Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 25 references

Pseudodifferential Weyl calculus on vector bundles

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 The paper develops a coordinate-invariant Weyl calculus for operators on vector bundles over pseudo-Riemannian manifolds, with an explicit star product expansion to third order in the semiclassical parameter.

desk verdict A careful, useful vector-bundle extension of the geometric Weyl calculus, whose headline third-order star-product expansion needs independent verification because a claimed sign correction to DLS20 is load-bearing and currently unchecked. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.11965 v2 pith:FZI5A6J2 submitted 2025-07-16 math-ph gr-qcmath.APmath.DGmath.MP

Lars Andersson , Benjamin Moser , Marius A. Oancea , Claudio F. Paganini , Gabriel Schmid This is my paper
classification math-phgr-qcmath.APmath.DGmath.MP MSC 58J4035S0553D5581Q20
keywords Weylquantizationstarproductpseudodifferentialoperatorsvectorbundlespseudo-RiemannianmanifoldsMoyalequationWignerfunctionholonomy
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 aims to build a coordinate-invariant Weyl calculus for pseudodifferential operators acting on sections of vector bundles over pseudo-Riemannian manifolds. The central object is a star product on bundle-valued symbols, defined through a Wigner function that uses parallel transport and the van Vleck–Morette density. The paper proves that the quantization is well defined modulo smoothing operators, that the star product is associative with an explicit expansion to third order in the semiclassical parameter, and that the new terms involve the Riemann curvature together with the bundle curvature and its derivatives. A sympathetic reader would care because this gives a phase-space language for physically important bundle-valued fields—Dirac, Maxwell, linearized Yang–Mills, and linearized Einstein—on curved backgrounds, with real symbols corresponding to formally self-adjoint operators.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the star product formula of Theorem 3.1, written as an oscillatory integral over pairs of tangent and cotangent vectors at a point $z$, with a geometric prefactor $\Lambda(z,u_1,u_2)$ built from van Vleck–Morette determinants and a holonomy factor $H_z(\nabla^{\pi^*F})$ that parallel transports the middle fiber around the geodesic loop $z\to z+v_2\to z+\tilde w\to z+v_1\to z$. The asymptotic expansion of the star product is obtained by expanding $\Lambda$, the geodesic triangle vectors, and the holonomy; the holonomy expansion $H_z = \mathrm{Id} + F_{\alpha\beta}u_1^\alpha u_2^\beta + \tfrac12 F_{\alpha\beta;\gamma}u_1^\alpha u_2^\beta(u_1+u_2)^\gamma+\cdots$ is what injects the bundle curvature and its derivatives into the coefficient symbols. Horizontal and vertical covariant derivatives on the pullback bundle organize the derivatives of the symbols, with Lemma 2.1 converting $u$-derivatives into symmetrized horizontal derivatives.

What would settle it

On a simple model—for example a constant-curvature bundle connection over $\mathbb{R}^2$ or the tangent bundle of the round sphere—compute the composition of two explicit Weyl quantized operators by direct integration and compare the $\epsilon^2$ coefficient with the prediction $-\frac14 a_{\alpha_1}F^{\alpha_1\alpha_2}b_{\alpha_2}$ from Proposition 3.3; a mismatch would locate the failure in the holonomy expansion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the geometric Weyl quantization defined in its Definition 3.2 is a genuine calculus for bundle-valued symbols: it sends every symbol class to pseudodifferential operators modulo smoothing, and composition of operators becomes an associative star product on symbols. Its Proposition 3.3 computes that star product through order $\epsilon^3$. In addition to the scalar geometric terms known from earlier constructions, the expansion contains bundle-curvature terms of the form $-\frac14 a_{\alpha_1} F^{\alpha_1\alpha_2} b_{\alpha_2}$ at order $\epsilon^2$ and third-order terms built from $F$ and its covariant derivative; these come from the holonomy of the bundle connection around a small geodesic loop. The paper also establishes that a symbol is formally self-adjoint exactly when its Weyl quantization is, modulo smoothing, and that a section solves $\hat D\Phi=0$ precisely when its Wigner function satisfies the Moyal equation $d\star W[\Phi,\Phi]\in S^{-\infty}$ with vanishing fiber integral. Explicit Weyl symbols are then computed for the Dirac, Maxwell, linearized Yang–Mills, and linearized Einstein operators.

