Covariant phase space and $L_\infty$ algebras

Atakan Hilmi F{\i}rat; Theodore Erler; Vin\'icius Bernardes

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 2 cited by

Covariant phase space and $L_\infty$ algebras

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For any Lagrangian field theory expressible as a cyclic $L_\infty$ algebra, a single commutator formula defines the covariant symplectic structure without needing the derivative content of the Lagrangian.

desk verdict A promising covariant symplectic formula for L∞ field theories that works in local examples and p-adic rolling tachyon energy, but the general nonlocal case rests on a formally defined tau regulator that needs to be made rigorous. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.20706 v2 pith:QHC7TQPE submitted 2025-06-25 hep-th gr-qc

Vinícius Bernardes , Theodore Erler , Atakan Hilmi F{i}rat This is my paper

classification hep-thgr-qc

keywords covariantphasespaceL-infinityalgebrassymplecticstructurenonlocalfieldtheoryp-adicstringsigmoidoperatortauregularization

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

This paper tries to establish that the phase space of any Lagrangian field theory that can be written as a cyclic $L_\infty$ algebra carries a covariant symplectic structure given by the single formula $\Omega=\frac{1}{2}\omega(\delta\Phi,[Q_\Phi,\sigma]\delta\Phi)$, where $Q_\Phi$ is the kinetic operator around a classical solution, $\delta$ is the exterior derivative on solution space, $\omega$ is the BV inner product, and $\sigma$ is a 'sigmoid' operator interpolating from $0$ in the distant past to $1$ in the distant future. The key advantage is that the formula never requires knowing how the Lagrangian depends on derivatives of the field, so it can be applied to nonlocal theories such as string field theory where traditional canonical or covariant constructions are impractical. The paper proves that the form is closed, annihilates gauge tangents, is gauge invariant, and is independent of the sigmoid (conservation), using a tau regulator to control the boundary terms that would otherwise make the form vanish identically. It then checks the proposal in scalar field theory, nonabelian gauge theory, general relativity with a finite spatial boundary, and p-adic string theory, reproducing the known symplectic structures and the known energy of p-adic rolling tachyon solutions.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a cyclic $L_\infty$ algebra: a $\mathbb{Z}$-graded vector space with graded-symmetric products $L_n$ of grade $+1$, a nondegenerate BV inner product $\omega$ satisfying cyclicity, and a nilpotent kinetic operator $Q_\Phi$ around each solution. The paper adds a 'sigmoid' operator $\sigma$ that is self-adjoint with respect to $\omega$ and tends to $0$ in the distant past and $1$ in the distant future, so the commutator $[Q_\Phi,\sigma]$ acts as a diffuse time slice; and a 'tau regulator' $\tau$, an operator that is the identity at finite times and vanishes as $t\to\pm\infty$ in the limit of a sequence, which makes integration by parts and cyclicity legitimate and exposes the boundary terms that stop the symplectic form from vanishing identically. The tau regulator carries the proof of closedness, conservation, and the other consistency properties, and it is the device whose nonuniqueness creates the p-adic ambiguity.

What would settle it

The decisive test is to compute $\Omega$ for a nonlocal Lagrangian with two different tau-regularization limits, as in equations (3.89) and (3.90) of the p-adic example; the two differ by a boundary contribution, so if a third natural regulator yields a value that is not just the same symplectic form with the time slice pushed to infinity, the claim that the formula defines the phase space structure fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a symplectic structure on the covariant phase space of a Lagrangian field theory is determined entirely by the $L_\infty$ data $(H,\omega,L_n)$ and a choice of sigmoid: it is the two-form $\Omega=\frac{1}{2}\omega(\delta\Phi,[Q_\Phi,\sigma]\delta\Phi)$. The paper argues that this object is not zero, despite a naive cyclicity argument, because the commutator $[Q_\Phi,\sigma]$ must be treated as a single unit; with a tau regulator the apparent zero is resolved into boundary contributions that are exactly the standard symplectic currents localized on a time slice. It establishes closedness, vanishing of zero tangents, gauge invariance, and conservation of $\Omega$, while explicitly leaving nondegeneracy unproved. In examples the formula reproduces the usual symplectic structure of scalar field theory, the symplectic current of nonabelian gauge theory including derivative-interaction corrections, the general-relativity symplectic structure including the boundary contribution of a finite spatial boundary, and for p-adic string theory it gives a Gaussian-correlated pairing across the time slice that yields the known energy of rolling tachyon solutions.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a canonical tau regulator exists: an insertion that acts as the identity at finite times and vanishes in the infinite past and future, making integration by parts valid just long enough to define the boundary terms; in the p-adic example different regulators give different answers, so without a canonical regulator the symplectic form is not well-defined.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Any local Lagrangian field theory with a cyclic $L_\infty$ description inherits a covariant symplectic structure from the formula without a separate canonical or derivative-counting construction.
The same formula applies to nonlocal theories, where the time slice is not a Cauchy surface but a spatially and temporally diffuse region set by the sigmoid's transition.
For general relativity with a finite spatial boundary, the formula produces the standard boundary and corner symplectic structure even though none of the paper's consistency proofs apply in that setting.
In p-adic string theory, the symplectic form pairs field variations at different times with Gaussian weight, and the induced energy of rolling tachyon solutions matches the known Noether energy.
The paper sketches a sigmoid-based Hamiltonian with no explicit canonical momenta, suggesting a route to conserved charges in string field theory.

