Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 38 references

Gauge Invariant and Generic Formulation of Magnetic Translations and so(3,1) Curtright-Zachos Generators

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 Magnetic translations can be defined without any gauge choice, and the Curtright-Zachos generators turn out to be a special case of the resulting gauge-invariant operators.

desk verdict Solid gauge-invariant reformulation of magnetic translations, but the central Curtright-Zachos identification has a factor-two error for the μ=± branch. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.09277 v1 pith:7FP63BKA submitted 2025-07-12 hep-th

Haru-Tada Sato This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th MSC 17B6117B6981R5081R6081V70
keywords LandauproblemmagnetictranslationgaugeinvariancepseudoangularmomentumCurtright-ZachosalgebraVirasorosim(2)dualityconformalsymmetry
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

Conventional magnetic translation operators in a uniform magnetic field are built from a gauge-dependent vector potential, so their commutation and composition rules change when the gauge is changed. This paper claims that a gauge-invariant replacement exists: using the pseudo-momentum $P_\mu$, pseudo-dilatation $D$, and pseudo-angular momentum $J_3$ constructed from gauge-invariant harmonic oscillators, one can define generalized magnetic translation (GMT) operators whose algebraic relations hold in every gauge. It then shows that the Curtright-Zachos (CZ) generators, deformations of the Virasoro algebra, are GMT operators in disguise: $\hat t_n^{(k)}=\hat T_\lambda[\Theta^\mu]$ for $\mu=\theta,\tau,\pm$. The payoff is that the internal $(n,k)\leftrightarrow(k,n)$, $q\leftrightarrow q^{-1}$ symmetry of the Fairlie-Fletcher-Zachos algebra becomes a visible geometric duality between rotation $J_3$ and dilatation $D$. If the construction is sound, CZ representations and their physical applications inherit gauge independence.

What carries the argument

The central object is the generalized magnetic translation operator $T_R(\tilde B)=\exp\bigl(\frac{i}{L}(R\times\tilde B)_3\bigr)$, with $R$ the translation vector, $L$ a constant of length-squared dimension, and $\tilde B$ an operator set obeying the guiding-center algebra $[\tilde B_i,\tilde B_j]=i\alpha\epsilon_{ij}$. For the original system $\tilde B=\beta$, $L=l_B^2$, and the operator reduces to $\exp\bigl(\frac{2\pi i}{\varphi_0}(B\times R)\cdot\beta\bigr)$, which is gauge-invariant because $\beta$ is. The argument is carried by the 'reverting transformation': express a symmetric-gauge operator as a function of the gauge-invariant oscillators $a,b$ and rewrite the result in terms of $x$ and $\pi$; this yields the gauge-invariant $P_\mu,D,J_3,K_\mu$ and their $\mathrm{sim}(2)$ duality $D\leftrightarrow J_3$. That duality is what makes the CZ generator a GMT: exponentiating $\Theta^\mu$ with $\Theta^\theta_2=-J_3/l_B$, $\Theta^\tau_2=-iD/l_B$, and $\Theta^\pm_2=-2iD_\pm/l_B$ reproduces $\hat t_n^{(k)}$ exactly.

