Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Anomalous dimensions and critical exponents for the Gross-Neveu-Yukawa model at five loops

T0 review · 2 major / 5 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 The five-loop renormalization group functions of the O(N) Gross-Neveu-Yukawa model are computed and used to derive critical exponents for the graphene and honeycomb-lattice transitions.

desk verdict A genuine five-loop GNY computation, probably right, but the unverified uniqueness of the top-level master-integral fixing is the thing to check before trusting the numbers. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22594 v1 pith:OVBT6XU5 submitted 2025-07-30 hep-th cond-mat.str-elhep-ph

J.A. Gracey , A. Maier , P. Marquard , Y. Schröder This is my paper
classification hep-thcond-mat.str-elhep-ph
keywords Gross-Neveu-Yukawamodelfive-looprenormalizationcriticalexponentsepsilonexpansiongrapheneCDWtransitionanomalousdimensionsconformalbootstrapO(N)symmetry
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

This paper aims to extend perturbative control of the Gross-Neveu-Yukawa universality class from four to five loops in $d=4-\epsilon$ dimensions, with an $O(N)$ multiplet of Dirac fermions coupled to a real scalar. It reports the five-loop $\beta$-functions for the Yukawa and quartic couplings, the fermion and scalar field anomalous dimensions $\gamma_\psi$ and $\gamma_\phi$, and the scalar mass-operator anomalous dimension $\gamma_{\phi^2}$, all in the $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme. From these it builds $\epsilon$-expansions of the critical exponents at the Wilson-Fisher fixed point, with $N=2$ as the graphene charge-density-wave transition, $N=1$ for spinless honeycomb-lattice fermions, and $N=5$ as a cross-check. The pay-off is a set of resummed three-dimensional exponent estimates that can be compared directly with conformal bootstrap and Monte Carlo values.

What carries the argument

The computational engine is a five-loop reduction of roughly 3.4 million scalar Feynman integrals to 110 fully massive vacuum master integrals, via integration-by-parts identities and finite-field reconstruction. The four top-level 12-propagator integral families are not evaluated directly; the paper states they enter only in three linear combinations fixed by requiring consistent cancellation of poles in the renormalization constants and the absence of certain group factors, a mechanism established in the earlier work cited as [71,72]. That mechanism carries the present calculation, and an integer-relation search expresses all final coefficients as rational combinations of Riemann zeta values.

What would settle it

Directly evaluate the four 12-propagator top-level five-loop master integrals, then compare the three pole-cancelling combinations they form with the values implied by the published $\beta$-functions and anomalous dimensions. Any mismatch invalidates the five-loop coefficients and every exponent derived from them.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes the five-loop renormalization group functions of the $O(N)$ Gross-Neveu-Yukawa model: the $\beta$-functions $\beta_\lambda$ and $\beta_y$ in Eqs. (14) and (15), the field anomalous dimensions $\gamma_\psi$ and $\gamma_\phi$ in Eqs. (16)-(18), and the mass-operator anomalous dimension $\gamma_{\phi^2}$ in Eqs. (19)-(20). At the Wilson-Fisher fixed point these yield $O(\epsilon^5)$ expansions for $\eta_\psi$, $\eta_\phi$, $1/\nu$, $\omega_+$ and $\omega_-$, given explicitly for $N=2$ in Eqs. (21)-(29) and available in electronic form for general $N$. The paper claims these five-loop terms, joined with four-loop two-dimensional Gross-Neveu input, produce improved $d$-dimensional exponent functions whose values at $d=3$ agree with, and in several approximants sit on the edge of, the latest conformal bootstrap determinations.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes the 12-propagator five-loop master integrals can be left unevaluated because they appear only in three combinations whose values are forced by consistent pole cancellation and the absence of certain group factors.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The five-loop functions provide the highest-order perturbative determination of the GNY universality class from the four-dimensional side and pass the known pure-$\phi^4$ and large-$N$ consistency checks.
  • For $N=2$ the resummed $\eta_\phi$ and $1/\nu$ values move toward, and in some approximants into, the conformal bootstrap bands of [29,30], strengthening the identification of the graphene charge-density-wave transition with the $O(2)$ GNY class.
  • For $N=1$ the new perturbative estimates provide updated comparison points for the spinless honeycomb-lattice transition, while the $N=5$ estimates converge more tightly across methods, indicating faster convergence at larger $N$.
  • The explicit $O(\epsilon^5)$ expansions of $\eta_\psi$, $\eta_\phi$, $1/\nu$, $\omega_+$ and $\omega_-$ establish targets that a future five-loop renormalization of the two-dimensional Gross-Neveu model can directly test.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The indirect fixing of the 12-propagator combinations is likely to be reusable in other five-loop Yukawa-like theories with a spectator scalar interaction, so future computations may inherit the shortcut rather than evaluate the hardest integrals.
  • A direct numerical evaluation of the four top-level five-loop families would be the cleanest external test of the three linear combinations and therefore of the whole five-loop result.
  • The $N=2$ $1/\nu$ estimate is now precise enough that a dedicated measurement or simulation of the correlation-length exponent at the graphene transition could discriminate between the GNY fixed point and competing scenarios.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a five-loop renormalization of the O(N) Gross-Neveu-Yukawa (GNY) model in d = 4 - ε dimensions. It reports the β-functions for the Yukawa and quartic couplings, the field anomalous dimensions γ_ψ and γ_ϕ, and the scalar mass-operator anomalous dimension γ_ϕ2 in Eqs. (14)-(19). From the Wilson-Fisher fixed point it derives ε-expansions for η_ψ, η_ϕ, 1/ν, and ω± for N = 2 in Eqs. (21)-(29), and then uses two-sided Padé and interpolating-polynomial methods to obtain d = 3 exponent estimates for N = 1, 2, and 5, comparing with Monte Carlo, functional RG, and conformal-bootstrap results. The paper also reports internal checks: pole-structure consistency, the y = 0 reduction to φ^4 theory, and a large-N comparison in Appendix A.

Significance. If the five-loop RG functions are correct, this is a substantial technical advance: it is the first five-loop perturbative data for the GNY universality class and directly relevant to estimates for the graphene CDW transition and related honeycomb-lattice transitions. The paper contains several nontrivial internal checks, including the y→0 φ^4 limit and a large-N expansion comparison, and it makes use of high-precision five-loop vacuum master integrals that have already been used in other demanding calculations. The significance is, however, conditional on closing the gap described below: the top-level 12-propagator master integrals are not evaluated directly, and the three linear combinations in which they allegedly enter are fixed by an argument that is not presented for this model. If that fixing is unique, the paper is a valuable contribution; if not, the central results are underdetermined.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section II (after Fig. 1)] The central five-loop results Eqs. (14)-(19) depend on the assertion that the 12-propagator top-level integrals of Fig. 1 enter only in three linear combinations, and that these combinations are fixed by requiring consistent pole cancellations and the absence of certain group-factor terms, following Ref. [71] (see also [72]). This fixing is not demonstrated for the O(N) GNY model. In QCD the argument is over-constrained by a rich set of group invariants; here there is only one fermion count N and two couplings, and the paper does not state which group-factor combinations are absent nor prove that the homogeneous solution space of the constraints is zero-dimensional. If the constraints fix only the divergent parts, or leave a finite ambiguity, then the finite parts of Eqs. (14)-(19) and the ε^5 exponents derived from them are not determined. A direct or independent numerical evaluation of the three combinations, or an explicit uniqueness proof, is required to make the central claim reliable.
  2. [Section III and Appendix A] The internal checks listed in the paper do not remove the underdetermination described above. Non-simple pole consistency constrains only the 1/ε^k coefficients; the y = 0 limit eliminates all y-dependent five-loop information; and the large-N comparison in Appendix A, while nontrivial, is a necessary but not sufficient test because it compares only a restricted set of 1/N and ε terms. The paper should state explicitly which coefficients of η_ψ, η_ϕ, 1/ν, and ω± are matched at each order in 1/N, and should show that those coefficients are sensitive to the finite parts of the three top-level combinations. Without that information, the checks cannot certify the central claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II (near Eq. (11))] The word 'asympotically' should be 'asymptotically' in the sentence describing the Gross-Neveu model.
  2. [Section III, y = 0 check] The check that setting y = 0 reproduces φ^4 theory is stated together with a rescaling of λ, but the rescaling factor is not given; it should be stated explicitly so that the reader can reproduce the check.
  3. [Appendix A, Eq. (A4)] The expansion of Ξ(µ)Θ(µ) is said to be deduced from Refs. [82,83]; please indicate the order in ε to which this expansion is expected to be valid and whether it has been independently checked.
  4. [Reference [19]] The title of Ref. [19] contains a typo: 'Majarana' should be 'Majorana'.
  5. [Data availability, Ref. [79]] The data availability statement points to the arXiv version of the paper; consider depositing the expressions in machine-readable form in a permanent repository to facilitate independent checks.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Five-loop RG functions rely on a same-author fixing argument for the uncomputed 12-propagator integrals, and the non-simple-pole check repeats the same constraint rather than independently testing it.

  1. uniqueness imported from authors [Section II, paragraph following Fig. 1]
    "It had been observed before that those combinations can be fixed by requiring consistent pole cancellations in renormalization as well as the absence of certain combinations of group factors, as explained in detail in [71]; see also [72]. The same mechanism is at play in our present calculation, such that we can finally employ PSLQ [74] and express all our results in terms of zeta values only."

    The 12-propagator top-level five-loop integrals are not evaluated; their three linear combinations are declared fixed by pole cancellations and group-factor absence, with the fixing argument taken from [71,72], whose authors overlap with the present paper. For the O(N) GNY model, the uniqueness of these three combinations is not demonstrated here: 'the same mechanism is at play' imports the prior QCD-based uniqueness claim as if it were an external mathematical fact. The five-loop beta functions, anomalous dimensions, and eps^5 exponents therefore rest on a same-author citation rather than on an independent evaluation or a GNY-specific proof of the constraints.

  2. other [Section III, first independent-check paragraph]
    "First the non-simple poles in ϵ of all the new five loop renormalizations constants pass the check that they are all pre-determined by the simple poles of the lower loop companions due to the basic property of the renormalization group equation."

    This is presented as an independent check of the five-loop computation. However, Section II fixed the undetermined 12-propagator combinations precisely by 'requiring consistent pole cancellations in renormalization' — the same RG pole-structure condition. The non-simple-pole test therefore re-checks a constraint already imposed to set those combinations, so it is tautological for the uncomputed part of the five-loop result. The check is necessary for consistency but cannot independently validate the inferred top-level contributions.

full rationale

The paper's main results are derived from Feynman-diagram computation, Laporta reduction, and RG fixed-point analysis; the critical exponents are obtained by solving the beta functions and substituting into anomalous dimensions, with no fits to bootstrap or Monte Carlo data. The y=0 phi^4 limit and the large-N comparison are genuine external cross-checks: the large-N exponents are prior parameter-free results that do not depend on the five-loop GNY functions. This independent content prevents a high circularity score. However, the central five-loop coefficients are not fully computed independently: the 12-propagator top-level integrals are excluded from the numerical masters and replaced by the assertion, citing [71,72] by the same authors, that their three combinations are fixed by pole cancellations and group-factor absence. That is a load-bearing imported-uniqueness step, and the subsequent non-simple-pole check is circular for that same inferred data because it applies the very RG pole-cancellation condition used to fix the combinations. The PSLQ expression in terms of zeta values is a representation of the constrained results, not an additional derivation. Altogether the paper has substantial independent computation, but its five-loop claim leans on a same-author fixing argument and one check that is tautological for the uncomputed integrals; this warrants a moderate score of 4 rather than 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard perturbative QFT assumptions plus one in-house computational inference: the top-level master integrals are fixed by consistency rather than direct evaluation. No new entities or free parameters fitted to data are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Perturbative renormalization in dimensional regularization with MS scheme is valid for the GNY model to five loops.
    The entire calculation is performed in 4-epsilon dimensions using the MS scheme; this is standard but unproven background.
  • domain assumption The Wilson-Fisher fixed point of the two-coupling beta functions is the physical critical point, and the epsilon expansion is asymptotic with resummable behavior at epsilon=1.
    Used in Sections IV-V to extract exponents at d=3; standard but heuristic.
  • ad hoc to paper The three linear combinations of the 12-propagator top-level master integrals are uniquely fixed by requiring pole cancellations and absence of certain group factors.
    Section II, after Fig. 1: the paper does not directly evaluate these masters, relying on consistency conditions borrowed from [71,72].
  • domain assumption The four-loop GN exponents (from [37]) and the large-N exponents (e.g., [31,33-36]) used for checks are correct.
    Used in Appendix A/B for consistency checks; from prior literature including self-citations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Anomalous dimensions and critical exponents for the Gross-Neveu-Yukawa model at five loops." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OVBT6XU5

@misc{pith2026250722594,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Anomalous dimensions and critical exponents for the Gross-Neveu-Yukawa model at five loops},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OVBT6XU5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22594}
}
abstract

