Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 46 references

Topological Regularization

T0 review · 5 major / 5 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 A new theorem claims that homotopy-equivalent regularization schemes yield identical renormalized n-point functions, beta functions, and anomalous dimensions.

desk verdict Imaginative but not rigorous: the Physical Equivalence Theorem assumes the local-counterterm conclusion it needs to prove, and the topological beta function is postulated, so the paper is not ready for peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.00885 v3 pith:HY5IVAO2 submitted 2025-07-25 physics.gen-ph

Sebastián Alí Sacasa-Céspedes This is my paper
classification physics.gen-ph
keywords TopologicalRegularizationUltravioletDivergencesHomotopyEquivalenceRenormalizationGroupEulerCharacteristicAnomalyCancellationDefectManifoldsOsterwalder-SchraderReconstruction
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

Topological regularization attempts to turn the old problem of ultraviolet divergences in quantum field theory into a statement about topology: instead of subtracting infinities with an arbitrary cutoff, the theory is embedded into a compactified manifold and the infinities are reinterpreted as boundary artifacts or defects. The paper's central result is the Physical Equivalence Theorem, which claims that if two regularization schemes have defect-complement manifolds that are homotopy equivalent, have no de Rham cohomology below degree four, and are related by an asymptotically conformal diffeomorphism, then the two schemes produce identical renormalized n-point functions, identical beta functions, and identical anomalous dimension matrices. If this is right, regulator independence ceases to be a technical accident and becomes a topological invariance, with the Euler characteristic entering the beta function as a topological contribution. The broader payoff the author draws is a unified geometric picture in which UV/IR duality, anomaly cancellation, and Osterwalder-Schrader reconstruction are all consequences of the topology of spacetime's boundary.

What carries the argument

The primary objects are regularization sets $RS = [(M_F,g,\mathcal{X}), (\Sigma_K,\eta,\Lambda), \Omega]$ — a spacetime, a regularizing manifold with a scale variable $\Omega$, and a stereographic embedding $\phi_\Omega$ between them that moves the point at infinity to a defect. Three pieces of machinery carry the argument. The causality group $\mathrm{Caus}(\Sigma) = T_+ \ltimes (S \rtimes N)$, a Gerstenhaber triple system whose structure ensures causal separation, no closed timelike curves, and scale covariance; the vanishing commutator $[\mathrm{Caus}(\Sigma), G_\tau^{(k)} \phi_\Omega]_\triangleright = 0$ is the condition that the embedding preserves global causal structure. De Rham cohomology: trivial $H^k_{dR}=0$ for $k<4$ makes the difference $\Delta \Gamma^{(n)} = \delta L^{(n)}$ cohomologically exact, so the two schemes differ only by a local counterterm. And Stokes-Poincaré duality Eq. (38) pairs cohomology classes of the punctured regulator with homology cycles on the defect, which localizes anomalies such as $\int \mathrm{tr}(F\wedge F)$ onto the defect and ties the $\beta$ function to the Euler characteristic $\chi$.

What would settle it

Compute the three-loop $\beta$ function for an interacting scalar theory, for example $\phi^4$ in four dimensions, using two explicitly different regulators that satisfy Theorem 3.1's hypotheses — homotopy-equivalent defect complements with $H^k=0$ for $k<4$ and an asymptotically conformal map. The theorem predicts exactly equal $\beta$ functions and anomalous dimension matrices; any difference in the scheme-dependent higher-loop coefficients would refute the cohomological-exactness step. Alternatively, explicit computation of the Leray spectral sequence and the $E_\infty$ degeneration at $q=4$ for a concrete pair of regulators would settle the proof's key unproven assertion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 3.1 (Physical Equivalence Theorem): for two regularization sets $RS_1$ and $RS_2$ whose defect complements are homotopy equivalent, whose de Rham cohomology vanishes in degrees $k<4$, and which are connected by an asymptotically conformal diffeomorphism, the renormalized quantum field theories are identical — equal renormalized n-point functions, equal $\beta$ functions, and equal anomalous dimension matrices for all couplings and operators. The proof treats the difference between the two schemes' vertex functions, $\Delta \Gamma^{(n)} = \delta L^{(n)}$, and asserts that the difference is cohomologically exact, hence a local functional removable by counterterms; Eq. (30) then writes the $\beta$ function as $[\beta_g]_T = \kappa_g \chi[(\xi_{ki},h_{ki})]$, giving the Euler characteristic a direct role in the renormalization group flow. The author's stated conclusion is that ultraviolet divergences are not fundamental infinities but topological obstructions localized at defects, and that physical content lives in the homotopy equivalence class of the regularization rather than in any particular cutoff.

