of κ, π_a, q_ab at the horizon.
    The charges are computed on the near-horizon solution space determined by E_{ρμ}=0 and M^ρ=0.
  • domain assumption The vector fields preserving the gauge and boundary conditions are given by (3.6), with τ = T(x) + v W(x).
    Restricts the symmetry algebra to the near-horizon Weyl-BMS group; standard from [76,77].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Near-Horizon Symmetries in Einstein-Maxwell theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ORDZZ3IP

@misc{pith2026251111136,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Near-Horizon Symmetries in Einstein-Maxwell theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ORDZZ3IP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.11136}
}
read the original abstract

This manuscript aims to provide a comprehensive derivation of the Einstein-Maxwell charges and fluxes in the near-horizon region of a four-dimensional non-extremal black hole, with vanishing cosmological constant. Specifically, we present a detailed derivation of the Noether charges within both the metric and first-order formulations, elucidating the relationship between the Carrollian internal boost charge and the Lorentz boost charge. It is well-established in the literature that Carrollian fluids exhibit an internal local boost symmetry; we demonstrate that this symmetry precisely corresponds to a Lorentz internal transformation. Finally, we prove that the near-horizon Einstein equations can be obtained from the flux-balance law by employing the generalized Barnich-Troessaert bracket.

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. The extremal Reissner-Nordstr\"om throat from non extremal near horizon expansions

    hep-th 2026-07 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

    String Carroll first-order data miss the RN AdS2×S2 throat; second-order (EF) or all-order radial (static) terms restore it under near-extremal scaling.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [58]

    Extended corner symmetry, charge bracket and Einstein’s equations.JHEP, 09:083, 2021

    Laurent Freidel, Roberto Oliveri, Daniele Pranzetti, and Simone Speziale. Extended corner symmetry, charge bracket and Einstein’s equations.JHEP, 09:083, 2021. doi: 10.1007/JHEP09(2021)083

    doi:10.1007/jhep09(2021)083 2021

  2. [51]

    Luca Ciambelli, Laurent Freidel, and Robert G. Leigh. Null Raychaudhuri: canonical structure and the dressing time.JHEP, 01:166, 2024. doi: 10.1007/JHEP01(2024)166

    doi:10.1007/jhep01(2024)166 2024

  3. [1]

    Bondi, M

    H. Bondi, M. G. J. van der Burg, and A. W. K. Metzner. Gravitational waves in general relativity. 7. Waves from axisymmetric isolated systems.Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A, 269:21–52,

  4. [2]

    H. Bondi. Gravitational Waves in General Relativity.Nature, 186(4724):535–535, 1960. doi: 10.1038/186535a0

    doi:10.1038/186535a0 1960

  5. [3]

    R. K. Sachs. Gravitational waves in general relativity. 8. Waves in asymptotically flat space-times.Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A, 270:103–126, 1962. doi: 10.1098/rspa.1962.0206

    arXiv 1962

  6. [4]

    R. K. Sachs. Gravitational waves in general relativity. 6. The outgoing radiation condition. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A, 264:309–338, 1961. doi: 10.1098/rspa.1961.0202

    arXiv 1961

  7. [5]

    Bondi-Sachs Formalism.Scholarpedia, 11:33528, 2016

    Thomas M¨ adler and Jeffrey Winicour. Bondi-Sachs Formalism.Scholarpedia, 11:33528, 2016. doi: 10.4249/scholarpedia.33528

    doi:10.4249/scholarpedia.33528 2016

  8. [6]

    Newman and Theodore W

    Ezra T. Newman and Theodore W. J. Unti. Behavior of Asymptotically Flat Empty Spaces. J. Math. Phys., 3(5):891, 1962. doi: 10.1063/1.1724303

    doi:10.1063/1.1724303 1962

Show all 82 references
  1. [7]

    Infrared photons and gravitons.Phys

    Steven Weinberg. Infrared photons and gravitons.Phys. Rev., 140:B516–B524, 1965. doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.140.B516