We renormalize the Gross-Neveu-Yukawa model with an $O(N)$ symmetry to $\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^5)$ in $d=4-\epsilon$ dimensions and determine the anomalous dimensions of the fermion and scalar fields, $\beta$-functions as well as the scalar field's mass operator. These are used to construct several $N$ dependent critical exponents relevant for quantum transitions in semi-metals and in particular those connected with graphene in three dimensions when $N=2$. Improved exponent estimates for scalar fermion transitions on a honeycomb lattice, when $N=1$, as well as for $N=5$ are also given to compare with results from other techniques such as the conformal bootstrap.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.22594 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. There are four distinct fully massive five-loop vacuum-type integral sectors with 12 propagators. All our integrals can be [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Two-sided Pad´e approximants for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Two-sided Pad´e approximants for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Two-sided Pad´e approximants for 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Interpolating polynomials for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Interpolating polynomials for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Interpolating polynomials for 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. Critical Ripples and Dirac Fermions in Crystalline Membranes

    cond-mat.other 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Flat membrane-Dirac systems asymptotically decouple at charge neutrality; finite-momentum rippling realizes either Wilson-Fisher criticality with spectator fermions or, when the ripple carries Kekulé mass quantum numb...

  2. Correction exponents in the chiral Heisenberg model at $1/N^2$: singular contributions and operator mixing

    hep-th 2026-03 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    Correction exponents at 1/N^{2} in the chiral Heisenberg model agree with 4−ε results but one pole at d=3 is resummed via four-fermion mixing, modifying leading-order 3D exponents consistently with direct calculation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [71]

    Lewis, Fermat: A computer algebra system for polynomial and matrix computation, Fermat: A computer algebra system for polynomial and matrix computation

    R. Lewis, Fermat: A computer algebra system for polynomial and matrix computation, Fermat: A computer algebra system for polynomial and matrix computation

    work page

  2. [72]

    Luthe, A

    T. Luthe, A. Maier, P. Marquard, and Y. Schr¨ oder, Towards the five-loop Beta function for a general gauge group, J. High Energy Phys. 07, 127 (2016), arXiv:1606.08662 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2016

  3. [1]

    K. G. Wilson and J. B. Kogut, The Renormalization group and the epsilon expansion, Phys. Rept. 12, 75 (1974)

    1974

  4. [2]

    For instance for ηϕ and to a slightly lesser degree 1 /ν the estimates are on the edge of the uncertainty bands of [ 29, 30]

    in that there is reasonable agreement with the latest bootstrap exponent estimates. For instance for ηϕ and to a slightly lesser degree 1 /ν the estimates are on the edge of the uncertainty bands of [ 29, 30]. The situation with ηψ is harder to pin down given that its value is small being of the magnitude of a few hundredths. Despite this our two perturba...

    2021

  5. [3]

    Henriksson, The critical O(N) CFT: Methods and conformal data, Phys

    J. Henriksson, The critical O(N) CFT: Methods and conformal data, Phys. Rept. 1002, 1 (2023), arXiv:2201.09520 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2023

  6. [4]

    Poland and D

    D. Poland and D. Simmons-Duffin, The conformal bootstrap, Nature Phys. 12, 535 (2016)

    2016

  7. [5]

    Kleinert, J

    H. Kleinert, J. Neu, V. Schulte-Frohlinde, K. G. Chetyrkin, and S. A. Larin, Five loop renormalization group functions of O(n) symmetric ϕ4 theory and epsilon expansions of critical exponents up to ϵ5, Phys. Lett. B 272, 39 (1991), [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 319, 545 (1993)], arXiv:hep-th/9503230

    arXiv 1991

  8. [6]

    K. G. Wilson, Feynman graph expansion for critical exponents, Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 548 (1972)

    1972

Show all 85 references
  1. [7]

    Schnetz, Numbers and Functions in Quantum Field Theory, Phys

    O. Schnetz, Numbers and Functions in Quantum Field Theory, Phys. Rev. D 97, 085018 (2018), arXiv:1606.08598 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  2. [8]

    M. V. Kompaniets and E. Panzer, Minimally subtracted six loop renormalization of O(n)-symmetric ϕ4 theory and critical exponents, Phys. Rev. D 96, 036016 (2017), arXiv:1705.06483 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  3. [9]

    Zinn-Justin, Four fermion interaction near four-dimensions, Nucl

    J. Zinn-Justin, Four fermion interaction near four-dimensions, Nucl. Phys. B 367, 105 (1991)

    1991

  4. [10]

    D. J. Gross and A. Neveu, Dynamical Symmetry Breaking in Asymptotically Free Field Theories, Phys. Rev. D 10, 3235 (1974)