Reading between the lines

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

If the formula extends to open string field theory, conserved charges such as energy for rolling tachyons should be computable from the sigmoid commutator without solving the Hamiltonian constraint problem.
The 'fuzziness' of the p-adic time slice suggests that nonlocal phase spaces carry an intrinsic length-scale smearing; identifying the precise equivalence classes of field configurations conjugate under $\Omega$ could replace the missing Cauchy data of such theories.
The fact that the general-relativity boundary formula works despite the failure of the consistency proofs suggests the sigmoid commutator secretly encodes corner terms from the variational principle, which could connect the construction to boundary actions and string field theory boundary modes.
If nondegeneracy can be proven through a Peierls bracket, the same $L_\infty$ data that defines $\Omega$ should define Poisson brackets and quantization, with the tau-regulator ambiguity possibly mapping to operator-ordering choices.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

The paper proposes a symplectic form Ω = 1/2 ω(δΦ, [QΦ,σ]δΦ) for any field theory with a cyclic L∞ action. It doesn't need the derivative content of the Lagrangian, so it's aimed at nonlocal theories like string field theory. That's the punchline. If it holds up, it's a genuinely useful tool.

What's new: the explicit formula (1.1), the sigmoid σ as an operator, and the consistency framework in Section 2. It generalizes Witten's old proposal and Cho-Mazel-Yin's recent work. The local tests are clean: scalar field theory gives δp∧δq, Yang-Mills gives the standard symplectic current, and GR reproduces Harlow-Wu including boundary terms. The p-adic example is the real test, and the computation of rolling tachyon energy from Ω matches Moeller-Zwiebach's Noether energy at leading order. That's a nontrivial check.

The soft spots are all concentrated in the general consistency proofs for nonlocal theories. The tau regulator is introduced as a limit of a sequence, but no sequence is given and no convergence theorem is stated. The proofs of closedness, gauge invariance, and conservation for the general case rely on it. The paper is honest about this—it says the conditions are technically incompatible and must be interpreted as a limit. Nondegeneracy is explicitly deferred. That's not a hidden flaw; it's an open problem.

The stress-test note about the p-adic regulator is partially right but overstated. The direct evaluation (3.80)-(3.81) is unambiguous: the double integral is absolutely convergent in the two opposite-sign quadrants. The ambiguity only appears when you try to break the commutator into two terms via cyclicity, which is where the tau regulator is used. The two regulator choices (3.89) and (3.90) give expressions that differ by a time-slice shift, which conservation implies should be equal. So the p-adic result itself doesn't depend on choosing a "physically correct" regulator; it depends on the direct definition. What does remain is that the general proof of conservation for nonlocal theories isn't fully rigorous as written.

There's also the unexplained success of the GR boundary computation—the formula works even though the consistency arguments don't apply with spatial boundaries. The authors flag this and leave it open.

Who should read it: anyone working on covariant phase space, string field theory, or nonlocal field theories. The formula is simple enough to test in other examples, which is a good sign. The paper deserves a serious referee. It's not ready to be the final word, but the core idea is novel, concrete, and testable, and the authors have done the honest work of checking it against known results.

Recommendation: send to peer review. The referee should press on the construction of the tau regulator and the nondegeneracy issue, but this is a solid, interesting paper that deserves the referee time.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a formula, Ω = 1/2 ω(δΦ, [QΦ, σ]δΦ), for the symplectic structure on the covariant phase space of a Lagrangian field theory formulated as a cyclic L∞ algebra. Here σ is a 'sigmoid' operator interpolating between 0 in the past and 1 in the future, and the formula is claimed not to require knowledge of the derivative content of the Lagrangian, making it potentially applicable to nonlocal theories. The authors state consistency conditions (closedness, vanishing on gauge tangents, gauge invariance, conservation, nondegeneracy), prove the first four modulo a 'tau regulator', and explicitly defer nondegeneracy. They test the formula in scalar field theory, Yang-Mills theory, general relativity (including a finite spatial boundary following Harlow and Wu), and p-adic string theory. In the p-adic example the resulting symplectic form is nonlocal and yields an energy for a rolling tachyon solution that agrees at leading nontrivial order with the Moeller-Zwiebach Noether energy.