Load-bearing premise

The argument's load-bearing premise is that the difference between two regularization schemes' vertex functions is cohomologically exact and therefore removable by local counterterms, which is essentially the regulator-independence statement the theorem is meant to prove.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Two theories related by homotopy-equivalent regularization are empirically indistinguishable: every scattering amplitude and correlation function built from the renormalized n-point functions agrees at all energy scales.
  • The beta function acquires a topological term $[\beta_g]_T = \kappa_g \chi[(\xi_{ki},h_{ki})]$, so fixed points, universality classes, and asymptotic-freedom versus confinement behavior are labelled by Euler characteristics of defect manifolds, not by metric details of the regulator.
  • Anomalies that are characteristic classes, e.g. $A = \int \mathrm{tr}(F\wedge F)$, become boundary effects localized on defects and invariant under homotopy, so anomaly cancellation is re-expressed as a cobordism and Stokes-Poincaré statement.
  • Equal anomalous dimension matrices imply that operator mixing, OPE coefficients, and scaling behavior are preserved across homotopy-equivalent regularizations, making the operator content of the theory a homotopy invariant.
  • The compactification construction via stereographic projection and Hopf fibrations predicts that UV/IR mixing is regulated by the fiber geometry, with a mass scale set by the radius of the sphere.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: If Theorem 3.1 is correct, standard scheme comparisons (dimensional regularization versus lattice versus Pauli-Villars) should be re-examined as homotopy equivalences of defect complements; for pairs where that equivalence fails, the theorem predicts observable scheme dependence rather than universality.
  • Inference: The beta-function formula suggests a quantitative test in condensed matter: in systems with engineered topological defects, critical exponents should depend only on the defect's homotopy type, not on the microscopic cutoff; noise-spectroscopy measurements of correlation decay could search for the predicted $\chi(\Sigma)$ dependence.
  • Inference: The cohomological exactness step is the point to stress-test first; a natural extension is to compute the Leray spectral sequence explicitly for a concrete regulator pair and verify that the $E_\infty$ degeneration at $q=4$ actually holds, which the paper asserts but does not demonstrate.
  • Inference: If the causality-group restrictions are taken seriously, non-orientable regulators such as $\mathbb{R}P^4$ are excluded on physical grounds, which would imply that parity and time-reversal anomalies are unavoidable in any regularization on such spaces; that is a sharp, potentially testable distinction from conventional treatments.
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.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a framework called topological regularization, in which ultraviolet divergences in quantum field theory are reinterpreted as topological artifacts and controlled by compactifying spacetime via stereographic projection, causal embeddings, and a 'causality group' Caus(Sum). The central claim is the Physical Equivalence Theorem (Theorem 3.1): two regularization sets that are homotopy equivalent, have trivial lower de Rham cohomology (H^k=0 for k<4), and are asymptotically conformal near defects yield identical renormalized n-point functions, beta functions, and anomalous dimensions. The paper further asserts that the beta function contains a topological contribution [beta_g]_T = kappa_g chi[(xi_ki,h_ki)] (Eq. (30)), so that renormalization-group flow is governed by Euler characteristics. The bulk of the text is a wide-ranging speculative discussion connecting this framework to anomalies, Osterwalder-Schrader reconstruction, AdS/CFT, elliptic PDEs, quantum simulators, and noncommutative geometry. The conclusion explicitly concedes that the theorem 'could need better proofs and rigurosity' and that open questions remain.

Significance. If Theorem 3.1 were true, it would be a striking reformulation of renormalization-scheme independence as a topological invariance statement, with potential implications for how universality and RG flow are understood. The paper is ambitious and visibly attempts to connect a large body of recent literature. However, the significance is conditional on a central theorem whose proof is not supplied. The manuscript offers neither machine-checked proofs nor parameter-free derivations; the load-bearing steps are asserted rather than derived. The claimed experimental signatures in quantum materials (e.g., anisotropic correlation decay of Eq. (45)) are qualitative and not quantitatively derived. Thus the paper's value is currently only as a speculative proposal, not as an established result.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 3, Eq. (28)] The proof's key step asserts that H^k_dR(RS_i)=0 for k<4 implies that Delta Gamma^(n) = delta L^(n) is 'cohomologically exact,' with delta L^(n) a local functional. No argument connects the de Rham cohomology of the regularization manifold to the functional Delta Gamma^(n) on field configurations. A functional on field space is not a differential form on RS_i, and topological exactness of a form does not imply locality or removability by local counterterms without a separate locality theorem in the spirit of the quantum action principle or BPHZ renormalization. Since this step is load-bearing, the equality of n-point functions, beta functions, and anomalous dimensions in Theorem 3.1 does not follow from the stated hypotheses.
  2. [Section 3, Eq. (30)] The topological beta-function term [beta_g]_T = kappa_g chi[(xi_ki,h_ki)] is introduced by postulate rather than derived from the RG equations or from a concrete computation. The constant kappa_g is never defined, and the paper gives no mechanism by which the Euler characteristic enters the Callan-Symanzik equation. Consequently the equality beta_g,1 = beta_g,2 is effectively assumed by positing the same kappa_g chi term for both schemes; this does not establish scheme independence.
  3. [Theorem 3.1, assumption 2 and Eq. (26)] The assumption H^k_dR(RS_i)=0 for k<4 is inconsistent for a connected manifold, since H^0_dR(RS_i) is nonzero. If the condition is meant for k=1,2,3 only, the proof does not say so. In addition, the Leray spectral sequence in Eq. (26) is written with a sheaf F of renormalized operators and a fiber term H^q(iota^{-1}F), but no justification is given for the degeneration at q=4 nor for how this spectral sequence controls the functional Delta Gamma^(n). The E_infinity degeneration is asserted without proof.
  4. [Eqs. (15), (25), and (45)] The localization of the partition-function ratio to exp(2pi i ∫_B ch(E)) and its limit to 1, the asserted absolute convergence of the Hopf-composite path integral for n>=2, and the exponential correlation decay of Eq. (45) are all stated without proof or without sufficient hypotheses. These convergence and localization claims are part of the regulator-independence argument and cannot be taken as given; without them the physical equivalence claim remains unsupported.
  5. [Section 2, 'Poincaré-Perelman theorem'] The 'Poincaré-Perelman theorem on geometric compactification' is invoked to justify mapping to spheres minus a point, but no statement or proof of this theorem is given and no reference is supplied. As written, this is not a recognized standard theorem, and it cannot support the assertion that arbitrary continuous mappings are topologically equivalent to stereographic projection in the way used later.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (2)] The term 'differential homeomorphism' is nonstandard; presumably 'diffeomorphism' is meant, and the existence and smoothness of the map phi_Omega should be stated explicitly.
  2. [Section 2, Eq. (15)] The notation M\Sigma_1 and RS_i are used interchangeably, making it unclear whether the ratio of partition functions is taken on the physical spacetime or on the regularization set; this should be clarified.
  3. [Section 3, Eq. (46)] The KK-group KK^{i+4}_tau (C, A_TR) uses a nonstandard subscript tau; if tau is intended as a Kasparov product with a Dirac element, that should be defined, otherwise the conjecture is not meaningful.
  4. [Section 3, Eqs. (33)-(35)] The use of Stokes' theorem with partial Pi_ki = xi_ki is dimensionally unclear: tr(F wedge F) is a 4-form, but the dimension of the defect submanifold xi_ki is not specified, so the equality cannot be checked.
  5. [Throughout] The manuscript contains numerous grammatical and typographical errors (e.g., 'The causality group Caus(Sum) is asimply-connected semisimple Lie group' and 'the it is obtained') that impede reading and should be corrected.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

Theorem 3.1 proves regulator independence by assuming it: Eq. (28) asserts the regularization difference is a local exact functional, and Eq. (30) builds beta-function equality into the Euler-characteristic ansatz.

  1. self definitional [Section 3, proof of Theorem 3.1, around Eq. (28)]
    "The trivial cohomology condition H^k_dR(RS_i)=0 for k<4 implies ΔΓ^(n)=δL^(n) (28) is cohomologically exact, where δL^(n) is a local functional [29]. This difference is removable by counterterms, yielding to Γ^(n)_ren,1=Γ^(n)_ren,2 which they do obey the Callan–Symanzik equation [38]."

