Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Consider the following transformation of the integration measure $dX d\psi_1 d\psi_2$: where $\psi_1$ $\psi_2$,$\varepsilon^1$, and $\varepsilon^2$ are Grassman variables.

$\delta_\varepsilon X= \varepsilon^1 \psi_1+ \varepsilon^2 \psi_2$

$\delta\psi_1= \varepsilon^2 \partial h$


$\delta\psi_2= -\varepsilon^1 \partial h$. The problem asked to show that the above integration measure is invariant under this transformation. My approach to the first one was to just use the fact that $\int \psi_1 \dots \psi_n d \psi_1 \dots d\psi_n=1$, and relate it to the bosonic "standard" variables which return $\int dX= \int 1 dX=X$. However, for the other two, I know that since $\int \psi d \psi=1$, it should follow easily. But what does the $h$ denote in the differential? and is this argument headed in the right direction?

Many thanks to all of you.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 1 down vote accepted

Is this Homework?? I would expect a dh to be part of the integration measure, with $\delta h=0$.

To show that the integration measure $dX\,d\psi_1\,d\psi_2\,dh$ is invariant, you would need to write out the Jacobian super-determinant:

$$ J=\det\,\begin{pmatrix} \frac{\delta X'}{\delta X} & \frac{\delta X'}{\delta \psi_1} & \frac{\delta X'}{\delta \psi_2}&...\\ \frac{\delta \psi_1'}{\delta X} & \frac{\delta \psi_1'}{\delta \psi_1} & \frac{\delta \psi_1'}{\delta \psi_2}\\ \frac{\delta \psi_2'}{\delta X} & \frac{\delta \psi_2'}{\delta \psi_1} & \frac{\delta \psi_2'}{\delta \psi_2}\\ \vdots \end{pmatrix}\,. $$ Where primes indicate the transformed variables. Then, for small transformations, use $J=\det(1+\mathbb{A})=\exp\ln\det(1+\mathbb{A})\approx 1+\text{Tr}\mathbb{A}+\mathcal{O}(\mathbb{A})^2$. All you need to show is that trace of $\mathbb{A}$ vanishes to show that the measure remains invariant.

share|cite|improve this answer
Comment to the answer(v1): The trace should be supertrace. – Qmechanic Nov 25 '12 at 17:46

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.