Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 55 references

By rewriting matter-coupled mini-superspace Hamiltonians as free-particle Hamiltonians through canonical transformations, this paper shows that Schrödinger symmetry survives the addition of Maxwell and massless-scalar matter, with (A)dS Rei

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

2026-08-03 16:25 UTC pith:ZNZXCMWX

load-bearing objection Solid, explicit extension of Schrödinger symmetry to matter-coupled mini-superspaces; the main caveat is that the symmetry is gauge-fixed for special lapse choices, so the robustness claim is suggestive rather than proven. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.13651 v3 pith:ZNZXCMWX submitted 2025-12-15 gr-qc hep-thquant-ph

Schr\"odinger Symmetry in Spherically-symmetric Static Mini-superspaces with Matter Fields

Taishi Sano , Yuki Yokokura This is my paper
classification gr-qc hep-thquant-ph MSC 83C4583C5783C2070H33 PACS 04.60.-m04.70.-s
keywords Schrödinger symmetrymini-superspacecanonical transformationsReissner-Nordström spacetimeJanis-Newman-Winicour spacetimeHamiltonian constraintKantowski-Sachsblack hole mechanics
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.

This paper tries to establish that the Schrödinger symmetry recently found in vacuum gravitational mini-superspaces is not an accident of pure gravity: it also appears when matter is added. The authors develop a canonical-transformation method that rewrites a reduced gravitational Hamiltonian as a free-particle quadratic form, from which the Schrödinger algebra is read off. For a Maxwell field with cosmological constant, the method yields 3D Schrödinger symmetry and the (anti-)de Sitter Reissner-Nordström metric as the solution; for n massless scalar fields, it yields (2+n)D symmetry and a generalized Janis-Newman-Winicour spacetime together with its 'interior,' a Kantowski-Sachs type closed universe. In the vacuum decoupling limit, the same argument reproduces 2D Schrödinger symmetry in two different gauges, which the authors take as evidence for the covariance of the symmetry. A final interpretive step separates symmetry generators that commute with the Hamiltonian constraint—mapping solutions to solutions—from those that do not, which the authors propose to view as generating new theories that still carry Schrödinger symmetry.

Core claim

In the paper's own terms: for spherically symmetric static mini-superspaces, choosing the lapse N=sqrt(X^-/(4X^+)) and canonical variables (X^+, X^-, X_A) turns the Hamiltonian constraint of Einstein-Maxwell theory with cosmological constant into H=(1/2)G^{ab}P_aP_b plus a constant; the resulting 3D Schrödinger algebra is generated by momenta, boosts, rotations, and the sl(2,R) triplet, and the on-shell metric is uniquely the (A)dS Reissner-Nordström metric. Choosing instead N=2exp(4Y^0-2Y^1) with Y-coordinates for n massless scalar fields (assuming zero masses and zero cosmological constant) gives a (2+n)-dimensional Lorentzian supermetric and (2+n)D Schrödinger symmetry, with the unified s

What carries the argument

The canonical-transformation method: find conserved quantities that can serve as new momenta, integrate them into a generating function, and define new position coordinates so that the Hamiltonian becomes (1/2)~g^{ij}~p_i~p_j with constant supermetric ~g. Once that free-particle form is reached, the full Schrödinger algebra follows verbatim from the boosts and momenta. This mechanism converts a non-trivial gravitational Hamiltonian—whose potential comes from a cosmological constant or matter—into a uniform-linear-motion system on a constant Lorentzian mini-superspace, and it is what the paper uses to exhibit the symmetry in both matter models.

Load-bearing premise

The results rest on specially chosen lapse functions (and, for the scalar model, on zero matter masses and zero cosmological constant), and the canonical-transformation method is only a sufficient condition, so if those gauge choices are not representative, the claimed robustness and covariance would be weakened.