    ΔΓ^(n) is the difference of the two regularized n-point functions. The assertion that this difference is a cohomologically exact local functional δL^(n), removable by local counterterms, is precisely the regulator-independence conclusion the theorem claims to prove. The de Rham condition H^k_dR(RS_i)=0 is a topological property of the auxiliary manifolds; without an exhibited chain map from regularized field-space functionals into those de Rham groups, it imposes no constraint on the locality or cohomology class of such functionals. Thus Eq. (28) assumes Theorem 3.1 rather than deriving it.

  2. self definitional [Section 3, after Eq. (29), Eq. (30)]
    "Then, beta function β_g would contain topological contributions [β_g]_T plus the usual local terms [34, 38]. [β_g]_T=κ_g χ[(ξ_ki,h_ki)] (30) Since χ[(ξ_ki,h_ki)]=(−1)^dim[(ξ_ki,h_ki)] χ(RS_i) by inclusion-exclusion, it is obtained β_g,1=β_g,2, being κ_g a constant depending on the geometric and topological properties of the mapping."

    The theorem wants to prove β_g,1=β_g,2. Instead of deriving this, the paper posits that β_g consists of 'usual local terms' plus κ_g χ[(ξ_ki,h_ki)], and then observes that homotopy invariance makes χ equal for the two schemes. The beta-function equality therefore follows from the ansatz itself, not from a computation. In standard renormalization theory the 'usual local terms' are scheme-dependent, and no argument is given that they match; if the ansatz already restricts them to common terms plus a common χ term, the conclusion is true by construction.

full rationale

The central claim, Theorem 3.1, is not derived from independent premises. Its proof's load-bearing step is Eq. (28), where trivial lower de Rham cohomology of the regulator manifolds is said to imply that ΔΓ^(n)=δL^(n) is cohomologically exact and that δL^(n) is a local functional. But ΔΓ^(n) is the difference between two regularized vertex functions; declaring this difference to be a local exact functional equivalent to declaring that the two regularizations differ only by local counterterms, which is exactly the regulator-independence result at issue. No mapping from field-space functionals to the claimed de Rham groups is exhibited, so the cohomology hypothesis does not do the work assigned to it. The beta-function equality is likewise built in: Eq. (30) defines a topological contribution proportional to the Euler characteristic, and since homotopy invariance of χ is a standard fact, β_g,1=β_g,2 follows by construction rather than by derivation. The paper's own conclusion concedes that the Physical Equivalence Theorem 'could need better proofs and rigurosity,' which is consistent with the proof being an assumption of the conclusion. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain here; the circularity is internal to the derivation. The applications and conjectures in Sections 3.1–4 are separate and are not used to justify Theorem 3.1, so they do not supply independent evidence for the theorem. As an additional correctness concern, H^0_dR(RS_i)=0 is impossible for a connected manifold, so even the hypothesis set requires a charitable interpretation.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 4 invented entities

The central claim rests on several unproved structures and hypotheses: the existence and properties of the causality group, the cohomological triviality conditions in Theorem 3.1, the exactness of Delta Gamma=delta L, and the convergence assertion for the CP^n path integral. The free parameters kappa_g and w are introduced but not determined. The only independently motivated inputs are standard mathematical tools such as Stokes theorem and spectral sequences.

