Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 28 references

Coarse-Graining and the Classification of Long-Range Correlations in Quantum Field Theory

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A paper claims that conservation laws plus spin statistics decide which operators in quantum field theory can develop long-range correlations, and that only protected operators with a positive one-loop bubble can accumulate into a pole.

desk verdict An organized heuristic for operator pre-screening, but the central classification is an assumption with an internal operator-identification contradiction. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.01989 v2 pith:ES5RORW5 submitted 2026-08-03 hep-th quant-ph

Jinku Guo This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thquant-ph
keywords coarse-grainingconservationlawsWardidentityBRSTsymmetryspectralfunctionladderresummationoperatorclassificationemergentgravity
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 tries to establish that, under coarse-graining, the fate of any local operator is decided by two algebraic attributes: whether its zero-momentum injection term is nonvanishing, and the sign of its single-bubble contribution $\Pi_0$. If true, this would give a parameter-free analytic screening mechanism that says, before any numerical computation, which operators can develop long-range correlations, and why. The paper argues that Ward identities guarantee a nonvanishing injection term for conserved Noether currents, BRST symmetry supplies a weaker but similar guarantee for gauge-invariant operators, spin statistics fixes the sign of $\Pi_0$, and unprotected operators have vanishing injection terms and therefore remain continuous. It verifies the classification on eight Standard Model channels and three solvable systems.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the geometric-series resummation of zero-momentum-transfer ladder diagrams, $\Pi_{\text{resum}} = \Pi_0/(1 - V\cdot\Pi_0)$, where $\Pi_0$ is the single-bubble contribution at zero momentum and $V$ the irreducible vertex. The classification is driven by two algebraic attributes feeding this mechanism: the nonvanishing of the injection term (guaranteed by algebraic properties of the conserved current via the Ward identity $\langle f|J^\mu(0)|i\rangle|_{q=0} \propto \langle f|Q|i\rangle$, or by the absence of mandatory suppression from Slavnov-Taylor identities) and the sign of $\Pi_0$ fixed by spin statistics. A cubic bifurcation equation $y(1-y)^2 = V\cdot\Pi_0$ sets the quantitative critical condition $V\cdot\Pi_0 = 4/27 \approx 0.148$, where the physical and unstable branches merge. The generalised spectral representation and the monotonic window function $W_\sigma(p)=\exp(-p^2\sigma^2/2)$ carry the transmission of the zero-frequency divergence into a $\delta(p^2)$ term for protected operators.

What would settle it

Compute the zero-momentum matrix element (injection term) of an unprotected composite operator such as the Higgs quartic $\phi^4$ or the fermion bilinear $\bar\psi\psi$ in a nonperturbative framework that includes strong dynamics, and check whether isolated poles actually appear in their spectral functions: if a nonzero injection term or an isolated pole were found for any unprotected operator, the classification tables would be falsified as stated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that coarse-graining induces a diagrammatic selection: diagrams with nonzero momentum transfer are suppressed by oscillatory factors, zero-momentum-transfer ladder diagrams can accumulate through geometric-series resummation into an isolated spectral pole at $p^2=0$, and single-bubble diagrams contribute only to the continuum. Whether the ladder accumulation can proceed is decided by two algebraic attributes: the nonvanishing of the injection term, guaranteed for operators protected by a Ward identity or (more weakly) by BRST/Slavnov-Taylor identities, and the sign of the single-bubble contribution $\Pi_0$, fixed by spin statistics (bosonic loops positive, fermionic loops negative). A positive $\Pi_0$ with a nonvanishing injection term gives amplificative feedback and dynamical emergence potential, provided the critical condition $V\cdot\Pi_0 = 4/27$ is reached; a negative $\Pi_0$ gives suppressive feedback; a vanishing injection term leaves the spectral function continuous. The paper presents Table 1 as a necessary consequence of conservation laws under coarse-graining, classifies the fundamental Standard Model operators accordingly ($T_{\mu\nu}$ candidate for emergent general relativity, gauge field strength and conserved currents protected but with negative $\Pi_0$, fermion bilinear and Higgs quartic unprotected, scalar glueball protected but topologically blocked), and reports numerical values of $\Pi_0$ for several channels computed along two independent code paths.

