Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 47 references

Reducing sl(3,R) BF gravity gives a generalized Schwarzian action from the second and third Wilczynski invariants; the invariants encode Casimir charges, monodromy, and semiclassical entropy, and sl(2,R) recovers the ordinary Schwarzian.

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 11:20 UTC pith:IVELTHFK

load-bearing objection The Wilczynski/Casimir dictionary is solid, but the advertised 'BF emergence' step is skipped—the action is posited with free couplings, not derived from a boundary term. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2606.15270 v3 pith:IVELTHFK submitted 2026-06-13 hep-th gr-qcmath-phmath.MP

Generalized Schwarzian Dynamics from a Bulk-First BF Perspective

H. T. \"Ozer , Ayt\"ul Filiz This is my paper
classification hep-th gr-qcmath-phmath.MP
keywords BF gravitySchwarzian actionWilczynski invariantsDrinfeld–Sokolov reductionsl(3,R) higher-spin gravityprojective differential geometrymonodromysemiclassical entropy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tries to establish that the Schwarzian action—the effective boundary theory of two-dimensional dilaton gravity—and its higher-rank generalizations do not have to be put in by hand. They emerge from the gauge structure of BF gravity: after Drinfeld–Sokolov reduction, the flat connection defines a projective linear differential equation whose invariants are exactly the Schwarzian derivative (for sl(2,R)) or the second and third Wilczynski invariants (for sl(3,R)). The proposed reduced action S_gSch = ∫(α I2 + β I3) connects these geometric invariants to Casimir charges, monodromy eigenvalues, and a semiclassical entropy that scales with the largest monodromy eigenvalue. A sympathetic reader would care because the result unifies ordinary and generalized Schwarzian dynamics as reductions of one topological bulk theory, and supplies a route from projective geometry to boundary thermodynamics.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the sl(3,R) Drinfeld–Sokolov reduction of BF theory produces a third-order projective equation whose second and third Wilczynski invariants I2 and I3 govern the boundary dynamics through the action S_gSch = ∫(α I2 + β I3). For sl(2,R), the same construction yields the Hill equation and the Schwarzian derivative, recovering the ordinary Schwarzian action. The paper further shows that constant values of I2 and I3 coincide with the quadratic and cubic Casimir charges of the companion connection, determine the monodromy eigenvalues e^{βλ_i}, and yield a semiclassical entropy S ~ βλ_max in the hyperbolic thermal sector, with the ordinary Schwarzian case recovered

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the companion connection of the Drinfeld–Sokolov reduced connection, equivalently the third-order linear ODE ψ''' − W2 ψ' − W3 ψ = 0. Its normalized projective lift X = Δ^{−1/3}Y (with Δ = det(Y, Y', Y'')) brings it to the Wilczynski normal form X''' = I3 X + I2 X', which defines the second and third Wilczynski invariants—the higher-rank analogues of the Schwarzian derivative. These invariants carry the entire reduced boundary dynamics: they appear in the action, their variations give the Euler–Lagrange equations, and their constant values specify the Casimir/monodromy data and the thermodynamic sector.

Load-bearing premise

The generalized Schwarzian action S_gSch = ∫(α I2 + β I3) with free couplings α and β is assumed to be the reduced boundary dynamics of the BF theory; the paper derives the projective structure and the relation to Casimirs/monodromy, but does not derive the action from the BF action or its boundary term.

What would settle it

A direct Hamiltonian reduction of the sl(3,R) BF boundary phase space with an explicit boundary term—mirroring the particle-on-a-group derivation used in the sl(2,R) case—would determine the actual boundary action. If the result is not (proportional to) ∫(α I2 + β I3) up to boundary terms, or if the constants α and β are forced to specific values that disagree with the assumed couplings, the paper's central claim that generalized Schwarzian dynamics emerges from BF gravity is falsified.

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

If this is right

  • The ordinary Schwarzian action is recovered as the sl(2,R) sector of BF gravity, so the bulk-first derivation reproduces the standard JT boundary dynamics.
  • For sl(3,R), the reduced boundary dynamics is governed by two independent projective invariants I2 and I3, giving a concrete higher-rank generalization of the Schwarzian.
  • Constant Wilczynski invariants equal the quadratic and cubic Casimir charges (C2 = 2I2, C3 = 3I3), so boundary geometric data and Casimir sectors are equivalent.
  • The monodromy eigenvalues of the companion connection organize the thermal sectors; hyperbolic monodromy yields entropy S ~ βλ_max with λ_max the largest root of λ³ − I2λ − I3 = 0.
  • The construction suggests an sl(N,R) hierarchy in which higher-order Wilczynski invariants generate an infinite family of generalized Schwarzian theories, as the paper states in its outlook.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same bulk-first logic should apply to any sl(N,R) BF theory, yielding an (N−1)-dimensional family of Wilczynski invariants and a hierarchy of generalized Schwarzian actions; the paper leaves the explicit N>3 reduction open.
  • The spin-3 dilaton sector is conjectured to be built from quadratic combinations of the three Wilczynski solutions; if correct, this gives a purely projective description of the full BF phase space rather than only the connection sector.
  • The couplings α and β in the proposed action are undetermined; a genuine BF derivation that fixed them (or added boundary terms) would sharpen the bulk-first claim into a predictive statement about higher-spin thermodynamics.
  • The semiclassical entropy formula in Eq. (9.11) could be tested against independent higher-spin black-hole thermodynamic calculations in AdS3; agreement would validate the monodromy/Casimir interpretation.

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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a 'bulk-first' construction of Schwarzian and generalized Schwarzian dynamics from two-dimensional BF gravity. For sl(2,R), the Drinfeld–Sokolov reduced connection is recast as a Hill-type equation whose projective structure yields L(τ) = −{f,τ}/2, and the Schwarzian action is written as S = −C∫{f,τ}. For sl(3,R), the reduced connection is recast as a third-order ODE, and the second and third Wilczynski invariants I₂, I₃ are derived from a normalized projective lift. The authors then posit the generalized Schwarzian functional S_gSch = ∫(αI₂ + βI₃), relate constant Wilczynski data to Casimir charges and monodromy eigenvalues, and use a saddle ansatz to obtain semiclassical thermodynamics, including S ∼ βλ_max. The paper's central claim is that generalized Schwarzian dynamics emerges directly from flat BF connections and their reductions.

Significance. If the derivation were completed, the paper would provide a unified bulk-first route from higher-rank BF theory to generalized Schwarzian dynamics and forge a useful dictionary among Wilczynski invariants, Casimir data, monodromy, and thermodynamics. The paper's purely projective-geometric core is solid and self-contained: Eq. (3.15) correctly identifies the reduced sl(2,R) variable with the Schwarzian derivative, the Wilczynski formulas (5.22)–(5.27) are derived in detail from a normalized lift, and the constant-saddle identities (8.8)–(8.9) relating (I₂,₀, I₃,₀) to Tr(A₀²), Tr(A₀³) are clean and useful. These are genuine mathematical contributions. However, the advertised 'emergence from BF' is not currently established because the boundary action is not derived from the BF action; the thermodynamic statements are explicit ansätze. The paper is therefore a valuable structural/geometric study whose central physical claim is, at present, a proposal rather than a derivation.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3, Eq. (3.16)] The transition from BF theory to the Schwarzian action is asserted rather than derived. The BF action (2.1) contains an unspecified boundary term S_bdy, and no computation of S_bdy is provided. Eq. (3.15) only relates the reduced variable L to the Schwarzian derivative; substituting this into an arbitrary effective action and writing S = −C∫{f,τ} introduces a free coupling C with no derivation from the bulk data k, the dilaton, or a path integral. Thus the 'bulk-first' claim, as stated in the abstract and Section 10, is not backed by an explicit reduction of (2.1). This is a load-bearing gap: without it, the ordinary Schwarzian action is not shown to emerge from BF theory; it is imposed.
  2. [§6, Eq. (6.1)] The generalized Schwarzian action is posited with arbitrary couplings: S_gSch = ∫(αI₂ + βI₃). The subsequent equations (6.2)–(6.21) are algebraic manipulations and Euler–Lagrange equations for this functional, but they do not derive it from the sl(3,R) BF action. No equation connects S_bdy in (2.1) to (6.1), and no coadjoint-orbit or Hamiltonian-reduction calculation fixes α and β in terms of the BF normalization k and the spin-3 normalization σ. Since the central claim of the paper is that generalized Schwarzian dynamics emerges 'directly' from flat BF connections, this omission is critical. The paper establishes the projective structure of the reduced connection, but the action remains an ansatz.
  3. [§9, Eqs. (9.1)–(9.2)] The thermodynamic section is explicitly labeled as an effective semiclassical ansatz: log Z = β(α I₂,₀ + g₃ I₃,₀). Consequently, the headline result S_hyp ∼ βλ_max in Eq. (9.11) is a direct consequence of this assumed functional and the algebraic relation λ³ − I₂λ − I₃ = 0; it does not test the BF construction. Moreover, the chemical potential μ₃ in Eq. (9.4) is never defined through the saddle data, so Q₃ = ∂ log Z/∂μ₃ is not computable without specifying how I₂,₀ and I₃,₀ depend on μ₃. This weakens the claim of a predictive thermodynamic link.
  4. [§7, Eqs. (7.5)–(7.6) and §10] The paper itself identifies the spin-3 dilaton stabilization analysis as conjectural ('it is natural to conjecture', 'remains an interesting open problem'). Yet Section 10 states that 'the corresponding dilaton multiplets appear to be governed by higher-order stabilizer structures' as if this were a result. This self-acknowledged open point should be clearly separated from the established results; as written, it overstates the paper's support for the dilaton-sector claims.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4, Eq. (4.4)] The line 'tr(L₀L₀)−1' is almost certainly meant to be 'tr(L₀L₀) = −1'. It also differs from the sl(2,R) normalization tr(L₀L₀) = −1/2 in Eq. (2.2); the relationship between the two presentations should be clarified or justified.
  2. [§6, Eqs. (6.3)–(6.4)] The notation '≃' discards total-derivative terms. In a boundary-action context these boundary terms can be physically relevant, especially since the variation in Eqs. (6.10)–(6.15) keeps such terms. Please state explicitly which boundary terms are dropped and why they are immaterial for the claimed bulk-first derivation.
  3. [§5, Eqs. (5.22)–(5.27)] The sign conventions for I₂ and I₃ should be checked against the standard projective-differential-geometry literature (Ovsienko–Tabachnikov; Wilczynski). Since the paper uses these as the central invariants, a short comparison or a normalization statement would help readers cross-reference.
  4. [General] The paper contains several obvious typographical issues, e.g., 'JULY7, 2026' and the missing equals sign in Eq. (4.4). A careful proofread is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the projective/Casimir/monodromy derivations are self-contained, while the action and thermodynamic statements are explicitly labeled ansatz/motivated rather than derived.

full rationale

The central mathematical chain is not circular. Section 5 derives the Wilczynski invariants I2 and I3 from a normalized projective lift of the third-order companion equation, and Section 8 derives the Casimir and monodromy dictionary C2=2I2,0, C3=3I3,0, M=exp(βA0) from the characteristic polynomial of A0. These are self-contained computations that do not presuppose the target dynamics. The Schwarzian and generalized Schwarzian actions, Eq. (3.16) and Eq. (6.1), are not derived from the BF boundary term Sbdy in Eq. (2.1): the couplings C and α,β are introduced as free parameters, and Section 6 explicitly says the functional is 'motivated' by the Wilczynski invariants. This is a derivation gap or an overclaim, not a circular reduction, because no equation identifies Sbdy with the action and no result is being assumed in order to prove itself. The thermodynamic discussion in Section 9 is explicitly declared an 'effective semiclassical saddle ansatz' and 'intended to illustrate,' so the S∼βλmax relation is an additional asymptotic-growth assumption rather than a forced consequence of the action. Self-citations ([13],[14],[27]-[30]) support standard Drinfeld–Sokolov and boundary-condition background and are not load-bearing; no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. The paper itself flags the missing steps, which further indicates that the remaining issues are incompleteness rather than circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claim rests on standard BF/DS background assumptions plus two ad hoc inputs: the undetermined action couplings (α, β, C) and the constant-saddle thermodynamic ansatz. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • C
    Effective coupling in the sl(2,R) Schwarzian action (Eq. 3.16); not fixed by the BF level k or any derived quantity.
  • α
    Spin-2 coupling in the generalized Schwarzian action (Eq. 6.1); arbitrary, not derived from the BF action.
  • β / g3
    Spin-3 coupling in the generalized action (Eq. 6.1) and in the thermodynamic ansatz (Eq. 9.2, where it is renamed g3); arbitrary.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The BF action with boundary term (Eq. 2.1) correctly describes JT gravity and its higher-spin extensions.
    Used throughout as the starting point; standard in the literature but not derived here.
  • domain assumption Drinfeld–Sokolov highest-weight gauge (Eqs. 3.1–3.3 for sl(2,R) and 4.7–4.9 for sl(3,R)) captures the physically relevant boundary phase space.
    The reduction procedure is assumed to select the correct boundary degrees of freedom.
  • domain assumption The reduced sl(3,R) connection is equivalent to the third-order ODE (4.14), whose projective invariants are the relevant boundary observables.
    This modeling step connects BF data to Wilczynski invariants; it is motivated but not proved to be exhaustive.
  • standard math The normalized-lift machinery (5.2)–(5.8) produces the Wilczynski invariants.
    Standard projective differential geometry, cited to Refs [22,23,47].
  • ad hoc to paper The partition function is dominated by constant saddles and log Z = β(α I2,0 + g3 I3,0) (Eqs. 9.1–9.2).
    The authors explicitly label this an 'effective semiclassical saddle ansatz', not a path-integral derivation.
  • domain assumption Entropy is controlled by the largest monodromy eigenvalue: S ∼ β λ_max (Eq. 9.8).
    Standard statistical heuristic assumed without derivation.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 15560 in / 19153 out tokens · 188014 ms · 2026-08-02T11:20:41.171600+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate the emergence of generalized Schwarzian dynamics from a bulk-first BF perspective. Starting from two-dimensional BF gravity, we analyze the associated boundary phase space and its Drinfeld-Sokolov reductions. For the sl(2,R) theory, we recover the ordinary Schwarzian action as the reduced boundary dynamics arising from a particular sector of the BF asymptotic phase space. We then extend this construction to sl(3,R), where the reduced dynamics is governed by the second and third Wilczynski invariants, providing a natural higher-rank generalization of the Schwarzian derivative. In this framework, generalized Schwarzian dynamics emerges directly from flat BF connections and their companion forms rather than being introduced as an independent boundary theory. We further relate the resulting projective invariants to Casimir charges, monodromy data, and generalized Schwarzian thermodynamics, including monodromy spectra and semiclassical thermodynamics. In particular, constant projective invariants determine the corresponding Casimir sectors and monodromy data, which in turn organize the thermodynamic structure of the theory. Our results provide a unified bulk-first description of Schwarzian and generalized Schwarzian dynamics and reveal a direct link between BF gravity, asymptotic symmetry reductions, projective geometry, and boundary thermodynamics.

