Lie symmetries and ghost-free representations of the Pais-Uhlenbeck model

Alexander Felski; Andreas Fring; Bethan Turner

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Lie symmetries and ghost-free representations of the Pais-Uhlenbeck model

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The Pais–Uhlenbeck model can be made positive definite without changing its dynamics.

desk verdict The algebra is solid and the Poission-bracket construction is a real increment, but the paper's ghost-resolution claim outruns what the classical result supports. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.07869 v2 pith:KIZ6PYIM submitted 2025-05-09 math-ph math.MPquant-ph

Alexander Felski , Andreas Fring , Bethan Turner This is my paper · ORCID

classification math-phmath.MPquant-ph MSC 34C1437J0670H33

keywords Pais-Uhlenbeckmodelhighertime-derivativetheoriesLiesymmetriesbi-HamiltonianstructurePoissonbracketsghostinstabilitiesOstrogradskyinstabilitypositivedefiniteHamiltonian

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 claims that the Pais–Uhlenbeck oscillator, the standard example of a higher time-derivative theory, can be given a positive-definite Hamiltonian without changing any of its classical solutions, provided the Poisson bracket is replaced by a carefully chosen linear combination of the two brackets in its bi-Hamiltonian structure. The authors identify the Lie symmetries of the fourth-order equation and show that acting with one symmetry generates the whole hierarchy of conserved Hamiltonians. Combining the two known Hamiltonians and the two Poisson tensors, they find constants for which the combined bracket reproduces the original flow while the combined Hamiltonian is a sum of squares. If this construction is accepted as physically meaningful, it removes the notorious ghost instability of the model in certain parameter regimes and provides a systematic route to stable reformulations of higher-derivative dynamics.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the bi-Hamiltonian structure of the PU oscillator: two Poisson tensors $J_1$ and $J_2$ with two Hamiltonians $H_1$ and $H_2$ that generate the same vector field, $J_1\nabla H_1=J_2\nabla H_2$. The paper combines them linearly, $\bar J=c_1J_1+c_2J_2$ and $\bar H=c_3H_1+c_4H_2$, and chooses the constants so that the $X_4$ term cancels and the $V$ term has unit coefficient, yielding flow preservation. The Lie symmetry $X_3$ acts as a raising operator that maps each Hamiltonian to the next in the conserved hierarchy, which is what makes the family of possible Hamiltonians tractable. The positivity argument rests on rewriting $\bar H$ as a sum of two squares with frequency-dependent prefactors, whose signs are controlled by inequalities (2.41).

What would settle it

Quantize the model using $\bar J$ as the Poisson bracket: promote the coordinates to operators with commutators determined by $\bar J$, and compute the spectrum of $\bar H$. If the spectrum is not bounded below, or if Heisenberg evolution of $q$ under $\bar H$ reproduces the fourth-order PU equation only for a measure-zero set of constants $c_1,c_2$, the claimed ghost-free status fails. A more classical check: verify numerically that the positive-definite $\bar H$ is constant along generic PU solutions in a parameter regime satisfying (2.41) and that the $\bar J$-flow equations coincide with the PU equation to all orders in the amplitudes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the PU oscillator's dynamics $V(\vec q)=d\vec q/dt$ can be written as $\bar J\nabla\bar H$ with $\bar H$ positive definite. With $c_3$ and $c_4$ fixed as in (2.39), $\bar H$ decomposes into manifestly positive terms $H_{12}+H_{21}$, and the inequalities (2.41) guarantee positivity whenever the frequencies are nondegenerate. The cost is that the bracket $\bar J=c_1J_1+c_2J_2$ is not the canonical Ostrogradsky bracket; indeed no solution exists with $c_1=0$ or $c_2=0$. The paper further shows that two families of transformations to two-dimensional first-order systems, $T_{a2\pm}$ and $T_{b1}$, inherit flow-preserving Poisson brackets and can be made positive definite, while generic potential interactions destroy the bi-Hamiltonian structure and with it this resolution.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a positive-definite Hamiltonian with a noncanonical Poisson bracket that reproduces the original classical trajectories counts as a physically meaningful resolution of the ghost instability; the paper shows flow preservation but does not prove that this bracket survives quantization with a bounded unitary spectrum.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The PU oscillator has at least one classical Hamiltonian formulation with bounded-below energy and unchanged trajectories, so the Ostrogradsky instability is not forced by the fourth-order equation alone.
Any positive-definite flow-preserving reformulation must mix both Poisson structures; the canonical bracket alone cannot do the job.
The transformations $T_{a2\pm}$ and $T_{b1}$ give explicit two-dimensional first-order systems with canonical brackets that realize positive-definite Hamiltonians under parameter conditions, and they contain previously proposed stable PU Hamiltonians as special cases.
Adding a generic potential $V(q)$ or $W(\ddot q)$ to the PU Hamiltonian leaves only a single compatible Poisson bracket, so the bi-Hamiltonian route to positive definiteness fails for generic interactions.