    1974

  5. [11]

    Lee, Emergence of supersymmetry at a critical point of a lattice model, Phys

    S.-S. Lee, Emergence of supersymmetry at a critical point of a lattice model, Phys. Rev. B 76, 075103 (2007), arXiv:cond- mat/0611658

    2007

  6. [12]

    Balents, M

    L. Balents, M. P. A. Fisher, and C. Nayak, Nodal Liquid Theory of the Pseudo-Gap Phase of High- Tc Superconductors, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 12, 1033 (1998), arXiv:cond-mat/9803086

    1998 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Grover, D

    T. Grover, D. N. Sheng, and A. Vishwanath, Emergent Space-Time Supersymmetry at the Boundary of a Topological Phase, Science 344, 280 (2014), arXiv:1301.7449 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2014 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Ponte and S.-S

    P. Ponte and S.-S. Lee, Emergence of supersymmetry on the surface of three dimensional topological insulators, New J. Phys. 16, 013044 (2014), arXiv:1206.2340 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2014 arXiv

  9. [15]

    I. F. Herbut, Interactions and phase transitions on graphene’s honeycomb lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 146401 (2006), arXiv:cond-mat/0606195

    2006 arXiv

  10. [16]

    L. Fei, S. Giombi, I. R. Klebanov, and G. Tarnopolsky, Yukawa CFTs and Emergent Supersymmetry, PTEP 2016, 12C105 (2016), arXiv:1607.05316 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  11. [17]

    K¨ arkk¨ ainen, R

    L. K¨ arkk¨ ainen, R. Lacaze, P. Lacock, and B. Petersson, Critical behavior of the three-dimensional Gross-Neveu and Higgs-Yukawa models, Nucl. Phys. B 415, 781 (1994), [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 438, 650–650 (1995)], arXiv:hep-lat/9310020

    1994 arXiv

  12. [18]

    I. F. Herbut, V. Juri˘ ci´ c, and O. Vafek, Relativistic Mott criticality in graphene, Phys. Rev. B 80, 075432 (2009), arXiv:0904.1019 [cond-mat.str-el]. 24

    2009 arXiv

  13. [19]

    Li, Y.-F

    Z.-X. Li, Y.-F. Jiang, and H. Yao, Fermion-sign-free Majarana-quantum-Monte-Carlo studies of quantum critical phenomena of Dirac fermions in two dimensions, New J. Phys. 17, 085003 (2015), arXiv:1411.7383 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2015 arXiv

  14. [20]

    Chandrasekharan and A

    S. Chandrasekharan and A. Li, Quantum critical behavior in three dimensional lattice Gross-Neveu models, Phys. Rev. D 88, 021701 (2013), arXiv:1304.7761 [hep-lat]

    2013 arXiv

  15. [21]

    Huffman and S

    E. Huffman and S. Chandrasekharan, Fermion bag approach to Hamiltonian lattice field theories in continuous time, Phys. Rev. D 96, 114502 (2017), arXiv:1709.03578 [hep-lat]

    2017 arXiv

  16. [22]

    Y.-Y. He, X. Y. Xu, K. Sun, F. F. Assaad, Z. Y. Meng, and Z.-Y. Lu, Dynamical Generation of Topological Masses in Dirac Fermions, Phys. Rev. B 97, 081110 (2018), arXiv:1705.09192 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2018 arXiv

  17. [23]

    Huffman and S

    E. Huffman and S. Chandrasekharan, Fermion-bag inspired Hamiltonian lattice field theory for fermionic quantum criticality, Phys. Rev. D 101, 074501 (2020), arXiv:1912.12823 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2020 arXiv

  18. [24]

    Y. Liu, W. Wang, K. Sun, and Z. Y. Meng, Designer Monte Carlo simulation for the Gross-Neveu-Yukawa transition, Phys. Rev. B 101, 064308 (2020), arXiv:1910.07430 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2020 arXiv

  19. [25]

    Janssen and I

    L. Janssen and I. F. Herbut, Antiferromagnetic critical point on graphene’s honeycomb lattice: A functional renormalization group approach, Phys. Rev. B 89, 205403 (2014), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.B 102, 199902 (2020)], arXiv:1402.6277 [cond-mat.str- el]

    2014 arXiv

  20. [26]

    Wang and Z

    T.-T. Wang and Z. Y. Meng, Quantum Monte Carlo calculation of critical exponents of the Gross-Neveu-Yukawa on a two-dimensional fermion lattice model, Phys. Rev. B 108, L121112 (2023), arXiv:2304.00034 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2023 arXiv

