Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 38 references

Gauging the Schwarzian Action

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper constructs a locally SL(2,R) invariant analogue of the Schwarzian derivative and shows that on a circle its action has infinitely many holonomy-labelled topological sectors.

desk verdict The gauge-invariant Schwarzian construction is real and checkable, but the topological-sector classification overreaches. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.04091 v3 pith:X4G62JCX submitted 2025-07-05 math-ph gr-qchep-thmath.MP

A. Pinzul , A. Stern , Chuang Xu This is my paper · ORCID
classification math-phgr-qchep-thmath.MP
keywords gaugedSchwarzianderivativeSL(2R)gaugesymmetrycompositefieldtopologicalsectorsJackiw-TeitelboimgravityNoetherchargesfractionallinearrepresentationholonomy
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

The paper promotes the global $SL(2,\mathbb{R})$ symmetry of the Schwarzian derivative to a local gauge symmetry. The key step is to replace the field $f$ by a composite field that transforms linearly under the group, then covariantize all derivatives; this yields a gauge-invariant object $S[A]_t(f)$ that reduces to the ordinary Schwarzian at $A=0$. On the real line the new gauge field can be gauged away, so the theory is unchanged, but on $S^1$ the action splits into infinitely many topological sectors labeled by the holonomy of the $SL(2,\mathbb{R})$ connection. The authors propose that these sectors describe defects in Jackiw-Teitelboim gravity, making the gauged Schwarzian a boundary theory that naturally accommodates bulk insertions.

What carries the argument

The object that carries the argument is the composite field $\boldsymbol{f}=(T_0+fT_1+f^2T_2)/\dot{f}$, an $sl(2,\mathbb{R})$-valued nilpotent object built from the fractional-linear field $f$ and its derivative, which transforms in the adjoint representation under global $SL(2,\mathbb{R})$. Gauging replaces it by $\boldsymbol{f}_A=(1+2\operatorname{tr}(Af))^{-1}\boldsymbol{f}$, and the covariant derivative acts by $D_A\boldsymbol{f}_A=\dot{\boldsymbol{f}}_A-[A,\boldsymbol{f}_A]$. The gauge-invariant Schwarzian analogue is the bilinear $\operatorname{tr}(D_A D_A\boldsymbol{f}_A)^2$, whose expansion in $A$ yields the Noether-charge coupling at first order and a combination of quadratic $A$ terms at second order.

What would settle it

Take a constant connection $A=c(T_0+T_2)\,d\tau$ on $S^1$. Its holonomy is an elliptic (rotation) element of $SL(2,\mathbb{R})$, so its conjugacy class is compact, while the $T_1$ direction used in Eq. (4.17) is hyperbolic; gauge transformations connected to the identity preserve holonomy conjugacy classes, so no such transformation brings $A$ to the $T_1$ direction and the winding number (4.18) is never defined. If this connection is allowed in the theory, the claimed $\mathbb{Z}$ labeling omits elliptic and parabolic sectors.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that $S[A]_t(f)=\operatorname{tr}(D_A D_A \boldsymbol{f}_A)^2$ is the correct gauge-invariant analogue of the Schwarzian derivative: it is invariant under local $SL(2,\mathbb{R})$ transformations, reduces to the ordinary Schwarzian when $A=0$, and its first-order term in $A$ reproduces the coupling of the Noether charge $N$ to the gauge potential. The action built from it is equivalent to the usual Schwarzian action on topologically trivial domains, but on a circle the gauge potentials cannot all be removed, leaving infinitely many vacua labeled by a winding number $n\in\mathbb{Z}$. Only the $n=0$ sector preserves the global $SL(2,\mathbb{R})$ symmetry; the others break it to $U(1)$ and are connected to it by large gauge transformations. Applied to the boundary of JT gravity, the gauged action makes the total BF plus boundary action differentiable under the boundary condition $B|_{\partial D}=2N$, and the nontrivial sectors are interpreted as boundary descriptions of bulk defects.

