Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 minor 91 references

The leading Kaluza–Klein tower correction that sets higher-derivative gravity scales is regulator-dependent matching data, so the two usual species-scale definitions agree only parametrically, not coefficient by coefficient.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-11 16:34 UTC pith:FPYEHMJF

load-bearing objection Clean technical clarification: KK-tower one-loop data split into scheme-dependent N-enhanced local thresholds and regulator-stable log N coefficients, so coefficient-level species-scale identification is not regulator-independent.

arxiv 2607.04602 v1 pith:FPYEHMJF submitted 2026-07-06 hep-th

Kaluza-Klein tower thresholds and scheme dependence of the species scale

Yuri Michinobu This is my paper
classification hep-th
keywords species scaleKaluza-Klein towersEFT matchingscheme dependencehigher-derivative gravityproper-time cutoffone-loop effective action
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Two common ways of defining the species scale in quantum gravity—one from the breakdown of the one-loop graviton propagator, the other from the suppression scale of higher-derivative operators—are routinely treated as interchangeable. This paper shows that, once an infinite Kaluza–Klein tower is integrated out with a controlled cutoff, they are not. The tower-enhanced local four-derivative terms depend on the choice of proper-time cutoff profile and must be absorbed into EFT matching coefficients; only a subleading logarithmic piece is universal inside the class of cutoffs studied. Explicit scalar and fermion calculations separate these pieces and recover the usual parametric species scaling only under the assumption that the regulator factor is order one and that ultraviolet counterterms do not cancel the tower enhancement. A sympathetic reader cares because many swampland and moduli-space arguments treat the two definitions as identical at the coefficient level; the calculation shows that only the parametric relation and the stable logarithm are robust.

Core claim

For a large number of species the leading tower-enhanced local correction is regulator dependent and should be interpreted as EFT matching data, while the subleading logarithmic contribution is universal within the class of proper-time cutoff profiles considered. Consequently the coefficient-level identification of the perturbative-breakdown and higher-derivative definitions of the species scale is not regulator independent.

What carries the argument

The regulated infinite-tower sum Na+b[fc] expressed via the Mellin transform of the proper-time cutoff profile: its leading N term carries the scheme-dependent factor efc(−1/2), while the log N coefficient is fixed by the residue Res s=0 efc = −1.

Load-bearing premise

The parametric consistency check assumes the cutoff Mellin factor is order one and that renormalized ultraviolet matching terms neither dominate nor cancel the tower contribution.

What would settle it

Compute the same four-derivative tower coefficients with two distinct proper-time cutoffs that change efc(−1/2) by an O(1) amount and check whether the difference is absorbed entirely into local counterterms while the curvature-squared log N coefficient remains identical.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

0 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper revisits the species scale in quantum gravity from an EFT matching perspective, comparing the perturbative-breakdown definition (from the one-loop graviton propagator) with the higher-derivative suppression-scale definition. For an S1-compactified KK tower of free scalars and Dirac fermions, it regulates the infinite tower sum with a class of proper-time cutoff profiles and shows that the large-N tower contribution separates into a leading local term proportional to N whose coefficient depends on the Mellin transform of the cutoff at s=-1/2, and a subleading log N term in the curvature-squared sector whose coefficient is fixed by Res_s=0 e_fc=-1. Explicit four-derivative one-loop matching data are computed for both spins (Eqs. (54), (62)), with a heat-kernel cross-check for scalars; after field redefinition the radion-graviton sector can be reduced to (nabla phi)^4 terms that remain matching data. The standard parametric species relation is recovered only as a self-consistency check under the stated O(1) and no-tuned-cancellation assumptions.

Significance. The work supplies a controlled, regulator-aware EFT interpretation of a relation that is often treated as coefficient-level equality in the species-scale literature. The Mellin/residue argument (Eq. (14), App. B) cleanly separates scheme-dependent local thresholds from a universal log N coefficient within a well-defined cutoff class, and the explicit scalar/fermion four-derivative results give concrete matching data for graviton, radion, and KK-photon operators. The heat-kernel versus hybrid diagrammatic cross-check for scalars, the careful treatment of the fermion multiplicative-anomaly issue, and the explicit scoping of the parametric self-consistency condition are genuine strengths. If the separation holds under broader regulator classes, it clarifies which higher-derivative data can robustly probe moduli dependence of the species scale (e.g., Distance-Conjecture rates) and why coefficient-level identification of the two characterizations is not regulator-independent.

minor comments (6)
  1. In Sec. 5 and App. D the hybrid Pauli-Villars + proper-time factorization is presented as a calculational scheme that reproduces the heat-kernel result for scalars; a short explicit statement that the same factorization for fermions is an assumption (not a theorem) about the absence of multiplicative-anomaly contamination in the local four-derivative sector would make the scoping of Eqs. (62)-(63) even clearer for readers who skip App. C.
  2. Sec. 6, after the field redefinitions (56)-(60): both scalar and fermion towers yield the same leading coefficient -1/24 for (nabla phi)^4 in the chosen basis. A one-sentence remark that this coincidence is basis- and scheme-dependent matching data (and not a spin-independent physical Wilson coefficient) would prevent over-reading of Eqs. (61) and (63).
  3. App. F (string tower): the assumptions (all excitations treated as scalars; only asymptotic degeneracy retained) are stated, but the comparison with naive cumulative counting (Eq. (F17) vs (F14)) would be easier to assess if the text briefly noted which of spin, ghosts, or modular completion is expected to affect the leading exponential versus the (log N)^{1/2} prefactor.
  4. Notation: N(phi_0) is introduced as the regulated number of KK levels and is carefully distinguished from spin/polarization degeneracy, but in a few places (e.g. around Eqs. (11) and (41)) the shorthand N appears without the argument; consistent use of N(phi_0) would reduce ambiguity.
  5. The Supplemental Material cited as [87] is essential for reproducing the photon-radion diagrams of App. E.3; for journal publication it should be deposited with a stable identifier or folded into an expanded appendix.
  6. Typos/clarity: 'in linewiththeSwampland' (p. 3) and similar run-together phrases in the introduction; 'thesameis true for k <= d/2' (end of Sec. 4.2) could be expanded by one clause for parallel structure with the k >= d/2+1 case.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: Mellin/residue separation of scheme-dependent N terms from universal log N is derived from cutoff asymptotics; species scaling is a parametric self-consistency check under stated O(1)/no-cancellation assumptions, not a forced coefficient equality.

