Showing posts with label de Sitter space. Show all posts
Showing posts with label de Sitter space. Show all posts

String compactifications review! (Anti-Quill Part 7)

 A review paper I have been collaborating with Aayush Verma has finally been completed. It is a review on string compactifications and the essentials of it. It covers Kaluza-Klein compactifications, string compactifications, moduli stabilisation, flux compactifications and de Sitter compactifications, mostly centred around the KKLT construction with type IIB SUGRA. It has been a 4-month work in progress that is still not fully complete, but it is a pretty decent paper with some bits of humour. I learnt a lot, and there have been some really fun conversations around such de Sitter problems. Enjoy!

REVERING MUSINGS ON STRING COMPACTIFICATION (BUT MOSTLY DE SITTER)

Definition of Holography

 Well, since it has been too long without a good post, here is my talk for Theoretical Nexus where I talked in a very elementary level on the definition of holography. Loosely based on some things that I am currently working on, solely as well as with Aayush. Weird that no one asked any question (except Aayush of course). Nonetheless, here it is.

Nexus Seminar | The Definition of Holography


I am also switching to Reaper from Cakewalk. 

Bulk Physics, Algebras and All That Part Three: Strings Edition -I

 Finally, I have managed to scrape together some time to type in some problems related to the Strings 2024 conference and turn it into a mini-edition of Bulk Physics, Algebras and All That. I most likely will continue on this in the next edition, but for now, this is a light discussion on some interesting stringy problems. This is also the debut of the $\textsf{string theory}$ category for this blog. 

Bulk Physics, Algebras and All That Part Three: Strings Edition -I

Strings 2024

 [From my Twitter post about this.] Strings 2024 ended. It was an amazing conference and a lot of good progress was made. Amazing work to everyone involved, and great works in several good directions like chaos theory, QIT, de Sitter, etc. (as usual celestial holography gets cut out.) Some of the talks: 

The first talk was by Miguel Monterro on string compactifications, which was a review talk on supersymmetric vacua, swampland constraints, non-SUSY string vacua among others. The next one was by Wiesner on bottom-top proof of the emergent string and dependence of species on higher-derivative corrections to the Einstein-Hilbert action. I then listened to Chang’s talk (skipping Figuiredo’s talk) on supercharge “Q” cohomologes and fortuitous states and near-BPS black holes. Next was Collier’s talk on 2D dS as a matrix model was fascinating. It was based on his work with Beatrix, Victor and Lorenz on Virasoro minimal string in 2023, and has directions I am interested in reading more on. Blommaert then had a talk on the gravity dual of DSSYK and fake DSSYK temperature relations to real temperature. This was followed by Stanford, Maxfield, Turiaci, Malda, Lorenz and Lin’s discussion on JT gravity, which was a dope review. 

Next day was kicked off by Juan’s talk on BFSS conjecture, followed by a soft theorems talk that I didn’t attend. Then, Cho had a talk on nonworldsheet string backgrounds, followed by a review by Yin and Erler on SFT. I skipped Budzik’s twisted holography talk and listen to Mahajan’s talk on non-perturbative minimal super string duality with matrix integrals. There was then a gong show with Tourkine, Zhong, Tamargo, Biggs, Delgado (on bordisms group which was fascinating), Gesteau, Guo, Ji, Kundu, Levine, Lin, Parihar and Priyadarshi. Next day, Palti talked about emergent kinetic terms in string theory, and an ML talk on CY geometry that I skipped. Norris had a great talk on dS vacua, which I have to review again. I skipped most of the next observational talks except for van Riet’s talk, and skipped the Townhall (on postdoc applications) and the AI talk by Kaplan. The next day (Thu) I skipped the talk by Duffin and attended Casini’s talk on the ABJ anomaly and U(1) symmetry. 

I skipped all the bootstrap talks unfortunately, but was pleasantly greeted with Wong’s talk on 3D gravity and random ensemble of approx CFTS. Next, Vardhan had a talk I did not quite understand, but was followed up by Faulkner’s gravitational algebras talk, which was great and is timely for me, since I’m working on algebras. The last session yesterday was by Chris Akers and Dan Jafferis, which was great but I had internet issues. Today started with Nameki’s talk on generalized symmetries which I did not get either, and had to skip Dumitrescu’s QCD talk. Hansen had an interesting talk on bootstrapping Virasoro-Shapiro amplitudes in AdS which I have to review again. 

