Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 28 references

In κ-Minkowski spacetime, momentum-space curvature caps the Landau spectrum at a highest Landau level, and for fermions the ceiling is spin-polarized.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 00:18 UTC pith:5RW5XEDQ

load-bearing objection A clean, all-order Landau spectrum in κ-Minkowski, but the highest-Landau cut-off is tied to the ω=1 realization and a sign slip in the fermionic ceiling needs fixing. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.25833 v2 pith:5RW5XEDQ submitted 2026-07-28 hep-th quant-ph

Curved momentum space and finite Landau spectrum in kappa-Minkowski spacetime

Adri\'an Huam\'an Vargas , Vladislav Kupriyanov This is my paper
classification hep-th quant-ph PACS 11.10.Nx
keywords κ-Minkowski spacetimecurved momentum spaceκ-Poincaré CasimirLandau levelshighest Landau levelPoisson gauge theoryde Sitter momentum spacedeformed dispersion relation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper derives the κ-Poincaré Casimir from the de Sitter geometry of momentum space and uses it as the dynamical constraint for charged particles, implemented through Poisson gauge theory. Applying the formalism to a constant magnetic field, it obtains exact Landau spectra for scalar and spin-1/2 particles, including all orders in 1/κ. Because momentum space is curved, the invariant momentum is bounded by the deformation scale κ, which turns the spectrum from infinite to finite and introduces a highest Landau level (HLL). In the fermionic case the bound becomes spin-dependent, so the HLL is polarized. If correct, this gives a concrete, symmetry-derived mechanism by which noncommutative spacetime truncates the states of a real quantum system.

Core claim

The central claim is that in κ-Minkowski spacetime the κ-Poincaré Casimir, pulled back from the de Sitter geometry of momentum space, is the correct mass-shell constraint for charged particles, and that when it is applied to the Landau problem it yields the exact spectrum E_n = κ ln( (κ² + m²/2 + sqrt(κ²(Λ_n² + m²) + m⁴/4)) / (κ² − Λ_n²) ) with Λ_n² = k_z² + (2n+1)qB. The deformed dispersion forces the invariant momentum to satisfy |π⃗| < κ, so only the levels with k_z² + (2n+1)qB < κ² are physical. The spectrum therefore stops at n_max = floor((κ² − k_z²)/(2qB) − 1/2), and the creation operator annihilates the boundary state, giving a finite-dimensional Fock space. For spin-1/2 fermions the

What carries the argument

The paper's central object is the κ-Poincaré Casimir, Cκ = 4κ²sinh²(p0/2κ) − e^{p0/κ} p⃗², derived from the de Sitter embedding coordinates of the AN(3) momentum manifold (Cκ = 2κ(P4−κ)). It serves as the deformed mass-shell constraint; in the gauge-invariant momentum family, the choice ω=1 reduces the invariant momentum to p − qA, and it is the positivity domain of the free positive-energy branch, |π⃗| < κ, that truncates the Landau ladder.

Load-bearing premise

The result depends on treating the maximal momentum of the free theory as an absolute bound on the coupled states, within the simplest gauge-invariant coupling and semiclassical (Poisson) description.

What would settle it

Compute the Landau spectrum in the full noncommutative gauge theory (beyond the Poisson semiclassical limit) with a different admissible gauge-invariant momentum; if states exist with k_z² + (2n+1)qB ≥ κ² or with qB ≥ κ² for k_z = 0, the predicted highest Landau level is not robust.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The Landau energy spectrum in κ-Minkowski spacetime is finite, with a highest Landau level whose location depends on the magnetic field and the longitudinal momentum.
  • There is a maximum allowed magnetic field for a given k_z; for k_z = 0, qB < κ², which gives a minimal magnetic length l_B > 1/κ.
  • The transverse Hilbert space is finite-dimensional: the creation operator satisfies a†|n_max,+⟩ = 0, altering the standard infinite-dimensional Fock structure of the Landau problem.
  • For fermions, the highest orbital Landau state is spin-up polarized, while the full energy level N can host both spin projections through orbital-Zeeman balance.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the HLL persists under a full quantization of the noncommutative gauge algebra, it would provide a mechanism for ultraviolet state-counting modifications that could shift anomaly coefficients or Hall conductivities at magnetic fields near the κ² bound.
  • The spin-polarized HLL suggests a possible source of spin polarization in strong magnetic fields in noncommutative settings; a condensed-matter analogue with a deformed dispersion might simulate this ceiling.
  • Because the Dirac constraint is non-unique (different Πµ factorizations of the Casimir), the spin dependence of the HLL may be realization-dependent; a test would be to repeat the fermionic calculation with an inequivalent factorization and compare the polarization.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies charged scalar and spin-1/2 particles in κ-Minkowski spacetime by taking the κ-Poincaré Casimir, derived geometrically from de Sitter momentum space, as the mass-shell constraint. Within Poisson gauge theory, after fixing ω=1 in the one-parameter family of gauge-invariant momenta, the Landau problem is solved exactly for a constant magnetic field. The central results are the exact spectra (84) and (99), the kinematical bound |π⃗|<κ, and the associated finite Landau tower with a Highest Landau Level (HLL) given by (87) and (100); in the fermionic case the truncation is claimed to be spin-dependent and spin-polarized. Classical trajectories and a Schrödinger-like reduction are also presented as consistency checks.