Load-bearing premise

The classification assumes that unprotected operators have a vanishing injection term because no symmetry forces it to be nonzero; the paper itself acknowledges this is not a mathematical theorem, and if dynamical effects produced a nonzero injection term for an unprotected operator, the two-row zero-injection classification would fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the classification is right, the energy-momentum tensor is the only Standard Model operator that is both protected and carries a positive (geometry-activated) single-bubble contribution, making it the unique candidate for self-driven dynamical emergence; reaching the critical condition would lock the low-energy theory to general relativity by the low-energy theorem.
  • Gauge field strength and conserved vector currents are protected by conservation laws but have negative $\Pi_0$, so their ladder feedback is suppressive: their zero modes (if any) must come from a topological mechanism, not from ladder resummation.
  • Unprotected operators such as the fermion bilinear $\bar\psi\psi$ and the Higgs quartic $\phi^4$ have vanishing injection terms and cannot develop long-range correlations through spectral-weight accumulation; their ultraviolet boundary values are not fixed by coarse-graining dynamics and zero is the natural choice, providing the theoretical basis for the $\lambda(M_P)=0$ boundary condition.
  • The scalar glueball $G^2$ shows that protection and positive $\Pi_0$ are not sufficient: a vanishing analytic index of the scalar Laplacian on compact spaces blocks zero-mode accumulation, distinguishing symmetry protection from actual pole formation.
  • The framework extends beyond the emergence context as a general analytic pre-screening tool for coarse-graining problems, with the large-$N$ O(N) model, QCD chiral symmetry breaking, and the free-field limit cited as benchmark confirmations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension would be to compute, with a regulator-independent method, the actual zero-momentum matrix element of an unprotected composite operator such as $\bar\psi\psi$ or $\phi^4$ in a strongly coupled theory where the operator acquires a vacuum expectation value: if the injection term were found nonzero in such a setting, the exhaustive character of the zero-injection classification wo
  • The logic of the paper suggests that any operator coupled to a conserved charge (energy, momentum, electric charge, colour) inherits a nonvanishing injection term, while operators with only discrete or broken symmetries do not; this could serve as a quick diagnostic for long-range order in condensed-matter settings such as fractional quantum Hall systems, though the specific conservation laws and
  • If the single-bubble sign is indeed rigidly fixed by spin statistics for all channels except $T_{\mu\nu}$, then the possibility of amplificative feedback in any coarse-graining setting is entirely determined by the field content of the loop, which is a directly checkable statement in concrete models.
  • The critical value $V\cdot\Pi_0 = 4/27$ being reached before the naive geometric-series denominator $V\cdot\Pi_0 = 1$ could be tested by constructing a controlled approximation where the dressed polarisation satisfies $\Pi_{\text{dressed}} = \Pi_0/(1-V\cdot\Pi_{\text{dressed}})^2$ and comparing the predicted bifurcation scale with the full exact functional renormalisation group solution in a singl
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a conservation-law-guided classification (CGC) framework for coarse-graining in quantum field theory. It claims that every local operator's potential to develop long-range correlations is fixed by two attributes: whether the injection term is nonvanishing, and the sign of the single-bubble contribution Π0. Protected operators (Ward or BRST) are said to have nonvanishing injection terms, whereas unprotected operators are assigned vanishing injection terms. The sign of Π0 is claimed to follow from spin statistics, with positive sign enabling ladder resummation to produce a pole at the critical condition V·Π0 = 4/27. The framework is applied to Standard Model operators, with numerical values for eight channels and cross-checks against FRG computations and three solvable systems.

Significance. If established, the framework would provide a useful analytic pre-screening tool for which operators can develop long-range correlations without case-by-case nonperturbative computation. The paper has several concrete strengths: it gives a six-step algorithmic pipeline, releases code, states explicit falsifiable predictions, and makes an effort to benchmark on known systems. However, the central claims are not supported as stated. The zero-injection verdict for unprotected operators is admitted to be a premise rather than a theorem; the BRST case establishes only absence of mandatory suppression, not nonvanishing; and the same operator F^a_{μν}F^{a μν} is assigned opposite signs in the classification tables depending on the channel. The numerical 'verification' is largely definitional because Eq. (5.1) builds the spin-statistics sign into the input. These issues affect the load-bearing structure of the classification, so the paper's significance is at present only conditional.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.4 and Section 3.1] The exhaustive classification of unprotected operators rests on the premise that a vanishing injection term is the 'natural assignment' for operators without a Ward identity, with the text explicitly stating 'This is not a mathematical theorem' and that an unprotected operator 'could in principle have a non-zero injection term through dynamical effects.' Yet Section 3.1 states that 'Table 1 is a necessary consequence of conservation laws under coarse-graining.' These statements are in tension: the zero-injection rows are asserted as consequences while being admitted to be an unproved premise. Because the claims that ψ̄ψ, φ⁴, and other unprotected operators cannot develop long-range correlations depend on this premise, the central classification is not established as stated. Either a proof must be supplied, or the classification must be explicitly re-framed as conditional on this premise.
  2. [Section 5.1.2 vs. Section 5.1.7, Tables 2 and 3] The same operator symbol F^a_{μν} F^{a μν} is assigned opposite signs in the classification: Π0 = −0.3546 for the 'gauge field strength' channel (fermion loops) and Π0 = +0.1013 for the 'scalar glueball' G² channel (gauge-boson loops). Since F^a_{μν} F^{a μν} is a Lorentz scalar, the distinction between a 'spin-1 force-carrier channel' and a 'spin-0 composite channel' is not a distinction of operators but of which field content is manually included in the bubble sum. This contradicts the claim in Section 3.1 that the sign of Π0 is 'decided by spin statistics' as an attribute of the operator, and it makes the rows of Table 1 not well-defined for this operator. The paper needs either distinct operator definitions or an explicit rule for which field content belongs to which channel; as it stands, the classification table is internally inconsistent.
  3. [Section 2.2.2 and Section 3.3] For BRST-protected operators the paper establishes only that the Slavnov–Taylor identity provides 'no mandatory suppression' at zero momentum transfer. Absence of a symmetry-forced zero is not the same as a guaranteed nonzero matrix element. The text, however, repeatedly treats BRST protection as placing F^a_{μν} in the same protected class as T^{μν} with a 'nonvanishing injection term' (e.g., Section 3.3: 'the conservation law eliminates the mechanism that would otherwise force the matrix element to vanish'). Since the nonvanishing of the injection term is one of the two defining criteria, the classification of F² and G² as 'nonvanishing injection' rows is not supported by the argument given.
  4. [Section 5.1, Eq. (5.1) and Section 5.2] The numerical 'verification' of the sign of Π0 is largely definitional: Eq. (5.1) defines Π0 as a sum over fields with s_f = +1 for bosons and −1 for fermions, so the spin-statistics sign is an input rather than an output. The eight-channel validation therefore does not independently confirm the sign criterion; it restates the rule built into the pipeline. Furthermore, the claimed agreement with the FRG computation is described in words but no FRG results, plots, or error bars are shown in this manuscript, so the cross-validation claim in Section 5.2 is not verifiable from the text. The authors should either provide the FRG data or clearly label this as planned work.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.1 and Table 3] The label 'verified on eight physical channels' is overstated: Table 3 marks several rows as 'logical' or 'qualitative' consequences with no direct computation, and two rows have '—' for Π0. Please distinguish direct computation from inferred classification in the verification claim.
  2. [Appendix A.1] There is a LaTeX artifact 'eqrefeq:kl-scalar' in the sentence following Eq. (A.1); please fix.
  3. [Sections 5.1.2 and 5.1.7] Use distinct notation for the gauge field strength composite and the scalar glueball if they are intended as different operators, as the identical symbol F^a_{μν}F^{a μν} currently makes the two rows indistinguishable.
  4. [Section 6] The three benchmark tests (large-N O(N) model, QCD NJL chiral symmetry breaking, free-field limit) are described only in prose; provide the explicit computations or references so the reader can check them.
  5. [Section 3.5] The connection between the electroweak result of Ref. [11] and the classification is asserted but the two-loop running details are not reproduced; a brief summary of the calculation would help.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

The sign of Π0 is an input of Eq. (5.1), not an independently verified prediction, and the same operator F^a_μν F^{a μν} is assigned both signs, so the numerical 'confirmation' of the classification is largely definitional.

  1. self definitional [Section 5, Eq. (5.1); Section 5.2 (Cross-Validation Logic)]
    "The two paths employ the same physical inputs but different code implementations, and both correctly apply the spin-statistics sign, with bosonic loops contributing positively and fermionic loops negatively. Both paths yield a negative Π0 for F2 (fermion-dominated) and a positive Π0 for G2 (boson-dominated), confirming the sign structure that drives the classification verdicts."

    Eq. (5.1) defines Π0 = Σ_fields s_f n_f K_O I_G with 's_f = +1 for boson loops and −1 for fermion loops (spin statistics)'. The sign of Π0 is therefore inserted as an input, not derived as a result. The cross-validation then reports that two code paths, both instructed to apply the same spin-statistics sign, produce the same signs, and calls this 'confirming the sign structure that drives the classification verdicts'. The claimed numerical verification reduc

  2. self definitional [Section 5.1.2 (Case 2) and Section 5.1.7 (Case 7); Table 2]
    "The gauge field strength channel F2 must be distinguished from the scalar glueball G2; the former is the spin-1 force-carrier channel, the latter the spin-0 composite channel. Their Π0 signs differ, negative for F2 and positive for G2, and they occupy separate rows in the classification table."

    Section 5.1.7 writes 'The scalar glueball operator F^a_μν F^{a μν} is BRST-invariant... Π0 = +0.1013', while Section 5.1.2 assigns Π0 = −0.3546 to the 'gauge field strength operator F^a_μν F^{a μν}'. The operator symbol is the same Lorentz-scalar composite in both rows; the sign difference comes from which fields are put into the bubble sum (fermions versus gauge bosons). Consequently the sign criterion is not a function of the operator, and the verdict is inserted by the row's chosen field content, making the claimed 'necessary consequence' of conservation laws ill-defined for this operator.

1 more flagged steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.6; Section 3.5; Ref. [11]]
    "This is consistent with the result of Ref. [11], in which the ultraviolet boundary condition λ(MP)=0 for the unprotected Higgs quartic coupling, combined with two-loop renormalisation-group evolution, yielded a Higgs mass consistent with the measured value within theoretical uncertainties. The classification provides the theoretical basis for that boundary condition."

    The boundary condition λ(MP)=0 is not an external datum; it is chosen because φ4 is labelled unprotected and 'zero is the most natural choice' (Section 3.4/3.7). Ref. [11], by the same author group, adopts that choice and obtains the measured Higgs mass, and the agreement is then cited back as consistency with the classification. The classification supplies the input and then takes credit for the output, so this validation does not independently test the framework; the same-author citation is the load-bearing link in the claimed consistency.

full rationale

The central classification has two axes. The injection-term axis contains genuine logical content: the Ward-identity relation ⟨f|J(0)|i⟩_q=0 ∝ ⟨f|Q|i⟩ gives a nonvanishing zero-momentum matrix element for Noether currents, although the BRST case is explicitly weaker ('no mandatory suppression' is not a proof of nonvanishing), and the vanishing injection term for unprotected operators is admitted in Section 3.4 to be an unproved 'natural assignment' rather than a theorem. The second axis, the sign of Π0, is circular as executed: Eq. (5.1) fixes the sign by the input spin-statistics factor s_f, and the claimed cross-validation merely reports that two code paths applying the same sign input reproduce that sign. The same operator symbol F^a_μν F^{a μν} receives opposite signs in two rows, showing that the 'sign decided by spin statistics' is decided instead by the field content manually included in the bubble sum. The Higgs-mass consistency also runs in a circle, since the boundary condition λ(MP)=0 is derived from the same classification and then used as evidence for it through the authors' own Ref. [11]. The paper is transparent about some gaps—the G2 topological index, the geometry-dependent Tμν sign, the unproven zero-injection premise—but those admissions do not cure the definitional character of the numerical sign verification. Score 7: the sign criterion and its numerical confirmation reduce by construction, while the conservation-law/injection analysis retains independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No fitted parameters are used: the numerical values of Π0 are scheme-dependent weighted sums with signs imposed by spin statistics, and the magnitudes are explicitly not used by the classification. The central claim therefore rests not on fitted constants but on a chain of imported and asserted assumptions: the spectral representation, the divergence-free condition for protected operators, the unproven vanishing injection term for unprotected operators, the open linear-response step, the ladder dressing equation, the geometric activation of Tμν, and the coarse-graining dynamics imported from Ref. [10]. No new entities such as particles or forces are introduced.

assumptions (9)
  • domain assumption Generalized Källén-Lehmann spectral representation applies to every local Hermitian operator with non-negative spectral density (Appendix A.1).
    Used to convert zero-frequency divergence into an isolated delta(p^2) term in Eq. (A.6). Standard for physical operators, but not proven here for gauge-invariant composites beyond free-field contexts.
  • domain assumption The bare spectral function of a protected operator has no cutoff-dependent divergences, so the zero-frequency divergence is transmitted.
    Section 2.2.1 and Appendix A.5. Stated as a consequence of Ward/BRST cancellation; for BRST-protected operators the paper itself only establishes absence of mandatory suppression, not cancellation of all divergences.
  • ad hoc to paper Unprotected operators have vanishing injection term under the premises that coarse-graining criticality excludes fine-tuning and observables are scheme-independent.
    Section 3.4 explicitly labels this as not a theorem and allows a nonzero injection term in principle.
  • domain assumption Linear-response approximation captures the transmission of order-parameter fluctuations to the spectral density.
    Appendix A.3 says an explicit verification in a simplified model is an open problem.
  • ad hoc to paper The self-consistent dressed-ladder equation y(1-y)^2 = V·Π0 with threshold 4/27 describes the resummation.
    Eq. (2.2)-(2.3) is introduced without a derivation of the dressing relation Π_dressed = Π0/(1-V·Π_dressed)^2.
  • domain assumption For Tμν, a compact internal space with curvature activates a positive single-bubble contribution Π0; in flat spacetime Π0 = 0 by the Ward identity.
    Table 1 note and Sections 3.1, 5.1.1. The sign is geometry-dependent and is not computed in this paper; the flagship emergence verdict depends on this external activation.
  • ad hoc to paper During the emergence window only a single scalar J=0 mode is active, so crossed and ladder diagrams degenerate and the ladder approximation is exact.
    Section 2.3.2. The claim is argued from mode counting on a compact internal space whose spectrum is not presented; a separate geometric analysis is referenced but not included.
  • domain assumption The coarse-graining Langevin dynamics and effective temperature are taken from Ref. [10].
    Section 2.2.1 imports the order-parameter evolution and critical slowing-down mechanism from the author's earlier work rather than re-deriving them.
  • standard math Atiyah-Singer: the analytic index of a scalar Laplacian vanishes on compact manifolds without boundary.
    Appendix B.5 uses this to declare the scalar glueball topologically blocked.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Coarse-Graining and the Classification of Long-Range Correlations in Quantum Field Theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ES5RORW5

@misc{pith2026260801989,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Coarse-Graining and the Classification of Long-Range Correlations in Quantum Field Theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ES5RORW5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01989}
}
read the original abstract

A conservation-law-guided classification framework is developed for the execution of coarse-graining operations in quantum field theory. Coarse-graining produces a selection at the level of Feynman diagrams. Diagrams with nonzero momentum transfer are suppressed by oscillatory factors, zero-momentum-transfer ladder diagrams can accumulate through geometric series resummation to produce a spectral pole, and single-bubble topologies contribute only to the continuum. Conservation laws govern this classification. For operators protected by a Ward identity, the matrix element at zero momentum is guaranteed to be nonvanishing. For operators protected by BRST symmetry, the Slavnov-Taylor identities provide no mandatory suppression. The two cases differ in the strength of the algebraic guarantee. For unprotected operators the injection term vanishes and the spectral function remains continuous. The sign of the single-bubble contribution is determined by spin statistics. A positive sign leads to amplificative feedback in the ladder resummation, a negative sign leads to suppressive feedback. These two attributes, the nonvanishing of the injection term and the sign of the single-bubble contribution, are the defining criteria of the classification. As a direct application, a general classification of local operators is established within the emergence framework and verified on eight physical channels and three known solvable systems. The framework indicates which emergence paths are possible for each operator; whether the critical condition is reached is left for independent nonperturbative computation. The logical structure of this classification is parallel to the strategy used in deriving fluid equations from molecular kinetic theory in classical statistical physics.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [10]

    A Spectral Criterion for Emergent Gravity

    J.K. Guo,A spectral criterion for emergent gravity,2607.21621

    work page Pith review arXiv

  2. [1]

    Y. Deng, Z. Hani and X. Ma,Hilbert’s sixth problem: Derivation of fluid equations via Boltzmann ’s kinetic theory,2503.01800

    arXiv

  3. [2]

    GGI Lectures on Large-Scale Structure Perturbation Theory (Effective Field Theory)

    M.M. Ivanov,GGI Lectures on Large-Scale Structure Perturbation Theory (Effective Field Theory),2607.28314

    work page Pith review arXiv

  4. [3]

    McGreevy,Generalized symmetries in condensed matter,Ann

    J. McGreevy,Generalized symmetries in condensed matter,Ann. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.14(2023) 57

    work page 2023

  5. [4]

    Sakharov,Vacuum quantum fluctuations in curved space and the theory of gravitation, Sov

    A.D. Sakharov,Vacuum quantum fluctuations in curved space and the theory of gravitation, Sov. Phys. Dokl.12(1968) 1040

    1968

  6. [5]

    Jacobson,Thermodynamics of spacetime: The Einstein equation of state,Phys

    T. Jacobson,Thermodynamics of spacetime: The Einstein equation of state,Phys. Rev. Lett. 75(1995) 1260

    work page 1995

  7. [6]

    Verlinde,On the origin of gravity and the laws of Newton,J

    E.P. Verlinde,On the origin of gravity and the laws of Newton,J. High Energy Phys.04 (2011) 029

    work page 2011

  8. [7]

    Gaiotto, A

    D. Gaiotto, A. Kapustin, N. Seiberg and B. Willett,Generalized global symmetries,J. High Energy Phys.02(2015) 172

    work page 2015

Show all 28 references
  1. [8]

    Horak, F

    J. Horak, F. Ihssen, J.M. Pawlowski, J. Wessely and N. Wink,Scalar spectral functions from the spectral functional renormalization group,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 056009

    2024

  2. [9]

    Boos and T

    E. Boos and T. Ohl,Forests and groves: Minimal gauge invariant classes of tree diagrams in gauge theories,hep-ph/9909487

    arXiv

  3. [11]

