Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 96 references

Cosmological correlators in gravitationally-constrained de Sitter states

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read In the weak-gravity limit of de Sitter, gravitational constraints force cosmological correlators to be conformally invariant, and they never equal QFT vacuum values; relational observables with a heavy background state restore QFT…

desk verdict A technically serious paper whose headline 'never coincide' claim is contradicted by its own Eq. (4.8); the right fix is a softened universal statement, not a desk reject. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.15926 v1 pith:M77RRNZU submitted 2025-07-21 hep-th gr-qc

Tuneer Chakraborty , Ashik H , Suvrat Raju This is my paper
classification hep-thgr-qc
keywords deSitterquantumgravitycosmologicalcorrelatorsWheeler-DeWittconstraintsconformalinvariancerelationalobservablesholographyofinformationgroupaveragingnon-Gaussianity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that sending Newton's constant to zero in de Sitter quantum gravity does not produce ordinary quantum field theory: the global gravitational constraints survive and force every physical state and observable to be de Sitter invariant. Because of that, the simplest gauge-fixed observables, the cosmological correlators labelled by points on the late-time boundary, are conformally invariant in every allowed perturbative state and never coincide with QFT vacuum expectation values; the paper gives explicit correlators that are nonzero even when the vacuum wavefunction is Gaussian. It then constructs state-dependent relational observables, dressed to a heavy background state that acts as an observer, whose expectation values approximate QFT vacuum correlators at leading order. If right, the paper establishes a sharp contrast between microscopically simple, nonlocal observables and local QFT-like observables that come only from a state-dependent dressing.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the gravitationally constrained, group-averaged Hilbert space of de Sitter: states are conformally smeared products of boundary fields (equation (2.3)), and the gauge-invariant version of a cosmological correlator is a group average of a field monomial over the de Sitter/conformal group, whose gauge-fixed form is the ordinary-looking product $\chi(y_1)\cdots\chi(y_n)$. The computations use position-space Feynman rules with bra/ket vertices, principal-series propagators with a contact term, and at least three fixed points to regulate the group-volume divergence; the correlators are evaluated with conformal partial waves, shadow transforms, and bubble integrals from harmonic analysis. For relational observables the key object is the projector $P$ onto the smeared 'little Hilbert space' $H_{\rm sm}=\operatorname{span}\{aU|\Psi_{\rm back}\rangle : a\in A_{\rm light}, U\in\Sigma'\}$, used to define $\hat a=\frac{1}{\operatorname{vol}(\Sigma')}\int V a P V^\dagger dV$; the projector is what makes state dependence and the matching to vacuum correlators work.

What would settle it

Find a normalizable de Sitter invariant perturbative state that is not of the form (2.3), or an interacting heavy background state for which $\langle\Psi_{\rm back}|U a|\Psi_{\rm back}\rangle$ does not become negligibly small when $U$ leaves the neighbourhood $\Sigma$; either would break the construction. Even sharper: if any allowed perturbative state has a nonzero cosmological correlator that is not conformally invariant, the paper's central claim is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in the $G_N\to 0$ limit the Hilbert space of asymptotically de Sitter quantum gravity is not the QFT Hilbert space but the group-invariant subspace of it: every allowed state takes the form $|\Psi\rangle=\sum_m \int d\vec x\,\delta G_m(\vec x)\,\chi(x_1)\cdots\chi(x_m)|0\rangle$ with $\delta G_m$ obeying CFT Ward identities, and the gauge-fixed cosmological correlators are expectation values of products of boundary fields with at least three fixed points. These correlators are conformally invariant in all allowed perturbative states, yet they never match QFT vacuum expectation values; the sample computations yield nonzero three- and four-point functions built from conformal partial waves even when the Euclidean vacuum is Gaussian. The paper further claims that, given a heavy background state satisfying (5.4) and (5.5), the group-averaged relational operators $\hat a$ obey $(\Psi_{\rm obs},\hat a_1\cdots\hat a_n\Psi_{\rm obs})=\langle a_1\cdots a_n\rangle$ at leading order, so relational observables reproduce QFT vacuum correlators. The intended upshot is that holography of information is exact while locality is approximate and state dependent.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that every allowed state in the $G_N\to 0$ limit is exactly of the conformally smeared form (2.3) and that, in the interacting theory, a heavy background state satisfying (5.4) and (5.5) exists; the interacting example is only provided at free-field level.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any measurement of the microscopically simple cosmological correlators in any allowed perturbative de Sitter state will see conformally invariant correlations that differ from the QFT vacuum predictions, so the naive vacuum of cosmological perturbation theory is not the right state for these observables.
  • Non-Gaussianity is not by itself a sign of an interacting vacuum: the paper's examples produce nonzero 3- and 4-point functions from a Gaussian vacuum wavefunction whenever the state is excited.
  • Local QFT physics can re-emerge in a closed de Sitter universe through relational observables, provided a heavy background state (an observer) is present; even variances match at leading order.
  • Holography of information is not violated by this recovery of locality: the relational construction is approximate, and sufficiently precise or high-point measurements expose the background and the nonlocal structure.
  • The Feynman rules and the conditions (3.3), (3.4), (3.10), (3.11), (3.13) give a systematic perturbative way to compute norms and correlators of constrained de Sitter states and to discard group-volume-divergent diagrams.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: the Ward-identity conditions on $\delta G_m$ plus finiteness of the norm look like a bootstrap problem; the state space may be characterizable without solving the full dynamics, which would make the paper's dichotomy a theorem rather than a set of examples.
  • Editorial inference: if the dichotomy is generic, observational searches for primordial non-Gaussianity should state which class of observables they target; the paper's relational construction suggests CMB and large-scale-structure correlators correspond to the QFT-like class, not the microscopically simple class.
  • Editorial inference: the smeared-projector mechanism is the same one used in black-hole mirror constructions, so a natural next test is to compute the leading $G_N$ corrections to (5.22) and check whether the variance-matching property survives.
  • Editorial inference: replacing the free-field heavy background of Appendix B.2 with an interacting scalar state (for example a coherent state) and verifying (5.4)–(5.5) numerically would make the construction fully explicit outside the free-field domain.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper studies cosmological correlators in de Sitter quantum gravity in the GN->0 limit, where gravitational constraints still impose de Sitter invariance on states and observables. Building on the state classification and norm introduced in [8,9], it formulates Feynman rules for norms and correlators, discusses necessary conditions to avoid group-volume divergences, computes sample three- and four-point correlators in states built over Gaussian and interacting vacua, and constructs state-dependent relational observables whose expectation values in a heavy background state are claimed to reproduce QFT vacuum correlators. The advertised central results are that cosmological correlators are conformally invariant in all allowed perturbative states and never coincide with QFT vacuum expectation values, while relational observables can restore QFT-like correlators.