Review history (2 revisions) →

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

47 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Almheiri and J

    A. Almheiri and J. Polchinski, JHEP11, 014 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2015)014 [arXiv:1402.6334 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  2. [2]

    Maldacena, D

    J. Maldacena, D. Stanford and Z. Yang, PTEP2016, no.12, 12C104 (2016) doi:10.1093/ptep/ptw124 [arXiv:1606.01857 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  3. [3]

    Engelsöy, T

    J. Engelsöy, T. G. Mertens and H. Verlinde, JHEP07, 139 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2016)139 [arXiv:1606.03438 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  4. [4]

    Sachdev, Phys

    S. Sachdev, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 151602 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.151602 [arXiv:1006.3794 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  5. [5]

    Sachdev, J

    S. Sachdev, J. Math. Phys.60, no.5, 052303 (2019) doi:10.1063/1.5092726 [arXiv:1902.04078 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    Stanford and E

    D. Stanford and E. Witten, JHEP10, 008 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2017)008 [arXiv:1703.04612 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  7. [7]

    T. G. Mertens, G. J. Turiaci and H. L. Verlinde, JHEP08, 136 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2017)136 [arXiv:1705.08408 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    J. S. Cotler, G. Gur-Ari, M. Hanada, J. Polchinski, P. Saad, S. H. Shenker, D. Stanford, A. Streicher and M. Tezuka, JHEP05, 118 (2017) [erratum: JHEP09, 002 (2018)] doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2017)118 [arXiv:1611.04650 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  9. [9]

    Jensen, Phys

    K. Jensen, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, no.11, 111601 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.111601 [arXiv:1605.06098 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  10. [10]

    Witten, Commun

    E. Witten, Commun. Math. Phys.144, 189-212 (1992) doi:10.1007/BF02099196

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02099196 1992

  11. [11]

    Ikeda, Annals Phys.235, 435-464 (1994) doi:10.1006/aphy.1994.1104 [arXiv:hep-th/9312059 [hep-th]]

    N. Ikeda, Annals Phys.235, 435-464 (1994) doi:10.1006/aphy.1994.1104 [arXiv:hep-th/9312059 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 1994

  12. [12]

    Schaller and T

    P. Schaller and T. Strobl, Mod. Phys. Lett. A9, 3129-3136 (1994) doi:10.1142/S0217732394002951 [arXiv:hep-th/9405110 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  13. [13]

