BMS$_3$ fermionic localization

Boyang Yu; Joan Sim\'on

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

BMS$_3$ fermionic localization

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Fermionic localization on BMS3 orbits computes the exact flat 3d gravity torus partition function, proving one-loop exactness for irrational or purely imaginary angular potential and reducing rational angles to a modular-independent factor.

desk verdict Plausible and likely correct, but the central localization proof rests on an unproved contour deformation; deserves a serious referee and a request for revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.05038 v2 pith:OWC337VN submitted 2024-12-06 hep-th

Joan Simón , Boyang Yu This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-th

keywords fermioniclocalizationBMS3flatspacegravitycoadjointorbittoruspartitionfunctionone-loopexactnessgeometricactionsuperdeterminant

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

The paper asks whether the one-loop approximation to the torus partition function of three-dimensional pure gravity with zero cosmological constant is actually exact. Working with the geometric action on a coadjoint orbit of the centrally extended BMS3 group labelled by constant charges, the authors build a fermionic localization term and evaluate the path integral exactly. For irrational or purely imaginary angular potential $\theta$, the exact result coincides with the one-loop determinant, $Z = e^{-S_0}\prod_{m,n}(m-n\theta)^{-1}$, proving one-loop exactness. For rational $\theta$, the exact partition function equals the one-loop result around the constant saddle times a factor $N=\prod_{n\theta\in\mathbb{Z}}(M_0+n^2)^{-1/2}$ that is independent of the continuous torus modular parameter. This matters because it turns a perturbative gravitational computation into a closed-form statement about the full quantum theory.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the $Q$-exact localization term $Q_F=\int Q(\psi_f(D_1\epsilon+D_2\tilde\alpha)+\psi_\alpha(D_3\epsilon+D_4\tilde\alpha))$ built from the fermionic symmetry $Q\epsilon=\psi_f$, $Q\tilde\alpha=\psi_\alpha$, $Q\psi_f=-i\partial_y\epsilon$, $Q\psi_\alpha=\epsilon'-i\partial_y\tilde\alpha$. The conditions $Q^2F=0$ and positive-definite bosonic part are solved by $D_2=D_3$, $D_4=0$ and by tuning the constant coefficients in the first-order operators $D_1,D_2$; the resulting quadratic form on Fourier modes has pure imaginary cross terms, so positivity is achieved after a complex rotation of the real integration variables. In the localized integral, the bosonic determinant and the ghost determinant cancel pairwise, leaving the superdeterminant ratio $\prod_{m,n}(m-n\theta)^{-1}$, the one-loop result. For rational $\theta$ the same term with $a_4\neq 0$ selects a smaller localization locus on which the Euclidean action is constant, reducing the remaining path integral to a Gaussian integral.

What would settle it

Compute the first perturbative correction beyond one loop in the BMS3 geometric action at a saddle with irrational $\theta$; if any finite two-loop term survives, the exact partition function cannot equal the one-loop result. A more direct check is to evaluate the finite-mode Gaussian integral (4.39) on the original real contour for one Fourier mode and compare it with the result obtained after diagonalizing $M_{mn}$; any discrepancy would show that the contour deformation used in (4.48) changes the value of the path integral.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the discovery is that fermionic localization applies to the constant-representative coadjoint orbit of $\widehat{\mathrm{BMS}}_3$ even though no Kähler structure on that phase space is known. The localization locus is unique when $\theta$ is irrational or purely imaginary, and the superdeterminant of the deformation operator factors so that all dependence on the arbitrary localization parameters cancels, leaving $Z=e^{-S_0}\prod_{m,n}(m-n\theta)^{-1}$. This is exactly the perturbative one-loop partition function computed earlier, so the one-loop calculation is exact for those values of $\theta$. When $\theta$ is rational, a choice $a_4\neq 0$ in the localization term collapses the localization locus to zero superrotation fluctuation and arbitrary supertranslation modes; the integral over the remaining locus is trivial because the Euclidean action is constant there, and the final result is $Z = N Z_{\text{1-loop}}$ with $N=\prod_{n\theta\in\mathbb{Z}}(M_0+n^2)^{-1/2}$, independent of the continuous modular parameter. The rational case thus resums the infinite family of saddles into a single closed factor.

