Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 2 cited by

Self-organized criticality in a relativistic Yukawa theory with Luttinger fermions

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the γ11 Yukawa model with relativistic Luttinger fermions flows on its own to a symmetry-breaking scale, so generic initial conditions produce large scale separations without fine-tuning.

desk verdict A credible new mechanism for natural scale separation in a 4d Yukawa model; the qualitative result holds up, but the quoted mass ratios rest on a regulator-dependent smearing convention. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.13441 v1 pith:TIRI3V7K submitted 2025-06-16 hep-th hep-ph

Holger Gies , Marta Picciau This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thhep-ph
keywords self-organizedcriticalityLuttingerfermionsYukawamodelfunctionalrenormalizationgrouppartialfixedpointscalarmassmarginalityspontaneoussymmetrybreakingnaturalness
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that a particular four-dimensional quantum field theory—a scalar field coupled to 32-component Luttinger fermions through a γ11 Yukawa interaction—does not need its parameters tuned for its low-energy physics to be critical. The authors show that the Yukawa and scalar self-couplings flow to an infrared-attractive partial fixed point, while the scalar mass parameter becomes marginal and drifts logarithmically toward spontaneous symmetry breaking. As a result, generic initial conditions land in the broken phase with scalar and fermion mass gaps naturally far below the ultraviolet cutoff. If true, this is a concrete realization of self-organized criticality in a relativistic quantum field theory and a new route around the fine-tuning problem.

What carries the argument

The engine is a partial fixed point in the plane of dimensionless couplings $(h^2, \lambda)$: the functional renormalization-group flow attracts the Yukawa and scalar self-interactions to nonzero values where their anomalous dimensions cancel their canonical scaling. The same fixed point forces the scalar anomalous dimension $\eta_\phi$ to 2, so the scalar mass parameter $\epsilon$ changes from a relevant direction (exponent 2) to a marginal one, with the logarithmic drift $\partial_t \epsilon = 4/5$ in the large-$N_f$ limit. This slow drift plays the role of the driving force in self-organized criticality: it moves the system from any generic starting point to the symmetry-breaking threshold, after which threshold effects decouple massive modes and freeze the dimensionless ratios.