  21. [27]

    Hawashin, M

    B. Hawashin, M. M. Scherer, M. Smolkin, and L. Yung, Spontaneous Space-Time Parity Breaking Without Thermal Restoration (2025), arXiv:2507.19890 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  22. [28]

    Knorr, Ising and Gross-Neveu model in next-to-leading order, Phys

    B. Knorr, Ising and Gross-Neveu model in next-to-leading order, Phys. Rev. B 94, 245102 (2016), arXiv:1609.03824 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2016 arXiv

  23. [29]

    R. S. Erramilli, L. V. Iliesiu, P. Kravchuk, A. Liu, D. Poland, and D. Simmons-Duffin, The Gross-Neveu-Yukawa archipelago, J. High Energy Phys. 02, 036 (2023), arXiv:2210.02492 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [30]

    Iliesiu, F

    L. Iliesiu, F. Kos, D. Poland, S. S. Pufu, and D. Simmons-Duffin, Bootstrapping 3D Fermions with Global Symmetries, J. High Energy Phys. 01, 036 (2018), arXiv:1705.03484 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  25. [31]

    J. A. Gracey, Calculation of exponent η to O(1/N2) in the O(N ) Gross-Neveu model, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 6, 395 (1991), [Erratum: Int.J.Mod.Phys.A 6, 2755 (1991)]

    1991

  26. [32]

    M. S. Mitchell and D. Poland, Bounding irrelevant operators in the 3d Gross-Neveu-Yukawa CFTs, J. High Energy Phys. 09, 134 (2024), arXiv:2406.12974 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [33]

    A. N. Vasiliev, S. E. Derkachov, N. A. Kivel, and A. S. Stepanenko, The 1/n expansion in the Gross-Neveu model: Conformal bootstrap calculation of the index η in order 1 /n3, Theor. Math. Phys. 94, 127 (1993)

    1993

  28. [34]

    J. A. Gracey, Anomalous mass dimension at O(1/N2) in the O(N ) Gross-Neveu model, Phys. Lett. B 297, 293 (1992)

    1992

  29. [35]

    J. A. Gracey, Computation of β′(gc) at O(1/N2) in the O(N ) Gross-Neveu model in arbitrary dimensions, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 9, 567 (1994), arXiv:hep-th/9306106

    1994 arXiv

  30. [36]

    A. N. Vasiliev and A. S. Stepanenko, The 1 /n expansion in the Gross-Neveu model: Conformal bootstrap calculation of the exponent 1/ν to the order 1 /n2, Theor. Math. Phys. 97, 1349 (1993)

    1993

  31. [37]

    J. A. Gracey, T. Luthe, and Y. Schr¨ oder, Four loop renormalization of the Gross-Neveu model, Phys. Rev. D 94, 125028 (2016), arXiv:1609.05071 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  32. [38]

    J. A. Gracey, Computation of critical exponent η at O(1/N3) in the four Fermi model in arbitrary dimensions, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 9, 727 (1994), arXiv:hep-th/9306107

    1994 arXiv

  33. [39]

    N. Zerf, L. N. Mihaila, P. Marquard, I. F. Herbut, and M. M. Scherer, Four-loop critical exponents for the Gross-Neveu- Yukawa models, Phys. Rev. D 96, 096010 (2017), arXiv:1709.05057 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  34. [40]

    Its general definition is P[m/n](d) = Pm p=0 apdp 1 + Pn q=1 bqdq (31) where the choice of unity for the denominator polynomial corresponds to a normalization

    for instance. Its general definition is P[m/n](d) = Pm p=0 apdp 1 + Pn q=1 bqdq (31) where the choice of unity for the denominator polynomial corresponds to a normalization. This means that like the canonical Pad´ e approximant the number of possible estimates increases with l...

