Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Higher-order Chern-Simons extensions to QED in $2+1$ dimensions

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In a 2+1-dimensional QED with a higher-derivative Chern-Simons term, one-loop fermion corrections split the electron into a physical particle and a negative-norm ghost, while the polarization and vertex functions stay finite and microcausal

desk verdict A real one-loop calculation in higher-derivative CS QED that is undermined by an uncomputed coefficient in the induced fermion kinetic term. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.21266 v1 pith:XLV4YVLF submitted 2025-08-28 hep-th hep-ph

Ricardo Avila , Albert Yu. Petrov , Carlos M. Reyes , César Riquelme , Angel Sanchez This is my paper
classification hep-thhep-ph MSC 81T1381T15 PACS 11.15.Yc14.70.Bh11.10.Kk
keywords higher-derivativeChern-SimonsMaxwell-Chern-SimonsQED2+1dimensionsone-loopradiativecorrectionsghoststatesindefinitemetricphotonpolarizationoperatormicrocausality
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

Electrodynamics in 2+1 dimensions with a Chern-Simons term extended by a higher-derivative box term is normally treated as a problem: the extra derivatives improve ultraviolet behavior but introduce a ghost with a negative-norm state. This paper shows the theory still works at one loop. The gauge sector splits into a massive photon and a massive ghost; the fermion self-energy induces an effective ψ̄ g □ψ term, which lets the fermion be rewritten as two decoupled Dirac fields — one physical, one negative-norm ghost. Using that decomposition, the photon polarization operator and the electron-photon vertex are computed in closed form and are finite. The paper closes by showing the gauge-field commutator vanishes at spacelike separations, so microcausality is preserved despite the indefinite metric.

What carries the argument

The central device of the calculation is the rational decomposition of the higher-order gauge propagator, 1/(k² − M²(k)) = [1/(g²(M₂² − m₁²))] · [1/(k² − m₁²) − 1/(k² − M₂²)], which splits every one-loop integral into a physical massive-photon mode and a massive ghost mode. Read through the induced fermion self-energy, the same pole structure generates the fermionic ψ̄ g □ψ term and the two-Dirac decomposition with masses m₁, m₂, together with the identity S(p) = i/(∙p − m − gp²) = ((m₁ + m₂)/(m₂ − m₁)) (S₁(p) − S₂(p)). The transverse tensor Tμν(k) = ημν − kμkν/k² − iγM εμβν kβ/k² (in the Landau gauge) carries the polarization structure into the vertex and commutator computations; for the co

What would settle it

Evaluate the fermion self-energy integral of Eq. (66) exactly at d = 3 without the analytic-continuation shortcut and read off the coefficient of p²: if it is not g (that is, if C(0) ≠ 1), the predicted masses m₁ = (1 − √(1−4mg))/(2g) and m₂ = (1 + √(1−4mg))/(2g) fail, and with them the explicit forms of Π(q) and Γμ. A second check: compute the two-loop correction to the spinor kinetic term, which the superficial counting leaves potentially divergent — any divergence there would overturn the claim that the higher-derivative structure tames the ultraviolet behavior.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated on the paper's own terms, is that the one-loop fermion self-energy in the higher-derivative Maxwell-Chern-Simons QED produces an effective higher-derivative term ψ̄ g □ψ, permitting a redefined Lagrangian of two decoupled Dirac fermions: a physical fermion of mass m₁ = (1 − √(1−4mg))/(2g) and a negative-norm ghost fermion of mass m₂ = (1 + √(1−4mg))/(2g) ≈ 1/g. With the fermion propagator decomposed into these two poles, the photon polarization operator separates into transverse, metric, and parity-odd pieces, all three of which the paper evaluates in closed form and finds free of 1/ε divergences; the zero-momentum vertex correction likewise reduces to a form factor

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes the coefficient of the induced fermionic higher-derivative term ψ̄ g □ψ equals the gauge-sector coupling g exactly, since the self-energy computation leaves a form factor C(p², μ) undetermined; if C(0) ≠ 1 the two fermion masses shift and all explicit polarization and vertex results change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The model is super-renormalizable at one loop: every one-loop diagram with at most two external fermion legs is finite, and the only candidate divergences are pushed to two loops.
  • The photon polarization operator falls off faster in the ultraviolet than in standard Maxwell-Chern-Simons QED, an improvement directly traceable to the g□ structure.
  • The vertex form factor F₁(0) reduces to the known pure Chern-Simons QED value e²/(4π) · 5/(3μ) when the higher-derivative term is switched off, anchoring the new computation to the established result.
  • The fermion kinetic and vertex corrections are governed by the same integral, consistent with the Ward identity at first order in external momenta, so gauge symmetry is not jeopardized at one loop.
  • Microcausality holds: the gauge-field commutator, computed with all four poles included, vanishes outside the light cone even though the Hilbert-space metric is indefinite.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The quantitative output inherits an undetermined form factor C(p², μ) from the self-energy computation: if C(0) ≠ 1 the two fermion masses and the closed-form polarization and vertex results shift, so the explicit numerics are only as solid as that coefficient.
  • The superficial divergence count leaves two-loop corrections to the spinor kinetic term and the spinor-vector vertex as the only possible divergent pieces; computing them is the natural stress test of whether the finiteness found here is structural or a one-loop accident.
  • In condensed-matter realizations (the paper itself points to graphene-type planar systems), the heavy ghost fermion would imprint a distinctive threshold near q = m₁ + m₂ in the polarization operator, distinguishable from the ordinary electron-hole continuum.
  • The paper proves microcausality but does not address unitarity; whether the negative-norm ghost stays benign in scattering amplitudes is the open question separating a finite one-loop model from a consistent physical theory.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes a higher-derivative extension of Maxwell-Chern-Simons QED in 2+1 dimensions, with the gauge sector containing both a Maxwell term and a Chern-Simons term deformed by a g□ factor. The authors derive the gauge propagator and its poles, identify one physical massive photon and one massive ghost, and attempt a canonical quantization leading to an indefinite metric. They then compute the one-loop fermion self-energy, argue that the induced correction generates a g□ fermion kinetic term, decompose the effective fermion Lagrangian into two decoupled fermions (one physical, one ghost), and use this decomposition to compute the photon polarization operator and the on-shell vertex. They conclude that these radiative corrections are finite and that the gauge-field commutator vanishes outside the light cone, thus preserving microcausality.