What would settle it

Integrate the RG flow with a smooth regulator that removes the $\delta(1-y)\theta(1-y)$ ambiguity and check whether $\eta_\phi$ still reaches 2 with $h^2$ and $\lambda$ fully infrared-attractive; or run a lattice simulation of the γ11 Yukawa model with generic positive bare scalar mass and check whether the system always breaks symmetry with $m_\sigma/m_\psi$ near 0.79.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the γ11 Yukawa model has a partial infrared fixed point at which the Yukawa coupling $h^2$ and all scalar self-interactions are irrelevant, with critical exponents $\theta_{h^2} = -2$ and $\theta_\lambda = -4$ in the large-$N_f$ limit, while the scalar mass parameter $\epsilon$ is marginal and runs logarithmically as $\partial_t \epsilon \simeq 4/5$. At this fixed point the scalar anomalous dimension is $\eta_\phi \simeq 2$, exactly the value that turns the mass operator from relevant into marginal. The flow therefore spends a long logarithmic RG time near the fixed point and inevitably crosses into the spontaneously broken regime, producing universal mass ratios—$m_\sigma/v \simeq 1.36$, $m_\psi/v \simeq 1.72$, and $m_\sigma/m_\psi \simeq 0.79$—independent of initial conditions in a large generic region. The model also admits a UV-complete description through the asymptotically free purely fermionic γ11 model, which lies in the same universality class.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the derivative-expansion approximation, together with the sharp-cutoff regulator and the smearing recipe $\delta(1-y)\theta(1-y) \to \tfrac{1}{2}\delta(1-y)$, correctly captures the flow at the partial fixed point; if it does not, the fixed-point values and mass ratios could shift, and the fermionic mass gap is only a standard observable if Luttinger fermions possess asymptotic states.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Generic initial conditions—including a scalar mass several times the ultraviolet cutoff—end in the spontaneously broken phase, with the transition scale exponentially below the cutoff.
  • The low-energy mass spectrum is universal: for a large region of parameter space, $m_\sigma/v \simeq 1.36$, $m_\psi/v \simeq 1.72$, and $m_\sigma/m_\psi \simeq 0.79$, independent of the bare couplings.
  • The model admits UV-complete trajectories that flow from the asymptotically free purely fermionic γ11 theory, which is in the same universality class.
  • The scenario realizes the self-organized-criticality criterion of [12] with $\eta_\phi \approx 2$ playing the role of the mass anomalous dimension.
  • The predicted universal mass ratio is a sharp target for lattice or Dyson–Schwinger computations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the mechanism survives a smooth-regulator check, it offers a concrete naturalness template: a Yukawa sector built on a Luttinger sector can generate a large hierarchy without tuning, because the marginal scalar mass acts as a slow driving force rather than a relevant parameter.
  • The fermionic mass gap arises from a pair of complex-conjugate poles in the $p^2$ plane; if Luttinger fermions have no asymptotic states, the observable meaning of $m_\psi$ may need to be redefined in terms of correlation-function poles or a lattice spectral function.
  • The same partial-fixed-point logic could be probed in condensed-matter models with Luttinger fermions near quadratic band touching, potentially exporting the no-fine-tuning result to nonrelativistic settings.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper studies a four-dimensional Euclidean Yukawa model in which a dynamical real scalar couples to N_f flavors of relativistic Luttinger fermions via the γ11 channel, together with a quartic scalar potential. The authors analyze the renormalization group flow with the Wetterich equation in an LPA' truncation with a polynomial expansion of the effective potential, and complement this with large-N_f and perturbative treatments. They find an infrared attractive partial fixed point at which the Yukawa coupling and the scalar self-interactions are irrelevant, while the scalar mass parameter becomes marginal and runs logarithmically toward negative values, driving the model into the spontaneously broken phase for generic initial conditions. They interpret this as a relativistic version of self-organized criticality, and report universal long-range observables with numerical estimates m_σ/v ≈ 1.36 and m_ψ/v ≈ 1.72 for N_f = 1, implying m_σ/m_ψ ≈ 0.79. A UV completion via the asymptotically free purely fermionic γ11 model is also discussed.

Significance. If correct, the paper would establish a concrete four-dimensional QFT realization of self-organized criticality and a new naturalness mechanism that produces large scale separation without fine-tuning, along with falsifiable mass-ratio predictions. The qualitative mechanism is supported by several complementary arguments: the large-N_f fixed point forces η_φ = 2, the Bornholdt-Wetterich criterion is satisfied, the perturbative analysis gives IR-attractive exponents θ_h2 = −2 and θ_λ ≈ −4, and the polynomial expansion shows convergence up to N_p = 22. The authors are also explicit about the regulator-dependent smearing needed for the new Luttinger threshold functions and about the open question of whether Luttinger fermions possess asymptotic states. However, the quantitative mass-gap predictions depend on scheme choices that are not independently tested, so the strength of the paper lies primarily in the robustness of the qualitative mechanism and only secondarily, for now, in the precise numbers.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix B; Section V] The quantitative fixed-point values and mass ratios are not regulator-independent as presented. In Appendix B, the m-type Luttinger threshold functions (A12)–(A14) are evaluated with the Litim regulator, where products δ(1−y)θ(1−y) are ill defined and are replaced by (1/2)δ(1−y). This replacement fixes the constants m4(0,0) = 5 and l0^(L)(0) = 1 that feed into h2* in Eq. (25), λ* in Eq. (26), and hence into the mass ratios shown in Figs. 4 and 5. No test with an alternative regulator, a different smoothing of the Litim kink, or a direct calculation without the smearing prescription is given. Since the abstract advertises nonperturbative estimates for the mass gaps, the authors should quantify the scheme dependence of these numbers or explicitly downgrade them to regulator-dependent estimates.
  2. [Section V, Figs. 4–5] The quantitative mass spectrum is also sensitive to the uncontrolled LPA' truncation at η_φ ≈ 2. At η_φ = 2 the scalar kinetic term is marginal at the fixed point, so the derivative expansion is being used near its validity boundary; the paper notes that the ansatz is a leading-order derivative expansion but gives no estimate for the omitted momentum-dependent corrections. Since no independent method such as Dyson-Schwinger equations, lattice simulations, or gap equations is used to check m_σ/v ≈ 1.36 and m_ψ/v ≈ 1.72, the quoted ratios should be presented with an explicit uncertainty or as fixed-point-informed estimates rather than as definitive nonperturbative predictions.
  3. [Eq. (18); Section VII] The identification of m_ψ as a physical fermionic mass gap is contingent on an interpretation that the paper itself leaves open. Equation (18) defines m_ψ from 2κh^2, but the authors state in Section VII that the fermionic spectrum in the broken phase is a pair of complex conjugate poles in the p^2 plane and that the question of Luttinger fermions as asymptotic states is unresolved. This does not affect the qualitative SOC mechanism, but it does mean that the fermionic mass gap quoted in Figs. 4 and 5 is not yet established as a particle mass; the paper should state this caveat wherever the mass ratios are highlighted.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section VI] There is a typo in the text: 'our Yukwawa model' should read 'our Yukawa model'.
  2. [Figure 2 caption and Figure 3 caption] The captions contain spelling errors: 'exibiting' should be 'exhibiting' and 'sufficently' should be 'sufficiently'.
  3. [Section V, around Fig. 3] The statement that m_σ/m_ψ ≈ 0.79 indicates a deeply bound state presumes the UV-completion interpretation in which the scalar is a bi-fermionic bound state; in the fundamental-scalar formulation of Eq. (5) the word 'binding energy' is not directly meaningful, so the wording should be clarified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular reduction: the partial fixed point and mass ratios are solved from the model's own RG equations; cited prior work only supplies context and the regulator smearing is a scheme choice, not a constructional input.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The central result is obtained by inserting the action (5) and the LPA' ansatz (7) into the Wetterich equation (6), producing the flows (11)-(15). The large-Nf and perturbative analyses in Sec. IV solve these beta functions for the partial fixed point, h2* = 32 pi^2/(5 Nf dgamma) and lambda* = 128 pi^2/(25 Nf dgamma), with eta_phi = 2 and theta_h2 = -2, theta_lambda = -4; these values are derived, not assumed. The logarithmic drift of the scalar mass parameter, Eq. (29), follows from inserting the solved fixed-point values into Eq. (19). The nonperturbative mass estimates in Sec. V follow from integrating the same flows and Eq. (18); no parameter is fitted to the quoted ratios m_sigma/v ~ 1.36 or m_psi/v ~ 1.72. The self-citations [13,22] provide the Luttinger spinor representation, the Abrikosov algebra, and the Hubbard-Stratonovich equivalence, but they do not supply the target result, and the UV-completion discussion in Sec. VI is an interpretation of the computed flow rather than an input that forces it. The Bornholdt-Wetterich criterion (39) is used only as an external interpretive check, and the central mechanism does not reduce to it. Appendix B's symmetric-smearing replacement delta(1-y)theta(1-y) -> (1/2)delta(1-y) is a regulator-scheme assumption that can shift quantitative constants, but it is not an identity between an output and an input; the fixed-point and mass values are computed within that scheme, not assumed from it. Section VII's caveat about the absence of asymptotic states for Luttinger fermions is an interpretive limitation, not a circular step. Overall, no prediction reduces by construction to its inputs, and the self-citations are not load-bearing for the central claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model uses existing Luttinger fermion degrees of freedom and a standard scalar field, so no new particles, mediators, forces, or dimensions are postulated. The analysis relies on standard fRG approximations and regulator conventions; no external data are fitted.

free parameters (3)
  • initial scalar mass parameter epsilon_Lambda
    Dimensionless renormalized mass at the UV scale; chosen by hand, with epsilon_Lambda = 10 in the concrete runs. The central claim is that universal long-range observables are independent of it except for setting the overall scale k_SSB.
  • initial Yukawa coupling h_Lambda^2
    Set to h_Lambda^2 = 1 in the numerical studies; the flow rapidly attracts it to the partial fixed point in the universal regime.
  • initial scalar quartic couplings lambda_Lambda and u_{n>=2,Lambda}
    Set to zero at the UV scale; generated dynamically and irrelevant at the fixed point, so no fitted values are needed.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math The Abrikosov algebra has a 32-component Euclidean spinor representation with gamma11 and a spin metric h.
    Used in Section II and Appendix A to define the model; representation theory is taken from references [13,22].
  • domain assumption The Wetterich equation with the LPA' ansatz (7) is a valid leading-order approximation for this Yukawa system.
    Section III; no systematic estimate of derivative-expansion error is provided.
  • domain assumption The Litim regulator and the smearing rule delta(1-y)theta(1-y) -> (1/2)delta(1-y) give the correct threshold functions.
    Appendix B; the ill-defined products are a known artifact of the derivative expansion, and the smearing is adopted from the literature without a sensitivity test.
  • domain assumption The large-Nf limit with Nf d_gamma >> 1, applied even at Nf = 1 with d_gamma = 32, approximates the full theory.
    Section IV A; supported by perturbative checks but not a proof.
  • domain assumption Luttinger fermions have a well-defined mass gap despite a pair of complex conjugate poles in the p^2 plane.
    Section VII and reference [22]; the asymptotic-state question remains open.
  • domain assumption The Bornholdt-Wetterich criterion (39) with omega = eta_phi is an appropriate diagnostic for self-organized criticality.
    Section V, near Eq. (39); the interpretation is qualitative and not derived from first principles.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Self-organized criticality in a relativistic Yukawa theory with Luttinger fermions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TIRI3V7K

@misc{pith2026250613441,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Self-organized criticality in a relativistic Yukawa theory with Luttinger fermions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TIRI3V7K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.13441}
}
abstract

We propose and investigate a Yukawa model featuring a dynamical scalar field coupled to relativistic Luttinger fermions. Using the functional renormalization group (RG) as well as large-$N_{\text{f}}$ or perturbative expansions, we observe the emergence of an infrared attractive partial fixed point in all interactions at which all couplings become RG irrelevant. At the partial fixed point, the scalar mass parameter is RG marginal, featuring a slow logarithmic running towards the regime of spontaneous symmetry breaking. The long-range behavior of the model is characterized by mass gap formation in the scalar and the fermionic sector independently of the initial conditions. Most importantly, a large scale separation between the low-energy scales and the microscopic scales, e.g., a high-energy cutoff scale, is naturally obtained for generic initial conditions without the need for any fine-tuning. We interpret the properties of our model as a relativistic version of self-organized criticality, a phenomenon observed in specific statistical or dynamical systems. This entails natural scale separation and universal long-range observables. We determine nonperturbative estimates for the latter including the scalar and fermionic mass gaps.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.13441 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Phase diagram of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Dimensionful effective potential of our Yukawa model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Ratio of the scalar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Scalar anomalous dimension [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Fermi scale from quantum gravity scaling solution

    hep-th 2026-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The Fermi/Planck ratio is claimed to be predictable from the analyticity of the quantum-gravity scaling solution for the cosmon-Higgs coupling, with numerics showing the coupling flows to a tiny, near-critical value.