    Towards a bulk description of higher spin SYK,

    H. A. González, D. Grumiller and J. Salzer, “Towards a bulk description of higher spin SYK,” JHEP05, 083 (2018) [arXiv:1802.01562 [hep-th]]. – 22 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  14. [14]

    On the explicit asymptotic symmetry breaking ofsl(3,R) Jackiw–Teitelboim gravity,

    H. T. Özer and A. Filiz, “On the explicit asymptotic symmetry breaking ofsl(3,R) Jackiw–Teitelboim gravity,” Eur. Phys. J. C85, no.5, 563 (2025) [arXiv:2503.13680 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    The Schwarzian theory — origins,

    T. G. Mertens, “The Schwarzian theory — origins,” JHEP05, 036 (2018) [arXiv:1801.09605 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  16. [16]

    The Schwarzian Theory - A Wilson Line Perspective,

    A. Blommaert, T. G. Mertens and H. Verschelde, “The Schwarzian Theory - A Wilson Line Perspective,” JHEP12, 022 (2018) [arXiv:1806.07765 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  17. [17]

    Campoleoni, S

    A. Campoleoni, S. Fredenhagen, S. Pfenninger and S. Theisen, JHEP11, 007 (2010) doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2010)007 [arXiv:1008.4744 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  18. [18]

    Henneaux and S

    M. Henneaux and S. J. Rey, JHEP12, 007 (2010) doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2010)007 [arXiv:1008.4579 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  19. [19]

    Gutperle and P

    M. Gutperle and P. Kraus, JHEP05, 022 (2011) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2011)022 [arXiv:1103.4304 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  20. [20]

    Perez, D

    A. Perez, D. Tempo and R. Troncoso, Lect. Notes Phys.892, 265-288 (2015) doi:10.1007/978-3-319-10070-8_10 [arXiv:1402.1465 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  21. [21]

    Thermodynamics of Higher Spin Black Holes in AdS3

    J. de Boer and J. I. Jottar, “Thermodynamics of Higher Spin Black Holes in AdS3”, JHEP1401 (2014) 023

    2014

  22. [22]

    Projective Differential Geometry Old and New

    V. Ovsienko and S. Tabachnikov, “Projective Differential Geometry Old and New”, Cambridge University Press (2005). doi:10.1017/CBO9780511543142

    work page doi:10.1017/cbo9780511543142 2005

  23. [23]

    Projective Differential Geometry of Curves and Ruled Surfaces

    E. J. Wilczynski, “Projective Differential Geometry of Curves and Ruled Surfaces”, B. G. Teubner, Leipzig (1906)

    1906

  24. [24]

    A Chern-Simons Action for Three-Dimensional anti-De Sitter Supergravity Theories,

    A. Achucarro and P. K. Townsend, “A Chern-Simons Action for Three-Dimensional anti-De Sitter Supergravity Theories,” Phys. Lett. B180, 89 (1986) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(86)90140-1

    doi:10.1016/0370-2693(86)90140-1 1986

  25. [25]

    (2+1)-Dimensional Gravity as an Exactly Soluble System,

    E. Witten, “(2+1)-Dimensional Gravity as an Exactly Soluble System,” Nucl. Phys. B311, 46 (1988) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(88)90143-5

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(88)90143-5 1988

  26. [26]

    Most general AdS3 boundary conditions,

    D. Grumiller and M. Riegler, “Most general AdS3 boundary conditions,” JHEP10, 023 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2016)023 [arXiv:1608.01308 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  27. [27]

    On the explicit asymptoticW5 symmetry of 3D Chern-Simons higher spinAdS 3 gravity,

    H. T. Özer and A. Filiz, “On the explicit asymptoticW5 symmetry of 3D Chern-Simons higher spinAdS 3 gravity,” J. Math. Phys.59, no.8, 083504 (2018) doi:10.1063/1.5042080 [arXiv:1707.09514 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  28. [28]

    Exploring new boundary conditions forN= (1,1)extended higher-spinAdS 3 supergravity,

    H. T. Özer and A. Filiz, “Exploring new boundary conditions forN= (1,1)extended higher-spinAdS 3 supergravity,” Eur. Phys. J. C80, no.11, 1072 (2020) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08613-4 [arXiv:1907.06104 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  29. [29]

    N= (2,2)extendedsl(3|2)Chern–SimonsAdS 3 supergravity with new boundaries,

    H. T. Özer and A. Filiz, “N= (2,2)extendedsl(3|2)Chern–SimonsAdS 3 supergravity with new boundaries,” Eur. Phys. J. C82, no.5, 472 (2022) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10422-w [arXiv:2107.11069 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  30. [30]

