Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 66 references

Stochastic dynamics for group field theories II: Methods for nonequilibrium renormalization group

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that a stochastically quantized group field theory can leave equilibrium at infrared scales, with fluctuation-dissipation-breaking operators becoming relevant near finite-scale singularities of the renormalization group fl

desk verdict A credible methodological extension of the authors' equilibrium FRG for TGFTs to non-equilibrium dynamics, with new Ward-closed beta functions for FDT-breaking couplings; but the central claim of an IR non-equilibrium transition rests on an unproven derivative hypothesis and thin numerics. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.05507 v1 pith:GQW47ZUL submitted 2025-09-05 hep-th math-phmath.MP

Vincent Lahoche , Dine Ousmane Samary This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thmath-phmath.MP
keywords stochasticquantizationtensorialgroupfieldtheoryfunctionalrenormalizationfluctuation-dissipationtheoremWardidentitiesmelonicsectornonequilibriumphasetransitionMartin-Siggia-Roseformalism
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 develops a renormalization-group formalism for a stochastically quantized tensorial group field theory (a non-local field theory motivated by quantum gravity) without assuming the dynamics stays in equilibrium. The authors work with a just-renormalizable Abelian toy model and extend their earlier equilibrium setup by adding 'bigamous' operators, interactions with two response fields, which violate the fluctuation-dissipation theorem. Using the dominance of non-branching melonic diagrams together with Ward identities, they close the infinite flow hierarchy and obtain closed beta functions for the bigamous couplings. Their numerical solutions show that, along trajectories whose equilibrium flow would hit a finite-scale singularity, an infinitesimal fluctuation-dissipation violation stays small until the singular scale and then grows strongly, temporarily resolving the singularity; the paper interprets this as a discontinuous phase transition to a non-equilibrium regime that may be the model's infrared reality. The paper also claims that no reliable global fixed point exists in the bigamous non-branching melonic sector at leading order of the derivative expansion.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the non-branching melonic sector together with the Ward identities of the stochastic theory. Melonic diagrams dominate the ultraviolet flow, and the effective vertex expansion expresses the sextic couplings and momentum derivatives through the quartic couplings using Schwinger-Dyson relations; Ward identities constrain the same quantities, closing the hierarchy. The new element is the 'bigamous' parametrization, interactions with two response fields, with couplings that break the fluctuation-dissipation theorem. The computation of the anomalous dimension and of the bigamous beta functions uses a Litim-type regulator while keeping the regulator itself time-revers

What would settle it

Evaluate the derivative of the ultraviolet Ward-identity kernel directly, using the full truncated propagators instead of setting it to zero, and rerun the numerical flow near the singular scale; the claimed transition is settled by whether the bigamous couplings still fly away. An independent check is to include a single branched-melonic contribution and see whether the finite-scale singularity still resolves.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the infrared physics of the toy tensorial group field theory is generically not equilibrium physics. In the symmetric phase, non-branching melonic diagrams dominate, and Ward identities are available because the kinetic term breaks unitary invariance; together these close the otherwise infinite system of flow equations. Relaxing time-reversal symmetry introduces three new couplings, the bigamous ones associated with two response fields. Solving the closed Ward-constrained flow shows that no reliable global fixed point exists in this sector at leading derivative expansion. More strikingly, along a flow that would end in a finite-scale singularity under equilibrium dy

Load-bearing premise

The closed flow equations depend on the assumption that the ultraviolet part of the Ward-identity kernel does not change along the flow (Eq. 5.30), and on the non-branching melonic sector remaining the whole theory down to the infrared singularity; if either fails, the fly-away of the bigamous couplings may be an artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Equilibrium truncations of stochastic group field theories cannot be trusted in regimes where the equilibrium flow is singular; the singularity signals non-normalizability of the equilibrium state rather than a mere approximation failure.
  • Operators forbidden by perturbation theory can become relevant near the singularity, so truncations that exclude them miss the infrared phase transition.
  • The absence of a reliable global fixed point at leading derivative expansion implies the infrared is not described by scale-invariant equilibrium criticality in this sector.
  • The Ward-identity plus melonic closure method is transferable to other group field theories and to stochastically quantized non-local models.
  • Small fluctuation-dissipation violations do not grow along regular trajectories, so equilibrium dynamics remains stable away from singularities.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the fly-away persists beyond the approximation that the ultraviolet part of the Ward-identity kernel is stationary, then equilibrium-based phase diagrams for group field theory condensate cosmology may need revision toward a non-equilibrium infrared phase.
  • The bigamous coupling that stabilizes at a nonzero constant value could serve as an order parameter for the non-equilibrium phase; studying how its late-time value scales with the initial perturbation would calibrate the transition.
  • A direct numerical evaluation of the neglected term in the Ward-identity derivative could decide whether the claimed discontinuous transition survives without the simplifying hypothesis.
  • The analogy with spin-glass and disordered dynamics models suggests a 4PI effective-action formalism might confirm the transition directly, a step the paper leaves for later work.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper continues the authors' stochastic-quantization functional renormalization group (FRG) program for group field theories. It studies a rank-5 Abelian U(1) tensorial group field theory with Langevin dynamics, and extends the previous equilibrium analysis to out-of-equilibrium regimes by allowing 'bigamous' interactions that violate the fluctuation-dissipation theorem. The hierarchy of melonic flow equations is closed using Ward identities derived in the symmetric phase, yielding explicit beta functions for the mass, quartic couplings, anomalous dimension, and the new bigamous couplings (Eqs. (5.3), (5.5), (5.15), (5.16), (5.58), (5.60), with the Ward constraints (5.35) and (5.41)). Numerical integration shows that a small FDT-breaking perturbation remains small until the equilibrium flow hits a finite-scale singularity, at which point the bigamous couplings 'fly away' and then partly relax, leaving one coupling (\(\bar\Delta\)) at a constant nonzero value. The paper interprets this as evidence for a discontinuous phase transition to a non-equilibrium IR regime and states (Claim 1) that no reliable global fixed point exists in the bigamous non-branching melonic sector at leading order of the derivative expansion.

Significance. The paper is a methodological contribution: it constructs a Ward-constrained closure of the melonic FRG hierarchy in a nonequilibrium stochastic setting, with explicit equations and a clearly stated toy model. The equilibrium limit is correctly recovered, and the authors are candid about several limitations of the derivative expansion and the non-branching sector. If the key hypothesis used to close the Ward identities can be justified, the method could become a useful toolbox for nonequilibrium TGFTs. However, the central physical conclusion—that a discontinuous transition to a non-equilibrium IR regime occurs—rests on an unproven hypothesis about the scale derivative of a UV Ward-identity contribution, and on numerical ODE solutions whose method and tolerances are not given. These issues are load-bearing and need to be addressed before the main claim can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.4, Figures 14–16; §3.3, Eq. (3.15)] The hypothesis \(\dot L^{(\infty)}(k)\approx 0\) is load-bearing. The Ward identity (5.21) is differentiated to obtain (5.28), and the subsequent constraints (5.35), (5.41) and the closed expressions for \(\bar\lambda'\), \(\bar\lambda'_2\) in (5.58) and (5.60) all rely on dropping \(\dot L^{(\infty)}\) from \(\dot L=\dot L^{(\infty)}+\dot L^{(0)}\). But \(L^{(\infty)}\) in (5.24) is a k-dependent integral containing \(Z_\infty\), the running propagators and \(\lambda(k)\); the derivative acts on these k-dependent objects, so 'Z_\infty-suppressed UV integrals' does not imply that the logarithmic derivative vanishes. The paper itself warns (Section 4, after Eq. (4.13)) that evaluating unbounded UV integrals with the truncation leads to paradoxes. If \(\dot L^{(\infty)}\) is not negligible, the Ward constraints change and the numerical fly-away of \(\bar\lambda_2,\bar\Delta,\bar\Delta'\),
  2. [§5.4, numerical method] The central numerical conclusion is obtained by integrating the flow across and beyond the finite-scale singularity, into a regime where the non-branching melonic truncation and the derivative expansion are not justified. Section 3.3 states that the non-branching melonic sector is stable in the deep UV regime, and the Conclusion concedes the method's 'focus on the UV regime.' Yet Figures 14–15 show the flow through \(-\ln k\approx 0.35\) and beyond, and the 'IR reality' claim refers to the large-scale regime. No control parameter (for example, comparison with subleading bubbles or next order in the derivative expansion) is provided in the singularity region. The fly-away could be a truncation artifact. The authors should specify the domain of validity of the flow equations and check whether the fly-away persists under controlled extensions of the truncation.
  3. [§5.4, final paragraph] The decisive phenomenon—the fly-away of \(\bar\lambda_2,\bar\Delta,\bar\Delta'\) at the equilibrium singularity and the subsequent relaxation—is demonstrated only by numerical ODE integration. The paper gives no integration method, step-size control, tolerances, or code; the initial perturbation is fixed at \(10^{-8}\) without discussion of sensitivity. Near a singularity, numerical blow-up and genuine divergence are hard to distinguish, and the conclusion that the system 'avoids' the singularity depends on the trajectory passing through a stiff region. Please provide numerical details and a sensitivity analysis (varying the initial \(\bar\lambda_2\) from \(10^{-10}\) to \(10^{-6}\) and varying solver tolerances), or make the code available.
  4. [§5.4, final paragraph] The inference from the observed flow to a discontinuous phase transition is underevidenced. The text itself states that the interpretation is 'indirect' and 'based on an analogy.' A discontinuous transition normally requires an order parameter with a discontinuity across a control parameter; the presented trajectory merely shows that a tiny FDT-breaking coupling changes the flow near a singularity, leaving one coupling constant at a small value. The statement 'likely corresponds to the IR reality of the system' goes beyond what a truncated, sector-restricted toy model can support. Please either weaken the conclusion to 'instability of the equilibrium truncation' or provide additional diagnostics (e.g., a phase diagram in the initial-condition plane or an order-parameter analysis).
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (5.17)] The first term on the right-hand side should likely be \(2\bar\Delta'\) rather than \(2\bar\Delta\), for consistency with Eq. (5.8).
  2. [Section 3.5, after Eq. (3.33)] The sentence 'In (5.4), only the two first ones diagrams ...' refers to an equation in Section 3.5; it should refer to Eq. (3.26) (or (3.33)), not to Eq. (5.4).
  3. [Section 5.2, after Eq. (5.3)] 'η is again given by equation (5.76)' should refer to Eq. (5.10) (or (5.9)), not to a later equation in Section 5.5.
  4. [Section 5.4, first paragraph] 'Figures 14, 14, and 14 summarize the main results' should read 'Figures 14, 15, and 16.'
  5. [Eq. (3.15)] The deep-UV condition is printed as \(\Lambda\ll k\ll 1\), which is dimensionally inconsistent with \(\Lambda\) a UV cutoff. Presumably \(\Lambda\gg k\gg 1\) (in appropriate units) is intended; please correct.
  6. [End of Section 4, first paragraph] The citation '[samary2014closed]' is not a numbered reference in the bibliography; it should be replaced by the proper numbered entry.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the non-equilibrium flow and the 'fly-away' instability are obtained by explicit computation from a stated truncation and Ward-identity closure hypotheses, not by re-labelling an input as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is a continuation of the authors' prior equilibrium FRG work [16,27,28], but the non-equilibrium results are not equivalent to the inputs by construction. The Ward identity (5.21), 2λL = Z∞ − Z, is derived in the paper from the path-integral Ward-Takahashi identity; it is a constraint, not a restatement of the predicted instability. The closure equations (5.35) and (5.41) are used to fix κ_dyn and κ2_dyn, and then (5.58) and (5.60) give λ′ and λ2′. The numerical 'fly-away' of the bigamous couplings (Figs. 14–15) is a property of the resulting closed ODE system, obtained by integrating these equations; no fitted parameter is relabelled as a prediction. The most fragile step is indeed the explicit hypothesis Ẍ^(∞)(k) ≈ 0 (Eq. 5.30), together with the neglect of Z∞-suppressed UV integrals. This is load-bearing for the explicit Ward-closed β-functions, and if it fails the closed flow changes. However, an unproven approximation, even a load-bearing one, is not circularity: the derivation does not define the target quantity in terms of the input, and the paper itself flags the associated difficulties (the warning that truncation-based evaluation of unbounded UV integrals leads to paradoxes, and the concluding admission that the method relies on the non-branching sector and 'its focus on the UV regime'). Self-citations to [16,27,28] supply the equilibrium renormalization results (Z∞, the Ward-identity structure, the melonic closure) used as machinery, but those results concern the equilibrium theory and do not assume the non-equilibrium instability they are used to discover. No equation was found to reduce to another by definition, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work to force the choice of the bigamous sector. The paper is therefore not circular, though its physical conclusions remain dependent on uncontrolled approximations.

