Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 28 references

The paper establishes that a specific mixed finite-difference action for Regge gravity, with k=1 and a principal-value soft synchronous gauge, reproduces the continuum perturbative expansion for finite Feynman diagrams.

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 12:35 UTC pith:KPEJEACM

load-bearing objection A technically rich and honest construction for a principal-value perturbative scheme in Regge gravity, but the continuum-matching claim is conditional on a lattice-spacing inequality the paper does not prove. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2601.02181 v3 pith:KPEJEACM submitted 2026-01-05 gr-qc

Towards the consistent perturbative expansion in discrete gravity

V.M. Khatsymovsky This is my paper
classification gr-qc MSC 83C2781S40 PACS 04.60.Kz04.60.Nc31.15.xk
keywords discrete gravityRegge calculusperturbative expansiongraviton propagatorpole doublingprincipal value prescriptionsoft synchronous gaugefinite difference action
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 show that a discrete (Regge-calculus) version of gravity can have a well-defined perturbative expansion that matches the continuum expansion for all diagrams that are finite, at distances much larger than the lattice spacing. The obstacle is that naive finite-difference actions produce spurious extra graviton poles ('pole doubling') or awkward analytic structures, so the propagator does not reduce to the continuum one. The paper identifies a one-parameter family of refined actions using both symmetric and forward finite-difference derivatives, and shows that only the parameter value k=1 keeps nonphysical poles on one side of the integration contour, reproduces the graviton pole sin²(p0/2)=Σ sin²(pα/2), and gives a finite gauge-fixing term with vanishing ghost contribution. A careful reader should care because this is the technical prerequisite for computing genuine multi-loop graviton corrections, such as corrections to Newton's law, in a discrete theory of gravity.

Core claim

The central discovery is that the correct discrete zeroth-order action is qS_g: the term controlling the tensor structure uses the forward (advanced) finite-difference derivative Δλ everywhere (k=1 in the scalar part), while the remaining derivatives stay the symmetric Δλ^(s). With this action, the graviton propagator has a single physical pole at sin²(p0/2)=Σ sin²(pα/2) for small quasi-momenta, without doubling, and the principal-value type propagator [G(n,n)+G(n̄,n̄)]/2, built by analytic continuation and resolving p0^{-j} as [(p0+iε)^{-j}+(p0-iε)^{-j}]/2, makes each diagram finite as ε→0. The paper further shows the gauge-fixing term needed for this prescription is finite (singularities a

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are (1) the mixed-derivative action qS_g with parameter k, interpolating between the symmetric derivative Δλ^(s)=i sin pλ and the forward derivative Δλ=e^{ipλ}-1, and (2) the principal-value type propagator, defined as the half-sum of the analytic continuations qG(n,n) and qG(n̄,n̄), which moves all nonphysical poles to one side of the integration path. The parameter k controls the location of nonphysical poles; only k=1 makes them approach the real axis from one side and merge into the continuum pole without crossing the contour. The condition 3bt²/bs²<1 on lattice spacings keeps the poles of each term on one side of the contour for all spatial quasi-momenta.

Load-bearing premise

The whole matching to the continuum rests on the lattice-spacing ratio inequality 3 bt²/bs² < 1; the paper notes that the trivial choice bt=bs=1 violates it, and if the inequality fails, nonphysical poles cross the integration contour and physical graviton poles acquire imaginary parts.

What would settle it

Take a lattice with bt=bs=1 (or any ratio with 3bt²/bs²>1), compute the location of the nonphysical poles from (nΔ(s))²+n²A=0 for k=1 as a function of spatial quasi-momenta, and check whether the curves exp(ip0±) cross the unit circle; if they do, the principal-value prescription picks up residues at those poles, producing extra contributions not present in the continuum. A direct check of the ghost determinant Det(O^{-1}O) at finite ε would also show whether it fails to vanish when the inequality is violated.

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

If this is right

  • Finite continuum diagrams, such as the one-loop correction to Newton's potential, are reproduced by the discrete theory at distances large compared to the elementary edge length.
  • Graviton pole doubling is eliminated: the physical pole is at sin²(p0/2)=Σ sin²(pα/2) and no second pole near p0=±π contributes for small external momenta.
  • The gauge-fixing term needed for the principal-value propagator is finite; its singularities are integrable in the Cauchy principal-value sense, so new vertices from nonlinear metric parametrization remain under control.
  • The ghost contribution to the effective action vanishes as ε→0, both in the leading-order (A→0) case and in the full (A≠0) case, leaving only a harmless volume factor in the measure.
  • An analogous construction works for electromagnetism/Yang-Mills, showing the mechanism is not specific to gravity.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the k=1 uniqueness is generic, it suggests a design principle for lattice actions: derivative contractions that control the propagator's tensor structure should use the forward difference, while other contractions may keep the symmetric difference; this could guide discretizations of other constrained systems.
  • The inequality 3bt²/bs²<1, combined with measure-maximization estimates of the edge-length ratio from entropy calculations, suggests a preferred physical ratio of timelike to spacelike edge lengths; numerical simplicial-gravity simulations could test whether the continuum limit is approached only in this regime.
  • The principal-value prescription may offer a way to define loop corrections in discrete gravity beyond one loop, since individual diagrams are finite at ε→0; a next step would be to compute a two-loop finite diagram and compare to effective-field-theory expectations.
  • The vanishing ghost contribution hints that the soft synchronous gauge is effectively a 'physical' gauge for discrete gravity, which may simplify the diagram technique in the companion computation of the Newtonian potential.

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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a perturbative expansion for discrete gravity (Regge / simplicial) using a refined action qSg that mixes the symmetric finite difference Δ^(s) and the usual difference Δ, with a parameter k interpolating between them. The author shows that k=1 eliminates the pole doubling of the graviton propagator, giving the physical pole at sin²(p0/2) = Σ sin²(pα/2). A principal-value type propagator is then defined by half-summing qG(n,n) and its conjugate, and the corresponding gauge-fixing term is constructed. The paper argues this gauge-fixing term is finite and that the Faddeev–Popov ghost contribution vanishes as ε→0, under the lattice-spacing condition 3 b_t² b_s^{-2} < 1. The conclusion claims the discrete perturbative expansion can be made to correspond to the continuum expansion, reproducing finite Feynman diagrams at distances large compared to the elementary length.

