Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider Euclidean functional integrals involving actions that are not exclusively real. This situation arises, for example, when there are t-odd terms in the the Minkowski action. Writing the action in terms of only real fields (which is always possible), such terms appear as explicitly imaginary terms in the Euclidean action. The usual quanization procedure that involves finding the critical points of the action and then quantizing the spectrum of fluctuations about these critical points fails. In the case of complex actions, there do not exist, in general, any critical points of the action on the space of real fields, the critical points are in general complex. The proper definition of the function integral then requires the analytic continuation of the functional integration into the space of complex fields so as to pass through the complex critical points according to the method of steepest descent. We show a simple example where this procedure can be carried out explicitly. The procedure of finding the critical points of the real part of the action and quantizing the corresponding fluctuations, treating the (exponential of the) complex part of the action as a bounded integrable function is shown to fail in our explicit example, at least perturbatively. PACS Nos.: 11.10.–z, 03.70.+k
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".