Load-bearing premise

The new bundle-curvature terms stand entirely on the claim that the coincidence limits (A.13)–(A.15) for covariant derivatives of the parallel transport operator are complete, with no missing contributions at the orders used; if that holonomy expansion is off by a term, the $F$-dependent coefficients in Proposition 3.3 are wrong.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every second-order differential operator on a vector bundle over a pseudo-Riemannian manifold now has a covariant, coordinate-independent Weyl symbol, with explicit formulas for the wave, Dirac, Maxwell, linearized Yang–Mills, and linearized Einstein operators.
  • Formal self-adjointness is visible at the symbol level: a symbol equals its adjoint precisely when its quantized operator does, up to smoothing, which transfers Hermiticity questions to a purely algebraic computation.
  • The Moyal equation gives a phase-space characterization of solutions: $\hat D\Phi=0$ is equivalent to $d\star W[\Phi,\Phi]$ being smoothing and its fiber integral vanishing, so Wigner-function methods transfer to curved backgrounds with bundle structure.
  • The star product expansion is computable to arbitrary order by the same systematic procedure, so higher-order corrections in $\epsilon$ can be generated without new conceptual input.
  • At $\gamma=\tfrac12$ in the scalar case the new expansion reduces to the known scalar Weyl calculus, up to a sign correction recorded in Remark 3.2, so the bundle construction is a genuine extension rather than a competing scheme.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The curvature terms at order $\epsilon^2$ should shift wave-packet centroid dynamics in a measurable way: an Egorov-type transport equation derived from this star product would show a bundle-dependent velocity correction proportional to brackets of the form $\{a, F b\}$, generalizing spin Hall effects to arbitrary internal degrees of freedom.
  • Because the star product depends on the connection only through $F$ and its covariant derivatives, any two connections with the same curvature should produce the same calculus modulo smoothing; this suggests a gauge-invariance statement the paper does not state explicitly.
  • The $\tau$-quantization relation in Proposition 3.2 links different operator orderings to a gauge transformation of the star product, so the balanced $\tau=\tfrac12$ choice should be the gauge in which the commutator trace vanishes to all orders, a check that could be made by comparing trace functionals directly.
  • The same holonomy expansion could be tested numerically: discretizing parallel transport around small loops on a sphere with a known connection gives an independent check of the coincidence limits (A.13)–(A.15) and thus of the third-order coefficients.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a geometric Weyl calculus for pseudodifferential operators acting on sections of vector bundles over pseudo-Riemannian manifolds. It defines a Wigner function and Weyl quantization using parallel transport and a van Vleck–Morette determinant with a free exponent gamma, introduces the corresponding star product, and computes the asymptotic expansion of the star product up to third order in the semiclassical parameter. The expansion contains terms involving the Riemann curvature and the bundle curvature F and its derivatives, which constitute the main new content beyond the scalar case treated by DLS20. The paper also proves a correspondence between formally self-adjoint symbols and formally self-adjoint operators modulo smoothing, discusses a Moyal equation for the Wigner function, and computes Weyl symbols for the scalar wave, Dirac, Maxwell, linearized Yang–Mills, and linearized Einstein operators.

Significance. If correct, the construction provides a coordinate-invariant phase-space calculus for bundle-valued fields, which is directly relevant to semiclassical analysis and to physical applications such as spin Hall effects and chiral kinetic theory in curved spacetime. The paper's strengths are its explicit, constructive definitions; its use of the flat-space Moyal product and the DLS20 scalar limit as external benchmarks; and the concreteness of the star-product formulas, which are falsifiable by direct computation. The main risk is that the load-bearing third-order expansion and the holonomy expansion on which it rests are long computations that the manuscript does not fully expose, and the paper explicitly asserts a sign correction to DLS20 without an independent derivation. The central construction is well motivated and appears defensible, but the scalar baseline needs to be verified before the bundle-dependent terms can be trusted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Proposition 3.3 and Remark 3.2] The claimed sign misprint in the DLS20 third-order term is load-bearing but is not independently verified in the manuscript. The proof of Proposition 3.3 presents the final result of a long combinatorial expansion, and Eqs. (3.47) and (3.48) do not isolate the specific term proportional to (i/48) R^β_{α1α2α3} p_β that Remark 3.2 says has the wrong sign in DLS20. Since the scalar limit is the baseline check for the entire expansion, please either display a self-contained derivation of that term from Eq. (3.40) or provide an explicit comparison with the published DLS20 computation and, if possible, a computer-algebra verification.
  2. [Remark 5.1, Eq. (5.28)] The internal consistency check at order ε^2 is not usable as written because it states F^ν_{μ αβ} = R^ν_{μ αβ} for the cotangent bundle, whereas the curvature convention in Eq. (2.2) gives F^ν_{μ αβ} = -R^ν_{μ αβ}. With the sign stated in the remark, the substitution into Eq. (5.28) does not reproduce the scalar wave symbol; the calculation works only with the opposite sign. Please correct this sign convention error and, if feasible, extend the check to the F-dependent terms at order ε^3.
  3. [Appendix A.2, Eqs. (A.13)–(A.18)] The holonomy expansion is the source of all new bundle-curvature terms in Proposition 3.3, but the derivation is incomplete at exactly the orders used. The third-order coincidence limits (A.15) are stated without derivation, the expansion of H2 is summarized as following similar steps, and the final combination (A.18) is not shown. Because a sign or factor error in this expansion would propagate directly into the main new content, please supply the missing intermediate steps or a verifiable computer-algebra derivation of Eq. (A.18).
minor comments (3)
  1. [Proposition 3.2, Eqs. (3.14)–(3.15)] Please clarify whether the coefficients f_β(z) include the factorial 1/β! from the Taylor expansion of the van Vleck–Morette factor; the notation Δ ∼ Σ u^β f_β(z) is ambiguous without this convention.
  2. [Abstract and Proposition 4.1] The abstract says 'one-to-one correspondence', but Proposition 4.1 is stated modulo smoothing symbols and smoothing operators; please qualify the claim to avoid overstating the result.
  3. [Throughout] Several displayed formulas, for example Eq. (5.28) and the third-order coefficient (3.36d), are typeset without parentheses in expressions such as '3−4γ/12', which makes the reading ambiguous; these should be set as (3−4γ)/12.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the star-product expansion is derived from the geometric quantization definition, with no fitted parameters or self-citation chain carrying the central claim.

full rationale

The central claim (Proposition 3.3) is obtained by expanding Eq. (3.40): the operator (1 + sum i^k eps^k (...)) applied to Lambda * E * A * H * B, with Lambda and E recalled from DLS20, vector expansions (A.2) taken from DLS20, and the holonomy H expanded in Appendix A.2 from parallel-transport coincidence limits (A.13)-(A.15) obtained via Synge's rule and the bundle Bianchi identity. No parameter is fitted to any target datum; the van Vleck-Morette exponent gamma is left free. The flat-space limit reproduces the Moyal product and the scalar limit is benchmarked against DLS20, both of which are external checks rather than inputs. Self-citations such as [And+21], [AO23], [OK23], [Oan+20], and [OSZ24a,b] appear only as application motivation and do not supply the expansion or the proof. The asserted sign misprint in DLS20 (Remark 3.2) is a correctness question, not circularity: the paper's sign is a claim about an external computation, not a consequence of assuming the target result. The only internal consistency check (Remark 5.1) carries a sign-convention typo (F^nu_mu alpha beta = R^nu_mu alpha beta instead of -R), but this is an error-risk flag, not a reduction of a prediction to its input. No load-bearing step invokes a same-author uniqueness theorem to forbid alternatives, and no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction. The derivation chain is self-contained apart from standard recalled geometric expansions and external references.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

One free parameter (the van Vleck-Morette exponent gamma) is carried through the construction; it changes the quantization but is not fitted to data. The framework relies on standard pseudodifferential and geometric background, plus domain assumptions about convex neighborhoods and the specific bundles/spacetimes in the examples. No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • gamma (van Vleck-Morette exponent) = arbitrary real parameter; gamma=1/2 preferred
    Introduced in Definition 3.1 as the power of the van Vleck-Morette determinant in the Wigner function. All later formulas depend on it, e.g., star product coefficients contain factors (3-4gamma); the paper keeps it free and notes gamma=1/2 is favored by DLS20 and Fulling.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Pseudodifferential operator calculus on manifolds (symbol classes S^k, oscillatory integrals, Schwartz kernel theorem, properly supported operators).
    Used throughout Section 2.4 and in Lemma 3.1 and the proof of Theorem 3.1 to justify that the Weyl quantization is a PsiDO and that compositions are well-defined modulo smoothing.
  • domain assumption Existence of geodesically convex neighborhoods of the diagonal and a cut-off chi equal to 1 near the diagonal; global version requires a globally geodesically convex manifold.
    Used in Definition 3.1, Proposition 3.1 and Remark 4.4; the Wigner function and quantization depend on this locality assumption, with global statements only on convex manifolds.
  • standard math Parallel transport along geodesics and the van Vleck-Morette determinant satisfy formula (2.7) and Lemma 2.1 (Sharafutdinov) for horizontal derivatives.
    Basis for converting u-derivatives into covariant derivatives in the star product expansion and in Proposition 5.1; cited from Sha05a and Vis93.
  • standard math Synge's rule, bundle Bianchi identity, and the Vines-Nichols holonomy expansion along geodesic loops.
    Used in Appendix A.2 to derive the coincidence limits (A.13)-(A.15) and the holonomy expansion (A.18) that generates the bundle curvature terms in the star product.
  • domain assumption For the examples: existence of spin structure (Dirac), vacuum Einstein equations with cosmological constant (linearized Einstein), and trivial principal bundle for Yang-Mills.
    Assumed in Examples 5.2, 5.4, 5.5 to define the operators whose Weyl symbols are computed; these are physical modeling assumptions, not part of the core calculus.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pseudodifferential Weyl calculus on vector bundles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FZI5A6J2

@misc{pith2026250711965,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pseudodifferential Weyl calculus on vector bundles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FZI5A6J2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.11965}
}
read the original abstract

We develop a geometric framework for Weyl quantization on pseudo-Riemannian manifolds, in which pseudodifferential operators act on sections of vector bundles equipped with pseudo-Hermitian metrics and compatible connections. We construct the associated star product and compute its semiclassical expansion up to third order in the semiclassical parameter. A central feature of our approach is a correspondence, modulo smoothing remainders, between formally self-adjoint symbols and formally self-adjoint operators, extending known results from flat space to curved geometries. In addition, we analyze the Moyal equation satisfied by the Wigner function in this setting and provide explicit computations of Weyl symbols for several physically significant operators, including the Dirac, Maxwell, linearized Yang-Mills, and linearized Einstein operators. Our results lay the foundation for future developments in quantum field theory on curved spacetimes, semiclassical analysis, and chiral kinetic theory.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Propagation of polarized gravitational waves

