Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

This paper claims that the gravitational path integral can be written entirely in terms of frame-dressed relational observables, making it manifestly gauge-invariant without ghosts or anomalies and giving a perspective-neutral object that c

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 07:21 UTC pith:Y2TJHSR4

load-bearing objection A genuinely new but not-yet-defined relational path integral: the formal machinery is impressive and honestly labeled symbolic, yet the central measure and meta-atlas are obstructed by degenerate orbits (Killing directions) that the paper does not resolve. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.21463 v2 pith:Y2TJHSR4 submitted 2026-07-23 hep-th gr-qcquant-ph

Relational path integral, effective actions and quantum frame covariance in gravity

Sergio E. Aguilar-Gutierrez , Renata Ferrero , Philipp A. Hoehn , Luca Marchetti This is my paper
classification hep-th gr-qcquant-ph MSC 83C4581S40 PACS 04.60.-m
keywords quantum reference framesrelational observablesgravitational path integralgauge invariancerelational spacetimeframe covarianceeffective actionrelational vacua
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 proposes a relational, bundle-geometric formulation of the gravitational path integral built on quantum reference frames. It claims that by integrating over frame-dressed observables rather than gauge-fixed fields, the path integral becomes gauge-invariant without ghosts or anomalies, and it becomes independent of any single frame while still encoding every internal perspective and the transformations between them. If correct, sharp correlators and time evolution defined in one reference frame become fuzzy in another, and new frame-dependent notions of vacuum and effective action appear. This matters because it offers a route around long-standing technical obstacles—non-anomalous measures, Gribov-type obstructions, and background-dependent regulators—in defining quantum gravity amplitudes and renormalization.

Core claim

The central claim is that a manifestly gauge-invariant path integral Z = ∫ Dμ_R[Ô_R] e^{iS_R[Ô_R]} can be defined over relational observables, with no gauge fixing and no ghost sector. The measure Dμ is gauge-invariant and non-anomalous because it descends from a gauge-invariant metric on field space, with the gauge-orbit volume divided out rather than fixed. From this, the authors derive three qualitative predictions: n-point correlators that are sharp at fixed events in one frame become field-dependent ('fuzzy') in another; evolution kernels translate between frames only at the boundaries, so temporal locality is frame-relative; and frame-dependent relational Hartle-Hawking and asymptotic

What carries the argument

The central object is a dynamical frame field R[φ]: a field-dependent, gauge-covariant coordinate system on spacetime, akin to a tetrad for the diffeomorphism group. It maps spacetime M to a 'relational spacetime' O_R, and any gauge-covariant tensor T is dressed into the gauge-invariant relational observable O_{T|R} = R⋆T. Combined with a field-space bundle (metric G, orbit metric γ, measure Dμ = ε̂ √detγ), frames provide local fiber-adapted coordinates (R^α, O^A_R) and a 'meta-atlas' that patches the path integral over both spacetime and field space. This machinery eliminates gauge redundancy by dividing it out rather than fixing it, and it supplies the map U_{R→R'} between perspectives tha

Load-bearing premise

The construction assumes a global 'meta-atlas' of dynamical frames covering the whole of spacetime and of field space, with an invertible orbit metric and a regularized measure that stays non-anomalous under both gauge transformations and frame changes; the authors state that the explicit construction is deferred to future work.

What would settle it

Compute the regulated measure in a concrete finite-dimensional toy model or a low-dimensional gravity model: if the determinant factor √detγ (or its regulated version) develops a non-trivial anomaly under a frame change, or if a Gribov-type obstruction prevents covering field space with local frames, then the path integral identity, the frame-change kernels, and the vacuum spectra would be ill-defined, and the central claim would fail.

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

If this is right

  • No gauge fixing or ghost sector is needed: the relational path integral is manifestly gauge-invariant, and standard gauge-fixed versions, complete with a Faddeev-Popov determinant, are recovered as special cases when the frame is fixed.
  • Sharp correlators and time evolution are frame-relative: what is a sharply localized n-point function or a unitary evolution in one frame becomes a state-dependent, smeared insertion in another.
  • A new spectrum of relational vacua emerges: frame-dependent Hartle-Hawking states and asymptotic ground states of relational bulk Hamiltonians, with a vacuum for one frame generally seen as excited in another.
  • Gauge-invariant, frame-dependent effective actions can be defined by coupling sources only to relational observables, giving 1PI correlators with direct physical interpretation and preparing a relational renormalization group.
  • The relational path integral suggests perturbative expansions around background solutions of relational observables, potentially sidestepping linearization instabilities that plague standard metric perturbations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If correct, the framework implies that event sharpness is not absolute even at the level of correlators: any experiment built from fields will see localization only relative to a chosen dressing, which could sharpen current debates about operational spacetime localization in quantum gravity.
  • A concrete testable extension is to evaluate the frame-change kernels in a mechanical toy model with one constraint and check that they reproduce the known Page-Wootters reduction map of the perspective-neutral formalism; the authors indicate such a check is in preparation, but the prediction is checkable now.
  • The frame-dependence of vacua suggests a gravitational analogue of the Unruh effect: an observer whose frame is accelerated or otherwise reoriented relative to a chosen relational frame may attribute particles to a state that the original frame calls empty, a phenomenon that could be probed in de Sitter or black-hole settings.
  • The off-shell frame non-covariance, parametrized by a frame-Nielsen identity, implies that frame changes act like redefinitions of inessential couplings, which may connect relational effective actions to existing results on scheme and gauge independence in asymptotic-safety studies—though the paper only gestures at this link.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a relational formulation of the gravitational path integral using dynamical frames (QRFs). It defines a gauge-invariant measure on the quotient F/G and a relational path integral Z = ∫_{F̂} Dμ_R[O_R] exp(iS_R[O_R]) (Eq. 5), claimed to be ghost-free, non-anomalous, and equivalent to Faddeev-Popov gauge-fixing (Eq. 6/C10). The framework is presented as perspective-neutral, encoding all internal frame perspectives and frame-change transformations. From this, the paper derives frame-relative fuzziness of correlators (Eqs. 8–9), frame-dependent evolution and frame-change kernels (Eqs. 13–14), relational Hartle-Hawking and ground states (Eqs. 15–16), and frame-dependent effective actions with a frame-Nielsen identity (Eqs. 10–12, G4). The construction is explicitly symbolic and relies on a meta-atlas of frames (App. D) and several forthcoming papers for key identities.

Significance. If the formal construction can be made rigorous, the paper offers a novel organizing principle for gauge-invariant path integrals in quantum gravity, connecting DeWitt's geometric approach to modern QRF techniques. The explicit measure (Eq. C8) and its relation to Faddeev-Popov (Eq. C10) are useful contributions, and the discussion of measure ambiguities (App. C4) is well-informed. The conceptual predictions—frame-relative sharpness, frame-dependent vacua, and relational effective actions—are thought-provoking and would generalize QRF results to gravity. However, the manuscript is clearly programmatic: several load-bearing statements are deferred to forthcoming papers, and the global regularity of the construction is not established. The symbolic level is appropriate for a proposal, but the central claims are conditional on unresolved technical points.

major comments (4)
  1. [App. C2–C3, Eqs. (C2), (C3), (C8)] The measure Dμ_R = ε̂√detγ and the relational fiber-adapted coordinates (R^α,O^A_R) rely on invertibility of the orbit metric γ_{αβ} and the Faddeev–Popov operator Δ_R. For the diffeomorphism group acting on the space of metrics, these are degenerate at configurations with Killing vectors (X_ξ[g]=0 ⇒ γ_{ξβ}=0). The quotient F/G is then not a manifold and the local section σ_{Ṟ} of App. C2 does not exist. The paper mentions the Gribov problem in the introduction but does not prescribe how degenerate orbits are excluded or regularized. This affects the definition of Z in Eq. (5)/(C9), the frame-change kernels (13)–(14), and the relational vacua (15)–(16). Please add an explicit regularity assumption, a regularization of the singular fibers, or a statement of the scope of validity.
  2. [App. C2, Eq. (C4)] The Maurer–Cartan identity ϖ_R = ω_∥ + Δ_R^{-1} R_{,i} ω^i_⊥ is stated without proof, with the derivation deferred to [86]. This identity is used to pass from Eq. (C6) to the Faddeev–Popov form (C10) and to justify the (det Δ_R)^{-1} factor in the measure. Since this is central to the claimed equivalence, the identity should be proven in an appendix or explicitly labelled as an assumption; otherwise the reduction to the FP path integral is not self-contained.
  3. [Main text, Eqs. (8)–(9); Abstract] The 'fuzzy correlator' result is obtained by rewriting the same relational observable with a field-dependent event o'_i[φ] = U_{R→R'}[φ](o_i); it is a mathematical identity, not a new physical input. The abstract and discussion call these 'qualitative predictions', but they are structural consequences of the definitions. This is not a technical error, but the claim of novelty should be framed as a feature of the formalism rather than a falsifiable prediction.
  4. [App. C5, Eq. (C9); Abstract] The claim that the measure is non-anomalous because G is gauge-invariant is too quick. Anomalies can be generated by the regulator: the paper states that regularization can be performed on O_R preserving diffeomorphism invariance, but no regulated construction is given. The 'without ghosts and anomalies' statement in the abstract should be accompanied by a caveat that it holds at the formal level, pending an explicit non-anomalous regulator.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout, e.g. Eqs. (7), (9), (11)] The expectation value is denoted by an unusual symbol (⣨). This appears to be a rendering artifact; please use standard \langle ... \rangle notation.
  2. [Eq. (8)] The definition o'_i[\hat\phi] := \hat U_{R→R'}(\hat\phi)(o_i) is given in the text but should be displayed next to the equation for readability.
  3. [General] Several key results are only stated to be proven in forthcoming papers ([86], [138], [149]). Please include a brief summary or table indicating which identities are proven here, which are standard, and which are deferred, so that the reader can assess logical dependencies.
  4. [App. E2] The comparison with [150] uses phrases like 'may be interpreted as' and 'seems to support'. Since this is a critical comparison, it would be helpful to state the exact formal differences more sharply, or to label the passage as an interpretation.
  5. [Eq. (C8)] The notation \hat\epsilon \times [\det\gamma]^{1/2}[\hat O_R] is slightly ambiguous: it is not clear whether the bracket applies to the whole product or only to detγ. Please clarify.

Circularity Check

4 steps flagged

Several advertised 'predictions' (fuzzy correlators, frame-dependent vacua, non-covariant effective actions) are built into the definitions of field-dependent frame changes and R-labeled sources/Hamiltonians; the central measure also leans on a self-cited forthcoming proof of Eq. (C4).

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Main text, 'Sharp and fuzzy correlators', Eqs. (8)-(9) and Fig. 1]
    "To understand how a second frame R′ ‘sees’ the same correlator (App. F), we first clarify how to rewrite the ˆOTi|R as local observables on OR′: ˆOTi|R(oi) = ˆO˜Ti|R′(o′i[ˆϕ]), ˆO˜Ti|R′ := ˆOTi|R ◦ ˆUR′→R, (8) where o′i[ˆϕ] := ˆUR→R′[ˆϕ](oi), ... The result is a correlator in OR′ defined at field-dependent and so, through the path integration, generally fuzzy events o′i[ˆϕ]."

    The 'fuzziness' is not a dynamical output; it is the direct transcription of the definition of the frame-change map U_R→R'[φ] as a field-dependent coordinate transformation (Eq. (2)). Eq. (9) is obtained from Eq. (7) by inserting the identity (8); the field-dependence of o'_i[φ] is put in by hand when one defines frame changes via relational observables. Therefore the qualitative prediction that sharp R-events become fuzzy R'-events reduces to the definitional choice of U_R→R', and any field-dependent relabeling would produce the same statement.

  2. self definitional [Main text, 'Relational vacua', Eqs. (15)-(16)]
    "First, while the standard HH state remains a valid choice, one may impose the analogous prescription on a Cauchy slice ΣR ⊂ OR, producing the relational HH state associated with frame R: ΨHHR[QAR]≡∫C−R[QAR]DµR[ ˆOR]e−SR[ ˆOR]. (15) ... ΨGSR[QR] = ∫ DmR[Q′R]KeuclR[QR,Σf;Q′R,−∞]Ψ[Q′R] constitutes a ... ground sector of the relational Hamiltonian HR ... Crucially, since relational Hamiltonians HR,HR′ associated with different frames are in general not unitarily related by the frame change map, neither will their ground sectors."

    The new 'spectrum of relational vacua' is built into the labeling: each state is defined relative to a frame R (R-dependent Cauchy slices, R-dependent Hamiltonian). The statement that an R-vacuum looks excited in R' is a restatement of the paper's assertion that H_R and H_R' are not unitarily related; no independent derivation of that non-unitarity is given. The frame-dependence of vacua is therefore an input of the construction, not a prediction extracted from the path integral.

  3. self citation load bearing [App. C2-C3, Eqs. (C4), (C6), (C8)]
    "ϖR := −δR−1 ◦ R = Δ−1R δR = ω∥ + Δ−1R R,i ωi⊥, (C4) ... The last two equalities in Eq. (C4) link ϖR with the Faddeev-Popov operator and DeWitt’s connection ω∥, and will be proven in [86]. ... Dφ√detG = DOR DR [det ¯GR detγ]1/2 (det ΔR)−1. (C6)"

    The central gauge-invariant measure Dμ_R[Ô_R]=ϵ̂√detγ (C8) is obtained in (C6) using 'the last equality in Eq. (C4)'. That equality is not proven in this paper; the proof is deferred to the same authors' forthcoming [86]. Thus a load-bearing identity in the derivation of the very object whose gauge invariance and non-anomalous character are central claims is supported only by a self-citation (and would be circular if [86] relies on the present framework).

