REVIEW 6 minor 1 cited by
Canonical analysis of unimodular Pleba\'nski gravity
T0 review · 0 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read In preferred-volume unimodular Plebański gravity, preserving the constraints under time evolution replaces the Hamiltonian constraint with the condition that the Hamiltonian density be spatially constant, turning the cosmological constant…
desk verdict A straightforward, honest canonical analysis; the preferred-volume part is genuinely new and the central unimodular mechanism survives scrutiny. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The load-bearing object is the densitised triad $\tilde{E}^a_i = \tfrac12\tilde{\epsilon}^{abc}\Sigma^i_{bc}$ extracted from the two-forms, together with its inverse $\tilde{E}^i_a$. All constraints and the reconstructed metric are expressed in terms of these objects, with $\det\tilde{E}$ appearing in denominators. The central identity is the Hamiltonian density $\mathcal{H} = \frac{\epsilon_{ijk}F^k_{ab}\tilde{E}^a_i\tilde{E}^b_j}{2\det\tilde{E}}$, whose spatial gradient becomes the new constraint $K_a$ in the preferred-volume theory; in the parametrised theory the same density is tied to the dynamical field $\lambda$ through the constraint $H' = \mathcal{H} - \lambda \approx 0$.
What would settle it
Compute the spatial gradient of the Hamiltonian density, $\partial_a(\epsilon_{ijk}F^k_{bc}\tilde{E}^b_i\tilde{E}^c_j/(2\det\tilde{E}))$, on a spatially homogeneous Plebański solution with the fixed background $\tilde{N}_0$; if it does not vanish identically, the preferred-volume theory would not admit that solution, directly testing the claim that preservation of constraints forces the Hamiltonian density to be constant.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The central discovery is that unimodularity changes the Hamiltonian constraint, not the kinematical variables. In the preferred-volume theory, the lapse is a fixed background density $\tilde{N}_0$, so the naive Hamiltonian has a genuine non-constraint part. Preservation of the diffeomorphism constraint under this Hamiltonian produces the secondary constraint $K_a = \partial_a\left(\frac{\epsilon_{ijk}F^k_{ab}\tilde{E}^a_i\tilde{E}^b_j}{2\det\tilde{E}}\right)\approx 0$, which states that the Hamiltonian density $\mathcal{H}=\frac{\epsilon_{ijk}F^k_{ab}\tilde{E}^a_i\tilde{E}^b_j}{2\det\tilde{E}}$ is constant on each spatial slice. The value of that constant is not fixed by the action and serves as the cosmological constant of the corresponding general-relativity solution. The paper also shows that the parametrised version is equivalent to adding a canonical pair $(\lambda,\tilde{\tau})$ with $\lambda=\mathrm{tr}\,M$ constrained to be constant and $\tilde{\tau}$ measuring the spacetime volume between hypersurfaces.
Load-bearing premise
The matrix $\tilde{E}^a_i$ must be invertible everywhere on the spatial slice, because the inverse triad, the Hamiltonian density, and the reconstructed metric are all undefined when $\det\tilde{E}=0$.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- In the preferred-volume theory, the cosmological constant is no longer a fixed parameter but an integration constant determined by initial data, exactly as in metric unimodular gravity.
- The new constraint $K_a$ generates a restricted set of time reparametrisations, corresponding to volume-preserving diffeomorphisms, so the reduced symmetry is consistent with the fixed background volume form.
- In the parametrised theory, $\lambda$ is forced to be constant in spacetime, and $\tilde{\tau}$ provides a preferred volume time, giving a physical interpretation to the extra global degree of freedom.
- Reality conditions require $\tilde{N}_0$ to be purely imaginary for Lorentzian solutions, and an additional condition is needed to exclude purely imaginary spacetime metrics.
- The constraint algebra remains first class, with the Gauss constraint from the internal SO(3) symmetry and the diffeomorphism constraint as expected for connection variables.
Reading between the lines
- The mechanism that replaces a Hamiltonian constraint by a spatial-constancy condition may extend to other connection-based unimodular formulations, not just the Plebański framework, because it relies only on the lapse becoming a fixed background field.
- A canonical quantisation based on these variables would need to impose a softened Hamiltonian constraint, $\hat{K}_a\Psi=0$ rather than $\hat{\mathcal{H}}\Psi=0$, which could alter the role of time in loop quantum gravity; the paper does not develop this.
