Reframing classical mechanics: An AKSZ sigma model perspective

Arghya Chattopadhyay; Nicolas Boulanger; Thomas Basile

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 37 references

Reframing classical mechanics: An AKSZ sigma model perspective

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims the Gozzi–Reuter–Thacker classical path integral is exactly the gauge-fixed action of a one-dimensional AKSZ sigma model with target $T^*(T[1]M \times \mathbb{R}[1])$.

desk verdict A mostly sound AKSZ repackaging of the GRT/KvN path integral; the local-exactness caveat is real and the matching details are rushed, but the central identification survives the index-transposition worry. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.18826 v1 pith:Y7XWUTWL submitted 2025-04-26 hep-th

Thomas Basile , Nicolas Boulanger , Arghya Chattopadhyay This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-th

keywords AKSZsigmamodelKoopman-vonNeumannmechanicsclassicalpathintegralGRTformulationBRSTquantizationBFVformalismLiealgebroidssymplecticgeometry

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 tries to establish that the path-integral reformulation of classical Hamiltonian mechanics due to Gozzi, Reuter and Thacker (GRT), built on the Koopman–von Neumann (KvN) operator picture, is not a standalone construction: it is exactly the gauge-fixed action of a one-dimensional AKSZ $\sigma$ model whose target space is the graded cotangent bundle $T^*(T[1]M \times \mathbb{R}[1])$. A sympathetic reader should care because the equivalence turns classical mechanics into a specimen of the AKSZ/BV–BRST machinery, giving a geometric origin for the 8n auxiliary fields in the GRT path integral and opening a route to generalizations where the $\mathbb{R}[1]$ factor is replaced by a general Lie algebra. The paper states this as a recovery of the GRT action from a gauge-fixed AKSZ model for the first-class constraint system $\{T_\bullet, T_a\}$ on $T^*M$.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the AKSZ action for the supermap $T[1]\Sigma \to M \times T^*\mathfrak{g}[1]$, combined with the BFV–BRST charge $\Theta$ that encodes the constraints. Specifically, the construction uses the Lie algebroid $E = TM \rtimes \mathbb{R}$ over the original phase space $M$: its shift $E[1]$ is the graded manifold with coordinates $z^a$ of degree 0 and $c^a, c_\bullet$ of degree 1, and its cohomological vector field $Q_E$ has cotangent lift equal to the BRST charge (4.6). Gauge fixing selects the component $e_\bullet = 1$ and $e^a = 0$; integrating out the Lagrange multipliers gives exactly the GRT Lagrangian. The structure functions of the constraint algebra are the derivatives $\partial_a X_H^b$ of the Hamiltonian vector field.

What would settle it

Take a Hamiltonian system whose phase space is a compact symplectic manifold with non-exact symplectic form (for example a torus with its area form) and try to build the gauge-fixed AKSZ action without a global $\vartheta$; if the resulting path integral cannot reproduce the classical propagator $\delta(z - z_{\mathrm{cl}}(t))$ or requires patching that breaks the equality with the GRT action, the claimed recovery holds only locally.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the classical propagator of a Hamiltonian system on a phase space $M$, written by GRT as a path integral over the 8n fields $(z^a, \lambda_a, c^a, \bar{c}_a)$, is the gauge slice of the AKSZ action for a one-dimensional worldline with target $T^*(T[1]M \times \mathbb{R}[1])$. The mechanism is a first-class constraint system on $T^*M$: $T_a = \lambda_a$ identifies $M$ as the zero section, and $T_\bullet = \lambda_a X_H^a$ with $X_H^a = \pi^{ab}\partial_b H$ generates the Hamiltonian flow. The BRST charge (4.6) built from these constraints satisfies $\{\Theta,\Theta\}=0$, and the AKSZ action constructed from it, after the gauge-fixing fermion $\Psi = \int d\tau\, \bar{c}_I(e^I - \delta^I_\bullet)$, reduces to the GRT Lagrangian $\lambda_a \dot{z}^a + i\bar{c}_a \dot{c}^a - \lambda_a \pi^{ab}\partial_b H - i\bar{c}_a \pi^{ad}(\partial_d\partial_b H)c^b$. Thus KvN mechanics is reframed as the reduced phase space of this constrained system, where taking the quotient of $M$ by the Hamiltonian $\mathbb{R}$-action yields the classical trajectories.

Load-bearing premise

The identification rests on assuming the phase-space symplectic form is exact, $\omega = d\vartheta$, so that the AKSZ action has a global symplectic potential, and on working in Darboux coordinates with only canonical transformations; on a general symplectic manifold without such a global potential the construction is local.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the equivalence is correct, the GRT/KvN path integral is the gauge-fixed AKSZ action for the constrained system with constraints $T_a = \lambda_a$ and $T_\bullet = \lambda_a X_H^a$, so the 8n integration fields are the superfield components of the AKSZ maps rather than ad hoc auxiliaries.
The reduced phase space of the constrained system is the set of classical trajectories: the quotient of $M$ by the Hamiltonian $\mathbb{R}$-action, which is why the target contains the $\mathbb{R}[1]$ factor.
The BRST charge (4.6) satisfying $\{\Theta,\Theta\}=0$ is the cotangent lift of the cohomological vector field of the Lie algebroid $E = TM \rtimes \mathbb{R}$, so classical evolution is recast as the cohomology of this Q-manifold.
Replacing $\mathbb{R}[1]$ by $\mathfrak{g}[1]$ for a Lie algebra action should produce AKSZ sigma models for classical systems with first-class constraints coming from a group action, with target of the form $T^*(T[1]C \rtimes (\mathbb{R}[1]\oplus \mathfrak{g}[1]))$.
The AKSZ picture gives a new geometric bridge between KvN mechanics and geometric quantization, potentially explaining the unobserved phase of the KvN wavefunction.

Reading between the lines

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

A consequence the authors leave implicit: because the construction assumes an exact symplectic potential, the cleanest reading is local; on compact or topologically nontrivial phase spaces the correct statement is likely a glued or sheaf-theoretic version, and one could test whether the GRT propagator is recovered chart by chart.
A physically testable extension is to compute the Ward identities of the AKSZ model and match them to the hidden BRS invariances of the GRT path integral; a formal action identity alone would not guarantee full equivalence of the path integrals.
The same gauge-fixing logic suggests a quantization route: applying AKSZ/BV quantization to this worldline model may produce deformations of classical mechanics, such as Moyal-type products, beyond what the paper works out.
For Hamiltonians with non-complete flows, the quotient $M/\mathbb{R}$ can be singular, so the 'space of classical trajectories' should be understood as a stack or derived space; in that setting the AKSZ description may be the better-defined object.

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

Short version: this paper does what it says. It shows the Gozzi–Reuter–Thacker path integral for classical mechanics is the gauge-fixed action of a one-dimensional AKSZ sigma model with target T*(T[1]M×R[1]). The constraints are natural: λ_a=0 cuts out M as the zero section of T*M, and T•=λ_a X^a_H is the cotangent lift of the Hamiltonian R-action. I was initially worried about an index transposition in Eq. (4.6), but reading the formula as the cotangent lift of the Q-structure on E[1]=T[1]M⋊R[1], the placement is correct and nilpotency is inherited from Q_E^2=0. So the central claim is fine.

What is genuinely new: the explicit target-space identification and the Lie-algebroid interpretation. Prior work identified the 8n-dimensional phase space as T*T[1]M; embedding it in an AKSZ model with the extra R[1] factor is a useful step, not a new framework. The construction is not just reverse-engineered from GRT—the constraints come from a geometric setup that stands on its own.

Soft spots, in order of real weight. First, the paper assumes ω=dϑ globally and works in Darboux coordinates with canonical transformations. For a general symplectic M this is at best local; the authors say this, but it is a genuine limitation of the identification as stated. Second, the matching to the GRT action is compressed: factors of i and ghost rescalings are not exhibited, and the determinant in Eq. (2.14) is glossed over. A referee should ask for a clean table of field redefinitions. Third, the nilpotency of Θ is asserted rather than demonstrated; it is true, but the paper would be stronger with a two-line check. The notation in Eq. (4.6) is also easy to misread—the stress-test note I saw tripped on this—so the authors should clarify index placement.

This is a reformulation with no new physical predictions, so its audience is mathematical physics. For that audience it is a solid, citable piece. I would send it to a serious referee and ask for the matching details and a discussion of the global issue. The paper deserves peer review; it does not deserve a desk rejection.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper argues that the Gozzi–Reuter–Thacker (GRT) path-integral formulation of Koopman–von Neumann classical mechanics can be understood as the gauge-fixed action of a one-dimensional AKSZ sigma model. After reviewing the GRT/KvN Lagrangian in Section 2, the authors introduce, in Section 4, a constrained system on the cotangent bundle of the original phase space, with first-class constraints T_a = lambda_a and T_bullet = lambda_a X^a_H. They write the corresponding BFV–BRST charge, gauge-fix the AKSZ action, and claim that the resulting Lagrangian reproduces the GRT action of Eq. (2.18). The paper also gives a Lie-algebroid interpretation of the construction, leading to the target T^*(T[1]M ⋊ R[1]). I checked the nilpotency claim for Eq. (4.6) in the minimal example H = p^2/2; the charge is nilpotent as printed, so the suggested index-transposition concern does not survive a direct computation.

Significance. If the identification is made fully explicit, this is a conceptually valuable explanation of the otherwise ad hoc 8n-dimensional extended phase space of the GRT formalism: the extra fields are the ghosts, antighosts, and momenta of a first-class constraint system on T^*M. The cotangent-lift and zero-section derivation of the constraints is elegant, and the central claim is concrete and checkable. The paper would be a useful contribution to the AKSZ/BFV literature, provided the comparison with the GRT action is completed and the internal sign inconsistencies are fixed.

major comments (2)

[Section 4, after Eq. (3.26)] The step from the gauge-fixed AKSZ action to the claimed recovery of the GRT Lagrangian (2.18) is not demonstrated. Starting from Eq. (4.6), the gauge-fixed action contains the ghost kinetic term \bar c_a \dot c^a and an interaction + C_{ab} c^a \bar c_b, whereas Eq. (2.18) has i \bar c_a \dot c^a and -i \bar c_a \pi^{ad}(\partial_d\partial_b H)c^b. These match only after the field redefinition \bar c_a^{AKSZ} = i \bar c_a^{GRT}, which is not stated. In addition, Eq. (3.26) contains the free sector \bar c_bullet \dot c_bullet, which has no counterpart in Eq. (2.18); the paper should show that this pair decouples and that its functional determinant is an irrelevant normalization constant. Until these steps are supplied, the central claim that the GRT action is recovered from the AKSZ model remains incomplete.
[Section 4, Eqs. (4.2) and (4.6)] There is an internal sign inconsistency between the two displayed forms of the BRST charge. Eq. (4.2) contains the term + c_bullet c^b P_a \pi^{ac}\partial_c\partial_b H, while Eq. (4.6) contains - C_{bullet ab} c_bullet c^a P_b = - c_bullet c^b \pi^{ac}\partial_b\partial_c H P_a. Since c^b and P_a are both odd, these expressions are not related by a relabelling; they differ by a sign. I verified that the charge in Eq. (4.6) is nilpotent in the example H = p^2/2 (the structure term is - c_bullet c^p P_q and the cross terms cancel), so Eq. (4.2) appears to be the erroneous one. The authors should correct Eq. (4.2) and state explicitly that Eq. (4.6) is the charge used in the subsequent gauge fixing.

minor comments (4)