Significance. If fully established, the formula would be a genuinely useful tool: it gives a unified, derivative-free construction of covariant phase space in L∞ language, with immediate potential for string field theory. The local examples are worked out in detail and reproduce known results: scalar field theory gives the standard δπ∧δφ, Yang-Mills reproduces the standard symplectic current up to an improvement term, and general relativity reproduces the Harlow-Wu symplectic structure including boundary contributions. The p-adic energy calculation is a nontrivial independent check and goes beyond a mere consistency test. The paper is also candid about limitations, notably nondegeneracy and the difficulty of nonlocal theories. The main significance risk is that the advertised advantage—applicability to genuinely nonlocal theories—rests on the tau regulator, whose existence and uniqueness are not established.

major comments (3)

[§2.3, Eqs. (2.30)–(2.31)] The tau regulator is load-bearing for the consistency proofs: closedness, zero tangents, and conservation are established by inserting τ and then using cyclicity without boundary terms. However, the defining conditions for τ are stated to be technically incompatible and are only specified as a limit of a sequence, with no concrete sequence or convergence theorem. In nonlocal theories cyclicity is precisely what fails: the p-adic double integral in Eq. (3.80) is conditionally convergent, and Eqs. (3.89) and (3.90) show that two natural regularizations give different symplectic forms. The paper selects the symmetric insertion because it reproduces the Moeller–Zwiebach energy, but this is an additional physical input rather than a consequence of the L∞ data. Without a canonical construction of τ, or a well-defined class of theories for which τ exists, the claim that (1.1) defines a symplectic structure for generic nonlocal Lagrangian field theories is not established.
[§2.3, Eq. (2.27)] Nondegeneracy of Ω is listed as a required consistency condition but is explicitly deferred to future work. The paper nevertheless refers to Ω as "the symplectic structure" and to the quotient space as "phase space" throughout, including the abstract. Since only closedness and gauge invariance are proven, the result is strictly a presymplectic form on pre-phase space. The p-adic example illustrates why this matters: the authors state that complete independent degrees of freedom are not known for p-adic string theory, so the kernel of Ω cannot be identified with gauge orbits without further argument. Please either prove nondegeneracy in the relevant cases or state the result as a presymplectic structure whose reduction to phase space remains to be established.
[§3.4, Eqs. (3.82)–(3.86)] The conservation check for p-adic string theory is performed only for translations of a step-function time slice, using the linearized equations of motion. This establishes t0-independence of the specific integral (3.81), but it does not establish the general claim of §2.3 that Ω is independent of arbitrary changes of σ satisfying (2.23). The general proof in §2.3 relies on the tau regulator, whose existence is not established for nonlocal theories. Consequently, the statement that (1.1) yields a conserved symplectic form in the nonlocal setting is supported only by the example, not by the general argument. The energy extraction (3.100)–(3.103) is also carried out to leading nontrivial order in λ; a full comparison with the Noether energy would require controlling the nonlinear completion of the rolling solution and the higher-order terms in Ω.

minor comments (3)

[§2.1] The text assumes spatial dimensions are compact to avoid boundary terms, but §3.3 subsequently treats a finite spatial boundary in general relativity. Please clarify the status of spatial boundaries in the general assumptions of the formalism.
[§2.3, Eq. (2.34)] The decomposition τ = σ_- - σ_+ is introduced without a figure or explicit limiting statement about the ordering of the two transitions; a short clarification would help readers follow the sign conventions in Eqs. (2.35)–(2.36).
[§3.4, Eq. (3.77)] The distributional kernel Q(t,t′) mixes a delta-function term with a smooth Gaussian kernel; it would be useful to state explicitly that the delta function is the only local part and that all integrals involving the Weierstrass kernel are understood with the stated regulator.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the symplectic form is a proposed formula checked against independent known results; the p-adic regulator ambiguity is a stated limitation, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The central claim is a proposal: given a cyclic L∞ action and a sigmoid σ satisfying (2.23), define Ω by (2.19). The consistency properties in §2.3 are proved from L∞ cyclicity, nilpotence of QΦ, and the boundary behavior of σ and the τ regulator, not assumed from the desired output. The examples are genuine external checks: scalar field theory reproduces the standard symplectic form (3.17), Yang-Mills reproduces the known symplectic current (3.42), and general relativity reproduces the Harlow-Wu boundary-corrected symplectic structure (3.63). The p-adic example is the only place where a regulator choice is load-bearing: the double integral (3.80) is conditionally convergent, and Eqs. (3.89) and (3.90) show that asymmetric regularization gives a different answer, identified in (3.91) with the same symplectic form with the time slice pushed to infinity. The authors select the symmetric τ insertion by a regularization principle and then compare the resulting energy (3.102) with the independent Noether computation of Moeller-Zwiebach (3.96); they do not tune the regulator to match that target. The manuscript itself flags the non-canonical status of τ in (2.30)-(2.31) and the unresolved boundary issues in §3.3, which are well-definedness limitations rather than circular reductions. The only self-references are forward-looking announcements of upcoming work [35], [56], which are not used as evidence for the central derivation. No definitional identity or fitted-input-renamed-as-prediction is exhibited, so the derivation is not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard L∞ framework and on two new constructs, the sigmoid and tau regulator, whose existence and properties are assumed. No empirical free parameters are fitted; the sigmoid is arbitrary but the symplectic form is argued to be independent of its choice.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The theory admits a cyclic L∞ algebra formulation with a nondegenerate BV inner product and cyclicity of products (boundary terms vanish).
Invoked throughout Sec 2.1 (Eqs. 2.4-2.5); the universality of this formulation is cited from refs [17,18].
ad hoc to paper The sigmoid σ is preserved by the BV inner product (Eq. 2.21) and satisfies boundary conditions 0 at past infinity and 1 at future infinity (Eq. 2.23).
Introduced in Sec 2.2; the preservation condition is stated as forced because the non-preserved part does not contribute.
ad hoc to paper The tau regulator exists with the stated limit properties (Eqs. 2.30-2.31).
Introduced in Sec 2.3 to handle boundary terms; formally incompatible conditions are resolved by a limit of a sequence.
domain assumption Spatial dimensions are compact so that no spatial boundary terms arise (Sec 2.2).
Stated in Sec 2.2; the general relativity example with finite boundary is treated separately.
domain assumption For the p-adic example, the space of rolling tachyon solutions is two-dimensional with coordinates λ and t0, and the solution has the expansion (3.94) from Moeller-Zwiebach [29].
Assumed in Sec 3.4; used to evaluate the symplectic form on the solution space.

invented entities (2)

Sigmoid operator σ
purpose: Defines a fuzzy time slice for the symplectic form; interpolates between 0 and 1.
Introduced in Sec 2.2; a new mathematical device with no external falsifiable handle.
Tau regulator τ
purpose: Regularizes infinite volume divergences and resolves ambiguities in the symplectic form.
Introduced in Sec 2.3; a limit of a sequence of operators with no external falsifiable handle.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Covariant phase space and $L_\infty$ algebras." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QHC7TQPE

@misc{pith2026250620706,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Covariant phase space and $L_\infty$ algebras},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QHC7TQPE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.20706}
}

abstract

We propose a symplectic structure for the phase space of a generic Lagrangian field theory expressed in the framework of $L_\infty$ algebras. The symplectic structure does not require explicit knowledge of the derivative content of the Lagrangian, and therefore is applicable to nonlocal models, such as string field theory, where traditional constructions are difficult to apply. We test our proposal in a number of examples ranging from general relativity to $p$-adic string theory.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.20706 by the authors.

**Figure 2.1.** Pre-phase space is a nonlinear subspace of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.2.** The change of the sigmoid between 0 and 1 creates a “fuzzy” version of a time slice. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.3.** The tau regulator is implemented by an operator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 3.1.** Figure 3.1: The region M12 shaded in gray is where the sigmoid σ = Θ takes the value 1. It is zero everywhere else. M12 is bounded in the past and future by Cauchy surfaces Σ1 and Σ2 and on the spatial boundary by Γ12. The orientation of Γ12 and Γ is inherited from the boundary …

**Figure 3.2.** Figure 3.2: Scalar potential in p-adic string theory. For both even and odd p the potentials are unbounded from below. There is always a stable vacuum at ϕ = 0 and an unstable vacuum at ϕ = 1. For odd p there is an additional unstable vacuum at ϕ = −1. See figure 3.2. The unstab…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

The BEF Symplectic Form: A Lagrangian Perspective
hep-th 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