Load-bearing premise

The classification of sectors rests on assuming that every $SL(2,\mathbb{R})$ connection on the circle can be carried by a small gauge transformation into the single $T_1$ direction used to define the winding number, an assumption that leaves out connections whose holonomy is elliptic or parabolic.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On the real line the gauge field can be completely gauged away, so the gauged Schwarzian action is equivalent to the ordinary Schwarzian action; the new physics appears only on nontrivial domains such as $S^1$.
  • On $S^1$ the holonomy of the $SL(2,\mathbb{R})$ connection labels infinitely many gauge-inequivalent vacua by an integer winding number, and only the $n=0$ vacuum preserves the global $SL(2,\mathbb{R})$ symmetry.
  • Large gauge transformations connect the sectors by shifting the winding number by an integer; in the quantum theory their representation can be a phase, playing the role of a $\theta$-angle.
  • Replacing the JT boundary Schwarzian action by the gauged action requires the boundary condition $B|_{\partial D}=2N$ and renders the total BF plus boundary action differentiable.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Going beyond the paper: applying the same composite-field recipe to other nonlinear group actions (for instance $SU(1,1)$ or Virasoro coadjoint orbits) would produce a family of gauged Schwarzian-like theories whose sectors may have their own bulk interpretations.
  • A natural test of the JT-defect identification is to compute gauged boundary correlators in a nontrivial sector and compare them with known defect-insertion amplitudes in the bulk; agreement would support the correspondence, disagreement would localize the mismatch.
  • The $\theta$-angle-like phase attached to large gauge transformations suggests the quantum partition function on $S^1$ may resum or project out sectors; studying it as a function of that phase would reveal whether the infinite set of vacua survives quantization.
  • Because elliptic and parabolic holonomies escape the integer winding label, the full space of boundary connections is probably richer than $\mathbb{Z}$; a refined classification would add continuous labels for those conjugacy classes and might correspond to additional defect types.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper promotes the global SL(2,R) symmetry of the Schwarzian derivative to a local gauge symmetry. The main construction is algebraic: from the fractional-linear representative f(t) the authors build a composite field f = (T0 + f T1 + f^2 T2)/\dot f that transforms in the adjoint representation, then define a gauged version f_A and covariant derivatives D_A. The gauge-invariant Schwarzian is defined as S[A]_t(f) = tr(D_A D_A f_A)^2, which reduces to the ordinary Schwarzian for A=0. The paper derives Noether charges, the first- and second-order expansion of S[A] in the gauge field, and the gauge-invariant action I[A]. For an S^1 domain it claims infinitely many topological sectors labelled by a winding number (4.18), with integer labels interpreted as vacua and non-integer labels as defect configurations in JT gravity.

Significance. If correct, the construction gives a clean, parameter-free way to gauge the nonlinearly realized SL(2,R) symmetry of the Schwarzian derivative, with an explicit covariant object that reduces to the known Schwarzian at A=0. The composite-field method is potentially generalizable to other nonlinear group actions, and the proposed coupling to JT boundary dynamics is concrete and falsifiable. The derivation in §4.1 is internally consistent and the paper is honest about the order of the expansion; the Noether-charge identification (3.15) and the first-order coupling (4.13) are worked out explicitly. These are genuine strengths. The main advertised novelty beyond the local construction is the topological-sector interpretation on S^1, and that is exactly where the paper currently has a load-bearing gap.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.2, Eq. (4.17)] The claim that any sl(2,R) connection on S^1 can be brought, by a small gauge transformation h^(0) connected to the identity, everywhere into the T1 direction is not valid for the basis (2.7)-(2.8). In that basis T1 is the noncompact dilation generator, so only connections whose holonomy is conjugate to exp(R T1) (hyperbolic holonomy) admit such a gauge. Connections with elliptic or parabolic holonomy are smooth one-forms on S^1 but are not conjugate to the T1 direction; for example, a connection proportional to the compact generator of sl(2,R) is elliptic. For these connections the quantity (4.18) is not defined and the label α does not exist. This is the load-bearing premise for the claimed sector classification, and the stress-test concern about this point lands. The authors must either restrict the statement to hyperbolic holonomy or replace it with a classification that also handles elliptic and parabolic conjugacy classes.
  2. [§4.2, paragraph after Eq. (4.18)] The proposed large gauge transformations g^(m) = e^{-2imτ T1} are not SL(2,R)-valued functions on S^1 with the conventions (2.7)-(2.8). For T1 = diag(-1/2, 1/2), the matrix diag(e^{imτ}, e^{-imτ}) has complex entries for m≠0 and therefore lies in SL(2,C), not in the real gauge group SL(2,R). Consequently the statement that α is defined modulo Z, the identification of non-integer α as non-vacuum configurations, and the analogy with a QCD θ-angle are not supported by the gauge group used in the rest of the paper. If a compact generator is intended instead, its commutation relations and trace properties differ from (2.8)-(2.9), and the notation and the computations in this subsection must be corrected consistently.
  3. [§4.2, Eqs. (4.18)-(4.19)] There is a numerical inconsistency between the winding-number definition and its representative gauge field. Substituting A^(n) = -2n T1 into (4.18) gives n = (1/π) ∮ tr(T1(-2nT1)) dτ = (1/π)(-2n)(1/2)(2π) = -2n, not n. Thus the claimed label n and the representative A^(n) differ by a factor -2. Either the coefficient in (4.19), or the trace normalization in (4.18), or the sign convention for the large transformations must be corrected before the sector labels can be taken as meaningful.
  4. [§5] The physical idea that a boundary connection with nontrivial holonomy cannot be extended to a flat connection on the disk is correct, and the defect interpretation of JT gravity therefore survives in a broad sense. However, the precise statement that the sectors are labelled by n∈Z and by α mod Z inherits the problems of §4.2. Once the holonomy classification is fixed, the sentences around the identification of the nontrivial boundary sectors with bulk defects should be rephrased to match the corrected sector structure.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Concluding remarks] The text writes π(SL(2,R)) = Z; this should be π1(SL(2,R)) = Z.
  2. [Appendix A heading] The heading contains a typo: 'Scwarzian derivative' should be 'Schwarzian derivative'.
  3. [Eq. (2.9)] The metric matrix [γ_ij] is typeset incorrectly in the text; it should appear as a 3×3 matrix with the given nonzero entries -2, 1, -2 on the appropriate positions and zeros elsewhere.
  4. [Eq. (A.4)] The notation trA^2 and trfA is ambiguous; it should be clarified that trA^2 means tr(A^2) and trfA means tr(fA), not (tr A)^2 or a product of traces.
  5. [Eq. (4.16)] The trivializing gauge transformation assumes that A(t) decays or has suitable boundary conditions as t→±∞ and that g(-∞) is defined; these conditions should be stated explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the gauge-invariant Schwarzian is an explicit algebraic extension reducing to the known Schwarzian at A=0; self-citations are contextual; the flagged Eq. (4.17) gap is a correctness risk, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs. The composite field (2.13) is constructed explicitly from f and its derivative, the gauged version f_A (4.5) is built by covariantizing D_A f, and the gauge-invariant Schwarzian (4.10) is defined as tr(D_A D_A f_A)^2; the reduction S[0]_t f = S_t f at A=0 is a direct substitution property of a genuine extension, not a hidden fit or a relabeling of the Schwarzian. No parameters are fitted to data and no 'prediction' is statistically forced. The identities relating tr u^2 to S_t f (2.16) and the first-order expansion to the Noether coupling (4.13) are derived by explicit computation, not assumed. The only self-citations are [33] (standard zweibein decomposition details in Sec. 5, 'see, e.g., [33] for more details') and [38] (a contrast remark in the conclusion); neither is load-bearing, and the JT boundary/defect claims rest on external references [14], [15], [19], [20]. The reader-flagged weakness at Eq. (4.17)-(4.18), where any SL(2,R) connection on S^1 is asserted to be gaugeable into the T^1 direction so that a winding number can be defined, is a mathematical-correctness risk: connections with elliptic or parabolic holonomy are not conjugate to exp(R T^1), so the label (4.18) is undefined for generic connections. That is a gap in the topological-sector story, not a circular step: it does not make any conclusion equivalent to its premises. The 'infinitely many vacua labeled by n in Z' claim is therefore incomplete for elliptic/parabolic sectors, but the construction itself does not import its own conclusion, and the paper explicitly notes that gauge transformations, not connections, are classified by pi_1(SL(2,R)) = Z. Overall, the derivation chain is independent, and the minor self-citations are contextual rather than load-bearing.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No data fitting or empirical constants are used. The gauge potentials A are standard auxiliary gauge fields, and the topological label alpha is a holonomy parameter rather than a fitted constant.

assumptions (3)
  • standard math pi_1(SL(2,R)) = Z, so gauge transformations on S^1 fall into homotopy classes G^(n).
    Used in Section 4.2 to label topological sectors and large gauge transformations; this is a standard result in Lie group topology.
  • ad hoc to paper Every connection on the boundary can, after a small gauge transformation h^(0), be brought to the T1 direction.
    Assumed in Eq. (4.17) to define the winding number n. This only holds for holonomies conjugate to the hyperbolic subgroup; elliptic and parabolic holonomy classes are not covered. This is the main technical caveat.
  • domain assumption The BF formulation of JT gravity, with the boundary action replaced by the gauged Schwarzian and the constraint B|partial D = 2N, is the correct starting point for the defect interpretation.
    Section 5 assumes this bulk-boundary coupling (Eqs. 5.12 and 5.13); it is a proposed framework, not a consequence derived from first principles.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gauging the Schwarzian Action." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X4G62JCX

@misc{pith2026250704091,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gauging the Schwarzian Action},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X4G62JCX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.04091}
}
abstract

In this work, we promote the global $SL(2,\mathbb{R})$ symmetry of the Schwarzian derivative to a local gauge symmetry. To achieve this, we develop a procedure that potentially can be generalized beyond the $SL(2,\mathbb{R})$ case: We first construct a composite field from the fundamental field and its derivative such that it transforms linearly under the group action. Then we write down its gauge-covariant extension and apply standard gauging techniques. Applying this to the fractional linear representation of $SL(2,\mathbb{R})$, we obtain the gauge-invariant analogue of the Schwarzian derivative as a bilinear invariant of covariant derivatives of the composite field. The framework enables a simple construction of N\"other charges associated with the original global symmetry. The gauge-invariant Schwarzian action introduces $SL(2,\mathbb{R})$ gauge potentials, allowing for locally invariant couplings to additional fields, such as fermions. While these potentials can be gauged away on topologically trivial domains, non-trivial topologies (e.g., $S^1$) lead to distinct topological sectors. We mention that in the context of two-dimensional gravity, these sectors could correspond to previously discussed defects in the bulk theory.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ovsienko, S

    V. Ovsienko, S. Tabachnikov, ”What Is . . . the Schwarzian Derivative?” , AMS Notices, 56 (1): 34 (2009)

    work page 2009

  2. [2]

    Osgood, ”Old and New on the Schwarzian Derivative, ”In: Duren, P., Heinonen, J., Osgood, B., Palka, B

    B. Osgood, ”Old and New on the Schwarzian Derivative, ”In: Duren, P., Heinonen, J., Osgood, B., Palka, B. (eds) Quasiconformal Mappings and Anal- ysis. Springer, New York, NY. doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-0605-7-16

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-0605-7-16

  3. [3]

    Coadjoint Orbits of the Virasoro Group,

    E. Witten, “Coadjoint Orbits of the Virasoro Group,” Commun. Math. Phys. 114, 1 (1988) doi:10.1007/BF01218287

    doi:10.1007/bf01218287 1988

  4. [4]

    Path Integral Quantization of the Coadjoint Orbits of the Virasoro Group and 2D Gravity,

    A. Alekseev and S. L. Shatashvili, “Path Integral Quantization of the Coadjoint Orbits of the Virasoro Group and 2D Gravity,” Nucl. Phys. B323, 719-733 (1989) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(89)90130-2

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

  5. [5]