I also skipped Bobev’s talk on M2 branes. Yonekura had an interesting talk on non-SUSY branes in heterotic string theory, followed by Minwalla’s talk on large J+E holographic CFTs. I couldn’t attend Dabholkar’s talk on stringy quantum entanglement entropy, nor Beiras’ talk on topological strings. Zhiboedov had a talk on the future of strings, and and the outro was Hirosi and Andy’s discussion on 100 string problems, which was very good and had de Sitter comments. I asked about analytic continuation, but unfortunately my internet connection dropped out as he was answering. On an all, it was a great conference, and a particularly better improvement over Strings 2023 in light of non-stringy talks. Already feeling nostalgic and missing the talks, and this is how amazing these talks are. David Gross + Ahmed Almheiri’s comments were really touching to hear, especially Ahmed’s joke on the UV index being in Planck units. Can’t wait for Strings 2025@NYUAD in Jan 2025, and since Ahmed +Suvrat+Eva et al are hosting, won’t be surprised if it is as good and even better than this one. Thank you everyone @CERN for this wonderful event.

Reboot de Sitter: Part 1

 [From my Twitter thread]: Maybe it is just time to reboot dS holography altogether. No more double Wick rotations, start from ground up and tell me what for the love of god the FLM corrections to entanglement entropy are. My *educated guess* is that static path is the description where we should start from. We get a similar Ryu-Takayanagi-like formula, for which we have to find semiclassical corrections. Leaving technicalities, we’ll assume there is an FLM-type formula. And here is where I note an interesting point. Pseudo-entropy formalism for EE in dS implies that the relevant quantities like the modular Hamiltonian are also pseudo-valued, and while there seem to exist ways to describe pseudo-relative entropy with $K=-\log \tau $ ($\tau $ is a transition matrix) and have a first law of entanglement, in static patch this doesn’t seem to be the case, so finding a JLMS formula becomes neater. Intuitively as well modular flows make sense, which is a good check mathematically. Subsequently subregion-duality would make sense. In retrospect, bulk reconstruction is a slightly unintuitive thing, and perhaps this should be addressed earlier. On the other hand, maybe a mathematical approach could be better suited, starting from operator algebras that Chandrasekharan, Penington, Longo and Witten did. Whether subregion-subalgebra in static patch dS follow on those lines is not entirely clear to me, but if it does follow a Liu-Leutheusser-type formulation with type II_1 algebras, that would go a long way in clearing what exactly dS holography means. One interesting thing here is that opposed to type II_\infty algebras in crossed product AdS/CFT one has a nicer vN algebraic setting, and it would be good to ask how the entropy of subspaces/subalgebras (I’m not sure how to know which in dS yet) corresponds to bulk wedges. Maybe some corresponding notion of entanglement wedges could be derived? Will update the thread with the next set of comments. 

The Canvas of Holography in (A)dS/CFT

 The GRF Essay that I wrote with Aayush is now online, which you can see at the following link -- we have submitted to arXiv as well, which should be out in a couple of days. While the musings are based off from the de Sitter review we wrote, this essay should convince you that de Sitter quantum gravity is enigmatic to its core. 

 The Canvas of Holography in (A)dS/CFT

de Sitter Essay

Initially, I intended to write an Essay for the GRF contest on de Sitter subregions, which I have been fascinated by for quite some time now. The first thing I had in mind was to work on a bit with these subregions and see if I could come up with something, but noticing that the natural direction of progression went to doing double Wick rotations and stuff, I decided I wanted to ease on doing something original. Let me explain why I came to this decision.

The whole thing with dS/CFT is that we don't know what to do with subregions, and instead of having nice entanglement entropy like we have in AdS/CFT with the Ryu-Takayanagi formula, we instead have to deal with a non-unitary CFT, and work with transition matrices instead of density matrices. The result of this is that instead of having something like 

\[S=-\mathrm{Tr} \;\rho \log \rho \in \mathbb{R}\;,\]

we have to deal with something like 

\[\mathcal{S}=-\mathrm{Tr}\;\tau \log \tau \in \mathbb{C}\;,\]

which is ugly for two reasons: (1) complex-valued entanglement entropy is indicative of extremal surfaces that are timelike in nature rather than spacelike, and (2) this also implies a non-trivial set of information theoretic things. For instance, in AdS/CFT, Ryu-Takayanagi with corrections is the FLM formula, which in turn implies an equivalence of bulk and boundary relative entropies from the JLMS formula:

