LRR 2013 3

Living Rev.
Relativity, 16, (2013), 3 LIVING RE VIE WS

http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2013-3
in relativity
The Spin-Foam Approach to Quantum Gravity

Alejandro Perez
Centre de Physique Théorique
Unité Mixte de Recherche (UMR 6207) du CNRS et des
Universités Aix-Marseille I, Aix-Marseille II, et du Sud Toulon-Var;
laboratoire afilié à la FRUMAM (FR 2291)
email: [email protected]
Accepted on 11 June 2012

Published on 14 February 2013
Abstract
This article reviews the present status of the spin-foam approach to the quantization of
gravity. Special attention is payed to the pedagogical presentation of the recently-introduced
new models for four-dimensional quantum gravity. The models are motivated by a suitable
implementation of the path integral quantization of the Plebanski formulation of gravity on a
simplicial regularization. The article also includes a self-contained treatment of 2+1 gravity.
The simple nature of the latter provides the basis and a perspective for the analysis of both
conceptual and technical issues that remain open in four dimensions.
This review is licensed under a Creative Commons

Attribution-Non-Commercial 3.0 Germany License.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/de/
Imprint / Terms of Use
Living Reviews in Relativity is a peer reviewed open access journal published by the Max Planck
Institute for Gravitational Physics, Am Mühlenberg 1, 14476 Potsdam, Germany. ISSN 1433-8351.
This review is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial 3.0 Germany

License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/de/. Figures that have been pre-
viously published elsewhere may not be reproduced without consent of the original copyright
holders.
Because a Living Reviews article can evolve over time, we recommend to cite the article as follows:
Alejandro Perez,
“The Spin-Foam Approach to Quantum Gravity”,
Living Rev. Relativity, 16, (2013), 3. URL (accessed <date>):
The date given as <date> then uniquely identifies the version of the article you are referring to.
Article Revisions
Living Reviews supports two ways of keeping its articles up-to-date:
Fast-track revision A fast-track revision provides the author with the opportunity to add short
notices of current research results, trends and developments, or important publications to
the article. A fast-track revision is refereed by the responsible subject editor. If an article
has undergone a fast-track revision, a summary of changes will be listed here.
Major update A major update will include substantial changes and additions and is subject to
full external refereeing. It is published with a new publication number.
For detailed documentation of an article’s evolution, please refer to the history document of the
article’s online version at http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2013-3.
Contents
I Introduction 7
1 Quantum Gravity: A Unifying Framework for Fundamental Physics 8
1.1 Why non-perturbative quantum gravity? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.2 Non-renormalizability of general relativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2 Why Spin Foams? 12

2.1 Loop quantum gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2 The path integral for generally covariant systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.3 A brief history of spin foams in four dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.3.1 The Reisenberger model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.3.2 The Freidel–Krasnov prescription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.3.3 The Iwasaki model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.3.4 The Barrett–Crane model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.3.5 Markopoulou–Smolin causal spin networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.3.6 Gambini–Pullin model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.3.7 Capovilla–Dell–Jacobson theory on the lattice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.3.8 The Engle–Pereira–Rovelli–Livine (EPRL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.3.9 Freidel–Krasnov (FK) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
II Preliminaries:
LQG and the canonical quantization of four-dimensional gravity 22
3 Classical General Relativity in Connection Variables 23
3.1 Gravity as constrained BF theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.2 Canonical analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.2.1 Constraints algebra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.3 Geometric interpretation of the new variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4 Loop Quantum Gravity and Quantum Geometry in a Nutshell 29

4.1 Quantum geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.2 Quantum dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5 Spin Foams and the Path Integral for Gravity in a Nutshell 33
III The new spin-foam models for four-dimensional gravity 36

6 Spin-foam Quantization of BF Theory 37
6.1 Special cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
6.1.1 SU (2) BF theory in 2D: the simplest topological model . . . . . . . . . . . 41
6.1.2 SU (2) BF theory and 3D Riemannian gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
6.1.3 SU (2) BF theory: The Ooguri model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
6.1.4 SU (2)×SU (2) BF theory: a starting point for 4D Riemannian gravity . . . 45
6.2 The coherent-states representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
6.2.1 Coherent states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
6.2.2 Spin(4) BF theory: amplitudes in the coherent state basis . . . . . . . . . . 48
7 The Riemannian EPRL Model 49
7.1 Representation theory of Spin(4) and the canonical basis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
7.2 The linear simplicity constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
7.2.1 Riemannian model: The Gupta–Bleuler criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
7.2.2 Riemannian model: The Master-constraint criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
7.2.3 Riemannian model: Restrictions on the Immirzi parameter . . . . . . . . . 54
7.2.4 Riemannian model: Overview of the solutions of the linear simplicity con-
straints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
7.3 Presentation of the EPRL amplitude . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
7.3.1 The spin-foam representation of the EPRL amplitude . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
7.4 Proof of validity of the Plebanski constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
7.4.1 The dual version of the constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
7.4.2 The path integral expectation value of the Plebanski constraints . . . . . . 59
7.5 Modifications of the EPRL model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
7.5.1 𝑃EPRL is not a projector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
7.5.2 The Warsaw proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
7.6 The coherent states representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
7.7 Some additional remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
8 The Lorentzian EPRL Model:

Representation Theory and Simplicity Constraints 68
8.1 Representation theory of 𝑆𝐿(2, C) and the canonical basis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
8.2 Lorentzian model: the linear simplicity constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
8.2.1 Lorentzian model: The Gupta–Bleuler criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
8.2.2 Lorentzian model: The Master-constraint criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
8.2.3 Lorentzian model: Restrictions on the Immirzi parameter . . . . . . . . . . 72
8.2.4 Lorentzian model: Overview of the solutions of the linear simplicity constraints 72
8.3 Presentation of the EPRL Lorentzian model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
8.4 The coherent state representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
9 The Freidel–Krasnov Model 74
10 The Barrett–Crane Model 76

10.1 The coherent states representation of the BC amplitude . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
11 Boundary Data for the New Models and Relation with the Canonical Theory 77
12 Further Developments and Related Models 78

12.1 The measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
12.2 Relation with the canonical formulation: the scalar constraint . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
12.3 Spin-foam models with timelike faces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
12.4 Coupling to matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
12.5 Cosmological constant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
12.6 Spin-foam cosmology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
12.7 Constraints are imposed semiclassically . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
12.8 Group field theories associated to the new spin foams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
13 The Semiclassical Limit 80
13.1 Vertex amplitudes asymptotics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
13.1.1 SU (2) 15j -symbol asymptotics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
13.1.2 The Riemannian EPRL vertex asymptotics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
13.1.3 Lorentzian EPRL model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
13.2 Full spin-foam amplitudes asymptotics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
13.3 Fluctuations: two point functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
IV Three-dimensional gravity 84
14 Spin Foams for Three-Dimensional Gravity 85
14.1 Spin foams in 3D quantum gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
14.2 The classical theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
14.3 Spin foams from the Hamiltonian formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
14.4 The spin-foam representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
14.5 Spin-foam quantization of 3D gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
14.5.1 Discretization independence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
14.5.2 Transition amplitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
14.5.3 The generalized projector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
14.5.4 The continuum limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
14.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
14.7 Further results in 3D quantum gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
V Conceptual issues and open problems 96

15 Quantum Spacetime and Gauge Histories 97
16 Anomalies and Gauge Fixing 99
17 Discretization Dependence 102
18 Lorentz Invariance in the Effective Low-Energy Regime 105
19 Acknowledgements 106
References 107
The Spin-Foam Approach to Quantum Gravity 7
Part I
Introduction
Living Reviews in Relativity

8 Alejandro Perez
1 Quantum Gravity:
A Unifying Framework for Fundamental Physics
The revolution brought about by Einstein’s theory of gravity lies more in the discovery of the
principle of general covariance than in the form of the dynamical equations of general relativity.
General covariance brings the relational character of nature into our description of physics as
an essential ingredient for the understanding of the gravitational force. In general relativity, the
gravitational field is encoded in the dynamical geometry of spacetime, implying a strong form of
universality that precludes the existence of any non-dynamical reference system – or non-dynamical
background – on top of which things occur. This leaves no room for the old view, where fields
evolve on a rigid pre-established spacetime geometry (e.g., Minkowski spacetime): to understand
gravity one must describe the dynamics of fields with respect to one another, and independent of
any background structure.
General relativity realizes the requirements of general covariance as a classical theory, i.e., for
~ = 0. Einstein’s theory is, in this sense, incomplete as a fundamental description of nature. A
clear indication of such incompleteness is the generic prediction of spacetime singularities in the
context of gravitational collapse. Near spacetime singularities, the spacetime curvature and energy
density become so large that any classical description turns inconsistent. This is reminiscent of the
foundational examples of quantum mechanics – such as the UV catastrophe of black-body radiation
or the instability of the classical model of the hydrogen atom – where similar singularities appear
if quantum effects are not appropriately taken into account. General relativity must be replaced
by a more fundamental description that appropriately includes the quantum degrees of freedom of
gravity.
At first sight the candidate would be a suitable generalization of the formalism of quantum
field theory (QFT). However, the standard QFTs used to describe other fundamental forces are
not appropriate to tackle the problem of quantum gravity. Firstly, because standard QFTs are not
generally covariant, as they can only be defined if a non-dynamical spacetime geometry is provided:
the notion of particle, Fourier modes, vacuum and Poincaré invariance are essential tools that can
only be constructed on a given spacetime geometry. This is a strong limitation when it comes to
quantum gravity, since the very notion of spacetime geometry is most likely not defined in the deep
quantum regime. Secondly, quantum field theory is plagued by singularities too (UV divergences)
coming from the contribution of arbitrary high-energy quantum processes. This limitation of
standard QFTs is expected to disappear once the quantum fluctuations of the gravitational field,
involving the dynamic treatment of spacetime geometry, are appropriately taken into account. But
because of its intrinsically–background-dependent definition, standard QFT cannot be used to shed
light on this issue. A general covariant approach to the quantization of gravity is needed.
This is obviously not an easy challenge, as in the construction of a general covariant QFT one
must abandon from the starting point most of the concepts that are essential in the description
of ‘non-gravitational’ physics. One has to learn to formulate a quantum theory in the absence of
preferred reference systems or pre-existent notion of space and time. Loop quantum gravity (LQG)
is a framework to address this task. The degrees of freedom of gravity are quantized in accordance
to the principles of general covariance. At the present stage there are some indications that both
the singularity problems of classical general relativity as well as the UV problem of standard QFTs
might vanish in the framework.
However, these indications are not conclusive, mainly because the systematic description of
dynamical processes remains an open problem at the present stage. In this article we review the
status of the construction of a promising approach for handling the difficult dynamical question in
LQG: the spin-foam formulation.

1.1 Why non-perturbative quantum gravity?

Let us make some observations about the problems of standard perturbative quantum gravity. In
doing so we will revisit the general discussion above, in a special situation. In standard perturbative
approaches to quantum gravity one attempts to describe the gravitational interaction using the
same techniques applied to the definition of the standard model. As these techniques require a
notion of a non-dynamical background, one (arbitrarily) separates the degrees of freedom of the
gravitational field in terms of a background geometry 𝜂𝑎𝑏 for 𝑎, 𝑏 = 1 · · · 4 – fixed once and for all
– and dynamical metric fluctuations ℎ𝑎𝑏 . Explicitly, one writes the spacetime metric as
𝑔𝑎𝑏 = 𝜂𝑎𝑏 + ℎ𝑎𝑏 . (1)
Notice that the previous separation of degrees of freedom has no intrinsic meaning in general
relativity. In other words, for a generic spacetime metric 𝑔𝑎𝑏 we can write
𝑔𝑎𝑏 = 𝜂𝑎𝑏 + ℎ𝑎𝑏 = 𝜂˜𝑎𝑏 + ℎ̃𝑎𝑏 , (2)
where 𝜂𝑎𝑏 and 𝜂˜𝑎𝑏 can lead to different background light-cone structures of the underlying spacetime
(𝑀, 𝑔𝑎𝑏 ); equally natural choices of flat background metrics lead to different Minkowski metrics in
this sense. This is quite dangerous if we want to give any physical meaning to the background,
e.g., the light-cone structures of the two ‘natural’ backgrounds will be generally different providing
different notions of causality! Eq. (1) is used in the classical theory in very special situations when
one considers perturbations of a given background 𝜂𝑎𝑏 . In quantum gravity one has to deal with
arbitrary superpositions of spacetimes; the above splitting can at best be meaningful for very special
semi-classical states ‘peaked’, so to say, around the classical geometry 𝜂𝑎𝑏 with small fluctuations,
i.e., it might only make sense a posteriori in the framework of a quantum gravity theory defined
independent of any background geometry. Consequently, even when perturbations remain useful
to approximate special situations, the splitting in Eq. (1) is inconsistent when considering general
states with their arbitrary quantum excitations at all scales.
Figure 1: The larger cone represents the light cone at a point according to the ad hoc background 𝜂𝑎𝑏 .
The smaller cones are a cartoon representation of the fluctuations of the true gravitational field represented
by 𝑔𝑎𝑏 . Gravitons respect the causal structure of the unphysical metric to all orders in perturbation theory.
This is especially so in gravity, due to the dual role of the gravitational field that simultaneously
describes the geometry and its own dynamical degrees of freedom. More explicitly, in the standard
background-dependent quantization, the existence of a fixed-background geometry is fundamental
to the definition of the theory. In the usual treatment one imposes fields at space-like separated
points to commute alluding to standard causality considerations. Even when this is certainly

10 Alejandro Perez
justified for matter fields (at least in the range of applicability of the standard model) it makes no
sense in the case of gravity: one would be using the causal structure provided by the unphysical
background 𝜂𝑎𝑏 . This difficulty has been raised several times (see, for instance, [367]).
Therefore, treating the gravitational field according to the splitting given in Eq. (1) is incon-
sistent with the fundamental nature of the gravitational degrees of freedom. Treating ℎ𝑎𝑏 with
the standard perturbative techniques is equivalent to viewing ℎ𝑎𝑏 as another matter field with no
special properties. As mentioned above, gravitons would propagate respecting the causal structure
of the unphysical background to all orders in perturbation theory! 1 Radiative corrections do not
affect causality. Even though such a thing is quite sensible when dealing with matter fields in the
regime where gravity is neglected, it would be clearly wrong for the gravitational interaction.
1.2 Non-renormalizability of general relativity

If we ignore all these issues and try to set up a naive perturbative quantization of gravity, we
find that the theory is non-renormalizable. This can be expected from dimensional analysis as
the quantity playing the role of the coupling constant turns out to be the Planck length ℓ𝑝 . The
non-renormalizability of perturbative gravity is often explained through an analogy with the (non-
renormalizable) Fermi’s four-fermion effective description of the weak interaction. Fermi’s four
fermions theory is known to be an effective description of the (renormalizable) Weinberg–Salam
theory. The non-renormalizable UV behavior of Fermi’s four fermion interaction is a consequence
of neglecting the degrees of freedom of the exchanged massive gauge bosons, which are otherwise
disguised as the dimension-full coupling ΛFermi ≈ 1/𝑚2𝑊 at momentum transfer much lower than
the mass of the 𝑊 particle (𝑞 2 << 𝑚2𝑊 ). A similar view is applied to gravity to promote the
search of a more fundamental theory, which is renormalizable or finite (in the perturbative sense)
and reduces to general relativity at low energies. From this perspective it is argued that the
quantization of general relativity is a hopeless attempt to quantize a theory that does not contain
the fundamental degrees of freedom.
These arguments, based on background-dependent concepts, seem, at the very least, question-
able in the case of gravity. Although one should expect the notion of a background geometry to
be useful in certain semi-classical situations, the assumption that such structure exists all the way
down to the Planck scale is inconsistent with what we know about gravity and quantum mechanics.
General considerations indicate that standard notions of space and time are expected to fail near
the Planck scale ℓ𝑝 .2 In the field of LQG, people usually tend to interpret the severe divergences of
perturbative quantum gravity as an indication of the inconsistency of the separation of degrees of
freedom in Eq. (1). According to concrete results in LQG the nature of spacetime is very different
from the classical notion in quantum gravity. The treatment that uses Eq. (1) as the starting point
is assuming a well-defined notion of background geometry at all scales, which directly contradicts
these results.
It is possible that new degrees of freedom would become important at more fundamental scales.
It is also possible that including these degrees of freedom might be very important for the consis-
tency of the theory of quantum gravity. However, there is a constraint that seems hardly avoidable:
if we want to get a quantum theory that reproduces gravity in the semi-classical limit, we should
have a background-independent formalism. In LQG one stresses this viewpoint. The hope is that
1 In principle, one can avoid this by carefully devising a theory of perturbations for generally covariant systems.
For some ideas on this, see [153, 239].

2 For instance, a typical example is to use a photon to measure distance. The energy of the photon in our
lab frame is given by 𝐸𝛾 = ℎ𝑐/𝜆. We put the photon in a cavity and produce a standing wave measuring the
dimensions of the cavity in units of the wavelength. The best possible precision is attained when the Schwarzschild
radius corresponding to energy of the photon is on the order of its wavelength. Beyond that the photon can collapse
to form a black hole around some of the maxima √︀of the standing wave. This happens for a value 𝜆𝑐 for which
𝜆𝑐 ≈ 𝐺𝐸𝛾 /𝑐4 = ℎ𝐺/(𝜆𝑐 𝑐3 ). The solution is 𝜆𝑐 ≈ ℎ𝐺/𝑐3 , which is the Planck length.

learning how to define quantum field theory in the absence of a background is a key ingredient in
a recipe for quantum gravity.
One of the achievements of the background independent formulation of LQG is the discovered
intrinsic discreteness of quantum geometry. Geometric operators have discrete spectra yielding a
physical mechanism for the cut-off of UV degrees of freedom around the Planck scale. In this way
LQG is free of UV divergences. Is this a complete answer to the non-renormalizability problem
of gravity mentioned above? Unfortunately, the answer to this question is in the negative at this
stage. The reason is that the true answer to the question of renormalizabity or not renormalizability
is not in the presence of divergences but in the degree of intrinsic ambiguity of the quantization
recipe applied to a field theory.
In standard background dependent quantum field theories, in order to avoid UV divergences
one has to provide a regularization prescription (e.g., an UV cutoff, dimensional regularization,
point splitting, etc.). Removing the regulator is a subtle task involving the tuning of certain terms
in the Lagrangian (counter-terms) that ensure finite results when the regulator is removed. In fact
by taking special care in the mathematical definition of the products of distributions at the same
point, in good cases, one can provide a definition of the quantum theory, which is completely free
of UV divergences [171] (see also [343, 224, 225]). However, any of these regularization procedures
is intrinsically ambiguous. The dimension of the parameter space of ambiguities depends on the
structure of the theory. The right theory must be fixed by comparing predictions with observations
(by the renormalization conditions). In loop quantum gravity there is strong indications that the
mathematical framework of the theory provides a regularization of divergences. It remains to settle
the crucial issue of how to fix the associated ambiguities.
According to the previous discussion, ambiguities associated with the UV regularization allow
for the classification of theories as renormalizable or non-renormalizable quantum field theories.
In a renormalizable theory such as QED there are finitely many ambiguities, which can be fixed
by a finite number of renormalization conditions, i.e., one selects the suitable theory by appropri-
ate tuning of the ambiguity parameters in order to match observations. In a non-renormalizable
theory (e.g., perturbative quantum gravity) the situation is similar except for the fact that there
are infinitely many parameters to be fixed by renormalization conditions. As the latter must be
specified by observations, a non-renormalizable theory has very limited predictive power. In the
case of gravity there is evidence indicating that the theory might be non-perturbatively renormal-
izable coming from the investigations of non trivial fix points of the renormalization group flow in
truncated models (see [317] and references therein).
Removing UV divergences by a regularization procedure and ambiguities are two sides of the
same coin quantum field theory. Although this can happen in different ways in particular for-
mulations, the problem is intrinsic to the formalism of quantum field theory. In this respect, it
is illustrative to analyze the non-perturbative treatment of gauge theories in the context of lat-
tice gauge theory (where the true theory is studied by means of a regulated theory defined on a
spacetime discretization or lattice). It is well known that here too the regulating procedure leads
to ambiguities; the relevance of the example resides in the fact that these ambiguities resemble
in nature those appearing in LQG. More precisely, let us take for concreteness 𝑆𝑈 (2) Yang–Mills
theory, which can be analyzed non-perturbatively using the standard (lattice) Wilson action
(︂ )︂
1 ∑︁ 1 †
𝑆LYM = 1 − Tr[𝑈𝑝 + 𝑈 𝑝 ] . (3)
𝑔2 𝑝 4
In the previous equation, 𝑈𝑝 ∈ 𝑆𝑈 (2) is the holonomy around plaquettes 𝑝, and the sum is over
all plaquettes of a regulating (hyper-cubic) lattice. It is easy to check that the previous action
approximates the Yang–Mills action when the lattice is shrunk to zero for a fixed smooth field
configuration. This property is referred to as the naive continuum limit. Moreover, the quantum

12 Alejandro Perez
theory associated with the previous action is free of any UV problem due to the UV cut-off provided
by the underlying lattice.
Is this procedure unique? As is well known, the answer is no: one can regulate Yang–Mills
theory equally well using the following action instead of Eq. (3):
(︂ [︁ ]︁)︂
(𝑚) 1 ∑︁ 1 (𝑚) (𝑚) (𝑚) †
𝑆LYM ∝ 2 1− Tr Π (𝑈𝑝 ) + Π (𝑈𝑝 ) , (4)
𝑔 𝑝 2(2𝑚 + 1)
where Π(𝑚) (𝑈𝑝 ) denotes the 𝑆𝑈 (2) unitary irreducible representation matrix (of spin 𝑚) evaluated
on the plaquette holonomy 𝑈𝑝 . Or, more generally, one can consider suitable linear combinations
∑︁ (𝑚)
𝑆LYM = 𝑎𝑚 𝑆LYM . (5)
𝑚
From the view point of the classical continuum theory, all these actions are equally good as they all
satisfy the naive continuum limit. Do these theories approximate in a suitable sense the continuum
quantum field theory as well? And are these ambiguities unimportant in describing the physics of
quantum Yang–Mills theory? The answer to both of these questions is yes and the crucial property
that leads to this is the renormalizability of Yang–Mills theory. Different choices of actions lead
to different discrete theories. However, in the low-energy effective action, the differences appear
only in local operators of dimension five or higher. This simple dimensional argument leads to the
expectation that in the continuum limit (i.e., when the regulating lattice dependence is removed
by shrinking it to zero) all the above theories should produce the same predictions in the sense
that can safely ignore non-renormalizable contributions. This is indeed usually the case, and thus
the ambiguities at the ‘microscopic level’ do not have any effect at low energies where one recovers
quantum Yang–Mills theory.
Similar ambiguities are present in LQG; they appear in the regularization of the constraints in
the canonical formulation [303]. These ambiguities are also present in the spin-foam formulation,
which is the central subject of this review. The simple dimensional argument given for Yang–Mills
theory is no longer valid in the case of gravity, and a full dynamical investigation of their effect in
physical predictions must be investigated. The spin-foam approach is best suited for getting the
necessary insights into this important question.
2 Why Spin Foams?

We now provide the basic motivation for the study and definition of spin foams. We present this
motivation from the perspective of the canonical quantization approach known as loop quantum
gravity (see [321, 359, 35]). In such context, spin foams appear as the natural tool for studying
the dynamics of the canonically-defined quantum theory from a covariant perspective. Therefore,
in order to introduce the spin-foam approach, it is convenient to start with a short introduction of
the quantum canonical formulation.
2.1 Loop quantum gravity

Loop quantum gravity is an attempt to define a quantization of gravity paying special attention to
the conceptual lessons of general relativity. The theory is explicitly formulated in a background-
independent, and therefore, non-perturbative fashion. The theory is based on the Hamiltonian
(or canonical) quantization of general relativity in terms of variables that are different from the
standard metric variables. In terms of these variables, general relativity is cast into the form of a
background independent 𝑆𝑈 (2) gauge theory whose phase space structure is similar in various ways

to that of 𝑆𝑈 (2) Yang–Mills theory (the key difference being the absence of any background metric
structure). The main prediction of LQG is the discreteness [344] of the spectrum of geometrical
operators such as area and volume. The discreteness becomes important at the Planck scale, while
the spectrum of geometric operators crowds very rapidly at ‘low energy scales’ (large geometries).
This property of the spectrum of geometric operators is consistent with the smooth spacetime
picture of classical general relativity.
Thus, from the perspective of LQG, it is not surprising that perturbative approaches would
lead to inconsistencies. In splitting the gravitational field degrees of freedom as in Eq. (1), one is
assuming the existence of a background geometry, which is smooth all the way down to the Planck
scale. As we consider contributions from ‘higher energies’, this assumption is increasingly incon-
sistent with the fundamental structure discovered in the non-perturbative treatment. However,
despite the many achievements of LQG, there remain important issues to be addressed. At the
heart of the completion of the definition of the theory, the clear-cut definition of quantum dynamics
remains open. The spin-foam approach is one of the main avenues to exploring this problem.
The background independence of general relativity implies that the canonical formulation of
the field theory is that of a gauge theory with diffeomorphism as part of the gauge group. LQG
is constructed by quantizing a phase-space formulation of general relativity in terms of 𝑆𝑈 (2)
connection variables. This introduces an extra 𝑆𝑈 (2) gauge symmetry group. The presence of
gauge symmetries implies the existence of relations among phase space variables – defined on a
spacelike initial-value hypersurface – known as constraints. These constraints define the Poisson
algebra of infinitesimal generators of gauge transformations. There are three local constraints
𝐺𝑖 – the Gauss constraints – generating 𝑆𝑈 (2) gauge transformations, three local constraints 𝑉𝑎
– the vector constraints – generating three dimensional diffeomorphisms of the initial spacelike
hypersurface, and finally a scalar local constraint 𝑆 related to the remaining gauge symmetry
related to the four-diffeomorphism symmetry of the Lagrangian formulation.
The canonical quantization of systems with gauge symmetries is often called the Dirac pro-
gram. The Dirac program [143, 223] applied to the quantization of general relativity in connection
variables leads to the LQG approach.
The first step in the recipe consists in finding a representation of the phase-space variables of
the theory as operators in a kinematical Hilbert space ℋkin satisfying the standard commutation
relations, i.e., { , } → −𝑖/~[ , ]. This step has been successfully completed in LQG. One chooses
the polarization where the 𝑆𝑈 (2) connection is the configuration variable. Unconstrained phase-
space variables are replaced by the holonomy-flux algebra, which is represented by associated
operators in a kinematical Hilbert space of suitable functionals of the generalized-connection 𝜓[𝐴],
which are square integrable with respect to the Ashtekar–Lewandowski [32] (gauge invariant and
diffeomorphism invariant) measure 𝑑𝜇AL [𝐴]. A key input is the use of the holonomy-flux algebra
as a starting point for quantization. Many peculiar properties of LQG follow from this choice,
motivated by having an observable algebra leading to simple (diffeomorphism covariant) Poisson
brackets.3
The kinematical inner product is given by
∫︁
⟨𝜓, 𝜑⟩ = 𝜇AL [𝜓𝜑] = 𝑑𝜇AL [𝐴] 𝜓[𝐴]𝜑[𝐴]. (6)
The representation of the basic unconstrained phase-space variables as suitable operators in ℋkin
used in LQG – which has the additional key property of containing a special state that is diffeo-
morphism invariant – has been shown to be unique [245].
3 Interestingly, and as a side remark, the structure of the phase space of gravity with boundaries used in the
description of concrete physical models seems to provide an extra justification for the use of the holonomy-flux
variables (see Section IV E in [165] for a more detailed discussion of this intriguing fact).

14 Alejandro Perez
The next step is to promote the constraints to (self-adjoint) operators in ℋkin in such a way
that the classical Poisson algebra is respected by the appropriate quantum commutator algebra (if
this last part is achieved the quantization is said to be non-anomalous). In the case of gravity one
must quantize the seven constraints 𝐺𝑖 , 𝑉𝑎 , and 𝑆. Both the Gauss constraint and (finite) diffeo-
morphism transformations have a natural (unitary) action on states on ℋkin . For that reason the
quantization (and subsequent solution) is rather direct. The quantization of the scalar constraint
presents difficulties. Concrete quantizations producing well-defined operators are available: no UV
divergences are encountered by these proposals; the fundamental discreteness of quantum geometry
in LQG plays the role of physical regulator at the Planck scale [354]. Despite this partial success,
problems partly related to special features of the constraint algebra (field-dependent structure con-
stant) and partly related to the non-existence of an infinitesimal generator of diffeomorphism at
the quantum level make the issue of whether any of the proposed quantizations of the constraints
are anomaly-free a difficult open question.
In the third step one needs to characterize the space of solutions of the constraints and define the
corresponding inner product that defines a notion of physical probability. This defines the physical
Hilbert space ℋphys . In LQG, physical states are those which satisfy the quantum constraints that,
in this sense, could be called Quantum Einstein’s equations. More precisely Ψ ∈ ℋphys if
𝐺̂︀ 𝑖 (𝐴, 𝐸)|Ψ >= 0,

𝑉̂︀𝑎 (𝐴, 𝐸)|Ψ >= 0,
̂︀
𝑆(𝐴, 𝐸)|Ψ >= 0. (7)
The space of solutions of the first six equations is well understood. The space of solutions of
quantum scalar constraint remains open. For some mathematically-consistent definitions of 𝑆, ̂︀
the characterization of the solutions is well understood [35]. The definition of the physical inner
product is still an open issue. The completion of this step is intimately dependent on the previously-
mentioned consistency of the quantum constraint algebra.
Finally, physical interpretation necessitates the definition of a (complete) set of gauge-invariant
observables, i.e., operators commuting with the constraints. They represent the questions that are
well posed in a generally covariant quantum theory. Already in classical gravity the construction
of gauge-independent quantities is a subtle issue. At the present stage of the approach, physical
observables are explicitly known only in some special cases. However, understanding the set of
physical observables is intimately related to the problem of characterizing the solutions of the
scalar constraint described before.
The spin-foam approach was constructed as a means to tackle the difficult question of dynamics
and the definition of observable quantities in LQG. It is an attempt to address the difficulties
associated with the last three steps of the list given above by rethinking the problem of dynamics
from a path-integral covariant perspective. So we first need to briefly discuss the special features
of the path integral formulation in the case of generally-covariant systems.
2.2 The path integral for generally covariant systems

LQG is based on the canonical (Hamiltonian) quantization of general relativity, whose gauge
symmetry is diffeomorphism invariance. In the Hamiltonian formulation the presence of gauge
symmetries [143] gives rise to the constraints mentioned in Section 2.1. In the present discussion
we will schematically represent the latter by the equation 𝐶(𝑝, 𝑞) = 0 for (𝑝, 𝑞) ∈ Γ. The constraints
restrict the set of possible states of the theory by requiring them to lay on the constraint hyper-
surface. In addition, through the Poisson bracket, the constraints generate motion associated to
gauge transformations on the constraint surface (see Figure 2). The set of physical states (the

reduced phase space Γred ) is isomorphic to the space of orbits, i.e., two points on the same gauge
orbit represent the same state in Γred described in different gauges (Figure 2).
In general relativity the absence of a preferred notion of time implies that the Hamiltonian
of gravity is a linear combination of constraints. This means that Hamilton equations cannot be
interpreted as time evolution and rather correspond to motion along gauge orbits of general relativ-
ity. In generally-covariant systems, conventional time evolution is pure gauge: from an initial data
satisfying the constraints one recovers a spacetime by selecting a particular one-parameter family
of gauge-transformations (in the standard ADM context this amounts to choosing a particular
lapse field 𝑁 (𝑥, 𝑡) and shift 𝑁 𝑎 (𝑥, 𝑡)).
Constraint Hamiltonian
vector field
Γ
quantizing
t
Hkin
rbi
Γ
eo
ug
(spin foam rep)

ga
reducing
reducing
CONSTRAINT
SURFACE
quantizing Hphys
Γred
Γred
Figure 2: Left: the geometry of phase space in gauge theories. Right: the quantization path of LQG
(continuous arrows).
From this perspective the notion of spacetime becomes secondary and the dynamical interpre-
tation of the theory seems problematic (in the quantum theory this is referred to as the problem
of time). A reason for this is the central role played by the spacetime representation of classical
gravity solutions, which is useful only if it can be interpreted via the notion of test observers (or
more generally test fields).4 Due to the fact that this idealization is a good approximation to
the (classical) process of observation, the notion of spacetime is a useful concept only in classical
gravity.
As emphasized by Einstein with his hole argument (see [321] for a modern explanation) only the
information in relational statements (independent of any spacetime representation) have physical
meaning. In classical gravity it remains useful to have a spacetime representation when dealing
with idealized test observers. For instance, to solve the geodesic equation and then ask diff-
invariant-questions such as: what is the proper time elapsed on particle 1 between two successive
crossings with particle 2? However, already in the classical theory the advantage of the spacetime
picture becomes, by far, less clear if the test particles are replaced by real objects coupling to the
gravitational field.5
4 Most (if not all) of the applications of general relativity make use of this concept together with the knowledge
of certain exact solutions. In special situations there are even preferred coordinate systems based on this notion,
which greatly simplify interpretation (e.g., co-moving observers in cosmology, or observers at infinity for isolated
systems).
5 In this case, one would need first to solve the constraints of general relativity in order to find the initial data
representing the self-gravitating objects. Then one would have essentially two choices: 1) Fix a lapse 𝑁 (𝑡) and a
shift 𝑁 𝑎 (𝑡), evolve with the constraints, obtain a spacetime (out of the data) in a particular gauge, and finally ask
the diff-invariant-question; or 2) try to answer the question by simply studying the data itself (without t-evolution).

16 Alejandro Perez
The possibility of using the notion of test observers and test fields to construct our interpreta-
tive framework is no longer available in quantum gravity. At the Planck scale (ℓ𝑝 ) the quantum
fluctuations of the gravitational field become so important that there is no way (not even in prin-
ciple6 ) to make observations without affecting the gravitational field. The notion of test fields and
test observer is lost and with it the usual spacetime representation. In this context there cannot
be any, a priori, notion of time and hence no notion of spacetime is possible at the fundamental
level. A spacetime picture would only arise in the semi-classical regime with the identification of
some subsystems that approximate the notion of test observers.
Then what is the meaning of the path integral in such a background-independent context?
The previous discussion rules out the conventional interpretation of the path integral. There is no
meaningful notion of transition amplitude between states at different times 𝑡1 > 𝑡0 or equivalently
a notion of “unitary time evolution” represented by an operator 𝑈 (𝑡1 − 𝑡0 ). Nevertheless, a path
integral representation of generally covariant systems exists and arises as a tool for implementing
the constraints in the quantum theory as we argue below.
Due to the difficulty associated with the explicit description of the reduced phase space Γred , in
LQG one follows Dirac’s prescription. One starts by quantizing unconstrained phase space Γ, repre-
senting the canonical variables as self-adjoint operators in a kinematical Hilbert space ℋkin . Poisson
brackets are replaced by commutators in the standard way, and the constraints are promoted to
self-adjoint operators (see Figure 2). If there are no anomalies the Poisson algebra of classical
constraints is represented by the commutator algebra of the associated quantum constraints. In
this way the quantum constraints become the infinitesimal generators of gauge transformations in
ℋkin . The physical Hilbert space ℋphys is defined as the kernel of the constraints, and hence to
gauge invariant states. Assuming for simplicity that there is only one constraint we have
𝜓 ∈ ℋphys iff ^
exp[𝑖𝑁 𝐶]|𝜓⟩ = |𝜓⟩ ∀ 𝑁 ∈ R,
^ is the unitary operator associated to the gauge transformation generated

where 𝑈 (𝑁 ) = exp[𝑖𝑁 𝐶]
by the constraint 𝐶 with parameter 𝑁 . One can characterize the set of gauge-invariant states, and
hence construct ℋphys , by appropriately defining a notion of ‘averaging’ along the orbits generated
by the constraints in ℋkin . For instance, if one can make sense of the projector
∫︁
𝑃 : ℋkin → ℋphys where 𝑃 := 𝑑𝑁 𝑈 (𝑁 ). (8)
It is apparent from the definition that for any 𝜓 ∈ ℋkin then 𝑃 𝜓 ∈ ℋphys . The path integral repre-
sentation arises in the representation of the unitary operator 𝑈 (𝑁 ) as a sum over gauge-histories in
a way that is technically analogous to the standard path integral in quantum mechanics. However,
the physical interpretation is quite different. The spin-foam representation arises naturally as the
path-integral representation of the field theoretical analog of 𝑃 in the context of LQG. Needless
to say, many mathematical subtleties appear when one applies the above formal construction to
concrete examples (see [269] and references therein). In the second part of this review we will
illustrate in complete detail all the features of the path integral approach for generally covariant
systems, formally described here, in the 2+1 pure gravity solvable model. In four dimensions,
the spin-foam approach is a program in progress, where various issues still remain open. We will
describe the various models in the first part of this article.
It is far from obvious whether the first option (the conventional one) is any easier than the second.
6 In order to make a Planck scale observation, we need a Planck energy probe (think of a Planck energy photon).
It would be absurd to suppose that one can disregard the interaction of such a photon with the gravitational field,
treating it as a test photon.

2.3 A brief history of spin foams in four dimensions

In this section, we briefly describe the various spin-foam models for quantum gravity in the liter-
ature (for previous reviews on spin foams, see [293, 39, 302, 301, 248, 20]).
2.3.1 The Reisenberger model

According to Plebanski [307], the action of self-dual Riemannian gravity can be written as a
constrained 𝑆𝑈 (2) BF theory
∫︁ [︂ ]︂
𝑖 𝑗 1 𝑖𝑗 𝑘
𝑆(𝐵, 𝐴) = Tr [𝐵 ∧ 𝐹 (𝐴)] − 𝜓𝑖𝑗 𝐵 ∧ 𝐵 − 𝛿 𝐵 ∧ 𝐵𝑘 , (9)
3
where variations with respect to the symmetric (Lagrange multiplier) tensor 𝜓𝑖𝑗 imposes the con-
straints
1
Ω𝑖𝑗 = 𝐵 𝑖 ∧ 𝐵 𝑗 − 𝛿 𝑖𝑗 𝐵 𝑘 ∧ 𝐵𝑘 = 0. (10)
3
When 𝐵 is non-degenerate the constraints are satisfied if and only if 𝐵 𝑖 = ±(𝑒0 ∧ 𝑒𝑖 + 12 𝜖𝑖 𝑗𝑘 𝑒𝑗 ∧ 𝑒𝑘 ),
which reduces the previous action to that of self-dual general relativity. Reisenberger studied
the simplicial discretization of this action in [312] as a preliminary step toward the definition of
the corresponding spin-foam model. The consistency of the simplicial action is argued by showing
that the simplicial theory converges to the continuum formulation when the triangulation is refined:
both the action and its variations (equations of motion) converge to those of the continuum theory.
In [311], Reisenberger constructs a spin-foam model for this simplicial theory by imposing the
constraints Ω𝑖𝑗 directly on the 𝑆𝑈 (2) BF amplitudes. The spin-foam path integral for BF theory
is obtained as in Section 14. The constraints are imposed by promoting the 𝐵 𝑖 to operators 𝜒𝑖
(combinations of left/right invariant vector fields) acting on the discrete connection.7 The model
is defined as
𝑖𝑗
𝒟[𝜓] 𝑒𝑖𝜓𝑖𝑗 Ω
∫︀
∫︁ ∏︁ ⏞ ⏟ ∑︁ ∏︁ [︀ ]︀
𝑍𝐺𝑅 = 𝑑𝑔𝑒 ^ 𝑖𝑗 )
𝛿(Ω Δ𝑗𝑓 Tr 𝑗𝑓 (𝑔𝑒1 . . . 𝑔𝑒𝑁 ) , (12)
𝑒∈𝒥Δ 𝒞:{𝑗}→{𝑓 } 𝑓 ∈𝒥Δ
⏟ ∫︀
⏞ ⏟ ⏞
𝒟[𝐴]
∫︀
𝒟[𝐵] 𝑒𝑖 Tr[𝐵∧𝐹 (𝐴)]
∫︀
where Ω ^ = 𝒥 𝑖 ∧ 𝒥 𝑗 − 1 𝛿 𝑖𝑗 𝒥 𝑘 ∧ 𝒥𝑘 and we have indicated the correspondence of the different

3
terms with the continuum formulation. The preceding equation is rather formal; for the rigorous
implementation see [311]. Reisenberger uses locality so that constraints are implemented on a single
4-simplex amplitude. However, there is a difficulty with this procedure: the algebra of operators
^ 𝑖𝑗 do not close so that imposing the constraints sharply becomes a too strong condition on the
Ω
BF configurations.8 . In order to avoid this, Reisenberger defines a one-parameter family of models
by inserting the operator
1 ^2
𝑒− 2𝑧2 Ω (13)
instead of the delta function above. In the limit 𝑧 → ∞ the constraints are sharply imposed. This
introduces an extra parameter to the model. The properties of the kernel of Ω ^ have not been
studied in detail.
7 Notice that (for example) the right invariant vector field 𝒥 𝑖 (𝑈 ) = 𝜎 𝑖 𝐴 𝑈 𝐵 𝜕/𝜕𝑈 𝐴 has a well-defined action
𝐵 𝐶 𝐶
at the level of Eq. (244) and acts as a B operator at the level of (241) since
[︁ ]︁
− 𝑖𝜒𝑖 (𝑈 ) 𝑒𝑖Tr[𝐵𝑈 ] |𝑈 ∼1 = Tr[𝜎 𝑖 𝑈 𝐵]𝑒𝑖Tr[𝐵𝑈 ] |𝑈 ∼1 ∼ 𝐵 𝑖 𝑒𝑖Tr[𝐵𝑈 ] , (11)
where 𝜎 𝑖 are Pauli matrices.

8 This difficulty also arises in the Barrett–Crane model, as we shall see in Section 10.

18 Alejandro Perez
2.3.2 The Freidel–Krasnov prescription

Freidel and Krasnov [181] define a general framework to construct spin-foam models corresponding
to theories, whose action has the general form
∫︁
𝑆(𝐵, 𝐴) = Tr [𝐵 ∧ 𝐹 (𝐴)] + Φ(𝐵), (14)
where the first term is the BF action, while Φ(𝐵) is a certain polynomial function of the 𝐵 field.
The formulation is constructed for compact internal groups. The definition is based on the formal
equation ∫︁ ⃒
∫︀ ∫︀ 𝛿 ⃒
𝒟[𝐵]𝒟[𝐴] 𝑒𝑖 Tr[𝐵∧𝐹 (𝐴)]+Φ(𝐵) := 𝑒𝑖 Φ( 𝛿𝐽 ) 𝑍[𝐽]⃒ , (15)
𝐽=0
where the generating functional 𝑍[𝐽] is defined as

∫︁ ∫︀
𝑍[𝐽] := 𝒟[𝐵]𝒟[𝐴] 𝑒𝑖 Tr[𝐵∧𝐹 (𝐴)]+Tr[𝐵∧𝐽] , (16)
where 𝐽 is an algebra-valued 2-form field. They provide a rigorous definition of the generating
functional by introducing a discretization of ℳ in the same spirit of the other spin-foam models
discussed here. Their formulation can be used to describe various theories of interest such as BF
theories with cosmological terms, Yang–Mills theories (in 2 dimensions) and Riemannian self-dual
gravity. In the case of self-dual gravity 𝐵 and 𝐴 are valued in 𝑠𝑢(2), while
∫︁ [︂ ]︂
1
Φ(𝐵) = 𝜓𝑖𝑗 𝐵 𝑖 ∧ 𝐵 𝑗 − 𝛿 𝑖𝑗 𝐵 𝑘 ∧ 𝐵𝑘 , (17)
3
according to Eq. (9). The model obtained in this way is very similar to Reisenberger’s one. How-
ever, there are some technical differences. One of the more obvious is that the non-commutative
invariant vector fields 𝒥 𝑖 representing 𝐵 𝑖 are replaced here by the commutative functional deriva-
tives 𝛿/𝛿𝐽 𝑖 .
The idea of using such generating functional techniques has regained interest in the context of
the McDowell–Mansouri formulation of general relativity [259]. The interest of the latter formula-
tion is that it provides an action of gravity that is given by a BF term plus a genuine potential term
instead of constraints. The implementation of the spin-foam quantization of such a formulation
is investigated in [349, 346, 189]; see also [332] for an important remark on the approach. More
recently similar techniques have been used in [272].
2.3.3 The Iwasaki model

Iwasaki defines a spin-foam model of self-dual Riemannian gravity9 by a direct lattice discretization
of the continuous Ashtekar formulation of general relativity. The action is
∫︁ [︁ ]︁ [︁ ]︁
𝑆(𝑒, 𝐴) = 𝑑𝑥4 𝜖𝜇𝜈𝜆𝜎 2 𝑒0[𝜇 𝑒𝜈]𝑖 + 𝜖0𝑖𝑗𝑘 𝑒𝑗𝜇 𝑒𝑘𝜈 2 𝜕[𝜆 𝐴𝑖𝜎] + 𝜖0𝑖𝑙𝑚 𝐴𝑙𝜆 𝐴𝑚
𝜎 , (18)
where 𝐴𝑖𝑎 is an 𝑆𝑈 (2) connection. The fundamental observation of [230] is that one can write
the discrete action in a very compact form if we encode part of the degrees of freedom of the
tetrad in an 𝑆𝑈 (2) group element. More precisely, if we take 𝑔𝜇𝜇 = 𝑒𝑖𝜇 𝑒𝑗𝜇 𝛿𝑖𝑗 = 1, we can define
9 Iwasaki defines another model involving multiple cellular complexes to provide a simpler representation of
wedge products in the continuum action. A more detailed presentation of this model would require the introduction
of various technicalities at this stage, so we refer the reader to [231].

e𝜇 := 𝑒0𝜇 + 𝑖𝜎𝑖 𝑒𝑖𝜇 ∈ 𝑆𝑈 (2) where 𝜎𝑖 are the Pauli matrices. In this parameterization of the ‘angular’
components of the tetrad and using a hypercubic lattice the discrete action becomes
∑︁ [︀ ]︀
𝑆Δ = −𝛽 𝜖𝜇𝜈𝜆𝜎 𝑟𝜇 𝑟𝜈 Tr e†𝜇 e𝜈 𝑈𝜆𝜎 , (19)
𝑣∈Δ
1/2 −1 √
where 𝑟𝜇 := (𝛽 ℓ𝑝 ) 𝜖 𝑔𝜇𝜇 , 𝑈𝜇𝜈 is the holonomy around the 𝜇𝜈-plaquette, 𝜖 is the lattice
constant and 𝛽 is a cutoff for 𝑟𝜇 used as a regulator (𝑟𝜇 ≤ 𝛽 1/2 ℓ𝑝 𝜖−1 ). The lattice path integral is
defined by using the Haar measure both for the connection and the ‘spherical’ part of the tetrad
e’s and the radial part 𝑑𝑟𝜇 := 𝑑𝑟𝜇 𝑟𝜇3 . The key formula to obtain an expression involving spin foams
is
∑︁ 𝐽2𝑗+1 (2𝑥)
𝑒𝑖𝑥Tr[𝑈 ] = (2𝑗 + 1) 𝜒𝑗 (𝑈 ). (20)
𝑗
𝑥
Iwasaki writes down an expression for the spin-foam amplitudes in which the integration over the
connection and the e’s can be computed explicitly. Unfortunately, the integration over the radial
variables 𝑟 involves products of Bessel functions and its behavior is not analyzed in detail. In 3
dimensions the radial integration can be done and the corresponding amplitudes coincide with the
results of Section 14.5.
2.3.4 The Barrett–Crane model

The appealing feature of the previous models is the clear connection to LQG, since they are defined
directly using the self-dual formulation of gravity (boundary states are 𝑆𝑈 (2)-spin networks). The
drawback is the lack of closed simple expressions for the amplitudes, which complicates their
analysis. However, there is a simple model that can be obtained as a systematic quantization of
the simplicial 𝑆𝑂(4) Plebanski’s action. This model was introduced by Barrett and Crane in [59]
and further motivated by Baez in [38]. The basic idea behind the definition was that of the quantum
tetrahedron introduced by Barbieri in [58] and generalized to 4D in [40]. The beauty of the model
resides in its remarkable simplicity. This has stimulated a great deal of explorations and produced
many interesting results.
2.3.5 Markopoulou–Smolin causal spin networks

Using the kinematical setting of LQG with the assumption of the existence of a micro-local (in the
sense of Planck scale) causal structure, Markopoulou and Smolin define a general class of (causal)
spin-foam models for gravity [267, 264] (see also [268]). The elementary transition amplitude
𝐴𝑠𝐼 →𝑠𝐼+1 from an initial spin network 𝑠𝐼 to another spin network 𝑠𝐼+1 is defined by a set of simple
combinatorial rules based on a definition of causal propagation of the information at nodes. The
rules and amplitudes have to satisfy certain causal restrictions (motivated by the standard concepts
in classical Lorentzian physics). These rules generate surface-like excitations of the same kind we
encounter in the more standard spin-foam model, but endow the foam with a notion of causality.
Spin foams ℱ𝑠𝑁𝑖 →𝑠𝑓 are labeled by the number of times these elementary transitions take place.
Transition amplitudes are defined as
−1
∑︁ 𝑁∏︁
⟨𝑠𝑖 , 𝑠𝑓 ⟩ = 𝐴𝑠𝐼 →𝑠𝐼+1 . (21)
𝑁 𝐼=0
The models are not related to any continuum action. The only guiding principles are the restrictions
imposed by causality, simplicity and the requirement of the existence of a non-trivial critical
behavior that would reproduce general relativity at large scales. Some indirect evidence of a
possible non-trivial continuum limit has been obtained in some versions of the model in 1+1
dimensions.

20 Alejandro Perez
2.3.6 Gambini–Pullin model

Gambini and Pullin [193] introduced a very simple model obtained by modification of the 𝐵𝐹
theory skein relations. As we argued in Section 14, skein relations defining the physical Hilbert
space of BF theory are implied by the spin-foam transition amplitudes. These relations reduce the
large kinematical Hilbert space of 𝐵𝐹 theory (analogous to that of quantum gravity) to a physical
Hilbert space corresponding to the quantization of a finite number of degrees of freedom. Gambini
and Pullin define a model by modifying these amplitudes so that some of the skein relations are now
forbidden. This simple modification frees local excitations of a field theory. A remarkable feature
is that the corresponding physical states are (in a certain sense) solutions to various regularizations
of the scalar constraint for (Riemannian) LQG. The fact that physical states of BF theory solve the
scalar constraint is well known [353], since roughly 𝐹 (𝐴) = 0 implies 𝐸𝐸𝐹 (𝐴) = 0. The situation
here is of a similar nature, and – as the authors argue – one should interpret this result as an
indication that some ‘degenerate’ sector of quantum gravity might be represented by this model.
The definition of this spin-foam model is not explicit since the theory is directly defined by the
physical skein relations.
2.3.7 Capovilla–Dell–Jacobson theory on the lattice

The main technical difficulty that we gain in going from 3-dimensional general relativity to the
4-dimensional one is that the integration over the 𝑒’s becomes intricate. In the Capovilla–Dell–
Jacobson [110, 109] formulation of general relativity this ‘integration’ is partially performed at the
continuum level. The action is
∫︁
𝑆(𝜂, 𝐴) = 𝜂Tr [𝜖 · 𝐹 (𝐴) ∧ 𝐹 (𝐴)𝜖 · 𝐹 (𝐴) ∧ 𝐹 (𝐴)] , (22)
where 𝜖 · 𝐹 ∧ 𝐹 := 𝜖𝑎𝑏𝑐𝑑 𝐹𝑎𝑏 𝐹𝑐𝑑 . Integration over 𝜂 can be formally performed in the path integral
and we obtain ∫︁ ∏︁
𝑍= 𝛿 (Tr [𝜖 · 𝐹 (𝐴) ∧ 𝐹 (𝐴)𝜖 · 𝐹 (𝐴) ∧ 𝐹 (𝐴)]) . (23)
𝑥
One serious problem of this formulation is that it corresponds to a sector of gravity where the Weyl
tensor satisfies certain algebraic requirements. In particular, flat geometries are not contained in
this sector.
2.3.8 The Engle–Pereira–Rovelli–Livine (EPRL)

A modification of the Barrett–Crane model was recently introduced in [168, 169] and extended for
arbitrary Immirzi parameter in [164]. The basic idea was to relax the imposition of the Plebanski
constraints that reduce BF theory to general relativity in the quantum theory. The anomalous
commutation relations of the 𝐵 10 field in the quantum theory imply that the commutation of
the Plebanski constraints does not define a closed algebra. Imposing the constraints strongly, as
in the Barrett–Crane model, implies the imposition of additional conditions that are not present
in the classical theory. There is a natural way to relax the constraints and this leads to a simple
model that has a more clear relationship with the canonical picture provided by LQG. The detailed
description of this model will be the main subject of the following discussion of spin-foam models
for general relativity in 4 dimensions.
10 The six components 𝐵 𝐼𝐽 are associated to invariant vector fields in the Lorentz group as a direct consequence of
the discretization procedure in spin foams. This makes them non-commutative and render the simplicity constraints
(functionals of the 𝐵 field alone) non commutative. The origin of the non-commutativity of 𝐵 fields is similar to
the non-commutativity of fluxed in canonical LQG [30].

2.3.9 Freidel–Krasnov (FK)

A very similar set of models were independently introduced by Freidel and Krasnov in [182].
Indeed, these models are arguably the same as the EPRL model for a suitable range of the Immirzi
parameter (the vertex amplitudes coincide for 𝛾 < 1 as we will discuss in the sequel). However,
the logic used in the derivation is different. The idea is to express the BF path integral in terms
of the coherent state representation, in order to impose the Plebanski constraints semiclassically
in terms of expectation values. The coherent intertwiner basis relevant for the definition of spin
foams and the 4D quantum gravity amplitude was also derived by Livine and Speziale in [254].
Freidel and Krasnov introduced11 the linear version of the Plebanski constraints that later used in
order to provide a simpler derivation and generalization of the EPRL model to arbitrary Immirzi
parameter.
The last two models are going to be the subject of most of our discussions in what follows.
They are the most developed candidates in four dimensions and we will review their properties in
detail in the following part.
11 See also [12] for linear simplicity constraints.

22 Alejandro Perez
Part II
Preliminaries:
LQG and the canonical quantization of
four-dimensional gravity
In this part, we briefly review the basic results of the LQG approach to the canonical quantization
of gravity. This part is relevant for the interpretation of the new spin-foam models presented
in Part III. The reader interested in the canonical formulation of general relativity in terms of
connection variables is referred to [321, 359, 24] and [35]. For a pedagogical introduction, see [302].
In the following Section 3, we review the canonical analysis of general relativity formulated as
a constrained BF theory, i.e., in the Plebanski formulation [307]. The study is done in terms of
the variables that, on the one hand, allow for the closest comparison with the discrete variables
used in the spin-foam approach, while, on the other hand, allow for the introduction of the basic
elements of the canonical quantization program of LQG. The latter being, in my view, the clearest
possible setting in which spin foams are to be interpreted.
In Section 4 we present the basic elements of LQG. In Section 5 we give a short description of
the spin-foam representation of the path integral of gravity. Concrete realizations of this will be
reviewed in 4D in Part III and in 3D in Part IV.

3 Classical General Relativity in Connection Variables

The Hamiltonian analysis of general relativity is the basic starting point for canonical quanti-
zation. LQG and spin foams are based on the possibility of formulating Hamiltonian general
relativity in terms of Yang–Mills-like connection variables. The primitive ancestor of these formu-
lations is Ashtekar’s self-dual complex connection formulation of general relativity [23]. Modern
LQG and spin foams are based on a certain relative of these variables, that is often referred to as
Ashtekar–Barbero variables [56, 227]. These variables can be introduced directly by means of a
canonical transformation of the phase space of the Palatini formulation of general relativity [356]
or can be derived directly from the canonical analysis of the Holst action for general relativ-
ity [226]. More simply, the new variables also follow from the addition of the Nieh–Yan topological
invariant to the Palatini action [131]. The Ashtekar–Barbero connection parametrization of the
phase space of general relativity also arises naturally from the consideration of the most general
diffeomorphism-invariant action principle that can be written for the field content of the Palatini
first-order formulation [318] (i.e., a Lorentz connection 𝜔𝑎𝐼𝐽 = −𝜔𝑎𝐽𝐼 and a co-tetrad 𝑒𝐼𝑎 with 𝑎
spacetime indeces and 𝐼, 𝐽 = 0, 1, 2, 3 internal Lorentz indeces).
The new spin-foam models are based on Plebanski’s realization that one can obtain classical
general relativity by suitably constraining the variations of the 𝐵 field in the simple kind of
topological theory called BF theory [307]. For that reason, the best suited action principle of
gravity for the study of the new spin-foam models corresponds to one of the Plebanski type.
However, the details of such a treatment are only partially presented in the literature (see, for
instance, [205], [368]). The material of the following Section 3.1 is meant to fill this void, largely
inspired by [276, 365] for the canonical formulation of constrained BF theory (see also [18]). As
we show below, the Hamiltonian analysis of such a formulation of gravity is at the heart of the
replacement of the Plebanski quadratic constraints by linear ones that has been so useful in the
definition of the new vertex amplitudes [182].
3.1 Gravity as constrained BF theory

In order to keep the presentation simple (and not to bother with the ± signs appearing in dealing
with the raising and lowering of Lorentz indices), we present here the Hamiltonian formulation of
Riemannian gravity. This is enough to illustrate the algebraic structures that are necessary in the
present context.12
Our starting point is Plebanski’s Riemannian action for general relativity, which can be thought
of as 𝑆𝑝𝑖𝑛(4) BF theory plus constraints on the 𝐵-field. It depends on an 𝑠𝑜(4) connection 𝜔,
a Lie-algebra-valued 2-form 𝐵 and Lagrange multiplier fields 𝜆 and 𝜇. Writing the Lie-algebra
indices explicitly, the action is given by
∫︁ [︂ ]︂
1 ⋆ 𝐼𝐽 1 𝐼𝐽 𝐼𝐽 𝐾𝐿
𝑆[𝐵, 𝜔, 𝜆] = ( 𝐵 + 𝐵 ) ∧ 𝐹𝐼𝐽 (𝜔) + 𝜆𝐼𝐽𝐾𝐿 𝐵 ∧ 𝐵 , (24)
𝜅 M 𝛾
where 𝜇 is a 4-form and 𝜆𝐼𝐽𝐾𝐿 = −𝜆𝐽𝐼𝐾𝐿 = −𝜆𝐼𝐽𝐿𝐾 = 𝜆𝐾𝐿𝐼𝐽 is a tensor in the internal space
satisfying 𝜖𝐼𝐽𝐾𝐿 𝜆𝐼𝐽𝐾𝐿 = 0, and 𝛾 is the Immirzi parameter. The Lagrange multiplier tensor
𝜆𝐼𝐽𝐾𝐿 then has 20 independent components. The previous action is closely related to the one
introduced in [111, 365, 277] (there is a simple analog of the previous action in 3D [96]). Variation
with respect to 𝜆 imposes 20 algebraic equations on the 36 components of 𝐵. They are
𝜖𝜇𝜈𝜌𝜎 𝐵𝜇𝜈
𝐼𝐽 𝐾𝐿
𝐵𝜌𝜎 = 𝑒 𝜖𝐼𝐽𝐾𝐿 (25)
1 𝑂𝑃 𝑄𝑅 𝜇𝜈𝜌𝜎
where 𝑒 = 4! 𝜖𝑂𝑃 𝑄𝑅 𝐵𝜇𝜈 𝐵𝜌𝜎 𝜖 [132]. The solutions to these equations are
𝐵 = ±* (𝑒 ∧ 𝑒), and 𝐵 = ±𝑒 ∧ 𝑒, (26)
12 I am grateful to M. Montesinos and M. Velázquez for discussions and contributions to the present section.

24 Alejandro Perez
in terms of the 16 remaining degrees of freedom of the tetrad field 𝑒𝐼𝑎 . If one substitutes the first
solution into the original action one obtains Holst’s formulation of general relativity [226]
∫︁ [︂ ]︂
1 ⋆ 1
𝑆[𝑒, 𝜔] = Tr ( 𝑒 ∧ 𝑒 + 𝑒 ∧ 𝑒) ∧ 𝐹 (𝐴) . (27)
𝜅 M 𝛾
This property is the key to the definition of the spin-foam model for gravity of the next Section 3.2.
3.2 Canonical analysis

Now one performs the usual 3+1 decomposition by assuming the existence of a global time function
𝑡, whose level hypersurfaces Σ𝑡 define a foliation of the spacetime manifold M . The previous action
takes the following form
∫︁ ∫︁
𝑆[Π, 𝐻, 𝜔, 𝜆] = 𝑑𝑡 Tr[Π ∧ 𝜔˙ + 𝜔0 𝐷𝜔 ∧ Π + 𝐻 ∧ 𝐹 + 𝜆′ (𝛾 ⋆ 𝐻 − 𝐻) ∧ (𝛾 ⋆ Π − Π)], (28)
Σ𝑡
where
1 𝐼𝐽
Π𝐼𝐽 ⋆ 𝐼𝐽
𝑎𝑏 = 𝐵𝑎𝑏 + 𝐵
𝛾 𝑎𝑏
1 𝐼𝐽
𝐻𝑎𝐼𝐽 = ⋆ 𝐵0𝑎
𝐼𝐽
+ 𝐵0𝑎 , (29)
𝛾
for 𝑎, 𝑏 = 1, 2, 3 are Σ𝑡 -cotangent-space abstract indices, 𝜆′ = 𝛾 2 /(1 − 𝛾 2 )2 𝜆, and the trace is the
obvious contraction of internal indices. By choosing an internal direction 𝑛𝐼 (and in the gauge
where 𝑛𝐼 = (1, 0, 0, 0)) we can now introduce a convenient reparametrization of the unconstrained
phase space by writing the 18 canonical pairs (Π𝐼𝐽 𝑎𝑏 , 𝜔𝑐 ) by (P(𝛾; ±)𝑎𝑏 , A𝑐 ) where
𝐾𝐿 𝑖 ± 𝑗
1 1 0𝑖 1
P(𝛾; ±)𝑖𝑎𝑏 ≡ 𝜖𝑖 𝑗𝑘 Π𝑗𝑘
𝑎𝑏 ± Π , ±
A𝑗𝑐 = 𝜖𝑗𝑚𝑛 𝜔𝑐𝑚𝑛 ± 𝛾 𝜔𝑐𝑗0 . (30)
4 2𝛾 𝑎𝑏 2
For notational convenience we will also introduce

1 1 0𝑖
H(𝛾; ±)𝑖𝑎 ≡ 𝜖𝑖 𝑗𝑘 𝐻𝑎𝑗𝑘 ± 𝐻 .
4 2𝛾 𝑎
We can rewrite the previous action as

∫︁ ∫︁
𝑖
𝑆[P(𝛾; ±), ± A, 𝜆] = 𝑑𝑡 P(𝛾; +)𝑖 ∧ + Ȧ + P(𝛾; −)𝑖 ∧ −Ȧ𝑖 + 𝑁𝑖 G𝑖 + 𝜂𝑖 B𝑖
Σ
+𝐻 ∧ 𝐹 + 𝜆′ (𝛾 ⋆ 𝐻 − 𝐻) ∧ (𝛾 ⋆ Π − Π), (31)
where 𝑁 𝑖 , 𝜂 𝑖 , and 𝜆 are Lagrange multipliers imposing the constraints:
B𝑖 = (𝐷 (+ A)+(− A) ∧ P(𝛾; +)𝑖 ) ≈ 0,

2
1
G = 𝜖𝑖𝑗𝑘 (+ A − − A)𝑗 ∧ P(𝛾; +)𝑘 ≈ 0,
𝑖
2𝛾
⎫
( 𝛾2 𝜖𝑖 𝑗𝑘 𝐻 𝑗𝑘 − 𝐻 0𝑖 ) ∧ ( 𝛾2 𝜖𝑖 𝑗𝑘 Π𝑗𝑘 − Π0𝑖 ) + (𝑖 ↔ 𝑗) ≈ 0 ⎪
1 (𝑝 𝛾 𝑖𝑗 𝑞)
⎪
⎬
4 𝜖 𝑖𝑗 ( 2 𝜖 𝑘 𝐻
0𝑘
− 𝐻 𝑖𝑗 ) ∧ 𝜖 𝑙𝑚 ( 𝛾2 𝜖𝑙𝑚 0𝑠
𝑠 Π −Π )≈0
𝑙𝑚
𝛾 𝑖 𝛾 𝜖𝜇𝜈𝜌𝜎 𝐵𝜇𝜈
𝐼𝐽 𝐾𝐿
𝐵𝜌𝜎 − 𝑒 𝜖𝐼𝐽𝐾𝐿 ≈ 0.
( 2 𝜖 𝑗𝑘 𝐻 𝑗𝑘 − 𝐻 0𝑖 ) ∧ ( 2 𝜖𝑙𝑚 0𝑠
𝑠 Π − Π )+
𝑙𝑚 ⎪
⎪
⎭
+( 𝛾2 𝜖𝑙𝑚 𝑘𝐻
0𝑘
− 𝐻 𝑙𝑚 ) ∧ ( 𝛾2 𝜖𝑖 𝑗𝑘 Π𝑗𝑘 − Π0𝑖 ) − 𝑣𝜖0𝑖𝑙𝑚 ≈ 0

In the previous equation we explicitly recall that the last three equations are a rewriting of the
simplicity constraints (25). We can rewrite them in terms of P(𝛾; −) and P( 𝛾1 ; −) as
B𝑖 = 𝐷 (− A)+(+ A) ∧ P(𝛾; +)𝑖 ≈ 0,

2
1 𝑖𝑗𝑘 +
G 𝑖
= 𝜖 ( A − − A)𝑗 ∧ P(𝛾; +)𝑘 ≈ 0,
2𝛾
I𝑖𝑗 = H(𝛾; −)(𝑗 ∧ P(𝛾; −)𝑖) ≈ 0,
1 1
II𝑖𝑗 = H( ; −)(𝑖 ∧ P( ; −)𝑗) ≈ 0,
𝛾 𝛾
1 1
III𝑖𝑗 = H(𝛾; −)𝑖 ∧ P( ; −)𝑗 + H( ; −)𝑖 ∧ P(𝛾; −)𝑗
𝛾 𝛾
1 1 1
− [H(𝛾; −)𝑘 ∧ P( ; −)𝑘 + H( ; −)𝑘 ∧ P(𝛾; −)𝑘 ]𝛿 𝑖𝑗 ≈ 0. (32)
3 𝛾 𝛾
The 20 constraints I𝑖𝑗 , II𝑖𝑗 , and III𝑖𝑗 are referred to as the simplicity constraints. The general
solution of the simplicity constraints (26) requires, in the 3+1 setting, the introduction of four new
fields: the lapse 𝑁 and the shift vectors 𝑁 𝑎 . The solution is
P(𝛾; −)𝑖𝑎𝑏 = 0,
1 (1 − 𝛾 2 )
P( ; −)𝑖𝑎𝑏 = P(𝛾; +)𝑖𝑎𝑏 ,
𝛾 2
(1 − 𝛾 2 ) 𝑖
H(𝛾; −)𝑖𝑎 = −𝑁 𝑒𝑎 (P(𝛾; +)),
2𝛾 2
1 (1 − 𝛾 2 ) 𝑐
H( ; −)𝑖𝑎 = 𝑁 P(𝛾; +)𝑖𝑐𝑎 ,
𝛾 2
with
𝛾 1/2 𝜖𝑎𝑏𝑐 𝜖𝑖𝑗𝑘 𝜖𝑏𝑑𝑒 𝜖𝑏𝑓 𝑔 P(𝛾; +)𝑑𝑒 P(𝛾; +)𝑘𝑓 𝑔
𝑗
𝑒𝑖𝑎 (P(𝛾; +)) = √︀ . (33)
8 det(P(𝛾; +))
This solution breaks the internal Lorentz gauge as the first condition above does not commute
with the boost constraint B𝑖 : as will become clear below it amounts to choosing the time gauge.
The above equations parametrize the solutions of the Plebanski constraints in terms of the 9
components of P(𝛾; +)𝑖𝑎𝑏 plus 4 extra parameters given by a scalar 𝑁 and a space tangent vector
𝑁 𝑎 ∈ 𝑇 (Σ) and the 3 parameters in the choice of an internal direction 𝑛𝐼 (here implicitly taken
as 𝑛𝐼 = (1, 0, 0, 0)). These are exactly the 16 parameters in the co-tetrad 𝑒𝐼𝜇 in (26).
The components of 𝐻 that are necessary to write the term 𝐻 ∧ 𝐹 in the action (40) are
𝑁 𝑖
𝐻𝑎0𝑖 = 𝛾 P(𝛾; +)𝑖𝑐𝑎 𝑁 𝑐 + 𝑒 ,
𝛾 𝑎
1 𝑘
𝜖 𝐻 𝑖𝑗 = P(𝛾; +)𝑘𝑐𝑎 𝑁 𝑐 + 𝑁 𝑒𝑖𝑎 .
2 𝑖𝑗 𝑎
The conservation in time of the set of constraints above lead to 6 secondary constraints. As shown
in [318] these follow from
[︂ ]︂
1 𝑖) +
C = 𝑒 ∧ Ṗ(𝛾; −) ∝ 𝑁 𝑒 ∧ 𝑑𝑒 + 𝜖 𝑙𝑚 ( A + A) ∧ 𝑒 ≈ 0.
𝑖𝑗 (𝑗 𝑖) (𝑗 𝑖) − 𝑙 𝑚
(34)
2
Notice now that the set of 9 constraints B𝑖 ≈ 0 and C(𝑖𝑗) ≈ 0 are indeed equivalent to the following
simple condition
1
IV𝑖𝑎 = (+ A + − A)𝑖𝑎 − Γ𝑖𝑎 (𝑒) ≈ 0, (35)
2

26 Alejandro Perez
where Γ𝑖𝑎 is the torsion-free spin connection compatible with the triad 𝑒𝑖𝑎 , i.e., the unique solution
of Cartan’s structure equations
𝜕[𝑎 𝑒𝑖𝑏] + 𝜖𝑖 𝑗𝑘 Γ𝑗[𝑎 𝑒𝑘𝑏] = 0. (36)
Remark: The primary constraint P(𝛾; −) ≈ 0 (first line in Eq. (33)) will have central importance
in the definition of the new spin-foam models. Explicitly, from (30), one has
1 1 0𝑖
P(𝛾; −)𝑖𝑎𝑏 ≡ 𝜖𝑖 𝑗𝑘 Π𝑗𝑘
𝑎𝑏 − Π ≈ 0. (37)
4 2𝛾 𝑎𝑏
This is exactly the linear simplicity constraints that we will rediscover in the simplicial setting of
Sections 7 and 8, and which will be imposed in a suitable sense at all tetrahedra of the cellular
decomposition in order to satisfy the Plebanski constraints and produce a state sum model for
gravity out of that of BF theory. The consistency requirement (34) are expected to hold in the
discrete setting from the fact that one is imposing the linear simplicity constraint for all tetrahedra,
thus P(𝛾; −) ≈ 0 is valid for all times.
Now, from the fact that
1
{IV𝑖𝑎 (𝑥), P(𝛾; −)𝑗𝑏𝑐 (𝑦)} = 𝜖𝑎𝑏𝑐 𝛿 𝑖𝑗 𝛿(𝑥, 𝑦), (38)
2
we conclude that the given pair are second class. We can substitute their solution in the action.
In particular, from Eqs. (30) and (35), + A𝑖𝑎 becomes the Ashtekar–Barbero connection
+
A𝑖𝑎 = Γ𝑖𝑎 + 𝛾𝐾𝑎𝑖 , (39)
where we have defined 𝐾𝑎𝑖 = (+ A𝑖𝑎 − − A𝑖𝑎 )/2. With all this
∫︁ ∫︁
1 ˙ 𝑖
𝑆[P(𝛾; +), A, 𝑁, 𝑁 , 𝑁𝑖 ] =
+ ⃗ 𝑑𝑡 P(𝛾; +)𝑖 ∧ + A
𝜅 Σ
𝐹0𝑖
+𝑁𝑖 𝐷+ A ∧ P(𝛾; +)𝑖 + 𝑁 yP(𝛾; +)𝑘 ∧ (𝛾𝐹0𝑖 + 𝐹 𝑗𝑘 𝜖𝑖𝑗𝑘 ) + 𝑁 𝑒𝑖 ∧ ( + 𝐹 𝑗𝑘 𝜖𝑖𝑗𝑘 ). (40)
𝛾
The previous action corresponds to the standard Hamiltonian formulation of general relativity in
terms of 𝑆𝑈 (2) connection variables. This becomes more transparent if we now change to a more
standard notation by introducing the densitized triad
𝐸𝑖𝑎 = 𝛾𝜖𝑎𝑏𝑐 P(𝛾; +)𝑖𝑏𝑐 (41)
in terms of the last line of Eq. (33) becomes
1 𝜖𝑎𝑏𝑐 𝜖𝑖𝑗𝑘 𝐸𝑗𝑏 𝐸𝑘𝑐 sgn(det(𝐸)) 𝐸𝑖𝑎

𝑒𝑖𝑎 = √︀ and 𝑒𝑎𝑖 = √︀ . (42)
2 | det(𝐸)| | det(𝐸)|
From now on we denote the Ashtekar–Barbero [57] connection 𝐴𝑖𝑎 by
𝐴𝑖𝑎 = + A𝑖𝑎 = Γ𝑖𝑎 + 𝛾𝐾𝑎𝑖 . (43)
The Poisson brackets of the new variables are

{︀ 𝑎 }︀ {︀ 𝑎 }︀ {︀ }︀
𝐸𝑗 (𝑥), 𝐴𝑖𝑏 (𝑦) = 𝜅 𝛾𝛿𝑏𝑎 𝛿𝑗𝑖 𝛿(𝑥, 𝑦), 𝐸𝑗 (𝑥), 𝐸𝑖𝑏 (𝑦) = 𝐴𝑗𝑎 (𝑥), 𝐴𝑖𝑏 (𝑦) = 0. (44)

{︀ }︀
All the previous equations follow explicitly from (40) except for 𝐴𝑗𝑎 (𝑥), 𝐴𝑖𝑏 (𝑦) = 0, which follows
from the special property of Γ𝑖𝑎 in three dimensions that
𝛿𝑊 [𝐸]
Γ𝑖𝑎 = , (45)
𝛿𝐸𝑖𝑎
where 𝑊 [𝐸] is the generating functional for the spin connection.13 The action (40) becomes
𝑆[𝑃, 𝐴, 𝑁, 𝑁⃗ , 𝑁𝑖 ] =
∫︁ ∫︁ [︁ ]︁
1
𝑑𝑡 𝑑𝑥3 𝐸𝑖𝑎 𝐴˙ 𝑎𝑖 − 𝑁 𝑏 𝑉𝑏 (𝐸𝑗𝑎 , 𝐴𝑗𝑎 ) − 𝑁 𝑆(𝐸𝑗𝑎 , 𝐴𝑗𝑎 ) − 𝑁 𝑖 𝐺𝑖 (𝐸𝑗𝑎 , 𝐴𝑗𝑎 ) , (46)
𝛾𝜅 Σ
where the constraints are explicitly given by:
𝑉𝑏 (𝐸𝑗𝑎 , 𝐴𝑗𝑎 ) = 𝐸𝑗𝑎 𝐹𝑎𝑏 − (1 + 𝛾 2 )𝐾𝑎𝑖 𝐺𝑖 , (47)
𝐸𝑖𝑎 𝐸𝑗𝑏 (︁ 𝑖𝑗 𝑘 𝑗
)︁
𝑆(𝐸𝑗𝑎 , 𝐴𝑗𝑎 ) = √︀ 𝜖 𝑘 𝐹𝑎𝑏 − 2(1 + 𝛾 2 )𝐾[𝑎
𝑖
𝐾𝑏] , (48)
det(𝐸)
𝐺𝑖 (𝐸𝑗𝑎 , 𝐴𝑗𝑎 ) = 𝐷𝑎 𝐸𝑖𝑎 , (49)

where 𝐹𝑎𝑏 = 𝜕𝑎 𝐴𝑖𝑏 − 𝜕𝑏 𝐴𝑖𝑎 + 𝜖𝑖 𝑗𝑘 𝐴𝑗𝑎 𝐴𝑘𝑏 is the curvature of the connection 𝐴𝑖𝑎 and 𝐷𝑎 𝐸𝑖𝑎 = 𝜕𝑎 𝐸𝑖𝑎 +
𝜖𝑖𝑗 𝑘 𝐴𝑗𝑎 𝐸𝑘𝑎 is the covariant divergence of the densitized triad. We have seven (first class) constraints
for the 18 phase-space variables (𝐴𝑖𝑎 , 𝐸𝑗𝑏 ). In addition to imposing conditions among the canonical
variables, first-class constraints are generating functionals of (infinitesimal) gauge transformations.
From the 18-dimensional phase space of general relativity we end up with 11 fields necessary
to coordinatize the constraint surface on which the above seven conditions hold. On that 11-
dimensional constraint surface, the above constraint generates a seven-parameter-family of gauge
transformations. The reduced phase space is four dimensional and therefore the resulting number
of physical degrees of freedom is two, as expected.
The constraint (49) coincides with the standard Gauss law of Yang–Mills theory (e.g., ∇ ⃗ ·𝐸
⃗ =0
in electromagnetism). In fact, if we ignore (47) and (48), the phase space variables (𝐴𝑖𝑎 , 𝐸𝑗𝑏 )
together with the Gauss law (49) characterize the physical phase space of an 𝑆𝑈 (2)14 Yang–Mills
(YM) theory. The gauge field is given by the connection 𝐴𝑖𝑎 and its conjugate momentum is the
electric field 𝐸𝑗𝑏 . Yang–Mills theory is a theory defined on a background spacetime geometry.
Dynamics in such a theory is described by a non-vanishing Hamiltonian – the Hamiltonian density
of YM theory being ℋ = 𝐸𝑎𝑖 𝐸𝑖𝑎 + 𝐵𝑎𝑖 𝐵𝑖𝑎 . General relativity is a generally covariant theory and
coordinate time plays no physical role. The Hamiltonian is a linear combination of constraints.15
Dynamics is encoded in the constraint equations (47), (48), and (49). In this sense we can regard
general relativity in the new variables as a background independent relative of 𝑆𝑈 (2) Yang–Mills
13 In fact, Eq. (36) implies that Γ𝑖 [𝐸] = Γ𝑖 [𝜆𝐸] for a constant 𝜆. This homogeneity property plus the existence
𝑎 𝑎
of 𝑊 [𝐸] implies that 𝑊 [𝐸] = 𝐸𝑖𝑎 Γ𝑖𝑎 , as can be verified by direct calculation.
∫︀
14 The constraint structure does not distinguish 𝑆𝑂(3) from 𝑆𝑈 (2), as both groups have the same Lie algebra.
From now on we choose to work with the more fundamental (universal covering) group 𝑆𝑈 (2). In fact, this choice
is physically motivated as 𝑆𝑈 (2) is the gauge group, if we want to include fermionic matter [278].
15 In the physics of the standard model we are used to identifying the coordinate 𝑡 with the physical time of a
suitable family of observers. In the general covariant context of gravitational physics, the coordinate time 𝑡 plays
the role of a label with no physical relevance. One can arbitrarily change the way we coordinatize spacetime without
affecting the physics. This redundancy in the description of the physics (gauge symmetry) induces the appearance
of constraints in the canonical formulation. The constraints in turn are the generating functions of these gauge
symmetries. The Hamiltonian generates evolution in coordinate time 𝑡, but because redefinition of 𝑡 is pure gauge,
the Hamiltonian is a constraint itself, i.e., ℋ = 0 on shell [143, 223].

28 Alejandro Perez
theory. We will see in the sequel that the close similarity between these theories will allow for the
implementation of techniques that are very natural in the context of YM theory.
To conclude this section, let us point out that the real connection formulation of general relativ-
ity presented here is a peculiar property of four dimensions due to the special property (45). Nev-
ertheless, there are means to obtaining real connection formulations for gravity and supergravity in
higher dimensions as recently shown by Thiemann and collaborators [83, 81, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 82].
3.2.1 Constraints algebra

Here we simply present the structure of the constraint algebra of general relativity in the new
variables.
{𝐺(𝛼), 𝐺(𝛽)} = 𝐺([𝛼, 𝛽]), (50)
where 𝛼 = 𝛼𝑖 𝜏𝑖 ∈ 𝑠𝑢(2), 𝛽 = 𝛽 𝑖 𝜏𝑖 ∈ 𝑠𝑢(2) and [𝛼, 𝛽] is the commutator in 𝑠𝑢(2).
{𝐺(𝛼), 𝑉 (𝑁 𝑎 )} = −𝐺(L𝑁 𝛼). (51)
{𝐺(𝛼), 𝑆(𝑁 )} = 0. (52)

𝑎 𝑎 𝑎
{𝑉 (𝑁 ), 𝑉 (𝑀 )} = 𝑉 ([𝑁, 𝑀 ] ), (53)
where [𝑁, 𝑀 ]𝑎 = 𝑁 𝑏 𝜕𝑏 𝑀 𝑎 − 𝑀 𝑏 𝜕𝑏 𝑁 𝑎 is the vector field commutator, and L𝑁 denotes the Lie
derivative along the vector field 𝑁 𝑎 . The previous constraints define the subalgebra of spacial
diffeomorphisms and 𝑆𝑈 (2) internal gauge transformations. This property allows one to imple-
ment them in the quantum theory separately from the scalar constraint. If we include the scalar
constraint, the remaining Poisson brackets are
{𝑆(𝑁 ), 𝑉 (𝑁 𝑎 )} = −𝑆(L𝑁 𝑁 ), (54)
and finally
{𝑆(𝑁 ), 𝑆(𝑀 )} = 𝑉 (𝑆 𝑎 ) + terms proportional to the Gauss constraint, (55)
where, for simplicity, we are ignoring the terms proportional to the Gauss law (the complete
expression can be found in [35]) and
𝐸𝑖𝑎 𝐸𝑗𝑏 𝛿 𝑖𝑗
𝑆𝑎 = (𝑁 𝜕𝑏 𝑀 − 𝑀 𝜕𝑏 𝑁 ). (56)
| det 𝐸|
Notice that instead of structure constants, the r.h.s. of (55) is written in terms of field-dependent
structure functions. For this reason it is said that the constraint algebra does not close.
3.3 Geometric interpretation of the new variables

The geometric interpretation of the connection 𝐴𝑖𝑎 , defined in (43), is standard. The connection
provides a definition of parallel transport of 𝑆𝑈 (2) spinors on the space manifold Σ. The natural
object is the 𝑆𝑈 (2) element defining parallel transport along a path 𝑒 ⊂ Σ also called holonomy
denoted ℎ𝑒 [𝐴], or more explicitly ∫︁
ℎ𝑒 [𝐴] = 𝑃 exp − 𝐴, (57)
𝑒
where 𝑃 denotes a path-order-exponential.

The densitized triad – or electric field – 𝐸𝑖𝑎 also has a simple geometrical meaning. As it follows
from (42), 𝐸𝑖𝑎 encodes the full background-independent Riemannian geometry of Σ. Therefore, any

geometrical quantity in space can be written as a functional of 𝐸𝑖𝑎 . One of the simplest is the area
𝐴𝑆 [𝐸𝑖𝑎 ] of a surface 𝑆 ⊂ Σ whose expression we derive in what follows. Given a two-dimensional
surface in 𝑆 ⊂ Σ – with normal
𝜕𝑥𝑏 𝜕𝑥𝑐
𝑛𝑎 = 𝜖𝑎𝑏𝑐 , (58)
𝜕𝜎 1 𝜕𝜎 2
where 𝜎 1 and 𝜎 2 are local coordinates on 𝑆 – its area is given by
∫︁ √
𝐴𝑆 [𝑞 𝑎𝑏 ] = ℎ 𝑑𝜎 1 𝑑𝜎 2 , (59)
𝑆
where ℎ = det(ℎ𝑎𝑏 ) is the determinant of the metric ℎ𝑎𝑏 = 𝑞𝑎𝑏 − 𝑛−2 𝑛𝑎 𝑛𝑏 induced on 𝑆 by 𝑞 𝑎𝑏 .
From Eq. (42) it follows that 𝑞𝑞 𝑎𝑏 = 𝐸𝑖𝑎 𝐸 𝑏𝑖 so that det(𝑞 𝑎𝑏 ) = det(𝐸𝑖𝑎 ). Contracting the previous
equality with 𝑛𝑎 𝑛𝑏 , namely
𝑞𝑞 𝑎𝑏 𝑛𝑎 𝑛𝑏 = 𝐸𝑖𝑎 𝐸𝑗𝑏 𝛿 𝑖𝑗 𝑛𝑎 𝑛𝑏 . (60)
Now observe that 𝑞 𝑛𝑛 = 𝑞 𝑎𝑏 𝑛𝑎 𝑛𝑏 is the 𝑛𝑛-matrix element of the inverse of 𝑞𝑎𝑏 . Through the
well-known formula for components of the inverse matrix, we have that
det(𝑞𝑎𝑏 − 𝑛−2 𝑛𝑎 𝑛𝑏 ) ℎ
𝑞 𝑛𝑛 = = . (61)
det(𝑞𝑎𝑏 ) 𝑞
But 𝑞𝑎𝑏 − 𝑛−2 𝑛𝑎 𝑛𝑏 is precisely the induced metric ℎ𝑎𝑏 . Replacing 𝑞 𝑛𝑛 back into (60) we conclude
that
ℎ = 𝐸𝑖𝑎 𝐸𝑗𝑏 𝛿 𝑖𝑗 𝑛𝑎 𝑛𝑏 . (62)
Finally, we can write the area of 𝑆 as an explicit functional of 𝐸𝑖𝑎 :
∫︁ √︁
𝐴𝑆 [𝐸𝑖𝑎 ] = 𝐸𝑖𝑎 𝐸𝑗𝑏 𝛿 𝑖𝑗 𝑛𝑎 𝑛𝑏 𝑑𝜎 1 𝑑𝜎 2 . (63)
𝑆
This simple expression for the area of a surface will be very important in the quantum theory.
4 Loop Quantum Gravity and Quantum Geometry in a Nut-

shell
LQG is a proposal for the implementation of the quantization program established in the 1960s by
Dirac, Wheeler, and DeWitt, among others (for recent reviews see [35, 356, 323]). The technical
difficulties of Wheeler’s ‘geometrodynamics’ are circumvented by the use of connection variables
instead of metrics [24, 23, 56]. At the kinematical level, the formulation is similar to that of
standard gauge theories. However, the fundamental difference is the absence of any non-dynamical
background field in the theory.
The configuration variable is an 𝑆𝑈 (2)-connection 𝐴𝑖𝑎 on a 3-manifold Σ representing space.
The canonical momenta are given by the densitized triad 𝐸𝑖𝑎 . The latter encode the (fully dynam-
ical) Riemannian geometry of Σ and are the analog of the ‘electric fields’ of Yang–Mills theory.
In addition to diffeomorphisms, there is the local 𝑆𝑈 (2) gauge freedom that rotates the triad
and transforms the connection in the usual way. According to Dirac, gauge freedoms result in
constraints among the phase-space variables, which conversely are the generating functionals of
infinitesimal gauge transformations. In terms of connection variables, the constraints are
𝒢𝑖 = 𝒟𝑎 𝐸𝑖𝑎 = 0, 𝒞𝑎 = 𝐸𝑘𝑏 𝐹𝑏𝑎

𝑘
= 0, 𝒮 = 𝜖𝑖𝑗𝑘 𝐸𝑖𝑎 𝐸𝑗𝑏 𝐹𝑎𝑏 𝑘 + · · · = 0, (64)
where 𝒟𝑎 is the covariant derivative and 𝐹𝑏𝑎 is the curvature of 𝐴𝑖𝑎 . 𝒢𝑖 is the familiar Gauss
constraint – analogous to the Gauss law of electromagnetism – generating infinitesimal 𝑆𝑈 (2)

30 Alejandro Perez
gauge transformations, 𝒞𝑎 is the vector constraint generating space-diffeomorphism, and 𝒮 is the

scalar constraint generating ‘time’ reparameterization (there is an additional term that we have
omitted here for simplicity – see Eqs. (47) to (49), and Section 3.2.1 for the precise form of the
constraints and their relationship with the gauge symmetry groups).
LQG is defined using Dirac quantization. One first represents (64) as operators in an auxiliary
Hilbert space ℋ and then solves the constraint equations
𝒢^𝑖 Ψ = 0, 𝒞^𝑎 Ψ = 0, ^ = 0.
𝒮Ψ (65)
The Hilbert space of solutions is called the physical Hilbert space ℋphys . In a generally covariant
system quantum dynamics is fully governed by constraint equations. In the case of LQG, they
represent quantum Einstein’s equations.
States in the auxiliary Hilbert space are represented by wave functionals of the connection
Ψ(𝐴), which are square integrable with respect to a natural diffeomorphism-invariant measure, the
Ashtekar-Lewandowski measure [32] (we denote it L 2 [𝒜], where 𝒜 is the space of (generalized)
connections). Roughly
⨁︀ speaking,16 this space can be decomposed into a direct sum of orthogonal
subspaces ℋ = 𝛾 ℋ𝛾 labeled by a graph 𝛾 in Σ. The fundamental excitations are given by the
holonomy ℎℓ (𝐴) ∈ 𝑆𝑈 (2) along a path ℓ in Σ:
∫︁
ℎℓ (𝐴) = 𝒫 exp 𝐴. (66)
ℓ
Elements of ℋ𝛾 are given by functions
Ψ𝑓,𝛾 (𝐴) = 𝑓 (ℎℓ1 (𝐴), ℎℓ2 (𝐴), . . . , ℎℓ𝑛 (𝐴)), (67)
where ℎℓ is the holonomy along the links ℓ ∈ 𝛾 and 𝑓 : 𝑆𝑈 (2)𝑛 → C is (Haar measure) square
integrable. They are called cylindrical functions and represent a dense set in ℋ denoted 𝐶𝑦𝑙.
The“momenta” conjugate to the holonomies are given by the flux operators
∫︁
𝐸(𝑆, 𝛼) = 𝛼𝑖 𝐸𝑖 (68)
𝑆
across a 2-surface 𝑠 ⊂ Σ and labeled by a smearing field 𝛼 ∈ 𝑠𝑢(2). It has been shown that the
associated (Poisson) holonomy-flux algebra admits a unique quantization in a Hilbert space with
diffeomorphism-invariant states [176, 245]. The Hilbert space ℋ mentioned above is precisely that
unique representation.
Gauge transformations generated by the Gauss constraint act non-trivially at the endpoints
of the holonomy, i.e., at nodes of graphs. The Gauss constraint (in (64)) is solved by looking at
𝑆𝑈 (2) gauge-invariant functionals of the connection (L 2 [𝒜]/𝒢). The fundamental gauge invariant
quantity is given by the holonomy around closed loops. An orthonormal basis of the kernel of the
Gauss constraint is defined by the spin-network states Ψ𝛾,{𝑗ℓ },{𝜄𝑛 } (𝐴) [310, 330, 37]. Spin networks17
are defined by a graph 𝛾 in Σ, a collection of spins {𝑗ℓ } – unitary irreducible representations of
𝑆𝑈 (2) – associated with links ℓ ∈ 𝛾 and a collection of 𝑆𝑈 (2) intertwiners {𝜄𝑛 } associated to
nodes 𝑛 ∈ 𝛾 (see Figure 3). The spin-network gauge-invariant wave functional Ψ𝛾,{𝑗ℓ },{𝜄𝑛 } (𝐴) is
constructed by first associating an 𝑆𝑈 (2) matrix in the 𝑗ℓ -representation to the holonomies ℎℓ (𝐴)
16 The construction is rather a projective limit [32]. This leads to non-trivial requirements (cylindrical consistency)
on the structure (operators) of the theory. This point is very important for spin foams, especially in considering the
refining limit of amplitudes. We will revisit this issue in Section 7.5.
17 Spin-networks were introduced by Penrose [296, 297, 299, 298] in a attempt to define 3-dimensional Euclidean
quantum geometry from the combinatorics of angular momentum in quantum mechanics. Independently they have
been used in lattice gauge theory as a natural basis for gauge invariant functions on the lattice. For an account of
their applications in various contexts see [345].

corresponding to the link ℓ, and then contracting the representation matrices at nodes with the
corresponding intertwiners 𝜄𝑛 , namely
∏︁ ∏︁
Ψ𝛾,{𝑗ℓ },{𝜄𝑛 } (𝐴) = 𝜄𝑛 𝑗ℓ [ℎℓ (𝐴)], (69)
𝑛∈𝛾 ℓ∈𝛾
where 𝑗ℓ [ℎℓ (𝐴)] denotes the corresponding 𝑗ℓ -representation matrix evaluated at the corresponding
link holonomy and the matrix index contraction is left implicit.
5
2
2 1 3
3 2 2 1
2 2 2
1 1
2
1 1 1
1 1 1
1
1
Figure 3: Spin-network state: At 3-valent nodes the intertwiner is uniquely specified by the corresponding
spins. At 4 or higher valent nodes an intertwiner has to be specified. Choosing an intertwiner corresponds
to decomposing the 𝑛-valent node in terms of 3-valent ones adding new virtual links (dashed lines) and
their corresponding spins. This is illustrated explicitly in the figure for the two 4-valent nodes.
The solution of the vector constraint is more subtle [32]. One uses group-averaging techniques
together with the diffeomorphism invariance of the kinematical inner product in ℋ. The diffeo-
morphism constraint does not exist in the quantum theory. Only finite diffeomorphisms can be
defined. As a result, solutions (diffeomorphism-invariant states) correspond to generalized states.
These are not in ℋ but are elements of the topological dual 𝐶𝑦𝑙* .18 However, the intuitive idea
is quite simple: solutions to the vector constraint are given by equivalence classes of spin-network
states up to diffeomorphism. Two spin-network states are considered equivalent if their underlying
graphs can be deformed into each other by the action of a diffeomorphism.
This can be regarded as an indication that the smooth spin-network category could be replaced
by something that is more combinatorial in nature so that diffeomorphism invariance becomes
a derived property of the classical limit. LQG has been modified along these lines by replacing
the smooth manifold structure of the standard theory by the weaker concept of piecewise linear
manifold [370]. In this context, graphs defining spin-network states can be completely character-
ized using the combinatorics of cellular decompositions of space. Only a discrete analog of the
diffeomorphism symmetry survives, which can be dealt with in a fully combinatorial manner. We
will take this point of view when we introduce the notion of spin foam in Section 5.
4.1 Quantum geometry

The generalized states described above solve all of the constraints (64) but the scalar constraint.
They are regarded as quantum states of the Riemannian geometry on Σ. They define the kine-
matical sector of the theory known as quantum geometry.
Geometric operators acting on spin-network states can be defined in terms of the fundamental
triad operators 𝐸^ 𝑎 . The simplest of such operators is the area of a surface 𝑆 classically given by
𝑖
∫︁ √︁
𝐴𝑆 (𝐸) = 𝑑𝑥2 Tr[𝑛𝑎 𝑛𝑏 𝐸 𝑎 𝐸 𝑏 ], (70)
𝑆
18 According to the triple 𝐶𝑦𝑙 ⊂ ℋ ⊂ 𝐶𝑦𝑙* .

32 Alejandro Perez
where 𝑛 is a co-normal. The geometric operator 𝐴^𝑆 (𝐸) can be rigorously defined by its action on
spin-network states [344, 329, 33]. The area operator gives a clear geometrical interpretation to
spin-network states: the fundamental 1-dimensional excitations defining a spin-network state can
be thought of as quantized ‘flux lines’ of area. More precisely, if the surface 𝑆 ⊂ Σ is punctured
link carrying a spin 𝑗, this state is an eigenstate of 𝐴^𝑆 (𝐸) with eigenvalue
by a spin-network √︀
2
proportional to ℓ𝑃 𝑗(𝑗 + 1). In the generic sector – where no node lies on the surface – the
spectrum takes the simple form
∑︁ √︀
𝑎𝑆 ({𝑗}) = 8𝜋𝛾ℓ2𝑃 𝑗𝑖 (𝑗𝑖 + 1), (71)
𝑖
where 𝑖 labels punctures and 𝜄 is the Imirzi parameter [227].19 𝑎𝑆 ({𝑗}) is the sum of single puncture
contributions. The general form of the spectrum including the cases where nodes lie on 𝑆 has been
computed in closed form [33].
The spectrum of the volume operator is also discrete [344, 329, 258, 34]. If we define the
volume operator 𝑉^𝜎 (𝐸) of a 3-dimensional region 𝜎 ⊂ Σ, then non-vanishing eigenstates are given
by spin-networks containing 𝑛-valent nodes in 𝜎 for 𝑛 > 3. Volume is concentrated in nodes. For
new results on the volume see [72, 71]. Other geometric quantities have been considered in the
quantization; in particular, in studies of coupling LQG to matter [354], the introduction of a metric
operator is necessary. For another proposal of the length operator see [70].
4.2 Quantum dynamics

In contrast to the Gauss and vector constraints, the scalar constraint does not have a simple
geometrical meaning. This makes its quantization more involved. Regularization choices have to
be made and the result is not unique. After Thiemann’s first rigorous quantization [352], other
well-defined possibilities have been found [201, 135, 136]. This ambiguity affects dynamics governed
by
^ = 0.
𝒮Ψ (72)
The difficulty in dealing with the scalar constraint is not surprising. The vector constraint –
generating space diffeomorphisms – and the scalar constraint – generating time reparameterizations
– arise from the underlying 4-diffeomorphism invariance of gravity. In the canonical formulation,
the 3+1 splitting breaks the manifest 4-dimensional symmetry. The price paid is the complex-
ity of the time re-parameterization constraint 𝒮. The situation is somewhat reminiscent of that
in standard quantum field theory, where manifest Lorentz invariance is lost in the Hamiltonian
formulation.20
From this perspective, there has been growing interest in approaching the problem of dynamics
by defining a covariant formulation of quantum gravity. The idea is that (as in the QFT case)
one can keep manifest 4-dimensional covariance in the path integral formulation. The spin-foam
approach is an attempt to define the path integral quantization of gravity using what we have
learned from LQG.
In standard quantum mechanics, path integrals provide the solution of dynamics as a device
to compute the time-evolution operator. Similarly, in the generally-covariant context, it provides
a tool to find solutions to the constraint equations (this has been emphasized formally in various
places: in the case of gravity see, for example, [212]; for a detailed discussion of this in the context
of quantum mechanics see [316]). Recall discussion of Section 2.2.
19 The Imirzi parameter 𝜄 is a free parameter in the theory. This ambiguity is purely quantum mechanical (it
disappears in the classical limit). It has to be fixed in terms of physical predictions. The computation of black-hole
entropy in LQG fixes the value of 𝛾 (see [26]).
20 However, there is an additional complication here: the canonical constraint algebra does not reproduce the
4-diffeomorphism Lie algebra. This complicates the geometrical meaning of 𝑆.

Let us finish by stating some properties of 𝑆^ that do not depend on the ambiguities mentioned
above. One is the discovery that smooth loop states naturally solve the scalar constraint opera-
tor [234, 328]. This set of states is clearly too small to represent the physical Hilbert space (e.g.,
they span a zero volume sector). However, this implies that 𝑆^ acts only on spin network nodes.
Its action modifies spin networks at nodes by creating new links according to Figure 4.21 . This is
crucial in the construction of the spin-foam approach of Section 5.
k k
j → j l
i i
Figure 4: A typical transition generated by the action of the scalar constraint
5 Spin Foams and the Path Integral for Gravity in a Nut-

shell
The possibility of defining quantum gravity using Feynman’s path-integral approach has been
considered since Misner [274]. Given a 4-manifold ℳ with boundaries Σ1 and Σ2 , and denoting
′
by 𝐺 the space of metrics on ℳ, the transition amplitude between |[𝑞𝑎𝑏 ]⟩ on Σ1 and |[𝑞𝑎𝑏 ]⟩ on Σ2
is formally ∫︁
′
⟨[𝑞𝑎𝑏 ] |[ 𝑞𝑎𝑏 ]⟩ = 𝒟[𝑔] 𝑒𝑖𝑆([𝑔]) , (73)
[𝑔]
where the integration on the right is performed over all spacetime metrics up to 4-diffeomorphisms
′
[𝑔] ∈ 𝐺/𝐷𝑖𝑓 𝑓 (ℳ) with fixed boundary values up to 3-diffeomorphisms [𝑞𝑎𝑏 ], [𝑞𝑎𝑏 ].
There are various difficulties associated with (73). Technically there is the problem of defining
the functional integration over [𝑔] on the RHS. This is partially because of the difficulties in defining
infinite dimensional functional integration beyond the perturbative framework. In addition, there
is the issue of having to deal with the space 𝐺/𝐷𝑖𝑓 𝑓 (ℳ), i.e., how to characterize the diffeomorphism
invariant information in the metric. This gauge problem (3-diffeomorphisms) is also present in the
definition of the boundary data. There is no well-defined notion of kinematical state |[𝑞𝑎𝑏 ]⟩ as the
notion of kinematical Hilbert space in standard metric variables has never been defined.
The situation is different in the framework of LQG. The notion of a quantum state of 3-geometry
is rigorously defined in terms of spin-network states. They carry the diff-invariant information of
the Riemannian structure of Σ. In addition, and very importantly, these states are intrinsically
discrete (colored graphs on Σ), suggesting a possible solution to the functional measure problem,
i.e., the possibility of constructing a notion of a Feynman ‘path integral’ in a combinatorial manner
involving sums over spin-network world-sheet amplitudes. Heuristically, ‘4-geometries’ are to be
represented by ‘histories’ of quantum states of 3-geometries or spin network states. These ‘histo-
ries’ involve a series of transitions between spin network states (Figure 5), and define a foam-like
structure (a ‘2-graph’ or 2-complex), whose components inherit the spin representations from the
underlying spin networks. These spin network world sheets are the spin foams.
21 This is not the case in all the available definitions of the scalar constraints as, for example, the one defined
in [135, 136].

34 Alejandro Perez
The precise definition of spin foams was introduced by Baez in [38] emphasizing their role as
morphisms in the category defined by spin networks.22 A spin foam ℱ : 𝑠 → 𝑠′ , representing
a transition from the spin-network 𝑠 = (𝛾, {𝑗ℓ }, {𝜄𝑛 }) into 𝑠′ = (𝛾 ′ , {𝑗ℓ′ }, {𝜄𝑛′ }), is defined by a
2-complex 𝒥 bordered by the graphs of 𝛾 and 𝛾 ′ respectively, a collection of spins {𝑗𝑓 } associated
with faces 𝑓 ∈ 𝒥 and a collection of intertwiners {𝜄𝑒 } associated to edges 𝑒 ∈ 𝒥 . Both spins and
intertwiners of exterior faces and edges match the boundary values defined by the spin networks 𝑠
and 𝑠′ respectively. Spin foams ℱ : 𝑠 → 𝑠′ and ℱ ′ : 𝑠′ → 𝑠′′ can be composed into ℱℱ ′ : 𝑠 → 𝑠′′
by gluing together the two corresponding 2-complexes at 𝑠′ . A spin-foam model is an assignment
of amplitudes 𝐴[ℱ], which is consistent with this composition rule in the sense that
𝐴[ℱℱ ′ ] = 𝐴[ℱ]𝐴[ℱ ′ ]. (74)
Transition amplitudes between spin network states are defined by

∑︁
⟨𝑠, 𝑠′ ⟩phys = 𝐴[ℱ], (75)
ℱ :𝑠→𝑠′
where the notation anticipates the interpretation of such amplitudes as defining the physical scalar
product. The domain of the previous sum is left unspecified at this stage. We shall discuss this
question further in Section V. This last equation is the spin-foam counterpart of Eq. (73). This
definition remains formal until we specify what the set of allowed spin foams in the sum are and
define the corresponding amplitudes.
l l
p j j
q n p n s
s
o m o k m
k q
n
s
m
l l
p j j
p
q
o →
k k l
q o j
k
l l
j j
k k
Figure 5: A typical path in a path integral version of LQG is given by a series of transitions through
different spin-network states representing a state of 3-geometries. Nodes and links in the spin network
evolve into 1-dimensional edges and faces. New links are created and spins are reassigned at vertexes
(emphasized on the right). The ‘topological’ structure is provided by the underlying 2-complex, while the
geometric degrees of freedom are encoded in the labeling of its elements with irreducible representations
and intertwiners.
The background-independent character of spin foams is manifest. The 2-complex can be

thought of as representing ‘spacetime’ while the boundary graphs represent ‘space’. They do
not carry any geometrical information in contrast with the standard concept of a lattice. Geom-
etry is encoded in the spin labellings, which represent the degrees of freedom of the gravitational
field.
In standard quantum mechanics the path integral is used to compute the matrix elements of the
evolution operator 𝑈 (𝑡). In this way, it provides the solution for dynamics since for any kinematical
22 The role of category theory for quantum gravity had been emphasized by Crane in [128, 127, 130].

state Ψ the state 𝑈 (𝑡)Ψ is a solution to Schrödinger’s equation. Analogously, in a generally-

covariant theory the path integral provides a device for constructing solutions to the quantum
constraints. Transition amplitudes represent the matrix elements of the generalized ‘projection’
operator 𝑃 (i.e., ⟨𝑠, 𝑠′ ⟩phys = ⟨𝑠𝑃, 𝑠′ ⟩, recall the general discussion of Sections 2.2) such that 𝑃 Ψ is
a physical state for any kinematical state Ψ. As in the case of the vector constraint, the solutions
of the scalar constraint correspond to distributional states (zero is in the continuum part of its
spectrum). Therefore, ℋphys is not a proper subspace of ℋ and the operator 𝑃 is not a projector
(𝑃 2 is ill defined).23 In Section 14 we give an explicit example of this construction.
23 In the notation of Section 4, states in ℋphys are elements of 𝐶𝑦𝑙* .

36 Alejandro Perez
Part III
The new spin-foam models for
four-dimensional gravity
In this part we study the non-perturbative quantization of four-dimensional general relativity from
the spin-foam perspective. Together with Part II, this part of the article forms a self-contained
body, that can be studied completely independently from the rest of the content of this review.
The new spin-foam models for four-dimensional quantum gravity are introduced from a per-
spective that, in some aspects, is independent from the one taken in the original works related to
the EPRL model [164, 169, 168], as well as the one used in the definition of the FK models [182].
Our starting point is the quantization of BF theory in the path-integral formulation, which leads to
a well-defined unambiguous state sum model or topological field theory (see Section 6). The space
of the histories of the BF theory path integral will be constrained to satisfy the linear simplicity
constraints that reduce BF theory to gravity.
In Section 6 we review the quantization of BF theory and its spin-foam representation. In
Section 7 we present the Riemannian EPRL model together with various mathematical tools that
will be useful in the following sections. In Section 8 the Lorentzian version of the EPRL model
is reviewed. In Section 9 we present the FK model. In Section 10 we recall the definition of the
Barrett–Crane model.
Finally, there are various review works in the literature [326, 325] where the new models are
introduced from a rather minimalistic perspective by simply postulating the defining amplitudes
and deriving their relation to gravity a posteriori. Such choice is indeed quite advantageous if
the novel simplicity of the new models is to be emphasized. In this article we have chosen a
complementary more-constructive view. This strategy allows for a systematic presentation of the
ingredients that go into the construction of the new models from the perspective of continuum
general relativity and BF theory. A possible drawback of this choice is that most of the simplicial
geometry intuitions used in other derivations are almost completely avoided. We hope that this
loss will be compensated by the potential advantages of an alternative viewpoint. For another
recent review see [16].

6 Spin-foam Quantization of BF Theory

Here we follow the perspective of [39]. Let 𝐺 be a compact group whose Lie algebra g has an
invariant inner product here denoted ⟨⟩, and ℳ a d-dimensional manifold. Classical BF theory is
defined by the action ∫︁
𝑆[B, 𝜔] = ⟨B ∧ F(𝜔)⟩, (76)
ℳ
where B is a g valued (d − 2)-form and 𝜔 is a connection on a 𝐺 principal bundle over ℳ. The

theory has no local excitations: all solutions of the equations of motion are locally related by
gauge transformations. More precisely, the gauge symmetries of the action are the local 𝐺 gauge
transformations
𝛿B = [B, 𝛼] , 𝛿𝜔 = d𝜔 𝛼, (77)
where 𝛼 is a g-valued 0-form, and the ‘topological’ gauge transformation
𝛿B = d𝜔 𝜂, 𝛿𝜔 = 0, (78)
where d𝜔 denotes the covariant exterior derivative and 𝜂 is a g-valued 0-form. The first invariance
is manifest from the form of the action, while the second is a consequence of the Bianchi identity,
d𝜔 𝐹 (𝜔) = 0. The gauge symmetries are so vast that all the solutions to the equations of motion
are locally pure gauge. The theory has only global or topological degrees of freedom.
Remark: In the special case 𝐺 = 𝑆𝑈 (2) and d = 3, BF theory is (Riemannian) general relativ-
ity, where the field B𝑖𝑎 is given by the co-tetrad frames 𝑒𝑖𝑎 of general relativity in the first-order
formalism. This simple example will be studied in more detail in Section 14. Another case of
interest is 𝐺 = 𝑆𝑝𝑖𝑛(4) and 𝑑 = 4 as it will provide the basis for the construction of the spin-foam
models for four-dimensional quantum (Riemannian) general relativity studied in Sections 7, 8, 9
and 10. The relationship with general relativity stems from the fact that constraining the field
B𝐼𝐽 𝐼𝐽 𝐾 𝐿 𝐼
𝑎𝑏 = 𝜖 𝐾𝐿 𝑒𝑎 𝑒𝑏 in the action (76) – where 𝑒𝑎 is interpreted as the tetrad co-frame – produces
the action of general relativity in four dimensions. In the physically-relevant cases of the above
examples one needs to deal with non-compact groups – 𝐺 = 𝑆𝐿(2, R) and 𝐺 = 𝑆𝐿(2, C), respec-
tively. The non-compactness of the gauge group leads to certain infrared divergences of transition
amplitudes (infinite volume factors). We avoid such complications at this stage and concentrate
on the compact 𝐺 case. The infinite-volume divergences will be solved in the particular case of
interest that is the spin-foam model for four-dimensional Lorentzian gravity, whose construction is
reviewed in Section 8.
For the moment, we assume ℳ to be compact and orientable. The partition function, 𝒵, is
formally given by ∫︁ ∫︁
𝒵 = 𝒟[B]𝒟[𝜔] exp(𝑖 ⟨B ∧ 𝐹 (𝜔)⟩). (79)
ℳ
Formally integrating over the B field in (79) we obtain

∫︁
𝒵 = 𝒟[𝜔] 𝛿 (𝐹 (𝜔)) . (80)
The partition function 𝒵 corresponds to the ‘volume’ of the space of flat connections on ℳ.
In order to give meaning to the formal expressions above, we replace the d-dimensional manifold
ℳ with an arbitrary cellular decomposition Δ. We also need the notion of the associated dual
2-complex of Δ denoted by Δ⋆ . The dual 2-complex Δ⋆ is a combinatorial object defined by a set
of vertices 𝑣 ∈ Δ⋆ (dual to d-cells in Δ) edges 𝑒 ∈ Δ⋆ (dual to (d−1)-cells in Δ) and faces 𝑓 ∈ Δ⋆

38 Alejandro Perez
Figure 6: Left: a triangulation and its dual in two dimensions. Right: the dual two complex; faces
(shaded polygone) are dual to 0-simpleces in 2d.
Figure 7: Left: a triangulation and its dual in three dimensions. Right: the dual two complex; faces
(shaded wedge) are dual to 1-simpleces in 3D.
Figure 8: Left: a triangulation and its dual in four dimensions. Right: the dual two complex; faces
(shaded wedge) are dual to triangles in 4D. The shaded triangle dual to the shaded face is exhibited.

(dual to (d−2)-cells in Δ). In the case where Δ is a simplicial decomposition of ℳ the structure of
both Δ and Δ⋆ is illustrated in Figures 6, 7, and 8 in two, three, and four dimensions, respectively.
For simplicity we concentrate on the case in which Δ is a triangulation. The field B is associated
with Lie algebra elements 𝐵𝑓 assigned to faces 𝑓 ∈ Δ⋆ . We can think of it as the integral of the
(d−2)-form B on the (d−2)-cell dual to the face 𝑓 ∈ Δ⋆ , namely
∫︁
𝐵𝑓 = B. (81)
(d−2)−cell
In other words, 𝐵𝑓 can be interpreted as the ‘smearing’ of the continuous (d−2)-form B on the
(d−2)-cells in Δ. We use the one-to-one correspondence between faces 𝑓 ∈ Δ⋆ and (d−2)-cells in
Δ to label the discretization of the B field 𝐵𝑓 . The connection 𝜔 is discretized by the assignment
of group elements 𝑔𝑒 ∈ 𝐺 to edges 𝑒 ∈ Δ⋆ . One can think of the group elements 𝑔𝑒 as the holonomy
of 𝜔 along 𝑒 ∈ Δ⋆ , namely ∫︁
𝑔𝑒 = P exp(− 𝜔), (82)
𝑒
where the symbol “P exp ” denotes the path-order-exponential that reminds us of the relationship
of the holonomy with the connection along the path 𝑒 ∈ Δ⋆ .
With all this, the discretized version of the path integral (79) is
∫︁ ∏︁ ∏︁ ∫︁ ∏︁ ∏︁
𝑖𝐵𝑓 𝑈𝑓
𝑍(Δ) = 𝑑𝑔𝑒 𝑑𝐵𝑓 𝑒 = 𝑑𝑔𝑒 𝛿(𝑔𝑒1 · · · 𝑔𝑒𝑛 ), (83)
𝑒∈Δ⋆ 𝑓 ∈Δ⋆ 𝑒∈Δ⋆ 𝑓 ∈Δ⋆
where 𝑈𝑓 = 𝑔𝑒1 · · · 𝑔𝑒𝑛 denotes the holonomy around faces, and the second equation is the result of
the B integration: thus, it can be regarded as the analog of (80)24 . The integration measure 𝑑𝐵𝑓
is the standard Lebesgue measure, while the integration in the group variables is done in terms
of the invariant measure in 𝐺 (which is the unique Haar measure when 𝐺 is compact). For given
ℎ ∈ 𝐺 and test function 𝐹 (𝑔) the invariance property reads as follows
∫︁ ∫︁ ∫︁ ∫︁
𝑑𝑔 𝐹 (𝑔) = 𝑑𝑔 𝐹 (𝑔 −1 ) = 𝑑𝑔 𝐹 (𝑔ℎ) = 𝑑𝑔 𝐹 (ℎ𝑔) (84)
The Peter–Weyl theorem provides a useful formula for the Dirac delta distribution appearing
in (83), namely ∑︁
𝛿(𝑔) = 𝑑𝜌 Tr[𝜌(𝑔)], (85)
𝜌
where 𝜌 are irreducible unitary representations of 𝐺. From the previous expression one obtains
∑︁ ∫︁ ∏︁ ∏︁ [︀ ]︀
𝒵(Δ) = 𝑑𝑔𝑒 d𝜌𝑓 Tr 𝜌𝑓 (𝑔𝑒1 . . . 𝑔𝑒𝑁 ) . (86)
𝒞:{𝜌}→{𝑓 } 𝑒∈Δ⋆ 𝑓 ∈Δ⋆
Integration over the connection can be performed as follows. In a triangulation Δ, the edges
𝑒 ∈ Δ⋆ bound precisely d different faces; therefore, the 𝑔𝑒 ’s in (86) appear in d different traces.
The relevant formula is
∫︁
𝑒
𝑃inv (𝜌1 , · · · , 𝜌d ) := 𝑑𝑔𝑒 𝜌1 (𝑔𝑒 ) ⊗ 𝜌2 (𝑔𝑒 ) ⊗ · · · ⊗ 𝜌d (𝑔𝑒 ). (87)
24 It is important to point out that the integration over the algebra-valued 𝐵 field does not exactly give the group
delta function. For instance, in the simple case where 𝐺 = 𝑆𝑈 (2) with 𝐵 ∈ 𝑠𝑢(2), integration leads to the 𝑆𝑂(3)
delta distribution (which only contains integer spin representations in the mode expansion (85)). Generally, one
ignores this fact and uses the 𝐺-delta distribution in the models found in the literature.

40 Alejandro Perez
For compact 𝐺 it is easy to prove using the invariance (and normalization) of the integration
𝑒 𝑒 2
measure (84) that 𝑃inv = (𝑃inv ) is the projector onto Inv[𝜌1 ⊗ 𝜌2 ⊗ · · · ⊗ 𝜌d ]. In this way the
spin-foam amplitudes of 𝑆𝑂(4) BF theory reduce to
∑︁ ∏︁ ∏︁
𝑒
𝑍BF (Δ) = d𝜌𝑓 𝑃inv (𝜌1 , · · · , 𝜌d ). (88)
𝒞𝑓 :{𝑓 }→𝜌𝑓 𝑓 ∈Δ⋆ 𝑒∈Δ⋆
In other words, the 𝐵𝐹 amplitude associated to a two complex Δ⋆ is simply given by summing
𝑒
over the numbers obtained by the natural contraction of the network of projectors 𝑃inv according
⋆
to the pattern provided defined by the two-complex Δ . The sum is over all possible assignments
of irreducible representations of 𝐺 to faces.
There is a nice graphical representation of the partition function of BF theory that will be
very useful for some calculations. On the one hand, using this graphical notation one can easily
prove the discretization independence of the BF amplitudes. On the other hand, this graphical
notation will simplify the presentation of the new spin-foam models of quantum gravity that will
be considered in the following sections. This useful notation was introduced by Oeckl [286, 291]
and used in [206] to give a general proof of the discretization independence of the BF partition
function and the Turaev–Viro invariants for their definition on general cellular decompositions.
Let us try to present this notation in more detail: The idea is to represent each representation
matrix appearing in (86) by a line (called a wire) labeled by an irreducible representation, and
integrations on the group by a box (called a cable). The traces in Eq. (86) imply that there is
a wire, labeled by the representation 𝜌𝑓 , winding around each face 𝑓 ∈ Δ⋆ . In addition, there
is a cable (integration on the group) associated with each edge 𝑒 ∈ Δ⋆ . As in (88), there is a
𝑒
projector, 𝑃inv is the projector into Inv[𝜌1 ⊗ 𝜌2 ⊗ · · · ⊗ 𝜌d ] associated with each edge. This will be
represented by a cable with d wires as shown in (89). Such graphical representation allows for a
simple diagrammatic expression of the BF quantum amplitudes.
ρ1 ρ2 ρ3 ρd
···
𝑒
𝑃inv (𝜌1 , 𝜌2 , 𝜌3 , · · · , 𝜌d ) ≡ . (89)
We can now express the product of projection operators defining the BF quantum amplitudes in
Eq. (88) in an entirely graphical way. Let us show this in 2, 3 and 4 dimensions. The generalization
to arbitrary dimensions is obvious.
According to Figure (6) in two dimensions edges 𝑒 ∈ Δ⋆ are shared by two faces. This means
that there are two representation matrices associated to the group element 𝑔𝑒 and hence two wires
labeled by two, in principle different, 𝜌𝑓 s. The endpoint of the open wires are connected to the
neighboring vertices and form closed loops around each face (due to the trace in (86)). There is a
cable with two wires on each 𝑒 ∈ Δ⋆ . The BF amplitude is obtained by plugging together all the
cables in the way dictated by the dual 2-complex Δ⋆ . In two dimensions the result is
ρ2
∑︁ ∏︁
𝑍BF (Δ) = d𝜌 ρ1 , (90)
𝒞𝑓 :{𝑓 }→𝜌𝑓 𝑓 ∈Δ⋆
ρ3
where it is understood that the open ends of the wires are connected to neighboring vertices
according to the combinatorial structure provided by the cellular 2-complex Δ⋆ . In other words,

the graph on the right-hand side of the previous equation is just the basic building block of a closed
cable-wire diagram involving the whole complex Δ.
The construction is now obvious in three dimensions. The only difference is that now three
faces share each edge and hence cables have three wires labeled by three different representations.
The wires are connected according to the structure provided by the dual two complex Δ⋆ (see
Figure 7) so that a closed wire-loop is obtained for each face 𝑓 ∈ Δ⋆ . The result is
ρ1 ρ2
ρ5
∑︁ ∏︁
𝑍BF (Δ) = d𝜌 ρ6 . (91)
ρ4 ρ3
At each vertex we have six wires corresponding to the six faces 𝑓 ∈ Δ⋆ sharing a vertex 𝑣 ∈ Δ⋆ .
As in the 2D case, the cable diagram on the right is only a piece of a global diagram embracing
the whole complex Δ.
Finally, in four dimensions the construction follows the same lines. Now edges are shared by
four faces; each cable has four wires. The cable-wire diagram giving the BF amplitude is dictated
by the combinatorics of the dual two complex Δ⋆ . From Figure 8 we get
ρ1
ρ2
ρ7
ρ6
∑︁ ∏︁
𝑍BF (Δ) = d𝜌 ρ5 ρ8 . (92)
𝒞𝑓 :{𝑓 }→𝜌𝑓 𝑓 ∈Δ⋆ ρ10
ρ9
ρ3
ρ4
The 10 wires corresponding to the 10 faces 𝑓 ∈ Δ⋆ sharing a vertex 𝑣 ∈ Δ⋆ are connected to

the neighboring vertices through the 5 cables (representing the projectors in (88) and Figure 89)
associated to the 5 edges 𝑒 ∈ Δ⋆ sharing the vertex 𝑣 ∈ Δ⋆ .
6.1 Special cases

We end this section with some simple examples of BF theory that will be useful in following
applications.
6.1.1 SU (2) BF theory in 2D: the simplest topological model

The amplitude of BF theory in two dimensions can be entirely worked out due to the simplicity
𝑒
of the projectors 𝑃inv in this case. For concreteness, we take the special case 𝐺 = 𝑆𝑈 (2), as this
structure group will play an important case in the gravity context, while the techniques used here

42 Alejandro Perez
will provide a nice warming-up exercise for what follows. Irreducible representations of 𝑆𝑈 (2)
are labeled by spins (half-integers): from now on we set 𝜌𝑓 = 𝑗𝑓 ∈ N/2. In two dimensions, the
𝑒
relevant projectors are 𝑃inv : 𝑗𝑓 ⊗ 𝑗𝑓 ′ → Inv[𝑗𝑓 ⊗ 𝑗𝑓 ′ ], which in turn are non-trivial if and only if
*
𝑗𝑓 = 𝑗𝑓 ′ . In our graphical notation the projector is
j j j
𝛿𝑗,𝑗 ′
𝑒
𝑃inv (𝑗, 𝑗 ′ ) = = , (93)
(2𝑗 + 1)
j′
where the lines on the right-hand side denote the identity representation matrices in the repre-
sentation 𝑗. Replacing this in the expression of the BF amplitude given in Eq. (90), one gets
∑︁ ∏︁ ∏︁ 1
2d
𝑍BF (Δ) = (2𝑗 + 1) j , (94)
(2𝑗 + 1)
𝑗 𝑓 ∈Δ⋆ 𝑒∈Δ⋆
where the sum over 𝑗𝑓 in (90) has collapsed to a single sum as according to (93). Spin-foam
amplitudes vanish unless all the spins assigned to faces are equal, i.e., 𝑗𝑓 = 𝑗 for all 𝑓 ∈ Δ⋆ . In
addition to a factor d𝑗 = (2𝑗 + 1) for each face 𝑓 ∈ Δ⋆ one gets a factor 1/(2𝑗 + 1) for each
edge 𝑒 ∈ Δ⋆ from the projectors (see 93). Finally, for each vertex 𝑣 ∈ Δ⋆ , one obtains a factor
(2𝑗 + 1) coming from the remaining closed loop that is left over once (93) is used in all the edges
associated with 𝑣 (see (94)). Finally, if we denote 𝑁𝑓 , 𝑁𝑒 , and 𝑁𝑣 the number of faces, the number
of edges, and the number of vertices in Δ⋆ , respectively, then it follows that the BF partition
function becomes
∑︁ ∑︁
2d
𝑍BF (Δ) = (2𝑗 + 1)𝑁𝑓 −𝑁𝑒 +𝑁𝑣 = (2𝑗 + 1)𝜒 , (95)
𝑗 𝑗
where 𝜒 is the Euler character of the two-dimensional manifold ℳ. In this simple two dimensional
example one discovers explicitly two important properties of the partition function (and quantum
amplitudes) of BF theory: first, quantum amplitudes are independent of the regulating triangu-
lation used in their definition, and second, their discretization-independent value depends only
on global properties of the spacetime-defining topological invariants of the manifold ℳ. One can
genuinely write
2d 2d
𝑍BF (ℳ) = 𝑍BF (Δ). (96)
Extra remarks on two-dimensional BF theory

Two-dimensional BF theory has been used as the basic theory in an attempt to define a manifold-
independent model of QFT in [252]. It is also related to gravity in two dimensions in two ways:
on the one hand it is equivalent to the Jackiw–Teitelboim model [232, 351]; on the other hand,
it is related to usual 2D gravity via constraints in a way similar to the one exploited in four
dimensions (see Section 7). The first relationship has been used in the canonical quantization of
the Jackiw–Teitelboim model in [126]. The second relationship has been explored in [295].
6.1.2 SU (2) BF theory and 3D Riemannian gravity

In three dimensions, edges 𝑒 ∈ Δ⋆ are shared by three faces and thus the relevant projector is
represented by a cable with three wires. In the case 𝐺 = 𝑆𝑈 (2), the singlet component Inv[ȷ1 ⊗

𝑗2 ⊗ 𝑗3 ] is one dimensional when it is non-trivial. Therefore, we can write the projector as
j m k j m k
= , (97)
where the three valent open graphs on the right-hand side represent the unique normalized invariant
vector in 𝑗 ⊗ 𝑚 ⊗ 𝑘. Now we can play the same game as in the previous example. Replacing the
expression of the projectors in Eq. (91) we get
j1 j2
Q j5
dρ . (98)
∈∆⋆ j6
j4 j3
Hence, the amplitude can be written as a sum over spins 𝑗𝑓 associated to faces of a product of face
and vertex amplitudes, namely
j1 j2
Q Q j5
dρ . (99)
f ∈∆⋆ v∈∆⋆ j6
j4 j3
The vertex amplitude is a 6𝑗-symbol and depends on six spins labeling the corresponding faces
associated with a vertex.
Extra remarks on three dimensional BF theory

Three dimensional BF theory and the spin-foam quantization presented above is intimately related
to classical and quantum gravity in three dimensions (for a classic reference see [112]). We will
discuss this relationship in detail in Part IV. The state sum as presented above matches the
quantum amplitudes first proposed by Ponzano and Regge in the 1960s based on their discovery of
the asymptotic expressions of the 6𝑗 symbols [309] and is often referred to as the Ponzano–Regge
model. Divergences in the above formal expression require regularization. We will see in Part IV
that natural regularizations are available and that the model is well defined [67, 281, 186]. For
a detailed study of the divergence structure of the model see [100, 101, 102, 103]. The quantum
deformed version of the above amplitudes lead to the Turaev–Viro model [364], which is expected
to correspond to the quantization of three-dimensional Riemannian gravity in the presence of a
non-vanishing positive cosmological constant. For the definition of observables in the latter context,
as well as in the four-dimensional analog see [66].

44 Alejandro Perez
The topological character of BF theory can be preserved by the coupling of the theory with
topological defects that play the role of point particles. In the spin-foam literature, this has
been considered form the canonical perspective in [279, 280] and from the covariant perspective
extensively by Freidel and Louapre [188]. These theories have been shown by Freidel and Livine to
be dual, in a suitable sense, to certain non-commutative fields theories in three dimensions [185,
184].
Concerning coupling BF theory with non-topological matter, see [172, 155] for the case of
fermionic matter, and [347] for gauge fields. A more radical perspective for the definition of
matter in 3D gravity is taken in [173]. For three-dimensional supersymmetric BF theory models,
see [250, 36].
Recursion relations for the 6𝑗 vertex amplitudes have been investigated in [98, 157]. They
provide a tool for studying dynamics in spin foams of 3D gravity and might be useful in higher
dimensions [99].
6.1.3 SU (2) BF theory: The Ooguri model
In four dimensions the structure is essentially the same. Now edges are shared by four repre-
sentations. In the case of 𝐺 = 𝑆𝑈 (2), the vector space Inv[𝑗1 ⊗ 𝑗2 ⊗ 𝑗3 ⊗ 𝑗4 ] has a dimension
that is generically greater than one. Consequently, if one wants to write the BF quantum par-
tition function as a sum over representations of products of faces and vertex amplitudes (the
spin-foam representation) one has to express the projectors in terms of a basis of invariant vectors
in 𝑗1 ⊗ 𝑗2 ⊗ 𝑗3 ⊗ 𝑗4 . Graphically, this can be done as follows
j1 j2 j3 j4 j1 j2 j3 j4
∑︁
= ι , (100)
𝜄
where the four-valent diagrams on the right-hand side represent elements of an orthonormal basis
of invariant vectors in 𝑗1 ⊗ 𝑗2 ⊗ 𝑗3 ⊗ 𝑗4 and its dual, which are labeled by a half integer 𝜄. As in the
previous lower dimensional cases, we replace the previous equation in expression (92) to obtain
ι2 j3
j2 j8 ι3
j9
∑︁ ∏︁ ∑︁
𝑍BF (Δ) = d𝑗𝑓 ι1 j7 j4 , (101)
𝒞𝑓 :{𝑓 }→𝑗𝑓 𝑓 ∈Δ⋆ 𝒞𝑒 :{𝑒}→𝜄𝑒
j10
j1 j6 ι4
ι5 j5
which can be re-written in the spin-foam representation as

ι2 j3
j2 j8 ι3
j9
∑︁ ∏︁ ∑︁ ∏︁
𝑍BF (Δ) = d𝑗𝑓 ι1 j7 j. (102)
𝒞𝑓 :{𝑓 }→𝑗𝑓 𝑓 ∈Δ⋆ 𝒞𝑒 :{𝑒}→𝜄𝑒 𝑣∈Δ⋆
j10
j1 j6 ι4
ι5 j5
The vertex amplitude in the previous expression is often called a 15𝑗-symbol.
6.1.4 SU (2)×SU (2) BF theory: a starting point for 4D Riemannian gravity
For completeness we now present the BF quantum amplitudes in the case 𝐺 = 𝑆𝑈 (2)×𝑆𝑈 (2). This
special case is of fundamental importance in the construction of the gravity models presented in
Sections 7 and 8. The construction mimics that of Section 6.1.3 in all details. In fact, the product
form of the structure group implies the simple relationship 𝑍BF (𝑆𝑈 (2) × 𝑆𝑈 (2)) = 𝑍BF (𝑆𝑈 (2))2 .
Nevertheless, it is important for us to present this example in explicit form as it will provide the
graphical notation that is needed to introduce the gravity models in a simple manner. As in the
previous cases, the spin-foam representation of the BF partition function follows from expressing
the projectors in (92) in the orthonormal basis of intertwiners. From the previous example and
the product form of the structure group we have
ρ1 ρ3 ρ2 ρ4 j1− j2− j3− j4 j1+j2+ j3+ j4+

∑︁
= = ι− ι+ (103)
P P
𝜄− 𝜄+
where 𝜌𝑓 = 𝑗𝑓− ⊗ 𝑗𝑓+ , and 𝑗𝑓± and 𝜄± are half integers labeling left and right representations of
𝑆𝑈 (2) that defined the irreducible unitary representations of 𝐺 = 𝑆𝑈 (2) × 𝑆𝑈 (2). Accordingly,
when replacing the previous expression in (92) one gets
∑︁ ∏︁
𝑍BF (Δ) = d𝑗 − d𝑗 + , (104)
𝑓 𝑓
and equivalently

46 Alejandro Perez
∑︁ ∏︁ ∑︁
𝑍BF (Δ) = d𝑗 − d𝑗 + (105)
𝑓 𝑓
𝒞𝑓 :{𝑓 }→𝜌𝑓 𝑓 ∈Δ⋆ 𝒞𝑒 :{𝑒}→𝜄𝑒
from which we finally obtain the spin-foam representation of the 𝑆𝑈 (2) × 𝑆𝑈 (2) partition function
as a product of two 𝑆𝑈 (2) amplitudes, namely
∑︁ ∏︁ ∑︁ ∏︁
𝑍BF (Δ) = d𝑗 − d𝑗 +
𝑓 𝑓
𝒞𝑓 :{𝑓 }→𝜌𝑓 𝑓 ∈Δ⋆ 𝒞𝑒 :{𝑒}→𝜄𝑒 𝑣∈Δ⋆
ι−
2 j3 ι+ j3
|1−γ| 2
2 |1+γ| 2
j2 ι−
|1−γ| 2 |1−γ|
j8
2
3
|1+γ|
j2
2 |1+γ|
j8 ι+
3
2
j9
|1−γ| j
2 |1+γ| 29
j7 j7
ι−
1 |1−γ| 2 |1−γ|
j4
ι+
1
|1+γ| 2 |1+γ|
j4
2 (106)
2
j10 j10
|1−γ| 2 |1+γ| 2
j
j1 |1−γ| 26 j1 j6
|1−γ| ι− |1+γ| |1+γ|
2 4 2 2
ι+
4
j5 j5
ι− |1−γ| |1+γ|
5 2 ι+
5
2
Extra remarks on four-dimensional BF theory

The state sum (86) is generically divergent (due to the gauge freedom analogous to (78)). A
regularized version defined in terms of 𝑆𝑈𝑞 (2) × 𝑆𝑈𝑞 (2) was introduced by Crane and Yetter [130,
129]. As in three dimensions, if an appropriate regularization of bubble divergences is provided,
(86) is topologically invariant and the spin-foam path integral is discretization independent.
As in the three-dimensional case, BF theory in any dimensions can be coupled to topological
defects [41]. In the four-dimensional case, defects are string-like [175] and can carry extra degrees of
freedom such as topological Yang–Mills fields [275]. The possibility that quantum gravity could be
defined directly from these simple kinds of topological theories has also been considered outside spin
foams [350] (for which the UV problem described in the introduction is absent); this is attractive
and should, in my view, be considered further.
It is also possible to introduce one-dimensional particles in four-dimensional BF theory and
gravity as shown in [180].
6.2 The coherent-states representation

In this section we introduce the coherent-state representation of the 𝑆𝑈 (2) and 𝑆𝑝𝑖𝑛(4) path
integral of BF theory. This will be particularly important for the models defined by Freidel and

Krasnov in [182], which we will address in Section 9, as well as in the semiclassical analysis of the
new models reported in Section 13. The relevance of such representation for spin foams was first
emphasized by Livine and Speziale in [254].
6.2.1 Coherent states

Coherent states associated with the representation theory of a compact group have been studied
by Thiemann and collaborators [357, 355, 342, 360, 361, 362, 358, 50, 51, 177]; see also [76]. Their
importance for the new spin-foam models was put forward by Livine and Speziale in [254], where
the emphasis is put on coherent states of intertwiners or the quantum tetrahedron (see also [123]).
Here we follow the presentation of [182].
In order to built coherent states for 𝑆𝑝𝑖𝑛(4), we start by introducing them in the case of 𝑆𝑈 (2).
Starting from the representation space H𝑗 of dimension d𝑗 ≡ 2𝑗 + 1, one can write the resolution
of the identity in terms of the canonical orthonormal basis |𝑗, 𝑚⟩ as
∑︁
1𝑗 = |𝑗, 𝑚⟩⟨𝑗, 𝑚|. (107)
𝑚
where −𝑗 ≤ 𝑚 ≤ 𝑗. There exists an over-complete basis |𝑗, 𝑔⟩ ∈ H𝑗 labeled by 𝑔 ∈ 𝑆𝑈 (2) such

that ∫︁
1𝑗 = d𝑗 𝑑𝑔 |𝑗, 𝑔⟩⟨𝑗, 𝑔|, (108)
SU(2)
The states |𝑗, 𝑔⟩ ∈ H𝑗 are 𝑆𝑈 (2) coherent states defined by the action of the group on maximum
weight states |𝑗, 𝑗⟩ (themselves coherent), namely
∑︁ 𝑗
|𝑗, 𝑔⟩ ≡ 𝑔|𝑗, 𝑗⟩ = |𝑗, 𝑚⟩𝐷𝑚𝑗 (𝑔), (109)
𝑚
𝑗
where 𝐷𝑚𝑗 (𝑔) are the matrix elements of the unitary representations in the |𝑗, 𝑚⟩ (Wigner matri-
ces). Eq. (108) follows from the orthonormality of unitary representation matrix elements, namely
∫︁ ∑︁ ∫︁ ∑︁
′ 𝑗 𝑗
d𝑗 𝑑𝑔 |𝑗, 𝑔⟩⟨𝑗, 𝑔|, = d𝑗 |𝑗, 𝑚⟩⟨𝑗, 𝑚 | 𝑑𝑔 𝐷𝑚𝑗 (𝑔)𝐷𝑚 ′ 𝑗 (𝑔) = |𝑗, 𝑚⟩⟨𝑗, 𝑚|, (110)
SU(2) 𝑚𝑚′ SU(2) 𝑚
where in the last equality we have used the orthonormality of the matrix elements graphically
represented in (93). The decomposition of the identity (108) can be expressed as an integral on
𝑗 𝑗
the two-sphere of directions 𝑆 2 = 𝑆𝑈 (2)/𝑈 (1) by noticing that 𝐷𝑚𝑗 (𝑔) and 𝐷𝑚𝑗 (𝑔ℎ) differ only
by a phase for any group element ℎ from a suitable 𝑈 (1) ⊂ 𝑆𝑈 (2). Thus, one has
∫︁
1𝑗 = d𝑗 𝑑𝑛 |𝑗, 𝑛⟩⟨𝑗, 𝑛|, (111)
𝑆2
where 𝑛 ∈ 𝑆 2 is integrated with the invariant measure of the sphere. The states |𝑗, 𝑛⟩ form (an
over-complete) basis in H𝑗 . 𝑆𝑈 (2) coherent states have the usual semiclassical properties. Indeed,
if one considers the operators 𝐽 𝑖 generators of 𝑠𝑢(2) one has
⟨𝑗, 𝑛|𝐽^𝑖 |𝑗, 𝑛⟩ = 𝑗 𝑛𝑖 , (112)
where 𝑛𝑖 is the corresponding three-dimensional unit vector for 𝑛 ∈ 𝑆 2 . The fluctuations of 𝐽^2 are
also minimal with Δ𝐽 2 = ~2 𝑗, where we have restored ~ for clarity. The fluctuations go to zero in
the limit ~ → 0 and 𝑗 → ∞ while ~𝑗 is kept constant. This kind of limit will often be used as a
notion of the semiclassical limit in spin foams. The state |𝑗, 𝑛⟩ is a semiclassical state describing

48 Alejandro Perez
a vector in R3 of length 𝑗 and of direction 𝑛. It is convenient to introduce the following graphical

notation for Eq. (111)
j
∫︁
j n
= d𝑗 𝑑𝑛 . (113)
𝑆2
Finally, an important property of 𝑆𝑈 (2) coherent states stemming from the fact that
|𝑗, 𝑗⟩ = | 12 , 21 ⟩| 12 , 21 ⟩ · · · | 12 , 12 ⟩ ≡ | 12 , 12 ⟩⊗2𝑗
is that
|𝑗, 𝑛⟩ = | 12 , 𝑛⟩⊗2𝑗 . (114)
The above property will be of key importance in constructing effective discrete actions for spin-
foam models. In particular, it will play a central role in the study of the semiclassical limit of the
EPRL and FK models studied in Sections 7, 8, and 9. In the following subsection we provide an
example for 𝑆𝑝𝑖𝑛(4) BF theory.
6.2.2 Spin(4) BF theory: amplitudes in the coherent state basis

Here we study the coherent states representation of the path integral for 𝑆𝑝𝑖𝑛(4) BF theory. The
construction presented here can be extended to more general cases. The present case is however
of particular importance for the study of gravity models presented in Sections 7, 8, and 9. With
the introductions of coherent states one achieved the most difficult part of the work. In order
to express the 𝑆𝑝𝑖𝑛(4) BF amplitude in the coherent state representation one simply inserts a
resolution of the identity in the form (111) on each and every wire connecting neighboring vertices
in the expression (104) for the BF amplitudes. The result is
∑︁ ∏︁
𝑍BF (Δ) = d𝑗 − d𝑗 +
𝑓 𝑓
n1
n2
∫︁ ∏︁ n3
n4
d𝑗 − d𝑗 + 𝑑𝑛− +
𝑒𝑓 𝑑𝑛𝑒𝑓
n1
n2
, (115)
𝑒𝑓 𝑒𝑓
𝑒∈∈Δ⋆ n3
n4
where we have explicitly written the 𝑛± ∈ 𝑆 2 integration variables only on a single cable. One
observes that there is one 𝑛± ∈ 𝑆 2 per each wire coming out at an edge 𝑒 ∈ Δ⋆ ; as wires are in
one-to-one correspondence with faces 𝑓 ∈ Δ⋆ the integration variables 𝑛± 2
𝑒𝑓 ∈ 𝑆 are labeled by
an edge and face subindex. In order to get an expression of the BF path integral in terms of an

affective action we restore at this stage the explicit group integrations represented by the boxes in
the previous equation. One gets,
∑︁ ∏︁ ∫︁ ∏︁
𝑍BF (Δ) = d𝑗 − d𝑗 + d𝑗 − d𝑗 + 𝑑𝑛− +
𝑒𝑓 𝑑𝑛𝑒𝑓
𝑓 𝑓 𝑒𝑓 𝑒𝑓
∏︁ ∏︁ − +
−
𝑑𝑔𝑒𝑣 +
𝑑𝑔𝑒𝑣 (⟨𝑛− − −1 − −
𝑒𝑓 |(𝑔 )𝑒𝑣 𝑔𝑒′ 𝑣 |𝑛𝑒′ 𝑓 ⟩)
2𝑗𝑓
(⟨𝑛+ + −1 + +
𝑒𝑓 |(𝑔 )𝑒𝑣 𝑔𝑒′ 𝑣 |𝑛𝑒′ 𝑓 ⟩)
2𝑗𝑓
, (116)
𝑣∈Δ⋆ 𝑒,𝑒′ ∈𝑣
where we have used the coherent states property (114), and |𝑛± ⟩ is a simplified notation for | 21 , 𝑛± ⟩.
±
Also we denote by 𝑔𝑒𝑣 the group elements associated with the five boxes for each given vertex (see
Eq. (115)). Finally, the previous equation can be finally written as
∑︁ ∏︁ ∫︁ ∏︁
𝑍BF (Δ) = d𝑗 − d𝑗 + d𝑗 − d𝑗 + 𝑑𝑛− + − + 𝑑 ±
𝑒𝑓 𝑑𝑛𝑒𝑓 𝑑𝑔𝑒𝑣 𝑑𝑔𝑒𝑣 exp (𝑆𝑗 ± ,n± [𝑔 ]), (117)
𝑓 𝑓 𝑒𝑓 𝑒𝑓
where the discrete action ∑︁

𝑆𝑗𝑑± ,n± [𝑔 ± ] = 𝑆𝑗𝑣𝑣 ,n𝑣 [𝑔 ± ] (118)
𝑣∈Δ⋆
with
5
∑︁
𝑣
𝑆𝑗,n [𝑔] = 2𝑗𝑎𝑏 ln ⟨𝑛𝑎𝑏 |𝑔𝑎−1 𝑔𝑏 | 𝑛𝑏𝑎 ⟩, (119)
𝑎<𝑏=1
and the indices 𝑎, 𝑏 label the five edges of a given vertex. The previous expression is exactly equal
to the form (86) of the BF amplitude. In the case of the gravity models studied in what follows, the
coherent state path integral representation will be the basic tool for the study of the semiclassical
limit of the models and the relationship with the Regge discrete formulation of general relativity.
7 The Riemannian EPRL Model

In this section we introduce the Riemannian version of the Engle–Pereira–Rovelli–Livine (EPRL)
[168, 164]. The section is organized as follows. The relevant 𝑆𝑝𝑖𝑛(4) representation theory is
introduced in Section 7.1. In Section 7.2 we present and discuss the linear simplicity constraints
– classically equivalent to the Plebanski constraints – and discuss their implementation in the
quantum theory. In Section 7.3 we introduce the EPRL model of Riemannian gravity. In Section 7.4
we prove the validity of the quadratic Plebanski constraints – reducing BF theory to general
relativity – directly in the spin-foam representation. In Section 7.5 we discuss a certain modification
of the EPRL model. In Section 7.6 we present the coherent state representation of the EPRL model,
which is essential for the semiclassical analysis of Section 13. The material of this section will also
allow us to describe the construction of the closely related (although derived from a different
logic) Riemannian FK constructed in [182]. The idea that linear simplicity constraints are more
convenient for dealing with the constraints that reduce BF theory to gravity was pointed out by
Freidel and Krasnov in this last reference. We have shown in Part II that they arise directly from
the canonical analysis of the Plebanski formulation of gravity.
7.1 Representation theory of Spin(4) and the canonical basis

In order to introduce the definition of the EPRL model, we need to briefly review the representation
theory of 𝑆𝑝𝑖𝑛(4). The group 𝑆𝑝𝑖𝑛(4) = 𝑆𝑈 (2) × 𝑆𝑈 (2) with Lie algebra 𝑠𝑝𝑖𝑛(4) = 𝑠𝑢(2) ⊕ 𝑠𝑢(2)
𝑖
can explicitly be described in terms of generators 𝐽± such that
𝑗
𝑖
[𝐽± , 𝐽± ] = 𝜖𝑖𝑗 𝑘 𝐽±
𝑘
. (120)

50 Alejandro Perez
Unitary irreducible representations H𝑗 + ,𝑗 − of 𝑆𝑝𝑖𝑛(4) are given by the product of unitary irre-
ducible representations of 𝑆𝑈 (2), i.e., they are labeled by two half-integers 𝑗 ± . A standard basis
in H𝑗 + ,𝑗 − is given by vectors |𝑗 + , 𝑗 − , 𝑚+ , 𝑚− ⟩ of eigenstates of the Casimirs 𝐶1 = 𝐽+
2 2
+ 𝐽− and
2 2 3 3
𝐶2 = 𝐽+ − 𝐽− and the components 𝐽+ and 𝐽− , explicitly
𝐶1 |𝑗 + , 𝑗 − , 𝑚+ , 𝑚− ⟩ = (𝑗+ (𝑗+ + 1) + 𝑗− (𝑗− + 1)) |𝑗 + , 𝑗 − , 𝑚+ , 𝑚− ⟩,
𝐶2 |𝑗 + , 𝑗 − , 𝑚+ , 𝑚− ⟩ = (𝑗+ (𝑗+ + 1) − 𝑗− (𝑗− + 1)) |𝑗 + , 𝑗 − , 𝑚+ , 𝑚− ⟩,
3 + −
𝐽± |𝑗 , 𝑗 , 𝑚+ , 𝑚− ⟩ = 𝑚± |𝑗 + , 𝑗 − , 𝑚+ , 𝑚− ⟩. (121)
The definition of the EPRL model requires the introduction of an (arbitrary) subgroup 𝑆𝑈 (2) ⊂
𝑆𝑝𝑖𝑛(4). This subgroup will be shown, a posteriori , to be the internal gauge group of the gravita-
tional phase space in connection variables (appearing in the classical canonical study of Section 3.2
and leading to the quantization of Section 4). In the quantum theory, the representation theory of
this 𝑆𝑈 (2) subgroup will be important. This importance will soon emerge as apparent from the
imposition of the constraints that define the EPRL as well as the FK model of Section 9.
The link between the unitary representations of 𝑠𝑝𝑖𝑛(4) and those of 𝑠𝑢(2) comes from the fact
that the former can be expressed as a direct sum of the latter according to
𝑗+
⨁︁+𝑗 −
H𝑗 + ,𝑗 − = H𝑗 . (122)
𝑗=|𝑗 + −𝑗 − |
As the unitary irreducible representations of the subgroup 𝑆𝑈 (2) ∈ 𝑆𝑝𝑖𝑛(4) are essential in under-
standing the link of the EPRL model and the operator canonical formulation of LQG, it will be
convenient to express the action of the generators of the Lie algebra 𝑠𝑝𝑖𝑛(4) in a basis adapted to
the above equation. In order to do this, we first notice that the Lie algebra (120) can be equiva-
lently characterized in terms of the generators of a rotation subgroup 𝐿𝑖 and the remaining “boost”
generators 𝐾 𝑖 as follows
[𝐿3 , 𝐿± ] = ± 𝐿± , [𝐿+ , 𝐿− ] = 2 𝐿3 ,
[𝐿+ , 𝐾+ ] = [𝐿− , 𝐾− ] = [𝐿3 , 𝐾3 ] = 0,
[𝐾3 , 𝐿± ] = ± 𝐾± , [𝐿± , 𝐾∓ ] = ±2 𝐾3 , [𝐿3 , 𝐾± ] = ± 𝐾± ,
[𝐾3 , 𝐾± ] = ± 𝐿± , [𝐾+ , 𝐾− ] = 2 𝐿3 , (123)
where 𝐾± = 𝐾 1 ± 𝑖𝐾 2 and 𝐿± = 𝐿1 ±𝑖𝐿2 , respectively. The action of the previous generators in
the basis |𝑗 + , 𝑗 − , 𝑗, 𝑚⟩ can be shown to be
𝐿3 |𝑗 + , 𝑗 − , 𝑗, 𝑚⟩ = 𝑚|𝑗 + , 𝑗 − , 𝑗, 𝑚⟩,
√︀
𝐿+ |𝑗 + , 𝑗 − , 𝑗, 𝑚⟩ = (𝑗 + 𝑚 + 1)(𝑗 − 𝑚)|𝑗 + , 𝑗 − , 𝑗, 𝑚 + 1⟩,
√︀
𝐿− |𝑗 + , 𝑗 − , 𝑗, 𝑚⟩ = (𝑗 + 𝑚)(𝑗 − 𝑚 + 1)|𝑗 + , 𝑗 − , 𝑗, 𝑚 − 1⟩,
𝐾 3 |𝑗 + , 𝑗 − , 𝑗, 𝑚⟩ =
√︀ √︀
𝛼𝑗 𝑗 2 − 𝑚2 |𝑗 + , 𝑗 − , 𝑗 − 1, 𝑚⟩ + 𝛾𝑗 𝑚|𝑗 + , 𝑗 − , 𝑗, 𝑚⟩ − 𝛼𝑗+1 (𝑗 + 1)2 − 𝑚2 |𝑗 + , 𝑗 − , 𝑗 + 1, 𝑚⟩,
√︀
𝐾 + |𝑗 + , 𝑗 − , 𝑗, 𝑚⟩ = 𝛼𝑗 (𝑗 − 𝑚)(𝑗 − 𝑚 − 1)|𝑗 + , 𝑗 − , 𝑗 − 1, 𝑚 + 1⟩
√︀
+𝛾𝑗 (𝑗 − 𝑚)(𝑗 + 𝑚 + 1)|𝑗 + , 𝑗 − , 𝑗, 𝑚 + 1⟩
√︀
+𝛼𝑗+1 (𝑗 + 𝑚 + 1)(𝑗 + 𝑚 + 2)|𝑗 + , 𝑗 − , 𝑗 + 1, 𝑚 + 1⟩,
√︀
𝐾 − |𝑗 + , 𝑗 − , 𝑗, 𝑚⟩ = −𝛼𝑗 (𝑗 + 𝑚)(𝑗 + 𝑚 − 1)|𝑗 + , 𝑗 − , 𝑗 − 1, 𝑚 − 1⟩
√︀
+𝛾𝑗 (𝑗 + 𝑚)(𝑗 − 𝑚 + 1)|𝑗 + , 𝑗 − , 𝑗, 𝑚 − 1⟩
√︀
−𝛼𝑗+1 (𝑗 − 𝑚 + 1)(𝑗 − 𝑚 + 2)|𝑗 + , 𝑗 − , 𝑗 + 1, 𝑚 − 1⟩, (124)

where
√︃
𝑗 + (𝑗 + + 1) − 𝑗 − (𝑗 − + 1) (𝑗 2 − (𝑗 + + 𝑗 − + 1)2 )(𝑗 2 − (𝑗 + − 𝑗 − )2 )
𝛾𝑗 = and 𝛼𝑗 = . (125)
𝑗(𝑗 + 1) 𝑗 2 (4𝑗 2 − 1)
The previous equations will be important in what follows: they will allow for the characterization
of the solutions of the quantum simplicity constraints in a direct manner. This concludes the
review of the representation theory that is necessary for the definition of the EPRL model.
7.2 The linear simplicity constraints

As first emphasized in [182], the quadratic simplicity constraints (25) – and more precisely in their
dual version presented below (154) – are equivalent in the discrete setting to the linear constraint
on each face of a given tetrahedron
1 𝑖
𝐷𝑓𝑖 = 𝐿𝑖𝑓 − 𝐾 ≈ 0, (126)
𝛾 𝑓
where the label 𝑓 makes reference to a face 𝑓 ∈ Δ⋆ , and where (very importantly) the subgroup
𝑆𝑈 (2) ⊂ 𝑆𝑝𝑖𝑛(4) that is necessary for the definition of the above constraints is chosen arbitrarily
at each tetrahedron, equivalent on each edge 𝑒 ∈ Δ⋆ . Such choice of the rotation subgroup is
the precise analog of the time gauge in the canonical analysis of Section 3. Moreover, the linear
simplicity constraint above is the simplicial version of the canonical primary constraint (37). The
EPRL model is defined by imposing the previous constraints as operator equations on the Hilbert
spaces defined by the unitary irreducible representations of 𝑆𝑝𝑖𝑛(4) that take part in the state-sum
of BF theory. We will show in Section 7.4 that the models constructed on the requirement of a
suitable imposition of the linear constraints (126) satisfy the usual quadratic Plebanski constraints
in the path-integral formulation (up to quantum corrections, which are neglected in the usual
semiclassical limit).
It will be useful in what follows to write the above constraint in its equivalent form
𝐷𝑓𝑖 = (1 − 𝛾)𝐽𝑓+𝑖 − (1 + 𝛾)𝐽𝑓−𝑖 ≈ 0, (127)
From the commutation relations (120) of Section 7.1 we can easily compute the commutator of
the previous tetrahedron constraints and conclude that in fact it does not close, namely
[︂ ]︂
𝑖 𝑗 𝑖𝑗 1 𝑘 2 𝑘
[𝐷𝑓 , 𝐷𝑓 ′ ] = 𝛿𝑓 𝑓 ′ 𝜖 𝑘 (1 + 2 )𝐿𝑓 − 𝐾𝑒
𝛾 𝛾
2
1 − 𝛾 𝑖𝑗 𝑘
= 2𝛿𝑒𝑒′ 𝜖𝑖𝑗𝑘 𝐷𝑘 + 𝛿𝑒𝑒′ 𝜖 𝑘 𝐿𝑓 . (128)
𝛾2
The previous commutation relations imply that the constraint algebra is not closed and cannot
therefore be imposed as operator equations on the states summed over in the BF partition function
in general. There are two interesting exceptions to the previous statement:
1. The first is to take 𝛾 = ±1, in which case the constraint (186) can be imposed strongly. More
precisely, for the plus sign it reduces to the condition 𝐽𝑓𝑖 + = 0 (or equivalently for the other
sign 𝐽𝑓𝑖 − = 0), which amounts to setting all the left quantum numbers in the BF state-sum
for the group 𝑆𝑝𝑖𝑛(4) to zero. It is immediate to see that if we impose such restriction on
the 𝑆𝑝𝑖𝑛(4) BF amplitude (106) it simply reduces to the amplitude (102) defining 𝑆𝑈 (2) BF
theory. Thus, this possibility does not lead to an acceptable model for quantum gravity in
4D.

