Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 87 references

The near-horizon phase space of gravity is a single boost-graded tower: one w=-2 tensor and its symmetry generate every other observable and evolution equation.

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 21:08 UTC pith:BPDXBKDC

load-bearing objection Evolution-equation recursion in (0.3)/(3.33) has a wrong coefficient—direct anomalies give (1−w) not (2−w)—so the symmetry-derived tower claim is false as stated, though the explicit equations and Holst charge may survive. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2602.21017 v1 pith:BPDXBKDC submitted 2026-02-24 hep-th

Duality symmetry and dynamics on finite null boundaries

Gianfranco De Simone This is my paper
classification hep-th
keywords near-horizon symmetriesnull boundariesboost weightduality symmetryWeyl scalarsNoether chargesHolst termsupertranslations
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.

This paper argues that the gravitational observables living on a finite null boundary (such as a black hole horizon) are not independent: they form a single tower organized by boost weight, with the lowest rung (boost weight -2) as the seed. Starting from one metric tensor T_ab and its transformation law under near-horizon supertranslations, the author recursively derives the four higher-rung tensors and all of their evolution equations. The same recursive pattern governs the equations of motion, so the entire near-horizon dynamics is fixed by symmetry once the lowest rung is known. The paper also shows that adding a topological Holst term to the Einstein-Cartan action makes the imaginary part of the Weyl scalar Ψ2 appear in the sub-leading super-translation Noether charge, giving this dual quantity a charge meaning. If correct, this reduces the data needed to describe near-horizon gravity and aligns finite boundaries with the asymptotic symmetry tower.

Core claim

The central claim is that the five boost-weighted tensors T_ab (w=-2), P_a (w=-1), A_ab (w=0), J_a (w=1), and N_ab (w=2), defined from the radial expansion of the boundary metric, transform semi-covariantly under near-horizon symmetries and obey the recursive law δQ_w = (τ∂_v + L_Y + wτ̇)Q_w - (w-2)Q_{w+1}∂τ. This means the anomaly of each tensor is the next tensor up the tower, so knowing T_ab and its transformation determines all the others. The same structure holds for the on-shell evolution equations, E_{Q_w}, which satisfy a parallel recursion; imposing the lowest evolution equation makes the whole tower's equations follow by symmetry. In the Einstein-Cartan-Holst formulation, the sub-l

What carries the argument

The central object is the boost weight -2 tensor T_ab = d_<ab> - θ^(n) σ^(n)_ab, built from the sub-sub-leading metric coefficient minus a shear/expansion combination so that its quadratic anomaly cancels. Its linear anomaly under supertranslations is proportional to the next tensor P_a, and the recursion rule turns each tensor's anomaly into the seed of the one above it. The companion machinery is the duality operation on the corner (rotation by the area form ε_ab), which splits the weight-0 tensor into symmetric and antisymmetric parts and lets the evolution equations close. For the charge part, the Holst term in the Einstein-Cartan Lagrangian provides a pre-symplectic potential whose Noet

Load-bearing premise

The entire ladder rests on the validity of three two-dimensional identities imported from an earlier analysis and on the specific radial coordinate gauge used for the metric; if any of those fails, or if the recursion holds only after imposing the leading Einstein equations rather than for generic perturbations, the tower collapses.

What would settle it

Compute the two-surface identities (2.5) and (2.9) explicitly for a two-sphere with nonvanishing shear and expansion; if either identity fails, the anomaly cancellation defining T_ab and P_a fails and the recursion is broken. Alternatively, solve the hypersurface Einstein equations with a metric that is in the same gauge but has nonzero off-diagonal terms in the radial expansion; if the recursive pattern (0.3) picks up anomalies, the result is not gauge-independent.

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

If this is right

  • The full near-horizon phase space is determined by the single tensor T_ab and its evolution equation; all higher-boost observables are symmetry images of it, not independent data.
  • The on-shell evolution equations (3.32) are exactly the condition that the symmetry action be anomaly-free; imposing them fixes the transformation of every phase-space variable.
  • The sub-leading super-translation charge of a previous work is reproduced by adding the boundary Lagrangian (5.3), so the two charge constructions are compatible once boundary terms are included.
  • Adding the Holst term introduces new near-horizon Noether charges, so the dual (imaginary-Ψ2) sector is observable in the charge algebra, not just in the geometry.
  • The recursive pattern holds even though a finite horizon carries genuine degrees of freedom (expansion, shear, surface gravity, Hajicek field), in contrast to null infinity where they are frozen.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the recursion persists off-shell in a wider class of gauges, it would mean the near-horizon phase space is a lowest-weight representation of the near-horizon symmetry algebra, which could simplify canonical quantization of horizon degrees of freedom.
  • The dictionary with Weyl scalars in appendix B suggests that the sub-sub-leading metric coefficient alone encodes the radiative information; a testable extension is to derive the displacement and spin memory effects at finite boundaries entirely from T_ab.
  • The two-dimensional identities (2.5), (2.9), and (3.10) are the load-bearing technical input; independently verifying them on a generic two-surface (e.g., a sheared sphere) would be a cheap and decisive check.
  • The Holst charge result hints that the imaginary part of Ψ2 may be conserved at the horizon; one could look for its flux in numerical black-hole merger simulations.

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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a finite-null-boundary analog of the null-infinity boost-weight tower. Starting from the w=-2 tensor T_ab = d_<ab> - θ(n) σ(n)_ab, it constructs covariant functionals P_a, A_ab (with dual Ã), J_a, and N_ab, and claims that their near-horizon symmetry transformations obey the recursion (0.1). It then identifies combinations that yield the evolution equations (3.32), states that these equations obey the recursive pattern (0.3)/(3.33), and independently recovers the equations from Newman-Penrose Bianchi identities in Appendix B. The paper also computes Einstein-Cartan-Holst Noether charges, finding that the dual functional à (related to Im Ψ2) enters the subleading super-translation Holst charge, and resolves a mismatch with the charges of [49] by adding a non-covariant boundary Lagrangian (5.3).