What would settle it

Take a gauge unrelated to the symmetric gauge and directly verify whether $T_R=\exp(2\pi i(B\times R)\cdot\beta/\varphi_0)$ satisfies the covariance condition $O'\psi'=e^{i\Lambda}O\psi$ of Eq. (B.14) and whether $K_\pm$ in Eq. (2.28) satisfies $[K_\pm,P_\pm]=2i\hbar D_\pm$; any extra gauge-dependent term in either identity would falsify the construction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that gauge dependence in the Landau problem can be eliminated at the level of the operators themselves, not only in expectation values. Starting from the symmetric gauge, the paper rewrites the free-electron conformal generators in terms of two gauge-invariant harmonic oscillators $a,b$ and then reverts to an arbitrary gauge, obtaining $P_\mu=\pi_\mu+\frac{\hbar}{2l_B^2}\epsilon_{\mu\nu}x_\nu$, with $D=x\cdot P$, $J_3=(x\times\pi)_3-\frac{\hbar}{2l_B^2}x^2$, and $K_\mu$ forming an $\mathrm{so}(3,1)$ algebra. Within the $\mathrm{sim}(2)$ subalgebra, $D$ and $J_3$ are dual under $J_3\leftrightarrow D$, which is the holomorphic/anti-holomorphic exchange $iz\partial\leftrightarrow \bar z\bar\partial$. The paper then defines the gauge-invariant magnetic translation $T_R=\exp\bigl(\frac{i\pi}{\varphi_0}(B\times R)\cdot x\bigr)\exp\bigl(\frac{i}{\hbar}R\cdot P\bigr)=\exp\bigl(\frac{2\pi i}{\varphi_0}(B\times R)\cdot \beta\bigr)$, and generalizes it to $T_R(\tilde B)=\exp\bigl(\frac{i}{L}(R\times\tilde B)_3\bigr)$. The key identification is that the nonlocal differential operator $\hat t_n^{(k)}=z^n q^{-k(z\partial+n/2+\Delta)}$ equals $\hat T_\lambda[\Theta^\mu]$ with $\Theta^\mu$ built from $J_3$, $D$, and $D_\pm$, and $\Delta=0$ in the spinless case; hence every CZ generator is a GMT and the FFZ internal symmetry is the $J_3\leftrightarrow D$ duality.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that rewriting a symmetric-gauge operator in terms of the gauge-invariant oscillators $a,b$ and then re-expressing it in an arbitrary gauge always yields the correct gauge-invariant operator, including for non-polynomial objects such as $K_\mu$ and the exponential factors that define the GMT.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • All exchange and composition relations of magnetic translations become gauge-independent; the symmetric-gauge algebra is the generic algebra, valid in every gauge.
  • The Curtright-Zachos and FFZ algebras inherit gauge invariance, so applications that use these algebras no longer need to choose a special gauge to obtain well-defined structure constants.
  • The internal symmetry $t(n,k)\leftrightarrow t(k,n)$, $q\leftrightarrow q^{-1}$ is explained as the rotation-dilatation duality, giving a geometric origin to a previously hidden automorphism.
  • For the $\phi=2$ case, the GMT factorizes into two commuting $\phi=0$-type translations, one generated by rotation and one by dilatation; the doubled structure constants in the $\Theta^\pm$ sector follow from this factorization.
  • The term $\Delta$ appearing in the CZ matching is naturally read as a trace of the $J_3\leftrightarrow D$ duality; the paper sets it to zero because spin is not considered.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper notes but does not pursue that the same machinery may extend to the special conformal pair $(K_+,K_-)$; an implication is that GMTs built from those generators would not commute with the Hamiltonian and would require time-dependent or electric-field generalizations.
  • A testable extension is to derive tight-binding hopping phases on a magnetic lattice directly from $T_R=\exp(2\pi i(B\times R)\cdot\beta/\varphi_0)$; the flux-through-parallelogram phase then replaces the gauge function $\xi$ by construction, so hopping amplitudes are gauge-independent.
  • If the construction is right, the $J_3\leftrightarrow D$ duality should appear in representation theory: the same CZ algebra should admit cyclic representations in the angular coordinate and in the radial (dilatation) coordinate, with $q$ replaced by $q^{-1}$.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a gauge-invariant formulation of magnetic translation operators in the Landau problem. It replaces the canonical momentum p by a magnetically extended operator P, constructs gauge-invariant so(3,1) generators, exhibits a sim(2) duality between pseudo-dilatation and pseudo-angular momentum, and defines generalized magnetic translation (GMT) operators depending on parameters phi and L. In Section 6 the paper claims that the Curtright-Zachos differential operators t-hat_n^(k) are equal to GMT operators T_lambda[Theta^mu] for mu=theta,tau,plus,minus, thereby explaining the FFZ internal symmetry t(n,k)<->t(k,n), q<->q^{-1} as a manifestation of the J3<->D duality. The paper also contains a reverting-transformation prescription intended to justify gauge invariance of the reverted operators.