The BEF symplectic form is derived from L∞-Lagrangians via covariant phase space methods and coincides with the Barnich-Brandt form for second-order equations of motion.
Symplectic structure in open string field theory III: Electric field
hep-th 2026-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

OSFT symplectic energy of a constant-electric-flux D-brane matches the DBI energy via a generalized Ellwood invariant for nonpolynomial theories.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[1]

Covariant description of canonical formalism in geometrical theories,

C. Crnkovi´ c and E. Witten, “Covariant description of canonical formalism in geometrical theories,” in Three hundred years of gravitation, eds. S. W. Hawking and W. Israel (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987) pp. 676–684

work page 1987
[2]

Symplectic Geometry of the Covariant Phase Space, Superstrings and Super- space,

C. Crnkovi´ c, “Symplectic Geometry of the Covariant Phase Space, Superstrings and Super- space,” Class. Quant. Grav. 5, 1557-1575 (1988)

work page 1988
[3]

Action Principles and Global Geometry,

G. J. Zuckerman, “Action Principles and Global Geometry,” Conf. Proc. C 8607214, 259-284 (1986) Print-89-0321 (Yale)

work page 1986
[4]

Local symmetries and constraints,

J. Lee and R. M. Wald, “Local symmetries and constraints,” J. Math. Phys. 31, 725-743 (1990)

work page 1990
[5]

Covariant phase space, constraints, gauge and the Peierls formula,

I. Khavkine, “Covariant phase space, constraints, gauge and the Peierls formula,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 29, no.5, 1430009 (2014) [arXiv:1402.1282 [math-ph]]

arXiv 2014
[6]

Covariant canonical formulations of classical field theories,

F. Gieres, “Covariant canonical formulations of classical field theories,” SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes 77, 1 (2023) [arXiv:2109.07330 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2023
[7]

Covariant phase space with boundaries,

D. Harlow and J. Q. Wu, “Covariant phase space with boundaries,” JHEP 10, 146 (2020) [arXiv:1906.08616 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2020
[8]

Closed string field theory: Quantum action and the B-V master equation,

B. Zwiebach, “Closed string field theory: Quantum action and the B-V master equation,” Nucl. Phys. B 390, 33-152 (1993) [arXiv:hep-th/9206084 [hep-th]]

arXiv 1993

Show all 65 references

[9]

Introduction to SH Lie algebras for physicists,

T. Lada and J. Stasheff, “Introduction to SH Lie algebras for physicists,” Int. J. Theor. Phys. 32, 1087-1104 (1993) [arXiv:hep-th/9209099 [hep-th]]

1993 arXiv
[10]

Strongly homotopy Lie algebras,

T. Lada and M. Markl, “Strongly homotopy Lie algebras,” [arXiv:hep-th/9406095 [hep-th]]. 28

arXiv
[11]

Quantization of Gauge Theories with Linearly Dependent Generators,

I. A. Batalin and G. A. Vilkovisky, “Quantization of Gauge Theories with Linearly Dependent Generators,” Phys. Rev. D 28, 2567-2582 (1983) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 30, 508 (1984)]

1983
[12]

Henneaux and C

M. Henneaux and C. Teitelboim, Quantization of gauge systems, Princeton University Press, 1992

1992
[13]

Interacting Field Theory of Open Superstrings,

E. Witten, “Interacting Field Theory of Open Superstrings,” Nucl. Phys. B 276, 291-324 (1986)

1986
[14]

Noncommutative Geometry and String Field Theory,

E. Witten, “Noncommutative Geometry and String Field Theory,” Nucl. Phys. B268, 253-294 (1986)

1986
[15]

Rolling tachyon and the phase space of open string field theory,

M. Cho, B. Mazel and X. Yin, “Rolling tachyon and the phase space of open string field theory,” JHEP 04, 129 (2025) [arXiv:2310.17895 [hep-th]]

2025 arXiv
[16]

Rolling tachyon,

A. Sen, “Rolling tachyon,” JHEP 04, 048 (2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0203211 [hep-th]]

2002 arXiv
[17]

L∞ Algebras and Field Theory,

O. Hohm and B. Zwiebach, “ L∞ Algebras and Field Theory,” Fortsch. Phys. 65, no.3-4, 1700014 (2017) [arXiv:1701.08824 [hep-th]]

2017 arXiv
[18]

L∞-Algebras of Classical Field Theories and the Batalin-Vilkovisky Formalism,

B. Jurˇ co, L. Raspollini, C. S¨ amann and M. Wolf, “L∞-Algebras of Classical Field Theories and the Batalin-Vilkovisky Formalism,” Fortsch. Phys.67, no.7, 1900025 (2019) [arXiv:1809.09899 [hep-th]]

