Holographic description of boundary gravitons in (3+1) dimensions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Gravity is uniquely situated in between classical topological field theories and standard local field theories. This can be seen in the quasi-local nature of gravitational observables, but is nowhere more apparent than in gravity’s holographic formulation. Holography holds promise for simplifying computations in quantum gravity. While holographic descriptions of three-dimensional spacetimes and of spacetimes with a negative cosmological constant are well-developed, a complete boundary description of zero curvature, four-dimensional spacetime is not currently available. Building on previous work in three-dimensions, we provide a new route to four-dimensional holography and its boundary gravitons. Using Regge calculus linearized around a flat Euclidean background with the topology of a solid hyper-torus, we obtain the effective action for a dual boundary theory, which describes the dynamics of the boundary gravitons. Remarkably, in the continuum limit and at large radii this boundary theory is local and closely analogous to the corresponding result in three-dimensions. The boundary effective action has a degenerate kinetic term that leads to singularities in the one-loop partition function that are independent of the discretization. These results establish a rich boundary dynamics for four-dimensional flat holography.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".