Significance. If established, the result would be a useful concrete example of how a higher-derivative Chern-Simons extension generates new fermionic degrees of freedom and improves ultraviolet behavior in planar QED, potentially relevant to condensed-matter effective theories. The paper contains a substantial amount of explicit calculation: the gauge propagator, polarization vectors, canonical commutation relations, one-loop self-energy integrals, closed-form PPO components, and a vertex form factor. It also checks microcausality explicitly. However, the central quantitative claims rest on an uncomputed coefficient in the induced fermionic higher-derivative term, and the canonical quantization is left incomplete. The paper is therefore more a conditional demonstration than a complete derivation of the advertised results.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV.B, Eqs. (68)-(69)] The transition from the self-energy expression (68), Σ(p)=A(p²,g,μ)/p − B(p²,g,μ)m − g p² C(p²,μ), to the effective kinetic term (69), ¯ψ(i/∂−m)ψ + ¯ψ g□ψ, silently sets C(p²,μ)=1. No computation of C(p²,μ) is given, and no non-renormalization theorem is cited. Dimensional analysis gives [g]=−1, so the loop-induced coefficient generically involves e² times functions of μ, m, and the cut-off/renormalization scale; it will not equal the bare g unless a special renormalization condition is imposed. Since the masses m1,m2 in (74)-(75) are roots of gC m² − m + m0 = 0, and all subsequent quantitative results—PPO components (97)-(99), vertex (127), and limits (100)-(102), (129)—depend on m1,m2, this assumption is load-bearing. I also note that the finite parts of A and B are not reported; they are absorbed without comment. The authors should compute C(p²,μ) at least at p²=0, or identify a symme
  2. [Sec. III, Eqs. (39)-(46)] The canonical quantization proceeds by imposing the equal-time commutation relations (39)-(40) on Pµ and Πµ, and then deriving the creation-annihilation algebra (45)-(46). Immediately before this, the paper states that constraints will likely arise and that 'a detailed analysis of this issue is left for future work'. If the system is constrained, the naive ETCR are generally replaced by Dirac brackets; the resulting algebra of creation and annihilation operators, and hence the negative-norm conclusion, may change. Since the ghost-field interpretation is one of the paper's central claims, this gap cannot be deferred to future work without weakening the claim. At minimum, the authors should state which constraints occur, whether they are first- or second-class, and why the ETCR used here remain valid.
  3. [Sec. IV.C and IV.D, Eqs. (78)-(82), (111)-(116)] The PPO and vertex computations use the decomposed propagator S(p)=i/(/p−m−gp²) as the internal fermion propagator. This is a resummed propagator containing arbitrary powers of the induced g p² insertion. The resulting diagrams are therefore not strict one-loop diagrams of the original QED; they are one-loop diagrams in an effective theory with a modified propagator. The finiteness and UV-improved behavior claimed in Sec. IV.C are properties of this partially resummed effective theory. The paper should explicitly acknowledge this resummation and justify its consistency, or present the strict one-loop result using the bare propagator with a single self-energy insertion. This does not necessarily invalidate the qualitative conclusions, but it affects the interpretation of the results as 'one-loop radiative corrections' of the original model.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] Typo: 'simimetals' should be 'semimetals' in Ref. [13] line. Also the notation W2 (capital) is inconsistently used for the ghost frequency while the physical frequency is ω1; this should be made uniform.
  2. [Sec. II, Eqs. (20)-(21)] The gauge-sector masses m1 and M2 are later reused for the fermionic masses m1 and m2 in Sec. IV.B (Eqs. (74)-(75)). This collision of notation makes formulas such as Eq. (127) hard to read. I recommend using distinct symbols, e.g. M± for gauge masses and m± for fermion masses.
  3. [Sec. IV.A, Eq. (52)] The statement that the theory is super-renormalizable and can have divergences up to two loops is not used in the rest of the paper. It would be helpful to connect this analysis to the explicit finiteness results obtained later, or to omit it.
  4. [Sec. V, Eqs. (150)-(153)] The contour-integral rewriting of the commutator is terse. The reader must supply the pole enumeration and the factors of 2πi; a few intermediate steps would improve reproducibility.
  5. [Appendix A] The evaluation of D00(z) in a general frame is presented, but the analogous treatment of D0i and Dij with z0≠0 is not shown; the text simply states they 'can be calculated in the same way'. Since the microcausality claim is a central result, providing the general proof for all components would be more satisfactory.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The central two-fermion decomposition and all derived quantitative results hinge on Eq. (69), which silently sets the uncomputed form factor C(p²,μ) in the loop-induced self-energy (68) to 1; the masses (74)-(75), PPO and vertex are then algebraic re-parameterizations of that assumption.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. IV.B, Eqs. (68)-(75)]
    "Σ(p) = A(p2, g, µ)/p − B(p2, g, µ)m − gp2C(p2, µ) , (68) where A, B and C are functions that do not contribute to the p2 order. Now, focusing on the fermionic part, we note that the corrections induce a general structure in the fermionic Lagrangian of the type Lf = ¯ψ(i /∂ − m)ψ + ¯ψg□ψ . (69)"

    The one-loop self-energy leaves the induced p² coefficient as gC(p²,μ) with C undetermined; Eq. (69) silently sets C=1. The masses (74)-(75) are then the roots of the assumed denominator /p−m−g p², and (78) is an algebraic identity for that operator. Hence the two-fermion masses and all subsequent quantitative results (PPO (97)-(99), vertex (127), limits (100)-(102),(129)) are re-parameterizations of the ansatz C=1, not consequences of the loop integral. The loop does prove a p² term exists, so the qualitative two-species structure is not vacuous, but the predictive content is forced by C=1 by construction.

full rationale

The paper is largely self-contained: gauge-sector modes and polarizations, canonical quantization, the fermion self-energy integral, the PPO and vertex loop integrals, and the microcausality commutator calculation are all performed in the paper or checked against external benchmarks (e.g., the g→0 limit reproduces [27]). The load-bearing circular step is the passage from Eq. (68) to Eq. (69): the self-energy produces a p² term with an uncomputed form factor C(p²,μ), but the paper then writes the effective Lagrangian with coefficient exactly g (C=1). The two-fermion masses in Eqs. (74)-(75) are defined as the roots of that assumed kinetic operator, and the decomposition (70)-(78) is an algebraic identity, so the 'two decoupled fermions' result and all finite-g quantitative predictions reduce to the original ansatz rather than to a fully calculated radiative correction. This is a partial circularity: the existence of a p² correction is independently grounded, but its coefficient—and therefore the specific masses and PPO/vertex values—is not derived. The one self-citation ([39]) is used only as a caveat about possible constraints and is not load-bearing for the main claims.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central results rest on standard QFT techniques plus two domain assumptions: the unanalysed constraint structure in quantization, and the identity of the induced fermionic □ coefficient with the gauge-sector g. The latter is the most consequential, as it sets the fermion masses and all finite PPO and vertex expressions.

free parameters (1)
  • Induced fermionic g-box coefficient = Assumed equal to gauge-sector g (C(0) implied = 1)
    Eq. (69) writes the induced higher-derivative fermionic term with coefficient g, while Eq. (68) gives the p² term as g p² C(p², μ) with C(p², μ) never evaluated. The value of C(0) is effectively a free parameter that controls all subsequent quantitative results.
assumptions (3)
  • standard math Standard QFT integral techniques: Feynman parametrization, dimensional regularization, and Wick rotation are valid for these integrals.
    Invoked throughout Sec. IV for the self-energy, PPO, and vertex evaluations.
  • domain assumption The Landau gauge propagator with pole structure k² - γ² M²(k) fully encodes the physical spectrum, despite constraints in the canonical quantization not being analyzed.
    The quantization in Sec. III imposes ETCRs without a Dirac bracket analysis; the authors flag this as future work.
  • domain assumption The parameters satisfy 1 + 4 γ² μ g > 0 so both gauge masses are real, effectively requiring μ > 0 for g, γ > 0.
    Eqs. (20a)-(20b) yield real masses only under this condition; the paper states g > 0 and γ > 0 but does not state μ > 0 explicitly.
invented entities (1)
  • Negative-norm ghost fermion ψ2
    purpose: Effective degree of freedom arising from the assumed higher-derivative fermion kinetic term; it decouples from the physical fermion in the redefined Lagrangian.
    The ghost fermion is a standard feature of higher-derivative theories and has no falsifiable handle outside the model; its properties are fixed by the assumed coefficient of the g-box term.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Higher-order Chern-Simons extensions to QED in $2+1$ dimensions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XLV4YVLF

@misc{pith2026250821266,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Higher-order Chern-Simons extensions to QED in $2+1$ dimensions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XLV4YVLF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.21266}
}
abstract

In this work, we investigate radiative corrections in the higher-order extension of the Maxwell-Chern-Simons model coupled to standard spinor matter in $2+1$ dimensions. We begin analyzing the higher-order gauge sector, where we find the modes and the polarizations vectors associated to a massive photon and ghost field. The higher-order gauge model is canonically quantized and as expected the resulting algebra of creation and annihilation operators corresponds to an indefinite metric in Hilbert space. Subsequently, we compute all relevant one-loop diagrams in the modified QED starting with the fermion self-energy. We show that the induced corrections to the fermion two-point function produce two independent fermionic degrees of freedom, which can be included in a redefined Lagrangian describing two decoupled fermions fields, one corresponding to a physical particle and the other to a negative-norm ghost state. We take advantage of this decomposition to compute the photon polarization operator and the vertex correction, both of which are found to be finite. Finally, we analyze the causal behavior of the model by computing the commutator of gauge fields at different spacetime points, and found that microcausality is preserved.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Dipole ghosts and spontaneous symmetry breaking in higher-order Chern-Simons theory

    hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Dipole ghost sectors emerge from the multiplicity of classical solutions in higher-order Chern-Simons theory, and spontaneous symmetry breaking lifts this degeneracy.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    (61) " 3α 1p Q(m1) − 1p Q(M2) ! −β 1 (Q(m1))3/2 − 1 (Q(M2))3/2 , with α = /p 3 (1 + 5x) + m . (62) β = −/pp2(1 − x)x2 + p2x2m , (63) Q(αi) = p2x(x − 1) + m2x + α2 i y , (64) the third piece is Σ(3)(p) = − e2 16π Z 1 0 dx Z 1−x 0 dy 1 g2(M 2 2 − m2 1) × " 3µ 1p Q(m1) − 1p Q(M2) ! −µλ 1 (Q(m1))3/2 − 1 (Q(M2))3/2 , (65) and, finally, the fourth piece is Σ(4)...

    work page

  2. [2]

    covariant derivative

    (66) − Z ∞ 0 dr r4 (r2 + ∆)2 + λ Z ∞ 0 dr r2 (r2 + ∆)2 , with λ = mx/p − 2p2(1 − x)x . (67) The first integral in (66) has to be analytically continued from arbitraryd-dimensions tod = 3 in order to produce a finite result. Finally, the total radiative corrections induce in the fermion self-energy the following higher-order operator of the form Σ(p) = A(p...

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Phase Transitions in Gauge Theories and Cosmology,

    A. D. Linde, “Phase Transitions in Gauge Theories and Cosmology,” Rept. Prog. Phys.42, 389 (1979)

    work page 1979

  4. [4]

    QCD and Instantons at Finite Temperature,

    D. J. Gross, R. D. Pisarski and L. G. Yaffe, “QCD and Instantons at Finite Temperature,” Rev. Mod. Phys.53, 43 (1981)

    work page 1981

  5. [5]

    Action for the Hot Gluon Plasma Based on the Chern-Simons Theory,

    R. Efraty and V. P. Nair, “Action for the Hot Gluon Plasma Based on the Chern-Simons Theory,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 2891-2894 (1992)

    work page 1992

  6. [6]

    A Mass Term for Three-Dimensional Gauge Fields,

    J. F. Schonfeld, “A Mass Term for Three-Dimensional Gauge Fields,” Nucl. Phys. B185, 157-171 (1981)

    1981

  7. [7]

    Topologically Massive Gauge Theories,

    S. Deser, R. Jackiw and S. Templeton, “Topologically Massive Gauge Theories,” Annals Phys. 140, 372-411 (1982)

    work page 1982

  8. [8]

    Quantum Field Theory and the Jones Poly- nomial,

    E. Witten, “Quantum Field Theory and the Jones Poly- nomial,” Commun. Math. Phys.121, 351-399 (1989)

    work page 1989

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Off diagonal long range order, oblique confinement, and the fractional quantum Hall effect,

    S. M. Girvin and A. H. MacDonald, “Off diagonal long range order, oblique confinement, and the fractional quantum Hall effect,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 1252-1255 (1987)

    1987

  2. [10]

    An effective field theory model for the fractional quantum Hall effect,

    S. C. Zhang, T. H. Hansson and S. Kivelson, “An effective field theory model for the fractional quantum Hall effect,” Phys. Rev. Lett.62, 82-85 (1988)

    1988

  3. [11]

    Quantum Hall physics: Hierarchies and conformal field theory techniques,

    T. H. Hansson, M. Hermanns, S. H. Simon and S. F. Viefers, “Quantum Hall physics: Hierarchies and conformal field theory techniques,” Rev. Mod. Phys.89, no.2, 025005 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    Anyon quantum mechanics and Chern-Simons theory,

    R. Iengo and K. Lechner, “Anyon quantum mechanics and Chern-Simons theory,” Phys. Rept. 213, 179-269 (1992)

    1992

  5. [13]

    Topological Insulators,

    M. Z. Hasan and C. L. Kane, “Topological Insulators,” Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 3045 (2010)

    2010

  6. [14]

    Higher-Order Derivative Corrections to Axion Electro- dynamics in 3D Topological Insulators,

    R. M. von Dossow, A. Martín-Ruiz and L. F. Urrutia, “Higher-Order Derivative Corrections to Axion Electro- dynamics in 3D Topological Insulators,” Symmetry17, no.4, 581 (2025)

    2025

  7. [15]

    S. M. Huang, S. Y. Xu, I. Belopolski, C.-C. Lee, G. Chang, B. Wang, N. Alidoust, G. Bian, M. Neupane, C. Zhang, S. Jia, A. Bansil, H. Lin and M. Z. Hasan, Nat. Commun. 6, 7373 (2015)

    2015

  8. [16]

    L. X. Yang, Z. K. Liu, Y. Sun, H. Peng, H. F. Yang, T. Zhang, B. Zhou, Y. Zhang, Y. F. Guo, M. Rahn, D. Prabhakaran, Z. Hussain, S. K. Mo, C. Felser, B. Yan and Y. L. Chen, Nature physics 11, 728 (2015)

    2015

  9. [17]

    Elec- tromagnetic fields induced by an electric charge near a Weyl semimetal,

    A. Martín-Ruiz, M. Cambiaso and L. F. Urrutia, “Elec- tromagnetic fields induced by an electric charge near a Weyl semimetal,” Phys. Rev. B99, no.15, 155142 (2019)

    2019

  10. [18]

    Lorentz violation in Dirac and Weyl semimetals,

    V. A. Kostelecký, R. Lehnert, N. McGinnis, M. Schreck and B. Seradjeh, “Lorentz violation in Dirac and Weyl semimetals,” Phys. Rev. Res.4, no.2, 023106 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    A Chern-Simons Ac- tion for Three-Dimensional anti-De Sitter Supergravity Theories,

    A. Achucarro and P. K. Townsend, “A Chern-Simons Ac- tion for Three-Dimensional anti-De Sitter Supergravity Theories,” Phys. Lett. B180, 89 (1986)

    1986

  12. [20]

    Selfdual Chern-simons Vortices,

    R. Jackiw and E. J. Weinberg, “Selfdual Chern-simons Vortices,” Phys. Rev. Lett.64, 2234 (1990)

    1990

  13. [21]

    Maxwell-Chern-Simons vortices in a CPT-odd Lorentz-violating Higgs Electrodynamics,

    R. Casana, M. M. Ferreira, Jr., E. da Hora and A. B. F. Neves, “Maxwell-Chern-Simons vortices in a CPT-odd Lorentz-violating Higgs Electrodynamics,” Eur. Phys. J. C74, no.9, 3064 (2014)

    2014

  14. [22]

    Self-dual solitons in a generalized Chern-Simons baby Skyrme model,

    R. Casana, A. C. Santos, C. F. Farias and A. L. Mota, “Self-dual solitons in a generalized Chern-Simons baby Skyrme model,” Phys. Rev. D100, no.4, 045022 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    Gen- eralized self-dual Maxwell-Chern-Simons-Higgs model,

    D. Bazeia, R. Casana, E. da Hora and R. Menezes, “Gen- eralized self-dual Maxwell-Chern-Simons-Higgs model,” Phys. Rev. D85, 125028 (2012)

    2012

  16. [24]

    Even-dimensional topological gravity from Chern-Simons gravity,

    N. Merino, A. Perez and P. Salgado, “Even-dimensional topological gravity from Chern-Simons gravity,” Phys. Lett. B 681 (2009), 85-88

    2009

  17. [25]

    Perturbative aspects of the supersymmet- ric three-dimensional massive QED,

    A. C. Lehum, J. R. Nascimento, A. C. P. Neto and A. Y. Petrov, “Perturbative aspects of the supersymmet- ric three-dimensional massive QED,” Phys. Rev. D111, no.12, 125003 (2025)

    2025

  18. [26]

    Chern-Simons terms in Lifshitz like quantum electrodynamics,

    V. S. Alves, B. Charneski, M. Gomes, L. Nascimento and F. Pena, “Chern-Simons terms in Lifshitz like quantum electrodynamics,” Phys. Rev. D 88, 067703 (2013)

    2013

  19. [27]

    Aspects of Chern-Simons theory,

    G. V. Dunne, “Aspects of Chern-Simons theory,” [arXiv:hep-th/9902115 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    Chern-Simons Modified General Relativity,

    S. Alexander and N. Yunes, “Chern-Simons Modified General Relativity,” Phys. Rept.480, 1-55 (2009)

    2009

  21. [29]

    Onquan- tum corrections to Chern-Simons spinor electrodynam- ics,

    M.Chaichian, W.F.ChenandV.Y.Fainberg, “Onquan- tum corrections to Chern-Simons spinor electrodynam- ics,” Eur. Phys. J. C5, 545 (1998) [hep-th/9706068]

    1998 arXiv

  22. [30]

    No More Correc- tions to the Topological Mass Term in QED in Three- Dimensions,

    S. R. Coleman and B. R. Hill, “No More Correc- tions to the Topological Mass Term in QED in Three- Dimensions,” Phys. Lett.159B, 184 (1985)

    1985

  23. [31]

    Gauge Covariance Relations and the Fermion Propagator in Maxwell-Chern-Simons QED(3),

    A. Bashir, A. Raya and S. Sanchez-Madrigal, “Gauge Covariance Relations and the Fermion Propagator in Maxwell-Chern-Simons QED(3),” J. Phys. A41, 505401 (2008)

    2008

  24. [32]

    Off-shell Green functions at one-loop level in Maxwell- Chern-Simons quantum electrodynamics,

    Y. Concha-Sanchez, A. Raya and M. E. Tejeda-Yeomans, “Off-shell Green functions at one-loop level in Maxwell- Chern-Simons quantum electrodynamics,” Phys. Rev. D 87, no.3, 035001 (2013)

    2013

  25. [33]

    Higher derivative Chern-Simons extensions,

    S. Deser and R. Jackiw, “Higher derivative Chern-Simons extensions,” Phys. Lett. B451, 73 (1999)

    1999

  26. [34]

    Testing symmetries in effective models of higher derivative field theories,

    C. M. Reyes, “Testing symmetries in effective models of higher derivative field theories,” Phys. Rev. D80, 105008 (2009)

    2009

  27. [35]

    Chiral and Parity Symmetry Breaking for PlanarFermions: EffectsofaHeatBathandUniformEx- ternal Magnetic Field,

    A. Ayala, A. Bashir, E. Gutierrez, A. Raya and 16 A. Sanchez, “Chiral and Parity Symmetry Breaking for PlanarFermions: EffectsofaHeatBathandUniformEx- ternal Magnetic Field,” Phys. Rev. D82, 056011 (2010)

    2010

  28. [36]

    Induction of the higher-derivative Chern-Simons extension in QED3,

    M. A. Anacleto, F. A. Brito, O. B. Holanda, E. Pas- sos and A. Y. Petrov, “Induction of the higher-derivative Chern-Simons extension in QED3,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 31, no. 25, 1650140 (2016)

    2016

  29. [37]

    Low-energy Moller scattering in a Maxwell-Chern-Simons Lorentz violating planar model,

    M. M. Ferreira, Jr., “Low-energy Moller scattering in a Maxwell-Chern-Simons Lorentz violating planar model,” Phys. Rev. D70, 045013 (2004)

    2004

  30. [38]

    Planar electrodynamics modified by higher-derivative terms,

    L. Lisboa-Santos, J. A. A. S. Reis, M. Schreck and M. M. Ferreira, Jr., “Planar electrodynamics modified by higher-derivative terms,” Phys. Rev. D 108, no.11, 115032 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    Planar anisotropic CPT-odd systems: A field theoretical approach,

    L. H. C. Borges, A. F. Ferrari, P. H. O. da Silva and F. A. Barone, “Planar anisotropic CPT-odd systems: A field theoretical approach,” Annals Phys. 469, 169749 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    Inter- actions Between Charges in a Planar Model in the Pres- ence of Nonminimal Lorentz Violation,

