Arxiv:2010.15414V2 [Quant-Ph] 18 May 2021 Besides This, Many Numerical Methods to Solve Partial Densities

Dynamical ﬁeld inference and supersymmetry

Margret Westerkamp1,2, Igor Ovchinnikov3, Philipp Frank1,2, Torsten Enßlin1,2,3 1. Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics, Karl-Schwarzschildstraße 1, 85748 Garching, Germany 2. Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität,Geschwister-Scholl Platz 1, 80539 Munich, Germany 3. Excellence Cluster Universe, Technische UniversitätMünchen,Boltzmannstr. 2, 85748 Garching, Germany

Knowledge on evolving physical fields is of paramount importance in science, technology, and economics. Dynamical field inference (DFI) addresses the problem of reconstructing a stochastically driven, dynamically evolving field from finite data. It relies on information field theory (IFT), the information theory for fields. Here, the relations of DFI, IFT, and the recently developed supersymmetric theory of stochastics (STS) are established in a pedagogical discussion. In IFT, field expectation values can be calculated from the partition function of the full space-time inference problem. The partition function of the inference problem invokes a functional Dirac function to guarantee the dynamics, as well as a field-dependent functional determinant, to establish proper normalization, both impeding the necessary evaluation of the path integral over all field configurations. STS replaces these problematic expressions via the introduction of fermionic ghost and bosonic Lagrange fields, respectively. The action of these fields has a supersymmetry, which means there exists an exchange operation between bosons and fermions that leaves the system invariant. In contrast to this, measurements of the dynamical fields do not adhere to this supersymmetry. The supersymmetry can also be broken spontaneously, in which case the system evolves chaotically. This affects the predictability of the system and thereby make DFI more challenging. We investigate the interplay of measurement constraints with the non-linear chaotic dynamics of a simplified, illustrative system with the help of Feynman diagrams and show that the Fermionic corrections are essential to obtain the correct posterior statistics over system trajectories. Keywords: Information field theory; Field Inference; Supersymmetric Theory of Stochastics; Stochastic Differential Equations; Chaos Theory

I. INTRODUCTION data taken from a measurement can never be continuous. IFT can then be applied for signal inference in all areas, where limitations on the exactness of the measure- Stochastic differential equations (SDEs) appear in ment are given. DFI [14–16] utilizes methods from IFT many disciplines like astrophysics [1], biology [2], chem- for the inference of signals in a DS. The reconstruction istry [3], and economics [4, 5]. In contrast to traditional of the signal is advanced by the knowledge on the signal differential equations the dynamics of the system, which properties, which are specified by the prior covariance of follows the SDE, are influenced by initial and boundary the signal. Non-linearities in the SDE result in a compli- conditions but not entirely determined by them. The un- cated and signal-dependent structure of the covariance. certainty in the dynamics can be an intrinsic stochastic The central mathematical object of our investigation will behavior [6] or simply due to imperfections in the model be the partition function of the inference problem, from [7], which describes the dynamical system (DS). which any relevant quantity of interest can be obtained. In addition to the uncertainty introduced by the The importance of the partition function for the calcu- stochastic process driving the evolution of the system, lation of dynamical critical properties was also outlined any observation of it is noise afflicted and incomplete. in [17]. This partition function is represented by a path This complicates the inference of the system’s state fur- integral involving a functional delta function, to enforce ther. In previous studies linear SDEs [8], especially the the system dynamics, and a functional determinant, to Langevin SDE [9], were already investigated extensively. ensure proper normalization of the involved probability arXiv:2010.15414v2 [quant-ph] 18 May 2021 Besides this, many numerical methods to solve partial densities. To handle the delta function and the deter- differential equations were interpreted and the propaga- minant, bosonic Lagrange and fermionic ghost fields are tion of the uncertainty for these problems has been stud- respectively introduced. ied [10, 11]. Here, we consider arbitrary SDEs and introduce dynamical field inference (DFI) as a Bayesian The approach of supersymmetric theory of stochas- framework to estimate the state and evolution of a field tics (STS) focuses on the theoretical analysis of the DS following an SDE from finite, incomplete, and noise af- as a supersymmetric system [18–21]. One of the cen- flicted data. DFI rests on information field theory (IFT), tral messages of STS is the correspondence between the which is information theory for fields. IFT [12, 13] was spontaneous breakdown of this supersymmetry (SUSY) developed in order to be able to reconstruct an infinite and the emergence of chaotic dynamics. Here, we argue dimensional signal from some finite dimensional data, that the emergence of chaos impacts the ability to in- as the signal from physical reality is usually not lim- fere dynamical fields. The dynamical growth rates of the ited to the discrete space. Rather a physical signal is fermionic ghost fields, which are the Lyapuov coefficients described by a continuous signal field. In contrast the measuring the strength of chaos, impact the uncertainty 2 of any field inference. Thereby, we illuminate the rele- vectors in Hilbert space. The scalar product between two vance of central elements of STS for DFI. fields ϕ(x) and γ(x) can be written in short notation as The paper tries to give a pedagogical introduction into Z IFT and STS by presenting the elementary calculation γ†ϕ := dx γ∗(x)ϕ(x), (1) steps in all derivations. The paper is structured as following: In Sec. II a brief introduction to IFT is given, where γ∗ is the complex conjugate of γ, which here will from which’s perspective DFI is developed in Sec. III. play no role, as we deal only with real valued fields. Bosonic Lagrange and fermionic ghost fields are introduced in Sec. IV. These permit for a reformulation of the partition function such that a symmetry between all B. Bayesian Updating bosonic and fermionic degrees of freedom becomes ap- parent. Sec. V A investigates the relation between SUSY and DFI by showing that system measurements have no In order to get to know a field ϕ one has to measure it. SUSY and how spontaneously broken SUSY , which was Bayes theorem states how to update any existing know- already investigated in [22], aka chaos impacts field re- ledge given a finite number of constraints by measure- constructions from measurement data. In V B and V C ments that resulted in the data vector d. Apparently, we analyze the impact of the chaos on the predictabil- it is not possible to reconstruct the infinite dimensional ity for linear and non-linear dynamic. With having con- field configuration of ϕ perfectly from a finite number of nected the DFI and STS formalisms, and shown their measurements. This is where the probabilistic descrip- mutual relevances, we conclude in Sec. VI and give an tion used in IFT comes into play. In probabilistic logic, outlook on future research directions. knowledge states are described by probability distributions. After the measurement of data d, the knowledge ac- II. INFORMATION FIELD THEORY cording to Bayes theorem [13] is given by the posterior probability distribution In many areas of science, technology, and economics, P(d|ϕ)P(ϕ) P(ϕ|d) = . (2) the difficult task of interpreting incomplete and noisy P(d) data sets and computing the uncertainty of the results arises [23, 24]. If the quantity of interest is a field, for This posterior is proportional to the likelihood P(d|ϕ) of example a spatially extended component of our Galaxy the measured data given the signal field multiplied by the [25, 26], or of the atmosphere [27, 28], which are mostly prior probability distribution P(ϕ). The normalization of continous functions over a physical space, the problem the posterior is given by the so called evidence becomes virtually infinte dimensional, as any point in Z space-time carries one or several degrees of freedom. For P(d) = Dϕ P(d|ϕ) P(ϕ). (3) such problems, which are called field inference problems, IFT was developed. IFT can be considered as a combina- Bayes theorem describes the update of knowledge states. tion of information theory for distributed quantities and The prior P(ϕ) turns into the posterior P(ϕ|d) given statistical field theory. some data d. To construct the posterior, we need to have the prior and the likelihood. The evidence and posterior incorporate those. A. Notation

Usually, only certain aspects describing our system ψ C. Prior knowledge are relevant. These aspects are called the signal, ϕ. Phy- sical degrees of freedom, which are contained in ψ and not The prior probability of ϕ, P(ϕ), specifies the knowl- in ϕ, but which still influence the data, are called noise edge on the signal before any measurement was per- n. If ϕ is a physical field ϕ :Ω → R, it is a function that formed. Formally, the prior on ϕ can be written in terms assigns a value to each point in time and u-dimensional of the system prior [12] postition space. Let us denote a space-time location by u + x = (~x,t) ∈ Ω = R × R0 , u ∈ N, where space and time Z will be handled in the same manner initially as in [29, 30]. P(ϕ) = Dψ δ(ϕ − ϕ(ψ)) P(ψ), (4) We let the time axis start at t0 = 0 for definiteness. The field ϕ = ϕ(x) has an infinite number of degrees where ϕ(ψ) is the function that specifies the field ϕ given of freedom and integrations over the phase space of the the system state ψ. Due to the integration over ψ the field are represented by path integrals over the integra- underlying system becomes partly invisible in the prob- Q tion measure Dϕ = x∈Ω dϕx [31], with ϕx = ϕ(x) being ability densities and only the field of interest, the signal a more compact notation. In the following these space- field ϕ, remains. Nevertheless, the properties of the orig- time coordinate dependent fields are denoted as abstract inal systems will still be present in the field prior P(ϕ). 3

For example, let us consider a situation close to what will statisitcs of the noise, which can be signal dependent, be relevant later on. We consider a system comprised of then determines the likelihood, two interacting fields constituting the system ψ = (ϕ, η), Z which are related via the invertible functional G[ϕ] = η P(d|ϕ) = Dn P(d, n|ϕ) implying P(η|ϕ) = δ(η − G[ϕ]). Then we have, assum- Z ing that there exists a unique solution ϕ to the equation = Dn P(d|n, ϕ) P(n|ϕ) G[ϕ] = η, Z P(η|ϕ) = δ(η − G[ϕ]) and (5) = Dn δ(d − R[ϕ] − n) P(n|ϕ) P(ϕ|η) = δ(ϕ − G−1[η]) = P(n = d − R[ϕ]|ϕ). (9) δ(η − G[ϕ]) = ||δG−1[η]/δη|| Note, however, that we might want to specify initial conditions of a dynamical field via data as well. Let δG[ϕ] = δ(η − G[ϕ]). (6) ϕ0 = ϕ(·, t0) be the initial field configuration at initial δϕ time t0. Then, we specify the initial data to be ex- We casted P(ϕ|η) into a form that only requires to have actly this initial field configuration, d0 = ϕ0, the cor- access to G, but not to G−1. As G is one-to-one P(ϕ|η) = responding response as R0[ϕ] = ϕ(·, t0), and the noise δ(ϕ − G−1(η)) would be our preferred quantity to work to vanish, P(n) = δ(n). Now, the initial condition is with. But, in DFI of non-linear systems we rarely have represented via the likelihood P(d0|ϕ) := P(d|ϕ, d0 = G−1 available as an explicit expression and therefore have ϕ(·, t0)) = δ(ϕ(·, t0) − ϕ0). This initial data likelihood to restore to Eq. (6). Now, we assume that we know the can be combined with any other data on the later evolu- prior statistics of P(η) and find the following implications tion, dl, via P(d|ϕ) = P(d0|ϕ) P(dl|ϕ), where d = (d0, dl) on P(ϕ), is the combined data vector. Z P(ϕ) = Dη P(ϕ|η)P(η) E. Information Z δG[ϕ] = Dη δ(η − G[ϕ]) P(η) Bayes theorem Eq. (2) can be rewritten in terms of δϕ statistical mechanics by defining an information Hamil- δG[ϕ] = P(η = G[ϕ]). (7) tonian, or short the information, which contains all the δϕ information needed for inference, and the partition function, which serves as a normalization factor, This shows that the field of interest ϕ inherits the statistics of the related field η, however, with a modification by e−H(d,ϕ) the functional determinant ||∂G/∂ϕ|| that is sensitive to P(ϕ|d) = , (10) Z non-linearities in the field relation. Here, the probability d P(ϕ|η) contains already the two elements that will lead H(d, ϕ) := − ln(P(d, ϕ)), (11) to SUSY in DFI, the delta function, which will be rep- Z Z := Dϕ e−H(d,ϕ). (12) resented with bosonic Lagrange fields and the functional d determinant, for which fermionic fields are introduced. Since both terms contain the functional G, it is plausi- Note, these formal definitions of information Hamiltonian ble that bosons and fermions might be connected via a and partition function hold in the absence of a thermo- symmetry. dynamic equilibrium. This formulation of field inference in terms of a statistical field theory permits the usage of the well developed apparatus of field theory, as we briefly D. Likelihood show in the following.

Let us now turn to the measurement and its likelihood. F. Partition Function The measurement process of the data can always be written as There is an infinite number of possible signal field re- d = R[ϕ] + n, (8) alizations that meet the constraints given by a finite number of measurements as encoded in the field pos- if we define the signal response to be R[ϕ] = hdi(d|ϕ) := terior P(ϕ|d). For practical purposes, for example to R Dd P(d|ϕ) d and the noise as n := d−R[ϕ]. In measure- have a figure in a publication showing what is known ment practice, the response converts a continuous signal about a field, one has to extract lower dimensional into a discrete data set. The linear noise of the mea- views of this very high dimensional posterior function. surement is given by the residual vector in data space These can be obtained by calculating posterior expec- between data and the signal response, n = d − R[ϕ]. The tation values of the signal field, like its posterior mean 4

R m = hϕi(ϕ|d) = Dϕ P(ϕ|d) ϕ or its uncertainty disper- iii) A signal independent Gaussian noise, † sion D = h(ϕ − m)(ϕ − m) i(ϕ|d). Thus, we want to be P(n|ϕ) = G(n, N), with known covariance † able to calculate posterior ﬁeld moments. N = hnn i(n) Given some data on a signal ﬁeld ϕ the posterior n- The information H(d, ϕ) is then calculated via the data point function is likelihood and the signal prior, Z hϕ(x1)...ϕ(xn)i(ϕ|d) = Dϕ ϕ(x1) ... ϕ(xn) P(ϕ|d). H(d, ϕ) = − log(P(d|ϕ)) − log(P(ϕ)). (17) (13) With the assumptions of the free theory and Eq. (9) the likelihood is The involved integral can be calculated exactly in case the posterior P(ϕ|d) is a Gaussian. Otherwise, the pos- P(d|ϕ) = G(R ϕ − d, N). (18) terior may be expanded around a Gaussian. With the help of the moment generating function Thus, the information for the free theory is given by

Z † H(d, ϕ) = − log(G(Rϕ − d, N) G(ϕ, Φ)) (19) Z [J] = Dϕ e−H(d,ϕ)+J ϕ, (14) d 1 = ϕ†(R†N −1R + Φ−1)ϕ − d†N −1Rϕ 2 which incorporates a moment generating source term 1 1 1 J †ϕ = R dxJ ∗(x)ϕ(x), the moments can be calculated + ln(|2πN|) + ln(|2πΦ|) + d†N −1d 2 2 2 via derivation with respect to J as (20) n 1 1 δ Zd[J] † −1 † hϕ(x )..ϕ(x )i := . = ϕ D ϕ − j ϕ + H0. (21) 1 n (ϕ|d) ∗ ∗ 2 Zd[J] δJ (x1)...δJ (xn) J=0 (15) Here, the so called information source j, the information propagator D, and H0 were introduced. The latter con- Likewise the connected correlation functions, also called tains all the terms of the information that are constant cumulants, are deﬁned as in ϕ. The others are,

δn log Z [J] −1 c d D = Φ−1 + R†N −1R , (22) hϕ(x1)..ϕ(xn)i(ϕ|d) := ∗ ∗ . (16) δJ (x1)...δJ (xn) J=0 −1 = Φ − Φ R† R Φ R† + N R Φ (23) Particularly, the cumulants of first and second order are j = R†N −1d. (24) of importance as they describe the posterior mean and c uncertainty dispersion, m = hϕi(ϕ|d) = hϕi(ϕ|d) and The second form of the information propagator D can be † c † D = hϕ ϕ i(ϕ|d) = h(ϕ − m)(ϕ − m) i(ϕ|d), respectively. verified via explicit calculation, Thus, the ultimate goal of any field inference is to obtain the moment generating partition function Zd[J] as −1 any desired n-point correlation function can be calculated DD h −1 i from it. For this reason, this partition function will be = Φ − Φ R† R Φ R† + N R Φ Φ−1 + R†N −1R the focus of our investigations. h −1 i = 1 − Φ R† R Φ R† + N R 1 + Φ R†N −1R

† −1 † † −1 G. Free Theory = 1 + Φ R N R − Φ R R Φ R + N R −1 −Φ R† R Φ R† + N R Φ R†N −1R An illustrative example for the signal reconstruction † −1 † † −1 and the simplest scenario in IFT is given by the free the- = 1 + Φ R N R − Φ R R Φ R + N R −1 ory. The underlying initial assumptions of the free theory −Φ R† R Φ R† + N R Φ R† + N − N N −1R lead to a theory without non-linear ﬁeld interactions. In −1 other words, the information H(d, ϕ) includes no terms = 1 + Φ R†N −1R − Φ R† R Φ R† + N R of order higher than quadratic in the signal ﬁeld ϕ. † −1 † † −1 The free theory emerges in practice under the following −Φ R N R + Φ R R Φ R + N R conditions: = 1 (25)

i) A Gaussian zero-centered prior, P(ϕ) = G(ϕ, Φ), and also holds in the limit N → 0 of a noise-less mea- † with known covariance Φ = hϕϕ i(ϕ) surement. The information can be expressed in terms of the field ii) A linear measurement, d = R ϕ + n, with known linear response R and additive noise m = Dj (26) 5 by completing the square in Eq. (21), which is also known III. DYNAMICAL FIELD INFERENCE as the generalized Wiener filter solution [32]. Also this can be written in a form that permits a noiseless mea- A. Field prior surement limit, In the previous section, we saw how to infer a signal −1 † −1 −1 † −1 m = Φ + R N R R N d field from measurement data d with some measurement = R†Φ R Φ R† + N d, (27) noise n particularly in the case of a free theory. Now, we consider a DS, for which the time evolution of the signal which can be verified with a very analogous calculation. field is described by an SDE Only terms, which depend on the signal field ϕ need ∂tϕ(x) = F [ϕ](x) + ξ(x). (34) to be considered and therefore the symbol “=”b is introduced, to mark the equality up to an additive constant. We want to see, how this knowledge can be incorporated We therefore have into a prior for the field for DFI. The first part of the SDE in Eq. (34), ∂tϕ(x) = F [ϕ](x), describes the determinis- 1 † −1 H(d, ϕ) =b (ϕ − m) D (ϕ − m). (28) tic dynamics of the field. The excitation field ξ turns 2 the deterministic evolution into an SDE and mirrors the Knowing the information, the moment generating func- influence of external factors on the dynamics. DFI aims to infer a signal in such a DS using the tools from IFT. tion of the free theory, ZG[J], is constructed in the next step on the way of calculating the best fit reconstruction Thus, in DFI next to the observational n, which results of the signal by means of expectation values. from the measurement contaminated by nuisance influ- ences, the excitation field ξ of the SDE has to be consid- Z ered during inference. −H(d,ϕ)+J †ϕ ZG[J] = Dϕ e (29) Care has to be taken as the domains of the fields ϕ and u + 1 † ξ differ. While ϕ(x) is defined far all x ∈ Ω = R × R0 , p 2 (j+J) D(j+J)−H0 0 u + = |2πD|e (30) the fields ∂tϕ and ξ live only over Ω = R × R , from which the intial time slice at t0 = 0 is removed. Eq. All higher order (n > 2) cumulants vanish and the non- (34) therefore makes only statements about fields on vanishing cumulants are, Ω0, although it also depends on the intial conditions ϕ = ϕ(·, t ). As such need to be specified, a inital con- 0 0 c δ log ZG[J] dition prior P(ϕ0) is required. We further introduce the m(x) = hϕ(x)i(ϕ|d) = ∗ , (31) 0 δJ (x) J=0 notation ϕ = ϕ(·, t 6= t0) for all field degrees of freedom 2 except the ones fixed by the inital condition, ϕ0, so that ∗ c δ log ZG[J] 0 D(x, y) = hϕ(x)ϕ (y)i = . (32) we have ϕ = (ϕ0, ϕ ) (ϕ|d) δJ ∗(x)δJ(y) J=0 The SDE in Eq. (34) can be condensed and generalized by an operator G[ϕ], G : Cn,1(Ω) → C(Ω0), which As higher order cumulants vanish the posterior distri- contains all the time and space derivatives of the SDE up bution can be written as a Gaussian with mean m and to order n in space. uncertainty covariance D, G[ϕ](x) = ξ(x) with (35) P(ϕ|d) = G(ϕ − m, D). (33) G[ϕ](x) := ∂tϕ(x) − F [ϕ(·, t)](x) (36) Hence, computations in free theory are simple, as the Within the framework of this study, we will assume that Gaussian posterior can be treated analytically. The usage the excitation of the SDE has a prior Gaussian statistics, of the same symbol D for the information propagator, the inverse of the kernel of the quadratic term in the P(ξ) = G(ξ, Ξ), (37) information, and the posterior uncertainty dispersion is with known covariance Ξ. For a general G, ξ in its present justified, as they coincide in the free theory, but only form does not fully specify ϕ, for this additionally some there. initial conditions ϕ at time t have to be specified. We In other cases, when the signal or noise are non- 0 0 fix this by augmenting ξ with ϕ0 = ϕ(·, t0) by setting Gaussian, the response non-linear or the noise is sig- η = (ϕ , ξ)† with nal dependent, the theory becomes interacting in the 0 sense that H(d, ϕ) contains terms that are of higher than P(η) = P(ϕ0) G(ξ, Ξ), (38) quadratic order. Thus, the information of this non-free, interacting theory incorporates not only the propagator and by extending G to and source terms of the free theory but also interaction G0[ϕ] = (ϕ ,G[ϕ]) (39) terms between more than two signal field values. We 0 will encounter such situations for a field with non-linear with G0 : Cn,1(Ω) → C(Ω) such that G0[ϕ] = η and dynamics. G0−1[η] = ϕ hold and are both uniquely defined. 6

Then, the prior probability for the signal ﬁeld is accor- ing to Eq. (6), δG[ϕ] P(ϕ) = P(ξ = G[ϕ]) P(ϕ0) (44) δϕ0 0 0 δG [ϕ] P(ϕ) = P(η = G [ϕ]) 1 − 1 G[ϕ]†Ξ−1G[ϕ] δG[ϕ] δϕ = e 2 P(ϕ0) (45) p δϕ0 0 |2πΞ| δG [ϕ] | {z } | {z } = G(G[ϕ], Ξ) P(ϕ0) , (40) =:J (ϕ) δϕ =:B(ϕ) This contains a signal dependent term B(ϕ) from the and the functional determinant becomes excitation statistics as well as another one, J (ϕ), from the functional determinant. Especially the calculation ! ! 0 δϕ0 δG[ϕ] δG[ϕ] of this determinant remains a computational problem. δG [ϕ] δϕ δϕ 1 δϕ = 0 0 = 0 δϕ δϕ0 δG[ϕ] 0 δG[ϕ] The aim of the next section is to represent the Jacobian δϕ0 δϕ0 δϕ0 determinant J by a path-integral over fermionic ﬁelds

δG[ϕ] for the data free partition function = , (41) δϕ0 Z Z Z = Dϕ P(ϕ) = Dϕ e−H(ϕ) 0 n,1 0 0 where we note that δG/δϕ : C (Ω) × C(Ω ) → C(Ω ) Z and therefore, after evaluation of this for a specific field = Dϕ B(ϕ) J (ϕ) P(ϕ0). (46) configuration ϕ, δG[ϕ]/δϕ0 : C(Ω0) → C(Ω0) is a linear operator, which actually is an isomorphism. Thus, we get finally IV. DYNAMICAL FIELD INFERENCE WITH GHOST FIELDS

δG[ϕ] P(ϕ)= G(G[ϕ], Ξ) P(ϕ0) . (42) δϕ0 A. Grassmann ﬁelds

If we want to have the initial conditions unconstrained, Grassmann numbers {χ1, χ¯1, . . . χN , χ¯N } are indepen- we could set P(ϕ0) = const. This is possible, as we could dent elements, which anticommute among each other [33– specify initial or later time conditions via additional data 2 2 35] and thus follow the Pauli principle, χi =χ ¯i = 0 for on the ﬁeld, as explained before. i ∈ {1,...N}. Consequently, a corresponding function depending on the Grassmann numbers χ andχ ¯ can be Taylor expanded to

B. Partition Function f(χ, χ¯) = a + b1χ + b2χ¯ + c12χχ¯ + c21χχ.¯ (47) A special feature of Grassmann numbers is that the in- DFI builds on P(d, ϕ) = P(d|ϕ) P(ϕ), the joint proba- tegration and differentiation to them are the same. As bility of data and field, to obtain field expectation values a consequence, one can write down the following Grass- by investigating the moment generating partition func- mann integrals: tion Z Z dχ dχ¯ = 0 (48) J †ϕ Zd[J] = Dϕ P(d, ϕ) e Z dχ dχ¯ χχ¯ = 1 (49) Z † = Dϕ P (d|ϕ) P(ϕ) eJ ϕ In order to represent the Jacobian with infinite dimen- − 1 (d−Rϕ)†N −1(d−Rϕ)+J †ϕ Z e 2 sions by a path integral, we need to transform the Grass- = Dϕ p P(ϕ) mann variables to Grassmann fields with infinite dimen- |2πN| sions. This leads us to path integrals over Grassmann − 1 ϕ†R†N −1Rϕ+(J+j)†ϕ− 1 d†N −1d Z e 2 2 fields, = Dϕ P(ϕ) p|2πN| Z N→∞ Z dχ1dχ¯1 ... dχN dχ¯N −−−−→ DχDχ,¯ (50) with j = R†N −1d. (43) with the following integration rules, Here, we used that the measurement noise exhibits Gaus- Z sian statistics with known covariance N. We observe Dχ Dχ¯ = 0 (51) that the generating function J is not needed, as we could Z Z Z equally well take derivatives with respect to j in order to Dχ Dχ¯ χ¯†χ = Dχ Dχ¯ dxχ¯(x)χ(x) = 1, generate moments. Ω0 Central to this partition function is the field prior (52) 7 where theχ ¯† is the adjoint of the anti-commuting field of N eigenvalues in the limit of infinite dimensions N. χ¯. The scalar product N Y |M| = lim mi N→∞ Z i=1 χ¯†χ = dx χ¯(x)χ(x) (53)   Ω0 N Z Z (48) Y  0 0 0 0 0 0  = lim  dχi dχ¯i +mi dχi dχ¯i χ¯iχi (49) N→∞ i=1   0 | {z } | {z } will here be taken only over the domain Ω without the =0 =1 inital time slice, as the Grassmann fields are introduced N Z Y 0 0 0 0 to represent a determinant of the functional J (ϕ), which = lim dχi dχ¯i (1 + miχ¯iχi) is also defined only over this domain. In the following, N→∞ R R i=1 we abbreviate the notation by writing dx for Ω0 dx. N Z Y 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 = lim dχi dχ¯i (1 + miχ¯iχi + mi (¯χiχi) ) N→∞ 2! i=1 | {z } (47) = 0 N Z 0 0 Y 0 0 miχ¯iχi = lim dχi dχ¯i e (58) N→∞ B. Path Integral Representation of Determinants i=1 and δ-functions The insertion of the result for the determinant of the diagonal matrix M in the definition of the Jacobian in By means of the Grassmann fields we derive the path Eq. (57) yields integral representation for J , the absolute value of the δG[ϕ] N Z determinant of the Jacobian 0 [36]. For this purpose δG[ϕ] 0 0 δϕ −1 −1 Y 0 0 miχ¯iχi = |U| |V | lim dχi dχ¯i e we take two unitary transformations U and V with the δϕ0 N→∞ δG[ϕ] i=1 property that M = V 0 U becomes diagonal with pos- δϕ Z 0† 0 itive and real entries. These are then used to transform = Dχ0 Dχ¯0 |U|−1 |V |−1eχ¯ Mχ the Grassmann fields: Z † −1 −1 = Dχ0 Dχ¯0 |U|−1 |V |−1eχ¯ V MU χ

0 † 0† (55) Z † δG[ϕ] χ = Uχ , χ¯ =χ ¯ V (54) χ¯ 0 χ = DχDχe¯ δϕ . (59)

Finally, we find the representation of the Jacobian in This leads to a weighting of the path integral differentials terms of an integral over independent Grassmann fields, by the determinants of U and V .

Z † δG[ϕ] δG[ϕ] χ¯ 0 χ J = = DχDχ¯ e δϕ . (60) δϕ0 DχDχ¯ = |U|−1|V |−1Dχ0Dχ¯0 (55) We note that an equivalent expression is

Z † δG[ϕ] δG[ϕ] −iχ¯ 0 χ Here we used the identity of integration and differenti- J = −i = Dχ Dχ¯ e δϕ , (61) R ∂ ∂χ0 ∂ δϕ0 ation for Grassmann variables dχ = ∂χ = ∂χ ∂χ0 = −1 R 0 |U| dχ to transform their differentials. The deter- as the factor −i cancels out in taking the absolute value. minant of the operator M is given by the product of the In the following, we will not track such multiplicative operators, from which we can infer the Jacobian deter- factors of unity absolute value for probabilities, as these minant. can be fixed at the end of the calculation. The other term in P(ϕ) = B(ϕ) J (ϕ) P(ϕ0) as expressed by Eq. (44), B(ϕ) = G(G[ϕ], Ξ), is highly non- δG[ϕ] Gaussian for a non-linear dynamics G[ϕ]. Here, it is use- |M| = |V | |U| (56) δϕ0 ful to step back to the initial form including the excitation field δG[ϕ] −1 −1 ⇒ = |M| |U| |V | (57) δϕ0 Z B(ϕ) = Dξ δ(ξ − G[ϕ]) e−H(ξ), (62)

1 † −1 1 As the operator M is diagonal with eigenvalues {mi} on with H(ξ) = − ln G(ξ, Ξ) = 2 ξ Ξ ξ + 2 ln |2πΞ|, and to the diagonal, we can write its determinant as a product replace the δ-function by means of a path integral. In 8 order to do so the representation of the δ-function as an The fermionic ghost ﬁeld dependent exponent is integral over Fourier modes is recalled.

† δG[ϕ] 1 Z Efg = −iχ¯ χ δ(x) = dk e−ikx (63) δϕ0 2π Z δG[ϕ](x) = −i dx0dx χ¯(x) χ(x0) The migration of this to path-integral representation is δϕ0(x0) achieved by the introduction of a Lagrange multiplier Z δ = i dx0dx χ(x0) G[ϕ](x)¯χ(x) field β(x), δϕ0(x0) Z † δ † 1 † = i χ χ¯ G[ϕ] δ(ξ) = Dβ e−iβ ξ. (64) δϕ0 |2π1| δ = i χ† χ¯† (G[ϕ] − ξ) (68) With this, the field prior reads δϕ0 Z DξDβDχDχ¯ − 1 ξ†Ξ−1ξ−H(ϕ ) P(ϕ) ∝ e 2 0 × and the bosonic Lagrange field dependent exponent is p|2πΞ| |2π1|

δG[ϕ] † −i χ¯† χ−β†(G[ϕ]−ξ) E = iβ (G[ϕ] − ξ) e δϕ0 (65) bg Z = i dx β(x)(G[ϕ](x) − ξ(x)) with H(ϕ0) = − ln P(ϕ0) the information on the initial conditions. Z δχ¯(x) = i dx dx0 β(x0) (G[ϕ](x) − ξ(x)) δχ¯(x0) δ C. Ghost Field Path Integrals in DFI = i βT χ¯† (G[ϕ] − ξ) . (69) δχ¯ With the introduction of the fields β, χ, andχ ¯ the DFI Thus the whole ghost and Lagrange field dependent ex- partition function is now given by path integrals over the ponent can be written as a Q-exact expression: excitations and additional two fermionic and two bosonic degrees of freedom, which are summarized to a tuple of δG[ϕ] fields ψ = (ϕ, β, χ, χ¯),1 E + E = iβ†(G[ϕ] − ξ) − iχ¯† χ fg bg δϕ0 Z −H(ξ)−H(ϕ )+iβ†(G[ϕ]−ξ)−iχ¯† δG[ϕ] χ (68) δ δ Z ∝ Dξ Dψ e 0 δϕ0 . = i χ† + β† χ¯† (G[ϕ] − ξ) (69) δϕ0 δχ¯ (66) = i{Q, χ¯†(G[ϕ] − ξ)} (70) Let us introduce the functional {Q[ψ], ·} = {Q[χ, β], ·}, which depends on the fermionic ghost field χ and the According to these auxiliary calculations, the partition bosonic Lagrange multiplier β function in Eq. (66) takes the form, Z δ δ Z † {Q, X}[ψ] = dx β(x) + χ(x) X[ψ] Z ∝ Dξ Dψ e−H(ξ)−H(ϕ0)+i{Q,χ¯ (G[ϕ]−ξ)}. (71) δχ¯(x) δϕ0(x) δ δ T The integration over the excitation fields creates a par- = β + χ 0 X[ψ]. (67) δχ¯ δϕ tition function that only contains the fields of the set ψ = (ϕ, β, χ, χ¯). With the aid of the following relation Next, the exponent of the partition function in Eq. (66) for a bosonic field y(x) that is independent of ϕ is reshaped in order to be Q-exact. This means that the exponent shall only depend on the introduced functional δ {Q, ·} for a suitable X. For this we investigate the two {Q, χ¯†y} = β† χ¯†y ghost and Lagrange field dependent terms in Eq. (66) δχ¯ separately. Z δ Z = dx0 β(x0) dx χ¯(x)y(x) δχ¯(x0) Z = dx β(x)y(x) 1 Note, the here defined ψ differs from the initially introduced sys- † tem state, also denoted by ψ. As the latter will not be used any = β y (72) more in this work, the reuse of the symbol is hopefully accept- able. the integration over the excitation field can be performed 9