Load-bearing premise

The exactness result assumes that rotating the integration variables to make the localization term positive leaves the value of the path integral unchanged, even though the bosonic integrand is not positive on the original real fields and the paper does not prove that the rotated contour has no boundary contribution or preserves the measure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For irrational or purely imaginary $\theta$, all higher-loop corrections to the torus partition function on the constant BMS3 orbit cancel; the one-loop determinant is the complete answer.
For rational $\theta$, the exact partition function is the one-loop result around the constant saddle multiplied by $N=\prod_{n\theta\in\mathbb{Z}}(M_0+n^2)^{-1/2}$, so the full saddle family contributes only through a factor independent of the continuous torus modular parameter.
The localization term is constructed algebraically rather than from a Kähler metric, so the same ansatz can be used for other coadjoint orbits or symmetry groups without a known positivity structure.
One-loop exactness now covers conical-defect and flat-cosmology saddles with real irrational or purely imaginary $\theta$, not only the Minkowski vacuum.

Reading between the lines

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

The authors do not pursue it, but $N$ may encode the rational saddle sum in (4.27) as a reduced determinant on the zero-mode sublattice; if that can be made precise, the rational partition function would be a fully closed product rather than an IR-divergent integral.
One testable extension is to run the same $Q_F$ ansatz for higher-spin or supersymmetric flat-space gravity, where the algebraic constraints $D_2=D_3$, $D_4=0$ and positivity of the bosonic quadratic form should still be solvable without a Kähler structure.
If the contour-deformation assumption is eventually proved, the exact partition function becomes a sharp non-perturbative test for proposed dual descriptions of asymptotically flat 3d gravity: any candidate must reproduce the same $\theta$-dependence.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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

Dear Colleague,

You asked about Simón–Yu, BMS3 fermionic localization. My take: this is a serious computation that likely gets the right answer, but the central exactness proof is not complete as written. The paper's main new contribution is a fermionic localization derivation of the torus partition function for constant coadjoint orbits of BMS3, extending the vacuum one-loop exactness of Cotler et al. [41] to conical defects and flat space cosmologies. The localization term is constructed by ansatz, the coefficients are chosen to satisfy positivity conditions, and the resulting superdeterminant reproduces the known one-loop formula (4.22). That cross-check is genuinely good, and the rational-θ analysis leading to the factor N in (4.65) is new and interesting, even if it carries an IR divergence.

Where I have trouble is the localization argument for the irrational and purely imaginary θ cases. The bosonic part of the Q-exact term (QF)_bosonic has pure imaginary cross terms (A_mn imaginary) under the chosen positivity conditions, so it is not real, let alone non-negative, on the original real integration domain. Condition (2.6) of their own review is therefore not met. The Remark after (4.48) asserts a contour deformation to the eigenbasis of M_mn, but there is no proof that the deformation has no boundary contributions, preserves the measure, and leaves the superdeterminant unchanged. The stress-test is right on this point. It is not fatal, because the Fourier-transform alternative they sketch—integrating out α_mn first, which gives δ(ε_mn)—is a plausible way to justify the result, and the final answer matches the independent one-loop computation. But as written, the claim that (4.54) "proves" one-loop exactness is overstrong. The authors should either make the contour argument rigorous (or at least careful) for infinite-dimensional field space, or soften the claim and state the Fourier-transform delta-function argument as the justification.

The rational-θ result (4.63)-(4.65) is also not fully under control: it has an IR-divergent factor ∫dα_n, and the prefactor N depends on M0 but is independent of the torus moduli. The paper acknowledges this. The 1-loop comparison (4.26) itself is only at a single saddle, not the full sum, so the claim of "resumming" all saddles is suggestive but not demonstrated.

Overall: the paper is technically serious, well organized, and the core result is likely correct. It deserves a serious referee and publication after the localization gap is addressed. The abstract should be toned down from "exact" to "argued exact" or "conditionally exact" until the contour issue is settled.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper computes the torus partition function for the geometric action of 3d flat gravity on a constant coadjoint orbit of \hat{BMS}_3 using fermionic localization. After constructing a Q-exact localization term with a general ansatz and imposing Q-closure and positivity on the quadratic fluctuation matrix, the authors evaluate the localized path integral and obtain Z = e^{-S_0} \prod_{m,n}(m-n\theta)^{-1} for irrational or purely imaginary \theta, matching the perturbative one-loop result (4.22). For rational \theta they find Z = N Z_{1\text{-loop}} with N = \prod_{n\theta\in\mathbb{Z}}(M_0+n^2)^{-1/2}, up to an IR-divergent zero-mode integral. The same technique is first applied to the AdS_3/Virasoro case, reproducing the known one-loop exactness.

Significance. If established, the BMS_3 result would constitute a nontrivial exactness statement for the flat-space gravitational path integral and would extend fermionic localization to a phase space for which no Kähler structure is known. A notable strength is that the localization-term coefficients are not tuned to match the one-loop answer; the superdeterminant computation reproduces (4.22) independently. The rational-\theta analysis also goes beyond the irrational case by exhibiting a partially resummed result. However, the central derivation is formal: the positivity condition required by the localization theorem is not verified on the actual integration domain, and the contour deformation invoked to repair this is not proved.

major comments (3)

[Section 4.2.1, Eqs. (4.37)-(4.48)] The load-bearing condition (2.6) is not satisfied on the original real integration domain. Under the choices made in (4.42) and (4.45), the coefficient A_{mn} in (4.38) is purely imaginary, so the expression (4.39) written in terms of the real modes E_{mn} is not real, let alone nonnegative. Thus the matrix M_{mn} in (4.40) cannot be regarded as a positive quadratic form on the original \mathbb{R}^4 field space. The diagonalization leading to (4.48) implicitly performs a complex linear change of variables, but this is precisely the point that must be justified, not assumed.
[Remark after Eq. (4.48)] The paper states that the contour is deformed from E_{mn}\in\mathbb{R}^4 to \tilde{E}_{mn}\in\mathbb{R}^4 and that this is equivalent to a Fourier-transform perspective, but no proof is supplied that the deformation has no boundary contributions at infinity, that it passes through a region where the full interacting action is decaying, or that the superdeterminant ratio is invariant under the rotation. For a purely imaginary cross term, the corresponding Gaussian integral is conditionally convergent and order-dependent, so the equivalence with a Fourier transform is not automatic. Without this argument, Eq. (4.54) is a formal Gaussian evaluation in a complexified basis rather than a consequence of the localization theorem.
[Section 4.2.2, Eqs. (4.60)-(4.65)] For rational \theta the localization manifold is infinite-dimensional and the final expression contains the IR-divergent factor \int \prod_{n\theta\in\mathbb{Z}} d\alpha_n. The comparison Z = N Z_{1\text{-loop}} in (4.64) therefore requires a prescription for regularizing this divergence, but no such prescription is given. The statement in Section 5 that after stripping off the IR divergence the remaining finite factor is meaningful is not made precise. This does not invalidate the irrational-\theta claim by itself, but it leaves the rational-\theta result at the level of a formal statement.

minor comments (4)