Significance. The computations are detailed and use standard conformal integral and harmonic-analysis identities; the finiteness conditions in Section 3 and the explicit partial-wave results in Section 4 are potentially useful for further work. The contrast between microscopically simple nonlocal observables and relational observables that mimic local QFT correlators, if established, would be an interesting conceptual result for de Sitter quantum gravity. However, the universal 'never coincide' claim is internally contradicted by the paper's own Eq. (4.8), and the relational construction is conditional on an unproven existence assumption for the interacting background state; these issues must be addressed before the central claims can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1.2, Eq. (4.8); Abstract; §1 result 3] The statement that cosmological correlators 'never coincide' with QFT vacuum expectation values is false as stated. The state |3> in Eq. (4.2) is normalizable and satisfies the conditions of Section 3, but Eq. (4.8) shows that its three-point cosmological correlator is identically zero, exactly matching the Gaussian-vacuum QFT value. The nonzero four-point functions computed later do not repair this because the universal claim concerns individual correlators. Please reformulate the claim, e.g. as 'for every nonzero perturbative state the full set of cosmological correlators differs from the vacuum set' or 'generic correlators differ', and explicitly allow vanishing low-point cases.
  2. [§5.2 and Appendix B.2] The central result of Section 5, Eq. (5.22), assumes the existence of an interacting QFT background state satisfying (5.4) and (5.5). Only a free-field example with random smearing functions is provided in Appendix B.2, and the text explicitly assumes such a state exists in the interacting theory. Since this existence is load-bearing for the claim that relational observables can reproduce QFT vacuum correlators in the actual perturbative theory, the result is conditional. Please either supply an argument that interactions preserve (5.5) (e.g. via cluster decomposition and small perturbative corrections) or state the theorem explicitly as conditional on this existence assumption.
  3. [§2, Eq. (2.3)] The 'all allowed perturbative states' universality relies on the completeness of the classification (2.3) imported from [8,9]. The present paper does not prove that every normalizable Gauss-law-satisfying state in the interacting GN->0 limit takes this form, and the state coefficients deltaG_m are only constrained by Ward identities. If the classification is incomplete, the universal claims fail. Please state this classification as an explicit assumption or provide a self-contained derivation, and indicate which results would survive a more general state space.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.1] 'Principal-value fields' should be 'principal-series fields' for consistency with Section 4 and Appendix C.
  2. [§4.1.2, Eq. (4.9)] The displayed contraction pattern appears to mix bra and ket operators; please align the notation with the Feynman diagram or add a sentence explaining the ordering convention.
  3. [§5.2] The term 'virion' is used without definition; please define it or replace it with a more standard term.
  4. [§5.3, Eqs. (5.9)-(5.15)] The derivation of <psi_back|a|psi_back> = <a> would benefit from a sentence explaining why the smearing over Sigma' does not affect the operator algebra used in (5.22); currently the reader must infer this from (5.6).

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Self-cited state classification and a definitional conformal ansatz carry the universal claims; the explicit computations are not fitted, but the unqualified 'never coincide' claim is also contradicted by the paper's own Eq. (4.8).

  1. uniqueness imported from authors [Section 1 (Introduction) and Section 2, Eq. (2.3)]
    "The papers [8, 9] studied the effects of the quantum gravitational constraints in asymptotically de Sitter space by classifying all solutions of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. ... In the nongravitational limit, it was shown in [8] that the states satisfying the Gauss law take the form |Ψ⟩ = Σ_m ∫ d⃗x δG_m(⃗x) χ(x1)...χ(xm)|0⟩, where δG_m(⃗x) is a function that obeys the same Ward identities as the connected correlation function of m operators of dimension ∆."

    The paper's universal claims — 'conformally invariant in all allowed perturbative states' and 'never coincide with QFT vacuum-expectation values' — are quantified over a Hilbert space whose definition is imported from [8,9], both by the same authors. The classification of 'all solutions' is not re-derived or independently checked in this manuscript, and the paper uses it to foreclose alternative states. If that classification were incomplete, every universality statement in the abstract and Section 1 would fail. Thus the 'allowed' set and the advertised conclusion are tied to the same self-cited theorem, making the citation load-bearing rather than merely contextual.

  2. self definitional [Section 2, paragraph after Eq. (2.3); Section 6 (Discussion)]
    "It is easy to see that the states (2.3) are invariant under conformal transformations: the transformation of δGm under a conformal transformation is compensated by the transformation of χ(xi). ... The final expressions are all conformally covariant, which is expected from the analysis of the symmetries of conformal correlators performed in [9]."

    The advertised conformal invariance of cosmological correlators is not an independent output: the state space was defined by requiring δGm to obey CFT Ward identities, so every allowed state is conformally invariant by construction. The correlators are then conformally covariant automatically, and the paper itself says this is 'expected.' Presenting this property as a surprising result, and building the contrast with QFT excited states on it, is a restatement of the ansatz rather than a derived prediction. The nonzero four-point values are genuine computations, but the conformal-invariance claim itself is definitional.

full rationale

The paper is not an exercise in fitting parameters: Section 4 evaluates cosmological correlators explicitly from the stated vacuum wavefunction and state coefficients, with no free parameter tuned to force the advertised non-Gaussianities. The norm and correlator Feynman rules are applied consistently, and the results are functions of the state data, so there is no fitted-input-called-prediction circularity. Section 5 likewise proves (Ψobs, â1...ânΨobs) = ⟨a1...an⟩ from the stated assumptions (5.4) and (5.5), rather than assuming the equality; the main gap is that only a free-field example is given in Appendix B.2, which is a missing-support assumption rather than a circular step. The circularity-relevant weight comes from two places. First, the central 'all allowed states' premise is imported from same-author prior work [8,9], whose uniqueness/classification claim is load-bearing for every universal statement in the paper. Second, the conformal invariance of the correlators is built into the conformal Ward-identity structure of the state ansatz (2.3), so the paper's 'surprising' conformal property is definitional rather than independently derived. These justify score 4 rather than 0. Separately, and as required by the review rules, I flag an internal overstatement that is not itself a circularity: the abstract's unqualified 'never coincide' is contradicted by Eq. (4.8), where the three-point cosmological correlator in the |3⟩ state vanishes, exactly equaling the QFT vacuum value in a Gaussian vacuum. The claim must be weakened to 'generic' or 'nonzero' correlators. This lowers confidence in the universal formulation but does not change the circularity score, which already reflects the self-citation and definitional-ansatz issues.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's claims rest on the group-averaged Hilbert space and state classification established in prior work by the same authors [8,9], which is not independently verified here. The sample computations assume the Euclidean vacuum wavefunction and use standard conformal harmonic analysis. The relational observable construction further assumes the existence of a suitable heavy background state in the interacting theory, a non-trivial assumption only illustrated in free field theory. These are honest limitations stated in the text, but they mean the paper's central results are conditional on the correctness and completeness of the cited framework.