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

The central claim rests on a chain of approximations: the stochastic process specification, melonic dominance, symmetric-phase truncation, and several continuum-limit identities. The most fragile entry is the hypothesis \dot L^{(\infty)} \approx 0 (Eq. 5.30), introduced ad hoc to close the Ward-constrained flow. The paper adds no new physical entities; the FDT-breaking couplings are minimal effective operators allowed by the kinetic truncation.

free parameters (2)
  • Initial conditions for the RG flow = m^2(0)=0.1, lambda(0)=0.1, lambda_2(0)=1e-8 (Eq. 5.70); m^2(0)=0.9, lambda(0)=0.1 (Eq. 5.71)
    The claimed instability and its resolution depend on the chosen initial conditions. The paper demonstrates the behavior for a few trajectories and states that many other regions behave similarly, but provides no systematic scan. The results are not parameter-free.
  • Truncation order = Restrict to sextic order for monogamous, quartic for bigamous interactions
    The truncation is chosen by hand consistent with power counting; errors from neglected operators (momentum dependence of bigamous vertices, bigamous sextics, non-melonic terms) are estimated only heuristically.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Langevin dynamics with white Gaussian noise and the Ito prescription (theta(0)=0) define the stochastic process.
    Section 2, Eqs. (2.5)-(2.6), (2.14); the path integral representation and the Fokker-Planck equation rely on this.
  • domain assumption Melonic graphs dominate and the non-branching melonic sector is stable in the deep UV regime Lambda << k << 1.
    Section 3.3, Definition 3 and the text following: the whole computation is restricted to this sector, with non-melonic contributions discarded.
  • domain assumption The response field does not propagate: G_{chi\bar chi}=0 to all orders, and causal regulators preserve this.
    Eq. (2.28) and the regulator ansatz (3.5); this underpins the closure of the hierarchy and the Ward identities.
  • domain assumption The symmetric phase expansion around zero classical fields is valid.
    Section 3.5; the truncation is expanded in powers of the classical field, discarding phase with nonzero expectation value.
  • domain assumption Continuum limit replacements of lattice sums by integrals and the equilibrium Z_infty formula (Z_infty^{-1} ~ ln Lambda) carry over to the non-equilibrium regime.
    Sections 3.5 and 5.3, e.g., Eq. (5.25); the UV parts L^{(\infty)} and A^{(\infty)} are argued to vanish via Z_infty suppression.
  • ad hoc to paper \dot L^{(\infty)}(k) \approx 0 (the scale derivative of the UV Ward-identity contribution vanishes).
    Eq. (5.30), introduced as a 'reasonable hypothesis' without proof; used to derive the final Ward-constrained beta functions (5.58), (5.60).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stochastic dynamics for group field theories II: Methods for nonequilibrium renormalization group." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GQW47ZUL

@misc{pith2026250905507,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stochastic dynamics for group field theories II: Methods for nonequilibrium renormalization group},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GQW47ZUL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.05507}
}
read the original abstract

This paper is a continuation of our earlier work, which aimed to develop methods for understanding the renormalization group of tensorial group field theories within the stochastic quantization framework. In that first study, we showed that the equations governing melonic structures, together with Ward identities, make it possible to close the hierarchy of flow equations, thereby reproducing the results of equilibrium theory. In the present work, we go further by extending the formalism to the out-of-equilibrium regime, while also examining the stability of dynamical equilibrium, specifically, potential violations of the fluctuation-dissipation theorem. Our objective here is purely methodological, and we focus on a simplified ``toy'' Abelian model that retains only the characteristic non-localities of group field theories.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.05507 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A typical Feynman graph for d = 3, involving 3 bubble vertices. graph, where black and white nodes correspond to the fields φ and φ¯, respectively, and colored edges represent Kronecker delta contractions in the definition of the interaction. Explicitly, for d = 3: ≡ Z Y 3 i=1 dgidg′ iφ(g1, g2, g3) ¯φ(g1, g′ 2 , g′ 3 )φ(g ′ 1 , g′ 2 , g′ 3 ) ¯φ(g ′ 1 , g2, g3). (2.21) Such an interaction pattern of a connected graph… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Structure of the non-branching melons, from the smallest one [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of the mapping G → ∂G for a 6-points Feynman diagram in rank 3. 3.5 Method for computing β-functions Before closing this section, let us illustrate how to compute the β-functions. In this paper, we focus on the symmetric phase, that is, we expand the effective average ac￾tion in powers of the classical field. Moreover, the truncation is taken to be linear in the response field, which is expected to be a… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Typical contributions involved on the right hand side of the flow equation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Typical behavior of the RG flow in the vicinity of the Gaussian fixed point, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The non-branching melons involving two response fields. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Contributions for the contribution of bigamous vertices to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Contributions for the contribution of bigamous vertices to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Sextic (κ2) contribution to the flow of λ¯ 2. We will also need to improve our calculation of the flow of ∆′ , taking into account, as we did for η, the vertex-specific moment dependence. We obtain by a similar calculation: ¯˙∆ ′ = 2∆¯ − 2π 2λ¯′ 2 1 + ∆ + 2∆¯ ′/3 (1 + …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Behavior of the RG flow for the initial conditions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Behavior of the anomalous dimension for L1 (in blue) and for L2 (in yellow). -1.0 -0.5 0.5 1.0 m2 -6 -4 -2 2 4 Δ -1.0 -0.5 0.5 1.0 m2 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 λ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Behavior of λ¯ and ∆ on the fixed point line L1. 38 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: On the top: behavior of the RG flow for the initial conditions: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Influence of a small deviation of the exact FDT (yellow curve) on a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Behavior of the bigamous interactions along the trajectory. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Behavior of the RG flow around a convergent trajectory, including a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p043_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Weinberg.The quantum theory of fields

    S. Weinberg.The quantum theory of fields. Vol. 2. Cambridge university press, 1995

    work page 1995

  2. [2]

    Zwiebach.A first course in string theory

    B. Zwiebach.A first course in string theory. Cambridge university press, 2004

    work page 2004

  3. [3]

    Rovelli.Quantum gravity

    C. Rovelli.Quantum gravity. Cambridge university press, 2004. 45

    work page 2004

  4. [5]

    Group Field Theory: An Overview

    L. Freidel. “Group Field Theory: An Overview.” In:International Journal of Theoretical Physics44.10 (2005), pp. 1769–1783.doi:10.1007/s10773-005- 8894-1

    doi:10.1007/s10773-005- 2005

  5. [6]

    Ten questions on Group Field Theory (and their tentative answers)

    A. Baratin and D. Oriti. “Ten questions on Group Field Theory (and their tentative answers).” In:J. Phys. Conf. Ser.360 (2012). Ed. by G. A. Mena Marugan, J. F. G. Barbero, L. J. Garay, E. J. S. Villasenor, and J. Olmedo, p. 012002.doi:10 . 1088 / 1742 - 6596 / 360 / 1 / 012002. arXiv:1112 . 3270 [gr-qc]

    work page 2012

  6. [7]

    Tensorial Group Field Theory condensate cosmology as an example of spacetime emergence in quantum gravity

    D. Oriti. “Tensorial Group Field Theory condensate cosmology as an example ofspacetimeemergenceinquantumgravity.”In:arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.02585 (2021)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  7. [8]

    Hilbert space formalisms for group field theory

    S. Gielen. “Hilbert space formalisms for group field theory.” In:Classical and Quantum Gravity42.8 (2025), p. 083001

    work page 2025

  8. [9]