[Section 4.1, Eq. (4.22) and Section 4.2.2, Eq. (4.54)] The infinite products over m,n in (4.22) and (4.54) are not absolutely convergent and are implicitly zeta-regularized, but the precise regularization scheme is not specified. A short remark on how the products are defined would improve rigor without changing the known one-loop results.
[Section 4.1, Eq. (4.21)] The path-integral measure is fixed only up to dimensionless numerical factors, and the choice L = k^{-1} is made without discussing scheme dependence of the final rational-\theta factor N. It would be helpful to state explicitly which factors in (4.65) are scheme-independent.
[Remark after Eq. (4.48)] The sentence 'the two perspectives are equivalent and lead to same result' should cite or outline a condition under which complex contour rotation and Fourier transformation yield identical regularized integrals; as written this is an assertion rather than a demonstrated equivalence.
[Section 5] The summary says a Kähler metric was used in [10,28] for the constructions, whereas the main text constructs QF without relying on such a metric; this wording is slightly misleading and should be adjusted.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the localization term is constructed from an explicit ansatz with coefficients fixed only by positivity, and the superdeterminant cancellation independently reproduces the known one-loop product.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. In Section 4.2.1 the Q-exact localization term is built from the general ansatz (4.31); the constraints Q^2 F = 0 and positivity (4.41)-(4.47) restrict the parameters a_i but do not target the final answer. In the irrational or purely imaginary theta case, the bosonic determinant (4.52) and ghost determinant (4.53) share the same coefficient-dependent factor, which cancels and leaves Z = e^{-S0} product_{m,n} (m - n theta)^{-1} in (4.54). This matches the perturbative one-loop result (4.22) as a cross-check, not as an input. The rational case likewise obtains (4.63)-(4.65) by direct Gaussian integration over the localization manifold, with the prefactor N arising from integrating the special modes; no parameter is fitted to make the comparison to (4.26) come out. The self-citations, including [53] for the regularity condition and [10] for the localization framework, are not load-bearing: the BMS3 localization term is solved explicitly rather than imported, and [53] only supplies the physical parametrization used to classify theta. The unproved contour deformation mentioned after (4.48) is a potential rigor gap in applying the localization theorem, but it is a validity concern, not a circularity, so it does not affect the circularity score.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its input consists of standard localization theory, the known geometric-action description of BMS3, and a hand-built localization term. The most fragile axiom is the unproved contour deformation used to make the localization term positive.

free parameters (2)

Localization operator coefficients a1,a2,a3,a4 = Parameter ranges, e.g. a3,a4∈R, a4≥0, a1=i|a1|, a2=-ia3 for real θ; a3=1, a4=4πθ/kβ for imaginary θ
Chosen by hand in Sec. 4.2.1 to satisfy Q-closedness and positivity of (QF)_bosonic; the final determinant is independent of them.
Path integral measure length scale L = L = k^{-1}
Introduced in Sec. 4.1 to fix dimensions of α and ghost modes; 'up to dimensionless numerical factors', so residual normalization ambiguity affects the precise Zspecial prefactor.

assumptions (5)

standard math Duistermaat-Heckman and supersymmetric localization: deforming S'_E by sQF with Q-closed and Q-exact QF leaves Z invariant, and the s→∞ limit gives the superdeterminant formula (2.9).
Invoked in Sec. 2 without proof; the technical hypotheses, including positivity and properness, are only checked at quadratic level.
domain assumption Hamiltonian reduction of 3d Chern-Simons gravity yields the geometric actions (3.5) and (4.6) with symplectic forms (3.9) and (4.9).
Taken from [10] and [14,22] as background; the BMS3 geometric action is the starting point for the whole computation.
domain assumption The torus boundary conditions (4.10) and the trivial-holonomy relations (4.14) define the physical saddle sector and the relation between β, Ω, M0 and L0.
Sec. 4.1 relies on these conditions from [22,53] to select the constant representative saddle and to define θ.
domain assumption The Fourier mode expansions (4.17), with n=0 excluded for non-vacuum states and n=0,±1 excluded for the vacuum, exhaust the fluctuations, and the infinite products are zeta-regularized.
Sec. 4.1 uses this mode decomposition to compute determinants; the regularization is standard but not written out.
ad hoc to paper Rotating the real integration contour to the complex eigenbasis of Mmn preserves the path integral and the localization formula.
Stated in the Remark after Eq. (4.48); no boundary-term or convergence proof is supplied, and this is load-bearing for the positivity argument.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of BMS$_3$ fermionic localization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OWC337VN

@misc{pith2026241205038,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: BMS$_3$ fermionic localization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OWC337VN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.05038}
}

abstract

We consider the geometric action formulation for 3d pure gravity with vanishing cosmological constant. We use fermionic localization to compute the exact torus partition function for a constant representative coadjoint orbit of $\widehat{\text{BMS}}_3$. This allows us to discuss its 1-loop exactness.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Modular matrices of 2d Carrollian and warped CFTs
hep-th 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Explicit modular S and T matrices are derived for Carrollian (bms3) and warped CFT characters, with checks of S squared and unitarity.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[41]