\[S(\rho _{A}|\sigma _{A})=S(\rho _{a}|\sigma _{a})\;,\]

where $\rho _{A}$ are density matrices associated to the boundary subregion $A$ and $\rho _{a}$ are density matrices associated to bulk subregions $a$ -- but how to look at something like this in dS/CFT is not entirely clear, since we have to deal with transition matrices; for that matter, what to even naively expect of subregion duality is not clear (except Narayan's geometric works, which are pretty good in having some intuition with this). One idea is to use the first law of entanglement with perturbed states $\rho \to \rho +\delta \rho $, which also works for transition matrices from pseudo-modular Hamiltonians so that we have something like 

\[S(\tau +\delta \tau )-S(\tau )\sim \langle \widetilde{K}_{\tau +\delta \tau }\rangle -\langle \widetilde{K}_{\tau }\rangle +O(\delta \tau ^{2})\;,\]

and do something similar to Dong, Harlow and Wall's works in AdS/CFT in dS/CFT, which is something I am currently working on. But the thing about double Wick rotations is that at least for me, it does not seem empirical enough; the basic idea is that going from Poincare AdS path

\[ds^{2}=\frac{l^{2}_{\text{AdS}}}{z^{2}}\left(-dt^{2}+dz^{2}+\sum _{a=1}^{D-2}dx^{a}dx^{a} \right)\;,\]

 to Euclidean AdS and double Wick rotating this by 

\[z\longrightarrow i\eta \;, \;\;\;\;\; l_{\text{AdS}}\longrightarrow -il_{\text{dS}}\;\]

to relate to the dS planar slicing (here I set $l_{\text{dS}}=1$)

\[ds^{2}=\frac{1}{\eta ^{2}}\left(-d\eta ^{2}+\sum _{a=1}^{D-1}dx^{a}dx^{a} \right)\;.\]

From this, one can find the timelike entanglement entropy and correspondingly subregions (at least in the Hartman-Maldacena fashion). I am trying to get a better feel for the more ``canonical" side of things, and this seems to be a little too straightforward for my liking.

So instead, I am writing a Tom Banks-inspired Essay in which I am basically presenting a few of my thoughts on how some things in dS/CFT could be resolved, although these are presented in a very straightforward way and is not meant to be precise whatsoever. One of the other things I was thinking of adding in the Essay is on asymptotic quantization and CFT partition-like functionals obtained in the $\mu \to 0$ limit (where $\mu $ is some deformation parameter; essentially tells us how the rescaling of the metric $g$ takes us to different slices, and more precisely is the deformation parameter attributed to $T\overline{T}$-deformations in doing Cauchy slice holography), although my remarks in that section are not very clear and I am yet to work on it. 

Review paper on de Sitter and Holography

A review paper on de Sitter and holography that I have been collaborating on with Aayush Verma has been completed. While this is a preliminary version and we may not arXiv it immediately (perhaps after some more refinements), the present state of the paper justifies to an extent the title. It is based on discussions on the general aspects of de Sitter, holographic entanglement entropy from usual dS/CFT and bit threads, the recent works by Suvrat et al on the Hilbert space of de Sitter quantum gravity, the work on algebra of observables in de Sitter space by Chandrasekharan, Longo, Pennington and Witten, some brief aspects of Cauchy slice holography by Wall et al, and finally a mention of bulk reconstruction in the sense of dS/CFT. In upcoming revisions, we will elaborate on some aspects and include further works, such as cosmic ER=EPR by Cotler and Strominger, dS/dS, and Balasubramaniam et al's works on de Sitter space.

Extremal surfaces in de Sitter

 Today, a paper by K. Narayan came up on arXiv. However, I had the privilege of seeing the draft from two days earlier, and here is a quick glimpse on why these extremal surfaces are important. From AdS/CFT, we know that extremal surfaces are the things that make up the entanglement wedge, where we do all sorts of nice things like entanglement wedge reconstruction, make sense of subregion-subalgebra duality (at least motivationally) and calculate entanglement entropy, etc. One interesting thing is that of phase transitions, where if you vary the area of a two-component boundary subregion, the corresponding entanglement wedges eventually coincide, and you will be able to reconstruct a bulk operator deeper than before. But, such kinds of things only exist because these extremal surfaces have that interpretation. In dS/CFT, this becomes a very subtle question: if one does construct entanglement entropy (which we nicely can), what subreion duality could we possibly construct? Clearly this has to be Lorentzian, i.e. into the bulk from $\mathcal{I}^{+}$ to $\mathcal{I}^{-}$ (without ``turning points" going to the same boundary), due to which we have to make sense of extremal surfaces going timelike. This paper has a very nice description of the extremal surfaces, and I have some thoughts on a possible reconstruction scheme in this scenario. However, it must be noted that, while subregion duality has been previously highlighted in AdS/CFT with the backing of type III$_{1}$ von Neumann algebras associated to the bulk and boundary subregions, I am not sure about the nature of algebras in this case. So, things like JLMS and pure bulk reconstruction schemes do not exist as of yet. However, this is an interesting field, and I think the next big thing will be in dS/CFT.

Bit Threads, AdS/CFT and de Sitter

 Recently, I came across a very striking formulation of Ryu-Takayanagi's result in AdS/CFT due to Freedman and Headrick [1604.00354]. While I came across this from reading Frederick and Hubeny's paper on Covariant Bit Threads [2208.10507] (and also from Susskind and Shaghoulian's paper on de Sitter entanglement [2201.03603]), I felt that this proposal has some things to be understood even in the framework of AdS/CFT. The idea is summarised as follows: due to a max-flow-min-cut theorem for Riemannian manifolds, one can state the Ryu-Takayanagi area-minimizing term as a max-flow for bit threads. 

Start from Ryu-Takayanagi (where $\sim $ denotes that the surface is homologous to the boundary subregion):

\[S(\partial R)=\max _{\Sigma }\min _{\mathcal{X}\sim \partial R} \text{Area of } \mathcal{X}\;.\]

Usually, the term $\max _{\Sigma }$ is redundant and is instead used in the HRT prescription for covariant holographic entanglement entropy. From the max-flow-min-cut principle, the term $\min _{\mathcal{X}\sim \partial R}$ can be replaced by maximizers of the flow $v$, which has field lines defined as bit threads. These have two properties: (1) they have a fixed ``width" of $1/4G_{N}$, and (2) they cannot cross a horizon. Ryu-Takayanagi then becomes

\[S(\partial R)=\max _{\# \text{ threads}} \int v\;,\]

where by maximizing flows $v$ we mean the number of threads that leave the boundary subregion. These bit threads have an additional property: they always start and end on the boundary. Ryu-Takayanagi then takes the above form, and is fully expressed in terms of the maximum $\#$ of bit threads leaving the subregion into the bulk, forming a ``bottleneck". This is preserved from the max-flow-min-cut theorem, and so the definition of Ryu-Takayanagi is still the same. 

Susskind and Shaghoulian introduced this aspect of bit threads and entanglement entropy in de Sitter space, which is an interesting read. In de Sitter, one does not have this conformal boundary nature to describe a nice picture for entanglement entropy. Instead, as Susskind and Shaghoulian pointed out, one can define a Ryu-Takayanagi formula in static patch by identifying a surface between the stretched horizons to find the entanglement of the pode-antipode system. This reduces to the familiar Gibbons-Hawking entropy,

\[S=\frac{\text{Area of } H_{\Lambda }}{4G_{N}}\;.\]

In the bit threads formulation, one now has the ability to define two proposals: first, a monolayer proposal, where each horizon emits bit threads towards the other component in a single-layered fashion, and second, a bilayer proposal, where the largest component (usually the cosmic horizon) emits bit threads in a double-layered fashion. Due to this, one has bit threads going (1) to the other component, and (2) ``backwards" towards the pode or antipode. Of course, these bit threads find a bottleneck of zero area (a discrepancy taken into account while making the condition of the surface homologous to the horizons), and therefore the monolayer and the bilayer proposals are equivalent. For, say, the Schwarzschild-de Sitter case, the second layer encounters an ER bridge (since the black hole in say the pode would imply a black hole in the antipode in an entangled state), where the second bottleneck is located. However, we are far from understanding whether there are other information theoretic aspects in de Sitter. In AdS/CFT, presumably things like strong subadditivity can be explained in bit threads, but maybe with semiclassical corrections there are other things to take into account. In de Sitter, this becomes even more complicated. However, this is a nice proposal and I believe some more attention should be given to these things.