52 Alejandro Perez
2. The second possibility is to work in the sector where 𝐿𝑖𝑓 = 0. We will show later that this
corresponds to the famous Barret–Crane model [59] with the various limitations discussed in
Section 10.
The EPRL model is obtained by restricting the representations appearing in the expression of the
BF partition function so that at each tetrahedron the linear constraints (186) are satisfied the
strongest possible way that is compatible with the uncertainties relations stemming from (187). In
addition, one would add the requirement that the state-space of a tetrahedra is compatible with
the state-space of the analogous excitation in the canonical context of LQG so that arbitrary states
in the kinematical state of LQG have non-trivial amplitudes in the model.
On the weak imposition of the linear simplicity constraints

We now discuss the weak imposition of the linear simplicity constraints in the quantum framework.
There are essentially three views in the literature: two of them, discussed below, directly concerns
the way the EPRL model has usually been introduced. The third possibility is the semiclassical
view based on the coherent-state representation leading to the FK model (see Section 9).
7.2.1 Riemannian model: The Gupta–Bleuler criterion

Due to the fact that the constraints 𝐷𝑓𝑖 do not form a closed (first class) algebra in the generic case,
one needs to devise a weaker sense in which they are to be imposed. One possibility is to consider
the Gupta–Bleuler criterion consisting in selecting a suitable class of states for which the matrix
elements on 𝐷𝑓𝑖 vanish. In this respect, one notices that if we choose the subspace H𝑗 ⊂ H𝑗 + ,𝑗 −
one has
𝛾𝑗
⟨𝑗 + , 𝑗 − , 𝑗, 𝑞|𝐷𝑓3 |𝑗 + , 𝑗 − , 𝑗, 𝑚⟩ = 𝛿𝑞,𝑚 𝑚(1 − ),
𝛾
√︀ (︁ 𝛾𝑗 )︁
⟨𝑗 + , 𝑗 − , 𝑗, 𝑞|𝐷𝑓± |𝑗 + , 𝑗 − , 𝑗, 𝑚⟩ = 𝛿𝑞±1,𝑚 (𝑗 ± 𝑚 + 1)(𝑗 ∓ 𝑚) 1 − .
𝛾
One immediately observes that matrix elements of the linear constraints vanish in this subclass if
one can chose
𝑗 + (𝑗 + + 1) − 𝑗 − (𝑗 − + 1)
𝛾𝑗 = = 𝛾. (129)
𝑗(𝑗 + 1)
There are two cases:
1. Case 𝛾 < 1: Following [142], in this case one restricts the 𝑆𝑝𝑖𝑛(4) representations to
𝑗
𝑗 ± = (1 ± 𝛾) , (130)
2
which amounts to choosing the maximum weight component 𝑗 = 𝑗 + + 𝑗 − in the expan-
sion (182). Simple algebra shows that condition (188) is met. There are indeed other solutions
[140] of the Gupta–Bleuler criterion in this case.
2. Case 𝛾 > 1: In this case [13] one restricts the 𝑆𝑝𝑖𝑛(4) representations to
𝑗 𝛾−1
𝑗 ± = (𝛾 ± 1) + , (131)
2 2
which amounts to choosing the minimum weight component 𝑗 = 𝑗 + − 𝑗 − in the expansion
(182). This choice of 𝑗 ± is the solution to condition (188).

7.2.2 Riemannian model: The Master-constraint criterion

Another criterion for weak imposition can be developed by studying the spectrum of the Master
constraint 𝑀𝑓 = 𝐷𝑓 · 𝐷𝑓 . Strong imposition of the constraints 𝐷𝑓𝑖 would amount to looking for the
kernel of the Master constraint 𝑀𝑓 . However, generically the positive operator associated with the
Master constraint does not contain the zero eigenvalue in the spectrum due to the open nature of
the constraint algebra (187). The proposal of [166], that we follow here, is to look for the minimum
eigenvalue among spaces H𝑗 ∈ H𝑗 + ,𝑗 − . Explicitly
𝑀𝑓 |𝜓 >= 𝑚𝑗 ± ,𝑗 |𝜓 >, (132)
where
𝑚𝑗 ± ,𝑗 = (1 − 𝛾)2 𝑗+ (𝑗+ + 1) + (1 + 𝛾 2 )𝑗− (𝑗− + 1) − (1 − 𝛾 2 )[𝑗(𝑗 + 1) − 𝑗+ (𝑗+ + 1) − 𝑗− (𝑗− + 1)].
There are two cases:

1. Case 𝛾 < 1: In this case the minimum eigenvalue is obtained for
𝑗 ± = (1 ± 𝛾)𝑗/2, (133)
i.e., one has

𝑚𝑗 ± ,𝑗 ≥ 𝑚𝑗 ,
2 2
where 𝑚𝑗 = ~ (1 − 𝛾 )𝑗, where we have restored the explicit dependence on ~ so that it is
apparent that the selected eigenvalue vanishes in the semiclassical limit ~ → 0 and 𝑘 → ∞
with ~𝑘 = constant.
2. Case 𝛾 > 1: In this case, the minimum eigenvalue is obtained for
𝑗 ± = (𝛾 ± 1)𝑗/2, (134)
for which 𝑚𝑗 = ~2 (𝛾 2 − 1)𝑗, and thus vanishes in the semiclassical limit ~ → 0 and 𝑘 → ∞
with ~𝑘 = constant.
The Master-constraint criterion will be used here as the basic justification for the definition of
the EPRL model. Notice however, that the Master constraint is only invariant under the subgroup
𝑆𝑈 (2) ⊂ 𝑆𝑝𝑖𝑛(4) chosen at each tetrahedron. Its lack of Lorentz invariance is clear from the
fact that its validity is justified from the canonical analysis in the time gauge. Nevertheless, as
shown in [333], one can also write down a criterion (equivalent to the Master-constraint one) in
a manifestly 𝑆𝑝𝑖𝑛(4) invariant way. This reflects the arbitrariness in the choice of the internal
subgroup 𝑆𝑈 (2) ⊂ 𝑆𝑝𝑖𝑛(4) and implies the consistency of the time gauge. In order to get a
gauge-invariant constraint, one starts from the Master constraint and uses the 𝐷𝑓𝑖 = 0 classically
to rewrite it entirely in terms of the 𝑆𝑝𝑖𝑛(4) Casimirs, namely
𝑀𝑓 = (1 − 𝛾)2 𝐽+2
+ (1 + 𝛾)2 𝐽−
2
− 2(1 − 𝛾 2 )𝐽+ · 𝐽−
≈ (1 + 𝛾 2 )𝐶2 − 2𝐶1 𝛾, (135)
where 𝐶1 and 𝐶2 are the two 𝑠𝑝𝑖𝑛(4) Casimirs given in Eq. (121). The Lorentz invariant version
of the Master constraint is hence
𝑀𝑓𝐿𝐼 = (1 + 𝛾 2 )𝐶2 − 2𝐶1 𝛾 = 0. (136)
One can verify for the cases 𝛾 < 1 and 𝛾 > 1 the Lorentz invariant criterion is just equivalent to
the Master-constraint analysis above.

54 Alejandro Perez
7.2.3 Riemannian model: Restrictions on the Immirzi parameter

We have just shown how the states in H𝑗 + ,𝑗 − can be restricted in order to satisfy the linear
simplicity constraints according to different criteria. From all these the EPRL model is defined
most simply using the Master-constraint criterion. In all cases, the restriction takes the form of the
selection of a subspace H𝑗 ⊂ H𝑗 + ,𝑗 − given by unitary irreducible representations of a subgroup
𝑆𝑈 (2) ∈ 𝑆𝑝𝑖𝑛(4). As we will show in what follows, this implies that the boundary states of the
spin-foam models defined by the EPRL construction are in correspondence to 𝑆𝑈 (2) spin network
states: the states of the kinematical Hilbert space of LQG reviewed in Part II. This is very nice as
it suggests that the spin-foam amplitudes can be interpreted as dynamical transition amplitudes
of the canonical quantum theory. Now, in order for this to be so, one would like arbitrary spins
𝑗 ∈ N/2 to be admissible in the state sum. We shall now see that this imposes restrictions on the
possible values of the Immirzi parameter. However, these restrictions seem so far of little physical
importance as they are a special feature of the Riemannian model that is absent in its Lorentzian
relative. As above, there are two distinct cases:
1. Case 𝛾 < 1: If one wants the spin 𝑗 ∈ N/2 to be arbitrary, then the only possibilities
are 𝛾 = 0 or 𝛾 = 1. Rational 𝛾 values would restrict the spins 𝑗 to a subclass in N/2. This
restriction is not natural from the viewpoint of LQG. Its relevance, if any, remains mysterious
at this stage.
2. Case 𝛾 > 1: In this case, 𝛾 ∈ N would allow any 𝑗 ∈ N/2. Rational choices of 𝛾 have the
same effect as in the previous case.
7.2.4 Riemannian model: Overview of the solutions of the linear simplicity con-
straints
We have reviewed different criteria given in the literature for the definition of the subset of quantum
states that are selected in the construction of the EPRL model. Of all the criteria, the Master
constraint is the most direct and clear cut. For the Riemannian model, the result is:
1. Case 𝛾 < 1:
𝑗 ± = (1 ± 𝛾)𝑗/2, (137)
2. Case 𝛾 > 1:
𝑗 ± = (𝛾 ± 1)𝑗/2, (138)
where 𝑗 ∈ N/2 is arbitrary – except from the requirement that 𝑗 ± ∈ N/2, which depends on the
value of the Immirzi parameter according to Section 7.2.2. From now on we denote the subset of
admissible representation of 𝑆𝑝𝑖𝑛(4) as
K𝛾 ⊂ Irrep(𝑆𝑝𝑖𝑛(4)). (139)
It follows from the discussion in the previous sections that states Ψ ∈ K𝛾 satisfy the con-
straints (186) in the following semiclassical sense:
(𝐾𝑓𝑖 − 𝛾𝐿𝑖𝑓 )Ψ = O𝑠𝑐 , (140)
where the symbol O𝑠𝑐 (order semiclassical) denotes a quantity that vanishes in limit ~ → 0, 𝑗 → ∞
with ~𝑗 = constant. Equivalently, one has
𝑖 𝑖
[(1 − 𝛾)𝐽+ − (1 + 𝛾)𝐽− ]Ψ = O𝑠𝑐 . (141)

Using the decomposition (122), the last equation can be written graphically as:
k k
(1 + γ) +(1 − γ) = Osc . (142)
sc j− j+ j− j+
The previous equation will be of great importance in the graphical calculus that will allow us to
show that the linear constraint imposed here at the level of states implies the vanishing of the
quadratic Plebanski constraints (25) and their fluctuations, computed in the path integral sense,
in the appropriate large spin semiclassical limit.
7.3 Presentation of the EPRL amplitude

Here we complete the definition of the EPRL models by imposing the linear constraints on the BF
amplitudes constructed in Section 6. We will also show that the path-integral expectation value
of the Plebanski constraints (25), as well as their fluctuations, vanish in a suitable semiclassical
sense. This shows that the EPRL model can be considered as a lattice definition of quantum-gravity
theory.
We start with the Riemannian model for which a straightforward graphical notation is available.
The first step is the translation of Eq. (122) in terms of the graphical notation introduced in
Section 6. Concretely, for 𝛾 < 1, one has 𝑗 ± = (1 ± 𝛾)𝑗/2 ∈ K𝛾 – as defined in (139) – becomes
𝑗
⨁︁
1| 2j (1 j
= . (143)
𝛼=𝛾𝑗
For 𝛾 > 1 we have
𝛾𝑗
⨁︁
1| 2j (1 j
= . (144)
𝛼=𝑗
The implementation of the linear constraints of Section (7.2) consist in restricting the represen-
tations 𝜌𝑓 of 𝑆𝑝𝑖𝑛(4) appearing in the state sum amplitudes of BF theory as written in Eq. (104)
to the subclass 𝜌𝑓 ∈ K𝛾 ⊂ Irrep(𝑆𝑝𝑖𝑛(4)), defined above, while projecting to the highest weight
term in (143) for 𝛾 < 1. For 𝛾 > 1 one must take the minimum weight term in (144). The action
of this projection will be denoted Y𝑗 : H(1+𝛾)𝑗/2,|(1−𝛾)|𝑗/2 → H𝑗 , graphically

56 Alejandro Perez
⎡ ⎤
⎢ 1| 2j (1 ⎥ j
Y𝑗 ⎢
⎣
⎥=
⎦ . (145)
Explicitly, one takes the expression of the BF partition function (88) and modifies it by replacing
𝑒
the projector 𝑃inv (𝜌1 , · · · , 𝜌4 ) with 𝜌1 , · · · 𝜌4 ∈ K𝛾 by a new object
𝑒 𝑒 𝑒
𝑃EPRL (𝑗1 , · · · , 𝑗4 ) ≡ 𝑃inv (𝜌1 · · · 𝜌4 )(Y𝑗1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ Y𝑗4 )𝑃inv (𝜌1 · · · 𝜌4 ), (146)
with 𝑗1 , · · · 𝑗4 ∈ N/2 implementing the linear constraints described in Section 7.2. Graphically the
modification of BF theory that produces the EPRL model corresponds to the replacement
𝑒 𝑒
𝑃inv (𝜌1 · · · 𝜌4 ) = 𝑃EPRL (𝑗1 · · · 𝑗4 ) = (147)
on the expression (104), where we have dropped the representation labels from the figure for
simplicity. We have done the operation (145) on each of the four pairs of representations. The
𝑆𝑝𝑖𝑛(4) integrations represented by the two boxes at the top and bottom of the previous graphical
expression restore the full 𝑆𝑝𝑖𝑛(4) invariance as the projection (145) breaks this latter symmetry
for being based on the selection of a special subgroup 𝑆𝑈 (2) ⊂ 𝑆𝑝𝑖𝑛(4) in its definition (see
Section 7.5 for an important implication). One should simply keep in mind that green wires in
the previous two equations and in what follows are labeled by arbitrary spins 𝑗 (which are being
summed over in the expression of the amplitude (148)), while red and blue wires are labeled by
𝑗 + = (1 + 𝛾)𝑗/2 and 𝑗 − = |1 − 𝛾|𝑗/2, respectively. With this (104) is modified to
∑︁ ∏︁ ∏︁
𝐸 𝑒
𝑍EPRL (Δ) = d|1−𝛾| 𝑗 d(1+𝛾) 𝑗 𝑃EPRL (𝑗1 , · · · , 𝑗4 )
2 2
𝜌𝑓 ∈K 𝑓 ∈Δ⋆ 𝑒
∑︁ ∏︁
= d|1−𝛾| 𝑗 d(1+𝛾) 𝑗 , (148)
2 2
𝜌𝑓 ∈K 𝑓 ∈Δ⋆
The previous expression defines the EPRL model amplitude.
7.3.1 The spin-foam representation of the EPRL amplitude
Now we will work out the spin-foam representation of the EPRL amplitude, which, at this stage,
will take no more effort than the derivation of the spin-foam representation for 𝑆𝑝𝑖𝑛(4) BF theory

as we went from Eq. (104) to (106) in Section 6. The first step is given in the following equation
= =
4 ι ῑ
∑︁
ι ῑ
= ,(149)
𝜄
which follows from the invariance of the Haar measure (84) (in the last line we have used (100)).
More precisely, the integration of the subgroup 𝑆𝑈 (2) ∈ 𝑆𝑝𝑖𝑛(4), represented by the green box on
the right, can be absorbed by suitable redefinition of the integration on the right and left copies
of 𝑆𝑈 (2), represented by the red and blue boxes, respectively. With this we can already write the
spin-foam representation of the EPRL model, namely
ι2v
ι1v
∑︁ ∑︁ ∏︁ ∏︁
𝐸 ι
𝑍EPRL (Δ) = d|1−𝛾| 𝑗 d(1+𝛾) 𝑗 , (150)
2 2
𝑗𝑓 𝜄𝑒 𝑓 ∈Δ⋆ 𝑣∈Δ⋆
ι5v
ι4v
where the vertex amplitude (graphically represented) depends on the 10 spins 𝑗 associated to the
face-wires and the 5 intertwiners associated to the five edges (tetrahedra). As in previous equations
we have left the spin labels of wires implicit for notational simplicity. We can write the previous
spin-foam amplitude in another form by integrating out all the projectors (boxes) explicitly. Using
(100), we get

58 Alejandro Perez
= y
; (151)
x
ι ῑ
replacing this in (148) we get

∑︁ ∏︁ ∑︁ ∏︁
𝐸
𝑍EPRL (Δ) = d|𝛾−1| 𝑗 d(𝛾+1) 𝑗 (152)
2 2
𝑗𝑓 𝑓 ∈Δ⋆ 𝜄𝑒 𝑣∈Δ⋆
ι−
2 j3 ι+ j3
|1−γ| 2
2 |1+γ| 2
j2 ι−
|1−γ| 2 |1−γ|
j8
2
3
|1+γ|
j2
2 |1+γ|
j8 ι+
3
2
j
|1−γ| 29 j9
|1+γ| 2
∑︁ 5
∑︁ ∏︁ j7 j7
𝑓𝜄𝜄−𝑎 ,𝜄+ ι−
1 |1−γ| 2 |1−γ|
j4
ι+
1
|1+γ| 2 |1+γ|
j4
2 ,
2
𝑎 𝑎
+ 𝑎=1
𝜄− − +
1 ···𝜄5 𝜄1 ···𝜄5 j10
|1−γ| j10
2 |1+γ| 2
j
j1 |1−γ| 26 j1 j6
|1−γ| ι− |1+γ| |1+γ|
2 4 2 2
ι+
4
j5 j5
ι− |1−γ| |1+γ|
5 2 ι+
5
2
where the coefficients 𝑓𝜄𝜄+ 𝜄− are called the fusion coefficients, which appear in their graphical form
already in (151), more explicitly
j1
|1−γ| 2
j2
|1−γ| 2
ι−
j3
|1−γ| 2 j1
j
|1−γ| 24 j2
𝑓𝜄𝜄+ 𝜄− (𝑗1 , · · · , 𝑗4 ) = j3
ι . (153)
j1
|1+γ| 2
j2 j4
|1+γ| 2
ι+ |1+γ|
j3
2
j4
|1+γ| 2
The previous is the form of the EPRL model as derived in [164].
7.4 Proof of validity of the Plebanski constraints

In this section, we prove that the quadratic constraints are satisfied in the sense that their path
integral expectation value and fluctuation vanish in the appropriate semiclassical limit.

7.4.1 The dual version of the constraints
In this section, we rewrite the Plebanski constraints (25) in an equivalent version where spacetime
indices are traded with internal Lorentz indices, namely
𝐼𝐽 𝐾𝐿
𝜖𝐼𝐽𝐾𝐿 𝐵𝜇𝜈 𝐵𝜌𝜎 − 𝑒 𝜖𝜇𝜈𝜌𝜎 ≈ 0. (154)
The constraints in this form are more suitable for translation into the discrete formulation. More
𝐼𝐽
precisely, according to (81), the smooth fields 𝐵𝜇𝜈 is now associated with the discrete quantities
𝐵triangles , or equivalently 𝐵𝑓 as, we recall, faces 𝑓 ∈ Δ⋆ are in one-to-one correspondence to
𝐼𝐽 𝐼𝐽
triangles in four dimensions. The constraints (154) are local constraints valid at every spacetime
point. In the discrete setting, spacetime points are represented by four-simplexes or (more adapted
to our discussion) vertices 𝑣 ∈ Δ⋆ . With all this, the constraints (154) are discretized as follows:
Triangle (or diagonal) constraints: 𝜖𝐼𝐽𝐾𝐿 𝐵𝑓𝐼𝐽 𝐵𝑓𝐾𝐿 = 0, (155)
for all 𝑓 ∈ 𝑣, i.e., for each and every face of the 10 possible faces touching the vertex 𝑣.
Tetrahedron constraints: 𝜖𝐼𝐽𝐾𝐿 𝐵𝑓𝐼𝐽 𝐵𝑓𝐾𝐿

′ = 0, (156)
for all 𝑓, 𝑓 ′ ∈ 𝑣 such that they are dual to triangles sharing a one-simplex, i.e., belonging to the
same tetrahedron out of the five possible ones.
4-simplex constraints: 𝜖𝐼𝐽𝐾𝐿 𝐵𝑓𝐼𝐽 𝐵𝑓𝐾𝐿

¯ = 𝑒𝑣 , (157)
for any pair of faces 𝑓, 𝑓¯ ∈ 𝑣 that are dual to triangles sharing a single point. The last constraint
will require a more detailed discussion. At this point, let us point out that constraint (157) is
interpreted as a definition of the four volume 𝑒𝑣 of the four-simplex. The constraint requires that
such definition be consistent, i.e., the true condition is
𝜖𝐼𝐽𝐾𝐿 𝐵𝑓𝐼𝐽 𝐵𝑓𝐾𝐿

¯ = 𝜖𝐼𝐽𝐾𝐿 𝐵𝑓𝐼𝐽′ 𝐵𝑓𝐾𝐿 𝐼𝐽 𝐾𝐿
¯′ = 𝜖𝐼𝐽𝐾𝐿 𝐵𝑓 ′′ 𝐵𝑓¯′′ = · · · = 𝑒𝑣 (158)
for all five different possible pairs of 𝑓 and 𝑓¯ in a four simplex, and where we assume the pairs 𝑓 -𝑓¯
are ordered in agreement with the orientation of the complex Δ⋆ .
7.4.2 The path integral expectation value of the Plebanski constraints
Here we prove that the Plebanski constraints are satisfied by the EPRL amplitudes in the path
integral expectation value sense.
The triangle constraints:
We start from the simplest case: the triangle (or diagonal) constraints (155). We choose a face
𝑓 ∈ 𝑣 (dual to a triangle) in the cable-wire-diagram of Eq. (148). This amounts to choosing a pair
of wires (right and left representations) connecting two nodes in the vertex cable wire diagram.
The two nodes are dual to the two tetrahedra – in the four simplex dual to the vertex – sharing
the chosen triangle. From (29) one can show that
𝜖𝐼𝐽𝐾𝐿 𝐵𝑓𝐼𝐽 𝐵𝑓𝐾𝐿 ∝ (1 + 𝛾)2 𝐽𝑓− · 𝐽𝑓− − (1 − 𝛾)2 𝐽𝑓+ · 𝐽𝑓+ , (159)

60 Alejandro Perez
where 𝐽𝑓± denotes the self-dual and anti-self-dual parts of Π𝐼𝐽

𝑓 . The path integral expectation value
of the triangle constraint is then
⟨(1 + 𝛾)2 𝐽𝑓− · 𝐽𝑓− − (1 − 𝛾)2 𝐽𝑓+ · 𝐽𝑓+ ⟩ ∝ (160)
(1 + 𝛾)2 − (1 − 𝛾)2 = O𝑠𝑐 ,
w w
where the double graspings on the anti-self-dual (blue) wire and the self-dual (red) wire represent
the action of the Casimirs 𝐽𝑓− ·𝐽𝑓− and 𝐽𝑓+ ·𝐽𝑓+ on the cable-wire diagram of the corresponding vertex.
Direct evaluation shows that the previous diagram is proportional to ~2 𝑗𝑓 , which vanishes in the
semiclassical limit ~ → 0, 𝑗 → ∞ with ~𝑗 = constant. We use the notation already adopted in (140)
and call such a quantity O𝑠𝑐 . This concludes the proof that the triangle Plebanski constraints are
satisfied in the semiclassical sense.
The tetrahedra constraints:
The proof of the validity of the tetrahedra constraints (156). In this case we also have
(1 + 𝛾)2 − (1 − 𝛾)2 = O𝑠𝑐 . (161)
w w
where we have chosen an arbitrary pair of faces. In order to prove this, let us develop the term on
the right. The result follows from

= =
(1 + 𝛾) (1 + 𝛾)2
= + O𝑠𝑐 = + O𝑠𝑐 =
|1 − 𝛾| (1 − 𝛾)2
(1 + 𝛾)2
= + O𝑠𝑐 , (162)
(1 − 𝛾)2
where in the first line we have used the fact that the double grasping can be shifted through
the group integration (due to gauge invariance (84)), and in the first and second terms on the
second line we have used Eq. (142) to move the graspings on self-dual wires to the corresponding
anti-self-dual wires. Eq. (161) follows immediately from the previous one; the argument works in
the same way for any other pair of faces. Notice that the first equality in Eq. (162) implies that
we can view the Plebanski constraint as applied in the frame of the tetrahedron as well as in a
Lorentz invariant framework (the double grasping defines an intertwiner operator commuting with
𝑒
the projection 𝑃inv represented by the box). An analogous statement also holds for the triangle
constraints (14.1).
The 4-simplex constraints

Now we show the validity of the four simplex constraints in their form (158). As we show below,
this last set of constraints follow from the 𝑆𝑝𝑖𝑛(4) gauge invariance of the EPRL node (i.e., the
validity of the Gauss law) plus the validity of the tetrahedra constraints (156). Gauge invariance
of the node takes the following form in graphical notation
+ + + = 0, (163)
where the above equation represents the gauge invariance under infinitesimal left 𝑆𝑈 (2) rotations.
An analogous equation with insertions on the right is also valid. The validity of the previous
equation can again be related to the invariance of the Haar measure used in the integration on the
gauge group that defines the boxes (84).
Now we choose an arbitrary pair 𝑓 and 𝑓¯ (where, recall, 𝑓¯ is one of the three possible faces
whose dual triangle only shares a point with the one corresponding to 𝑓 ) and will show how the
four volume 𝑒𝑣 defined by it equals the one defined by any other admissible pair. The first step
is to show that we get the same result using the pair 𝑓 -𝑓¯ and 𝑓 -𝑓¯, where 𝑓¯ is another of the
three admissible faces opposite to 𝑓 . The full result follows from applying the same procedure
iteratively to reach any admissible pair. It will be obvious from the treatment given below that

62 Alejandro Perez
this is possible. Thus, for a given pair of admissible faces we have
𝑒𝑣 = (1 + 𝛾)2 − (1 − 𝛾)2 =
w w
⎡ ⎤
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢
2⎢
⎥
−(1 + 𝛾) ⎢ + + ⎥+
⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
w w w
⎡ ⎤
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢
2⎢
⎥
+(1 − 𝛾) ⎢ + + ⎥=
⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
w w w
−(1 + 𝛾)2 + (1 − 𝛾)2 + O𝑠𝑐 , (164)
w w
where going from the first line to the second and third lines we have simply used (163) on the
bottom graspings on the right and left wires. The last line results from the validity of (156): notice
that the second terms in the second and third lines add up to O𝑠𝑐 as well as the third terms in the
second and third line. There is an overall minus sign, which amounts to an orientation factor. It
should be clear that we can apply the same procedure to arrive at any admissible pair.
7.5 Modifications of the EPRL model

7.5.1 𝑃EPRL is not a projector
𝑒
Let us study in a bit more detail the object 𝑃EPRL (𝑗1 , · · · , 𝑗4 ). We see that it is made of two
ingredients. The first is the projection to the maximum weight subspace H𝑗 for 𝛾 > 1 in the
decomposition of H𝑗 + ,𝑗 − for 𝑗 ± = (1 ± 𝛾)𝑗/2 (𝑗 ± = (𝛾 ± 1)𝑗/2 for 𝛾 > 1) in terms of irreducible
representations of an arbitrarily chosen 𝑆𝑈 (2) subgroup of 𝑆𝑝𝑖𝑛(4). The second ingredient is to
eliminate the dependence on the choice of subgroup by group averaging with respect to the full
𝑒
gauge group 𝑆𝑝𝑖𝑛(4). This is diagrammatically represented in (147). However, 𝑃EPRL (𝑗1 , · · · , 𝑗4 )
is not a projector, namely
𝑒
𝑃EPRL (𝑗1 , · · · , 𝑗4 )2 ̸= 𝑃EPRL
𝑒
(𝑗1 , · · · , 𝑗4 ). (165)

Technically, this follows from (146) and the fact that
𝑒
[𝑃inv (𝜌1 · · · 𝜌4 ), (Y𝑗1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ Y𝑗4 )] ̸= 0, (166)
i.e., the projection imposing the linear constraints (defined on the frame of a tetrahedron or edge)
and the 𝑆𝑝𝑖𝑛(4) (or Lorentz) group averaging – rendering the result gauge invariant – do not
𝑒
commute. The fact the 𝑃EPRL (𝑗1 , · · · , 𝑗4 ) is not a projection operator has important consequences
in the mathematical structure of the model:
1. From (148) one can immediately obtain the following expression for the EPRL amplitude
∑︁ ∏︁ ∏︁
𝑒
𝑍EPRL (Δ) = d|1−𝛾| 𝑗 d(1+𝛾) 𝑗 𝑃EPRL (𝑗1 , · · · , 𝑗4 ). (167)
2 2
𝜌𝑓 ∈K 𝑓 ∈Δ⋆ 𝑒
This expression has the formal structure of expression (88) for BF theory. However, the
𝑒
formal similarity is broken by the fact that 𝑃EPRL (𝑗1 , · · · , 𝑗4 ) is not a projection operator.
From the formal perspective, the possibility that the amplitudes be defined in terms of a
network of projectors (as in BF theory) might provide an interesting structure that might be
of relevance in the definition of a discretization-independent model (see discussion in Part V).
𝑒
On the contrary, the failure of 𝑃EPRL (𝑗1 , · · · , 𝑗4 ) to be a projector may lead, in my opinion,
to difficulties in the limit, where the complex Δ is refined: the increasing of the number of
edges might produce either trivial or divergent amplitudes.25
𝑒
2. Another difficulty associated with 𝑃EPRL (𝑗1 , · · · , 𝑗4 )2 ̸= 𝑃EPRL
𝑒
(𝑗1 , · · · , 𝑗4 ) is the failure of
the amplitudes of the EPRL model, as defined here, to be consistent with the abstract notion
of spin foams as defined in [38]. This is a point of crucial importance under current discussion
in the community. The point is that the cellular decomposition Δ has no physical meaning
and is to be interpreted as a subsidiary regulating structure to be removed when computing
physical quantities. Spin foams (as defined in Section 5) can fit in different ways on a given
Δ, yet any of these different embeddings represent the same physical process (like the same
gravitational field in different coordinates). Consistency requires the spin-foam amplitudes
to be independent of the embedding, i.e., well defined on the equivalence classes of spin
foams as defined by Baez in [38] (the importance of these consistency requirements was
𝑒
emphasized in [90]). The amplitude (167) fails this requirement due to 𝑃EPRL (𝑗1 , · · · , 𝑗4 )2 ̸=
𝑒
𝑃EPRL (𝑗1 , · · · , 𝑗4 ).
7.5.2 The Warsaw proposal
The above difficulties have a simple solution in the Riemannian case. As proposed in [49, 235] one
𝑒
can obtain a consistent modification of the EPRL model by replacing 𝑃EPRL in (167) by a genuine
𝑒
projector 𝑃𝑤 , graphically
25 𝑒
This is obviously not clear from the form of (167). We are extrapolating the properties of (𝑃EPRL )𝑁 for large
𝑁 to those of the amplitude (167) in the large number of edges limit implied by the continuum limit.

64 Alejandro Perez
∑︁ α
𝑒
𝑃EPRL (𝑗1 · · · 𝑗4 ) = = β
𝛼
∑︁ α
𝑃𝑤𝑒 (𝑗1 · · · 𝑗4 ) = 𝑒
𝑔𝛼𝛽 β , (168)
𝛼𝛽
where ⎛ ⎞
(︃ )︃−1
∑︁ ⎜α ⎟
𝑒
𝑔𝛼𝛽 = 𝑓𝜄𝛼+ 𝜄− 𝑓𝜄𝛽+ 𝜄− = Inverse ⎜
⎝
β⎟.
⎠
𝜄+ 𝜄−
It is easy to check that, by construction,
(𝑃𝑤𝑒 (𝑗1 · · · 𝑗4 ))2 = 𝑃𝑤𝑒 (𝑗1 · · · 𝑗4 ). (169)
The variant of the EPRL model proposed in [49, 235] then takes the form
∑︁ ∏︁ ∏︁
𝑍EPRL (Δ) = d|1−𝛾| 𝑗 d(1+𝛾) 𝑗 𝑃𝑤𝑒 (𝑗1 , · · · , 𝑗4 ) (170)
2 2
𝑗𝑓 𝑓 ∈Δ⋆ 𝑒
ι2v
ι1v
∑︁ ∑︁ ∏︁ ∏︁ ∏︁
ι
= d|1−𝛾| 𝑗 d(1+𝛾) 𝑗 𝑔𝜄𝑒𝑒𝑣 𝜄𝑒 .
2 2 𝑠 𝑣𝑡
𝑗𝑓 𝜄𝑒𝑣 𝑓 ∈Δ⋆ 𝑒∈Δ⋆ 𝑣∈Δ⋆
ι5v
ι4v
Thus, in the modified EPRL model, edges 𝑒 ∈ Δ⋆ are assigned pairs of intertwiner quantum
numbers 𝜄𝑒𝑣𝑠 and 𝜄𝑒𝑣𝑡 and an edge amplitude given by the matrix elements 𝑔𝜄𝑒𝑒𝑣 ,𝜄𝑒𝑣 (where 𝑣𝑠 and 𝑣𝑡
𝑠 𝑡
stand for the source and target vertices of the given oriented edge). The fact that edges are not
assigned a single quantum number is not really significant; one could go to a basis of normalized
eigenstates of 𝑃𝑤𝑒 and rewrite the modified model above as a spin-foam model, where edges are
assigned a single (basis element) quantum number. As the nature of such a basis and the quantum
geometric interpretation of its elements is not clear at this stage, it seems simpler to represent the
amplitudes of the modified model in the above form.

The advantages of the modified model are important, but a generalization of the above modifi-
cation of the EPRL model in the Lorentzian case is still lacking. Notice that this modification does
not interfere with the results of the semiclassical limit (to leading order) as reviewed in Section 13.
𝑒
The reason is that the matrix elements 𝑔𝛼𝛽 → 𝛿𝛼𝛽 in that limit [1].
7.6 The coherent states representation
We have written the amplitude defining the EPRL model by constraining the state sum of BF
theory. For semiclassical studies that we will review in Section 13, it is convenient to express the
EPRL amplitude in terms of the coherent states basis. The importance of coherent states in spin-
foam models was put forward in [254] and explicitly used to re-derive the EPRL model in [255].
The coherent state technology was used by Freidel and Krasnov in [182] to introduce a new kind
of spin-foam model for gravity: the FK models. In some cases, the FK model is equivalent to the
EPRL model; we will review this in detail in Section 9.
The coherent state representation of the EPRL model is obtained by replacing (113) in each of
the intermediate 𝑆𝑈 (2) (green) wires in the expression (148) of the EPRL amplitudes, namely
∫︁ ∏︁
4
n1 n1
n2 n
n 3 n2
= d𝑗𝐼 𝑑𝑛𝐼 n4 n4 3 (171)
𝐼=1
[𝑆 2 ]4
The case of 𝛾 < 1
In this case, the coherent state property (114) implies

66 Alejandro Perez
n1 n1
n2 n2
n3 n3
n1 n1 n4 n4
n2 n
n 3 n2
n4 n4 3 = −n1
−n2
−n1
−n2
, (172)
−n3 −n3
−n4 −n4
where we used in the last line the fact that for 𝛾 < 1 the representations 𝑗 of the subgroup
𝑆𝑈 (2) ∈ 𝑆𝑝𝑖𝑛(4) are of maximum weight, i.e., 𝑗 = 𝑗 + + 𝑗 − . Doing this at each edge we get
∑︁ ∏︁
𝐸
𝑍EPRL (Δ) = d𝑗 − d𝑗 +
𝑓 𝑓
𝑗𝑓 𝑓 ∈Δ⋆
n1
n2
∫︁ ∏︁ n3
n4
d𝑗𝑒𝑓 𝑑𝑛𝑒𝑓 n1
n2
, (173)
𝑒∈∈Δ⋆ n3
n4
where we have explicitly written the 𝑛 ∈ 𝑆 2 integration variables on a single cable. The expression
above is very similar to the coherent states representation of 𝑆𝑝𝑖𝑛(4) BF theory given in Eq. (115).
In fact, one would get the above expression if one would start from the expression (115) and would
−
set 𝑛+𝑒𝑓 = 𝑛𝑒𝑓 = 𝑛𝑒𝑓 , while dropping, for example, all the sphere integrations corresponding to
−
the 𝑛+𝑒𝑓 (or equivalently 𝑛𝑒𝑓 ). Moreover, by construction the coherent states participating in the
previous amplitude satisfy the linear constraints (127) in expectation values, namely
⟨𝑗, 𝑛𝑒𝑓 |𝐷𝑓𝑖 |𝑗, 𝑛𝑒𝑓 ⟩ = ⟨𝑗, 𝑛𝑒𝑓 |(1 − 𝛾)𝐽𝑓+𝑖 + (1 + 𝛾)𝐽𝑓−𝑖 |𝑗, 𝑛𝑒𝑓 ⟩ = 0.
Thus the coherent states participating in the above representation of the EPRL amplitudes solve
the linear simplicity constraints in the usual semiclassical sense. The same manipulations leading
to (175) in Section 6 lead to a discrete effective action for the EPRL model, namely
∑︁ ∏︁ ∫︁ ∏︁
𝛾<1 − + ±
𝑍EPRL = d(1−𝛾) 𝑗𝑓 d(1+𝛾) 𝑗𝑓 d𝑗𝑒𝑓 𝑑𝑛𝑒𝑓 𝑑𝑔𝑒𝑣 𝑑𝑔𝑒𝑣 exp (𝑆𝑗𝛾<1
± ,n [𝑔 ]), (174)
2 2
𝑗𝑓 𝑓 ∈Δ⋆ 𝑒∈Δ⋆
where the discrete action

∑︁
±
𝑆𝑗𝛾<1
± ,n [𝑔 ] = (𝑆 𝑣 𝑗𝑓 [𝑔 − ] + 𝑆 𝑣 𝑗𝑓 [𝑔 + ]) (175)
(1−𝛾) 2 ,n (1+𝛾) 2 ,n
𝑣∈Δ⋆

with
5
∑︁
𝑣
𝑎<𝑏=1
to the form (86) of the BF amplitude. In the case of the gravity models presented here, the coherent
state path integral representation (analogous to (117)) will be the basic tool for the study of the
semiclassical limit of the models and the relationship with Regge discrete formulation of general
relativity.
The case of 𝛾 > 1

The case of 𝛾 > 1 is more complicated [61]. The reason is that step (172) directly leading to
the discrete action in the previous case is no longer valid, as the representations of the subgroup
𝑆𝑈 (2) ∈ 𝑆𝑝𝑖𝑛(4) are now minimum instead of maximum weight. However, the representations
𝑗 + = 𝑗 − + 𝑗 are of maximum weight. Therefore, we can insert a coherent states resolution of the
identity on the right representations and get:
n n
∫︁ ∏︁
4
n n
n = d(1+𝛾) 𝑗𝐼 𝑑𝑚𝐼 m1 n =
n 2 m2 n
𝐼=1
[𝑆 3 ]4 m3
m4
m1
m2
m3 m
∫︁ ∏︁
4
1
m4 m2
n
n
= d(1+𝛾) 𝑗𝐼 𝑑𝑚𝐼 m1 m3 n , (177)
2 m2 m
4 n
𝐼=1
[𝑆 3 ]4 m3
m4
where we are representing the relevant part of the diagram appearing in Eq. (171). In the last line
we have used that 𝑗 + = 𝑗 +𝑗 − (i.e., maximum weight), and the graphical notation ≡ ⟨𝑚|𝑛⟩, a b
as follows from our previous conventions. With all this, one gets
𝛾>1
𝑍EPRL = (178)
∑︁ ∏︁ ∫︁ ∏︁
− + ±
d(1−𝛾) 𝑗𝑓 d(1+𝛾) 𝑗𝑓 d𝑗𝑒𝑓 d(1+𝛾) 𝑗𝑒𝑓 𝑑𝑛𝑒𝑓 𝑑𝑚𝑒𝑓 𝑑𝑔𝑒𝑣 𝑑𝑔𝑒𝑣 exp (𝑆𝑗𝛾>1
± ,n,m [𝑔 ]),
2 2 2
where the discrete action ∑︁

±
𝑆𝑗𝛾>1
± ,n,m [𝑔 ] = 𝑆𝑗𝑣± ,n,m [𝑔 ± ] (179)
𝑣∈Δ⋆
with
∑︁
−
𝑆𝑗𝑣± ,n,m [𝑔 ± ] = +
𝑗𝑎𝑏 (1 + 𝛾) log(⟨𝑚𝑎𝑏 |𝑔𝑎𝑏 |𝑚𝑏𝑎 ⟩) + 𝑗𝑎𝑏 (𝛾 − 1) log(⟨𝑚𝑎𝑏 |𝑔𝑎𝑏 |𝑚𝑏𝑎 ⟩) +
1≤𝑎<𝑏≤5
+2𝑗𝑎𝑏 (log(⟨𝑛𝑎𝑏 |𝑚𝑎𝑏 ⟩) + log(⟨𝑚𝑏𝑎 |𝑛𝑏𝑎 ⟩)) . (180)

68 Alejandro Perez
7.7 Some additional remarks

It is important to point out that the commutation relations of basic fields – reflecting the simple
algebraic structure of 𝑠𝑝𝑖𝑛(4) – used here are those induced by the canonical analysis of BF
theory presented previously. The presence of constraints generally modifies canonical commutation
relations in particular in the presence of second-class constraints. For some investigation of the
issue in the context of the EPRL and FK models, see [13]. In [11] it is pointed out that the
presence of secondary constraints in the canonical analysis of the Plebanski action should translate
into additional constraints in the holonomies of the spin-foam models here considered (see also [12]).
From the viewpoint of the GFT formulation, and using the tool of the non-commutative Fourier
transform [53], this question has been explored in [54, 55] A possible view is that the simplicity
constraints are here imposed for all times and thus secondary constraints should be imposed
automatically.
Recently, a nice example has been worked out in three dimensions [202]. In this example,
one defines a Plebanski-like field theory consisting of 𝑆𝑂(4) BF theory on a three-dimensional
manifold plus simplicity constraints. The continuum theory is shown, via the canonical analysis,
to be equivalent to three dimensional gravity: the analysis is non-trivial – there are first-class
constraints, as well as second-class constraints, to be taken into account, in analogy with the case
of four-dimensional Plebanski action. The quantum simplicity constraints are the analog of the
ones in four dimensional models. The difference is that the second-class constraints required by
the condition that simplicity constraints are preserved in time are now simple to impose at the
quantum level. The authors show that unless one imposes the second-class constraints, one does
not obtain the state sum model of three-dimensional BF theory, i.e., three-dimensional spin-foam
gravity. A similar example in four dimensions has been analyzed in [14].
There are alternative derivations of the models presented in the previous sections. In particular
one can derive them from a strict Lagrangian approach of Plebanski’s action. Such a viewpoint
is taken in [92, 91, 97]. The path integral formulation of Plebanski theory using commuting 𝐵-
fields was studied in [218], where it is shown that, only in the appropriate semiclassical limit
the amplitudes coincide with the ones presented in the previous sections (this is just another
indication that the construction of the models have a certain semiclassical input; see below). The
spin-foam quantization of the Holst formulation of gravity via cubulations was investigated in [52].
The simplicity constraints can also be studied from the perspective of the 𝑈 (𝑁 ) formulation of
quantum geometry [160, 159, 161], which also has been explored in the Lorentzian sector [156].
Such 𝑈 (𝑁 ) treatment is related to previous work, which has been extended to a completely new
perspective on quantum geometry with possible advantageous features [104, 257]. For additional
discussion on the simplicity constraints, see [149].
8 The Lorentzian EPRL Model:

Representation Theory and Simplicity Constraints
In this section we introduce some elements of 𝑆𝐿(2, C) representation theory and show how the
linear-simplicity constraints are solved in the Lorentzian EPRL model [300, 167, 164].
8.1 Representation theory of 𝑆𝐿(2, C) and the canonical basis

Unitary irreducible representations H𝜌,𝑘 of 𝑆𝐿(2, C) are infinite dimensional and are labelled by
a positive real number 𝑝 ∈ R+ and a half-integer 𝑘 ∈ N/2. The two Casimirs are 𝐶1 = 21 𝐽𝐼𝐽 𝐽 𝐼𝐽 =
𝐿2 −𝐾 2 and 𝐶2 = 21 ⋆𝐽𝐼𝐽 𝐽 𝐼𝐽 = 𝐾 ·𝐿, where 𝐿𝑖 are the generators of an arbitrary rotation subgroup
and 𝐾 𝑖 are the generators of the corresponding boosts. The Casimirs act on |𝑝, 𝑘⟩ ∈ H𝑝,𝑘 as follows

𝐶1 |𝑝, 𝑘⟩ = (𝑘 2 − 𝑝2 − 1) |𝑝, 𝑘⟩,

𝐶2 |𝑝, 𝑘⟩ = 2𝑝𝑘 |𝑝, 𝑘⟩. (181)
For details on the representation theory of 𝑆𝐿(2, C), see [338, 203, 204]. As in the Riemannian case,
the definition of the EPRL model requires the introduction of an (arbitrary) subgroup 𝑆𝑈 (2) ⊂
𝑆𝐿(2, C). This subgroup corresponds to the internal gauge group of the gravitational phase space in
connection variables in the time gauge. Therefore, in the quantum theory, the representation theory
of this 𝑆𝑈 (2) subgroup will be important. This importance will soon become apparent from the
imposition of the constraints that define the EPRL. The link between the unitary representations
of 𝑆𝐿(2, C) and those of 𝑆𝑈 (2) is given by the decomposition
∞
⨁︁
H𝑝,𝑘 = H𝑗 . (182)
𝑗=𝑘
As the unitary irreducible representations of the subgroup 𝑆𝑈 (2) ∈ 𝑆𝐿(2, C) are essential in
understanding the link of the EPRL model and the operator canonical formulation of LQG, it
will be convenient to express the action of the generators of the Lie algebra 𝑠𝑙(2, C) in a basis
adapted to the above equation. In order to do this, we first notice that the Lie algebra (120)
can be equivalently characterized in terms of the generators of the rotation subgroup 𝐿𝑖 and the
remaining boost generators 𝐾 𝑖 as follows
[𝐿3 , 𝐿± ] = ± 𝐿± , [𝐿+ , 𝐿− ] = 2 𝐿3 ,
[𝐿+ , 𝐾+ ] = [𝐿− , 𝐾− ] = [𝐿3 , 𝐾3 ] = 0,
[𝐾3 , 𝐿± ] = ± 𝐾± , [𝐿± , 𝐾∓ ] = ±2 𝐾3 , [𝐿3 , 𝐾± ] = ± 𝐾± ,
[𝐾3 , 𝐾± ] = ∓ 𝐿± , [𝐾+ , 𝐾− ] = −2 𝐿3 , (183)
where 𝐾± = 𝐾 1 ± 𝑖𝐾 2 and 𝐿± = 𝐿1 ±𝑖𝐿2 . The action of the previous generators in the basis
|𝑝, 𝑘, 𝑗, 𝑚⟩ can be shown to be [204]
𝐿3 |𝑝, 𝑘, 𝑗, 𝑚⟩ = 𝑚|𝑝, 𝑘, 𝑗, 𝑚⟩,

√︀
𝐿+ |𝑝, 𝑘, 𝑗, 𝑚⟩ = (𝑗 + 𝑚 + 1)(𝑗 − 𝑚)|𝑝, 𝑘, 𝑗, 𝑚 + 1⟩,
√︀
𝐿− |𝑝, 𝑘, 𝑗, 𝑚⟩ = (𝑗 + 𝑚)(𝑗 − 𝑚 + 1)|𝑝, 𝑘, 𝑗, 𝑚 − 1⟩,
√︀ √︀
𝐾 3 |𝑝, 𝑘, 𝑗, 𝑚⟩ = 𝛼𝑗 𝑗 2 − 𝑚2 |𝑝, 𝑘, 𝑗 − 1, 𝑚⟩ + 𝛾𝑗 𝑚|𝑝, 𝑘, 𝑗, 𝑚⟩ − 𝛼𝑗+1 (𝑗 + 1)2 − 𝑚2 |𝑝, 𝑘, 𝑗 + 1, 𝑚⟩,
√︀
𝐾 + |𝑝, 𝑘, 𝑗, 𝑚⟩ = 𝛼𝑗 (𝑗 − 𝑚)(𝑗 − 𝑚 − 1)|𝑝, 𝑘, 𝑗 − 1, 𝑚 + 1⟩
√︀
+𝛾𝑗 (𝑗 − 𝑚)(𝑗 + 𝑚 + 1)|𝑝, 𝑘, 𝑗, 𝑚 + 1⟩
√︀
+𝛼𝑗+1 (𝑗 + 𝑚 + 1)(𝑗 + 𝑚 + 2)|𝑝, 𝑘, 𝑗 + 1, 𝑚 + 1⟩,
√︀
𝐾 − |𝑝, 𝑘, 𝑗, 𝑚⟩ = −𝛼𝑗 (𝑗 + 𝑚)(𝑗 + 𝑚 − 1)|𝑝, 𝑘, 𝑗 − 1, 𝑚 − 1⟩
√︀
+𝛾𝑗 (𝑗 + 𝑚)(𝑗 − 𝑚 + 1)|𝑝, 𝑘, 𝑗, 𝑚 − 1⟩
√︀
−𝛼𝑗+1 (𝑗 − 𝑚 + 1)(𝑗 − 𝑚 + 2)|𝑝, 𝑘, 𝑗 + 1, 𝑚 − 1⟩, (184)
where √︃
𝑘𝑝 (𝑗 2 − 𝑘 2 )(𝑗 2 + 𝑝2 )
𝛾𝑗 = and 𝛼𝑗 = 𝑖 . (185)
𝑗(𝑗 + 1) 𝑗 2 (4𝑗 2 − 1)
This concludes the review of the representation theory that is necessary for the definition of the
EPRL model.

