Ultraviolet Renormalization of the van Hove-Miyatake Model: an Algebraic and Hamiltonian Approach

Benjamin Hinrichs; Marco Falconi

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 16 references

Ultraviolet Renormalization of the van Hove-Miyatake Model: an Algebraic and Hamiltonian Approach

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For every distributional source $v\in D'$, the renormalized van Hove–Miyatake Hamiltonian is unitarily equivalent to the free-field second quantization $d\Gamma(\varpi)$, and the algebraic and Hamiltonian constructions coincide.

desk verdict Useful and mostly clean Hamiltonian construction for distributional sources, but the central identification with the algebraic ground state has a sign error: as written, Proposition 3.9 matches the source −v, not +v. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.19977 v2 pith:IFVUXVVY submitted 2025-05-26 math-ph math.MP

Marco Falconi , Benjamin Hinrichs This is my paper · ORCID

classification math-phmath.MP MSC 81T1681R1581T10

keywords vanHove–Miyatakemodelultravioletrenormalizationdistributionalsourcedressingtransformationnon-FockrepresentationWeylalgebragroundstatesfreefield

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 van Hove–Miyatake model couples a fixed, possibly very singular source to a bosonic quantum field; for sources that are not square-integrable the standard Fock-space Hamiltonian is divergent and no unitary dressing can absorb the singularity. This paper establishes that the model is nevertheless renormalizable for every distributional source $v\in D'$, provided one changes the representation of the canonical commutation relations to a non-Fock one. It offers two independent routes to the same answer: an algebraic construction of ground states of the van Hove dynamical map, and a Hamiltonian construction based on a non-unitary dressing transformation. The main result is that the dressed Hamiltonian $H_g$ on the dressed Hilbert space $\mathcal{F}^g$ is unitarily equivalent to the free-field Hamiltonian $d\Gamma(\varpi)$, and that this representation is exactly the GNS representation of the algebraic ground state. The ultraviolet problem of this model is therefore completely solved, and the renormalized model is a free field for any distributional source.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the GGV dressing transformation: the non-unitary exponential $e^{a^*(-g)}$, with $g=v/\varpi$, used in the regular case to conjugate the singular Hamiltonian after subtracting the self-energy. For regular sources the paper records two identities: the dressed inner product is $\langle e^{a^*(-g)}\phi,e^{a^*(-g)}\psi\rangle/\|e^{a^*(-g)}\Omega_F\|^2=\langle e^{a(g)}\phi,e^{a(g)}\psi\rangle$, and the dressed Hamiltonian identity is the analogous relation with $d\Gamma(\varpi)$ on the right. The paper's move is to take the right-hand sides of these identities as definitions of the dressed scalar product and dressed Hamiltonian for arbitrary $g\in D'$. Injectivity of $e^{a(g)}$ on the finite-particle subspace gives the new inner product, continuity gives a unitary $\iota_g$, and closability of the form $q_g(\phi,\psi)=\langle e^{a(g)}\phi,d\Gamma(\varpi)e^{a(g)}\psi\rangle_F$ gives a self-adjoint operator $H_g$. The identity $\iota_g H_g\iota_g^*=d\Gamma(\varpi)$ then reduces the renormalized model to a free field.

What would settle it

Take a singular source $v$ and a smooth cutoff sequence $v_n\to v$; compute the limit as $n\to\infty$ of the regularized dressed matrix elements $\langle e^{a^*(-v_n/\varpi)}\phi,\,(H_{\mathrm{vHM},n}+\|\varpi^{-1/2}v_n\|_2^2)e^{a^*(-v_n/\varpi)}\psi\rangle / \|e^{a^*(-v_n/\varpi)}\Omega_F\|^2$. If for some $\phi,\psi$ this limit differs from $\langle \iota_g\phi,\,d\Gamma(\varpi)\iota_g\psi\rangle$, the direct definition of the dressed Hamiltonian would not reproduce the renormalization limit.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the ultraviolet-singular van Hove–Miyatake model with any distributional source $v\in D'$ has a well-defined dressed Hamiltonian $H_g$, with $g=v/\varpi$, and that $H_g$ is unitarily equivalent to the free second quantization $d\Gamma(\varpi)$ through the unitary $\iota_g\colon \mathcal{F}^g\to \mathcal{F}$. The dressed Hilbert space is obtained by completing the finite-particle subspace in the inner product $\langle\psi,\phi\rangle_g=\langle e^{a(g)}\psi,e^{a(g)}\phi\rangle_F$, and the dressed Hamiltonian is defined by the closure of the quadratic form $q_g(\phi,\psi)=\langle e^{a(g)}\phi,d\Gamma(\varpi)e^{a(g)}\psi\rangle_F$. The key identity $\iota_g H_g \iota_g^*=d\Gamma(\varpi)$ makes the renormalized model a free field. The paper further shows, in Propositions 3.8 and 3.9, that the vacuum vector $\epsilon_g(0)$ in the dressed representation reproduces the expectation values of the algebraic coherent ground state $\omega_{\infty,g}$, whose Fourier transform is $e^{-\pi^2\|f\|_2^2/2}\,e^{2\pi i\operatorname{Re}\langle f,-v/\varpi\rangle_2}$, so the two constructions coincide.

Load-bearing premise

The construction assumes that the algebraic identities proved for square-integrable sources can simply be taken as definitions for arbitrary distributional sources, so the dressed Hamiltonian is defined directly by the final formula rather than as a limit of regularized cutoffs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For every distributional source $v\in D'$, the dressed renormalized Hamiltonian is unitarily equivalent to the free bosonic Hamiltonian $d\Gamma(\varpi)$; no interacting part survives renormalization.
Whenever $v/\varpi\notin L^2$, the dressing produces a representation of the CCR algebra inequivalent to the Fock representation, so renormalization necessarily moves outside the standard Fock space.
The algebraic ground state $\omega_{\infty,g}$ and the Hamiltonian ground state in the dressed space coincide, giving two independent routes to the same renormalized model.
The undressed van Hove Hamiltonian is well defined only when $v/\varpi\in L^2$; for more singular sources only the dressed version exists.
The vHM model is fundamentally trivial for any distributional source: its renormalized dynamics is the second quantization of the one-particle dispersion $\varpi$.

Reading between the lines

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

Not directly asserted in the paper, the same dressing mechanism suggests that a successful ultraviolet renormalization in models with higher-order or spin-coupling interactions may likewise require moving to a dressed, non-Fock representation; the paper signals spin-boson models as the next test case.
A natural testable extension is to repeat the construction for massless bosons or for sources in larger distribution spaces than $D'$, where the exponential-vector argument may need modification.
Since the finite-temperature Gibbs states have explicit formulas, one could check whether dressed Hamiltonians at inverse temperature $\beta$ converge to $d\Gamma(\varpi)$ as $\beta\to\infty$, confirming the zero-temperature limit from the Hamiltonian side.
In this quadratic model the whole content of ultraviolet renormalization is a change of representation: divergent counterterms are absorbed by switching to a dressed Hilbert space rather than by adding operators; whether this remains true for any interaction linear in creation and annihilation operators is an open question.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

I read this carefully. The genuinely new part is the explicit construction of a dressed Hilbert space and renormalized Hamiltonian for arbitrary distributional sources via the non-unitary GGV dressing, together with the proof that this dressed Hamiltonian is unitarily equivalent to dΓ(ϖ). That part is sound: the scalar product is well defined because e^{a(g)} is injective on F_fin(D), and Proposition 3.8 is clean and correct.

The soft spot is the claimed identification with the algebraic ground state. Definition 3.3 sets the dressed scalar product with e^{a(g)}, where g := v/ϖ. But the regular-source identity in Equation (1), which the paper explicitly takes as its definitional starting point, gives e^{a(−v/ϖ)} = e^{−a(g)}. So the sign is flipped. The flip propagates: in Proposition 3.9 the vacuum expectation of π_g(W(f)) is computed as e^{−1/2||f||^2} e^{2πi Re⟨f,g⟩}, which is the state for source −v. The algebraic ground state of Definition 2.2 has e^{−2πi Re⟨f,g⟩}. For g ∉ L², these two coherent states are disjoint, so Proposition 3.9 fails for exactly the distributional sources the paper targets. This is a load-bearing flaw in the central equivalence claim, though it looks like a fixable sign error rather than a conceptual one: replacing e^{a(g)} with e^{a(−g)} in Definition 3.3 (and adjusting the subsequent signs) makes the theorem work, and none of the operator-theoretic results (Lemma 3.2, Proposition 3.8) are affected.

