Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 152 references

These lectures argue that the spinfoam formalism provides a coherent, discretization-based path-integral quantization of gravity: exact and topological in three dimensions, and given in four dimensions by the EPRL model, where weakly impose

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

2026-08-01 04:50 UTC pith:WHV6ZRPV

load-bearing objection A careful, honest lecture-notes review: the lower-dimensional derivations check out, and the only thing that should give a referee pause is the EPRL section's leading-order constraint fixing, which the paper itself flags only partially. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.22412 v1 pith:WHV6ZRPV submitted 2026-07-24 gr-qc

Les Houches lectures on Spinfoam Path Integrals

Oleksandra Hrytseniak , Etera R. Livine , Valentine Maris This is my paper
classification gr-qc PACS 04.60.Pp04.60.-m
keywords spinfoamloop quantum gravityBF theoryPonzano-Regge modelTuraev-Viro modelEPRL modelsimplicity constraintsquantum gravity path integral
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 aims to show that gravity can be quantized as a discrete path integral over quantum geometries, building from simple topological field theories up to a working four-dimensional model. It starts with the observation that BF theory and its state sums are exact path integrals: quantum mechanics in 1d, topological BF theory in 2d, and Ponzano-Regge/Turaev-Viro models in 3d, where amplitudes are invariant under triangulation changes. In four dimensions, general relativity is a constrained BF theory, and the paper presents the EPRL model as the current standard implementation, defining what is called Covariant Loop Quantum Gravity. The sympathetic reader takes away a concrete computational framework: a spinfoam vertex amplitude that assigns transition amplitudes to spin-network histories and reproduces the LQG area spectrum.

Core claim

The central claim is that the spinfoam construction yields a genuine quantum-gravity path integral. In three dimensions this is established: the Ponzano-Regge state sum is invariant under Pachner moves via the Biedenharn-Elliott identity, projects onto flat connections, and its 6j-symbols satisfy recursion relations that become the Wheeler-DeWitt equation in the semiclassical limit. In four dimensions, the paper argues that the EPRL vertex amplitude, built from the weak imposition of linear simplicity constraints, is the correct discrete path integral for Lorentzian quantum gravity. The construction embeds each SU(2) spin j into the SL(2,C) representation (p, k) = (γ(j+1), j), giving the Y_γ

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Y_γ embedding map, which sends an SU(2) spin-j state into the SL(2,C) unitary representation labeled (p=γ(j+1), k=j) with γ the Immirzi parameter. This map implements the linear simplicity constraints weakly, in the sense that the constraint operators ⃗K − γ⃗L annihilate matrix elements on the embedded Hilbert subspace at leading order in large spins. The EPRL vertex amplitude then averages the embedded spin-network intertwiners over SL(2,C) group elements, producing a Lorentzian 4-simplex amplitude. In lower dimensions the analogous machinery is the 6j-symbol and the Biedenharn-Elliott identity, which enforce topological invariance under 3d Pachner moves.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that imposing the linear simplicity constraints only weakly, at leading order in large spins with the specific embedding p = γ(j+1), is the correct quantization of the second-class Plebanski constraints; if sub-leading corrections matter, the EPRL vertex is not a path integral for Einstein gravity.

What would settle it

A concrete falsifier: compute the EPRL vertex amplitude at finite spins under a 1-5 Pachner move of a 4d triangulation; if the amplitude changes, the model is not triangulation-independent and fails as a background-independent path integral for gravity.

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

If this is right

  • If the EPRL model is correct, spinfoam amplitudes define transition amplitudes between loop-quantum-gravity spin-network states, providing a covariant path-integral formulation of quantum gravity.
  • The 3d results are exact: Ponzano-Regge amplitudes are independent of the bulk triangulation, project onto flat connections, and Turaev-Viro extends them to include a cosmological constant.
  • Large-spin asymptotics of the 6j-symbol reproduce the Regge action, so the spinfoam sum is a discrete path integral for gravity in the semiclassical regime.
  • The EPRL construction recovers the LQG area spectrum A = γ√(j(j+1)), connecting the covariant and canonical quantization programs.
  • The model is posed as a concrete computational object, opening numerical studies of black-to-white-hole transitions and the renormalization flow.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the weak-constraint prescription survives sub-leading 1/j corrections, the Immirzi parameter acquires a sharp geometrical meaning as the boost-to-rotation ratio of the embedded representation; a measurement of the area spectrum would then test the embedding directly.
  • The 3d Ising duality for Ponzano-Regge suggests that boundary dynamics of spinfoam models may be systematically mapped to statistical-mechanics models; an analogous duality for EPRL, if found, could make 4d amplitudes computationally tractable.
  • The absence of a proven invariance under 4d bulk-triangulation deformation, noted in the paper, is the main gap: if the EPRL amplitude fails a Pachner-move test, the model may need modification such as q-deformation or a refinement prescription to define a continuum limit.
  • A next-to-leading-order computation of the EPRL vertex, comparing its saddle-point action to the Regge action, would provide a sharp test of whether the weak simplicity constraints are sufficient or only an approximation.

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. These Les Houches lecture notes present a pedagogical, dimension-by-dimension introduction to the spinfoam path-integral framework. Starting from the 1d path integral for quantum mechanics, the paper builds 2d BF spinfoam models (U(1) and SU(2)), the 3d Ponzano-Regge and Turaev-Viro state sums, and culminates in the 4d EPRL model for Lorentzian quantum gravity. The central claims are that the lower-dimensional models are exact topological state sums, that the EPRL amplitude is the current standard covariant LQG vertex arising from a weak imposition of the linear simplicity constraints, and that this 4d amplitude is well enough defined to be studied, computed and analysed.

Significance. If the result as presented stands, this is a valuable and largely self-contained review: the 1d Gaussian chain (eqs. 22-28) reproduces the Schrödinger propagator; the 2d face-merging and genus counting (eqs. 48, 74-86) give the Euler characteristic; the 3d Pachner-move invariance (eqs. 119-120) is shown explicitly; and the 4d section gives a transparent construction of the EPRL vertex (eq. 160) from the Y-gamma embedding. The paper is honest about open questions such as renormalization, triangulation symmetry, and the Wheeler-DeWitt representation. Its main strength is the explicit, checkable derivations in the lower-dimensional models and the clear pedagogical presentation of the current 4d candidate.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5.B, Eq. (156)] The sentence 'This uniquely fixes the sl(2,C) representation labels (p,k)' is contradicted by footnote 13, which immediately records the alternative embedding (k=j, p=γj). Since eqs. (154)-(155) are imposed only at leading order in j, both embeddings are admissible at the stated approximation order, and they differ at O(1) in p. Eq. (156) is therefore a choice, not a consequence. Because the Y-gamma map (158) and the vertex amplitude (160) use this choice for all finite j, the 4d model is not uniquely defined by the simplicity constraints alone. Please replace 'uniquely fixes' by an explicit convention statement and discuss the residual sub-leading ambiguity, e.g. its effect on the area spectrum (157) and the large-j asymptotics.
  2. [§5.B, final paragraph] The final paragraph acknowledges that there is no proven symmetry under bulk-triangulation deformation, no established renormalization flow, and no proven Wheeler-DeWitt/hamiltonian-constraint representation. In this context, the sentence 'This 4d quantum gravity path integral is thus ready to be studied, computed and analysed' is too strong if read as a statement of physical viability. Please rephrase to make clear that the EPRL model is a well-defined candidate amplitude whose semiclassical and continuum properties remain open. This is not a request for new calculations, but for a more careful framing of the status of the 4d construction.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2, Eq. (29)] In the product of short-time propagators, the exponents should involve the interval lengths (τ_{n+1}-τ_n), not the total (τ_N-τ_0), and the signs in the exponents should be consistently negative (e^{-i...}) rather than positive as written.
  2. [§3.B, Eq. (67)] The convolution formula contains a stray 'e': δ(g^{-1} e G) should presumably read δ(g^{-1} G') or similar. Please correct.
  3. [§5.B, Eq. (158)] The domain of the Y-gamma map is written as R^{(γj,j)} but the definition just below says |j,m> maps to |(p=γ(j+1), k=j), j,m>. The notation should be R^{(γ(j+1),j)} to be consistent.
  4. [Footnote 13] Typo: 'preset lectures' should be 'present lectures'.
  5. [§3.C] Typo: 'Feynamn diagrams' should be 'Feynman diagrams'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the review's derivations are externally benchmarked; the 4d EPRL fixing is an acknowledged ansatz, not a forced consequence.