Significance. The construction of a gauge-invariant GMT from P and the explicit phase factor is a clean and potentially useful contribution, and the algebraic checks in Sections 4 and 5 are mostly correct. If the Section 6 identification were valid, it would give a gauge-invariant representation of CZ generators and a geometric explanation of the FFZ duality. However, the central identification has a factor-two error for mu=plus and mu=minus, and the gauge-invariance argument for the reverted operators K_mu is not completed; these issues must be fixed before the paper's main claim can be accepted. The paper is original and the GMT/algebra framework is likely to be of interest to researchers working on Landau systems, Hom-Lie-Virasoro algebras, and related noncommutative structures.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 6, Eqs. (6.11)-(6.16)] The central identification t-hat_n^(k) = T_lambda[Theta^mu] is false for mu=plus and mu=minus as written. On z=e^{tau+i theta}, one has D_+=1/2(D-iJ3)=-i hbar z d/dz, so the second component in Eq. (6.15) equals -(2 hbar/l_B) z d/dz plus the Delta term. With lambda_2=k a^2/l_B fixed in Eq. (6.12), the GMT exponent contains -2 i alpha k z d/dz, while the explicit CZ operator computed in Eq. (6.11) contains -i alpha k z d/dz. The equality in Eq. (6.16) for mu=plus would require lambda_2=k a^2/(2 l_B) in that case; the halved value is also what makes the composition phase in Eq. (5.25) reduce to q^{(nl-mk)/2}. Since Section 6 is the paper's central claim, this needs correction or a revised statement limiting Eq. (6.16) to mu=theta and mu=tau.
  2. [Sec. 2.1 and Appendix A.2] The reverting-transformation principle is load-bearing but not fully justified. The paper asserts in Section 2.1 that the oscillators a,b are gauge-invariant, but under the gauge transformation in Eq. (B.17) the covariant momentum shifts inhomogeneously, so linear combinations a,b and products such as D=i hbar(a^dagger b^dagger-ab+1) do not transform covariantly unless nontrivial cancellations occur. Appendix B proves the covariant transformation (B.14) only for J3 and D, and only by direct computation. No analogous argument is given for P_mu or for the non-polynomial K_plus and K_minus of Eq. (2.28), even though these operators are used in the GMT construction of Section 4 and in the CZ identification of Section 6. The author should either prove (B.14) for each reverted operator, including K_plus and K_minus, or state the precise class of operators for which the reverting prescription is valid.
  3. [Sec. 4.2 and Sec. 5] The paper describes the construction as 'generic' and introduces two free parameters phi and L, but only the cases phi=0, phi=1, and phi=2 are realized. The general admissibility conditions on phi and L are not analyzed; in particular, it is not shown that solutions of the strict GMT conditions (4.17)-(4.20) exist for arbitrary phi beyond the examples. Please clarify whether a classification of admissible (phi,L) is intended or whether the examples are meant to be exhaustive.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (2.44)] Equation (2.44) contains an incomplete expression: 'D^2 = sum_{i=1}^3 = D_3^2 + ...' is missing the summed operator D_i^2 on the right-hand side.
  2. [Eq. (B.17)] Equation (B.17) is not consistent with the gauge transformation conventions in Eqs. (B.1)-(B.3): it reads 'pi'_i = pi - i hbar partial Lambda', which appears to be missing the index on pi and has a sign/factor mismatch with the transformation defined earlier. Please correct the notation.
  3. [Sec. 3.3] The temporary sign reversal of xi introduced before Eq. (3.35) is confusing because later equations in the same section appear to revert to the earlier convention without an explicit statement. A short summary box listing the two sign conventions and the corresponding phase formulas would improve readability.
  4. [Sec. 6, Eq. (6.16)] The operator Delta is included in Eqs. (6.13)-(6.15) but is then set to zero at the end of Section 6 without discussing whether this is a restriction on the CZ representation or on the duality interpretation. Please state explicitly the role of Delta and why it may be omitted.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

The central claim that CZ generators are GMTs reduces in Eq. (6.16) to the definition of 'broad GMT'; the underlying algebra is otherwise independent.