    Towards Bosonization of Virasoro Coadjoint Orbits,

    A. Alekseev, O. Chekeres and D. R. Youmans, “Towards Bosonization of Virasoro Coadjoint Orbits,” Annales Henri Poincare25, no.1, 5-34 (2024) doi:10.1007/s00023-023-01294-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s00023-023-01294-1 2024

  6. [6]

    A so(2,2) extension of JT gravity via the Virasoro-Kac-Moody semidirect product,

    G. Chirco, L. Vacchiano and P. Vitale, “A so(2,2) extension of JT gravity via the Virasoro-Kac-Moody semidirect product,” [arXiv:2410.10768 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  7. [7]

    A Schwarzian on the stretched horizon,

    S. Carlip, “A Schwarzian on the stretched horizon,” Gen. Rel. Grav.54, no.6, 53 (2022) doi:10.1007/s10714-022-02940-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s10714-022-02940-5 2022

  8. [8]

    Complexity Geometry and Schwarzian Dynam- ics,

    H. W. Lin and L. Susskind, “Complexity Geometry and Schwarzian Dynam- ics,” JHEP01, 087 (2020) doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2020)087

    doi:10.1007/jhep01(2020)087 2020

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Gapless spin-fluid ground state in a random quantum Heisenberg magnet,

    S. Sachdev and J. Ye, “Gapless spin-fluid ground state in a random quantum Heisenberg magnet,” Phys. Rev. Lett.,70, 21, 3339–3342 (1993), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.70.3339

    1993 doi

  2. [10]

    A simple model of quantum holography,

    A. Kitaev, “A simple model of quantum holography,” Proceed- ings of the KITP Strings Seminar and Entanglement 2015 Pro- gram (Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics, Santa Barbara, 2015), http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/entangled15/. 20

    2015

  3. [11]

    Remarks on the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model,

    J. Maldacena and D. Stanford, “Remarks on the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model,” Phys. Rev. D94, no.10, 106002 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.106002

    2016 doi

  4. [12]

    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

  5. [13]

    Lower Dimensional Gravity,

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

    1985

  6. [14]

    Conformal symmetry and its break- ing in two dimensional Nearly Anti-de-Sitter space,

    J. Maldacena, D. Stanford and Z. Yang, “Conformal symmetry and its break- ing in two dimensional Nearly Anti-de-Sitter space,” PTEP2016, no.12, 12C104 (2016) doi:10.1093/ptep/ptw124

    2016 doi

  7. [15]

    Les Houches lectures on two-dimensional gravity and hologra- phy,

    G. J. Turiaci, “Les Houches lectures on two-dimensional gravity and hologra- phy,” [arXiv:2412.09537 [hep-th]]

  8. [16]

    ”Conformal Schwarzian derivatives and conformally invariant quantization.” Int

    Bouarroudj, S. ”Conformal Schwarzian derivatives and conformally invariant quantization.” Int. Math. Res. Not.29, 1553 (2002)

    2002

  9. [17]

    One-dimensional Quantum Gravity and the Schwarzian theory,

    D. Anninos, D. M. Hofman and S. Vitouladitis, “One-dimensional Quantum Gravity and the Schwarzian theory,” JHEP03, 121 (2022) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2022)121

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

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

    H. T. ¨Ozer and A. Filiz, “On the explicit asymptotic symmetry breaking of sl(3,R) Jackiw–Teitelboim gravity,” Eur. Phys. J. C85, no.5, 563 (2025)

    2025

  11. [19]

    Defects in Jackiw-Teitelboim Quantum Gravity,

    T. G. Mertens and G. J. Turiaci, “Defects in Jackiw-Teitelboim Quantum Gravity,”JHEP08, 127 (2019) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2019)127

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    Revisiting the second order formalism of JT grav- ity,

    G. Lin and M. Usatyuk, “Revisiting the second order formalism of JT grav- ity,” [arXiv:2310.16081 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  13. [21]

    Gauging the complex SYK model,

    Z. Zhang and C. Peng, “Gauging the complex SYK model,” [arXiv:2502.18595 [hep-th]]

  14. [22]

    Solving 3d gravity with Virasoro TQFT,

    S. Collier, L. Eberhardt and M. Zhang, “Solving 3d gravity with Virasoro TQFT,” SciPost Phys.15, no.4, 151 (2023) doi:10.21468/SciPostPhys.15.4.151

