Dimensionally Restricted Causal Set Quantum Gravity: Examples in Two and Three Dimensions

Sumati Surya; William J. Cunningham

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 31 references

Dimensionally Restricted Causal Set Quantum Gravity: Examples in Two and Three Dimensions

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Causal set quantum gravity shows an entropy-action phase transition in 2D and 3D.

desk verdict Useful new numerical tool and credible first 3D causal set results, but the simulated measure carries an uncontrolled lattice-degeneracy factor that the central phase-transition claim does not yet account for. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.11647 v2 pith:Y4Q7RH6S submitted 2019-08-30 gr-qc hep-lat

William J. Cunningham , Sumati Surya This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qchep-lat

keywords causalsettheoryquantumgravityphasetransitionMarkovchainMonteCarloBenincasa-Dowkeractionlattice-gasmodelorderedsetsdimensionalrestriction

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

This paper studies a discretised Lorentzian path integral over causal sets that embed into a flat cylinder in two dimensions and a flat torus in three dimensions, the first such causal set dynamics restricted to three spacetime dimensions. After analytically continuing the partition function to a statistical weight, the authors run lattice-gas Markov chain Monte Carlo simulations and find that as the coupling $\beta$ increases, the typical causal set switches sharply from a manifold-like random order to a layered, highly connected poset. The transition mimics the one seen for topologically trivial 2-orders, which suggests that the entropy-action competition is a generic feature of dimensionally restricted causal set sample spaces rather than an artefact of one topology. If this holds, the restricted path sum offers a controlled arena for studying how spacetime geometry can emerge from order-theoretic entropy.

What carries the argument

The central object is the dimensionally restricted sample space $\Omega^{(m,n)}_d$, the set of $n$-element causal sets obtained from $n$-site fillings of an $m$-site lattice embedded in the flat cylinder ($d=2$, spatial topology $S^1$) or the flat torus ($d=3$, spatial topology $T^2$). The machinery has four parts: the lattice-gas move, which swaps a filled site with an empty site and generates a Markov chain over fillings; the Metropolis acceptance rule using the analytically continued weight $\exp(-\beta S_{\mathrm{BD}}/\hbar)$ with the Benincasa-Dowker action $S_{\mathrm{BD}}$ as the dimension-dependent discrete Einstein-Hilbert action; the non-locality scale $\epsilon$ appearing in the smearing functions $f_{2,3}$; and order invariants such as the ordering fraction, height, link number, and interval abundances used to characterise phases. The asymptotic $m$-independence of these observables is what licenses treating the lattice-generated sample space as an approximation of the continuum causal set sample space $\Omega_n(M,g)$.

What would settle it

Run the same lattice-gas MCMC at fixed $n$ and $\beta$ near the claimed critical values on a different lattice geometry, such as a lattice obtained by random sprinkling of $m$ points into the cylinder or torus, or on regular lattices with different aspect ratios; if the observable curves no longer converge to the same $m$-independent values, or if the transition shifts or disappears, the central claim is falsified. A more direct check is to compute the degeneracy ratio of a manifold-like causal set to the symmetric bilayer poset as a function of $\beta$: a $\beta$-dependent ratio at large $m$ would show the lattice-induced measure is contaminating the dynamics.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the dimensionally restricted causal set partition function in $d=2$ and $d=3$, defined over causal sets that causally embed into the flat cylinder $S^1\times I$ and the flat torus $T^2\times I$, undergoes a first-order-like phase transition as the analytic continuation parameter $\beta$ varies. The authors identify the critical values $\beta^{(2)}_c \approx 2.344$ and $\beta^{(3)}_c \approx 1.980$. For $\beta$ below the critical value, entropy dominates and typical causal sets are manifold-like, with interval abundances and ordering fraction matching a random sprinkling into the continuum; for $\beta$ above it, the action dominates and typical configurations self-assemble into roughly five layers in which each element is related to nearly all elements in adjacent layers. The action-dominated ground state approached as $\beta\to\infty$ is argued to be the symmetric maximally connected bilayer poset, the unique $n$-element configuration maximising links and minimising the Benincasa-Dowker action for these sample spaces. The paper interprets the result as evidence that such a transition is generic for dimensionally restricted causal set sample spaces, including the first explicit 3D example.

Load-bearing premise

The phase-transition results assume that the extra counting weight coming from the non-injective map between lattice fillings and causal sets becomes independent of lattice size for large $m$ and does not vary with the inverse temperature $\beta$; if that degeneracy weight itself produced a sharp change near $\beta_c$, the transition could be a lattice artefact rather than a property of causal set dynamics.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A generic dimensionally restricted causal set dynamics with a Benincasa-Dowker-type action will exhibit a sharp high-temperature manifold-like phase and a low-temperature layered phase, not just in $S^1$ and $T^2$ topologies but across similar restricted sample spaces.
The classical limit of the theory must sit on the manifold-like side of the transition, so the coupling $\beta$ and the choice of sample space are constrained by the requirement that entropy, not action, dominates at large scales.
The symmetric maximally connected bilayer poset is the zero-temperature ground state; keeping such non-manifold-like configurations from dominating any quantum regime requires additional order-theoretic suppression beyond the Benincasa-Dowker action.
The successful 3D simulations open the same lattice-gas MCMC approach to higher-dimensional toroidal and other topologies.
Since the observables converge to $m$-independent values for large $m$, the lattice construction supplies a working numerical definition of the continuum-restricted sample space $\Omega_n(M,g)$.

Reading between the lines

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

If the degeneracy weights are indeed $\beta$-independent as $m$ grows, the same lattice construction could be inverted to read off relative dynamical weights between manifold-like causal sets, effectively turning the discretisation into a tool for extracting the continuum measure.
Repeating the simulation on randomly sprinkled lattices rather than regular grids, which the paper leaves open, would be a sharper test: a critical $\beta$ insensitive to lattice geometry would confirm the transition is a property of causal set dynamics, while a shift would indict the lattice-induced measure.
The double-peaked histograms near $\beta_c$ suggest a first-order transition; a finite-size scaling analysis in $n$, $\beta$, and $\epsilon$ of the type already performed for 2-orders could yield critical exponents and settle the order of the transition.
One unexplored consequence is that the layered phase, if universal across topologies, may act as an entropic attractor that any causal set dynamics must actively suppress, giving a concrete target for candidate order-theoretic corrections to the measure.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know. First, this is the first real implementation of dimensionally restricted causal set dynamics in 3D with nontrivial spatial topology, and the lattice-gas MCMC method is a genuinely useful tool. Second, the central phase-transition claim is plausible but not fully nailed down: the algorithm samples fillings of a lattice, and because the map from fillings to causal sets is non-injective, the induced measure on the causal set sample space is not the uniform measure of Eq. (6) but includes a degeneracy factor g(c) that the paper never controls near beta_c.

What the paper does well: the move is simple and clearly explained; the m-independence checks are extensive, spanning more than an order of magnitude in lattice size; the ergodicity checks from chain, antichain, crown, and random initial conditions are convincing; and the hot phase is well-characterized as manifold-like by interval abundances and by matching the analytically computed ordering fraction for the cylinder in Appendix B. The cold phase is shown to trend toward the maximally connected bilayer poset, consistent with the action's ground state. The authors are also admirably honest about poor thermalization near the transition and about the unresolved analytic continuation.

Where it is soft: the degeneracy bias is the load-bearing caveat. The m-independence shown in Figs. 8-9 is at beta values deep in the hot and cold phases, not at coexistence, so the location and even the existence of the transition could in principle be controlled by lattice enumeration rather than by the competition between S_BD and causal set entropy. The authors' argument that degeneracies increase 'fairly uniformly' with m is plausible but not quantified. Also, beta_c values are quoted without error bars; there is no finite-size scaling; and the code and data are not yet released, making independent reproduction hard.

None of this is fatal—the same qualitative transition appears in the uniform-measure 2-order sample space, which lends support to the phenomenon being real. But as written, the abstract overstates what has been demonstrated: the simulated measure is not Eq. (6) over Omega(m,n)_d, and the degeneracy correction has not been shown to be benign.

Who should read it: anyone working on causal set dynamics, and possibly lattice discretizations of path integrals in quantum gravity. It deserves a serious referee. I would send it to peer review with a request that the authors either quantify the degeneracy factor or explicitly frame the work as studying the lattice-induced measure, and that they quote uncertainties on beta_c and provide at least a basic finite-size check.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper constructs dimensionally restricted causal set sample spaces by taking n-site fillings of an m-site lattice embedded in a flat cylinder (d=2, spatial S^1) or a flat toroidal spacetime (d=3, spatial T^2). It defines a partition function over the resulting causal sets with the Benincasa-Dowker action after analytic continuation, and simulates it with a lattice-gas Metropolis algorithm. The central finding is a claimed phase transition, at β_c^(2)≈2.344 and β_c^(3)≈1.980, between an entropy-dominated manifold-like phase and an action-dominated layered phase with high connectivity. The authors argue this mirrors the earlier 2-order result and constitutes the first three-dimensional dimensionally restricted causal set dynamics.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a meaningful step: it is the first implementation of dimensionally restricted causal set Monte Carlo dynamics in 3D, it explores non-trivial global spatial topology, and it provides a concrete numerical window into the entropy-action competition in causal set quantum gravity. The paper deserves credit for several careful checks: the bimodal hot/cold behaviour is visually clear in the raw data, the authors test independence of the lattice size m over a wide range, initial-condition ergodicity is checked for several very different starting posets, and Appendix B gives an analytic calculation of the cylinder ordering fraction that matches the hot-phase value. However, the phase-transition claim is currently supported only at a single n and ε, without finite-size scaling, and the simulation's target measure includes a lattice-degeneracy factor that is not present in the stated partition function. The significance is therefore conditional: the work is a promising numerical study, but the advertised conclusion goes beyond what the present evidence establishes.

major comments (3)

[Sec. 2 and Eq. (6)] The lattice-gas proposal is symmetric, so the MCMC chain samples n-site fillings E in E(m,n)_d with stationary weight exp(-β S_BD(c(E))). Each causal set c in Ω(m,n)_d therefore receives an effective weight g_{m,n}(c) exp(-β S_BD(c)), where g_{m,n}(c) is the number of fillings realizing c. This is not the partition function in Eq. (6), which assigns weight exp(-β S_BD(c)) to every c in Ω(m,n)_d. The paper explicitly acknowledges the non-uniform measure in Sec. 2, but the m-independence evidence in Figs. 6, 8, and 9 is obtained at β=0, 0.8, and 3.2 (d=2) or 1.0 and 3.0 (d=3), i.e. away from the coexistence region. If log g_{m,n}(c) is correlated with S_BD(c), the location and even the existence of the transition could be controlled by lattice enumeration rather than by the entropy-action competition asserted in the abstract. A quantitative estimate of the degeneracy factor in the hot and cold phases, or a reweighted simulation that removes g_{m,n}, is needed to make the central claim load-bearing.
[Sec. 4 and Sec. 5] The claimed phase transition is inferred from bimodal time series at a single element number (n=200 in d=2, n=300 in d=3) and a single non-locality scale ε=0.1, with no finite-size scaling in n or ε. The paper itself states in Sec. 5 that one 'must look for scaling behaviour with β, n and ε' and that this work is 'currently being done.' Without such a scaling analysis, the data demonstrate a sharp crossover or a first-order-like coexistence at finite n, but they do not establish a phase transition in the asymptotic limit. This distinction matters for the abstract's claim and for the conclusion that the transition is a generic feature of dimensionally restricted sample spaces rather than a finite-n artefact.
[Sec. 4, Fig. 14] The near-critical behaviour is not controlled. The text reports that at β=2.332 the system spends all 10^4 sweeps in the hot phase while at the lower β=2.328 it oscillates between hot and cold; this is the opposite of the expected trend for a first-order transition and indicates metastability or insufficient equilibration. Consequently the quoted values β_c^(2)≈2.344 and β_c^(3)≈1.980 carry no reliable uncertainty, and the specific-heat peak is explicitly set aside. A histogram analysis across several β values, longer runs, and initial conditions started in both phases would be needed to support a quantitative coexistence claim.

minor comments (5)

[Appendix A] The bullet defining Ω(m,n)_d says it is 'the set of all n element causal sets that embed into the lattice Ω(m,n)_d'; it should refer to the lattice L(m)_d, not to the sample space Ω(m,n)_d.
[References] Reference [24] (Hartle and Hawking, 1983) appears to be cited in support of the 2-order phase transition, but the surrounding text seems to intend a different reference; please check the citation.
[Eq. (5)] The notation 'β→iβ' under the arrow is confusing; it would be clearer to state the substitution explicitly, for example β → -iβ or β = iβ_E, and to call it an analytic continuation or Wick rotation.
[Fig. 14 caption] The caption's phrase 'at a lower temperature β^{-1}=2.332^{-1} than at the higher temperature β^{-1}=2.328^{-1}' is awkward and easy to misread; please rephrase to make clear which of the two runs is at larger β.
[Abstract and Sec. 4] The word 'phase transition' is used in the abstract and Sec. 4, while Sec. 5 concedes that no finite-size scaling analysis has been performed; consider using 'sharp crossover' or adding a caveat until the scaling behaviour is established.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the phase transition is a numerical consequence of the input BD action on a well-defined sample space, cross-checked against independent continuum calculations.

full rationale

I find no circular step in the paper's derivation chain. The partition function Z^{(d)}_{n,m}(β)=Σ_{c∈Ω^{(m,n)}_d} exp(−βS^{(d)}_{BD}(c)/ℏ) (Eq. 6) is taken as input, and the MCMC simulations map out the β-dependence of order invariants; the observed phase transition is a numerical consequence of that input, not a re-derivation of it. The action-dominated phase being bilayer-like follows from the BD action's minimum, which the paper states explicitly and supports directly from Eqs. (8)–(9), so there is no hidden equivalence between input and output. The hot-phase manifold-likeness is benchmarked against an independent Poisson-sprinkling calculation in Appendix B (Eq. 14), not assumed in the setup. Self-citations to [20,21,25] provide context and comparison with the 2-order case, but the central d=2 and d=3 results are simulated independently in the present paper rather than imported from those references. The methodological limitations flagged by the authors—the regular lattice choice, fixed n, and the non-injective filling map inducing a non-uniform, m-dependent measure on Ω^{(m,n)}_d—are genuine validity concerns about whether the phase transition is a lattice artifact, but they are not cases where a stated prediction reduces by construction to its inputs. Accordingly, there is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger contains no new physical entities. The central claim depends on the Benincasa-Dowker action as input, on the analytic continuation, and on the lattice-proxy measure. The free parameters are the non-locality scale, the aspect ratio, and the lattice size; none of these is a hidden fitted constant for the phase transition claim.

free parameters (3)

Non-locality scale epsilon = 0.1
Free parameter of the Benincasa-Dowker action; fixed to 0.1 throughout. The phase transition location and structure depend on it, and the paper does not scan it.
Aspect ratio alpha = h/w = 4
Chosen so that null rays can wrap around the cylinder; affects the ordering fraction (Appendix B) and the sample space. Not scanned in this work.
Lattice size m = 4n^2 in d=2, 4n^{3/2} in d=3
Chosen so that observables appear independent of m. The lattice-proxy assumption for Omega_n(M,g) rests on this asymptotic regime.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Continuum spacetime is approximated by a locally finite causal set via faithful Poisson sprinkling.
Basis of causal set theory, used in Sec. 1 to define manifold-like causal sets and the sample space Omega_n(M,g).
domain assumption The Benincasa-Dowker action is the discrete Einstein-Hilbert action and the correct measure for causal set dynamics.
Eqns. (2), (8), and (9); relies on prior results [12]-[14]. The paper treats this as the continuum-inspired choice, not as a derived truth.
domain assumption The analytic continuation beta -> i beta turns the quantum path-sum into a statistical partition function whose phase structure can be studied by MCMC.
Eq. (5) in Sec. 3. The authors explicitly leave open the physical significance of beta in the Conclusions.
ad hoc to paper Uniform fillings of the m-site lattice induce, in the large-m limit, the target continuum sample space with a measure independent of m.
Sec. 2: the map from fillings to causal sets is non-injective and non-uniform; the paper provides only empirical evidence for m-independence via selected observables.
domain assumption The Metropolis MCMC walk thermalizes and mixes on the restricted sample space.
Checked for several initial conditions in Fig. 10; no formal mixing guarantee is given for the lattice-gas move.
standard math General n-element posets are entropically dominated by three-layer Kleitman-Rothschild posets with count at least ~2^{n^2/4}.
Sec. 1, cited to Kleitman and Rothschild [15]; used to frame the entropy-action competition.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dimensionally Restricted Causal Set Quantum Gravity: Examples in Two and Three Dimensions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y4Q7RH6S

@misc{pith2026190811647,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dimensionally Restricted Causal Set Quantum Gravity: Examples in Two and Three Dimensions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y4Q7RH6S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.11647}
}

abstract

We study dimensionally restricted non-perturbative causal set quantum dynamics in $2$ and $3$ spacetime dimensions with non-trivial global spatial topology. The causal set sample space is generated from causal embeddings into spacetime lattices with global spatial topology $S^1$ and $T^2$ in $2$ and $3$ dimensions, respectively. The quantum gravity partition function over these sample spaces is studied using Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) simulations after analytic continuation. In both $2$ and $3$ dimensions we find a phase transition that separates the dominance of the action from that of the entropy. The action dominated phase is characterised by ``layered'' posets with a high degree of connectivity, while the causal sets in the entropy dominated phase are manifold-like. This phase transition is similar in character to that seen for the sample space of $2$-orders, which are topologically trivial, hence suggesting that this is a generic feature of dimensionally restricted sample spaces. The simulations use a newly developed framework for causal set MCMC calculations. Ours is the first implementation of a causal set dynamics restricted to $3$ dimensions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.11647 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The latticisation L (m) of the spacetime (Ma, η) into a grid of height h and width w, where m = h × w. 1 23 56 9 1011 12 78 14 15 16 13 1718 19 20 4 t 1 23 56 9 1011 12 78 14 15 16 13 1718 19 20 4 t t [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** (i) An n-site filling of an m-site cylindrical lattice (the spatial edges are identified). The light-cones for a few of the elements are shown and can be seen to wrap around the cylinder. (ii) The links or irreducible relations between elements are obtained from the causal structure of the lattice. The curved lines denote the relations obtained by going “around” the cylinder, due to the topological non-triviality of… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** An example of two distinct n-site fillings of an m-lattice which produce the same causal set. These spacetimes admit a natural latticisation L (m) d into an h × w d−1 = m site cylindrical lattice, with each lattice site having the coordinates (t, θ1, . . . , θd−1), where t ∈ {0, 1, . . . , h} and θi = 2πki/w, ki ∈ {0, 1, . . . , w −1}, with the identification θi ∼ θi + 2π (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (18 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: An example of the lattice-gas move. (i) A filled site is picked at random and moved to an unfilled site, which itself is chosen at random and independently. This move is typically non-local and can drastically change the associated causal set, shown here by (ii) → (iii…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The action and ordering fraction are plotted at each step in the Markov chain, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Raw data for the action, the ordering fraction, the height, and the number of links [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Mean interval abundance curves for d = 2 (left) and d = 3 (right). The three curves represent a Poisson sprinkling into the continuum, a random (m, n)-order sprinkled onto the lattice, and a typical (m, n)-order generated via a lattice-gas MCMC simulation. 3 Setting up…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Raw data for the action, the ordering fraction, the height, and the number of links [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Raw data for the action, the ordering fraction, the height, and the number of links [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: The observables per sweep for d = 2, n = 150, = 0.1, β = 0.2, and α = 4 for different initial conditions. 17 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Raw data for the action, the ordering fraction, the height, and the number of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Examples of autocorrelation function for various observables for the hot ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png]

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: The expectation value of various observables as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_13.png]

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: Raw data for the action in d = 2, showing the poor thermalisation near β (2) c for 104 sweeps. The system spends a longer time in the hotter phase at a lower temperature β −1 = 2.332−1 than at the higher temperature β −1 = 2.328−1 . 21 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_f…

**Figure 15.** Figure 15: An example of a d = 2 configuration for β = 0.8 (left) and β = 3.2 (right). 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 0 20 40 60 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 0 20 40 60 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_15.png]

**Figure 16.** Figure 16: An example of a d = 3 configuration for β = 1.0 (left) and β = 3.0 (right). 22 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_16.png]

**Figure 17.** Figure 17: The interval abundances for the two phases in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_17.png]

**Figure 18.** Figure 18: Occupancy or the number of elements at each time slice, for different values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_18.png]

**Figure 19.** Figure 19: The fitting functions take the form f(β) = A+B exp(−Cβ), where the asymptotic value A is set to be the value of the corresponding observable for the bilayer poset. 24 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_19.png]

**Figure 20.** Figure 20: The functions f2(m, ) and f3(m, ) for = 0.1 as a function of the interval size. There are three consecutive bands of interval sizes, with alternating signs. • The height of a causal set is the length of the longest chain in the causal set. • The Benincasa-Dowker a…

**Figure 21.** Figure 21: When the aspect ratio α > 1/2, the light-cone for an element can wrap all the way around the cylinder. B A calculation of the ordering fraction in d = 2 The ordering fraction in an n-element causal set is the ratio of the number of relations R to the total number of p…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

[1]

Bombelli, J

L. Bombelli, J. Lee, D. Meyer, and R. Sorkin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 521 (1987)

work page 1987
[2]

R. D. Sorkin, in Proceedings of the Valdivia Summer School , Series of the Centro de Estudios Cientiﬁcos de Santiago), edited by A. Gomberoﬀ and D. Marolf (New York, Springer, 2005) gr-qc/0309009

arXiv 2005
[3]

Dowker, in 100 Years Of Relativity: space-time structure: Einstein and beyond , edited by A

F. Dowker, in 100 Years Of Relativity: space-time structure: Einstein and beyond , edited by A. Ashtekar (World Scientiﬁc, 2005) pp. 445–464, arXiv:gr-qc/0508109 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2005
[4]

Henson, in Approaches to quantum gravity, edited by D

J. Henson, in Approaches to quantum gravity, edited by D. Oriti (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006) pp. 393–413, arXiv:gr-qc/0601121 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2006
[5]

Discovering the Discrete Universe

J. Henson, in Proceedings, Foundations of Space and Time: Reﬂections on Quantum Gravity: Cape Town, South Africa (2010) arXiv:1003.5890 [gr-qc]

work page Pith review arXiv 2010
[6]

Wallden, Proceedings, 15th Conference on Recent Developments in Gravity (NEB 15): Chania, Crete, Greece, June 20-23, 2012 , J

P. Wallden, Proceedings, 15th Conference on Recent Developments in Gravity (NEB 15): Chania, Crete, Greece, June 20-23, 2012 , J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 453, 012023 (2013)

work page 2013
[7]

Surya, Living Rev

S. Surya, Living Rev. Rel. 22, 5 (2019), arXiv:1903.11544 [gr-qc] . 30

arXiv 2019
[8]

Hawking, A

S. Hawking, A. King, and P. McCarthy, J. Math. Phys. (1976)

work page 1976

Show all 31 references

[9]

D. B. Malament, J. Math. Phys. 18, 1399 (1977)

1977
[10]

W. G. Unruh and R. M. Wald, Phys. Rev. D 40, 2598 (1989)

1989
[11]

R. D. Sorkin, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 36, 2759 (1997), arXiv:gr-qc/9706002 [gr-qc]

1997 arXiv
[12]

D. M. Benincasa and F. Dowker, Phys.Rev.Lett. 104, 181301 (2010)

2010
[13]

Dowker and L

F. Dowker and L. Glaser, Class. Quantum Grav. 30, 195016 (2013)

2013
[14]

Glaser, Class

L. Glaser, Class. Quantum Grav. 31, 095007 (2014)

2014
[15]

D. J. Kleitman and B. L. Rothschild, Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 205, 205 (1975)

1975
[16]