full rationale

The load-bearing technical chain is self-contained. Appendix B and Eq. (14)/(B15) obtain the tower sum Na+b[fc] = (1/2) ga+b efc(-1/2) N + δa+b,0 Res_s=0 efc · log N + O(N0) from the Mellin transform of admissible proper-time cutoffs with the stated boundary conditions fc(u) o1 (u o∞), fc(u) o0 (u o0); Res_s=0 efc = -1 follows directly from those asymptotics (structure theorem / singular expansion of the Mellin transform), not from fitting or from defining the species scale. Explicit four-derivative scalar (heat-kernel and diagrammatic) and fermion (diagrammatic) results, Eqs. (54) and (62), instantiate the same separation. The species-scale relation (Eqs. (42)–(43)) is introduced only as a provisional cutoff and recovered as a parametric self-consistency condition under the explicit assumptions that efc(-1/2) is O(1) and that renormalized matching neither dominates nor cancels the tower term; the paper does not claim a regulator-independent coefficient-level identification of the two characterizations—it explains why that identification fails. Citations to the broader species-scale literature supply context, not a load-bearing uniqueness theorem or ansatz that forces the result. No self-definitional loop, fitted-input-as-prediction, or self-citation chain reduces the central claim to its inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard heat-kernel and zeta-function technology, the EFT matching philosophy that local loop pieces must be combined with counterterms, and a specific but well-documented class of proper-time cutoffs. No free parameters are fitted to data; the only free function is the cutoff profile itself, whose Mellin transform is left arbitrary within the stated boundary conditions. No new particles or forces are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • cutoff-profile parameter alpha (illustrative)
    Appears only in the example fc(u)=1-e^{-u}+alpha u e^{-u^2} to show that e_fc(-1/2) can be varied; not fitted to any physical data and not used in the final claims.
axioms (5)
  • standard math Heat-kernel expansion of the one-loop effective action for Laplace-type operators (standard coefficients e_{2k} up to four derivatives).
    Invoked throughout Sec. 4 and Table 1; taken from Vassilevich and Avramidi.
  • domain assumption Local higher-derivative coefficients are EFT matching data that combine loop contributions with renormalized counterterms; physical amplitudes are scheme-independent only after consistent treatment.
    Stated in Sec. 1 and Sec. 3; standard EFT lore (Manohar, Burgess, Donoghue).
  • ad hoc to paper Admissible proper-time cutoffs satisfy fc(u)->1 as u->infty, fc(u)->0 as u->0, and possess a Mellin transform finite at s=-1/2 with Res_s=0 e_fc=-1.
    Defines the universality class in App. B; the residue condition follows from the boundary values but the precise function class is chosen by the author.
  • ad hoc to paper For fermions the factorized diagrammatic prescription (Pauli–Villars single-mode + proper-time tower sum) correctly captures the local matching data without multiplicative-anomaly contamination.
    Adopted in Sec. 5 and App. D because direct heat-kernel doubling is obstructed; verified only for scalars against heat kernel.
  • domain assumption The renormalized UV matching contribution is neither parametrically larger than the tower term nor tuned to cancel it.
    Required for the parametric self-consistency relation (Eq. 42) to reproduce the standard species scaling.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 42628 in / 2888 out tokens · 30948 ms · 2026-07-11T16:34:17.586024+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We revisit the species scale in quantum gravity from the viewpoint of effective field theory (EFT). Two characterizations are commonly used: one defines it as the energy at which the perturbative description of quantum gravity breaks down, as inferred from the one-loop correction to the graviton propagator; the other identifies it with the suppression scale of higher-derivative operators in the gravitational effective action. We clarify the relation between these characterizations by analyzing the cutoff-scheme dependence of the one-loop tower contribution. For a large number of species, the leading tower-enhanced local correction is regulator dependent and should be interpreted as EFT matching data, while the subleading logarithmic contribution is universal within the class of proper-time cutoff profiles considered here. As a concrete application, we compute the full four-derivative one-loop corrections from Kaluza-Klein towers. Our results separate regulator-stable logarithmic data from scheme-dependent local threshold contributions, providing a controlled EFT interpretation of the relation between perturbative-breakdown and higher-derivative definitions of the species scale and explaining why their coefficient-level identification is not regulator independent.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · 8 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Dvali, Fortsch

    G. Dvali, Fortsch. Phys.,58, 528–536 (2010), arXiv:0706.2050,https://doi.org/10.1002/prop.201000009

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1002/prop.201000009 2010

  2. [2]

    Dvali and M

    G. Dvali and M. Redi, Phys. Rev. D, 77, 045027 (2008), arXiv:0710.4344, https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevD.77.045027

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  3. [3]

    Dvali and D

    G. Dvali and D. Lüst, Fortsch. Phys.,58, 505–527 (2010), arXiv:0912.3167,https://doi.org/10.1002/prop. 201000008

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1002/prop 2010

  4. [4]

    Dvali and C

    G. Dvali and C. Gomez (4 2010), arXiv:1004.3744

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  5. [5]

    Veneziano, JHEP,06, 051 (2002), hep-th/0110129,https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2002/06/051

    G. Veneziano, JHEP,06, 051 (2002), hep-th/0110129,https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2002/06/051

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2002/06/051 2002

  6. [6]

    Han and S

    T. Han and S. Willenbrock, Phys. Lett. B,616, 215–220 (2005), hep-ph/0404182,https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.physletb.2005.04.040

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  7. [7]

    Dvali, C

    G. Dvali, C. Gomez, and D. Lust, Fortsch. Phys.,61, 768–778 (2013), arXiv:1206.2365,https://doi.org/10. 1002/prop.201300002

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  8. [8]

    Aydemir, M

    U. Aydemir, M. M. Anber, and J. F. Donoghue, Phys. Rev. D,86, 014025 (2012), arXiv:1203.5153, https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.86.014025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.86.014025 2012

  9. [9]

    Graviton propagator, renormalization scale and black-hole like states

    X. Calmet, R. Casadio, A. Yu. Kamenshchik, and O. V. Teryaev, Phys. Lett. B, 774, 332–337 (2017), arXiv:1708.01485, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2017.09.080