Significance. If established, the result would be a significant step toward defining graviton loop effects (e.g., corrections to Newton's potential) in a discrete, non-renormalizable theory. The pole-location analysis is explicit and concrete: eq. (23) and Fig. 2 show clearly why k=1 is the only choice that keeps nonphysical poles on one side of the integration contour. The construction of the principal-value gauge-fixing term is also self-contained and generalizes the continuum soft synchronous gauge. A particularly valuable feature is the falsifiable condition (40), which relates the anisotropy of lattice spacings to the Barbero–Immirzi parameter if the system is placed in the physical regime. However, the central claim is conditional in a way that is acknowledged but not resolved within the paper: the explicit calculations use b_t=b_s=1, which violates the very condition needed for the prescription to match the continuum, and the physical regime is deferred to companion papers.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.2.1, eqs. (37)–(40)] The central claim—that the principal-value prescription reproduces the continuum expansion for finite diagrams—is explicitly conditional on 3 b_t² b_s^{-2} < 1. The paper itself states (after eq. (40)) that the trivial choice b_t=b_s=1 does not satisfy this condition, and all computations in Sections 2–4 are performed with b_t=b_s=1. If 3 b_t² b_s^{-2} > 1, eq. (38) shows a segment of the nonphysical pole curve enters the integration contour (Fig. 3), and eq. (39) shows the physical graviton pole can acquire an imaginary part for some spatial quasi-momenta. Since the paper does not derive (40) or provide an independent argument that the physical regime satisfies it—only references to companion papers [22,24] and LQG estimates—the main result is not established for the parameter values actually used in the derivations. This is a load-bearing gap that must be addressed, either by proving (
  2. [§4.4, eq. (105)] The vanishing of the ghost contribution in Subsections 4.2 and 4.3 relies on replacing the approximate diffeomorphism variation (78) with the 'refined' formula (105) that uses an operator ΓΓ instead of Γ. The paper itself acknowledges that this improvement is a choice of non-leading orders over metric variations that 'cannot be captured by a continuum analogue' and is made to eliminate O((Δ)^4) terms from eq. (97). Since the ghost determinant is one of the two main results claimed in the Conclusion, the result is contingent on an ad hoc extension of the leading-order symmetry. No argument is given that the ghost contribution is independent of this choice, nor is the improvement derived from an exact discrete symmetry. The ghost claim is therefore not robust in its present form.
  3. [§5, Conclusion] The Conclusion states that 'the discrete perturbative expansion for gravity can be correctly formulated to correspond to the continuum expansion, in particular to reproduce those Feynman diagrams or their structures that are finite.' The evidence presented in the paper, however, consists of an analysis of the propagator pole structure, the construction of the gauge-fixing term, and the finiteness/ghost arguments under the conditional assumptions above. No finite physical diagram is actually computed or compared to its continuum counterpart. The step from the pole analysis to the statement that all finite diagrams are reproduced is not demonstrated; at minimum, a representative one-loop diagram (e.g., the graviton contribution to the Newtonian potential) should be evaluated with this propagator and shown to match the continuum result in the small-momentum limit. Without such a validation,
  4. [§3.1, eqs. (43)–(54)] The construction of the principal-value propagator and the corresponding gauge-fixing term is, to a large extent, self-referential: the gauge-fixing term (54) is engineered so that the resulting propagator is exactly the half-sum (44). The subsequent 'finiteness' checks in §3.2–3.3 are consistency checks of this construction rather than independent verifications. This is not necessarily circular—it is a legitimate way to define a gauge—but it limits the physical significance of the finiteness result. A reader cannot infer from these checks that the prescription is the unique or natural discrete counterpart of the continuum gauge; the paper should more clearly separate the construction of the prescription from its validation against continuum physics.
minor comments (6)
  1. [General notation] The notation is extremely dense, with check marks, tilde symbols, and various sub/superscript combinations (e.g., qG, qO, |M, qGeff). A table of symbols or a glossary would greatly improve readability and reduce the risk of misinterpretation.
  2. [§2.2, eqs. (25)–(30)] These equations are central to the propagator but are presented without derivation or even a sketch of how they follow from the system (15)–(22). Adding an outline of the reduction steps would make the paper more self-contained.
  3. [Fig. 2 caption / §2.2] The caption refers to 'qG(n,n)' and 'qG(n,n)', but the text sometimes uses the same symbol for both the non-Hermitian continuation and the Hermitian half-sum. Clarify the notation, e.g., by using overlined arguments consistently.
  4. [Eq. (23)] The square-root symbols in the displayed equation are garbled in the manuscript text; please ensure the formula is typeset correctly, as it carries the key k dependence.
  5. [Eq. (35)] The equation contains a typo: 'l^(0)a_µ l^(0)λ_a ≡ δλ_µ' should probably read 'δ^λ_µ' or similar. Also, the tilde definitions for scaled derivatives are not carefully explained; a brief explanation of the index conventions would help.
  6. [References] The paper relies heavily on companion papers [22] and [24] for the physical regime and for the actual diagram technique. Since these are not available to the reader of the present manuscript, the claims that depend on them should be more explicitly flagged as external, or the relevant results should be summarized here.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

k=1 and the principal-value gauge-fixing term are reverse-engineered to reproduce the continuum-matching propagator; the matching conclusion is partly a restatement of the fitting criteria.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Section 3.1, eqs. (44)-(46) and (53)-(54)]
    "Thus, the principal value type propagator qG is the inverse of C + E C^{-1}E, which can be written as the original bilinear form plus a correction, |M + ∆ |M."

    The PV propagator qG is first defined in (44) as the half-sum of qG(n,n) and qG(n̄,n̄). Equation (45) algebraically rewrites this as (C + E C^{-1}E)^{-1}, and then Δ|M is introduced so that |M + Δ|M = C + E C^{-1}E. Thus the 'gauge-fixing term required for this form of G' is constructed to make the modified action's propagator equal the pre-defined PV half-sum. The later finiteness and ghost checks are self-consistency checks of this inverse problem, not independent predictions of the propagator.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.2, after eqs. (22)-(23), paragraph following Fig. 2]
    "On the contrary, for k ̸= 1, the poles of the same term qG(n, n) (or qG(n̄, n̄)) are located on both sides of the integration path Im p0 = 0 ... does not match the continuum result. Thus, it is precisely k = 1 that allows the considered principal value type prescription to work and to ensure a smooth approach to the continuum limit (small quasi-momenta p)."

    The criterion for 'working' is defined as matching the continuum pole structure. The paper scans the one-parameter family in k and finds that k=1 is the value for which the nonphysical poles lie on one side of the integration contour, i.e. the value that satisfies the matching requirement. The conclusion that the discrete expansion with k=1 reproduces the continuum is then the same condition used to select k, rather than an independent prediction of the discrete action.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that the discrete perturbative expansion with the principal-value prescription corresponds to the continuum—is substantially a construction. The parameter k=1 is chosen because it gives the desired continuum-matching pole placement (eqs. (22)-(23), Fig. 2), and the principal-value gauge-fixing term is reverse-engineered from the desired PV propagator (eqs. (44)-(54)). The nontrivial finiteness analysis of the gauge-fixing term and the vanishing-ghost calculation give some independent content, so the circularity is partial rather than total. In addition, the physical regime requires the inequality 3 b_t^2 b_s^{-2} < 1 (eq. (40)), which is not established in this paper; the paper notes that its own simplifying choice b_t=b_s=1 violates the condition and defers to companion papers [22,24] and LQG Barbero-Immirzi estimates. That is a load-bearing external/self-cited premise and a correctness risk, though it is more a missing derivation than a circular reduction. Overall, the principal 'predictions'—k=1 and the PV propagator—reduce by construction to the continuum-matching criteria used to define them, warranting a score of 6.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces. Its load-bearing ingredients are a one-parameter action choice, a gauge-softening parameter, and a domain assumption about lattice spacings. The most fragile elements are the improved diffeomorphism formula and the lattice-spacing inequality.

free parameters (4)
  • k = 1
    Mixing parameter for Δλ vs Δ^{(s)}λ in the fourth term of the action (eq. (7)); chosen by requiring the principal-value prescription to match the continuum (pole structure, eq. (23), Fig. 2).
  • ε = ε→0
    Softening parameter in nλ = νλ - ε Δ^{(s)}⊥λ/Δ^{(s)}²⊥; regulates p0=0 singularities and is taken to zero. A regularization parameter, not fitted to data.
  • α (inverse gauge parameter) = O(ε²)
    λ^{-1}; chosen minimally as O(ε²) so that the gauge-fixing factor can become a δ-function without making the argument complex. Not independently determined.
  • bt/bs ratio = 3b_t²/b_s² < 1
    Assumed physical lattice spacing ratio satisfying inequality (40); the trivial equal-spacing choice does not satisfy it. Values are imported from LQG Barbero-Immirzi estimates in cited work.
axioms (4)
  • ad hoc to paper Approximate diffeomorphism variation formula δΞgλμ = -Δ^{(s)}μ ξλ - Δ^{(s)}λ ξμ + 2Γνλμ ξν holds to leading order, and can be improved by replacing Γ with an operator ΓΓ at non-leading orders.
    The ghost contribution is shown to vanish only after this non-leading improvement in §4.4 (eq. (105)); the improvement is a free choice not determined by the continuum limit.
  • domain assumption If a continuum diagram converges, its discrete analogue is dominated by metric fields with small site-to-site variations / small quasi-momenta.
    Stated as 'physically natural' in Section 2.2 and used to justify the effective propagator Geff and the whole continuum-matching criterion.
  • domain assumption The principal-value prescription p0^{-j} → [(p0+iε)^{-j} + (p0-iε)^{-j}]/2 renders individual Feynman diagrams finite as ε→0.
    This is the central working hypothesis of the paper; it is checked for the gauge-fixing term and ghost factor, but not proven for all multi-loop diagrams.
  • domain assumption Physical lattice spacings satisfy 3b_t²/b_s² < 1, with bt/bs equal to the LQG Barbero-Immirzi parameter regime.
    Needed to keep nonphysical poles on one side of the integration contour and physical poles real (eqs. (36)-(40)); the paper admits the simple choice bt=bs=1 violates it.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 39688 in / 10988 out tokens · 113296 ms · 2026-08-03T12:35:06.938492+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We consider correctly defining the perturbative expansion in a discrete gravity (simplicial or Regge calculus) needed to study physical effects like graviton loop corrections to Newton's potential. For the symmetric derivative $\Delta^{(s)}_\lambda=i\sin p_\lambda$ in the finite-difference action, the propagator has a graviton pole at $\sin^2p_0=\sum^3_{\alpha=1}\sin^2p_\alpha$, or, at small $p_\alpha$, at $p_0$ close to 0 or $\pm\pi$. This pole doubling means doubling the result of integration over d$p_0$ compared to the continuum. The usual derivative $\Delta_\lambda=\exp(ip_\lambda)-1$ leads to a tricky analytical structure of the propagator, since $\Delta_\lambda\neq-\bar{\Delta}_\lambda$, and again to a discrepancy with the continuum. The way out is to use an action $\check{S}_{\rm g}$ with both $\Delta^{(s)}_\lambda$ and $\Delta_\lambda$ and the synchronous gauge $g_{0\lambda}=g_{0\lambda}^{(0)}$ (implemented by adding a term bilinear in $n^\lambda(g_{\lambda\mu}-g_{\lambda \mu}^{(0)})$, $n^\lambda=[1,-\varepsilon(\Delta^{(s)\alpha}\Delta^{(s)}_\alpha)^{-1}\Delta^{(s)\beta}]$, $\varepsilon\to0$, thus removing singularities at $p_0=0$). Given the propagator $\check{G}(n,\bar{n})$, we form a principal value propagator $[\check{G}(n,n)+\check{G}(\bar{n},\bar{n})]/2$ by analytically continuing from real $n=\bar{n}$. Singularities are resolved like $p_0^{-j}\to[(p_0+i\varepsilon)^{-j}+(p_0-i\varepsilon)^{-j}]/2$ leading to separate diagram finiteness at $\varepsilon\to0$. We analyze a 1-parameter family of actions differing in using $\Delta_\lambda$ vs $\Delta^{(s)}_\lambda$, find the only one reproducing convergent continuum diagrams for small external momenta (which is natural to demand from discretization), consider finiteness of the principal value gauge-fixing term and vanishing ghost contribution. The analysis is illustrated by the electromagnetic (Yang-Mills) case.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.02181 by V.M. Khatsymovsky.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: On the segments [+π, +π + iL] and [−π, −π + iL], the values of the integrand qq q qq q −π + iL −π Im p0 0 π + iLC π ✲Re p0 ✻ ✻ ✛ ❄ ✲ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Location of nonphysical poles of the propagators [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: by dashed lines. If 3b 2 t /b2 s ≤ 1, then σ does not exceed 1 and these curves A1BC1DE1∪ A2BC2DE2 (shown for the limiting case 3b 2 t /b2 s = 1) lie on one side of the integration contour (a circle of unit radius with center at the origin), while on this contour there lies only one pole A1 at p = 0 and E2 at p1 = p2 = p3 = π (only if 3b 2 t /b2 s = 1). For definiteness, we take ε > 0, and the considered c… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 19 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    ’t Hooft and M