70 Alejandro Perez
8.2 Lorentzian model: the linear simplicity constraints

As in the Riemannian case, it can be shown as in Section (7.4) that the quadratic simplicity
constraints (154) are implied, in the discrete setting, by the linear constraint on each face
1 𝑖
𝐷𝑓𝑖 = 𝐿𝑖𝑓 − 𝐾 ≈ 0, (186)
𝛾 𝑓
where the label 𝑓 makes reference to a face 𝑓 ∈ Δ⋆ , and where (very importantly) the subgroup
𝑆𝑈 (2) ⊂ 𝑆𝐿(2, C) that is necessary for the definition of the above constraints is chosen arbitrarily
at each tetrahedron, equivalent on each edge 𝑒 ∈ Δ⋆ . The commutation relations of the previous
tetrahedron constraint are
[︂ ]︂
𝑖 𝑗 𝑖𝑗 1 𝑘 2 𝑘
[𝐷𝑓 , 𝐷𝑓 ′ ] = 𝛿𝑓 𝑓 𝜖 𝑘 (1 − 2 )𝐿𝑓 − 𝐾𝑒
′
𝛾 𝛾
2
𝛾 + 1 𝑖𝑗 𝑘
= 2𝛿𝑒𝑒′ 𝜖𝑖𝑗𝑘 𝐷𝑘 − 𝛿𝑒𝑒′ 𝜖 𝑘 𝐿𝑓 . (187)
𝛾2
The previous commutation relation implies that the constraint algebra is not closed and therefore
cannot be imposed as operator equations of the states summed over in the BF partition function
in general. There are two interesting exceptions:
1. The first one is to take 𝛾 = ±𝑖, in which case the constraint (186) could, in principle, be
imposed strongly. However, the self-dual sector is not present in H𝑝,𝑘 .
2. The second possibility is to work in the sector where 𝐿𝑖𝑒 = 0. Where, as in the Riemannian
case, it corresponds to the Barret–Crane model [60] with the various limitations discussed in
Section 10.
The EPRL model is obtained by restricting the representations appearing in the expression of the
BF partition function, so that at each tetrahedron the linear constraints (186) are satisfied the
strongest possible way that is compatible with the uncertainties relations stemming from (187). In
addition, one would add the requirement that the state-space of tetrahedra is compatible with the
state-space of the analogous excitation in the canonical context of LQG so that arbitrary states in
the kinematical state of LQG have non-trivial amplitudes in the model.
On the weak imposition of the linear simplicity constraints

We now discuss the weak imposition of the linear simplicity constraints in the quantum framework.
There are essentially three views in the literature: two of them, discussed below, directly concerns
the way the EPRL model has usually been introduced. The third possibility is the semiclassical
view based on the coherent state representation leading to the FK model (see Section 9).
8.2.1 Lorentzian model: The Gupta–Bleuler criterion

As in the Riemannian case, the fact that the constraints 𝐷𝑓𝑖 do not form a closed (first class)
algebra in the generic case requires a weaker sense in which the constraints are imposed. One
possibility is to consider the Gupta–Bleuler criterion consisting in selecting a suitable class of
states for which the matrix elements on 𝐷𝑓𝑖 vanish. In this respect, we notice that if we choose the
subspace H𝑗 ⊂ H𝑝,𝑘 we have
𝛾𝑗
⟨𝑝, 𝑘, 𝑗, 𝑞|𝐷𝑓3 |𝑝, 𝑘, 𝑗, 𝑚⟩ = 𝛿𝑞,𝑚 𝑚(1 − ),
𝛾
√︀ (︁ 𝛾𝑗 )︁
⟨𝑝, 𝑘, 𝑗, 𝑞|𝐷𝑓± |𝑝, 𝑘, 𝑗, 𝑚⟩ = 𝛿𝑞±1,𝑚 (𝑗 ± 𝑚 + 1)(𝑗 ∓ 𝑚) 1 − .
𝛾

One immediately observes that matrix elements of the linear constraints vanish in this subclass if
one can choose
𝑘𝑝
𝛾𝑗 = = 𝛾. (188)
𝑗(𝑗 + 1)
Now the situation simplifies with respect to the Riemannian case, as there is only one single case.
The linear simplicity constraint is satisfied as long as 𝑝 = 𝛾𝑗(𝑗 + 1)/𝑘. Therefore, one has an
integer worth of possibilities. In particular, given 𝑗, one has 𝑘 = 𝑗 − 𝑟 for all possible half-integers
such that 𝑘 > 0 [140]. As we will see in what follows the best choice from the point of view of the
Master-constraint criterion is 𝑘 = 𝑗, from which it follows that
𝑝 = 𝛾(𝑗 + 1). (189)
8.2.2 Lorentzian model: The Master-constraint criterion

Another criterion for weak imposition can be developed by studying the spectrum of the Master
constraint
1 1
𝑀𝑓 = 𝐷𝑓 · 𝐷𝑓 = 𝐿2 − 2𝐿 · 𝐾 + 2 𝐾 2
𝛾 𝛾
1 [︁ 2 2
]︁
= 2 (1 + 𝛾 )𝐿 − 2𝛾𝐶2 − 𝐶1 . (190)
𝛾
Strong imposition of the constraints 𝐷𝑓𝑖 would amount to looking for the kernel of the Master
constraint 𝑀𝑓 . However, generically the positive operator associated with the Master constraint
does not have the zero eigenvalue in the spectrum due to the open nature of the constraint algebra
(187). The proposal of [166] is to look for the minimum eigenvalue among spaces H𝑗 ∈ H𝑝,𝑘 .
Explicitly
𝑀𝑓 |𝜓⟩ = 𝑚𝑝,𝑘,𝑗 |𝜓⟩, (191)
where
1 [︁ 2 2 2
]︁
𝑚𝑝,𝑘,𝑗 = 𝑝 + 1 − 𝑘 + (1 + 𝛾 )𝑗(𝑗 + 1) − 2𝛾𝑘𝑝 .
𝛾2
For given 𝑗 the minimum eigenvalue is obtained when 𝑘 = 𝑗 and 𝑝 = 𝛾𝑗 in which case one gets
𝑚𝑝,𝑘,𝑗 ≥ 𝑚𝑗 for 𝑚𝑗 = ~2 ((1 + 𝛾 2 )𝑗 + 1). Again we see that the important condition
𝑀𝑓 |𝛾𝑗, 𝑗, 𝑗, 𝑚⟩ = O𝑠𝑐 (192)
holds (recall the notion O𝑠𝑐 from Section 7.2.4). Interestingly, the states that satisfy the previous
semiclassical criterion satisfy the Gupta–Bleuler criterion not exactly and only in the large spin
sense. However, the advantage of the Master-constraint criterion is clear from the point of view of
cylindrical consistency as the choice 𝑝 = 𝛾(𝑗 + 1) obtained in the previous subsection would imply
that 𝑗 = 0 spin-network links would be have a non-trivial amplitude in the path integral defined
in Section 7.3. Such thing would be in sharp conflict with diffeomorphism invariance in the model.
Therefore, as in the Riemannian case, we will use the Master-constraint criterion as the basic
ingredient in the definition of the EPRL model. One can write a Lorentz invariant constraint [333]
from the Master constraint using the 𝐷𝑓𝑖 = 0 classically. This leads to the following Lorentz
invariant condition in terms of the 𝑆𝐿(2, C) Casimirs
𝑀𝑓𝐿𝐼 = (1 − 𝛾 2 )𝐶2 − 2𝐶1 𝛾, (193)
where 𝐶1 and 𝐶2 are the two 𝑠𝑙(2, C) Casimirs given in Eq. (181).26 Surprisingly, the conditions
𝑝 = 𝛾𝑗 and 𝑘 = 𝑗 minimizing the Master constraint, solve its Lorentz invariant version strongly!
26 The importance of such a formulation of the constraints was emphasized before by Alexandrov.

72 Alejandro Perez
This resolves the cylindrical consistency issue pointed out above. More recently, it has been shown
that the constraint solution 𝑝 = 𝛾𝑗 and 𝑘 = 𝑗 also follows naturally from a spinor formulation of
the simplicity constraints [369, 156, 256].
8.2.3 Lorentzian model: Restrictions on the Immirzi parameter
Unlike the Riemannian model, all values of spin 𝑗 are allowed, and no restrictions on the Immirzi
parameter arise.
8.2.4 Lorentzian model: Overview of the solutions of the linear simplicity constraints
In the Lorentzian models one restricts the 𝑆𝐿(2, C) representations of BF theory to those satisfying
𝑝 = 𝛾𝑗 and 𝑘 = 𝑗 (194)
for 𝑗 ∈ N/2. From now on we denote the subset of admissible representation of 𝑆𝐿(2, C) as
K𝛾 ⊂ Irrep(𝑆𝐿(2, C)) (195)
The admissible quantum states Ψ are elements of the subspace H𝑗 ⊂ H𝛾𝑗,𝑗 (i.e., minimum weight
states) and satisfy the constraints (186) in the following semiclassical sense:
(𝐾𝑓𝑖 − 𝛾𝐿𝑖𝑓 )Ψ = O𝑠𝑐 , (196)
where, as in the Riemannian case, the symbol O𝑠𝑐 (order semiclassical) denotes a quantity that
vanishes in the limit ~ → 0, 𝑗 → ∞ with ~𝑗 = constant.
8.3 Presentation of the EPRL Lorentzian model

As briefly discussed in Section 8, unitary irreducible representations of 𝑆𝐿(2, C) are infinite di-
mensional and labeled by a positive real number 𝑝 ∈ R+ and a half-integer 𝑘 ∈ N/2. These
representations are the ones that intervene in the harmonic analysis of square integrable functions
of 𝑆𝐿(2, C) [203]. Consequently, one has an explicit expression of the delta function distribution
(defined on such a test function), namely
∑︁ ∫︁ ∑︁ 𝑝,𝑘
𝛿(𝑔) = 𝑑𝑝 (𝑝2 + 𝑘 2 ) 𝐷𝑗𝑚𝑗𝑚 (𝑔), (197)
𝑘 R+ 𝑗,𝑚
𝑝,𝑘
where 𝐷𝑗𝑚𝑗 ′ 𝑚′ (𝑔) with 𝑗 ≥ 𝑘 and 𝑗 ≥ 𝑚 ≥ −𝑗 (similarly for the primed indices) are the matrix
elements of the unitary representations 𝑝 − 𝑘 in the canonical basis [338]. One can use the pre-
vious expression for the Lorentzian version of Eq. (86) to introduce a formal definition of the BF
amplitudes, which now would involve integration of the continuous labels 𝑝𝑓 in addition of sums
over discrete quantum numbers such as 𝑘, 𝑗 and 𝑚. The Lorentzian version of the EPRL model
can be obtained from the imposition of the linear simplicity constraints to this formal expression,
as discussed in Section 8.2. As the continuum labels 𝑝𝑓 are restricted to 𝑝𝑓 = 𝛾𝑗𝑓 , the Lorentzian
EPRL model becomes a state-sum model, as its Riemannian relative. Using the following graphical
notation
𝑝,𝑘 p
𝐷𝑗𝑚𝑗 ′ 𝑚′ (𝑔) =
j,m j ′ ,m (198)
k

the amplitude is
∑︁ ∏︁
𝐿
𝑍EPRL (Δ) = (1 + 𝛾 2 )𝑗𝑓2 ,
where the boxes now represent 𝑆𝐿(2, C) integrations with the invariant measure. The previous
amplitude is equivalent to its spin-foam representation
ι5
ι4
∑︁ ∑︁ ∏︁ ∏︁
𝐿
𝑍EPRL (Δ) = (1 + 𝛾 2 )𝑗𝑓2 ι.
𝑗𝑓 𝜄𝑒 𝑓 ∈Δ⋆ 𝑣∈Δ⋆
ι3
ι2
The vertex amplitude is divergent due to the presence of a redundant integration over 𝑆𝐿(2, C), it
becomes finite by dropping an arbitrary integration, i.e., removing any of the 5 boxes in the vertex
expression [167].
8.4 The coherent state representation
It is crucial to obtain the coherent-state representation of the Lorentzian models. As in the

Riemannian case, one simply inserts a resolution of the identities (108) on the intermediate 𝑆𝑈 (2)
(green) wires in (199) from which it results that

74 Alejandro Perez
∑︁ ∏︁
𝐿
𝑍EPRL (Δ) = (1 + 𝛾 2 )𝑗 2
∫︁ ∏︁ n1 n1
n2 n2
d𝑗𝑒𝑓 𝑑𝑛𝑒𝑓 n3
n4
n3
n4
. (199)
𝑒∈∈Δ⋆
9 The Freidel–Krasnov Model
Shortly after the appearance of [168], Freidel and Krasnov [182] introduced a set of new spin-foam
models for four-dimensional gravity using the coherent state basis of the quantum tetrahedron
of Livine and Speziale [254]. The idea is to impose the linearized simplicity constraints (126)
directly as a semiclassical condition on the coherent state basis. As we have seen above, coherent
states are quantum states of the right and left tetrahedra in BF theory, which have a clear-cut
semiclassical interpretation through their property (112). We have also seen that the imposition of
the linear constraints (126) à la EPRL is, in essence, semiclassical, as the constraints are strictly
valid only in the large spin limit. In the FK approach, one simply accepts from the starting point
that, due to their property of not defining the set that is closed under commutation relations, the
Plebanski constraints are to be imposed semiclassically. One defines new models by restricting the
set of coherent states entering into the coherent-state representation of 𝑆𝑝𝑖𝑛(4) BF theory (115) to
those that satisfy condition (126) in expectation values. They also emphasize how the model [168]
corresponds to the sector 𝛾 = ∞, which has been shown to be topological [246].
The case of 𝛾 < 1
For 𝛾 < 1, the vertex amplitude is identical to the EPRL model. This is apparent in the coherent-
state expression of the EPRL model (174). Thus, we have

∑︁ ∏︁
𝑍𝑓𝛾<1
𝑘 (Δ) = d|1−𝛾| 𝑗 d(1+𝛾) 𝑗
2 2
n1 n1
∏︁ ∫︁
n2 n2
n3 n3
n4 n4
d(1+𝛾) 𝑗 d(𝛾−1) 𝑗𝑒𝑓 𝑑𝑛𝑒𝑓 −n1
−n2
−n1
−n2
. (200)
2 2 −n3 −n3
𝑒∈Δ⋆ −n4 −n4
From the previous expression we conclude that the vertex amplitudes of the FK and EPRL model
coincide for 𝛾 < 1
𝐴𝑣𝛾<1 𝛾<1
𝑓 𝑘 = 𝐴𝑣 EPRL . (201)
However, notice that different weights are assigned to edges in the FK model. This is due to the
fact that one is restricting the 𝑆𝑝𝑖𝑛(4) resolution of identity in the coherent basis in the previous
expression, while in the EPRL model the coherent state resolution of the identity is used for
𝑆𝑈 (2) representations. This difference is important and has to do with the still-unsettled discussion
concerning the measure in the path integral representation (see Section 12.1 and references therein).
The case of 𝛾 > 1

For the case of 𝛾 > 1 the FK amplitude is given by
∑︁ ∏︁
𝑍𝑓𝛾>1
𝑘 (Δ) = d|1−𝛾| 𝑗 d(1+𝛾) 𝑗
2 2
n1 n1
∏︁ ∫︁
n2 n2
n3 n3
n4 n4
d(1+𝛾) 𝑗 d(𝛾−1) 𝑗𝑒𝑓 𝑑𝑛𝑒𝑓 −n1
−n2
−n1
−n2
. (202)
2 2 −n3 −n3
𝑒∈Δ⋆ −n4 −n4
The study of the coherent state representation of the FK model for 𝛾 > 1, and comparison with
Eq. (177) for the EPRL model, clearly shows the difference between the two models in this regime.
∑︁ ∏︁ ∫︁ ∏︁
−
𝛾
𝑍𝑓 𝑘 = d(1−𝛾) 𝑗𝑓 d(1+𝛾) 𝑗𝑓 d|1−𝛾| 𝑗𝑒𝑓 d(1+𝛾) 𝑗𝑒𝑓 𝑑𝑛𝑒𝑓 𝑑𝑔𝑒𝑣 +
𝑑𝑔𝑒𝑣 exp (𝑆𝑗𝑓±𝑘 ,n
𝛾
[𝑔 ± ]),(203)
2 2 2 2

∑︁
𝑆𝑗𝑓±𝑘 ,n
𝛾
[𝑔 ± ] = (𝑆 𝑣 𝑗𝑓 [𝑔 − ] + 𝑆 𝑣 𝑗𝑓 [𝑔 + ]), (204)
(1−𝛾) 2 ,n (1+𝛾) 2 ,𝑠(𝛾)n
𝑣∈Δ⋆

76 Alejandro Perez
where 𝑠(𝛾) = sign(1 − 𝛾) and

5
∑︁
𝑣
𝑎<𝑏=1
with the indices 𝑎 and 𝑏 labeling the five edges of a given vertex.
10 The Barrett–Crane Model

The Barrett–Crane models [60, 59] can easily be obtained in the present framework as a suitable
limiting case 𝛾 → ∞ of the previous constructions. One way to get it is to take the limit 𝛾 → ∞
of the linear simplicity constraint (126) at the classical level. In this way the constraint becomes
𝐷𝑖 = 𝐿𝑖𝑓 ≈ 0 (206)
with which the constraint algebra closes. One can impose the constraints strongly in this case.
The solution is obtained by setting 𝑗𝑓 = 0 in all faces at the level of the amplitude (148). An
immediate consequence of this is that 𝑗𝑓+ = 𝑗𝑓− and all tetrahedra are assigned a unique intertwiner:
the Barrett–Crane intertwiner. Explicitly, setting 𝑗𝑓 = 0 in (148) we get
∑︁ ∏︁
𝑍BC (Δ) = d2𝑗 + w
, (207)
𝑗𝑓+ 𝑓 ∈Δ⋆
where, since 𝑗𝑓+ = 𝑗𝑓− , we are arbitrarily choosing 𝑗𝑓+ as the spins summed over in the state
sum. Eliminating redundant group integrations we get the previous amplitude in the spin-foam
representation, namely
b
∑︁ ∏︁ ∏︁
𝑍BC (Δ) = d2𝑗 + . (208)
𝑓
𝑗𝑓+ 𝑓 ∈Δ⋆ 𝑣∈Δ⋆
Observe that the vertex amplitude depends only on the 10 corresponding 𝑗𝑓+ , this is the Riemannian
Barrett–Crane vertex. It is interesting to write the analog of Eq. (147). The Barrett–Crane model
is obtained by the modification of the BF projectors in (88), so that
∑︁ ∏︁ ∏︁
𝑍BC (Δ) = d2𝑗 + 𝑒
𝑃BC (𝑗1+ , · · · , 𝑗4+ ), (209)
𝑗𝑓+ 𝑓 ∈Δ⋆ 𝑒

with
∑︁ ∑︁ ι ι
𝑒
𝑃BC (𝑗1 · · · 𝑗4 ) = |𝐵𝐶⟩⟨𝐵𝐶| = = ι′ ι′ (210)
𝜄 𝜄′
, where |𝐵𝐶⟩ is the Barrett–Crane intertwiner. The tetrahedra state space is one-dimensional once
the four quantum numbers 𝑗𝑓+ have been fixed. Indeed, it has been shown that the state space of
strong solutions of the quadratic quantum Plebanski constraints is one dimensional and it is given
by the BC intertwiner |𝐵𝐶⟩ [313].
10.1 The coherent states representation of the BC amplitude

One can insert a coherent states resolution of the identity (111) in the 10 wires obtaining the
following coherent state representation of the Barrett–Crane amplitude
∑︁ ∏︁ ∫︁ ∏︁
𝑍BC = d2𝑗 + +
d𝑗𝑒𝑓 𝑑𝑛𝑒𝑓 𝑑𝑔𝑒𝑣 exp (𝑆𝑗𝐵𝐶 +
+ ,n [𝑔 ]), (211)
𝑓
𝑗𝑓+ 𝑓 ∈Δ⋆ 𝑒∈Δ⋆

∑︁ 5
∑︁
𝑆𝑗𝐵𝐶 +
+ ,n [𝑔 ] =
+
2𝑗𝑎𝑏 ln ⟨𝑛𝑎𝑏 |(𝑔𝑎+ )−1 𝑔𝑏+ | 𝑛𝑎𝑏 ⟩. (212)
𝑣∈Δ⋆ 𝑎<𝑏=1
Notice that there are only 10 normals 𝑛𝑎𝑏 , as in this case 𝑛𝑎𝑏 = 𝑛𝑏𝑎 . The large spin asymptotics
of the Barrett–Crane vertex has been investigated in [69].
11 Boundary Data for the New Models and Relation with

the Canonical Theory
So far we have considered cellular complexes with no boundary. Transition amplitudes are expected
to be related to the definition of the physical scalar product, as discussed in Section 2.2. In order
to define them, one needs to consider complexes with boundaries. Boundary states are defined on
the boundary of the dual two-complex Δ⋆ that we denote 𝜕Δ⋆ . The object 𝜕Δ⋆ is a one-complex
(a graph). According to the construction of the model (Sections 7 and 8), boundary states are in
one-to-one correspondence with 𝑆𝑈 (2) spin networks. This comes simply from the fact that links
(one-cells) ℓ ∈ 𝜕Δ⋆ inherit the spin labels (unitary irreducible representations of the subgroup
𝑆𝑈 (2)) of the boundary faces, while nodes (zero-cells) 𝑛 ∈ 𝜕Δ⋆ inherit the intertwiner levels of
boundary edges.
At this stage one can associate the boundary data with elements of a Hilbert space. Being
in one-to-one correspondence with 𝑆𝑈 (2) spin networks, a natural possibility is to associate to
them an element of the kinematical Hilbert space of LQG. More precisely, with a given colored
boundary graph 𝛾 with links labeled by spins 𝑗ℓ and nodes labeled by interwiners 𝜄𝑛 , we associate
a cylindrical function Ψ𝛾,{𝑗ℓ },{𝜄𝑛 } ∈ L 2 (𝑆𝑈 (2)𝑁ℓ ), where here 𝑁ℓ denotes the number of links
in the graph 𝛾 (see Eq. 69). In this way, the boundary Hilbert space associated with 𝜕Δ⋆ is
isomorphic (if one used the natural Ashtekar–Lewandowski measure) with the Hilbert space of
LQG truncated to that fixed graph. Moreover, geometric operators such as volume and area

78 Alejandro Perez
defined in the covariant context are shown to coincide with the corresponding operators defined
in the canonical formulation [141, 142]. Now, if cellular complexes are dual to triangulations,
then the boundary spin networks can have, at most, four valent nodes. This limitation can be
easily overcome: as in BF theory, the EPRL amplitudes can be generalized to arbitrary complexes
with boundaries given by graphs with nodes of arbitrary valence. The extension of the model to
arbitrary complexes was first studied in [237, 236] and has been revisited in [140].
Alternatively, one can associate the boundary states with elements of L 2 (𝑆𝑝𝑖𝑛(4)𝑁ℓ ) (in the
Riemannian models) – or carefully define the analog of spin-network states as distributions in the
Lorentzian case.27 In this case, one gets a special kind of spin-network states that are a subclass
of the projected spin networks introduced in [19, 247] in order to define an heuristic quantization
of the (non-commutative and very complicated) Dirac algebra of a Lorentz connection formulation
of the phase space of gravity [15, 10, 19, 9, 8, 7, 17, 21]. The fact that these special subclasses
of projected spin networks appear naturally as boundary states of the new spin foams is shown
in [158].
Due to their similarity to 𝛾 < 1, the same relationship between boundary data and elements
of the kinematical Hilbert space hold for the FK model. However, such a simple relationship does
not hold for the model in the case of 𝛾 > 1.
The role of knotting in the Hilbert space of the EPRL model is studied in [42].
12 Further Developments and Related Models

12.1 The measure
The spin-foam amplitudes discussed in the previous sections have been introduced by constraining
the BF histories through the simplicity constraints. However, in the path integral formulation, the
presence of constraints has the additional effect of modifying the weights with which those histories
are to be summed: second-class constraints modify the path-integral measure (in the spin-foam
context this issue was raised in [90]). As pointed out before, this question has not been completely
settled yet in the spin-foam community. The explicit modification of the formal measure in terms
of continuous variables for the Plebanski action was presented in [106]. A systematic investigation
of the measure in the spin-foam context was attempted in [163] and [213]. As pointed out in [90],
there are restrictions in the manifold of possibilities coming from the requirement of background
independence. The simple BF measure chosen in the presentation of the amplitudes in the previous
sections satisfies these requirements. There are other consistent possibilities; see, for instance, [78]
for a modified measure, which remains extremely simple and is suggested from the structure of
LQG.
12.2 Relation with the canonical formulation: the scalar constraint

An important question is the relationship between the spin-foam amplitudes and the canonical-
operator formulation. The question of whether one can reconstruct the Hamiltonian constraints
out of spin-foam amplitudes has been analyzed in detail in three dimensions. For the study of
quantum three-dimensional gravity from the BF perspective, see [281]; we will in fact present this
perspective in detail in the three-dimensional part of this article. For the relationship with the
27 The definition of polymer-like gauge-invariant states as elements of a Hilbert space of a gauge theory with
non-compact group is an open issue. The naive attempts fail, the basic problem is that gauge-invariant states are
not square integrable functions with respect to the obvious generalization of the AL measure for a fixed graph: this
is due to the infinite volume of the gauge group (the invariant measure is not normalizable). For that reason the
discussion of the Lorentzian sector with 𝐺 = 𝑆𝐿(2, C) is usually formal. See [183] for some insights on the problem
of defining a gauge-invariant Hilbert space of graphs for non-compact gauge groups.

canonical theory using variables that are natural from the Regge gravity perspective, see [94, 93].
In four dimensions the question has been investigated in [3] in the context of the new spin foam
models. In the context of group field theories this issue is explored in [251]. Finally, spin foams
can, in principle, be obtained directly from the implementation of the Dirac program using path-
integral methods; this avenue has been explored in [219, 220], from which a discrete path-integral
formulation followed [214]. The question of the relationship between covariant and canonical
formulations in the discrete setting has also been analyzed in [148].
12.3 Spin-foam models with timelike faces

By construction, all tetrahedra in the FK and EPRL models are embedded in a spacelike hypersur-
face and, hence, have only spacelike triangles. It seem natural to ask the question of whether a more
general construction allowing for timelike faces is possible. The models described in previous sec-
tions have been generalized in order to include timelike faces in the work of Conrady [125, 120, 124].
An earlier attempt to define such models in the context of the Barrett–Crane model can be found
in [305].
12.4 Coupling to matter

The issue of the coupling of the new spin-foam models to matter remains, to a large extent,
unexplored territory. Nevertheless, some results can be found in the literature. The coupling
of the Barrett–Crane model (the 𝛾 → ∞ limit of the EPRL model) to Yang–Mills fields was
studied in [294]. More recently, the coupling of the EPRL model to fermions has been investigated
in [217, 73]. A novel possibility of unification of the gravitational and gauge fields was recently
proposed in [6].
12.5 Cosmological constant

The introduction of a cosmological constant in the construction of four-dimensional spin-foam
models has a long history. Barrett and Crane introduced a vertex amplitude [60] in terms of the
Crane and Yetter model [130] for BF theory with cosmological constant. The Lorentzian quantum-
deformed version of the previous model was studied in [283]. For the new models, the coupling
with a cosmological constant is explored in terms of the quantum deformation of the internal gauge
symmetry in [139, 215, 216] as well as (independently) in [174].
12.6 Spin-foam cosmology

The spin-foam approach applied to quantum cosmology has been explored in [74, 366, 222, 79,
335, 334]. The spin-foam formulation can also be obtained from the canonical picture provided by
loop quantum cosmology (see [89] and references therein). This has been explored systematically
in [29, 28, 27, 108]. Very recent results are [249].
12.7 Constraints are imposed semiclassically

As we have discussed in the introduction of the new models, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
precludes the strong imposition of the Plebanski constraints that reduce BF theory to general
relativity. The results on the semiclassical limit of these models seem to indicate that metric
gravity should be recovered in the low energy limit. However, its seems likely that the semiclassical
limit could be related to certain modifications of Plebanski’s formulation of gravity [240, 241, 243,
242, 244]. A simple interpretation of the new models in the context of the bi-gravity paradigm
proposed in [348] could be of interest.

80 Alejandro Perez
12.8 Group field theories associated to the new spin foams
As pointed out in [38], spin foams can be interpreted in close analogy to Feynman diagrams.
Standard Feynman graphs are generalized to 2-complexes and the labeling of propagators by mo-
menta to the assignment of spins to faces. Finally, momentum conservation at vertices in standard
Feynmanology is now represented by spin-conservation at edges, ensured by the assignment of the
corresponding intertwiners. In spin-foam models, the non-trivial content of amplitudes is con-
tained in the vertex amplitude, which in the language of Feynman diagrams can be interpreted as
an interaction. This analogy is indeed realized in the formulation of spin-foam models in terms of
a group field theory (GFT) [315, 314].
The GFT formulation resolves by definition the two fundamental conceptual problems of the
spin-foam approach: diffeomorphism gauge symmetry and discretization dependence. The difficul-
ties are shifted to the question of the physical role of 𝜆 (a dimensionless coupling constant in the
theory) and the convergence of the corresponding perturbative series.
This idea has been studied in more detail in three dimensions. In [262] scaling properties
of the modification of the Boulatov group field theory introduced in [187] were studied in de-
tail. In a further modification of the previous model (known as colored tensor models [208]) new
techniques based on a suitable 1/𝑁 expansion imply that amplitudes are dominated by spherical
topology [207]; moreover, it seems possible that the continuum limit might be critical, as in certain
matrix models [209, 95, 210, 211, 339]. However, it is not yet clear if there is a sense in which
these models correspond to a physical theory. The naive interpretation of the models is that they
correspond to a formulation of 3D quantum gravity including a dynamical topology.
13 The Semiclassical Limit
Having introduced the relevant spin-foam models in the previous sections, we now present the
results on the large-spin asymptotics of the spin-foam amplitudes suggesting that, on a fixed dis-
cretization, the semiclassical limit of the EPRL-FK models is given by Regge’s discrete formulation
of general relativity [61, 64].
The semiclassical limit of spin foams is based on the study of the the large-spin–limit asymptotic
behavior of coherent-state spin-foam amplitudes. The notion of large spin can be defined by the
rescaling of quantum numbers and Planck’s constant according to 𝑗 → 𝜆𝑗 and ~ → ~/𝜆 and taking
𝜆 >> 1. In this limit the quantum geometry approximates the classical one when tested with
suitable states (e.g., coherent states). However, the geometry remains discrete during this limiting
process, as the limit is taken on a fixed regulating cellular structure. That is why one usually makes
a clear distinction between the semiclassical limit and the continuum limit. In the semiclassical
analysis presented here, one can only hope to make contact with discrete formulations of classical
gravity; hence, the importance of Regge calculus in the discussion of this section.
The key technical ingredient in this analysis is the representation of spin-foam amplitudes in
terms of the coherent-state basis introduced in Section 6.2. Here we follow [61, 64, 62, 65, 63]. The
idea of using coherent states and discrete effective actions for the study of the large-spin asymptotics
of spin-foam amplitudes was put forward in [122, 121]. The study of large-spin asymptotics has a
long tradition in the context of quantum gravity, dating back to the work of Ponzano–Regge [309].
More directly related to our discussion here are the early works [68, 69]. The key idea is to use
asymptotic stationary phase methods for the amplitudes, written in terms of the discrete actions
presented in Sections 7, 8, and 9.

13.1 Vertex amplitudes asymptotics

In this section we review the results of the analysis of the large-spin asymptotics of the EPRL
vertex amplitude for both the Riemannian and Lorentztian models. We follow the notation and
terminology of [61] and related papers.
13.1.1 SU (2) 15j -symbol asymptotics
As 𝑆𝑈 (2) BF theory is quite relevant for the construction of the EPRL-FK models, the study of
the large-spin asymptotics of the 𝑆𝑈 (2) vertex amplitude is a key ingredient in the analysis of [61].
The coherent state vertex amplitude is
∫︁ ∏︁
5 ∏︁
15𝑗(𝑗, n) = 𝑑𝑔𝑎 ⟨𝑛𝑎𝑏 |𝑔𝑎−1 𝑔𝑏 |𝑛𝑏𝑎 ⟩2𝑗𝑎𝑏 , (213)
𝑎=1 1≤𝑎≤𝑏≤5
which depends on 10 spins 𝑗𝑎𝑏 and 20 normals 𝑛𝑎𝑏 ̸= 𝑛𝑏𝑎 . The previous amplitude can be expressed
as
∫︁ ∏︁
5 ∏︁
15𝑗(𝑗, n) = 𝑑𝑔𝑎 exp 𝑆𝑗,n [𝑔], (214)
𝑎=1 1≤𝑎≤𝑏≤5
5
∑︁
𝑎<𝑏=1
to the form (86) of the BF amplitude. In the case of the EPRL model studied in Sections 7 and 8,
the coherent-state representation – see Eqs. 174, 178, and 199 – is the basic tool for the study of
the semiclassical limit of the models and the relationship with the Regge discrete formulation of
general relativity.
In order to study the asymptotics of (214), one needs to use extended stationary phase methods
due to the fact the the action (215) is complex (see [122, 121]). The basic idea is that, in addition
to stationarity, one requires a real part of the action to be maximal. Points satisfying these two
conditions are called critical points. As the real part of the action is negative definite, the action
at critical points is purely imaginary.
Notice that the action (215) depends parametrically on 10 spins 𝑗 and 20 normals n. These
parameters define the boundary data for the four simplex 𝑣 ∈ Δ⋆ . Thus, there is an action principle
for every given boundary data. The number of critical points and their properties depend on these
boundary data, hence the asymptotics of the vertex amplitude is a function of the boundary data.
Different cases are studied in detail in [61]; here we present their results in the special case where
the boundary data describe a non-degenerate Regge geometry for the boundary of a four simplex;
these data are referred to as Regge-like, and satisfy the gluing constraints. For such boundary
data, the action (215) has exactly two critical points leading to the asymptotic formula
[︃ ]︃
1 ∑︁ ∑︁
𝐸 𝐸
15𝑗(𝜆𝑗, n) ∼ 12 𝑁+ exp(𝑖 𝜆𝑗𝑎𝑏 Θ𝑎𝑏 ) + 𝑁− exp(−𝑖 𝜆𝑗𝑎𝑏 Θ𝑎𝑏 ) , (216)
𝜆
𝑎<𝑏 𝑎<𝑏
where Θ𝑎𝑏 are the appropriate dihedral angles defined by the four simplex geometry; finally, 𝑁±
are constants that do not scale with 𝜆.

82 Alejandro Perez
13.1.2 The Riemannian EPRL vertex asymptotics

The previous result together with the fact that the EPRL amplitude for 𝛾 < 1 is a product of
𝑆𝑈 (2) amplitudes with the same n in the coherent-state representation (174) implies the asymptotic
formula for the vertex amplitude to be given by the unbalanced square of the above formula [62],
namely
[︃ (1−𝛾) ∑︀ (1−𝛾) ∑︀
]︃
1 𝑖 2 𝜆𝑗𝑎𝑏 Θ𝐸
𝑎𝑏 −𝑖 2 𝜆𝑗𝑎𝑏 Θ𝐸
𝑎𝑏
EPRL
𝐴𝑣 ∼ 12 𝑁+ 𝑒 𝑎<𝑏
+ 𝑁− 𝑒 𝑎<𝑏
×
𝜆
[︃ (1+𝛾) ∑︀ (1+𝛾) ∑︀
]︃
𝑖 2 𝜆𝑗𝑎𝑏 Θ𝐸
𝑎𝑏 −𝑖 2 𝜆𝑗𝑎𝑏 Θ𝐸
𝑎𝑏
𝑁+ 𝑒 𝑎<𝑏
+ 𝑁− 𝑒 𝑎<𝑏
.
One can write the previous expression as

1 [︁ (︀ 𝐸 )︀ 𝐸
2 𝑖 𝛾1 𝑆Regge 𝐸
2 −𝑖 𝛾1 𝑆Regge
]︁
𝐴EPRL
𝑣 ∼ 2𝑁+ 𝑁− cos 𝑆 + 𝑁+ 𝑒 + 𝑁− 𝑒 , (217)
𝜆12 Regge
where ∑︁
𝐸
𝑆Regge = 𝜆𝛾𝑗𝑎𝑏 Θ𝐸
𝑎𝑏 (218)
𝑎<𝑏
is the Regge-like action for 𝜆𝛾𝑗𝑎𝑏 = 𝐴𝑎𝑏 , the ten triangle areas (according to the LQG area
spectrum (71)). Remarkably, the above asymptotic formula is also valid for the case of 𝛾 > 1 [61].
The first term in the vertex asymptotics is, in essence, the expected one: it is the analog of
the 6𝑗 symbol asymptotics in three-dimensional spin foams. Due to their explicit dependence on
the Immirzi parameter, the last two terms are somewhat strange from the point of view of the
continuum field theoretical view point. However, this seems to be a peculiarity of the Riemannian
theory alone as the results of [64] for the Lorentzian models show. Non-geometric configurations
are exponentially suppressed. Finally, it has recently been shown that it is possible to restrict the
state sum in order to obtain complex amplitudes [162] and [271, 273].
13.1.3 Lorentzian EPRL model

To each solution one can associate a second solution corresponding to a parity related 4-simplex
and, consequently, the asymptotic formula has two terms. It is given, up to a global sign, by the
expression
[︃ (︃ )︃ (︃ )︃]︃
1 ∑︁ ∑︁
𝐴EPRL
𝑣 ∼ 12 𝑁+ exp 𝑖𝜆𝛾 𝑗𝑎𝑏 Θ𝐿
𝑎𝑏 + 𝑁− exp −𝑖𝜆𝛾 𝑗𝑎𝑏 Θ𝐿
𝑎𝑏 , (219)
𝜆
𝑎<𝑏 𝑎<𝑏
where 𝑁± are constants that do not scale. Non-geometric configurations are exponentially sup-
pressed. By taking into account discrete symmetries, it might be possible to further improve the
asymtotics of the model [336].
13.2 Full spin-foam amplitudes asymptotics

In [121], Freidel and Conrady gave a detailed description of the coherent-state representation of the
various spin-foam models described so far. In particular, they provided the definition of the effective
discrete actions associated with each case presented in (203). This provides the basic elements for
setting up the asymptotic analysis presented in [122] (the first results on the semiclassical limit
of the new spin-foam models), which is similar to the studies of the asymptotics of the vertex

amplitude reviewed above, but more general in the sense that the semiclassical limit of a full spin-
foam configuration (involving many vertices) is studied. The result is technically more complex as
one studies critical points of the action associated with a colored complex, which, in addition to
depending on group variables 𝑔, depends on the coherent state parameters n. The authors of [122]
write Eq. (203) in the following way
∑︁ ∏︁ 𝛾
𝑍𝑓𝛾𝑘 = d(1−𝛾) 𝑗𝑓 d(1+𝛾) 𝑗𝑓 𝑊Δ ⋆ (𝑗𝑓 ), (220)
2 2
where ∫︁ ∏︁
𝛾 −
𝑊Δ ⋆ (𝑗𝑓 ) = d|1−𝛾| 𝑗𝑒𝑓 d(1+𝛾) 𝑗𝑒𝑓 𝑑𝑛𝑒𝑓 𝑑𝑔𝑒𝑓 +
𝑑𝑔𝑒𝑓 exp (𝑆𝑗𝑓±𝑘 ,n
𝛾
[𝑔 ± ]). (221)
2 2
𝑒∈Δ⋆
They show that those solutions of the equations of motion of the effective discrete action that are
non-geometric (i.e., the opposite of Regge-like) are not critical and hence exponentially suppressed
in the scaling 𝑗𝑓 → 𝜆𝑗𝑓 with 𝜆 >> 1. If configurations are geometric (i.e., Regge-like) one has
two kinds of contributions to the amplitude asymptotics: those coming from degenerate and non-
degenerate configurations. If one (by hand) restricts it to the non-degenerate configurations, then
one has
𝛾 𝑐
𝑊Δ ⋆ (𝑗𝑓 ) ∼
−6𝑛
𝐸
exp(𝑖𝜆𝑆Regge (Δ⋆ , 𝑗𝑓 )), (222)
𝜆 (33𝑛𝑒 𝑣 −4𝑛𝑓 )
where 𝑛𝑒 , 𝑛𝑣 , and 𝑛𝑓 denote the number of edges, vertices, and faces in the two complex Δ⋆ ,
respectively. For more recent results on the asymptotics of spin-foam amplitudes of arbitrary
simplicial complexes, see [221].
13.3 Fluctuations: two point functions

The problem of computing the two point function and higher correlation functions in the context of
spin foam has received lots of attention recently. The framework for the definition of the correlation
functions in the background-independent setting has been generally discussed by Rovelli in [322]
and corresponds to a special application of a more general proposal investigated by Oeckl [288,
290, 289, 119, 118, 117, 116, 287]. It was then applied to the Barrett–Crane model in [5, 4, 77],
where it was discovered that certain components of the two-point function could not yield the
expected result compatible with Regge gravity in the semiclassical limit. This was used as the
main motivation for the weakening of the imposition of the Plebanski constraints leading to the
new models. Soon thereafter it was argued that the difficulties of the Barrett–Crane model were
indeed absent in the EPRL model [2]. The two point function for the EPRL model was calculated
in [75] and was shown to produce a result in agreement with that of Regge calculus [80, 260] in
the limit 𝛾 → 0.
The fact that, for the new model, the double scaling limit 𝛾 → 0 and 𝑗 → ∞ with 𝛾𝑗 = constant
defines the appropriate regime, where the fluctuation behaves as in Regge gravity (in the leading
order) has been further clarified in [261]. This indicates that the quantum fluctuations in the
new models are more general than simply metric fluctuations. The fact the the new models are
not metric at all scales should not be surprising, as we know that the Plebanski constraints that
produce metric general relativity out of BF theory has been implemented only semiclassically (in
the large spin limit). At the deep Planckian regime, fluctuations are more general than metric.
However, it not clear at this stage why this is controlled by the Immirzi parameter.
All the previous calculations involve a complex with a single four-simplex. The first computation
involving more than one simplex was performed in [263, 77] for the case of the Barrett–Crane model.
Certain peculiar properties were found and it is not clear at this stage whether these issues remain
in the EPRL model. Higher-order correlation functions have been computed in [337]; the results
are in agreement with Regge gravity in the 𝛾 → 0 limit.

84 Alejandro Perez
Part IV
Three-dimensional gravity
In this part, we shall review the quantization of three-dimensional gravity, introducing in this
simpler context what, in this case, can be called the spin-foam representation of the quantum
dynamics. We present this case in great detail as it is completely solvable. More precisely, it
allows for an explicit realization of the path integral quantization for a generally-covariant system,
as generally discussed in Section 2.2. Moreover, the path integral takes the form of a sum of
spin-foam amplitudes, which share all the kinematical quantum geometric properties with their
four-dimensional relatives.
The simplicity of this theory allows for the clear-cut illustration of some central conceptual
difficulties associated with the quantization of a generally-covariant system. We will use the insights
provided by 3D gravity to support the discussion of certain difficult conceptual issues for the spin-
foam approach in Section V.

14 Spin Foams for Three-Dimensional Gravity

Three-dimensional gravity is an example of BF theory for which the spin-foam approach can be
implemented in a rather simple way. Despite its simplicity, the theory allows for the study of many
of the conceptual issues to be addressed in four dimensions. In addition, spin foams for BF theory
are the basic building block of 4-dimensional gravity models. For a beautiful presentation of BF
theory and its relation to spin foams, see [39]. For simplicity, we study the Riemannian theory;
the Lorentzian generalization of the results of this section have been studied in [178].
14.1 Spin foams in 3D quantum gravity

Here we derive the spin-foam representation of LQG in a simple solvable example: 2+1 gravity.
For the definition of other approaches to 3D quantum gravity, see Carlip’s book [112].
14.2 The classical theory

Riemannian gravity in 3 dimensions is a theory with no local degrees of freedom, i.e., a topological
theory. Its action (in the first-order formalism) is given by
∫︁
𝑆[𝑒, 𝜔] = Tr(𝑒 ∧ 𝐹 (𝜔)), (223)
𝑀
where 𝑀 = Σ × R (for Σ an arbitrary Riemann surface), 𝜔 is an 𝑆𝑈 (2)-connection and the

triad 𝑒 is an 𝑠𝑢(2)-valued 1-form. The gauge symmetries of the action are the local 𝑆𝑈 (2) gauge
transformations
𝛿𝑒 = [𝑒, 𝛼] , 𝛿𝜔 = 𝑑𝜔 𝛼, (224)
where 𝛼 is an 𝑠𝑢(2)-valued 0-form, and the ‘topological’ gauge transformation
𝛿𝑒 = 𝑑𝜔 𝜂, 𝛿𝜔 = 0, (225)
where 𝑑𝜔 denotes the covariant exterior derivative and 𝜂 is an 𝑠𝑢(2)-valued 0-form. The first
invariance is manifest from the form of the action, while the second is a consequence of the Bianchi
identity, 𝑑𝜔 𝐹 (𝜔) = 0. The gauge symmetries are so large that all the solutions to the equations of
motion are locally pure gauge. The theory has only global or topological degrees of freedom.
Upon the standard 2+1 decomposition, the phase space in these variables is parametrized by
the pull back to Σ of 𝜔 and 𝑒. In local coordinates, one can express them in terms of the 2-
dimensional connection 𝐴𝑖𝑎 and the triad field 𝐸𝑗𝑏 = 𝜖𝑏𝑐 𝑒𝑘𝑐 𝛿𝑗𝑘 , where 𝑎 = 1, 2 are space coordinate
indices and 𝑖, 𝑗 = 1, 2, 3 are 𝑠𝑢(2) indices. The Poisson bracket is given by
{𝐴𝑖𝑎 (𝑥), 𝐸𝑗𝑏 (𝑦)} = 𝛿𝑎𝑏 𝛿 𝑖𝑗 𝛿 (2) (𝑥, 𝑦). (226)
Local symmetries of the theory are generated by the first-class constraints
𝐷𝑏 𝐸𝑗𝑏 = 0, 𝑖
𝐹𝑎𝑏 (𝐴) = 0, (227)
which are referred to as the Gauss law and the curvature constraint respectively. This simple
theory has been quantized in various ways in the literature [112]; here we will use it to introduce
the spin-foam representation.

86 Alejandro Perez
14.3 Spin foams from the Hamiltonian formulation

The physical Hilbert space, ℋphys , is defined by those ‘states in ℋkin ’ that are annihilated by
the constraints. As discussed in [321, 359], spin network states solve the Gauss constraint –
𝑎
𝐷 𝑎 𝐸𝑖 |𝑠⟩ = 0 – as they are manifestly 𝑆𝑈 (2) gauge invariant. To complete the quantization, one
\
needs to characterize the space of solutions of the quantum curvature constraints 𝐹̂︀𝑎𝑏𝑖
, and to
provide it with the physical inner product. As discussed in Section 2.2, we can achieve this if we
can make sense of the following formal expression for the generalized projection operator 𝑃 :
∫︁ ∫︁ ∏︁
𝑃 = 𝐷[𝑁 ] exp(𝑖 Tr[𝑁 𝐹̂︀(𝐴)]) = 𝛿[𝐹[(𝐴)], (228)
Σ 𝑥⊂Σ
where 𝑁 (𝑥) ∈ 𝑠𝑢(2). Notice that this is just the field theoretical analog of Eq. (8). 𝑃 will be defined
below by its action on a dense subset of test states called the cylindrical functions Cyl ⊂ ℋkin . If
𝑃 exists, then we have
⟨𝑠𝑃 𝑈 [𝑁 ], 𝑠′ ⟩ = ⟨𝑠𝑃, 𝑠′ ⟩ ∀ 𝑠, 𝑠′ ∈ Cyl, 𝑁 (𝑥) ∈ 𝑠𝑢(2), (229)
∫︀
where 𝑈 [𝑁 ] = exp(𝑖 Tr[𝑖𝑁 𝐹^ (𝐴)]). 𝑃 can be viewed as a map 𝑃 : Cyl → 𝐾𝐹 ⊂ Cyl (the space⋆
of linear functionals of Cyl) where 𝐾𝐹 denotes the kernel of the curvature constraint. The physical
inner product is defined as
⟨𝑠′ , 𝑠⟩𝑝 := ⟨𝑠′ 𝑃, 𝑠⟩, (230)
where ⟨, ⟩ is the inner product in ℋkin , and the physical Hilbert space as
ℋphys := Cyl/𝐽 for 𝐽 := {𝑠 ∈ Cyl s.t. ⟨𝑠, 𝑠⟩𝑝 = 0}, (231)
where the bar denotes the standard Cauchy completion of the quotient space in the physical norm.
One can make (228) a rigorous definition, if one introduces a regularization. A regularization
is necessary to avoid the naive UV divergences that appear in QFT when one quantizes non-linear
expressions of the canonical fields, such as 𝐹 (𝐴) in this case (or those representing interactions
in standard particle physics). A rigorous quantization is achieved if the regulator can be removed
without the appearance of infinities, and if the number of ambiguities appearing in this process is
under control. We shall see that all this can be done in the simple toy example in this section.
Wp
ε
Σ
Figure 9: Cellular decomposition of the space manifold Σ (a square lattice of size 𝜖, in this example),
and the infinitesimal plaquette holonomy 𝑊𝑝 [𝐴].
We now introduce the regularization. Given a partition of Σ in terms of 2-dimensional plaque-

ttes of coordinate area 𝜖2 (Figure 9), one can write the integral
∫︁ ∑︁
𝐹 [𝑁 ] := Tr[𝑁 𝐹 (𝐴)] = lim 𝜖2 Tr[𝑁𝑝 𝐹𝑝 ] (232)
𝜖→0
𝑝
Σ
as a limit of a Riemann sum, where 𝑁𝑝 and 𝐹𝑝 are values of the smearing field 𝑁 and the curvature
𝜖𝑎𝑏 𝐹𝑎𝑏
𝑖
[𝐴] at some interior point of the plaquette 𝑝 and 𝜖𝑎𝑏 is the Levi-Civita tensor. Similarly, the
holonomy 𝑊𝑝 [𝐴] around the boundary of the plaquette 𝑝 (see Figure 9) is given by
𝑊𝑝 [𝐴] = 1 + 𝜖2 𝐹𝑝 (𝐴) + 𝒪(𝜖2 ). (233)

∑︀
The previous two equations imply that 𝐹 [𝑁 ] = lim𝜖→0 𝑝 Tr[𝑁𝑝 𝑊𝑝 ], and lead to the following
definition: given 𝑠, 𝑠′ ∈ Cyl (think of spin-network states) the physical inner product (230) is given
by
∏︁ ∫︁
⟨𝑠′ 𝑃, 𝑠⟩ := lim ⟨𝑠 𝑑𝑁𝑝 exp(𝑖Tr[𝑁𝑝 𝑊𝑝 ]), 𝑠⟩. (234)
𝜖→0
𝑝
The partition is chosen so that the links of the underlying spin-network graphs border the plaque-
ttes. One can easily perform the integration over the 𝑁𝑝 using the identity (Peter–Weyl theorem)
∫︁ ∑︁ 𝑗
𝑑𝑁 exp(𝑖Tr[𝑁 𝑊 ]) = (2𝑗 + 1) Tr[Π (𝑊 )], (235)
𝑗
𝑗
where Π (𝑊 ) is the spin 𝑗 unitary irreducible representation of 𝑆𝑈 (2). Using the previous equation,
𝑛𝑝 (𝜖)
∏︁ ∑︁ 𝑗𝑝
⟨𝑠′ 𝑃, 𝑠⟩ := lim (2𝑗𝑝 + 1) ⟨𝑠′ Tr[Π (𝑊𝑝 )]), 𝑠⟩, (236)
𝜖→0
𝑝 𝑗𝑝
where the spin 𝑗𝑝 is associated to the p-th plaquette, and 𝑛𝑝 (𝜖) is the number of plaquettes.
Since the elements of the set of Wilson loop operators {𝑊𝑝 } commute, the ordering of plaquette-
operators in the previous product does not matter. The limit 𝜖 → 0 exists and one can give a
closed expression for the physical inner product. That the regulator can be removed follows from
the orthonormality of 𝑆𝑈 (2)-irreducible representations, which implies that the two spin sums
associated to the action of two neighboring plaquettes collapses into a single sum over the action
of the fusion of the corresponding plaquettes (see Figure 10). One can also show that it is finite,28
and satisfies all the properties of an inner product [107].
∑︀ ∑︀
(2𝑗 + 1)(2𝑘 + 1) = (2𝑘 + 1)
𝑗𝑘 j k 𝑘 k
Figure 10: In two dimensions the action of two neighboring plaquette-sums on the vacuum is equivalent
to the action of a single larger plaquette action obtained from the fusion of the original ones. This implies
the trivial scaling of the physical inner product under refinement of the regulator and the existence of a
well-defined limit 𝜖 → 0.
14.4 The spin-foam representation

𝑗𝑝
Each Tr[Π (𝑊𝑝 )] in (236) acts in ℋkin by creating a closed loop in the 𝑗𝑝 representation at the
boundary of the corresponding plaquette (Figures 11 and 13).
Now, in order to obtain the spin-foam representation, we introduce a non-physical coordinate
time as follows: Instead of working with one copy of the space manifold Σ, we consider 𝑛𝑝 (𝜖)
28 The physical inner product between spin-network states satisfies the following inequality
∑︁
⃒⟨𝑠, 𝑠′ ⟩𝑝 ⃒ ≤ 𝐶 (2𝑗 + 1)2−2𝑔 ,
⃒ ⃒
for some positive constant 𝐶. The convergence of the sum for genus 𝑔 ≥ 2 follows directly. The case of the sphere
𝑔 = 0 and the torus 𝑔 = 1 can be treated individually [107].

88 Alejandro Perez
k
𝑘 P ∑︀
Tr[Π (𝑊𝑝 )] j = 𝑁𝑗,𝑚,𝑘 j
𝑚 m
Figure 11: Graphical notation representing the action of one plaquette holonomy on a spin network
state. On the right is the result written in terms of the spin-network basis. The amplitude 𝑁𝑗,𝑚,𝑘 can be
expressed in terms of Clebsch–Gordon coefficients.
𝑗𝑝
𝑝 𝑛 (𝜖)
copies as a discrete foliation {Σ𝑝 }𝑝=1 . Next we represent each of the Tr[Π (𝑊𝑝 )] in (236) on the
corresponding Σ𝑝 . If one inserts the partition of unity in ℋkin between the slices, graphically
Σ3
coordinate time
∑︁
1= |𝛾, {𝑗}⟩⟨𝛾, {𝑗}| Σ2 , (237)
𝛾⊂Σ,{𝑗}𝛾
Σ1
where the sum is over the complete basis of spin-network states {|𝛾, {𝑗}⟩} – based on all graphs
𝛾 ⊂ Σ and with all possible spin labeling – one arrives at a sum over a spin-network histories
representation of ⟨𝑠, 𝑠′ ⟩𝑝 . More precisely, ⟨𝑠′ , 𝑠⟩𝑝 can be expressed as a sum over amplitudes
corresponding to a series of transitions that can be viewed as the ‘time evolution’ between the
‘initial’ spin network 𝑠′ and the ‘final’ spin network 𝑠. This is illustrated in the two simple examples
of Figure 12 and 14); on the r.h.s. we illustrate the continuum spin-foam picture obtained when
the regulator is removed in the limit 𝜖 → 0.
j j j j
k k k
m m m m
j
j
j
j
k k k k k
m m m m
j j j
k k k
m
j
m m m
Figure 12: A set of discrete transitions in the loop-to-loop physical inner product obtained by a series of
transitions as in Figure 11. On the right, the continuous spin-foam representation in the limit 𝜖 → 0.
Spin-network nodes evolve into edges, while spin-network links evolve into 2-dimensional faces.
Edges inherit the intertwiners associated to the nodes and faces inherit the spins associated to
the links. Therefore, the series of transitions can be represented by a 2-complex, whose 1-cells
are labeled by intertwiners and whose 2-cells are labeled by spins. The places where the action of
the plaquette loop operators create new links (Figure 13 and 14) define 0-cells or vertices. These

k j k
j n
P
{︂ }︂ p o
𝑛 ∑︀ 𝑗 𝑘 𝑚
Tr[Π (𝑊𝑝 )] = 1
Δ𝑛 Δ𝑗 Δ𝑘 Δ𝑚
m 𝑜,𝑝 𝑛 𝑜 𝑝 m
Figure 13: Graphical notation representing the action of one plaquette holonomy on a spin-network
vertex. The object in brackets ({}) is a 6𝑗-symbol and Δ𝑗 := 2𝑗 + 1.
foam-like structures are the spin foams. The spin-foam amplitudes are purely combinatorial and
can be explicitly computed from the simple action of the loop operator in ℋkin .
The physical inner product takes the standard Ponzano–Regge form when the spin-network
states 𝑠 and 𝑠′ have only 3-valent nodes. Explicitly,
j j
4 5
∑︁ ∏︁ 𝜈𝑓 ∏︁ j3
⟨𝑠, 𝑠′ ⟩𝑝 = (2𝑗𝑓 + 1) 2
j6
, (238)
𝐹𝑠→𝑠′ 𝑓 ⊂𝐹𝑠→𝑠′ 𝑣⊂𝐹𝑠→𝑠′ j j2
1
where the sum is over all the spin foams interpolating between 𝑠 and 𝑠′ (denoted 𝐹𝑠→𝑠′ , see
Figure 18), 𝑓 ⊂ 𝐹𝑠→𝑠′ denotes the faces of the spin foam (labeled by the spins 𝑗𝑓 ), 𝑣 ⊂ 𝐹𝑠→𝑠′
denotes vertices, and 𝜈𝑓 = 0 if 𝑓 ∩ 𝑠 ̸= 0 ∧ 𝑓 ∩ 𝑠′ ̸= 0, 𝜈𝑓 = 1 if 𝑓 ∩ 𝑠 ̸= 0 ∨ 𝑓 ∩ 𝑠′ ̸= 0, and 𝜈𝑓 = 2 if
𝑓 ∩ 𝑠 = 0 ∧ 𝑓 ∩ 𝑠′ = 0. The tetrahedral diagram denotes a 6𝑗-symbol: the amplitude obtained by
means of the natural contraction of the four intertwiners corresponding to the 1-cells converging
at a vertex. More generally, for arbitrary spin networks, the vertex amplitude corresponds to
3𝑛𝑗-symbols, and ⟨𝑠, 𝑠′ ⟩𝑝 takes the same general form.
j j j
p p
m m n m n j
o o
p n
k k k k
m o
j j j
p p p
m n m n m n
o
o o
k k k
j j j
p p p
m n m n m n
o o o
k k k
Figure 14: A set of discrete transitions representing one of the contributing histories at a fixed value of
the regulator. On the right, the continuous spin-foam representation when the regulator is removed.
Even though the ordering of the plaquette actions does not affect the amplitudes, the spin-
foam representation of the terms in the sum (238) is highly dependent on that ordering. This is
represented in Figure 15, where a spin-foam equivalent to that of Figure 12 is obtained by choosing
an ordering of plaquettes where those of the central region act first. One can see this freedom of
representation as an analogy of the gauge freedom in the spacetime representation in the classical
theory.

90 Alejandro Perez
j j j k k
k m
m
j j j j
k k k k
m m m m
k
j j j
k k k
m m m m
j
Figure 15: A different representation of the transition of Figure 12. This spin foam is obtained by a
different ordering choice in (236).
In fact, one can explicitly construct a basis of ℋphys by choosing a linearly-independent set of
representatives of the equivalence classes defined in (231). One such basis is illustrated in Figure 16.
The number of quantum numbers necessary to label the basis element is 6𝑔 − 6, corresponding
to the dimension of the moduli space of 𝑆𝑈 (2) flat connections on a Riemann surface of genus 𝑔.
This is the number of degrees of freedom of the classical theory. In this way we arrive at a fully
combinatorial definition of the standard ℋphys by reducing the infinite degrees of freedom of the
kinematical phase space to finitely many by the action of the generalized projection operator 𝑃 .
6g−10 3
1
6g−6 6g−8 6g−13
6g−7 6g−11 4
6g−9
6g−14 5 2
6g−12
Figure 16: A spin-network basis of physical states for an arbitrary genus 𝑔 Riemann surface. There are
6𝑔 − 6 spins labels (recall that 4-valent nodes carry an intertwiner quantum number).
14.5 Spin-foam quantization of 3D gravity

Here we apply the general framework of Sections 6 and 6.1.2. This was first studied by Iwasaki (in
the spin-foam framework) in [229, 228]. The partition function, 𝒵, is formally given by29
∫︁ ∫︀
𝒵 = 𝒟[𝑒]𝒟[𝐴] 𝑒𝑖 ℳ Tr[𝑒∧𝐹 (𝐴)] , (239)
where, for the moment, we assume ℳ to be compact and orientable. Integrating over the 𝑒 field
in (239), we obtain ∫︁
𝒵 = 𝒟[𝐴] 𝛿 (𝐹 (𝐴)) . (240)
29 We are dealing with Riemannian 3-dimensional gravity. This should not be confused with the approach of
Euclidean quantum gravity formally obtained by a Wick rotation of Lorentzian gravity. Notice the imaginary unit
in front of the action. The theory of Riemannian quantum gravity should be regarded as a toy model with no
obvious connection to the Lorentzian sector.

The partition function 𝒵 corresponds to the ‘volume’ of the space of flat connections on ℳ.
In order to give meaning to the formal expressions above, we replace the 3-dimensional manifold
ℳ with an arbitrary cellular decomposition Δ. We also need the notion of the associated dual
2-complex of Δ denoted by Δ⋆ . The dual 2-complex Δ⋆ is a combinatorial object defined by a set
of vertices 𝑣 ∈ Δ⋆ (dual to 3-cells in Δ), edges 𝑒 ∈ Δ⋆ (dual to 2-cells in Δ) and faces 𝑓 ∈ Δ⋆ (dual
to 1-cells in Δ). The fields 𝑒 and 𝐴 have support on these discrete structures. The 𝑠𝑢(2)-valued
1-form field 𝑒 is represented by the assignment of an 𝑒 ∈ 𝑠𝑢(2) to each 1-cell in Δ. The connection
field 𝐴 is represented by the assignment of group elements 𝑔𝑒 ∈ 𝑆𝑈 (2) to each edge in Δ⋆ .
The partition function is defined by
∫︁ ∏︁ ∏︁
𝒵(Δ) = 𝑑𝑒𝑓 𝑑𝑔𝑒 𝑒𝑖Tr[𝑒𝑓 𝑈𝑓 ] , (241)
𝑓 ∈Δ⋆ 𝑒∈Δ⋆
where 𝑑𝑒𝑓 is the regular Lebesgue measure on R3 , 𝑑𝑔𝑒 is the Haar measure on 𝑆𝑈 (2), and 𝑈𝑓
denotes the holonomy around faces, i.e., 𝑈𝑓 = 𝑔𝑒1 . . . 𝑔𝑒𝑁 for 𝑁 being the number of edges bounding
the corresponding face. Since 𝑈𝑓 ∈ 𝑆𝑈 (2), we can write it as 𝑈𝑓 = 𝑢0𝑓 1 + 𝐹𝑓 where 𝑢0𝑓 ∈ C and
𝐹𝑓 ∈ 𝑠𝑢(2). 𝐹𝑓 is interpreted as the discrete curvature around the face 𝑓 . Clearly Tr[𝑒𝑓 𝑈𝑓 ] =
Tr[𝑒𝑓 𝐹𝑓 ]. An arbitrary orientation is assigned to faces when computing 𝑈𝑓 . We use the fact that
faces in Δ⋆ are in one-to-one correspondence with 1-cells in Δ and label 𝑒𝑓 with a face subindex.
Integrating over 𝑒𝑓 , we obtain
∫︁ ∏︁ ∏︁
𝒵(Δ) = 𝑑𝑔𝑒 𝛿(𝑔𝑒1 . . . 𝑔𝑒𝑁 ), (242)
𝑒∈Δ⋆ 𝑓 ∈Δ⋆
where 𝛿 corresponds to the delta distribution defined on ℒ2 (𝑆𝑈 (2)). Notice that the previous
equation corresponds to the discrete version of Eq.∏︀(240).
The integration over the discrete connection ( 𝑒 𝑑𝑔𝑒 ) can be performed, expanding first the
delta function in the previous equation using the Peter–Weyl decomposition
∑︁
𝛿(𝑔) = Δ𝑗 Tr [𝑗(𝑔)] , (243)
𝑗∈irrep(𝑆𝑈 (2))
where Δ𝑗 = 2𝑗 + 1 denotes the dimension of the unitary representation 𝑗, and 𝑗(𝑔) is the corre-
sponding representation matrix. Using Eq. (243), the partition function (242) becomes
∑︁ ∫︁ ∏︁ ∏︁ [︀ ]︀
𝒵(Δ) = 𝑑𝑔𝑒 Δ𝑗𝑓 Tr 𝑗𝑓 (𝑔𝑒1 . . . 𝑔𝑒𝑁 ) , (244)
𝒞:{𝑗}→{𝑓 } 𝑒∈Δ⋆ 𝑓 ∈Δ⋆
where the sum is over coloring of faces in the notation of (86).

Going from Eq. (241) to (244), we have replaced the continuous integration over the 𝑒’s by the
sum over representations of 𝑆𝑈 (2). Roughly speaking, the degrees of freedom of 𝑒 are now encoded
in the representation being summed over in (244).
Now it remains to integrate over the lattice connection {𝑔𝑒 }. If an edge 𝑒 ∈ Δ⋆ bounds 𝑛
faces there are 𝑛 traces of the form Tr[𝑗𝑓 (· · · 𝑔𝑒 · · · )] in (244) containing 𝑔𝑒 in the argument. The
relevant formula is
∫︁ ∑︁
𝑛
𝑃inv := 𝑑𝑔 𝑗1 (𝑔) ⊗ 𝑗2 (𝑔) ⊗ · · · ⊗ 𝑗𝑛 (𝑔) = 𝐶𝑗𝜄1 𝑗2 ···𝑗𝑛 𝐶𝑗*1𝜄𝑗2 ···𝑗𝑛 , (245)
𝜄
𝑛
where 𝑃inv is the projector onto Inv[𝑗1 ⊗ 𝑗2 ⊗ · · · ⊗ 𝑗𝑛 ]. On the right-hand side we have chosen
an orthonormal basis of invariant vectors (intertwiners) to express the projector. Notice that the

92 Alejandro Perez
assignment of intertwiners to edges is a consequence of the integration over the connection. This
is not a particularity of this example, but rather a general property of local spin foams. Finally,
(242) can be written as a sum over spin-foam amplitudes
∑︁ ∑︁ ∏︁ ∏︁
𝒵(Δ) = Δ𝑗𝑓 𝐴𝑣 (𝜄𝑣 , 𝑗𝑣 ), (246)
𝒞:{𝑗}→{𝑓 } 𝒞:{𝜄}→{𝑒} 𝑓 ∈Δ⋆ 𝑣∈𝒥Δ
where 𝐴𝑣 (𝜄𝑣 , 𝑗𝑣 ) is given by the appropriate trace of the intertwiners 𝜄𝑣 corresponding to the edges
bounded by the vertex and 𝑗𝑣 are the corresponding representations. This amplitude is given,
in general, by an 𝑆𝑈 (2) 3𝑁 𝑗-symbol corresponding to the flat evaluation of the spin network
defined by the intersection of the corresponding vertex with a 2-sphere. When Δ is a simplicial
complex, all the edges in 𝒥Δ are 3-valent and vertices are 4-valent (one such vertex is emphasized
in Figure 5, the intersection with the surrounding 𝑆 2 is shown in dotted lines). Consequently, the
vertex amplitude is given by the contraction of the corresponding four 3-valent intertwiners, i.e.,
a 6𝑗-symbol. In that case, the partition function takes the familiar Ponzano–Regge [309] form
j j
4 5
∑︁ ∏︁ ∏︁ j3
𝒵(Δ) = Δ𝑗𝑓 , (247)
j6
𝒞:{𝑗}→{𝑓 } 𝑓 ∈Δ⋆ 𝑣∈Δ⋆
j j2
1
where the sum over intertwiners disappears since dim(Inv[𝑗1 ⊗ 𝑗2 ⊗ 𝑗3 ]) = 1 for 𝑆𝑈 (2) and there is
only one term in (245). Ponzano and Regge originally defined the amplitude (247) from the study
of the asymptotic properties of the 6𝑗-symbol.
14.5.1 Discretization independence

A crucial property of the partition function (and transition amplitudes in general) is that it does
not depend on the discretization Δ. Given two different cellular decompositions Δ and Δ′ (not
necessarily simplicial)
′
𝜏 −𝑛0 𝑍(Δ) = 𝜏 −𝑛0 𝑍(Δ′ ), (248)
∑︀
where 𝑛0 is the number of 0-simplexes in Δ (hence the number of bubbles in 𝒥Δ ), and 𝜏 = 𝑗 (2𝑗 +
1) is clearly divergent, which makes discretization independence a formal statement without a
suitable regularization.
The sum over spins in (247) is typically divergent, as indicated by the previous equation.
Divergences occur due to infinite volume factors corresponding to the topological gauge freedom
(225)(see [186]).30 The factor 𝜏 in (248) represents such a volume factor. It can also be interpreted
30 For simplicity we concentrate on the Abelian case 𝐺 = 𝑈 (1). The analysis can be extended to the non-Abelian
case. Writing 𝑔 ∈ 𝑈 (1) as 𝑔 = 𝑒𝑖𝜃 , the analog of the gravity simplicial action is
∑︁
𝑆(Δ, {𝑒𝑓 }, {𝜃𝑒 }) = 𝑒𝑓 𝐹𝑓 ({𝜃𝑒 }), (249)
𝑓 ∈Δ⋆
∑︀
where 𝐹𝑓 ({𝜃𝑒 }) = 𝑒∈𝑓 𝜃𝑒 . Gauge transformations corresponding to (224) act at the end points of edges 𝑒 ∈ 𝒥Δ
by the action of group elements {𝛽} in the following way
𝑒𝑓 → 𝑒𝑓 ,
𝜃𝑒 → 𝜃𝑒 + 𝛽𝑠 − 𝛽𝑡 , (250)
where the sub-index 𝑠 (respectively 𝑡) labels the source vertex (respectively target vertex) according to the orientation
of the edge. The gauge invariance of the simplicial action is manifest. The gauge transformation corresponding to

as a 𝛿(0) coming from the existence of a redundant delta function in (242). One can partially
gauge fix this freedom at the level of the discretization. This has the effect of eliminating bubbles
from the 2-complex.
In the case of simply connected Σ, the gauge fixing is complete. One can eliminate bubbles
and compute finite transition amplitudes. The result is equivalent to the physical scalar product
defined in the canonical picture in terms of the delta measure.31
In the case of gravity with cosmological constant the state-sum generalizes to the Turaev–
Viro model [364] defined in terms of 𝑆𝑈𝑞 (2) with 𝑞 𝑛 = 1, where the representations are finitely
many. Heuristically, the presence of the cosmological constant introduces a physical infrared cutoff.
Eq. (248) has been proven in this case for the case of simplicial decompositions in [364]; see
also [363, 238]. The generalization for arbitrary cellular decomposition was obtained in [206].
14.5.2 Transition amplitudes

Transition amplitudes can be defined along similar lines using a manifold with boundaries. Given
Δ, 𝒥Δ then defines graphs on the boundaries. Consequently, spin foams induce spin networks on
the boundaries. The amplitudes have to be modified concerning the boundaries to have the correct
composition property (74). This is achieved by changing the face amplitude from (Δ𝑗𝑓 ) to (Δ𝑗ℓ )1/2
on external faces.
The crucial property of this spin-foam model is that the amplitudes are independent of the
chosen cellular decomposition [363, 206]. This allows for computing transition amplitudes between
any spin network states 𝑠 = (𝛾, {𝑗}, {𝜄}) and 𝑠′ = (𝛾, {𝑗 ′ }, {𝜄′ }) according to the following rules:32
∙ Given ℳ = Σ × [0, 1] (piecewise linear) and spin network states 𝑠 = (𝛾, {𝑗}, {𝜄}) and 𝑠′ =
(𝛾, {𝑗 ′ }, {𝜄′ }) on the boundaries – for 𝛾 and 𝛾 ′ piecewise linear graphs in Σ – choose any
cellular decomposition Δ such that the dual 2-complex 𝒥Δ is bordered by the corresponding
graphs 𝛾 and 𝛾 ′ respectively (existence can be easily shown).
∙ Compute the transition amplitude between 𝑠 and 𝑠′ by summing over all spin-foam amplitudes
(rescaled as in (248)) for the spin foams 𝐹 : 𝑠 → 𝑠′ defined on the 2-complex 𝒥Δ .
14.5.3 The generalized projector

We can compute the transition amplitudes between any element of the kinematical Hilbert space
ℋ.33 Transition amplitudes define the physical scalar product by reproducing the skein relations
(225) acts on vertices of the triangulation Δ and is given by
𝐵𝑓 → 𝐵𝑓 + 𝜂𝑠 − 𝜂𝑡 ,
𝜃𝑒 → 𝜃𝑒 . (251)
According to the discrete analog of Stokes’ theorem,

∑︁
𝐹𝑓 ({𝜃𝑒 }) = 0,
𝑓 ∈Bubble
which implies the invariance of the action under the transformation above. The divergence of the corresponding
spin-foam amplitudes is due to this last freedom. Alternatively, one can understand it from the fact that Stokes’
theorem implies a redundant delta function in (242) per bubble in 𝒥Δ .
31 If ℳ = 𝑆 2 × [0, 1] one can construct a cellular decomposition interpolating any two graphs on the boundaries
without having internal bubbles and hence no divergences.

32 Here we are ignoring various technical issues in order to emphasize the relevant ideas. The most delicate is
that of the divergences due to gauge factors mentioned above. For a more rigorous treatment, see [372, 371].
33 The sense in which this is achieved should be apparent from our previous definition of transition amplitudes.
For a rigorous statement, see [372, 371].

94 Alejandro Perez
of the canonical analysis. We can construct the physical Hilbert space by considering equivalence
classes under states with zero transition amplitude with all the elements of ℋ, i.e., null states.
j s
j
j s
i l
0 i l
0 s e
0 j k k
j
Figure 17: Elementary spin foams used to prove skein relations.
Here we explicitly construct a few examples of null states. For any contractible Wilson loop in
the 𝑗 representation, the state
𝜓 = (2𝑗 + 1) 𝑠 − j ⊗ 𝑠 phys
= 0, (252)
for any spin network state 𝑠, has vanishing transition amplitude with any element of ℋ. This can
easily be checked by using the rules stated above and the portion of illustrated in Figure 17 to show
that the two terms in the previous equation have the same transition amplitude (with opposite
sign) for any spin-network state in ℋ. Using the second elementary spin foam in Figure 17, one
can similarly show that
i l i l
s s
− =
phys
0, (253)
j k j k
or the re-coupling identity using the elementary spin foam on the right of Figure 17
i l {︂ }︂ i l
s ∑︁ √ √ 𝑖 𝑗 𝑠
− 2𝑠 + 1 2𝑒 + 1 e = 0, (254)
𝑘 𝑙 𝑒 phys
j k 𝑒 j k
where the quantity in brackets represents an 𝑆𝑈 (2) 6𝑗-symbol. All skein relations can be found
in this way. The transition amplitudes imply the skein relations that define the physical Hilbert
space! The spin-foam quantization is equivalent to the canonical one.
14.5.4 The continuum limit

Recently, Zapata [372, 371] formalized the idea of a continuum spin-foam description of 3-dimensional
gravity using projective techniques inspired by those utilized in the canonical picture [32]. The
heuristic idea is that, due to the discretization invariance one can define the model in an ‘infinitely’
refined cellular decomposition that contains any possible spin-network state on the boundary (this
intuition is implicit in our rules for computing transition amplitudes above). Zapata concentrates
on the case with non-vanishing cosmological constant and constructs the continuum extension of
the Turaev–Viro model.

14.6 Conclusion
We have illustrated the general notion of the spin-foam quantization in the simple case of three-
dimensional Riemannian gravity (for the generalization to the Lorentzian case, see [178]). The
main goal of the approach is to provide a definition of the physical Hilbert space. The example
of this section sets the guiding principles of what one would like to realize in four dimensions.
However, as should be expected, there are various new issues that make the task by far more
involved.
14.7 Further results in 3D quantum gravity

In this part of the article we have reviewed 𝑆𝑈 (2) BF theory from the perspective of classical and
quantum gravity in three dimensions (for a classic reference see [112]). The state sum as presented
above matches the quantum amplitudes first proposed by Ponzano and Regge in the 1960s, based
on their discovery of the asymptotic expressions of the 6𝑗-symbols [309], and is often referred to as
the Ponzano–Regge model. Divergences in the above formal expression require regularization. We
have seen in Section 14.3 that transition amplitudes are indeed finite in the canonical framework,
where 𝑀 = Σ × 𝑅. Natural regularizations are available in more general cases [67, 281, 186].
For a detailed study of the divergence structure of the model, see [100, 101, 102]. The quantum
deformed version of the above amplitudes lead to the Turaev–Viro model [364], which is expected
to correspond to the quantization of three-dimensional Riemannian gravity in the presence of a
non-vanishing positive cosmological constant.
The topological character of BF theory can be preserved by the coupling of the theory with
topological defects playing the role of point particles. In the spin-foam literature this has been
considered from the canonical perspective in [279, 280] and extensively from the covariant perspec-
tive by Freidel and Louapre [188]. These theories have been shown by Freidel and Livine to be
dual, in a suitable sense, to certain non-commutative field theories in three dimensions [185, 184].
Concerning coupling BF theory with non-topological matter, see [172, 155] for the case of
fermionic matter, and [347] for gauge fields. A more radical perspective for the definition of
matter in 3D gravity is taken in [173]. For three-dimensional supersymmetric BF theory models
see [250, 36].
Recursion relations for the 6𝑗 vertex amplitudes have been investigated in [98, 157]. They
provide a tool for studying dynamics in spin foams of 3D gravity and might be useful in higher
dimensions [99].

96 Alejandro Perez
Part V
Conceptual issues and open problems
In the last part of this review we discuss some important conceptual issues that remain open
questions to a large degree in the formulation. The description of the completely solvable model
of Section 14 will serve as the main example to illustrate some of these issues.

15 Quantum Spacetime and Gauge Histories

What is the geometric meaning of the spin-foam configurations? Can we identify the spin foams
with “quantum spacetime configurations”? The answer to the above questions is, strictly speaking,
in the negative, in agreement with our discussion at the end of Section 2.2. Physical degrees of
freedom are extracted from the huge set of kinematical ones by the sum over gauge-histories that
is realized in the spin-foam representation.
This conclusion is illustrated in an exact way by the simple example in 2+1 gravity where 𝑀 =
𝑆 2 ×R (𝑔 = 0) described in detail in Section 14. In this case, the spin-foam configurations appearing
in the transition amplitudes look locally the same as those appearing in the representation of 𝑃 for
any other topology. However, a close look at the physical inner product defined by 𝑃 permits one to
conclude that the physical Hilbert space is one dimensional – the classical theory has zero degrees
of freedom and so there is no non-trivial Dirac observable in the quantum theory. This means
that the sum over spin foams in Eq. (238) is nothing but a sum over pure gauge degrees of freedom
and hence no physical interpretation can be associated to it. The spins labeling the intermediate
spin foams do not correspond to any measurable quantity. For any other topology this still holds
true, the true degrees of freedom being of a global topological character. This means that, in
general, (even when local excitations are present, as in 4D) the spacetime geometric interpretation
of the spin-foam configurations is subtle. This is an important point that is often overlooked in
the literature: one cannot interpret the spin-foam sum of Eq. (238) as a sum over geometries in
any obvious way. Its true meaning instead comes from averaging over the gauge orbits generated
by the quantum constraints that define 𝑃 – recall the classical picture Figure 2, the discussion
around Eq. (8), and the concrete implementation in 2+1, where 𝑈 (𝑁 ) in (229) is the unitary
transformation representing the orbits generated by 𝐹 . Spin foams represent a gauge history of a
kinematical state. A sum over gauge histories is what defines 𝑃 as a means for extracting the true
degrees of freedom from those that are encoded in the kinematical boundary states.
l
j
p n s
o k m
q
n
s
m
l
j
p
k l
q
o j
k
l
j
Figure 18: A spin foam as the ‘colored’ 2-complex representing the transition between three different spin
network states: it represents a pure gauge-history, interpolating between kinematical boundary quantum
geometry states. The sum over such histories in the spin-foam representation of the path integral is
meant to project out gauge degrees of freedom in order to extract the true physical information out of the
kinematical Hilbert space.

98 Alejandro Perez
Here we are discussing the interpretation of the spin-foam representation in the precise context
of our solvable 3D example; however, the validity of the conclusion is of a general nature and
holds true in the case of physical interest: four-dimensional LQG. Although, the quantum numbers
labeling the spin-foam configurations correspond to eigenvalues of kinematical geometric quantities,
such as length (in 2+1) or area (in 3+1) LQG, their physical meaning and measurability depend on
dynamic considerations (for instance, the naive interpretation of the spins in 2+1 gravity as quanta
of physical length is shown here to be of no physical relevance). Quantitative notions such as time or
distance, as well as qualitative statements about causal structure or time ordering, are misleading
(at best) if they are naively constructed in terms of notions arising from an interpretation of spin
foams as quantum spacetime configurations.
Now this does not mean that kinematical features (that usually admit simpler geometric in-
terpretation) are completely meaningless. It may be that such kinematical quantum geometric
considerations might reflect true physical features when Dirac observables are considered. For
instance, the simplicial geometry interpretation of spin-foam histories (e.g., the total area of a
polyhedron associated to a spin network vertex) is the analog of the computation of some clas-
sical geometric quantity in general relativity (e.g., the area of some closed surface embedded in
spacetime). Both the former and the latter have no intrinsic physical meaning: in the first case,
as argued above, in the second case, because of the absent diffeomorphism-invariant characteri-
zation of the surface. However, in classical general relativity, the ability to compute the area of
surfaces is useful to construct a physical meaningful quantity, such as the area of the event horizon
in Schwarzschild spacetime, which is a fully-diffeomorphism invariant property of the BH space-
time. Similarly, all the machinery of quantum geometry (and its simplicial geometric interpretation
in suitable cases) might play an important role in the construction of the physically-meaningful
objects (Dirac observables) of quantum gravity.34
It is well known (and can be illustrated by many simple examples) that gauge invariant proper-
ties can often be obtained by the suitable combination of gauge covariant quantities. For example,
in Yang–Mills theory, the holonomy ℎ(𝛾𝐴𝐵 ) ∈ 𝐺 from a point 𝐴 to a point 𝐵 along a path 𝛾𝐴𝐵
connecting the two points is not physically meaningful. Nor is the value of some field multiplets
Ψ(𝐴) and Ψ(𝐵) at points 𝐴 and 𝐵 respectively. A physically-meaningful quantity arises from the
gauge-invariant combination of the above quantities, namely ⟨Ψ(𝐴)ℎ(𝛾𝐴𝐵 )Ψ(𝐵)⟩. The pure gauge
character of the quantum geometric interpretation pointed out above in the simple 3D context
corresponds to the holonomy ℎ(𝛾𝐴𝐵 ) ∈ 𝐺 in the above analogy. As soon as we couple 2+1 gravity
with matter fields (corresponding to the Ψ in the above analogy) non-trivial Dirac observables be-
come available (in fact such theory would have local degrees of freedom). These will have to encode
the relationship between the gauge-dependent geometry and the gauge dependent field content in
a gauge-invariant fashion.
In four dimensions we do not need to add anything, as gravity already has its local degrees of
freedom, yet physically-meaningful questions are still relational. Unfortunately, no background-
independent quantum theory with local degrees of freedom is sufficiently simple to illustrate this
with an example. There is no lucky example of free quantum field theories for standard QFT
(non-linearity and background independence may go hand-in-hand). In four dimensions, and in
particular, in the case of the spin-foam models described in this review, the difficult question of
extracting physics from the models is very important and presents a major challenge for the future.
The references discussed in Section 13.3 are important encouraging steps in this direction.
34 An interesting example, where this is strictly realized, is the midi-superspace formulation of black holes in the
context of LQG known as the isolated-horizon formulation (see [31] for a review). In this framework the area of what
represents the black-hole horizon is a Dirac observable and has a discrete spectrum inherited from the area spectrum
of the kinematical area in the full theory [26]. Such discreteness is crucial in recovering the Bekenstein–Hawking
area law for the black-hole entropy in LQG [170, 25].

16 Anomalies and Gauge Fixing

As we mentioned before, and illustrated with the example of three-dimensional gravity (see dis-
cussion in Section 15), the spin-foam path integral is meant to provide a definition of the physical
Hilbert space. Spin-foam transition amplitudes are not interpreted as defining propagation in time,
but rather as defining the physical scalar product. This interpretation of spin-foam models is the
one consistent with general covariance. However, in the path-integral formulation, this property
relies on the gauge invariance of the path-integral measure. If the measure meets this property, we
say it is anomaly free. It is well known that, in addition to the invariance of the measure, one must
provide appropriate gauge-fixing conditions for the amplitudes to be well defined. In this section
we analyze these issues in the context of the spin-foam approach.
Since we are interested in gravity in the first-order formalism, in addition to diffeomorphism
invariance one has to deal with gauge transformations in the internal space. Let us first describe
the situation for the latter. If this gauge group is compact, then anomaly free measures are defined
using appropriate variables and invariant measures. In this case, gauge fixing is not necessary for
the amplitudes to be well defined. Examples where this happens are: the models of Riemannian
gravity considered in this paper (the internal gauge group being 𝑆𝑂(4) or 𝑆𝑈 (2)), and standard
lattice gauge theory. In these cases, one represents the connection in terms of group elements
(holonomies) and uses the (normalized) Haar measure in the integration. In the Lorentzian sector
(internal gauge group 𝑆𝐿(2, C)), the internal gauge orbits have infinite volume and the lattice path
integral would diverge without an appropriate gauge fixing condition. These conditions generally
exist in spin-foam models and are used to regularize the vertex amplitudes of the Lorentzian models
(we have illustrated this at the end of Section 8.3; for a general treatment see [186]).
The remaining gauge freedom is diffeomorphism invariant. To illustrate this issue, we con-
centrate on the case of a model defined on a fixed discretization Δ, as it is the usual setting for
calculations dealing with the models in four dimensions.
Let us start by considering the spin network states, at 𝜕Δ⋆ : boundary of Δ⋆ , for which we
want to define the transition amplitudes. According to what we have learned from the canonical
approach, 3-diffeomorphism invariance is implemented by considering (diffeomorphism) equivalence
classes of spin-network states. In the context of spin foams, the underlying discretization Δ restricts
the graphs on the boundary to be contained on the dual 1-skeleton of the boundary complex
𝜕Δ⋆ . These states are regarded as representative elements of the corresponding 3-diffeomorphism
equivalence class. The discretization can be interpreted, in this way, as a gauge fixing of 3-
diffeomorphisms on the boundary. This gauge fixing is partial in the sense that, generically, there
will remain a discrete symmetry remnant given by the discrete symmetries of the spin network.
This remaining symmetry has to be factored out when computing transition amplitudes (in fact
this also plays a role in the definition of the kinematical Hilbert space of LQG).
A natural view point (consistent with LQG and quantum geometry) is that this should naturally
generalize to 4-diffeomorphisms for spin foams. The underlying 2-complex 𝒥Δ on which spin foams
are defined represents a partial gauge fixing for the configurations (spin foams) entering in the path
integral. The remaining symmetry, to be factored out in the computation of transition amplitudes,
corresponds simply to the finite group of discrete symmetries of the corresponding spin foams.35
This factorization is well defined, since the number of equivalent spin foams can be characterized
in a fully combinatorial manner, and is finite for any spin foam defined on a finite discretization.
In addition, a spin-foam model is anomaly free if the amplitudes are invariant under this discrete
symmetry. We have seen that this requirement (advocated in [90]) can be met by suitable definitions
of the transition amplitudes [49, 235] (see Section 7.5).
However, it is expected – from the experience in lower-dimensional background-independent
35 Baez [38] points out this equivalence relation between spin foams as a necessary condition for the definition of
the category of spin foams.

100 Alejandro Perez
models (recall the discussion of Section 14) – that there will be remnants of the gauge symmetries
acting non-trivially on spin-foam histories by doing more than simply changing the embedding
in the discrete regulating structure Δ as described above. After all, in gravity the Hamiltonian
constraint generates gauge transformations that hide in themselves the non-trivial dynamics of the
theory. This is illustrated precisely in the simplest scenario of 3D gravity, where it is well known
that bubble divergences are directly linked to the infinite volume of the gauge orbits generated by
the curvature constraint [186]. Notice that such gauge-symmetry–related spin foams do not differ
only by their embedding (see Section 14).
It is also important to point out that the view that spin foams represent diffeomorphism equiv-
alence classes of geometries, which sometimes can be loosely stated in the community, is incom-
patible with the idea that spin foams should act as a projector onto the solutions of constraints.
A path integral would only act as a projector if it includes gauge symmetries in the sense of group
averaging. This is related to the fact that physical states (those left invariant by the projector)
are outside the kinematical Hilbert space, i.e., non-normalizable.
The discretization of the manifold Δ is seen as a regulator introduced to define the spin-foam
model. Even when the regulator (or the discretization dependence) eventually has to be removed
(see next Section 17), the theory is presumed to remain discrete at the fundamental level. The
smooth-manifold diffeomorphism-invariant description is expected to emerge in the (low energy)
continuum limit. Fundamental excitations are intrinsically discrete. From this viewpoint, the
precise meaning of the gauge symmetries of such a theory would have to be formulated directly
at the discrete level. We have seen that this can be achieved in the case of 3-dimensional gravity
(recall Section 14.5.1).
The previous paragraph raises the question of whether the discretization procedures used in
the derivation of the spin foams are compatible with the expectation that one is approximating a
diffeomorphism-invariant fundamental theory. More precisely, can one tell whether the diffeomor-
phism invariance is broken by our regularization procedure. This question is quite an important
one and has been one of the central concerns of the work led by Dittrich and collaborators for the
last few years [151, 147, 150, 144, 43]. Indeed, there exist possible discretizations of a field theory,
which maintain the full symmetry content of their continuum relatives. These regularizations are
called perfect actions and even when they are difficult to construct explicitly in general cases, there
are, in principle, methods (based on renormalization group ideas) to approach them [144, 44] (see
also [48] and [46] for more recent discussion and explicit calculations in the perturbative context).
However, there are indications that the discretization procedures used generally do break the
general covariance of gravity. In the simple case of 3D gravity with cosmological constant, this
can be shown explicitly at the classical level [45] as well as at the quantum level [304]. In the first
reference it is shown nonetheless that there exists a well-defined perfect action in this case. At
the quantum level, the results of [282] indicate a possible resolution of the anomaly issue. In four
dimensions, this was first validated by the results obtained by Gambini and Pullin et al. in the
consistent-discretization approach [190, 199, 198, 197, 196, 137, 138, 195, 191, 194]. They study the
canonical formulation of theories defined on a lattice from the onset. The consistent discretization
approach provides a way to analyze the meaning of gauge symmetries directly à la Dirac. Their
results indicate that diff-invariance is indeed broken by the discretization in the sense that there
is no infinitesimal generator of diffeomorphism. This is consistent with the covariant picture of
discrete symmetries above. In their formulation the canonical equations of motion fix the value
of what were Lagrange multipliers in the continuum (e.g., lapse and shift). This is interpreted
as a breaking of diffeomorphism invariance; however, the solutions of the multiplier equations are
highly non-unique. The ambiguity in selecting a particular solution corresponds to the remnant
diffeomorphism invariance of the discrete theory. More recently, the issue of the breaking of
the diffeomorphism symmetry by the regularizations used in spin foams has been studied by the
Dittrich group (see references above). The possibility of using very simple models to study these

questions has been opened in [47].

An important question is whether the possible breaking of the diffeomorphism gauge symmetry
by the regularization can be made to disappear in the continuum limit. The breaking of a gauge
symmetry implies the existence of a new host of degrees of freedom that might be in conflict
with the low-energy interaction one is trying to recover in that limit.36 In addition, the breaking
of non-compact symmetries by a regulating structure poses serious difficulties for the low-energy
regime, even in the case of global symmetries [115] (see [200] and [308] for a recent discussion).
We mention this point here because it is, in our opinion, of major importance. Even though the
question seems quite difficult to address in the context of the present models at this stage, it must
be kept in mind in search of opportunities of further insights.
However, the notion of anomaly freeness evoked at the beginning of this section should be
strengthened. In fact, according to our tentative definition, an anomaly-free measure can be
multiplied by any gauge invariant function and yield a new anomaly free measure. This kind of
ambiguity is not wanted; however, it is, in fact, present in most of the spin-foam models defined
so far: In standard QFT theory, the formal (phase space) path integral measure in the continuum
has a unique meaning (up to a constant normalization) emerging from the canonical formulation.
Provided an appropriate gauge fixing, the corresponding Dirac bracket determines the formal
measure on the gauge-fixed–constraint surface. In the discussion in Section 12.1 we have provided
references where this issue is analyzed.
36 Breaking gauge symmetries comes hand-in-hand with introducing (unwanted) new degrees of freedom. For
example, longitudinal photon modes would appear if 𝑈 (1) gauge symmetry is violated in electromagnetism; similar
spurious modes come to life if diffeormorphism invariance is broken in gravity theories.

102 Alejandro Perez
17 Discretization Dependence
The spin-foam models we have introduced so far are defined on a fixed-cellular decomposition
of ℳ. This is to be interpreted as an intermediate step toward a definition of the theory. The
discretization reduces the infinite dimensional functional integral to a multiple integration over a
finite number of variables. This cutoff is reflected by the fact that only a restrictive set of spin
foams (spin network histories) is allowed in the path integral: those that can be obtained by all
possible coloring of the underlying 2-complex. In addition, it restricts the number of possible
3-geometry states (spin network states) on the boundary by fixing a finite underlying boundary
graph. This represents a truncation in the allowed fluctuations and the set of states of the theory
playing the role of a regulator. However, the nature of this regulator is fundamentally different
from the standard concept in the background-independent framework: since geometry is encoded
in the coloring (that can take any spin values) the configurations involve fluctuations all the way
to Plank scale.37 This scenario is different in lattice gauge theories where the lattice introduces an
effective UV cutoff given by the lattice spacing. However, transition amplitudes are discretization
dependent now. A consistent definition of the path integral using spin foams should include a
prescription to eliminate this discretization dependence.
A special case is that of topological theories, such as gravity in 3 dimensions. In this case,
one can define the sum over spin foams with the aid of a fixed cellular decomposition Δ of the
manifold. Since the theory has no local excitations (no gravitons), the result is independent of the
chosen cellular decomposition. A single discretization suffices to capture the degrees of freedom of
the topological theory.
In lattice gauge theory, the solution to the problem is implemented through the continuum
limit. In this case, the existence of a background geometry is crucial, since it allows one to define
the limit when the lattice constant (length of links) goes to zero. In addition, the possibility of
working in the Euclidean regime allows the implementation of statistical mechanical methods.
None of these structures are available in the background-independent context. The lattice (tri-
angulation) contains only topological information and there is no geometrical meaning associated
to its components. As mentioned above, this has the novel consequence that the truncation cannot
be regarded as a UV cutoff, as in the background-dependent context. This, in turn, represents a
conceptual obstacle to the implementation of standard techniques. Moreover, no Euclidean for-
mulation seems meaningful in a background-independent scenario. New means to eliminate the
truncation introduced by the lattice need to be developed. For a recent analysis in which the
difference between lattice regularization of background-dependent versus background-independent
theories is carefully considered, see [326]. For a more general discussion, see [324].
This is a major issue where concrete results have not been obtained so far beyond the topological
case. Here we explain the two main approaches to recover general covariance corresponding to the
realization of the notion of ‘summing over discretizations’ of [320].
∙ Refinement of the discretization:

According to this idea, topology is fixed by the simplicial decomposition. The truncation
in the number of degrees of freedom should be removed by considering triangulations of
increasing number of simplexes for that fixed topology. The flow in the space of possible
triangulations is controlled by the Pachner moves. The idea is to take a limit in which
the number of four simplexes goes to infinity together with the number of tetrahedra on
the boundary. Given a 2-complex 𝒥2 , which is a refinement of a 2-complex 𝒥1 , then the
set of all possible spin foams defined on 𝒥1 is naturally contained in those defined on 𝒥2 .
The refinement process should also enlarge the space of possible 3-geometry states (spin
37 Changing the label of a face from 𝑗 to 𝑗 + 1 amounts to changing an area eigenvalue by an amount on the order
of the Planck length squared according to (71).

networks) on the boundary recovering the full kinematical sector in the limit of infinite
refinements. An example where this procedure is well defined is Zapata’s treatment of the
Turaev–Viro model [372]. The key point in this case is that amplitudes are independent of
the discretization (due to the topological character of the theory), so that the refinement
limit is trivial. In the general case, the definition of the refinement limit has recently been
studied and formalized in [327]. There is no evidence that the amplitudes of any of the
present models for 4D converge in such a limit.
It has often been emphasized that such a refinement limit may be studied from the Wilsonian
renormalization view point. In the past a renormalization approach for spin foams has been
proposed by Markopoulou [266, 265]. Also, Oeckl [285] has studied the issue of renormal-
ization in the context of spin-foam models containing a coupling parameter. These models
include generalized covariant gauge theories [284, 306, 291], the Reisenberger model, and the
interpolating model (defined by Oeckl). The latter is given by a one-parameter family of mod-
els that interpolate between the trivial BF topological model and the Barrett–Crane model
according to the value of a ‘coupling constant’. Qualitative aspects of the renormalization
groupoid flow of the couplings are studied in the various models.
∙ Spin foams as Feynman diagrams:

This idea has been motivated by the generalized matrix models of Boulatov and Ooguri [105,
292]. The fundamental observation is that spin foams admit a dual formulation in terms of a
field theory over a group manifold [133, 315, 314]. The duality holds in the sense that spin-
foam amplitudes correspond to Feynman diagram amplitudes of the GFT. The perturbative
Feynman expansion of the GFT (expansion in a fiducial coupling constant 𝜆) provides a
definition of sum over discretizations, which is fully combinatorial and hence independent of
any manifold structure.38 The latter is the most appealing feature of this approach.
However, the convergence issues clearly become more involved. The perturbative series are
generically divergent. This is not necessarily a definite obstruction as divergent series can
often be given an asymptotic meaning and provide physical information. Moreover, there
are standard techniques that one can allow to ‘re-sum’ a divergent series in order to obtain
non-perturbative information [319]. Freidel and Louapre [187] have shown that this is in-
deed possible for certain GFT’s in three dimensions. Other possibilities have been proposed
in [315].
Diffeomorphism-equivalent configurations (in the discrete sense described above) appear at
all orders in the perturbation series.39 From this perspective (and leaving aside the issue of
convergence) the sum of different order amplitudes corresponding to equivalent spin foams
should be interpreted as the definition of the physical amplitude of that particular spin foam.
The discussion of Section 16 does not apply in the GFT formulation, i.e., there is no need
for gauge fixing.
The GFT formulation could resolve by definition the two fundamental conceptual problems
of the spin-foam approach: diffeomorphism gauge symmetry and discretization dependence.
The difficulties are shifted to the question of the physical role of 𝜆 and the convergence of
the corresponding perturbative series. A prescription that avoids this last issue is the radical
proposal of Freidel [179], where the tree-level GFT amplitudes are used to define the physical
inner product of quantum gravity.
38 This is more than a ‘sum over topologies’ as many of the two-complexes appearing in the perturbative expansion
cannot be associated to any manifold [134].

39 Already, the GFT formulation is clearly non-trivial in the case of topological theories. There have been attempts
to make sense of the GFT formulation dual to BF theories in lower dimensions [253].

104 Alejandro Perez
This idea has been studied in more detail in three dimensions. In [262] scaling properties
of the modification of the Boulatov group field theory introduced in [187] were studied in
detail. In a further modification of the previous model (known as colored tensor models [208])
new techniques based on a suitable 1/𝑁 expansion imply that amplitudes are dominated
by spherical topology [207]; moreover, it seem possible that the continuum limit might be
critical, as in certain matrix models [209, 95, 210, 211, 339]. However, it is not yet clear
if there is a sense in which these models correspond to a physical theory. The appealing
possible interpretation of the models is that they correspond to a formulation of 3D quantum
gravity including a dynamical topology. Not much is known about gravity models in four
dimensions at this stage.
Finally, discretization independence is not only a problem of spin foams but also of Regge
gravity. Even linearized classical Regge calculus is not discretization independent in 4D as shown
in [152], where a general discussion of the issues raised in this section are considered. It is also
natural to expect the issue of discretization independence to be connected to the issue of diffeomor-
phism symmetry discussed in Section 16. There is evidence [46, 146, 145] that the implementation
of diffeomorphism symmetry into the models will lead to discretization independence.

18 Lorentz Invariance in the Effective Low-Energy Regime

Finally, a very important question for LQG and spin foams (closely related to the consistency of
their low energy limit) is that of the fate of Lorentz symmetry in the low energy regime. This
question has received lots of attention in recent years as it seems to provide an open window of
opportunity for observations of quantum gravity effects (see [270, 233] and references therein).
In the context of LQG, a systematic first-principles analysis of such properties of the low-energy
regime remains open. This is mainly due to the presently-unsolved difficulties associated with a
quantitative dynamical description of physical states. The spin-foam approach discussed in this
review is meant to address the dynamical question and the definition of the new models may
provide the necessary insights to tackle the relevant aspects for the question of Lorentz invariance
at low energies. This question is perhaps within reach at the present stage of development of the
theory, so it deserves all the attention in future investigations.
In the absence of detailed formulations, certain early pioneering model calculations [192] (see
also general treatment [340, 341]) indicate the possibility for certain Lorentz-invariance–violation
(LIV) effects associated to a quantum-gravity granularity of spacetime measured at rest by a
preferred frame of observers. The effects take the form of corrections to the effective Lagrangian
with LIV terms of dimension 5 or higher that are suppressed by negative powers of the Planck mass.
This makes them, in principle, negligible at low energies so that the potential quantum-gravity
effects would be observed as corrections to the standard QFT well-tested physics. However, it was
soon realized [115] that the framework of effective field theories severely restricts the possibility
that LIV remains small when interactions in QFT are taken into account. In fact, dimension five
or higher LIV terms will generically (in the absence of some fundamental protecting mechanism)
generate dimension four and lower LIV terms (with factors in front that are at best quadratic in
standard model coupling constants). Such unsuppressed contributions are in flagrant conflict with
the observed Lorentz invariance of particle physics at low energies.
Therefore, the early calculations in LQG cited above need to be revised under the light of the
strong constraints on the way LIV can arise in quantum gravity. A logical possibility is that these
LIV terms are there thanks to the protecting effect of some custodial mechanism restricting the
LIV to dimension 5 and higher operators.40 For example, such a possibility has been considered
in [200], where it is shown that the large LIV effects can be avoided in the context of Euclidean
field theory (the protecting mechanism being here the trading of the non-compact Poincaré group
by the Euclidean group). This example is interesting but unfortunately does not provide an answer
to the question for the physical Lorentzian theory (see discussion in [114] and more recently [308]).
Thus, there is a challenge for LQG and spin foams consisting of showing that the low-energy
limit of the theory is compatible with the observed low-energy LI. This can be put in the form of
two conservative possibilities. The description of the low energy physics in terms of
1. an effective action with no LIV terms, or
2. an effective action where LIV terms appear starting from dimension-five operators on, due
to some fundamental protecting mechanism in LQG for such structure to be stable under
radiative corrections.
My view, based on the ignorance of a suitable protecting mechanism in LQG, is that only the
first possibility is sensible. This would mean that the way the fundamental Planckian discreteness
of LQG must enter physics is through reference-frame-independent phenomena (as mass enters a
Klein–Gordon theory). In my opinion, the main ingredient that must be taken into account in
considering this issue is the construction of the low-energy limit of quantum gravity in terms of
40For an example of protecting symmetry, see [113]; however, notice that the non-compact nature of the protecting
symmetry in this case makes it seemingly unsuitable for a sensible possibility in LQG.

106 Alejandro Perez
physical or gauge invariant notions (see discussion in Section 15). The LIV effects obtained in LQG
so far promote by assumption the kinematical discreteness of quantum geometry to discreteness of
the physical background in a literal fashion (on the one hand, discreteness of geometry can coexist
with Lorentz invariance [331], on the other, at the level of gauge-invariant observables, some
discrete aspects could disappear [154]). The limitations of such naive view point on kinematical
discreteness versus physical properties in the theory is, in my view, best manifested in the setting
of pure 3D gravity, as discussed above.
For completeness we add that, in addition to the above (conservative) possibilities, some less
standard scenarios could be realized. This has been the view of some of the quantum gravity
community. For a recent proposal of a completely new theoretical framework see [22] and references
therein.
19 Acknowledgements
I would like to thank many people in the field that have helped me in various ways. I am grateful
to Benjamin Bahr, Eugenio Bianchi, Bianca Dittrich, Carlo Rovelli and Simone Speziale for the
many discussions on aspects and details of the recent literature. Many detailed calculations that
contributed to the presentation of the new models in this review were done in collaboration with
Mercedes Velázquez to whom I would like to express my gratitude. I would also like to thank
Sergey Alexandrov, You Ding, Florian Conrady, Laurent Freidel, Muxin Han, Merced Montesinos
and José Antonio Zapata for their help and valuable interaction.

References
[1] Alesci, E., Bianchi, E., Magliaro, E. and Perini, C., “Asymptotics of LQG fusion coefficients”, Class.
Quantum Grav., 27, 095016 (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:0809.3718 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on page 65.)
[2] Alesci, E., Bianchi, E. and Rovelli, C., “LQG propagator: III. The new vertex”, Class. Quantum
Grav., 26, 215001 (2009). [DOI], [arXiv:0812.5018 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on page 83.)
[3] Alesci, E., Noui, K. and Sardelli, F., “Spin-Foam Models and the Physical Scalar Product”, Phys.
Rev. D, 78, 104009 (2008). [DOI], [arXiv:0807.3561]. (Cited on page 79.)
[4] Alesci, E. and Rovelli, C., “Complete LQG propagator: Difficulties with the Barrett-Crane vertex”,
Phys. Rev. D, 76, 104012 (2007). [DOI], [arXiv:0708.0883 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on page 83.)
[5] Alesci, E. and Rovelli, C., “Complete LQG propagator. II. Asymptotic behavior of the vertex”, Phys.
Rev. D, 77, 044024 (2008). [DOI], [arXiv:0711.1284 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on page 83.)
[6] Alexander, S., Marcianò, A. and Tacchi, R.A., “Towards a Spin-foam unification of gravity, Yang-
Mills interactions and matter fields”, Phys. Lett. B, 716, 330–333 (2012). [DOI], [arXiv:1105.3480
[gr-qc]]. (Cited on page 79.)
[7] Alexandrov, S., “𝑆𝑂(4, 𝐶)-covariant Ashtekar-Barbero gravity and the Immirzi parameter”, Class.
Quantum Grav., 17, 4255–4268 (2000). [DOI], [arXiv:gr-qc/0005085]. (Cited on page 78.)
[8] Alexandrov, S., “Choice of connection in loop quantum gravity”, Phys. Rev. D, 65, 024011 (2002).
[DOI], [arXiv:gr-qc/0107071]. (Cited on page 78.)
[9] Alexandrov, S., “Hilbert space structure of covariant loop quantum gravity”, Phys. Rev. D, 66,
024028 (2002). [DOI], [arXiv:gr-qc/0201087]. (Cited on page 78.)
[10] Alexandrov, S., “Reality conditions for Ashtekar gravity from Lorentz-covariant formulation”, Class.
[11] Alexandrov, S., “Simplicity and closure constraints in spin foam models of gravity”, Phys. Rev. D,
78, 044033 (2008). [DOI], [arXiv:0802.3389 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on page 68.)
[12] Alexandrov, S., “Spin foam model from canonical quantization”, Phys. Rev. D, 77, 024009 (2008).
[DOI], [arXiv:0705.3892 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on pages 21 and 68.)
[13] Alexandrov, S., “The new vertices and canonical quantization”, Phys. Rev. D, 82, 024024 (2010).
[14] Alexandrov, S., “Degenerate Plebanski sector and its spin foam quantization”, Class. Quantum
[15] Alexandrov, S., Buffenoir, E. and Roche, P., “Plebanski theory and covariant canonical formulation”,
Class. Quantum Grav., 24, 2809–2824 (2007). [DOI], [arXiv:gr-qc/0612071]. (Cited on page 78.)
[16] Alexandrov, S., Geiller, M. and Noui, K., “Spin Foams and Canonical Quantization”, SIGMA, 8,
055 (2012). [DOI], [arXiv:1112.1961 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on page 36.)
[17] Alexandrov, S., Grigentch, I. and Vassilevich, D.V., “𝑆𝑈 (2)-invariant reduction of the (3+1)-
dimensional Ashtekar’s gravity”, Class. Quantum Grav., 15, 573–580 (1998). [DOI], [arXiv:gr-
qc/9705080]. (Cited on page 78.)
[18] Alexandrov, S. and Krasnov, K., “Hamiltonian analysis of non-chiral Plebanski theory and its gen-
eralizations”, Class. Quantum Grav., 26, 055005 (2009). [DOI], [arXiv:0809.4763 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on
page 23.)

108 Alejandro Perez
[19] Alexandrov, S. and Livine, E.R., “𝑆𝑈 (2) loop quantum gravity seen from covariant theory”, Phys.
Rev. D, 67, 044009 (2003). [DOI], [arXiv:gr-qc/0209105]. (Cited on page 78.)
[20] Alexandrov, S. and Roche, P., “Critical Overview of Loops and Foams”, Phys. Rep., 506, 41–86
(2011). [DOI], [arXiv:1009.4475 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on page 17.)
[21] Alexandrov, S. and Vassilevich, D.V., “Area spectrum in Lorentz covariant loop gravity”, Phys. Rev.
D, 64, 044023 (2001). [DOI], [arXiv:gr-qc/0103105 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on page 78.)
[22] Amelino-Camelia, G., Freidel, L., Kowalski-Glikman, J. and Smolin, L., “Principle of relative local-
ity”, Phys. Rev. D, 84, 084010 (2011). [DOI], [arXiv:1101.0931 [hep-th]]. (Cited on page 106.)
[23] Ashtekar, A., “New Variables for Classical and Quantum Gravity”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 57, 2244–2247
(1986). [DOI]. (Cited on pages 23 and 29.)
[24] Ashtekar, A., Lectures on Non-Perturbative Canonical Gravity, Advanced Series in Astrophysics and
Cosmology, 6, (World Scientific, Singapore, 1991). [Google Books]. (Cited on pages 22 and 29.)
[25] Ashtekar, A., Baez, J.C., Corichi, A. and Krasnov, K., “Quantum geometry and black hole entropy”,
Phys. Rev. Lett., 80, 904–907 (1998). [DOI], [arXiv:gr-qc/9710007]. (Cited on page 98.)
[26] Ashtekar, A., Baez, J.C. and Krasnov, K., “Quantum geometry of isolated horizons and black hole
entropy”, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys., 4, 1–94 (2000). [arXiv:gr-qc/0005126]. (Cited on pages 32
and 98.)
[27] Ashtekar, A., Campiglia, M. and Henderson, A., “Loop Quantum Cosmology and Spin Foams”,
Phys. Lett. B, 681, 347–352 (2009). [DOI], [arXiv:0909.4221]. (Cited on page 79.)
[28] Ashtekar, A., Campiglia, M. and Henderson, A., “Casting Loop Quantum Cosmology in the Spin
Foam Paradigm”, Class. Quantum Grav., 27, 135020 (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:1001.5147]. (Cited on
page 79.)
[29] Ashtekar, A., Campiglia, M. and Henderson, A., “Path Integrals and the WKB approximation in
Loop Quantum Cosmology”, Phys. Rev. D, 82, 124043 (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:1011.1024]. (Cited on
page 79.)
[30] Ashtekar, A., Corichi, A. and Zapata, J.A., “Quantum theory of geometry: III. Non-commutativity of
Riemannian structures”, Class. Quantum Grav., 15, 2955–2972 (1998). [DOI], [arXiv:gr-qc/9806041
[31] Ashtekar, A. and Krishnan, B., “Isolated and Dynamical Horizons and Their Applications”, Living
Rev. Relativity, 7, lrr-2004-10 (2004). [arXiv:gr-qc/0407042]. URL (accessed 12 September 2011):
http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2004-10. (Cited on page 98.)
[32] Ashtekar, A. and Lewandowski, J., “Projective techniques and functional integration”, J. Math.
Phys., 36, 2170 (1995). [DOI]. (Cited on pages 13, 30, 31, and 94.)
[33] Ashtekar, A. and Lewandowski, J., “Quantum Theory of Gravity: I. Area Operators”, Class. Quan-
tum Grav., 14, A55–A81 (1997). [DOI]. (Cited on page 32.)
[34] Ashtekar, A. and Lewandowski, J., “Quantum Theory of Gravity: II. Volume Operators”, Adv.
Theor. Math. Phys., 1, 388–429 (1997). [arXiv:gr-qc/9711031]. (Cited on page 32.)
[35] Ashtekar, A. and Lewandowski, J., “Background independent quantum gravity: A status report”,
Class. Quantum Grav., 21, R53–R152 (2004). [DOI], [arXiv:gr-qc/0404018]. (Cited on pages 12, 14,
22, 28, and 29.)
[36] Baccetti, V., Livine, E.R. and Ryan, J.P., “The particle interpretation of 𝑁 = 1 supersymmetric
spin foams”, Class. Quantum Grav., 27, 225022 (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:1004.0672 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on
pages 44 and 95.)

[37] Baez, J.C., “Spin Network States in Gauge Theory”, Adv. Math., 117, 253–272 (1996). [DOI]. (Cited
on page 30.)
[38] Baez, J.C., “Spin Foam Models”, Class. Quantum Grav., 15, 1827–1858 (1998). [DOI]. (Cited on
pages 19, 34, 63, 80, and 99.)
[39] Baez, J.C., “An Introduction to Spin Foam Models of Quantum Gravity and BF Theory”, in Gaus-
terer, H., Grosse, H. and Pittner, L., eds., Geometry and Quantum Physics, Proceedings of the
38. Internationale Universitätswochen für Kern- und Teilchenphysik, Schladming, Austria, January
9 – 16, 1999, Lecture Notes in Physics, 543, pp. 25–94, (Springer, Berlin; New York, 2000). [gr-
qc/9905087]. (Cited on pages 17, 37, and 85.)
[40] Baez, J.C. and Barrett, J.W., “The Quantum Tetrahedron in 3 and 4 Dimensions”, Adv. Theor.
Math. Phys., 3, 815–850 (1999). (Cited on page 19.)
[41] Baez, J.C. and Perez, A., “Quantization of strings and branes coupled to BF theory”, Adv. Theor.
Math. Phys., 11, 3 (2007). [arXiv:gr-qc/0605087]. (Cited on page 46.)
[42] Bahr, B., “On knottings in the physical Hilbert space of LQG as given by the EPRL model”, Class.
[43] Bahr, B. and Dittrich, B., “Breaking and Restoring of Diffeomorphism Symmetry in Discrete Grav-
ity”, in Kowalski-Glikman, J., Durka, R. and Szczachor, M., eds., The Planck Scale, Proceedings of
the XXV Max Born Symposium, Wroclaw, Poland, 29 June – 03 July 2009, AIP Conference Proceed-
ings, 1196, pp. 10–17, (American Institute of Physics, Melville, NY, 2009). [DOI], [arXiv:0909.5688
[44] Bahr, B. and Dittrich, B., “(Broken) Gauge Symmetries and Constraints in Regge Calculus”, Class.
[45] Bahr, B. and Dittrich, B., “Improved and Perfect Actions in Discrete Gravity”, Phys. Rev. D, 80,
[46] Bahr, B., Dittrich, B. and He, S., “Coarse graining free theories with gauge symmetries: the linearized
case”, New J. Phys., 13, 045009 (2011). [DOI], [arXiv:1011.3667 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on pages 100
and 104.)
[47] Bahr, B., Dittrich, B. and Ryan, J.P., “Spin foam models with finite groups”, arXiv, e-print, (2011).
[arXiv:1103.6264 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on page 101.)
[48] Bahr, B., Dittrich, B. and Steinhaus, S., “Perfect discretization of reparametrization invariant path
integrals”, Phys. Rev. D, 83, 105026 (2011). [DOI], [arXiv:1101.4775 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on page 100.)
[49] Bahr, B., Hellmann, F., Kaminski, W., Kisielowski, M. and Lewandowski, J., “Operator Spin Foam
Models”, Class. Quantum Grav., 28, 105003 (2011). [DOI], [arXiv:1010.4787 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on
pages 63, 64, and 99.)
[50] Bahr, B. and Thiemann, T., “Gauge-invariant coherent states for Loop Quantum Gravity. I. Abelian
gauge groups”, Class. Quantum Grav., 26, 045011 (2009). [DOI], [arXiv:0709.4619 [gr-qc]]. (Cited
on page 47.)
[51] Bahr, B. and Thiemann, T., “Gauge-invariant coherent states for loop quantum gravity. II. Non-
Abelian gauge groups”, Class. Quantum Grav., 26, 045012 (2009). [DOI], [arXiv:0709.4636 [gr-qc]].
(Cited on page 47.)
[52] Baratin, A., Flori, C. and Thiemann, T., “The Holst spin foam model via cubulations”, New J.
Phys., 14, 103054 (2012). [DOI], [arXiv:0812.4055 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on page 68.)
[53] Baratin, A. and Oriti, D., “Group field theory with non-commutative metric variables”, Phys. Rev.
Lett., 105, 221302 (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:1002.4723 [hep-th]]. (Cited on page 68.)

110 Alejandro Perez
[54] Baratin, A. and Oriti, D., “Quantum simplicial geometry in the group field theory formalism: re-
considering the Barrett-Crane model”, New J. Phys., 13, 125011 (2011). [DOI], [arXiv:1108.1178
[55] Baratin, A. and Oriti, D., “Group field theory and simplicial gravity path integrals: A model for
Holst-Plebanski gravity”, Phys. Rev. D, 85, 044003 (2012). [DOI], [arXiv:1111.5842 [hep-th]]. (Cited
on page 68.)
[56] Barbero G, J.F., “Real Ashtekar variables for Lorentzian signature space times”, Phys. Rev. D, 51,
5507–5510 (1995). [DOI]. (Cited on pages 23 and 29.)
[57] Barbero G, J.F., “From Euclidean to Lorentzian general relativity: The real way”, Phys. Rev. D,
54, 1492–1499 (1996). [arXiv:gr-qc/9605066]. (Cited on page 26.)
[58] Barbieri, A., “Quantum tetrahedra and simplicial spin networks”, Nucl. Phys. B, 518, 714–728
(1998). [DOI], [arXiv:gr-qc/9707010]. (Cited on page 19.)
[59] Barrett, J.W. and Crane, L., “Relativistic spin networks and quantum gravity”, J. Math. Phys., 39,
3296–3302 (1998). [DOI]. (Cited on pages 19, 52, and 76.)
[60] Barrett, J.W. and Crane, L., “A Lorentzian Signature Model for Quantum General Relativity”,
Class. Quantum Grav., 17, 3101–3118 (2000). [DOI]. (Cited on pages 70, 76, and 79.)
[61] Barrett, J.W., Dowdall, R.J., Fairbairn, W.J., Gomes, H. and Hellmann, F., “Asymptotic analysis
of the EPRL four-simplex amplitude”, J. Math. Phys., 50, 112504 (2009). [DOI], [arXiv:0902.1170
[gr-qc]]. (Cited on pages 67, 80, 81, and 82.)
[62] Barrett, J.W., Dowdall, R.J., Fairbairn, W.J., Gomes, H. and Hellmann, F., “A Summary of the
Asymptotic Analysis for the EPRL Amplitude”, in Kowalski-Glikman, J., Durka, R. and Szczachor,
M., eds., The Planck Scale: Proceedings of the XXV Max Born Symposium, Wroclaw, Poland, 29
June – 3 July 2009, AIP Conference Proceedings, 1196, pp. 36–43, (American Institute of Physics,
Melville, NY, 2009). [DOI], [arXiv:0909.1882 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on pages 80 and 82.)
[63] Barrett, J.W., Dowdall, R.J., Fairbairn, W.J., Hellmann, F. and Pereira, R., “Asymptotics of 4d
spin foam models”, Gen. Relativ. Gravit., 43, 2421–2436 (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:1003.1886 [gr-qc]].
(Cited on page 80.)
[64] Barrett, J.W., Dowdall, R.J., Fairbairn, W.J., Hellmann, F. and Pereira, R., “Lorentzian spin foam
amplitudes: graphical calculus and asymptotics”, Class. Quantum Grav., 27, 165009 (2010). [DOI],
[arXiv:0907.2440 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on pages 80 and 82.)
[65] Barrett, J.W., Fairbairn, W.J. and Hellmann, F., “Quantum gravity asymptotics from the SU(2)
15𝑗-symbol”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A, 25, 2897–2916 (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:0912.4907 [gr-qc]]. (Cited
on page 80.)
[66] Barrett, J.W., Garcı́a-Islas, J.M. and Martins, J.F., “Observables in the Turaev-Viro and Crane-
Yetter models”, J. Math. Phys., 48, 093508 (2007). [DOI], [arXiv:math/0411281]. (Cited on page 43.)
[67] Barrett, J.W. and Naish-Guzman, I., “The Ponzano-Regge model”, Class. Quantum Grav., 26,
155014 (2009). [DOI], [arXiv:0803.3319 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on pages 43 and 95.)
[68] Barrett, J.W. and Steele, C.M., “Asymptotics of relativistic spin networks”, Class. Quantum Grav.,
20, 1341–1362 (2003). [DOI], [arXiv:gr-qc/0209023]. (Cited on page 80.)
[69] Barrett, J.W. and Williams, R.M., “The asymptotics of an amplitude for the 4-simplex”, Adv. Theor.
Math. Phys., 3, 209–215 (1999). [arXiv:gr-qc/9809032]. (Cited on pages 77 and 80.)
[70] Bianchi, E., “The length operator in Loop Quantum Gravity”, Nucl. Phys. B, 807, 591–624 (2009).
[DOI], [arXiv:0806.4710 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on page 32.)

[71] Bianchi, E., Dona, P. and Speziale, S., “Polyhedra in loop quantum gravity”, Phys. Rev. D, 83,
044035 (2011). [DOI], [arXiv:1009.3402]. (Cited on page 32.)
[72] Bianchi, E. and Haggard, H.M., “Discreteness of the Volume of Space from Bohr-Sommerfeld Quan-
tization”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 107, 011301 (2011). [DOI], [arXiv:1102.5439]. (Cited on page 32.)
[73] Bianchi, E., Han, M., Magliaro, E., Perini, C., Rovelli, C. and Wieland, W.M., “Spinfoam fermions”,
arXiv, e-print, (2010). [arXiv:1012.4719]. (Cited on page 79.)
[74] Bianchi, E., Krajewski, T., Rovelli, C. and Vidotto, F., “Cosmological constant in spinfoam cosmol-
ogy”, Phys. Rev. D, 83, 104015 (2011). [DOI], [arXiv:1101.4049]. (Cited on page 79.)
[75] Bianchi, E., Magliaro, E. and Perini, C., “LQG propagator from the new spin foams”, Nucl. Phys.
B, 822, 245–269 (2009). [DOI], [arXiv:0905.4082 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on page 83.)
[76] Bianchi, E., Magliaro, E. and Perini, C., “Coherent spin-networks”, Phys. Rev. D, 82, 024012 (2010).
[77] Bianchi, E., Modesto, L., Rovelli, C. and Speziale, S., “Graviton propagator in loop quantum grav-
ity”, Class. Quantum Grav., 23, 6989–7028 (2006). [DOI], [arXiv:gr-qc/0604044 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on
page 83.)
[78] Bianchi, E., Regoli, D. and Rovelli, C., “Face amplitude of spinfoam quantum gravity”, Class.
[79] Bianchi, E., Rovelli, C. and Vidotto, F., “Towards Spinfoam Cosmology”, Phys. Rev. D, 82, 084035
(2010). [DOI], [arXiv:1003.3483]. (Cited on page 79.)
[80] Bianchi, E. and Satz, A., “Semiclassical regime of Regge calculus and spin foams”, Nucl. Phys. B,
808, 546–568 (2009). [DOI], [arXiv:0808.1107 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on page 83.)
[81] Bodendorfer, N., Thiemann, T. and Thurn, A., “New variables for classical and quantum grav-
ity in all dimensions: II. Lagrangian analysis”, Class. Quantum Grav., 30, 045002 (2011). [DOI],
[82] Bodendorfer, N., Thiemann, T. and Thurn, A., “Towards Loop Quantum Supergravity (LQSG)”,
Phys. Lett. B, 711, 205–211 (2012). [DOI], [arXiv:1106.1103 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on page 28.)
ity in all dimensions: I. Hamiltonian analysis”, Class. Quantum Grav., 30, 045001 (2013). [DOI],
ity in all dimensions: III. Quantum theory”, Class. Quantum Grav., 30, 045003 (2013). [DOI],
[85] Bodendorfer, N., Thiemann, T. and Thurn, A., “New variables for classical and quantum gravity in all
dimensions: IV. Matter coupling”, Class. Quantum Grav., 30, 045004 (2013). [DOI], [arXiv:1105.3706
[86] Bodendorfer, N., Thiemann, T. and Thurn, A., “On the implementation of the canonical quantum
simplicity constraint”, Class. Quantum Grav., 30, 045005 (2013). [DOI], [arXiv:1105.3708 [gr-qc]].
(Cited on page 28.)
[87] Bodendorfer, N., Thiemann, T. and Thurn, A., “Towards Loop Quantum Supergravity (LQSG): I.
Rarita–Schwinger sector”, Class. Quantum Grav., 30, 045006 (2013). [DOI], [arXiv:1105.3709 [gr-
qc]]. (Cited on page 28.)

112 Alejandro Perez
[88] Bodendorfer, N., Thiemann, T. and Thurn, A., “Towards loop quantum supergravity (LQSG): II.
𝑝-form sector”, Class. Quantum Grav., 30, 045007 (2013). [DOI], [arXiv:1105.3710 [gr-qc]]. (Cited
on page 28.)
[89] Bojowald, M., “Loop Quantum Cosmology”, Living Rev. Relativity, 8, lrr-2005-11 (2005). [arXiv:gr-
qc/0601085]. URL (accessed 12 September 2011):
[90] Bojowald, M. and Perez, A., “Spin foam quantization and anomalies”, Gen. Relativ. Gravit., 42,
877–907 (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:gr-qc/0303026]. (Cited on pages 63, 78, and 99.)
[91] Bonzom, V., “From lattice BF gauge theory to area-angle Regge calculus”, Class. Quantum Grav.,
26, 155020 (2009). [DOI], [arXiv:0903.0267]. (Cited on page 68.)
[92] Bonzom, V., “Spin foam models for quantum gravity from lattice path integrals”, Phys. Rev. D, 80,
[93] Bonzom, V., “Spin foam models and the Wheeler-DeWitt equation for the quantum 4-simplex”,
Phys. Rev. D, 84, 024009 (2011). [DOI], [arXiv:1101.1615]. (Cited on page 79.)
[94] Bonzom, V. and Freidel, L., “The Hamiltonian constraint in 3d Riemannian loop quantum gravity”,
Class. Quantum Grav., 28, 195006 (2011). [DOI], [arXiv:1101.3524]. (Cited on page 79.)
[95] Bonzom, V., Gurau, R., Riello, A. and Rivasseau, V., “Critical behavior of colored tensor models in
the large N limit”, Nucl. Phys. B, 853, 174–195 (2011). [DOI], [arXiv:1105.3122 [hep-th]]. (Cited
on pages 80 and 104.)
[96] Bonzom, V. and Livine, E.R., “A Immirzi-like parameter for 3D quantum gravity”, Class. Quantum
[97] Bonzom, V. and Livine, E.R., “A Lagrangian approach to the Barrett-Crane spin foam model”,
[98] Bonzom, V. and Livine, E.R., “A New Recursion Relation for the 6j-Symbol”, Ann. Henri Poincare,
13, 1083–1099 (2012). [DOI], [arXiv:1103.3415]. (Cited on pages 44 and 95.)
[99] Bonzom, V., Livine, E.R. and Speziale, S., “Recurrence relations for spin foam vertices”, Class.
Quantum Grav., 27, 125002 (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:0911.2204]. (Cited on pages 44 and 95.)
[100] Bonzom, V. and Smerlak, M., “Bubble divergences from cellular cohomology”, Lett. Math. Phys.,
93, 295–305 (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:1004.5196 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on pages 43 and 95.)
[101] Bonzom, V. and Smerlak, M., “Bubble Divergences from Twisted Cohomology”, Commun. Math.
Phys., 312, 399–426 (2012). [DOI], [arXiv:1008.1476 [math-ph]]. (Cited on pages 43 and 95.)
[102] Bonzom, V. and Smerlak, M., “Bubble Divergences: Sorting out Topology from Cell Structure”,
Ann. Henri Poincare, 13, 185–208 (2012). [DOI], [arXiv:1103.3961 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on pages 43
and 95.)
[103] Bonzom, V. and Smerlak, M., “Gauge Symmetries in Spin-Foam Gravity: The Case for ‘Cellular
Quantization”’, Phys. Rev. Lett., 108, 241303 (2012). [DOI], [arXiv:1201.4996 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on
page 43.)
[104] Borja, E.F., Freidel, L., Garay, I. and Livine, E.R., “U(𝑁 ) tools for loop quantum gravity: the return
of the spinor”, Class. Quantum Grav., 28, 055005 (2011). [DOI], [arXiv:1010.5451 [gr-qc]]. (Cited
on page 68.)
[105] Boulatov, D.V., “A Model of Three-Dimensional Lattice Gravity”, Mod. Phys. Lett. A, 7, 1629–1646
(1992). [DOI]. (Cited on page 103.)

[106] Buffenoir, E., Henneaux, M., Noui, K. and Roche, P., “Hamiltonian analysis of Plebanski theory”,
[107] Buffenoir, E. and Noui, K., “Unfashionable observations about three dimensional gravity”, arXiv,
e-print, (2003). [arXiv:gr-qc/0305079]. (Cited on page 87.)
[108] Campiglia, M., Henderson, A. and Nelson, W., “Vertex Expansion for the Bianchi I model”, Phys.
Rev. D, 82, 064036 (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:1007.3723]. (Cited on page 79.)
[109] Capovilla, R., Jacobson, T.A. and Dell, J., “General relativity without the metric”, Phys. Rev. Lett.,
63, 2325 (1989). [DOI]. (Cited on page 20.)
[110] Capovilla, R., Jacobson, T.A. and Dell, J., “A Pure spin connection formulation of gravity”, Class.
Quantum Grav., 8, 59–73 (1991). [DOI]. (Cited on page 20.)
[111] Capovilla, R., Montesinos, M., Prieto, V.A. and Rojas, E., “BF gravity and the Immirzi parameter”,
Class. Quantum Grav., 18, L49 (2001). [DOI]. (Cited on page 23.)
[112] Carlip, S., Quantum Gravity in 2+1 Dimensions, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics,
(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York, 1998). [Google Books]. (Cited on pages 43,
85, and 95.)
[113] Cohen, A.G. and Glashow, S.L., “Very special relativity”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 97, 021601 (2006). [DOI],
[arXiv:hep-ph/0601236 [hep-ph]]. (Cited on page 105.)
[114] Collins, J., Perez, A. and Sudarsky, D., “Lorentz invariance violation and its role in Quantum Gravity
phenomenology”, in Oriti, D., ed., Approaches to Quantum Gravity: Toward a New Understanding of
Space, Time and Matter, pp. 528–547, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York, 2009).
[arXiv:hep-th/0603002]. (Cited on page 105.)
[115] Collins, J., Perez, A., Sudarsky, D., Urrutia, L.F. and Vucetich, H., “Lorentz invariance and quantum
gravity: an additional fine-tuning problem?”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 93, 191301 (2004). [DOI], [arXiv:gr-
qc/0403053]. (Cited on pages 101 and 105.)
[116] Colosi, D. and Oeckl, R., “S-matrix at spatial infinity”, Phys. Lett. B, 665, 310–313 (2008). [DOI],
[arXiv:0710.5203 [hep-th]]. (Cited on page 83.)
[117] Colosi, D. and Oeckl, R., “Spatially asymptotic S-matrix from general boundary formulation”, Phys.
Rev. D, 78, 025020 (2008). [DOI], [arXiv:0802.2274 [hep-th]]. (Cited on page 83.)
[118] Colosi, D. and Oeckl, R., “States and amplitudes for finite regions in a two-dimensional Euclidean
quantum field theory”, J. Geom. Phys., 59, 764–780 (2009). [DOI], [arXiv:0811.4166 [hep-th]]. (Cited
on page 83.)
[119] Colosi, D. and Oeckl, R., “On Unitary Evolution in Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime”,
Open Nucl. Part. Phys. J., 4, 13–20 (2011). [DOI], [arXiv:0912.0556 [hep-th]]. (Cited on page 83.)
[120] Conrady, F., “Spin foams with timelike surfaces”, Class. Quantum Grav., 27, 155014 (2010). [DOI],
[arXiv:1003.5652]. (Cited on page 79.)
[121] Conrady, F. and Freidel, L., “Path integral representation of spin foam models of 4D gravity”, Class.
Quantum Grav., 25, 245010 (2008). [DOI], [arXiv:0806.4640 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on pages 80, 81, and 82.)
[122] Conrady, F. and Freidel, L., “Semiclassical limit of 4-dimensional spin foam models”, Phys. Rev. D,
78, 104023 (2008). [DOI], [arXiv:0809.2280 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on pages 80, 81, 82, and 83.)
[123] Conrady, F. and Freidel, L., “Quantum geometry from phase space reduction”, J. Math. Phys., 50,

114 Alejandro Perez
[124] Conrady, F. and Hnybida, J., “A spin foam model for general Lorentzian 4-geometries”, Class.
Quantum Grav., 27, 185011 (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:1002.1959]. (Cited on page 79.)
[125] Conrady, F. and Hnybida, J., “Unitary irreducible representations of SL(2,C) in discrete and con-
tinuous SU(1,1) bases”, J. Math. Phys., 52, 012501 (2011). [DOI], [arXiv:1007.0937]. (Cited on
page 79.)
[126] Constantinidis, C.P., Piguet, O. and Perez, A., “Quantization of the Jackiw-Teitelboim model”,
[127] Crane, L., “Categorical physics”, arXiv, e-print, (1993). [arXiv:hep-th/9301061]. (Cited on page 34.)
[128] Crane, L., “Topological field theory as the key to quantum gravity”, in Baez, J.C., ed., Knots and
Quantum Gravity, Proceedings of a workshop held at UC Riverside on May 14–16, 1993, Oxford Lec-
ture Series in Mathematics and its Applications, 1, pp. 121–131, (Clarendon Press; Oxford University
Press, Oxford; New York, 1994). [arXiv:hep-th/9308126]. (Cited on page 34.)
[129] Crane, L., Kauffman, L. and Yetter, D.N., “State-Sum Invariants of 4-Manifolds”, J. Knot Theory
Ramifications, 06, 177–234 (1997). [DOI]. (Cited on page 46.)
[130] Crane, L. and Yetter, D.N., “A Categorical Construction of 4D Topological Quantum Field Theories”,
in Kauffman, L.H. and Baadhio, R.A., eds., Quantum Topology, Series on Knots and Everything,
3, pp. 120–130, (World Scientific, Singapore; River Edge, NJ, 1993). [Google Books]. (Cited on
pages 34, 46, and 79.)
[131] Date, G., Kaul, R.K. and Sengupta, S., “Topological Interpretation of Barbero-Immirzi Parameter”,
[132] De Pietri, R. and Freidel, L., “𝑠𝑜(4) Plebanski Action and Relativistic Spin Foam Model”, Class.
Quantum Grav., 16, 2187–2196 (1999). [DOI]. (Cited on page 23.)
[133] De Pietri, R., Freidel, L., Krasnov, K. and Rovelli, C., “Barrett-Crane model from a Boulatov-
Ooguri field theory over a homogeneous space”, Nucl. Phys. B, 574, 785–806 (2000). [DOI]. (Cited
on page 103.)
[134] De Pietri, R. and Petronio, C., “Feynman diagrams of generalized matrix models and the associated
manifolds in dimension four”, J. Math. Phys., 41, 6671–6688 (2000). [DOI]. (Cited on page 103.)
[135] Di Bartolo, C., Gambini, R., Griego, J. and Pullin, J., “Canonical quantum gravity in the Vassiliev
invariants arena: II. Constraints, habitats and consistency of the constraint algebra”, Class. Quantum
Grav., 17, 3239–3264 (2000). (Cited on pages 32 and 33.)
[136] Di Bartolo, C., Gambini, R., Griego, J. and Pullin, J., “Consistent canonical quantization of general
relativity in the space of Vassiliev knot invariants”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 84, 2314–2317 (2000). [DOI].
(Cited on pages 32 and 33.)
[137] Di Bartolo, C., Gambini, R., Porto, R.A. and Pullin, J., “Dirac-like approach for consistent dis-
cretizations of classical constrained theories”, J. Math. Phys., 46, 012901 (2005). [DOI], [arXiv:gr-
qc/0405131]. (Cited on page 100.)
[138] Di Bartolo, C., Gambini, R. and Pullin, J., “Consistent and mimetic discretizations in general
relativity”, J. Math. Phys., 46, 032501 (2005). [DOI], [arXiv:gr-qc/0404052]. (Cited on page 100.)
[139] Ding, Y. and Han, M., “On the Asymptotics of Quantum Group Spinfoam Model”, arXiv, e-print,
(2011). [arXiv:1103.1597]. (Cited on page 79.)
[140] Ding, Y., Han, M. and Rovelli, C., “Generalized spinfoams”, Phys. Rev. D, 83, 124020 (2011). [DOI],
[arXiv:1011.2149]. (Cited on pages 52, 71, and 78.)

[141] Ding, Y. and Rovelli, C., “Physical boundary Hilbert space and volume operator in the Lorentzian
new spin-foam theory”, Class. Quantum Grav., 27, 205003 (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:1006.1294 [gr-qc]].
(Cited on page 78.)
[142] Ding, Y. and Rovelli, C., “The volume operator in covariant quantum gravity”, Class. Quantum
Grav., 27, 165003 (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:0911.0543 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on pages 52 and 78.)
[143] Dirac, P.A.M., Lectures on Quantum Mechanics, Belfer Graduate School of Science. Monographs
Series, (Yeshiva Press, New York, 1964). [Google Books]. (Cited on pages 13, 14, and 27.)
[144] Dittrich, B., “Diffeomorphism Symmetry in Quantum Gravity Models”, Adv. Sci. Lett., 2, 151–163
[145] Dittrich, B., “How to construct diffeomorphism symmetry on the lattice”, in Barrett, J. et al., ed.,
3rd Quantum Gravity and Quantum Geometry School, February 28 – March 13, 2011, Zakopane,
Poland, Proceedings of Science, PoS(QGQGS 2011)012, (SISSA, Trieste, 2012). [arXiv:1201.3840
[146] Dittrich, B., Eckert, F.C. and Martin-Benito, M., “Coarse graining methods for spin net and spin
foam models”, arXiv, e-print, (2011). [arXiv:1109.4927 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on page 104.)
[147] Dittrich, B., Freidel, L. and Speziale, S., “Linearized dynamics from the 4-simplex Regge action”,
[148] Dittrich, B. and Hohn, P.A., “From covariant to canonical formulations of discrete gravity”, Class.
[149] Dittrich, B. and Ryan, J.P., “Simplicity in simplicial phase space”, Phys. Rev. D, 82, 064026 (2010).
[150] Dittrich, B. and Ryan, J.P., “Phase space descriptions for simplicial 4D geometries”, Class. Quantum
[151] Dittrich, B. and Speziale, S., “Area-angle variables for general relativity”, New J. Phys., 10, 083006
[152] Dittrich, B. and Steinhaus, S., “Path integral measure and triangulation independence in discrete
gravity”, Phys. Rev. D, 85, 044032 (2012). [DOI], [arXiv:1110.6866 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on page 104.)
[153] Dittrich, B. and Tambornino, J., “A perturbative approach to Dirac observables and their spacetime
algebra”, Class. Quantum Grav., 24, 757–784 (2007). [DOI], [arXiv:gr-qc/0610060 [gr-qc]]. (Cited
on page 10.)
[154] Dittrich, B. and Thiemann, T., “Are the spectra of geometrical operators in Loop Quantum Gravity
really discrete?”, J. Math. Phys., 50, 012503 (2009). [DOI], [arXiv:0708.1721 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on
page 106.)
[155] Dowdall, R.J. and Fairbairn, W.J., “Observables in 3d spinfoam quantum gravity with fermions”,
Gen. Relativ. Gravit., 43, 1263–1307 (2011). [DOI], [arXiv:1003.1847 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on pages 44
and 95.)
[156] Dupuis, M., Freidel, L., Livine, E.R. and Speziale, S., “Holomorphic Lorentzian Simplicity Con-
straints”, J. Math. Phys., 53, 032502 (2012). [DOI], [arXiv:1107.5274 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on pages 68
and 72.)
[157] Dupuis, M. and Livine, E.R., “The 6j-symbol: Recursion, C. and Asymptotics”, Class. Quantum
Grav., 27, 135003 (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:0910.2425]. (Cited on pages 44 and 95.)
[158] Dupuis, M. and Livine, E.R., “Lifting SU(2) Spin Networks to Projected Spin Networks”, Phys. Rev.
D, 82, 064044 (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:1008.4093]. (Cited on page 78.)