1 † for a Gaussian excitation ﬁeld (H(ξ) =b 2 ξ ξ): Evaluating the information for this θ-functional one gets

Z † † (77) i{Q,χ¯ G[ϕ]}−i{Q,χ¯ ξ}−H(ξ)−H(ϕ0) † ¯ Z ∝ Dψ Dξ e H(ψ|ϕ0) =b − {Q, iχ¯ ∂tϕ} + i{Q, Q}. (83) 0 (72) Z † † The Fermionic field χ was only defined over Ω the = Dψ Dξ ei{Q,χ¯ G[ϕ]}−iβ ξ−H(ξ)−H(ϕ0) field domain without the initial time slice in order to Z represent the determinant of the Jacobian of G(ϕ) with i{Q,χ¯†G[ϕ]}−iβ†ξ− 1 ξ†Ξ−1ξ−H(ϕ ) = Dψ Dξ e 2 0 respect to ϕ0. One can extend the support of χ to Ω, Z including the initial time slice by introducing a split no- i{Q,χ¯†G[ϕ]}− 1 β†Ξβ−H(ϕ ) 0 † 0 = Dψ e 2 0 tation for this extended χ = (χ0, χ ) , with χ denoting the original Fermionic field over Ω0. We then find Z † 1 † i{Q,χ¯ G[ϕ]}− 2 {Q,χ¯ Ξβ}−H(ϕ0) that the ghost field has to vanish at the initial time step = Dψ e 0 † t0, i.e. χ = (0, χ ) in order to assure that the follow- Z {Q,iχ¯†G[ϕ]− 1 χ¯†Ξβ}−H(ϕ ) ing expression does not diverge. Here, we abbreviate = Dψ e 2 0 (73) ϕt = ϕ(x) = ϕ(~x,t) and ϕt+∆ = ϕ(~x,t + ∆t):

Now, we define the odd function † {Q, iχ¯ ∂tϕ} 1 θ(ψ) =χ ¯†(−iG[ϕ] + Ξβ) (74) δ δ 2 = χ† + β† iχ¯†∂ ϕ δϕ0 δχ¯ t for reasons of clarity. Besides we revive the statistical † δ † † δ † mechanics formalism for the definition of the partition = iχ χ¯ ∂tϕ + iβ χ¯ ∂tϕ (84) δϕ0 δχ¯ function from Eq. (12) as well as the corresponding ghost | {z } | {z } and Lagrange field dependent information H(ψ): =A =B Z 0 0 δ Z A =i dx dx χ(x ) χ(x) 0 0 ∂tϕ(x) Z = Dψ e−H(ϕ0)−H(ψ|ϕ0) (75) δϕ (x ) Z δ ϕ0+∆−ϕ0 0 0 ∆t Z = − i dx dx χ¯(x) χ(x ) lim ϕ −ϕ −H(ϕ0)−{Q,θ(ψ)} 0 0 ∆t→0 t+∆ t ∝ Dψ e (76) δϕ (x ) ∆t Z δ~x,~x0 δ0+∆,t0 H(ψ|ϕ0) = {Q, θ(ψ)} (77) 0 0 ∆t b = − i dx dx χ¯(x) χ(x ) lim δ 0 (δ 0 −δ 0 ) ∆t→0 ~x,~x t+∆,t t,t ∆t Here, = indicates equality up to a constant term due to χ b Z 0+∆ ∆t the not tracked absolute phase of our expressions. By = − i dxχ¯(x) lim χ −χ ∆t→0 t+∆ t comparison we find the following relation between the ∆t  (  prior information Hamiltonian of the signal field H(ϕ) 0 if χ = 0 and the just derived information Hamiltonian of the Z 0 = − i dxχ¯(x)   (85) ghost and Lagrange fields.  ∞ otherwise  0 ∂tχ (12) Z Z Z ∝ Dϕ e−H(ϕ|ϕ0)−H(ϕ0) (78) = − i dxχ¯(x) ∂tχ(x) (86) (75) Z −H(ψ|ϕ0)−H(ϕ0) † = Dψ e (79) = − iχ¯ ∂tχ (87) Z Z Z 0 0 δχ¯(x) −H(ψ|ϕ0) B =i dx β(x ) dx ∂tϕ(x) ⇒H(ϕ|ϕ0) = − ln Dχ Dχ¯ Dβ e (80) δχ¯(x0) Z Z 0 0 0 0 Let us now emphasize the first time derivative in the =i dx β(x ) dx δ(x − x )∂tϕ (x) SDE by taking the definition of the SDE from Eq. (34), Z Z 0 0 0 0 F [ϕ ](x) + ξ(x) = ∂tϕ(x), so that the θ-functional be- =i dx dx β(x )δ(x − x )∂tϕ(x) comes Z =i dx β(x)∂tϕ(x) † 0 † 1 † θ(ψ) = +iχ¯ F [ϕ ] − iχ¯ ∂tϕ + χ¯ Ξβ 2 =iβ†∂ ϕ (88) † t = −iχ¯ ∂tϕ + iQ¯(ψ). (81) such that, Here we introduced the functional on the set of fields ψ † † ¯ H(ψ|ϕ0) =b iχ¯ ∂tχ − iβ ∂tϕ + i{Q, Q}. (89) 1 Q¯(ψ) =χ ¯†F [ϕ0] − i χ¯†Ξβ. (82) The crucial insight is given by Eq. (85). If χ0 6= 0,the 2 expression A would diverge and Eq. (83) would not hold. 10

In order to reestablish a compact notation in Eq. (86), we By assigning field operators to the fermionic and note that any finite assignment of ∂tχ0 6= 0 would only bosonic fields, χ and ϕ, as well as their momenta, ν and make a vanishing contribution to the integral as being on ω respectively, the partition function in Eq. (93) can be an infinitesimal smart support. rewritten in terms of the generalized Fokker-Planck oper- The information Hamiltonian of Eq. (83) has two parts. ator of the states Hˆ according to [31, 39–41]. Hˆ is not to We call the left part, which contains the time derivatives be confused with the information Hamiltonian H(ψ|ϕ0). of the fermionic and bosonic fields, the dynamic informa- The precise relation of these will be established in the tion. The right part, which is described by the Poisson following. bracket, is referred to as the static information. The As mentioned in [18–21], the time evolution operator derivation of Poisson brackets in a system with fermionic Hˆ is not Hermitian and thus the time evolution is not and bosonic fields is described in [37, 38]. described by the Schrödingerequation but by the gener- This yields the partition function, alized Fokker-Planck equation instead. ˆ Z † † ¯ ∂t |ϕ, χ, ti = −H |ϕ, χ, ti (95) Z ∝ Dψ e−iχ¯ ∂tχ+iβ ∂tϕ−i{Q,Q}−H(ϕ0). (90) ⇒ |ϕ, χ, t + ∆ti = e−Hˆ ∆t |ϕ, χ, ti (96)

−Hˆ (tk−tj ) So far we represented the partition function in terms of ⇒ M(tk, tj) = e (97) the signal field, ϕ, and the three fields, β, χ, χ¯. These and the following equations define the properties In case of a white excitation field ξ the partition func- ˆ tion of DFI can be derived using the Markov property. of H. The conditional probabilities for the fields ϕk and For this, we start with the IFT partition function for a χk given the fields at the previous time step ϕk−1, χk−1 bosonic field ϕ and a fermionic field χ and decompose it are given by the transition amplitudes between the cor- in terms of time-ordered conditional probabilities responding states and are defined via the time evolution. Z Pk,k−1 = P(ϕk, χk|ϕk−1, χk−1) Z = Dϕ Dχ P(ϕ, χ) (91) = hϕk, χk, tk||ϕk−1, χk−1, tk−1i −Hˆ ∆t N ! = hϕk, χk|e |ϕk−1, χk−1i (98) Y Z Z = Dϕn Dχn P(ϕN , χN , ϕN−1, χN−1, At this point we multiply with unity, n=0 Z ϕN−2, ..., ϕ1, χ1, ϕ0), (92) 1 = Dωk Dνk |ωk, νki hωk, νk| , (99) N ! Y Z Z = Dϕn Dχn P(ϕN , χN |ϕN−1, χN−1) where the |ωk, νki are momentum eigenstates of the field n=0 that obey on equal time slices

× ...... × P(ϕ , χ |ϕ )P(ϕ ) (93) −iωkϕk+iνkχk 1 1 0 0 hωk, νk|ϕk, χki = e . (100) where ϕ0 = ϕ(·, t0) is the field at initial time t0 = 0 while If we choose infinitesimal small time steps, we can evalu- there is no χ0 = χ(·, t0). ate the time-evolution operator on the momentum eigen- The conditional probabilities can then be represented state, which leads to the following expression for the con- as QFT transition amplitudes [39, 40] between states of ditional probability the system denoted by the Dirac notation as Z −Hˆ ∆t Pk,k−1 = Dωk Dνk hϕk, χk| e P(ϕk, χk|ϕj, χj) =: hϕk, χk, tk||ϕj, χj, tji := hϕ , χ | M(t , t ) |ϕ , χ i (94) × |ωk, νki hωk, νk|ϕk−1, χk−1i k k k j j j Z −iωkϕk−1+iνkχk−1 At this stage, these are formal definitions, with the time = Dωk Dνk e localized states hϕk, χk, tk| := δ(ϕ(·, tk) − ϕk) δ(χ(·, tk) − −Hˆ ∆t χk), |ϕj, χj, tji := δ(ϕ(·, tj)−ϕj) δ(χ(·, tj)−χj), and the × hϕk, χk|e |ωk, νki Z not localized ones hϕk, χk| := δ(ϕ(·, t) − ϕk) δ(χ(·, t) − −H(ϕk,χk,ωk,νk)∆t−iωkϕk−1 ∝ Dωk Dνk e χk), |ϕj, χji := δ(ϕ(·, t)−ϕj) δ(χ(·, t)−χj), with t being some unspecified time. Here, j and k label time-slice field +iνkχk−1 ×e hϕk, χk|ωk, νki configurations, like ϕ(·, t) = ϕj and ϕ(·, t) = ϕk, and Z −H(ϕk,χk,ωk,νk)∆t+iωk(ϕk−ϕk−1) their associated times are t = tj and t = tk. The first line = DωkDνke does not contain a usual scalar product between states, as the variables have first to be brought to a common time. ×e−iνk(χk−χk−1), (101) This is done in the second line by the transfer operator The formal definition of H(ϕk, χk, ωk, νk) for ∆t → 0 is: M(tk, tj), which describes the mapping of states at time tj to such at tk. In [19] it is shown that a representation 1 H(ϕ , χ , ω , ν ) = − ln hϕ , χ |e−Hˆ ∆t|ω , ν i of these state vectors is given by the exterior algebra over k k k k ∆t k k k k the field configuration space. (102) 11

With this in mind the conditional transition probability pearance of dynamical chaos as characterized by positive distributions can be written in terms of the function H. Lyaponov exponents for the growth of the difference of In the next step these are inserted into the partition func- nearby system trajectories. It is intuitively clear that the tion in Eq. (93). Taking the limit ∆t → 0, N → ∞ leads occurrence of chaos will reduce the predictability of the to system and therefore make field inference from measurements more difficult. We hope that the here established Z connection of DFI and STS will permit to quantify the − R dt H(ϕ ,χ ,ω ,ν )+iω†∂ ϕ−iν†∂ χ−H(ϕ ) Z∝ Dψ e t t t t t t 0 . impact of chaos on field inference in future research. For (103) the time being, we investigate the reverse impact, that of measurements on the supersymmetry of the field knowl- In the end, the partition function in Eq. (90) needs to ege as encoded in the partition function. be equal to the partition function in Eq. (103) in order to guarantee consistency of the theory. This permits the following identifications, V. SUSY AND MEASUREMENTS ν =χ, ¯ (104) A. Abstract Considerations ω = β, (105) Z dt H(ψt) = i{Q(ψ), Q¯(ψ)}. (106) In Sec. II F we introduced the moment generating function in IFT in order to calculate field expectation values To sum up, it was shown that the auxiliary fieldsχ ¯ and β after measurement data d became available. For a dy- are simply the momenta of the ghost field χ and the signal namical field, this can now be written with the help of field ϕ, respectively. And, for the moment the more im- STS according to Eq. (29) as portant finding is that the time evolution is governed by Z R ¯ −H(d,ϕ)+J †ϕ the Q-exact static information , i.e. dt H(t) = i{Q, Q}. Zd[J] = Dϕ e Comparing Eq. (89) to Eq. (106), we find this enters di- Z † rectly the information Hamiltonian, = DϕP(ϕ)P(d|ϕ)eJ ϕ Z † † H(ψ|ϕ0) = iχ¯ ∂tχ − iβ ∂tϕ + dt H(ψt), (107) Z b (44) δG[ϕ] J †ϕ = Dϕ G(G[ϕ], Ξ)P(ϕ0)P(d|ϕ)e δϕ0 which can be regarded in combination with Eq. (80) as Z {Q,−χ¯†G[ϕ]− 1 χ¯†Ξβ}−H(ϕ )−H(d|ϕ)+J †ϕ the central connection between STS and IFT, relating the ∝ Dψe 2 0 . information Hamiltonian H(ψ|ϕ0) for the full system trajectory to the Fokker-Planck evolution operators H(ψt) (108) on individual time-slices. H is a dimensionless quantity, whereas H has the units of a rate. Note that we removed the −i factor from the Fermionic In [42] it is shown that {Q, ·} is the path-integral ver- variables that was introduced in Eq. 61 in order to con- nect to the conventions of the STS literature. Doing sion of the exterior derivative dˆ in the exterior algebra. so, alleviates us from the necessity to take the absolute This recognition allows to identify the time-evolution value from the corresponding term. From Eq. 108 we see in Eq. (106) as the path-integral version of the time- that the combined information representing the knowl- evolution operator in the Focker-Planck equation. More- edge from measurement data d and about the dynamics over it is demonstrated that this time-evolution operator ˆ as expressed by the θ-function from Eq. (74) consists of is d-exact and since the exterior derivative is nilpotent several parts, the exterior derivative commutes with the time-evolution. The conlusion is made that this corresponds to a super- H(d, ψ) =b {Q, θ(ψ)} + H(d|ϕ) + H(ϕ0) ˆ † † 0 symmetry. Firstly, d as the operator representative of = −χ¯ ∂tχ − iβ ∂tϕ + {Q(ψ), Q¯(ψ)} {Q, ·} interchanges fermions and bosons, since it replaces +H(d|ϕ) + H(ϕ ). (109) one bosonic field variable by a fermionic one. Secondly, 0 † † 0 since a physical system is symmetric with regard to an op- The first part, −χ¯ ∂tχ − iβ ∂tϕ + {Q(ψ), Q¯(ψ)}, de- erator, if the operator commutes with the time-evolution scribes the dynamics of the field ϕ0 and that of the ghost operator. As this is the case for dˆ and Hˆ , the field dy- fields χ and χ for times after the initial moment by a namics is supersymmetric. Q-exact term, meaning that supersymmetry is conserved if only this would affect the fields for non-inital times t > t0. The last term, H(ϕ0) = − ln P(ϕ0), describes D. Spontaneous SUSY Breaking and Field our knowledge on the initial conditions and not of the Inference evolving field. The middle term, H(d|ϕ) = − ln P(d|ϕ), describes the knowledge gain by the measurement. If it The supersymetry of a dynamical field can be spon- addresses non-inital times, it is in general not Q-exact. taneously broken [18–21]. This coincides with the ap- Thus, if one would take the perspective of including the 12 measurement constraints into the system dynamics, as it Here, we performed a first order expansion in the devi- was done with the noise excitation, the thereby extended ation field. Furthermore, we assume that only a suffi- system would not be Q-exact any more. The reason for ciently short period after t = 0 is considered such that this is that “external forces” need to be introduced into second order effects in ε as well as any time dependence the system description to guide its evolution through the of A can be ignored. For this period, we have the solution constraints set by the measurement, which are not sta- Z t tionary and Gaussian as the excitation noise is. Or more A(t−τ) εt = dτ e ξt0 . (114) precisely, the knowledge state on the excitation field ξ is 0 in general not a zero-centered Gaussian prior with a stationary correlation structure any more, but a posterior Further, we imagine that a system measurement at P(ξ|d) with explicitly time-dependent mean and correla- time t = to probes perfectly a normalized eigendirection tion structure in ξ. b of A, i.e. that we get noiseless data according to

ˆ† d = Rϕ = b ε(·, to). (115) B. Idealized Linear Dynamics Here, R1 (~x,t) := b~xδ(t − to) is the linear measurement operator, b fulfills In order to illustrate the impact of chaos on the predictability of a system, we analyze a simplified, but in- A b = λb b, (116) structive scenario. Our starting point is the information ˆ Hamiltonian for all fields, Eq. 109, which we marginalize with λb the corresponding eigenvalue, and † denoting the with respect to the β field, adjoint with respect to spatial coordinates only. λb is also the Lijapunov coefficient of the dynamical mode b, which is stable for λb < 0 and unstable for λb > 0. The H(d, ϕ, χ, χ) latter is a prerequisite for chaos. Z −H(d,ψ) Finally, to exclude any further complications, we as- = − ln Dβ e sume that A can be fully expressed in terms of a set of Z such orthonormal eigenmodes, = − ln Dβ e−{Q,θ(ψ)}−H(d|ϕ)−H(ϕ0) X ˆ† ˆ† 0 Z A = λa a a with a a = δaa0 . (117) iβ†G[ϕ]− 1 β†Ξβ−χ¯†G0[ϕ] χ−H(d|ϕ)−H(ϕ ) = − ln Dβ e 2 0 a

− 1 G[ϕ]†Ξ−1G[ϕ]−χ¯†G0[ϕ] χ−H(d|ϕ)−H(ϕ ) Now, we are in a convenient position to work out our = − ln e 2 0 b knowledge on ε for all times for which our idealizing as- 1 † −1 † 0 = G[ϕ] Ξ G[ϕ] +χ ¯ G [ϕ] χ + H(d|ϕ) + H(ϕ0). sumptions hold. 2 A priori, the deviation evolves with an average (110) Z t A(t−τ) The information Hamiltonian contains now, in this or- εt := hεti(ξ) = dτ e hξτ i(ξ) = 0 (118) der, terms that represent the excitation noise statistics 0 | {z } =0 G(ξ, Ξ) (as ξ = G[ϕ]), the functional determinant of the dynamics (represented with help of fermionic fields), the and an dispersion, most conventiently expressed in the measurement information H(d|ϕ), and the information eigenbasis of A, of on the initial condition H(ϕ0). D ˆ† ˆ† 0E We assume the system ϕ to be initially ϕ(·, 0) = ϕ at E 0 0 := a ε ε 0 a 0 (a,t)(a ,t ) t t t = 0 and to obey Eq. 34 afterwards with ξ ←- G(ξ, 1), (ξ) Z t Z t0 i.e. Ξ = 1. We can then define a classical field ϕcl that 0 ˆ† A(t−τ) obeys the excitation-free dynamics = dτ dτ a e × 0 0 ˆ D ˆ† E A†(t0−τ 0) 0 ∂tϕcl(x) = F [ϕcl](x) (111) ξτ ξτ 0 e a (ξ) | {z } =δ(τ−τ 0) 1 and a deviation ε := ϕ − ϕcl from this, which evolves according to min(t,t0) Z ˆ 0 = dτ eλa(t−τ)a†a0 eλa0 (t −τ) ε(·, 0) = 0 and (112) 0 0 h 0 i λa(t+t ) λamin(t,t ) −1 ∂tε = F [ϕcl + ε] − F [ϕcl] + ξ = e δaa0 1 − e (2λa)

∂F [ϕ ] h 0 0 i cl 2 λa(t+t ) λa|t−t | −1 = ε + ξ + O(ε ). (113) = δaa0 e − e (2λa) .(119) ∂ϕcl | {z } | {z 0 } =:A =:fa(t,t ) 13