- The analysis excludes configurations where $\det\tilde{E}=0$, so any quantum state built on degenerate triads falls outside the claimed equivalence; extending the formalism to the degenerate sector would require a separate treatment.
Signed reviews
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper develops the canonical (Hamiltonian) analysis of two unimodular versions of chiral Plebanski gravity: a preferred-volume theory with a fixed background volume form, and a parametrised Henneaux-Teitelboim-type theory with a dynamical 3-form T. In the preferred-volume theory the standard Hamiltonian constraint is absent, and demanding consistency with the diffeomorphism constraint produces a secondary constraint K_a = ∂_a H, so that the Hamiltonian density is forced to be spatially constant and the cosmological constant is promoted to an integration constant. In the parametrised theory the trace of the Plebanski matrix becomes a dynamical field λ with conjugate momentum τ~, and a new constraint ∂_a λ ≈ 0 ensures λ is constant. The paper also analyzes reality conditions, the reconstructed metric, and the notion of volume time.
Significance. If the analysis is correct, the paper makes a worthwhile contribution by extending the unimodular-gravity mechanism to the connection-based Plebanski formalism that underlies loop quantum gravity, and by doing so in a careful and explicit way. The derivations are self-contained and parameter-free in the sense that the constraints are obtained from the stated action principles rather than from any fitted input. The discussion of reality conditions and of the four possible metric sectors is particularly useful, and the identification of the volume time in the parametrised formulation is a nice geometric result. The preferred-volume analysis appears to be new, while the parametrised analysis correctly complements and extends earlier work.
minor comments (6)
- [Sec. III, after Eq. (7)] The assumption that the densitised triad matrix E~^a_i is invertible is stated, but the paper should explicitly note that this restricts the entire analysis to the non-degenerate sector, so that the conclusions do not cover degenerate triads; the same assumption underlies the inverse triad (8), the Hamiltonian density (17), the reconstructed metric (27), and the reality conditions (25).
- [Sec. IV.A, Eq. (36)] The derivation of the secondary constraint K_a = ∂_a H is presented in a single sentence; since this is the central new result, the authors should display the intermediate bracket computation, including the treatment of the fixed background density N~0 as non-dynamical and the assumption that N~0 is nowhere vanishing, as befits a fixed volume form.
- [Sec. IV.A, text after Eq. (43)] The wording that 'the constraint (17) is replaced by a version in which Λ is a free integration constant' is slightly imprecise; because Eq. (17) itself contains the parameter Λ, it would be clearer to state that the new constraint K_a ≈ 0 forces the Hamiltonian density H to be spatially constant, and that this constant plays the role of the cosmological constant.
- [Sec. IV.B, after Eq. (49)] The claim that the constraints (50)-(53) satisfy the same first-class Poisson algebra as the non-unimodular theory is plausible but not demonstrated; because the diffeomorphism constraint D'_a contains the additional term -τ~ ∂_a λ, the authors should give at least one explicit bracket, such as {D'(V), H'(N)} or {H'(N1), H'(N2)}, to show that the algebra still closes.
- [Appendix A] The appendix derives gauge transformations of Lagrange multipliers for the canonical Plebanski action only, while the text says the same formalism applies to all theories considered; the authors should either provide the analogous transformation rules for the new constraints K and J in the unimodular theories or explicitly state that those results are left to Ref. [24].
- [Throughout] There are minor formatting issues, such as the stray space in 'Pleba´ nski' in the title and text, and the inconsistent spelling 'Plebanski' in Ref. [2]; these should be corrected in a final production pass.
Circularity Check
No significant circularity: the central constraints are derived from the stated actions by direct canonical analysis, and self-citations are background/definitional only.
full rationale
The paper's central claim, that in the preferred-volume version the Hamiltonian constraint is replaced by spatial constancy of the Hamiltonian density, is derived from the action (4) by Dirac's algorithm rather than assumed. In particular, Eq. (36) defines K_a = ∂_a H as a secondary constraint obtained from the consistency condition {D(U), H^(0)} ≈ 0; since Ñ0 is a fixed, nonvanishing background density, this genuinely forces the Hamiltonian density to be spatially constant. The parametrised theory similarly derives the new constraints (50)-(53), including J_a = ∂_a λ ≈ 0, from the canonical action (49), and the volume-time construction follows from the Hamilton equation (60). The only self-citations, Ref. [10] supplying the actions (4) and (5) and Ref. [11] for a prior partial analysis of the parametrised version, provide starting points or prior context; they are not invoked as uniqueness theorems, not used to forbid alternatives, and do not carry the derivation of the paper's new results. The explicit assumption that the densitized triad is invertible (after Eq. (7)) is a stated domain restriction, not a circular input. There are no fitted parameters, no predictions of fitted data, and no repackaging of a known result as a derivation. The canonical analysis is self-contained given the actions, so no circularity is present.
Assumptions & free parameters
assumptions (4)
- domain assumption Spacetime has topology M = R × S with S compact without boundary or suitable fall-off conditions.
- domain assumption The densitized triad E~^a_i is invertible (det E~ ≠ 0).
- domain assumption In the Lorentzian sector, reality conditions (23) are imposed by hand on the complex Plebański fields.
- domain assumption The preferred-volume theory takes the background 4-form ω0 as fixed and non-dynamical.
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Canonical analysis of unimodular Pleba\'nski gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IPSFQPYT
@misc{pith2026241109748,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Canonical analysis of unimodular Pleba\'nski gravity},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IPSFQPYT}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09748}
}
read the original abstract
We present the canonical analysis of different versions of unimodular gravity defined in the Pleba\'nski formalism, based on a (generally complex) SO(3) spin connection and set of (self-dual) two-forms. As in the metric formulation of unimodular gravity, one can study either a theory with fixed volume form or work in a parametrised formalism in which the cosmological constant becomes a dynamical field, constrained to be constant by the field equations. In the first case, the Hamiltonian density contains a part which is not constrained to vanish, but rather constrained to be constant, again as in the metric formulation. We also discuss reality conditions and challenges in extracting Lorentzian solutions.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Inflation in unimodular loop quantum cosmology
In unimodular loop quantum cosmology, an α-attractor potential allows a potential-energy-dominated bounce at the Planck scale that is consistent with CMB observations and may show quantum-gravity imprints.
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[10]
Unimodular Pleba\'{n}ski Gravity
S. Gielen and E. Nash, “Unimodular Pleba´ nski gravity,” Class. Quant. Grav. 41 (2024), 085009, arXiv:2309.06333
work page Pith review arXiv 2024
-
[11]
Unimodular loop quantum gravity and the problems of time,
L. Smolin, “Unimodular loop quantum gravity and the problems of time,” Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011), 044047, arXiv:1008.1759
arXiv 2011
-
[1]
K. Krasnov, Formulations of General Relativity: Gravity, Spinors and Differential Forms (Cambridge University Press, 2020)
work page 2020
-
[2]
On the separation of Einsteinian substructures,
J. F. Plebanski, “On the separation of Einsteinian substructures,” J. Math. Phys. 18 (1977), 2511–2520; K. Krasnov, “Pleba´ nski formulation of general relativity: a practical introduction,” Gen. Rel. Grav. 43 (2011), 1– 15; arXiv:0904.0423
arXiv 1977
-
[3]
Self- dual 2-forms and gravity,
R. Capovilla, T. Jacobson, J. Dell and L. J. Mason, “Self- dual 2-forms and gravity,” Class. Quant. Grav. 8 (1991), 41–57
work page 1991
-
[4]
New Variables for Classical and Quantum Gravity,
A. Ashtekar, “New Variables for Classical and Quantum Gravity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 57 (1986), 2244–2247
work page 1986
-
[5]
Hamiltonian Analysis of Plebanski Theory
E. Buffenoir, M. Henneaux, K. Noui and P. Roche, “Hamiltonian analysis of Plebanski the- ory,” Class. Quant. Grav. 21 (2004), 5203–5220, gr-qc/0404041; S. Alexandrov and K. Krasnov, “Hamil- tonian analysis of non-chiral Plebanski theory and its generalizations,” Class. Quant. Grav. 26 (2009), 055005, arXiv:0809.4763
work page Pith review arXiv 2004
-
[6]
Unimodular gravity vs general relativity: a sta- tus report,
R. Carballo-Rubio, L. J. Garay and G. Garc ´ ıa-Moreno, “Unimodular gravity vs general relativity: a sta- tus report,” Class. Quant. Grav. 39 (2022), 243001, arXiv:2207.08499; E. ´Alvarez and E. Velasco-Aja, “A Primer on Unimodular Gravity,” Phys. Part. Nucl. 54 (2023), 908-912
arXiv 2022
Show all 24 references
-
[7]
Grav- ity with more or less gauging,
S. Gielen, R. de Le´ on Ard´ on and R. Percacci, “Grav- ity with more or less gauging,” Class. Quant. Grav. 35 (2018), 195009, arXiv:1805.11626
2018 arXiv
-
[8]
Cosmological Constant and Fundamental Length,
J. L. Anderson and D. Finkelstein, “Cosmological Constant and Fundamental Length,” Am. J. Phys. 39 (1971), 901–904; W. Buchm¨ uller and N. Dragon, “Gauge fixing and the cosmological constant,” Phys. Lett. B 223 (1989), 313–317; J. J. van der Bij, H. van Dam and Y. J. Ng, “The e...