    C. B. Rocha, L. H. C. Borges and A. F. Ferrari, “Inter- actions Between Charges in a Planar Model in the Pres- ence of Nonminimal Lorentz Violation,” Braz. J. Phys. 54, no.6, 219 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    Causality, unitarity, and indefinite met- ric in Maxwell-Chern-Simons extensions,

    R. Avila, J. R. Nascimento, A. Y. Petrov, C. M. Reyes and M. Schreck, “Causality, unitarity, and indefinite met- ric in Maxwell-Chern-Simons extensions,” Phys. Rev. D 101, no.5, 055011 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    Unitarity in Stückel- berg electrodynamics modified by a Carroll-Field-Jackiw term,

    M. M. Ferreira, J. A. Helayël-Neto, C. M. Reyes, M. Schreck and P. D. S. Silva, “Unitarity in Stückel- berg electrodynamics modified by a Carroll-Field-Jackiw term,” Phys. Lett. B804, 135379 (2020)

    2020

  35. [43]

    Extended Chern–Simons Model for a Vector Multiplet,

    D. S. Kaparulin, S. L. Lyakhovich and O. D. Nosyrev, “Extended Chern–Simons Model for a Vector Multiplet,” Symmetry 13 (2021) no.6, 1004

    2021

  36. [44]

    T. D. Lee and G. C. Wick, Nucl. Phys. B9 (1969) 209

    1969

  37. [45]

    T. D. Lee and G. C. Wick, Phys. Rev. D2, 1033 (1970)

    1970

  38. [46]

    Chern-Simons modification of general relativity,

    R. Jackiw and S. Y. Pi, “Chern-Simons modification of general relativity,” Phys. Rev. D68, 104012 (2003)

    2003

  39. [47]

    The memoir on differential equations of the isoperimetric problem,

    M. Ostrogradsky, “The memoir on differential equations of the isoperimetric problem,”in French, Mem. Acad. St. Petersbourg 6, 385 (1850)

  40. [48]

    Constrained Hamiltonian Systems,

    A. J. Hanson, T. Regge and C. Teitelboim, “Constrained Hamiltonian Systems,” Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 1976, RX-748

    1976

  41. [49]

    Gauge invariances of higher derivative Maxwell-Chern-Simons field theory – a new Hamiltonian approach,

    P. Mukherjee and B. Paul, “Gauge invariances of higher derivative Maxwell-Chern-Simons field theory – a new Hamiltonian approach,” Phys. Rev. D85, 045028 (2012)

    2012

  42. [50]

    A first-class approach of higher derivative Maxwell–Chern–Simons–Proca model,

    S. C. Sararu, “A first-class approach of higher derivative Maxwell–Chern–Simons–Proca model,” Eur. Phys. J. C 75, no.11, 526 (2015)

    2015

  43. [51]

    Covariant Quantization of CPT-violating Pho- tons,

    D. Colladay, P. McDonald, J. P. Noordmans and R. Pot- ting, “Covariant Quantization of CPT-violating Pho- tons,” Phys. Rev. D95, no.2, 025025 (2017)

    2017

  44. [52]

    Quantum Field Theory and the Stan- dard Model,

    M. D. Schwartz, “Quantum Field Theory and the Stan- dard Model,” Cambridge University Press, 2014, ISBN 978-1-107-03473-0, 978-1-107-03473-0

    2014

  45. [53]

    An Introduction to quantum field theory,

    M. E. Peskin and D. V. Schroeder, “An Introduction to quantum field theory,” Addison-Wesley, 1995, ISBN 978- 0-201-50397-5, 978-0-429-50355-9, 978-0-429-494

    1995

  46. [54]

    Differen- tial regularization of Chern-Simons Maxwell spinor and scalar electrodynamics,

    M. Chaichian, W. F. Chen and H. C. Lee, “Differen- tial regularization of Chern-Simons Maxwell spinor and scalar electrodynamics,” Phys. Lett. B409 (1997), 325- 330

    1997

  47. [55]

    TableofIntegrals, Se- ries, and Products,

    I.S.GradshteynandI.M.Ryzhik, “TableofIntegrals, Se- ries, and Products,” 1943, ISBN 978-0-12-294757-5, 978- 0-12-294757-5

    1943

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.