Adjoint L-Infinity Actions and Conserved Charges in GR

Changsun Choi; Ryan E. Grady

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 25 references

Adjoint L-Infinity Actions and Conserved Charges in GR

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A higher adjoint action on the L∞-algebra of Einstein–Cartan–Palatini gravity makes Killing symmetries into conserved currents, and integrating the resulting charge over a horizon reproduces the area law for black hole entropy.

desk verdict The L∞ framework is plausible and clearly written, but the Schwarzschild entropy computation in Section 7.2 is wrong as printed, so the paper's main demonstration does not currently hold up. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.23970 v2 pith:BXYPDRK2 submitted 2025-12-30 math-ph gr-qcmath.MPmath.QA

Changsun Choi , Ryan E. Grady This is my paper · ORCID

classification math-phgr-qcmath.MPmath.QA MSC 17B5553C8070S1581T7083C57 PACS 04.20.Fy04.70.Dy

keywords L-infinityalgebrasconservedcurrentsNoetherchargeblackholeentropyEinstein-Cartan-PalatinigravityKillingvectorfieldsBVformalismhigheralgebra

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 shows that the algebraic structure underlying Einstein–Cartan–Palatini gravity already contains its conserved charges. It constructs a full 'infinity adjoint action' by which any cyclic L∞-algebra acts on itself, and proves this action is Hamiltonian, so the classical Noether theorem for L∞-actions applies. For a Killing vector field with zero cosmological constant, the on-shell current takes the form β∧dQ with Q = ½Tr(ι_ξ ω∧e∧e); integrating Q over a horizon surface reproduces the area law for black hole entropy. A sympathetic reader would care because this places a standard general-relativity computation into the higher-algebra framework and opens the same machinery for other theories.

What carries the argument

The infinity adjoint action: for an L∞-algebra g with brackets ℓ_k, the bracket on g⊕g is ℓ⋉_k((X_1,u_1),...,(X_k,u_k)) = (ℓ_k(X_1,...,X_k), Σ_{A⊆{1..k}} ℓ_k(p^A_1,...,p^A_k)) with p^A_i = X_i if i∈A else u_i. It is the object that makes the action Hamiltonian and compatible with the cyclic pairing, and it restricts to subalgebras such as vector fields. The other load-bearing input is the cyclic L∞-algebra presenting Einstein–Cartan–Palatini gravity, with its pairing, its three brackets, and the on-shell identity ½ e²∧L_ξ ω = dQ[ξ] that turns the variational current into an exact form.

What would settle it

Compute ∫_Σ Q[ξ] for the same static black hole in a nonsingular coordinate system (e.g., Kruskal–Szekeres or Eddington–Finkelstein) at the bifurcation sphere; if the integral diverges or requires a counterterm, the tetrad evaluation in Section 7.2 is not valid. Alternatively, apply the formula to a rotating black hole: if the integral of ½Tr(ι_ξ ω∧e∧e) over the horizon does not reproduce the area law, the theorem's charge identification is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the conserved current for an infinitesimal isometry in Einstein–Cartan–Palatini gravity is, on shell and with vanishing cosmological constant, J[ξ](β) = β∧dQ[ξ] where Q[ξ] = ½ Tr(ι_ξ ω∧e∧e). The proof routes through a new algebraic result: every cyclic L∞-algebra acts on itself by the infinity adjoint action, whose equivariant action functional reduces to the original action when the background field is set to zero, and which satisfies the Hamiltonian condition required by the classical Noether theorem. Applying this to the L∞-algebra for Einstein–Cartan–Palatini gravity and to the subalgebra of vector fields, the authors obtain the charge Q[ξ, N] = ½∫_Σ Tr(ι_ξ ω∧e∧

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Noether charge can be evaluated on the bifurcation surface r = r_S directly in the static diagonal tetrad, where f(r_S) = 0 and f'(r_S) diverges; the paper supplies no regularized limit, so the boundary integral r⁴_S f'(r_S) is formally infinite, and the entropy result depends on that unregularized step (Section 7.2).

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Every subalgebra of the gravity L∞-algebra—including infinitesimal diffeomorphisms—acts by classical symmetries on the BV theory, so Noether currents are available for all such symmetries.
The charge for a Killing field with zero cosmological constant is a boundary term Q[ξ, N] = ½∫_Σ Tr(ι_ξ ω∧e∧e); this is the object to integrate for horizon thermodynamics.
For the static vacuum black hole, the charge evaluates to r⁴_S f'(r_S) at the horizon, yielding the Bekenstein–Hawking area law for entropy.
The infinity adjoint construction gives a general recipe: any cyclic L∞-theory gets an equivariant action and hence conserved currents for its own automorphism symmetries.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper's abstract promises rotating black holes, but the calculation section only carries out the static case; the natural test is whether Q[ξ] integrated over a rotating horizon reproduces the same area law, which would require a regular tetrad limit.
The charge evaluation uses the static diagonal tetrad on the bifurcation surface where f'(r) diverges; a coordinate-invariant or regularized computation is needed before the entropy formula can be considered fully established on shell.
The infinity adjoint action is purely algebraic and should work in Chern–Simons, BF, or other first-order theories; deriving known charges there would test whether the machinery is a general source of Noether data.
If the on-shell identity ½ e²∧L_ξ ω = dQ[ξ] holds for general Killing horizons, the same L∞-derived charge may provide a perturbative handle on higher-curvature or torsionful corrections to entropy.

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

Short version: this is a paper with a useful expository core and one real computational error in the display piece. I would not reject it out of hand, but I would not let the current version through without fixing Section 7.2.

What's genuinely here: Theorem 4.1, the infinity adjoint action, with compatibility, Hamiltonicity, and the equivariant action recovering the original action when the background fields vanish, is a natural construction but the paper states and proves it cleanly. The application to the CGRS algebra for ECP gravity is also new in form, even though the resulting charge Q = 1/2 Tr(i_ξω∧e∧e) is textbook. The authors are honest about that. The preliminary sections are long but genuinely useful for someone wanting to see the Costello–Gwilliam Noether theorem and the CGRS brackets in one place. Citation practice looks fair: the key inputs are [9], [11], [23], [24], not self-citation.

The soft spots: Section 7.2. In the static diagonal tetrad, i_ξω with ξ = c^{-1}∂_t contains a factor e0(ξ) = f, so the written expression Q = f'(r)e2∧e3 drops that factor. As printed, the integral r^4 f'(r) at r = r_S diverges, and the paper then replaces it by 4πr_S^2 without any limit. The divergence is likely an artifact of the missing contraction factor—the stress-test note is right that a corrected computation is finite—but the paper does not do that computation. Either way, the advertised entropy derivation is invalid as written, and the surface gravity is quoted as κ = 1/r_S; the standard value is 1/(2r_S) in these units. There is also an abstract-level promise of a Kerr computation that does not appear in the body. Those are real defects, not nitpicks.

Is it hopeless? No. The L∞ construction and the Noether-theorem setup are plausible, and the charge derivation via Lemma 7.3 reduces to the standard ECP variation, which is fine. The failure is in the final application. A serious referee should be able to check Theorem 4.1 and demand a corrected Section 7.2. I would take the paper to a reading group as an example of the CG formalism in action, but I would not cite it until the charge/entropy calculation is redone.

Recommendation: send to peer review, with the explicit note that the entropy demonstration is currently unsupported. If a referee confirms the missing factor and the surface-gravity mismatch, the authors need a major revision, not a minor patch.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper defines a new 'infinity adjoint action' of an L∞-algebra on itself, proves that it is compatible with a cyclic pairing and Hamiltonian, and applies this to the Cirić–Giotopoulos–Radovanović–Szabó L∞-algebra for Einstein–Cartan–Palatini gravity. The authors then use the Costello–Gwilliam Noether theorem to derive a conserved current associated with a Killing field and claim to recover Bekenstein–Hawking entropy for Schwarzschild spacetime by evaluating the Noether charge on the bifurcation surface. The main algebraic construction is interesting, but the Schwarzschild computation contains a concrete error in the contraction with the Killing field and an incorrect surface gravity, so the advertised physical demonstration is not valid as written.