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.09.080 2017

  10. [10]

    Castellano, A

    A. Castellano, A. Herráez, and L. E. Ibáñez, JHEP,06, 047 (2023), arXiv:2212.03908,https://doi.org/10. 1007/JHEP06(2023)047

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

    C. Long, M. Montero, C. Vafa, and I. Valenzuela, JHEP,03, 109 (2023), arXiv:2112.11467,https://doi.org/ 10.1007/JHEP03(2023)109

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep03(2023)109 2023

  12. [12]

    Castellano, I

    A. Castellano, I. Ruiz, and I. Valenzuela, JHEP,06, 037 (2024), arXiv:2311.01536,https://doi.org/10.1007/ JHEP06(2024)037

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  13. [13]

    Cribiori, D

    N. Cribiori, D. Lust, and C. Montella, JHEP,10, 059 (2023), arXiv:2305.10489, https://doi.org/10.1007/ JHEP10(2023)059

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  14. [14]

    Aoufia, I

    C. Aoufia, I. Basile, and G. Leone, JHEP, 12, 111 (2024), arXiv:2405.03683, https://doi.org/10.1007/ JHEP12(2024)111

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    Valeixo Bento and J

    B. Valeixo Bento and J. F. Melo, JHEP, 05, 212 (2025), arXiv:2501.08230, https://doi.org/10.1007/ JHEP05(2025)212

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    van de Heisteeg, C

    D. van de Heisteeg, C. Vafa, M. Wiesner, and D. H. Wu, Beijing J. Pure Appl. Math.,1(1), 1–41 (2024), arXiv:2212.06841, https://doi.org/10.4310/bpam.2024.v1.n1.a1

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.4310/bpam.2024.v1.n1.a1 2024

  17. [17]

    Cribiori, D

    N. Cribiori, D. Lüst, and G. Staudt, Phys. Lett. B,844, 138113 (2023), arXiv:2212.10286,https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.physletb.2023.138113

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2023.138113 2023

  18. [18]

    Castellano, A

    A. Castellano, A. Herráez, and L. E. Ibáñez, JHEP,12, 019 (2024), arXiv:2310.07708,https://doi.org/10. 1007/JHEP12(2024)019

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    van de Heisteeg, C

    D. van de Heisteeg, C. Vafa, and M. Wiesner, Fortsch. Phys.,71(10-11), 2300143 (2023), arXiv:2303.13580, https://doi.org/10.1002/prop.202300143

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1002/prop.202300143 2023

  20. [20]

    van de Heisteeg, C

    D. van de Heisteeg, C. Vafa, M. Wiesner, and D. H. Wu, JHEP,05, 112 (2024), arXiv:2310.07213, https: //doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05(2024)112

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep05(2024)112 2024

  21. [21]

    Calderón-Infante, M

    J. Calderón-Infante, M. Delgado, and A. M. Uranga, JHEP,01, 003 (2024), arXiv:2310.04488,https://doi. org/10.1007/JHEP01(2024)003

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep01(2024)003 2024

  22. [22]

    Castellano, I

    A. Castellano, I. Ruiz, and I. Valenzuela, Phys. Rev. Lett.,132(18), 181601 (2024), arXiv:2311.01501,https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.181601

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.132.181601 2024

  23. [23]

    Cribiori and D

    N. Cribiori and D. Lüst, Fortsch. Phys.,71(10-11), 2300150 (2023), arXiv:2306.08673,https://doi.org/10. 22 1002/prop.202300150

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  24. [24]

    Bedroya, R

    A. Bedroya, R. K. Mishra, and M. Wiesner, JHEP,01, 144 (2025), arXiv:2405.00083, https://doi.org/10. 1007/JHEP01(2025)144

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Bedroya, C

    A. Bedroya, C. Vafa, and D. H. Wu, Phys. Rev. D,113(10), 106011 (2026), arXiv:2403.18005,https://doi. org/10.1103/4lsn-l2ln

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/4lsn-l2ln 2026

  26. [26]

    Castellano, The Quantum Gravity Scale and the Swampland, PhD thesis, U

    A. Castellano, The Quantum Gravity Scale and the Swampland, PhD thesis, U. Autonoma, Madrid (main) (2024), arXiv:2409.10003