116 Alejandro Perez
[159] Dupuis, M. and Livine, E.R., “Holomorphic simplicity constraints for 4D spinfoam models”, Class.
[160] Dupuis, M. and Livine, E.R., “Revisiting the Simplicity Constraints and Coherent Intertwiners”,
[161] Dupuis, M. and Livine, E.R., “Holomorphic Simplicity Constraints for 4d Riemannian Spinfoam
Models”, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser., 360, 012046 (2012). [DOI], [arXiv:1111.1125 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on
page 68.)
[162] Engle, J., “A spin-foam vertex amplitude with the correct semiclassical limit”, arXiv, e-print, (2012).
[163] Engle, J., Han, M. and Thiemann, T., “Canonical path integral measures for Holst and Plebanski
gravity. I. Reduced Phase Space Derivation”, Class. Quantum Grav., 27, 245014 (2010). [DOI],
[164] Engle, J., Livine, E.R., Pereira, R. and Rovelli, C., “LQG vertex with finite Immirzi parameter”,
Nucl. Phys. B, 799, 136–149 (2008). [DOI], [arXiv:0711.0146 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on pages 20, 36, 49,
58, and 68.)
[165] Engle, J., Noui, K., Perez, A. and Pranzetti, D., “Black hole entropy from an 𝑆𝑈 (2)-invariant
formulation of type I isolated horizons”, Phys. Rev. D, 82, 044050 (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:1006.0634
[166] Engle, J. and Pereira, R., “Coherent states, constraint classes, and area operators in the new spin-
foam models”, Class. Quantum Grav., 25, 105010 (2008). [DOI], [arXiv:0710.5017]. (Cited on
pages 53 and 71.)
[167] Engle, J. and Pereira, R., “Regularization and finiteness of the Lorentzian loop quantum gravity
vertices”, Phys. Rev. D, 79, 084034 (2009). [DOI], [arXiv:0805.4696]. (Cited on pages 68 and 73.)
[168] Engle, J., Pereira, R. and Rovelli, C., “Loop-Quantum-Gravity Vertex Amplitude”, Phys. Rev. Lett.,
99, 161301 (2007). [DOI], [arXiv:0705.2388 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on pages 20, 36, 49, and 74.)
[169] Engle, J., Pereira, R. and Rovelli, C., “Flipped spinfoam vertex and loop gravity”, Nucl. Phys. B,
798, 251–290 (2008). [DOI], [arXiv:0708.1236 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on pages 20 and 36.)
[170] Engle, J., Perez, A. and Noui, K., “Black hole entropy and SU(2) Chern-Simons theory”, Phys. Rev.
Lett., 105, 031302 (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:0905.3168 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on page 98.)
[171] Epstein, H. and Glaser, V., “The role of locality in perturbation theory”, Ann. Inst. Henri Poincare
A, 19, 211–295 (1973). (Cited on page 11.)
[172] Fairbairn, W.J., “Fermions in three-dimensional spinfoam quantum gravity”, Gen. Relativ. Gravit.,
39, 427–476 (2007). [DOI], [arXiv:gr-qc/0609040]. (Cited on pages 44 and 95.)
[173] Fairbairn, W.J. and Livine, E.R., “3D spinfoam quantum gravity: matter as a phase of the group
field theory”, Class. Quantum Grav., 24, 5277–5297 (2007). [DOI], [arXiv:gr-qc/0702125]. (Cited
[174] Fairbairn, W.J. and Meusburger, C., “Quantum deformation of two four-dimensional spin foam
models”, J. Math. Phys., 53, 022501 (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:1012.4784]. (Cited on page 79.)
[175] Fairbairn, W.J. and Perez, A., “Extended matter coupled to BF theory”, Phys. Rev. D, 78, 024013
[176] Fleischhack, C., “Representations of the Weyl Algebra in Quantum Geometry”, Commun. Math.
Phys., 285, 67–140 (2009). [DOI], [arXiv:math-ph/0407006]. (Cited on page 30.)

[177] Flori, C. and Thiemann, T., “Semiclassical analysis of the Loop Quantum Gravity volume operator.
I. Flux Coherent States”, arXiv, e-print, (2008). [arXiv:0812.1537 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on page 47.)
[178] Freidel, L., “A Ponzano-Regge model of Lorentzian 3-Dimensional gravity”, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc.
Suppl.), 88, 237–240 (2000). [DOI]. (Cited on pages 85 and 95.)
[179] Freidel, L., “Group field theory: An overview”, Int. J. Theor. Phys., 44, 1769–1783 (2005). [DOI],
[arXiv:hep-th/0505016]. (Cited on page 103.)
[180] Freidel, L., Kowalski-Glikman, J. and Starodubtsev, A., “Particles as Wilson lines of gravitational
field”, Phys. Rev. D, 74, 084002 (2006). [DOI], [arXiv:gr-qc/0607014]. (Cited on page 46.)
[181] Freidel, L. and Krasnov, K., “Spin Foam Models and the Classical Action Principle”, Adv. Theor.
Math. Phys., 2, 1183–1247 (1999). (Cited on page 18.)
[182] Freidel, L. and Krasnov, K., “A new spin foam model for 4D gravity”, Class. Quantum Grav., 25,
125018 (2008). [DOI], [arXiv:0708.1595 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on pages 21, 23, 36, 47, 49, 51, 65, and 74.)
[183] Freidel, L. and Livine, E.R., “Spin networks for non-compact groups”, J. Math. Phys., 44, 1322–1356
(2003). [DOI], [arXiv:hep-th/0205268]. (Cited on page 78.)
[184] Freidel, L. and Livine, E.R., “3D Quantum Gravity and Effective Noncommutative Quantum Field
Theory”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 96, 221301 (2006). [DOI], [arXiv:hep-th/0512113]. (Cited on pages 44
and 95.)
[185] Freidel, L. and Livine, E.R., “Ponzano–Regge model revisited: III. Feynman diagrams and effective
field theory”, Class. Quantum Grav., 23, 2021–2062 (2006). [DOI], [arXiv:hep-th/0502106]. (Cited
[186] Freidel, L. and Louapre, D., “Diffeomorphisms and spin foam models”, Nucl. Phys. B, 662, 279–298
(2003). [DOI], [arXiv:gr-qc/0212001]. (Cited on pages 43, 92, 95, 99, and 100.)
[187] Freidel, L. and Louapre, D., “Non-perturbative summation over 3D discrete topologies”, Phys. Rev.
D, 68, 104004 (2003). [DOI], [arXiv:hep-th/0211026]. (Cited on pages 80, 103, and 104.)
[188] Freidel, L. and Louapre, D., “Ponzano–Regge model revisited: I. Gauge fixing, observables and
interacting spinning particles”, Class. Quantum Grav., 21, 5685–5726 (2004). [DOI], [arXiv:hep-
th/0401076]. (Cited on pages 44 and 95.)
[189] Freidel, L. and Starodubtsev, A., “Quantum gravity in terms of topological observables”, arXiv,
e-print, (2005). [arXiv:hep-th/0501191]. (Cited on page 18.)
[190] Gambini, R., Ponce, M. and Pullin, J., “Consistent discretizations: the Gowdy spacetimes”, Phys.
Rev. D, 72, 024031 (2005). [DOI], [arXiv:gr-qc/0505043]. (Cited on page 100.)
[191] Gambini, R., Porto, R.A. and Pullin, J., “Consistent discrete gravity solution of the problem of time:
A model”, in Kokkotas, K.D. and Stergioulas, N., eds., Recent Developments in Gravity, Proceedings
of the 10th Hellenic Relativity Conference, pp. 50–64, (World Scientific, Singapore; River Edge, NJ,
2003). [arXiv:gr-qc/0302064]. (Cited on page 100.)
[192] Gambini, R. and Pullin, J., “Nonstandard optics from quantum space-time”, Phys. Rev. D, 59,
124021 (1999). [DOI], [arXiv:gr-qc/9809038 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on page 105.)
[193] Gambini, R. and Pullin, J., “A finite spin-foam-based theory of three- and four-dimensional quantum
gravity”, Phys. Rev. D, 66, 024020 (2002). [DOI], [gr-qc/0111089]. (Cited on page 20.)
[194] Gambini, R. and Pullin, J., “Consistent discretizations for classical and quantum general relativity”,
in Fiziev, P.P. and Todorov, M.D., eds., Gravity, Astrophysics & Strings at the Black Sea, Proceedings
of the First Advanced Research Workshop, Kiten, Bulgaria, June 10 – 16 2002, (St. Kliment Ohridski
University Press, Sofia, 2003). [arXiv:gr-qc/0108062]. (Cited on page 100.)

118 Alejandro Perez
[195] Gambini, R. and Pullin, J., “Canonical quantum gravity and consistent discretizations”, Pramana,
63, 755–764 (2004). [DOI], [arXiv:gr-qc/0402062]. (Cited on page 100.)
[196] Gambini, R. and Pullin, J., “Canonical quantum gravity consistent discretizations”, arXiv, e-print,
(2004). [arXiv:gr-qc/0408025]. (Cited on page 100.)
[197] Gambini, R. and Pullin, J., “Consistent discretization and loop quantum geometry”, Phys. Rev.
Lett., 94, 101302 (2005). [DOI], [arXiv:gr-qc/0409057]. (Cited on page 100.)
[198] Gambini, R. and Pullin, J., “Consistent discretization and canonical, classical and quantum Regge
calculus”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 15, 1699–1706 (2006). [DOI], [arXiv:gr-qc/0511096]. (Cited on
page 100.)
[199] Gambini, R. and Pullin, J., “Consistent discretizations as a road to Quantum Gravity”, in Oriti, D.,
ed., Approaches to Quantum Gravity: Toward a New Understanding of Space, Time and Matter, pp.
378–392, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York, 2009). [arXiv:gr-qc/0512065 [gr-qc]].
(Cited on page 100.)
[200] Gambini, R., Rastgoo, S. and Pullin, J., “Small Lorentz violations in quantum gravity: do they lead
to unacceptably large effects?”, Class. Quantum Grav., 28, 155005 (2011). [DOI], [arXiv:1106.1417
[gr-qc]]. (Cited on pages 101 and 105.)
[201] Gaul, M. and Rovelli, C., “A generalized Hamiltonian Constraint Operator in Loop Quantum Gravity
and its simplest Euclidean Matrix Elements”, Class. Quantum Grav., 18, 1593–1624 (2001). [DOI].
(Cited on page 32.)
[202] Geiller, M. and Noui, K., “Testing the imposition of the spin foam simplicity constraints”, Class.
[203] Gel’fand, I.M., Graev, M.I. and Vilenkin, N.Y., Generalized Functions, Vol. 5: Integral geometry and
representation theory, (Academic Press, New York; London, 1966). (Cited on pages 69 and 72.)
[204] Gel’fand, I.M., Minlos, R.A. and Shapiro, Z.Y., Representations of the rotation and Lorentz groups
and their applications, (Pergamon Press, London; MacMillan, New York, New York, 1963). Trans-
lated from the Russian edition (Moscow, 1958). (Cited on page 69.)
[205] Gielen, S. and Oriti, D., “Classical general relativity as BF-Plebanski theory with linear constraints”,
[206] Girelli, F., Oeckl, R. and Perez, A., “Spin foam diagrammatics and topological invariance”, Class.
Quantum Grav., 19, 1093–1108 (2002). [DOI], [arXiv:gr-qc/0111022]. (Cited on pages 40 and 93.)
[207] Gurau, R., “The 1/𝑁 expansion of colored tensor models”, Ann. Henri Poincare, 12, 829–847 (2011).
[208] Gurau, R., “Colored Group Field Theory”, Commun. Math. Phys., 304, 69–93 (2011). [DOI],
[arXiv:0907.2582 [hep-th]]. (Cited on pages 80 and 104.)
[209] Gurau, R., “A generalization of the Virasoro algebra to arbitrary dimensions”, Nucl. Phys. B, 852,
592–614 (2011). [DOI], [arXiv:1105.6072 [hep-th]]. (Cited on pages 80 and 104.)
[210] Gurau, R., “The Complete 1/𝑁 Expansion of Colored Tensor Models in Arbitrary Dimension”, Ann.
Henri Poincare, 13, 399–423 (2012). [DOI], [arXiv:1102.5759 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on pages 80 and 104.)
[211] Gurau, R. and Rivasseau, V., “The 1/𝑁 expansion of colored tensor models in arbitrary dimension”,
Europhys. Lett., 95, 50004 (2011). [DOI], [arXiv:1101.4182 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on pages 80 and 104.)
[212] Halliwell, J. and Hartle, J.B., “Wave functions constructed from an invariant sum over histories
satisfy constraints”, Phys. Rev. D, 43, 1170–1194 (1991). [DOI]. (Cited on page 32.)

[213] Han, M., “Canonical Path-Integral Measures for Holst and Plebanski Gravity. II. Gauge Invariance
and Physical Inner Product”, Class. Quantum Grav., 27, 245015 (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:0911.3436
[214] Han, M., “A Path-integral for the Master Constraint of Loop Quantum Gravity”, Class. Quantum
[215] Han, M., “4-dimensional spin-foam model with quantum Lorentz group”, J. Math. Phys., 52, 072501
[216] Han, M., “Cosmological constant in loop quantum gravity vertex amplitude”, Phys. Rev. D, 84,
[217] Han, M. and Rovelli, C., “Spinfoam Fermions: PCT Symmetry, Dirac Determinant, and Correlation
Functions”, arXiv, e-print, (2011). [arXiv:1101.3264]. (Cited on page 79.)
[218] Han, M. and Thiemann, T., “Commuting Simplicity and Closure Constraints for 4D Spin Foam
Models”, arXiv, e-print, (2010). [arXiv:1010.5444 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on page 68.)
[219] Han, M. and Thiemann, T., “On the Relation between Operator Constraint –, Master Constraint –,
Reduced Phase Space –, and Path Integral Quantisation”, Class. Quantum Grav., 27, 225019 (2010).
[220] Han, M. and Thiemann, T., “On the Relation between Rigging Inner Product and Master Constraint
Direct Integral Decomposition”, J. Math. Phys., 51, 092501 (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:0911.3431 [gr-qc]].
(Cited on page 79.)
[221] Han, M. and Zhang, M., “Asymptotics of spin foam amplitude on simplicial manifold: Euclidean
theory”, Class. Quantum Grav., 29, 165004 (2012). [DOI], [arXiv:1109.0500 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on
page 83.)
[222] Henderson, A., Rovelli, C., Vidotto, F. and Wilson-Ewing, E., “Local spinfoam expansion in loop
quantum cosmology”, Class. Quantum Grav., 28, 025003 (2011). [DOI], [arXiv:1010.0502]. (Cited
on page 79.)
[223] Henneaux, M. and Teitelboim, C., Quantization of Gauge Systems, (Princeton University Press,
Princeton, NJ, 1992). [Google Books]. (Cited on pages 13 and 27.)
[224] Hollands, S. and Wald, R.M., “Existence of local covariant time ordered products of quantum fields
in curved space-time”, Commun. Math. Phys., 231, 309–345 (2002). [DOI], [arXiv:gr-qc/0111108
[225] Hollands, S. and Wald, R.M., “On the renormalization group in curved space-time”, Commun. Math.
Phys., 237, 123–160 (2003). [arXiv:gr-qc/0209029 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on page 11.)
[226] Holst, S., “Barbero’s Hamiltonian derived from a generalized Hilbert- Palatini action”, Phys. Rev.
D, 53, 5966–5969 (1996). [DOI], [arXiv:gr-qc/9511026]. (Cited on pages 23 and 24.)
[227] Immirzi, G., “Real and complex connections for canonical gravity”, Class. Quantum Grav., 14,
L177–L181 (1997). [DOI]. (Cited on pages 23 and 32.)
[228] Iwasaki, J., “A Reformulation of the Ponzano-Regge quantum gravity model in terms of surfaces”,
arXiv, e-print, (1994). [arXiv:gr-qc/9410010]. (Cited on page 90.)
[229] Iwasaki, J., “A definition of the Ponzano-Regge quantum gravity model in terms of surfaces”, J.
Math. Phys., 36, 6288–6298 (1995). [DOI]. (Cited on page 90.)
[230] Iwasaki, J., “A lattice quantum gravity model with surface-like excitations in 4-dimensional space-
time”, arXiv, e-print, (2000). [arXiv:gr-qc/0006088]. (Cited on page 18.)

120 Alejandro Perez
[231] Iwasaki, J., “A surface theoretic model of quantum gravity”, arXiv, e-print, (2000). [arXiv:gr-
[232] Jackiw, R., “Liouville field theory: a two-dimensional model for gravity?”, in Christensen, S.M., ed.,
Quantum Theory of Gravity: Essays in Honor of the 60th Birthday of Bryce S. DeWitt, pp. 403–420,
(Adam Hilger, Bristol, 1984). (Cited on page 42.)
[233] Jacobson, T.A., Liberati, S. and Mattingly, D., “Lorentz violation at high energy: Concepts, phe-
nomena and astrophysical constraints”, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.), 321, 150–196 (2006). [DOI], [arXiv:astro-
ph/0505267 [astro-ph]]. (Cited on page 105.)
[234] Jacobson, T.A. and Smolin, L., “Nonperturbative quantum geometries”, Nucl. Phys. B, 299, 295–345
[235] Kaminski, W., Kisielowski, M. and Lewandowski, J., “The EPRL intertwiners and corrected partition
function”, Class. Quantum Grav., 27, 165020 (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:0912.0540 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on
pages 63, 64, and 99.)
[236] Kaminski, W., Kisielowski, M. and Lewandowski, J., “Spin-Foams for All Loop Quantum Gravity”,
Class. Quantum Grav., 27, 095006 (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:0909.0939 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on page 78.)
[237] Kaminski, W., Lewandowski, J. and Pawlowski, T., “Quantum constraints, Dirac observables and
evolution: group averaging versus Schroedinger picture in LQC”, Class. Quantum Grav., 26, 245016
[238] Kauffman, L.H. and Lins, S.L., Temperley–Lieb Recoupling Theory and Invariants of 3-Manifolds,
Annals of Mathematics Studies, 134, (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1994). [Google
Books]. (Cited on page 93.)
[239] Khavkine, I., “Quantum astrometric observables: Time delay in classical and quantum gravity”,
[240] Krasnov, K., “Renormalizable Non-Metric Quantum Gravity?”, arXiv, e-print, (2006). [arXiv:hep-
th/0611182]. (Cited on page 79.)
[241] Krasnov, K., “On deformations of Ashtekar’s constraint algebra”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 100, 081102
[242] Krasnov, K., “Gravity as BF theory plus potential”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A, 24, 2776–2782 (2009).
[DOI], [arXiv:0907.4064]. (Cited on page 79.)
[243] Krasnov, K., “Plebanski gravity without the simplicity constraints”, Class. Quantum Grav., 26,
[244] Krasnov, K., “Metric Lagrangians with two propagating degrees of freedom”, Europhys. Lett., 89,
[245] Lewandowski, J., Okolów, A., Sahlmann, H. and Thiemann, T., “Uniqueness of Diffeomorphism
Invariant States on Holonomy–Flux Algebras”, Commun. Math. Phys., 267, 703–733 (2006). [DOI],
[arXiv:gr-qc/0504147]. (Cited on pages 13 and 30.)
[246] Liu, L., Montesinos, M. and Perez, A., “A topological limit of gravity admitting an SU(2) connection
formulation”, Phys. Rev. D, 81, 064033 (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:0906.4524 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on page 74.)
[247] Livine, E.R, “Projected spin networks for Lorentz connection: Linking spin foams and loop gravity”,
[248] Livine, E.R., “A Short and Subjective Introduction to the Spinfoam Framework for Quantum Grav-
ity”, arXiv, e-print, (2010). [arXiv:1101.5061 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on page 17.)

[249] Livine, E.R. and Martı́n-Benito, M., “Classical setting and effective dynamics for spinfoam cos-
mology”, Class. Quantum Grav., 30, 035006 (2011). [DOI], [arXiv:1111.2867 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on
page 79.)
[250] Livine, E.R. and Oeckl, R., “Three-dimensional Quantum Supergravity and Supersymmetric Spin
Foam Models”, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys., 7, 951–1001 (2004). [arXiv:hep-th/0307251]. (Cited on
pages 44 and 95.)
[251] Livine, E.R., Oriti, D. and Ryan, J.P., “Effective Hamiltonian constraint from group field theory”,
[252] Livine, E.R., Perez, A. and Rovelli, C., “2D manifold-independent spinfoam theory”, Class. Quantum
Grav., 20, 4425–4445 (2003). [DOI]. (Cited on page 42.)
[253] Livine, E.R., Perez, A. and Rovelli, C., “2D manifold-independent spinfoam theory”, Class. Quantum
Grav., 20, 4425–4445 (2003). [DOI], [gr-qc/0102051]. (Cited on page 103.)
[254] Livine, E.R. and Speziale, S., “New spinfoam vertex for quantum gravity”, Phys. Rev. D, 76, 084028
(2007). [DOI], [arXiv:0705.0674 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on pages 21, 47, 65, and 74.)
[255] Livine, E.R. and Speziale, S., “Solving the simplicity constraints for spinfoam quantum gravity”,
Europhys. Lett., 81, 50004 (2008). [DOI], [arXiv:0708.1915]. (Cited on page 65.)
[256] Livine, E.R., Speziale, S. and Tambornino, J., “Twistor networks and covariant twisted geometries”,
[257] Livine, E.R. and Tambornino, J., “Spinor representation for loop quantum gravity”, J. Math. Phys.,
[258] Loll, R., “Simplifying the spectral analysis of the volume operator”, Nucl. Phys. B, 500, 405–420
[259] MacDowell, S.W. and Mansouri, F., “Unified Geometric Theory of Gravity and Supergravity”, Phys.
Rev. Lett., 38, 739–742 (1977). [DOI]. Erratum: ibid. 38 (1977) 1376. (Cited on page 18.)
[260] Magliaro, E. and Perini, C., “Comparing LQG with the linearized theory”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A,
23, 1200–1208 (2008). [DOI]. (Cited on page 83.)
[261] Magliaro, E. and Perini, C., “Regge gravity from spinfoams”, arXiv, e-print, (2011).
[arXiv:1105.0216]. (Cited on page 83.)
[262] Magnen, J., Noui, K., Rivasseau, V. and Smerlak, M., “Scaling behaviour of three-dimensional group
field theory”, Class. Quantum Grav., 26, 185012 (2009). [DOI], [arXiv:0906.5477 [hep-th]]. (Cited
[263] Mamone, D. and Rovelli, C., “Second-order amplitudes in loop quantum gravity”, Class. Quantum
[264] Markopoulou, F., “Dual formulation of spin network evolution”, arXiv, e-print, (1997). [arXiv:gr-
[265] Markopoulou, F., “An algebraic approach to coarse graining”, arXiv, e-print, (2000). [arXiv:hep-
th/0006199]. (Cited on page 103.)
[266] Markopoulou, F., “Coarse graining in spin foam models”, Class. Quantum Grav., 20, 777–800 (2003).
[267] Markopoulou, F. and Smolin, L., “Causal evolution of spin networks”, Nucl. Phys. B, 508, 409–430

122 Alejandro Perez
[268] Markopoulou, F. and Smolin, L., “Quantum geometry with intrinsic local causality”, Phys. Rev. D,
58, 084032 (1998). [DOI]. (Cited on page 19.)
[269] Marolf, D., “Group averaging and refined algebraic quantization: Where are we now?”, in Gurzadyan,
V.G., Jantzen, R.T. and Ruffini, R., eds., The Ninth Marcel Grossmann Meeting on recent devel-
opments in theoretical and experimental general relativity, gravitation and relativistic field theories,
Part A, Proceedings of the MGIX MM meeting held at the University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’, July
2 – 8, 2000, pp. 1348–1349, (World Scientific, Singapore; River Edge, NJ, 2002). [DOI], [arXiv:gr-
[270] Mattingly, D., “Modern Tests of Lorentz Invariance”, Living Rev. Relativity, 8, lrr-2005-5 (2005).
[arXiv:gr-qc/0502097]. URL (accessed 12 September 2011):
[271] Miković, A. and Vojinović, M., “Effective action and semi-classical limit of spin-foam models”, Class.
[272] Miković, A. and Vojinović, M., “Graviton propagator asymptotics and the classical limit of ELPR/FK
spin foam models”, arXiv, e-print, (2011). [arXiv:1103.1428 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on page 18.)
[273] Miković, A. and Vojinović, M., “Effective action for EPRL/FK spin foam models”, J. Phys.: Conf.
Ser., 360, 012049 (2012). [DOI], [arXiv:1110.6114 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on page 82.)
[274] Misner, C.W., “Feynman Quantization of General Relativity”, Rev. Mod. Phys., 29, 497–509 (1957).
[DOI]. (Cited on page 33.)
[275] Montesinos, M. and Perez, A., “Two-dimensional topological field theories coupled to four-
dimensional BF theory”, Phys. Rev. D, 77, 104020 (2008). [DOI], [arXiv:0711.2875 [gr-qc]]. (Cited
on page 46.)
[276] Montesinos, M. and Velázquez, M., “Husain-Kuchar Model as a Constrained BF Theory”, in

Kowalski-Glikman, J., Durka, R. and Szczachor, M., eds., The Planck Scale: Proceedings of the
XXV Max Born Symposium, Wroclaw, Poland, 29 June – 3 July 2009, AIP Conference Proceedings,
1196, pp. 201–208, (American Institute of Physics, New York, 2009), Quantum Gravity Research Net-
working Programme of the European Science Foundation. [DOI], [arXiv:0812.2825 [gr-qc]]. (Cited
on page 23.)
[277] Montesinos, M. and Velázquez, M., “Equivalent and Alternative Forms for BF Gravity with Immirzi
Parameter”, SIGMA, 7, 103 (2011). [DOI], [arXiv:1111.2671 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on page 23.)
[278] Morales-Técotl, H.A. and Rovelli, C., “Loop space representation of quantum fermions and gravity”,
Nucl. Phys. B, 451, 325–361 (1995). [DOI]. (Cited on page 27.)
[279] Noui, K. and Perez, A., “Observability and geometry in three dimensional quantum gravity”, in
Argyres, P.C., Hodges, T.J., Mansouri, F., Scanio, J.J., Suranyi, P. and Wijewardhana, L.C.R., eds.,
Quantum Theory and Symmetries, Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium, Cincinnati,
USA, 10- – 14 September 2003, pp. 641–647, (World Scientific, Singapore; Hackensack, NJ, 2004).
[280] Noui, K. and Perez, A., “Three dimensional loop quantum gravity: Coupling to point particles”,
Class. Quantum Grav., 22, 4489–4514 (2005). [DOI], [arXiv:gr-qc/0402111]. (Cited on pages 44
and 95.)
[281] Noui, K. and Perez, A., “Three dimensional loop quantum gravity: Physical scalar product and spin
foam models”, Class. Quantum Grav., 22, 1739–1762 (2005). [DOI], [arXiv:gr-qc/0402110]. (Cited
on pages 43, 78, and 95.)
[282] Noui, K., Perez, A. and Pranzetti, D., “Canonical quantization of non-commutative holonomies in
2+1 loop quantum gravity”, J. High Energy Phys., 10, 36 (2011). [DOI], [arXiv:1105.0439 [gr-qc]].
(Cited on page 100.)

[283] Noui, K. and Roche, P., “Cosmological deformation of Lorentzian spin foam models”, Class. Quantum
Grav., 20, 3175–3214 (2003). [DOI], [arXiv:gr-qc/0211109]. (Cited on page 79.)
[284] Oeckl, R., “Generalized lattice gauge theory, spin foams and state sum invariants”, J. Geom. Phys.,
46, 308–354 (2003). [DOI], [arXiv:hep-th/0110259]. (Cited on page 103.)
[285] Oeckl, R., “Renormalization of discrete models without background”, Nucl. Phys. B, 657, 107–138
[286] Oeckl, R., Discrete gauge theory: From lattices to TQFT, (Imperial College Press, London, UK,
2005). [Google Books]. (Cited on page 40.)
[287] Oeckl, R., “Probabilites in the general boundary formulation”, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser., 67, 012049
(2007). [DOI], [arXiv:hep-th/0612076 [hep-th]]. (Cited on page 83.)
[288] Oeckl, R., “Affine holomorphic quantization”, J. Geom. Phys., 62, 1373–1396 (2011). [DOI],
[arXiv:1104.5527 [hep-th]]. (Cited on page 83.)
[289] Oeckl, R., “Holomorphic Quantization of Linear Field Theory in the General Boundary Formulation”,
SIGMA, 8, 050 (2012). [DOI], [arXiv:1009.5615 [hep-th]]. (Cited on page 83.)
[290] Oeckl, R., “Observables in the General Boundary Formulation”, in Finster, F., Müller, O., Nard-
mann, M., Tolksdorf, J. and Zeidler, E., eds., Quantum Field Theory and Gravity: Conceptual and
Mathematical Advances in the Search for a Unified Framework, Regensburg, Germany, September
28 – October 1, 2010, pp. 137–156, (Springer Basel, Basel; New York, 2012). [DOI], [arXiv:1101.0367
[hep-th]]. (Cited on page 83.)
[291] Oeckl, R. and Pfeiffer, H., “The dual of pure non-Abelian lattice gauge theory as a spin foam model”,
Nucl. Phys. B, 598, 400–426 (2001). [DOI], [arXiv:hep-th/0008095]. (Cited on pages 40 and 103.)
[292] Ooguri, H., “Topological Lattice Models in Four Dimensions”, Mod. Phys. Lett. A, 7, 2799–2810
[293] Oriti, D., “Spacetime geometry from algebra: Spin foam models for non- perturbative quantum
gravity”, Rep. Prog. Phys., 64, 1489–1544 (2001). [DOI]. (Cited on page 17.)
[294] Oriti, D. and Pfeiffer, H., “A spin foam model for pure gauge theory coupled to quantum gravity”,
Phys. Rev. D, 66, 124010 (2002). [DOI], [arXiv:gr-qc/0207041]. (Cited on page 79.)
[295] Oriti, D., Rovelli, C. and Speziale, S., “Spinfoam 2d quantum gravity and discrete bundles”, Class.
[296] Penrose, R., “Theory of quantized directions”, unpublished manuscript, (1967). (Cited on page 30.)
[297] Penrose, R., “Angular momentum: an approach to combinatorial space-time”, in Bastin, T., ed.,
Quantum Theory and Beyond, Essays and Discussions Arising from a Colloquium, pp. 151–180,
(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York, 1971). (Cited on page 30.)
[298] Penrose, R., “Applications of negative dimensional tensors”, in Welsh, D.J.A., ed., Combinatorial
Mathematics and its Application, Proceedings of a conference held at the Mathematical Institute,
Oxford, from 7 – 10 July, 1969, pp. 221–243, (Academic Press, London; New York, 1971). (Cited on
page 30.)
[299] Penrose, R., “Combinatorial quantum theory and quantized directions”, in Hughston, L.P. and Ward,
R.S., eds., Advances in Twistor Theory, Research Notes in Mathematics, 37, pp. 301–317, (Pitman,
San Francisco, 1979). (Cited on page 30.)
[300] Pereira, R., “Lorentzian loop quantum gravity vertex amplitude”, Class. Quantum Grav., 25, 085013

124 Alejandro Perez
[301] Perez, A., “Spin foam models for quantum gravity”, Class. Quantum Grav., 20, R43–R104 (2003).
[302] Perez, A., “Introduction to loop quantum gravity and spin foams”, arXiv, e-print, (2004). [arXiv:gr-
[303] Perez, A., “On the regularization ambiguities in loop quantum gravity”, Phys. Rev. D, 73, 044007
[304] Perez, A. and Pranzetti, D., “On the regularization of the constraints algebra of Quantum Gravity
in 2+1 dimensions with non-vanishing cosmological constant”, Class. Quantum Grav., 27, 145009
[305] Perez, A. and Rovelli, C., “3+1 spinfoam model of quantum gravity with spacelike and timelike
components”, Phys. Rev. D, 64, 064002 (2001). [DOI]. (Cited on page 79.)
[306] Pfeiffer, H. and Oeckl, R., “The dual of non-Abelian Lattice Gauge Theory”, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc.
Suppl.), 106, 1010–1012 (2002). [DOI], [arXiv:hep-lat/0110034]. (Cited on page 103.)
[307] Plebański, J.F., “On the Separation of Einsteinian Substructures”, J. Math. Phys., 18, 2511 (1977).
[DOI]. (Cited on pages 17, 22, and 23.)
[308] Polchinski, J., “Comment on [arXiv:1106.1417] ‘Small Lorentz violations in quantum gravity: do
they lead to unacceptably large effects?”’, arXiv, e-print, (2011). [arXiv:1106.6346 [gr-qc]]. (Cited
[309] Ponzano, G. and Regge, T., “Semiclassical limit of Racah Coeficients”, in Bloch, F., Cohen, S.G.,
de Shalit, A., Sambursky, S. and Talmi, I., eds., Spectroscopy and Group Theoretical Methods in
Physics: Racah Memorial Volume, pp. 1–58, (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1968). (Cited on pages 43,
80, 92, and 95.)
[310] Reisenberger, M.P., “Worldsheet formulations of gauge theories and gravity”, arXiv, e-print, (1994).
[arXiv:gr-qc/9412035]. (Cited on page 30.)
[311] Reisenberger, M.P., “A lattice worldsheet sum for 4-d Euclidean general relativity”, arXiv, e-print,
(1997). [arXiv:gr-qc/9711052]. (Cited on page 17.)
[312] Reisenberger, M.P., “A left-handed simplicial action for euclidean general relativity”, Class. Quantum
Grav., 14, 1753–1770 (1997). [DOI]. (Cited on page 17.)
[313] Reisenberger, M.P., “On relativistic spin network vertices”, J. Math. Phys., 40, 2046–2054 (1999).
[DOI]. (Cited on page 77.)
[314] Reisenberger, M.P. and Rovelli, C., “Spin foams as Feynman diagrams”, arXiv, e-print, (2000).
[315] Reisenberger, M.P. and Rovelli, C., “Spacetime as a Feynman diagram: the connection formulation”,
Class. Quantum Grav., 18, 121–140 (2001). [DOI]. (Cited on pages 80 and 103.)
[316] Reisenberger, M.P. and Rovelli, C., “Spacetime states and covariant quantum theory”, Phys. Rev.
D, 65, 125016 (2002). [DOI]. (Cited on page 32.)
[317] Reuter, M. and Saueressig, F., “Functional Renormalization Group Equations, Asymptotic Safety,
and Quantum Einstein Gravity”, arXiv, e-print, (2007). [arXiv:0708.1317 [hep-th]]. (Cited on
page 11.)
[318] Rezende, D.J. and Perez, A., “Four-dimensional Lorentzian Holst action with topological terms”,
Phys. Rev. D, 79, 064026 (2009). [DOI], [arXiv:0902.3416 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on pages 23 and 25.)

[319] Rivasseau, V., From Perturbative to Constructive Renormalization, Princeton Series in Physics,
(Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1991). (Cited on page 103.)
[320] Rovelli, C., “The projector on physical states in loop quantum gravity”, Phys. Rev. D, 59, 104015
[321] Rovelli, C., Quantum Gravity, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics, (Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, Cambridge; New York, 2004). [Google Books]. (Cited on pages 12, 15, 22, and 86.)
[322] Rovelli, C., “Graviton propagator from background-independent quantum gravity”, Phys. Rev. Lett.,
97, 151301 (2006). [DOI], [arXiv:gr-qc/0508124 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on page 83.)
[323] Rovelli, C., “Loop Quantum Gravity”, Living Rev. Relativity, 11, lrr-2008-5 (2008). URL (accessed
12 September 2011):
[324] Rovelli, C., “Discretizing parametrized systems: the magic of Ditt-invariance”, arXiv, e-print, (2011).
[arXiv:1107.2310 [hep-lat]]. (Cited on page 102.)
[325] Rovelli, C., “Loop quantum gravity: the first twenty five years”, Class. Quantum Grav., 28, 153002
[326] Rovelli, C., “Zakopane lectures on loop gravity”, arXiv, e-print, (2011). [arXiv:1102.3660 [gr-qc]].
(Cited on pages 36 and 102.)
[327] Rovelli, C. and Smerlak, M., “In quantum gravity, summing is refining”, Class. Quantum Grav., 29,
[328] Rovelli, C. and Smolin, L., “Loop space representation of quantum general relativity”, Nucl. Phys.
B, 331, 80–152 (1990). [DOI]. (Cited on page 33.)
[329] Rovelli, C. and Smolin, L., “Discretneess of the area and volume in quantum gravity”, Nucl. Phys.
B, 442, 593–619 (1995). [DOI], [arXiv:gr-qc/9411005]. Erratum: ibid. 456 (1995) 753. (Cited on
page 32.)
[330] Rovelli, C. and Smolin, L., “Spin Networks and Quantum Gravity”, Phys. Rev. D, 53, 5743–5759
[331] Rovelli, C. and Speziale, S., “Reconcile Planck-scale discreteness and the Lorentz-Fitzgerald con-
traction”, Phys. Rev. D, 67, 064019 (2003). [DOI], [arXiv:gr-qc/0205108]. (Cited on page 106.)
[332] Rovelli, C. and Speziale, S., “On the perturbative expansion of a quantum field theory around a
topological sector”, Gen. Relativ. Gravit., 39, 167–178 (2007). [DOI], [arXiv:gr-qc/0508106]. (Cited
on page 18.)
[333] Rovelli, C. and Speziale, S., “Lorentz covariance of loop quantum gravity”, Phys. Rev. D, 83, 104029
(2011). [DOI], [arXiv:1012.1739 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on pages 53 and 71.)
[334] Rovelli, C. and Vidotto, F., “Stepping out of Homogeneity in Loop Quantum Cosmology”, Class.
[335] Rovelli, C. and Vidotto, F., “On the spinfoam expansion in cosmology”, Class. Quantum Grav., 27,
[336] Rovelli, C. and Wilson-Ewing, E., “Discrete symmetries in covariant loop quantum gravity”, Phys.
Rev. D, 86, 064002 (2012). [DOI], [arXiv:1205.0733 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on page 82.)
[337] Rovelli, C. and Zhang, M., “Euclidean three-point function in loop and perturbative gravity”, Class.

126 Alejandro Perez
[338] Ruhl, W., The Lorentz Group and Harmonic Analysis, (W.A. Benjamin, New York, 1970). (Cited
[339] Ryan, J.P., “Tensor models and embedded Riemann surfaces”, Phys. Rev. D, 85, 024010 (2012).
[340] Sahlmann, H. and Thiemann, T., “Towards the QFT on curved space-time limit of QGR: I. A general
scheme”, Class. Quantum Grav., 23, 867–908 (2006). [DOI], [arXiv:gr-qc/0207030 [gr-qc]]. (Cited
on page 105.)
[341] Sahlmann, H. and Thiemann, T., “Towards the QFT on curved space-time limit of QGR: II. A
concrete implementation”, Class. Quantum Grav., 23, 909–954 (2006). [DOI], [arXiv:gr-qc/0207031
[342] Sahlmann, H., Thiemann, T. and Winkler, O., “Coherent states for canonical quantum general
relativity and the infinite tensor product extension”, Nucl. Phys. B, 606, 401–440 (2001). [DOI],
[arXiv:gr-qc/0102038 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on page 47.)
[343] Scharf, G., Finite Quantum Electrodynamics: The Causal Approach, (Springer, Berlin; New York,
1995), 2nd edition. (Cited on page 11.)
[344] Smolin, L., “Recent developments in nonperturbative quantum gravity”, in Pérez-Mercader, J.,
Sola, J. and Verdaguer, E., eds., Quantum Gravity and Cosmology, Proceedings of the XXII GIFT
International Seminar on Theoretical Physics, Sant Feliu de Guı́xols, Catalonia, Spain, 3 – 8 June
1991, (World Scientific, Singapore, 1992). [hep-th/9202022]. (Cited on pages 13 and 32.)
[345] Smolin, L., “The future of spin networks”, arXiv, e-print, (1997). [arXiv:gr-qc/9702030]. (Cited on
page 30.)
[346] Smolin, L. and Starodubtsev, A., “General relativity with a topological phase: An action principle”,
arXiv, e-print, (2003). [arXiv:hep-th/0311163]. (Cited on page 18.)
[347] Speziale, S., “Coupling gauge theory to spinfoam 3D quantum gravity”, Class. Quantum Grav., 24,
5139–5160 (2007). [DOI], [arXiv:0706.1534 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on pages 44 and 95.)
[348] Speziale, S., “Bi-metric theory of gravity from the non-chiral Plebanski action”, Phys. Rev. D, 82,
[349] Starodubtsev, A., Topological methods in quantum gravity, Ph.D. thesis, (University of Waterloo,
Waterloo, ON, 2005). URL (accessed 22 May 2012):
http://hdl.handle.net/10012/1217. (Cited on page 18.)
[350] ’t Hooft, G., “A locally finite model for gravity”, Found. Phys., 38, 733–757 (2008). [DOI],
[351] Teitelboim, C., “The Hamiltonian structure of two-dimensional space-time and its relation with the
conformal anomaly”, in Christensen, S.M., ed., Quantum Theory of Gravity: Essays in Honor of the
60th Birthday of Bryce S. DeWitt, pp. 327–344, (Adam Hilger, Bristol, 1984). (Cited on page 42.)
[352] Thiemann, T., “Anomaly-free formulation of non-perturbative, four-dimensional Lorentzian quantum

gravity”, Phys. Lett. B, 380, 257–264 (1996). [DOI]. (Cited on page 32.)
[353] Thiemann, T., “Quantum spin dynamics (QSD): IV. 2+1 Euclidean quantum gravity as a model to
test 3+1 Lorentzian quantum gravity”, Class. Quantum Grav., 15, 1249–1280 (1998). [DOI]. (Cited
on page 20.)
[354] Thiemann, T., “Quantum spin dynamics (QSD): V: Quantum gravity as the natural regulator of
matter quantum field theories”, Class. Quantum Grav., 15, 1281–1314 (1998). [DOI], [arXiv:gr-

[355] Thiemann, T., “Gauge field theory coherent states (GCS): I. General properties”, Class. Quantum
Grav., 18, 2025–2064 (2001). [hep-th/0005233]. (Cited on page 47.)
[356] Thiemann, T., “Introduction to Modern Canonical Quantum General Relativity”, arXiv, e-print,
(2001). [arXiv:gr-qc/0110034]. (Cited on pages 23 and 29.)
[357] Thiemann, T., “Coherent states on graphs”, in Gurzadyan, V.G., Jantzen, R.T. and Ruffini, R.,
eds., The Ninth Marcel Grossmann Meeting: On recent developments in theoretical and experimen-
tal general relativity, gravitation, and relativistic field theories, Part A, Proceedings of the MGIX
MM meeting held at the University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’, 2 – 8 July 2000, pp. 1502–1503, (World
Scientific, Singapore; River Edge, NJ, 2002). [DOI]. (Cited on page 47.)
[358] Thiemann, T., “Complexifier coherent states for quantum general relativity”, Class. Quantum Grav.,
23, 2063–2118 (2006). [DOI], [arXiv:gr-qc/0206037 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on page 47.)
[359] Thiemann, T., Modern Canonical Quantum General Relativity, Cambridge Monographs on Mathe-
matical Physics, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York, 2007). [Google Books]. (Cited
on pages 12, 22, and 86.)
[360] Thiemann, T. and Winkler, O., “Gauge field theory coherent states (GCS): II. Peakedness proper-
ties”, Class. Quantum Grav., 18, 2561–2636 (2001). [DOI], [arXiv:hep-th/0005237 [hep-th]]. (Cited
on page 47.)
[361] Thiemann, T. and Winkler, O., “Gauge field theory coherent states (GCS): III. Ehrenfest theorems”,
Class. Quantum Grav., 18, 4629–4682 (2001). [DOI], [arXiv:hep-th/0005234 [hep-th]]. (Cited on
page 47.)
[362] Thiemann, T. and Winkler, O., “Gauge field theory coherent states (GCS): IV. Infinite tensor prod-
uct and thermodynamical limit”, Class. Quantum Grav., 18, 4997–5054 (2001). [DOI], [arXiv:hep-
th/0005235 [hep-th]]. (Cited on page 47.)
[363] Turaev, V.G., Quantum Invariants of Knots and 3-Manifolds, De Gruyter Studies in Mathematics,
18, (Walter de Gruyter, Berlin; New York, 1994). [Google Books]. (Cited on page 93.)
[364] Turaev, V.G. and Viro, O.Y., “State sum invariants of 3-manifolds and quantum 6𝑗-symbols”, Topol-
ogy, 31, 865–902 (1992). [DOI]. (Cited on pages 43, 93, and 95.)
[365] Velázquez, M., BF gravity, matter couplings, and related theories, Ph.D. thesis, (Cinvestav, Mexico
City, 2011). (Cited on page 23.)
[366] Vidotto, F., “Spinfoam Cosmology: quantum cosmology from the full theory”, in Aldaya, V., Barceló,
C. and Jaramillo, J.L., eds., Spanish Relativity Meeting (ERE 2010): Gravity as a Crossroad in
Physics, Proceedings of the Spanish Relativity Meeting, 6 – 10 September 2010, Granada, Spain, J.
Phys.: Conf. Ser., 314, 012049, (IOP, Bristol, 2010). [DOI], [arXiv:1011.4705]. (Cited on page 79.)
[367] Wald, R.M., General Relativity, (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1984). [ADS], [Google Books].
(Cited on page 10.)
[368] Wieland, W., “Complex Ashtekar variables and reality conditions for Holst’s action”, Ann. Henri
Poincare, 13, 425–448 (2012). [DOI], [arXiv:1012.1738 [gr-qc]]. (Cited on page 23.)
[369] Wieland, W.M., “Twistorial phase space for complex Ashtekar variables”, Class. Quantum Grav.,
[370] Zapata, J.A., A combinatorial approach to quantum gauge theories and quantum gravity, Ph.D. thesis,
(The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 1998). Online version (accessed 10 October
2011):
http://igpg.gravity.psu.edu/archives/thesis/. (Cited on page 31.)

128 Alejandro Perez
[371] Zapata, J.A., “Continuum spin foam model for 3d gravity”, J. Math. Phys., 43, 5612–5623 (2002).
[DOI], [arXiv:gr-qc/0205037]. (Cited on pages 93 and 94.)
[372] Zapata, J.A., “Spin foam model for 3D gravity in the continuum”, in Garcı́a-Compeán, H., Mielnik,
B., Montesinos, M. and Przanowski, M., eds., Topics in Mathematical Physics, General Relativity and
Cosmology in Honor of Jerzy Plebański, Proceedings of 2002 International Conference, Cinvestav,
Mexico City, 17 – 20 September 2002, pp. 495–502, (World Scientific, Singapore; Hackensack, NJ,
2006). [DOI]. (Cited on pages 93, 94, and 103.)


LRR 2013 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LRR 2013 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

LRR 2013 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Living Rev.

Relativity, 16, (2013), 3 LIVING RE VIE WS

The Spin-Foam Approach to Quantum Gravity

Accepted on 11 June 2012

This review is licensed under a Creative Commons

This review is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial 3.0 Germany

2 Why Spin Foams? 12

4 Loop Quantum Gravity and Quantum Geometry in a Nutshell 29

5 Spin Foams and the Path Integral for Gravity in a Nutshell 33

III The new spin-foam models for four-dimensional gravity 36

8 The Lorentzian EPRL Model:

9 The Freidel–Krasnov Model 74

10 The Barrett–Crane Model 76

12 Further Developments and Related Models 78

V Conceptual issues and open problems 96

16 Anomalies and Gauge Fixing 99

17 Discretization Dependence 102

18 Lorentz Invariance in the Effective Low-Energy Regime 105

Living Reviews in Relativity

Living Reviews in Relativity

1.1 Why non-perturbative quantum gravity?

𝑔𝑎𝑏 = 𝜂𝑎𝑏 + ℎ𝑎𝑏 . (1)

𝑔𝑎𝑏 = 𝜂𝑎𝑏 + ℎ𝑎𝑏 = 𝜂˜𝑎𝑏 + ℎ̃𝑎𝑏 , (2)

Living Reviews in Relativity

1.2 Non-renormalizability of general relativity

For some ideas on this, see [153, 239].

Living Reviews in Relativity

Living Reviews in Relativity

2 Why Spin Foams?

2.1 Loop quantum gravity

Living Reviews in Relativity

Living Reviews in Relativity

𝐺̂︀ 𝑖 (𝐴, 𝐸)|Ψ >= 0,

2.2 The path integral for generally covariant systems

Living Reviews in Relativity

(spin foam rep)

Living Reviews in Relativity

^ is the unitary operator associated to the gauge transformation generated

Living Reviews in Relativity

2.3 A brief history of spin foams in four dimensions

2.3.1 The Reisenberger model

where Ω ^ = 𝒥 𝑖 ∧ 𝒥 𝑗 − 1 𝛿 𝑖𝑗 𝒥 𝑘 ∧ 𝒥𝑘 and we have indicated the correspondence of the different

where 𝜎 𝑖 are Pauli matrices.

Living Reviews in Relativity

2.3.2 The Freidel–Krasnov prescription

where the generating functional 𝑍[𝐽] is defined as

2.3.3 The Iwasaki model

Living Reviews in Relativity

2.3.4 The Barrett–Crane model

2.3.5 Markopoulou–Smolin causal spin networks

Living Reviews in Relativity

2.3.6 Gambini–Pullin model

2.3.7 Capovilla–Dell–Jacobson theory on the lattice

2.3.8 The Engle–Pereira–Rovelli–Livine (EPRL)

Living Reviews in Relativity

2.3.9 Freidel–Krasnov (FK)

11 See also [12] for linear simplicity constraints.

Living Reviews in Relativity

Living Reviews in Relativity