Two softer issues. First, the introduction promises a cutoff-removal limit with self-energy and mass renormalization, but Section 3 never does a cutoff limit; it simply takes the right-hand sides of Equations (1) and (2) as definitions. That is a legitimate direct construction, but the paper should say so explicitly instead of implying a regularized limiting procedure. Second, the quantum positive definiteness of the KMS states and the *-homomorphism property of π_g are left to the reader; both are checkable and likely true, but they are part of the proof and should be sketched.

The algebraic framework is elegant, the citation pattern is honest, and Proposition 2.6 is clearly imported from Arai. The paper would benefit from a referee's attention, principally for the sign issue. I would send it to review, but I would ask the referee to verify the sign in Section 3 and to insist that the direct-definition nature of the renormalization be stated plainly.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the ultraviolet renormalization of the van Hove–Miyatake scalar field for arbitrary distributional sources v ∈ D'. It develops two constructions: an algebraic one based on explicit (τ,β)-KMS and ground states of the Weyl-algebra dynamics (Section 2), and a Hamiltonian one based on a non-unitary Glimm–Ginibre–Velo dressing (Section 3). The main claim is that the dressed Hilbert space F^g and dressed Hamiltonian H_g are unitarily equivalent to the free second-quantized operator dΓ(ϖ) (Proposition 3.8) and that the Fock vacuum of F^g represents exactly the algebraic ground state ω_{∞,g} of Definition 2.2 (Proposition 3.9).

Significance. If the central equivalence is correct, the paper provides a complete and explicit control of ultraviolet renormalization for the van Hove–Miyatake model for all distributional sources, with no fitted parameters and with a genuine unitary equivalence between an algebraic and an operator-theoretic renormalization scheme. The explicit formulas for the dressed scalar product, the embedding ι_g, and the Weyl representation are valuable and the proofs of Propositions 3.7 and 3.8 are short but essentially complete. The conclusion that the renormalized model is a free field, i.e., that the vHM model is fundamentally trivial for any source, is a clean falsifiable statement. However, the sign mismatch identified below affects the identification with the algebraic ground state precisely in the distributional regime that motivates the paper, so the central claim as written needs correction.

major comments (2)

[Section 3, Definition 3.3 and Proposition 3.9] There is a sign inconsistency in the dressing. In Proposition 3.1, with g := v/ϖ, the right-hand side of Eq. (1) is ⟨e^{-a(g)}ϕ, e^{-a(g)}ψ⟩_F. Definition 3.3 instead defines ⟨ψ,ϕ⟩_g = ⟨e^{a(g)}ψ, e^{a(g)}ϕ⟩_F. This sign propagates to the Weyl phase in Proposition 3.9: the resulting vacuum expectation is e^{-1/2||f||² + 2πi Re⟨f,g⟩}, whereas the algebraic ground state ω_{∞,g} of Definition 2.2 has Fourier transform e^{-π²/2||f||² + 2πi Re⟨f,-g⟩}. For g ∉ L²(R^d), these two regular states are disjoint, so Proposition 3.9 as stated fails for every distributional source for which the construction is nontrivial. The proof can be repaired by setting g := -v/ϖ throughout Section 3, or equivalently by replacing e^{a(g)} with e^{-a(g)} in Definitions 3.3 and 3.5 and in the definition of π_g, and the sign must then be tracked consistently through Eq. (1), Proposition 3.7(iii), and Proposition 3.9.
[Section 3, Eqs. (1)–(2) and the surrounding text] The paper presents the dressed scalar product and dressed Hamiltonian as the outcome of a renormalization procedure, but no cutoff limit is performed. After deriving Eqs. (1)–(2) for v ∈ L², the text says 'We take the right hand side of Eqs. (1) and (2) as the definition' for g ∈ D′. If the renormalized model is intended to be the limit of the regularized GGV construction with cutoffs v_Λ → v, this identity must be proved; otherwise the unitarily equivalent model in Proposition 3.8 describes the paper's own construction rather than a renormalization limit. Since the abstract and introduction explicitly invoke removal of cutoffs, this gap should be addressed, either by supplying the limit theorem or by restating the claim as a definition.

minor comments (4)

[Definition 2.2] The verification that the noncommutative Fourier transforms of the KMS states are quantum positive definite and continuous on finite-dimensional subspaces is left to the reader; because these properties are needed for ω_β to be a regular state, a proof or a precise reference should be supplied.
[Before Proposition 3.9] The scalar product formula ⟨ε_g(h), ε_g(f)⟩_g = e^{⟨h,g⟩ + ⟨f,g⟩ + ⟨h,f⟩} is missing the complex conjugate on the first exponent; it should read e^{\overline{⟨h,g⟩} + ⟨f,g⟩ + ⟨h,f⟩} if ⟨·,·⟩_2 is sesquilinear in the first argument as defined in Section 2.
[Proposition 3.9] The verification that π_g is a *-homomorphism from the Weyl algebra to the unitaries on F^g is left to the reader; since this is a necessary consistency check for the claimed Weyl representation, a short verification should be included.
[Throughout] There are several typographical errors such as 'Haussdorff' for 'Hausdorff' in Section 3 and 'UL TRA VIOLET' in the title; these should be corrected.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Central Hamiltonian-algebraic equivalence is built into the definitions of F^g and H_g; Prop. 3.9 evaluates a representation chosen to match the algebraic state.

self definitional [Section 3, Definition 3.3, Definition 3.5, Proposition 3.8]
"We take the right hand side of Eqs. (1) and (2) as the definition of the dressed scalar product and dressed vHM Hamiltonian, respectively. ... Definition 3.5 (Dressed vHM Hamiltonian). Given g∈D′, let H_g denote the unique selfadjoint operator on F^g corresponding to the closure of q_g."

Definition 3.5 defines H_g through q_g(ϕ,ψ)=⟨e^{a(g)}ϕ,dΓ(ϖ)e^{a(g)}ψ⟩, i.e., H_g=ι_g^*dΓ(ϖ)ι_g up to domain closure. Proposition 3.8 then proves ι_g H_g ι_g^* = dΓ(ϖ), which is a restatement of this definition. Combined with Corollary 2.7 (the algebraic dressed Hamiltonian is also dΓ(ϖ)), the claimed unitary equivalence between the two approaches is built into the Hamiltonian construction rather than derived from an independent renormalization prescription.
self definitional [Section 3, definition of π_g before Proposition 3.9]
"Thus, the canonical choice of the Weyl representation in F^g is uniquely given by π_g(W(f))ϵ_g(h)=e^{−π^2/2||f||^2+iπ⟨f,g⟩+iπ⟨f,h⟩}ϵ_g(h+iπf). ... We leave it to the reader to verify that this definition really provides a ∗-homomorphism."

Proposition 3.9's conclusion is obtained by evaluating this chosen representation: ⟨ϵ_g(0),π_g(W(f))ϵ_g(0)⟩_g=e^{−1/2||f||^2+2πiRe⟨f,g⟩}. The phase +iπ⟨f,g⟩ is put into the definition of π_g, not derived from the algebraic state ω_{∞,g}; indeed Eq. (1) and Prop. 3.7(iii) give the opposite sign, so the comparison is not an independent check. The algebraic ground-state Fourier transform of Def. 2.2 is the target being matched.

full rationale

The algebraic side (Sec. 2) has independent content: ω_β is defined and checked to satisfy the KMS condition (Prop. 2.3), and ω_∞ is its weak-* limit. The Hamiltonian side (Sec. 3) is, by the authors' own statement, defined by taking the RHS of the regular-case identities as definitions for distributional g. The subsequent Props. 3.8-3.9 therefore verify that the definitions reproduce dΓ(ϖ) and the algebraic coherent state; they do not test the Hamiltonian construction against an independent renormalization limit (no cutoff limit is performed). No parameters are fitted and no self-citation chain forces the result, but the central 'equivalence of approaches' is a by-construction consistency check, with an additional sign inconsistency in the comparison. This is partial circularity, not a fit-to-data circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on the modeling choice that the algebraic automorphism group and the direct definition of the dressed scalar product are the correct renormalizations for singular sources, plus standard theorems (KMS theory, Nelson's analytic vector theorem) and one cited structural fact (Prop 2.6 from Arai). No free parameters are fitted.

assumptions (6)

ad hoc to paper The vHM dynamics for arbitrary distributional sources is given by the automorphism group τ(t) of Definition 2.1.
This algebraic extension from the regular case is the paper's modeling postulate; for v/ϖ ∉ L^2 there is no Fock-space Hamiltonian to derive it from.
domain assumption The ground state of the model is the zero-temperature limit of the Gibbs states ω_β, i.e., the coherent state centered at -v/ϖ.
Standard KMS/ground state selection; justified by Prop 2.4 via [ST71] that weak-* limits of KMS states are ground states, but the choice is tied to the model.
ad hoc to paper The renormalized Hamiltonian in the Hamiltonian approach is defined by the right-hand sides of Eqs. (1) and (2), namely the dressed scalar product and dΓ(ϖ).
The identities are proven for regular v ∈ L^2 and then adopted as definitions for distributional g; the paper does not derive them from a cutoff limit.
domain assumption The dispersion ϖ is a multiplication operator with ϖ ≥ μ > 0 and ϖ ∈ L^∞_loc(R^d).
Massive-boson assumption used throughout; guarantees positivity, invertibility on D, and analytic vectors for dΓ(ϖ).
domain assumption The GNS representation of ω_∞ is the Fock representation over L^2 with dynamics dΓ(ϖ) (Prop 2.6).
Stated as a rephrasing of [Ara20, §8.10, §10.9] and not proved in the paper; underpins the algebraic renormalized Hamiltonian.
ad hoc to paper The KMS Fourier transforms in Definition 2.2 are quantum positive definite and continuous on finite-dimensional subspaces.
The paper leaves this check to the reader (Section 2), yet it is needed for ω_β to be a well-defined regular state.

invented entities (2)

Dressed Hilbert space F^g (completion of F_fin(D) with respect to ⟨·,·⟩_g) independent evidence
purpose: Provides a Hilbert space representation of the CCR algebra for singular sources where Fock space fails.
The paper constructs a unitary ι_g: F^g → F (usual Fock space), giving an internal consistency check and linking to the algebraic GNS representation.
Dressed renormalized Hamiltonian H_g (self-adjoint operator on F^g) independent evidence
purpose: Renormalized generator of the vHM dynamics in the Hamiltonian approach.
ι_g H_g ι_g^* = dΓ(ϖ) is proved (Prop 3.8), and its ground state ϵ_g(0) is identified with the algebraic ground state (Prop 3.9).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ultraviolet Renormalization of the van Hove-Miyatake Model: an Algebraic and Hamiltonian Approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IFVUXVVY

@misc{pith2026250519977,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ultraviolet Renormalization of the van Hove-Miyatake Model: an Algebraic and Hamiltonian Approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IFVUXVVY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.19977}
}

read the original abstract

In this short communication we discuss the ultraviolet renormalization of the van Hove-Miyatake scalar field, generated by any distributional source. An abstract algebraic approach, based on the study of a special class of ground states of the van Hove-Miyatake dynamical map is compared with an Hamiltonian renormalization that makes use of a non-unitary dressing transformation. The two approaches are proved to yield equivalent results.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

[1]

A. Arai. Analysis on F ock Spaces and Mathematical Theory of Quantum Fields (World Scientific, New Jersey, 2018)

work page 2018
[2]

A. Arai. Inequivalent representations of canonical commutation and anti-commutation relations---representation-theoretical viewpoint for quantum phenomena. Mathematical Physics Studies (Springer, Singapore, 2020). ISBN 978-981-15-2179-9; 978-981-15-2180-5, xix+493 pp

work page 2020
[3]

Derezi\' n ski

J. Derezi\' n ski. Van H ove H amiltonians---exactly solvable models of the infrared and ultraviolet problem. Ann. Henri Poincar\' e 4 (4), pp. 713--738 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00023-003-0145-5 (2003)

doi:10.1007/s00023-003-0145-5 2003
[4]

T. N. Dam, J. S. M ller. Asymptotics in spin-boson type models. Commun. Math. Phys. 374 (3), pp. 1389--1415 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00220-020-03685-5 (2020). https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.00085 arXiv:1808.00085

work page Pith review arXiv 2020
[5]

Abstract semiclassical analysis of the van Hove model

M. Falconi, L. Fratini. Abstract semiclassical analysis of the van H ove model. ArXiv e-prints (2024). https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.20603 arXiv:2407.20603

work page Pith review arXiv 2024
[6]

