Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 5 cited by

These lecture notes derive the BMS group—supertranslations together with Lorentz transformations—as the asymptotic symmetry group of Minkowski spacetime, using only the requirement that the leading conformally compactified metric be preserv

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

2026-08-03 15:25 UTC pith:ICRA3R7F

load-bearing objection Honest, accurate lecture notes; the BMS 'derivation' is conditional on a fall-off assumption and the v2 text needs cleanup, but the pedagogical content is solid and worth referee time. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2512.16810 v3 pith:ICRA3R7F submitted 2025-12-18 hep-th gr-qc

GGI lectures on boundary and asymptotic symmetries

Simone Speziale This is my paper
classification hep-th gr-qc MSC 83C3083C40
keywords BMS groupasymptotic symmetriesnull infinityconformal compactificationsupertranslationscovariant phase spaceNoether chargesnull hypersurfaces
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 tries to establish that the BMS asymptotic symmetry group is fixed by flat-space asymptotics alone: asking vector fields to preserve only the leading order of the conformally compactified Minkowski metric at future null infinity yields precisely the algebra of supertranslations and sphere conformal Killing vectors, exponentiating to SL(2,C) ⋉ R^S. This gives a derivation of BMS that does not require solving Einstein equations or assuming the full asymptotic expansion. The same lecture notes review how Noether charges and flux-balance laws follow from the covariant phase space, and include an original construction of an integral Hamiltonian generator for diffeomorphisms of a scalar field on a null hypersurface. If correct, this fixes BMS as the natural asymptotic symmetry group within the chosen fall-off class and supplies a minimal toy model for null-boundary charges.

Core claim

The central claim is that the BMS group is already fully determined by Minkowski spacetime. With the conformally compactified metric η̂_μν and the requirement £_ξ η̂_μν|_{I} = 2α_ξ η̂_μν, the allowed vector fields take the form ξ = f ∂_u + Y^A ∂_A + Ω(ḟ ∂_Ω − D_A f ∂^A) + O(Ω²), where f = T(x^A) + (u/2) D_A Y^A and T is an arbitrary function on the sphere. These vector fields close under the Lie bracket and exponentiate to the BMS group, G_BMS = SL(2,C) ⋉ R^S, with SL(2,C) acting as conformal Killing vectors of the sphere and R^S as supertranslations. The notes also show that the same group results from preserving standard null-infinity fall-off conditions, and that the associated charges a

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is conformal compactification: rescaling Minkowski by Ω² = 1/r² makes future null infinity a smooth null boundary with unphysical metric η̂_μν. The key equation is the leading-order preservation condition £_ξ η̂_μν|_{I} = 2α_ξ η̂_μν, which replaces the Killing equation and fixes the asymptotic Killing vectors. The BMS group—the semi-direct product of sphere conformal Killing vectors (Lorentz transformations) with supertranslations, arbitrary angle-dependent time translations—is the object derived. For the charge sector, the covariant phase space and the covariance/stationarity prescription for resolving the ambiguities of the symplectic potential are what turn Noether c

Load-bearing premise

The derivation stands or falls with the modeling choice that asymptotic symmetries need preserve only the leading order of the unphysical metric at null infinity; change the fall-off condition and the resulting symmetry group changes.

What would settle it

Compute the full solution space of £_ξ η̂_μν|_{I} = 2α_ξ η̂_μν for the conformally compactified Minkowski metric under the paper's regularity assumptions; if any solution exists that is not of the form in Eq. (5.16), or if the Lie bracket of two solutions fails to close into the stated algebra, the central claim is false.

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

If this is right

  • The BMS group follows from the leading-order conformal structure of Minkowski alone; the standard null-infinity fall-off analysis reproduces the same vector fields, so the two derivations agree.
  • Supertranslations are arbitrary functions on the sphere; only their l=0,1 modes are global translations, and there is no unique Lorentz subgroup—it depends on a choice of supertranslation frame.
  • BMS charges are surface integrals with flux-balance laws; fixing symplectic-potential ambiguities by covariance and stationarity makes the charges background-independent and removes field-dependent cocycles from the charge algebra.
  • The same covariant-phase-space methods applied to finite null boundaries yield a hierarchy of boundary symmetry groups, from all diffeomorphisms of the null hypersurface to BMS-like groups with an extra dilation.
  • The scalar field on a null hypersurface admits an explicit integral Hamiltonian generator, providing a tractable model for boundary charges and fluxes outside gravity.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the derivation is sensitive to the fall-off class: if the requirement in Eq. (5.15) is weakened to allow subleading terms in the unphysical metric, larger asymptotic symmetry groups (generalized or extended BMS) arise, so the paper's Minkowski-only derivation fixes BMS within a specific fall-off class rather than ruling out larger groups.
  • Editorial inference: the same leading-order conformal logic could be applied to other spacetimes with conformal boundaries, such as de Sitter or anti-de Sitter, to identify their asymptotic symmetry groups without solving the full field equations.
  • Editorial inference: the scalar null-hypersurface Hamiltonian generator suggests a concrete check—quantize the scalar field on the null boundary and verify that the generator's bracket reproduces the diffeomorphism action; this could be a toy model for edge-mode Hilbert spaces in flat holography.

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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript is an expanded set of lecture notes for a GGI school on asymptotic symmetries and flat holography. It reviews the covariant phase space, Noether's theorem for gauge theories and gravity, boundary and asymptotic symmetries, flux-balance laws on null boundaries, and BMS charges and fluxes at null infinity. The two claimed original contributions are: (i) a derivation of the BMS group from Minkowski spacetime in Penrose conformal compactification, presented in §5.2 and Appendix A; and (ii) a derivation of an integral Hamiltonian generator for a scalar field on a null hypersurface, in Appendix B. The BMS derivation is summarized by Eq. (5.15)–(5.23), where the condition that the unphysical metric be preserved to leading order at I leads to the algebra (5.22) and the group G_BMS = SL(2,C) ⋉ R^S.

Significance. As a set of lecture notes, the paper is useful and mostly reliable: the covariant-phase-space review is systematic, the formulas agree at cross-checkable points with the established literature (Komar charge (3.54), Iyer–Wald relation (3.58), Bondi flux-balance laws (5.35)–(5.36), BMS algebra (5.22) and vector fields (5.41)), and the discussion of polarizations and Wald–Zoupas covariance is pedagogically valuable. The BMS derivation, if properly qualified, is a nice self-contained route from (5.15) to (5.23). However, the headline novelty is not assumption-free: the group follows from the fall-off prescription (5.15), and the abstract's claim that BMS is derived 'using only Minkowski' overstates the input. The scalar null-boundary toy model in Appendix B is potentially interesting but is not developed in the main text.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5.2 / Abstract / §5.3] The abstract's claim of an 'original derivation of the BMS group using only Minkowski' is not accurate as stated. The derivation rests on Eq. (5.15), £_ξ η̂_μν |_I = 2α_ξ η̂_μν, which is a fall-off / boundary condition on asymptotic vector fields, not a consequence of flatness alone. The exact Killing condition (5.14) gives Poincaré, while weaker fall-offs—explicitly acknowledged in §5.3 ('the analysis can be extended to weaker fall-off conditions and larger symmetries than BMS')—give larger groups such as gBMS/extended BMS. Thus the derived group is conditional on the fall-off class (5.15) (equivalently the Bondi-type conditions (5.40)). The abstract and §5.2 should be reworded to state clearly 'under the standard leading-order conformal-preservation fall-offs (5.15)', and the dependence of the group on this modeling choice should be emphasized. This is load-bearing because it is the pa
  2. [§5.2, Eq. (5.16)] The statement that the vector fields (5.16) 'form a closed sub-algebra' needs an explicit equivalence-relation or quotient. Equation (5.16) leaves all O(Ω^2) terms undetermined, so the algebra statement is only true up to vector fields that vanish at I (or some analogous trivial-diffeomorphism quotient). Without specifying this quotient, the set of vector fields (5.16) is not a well-defined group of equivalence classes. The Bondi-Sachs extension (5.41) in §5.3 fixes the higher-order terms, but §5.2 presents the Minkowski derivation as self-contained. Please state the quotient explicitly or refer more precisely to the treatment in Appendix A.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§5.2, around Eq. (5.16)] There is an apparent typesetting/insertion error: after Eq. (5.16) the text breaks into an unnumbered list ('1. in the early stationary epoch...') followed by duplicated Bondi-Sachs paragraphs and equations labelled (2.38)–(2.48) that do not belong in this section. These should be removed.
  2. [§5.2, before Eq. (5.23)] The phrase 'this algebra exponentiates to a finite group action' is misleading: the group G_BMS = SL(2,C) ⋉ R^S is not finite. This should read 'finite-dimensional group action' or 'action of a finite-dimensional group'.
  3. [§5.2, Eq. (5.23)] The notation R^S is used without definition; while the text later explains that T(x^A) is an arbitrary function on the sphere, the definition should be given at first use.
  4. [§2.2–§2.3] The paper repeatedly identifies closed forms with exact forms by assuming trivial cohomology. In §2.2 this is justified by a theorem for local forms in the variational bicomplex, but in §2.3 the wording 'assuming that the field space has trivial topology' is used. Please clarify the distinction between spacetime and field-space cohomology, since this assumption underlies the charge-aspect uniqueness claims.
  5. [Abstract / Appendix B] The second claimed original contribution, the Hamiltonian generator for a scalar field on a null hypersurface, is announced in the abstract but not summarized or connected to the main text (e.g., Section 4.2). If it is a novel contribution, a short outline or cross-reference should be added in the introduction or conclusions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the BMS derivation is a self-contained PDE calculation from an explicit fall-off condition; self-citations are contextual, not load-bearing.

