Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 35 references

This paper proposes that an observer moving through a spacetime with fluctuating quantum geometry can recover the topology of the accessible region—its Betti numbers—from local measurements along the worldline, encoded in a simplicial compl

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

2026-08-02 00:25 UTC pith:QQ75OM3H

load-bearing objection Original and honest, but the central reconstruction claim is not established: without an admissibility condition on detectors, the complex can be a full simplex and all topology is lost. Still worth refereeing as a speculative proposal. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.15007 v1 pith:QQ75OM3H submitted 2026-07-16 hep-th gr-qc

Observers, local measurements, and topology

Michele Cirafici This is my paper
classification hep-th gr-qc
keywords quantum gravityobserver algebravon Neumann algebralocal measurementssimplicial complexnerve constructionpersistent homologyBetti numbers
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.

An observer carrying a set of detectors and moving along a worldline can, in principle, determine the topology of the part of spacetime they can probe, even when quantum fluctuations make 'regions' ill-defined. The paper's proposal is to replace the usual topological construction of a nerve from overlapping open sets with a simplicial complex whose vertices are measurement events and whose higher simplices are determined by which detectors are simultaneously active within a time window. Correlations in the measurement record thus stand in for overlapping spacetime regions. The paper argues that the homology of this complex, refined by persistent homology over the detection threshold and the time window, yields the Betti numbers of the accessible spacetime, and illustrates the idea on a 2+1 example where an observer circles a disk versus a hole. Why this matters: if correct, topology becomes an observable that an observer can measure from worldline data alone, without needing to define geometric regions in a quantum spacetime.

Core claim

Central claim: the homology of a simplicial complex built from an observer's local measurements reproduces the topology of the accessible spacetime region even when quantum fluctuations make geometric regions ill-defined. Vertices are time intervals during which some detector is active; a k-simplex is a set of k+1 measurement events that share a common active detector and span a time window no larger than Λ. Shared detector activity stands in for overlapping open sets, so the complex plays the role of a nerve construction. The paper checks the construction on a 2+1 spacetime with and without a hole, getting the expected Betti numbers, and uses persistent homology over the threshold θ and the

What carries the argument

The key object is the abstract simplicial complex K_{θ,Λ} of Eq. (4.6): vertices are measurement events along the worldline, and a set of vertices forms a simplex exactly when the corresponding active-detector sets S_α intersect and the total proper-time duration δ does not exceed the cutoff Λ. This turns detector coincidences into the overlaps of a classical nerve construction, replacing geometric regions by measurement responses. Filtering makes it robust: decreasing the threshold θ and increasing Λ both grow the complex, so persistent homology across these parameters singles out long-lived topological features.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the assumption that when the same detectors are active in several measurement events within the time window Λ, the corresponding spacetime regions genuinely overlap, so that in the semiclassical limit the observer's measurement record forms a good cover of the accessible region; if measurements are too sparse, misaligned, or the detector model is poor, the complex's homology will not match the true topology — as the paper itself notes, 'the observer can fa

What would settle it

Take a fixed classical spacetime with a known, non-contractible feature — say a 2-torus with a source distribution around it — and simulate an observer equipped with a finite set of detectors. If, as the measurement density grows and θ and Λ are tuned, the persistent homology of K_{θ,Λ} does not yield the true Betti numbers (β1=2 for the torus) while the observer's local data remain accurate, the proposal is falsified. A simpler check: in the paper's own disk-versus-hole example, choose detector patterns that break the good-cover condition (e.g., sources whose overlapping signals are never co-

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

If this is right

  • In the semiclassical limit, the Betti numbers of K_{θ,Λ} are the Betti numbers of the accessible region of spacetime, without ever constructing open sets in the fluctuating geometry.
  • An observer who records enough measurements can in principle compute the topology of a quantum-fluctuating spacetime purely from worldline data.
  • Persistent homology over θ and Λ provides a criterion to distinguish genuine topological features from artifacts of finite detector resolution or accidental coincidences.
  • The construction extends the standard nerve construction to settings where geometric regions are undefined, with the good-cover condition replaced by the demand that measurements be sufficiently fine.
  • For spacetimes admitting a tracial von Neumann algebra of observables, the existence of projections and effects guarantees the detector protocol can be implemented, making the procedure available in closed universes such as de Sitter.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the proposal holds, a finite array of detectors sweeping through space could in principle be analyzed with this protocol to search for non-trivial spatial topology, such as a toroidal universe, from correlation statistics alone — a testable data-analysis strategy beyond the toy model.
  • The construction suggests a sharp sampling criterion: the density of measurement events in proper time and the number of distinct detectors should set a resolution scale; one could define a 'topological Nyquist limit' below which the recovered Betti numbers must be unreliable.
  • It might be possible to convert the persistent-homology output into a measure of how well the good-cover assumption is satisfied: the length of the longest bar over Λ could quantify the confidence an observer should place in a detected feature.
  • The same measurement-complex idea could be ported to holographic duality, where the worldline is replaced by boundary time, to try to reconstruct bulk topology from boundary measurement data.

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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that an observer moving along a worldline in a spacetime with perturbative quantum gravity can reconstruct topological information about the accessible spacetime from local measurements, without needing to define regions of a fluctuating geometry. The construction defines a simplicial complex K_{θ,Λ} (Eq. 4.6) whose vertices are measurement events (time intervals with at least one above-threshold detector probability) and whose k-simplices are collections of events sharing a common active detector within a time window Λ. The paper argues that the homology of this complex is a stand-in for the nerve of a good cover of the spacetime region probed by the observer, and that persistent homology in θ and Λ can separate genuine topological features from measurement artifacts. The manuscript also contains a perturbative analysis of relational observables in de Sitter (§2.2, Appendix A) and two explicit toy computations (disk: β=(1,0,0); annulus: β=(1,1,0)) with a persistence barcode calculation.