Reading between the lines

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

A direct quantum test is the natural next step: impose Dirac quantization on $\bar J$ and check whether $\bar H$ has a spectrum bounded below and unitary time evolution; the paper establishes the classical flow but not this.
The same 'combine brackets' strategy could be tried on other bi-Hamiltonian higher-derivative systems, including field-theoretic versions, with the positivity inequalities playing the role of stability conditions.
The special interaction case that preserves the transformation ($T_{a2\pm}$ with $a_x=-a_y=\pm\sqrt{\alpha^2-4\beta-4g}$) suggests that only potentials compatible with a second-order two-dimensional rewriting survive the positivity construction; testing whether actual interaction potentials like $V(q)=q^4$ meet this constraint would delimit the method's reach.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The algebraic core of this paper is sound and genuinely useful. The authors take the known bi-Hamiltonian pair for the PU oscillator, combine the two Poisson tensors and Hamiltonians, and explicitly construct the flow-preserving tensor Jbar with the positive definite Hbar. The derivation of the positivity window (2.41) is correct, the embedding of Mostafazadeh's positive definite Hamiltonian as a special case of their Tb1 transformation is a nice unification, and the explicit bracket (3.14) is something that was missing from the earlier literature. The Lie symmetry classification and the transformation families Ta and Tb are worked out carefully, and Section 4 is honest about the limits once interactions are added. I have no quarrel with the mathematics itself.

Where I part ways is the interpretive claim. The stress-test note is fair: Jbar is a genuinely noncanonical symplectic form, not a canonical transformation of the Ostrogradsky structure. A positive definite conserved quadratic form for the free PU model is nothing new—the normal-mode sum of squares already does that. What is new is that the same flow is generated by a different Hamiltonian-bracket pair. But showing Jbar grad Hbar = V does not, by itself, tell you how to quantize the model or why the spectrum of the quantum theory built from (Jbar, Hbar) should be bounded and unitary. The paper's phrase “eliminating the ghost issue” is therefore an overstatement. The original Ostrogradsky instability has been replaced, not removed, unless a quantum equivalence argument is supplied. That is a significant gap, not a minor caveat.

The other soft spots are minor by comparison: the Lie symmetry ansatz is linear and not proven exhaustive, and Section 4.1 shows that generic potentials destroy the structure, so the positive definite reformulation is confined to the free model and specific parameter regimes. The authors acknowledge the interaction limitation, but the abstract and conclusion still sell it as a solution to the long-standing ghost problem, which it is not, at least not on the evidence presented.

