Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 121 references

Three-loop singularity structure for a non-linear sigma model

T0 review · 2 major / 6 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 three-loop divergences of the two-dimensional non-linear sigma model can be removed by two auxiliary countervertices, with the leading logarithmic singularity of the coupling coefficient given explicitly.

desk verdict A genuinely new three-loop cutoff-regularization calculation for the 2D sigma model, carefully staged but with an acknowledged gap in the near-diagonal expansion; deserves a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.05923 v1 pith:XAIW45TQ submitted 2025-07-08 hep-th math-phmath.MP

P. V. Akacevich , A. V. Ivanov , I. V. Korenev This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thmath-phmath.MP MSC 81T1581T18
keywords three-looprenormalizationnon-linearsigmamodelcutoffregularizationcoordinaterepresentationbackgroundfieldmethoddeformedGreen'sfunctioncounterverticesprincipalchiral
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 show that the three-loop effective action of the two-dimensional non-linear $\sigma$ model, regularized by a coordinate-space cutoff, can be made finite by adding two auxiliary countervertices and renormalizing the coupling. If true, the third-order coefficient $a_2$ of the renormalization constant carries a leading logarithmic singularity proportional to $L_1^2$, with an explicit coefficient built from the deforming function $f$ through the numbers $\tau_1,\dots,\tau_5$. The paper also establishes that the same cancellation works when the auxiliary vertices are replaced by quasi-local ones, and it compares the singularity structure with the standard momentum cutoff. A sympathetic reader would care because this is the first three-loop renormalization of the $\sigma$ model in a cutoff scheme other than dimensional regularization, and it shows which parts of the answer are scheme-dependent.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the deformed Green's function $G_{\Lambda,f}(x)$, obtained by smoothing the free propagator with an averaging operator; its near-diagonal expansion, Eq. (5.3), separates smooth local pieces from the nonlocal part $PS_\Lambda(x,y)$. Lemma 2 and the companion identities (5.7)--(5.9) convert the one-loop subintegrals into powers of $L_1$ and background-field vertex functionals, and Lemmas 3--13 reduce each three-loop diagram to the $J_i$, $A_i$, and $B_i$ functionals of Section 4.2. The countervertices in Theorem 1 are assembled by matching those coefficients, so this expansion is the mechanism that carries the entire argument.

What would settle it

Take the remainder of Eq. (5.3) that is currently absorbed into $O(L/\Lambda^2)$ and evaluate $\Lambda^2\int A_0(x)G_{\Lambda,f}(x)\,(\text{that remainder})$ in the limit $\Lambda\to\infty$; a nonzero result would mean the countervertices of Theorem 1 miss a singularity, while an identically zero result would confirm the structural expansion on which the proof depends.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, Theorem 1, is that every nonlocal singular contribution in the three-loop correction $W_2$ can be cancelled by the triple countervertex $\Gamma_{r,3}=-(L_1/3\pi)\hat\Gamma_3$ and the quartic countervertex $\Gamma_{r,4}=\Lambda^2(\alpha_1/2\pi-5\alpha_6/2)\tilde\Gamma_4 - (15\Lambda^2 c_2^2/2\pi)R_0\tau_5 - (5L_1/32\pi^2)(c_2^2R_1\tau_1+c_2R_2\tau_2+R_3\tau_3+c_2^2R_4\tau_4)$. Terms proportional to the classical action are absorbed into the coupling-renormalization coefficient $a_2$, whose squared-logarithm part is the displayed combination of $\tau_1,\dots,\tau_4$. Theorem 2 extends the construction to quasi-local vertices $V_i[K_i,\phi]$ with kernels supported in the unit ball, at the price of replacing the $\tau_i$ by $\tau_i\upsilon_i$ and introducing the freedom displayed in its coefficient conditions. The authors state the remaining freedom explicitly: $a_2$ is fixed only up to $L_1 t$ with regulator-dependent $t$, and in the quasi-local scheme the value $t_2$, equal to $\beta_3$, is left as an open problem.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the near-diagonal expansion (5.3) and the Lemma 2 identities: if a term currently discarded as $O(L/\Lambda^2)$ or hidden in $PS_\Lambda$ survives multiplication by $\Lambda^2$ and integration against the singular density $A_0(x)G_{\Lambda,f}(x)$, then all three-loop asymptotics in Section 6 shift together.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The three-loop effective action is rendered finite by $\Gamma_{r,3}$, $\Gamma_{r,4}$, the coupling renormalization, and the subtraction constants, with no countervertex of the form $\Lambda^2L$ required.
  • The leading logarithmic part of $a_2$ is $a_0a_1/2 - (c_2^3L_1^2/(16(4!)^2\pi^3))(2\tau_1-2\tau_2+2\tau_3+\tau_4)$, plus a regulator-dependent $L_1t$ term.
  • All $\theta_k$ are non-positive for the coordinate cutoff, so $a_1\ge0$; the standard momentum cutoff gives $\theta_k=0$ but makes $\alpha_8$ divergent, so the two schemes are not connected by a formal limit.
  • With quasi-local vertices, $a_2$ can be reduced to $a_0a_1/2+L_1t_2$, and computing $t_2=\beta_3$ is stated as the open problem left by the paper.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the near-diagonal expansion (5.3) is the likely gatekeeper for all higher orders: a uniform proof that the discarded $O(L/\Lambda^2)$ terms never survive integration against $A_0(x)G_{\Lambda,f}(x)$ would promote this three-loop result into a general renormalization theorem for the coordinate cutoff.
  • Because $\alpha_9=0$ and $\alpha_{11}=-1/4$ are independent of the deforming function, parts of the three-loop answer are regulator-independent; testing whether those terms reappear unchanged in any spherically symmetric cutoff with the same near-diagonal behavior would separate universal data from scheme artifacts.
  • The quasi-local family of Theorem 2 parameterizes a class of renormalization schemes via the kernels $K_i$ and coefficients $\vartheta_i$; fixing this freedom, for instance by a constant-background-field computation, is the most direct route to the missing number $t_2=\beta_3$.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies the three-loop renormalization of the two-dimensional non-linear sigma model (principal chiral model) using a background-field method and a cutoff regularization in coordinate representation. The main claim, Theorem 1, is that all nonlocal singular contributions in the three-loop effective-action correction W_2 can be removed by the auxiliary countervertices Γ_{r,3} and Γ_{r,4} given in the theorem, with the leading logarithmic (L_1^2) part of the third coupling-renormalization coefficient a_2 computed explicitly in terms of regulator-dependent functionals τ_1,...,τ_5. Theorem 2 generalizes the countervertices to quasi-local form and shows that the L_1^2 part of a_2 can be shifted into a residual constant t_2, identified with the three-loop β-function coefficient. The calculation is built on a near-diagonal expansion of the deformed Green's function, Eq. (5.3), and on the identities of Lemma 2, Eqs. (5.7)-(5.9). The paper also compares the coordinate-space cutoff with a sharp momentum cutoff and discusses the resulting structural differences.

Significance. If the calculation is correct, this is a substantial technical result: it extends cutoff-regularization renormalization to three loops in a two-dimensional non-linear sigma model, gives explicit countervertices, and isolates the leading logarithmic singularity of the coupling constant in a regularization scheme different from dimensional regularization. The paper is unusually detailed: it provides staged reductions of each diagram class, auxiliary lemmas with proofs, and a σ-independence check in Section 7. The authors are also transparent about the limitations of the result, explicitly stating that a_2 is determined only up to L_1 t and that the quasi-local coefficient t_2 = β_3 remains an open problem. This honesty is a positive feature, but it also marks the exact place where the proof needs closer scrutiny.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 5, Lemma 2; Section 3.3; Lemmas 11 and 14-16] The load-bearing input of the paper is the near-diagonal expansion (5.3) and the identities of Lemma 2, in particular Eqs. (5.8)-(5.9), which contain O(L/Λ^2) remainders. These remainders are dropped throughout the asymptotic lemmas of Section 6. In diagrams carrying an explicit Λ^2 prefactor, such as the 8 α_6 Λ^2 H_sc^0(Γ̃_4) term in Lemma 11, an O(L/Λ^2) remainder can contribute at order L to the coefficients of the J_i functionals and therefore shift the numbers τ_1,...,τ_5 in Theorem 1. Section 3.3 explicitly concedes that the support property of A_0(x)G_{Λ,f}(x) inside B_{1/Λ} was 'technically not applied in all functionals (diagrams)', and Lemmas 14-16 use the normalization ∫ A_0 G_{Λ,f} = 1 on B_{1/Λ}. Wherever the integration region is larger than B_{1/Λ}, the discarded O(L/Λ^2) pieces are not controlled and cannot be assumed to vanish. The proof of Theorem 1 therefore requires either a demonstration that these remainders are harmless (by extending the support reduction to all functionals) or an explicit identification of where they are absorbed. As it stands, the claimed countervertices and the L_1^2 part of a_2 are not rigorously established.
  2. [Section 7] The Upsilon-operator verification is a valuable internal consistency check, but it only tests the redistribution of log σ among terms that have already been isolated as singular. A σ-independent contribution coming from the omitted O(L/Λ^2) remainders would not be detected by this check. Thus the verification does not cover the gap described in the previous comment, and it cannot be used to rule out shifts of the τ_i coefficients.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 6.3 and Lemmas 6-7] The symbol H^1_334 is used both for the entire first part of the decomposition (6.12) and for a sub-contribution in Section 6.3.2 (H^1_334 = -18...). Lemma 7 also labels the second part of (6.12) as H^1_334 instead of H^2_334. Please rename these objects to avoid ambiguity.
  2. [Section 6.1] The auxiliary vertex Γ3 introduced after Eq. (6.3) conflicts notationally with the original triple vertex Γ3 defined in Eq. (4.4). Using a distinct symbol, for example Γ̄3 or Γ_3^aux, would make the derivation easier to follow.
  3. [Abstract and Introduction] The abstract states that 'the coefficients of the renormalization constant ... are found', but Theorem 1 determines a_2 only up to an undetermined L_1 t, and Theorem 2 leaves t_2 = β_3 as an open problem. A more cautious phrasing, such as 'the leading L_1^2 part of the third coefficient is found', would better match the content.
  4. [Section 3.3] The comparison with the sharp momentum cutoff is interesting but underdeveloped: the divergence of α_8 is used to argue that the two cutoffs differ qualitatively, yet the implications for the universality of the counterterms or for the β-function are not spelled out. A short paragraph connecting this comparison to the main theorem would improve the presentation.
  5. [Throughout] Many diagrams are represented with inline text symbols (box-drawing characters). In a published version, these should be typeset as proper figures, since the text-only rendering makes the diagrammatic manipulations very hard to verify.
  6. [Theorem 2 and Section 8] The conditions on the coefficients υ_i and θ_i in Theorem 2 are stated without derivation. A sentence explaining that they follow from requiring the coefficients of J_1,...,J_4 to cancel in the quasi-local construction would help the reader check the algebra.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: renormalization constants are solved from the computed singular parts via Eq. (2.18), with prior two-loop inputs used as external published results.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense: the paper computes the Λ-asymptotics of the five three-loop diagram classes (Lemmas 4, 5, 8, 11, 13), substitutes them into the expression for W2 in Eq. (2.17), and then imposes the renormalizability conditions Wi s.p.=0 of Eq. (2.18). The countervertices Γr,3 and Γr,4 and the coefficient a2 are solved from these cancellation conditions; no constant is fitted to reproduce a target three-loop answer. The claimed L1^2 term in a2 is obtained by differentiating with respect to the auxiliary scale σ and integrating the resulting first-order equation, so it is a derived output rather than an input. The two-loop ingredients θ1, θ2, a1, and Γr,2 are taken from refs. [40,91], which do overlap with the present authors, but they are published, separately computed two-loop results whose assumptions do not include the target three-loop singularity; under the review rules this is genuine independent support, not load-bearing circularity. The near-diagonal structural expansion (5.3) and Lemma 2 are the main technical input, and Section 3.3 openly states that the support property of A0(x)GΛ,f(x) inside B1/Λ 'was not applied in all functionals (diagrams)'. This is a possible correctness limitation in the asymptotic estimates—an uncontrolled O(L/Λ2) remainder could in principle shift the τi coefficients—but it is not circularity: the τi are derived coefficients of computed integrals, not quantities defined by the claimed result. The paper also explicitly leaves the regulator-dependent L1 t part of a2 undetermined and identifies t2 with the open β3 problem, which further confirms that the L1^2 structure is not being assumed by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physics entities; the countervertices are renormalization devices. The genuine freedom carried by the construction is (i) the smoothing kernel omega and the associated function f, which enters every final formula through the functionals theta_i, alpha_i, tau_i; (ii) the undetermined residual constants t, t_1, t_2 in a_2; and (iii) the kernels K_i in the quasi-local alternative. The derivations assume standard Gaussian integration facts for formal functional integrals (Footnote 6), the near-diagonal Green's function expansion (5.3) with Lemma 2, the renormalizability ansatz (2.13)-(2.18), and the two-loop inputs taken from the authors' published prior work. None of these is a fitted parameter in the sense of tuning to a target answer, which is why the circularity burden is low.