  4. self definitional [Main text, 'Relational effective action', Eqs. (10)-(12)]
    "Crucially, the sources {JR} are manifestly gauge-invariant objects, defined as background fields on relational spacetime OR, and therefore intrinsically tied to the chosen frame R; ... Hence, the generating functionals are not covariant under frame changes, ZR[JR] ≠ ZR′[JR′]."

    The 'frame-dependent effective action' is a direct consequence of defining sources J_R as background fields on O_R. The non-covariance Z_R ≠ Z_R' is not a derived property of the path integral but is built into the coupling term (J_R)_A O^A_R. Thus the claimed construction of gauge-invariant yet frame-dependent effective actions is essentially the definition of the source coupling, not an independent result.

full rationale

The paper is a formal, self-consciously 'symbolical' construction. Its central object, the relational path integral (5), is defined as a base-space integral with measure Dμ_R = ϵ̂√detγ (C8); the measure is gauge-invariant by construction because γ and ϵ̂ are constructed from an assumed gauge-invariant field-space metric G. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and the Faddeev-Popov equivalence (6)/(C10) is a genuine equivalence argument rather than a circular reduction. However, several 'qualitative predictions' advertised in the abstract are not dynamical outputs. The fuzziness of R'-correlators follows immediately from writing the same correlator with the field-dependent map U_R→R'[φ] (Eq. (8)→(9)); sharpness is QRF-relative only because frame changes were defined to be field-dependent. Likewise, the relational Hartle-Hawking and ground states are defined per frame (Eqs. (15)-(16)), so their frame-dependence is an input; the claim that R-vacua appear excited to R' rests on the asserted non-unitarity of H_R and H_R', not derived here. The non-covariance of the effective action is also baked into the definition of frame-tied sources. In addition, the derivation of the central measure uses Eq. (C4), whose crucial last equality is not proved in the paper but deferred to the same authors' [86], and the explicit measure construction is deferred to [149]. These are load-bearing self-citations. The Gribov-type degeneracy of γ at symmetric configurations is a substantive correctness concern but not itself a circularity. Overall, the central formalism has independent content, but the advertised predictions partially reduce to definitions and the measure's key identity is self-cited, giving a partial circularity score of 6.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 4 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted numbers, but its central claims depend on several chosen structures (field-space metric, frame atlas, regularization) and domain assumptions that are not proven. The most load-bearing of these is the existence of a global frame meta-atlas and a non-anomalous regularized measure, which the paper explicitly defers to forthcoming works.

free parameters (3)
  • Field-space metric G
    Defines the path-integral measure via detγ and detḠ_R (App C). The paper acknowledges different G give inequivalent quantizations (App C4); no unique principle fixes it.
  • Choice of frame field R and meta-atlas
    All relational quantities (spacetimes O_R, sources J_R, effective actions Γ_R, vacua) depend on a choice of frame and atlas (App D); the resulting physical statements are frame-dependent.
  • Regularization scheme on O_R
    The regularized path integral and hence the absence of anomalies depend on this choice, which is asserted to exist but not constructed (main text, 'Fourth').
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption F is a principal fiber bundle with typical fiber G (small diffeomorphisms) and base F/G (App C1)
    Underlies the whole construction; in gravity the bundle structure and invertibility of the orbit metric are not established globally.
  • domain assumption Existence of gauge-invariant field-space metric G with invertible orbit metric γ (Eq. C2, C8)
    The measure μ (Eq. 4/C7) requires detγ invertible and gauge invariance; the paper assumes this and notes it may fail for non-invariant G.
  • domain assumption Frames R[φ] exist as field-dependent gauge-covariant coordinate systems covering M and F via a meta-atlas (App D)
    The global patching of the path integral (Eq. D7) presupposes such an atlas; no proof of existence is given, analogous to Gribov obstructions.
  • domain assumption Existence of integrable Cauchy foliations and relational Hamiltonians H_R[ρ] (main text, Eqs. 13–14)
    The interpretation of kernels as time evolution relies on these; the paper defers this to [138].
  • standard math Standard quantum-field-theoretic manipulations on infinite-dimensional field space (exchanging limits, Gaussian integrals, invariance under field redefinitions)
    Used throughout, e.g., to descend to the base integral in Eq. (5) and define generating functionals; formal in the absence of regularization.
invented entities (4)
  • Relational spacetime O_R no independent evidence
    purpose: The spacetime 'as seen' by frame R; home of local relational observables and correlators
    Introduced to make gauge-invariant observables local (main text, Eq. (1)); its existence and causal structure depend on the frame construction.
  • Frame change kernels K^{R→R'} no independent evidence
    purpose: Unitary maps linking transition amplitudes in different frame perspectives
    Proposed in main text; consistency with perspective-neutral QRF framework is only checked in a future paper [138].
  • Relational Hartle-Hawking and ground states Ψ^HH_R, Ψ^GS_R no independent evidence
    purpose: Frame-dependent vacuum states
    Their defining integrals (Eqs. 15–16) rely on analytic continuation and assumptions deferred to [138]; no falsifiable handle is provided.
  • Frame-Nielsen identity and quantum shell no independent evidence
    purpose: Off-shell frame covariance of effective actions
    Identity (G4) is stated with proof deferred to [86]; no independent check.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 35974 in / 14586 out tokens · 136007 ms · 2026-08-01T07:21:24.440417+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We propose a relational bundle-geometric formulation of the gravitational path integral by invoking the new tool of quantum reference frames (QRFs), which in gravity are gauge-covariant coordinate systems constructed from the available field content. Formulated in terms of relational (frame-dressed) observables, this yields a manifestly gauge-invariant path integral without ghosts and anomalies, and in which observables and their correlators are local to a frame. While eliminating the need for gauge fixing, it is equivalent to Faddeev-Popov versions in which the QRF is gauge-fixed, recovering certain previous proposals. A key feature is its covariance under QRF changes: it is a perspective-neutral path integral which encodes all internal QRF perspectives and the transformations between them. This leads to several qualitative predictions: local correlators and time evolution of relational observables in one QRF perspective become fuzzy in another, and a new spectrum of relational vacua arises. Comprised of frame-dependent no-boundary and asymptotic ground states, a vacuum from one perspective appears generally excited in another. Finally, we construct gauge-invariant, yet frame-dependent effective actions by coupling sources exclusively to relational observables, setting the stage for a relational definition of renormalization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.21463 by Luca Marchetti, Philipp A. Hoehn, Renata Ferrero, Sergio E. Aguilar-Gutierrez.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. A sharply localized event [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. ‘Bending’ the evolution kernel from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Changes of dynamical frame in gravity are field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Pictorial summary of the field space bundle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Different definitions of effective actions and their challenges. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Quantum reference frames beyond subsystems: a reconstruction and generalization of the perspective-neutral framework

