Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 36 references

Energy momentum tensor correlators in $\phi^4$ theory II: The spin-two sector

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that at four loops the spin-2 charge $C_T$ of massless $\phi^4$ theory splits into a conformal sector and a new beta-function-proportional RG sector that pure CFT methods cannot see.

desk verdict Plausible first four-loop off-critical C_T in phi^4 with a genuinely new beta-function-proportional RG sector, but the O(lambda^3) constant rests on unshown finite parts of two master integrals, so it warrants revision before acceptance. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01713 v1 pith:2A77UXSR submitted 2025-07-02 hep-th hep-ph

Nikos Irges , Leonidas Karageorgos This is my paper
classification hep-thhep-ph PACS 11.10.Hi11.10.Kk11.25.Hf
keywords energy-momentumtensorspin-2chargefour-loopcomputationphi^4theorybetafunctionMellin-BarnesintegralsWilson-Fisherfixedpointrenormalizationgroup
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 extends the calculation of the spin-2 charge $C_T$ — the coefficient of the two-point function of the energy-momentum tensor — in massless $\phi^4$ theory from three loops to four loops, i.e. to order $\lambda^3$. Its central claim is that at this order $C_T$ separates into a conformal sector, which reproduces the known central charge at the Gaussian and Wilson-Fisher fixed points, and a new 'RG sector' proportional to the $\beta$ function of the coupling, the term $(\lambda\beta_\lambda/(4\pi)^4)(5/36)(169/30 - \ln(-p^2/\tilde{\mu}^2))$. Because this sector vanishes when $\beta_\lambda = 0$, the charge flows smoothly onto its fixed-point value, while away from fixed points it acquires its first explicit dependence on the external momentum — a scale-breaking effect the authors argue pure CFT methods cannot see. The same four-loop computation fixes the free normalization of the spin-0 charge from the companion paper, shows that $C_T$ obeys an eigenvalue-like equation with eigenvalue $e_T = -(5/18)\lambda\beta_\lambda/(4\pi)^4$, and is applied to the running of $C_T$ and to holographic cosmology.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a traced-correlator extraction of $C_T$ from $\langle T_{\mu\nu}T_{\rho\sigma}\rangle$, using the improved (conformally coupled) energy-momentum tensor vertex with a generic improvement parameter $\xi$, together with the decomposition into spin-2 and spin-0 projectors. The four-loop topologies are reduced by integration-by-parts identities, using an automated reduction package, to two primitive integrals $G_1, G_2$ and two four-loop master integrals, the 'hourglass' $G_{HR}$ and the 'cockroach' $G_{CR}$, which are evaluated by Mellin-Barnes contour methods in Appendix C. The load-bearing identities are the order-by-order cancellation of the $\xi$-dependent pieces (SH+CE at three loops; SI+BC and HR+TE+CR at four loops), which proves that $C_T$ is independent of the improvement term, and the final split (120) in which every divergent, logarithmic, and finite constant conspires into the conformal sector plus a piece proportional to $\beta_\lambda$. The finite parts of $G_{HR}$ and $G_{CR}$ are what fix the constant $169/30$ in the RG sector.

What would settle it

Compute the four-loop hourglass and cockroach master integrals $G_{HR}$ and $G_{CR}$ to $O(\varepsilon^0)$ by an independent method (for instance sector decomposition or a different subtraction scheme), insert them into eqs. (108)-(111), and check whether the $O(\lambda^3)$ coefficient of $C_T$ indeed comes out as $-\frac{7}{36}\lambda^3/(4\pi)^6$ with the RG-sector constant $\frac{169}{30}$ in (120); equivalently, present the G-scheme calculation the paper says it repeated and verify that the two schemes agree on the finite parts.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result is eq. (120): $C_T = 1 - \frac{5}{36}\frac{\lambda^2}{(4\pi)^4} - \frac{7}{36}\frac{\lambda^3}{(4\pi)^6} + \frac{\lambda\beta_\lambda}{(4\pi)^4}\frac{5}{36}\left(\frac{169}{30} - \ln\frac{-p^2}{\tilde{\mu}^2}\right) + O(\varepsilon^2\lambda^2, \varepsilon\lambda^3, \lambda^4)$. The first two terms form the conformal sector; evaluated at the Wilson-Fisher value $\lambda_* = 16\pi^2\varepsilon/3$ they give $C_T^* = 1 - \frac{5}{324}\varepsilon^2 - \frac{233}{8748}\varepsilon^3 + O(\varepsilon^4)$, matching the fixed-point central charge obtained by conformal bootstrap methods. The last term, proportional to $\beta_\lambda = -\varepsilon\lambda + 3\lambda^2/(4\pi)^2 + \cdots$, is the new RG sector: it contains the first logarithmic dependence of the spin-2 charge on the momentum scale, and it vanishes at both fixed points, restoring scale invariance and giving a smooth CFT limit. The paper reports that among the seven four-loop topologies only three contribute (hourglass, cockroach, tent, with the sun-over-the-hill-II and bobcat-eye canceling), and that all divergences, double logarithms, and $\pi^2$ terms cancel after renormalization by the one-loop factor $Z_T^{(0)}$, leaving the $\beta$-proportional combination. It also establishes that $C_T$ satisfies the eigenvalue-like system $\mu\,\partial_\mu C_T = -e_T C_T$, $\beta_\lambda\,\partial_\lambda C_T = e_T C_T$ with $e_T = -\frac{5}{18}\frac{\lambda\beta_\lambda}{(4\pi)^4}$, the spin-2 analogue of the spin-0 equation from part I.

Load-bearing premise

The result stands or falls on the unshown finite parts of the two four-loop master integrals $G_{HR}$ and $G_{CR}$: the appendix presents only their leading divergent terms and stops at $O(1/\varepsilon)$, while the scheme-cross-check that would confirm the finite parts is announced but not shown.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At the Wilson-Fisher fixed point, eq. (120) reproduces the known $O(\varepsilon^3)$ central charge $C_T^* = 1 - \frac{5}{324}\varepsilon^2 - \frac{233}{8748}\varepsilon^3$, so the new sector does not disturb the CFT values while explaining how the charge runs between fixed points.
  • The normalization of the spin-0 charge from the companion paper is fixed by comparing the $d$-dimensional trace correlator: $c^2 = 5/[24(4\pi)^4]$, tying $\langle\Theta\Theta\rangle$ to $\beta_\lambda^2$ at leading order.
  • Away from fixed points, $C_T$ depends on $x = -p^2/\tilde{\mu}^2$ for the first time; the flow of $C_T$ falls into three regimes, one of which is monotonic and stationary at the Wilson-Fisher fixed point, while the other two satisfy only the weak inequality $C_T^{UV} > C_T^{IR}$.
  • In the holographic-cosmology application, the ratio $r = \frac{1}{8} C_\Theta/C_T$ vanishes quadratically with the distance from the fixed point, $r \simeq 8\times 10^{-9} d_\lambda^2$, and the tensor index is $n_T \simeq 5\times 10^{-3} d_\lambda$, leaving $n_S$ as the observable that constrains the eigenvalue $e_\Theta$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The beta-function proportionality of the RG sector is likely a general feature of conserved charges at their first off-critical order: the Callan-Symanzik equation forces the leading momentum-dependent correction of a protected charge to be proportional to $\beta_\lambda$, so the same conformal-plus-RG decomposition should appear in other theories (e.g., $O(N)$ models or QED) at their first non-tr
  • A decisive test of the scheme-independence claim would be an independent evaluation of $G_{HR}$ and $G_{CR}$ to their finite parts; if the constant $169/30$ survived a different subtraction, the RG sector would be a genuine physical observable rather than a scheme artifact.
  • The three-regime running of $C_T$ suggests a possible momentum-dependent c-function candidate in four dimensions: one could look for a quantity built from $C_T$ and $C_\Theta$ that is monotone along all RG trajectories, connecting to the open question whether an analogue of the 2d c-theorem exists for $d=4$.
  • If the perturbative eigenvalue $e_\Theta$ fails to reproduce the observed scalar index $n_S$, the paper's own proposal — replacing it by the critical exponent $\eta \simeq 0.036$ — could be tested by computing the corresponding bulk quantity in the dual de Sitter holographic description.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper computes the spin-2 charge C_T of the energy-momentum tensor two-point function in massless phi^4 theory through four loops, obtaining the off-critical O(lambda^3) result in Eq. (120). The result is decomposed into a conformal sector, which reproduces the known Wilson-Fisher central charge at the fixed point, and a new lambda-beta-function-proportional RG sector containing a logarithmic term and an associated constant. The paper also derives an eigenvalue-like equation for C_T, uses the result to fix the normalization of the spin-0 charge C_Theta, and discusses applications to RG flows and holographic cosmology.