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    Sachdev–Ye–Kitaev model as Liouville quantum mechanics,

    D. Bagrets, A. Altland and A. Kamenev, “Sachdev–Ye–Kitaev model as Liouville quantum mechanics,” Nucl. Phys. B911, 191-205 (2016) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2016.08.002

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    Solving the Schwarzian via the Conformal Bootstrap,

    T. G. Mertens, G. J. Turiaci and H. L. Verlinde, “Solving the Schwarzian via the Conformal Bootstrap,” JHEP08, 136 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2017)136

    2017 doi

  17. [25]

    A variant of Schwarzian mechanics,

    A. Galajinsky, “A variant of Schwarzian mechanics,” Nucl. Phys. B936, 661-667 (2018) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2018.10.004

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

    Conformal Invariance in Quantum Mechanics,

    V. de Alfaro, S. Fubini and G. Furlan, “Conformal Invariance in Quantum Mechanics,” Nuovo Cim. A34, 569 (1976) doi:10.1007/BF02785666

    1976 doi

  19. [27]

    The Schwarzian theory — origins,

    T. G. Mertens, “The Schwarzian theory — origins,” JHEP05, 036 (2018) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2018)036 21

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    Gauge theory of two-dimensional gravity,

    T. Fukuyama and K. Kamimura, “Gauge theory of two-dimensional gravity,” Phys. Lett. B,160259-262 (1985)

    1985

  21. [29]

    Gauge theory of two-dimensional quantum gravity,

    K. Isler, C. A. Trugenberger, “Gauge theory of two-dimensional quantum gravity,” Phys. Rev. Lett.63834-836 (1989)

    1989

  22. [30]

    Gauge theory of topological gravity in 1+1 dimensions,

    A.H. Chamseddine and D. Wyler, “Gauge theory of topological gravity in 1+1 dimensions,” Phys. Lett. B,22875-78 (1989)

    1989

  23. [31]

    Gauge theories for gravity on a line,

    R. Jackiw, “Gauge theories for gravity on a line,” Theor. Math. Phys.92, 979-987 (1992)

    1992

  24. [32]

    BFgravity,

    M. Celada, D. Gonz´ alez and M. Montesinos, “BFgravity,” Class. Quant. Grav.33, no.21, 213001 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    Embedding space approach to Jackiw-Teitelboim gravity,

    A. Pinzul, A. Stern and C. Xu, “Embedding space approach to Jackiw-Teitelboim gravity,” Phys. Rev. D110, no.8, 084033 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.084033 [arXiv:2406.05593 [hep-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Role of conformal three geometry in the dynamics of gravita- tion,

    J. W. York, Jr., “Role of conformal three geometry in the dynamics of gravita- tion,” Phys. Rev. Lett.28, 1082-1085 (1972) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.28.1082

    1972 doi

  27. [35]

    Action Integrals and Parti- tion Functions in Quantum Gravity,

    G. W. Gibbons and S. W. Hawking, “Action Integrals and Parti- tion Functions in Quantum Gravity,” Phys. Rev. D15, 2752-2756 (1977) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.15.2752

    1977 doi

  28. [36]

    Boundary Terms, Variational Principles and Higher Derivative Modified Gravity,

    E. Dyer and K. Hinterbichler, “Boundary Terms, Variational Principles and Higher Derivative Modified Gravity,” Phys. Rev. D79, 024028 (2009)

    2009

  29. [37]

    Classifying boundary condi- tions in JT gravity: from energy-branes toα-branes,

    A. Goel, L. V. Iliesiu, J. Kruthoff and Z. Yang, “Classifying boundary condi- tions in JT gravity: from energy-branes toα-branes,” JHEP04, 069 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    NONLINEAR MODELS AS GAUGE THEORIES,

    A. P. Balachandran, A. Stern and C. G. Trahern, “NONLINEAR MODELS AS GAUGE THEORIES,” Phys. Rev. D19, 2416 (1979) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.19.2416). 22

    1979 doi

Pith tools

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