    quant-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 7.5

    Quantum reference frames need not be subsystems: covariant instruments suffice, recovering the perspective-neutral framework operationally and enabling labeling frames and exact interacting relational clocks.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

194 extracted references · 111 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Basic field space geometry The set of permissible kinematical field configurations ϕon some spacetime manifoldMwill be denoted byF and referred to asfield space.Fmay encode suitable OR OR F ˆOR π R R ˆF = F/G ϕ ˜R′ ϕ ˜R ˆϕ XR′=˜R′ XR=˜R ˜UR→R′ϕ FIG. 5. Pictorial summary of the field space bundleF underlying our construction of the relational path integral...

  2. [2]

    Relational fiber-adapted coordinates Let us now construct relational fiber-adapted coordi- nates onFinvoking the dynamical frames for generally covariant theories reviewed in App. B. Infinitesimally, the frame fields’ componentsRα trans- form as δξRα =ξ β∆R α β,∆ R α β≡X i βRα ,i,(C3) and gauge covariance implies that theFaddeev-Popov op- erator∆ R is loc...

  3. [3]

    Using the block-diagonal decomposition ofGand δOA R =O A R,iωi ⊥, we have GH = [ ¯GR]ABδOA RδOB R,[ ¯GR]AB = [G⊥]ijφi ,Aφj ,B

    Field space measure As a next step toward constructing a relational path integral, we write DeWitt’sF-measure [58–60, 162] in relational coordinates as key ingredient of our path inte- gral. Using the block-diagonal decomposition ofGand δOA R =O A R,iωi ⊥, we have GH = [ ¯GR]ABδOA RδOB R,[ ¯GR]AB = [G⊥]ijφi ,Aφj ,B. (C5) Using standard path integral notat...

  4. [4]

    Spectrum of choices for the field space measure Let us pause to consider different strategies for choos- ing a field space measure and discuss their qualitative distinctions, especially as regards quantum frame covari- ance. The options hinge on whether or not orbit informa- tion is retained and the general difference between first 13 quantizing then redu...

  5. [5]

    Given the volume form in Eq

    Relational path integral and possible anomalies Now, we have all the elements to support the path integral construction of the main text. Given the volume form in Eq. (C6), we may formally define a gauge-invariant path integral, assuming hence- forth thatGis gauge-invariant. Integrating a gauge- invariant functionalF[OR]overF, the fiber contribution,∫ Dg,...

  6. [6]

    This can be seen by choosing a frameR[φ] = ˜R−1◦ R[φ], with ˜Ra fixed configuration ofR, see Eq

    Functional integral for dressed fields in [51] Here, we show that the relational path integral in (5) reproduces the proposal in [51] for the functional integral of dressed fields, and in addition makes more explicit the underlying measure, which was left unspecified in [51]. This can be seen by choosing a frameR[φ] = ˜R−1◦ R[φ], with ˜Ra fixed configurat...