Falconi, B

M. Falconi, B. Hinrichs, J. Valent \'i n Mart \'i n. Ultraviolet Renormalization of Spin Boson Models II. Super-Critical Interactions . In Preparation

work page
[7]

J. Glimm. Yukawa coupling of quantum fields in two dimensions. I . Comm. Math. Phys. 5, pp. 343--386 (1967)

work page 1967
[8]

J. Glimm. Boson fields with the : ^ 4 : interaction in three dimensions. Comm. Math. Phys. 10, pp. 1--47 (1968)

work page 1968

Show all 16 references

[9]

Ginibre, G

J. Ginibre, G. Velo. Renormalization of a quadratic interaction in the H amiltonian formalism. Comm. Math. Phys. 18, pp. 65--81 (1970)

1970
[10]

Hinrichs, J

B. Hinrichs, J. Lampart, J. Valent \'i n Mart \'i n. Ultraviolet Renormalization of Spin Boson Models I. Normal and 2-Nilpotent Interactions (2025). Preprint, https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.04876 arXiv:2502.04876

2025 arXiv
[11]

Miyatake

O. Miyatake. On the non-existence of solution of field equations in quantum mechanics. J. Inst. Polytech. Osaka City Univ. Ser. A 2, pp. 89--99 (1952)

1952
[12]

M. Reed, B. Simon. Methods of modern mathematical physics. II . F ourier analysis, self-adjointness (Academic Press, New York, 1975), xv+361 pp

1975
[13]

I. E. Segal. Foundations of the theory of dynamical systems of infinitely many degrees of freedom. I . Mat.-Fys. Medd. Danske Vid. Selsk. 31 (12), p. 39 pp. (1959) (1959)

1959
[14]

I. E. Segal. Foundations of the theory of dyamical systems of infinitely many degrees of freedom. II . Canad. J. Math. 13, pp. 1--18 (1961)

1961
[15]

Sirugue, D

M. Sirugue, D. Testard. Some connections between ground states and temperature states of thermodynamical systems. Comm. Math. Phys. 22, pp. 223--237 (1971)

1971
[16]

Van Hove

L. Van Hove. Les difficult\' e s de divergences pour un modelle particulier de champ quantifi\' e . Physica 18, pp. 145--159 (1952)

1952

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

A. Arai. Analysis on F ock Spaces and Mathematical Theory of Quantum Fields (World Scientific, New Jersey, 2018)

work page 2018

[2] [2]

A. Arai. Inequivalent representations of canonical commutation and anti-commutation relations---representation-theoretical viewpoint for quantum phenomena. Mathematical Physics Studies (Springer, Singapore, 2020). ISBN 978-981-15-2179-9; 978-981-15-2180-5, xix+493 pp

work page 2020

[3] [3]

Derezi\' n ski

J. Derezi\' n ski. Van H ove H amiltonians---exactly solvable models of the infrared and ultraviolet problem. Ann. Henri Poincar\' e 4 (4), pp. 713--738 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00023-003-0145-5 (2003)

doi:10.1007/s00023-003-0145-5 2003

[4] [4]

T. N. Dam, J. S. M ller. Asymptotics in spin-boson type models. Commun. Math. Phys. 374 (3), pp. 1389--1415 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00220-020-03685-5 (2020). https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.00085 arXiv:1808.00085

work page Pith review arXiv 2020

[5] [5]

Abstract semiclassical analysis of the van Hove model

M. Falconi, L. Fratini. Abstract semiclassical analysis of the van H ove model. ArXiv e-prints (2024). https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.20603 arXiv:2407.20603

work page Pith review arXiv 2024

[6] [6]

Falconi, B

M. Falconi, B. Hinrichs, J. Valent \'i n Mart \'i n. Ultraviolet Renormalization of Spin Boson Models II. Super-Critical Interactions . In Preparation

work page

[7] [7]

J. Glimm. Yukawa coupling of quantum fields in two dimensions. I . Comm. Math. Phys. 5, pp. 343--386 (1967)

work page 1967

[8] [8]

J. Glimm. Boson fields with the : ^ 4 : interaction in three dimensions. Comm. Math. Phys. 10, pp. 1--47 (1968)

work page 1968