Significance. If correct, the proposal would be a novel and interesting bridge between gravitational algebras, quantum measurement theory, and algebraic topology: it would give an operational, worldline-only prescription for accessing spacetime topology in a regime where conventional spacetime regions are ill-defined. The paper is careful to construct K_{θ,Λ} rigorously: the face-closure property is proved, the simplicial homology computations in §4.2 are explicit and correct, and the persistent-homology discussion is standard and appropriate. These are genuine strengths. However, the central interpretational claim—that homology of K_{θ,Λ} captures the topology of accessible spacetime—is not established. A simple, valid detector configuration makes K_{θ,Λ} the full simplex on all vertices, so all higher Betti numbers vanish identically regardless of spacetime topology. This is not a mere gap in rigor; it is a counterexample to the proposal as stated. The issue is potentially fixable by adding an explicit admissibility condition on detector sets or a formalized good-cover assumption, but such a condition is absent.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1, Eq. (4.6)] The central claim is false as stated because of a global-detector counterexample. Suppose one response operator E_1 has Tr(ρE_1(τ)) > θ for every proper time τ, as would occur for any genuinely global observable such as total energy. Then for every measurement event α, 1 ∈ S_α. Hence for any finite subset σ ⊂ V_θ, ∩_{α∈σ} S_α contains 1, so if Λ exceeds the total duration of all events, every subset of V_θ is a simplex. K_{θ,Λ} is therefore the full simplex on V_θ, with β0=1 and βk=0 for all k≥1, independent of the topology of the spacetime being probed. This configuration is not pathological: the observer can legitimately include a global detector. The acknowledgment that 'The observer can fail!' (§4.1) does not resolve the issue, because the trivial homology is persistent in Λ and remains stable for all θ up to the probability of the global detector; raising θ further can eliminate all
  2. [§4.1, good-cover assumption; §6] The paper states that 'what replaces the good cover assumption is the assumption that the set of measurements carried out by the observer is sufficiently fine that in the semiclassical limit its associated regions form a good cover' (§4.1). No precise formulation is given, and Section 6 explicitly admits that a rigorous proof is missing. This is load-bearing, because the entire inference from detector coincidences to spacetime topology runs through this assumption. In particular, the construction uses a finite set of detectors N; after sufficiently many measurement events, the same detector will inevitably be active at widely separated times, creating spurious intersections unless Λ is chosen carefully. The parameter Λ is not tied to any causal or geometric scale in the construction, so the distinction between 'genuine' and 'accidental' overlaps in §5.2 remains heuristic. The counterexam
  3. [§5.3, persistence interpretation] The barcode interpretation is not sufficient to cure the failure described above. The full-simplex configuration produces no higher homology class at any filtration value, so the persistent-homology summary would be a single β0 bar and no β1 bars. If the true spacetime has β1=1, as in the annulus example, this is indistinguishable from the persistence signature of a contractible spacetime. More generally, the statement that long-lived classes for small Λ correspond to 'truly topological features' assumes that the good-cover condition holds; without that assumption, persistence can only detect artifacts of the detector-label cover, not the spacetime cover. A concrete test of the proposal would require a family of detector configurations and an independent computation of the accessible-region topology, but none is provided.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.1, p_i(τ)] The assumption that the same state ρ can be used to compute all probabilities, despite post-measurement state update, is explicitly acknowledged as heuristic. This is acceptable for an idealized proposal, but it is a physical idealization that should be flagged more prominently in the introduction as a limitation.
  2. [§4.2, examples] The two toy examples are internally consistent, but the mapping from the assumed geometric configuration (disk vs. annulus) to the specific detector patterns S(v_i) is asserted rather than derived. Since the examples are meant to illustrate the proposal, it would be helpful to state explicitly that the patterns are inputs chosen to mimic a good cover, not outputs of a geometric calculation.
  3. [General presentation] Several typos and small errors: 'two-ouctome POVM' (§4.1), 'bluk modular operator' (§2.2), 'the bulks algebra' (§2.2), and 'the observer wordline' (§6). These do not affect the mathematics.
  4. [§2.2] The perturbative deformation of relational observables is a useful consistency check, but it is explicitly stated to be independent of the rest of the paper. Consider condensing or moving this material to an appendix to sharpen the focus on the topological construction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the construction is an openly labeled nerve construction, the spacetime-topology claim is explicitly conditional on a stated good-cover assumption, and the examples are hand-made illustrations rather than fitted predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central object K_{θ,Λ} (Eq. 4.6) is explicitly defined as the nerve of the active-detector sets S_α with a temporal cutoff Λ. Its homology is therefore, by definition, the homology of that measurement-intersection pattern. The paper then proposes that this homology carries spacetime-topology information. Crucially, the link is not derived from the definition; it is openly assumed: 'what replaces the good cover assumption is the assumption that the set of measurements carried out by the observer is sufficiently fine that in the semiclassical limit its associated regions form a good cover' (Sec. 4.1). The paper also explicitly acknowledges failure modes ('The observer can fail!') and states that a rigorous proof is missing (Sec. 6). These are limitations or correctness risks, not circularity: the conclusion is conditional on an independent assumption, not identical to the input. The disk and annulus examples are explicitly 'highly idealized, but illustrative' S-patterns chosen to show how the nerve construction works; no parameter is fitted to data and then renamed a prediction. θ and Λ are varied to test persistence rather than tuned to a target Betti number. The author's self-citations ([11]–[16]) are used for persistence techniques and for a perturbative KMS check, not as the load-bearing justification of the topological claim; the type-II algebra and trace input are attributed to [7,34,35]. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the author's earlier work to force the result. Thus no step in the derivation chain reduces to its own input.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The construction rests on two kinds of assumptions: the observer-algebra machinery (type II von Neumann algebra with trace, Hartle-Hawking maximal entropy state) imported from prior work, and the interpretive bridge that measurement coincidences define overlapping regions (good cover). The free parameters θ, Λ, and the detector choice are explicitly observer-controlled and are the targets of the persistence analysis rather than fitted values.