Significance. If the advertised results are correct, the finite-null-boundary phase space is organized as a single boost-graded tower rather than five independent fields, and the Holst term gives Im Ψ2 a charge meaning at subleading order. The paper has notable strengths: the transformation laws are computed explicitly, the evolution equations are cross-checked in an independent Newman-Penrose calculation (Appendix B), and the mismatch with [49] is openly declared and then addressed with a boundary Lagrangian. These features make the paper a potentially substantial contribution, provided the recursive-pattern issue described below is resolved.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3, Eqs. (0.3)/(3.33)] The anomaly coefficient in the evolution-equation recursion is wrong. The displayed transformation laws are: (3.11) δE_J = (τ∂v+L_Y+2τ̇)E_J; (3.14) δE_A = (τ∂v+L_Y+τ̇)E_A + E_J^a ∂aτ; (3.25) δE_P = (τ∂v+L_Y)E_P + E_A ∂aτ + E_Ã ∂aτ; and (3.31) δE_T = (τ∂v+L_Y−τ̇)E_T + 3 E_P⟨a ∂b⟩τ. Thus the anomaly coefficients are 0, 1, 2, 3 for w = 1, 0, −1, −2, i.e. (1−w), not (2−w). The recursion as written in (0.3) and (3.33) would give 1, 2, 3, 4 and would not reproduce (3.11), (3.14), (3.25), or (3.31). This is not cosmetic: the abstract and introduction advertise that the remaining evolution equations are determined by symmetry from the w=−2 equation, but the displayed equations do not support that with the stated coefficient. The explicit equations (3.32) may still be correct—they are re-derived from Bianchi identities—but the advertised recursive pattern needs to be corrected to (1−w) or the tex
  2. [§2 and §3, Eqs. (2.5), (2.9), (3.10)] The recursive construction depends on imported two-dimensional corner identities, but only (2.9) receives a sketch; (2.5) is merely cited to [50] and (3.10) is stated without proof. These identities are load-bearing: without them the quadratic anomaly cancellation fails at the first rung of the tower. Please either prove these identities in an appendix or give precise statements and locations in [50]. Relatedly, the paper should state explicitly that the whole pattern is established only within the Newman-Unti gauge ansatz (1.1)–(1.4) with the radial expansion (1.14), and only on shell after imposing (1.19)–(1.21); the current notation 'ˆ=' signals this but the domain of the central claim is not delimited in the text.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3, Eq. (3.25)] The notation E^A_{ab} is used without definition. Please spell out that it denotes the symmetric-trace-free combination of the anomaly terms E_A ∂aτ + E_Ã ∂aτ, or introduce a clearer symbol.
  2. [§3, Eqs. (3.8), (3.32)] The first evolution equation appears with coefficient (κ−2θ) in (3.8) and (κ−3/2θ) with σ(ℓ) in (3.32). These are equivalent only after using K(ℓ) = σ(ℓ) + (1/2)θ(ℓ) q. A short remark near (3.8) would avoid confusion.
  3. [§4, Eq. (4.30)] The quantities q_H[ξ_T], ω̃_ij and the tilde operation on σ(ℓ) are used without definition. Please define these before the Holst charge computation.
  4. [§5, Eq. (5.1)] The text refers to 'the sub-leading super-translation charge (2.28) obtained in [49]'. Since the equation number belongs to the cited paper rather than this one, please display the formula here or reference it as [49, Eq. (2.28)] to avoid ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular reduction found; the tower and evolution equations are computed directly and cross-checked against Bianchi identities. One minor self-citation is not load-bearing. The advertised recursion (3.33) is internally inconsistent with the paper's own computed anomalies, but that is a correctness issue, not circularity.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained rather than circular. T_ab is defined from d_ab and θ(n)σ(n); its transformation (2.10) is computed directly, and P_a is read off as the anomaly. P_a's own transformation (2.21) is then computed, not assumed, and the same holds for A, J, N; thus (0.1) is a verified summary of direct computations. The evolution equations (3.8), (3.12), (3.17), (3.26) are constructed explicitly and independently recovered from the Newman-Penrose Bianchi identities in Appendix B (B.52)-(B.55); the recursion (3.33) is extracted from them, not used to generate them. The Holst charges are computed from the pre-symplectic potential (4.15)-(4.17), and the boundary Lagrangian (5.3) is explicitly chosen to reproduce the comparison charge (5.1), so those are constructions, not disguised predictions. I flag, as non-circular fragilities: (i) the manuscript's own anomalies (3.11), (3.14), (3.25), (3.31) give recursion coefficients 0,1,2,3 (or 3,2,1,0 in reverse order), while (3.33)/(0.3) states (2−w)=1,2,3,4; this internal inconsistency undermines the advertised 'symmetry determines the remaining evolution equations' claim but is a correctness problem, not a definitional reduction. (ii) Identity (2.5) is imported as 'Proved in [50]' (fn. 1), and the construction is repeatedly premised on 'Assuming that the same pattern found at null infinity holds at a finite distance' (Secs. 2, 3.1); these are unverified external/ansatz inputs, not equivalences to the paper's outputs. The only self-citation, [55], supports the background near-horizon review and is not load-bearing for the novel tower/charge results. Hence no step in the derivation reduces to its own input.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 3 invented entities

No data are fitted in this paper; the analytic results are anchored to the Einstein equations and their Bianchi identities, with the Newman-Penrose identification (B.40) as an internal cross-check. The imported inputs are the 2D corner identities from [50], the near-horizon gauge/ansatz, the on-shell reduction to (1.19)–(1.21), and the free-data assumption on Ψ4. The only deliberately engineered object is the boundary Lagrangian (5.3), whose coefficients are chosen to reproduce the Ruzziconi-Zwikel charge; that is the paper's main circularity burden.

