Pith. Sign in

RECORD

Universality in the exact renormalization group: comparison to perturbation theory

PaperPDF from arXiv

data files

Paper breakdownThe authors' claims, conditions and measurements, as JSON Signed receiptProof this review has not been altered
X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit Hacker News
Jose Gaite

High Energy Physics - Theory · Submitted 2 Apr 2023

abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review

The authors' main claim They all give good results, which only differ by small non-universal terms.

how it is stated · asserted 1.00 read the record →

Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗
Cite ▾
arXiv ID2304.00597 (version 3)
Pith ID4U6FQLJO, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review
CitationJose Gaite. "Universality in the exact renormalization group: comparison to perturbation theory." arXiv:2304.00597 (2023). https://pith.science/paper/4U6FQLJO
Claim paper

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Open the compiled record

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 2,959 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.34 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.21 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.06 · compares with prior results 0.95 · mentions code or data availability 0.01.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v3. Results and the main claim are underlined; .

Various formulations of the exact renormalization group can be compared in the perturbative domain, in which we have reliable expressions for regularization-independent (universal) quantities. We consider the renormalization of the $\lambda\phi^4$ theory in three dimensions and make a comparison between the sharp-cutoff regularization method and other more recent methods. They all give good results, which only differ by small non-universal terms.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#sentencerolethe authors' own workstates the main conclusionstrength
s0 Various formulations of the exact renormalization group can be compared in the perturbative domain, in which we have reliable expressions for regularization-independent (universal) quantities. background 0.93 0.19 0.14 asserted 0.81
s1 We consider the renormalization of the $\lambda\phi^4$ theory in three dimensions and make a comparison between the sharp-cutoff regularization method and other more recent methods. contribution 0.83 0.89 0.06 asserted 0.93
s2 They all give good results, which only differ by small non-universal terms. result 0.97 0.69 0.68 asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.87 · evidence from proof or derivation 0.80.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read
  • arXiv listing abstract v3
not examined
  • full text
  • figures and tables
  • references and citing sentences
  • relations to other papers
levels run
  • P abstract
not run
  • S sections
  • T body sentences
  • C citations
  • R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

The paper
Original abstract

Various formulations of the exact renormalization group can be compared in the perturbative domain, in which we have reliable expressions for regularization-independent (universal) quantities. We consider the renormalization of the $\lambda\phi^4$ theory in three dimensions and make a comparison between the sharp-cutoff regularization method and other more recent methods. They all give good results, which only differ by small non-universal terms.

Human review

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

Discussion

Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.