    2D gravity and random ma- trices

    P. Francesco, P. Ginsparg, and J. Zinn-Justin. “2D gravity and random ma- trices.” In:Physics Reports254.1-2 (1995), pp. 1–133.doi:10.1016/0370- 1573(94)00084- g.url:https://doi.org/10.1016%2F0370- 1573%2894% 2900084-g

    doi:10.1016/0370- 1995

Show all 66 references
  1. [10]

    Invitation to Random Tensors

    R. G. and. “Invitation to Random Tensors.” In:Symmetry, Integrability and Geometry: Methods and Applications(2016).doi:10.3842/sigma.2016.094. url:https://doi.org/10.3842%2Fsigma.2016.094

    2016 doi

  2. [11]

    Gurau.Random tensors

    R. Gurau.Random tensors. Oxford University Press, 2017

    2017

  3. [12]

    Discrete renormalization group for SU(2) tensorial group field theory

    S. Carrozza. “Discrete renormalization group for SU(2) tensorial group field theory.”In:Ann. Inst. H. Poincare D Comb. Phys. Interact.2.1(2015),pp.49– 112.doi:10.4171/aihpd/15. arXiv:1407.4615 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  4. [13]

    Renormalization of a SU(2) Tensorial Group Field Theory in Three Dimensions

    S. Carrozza, D. Oriti, and V. Rivasseau. “Renormalization of a SU(2) Tensorial Group Field Theory in Three Dimensions.” In:Commun. Math. Phys.330 (2014), pp. 581–637.doi:10.1007/s00220-014-1928-x. arXiv:1303.6772 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  5. [14]

    Renormalization of Tensorial Group Field Theories: Abelian U(1) Models in Four Dimensions

    S. Carrozza, D. Oriti, and V. Rivasseau. “Renormalization of Tensorial Group Field Theories: Abelian U(1) Models in Four Dimensions.” In:Commun. Math. Phys.327 (2014), pp. 603–641.doi:10.1007/s00220- 014- 1954- 8. arXiv: 1207.6734 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  6. [15]

    Flowing in Group Field Theory Space: a Review

    S. Carrozza, and and. “Flowing in Group Field Theory Space: a Review.” In: Symmetry, Integrability and Geometry: Methods and Applications(2016).doi: 10.3842/sigma.2016.070. 46

    2016 doi

  7. [16]

    Pedagogical comments about non- perturbative Ward-constrained melonic renormalization group flow

    V. Lahoche and D. Ousmane Samary. “Pedagogical comments about non- perturbative Ward-constrained melonic renormalization group flow.” In:Phys. Rev. D101.2 (2020), p. 024001.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.024001. arXiv: 2001.00934 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  8. [17]

    Renormalization group flow of coupled tensorial group field theories: Towards the Ising model on random lattices

    V. Lahoche, D. Ousmane Samary, and A. D. Pereira. “Renormalization group flow of coupled tensorial group field theories: Towards the Ising model on random lattices.” In:Phys. Rev. D101.6 (2020), p. 064014.doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.101.064014. arXiv:1911.05173 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  9. [18]

    Large-dbehavior of the Feynman am- plitudes for a just-renormalizable tensorial group field theory

    V. Lahoche and D. Ousmane Samary. “Large-dbehavior of the Feynman am- plitudes for a just-renormalizable tensorial group field theory.” In:Phys. Rev. D103.8 (2021), p. 085006.doi:10 . 1103 / PhysRevD . 103 . 085006. arXiv: 1911.08601 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  10. [19]

    Renormalizable group field theory beyond melonic diagrams: An example in rank four

    S. Carrozza, V. Lahoche, and D. Oriti. “Renormalizable group field theory beyond melonic diagrams: An example in rank four.” In:Physical Review D 96.6 (2017).doi:10.1103/physrevd.96.066007.url:https://doi.org/ 10.1103%2Fphysrevd.96.066007

    2017 doi

  11. [20]

    Asymptotic safety in three-dimensional SU(2) group field theory: evidence in the local potential approximation

    S. Carrozza and V. Lahoche. “Asymptotic safety in three-dimensional SU(2) group field theory: evidence in the local potential approximation.” In:Classical and Quantum Gravity34.11 (2017), p. 115004.doi:10.1088/1361- 6382/ aa6d90.url:https://doi.org/10.1088%2F1361-6382%2Faa6d90

    2017 doi

  12. [21]

    Functional renormalization group analysis of tensorial group field theories onRd

    J. B. Geloun, R. Martini, and D. Oriti. “Functional renormalization group analysis of tensorial group field theories onRd.” In:Physical Review D94.2 (2016).doi:10.1103/physrevd.94.024017

    2016 doi

  13. [22]

    Functional Renormalization Group analysis of a Tensorial Group Field Theory onR 3

    J. B. Geloun, R. Martini, and D. Oriti. “Functional Renormalization Group analysis of a Tensorial Group Field Theory onR 3.” In:EPL (Europhysics Letters)112.3 (2015), p. 31001.doi:10.1209/0295-5075/112/31001

    2015 doi

  14. [23]

    Functional renor- malization group analysis of rank-3 tensorial group field theory: The full quar- tic invariant truncation

