Quantum-reduced loop gravity: New perspectives on the kinematics and dynamics

Ilkka M\"akinen

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 40 references

Quantum-reduced loop gravity: New perspectives on the kinematics and dynamics

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper constructs a master constraint operator encoding the diagonal-triad gauge of quantum-reduced loop gravity; its large-spin solutions are exactly the reduced states, and the projected single-node Hamiltonian matches Bianchi I…

desk verdict Clear proceedings teaser: the kinematics is from the author's earlier CQG paper, and the new single-node Hamiltonian (7.5) is plausible but not verifiable from this text. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.01368 v1 pith:IDLINP52 submitted 2024-12-02 gr-qc

Ilkka Mäkinen This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qc MSC 83C4583C2783F05 PACS 04.60.Pp98.80.Qc

keywords loopquantumgravityquantum-reducedmasterconstraintdiagonalgaugedensitizedtriadHamiltonianBianchiIcosmology

open problems Quantum Gravity

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

Quantum-reduced loop gravity is a simplified model used to extract cosmological and black-hole physics from loop quantum gravity, but its gauge-fixing procedure has so far been imposed by hand. This paper shows that the diagonal-triad gauge condition can be encoded in a master constraint operator on the full kinematical Hilbert space, and that the standard Hilbert space of the reduced model is recovered as its large-spin solution space. It also proposes an extension of that Hilbert space for geometries with a non-diagonal connection, which the standard states cannot describe. On the dynamics side, projecting the Euclidean Hamiltonian constraint of full loop quantum gravity onto a single six-valent node produces a reduced operator formally identical to the Bianchi I Hamiltonian of loop quantum cosmology with polymerization parameter $\mu_i=1$. If the construction is right, it gives a clearer foundation for quantum-reduced loop gravity and a more direct link between full loop quantum gravity and loop quantum cosmology.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the master constraint operator $\hat M=\sum_v\hat M_v$ with node term $\hat M_v=\hat V_v^{-1}\sum_a(\hat A(S_a(v))^2-\hat E^a(S_a(v))^2)$, where $\hat E^a(S)$ is the flux operator through the surface $S_a(v)$ dual to the coordinate direction $x^a$, $\hat A(S)$ is the associated area operator, and $\hat V_v^{-1}$ is a regularized inverse of the local volume operator that is set to zero on zero-volume eigenstates. This operator turns the classical statement 'the triad is diagonal' into a quantum condition, and its strict positivity is why solutions are sought only in the large-spin, approximate sense. The argument is carried by the leading-order-in-spin projection rule (5.3), which converts full-theory operators into reduced operators by dropping subleading terms in the spin.

What would settle it

Project the complete scalar constraint of full loop quantum gravity (the Euclidean part (7.3) together with the Lorentzian curvature contribution) onto the single six-valent node; if the resulting reduced operator is no longer of the form (7.5), the claimed Bianchi I dynamics is a truncation artifact. Independently, search for approximate solutions of $\hat M|\Psi\rangle\approx 0$ off the axis-aligned graphs: finding one would show the reduced Hilbert space is not uniquely selected by the gauge condition.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the classical gauge condition fixing the densitized triad to be diagonal, $E^a_i=0$ for $a\neq i$, can be promoted to a master constraint operator $\hat M=\sum_v\hat M_v$ on the kinematical Hilbert space, with $\hat M_v=\hat V_v^{-1}\sum_a(\hat A(S_a(v))^2-\hat E^a(S_a(v))^2)$. Because the operators representing different gauge conditions do not commute, the constraint is not imposed exactly but in the large-spin limit; in that limit, the solution space spanned by the states (4.3), cubical-graph states with large spins and extremal magnetic quantum numbers, coincides with the standard Hilbert space of quantum-reduced loop gravity. The paper further claims that these states can be extended by inserting two-valent nodes on each edge, producing generalized solutions that support all components of the reduced holonomy. For the dynamics, the Euclidean Hamiltonian constraint (7.3) projected on the single six-valent state (7.4) gives the reduced operator (7.5), which is formally the Bianchi I loop-quantum-cosmology Hamiltonian (7.7) quantized with polymerization parameter $\mu_i=1$ and with the prefactor $1/\sqrt{p_1p_2p_3}$ regularized by an inverse-volume operator rather than by other standard regularizations.

