Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Letter
  • Open Access

Extracting edge modes: Reduction of 3D and 2D gravities

Euihun Joung* and Sejin Kim†

  • *Contact author: euihun.joung@khu.ac.kr
  • †Contact author: sejinkim1230@khu.ac.kr

Phys. Rev. D 113, L021901 – Published 2 January, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/bgjv-m11w

Abstract

We investigate the boundary reduction of 3D Einstein gravity and Jackiw-Teitelboim gravity into their respective edge mode theories—namely, the Liouville and Alekseev-Shatashvili, and Schwarzian models. By examining the roles of boundary conditions, canonical transformations, and differing formulations—metric versus Chern-Simons—we clarify how physical degrees of freedom become localized at the boundary and resolve several longstanding ambiguities in the reduction procedure.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (52)

  1. R. Floreanini and R. Jackiw, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 1873 (1987).
  2. E. Witten, Commun. Math. Phys. 121, 351 (1989).
  3. S. Elitzur, G. W. Moore, A. Schwimmer, and N. Seiberg, Nucl. Phys. B326, 108 (1989).
  4. These edge modes have played a key role in understanding various condensed-matter properties, such as the quantum Hall effect [5, 6].

  5. X. G. Wen, Mod. Phys. Lett. B 05, 39 (1991).
  6. X.-G. Wen, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 06, 1711 (1992).
  7. G. W. Moore and N. Seiberg, Phys. Lett. B 220, 422 (1989).
  8. A. S. Arvanitakis, L. T. Cole, O. Hulik, A. Sevrin, and D. C. Thompson, Phys. Rev. D 107, 126024 (2023).
  9. C. Y.-R. Chen, E. Joung, K. Mkrtchyan, and J. Yoon, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2025) 186.
  10. Our list of references is not complete; this is partly due to our limited knowledge and partly due to space constraints.

  11. A. P. Balachandran, L. Chandar, and A. Momen, Nucl. Phys. B461, 581 (1996).
  12. See also [13, 14, 15] for the attempts of explaining the entropy of BTZ black hole in terms of the would-be gauge mode.

  13. S. Carlip, Phys. Rev. D 51, 632 (1995).
  14. S. Carlip, Nucl. Phys. B, Proc. Suppl. 57, 8 (1997).
  15. S. Carlip, Phys. Rev. D 55, 878 (1997).
  16. J. D. Brown and M. Henneaux, Commun. Math. Phys. 104, 207 (1986).
  17. O. Coussaert, M. Henneaux, and P. v. Driel, Classical Quantum Gravity 12, 2961 (1995).
  18. M. Henneaux, L. Maoz, and A. Schwimmer, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 282, 31 (2000).
  19. M. Rooman and P. Spindel, Nucl. Phys. B594, 329 (2001).
  20. K. Nguyen, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2021) 218.
  21. L. Benizri and J. Troost, J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2023) 093.
  22. M. Henningson and K. Skenderis, J. High Energy Phys. 07 (1998) 023.
  23. C. Imbimbo, A. Schwimmer, S. Theisen, and S. Yankielowicz, Classical Quantum Gravity 17, 1129 (2000).
  24. S. de Haro, S. N. Solodukhin, and K. Skenderis, Commun. Math. Phys. 217, 595 (2001).
  25. J. Navarro-Salas and P. Navarro, Phys. Lett. B 439, 262 (1998).
  26. K. Skenderis and S. N. Solodukhin, Phys. Lett. B 472, 316 (2000).
  27. K. Bautier, F. Englert, M. Rooman, and P. Spindel, Phys. Lett. B 479, 291 (2000).
  28. T. Nakatsu, H. Umetsu, and N. Yokoi, Prog. Theor. Phys. 102, 867 (1999).
  29. M. Rooman and P. Spindel, Classical Quantum Gravity 18, 2117 (2001).
  30. K. Krasnov, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 4, 929 (2000).
  31. K. Krasnov, Classical Quantum Gravity 20, 4015 (2003).
  32. R. Manvelyan, R. Mkrtchian, and H. J. W. Muller-Kirsten, Phys. Lett. B 509, 143 (2001).
  33. S. Carlip, Classical Quantum Gravity 22, 3055 (2005).
  34. J. Maldacena and D. Stanford, Phys. Rev. D 94, 106002 (2016).
  35. A. Kitaev, A simple model of quantum holography 1; 2 (2015), Talks at KITP, April 7, 2015 and May 27, 2015.
  36. A. Kitaev and S. J. Suh, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2018) 183.
  37. J. Maldacena, D. Stanford, and Z. Yang, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2016, 12C104 (2016).
  38. P. Saad, S. H. Shenker, and D. Stanford, arXiv:1903.11115.
  39. J. Cotler and K. Jensen, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2019) 079.
  40. A. Alekseev and S. L. Shatashvili, Nucl. Phys. B323, 719 (1989).
  41. F. Valach and D. R. Youmans, J. High Energy Phys. 12 (2020) 189.
  42. J. de Boer, E. P. Verlinde, and H. L. Verlinde, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2000) 003.
  43. I. Papadimitriou and K. Skenderis, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2004) 075.
  44. M. Cvetič and I. Papadimitriou, J. High Energy Phys. 12 (2016) 008; 01 (2017) 120(E).
  45. P. Chaturvedi, I. Papadimitriou, W. Song, and B. Yu, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2021) 142.
  46. I. Papadimitriou, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2007) 075.
  47. I. Papadimitriou, J. High Energy Phys. 11 (2010) 014.
  48. E. Joung, M.-g. Kim, and Y. Kim, J. High Energy Phys. 12 (2021) 092.
  49. Remark that the above procedure breaks the manifest 2D Lorentz symmetry in the intermediate step, but it is also possible to devise an improved procedure which preserve Lorentz symmetry manifestly [8, 50].

  50. O. Evnin, E. Joung, and K. Mkrtchyan, Phys. Rev. D 109, 066003 (2024).
  51. We used the group decomposition (16) in order to simplify the expressions (17) where we set f˜±1=∓e−rL± by the D± Stueckelberg symmetry. This choice of A˜ corresponds to the background metric g˜μν given by ds2=dr2−(erdx++e−rL−dx−)(erdx−+e−rL+dx+) with x±=12(x0±x1).

  52. E. Joung, P. Narayan, and J. Yoon, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2024) 244.

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation