The reviewed record of science sign in
Pith

arxiv: 2607.06486 · v1 · pith:IVHH2H3O · submitted 2026-07-07 · hep-th

Abelian 2-Form Gauge Theory: Basic Canonical Brackets and Nilpotency Property of Noether (Anti-)BRST Charges

R. P. Malik This is my paper

Reviewed by Pith2026-07-08 04:06 UTCglm-5.2pith:IVHH2H3Oopen to challenge →

classification hep-th PACS 11.15.-q12.20.-m03.70.+k
keywords BRST formalismAbelian 2-form gauge theoryNoether chargesnilpotencyCurci-Ferrari restrictioncanonical quantizationphysicality criteriaDirac quantization conditions
0
0 comments X

The pith

Modified BRST charges fix nilpotency and physicality for Abelian 2-form gauge theory

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

This paper proves that the Noether conserved (anti-)BRST charges for the D-dimensional BRST-quantized free Abelian 2-form gauge theory, while not off-shell invariant by direct application, become nilpotent (Q²=0) and (anti-)BRST invariant when one uses the basic canonical (anti)commutators combined with the Gauss divergence theorem and appropriate equations of motion. Furthermore, consistently modified versions of these charges can be derived that are off-shell (anti-)BRST invariant and lead to physicality criteria consistent with Dirac quantization conditions.

Core claim

The paper establishes that for the Abelian 2-form gauge theory endowed with a non-trivial Curci-Ferrari type restriction, the Noether (anti-)BRST charges serve as generators of the off-shell nilpotent (anti-)BRST symmetry transformations when basic canonical brackets are used, but they are not off-shell invariant. Their nilpotency and invariance can be established only by invoking the Gauss divergence theorem and equations of motion. The paper then derives modified (anti-)BRST charges that are off-shell invariant, and shows that only these modified charges yield physicality conditions consistent with the Dirac quantization conditions for the first-class constraints of the theory.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the interplay between the equal-time basic canonical (anti)commutators, the Gauss divergence theorem applied to spatial volume integrals, and the Euler-Lagrange equations of motion. These three ingredients together convert non-invariant Noether charges into nilpotent and invariant objects, and enable the construction of modified charges that satisfy physicality criteria.

If this is right

  • The distinction between Noether charges (generators but not off-shell invariant) and modified charges (off-shell invariant and physically admissible) provides a template for analyzing BRST quantization in other gauge theories with non-trivial CF-type restrictions.
  • The result extends the analogous findings for the non-Abelian 1-form gauge theory to the Abelian 2-form case, suggesting a structural pattern: whenever a non-trivial CF-type restriction is present, the Noether (anti-)BRST charges require modification to serve as physical operators.
  • The physicality criteria derived from the modified charges correctly reproduce the Dirac conditions (annihilation of physical states by first-class constraints), validating the modified charges as the proper operators for defining the physical subspace.
  • The approach can be tested on the Abelian 3-form gauge theory, where a similar non-trivial CF-type restriction exists, to check whether the same pattern of Noether-vs-modified charge behavior holds.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The dependence on the Gauss divergence theorem means the results hold for field configurations with sufficiently rapid falloff at spatial infinity; topologically non-trivial configurations or boundary charges could alter the conclusions.
  • The fact that the modified charges are non-nilpotent by direct canonical computation (requiring equations of motion and the divergence theorem) suggests a subtle relationship between off-shell nilpotency and the use of on-shell conditions that may warrant further scrutiny in the context of the BRST cohomological structure.
  • If the pattern generalizes, the presence of a non-trivial CF-type restriction in any p-form gauge theory could serve as a diagnostic for whether the naive Noether (anti-)BRST charges fail to be physical and require modification.

Load-bearing premise

The proof of nilpotency and invariance of the Noether charges depends on the Gauss divergence theorem applied to volume integrals, which requires all physical fields to vanish sufficiently rapidly at spatial infinity. This boundary condition is stated but not rigorously justified for all field configurations in the D-dimensional theory.

What would settle it

A field configuration that does not vanish at spatial infinity, or a topologically non-trivial sector with boundary charges, would cause the Gauss divergence theorem step to fail, breaking the nilpotency and invariance proofs.

read the original abstract

Within the framework of Becchi-Rouet-Stora-Tyutin (BRST) formalism, we invoke the beauty of the basic canonical (anti)commutators to prove the nilpotency property of the Noether (anti-)BRST charges for the D-dimensional BRST-quantized version of the free Abelian 2-form gauge theory which is endowed with a non-trivial Curci-Ferrari (CF) type restriction. In this proof, we use only the theoretical strength of the Gauss divergence theorem. We demonstrate that, under the off-shell nilpotent (anti-)BRST symmetry transformations, the Noether conserved (anti-)BRST charges are not invariant and they are also found to be not off-shell nilpotent (if we exploit the standard relationship between the continuous symmetry transformations and their generators as the Noether conserved charges). However, these charges become (anti-)BRST invariant and nilpotent if we use (i) the appropriate equations of motion at suitable places, and (ii) the Gauss divergence theorem. We derive the consistently modified versions of the Noether (anti-)BRST charges which are invariant under the off-shell nilpotent (anti-)BRST transformations. We prove the (anti-)BRST invariance of these modified versions of charges by using the basic canonical (anti)commutators, too. We discuss the physicality criteria w.r.t. (i) the conserved Noether (anti-)BRST charges, and (ii) the modified (anti-)BRST invariant versions of the Noether (anti-)BRST charges. We prove the superiority of the latter over the former (in view of the consistency with the Dirac quantization conditions for the gauge theories).

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the D-dimensional BRST-quantized free Abelian 2-form gauge theory, endowed with a non-trivial CF-type restriction. The author derives the Noether conserved (anti-)BRST charges from coupled Lagrangian densities and establishes, using basic canonical (anti)commutators, that these charges generate the off-shell nilpotent (anti-)BRST symmetry transformations. It is shown that the Noether charges are not off-shell invariant under these transformations. The author then constructs consistently modified (anti-)BRST charges Q_(A)B that are off-shell invariant by direct application of the symmetry transformations, and proves their invariance via canonical brackets (requiring EL-EoM and the Gauss divergence theorem). The nilpotency of the Noether charges is established both through symmetry considerations and through explicit computation of anticommutators using canonical brackets. Physicality criteria are discussed, showing that the modified charges yield conditions consistent with Dirac quantization, whereas the Noether charges do not. Five appendices provide supporting derivations.

Significance. The paper provides a detailed, self-contained algebraic treatment of the canonical structure and charge properties in the BRST-quantized Abelian 2-form gauge theory. The explicit derivation of modified (anti-)BRST charges that are off-shell invariant and yield Dirac-consistent physicality criteria is a useful contribution. The systematic use of basic canonical brackets to verify generator relations, nilpotency, and invariance is a strength. The work extends the author's prior results for the non-Abelian 1-form theory to the Abelian 2-form case with a non-trivial CF-type restriction. The results are falsifiable and the derivations are carried through in explicit detail.