full rationale

Walking the claimed derivation chain, the asserted novelty — the BMS group from Minkowski asymptotics (§5.2, Eqs. 5.15→5.16→5.23) — is a self-contained calculation. The input is the explicit fall-off/preservation condition (5.15) on the conformally compactified metric, and the output (5.16) is the solution space of that condition, not a restatement of it. The paper is transparent that (5.15) is a modeling assumption, and §5.3 explicitly says weaker fall-offs give larger symmetries; this is an acknowledged limitation, not a hidden identification of conclusion with hypothesis. The same BMS group is independently obtained in §5.3 from Bondi–Sachs residual diffeomorphisms, providing a second, external route to the result. The generalized Wald–Zoupas framework in §2.6 and §4 draws on the author's own [34] and [54], but those are contextual framework choices anchored to the original Wald–Zoupas paper [6] and do not enter the derivation of (5.23); no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. No equation in the visible text reduces by construction to its input, and the Appendix B scalar generator is not present in the excerpt, so there is no evidence of circularity there.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted constants. Its load-bearing inputs are standard mathematical assumptions (trivial cohomology, field-space exactness) — explicitly flagged by the author — and domain assumptions (asymptotic-flatness class and the existence of a stationary no-flux subclass). What the reader pays for 'upstream' is the stationarity criterion: the uniqueness of charges is asserted as a physical principle (§3.5), with the author conceding uniqueness is not guaranteed. The (b,c) parameters are hand-chosen per context. No new particles, forces, or invented entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • (b, c) polarization parameters on a null boundary = b ∈ {0, 2, 2/3}; c ∈ {0, 1, 2} in the examples (Tables 4–6)
    Hand-selected in §4.1–4.2 to implement different boundary conditions; the general null-boundary charges (4.32) explicitly depend on (b, c), so 'the' surface charge of the formalism is defined only up to this modeling choice. These are not fitted to data — but they are chosen by hand to make the desired flux/vanish properties work.
  • notion of stationarity (p = 0 locus)
    §2.6/Table 3: varies by context (non-expanding horizons vs flat null cones), and the ORBS choice (c=1) was introduced precisely to include flat null cones as stationary; charges/fluxes change with this choice, so it is a hand-chosen input to the 'generalized Wald–Zoupas' selection.
axioms (4)
  • standard math Trivial cohomology in field space and on spacetime, so closed forms are exact (and closed 0-forms are constants).
    Stated explicitly in §2.2 ('a p-form functional... closed everywhere in field space is also necessarily exact... [15]') and §2.3 ('assuming trivial cohomology, so that every positive-degree closed form is also exact'); it underlies the central equivalence class (2.36), the split into integrable/non-integrable terms, and the treatment of central extensions c as constants.
  • domain assumption Asymptotic flatness: conformal compactification with unphysical metric smooth at Ω=0, Bondi gauge conditions (5.25)-(5.33), and the fall-off class (5.38)-(5.40).
    §5.1–5.3; the BMS group, the charge aspects (5.52), and the flux-balance laws (5.50) are derived inside this class; the paper notes in §5.3 that weaker fall-offs give larger symmetry groups.
  • domain assumption A physically-distinguished 'stationary' subclass exists on which the flux vanishes (p = 0), and this selects the preferred symplectic potential.
    Table 3 and §2.6 (dissipative case: 'we seek a polarization... such that p vanishes on them'), criteria 1–2 of §3.5; the entire generalized Wald–Zoupas prescription — and hence which charges are 'the' charges — leans on this modeling choice, whose uniqueness the paper concedes is not guaranteed ('If... it is not unique, further analysis would be needed', §2.6).
  • domain assumption For the tetrad/Holst remark, the connection field equations force Levi-Civita (no torsion) so first- and second-order formulations coincide on-shell.
    §2.7, Holst term example: 'In vacuum or with matter Lagrangians not involving the connection, the only solution of the connection equations is Levi-Civita' — used to claim equivalence of the symplectic-potential difference (2.52)-(2.53) with the metric theory.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 74438 in / 21547 out tokens · 203517 ms · 2026-08-03T15:25:45.522641+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Support material for lectures at the May '25 Galileo Galilei Institute school on asymptotic symmetries and flat holography. Contains an introduction to Noether theorem for gauge theories and gravity, covariant phase space formalism, boundary and asymptotic symmetries, flux-balance laws on null hypersurfaces, future null infinity in Bondi-Sachs coordinates and with Penrose's conformal compactification, BMS symmetries and their charges and fluxes. Includes an original and pedagogical derivation of the BMS group using only Minkowski, and an original derivation of an integral Hamiltonian generator for diffeomorphisms of a scalar field on a null hypersurface.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.16810 by Simone Speziale.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Two space-like hypersurfaces Σ1 and Σ2 joined by a time-like boundary (left panel, T ) or a null boundary (right panel, N ). A useful setup to have in mind when thinking about boundary conditions is a finite region of space￾time, bounded by two space-like hypersurfaces, as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Different applications of the co-dimension 2 flux-balance laws. Left panel: On a single space￾like hypersurface Σ with two boundaries, the surface charge difference is determined by the matter content in between. Right panel: Between different times, with dissipative boundary conditions – allowing residual gauge transformations at the boundary, to which ε must belong – the surface charge difference is dete… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Left panel: Different cuts of I , from bottom up: an initial good cut, a translated one and super￾translated one. The translated one is still a good cut, its ray back-tracing identifies a point translated from the origin. The super-translated one is now a bad cut, its ray back-tracing forms caustics and does not identify an point in the bulk of flat spacetime. Right panel: The physical meaning of super-tra… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Two space-like hypersurfaces ⌃ and ⌃0 intersecting I and delimiting a portion N of it. By the conservation law d! ˆ= 0, the canonical generator on the phase space defined on the portion of I is equal to the di↵erence of the two canonical generators on the space-like hypersurfaces. The surface charges play a role in both ⌃ and N phase spaces. The flux plays a role only in the radiative phase space N . ⌃0 I … view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. Gravitational Memory Beyond Null Infinity through Finite-Distance Carrollian Screens

    hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Finite-distance null screens carry a Carrollian memory whose leading tracefree large-radius part reproduces the standard Bondi displacement memory in Robinson–Trautman spacetimes.

  2. An algebra of proper observables at null infinity: Dirac brackets, Memory and Goldstone probes

    hep-th 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    The algebra of proper observables at null infinity admits Goldstone probes that measure the memory mode, but none can be built from shear or news alone, and the Dirac brackets acquire non-local corrections.

  3. An algebra of proper observables at null infinity: Dirac brackets, Memory and Goldstone probes

    hep-th 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Authors define proper observables and Goldstone probes on the Ashtekar-Streubel phase space at null infinity, showing supertranslation charges act correctly on shear and deriving distributional Dirac brackets with non...