Significance. If correct, the computation would provide the first four-loop off-critical result for C_T in phi^4 theory and a beta-function-proportional sector that is invisible to fixed-point CFT methods. The paper has real strengths: the loop reduction is performed with standard tools (FIRE6, Mellin-Barnes), the xi-independence of the charge is checked through nontrivial cancellations, and the fixed-point limit (124) matches the known O(epsilon^3) central charge from the CFT literature. However, the central numerical constant in Eq. (120) depends on finite parts of two four-loop master integrals whose 1/epsilon coefficients are not displayed in Appendix C, and a direct sum of the printed equations (113)-(117) does not close to the claimed finite result. These issues make the headline result not independently checkable from the manuscript as it stands.

major comments (2)
  1. The main result Eq. (120) contains the constant (5/36)(169/30) in the RG sector. This constant is assembled from the finite parts of the four-loop contributions (114) and (115), which are obtained by multiplying the master integrals G_HR and G_CR by the prefactors in (108)-(109) and dividing by Z_T^(0). Since Z_T^(0) is O(1/epsilon) (Eq. (38)), the epsilon^0 terms in (114)-(115) receive contributions from the O(1/epsilon) coefficients of G_HR and G_CR. However, the expansions displayed in (C.40) and (C.54) stop at O(1/epsilon) without giving those coefficients. The fixed-point limit (124) cannot test them because beta_lambda=0 there, and the G-scheme repetition mentioned after Eq. (91) is not shown. The constant 169/30 is therefore asserted rather than demonstrated; the authors should display the missing 1/epsilon coefficients or provide the Mellin-Barnes evaluation in supplementary material, together with the G-scheme cross-check.
  2. The printed arithmetic does not appear to close. Under the definition (107), the total O(lambda^3) contribution is the sum of the four diagram terms (114)-(117) and G_lambda in (113). Summing the displayed 1/epsilon^2 terms gives zero, and the 1/epsilon log coefficients cancel, but the 1/epsilon constants sum to -35/48 rather than zero: (-11/108) + (-25/108) + 1/6 + 13/48 + (-5/6) = -35/48. Thus the statement in the text that 'the 1/epsilon terms all get cancelled' is not borne out by the displayed expressions, and the finite part in (118) is not reproduced by the sum of (113)-(117) either. This is a load-bearing internal inconsistency in the central computation; the authors must either correct the displayed coefficients or show which additional contributions remove the residual pole.
minor comments (4)
  1. There are many typographical errors and slips, including 'Compairing' before Eq. (140), 'senario' in the Conclusions, 'pfnS' near Eq. (161), 'metioned' in Section 4.3, and 'Langrangean' in Section 2. A careful proofreading pass is needed.
  2. Figure 5 is not labeled with the topology names SI, BC, HR, TE, and CR that are used in the text equations (78)-(82). Adding labels or a caption table would make the reduction and cancellation structure much easier to follow.
  3. The holographic dictionary formulas (149) and (150), and the resulting relation r = C_Theta/(8 C_T), are quoted without derivation or a statement of their regime of validity. Since this section is an application rather than the central result, a brief derivation or reference to the precise assumptions would be sufficient.
  4. The notation C_T,O(lambda^3) is introduced without an explicit definition distinguishing it from C_T|O(lambda^3) in Eq. (107); please clarify the subscript and the order of the terms being combined.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the O(λ³) spin-2 result comes from an explicit four-loop computation, the RG-sector is an algebraic factorization of computed terms, and the fixed-point check uses external CFT results; self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained and not circular. The O(λ³) coefficient of C_T is obtained from explicit evaluation of the SI, BC, HR, TE and CR topologies, reduced (via FIRE6 and IBP) to the master integrals G1, G2, G_HR, G_CR in Eqs. (86)–(89) and then expanded in Eqs. (114)–(117). The final expression (119) is rearranged into Eq. (120) using the definition of the β-function, βλ = −ελ + 3λ²/(4π)² + ···, so the 'RG-sector proportional to βλ' is an algebraic rewriting of the computed logarithms and constants, not an input assumption. The conformal-sector fixed-point value in Eq. (124) is checked against the independent bootstrap/CFT results [16,17], providing an external anchor that the O(λ³) constant is not merely fitted to the target. Self-citations appear ([1] for the spin-0 trace operator Θ ∼ βλ and the eigenvalue formalism; [14] for the cosmology application's e_Θ = η choice), but neither is used to determine the O(λ³) coefficients of the spin-2 charge; the spin-2 calculation does not assume its own result. The e_Θ = η choice in Section 4.3 is a fit to the observed nS and is explicitly presented as an application, not as a derivation of C_T. One verification gap is flagged: Appendix C.2–C.3 give the ε-expansions of G_HR and G_CR only through O(1/ε²) and then write O(1/ε), so the finite parts that enter (114)–(115) and hence the constant 169/30 in Eq. (120) are not displayed in the paper; the G-scheme cross-check is asserted but not shown. This affects independent checkability and correctness risk, but it is not circularity, because no equation is assumed equal to the target result. The score reflects only the minor, non-load-bearing self-citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles or fields are introduced. The free parameters listed belong to the application section; the core 4-loop computation has no fitted constants beyond the standard perturbative input (beta function and anomalous dimensions from prior literature).