free parameters (5)
  • State coefficient C_{ΔΔΔ}
    Sets normalization of the 3-particle state (eq. 4.3); input defining the state, not fitted to data. Correlators in Section 4.1 scale with it.
  • Spectral function I(Δ)
    Free function parameterizing the 4-particle state through conformal partial waves (eq. 4.19); different choices define different states.
  • Interaction data L(Δ) and coupling λ
    In Section 4.2 the non-Gaussian vacuum term is λ^2 L(Δ); λ is a perturbative book-keeping parameter and L(Δ) is chosen by hand.
  • Background state parameters S and random smearing functions f_i
    The observer state in Appendix B.2 uses S≫1 localized excitations with random L2 smearing functions; approximations rely on S large and f_i uncorrelated.
  • Cutoffs n_c, Σ, Σ'
    Relational observables depend on a degree cutoff n_c and small group sets Σ, Σ'; results hold up to terms of order vol(Σ)/vol(Σ').
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption All normalizable dS-invariant states in the GN→0 limit have the form (2.3).
    Imported from [8,9] by the same group; underpins the entire perturbative framework.
  • domain assumption The Euclidean vacuum is not perturbatively normalizable; normalizable states must be orthogonal to it (eq. 3.3).
    Used to remove group-volume divergences and to argue correlators differ from vacuum values.
  • domain assumption The inner product is (Ψ,Ψ)=K⟨Ψ|Ψ⟩ with K fixed by group volumes (eq. 2.5).
    Basis of the norm and the three-point fixing (2.8); not re-derived here.
  • domain assumption The Euclidean vacuum wavefunction is of the form (3.1) with G_n obeying CFT Ward identities.
    Feynman rules and sample computations assume this; the G_n are inputs.
  • standard math Harmonic analysis identities for shadow transforms and conformal partial waves from [46] (eqs. 4.10, 4.20).
    Used to evaluate all integrals in Section 4.
  • standard math Reeh-Schlieder property holds for dS QFT, making H_sm dense in H'_sm.
    Needed for the projector construction of relational observables in Section 5.3.
  • ad hoc to paper A heavy background state satisfying (5.4) and (5.5) exists in the interacting theory.
    The relational observable construction assumes this; only a free-field example is given in Appendix B.2.
  • domain assumption Principal-series fields can be treated with coherent-state wavefunctions with commutator (C.17).
    Underlies the propagators and ordering conventions; reviewed in Appendix C using [94].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cosmological correlators in gravitationally-constrained de Sitter states." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M77RRNZU

@misc{pith2026250715926,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cosmological correlators in gravitationally-constrained de Sitter states},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M77RRNZU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.15926}
}
abstract

We study cosmological correlators in de Sitter quantum gravity in the limit where $G_N \to 0$. This limit is distinct from a nongravitational QFT because the gravitational constraints still force states and observables to be de Sitter invariant. We first examine a class of perturbative correlators that, in gauge-fixed form, are represented by the expectation value of a product of elementary fields on the late-time boundary. We formulate Feynman rules for our computations and enumerate some necessary, but not sufficient, conditions that must be imposed on states and operators to avoid group-volume divergences. These correlators are conformally invariant in all allowed perturbative states but never coincide with QFT vacuum-expectation values. For instance, our sample computations yield interesting non-Gaussianities even when the underlying vacuum wavefunction is Gaussian. However, we show that, in the presence of a heavy background state, it is possible to construct a separate class of state-dependent relational observables whose values approximate QFT correlators in the vacuum. This illustrates a key contrast in quantum gravity -- between observables that are microscopically simple and observables whose expectation values in an appropriate background state lead to simple QFT-like correlators.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,

    J. M. Maldacena, “The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 231–252, arXiv:hep-th/9711200

    arXiv 1998

  2. [2]

    Anti de Sitter space and holography,

    E. Witten, “Anti de Sitter space and holography,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 253–291, arXiv:hep-th/9802150

    arXiv 1998

  3. [3]

    Gauge theory correlators from noncritical string theory,

    S. S. Gubser, I. R. Klebanov, and A. M. Polyakov, “Gauge theory correlators from noncritical string theory,” Phys. Lett. B 428 (1998) 105–114, arXiv:hep-th/9802109

    arXiv 1998

  4. [4]

    De Sitter Musings,

    D. Anninos, “De Sitter Musings,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 27 (2012) 1230013, arXiv:1205.3855 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2012

  5. [5]

    Holography without strings?

    D. Marolf, “Holography without strings?,” Class. Quant. Grav. 31 (2014) 015008, arXiv:1308.1977 [hep-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2014

  6. [6]

    The Holographic Nature of Null Infinity,

    A. Laddha, S. G. Prabhu, S. Raju, and P. Shrivastava, “The Holographic Nature of Null Infinity,” SciPost Phys. 10 no. 2, (2021) 041, arXiv:2002.02448 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Lessons from the information paradox,

    S. Raju, “Lessons from the information paradox,” Phys. Rept. 943 (2022) 1–80, arXiv:2012.05770 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    The Hilbert space of de Sitter quantum gravity,

    T. Chakraborty, J. Chakravarty, V. Godet, P. Paul, and S. Raju, “The Hilbert space of de Sitter quantum gravity,” JHEP 01 (2024) 132, arXiv:2303.16315 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2024

Show all 96 references
  1. [9]

    Holography of information in de Sitter space,

    T. Chakraborty, J. Chakravarty, V. Godet, P. Paul, and S. Raju, “Holography of information in de Sitter space,” JHEP 12 (2023) 120, arXiv:2303.16316 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    A physical protocol for observers near the boundary to obtain bulk information in quantum gravity,

    C. Chowdhury, O. Papadoulaki, and S. Raju, “A physical protocol for observers near the boundary to obtain bulk information in quantum gravity,” SciPost Phys. 10 no. 5, (2021) 106, arXiv:2008.01740 [hep-th]. – 51 –

    2021 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Holography from the Wheeler-DeWitt equation,

    C. Chowdhury, V. Godet, O. Papadoulaki, and S. Raju, “Holography from the Wheeler-DeWitt equation,” JHEP 03 (2022) 019, arXiv:2107.14802 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Failure of the split property in gravity and the information paradox,

    S. Raju, “Failure of the split property in gravity and the information paradox,” Class. Quant. Grav. 39 no. 6, (2022) 064002, arXiv:2110.05470 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Holography of information in massive gravity using Dirac brackets,

    J. Chakravarty, D. Jain, and A. Sivakumar, “Holography of information in massive gravity using Dirac brackets,” JHEP 06 (2023) 109, arXiv:2301.01075 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Holography of information in AdS/CFT,

    R. de Mello Koch and G. Kemp, “Holography of information in AdS/CFT,” JHEP 12 (2022) 095, arXiv:2210.11066 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Invariant states and quantized gravitational perturbations,

    V. Moncrief, “Invariant states and quantized gravitational perturbations,” Physical Review D 18 no. 4, (1978) 983

    1978

  8. [16]

    Quantum linearization instabilities of de Sitter space-time. 1,

    A. Higuchi, “Quantum linearization instabilities of de Sitter space-time. 1,” Class. Quant. Grav. 8 (1991) 1961–1981

    1991

  9. [17]

    Quantum linearization instabilities of de Sitter space-time. 2,

    A. Higuchi, “Quantum linearization instabilities of de Sitter space-time. 2,” Class. Quant. Grav. 8 (1991) 1983–2004

    1991

  10. [18]

    Group Averaging for de Sitter free fields,

    D. Marolf and I. A. Morrison, “Group Averaging for de Sitter free fields,” Class. Quant. Grav. 26 (2009) 235003, arXiv:0810.5163 [gr-qc]

    2009 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Group Averaging of massless scalar fields in 1+1 de Sitter,

    D. Marolf and I. Morrison, “Group Averaging of massless scalar fields in 1+1 de Sitter,” Class. Quant. Grav. 26 (2009) 035001, arXiv:0808.2174 [gr-qc]

    2009 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Higher Spin de Sitter Hilbert Space,

    D. Anninos, F. Denef, R. Monten, and Z. Sun, “Higher Spin de Sitter Hilbert Space,” JHEP 10 (2019) 071, arXiv:1711.10037 [hep-th]. [Erratum: JHEP 06, 085 (2024)]

    2019 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Wave Function of the Universe,

    J. B. Hartle and S. W. Hawking, “Wave Function of the Universe,” Phys. Rev. D 28 (1983) 2960–2975

    1983

  14. [22]

    Local Operators in the Eternal Black Hole,

    K. Papadodimas and S. Raju, “Local Operators in the Eternal Black Hole,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 no. 21, (2015) 211601, arXiv:1502.06692 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Remarks on the necessity and implications of state-dependence in the black hole interior,

    K. Papadodimas and S. Raju, “Remarks on the necessity and implications of state-dependence in the black hole interior,” Phys. Rev. D 93 no. 8, (2016) 084049, arXiv:1503.08825 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  16. [24]

    State-dressed local operators in the AdS/CFT correspondence,

    E. Bahiru, A. Belin, K. Papadodimas, G. Sarosi, and N. Vardian, “State-dressed local operators in the AdS/CFT correspondence,” Phys. Rev. D 108 no. 8, (2023) 086035, arXiv:2209.06845 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Holography and localization of information in quantum gravity,

    E. Bahiru, A. Belin, K. Papadodimas, G. Sarosi, and N. Vardian, “Holography and localization of information in quantum gravity,” JHEP 05 (2024) 261, arXiv:2301.08753 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Holographic observers for time-band algebras,

    K. Jensen, S. Raju, and A. J. Speranza, “Holographic observers for time-band algebras,” JHEP 06 (2025) 242, arXiv:2412.21185 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  19. [27]

    An algebra of observables for de Sitter space,

    V. Chandrasekaran, R. Longo, G. Penington, and E. Witten, “An algebra of observables for de Sitter space,” JHEP 02 (2023) 082, arXiv:2206.10780 [hep-th]. – 52 –

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Black Hole Interior in the Holographic Correspondence and the Information Paradox,

    K. Papadodimas and S. Raju, “Black Hole Interior in the Holographic Correspondence and the Information Paradox,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 no. 5, (2014) 051301, arXiv:1310.6334 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  21. [29]

    State-Dependent Bulk-Boundary Maps and Black Hole Complementarity,

    K. Papadodimas and S. Raju, “State-Dependent Bulk-Boundary Maps and Black Hole Complementarity,” Phys. Rev. D 89 no. 8, (2014) 086010, arXiv:1310.6335 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  22. [30]

    QUANTUM GRA VITY IN TWO-DIMENSIONS: EXACT SOLUTION OF THE JACKIW MODEL,

    M. Henneaux, “QUANTUM GRA VITY IN TWO-DIMENSIONS: EXACT SOLUTION OF THE JACKIW MODEL,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 54 (1985) 959–962

    1985

  23. [31]

    JT gravity in de Sitter space and the problem of time,

    K. K. Nanda, S. K. Sake, and S. P. Trivedi, “JT gravity in de Sitter space and the problem of time,” JHEP 02 (2024) 145, arXiv:2307.15900 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Quantum cosmology as automorphic dynamics,

    V. Godet, “Quantum cosmology as automorphic dynamics,” arXiv:2405.09833 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    York time in JT gravity,

    O. Parrikar and S. K. Sake, “York time in JT gravity,” arXiv:2505.19231 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  26. [34]

    A non-perturbative construction of the de Sitter late-time boundary,

    K. Salehi Vaziri, “A non-perturbative construction of the de Sitter late-time boundary,” arXiv:2412.00183 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  27. [35]

    The Hagedorn - deconfinement phase transition in weakly coupled large N gauge theories,

    O. Aharony, J. Marsano, S. Minwalla, K. Papadodimas, and M. Van Raamsdonk, “The Hagedorn - deconfinement phase transition in weakly coupled large N gauge theories,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 8 (2004) 603–696, arXiv:hep-th/0310285

    2004 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Norm of the no-boundary state,

    J. Cotler and K. Jensen, “Norm of the no-boundary state,” arXiv:2506.20547 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  29. [37]

    M¨ obius randomness in the Hartle-Hawking state,

    V. Godet, “M¨ obius randomness in the Hartle-Hawking state,” arXiv:2505.03068 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  30. [38]

    A microscopic realization of dS 3,

    S. Collier, L. Eberhardt, and B. M¨ uhlmann, “A microscopic realization of dS 3,” SciPost Phys. 18 no. 4, (2025) 131, arXiv:2501.01486 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Entanglement wedges for gravitating regions,

    R. Bousso and G. Penington, “Entanglement wedges for gravitating regions,” Phys. Rev. D 107 no. 8, (2023) 086002, arXiv:2208.04993 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Quantum contributions to cosmological correlations,

    S. Weinberg, “Quantum contributions to cosmological correlations,” Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005) 043514, arXiv:hep-th/0506236

    2005 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Non-Gaussian features of primordial fluctuations in single field inflationary models,

    J. M. Maldacena, “Non-Gaussian features of primordial fluctuations in single field inflationary models,” JHEP 05 (2003) 013, arXiv:astro-ph/0210603

    2003 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Inflationary Consistency Conditions from a Wavefunctional Perspective,

    G. L. Pimentel, “Inflationary Consistency Conditions from a Wavefunctional Perspective,” JHEP 02 (2014) 124, arXiv:1309.1793 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Snowmass White Paper: The Cosmological Bootstrap,

    D. Baumann, D. Green, A. Joyce, E. Pajer, G. L. Pimentel, C. Sleight, and M. Taronna, “Snowmass White Paper: The Cosmological Bootstrap,” SciPost Phys. Comm. Rep. 2024 (2024) 1, arXiv:2203.08121 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    A note on the representations of SO(1,d + 1),

    Z. Sun, “A note on the representations of SO(1,d + 1),” Rev. Math. Phys. 37 no. 01, (2025) 2430007, arXiv:2111.04591 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Emergent Spacetime and Holographic CFTs,

    S. El-Showk and K. Papadodimas, “Emergent Spacetime and Holographic CFTs,” JHEP 10 (2012) 106, arXiv:1101.4163 [hep-th]. – 53 –

    2012 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Harmonic Analysis and Mean Field Theory,

    D. Karateev, P. Kravchuk, and D. Simmons-Duffin, “Harmonic Analysis and Mean Field Theory,” JHEP 10 (2019) 217, arXiv:1809.05111 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Conformal partial waves and the operator product expansion,

    F. A. Dolan and H. Osborn, “Conformal partial waves and the operator product expansion,” Nucl. Phys. B 678 (2004) 491–507, arXiv:hep-th/0309180

    2004 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Quantum Theory of Gravity. 1. The Canonical Theory,

    B. S. DeWitt, “Quantum Theory of Gravity. 1. The Canonical Theory,” Phys. Rev. 160 (1967) 1113–1148

    1967

  41. [49]

    The problem of time in canonical quantization,

    K. Kuchar, “The problem of time in canonical quantization,” in Conceptual Problems of Quantum Gravity, A. Ashtekar and J. Stachel, eds. Birkhauser, 1991

    1991

  42. [50]

    Partial observables,

    C. Rovelli, “Partial observables,” Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 124013, arXiv:gr-qc/0110035

    2002 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Observables in effective gravity,

    S. B. Giddings, D. Marolf, and J. B. Hartle, “Observables in effective gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 064018, arXiv:hep-th/0512200

    2006 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Relational Dynamics with Periodic Clocks,

    L. Chataignier, P. A. Hoehn, M. P. E. Lock, and F. M. Mele, “Relational Dynamics with Periodic Clocks,” arXiv:2409.06479 [quant-ph]