  7. [7]

    The latter is defined somewhat ambiguously, mak- ing it difficult to identify precisely how their construc- tion differs from ours

    Dressed path integral proposal in [150] Although [150] formally works with a dressed path in- tegral, its main focus is on addressing gauge anomalies through dressing-field techniques, rather than on provid- ing a precise characterization of the dressed path integral itself. The latter is defined somewhat ambiguously, mak- ing it difficult to identify pre...

  8. [8]

    6 for a schematic sum- mary

    Comparison with previous proposals Let us now compare our relational effective actions with previous proposals, see Fig. 6 for a schematic sum- mary. Background-field effective action.The background- field effective action [45–49], standard in continuum quantum gravity, splits the spacetime metric into a back- ground and fluctuations,g µν = ¯gµν +h µν, an...

  9. [9]

    The relational effective action and frame changes The relational effective action was defined in Eq. (12). Equivalently, one may write eiΓR[ ¯OR] = ∫ DµR[ ˆOR]eiS[ ˆOR]−iΓR,A( ˆOA R− ¯OA R),(G1) whereΓ R,A :=δΓ R/δ ¯OA R =−(J R)A. Note that Eq. (G1) (much like (10) forWR) fixes only exp(iΓR), and hence definesΓ R only up to shifts by 2πnR, withn R ∈Z. The...

  10. [10]

    S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D18, 1747 (1978)

    1978

  11. [11]

    The path integral approach to quan- tum gravity,

    S. W. Hawking, “The path integral approach to quan- tum gravity,” (1980)

    1980

  12. [12]

    Loll, Class

    R. Loll, Class. Quant. Grav.37, 013002 (2020), arXiv:1905.08669 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  13. [13]

    Ambjorn, A

    J. Ambjorn, A. Goerlich, J. Jurkiewicz, and R. Loll, Phys. Rept.519, 127 (2012), arXiv:1203.3591 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  14. [14]

    Ambjørn and R

    J. Ambjørn and R. Loll (2026) arXiv:2604.05641 [hep- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  15. [15]

    M. B. Green, J. H. Schwarz, and E. Witten,Superstring theory: volume 1, Introduction(Cambridge university press, 2012)

    2012

  16. [16]

    Polchinski,String Theory, Vol

    J. Polchinski,String Theory, Vol. 1: An Introduction to the Bosonic String (Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, UK, 1998)

    1998

  17. [17]

    Penedones, inTheoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics: New Frontiers in Fields and Strings(2017) pp

    J. Penedones, inTheoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics: New Frontiers in Fields and Strings(2017) pp. 75–136, arXiv:1608.04948 [hep- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  18. [18]

    Lectures on quantum gravity and black holes,

    T. Hartman, “Lectures on quantum gravity and black holes,” (2015)

    2015

  19. [19]

    Perez, Living Rev

    A. Perez, Living Rev. Rel.16, 3 (2013), arXiv:1205.2019 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  20. [20]

    Rovelli and F

    C. Rovelli and F. Vidotto,Covariant Loop Quan- tum Gravity: An Elementary Introduction to Quantum Gravity and Spinfoam Theory(Cambridge University Press, 2015)

    2015

  21. [21]

    Krajewski, PoSQGQGS2011, 005 (2011), arXiv:1210.6257 [gr-qc]

    T. Krajewski, PoSQGQGS2011, 005 (2011), arXiv:1210.6257 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  22. [22]

    Gielen, S

    S. Gielen, S. Carrozza, and D. Oriti,Progress in Group Field Theory and Related Quantum Gravity Formalisms (MDPI, 2020). 22

    2020

  23. [23]

    Group field theory and loop quantum grav- ity

    D. Oriti, “Group field theory and loop quantum grav- ity.” inLoop Quantum Gravity: The First 30 Years, edited by A. Ashtekar and J. Pullin (WSP, 2017) pp. 125–151

    2017

  24. [24]

    Percacci,An Introduction to Covariant Quantum Gravity and Asymptotic Safety, 100 Years of General Relativity, Vol

    R. Percacci,An Introduction to Covariant Quantum Gravity and Asymptotic Safety, 100 Years of General Relativity, Vol. 3 (World Scientific, 2017)

    2017

  25. [25]

    Reuter and F

    M. Reuter and F. Saueressig,Quantum Gravity and the Functional Renormalization Group: The Road towards Asymptotic Safety(Cambridge University Press, 2019)

    2019

  26. [26]

    Asymptotically safe quantum grav- ity and its phenomenology - a review,

    A. Eichhorn, “Asymptotically safe quantum grav- ity and its phenomenology - a review,” (2026), arXiv:2606.21522 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  27. [27]

