FLPR Model: (Anti-)Chiral Supervariable Approach to Quantum Symmetries

Bhupendra Chauhan; Tapobroto Bhanja

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

FLPR Model: (Anti-)Chiral Supervariable Approach to Quantum Symmetries

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper derives the off-shell nilpotent and absolutely anticommuting BRST, anti-BRST, co-BRST, and anti-co-BRST symmetry transformations of the non-interacting FLPR model from (anti-)chiral supervariables on a (1,1)-dimensional super…

desk verdict ACSA one-variable derivation applied to FLPR, but the central calculation as printed does not support the off-shell nilpotency claim; the final symmetries are the known ones and the derivation contains load-bearing algebra errors. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09948 v2 pith:HGORS35J submitted 2024-11-15 hep-th

Bhupendra Chauhan , Tapobroto Bhanja This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-th PACS 11.15.-q11.30.-j11.10.Ef

keywords FLPRmodelBRSTsymmetryanti-BRSTco-BRSTnilpotentchargessupervariableapproachfirst-classconstraintsGrassmannvariables

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to show that the complete set of four fermionic quantum symmetries of the non-interacting FLPR model -- BRST, anti-BRST, co-BRST, and anti-co-BRST -- can be derived without a two-Grassmann-variable supermanifold. Its method extends each ordinary variable to a (anti-)chiral superfield on a (1,1)-dimensional super submanifold and fixes the secondary fields by demanding that selected (anti-)BRST and (anti-)co-BRST invariant combinations stay independent of the single Grassmann coordinate. The coefficients of that coordinate in the resulting expansions are exactly the symmetry transformations, and nilpotency of the Grassmann derivative transfers to nilpotency and absolute anticommutativity of the four Noether charges. A sympathetic reader would care because the FLPR model is a standard constrained gauge system, so a demonstration that one Grassmann variable is enough to generate its full quantum symmetry algebra makes the geometric quantization prescription lighter and clarifies which restrictions do the work.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the (anti-)chiral supervariable approach: each variable $\phi(t)$ is lifted to $\Phi(t,\vartheta)=\phi(t)+\vartheta\,\bar b(t)$ on a chiral submanifold or $\Phi(t,\bar\vartheta)=\phi(t)+\bar\vartheta\, b(t)$ on an anti-chiral submanifold, so only one Grassmann coordinate appears. The (anti-)BRST and (anti-)co-BRST invariant restrictions -- equations stating that selected combinations of supervariables equal their ordinary counterparts -- fix the secondary coefficients $\bar b(t), b(t)$; the symmetry transformation is then the Grassmann derivative ($s_b\phi=\partial_{\bar\vartheta}\Phi$, $s_{ab}\phi=\partial_\vartheta\Phi$, and analogously for co-BRST). Because the derivative is nilpotent, any charge written as a Grassmann integral of such superfields inherits nilpotency, and the cross-derivative structure gives absolute anticommutativity.

What would settle it

Work through the quadratic restriction $X^2+Y^2=x^2+y^2$ with the one-variable ansatz and list all solutions for $(b_1,b_2)$. If a solution other than the combinations the paper selects (for instance $b_1=+gy\,c$, $b_2=-gx\,c$) satisfies every imposed restriction, then the symmetry transformations are not uniquely determined by the method; that would be a concrete algebraic failure of the claimed derivation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that off-shell nilpotent ($s_b^2=s_{ab}^2=s_d^2=s_{ad}^2=0$) and absolutely anticommuting ($s_b s_{ab}+s_{ab} s_b=0$, $s_d s_{ad}+s_{ad} s_d=0$) BRST, anti-BRST, co-BRST, and anti-co-BRST symmetry transformations for the FLPR model follow from the (anti-)chiral supervariable approach using only one Grassmann variable, with the (anti-)BRST and (anti-)co-BRST invariant restrictions replacing the usual horizontality and dual-horizontality conditions. The same one-variable expansions yield explicit forms of the conserved charges from which nilpotency and absolute anticommutativity are read off as consequences of $\partial_\vartheta^2=\partial_{\bar\vartheta}^2=0$. The Lagrangian is shown to be invariant up to total time derivatives under all four symmetry sets, both in ordinary space and through the super-Lagrangian formulation.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes that the chosen invariant restrictions pin down every secondary coefficient uniquely and that a single Grassmann variable is enough to carry the full symmetry content; if a restriction is missing or a sign branch is mis-assigned, the resulting transformations and charge properties do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the derivation is right, the full $s_b,s_{ab},s_d,s_{ad}$ algebra of the FLPR model is determined by invariant restrictions on one-variable super expansions, with no horizontality conditions required.
The Noether charges admit equivalent forms as $\partial_\vartheta$- and $\partial_{\bar\vartheta}$-integrals over ghost-antighost combinations, so their nilpotency and anticommutativity are structural rather than checked case by case.
The action is quasi-invariant under all four transformations; each super-Lagrangian changes by a total time derivative under the Grassmann translation.
The authors state that the same ACSA technique should transfer to other gauge-invariant systems such as ABJM theory, Chern-Simons theory, the Freedman-Townsend model, and higher-derivative Abelian gauge theories.