free parameters (2)
  • d_λ (distance λ - λ_* from the Wilson-Fisher fixed point)
    Introduced in Section 4.3 for the holographic cosmology expansion; the paper says it is in principle free and could be fixed from nS, but it is not fixed in the paper.
  • e_Θ (eigenvalue chosen for the scalar sector) = 0.036 (η)
    In Section 4.3, the perturbative e_Θ fails to reproduce nS, so the authors substitute e_Θ = η ≈ 0.036 by hand (citing [14]) to make nS ≈ 0.964. This is an ad hoc choice matched to the observable it is used to predict.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Dimensional regularization and ε-expansion are valid for massless λφ^4, with renormalization at the reduced scale μ̃ defined in (A.5)
    Used throughout the loop computations; this is the standard perturbative scheme.
  • domain assumption The renormalized trace operator is proportional to the beta function, Θ ∼ β_λ, and the operator identities E and F from [1] hold at the quantum level
    Invoked in Section 2 and used to construct the spin-0 sector; it is a load-bearing input from the authors' previous paper.
  • domain assumption The energy-momentum tensor has vanishing anomalous dimension, so the one-loop renormalization factor Z_T^(0) suffices to renormalize C_T to O(λ^3)
    Used to justify that all 4-loop divergences cancel without a new counterterm; standard EMT conservation but still an input.
  • ad hoc to paper The Mellin-Barnes evaluation of the 4-loop master integrals G_HR and G_CR is correct, including the finite parts that are not displayed in Appendix C
    Appendix C.2-C.3 gives only the leading 1/ε^n terms; the finite parts that fix the O(λ^3) constants are asserted but not shown.
  • domain assumption The holographic dictionary (149)-(150) relating CMB power spectra to C_Θ and C_T holds
    Used in the cosmological application, citing [30-33]; not derived in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Energy momentum tensor correlators in $\phi^4$ theory II: The spin-two sector." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2A77UXSR

@misc{pith2026250701713,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Energy momentum tensor correlators in $\phi^4$ theory II: The spin-two sector},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2A77UXSR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01713}
}
read the original abstract

