Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 52 references

A fermion mass can be defined off shell, gauge-invariant at every virtuality, by cancelling gauge dependence segment by segment on the internal line.

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

2026-07-10 07:37 UTC pith:DJQHNPZY

load-bearing objection Solid one-loop QED construction that elevates a known PT equality into a usable off-shell mass function; all-orders QCD claims remain schematic and open. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.08426 v1 pith:DJQHNPZY submitted 2026-07-09 hep-th

Gauge-Invariant Off-Shell Mass

Kang-Sin Choi , Hyeseon Im This is my paper
classification hep-th
keywords gauge-invariant mass functionoff-shell masspinch techniqueWard-Takahashi identityfermion self-energyCompton amplitudeprocess independence
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.

In quantum field theory the physical pole mass is gauge-invariant, but the conventional self-energy that dresses an internal fermion line is gauge-dependent away from the pole. This paper claims that the dependence is not truly global: the Ward–Takahashi identity fires locally at the two vertices that bound each interval of a fermion line and cancels every gauge-dependent piece on that interval alone. What remains is the Feynman-gauge self-energy, which can be renormalized on shell to produce a mass function m(q) that is gauge-invariant and process-independent at every momentum, equals the physical mass at the pole, and has no residual scheme dependence once expressed in on-shell parameters. The same self-energy yields an infrared-finite scalar mass function that can be compared directly with Schwinger–Dyson and lattice determinations. The construction is demonstrated for the off-shell Compton amplitude, extended to arbitrarily many external photons by a telescoping sum rule, and outlined for non-Abelian theories and higher loops. If correct, the internal fermion line becomes a well-defined object whose mass is continuous with the asymptotic mass rather than an unphysical gauge artifact.

Core claim

The gauge-dependent part of a fermion self-energy on any internal interval is cancelled exactly by the Ward–Takahashi identity acting at the two vertices that bound that interval, so the generalized self-energy equals the ordinary self-energy evaluated in Feynman gauge at every off-shell momentum. On-shell renormalization of that object produces a mass function m(q) that is gauge-invariant, process-independent, scheme-independent in on-shell parameters, and equal to the physical mass at the pole.

What carries the argument

Segment-local Ward–Takahashi identity (extended pinch technique): each longitudinal insertion fires an identity that telescopes only inside its own fermion segment, never crossing an external photon vertex; the resulting four-sector sum rule cancels every interior gauge-dependent contribution and leaves the Feynman-gauge self-energy on that segment.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that the construction continues to all loop orders and to multi-gluon non-Abelian processes rests on an inductive lattice argument and a segment-local cancellation table that the paper itself marks as not yet fully closed.

What would settle it

An explicit two-loop or multi-external-gluon calculation in which the segment-local sum rule fails to cancel a residual gauge-parameter dependence that cannot be absorbed into the modified vertex or crossed channels, leaving a gauge-dependent piece inside the extracted fermion self-energy.

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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a gauge-invariant, process-independent off-shell fermion mass function m(q) by extending the pinch technique to an arbitrarily long fermion line. Segment-local application of the Ward–Takahashi identity cancels the (1−ξ) longitudinal pieces of the self-energy on each internal interval, yielding ˆΣ(q)=Σ_ξ(q)|_ξ=1. On-shell renormalization then produces m(q)=m+ˆΣ_ren(q) with m(m)=m and unit residue; an infrared-finite scalar companion ˆM(q²) is extracted for comparison with Schwinger–Dyson and lattice results. The one-loop QED case is demonstrated explicitly via the off-shell Compton amplitude and generalized by an (a,b) sum rule to arbitrary external-photon multiplicity; non-Abelian and all-orders extensions are outlined.

Significance. If the construction holds, it supplies a missing gauge-invariant, scheme-independent definition of the full momentum-dependent fermion mass function, filling the gap between the single-point pole mass and the scheme-dependent MS running mass. The explicit one-loop QED Compton calculation and the algebraic (a,b) sum rule are concrete strengths; the infrared-finite scalar mass ˆM(q²) is directly comparable with existing SDE and lattice determinations. The elevation of m(q) to a primary object, rather than a byproduct of the PT–BFM equivalence, is a useful conceptual clarification even if the higher-order and non-Abelian steps remain incomplete.