Reading between the lines

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

The sign choices made in fixing coefficients such as $\kappa_1=-gy,\kappa_2=gx$ are selections among two branches; the paper does not prove the rejected branch is inconsistent. A complete branch analysis would settle whether the four symmetries are unique or whether inequivalent one-variable realizations exist.
Since the potential $U(x^2+y^2)$ enters only through the equations of motion and not through the invariant restrictions, the same four transformations should survive for any rotationally invariant potential, making the symmetry algebra a property of the constraint $g(xp_y-yp_x)+p_z$ rather than of the potential.
The one-variable construction likely reduces the computational cost of BRST quantization for larger constrained systems; a natural test is to apply it to the interacting FLPR model or to a higher-dimensional gauge theory and compare with the two-variable results.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is the ACSA one-variable treatment applied to the FLPR model, and the final symmetries and charges are the known FLPR results. What is new is the specific one-Grassmann-variable superfield expansion, which could be a useful worked template if it were correct. As printed, it is not.

The paper deserves credit for laying the expansions out explicitly and for assembling the standard BRST, anti-BRST, co-BRST, and anti-co-BRST transformations together with the usual charge expressions. The self-citations to the authors' earlier ACSA work are appropriate as method citations, and the shift to a (1,1)-dimensional sub-manifold is a real simplification in presentation. But the derivation's key equations are internally inconsistent with the transformations the paper claims to derive.

In Sec. 4, Eq. (22) and Eq. (25) put \dot{c} where the restrictions and the stated symmetries require c. Eq. (29) swaps z and \zeta: z gets \dot{c} and \zeta gets c, the reverse of Eq. (7). The "invariant" restriction on \dot{\zeta} - z is not invariant off-shell: acting with s_b gives \ddot{c} - c. Unsurprisingly, the coefficient comparison forces m_2 \ddot{c} - m_1 c = 0, and the text's conclusion m_1 = m_2 only follows if \ddot{c} = c. That is an on-shell condition, so the central off-shell claim fails exactly where it matters. The co-BRST section repeats the pattern, using \dot{c} in places that need \dot{\bar c}, and several displayed relations mix c, \bar c, and \dot c. Section 6's charge "proofs" are exact-form identities under transformations already assumed; they do not repair the derivation.

These are not minor typos at the periphery. They sit inside the derivation of every nontrivial symmetry transformation, so the paper as written does not support its advertised result. The reader's reject verdict is right, and the stress-test note lands.

Who is this for? A reader who wants a fully worked ACSA example for the FLPR model might get some use out of the structure, but only after a careful correction. The right path is a re-derivation with the Grassmann coefficients checked against the actual s_b and s_(a)d actions, plus an explicit comparison with refs. [21-24] to establish what is genuinely new. If the authors fix that, I would be happy to look again. As it stands, I would desk reject rather than send it to referees, with an invitation to resubmit after correction.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript applies the (anti-)chiral supervariable approach (ACSA) to the non-interacting Friedberg-Lee-Pang-Ren model, claiming to derive off-shell nilpotent and absolutely anticommuting (anti-)BRST and (anti-)co-BRST symmetry transformations using only one Grassmann variable. It further claims to prove nilpotency and absolute anti-commutativity of the corresponding Noether charges and to show the Lagrangian's invariance within the ACSA framework. Sections 2 and 3 state the standard transformations and charges; Sections 4 and 5 present the supervariable derivations; Section 6 gives charge proofs; Section 7 treats Lagrangian invariance.