  4. Covariant phase space approach to noncommutativity in tensile and tensionless open strings

    hep-th 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Covariant phase space analysis shows tensionless open strings in constant Kalb-Ramond background have purely boundary-supported phase space with noncommutative endpoint coordinates, recovering Seiberg-Witten noncommut...

  5. Charges of supergravity

    hep-th 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    In N=1 supergravity as constrained BF theory, the algebra of boundary charges matches the superalgebra with translational charges vanishing on-shell from the super-torsion constraint.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

212 extracted references · 177 linked inside Pith · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Geroch,Asymptotic Structure of Space-Time, ch

    R. Geroch,Asymptotic Structure of Space-Time, ch. 1, pp. 1–106. Springer US, Boston, MA, 1977

    1977

  2. [2]

    Ashtekar,Radiative Degrees of Freedom of the Gravitational Field in Exact General Relativity, J

    A. Ashtekar,Radiative Degrees of Freedom of the Gravitational Field in Exact General Relativity, J. Math. Phys.22(1981) 2885–2895

    1981

  3. [3]

    Ashtekar and M

    A. Ashtekar and M. Streubel,Symplectic Geometry of Radiative Modes and Conserved Quantities at Null Infinity, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A376(1981) 585–607

    1981

  4. [4]

    Dray and M

    T. Dray and M. Streubel,Angular momentum at null infinity, Class. Quant. Grav.1(1984), no. 1 15–26

    1984

  5. [5]

    Dray,Momentum Flux At Null Infinity, Class

    T. Dray,Momentum Flux At Null Infinity, Class. Quant. Grav.2(1985) L7–L10

    1985

  6. [6]

    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 [gr-qc/9911095]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  7. [7]

    Ashtekar and S

    A. Ashtekar and S. Speziale,Null infinity and horizons: A new approach to fluxes and charges, Phys. Rev. D110(2024), no. 4 044049 [2407.03254]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    I. M. Anderson,Introduction to the variational bicomplex, bz Contemporary Mathematics132 (1992)

    1992

  9. [9]

    Barnich, F

    G. Barnich, F. Brandt and M. Henneaux,Local BRST cohomology in gauge theories, Phys. Rept.338(2000) 439–569 [hep-th/0002245]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  10. [10]

    Barnich and F

    G. Barnich and F. Brandt,Covariant theory of asymptotic symmetries, conservation laws and central charges, Nucl. Phys.B633(2002) 3–82 [hep-th/0111246]. 18A word of caution about this result: even though the Hamiltonian is well-defined everywhere, the existence of the non-integrable corner term still means that the action of the Hamiltonian cannot be expon...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  11. [11]

    Forger, C

    M. Forger, C. Paufler and H. Roemer,The Poisson bracket for Poisson forms in multisymplectic field theory, Rev. Math. Phys.15(2003) 705–744 [math-ph/0202043]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  12. [12]

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

    I. Khavkine,Covariant phase space, constraints, gauge and the Peierls formula, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A29(2014), no. 5 1430009 [1402.1282]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  13. [13]

    Iyer and R

    V. Iyer and R. M. Wald,Some properties of Noether charge and a proposal for dynamical black hole entropy, Phys. Rev. D50(1994) 846–864 [gr-qc/9403028]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  14. [14]

    Jacobson, G

    T. Jacobson, G. Kang and R. C. Myers,On black hole entropy, Phys. Rev. D49(1994) 6587–6598 [gr-qc/9312023]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  15. [15]

    R. M. Wald,On identically closed forms locally constructed from a field, J. Math. Phys.31 (1990), no. 10 2378

    1990

  16. [16]

    Barnich and C

    G. Barnich and C. Troessaert,BMS charge algebra, JHEP12(2011) 105 [1106.0213]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  17. [17]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  18. [18]

    Chandrasekaran and A

    V. Chandrasekaran and A. J. Speranza,Anomalies in gravitational charge algebras of null boundaries and black hole entropy, JHEP01(2021) 137 [2009.10739]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  19. [19]

    Freidel, R

    L. Freidel, R. Oliveri, D. Pranzetti and S. Speziale,Extended corner symmetry, charge bracket and Einstein ’s equations, JHEP09(2021) 083 [2104.12881]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  20. [20]

    Chandrasekaran, E

    V. Chandrasekaran, E. E. Flanagan, I. Shehzad and A. J. Speranza,A general framework for gravitational charges and holographic renormalization, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A37(2022), no. 17 2250105 [2111.11974]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  21. [21]

    Rignon-Bret and S

    A. Rignon-Bret and S. Speziale,Covariance and symmetry algebras,2403.00730

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  22. [22]

    G. A. Burnett and R. M. Wald,A conserved current for perturbations of Einstein-Maxwell space-times, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A430(1990), no. 1878 57–67

    1990

  23. [23]

    De Paoli and S

    E. De Paoli and S. Speziale,A gauge-invariant symplectic potential for tetrad general relativity, JHEP07(2018) 040 [1804.09685]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  24. [24]

    Oliveri and S

    R. Oliveri and S. Speziale,Boundary effects in General Relativity with tetrad variables, Gen. Rel. Grav.52(2020), no. 8 83 [1912.01016]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  25. [25]

    M. P. Reisenberger,The Poisson bracket on free null initial data for gravity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101(2008) 211101 [0712.2541]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  26. [26]

    M. P. Reisenberger,The symplectic 2-form for gravity in terms of free null initial data, Class. Quant. Grav.30(2013) 155022 [1211.3880]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  27. [27]

    M. P. Reisenberger,The Poisson brackets of free null initial data for vacuum general relativity, Class. Quant. Grav.35(2018), no. 18 185012 [1804.10284]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  28. [28]

    Chandrasekaran and E

    V. Chandrasekaran and E. E. Flanagan,Horizon phase spaces in general relativity, JHEP07 (2024) 017 [2309.03871]. 64

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    Barnich, S

    G. Barnich, S. Majumdar, S. Speziale and W.-D. Tan,Lessons from discrete light-cone quantization for physics at null infinity: bosons in two dimensions, JHEP05(2024) 326 [2401.14873]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Harlow and J.-Q

    D. Harlow and J.-Q. Wu,Covariant phase space with boundaries, JHEP10(2020) 146 [1906.08616]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  31. [31]

    Freidel, M

    L. Freidel, M. Geiller and D. Pranzetti,Edge modes of gravity. Part I. Corner potentials and charges, JHEP11(2020) 026 [2006.12527]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  32. [32]

    Margalef-Bentabol and E

    J. Margalef-Bentabol and E. J. S. Villase˜ nor,Geometric formulation of the Covariant Phase Space methods with boundaries, Phys. Rev. D103(2021), no. 2 025011 [2008.01842]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  33. [33]

    Ciambelli, R

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  34. [34]

    G. Odak, A. Rignon-Bret and S. Speziale,Wald-Zoupas prescription with soft anomalies, Phys. Rev. D107(2023), no. 8 084028 [2212.07947]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  35. [35]

    Compere and D

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  36. [36]

    Comp` ere, A

    G. Comp` ere, A. Fiorucci and R. Ruzziconi,Superboost transitions, refraction memory and super-Lorentz charge algebra, JHEP11(2018) 200 [1810.00377]. [Erratum: JHEP 04, 172 (2020)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  37. [37]

    Freidel, R

    L. Freidel, R. Oliveri, D. Pranzetti and S. Speziale,The Weyl BMS group and Einstein ’s equations, JHEP07(2021) 170 [2104.05793]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  38. [38]

    McNees and C

    R. McNees and C. Zwikel,The symplectic potential for leaky boundaries, JHEP01(2025) 049 [2408.13203]

    arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Campiglia and J

    M. Campiglia and J. Peraza,Generalized BMS charge algebra, Phys. Rev. D101(2020), no. 10 104039 [2002.06691]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  40. [40]

    Rignon-Bret and S

    A. Rignon-Bret and S. Speziale,Centerless BMS charge algebra, Phys. Rev. D110(2024), no. 4 044050 [2405.01526]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  41. [41]

    I. M. Anderson and C. G. Torre,Asymptotic conservation laws in field theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77(1996) 4109–4113 [hep-th/9608008]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  42. [42]