    J. B. Geloun, T. A. Koslowski, D. Oriti, and A. D. Pereira. “Functional renor- malization group analysis of rank-3 tensorial group field theory: The full quar- tic invariant truncation.” In:Physical Review D97.12 (2018).doi:10.1103/ physrevd.97.126018

    2018

  15. [24]

    Phase transitions in tensorial group field theories: Landau-Ginzburg analysis of models with both local and non-local degrees of freedom

    L. Marchetti, D. Oriti, A. G. A. Pithis, and J. Thürigen. “Phase transitions in tensorial group field theories: Landau-Ginzburg analysis of models with both local and non-local degrees of freedom.” In:JHEP21 (2020), p. 201.doi: 10.1007/JHEP12(2021)201. arXiv:2110.15336 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  16. [25]

    (No) phase transition in tensorial group field theory

    A. G. Pithis and J. Thürigen. “(No) phase transition in tensorial group field theory.” In:Physics Letters B816 (2021), p. 136215

    2021

  17. [26]

    Ward identity violation for melonic T 4-truncation

    V. Lahoche and D. Ousmane Samary. “Ward identity violation for melonic T 4-truncation.” In:Nucl. Phys. B940 (2019), pp. 190–213.doi:10.1016/j. nuclphysb.2019.01.005. arXiv:1809.06081 [hep-th]. 47

    2019 arXiv

  18. [27]

    Stochasticdynamicsforgroupfieldthe- ories

    V.LahocheandD.OusmaneSamary.“Stochasticdynamicsforgroupfieldthe- ories.”In:Physical Review D107.8(2023),p.086009.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 107.086009

    2023 doi

  19. [28]

    Nonperturbativerenormalizationgroup beyondmelonicsector:TheEffectiveVertexExpansionmethodforgroupfields theories

    V.LahocheandD.OusmaneSamary.“Nonperturbativerenormalizationgroup beyondmelonicsector:TheEffectiveVertexExpansionmethodforgroupfields theories.” In:Phys. Rev. D98.12 (2018), p. 126010.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 98.126010. arXiv:1809.00247 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  20. [29]

    Rovelli.Quantum Spacetime

    C. Rovelli.Quantum Spacetime. Ed. by A. Ashtekar and V. Petkov. 2014, pp. 751–757.doi:10.1007/978-3-642-41992-8_36

    2014 doi

  21. [30]

    Von Neumann algebra automorphisms and time thermodynamics relation in general covariant quantum theories

    A. Connes and C. Rovelli. “Von Neumann algebra automorphisms and time thermodynamics relation in general covariant quantum theories.” In:Class. Quant. Grav.11 (1994), pp. 2899–2918.doi:10.1088/0264-9381/11/12/007. arXiv:gr-qc/9406019

    1994 arXiv

  22. [31]

    Oriti.Levels of spacetime emergence in quantum gravity

    D. Oriti.Levels of spacetime emergence in quantum gravity. 2018.doi:10. 48550/ARXIV.1807.04875.url:https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.04875

    2018 doi arXiv

  23. [32]

    Oriti.The complex timeless emergence of time in quantum gravity

    D. Oriti.The complex timeless emergence of time in quantum gravity. 2021. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2110.08641.url:https://arxiv.org/abs/2110. 08641

    2021 doi arXiv

  24. [33]

    Effective dynamics of scalar cosmological pertur- bations from quantum gravity

    L. Marchetti and D. Oriti. “Effective dynamics of scalar cosmological pertur- bations from quantum gravity.” In:JCAP07.07 (2022), p. 004.doi:10.1088/ 1475-7516/2022/07/004. arXiv:2112.12677 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  25. [34]

    A relational Hamiltonian for group field theory

    E. Wilson-Ewing. “A relational Hamiltonian for group field theory.” In:Phys. Rev. D99.8 (2019), p. 086017.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.086017. arXiv: 1810.01259 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  26. [35]

    Group field theory for quantum gravity mini- mallycoupledtoascalarfield

    Y. Li, D. Oriti, and M. Zhang. “Group field theory for quantum gravity mini- mallycoupledtoascalarfield.”In:Class. Quant. Grav.34.19(2017),p.195001. doi:10.1088/1361-6382/aa85d2. arXiv:1701.08719 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  27. [36]

    Oriti.Tensorial Group Field Theory condensate cosmology as an example of spacetime emergence in quantum gravity

    D. Oriti.Tensorial Group Field Theory condensate cosmology as an example of spacetime emergence in quantum gravity. 2021.doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2112. 02585

    2021 doi

  28. [37]

    Livi and P

    R. Livi and P. Politi.Nonequilibrium statistical physics: a modern perspective. Cambridge University Press, 2017

    2017

  29. [38]

    Zinn-Justin.Quantum field theory and critical phenomena

    J. Zinn-Justin.Quantum field theory and critical phenomena. Vol. 77. Interna- tional Series of Monographs on Physics. Oxford University Press, Apr. 2021. isbn: 978-0-19-850923-3, 978-0-19-883462-5

    2021

  30. [39]

    Zinn-Justin.From random walks to random matrices

    J. Zinn-Justin.From random walks to random matrices. Oxford Graduate Texts, 2019

    2019

  31. [40]

    Just Renormalizable TGFT’s onU(1) d withGaugeInvariance

    D. Ousmane Samary and F. Vignes-Tourneret. “Just Renormalizable TGFT’s onU(1) d withGaugeInvariance.”In:Commun. Math. Phys.329(2014),pp.545– 578.doi:10.1007/s00220-014-1930-3. arXiv:1211.2618 [hep-th]. 48

    2014 arXiv

  32. [41]

    Symmetries of generating func- tionals of Langevin processes with colored multiplicative noise

    C. Aron, G. Biroli, and L. F. Cugliandolo. “Symmetries of generating func- tionals of Langevin processes with colored multiplicative noise.” In:J. Stat. Mech.1011 (2010), P11018.doi:10 . 1088 / 1742 - 5468 / 2010 / 11 / P11018. arXiv:1007.5059 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2010 arXiv

  33. [42]

    AnIntroductiontotheNonperturbativeRenormalizationGroup

    B.Delamotte.“AnIntroductiontotheNonperturbativeRenormalizationGroup.” In:Renormalization Group and Effective Field Theory Approaches to Many- Body Systems. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012, pp. 49–132.doi:10.1007/ 978-3-642-27320-9_2

    2012

  34. [43]

    On truncations of the exact renormalization group

    T. R. Morris. “On truncations of the exact renormalization group.” In:Physics Letters B334.3-4 (1994), pp. 355–362.doi:10.1016/0370-2693(94)90700-5

    1994 doi

  35. [44]

    Theexactrenormalizationgroupandapproximatesolutions

    T.R.MORRIS.“Theexactrenormalizationgroupandapproximatesolutions.” In:International Journal of Modern Physics A09.14 (1994), pp. 2411–2449. doi:10.1142/s0217751x94000972

    1994 doi

  36. [45]

    Non-perturbative renormalization flow in quantum field theory and statistical physics

    J. Berges, N. Tetradis, and C. Wetterich. “Non-perturbative renormalization flow in quantum field theory and statistical physics.” In:Physics Reports363.4- 6 (2002), pp. 223–386.doi:10.1016/s0370-1573(01)00098-9

    2002 doi

  37. [46]

    The nonperturbative functional renormalization group and its applications

    N. Dupuis, L. Canet, A. Eichhorn, W. Metzner, J. Pawlowski, M. Tissier, and N. Wschebor. “The nonperturbative functional renormalization group and its applications.” In:Physics Reports910 (2021), pp. 1–114.doi:10.1016/j. physrep.2021.01.001

    2021 doi

  38. [47]

    Frequency regulators for the nonperturbative renormalization group: A general study and the model A as a benchmark

    C. Duclut and B. Delamotte. “Frequency regulators for the nonperturbative renormalization group: A general study and the model A as a benchmark.” In: Phys. Rev. E95.1 (2017), p. 012107.doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.95.012107. arXiv:1611.07301 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2017 arXiv

  39. [48]

    Optimisation of the exact renormalisation group

    D. F. Litim. “Optimisation of the exact renormalisation group.” In:Physics Letters B486.1-2 (2000), pp. 92–99.doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(00)00748-6

    2000 doi

  40. [49]

    Phase transitions in TGFT: functional renor- malization group in the cyclic-melonic potential approximation and equiva- lence to O (N) models

    A. G. Pithis and J. Thürigen. “Phase transitions in TGFT: functional renor- malization group in the cyclic-melonic potential approximation and equiva- lence to O (N) models.” In:Journal of High Energy Physics2020.12 (2020), pp. 1–54.doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2020)159

    2020 doi

  41. [50]

    Generalframeworkofthenon-perturbative renormalization group for non-equilibrium steady states

    L.Canet,H.Chate,andB.Delamotte.“Generalframeworkofthenon-perturbative renormalization group for non-equilibrium steady states.” In:J. Phys. A44 (2011), p. 495001.doi:10.1088/1751- 8113/44/49/495001. arXiv:1106. 4129 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2011 doi

  42. [51]

    Functional renormalisation group approach for tensorial group field theory: a rank-3 model

    D. Benedetti, J. B. Geloun, and D. Oriti. “Functional renormalisation group approach for tensorial group field theory: a rank-3 model.” In:Journal of High Energy Physics2015.3 (2015).doi:10.1007/jhep03(2015)084. 49

    2015 doi

  43. [52]

    Functional renormalization group approach for tensorial group field theory: a rank-6 model with closure constraint

    D. Benedetti and V. Lahoche. “Functional renormalization group approach for tensorial group field theory: a rank-6 model with closure constraint.” In: Classical and Quantum Gravity33.9 (2016), p. 095003.doi:10.1088/0264- 9381/33/9/095003.url:https://doi.org/10.1088%2F0264-9381...

    2016 doi

  44. [53]

    No Ward-Takahashi identity violation for Abelian tensorial group field theories with a closure con- straint

    V. Lahoche, B.-B. B. Natta, and D. Ousmane Samary. “No Ward-Takahashi identity violation for Abelian tensorial group field theories with a closure con- straint.” In:Phys. Rev. D104.10 (2021), p. 106013.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 104.106013. arXiv:2108.10979 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  45. [54]

    Functional renormalization group for “p= 2

    V. Lahoche and D. Ousmane Samary. “Functional renormalization group for “p= 2” like glassy matrices in the planar approximation III. Equilibrium dynamics and beyond.” In:Nuclear Physics B1006 (2024), p. 116656.doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2024.116656

    2024

  46. [55]

    Finite-scale singularity in the renormalization group flow of a reaction-diffusion system

    D. Gredat, H. Chaté, B. Delamotte, and I. Dornic. “Finite-scale singularity in the renormalization group flow of a reaction-diffusion system.” In:Physical Review E89.1 (2014), p. 010102.doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.89.010102

    2014 doi

  47. [56]

    Large time effective kinet- icsβ-functions for quantum (2+ p)-spin glass

    V. Lahoche, D. Ousmane Samary, and P. Radpay. “Large time effective kinet- icsβ-functions for quantum (2+ p)-spin glass.” In:Annals of Physics(2025), p. 170102.doi:10.1016/j.aop.2025.170102

    2025

  48. [57]

    Time-translation invariance symmetry breaking hidden by finite-scale singularities

    I.Achitouv,V.Lahoche,D.OusmaneSamary,andP.Radpay.“Time-translation invariance symmetry breaking hidden by finite-scale singularities.” In:arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.11619(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  49. [58]

    Constructing the low-temperature phase diagram for the2+p-quantum spin glass using the nonperturbative renormalization group

    I. Achitouv, V. Lahoche, D. Ousmane Samary, and P. Radpay. “Constructing the low-temperature phase diagram for the2+p-quantum spin glass using the nonperturbative renormalization group.” In:arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.12247 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  50. [59]

    Renormalizationgroupflowasoptimaltransport

    J.CotlerandS.Rezchikov.“Renormalizationgroupflowasoptimaltransport.” In:Physical Review D108.2 (July 2023).issn: 2470-0029.doi:10 . 1103 / physrevd.108.025003

    2023

  51. [60]

    Con- vergence of Nonperturbative Approximations to the Renormalization Group

    I. Balog, H. Chaté, B. Delamotte, M. Marohnić, and N. Wschebor. “Con- vergence of Nonperturbative Approximations to the Renormalization Group.” In:Physical Review Letters123.24 (Dec. 2019).issn: 1079-7114.doi:10 . 1103 / physrevlett . 123 . 240604.url:http : / / dx . doi . org...

    2019

  52. [61]

    Stochastic melonic kinetics with random initial conditions

    B. W. Kpera, V. Lahoche, and D. Ousmane Samary. “Stochastic melonic kinetics with random initial conditions.” In:Nuclear Physics B991 (2023), p. 116188.doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2023.116188

    2023

  53. [62]

    Ward identities and local potential approximation for large time quantum (2+ p)- spin glass dynamics

    B.-B. B. Natta, V. Lahoche, D. Ousmane Samary, and P. Radpay. “Ward identities and local potential approximation for large time quantum (2+ p)- spin glass dynamics.” In:arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.11089(2024). 50

    2024 arXiv

  54. [63]

    The quantump-spin renor- malization group in the largeNlimit as a benchmark for functional renormal- ization group

    V. Lahoche, D. Ousmane Samary, and P. Radpay. “The quantump-spin renor- malization group in the largeNlimit as a benchmark for functional renormal- ization group.” In:arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.17600(2024)

    2024

  55. [64]

    Modified fluctuation-dissipation the- orem for general non-stationary states and applicationto the Glauber–Ising chain

    G. Verley, R. Chetrite, and D. Lacoste. “Modified fluctuation-dissipation the- orem for general non-stationary states and applicationto the Glauber–Ising chain.” In:Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment2011.10 (2011), P10025.doi:10.1088/1742-5468/2011/10/P10025

    2011 doi

  56. [65]

    Functional renormal- ization group for multilinear disordered Langevin dynamics II: Revisiting the p= 2 spin dynamics for Wigner and Wishart ensembles

    V. Lahoche, D. Ousmane Samary, and M. Tamaazousti. “Functional renormal- ization group for multilinear disordered Langevin dynamics II: Revisiting the p= 2 spin dynamics for Wigner and Wishart ensembles.” In:Journal of Physics Communications7.5 (2023), p. 055005.doi:10.1088/23...

    2023 doi

  57. [66]

    Functional renormalization group for the U(1)-T6 5 tensorial group field theory with closure constraint

    V. Lahoche and D. Ousmane Samary. “Functional renormalization group for the U(1)-T6 5 tensorial group field theory with closure constraint.” In:Phys. Rev. D95.4 (2017), p. 045013.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.045013. arXiv: 1608.00379 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  58. [67]

    Large-d behavior of the Feynman am- plitudes for a just-renormalizable tensorial group field theory

    V. Lahoche and D. Ousmane Samary. “Large-d behavior of the Feynman am- plitudes for a just-renormalizable tensorial group field theory.” In:Physical Review D103.8 (2021), p. 085006.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.085006. 51

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.