major comments (2)
  1. §4.1–§4.2, Eqs. (27), (36), (47): The modified charge Q_B is shown to be off-shell invariant by direct BRST transformation (s_b Q_B = 0, verified term-by-term without EoM in §4.1). Separately, the bracket computation in §4.2 [Eq. (47)] yields s_b Q_B = -i{Q_B, Q_b} = ∫(∂_i H_{0ij} - (∂_0 B_j - ∂_j B_0))∂_j β, which vanishes only on-shell (using EL-EoM Eq. 21). The generator relation (10) is proven in §3.2 only for fundamental fields, not for composite operators like Q_B. The paper does not explicitly acknowledge that the generator relation (10) fails to extend off-shell to composite operators, which creates an apparent tension between the two proofs of invariance. The author should explicitly state the domain of validity of relation (10) and discuss why the bracket computation requires EoM while the direct computation does not.
  2. §5.1, Eq. (48): The claim that the physicality criterion Q_b|phys> = 0 yields 'absurd' results is stated but the argument is somewhat compressed. The conditions B_i|phys> = 0 and (1/2)H_{0ij}|phys> = 0 are identified as problematic because the latter corresponds to Π^{ij}_{(B)}|phys> = 0, which is not a first-class constraint. The logical step connecting the annihilation by Q_b to these specific conditions deserves more explicit justification, particularly regarding how the ghost-sector terms factor out and why only these specific operator conditions survive.
minor comments (5)
  1. The manuscript contains numerous typographical errors throughout: e.g., 'transmifications' (§4.1), 'summery' (§4.1), 'solume integral' (§6.2), 'oprrators' (§6.2), 'standrad' (Appendix E title), 'bteh' (§6.2), 'whci' (§5.1), 'phsyical' (§5.2). These should be corrected.
  2. §3.2, Eq. (18): There appear to be two entries for s_{ab} β, one giving 0 and another (labeled s_{ab} β̄) giving -λ. The labeling of transformations in Eq. (18) should be checked for consistency with Eq. (2).
  3. The notation Q_{(A)B} vs Q_{(a)b} for modified vs Noether charges is introduced in §4 but the subscript convention could be stated more prominently at first use to aid the reader.
  4. References are predominantly to the author's own work. Broader context citing other treatments of BRST charges for higher-form gauge theories would strengthen the manuscript.
  5. Appendix E, Eq. (E.1): The rules for (anti)commutators with composite operators are standard but the notation F_1, F_2, F_3 for fermionic and B_1, B_2 for bosonic operators could be introduced more clearly before the equations are stated.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful reading and for identifying two points where the manuscript's presentation can be sharpened. Both comments are well-taken and will be addressed in the revised version.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §4.1–§4.2, Eqs. (27), (36), (47): The modified charge Q_B is shown to be off-shell invariant by direct BRST transformation (s_b Q_B = 0, verified term-by-term without EoM in §4.1). Separately, the bracket computation in §4.2 [Eq. (47)] yields s_b Q_B = -i{Q_B, Q_b} = ∫(∂_i H_{0ij} - (∂_0 B_j - ∂_j B_0))∂_j β, which vanishes only on-shell (using EL-EoM Eq. 21). The generator relation (10) is proven in §3.2 only for fundamental fields, not for composite operators like Q_B. The paper does not explicitly acknowledge that the generator relation (10) fails to extend off-shell to composite operators, which creates an apparent tension between the two proofs of invariance. The author should explicitly state the domain of validity of relation (10) and discuss why the bracket computation requires EoM while the direct computation does not.

    Authors: The referee has correctly identified a genuine subtlety that the manuscript does not address with sufficient clarity. We agree that relation (10), s_{(a)b} Φ = -i[Φ, Q_{(a)b}]_{(±)}, is proven in §3.2 only for the fundamental fields Φ of the theory (i.e., B_{μν}, C_μ, C̄_μ, β, β̄, φ). The extension of this relation to composite operators such as Q_B is not automatic: when the bracket {Q_B, Q_b} is evaluated using the canonical (anti)commutators (8), the computation involves products of field operators at the same spacetime point, and the standard canonical brackets alone do not reproduce the full off-shell symmetry action on such composite objects. In particular, the bracket computation in Eq. (47) yields the integrand (∂_i H_{0ij} - (∂_0 B_j - ∂_j B_0))∂_j β, which vanishes only upon invoking the EL-EoM (21). By contrast, the direct verification s_b Q_B = 0 in §4.1 requires no EoM because it operates purely at the level of the symmetry algebra applied to the explicit expression for Q_B, without passing through the canonical bracket machinery. The two proofs are therefore not in contradiction: the direct computation establishes off-shell invariance of Q_B as an operator identity under the symmetry transformations (2), while the bracket computation demonstrates that the canonical generator relation (10), when applied to the composite operator Q_B, reproduces the correct result only on-shell—i.e., on the physical subspace where the EL-EoM hold. This is a well-known feature of constrained systems: the canonical brackets encode the symplectic structure, and the generator relation for composite operators may require the equations of motion (or equivalently, the constraints) to close properly. We will revise the manuscript to: (i) explicitly state that relation (10) is proven revision: yes

  2. Referee: §5.1, Eq. (48): The claim that the physicality criterion Q_b|phys> = 0 yields 'absurd' results is stated but the argument is somewhat compressed. The conditions B_i|phys> = 0 and (1/2)H_{0ij}|phys> = 0 are identified as problematic because the latter corresponds to Π^{ij}_{(B)}|phys> = 0, which is not a first-class constraint. The logical step connecting the annihilation by Q_b to these specific operator conditions deserves more explicit justification, particularly regarding how the ghost-sector terms factor out and why only these specific operator conditions survive.