  2. Gravity and the Higgs boson mass

    hep-th 2025-07 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    For a scalar field on a sphere, the Fradkin-Vilkovisky measure combined with an on-shell cutoff identification converts the famous quadratic mass divergence into a logarithmic one.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [12]

    While Eq

    (Bornholdt-Wetterich criterion), ⟨ω⟩ = 1 t0 Z t0 0 dt ω(t)≃ 2, t 0 := ln v Λ, (39) is evidently satisfied for ω = ηϕ, as the scalar anoma- lous dimension is essentially constant in t and governed by the partial fixed point value ηϕ≃ 2. While Eq. (39) could be satisfied also by a varying function ω(t), our Yukawa model based on Luttinger fermions satisfies...

    work page

  2. [22]

    Quantum-critical electrodynamics of Luttinger fermions

    S. Dey and J. Maciejko, Phys. Rev. B106, 035140 (2022), arXiv:2204.05319 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  3. [1]

    Zinn-Justin, Int

    J. Zinn-Justin, Int. Ser. Monogr. Phys. 77, 1 (1989)

    work page 1989

  4. [2]

    ’t Hooft, NATO Sci

    G. ’t Hooft, NATO Sci. Ser. B 59, 135 (1980)

    1980

  5. [3]

    G. F. Giudice, , 155 (2008), arXiv:0801.2562 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2008

  6. [4]

    Grinstein, D

    B. Grinstein, D. O’Connell, and M. B. Wise, Phys. Rev. D 77, 025012 (2008), arXiv:0704.1845 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2008

  7. [5]

    Hossenfelder, Synthese 198, 3727 (2021), arXiv:1801.02176 [physics.hist-ph]

    S. Hossenfelder, Synthese 198, 3727 (2021), arXiv:1801.02176 [physics.hist-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  8. [6]

    P. Bak, C. Tang, and K. Wiesenfeld, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 381 (1987)

    1987

Show all 68 references
  1. [7]

    P. Bak, C. Tang, and K. Wiesenfeld, Phys. Rev. A 38, 364 (1988)

    1988

  2. [8]

    S. S. Manna, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 24, L363 (1991)

    1991

  3. [9]

    Olami, H

    Z. Olami, H. J. S. Feder, and K. Christensen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 1244 (1992)

    1992

  4. [10]

    B. D. Malamud, G. Morein, and D. L. Turcotte, Science 281, 1840 (1998)

    1998

  5. [11]

    Vespignani and S

    A. Vespignani and S. Zapperi, Physical Review E 57, 6345–6362 (1998)

    1998

  6. [13]

    H. Gies, P. Heinzel, J. Laufk¨ otter, and M. Picciau, Phys. Rev. D 110, 065001 (2024), arXiv:2312.12058 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Bornholdt and C

    S. Bornholdt and C. Wetterich, Phys. Lett. B 282, 399 (1992)

    1992

  8. [15]

    Murakami, N

    S. Murakami, N. Nagosa, and S.-C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B 69, 235206 (2004), arXiv:cond-mat/0310005

    2004 arXiv

  9. [16]

    J. M. Luttinger, Phys. Rev. 102, 1030 (1956)

    1956

  10. [17]

    Janssen and I

    L. Janssen and I. F. Herbut, Phys. Rev. B 92, 045117 (2015), arXiv:1503.04242 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2015 arXiv

  11. [18]

    E.-G. Moon, C. Xu, Y. B. Kim, and L. Balents, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 206401 (2013), arXiv:1212.1168 [cond- mat.str-el]

    2013 arXiv

  12. [19]

    S. Ray, M. Vojta, and L. Janssen, Phys. Rev. B 98, 245128 (2018), arXiv:1810.07695 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2018 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Janssen and I

    L. Janssen and I. F. Herbut, Phys. Rev. B 95, 075101 (2017), arXiv:1611.04594 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2017 arXiv

  14. [21]

    D. J. Moser and L. Janssen, (2024), arXiv:2412.06890 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2024

  15. [23]

    A. A. Abrikosov, Sov. Phys. JETP 39, 709 (1974)

    1974

  16. [24]

    Gies and M

    H. Gies and M. Picciau, Phys. Rev. D 111, 085001 (2025), arXiv:2410.22166 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Holland, Lattice field theory

    K. Holland, Lattice field theory. Proceedings, 22nd Inter- national Symposium, Lattice 2004, Batavia, USA, June 21-26, 2004 , Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 140, 155 (2005), [,155(2004)], arXiv:hep-lat/0409112 [hep-lat]

    2005 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Holland and J

    K. Holland and J. Kuti, Lattice hadron physics. Proceed- ings, 2nd Topical Workshop, LHP 2003, Cairns, Aus- tralia, July 22-30, 2003 , Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 129, 765 (2004), [,765(2003)], arXiv:hep-lat/0308020 [hep-lat]

    2004 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Branchina, H

    V. Branchina, H. Faivre, and V. Pangon, J. Phys. G36, 015006 (2009), arXiv:0802.4423 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Branchina and H

    V. Branchina and H. Faivre, Phys. Rev. D72, 065017 (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0503188 [hep-th]

    2005 arXiv

  21. [29]

    large-Nf

    describing the RG flow of the effective action Γ k as a function of an RG scale parameter k, ∂tΓk = 1 2STr " ∂tRk Γ(2) k +Rk # , (6) where ∂t = k d dk, and Rk specifies the Wilsonian momentum-shell regularization, see [30–35] for details. The bare action (5) of our model serve...

  22. [30]

    H. Gies, C. Gneiting, and R. Sondenheimer, Phys. Rev. D89, 045012 (2014), arXiv:1308.5075 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Wetterich, Phys

    C. Wetterich, Phys. Lett. B301, 90 (1993)

    1993

  24. [32]

    Berges, N

    J. Berges, N. Tetradis, and C. Wetterich, Phys. Rept. 363, 223 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0005122 [hep-ph]

    2002 arXiv

  25. [33]

    J. M. Pawlowski, Annals Phys. 322, 2831 (2007), arXiv:hep-th/0512261 [hep-th]

    2007 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Gies, ECT* School on Renormalization Group and Ef- fective Field Theory Approaches to Many-Body Systems Trento, Italy, February 27-March 10, 2006 , Lect

    H. Gies, ECT* School on Renormalization Group and Ef- fective Field Theory Approaches to Many-Body Systems Trento, Italy, February 27-March 10, 2006 , Lect. Notes Phys. 852, 287 (2012), arXiv:hep-ph/0611146 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Delamotte, Lect

    B. Delamotte, Lect. Notes Phys. 852, 49 (2012), arXiv:cond-mat/0702365 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2012 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Braun, J

    J. Braun, J. Phys. G39, 033001 (2012), arXiv:1108.4449 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Dupuis, L

    N. Dupuis, L. Canet, A. Eichhorn, W. Metzner, J. M. Pawlowski, M. Tissier, and N. Wschebor, Phys. Rept. 910, 1 (2021), arXiv:2006.04853 [cond-mat.stat-mech]. 14

    2021 arXiv

  30. [38]

    D. U. Jungnickel and C. Wetterich, Phys. Rev.D53, 5142 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9505267 [hep-ph]

    1996 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Hofling, C

    F. Hofling, C. Nowak, and C. Wetterich, Phys. Rev. B66, 205111 (2002), arXiv:cond-mat/0203588 [cond- mat]

    2002 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Diehl, S

    S. Diehl, S. Floerchinger, H. Gies, J. M. Pawlowski, and C. Wetterich, Annalen Phys. 522, 615 (2010), arXiv:0907.2193 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2010 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Braun, H

    J. Braun, H. Gies, and D. D. Scherer, Phys. Rev. D83, 085012 (2011), arXiv:1011.1456 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Mesterhazy, J

    D. Mesterhazy, J. Berges, and L. von Smekal, Phys. Rev. B86, 245431 (2012), arXiv:1207.4054 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2012 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Jakov´ ac, A

    A. Jakov´ ac, A. Patk´ os, and P. P´ osfay, Eur. Phys. J.C75, 2 (2015), arXiv:1406.3195 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Janssen and I