full rationale

The paper is a pedagogical review. Its lower-dimensional derivations are self-contained and checked against external benchmarks: the 1d discretized path integral is verified against the operator propagator (eqs. 25-28); the 2d BF path integral is shown topological by face merging (eq. 48) and reproduces the Euler characteristic by counting (eqs. 74-79); the 3d Ponzano-Regge state-sum is proved invariant under Pachner moves via the Biedenharn-Elliott identity (eqs. 119-120), with the {6j} asymptotics matched to the Regge action. In the 4d section, the EPRL construction is presented as a constrained-BF quantization: the weak simplicity constraint (eq. 152) and its leading-order solution (eq. 156) are imposed modeling choices from the literature, not derived predictions. The paper itself flags the ambiguity in footnote 13, noting the alternative embedding (k=j, p=γj), and lists as open questions the renormalization flow, the bulk-triangulation symmetry, and the Wheeler-DeWitt/hamiltonian-constraint representation. Thus the central 4d claim is not circular; it is an underdetermined ansatz with acknowledged open issues. Self-citations by the authors (e.g. [3], [5], [6], [46], [55]) are to established peer-reviewed results and are not invoked to forbid alternatives, so they do not constitute load-bearing circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims of these lecture notes are built on the standard mathematics of SU(2) representation theory (Peter-Weyl, recoupling, Biedenharn-Elliott) and on the domain assumptions of the LQG/spinfoam research program (discrete holonomy variables for BF theory; constrained-BF model for gravity; weak imposition of simplicity constraints). All parameters (Immirzi gamma, GFT coupling lambda, q-deformation order r) are inputs inherited from the cited literature; none is fit within these notes. The distinguishing modeling choice - the Y-gamma embedding with p = gamma(j+1), k = j at leading order - is flagged as non-unique (footnote 13). The paper introduces no new entities: spinfoam 2-complexes, the Y-gamma map, and the 'sea of defects' framing are constructions from the cited prior literature ([3, 4, 21, 118, 119]).

free parameters (3)
  • Immirzi parameter gamma = not fixed in the paper; free coupling of the Einstein-Cartan-Holst action
    Enters the EPRL construction through the linear simplicity constraint K = gamma L (eq. 151) and fixes the representation embedding p = gamma(j+1), k = j (eq. 156); the area spectrum A = gamma*sqrt(j(j+1)) depends on it. Standard LQG input from the cited prior literature, not fit to data in this review.
  • GFT vertex coupling lambda = unassigned formal expansion parameter
    Appears as the cubic/phi^4 vertex weight in the 2d (eq. 89) and 3d (eq. 130) group field theory actions; its value is irrelevant to the structural claims of the review.
  • q-deformation root-of-unity order r = integer r >= 3, with Lambda = (2*pi/(r+2))^2
    Defines the Turaev-Viro and Crane-Yetter truncations; the dictionary to the cosmological constant is taken from the cited Chern-Simons literature (Witten), not derived in these notes.
axioms (6)
  • standard math Peter-Weyl theorem: matrix elements of SU(2) irreps form an orthonormal basis of L^2(SU(2)) with the stated orthogonality (eq. 7)
    Used throughout Section I.A (eqs. 3-10) to expand spin-network states and delta-functions on the group.
  • domain assumption The path-ordered exponential (holonomy) is the correct discretized variable for the connection, and flatness F[A]=0 is equivalent to trivial holonomies around contractible loops
    Underpins the discretized BF path integral Z = integral prod(dg_e) prod(delta(G_f)) (eqs. 44, 66, 110, 132); relies on the Stokes theorem and standard lattice-gauge-theory correspondence.
  • standard math Biedenharn-Elliott identity and orthonormality of 6j-symbols imply invariance of the Ponzano-Regge state sum under (2-3) and (1-4) Pachner moves
    Section IV.D eqs. (119)-(120); the (1-4) case requires gauge-fixing of bulk spins, a divergence subtlety the paper itself flags and resolves.
  • domain assumption The linear simplicity constraints K = gamma L, imposed weakly via <Phi|K-gamma L|Psi> = 0, are the correct quantization of the Plebanski second-class constraints, with leading-order fixing k = j, p = gamma(j+1)
    Section V.B eqs. (151)-(156); this is the EPRL program's central modeling assumption, inherited from the cited literature; footnote 13 notes a non-unique alternative embedding (p = gamma j).
  • domain assumption Asymptotic large-spin 6j-symbols reproduce the Regge action (eq. 116), validating the interpretation of spinfoam amplitudes as discrete gravity path integrals
    Section IV.C; theorem-level results cited to Schulten-Gordon, Roberts, Freidel-Louapre; anchors the physical interpretation but is not re-derived in these notes.
  • standard math Independence of the partition function on the triangulation is equivalent to invariance under Pachner moves (Lickorish's theorem)
    Section IV.D, cited to [71]; links the discrete moves to the claim of topological/diffeomorphism invariance.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 49167 in / 27954 out tokens · 298689 ms · 2026-08-01T04:50:32.236206+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In these lecture notes for the Les Houches School on Loop Quantum Gravity 2025, which took place in September 2025, we give a pedagogical review of the basics of the spinfoam framework for a quantum gravity path integral. While spin network states in loop quantum gravity describe the quantum geometry of the 3d space as dynamical networks of entangled quanta of volumes, spinfoams define transition amplitudes for those spin networks using the reformulation of general relativity as an "almost-topological" field theory and tools from quantum BF theory and topological state-sums. The lectures were a short format of three times one hour and a half, only allowing to cover the basics and offer a glimpse of more advanced lines of research. We introduce spin foam path integrals for increasing spacetime dimensions starting with 2d BF theory, then build up to 3d quantum gravity with the Ponzano-Regge state-sum and the Turaev-Viro invariant, and finally the quantization of general relativity in four dimensions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.22412 by Etera R. Livine, Oleksandra Hrytseniak, Valentine Maris.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: FIG. 20 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_20.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: FIG. 21 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_21.png] view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: FIG. 22 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_22.png] view at source ↗
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: FIG. 23 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_23.png] view at source ↗
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: FIG. 24 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_24.png] view at source ↗
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: FIG. 25 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_25.png] view at source ↗
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: FIG. 26 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_26.png] view at source ↗
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: FIG. 27 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_27.png] view at source ↗
Figure 28
Figure 28. Figure 28: FIG. 28 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_28.png] view at source ↗
Figure 29
Figure 29. Figure 29: FIG. 29 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_29.png] view at source ↗
Figure 30
Figure 30. Figure 30: FIG. 30 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_30.png] view at source ↗
Figure 31
Figure 31. Figure 31: FIG. 31 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_31.png] view at source ↗
Figure 32
Figure 32. Figure 32: FIG. 32 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_32.png] view at source ↗
Figure 33
Figure 33. Figure 33: FIG. 33 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_33.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