major comments (3)
  1. Section 9.4 states that the all-orders argument is only an inductive sketch on an L-dimensional placement lattice, not a closed combinatorial proof. The claim that m(q) is defined to all orders therefore rests on an unclosed step; either a complete lattice argument or an explicit two-loop verification beyond the cited Binosi–Papavassiliou result is needed before the all-orders statement can be asserted.
  2. Section 7.5 explicitly leaves the multi-segment non-Abelian extension with external gluons (and the associated ghost rows) as an open structural problem. Consequently the claim that the same m(q) is available to all orders in QCD is not secured by the present manuscript; the one-loop CF inheritance (Eq. 81) is solid, but the general-n gluon-segment case is not.
  3. Section 5.3 introduces a residual one-parameter family of reference gauges ξ0 that leave m_ξ0(q) physically equivalent after reshuffling into the vertex. The paper adopts ξ0=1 as canonical, yet the existence of this family should be stated more prominently when claiming uniqueness of the mass function, so that readers understand what is fixed by gauge independence versus what remains a dressing choice.
minor comments (4)
  1. The abstract and introduction assert that the construction holds “to all orders” and “in non-Abelian gauge theory,” while Sections 7.5 and 9.4 qualify both statements as open. Align the front-matter language with the body.
  2. Figure 2 is dense; a clearer labeling of the trapped-pinch residue for the (2,2) sector would help the reader follow the cancellation table of Section 3.6.
  3. The infrared structure of m(q) versus ˆM(q²) (Section 6.2) is carefully explained, but a short explicit one-loop formula for ˆM(q²) in QED would make the comparison with lattice/SDE literature more immediate.
  4. References [4] and [8,9] are the authors’ own related preprints; a sentence clarifying what is new relative to those works would help the reader place the present contribution.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

Minor self-citation to the authors' prior introduction of m(q); the WTI cancellation and ˆΣ=Σ_F are independently calculated (and recover a known PT identity), while m(m)=m is ordinary on-shell renormalization by construction.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Introduction; Sec. 5.3 (reference-gauge family)]
    "The gauge-invariant mass function was introduced in [4]; in this work, we carry out the underlying construction in detail. ... Locality therefore selects no preferred ξ_0, and the family is physical, each m_ξ0 being the mass function of the fermion in the corresponding dressing [4,46]. We adopt ξ_0 = 1 throughout as the canonical representative"

    The conceptual claim that the off-shell mass function is the primary physical object, and that the residual ξ_0 family consists of physically equivalent dressings, is justified by citation to the same lead author's prior arXiv note [4] (and [46]). The one-loop cancellation algebra does not depend on [4], so this is not load-bearing for ˆΣ=Σ_F; it is a mild self-citation supporting the interpretive elevation of m(q) rather than an external uniqueness theorem forcing the result.

  2. self definitional [Sec. 6.1, Eqs. (54)–(57)]
    "Define the renormalized gauge-invariant self-energy by the on-shell subtraction ˆΣ_ren(q)=ˆΣ(q)−ˆΣ(m)−(/q−m)ˆΣ′(m) ... The renormalized mass function is defined by absorbing the entire renormalized self-energy into the mass m(q)=m+ˆΣ_ren(q). ... The two on-shell conditions enforce 1. ˆΣ_ren(m)=0, which gives m(q)|_/q=m =m. The mass function at the pole equals the physical mass by construction."

    Equality of the mass function to the physical pole mass is imposed by the definition of on-shell subtraction, not derived from dynamics. The paper states this is 'by construction.' This is standard renormalization bookkeeping rather than a fitted or predicted equality, so it is only weakly circular in the rubric sense and does not force the off-shell content of m(q).

full rationale

The load-bearing one-loop derivation is self-contained: the off-shell Compton pinching (Sec. 3), the (a,b) sum rule (39), and the packaging of propagator-like pieces into ˆΣ (44)–(45) are explicit diagrammatic algebra from the tree WTI, not fitted inputs or a self-citation chain. Equality ˆΣ(q)=Σ_ξ(q)|_ξ=1 is the standard PT outcome, which the paper both re-derives and openly labels as known. On-shell subtraction (54)–(57) forces m(m)=m and unit residue by definition of the scheme; that is ordinary renormalization, not a circular prediction. No parameters are fit to data. The only mild circularity-adjacent item is reliance on the authors' prior note [4] for the conceptual elevation of m(q) as primary object and for the physical reading of the reference-gauge family; that citation is not needed for the cancellation proof itself. All-orders induction and multi-segment non-Abelian closure are left open (Secs. 7.5, 9.4)—incompleteness, not circularity. Score 2 reflects one non-load-bearing self-citation plus definitional on-shell conditions, with the central derivation independent.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 3 invented entities

The paper works entirely within standard QFT. No free parameters are fitted. The load-bearing ingredients are the exact Ward–Takahashi identity, the decomposition of the gauge-boson propagator into Feynman plus longitudinal parts, on-shell renormalization conditions, and the inductive hypothesis that the same cancellation persists order by order. Invented entities are definitional reorganizations (generalized self-energy, mass function) rather than new dynamical objects.

axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Exact Ward–Takahashi identity ℓ_μ Γ^μ(k′,k)=i[S^{-1}(k′)−S^{-1}(k)] holds for the full vertex and full inverse propagator at every order in QED.
    Used as the firing rule that produces the propagator differences; stated in §9.2 and reduced to the tree identity in §2.
  • domain assumption The longitudinal part of the photon propagator remains unrenormalized (vacuum polarization is transverse), so all ξ dependence sits in D_P∝(1−ξ)ℓ_μℓ_ν/ℓ^4 at every order.
    Required for the inductive claim that pinching removes the entire gauge-dependent piece order by order (§9.3).
  • domain assumption On-shell renormalization conditions ˆΣ_ren(m)=0 and ˆΣ_ren′(m)=0 fix the pole mass and residue uniquely in terms of physical parameters.
    Standard OS scheme; used in §6.1 to define m(q) and to remove the q-independent (a,a) residues.
  • ad hoc to paper The four-sector (+,−,−,+) sign pattern from two independent WTI firings continues to organize cancellations on the L-dimensional placement lattice at higher loops.
    The inductive step in §9 assumes the lattice telescopes without new obstructions; the paper presents this as induction rather than a completed combinatorial proof.
invented entities (3)
  • Generalized gauge-invariant self-energy ˆΣ(q) independent evidence
    purpose: Absorbs propagator-like pinch contributions so that ˆΣ equals the Feynman-gauge self-energy and is process-independent.
    Definitional reorganization of existing diagrams; independent evidence is the known PT–BFM equivalence already in the literature.
  • Renormalized off-shell mass function m(q)=m+ˆΣ_ren(q) no independent evidence
    purpose: Primary physical object: gauge-invariant mass at every virtuality with m(m)=m and unit residue.
    Constructed from ˆΣ by standard on-shell subtraction; no new dynamical degree of freedom.
  • Infrared-finite scalar mass function ˆM(q²) no independent evidence
    purpose: Companion object free of the on-shell wave-function IR divergence, directly comparable with lattice/SDE mass functions.
    Obtained by the usual A/B decomposition of ˆΣ; again definitional.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 41453 in / 3505 out tokens · 29064 ms · 2026-07-10T07:37:26.170036+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We define a gauge-invariant and renormalized off-shell mass function in quantum field theory. The conventional self-energy is gauge-dependent off-shell. We generalize the self-energy, together with the corresponding vertex function, to be gauge-invariant and process-independent. To do this, we extend the pinch technique to an arbitrarily long fermion line. The Ward-Takahashi identity acting locally at each vertex cancels the gauge-dependent piece exactly, leaving the Feynman-gauge self-energy. On-shell renormalization then yields a mass function that is gauge-invariant, scheme-independent and equal to the physical mass at the pole; the same self-energy also yields an infrared-finite scalar mass function directly comparable with Schwinger-Dyson and lattice determinations. The cancellation is local to the internal fermion line and holds entirely off-shell, so the self-energy is well-defined on each internal segment of an amplitude with arbitrarily many external photons; we demonstrate this explicitly by computing the minimal off-shell Compton amplitude.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.08426 by Hyeseon Im, Kang-Sin Choi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The four s-channel topologies of the one-loop corrected Compton process before pinching. They are classified by which segments of the fermion line carry the two endpoints of the virtual photon ℓ, namely the intermediate-line self-energy S, the right and left vertex corrections R and L and the box B. Right vertex correction R It has one virtual-photon vertex on the q-segment and the other on the p-leg iMP R… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Pinched diagrams for the four topologies. At each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Top, the pre-pinch placement [s1, s2] = [2, 6] in an n = 7 fermion line, with the virtual photon attaching at the midpoints of segments 2 and 6 (the γ2γ3 and γ6γ7 intervals), which are not vertices. Bottom, the four sectors LL, LR, RL, RR of this placement, drawn in the after-pinching picture. The two pinch insertions on segments 2 and 6 each fire L or R via the WTI, sending the pinch-photon endpoints to o… view at source ↗

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

52 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages · 29 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    On the gauge dependence of spontaneous symmetry breaking in gauge theories,

    N. K. Nielsen, “On the gauge dependence of spontaneous symmetry breaking in gauge theories,” Nucl. Phys. B101, 173 (1975)

    work page 1975

  2. [2]

    The Nielsen Identities for the Two-Point Functions of QED and QCD

    J. C. Breckenridge, M. J. Lavelle and T. G. Steele, “The Nielsen identities for the two point functions of QED and QCD,” Z. Phys. C65(1995), 155-164 doi:10.1007/BF01571316 [arXiv:hep-th/9407028 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/bf01571316 1995

  3. [3]

    The Nielsen Identities of the SM and the definition of mass

    P. Gambino and P. A. Grassi, “The Nielsen identities of the SM and the definition of mass,” Phys. Rev. D62(2000), 076002 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.62.076002 [arXiv:hep-ph/9907254 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.62.076002 2000

  4. [4]

    The Gauge-Invariant Mass Function

    K. S. Choi, “The Gauge-Invariant Mass Function,” [arXiv:2604.04569 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  5. [5]

    Dynamical mass generation in continuum quantum chromodynamics,

    J. M. Cornwall, “Dynamical mass generation in continuum quantum chromodynamics,” Phys. Rev. D26, 1453 (1982)

    work page 1982

  6. [6]

    Renormalization group improved perturbative QCD,

    G. Grunberg, “Renormalization group improved perturbative QCD,” Phys. Lett. B95, 70 (1980); “Renormalization scheme independent QCD and QED: The method of effective charges,” Phys. Rev. D29, 2315 (1984)

    work page 1980

  7. [7]

    The Gauge-Independent QCD Effective Charge

    N. J. Watson, “The gauge-independent QCD effective charge,” Nucl. Phys. B494, 388 (1997) [hep-ph/9606381]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  8. [8]

    Renormalization, Decoupling and the Hierarchy Problem

    K. S. Choi, “Renormalization, Decoupling and the Hierarchy Problem,” [arXiv:2408.06406 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  9. [9]

    Stability of the Scalar Mass against Loop Corrections

    K. S. Choi, “Stability of the Scalar Mass against Loop Corrections,” [arXiv:2410.21118 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  10. [10]

    Gauge Theories,

    E. S. Abers and B. W. Lee, “Gauge Theories,” Phys. Rept.9(1973), 1-141 doi:10.1016/0370-1573(73)90027-6 39

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-1573(73)90027-6 1973

  11. [11]

    An identity in quantum electrodynamics,

    J. C. Ward, “An identity in quantum electrodynamics,” Phys. Rev.78, 182 (1950)

    work page 1950

  12. [12]

    On the generalized Ward identity,

    Y. Takahashi, “On the generalized Ward identity,” Nuovo Cim.6, 371 (1957)

    work page 1957

  13. [13]

    Gauge invariant three gluon vertex in QCD,

    J. M. Cornwall and J. Papavassiliou, “Gauge invariant three gluon vertex in QCD,” Phys. Rev. D40, 3474 (1989)

    work page 1989

  14. [14]

    Gauge invariant proper self-energies and vertices in gauge theories with broken symmetry,

    J. Papavassiliou, “Gauge invariant proper self-energies and vertices in gauge theories with broken symmetry,” Phys. Rev. D41, 3179 (1990)

    work page 1990

  15. [15]

    Gauge invariant self-energies and vertex parts of the standard model in the pinch technique framework,

    G. Degrassi and A. Sirlin, “Gauge invariant self-energies and vertex parts of the standard model in the pinch technique framework,” Phys. Rev. D46, 3104 (1992)

    work page 1992

  16. [16]

    On the connection between the pinch technique and the background field method

    J. Papavassiliou, “On the connection between the pinch technique and the background field method,” Phys. Rev. D51, 856 (1995) [hep-ph/9410385]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  17. [17]

    Gauge-Independent Off-Shell Fermion Self-Energies at Two Loops: The Cases of QED and QCD

    D. Binosi and J. Papavassiliou, “Gauge-independent off-shell fermion self-energies at two loops: The cases of QED and QCD,” Phys. Rev. D66, 085003 (2002) [hep-ph/0110238]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  18. [18]

    Pinch technique self-energies and vertices to all orders in perturbation theory

    D. Binosi and J. Papavassiliou, “Pinch technique self-energies and vertices to all orders in perturbation theory,” J. Phys. G30, 203 (2004) [hep-ph/0301096]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  19. [19]