Soft gravitons in three dimensions,

J. Cotler, K. Jensen, S. Prohazka, M. Riegler, and J. Salzer, “ Soft gravitons in three dimensions,” 2411.13633

arXiv
[1]

A Chern-Simons Action for T hree-Dimensional anti-De Sitter Supergravity Theories,

A. Achucarro and P. K. Townsend, “A Chern-Simons Action for T hree-Dimensional anti-De Sitter Supergravity Theories,” Phys. Lett. B 180 (1986) 89

work page 1986
[2]

(2+1)-Dimensional Gravity as an Exactly Soluble Syst em,

E. Witten, “(2+1)-Dimensional Gravity as an Exactly Soluble Syst em,” Nucl. Phys. B 311 (1988) 46

work page 1988
[3]

Remarks on the Canonical Quantization of the Chern-Simons-Witten Theory,

S. Elitzur, G. W. Moore, A. Schwimmer, and N. Seiberg, “Remarks on the Canonical Quantization of the Chern-Simons-Witten Theory,” Nucl. Phys. B 326 (1989) 108–134. – 22 –

work page 1989
[4]

The Asymptotic d ynamics of three-dimensional Einstein gravity with a negative cosmological con stant,

O. Coussaert, M. Henneaux, and P. van Driel, “The Asymptotic d ynamics of three-dimensional Einstein gravity with a negative cosmological con stant,” Class. Quant. Grav. 12 (1995) 2961–2966, gr-qc/9506019

arXiv 1995
[5]

Path Integral Quantization o f the Coadjoint Orbits of the Virasoro Group and 2D Gravity,

A. Alekseev and S. L. Shatashvili, “Path Integral Quantization o f the Coadjoint Orbits of the Virasoro Group and 2D Gravity,” Nucl. Phys. B 323 (1989) 719–733

work page 1989
[6]

From geometric quantization t o conformal ﬁeld theory,

A. Alekseev and S. L. Shatashvili, “From geometric quantization t o conformal ﬁeld theory,” Commun. Math. Phys. 128 (1990) 197–212

work page 1990
[7]

A. A. Kirillov, Elements of the Theory of Representations, vol. 220. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg,

work page

Show all 53 references

[8]

Coadjoint Orbits of the Virasoro Group,

E. Witten, “Coadjoint Orbits of the Virasoro Group,” Commun. Math. Phys. 114 (1988) 1

1988
[9]

Quantization of symplectic orbits of compact Lie groups by means of the functional integral,

A. Alekseev, L. D. Faddeev, and S. L. Shatashvili, “Quantization of symplectic orbits of compact Lie groups by means of the functional integral,” J. Geom. Phys. 5 (1988) 391–406

1988
[10]

A theory of reparameterizations fo r AdS 3 gravity,

J. Cotler and K. Jensen, “A theory of reparameterizations fo r AdS 3 gravity,” JHEP 02 (2019) 079, 1808.03263

2019 arXiv
[11]

Notes on the BMS group in three dimens ions: I. Induced representations,

G. Barnich and B. Oblak, “Notes on the BMS group in three dimens ions: I. Induced representations,” JHEP 06 (2014) 129, 1403.5803

2014 arXiv
[12]

Notes on the BMS group in three dimens ions: II. Coadjoint representation,

G. Barnich and B. Oblak, “Notes on the BMS group in three dimens ions: II. Coadjoint representation,” JHEP 03 (2015) 033, 1502.00010

2015 arXiv
[13]

Oblak, BMS Particles in Three Dimensions

B. Oblak, BMS Particles in Three Dimensions. PhD thesis, U. Brussels, Brussels U., 2016. 1610.08526

2016 arXiv
[14]

Geomet ric actions for three-dimensional gravity,

G. Barnich, H. A. Gonzalez, and P. Salgado-Rebolledo, “Geomet ric actions for three-dimensional gravity,” Class. Quant. Grav. 35 (2018), no. 1, 014003, 1707.08887

2018 arXiv
[15]

Low-dimensional de Sitt er quantum gravity,

J. Cotler, K. Jensen, and A. Maloney, “Low-dimensional de Sitt er quantum gravity,” JHEP 06 (2020) 048, 1905.03780

2020 arXiv
[16]

New Boundary Con ditions for AdS3,

G. Comp` ere, W. Song, and A. Strominger, “New Boundary Con ditions for AdS3,” JHEP 05 (2013) 152, 1303.2662

2013 arXiv
[17]

Geometric actions for Low er Spin Gravity,

S. Detournay and Q. Vandermiers, “Geometric actions for Low er Spin Gravity,” JHEP 10 (2024) 024, 2408.13198

2024 arXiv
[18]

The near horizon dynamics in thre e-dimensional Einstein gravity,

H. R. Afshar and N. Aghamir, “The near horizon dynamics in thre e-dimensional Einstein gravity,” JHEP 08 (2024) 099, 2406.05386

2024 arXiv
[19]

Quantum Gravity Partition Functions in Three Dimensions,

A. Maloney and E. Witten, “Quantum Gravity Partition Functions in Three Dimensions,” JHEP 02 (2010) 029, 0712.0155

2010 arXiv
[20]

One-loop Partition Functions o f 3D Gravity,

S. Giombi, A. Maloney, and X. Yin, “One-loop Partition Functions o f 3D Gravity,” JHEP 08 (2008) 007, 0804.1773

2008 arXiv
[21]

Holographic Conformal Partial Waves as Gravitational Open Wilson Networks,

A. Bhatta, P. Raman, and N. V. Suryanarayana, “Holographic Conformal Partial Waves as Gravitational Open Wilson Networks,” JHEP 06 (2016) 119, 1602.02962

2016 arXiv
[22]

Geometric actions and ﬂat space holog raphy,

W. Merbis and M. Riegler, “Geometric actions and ﬂat space holog raphy,” JHEP 02 (2020) 125, 1912.08207

2020 arXiv
[23]

Wilson Lines and Entangleme nt Entropy in Higher Spin Gravity,

M. Ammon, A. Castro, and N. Iqbal, “Wilson Lines and Entangleme nt Entropy in Higher Spin Gravity,” JHEP 10 (2013) 110, 1306.4338. – 23 –

2013 arXiv
[24]

Entanglement Entropy and Highe r Spin Holography in AdS 3,

J. de Boer and J. I. Jottar, “Entanglement Entropy and Highe r Spin Holography in AdS 3,” JHEP 04 (2014) 089, 1306.4347

2014 arXiv
[25]

Holog raphic entanglement entropy and gravitational anomalies,

A. Castro, S. Detournay, N. Iqbal, and E. Perlmutter, “Holog raphic entanglement entropy and gravitational anomalies,” JHEP 07 (2014) 114, 1405.2792

2014 arXiv
[26]

Entanglement e ntropy in Galilean conformal ﬁeld theories and ﬂat holography,

A. Bagchi, R. Basu, D. Grumiller, and M. Riegler, “Entanglement e ntropy in Galilean conformal ﬁeld theories and ﬂat holography,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015), no. 11, 111602, 1410.4089

2015 arXiv
[27]

Wilson Lines and Holographic Entanglemen t Entropy in Galilean Conformal Field Theories,

R. Basu and M. Riegler, “Wilson Lines and Holographic Entanglemen t Entropy in Galilean Conformal Field Theories,” Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016), no. 4, 045003, 1511.08662

2016 arXiv
[28]

Fermionic Localization of the Schwa rzian Theory,

D. Stanford and E. Witten, “Fermionic Localization of the Schwa rzian Theory,” JHEP 10 (2017) 008, 1703.04612

2017 arXiv
[29]

Flat JT gravity and the BMS-Schwarzia n,

H. Afshar and B. Oblak, “Flat JT gravity and the BMS-Schwarzia n,” JHEP 11 (2022) 172, 2112.14609

2022 arXiv
[30]

One-loop partition function of three-dimensional ﬂat gravity,

G. Barnich, H. A. Gonzalez, A. Maloney, and B. Oblak, “One-loop partition function of three-dimensional ﬂat gravity,” JHEP 04 (2015) 178, 1502.06185

2015 arXiv
[31]

Quantization of BMS 3 orbits: a perturbative approach,

A. Garbarz and M. Leston, “Quantization of BMS 3 orbits: a perturbative approach,” Nucl. Phys. B 906 (2016) 133–146, 1507.00339

2016 arXiv
[32]

3D Quantum Gravity Partition Function at Three Loops,

M. Leston, A. Goya, G. P´ erez-Nadal, M. Passaglia, and G. Girib et, “3D Quantum Gravity Partition Function at Three Loops,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (2023), no. 18, 181601, 2307.03830

2023 arXiv
[33]

On the Variation in the co homology of the symplectic form of the reduced phase space,

J. J. Duistermaat and G. J. Heckman, “On the Variation in the co homology of the symplectic form of the reduced phase space,” Invent. Math. 69 (1982) 259–268

1982
[34]

The Moment map and equivariant coho mology,

M. F. Atiyah and R. Bott, “The Moment map and equivariant coho mology,” Topology 23 (1984) 1–28

1984
[35]

Topological Quantum Field Theory,

E. Witten, “Topological Quantum Field Theory,” Commun. Math. Phys. 117 (1988) 353

1988
[36]

Localization of gauge theory on a four-sphere an d supersymmetric Wilson loops,

V. Pestun, “Localization of gauge theory on a four-sphere an d supersymmetric Wilson loops,” Commun. Math. Phys. 313 (2012) 71–129, 0712.2824

2012 arXiv
[37]

SUSY Gauge Theories on Squ ashed Three-Spheres,

N. Hama, K. Hosomichi, and S. Lee, “SUSY Gauge Theories on Squ ashed Three-Spheres,” JHEP 05 (2011) 014, 1102.4716

2011 arXiv
[38]

Supersymmetric Field Theories on Three-Manifolds,

C. Closset, T. T. Dumitrescu, G. Festuccia, and Z. Komargods ki, “Supersymmetric Field Theories on Three-Manifolds,” JHEP 05 (2013) 017, 1212.3388

2013 arXiv
[39]

Black hole microstates in AdS4 from supersymmetric localization,

F. Benini, K. Hristov, and A. Zaﬀaroni, “Black hole microstates in AdS4 from supersymmetric localization,” JHEP 05 (2016) 054, 1511.04085

2016 arXiv
[40]

Black hole microstate counting from the gravitational path integral,

L. V. Iliesiu, S. Murthy, and G. J. Turiaci, “Black hole microstate counting from the gravitational path integral,” 2209.13602

arXiv
[42]

Supersymmetry, Localization and Quantum Entropy Function,

N. Banerjee, S. Banerjee, R. K. Gupta, I. Mandal, and A. Sen , “Supersymmetry, Localization and Quantum Entropy Function,” JHEP 02 (2010) 091, 0905.2686

2010 arXiv
[43]

Quantum black holes, localization and the topological string,

A. Dabholkar, J. Gomes, and S. Murthy, “Quantum black holes, localization and the topological string,” JHEP 06 (2011) 019, 1012.0265. – 24 –

2011 arXiv
[44]

Three-dimensional cosmological grav ity: dynamics of constant curvature,

S. Deser and R. Jackiw, “Three-dimensional cosmological grav ity: dynamics of constant curvature,” Annals of Physics 153 (1984), no. 2, 405–416

1984
[45]

Central Charges in the Canonic al Realization of Asymptotic Symmetries: An Example from Three-Dimensional Gravit y,

J. D. Brown and M. Henneaux, “Central Charges in the Canonic al Realization of Asymptotic Symmetries: An Example from Three-Dimensional Gravit y,” Commun. Math. Phys. 104 (1986) 207–226

1986
[46]

Three-dimensional quantum geometry and black holes,

M. Banados, “Three-dimensional quantum geometry and black holes,” AIP Conf. Proc. 484 (1999), no. 1, 147–169, hep-th/9901148

1999 arXiv
[47]

Quantum eﬀective action fr om the AdS / CFT correspondence,

K. Skenderis and S. N. Solodukhin, “Quantum eﬀective action fr om the AdS / CFT correspondence,” Phys. Lett. B 472 (2000) 316–322, hep-th/9910023