    G. ’t Hooft and M. Veltman, One-loop divergencies in the theory of gravitation, Ann. Inst. H. Poincare A20, 69 (1974)

    1974

  2. [2]

    J. F. Donoghue, Leading Quantum Correction to the Newtonian P otential, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 2996 (1994); arXiv:gr-qc/9310024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  3. [3]

    J. F. Donoghue, General relativity as an effective field theory: T he leading quantum corrections, Phys. Rev. D50, 3874 (1994); arXiv:gr-qc/9405057

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  4. [4]

    J. F. Donoghue, Introduction to the effective field theory desc ription of gravity, in Advanced School on Effective Theories , ed. by F. Cornet and M.J. Herrero (World Scientific, Singapore, 1996); arXiv:gr-qc/9512024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  5. [5]

    J. F. Donoghue, Perturbative dynamics of quantum general re lativity, in Proceedings of the Eighth Marcel Grossmann Meeting on General Relativit y, ed. by Tsvi Piran and Remo Ruffini (World Scientific, Singapore, 1999); arXiv:gr-qc/9712 070

    1999

  6. [6]

    I. J. Muzinich and S. Vokos, Long Range Forces in Quantum Gravit y, Phys. Rev. D52, 3472 (1995); arXiv:hep-th/9501083

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  7. [7]

    Akhundov, S

    A. Akhundov, S. Belucci, and A. Shiekh, Gravitational interactio n to one loop in effec- tive quantum gravity, Phys. Lett. B395, 19 (1998); arXiv:gr-qc/9611018

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  8. [8]