    [And+21] L. Andersson et al. “Propagation of polarized gravitational waves”. In: Phys. Rev. D 103.4, 044053 (2021). arXiv: 2012.08363 [gr-qc]. [AO23] L. Andersson and M. A. Oancea. “Spin Hall effects in the sky”. In: Class. Quant. Grav. 40.15, 154002 (2023). arXiv: 2302.13634 [gr-qc]. [Aud81] J. Audretsch. “Trajectories and spin motion of massive spin- 1 ...

    arXiv 2021

  2. [5]

    Les operateurs de Calder´ on-Zygmund precises

    Hilbert Space Operators , 21–52 (1970). [BU64] J. Bokobza and A. Unterberger. “Les operateurs de Calder´ on-Zygmund precises”. In: C. R. Acad. Sc. Paris 259, 1612–1614 (1964). [Bok69] J. Bokobza-Haggiag. “Op´ erateurs pseudo-diff´ erentiels sur une vari´ et´ e diff´ erentiable”. In: Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 19.1, 125–177 (1969). [Bok11] J. Bokobza-Ha...

    work page 1970

  3. [9]

    Wick rotation of linearized gravity in Gaus- sian time and Calder´ on projectors

    [GMW25] C. G´ erard, S. Murro, and M. Wrochna. “Wick rotation of linearized gravity in Gaus- sian time and Calder´ on projectors”. In: Ann. Henri Poincar´ e(2025). arXiv:

    work page 2025

  4. [16]

    On the global Hadamard parametrix in QFT and the signed squared geodesic distance defined in domains larger than convex normal neighbourhoods

    [Mor21] V. Moretti. “On the global Hadamard parametrix in QFT and the signed squared geodesic distance defined in domains larger than convex normal neighbourhoods”. In: Lett. Math. Phys. 111.130 (2021). arXiv: 2107.04903 [gr-qc]. [Moy49] J. E. Moyal. “Quantum mechanics as a statistical theory”. In: Math. Proc. Camb. Philos. Soc. 45.1, 99–124 (1949). [Muc2...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  5. [19]

    Functions of the Laplace-Beltrami operator

    [Saf96] Y. Safarov. “Functions of the Laplace-Beltrami operator”. In: Journ´ ees´Equations aux d´ eriv´ ees partielles15, 1–8 (1996). [Saf97] Y. Safarov. “Pseudodifferential operators and linear connections”. In: Proc. London Math. Soc. 74.2, 397–416 (1997). [Sch01] W. P. Schleich. Quantum Optics in Phase Space . John Wiley & Sons, Ltd,

    work page 1996

  6. [20]

    Geometric symbol calculus for pseudodifferential operators. I

    [Sha05a] V. A. Sharafutdinov. “Geometric symbol calculus for pseudodifferential operators. I”. In: Siberian Adv. Math. 15.3, 81–125 (2005). Translation of Russian original in Mat. Tr. 7.2, 159–206 (2004). [Sha05b] V. A. Sharafutdinov. “Geometric symbol calculus for pseudodifferential operators. II”. In: Siberian Adv. Math. 15.4, 71–95 (2005). Translation ...

    work page 2005

  7. [47]

    Warped Convolutions, Rieffel Deformations and the Construction of Quantum Field Theories

    C.I.M.E. Summer Schools. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2011, 11–36. [BLS11] D. Buchholz, G. Lechner, and S. J. Summers. “Warped convolutions, Rieffel defor- mations and the construction of quantum field theories”. In: Commun. Math. Phys. 304.1, 95–123 (2011). arXiv: 1005.2656 [math-ph]. [BW00] H. Bursztyn and S. Waldmann. “Deformation quantization of Herm...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2011

  8. [104]

    On the Quantum Correction For Thermodynamic Equilibrium

    New York: Academic Press, 1978, 345-395. [Wig32] E. Wigner. “On the Quantum Correction For Thermodynamic Equilibrium”. In: Phys. Rev. 40.5, 749 (1932). [Yam18] N. Yamamoto. “Spin Hall effect of gravitational waves”. In: Phys. Rev. D 98.6, 061701(R) (2018). arXiv: 1708.03113 [hep-th]. [YP67] K. Yano and E. M. Patterson. “Horizontal Lifts from a Manifold to...

