Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 46 references

In-In EFT

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper constructs an effective field theory for in-in correlators by matching to the full theory at fixed time, showing that time-translation breaking forces boundary terms and odd time derivatives into the operator basis.

desk verdict Useful operator toolkit, but the matching misses the t/u channels so the central equation does not hold; fixable and worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.22045 v1 pith:VUTFTQCB submitted 2025-06-27 hep-th hep-ph

Namit Mahajan This is my paper
classification hep-thhep-ph
keywords effectivefieldtheoryin-incorrelatorsSchwinger-KeldyshformalismtimetranslationbreakingboundarytermsWilsoncoefficientstotalenergypoleSchrodingerrepresentation
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 aims to give real-time (in-in) correlation functions the same treatment that scattering amplitudes already have: a low-energy effective field theory built by matching. It defines the in-in EFT by demanding that the EFT and the full theory produce identical in-in correlators, and shows that this requirement is not equivalent to the usual amplitude-matching condition. Because in-in correlators are evaluated at a specific time, time translations and Lorentz invariance are broken while spatial rotations survive, so temporal and spatial derivatives must be treated independently and boundary terms survive. In a simple two-scalar toy model the paper demonstrates that the resulting operator basis reproduces the full-theory four-point correlator at tree level, with Wilson coefficients fixed by matching and with characteristic odd powers of the inverse heavy mass.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is the In-In EFT operator basis, defined by the matching condition $\langle \text{In-In Correlators}\rangle_{\text{EFT}} = \langle \text{In-In Correlators}\rangle_{\text{Full Theory}}$. The calculation is carried by the formal equivalence between in-in and in-out correlators, which lets the paper evaluate in-in correlators as equal-time Fourier transforms of ordinary time-ordered Green functions, and by the explicit separation of temporal and spatial derivatives in the effective Lagrangian, so that boundary terms and odd time-derivative operators survive. The total energy pole in the integrated correlator is the signal that the object is an expectation value at fixed time rather than an S-matrix element.

What would settle it

Compute the one-loop four-point in-in correlator in the toy model directly with the Schwinger-Keldysh formalism and compare it with the equal-time limit of the in-out Green function used here; any discrepancy from equal-time contact terms or vacuum-bubble phases would invalidate the matching and the operator basis.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that an effective description for in-in correlators can be written directly from the symmetries of the low-energy theory, in the same spirit as standard EFTs for S-matrix elements but with a different operator basis. Starting from the formal equivalence between the in-in and in-out correlation functions, the paper rederives this equivalence and uses it to compute in-in correlators with ordinary Feynman rules and an equal-time Fourier transform. It then constructs the allowed operators for four light fields under spatial rotations only, keeping total time-derivative (boundary) terms that are normally discarded, and matches the effective coefficients to the full theory at tree level. The matching shows that the EFT must contain operators with odd numbers of time derivatives, that the coefficients of temporal and spatial derivative operators differ, and that some Wilson coefficients are purely imaginary. The paper also argues that the Schrödinger representation of quantum field theory exhibits the total energy pole automatically and may connect these computations to wavefunction and amplitude methods.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the claimed equivalence between in-in and in-out correlators surviving the limit where all external fields sit at the same time; the paper itself flags that equal-time products of fields are subtle in the path integral.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The in-in EFT operator basis is larger than the standard Lorentz-invariant one: it contains boundary terms and odd powers of $\partial_t$, with generically complex Wilson coefficients.
  • Matching coefficients for spatial and temporal derivative operators are independent, so the effective Lagrangian has a separate velocity or frequency scale for time derivatives that only becomes visible beyond tree level.
  • The same matching rule can be applied to any full theory with heavy fields, giving a symmetry-based alternative to integrating out heavy fields for cosmological or non-equilibrium correlators.
  • Renormalization-group evolution of these Wilson coefficients should exist but will require careful treatment of boundary terms and redundant operators.
  • The Schrödinger-representation computation displays the total energy pole before any $t\to\infty$ limit, indicating a direct link between in-in EFT and wavefunction-based amplitude methods.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the equal-time limit of the in-in/in-out equivalence can be made rigorous, the Schwinger-Keldysh double-field formalism could be bypassed: any in-in correlator would be computed with one set of fields and standard Feynman rules, simplifying both cosmology and finite-temperature calculations.
  • The same boundary-term logic should apply to cosmological correlators on a time-dependent background, where time translations are already broken by the background; the operator basis there would naturally include odd time-derivative operators, and tree-level matching could be tested against known in-in computations.
  • The appearance of the total energy pole in the Schrödinger picture suggests that positivity or optical-theorem-type constraints, and possibly recursion relations for wavefunction coefficients, could be transferred to the in-in EFT side.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes to define an effective field theory for in-in (real-time) correlation functions by demanding equality between the in-in correlators computed in the EFT and in the full theory, Eq. (1). It rederives the formal equivalence between in-in and in-out correlators, Eq. (14), and then uses standard Feynman rules to compute the tree-level four-point function of a massless scalar φ in a toy model with a heavy field χ and interaction (g/2)χφ². Expanding the result in 1/M reveals operators with odd powers of time derivatives and boundary terms, which the author attributes to the breaking of time translation invariance. The paper then matches the expanded correlator to light-field operators such as φ⁴, φ²∂ᵢ²φ², ∂tφ²∂tφ², and ∂t(φ²∂t²φ²), and concludes with a qualitative discussion of the Schrödinger wavefunctional representation and the total-energy pole.

Significance. If fully demonstrated, this construction would provide a symmetry-based, matching-defined EFT for real-time correlators, with potential applications in cosmology and non-equilibrium quantum field theory. The paper correctly identifies that boundary terms and odd time-derivative operators are absent from the usual in-out EFT and are characteristic of an in-in EFT. It also gives a clean explicit computation of the s-channel contribution and shows how the total-energy pole emerges. The Wilson coefficients are fixed by matching rather than fitted to data, which is a strength. However, the central demonstration is incomplete as written: the matching is performed only against the s-channel diagram, the crossing-symmetric structure of local four-field operators is not fully implemented, and the equal-time limit of the in-in/in-out equivalence is asserted rather than rigorously established. These issues affect the main claim that Eq. (1) is satisfied by the constructed EFT.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 3, Eqs. (20), (25), (26), (28)-(31)] The matching is performed against the s-channel diagram only, while the full four-point in-in correlator defined by Eq. (1) is the sum of s-, t-, and u-channel diagrams. Since the external fields are identical scalars, the t- and u-channel diagrams are not suppressed at low energies; at leading order each channel gives the same 1/M² term in the expansion of Eq. (20). Matching to the single λφ⁴ insertion in Eq. (25) therefore gives λ = 3g²/M², not λ = g²/M² as written in Eq. (26). The same omission affects the derivative operators: a local operator such as (∂tφ²)² has a vertex that is the sum over the three pairings (ω₁+ω₂)(ω₃+ω₄) + (ω₁+ω₃)(ω₂+ω₄) + (ω₁+ω₄)(ω₂+ω₃), whereas Eq. (29) keeps only the (12)(34) pairing. Consequently, the Wilson coefficients extracted in Sec. 3 do not satisfy Eq. (1) as written. The matching must be redone using the full crossing-symmetric correlator.
  2. [Sec. 2, Eq. (14), and Conclusions] The formal identity G_In-In = G_In-Out is derived for time-ordered products with external times in a definite order, and is then applied to equal-time correlators, as stated after Eq. (14): the time argument of all external fields is taken to be the same. The equal-time limit is load-bearing because it is what produces the boundary terms, the 1/(8E₁E₂E₃E₄E_T) structure, and the operators with odd powers of time derivatives used throughout the matching. The paper itself acknowledges in the conclusions that products of fields at the same time are subtle in the path-integral formulation. This is therefore an unresolved assumption rather than a technicality. Please either prove the equal-time version of Eq. (14) under a specified operator ordering or point-splitting prescription, or state the precise conditions under which the equivalence applies to the in-in correlators of interest.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3, Eqs. (24), (27), (30)] There is a notation conflict: Eq. (24) defines C7,2 for ∂tφ²∂ᵢ²φ², but item 2 in Sec. 3 labels this operator as C7,1; the same symbol C7,1 is then reused in item 5 for ∂t(φ²∂t²φ²). Please rename the coefficients consistently.
  2. [Sec. 3, Eq. (28)] The symbols 't' and 'u' in (p²₁₂ + p²₃₄ + t + u) are not defined. They should be defined explicitly, e.g., t = p²₁₃ + p²₂₄ and u = p²₁₄ + p²₂₃, so that the permutation structure of the operator contribution is unambiguous.
  3. [Sec. 3, Eq. (30)] I do not find the dimension inconsistency that might be suspected in Eq. (30). After cancellation of the total-energy factors, both sides of the matching equation have the same mass dimension, and the claimed coefficient C7,1 = -ig²/M⁵ has dimension -3, as required for the operator ∂t(φ²∂t²φ²). The ET-dependent factors in Eq. (30) and in the O(1/M⁵) term of Eq. (20) cancel consistently.
  4. [Throughout] The manuscript contains numerous typographical errors (e.g., 'scttering', 'rlated', 'quatities', 'convetional', 'equilvalence', 'Hoever', 'calcultions'). A careful proofreading pass is needed before publication.
  5. [Sec. 3, 'Comparison with the literature'] The claim that the present approach is in 'complete agreement' with Refs. [39] and [40] is not demonstrated in the text. A short explicit comparison of the operator bases or of the Wilson coefficients obtained here with those of [40] would substantiate this statement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: In-In EFT coefficients are fixed by matching to the full theory, and the In-In/In-Out equivalence is rederived rather than imported as a self-cited premise.

full rationale

The paper's central construction is a matching calculation: Eq. (1) defines the In-In EFT by demanding equality of correlators, and Sec. 3 extracts Wilson coefficients by comparing EFT correlator integrals with the large-mass expansion of the full-theory s-channel result. These coefficients are therefore outputs of a matching condition, not predictions from fitted parameters. The formal equivalence between In-In and In-Out correlators, cited to [27], is rederived in Eqs. (9)-(14) using standard time-evolution and S-matrix identities; it is not a self-citation of the present author and does not assume the EFT result. The operator basis in Eq. (24) is constructed from symmetry requirements (spatial rotations preserved, time translations broken), and each operator's correlator is computed independently before comparison. There is no step in which a parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness or existence theorem is imported from the author's own prior work. The skeptic's observation that only the s-channel is matched and t/u channels would change lambda to 3g^2/M^2 is a potential correctness or matching-completeness defect, but it is not circularity: the matching procedure as stated is still a fixed-coefficient comparison rather than an equation that reduces to its own input. The paper itself flags the equal-time path-integral subtlety in the conclusions, which is a caveat about the rigor of the equivalence, not a circular step. Because the derivation chain is self-contained against an external full theory and standard QFT identities, no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new free parameters fitted to data; the Wilson coefficients are fixed by matching. It relies on the known In-In/In-Out equivalence, the standard EFT operator philosophy, and the iϵ prescription. No invented entities are postulated.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The In-In and In-Out correlation functions are equivalent (Eq. 14), following [27].
    The paper rederives this from standard QFT assumptions (stable vacuum, iϵ prescription) and uses it as the foundation for defining the EFT. The equal-time application is not rigorously proven.
  • domain assumption The low-energy operator basis can be truncated to four-field operators with derivatives up to a given order for tree-level matching.
    Standard EFT truncation, but the paper does not systematically classify redundant operators via field redefinitions, and notes this as future work.
  • domain assumption The iϵ prescription used in the In-Out calculation is valid for the equal-time In-In correlators.
    The paper uses the In-Out iϵ (m^2 -> m^2+iϵ) to pick poles, assuming it gives the correct In-In result. The paper mentions equal-time operator subtleties in the conclusions but does not analyze them.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of In-In EFT." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VUTFTQCB

@misc{pith2026250622045,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: In-In EFT},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VUTFTQCB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.22045}
}
read the original abstract

The effective field theory (EFT) construction when the objects of interest are the In-In (or real time) correlators rather than the In-Out S-matrix elements is constructed. This is done using the formal equivalence between the In-In and In-Out correlation functions, and demanding that the EFT and the full theory provide the same answers for the In-In correlation functions. Matching coefficients for a simple example are provided including for operators with two or more space or time derivatives. It is also pointed out that the Schrodinger representation of QFT captures some of the desired features of these calculations in a natural way and may actually serve as a link between these calculations and the broader amplitude programme.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [27]

    The in-out formalism for in-in correlators,

    Y. Donath and E. Pajer, “The in-out formalism for in-in correlators,” JHEP 07, 064 (2024) [arXiv:2402.05999 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    Phenomenological Lagrangians,

    S. Weinberg, “Phenomenological Lagrangians,” Physica A 96, no.1-2, 327-340 (1979)

    work page 1979

  3. [2]

    Effective field theory and the Fermi surface,

    J. Polchinski, “Effective field theory and the Fermi surface,” [arXiv:hep-th/9210046 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  4. [3]

    Effective field theory,

    H. Georgi, “Effective field theory,” Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 43, 209-252 (1993)

    work page 1993

  5. [4]

    Effective Field Theories

    D. B. Kaplan, “Effective field theories,” [arXiv:nucl-th/9506035 [nucl-th]]

    work page Pith review arXiv

  6. [5]

    Introduction to the effective field theory description of gravity,

    J. F. Donoghue, “Introduction to the effective field theory description of gravity,” [arXiv:gr- qc/9512024 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  7. [6]

    Effective field theory: Course,

    A. Pich, “Effective field theory: Course,” [arXiv:hep-ph/9806303 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  8. [7]

    Quantum gravity in everyday life: General relativity as an effective field theory,

    C. P. Burgess, “Quantum gravity in everyday life: General relativity as an effective field theory,” Living Rev. Rel. 7, 5-56 (2004) [arXiv:gr-qc/0311082 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 2004

Show all 46 references
  1. [8]

    TASI lectures on effective field theories,

    I. Z. Rothstein, “TASI lectures on effective field theories,” [arXiv:hep-ph/0308266 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  2. [9]

    Introduction to Effective Field Theory,

    C. P. Burgess, “Introduction to Effective Field Theory,” Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 57, 329-362 (2007) [arXiv:hep-th/0701053 [hep-th]]

    2007 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Introduction to Effective Field Theories,

    A. V. Manohar, “Introduction to Effective Field Theories,” doi:10.1093/oso/9780198855743.003.0002 [arXiv:1804.05863 [hep-ph]]

  4. [11]

    An Introduction to Effective Field Theories,

    R. Penco, “An Introduction to Effective Field Theories,” [arXiv:2006.16285 [hep-th]]

    2006 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Factorization of Hard Processes in QCD,

    J. C. Collins, D. E. Soper and G. F. Sterman, “Factorization of Hard Processes in QCD,” Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys. 5, 1-91 (1989) [arXiv:hep-ph/0409313 [hep-ph]]. 20

    1989 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Quantum Field Theory,

    C. Itzykson and J. B. Zuber, “Quantum Field Theory,” McGraw-Hill, 1980

    1980

  7. [14]

    The Quantum theory of fields. Vol. 1: Foundations,

    S. Weinberg, “The Quantum theory of fields. Vol. 1: Foundations,” Cambridge University Press, 2005

    2005

  8. [15]

    Quantum Field Theory and the Standard Model,

    M. D. Schwartz, “Quantum Field Theory and the Standard Model,” Cambridge University Press, 2014

    2014

  9. [16]

    Brownian motion of a quantum oscillator,

    J. S. Schwinger, “Brownian motion of a quantum oscillator,” J. Math. Phys. 2, 407-432 (1961)

    1961

  10. [17]

    Expectation value formalism in quantum field theory. 1.,

    P. M. Bakshi and K. T. Mahanthappa, “Expectation value formalism in quantum field theory. 1.,” J. Math. Phys. 4, 1-11 (1963) doi:10.1063/1.1703883

    1963 doi

  11. [18]

    Diagram technique for nonequilibrium processes,

    L. V. Keldysh, “Diagram technique for nonequilibrium processes,” Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 47, 1515-1527 (1964)

    1964

  12. [19]

    Equilibrium and Nonequilibrium Formalisms Made Unified,

    K. c. Chou, Z. b. Su, B. l. Hao and L. Yu, “Equilibrium and Nonequilibrium Formalisms Made Unified,” Phys. Rept. 118, 1-131 (1985)

    1985

  13. [20]

    Real and Imaginary Time Field Theory at Finite Temperature and Density,

    N. P. Landsman and C. G. van Weert, “Real and Imaginary Time Field Theory at Finite Temperature and Density,” Phys. Rept. 145, 141 (1987)

    1987

  14. [21]

    Closed Time Path Functional Formalism in Curved Space-Time: Application to Cosmological Back Reaction Problems,

    E. Calzetta and B. L. Hu, “Closed Time Path Functional Formalism in Curved Space-Time: Application to Cosmological Back Reaction Problems,” Phys. Rev. D 35, 495 (1987)

    1987

  15. [22]

    Nonequilibrium quantum fields in the large N expansion,

    F. Cooper, S. Habib, Y. Kluger, E. Mottola, J. P. Paz and P. R. Anderson, “Nonequilibrium quantum fields in the large N expansion,” Phys. Rev. D 50, 2848-2869 (1994) [arXiv:hep- ph/9405352 [hep-ph]]

    1994

  16. [23]

    Quantum contributions to cosmological correlations,

    S. Weinberg, “Quantum contributions to cosmological correlations,” Phys. Rev. D 72, 043514 (2005) [arXiv:hep-th/0506236 [hep-th]]

    2005 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Keldysh technique and nonlinear sigma-model: Basic prin- ciples and applications,

    A. Kamenev and A. Levchenko, “Keldysh technique and nonlinear sigma-model: Basic prin- ciples and applications,” Adv. Phys. 58, 197 (2009) [arXiv:0901.3586 [cond-mat.other]]. 21

    2009 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Schwinger-Keldysh Diagrammatics for Primordial Perturbations,

    X. Chen, Y. Wang and Z. Z. Xianyu, “Schwinger-Keldysh Diagrammatics for Primordial Perturbations,” JCAP 12, 006 (2017) [arXiv:1703.10166 [hep-th]]

    2017 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Nonequilibrium Quantum Field Theory,

    E. A. Calzetta and B. L. B. Hu, “Nonequilibrium Quantum Field Theory,” Oxford University Press, 2009

    2009

  20. [28]

    The Amplituhedron,

    N. Arkani-Hamed and J. Trnka, “The Amplituhedron,” JHEP 10, 030 (2014) [arXiv:1312.2007 [hep-th]]

    2014 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Cosmological Collider Physics,

    N. Arkani-Hamed and J. Maldacena, “Cosmological Collider Physics,” [arXiv:1503.08043 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  22. [30]

    On graviton non-Gaussianities during inflation,

    J. M. Maldacena and G. L. Pimentel, “On graviton non-Gaussianities during inflation,” JHEP 09, 045 (2011) [arXiv:1104.2846 [hep-th]]

    2011 arXiv

  23. [31]