Higuchi's Modified norm, Asymptotic WDW states and Refined Algebraic Quantization

 In a review I am writing with a collaborator, I am reviewing a bit of Higuchi's proposal (introduced in this paper) for a modified norm. A couple of papers into inspire, I found a very nice set of papers (see this, this and this) that indicated that there was a little more to the story of the group averaging proposal. It was first initiated by Moncrief in his paper ``Space-Time Symmetries and Linearization Stability of the Einstein Equations. 2", where it was conjectured that the infinite norm of a Hilbert space could be modified into a finite norm by dividing by the volume of the group. In the example of the Hilbert space proposal by Suvrat et al [2303.16315], where the asymptotic solutions to the Wheeler-DeWitt equation are of the form

\[\Psi [g, \chi ]=e^{iS[g, \chi ]}\mathcal{Z}[g, \chi ]\;,\]

one has to take into account of the Gauss law, which requires that these WDW states are invariant under the de Sitter isometry group $G_{dS}$. These are of the form (see the paper for a nice discussion about this and a more proper description of how these states are found to be invariant)

  • Translations: $\tilde{x}^{a}=x^{a}+\epsilon ^{a}$,
  • Rotations: $\tilde{x}^{a}=R^{a}_{b}x^{b}$,
  • Dilatations: $\tilde{x}^{a}=\lambda x^{a}$ and 
  • Special conformal transformations: $\tilde{x}^{a}=\frac{x^{a}-\beta ^{a}|x|^{a}}{1-2(\beta \cdot x)+|\beta |^{2}|x|^{2}}$.
For the $t$ coordinate, the above transformations can be found correspondingly. However, if one defines a ``seed" state built on top of the Euclidean vacuum state $|0\rangle $ (called the Bunch-Davies state) by
\[|\mathrm{seed}\rangle =\int dx_{1}\dots dx_{n}\psi (x_{1}\dots x_{n})\chi (x_{1})\dots \chi (x_{n})|0\rangle \;,\]
where $\psi (x_{n})$ is a ``smearing" function with a compact support and $\chi (x_{n})$ are a collection of $n$ massive scalar fields, we see that the only state invariant under $G_{dS}$ (imposed as a constraint) is that of $|0\rangle $. Due to the smearing function, and the nature of the group, the norm $\langle \Psi , \Psi \rangle $ is infinite. This can be interpreted as forming a one-state subspace $\mathcal{H}^{G_{dS}}$ of $G_{dS}$-invariant states from the full Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$. To correct this, one uses Higuchi's proposal, which proved Moncrief's conjecture, and uses group averaging to define a modified norm
\[\langle \langle \Psi , \Psi \rangle \rangle =\frac{1}{\mathrm{vol}(SO(1, D+1))}\langle \Psi , \Psi \rangle \;,\]
where $\langle \langle \cdot , \cdot \rangle \rangle $ denotes the modified norm (this is somewhat against the usual convention of $(\cdot , \cdot )$, but I will be using this in a different sense below). What one is doing here is defining the space of states formed by group averaging under $G_{dS}$:
\[|\Psi \rangle =\int _{g\in G_{dS}}dg \; U|\mathrm{seed}\rangle \;,\]
where $dg$ denotes the Haar measure and $U(g)$ is a unitary operator. One then has a finite norm set of states which are invariant under $G_{dS}$ isometry group.

In the sense of Refined Algebraic Quantization (abbreviated to RAQ), the whole consideration above reduces into a mathematical problem: given an auxiliary Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_{aux}$ and a corresponding set of $*$-algebra of observables $\mathcal{A}_{obs}$, one has to find the ``physical" Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_{phys}$ such that the inner product satisfies the finiteness constraint, and so that the inner product on $\mathcal{H}_{aux}$ is related to $\mathcal{H}_{phys}$. The constraints in the above construction are that the states are invariant under $G_{dS}$, and essentially what we have done is to find the physical Hilbert space, which is a subspace of the initial (in the RAQ terminology, auxiliary) Hilbert space. In the sense of an $\eta $-mapping as discussed in Marolf's paper, one would find a measure so that the following modified norm converges:
\[(\Psi , \Psi )_{\eta }=\int _{g\in G_{dS}} dg\; \langle \Psi |U|\Psi \rangle \;,\]
where $(\cdot , \cdot )_{\eta }$ refers to the modified inner product defined in terms of $\eta $. Group averaging in the above sense of WDW states becomes the norm $(\cdot , \cdot )_{\eta }\to \langle \langle \cdot , \cdot \rangle \rangle $ of $\mathcal{H}_{phys}\to \mathcal{H}^{G_{dS}}$. 