    1965 doi

  2. [8]

    Christodoulou

    D. Christodoulou. Nonlinear nature of gravitation and gravitational wave experiments.Phys. Rev. Lett., 67:1486–1489, 1991. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.67.1486

    1991 doi

  3. [9]

    Braginsky and Kip S

    Vladimir B. Braginsky and Kip S. Thorne. Gravitational-wave bursts with memory and experimental prospects.Nature, 327:123–125, 1987. doi: 10.1038/327123a0

    1987 doi

  4. [10]

    On BMS Invariance of Gravitational Scattering.JHEP, 07:152, 2014

    Andrew Strominger. On BMS Invariance of Gravitational Scattering.JHEP, 07:152, 2014. doi: 10.1007/JHEP07(2014)152

    2014 doi

  5. [11]

    Gravitational Memory, BMS Supertranslations and Soft Theorems.JHEP, 01:086, 2016

    Andrew Strominger and Alexander Zhiboedov. Gravitational Memory, BMS Supertranslations and Soft Theorems.JHEP, 01:086, 2016. doi: 10.1007/JHEP01(2016)086

    2016 doi

  6. [12]

    Andrew Strominger.Lectures on the Infrared Structure of Gravity and Gauge Theory. 3

  7. [13]

    Asymptotic Symmetries and Celestial CFT.JHEP, 09:176, 2020

    Laura Donnay, Sabrina Pasterski, and Andrea Puhm. Asymptotic Symmetries and Celestial CFT.JHEP, 09:176, 2020. doi: 10.1007/JHEP09(2020)176

    2020 doi

  8. [14]

    Semiclassical Virasoro symmetry of the quantum gravityS-matrix.JHEP, 08:058, 2014

    Daniel Kapec, Vyacheslav Lysov, Sabrina Pasterski, and Andrew Strominger. Semiclassical Virasoro symmetry of the quantum gravityS-matrix.JHEP, 08:058, 2014. doi: 10.1007/JHEP08(2014)058

    2014 doi

  9. [15]

    2D Stress Tensor for 4D Gravity.Phys

    Daniel Kapec, Prahar Mitra, Ana-Maria Raclariu, and Andrew Strominger. 2D Stress Tensor for 4D Gravity.Phys. Rev. Lett., 119(12):121601, 2017. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.121601

    2017 doi

  10. [16]

    Flat Space Amplitudes and Conformal Symmetry of the Celestial Sphere.Phys

    Sabrina Pasterski, Shu-Heng Shao, and Andrew Strominger. Flat Space Amplitudes and Conformal Symmetry of the Celestial Sphere.Phys. Rev. D, 96(6):065026, 2017. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.065026

    2017 doi

  11. [17]

    Petkou, P

    Luca Ciambelli, Charles Marteau, Anastasios C. Petkou, P. Marios Petropoulos, and Konstantinos Siampos. Flat holography and Carrollian fluids.JHEP, 07:165, 2018. doi: 10.1007/JHEP07(2018)165

    2018 doi

  12. [18]

    Carrollian conservation laws and Ricci-flat gravity

    Luca Ciambelli and Charles Marteau. Carrollian conservation laws and Ricci-flat gravity. Class. Quant. Grav., 36(8):085004, 2019. doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ab0d37

    2019 doi

  13. [19]

    Near Horizon Symmetry and Entropy Formula for Kerr-Newman (A)dS Black Holes.JHEP, 04:133, 2018

    Mohammad Reza Setare and Hamed Adami. Near Horizon Symmetry and Entropy Formula for Kerr-Newman (A)dS Black Holes.JHEP, 04:133, 2018. doi: 10.1007/JHEP04(2018)133

    2018 doi

  14. [20]

    Leigh, Charles Marteau, and P

    Luca Ciambelli, Robert G. Leigh, Charles Marteau, and P. Marios Petropoulos. Carroll Structures, Null Geometry and Conformal Isometries.Phys. Rev. D, 100(4):046010, 2019. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.046010