2019 arXiv
[19]

Hamiltonian formalism for nonlocal lagrangians,

J. Llosa and J. Vives, “Hamiltonian formalism for nonlocal lagrangians,” Journal of Mathe- matical Physics 35, 2856–2877 (1994),

1994
[20]

Hamiltonian formalism for space-time noncommutative theories,

J. Gomis, K. Kamimura and J. Llosa, “Hamiltonian formalism for space-time noncommutative theories,” Phys. Rev. D 63, 045003 (2001) [arXiv:hep-th/0006235 [hep-th]]

2001 arXiv
[21]

Physical degrees of freedom of non-local theories,

J. Gomis, K. Kamimura and T. Ramirez, “Physical degrees of freedom of non-local theories,” Nucl. Phys. B 696, 263-291 (2004) [arXiv:hep-th/0311184 [hep-th]]

2004 arXiv
[22]

Nonlocal Lagrangian fields: Noether’s theorem and Hamiltonian formalism,

C. Heredia and J. Llosa, “Nonlocal Lagrangian fields: Noether’s theorem and Hamiltonian formalism,” Phys. Rev. D 105, no.12, 126002 (2022) [arXiv:2203.02206 [hep-th]]

2022 arXiv
[23]

Canonical quantization of nonlocal field equations,

D. G. Barci, L. E. Oxman and M. Rocca, “Canonical quantization of nonlocal field equations,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 11, 2111-2126 (1996) [arXiv:hep-th/9503101 [hep-th]]

1996 arXiv
[24]

A Canonical formalism for Lagrangians with nonlocality of finite extent,

R. P. Woodard, “A Canonical formalism for Lagrangians with nonlocality of finite extent,” Phys. Rev. A 62, 052105 (2000) doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.62.052105 [arXiv:hep-th/0006207 [hep-th]]

2000 arXiv
[25]

Hamiltonian Analysis for Infinite Derivative Field Theories and Gravity,

S. Talaganis and A. Teimouri, “Hamiltonian Analysis for Infinite Derivative Field Theories and Gravity,” [arXiv:1701.01009 [hep-th]]

arXiv
[26]

Towards Hamiltonian Formalism for String Field Theory and Nonlocality,

C. H. Chang, P. M. Ho, I. K. Lee and W. H. Shao, “Towards Hamiltonian Formalism for String Field Theory and Nonlocality,” [arXiv:2412.02577 [hep-th]]. 29
[27]

The Problem of Nonlocality in String Theory,

D. A. Eliezer and R. P. Woodard, “The Problem of Nonlocality in String Theory,” Nucl. Phys. B 325, 389 (1989)

1989
[28]

Nonarchimedean String Dynamics,

L. Brekke, P. G. O. Freund, M. Olson and E. Witten, “Nonarchimedean String Dynamics,” Nucl. Phys. B 302, 365-402 (1988)

1988
[29]

Dynamics with infinitely many time derivatives and rolling tachyons,

N. Moeller and B. Zwiebach, “Dynamics with infinitely many time derivatives and rolling tachyons,” JHEP 10, 034 (2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0207107 [hep-th]]

2002 arXiv
[30]

Four Lectures on Closed String Field Theory,

T. Erler, “Four Lectures on Closed String Field Theory,” Phys. Rept. 851, 1-36 (2020) [arXiv:1905.06785 [hep-th]]

2020 arXiv
[31]

The Commutation laws of relativistic field theory,

R. E. Peierls, “The Commutation laws of relativistic field theory,” Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 214, 143-157 (1952)

1952
[32]

Homotopy Lie Superalgebra in Yang-Mills Theory,

A. M. Zeitlin, “Homotopy Lie Superalgebra in Yang-Mills Theory,” JHEP 09, 068 (2007) [arXiv:0708.1773 [hep-th]]

2007 arXiv
[33]

Tachyon condensation and brane descent relations in p-adic string theory,

D. Ghoshal and A. Sen, “Tachyon condensation and brane descent relations in p-adic string theory,” Nucl. Phys. B 584, 300-312 (2000) [arXiv:hep-th/0003278 [hep-th]]

2000 arXiv
[34]

Dynamics with infinitely many derivatives: The Initial value problem,

N. Barnaby and N. Kamran, “Dynamics with infinitely many derivatives: The Initial value problem,” JHEP 02, 008 (2008) [arXiv:0709.3968 [hep-th]]

2008 arXiv
[35]