Significance. If accepted as a model calculation, the paper gives a concrete and solvable example of how a deformed dispersion relation with a maximal momentum produces a finite Landau spectrum and a UV cutoff. The derivations are explicit, the chain from Casimir to spectrum is largely self-consistent, and the authors are candid about several non-uniqueness issues. However, the advertised finiteness and spin polarization are not model-independent: they are driven by the input bound |π⃗|<κ and by the specific choices ω=1 and the particular realization Πμ. The paper is therefore a useful study of one realization of κ-deformed charged-particle dynamics, not a robust prediction of κ-Minkowski geometry alone.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III.A/B, §V.A, Eqs. (52), (64), (84), (86)-(87)] The calculation is performed for a single element ω=1 of the one-parameter family (52). All ω have the same commutative limit, so this is an input assumption, not a consequence of κ-Minkowski geometry. For A0=0 and generic ω, π_i = [ω+(1−ω)e^{E/κ}](p_i−qA_i), and the mass-shell equation becomes κ²(u+u^{-1}−2) − u[ω+(1−ω)u]² Λ_n² = m², u=e^{E/κ}, which is quartic for ω≠1. The maximal allowed Λ_n² is obtained by maximizing this expression over u and is ω-dependent; for example, for ω=0 the bound is parametrically smaller than κ². Consequently, the exact spectra (84), (99) and the HLL bounds (86)-(87) are properties of the ω=1 realization, not universal predictions. The authors should either justify ω=1 from a physical requirement or explicitly frame the central claims as realization-dependent.
  2. [§V.B, Eqs. (96)-(100)] There is a sign inconsistency in the fermionic sector. From Λ²_{n,s}=k_z²+(2n−2s+1)qB, the inequality Λ²_{n,s}<κ² gives n_max = floor( (κ²−k_z²)/(2qB) + s − 1/2 ), not floor( (κ²−k_z²)/(2qB) − 1/2 − s ) as written in Eq. (100). As written, Eq. (100) makes s=−1/2 the less constrained state, contradicting the text that the highest orbital state is spin-up polarized. In addition, Eq. (96) has +2e^{p0/κ}qB S_z, while the effective Λ²_{n,s} in Eq. (98) corresponds to the opposite sign of the spin coupling; with the stated convention 2S_z=diag(σ_z,σ_z), the plus sign in (96) would shift Λ² by +2s qB, not −2s qB. These sign issues affect the central claim of a spin-dependent polarized HLL and must be corrected.
  3. [§III.B/C, §V, §VI] The 'exact all-orders' spectra are obtained in the semiclassical Poisson gauge framework and then quantized by replacing π_i with the covariant derivative. The paper itself states that a complete quantization requires the full noncommutative gauge algebra and that the factorization Cκ=Π^μΠ_μ is non-unique. Because the HLL and its spin dependence are extracted from this specific prescription, the claim of exact all-orders spectra is conditional on the chosen realization. The authors should either prove that the omitted corrections vanish in this sector or clearly state in the abstract and conclusions that the results are exact only within the specified semiclassical and realization choices.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eqs. (84), (99)] The factor κ in front of the logarithm is missing compared with Eq. (81) and Eq. (37).
  2. [Eq. (85)] The expansion ∆E≈∆E^(0)+qB/κ should specify the expansion parameter and the sign convention for qB.
  3. [Introduction, §II.A] Typo: 'anAN(3)' should read 'an AN(3)'.
  4. [Acknowledgments] Typo in the Portuguese text: 'Funda¸cc˜ao' should be 'Fundação'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the finite Landau spectrum and HLL follow directly from the model's input κ-Casimir and standard Landau eigenvalues; the paper's acknowledged non-uniqueness is model-dependence, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is transparent. The κ-Poincaré Casimir (28) is first obtained from the plane-wave/dS embedding construction, and the mass-shell condition Cκ = m² gives the free dispersion (37) with positive-energy domain |p⃗| < κ (43). In the Landau problem, the ω=1 gauge-invariant momentum choice (64) reduces the invariant momentum to the standard minimal coupling, so the covariant Laplacian has the usual eigenvalues (83). Substituting these eigenvalues into the same dispersion relation yields the exact spectrum (84) and the bound (86), from which n_max (87) follows. This is a direct application of the model's defining equation to a new system, not a hidden equivalence: the Landau eigenvalues are not fitted, and the HLL is not used to define the Casimir. The paper explicitly flags the non-uniqueness of the Dirac-type realization ('This factorization is not unique' around Eq. (65); 'Different choices of realization are possible and may lead to inequivalent dynamical extensions' near Eq. (92)) and the restriction to ω=1 (Section III.B), so the precise cutoff value is model-dependent. However, choosing a model and deriving its consequences is not circular. The citation to [23] for the one-parameter family of gauge-invariant momenta is a self-citation, but it supplies a family of solutions rather than a uniqueness theorem, and the paper openly selects a member of that family. The discussion also honestly lists open problems, including the non-uniqueness of the deformed Dirac constraint and the need for a full noncommutative gauge quantization. These are limitations and robustness concerns, not circular steps. No equation is shown to be equivalent to its own input by construction in any load-bearing way.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 6 axioms · 1 invented entities

No numbers are fitted to data; κ, m, q, B are physical inputs. The load-bearing choices are structural: the deformed mass-shell constraint, the ω=1 minimal coupling subsector, the positivity bound promoted to a state constraint, and the non-unique Π realization. The central 'prediction' (finite spectrum with HLL) is obtained by inserting magnetic-Laplacian eigenvalues into the input dispersion relation, so the output is largely an exact transcription of the paper's dynamical postulates; the new content is the all-order closed-form spectra and the spin-dependent ceiling.