0 ˆ† ˆ† We introduced here with f (t, t ) := ha ε ε 0 ai the a measuremnt at to provides the only relevant constraint a t t (ξ) priori temporal correlation function of a field eigenmode for the later period. The equal time uncertainty of the a. Since both, the dynamics as well as the measurement, measured mode is keep the eigenmodes separate in our illustrative example, fb(t, to)fb(t, to) we only obtain additional information on the mode b from D(b,t)(b,t) = fb(t, t) − f (t , t ) our measurement. This is given according to Eq. 33 by b o o " λ (t+t ) λ |t−t |2 # the posterior 1 e b o − e b o = e2λbt − 1 − . 2λ 2λ [e2λbto − 1] P(ε|d) = G(ε − m, D) (120) b b (126) with posterior mean Fig. 1 shows this for a number of instructive values of λ . −1 b m = ER† RER† d (121) The impact of the Liapunov exponent on the predictability of the system is clearly visible. As larger the Liapunov and posterior uncertainty exponent, as faster grow uncertainties. This can be seen by comparison of the top panels or by inspection of the † †−1 D = E − ER RER RE, (122) bottom middle panel of Fig. 1. Thus, chaos, which im- plies the existence of positive Liapunov exponents, makes which follow respectively from Eqs. 27 and 23 for the field inference more difficult. This, however, is only true limit of vanishing noise covariance N. Expressing these on an absolute scale. If one considers relative uncertain- in the eigenbasis of A gives ties, as also displayed in Fig. 1 on the bottom right, then ˆ m (t) := a†m(·, t) it turns out that these grow slowest for the more unsta- a ble modes. This is the memory effect of chaotic systems, fb(t, to) = δab d (123) which can remember small initial disturbances for long, fb(to, to) if not infinite times. and To simplify the system further, we concentrate first on the case λ = 0, which corresponds to a Wiener process. 0 b 0 fb(t, to)fb(t , to) For this we get D(a,t)(a0,t0) = δaa0 fa(t, t ) − δab . fb(to, to) f (t, t0) = min(t, t0), (127) (124) a implying a posterior mean of Fig. 1 shows the mean and uncertainty dispersion of the measured mode for various values of λ . The correlation t b ma(t) = δabmin( /to, 1) d (128) between different modes a 6= a0 vanishes and therefore any mode a 6= b behaves like a prior mode shown in grey and an information propagator of in Fig. 1. For the measured mode b, the propagator is 0 0 min(t, to) min(t , to) in general non-zero, but vanishes for times separated by D(a,t)(a0,t0) = δaa0 min(t, t ) − δab . 0 to the observation, e.g. D(b,t)(b,t0) = 0 for t < to < t , as one can easily verify: (129)

D(b,t)(b,t0) × fb(to, to) This provides the equal time uncertainty for our measured mode b = f (t, t0) f (t , t ) − f (t, t )f (t0, t ) b b o o b o b o ( h 0 0 i 2 t = eλb(t+t ) − eλb|t−t | e2λbto − 1 − min(t, to) t (1 − /to) t < to D(b,t)(b,t) = t − = , (130) to t − to t ≥ to h i h 0 0 i eλb(t+to) − eλb|t−to| eλb(to+t ) − eλb|to−t | which is also shown in Fig. 1 in both middle panels. This h λ (t+t0) λ (t0−t)i 2λ t = e b − e b e b o − 1 − scenario with λb = 0 corresponds to a Wiener process, which sits on the boundary between the stable Ornstein- h λ (t+t ) λ (t −t)i h λ (t +t0) λ (t0−t )i e b o − e b o e b o − e b o Uhlenbeck process with λb < 0 and the instability of chaos with λb > 0. This marginal stable case should now h 0 0 0 0 i = eλb(t+t +2to) − eλb(t+t ) − eλb(t −t+2to) + eλb(t −t) − be taken into the non-linear regime.

h 0 0 0 0 i eλb(t+t +2to) − eλb(t+t ) − eλb(2to+t −t) + eλb(t −t) C. Idealized Non-Linear Dynamics = 0 (125) Thus, the perfect measurement introduces a so-called We saw that the posterior uncertainty is a good indi- Markov-blanket, which separates the periods before and cator for the diﬃculty to predict the ﬁeld at locations or after it from each other. Knowing anything above earlier times where or when it was not measured. This holds – times than to does not inform about later times, as the modulo some corrections – also in the case of non-linear 14

3 3 3

2 2 2

1 1 1

b 0 b 0 b 0

1 1 1

2 2 2

3 3 3 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 time t time t time t

102 102 102

101 101 101 b m / b

b y t

b n y i t m a

n t i r

n 0 0 0

10 a 10 10 e a t r c e e n m c u

n e u v i t a l e r 10 1 10 1 10 1

10 2 10 2 10 2 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 time t time t time t

Figure 1. Illustration of the knowledge on a measured system mode b. Top row: A priori (gray) and a posteriori (cyan) ﬁeld mean (lines) and one sigma uncertainty (shaded) for an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process (left, λb = −1), a Wiener process (middle, λb = 0), and a chaotic process (right, λb = 1) of a system eigenmode b after one perfect measurement at to = 1. Bottom row: The same, but on logarithm scales and for Liapunov exponents λb = −3, −2, −1, 0, 1, 2, and 3, as displayed in colors ranging from light to dark gray in this order (i.e. strongest chaos is shown in black). Left: Posterior mean. Middle: Uncertainty of prior (dotted) and posterior (dashed). Right: Relative posterior uncertainty.

dynamics, which introduces non-Gaussianities into the For times t ∈ [0, to], in between the moments when field statistics. the two data points were measured, the posterior mean In order to investigate such a non-Gaussian example, should stay finite. The reason is that any a priori possible we extend the previous case with λb = 0 to the next order trajectory diverging to (plus) infinity (for µb > 0) during in ε, while still assuming that all modes are dynamically this period is excluded a posteriori by the data point decoupled (up to that order), such that we only need to (t, εb) = (1, 1). Such trajectories could not have taken ˆ† concentrate on the dynamics of εb(t) := b ε(·, t), place, as the dynamics does not permit trajectories to return from (positive) infinite values to finite ones, since 1 2 3 that would require an infinite large (negative) excitation, ∂tεb = µb ε + ξ + O(ε ), (131) 2 b b which does have a probability of zero. where again ˆ† denotes an integration in position space Let us assume that for the period t ∈ [0, to] the second only. This mode will exhibit an infinite posterior mean order approximation of the dynamical equation holds. for times larger than to. To understand why, let us first We then have 1 2 investigate the noise free solution of ∂tεb = 2 µb εb for some finite starting value ε(ti) = εi at ti > to. This might 1 G[ε ] = ∂ ε − µ ε2, (133) have been created by an excitation fluctuation during b t b 2 b b the period [to, ti] for which always a potentially tiny, but finite probability exists. The free solution after ti is given by and therefore

εi εb(t) = 1 , (132) δG[εb] 1 − 2 εi µb(t − ti) = ∂t − µb εb. (134) δεb which develops a singularity for εi µb > 0 in the finite period τ = 2/(ε µ ). Thus, there is a finite probability i b Inserting this into Eq. 110 yields that at time ts = ti + τ the system is at infinity, and this lets also the expectation value of ε diverge for ts. This moment, when the expectation value has diverged, can be 1 1 † 1 H(d, ϕ, χ, χ) = ∂ ε − µ ε2 ∂ ε − µ ε2 made arbitrarily close to to, as the Gaussian fluctuations 2 t b 2 b b t b 2 b b in ξ permit to reach any necessary εi at say ti = (ts − +¯χ† [∂ − µ ε ] χ + H(d|ϕ) + H(ϕ ). to)/2 = τ with a small, but finite probability, where εi = t b b 0 2/(τ µb) = 4/[(ts − to) µb]. = Hfree(d, ϕ, χ, χ) + Hint(d, ϕ, χ, χ) (135) 15 with Feynman diagrams

1 H (d, ϕ, χ, χ) = ε†∂†∂ ε +χ ¯†∂ χ + H(d|ϕ) + H(ϕ ) free 2 b t t b t 0 2 2† µb 2† 2 Hint(d, ϕ, χ, χ) = −µb εb ∂t εb + εb εb hεbi = + + 8 (εb|d) † −µbχ¯ (εb χ) . (136)

2 The free information Hamiltonian Hfree(d, ϕ, χ, χ) defines + + O(µb ) the Wiener process field inference problem we addressed t 3 2 = d − µbt (to − t) + O(µb ) (144) before, and has the classical field as well as the bosonic to 2 and fermionic propagators given by

c t d D †E 2 t m(t) = min( /to, 1) d = for t < to εbεb = + + O(µb ) to (εb|d) 0 t 0 t t 2 = (137) = min(t, t ) − + O(µb ), (145) 0 to b 0 min(t, to) min(t , to) Dtt0 = min(t, t ) − see Appendix A. It turns out that all first order diagrams to 0 (in µb) with a bosonic three-vertex are zero. The reason 0 t t 0 = min(t, t ) − for t, t < to for this lies in the fact that these are all of a similar form, to Z to Z to Z to t t0 = (138) dt1 dt2 dt3δ(t1 − t2) δ(t2 − t3) × 0 0 0 f 0 −1 0 Dtt0 = [δ(t − t )∂t0 ] = θ(t − t ) Db ∂ g(t , t ) + Db ∂ g(t , t ) + g(t , t )∂ Db tt3 t1 1 2 tt3 t2 1 2 1 2 t3 tt3 0 = t t (139) Z to = dt Db ∂ g(t , t ) + g(t , t )∂ Db 1 tt1 t1 1 1 1 1 t1 tt1 0 respectively. Here, we introduced their Feynman diagram Z to = dt Db ∂ g(t , t ) representation as well. The Fermionic propagator is the 1 tt1 t1 1 1 0 0 inverse of δ(t − t )∂t0 as is verified by Z to b to b + g(t1, t1)D − dt1D ∂t1 g(t1, t1) Z Z tt1 t1=0 tt1 0 0 f 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 dt [δ(t − t )∂t ] Dt0t00 = dt [δ(t − t )∂t ] θ(t − t ) b b = g(to, to)Dt t − g(0, 0)D00 = 0, (146) Z o o = dt0 δ(t − t0)δ(t0 − t00) 1 b b with g(t , t ) = µ m m , µ D , and µ m D 0 re- 1 2 b t1 t2 2 b t1t2 b t1 t2t b 00 spectively. All these diagrams vanish, because D = = δ(t − t ) = 1 00 . (140) toto tt b D00 = 0. Thus, to first order in µb only a correction due to the Fermionic loop is necessary. This is negative The interacting Hamiltonian Hint(d, ϕ, χ, χ) provides (for positive µ ) as from the sum over trajectories, which the following interaction vertices b go through the initial data (ti, εbi) = (0, 0) as well as through the later observed data (to, εbo) = (1, 1), all the trajectories that diverge prematurely (within t ∈ [0, to]) = −2 µbδ(t1 − t2) δ(t2 − t3)[∂t1 + ∂t2 + ∂t3 ] are excluded. (141) The posterior mean and uncertainty of the scenario with λb = 0 and µb = 0.3 is displayed for t ∈ [0, to] in the middle panel of Fig. 2 in red in comparison to = −3! µbδ(t1 − t2) δ(t2 − t3) (142) those for λb = 0 and µb = 0 in cyan. It can there be observed that the exclusion of the diverging trajectories

2 by the observation has made the ensemble of remaining = 3µb δ(t1 − t2) δ(t2 − t3) δ(t3 − t4). (143) trajectories staying away from high values, which more easily diverge. Furthermore, this effect is solely repre- The integration over the time axis in Feynman diagrams sented by the fermionic Feynman diagram, as all bosonic can be restricted to the interval [0, to] as the propagator corrections vanish (for λb = 0) up to the considered linear vanishes for (exactly) one of the times being larger than order in µb. Thus, taking the functional determinant into to, see Eq. 125. account, for which the fermionic fields were introduced, To first order in µb, the posterior mean and uncer- is important in order to arrive at the correct posterior 0 tainty dispersion for 0 ≤ t, t ≤ to are then given by the statistics. This effect naturally arises in the here used 16

1.2 1.2 1.2

1.0 1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6 0.6 b b b 0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0 0.0

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 time t time t time t

Figure 2. Like top row of Fig. 1 just for the non-linear system defined by Eq. 147 within the period t ∈ [0, 1] with first order bosonic and fermionic perturbation corrections for µb = 0.3 in red, as in Fig. 1 without such non-linear corrections in cyan, and with only bosonic corrections in blue (dotted, displayed without uncertainty). The three panels display the cases λb = −1 (left), λb = 0 (middle), and λb = 1 (right). Note that the a priori mean and uncertainty dispersion are both infinite for any time t > 0, as without the measurement, trajectories reaching positive infinity within finite times are not excluded from the ensemble of permitted possibilities.

