A new functional RG flow: regulator-sourced 2PI versus average 1PI

Elizabeth Alexander; Jordan Nursey; Paul M. Saffin; Peter Millington

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 27 references

A new functional RG flow: regulator-sourced 2PI versus average 1PI

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Replacing the standard average-1PI functional RG flow with the regulator-sourced 2PI flow changes the scale evolution of a quartic scalar: the vacuum minimum and the cosmological constant run faster, and the quartic coupling runs slightly…

desk verdict A transparent but coarse comparison of a new 2PI-based RG flow against Wetterich; the algebra checks out, but an uncontrolled closure for ∂tω leaves the quantitative claims shaky. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02214 v1 pith:DD4Z2A2X submitted 2019-08-06 hep-th cond-mat.stat-mech

Elizabeth Alexander , Peter Millington , Jordan Nursey , Paul M. Saffin This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-thcond-mat.stat-mech MSC 81T17 PACS 11.10.Hi

keywords functionalrenormalizationgrouptwo-particleirreducibleeffectiveactionregulator-sourcedflowequationaverage1PILitimregulatorquarticscalartheoryspontaneoussymmetrybreakingbetafunctions

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 paper establishes that two functional renormalization-group schemes—the standard average one-particle-irreducible (1PI) flow and a regulator-sourced two-particle-irreducible (2PI) flow—do not yield the same beta functions for the same scalar theory. The comparison is made for a quartic scalar potential with spontaneous symmetry breaking, using the Litim regulator, lowest-order derivative expansion, and zero anomalous dimension. In four dimensions, the position of the potential minimum and the cosmological constant run faster under the 2PI flow, while the quartic coupling runs slightly slower than in the standard 1PI flow; similar qualitative behavior appears in $d=2$ and $d=3$. The result matters because the choice of RG flow can change nonperturbative predictions, such as the asymptotic-safety scenario for gravity and the scale evolution of the Standard Model Higgs potential.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the regulator-sourced 2PI flow equation (4a) and its threshold functions $\ell_n^d(\omega_k)$ and $\delta\ell_n^d(\omega_k)$, with $\omega_k\equiv (U_k'(\rho)+2\rho U_k''(\rho))/(k^2\bar Z_k)$, evaluated at $\rho=\bar\rho_k$ so that $\omega_k=2\kappa_k\lambda_k$. The $\delta\ell$ functions isolate the effect of the additional Legendre transform. Under the Litim regulator they become analytic but acquire a term proportional to $\partial_t\omega_k$; the paper closes the system by keeping only tree-level contributions, which gives $\partial_t\omega_k=-2\omega_k$. That identity is what converts the flow equations (16) into the explicit $\beta$ functions (24) that can be compared directly with the standard 1PI results (25).

What would settle it

Recompute the threshold functions (15) without imposing Eq. (21): substitute the full $\beta_\kappa$ and $\beta_\lambda$ from Eqs. (16b,c) into the expression (20) for $\partial_t\omega_k$, solve the coupled flow equations numerically, and compare the trajectories of $\kappa_k$, $\lambda_k$, and $\Lambda_k/k^d$ with the analytic solutions of Eqs. (24). If the trajectories differ by more than the expected truncation error, the explicit $\beta$ functions (24) are artifacts of the dropped loop terms rather than robust predictions of the regulator-sourced 2PI flow.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the extra Legendre transform with respect to the regulator in the 2PI framework changes the flow equation itself, from $\partial_k \Gamma_{\mathrm{1PI}}=-\tfrac12 \mathrm{STr}(\Delta_k \partial_k R_k)$ to $\partial_k \Gamma_{\mathrm{2PI}}=+\tfrac12 \mathrm{STr}(R_k \partial_k \Delta_k)$, with the two differing by the generally nonzero term $\tfrac12\partial_k(R_k\Delta_k)$. Applied to the ansatz $U_k(\rho)=\tfrac12 g_k(\rho-\bar\rho_k)^2+\Lambda_k$ under the Litim regulator, lowest-order derivative expansion, and $\eta_k=0$, this difference enters through the threshold functions $\delta\ell_n^d(\omega_k)$, which depend on $\partial_t\omega_k$. With the tree-level reduction $\partial_t\omega_k=-2\omega_k$, the paper obtains the analytic $\beta$ functions (24), in which $\kappa_k$ and $\Lambda_k/k^d$ run faster and $\lambda_k$ runs slightly slower than the corresponding standard-1PI results (25) in $d=4$. The authors present these as the leading differences between the two flows, with the same qualitative pattern in $d=2$ and $d=3$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the replacement $\partial_t\omega_k=-2\omega_k$ (Eq. (21)), which is obtained by keeping only tree-level contributions and thereby discards the regulator-sourced loop corrections to the flow of the dimensionless mass parameter; if those loop corrections are included, the threshold functions $\delta\ell_n^d$ and the resulting $\beta$ functions in Eq. (24) change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Under the stated truncations, the two flows are inequivalent: $\kappa_k$ and $\Lambda_k/k^d$ run faster in the regulator-sourced 2PI flow in $d=3$ and $d=4$, while $\lambda_k$ runs slightly slower.
The dependence of the 2PI threshold functions on $\partial_t\omega_k$ means the flow equations are not closed without the tree-level reduction $\partial_t\omega_k=-2\omega_k$; this approximation is what produces the explicit beta functions (24).
The anomalous dimension $\eta_k$ comes from the flow of the two-point function and will differ between the two schemes, so the comparison made here, at $\eta_k=0$, captures only part of the scheme dependence.
If the 2PI flow is the physically correct RG, nonperturbative results built on the standard 1PI flow—such as asymptotic-safety fixed points and the scale evolution of the Standard-Model Higgs potential—would need to be rederived.

Reading between the lines

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

By extension, fixed-point searches in gravity-matter systems should be repeated with the regulator-sourced 2PI flow; the faster running of the vacuum energy found here is exactly the kind of effect that can move a fixed point or eliminate it.
A natural next test is to compute $\eta_k$ from the 2PI flow of the two-point function: if it differs significantly from the 1PI value, the zero-anomalous-dimension comparison underestimates the difference between the schemes.
In $d=3$, the low-order 2PI beta functions could be used to extract critical exponents of the $\mathbb{Z}_2$ universality class; comparing those with lattice results would show whether the new flow is quantitatively viable or only qualitatively alike.
The same regulator-sourced construction could be applied to other regulators, and the persistence of the faster vacuum running would indicate the effect is a structural feature rather than an artifact of this particular regulator choice.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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

The one thing to know: this is a short, honest paper that derives the first explicit beta functions for the quartic scalar with spontaneous symmetry breaking using the regulator-sourced 2PI flow from the authors' prior work, and compares them to the standard Wetterich results. The derivation is transparent—I checked the algebra from Eqs. (16) to (24) and it is internally consistent given the stated assumptions. The differences in four dimensions are real but small: κ and Λ run faster, λ runs slightly slower. The authors clearly mark everything as approximate and say so in the abstract and conclusions.

What is genuinely new: the explicit threshold functions and beta functions in Eqs. (19)–(24). The application to the Litim regulator with lowest-order derivative expansion and vanishing anomalous dimension makes the comparison clean. The paper is also honest about its own coarse approximations, which is good.

The soft spot is Eq. (21). The 2PI threshold function depends on ∂tω, and Eq. (20) makes ∂tω depend on the same beta functions the threshold function is supposed to determine. The paper closes this loop by dropping the loop (threshold) contributions and setting ∂tω = -2ω, claiming this is consistent to first order in ℏ. But this is not a controlled approximation: it is not justified by the derivative expansion or any small parameter. The stress-test note is right that at a fixed point, where βκ = βλ = 0, Eq. (20) gives ∂tω = 3(2-d)κλ, which equals -2ω only in d = 10/3. So the threshold functions used in Eq. (24) are not the ones that describe the neighborhood of a fixed point. The sign and magnitude of the changes in κ, Λ, and λ could shift if one used a consistent ∂tω. That means the paper's main quantitative claims—faster-running κ and Λ, slower-running λ—are not yet established.

I would not call this fatal. The paper is a letter, and the authors are open about the approximation. But the inconsistency at fixed points is a concrete problem that a referee should ask them to address. The fact that the underlying flow equation comes mostly from the same group is worth noting but not disqualifying, since the beta functions are derived rather than fitted.

Who is this for? People working on functional RG scheme dependence, asymptotic safety, or non-perturbative Higgs running. They will find the comparison useful, but they should treat the numerical differences as tentative until the ∂tω closure is fixed. I would send it to peer review—a referee can handle this in one pass—but I would not cite it yet for the quantitative claims. It deserves a serious referee, not a desk reject.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This letter derives renormalization-group flow equations for a quartic scalar theory with spontaneous symmetry breaking, starting from the regulator-sourced 2PI flow equation (4a) proposed in the authors' companion work. Working at lowest order in the derivative expansion, with the Litim regulator and zero anomalous dimension, the paper obtains analytic threshold functions (19)-(23) and the beta functions (24) for the cosmological constant, the dimensionless minimum position κk, and the quartic coupling λk. These are compared with the corresponding Wetterich-Morris-Ellwanger results (25) for the same truncation and regulator. The authors find that κk and Λk evolve faster with scale under the 2PI flow, while λk evolves slightly slower, and they suggest possible implications for asymptotic safety and the Standard Model Higgs sector.

Significance. If the derivation is sound, this is a useful first quantitative comparison of a genuinely different functional RG flow equation with the standard Wetterich flow. The paper is transparent and explicit: the threshold functions are evaluated analytically in closed form, the truncation is stated, and the comparison with the standard 1PI flow is made under identical approximations. The algebraic steps from the flow equation to the beta functions are easy to follow and, conditional on the closure assumption discussed below, the calculation is reproducible. The potential implications for asymptotic-safety and Higgs-sector studies make the question worth pursuing. However, the central quantitative claims rest on a closure of the flow for ωk that is not controlled, and the paper provides no independent benchmark of the regulator-sourced 2PI flow equation itself.

major comments (2)

[Eqs. (16)-(24), especially Eq. (21)] The flow equations (16b,c) do not close until ∂tωk is specified, because the threshold functions δl0, δl1, δl2 depend on ∂tωk through Eq. (19b) and the iterative definitions (17a,b). The paper fixes ∂tωk = -2ωk in Eq. (21) by 'keeping only the tree-level contributions,' but this is an uncontrolled truncation of the exact relation (20): the contributions from βκ and βλ are dropped without a small parameter that justifies their neglect. The inconsistency is visible at any fixed point: if βκ = βλ = 0, Eq. (20) reduces to ∂tωk = 3(2-d)κkλk, which equals -2ωk = -4κkλk only for d = 10/3. Hence the threshold functions used in Eq. (24) are not the ones that describe the neighbourhood of a fixed point for d = 2, 3, 4, and the reported differences in the running rates shown in Fig. 1 are not established unless the closure is recomputed consistently from the full βκ and βλ.
[Eq. (4a) and Section 'A new functional RG flow'] The paper takes the regulator-sourced 2PI flow equation (4a) from the authors' companion work (Ref. [6]) without benchmarking it against any independent known result. Since all subsequent differences with the standard Wetterich flow trace back to this single input, the internal consistency of the rest of the derivation does not by itself validate the central claim. A concrete check would be to evaluate Eq. (4a) for a solvable limit, such as the large-N O(N) model or the one-loop effective potential in the k→0 limit, and compare with the corresponding Wetterich results; without such a benchmark, a discrepancy in Eq. (24) could originate in Eq. (4a) rather than in the physical threshold behaviour.

minor comments (4)

[After Eq. (25)] The sentence 'the flow of λκ is slower' appears to contain a typo; the subscript should be λk, consistent with the notation used elsewhere.
[Eq. (20)] Eq. (20) is presented as following from Eq. (12c), but it is actually the total scale derivative of ωk after substitution of the parameter flows; stating this explicitly and indicating that all quantities are evaluated at ρ = ρ̄k would remove ambiguity in the subsequent step.
[Fig. 1] The solid and dashed curves are nearly indistinguishable for λk and especially in the d = 4 panel; adding an inset showing the ratio of the two evolutions would make the claimed small difference visible and quantifiable.
[Eq. (9)] The reduction of the 2PI flow equation to Eq. (9) for constant ρ is stated without derivation; a few lines showing how ∂tΓ2PI[φ,Δk] at constant ρ becomes the integral over Rk∂tΔk would improve readability.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The regulator-sourced 2PI flow equation is imported from the authors' own prior work and is load-bearing; the subsequent LPA calculation is explicit and benchmarked against the standard Wetterich flow.

self citation load bearing [Introduction, Eqs. (3)-(4a); used again in Eq. (9)]
"Recently, however, it was shown [6] that an alternative derivation, based on an approach to the two-particle irreducible (2PI) effective action [7] due to Garbrecht and Millington [8] (see also Ref. [9]) in which the role of the sources is fully exploited, leads to a different flow equation. ... The two distinct flow equations are as follows: ∂kΓ2PI[φ, ∆k] = + ℏ 2 STr (Rk∂k∆k), (4a)"

Equation (4a) is the only new dynamical input: every subsequent result (Eqs. (9), (16), (19)-(24)) follows from applying the derivative expansion and Litim regulator to it. The paper does not re-derive or independently benchmark Eq. (4a) here; it is imported from Ref. [6], whose author list is identical to the present paper, with the framework attributed to Refs. [8,9] (overlapping authorship via Millington and Saffin). Thus the central comparative claim about faster-running κ and Λ rests on a same-group citation rather than on an external derivation in this text. This is a load-bearing self-citation, but not a definitional reduction: the algebra from Eq. (4a) to Eq.

full rationale

The beta functions (24) are derived, not fitted: no parameter is adjusted to force the stated differences, and the comparison against the Wetterich-Morris-Ellwanger equations (25) is an external, literature-based baseline. The main circularity-relevant feature is that the starting flow equation (4a) is the authors' own prior result (Ref. [6], same author list; framework Refs. [8,9] with overlapping authors) and is load-bearing for the whole calculation. That raises the score to 4. The other flagged issue, Eq. (21), is not circularity: the paper explicitly chooses the tree-level contribution to ∂tω to evaluate the threshold functions. That is an approximation choice, not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The fact that the resulting beta functions may not reproduce ∂tω = -2ω at fixed points (for example, Eq. (20) would give ∂tω = 3(2-d)κλ when βκ = βλ = 0) is a consistency and correctness concern about the truncation, not an equivalence between input and output. No definitional loop, uniqueness import, or renaming of a known result is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is an analytic derivation with no fitted parameters. It rests on the self-cited alternative flow equation from Ref. [6], the quartic truncation, the neglect of anomalous dimension, and the tree-level approximation in Eq. (21). No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The regulator-sourced 2PI flow equation (4a) is the correct flow for the effective action defined in Eq. (3).
Treated as input from the authors' previous paper (Ref. [6]); not rederived or benchmarked here.
domain assumption The quartic ansatz Eq. (6), truncating all higher powers of (ρ - ρbar), is sufficient at lowest order in the derivative expansion.
Dropping an infinite series of terms is a truncation without an error estimate.
domain assumption Z_k = Zbar_k (z_k = 1) and anomalous dimension η_k = 0 in threshold functions.
Stated explicitly; affects quantitative accuracy and is known to differ between approaches.
ad hoc to paper ∂tω = -2ω from tree-level contributions, Eq. (21).
This step is central to the analytic form of δl; it discards loop corrections to ∂tω.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A new functional RG flow: regulator-sourced 2PI versus average 1PI." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DD4Z2A2X

@misc{pith2026190802214,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A new functional RG flow: regulator-sourced 2PI versus average 1PI},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DD4Z2A2X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02214}
}

read the original abstract

We derive the renormalization group evolution of the quartic scalar theory with spontaneous symmetry breaking from an alternative flow equation, obtained within the externally sourced two-particle irreducible framework due to Garbrecht and Millington. In order to make a straightforward comparison with the evolution from the standard Wetterich-Morris-Ellwanger equation, we employ the Litim regulator, work to lowest order in the derivative expansion and neglect anomalous scaling. By this means, we illustrate the leading differences between analytic expressions for the resulting threshold and (non-perturbative) beta functions. In four dimensions, we find that the positions of the potential minima and the cosmological constant evolve more rapidly with scale compared to the standard approach, whereas the quartic coupling evolves more slowly, albeit by a small amount. These differences may have implications for the asymptotic safety programme, as well as our understanding of the non-perturbative scale evolution of the Standard Model Higgs sector.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02214 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

[6]

Alternative flow equation for the functional renormalization group

E. Alexander, P. Millington, J. Nursey and P. M. Saﬃn, An alternative ﬂow equation for the functional renormal- ization group, arXiv:1907.06503 [hep-th]

work page Pith review arXiv 1907
[1]

Wetterich, Exact evolution equation for the eﬀec- tive potential, Phys

C. Wetterich, Exact evolution equation for the eﬀec- tive potential, Phys. Lett. B 301 (1993) no. 1, 90–94 [arXiv:1710.05815 [hep-th]]

arXiv 1993
[2]

T. R. Morris, The exact renormalization group and ap- proximate solutions, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A9 (1994) no. 14, 2411–2449 [hep-ph/9308265]

arXiv 1994
[3]

Ellwanger, Flow equations for N point functions and bound states, Z

U. Ellwanger, Flow equations for N point functions and bound states, Z. Phys. C 62 (1994) no. 3, 503–510 [hep- ph/9308260]

arXiv 1994
[4]

Reuter, Nonperturbative evolution equation for quan- tum gravity, Phys

M. Reuter, Nonperturbative evolution equation for quan- tum gravity, Phys. Rev. D57 (1998) no. 2, 971–985 [hep- th/9605030]

arXiv 1998
[5]

Wetterich, Average action and the renormalization group equations, Nucl

C. Wetterich, Average action and the renormalization group equations, Nucl. Phys. B 352 (1991) no. 3, 529– 584

work page 1991
[7]

J. M. Cornwall, R. Jackiw and E. Tomboulis, Eﬀective action for composite operators, Phys. Rev. D 10 (1974) no. 8, 2428–2445

work page 1974
[8]

Garbrecht and P

B. Garbrecht and P. Millington, Constraining the eﬀec- tive action by a method of external sources, Nucl. Phys. B 906 (2016) 105–132 [arXiv:1509.07847 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2016

Show all 27 references

[9]

Millington and P

P. Millington and P. M. Saﬃn, Visualising quantum ef- fective action calculations in zero dimensions, in press J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. [arXiv:1905.09674 [hep-th]]

1905 arXiv
[10]

Berges, N

J. Berges, N. Tetradis and C. Wetterich, Nonperturbative renormalization ﬂow in quantum ﬁeld theory and statis- tical physics, Phys. Rep. 363 (2002) no. 4–6, 223–386 [hep-ph/0005122]

2002 arXiv
[11]

J. M. Pawlowski, Aspects of the functional renormali- sation group, Ann. Phys. 322 (2007) no. 12, 2831–2915 [hep-th/0512261]

2007 arXiv
[12]

Gies, Introduction to the functional RG and applica- tions to gauge theories, in Renormalization Group and Eﬀective Field Theory Approaches to Many-Body Sys- tems, eds

H. Gies, Introduction to the functional RG and applica- tions to gauge theories, in Renormalization Group and Eﬀective Field Theory Approaches to Many-Body Sys- tems, eds. A. Schwenk and J. Polonyi, Lect. Notes Phys. 852 (2012) 287–348 [hep-ph/0611146]

2012 arXiv
[13]

O. J. Rosten, Fundamentals of the exact renormal- ization group, Phys. Rep. 511 (2012) no. 4, 177–272 [arXiv:1003.1366 [hep-th]]

2012 arXiv
[14]

D. F. Litim, Critical exponents from optimized renormal- ization group ﬂows, Nucl. Phys. B 631 (2002) nos. 1–2, 128–158 [hep-th/0203006]

2002 arXiv
[15]

Weinberg, Ultraviolet divergencies in quantum the- ories of gravitation, in General Relativity: An Einstein Centenary Survey , eds

S. Weinberg, Ultraviolet divergencies in quantum the- ories of gravitation, in General Relativity: An Einstein Centenary Survey , eds. S. W. Hawking and W. Israel (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1979), p. 790– 809

1979
[16]

Shaposhnikov and C

M. Shaposhnikov and C. Wetterich, Asymptotic safety of gravity and the Higgs boson mass, Phys. Lett. B 683 (2010) nos. 2–3, 196-200 [arXiv:0912.0208 [hep-th]]

2010 arXiv
[17]

Eichhorn and H

A. Eichhorn and H. Gies, Ghost anomalous dimension in asymptotically safe quantum gravity, Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) no. 10, 104010 [arXiv:1001.5033 [hep-th]]

2010 arXiv
[18]

J. A. Dietz and T. R. Morris, Asymptotic safety in the f(R) approximation, J. High Energy Phys. JHEP01(2013)108 [arXiv:1211.0955 [hep-th]]

2013 arXiv
[19]

D. F. Litim and F. Sannino, Asymptotic safety guaran- teed, JHEP 1412 (2014) 178 [arXiv:1406.2337 [hep-th]]

2014 arXiv
[20]

Falls, D

K. Falls, D. F. Litim, K. Nikolakopoulos and C. Rahmede, Further evidence for asymptotic safety of quantum gravity, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) no. 10, 104022 [arXiv:1410.4815 [hep-th]]

2016 arXiv
[21]

A. D. Bond and D. F. Litim, Theorems for asymptotic safety of gauge theories, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) no. 6, 429 [Erratum: Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) no. 8, 525] [arXiv:1608.00519 [hep-th]]

2017 arXiv
[22]

K. G. Falls, D. F. Litim and J. Schr¨ oder, Aspects of asymptotic safety for quantum gravity, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) no. 12, 126015 [arXiv:1810.08550 [gr-qc]]

2019 arXiv
[23]

Niedermaier and M

M. Niedermaier and M. Reuter, The asymptotic safety scenario in quantum gravity, Living Rev. Relativ. 9 (2006) 5

2006
[24]

Codello, R

A. Codello, R. Percacci and C. Rahmede, Investigating the ultraviolet properties of gravity with a Wilsonian renormalization group equation, Ann. Phys. 324 (2009) no. 2, 414–469 [arXiv:0805.2909 [hep-th]]

2009 arXiv
[25]

Reuter and F

M. Reuter and F. Saueressig, Quantum Einstein gravity, New J. Phys. 14 (2012) 055022 [arXiv:1202.2274 [hep- th]]

2012 arXiv
[26]

Eichhorn, An asymptotically safe guide to quantum gravity and matter, Front

A. Eichhorn, An asymptotically safe guide to quantum gravity and matter, Front. Astron. Space Sci. 5 (2019) 47 [arXiv:1810.07615 [hep-th]]

2019 arXiv
[27]

Eichhorn, H

A. Eichhorn, H. Gies, J. Jaeckel, T. Plehn, M. M. Scherer and R. Sondenheimer, The Higgs mass and the scale of new physics, JHEP 1504 (2015) 022 [arXiv:1501.02812 [hep-ph]]

2015 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [6]

Alternative flow equation for the functional renormalization group

E. Alexander, P. Millington, J. Nursey and P. M. Saﬃn, An alternative ﬂow equation for the functional renormal- ization group, arXiv:1907.06503 [hep-th]

work page Pith review arXiv 1907

[2] [1]

Wetterich, Exact evolution equation for the eﬀec- tive potential, Phys

C. Wetterich, Exact evolution equation for the eﬀec- tive potential, Phys. Lett. B 301 (1993) no. 1, 90–94 [arXiv:1710.05815 [hep-th]]

arXiv 1993

[3] [2]

T. R. Morris, The exact renormalization group and ap- proximate solutions, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A9 (1994) no. 14, 2411–2449 [hep-ph/9308265]

arXiv 1994

[4] [3]

Ellwanger, Flow equations for N point functions and bound states, Z

U. Ellwanger, Flow equations for N point functions and bound states, Z. Phys. C 62 (1994) no. 3, 503–510 [hep- ph/9308260]

arXiv 1994

[5] [4]

Reuter, Nonperturbative evolution equation for quan- tum gravity, Phys

M. Reuter, Nonperturbative evolution equation for quan- tum gravity, Phys. Rev. D57 (1998) no. 2, 971–985 [hep- th/9605030]

arXiv 1998

[6] [5]

Wetterich, Average action and the renormalization group equations, Nucl

C. Wetterich, Average action and the renormalization group equations, Nucl. Phys. B 352 (1991) no. 3, 529– 584

work page 1991

[7] [7]

J. M. Cornwall, R. Jackiw and E. Tomboulis, Eﬀective action for composite operators, Phys. Rev. D 10 (1974) no. 8, 2428–2445

work page 1974

[8] [8]

Garbrecht and P

B. Garbrecht and P. Millington, Constraining the eﬀec- tive action by a method of external sources, Nucl. Phys. B 906 (2016) 105–132 [arXiv:1509.07847 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2016