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    A.CastellanoandM.Zatti,JHEP, 08,112(2025),arXiv:2502.02655, https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP08(2025) 112

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep08(2025 2025

  28. [28]

    Aoufia, A

    C. Aoufia, A. Castellano, and L. Ibáñez, JHEP,02, 203 (2026), arXiv:2506.03253,https://doi.org/10.1007/ JHEP02(2026)203

    arXiv 2026

  29. [29]

    Basile, N

    I. Basile, N. Cribiori, D. Lust, and C. Montella, JHEP,06, 127 (2024), arXiv:2401.06851,https://doi.org/ 10.1007/JHEP06(2024)127

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep06(2024)127 2024

  30. [30]

    Herráez, D

    A. Herráez, D. Lüst, J. Masias, and M. Scalisi, SciPost Phys.,18(3), 083 (2025), arXiv:2406.17851, https: //doi.org/10.21468/SciPostPhys.18.3.083

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.21468/scipostphys.18.3.083 2025

  31. [31]

    Caron-Huot and Y.-Z

    S. Caron-Huot and Y.-Z. Li, JHEP, 02, 115 (2025), arXiv:2408.06440, https://doi.org/10.1007/ JHEP02(2025)115

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    A. V. Manohar (April 2018), arXiv:1804.05863,https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198855743.003.0002

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1093/oso/9780198855743.003.0002 2018

  33. [33]

    C. P. Burgess, Introduction to Effective Field Theory, (Cambridge University Press, 12 2020),https://doi. org/10.1017/9781139048040

    doi:10.1017/9781139048040 2020

  34. [34]

    J. F. Donoghue, Phys. Rev. D,50, 3874–3888 (1994), gr-qc/9405057,https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD. 50.3874

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd 1994

  35. [35]

    J. F. Donoghue, Quantum General Relativity and Effective Field Theory(2023), arXiv:2211.09902, https: //doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-3079-9_1-1

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/978-981-19-3079-9_1-1 2023

  36. [36]

    J. C. Criado and M. Pérez-Victoria, JHEP, 03, 038 (2019), arXiv:1811.09413, https://doi.org/10.1007/ JHEP03(2019)038

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  37. [37]

    Ooguri and C

    H. Ooguri and C. Vafa, Nucl. Phys. B,766, 21–33 (2007), hep-th/0605264,https://doi.org/10.1016/j. nuclphysb.2006.10.033

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j 2007

  38. [38]

    T. W. Grimm, E. Palti, and I. Valenzuela, JHEP,08, 143 (2018), arXiv:1802.08264, https://doi.org/10. 1007/JHEP08(2018)143

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  39. [39]

    Heidenreich, M

    B. Heidenreich, M. Reece, and T. Rudelius, Eur. Phys. J., C78(4), 337 (2018), arXiv:1712.01868, https: //doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5811-3

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5811-3 2018

  40. [40]

    Heidenreich, M

    B. Heidenreich, M. Reece, and T. Rudelius, Phys. Rev. Lett.,121(5), 051601 (2018), arXiv:1802.08698,https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.051601

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.121.051601 2018

  41. [41]

    Montero, C

    M. Montero, C. Vafa, and I. Valenzuela, JHEP,02, 022 (2023), arXiv:2205.12293,https://doi.org/10.1007/ JHEP02(2023)022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  42. [42]

    Etheredge, B

    M. Etheredge, B. Heidenreich, J. McNamara, T. Rudelius, I. Ruiz, and I. Valenzuela, JHEP,12, 182 (2023), arXiv:2306.16440, https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12(2023)182

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep12(2023)182 2023

  43. [43]

    Etheredge, B

    M. Etheredge, B. Heidenreich, T. Rudelius, I. Ruiz, and I. Valenzuela, JHEP,03, 213 (2025), arXiv:2405.20332, https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP03(2025)213

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep03(2025)213 2025

  44. [44]

    Blumenhagen, N

    R. Blumenhagen, N. Cribiori, A. Gligovic, and A. Paraskevopoulou, Phys. Rev. D,109(2), L021901 (2024), arXiv:2309.11554, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.109.L021901

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.l021901 2024

  45. [45]

    D. V. Vassilevich, Phys. Rept.,388, 279–360 (2003), hep-th/0306138,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep. 2003.09.002

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.physrep 2003

  46. [46]

    P. B. Gilkey,Invariance theory, the heat equation and the Atiyah-Singer index theorem, (CRC Press, 1995)

    1995

  47. [47]

    I. G. Avramidi,Heat kernel and quantum gravity, volume 64, (Springer, New York, 2000),https://doi.org/ 10.1007/3-540-46523-5

    work page doi:10.1007/3-540-46523-5 2000

  48. [48]

    I. G. Avramidi, Nucl. Phys. B, 355, 712–754, [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 509, 557–558 (1998)] (1991),https: //doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(91)90492-G

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(91)90492-g 1998

  49. [49]

    I. G. Avramidi, Phys. Lett. B,238, 92–97 (1990),https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(90)92105-R

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(90)92105-r 1990

  50. [50]

    De Berredo-Peixoto, Mod

    G. De Berredo-Peixoto, Mod. Phys. Lett. A,16, 2463–2468 (2001), hep-th/0108223,https://doi.org/10. 1142/S0217732301005965

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  51. [51]

    Kontsevich and S

    M. Kontsevich and S. Vishik (June 1994), hep-th/9406140

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  52. [52]

    One-loop corrections to the photon propagator in the curved-space QED

    B. Goncalves, G. de Berredo-Peixoto, and I. L. Shapiro, Phys. Rev. D,80, 104013 (2009), arXiv:0906.3837, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.80.104013

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.80.104013 2009

  53. [53]

    Elizalde, L

    E. Elizalde, L. Vanzo, and S. Zerbini, Commun. Math. Phys.,194, 613–630 (1998), hep-th/9701060,https: //doi.org/10.1007/s002200050371

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/s002200050371 1998

  54. [54]

    Applications in physics of the multiplicative anomaly formula involving some basic differential operators

    E. Elizalde, G. Cognola, and S. Zerbini, Nucl. Phys. B,532, 407–428 (1998), hep-th/9804118,https://doi. 23 org/10.1016/S0550-3213(98)00442-8

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/s0550-3213(98)00442-8 1998

  55. [55]

    On the concept of determinant for the differential operators of Quantum Physics

    E. Elizalde, JHEP, 07, 015 (1999), hep-th/9906229,https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/1999/07/015

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1126-6708/1999/07/015 1999

  56. [56]

    Dirac Functional Determinants in Terms of the Eta Invariant and the Noncommutative Residue

    G. Cognola, E. Elizalde, and S. Zerbini, Commun. Math. Phys.,237, 507–532 (2003), hep-th/9910038,https: //doi.org/10.1007/s00220-003-0844-2

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/s00220-003-0844-2 2003

  57. [57]

    Naturalness and UV sensitivity in Kaluza-Klein theories

    C. Branchina, V. Branchina, and F. Contino, Phys. Rev. D,108(4), 045007 (2023), arXiv:2304.08040,https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.108.045007

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.045007 2023

  58. [58]

    Contino and L

    R. Contino and L. Pilo, Phys. Lett. B,523, 347–350 (2001), hep-ph/0104130,https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0370-2693(01)01352-1

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  59. [59]

    M. M. Anber, J. F. Donoghue, and M. El-Houssieny, Phys. Rev. D,83, 124003 (2011), arXiv:1011.3229,https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.83.124003

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.83.124003 2011

  60. [60]

    M. M. Anber and J. F. Donoghue, Phys. Rev. D,85, 104016 (2012), arXiv:1111.2875,https://doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevD.85.104016

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  61. [61]

    ’t Hooft and M

    G. ’t Hooft and M. J. G. Veltman, Ann. Inst. H. Poincare A Phys. Theor.,20, 69–94 (1974)

    1974

  62. [62]

    Calderón-Infante, A

    J. Calderón-Infante, A. Castellano, and A. Herráez, SciPost Phys.,19(4), 096 (2025), arXiv:2501.14880,https: //doi.org/10.21468/SciPostPhys.19.4.096

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.21468/scipostphys.19.4.096 2025

  63. [63]

    van Beest, J

    M. van Beest, J. Calderón-Infante, D. Mirfendereski, and I. Valenzuela, Phys. Rept., 989, 1–50 (2022), arXiv:2102.01111, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2022.09.002

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2022.09.002 2022

  64. [64]

    Adams, N

    A. Adams, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dubovsky, A. Nicolis, and R. Rattazzi, JHEP,10, 014 (2006), hep-th/0602178, https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2006/10/014

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2006/10/014 2006

  65. [65]

    P. F. Mende and H. Ooguri, Nucl. Phys. B,339, 641–662 (1990),https://doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(90) 90202-O

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(90 1990

  66. [66]

    Basile, D

    I. Basile, D. Lüst, and C. Montella, JHEP, 07, 208 (2024), arXiv:2311.12113, https://doi.org/10.1007/ JHEP07(2024)208

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  67. [67]

    S.-J. Lee, W. Lerche, and T. Weigand, JHEP,02, 190 (2022), arXiv:1910.01135,https://doi.org/10.1007/ JHEP02(2022)190

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  68. [68]

    Antoniadis, E

    I. Antoniadis, E. Gava, and K. S. Narain, Phys. Lett. B,283, 209–212 (1992), hep-th/9203071,https://doi. org/10.1016/0370-2693(92)90009-S

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/0370-2693(92)90009-s 1992

  69. [69]

    M. B. Green and P. Vanhove, Phys. Rev. D,61, 104011 (2000), hep-th/9910056,https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevD.61.104011

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  70. [70]

    Ooguri, Soryushiron Kenkyu,70(3), 231–249, in Japanese (1984),https://doi.org/10.24532/soken.70

    H. Ooguri, Soryushiron Kenkyu,70(3), 231–249, in Japanese (1984),https://doi.org/10.24532/soken.70. 3_231

    work page doi:10.24532/soken.70 1984

  71. [71]

    Hörmander, The Analysis of Linear Partial Differential Operators I: Distribution Theory and Fourier Analysis, Classics in Mathematics

    L. Hörmander, The Analysis of Linear Partial Differential Operators I: Distribution Theory and Fourier Analysis, Classics in Mathematics. (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2 edition, 2003),https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-642-61497-2

    2003

  72. [72]

    R. P. Kanwal, Generalized Functions: Theory and Technique, (Birkhäuser, Boston, MA, 2 edition, 1998), https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-0035-9

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-0035-9 1998

  73. [73]

    I. M. Gel’fand and G. E. Shilov,Generalized Functions, Volume 1: Properties and Operations, volume 377 of AMS Chelsea Publishing, (American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1964)

    1964

  74. [74]

    Flajolet, X

    P. Flajolet, X. Gourdon, and P. Dumas, Theoretical Computer Science,144(1), 3–58 (1995),https://doi. org/10.1016/0304-3975(95)00002-E

    work page doi:10.1016/0304-3975(95)00002-e 1995

  75. [75]

    Bochner, Annals of Mathematics,53(2), 332–363 (1951)

    S. Bochner, Annals of Mathematics,53(2), 332–363 (1951)

    1951

  76. [76]

    Kanemitsu, Y

    S. Kanemitsu, Y. Tanigawa, and M. Yoshimoto, Developments in Mathematics,8 (01 2002), https://doi. org/10.1007/978-1-4757-3675-5_10

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-3675-5_10 2002

  77. [77]

    A. F. Lavrik, Mathematics of the USSR-Izvestiya, 36(3), 519 (jun 1991), https://doi.org/10.1070/ IM1991v036n03ABEH002033

    1991

  78. [78]

    Kanemitsu, Y

    S. Kanemitsu, Y. Tanigawa, and M. Yoshimoto, Abhandlungen aus dem Mathematischen Seminar der Universität Hamburg, 72(1), 187–206 (dec 2002),https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02941671

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02941671 2002

  79. [79]

    B. C. Berndt, Y. Lee, and J. Sohn,Koshliakovs Formula and Guinands Formula in Ramanujans Lost Notebook, pages 1–22, Springer New York, New York, NY (2008),https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-78510-3_2

    work page doi:10.1007/978-0-387-78510-3_2 2008

  80. [80]

    G. N. WATSON, The Quarterly Journal of Mathematics,os-2(1), 298–309 (01 1931),https://doi.org/10. 1093/qmath/os-2.1.298

    1931

Showing first 80 references.