2000 arXiv
[48]

Virasoro orbits, AdS(3) q uantum gravity and entropy,

J. Navarro-Salas and P. Navarro, “Virasoro orbits, AdS(3) q uantum gravity and entropy,” JHEP 05 (1999) 009, hep-th/9903248

1999 arXiv
[49]

Aspects of the BMS/CFT corr espondence,

G. Barnich and C. Troessaert, “Aspects of the BMS/CFT corr espondence,” JHEP 05 (2010) 062, 1001.1541

2010 arXiv
[50]

Asymptotic struct ure of symmetry reduced general relativity,

A. Ashtekar, J. Bicak, and B. G. Schmidt, “Asymptotic struct ure of symmetry reduced general relativity,” Phys. Rev. D 55 (1997) 669–686, gr-qc/9608042

1997 arXiv
[51]

Classical central extension for a symptotic symmetries at null inﬁnity in three spacetime dimensions,

G. Barnich and G. Compere, “Classical central extension for a symptotic symmetries at null inﬁnity in three spacetime dimensions,” Class. Quant. Grav. 24 (2007) F15–F23, gr-qc/0610130

2007 arXiv
[52]

Dual dynamics of three dimensio nal asymptotically ﬂat Einstein gravity at null inﬁnity,

G. Barnich and H. A. Gonzalez, “Dual dynamics of three dimensio nal asymptotically ﬂat Einstein gravity at null inﬁnity,” JHEP 05 (2013) 016, 1303.1075

2013 arXiv
[53]

Cosmic Evo lution from Phase Transition of Three-Dimensional Flat Space,

A. Bagchi, S. Detournay, D. Grumiller, and J. Simon, “Cosmic Evo lution from Phase Transition of Three-Dimensional Flat Space,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013), no. 18, 181301, 1305.2919. – 25 –

2013 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [41]

Soft gravitons in three dimensions,

J. Cotler, K. Jensen, S. Prohazka, M. Riegler, and J. Salzer, “ Soft gravitons in three dimensions,” 2411.13633

arXiv

[2] [1]

A Chern-Simons Action for T hree-Dimensional anti-De Sitter Supergravity Theories,

A. Achucarro and P. K. Townsend, “A Chern-Simons Action for T hree-Dimensional anti-De Sitter Supergravity Theories,” Phys. Lett. B 180 (1986) 89

work page 1986

[3] [2]

(2+1)-Dimensional Gravity as an Exactly Soluble Syst em,

E. Witten, “(2+1)-Dimensional Gravity as an Exactly Soluble Syst em,” Nucl. Phys. B 311 (1988) 46

work page 1988

[4] [3]

Remarks on the Canonical Quantization of the Chern-Simons-Witten Theory,

S. Elitzur, G. W. Moore, A. Schwimmer, and N. Seiberg, “Remarks on the Canonical Quantization of the Chern-Simons-Witten Theory,” Nucl. Phys. B 326 (1989) 108–134. – 22 –

work page 1989

[5] [4]

The Asymptotic d ynamics of three-dimensional Einstein gravity with a negative cosmological con stant,

O. Coussaert, M. Henneaux, and P. van Driel, “The Asymptotic d ynamics of three-dimensional Einstein gravity with a negative cosmological con stant,” Class. Quant. Grav. 12 (1995) 2961–2966, gr-qc/9506019

arXiv 1995

[6] [5]

Path Integral Quantization o f the Coadjoint Orbits of the Virasoro Group and 2D Gravity,

A. Alekseev and S. L. Shatashvili, “Path Integral Quantization o f the Coadjoint Orbits of the Virasoro Group and 2D Gravity,” Nucl. Phys. B 323 (1989) 719–733

work page 1989

[7] [6]

From geometric quantization t o conformal ﬁeld theory,

A. Alekseev and S. L. Shatashvili, “From geometric quantization t o conformal ﬁeld theory,” Commun. Math. Phys. 128 (1990) 197–212

work page 1990

[8] [7]

A. A. Kirillov, Elements of the Theory of Representations, vol. 220. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg,

work page