free parameters (2)
  • kappa_g = undetermined
    Eq. (30) defines the topological beta-function contribution as kappa_g chi without fixing kappa_g; the equality of beta functions under homotopy then follows by construction.
  • weight w of Jacobian J^w_phiOmega = undetermined
    Eq. (25) relies on the asymptotic behavior J^w ~ O[r^{-w(n+1)}] to assert convergence of the regularized path integral; w is not specified or derived.
assumptions (6)
  • ad hoc to paper Caus(Sum) is a simply-connected semisimple Lie group with a ternary Gerstenhaber algebra structure satisfying Eqs. (7)-(12) and reflection positivity.
    Introduced in Section 2 without construction or proof; the properties do the work of excluding RP4 and enforcing unitarity.
  • ad hoc to paper H^k_dR(RS_i)=0 for k<4 and phiOmega is asymptotically conformal near defects.
    Assumptions in Theorem 3.1 are necessary for the cohomological exactness step but are not derived from any physical input.
  • ad hoc to paper Delta Gamma^(n)=delta L^(n) with delta L^(n) a local functional (the difference of regularizations is cohomologically exact).
    Section 3, Eqs. (27)-(28): this is the load-bearing assertion that makes counterterm absorption possible; it is essentially the regulator-independence claim under proof.
  • domain assumption Regularized path integral over CP^n converges absolutely for n>=2 due to Jacobian asymptotics.
    Eq. (25) asserts convergence without a detailed estimate; this is a domain assumption about the behavior of the weighted Jacobian.
  • ad hoc to paper A 'Poincare-Perelman theorem on geometric compactification' justifies mapping to spheres minus a point.
    Referenced in Section 2 before Eq. (23); no such theorem is stated or cited, and stereographic projection alone is standard.
  • standard math Standard tools: de Rham theorem, Stokes theorem, Leray spectral sequence, Atiyah-Singer index theorem, Garding inequality.
    Invoked in proofs of Theorem 3.1 and 3.2; assumed as background.
invented entities (4)
  • Causality group Caus(Sum)
    purpose: To encode causal preservation and enforce unitarity through semisimplicity and reflection positivity.
    No explicit construction; its Lie group and Gerstenhaber structure are postulated in Section 2.
  • Space-Time Iteration Operator G_tau^(k)
    purpose: To iteratively refine embeddings to preserve causality and trivialize spectral flow.
    Defined in Eq. (3); its existence and the vanishing commutator in Eq. (10) are asserted, not proven.
  • Weighted Jacobian J^w_phiOmega
    purpose: To make the regularized path integral converge by counterbalancing divergences.
    Introduced around Eq. (25) with an assumed asymptotic form; no explicit definition or calculation.
  • Topological beta-function term [beta_g]_T = kappa_g chi
    purpose: To make beta functions depend only on homotopy class and equal under equivalence.
    Eq. (30) postulates this term with undetermined kappa_g.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Topological Regularization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HY5IVAO2

@misc{pith2026250800885,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Topological Regularization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HY5IVAO2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.00885}
}
read the original abstract

This work introduces topological regularization as a framework for handling ultraviolet divergences in quantum field theory, reinterpreting infinities as topological obstructions at spacetime boundaries. Through geometric compactification via stereographic projection, singularities are reframed as boundary artifacts. The framework employs causal embeddings and the causality group to preserve Lorentz invariance and unitarity, while homotopy-equivalent defect structures guarantee regularization independence via Stokes-Poincar\'e duality. The Physical Equivalence Theorem shows that homotopy-equivalent schemes yield identical renormalized observables. Renormalization group flows are governed by Euler characteristics, and anomalies are resolved through cobordism and Chern character integrals. This approach unifies UV/IR duality, anomaly cancellation, and Osterwalder-Schrader reconstruction. Applications extend to AdS/CFT, PDEs, quantum simulators, and noncommutative geometry. Topological regularization replaces artificial cutoffs with intrinsic geometric mechanisms, positioning spacetime as a defect-entangled structure governed by topological invariants, with testable predictions in quantum materials.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Constructing Hamiltonian quantum theories from path integrals in a diffeomorphism invariant context

    A. Ashtekar, D. Marolf, J. Mourão, and T. Thiemann,Osterwalder-Schrader re- construction and diffeomorphism invariance, arXiv:quant-ph/9904094, 1999.https: //arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9904094

    work page Pith review arXiv 1999

  2. [2]

    Irreversibilidad de flujo del grupo renormalización en una teoría de campos de 2 dimensiones,

    L. B. Aguilar, “Irreversibilidad de flujo del grupo renormalización en una teoría de campos de 2 dimensiones,” Unpublished manuscript

    work page

  3. [3]

    B.Baron, Relational ontology as a bridge between realism and empiricism in scientific explanation, 2025

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Becker, M

    K. Becker, M. Becker, and J. H. Schwarz,String Theory and M-Theory: A Modern Introduction, Cambridge University Press, 2007

    work page 2007

  5. [5]

    Regularization and renormalization of quantum field theory in curved space-time,

    C. Bernard and A. Duncan, “Regularization and renormalization of quantum field theory in curved space-time,”Annals of Physics, vol. 107, no. 1-2, pp. 201–221, 1977

    work page 1977

  6. [6]

    Analytic regularization and the divergences of quantum field theories,

    C. G. Bollini, J. J. Giambiagi, and A. G. Domínguez, “Analytic regularization and the divergences of quantum field theories,”Il Nuovo Cimento, vol. 31, pp. 550–561,

    work page

  7. [7]

    Springer (2005)

    Bourbaki, N.Lie Groups and Lie Algebras. Springer (2005)

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    Renormalization and quantum field theory,

    R. Borcherds, “Renormalization and quantum field theory,”Algebra & Number The- ory, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 627–658, 2012

    work page 2012

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    The asymptotic Hopf algebra of Feynman inte- grals,

    M. Chakraborty and F. Herzog, “The asymptotic Hopf algebra of Feynman inte- grals,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2025, no. 1, pp. 1–39, 2025

    2025

  2. [10]

    Qubitregularizationofquantumfieldtheories,

    S.Chandrasekharan, “Qubitregularizationofquantumfieldtheories,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.05716, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  3. [11]

    On the Ðurđević approach to quantum principal bundles,

    A. Del Donno, E. Latini, and T. Weber, “On the Ðurđević approach to quantum principal bundles,”Journal of Geometry and Physics, p. 105567, 2025

    2025

  4. [12]

    Gauge transformations on quantum prin- cipal bundles,

    A. Del Donno, E. Latini, and T. Weber, “Gauge transformations on quantum prin- cipal bundles,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.10193, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Twists of intermediate Jacobian fibrations,

    Y. Dutta, D. Mattei, and E. Shinder, “Twists of intermediate Jacobian fibrations,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.01953, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Simulating the non-unitary Yang-Lee confor- mal field theory on the fuzzy sphere,

    R. Fan, J. Dong, and A. Vishwanath, “Simulating the non-unitary Yang-Lee confor- mal field theory on the fuzzy sphere,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.06342, 2025. 20

    2025 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Differential regularization and renor- malization: A New method of calculation in quantum field theory,

    D. Z. Freedman, K. Johnson, and J. Latorre, “Differential regularization and renor- malization: A New method of calculation in quantum field theory,”Nuclear Physics B, vol. 371, no. 1-2, pp. 353–414, 1992

    1992

  8. [16]

    Path Integral Measure For Gauge Invariant Fermion Theories,

    K. Fujikawa, “Path Integral Measure For Gauge Invariant Fermion Theories,”Phys- ical Review Letters, vol. 42, pp. 1195–1198, 1979

    1979

  9. [17]

    Relative representations: Topological and geometric perspectives,

    A. García-Castellanos et al., “Relative representations: Topological and geometric perspectives,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.10967v2, 2025

    2025

  10. [18]

    On the Deformation of Rings and Algebras

    Gerstenhaber, M. On the Deformation of Rings and Algebras. Ann. Math. 79(1), 59–103 (1964)

    1964

  11. [19]

    Principal persistence measures for metric-measure spaces,

    J. Gómez and F. Mémoli, “Principal persistence measures for metric-measure spaces,” SIAM Journal on Applied Algebra and Geometry, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 301–330, 2025

    2025

  12. [20]

    Grothendieck, A.Récoltes et Semailles, Sect. IV. Springer (1977)

    1977

  13. [21]

    Renormalización en Teoría de Campos Usando Distribu- ciones,

    H. M. Gutiérrez Garro, “Renormalización en Teoría de Campos Usando Distribu- ciones,” Ph.D. thesis, Sistema de Estudios de Posgrado, Universidad de Costa Rica,

  14. [22]

    Effective actions, cutoff regularization, quasi-locality, and gluing of partition functions,

    A. V. Ivanov, “Effective actions, cutoff regularization, quasi-locality, and gluing of partition functions,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, vol. 58, no. 13, p. 135401, 2025

    2025

  15. [23]

    Three-loop renormalization with a cutoff in a sextic model,

    A. V. Ivanov and N. V. Kharuk, “Three-loop renormalization with a cutoff in a sextic model,” Zapiski Nauchnykh Seminarov POMI, vol. 532, pp. 273–286, 2025

    2025

  16. [24]

    Intrinsic Regularization via Curved Momentum Space: A Geometric So- lution to Divergences in Quantum Field Theory,

    D. Ketels, “Intrinsic Regularization via Curved Momentum Space: A Geometric So- lution to Divergences in Quantum Field Theory,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.14443, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  17. [25]

    On Renormalization Group Flows in Four Dimensions,

    Z. Komargodski and A. Schwimmer, “On Renormalization Group Flows in Four Dimensions,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2011, no. 12, p. 99, 2011. arXiv:1107.3987 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Kontsevich, M.Deformation Quantization of Poisson Manifolds. Lett. Math. Phys 66, 157–216 (2003)

    2003

  19. [27]