free parameters (3)
  • Immirzi-type parameter γ in the Holst term
    Free Lagrangian parameter in (4.13)–(4.14); the paper explicitly treats γ as a general parameter, so the result holds for arbitrary γ rather than being fitted.
  • Coefficients of the anomaly-free combinations in the evolution equations (3.12), (3.15), (3.17), (3.26) = 3/2, 2, 5, −1/2, μ(ℓ), etc.
    Chosen by hand under the “same pattern as null infinity” heuristic so that anomaly terms cancel; subsequently cross-checked against the Bianchi identities in Appendix B, so they are not fully free.
  • Coefficients of the non-covariant boundary Lagrangian ℓ(1)b (5.3) = ˚μℓ˚θ(n) + κ(1)(ℓ) + θ(1)(ℓ) + ˚πa˚πa
    Chosen so that the Einstein-Cartan Noether charge reproduces the Ruzziconi-Zwikel charge QRZ (5.1)–(5.4); reverse-engineered boundary term, not a parameter-free derivation.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Gaussian null coordinates exist on H with gρρ = gρa = 0, gvρ = −1, and boundary conditions gvv=O(ρ), gva=O(ρ), gab=O(1) (eqs. (1.1)–(1.4))
    The entire tower of functionals is defined from the radial expansion of qab in these coordinates; a null boundary not admitting a smooth foliation by compact cross-sections, or with caustics, lies outside the setup.
  • domain assumption Boundary metric radial expansion qab = ˚qab + ρλab + ρ²dab + ρ³d(1)ab + O(ρ⁴) (eq. (1.14))
    The w=−2 seed Tab = d⟨ab⟩ − ˚θ(n)˚σ(n)ab is built from the ρ² coefficient; results only cover metrics of this differentiability class.
  • standard math 2D corner identities (2.5), (2.9), (2.18), (3.10), (3.29)
    Quadratic-anomaly cancellations defining Tab, Pa, Aab, Ja, Nab rely on these; (2.5) is credited to [50] (footnote 1), the others are justified by a 4-tensor symmetry argument (footnote 2) or similar identities.
  • domain assumption On-shell use of leading Einstein equations: null Raychaudhuri (1.19), Damour (1.20), and Eab evolution equation (1.21), with Λ=0
    Transformation laws of Pa, A, ĖA and the evolution equations are covariant only after imposing these equations (notation ˚=); the paper sets the cosmological constant to zero and asserts it does not play a fundamental role.
  • domain assumption Newman-Penrose free-data hierarchy: leading Ψ4 is free data on H and determines the sub-leading Ψk via radial Bianchi identities (Appendix B, eqs. (B.33), (B.40))
    The identification of the tower with Weyl scalars and the Bianchi-identity re-derivation of the evolution equations assume this hierarchy and the choices ω1=−1, ω0=0 in the conformal weights.
  • ad hoc to paper Heuristic “the same pattern found at null infinity holds at a finite distance” (§2, §3.1)
    Used to guess the seed functional and the anomaly-free combinations; subsequently verified by direct computation and by the Bianchi-identity check, so it functions as a motivating ansatz rather than a logical input.
invented entities (3)
  • Boost-weighted covariant functionals {Tab, Pa, Aab (A, ĖA), Ja, Nab} independent evidence
    purpose: Phase-space observables on finite null boundaries with definite boost weight w=−2…2 and semi-covariant transformation laws; seed of the recursive tower.
    Not postulated ad hoc: each is a defined combination of metric data, and the identification with the leading Weyl scalars Ψ4…Ψ0 (eq. (B.40)) gives an independent, gauge-invariant handle via curvature components.
  • Holst/dual sub-leading Noether charges QH independent evidence
    purpose: Capture the imaginary part of Ψ2 (ĖA) as a sub-leading dual charge; finite-distance analogue of dual BMS charges.
    The γ-dependence and ĖA-content are definite functionals of the tetrad that could be matched against independent dual-charge derivations [51–54]; no prediction to collider/astrophysical data is offered.
  • Non-covariant boundary Lagrangian ℓ(1)b (5.3) no independent evidence
    purpose: Engineered so the Einstein-Cartan Noether charge reproduces the Ruzziconi-Zwikel Barnich-Brandt charge QRZ; enters the charge bracket through its anomaly.
    Chosen by reverse-engineering to match the target charge (5.1)–(5.4); no independent handle outside the matching requirement (same technique as [12] at null infinity).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 35608 in / 17111 out tokens · 153013 ms · 2026-08-02T21:08:45.572677+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In this work, we derive a set of boost-weighted $w$ functionals of the metric, with $w\in\{2,1,0,-1,-2\}$, which transform semi-covariantly under the action of the near-horizon symmetry group. In particular, we demonstrate that the knowledge of the $w=-2$ metric functional and its behaviour under the near-horizon symmetry transformations allows us to derive the expressions and the properties of the remaining boost-weighted functionals via a recursive pattern. A similar recursive pattern also appears when evaluating the action of the near-horizon symmetry group on the evolution equations of these boost-weighted functionals. Again, the knowledge of the evolution equation of the boost $w=-2$ functional and its behaviour under symmetry transformations allows the remaining evolution equations to be determined using symmetry arguments. We also emphasize the role played by the duality symmetry in the characterization of the phase space of a null boundary and in the evaluation of the equation of motion. In conclusion, we derive the sub-leading Noether charges in the Einstein-Cartan-Holst formulation of gravity, showing that the imaginary part of the Weyl scalar $\Psi_2$ appears at the sub-leading order in the Holst charge.