  1. self definitional [Section 6, Eq. (6.16), together with Eq. (5.16) and Eqs. (6.11)-(6.12)]
    "Therefore, \hat t^{(k)}_n (6.11) is a broad GMT with phi = 0 (or one direction separated from phi = 2) by (5.16) and (5.18), and we have: \hat t^{(k)}_n = T_lambda( \tilde B_mu ) = \hat T_lambda[ Theta_mu ], (mu = theta, tau, +/-), (6.16)."

    At Eq. (5.16) the paper defines the broad-GMT object as \hat T_R[Theta^mu] := exp((i/hbar) R . Theta^mu). Equation (6.11) rewrites the known CZ differential operator \hat t^{(k)}_n as exactly this form, exp((i/hbar) lambda . Theta), with Theta chosen to match the target operator, and Eq. (6.12) fixes lambda accordingly. Identifying this Theta with the Theta^mu of (5.9)-(5.11) therefore makes the equality in (6.16) true by the definition of broad GMT, rather than by an independent derivation of CZ generators from so(3,1) structure. The non-definitional residue is only the commutator check [Theta_i,Theta_j] = -i hbar^2/l_B^2 eps_ij, which reproduces the FFZ phase; that is an algebra verification, not a prediction from first principles.

full rationale

Sections 2-5 construct gauge-invariant so(3,1) generators and the GMT composition laws from explicit operator definitions and commutation relations; these steps are not circular and do not invoke fitted parameters or author-imposed uniqueness theorems. The reverting transformation of Section 2.1 and Appendix A is a stated construction principle, and Section 4's GMT is defined as a function of the gauge-covariant guiding-center beta. The paper's central overreach is in Section 6: once 'broad GMT' is defined at (5.16) as any exponential of the form exp((i/hbar) R . Theta), the assertion that the known CZ operator is a GMT is a definitional embedding. The lambda in (6.12) is reverse-engineered so that the CZ exponent becomes the GMT exponent, and Eq. (6.16) simply asserts the equality that (5.16) makes true by definition. This partial circularity is scored at 5 rather than higher because the GMT algebra and the gauge-invariant sim(2) realization have independent content, and the FFZ symmetry interpretation is a dictionary between two known symmetries rather than a fabricated input. The self-citations [18]-[20] supply the differential operator input (6.1), but this is a standard CZ/FFZ representation, so it is not a load-bearing uniqueness claim. Note that the skeptic's factor-of-two discrepancy in the mu=+/- identification is an algebraic correctness issue, not a circularity, and is therefore not counted in this score.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central construction rests on standard Landau algebra, a heuristic 'reverting transformation' principle, and a coordinate reparametrization in Section 6. Two hand-chosen parameters (ϕ and L) define the generalized GMT family, but the physical case fixes them to 1 and lB^2. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • phi (ϕ) = unspecified (examples: 0, 1, 2)
    Dimensionless parameter in the generalized commutation relations (4.17)-(4.20); chosen by hand to define the GMT family, with ϕ=1 reproducing the physical MT. It is not fitted to data.
  • L = unspecified (examples: lB^2)
    Constant with dimension length^2 introduced in (4.24)-(4.25) to set the scale of the GMT exponent; set to lB^2 in the physical case.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Standard Landau problem commutation relations (A.4)-(A.9): [πi,πj]=-iℏ^2/lB^2 εij, [βi,βj]=ilB^2 εij, etc.
    The entire framework is built on the Landau problem algebra; these are standard results.
  • ad hoc to paper Reverting transformation principle: gauge-invariant operators are obtained by expressing symmetric-gauge operators in terms of harmonic oscillators a,b built from π, then rewriting in any gauge.
    State in Section 2.1 and Appendix A.2; it is the method that constructs P, D, J3, Kµ and GMT, but it is a heuristic, not a theorem.
  • domain assumption Gauge-function linearity (3.7)-(3.8): ξ(x,R) is linear in R and additive in x for lattice translations.
    Used to derive the general MT composition and commutation rules in Section 3.3.
  • domain assumption Holomorphic reparametrization z=e^{τ±iθ} maps the CZ operators to generators on a cylinder.
    Section 6 uses this coordinate mapping; assumes the CZ operators act on holomorphic functions and that the branch choice is harmless.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gauge Invariant and Generic Formulation of Magnetic Translations and so(3,1) Curtright-Zachos Generators." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7FP63BKA