    arXiv 1932

Show all 25 references
  1. [1928]

    Quantenmechanik und Gruppentheorie

    [Wey27] H. Weyl. “Quantenmechanik und Gruppentheorie”. In: Z. Physik 46, 1–46 (1927). [Wid80] H. Widom. “A complete symbol calculus for pseudodifferential operators”. In: Bull. Sci. Math. 104, 19–63 (1980). [Wid78] H. Widom. “Families of pseudodifferential operators”. In: Topi...

    1927

  2. [1980]

    An algebra of pseudo-differential oper- ators and quantum mechanics in phase space

    [GLS68] A. Grossmann, G. Loupias, and E. M. Stein. “An algebra of pseudo-differential oper- ators and quantum mechanics in phase space”. In: Ann. Inst. Fourier 18.2, 343–368 (1968). [GS13] V. Guillemin and S. Sternberg. Semi-classical analysis. Boston: International Press,

    1968

  3. [1982]

    Derivation of Ray Optics Equations in Photonic Crystals via a Semiclassical Limit

    [DL17] G. De Nittis and M. Lein. “Derivation of Ray Optics Equations in Photonic Crystals via a Semiclassical Limit”. In: Ann. Henri Poincar´ e18.5, 1789–1831 (2017). arXiv: 1502.07235 [math-ph]. [Den85] N. Dencker. “The Weyl calculus with locally temperate metrics and weights...

    2017 arXiv

  4. [1989]

    Pseudodifferential operators on manifolds with linearization

    [Lev08] C. Levy. “Pseudodifferential operators on manifolds with linearization”. In: (2008). arXiv: 0811.1667 [math.FA]. [Liu+19] Y.-C. Liu et al. “Chiral kinetic theory in curved spacetime”. In: Phys. Rev. D 99.8, 085014 (2019). arXiv: 1812.10127 [hep-th]. [LMH20] Y.-C. Liu, ...

    2008 arXiv

  5. [1993]

    The Dirac equation and spinning particles in general relativity

    [R¨ ud81] R. R¨ udiger. “The Dirac equation and spinning particles in general relativity”. In: Proc. R. Soc. A: Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 377, 417-424 (1981). [RS17] G. Rudolph and M. Schmidt. Differential Geometry and Mathematical Physics. Part II. Fibre Bundles, Topology and Gau...

    1981

  6. [1994]

    On the principles of elementary quantum mechanics

    [Gro46] H. J. Groenewold. “On the principles of elementary quantum mechanics”. In: Physica 12.7, 405–460 (1946). [Gro+80] S. Groot et al. Relativistic Kinetic Theory: Principles and Applications. North-Holland Publishing Company,

    1946

  7. [1995]

    A Deformation-Theoretical Approach to Weyl Quantization on Rie- mannian Manifolds

    [Pfl98a] M. J. Pflaum. “A Deformation-Theoretical Approach to Weyl Quantization on Rie- mannian Manifolds”. In: Lett. Math. Phys. 45.3, 277–294 (1998). [Pfl98b] M. J. Pflaum. “The normal symbol on Riemannian manifolds”. In: New York J. Math. 4, 97–125 (1998). arXiv: dg-ga/9612...

    1998 arXiv

  8. [1996]

    Pseudo-differential operators and deformation quantization

    [Fed01] B. V. Fedosov. “Pseudo-differential operators and deformation quantization”. In: Quantization of Singular Symplectic Quotients . Ed. by N. Landsman, M. Pflaum, and M. Schlichenmaier. Basel: Birkh¨ auser, 2001, 95–118. [FS00] G. Felder and B. Shoikhet. “Deformation quan...