    2019 doi

  15. [21]

    Carrollian Perspective on Celestial Holography.Phys

    Laura Donnay, Adrien Fiorucci, Yannick Herfray, and Romain Ruzziconi. Carrollian Perspective on Celestial Holography.Phys. Rev. Lett., 129(7):071602, 2022. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.071602

    2022 doi

  16. [22]

    Bridging Carrollian and celestial holography.Phys

    Laura Donnay, Adrien Fiorucci, Yannick Herfray, and Romain Ruzziconi. Bridging Carrollian and celestial holography.Phys. Rev. D, 107(12):126027, 2023. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.126027

    2023 doi

  17. [23]

    Scattering Amplitudes: Celestial and Carrollian.Phys

    Arjun Bagchi, Shamik Banerjee, Rudranil Basu, and Sudipta Dutta. Scattering Amplitudes: Celestial and Carrollian.Phys. Rev. Lett., 128(24):241601, 2022. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.241601

    2022 doi

  18. [24]

    Gonzalez, and Miguel Pino

    Laura Donnay, Gaston Giribet, Hernan A. Gonzalez, and Miguel Pino. Supertranslations and Superrotations at the Black Hole Horizon.Phys. Rev. Lett., 116(9):091101, 2016. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.091101

    2016 doi

  19. [25]

    Gonz´ alez, and Miguel Pino

    Laura Donnay, Gaston Giribet, Hern´ an A. Gonz´ alez, and Miguel Pino. Extended Symmetries at the Black Hole Horizon.JHEP, 09:100, 2016. doi: 10.1007/JHEP09(2016)100

    2016 doi

  20. [26]

    Soft hairs on isolated horizon implanted by electromagnetic fields.Class

    Pujian Mao, Xiaoning Wu, and Hongbao Zhang. Soft hairs on isolated horizon implanted by electromagnetic fields.Class. Quant. Grav., 34(5):055003, 2017. doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/aa59da

    2017 doi

  21. [27]

    Flanagan, and Kartik Prabhu

    Venkatesa Chandrasekaran, ´Eanna ´E. Flanagan, and Kartik Prabhu. Symmetries and charges of general relativity at null boundaries.JHEP, 11:125, 2018. doi: 10.1007/JHEP11(2018)125. [Erratum: JHEP 07, 224 (2023)]

    2018 doi

  22. [28]

    Null Conservation Laws for Gravity.Phys

    Florian Hopfm¨ uller and Laurent Freidel. Null Conservation Laws for Gravity.Phys. Rev. D, 97(12):124029, 2018. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.124029. – 26 –

    2018 doi

  23. [29]

    Carrollian Physics at the Black Hole Horizon.Class

    Laura Donnay and Charles Marteau. Carrollian Physics at the Black Hole Horizon.Class. Quant. Grav., 36(16):165002, 2019. doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ab2fd5

    2019 doi

  24. [30]

    Daniel Grumiller, Alfredo P´ erez, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, Ricardo Troncoso, and C´ eline Zwikel. Spacetime structure near generic horizons and soft hair.Phys. Rev. Lett., 124(4): 041601, 2020. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.041601

    2020 doi

  25. [31]

    Adami, D

    H. Adami, D. Grumiller, S. Sadeghian, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, and C. Zwikel. T-Witts from the horizon.JHEP, 04:128, 2020. doi: 10.1007/JHEP04(2020)128

    2020 doi

  26. [32]

    Adami, D

    H. Adami, D. Grumiller, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, V. Taghiloo, H. Yavartanoo, and C. Zwikel. Null boundary phase space: slicings, news & memory.JHEP, 11:155, 2021. doi: 10.1007/JHEP11(2021)155

    2021 doi

  27. [33]

    Adami, M

    H. Adami, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, V. Taghiloo, and H. Yavartanoo. Null surface thermodynamics.Phys. Rev. D, 105(6):066004, 2022. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.066004