152 extracted references · 132 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    There is actually one divergent factor for each bulk point

    The original definition of the Ponzano-Regge partition function is typically divergent, as soon as there is a point in the bulk triangulation. There is actually one divergent factor for each bulk point

  2. [2]

    theory of invariants

    These divergences can be removed by fixing one spin around each bulk vertex, and more precisely by fixing the spins along a maximal tree on the triangulation. The identities above ensure that the final finite result does not depend on the chosen values for the spins or the choice of a maximal tree. This procedure is actually a true gauge theory of the tra...

    2025

  3. [3]

    Semiclassical Limit of Racah Coefficients,

    G. Ponzano and T. Regge, “Semiclassical Limit of Racah Coefficients,” pp 1-58 of Spectroscopic and Group Theoretical Methods in Physics. Block, F. (ed.). New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1968. (10, 1969)

    1968

  4. [4]

    State sum invariants of 3-manifolds and quantum 6 j-symbols ,

    V. G. Turaev and O. Y. Viro, “State sum invariants of 3-manifolds and quantum 6 j-symbols ,” Topology31(1992) 865–902

    1992

  5. [5]

    LQG vertex with finite Immirzi parameter,

    J. Engle, E. Livine, R. Pereira, and C. Rovelli, “LQG vertex with finite Immirzi parameter,” Nucl. Phys. B799(2008) 136–149,arXiv:0711.0146

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  6. [6]

    Rovelli and F

    C. Rovelli and F. Vidotto,Covariant Loop Quantum Gravity: An Elementary Introduction to Quantum Gravity and Spinfoam Theory. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press, 11, 2014

    2014

  7. [7]

    E. R. Livine,Spinfoam Models for Quantum Gravity: Overview. 3, 2024.arXiv:2403.09364

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    The Spinfoam Framework for Quantum Gravity,

    E. R. Livine, “The Spinfoam Framework for Quantum Gravity,” other thesis, 10, 2010

    2010

  9. [9]

    The Spin Foam Approach to Quantum Gravity,

    A. Perez, “The Spin Foam Approach to Quantum Gravity,” Living Rev. Rel.16(2013) 3,arXiv:1205.2019

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  10. [10]

    The new spin foam models and quantum gravity,

    A. Perez, “The new spin foam models and quantum gravity,” Papers Phys.4(2012) 040004,arXiv:1205.0911

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  11. [11]

    Engle and S

    J. Engle and S. Speziale,Spin Foams: Foundations. 2023.arXiv:2310.20147

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  12. [12]

    The microscopic dynamics of quantum space as a group field theory,

    D. Oriti, “The microscopic dynamics of quantum space as a group field theory,” inFoundations of Space and Time: Reflections on Quantum Gravity, pp. 257–320. 10, 2011.arXiv:1110.5606

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  13. [13]

    S. K. Asante, B. Dittrich, and S. Steinhaus,Spin Foams, Refinement Limit, and Renormalization. 2023. arXiv:2211.09578

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  14. [14]

    P. Dona, M. Han, and H. Liu,Spinfoams and High-Performance Computing, pp. 1–38. 2023.arXiv:2212.14396

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  15. [15]

    Introduction to SU(2) Recoupling Theory and Graphical Methods for Loop Quantum Gravity,

    I. M¨ akinen, “Introduction to SU(2) Recoupling Theory and Graphical Methods for Loop Quantum Gravity,” arXiv:1910.06821

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1910

  16. [16]

    Closed formula for the matrix elements of the volume operator in canonical quantum gravity,

    T. Thiemann, “Closed formula for the matrix elements of the volume operator in canonical quantum gravity,” J. Math. Phys.39(1998) 3347–3371,arXiv:gr-qc/9606091. 46

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  17. [17]

    Simplification of the spectral analysis of the volume operator in loop quantum gravity,

    J. Brunnemann and T. Thiemann, “Simplification of the spectral analysis of the volume operator in loop quantum gravity,” Class. Quant. Grav.23(2006) 1289–1346,arXiv:gr-qc/0405060

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  18. [18]

    Semiclassical analysis of the Loop Quantum Gravity volume operator. I. Flux Coherent States,

    C. Flori and T. Thiemann, “Semiclassical analysis of the Loop Quantum Gravity volume operator. I. Flux Coherent States,”arXiv:0812.1537

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  19. [19]

    Bohr-Sommerfeld Quantization of Space,

    E. Bianchi and H. M. Haggard, “Bohr-Sommerfeld Quantization of Space,” Phys. Rev. D86(2012) 124010, arXiv:1208.2228

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  20. [20]

    Discreteness of area and volume in quantum gravity,

    C. Rovelli and L. Smolin, “Discreteness of area and volume in quantum gravity,” Nucl. Phys. B442(1995) 593–622, arXiv:gr-qc/9411005. [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 456, 753–754 (1995)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  21. [21]

    Loop quantum gravity and quanta of space: A Primer,

    C. Rovelli and P. Upadhya, “Loop quantum gravity and quanta of space: A Primer,”arXiv:gr-qc/9806079

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  22. [22]

    Bianchi and E

    E. Bianchi and E. R. Livine,Loop Quantum Gravity and Quantum Information. 2023.arXiv:2302.05922

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    ’Sum over surfaces’ form of loop quantum gravity,

    M. P. Reisenberger and C. Rovelli, “’Sum over surfaces’ form of loop quantum gravity,” Phys. Rev. D56(1997) 3490–3508,arXiv:gr-qc/9612035

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  24. [24]

    Barrett-Crane model from a Boulatov-Ooguri field theory over a homogeneous space,

    R. De Pietri, L. Freidel, K. Krasnov, and C. Rovelli, “Barrett-Crane model from a Boulatov-Ooguri field theory over a homogeneous space,” Nucl. Phys. B574(2000) 785–806,arXiv:hep-th/9907154

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  25. [25]

    Space-time as a Feynman diagram: The Connection formulation,

    M. P. Reisenberger and C. Rovelli, “Space-time as a Feynman diagram: The Connection formulation,” Class. Quant. Grav.18(2001) 121–140,arXiv:gr-qc/0002095

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  26. [26]

    Spin foams as Feynman diagrams,

    M. Reisenberger and C. Rovelli, “Spin foams as Feynman diagrams,” in25th Johns Hopkins Workshop on Current Problems in Particle Theory: 2001: A Relativistic Spacetime Odyssey. Experiments and Theoretical Viewpoints on General Relativity and Quantum Gravity, pp. 431–448. 2, 2000.arXiv:gr-qc/0002083

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  27. [27]

    Group field theory: An Overview,

    L. Freidel, “Group field theory: An Overview,” Int. J. Theor. Phys.44(2005) 1769–1783,arXiv:hep-th/0505016

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  28. [28]

    The Basis of the Ponzano-Regge-Turaev-Viro-Ooguri quantum gravity model in the loop representation basis,

    C. Rovelli, “The Basis of the Ponzano-Regge-Turaev-Viro-Ooguri quantum gravity model in the loop representation basis,” Phys. Rev. D48(1993) 2702–2707,arXiv:hep-th/9304164

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  29. [29]

    Quantum gravity as topological quantum field theory,

    J. W. Barrett, “Quantum gravity as topological quantum field theory,” J. Math. Phys.36(1995) 6161–6179, arXiv:gr-qc/9506070