    Guo and J

    J.K. Guo and J. Bai,Ultraviolet boundary condition and the Higgs mass,2607.24329. – 35 –

    arXiv

  4. [12]

    Bhardwaj, L.E

    L. Bhardwaj, L.E. Bottini, S. Schafer-Nameki and A. Tiwari,Categorical Landau paradigm for gapped phases,Phys. Rev. Lett.133(2024) 161601

    2024

  5. [13]

    Chen,Generalized Landau paradigm for quantum phases and phase transitions, 2511.19793

    X. Chen,Generalized Landau paradigm for quantum phases and phase transitions, 2511.19793

  6. [14]

    Avramidi,Heat kernel method and its applications, Birkh¨ auser (2015), 10.1007/978-3-319-09539-6

    I.G. Avramidi,Heat kernel method and its applications, Birkh¨ auser (2015), 10.1007/978-3-319-09539-6

    2015 doi

  7. [15]

    Weinberg,The Quantum Theory of Fields, vol

    S. Weinberg,The Quantum Theory of Fields, vol. 1, Cambridge University Press (1995), 10.1017/CBO9781139644167

    1995 doi

  8. [16]

    Litim,Optimized renormalization group flows,Phys

    D.F. Litim,Optimized renormalization group flows,Phys. Rev. D64(2001) 105007

    2001

  9. [17]

    Pawlowski and M

    J.M. Pawlowski and M. Reichert,Quantum gravity from the functional renormalization group,Front. Phys.8(2020) 527

    2020

  10. [18]

    Nogueira,Automatic Feynman graph generation,J

    P. Nogueira,Automatic Feynman graph generation,J. Comput. Phys.105(1993) 279

    1993

  11. [19]

    ’t Hooft and M.J.G

    G. ’t Hooft and M.J.G. Veltman,Regularization and Renormalization of Gauge Fields,Nucl. Phys. B44(1972) 189

    1972

  12. [20]

    Weinberg,High-Energy Behavior in Quantum Field Theory,Phys

    S. Weinberg,High-Energy Behavior in Quantum Field Theory,Phys. Rev.118(1960) 838

    1960

  13. [21]

    Weinberg,Photons and gravitons inS-matrix theory: Derivation of charge conservation and equality of gravitational and inertial mass,Phys

    S. Weinberg,Photons and gravitons inS-matrix theory: Derivation of charge conservation and equality of gravitational and inertial mass,Phys. Rev.135(1964) B1049

    1964

  14. [22]

    Fukushima and T

    K. Fukushima and T. Hatsuda,The phase diagram of dense QCD,Rept. Prog. Phys.74 (2011) 014001

    2011

  15. [23]

    Wilson and J.B

    K.G. Wilson and J.B. Kogut,The renormalization group and theϵexpansion,Phys. Rept.12 (1974) 75

    1974

  16. [24]

    Wetterich,Exact evolution equation for the effective potential,Phys

    C. Wetterich,Exact evolution equation for the effective potential,Phys. Lett. B301(1993) 90

    1993

  17. [25]

    Dupuis, L

    N. Dupuis, L. Canet, A. Eichhorn, W. Metzner, J.M. Pawlowski, M. Tissier et al.,The nonperturbative functional renormalization group and its applications,Phys. Rept.910 (2021) 1

    2021

  18. [26]

    Alkofer and L

    R. Alkofer and L. von Smekal,The infrared behavior of QCD Green ’s functions,Phys. Rept. 353(2001) 281

    2001

  19. [27]

    Streater and A.S

    R.F. Streater and A.S. Wightman,PCT, Spin and Statistics, and All That, W. A. Benjamin (1964)

    1964

  20. [28]

    Atiyah and I.M

    M.F. Atiyah and I.M. Singer,The index of elliptic operators on compact manifolds,Bull. Amer. Math. Soc.69(1963) 422. – 36 –

    1963

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.