    Hamber and S

    H. Hamber and S. Liu, On the Quantum Corrections to the Newton ian Potential, Phys. Lett. B357, 51 (1995); arXiv:hep-th/9505182

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  9. [9]

    G. G. Kirilin and I. B. Khriplovich, Quantum power correction to the Newton law, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 109, 1139 (2002); [ Sov. Phys. JETP 95, 981 (2002)]; arXiv:gr- qc/0207118

    arXiv 2002

  10. [10]

    G. G. Kirilin and I. B. Khriplovich, Quantum long-range interaction s in general rel- ativity, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 125, 1219 (2004); [ Sov. Phys. JETP 98, 1063 (2004)]; arXiv:gr-qc/0402018

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  11. [11]

    H. W. Hamber and S. Liu, Feynman Rules for Simplicial Gravity, Nucl.Phys. B 472, 447 (1996); arXiv:hep-th/9603016. 46

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  12. [12]

    Regge, General relativity theory without coordinates, Nuovo Cimento 19, 558 (1961)

    T. Regge, General relativity theory without coordinates, Nuovo Cimento 19, 558 (1961)

    1961

  13. [13]

    Rocek and R

    M. Rocek and R. M. Williams, Quantum Regge calculus, Phys. Lett. B104, 37 (1981)

    1981

  14. [14]

    Rocek and R

    M. Rocek and R. M. Williams, The quantization of Regge calculus, Z. Phys. C 21, 371 (1984)

    1984

  15. [15]

    H. W. Hamber and R. M. Williams, Newtonian Potential in Quantum Re gge Gravity, Nucl.Phys. B 435, 361 (1995); arXiv:hep-th/9406163

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  16. [16]

    P.V.Landshoff, The propagator in axial gauge, Phys. Lett. 169B, 69 (1986)

    1986

  17. [17]

    Steiner, A new improved temporal gauge: the soft tempora l gauge, Phys

    F. Steiner, A new improved temporal gauge: the soft tempora l gauge, Phys. Lett. B173, 321 (1986)

    1986

  18. [18]

    V. M. Khatsymovsky, Soft synchronous gauge in the perturb ative gravity; Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 39, 2450114 (2024); arXiv:2312.17119[hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    V. M. Khatsymovsky, Soft synchronous gauge in gravity: Prin cipal value prescription; Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 40, 2550080 (2025); arXiv:2407.00713[hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    V. M. Khatsymovsky, On the discrete Christoffel symbols, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 34, 1950186 (2019); arXiv:1906.11805[gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  21. [21]

    V. M. Khatsymovsky, On the non-perturbative graviton prop agator, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 33, 1850220 (2018); arXiv:1804.11212[gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  22. [22]

    V. M. Khatsymovsky, On the gravitational diagram technique in the discrete setup, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 38, 2350143 (2023); arXiv:2306.11531[gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    Arnowitt, S

    R. Arnowitt, S. Deser, and C. W. Misner, The Dynamics of Gener al Relativity, in Grav- itation: an introduction to current research, Louis Witten ed. (Wiley, 1962), chapter 7, p. 227; arXiv:gr-qc/0405109

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1962

  24. [24]

    V. M. Khatsymovsky, Discrete gravitational diagram techniqu e in the soft synchronous gauge; arXiv:2601.03228[gr-qc]

    arXiv

  25. [25]

    Ashtekar, J

    A. Ashtekar, J. Baez, A. Corichi and K. Krasnov, Quantum Ge ometry and Black Hole Entropy, Phys.Rev.Lett. 80, 904 (1998); arXiv:gr-qc/9710007. 47

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  26. [26]

    Lewandowski and M

    J. Lewandowski and M. Domagala, Black hole entropy from Quan tum Geometry, Class. Quantum Grav. bf 21, 5233-5244 (2004); arXiv:gr-qc/0407051

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  27. [27]

    Meissner, Black hole entropy in Loop Quantum Gravity, Class

    K. Meissner, Black hole entropy in Loop Quantum Gravity, Class. Quantum Grav. 21, 5245 (2004); arXiv:gr-qc/0407052

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  28. [28]

    Khriplovich, Quantized Black Holes, Their Spectrum and Radia tion, Phys

    I.B. Khriplovich, Quantized Black Holes, Their Spectrum and Radia tion, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 71, 671 (2008); arXiv:gr-qc/0506082

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008