Thoughts on de Sitter

In the famous 1997 paper by Maldacena [hep-th/9711200] introducing AdS/CFT (which also happens to be the most cited paper in hep-th), the notion of duality between bulk quantum gravity and a CFT on the boundary was found. In some sense, this can be viewed as the equivalence between the gravitational partition function $Z_{\text{grav}}$ and the CFT partition function $Z_{\text{CFT}}$. Some interesting things have also come out of this, most prominently (in my opinion) the calculation of holographic entanglement entropy by Ryu-Takayanagi [hep-th/0603001] and Hubeny-Rangamani-Takayanagi [0705.0016]. Since the inception of AdS/CFT itself, however, people have looked for a dS/CFT correspondence -- a holographic duality between some field theory on the conformal boundary $\mathcal{I}^{+}$ and the bulk gravitating region described by the $D$-dimensional de Sitter space. See for instance, the original paper putting forward dS/CFT by Strominger: [hep-th/0106113]. However, this is something that seems too much of a long-shot, namely, for the following reasons:
  • Holography at $\mathcal{I}^{+}$ means that the partition function $Z_{\text{CFT}}$ requires non-unitarity, which in some sense can be imagined by the lack of a minimal spacelike geodesic separating two distinct points on the boundary. Therefore, any holographic entanglement entropy proposal would define ``pseudo-entropy" and not something as straightforward as the Ryu-Takayanagi formula. Which of course, one can put up with, but at least for a superficial reason I am petty enough to say that the ``actual" dS/CFT correspondence (if one exists at all) gives a slightly more satisfying description of entanglement entropy than the timelike entanglement entropy - pseudo-holographic entropy equivalence by Harper et al [2210.09457]
  • Far too many proposals. Again, it might just be that I am being petty with multiple descriptions of holography in de Sitter space, but if a proper description of holography did exist at all, it should be somewhat like AdS/CFT in the sense that the duality is concrete. Right now we have multiple descriptions -- such as global dS/CFT, static patch holography (which is a good enough thing due to things like entanglement entropy calculations and so on), half-de Sitter (introduced just recently by KRST, [2306.07575]), and recently, Cauchy slice holography, which I will talk about in a different post. Perhaps the answer is one of two things: either, that such a correspondence simply does not exist, or that a different kind of holography is to be considered, which would be holography of information from asymptotic quantization. 
  • Finally, because it seems out of bound from a quantum gravity description without supposing things. Which holographic proposal would be have to pay attention to from, say, canonical quantum gravity? The answer for me, seems to be -- none. I have talked below. 
What is this aspect of quantum gravity I mentioned that does not work for holography? I cannot make sense of this as of yet, due to some reasons that will be apparent soon. However, if one builds holography in the sense of the GPKW relation,
\[\Psi [g]\sim Z[g]\;,\]
where $\Psi [g]$ satisfies the Hamiltonian and momentum constraints (referred to as a Wheeler-DeWitt state, satisfying the annihilation of the Hamiltonian constraint or the Wheeler-DeWitt equation) and $Z[g]$ is a CFT partition function in dS. Now, here is the question: if one assumes this to be true (which is, for well-known case of the Hartle-Hawking state), what is the Hilbert space of dS quantum gravity? One could suppose to do Cauchy slice holography [2204.00591], which for AdS/CFT works amazingly -- you start from the CFT partition function and use a $T\overline{T}$-deformation to move into a bulk Cauchy slice, and identify holographic duality between $\Psi [g]$ and the deformed partition function $Z^{\Sigma }[g]$. Note a thing above, which is that I have not mentioned the dependence of $\Psi [g]$ or $Z[g]$ on matter contributions -- if we consider the case of gravity coupled to a massive scalar field, one would have in those contributions as well, but for the sake of discussion I have not included it. For de Sitter, this deformation from the boundary $\mathcal{I}^{+}$ is not clear, at least for me. But even if one does identify these things, which holographic proposal would we derive? Static patch? Global dS/CFT? This is not clear for me yet. But even if this is clear, this does not answer the question, ``what is the Hilbert space of de Sitter quantum gravity?" This was answered just recently (discussions on which I was fortunate to hear before the paper was arXived at lunch at ICTS) in a paper by Suvrat and collaborators [2303.16315], which is a nice result, and this uses asymptotic quantization, which is to work with late-time slices (essentially by identifying a conformal factor $\Omega $ in the metric so as to identify an intrinsic ``clock" or York time) instead of $\mathcal{I}^{+}$. This has a nice result, that in some sense one has a proper identification of the WDW states in de Sitter. However, more on this later.