    Pinch Technique: Theory and Applications

    D. Binosi and J. Papavassiliou, “Pinch technique: Theory and applications,” Phys. Rept. 479, 1 (2009) [arXiv:0909.2536]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  20. [20]

    J. M. Cornwall, J. Papavassiliou and D. Binosi,The Pinch Technique and its Applications to Non-Abelian Gauge Theories(Cambridge University Press, 2011)

    work page 2011

  21. [21]

    Pinch Technique and the Batalin-Vilkovisky formalism

    D. Binosi and J. Papavassiliou, “Pinch technique and the Batalin–Vilkovisky formalism,” Phys. Rev. D66, 025024 (2002) [hep-ph/0204128]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  22. [22]

    Ward identities and charge renormalization of the Yang–Mills field,

    J. C. Taylor, “Ward identities and charge renormalization of the Yang–Mills field,” Nucl. Phys. B33, 436 (1971)

    work page 1971

  23. [23]

    Ward identities in gauge theories,

    A. A. Slavnov, “Ward identities in gauge theories,” Theor. Math. Phys.10, 99 (1972)

    work page 1972

  24. [24]

    Fermion Scattering off a CP-Violating Electroweak BubbleWall II

    S. Hashimoto, J. Kodaira, Y. Yasui and K. Sasaki, “The background field method: Al- ternative way of deriving the pinch technique’s results,” Phys. Rev. D50, 7066 (1994) [hep-ph/9407207]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  25. [25]

    Gauge invariance of Green functions: Back- ground field method versus pinch technique,

    A. Denner, G. Weiglein and S. Dittmaier, “Gauge invariance of Green functions: Back- ground field method versus pinch technique,” Phys. Lett. B333, 420 (1994) [hep- ph/9406204]

    work page arXiv 1994

  26. [26]

    Gauge invariance and mass,

    J. S. Schwinger, “Gauge invariance and mass,” Phys. Rev.125, 397 (1962); “Gauge invari- ance and mass. II,” Phys. Rev.128, 2425 (1962)

    work page 1962

  27. [27]

    Gluon mass generation in the PT-BFM scheme

    A. C. Aguilar and J. Papavassiliou, “Gluon mass generation in the PT-BFM scheme,” JHEP0612, 012 (2006) [hep-ph/0610040]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  28. [28]

    QCD effective charges from lattice data

    A. C. Aguilar, D. Binosi and J. Papavassiliou, “QCD effective charges from lattice data,” JHEP1007, 002 (2010) [arXiv:1004.1105]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  29. [29]

    Gauge-invariant truncation scheme for the Schwinger-Dyson equations of QCD

    D. Binosi and J. Papavassiliou, “Gauge-invariant truncation scheme for the Schwinger- Dyson equations of QCD,” Phys. Rev. D77, 061702 (2008) [arXiv:0712.2707]. 40

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  30. [30]

    Reflections upon the Emergence of Hadronic Mass

    C. D. Roberts and S. M. Schmidt, “Reflections upon the emergence of hadronic mass,” Eur. Phys. J. ST229, 3319 (2020) [arXiv:2006.08782]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  31. [31]

    Scaling behavior of the overlap quark propagator in Landau gauge

    J. B. Zhang, P. O. Bowman, D. B. Leinweber, A. G. Williams and F. D. R. Bonnet, “Scaling behavior of the overlap quark propagator in Landau gauge,” Phys. Rev. D70, 034505 (2004) [hep-lat/0301018]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  32. [32]

    Unquenched quark propagator in Landau gauge

    P. O. Bowman, U. M. Heller, D. B. Leinweber, M. B. Parappilly, A. G. Williams and J. B. Zhang, “Unquenched quark propagator in Landau gauge,” Phys. Rev. D71, 054507 (2005) [hep-lat/0501019]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  33. [33]

    The gauge transformation of the Green function for charged particles,

    L. D. Landau and I. M. Khalatnikov, “The gauge transformation of the Green function for charged particles,” Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.29, 89 (1955) [Sov. Phys. JETP2, 69 (1956)]; E. S. Fradkin, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.29, 258 (1955) [Sov. Phys. JETP2, 361 (1956)]

    work page 1955

  34. [34]

    The pole mass in perturbative QCD,

    R. Tarrach, “The pole mass in perturbative QCD,” Nucl. Phys. B183, 384 (1981)

    work page 1981

  35. [35]

    The pole mass of the heavy quark. Perturbation theory and beyond,

    I. I. Y. Bigi, M. A. Shifman, N. G. Uraltsev and A. I. Vainshtein, “The pole mass of the heavy quark. Perturbation theory and beyond,” Phys. Rev. D50, 2234 (1994) [hep- ph/9402360]

    work page arXiv 1994

  36. [36]

    Heavy Quark Effective Theory beyond Perturbation Theory: Renormalons, the Pole Mass and the Residual Mass Term

    M. Beneke and V. M. Braun, “Heavy quark effective theory beyond perturbation theory: Renormalons, the pole mass and the residual mass term,” Nucl. Phys. B426, 301 (1994) [hep-ph/9402364]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  37. [37]

    Theoretical considerations concerning theZ 0 mass,

    A. Sirlin, “Theoretical considerations concerning theZ 0 mass,” Phys. Rev. Lett.67, 2127 (1991)

    work page 1991

  38. [38]

    On the definition of theZboson mass,

    S. Willenbrock and G. Valencia, “On the definition of theZboson mass,” Phys. Lett. B 259, 373 (1991)

    work page 1991

  39. [39]

    Gauge invariance, analyticity and physical observables at theZ 0 resonance,

    R. G. Stuart, “Gauge invariance, analyticity and physical observables at theZ 0 resonance,” Phys. Lett. B262, 113 (1991)

    work page 1991

  40. [40]

    Pole Mass, Width, and Propagators of Unstable Fermions

    B. A. Kniehl and A. Sirlin, “Pole mass, width, and propagators of unstable fermions,” Phys. Rev. D77, 116012 (2008) [arXiv:0801.0669]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  41. [41]

    Gauge Invariance and Unstable Particles

    J. Papavassiliou and A. Pilaftsis, “Gauge invariance and unstable particles,” Phys. Rev. Lett.75, 3060 (1995) [hep-ph/9506417]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  42. [42]

    A Gauge-Independent Approach to Resonant Transition Amplitudes

    J. Papavassiliou and A. Pilaftsis, “A gauge independent approach to resonant transition amplitudes,” Phys. Rev. D53, 2128 (1996) [hep-ph/9507246]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  43. [43]

    Gauge-Invariant Resummation Formalism for Two-Point Correlation Functions

    J. Papavassiliou and A. Pilaftsis, “Gauge invariant resummation formalism for two-point correlation functions,” Phys. Rev. D54, 5315 (1996) [hep-ph/9605385]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  44. [44]

    Radiative Corrections to W and Quark Propagators in the Resonance Region

    M. Passera and A. Sirlin, “Radiative corrections toWand quark propagators in the reso- nance region,” Phys. Rev. D58, 113010 (1998) [hep-ph/9804309]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  45. [45]

    The Perturbative Pole Mass in QCD

    A. S. Kronfeld, “The perturbative pole mass in QCD,” Phys. Rev. D58, 051501 (1998) [hep-ph/9805215]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  46. [46]

    Constituent Quarks from QCD

    M. Lavelle and D. McMullan, “Constituent quarks from QCD,” Phys. Rept.279, 1 (1997) [hep-ph/9509344]. 41

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  47. [47]

    Note on the radiation field of the electron,

    F. Bloch and A. Nordsieck, “Note on the radiation field of the electron,” Phys. Rev.52, 54 (1937)

    work page 1937

  48. [48]

    Mass singularities of Feynman amplitudes,

    T. Kinoshita, “Mass singularities of Feynman amplitudes,” J. Math. Phys.3, 650 (1962)

    work page 1962

  49. [49]

    Degenerate Systems and Mass Singularities,

    T. D. Lee and M. Nauenberg, “Degenerate Systems and Mass Singularities,” Phys. Rev. 133(1964), B1549-B1562 doi:10.1103/PhysRev.133.B1549

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.133.b1549 1964

  50. [50]

    On the Observables of Renormalizable Interactions

    K.-S. Choi, “On the observables of renormalizable interactions,” [arXiv:2310.00586 [hep- ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  51. [51]

    One-Loop Correction to the Higgs Mass

    K.-S. Choi, “One-loop correction to the Higgs mass,” [arXiv:2506.18667 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  52. [52]

    Self-Similar Structure of Loop Amplitudes and Renormalization

    K. S. Choi, “Self-Similar Structure of Loop Amplitudes and Renormalization,” [arXiv:2502.19300 [hep-th]]. 42

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv