Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 30 references

Perturbative algebraic quantum field theory with smoothened boundary

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Boundary effects in perturbative gauge theory are fully encoded in a Noether current that repairs the quantum master equation, turning boundary data into a curvature term in an L∞ algebra.

desk verdict Substantial paper: the boundary-current correction to the QME is a real construction with a genuine 4d check, but the headline curved-L∞ claim rests on an imported lemma that needs verification. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.13765 v1 pith:RBQ4VNIZ submitted 2026-07-15 math-ph hep-thmath.MP

Kasia Rejzner , Michele Schiavina This is my paper · ORCID
classification math-phhep-thmath.MP MSC 81T0581T2081T7081T13
keywords perturbativealgebraicquantumfieldtheoryBV/BFVformalismmasterequationboundarytermsL-infinityalgebrasNoethercurrentsAnomalousWardIdentityAbelianYang-Mills
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

The paper claims that when a gauge theory is quantised on a spacetime region with a boundary, the standard quantum master equation (QME) generically fails, but the failure is not an obstruction: it is completely captured by a generalised Noether current J supported near the boundary. It proves that the interacting quantum BV operators acquire retarded and advanced corrections built from J and the interacting star product, and that the difference between the retarded and advanced operators equals the commutator with J. It further shows that the renormalised quantum BV algebra becomes a curved L∞ algebra whose curvature is exactly J. If correct, this unifies previous results on the relation between boundary BRST charge and bulk BV operator, and recovers the BFV ansatz at leading order in ℏ for Abelian Yang–Mills theory on causal cylinders. The framework gives an all-orders-in-ℏ constructive expression for the quantum BFV correction, making boundary quantisation a tractable algebraic problem.

What carries the argument

The central object is the modified Quantum Master Equation, QME(V) = −J[dη], with J a generalised 1-form current that detects the smoothened boundary through the combination f df. The key technical device is the 'smoothened boundary': replace a sharp boundary by a sequence of test functions f_n with f_n df_n → δ_{∂C}, so that boundary data are realised as currents J[f_n df_n] → π^*L_∂. Combined with retarded/advanced Møller maps and the interacting star product ⋆_V, this produces the quantum BFV correction operators Ω_J^{R/A}(F) = J ⋆_V F − J·F and Ω_J^A(F) = F ⋆_V J − J·F. These operators carry the entire boundary modification of the BV differential, and their retarded–advanced difference e

What would settle it

Compute the next-to-leading order in ℏ (or in the coupling λ) of the quantum BFV correction Ω_J for Abelian or non-Abelian Yang–Mills theory on a causal cylinder, after taking the smoothened-boundary limit, and compare it with an explicit second-order quantisation of the BFV boundary action: if the star-product expansion differs from the geometric quantisation result, the claimed agreement beyond leading order fails. Alternatively, for a theory with a known nonzero anomaly term (e.g., chiral fermions), verify whether the modified Wess–Zumino consistency condition Δ^{ren}_V J = 0 holds; if it d

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the modified quantum master equation (mQME), written as QME(V) = −J[dη] for a current J, keeps the entire perturbative BV machinery intact. For a theory satisfying the mQME, the retarded/advanced interacting quantum BV operators take the form Q^{R/A}_V(F) = (Q0 + {V,·} − iℏ Δ^{ren}_V + (i/ℏ) Ω_J^{R/A})F, where Ω_J^R(F) = J ⋆_V F − J·F and Ω_J^A(F) = F ⋆_V J − J·F. Consequently Q^R_V − Q^A_V = (i/ℏ)[J,F]_{⋆_V}. The same current J appears as the curvature of the L∞ algebra arising from the Anomalous Master Ward Identity. Thus boundary terms are not defects to be eliminated but dynamical data encoded in a Noether current, and the construction recovers both the on-s

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the smoothened-boundary limit—replacing a sharp boundary by a sequence of test functions whose derivatives approach a delta distribution on the boundary—commutes with the quantum corrections: the current J[f_n df_n] must converge to the boundary Lagrangian π^*L_∂, and taking the limit inside the interacting star product and the ℏ-expansion must reproduce the sharp-boundary quantum BFV operator.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The failure of the QME is not an anomaly to be cancelled but a feature: boundary terms define a Noether current J that modifies the BV differential, so quantisation on bounded regions proceeds without imposing boundary conditions by hand.
  • The retarded and advanced interacting BV operators differ by (i/ℏ)[J,F]_{⋆_V}, giving a direct observable signature of boundary effects in the algebra of interacting observables.
  • The curved L∞ structure means physical states are selected by cohomology of the modified BV operator, which reproduces the Kugo–Ojima condition with the interacting BRST charge, unifying gauge-invariant observables with boundary data.
  • The construction gives an explicit all-orders-in-ℏ expression for the quantum BFV correction, so the BFV ansatz can be checked order by order beyond leading order.
  • The smoothened-boundary limit provides a systematic route to corner terms (codimension-2 data), since J is a generalised 1-form current.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the identification of QME failure with a Noether current is correct, then in theories with nonzero anomaly terms (e.g., chiral gauge theories) the modified Wess–Zumino consistency condition should hold with J; this is a testable extension that would confirm the curved L∞ structure beyond the examples given.
  • The construction suggests a direct gluing principle: two regions sharing a boundary should compose their currents J via the interacting star product, potentially giving a functorial assignment of boundary data and a route to topological field theory gluing in the Lorentzian setting.
  • The ℏ→0 limit of the quantum BFV correction recovers the classical boundary action; the paper's result implies that higher-order ℏ corrections are determined by the star product (Hadamard state and renormalisation prescription), which could serve as a renormalisation-scheme-independent observable if the cohomology is invariant.
  • The interpretation of J as a source term in the interacting algebra may allow importing techniques from open quantum systems to describe bulk–boundary coupling in perturbative QFT.
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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a perturbative algebraic QFT (pAQFT) formulation of BV-BFV theory on globally hyperbolic Lorentzian manifolds with smoothened, or thickened, boundaries. The main construction introduces a modified quantum master equation (mQME) in which the failure of the ordinary QME is encoded by a generalized Noether current J. From the renormalized Anomalous Master Ward Identity, the authors derive modified retarded/advanced interacting BV operators with additional 'quantum BFV corrections' built from J, and they claim that the resulting homotopy dg Lie algebra is curved, with curvature controlled by J. The framework is then applied to causal cylinders, where it is compared with the Cattaneo–Mnev–Reshetikhin ansatz and with Hollands' BRST/BV equivalence. A detailed computation for Abelian Yang–Mills theory is presented, recovering the CMR boundary action at leading order in ℏ.

Significance. If the main claims hold, the paper would constitute a substantial bridge between pAQFT and the local BV-BFV programme, giving an all-orders expression for the quantum BFV correction and a unified explanation of both Hollands' and CMR's constructions. The paper has genuine strengths: the structural development from the AMWI is systematic, the Abelian Yang–Mills computation in Section 5.3 is carried out in detail including the nontrivial cancellations among terms (a)–(e), and the authors are transparent about several assumptions. However, the central curved-L∞ claim currently rests on an unproved imported lemma from Hollands, and there are sign inconsistencies between the mQME and the stated curvature. These are load-bearing and need to be settled before the main result can be considered established.

major comments (5)
  1. [§4.3, Prop. 4.19 and Thm. 4.20] The curved L∞ statement in Theorem 4.20 requires, at minimum, the lowest identity l1(l0)=0 (up to the usual higher order terms). With l0=J and l1(G)=Q0(G)+{V,G}+⟨A'(V),G⟩, this reduces to Δ_ren^V J=0. The only argument supplied for this is Proposition 4.19, whose proof imports from [Hol08, Section 4.6] the statement that T(e^{iV/ℏ}J)=0 modulo the equations of motion, rewritten as T(e^{iV/ℏ}J)=Q00(X). Neither the precise hypotheses of the Hollands lemma nor its applicability to the present setting — a generalized current supported on a smoothened boundary inside a BV theory with antifields — are stated or checked. Since the authors themselves flag a closely related on-shell statement as unproven (Lemma 5.9), this is a load-bearing gap. Please provide the lemma with a proof in this setting, or state Theorem 4.20 as conditional on it.
  2. [Lemma 4.8 vs. Prop. 4.19 and Thm. 4.20] There is a sign inconsistency in the definition of the curvature. Lemma 4.8, using the mQME as written in Eq. (29), concludes QME(V[f]) = −J[dη(f)]; the same sign appears in the displayed line immediately before the lemma. Proposition 4.19, however, assumes QME(V)=J, and Theorem 4.20 then sets [−]^V_0=J. Since Eq. (19a) defines the zero-ary bracket as [−]^V_0=QME(V), the curvature should be −J if Lemma 4.8 is taken literally. The sign affects the generalized Maurer–Cartan identities and the comparison with the CMR operator bΩ. The authors should fix the convention and trace it through the statements.
  3. [Definition 4.2 and Theorem 5.8] The paper treats the 'convergent smoothened-boundary limit' as a separate premise in Definition 4.2, but the recovery of CMR's ansatz in Theorem 5.8 takes limits inside the Peierls bracket, the star product, and the ℏ-expansion. Section 5.3 itself notes that the limit vanishes unless dη is transversal to Σ, and it uses propagator boundary conditions (Eq. (45)) evaluated on Σ. There is no theorem showing that this limit commutes with the quantum corrections. If it does not commute, the claimed agreement at leading order would reduce to the classical boundary action. Please make explicit which statements depend on this interchange and either prove it or state it as an additional hypothesis.
  4. [Remark 4.15 and Theorem 4.14] Theorem 4.14 is proved only for regular V, while the physically relevant applications — including the Abelian Yang–Mills example of Section 5.3 and Theorem 5.8 — use local interactions. Remark 4.15 asserts that the hybrid-H version carries over to local V 'mutatis mutandis' but leaves the proof to the reader. This is a nontrivial extension because the renormalised AMWI and the interacting star product require care on local functionals. Since Theorem 4.16 is stated for local F and the abstract claims a general pAQFT formulation, the local case should be proved rather than left to the reader.
  5. [§5.4, Lemma 5.9] The claimed recovery of Hollands' BRST/BV equivalence relies on the on-shell nilpotence of the interacting BRST charge, i.e. RV,H(q)⋆H RV,H(q)=0 on the relevant cohomology. Lemma 5.9 records this as a sufficient condition, but the text then says 'we believe that this can be proven more generally'. This is explicitly a gap in the current manuscript: the Hollands comparison is a stated byproduct of the paper, and it should not rest on an unproved belief. Either provide the proof in the present BV setting or state the nilpotence as an assumption in the comparison theorem.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typos and inconsistent headings: 'Densitites' in §2.2, 'Comparision' in §5.2 and §5.4, and 'LefF' in Appendix A. The reference [Sta97a] also contains a typo ('seccret').
  2. [Notation] The notation for J is used in several roles: a current J, a functional J[dη], and an element Jℏ in the abstract algebra. Please introduce a consistent notation distinguishing the generalized current from its smeared functional and from the abstract element.
  3. [References] The text cites [GR23] and [HRV] for important points. [GR23] does not appear in the reference list, and [HRV] is a 'in preparation' paper used to justify the inapplicability of the no-go theorem of [BGMS24]. The latter point should be either substantiated in the main text or deferred to an available preprint.
  4. [Eq. (31)] In Proposition 4.9 the term B0(V)=Q0(V)−{L0,V}std is stated to be 'equivalent to 0' and then used in the mQME. The equivalence is up to boundary terms; this is the crux of the construction and should be explained explicitly at that point rather than by referencing Proposition A.2 without comment.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Curvature-equals-J claim is definitional, but the L∞-identity check and explicit BV/BFV computations are independent content.

  1. self definitional [Theorem 4.20 (Eq. 36a), with Lemma 4.8 and Section 3.3.3]
    "Let V satisfy the modified Quantum Master Equation with generalised Noether current Jℏ. Then, the following data define a curved L∞ algebra [−]^V_0 = J ... Proof. This is a direct consequence of 3.20, when QME(V)=J."

    Lemma 4.8 defines the mQME by QME(V[f]) = -J[dη(f)], and the AMWI tower already defines the 0-ary bracket as [−]^V_0 = QME(V) (Eq. 19a). Substituting the mQME condition makes [−]^V_0 = J by construction. Hence the abstract's 'failure of the QME is encoded by a curvature term' is a restatement of the definition of the modified master equation, not a derived prediction. The independent part—that the brackets satisfy curved L∞ identities—requires l_1(J)=0, which is deferred to Prop. 4.19 via Hollands [Hol08]; that is an external-validity issue rather than circularity.

full rationale

Most of the paper is a genuine construction rather than a circular derivation. The mQME is introduced as a definition, and the retarded/advanced BV operators and BFV corrections are explicit formulas obtained from the AMWI and Møller maps. The YM computation in Thm 5.8, identifying the ℏ-linear term of [J,F]_⋆ with the geometric quantization of the boundary action, is a nontrivial check; the convergence axiom in Def. 4.2 sets the limit of J equal to π*L∂, but for YM the paper verifies this limit rather than merely assuming it. The main flagged step is the abstract's framing that QME failure is 'encoded' by curvature: since the 0-ary bracket is QME(V) and mQME is defined by QME(V)=-J, this identification is true by construction. The unsupported Hollands lemma needed for l_1(J)=0 and the explicit caveat 'we believe that this can be proven more generally' (Lemma 5.9) are correctness/soundness concerns, not circularity, so they do not raise the score beyond a modest partial-definitional adjustment.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are postulated: no new particles, forces, dimensions, or conserved quantities. The 'smoothened boundary' (C,N,f) is a regularization device, and the current J is derived from the failure of the classical master equation rather than postulated. The framework is conditional on the existence of a suitable current J for a given renormalization scheme (Def. 4.7 is a definition, not an existence theorem), and the agreement with CMR beyond leading order is a conjecture. The free parameters are structural choices (splitting, Hadamard state, renormalization scheme, smoothing data) rather than fitted numerical values.

free parameters (4)
  • free-interacting splitting (L = L0 + V)
    The entire construction depends on a choice of splitting (minimal vs. linear, Def. 3.1/Prop. 3.2). Boundary corrections in Thm 4.16 depend on this choice; different splittings give different bulk-boundary correspondences (§1, §5.4).
  • Hadamard state H
    Star products, time-ordering, and Møller maps are defined relative to H (Def. 3.10, 3.13); changing H changes the presentation but the framework claims equivalence via the α maps (Remark 3.12). A structural choice, not a fitted value.
  • renormalised time-ordering T (renormalisation scheme)
    Definition 3.15; the anomaly A(V) and hence the mQME and curved L∞ brackets are scheme-dependent. The paper acknowledges this via 'renormalised Noether currents' in §4.3.
  • smoothing function f and 1-form dη(f)
    Definition 4.1/Remark 4.6: the boundary correction J[dη] depends on the chosen smoothing; the sharp limit requires convergence (Def 4.2). §5.3 additionally requires dη transversal to Σ for a non-vanishing limit.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption D is Green-hyperbolic with retarded/advanced Green's functions, in the graded sense (Eq. 13)
    Introduced in §2.1/§3.2.1; the entire pAQFT machinery (star products, Møller maps, Peierls bracket) rests on Green-hyperbolicity.
  • standard math Anomalous Master Ward Identity (Thm 3.17, from BD08/FR12a) and the renormalised time-ordered product have the stated properties
    Imported from Brennecke-Dütsch and Fredenhagen-Rejzner; the entire QME/mQME calculus of Thms 4.14, 4.16, 4.20 relies on it.
  • ad hoc to paper Existence of the bivector Π and standard bracket {·,·}_std (Def. 2.21)
    The paper explicitly assumes it: 'we will refrain from giving sufficient conditions ... we will simply assume it exists' (§2.2, Def 2.21). The standard bracket is used throughout §3–§5.
  • domain assumption Hollands' result: T(e^{iV/ℏ}J) = 0 modulo the equations of motion (quoted from Hol08 §4.6)
    Load-bearing for Theorem 4.19 (modified Wess-Zumino consistency ⇒ Δ_ren^V J = 0); imported without proof and flagged as such by the authors' use of 'according to which'.
  • ad hoc to paper Convergence of the smoothened limit: f_n, f_n df_n → delta on ∂C and J[f_n df_n] → π*L_∂ (Def. 4.2)
    The recovery of CMR's boundary action (Thm 5.8) and the sharp-boundary statements in §5.2/§5.3 depend on this limit being well-defined and commuting with the ℏ-expansion; §5.3 notes the limit vanishes unless dη is transversal to Σ.
  • standard math Equicausal functional framework (HRV24): star product and Peierls bracket well-defined on F_ec, all multilocal functionals equicausal
    Invoked in §3.2.2–§3.3 (Def. 3.10, Remark 3.8); the extension of the interacting structures to local functionals relies on these external results.
  • domain assumption Causal support property of the interacting star product: F ⋆V G = F·G for causally separated supports (DHP16 Lemma 2.1)
    Used in Lemma 5.1 to reduce the retarded/advanced boundary corrections to commutators with the past/future parts of the current J[→/4Δη].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Perturbative algebraic quantum field theory with smoothened boundary." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RBQ4VNIZ

@misc{pith2026260713765,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Perturbative algebraic quantum field theory with smoothened boundary},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RBQ4VNIZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.13765}
}
abstract

We formulate quantisation of gauge field theories on globally hyperbolic Lorentzian manifolds with marked hypersurfaces within the framework of perturbative algebraic quantum field theory (pAQFT) enriched by the Batalin, Fradkin, Vilkovisky formalism (BV/BFV). This allows one to incorporate some crucial aspects of the local functorial approach to gauge field theory on manifolds with boundary within the algebraic setting. In particular, we provide a pAQFT-formulation of the modified classical and quantum master equations (after Cattaneo, Mnev and Reshetikhin CMR), as well as a constructive way to build a renormalised quantum BFV operator correcting the failure of the Quantum Master Equation by means of boundary terms (in the appropriate sense). We find that the renormalised quantum homotopy dg Lie algebra arising from the Anomalous Master Ward Identity becomes curved when boundaries are considered. The failure of the quantum master equation is thus encoded by a nontrivial curvature term in an $L_\infty$ algebra. As a byproduct, we recover previous results of Hollands' on the relation between the (boundary) BRST charge and the BV operator, and we recover CMR's ansatz for the quantum BFV operator at leading perturbative order on causal cylinders in Abelian Yang--Mills theory.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13765 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Geometrical setup from Definition 4.1. The hatched area is the smoothened boundary of the region C. The sharp boundary of C is the navy blue contour. Definition 4.2 (Smoothened BV-BFV theory). A relative BV theory on a compact region with smoothened boundary (C, N, f) is the data of • a BV theory (E, Ω, L) over C; • a BFV theory (E ∂ , Ω ∂ , L∂ ) over ∂C; • a surjective submersion π : E → E∂ , such that, 27We would … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Causal cylinder Proof. We have −→ΩJF = J[dη]⋆V F − J[dη] · F and split J[dη]⋆V F = (J[dη] + + J[dη] −)⋆V F , (38a) J[dη] · F = (J[dη] + + J[dη] −) · F . (38b) Now we use the fact that if supp F does not intersect J −(supp G) then F ⋆V G = F · G . This fact is proven, for example in Lemma 2.1 of [DHP16], but with slightly different convention in the definition of Møller maps, i.e. they use RV ◦ T −1 instead of RV . T… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [5]

    Green Hyperbolic Com- plexes on Lorentzian Manifolds

    arXiv:2311 . 00070 [math-ph]. [BMS23a] M. Benini, G. Musante, and A. Schenkel. “Green Hyperbolic Com- plexes on Lorentzian Manifolds”. In:Communications in Mathematical Physics403.2 (2023), pp. 699–744. [BMS24] M. Benini, G. Musante, and A. Schenkel. “Quantization of Lorentzian free BV theories: factorization algebra vs algebraic quantum field the- ory”. ...