Significance. The infinity adjoint action is a genuine mathematical contribution: it provides a full L∞-version of the adjoint action, with an explicit bracket formula and a proof of the L∞ identities, and it is potentially useful for connecting cyclic L∞-algebras to equivariant action functionals. The application to Einstein–Cartan–Palatini gravity is also a novel worked example of the Costello–Gwilliam Noether formalism. If corrected, the paper would provide a nontrivial bridge between higher structures and black-hole thermodynamics. However, the central physical claim—the recovery of the area law—currently depends on a faulty evaluation of the Noether charge and an incorrect surface gravity, so the demonstration does not support the conclusion as it stands.

major comments (4)

[Section 7.2] The expression Q[ξ] = f′(r) e2∧e3 is missing the contraction factor e0(ξ). With e0 = c f dt and ξ = (1/c)∂t, one has i_ξ ω^0_1 = f′ e0(ξ) = f f′, which is finite at r=r_S (indeed f f′ = 1/(2r_S)). The displayed r^4_S f′(r_S) diverges only because the contraction is dropped. Replacing this infinite expression by 4πr_S² without a limiting or regularization argument is invalid. The entropy derivation is therefore unsupported as written; the computation must be redone keeping the contraction and the Wald prefactor must be checked.
[Section 7.2] The paper states 'One computes the surface gravity is κ = 1/r_S.' The standard surface gravity of the Schwarzschild solution is κ = 1/(2r_S) in the usual normalization. Since the Wald entropy formula in Section 7.2 contains κ, this changes the numerical prefactor by a factor of 2. This error must be corrected together with the Noether-charge computation.
[Section 7.1 / Theorem 7.1] The proof of Theorem 7.1 relies on the 'minimal coupling' extension of the Vect(M) action to Ω*_M ⊗ Vect(M) and on the claim that the current is obtained by varying the total action. No details of this variation are shown; only the final 3-form component J3[ξ] is stated. Since the signs and overall normalization of the current are load-bearing for the charge formula, the intermediate steps should be displayed so that the on-shell equality in Lemma 7.3 can be verified.
[Proposition 4.9] The proof that the infinity adjoint action is Hamiltonian invokes Lemma 12.2.3.4 of [9] and says the obstruction vanishes 'for type reasons' without stating the lemma or verifying its hypotheses for the infinite-dimensional local L∞-algebra M_ECP. This is a load-bearing step because the Hamiltonian property is what feeds into the Noether theorem. Please state the relevant lemma and spell out why its hypotheses hold here.

minor comments (4)