[Section 4, Eqs. (4.4) and (4.5)] The notation for the constraints is inconsistent: Eq. (4.4) defines T_a = lambda_a with a lower index, while Eq. (4.5) writes {T_bullet, T^a} and C_{bullet ab} T^b with an upper index on T. The index placement should be unified.
[Abstract and Section 4, Eq. (4.12)] The abstract and conclusion write the target as T^*(T[1]M × R[1]), while Section 4 uses the semidirect product T[1]M ⋊ R[1]. The distinction matters because the Q-structure in Eq. (4.11) contains the c_bullet-dependent anchor; the direct-product notation is potentially misleading.
[Section 2, end] The paper restricts to Darboux coordinates and canonical transformations without restating this limitation in the final theorem. A sentence clarifying that the comparison with Eq. (2.18) is local, or a brief indication of how the Lie-algebroid construction globalizes, would sharpen the scope of the claim.
[References] Reference [15] is incomplete: it lists no title and an empty journal field. There is also a typo in Section 2, where 'loosing' should be 'losing'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the AKSZ model is independently specified from the Hamiltonian data, and the GRT action is recovered by an explicit gauge-fixing computation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, stated after Eq. (4.6), is an identification: the GRT/KvN path-integral action (2.18) equals the gauge-fixed action of a one-dimensional AKSZ model. Walking the derivation chain, the AKSZ action (3.9)-(3.26) is defined by standard AKSZ/BFV rules from symplectic Q-manifold data. For the chosen target T*M, the constraints Ta = λa and T• = λa X^a_H in (4.4) are not imported from the GRT action; they arise from the zero-section condition (4.7) and the cotangent lift of the Hamiltonian R-action (4.9), both determined by the pair (M,H). The BRST charge (4.13) is the cotangent lift of the Lie algebroid differential (4.11) of E = TM ⋊ R, again fixed solely by (M,H). The gauge fixing and subsequent elimination of auxiliary fields are explicit computations. The Conclusion does state that the constrained system was 'designed to reproduce the GRT formulation', which honestly describes the heuristic route; however, a reverse-engineered construction is not a circular derivation unless the output is fed back as an input. Here the only common datum is the Hamiltonian H itself, which is the physical input of both formulations. No parameter is fitted to the GRT action beyond that common input, and the paper is self-contained against the external GRT benchmark. The asserted nilpotency and index placement in Eq. (4.6) are not independently verified here, but any error there would be a correctness defect, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard BRST/BV, AKSZ, and Lie-algebroid machinery; on the domain assumption of a local exact symplectic potential and Darboux coordinates; and on formal path-integral manipulations. No free parameters are fitted and no new physical entities are introduced. The only asserted but unshown ingredient is the nilpotency of the BRST charge in Eq. (4.6).

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The symplectic form on M is exact: ω = dϑ.
Invoked at Eq. (3.6) to write the AKSZ action with a symplectic potential; not valid for all symplectic manifolds.
domain assumption The construction is performed in Darboux coordinates, allowing only canonical transformations.
Stated at the end of Section 2; limits the result to local canonical charts.
domain assumption The constraints T_I are first class and the BRST charge is nilpotent.
Needed for the BFV-BRST description; nilpotency in Eq. (4.6) is asserted via a direct computation that is not displayed.
domain assumption Formal functional-integral manipulations, including dropping the absolute value of a determinant, are valid.
Used in Section 2 around Eq. (2.14); the authors explicitly note the formal level.
standard math The AKSZ-BFV correspondence and the Lie-algebroid to Q-manifold construction are valid background results.
Relied on throughout Sections 3 and 4, citing [23,31,32].
standard math The Hamiltonian vector field X_H generates an R-action on M whose orbits are the classical trajectories.
Motivates the constraint T• and the Lie algebroid TM⋊R in Section 4.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reframing classical mechanics: An AKSZ sigma model perspective." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y7XWUTWL

@misc{pith2026250418826,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reframing classical mechanics: An AKSZ sigma model perspective},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y7XWUTWL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.18826}
}

abstract

The path-integral re-formulation due to E. Gozzi, M. Regini, M. Reuter and W. D. Thacker of Koopman and von Neumann's original operator formulation of a classical Hamiltonian system on a symplectic manifold $M$ is identified as a gauge slice of a one-dimensional Alexandrov--Kontsevich--Schwarz--Zaboronsky sigma model with target $T^\ast(T[1]M\times \mathbb{R}[1])$.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

[1]

B. O. Koopman, Hamiltonian Systems and Transformation in Hilbert Space , Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 17 (1931) 315–318

work page 1931
[2]

J. v. Neumann, Zur Operatorenmethode In Der Klassischen Mechanik , Annals of Mathematics 33 (1932) 587–642

work page 1932
[3]

Zur Operatorenmethode

J. v. Neumann, Zusätze Zur Arbeit “Zur Operatorenmethode...” , Annals of Mathematics 33 (1932) 789–791

work page 1932
[4]

Gozzi, M

E. Gozzi, M. Reuter and W. D. Thacker, Hidden BRS Invariance in Classical Mechanics. 2 , Phys. Rev. D 40 (1989) 3363

work page 1989
[5]

Gozzi, M

E. Gozzi, M. Reuter and W. D. Thacker, Symmetries of the classical path integral on a generalized phase space manifold , Phys. Rev. D 46 (1992) 757–765

work page 1992
[6]

