We use covariant phase space methods to study the metric and tetrad formulations of general relativity in a manifold with boundary and compare the results obtained in both approaches. Proving their equivalence has been a long-lasting problem that we solve here by using the cohomological approach provided by the relative bicomplex framework. This setting provides a clean and ambiguity-free way to describe the solution spaces and associated symplectic structures. We also compute several relevant charges in both schemes and show that they are equivalent, as expected.

We prove the equivalence in the covariant phase space of the metric and connection formulations for Palatini gravity, with nonmetricity and torsion, on a spacetime manifold with boundary. To this end, we will rely on the cohomological approach provided by the relative bicomplex framework. Finally, we discuss some of the physical implications derived from this equivalence in the context of singularity identification through curvature invariants.

The quantum angle generator (QAG) is a new full quantum machine learning model designed to generate accurate images on current noise intermediate scale quantum devices. Variational quantum circuits form the core of the QAG model, and various circuit architectures are evaluated. In combination with the so-called MERA-upsampling architecture, the QAG model achieves excellent results, which are analyzed and evaluated in detail. To our knowledge, this is the first time that a quantum model has achieved such accurate results. To explore the robustness of the model to noise, an extensive quantum noise study is performed. In this paper, it is demonstrated that the model trained on a physical quantum device learns the noise characteristics of the hardware and generates outstanding results. It is verified that even a quantum hardware machine calibration change during training of up to 8% can be well tolerated. For demonstration, the model is employed in indispensable simulations in high energy physics required to measure particle energies and, ultimately, to discover unknown particles at the large Hadron Collider at CERN.

We study a generalization of the Holst action where we admit nonmetricity and torsion in manifolds with timelike boundaries (both in the metric and tetrad formalism). We prove that its space of solutions is equal to the one of the Palatini action. Therefore, we conclude that the metric sector is in fact identical to general relativity (GR), which is defined by the Einstein-Hilbert action. We further prove that, despite defining the same space of solutions, the Palatini and (the generalized) Holst Lagrangians are not cohomologically equal. Thus, the presymplectic structure and charges provided by the covariant phase space method might differ. However, using the relative bicomplex framework, we show the covariant phase spaces of both theories are equivalent (and in fact equivalent to GR), as well as their charges, clarifying some open problems regarding dual charges and their equivalence in different formulations.

The Hamiltonian description of mechanical or field models defined by singular Lagrangians plays a central role in physics. A number of methods are known for this purpose, the most popular of them being the one developed by Dirac. Here, we discuss other approaches to this problem that rely on the direct use of the equations of motion (and the tangency requirements characteristic of the Gotay, Nester and Hinds method), or are formulated in the tangent bundle of the configuration space. Owing to its interesting relation with general relativity we use a concrete example as a test bed: an extension of the Pontryagin and Husain–Kuchař actions to four dimensional manifolds with boundary.

We use covariant phase space methods to study the metric and tetrad formulations of General Relativity in a manifold with boundary and compare the results obtained in both approaches. Proving their equivalence has been a long-lasting problem that we solve here by using the cohomological approach provided by the relative bicomplex framework. This setting provides a clean and ambiguity-free way to describe the solution spaces and associated symplectic structures. We also compute several relevant charges in both schemes and show that they are equivalent, as expected.