What would settle it

Vary the lapse, for example set N=1 or N=4X^+/X^- in the same reduced action, and check whether the canonical transformation to a constant-supermetric free Hamiltonian still succeeds; if the Schrödinger generators no longer satisfy the off-shell condition {G,H}+∂_τG=0, the symmetry is gauge-dependent. Alternatively, add a mass term to one scalar field and attempt the same transformation—the paper's own reduction shows mass terms mix the coordinates, so demonstrating that no canonical transformation exists in that case would delimit the robustness claim.

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

If this is right

  • Schrödinger symmetry is not an artifact of the vacuum: it appears in mini-superspaces that include Maxwell and scalar matter, strengthening the idea that it is a universal fluid-limit symmetry of gravity.
  • The canonical-transformation method is a new sufficient route to the symmetry, applicable to systems where conformal-flatness-based lift methods are not directly usable, such as the Λ≠0 vacuum model.
  • In the matter models, the ADM mass and electric charge emerge as gauge-invariant symmetry generators, and the conjugate pair (T,M) satisfies {T,M}=1, giving a starting point for quantum dynamics.
  • Hamiltonian-commuting symmetry generators map known solutions to other known solutions—for example, Reissner-Nordström to Schwarzschild and Janis-Newman-Winicour to Schwarzschild—making the symmetry a concrete dynamical-symmetry transformation.
  • Non-commuting generators can be interpreted as changing the theory while preserving the Schrödinger symmetry, producing modified-gravity actions such as a 2D cosmological term or a background scalar field.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the covariance claim generalizes, the Schrödinger symmetry would be a property of the physical phase space rather than of one particular gauge; a direct test is to examine generic lapse functions and check whether a canonical transformation to the free-particle form still exists.
  • The reduction to uniform linear motion suggests a free-particle-like quantization of the mini-superspace, but the map back to geometry is nonlinear; this tension between linear superposition in the new variables and nonlinear geometry could be where singularity resolution enters.
  • The 'new theory' interpretation effectively acts on coupling constants—adding a 2D cosmological constant or a background scalar field—and could be developed into a systematic symmetry-based method for generating modified gravity theories.
  • Because the Janis-Newman-Winicour spacetime and its Kantowski-Sachs interior are unified in a single metric and both carry the symmetry, quantizing this model may provide a concrete bridge between quantum black-hole interiors and quantum cosmology.

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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a canonical-transformation method to identify Schrödinger symmetry in spherically symmetric static mini-superspace models with matter. For vacuum with a cosmological constant, it reproduces the known 2D Schrödinger symmetry and the (A)dS-Schwarzschild metric. For a Maxwell field with cosmological constant, it claims 3D Schrödinger symmetry and derives the (A)dS-Reissner-Nordström metric. For n massless scalar fields (with m_I=0 and Λ=0), it claims (2+n)D Schrödinger symmetry and derives a generalized Janis-Newman-Winicour solution together with a Kantowski-Sachs-type closed universe interpreted as its interior. The paper also proposes an interpretation of symmetry generators under the Hamiltonian constraint: generators commuting with H map solutions to solutions, while non-commuting generators generate a new theory, and it illustrates this with explicit examples. The central derivations are explicit and the resulting metrics match known solutions.

Significance. If the construction is accepted, the paper extends the emergent-Schrödinger-symmetry program from vacuum mini-superspaces to matter-coupled models, which is a meaningful step for the quantum-gravity motivation. The strength of the paper is that all canonical transformations are written down, the new variables are shown to be canonical, and the on-shell metrics reduce to standard spacetimes; there is no parameter fitting, and the symmetry construction does not presuppose the target solution. The main weakness is that the symmetry is established only after special gauge fixings of the lapse, and the paper does not prove that the symmetry is a property of the full theory rather than of the gauge-fixed action.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III B, IV A, V B; Appendix B, Eqs. (34), (86), (B9)-(B10)] The Noether condition (6) and the free-particle form of the Hamiltonian are obtained only after fixing the lapse to N=sqrt(X^-/(4X^+)) or N=2 exp(4Y^0-2Y^1). Since H = N H_constraint, the symmetry depends on this gauge choice. Appendix B shows explicitly that the Galilean boost does not leave the full action invariant but instead shifts the Hamiltonian constraint by a constant (Eqs. B9-B10). Thus the demonstrated symmetry is a symmetry of the gauge-fixed action with a modified constraint, not of the full theory. The paper's robustness/covariance conclusion is not established because only two lapses are tested. The authors should either prove lapse independence for a broader family, or explicitly state in the abstract and conclusions that the symmetry is gauge-fixed and the covariance is a conjecture.
  2. [Sec. VI A, Eq. (129)] The proposed interpretation that non-commuting generators generate a new theory defines lambda_New using the original solution's integration constants (alpha, beta). Therefore the 'new theory' is solution-dependent, and for Q_- it is even gauge-dependent, as the text acknowledges after Eq. (132). This is a heuristic proposal rather than a derived consequence. Since the abstract advertises this as a physical interpretation, the manuscript should clearly mark it as speculative and discuss whether solution-dependence is compatible with the notion of a symmetry transformation.
  3. [Sec. II B and Sec. V A] The canonical-transformation method is explicitly sufficient but not necessary (Sec. II B). The paper does not provide a criterion for when such canonical transformations exist, and the 'robustness' claim is supported by only two matter models (Maxwell and massless scalars, with m_I=0, Lambda=0 in Eq. 85). The examples are valuable, but the abstract's phrase 'reinforce the robustness' is stronger than what the two examples prove. The authors should either supply additional evidence or moderate the generalization claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (88)] The new momentum \tilde\Pi_0 is defined through a square root. For \epsilon=-1 the argument can be negative off-shell, so the canonical transformation is only defined on a restricted domain. The physical on-shell solutions seem to satisfy the reality condition, but this should be stated explicitly.
  2. [Appendix B, after Eq. (B3)] Typo: 'S can fix' should be 'S_fix'. Also in the footnote near Eq. (40), 'dose not' should be 'does not'.
  3. [Figures 1 and 2] The figures have no captions in the text provided. Please add captions explaining the plotted quantities, parameters, and the meaning of the left/right panels.
  4. [Sec. V C, Eq. (117)] The four-dimensional volume integral is computed for the closed universe. The limit \mu\to 1 is discussed only briefly; a more explicit remark on the singular behavior of the last factor would help the reader.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Main symmetry and metric derivations are self-contained; only the Sec. VI A 'new theory' construction is definitional and non-load-bearing.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Sec. VI A, Eqs. (129)-(131)]
    "we use a generator G of Schrödinger symmetry and introduce a new characteristic constant by λNew :=λ+ (H0 −e s{·,G} ▷ H0)|Pa→αa,Ba→βa , (129) to define a new Hamiltonian or new dispersion relation: HNew :=H0 +λNew. (130) ... HNew|Pa→α′a,Ba→β′a = λNew + (e s{·,G} ▷ H0)|Pa→αa,Ba→βa = λ+H0|Pa→αa =0. (131)"

    λNew is defined as the exact shift needed to make the transformed charges satisfy the new constraint, so Eq. (131) is an identity rather than a derived prediction: the new theory is constructed from the requirement that the transformed configuration be a solution. The paper labels this a proposed interpretation, and the independent symmetry derivations in Secs. III–V do not rely on it, so this is a minor by-construction element, not a central circularity.

full rationale

The central chain—reducing the vacuum, Maxwell, and scalar mini-superspace Hamiltonians to free-particle form by explicit canonical transformations and then reading off the Schrödinger algebras—does not presuppose the target symmetries. The lapse choices (34) and (86) are stated assumptions that restrict the result, and the paper explicitly describes the method as a sufficient condition (Sec. II B: 'This is a heuristic approach; whether the desired canonical transformation exists can only be checked by actually performing the analysis'). The spacetime metrics (56), (79), (104) are obtained by solving the canonical equations and imposing H≈0, not by inserting the desired answer. No load-bearing self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem was found; the self-citations present (e.g., [39]) are contextual. The only true-by-construction element is the Sec. VI A λNew construction, which is an interpretive step and does not affect the independent symmetry results. Overall, the paper is not circular in the sense of fitting parameters to data or renaming inputs as predictions; its main limitation is lapse-dependence, which is a scope/correctness issue rather than circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 2 invented entities

No numerical parameters are fitted to data. The load-bearing choices are gauge functions (lapses), the massless/Lambda=0 restriction, and the assumption that mini-superspace truncation is representative. The interpretation section introduces auxiliary constructs (2D cosmological term, background scalar) that have no independent evidence.

free parameters (3)
  • Lapse function N for X-coordinate models = N = sqrt(X^-/(4X^+))
    Chosen in Eq. (34) to put H_g and H_gE into the free-particle-plus-potential form. The resulting symmetry is gauge-dependent; a different lapse could destroy it.
  • Lapse function N for Y-coordinate scalar model = N = 2 exp(4Y^0 - 2Y^1)
    Chosen in Eq. (86) to make H_gphi take a form amenable to the canonical transformation. No independent principle selects this lapse.
  • Fiducial / cutoff scales via c = c = l_0 l_s^2 / l_p^3
    Introduced in Eq. (29) to regulate angular and time integrals. The classical metrics are insensitive to the cutoffs, but their role in the proposed quantum extension is not assessed.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Spherically symmetric static ansatz with radial foliation (Eqs. 26 and 82) is a valid mini-superspace truncation of the full superspace.
    The paper relies on the 'fluid limit' idea that mini-superspaces capture universal structures. This is an input, not derived.
  • domain assumption The Hamiltonian constraint H = NH with H approx 0 correctly describes the classical dynamics of the reduced system.
    Standard Dirac constrained dynamics is used throughout; physical solutions are selected by imposing H approx 0.
  • ad hoc to paper For the scalar-field model, m_I = 0 and Lambda = 0 (Eq. 85).
    The canonical-transformation method is acknowledged (footnote 5) to fail when mass terms or Lambda are present. This restriction limits the robustness claim.
  • ad hoc to paper The chosen lapse functions are legitimate gauge choices that do not alter physical content.
    The symmetry and the covariance suggestion depend on these gauge choices; whether a generic lapse also yields the symmetry is not proven.
  • standard math Standard canonical mechanics: canonical transformations preserve Poisson brackets and the free-particle Hamiltonian generates the Schrödinger algebra.
    These are well-known results used to construct the symmetry generators in Sec. II.
invented entities (2)
  • 2D cosmological constant Lambda_2d = -k_*/(4 l_p^2) no independent evidence
    purpose: Introduced in Ex. 3 (Sec. VI C) to interpret the metric transformed by the Galilei boost B_+ as a solution of a modified gravity theory with a 2D cosmological term.
    This term is generated by the symmetry-transformation interpretation, not predicted independently or constrained by external data.
  • Background scalar field psi_back no independent evidence
    purpose: Introduced in Ex. 4 (Sec. VI C) to interpret the new theory generated by B_phi as Einstein gravity plus a scalar field in the background of another scalar field with the same excitation.
    The authors label it 'one simple interpretation'; it has no independent falsifiable handle.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 35977 in / 35599 out tokens · 267921 ms · 2026-08-03T16:25:12.828242+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Schr\"{o}dinger symmetry has been shown to emerge in a ``fluid limit" from the full superspace to several mini-superspace models. To investigate one aspect of the robustness of this emergent symmetry, we consider two spherically-symmetric static mini-superspace models with matter fields at the classical level: (i) a Maxwell field with a cosmological constant and (ii) $n$ massless scalar fields. By developing a method based on canonical transformations, we demonstrate that for model (i), 3D Schr\"odinger symmetry emerges, and the solution is the (anti-)de Sitter Reissner-Nordstr\"om spacetime, and for model (ii), $(2+n)$D Schr\"odinger symmetry appears, and the solution is a generalized Janis-Newman-Winicour spacetime and its ``interior", a Kantowski-Sachs type closed universe. Furthermore, for the vacuum model, we find that 2D Schr\"odinger symmetry holds with different lapse functions and mini-superspace coordinates, suggesting the potential, yet unconfirmed, covariance of the symmetry. Finally, we propose a physical interpretation of the symmetry under the Hamiltonian constraint $H$: symmetry generators commuting with $H$ map a solution to another one, while those non-commuting with $H$ generate a new theory with the Schr\"odinger symmetry and the transformed configuration is a solution to the new theory. These results reinforce the robustness of the emergent Schr\"odinger symmetry and open new frontiers for exploring dynamics of matter and gravity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.13651 by Taishi Sano, Yuki Yokokura.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: For the case of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: For the case of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Schematic representation of a gauge-independent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 27 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    in- terior

    Therefore, the transformed configurationY ′a(τ) = β′a+G ab ϕ α′ bτsatisfies the original Hamiltonian constraint. Here, theµparameter (100) changes asµ= α0 α1 > 1→ α′ 0 α′ 1 = 1 because ofα ′ ϕ = 0. Therefore, this is the Schwarzschild solution with a different value of mass (112),M ′ = lsα′ 1 4G¯ce−2(β′0+β′1). 19 C.{G, H} ̸= 0: Theory transformations Fina...

  2. [2]

    Therefore, the action (B1) contains the effect of the Hamiltonian constraint. On the other hand, the variation ofX a provides the equation of motion forX a (geodesic equation in the mini-superspace), which is equivalent to the canonical equation for the HamiltonianH=N H. Solving this equation together with the constraint (B2) determines a physical solutio...

  3. [3]

    P. A. M. Dirac,Lectures on quantum mechanics. Belfer Graduate School of Science, Yeshiva University, New York, 1964

    1964

  4. [4]

    On Cauchy’s problem in general relativity - II,

    A. Peres, “On Cauchy’s problem in general relativity - II,” Il Nuovo Cimento26(Oct., 1962) 53–62

    1962

  5. [5]

    Quantum Theory of Gravity. 1. The Canonical Theory,

    B. S. DeWitt, “Quantum Theory of Gravity. 1. The Canonical Theory,” Phys. Rev.160(1967) 1113–1148

    1967

  6. [6]

    Superspace and the Nature of Quantum Geometrodynamics.,

    J. A. Wheeler, “Superspace and the Nature of Quantum Geometrodynamics.,” pp 242-307 of Battelle Rencontres. /DeWitt, Cecile M. (ed.). New York W. A. Benjamin, Inc. (1968). (12, 1967)

    1968

  7. [7]

    Derivation of the ten einstein field equations from the semiclassical approximation to quantum geometrodynamics,

    U. H. Gerlach, “Derivation of the ten einstein field equations from the semiclassical approximation to quantum geometrodynamics,” Phys. Rev.177(1969) 25 1929–1941

    1969

  8. [8]

    Momentum constraints as integrability conditions for the hamiltonian constraint in general relativity,

    V. Moncrief and C. Teitelboim, “Momentum constraints as integrability conditions for the hamiltonian constraint in general relativity,” Phys. Rev. D6(1972) 966–969

    1972

  9. [9]

    Time and interpretations of quantum gravity,

    K. V. Kuchar, “Time and interpretations of quantum gravity,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D20(2011) 3–86

    2011

  10. [10]

    Canonical quantum gravity and the problem of time,

    C. J. Isham, “Canonical quantum gravity and the problem of time,” NATO Sci. Ser. C409(1993) 157–287,arXiv:gr-qc/9210011

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  11. [11]

    Equivalence of Approaches to Relational Quantum Dynamics in Relativistic Settings,

    P. A. Hoehn, A. R. H. Smith, and M. P. E. Lock, “Equivalence of Approaches to Relational Quantum Dynamics in Relativistic Settings,” Front. in Phys.9 (2021) 181,arXiv:2007.00580

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  12. [12]

    Universal corner symmetry and the orbit method for gravity,

    L. Ciambelli and R. G. Leigh, “Universal corner symmetry and the orbit method for gravity,” Nucl. Phys. B986(2023) 116053,arXiv:2207.06441

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  13. [13]

    Freidel, M

    L. Freidel, M. Geiller, and W. Wieland,Corner Symmetry and Quantum Geometry, pp. 1–36. 2024. arXiv:2302.12799

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  14. [14]

    Hydrodynamics on (Mini)superspace or a Non-linear Extension of Quantum Cosmology: An Effective Timeless Framework for Cosmology from Quantum Gravity,

    D. Oriti, “Hydrodynamics on (Mini)superspace or a Non-linear Extension of Quantum Cosmology: An Effective Timeless Framework for Cosmology from Quantum Gravity,” Fundam. Theor. Phys.216(2024) 221–252

    2024

  15. [15]

    Quantum gravity, hydrodynamics and emergent cosmology: a collection of perspectives,

    J. Ben Achouret al., “Quantum gravity, hydrodynamics and emergent cosmology: a collection of perspectives,” Gen. Rel. Grav.57(2025), no. 1, 2,arXiv:2411.12628

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Quantum Cosmology and Conformal Invariance,

    B. Pioline and A. Waldron, “Quantum Cosmology and Conformal Invariance,” Phys. Rev. Lett.90(Jan, 2003) 031302

    2003

  17. [17]

    Cosmology as a CFT1,

    J. B. Achour and E. R. Livine, “Cosmology as a CFT1,” Journal of High Energy Physics2019(2019), no. 12, 31

    2019

  18. [18]

    Conformal structure of FLR W cosmology: spinorial representation and the so(2,3) algebra of observables,

    J. B. Achour and E. R. Livine, “Conformal structure of FLR W cosmology: spinorial representation and the so(2,3) algebra of observables,” Journal of High Energy Physics2020(2020), no. 3, 67

    2020

  19. [19]

    Proper time reparametrization in cosmology: Mobius symmetry and Kodama charges,

    J. B. Achour, “Proper time reparametrization in cosmology: Mobius symmetry and Kodama charges,” Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2021 (dec, 2021) 005

    2021

  20. [20]

    Symmetries of the black hole interior and singularity regularization,

    M. Geiller, E. R. Livine, and F. Sartini, “Symmetries of the black hole interior and singularity regularization,” SciPost Phys.10(2021) 022

    2021

  21. [21]

    Symmetries and conformal bridge in Schwarschild-(A)dS black hole mechanics,

    J. B. Achour and E. R. Livine, “Symmetries and conformal bridge in Schwarschild-(A)dS black hole mechanics,” JHEP12(2021) 152,arXiv:2110.01455

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  22. [22]

    Schr¨ odinger symmetry of Schwarzschild-(A)dS black hole mechanics,

    J. Ben Achour, E. R. Livine, and D. Oriti, “Schr¨ odinger symmetry of Schwarzschild-(A)dS black hole mechanics,” Phys. Rev. D108(2023), no. 10, 104028, arXiv:2302.07644

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    Lie point and variational symmetries in minisuperspace Einstein gravity,

    T. Christodoulakis, N. Dimakis, and P. A. Terzis, “Lie point and variational symmetries in minisuperspace Einstein gravity,” J. Phys. A47(2014) 095202, arXiv:1304.4359

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  24. [24]

    Schr¨ odinger Symmetry in Gravitational Mini-Superspaces,

    J. Ben Achour, E. R. Livine, D. Oriti, and G. Piani, “Schr¨ odinger Symmetry in Gravitational Mini-Superspaces,” Universe9(2023), no. 12, 503, arXiv:2207.07312

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  25. [25]

    Dynamical symmetries of homogeneous minisuperspace models,

    M. Geiller, E. R. Livine, and F. Sartini, “Dynamical symmetries of homogeneous minisuperspace models,” Phys. Rev. D106(2022), no. 6, 064013, arXiv:2205.02615

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  26. [26]