    Ferrero, Int

    R. Ferrero, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A41, 2530023 (2026), arXiv:2507.14296 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2026

  28. [28]

    J. J. Halliwell and J. B. Hartle, Phys. Rev. D43, 1170 (1991)

    1991

  29. [29]

    Rovelli, Phys

    C. Rovelli, Phys. Rev. D59, 104015 (1999), arXiv:gr- qc/9806121

    arXiv 1999

  30. [30]

    J. B. Hartle and S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D28, 2960 (1983)

    1983

  31. [31]

    Lehners, Phys

    J.-L. Lehners, Phys. Rept.1022, 1 (2023), arXiv:2303.08802 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  32. [32]

    Comments on the no boundary wavefunction and slow roll inflation,

    J. Maldacena, “Comments on the no boundary wavefunction and slow roll inflation,” (2024), arXiv:2403.10510 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    G. W. Gibbons and S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D15, 2752 (1977)

    1977

  34. [34]

    G. W. Gibbons and S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D15, 2738 (1977)

    1977

  35. [35]

    Susskind and J

    L. Susskind and J. Uglum, Phys. Rev. D50, 2700 (1994), arXiv:hep-th/9401070

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  36. [36]

    Lewkowycz and J

    A. Lewkowycz and J. Maldacena, JHEP08, 090 (2013), arXiv:1304.4926 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  37. [37]

    Rangamani and T

    M. Rangamani and T. Takayanagi,Holographic Entanglement Entropy, Vol. 931 (Springer, 2017) arXiv:1609.01287 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  38. [38]

    Colafranceschi, X

    E. Colafranceschi, X. Dong, D. Marolf, and Z. Wang, JHEP10, 063 (2024), arXiv:2310.02189 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  39. [39]

    Penington, S

    G. Penington, S. H. Shenker, D. Stanford, and Z. Yang, JHEP03, 205 (2022), arXiv:1911.11977 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  40. [40]

    Almheiri, R

    A. Almheiri, R. Mahajan, J. Maldacena, and Y. Zhao, JHEP03, 149 (2020), arXiv:1908.10996 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  41. [41]

    Almheiri, T

    A. Almheiri, T. Hartman, J. Maldacena, E. Shaghou- lian, and A. Tajdini, JHEP05, 013 (2020), arXiv:1911.12333 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  42. [42]

    Penington, JHEP09, 002 (2020), arXiv:1905.08255 [hep-th]

    G. Penington, JHEP09, 002 (2020), arXiv:1905.08255 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  43. [43]

    Marolf and H

    D. Marolf and H. Maxfield, JHEP04, 272 (2021), arXiv:2010.06602 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  44. [44]

    Chowdhury, V

    C. Chowdhury, V. Godet, O. Papadoulaki, and S. Raju, JHEP03, 019 (2022), arXiv:2107.14802 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  45. [45]

    Marolf and H

    D. Marolf and H. Maxfield, JHEP08, 044 (2020), arXiv:2002.08950 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  46. [46]

    Usatyuk, Z.-Y

    M. Usatyuk, Z.-Y. Wang, and Y. Zhao, SciPost Phys. 17, 051 (2024), arXiv:2402.00098 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    A. I. Abdalla, S. Antonini, L. V. Iliesiu, and A. Levine, JHEP05, 059 (2025), arXiv:2501.02632 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    Harlow, M

    D. Harlow, M. Usatyuk, and Y. Zhao, JHEP02, 108 (2026), arXiv:2501.02359 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  49. [49]

    H. Z. Chen, JHEP10, 139 (2025), arXiv:2505.15892 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    Consis- tent Evaluation of the No-Boundary Proposal,

    A. I. Abdalla, S. Antonini, R. Bousso, L. V. Iliesiu, A. Levine, and A. Shahbazi-Moghaddam, “Consis- tent Evaluation of the No-Boundary Proposal,” (2026), arXiv:2602.02682 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2026

  51. [51]

    ”It from Bit

    Y. Zhao, “”It from Bit”: The Hartle-Hawking state and quantum mechanics for de Sitter observers,” (2026), arXiv:2602.05939 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2026

  52. [52]

    J. M. Maldacena and L. Maoz, JHEP02, 053 (2004), arXiv:hep-th/0401024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  53. [53]

    ”Filtering

    H. Liu, “”Filtering” CFTs at large N: Euclidean Worm- holes, Closed Universes, and Black Hole Interiors,” (2025), arXiv:2512.13807 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    B. S. DeWitt, Phys. Rev.162, 1195 (1967)

    1967

  55. [55]

    B. S. DeWitt, Phys. Rev.160, 1113 (1967)

    1967

  56. [56]