    New Recursion Relations and a Flat Space Limit for AdS/CFT Correlators,

    S. Raju, “New Recursion Relations and a Flat Space Limit for AdS/CFT Correlators,” Phys. Rev. D 85, 126009 (2012) [arXiv:1201.6449 [hep-th]]

    2012 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Late-time Structure of the Bunch-Davies De Sitter Wavefunction,

    D. Anninos, T. Anous, D. Z. Freedman and G. Konstantinidis, “Late-time Structure of the Bunch-Davies De Sitter Wavefunction,” JCAP 11, 048 (2015) [arXiv:1406.5490 [hep-th]]

    2015 arXiv

  25. [33]

    From the flat-space S-matrix to the Wavefunction of the Universe,

    P. Benincasa, “From the flat-space S-matrix to the Wavefunction of the Universe,” [arXiv:1811.02515 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  26. [34]

    Cosmological Polytopes and the Wave- function of the Universe,

    N. Arkani-Hamed, P. Benincasa and A. Postnikov, “Cosmological Polytopes and the Wave- function of the Universe,” [arXiv:1709.02813 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  27. [35]

    Partially Massless Fields During Infla- tion,

    D. Baumann, G. Goon, H. Lee and G. L. Pimentel, “Partially Massless Fields During Infla- tion,” JHEP 04, 140 (2018) [arXiv:1712.06624 [hep-th]]

    2018 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Amplitudes meet Cosmology: A (Scalar) Primer,

    P. Benincasa, “Amplitudes meet Cosmology: A (Scalar) Primer,” doi:10.1142/S0217751X22300101 [arXiv:2203.15330 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  29. [37]

    Benincasa, [arXiv:1909.02517 [hep-th]]. 22

    1909 arXiv

  30. [38]

    The Cosmological Optical Theorem,

    H. Goodhew, S. Jazayeri and E. Pajer, “The Cosmological Optical Theorem,” JCAP 04, 021 (2021) [arXiv:2009.02898 [hep-th]]

    2021 arXiv

  31. [39]

    The Analytic Wavefunction,

    S. A. Salcedo, M. H. G. Lee, S. Melville and E. Pajer, “The Analytic Wavefunction,” JHEP 06, 020 (2023) [arXiv:2212.08009 [hep-th]]

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Effective field theory and in-in correlators,

    D. Green and G. Sun, “Effective field theory and in-in correlators,” JHEP 04, 166 (2025) [arXiv:2412.02739 [hep-th]]

    2025 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Schrodinger Representation and Casimir Effect in Renormalizable Quantum Field Theory,

    K. Symanzik, “Schrodinger Representation and Casimir Effect in Renormalizable Quantum Field Theory,” Nucl. Phys. B 190, 1-44 (1981)

    1981

  34. [42]

    SCHRODINGER REPRESENTATION IN QUANTUM FIELD THEORY,

    M. Luscher, “SCHRODINGER REPRESENTATION IN QUANTUM FIELD THEORY,” Nucl. Phys. B 254, 52-57 (1985)

    1985

  35. [43]

    GAUGE FIELDS IN THE FUNCTIONAL SCHRODINGER REPRESEN- TATION,

    B. F. Hatfield, “GAUGE FIELDS IN THE FUNCTIONAL SCHRODINGER REPRESEN- TATION,” UMI-86-05401

  36. [44]

    Initial Value Problems in Quantum Field Theory in the Large N Approximation,

    F. Cooper and E. Mottola, “Initial Value Problems in Quantum Field Theory in the Large N Approximation,” Phys. Rev. D 36, 3114 (1987)

    1987

  37. [45]

    Quantum Fields Out of Thermal Equilibrium,

    O. J. P. Eboli, R. Jackiw and S. Y. Pi, “Quantum Fields Out of Thermal Equilibrium,” Phys. Rev. D 37, 3557 (1988)

    1988

  38. [46]

    Quantum Field Theory Of Point Particles And Strings,

    B. Hatfield, “Quantum Field Theory Of Point Particles And Strings,” CRC Press, 2019. 23

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.