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  30. [30]

    Spin foam models,

    J. C. Baez, “Spin foam models,” Class. Quant. Grav.15(1998) 1827–1858,arXiv:gr-qc/9709052

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  31. [31]

    An Introduction to Spin Foam Models ofBFTheory and Quantum Gravity,

    J. C. Baez, “An Introduction to Spin Foam Models ofBFTheory and Quantum Gravity,” Lect. Notes Phys.543 (2000) 25–93,arXiv:gr-qc/9905087

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  32. [32]

    Ponzano-Regge model revisited I: Gauge fixing, observables and interacting spinning particles,

    L. Freidel and D. Louapre, “Ponzano-Regge model revisited I: Gauge fixing, observables and interacting spinning particles,” Class. Quant. Grav.21(2004) 5685–5726,arXiv:hep-th/0401076

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  33. [33]

    Ponzano-Regge model revisited III: Feynman diagrams and effective field theory,

    L. Freidel and E. R. Livine, “Ponzano-Regge model revisited III: Feynman diagrams and effective field theory,” Class. Quant. Grav.23(2006) 2021–2062,arXiv:hep-th/0502106

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  34. [34]

    The Ponzano-Regge model,

    J. W. Barrett and I. Naish-Guzman, “The Ponzano-Regge model,” Class. Quant. Grav.26(2009) 155014, arXiv:0803.3319

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  35. [35]

    The Ponzano–Regge cylinder and propagator for 3d quantum gravity,

    E. R. Livine, “The Ponzano–Regge cylinder and propagator for 3d quantum gravity,” Class. Quant. Grav.38(2021), no. 21, 215009,arXiv:2107.03264

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  36. [36]

    Quantum gravity kinematics from extended TQFTs,

    B. Dittrich and M. Geiller, “Quantum gravity kinematics from extended TQFTs,” New J. Phys.19(2017), no. 1, 013003,arXiv:1604.05195

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  37. [37]

    Topological lattice models in four-dimensions,

    H. Ooguri, “Topological lattice models in four-dimensions,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A7(1992) 2799–2810, arXiv:hep-th/9205090

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1992

  38. [38]

    A Categorical construction of 4-D topological quantum field theories,

    L. Crane and D. Yetter, “A Categorical construction of 4-D topological quantum field theories,” 3, 1993. arXiv:hep-th/9301062

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  39. [39]

    Spin foam diagrammatics and topological invariance,

    F. Girelli, R. Oeckl, and A. Perez, “Spin foam diagrammatics and topological invariance,” Class. Quant. Grav.19 (2002) 1093–1108,arXiv:gr-qc/0111022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  40. [40]

    Operator Spin Foam Models,

    B. Bahr, F. Hellmann, W. Kaminski, M. Kisielowski, and J. Lewandowski, “Operator Spin Foam Models,” Class. Quant. Grav.28(2011) 105003,arXiv:1010.4787

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  41. [41]

    Perfect discretization of reparametrization invariant path integrals,

    B. Bahr, B. Dittrich, and S. Steinhaus, “Perfect discretization of reparametrization invariant path integrals,” Phys. Rev. D83(2011) 105026,arXiv:1101.4775

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  42. [42]

    Perfect discretizations as a gateway to one-loop partition functions for 4D gravity,

    S. K. Asante and B. Dittrich, “Perfect discretizations as a gateway to one-loop partition functions for 4D gravity,” JHEP05(2022) 172,arXiv:2112.03307

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  43. [43]

    Discretization of 4D Poincar´ e BF theory: From groups to 2-groups,

    F. Girelli and P. Tsimiklis, “Discretization of 4D Poincar´ e BF theory: From groups to 2-groups,” Phys. Rev. D106 (2022), no. 4, 046003,arXiv:2105.01817

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  44. [44]

    Most general theory of 3d gravity: Covariant phase space, dual diffeomorphisms, and more,

    M. Geiller, C. Goeller, and N. Merino, “Most general theory of 3d gravity: Covariant phase space, dual diffeomorphisms, and more,” JHEP02(2021) 120,arXiv:2011.09873

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  45. [45]

    Lower Dimensional Gravity,

    R. Jackiw, “Lower Dimensional Gravity,” Nucl. Phys. B252(1985) 343–356

    1985

  46. [46]

    Gauge theories for gravity on a line,

    R. Jackiw, “Gauge theories for gravity on a line,” Theor. Math. Phys.92(1992) 979–987,arXiv:hep-th/9206093

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1992

  47. [47]