Who is this paper for? People working on classical Hamiltonian formulations of higher-derivative models will find the bracket constructions and transformation classification useful. It is worth a serious referee and probably a revised version with the ghost language softened and a clear statement that the quantum question remains open. I would not cite the ghost-resolution claim, but I would cite the explicit flow-preserving bracket if I were working on alternative Hamiltonian structures for HTDTs.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the fourth-order Pais-Uhlenbeck oscillator from the point of view of Lie symmetries and Hamiltonian structures. It identifies four linear Lie symmetry generators of the dynamical vector field, recalls/derives two Hamiltonian structures (H1,J1) and (H2,J2) for the same flow, and then forms linear combinations Jbar = c1 J1 + c2 J2 and Hbar = c3 H1 + c4 H2 that preserve the PU flow. The main algebraic result is an explicit choice of c3, c4 in terms of c1, c2 and the frequencies omega1, omega2 such that Jbar grad Hbar = V, together with a decomposition of Hbar into positive definite quadratic forms and positivity conditions (2.41). The paper further classifies transformations mapping the fourth-order PU equation to two-dimensional first-order systems (families Ta1, Ta2, Tb1, Tb2), computes the corresponding flow-preserving Poisson brackets, and recovers both the standard ghostly two-oscillator form and the positive definite Hamiltonian of Mostafazadeh. Finally, it argues that generic potential interaction terms destroy the bi-Hamiltonian structure.

Significance. If the interpretation were fully supported, the paper would provide a unified symmetry-based framework for constructing alternative Hamiltonian representations of the PU model, including positive-definite ones with explicit positivity windows. The algebraic core is valuable and mostly verifiable: the identity (2.38), the choice (2.39), and the positivity conditions (2.41) follow from direct computation, and the connection to the known positive-definite Hamiltonian of Mostafazadeh in Section 4 is a useful unifying observation. The paper also correctly stresses that a positive-definite Hamiltonian preserving the flow requires an altered Poisson structure. The main weakness is interpretive: the abstract and conclusions claim a solution to the ghost-instability problem, but the quantum step is not performed, and the conclusion itself lists quantization as future work. This gap affects the paper's central selling point and needs to be addressed before the ghost-resolution claim can stand.

major comments (2)

[Section 2.3, Eqs. (2.37)-(2.41), and Section 5] The paper claims to offer a solution to the long-standing ghost-instability problem and to enable stable classical and quantum formulations, but it does not provide a quantum equivalence argument. The construction proves only Jbar grad Hbar = V with Hbar positive definite; the classical free PU oscillator was never unstable, so the ghost problem is a quantum-mechanical unboundedness issue. No quantization of (Jbar, Hbar) is given, no bounded spectrum is exhibited, and Section 5 explicitly lists 'further investigation into the quantization of positive-definite PU models' as future work. Please either supply a quantum argument (e.g., Darboux coordinates for Jbar, quantization there, and a demonstration that the Heisenberg-picture dynamics reproduces the fourth-order equation), or explicitly delimit the ghost-resolution claim to the canonical Tb1 example of Section 4 and revise the abstract and conclusions accordingly.
[Section 4.1] The statements 'the only compatible solution ... is J1' and 'the only compatible solution ... is J2' are asserted without specifying the class of Poisson tensors over which uniqueness is claimed. If the claim is restricted to constant Poisson tensors, or to linear combinations of J1 and J2, that restriction should be stated; otherwise the claim is not established, because q-dependent Poisson tensors are not considered. This matters because the paper's conclusion that interaction terms generically destroy the bi-Hamiltonian structure depends on this uniqueness statement.

minor comments (5)

[Eq. (2.39)] The displayed formula for c3 appears to contain a typographical error: the numerator should presumably be c1 omega1^2 omega2^2 rather than c1 omega1^2 omega1^2, as required by the derivation from (2.38) and by the analogous formula in (3.13).
[Section 2.1] The text refers to 'the Lie symmetries' of the PU oscillator, but the Ansatz for the generators xi_i is restricted to functions linear in the coordinates. Please state explicitly that the classification is for linear Lie symmetries, or provide a proof of completeness.
[Section 2.4] In the X4-flow equations, Eqs. (2.51)-(2.54), the components are labeled with the superscript (3) instead of (4); this is confusing in a section that distinguishes the X3 and X4 flows.
[After Eq. (2.36)] The sentence 'It is therefore natural to consider' is duplicated; one copy should be removed.
[Section 3.2, Eq. (3.14)] The formula for JTa2± has a very large denominator and is difficult to read; please check the typesetting and, if possible, simplify or factor the expression.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the positive-definite Hamiltonian construction is derived from explicit algebraic conditions, and the paper does not fit parameters to data or import its central claim from self-citations.

full rationale

The core construction in Section 2.3 is self-contained rather than circular. The paper defines ¯J = c1J1 + c2J2 and ¯H = c3H1 + c4H2, then computes ¯J∇¯H and chooses c3, c4 (or equivalently c1, c2) so that the X4 term vanishes and the V term has unit coefficient. Equation (2.38) is an explicit identity whose coefficients are solved algebraically, not fitted to any data or to the target conclusion. The positivity condition (2.41) is then read off from the explicit sum-of-squares form (2.40); it is a direct inequality, not a parameter-adjusted prediction. The paper also embeds Mostafazadeh's earlier positive-definite Hamiltonian as a special case of its Tb1 transformation, which is an independent cross-check rather than a circular appeal. The physical claim that this resolves the ghost problem involves an interpretive step about whether a noncanonical Poisson bracket is an acceptable reformulation, but that is a question of physical justification, not circularity. Likewise, the citations to the authors' own earlier works are not load-bearing for the main derivation, and no uniqueness theorem from prior work is invoked to force the choice. The derivation chain is therefore independent of its conclusions in the sense relevant to circularity analysis.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central construction does not fit any data. It relies on the known bi-Hamiltonian pair and introduces free constants c1, c2 for the combined bracket, plus free parameters in the transformation families. No new physical entities are postulated. The main extra premises are the completeness of the linear symmetry ansatz and the interpretive acceptance of a noncanonical bracket as physically meaningful.

free parameters (3)

c1, c2 (weights of Poisson tensors J1, J2 in Jbar) = Arbitrary, subject to inequalities (2.41)
The existence of a positive definite Hbar relies on these free constants. They are chosen by hand to satisfy the flow-preservation and positivity conditions, not fitted to data.
ax, ay, g (transformation parameters for Ta2) = Free, with constraints such as ax = -ay = sqrt(alpha^2 - 4 beta - 4 g) for certain ghost-free cases
These parameters define the family of transformations from the PU equation to a two-dimensional first-order system. They are chosen by hand to make the transformation work and to satisfy positivity.
bx, g (parameters for Tb1) = Free, with ay = -ax g^2 / tau and other constraints
The Tb1 transformation family is parametrized by these constants, which are free real parameters of the construction. They are not determined by data.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption The PU model admits the stated bi-Hamiltonian structure with H1, H2, J1, J2.
The paper takes the known bi-Hamiltonian structure (citing [25] and related works) as the starting point. The identity J2∇H2 = J1∇H1 is verified explicitly, so the internal consistency is checked even though the structure is inherited from the literature.
ad hoc to paper The linear Ansatz for Lie symmetry generators in Section 2.1 is sufficient to identify all symmetries relevant to the Hamiltonian hierarchy and transformations.
No completeness proof is given. If nonlinear or higher-degree symmetries exist, they could in principle generate additional Hamiltonian structures or transformations beyond those classified in the paper.
domain assumption The nondegenerate oscillatory parametrization alpha = omega1^2 + omega2^2, beta = omega1^2 omega2^2 with omega1 != omega2.
This parametrization is used throughout the positivity analysis, e.g., in Eqs. (2.40)-(2.41). The degenerate case is only sketched for the symmetry flows, not for the positive definite construction.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Lie symmetries and ghost-free representations of the Pais-Uhlenbeck model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KIZ6PYIM

@misc{pith2026250507869,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Lie symmetries and ghost-free representations of the Pais-Uhlenbeck model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KIZ6PYIM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.07869}
}

read the original abstract

We investigate the Pais-Uhlenbeck (PU) model, a paradigmatic example of a higher time-derivative theory, by identifying the Lie symmetries of its associated fourth-order dynamical equation. Exploiting these symmetries in conjunction with the model's Bi-Hamiltonian structure, we construct distinct Poisson bracket formulations that preserve the system's dynamics. Amongst other possibilities, this allow us to recast the PU model in a positive definite manner, offering a solution to the long-standing problem of ghost instabilities. Furthermore, we systematically explore a family of transformations that reduce the PU model to equivalent first-order, higher-dimensional systems. Finally we examine the impact on those transformations by adding interaction terms of potential form to the PU model and demonstrate how they usually break the Bi-Hamiltonian structure. Our approach yields a unified framework for interpreting and stabilising higher time-derivative dynamics through a symmetry analysis in some parameter regime.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Ghost-Free Quantisation of Higher Time-Derivative Theories via Non-Unitary Similarity Transformations
quant-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A non-unitary similarity transformation maps a ghostly two-dimensional oscillator with bounded but non-normalisable eigenstates to an isospectral Hermitian Hamiltonian whose eigenstates are normalisable.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

S. W. Hawking and T. Hertog, Living with ghosts, Phys. Rev. D 65(10), 103515 (2002)

2002
[2]

Biswas, T

T. Biswas, T. Koivisto, and A. Mazumdar, Towards a resolution of the cosmological singularity in non-local higher derivative theories of gravity, JCAP 2010(11), 008 (2010)

work page 2010
[3]

Salvio, Dimensional transmutation in gravity and cosmology, In t

A. Salvio, Dimensional transmutation in gravity and cosmology, In t. J. Mod. Phys. A 36(08n09), 2130006 (2021)

work page 2021
[4]

H. A. Weldon, Finite-temperature retarded and advanced ﬁelds , Nucl. Phys. B 534(1-2), 467–490 (1998)

work page 1998
[5]

Mignemi and D

S. Mignemi and D. L. Wiltshire, Black holes in higher-derivative grav ity theories, Phys. Rev. D 46(4), 1475 (1992)

work page 1992
[6]

M. S. Plyushchay, Massless point particle with rigidity, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 4(09), 837–847 (1989)

work page 1989
[7]

M. S. Plyushchay, Massless particle with rigidity as a model for the description of bosons and fermions, Phys. Lett. B 243(4), 383–388 (1990)

work page 1990
[8]

Dine and N

M. Dine and N. Seiberg, Comments on higher derivative operators in some SUSY ﬁeld theories, Phys. Lett. B 409(1-4), 239–244 (1997)

work page 1997

Show all 42 references

[9]

Smilga, Ultraviolet divergences in non-renormalizable supersym metric theories, Phys

A. Smilga, Ultraviolet divergences in non-renormalizable supersym metric theories, Phys. of Part. and Nucl. Lett. 14, 245–260 (2017)

2017
[10]

Pais and G

A. Pais and G. E. Uhlenbeck, On ﬁeld theories with non-localized ac tion, Phys. Rev. 79(1), 145 (1950)

1950
[11]

K. S. Stelle, Renormalization of higher-derivative quantum grav ity, Phys. Rev. D 16(4), 953 (1977). – 15 – Lie symmetries and ghost-free representations of the Pais-U hlenbeck model

1977
[12]

A. A. Starobinsky, A new type of isotropic cosmological models w ithout singularity, Phys. Lett. B 91(1), 99–102 (1980)

1980
[13]

S. L. Adler, Einstein gravity as a symmetry-breaking eﬀect in qu antum ﬁeld theory, Rev. Mod. Phys. 54(3), 729 (1982)

1982
[14]

A. V. Smilga, Spontaneous generation of the Newton constant in the renormalizable gravity theory, ITEP preprint 63 (1982) 8 pp, arXiv:1406.5613 (2014) (19 82)

1982 arXiv
[15]

Modesto and I

L. Modesto and I. L. Shapiro, Superrenormalizable quantum gr avity with complex ghosts, Phys. Lett. B 755, 279–284 (2016)