Alexandrov, A

M. Alexandrov, A. Schwarz, O. Zaboronsky and M. Kontsevi ch, The Geometry of the master equation and topological quantum ﬁeld theory , Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 12 (1997) 1405–1429 , [hep-th/9502010]

arXiv 1997
[7]

Grigoriev, Oﬀ-shell gauge ﬁelds from BRST quantization , hep-th/0605089

M. Grigoriev, Oﬀ-shell gauge ﬁelds from BRST quantization , hep-th/0605089

arXiv
[8]

Boulanger, N

N. Boulanger, N. Colombo and P. Sundell, A minimal BV action for Vasiliev’s four-dimensional higher spin gravity , JHEP 10 (2012) 043 , [ 1205.3339]

arXiv 2012

Show all 37 references

[9]

Grigoriev and A

M. Grigoriev and A. Kotov, Gauge PDE and AKSZ-type Sigma Models , Fortsch. Phys. 67 (2019) 1910007 , [ 1903.02820]

2019 arXiv
[10]

Gozzi and M

E. Gozzi and M. Regini, Addenda and corrections to work done on the path integral app roach to classical mechanics , Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 067702 , [ hep-th/9903136]. 15

2000 arXiv
[11]

A. A. Abrikosov, Jr., E. Gozzi and D. Mauro, Time and geometric quantization , Mod. Phys. Lett. A 18 (2003) 2347–2354 , [ quant-ph/0308101]

2003 arXiv
[12]

A. A. Abrikosov, E. Gozzi and D. Mauro, Geometric dequantization, Annals Phys. 317 (2005) 24–71 , [ quant-ph/0406028]

2005 arXiv
[13]

Mauro, Topics in Koopman-von Neumann Theory

D. Mauro, Topics in Koopman-von Neumann Theory . PhD thesis, Università degli Studi di Trieste, 2003. quant-ph/0301172

2003 arXiv
[14]

Gozzi, Hidden BRS Invariance in Classical Mechanics , Phys

E. Gozzi, Hidden BRS Invariance in Classical Mechanics , Phys. Lett. B 201 (1988) 525–528

1988
[15]

E. S. Fradkin and G. A. Vilkovisky, Quantization of Relativistic Systems with Constraints: Equivalence of Canonical and Covariant Formalisms in Quant um Theory of Gravitational Field,
[16]

I. A. Batalin and G. A. Vilkovisky, Relativistic S Matrix of Dynamical Systems with Boson and Fermion Constraints , Phys. Lett. B 69 (1977) 309–312

1977
[17]

E. S. Fradkin and T. E. Fradkina, Quantization of Relativistic Systems with Boson and Fermion First and Second Class Constraints , Phys. Lett. B 72 (1978) 343–348

1978
[18]

I. A. Batalin and G. A. Vilkovisky, Gauge Algebra and Quantization , Phys. Lett. B 102 (1981) 27–31

1981
[19]

I. A. Batalin and G. A. Vilkovisky, Quantization of Gauge Theories with Linearly Dependent Generators, Phys. Rev. D 28 (1983) 2567–2582

1983
[20]

Becchi, A

C. Becchi, A. Rouet and R. Stora, Renormalization of the Abelian Higgs-Kibble Model , Commun. Math. Phys. 42 (1975) 127–162

1975
[21]

Becchi, A

C. Becchi, A. Rouet and R. Stora, Renormalization of Gauge Theories , Annals Phys. 98 (1976) 287–321

1976
[22]

I. V. Tyutin, Gauge Invariance in Field Theory and Statistical Physics in Operator Formalism, 0812.0580

arXiv
[23]

M. A. Grigoriev and P. H. Damgaard, Superﬁeld BRST charge and the master action , Phys. Lett. B 474 (2000) 323–330 , [ hep-th/9911092]

2000 arXiv
[24]

Henneaux and C

M. Henneaux and C. Teitelboim, Quantization of gauge systems . Princeton University Press, 1992, 10.1515/9780691213866

1992 doi
[25]

Gomis, J

J. Gomis, J. Paris and S. Samuel, Antibracket, antiﬁelds and gauge theory quantization , Phys. Rept. 259 (1995) 1–145 , [ hep-th/9412228]. 16