D. Dhar, J. Math. Phys. 19 (1978)

1978
[17]

Dhar, Paciﬁc J

D. Dhar, Paciﬁc J. Math. 90 (1980)

1980
[18]

Eichhorn, Class

A. Eichhorn, Class. Quantum Grav. 35, 044001 (2018), arXiv:1709.10419 [gr-qc]

2018 arXiv
[19]

S. P. Loomis and S. Carlip, Class. Quantum Grav. 35, 024002 (2018), arXiv:1709.00064 [gr-qc]

2018 arXiv
[20]

Brightwell, J

G. Brightwell, J. Henson, and S. Surya, Class. Quantum Grav. 25, 105025 (2008)

2008
[21]

Surya, Class

S. Surya, Class. Quantum Grav. 29, 132001 (2012)

2012
[22]

Winkler, Order 7, 329 (1991)

P. Winkler, Order 7, 329 (1991)

1991
[23]

M. H. El-Zahar and N. W. Sauer, Order 5, 239 (1988)

1988
[24]

J. B. Hartle and S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D 28, 2960 (1983)

1983
[25]

Glaser, D

L. Glaser, D. O’Connor, and S. Surya, Class. Quantum Grav. 35, 045006 (2018), arXiv:1706.06432 [gr-qc]

2018 arXiv
[26]

Cunningham and D

W. Cunningham and D. Krioukov, Comput. Phys. Commun. 233, 123 (2018)

2018
[27]

Causal Set Generator,

W. Cunningham, “Causal Set Generator,” (2017)

2017
[28]

Encyclopedia of quantum geometries,

Zenodo Digital Library, “Encyclopedia of quantum geometries,” (2019)

2019
[29]

Glaser and S

L. Glaser and S. Surya, Phys. Rev. D 88, 124026 (2013), arXiv:1309.3403 [gr-qc]

2013 arXiv
[30]

Flucutating lattices in CST,

W. Cunningham and S. Surya, “Flucutating lattices in CST,” In progress
[31]

Finite sized scaling analysis in d = 2, 3 CST,

W. Cunningham, L. Glaser, and S. Surya, “Finite sized scaling analysis in d = 2, 3 CST,” In progress. 31

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Bombelli, J

L. Bombelli, J. Lee, D. Meyer, and R. Sorkin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 521 (1987)

work page 1987

[2] [2]

R. D. Sorkin, in Proceedings of the Valdivia Summer School , Series of the Centro de Estudios Cientiﬁcos de Santiago), edited by A. Gomberoﬀ and D. Marolf (New York, Springer, 2005) gr-qc/0309009

arXiv 2005

[3] [3]

Dowker, in 100 Years Of Relativity: space-time structure: Einstein and beyond , edited by A

F. Dowker, in 100 Years Of Relativity: space-time structure: Einstein and beyond , edited by A. Ashtekar (World Scientiﬁc, 2005) pp. 445–464, arXiv:gr-qc/0508109 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2005

[4] [4]

Henson, in Approaches to quantum gravity, edited by D

J. Henson, in Approaches to quantum gravity, edited by D. Oriti (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006) pp. 393–413, arXiv:gr-qc/0601121 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2006

[5] [5]

Discovering the Discrete Universe

J. Henson, in Proceedings, Foundations of Space and Time: Reﬂections on Quantum Gravity: Cape Town, South Africa (2010) arXiv:1003.5890 [gr-qc]

work page Pith review arXiv 2010

[6] [6]

Wallden, Proceedings, 15th Conference on Recent Developments in Gravity (NEB 15): Chania, Crete, Greece, June 20-23, 2012 , J

P. Wallden, Proceedings, 15th Conference on Recent Developments in Gravity (NEB 15): Chania, Crete, Greece, June 20-23, 2012 , J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 453, 012023 (2013)

work page 2013

[7] [7]

Surya, Living Rev

S. Surya, Living Rev. Rel. 22, 5 (2019), arXiv:1903.11544 [gr-qc] . 30

arXiv 2019

[8] [8]

Hawking, A

S. Hawking, A. King, and P. McCarthy, J. Math. Phys. (1976)

work page 1976