free parameters (3)
  • θ (detector threshold)
    Probability threshold in Eq. (4.1); free choice of the observer; variations are studied via persistent homology; not fitted to data.
  • Λ (correlation time window)
    Maximum duration δ_σ allowed for a simplex in Eq. (4.6); free choice; variations define the filtration (5.4).
  • Response operators E_i and detector number N
    Chosen by the observer 'according to their physical model of the accessible universe' (Section 4.1); the resulting complex depends on this choice; no data used to set them.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The observer's worldline algebra is (or can be completed to) a type II von Neumann algebra with a faithful trace
    Assumed after refs. [7,34,35]; used to justify projections, Born rule probabilities (4.1) and the trace used to define detection events.
  • domain assumption In the semiclassical limit, measurement detector-coincidences correspond to overlapping open sets; the measurement set forms a good cover
    The central interpretive step in Section 4.1: 'this construction parallels the nerve complex...' plus the explicit good-cover assumption.
  • domain assumption Perturbative quantum gravity does not induce topology change
    Used to justify ignoring measurement backreaction: 'This will not happen in the perturbative regime' (Section 4.1).
  • ad hoc to paper The state ρ can be kept fixed when computing p_i(τ); post-measurement state update is negligible for simple detectors
    Large-entropy heuristic in Section 4.1; the author explicitly labels it heuristic.
  • domain assumption Hartle-Hawking no-boundary state exists, is KMS/thermal and of maximal entropy, so it defines a trace
    Section 2.1: trace defined as ⟨Ψ_HH|a|Ψ_HH⟩; author notes this may not hold generally, so the analysis is limited to spacetimes where it does.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 21976 in / 13477 out tokens · 143228 ms · 2026-08-02T00:25:39.786869+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

An observer which propagates in a spacetime with dynamical gravity has access to an algebra of observables which is expected to be a von Neumann algebra with a trace. The observer can use projections from the algebra to perform local measurements. By using this fact we construct a simplicial complex out of measurements recorded on the worldline of the observer and we propose that such a complex captures topological information about spacetime, even when this is fluctuating.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.15007 by Michele Cirafici.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: figure 1. We illustrate the previous construction in two simplified settings, where the observer circles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: We omit the timelike direction and project every event [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The observer moves in space￾time around a “hole” and performs five sharp measurements at five different instants Consider first the case of the disk. We assume that the detectors are active with the following pattern S(v0) = {R, B, G} , S(v1) = {R, V} , (4.10) S(v2) = {R, G, V} , S(v3) = {B, G} , S(v4) = {B} . We have introduced the more compact notation S(vi) to denote the set of labels Sαi associated wit… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The observer records four focused radiation sources (green, blue, red and violet) with five [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Now spacetime is topologically non-trivial. The presence of the hole prevents radiation emitted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An illustration of the bar￾codes obtained in the example At this stage the chain groups are C0(KΛ; K) ∼= K5 , generated by the five vertices, C1(KΛ; K) ∼= K6 , generated by the edges [v0v1], [v1v2], [v2v3], [v0v3], [v3v4] and [v0v4], and C2(KΛ; K) ∼= K generated by [v0v3v4]. It is now easy to compute the homology. Since rank ∂1 = 4, we have that dim ker ∂1 = dim C1−rank ∂1 = 6 − 4 = 2. But we have already … 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

35 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The gravitational path integral from an observer’s point of view,

    A. I. Abdalla, S. Antonini, L. V. Iliesiu and A. Levine, “The gravitational path integral from an observer’s point of view,” JHEP05(2025), 059 [arXiv:2501.02632 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    On observers in holographic maps,

    C. Akers, G. Bueller, O. DeWolfe, K. Higginbotham, J. Reinking and R. Rodriguez, “On observers in holographic maps,” JHEP05(2025), 201 [arXiv:2503.09681 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Quantum reference frames from top-down crossed products,

    S. Ali Ahmad, W. Chemissany, M. S. Klinger and R. G. Leigh, “Quantum reference frames from top-down crossed products,” Phys. Rev. D110(2024) no.6, 065003 [arXiv:2405.13884 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Absolute entropy and the observer’s no- boundary state,

    A. Blommaert, J. Kudler-Flam and E. Y. Urbach, “Absolute entropy and the observer’s no- boundary state,” JHEP11(2025), 113 [arXiv:2505.14771 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Bratteli and D.W

    O. Bratteli and D.W. RobinsonOperator Algebras and Quantum Statistical Mechanics 2. Equilibrium States. Models in Quantum Statistical Mechanics, (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1996)

    1996

  6. [6]

    Topology and data,

    G. Carlsson, “Topology and data,” Bull. Am. Math. Soc.46(2009) no.2, 255-308

    2009

  7. [7]

    An algebra of observables for de Sitter space,

    V. Chandrasekaran, R. Longo, G. Penington and E. Witten, “An algebra of observables for de Sitter space,” JHEP02(2023), 082 [arXiv:2206.10780 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Large N algebras and generalized entropy,

    V. Chandrasekaran, G. Penington and E. Witten, “Large N algebras and generalized entropy,” JHEP04(2023), 009 [arXiv:2209.10454 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  9. [9]

    A clock is just a way to tell the time: gravitational algebras in cosmological spacetimes,

    C. H. Chen and G. Penington, “A clock is just a way to tell the time: gravitational algebras in cosmological spacetimes,” [arXiv:2406.02116 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  10. [10]

    An algebra for covariant observers in de Sitter space,

    B. Chen and J. Xu, “An algebra for covariant observers in de Sitter space,” [arXiv:2511.00622 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  11. [11]

    BPS Spectra, Barcodes and Walls,

    M. Cirafici, “BPS Spectra, Barcodes and Walls,” SIGMA15(2019), 052 [arXiv:1511.01421 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  12. [12]

    Persistent Homology and String Vacua,

    M. Cirafici, “Persistent Homology and String Vacua,” JHEP03(2016), 045 [arXiv:1512.01170 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  13. [13]

    On the nonequilibrium dynamics of gravitational algebras,

    M. Cirafici, “On the nonequilibrium dynamics of gravitational algebras,” Class. Quant. Grav.41 (2024) no.23, 235006 [arXiv:2402.03939 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  14. [14]

    Fluctuation theorems, quantum channels and gravitational algebras,

    M. Cirafici, “Fluctuation theorems, quantum channels and gravitational algebras,” JHEP11 (2024), 089 [arXiv:2408.04219 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    Gravitational Algebras and Applications to Nonequilibrium Physics,

    M. Cirafici, “Gravitational Algebras and Applications to Nonequilibrium Physics,” Universe11 (2025) no.1, 24 [arXiv:2412.17674 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Topological Data Analysis for the String Landscape,

    A. Cole and G. Shiu, “Topological Data Analysis for the String Landscape,” JHEP03(2019), 054 [arXiv:1812.06960 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  17. [17]

    Cell Groups Reveal Structure of Stimulus Space

    Curto C, Itskov V (2008) “Cell Groups Reveal Structure of Stimulus Space”. PLoS Comput Biol 4(10): e1000205. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000205

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000205 2008

  18. [18]

    Gravitational entropy is observer-dependent,

    J. De Vuyst, S. Eccles, P. A. Hoehn and J. Kirklin, “Gravitational entropy is observer-dependent,” JHEP07(2025), 146 [arXiv:2405.00114 [hep-th]]. 28

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    Crossed products and quantum reference frames: on the observer-dependence of gravitational entropy,

    J. De Vuyst, S. Eccles, P. A. Hoehn and J. Kirklin, “Crossed products and quantum reference frames: on the observer-dependence of gravitational entropy,” JHEP07(2025), 063 [erratum: JHEP10(2025), 234] [arXiv:2412.15502 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Quantum Reference Frames, Measurement Schemes and the Type of Local Algebras in Quantum Field Theory,

    J. C. Fewster, D. W. Janssen, L. D. Loveridge, K. Rejzner and J. Waldron, “Quantum Reference Frames, Measurement Schemes and the Type of Local Algebras in Quantum Field Theory,” Commun. Math. Phys.406(2025) no.1, 19 [arXiv:2403.11973 [math-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Quantum rods and clock in a gravitational universe,

    H. Geng, “Quantum rods and clock in a gravitational universe,” Phys. Rev. D112(2025) no.2, 026009 [arXiv:2412.03636 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Algebras, EntanglementIslands, andObservers,

    H.Geng, Y.JiangandJ.Xu, “Algebras, EntanglementIslands, andObservers,” [arXiv:2506.12127 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  23. [23]

    Inflation and topology from the no-boundary state,

    V. Godet, “Inflation and topology from the no-boundary state,” [arXiv:2605.05317 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  24. [24]

    Quantum mechanics and observers for gravity in a closed universe,

    D. Harlow, M. Usatyuk and Y. Zhao, “Quantum mechanics and observers for gravity in a closed universe,” JHEP02(2026), 108 [arXiv:2501.02359 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  25. [25]

    Quantum Frame Relativity of Subsystems, Correlations and Thermodynamics,

    P. A. Hoehn, I. Kotecha and F. M. Mele, “Quantum Frame Relativity of Subsystems, Correlations and Thermodynamics,” [arXiv:2308.09131 [quant-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  26. [26]

    Generalized entropy for general subregions in quantum gravity,

    K. Jensen, J. Sorce and A. J. Speranza, “Generalized entropy for general subregions in quantum gravity,” JHEP12(2023), 020 [arXiv:2306.01837 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  27. [27]

    Unruh-DeWitt Detector Response in Toroidal Spacetime,

    N. Kajuri and S. Siddh, “Unruh-DeWitt Detector Response in Toroidal Spacetime,” [arXiv:2604.21118 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  28. [28]

    Generalized black hole entropy is von Neumann entropy,

    J. Kudler-Flam, S. Leutheusser and G. Satishchandran, “Generalized black hole entropy is von Neumann entropy,” Phys. Rev. D111(2025) no.2, 025013 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.025013 [arXiv:2309.15897 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Algebraic Observational Cosmology,

    J. Kudler-Flam, S. Leutheusser and G. Satishchandran, “Algebraic Observational Cosmology,” [arXiv:2406.01669 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  30. [30]

    Real observers solving imaginary problems,

    J. Maldacena, “Real observers solving imaginary problems,” [arXiv:2412.14014 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  31. [31]

    Quantum stress-energy at timelike boundaries: Testing a new beyond-ΛCDM parameter with cosmological data,

    O. H. E. Philcox, E. Silverstein and G. Torroba, “Quantum stress-energy at timelike boundaries: Testing a new beyond-ΛCDM parameter with cosmological data,” Phys. Rev. D113(2026) no.4, 043548 [arXiv:2507.00115 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  32. [32]

    An intrinsic cosmological observer,

    A. J. Speranza, “An intrinsic cosmological observer,” Class. Quant. Grav.42(2025) no.21, 215023 [arXiv:2504.07630 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Analytic States in Quantum Field Theory on Curved Spacetimes,

    A. Strohmaier and E. Witten, “Analytic States in Quantum Field Theory on Curved Spacetimes,” Annales Henri Poincare25(2024) no.10, 4543-4590 [arXiv:2302.02709 [math-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    Algebras, regions, and observers.,

    E. Witten, “Algebras, regions, and observers.,” Proc. Symp. Pure Math.107(2024), 247-276 [arXiv:2303.02837 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    A background-independent algebra in quantum gravity,

    E. Witten, “A background-independent algebra in quantum gravity,” JHEP03(2024), 077 [arXiv:2308.03663 [hep-th]]. 29

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024