• Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.


PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,047 questions , 2,200 unanswered
5,345 answers , 22,709 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
816 active unimported users
More ...

  Identify a field as derivative of another

+ 4 like - 0 dislike

In the paper https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.5344, the authors identified the chiral algebra of a free vector multiplet, given by a $(b,c)$ system. In doing so, they, in eq (3.41), identify the gauginos $\tilde \lambda(z) \sim b(z)$, $\lambda(z) \equiv \partial c(z)$, and they do so because the OPEs look the same.

But is there other argument to support this identification from a more "path-integral" point of view? Say, if I'm studying the correlation functions by computing the path integral, why on earth would I re-identify the fields in such a way? (I guess similar question can be asked for bosonization)

Is it legal to identify a field as the derivative of another? Naively, this will change drastically the kinetic term in the action, to say the least.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-05-24 17:15 (UTC), posted by SE-user Lelouch

asked May 14, 2017 in Theoretical Physics by Lelouch (20 points) [ revision history ]
edited May 24, 2017 by Dilaton

just a comment waiting an answer : I should rather ask the relevance of (3.32) here* and how to show rigorously that its diagram commutes. Else claiming abstract identifications through pushforward/pullback analyses is common.

* here verbatim = where the top row represents multiplication in the ring of Schur operators, the bottom row represents creation/annihilation normal ordered products of chiral vertex operators, and the vertical arrows represent the identication of a Schur operator with its meromorphic counterpart in the chiral algebra.

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
Please complete the anti-spam verification

user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights