Off-Shell Quantum Mechanics as Factorization Algebras on Intervals

Christoph Chiaffrino; Noah Hassan; Olaf Hohm

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 23 references

Off-Shell Quantum Mechanics as Factorization Algebras on Intervals

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that an off-shell factorization algebra built from BV algebras of compactly supported functions is quasi-isomorphic to ordinary on-shell quantum mechanics for the harmonic oscillator and the spin-1/2 system.

desk verdict The open-interval quasi-isomorphism is proven and convincing; the new boundary and spin-1/2 claims are plausible but rest on two explicitly omitted proofs, so the headline result is conditional. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.06912 v1 pith:ZBDQN2S6 submitted 2024-12-09 hep-th

Christoph Chiaffrino , Noah Hassan , Olaf Hohm This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-th

keywords factorizationalgebrasBatalin-Vilkoviskyoff-shellquantummechanicsharmonicoscillatorspin-1/2systemWeylalgebraquasi-isomorphismFeynmanpropagator

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

Standard quantum mechanics begins with the space of classical solutions and promotes position and momentum to operators obeying $[\hat{q},\hat{p}]=i\hbar$. This paper develops an alternative formulation in which the basic data are smooth functions compactly supported on time intervals—devices that record properties of arbitrary off-shell configurations—and the only operation is the graded-commutative wedge product of a symmetric algebra. The central claim is that for the harmonic oscillator and the spin-$\tfrac{1}{2}$ system this off-shell factorization algebra is quasi-isomorphic to ordinary on-shell quantum mechanics: the operator product, the action of operators on states, and inner products are all recovered by applying an explicit projection $\Pi=\Pi_0 e^{-C}$ to the wedge product. If correct, this shows that canonical commutation relations are not primitive but emerge from the ordering of intervals when off-shell data are reduced to cohomology. Because half-open and closed intervals are included, the formulation also carries the Hilbert space of states, its dual, and probability amplitudes, not just an operator algebra.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the projector $\Pi=\Pi_0 e^{-C}$ from the off-shell BV algebra to the cohomology that is ordinary quantum mechanics. $\Pi_0$ pairs each compactly supported function with the classical solutions, e.g. $f\mapsto \langle f,\sigma_+\rangle a+\langle f,\sigma_-\rangle a^\dagger$ for the oscillator, while $C=\Delta\circ(1\otimes h)$ is a degree-$+1$ contraction built from the Feynman propagator $h(f)(t)=\frac{i}{2\omega}\int e^{-i\omega|t-s|}f(s)\,ds$, which acts as a homotopy between the classical differential $d$ and the deformed differential $d+\Delta$. The exponential $e^{-C}$ corrects the naive projection so that it commutes with $\delta_{\rm BV}$, and the ordering of disjoint intervals in the factorization product makes $C$ produce exactly the commutator or anticommutator terms that convert the graded-commutative wedge product into the Weyl or Pauli algebra. On intervals with boundary, the spaces $C^\infty_{cp}$ are defined by $\partial_\pm=\partial_t\pm i\omega$ so that $h$ lands in the required compactly supported spaces with the correct boundary conditions.