    2000 arXiv

  9. [2001]

    Chiral kinetic theory

    [SY12] M. A. Stephanov and Y. Yin. “Chiral kinetic theory”. In: Phys. Rev. Lett. 109.16, 162001 (2012). arXiv: 1207.0747 [hep-th]. 37 [Ste98] D. Sternheimer. “Deformation quantization: Twenty years after”. In: AIP Conf. Proc. 453.1, 107–145 (1998). arXiv: 9809056 [math.QA]. [S...

    2012 arXiv

  10. [2007]

    The Weyl calculus of pseudo-differential operators

    [H¨ o79] L. H¨ ormander. “The Weyl calculus of pseudo-differential operators”. In: Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 32.3, 359–443 (1979). 35 [KYY22] K. Kamada, N. Yamamoto, and D.-L. Yang. “Chiral effects in astrophysics and cos- mology”. In: Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., 104016 (2022). ar...

    1979 arXiv

  11. [2010]

    [Wey28] H

    arXiv: 1003.1028 [math.QA]. [Wey28] H. Weyl. Gruppentheorie und Quantenmechanik. (english translation by H. P. Robert- son: The Theory of Groups and Quantum Mechanics , New York: Dover Publications, 1950). Leipzig: S. Hirzel,

    1950 arXiv

  12. [2011]

    Singular integral equations

    [Mik48] S. G. Mikhlin. “Singular integral equations”. In: Uspehi Mat. Nauk 3.25, 29–112 (1948). [MP86] S. G. Mikhlin and S. Pr¨ oßdorf. Singular Integral Operators. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer,

    1948

  13. [2013]

    Pseudodifferential Weyl Calculus on (Pseudo-)Riemannian Manifolds

    [DLS20] J. Derezi´ nski, A. Latosi´ nski, and D. Siemssen. “Pseudodifferential Weyl Calculus on (Pseudo-)Riemannian Manifolds”. In: Ann. Henri Poincar´ e21.5, 1595–1635 (2020). arXiv: 1806.01572 [math-ph]. [Dod+19] I. Y. Dodin et al. “Quasioptical modeling of wave beams with a...

    2020 arXiv

  14. [2014]

    Quantization on a manifold with connection

    [Und78] J. Underhill. “Quantization on a manifold with connection”. In: J. Math. Phys. 19.9, 1932–1935 (1978). [Unt79] A. Unterberger. “Quantification de certains espaces hermitiens sym´ etriques”. In: S´ eminaire´Equations aux d´ eriv´ ees partielles (Polytechnique) dit aussi...

    1978 arXiv

  15. [2017]

    Spin Hall effects and the localization of massless spin- ning particles

    [HO22] A. I. Harte and M. A. Oancea. “Spin Hall effects and the localization of massless spin- ning particles”. In: Phys. Rev. D 105.10, 104061 (2022). arXiv: 2203.01753 [gr-qc]. [Hid+22] Y. Hidaka et al. “Foundations and applications of quantum kinetic theory”. In: Prog. Part...

    2022 arXiv

  16. [2021]

    Fourier Integral Operators, I

    [H¨ o71] L. H¨ ormander. “Fourier Integral Operators, I.” In: Acta Math. 127, 79–183 (1971). [H¨ o65] L. H¨ ormander. “Pseudo-differential operators”. In: Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 18.3, 501–517 (1965). [H¨ o67] L. H¨ ormander. “Pseudo-differential operators and hypoelliptic eq...

    1971

  17. [2204]

    Linear bosonic and fermionic quantum gauge theories on curved spacetimes

    01094 [math-ph]. [HS13] T.-P. Hack and A. Schenkel. “Linear bosonic and fermionic quantum gauge theories on curved spacetimes”. In: Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 45, 877–910 (2013). arXiv: 1205.3484 [math-ph]. [Ham17] M. J. D. Hamilton. Mathematical Gauge Theory. With Applications to ...

    2013 arXiv

Pith tools

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