  35. [41]

    L. N. Mihaila, N. Zerf, B. Ihrig, I. F. Herbut, and M. M. Scherer, Gross-Neveu-Yukawa model at three loops and Ising critical behavior of Dirac systems, Phys. Rev. B 96, 165133 (2017), arXiv:1703.08801 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2017 arXiv

  36. [42]

    Ihrig, L

    B. Ihrig, L. N. Mihaila, and M. M. Scherer, Critical behavior of Dirac fermions from perturbative renormalization, Phys. Rev. B 98, 125109 (2018), arXiv:1806.04977 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2018 arXiv

  37. [43]

    Rosenstein, H.-L

    B. Rosenstein, H.-L. Yu, and A. Kovner, Critical exponents of new universality classes, Phys. Lett. B 314, 381 (1993)

    1993

  38. [44]

    Steudtner, Four Loop Renormalisation Group Equations in general Gross-Neveu-Yukawa Theories (2025), arXiv:2507.18710 [hep-th]

    T. Steudtner, Four Loop Renormalisation Group Equations in general Gross-Neveu-Yukawa Theories (2025), arXiv:2507.18710 [hep-th]

    2025

  39. [45]

    Wetzel, Two-loop β-function for the Gross-Neveu Model, Phys

    W. Wetzel, Two-loop β-function for the Gross-Neveu Model, Phys. Lett. B 153, 297 (1985)

    1985

  40. [46]

    A. W. W. Ludwig, Critical behavior of the two-dimensional random q-state Potts model by expansion in ( q − 2), Nucl. Phys. B 285, 97 (1987)

    1987

  41. [47]

    J. A. Gracey, Three loop calculations in the O(N ) Gross-Neveu model, Nucl. Phys. B 341, 403 (1990)

    1990

  42. [48]

    Luperini and P

    C. Luperini and P. Rossi, Three-loop β-function(s) and effective potential in the Gross-Neveu model, Annals Phys. 212, 371 (1991)

    1991

  43. [49]

    J. A. Gracey, Computation of the three-loop β-function of the O(N ) Gross-Neveu model in minimal subtraction, Nucl. Phys. B 367, 657 (1991)

    1991

  44. [50]

    Nogueira, Automatic Feynman Graph Generation, J

    P. Nogueira, Automatic Feynman Graph Generation, J. Comput. Phys. 105, 279 (1993)

    1993

  45. [51]

    Misiak and M

    M. Misiak and M. M¨ unz, Two loop mixing of dimension five flavor changing operators, Phys. Lett. B 344, 308 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9409454

    1995 arXiv

  46. [52]

    van Ritbergen, J

    T. van Ritbergen, J. A. M. Vermaseren, and S. A. Larin, The four-loop β-function in quantum chromodynamics, Phys. Lett. B 400, 379 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9701390. 25

    1997 arXiv

  47. [53]

    K. G. Chetyrkin, M. Misiak, and M. M¨ unz,β functions and anomalous dimensions up to three loops, Nucl. Phys. B 518, 473 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9711266

    1998 arXiv

  48. [54]

    J. A. M. Vermaseren, New features of FORM (2000), arXiv:math-ph/0010025

    2000 arXiv

  49. [55]

    Tentyukov and J

    M. Tentyukov and J. A. M. Vermaseren, The Multithreaded version of FORM, Comput. Phys. Commun. 181, 1419 (2010), arXiv:hep-ph/0702279

    2010 arXiv

  50. [56]

    Maier, https://github.com/a-maier/dynast

    A. Maier, https://github.com/a-maier/dynast

  51. [57]

    B. D. McKay and A. Piperno, Practical graph isomorphism, ii, J. Symb. Comput. 60, 94 (2014), arXiv:1301.1493 [cs.DM]

    2014 arXiv

  52. [58]

    Laporta, High precision calculation of multiloop Feynman integrals by difference equations, Int

    S. Laporta, High precision calculation of multiloop Feynman integrals by difference equations, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A15, 5087 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0102033 [hep-ph]

    2000 arXiv

  53. [59]

    Marquard and D

    P. Marquard and D. Seidel, The IBP package Crusher, unpublished

  54. [60]

    Maier and P

    A. Maier and P. Marquard, tinbox, a finite field solver, unpublished

  55. [61]

    K. G. Chetyrkin and F. V. Tkachov, Integration by parts: The algorithm to calculate β-functions in 4 loops, Nucl. Phys. B 192, 159 (1981)

    1981

  56. [62]

    F. V. Tkachov, A theorem on analytical calculability of 4-loop renormalization group functions, Phys. Lett. B 100, 65 (1981)

    1981

  57. [63]

    Kauers, Fast solvers for dense linear systems, Nucl

    M. Kauers, Fast solvers for dense linear systems, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 183, 245 (2008)

    2008

  58. [64]

    Kant, Finding linear dependencies in integration-by-parts equations: A Monte Carlo approach, Comput

    P. Kant, Finding linear dependencies in integration-by-parts equations: A Monte Carlo approach, Comput. Phys. Commun. 185, 1473 (2014), arXiv:1309.7287 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  59. [65]

    von Manteuffel and R

    A. von Manteuffel and R. M. Schabinger, A novel approach to integration by parts reduction, Phys. Lett. B 744, 101 (2015), arXiv:1406.4513 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  60. [66]

    Peraro, Scattering amplitudes over finite fields and multivariate functional reconstruction, J

    T. Peraro, Scattering amplitudes over finite fields and multivariate functional reconstruction, J. High Energy Phys. 12, 030 (2016), arXiv:1608.01902 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  61. [67]

    Klappert and F

    J. Klappert and F. Lange, Reconstructing rational functions with FireFly, Comput. Phys. Commun. 247, 106951 (2020), arXiv:1904.00009 [cs.SC]

    2020 arXiv

  62. [68]

    Luthe, Fully massive vacuum integrals at 5 loops, Ph.D

    T. Luthe, Fully massive vacuum integrals at 5 loops, Ph.D. thesis, Bielefeld University (2015)

    2015

  63. [69]

    Luthe and Y

    T. Luthe and Y. Schr¨ oder, Fun with higher-loop Feynman diagrams, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.762, 012066 (2016), arXiv:1604.01262 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  64. [70]

    Luthe and Y

    T. Luthe and Y. Schr¨ oder, Five-loop massive tadpoles, PoS LL2016, 074 (2016), arXiv:1609.06786 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Luthe, A

    T. Luthe, A. Maier, P. Marquard, and Y. Schr¨ oder, Five-loop quark mass and field anomalous dimensions for a general gauge group, J. High Energy Phys. 01, 081 (2017), arXiv:1612.05512 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Luthe, A

    T. Luthe, A. Maier, P. Marquard, and Y. Schr¨ oder, Complete renormalization of QCD at five loops, J. High Energy Phys. 03, 020 (2017), arXiv:1701.07068 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Luthe, A

    T. Luthe, A. Maier, P. Marquard, and Y. Schr¨ oder, The five-loop Beta function for a general gauge group and anomalous dimensions beyond Feynman gauge, J. High Energy Phys. 10, 166 (2017), arXiv:1709.07718 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  68. [76]

    H. R. P. Ferguson, D. H. Bailey, and S. Arno, Analysis of PSLQ, an integer relation finding algorithm, Math. Comput. 68, 351 (1999)

    1999

  69. [77]

    F. M. Dittes, Y. A. Kubyshin, and O. V. Tarasov, Four Loop Approximation in the ϕ4 Model, Theor. Math. Phys. 37, 879 (1978)

    1978

  70. [78]

    S. G. Gorishnii, S. A. Larin, F. V. Tkachov, and K. G. Chetyrkin, Five-loop renormalization group calculations in the gϕ4 in theory, Phys. Lett. B 132, 351 (1983)

    1983

  71. [79]

    J. A. Gracey, Critical exponent ω in the Gross-Neveu-Yukawa model at O(1/N), Phys. Rev. D 96, 065015 (2017), arXiv:1707.05275 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  72. [80]

    A. N. Manashov and M. Strohmaier, Correction exponents in the Gross–Neveu–Yukawa model at 1 /N2, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 454 (2018), arXiv:1711.02493 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Gracey, A

    J. Gracey, A. Maier, P. Marquard, and Y. Schr¨ oder, Data representing the main results recorded here are available from the arXiv version of this article. (2025)

    2025

  74. [82]

    Hands, A

    S. Hands, A. Koci´ c, and J. B. Kogut, Four Fermi theories in fewer than four-dimensions, Annals Phys. 224, 29 (1993), arXiv:hep-lat/9208022

    1993 arXiv

  75. [83]

    A. N. Vasiliev, Y. M. Pis’mak, and J. R. Honkonen, 1 /N expansion: calculation of the exponent η in the order 1 /N3 by the conformal bootstrap mathod, Theor. Math. Phys. 50, 127 (1982)

    1982

  76. [84]

    D. J. Broadhurst, J. A. Gracey, and D. Kreimer, Beyond the triangle and uniqueness relations: Nonzeta counterterms at large N from positive knots, Z. Phys. C 75, 559 (1997), arXiv:hep-th/9607174

    1997 arXiv

  77. [85]

    D. J. Broadhurst and A. V. Kotikov, Compact analytical form for nonzeta terms in critical exponents at order 1 /N3, Phys. Lett. B 441, 345 (1998), arXiv:hep-th/9612013

    1998 arXiv

Pith tools

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