1995 arXiv
[26]

Fuster, M

A. Fuster, M. Henneaux and A. Maas, BRST quantization: A Short review , Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 2 (2005) 939–964 , [ hep-th/0506098]

2005 arXiv
[27]

Jurčo, L

B. Jurčo, L. Raspollini, C. Sämann and M. Wolf, L∞-Algebras of Classical Field Theories and the Batalin-Vilkovisky Formalism , Fortsch. Phys. 67 (2019) 1900025 , [ 1809.09899]

2019 arXiv
[28]

Barnich and F

G. Barnich and F. Del Monte, Introduction to Classical Gauge Field Theory and to Batalin-Vilkovisky Quantization , 1810.00442

arXiv
[29]

A. S. Cattaneo and N. Moshayedi, Introduction to the BV-BFV formalism , Rev. Math. Phys. 32 (2020) 2030006 , [ 1905.08047]

2020 arXiv
[30]

A. S. Cattaneo, P. Mnev and M. Schiavina, BV Quantization , 2307.07761

arXiv
[31]

A. Y. Vaintrob, Lie algebroids and homological vector ﬁelds , Russian Mathematical Surveys 52 (1997) 428

1997
[32]

Ikeda and T

N. Ikeda and T. Strobl, On the relation of Lie algebroids to constrained systems and their BV/BFV formulation , Annales Henri Poincare 20 (2019) 527–541 , [ 1803.00080]

2019 arXiv
[33]

Kostant, On the deﬁnition of quantization , Géométrie Symplectique et Physique Mathématique 237 (1974)

B. Kostant, On the deﬁnition of quantization , Géométrie Symplectique et Physique Mathématique 237 (1974)

1974
[34]

Dudley, J

R. Dudley, J. Feldman, B. Kostant, R. Langlands, E. Stein and B. Kostant, Quantization and unitary representations, in Lectures in Modern Analysis and Applications III , pp. 87–208,
[35]

A. A. Kirillov, Geometric quantization , in Dynamical Systems IV: Symplectic Geometry and its Applications, pp. 139–176. Springer, 2001. DOI

2001
[36]

N. M. J. Woodhouse, Geometric quantization . Oxford university press, 1992, 10.1093/oso/9780198536734.001.0001

1992
[37]

Wernli, Six lectures on geometric quantization , PoS Modave2022 (2023) 005 , [2306.00178]

K. Wernli, Six lectures on geometric quantization , PoS Modave2022 (2023) 005 , [2306.00178]. 17

2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

B. O. Koopman, Hamiltonian Systems and Transformation in Hilbert Space , Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 17 (1931) 315–318

work page 1931

[2] [2]

J. v. Neumann, Zur Operatorenmethode In Der Klassischen Mechanik , Annals of Mathematics 33 (1932) 587–642

work page 1932

[3] [3]

Zur Operatorenmethode

J. v. Neumann, Zusätze Zur Arbeit “Zur Operatorenmethode...” , Annals of Mathematics 33 (1932) 789–791

work page 1932

[4] [4]

Gozzi, M

E. Gozzi, M. Reuter and W. D. Thacker, Hidden BRS Invariance in Classical Mechanics. 2 , Phys. Rev. D 40 (1989) 3363

work page 1989

[5] [5]

Gozzi, M

E. Gozzi, M. Reuter and W. D. Thacker, Symmetries of the classical path integral on a generalized phase space manifold , Phys. Rev. D 46 (1992) 757–765

work page 1992

[6] [6]

Alexandrov, A

M. Alexandrov, A. Schwarz, O. Zaboronsky and M. Kontsevi ch, The Geometry of the master equation and topological quantum ﬁeld theory , Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 12 (1997) 1405–1429 , [hep-th/9502010]

arXiv 1997

[7] [7]

Grigoriev, Oﬀ-shell gauge ﬁelds from BRST quantization , hep-th/0605089

M. Grigoriev, Oﬀ-shell gauge ﬁelds from BRST quantization , hep-th/0605089

arXiv

[8] [8]

Boulanger, N

N. Boulanger, N. Colombo and P. Sundell, A minimal BV action for Vasiliev’s four-dimensional higher spin gravity , JHEP 10 (2012) 043 , [ 1205.3339]

arXiv 2012