free parameters (3)
  • Deforming function f(.) and averaging kernel omega(.) = Unspecified kernel with supp omega subset of B_{1/2}, integral 1, and s in C^2(R^2,R)
    The regularization family is parameterized by this function; every final quantity (theta_i, alpha_i, tau_i, t, t_i) depends on it. The paper does not fix it, so results are scheme-dependent by construction.
  • Residual constants t, t_1, t_2 in the third renormalization coefficient = Not computed
    Theorem 1 leaves a_2 determined only up to L_1 t with t depending on f; Theorem 2 states explicitly that computing t_2 is an open problem. Since beta_3 = t_2, the third beta-function coefficient is not actually delivered.
  • Kernels K_i(.) of the quasi-local vertices (Theorem 2) = Any continuous functions with supp K_i subset of B_1 and integral K_i = tau_i
    Free functions chosen by hand to build the vertices Vhat_i; the renormalization coefficient a_2 depends on them through the constant t_1.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The functional integral obeys the standard change-of-variables and Gaussian integration properties of an ordinary integral (Footnote 6).
    Invoked at the shift g = exp(gamma phi) h and in the Gaussian evaluation of Z[j]; the paper itself flags this with the word 'symbolically' and Footnote 6.
  • domain assumption Near-diagonal decomposition (5.3) of G_ab_Lambda(x,y) with the companion identities of Lemma 2, Eqs. (5.7)-(5.9).
    All three-loop diagram asymptotics in Section 6 reduce to these identities; their completeness and the size of the remainder terms are load-bearing for every lemma in Section 6.
  • ad hoc to paper Renormalizability ansatz (2.13)-(2.18): counterterms are only coupling-constant renormalization plus vertices Gamma_{r,k} with at most k external lines, and W_i = 0 (s.p.) is the renormalization condition.
    Theorem 1 demonstrates cancellation within this ansatz, but no independent classification rules out divergent structures outside it; in a non-renormalizable model the same computation would not close.
  • domain assumption Background field satisfies the quantum equation of motion and the boundary conditions (Section 2).
    Removes the Gamma_1 vertex and restricts the expansion to strongly connected diagrams; Section 9.1 discusses the classical-field variant requiring H^c_0 instead of H^{sc}_0 with additional connected diagrams.
  • domain assumption Two-loop inputs theta_1, theta_2, a_1, Gamma_{r,2} from refs. [36,40,91] are correct.
    Used as inputs to the three-loop procedure (Eqs. 2.19-2.20 and the W_1 counterterm); they are prior published results by the same group, not re-derived in this paper.
invented entities (1)
  • Auxiliary countervertices Gamma_{r,3}, Gamma_{r,4} and quasi-local vertices Vhat_1-Vhat_4, V_5
    purpose: Subtract the nonlocal, power-law, and logarithmic singular parts of the three-loop effective action
    These are subtraction devices of the renormalization scheme, not new physical degrees of freedom; no falsifiable prediction attaches to them, which is the expected situation for counterterms but leaves no independent evidence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Three-loop singularity structure for a non-linear sigma model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XAIW45TQ

@misc{pith2026250705923,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Three-loop singularity structure for a non-linear sigma model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XAIW45TQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.05923}
}
read the original abstract

The paper is devoted to the three-loop renormalization of the effective action for a two-dimensional non-linear sigma model using the background field method and a cutoff regularization in the coordinate representation. The coefficients of the renormalization constant and the necessary auxiliary vertices are found, as well as the asymptotic expansions of all three-loop diagrams, and their dependence on the type of regularizing function. A comparison is also made with the standard case of cutoff in the momentum representation.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

121 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Γ 3 →3Γ 3,l1 −3Γ 3,l2 + Γ3,l3 −Γ 3,l4, where Γ3,l1 = ,Γ 3,l2 = ,Γ 3,l3 = − ! ,Γ 3,l4 = − !

  2. [2]

    Let us consider all four terms separately

    + 18 ln(Λ/σ2)X1 (2L1 ˆΓ2 −4 Γ2) . Let us consider all four terms separately. Performing calculations similar to those that were performed earlier, we obtain Hsc 0 X1 ˆΓ2 s.p. = c2 2 π2 J1[B] +κ 1S[B] +O L−2 , Hsc 0 X1Γ2 s.p. = c2 π ρ3[B] + c2L2 2π2 J2[B] +κ 2S[B] +O L−1 , Hsc 0 Γ2 3 ˆΓ2 s.p. = 6c2 π Hsc 0 Γ2 3 − 36c2 2θ2 π2 J1[B] +κ 3S[B] +O L−1 ,(6.21) H...

  3. [3]

    =H sc 0 Hc 2(Γ2

    + 18 ln(Λ/σ2)X1 D3 s.p. =H sc 0 Hc 2(Γ2

  4. [4]

    Γ 3 →3Γ 3,r1 −3Γ 3,r2 + Γ3,r3 −Γ 3,r4, where Γ3,r1 = ,Γ 3,r2 = ,Γ 3,r3 = − ! ,Γ 3,r4 = − !

  5. [5]

    Γ 3 →3Γ 3,c1 −3Γ 3,c2 + Γ3,c3 −Γ 3,c4, where Γ3,c1 = ,Γ 3,c2 = ,Γ 3,c3 = − ! ,Γ 3,c4 = − ! . Thus, the diagrams under study are reduced to the study of the following two sets 2 ˆHsc 0 (3Γ3,c1 −3Γ 3,c2 + Γ3,c3 −Γ 3,c4)·Γ 4,1 ·(3Γ 3,r1 −3Γ 3,r2 + Γ3,r3 −Γ 3,r4) ,(6.25) 6 ˆHsc 0 (3Γ3,l1 −3Γ 3,l2 + Γ3,l3 −Γ 3,l4)·Γ 4,2 ·(3Γ 3,r1 −3Γ 3,r2 + Γ3,r3 −Γ 3,r4) .(6....

  6. [6]

    Zinn Justin,Path Integrals in Quantum Mechanics, Oxford University Press, 1–334 (2004)

    J. Zinn Justin,Path Integrals in Quantum Mechanics, Oxford University Press, 1–334 (2004)

    2004

  7. [7]

    =− 36 ln(Λ/σ4) π + 72c2L π B3 −B 2 + 72c2 2J1[B] ln(Λ/σ4)L2 4π2 + I3(Λ, σ) + I4(Λ, σ) +κ 7S[B], whereκ 7 is a coefficient depending on the parameter Λ

    The analysis largely repeats previous calculations, so we only write out the final answer H2 334 s.p. =− 36 ln(Λ/σ4) π + 72c2L π B3 −B 2 + 72c2 2J1[B] ln(Λ/σ4)L2 4π2 + I3(Λ, σ) + I4(Λ, σ) +κ 7S[B], whereκ 7 is a coefficient depending on the parameter Λ. Next, consider the remaining two contributions H3 334 and H 4

  8. [8]

    Calculations are performed using a shift of variables, and the formulas for the sum of H 3 334 + H4 334 take the form H3 334 + H4 334 =−6 ˆHsc 0 Γ3,r3 −Γ 3,r4 ! s.p

    They contain one less derivative, so it is enough to consider only the part of the dia- gram corresponding to the two connected vertices Γ 3,c2Γ4,1. Calculations are performed using a shift of variables, and the formulas for the sum of H 3 334 + H4 334 take the form H3 334 + H4 334 =−6 ˆHsc 0 Γ3,r3 −Γ 3,r4 ! s.p. = 12 ln(Λ/σ4) π ˆHsc 0 Γ3,r3 −Γ 3,r4 ! . F...

Show all 121 references
  1. [9]

    O. I. Zavialov,Renormalized quantum field theory, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dodrecht, Boston, 1–524 (1990)

    1990

  2. [10]

    Let us consider them separately as well

    + 2Hsc 0 (D1D2) + 2Hsc 0 (D2D3) + 2Hsc 0 (D3D1). Let us consider them separately as well. PartH sc 0 (D2 2). First, we transform the vertex D 2. It is clear that under the sign of the operatorH sc 0 , the vertices acquire a symmetrical appearance relative to the permutation of...

  3. [11]

    Let us consider the last term in more detail

    + 6L1Hsc 0 (D2X1) + 4Hsc 0 ( ˆD2 2). Let us consider the last term in more detail. Note that only logarithmic singularities of the first degree appear in it, so the vertices from (6.35) can be changed in the sense of equality of the singular parts in the final diagram as follows:

  4. [12]

    replace the point•on the outer line with the dash|

  5. [13]

    rearrange the derivative from one external line to another with a minus sign. Therefore, if we consider the symmetric combination of the vertex (6.35) + + + + + + + ,(6.36) then, for example, the second and fourth terms, taking into account the use of identity (4.3) for the st...

  6. [14]

    Part 2Hsc 0 (D1D2)

    + 6L1Hsc 0 (D2X1) + 18c2L π −4B 5 −4B 4 + B3 . Part 2Hsc 0 (D1D2). To begin with, consider the vertex D 1, taking into account the symmetrization 24 of external lines. Using the integration by parts, the following decompositions can be obtained − − = + + + + + = + + + + + . Fu...

  7. [15]

    =− 2L π c2B3 −8A 2 + 4A3 + 4A4 + 8A5 + 8A6 −8A 7 −8A 8 , H1,5 44 s.p

    = H1,4 44 + H1,5 44 + H1,6 44 +o(1) where H1,4 44 = 2 ˆHsc 0 + + + + + + ! , H1,5 44 = 2 ˆHsc 0 + + + + ! , H1,6 44 = 1 2 ˆHsc 0 + + ! .(6.46) All the components can be examined using the methods already used, so we only write down the answers H1,4 44 s.p. =− 2L π c2B3 −8A 2 +...

  8. [17]

    6.4.2 Part without loopsH c 2(Γ4) Let us move on to the second part of the decomposition from (6.33)

    + 6L1Hsc 0 (Γ4X1) + 25Λ2α6(f) J6[B] +J 5[B] c2 2L1 π + L π 32A2 −40A 3 + 8A4 −80A 5 −80A 6 + 80A7 + 80A8 + c2L π 8B3 −72B 4 −72B 5 + 192B6 −192B 7 + 6c2 2 π2 J1[B]L1 4θ2 + 2L1 − 12c2 2 π2 J4[B]L1 4θ2 −2θ 1 + 8Lc2 2θ2 +θ 3 π2 J2[B] + 26α5(f)α 6(f)L−8Lθ 2/π2 J3[B] + ˆκ4S[B], whe...

  9. [18]

    + 2Λ2Hsc 0 (Γ4eΓ2)−6L 1Λ2Hsc 0 eΓ2X1 −9L 2 1Hsc 0 (X2

  10. [19]

    + 6L1Hsc 0 (Γ4X1) + 8α6Λ2Hsc 0 (eΓ4) + 48c2 2 π Λ2J5(−f(0)/2 +α 7 −4α 10) + 16L π A1 + 2A2 −2A 3 −A 4 + c2L π 16B1 + 8B2 + 8B3 + 448B6 −448B 7 + c2 2J1 π2 12L2 1 +L 2α9 + 4θ3 + 26θ2 −14θ 1 + 26α11 + c2J2 π2 10L2 1 +L 2α8 −4α 9 + 34θ3 + 6θ2 + 20θ1 + 14α11 + J3 π2 4L2 1 +L 8α8 −...

  11. [20]

    This approach violates locality, but preserves quasi-locality, since averaging occurs over a ”small” neighborhood of the selected point

    It is important to note that the introduced regularization in Section 2 is based on the averaging of fluctuations. This approach violates locality, but preserves quasi-locality, since averaging occurs over a ”small” neighborhood of the selected point. Consider a series of quas...

  12. [21]

    L. D. Faddeev, A. A. Slavnov,Gauge Fields: An Introduction to Quantum Theory, Frontiers in Physics83, Addison-Wesley, 1–236 (1991)

    1991

  13. [22]

    Itzykson, J

    C. Itzykson, J. B. Zuber,Quantum Field Theory, Mcgraw-hill, New York, 1–705 (1980)

    1980

  14. [23]

    M. E. Peskin, D. V. Schroeder,An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory, Addison-Wesley, 1–868 (1995)

    1995

  15. [24]

    R. P. Feynman, A. R. Hibbs, D. F. Styer,Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals, Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 1–371 (2010)

    2010

  16. [25]

    Cartier, C

    P. Cartier, C. DeWitt-Morette,A Rigorous Mathematical Foundation of Functional Integration, In: DeWitt-Morette, C., Cartier, P., Folacci, A. (eds) Functional Integration. NATO ASI Series, vol 361, Springer, Boston (1997) doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-0319-8 1 58

    1997 doi

  17. [26]

    A. L. Cherchiglia, M. Sampaio, M. C. Nemes,Systematic Implementation of Implicit Regularization for Multi-Loop Feynman Diagrams, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A,26, 2591–2635 (2011)

    2011

  18. [27]

    E. T. Shavgulidze, O.G. Smolyanov,Functional integrals, Moscow, URSS, 1–328 (2015)

    2015

  19. [28]

    J. C. Collins,Renormalization: An Introduction to Renormalization, the Renormalization Group and the Operator-Product Expansion, Cambridge University Press, 1–392 (1984)

    1984

  20. [29]

    N. N. Bogolyubov, D. V. Shirkov,Introduction to the Theory of Quantized Fields, Willey, New York, 1–620 (1980)

    1980

  21. [30]

    D. I. Kazakov,Radiative Corrections, Divergences, Regularization, Renormalization, Renormaliza- tion Group and All That in Examples in Quantum Field Theory, arXiv:0901.2208 [hep-ph] (2009)

    2009 arXiv

  22. [31]

    Atiyah,Topological quantum field theories, Publications Math´ ematiques de l’Institut des Hautes Scientifiques68, 175–186 (1988) doi:10.1007/BF02698547

    M. Atiyah,Topological quantum field theories, Publications Math´ ematiques de l’Institut des Hautes Scientifiques68, 175–186 (1988) doi:10.1007/BF02698547

    1988 doi

  23. [32]

    Segal,The definition of conformal field theory, Topology, geometry and quantum field the- ory, London Math

    G. Segal,The definition of conformal field theory, Topology, geometry and quantum field the- ory, London Math. Soc. Lect. Note Ser.308, Cambridge University Press, 421–577 (2004) doi:10.1017/CBO9780511526398.019

    2004 doi

  24. [33]

    Reshetikhin,Lectures on Quantization of Gauge Systems, New Paths Towards Quantum Gravity, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 125–190 (2010) doi:10.1007/978-3-642-11897-5 3

    N. Reshetikhin,Lectures on Quantization of Gauge Systems, New Paths Towards Quantum Gravity, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 125–190 (2010) doi:10.1007/978-3-642-11897-5 3

    2010 doi

  25. [34]

    Stolz, P

    S. Stolz, P. Teichner,Supersymmetric field theories and generalized cohomology, Mathematical foun- dations of quantum field theory and perturbative string theory, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math.83, 279–340 (2011) arXiv:1108.0189

    2011 arXiv

  26. [35]

    A. S. Cattaneo, P. Mnev, N. Reshetikhin,Perturbative Quantum Gauge Theories on Manifolds with Boundary, Commun. Math. Phys.357, 631–730 (2018) doi:10.1007/s00220-017-3031-6

    2018 doi

  27. [36]

    Kandel,Functorial quantum field theory in the Riemannian setting, Adv

    S. Kandel,Functorial quantum field theory in the Riemannian setting, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 20(6), 1443–1471 (2016) doi:10.4310/ATMP.2016.v20.n6.a5

    2016 doi

  28. [37]

    Kandel, P

    S. Kandel, P. Mnev, K. Wernli,Two-dimensional perturbative scalar QFT and Atiyah-Segal gluing, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.25(7), 1847–1952 (2021) doi:10.4310/ATMP.2021.v25.n7.a5

    2021 doi

  29. [38]

    A. V. Ivanov,Effective actions, cutoff regularization, quasi-locality, and gluing of partition func- tions, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.,58, 135401 (2025) doi:10.1088/1751-8121/adc3de, arXiv:2411.13857, https://www.pdmi.ras.ru/preprint/2024/24-11.html

    2025 arXiv

  30. [39]

    C. G. Bollini, J. J. Giambiagi,Dimensional Renormalization: The Number of Dimensions as a Regularizing Parameter, Nuovo Cim. B,12, 20–26 (1972)

    1972

  31. [40]

    ’t Hooft, M

    G. ’t Hooft, M. Veltman,Regularization and renormalization of gauge fields, Nucl. Phys. B44, 189–213 (1972)

    1972

  32. [41]

    A. A. Slavnov,Invariant regularization of non-linear chiral theories, Nucl. Phys. B,31(2), 301–315 (1971) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(71)90234-3

    1971 doi

  33. [42]

    A. A. Slavnov,Invariant regularization of gauge theories, Theoret. and Math. Phys.,13:2 (1972) 1064–1066 doi:10.1007/BF01035526

    1972 doi

  34. [43]

    Bakeyev, A

    T. Bakeyev, A. Slavnov,Higher covariant derivative regularization revisited, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 11(19), 1539–1554 (1996)

    1996

  35. [44]

    Note that the vertexH c 2(Γ4)Awith two outer lines can be represented as the sum of three parts, see (6.14), so we can use the following decomposition Hsc 0 (Γ4Γ4) =H sc 0 (Hc 2(Γ4))2 =H sc 0 (D2

  36. [45]

    K. V. Stepanyantz,The Higher Covariant Derivative Regularization as a Tool for Revealing the Structure of Quantum Corrections in Supersymmetric Gauge Theories, Proc. Steklov Inst. Math. 309, 284–298 (2020) 59

    2020

  37. [46]

    Brizola, O

    A. Brizola, O. Battistel, Marcos Sampaio, M. C. Nemes,Implicit Regularisation Technique: Calcu- lation of the Two-loopϕ 4 4-theoryβ-function, Mod. Phys. Lett. A,14, 1509–1518 (1999)

    1999

  38. [47]

    Cherchiglia, D

    A. Cherchiglia, D. C. Arias-Perdomo, A. R. Vieira, M. Sampaio, B. Hiller,Two-loop renormalisation of gauge theories in 4D Implicit Regularisation and connections to dimensional methods, Eur. Phys. J. C,81, 468 (2021)

    2021

  39. [48]

    R. P. Feynman,Relativistic Cut-Off for Quantum Electrodynamics, Phys. Rev.74, 1430–1438 (1948) doi:10.1103/PhysRev.74.1430

    1948 doi

  40. [49]

    Brezin, J

    E. Brezin, J. Zinn-Justin,Spontaneous breakdown of continuous symmetries near two dimensions, Phys. Rev. B,14, 3110–3120 (1976)

    1976

  41. [50]

    Pauli, F

    W. Pauli, F. Villars,On the Invariant Regularization in Relativistic Quantum Theory, Rev. Mod. Phys.21(3): 434–444 (1949)

    1949

  42. [51]

    S. L. Shatashvili,Two-loop approximation in the background field formalism, Theor Math Phys58, 144–150 (1984) doi:10.1007/BF01017919

    1984 doi

  43. [52]

    Oleszczuk,A symmetry-preserving cut-off regularization, Z

    M. Oleszczuk,A symmetry-preserving cut-off regularization, Z. Phys. C,64, 533–538 (1994)

    1994

  44. [53]

    Sen-Ben Liao,Operator Cutoff Regularization and Renormalization Group in Yang-Mills Theory, Phys. Rev. D,56, 5008–5033 (1997)

    1997

  45. [54]

    Cynolter, E

    G. Cynolter, E. Lendvai,Cutoff Regularization Method in Gauge Theories, [arXiv:1509.07407 [hep- ph]] (2015)

    2015 arXiv

  46. [55]

    N. V. Kharuk,Mixed type regularizations and nonlogarithmic singularities, Questions of quantum field theory and statistical physics. Part 27, Zap. Nauchn. Sem. POMI,494, POMI, St. Petersburg, 2020, 242–249; J. Math. Sci. (N. Y.),264, 362–367 (2022) 10.1007/s10958-022-06003-7

    2022 doi

  47. [56]

    A. A. Bagaev,Two-loop calculations of the matrixσ-model effective action in the background field formalism, Theor Math Phys,154:2, 303–310 (2008) doi:10.1007/s11232-008-0028-5

    2008 doi

  48. [57]

    A. V. Ivanov, N. V. Kharuk,Quantum equation of motion and two-loop cutoff renormalization for ϕ3 model, Zap. Nauchn. Sem. POMI,487, POMI, St. Petersburg, 2019, 151–166; J. Math. Sci. (N. Y.),257:4 (2021), 526–536, arXiv:2203.04562, doi:10.1007/s10958-021-05500-5

    2021 arXiv

  49. [58]

    A. V. Ivanov, N. V. Kharuk,Two-Loop Cutoff Renormalization of 4-D Yang–Mills Effective Action, 2020 J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys.48, 015002, arXiv:2004.05999, doi:10.1088/1361-6471/abb939

    2020 arXiv

  50. [59]

    A. V. Ivanov, N. V. Kharuk,Formula for two-loop divergent part of 4-D Yang–Mills effective action, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 997 (2022), arXiv:2203.07131, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10921-w

    2022 arXiv

  51. [60]

    P. V. Akacevich, A. V. Ivanov,On Two-Loop Effective Action of 2D Sigma Model, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 653 (2023), arXiv:2304.02374, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11797-0

    2023 arXiv

  52. [61]

    A. V. Ivanov, N. V. Kharuk,Three-loop divergences in effective action of 4-dimensional Yang– Mills theory with cutoff regularization:Γ 2 4-contribution, Zap. Nauchn. Sem. POMI,520, POMI, St. Petersburg, 2023, 162–188, J Math Sci284, 681–699 (2024) doi:10.1007/s10958-024-07379-4

    2024 doi

  53. [62]

    A. V. Ivanov,Three-loop renormalization of the quantum action for a four-dimensional scalar model with quartic interaction with the usage of the background field method and a cutoff regulariza- tion, Nucl. Phys. B,1006, 116647 (2024), doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2024.116647, arXiv...

    2024

  54. [63]

    A. V. Ivanov, N. V. Kharuk,Three-loop renormalization of the quantum action for a five- dimensional scalar cubic model with the usage of the background field method and a cutoff regular- ization, Eur. Phys. J. Plus139, 849 (2024) doi:10.1140/epjp/s13360-024-05648-4, arXiv:2404...

    2024 arXiv

  55. [64]

    N. V. Kharuk,Three-loop renormalization with a cutoff in a sextic model, Questions of quan- tum field theory and statistical physics. Part 30, Zap. Nauchn. Sem. POMI,532, POMI, St. Petersburg, 2024, 273–286 https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet/relay-station?mr=4811943 https:/...

    2024

  56. [65]

    N. V. Kharuk,Four-loop renormalization with a cutoff in a sextic model, (2025) arXiv:2504.07688, http://www.pdmi.ras.ru/preprint/2025/25-02.html

    2025 arXiv

  57. [66]

    A. M. Polyakov,Interaction of goldstone particles in two dimensions. Applications to ferromagnets and massive Yang-Mills fields, Phys. Lett. B,59(1), 79–81 (1975)

    1975

  58. [67]

    A. A. Migdal,Phase transitions in gauge and spin-lattice systems, Sov. Phys. JETP,42(4), 743–746 (1976)

    1976

  59. [68]

    Brezin, J

    E. Brezin, J. Zinn-Justin,Renormalization of the NonlinearσModel in2 +εDimensions – Appli- cation to the Heisenberg Ferromagnets, Phys. Rev. Lett.,36, 691–694 (1976)

    1976

  60. [69]

    Nguyen,Quantization of the nonlinear sigma model revisited, J

    T. Nguyen,Quantization of the nonlinear sigma model revisited, J. Math. Phys.57, 082301 (2016) doi:10.1063/1.4961153

    2016 doi

  61. [70]

    Brezin, J

    E. Brezin, J. Zinn-Justin, J. C. Le Guillou,Renormalization of the nonlinearσmodel in2 +ε dimensions, Phys. Rev. D,14(10), 2615–2621 (1976)

    1976

  62. [71]

    Hikami, E

    S. Hikami, E. Brezin,Three-loop calculations in the two-dimensional non-linearσmodel, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.11, 1141 (1978)

    1978

  63. [72]

    Friedan,Nonlinear models in2 +εdimensions, Ann

    D. Friedan,Nonlinear models in2 +εdimensions, Ann. Phys.163, 318–419 (1985)

    1985

  64. [73]

    A. M. Polyakov,Gauge Fields and Strings, London, Taylor and Francis Group, 1–312 (1987)

    1987

  65. [74]

    Bakas,Renormalization group equations and geometric flows, (2007) doi:10.48550/arXiv.hep- th/0702034

    I. Bakas,Renormalization group equations and geometric flows, (2007) doi:10.48550/arXiv.hep- th/0702034

    2007 doi

  66. [75]

    Anagnostopoulos, K

    K. Anagnostopoulos, K. Farakos, P.Pasipoularides, A. Tsapalis,Non-Linear Sigma Model and asymp- totic freedom at the Lifshitz point, (2010) doi:10.48550/arXiv.1007.0355

    2010 doi arXiv

  67. [76]

    Carfora,Renormalization Group and the Ricci Flow, Milan Journal of Mathematics,78(1), 319– 353 (2010) doi:10.1007/s00032-010-0110-y

    M. Carfora,Renormalization Group and the Ricci Flow, Milan Journal of Mathematics,78(1), 319– 353 (2010) doi:10.1007/s00032-010-0110-y

    2010 doi

  68. [77]

    A. N. Efremov, A. Ran¸ con,Non-linear sigma models on constant curvature target man- ifolds: a functional renormalization group approach, Phys. Rev. D104, 105003 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.105003

    2021 doi

  69. [78]

    Levine,Universal 1-loop divergences for integrable sigma models, J

    N. Levine,Universal 1-loop divergences for integrable sigma models, J. High Energ. Phys.2023, 3 (2023) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2023)003

    2023 doi

  70. [79]

    A. V. Ivanov,Explicit Cutoff Regularization in Coordinate Representation, 2022 J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.55, 495401, arXiv:2209.01783, doi:10.1088/1751-8121/aca8dc

    2022 arXiv

  71. [80]

    A. V. Ivanov,An applicability condition of a cutoff regularization in the coordinate representation, Funct Anal Its Appl59, 1–10 (2025) arXiv:2403.09218, https://www.pdmi.ras.ru/preprint/2024/24- 04.html, https://doi.org/10.1134/S123456782501001X; Translated from: Funktsional’...

    2025 arXiv

  72. [81]

    V. P. Zastavnyi,The continuation of the radial function from the exterior of the ball to a function positively defined on the entire space, Bulletin of Donetsk National University: Series A. Natural Sciences, 2/2024, 14–28 (2024) doi:10.5281/zenodo.13752079

    2024 doi

  73. [82]

    M. T. Grisaru, A. E. M. Van De Ven, D. Zanon,Two-dimensional supersymmetric sigma-models on Ricci-flat K¨ ahler manifolds are not finite. Nucl. Phys. B,277, 388–408 (1986)

    1986

  74. [83]

    M. T. Grisaru, A. E. M. Van De Ven, D. Zanon,Four-loop divergences for the N=1 supersymmetric non-linear sigma-model in two dimensions. Nucl. Phys. B,277, 409–428 (1986)

    1986

  75. [84]

    A. A. Slavnov, L. D. Faddeev,Invariant perturbation theory for nonlinear chiral Lagrangians, Theor Math Phys8, 843–850 (1971) doi:10.1007/BF01029338

    1971 doi

  76. [85]

    I. Ya. Aref’eva,Phase transition in the three-dimensional chiral field, Annals Phys.,117:2, 393–406 (1979) doi:10.1016/0003-4916(79)90361-0

    1979 doi

  77. [86]

    M. A. Semenov-Tian-Shansky, L. D. Faddeev,On the theory of nonlinear chiral fields, Vestnik Leningrad Univ. Math.,10, 319–327 (1982)

    1982

  78. [87]

    D Faddeev, N

    L. D Faddeev, N. Yu Reshetikhin,Integrability of the principal chiral field model in 1+1 dimension, Ann. Phys.167(2), 227–256 (1986) doi:10.1016/0003-4916(86)90201-0

    1986 doi

  79. [88]

    Arutyunov, S

    G. Arutyunov, S. Frolov,Foundations of theAdS 5 ×S 5 Superstring: Part I, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.42, 254003 (2009) doi:10.1088/1751-8113/42/25/254003

    2009 doi

  80. [89]

    A. N. Vasiliev,Functional Methods in Quantum Field Theory and Statistical Physics, CRC Press, 1–320 (1998)

    1998

  81. [90]

    Evslin, B

    J. Evslin, B. Zhang,Mass-gap in the compactified principal chiral model, Phys. Rev. D98, 085016 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.085016

    2018 doi

  82. [91]

    C. D. Batista, M. Shifman, Z. Wang, S.-S. Zhang,Principal Chiral Model in Correlated Electron Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 227201 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.227201

    2018 doi

  83. [92]

    Kluson,Nonrelativistic String Theory Sigma Model and Its Canonical Formulation, Eur

    J. Kluson,Nonrelativistic String Theory Sigma Model and Its Canonical Formulation, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 108 (2019) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-6623-9

    2019 doi

  84. [93]

    Bascone, F

    F. Bascone, F. Pezzella,Principal Chiral Model without and with WZ term: Symmetries and Poisson- Lie T-Duality, PoS,376, CORFU2019 134 (2020) doi:10.22323/1.376.0134

    2020 doi

  85. [94]

    Hoare,Integrable deformations of sigma models, J

    B. Hoare,Integrable deformations of sigma models, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.55, 093001 (2022) doi:10.1088/1751-8121/ac4a1e

    2022 doi

  86. [95]

    Oling, Z

    G. Oling, Z. Yan,Aspects of Nonrelativistic Strings, Front. Phys.,10:832271 (2022) doi:10.3389/fphy.2022.832271

    2022

  87. [96]

    Y. Liu, M. Mari˜ no,Trans-series from condensates in the non-linear sigma model, (2025) arXiv:2507.02605

    2025 arXiv

  88. [97]

    L. D. Faddeev,Scenario for the renormalization in the 4D Yang–Mills theory, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A, 31, 1630001 (2016)

    2016

  89. [98]

    C. E. Derkachev, A. V. Ivanov, L. D. Faddeev,Renormalization scenario for the quantum Yang– Mills theory in four-dimensional space-time, TMF,192:2 (2017), 227–234; Theoret. and Math. Phys., 192:2 (2017), 1134–1140 10.1134/S0040577917080049

    2017 doi

  90. [99]

    Nakahara,Geometry, topology and physics, Second Edition, CRC Press, 1–573 (2003)

    M. Nakahara,Geometry, topology and physics, Second Edition, CRC Press, 1–573 (2003)

    2003

  91. [100]

    B. S. DeWitt,Quantum Theory of Gravity. 2. The Manifestly Covariant Theory, Phys. Rev.162, 1195–1239 (1967) 62

    1967

  92. [101]

    B. S. DeWitt,Quantum Theory of Gravity. 3. Applications of the Covariant Theory, Phys. Rev. 162, 1239–1256 (1967)

    1967

  93. [102]

    ’t Hooft,The background field method in gauge field theories, (Karpacz, 1975), Proceedings, Acta Universitatis Wratislaviensis,1, Wroclaw, 345–369 (1976)

    G. ’t Hooft,The background field method in gauge field theories, (Karpacz, 1975), Proceedings, Acta Universitatis Wratislaviensis,1, Wroclaw, 345–369 (1976)

    1976

  94. [103]

    L. F. Abbott,Introduction to the background field method, Acta Phys. Polon. B,13:1–2, 33–50 (1982)

    1982

  95. [104]

    I. Ya. Aref’eva, A. A. Slavnov, L. D. Faddeev,Generating functional for the S-matrix in gauge- invariant theories, TMF,21:3, 311–321 (1974)

    1974

  96. [105]

    P. S. Howe, G. Papadopoulos, K. S. Stelle,The background field method and the non-linearσ-model, Nucl. Phys. B,296(1), 26–48 (1988) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(88)90379-3

    1988 doi

  97. [106]

    L. D. Faddeev,A couple of methodological comments on the quantum Yang-Mills theory, Theor Math Phys181, 1638–1642 (2014) doi:10.1007/s11232-014-0240-4

    2014 doi

  98. [107]

    A. A. Bagaev,Renormalization of the quantum equation of motion for Yang–Mills fields in back- ground formalism, J Math Sci138, 5631–5635 (2006) doi:10.1007/s10958-006-0331-3

    2006 doi

  99. [108]

    A. A. Bagaev,A remark on renormalization of the quantum equation of motion for the matrix sigma model, J Math Sci151, 2813–2815 (2008) doi:10.1007/s10958-008-9007-5

    2008 doi

  100. [110]

    A. V. Ivanov, M. A. Russkikh,Quantum Field Theory on the Example of the Simplest Cubic Model, J Math Sci275, 306–325 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10958-023-06683-9

    2023 doi

  101. [111]

    A. V. Ivanov,Applicability condition of a cutoff in two-dimensional models, Questions of quantum field theory and statistical physics. Part 30, Zap. Nauchn. Sem. POMI, 532, POMI, St. Petersburg, 153–168 (2024) https://www.mathnet.ru/eng/znsl7457

    2024

  102. [112]

    I. M. Gel’fand, G. E. Shilov,Generalized Functions, Volume 1: Properties and Operations, AMS Chelsea Publishing377, 1–423 (1964)

    1964

  103. [113]

    V. S. Vladimirov,Methods of the theory of generalized functions, London, CRC Press, 1–328 (2002)

    2002

  104. [114]

    J. P. Bornsen, A. E. M. van de Ven,Three-loop Yang–Millsβ-function via the covariant background field method, Nucl. Phys. B,657, 257–303 (2003) doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(03)00118-4

    2003 doi

  105. [115]

    L¨ uscher,Dimensional regularisation in the presence of large background fields, Annals of Physics 142, 359–392 (1982)

    M. L¨ uscher,Dimensional regularisation in the presence of large background fields, Annals of Physics 142, 359–392 (1982)

    1982

  106. [116]

    D. V. Vassilevich,Heat kernel expansion: user’s manual, Phys. Rept.388, 279–360 (2003) doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2003.09.002

    2003 doi

  107. [117]

    Fursaev, D

    D. Fursaev, D. Vassilevich,Operators, Geometry and Quanta: Methods of Spectral Geometry in Quantum Field Theory, Springer, 1–304 (2011)

    2011

  108. [118]

    A. V. Ivanov, N. V. Kharuk,Heat kernel: Proper-time method, Fock–Schwinger gauge, path integral, and Wilson line, TMF,205:2, 242–261, (2020); Theoret. and Math. Phys.,205:2, 1456–1472 (2020) 10.1134/S0040577920110057 [arXiv:1906.04019]

    2020 arXiv

  109. [119]

    A. V. Ivanov, N. V. Kharuk,Special Functions for Heat Kernel Expansion, Eur. Phys. J. Plus137, 1060 (2022), arXiv:2106.00294v2, 10.1140/epjp/s13360-022-03176-7

    2022 arXiv

  110. [120]

    N. V. Kharuk,Zero modes of the Laplace operator in two-loop calculations in the Yang–Mills theory, Questions of quantum field theory and statistical physics. Part 28, Zap. Nauchn. Sem. POMI,509, POMI, St. Petersburg, 216–226 (2021), J Math Sci275, 370–377 (2023) doi:10.1007/s1...

    2021 doi

  111. [121]

    Gilbarg, N

    D. Gilbarg, N. Trudinger,Elliptic Partial Differential Equations of Second Order, New York: Springer, 1–517 (1983)

    1983

  112. [122]

    V. I. Smirnov,A course of higher mathematics: volume 5, Pergamon Press, 1–644 (1964) 64

    1964

  113. [334]

    Note that the figure contains dots of three colors

    Taking into account the definitions from Section 4.1, it is explicitly written as follows H1 334 =−18 . Note that the figure contains dots of three colors. This fact reflects the presence of three integration operators. It is convenient to analyze such a diagram using the meth...

Pith tools

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