    Asymptotic safety and quantum gravity ampli- tudes,

    J. H. Kwapisz and K. A. Meissner, “Asymptotic safety and quantum gravity ampli- tudes,” Nuclear Physics B, vol. 965, p. 115341, 2021

    2021

  20. [28]

    W. O. Lasisi,Karl Popper, Quantum Mechanics and the Incompleteness of Critical Rationalism, Nnadiebube Journal of Philosophy, 8(3), (2025)

    2025

  21. [29]

    Lovelock and H

    D. Lovelock and H. Rund,Tensors, Differential Forms, and Variational Principles, Dover Publications, Mineola, NY, 1975

    1975

  22. [30]

    Maldacena, The Large-N Limit of Superconformal Field Theories and Super- gravity, Int

    J. Maldacena, The Large-N Limit of Superconformal Field Theories and Super- gravity, Int. J. Theor. Phys.38, 1113–1133 (1999).https://doi.org/10.1023/A: 1026654312961 21

    1999 doi

  23. [31]

    The Topological Unified Field Theory on the Complex Hopf Fibration S1→S9→ CP 4,

    J. Nielsen, “The Topological Unified Field Theory on the Complex Hopf Fibration S1→S9→ CP 4,” SSRN preprint 5288710, 2025

    2025

  24. [32]

    Hopf fibrations and totally geodesic sub- manifolds,

    C. E. Olmos and A. Rodríguez-Vázquez, “Hopf fibrations and totally geodesic sub- manifolds,” Journal of the European Mathematical Society, 2025

    2025

  25. [33]

    Gauge invariance and generalizedη regularization,

    A. Padilla and R. G. Smith, “Gauge invariance and generalizedη regularization,” Physical Review D, vol. 111, no. 12, p. 125013, 2025

    2025

  26. [34]

    M. E. Peskin and D. V. Schroeder, An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory, Addison-Wesley, Reading, USA, 1995. DOI:10.1201/9780429503559

    1995 doi

  27. [35]

    Podles and S

    P. Podles and S. L. Woronowicz,Quantum Deformation of Lorentz Group, Commu- nications in Mathematical Physics130, 381-431 (1990)

    1990

  28. [36]

    Electric conductivity in graphene: Kubo model versus a nonlocal quantum field theory model,

    P. Rodriguez-Lopez, J. S. Wang, and M. Antezza, “Electric conductivity in graphene: Kubo model versus a nonlocal quantum field theory model,”Physical Review B, vol. 111, no. 11, p. 115428, 2025

    2025

  29. [37]

    A numerical study of the zeros of the grand partition function of k-mers on strips of width k,

    S. Sarma, “A numerical study of the zeros of the grand partition function of k-mers on strips of width k,”Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, vol. 58, p. 165001, 2025

    2025

  30. [38]

    M. D. Schwartz,Quantum Field Theory and the Standard Model, Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 2014

    2014

  31. [39]

    Differentiable multiparameter persistent homology,

    L. Scoccola et al., “Differentiable multiparameter persistent homology,”Advances in Applied Mathematics, vol. 128, p. 102191, 2025

    2025

  32. [40]

    Susskind, The world as a hologram, Journal of Mathematical Physics, 36(11), 6377–6396 (1995)

    L. Susskind, The world as a hologram, Journal of Mathematical Physics, 36(11), 6377–6396 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.531249

    1995 doi

  33. [41]

    Symmetry Breaking Through Bell-Jackiw Anomalies,

    G. ’t Hooft, “Symmetry Breaking Through Bell-Jackiw Anomalies,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 37, pp. 8–11, 1976

    1976

  34. [42]

    Regularizing 3D conformal field theories via anyons on the fuzzy sphere,

    C. Voinea, R. Fan, N. Regnault, and Z. Papić, “Regularizing 3D conformal field theories via anyons on the fuzzy sphere,”Physical Review X, vol. 15, no. 3, p. 031007, 2025

    2025

  35. [43]

    A new SU(2) anomaly,

    J. Wang, X.-G. Wen, and E. Witten, “A new SU(2) anomaly,”Journal of Mathe- matical Physics, vol. 60, no. 5, 2019. DOI:10.1063/1.5082852

    2019 doi

  36. [44]

    An SU(2) Anomaly,

    E. Witten, “An SU(2) Anomaly,”Physics Letters B, vol. 117, pp. 324–328, 1982. 22

    1982

  37. [1964]

    DOI:10.1007/BF02733756

    doi

  38. [2006]

    San José, Costa Rica

Pith tools

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