[Throughout] The paper consistently misspells 'Schwarzschild' as 'Schwarzchild'. This should be corrected.
[Section 7.2, final formula] The displayed entropy formula 'SBH = 2πkB4c3 / (32πGℏ) 4πr_S² = kB c³/(4πG) Area(Σ)' is dimensionally inconsistent and contains apparent typographical errors; as written it is not the Bekenstein–Hawking formula. This must be fixed together with the main computation.
[Section 6] The L∞-algebra is defined for M ⊂ R^{1,3}, but the Schwarzschild spacetime is not globally isometric to a subset of Minkowski space. The paper should clarify that the computation is local and explain why the global embedding assumption is not restrictive for the local charge evaluation.
[Section 2.2] There is a typo: 'gneralized' should be 'generalized'. Also, reference [12] has 'FIlip Dul' with a capitalization error.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the L-infinity construction is explicit and the Noether current is derived from external verified framework; the Schwarzschild entropy step is an isolated computational error, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The infinity adjoint action is defined by explicit brackets and its Jacobi identities are checked in Lemma 4.4; compatibility and Hamiltonicity are proved from the cyclic pairing and standard Costello-Gwilliam lemmas, not assumed. The L-infinity presentation of Einstein-Cartan-Palatini gravity is imported from the external reference [11], the Noether machinery from [9], and the Wald entropy formula from [25]; none of these are self-citations of the present authors. The current formula in Theorem 7.1 is obtained by varying the equivariant action and then matching the standard ECP Lagrangian variation in Lemma 7.3; the proof does not assume the final Q[xi] formula. The known character of the result is explicitly acknowledged in the paper, so this is not a renamed known result presented as a prediction. The only self-citations ([13], [15]) are contextual remarks and are not load-bearing. The Section 7.2 Schwarzschild evaluation is indeed problematic: the contraction i_xi omega should include e0(xi)=cf, so the claimed divergence and the replacement of r_S^4 f'(r_S) by 4 pi r_S^2 are not justified by the displayed equations. However, this is a computational/regularization error, not a case of a fitted parameter being renamed as a prediction or a result reducing to its input by construction. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on external L-infinity structures from [9] and [11], plus a new algebraic construction whose Hamiltonian property is only partially justified. No fitted physical parameters are introduced.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The local cyclic L-infinity algebra M_ECP from [11] is well defined in four dimensions.
Proposition 6.1 asserts cyclicity and locality of M_ECP, citing Section 5.2 of [11] for the nontrivial invariance; the Jacobi identities for the four-dimensional brackets are only stated as structurally similar to the 3D check in [11].
standard math The Costello-Gwilliam classical Noether theorem (Proposition 5.1 / Theorem 12.4.1 of [9]) is applicable to the Hamiltonian action of Vect(M) on M_ECP.
The paper invokes this external theorem to extract conserved currents from L-infinity actions; the application is standard but unproved within the paper.
ad hoc to paper The 'minimal coupling' extension of the Vect(M) action to an action of Ω*_M ⊗ Vect(M) is a Hamiltonian action (satisfies the master equation).
Section 7.1 states 'Lemma 5.2 asserts that any extension which satisfies the master equation is unique, so we will use the minimal coupling' — the master equation for this particular S_tot is not verified.
ad hoc to paper The infinity adjoint action is Hamiltonian (Proposition 4.9), based on Lemma 12.2.3.4 of [9] and a 'type reasons' argument.
The proof of Proposition 4.9 does not spell out the type argument and relies on an external lemma without detailed verification.

invented entities (1)

Infinity adjoint action
purpose: An L-infinity action of a cyclic L-infinity algebra on itself, defined to make the equivariant total action recover the original action when background fields vanish; used to generate conserved currents via the Costello-Gwilliam Noether theorem.
New mathematical construction introduced in Section 4. It has no falsifiable physical handle and its validity is internal to the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Adjoint L-Infinity Actions and Conserved Charges in GR." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BXYPDRK2

@misc{pith2026251223970,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Adjoint L-Infinity Actions and Conserved Charges in GR},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BXYPDRK2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.23970}
}

abstract

In this work we compute the conserved currents and charges associated to the action of an infinitesimal isometry (Killing field) in Einstein--Cartan--Palatini gravity. We offer a new approach to these quantities through the formalism of $L_\infty$-algebras and the work of \'{C}iri\'{c}, Giotopoulos, Radovanovi\'{c}, and Szabo, and Costello and Gwilliam. We demonstrate our approach by computing the entropy of the Schwarzchild and Kerr black holes. Along the way, we prove a purely algebraic result about the existence and utility of a higher (a full $\infty$) version of the adjoint action of an $L_\infty$-algebra.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

[9]

Kevin Costello and Owen Gwilliam.Factorization algebras in quantum field theory. Vol. 2, volume 41 ofNew Mathematical Monographs. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2021

2021
[11]

Szabo.L∞-algebras of Einstein-Cartan-Palatini gravity.J

Marija Dimitrijevi´ c´Ciri´ c, Grigorios Giotopoulos, Voja Radovanovi´ c, and Richard J. Szabo.L∞-algebras of Einstein-Cartan-Palatini gravity.J. Math. Phys., 61(11):112502, 65, 2020

2020
[23]

Appl., 30(6):576–587, 2012

Rajan Amit Mehta and Marco Zambon.L ∞-algebra actions.Differential Geom. Appl., 30(6):576–587, 2012

2012
[24]

Representations of homotopy Lie-Rinehart algebras.Math

Luca Vitagliano. Representations of homotopy Lie-Rinehart algebras.Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc., 158(1):155–191, 2015

2015
[1]

On the equivalence of aqfts and prefactorization algebras.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.07318, 2024

Marco Benini, Victor Carmona, Alastair Grant-Stuart, and Alexander Schenkel. On the equivalence of aqfts and prefactorization algebras.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.07318, 2024

arXiv 2024
[2]

Quantization of Lorentzian free BV theories: factorization algebra vs algebraic quantum field theory.Lett

Marco Benini, Giorgio Musante, and Alexander Schenkel. Quantization of Lorentzian free BV theories: factorization algebra vs algebraic quantum field theory.Lett. Math. Phys., 114(1):Paper No. 36, 38, 2024

2024
[3]

The homotopy momentum map of general relativity.Int

Christian Blohmann. The homotopy momentum map of general relativity.Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN, (10):8212–8250, 2023

2023
[4]

Double copy from homotopy algebras.Fortschr

Leron Borsten, Hyungrok Kim, Branislav Jurˇ co, Tommaso Macrelli, Christian Saemann, and Martin Wolf. Double copy from homotopy algebras.Fortschr. Phys., 69(8-9):Paper No. 2100075, 100, 2021

2021

Show all 25 references

[5]

A. S. Cattaneo and M. Schiavina. BV-BFV approach to general relativity: Palatini-Cartan-Holst action. Adv. Theor. Math. Phys., 23(8):2025–2059, 2019

2025
[6]

A. S. Cattaneo, M. Schiavina, and I. Selliah. BV equivalence between triadic gravity and BF theory in three dimensions.Lett. Math. Phys., 108(8):1873–1884, 2018

2018
[7]

Cattaneo and Michele Schiavina

Alberto S. Cattaneo and Michele Schiavina. The reduced phase space of Palatini-Cartan-Holst theory. Ann. Henri Poincar´ e, 20(2):445–480, 2019

2019
[8]

Kevin Costello and Owen Gwilliam.Factorization algebras in quantum field theory. Vol. 1, volume 31 ofNew Mathematical Monographs. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2017

2017
[10]

Factorization algebra

Kevin Costello and Owen Gwilliam. “Factorization algebra” for encyclopedia of mathematical physics. InEncyclopedia of mathematical physics. Vol. 5. Analysis & quantum field theory, pages 569–583. Academic Press, Amsterdam, [2025]©2025

2025
[12]

Factorization algebras for linearized gravity.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.21458, 2025

FIlip Dul. Factorization algebras for linearized gravity.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.21458, 2025

2025
[13]

Lie algebroids asL ∞ spaces.J

Ryan Grady and Owen Gwilliam. Lie algebroids asL ∞ spaces.J. Inst. Math. Jussieu, 19(2):487–535, 2020

2020
[14]

Remarks on the locality of generalized global symmetries.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.05626, 2025

Owen Gwilliam. Remarks on the locality of generalized global symmetries.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.05626, 2025

2025 arXiv
[15]

One-dimensional Chern-Simons theory and the ˆAgenus.Algebr

Owen Gwilliam and Ryan Grady. One-dimensional Chern-Simons theory and the ˆAgenus.Algebr. Geom. Topol., 14(4):2299–2377, 2014. 28 CHANGSUN CHOI AND RYAN E. GRADY

2014
[16]

Relating nets and factorization algebras of observables: free field theories.Comm

Owen Gwilliam and Kasia Rejzner. Relating nets and factorization algebras of observables: free field theories.Comm. Math. Phys., 373(1):107–174, 2020

2020
[17]

The observables of a perturbative algebraic quantum field theory form a factorization algebra.arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08175, 2022

Owen Gwilliam and Kasia Rejzner. The observables of a perturbative algebraic quantum field theory form a factorization algebra.arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08175, 2022

2022 arXiv
[18]

Phys., 65(3-4):1700014, 33, 2017

Olaf Hohm and Barton Zwiebach.L ∞ algebras and field theory.Fortschr. Phys., 65(3-4):1700014, 33, 2017

2017
[19]

Vivek Iyer and Robert M. Wald. Comparison of the Noether charge and Euclidean methods for com- puting the entropy of stationary black holes.Phys. Rev. D (3), 52(8):4430–4439, 1995

1995
[20]

Phys., 67(8-9, Special issue: Proceedings of the LMS/EPSRC Durham Symposium on Higher Structures in M-Theory):1910025, 17, 2019

Branislav Jurˇ co, Tommaso Macrelli, Lorenzo Raspollini, Christian S¨ amann, and Martin Wolf.L ∞- algebras, the BV formalism, and classical fields.Fortschr. Phys., 67(8-9, Special issue: Proceedings of the LMS/EPSRC Durham Symposium on Higher Structures in M-Theory):1910025, 17, 2019

2019
[21]

Strongly homotopy Lie algebras.Comm

Tom Lada and Martin Markl. Strongly homotopy Lie algebras.Comm. Algebra, 23(6):2147–2161, 1995

1995
[22]

Springer, Heidelberg, 2012

Jean-Louis Loday and Bruno Vallette.Algebraic operads, volume 346 ofGrundlehren der mathematis- chen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences]. Springer, Heidelberg, 2012

2012
[25]

Robert M. Wald. Black hole entropy is the Noether charge.Phys. Rev. D (3), 48(8):R3427–R3431, 1993. Department of Physics, Montana State University, Bozeman 59717 USA Email address:changsunchoi@montana.edu Department of Mathematical Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman ...

1993

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [9]

Kevin Costello and Owen Gwilliam.Factorization algebras in quantum field theory. Vol. 2, volume 41 ofNew Mathematical Monographs. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2021

2021

[2] [11]

Szabo.L∞-algebras of Einstein-Cartan-Palatini gravity.J

Marija Dimitrijevi´ c´Ciri´ c, Grigorios Giotopoulos, Voja Radovanovi´ c, and Richard J. Szabo.L∞-algebras of Einstein-Cartan-Palatini gravity.J. Math. Phys., 61(11):112502, 65, 2020

2020

[3] [23]

Appl., 30(6):576–587, 2012

Rajan Amit Mehta and Marco Zambon.L ∞-algebra actions.Differential Geom. Appl., 30(6):576–587, 2012

2012

[4] [24]

Representations of homotopy Lie-Rinehart algebras.Math

Luca Vitagliano. Representations of homotopy Lie-Rinehart algebras.Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc., 158(1):155–191, 2015

2015

[5] [1]

On the equivalence of aqfts and prefactorization algebras.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.07318, 2024

Marco Benini, Victor Carmona, Alastair Grant-Stuart, and Alexander Schenkel. On the equivalence of aqfts and prefactorization algebras.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.07318, 2024

arXiv 2024

[6] [2]

Quantization of Lorentzian free BV theories: factorization algebra vs algebraic quantum field theory.Lett

Marco Benini, Giorgio Musante, and Alexander Schenkel. Quantization of Lorentzian free BV theories: factorization algebra vs algebraic quantum field theory.Lett. Math. Phys., 114(1):Paper No. 36, 38, 2024

2024

[7] [3]

The homotopy momentum map of general relativity.Int

Christian Blohmann. The homotopy momentum map of general relativity.Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN, (10):8212–8250, 2023

2023

[8] [4]

Double copy from homotopy algebras.Fortschr

Leron Borsten, Hyungrok Kim, Branislav Jurˇ co, Tommaso Macrelli, Christian Saemann, and Martin Wolf. Double copy from homotopy algebras.Fortschr. Phys., 69(8-9):Paper No. 2100075, 100, 2021

2021