1971
-
[9]
The cosmological con- stant and general covariance,
M. Henneaux and C. Teitelboim, “The cosmological con- stant and general covariance,” Phys. Lett. B 222 (1989), 195–199
1989
-
[12]
On the trace-free Einstein equations as a viable alterna- tive to general relativity,
G. F. R. Ellis, H. van Elst, J. Murugan and J. P. Uzan, “On the trace-free Einstein equations as a viable alterna- tive to general relativity,” Class. Quant. Grav. 28 (2011), 225007, arXiv:1008.1196
2011 arXiv
-
[13]
Pure Connection Action Principle for Gen- eral Relativity,
K. Krasnov, “Pure Connection Action Principle for Gen- eral Relativity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 (2011), 251103, arXiv:1103.4498
2011 arXiv
-
[14]
Ashtekar variables in classical gen- eral relativity,
D. Giulini, “Ashtekar variables in classical gen- eral relativity,” Lect. Notes Phys. 434 (1994), 81–112, gr-qc/9312032
1994 arXiv
-
[15]
Revisiting loop quantum gravity with selfdual variables: classical theory,
H. Sahlmann and R. Seeger, “Revisiting loop quantum gravity with selfdual variables: classical theory,” Class. Quant. Grav. 41 (2024), 075010, arXiv:2310.19729
2024 arXiv
-
[16]
Quantum cosmology of pure connection general relativity,
S. Gielen and E. Nash, “Quantum cosmology of pure connection general relativity,” Class. Quant. Grav. 40 (2023), 115009, arXiv:2212.06198
2023 arXiv
-
[17]
Overall signa - ture of the metric and the cosmological constant,
B. Alexandre, S. Gielen and J. Magueijo, “Overall signa - ture of the metric and the cosmological constant,” JCAP 02 (2024), 036, arXiv:2306.11502
2024 arXiv
-
[18]
Alterna- tive derivation of Krasnov’s action for general relativity ,
M. Celada, D. Gonz´ alez and M. Montesinos, “Alterna- tive derivation of Krasnov’s action for general relativity ,” Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015), 044059, arXiv:1509.00076
2015 arXiv
-
[19]
Unimodular theory of canonical quantum gravity,
W. G. Unruh, “Unimodular theory of canonical quantum gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 40 (1989), 1048–1052
1989
-
[20]
Canonical analysis of unimodular gravity ,
J. Klusoˇ n, “Canonical analysis of unimodular gravity ,” Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015), 064058, arXiv:1409.8014
2015 arXiv
-
[21]
Hamiltonian analysis of unimodu- lar gravity and its quantization in the connection representation,
S. Yamashita, “Hamiltonian analysis of unimodu- lar gravity and its quantization in the connection representation,” Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020), 086007, arXiv:2003.05083
2020 arXiv
-
[22]
Derivation of the Wheeler–DeWitt equ a- tion from a path integral for minisuperspace models,
J. J. Halliwell, “Derivation of the Wheeler–DeWitt equ a- tion from a path integral for minisuperspace models,” Phys. Rev. D 38 (1988), 2468–2481
1988
-
[23]
Henneaux and C
M. Henneaux and C. Teitelboim, Quantization of Gauge Systems (Princeton University Press, 1994)
1994
-
[24]
Nash, Connection Formulations of Cosmology and Unimodular Gravity (PhD Thesis, University of Sheffield, 2025)
E. Nash, Connection Formulations of Cosmology and Unimodular Gravity (PhD Thesis, University of Sheffield, 2025)
2025
Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.