    L. Janssen and I. F. Herbut, Phys. Rev. B89, 205403 (2014), arXiv:1402.6277 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2014 arXiv

  37. [45]

    G. P. Vacca and L. Zambelli, Phys. Rev. D91, 125003 (2015), arXiv:1503.09136 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Gies and R

    H. Gies and R. Sondenheimer, Eur. Phys. J. C75, 68 (2015), arXiv:1407.8124 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Classen, I

    L. Classen, I. F. Herbut, L. Janssen, and M. M. Scherer, Phys. Rev. B93, 125119 (2016), arXiv:1510.09003 [cond- mat.str-el]

    2016 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Knorr, Phys

    B. Knorr, Phys. Rev. B94, 245102 (2016), arXiv:1609.03824 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2016 arXiv

  41. [49]

    W.-j. Fu, J. M. Pawlowski, F. Rennecke, and B.-J. Schae- fer, Phys. Rev. D 94, 116020 (2016), arXiv:1608.04302 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Stoll, N

    J. Stoll, N. Zorbach, A. Koenigstein, M. J. Steil, and S. Rechenberger, (2021), arXiv:2108.10616 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  43. [51]

    H. Gies, R. Schmieden, and L. Zambelli, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 56 (2025), arXiv:2306.05943 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Bervillier, A

    C. Bervillier, A. Juttner, and D. F. Litim, Nucl. Phys. B 783, 213 (2007), arXiv:hep-th/0701172

    2007 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Borchardt and B

    J. Borchardt and B. Knorr, Phys. Rev. D91, 105011 (2015), arXiv:1502.07511 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Borchardt and B

    J. Borchardt and B. Knorr, Phys. Rev. D94, 025027 (2016), arXiv:1603.06726 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Borchardt, H

    J. Borchardt, H. Gies, and R. Sondenheimer, Eur. Phys. J. C76, 472 (2016), arXiv:1603.05861 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Grossi and N

    E. Grossi and N. Wink, SciPost Phys. Core 6, 071 (2023), arXiv:1903.09503 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Koenigstein, M

    A. Koenigstein, M. J. Steil, N. Wink, E. Grossi, J. Braun, M. Buballa, and D. H. Rischke, Phys. Rev. D 106, 065012 (2022), arXiv:2108.02504 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2022 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Ihssen, J

    F. Ihssen, J. M. Pawlowski, F. R. Sattler, and N. Wink, Comput. Phys. Commun. 300, 109182 (2024), arXiv:2207.12266 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Ihssen, F

    F. Ihssen, F. R. Sattler, and N. Wink, Phys. Rev. D 107, 114009 (2023), arXiv:2302.04736 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  52. [60]

    F. R. Sattler and J. M. Pawlowski, (2024), arXiv:2412.13043 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    O’Raifeartaigh, A

    L. O’Raifeartaigh, A. Wipf, and H. Yoneyama, Nucl. Phys. B271, 653 (1986)

    1986

  54. [62]

    D. F. Litim, J. M. Pawlowski, and L. Vergara, (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0602140 [hep-th]

    2006 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Zorbach, J

    N. Zorbach, J. Stoll, and J. Braun, (2024), arXiv:2401.12854 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Zorbach, A

    N. Zorbach, A. Koenigstein, and J. Braun, (2024), arXiv:2412.16053 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2024 arXiv

  57. [65]

    H. Gies, S. Rechenberger, M. M. Scherer, and L. Zam- belli, Eur. Phys. J. C73, 2652 (2013), arXiv:1306.6508 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Gies and J

    H. Gies and J. Ziebell, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 607 (2020), arXiv:2005.07586 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  59. [67]

    D. F. Litim, Phys. Lett. B486, 92 (2000), arXiv:hep- th/0005245 [hep-th]

    2000

  60. [68]

    D. F. Litim, Phys. Rev. D64, 105007 (2001), arXiv:hep- th/0103195 [hep-th]

    2001

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.