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

87 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    work page doi:10.1038/186535a0 1960

  2. [2]

    Bondi, M

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

  3. [3]

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

    arXiv 1961

  4. [4]

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

    arXiv 1962

  5. [5]

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

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

    work page doi:10.4249/scholarpedia.33528 2016

  6. [6]

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

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

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.105.111103 2010

  7. [7]

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

    Glenn Barnich and Cedric Troessaert. Aspects of the BMS/CFT correspondence.JHEP, 05: 062, 2010. doi: 10.1007/JHEP05(2010)062. – 37 –

    doi:10.1007/jhep05(2010)062 2010

  8. [8]

    BMS charge algebra.JHEP, 12:105, 2011

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

    doi:10.1007/jhep12(2011)105 2011

  9. [9]

    Asymptotic symmetries and subleading soft graviton theorem.Phys

    Miguel Campiglia and Alok Laddha. Asymptotic symmetries and subleading soft graviton theorem.Phys. Rev. D, 90(12):124028, 2014. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.124028

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.90.124028 2014

  10. [10]

    New symmetries for the Gravitational S-matrix.JHEP, 04:076, 2015

    Miguel Campiglia and Alok Laddha. New symmetries for the Gravitational S-matrix.JHEP, 04:076, 2015. doi: 10.1007/JHEP04(2015)076

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep04(2015)076 2015

  11. [11]

    Superboost transitions, refraction memory and super-Lorentz charge algebra.JHEP, 11:200, 2018

    Geoffrey Compère, Adrien Fiorucci, and Romain Ruzziconi. Superboost transitions, refraction memory and super-Lorentz charge algebra.JHEP, 11:200, 2018. doi: 10.1007/JHEP11(2018)200. [Erratum: JHEP 04, 172 (2020)]

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep11(2018)200 2018

  12. [12]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep07(2021)170 2021

  13. [13]

    The partial Bondi gauge: Further enlarging the asymptotic structure of gravity.SciPost Phys., 13:108, 2022

    Marc Geiller and Céline Zwikel. The partial Bondi gauge: Further enlarging the asymptotic structure of gravity.SciPost Phys., 13:108, 2022. doi: 10.21468/SciPostPhys.13.5.108

    work page doi:10.21468/scipostphys.13.5.108 2022

  14. [14]

    The partial Bondi gauge: Gauge fixings and asymptotic charges.SciPost Phys., 16(3):076, 2024

    Marc Geiller and Céline Zwikel. The partial Bondi gauge: Gauge fixings and asymptotic charges.SciPost Phys., 16(3):076, 2024. doi: 10.21468/SciPostPhys.16.3.076

    work page doi:10.21468/scipostphys.16.3.076 2024

  15. [15]

