Introduction to Loop Quantum Gravity. The Holst's action and the covariant formalism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We review Holst formalism and we discuss dynamical equivalence with standard GR (in dimension 4). Holst formalism is written for a spin coframe field $e^I_μ$ and a $Spin(3,1)$-connection $ω^{IJ}_μ$ on spacetime $M$ and it depends on the Holst parameter $γ\in \mathbb{R}-\{0\}$. We show the model is dynamically equivalent to standard GR, in the sense that up to a pointwise $Spin(3,1)$-gauge transformation acting on frame indices, solutions of the two models are in one-to-one correspondence. Hence the two models are classically equivalent. One can also introduce new variables by splitting the spin connection into a pair of a $Spin(3)$-connection $A^i_μ$ and a $Spin(3)$-valued 1-form $k^i_μ$. The construction of these new variables relies on a particular algebraic structure, called a reductive splitting. A reductive splitting is a weaker structure than requiring that the gauge group splits as the products of two sub-groups, as it happens in Euclidean signature in the selfdual formulation originally introduced in this context by Ashtekar, and it still allows to deal with the Lorentzian signature without resorting to complexifications. The reductive splitting of $SL(2, \mathbb{C})$ is not unique and it is parameterized by a real parameter $β$, called the Immirzi parameter. The splitting is here done on spacetime, not on space, to obtain a $Spin(3)$-connection $A^i_μ$, which is called the Barbero-Immirzi connection on spacetime. One obtains a covariant model depending on the fields $(e^I_μ, A^i_μ, k^i_μ)$ which is again dynamically equivalent to standard GR (as well as the Holst action). Usually, in the literature one sets $β=γ$ for the sake of simplicity. Here we keep the Holst and Immirzi parameters distinct to show that eventually, only $β$ will survive in boundary field equations.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".