What would settle it

Choose a nonzero smooth $f$ compactly supported in a half-open interval $[t_i,a)$ with $\int f(s)e^{i\omega s}\,ds=0$ and compute $h(f)(t)=\frac{i}{2\omega}\int_{t_i}^{a} e^{-i\omega|t-s|}f(s)\,ds$; if for some such $f$ the function $h(f)$ is not contained in the support of $f$ up to the endpoint, or fails the condition $\partial_-h(f)(t_i)=0$ (or the analogous condition on $[t_i,t_f]$), then the claimed homotopy and the projector built from it break down for that interval type.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's discovery is an explicit quasi-isomorphism between two factorization algebras on the interval $[t_i,t_f]\subset\mathbb{R}$. The off-shell factorization algebra assigns to each connected open interval $I$ the Batalin-Vilkovisky algebra ${\rm Obs}^q(I)=\operatorname{Sym}\bigl(C_c^\infty(I)\oplus C_c^\infty(I)[-1]\bigr)$ with differential $\delta_{\rm BV}=d+\Delta$, where $d$ is the dualized equation-of-motion operator and $\Delta$ is the BV operator performing contractions; for half-open and closed intervals the degree $-1$ functions carry boundary conditions $\partial_-f(t_i)=\partial_+f(t_f)=0$. The on-shell factorization algebra assigns to open intervals the Weyl algebra (for the oscillator) or the fermionic Weyl/Pauli algebra (for spin-$\tfrac{1}{2}$), to half-open intervals the Hilbert spaces of kets and bras, and to the closed interval the complex numbers. The maps $\Pi=\Pi_0 e^{-C}$, with $C=\Delta\circ(1\otimes h)$ built from the Feynman propagator $h$, are shown to intertwine the factorization products, so that the wedge product of off-shell representatives projects to operator composition, state actions, and amplitudes such as $\langle\chi|O|\psi\rangle$. The spin-$\tfrac{1}{2}$ version is derived from the one-dimensional Dirac action, and the same projector yields the Pauli algebra acting on $\mathbb{C}^2$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the homotopy operator built from the Feynman propagator sends functions orthogonal to all classical solutions back into functions compactly supported inside the interval and obeying the imposed boundary conditions; this support and boundary property is proved for open intervals but only sketched for half-open and closed intervals, and if it fails the projector $\Pi$ would not land in the stated state and operator spaces.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The Heisenberg relation $[q,p]=i\hbar$ ceases to be an input: it appears as the output of projecting the wedge product of representatives supported on two disjoint intervals, with the sign fixed by the order of the intervals.
Every familiar quantum mechanical operation—operator composition, operator action on kets and bras, and bra–ket pairing—is reproduced by the single factorization product (the wedge product) followed by $\Pi$, so the off-shell data determine all amplitudes.
Because the cohomology class of a state or operator is independent of which compactly supported representative is chosen, infinitely many different off-shell functionals project to the same physical state, exactly analogous to a gauge redundancy.
For the spin-$\tfrac{1}{2}$ system, the same construction yields the four-dimensional fermionic Weyl algebra and the Pauli matrices, with the off-shell BV differential derived from the Dirac action in (1+0) dimensions.
Including half-open and closed intervals completes the off-shell formulation: the factorization algebra now carries states ($\mathcal{H}$ and $\mathcal{H}^*$) and amplitudes ($\mathbb{C}$), not merely an operator algebra.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: if the quasi-isomorphism extends to polynomial interactions, as the paper expects, perturbative amplitudes could be computed entirely inside the off-shell algebra by wedging interaction terms on disjoint intervals and letting $\Pi$ perform the Wick contractions, without writing a path-integral measure.
Editorial inference: the support property of the Feynman-propagator homotopy is the natural stress point for numerical testing; a single counterexample on a half-open or closed interval would pinpoint exactly where the equivalence fails, since the rest of the proof follows the open-interval case.
Editorial inference: the boundary conditions $\partial_\pm$ encode a choice of in/out polarization, so varying them might connect this construction to other polarizations in geometric quantization, a direction the paper only mentions as future work.
Editorial inference: the complexity trade-off noted in the paper suggests an undeveloped algorithmic strategy—choose representatives so that most $C$-contractions vanish, thereby computing amplitudes more cheaply than standard normal-ordering algebra, because only the cohomology class matters.

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

Off-shell QM as factorization algebras: the open-interval story is solid; the boundary and spin-1/2 extensions are present but rest on two explicitly omitted proofs, so the headline claim is conditional, not established.

The paper does a lot right. For the harmonic oscillator on open intervals, it gives a fully explicit quasi-isomorphism between the BV algebra of compactly supported observables and the Weyl algebra. The projector Π = Π0 e^{−C} is computed carefully; the C-contraction calculation in (3.44) matches the time-ordering; the homotopy operator is spelled out. That part is self-contained and I did not find a gap. It is a re-derivation of known Costello–Gwilliam material, but the explicit form is useful.

The genuinely new content—half-open and closed intervals, mapping to kets/bras and amplitudes, and the spin-1/2 analog—is where I start to worry. Theorem 2 is proved only by saying 'we will not give the general proof,' and the spin-1/2 projector in (5.70) gets the same treatment. These are not cosmetic omissions. The chain-map property of Π hinges on [d,C] = −Δ, and that identity requires h(dg) = g on the subspaces with boundary conditions. Appendix B establishes the derivative-type conditions (∂±h(f) = 0 at the endpoints), but it does not explicitly verify the value-type conditions that the spin-1/2 case needs (g1(tf)=0, g2(ti)=0). If a boundary term survives, e^{−C} is not a chain map and the quasi-isomorphism fails. I don't see a demonstrated error—the pieces look like they're there—but the central new claims are not fully proven in the text.