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

  16. [16]

    Braginsky and Kip S

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

    doi:10.1038/327123a0 1987

  17. [17]

    Christodoulou

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

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.67.1486 1991

  18. [18]

    Infrared photons and gravitons.Phys

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

    doi:10.1103/physrev.140.b516 1965

  19. [19]

    New Gravitational Memories.JHEP, 12:053, 2016

    Sabrina Pasterski, Andrew Strominger, and Alexander Zhiboedov. New Gravitational Memories.JHEP, 12:053, 2016. doi: 10.1007/JHEP12(2016)053

    doi:10.1007/jhep12(2016)053 2016

  20. [20]

    Evidence for a New Soft Graviton Theorem

    Freddy Cachazo and Andrew Strominger. Evidence for a New Soft Graviton Theorem. 4 2014

    2014

  21. [21]

    Sub-subleading soft graviton theorem from asymptotic Einstein’s equations.JHEP, 05:186, 2022

    Laurent Freidel, Daniele Pranzetti, and Ana-Maria Raclariu. Sub-subleading soft graviton theorem from asymptotic Einstein’s equations.JHEP, 05:186, 2022. doi: 10.1007/JHEP05(2022)186

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep05(2022)186 2022

  22. [22]

    Andrew Strominger.w 1+∞ Algebra and the Celestial Sphere: Infinite Towers of Soft Graviton, Photon, and Gluon Symmetries.Phys. Rev. Lett., 127(22):221601, 2021. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.221601

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.127.221601 2021

  23. [23]

    Higher spin dynamics in gravity and w1+∞celestial symmetries.Phys

    Laurent Freidel, Daniele Pranzetti, and Ana-Maria Raclariu. Higher spin dynamics in gravity and w1+∞celestial symmetries.Phys. Rev. D, 106(8):086013, 2022. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.086013

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.106.086013 2022

  24. [24]

    Celestialw 1+∞ charges and the subleading structure of asymptotically-flat spacetimes.SciPost Phys., 18(1):023, 2025

    Marc Geiller. Celestialw 1+∞ charges and the subleading structure of asymptotically-flat spacetimes.SciPost Phys., 18(1):023, 2025. doi: 10.21468/SciPostPhys.18.1.023

    work page doi:10.21468/scipostphys.18.1.023 2025

  25. [25]

    Asymptotic higher spin symmetries I: covariant wedge algebra in gravity.Lett

    Nicolas Cresto and Laurent Freidel. Asymptotic higher spin symmetries I: covariant wedge algebra in gravity.Lett. Math. Phys., 115(2):39, 2025. doi: 10.1007/s11005-025-01921-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s11005-025-01921-4 2025

  26. [26]

    Asymptotic Higher Spin Symmetries II: Noether Realization in Gravity

    Nicolas Cresto and Laurent Freidel. Asymptotic Higher Spin Symmetries II: Noether Realization in Gravity. 10 2024. – 38 –

    2024

  27. [27]

    Celestialw1+∞ Symmetries from Twistor Space.SIGMA, 18:016, 2022

    Tim Adamo, Lionel Mason, and Atul Sharma. Celestialw1+∞ Symmetries from Twistor Space.SIGMA, 18:016, 2022. doi: 10.3842/SIGMA.2022.016

    doi:10.3842/sigma.2022.016 2022

  28. [28]

    CarrollianLw1+∞ representation from twistor space.SciPost Phys., 17(4):118, 2024

    Laura Donnay, Laurent Freidel, and Yannick Herfray. CarrollianLw1+∞ representation from twistor space.SciPost Phys., 17(4):118, 2024. doi: 10.21468/SciPostPhys.17.4.118

    work page doi:10.21468/scipostphys.17.4.118 2024

  29. [29]

    Celestial Lw1+∞ charges from a twistor action.JHEP, 10:250, 2024

    Adam Kmec, Lionel Mason, Romain Ruzziconi, and Akshay Yelleshpur Srikant. Celestial Lw1+∞ charges from a twistor action.JHEP, 10:250, 2024. doi: 10.1007/JHEP10(2024)250