    2023

  2. [10]

    Batalin-Vilkovisky Formalism in Perturbative Algebraic Quantum Field Theory

    [FR12a] K. Fredenhagen and K. Rejzner. “Batalin-Vilkovisky Formalism in Perturbative Algebraic Quantum Field Theory”. In:Communications in Mathematical Physics317.3 (2012), pp. 697–725. [FR12b] K. Fredenhagen and K. Rejzner. “Batalin-Vilkovisky Formalism in the Functional Approach to Classical Field Theory”. In:Communications in Mathematical Physics314.1 ...

    2012

  3. [13]

    Quantization of relativistic sys- tems with constraints

    arXiv:2407.15287 [math-ph]. [FV75] E. S. Fradkin and G. A. Vilkovisky. “Quantization of relativistic sys- tems with constraints”. In:Physics Letters B55.2 (1975), pp. 224–

    arXiv 1975

  4. [16]

    Corner Structure of Four-Dimensional General Relativity in the Coframe Formalism

    64 REFERENCES [CC24] G. Canepa and A. S. Cattaneo. “Corner Structure of Four-Dimensional General Relativity in the Coframe Formalism”. In:Annales Henri Poincaré25.5 (2024), pp. 2585–2639. [CMR14] A. S. Cattaneo, P. Mnev, and N. Reshetikhin. “Classical BV theories on manifolds with boundary”. In:Communications in Mathematical Physics332.2 (2014). CMR1, pp....

    2024

  5. [17]

    Presymplectic AKSZ formulation of Einstein gravity

    [GK21] M. Grigoriev and A. Kotov. “Presymplectic AKSZ formulation of Einstein gravity”. In:Journal of High Energy Physics2021.9 (2021), p

    2021

  6. [19]

    The star product in interacting quan- tum field theory

    arXiv: 2212.08175 [math-ph]. [HRV] E. Hawkings, K. Rejzner, and B. Visser. in preparation. [HR20] E. Hawkins and K. Rejzner. “The star product in interacting quan- tum field theory”. In:Letters in Mathematical Physics110.6 (2020), pp. 1257–1313. [HRV24] E. Hawkins, K. Rejzner, and B. Visser.A novel class of functionals for perturbative algebraic quantum f...

    arXiv 2020

  7. [20]

    [HT92] M

    arXiv:2312.15203 [math-ph]. [HT92] M. Henneaux and C. Teitelboim.Quantization of Gauge Systems. Princeton paperbacks. Princeton University Press,

    arXiv

  8. [25]

    Batalin-Vilkovisky formalism in locally covariant field theory

    arXiv:2008.04953 [math.QA]. [Rej11] K. Rejzner. “Batalin-Vilkovisky formalism in locally covariant field theory”. In:Ph.D. thesis, [arXiv:math-ph:1111.5130v1](2011). [Rej14] K. Rejzner. “Remarks on Local Symmetry Invariance in Perturbative Algebraic Quantum Field Theory”. In:Annales Henri Poincaré16.1 (2014), pp. 205–238. [Rej16] K. Rejzner.Perturbative A...

    arXiv 2008

Show all 30 references
  1. [28]

    Perturbative BF Theory in Axial, Anosov Gauge

    arXiv:2508.00133 [math-ph]. [SS24] M. Schiavina and T. Stucker. “Perturbative BF Theory in Axial, Anosov Gauge”. In:Annales Henri Poincaré25.10 (2024), pp. 4591–

    2024 arXiv

  2. [29]

    Homological reduction of constrained Poisson algebras

    [Sta97b] J. Stasheff. “Homological reduction of constrained Poisson algebras”. In:J. Differential Geom.45.1 (1997), pp. 221–240. [Ste24] P. Steffens.Representability of Elliptic Moduli Problems in Derived C ∞-Geometry

    1997

  3. [30]

    Symmetries, conservation laws and variational principles

    arXiv:2404.07931 [math.AG]. [Tak77] F. Takens. “Symmetries, conservation laws and variational principles”. In:Geometry and Topology. Ed. by J. Palis and M. do Carmo. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1977, pp. 581–604. [Tak79] F. Takens. “A global version of the ...

    1977 arXiv

  4. [31]

    Factorization algebras in quantum field theory. Vol. 2

    New Mathematical Monographs. http : / / people . mpim - bonn . mpg . de / gwilliam / vol1may8 . pdf. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2017, pp. 1–93. [CG17b] K. Costello and O. Gwilliam. “Factorization algebras in quantum field theory. Vol. 2”. In: (2017). available atht...

    2017

  5. [226]

    BFV approach to geometric quantiza- tion

    [FL94] E. Fradkin and V. Linetsky. “BFV approach to geometric quantiza- tion”. In:Nuclear Physics B431.3 (1994), pp. 569–621. [FR24] J. D. Fraser and K. Rejzner. “Perturbative expansions and the foun- dations of quantum field theory”. In:The European Physical Journal H49.1 (2024), p

    1994

  6. [601]

    Isomorphisms between the Batalin–Vilkovisky antibracket and the Poisson bracket

    [BH96] G. Barnich and M. Henneaux. “Isomorphisms between the Batalin–Vilkovisky antibracket and the Poisson bracket”. In:Journal of Mathematical Physics37.11 (1996), pp. 5273–5296. [BV17] D. Bashkirov and A. A. Voronov. “The BV formalism for $$L_\infty $$-algebras”. In:Journal...

    1996

  7. [1033]

    Lorentzian bordisms in al- gebraic quantum field theory

    [BMS23b] S. Bunk, J. MacManus, and A. Schenkel. “Lorentzian bordisms in al- gebraic quantum field theory”. In:arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.01026 (2023). [BMS25] S. Bunk, J. MacManus, and A. Schenkel. “Lorentzian bordisms in alge- braic quantum field theory”. In:Letters in Mathema...

    2023 arXiv

  8. [1044]

    The commutation laws of relativistic field theory

    [Pei52] R. E. Peierls. “The commutation laws of relativistic field theory”. In: Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences214.1117 (1952), pp. 143–157. REFERENCES 67 [QZ11] J. Qiu and M. Zabzine. “Introduction to Graded Geometry, B...

    1952

  9. [1789]

    Global existence of solutions of the Yang-Mills equations on globally hyperbolic four dimensional Lorentzian manifolds

    [CS97] P. T. Chrusciel and J. Shatah. “Global existence of solutions of the Yang-Mills equations on globally hyperbolic four dimensional Lorentzian manifolds”. In:Asian Journal of Mathematics1 (3 1997), pp. 530–54. [Cos11] K. Costello.Renormalization and Effective Field Theory...

    1997

  10. [1989]

    Removal of divergences with the Batalin-Vilkovisky for- malism

    [Ans94] D. Anselmi. “Removal of divergences with the Batalin-Vilkovisky for- malism”. In:Classical and Quantum Gravity11.9 (1994), p

    1994

  11. [1992]

    Renormalized Quantum Yang-Mills Fields in Curved Spacetime

    [Hol08] S. Hollands. “Renormalized Quantum Yang-Mills Fields in Curved Spacetime”. In:Reviews in Mathematical Physics20 (2008). [arXiv:gr- qc/705.3340v3], pp. 1033–1172. [IM19] R. Iraso and P. Mnev. “Two-Dimensional Yang–Mills Theory on Sur- faces with Corners in Batalin–Vilko...

    2008

  12. [1997]

    Manifestly Covariant Canonical Formulation of the Yang-Mills Field Theories. I: — General Formalism —

    [KO78] T. Kugo and I. Ojima. “Manifestly Covariant Canonical Formulation of the Yang-Mills Field Theories. I: — General Formalism —”. In: Progress of Theoretical Physics60.6 (1978), pp. 1869–1889. [MR] S. Martinoli and A. Riello. In preparation. [MMST20] P. Mathieu, L. Murray,...

    1978

  13. [2007]

    Action Principles and Global Geometry

    [Zuc87] G. J. Zuckerman. “Action Principles and Global Geometry”. In:Math- ematical Aspects of String Theory. 1987, pp. 259–284. eprint:https: 68 REFERENCES //www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789812798411_

    1987 doi

  14. [2009]

    Lagrangian Field Theory

    arXiv:0903.5433 [math.QA]. [Blo22] C. Blohmann. “Lagrangian Field Theory”. Unpublished manuscript, available athttps : / / people . mpim - bonn . mpg . de / blohmann / Lagrangian_Field_Theory.pdf

    arXiv

  15. [2016]

    BV Quantisation in Perturbative Algebraic QFT: Funda- mental Concepts and Perspectives

    [Rej22] K. Rejzner. “BV Quantisation in Perturbative Algebraic QFT: Funda- mental Concepts and Perspectives”. In:The Philosophy and Physics of Noether’s Theorems: A Centenary Volume. Ed. by J. Read and N. J. Teh. Cambridge University Press, 2022, pp. 100–133. [RS21] K. Rejzner...

    2022

  16. [2018]

    The Generalised Principle of Perturbative Agreement and the Thermal Mass

    REFERENCES 65 [DHP16] N. Drago, T.-P. Hack, and N. Pinamonti. “The Generalised Principle of Perturbative Agreement and the Thermal Mass”. In:Annales Henri Poincaré18.3 (2016), pp. 807–868. [DF99] M. Dütsch and K. Fredenhagen. “A Local (Perturbative) Construc- tion of Observabl...

    2016

  17. [2019]

    Towards Holography in the BV-BFV Setting

    [MSW20] P. Mnev, M. Schiavina, and K. Wernli. “Towards Holography in the BV-BFV Setting”. In:Annales Henri Poincaré21.3 (2020), pp. 993–

    2020

  18. [2022]

    Removal of violations of the mas- ter ward identity in perturbative QFT

    [BD08] F. Brennecke and M. Dütsch. “Removal of violations of the mas- ter ward identity in perturbative QFT”. In:Reviews in Mathematical Physics20.02 (2008), pp. 119–172. [BDLR18] C. Brouder, N. V. Dang, C. Laurent-Gengoux, and K. Rejzner. “Properties of field functionals and ...

    2008 arXiv

  19. [2023]

    Parent formulationattheLagrangianlevel

    Chap. Presymplectic gauge PDEs and Lagrangian BV formalism beyond jet-bundles. [Gri11] M.Grigoriev. “Parent formulationattheLagrangianlevel”.In:Journal of High Energy Physics2011.7 (2011), p

    2011

  20. [2024]

    [BGMS24] M

    arXiv: 2412.07318 [math-ph]. [BGMS24] M. Benini, A. Grant-Stuart, G. Musante, and A. Schenkel.Obstruc- tions to the existence of Møller maps

  21. [2025]

    [SS25] M

    arXiv:2509.24450 [math-ph]. [SS25] M. Schiavina and J. Schnitzer.Homotopies for Lagrangian field theory

  22. [2181]

    Green-hyperbolic operators on globally hyperbolic space- times

    [Bär15] C. Bär. “Green-hyperbolic operators on globally hyperbolic space- times”. In:Communications in Mathematical Physics333.3 (2015), pp. 1585–1615. [BFLS98] G. Barnich, R. Fulp, T. Lada, and J. Stasheff. “The sh Lie Structure of Poisson Brackets in Field Theory”. In:Commun...

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.