A minor point: the construction is pretty clearly engineered so that Δ produces the Wick contractions that land in the Weyl/Pauli algebra. That is not a flaw; the quasi-isomorphism is still a substantive mathematical check. The authors are also honest about the omissions, which counts in their favor.

The paper is worth a serious referee. It is aimed at people working in factorization algebras, BV formalism, or algebraic approaches to QM/QFT, and it gives a clean template. But I would not want to see it accepted without the missing proofs for Theorems 2 and 3, or at least a complete verification of the boundary identities in an appendix. My recommendation: send to peer review, and ask the authors to fill the gaps.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper proposes an 'off-shell' reformulation of quantum mechanics for the harmonic oscillator and the spin-1/2 system, based on factorization algebras of Batalin-Vilkovisky (BV) algebras of compactly supported smooth functions on intervals. The main claim is that the factorization algebra F_QM, whose structure maps are just inclusions and wedge products, is quasi-isomorphic to the factorization algebra of ordinary on-shell quantum mechanics (Weyl algebra for operators, Hilbert spaces for half-open intervals, and complex numbers for the closed interval). The equivalence is implemented by the explicit projector Δ = Δ0 e^{-C}, where C is a Wick contraction built from the Feynman propagator. For open intervals, the quasi-isomorphism (Theorem 1) is proven in detail. For intervals with boundary (Theorem 2) and for the spin-1/2 system (Theorem 3), the paper verifies special cases but explicitly states that the general proofs are omitted.

Significance. If the missing proofs are supplied, this would be a valuable explicit illustration of the Costello-Gwilliam program, showing that the operator algebra, states, and expectation values of quantum mechanics can be recovered from the cohomology of an off-shell dg algebra with an explicit, computable quasi-isomorphism. The construction of the projector and the detailed verification of the open-interval case are genuine strengths, and the presentation is pedagogical and carefully motivated. I do not regard the choice of Δ as circular: the deformation is of course engineered to reproduce the Weyl/Pauli algebra, but the content lies in the explicit homotopy and the transfer argument. The main weakness is that the advertised extensions to boundary intervals and spin-1/2 rest on assertions rather than proofs, and these are precisely the cases where new boundary-condition technology is needed.

major comments (4)

[§4.2, Theorem 2] The proof of Theorem 2, the central statement for half-open and closed intervals, is not given; the text says 'We will not give the general proof, since it is very similar to the case on R'. The preceding verification covers only two special cases with linear monomials, (4.38)–(4.41). Since this is one of the paper's advertised new results, the omission is load-bearing. Please either provide the complete proof of commutativity of (4.37) for all structure maps listed in (4.32), or state explicitly that Theorem 2 is a conjecture. The proof must in particular handle higher monomials and the action of Π on the boundary-conditioned spaces C^∞_cp([ti,a)) and C^∞_cp((b,tf]).
[§5.3, Eq. (5.70)] The projector for the spin-1/2 system on half-open and closed intervals is asserted without proof: 'We will not give a proof of the fact that (5.70)'. This is load-bearing because Theorem 3 depends on it. The essential step is [d,C] = −Δ on the boundary-conditioned complex (5.51), which requires the homotopy identity h(dg)=g for components with value-type boundary conditions, g1(tf)=0 and g2(ti)=0. Appendix B establishes the required identities for the derivative boundary conditions of the bosonic case but does not carry out the analogous computation for the spin homotopy (5.19). Please supply this computation.
[§5.3, Propositions (5.60)–(5.61)] The proposition that the complexes (5.60) and (5.61) have cohomology isomorphic to C is stated with 'We will not give the proof of this proposition'. These results are used to identify the state spaces C[a†] and C[a], so they are needed for the Hilbert-space interpretation. The proof is a short zig-zag argument analogous to (5.56)–(5.59) and should be included.
[Appendix B] Appendix B proves the identities ∂−h(f)(ti)=0 and ∂+h(f)(tf)=0 and h(̈g+ω²g)=g for g∈C^∞_cp(I) with derivative boundary conditions. For the spin-1/2 system, however, one needs the corresponding identities for h(f)=−(∂+h(f1), ∂−h(f2)) under value-type boundary conditions. The boundary terms in (B.14) are proportional to ∂+g(b) and ∂−g(a), and it is not shown that these vanish when only the value of the function, not its derivative, is fixed at the boundary. If they do not vanish, the identity h(dg)=g fails and e^{−C} is not a chain map; please clarify.

minor comments (4)

[§5.1, around (5.17)] The phrase 'deform this differential by the de Rham differential' should read 'by the BV operator Δ'; the de Rham terminology is reserved for Appendix A and is confusing here.
[§5.3, after (5.66)] The sentence 'The maps FPauli(a,b) → FPauli([ti,b)) and FPauli(a,b) → FPauli((a,tf]) can be chosen such that it picks the vector (0,1) ∈ C2' is too terse; specify the maps explicitly, since they are part of the definition of FPauli.
[General typos] There are several typos, e.g., 'we we have' in §5.1, 'by by working' at the start of §5.3, and 'the the standard ones' in §5.3; these should be corrected.
[§5.3, Eq. (5.72)] The contraction kernel in (5.72) has a different overall normalization and sign convention from the bosonic formula (3.54); the relation to (5.24) should be stated explicitly so the reader can verify the signs.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the central quasi-isomorphism is an explicit homological computation self-contained in the text.

full rationale

The paper derives the quasi-isomorphism Pi = Pi0 e^{-C} from explicit definitions: the BV operator Delta is fixed by the pairing (2.50), the homotopy h by the Feynman propagator (2.21), and C = Delta o (1 otimes h). The identity [d,C] = -Delta is proved at (2.60)-(2.61) using h(dg)=g, so Pi is a chain map without fitting any parameter to the target Weyl/Pauli algebra. The compatibility of Pi with the factorization products is verified by direct computation, e.g. (3.41)-(3.44), and the boundary-interval cases reduce to the same homotopy identity (appendix B). The paper's self-citations ([3],[11]) are contextual and not load-bearing; the BV-operator normalization is a construction choice, not a re-labelling of the target algebra. The explicit admissions that the general proofs of Theorem 2 and of (5.70) are omitted (Sec. 4.2, Sec. 5.3) are completeness gaps, but an omitted proof is not a circular step. No equation in the derivation is equivalent to its output by construction; the quasi-isomorphism claim has independent mathematical content in the explicit chain homotopies and product-compatibility checks that the paper does provide.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted; the theories are defined by the harmonic oscillator frequency ω and Planck constant ℏ as physical inputs. The main assumptions are the identification of cohomology with observables, the specific form of the BV operator, and the technical support properties of the homotopy operator. No new physical entities (particles, forces, dimensions) are introduced.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The cohomology of the off-shell BV complex computes the physical observables of quantum mechanics.
This is the foundational identification inherited from the Costello-Gwilliam program and the authors' previous work [3]; it is motivated in §1 and appendix A but not proven in general.
ad hoc to paper The BV operator Δ defined by iℏ⟨f,g⟩ on quadratic monomials is the correct quantum deformation for the harmonic oscillator.
Equation (2.50) is chosen so that the cohomology yields the Weyl algebra; the finite-dimensional Gaussian analogy in appendix A provides motivation, not a derivation.
domain assumption The spin-1/2 system is modeled by the first-order Dirac complex with differential (∂_+, ∂_-).
This is introduced in §5.1 following a one-dimensional Dirac action, but the physical equivalence to a spin-1/2 particle is assumed.
domain assumption Prefactorization algebras are taken to be multiplicative on disjoint unions.
Stated explicitly in §3.1 and justified in appendix C; it is a standard technical assumption for extending to non-connected open sets.
ad hoc to paper The homotopy operator h satisfies the support and boundary properties needed for the projector Π to land in the stated spaces.
The properties are stated in appendix B, but for half-open and closed intervals the proofs are only sketched (§4.2, §5.3).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Off-Shell Quantum Mechanics as Factorization Algebras on Intervals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZBDQN2S6