    Gravitation and Hamiltonian Structure in Two Space-Time Dimensions,

    C. Teitelboim, “Gravitation and Hamiltonian Structure in Two Space-Time Dimensions,” Phys. Lett. B126(1983) 41–45

    1983

  48. [48]

    A New spinfoam vertex for quantum gravity,

    E. R. Livine and S. Speziale, “A New spinfoam vertex for quantum gravity,” Phys. Rev. D76(2007) 084028, arXiv:0705.0674

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  49. [49]

    Revisiting the Simplicity Constraints and Coherent Intertwiners,

    M. Dupuis and E. R. Livine, “Revisiting the Simplicity Constraints and Coherent Intertwiners,” Class. Quant. Grav.28 (2011) 085001,arXiv:1006.5666

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  50. [50]

    Spinors and Voros star-product for Group Field Theory: First Contact,

    M. Dupuis, F. Girelli, and E. R. Livine, “Spinors and Voros star-product for Group Field Theory: First Contact,” Phys. Rev. D86(2012) 105034,arXiv:1107.5693

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  51. [51]

    Holomorphic Simplicity Constraints for 4d Spinfoam Models,

    M. Dupuis and E. R. Livine, “Holomorphic Simplicity Constraints for 4d Spinfoam Models,” Class. Quant. Grav.28 47 (2011) 215022,arXiv:1104.3683

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  52. [52]

    Holomorphic Lorentzian Simplicity Constraints,

    M. Dupuis, L. Freidel, E. R. Livine, and S. Speziale, “Holomorphic Lorentzian Simplicity Constraints,” J. Math. Phys. 53(2012) 032502,arXiv:1107.5274

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  53. [53]

    3D Quantum Gravity and Effective Noncommutative Quantum Field Theory,

    L. Freidel and E. R. Livine, “3D Quantum Gravity and Effective Noncommutative Quantum Field Theory,” Phys. Rev. Lett.96(2006) 221301,arXiv:hep-th/0512113

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  54. [54]

    Noncommutative harmonic analysis, sampling theory and the Duflo map in 2+1 quantum gravity,

    L. Freidel and S. Majid, “Noncommutative harmonic analysis, sampling theory and the Duflo map in 2+1 quantum gravity,” Class. Quant. Grav.25(2008) 045006,arXiv:hep-th/0601004

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  55. [55]

    A Note on B-observables in Ponzano-Regge 3d Quantum Gravity,

    E. R. Livine and J. P. Ryan, “A Note on B-observables in Ponzano-Regge 3d Quantum Gravity,” Class. Quant. Grav. 26(2009) 035013,arXiv:0808.0025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  56. [56]

    A New Spin Foam Model for 4d Gravity,

    L. Freidel and K. Krasnov, “A New Spin Foam Model for 4d Gravity,” Class. Quant. Grav.25(2008) 125018, arXiv:0708.1595

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  57. [57]

    Consistently Solving the Simplicity Constraints for Spinfoam Quantum Gravity,

    E. R. Livine and S. Speziale, “Consistently Solving the Simplicity Constraints for Spinfoam Quantum Gravity,” EPL81 (2008), no. 5, 50004,arXiv:0708.1915

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  58. [58]

    2-d manifold independent spin foam theory,

    R. Livine, A. Perez, and C. Rovelli, “2-d manifold independent spin foam theory,”arXiv:gr-qc/0102051

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  59. [59]

    Loop gravity and spin foam: Covariant methods for the nonperturbative quantization of general relativity,

    E. R. Livine, “Loop gravity and spin foam: Covariant methods for the nonperturbative quantization of general relativity,” other thesis, 6, 2003

    2003

  60. [60]

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

    E. Witten, “(2+1)-Dimensional Gravity as an Exactly Soluble System,” Nucl. Phys. B311(1988) 46

    1988

  61. [61]

    Spin Foams and Canonical Quantization,

    S. Alexandrov, M. Geiller, and K. Noui, “Spin Foams and Canonical Quantization,” SIGMA8(2012) 055, arXiv:1112.1961

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  62. [62]

    Semi-classical Approximations to 3j and 6j Coefficients for Quantum Mechanical Coupling of Angular Momenta,

    K. Schulten and R. G. Gordon, “Semi-classical Approximations to 3j and 6j Coefficients for Quantum Mechanical Coupling of Angular Momenta,” J. Math. Phys.16(1975) 1971–1988

    1975

  63. [63]

    Exact Recursive Evaluation of 3J and 6J Coefficients for Quantum Mechanical Coupling of Angular Momenta,

    K. Schulten and R. G. Gordon, “Exact Recursive Evaluation of 3J and 6J Coefficients for Quantum Mechanical Coupling of Angular Momenta,” J. Math. Phys.16(1975) 1961–1970

    1975

  64. [64]

    Classical 6j-symbols and the tetrahedron,

    J. Roberts, “Classical 6j-symbols and the tetrahedron,” Geom. Topol.3(1999), no. 1, 21–66,arXiv:math-ph/9812013

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  65. [65]

    Asymptotics of 6j and 10j symbols,

    L. Freidel and D. Louapre, “Asymptotics of 6j and 10j symbols,” Class. Quant. Grav.20(2003) 1267–1294, arXiv:hep-th/0209134

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  66. [66]

    Dupuis,Spin Foam Models for Quantum Gravity and semi-classical limit

    M. Dupuis,Spin Foam Models for Quantum Gravity and semi-classical limit. PhD thesis, Lyon, Ecole Normale Superieure, 2010.arXiv:1104.2765

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  67. [67]

    Tunneling of quantum geometries in spinfoams,

    P. Don` a, H. M. Haggard, C. Rovelli, and F. Vidotto, “Tunneling of quantum geometries in spinfoams,” Physical Review D109(May, 2024)

    2024

  68. [68]

    Semiclassical limits of simplicial quantum gravity,

    J. W. Barrett and T. J. Foxon, “Semiclassical limits of simplicial quantum gravity,” Class. Quant. Grav.11(1994) 543–556,arXiv:gr-qc/9310016

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  69. [69]

    Semiclassical limits of extended Racah coefficients,

    S. Davids, “Semiclassical limits of extended Racah coefficients,” J. Math. Phys.41(2000) 924–943, arXiv:gr-qc/9807061

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  70. [70]

    Discrete and continuum approaches to three-dimensional quantum gravity,

    H. Ooguri and N. Sasakura, “Discrete and continuum approaches to three-dimensional quantum gravity,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A6(1991) 3591–3600,arXiv:hep-th/9108006

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1991

  71. [71]

    Non-Perturbative 3D Quantum Gravity: Quantum Boundary States and Exact Partition Function,

    C. Goeller, E. R. Livine, and A. Riello, “Non-Perturbative 3D Quantum Gravity: Quantum Boundary States and Exact Partition Function,” Gen. Rel. Grav.52(2020), no. 3, 24,arXiv:1912.01968

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  72. [72]

    Ponzano-Regge model revisited II: Equivalence with Chern-Simons,

    L. Freidel and D. Louapre, “Ponzano-Regge model revisited II: Equivalence with Chern-Simons,”arXiv:gr-qc/0410141

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  73. [73]

    Simplicial moves on complexes and manifolds,

    W. B. R. Lickorish, “Simplicial moves on complexes and manifolds,” Geometry and Topology Monographs2(1999), no. 299-320, 314,arXiv:math/9911256

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  74. [74]

    Recurrence relations for spin foam vertices,

    V. Bonzom, E. R. Livine, and S. Speziale, “Recurrence relations for spin foam vertices,” Class. Quant. Grav.27(2010) 125002,arXiv:0911.2204

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  75. [75]

    Dirac’s discrete hypersurface deformation algebras,

    V. Bonzom and B. Dittrich, “Dirac’s discrete hypersurface deformation algebras,” Class. Quant. Grav.30(2013) 205013,arXiv:1304.5983

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  76. [76]

    Bubble divergences from cellular cohomology,

    V. Bonzom and M. Smerlak, “Bubble divergences from cellular cohomology,” Lett. Math. Phys.93(2010) 295–305, arXiv:1004.5196

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  77. [77]

    Bubble divergences from twisted cohomology,

    V. Bonzom and M. Smerlak, “Bubble divergences from twisted cohomology,” Commun. Math. Phys.312(2012) 399–426,arXiv:1008.1476

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  78. [78]

    The Hamiltonian constraint in 3d Riemannian loop quantum gravity,

    V. Bonzom and L. Freidel, “The Hamiltonian constraint in 3d Riemannian loop quantum gravity,” Class. Quant. Grav. 28(2011) 195006,arXiv:1101.3524

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  79. [79]

    A New Hamiltonian for the Topological BF phase with spinor networks,

    V. Bonzom and E. R. Livine, “A New Hamiltonian for the Topological BF phase with spinor networks,” J. Math. Phys. 53(2012) 072201,arXiv:1110.3272

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  80. [80]

    Quantum Field Theory and the Jones Polynomial,

    E. Witten, “Quantum Field Theory and the Jones Polynomial,” Commun. Math. Phys.121(1989) 351–399

    1989

Showing first 80 references.