Significance. The FLPR model is a standard testbed for BRST methods, and a clean derivation of all four fermionic symmetries from a single Grassmann variable would be a useful technical contribution. The paper does not deliver this: the central derivations in Sections 4 and 5 contain internally inconsistent equations, the invariant restrictions are partly constructed from the very transformations that are supposed to be derived, and one of the restrictions is not off-shell invariant. The standard transformations in Eqs. (7) and (11) and the Noether charges in Eqs. (10) and (13) are correctly stated, and the exact-form identities in Section 6 are algebraically correct given those transformations, but the advertised ACSA derivation is unsupported as written.

major comments (5)

[Section 4, Eqs. (22) and (25)] The coefficients in these equations use \dot c instead of c. From the restriction X(t,\bar\vartheta)F(t,\bar\vartheta)=x(t)c(t) with F=c (Eqs. (17)-(18)), the \bar\vartheta coefficient is b_1 c; the consistent solution is b_1=\kappa_1 c, and Eq. (21) then yields b_1=-g y c, b_2=g x c. Equation (22), however, prints -g y\dot c and g x\dot c, and Eq. (25) makes the same substitution for p_x and p_y. With these printed coefficients the imposed restrictions fail off-shell: for example, the \bar\vartheta coefficient of XF is -g y\,\dot c\,c, which is not identically zero in the off-shell Grassmann algebra. The off-shell derivation claimed in the abstract is therefore not realized.
[Section 4, Eqs. (16), (26)-(29)] The treatment of z and \zeta is internally inconsistent. First, the restriction s_b(\dot\zeta-z)=0 in Eq. (16) is not off-shell invariant: using the target transformations (7), s_b(\dot\zeta-z)=\ddot c-c, which vanishes only through the ghost equation of motion. Second, Eq. (26) sets b_3=m_1 c and b_7=m_2\dot c; Eq. (27) then requires m_2\ddot c=m_1 c, so the conclusion m_1=m_2 invokes the same on-shell condition. Third, Eq. (28) states b_3=m_2 b(t) and b_7=m_1\dot b(t), which have the wrong Grassmann parity because b_3 and b_7 are fermionic secondary variables while b(t) is bosonic. Finally, the expansions printed in Eq. (29), namely s_b z=\dot c and s_b \zeta=c, are swapped relative to the target transformations in Eq. (7), where s_b z=c and s_b \zeta=\dot c. These are load-bearing errors for the claimed derivation of the (anti-)BRST symmetries.
[Section 5, Eqs. (39)-(48)] The co-BRST derivation uses the wrong ghost field. The co-BRST invariant restrictions in Eq. (35) are written with \dot{\bar c}, e.g., s_d(x\dot{\bar c})=0, and the chiral expansion of \bar F with \bar f_2=0 gives \bar b_1\propto\dot{\bar c}. The final coefficients, however, are printed with \dot c and c: Eq. (41) gives s_d x=-g y\dot c instead of s_d x=-g y\dot{\bar c}, Eq. (44) gives s_d p_x=-g p_y\dot c instead of s_d p_x=-g p_y\dot{\bar c}, and Eq. (48) gives s_d z=\dot c and s_d \zeta=c instead of s_d z=\dot{\bar c} and s_d \zeta=\bar c. These results do not match the paper's own co-BRST transformations in Eq. (11), so the claimed derivation of the co-BRST symmetries fails.
[Sections 4 and 5, Eqs. (16), (20)-(25), (31), (35), (51)] The derivation is underdetermined and partly circular. The invariant restrictions in Eq. (16), Eq. (31), Eq. (35), and Eq. (51) are asserted to be invariant, but verifying them requires the target transformations in Eqs. (7) and (11). Moreover, the restrictions determine the secondary coefficients only up to kernel ambiguities: for example, b_1 c=0 is satisfied by b_1=\kappa_1 c for any bosonic \kappa_1, and the specific choices \kappa_1=-g y, \kappa_2=g x are selected because they reproduce the target transformations, with no proof of uniqueness or completeness. The same pattern appears in the 'two combinations' statements in Eqs. (20)-(25) and in the sign choices in Section 5. Consequently, the ACSA procedure as presented is a consistency check rather than a derivation, and this circularity propagates to the charge proofs in Section 6, where Q_b is written as an exact s_b or s_{ab} form (Eqs. (58) and (61)).
[Section 7, Eq. (62)] The super Lagrangian in Eq. (62) is not the correct generalization of the quantum Lagrangian (8). The ghost terms are written as -i\dot{\bar F}^{(b)}F^{(b)}-i\bar F^{(b)}F^{(b)}, whereas Eq. (8) contains -i\dot{\bar c}\dot c-i\bar c c; the first ghost term should be -i\dot{\bar F}\dot F. Without the correct super Lagrangian, the quasi-invariance identities in Eq. (63) are not established by the displayed expressions. In addition, Eq. (65) uses an undefined field p_\varphi.

minor comments (4)

[Section 4, Eq. (24)] The right-hand side of Eq. (24) is written as x^2+y^2; it should be p_x^2+p_y^2.
[Section 4, Eq. (21) and surrounding text] The text says the relation for \kappa_1,\kappa_2 is valid for two combinations and then lists the same combination twice; presumably a different sign choice was intended.
[Section 5, Eqs. (39), (42), (47), (51)] There are numerous notational errors: Eq. (39) writes b_1(t)\propto c(t) where the proportionality should be to \dot{\bar c}(t); Eq. (42) uses \bar\vartheta in a chiral superfield and \dot F instead of \dot{\bar F}; Eq. (47) and Eq. (51) contain g(x p_x-y p_x) instead of g(x p_y-y p_x).
[Section 6, Eqs. (55)-(56)] Several superfield arguments are mismatched in the displayed charge expressions, for example Q_d is written with \bar\vartheta in one term and \vartheta in another; the notation should be made consistent.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

ACSA 'derivations' of BRST and co-BRST symmetries reduce to the target transformations via the invariant restrictions; the printed coefficients also fail to follow from the stated restrictions.

self definitional [Sec. 4, Eqs. (16)-(29)]
"The BRST invariant quantities are the specific combinations of the variables present in Lagrangian (8), given as follows: sb(c, b, pz, pξ) = 0, sb(x c) = 0, sb(y c) = 0, sb(x2 + y2) = 0, sb(px c) = 0, sb(py c) = 0, sb(p2x + p2y) = 0, sb(z c) = 0, sb(ζ ˙c) = 0, sb( ˙ζ − z) = 0, sb(˙b ζ+ i ˙¯c ˙c) = 0, sb(b z+ i ¯c c) = 0."

The invariant restrictions are declared BRST-invariant using the very sb transformations, Eq. (7), that Sec. 4 claims to derive. For instance, sb(z c) = 0 and sb(ζ ˙c) = 0 hold only when sb z = c and sb ζ = ˙c, which are the target transformations later read off in Eq. (29). Similarly, X F = x c with f1 = 0 forces b1 ∝ c, and the free proportionality is then 'chosen' to reproduce −g y (Eq. (22)). The superfield coefficients are therefore not derived from independent input; they are the target transformations repackaged as Grassmann coefficients. This is a consistency check, not a first-principles derivation.
self definitional [Sec. 5, Eqs. (35)-(48)]
"We use chiral super expansions (30) and co-BRST invariant restrictions for the derivation of co-BRST symmetries, whereas, for the derivation of anti-co-BRST symmetries, we use anti-chiral super expansions and anti-BRST invariant restrictions."

The co-BRST 'derivation' has the same structure as Sec. 4: the input restrictions are co-BRST-invariant precisely because of the target transformations (11). For example, sd(x ˙¯c) = 0 holds only when sd x = −g y ˙¯c, and sd(y ˙¯c) = 0 only when sd y = g x ˙¯c; these are exactly the values that later appear as Grassmann coefficients in Eq. (41). Likewise sd(z ˙¯c) = 0 requires sd z = ˙¯c, the result printed in Eq. (48). Thus the known transformations are substituted into the ansatz and read back out, so the derivation reduces by construction to the equations it purports to obtain.

full rationale

The central ACSA derivation in Secs. 4 and 5 is not self-contained: the invariant restrictions are built from the very (anti-)BRST and (anti-)co-BRST transformations, Eqs. (7) and (11), that the sections then present as derived. Solving the restrictions supplies only proportionality relations (e.g. b1 ∝ c), and the free proportionality constants are fixed by choosing the combination that reproduces the known target transformation (−g y, g x, etc.), so the 'derivation' is a consistency check rather than independent derivation. In addition to this circularity, the printed equations do not even follow from the stated restrictions: Eq. (20) gives b1 = −g y c, while Eq. (22) prints −g y ˙c; and Eq. (27) yields m2 ¨c = m1 c, so m1 = m2 requires the on-shell ghost condition ¨c = c, contradicting the abstract's off-shell claim. These are correctness failures on top of the reduction-by-construction. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain: references [36-47] document the ACSA technique, but the circular reduction is visible directly in the present equations. Score 6 reflects that the central claim is partially reduced by construction, while some independent bookkeeping (charge identities, Lagrangian invariance) remains.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the ACSA ansatz and on the sufficiency of the chosen invariant restrictions, both of which are assumed rather than proven. There are no fitted parameters or new physical entities. The main circularity is that the invariant restrictions are built from the target transformations themselves.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Sufficiency of the (anti-)BRST and (anti-)co-BRST invariant restrictions: the chosen set of superfield equalities fixes all secondary variables in the linear (anti-)chiral super expansions.
Used throughout Secs. 4-5 when coefficients are determined by imposing restrictions such as X F = x c; no proof is given that the chosen restrictions are complete or independent.
domain assumption The (anti-)chiral superfield ansatz: every ordinary variable can be extended by a single Grassmann variable with a linear secondary component, and the symmetry transformation is read off as that component.
This is the defining assumption of ACSA, invoked in Eq. (15) and Eq. (30). It requires the secondary coefficients to have the correct Grassmann parity, which the paper sometimes violates in its labeling.
domain assumption Known FLPR constraint structure and ghost equations of motion: first-class constraints p_zeta = 0 and g(x p_y - y p_x)+p_z = 0, and the ghost equations of motion \ddot c = c, \ddot{\bar c} = \bar c.
These underlie the gauge/BRST setup in Sec. 2 and the charge conservation proofs in Secs. 3 and 6; they are taken from prior FLPR literature.
ad hoc to paper The BRST invariant restrictions are constructed using the target transformations, e.g., s_b(x c)=0 uses s_b x=-g y c and s_b c=0.
Eq. (16) defines the BRST invariant quantities by applying the very s_b transformations that Sec. 4 aims to derive, making the derivation a consistency check rather than an independent derivation.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FLPR Model: (Anti-)Chiral Supervariable Approach to Quantum Symmetries." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HGORS35J

@misc{pith2026241109948,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FLPR Model: (Anti-)Chiral Supervariable Approach to Quantum Symmetries},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HGORS35J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09948}
}

read the original abstract

We discuss and derive the off-shell nilpotent of order two and absolutely anti-commuting Becchi-Rouet-Stora-Tyutin (BRST), anti-BRST, co-BRST and anti-co-BRST symmetry transformations for the non-interacting Friedberg-Lee-Pang-Ren (FLPR) model in one (0 + 1)-dimension (1D) of spacetime by exploiting the standard techniques of the (anti-)chiral supervariable approach (ACSA) onto (1, 1)-dimensional super sub-manifold of the general (1, 2)-dimensional supermanifold, where the (anti-)BRST and (anti-)co-BRST invariant restrictions play a crucial role. We provide clear proof of nilpotency and absolute anti-commutativity properties of the (anti-)BRST as well as (anti-)co-BRST Noether's conserved charges within the framework of ACSA to BRST formalism, where we take only one Grassmannian variable in place of two usual Grassmannian variables (i.e., fermionic variables). Furthermore, we also demonstrate that the Lagrangian of this non-interacting FLPR model is (anti-)BRST as well as (anti-)co-BRST symmetries invariance within the ambit of the ACSA to BRST approach in (1, 1)-dimensional super sub-manifold.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Re-parameterization Invariance of FRW Model: Supervariable and BRST Approaches
hep-th 2024-12 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

The FRW mini-superspace model admits off-shell nilpotent BRST-anti-BRST symmetries with the universal one-dimensional Curci-Ferrari restriction B + \bar{B} + \dot{\bar{C}}C - \bar{C}\dot{C} = 0.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

C. N. Yang, R. L. Mills, Phys. Rev.96, 191 (1954)

work page 1954
[2]

P. A. M. Dirac, Lectures on Quantum Mechanics, Belfer Graduate School of Science, Yeshiva University Press, New York (1964) 17

work page 1964
[3]

Sundermeyer, Constrained Dynamics: Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol

K. Sundermeyer, Constrained Dynamics: Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 169 Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1982)

work page 1982
[4]

R. P. Feynman, Acta Phys. Polon.24, 697 (1963)

1963
[5]

L. D. Faddeev, V. N. Popov, Phys. Lett.B 25, 29 (1967)

work page 1967
[6]

B. S. DeWitt, Phys. Rev.160, 113 (1967); 162, 1195 (1967)

work page 1967
[7]

Becchi, A

C. Becchi, A. Rouet, R. Stora, Phys. Lett.B 52, 344 (1974)

work page 1974
[8]

Becchi, A

C. Becchi, A. Rouet, R. Stora, Comm. Math. Phys.42, 127 (1975)

work page 1975

Show all 50 references

[9]

Becchi, A

C. Becchi, A. Rouet, R. Stora, Ann. Phys. (N. Y.) 98, 287 (1976)

1976
[10]

I. V. Tyutin, Lebedev Institute Preprint, Report Number: FIAN-39 (1975) (unpublished), arXiv:0812.0580 [hep-th]

1975 arXiv
[11]

I. A. Batalin, P. M. Lavrov, I. V. Tyutin, J. Math. Phys.31, 1487 (1990) 22

1990
[12]

I. A. Batalin, P. M. Lavrov, I. V. Tyutin, J. Math. Phys.32, 532 (1991)

1991
[13]

I. A. Batalin, P. M. Lavrov, I. V. Tyutin, J. Math. Phys.32, 2513 (1991)

1991
[14]

Friedberg, T

R. Friedberg, T. D. Lee, Y. Pang, H. C. Ren, Phys. Rev.D, 46, 4119 (1992)

1992
[15]

Friedberg, T

R. Friedberg, T. D. Lee, Y. Pang, H. C. Ren, Ann. Phys. 246, 381 (1996)

1996
[16]

V. N. Gribov, Nucl. Phys. B 139, 1 (1978)

1978
[17]

Banerjee, arXiv:hep-th/9610240

R. Banerjee, arXiv:hep-th/9610240

arXiv
[18]

V. M. Villanueva, J. Govaerts, and J. -L. Lucio-Martinez, J. Phys. A 33, 4183 (2000)

2000
[19]

Friedberg, T

R. Friedberg, T. D. Lee, Y.. Pang, J. Ren, Phys. Review D, 40, 1147 (1989)

1989
[20]

Fujikawa, Nucl

K. Fujikawa, Nucl. Phys. B 468, 355 (1996)

1996
[21]

R. P. Malik, Euro. Phys. Lett.144, 42002 (2023)

2023
[22]

Krishna, R

S. Krishna, R. P. Malik, Ann. Phys. (N. Y.) 464, 169657 (2024)

2024
[23]

A. S. Nair, R. Kumar, S. Gupta, Eur. Phys. J. Plus138, 1107 (2023)

2023
[24]

A. S. Nair, S. Gupta, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 39, 2350186 (2024)

2024
[25]

Thierry-Mieg, J

J. Thierry-Mieg, J. Math. Phys.21, 2834 (1980)

1980
[26]

Quiros, F

M. Quiros, F. J. De Urries, J. Hoyos, M. L. Mazon, E. Rodrigues, J. Math. Phys.22, 1767 (1981)

1981
[27]

Bonora, M

L. Bonora, M. Tonin, Phys. Lett.B 98, 48 (1981)

1981
[28]

Bonora, P

L. Bonora, P. Pasti, M. Tonin, Nuovo Cimento A 64, 307 (1981)

1981
[29]

Bonora, P

L. Bonora, P. Pasti, M. Tonin, Ann. Phys 144, 15 (1982)

1982
[30]

R. P. Malik, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.39, 10575 (2006)

2006
[31]

R. P. Malik, Eur. Phys. J.C 51, 169 (2007)

2007
[32]

R. P. Malik, Eur. Phy. J.C 60, 457 (2009)

2009
[33]

I. A. Batalin, K. Bering, P. H. Damgaard, Nucl. Phys. B 515, 455 (1998)

1998
[34]

I. A. Batalin, K. Bering, P. H. Damgaard, Phys. Lett.B 446, 175 (1999)

1999
[35]

P. M. Lavrov, P. Yu. Moshin, A. A. Reshetnyak, Mod. Phys. Lett.A 10, 2687 (1995); JETP Lett. 62, 780 (1995)

1995
[36]

Srinivas, T

N. Srinivas, T. Bhanja, R. P. Malik, Adv. High Energy Phys.2017, 6138263 (2017)

2017
[37]

Kumar, B

S. Kumar, B. Chauhan, R. P. Malik Int. J. Mod. Phys.A 33, 1850133 (2018) 23

2018
[38]

Chauhan, S

B. Chauhan, S. Kumar, R. P. Malik, Int. J. Mod. Phys.A 33, 1850026 (2018)

2018
[39]

Shukla, N

A. Shukla, N. Srinivas, R. P. Malik, Ann. Phys. 394, 98 (2018)

2018
[40]

Bhanja, N

T. Bhanja, N. Srinivas, R. P. Malik, Int. J. Mod. Phys.A 34, 1950183 (2019)

2019
[41]

Chauhan, S

B. Chauhan, S. Kumar, R. P. Malik, Int. J. Mod. Phys.A 34, 1950131 (2019)

2019
[42]

Chauhan, S

B. Chauhan, S. Kumar, A. Tripathi, R. P. Malik, Adv. in High Energy Phys.2020, 3495168, (2020)

2020
[43]

Chauhan, S

B. Chauhan, S. Kumar, Adv. High Energy Phys.2021, 5518304 (2021)

2021
[44]

Kumar, B

S. Kumar, B. Chauhan, A. Tripathi, R. P. Malik, Int. J. Mod. Phys.A 37, 2250003 (2022)

2022
[45]

Chauhan, Eur

B. Chauhan, Eur. Phys. J. Plus137, 976 (2022)

2022
[46]

Chauhan, Eur

B. Chauhan, Eur. Phys. Lett.140, 40001 (2022)

2022
[47]

Chauhan, S

B. Chauhan, S. Kumar, R. P. Malik, Int. J. Mod. Phys.A 37, 2250003 (2022)

2022
[48]

Chauhan, A

B. Chauhan, A. Tripathi, A. K. Rao, R. P. Malik, Int. J. Mod. Phys.A 37 2250164 (2022)

2022
[49]

Tripathi, B

A. Tripathi, B. Chauhan, A. K. Rao, R. P. Malik, Adv. High Energy Phys.2021, 2056629 (2021)

2021
[50]

Cahuhan, R

B. Cahuhan, R. Tripathi, Nucl. Phys. B 1012, 116816 (2025) 24

2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

C. N. Yang, R. L. Mills, Phys. Rev.96, 191 (1954)

work page 1954

[2] [2]

P. A. M. Dirac, Lectures on Quantum Mechanics, Belfer Graduate School of Science, Yeshiva University Press, New York (1964) 17

work page 1964

[3] [3]

Sundermeyer, Constrained Dynamics: Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol

K. Sundermeyer, Constrained Dynamics: Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 169 Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1982)

work page 1982

[4] [4]

R. P. Feynman, Acta Phys. Polon.24, 697 (1963)

1963

[5] [5]

L. D. Faddeev, V. N. Popov, Phys. Lett.B 25, 29 (1967)

work page 1967

[6] [6]

B. S. DeWitt, Phys. Rev.160, 113 (1967); 162, 1195 (1967)

work page 1967

[7] [7]

Becchi, A

C. Becchi, A. Rouet, R. Stora, Phys. Lett.B 52, 344 (1974)

work page 1974

[8] [8]

Becchi, A

C. Becchi, A. Rouet, R. Stora, Comm. Math. Phys.42, 127 (1975)

work page 1975