Load-bearing premise

The construction assumes a fixed Cartesian coordinate system to decide which triad components count as diagonal and to define the surfaces in the master constraint; if the resulting reduced sector depends on that background choice rather than representing a genuine gauge-fixed sector, the central derivation does not survive.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The standard Hilbert space of quantum-reduced loop gravity is not an ad hoc choice: it is the large-spin solution space of a genuine constraint operator of the full theory.
The master-constraint formulation provides a principled way to enlarge the model; the generalized states (6.2) satisfy the constraint and give a non-vanishing action for all components of the reduced holonomy operator.
A universe represented by a single six-valent node on a torus has Euclidean dynamics equivalent to Bianchi I loop quantum cosmology in the $\mu_0$-scheme with $\mu_i=1$, giving an explicit dynamical bridge between full loop quantum gravity and loop quantum cosmology.
Because this corresponds to a constant polymerization parameter, reproducing the improved $\bar\mu$-scheme would require a more complicated state, such as a density matrix mixing graphs with different numbers of nodes.

Reading between the lines

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

A testable extension of the paper's logic would be to search for other solutions of the master constraint: if a large-spin state satisfying $\hat M|\Psi\rangle\approx 0$ exists off the cubical graph, or with non-extremal magnetic quantum numbers, then the reduced Hilbert space is not uniquely selected by the gauge condition.
The formal identity with the $\mu_0$-scheme implies a concrete phenomenological signature: bounce quantities in this single-node model should differ from improved-dynamics loop quantum cosmology, and the magnitude of that difference is a testable prediction.
A direct next step would be to include the Lorentzian part of the scalar constraint through a curvature operator on the cubical graph; whether the Bianchi I resemblance survives that addition is a question the paper leaves open.

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 proceedings note that advertises two longer results, one already published (the master constraint kinematics, in [11]) and one still in preparation (the single-node Hamiltonian, [24]). As a standalone paper it does not prove either claim; it states them. The genuinely new thing is Eq. (7.5), the reduced Euclidean Hamiltonian on a single six-valent node, and its formal match to Bianchi I LQC with µ_i = 1. That is worth knowing about, and the analogy is suggestive.

What the paper does well: it is clearly written and honest about the status of the material. Section 4 explicitly says the master constraint has no exact nonzero solutions because the sum in (3.5) is strictly positive, so the large-spin approximation is out in the open. It also flags the undetermined multiplicative factor in (7.3), the µ0-scheme limitation, and the fact that the Lorentzian part is unexamined. That is good hygiene for a short contribution.

The soft spots are real but mostly inherited from the program. The central kinematical claim — that states (4.3) solve (4.1) in an asymptotic large-j sense — is asserted with no error estimate. The stress-test is right that a positive operator's expectation value does not obviously go to zero in that limit; Section 4 concedes the exact statement is impossible. Whether the asymptotic selection works depends on bounds that are not shown here or, as far as I can tell, in [11]. A referee should push on that. The fixed Cartesian background used to define the surfaces S_a and the gauge is treated as given, with no discussion of how the reduced sector behaves under diffeomorphisms preserving the cubical graph. Again, this is a known feature of QRLG, but the paper does not resolve it.

The dynamics section is the weakest on its own terms: (7.5) appears after 'computing the action', with the computation deferred to an unpublished companion. A proceedings paper can do that, but the reader cannot verify the main new result from the text. And the Bianchi I analogy relies on setting the polymerization parameter to µ_i = 1, which is a choice rather than a derivation, as the author acknowledges in the Conclusions.

Who is this for: people working on QRLG and the LQG–LQC interface. It is a legitimate announcement and the formal similarity is worth checking. I would send it to a referee if it were a regular submission, mainly to chase the large-spin estimate and the missing computation behind (7.5). For a proceedings volume, it works as a summary of [11] plus a teaser for [24].

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a master-constraint formulation of the diagonal-triad gauge fixing in loop quantum gravity. The master constraint operator M̂ is defined in Eq. (3.5) as a sum over nodes of the inverse local volume times a positive flux-area combination. The paper claims that the standard Hilbert space of quantum-reduced loop gravity, with basis states (4.3) on a cubical graph, is recovered as the approximate large-spin solution space of M̂|Ψ⟩ = 0, and it introduces an extended Hilbert space (6.2) designed to accommodate non-diagonal connections. The second half of the paper studies the Euclidean Hamiltonian constraint (7.3) on a single six-valent node state (7.4) and states that the resulting reduced operator (7.5) is formally identical to the Bianchi I loop-quantum-cosmology Hamiltonian in the μ0-scheme with μ_i = 1. The paper is a proceedings-style contribution: several derivations are deferred to the author's companion papers, including a paper listed as in preparation.

Significance. If the master-constraint construction can be made rigorous, it would put quantum-reduced loop gravity on a more systematic footing and provide a concrete link between full loop quantum gravity and loop quantum cosmology. The proposal is not circular: the master constraint is built from standard flux, area, and inverse-volume operators, with no fitted parameters, and the QRLG solution space is recovered rather than inserted by hand. The paper also makes a checkable structural claim: the single-node Hamiltonian coincides with the Bianchi I LQC Hamiltonian with μ_i = 1. However, the core kinematical claim currently rests on an uncontrolled large-spin approximation, and the dynamical claim is asserted rather than derived; both issues are fixable but essential.

major comments (4)

[Sec. 4, Eqs. (3.5)–(4.3)] The central kinematical claim is not established. The paper correctly notes that the factor Σ_a (Â(S_a)^2 − Ê^a(S_a)^2) in Eq. (3.5) is a strictly positive operator, so Eq. (4.1) has no nonzero exact solutions in H_kin. The claim that the states (4.3) are solutions in the large-spin limit therefore requires a quantitative statement that is not given: one needs an estimate of ⟨Ψ|M̂|Ψ⟩ or ||M̂|Ψ⟩|| for the family (4.3), together with a specification of the j-scaling of the inverse-volume regularization (3.7) at a six-valent node. The formal limit j → ∞ is not a limit inside H_kin, since the states form a one-parameter family with j-dependent wavefunctions; the sense in which they approximate a solution must be defined. Without such an estimate the recovery of the QRLG Hilbert space as the solution space is an assertion.
[Sec. 3, Eq. (3.5)] The operator M̂_v is not fully defined. A surface S_a(v) that intersects the graph at the node v contains the node; the standard flux operator is defined for surfaces that cut edges transversely away from vertices, and for a cubical graph one incident edge is transverse to S_a while the other two lie in it. The paper should state precisely how Ê^i(S_a(v)) acts on each incident edge, whether tangent edges contribute, and how the local volume operator V̂_v is defined in this action. This specification is needed to reproduce both the positivity statement and the matrix elements that lead to Eq. (4.3).
[Secs. 3 and 4, coordinate dependence] The construction depends on a fixed Cartesian background coordinate system in an essential way: the gauge conditions (3.1), the surfaces S_a(v), and the aligned-edge ansatz (4.3) are all defined relative to that background. The paper does not address whether the resulting large-spin sector is independent of the choice of Cartesian coordinates or is preserved by the natural diffeomorphisms acting on the cubical graph. A concrete test would be to compare the sectors selected by two coordinate systems related by a rotation or a translation and to show that the master constraint selects equivalent subspaces; without such a check, the interpretation of (4.3) as a physical sector rather than a coordinate artifact remains open.
[Sec. 7, Eq. (7.5)] The dynamical result is stated without derivation. The text only says 'Computing the action of the operator (7.3) on the state (7.4), we find...' and refers the reader to [11] and [24], the latter listed as 'in preparation'. Since Eq. (7.5) is one of the two main claims, the derivation should be given, at least in an appendix: the contribution of each pair of edges, the loop assignment α_{ee'}, and the origin of the prefactor 8√(j_x j_y j_z) and the sign structure. In addition, Eq. (7.3) contains an undetermined multiplicative factor from regularization; this factor propagates into Eq. (7.5), so the claimed formal identity with the Bianchi I LQC Hamiltonian (7.7) holds only up to an arbitrary normalization, which should be stated explicitly.

minor comments (5)

[Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including 'quanti um' in the abstract, 'was was' in Sec. 1, and 'begin begin' in Sec. 2; the manuscript should be carefully proofread.
[Sec. 4, Eq. (4.2)] The notation |jm⟩_i is only defined verbally as eigenstates of Ĵ^2 and Ĵ_i; the phase convention for the different axes i = x, y, z should be specified, since the sign-matching condition (4.4) and the holonomy matrix elements depend on it.
[Sec. 5, Eqs. (5.1)–(5.4)] The functions f(j) and g(j) are not defined; the paper should state that they are functions of the spins, that |g(j)|/|f(j)| → 0 as the spins become large, and that the norm in Eq. (5.4) is the kinematical Hilbert-space norm.
[Sec. 6, Eq. (6.2)] The 'direct calculation' showing that the extended space (6.2) is preserved by the reduced holonomy operator is not shown; please include it or give a precise reference. It should also be clarified why the inverse-volume operator in Eq. (3.7) vanishes at two-valent nodes, as claimed in the text.
[Sec. 7, Eqs. (7.5)–(7.6)] The operator ŝ(e) is defined in Eq. (7.6) only after it is used in Eq. (7.5); moving the definition before Eq. (7.5) would improve readability. Also, the expression '8√ jxjyjz' in Eq. (7.5) should be written with parentheses as 8√(j_x j_y j_z) for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the master constraint and Hamiltonian results are derived from standard LQG operators, with self-citations providing technical details rather than smuggling in the conclusions.

full rationale

The paper's central kinematical claim is not circular. The master constraint (3.5) is quantized from the classical diagonal-triad condition (3.2)-(3.3) using standard flux and area operators and a Tikhonov-regularized inverse volume; no parameter is fitted to the target quantum-reduced loop gravity Hilbert space. The QRLG states (4.3) are introduced as an explicit ansatz and then checked, approximately at large spin, to satisfy (4.1); this is a checkable property that could have failed, and the paper explicitly notes that the operator is strictly positive and that exact solutions do not exist, so the large-spin step is a limitation rather than an assumption renamed as a result. The dynamical computation is likewise direct: the operator (7.3) is the standard Euclidean Hamiltonian, the state (7.4) is a specified single-node state, and (7.5) is the leading-order projection defined in Sec. 5; the loop quantum cosmology comparison with mu_i = 1 follows from choosing the minimal graph-preserving loop, not from fitting. The paper does rely on the author's own prior work ([11], [23], [24], with [24] listed as 'in preparation') for the detailed construction of the master constraint, the operator-reduction procedure, and the single-node setup, but these citations point to specific derivations and are not used as unverified authorities. The main weaknesses, such as the uncontrolled large-j limit and the fixed Cartesian background, are correctness or conceptual concerns, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the standard LQG framework plus a series of assumptions specific to QRLG: coordinate background, large-spin approximation, Tikhonov regularization, and the reduced operator projection. The dynamics result also carries an undetermined multiplicative factor and a graph-scale choice (mu=1). The paper itself draws attention to the mu0-scheme limitation.

free parameters (2)

Undetermined multiplicative factor in (7.3)
The Hamiltonian constraint operator (7.3) contains an overall multiplicative factor left from regularization; the paper says it could be fixed by requiring a correct semiclassical limit, but that limit is not computed. It multiplies Eq. (7.5).
Polymerization scale mu_i = 1 = 1
The shift operator s(e) in (7.6) changes j by plus or minus 1, corresponding in the LQC analogy to a polymerization parameter mu_i = 1 in units of the graph edge. This is a choice of graph scale, not derived.

assumptions (5)

standard math Ashtekar-Lewandowski representation and standard LQG kinematical operators (Sec. 2)
Background assumption of all LQG constructions.
domain assumption A fixed Cartesian background coordinate system is given to define the diagonal gauge and surfaces S_a
Sec. 3: 'we assume that a fixed Cartesian background coordinate system is given'. The master constraint and all subsequent reduced operators depend on this choice; background independence is not addressed.
ad hoc to paper The master constraint can be imposed approximately at large spins, becoming exact only as j tends to infinity
Sec. 4: Eq. (4.1) is treated as an approximate equality for large spins; no error estimate is given.
domain assumption Tikhonov regularization of the inverse volume operator is used and yields a well-defined operator that does not act on two-valent nodes
Eq. (3.7) and Sec. 6: the inverse volume operator's vanishing on two-valent nodes is used to justify the generalized basis states.
ad hoc to paper The reduced operator projection (Sec. 5) retains only leading-order terms in spins, and the subleading terms are negligible
Eqs. (5.1)-(5.4): this is the standard QRLG projection assumption, but for the Hamiltonian constraint its validity is not checked in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum-reduced loop gravity: New perspectives on the kinematics and dynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IDLINP52

@misc{pith2026241201368,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum-reduced loop gravity: New perspectives on the kinematics and dynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IDLINP52}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.01368}
}

read the original abstract

We present a systematic approach to the kinematics of quantum-reduced loop gravity, a model originally proposed by Alesci and Cianfrani as an attempt to probe the physical implications of loop quantum gravity. We implement the quantum gauge-fixing procedure underlying quantum-reduced loop gravity by introducing a master constraint operator on the kinematical Hilbert space of loop quantum gravity, representing a set of gauge conditions which classically constrain the densitized triad to be diagonal. The standard Hilbert space of quantum-reduced loop gravity can be recovered as a space of solutions of the master constraint operator, while on the other hand the master constraint approach provides a useful starting point for considering possible generalizations of the standard construction. We also examine the quantum dynamics of states consisting of a single six-valent node in the quantum-reduced framework. We find that the Hamiltonian which governs the dynamics of such states bears a close formal resemblance to the Hamiltonian constraint of Bianchi I models in loop quantum cosmology.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

[11]

Mäkinen, Master constraint approach to quantum-reduced loop gravity, Class

I. Mäkinen, Master constraint approach to quantum-reduced loop gravity, Class. Quant. Grav. 41, 125010 arXiv:2311.16648 [gr-qc]

arXiv
[24]

Mäkinen, Quantum dynamics of a single node in quantum-reduced loop gr avity, in preparation (2024)

I. Mäkinen, Quantum dynamics of a single node in quantum-reduced loop gr avity, in preparation (2024)

work page 2024
[1]

Alesci and F

E. Alesci and F. Cianfrani, A new perspective on cosmology in Loop Quantum Gravity, EPL 104, 10001 (2013), arXiv: 1210.4504 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2013
[2]

Alesci and F

E. Alesci and F. Cianfrani, Quantum-Reduced Loop Gravity: Cosmology, Phys. Rev. D 87, 083521 (2013) arXiv:1301.2245 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2013
[3]

Alesci and F

E. Alesci and F. Cianfrani, Loop quantum cosmology from quantum reduced loop gravity, EPL 111, 40002 (2015), arXiv: 1410.4788 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2015
[4]

Quantum reduced loop gravity effective Hamiltonians from a statistical regularization scheme

E. Alesci, G. Botta and G. V. Stagno, Quantum reduced loop gravity eﬀective Hamiltonians from a statistical regularization scheme, Phys. Rev. D 97, 046011 (2018), arXiv:1709.08675 [gr-qc]

work page Pith review arXiv 2018
[5]

Phenomenology of Quantum Reduced Loop Gravity in the isotropic cosmological sector

E. Alesci, A. Barrau, G. Botta, K. Martineau and G. Stagno, Phenomenology of Quantum Reduced Loop Gravity in the isotropic cosmologicalsector, Phys. Rev. D 98, 106022 (2018), arXiv:1808.10225 [gr-qc]

work page Pith review arXiv 2018
[6]

Power spectrum of primordial perturbations for an emergent universe in quantum reduced loop gravity

J. Olmedo and E. Alesci, Power spectrum of primordial perturbations for an emer- gent universe in quantum reduced loop gravity, JCAP 04, 030 (2019), arXiv: 1811.04327 [gr-qc]

work page Pith review arXiv 2019

Show all 40 references

[7]

Alesci, G

E. Alesci, G. Botta, G. Luzi and G. V. Stagno, Bianchi I eﬀective dynamics in Quantum Reduced Loop Gravity, Phys. Rev. D 99, 106009 (2019), arXiv: 1901.07140 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[8]

Alesci, S

E. Alesci, S. Bahrami and D. Pranzetti, Quantum gravity predictions for black hole interior geometry, Phys. Lett. B 797, 134908 (2019), arXiv: 1904.12412 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[9]

Alesci, S

E. Alesci, S. Bahrami and D. Pranzetti, Asymptotically de Sitter universe inside a Schwarzschild black hole, Phys. Rev. D 102, 066010 (2020), arXiv: 2007.06664 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[10]

W.-C. Gan, G. Ongole, E. Alesci, Y. An, F.-W. Shu and A. Wa ng, Understanding quantum black holes from quantum reduced loop gravity, Phys. Rev. D 106, 126013 (2022), arXiv:2206.07127 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[12]

Thiemann, The Phoenix project: Master constraint program for loop qua ntum gravity, Class

T. Thiemann, The Phoenix project: Master constraint program for loop qua ntum gravity, Class. Quant. Grav. 23, 2211 (2006), arXiv: gr-qc/0305080

2006 arXiv
[13]

Thiemann, Quantum spin dynamics

T. Thiemann, Quantum spin dynamics. VIII. The Master constraint , Class. Quant. Grav. 23, 2249 (2006) arXiv:gr-qc/0510011. 9

2006 arXiv
[14]

Ashtekar and J

A. Ashtekar and J. Lewandowski, Background independent quantum gravity: A Status report, Class. Quant. Grav. 21, R53 (2004), arXiv: gr-qc/0404018

2004 arXiv
[15]

Rovelli, Quantum gravity (Cambridge University Press, 2004)

C. Rovelli, Quantum gravity (Cambridge University Press, 2004)

2004
[16]

Thiemann, Modern Canonical Quantum General Relativity (Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 2007)

T. Thiemann, Modern Canonical Quantum General Relativity (Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 2007)

2007
[17]

Rovelli and F

C. Rovelli and F. Vidotto, Covariant Loop Quantum Gravity: An Elementary Intro- duction to Quantum Gravity and Spinfoam Theory (Cambridge University Press, 2014)

2014
[18]

Ashtekar and J

A. Ashtekar and J. Pullin, eds., Loop Quantum Gravity: The First 30 Years (World Scientiﬁc, 2017)

2017
[19]

Ashtekar and J

A. Ashtekar and J. Lewandowski, Representation theory of analytic holonomy C* algebras, arXiv: gr-qc/9311010 (1993), arXiv: gr-qc/9311010

1993 arXiv
[20]

Ashtekar and J

A. Ashtekar and J. Lewandowski, Projective techniques and functional integration for gauge theories , J. Math. Phys. 36, 2170 (1995), arXiv: gr-qc/9411046

1995 arXiv
[21]

Rovelli and L

C. Rovelli and L. Smolin, Spin networks and quantum gravity , Phys. Rev. D 52, 5743 (1995), arXiv:gr-qc/9505006

1995 arXiv
[22]

J. C. Baez, Spin networks in nonperturbative quantum gravity , in The Interface of Knots and Physics (1995), pp. 167–203

1995
[23]

Mäkinen, Operators of quantum-reduced loop gravity from the perspec tive of full loop quantum gravity, Phys

I. Mäkinen, Operators of quantum-reduced loop gravity from the perspec tive of full loop quantum gravity, Phys. Rev. D 102, 106010 (2020), arXiv: 2004.00309 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[25]

Lewandowski and I

J. Lewandowski and I. Mäkinen, Scalar curvature operator for models of loop quan- tum gravity on a cubical graph , Phys. Rev. D 106, 046013 (2022), arXiv: 2110.10667 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[26]

Lewandowski and I

J. Lewandowski and I. Mäkinen, Scalar curvature operator for quantum-reduced loop gravity, Phys. Rev. D 107, 126017 (2023), arXiv: 2211.04826 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[27]

Thiemann, Quantum spin dynamics (QSD) , Class

T. Thiemann, Quantum spin dynamics (QSD) , Class. Quant. Grav. 15, 839 (1998), arXiv:gr-qc/9606089

1998 arXiv
[28]

Lewandowski and H

J. Lewandowski and H. Sahlmann, Symmetric scalar constraint for loop quantum gravity, Phys. Rev. D 91, 044022 (2015), arXiv: 1410.5276 [gr-qc]

2015 arXiv
[29]

Husain and T

V. Husain and T. Pawlowski, Time and a physical Hamiltonian for quantum grav- ity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 141301 (2012), arXiv: 1108.1145 [gr-qc]

2012 arXiv
[30]

Świeżewski, On the properties of the irrotational dust model , Class

J. Świeżewski, On the properties of the irrotational dust model , Class. Quant. Grav. 30, 237001 (2013), arXiv:1307.4687 [gr-qc]

2013 arXiv
[31]

Assanioussi, J

M. Assanioussi, J. Lewandowski and I. Mäkinen, Time evolution in deparametrized models of loop quantum gravity, Phys. Rev. D 96, 024043 (2017), arXiv: 1702.01688 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[32]

Alesci, M

E. Alesci, M. Assanioussi, J. Lewandowski and I. Mäkine n, Hamiltonian operator for loop quantum gravity coupled to a scalar ﬁeld , Phys. Rev. D 91, 124067 (2015), arXiv:1504.02068 [gr-qc]

2015 arXiv
[33]

Assanioussi, J

M. Assanioussi, J. Lewandowski and I. Mäkinen, New scalar constraint operator for loop quantum gravity, Phys. Rev. D 92, 044042 (2015), arXiv: 1506.00299 [gr-qc] . 10

2015 arXiv
[34]

Chiou, Loop Quantum Cosmology in Bianchi Type I Models: Analytical In- vestigation, Phys

D.-W. Chiou, Loop Quantum Cosmology in Bianchi Type I Models: Analytical In- vestigation, Phys. Rev. D 75, 024029 (2007), arXiv: gr-qc/0609029

2007 arXiv
[35]

Szulc, Loop quantum cosmology of diagonal Bianchi type I model: Sim pliﬁcations and scaling problems, Phys

L. Szulc, Loop quantum cosmology of diagonal Bianchi type I model: Sim pliﬁcations and scaling problems, Phys. Rev. D 78, 064035 (2008), arXiv: 0803.3559 [gr-qc]

2008 arXiv
[36]

Martin-Benito, G

M. Martin-Benito, G. A. Mena Marugan and T. Pawlowski, Loop Quantization of Vacuum Bianchi I Cosmology, Phys. Rev. D 78, 064008 (2008), arXiv: 0804.3157 [gr-qc]

2008 arXiv
[37]

Ashtekar and E

A. Ashtekar and E. Wilson-Ewing, Loop quantum cosmology of Bianchi I models , Phys. Rev. D 79, 083535 (2009), arXiv: 0903.3397 [gr-qc]

2009 arXiv
[38]

Wilson-Ewing, Anisotropic loop quantum cosmology with self-dual variabl es, Phys

E. Wilson-Ewing, Anisotropic loop quantum cosmology with self-dual variabl es, Phys. Rev. D 93, 083502 (2016), arXiv: 1512.03684 [gr-qc]

2016 arXiv
[39]

Ashtekar, T

A. Ashtekar, T. Pawlowski and P. Singh, Quantum Nature of the Big Bang: Im- proved dynamics, Phys. Rev. D 74, 084003 (2006), arXiv: gr-qc/0607039

2006 arXiv
[40]

Alesci and F

E. Alesci and F. Cianfrani, Improved regularization from Quantum Reduced Loop Gravity, arXiv: 1604.02375 [gr-qc] (2016), arXiv: 1604.02375 [gr-qc] . 11

2016 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [11]

Mäkinen, Master constraint approach to quantum-reduced loop gravity, Class

I. Mäkinen, Master constraint approach to quantum-reduced loop gravity, Class. Quant. Grav. 41, 125010 arXiv:2311.16648 [gr-qc]

arXiv

[2] [24]

Mäkinen, Quantum dynamics of a single node in quantum-reduced loop gr avity, in preparation (2024)

I. Mäkinen, Quantum dynamics of a single node in quantum-reduced loop gr avity, in preparation (2024)

work page 2024

[3] [1]

Alesci and F

E. Alesci and F. Cianfrani, A new perspective on cosmology in Loop Quantum Gravity, EPL 104, 10001 (2013), arXiv: 1210.4504 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2013

[4] [2]

Alesci and F

E. Alesci and F. Cianfrani, Quantum-Reduced Loop Gravity: Cosmology, Phys. Rev. D 87, 083521 (2013) arXiv:1301.2245 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2013

[5] [3]

Alesci and F

E. Alesci and F. Cianfrani, Loop quantum cosmology from quantum reduced loop gravity, EPL 111, 40002 (2015), arXiv: 1410.4788 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2015

[6] [4]

Quantum reduced loop gravity effective Hamiltonians from a statistical regularization scheme

E. Alesci, G. Botta and G. V. Stagno, Quantum reduced loop gravity eﬀective Hamiltonians from a statistical regularization scheme, Phys. Rev. D 97, 046011 (2018), arXiv:1709.08675 [gr-qc]

work page Pith review arXiv 2018

[7] [5]

Phenomenology of Quantum Reduced Loop Gravity in the isotropic cosmological sector

E. Alesci, A. Barrau, G. Botta, K. Martineau and G. Stagno, Phenomenology of Quantum Reduced Loop Gravity in the isotropic cosmologicalsector, Phys. Rev. D 98, 106022 (2018), arXiv:1808.10225 [gr-qc]

work page Pith review arXiv 2018

[8] [6]

Power spectrum of primordial perturbations for an emergent universe in quantum reduced loop gravity

J. Olmedo and E. Alesci, Power spectrum of primordial perturbations for an emer- gent universe in quantum reduced loop gravity, JCAP 04, 030 (2019), arXiv: 1811.04327 [gr-qc]

work page Pith review arXiv 2019