Stratonovich formalism of stochastic systems, and is less ˆ obvious in Ito’s formalism. Z 0 0 f Now, we are in a position to also work out the correc- dt δ(t − t )(∂t0 − λb) Dtt0 tions in case λ 6= 0. In this case, we have Z h 0 00 i 0 0 0 00 λb(t −t ) 1 = dt δ(t − t )(∂t0 − λb) θ(t − t )e G[ε ] = ∂ ε − λ ε − µ ε2 (147) b t b b b 2 b b Z h 0 00 = dt0δ(t − t0) δ(t0 − t00)eλb(t −t ) and 0 00 0 00 i δG[ε ] +θ(t0 − t00)λ eλb(t −t ) − λ θ(t0 − t00)eλb(t −t ) b = ∂ − λ − µ ε (148) b b δε t b b b b = δ(t − t00) (155) such that now The only changed interaction vertex is 1 h i H (d, ϕ, χ, χ) = ε† (∂ − λ )† (∂ − λ ) ε (149) free 2 b t b t b b † = −2 µ δ(t − t ) δ(t − t )[∂ + ∂ + ∂ − 3λ ] +¯χ (∂t − λb) χ + H(d|ϕ) + H(ϕ0) b 1 2 2 3 t1 t2 t3 b 2 = 3! µbδ(t1 − t2) δ(t2 − t3) λb, (156) 2† µb 2† 2 b Hint(d, ϕ, χ, χ) = −µb εb (∂t − λb) εb + εb εb 8 where we used in the last step that the derivatives lead to † −µbχ¯ (εb χ) (150) vanishing contribution to all diagrams up to linear order in µb as we showed in Eq. 146. The relevant diagrams and correcting the posterior mean are then fb(t, to) m(t) = d for t < to fb(to, to) = t (151) 0 + + b 0 fb(t, to)fb(t , to)   Dtt0 = fb(t, t ) − fb(to, to) Z to 0 b λb 2 0 λb b f = −3!µ dt D 0  m (t ) + D 0 0 − D 0 0  0 b tt  b t t t t  = t t (152) 0 2 2 |{z} 1/2 f 0 −1 D 0 = [δ(t − t )(∂t − λb)] Z to 0 tt fb(t, to)fb(t , to) 0 0 0 0 λb(t−t ) = −3µb dt fb(t, t ) − × = θ(t − t )e 0 fb(to, to) t t0 "" 2 0 2 0 # # = (153) fb (t , to) 2 0 0 fb (t , to) 2 d + fb(t , t ) − λb − 1 f (to, to) fb(to, to) where b (157) 0 0 eλb(t+t ) − eλb|t−t | f (t, t0) = . (154) b 2λ This integral can be calculated analytically. However, the b resulting expression is relatively complicated, therefore The Fermionic propagator for λ 6= 0 is easily verified: omitted here, and only plotted in Fig. 2. We calculate 17 it with the computer algebra system SymPy [43]. The field has to vanish on the initial time slice for the theory same is true for the first order (in µb) correction to the to be consistent. uncertainty Furthermore, we show that most measurements of the field during its evolution phase do not obey the system’s supersymmetry, they are not Q-exact. Nevertheless, the formalism of STS is still applicable and might help to develop advanced DFI schemes. For example, two of the Z to 00 b 00 b challenges DFI is facing are the representation of the dy- = −3!µbλb dt Dtt00 mb(t )Dt00t0 , 0 namics enforcing delta function and a Jacobian in the (158) path integral of the DFI partition function. For these STS introduces bosonic Lagrange and fermionic ghost which we also only present graphically in Fig. 2. fields. Using those in perturbative calculations, for exam- This figure shows that in all displayed cases (λb ∈ ple via Feynman diagrams, might allow to develop DFI {−1, 0, 1}) the posterior trajectories preferentially avoid schemes that are able to cope with non-linear dynamical getting close to easily diverging regimes (larger positive systems. values for µb > 0), and they avoid such areas the more, In order to illustrate how such a non-linear dynam- as more the linear dynamics is unstable (i.e. larger values ics inference would look like, we investigate a simplified of λb). situation, in which the deviation of a system driven by Interestingly, the interplay of this non-linear dynamics stochastic external excitation from the classical (not per- with the constraint provided by the measurement leads turbed system) is measured at an initial and a later time. to a reduced a posteriori uncertainty for unstable systems The simplifications we impose are that (i) the measure- (λb > 0) for times prior to the measurement. This is not ment probes exactly one eigenmode of the linear part of in contradiction to the notion of chaotic systems being the evolution operator for these deviations, that (ii) the harder to predict. Here, we are looking at trajectories evolution operator stays stationary during the considered that could have let – starting from some known value period (thus different modes do not mix), and that the – to the observed situation at a later time. Thanks to non-linear part of the evolution is also (iii) stationary, the stronger divergence of trajectories of chaotic systems, (iv) second order in the observed eigenmode, and (v) the variety of trajectories that pass through both, the ini- keeps that mode also separate from the other modes (no tial condition and the later observed situation, is smaller non-linear mode mixing). Under these particular con- than if the system is not chaotic. Thus, the measurement ditions (i)-(v) the field inference problem becomes a one provides more information for this period in the chaotic dimensional problem for the measured mode as a function regime, but less for the period after the measurement. of time, which can be treated exactly for a vanishing non- linearity and perturbatively with the help of Feynman diagrams in case of non-vanishing non-linearity. Thereby, VI. CONCLUSION AND OUTLOOK it turns out that the Fermionic contributions, which im- plement the effect of the functional determinant, are key We brought dynamical field inference based on infor- to obtain the correct a posteriori mean of the system. mation field theory and the suspersymmetric theory of The investigation of the illustrative example show a stochastics into contact. To this end, we showed that few things. First, predicting the future evolution of a the DFI partition function becomes the STS one if the more chaotic system from measurements is harder than excitation of the field becomes white Gaussian noise and for a less chaotic one as the absolute uncertainty of the no measurements constrain the field evolution. In this measured mode increases faster in the former situation. case, the dynamical system has a supersymmetry. We This is not very surprising, but the following insight note that neither STS nor DFI are limited to the white might be: Second, the relative uncertainty (uncertainty noise case. standard deviation over absolute value of the deviation) For chaotic systems, this supersymmetry is broken grows slower for a chaotic system. This is an echo of the spontaneously. As the presence of chaos limits the ability known memory effect of chaotic systems, which remem- to predict a system, DFI for systems with broken super- ber small perturbations in unstable modes for a longer symmetry should become more difficult. We hope that time thanks to their rapid amplification. Third, non- the here established connection of STS and DFI allows linear dynamics, which can lead to even more drastic to quantitatively investigate this. divergence of system trajectories (even to infinity in fi- While re-deriving basic elements of STS within the nite times), makes prediction of the future even harder, framework of IFT, we carefully investigate the domains but enhances the amount of information measurements on which the different fields and operators live and act, provide for periods between them. Due to the larger sen- respectively, using the perspective that the continuous sitivity of the system to perturbations, the measurements time description of the system should be the limiting case now exclude more trajectories that were possible a priori. of a discrete time representation for vanishing time steps. Thus, the interplay of measurements and non-linear Thereby, we show, for example, that the fermionic ghost chaotic systems is complex and more interesting phenom- 18 ena should become visible as soon as the simplifying as- vestigations of more complex systems, which we leave for sumptions (i)-(v) made in our illustrative example are future research. dropped. For those, the inclusion of the Fermionic part of the information field theory of stochastic systems will be as essential to obtain the correct statistics on the sys- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS tem trajectories as it is in our idealized illustrative example. We believe that insights provided by the stochastic We acknowledge insightful discussions with Reimar theory of supersymmetry will continue to pay off in in- Leike, and Jens Jasche. This work was supported partly by the Excellence Cluster Universe.

[1] WM Krüllsand A Achterberg. Computation of cosmic- [17] H. Janssen. On a lagrangean for classical field dynam- ray acceleration by ito’s stochastic differential equations. ics and renormalization group calculations of dynamical Astronomy and Astrophysics, 286:314–327, 1994. critical properties. Zeitschrift fürPhysik B Condensed [2] Linda JS Allen. An introduction to stochastic processes Matter and Quanta, 23:377–380, 01 1976. with applications to biology. CRC Press, 2010. [18] Igor V. Ovchinnikov. Topological field theory of dynam- [3] Crispin W Gardiner et al. Handbook of stochastic meth- ical systems. Chaos Solitons Fractals, 22:033134, 2012. ods, volume 3. springer Berlin, 1985. [19] Igor V. Ovchinnikov. Introduction to Supersymmetric [4] Xuerong Mao. Stochastic differential equations and ap- Theory of Stochastics. Entropy, 1:66, 2016. plications. Elsevier, 2007. [20] Kang L. Wang Igor V. Ovchinnikov, Robert N. Schwartz. [5] Fischer Black and Myron Scholes. The pricing of options Topological supersymmetry breaking: Definition and and corporate liabilities. In World Scientific Reference on stochastic generalization of chaos and the limit of ap- Contingent Claims Analysis in Corporate Finance: Vol- plicability of statistics. Mod. Phys. Lett. B 30, 1650086 ume 1: Foundations of CCA and Equity Valuation, pages (2016), 1:20, 2016. 3–21. World Scientific, 2019. [21] Igor V. Ovchinnikov and Massimiliano Di Ventra. Chaos [6] George E Uhlenbeck and Leonard S Ornstein. On the the- or Order? Modern Physics Letters. B, 33:1950287, 2019. ory of the brownian motion. Physical review, 36(5):823, [22] Edward Witten. Dynamical Breaking of Supersymmetry. 1930. Nucl. Phys., B188:513, 1981. [7] PK Galenko, Dmitrii Kharchenko, and Irina Lysenko. [23] George EP Box and George C Tiao. Bayesian inference Stochastic generalization for a hyperbolic model of spin- in statistical analysis, volume 40. John Wiley & Sons, odal decomposition. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics 2011. and its Applications, 389(17):3443–3455, 2010. [24] Edwin T Jaynes. Probability theory: The logic of science. [8] Philipp Frank, Reimar Leike, and Torsten A. Enßlin. Cambridge university press, 2003. Field dynamics inference for local and causal interactions. [25] RH Leike and TA Enßlin. Charting nearby dust Annalen der Physik, 533(5):2000486, 2021. clouds using gaia data only. Astronomy & Astrophysics, [9] G. Parisi and N. Sourlas. Supersymmetric field theories 631:A32, 2019. and stochastic differential equations. Nuclear Physics B, [26] Sebastian Hutschenreuter and Torsten A Enßlin. The 206(2):321 – 332, 1982. galactic faraday depth sky revisited. Astronomy & As- [10] M. Schober, D. Duvenaud, and P. Hennig. Probabilistic trophysics, 633:A150, 2020. ODE solvers with runge-kutta means. In Advances in [27] Stanimir M Stankov, Norbert Jakowski, Stefan Heise, Neural Information Processing Systems 27, pages 739– Plamen Muhtarov, Ivan Kutiev, and Rene Warnant. A 747. Curran Associates, Inc., 2014. new method for reconstruction of the vertical electron [11] Philipp Hennig, Michael A. Osborne, and Mark Girolami. density distribution in the upper ionosphere and plasma- Probabilistic numerics and uncertainty in computations. sphere. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physi- 108(A5), 2003. cal and Engineering Sciences, 471(2179):20150142, 2015. [28] B Geyer. High-resolution atmospheric reconstruction for [12] Torsten A. Enßlin, Mona Frommert, and Francisco S. europe 1948–2012: coastdat2. Earth System Science Kitaura. Information field theory for cosmological per- Data, 6(1):147–164, 2014. turbation reconstruction and nonlinear signal analysis. [29] Charles R Doering. A stochastic partial differential equa- Phys. Rev. D, 80(10):105005, November 2009. tion with multiplicative noise. Physics Letters A, 122(3- [13] Torsten A. Enßlin. Information theory for fields. Annalen 4):133–139, 1987. der Physik, 531(3):1800127, 2019. [30] Anthony John Roberts. A step towards holistic dis- [14] Torsten A. Enßlin. Information field dynamics for simu- cretisation of stochastic partial differential equations. lation scheme construction. Phys. Rev. E, 87:013308, Jan ANZIAM Journal, 45:1–15, 2003. 2013. [31] V.F. Mukhanov and S. Winitzki. Introduction to Quan- [15] Philipp Frank, Theo Steininger, and Torsten A. Enßlin. tum Effects in Gravity. Cambridge University Press, Field dynamics inference via spectral density estimation. 2007. Phys. Rev. E, 96:052104, Nov 2017. [32] Norbert Wiener et al. Generalized harmonic analysis. [16] Reimar H. Leike and Torsten A. Enßlin. Towards Acta mathematica, 55:117–258, 1930. information-optimal simulation of partial differential [33] Muhammad Abdul Wasay. Supersymmetric quantum equations. Phys. Rev. E, 97(3):033314, March 2018. mechanics and topology. Adv. High Energy Phys., 19

2016:3906746, 2016. Appendix A: Feynman diagrams [34] Anthony Duncan. The Conceptual Framework of Quan- tum Field Theory. Oxford University Press, 2012. [35] A.Zee. Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell. Princeton University Press, 2nd edition, 2010. [36] Mark Srednicki. Quantum Field Theory. Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 2007. Here we calculate explicitly the Feynman diagrams [37] V. A. Soroka. Odd Poisson bracket in Hamilton’s dynam- from Sec. V C for the case λb = 0. These are ics. In School and Workshop on Variational and Local Methods in the Study of Hamiltonian Systems Trieste, Italy, October 10-28, 1994, 1995. [38] S. N. Biswas and S. K. Soni. Supersymmetric classical mechanics. Pramana, 27(1):117–127, 1986. [39] Ashok Das. Field Theory: A Path Integral Approach. World Scientific Lecture Notes in Physics, 2nd edition, 2006. [40] G. Münster. Quantentheorie. De Gruyter, 2nd edition, 2010. [41] Matthias Bartelmann, BjörnFeuerbacher, Timm Krüger, Dieter Lüst,Anton Rebhan, and Andreas Wipf. Theo- retische Physik. Springer Spektrum, 2015. [42] Igor Ovchinnikov. Introduction to supersymmetric theory of stochastics. Entropy, 18(4):108, Mar 2016. [43] Aaron Meurer, Christopher P. Smith, Mateusz Paprocki, Ondˇrej Cert´ık,ˇ Sergey B. Kirpichev, Matthew Rock- lin, AMiT Kumar, Sergiu Ivanov, Jason K. Moore, Sartaj Singh, Thilina Rathnayake, Sean Vig, Brian E. Granger, Richard P. Muller, Francesco Bonazzi, Harsh Gupta, Shivam Vats, Fredrik Johansson, Fabian Pe- dregosa, Matthew J. Curry, Andy R. Terrel, Stˇepánˇ Rouˇcka, Ashutosh Saboo, Isuru Fernando, Sumith Kulal, Robert Cimrman, and Anthony Scopatz. Sympy: sym- bolic computing in python. PeerJ Computer Science, Z to 3:e103, January 2017. 1 0 b = 2 µb dt 2Dtt0 mt0 [∂t00 mt00 ]t00=t0 2 0 2 b 00 +mt0 ∂t Dtt00 t00=t0 Z to 00 0 b t d = µb dt 2Dtt0 mt0 ∂t00 0 to t00=t0 00 2 00 t t +mt0 ∂t00 min(t, t ) − to t00=t0 Z to 0 2 02 2 0 b t d t d 0 t = µb dt 2Dtt0 2 + 2 θ(t − t ) − 0 to to to Z to 0 0 2 0 0 t t t = µbd dt 2 min(t, t ) − 2 0 to to 02 t 0 t + 2 θ(t − t ) − to to Z t 02 Z to 0 2 0 t 2 0 t t =2 µbd dt 2 +2µbd dt 2 0 to t to Z to 02 2 0 t t −2µbd dt 3 0 to Z t 02 Z to 02 2 0 t 2 0 t t +µbd dt 2 −µbd dt 3 0 to 0 to 3 2 2 2 t 2 2 (to − t ) t = µbd 2 −µbd t+µbd 2 to to 3 2 2 3 2 t −tot+tot − t = µbd 2 = 0, (A1) to 20

0 and (assuming 0 ≤ t ≤ t ≤ to)

Z to 1 0 b b 00 = 2 µb dt 2Dtt0 ∂t Dt0t00 t00=t0 2 0 b b 00 +Dt0t0 ∂t Dtt00 t00=t0 Z to 0 00 0 b 0 00 t t = 2µb dt Dtt0 ∂t00 min(t , t ) − 0 to t00=t0 Z to 00 0 b 00 t t +µb dt Dt0t0 ∂t00 min(t, t ) − 0 to t00=t0 Z to 00 b 00 b   = 2 µb dt ∂t00 Dtt00 mb(t )Dt00t0 Z to 0 0 0 0 0 t t 0 0 t = 2µb dt min(t, t ) − θ(t − t ) −  b 00 b b 00 b   +Dtt00 [∂t00 mb(t )] Dt00t0 + Dtt00 mb(t ) ∂t00 Dt00t0 0 to | {z } to 1/2 Z to 00 00 0 00 00 t t d 00 0 t t Z to 02 = 2 µb dt θ(t − t ) − min(t , t ) − 0 0 0 t 0 t 0 to to to +µb dt min(t , t ) − θ(t − t ) − 00 00 0 0 to to t t d t t + min(t, t00) − min(t00, t0) − Z t t0 t02 Z to 1 t0 t t t = 2µ dt0 − + 2µ t dt0 − o o o b b 00 00 0 0 2 to t 2 to t t t d t + min(t, t00) − θ(t0 − t00) − Z to t t0 t t02 t t t +2µ dt0 − + o o o b 2 Z t 00 00 0 0 2to to 00 t t d 00 t t = 2µb dt 1 − t − Z t t02 Z to t02 t t t t +µ dt0 t0 − − µ dt0 t0 − 0 o o o b t b t t t00t d t00t0 t00tt00d t0 0 o 0 o o + t00 − t00 − + t00 − 1 − 2 3 2 2 t t (to − t) (to − t ) to to to to to to = 2µb − + 2µb t − 0 4 3to 2 2to Z t 00 00 0 00 t t d 00 t t 2 3 + dt − t − t to t to t to to to +2µb − + 4t 3t2 00 00 0 00 00 0 o o t t d 00 t t t t t d t 2 3 2 3 + t − t − + t − 1 − t t to to t to to to to to to +µb − − µb − 2 3to 2 3to to Z to 00 00 0 00 t t d 0 t t 3 2 2 + dt − t − µb 2 4t 6t (to−t ) t0 to to to = 3t − + 6t (to−t) − 6 t t 00 00 0 00 00 0 o o t t d 0 t t t t t d t 3 + t − t − + t − − 2 2t to to to to to to −3t to + 4t to+3t − −3t to + 2tto to Z t 002 002 0 002 002 0 00 3t d 3t dt 3t dt 3t dtt µb = 2µb dt − 2 − 2 + 3 = (0+0+0) = 0, (A2) 0 to t t t 6 o o o Z t0 002 002 0 00 002 0 00 3t dt 3t dtt 2t dt 2t dtt using here and in the following color coding to highlight + dt − 2 + 3 + − 2 canceling terms, t to to to to Z to 00 0 002 0 0 00 4t dtt t dtt dtt + dt − 2 + 3 3 + t0 to to to t3d t3dt0 t4d t4dt0 t03dt t4d = 2µb − 2 − 2 + 3 + − 2 + 2 Z to to t t t t t 0 b f o o o o o = −3! µ dt D 0 D 0 0 b tt t t t04dt t4dt0 t02dt t3d t03dt t3dt0 0 + − + − − + to 0 3 3 2 Z t t to to to to to to = −6 µ dt0 min(t, t0) − θ(t0 − t0) b t t03dt t04dt t02dt 0 o | {z } + −2dtt0+2 +dtt0− +dtt0− 1/2 2 3 to to to Z t Z to Z to 0 0 0 0 0 t t = 0. (A4) = −3 µb dt t + dt t − dt 0 t 0 to t2 t t = −3 µ + (t − t) t − o b 2 o 2 3 = − µ t (t − t), (A3) 2 b o