Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

A generic expanding null surface carries a dynamical entropy density equal to a Noether charge; the entropy increases at every instant whenever matter satisfies the null energy condition.

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 02:33 UTC pith:KMOEZDRP

load-bearing objection The Noether-charge derivation is clean and matches HWZ, but the printed second-law proof has a repairable sign error and the entropy density is left with an unresolved integration ambiguity. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.14289 v2 pith:KMOEZDRP submitted 2026-07-15 hep-th gr-qc

Dynamical Entropy Is a Noether Charge

V.R. Shajiee , M.M. Sheikh-Jabbari , V. Taghiloo This is my paper
classification hep-th gr-qc
keywords dynamical entropyNoether chargenull surface thermodynamicssecond lawnull energy conditiondynamical zeroth lawboundary conditionsblack hole thermodynamics
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 entropy is not confined to stationary black holes: any generic null surface that evolves in time carries a dynamical entropy density, and that density is exactly the Noether charge of a symmetry generator adapted to the surface. The construction requires a well-posed action principle on the null boundary and a set of geometric conditions, including what the paper calls a dynamical zeroth law, that single out the generator. The Noether charge, divided by the local temperature, gives the entropy density. The paper then shows that along null generators this entropy grows monotonically whenever matter obeys the null energy condition. If true, this yields a local, instant-by-instant second law for gravitational thermodynamics that does not depend on event horizons or final boundary conditions.

Core claim

The central claim is that the established covariant-phase-space dynamical entropy expression is, in fact, the ordinary Noether charge of a suitably chosen null vector field on an arbitrary expanding null surface. The generator is fixed by four local conditions: tangency to the surface, geodesic flow with a non-affinity parameter, a boost-weight relation, and the dynamical zeroth law that the combination of surface gravity and area density is constant along the generators. Evaluating the Noether charge with the appropriate null-boundary Lagrangian produces the entropy density. Using the null geodesic focusing equation, the paper derives an evolution equation whose right-hand side is nonnegati

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the boundary symmetry generator selected by four on-surface conditions: it is null, it generates geodesic flow with surface gravity, its rotation with the binormal fixes that surface gravity as the boost weight, and it satisfies a divergence-free condition. The last condition is the paper's dynamical zeroth law; written as constancy of surface gravity multiplied by area density along the generators, it connects the surface gravity to the area density and is what cancels the linear expansion terms in the entropy evolution. The Noether charge of this generator, computed with the null boundary term required for Dirichlet boundary conditions, evaluates to the entropy densi

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the dynamical zeroth law — that the combination of surface gravity and area density stays constant along every null generator; if this condition fails, or holds only for surfaces with zero expansion, the linear term does not drop out and the strict second-law inequality is not established.

What would settle it

Compute the derivative of the combination of surface gravity and area density along the generators of an explicitly expanding null surface using the paper's geometric decomposition; a direct substitution of its own equations gives twice the expansion, not zero, meaning the constancy condition would force the expansion to vanish. Repeating that calculation in a spherically symmetric null-dust spacetime with nonzero expansion would settle whether the generalized zeroth law is an identity or an extra constraint, and therefore whether the simplified evolution equation actually follows from the pre