    Chandrasekaran, E

    V. Chandrasekaran, E. E. Flanagan and K. Prabhu,Symmetries and charges of general relativity at null boundaries, JHEP11(2018) 125 [1807.11499]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  43. [43]

    Holst,Barbero’s Hamiltonian derived from a generalized Hilbert-Palatini action, Phys

    S. Holst,Barbero’s Hamiltonian derived from a generalized Hilbert-Palatini action, Phys. Rev. D53(1996) 5966–5969 [gr-qc/9511026]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  44. [44]

    Godazgar, M

    H. Godazgar, M. Godazgar and C. N. Pope,New dual gravitational charges, Phys. Rev. D99 (2019), no. 2 024013 [1812.01641]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  45. [45]

    Godazgar, M

    H. Godazgar, M. Godazgar and M. J. Perry,Hamiltonian derivation of dual gravitational charges, JHEP09(2020) 084 [2007.07144]. 65

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  46. [46]

    Oliveri and S

    R. Oliveri and S. Speziale,A note on dual gravitational charges, JHEP12(2020) 079 [2010.01111]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  47. [47]

    Strominger,Lectures on the Infrared Structure of Gravity and Gauge Theory,1703.05448

    A. Strominger,Lectures on the Infrared Structure of Gravity and Gauge Theory,1703.05448

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  48. [48]

    Witten,Quantum Field Theory and the Jones Polynomial, Commun

    E. Witten,Quantum Field Theory and the Jones Polynomial, Commun. Math. Phys.121 (1989) 351–399

    1989

  49. [49]

    Carlip,The (2+1)-Dimensional black hole, Class

    S. Carlip,The (2+1)-Dimensional black hole, Class. Quant. Grav.12(1995) 2853–2880 [gr-qc/9506079]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  50. [50]

    Gawedzki,Conformal field theory: A Case study,hep-th/9904145

    K. Gawedzki,Conformal field theory: A Case study,hep-th/9904145

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  51. [51]

    Odak and S

    G. Odak and S. Speziale,Brown-York charges with mixed boundary conditions, JHEP11 (2021) 224 [2109.02883]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  52. [52]

    Hopfm¨ uller and L

    F. Hopfm¨ uller and L. Freidel,Null Conservation Laws for Gravity, Phys. Rev. D97(2018), no. 12 124029 [1802.06135]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  53. [53]

    Carrozza, S

    S. Carrozza, S. Eccles and P. A. Hoehn,Edge modes as dynamical frames: charges from post-selection in generally covariant theories,2205.00913

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  54. [54]

    G. Odak, A. Rignon-Bret and S. Speziale,General gravitational charges on null hypersurfaces, JHEP12(2023) 038 [2309.03854]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  55. [55]

    Rignon-Bret and S

    A. Rignon-Bret and S. Speziale,Spatially local energy density of gravitational waves, JHEP03 (2025) 048 [2405.08808]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    Brown, S

    J. Brown, S. Lau and J. York,Action and energy of the gravitational field, Annals of Physics 297(2002), no. 2 175–218 [gr–qc/0010024]

    arXiv 2002

  57. [57]

    Lehner, R

    L. Lehner, R. C. Myers, E. Poisson and R. D. Sorkin,Gravitational action with null boundaries, Phys. Rev. D94(2016), no. 8 084046 [1609.00207]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  58. [58]

    York,Boundary terms in the action principles of general relativity, Found

    J. York,Boundary terms in the action principles of general relativity, Found. Phys.16(1986) 249–257

    1986

  59. [59]

    An and M

    Z. An and M. T. Anderson,The initial boundary value problem and quasi-local Hamiltonians in General Relativity,2103.15673

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  60. [60]

    An and M

    Z. An and M. T. Anderson,Well-posed geometric boundary data in General Relativity, I: Conformal-mean curvature boundary data,2503.12599

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  61. [61]

    Anninos, D

    D. Anninos, D. A. Galante and C. Maneerat,Gravitational observatories, JHEP12(2023) 024 [2310.08648]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  62. [62]