  45. [53]

    Gravitational entropy is observer-dependent,

    J. De Vuyst, S. Eccles, P. A. Hoehn, and J. Kirklin, “Gravitational entropy is observer-dependent,” JHEP 07 (2025) 146, arXiv:2405.00114 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  46. [54]

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

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

    2025 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Quantum rods and clock in a gravitational universe,

    H. Geng, “Quantum rods and clock in a gravitational universe,” Phys. Rev. D 112 no. 2, (2025) 026009, arXiv:2412.03636 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  48. [56]

    De Sitter quantum gravity and the emergence of local algebras,

    M. Kaplan, D. Marolf, X. Yu, and Y. Zhao, “De Sitter quantum gravity and the emergence of local algebras,” JHEP 04 (2025) 171, arXiv:2410.00111 [hep-th]

    2025

  49. [57]

    A toy model of black hole complementarity,

    S. Banerjee, J.-W. Bryan, K. Papadodimas, and S. Raju, “A toy model of black hole complementarity,” JHEP 05 (2016) 004, arXiv:1603.02812 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Subregion-subalgebra duality: Emergence of space and time in holography,

    S. Leutheusser and H. Liu, “Subregion-subalgebra duality: Emergence of space and time in holography,” Phys. Rev. D 111 no. 6, (2025) 066021, arXiv:2212.13266 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Two point functions and quantum fields in de Sitter universe,

    J. Bros and U. Moschella, “Two point functions and quantum fields in de Sitter universe,” Rev. Math. Phys. 8 (1996) 327–392, arXiv:gr-qc/9511019

    1996 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Violations of the Born rule in cool state-dependent horizons,

    D. Marolf and J. Polchinski, “Violations of the Born rule in cool state-dependent horizons,” JHEP 01 (2016) 008, arXiv:1506.01337 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Smooth Causal Patches for AdS Black Holes,

    S. Raju, “Smooth Causal Patches for AdS Black Holes,” Phys. Rev. D 95 no. 12, (2017) 126002, arXiv:1604.03095 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Timelike-bounded dS 4 holography from a solvable sector of the T2 deformation,

    E. Silverstein and G. Torroba, “Timelike-bounded dS 4 holography from a solvable sector of the T2 deformation,” JHEP 03 (2025) 156, arXiv:2409.08709 [hep-th]. – 54 –

    2025 arXiv

  55. [63]

    On Loops in Inflation,

    L. Senatore and M. Zaldarriaga, “On Loops in Inflation,” JHEP 12 (2010) 008, arXiv:0912.2734 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  56. [64]

    The subtle simplicity of cosmological correlators,

    C. Chowdhury, A. Lipstein, J. Mei, I. Sachs, and P. Vanhove, “The subtle simplicity of cosmological correlators,” JHEP 03 (2025) 007, arXiv:2312.13803 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Loops in Anti–de Sitter Space,

    I. Bertan and I. Sachs, “Loops in Anti–de Sitter Space,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 no. 10, (2018) 101601, arXiv:1804.01880 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Renormalisation of IR divergences and holography in de Sitter,

    A. Bzowski, P. McFadden, and K. Skenderis, “Renormalisation of IR divergences and holography in de Sitter,” JHEP 05 (2024) 053, arXiv:2312.17316 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  59. [67]

    On graviton non-Gaussianities during inflation,

    J. M. Maldacena and G. L. Pimentel, “On graviton non-Gaussianities during inflation,” JHEP 09 (2011) 045, arXiv:1104.2846 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  60. [68]

    New Recursion Relations and a Flat Space Limit for AdS/CFT Correlators,

    S. Raju, “New Recursion Relations and a Flat Space Limit for AdS/CFT Correlators,” Phys. Rev. D 85 (2012) 126009, arXiv:1201.6449 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Cosmological Collider Physics,

    N. Arkani-Hamed and J. Maldacena, “Cosmological Collider Physics,” arXiv:1503.08043 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  62. [70]

    Linking the singularities of cosmological correlators,

    D. Baumann, W.-M. Chen, C. Duaso Pueyo, A. Joyce, H. Lee, and G. L. Pimentel, “Linking the singularities of cosmological correlators,” JHEP 09 (2022) 010, arXiv:2106.05294 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Birrell and P

    N. Birrell and P. Davies, Quantum fields in curved space . Cambridge Univ Press, 1986

    1986

  64. [72]

    Hilbert space of quantum field theory in de Sitter spacetime,

    J. Penedones, K. Salehi Vaziri, and Z. Sun, “Hilbert space of quantum field theory in de Sitter spacetime,” Phys. Rev. D 111 no. 4, (2025) 045001, arXiv:2301.04146 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  65. [73]

    The discreet charm of the discrete series in dS 2,

    D. Anninos, T. Anous, B. Pethybridge, and G. S ¸eng¨ or, “The discreet charm of the discrete series in dS 2,” J. Phys. A 57 no. 2, (2024) 025401, arXiv:2307.15832 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  66. [74]

    An invitation to the principal series,

    T. Anous and J. Skulte, “An invitation to the principal series,” SciPost Phys. 9 no. 3, (2020) 028, arXiv:2007.04975 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  67. [75]

    The K¨ all´ en-Lehmann representation in de Sitter spacetime,

    M. Loparco, J. Penedones, K. Salehi Vaziri, and Z. Sun, “The K¨ all´ en-Lehmann representation in de Sitter spacetime,” JHEP 12 (2023) 159, arXiv:2306.00090 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Towards the non-perturbative cosmological bootstrap,

    M. Hogervorst, J. Penedones, and K. S. Vaziri, “Towards the non-perturbative cosmological bootstrap,” JHEP 02 (2023) 162, arXiv:2107.13871 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Infrared instability of the de Sitter space,

    A. M. Polyakov, “Infrared instability of the de Sitter space,” arXiv:1209.4135 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  70. [78]

    λϕ4 in dS,

    V. Gorbenko and L. Senatore, “ λϕ4 in dS,” arXiv:1911.00022 [hep-th]

    1911 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Taking de sitter seriously

    W. Fischler, “Taking de sitter seriously.” Talk given at The Role of Scaling Laws in Physics and Biology (Celebrating the 60th Birthday of Geoffrey West ), Santa Fe, Dec. 2000

    2000

  72. [80]

    Cosmological breaking of supersymmetry?,

    T. Banks, “Cosmological breaking of supersymmetry?,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 16 (2001) 910–921, arXiv:hep-th/0007146. – 55 –

    2001 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Quantum gravity in de Sitter space,

    E. Witten, “Quantum gravity in de Sitter space,” in Strings 2001: International Conference . 6,

    2001

  74. [82]

    M theory observables for cosmological space-times,

    T. Banks and W. Fischler, “M theory observables for cosmological space-times,” arXiv:hep-th/0102077

    arXiv

  75. [83]

    Logarithmic corrections, entanglement entropy, and UV cutoffs in de Sitter spacetime,

    G. Arenas-Henriquez, F. Diaz, and P. Sundell, “Logarithmic corrections, entanglement entropy, and UV cutoffs in de Sitter spacetime,” JHEP 08 (2022) 261, arXiv:2206.10427 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  76. [84]

    De Sitter Space and Entanglement,

    C. Arias, F. Diaz, and P. Sundell, “De Sitter Space and Entanglement,” Class. Quant. Grav. 37 no. 1, (2020) 015009, arXiv:1901.04554 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  77. [85]

    The holographic spacetime model of cosmology,

    T. Banks and W. Fischler, “The holographic spacetime model of cosmology,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 27 no. 14, (2018) 1846005, arXiv:1806.01749 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Holographic space-time, Newton’s law, and the dynamics of horizons,

    T. Banks and W. Fischler, “Holographic space-time, Newton’s law, and the dynamics of horizons,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 27 no. 1, (2023) 65–86, arXiv:2003.03637 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  79. [87]

    De Sitter microstates from T T + Λ2 and the Hawking-Page transition,

    E. Coleman, E. A. Mazenc, V. Shyam, E. Silverstein, R. M. Soni, G. Torroba, and S. Yang, “De Sitter microstates from T T + Λ2 and the Hawking-Page transition,” JHEP 07 (2022) 140, arXiv:2110.14670 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Baby Universes, Holography, and the Swampland,

    J. McNamara and C. Vafa, “Baby Universes, Holography, and the Swampland,” arXiv:2004.06738 [hep-th]

    2004 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Closed universes, factorization, and ensemble averaging,

    M. Usatyuk and Y. Zhao, “Closed universes, factorization, and ensemble averaging,” JHEP 02 (2025) 052, arXiv:2403.13047 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Quantum mechanics and observers for gravity in a closed universe,

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

    arXiv

  83. [91]

    Covariant expansion of the conformal four-point function,

    S. Ferrara, A. Grillo, G. Parisi, and R. Gatto, “Covariant expansion of the conformal four-point function,” Nuclear Physics B 49 (1972) 77–98

    1972

  84. [92]

    Gravity and the crossed product,

    E. Witten, “Gravity and the crossed product,” JHEP 10 (2022) 008, arXiv:2112.12828 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  85. [93]

    An apologia for islands,

    S. Antonini, C.-H. Chen, H. Maxfield, and G. Penington, “An apologia for islands,” arXiv:2506.04311 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  86. [94]

    Aspects of dS/CFT holography,

    I. Dey, K. K. Nanda, A. Roy, and S. P. Trivedi, “Aspects of dS/CFT holography,” JHEP 05 (2025) 168, arXiv:2407.02417 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Particle Creation in de Sitter Space,

    E. Mottola, “Particle Creation in de Sitter Space,” Phys. Rev. D 31 (1985) 754. – 56 –

    1985

  88. [2001]

    arXiv:hep-th/0106109

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.