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

If this is right

  • If correct, every sufficiently regular expanding null surface in general relativity has a well-defined entropy density that increases monotonically in time, not just event horizons.
  • The second law becomes local in time and space: it holds at each instant without assuming the spacetime settles down to a stationary final state.
  • The construction extends the previously proposed dynamical entropy formula from perturbative settings to arbitrary far-from-stationary boundaries, and reproduces the same expression from a symmetry principle.
  • The result supports a quasi-local picture of gravitational thermodynamics, in which a closed system is selected by Dirichlet boundary conditions on a null surface.
  • The argument identifies a dynamical zeroth law as a prerequisite for thermodynamics far from equilibrium, giving a concrete geometric meaning to equilibrium in evolving systems.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A natural test is to run the same Noether computation for higher-curvature gravity: Noether methods generalize straightforwardly, and the question is whether the entropy rate again reduces to a nonnegative focusing combination or picks up extra terms.
  • If the dynamical zeroth law holds, the entropy density should be measurable in cosmological settings — for example, on apparent horizons in spherically symmetric null-dust collapse — providing a concrete check of monotonic growth beyond black-hole spacetimes.
  • The role of the Dirichlet boundary term suggests that different boundary conditions would produce different Noether charges; comparing them could reveal which part of the entropy is genuinely thermodynamic versus gauge-dependent.
  • The proof's sign structure is delicate: verifying constancy of surface gravity times area density directly on an explicit expanding surface would settle whether the generalized zeroth law is a genuine geometric identity or an additional constraint.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper claims to construct a dynamical entropy for a generic null surface in general relativity as the Noether charge of a symmetry generator ξ that is singled out by four geometric conditions (13). The generator is used with a Dirichlet boundary action including a null GHY term, and the Noether charge is evaluated to give S = √q/(4G)(1 − Bθ_l), matching the HWZ dynamical entropy. The authors further claim that this entropy satisfies a local second law, l·∇S ≥ 0, under the null energy condition and a 'dynamical zeroth law', without stationarity or teleological conditions.

Significance. If correct, the result would be a substantial step: a local, non-perturbative second law for arbitrary evolving null surfaces, obtained by a Noether-charge construction that extends Wald's stationary-horizon framework. The matching with the HWZ entropy provides an independent anchor, and the explicit symmetry-generator construction is a useful technical contribution. The second-law proof via the Raychaudhuri equation is elegant and, once a sign error is repaired, appears to work. However, the construction as stated does not uniquely determine the generator or the entropy, and the manuscript defers the key integrability selection to a companion paper. These issues must be resolved before the central claim can be accepted.

major comments (2)
  1. [Eq. (19)] The printed relation l·∇lnK=0 with K=κ√q is inconsistent with the paper's own equations. From (13d), using ξ=κBl and ∇_μA=-l_μ, one obtains l·∇B = 1 − Bθ_l. Combining this with l·∇(κB)=κ gives l·∇lnκ = θ_l, so l·∇ln(κ√q)=2θ_l. Thus (19) cannot hold for a generically expanding surface. With the printed sign, (25) does not follow from (24); an extra −2θ_l^2 term remains. The repair is to replace K by κ/√q, or equivalently to state l·∇ln(κ/√q)=0, which is actually a consequence of (13d)+(18). The second-law proof is restored after this correction.
  2. [Eqs. (13)-(23)] The symmetry generator ξ is not uniquely determined by the stated conditions. The ODE l·∇B = 1 − Bθ_l has the general solution B = B_p + C/κ with l·∇C=0, where B_p is any particular solution and C is an arbitrary function on each null generator. Substituting into (23) gives S = √q/(4G)[1 − (B_p + C/κ)θ_l], so the entropy density depends on an arbitrary function C. No condition in the manuscript fixes C; the claim that this is 'the' dynamical entropy therefore lacks a well-defined referent. The integrability selection promised in reference [42] (work in preparation) is not part of the submitted manuscript and cannot be used to close the argument here. The authors must either prove that the C-dependent term drops out of the physical entropy or supply the missing condition within the paper.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (19) and surrounding text] If K is corrected to κ/√q, the term 'temperature density' should be revisited, since the dimension and interpretation of κ/√q differ from κ√q. The derivation of (19) from (13d) should be shown explicitly to avoid this kind of sign error.
  2. [Eq. (24)] The intermediate step (24) is correct but opaque. Since l·∇B = 1 − Bθ_l already yields l·∇S = −(√q/4G)B l·∇θ_l directly, the manuscript could simplify the presentation and reduce the risk of sign mistakes.
  3. [Reference [42]] The statement that (23) 'precisely coincides' with the HWZ dynamical entropy is supported only by an unpublished reference. Either include the argument in the paper or state it as a conjecture with the explicit matching deferred.
  4. [Reference [29]] Typo: 'Cambrdige' should be 'Cambridge'.
  5. [Sec. 'Investigating the Second Law'] The second law is proven for the entropy density S. It should be stated explicitly that l·∇S already includes the evolution of the area element, so nontrivial statement remains for the total entropy.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; the entropy formula is derived from an explicit Noether-charge computation and checked against the independent HWZ formula, with only minor non-load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The main derivation chain is not circular. The paper fixes a boundary action (11), a boundary variation term (12), and imposes geometric generator conditions (13a-d). Solving them gives ξ=κ B l on N with constraints (18) and the zeroth-law condition (19). The Noether charge Q_N^ξ is then computed as (22); Eq. (23) follows by factoring out the local temperature κ/2π via the Clausius relation. This is a definitional identification, not a circular prediction: the entropy is not an input to the calculation, and the resulting expression is benchmarked against the independent HWZ construction [1] (footnote [41]). The second law is a conditional theorem: l·∇S≥0 is proven assuming NEC and the explicitly imposed 'dynamical zeroth law' (19) (quoted near (28)). An assumed zeroth law is not equivalent to the derived second law, so no reduction to inputs is present. The self-citations [36] and, more notably, [42] ('Work in preparation') are used only to gloss the boost-weight interpretation and the integrability claim; the integrability remark would need an actual proof, but it is not load-bearing for the main Noether-charge derivation or the second-law argument, and the central formula is externally grounded by [1]. The apparent sign inconsistency between (19) and (25) and the non-uniqueness of the integration function B in (23) are technical correctness/completeness concerns, not circularity: they do not make the claimed output equivalent to the paper's assumptions by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 6 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central derivation rests on a specific choice of symmetry generator ξ, with the scalar B and surface gravity κ left partly free. The second law additionally requires NEC and an imposed zeroth law whose consistency with (13d),(18) is not established as printed.