    Anninos, R

    D. Anninos, R. Arias, D. A. Galante and C. Maneerat,Gravitational observatories in AdS 4, JHEP07(2025) 234 [2412.16305]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    D. A. Galante, C. Maneerat and A. Svesko,Conformal boundaries near extremal black holes, Class. Quant. Grav.42(2025), no. 19 195003 [2504.14003]. 66

    arXiv 2025

  64. [64]

    X. Liu, H. S. Reall, J. E. Santos and T. Wiseman,Ill-posedness of the Cauchy problem for linearized gravity in a cavity with conformal boundary conditions, Class. Quant. Grav.42 (2025), no. 23 235003 [2505.20410]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  65. [65]

    D. A. Galante, R. C. Myers and T. Zikopoulos,Conformal Boundary Conditions and Higher Curvature Gravity,2512.10930

    arXiv

  66. [66]

    J. D. Brown and J. W. York, Jr.,Quasilocal energy and conserved charges derived from the gravitational action, Phys. Rev. D47(1993) 1407–1419 [gr-qc/9209012]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  67. [67]

    R. M. Wald,General relativity. University of Chicago press, 2010

    2010

  68. [68]

    Ashtekar, C

    A. Ashtekar, C. Beetle, O. Dreyer, S. Fairhurst, B. Krishnan, J. Lewandowski and J. Wisniewski,Isolated horizons and their applications, Phys. Rev. Lett.85(2000) 3564–3567 [gr-qc/0006006]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  69. [69]

    Ashtekar, S

    A. Ashtekar, S. Fairhurst and B. Krishnan,Isolated horizons: Hamiltonian evolution and the first law, Phys. Rev. D62(2000) 104025 [gr-qc/0005083]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  70. [70]

    Ashtekar and B

    A. Ashtekar and B. Krishnan,Isolated and dynamical horizons and their applications, Living Rev. Rel.7(2004) 10 [gr-qc/0407042]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  71. [71]

    H´ ajiˇ cek,Exact models of charged black holes, Communications in Mathematical Physics34 (1973), no

    P. H´ ajiˇ cek,Exact models of charged black holes, Communications in Mathematical Physics34 (1973), no. 1 53–76

    1973

  72. [72]

    Newman and R

    E. Newman and R. Penrose,An approach to gravitational radiation by a method of spin coefficients, J.Math.Phys.3(1962) 566–578

    1962

  73. [73]

    Booth and S

    I. Booth and S. Fairhurst,Isolated, slowly evolving, and dynamical trapping horizons: Geometry and mechanics from surface deformations, Phys. Rev. D75(2007) 084019 [gr-qc/0610032]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  74. [74]

    Ashtekar and S

    A. Ashtekar and S. Speziale,Null infinity as a weakly isolated horizon, Phys. Rev. D110 (2024), no. 4 044048 [2402.17977]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  75. [75]

    Ciambelli, R

    L. Ciambelli, R. G. Leigh, C. Marteau and P. M. Petropoulos,Carroll Structures, Null Geometry and Conformal Isometries, Phys. Rev. D100(2019), no. 4 046010 [1905.02221]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  76. [76]

    Herfray,Carrollian manifolds and null infinity: a view from Cartan geometry, Class

    Y. Herfray,Carrollian manifolds and null infinity: a view from Cartan geometry, Class. Quant. Grav.39(2022), no. 21 215005 [2112.09048]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  77. [77]

    Fiorucci, S

    A. Fiorucci, S. Pekar, P. Marios Petropoulos and M. Vilatte,Carrollian-holographic Derivation of BMS Flux-balance Laws,2505.00077

    arXiv

  78. [78]

    Ciambelli and P

    L. Ciambelli and P. Jai-akson,Foundations of Carrollian Geometry,2510.21651

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  79. [79]

    Parattu, S

    K. Parattu, S. Chakraborty, B. R. Majhi and T. Padmanabhan,A Boundary Term for the Gravitational Action with Null Boundaries, Gen. Rel. Grav.48(2016), no. 7 94 [1501.01053]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  80. [80]

    Hopfm¨ uller and L

    F. Hopfm¨ uller and L. Freidel,Gravity Degrees of Freedom on a Null Surface, Phys. Rev. D95 (2017), no. 10 104006 [1611.03096]. 67

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

Showing first 80 references.