    2022 doi

  28. [34]

    Charges and fluxes on (perturbed) non-expanding horizons.JHEP, 02:066, 2022

    Abhay Ashtekar, Neev Khera, Maciej Kolanowski, and Jerzy Lewandowski. Charges and fluxes on (perturbed) non-expanding horizons.JHEP, 02:066, 2022. doi: 10.1007/JHEP02(2022)066

    2022 doi

  29. [35]

    Non-expanding horizons: multipoles and the symmetry group.JHEP, 01:028, 2022

    Abhay Ashtekar, Neev Khera, Maciej Kolanowski, and Jerzy Lewandowski. Non-expanding horizons: multipoles and the symmetry group.JHEP, 01:028, 2022. doi: 10.1007/JHEP01(2022)028

    2022 doi

  30. [36]

    Near horizon gravitational charges.JHEP, 05:123, 2022

    Hai-Shan Liu and Pujian Mao. Near horizon gravitational charges.JHEP, 05:123, 2022. doi: 10.1007/JHEP05(2022)123

    2022 doi

  31. [37]

    M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari. On symplectic form for null boundary phase space.Gen. Rel. Grav., 54(11):140, 2022. doi: 10.1007/s10714-022-02997-2

    2022 doi

  32. [38]

    Adami, A

    H. Adami, A. Parvizi, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, V. Taghiloo, and H. Yavartanoo. Carrollian structure of the null boundary solution space.JHEP, 02:073, 2024. doi: 10.1007/JHEP02(2024)073

    2024 doi

  33. [39]

    Flanagan

    Venkatesa Chandrasekaran and Eanna E. Flanagan. Horizon phase spaces in general relativity.JHEP, 07:017, 2024. doi: 10.1007/JHEP07(2024)017

    2024 doi

  34. [40]

    Geometry of Carrollian Stretched Horizons

    Laurent Freidel and Puttarak Jai-akson. Geometry of Carrollian Stretched Horizons. 6 2024

    2024

  35. [41]

    Hawking, Malcolm J

    Stephen W. Hawking, Malcolm J. Perry, and Andrew Strominger. Soft Hair on Black Holes. Phys. Rev. Lett., 116(23):231301, 2016. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.231301

    2016 doi

  36. [42]

    Hawking, Malcolm J

    Stephen W. Hawking, Malcolm J. Perry, and Andrew Strominger. Superrotation Charge and Supertranslation Hair on Black Holes.JHEP, 05:161, 2017. doi: 10.1007/JHEP05(2017)161

    2017 doi

  37. [43]

    Hawking, Malcolm J

    Sasha Haco, Stephen W. Hawking, Malcolm J. Perry, and Andrew Strominger. Black Hole Entropy and Soft Hair.JHEP, 12:098, 2018. doi: 10.1007/JHEP12(2018)098

    2018 doi

  38. [44]

    Robert F. Penna. Near-horizon Carroll symmetry and black hole Love numbers. 12 2018

    2018

  39. [45]

    Carrollian hydrodynamics and symplectic structure on stretched horizons.JHEP, 05:135, 2024

    Laurent Freidel and Puttarak Jai-akson. Carrollian hydrodynamics and symplectic structure on stretched horizons.JHEP, 05:135, 2024. doi: 10.1007/JHEP05(2024)135

    2024 doi

  40. [46]

    MacDonald and K

    D. MacDonald and K. S. Thorne. Black-hole electrodynamics - an absolute-space/universal-time formulation.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 198:345–383, 1982

    1982

  41. [47]

    Kip S. Thorne. The Membrane Paradigm for Black-Hole Astrophysics.NATO Sci. Ser. B, 156:209–213, 1987. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4613-1897-2 6. – 27 –

    1987 doi

  42. [48]

    R. H. Price and K. S. Thorne. Membrane Viewpoint on Black Holes: Properties and Evolution of the Stretched Horizon.Phys. Rev. D, 33:915–941, 1986. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.33.915