    On theN= 3andN= 4superconformal holographic dictionary,

    H. T. Özer and A. Filiz, “On theN= 3andN= 4superconformal holographic dictionary,” Eur. Phys. J. C85, no.1, 60 (2025) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-13786-x [arXiv:2407.17235 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Jackiw, Nucl

    R. Jackiw, Nucl. Phys. B252, 343-356 (1985) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(85)90448-1 – 23 –

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(85)90448-1 1985

  32. [32]

    Teitelboim, Phys

    C. Teitelboim, Phys. Lett. B126, 41-45 (1983)

    1983

  33. [33]

    V. G. Drinfeld and V. V. Sokolov, J. Sov. Math.30, 1975-2036 (1984) doi:10.1007/BF02105860

    doi:10.1007/bf02105860 1975

  34. [34]

    Balog, L

    J. Balog, L. Feher, L. O’Raifeartaigh, P. Forgacs and A. Wipf, Annals Phys.203, 76-136 (1990) doi:10.1016/0003-4916(90)90029-N

    work page doi:10.1016/0003-4916(90)90029-n 1990

  35. [35]

    de Boer and T

    J. de Boer and T. Tjin, Commun. Math. Phys.160, 317-332 (1994) doi:10.1007/BF02103279 [arXiv:hep-th/9302006 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  36. [36]

    Feher, L

    L. Feher, L. O’Raifeartaigh, P. Ruelle, I. Tsutsui and A. Wipf, Phys. Rept.222, 1-64 (1992) doi:10.1016/0370-1573(92)90026-V

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-1573(92)90026-v 1992

  37. [37]

    Alekseev and S

    A. Alekseev and S. L. Shatashvili, Nucl. Phys. B323, 719-733 (1989) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(89)90130-2

    work page doi:10.1016/0550-3213(89)90130-2 1989

  38. [38]

    Witten, Commun

    E. Witten, Commun. Math. Phys.114, 1 (1988) doi:10.1007/BF01218287

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01218287 1988

  39. [39]

    Campoleoni, S

    A. Campoleoni, S. Fredenhagen, S. Pfenninger and S. Theisen, J. Phys. A46, 214017 (2013) doi:10.1088/1751-8113/46/21/214017 [arXiv:1208.1851 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  40. [40]

    Ammon, M

    M. Ammon, M. Gutperle, P. Kraus and E. Perlmutter, J. Phys. A46, 214001 (2013) doi:10.1088/1751-8113/46/21/214001 [arXiv:1208.5182 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  41. [41]

    Turiaci and H

    G. Turiaci and H. Verlinde, JHEP10, 167 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2017)167 [arXiv:1701.00528 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  42. [42]

    Oblak, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-61878-4 [arXiv:1610.08526 [hep-th]]

    B. Oblak, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-61878-4 [arXiv:1610.08526 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  43. [43]

    M. P. Blencowe, Class. Quant. Grav.6, 443 (1989) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/6/4/005

    doi:10.1088/0264-9381/6/4/005 1989

  44. [44]

    Central Charges in the Canonical Realization of Asymptotic Symmetries: An Example from Three-Dimensional Gravity,

    J. D. Brown and M. Henneaux, “Central Charges in the Canonical Realization of Asymptotic Symmetries: An Example from Three-Dimensional Gravity,” Commun. Math. Phys.104, 207-226 (1986) doi:10.1007/BF01211590

    doi:10.1007/bf01211590 1986

  45. [45]

    Boundary conditions for General Relativity on AdS3 and the KdV hierarchy,

    A. Pérez, D. Tempo and R. Troncoso, “Boundary conditions for General Relativity on AdS3 and the KdV hierarchy,” JHEP06, 103 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2016)103 [arXiv:1605.04490 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  46. [46]

    Integrable Systems and Spacetime Dynamics,

    M. Cárdenas, F. Correa, K. Lara and M. Pino, “Integrable Systems and Spacetime Dynamics,” Phys. Rev. Lett.127, no.16, 161601 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.161601 [arXiv:2104.09676 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  47. [47]

    Projective Geometry and Wilczynski Invariants of Linear Differential Equations,

    R. Jafari and A. Shafiee, “Projective Geometry and Wilczynski Invariants of Linear Differential Equations,”Results Math.77(2022), no. 5, 181. – 24 –

    2022