free parameters (2)
  • B (scalar in the symmetry generator ξ=κ(Bl−An)) = unfixed initial data on a cross-section; B≥0 required for second law
    Appears in entropy density (23); only its l-derivative is fixed by (18) and (13d), leaving an arbitrary constant of integration.
  • κ (local surface gravity of ξ) = fixed up to a global rescaling (footnote [40]) and integration data along l
    Sets the local temperature κ/2π and enters entropy; not uniquely fixed by the geometry.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Null energy condition: R_ll ≥ 0 via Einstein equations
    Used in Eq. (27) to make the R_ll term non-negative; stated by the authors.
  • domain assumption Dirichlet boundary conditions fix the null GHY boundary term and the W,Y ambiguities
    Needed for the Noether charge (21)-(22); standard but non-unique.
  • domain assumption l is hypersurface orthogonal (a_μ=0, Θ^l symmetric)
    Used in Eq. (6) and in Raychaudhuri (26); not every null surface satisfies this.
  • ad hoc to paper Existence and consistency of ξ satisfying (13a-d) with the dynamical zeroth law
    No existence proof is given; as written (19) contradicts (13d)+(18) for nonzero θ_l.
  • standard math Standard Raychaudhuri equation for affine null geodesics
    Eq. (26), used to replace -l·∇θ_l.
  • standard math Einstein field equations linking R_ll to matter variables and NEC
    Converts the geometric inequality into a matter condition.
invented entities (1)
  • Symmetry generator ξ (with dual χ) on an arbitrary null surface no independent evidence
    purpose: Defines the Noether charge whose κ-weighted density is declared to be dynamical entropy
    Mathematically constructed via (13); no independent observable handle; entropy depends on its free function B.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 8585 in / 27839 out tokens · 279141 ms · 2026-08-02T02:33:45.244347+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Black hole thermodynamics for generic dynamical, non-equilibrium regimes remains a fundamental challenge. We establish dynamical entropy as the Noether charge associated with a generic evolving null surface subject to Dirichlet boundary conditions. We specify the symmetry generator associated with the dynamical entropy, which is a null vector on the null surface, upon requiring physically motivated geometric conditions that yield a notion of ``dynamical zeroth law.'' We prove that this Noether charge density satisfies the second law of thermodynamics strictly at each instant in time, bypassing the teleological final conditions traditionally required by event horizons. Thus, we extend and generalize the notion of dynamical entropy introduced in \cite{Hollands:2024vbe}, in some different ways: We do not impose background stationarity; our dynamical entropy and the associated second law are local in time and work for generic dynamical gravitational systems.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

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

    hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 39 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Entropy of dynamical black holes,

    S. Hollands, R. M. Wald, and V . G. Zhang, “Entropy of dynamical black holes,”Phys. Rev. D110(2024), no. 2, 024070,2402.00818

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Gravitational radiation from colliding black holes,

    S. W. Hawking, “Gravitational radiation from colliding black holes,”Phys. Rev. Lett.26(1971) 1344–1346

    1971

  3. [3]

    Black holes in general relativity,

    S. W. Hawking, “Black holes in general relativity,”Commun. Math. Phys.25(1972) 152–166

    1972

  4. [4]

    Black holes and entropy,

    J. D. Bekenstein, “Black holes and entropy,”Phys. Rev.D7 (1973) 2333–2346

    1973

  5. [5]

    The Four laws of black hole mechanics,

    J. M. Bardeen, B. Carter, and S. W. Hawking, “The Four laws of black hole mechanics,”Commun. Math. Phys.31(1973) 161–170. 5

    1973

  6. [6]

    Particle creation by black holes,

    S. W. Hawking, “Particle creation by black holes,”Commun. Math. Phys.43(1975) 199–220

    1975

  7. [7]

    Particle Creation by Black Holes,

    S. W. Hawking, “Particle Creation by Black Holes,”Commun. Math. Phys.43(1975) 199–220. [Erratum: Commun.Math.Phys. 46, 206 (1976)]

    1975

  8. [8]

    Black hole entropy is the N ¨other charge,

    R. M. Wald, “Black hole entropy is the N ¨other charge,”Phys. Rev.D48(1993) 3427–3431,gr-qc/9307038

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  9. [9]

    Some properties of N¨other charge and a proposal for dynamical black hole entropy,

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  10. [10]

    Black hole entropy and higher curvature interactions,

    T. Jacobson and R. C. Myers, “Black hole entropy and higher curvature interactions,”Phys. Rev. Lett.70(1993) 3684–3687, hep-th/9305016

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  11. [11]

    On black hole entropy,

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  12. [12]

    Dynamical horizons: Energy, angular momentum, fluxes and balance laws,

    A. Ashtekar and B. Krishnan, “Dynamical horizons: Energy, angular momentum, fluxes and balance laws,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 89(2002) 261101,gr-qc/0207080

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  13. [13]

    Dynamical horizons and their properties,

    A. Ashtekar and B. Krishnan, “Dynamical horizons and their properties,”Phys. Rev. D68(2003) 104030,gr-qc/0308033

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  14. [14]

    Isolated and dynamical horizons and their applications,

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  15. [15]

    Quasi-local black hole horizons: recentadvances,

    A. Ashtekar and B. Krishnan, “Quasi-local black hole horizons: recentadvances,”Living Rev. Rel.28(2025), no. 1, 8, 2502.11825

    arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Properties of dynamical black hole entropy,

    M. R. Visser and Z. Yan, “Properties of dynamical black hole entropy,”JHEP10(2024) 029,2403.07140

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    Second law from the Noether current on null hypersurfaces,

    A. Rignon-Bret, “Second law from the Noether current on null hypersurfaces,”Phys. Rev. D108(2023), no. 4, 044069, 2303.07262

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  18. [18]

    A General definition of ’conserved quantities’ in general relativity and other theories of gravity,

    R. M. Wald and A. Zoupas, “A General definition of ’conserved quantities’ in general relativity and other theories of gravity,”Phys.Rev.D61(2000) 084027,gr-qc/9911095

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  19. [19]

    Thermodynamics of dynamical black holes beyond perturbation theory,

    A. Ashtekar, D. E. Paraizo, and J. Shu, “Thermodynamics of dynamical black holes beyond perturbation theory,” 2604.00170

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  20. [20]

    A Boundary Term for the Gravitational Action with Null Boundaries,

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  21. [21]

    Gravitational action with null boundaries,

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  22. [22]

    Brown-York charges at null boundaries,

    V . Chandrasekaran, E. E. Flanagan, I. Shehzad, and A. J. Speranza, “Brown-York charges at null boundaries,”JHEP01 (2022) 029,2109.11567

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  23. [23]

    Black hole boundaries,

    I. Booth, “Black hole boundaries,”gr-qc/0508107

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  24. [24]

    S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis,The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press, 2, 2023

    2023

  25. [25]

    A Second Law for Higher Curvature Gravity,

    A. C. Wall, “A Second Law for Higher Curvature Gravity,”Int. J. Mod. Phys. D24(2015), no. 12, 1544014,1504.08040

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  26. [26]

    Generalized second law at linear order for actions that are functions of Lovelock densities,

    S. Sarkar and A. C. Wall, “Generalized second law at linear order for actions that are functions of Lovelock densities,” Phys. Rev. D88(2013) 044017,1306.1623

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  27. [27]

    Thermodynamics of space-time: The Einstein equation of state,

    T. Jacobson, “Thermodynamics of space-time: The Einstein equation of state,”Phys. Rev. Lett.75(1995) 1260–1263, gr-qc/9504004

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  28. [28]

    R. M. Wald,General Relativity. Chicago Univ. Pr., Chicago, USA, 1984

    1984

  29. [29]

    Poisson,A relativist’s toolkit

    E. Poisson,A relativist’s toolkit. Cambrdige, 2004

    2004

  30. [30]

    Boundary effects in General Relativity with tetrad variables,

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  31. [31]

    On variational principle and canonical structure of gravitational theory in double-foliation formalism,

    S. Aghapour, G. Jafari, and M. Golshani, “On variational principle and canonical structure of gravitational theory in double-foliation formalism,”Class. Quant. Grav.36(2019), no. 1, 015012,1808.07352

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  32. [32]

    Thus, theθ l term must be fully retained even when evaluated in theκ l =0 gauge

    While √qθl =l·∇ √qis a total derivative alongl µ, onN, the boundary term in (11) cannot be dropped as a mere corner term, as the full null GHY term is√q(κl +θ l), which is not a total derivative; onlyκ l +θ l is a valid scalar onNunder reparameterizations ofl µ. Thus, theθ l term must be fully retained even when evaluated in theκ l =0 gauge

  33. [33]

    Covariant phase space with boundaries,

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  34. [34]

    Covariant phase space with null boundaries,

    K. Shi, X. Wang, Y . Xiu, and H. Zhang, “Covariant phase space with null boundaries,”Commun. Theor . Phys.73(2021), no. 12, 125401,2008.10551

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  35. [35]

    AdS3 freelance holography: a detailed analysis,

    M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari and V . Taghiloo, “AdS3 freelance holography: a detailed analysis,”JHEP02(2026) 095, 2510.10692

    arXiv 2026

  36. [36]

    A New Derivation of Classical Gravitational Second Law of Thermodynamics,

    V . R. Shajiee and M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, “A New Derivation of Classical Gravitational Second Law of Thermodynamics,” 2511.07510

    arXiv

  37. [37]

    Horizons 2020,

    D. Grumiller, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, and C. Zwikel, “Horizons 2020,”Int. J. Mod. Phys. D29(2020), no. 14, 2043006, 2005.06936

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  38. [38]

    Solution Phase Space and Conserved Charges: A General Formulation for Charges Associated with Exact Symmetries,

    K. Hajian and M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, “Solution Phase Space and Conserved Charges: A General Formulation for Charges Associated with Exact Symmetries,”Phys. Rev. D93(2016), no. 4, 044074,1512.05584

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  39. [39]

    Null surface thermodynamics,

    H. Adami, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, V . Taghiloo, and H. Yavartanoo, “Null surface thermodynamics,”Phys. Rev. D 105(2022), no. 6, 066004,2110.04224

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  40. [40]

    (13) and the dynamical entropy (23) are invariant under a global rescaling (ξ,κ)→(αξ,ακ) for a constantα