    1986 doi

  43. [49]

    Asymptotic Limit of Null Hypersurfaces

    Luca Ciambelli. Asymptotic Limit of Null Hypersurfaces. 1 2025

    2025

  44. [50]

    Ashtekar and M

    A. Ashtekar and M. Streubel. Symplectic Geometry of Radiative Modes and Conserved Quantities at Null Infinity.Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A, 376:585–607, 1981. doi: 10.1098/rspa.1981.0109

    1981

  45. [52]

    V. R. Shajiee and M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari. A New Derivation of Classical Gravitational Second Law of Thermodynamics. 11 2025

    2025

  46. [53]

    Wald and Andreas Zoupas

    Robert M. Wald and Andreas Zoupas. A General definition of ’conserved quantities’ in general relativity and other theories of gravity.Phys. Rev. D, 61:084027, 2000. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.61.084027

    doi

  47. [54]

    Covariant phase space with boundaries.JHEP, 10:146,

    Daniel Harlow and Jie-Qiang Wu. Covariant phase space with boundaries.JHEP, 10:146,

  48. [55]

    Speranza

    Antony J. Speranza. Local phase space and edge modes for diffeomorphism-invariant theories.JHEP, 02:021, 2018. doi: 10.1007/JHEP02(2018)021

    2018 doi

  49. [56]

    Speranza

    Venkatesa Chandrasekaran and Antony J. Speranza. Anomalies in gravitational charge algebras of null boundaries and black hole entropy.JHEP, 01:137, 2021. doi: 10.1007/JHEP01(2021)137

    2021 doi

  50. [57]

    Local subsystems in gauge theory and gravity

    William Donnelly and Laurent Freidel. Local subsystems in gauge theory and gravity. JHEP, 09:102, 2016. doi: 10.1007/JHEP09(2016)102

    2016 doi

  51. [59]

    Covariant theory of asymptotic symmetries, conservation laws and central charges.Nucl

    Glenn Barnich and Friedemann Brandt. Covariant theory of asymptotic symmetries, conservation laws and central charges.Nucl. Phys. B, 633:3–82, 2002. doi: 10.1016/S0550-3213(02)00251-1

    2002 doi

  52. [60]

    A 3+1 perspective on null hypersurfaces and isolated horizons.Phys

    Eric Gourgoulhon and Jose Luis Jaramillo. A 3+1 perspective on null hypersurfaces and isolated horizons.Phys. Rept., 423:159–294, 2006. doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2005.10.005

    2006 doi

  53. [61]

    Gonzalez, and Chris Van Den Broeck

    Ivan Booth, Lionel Brits, Jose A. Gonzalez, and Chris Van Den Broeck. Marginally trapped tubes and dynamical horizons.Class. Quant. Grav., 23:413–440, 2006. doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/23/2/009

    2006 doi

  54. [62]

    Isolated, slowly evolving, and dynamical trapping horizons: Geometry and mechanics from surface deformations.Phys

    Ivan Booth and Stephen Fairhurst. Isolated, slowly evolving, and dynamical trapping horizons: Geometry and mechanics from surface deformations.Phys. Rev. D, 75:084019,

  55. [63]

    Spacetime near isolated and dynamical trapping horizons.Phys

    Ivan Booth. Spacetime near isolated and dynamical trapping horizons.Phys. Rev. D, 87(2): 024008, 2013. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.87.024008

    2013 doi

  56. [64]

    Flanagan, Ibrahim Shehzad, and Antony J

    Venkatesa Chandrasekaran, Eanna E. Flanagan, Ibrahim Shehzad, and Antony J. Speranza. Brown-York charges at null boundaries.JHEP, 01:029, 2022. doi: 10.1007/JHEP01(2022)029. – 28 –

    2022 doi

  57. [65]

    Symmetries of asymptotically flat 4 dimensional spacetimes at null infinity revisited.Phys