We extend the computation of the C_T charge of the 2-point function of the Energy-Momentum Tensor to 4-loops. We show that C_T decomposes into two sectors, the conformal sector, which encodes the value of the central charge at fixed points and an RG-sector that contains logarithmic and constant corrections proportional to the beta-function. This latter constitutes the main new result of this work and is inaccessible via CFT methods alone. Furthermore, we demonstrate that C_T satisfies an eigenvalue-like equation analogous to that of the spin-0 charge, as discussed in part I, though with a different in general eigenvalue. Finally we present three possible applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.01713 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The 3-loop diagram contributing to the mixing between the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Topology of 1-loop diagrams, contributing at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The Caterpillar topology to all orders: µν ρσ → CT = 0 (42) A short proof of this statement can be given by noticing that µν ρσ ∼ (−iλ0) n Z d dkd d l (2π) 2d V (i) T + ξV (ξ) T k 2(p + k) 2l 2(p + l) 2 Z d d r1 · · · rn−2 (2π) (n−2)d f(r1, · · · , rn−2; p 2 ) = CT |O(λ0)×(−iλ0) n−1 Z d d r1 · · · rn−2 (2π) (n−2)d f(r1, · · · , rn−2; p 2 ) = 0 . (43) Let us now proceed with the first non-trivial contribution to the … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Topologies of 3-loop diagrams, contributing at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Topologies of 4-loop diagrams, contributing at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The Watermelon (on the left) and the Ninja-turtle (on the right) topologies of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Qualitive plot of the running of CT for d = 4 − ε. Each curve in this plot is generated by keeping the parameter x fixed. The dotted curve corresponds to x > x∗ , the solid curve to x = x ∗ and the dashed curve to x < x∗ . We then distinguish three kinematic regimes: •…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Qualitive plot of the β-function for d = 4 − ε. The slope of the β-function in thw vicinity of the WF fixed point is positive. We will also need the operator anomalous dimensions Γϕ2 = λ (4π) 2 + · · · , Γϕ4 = 6λ (4π) 2 + · · · (A.10) A.3 Vertex of the energy-momentum …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The MB representation is well defined for (s0, t0) = ( d 2 − 2 − ε 10 , − ε 10 ). We define the point (s ′ 0, t′ 0) = (κ, 1 2 ) with 0 < κ < 1. The commutation of the integrals is allowed in the region defined by the dotted triangle. In Fig.9, we plot these poles on th…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Qualitative picture of the contour shift c0 → c ′ 0. The resulting closed contour is C = c0 + r + − c ′ 0 + r − and the value of the integral along it is R C = −2πi Res{poles}. This means that R c0 = R c ′ 0 − Res{poles}. Z Z s0,t0 M˜ (s, t) = Z Z s ′ 0 ,t′ 0 M˜ (s, t…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Re{s} − Re{t} plane fot the I(4 − d) integral. To have a well-defined ε → 0 limit, we should properly shift the contour of integration, as shown in Fig.11. The contour deformations are performed as indicated by Fig.10. Z Z s0,t0 N˜ (s, t) = Z Z s ′ 0 ,t′ 0 N˜ (s, t) −…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: To generate the plots above, we chose s0 = − 3ε 4 and t0 = u0 = v0 = −ε The final step is to evaluate the complex contour integrals. When setting ε = 0, the integration contours intersect with poles, as illustrated by the plots on the right in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figure…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: To generate the plots above, we chose s ′ 0 = u ′ 0 = 0.1 and t ′ 0 = v ′ 0 = −0.5 Z t0v0s0u0 M˜ = Z t ′ 0 v ′ 0 (Z s ′ 0 t ′ 0 M − ˜ Z s ′ 0 Resn M˜ o |u=0− Z s ′ 0 Resn M˜ o |u= d 2 −2− Z u ′ 0 Resn M˜ o |s=0− Z t ′ 0 Resn M˜ o |s= d 2 −2 + Resn M˜ o |s=0,u=0+ Resn …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Energy-Momentum tensor correlators in $\phi^4$ theory I: The spin-zero sector

    N. Irges and L. Karageorgos,Energy-Momentum tensor correlators inϕ4 theory I: The spin-zero sector, Nucl. Phys. B 1010 (2025) 116782 [2410.16040]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Callan, Jr., S.R