2016
[16]

H. A. Weldon, Quantization of higher-derivative ﬁeld theories, A nn. Phys. 305(2), 137–150 (2003)

2003
[17]

Fring, T

A. Fring, T. Taira, and B. Turner, Higher Time-Derivative Theor ies from Space–Time Interchanged Integrable Field Theories, Universe 10(5), 198 (2024)

2024
[18]

Fring, T

A. Fring, T. Taira, and B. Turner, Quantisations of exactly solv able ghostly models, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.21447 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[19]

T.-J. Chen, M. Fasiello, E. A. Lim, and A. J. Tolley, Higher derivativ e theories with constraints: Exorcising Ostrogradski’s Ghost, J. Cos. Astro. Ph ys. 2013(02), 042 (2013)

2013
[20]

Salvio and A

A. Salvio and A. Strumia, Quantum mechanics of 4-derivative the ories, EPJ C 76, 1–15 (2016)

2016
[21]

Anselmi, Fakeons and Lee-Wick models, JHEP 2018(2) (2018)

D. Anselmi, Fakeons and Lee-Wick models, JHEP 2018(2) (2018)

2018
[22]

C. M. Bender and P. D. Mannheim, No-ghost theorem for the fo urth-order derivative Pais-Uhlenbeck oscillator model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100(11), 110402 (2008)

2008
[23]

Raidal and H

M. Raidal and H. Veerm¨ ae, On the quantisation of complex highe r derivative theories and avoiding the Ostrogradsky ghost, Nucl. Phys. B 916, 607–626 (2017)

2017
[24]

Bolonek and P

K. Bolonek and P. Kosinski, Hamiltonian Structures for Pais–Uhle nbeck Oscillator, Acta Phys. Pol. B 36(6), 2115 (2005)

2005
[25]

Damaskinsky and M

E. Damaskinsky and M. Sokolov, Remarks on quantization of Pais –Uhlenbeck oscillators, J. Phys. A: Math. and Gen. 39(33), 10499 (2006)

2006
[26]

N. G. Stephen, On the Ostrogradski instability for higher-ord er derivative theories and a pseudo-mechanical energy, J. of Sound and Vibration 310(3), 729–739 (2008)

2008
[27]

Mostafazadeh, A Hamiltonian formulation of the Pais–Uhlenbe ck oscillator that yields a stable and unitary quantum system, Phys

A. Mostafazadeh, A Hamiltonian formulation of the Pais–Uhlenbe ck oscillator that yields a stable and unitary quantum system, Phys. Lett. A 375(2), 93–98 (2010)

2010
[28]

Andrzejewski, Hamiltonian formalisms and symmetries of the P ais–Uhlenbeck oscillator, Nucl

K. Andrzejewski, Hamiltonian formalisms and symmetries of the P ais–Uhlenbeck oscillator, Nucl. Phys. B 889, 333–350 (2014)

2014
[29]

Andrzejewski, Conformal Newton–Hooke algebras, Nieder er’s transformation and Pais–Uhlenbeck oscillator, Phys

K. Andrzejewski, Conformal Newton–Hooke algebras, Nieder er’s transformation and Pais–Uhlenbeck oscillator, Phys. Lett. B 738, 405–411 (2014)

2014
[30]

Andrzejewski, A

K. Andrzejewski, A. Galajinsky, J. Gonera, and I. Masterov, Conformal Newton–Hooke symmetry of Pais–Uhlenbeck oscillator, Nucl. Phys. B 885, 150–162 (2014)

2014
[31]

Elbistan and K

M. Elbistan and K. Andrzejewski, Various disguises of the Pais-U hlenbeck oscillator, Nucl. Phys. B 994, 116327 (2023)

2023
[32]

P. E. Hydon, Symmetry methods for diﬀerential equations: a beginner’s g uide, CUP, 2000. – 16 – Lie symmetries and ghost-free representations of the Pais-U hlenbeck model