    The maximal kinematical invariance group of the free Schrodinger equation.,

    U. Niederer, “The maximal kinematical invariance group of the free Schrodinger equation.,” Helv. Phys. Acta45(1972) 802–810

    1972

  27. [27]

    Schr¨ odinger Symmetry: A Historical Review,

    C. Duval, M. Henkel, P. Horvathy, S. Rouhani, and P. Zhang, “Schr¨ odinger Symmetry: A Historical Review,” Int. J. Theor. Phys.63(2024), no. 8, 184, arXiv:2403.20316

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  28. [28]

    Low-Dimensional Bose Liquids: Beyond the Gross-Pitaevskii Approximation,

    E. B. Kolomeisky, T. J. Newman, J. P. Straley, and X. Qi, “Low-Dimensional Bose Liquids: Beyond the Gross-Pitaevskii Approximation,” Phys. Rev. Lett.85 (2000) 1146–1149,arXiv:cond-mat/0002282

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  29. [29]

    Group quantization of the black hole minisuperspace,

    F. Sartini, “Group quantization of the black hole minisuperspace,” Phys. Rev. D105(2022), no. 12, 126003,arXiv:2110.13756

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  30. [30]

    Interior of Black Holes and Information Recovery,

    H. Kawai and Y. Yokokura, “Interior of Black Holes and Information Recovery,” Phys. Rev. D93(2016), no. 4, 044011,arXiv:1509.08472

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  31. [31]

    Self-gravity and Bekenstein-Hawking entropy,

    Y. Yokokura, “Self-gravity and Bekenstein-Hawking entropy,” Nucl. Phys. B1002(2024) 116531, arXiv:2207.14274

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    Black Hole as a Quantum Field Configuration,

    H. Kawai and Y. Yokokura, “Black Hole as a Quantum Field Configuration,” Universe6(2020), no. 6, 77, arXiv:2002.10331

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  33. [33]

    Reality of the Schwarzschild Singularity,

    A. I. Janis, E. T. Newman, and J. Winicour, “Reality of the Schwarzschild Singularity,” Phys. Rev. Lett.20 (1968) 878–880

    1968

  34. [34]

    Quantization of a Friedmann Universe Filled with a Scalar Field,

    W. F. Blyth and C. J. Isham, “Quantization of a Friedmann Universe Filled with a Scalar Field,” Phys. Rev. D11(1975) 768–778

    1975

  35. [35]

    The Origin of Structure in the Universe,

    J. J. Halliwell and S. W. Hawking, “The Origin of Structure in the Universe,” Phys. Rev. D31(1985) 1777

    1985

  36. [36]

    Loop Quantum Cosmology: A Status Report,

    A. Ashtekar and P. Singh, “Loop Quantum Cosmology: A Status Report,” Class. Quant. Grav.28(2011) 213001,arXiv:1108.0893

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  37. [37]

    Gravity quantized: Loop Quantum Gravity with a Scalar Field,

    M. Domagala, K. Giesel, W. Kaminski, and J. Lewandowski, “Gravity quantized: Loop Quantum Gravity with a Scalar Field,” Phys. Rev. D82(2010) 104038,arXiv:1009.2445

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  38. [38]

    Hamiltonian formalism for black holes and quantization,

    M. Cavaglia, V. de Alfaro, and A. T. Filippov, “Hamiltonian formalism for black holes and quantization,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D4(1995) 661–672, arXiv:gr-qc/9411070

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  39. [39]

    Effective Quantum Extended Spacetime of Polymer Schwarzschild Black Hole,

    N. Bodendorfer, F. M. Mele, and J. M¨ unch, “Effective Quantum Extended Spacetime of Polymer Schwarzschild Black Hole,” Class. Quant. Grav.36 (2019), no. 19, 195015,arXiv:1902.04542

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  40. [40]

    Modeling Quantum Particles Falling into a Black Hole: The Deep Interior Limit,

    A. Perez, S. Ribisi, and S. Viollet, “Modeling Quantum Particles Falling into a Black Hole: The Deep Interior Limit,” Universe9(2023), no. 2, 75,arXiv:2301.03951