@misc{pith2026250709277,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gauge Invariant and Generic Formulation of Magnetic Translations and so(3,1) Curtright-Zachos Generators},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7FP63BKA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.09277}
}
read the original abstract

We propose a gauge-invariant formulation of magnetic translation (GMT) operators, eliminating the gauge dependence that conventional definitions suffer from due to specific gauge choices. We extend this framework by incorporating so(3,1) conformal symmetry, demonstrating how GMT operators can be naturally embedded within this algebraic structure. We then show the fundamental role of sim(2) duality between pseudo-dilatation and pseudo-angular momentum operators in constructing GMT operators. A key result of this approach is the derivation of the Curtright-Zachos (CZ) generators from gauge-invariant so(3,1) operators, providing a novel perspective on their algebraic properties such as the relationship between FFZ internal symmetry and sim(2) duality.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R. E. Prange and S. M. Girvin (eds.), ”The Quantum Hall Effe ct”, Springer-Verlag New York Inc. (1987), DOI:10.1007/978-1-4684-0499-9

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-0499-9 1987

  2. [2]

    Yoshioka, ”The Quantum Hall Effect”, Springer (2002), DOI:10.1007/978-3-662-05016-3

    D. Yoshioka, ”The Quantum Hall Effect”, Springer (2002), DOI:10.1007/978-3-662-05016-3

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-662-05016-3 2002

  3. [3]

    A Short Survey of Noncommutative Geometry

    A. Connes, ”Noncommutative Geometry”, Academic Press ( 1994); ”A short survey of noncommuta- tive geometry”, J. Math. Phys. 41 (2000) 3832-3866, DOI:10.1063/1.533329 , (arXiv:hep-th/0003006); A. Connes and M. Marcolli, ”Noncommutative Geometry, quant um fields and motives”, Colloquium Publications (American Mathematical Society) Vol. 55, Hin dustan Book Ag...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2000

  4. [4]

    Szabo, ”Quantum field theory on noncommutative spac es”, Phys

    R.J. Szabo, ”Quantum field theory on noncommutative spac es”, Phys. Rep. 378 (2003) 207- 299, DOI:10.1016/S0370-1573(03)00059-0 , (arXiv:hep-th/0109162); A. Konechny, A. Schwarz, ”In- troduction to M(atrix) theory and noncommutative geometry ”, Phys. Rep. 360 (2002) 353-465, DOI:10.1016/S0370-1573(01)00096-5 , (arXiv:hep-th/0012145)

    arXiv 2003

  5. [5]

    Kassel, ”Quantum Groups”, Springer New York (1995), DOI:10.1007/978-1-4612-0783-2 ; V

    C. Kassel, ”Quantum Groups”, Springer New York (1995), DOI:10.1007/978-1-4612-0783-2 ; V. Chari and A. Pressley, ”A Guide to Quantum Groups”, Cambridge Univ ersity Press (1994), ISBN: 978-0-521- 43305-1

    doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-0783-2 1995

  6. [6]

    Ginsparg, ”Applied Conformal Field Theory”, in: Fiel ds, Strings and Critical Phenomena, (Les Houches, Session XLIX, 1988) ed

    P. Ginsparg, ”Applied Conformal Field Theory”, in: Fiel ds, Strings and Critical Phenomena, (Les Houches, Session XLIX, 1988) ed. by E. Br´ ezin and J. Zin n-Justin, Elsevier Science (1989), DOI:10.48550/arXiv.hep-th/9108028 , arXiv:hep-th/9108028

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.hep-th/9108028 1989

  7. [7]

    J. D. Qualls, ”Lectures on Conformal Field Theory”, DOI:10.48550/arXiv.1511.04074 , arXiv:1511.04074 [hep-th]

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1511.04074

  8. [8]

    A.Cappelli, G.V.Dunne, C.A.Trugenberger, G.R.Zemba, ”Conformal Symmetry and Universal Proper- ties of Quantum Hall States”, Nucl. Phys. B398 (1993) 531, DOI:10.1016/0550-3213(93)90603-M

    work page doi:10.1016/0550-3213(93)90603-m 1993

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Landau and E.M

    L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshitz, ”Quantum Mechanics: Non- Relativistic Theory”, Pergamon Press (1958); L.D. Landau, ”Diamagnetismus der Metalle”, Zeitsc hrift f¨ ur Physik,64 (1930) 629

    1958

  2. [10]

    Zak, ”Magnetic translation group”, Phys

    J. Zak, ”Magnetic translation group”, Phys. Rev. 134 (1964) A1602. DOI:10.1103/PhysRev.134.A1602 ; ”Magnetic translation group. II. Irreducible representat ions”, ibid. A1607. DOI:10.1103/PhysRev.134.A1607

    1964 doi

  3. [11]

    Herzog-Arbeitman, A

    J. Herzog-Arbeitman, A. Chew and B. A. Bernevig, ”Magne tic Bloch Theorem and Reen- trant Flat Bands in Twisted Bilayer Graphene at 2 π Flux”, Phys. Rev. B106 (2022) 085140, DOI:10.1103/PhysRevB.106.085140 , arXiv:2206.07717 [cond-mat.mes-hall]; Y.-M. Lu, Y. Ran a nd M. 32 Osh...

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Chen, X.-F

    X.-S. Chen, X.-F. L¨ u, W.-M. Sun, F. Wang, and T. Goldman , ”Spin and orbital angular momentum in gauge theories: Nucleon spin structure and multipole radia tion revisited”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, (2008) 232002, DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.232002 , arXiv:0806.3166 [hep-ph]; ”D...

    2008 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Kitadono, M

    Y. Kitadono, M. Wakamatsu, P.-M. Zhang, ”The issue of ga uge choice in the Landau problem and the physics of canonical and mechanical orbital angular moment a”, Annals of Physics 392 (2018) 287-322, DOI:10.1016/j.aop.2018.03.019 , arXiv:1709.09766v2 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Kitadono, M

    Y. Kitadono, M. Wakamatsu, P.-M. Zhang, L. Zou, ”Role of guiding center in Landau level system and mechanical and pseudo orbital angular momenta”, Int. Jour. Mod. Phys. A35 (2020) 2050096, DOI:10.1142/S0217751X20500967 , arXiv:1905.07569v2 [quant-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  7. [15]

    forgotten

    G. Konstantinou and K. Moulopoulus, ”Generators of dyn amical symmetries and the correct gauge transformation in the Landau level problem: Use of pseudomo mentum and pseudo-angular momen- tum”, Eur. J. Phys. 37 (2016) 065401; DOI:10.1088/0143-0807/37/6/065401 ; The “forgotten”...