    Eqs. (13) and the dynamical entropy (23) are invariant under a global rescaling (ξ,κ)→(αξ,ακ) for a constantα. This freedom reflects the choice of a global time unit

  41. [41]

    However, it has not been interpreted as contributing to the entropy

    The dynamical term in (23) has previously appeared in the literature [39, 51, 56]. However, it has not been interpreted as contributing to the entropy

  42. [42]

    Dynamical entropy, integrability and the second law,

    V .R. Shajiee, M.M. Sheikh-Jabbari, and V . Taghiloo, “Dynamical entropy, integrability and the second law,”Work in preparation(2026)

    2026

  43. [43]

    Quasilocal energy and conserved charges derived from the gravitational action,

    J. D. Brown and J. W. York, Jr., “Quasilocal energy and conserved charges derived from the gravitational action,”Phys. Rev.D47(1993) 1407–1419

    1993

  44. [44]

    Supertranslations and Superrotations at the Black Hole Horizon,

    L. Donnay, G. Giribet, H. A. Gonz ´alez, and M. Pino, “Supertranslations and Superrotations at the Black Hole Horizon,”Phys. Rev. Lett.116(2016), no. 9, 091101, 1511.08687

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  45. [45]

    Extended Symmetries at the Black Hole Horizon,

    L. Donnay, G. Giribet, H. A. Gonz ´alez, and M. Pino, “Extended Symmetries at the Black Hole Horizon,”JHEP09 (2016) 100,1607.05703

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  46. [46]

    Null Conservation Laws for Gravity,

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  47. [47]

    Symmetries and charges of general relativity at null boundaries,

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  48. [48]

    Spacetime structure near generic horizons and soft hair,

    D. Grumiller, A. P ´erez, M. Sheikh-Jabbari, R. Troncoso, and C. Zwikel, “Spacetime structure near generic horizons and soft hair,”Phys. Rev. Lett.124(2020), no. 4, 041601,1908.09833

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  49. [49]

    T-Witts from the horizon,

    H. Adami, D. Grumiller, S. Sadeghian, M. Sheikh-Jabbari, and C. Zwikel, “T-Witts from the horizon,”JHEP04(2020) 128, 2002.08346. 6

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  50. [50]

    Symmetries at null boundaries: two and three dimensional gravity cases,

    H. Adami, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, V . Taghiloo, H. Yavartanoo, and C. Zwikel, “Symmetries at null boundaries: two and three dimensional gravity cases,”JHEP10(2020) 107, 2007.12759

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  51. [51]

    Null boundary phase space: slicings, news & memory,

    H. Adami, D. Grumiller, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, V . Taghiloo, H. Yavartanoo, and C. Zwikel, “Null boundary phase space: slicings, news & memory,”JHEP11(2021) 155,2110.04218

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  52. [52]

    Increase of black hole entropy in higher curvature gravity,

    T. Jacobson, G. Kang, and R. C. Myers, “Increase of black hole entropy in higher curvature gravity,”Phys. Rev. D52 (1995) 3518–3528,gr-qc/9503020

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  53. [53]

    The second law of black hole mechanics in effective field theory,

    S. Hollands, ´A. D. Kov´acs, and H. S. Reall, “The second law of black hole mechanics in effective field theory,”JHEP08 (2022) 258,2205.15341

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  54. [54]

    Nonperturbative Second Law of Black Hole Mechanics in Effective Field Theory,

    I. Davies and H. S. Reall, “Nonperturbative Second Law of Black Hole Mechanics in Effective Field Theory,”Phys. Rev. Lett.132(2024), no. 17, 171402,2312.07659

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  55. [55]

    An entropy current and the second law in higher derivative theories of gravity,

    S. Bhattacharyya, P. Dhivakar, A. Dinda, N. Kundu, M. Patra, and S. Roy, “An entropy current and the second law in higher derivative theories of gravity,”JHEP09(2021) 169, 2105.06455

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  56. [56]

    On the physical process first law for dynamical black holes,

    A. Mishra, S. Chakraborty, A. Ghosh, and S. Sarkar, “On the physical process first law for dynamical black holes,”JHEP09 (2018) 034,1709.08925

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018