    Authors: We agree that the argument in §5.1 is presented too compactly and that the logical steps deserve to be spelled out more explicitly. The key reasoning is as follows. The total Hilbert space of states factorizes as a direct product of the physical sector and the ghost sector: |Ψ> = |phys> ⊗ |ghost>. The Noether BRST charge Q_b [cf. Eq. (5)] contains two types of terms: (i) terms composed purely of (anti-)ghost fields (e.g., +½ ρ β̇, -(∂₀C̄ⁱ - ∂ᵢC̄⁰)∂ᵢβ), which carry effective ghost number +1 and act only on |ghost>, producing non-zero results that are independent of |phys>; and (ii) mixed terms containing a physical field (ghost number zero) multiplied by a ghost field (ghost number +1), such as -(∂₀Cⁱ - ∂ᵢC⁰)Bᵢ, -½ λ B₀, and -½ H₀ᵢⱼ(∂ᵢCⱼ - ∂ⱼCᵢ). For the mixed terms, the ghost-field factor acts on |ghost> and yields a non-zero result. Therefore, the subsidiary condition Q_b|phys> = 0 can be satisfied only if the physical-field factor in each mixed term annihilates |phys>. This yields precisely the conditions Bᵢ|phys> = 0 and ½H₀ᵢⱼ|phys> = 0 (i.e., Πⁱʲ_{(B)}|phys> = 0). The term -½ λ B₀ does not produce a condition B₀|phys> = 0 because λ = +2(∂·C) is an auxiliary fermionic field, not a basic ghost field, and the physical field B₀ is associated with the canonical momentum Π_{(φ)} = -½ B₀ which is not a constraint. The condition Πⁱʲ_{(B)}|phys> = 0 is problematic because Πⁱʲ_{(B)} = ½H₀ᵢⱼ is not a first-class constraint (it is the non-vanishing canonical momentum conjugate to Bᵢⱼ), so demanding its annihilation of physical states is inconsistent with the Dirac quantization prescription. We will expand §5.1 to make this factorization argument and the derivation of the specific conditions explicit, including a clearer statement of why the purely ghost-sector terms factor out, revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivations are self-contained with independent verifications

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is largely self-contained. The Lagrangian densities (Eq. 1) are explicitly written out and their structure is derived in Appendix A from the (anti-)BRST transformations (Eq. 2). The Noether charges (Eq. 5) follow from standard Noether theorem applied to these inputs. The generator relation (Eq. 10) is verified explicitly in Sec. 3.2 by computing canonical brackets and recovering the transformations (2) — a consistency check, not a definition. The modified charges Q_B (Eq. 27) and Q_AB (Eq. 36) are constructed from Q_(a)b using the method of [32] (partial integration, Gauss theorem, EL-EoM), but crucially, their (anti-)BRST invariance is independently verified by two methods: (i) direct application of s_(a)b on Q_(A)B (off-shell, no EoM needed, Sec. 4.1), and (ii) computation of {Q_(A)B, Q_(a)b} = 0 using canonical brackets + EoM + Gauss theorem (Sec. 4.2). These are genuinely different verifications. The nilpotency proofs also use two independent routes: symmetry considerations (Sec. 6.1, using EoM + Gauss) and direct bracket computation (Sec. 6.2, using only canonical brackets + Gauss, no EoM). The self-citation to [32] (co-authored by Malik) provides the modification method, but this method is fully described in Sec. 4.1 and the results are independently checked, so the citation is for attribution rather than load-bearing. The self-citations to [11, 15, 23] provide motivation and context but are not load-bearing for the actual computations, which are carried out explicitly in the paper. No step reduces to its input by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new free parameters or invented physical entities. It works entirely within the established field content of the BRST-quantized Abelian 2-form gauge theory (B_μν, ghosts, auxiliary fields). The axioms are standard domain assumptions for this class of field theory.

axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Gauss divergence theorem validity with fields vanishing at spatial infinity
    Invoked throughout (e.g., Eqs. 3, 19, 24, 28, 33, 42, 52, 56, 60) to drop surface terms. Required for the central proofs of nilpotency and invariance.
  • domain assumption CF-type restriction: B_μ + B̄_μ + ∂_μ φ = 0
    Stated in Sec. 2 and Appendix B. Required for the absolute anticommutativity of (anti-)BRST transformations and the coupled nature of the Lagrangian densities.
  • standard math Standard canonical (anti)commutation relations
    Eq. (8) postulates equal-time canonical brackets for all fields, which is the foundation of the quantization scheme used.
  • domain assumption Euler-Lagrange equations of motion derived from L^(B) and L^(B̄)
    Eqs. (21), (25), (29), (34) are used at 'suitable places' to prove nilpotency and invariance, creating an on-shell dependence in the proofs.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 41448 in / 2031 out tokens · 457009 ms · 2026-07-08T04:06:57.874962+00:00 · methodology

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

39 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    M. B. Green, J. H. Schwarz, E. Witten, Superstring Theory (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987)

    work page 1987

  2. [2]

    Polchinski, String Theory (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998)

    J. Polchinski, String Theory (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998)

    work page 1998

  3. [3]

    D. Lust, S. Theisen, Lectures in String Theory (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1989)

    work page 1989

  4. [4]

    Becker, M

    K. Becker, M. Becker, J.H. Schwarz, String Theory and M-Theory (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007)

    work page 2007

  5. [5]

    Rickles, A Brief History of String Theory from Dual Models to M-Theory (Springer, Germany, 2014)

    D. Rickles, A Brief History of String Theory from Dual Models to M-Theory (Springer, Germany, 2014)

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Becchi, A

    C. Becchi, A. Rouet, R. Stora, The Abelian Higgs-Kibble model: unitarity of the S-operator. Phys. Lett. B 52, 344 (1974)

    work page 1974

  7. [7]

    Becchi, A

    C. Becchi, A. Rouet, R. Stora, Renormalization of the Abelian Higgs-Kibble model. Comm. Math. Phys. 42, 127 (1975)

    work page 1975

  8. [8]

    Becchi, A

    C. Becchi, A. Rouet, R. Stora, Renormalization of gauge theories. Ann. Phys. (N. Y.) 98, 287 (1976) 35

    work page 1976

  9. [9]

    I. V. Tyutin, Gauge invariance in field theory and statistical physics in operator formal- ism, in Lebedev Institute Preprint, Report Number: FIAN-39 (1975) (unpublished), arXiv:0812.0580 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1975

  10. [10]

    R. P. Malik, New topological field theories in two dimensions. J. Phys. A Math. Gen. 34, 4167 (2001)

    work page 2001

  11. [11]

    Gupta, R

    S. Gupta, R. P. Malik, A field-theoretic model for Hodge theory. Eur. Phys. J. C 58, 517 (2008)

    work page 2008

  12. [12]

    Bhagya. R, H. Sreekumar, E. Harikumar, R. P. Malik, Constraints, conserved charges and extended BRST algebra for a 3D field-theoretic example for Hodge theory. Nucl. Phys. B 1009, 116736 (2024)

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    Kumar, S

    R. Kumar, S. Krishna, A. Shukla, R. P. Malik, Abelianp-form (p= 1,2,3) gauge theories as the field theoretic models for the Hodge theory. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 29, 1450135 (2014)

    work page 2014

  14. [14]

    Chauhan, S

    B. Chauhan, S. Kumar, A. Tripathi, R. P. Malik, Modified 2D Proca theory: revisited under BRST and (anti-)chiral superfield formalisms. Adv. High Energy Phys. 2020, 3495168 (2020)

    work page 2020

  15. [15]

    Krishna, R

    S. Krishna, R. Kumar, R. P. Malik, A massive field-theoretic model for Hodge theory. Ann. Phys. 414, 168087 (2020)

    work page 2020

  16. [16]

    A. K. Rao, R. P. Malik, St¨ uckelberg-modified massive Abelian 3-form theory: con- straint analysis, conserved charges and BRST algebra. J. Math. Phys. 65, 092301 (2024)

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

    Eguchi, P

    T. Eguchi, P. B. Gilkey, A. Hanson, Gravitation, gauge theories and differential ge- ometry. Phys. Rep. 66, 213 (1980)

    work page 1980

  18. [18]

    Mukhi, N

    S. Mukhi, N. Mukunda, Introduction to Topology, Differential Geometry and Group Theory for Physicists (Wiley Eastern Private Limited, New Delhi, 1990)

    work page 1990

  19. [19]

    G¨ ockeler, T

    M. G¨ ockeler, T. Sch¨ ucker, Differential Geometry Gauge Theories and Gravity (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987)

    work page 1987

  20. [20]

    J. W. van Holten, The BRST complex and the cohomology of compact Lie algebras. Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 2863 (1990)

    work page 1990

  21. [21]

    Nishijima, The Casimir operator in the representations of BRS algebra

    K. Nishijima, The Casimir operator in the representations of BRS algebra. Prog. Theor. Phys. 80, 897 (1988)

    work page 1988

  22. [22]

    J. W. Robbin, D. A. Salamon, Introduction to Differential Geometry (Springer Spektrum, 2022)

    work page 2022

  23. [23]

    R. P. Malik, Basic canonical brackets and nilpotency property of Noether (anti-)BRST sharges: non-Abelian 1-form gauge theory, arXiv: 2603.24514 [hep-th] 36

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  24. [24]

    Curci, R

    G. Curci, R. Ferrari, Slavnov transformations and supersummetry. Phys. Lett. B 63, 91 (1976)

    work page 1976

  25. [25]

    P. A. M. Dirac, Lectures on Quantum Mechanics (Belfer Graduate School of Science) (Yeshiva University Press, New York, 1964)

    work page 1964

  26. [26]

    Sundermeyer, Constraint Dynamics, Lecture Notes in Physics (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1982)

    K. Sundermeyer, Constraint Dynamics, Lecture Notes in Physics (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1982)

    work page 1982

  27. [27]

    E. C. G. Sudarshan, N. Mukunda, Classical Dynamics: A Modern Perspective (Wiley, New York, 1972)

    work page 1972

  28. [28]

    D. M. Gitman, I. V. Tyutin, Quantization of Fields with Constraints (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1990)

    work page 1990

  29. [29]

    H. J. Rothe. K. D. Rothe, Classical and Quantum Dynamics of Constrained Hamil- tonian Systems, World Scientific Lecture Notes in Physics, vol. 81 (World Scientific, Singapore, 2010)

    work page 2010

  30. [30]

    Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields: Modern Applications, vol

    S. Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields: Modern Applications, vol. 2 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996)

    work page 1996

  31. [31]

    Mitra, R

    P. Mitra, R. Rajaraman, Gauge-invariant reformulation of theories with second-class constraints. Ann. Phys. 203, 157 (1990)

    work page 1990

  32. [32]

    A. K. Rao, A. Tripathi, B. Chauhan, R. P. Malik, Noether theorem and nilpotency property of the (anti-)BRST charges in the BRST formalism: a brief review. Universe 8, 566 (2022)

    work page 2022

  33. [33]

    T. Kugo, I. Ojima, Local covariant operator formalism of non-Abelian gauge theories and quark confinement problem. Prog. Theo. Phys. (Suppl) 66, 1 (1979)

    work page 1979

  34. [34]

    Nishijima, B

    K. Nishijima, B. R. S. invariance, asymptotic freedom and color confinement. Czechoslov. J. Phys. 46, 140 (1996)

    work page 1996

  35. [35]

    Henneaux, C

    M. Henneaux, C. Teitelboim, Quantization of Gauge Systems (Princeton University, New Jersey, 1992)

    work page 1992

  36. [36]

    Nakanishi, I

    N. Nakanishi, I. Ojima, Covariant Operator Formalism of Gauge Theories and Quan- tum Gravity (World Scientific, Singapore, 1996)

    work page 1996

  37. [37]

    Bonora, R

    L. Bonora, R. P. Malik, BRST, anti-BRST and gerbes. Phys. Lett. B 655, 75 (2007)

    work page 2007

  38. [38]

    Bonora, R

    L. Bonora, R. P. Malik, BRST, anti-BRST and their geometry. J. Phys. A Math. Theor. 43, 375403 (2010)

    work page 2010

  39. [39]

    R. P. Malik, Abelian 2-form gauge theory: superfield formalism. Eur. Phys. J. 60, 457 (2009) 37

    work page 2009