    2016 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Curtright and C

    T. Curtright and C. Zachos, ”Deforming maps for quantum algebras”, Phys. Lett. B243 (1990) 237. DOI:10.1016/0370-2693(90)90845-W

    1990 doi

  9. [17]

    Fairlie, P

    D.B. Fairlie, P. Fletcher and C.K. Zachos, ”Trigonomet ric structure constants for new infinite- dimensional algebras”, Phys. Lett. B218 (1989) 203, DOI:10.1016/0370-2693(89)91418-4 ; ”Infinite- dimensional algebras and trigonometric basis for the class ical Lie algebras”, J. Ma...

    1989 doi

  10. [18]

    Sato, ”Curtright-Zachos Supersymmetric Deforma tions of the Virasoro algebra in Quantum Superspace and Bloch Electron Systems”, Phys

    H-T. Sato, ”Curtright-Zachos Supersymmetric Deforma tions of the Virasoro algebra in Quantum Superspace and Bloch Electron Systems”, Phys. Lett. B861 (2025) 139255, DOI:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139255 , arXiv:2411.04886 [hep-th]; ”Quantum Superspace and Bloc h Electron Systems ...

    2025

  11. [19]

    Sato, ”Moyal product and Generalized Hom-Lie-Vi rasoro symmetries in Bloch electron systems”, Nucl

    H.-T. Sato, ”Moyal product and Generalized Hom-Lie-Vi rasoro symmetries in Bloch electron systems”, Nucl. Phys. B1006 (2024) 116639, DOI:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2024.116639 , arXiv:2406:15830 [hep-th]

    2024

  12. [20]

    Aizawa and H.-T

    N. Aizawa and H.-T. Sato, ”Hom-Lie-Virasoro symmetrie s in Bloch electron systems and quantum plane in tight binding models”, Nucl. Phys. B995 (2023) 116336, DOI:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2023.116336 ; Erratum, Nucl. Phys. B998 (2024) 116422, DOI:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2023.116422 , ar...

    2023

  13. [21]

    Hartwig, D

    J.T. Hartwig, D. Larsson and S.D. Silvestrov, ”Deforma tions of Lie algebras using σ-derivations”, J. Algebra 295 (2006) 314, DOI:10.1016/j.jalgebra.2005.07.036 , (arXiv:math/0408064 [math.QA])

    2006 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Larsson and S.D

    D. Larsson and S.D. Silvestrov, ”Quasi-hom-Lie algebr as, central extensions and 2-cocycle-like identi- ties”, J. Algebra 288 (2005) 321, DOI:10.1016/j.jalgebra.2005.02.032 , (arXiv:math/0408061)

    2005 arXiv

  15. [23]

    A. Makhlouf and S.Silvestrov, ”Note on formal deformat ions of Hom-associative and Hom-Lie algebras”, Forum Mathematics 22 (2010) 715, DOI:10.1515/forum.2010.040 , (arXiv:0712.3130v1 [math.RA])

    2010 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Aizawa and H

    N. Aizawa and H. Sato, ” q-deformation of the Virasoro algebra with central extensio n”, Phys. Lett. B256 (1991) 185. DOI:10.1016/0370-2693(91)90671-C

    1991 doi

  17. [25]

    Narganes-Quijiano, ”Cyclic representations of a q-deformation of the Virasoro algebra”, J

    F.J. Narganes-Quijiano, ”Cyclic representations of a q-deformation of the Virasoro algebra”, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 24 (1991) 593. DOI:10.1088/0305-4470/24/3/017

    1991 doi

  18. [26]

    H-T.Sato, ”Deformation of super Virasoro algebra in no ncommutative quantum superspace”, Phys. Lett. B415 (1997) 170, DOI:10.1016/S0370-2693(97)01228-8 , (arXiv:hep-th/9709047)

    1997 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Aizawa T

    N. Aizawa T. Kobayashi and H-T. Sato, ”Notes on Curtrigh t-Zachos deformations of osp(1,2) and super Virasoro algebras”, Int. Jour. Mod. Phys. A12 (1997) 5867, DOI:10.1142/S0217751X97003078 , (arXiv:hep-th/9706176)

    1997 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Cappelli and L

    A. Cappelli and L. Maffi, ”W-infinity symmetry in the quant um hall effect beyond the edge”, J. High Energy Phys. 2021 (2021) 120, DOI:10.1007/JHEP05(2021)120 , (arXiv:2103.04163[hep-th])

    2021 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Girvin, A.H

    S.M. Girvin, A.H. MacDonald and P.M. Platzman, ”Magnet o-roton theory of collective excitatons in the fractional quantum Hall effect”, Phys. Rev. B33 (1986) 2481. DOI:10.1103/PhysRevB.33.2481

    1986 doi

  22. [30]

    Cappelli, C.A

    A. Cappelli, C.A. Trugenberger and G.R. Zemba, ”Infinit e Symmetry in the Quantum Hall Effect”, Nucl. Phys. B396 (1993) 465, DOI:10.1142/S0217751X92003203 , (arXiv:hep-th/9206027)

    1993 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Cappelli, C.A

    A. Cappelli, C.A. Trugenberger and G.R. Zemba, ”Large N limit in the Quantum Hall Effect”, Phys. Lett. B306 (1993) 100, DOI:10.1016/0370-2693(93)91144-C , (arXiv:hep-th/9303030)

    1993 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Jellal and H-T

    A. Jellal and H-T. Sato, ”FFZ realization of the deforme d super Virasoro algebra - Chaichian-Presnajder type”, Phys. Lett. B483 (2000) 451, DOI:10.1016/S0370-2693(00)00603-1 , (arXiv:hep-th/0003268)

    2000 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Kemmoku and H-T.Sato, ”Deformed fields and Moyal cons truction of deformed super Virasoro algebra”, Nucl

    R. Kemmoku and H-T.Sato, ”Deformed fields and Moyal cons truction of deformed super Virasoro algebra”, Nucl. Phys. B595 (2001) 689, DOI:10.1016/S0550-3213(00)00610-6 , (arXiv:hep-th/0007122)

    2001 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Shabir, A.A

    A. Shabir, A.A. Khan, J.Q. Quach, S.S. Wani, M. Faizal an d S. Rubab, ”Quantum deformation of cubic string field theory”, Int. Jour. Mod. Phys. A39 (2024) 2450062, DOI:10.48550/arXiv.2204.12644 , arXiv:2204.12644 [hep-th]

    2024 doi arXiv

  27. [35]

    P.D.Alvarez, J.Gomis, K.Kamimura, M.S.Plyushchay, ” Anisotropic harmonic oscillator, non- commutative Landau problem and exotic Newton–Hooke symmet ry”, Phys. Lett. B659 (2008) 906, DOI:10.1016/j.physletb.2007.12.016

    2008 doi

  28. [36]

    C. Ke, K. Yang and C. Wu, ”Electric Space-time Translati on and Floquet-Bloch Wavefunction”, arXiv:2409.15851v2 [cond-mat.mes-hall], DOI:10.48550/arXiv.2409.15851

    doi arXiv

  29. [37]

    Ahn and M

    C. Ahn and M. H. Kim, ”A supersymmetric w1+∞ symmetry, the extended supergravity and the celestial holography”, arXiv:2501.11471 [hep-th], DOI:10.48550/arXiv.2501.11471 34

    doi arXiv

  30. [1088]

    Fairlie and C.K

    DOI:10.1063/1.528788 ; D.B. Fairlie and C.K. Zachos, ”Infinite-dimensional algebr as, sine brackets, and SU( ∞)”, Phys. Lett. B224 (1989) 101. DOI:10.1016/0370-2693(89)91057-5

    1989 doi

Pith tools

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