Conserved charges and L∞ algebras,

V. Bernardes, T. Erler and A. Fırat “Conserved charges and L∞ algebras,” to appear
[36]

The Dynamics of general relativity,

R. L. Arnowitt, S. Deser and C. W. Misner, “The Dynamics of general relativity,” Gen. Rel. Grav. 40, 1997-2027 (2008) [arXiv:gr-qc/0405109 [gr-qc]]

2008 arXiv
[37]

Role of conformal three geometry in the dynamics of gravitation,

J. W. York, Jr., “Role of conformal three geometry in the dynamics of gravitation,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 1082-1085 (1972)

1972
[38]

Action Integrals and Partition Functions in Quantum Gravity,

G. W. Gibbons and S. W. Hawking, “Action Integrals and Partition Functions in Quantum Gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 15, 2752-2756 (1977)

1977
[39]

Non-local quantum theory of the scalar field,

G. V. Efimov, “Non-local quantum theory of the scalar field,” Commun. Math. Phys. 5, no.1, 42-56 (1967)

1967
[40]

Superrenormalizable gauge and gravitational theories,

E. T. Tomboulis, “Superrenormalizable gauge and gravitational theories,” [arXiv:hep- th/9702146 [hep-th]]
[41]

Super-renormalizable Quantum Gravity,

L. Modesto, “Super-renormalizable Quantum Gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 86, 044005 (2012) [arXiv:1107.2403 [hep-th]]

2012 arXiv
[42]

Crossing of the w = -1 barrier by D3-brane dark energy model,

I. Y. Aref’eva, A. S. Koshelev and S. Y. Vernov, “Crossing of the w = -1 barrier by D3-brane dark energy model,” Phys. Rev. D 72, 064017 (2005) [arXiv:astro-ph/0507067 [astro-ph]]

2005 arXiv
[43]

Bouncing universes in string-inspired gravity,

T. Biswas, A. Mazumdar and W. Siegel, “Bouncing universes in string-inspired gravity,” JCAP 03, 009 (2006) [arXiv:hep-th/0508194 [hep-th]]. 30

2006 arXiv
[44]

Nonlocal Cosmology,

S. Deser and R. P. Woodard, “Nonlocal Cosmology,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 111301 (2007) [arXiv:0706.2151 [astro-ph]]

2007 arXiv
[45]

String Field Theory: A Modern Introduction,

H. Erbin, “String Field Theory: A Modern Introduction,” Lect. Notes Phys. 980, 1-421 (2021) 2021, [arXiv:2301.01686 [hep-th]]

2021 arXiv
[46]

String Field Theory: A Review,

A. Sen and B. Zwiebach, “String Field Theory: A Review,” [arXiv:2405.19421 [hep-th]]

arXiv
[47]

P-Brane Democracy,

P. K. Townsend, “P-Brane Democracy,” [arXiv:hep-th/9507048 [hep-th]]

arXiv
[48]

Black hole entropy is the Noether charge,

R. M. Wald, “Black hole entropy is the Noether charge,” Phys. Rev. D 48, no.8, R3427-R3431 (1993) [arXiv:gr-qc/9307038 [gr-qc]]

1993 arXiv
[49]

Black hole entropy in canonical quantum gravity and superstring theory,

L. Susskind and J. Uglum, “Black hole entropy in canonical quantum gravity and superstring theory,” Phys. Rev. D 50, 2700-2711 (1994) [arXiv:hep-th/9401070 [hep-th]]

1994 arXiv
[50]

Off-shell strings II: Black hole entropy,

A. Ahmadain and A. C. Wall, “Off-shell strings II: Black hole entropy,” SciPost Phys. 17, no.1, 006 (2024) [arXiv:2211.16448 [hep-th]]

2024 arXiv
[51]

Thermal Bekenstein-Hawking entropy from the worldsheet,

I. Halder and D. L. Jafferis, “Thermal Bekenstein-Hawking entropy from the worldsheet,” JHEP 05, 136 (2024) [arXiv:2310.02313 [hep-th]]

2024 arXiv
[52]

Remarks on entanglement entropy in string theory,

V. Balasubramanian and O. Parrikar, “Remarks on entanglement entropy in string theory,” Phys. Rev. D 97, no.6, 066025 (2018) [arXiv:1801.03517 [hep-th]]

2018 arXiv
[53]

Topological string entanglement,

V. E. Hubeny, R. Pius and M. Rangamani, “Topological string entanglement,” JHEP 10, 239 (2019) [arXiv:1905.09890 [hep-th]]

2019 arXiv
[54]

Entanglement entropy and edge modes in topological string theory. Part I. Generalized entropy for closed strings,

W. Donnelly, Y. Jiang, M. Kim and G. Wong, “Entanglement entropy and edge modes in topological string theory. Part I. Generalized entropy for closed strings,” JHEP10, 201 (2021) [arXiv:2010.15737 [hep-th]]

2021 arXiv
[55]

Entanglement Entropy in Closed String Theory,

U. Naseer, “Entanglement Entropy in Closed String Theory,” [arXiv:2002.12148 [hep-th]]

2002 arXiv
[56]

Symplectic structure in open string field theory,

V. Bernardes, T. Erler and A. Fırat “Symplectic structure in open string field theory,” to appear
[57]

Diffeomorphism in Closed String Field Theory,

B. Mazel, C. Wang and X. Yin, “Diffeomorphism in Closed String Field Theory,” [arXiv:2504.12290 [hep-th]]

arXiv
[58]

Gauge algebra and diffeomorphisms in string field theory,

R. A. Mamade and B. Zwiebach, “Gauge algebra and diffeomorphisms in string field theory,” [arXiv:2505.23924 [hep-th]]

arXiv
[59]

Type II RR string fields and exotic diffeomorphisms,

R. A. Mamade and B. Zwiebach, “Type II RR string fields and exotic diffeomorphisms,” [arXiv:2506.00120 [hep-th]]

arXiv
[60]

The closed string field theory action vanishes,

T. Erler, “The closed string field theory action vanishes,” JHEP 10, 055 (2022) [arXiv:2204.12863 [hep-th]]. 31

2022 arXiv
[61]

A boundary term for open string field theory,

G. Stettinger, “A boundary term for open string field theory,” [arXiv:2411.15123 [hep-th]]

arXiv
[62]

Boundary terms in string field theory,

A. H. Fırat and R. A. Mamade, “Boundary terms in string field theory,” JHEP 02, 058 (2025) [arXiv:2411.16673 [hep-th]]

2025 arXiv
[63]

Boundary Modes in String Field Theory,

C. Maccaferri, R. Poletti, A. Ruffino and J. Voˇ smera, “Boundary Modes in String Field Theory,” [arXiv:2502.19373 [hep-th]]

arXiv
[64]

Gauge-invariant action for free string field theory with boundary,

C. Maccaferri, A. Ruffino and J. Voˇ smera, “Gauge-invariant action for free string field theory with boundary,” [arXiv:2506.05969 [hep-th]]
[65]

Loop homotopy algebras in closed string field theory,

M. Markl, “Loop homotopy algebras in closed string field theory,” Commun. Math. Phys. 221, 367-384 (2001) [arXiv:hep-th/9711045 [hep-th]]. 32

2001 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Covariant description of canonical formalism in geometrical theories,

C. Crnkovi´ c and E. Witten, “Covariant description of canonical formalism in geometrical theories,” in Three hundred years of gravitation, eds. S. W. Hawking and W. Israel (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987) pp. 676–684

work page 1987

[2] [2]

Symplectic Geometry of the Covariant Phase Space, Superstrings and Super- space,

C. Crnkovi´ c, “Symplectic Geometry of the Covariant Phase Space, Superstrings and Super- space,” Class. Quant. Grav. 5, 1557-1575 (1988)

work page 1988

[3] [3]

Action Principles and Global Geometry,

G. J. Zuckerman, “Action Principles and Global Geometry,” Conf. Proc. C 8607214, 259-284 (1986) Print-89-0321 (Yale)

work page 1986

[4] [4]

Local symmetries and constraints,

J. Lee and R. M. Wald, “Local symmetries and constraints,” J. Math. Phys. 31, 725-743 (1990)

work page 1990

[5] [5]

Covariant phase space, constraints, gauge and the Peierls formula,

I. Khavkine, “Covariant phase space, constraints, gauge and the Peierls formula,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 29, no.5, 1430009 (2014) [arXiv:1402.1282 [math-ph]]

arXiv 2014

[6] [6]

Covariant canonical formulations of classical field theories,

F. Gieres, “Covariant canonical formulations of classical field theories,” SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes 77, 1 (2023) [arXiv:2109.07330 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2023

[7] [7]

Covariant phase space with boundaries,

D. Harlow and J. Q. Wu, “Covariant phase space with boundaries,” JHEP 10, 146 (2020) [arXiv:1906.08616 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2020

[8] [8]

Closed string field theory: Quantum action and the B-V master equation,

B. Zwiebach, “Closed string field theory: Quantum action and the B-V master equation,” Nucl. Phys. B 390, 33-152 (1993) [arXiv:hep-th/9206084 [hep-th]]

arXiv 1993