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep10(2024)250 2024

  30. [30]

    Gonzalez, and Miguel Pino

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

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.091101 2016

  31. [31]

    González, and Miguel Pino

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

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep09(2016)100 2016

  32. [32]

    Flanagan, and Kartik Prabhu

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

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep11(2018)125 2018

  33. [33]

    Carrollian Physics at the Black Hole Horizon.Class

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

    doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ab2fd5 2019

  34. [34]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep01(2022)028 2022

  35. [35]

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

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

    doi:10.1007/jhep02(2022)066 2022

  36. [36]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep05(2022)123 2022

  37. [37]

    Null infinity as a weakly isolated horizon.Phys

    Abhay Ashtekar and Simone Speziale. Null infinity as a weakly isolated horizon.Phys. Rev. D, 110(4):044048, 2024. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.044048

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.044048 2024

  38. [38]

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

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

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.044049 2024

  39. [39]

    Hawking, Malcolm J

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

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep05(2017)161 2017

  40. [40]

    Hawking, Malcolm J

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

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.231301 2016

  41. [41]

    Hawking, Malcolm J

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

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep12(2018)098 2018

  42. [42]

    Robert F. Penna. BMS invariance and the membrane paradigm.JHEP, 03:023, 2016. doi: 10.1007/JHEP03(2016)023

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep03(2016)023 2016

  43. [43]

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

    2018

  44. [44]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep05(2024)135 2024

  45. [45]

    Geometry of Carrollian Stretched Horizons

    Laurent Freidel and Puttarak Jai-akson. Geometry of Carrollian Stretched Horizons. 6 2024. – 39 –

    2024

  46. [46]

    Null infinity as an inverted extremal horizon: Matching an infinite set of conserved quantities for gravitational perturbations

    Shreyansh Agrawal, Panagiotis Charalambous, and Laura Donnay. Null infinity as an inverted extremal horizon: Matching an infinite set of conserved quantities for gravitational perturbations. 6 2025

    2025

  47. [47]

    Asymptotic limit of null hypersurfaces.Class

    Luca Ciambelli. Asymptotic limit of null hypersurfaces.Class. Quant. Grav., 42(23):235020,

  48. [48]

    Celestial Symmetries of Black Hole Horizons

    Romain Ruzziconi and Céline Zwikel. Celestial Symmetries of Black Hole Horizons. 4 2025

    2025

  49. [49]

    CelestialLw1+∞ Symmetries and Subleading Phase Space of Null Hypersurfaces

    Romain Ruzziconi and Céline Zwikel. CelestialLw1+∞ Symmetries and Subleading Phase Space of Null Hypersurfaces. 11 2025

    2025

  50. [50]

    Gravity from symmetry: duality and impulsive waves.JHEP, 04:125, 2022

    Laurent Freidel and Daniele Pranzetti. Gravity from symmetry: duality and impulsive waves.JHEP, 04:125, 2022. doi: 10.1007/JHEP04(2022)125

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep04(2022)125 2022

  51. [51]

    Hadi Godazgar, Mahdi Godazgar, and C. N. Pope. Tower of subleading dual BMS charges. JHEP, 03:057, 2019. doi: 10.1007/JHEP03(2019)057

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep03(2019)057 2019

  52. [52]

    Hadi Godazgar, Mahdi Godazgar, and C. N. Pope. New dual gravitational charges.Phys. Rev. D, 99(2):024013, 2019. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.024013

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.99.024013 2019

  53. [53]

    Hadi Godazgar, Mahdi Godazgar, and Malcolm J. Perry. Hamiltonian derivation of dual gravitational charges.JHEP, 09:084, 2020. doi: 10.1007/JHEP09(2020)084

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep09(2020)084 2020

  54. [54]

    A note on dual gravitational charges.JHEP, 12:079,

    Roberto Oliveri and Simone Speziale. A note on dual gravitational charges.JHEP, 12:079,

  55. [55]

    Near-Horizon Symmetries in Einstein-Maxwell theory

    Gianfranco De Simone. Near-Horizon Symmetries in Einstein-Maxwell theory. 11 2025

    2025

  56. [56]

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

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

  57. [57]

    Spacetime near isolated and dynamical trapping horizons.Phys

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

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.87.024008 2013

  58. [58]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep09(2021)083 2021

  59. [59]

    Flanagan, Ibrahim Shehzad, and Antony J

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

    doi:10.1007/jhep01(2022)029 2022

  60. [60]

    Flanagan

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

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep07(2024)017 2024

  61. [61]

    Newman and Theodore W

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

    doi:10.1063/1.1724303 1962

  62. [62]

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

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep01(2024)166 2024

  63. [63]

    Speranza

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

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep01(2021)137 2021

  64. [64]

    Petkou, P

    Luca Ciambelli, Charles Marteau, Anastasios C. Petkou, P. Marios Petropoulos, and Konstantinos Siampos. Flat holography and Carrollian fluids.JHEP, 07:165, 2018. doi: 10.1007/JHEP07(2018)165. – 40 –

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep07(2018)165 2018

  65. [65]

    Carrollian conservation laws and Ricci-flat gravity

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

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ab0d37 2019

  66. [66]

    Luca Ciambelli and Robert G. Leigh. Weyl Connections and their Role in Holography.Phys. Rev. D, 101(8):086020, 2020. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.086020

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.086020 2020

  67. [67]

    Wald and Andreas Zoupas

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

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.61.084027 2000

  68. [68]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1016/s0550-3213(02)00251-1 2002

  69. [69]

    Local subsystems in gauge theory and gravity

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

    doi:10.1007/jhep09(2016)102 2016

  70. [70]

    Speranza

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

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep02(2018)021 2018

  71. [71]

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

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

  72. [72]

    Edge modes of gravity

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

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep11(2020)026 2020

  73. [73]

    Edge modes of gravity

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

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep11(2020)027 2020

  74. [74]

    Luca Ciambelli, Laurent Freidel, and Robert G. Leigh. Quantum null geometry and gravity. JHEP, 12:028, 2024. doi: 10.1007/JHEP12(2024)028

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep12(2024)028 2024

  75. [75]

    Stability and Instability of Extreme Reissner-Nordström Black Hole Spacetimes for Linear Scalar Perturbations I.Commun

    Stefanos Aretakis. Stability and Instability of Extreme Reissner-Nordström Black Hole Spacetimes for Linear Scalar Perturbations I.Commun. Math. Phys., 307:17–63, 2011. doi: 10.1007/s00220-011-1254-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s00220-011-1254-5 2011

  76. [76]

    Stability and Instability of Extreme Reissner-Nordström Black Hole Spacetimes for Linear Scalar Perturbations II.Annales Henri Poincare, 12:1491–1538, 2011

    Stefanos Aretakis. Stability and Instability of Extreme Reissner-Nordström Black Hole Spacetimes for Linear Scalar Perturbations II.Annales Henri Poincare, 12:1491–1538, 2011. doi: 10.1007/s00023-011-0110-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s00023-011-0110-7 2011

  77. [77]

    doi: 10.1007/JHEP10(2020)146

    doi:10.1007/jhep10(2020)146 2020

  78. [78]

    González, and Andrea Puhm

    Laura Donnay, Gaston Giribet, Hernán A. González, and Andrea Puhm. Black hole memory effect.Phys. Rev. D, 98(12):124016, 2018. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.124016

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.124016 2018

  79. [79]

    Rahman and Robert M

    Adel A. Rahman and Robert M. Wald. Black Hole Memory.Phys. Rev. D, 101(12):124010,

  80. [80]

    Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics

    Roger Penrose and Wolfgang Rindler.Spinors and Space-Time. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 4 2011. ISBN 978-0-521-33707-6, 978-0-511-86766-8, 978-0-521-33707-6. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511564048. – 41 –

    doi:10.1017/cbo9780511564048 2011

Showing first 80 references.