2000
[33]

Ostrogradsky, M´ emoire sur les ´ equations diﬀ´ erentielles relatives an probl´ eme des isop´ erim´ etres, volume VI 4, 1850

M. Ostrogradsky, M´ emoire sur les ´ equations diﬀ´ erentielles relatives an probl´ eme des isop´ erim´ etres, volume VI 4, 1850
[34]

A. K. Das, On the ’current’ algebra of the KdV equation, Phys. Lett. B207, 429–433 (1988)

1988
[35]

Magri, A simple model of the integrable Hamiltonian equation, J

F. Magri, A simple model of the integrable Hamiltonian equation, J. Math. Phys. 19, 1156–1162 (1978)

1978
[36]

V. E. D ´ ıez, J. G. Gaset Rif` a, and G. Staudt, Foundations of G host Stability, Fort. der Physik , 2400268 (2024)

2024
[37]

Deﬀayet, A

C. Deﬀayet, A. Held, S. Mukohyama, and A. Vikman, Ghostly inte ractions in (1+ 1) dimensional classical ﬁeld theory, arXiv:2504.11437 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[38]

C. M. Bender, A. Felski, N. Hassanpour, S. P. Klevansky and A. Alireza Analytic structure of eigenvalues of coupled quantum systems, Phys. Scr. 92(1), 015201 (2016)

2016
[39]

Felski and S

A. Felski and S. Klevansky, Analytic eigenvalue structure of a c oupled-oscillator system beyond the ground state, Phys. Rev. A 98(1), 012127 (2018)

2018
[40]

Pavˇ siˇ c, Pais–Uhlenbeck oscillator and negative energies, Int

M. Pavˇ siˇ c, Pais–Uhlenbeck oscillator and negative energies, Int. J. Geo. Meth. in Mod. Phys. 13(09), 1630015 (2016)

2016
[41]

Pavˇ siˇ c, Stable self-interacting Pais–Uhlenbeck oscillator, Mod

M. Pavˇ siˇ c, Stable self-interacting Pais–Uhlenbeck oscillator, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 28(36), 1350165 (2013)

2013
[42]

Pavˇ siˇ c, Pais-Uhlenbeck oscillator with a benign friction force, Phys.Rev

M. Pavˇ siˇ c, Pais-Uhlenbeck oscillator with a benign friction force, Phys.Rev. D 87(10), 107502 (2013). – 17 –

2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

S. W. Hawking and T. Hertog, Living with ghosts, Phys. Rev. D 65(10), 103515 (2002)

2002

[2] [2]

Biswas, T

T. Biswas, T. Koivisto, and A. Mazumdar, Towards a resolution of the cosmological singularity in non-local higher derivative theories of gravity, JCAP 2010(11), 008 (2010)

work page 2010

[3] [3]

Salvio, Dimensional transmutation in gravity and cosmology, In t

A. Salvio, Dimensional transmutation in gravity and cosmology, In t. J. Mod. Phys. A 36(08n09), 2130006 (2021)

work page 2021

[4] [4]

H. A. Weldon, Finite-temperature retarded and advanced ﬁelds , Nucl. Phys. B 534(1-2), 467–490 (1998)

work page 1998

[5] [5]

Mignemi and D

S. Mignemi and D. L. Wiltshire, Black holes in higher-derivative grav ity theories, Phys. Rev. D 46(4), 1475 (1992)

work page 1992

[6] [6]

M. S. Plyushchay, Massless point particle with rigidity, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 4(09), 837–847 (1989)

work page 1989

[7] [7]

M. S. Plyushchay, Massless particle with rigidity as a model for the description of bosons and fermions, Phys. Lett. B 243(4), 383–388 (1990)

work page 1990

[8] [8]

Dine and N

M. Dine and N. Seiberg, Comments on higher derivative operators in some SUSY ﬁeld theories, Phys. Lett. B 409(1-4), 239–244 (1997)

work page 1997