    Glenn Barnich and Cedric Troessaert. Symmetries of asymptotically flat 4 dimensional spacetimes at null infinity revisited.Phys. Rev. Lett., 105:111103, 2010. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.111103

    2010 doi

  58. [66]

    Aspects of the BMS/CFT correspondence.JHEP, 05: 062, 2010

    Glenn Barnich and Cedric Troessaert. Aspects of the BMS/CFT correspondence.JHEP, 05: 062, 2010. doi: 10.1007/JHEP05(2010)062

    2010 doi

  59. [67]

    BMS charge algebra.JHEP, 12:105, 2011

    Glenn Barnich and Cedric Troessaert. BMS charge algebra.JHEP, 12:105, 2011. doi: 10.1007/JHEP12(2011)105

    2011 doi

  60. [68]

    Comments on holographic current algebras and asymptotically flat four dimensional spacetimes at null infinity.JHEP, 11:003, 2013

    Glenn Barnich and C´ edric Troessaert. Comments on holographic current algebras and asymptotically flat four dimensional spacetimes at null infinity.JHEP, 11:003, 2013. doi: 10.1007/JHEP11(2013)003

    2013 doi

  61. [69]

    Edge modes of gravity

    Laurent Freidel, Marc Geiller, and Daniele Pranzetti. Edge modes of gravity. Part I. Corner potentials and charges.JHEP, 11:026, 2020. doi: 10.1007/JHEP11(2020)026

    2020 doi

  62. [70]

    The spacetime in the neighborhood of a general isolated black hole.Class

    Badri Krishnan. The spacetime in the neighborhood of a general isolated black hole.Class. Quant. Grav., 29:205006, 2012. doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/29/20/205006

    2012 doi

  63. [71]

    Gravitational collapse and space-time singularities.Phys

    Roger Penrose. Gravitational collapse and space-time singularities.Phys. Rev. Lett., 14: 57–59, 1965. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.14.57

    1965 doi

  64. [72]

    Sean A. Hayward. Marginal surfaces and apparent horizons. 3 1993

    1993

  65. [73]

    Quasi-Local Black Hole Horizons: Recent Advances

    Abhay Ashtekar and Badri Krishnan. Quasi-Local Black Hole Horizons: Recent Advances. 2 2025

    2025

  66. [74]

    Null infinity and horizons: A new approach to fluxes and charges.Phys

    Abhay Ashtekar and Simone Speziale. Null infinity and horizons: A new approach to fluxes and charges.Phys. Rev. D, 110(4):044049, 2024. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.044049

    2024 doi

  67. [75]

    Marc Mars and Jose M. M. Senovilla. Geometry of general hypersurfaces in space-time: Junction conditions.Class. Quant. Grav., 10:1865–1897, 1993. doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/10/9/026

    1993 doi

  68. [76]

    Luca Ciambelli and Robert G. Leigh. Isolated surfaces and symmetries of gravity.Phys. Rev. D, 104(4):046005, 2021. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.046005

    2021 doi

  69. [77]

    The Weyl BMS group and Einstein’s equations.JHEP, 07:170, 2021

    Laurent Freidel, Roberto Oliveri, Daniele Pranzetti, and Simone Speziale. The Weyl BMS group and Einstein’s equations.JHEP, 07:170, 2021. doi: 10.1007/JHEP07(2021)170

    2021 doi

  70. [78]

    Edge modes of gravity

    Laurent Freidel, Marc Geiller, and Daniele Pranzetti. Edge modes of gravity. Part II. Corner metric and Lorentz charges.JHEP, 11:027, 2020. doi: 10.1007/JHEP11(2020)027. – 29 –

    2020 doi

  71. [1962]

    doi: 10.1098/rspa.1962.0161

    1962

  72. [2007]

    doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.75.084019

    doi

  73. [2017]

    ISBN 978-0-691-17973-5. – 25 –

  74. [2020]

    doi: 10.1007/JHEP10(2020)146

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.