free parameters (1)
  • ω (Poisson gauge coupling-family parameter) = 1
    In Eq. (52) the parameter ω labels a family of inequivalent gauge-invariant momenta; the paper sets ω=1 by hand so that π_μ=p_μ−qA_μ for A₀=0. The spectrum is computed only in this subsector; the ω-dependence is acknowledged but not quantified.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption κ-Minkowski coordinate algebra [x̂₀,x̂ᵢ]=(i/κ)x̂ᵢ and the associated symplectic embedding/Poisson brackets (47)-(48)
    Postulated model input defining the deformed phase-space geometry used throughout (§II.A, §III.A).
  • domain assumption The κ-Poincaré Casimir C_κ (28) is the mass-shell constraint C_κ=m² with minimal coupling p→π
    Central dynamical postulate; taken from prior literature [21] (explicitly acknowledged: 'we followed the logic used in [21]'), not derived from a more fundamental principle (§II.B, §III).
  • ad hoc to paper The positive-branch reality domain |π⃗|<κ is a physical restriction on states, not a coordinate artifact
    The paper elevates the on-shell domain of E₊ (Eq. 37, Fig. 1) into the hard kinematical constraint (82) that produces the HLL; alternative readings (admitting the negative branch or antipode-mapped states) would change the cutoff (§II.C, §V.A).
  • domain assumption The gauge-invariant momentum family (52) from [23] solves the Poisson-gauge consistency conditions, and the ω=1 truncation is representative near the boundary
    Coupling prescription imported from co-authored prior work [23]; its validity near |π⃗|≈κ, where the HLL cutoff operates, is assumed without independent check (§III.A).
  • ad hoc to paper The factorization C_κ=Π^μΠ_μ with the realization (66)/(92) is an admissible starting point for the deformed Dirac constraint
    The Π variables are chosen so the deformed mass shell becomes quadratic; non-uniqueness is explicitly admitted ('This factorization is not unique'), and the fermionic spectrum is realization-dependent (§III.C, §VI).
  • domain assumption Standard canonical quantization (p̂_μ=i∂_μ, π̂⃗=−iD⃗) and Berezin–Marinov Grassmann spin quantization remain valid in the deformed setting for A₀=0
    The ordering and the κ-Poincaré covariance of the deformed Dirac operator (93) are asserted but not demonstrated; the paper restricts to A₀=0, ∂ᵢA₀=0 configurations to sidestep ordering (§III.C, §V.B).
invented entities (1)
  • Effective momentum components Π_μ (Π₀=2κsinh(π₀/2κ), Πᵢ=e^{π₀/2κ}πᵢ) no independent evidence
    purpose: Factor the κ-Casimir as Π^μΠ_μ in order to construct a deformed Dirac constraint (67)-(68) and (92)-(93)
    A reparameterization introduced for convenience; it carries no falsifiable handle of its own, and the paper admits different choices give inequivalent fermionic theories (§III.C, §VI).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 12189 in / 42740 out tokens · 366283 ms · 2026-08-03T00:18:19.628986+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

It is obtained the $\kappa$-Poincare Casimir from the de Sitter geometry of momentum space and employed as the dynamical constraint governing charged particles within the framework of Poisson gauge theory. The resulting formalism is applied to investigate both scalar and spin-1/2 particles in a constant magnetic field. Exact energy spectra are obtained, including all orders in the deformation parameter $1/\kappa$. The curvature of momentum space implies a maximal invariant momentum, which in turn leads to a finite Landau spectrum characterized by the existence of a Highest Landau Level (HLL). In the fermionic case, the truncation becomes spin dependent, resulting in a polarized HLL. Possible implications of this ultraviolet truncation and its relation to anomaly-related phenomena are briefly discussed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.25833 by Adri\'an Huam\'an Vargas, Vladislav Kupriyanov.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Positive energy solutions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    An Intro- duction toκ-Deformed Symmetries, Phase Spaces and Field Theory,

    M. Arzano and J. Kowalski-Glikman, “An Intro- duction toκ-Deformed Symmetries, Phase Spaces and Field Theory,” Symmetry13(2021) no.6, 946 doi:10.3390/sym13060946

    doi:10.3390/sym13060946 2021

  2. [2]

    Bicrossproduct structure of kappa Poincare group and noncommutative geometry,

    S. Majid and H. Ruegg, “Bicrossproduct structure of kappa Poincare group and noncommutative geometry,” Phys. Lett. B334(1994), 348-354 doi:10.1016/0370- 2693(94)90699-8

    doi:10.1016/0370- 1994

  3. [3]

    Living in Curved Momentum Space,

    J. Kowalski-Glikman, “Living in Curved Momentum Space,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A28(2013), 1330014 doi:10.1142/S0217751X13300147

    doi:10.1142/s0217751x13300147 2013

  4. [4]

    Lorentz invariant field theory on kappa-Minkowski space,

    M. Arzano, J. Kowalski-Glikman and A. Walkus, “Lorentz invariant field theory on kappa-Minkowski space,” Class. Quant. Grav.27(2010), 025012 doi:10.1088/0264-9381/27/2/025012

    work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/27/2/025012 2010

  5. [5]

    Kinematics of a relativistic particle with de Sitter momentum space,

    M. Arzano and J. Kowalski-Glikman, “Kinematics of a relativistic particle with de Sitter momentum space,” Class. Quant. Grav.28(2011), 105009 doi:10.1088/0264- 9381/28/10/105009

    doi:10.1088/0264- 2011

  6. [6]

    Symmetries ofκ-Minkowski space-time: a possibility of exotic momentum space geometry?,

    P. Nandi, A. Chakraborty, S. K. Pal, B. Chakraborty and F. G. Scholtz, “Symmetries ofκ-Minkowski space-time: a possibility of exotic momentum space geometry?,” JHEP 07(2023), 142 doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2023)142

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep07(2023)142 2023

  7. [7]

    KVG also acknowledges financial support from the Concelho Nacional de Pesquisa (CNPq, Brazil), grant number: 305132/2024 - 5

    2024

  8. [8]

    κ-Minkowski spacetime: Mathematical formalism and applications in Planck scale physics,

    A. Pachol, “κ-Minkowski spacetime: Mathematical formalism and applications in Planck scale physics,” [arXiv:1112.5366 [math-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  9. [9]

    Observables and dispersion relations inκ-Minkowski spacetime,

    P. Aschieri, A. Borowiec and A. Pacho l, “Observables and dispersion relations inκ-Minkowski spacetime,” JHEP10(2017), 152 doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2017)152

    doi:10.1007/jhep10(2017)152 2017

  10. [10]

    Poisson gauge theory,

    V. G. Kupriyanov, “Poisson gauge theory,” JHEP09 (2021), 016 doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2021)016

    doi:10.1007/jhep09(2021)016 2021

  11. [11]

    Symplectic embeddings, homotopy algebras and almost Poisson gauge symmetry,

    V. G. Kupriyanov and R. J. Szabo, “Symplectic embeddings, homotopy algebras and almost Poisson gauge symmetry,” J. Phys. A55(2022) no.3, 035201 doi:10.1088/1751-8121/ac411c

    doi:10.1088/1751-8121/ac411c 2022

  12. [12]

    Four-dimensional non- commutative deformations of U(1) gauge the- ory and L ∞ bootstrap.,

    M. Kurkov and P. Vitale, “Four-dimensional non- commutative deformations of U(1) gauge the- ory and L ∞ bootstrap.,” JHEP01(2022), 032 doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2022)032

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep01(2022)032 2022

  13. [13]

    Symplectic groupoids and Poisson electrodynamics,

    V. G. Kupriyanov, A. A. Sharapov and R. J. Szabo, “Symplectic groupoids and Poisson electrodynamics,” JHEP03(2024), 039 doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2024)039

    doi:10.1007/jhep03(2024)039 2024

  14. [14]

    Poisson electrodynamics with charged matter fields,

    A. A. Sharapov, “Poisson electrodynamics with charged matter fields,” J. Phys. A57(2024) no.31, 315401 doi:10.1088/1751-8121/ad62c7

    work page doi:10.1088/1751-8121/ad62c7 2024

  15. [15]

    κ- Minkowski-deformation of U(1) gauge theory,

    V. G. Kupriyanov, M. Kurkov and P. Vitale, “κ- Minkowski-deformation of U(1) gauge theory,” JHEP01 11 (2021), 102 doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2021)102

    doi:10.1007/jhep01(2021)102 2021

  16. [16]

    Lie-Poisson gauge theories andκ- Minkowski electrodynamics,

    V. G. Kupriyanov, M. A. Kurkov and P. Vi- tale, “Lie-Poisson gauge theories andκ- Minkowski electrodynamics,” JHEP11(2023), 200 doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2023)200

    doi:10.1007/jhep11(2023)200 2023

  17. [17]

    Light propagation inκ-Minkowski space- time: gauge ambiguities and invariance,

    M. A. Kurkov, “Light propagation inκ-Minkowski space- time: gauge ambiguities and invariance,” Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025) no.10, 1231 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-025- 14970-9

    doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-025- 2025

  18. [18]

    Poisson electrodynamics on κ-Minkowski space-time,

    O. Abla and M. J. Neves, “Poisson electrodynamics on κ-Minkowski space-time,” Phys. Lett. B864(2025), 139385 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139385

    arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    Action principle forκ-Minkowski non- commutative U(1) gauge theory from Lie–Poisson elec- trodynamics,

    M. Kurkov, “Action principle forκ-Minkowski non- commutative U(1) gauge theory from Lie–Poisson elec- trodynamics,” J. Phys. A59(2026) no.14, 145402 doi:10.1088/1751-8121/ae5776

    doi:10.1088/1751-8121/ae5776 2026

  20. [20]

    Landau levels from non- commutative U(1)⋆gauge theory inκ-Minkowski space- time,

    M. D. ´Ciri´ c and N. Konjik, “Landau levels from non- commutative U(1)⋆gauge theory inκ-Minkowski space- time,” Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys.15(2018) no.08, 1850141 doi:10.1142/S0219887818501414

    work page doi:10.1142/s0219887818501414 2018

  21. [21]

    Q deformation of Poincare algebra,

    J. Lukierski, H. Ruegg, A. Nowicki and V. N. Tolstoi, “Q deformation of Poincare algebra,” Phys. Lett. B264 (1991), 331-338 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(91)90358-W

    doi:10.1016/0370-2693(91)90358-w 1991

  22. [22]

    A short introduction toκ- deformation,

    J. Kowalski-Glikman, “A short introduction toκ- deformation,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A32(2017) no.35, 1730026 doi:10.1142/S0217751X17300265

    work page doi:10.1142/s0217751x17300265 2017

  23. [23]

    κ-Minkowski star prod- uct in any dimension from symplectic realization,

    A. Pacho l and P. Vitale, “κ-Minkowski star prod- uct in any dimension from symplectic realization,” J. Phys. A48(2015) no.44, 445202 doi:10.1088/1751- 8113/48/44/445202

    doi:10.1088/1751- 2015

  24. [24]

    Charged particle in Lie–Poisson electrodynamics,

    B. S. Basilio, V. G. Kupriyanov and M. A. Kurkov, “Charged particle in Lie–Poisson electrodynamics,” Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025) no.2, 175 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052- 025-13897-5

    doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052- 2025

  25. [25]

    Particle Spin Dy- namics as the Grassmann Variant of Classical Mechan- ics,

    F. A. Berezin and M. S. Marinov, “Particle Spin Dy- namics as the Grassmann Variant of Classical Mechan- ics,” Annals Phys.104(1977), 336 doi:10.1016/0003- 4916(77)90335-9

    doi:10.1016/0003- 1977

  26. [26]

    Dirac Equation inκ-Minkowski space-time,

    R. Verma, “Dirac Equation inκ-Minkowski space-time,” [arXiv:1410.8680 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  27. [27]

    κ-deformed Dirac Equation,

    E. Harikumar and M. Sivakumar, “κ-deformed Dirac Equation,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A26(2011), 1103-1115 doi:10.1142/S021773231103550X

    work page doi:10.1142/s021773231103550x 2011

  28. [28]

    Quantization of bounded symplectic domains associated with compact Lie groups,

    A. A. Sharapov, “Quantization of bounded symplectic domains associated with compact Lie groups,” J. Phys. A59(2026) no.2, 025203 doi:10.1088/1751-8121/ae3409

    work page doi:10.1088/1751-8121/ae3409 2026