@misc{pith2026241206912,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Off-Shell Quantum Mechanics as Factorization Algebras on Intervals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZBDQN2S6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.06912}
}

abstract

We present, for the harmonic oscillator and the spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ system, an alternative formulation of quantum mechanics that is `off-shell': it is based on classical off-shell configurations and thus similar to the path integral. The core elements are Batalin-Vilkovisky (BV) algebras and factorization algebras, following a program by Costello and Gwilliam. The BV algebras are the spaces of quantum observables ${\rm Obs}^q(I)$ given by the symmetric algebra of polynomials in compactly supported functions on some interval $I\subset\mathbb{R}$, which can be viewed as functionals on the dynamical variables. Generalizing associative algebras, factorization algebras include in their data a topological space, which here is $\mathbb{R}$, and an assignment of a vector space to each open set, which here is the assignment of ${\rm Obs}^q(I)$ to each open interval $I$. The central structure maps are bilinear ${\rm Obs}^q(I_1)\otimes {\rm Obs}^q(I_2)\rightarrow {\rm Obs}^q(J)$ for disjoint intervals $I_1$ and $I_2$ contained in an interval $J$, which here is the wedge product of the symmetric algebra. We prove, as the central result of this paper, that this factorization algebra is quasi-isomorphic to the factorization algebra of `on-shell' quantum mechanics. In this we extend previous work by including half-open and closed intervals, and by generalizing to the spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ system.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.06912 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Prefactorization structure of the Weyl algebra. In the first step, the first two intervals are mapped [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

[1]

Costello and O

K. Costello and O. Gwilliam, Factorization Algebras in Quantum Field Theory,Volume 1. New Mathematical Monographs. Cambridge University Press, 2016

work page 2016
[2]

Costello and O

K. Costello and O. Gwilliam, Factorization Algebras in Quantum Field Theory, Volume 2. New Mathematical Monographs. Cambridge University Press, 2021

work page 2021
[3]

Homological Quantum Mechanics

C. Chiaffrino, O. Hohm, and A. F. Pinto, “Homological quantum mechanics,” JHEP 02 (2024) 137, arXiv:2112.11495 [hep-th]

work page Pith review arXiv 2024
[4]

The virasoro vertex algebra and factorization algebras on riemann surfaces,

B. Williams, “The virasoro vertex algebra and factorization algebras on riemann surfaces,” Letters in Mathematical Physics 107 no. 12, (2017) 2189–2237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11005-017-0982-7

work page doi:10.1007/s11005-017-0982-7 2017
[5]

Relating nets and factorization algebras of observables: Free field theories,

O. Gwilliam and K. Rejzner, “Relating nets and factorization algebras of observables: Free field theories,” Communications in Mathematical Physics 373 no. 1, (2020) 107–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00220-019-03652-9

work page doi:10.1007/s00220-019-03652-9 2020
[6]

The observables of a perturbative algebraic quantum field theory form a factorization algebra

O. Gwilliam and K. Rejzner, “The observables of a perturbative algebraic quantum field theory form a factorization algebra.” 12, 2022

work page 2022
[7]

Celestial holography meets twisted holography: 4d amplitudes from chiral correlators,

K. Costello and N. M. Paquette, “Celestial holography meets twisted holography: 4d amplitudes from chiral correlators,” JHEP 10 (2022) 193, arXiv:2201.02595 [hep-th]. 77

arXiv 2022
[8]

An algebraic construction of functors between vertex algebras and costello-gwilliam factorization algebras

Y. Nishinaka, “An algebraic construction of functors between vertex algebras and costello-gwilliam factorization algebras.” 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.00412

arXiv 2024

Show all 23 references

[9]

Gwilliam, Factorization algebras and free field theories

O. Gwilliam, Factorization algebras and free field theories . PhD thesis, Northwestern University, 2012

2012
[10]

Beilinson and V

A. Beilinson and V. Drinfeld, Chiral Algebras. American Mathematical Society Colloquium publications. American Mathematical Society, 2004

2004
[11]

Gauge Invariant Perturbation Theory via Homotopy Transfer,

C. Chiaffrino, O. Hohm, and A. F. Pinto, “Gauge Invariant Perturbation Theory via Homotopy Transfer,” JHEP 05 (2021) 236, arXiv:2012.12249 [hep-th]

2021 arXiv
[12]

C. A. Weibel, An Introduction to Homological Algebra . Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, 1994

1994
[13]

Gauge algebra and quantization,

I. A. Batalin and G. Vilkovisky, “Gauge algebra and quantization,” Physics Letters B 102 no. 1, (1981) 27–31

1981
[14]