    L. F. Abbott, Acta Phys. Polon. B13, 33 (1982)

    1982

  57. [57]

    L. F. Abbott, Nucl. Phys. B185, 189 (1981)

    1981

  58. [58]

    Niedermaier and M

    M. Niedermaier and M. Reuter, Living Rev. Rel.9, 5 (2006)

    2006

  59. [59]

    Casadio, A

    R. Casadio, A. Kamenshchik, and I. Kuntz, Annals of Physics449, 169203 (2023)

    2023

  60. [60]

    Gauge invariant effective actions for dressed fields,

    K. Falls, “Gauge invariant effective actions for dressed fields,” (2025), arXiv:2503.05869 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  61. [61]

    B. S. DeWitt, inOxford Conference on Quantum Grav- ity(1980)

    1980

  62. [62]

    G. A. Vilkovisky, Nucl. Phys. B234, 125 (1984)

    1984

  63. [63]

    C. P. Burgess and G. Kunstatter, Mod. Phys. Lett. A2, 875(1987),[Erratum: Mod.Phys.Lett.A2, 1003(1987)]

    1987

  64. [64]

    S. R. Huggins, G. Kunstatter, H. P. Leivo, and D. J. Toms, Nucl. Phys. B301, 627 (1988)

    1988

  65. [65]

    P. M. Lavrov, S. D. Odintsov, and I. V. Tyutin, Mod. Phys. Lett. A3, 1273 (1988)

    1988

  66. [66]

    Vilkovisky, inQuantum Theory of Gravity, edited by S

    G. Vilkovisky, inQuantum Theory of Gravity, edited by S. M. Christensen (Adam Hilger Limited, 1984) p. 169

    1984

  67. [67]

    B. S. DeWitt,The global approach to quantum field the- ory. Vol. 1, 2, Vol. 114 (Oxford Science Publications, 2003)

    2003

  68. [68]

    L. E. Parker and D. Toms,Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime: Quantized Field and Gravity, Cam- bridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cam- bridge University Press, 2009)

    2009

  69. [69]

    B. S. DeWitt and C. Molina-Paris, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 13, 2475 (1998), arXiv:hep-th/9808163

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  70. [70]

    Kunstatter, Class

    G. Kunstatter, Class. Quant. Grav.9, 1469 (1992)

    1992

  71. [71]

    Diffeomorphism-invariant observables and dynamical frames in gravity: reconciling bulk locality with general covariance,

    C. Goeller, P. A. Höhn, and J. Kirklin, “Diffeomorphism-invariant observables and dynamical frames in gravity: reconciling bulk locality with general covariance,” (2022), arXiv:2206.01193 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  72. [72]

    Carrozza, S

    S. Carrozza, S. Eccles, and P. A. Höhn, SciPost Phys. 17, 048 (2024), arXiv:2205.00913 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  73. [73]

    Localization and anomalous reference frames in gravity,

    L. Freidel and J. Kirklin, “Localization and anomalous reference frames in gravity,” (2025), arXiv:2510.26589 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  74. [74]

    Gravitational null rays: Co- variant Quantization and the Dressing Time,

    L. Freidel and J. Kirklin, “Gravitational null rays: Co- variant Quantization and the Dressing Time,” (2026), arXiv:2604.02228 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  75. [75]

    (Quantum) reference frames, relational observables, gauge reduction and physical interpreta- tion,

    T. Thiemann, “(Quantum) reference frames, relational observables, gauge reduction and physical interpreta- tion,” (2026), arXiv:2603.04072 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  76. [76]

    Marchetti and E

    L. Marchetti and E. Wilson-Ewing, Class. Quant. Grav. 42, 155008 (2025), arXiv:2412.14622 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  77. [77]

    Quantum Reference Fields Transformations in Linearized Quantum Grav- ity,

    L.-Q. Chen and F. Giacomini, “Quantum Reference Fields Transformations in Linearized Quantum Grav- ity,” (2026), arXiv:2606.09344 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  78. [78]

    De Vuyst, S

    J. De Vuyst, S. Eccles, P. A. Höhn, and J. Kirklin, JHEP07, 146 (2025), arXiv:2405.00114 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  79. [79]

    De Vuyst, S

    J. De Vuyst, S. Eccles, P. A. Höhn, and J. Kirklin, 23 JHEP07, 063 (2025), arXiv:2412.15502 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  80. [80]

    Perspective-neutral approach to quantum frame covariance for general sym- metry groups,

    A.-C. de la Hamette, T. D. Galley, P. A. Höhn, L. Loveridge, and M. P. Müller, “Perspective-neutral approach to quantum frame covariance for general sym- metry groups,” (2021), arXiv:2110.13824 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

Showing first 80 references.