MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1963977679 · doi:10.1139/p2012-013

Covariant gauge fixing and canonical quantization

2012· article· en· W1963977679 on OpenAlexaffvenue
D. G. C. McKeon

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsAlgoma University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPath integral formulationPhysicsBRST quantizationCovariant transformationMeasure (data warehouse)Gauge fixingGauge theoryCanonical transformationQuantization (signal processing)Faddeev–Popov ghostIntroduction to gauge theoryCanonical quantizationMathematical physicsGauge covariant derivativeTheoretical physicsGauge anomalyQuantum mechanicsMathematicsQuantumGauge bosonQuantum gravityComputer scienceAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Theories that contain first-class constraints possess gauge invariance, which results in the necessity of altering the measure in the associated quantum mechanical path integral. If the path integral is derived from the canonical structure of the theory, then the choice of gauge conditions used in constructing Faddeev’s measure cannot be covariant. This shortcoming is normally overcome either by using the “Faddeev–Popov” quantization procedure, or by the approach of Batalin–Fradkin– Fradkina–Vilkovisky, and then demonstrating that these approaches are equivalent to the path integral constructed from the canonical approach with Faddeev’s measure. We propose, in this paper, an alternate way of defining the measure for the path integral when it is constructed using the canonical procedure for theories containing first-class constraints, and that this new approach can be used in conjunction with covariant gauges. This procedure follows the Faddeev–Popov approach, but rather than working with the form of the gauge transformation in configuration space, it employs the generator of the gauge transformation in phase space. We demonstrate this approach to the path integral by applying it to Yang–Mills theory, a spin-two field and the first-order Einstein–Hilbert action in two dimensions. The problems associated with defining the measure for theories containing second-class constraints and ones in which there are fewer secondary first-class constraints than primary first-class constraints are discussed.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Physics→Same topicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics→French-language works237,207→