Quantization of gauge theories with linearly dependent generators,

I. A. Batalin and G. Vilkovisky, “Quantization of gauge theories with linearly dependent generators,” Physical Review D 28 no. 10, (1983) 2567

1983
[15]

Loop homotopy algebras in closed string field theory,

M. Markl, “Loop homotopy algebras in closed string field theory,” Commun. Math. Phys. 221 (2001) 367–384, arXiv:hep-th/9711045

2001 arXiv
[16]

On the perturbation lemma, and deformations

M. Crainic, “On the perturbation lemma, and deformations.” 2004. https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0403266

2004 arXiv
[17]

Factorization algebra

K. Costello and O. Gwilliam, “Factorization algebra.” 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.06137

2023 arXiv
[18]

Homotopy prefactorization algebras,

N. Idrissi and E. Rabinovich, “Homotopy prefactorization algebras,” Research in the Mathematical Sciences 11 no. 3, (2024) 45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40687-024-00456-9

2024 doi
[19]

Towards non-perturbative BV-theory via derived differential geometry

L. Alfonsi and C. A. S. Young, “Towards non-perturbative BV-theory via derived differential geometry.” 7, 2023

2023
[20]

Classical BV theories on manifolds with boundary,

A. S. Cattaneo, P. Mnev, and N. Reshetikhin, “Classical BV theories on manifolds with boundary,” Commun. Math. Phys. 332 (2014) 535–603, arXiv:1201.0290 [math-ph]. 78

2014 arXiv
[21]

Perturbative quantum gauge theories on manifolds with boundary,

A. S. Cattaneo, P. Mnev, and N. Reshetikhin, “Perturbative quantum gauge theories on manifolds with boundary,” Commun. Math. Phys. 357 no. 2, (2018) 631–730, arXiv:1507.01221 [math-ph]

2018 arXiv
[22]

A Note on the Antibracket Formalism,

E. Witten, “A Note on the Antibracket Formalism,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A 5 (1990) 487

1990
[23]

How to derive feynman diagrams for finite-dimensional integrals directly from the bv formalism,

O. Gwilliam and T. Johnson-Freyd, “How to derive feynman diagrams for finite-dimensional integrals directly from the bv formalism,” Topology and quantum theory in interaction 718 (2012) 175–185. 79

2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Costello and O

K. Costello and O. Gwilliam, Factorization Algebras in Quantum Field Theory,Volume 1. New Mathematical Monographs. Cambridge University Press, 2016

work page 2016

[2] [2]

Costello and O

K. Costello and O. Gwilliam, Factorization Algebras in Quantum Field Theory, Volume 2. New Mathematical Monographs. Cambridge University Press, 2021

work page 2021

[3] [3]

Homological Quantum Mechanics

C. Chiaffrino, O. Hohm, and A. F. Pinto, “Homological quantum mechanics,” JHEP 02 (2024) 137, arXiv:2112.11495 [hep-th]

work page Pith review arXiv 2024

[4] [4]

The virasoro vertex algebra and factorization algebras on riemann surfaces,

B. Williams, “The virasoro vertex algebra and factorization algebras on riemann surfaces,” Letters in Mathematical Physics 107 no. 12, (2017) 2189–2237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11005-017-0982-7

work page doi:10.1007/s11005-017-0982-7 2017

[5] [5]

Relating nets and factorization algebras of observables: Free field theories,

O. Gwilliam and K. Rejzner, “Relating nets and factorization algebras of observables: Free field theories,” Communications in Mathematical Physics 373 no. 1, (2020) 107–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00220-019-03652-9

work page doi:10.1007/s00220-019-03652-9 2020

[6] [6]

The observables of a perturbative algebraic quantum field theory form a factorization algebra

O. Gwilliam and K. Rejzner, “The observables of a perturbative algebraic quantum field theory form a factorization algebra.” 12, 2022

work page 2022

[7] [7]

Celestial holography meets twisted holography: 4d amplitudes from chiral correlators,

K. Costello and N. M. Paquette, “Celestial holography meets twisted holography: 4d amplitudes from chiral correlators,” JHEP 10 (2022) 193, arXiv:2201.02595 [hep-th]. 77

arXiv 2022

[8] [8]

An algebraic construction of functors between vertex algebras and costello-gwilliam factorization algebras

Y. Nishinaka, “An algebraic construction of functors between vertex algebras and costello-gwilliam factorization algebras.” 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.00412

arXiv 2024