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  41. [41]

    Effective dynamics of spherically symmetric static spacetime,

    E. R. Livine and Y. Yokokura, “Effective dynamics of spherically symmetric static spacetime,” Phys. Rev. D 112(2025), no. 10, 104034,arXiv:2507.18345

    arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Dynamical Trajectories and Geodesics,

    L. P. Eisenhart, “Dynamical Trajectories and Geodesics,” Annals of Mathematics30(1928), no. 1/4, 591–606

    1928

  43. [43]

    R. M. Wald,General Relativity. Chicago Univ. Pr., Chicago, USA, 1984

    1984

  44. [44]

    Spherically symmetric gravity as a completely integrable system,

    H. A. Kastrup and T. Thiemann, “Spherically symmetric gravity as a completely integrable system,” Nucl. Phys. B425(1994) 665–686, arXiv:gr-qc/9401032

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  45. [45]

    Geometrodynamics of Schwarzschild black holes,

    K. V. Kuchar, “Geometrodynamics of Schwarzschild black holes,” Phys. Rev. D50(1994) 3961–3981, arXiv:gr-qc/9403003

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  46. [46]

    Phenomenological dynamics of loop 26 quantum cosmology in Kantowski-Sachs spacetime,

    D.-W. Chiou, “Phenomenological dynamics of loop 26 quantum cosmology in Kantowski-Sachs spacetime,” Phys. Rev. D78(2008) 044019,arXiv:0803.3659

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  47. [47]

    The Equation of State at Ultrahigh Densities and Its Relativistic Limitations,

    Y. B. Zel’dovich, “The Equation of State at Ultrahigh Densities and Its Relativistic Limitations,” Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.41(1961) 1609–1615

    1961

  48. [48]

    The Maximal ’Kinematical’ Invariance Group for an Arbitrary Potential,

    C. P. Boyer, “The Maximal ’Kinematical’ Invariance Group for an Arbitrary Potential,” Helv. Phys. Acta47 (1975) 589

    1975

  49. [49]

    The maximal ’kinematical’ invariance group for an arbitrary potential revised,

    A. G. Nikitin, “The maximal ’kinematical’ invariance group for an arbitrary potential revised,” arXiv:1706.04555

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  50. [50]

    Dynamical Properties of the Mukhanov-Sasaki Hamiltonian in the context of adiabatic vacua and the Lewis-Riesenfeld invariant,

    M. J. Fahn, K. Giesel, and M. Kobler, “Dynamical Properties of the Mukhanov-Sasaki Hamiltonian in the context of adiabatic vacua and the Lewis-Riesenfeld invariant,” Universe5(2019), no. 7, 170, arXiv:1812.11122

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  51. [51]

    Hamiltonian dynamics on the symplectic extended phase space for autonomous and non-autonomous systems,

    J. Struckmeier, “Hamiltonian dynamics on the symplectic extended phase space for autonomous and non-autonomous systems,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General38(2005), no. 6, 1257

    2005

  52. [52]

    Quantum mechanics of the 1/x2 potential,

    A. M. Essin and D. J. Griffiths, “Quantum mechanics of the 1/x2 potential,” Am. J. Phys.74(2006), no. 2, 109

    2006

  53. [53]

    Canonical Groups and the Quantization of General Relativity,

    C. J. Isham, “Canonical Groups and the Quantization of General Relativity,” Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.6 (1989) 349–356

    1989

  54. [54]

    Loop quantum black hole,

    L. Modesto, “Loop quantum black hole,” Class. Quant. Grav.23(2006) 5587–5602,arXiv:gr-qc/0509078

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  55. [55]

    Cosmic Acceleration from Quantum Gravity: Emergent Inflation and Dynamical Dark Energy,

    L. Marchetti, T. R. Ladst¨ atter, and D. Oriti, “Cosmic Acceleration from Quantum Gravity: Emergent Inflation and Dynamical Dark Energy,” arXiv:2512.11712

    arXiv