    C.G. Callan, Jr., S.R. Coleman and R. Jackiw,A New improved energy - momentum tensor, Annals Phys. 59 (1970) 42

    work page 1970

  3. [3]

    Four loop anomalous dimensions of gradient operators in phi^4 theory

    S.E. Derkachov, J.A. Gracey and A.N. Manashov,Four loop anomalous dimensions of gradient operators in phi**4 theory, Eur. Phys. J. C2 (1998) 569 [hep-ph/9705268]

    work page Pith review arXiv 1998

  4. [4]

    Cappelli, D

    A. Cappelli, D. Friedan and J.I. Latorre,C theorem and spectral representation, Nucl. Phys. B 352 (1991) 616

    work page 1991

  5. [5]

    K. Diab, L. Fei, S. Giombi, I.R. Klebanov and G. Tarnopolsky,On CJ and CT in the Gross–Neveu and O(N) models, J. Phys. A49 (2016) 405402 [1601.07198]

    arXiv 2016

  6. [6]

    Giombi, G

    S. Giombi, G. Tarnopolsky and I.R. Klebanov,On CJ and CT in Conformal QED, JHEP 08 (2016) 156 [1602.01076]

    arXiv 2016

  7. [7]

    Petkou,Conserved currents, consistency relations and operator product expansions in the conformally invariant O(N) vector model, Annals Phys

    A. Petkou,Conserved currents, consistency relations and operator product expansions in the conformally invariant O(N) vector model, Annals Phys. 249 (1996) 180 [hep-th/9410093]

    arXiv 1996

  8. [8]

    The four-point correlation function of the energy-momentum tensor in the free conformal field theory of a scalar field

    M. Serino,The four-point correlation function of the energy-momentum tensor in the free conformal field theory of a scalar field, Eur. Phys. J. C80 (2020) 686 [2004.08668]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Corianò and M.M

    C. Corianò and M.M. Maglio,Conformal field theory in momentum space and anomaly actions in gravity: The analysis of three- and four-point function, Phys. Rept. 952 (2022) 1 [2005.06873]

    2022 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Bzowski, P

    A. Bzowski, P. McFadden and K. Skenderis,Implications of conformal invariance in momentum space, JHEP 03 (2014) 111 [1304.7760]

    2014 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Corianò, L

    C. Corianò, L. Delle Rose and K. Skenderis,Two-point function of the energy-momentum tensor and generalised conformal structure, Eur. Phys. J. C81 (2021) 174 [2008.05346]

    2021 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Luscher,Dimensional Regularization in the Presence of Large Background Fields, Annals Phys

    M. Luscher,Dimensional Regularization in the Presence of Large Background Fields, Annals Phys. 142 (1982) 359

    1982

  5. [13]

    Gorishnii and A.P

    S.G. Gorishnii and A.P. Isaev,On an Approach to the Calculation of Multiloop Massless Feynman Integrals, Theor. Math. Phys.62 (1985) 232

    1985

  6. [14]

    Irges, A

    N. Irges, A. Kalogirou and F. Koutroulis,Ising Cosmology, Eur. Phys. J. C83 (2023) 431 [2209.09939]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Henriksson and M

    J. Henriksson and M. Van Loon,Critical O(N) model to orderϵ4 from analytic bootstrap, J. Phys. A52 (2019) 025401 [1801.03512]

    2019 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Alday, J

    L.F. Alday, J. Henriksson and M. van Loon,Taming the ϵ-expansion with large spin perturbation theory, JHEP 07 (2018) 131 [1712.02314]

    2018 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Gopakumar, A

    R. Gopakumar, A. Kaviraj, K. Sen and A. Sinha,A Mellin space approach to the conformal bootstrap, JHEP 05 (2017) 027 [1611.08407]

    2017 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Chetyrkin and F

    K. Chetyrkin and F. Tkachov,Integration by parts: The algorithm to calculateβ-functions in 4 loops, Nuclear Physics B192 (1981) 159

    1981

  11. [19]

    Shtabovenko, R

    V. Shtabovenko, R. Mertig and F. Orellana,FeynCalc 10: Do multiloop integrals dream of computer codes?, Comput. Phys. Commun.306 (2025) 109357 [2312.14089]

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Shtabovenko, R

    V. Shtabovenko, R. Mertig and F. Orellana,FeynCalc 9.3: New features and improvements, Comput. Phys. Commun. 256 (2020) 107478 [2001.04407]

    2020 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Shtabovenko, R

    V. Shtabovenko, R. Mertig and F. Orellana,New Developments in FeynCalc 9.0, Comput. Phys. Commun. 207 (2016) 432 [1601.01167]

    2016 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Smirnov and F.S

    A.V. Smirnov and F.S. Chukharev,FIRE6: Feynman Integral REduction with modular arithmetic, Comput. Phys. Commun.247 (2020) 106877 [1901.07808]

    2020 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Baikov and K.G

    P.A. Baikov and K.G. Chetyrkin,Four Loop Massless Propagators: An Algebraic Evaluation of All Master Integrals, Nucl. Phys. B 837 (2010) 186 [1004.1153]. 35

    2010 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Zamolodchikov,Irreversibility of the Flux of the Renormalization Group in a 2D Field Theory, JETP Lett

    A.B. Zamolodchikov,Irreversibility of the Flux of the Renormalization Group in a 2D Field Theory, JETP Lett. 43 (1986) 730

    1986

  17. [25]

    Cardy,Is There a c Theorem in Four-Dimensions?, Phys

    J.L. Cardy,Is There a c Theorem in Four-Dimensions?, Phys. Lett. B215 (1988) 749

    1988

  18. [26]

    Komargodski and A

    Z. Komargodski and A. Schwimmer,On Renormalization Group Flows in Four Dimensions, JHEP 12 (2011) 099 [1107.3987]

    2011 arXiv

  19. [27]

    BICEP, Keck collaboration, Improved Constraints on Primordial Gravitational Waves using Planck, WMAP, and BICEP/Keck Observations through the 2018 Observing Season, Phys. Rev. Lett.127 (2021) 151301 [2110.00483]

    2021

  20. [28]

    Galloni, N

    G. Galloni, N. Bartolo, S. Matarrese, M. Migliaccio, A. Ricciardone and N. Vittorio,Updated constraints on amplitude and tilt of the tensor primordial spectrum, JCAP 04 (2023) 062 [2208.00188]

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Irges, A

    N. Irges, A. Kalogirou and F. Koutroulis,The thermal backreaction of a scalar field in dS spacetime, to appear

  22. [30]

    Maldacena,Non-Gaussian features of primordial fluctuations in single field inflationary models, JHEP 05 (2003) 013 [astro-ph/0210603]

    J.M. Maldacena,Non-Gaussian features of primordial fluctuations in single field inflationary models, JHEP 05 (2003) 013 [astro-ph/0210603]

    2003 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Larsen, J.P

    F. Larsen, J.P. van der Schaar and R.G. Leigh,De Sitter holography and the cosmic microwave background, JHEP 04 (2002) 047 [hep-th/0202127]

    2002 arXiv

  24. [32]

    McFadden and K

    P. McFadden and K. Skenderis,The Holographic Universe, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.222 (2010) 012007 [1001.2007]

    2010 arXiv

  25. [33]

    McFadden and K

    P. McFadden and K. Skenderis,Holography for Cosmology, Phys. Rev. D81 (2010) 021301 [0907.5542]

    2010 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Passarino and M

    G. Passarino and M. Veltman,One-loop corrections fore+e− annihilation into µ+µ− in the weinberg model, Nuclear Physics B160 (1979) 151

    1979

  27. [35]

    Boos and A.I

    E.E. Boos and A.I. Davydychev,A Method of the Evaluation of the Vertex Type Feynman Integrals, Moscow Univ. Phys. Bull.42N3 (1987) 6

    1987

  28. [36]

    Coriano, L

    C. Coriano, L. Delle Rose, E. Mottola and M. Serino,Solving the Conformal Constraints for Scalar Operators in Momentum Space and the Evaluation of Feynman’s Master Integrals, JHEP 07 (2013) 011 [1304.6944]. 36

    2013 arXiv

Pith tools

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