Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Ultraviolet Renormalization of Spin Boson Models I. Normal and 2-Nilpotent Interactions

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Spin boson models with normal or 2-nilpotent couplings admit a canonical ultraviolet limit: after subtracting the divergent self-energy, regularized Hamiltonians converge in norm resolvent sense to an explicit lower-semibounded operator.

desk verdict The construction in Theorem 2.5 is solid and self-contained; the 'optimal' claim in the abstract outruns the proof for the nilpotent class and leans on an imported lemma, but the paper deserves a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.04876 v1 pith:KYTQELYQ submitted 2025-02-07 math-ph math.MP

Benjamin Hinrichs , Jonas Lampart , Javier Valentín Martín This is my paper · ORCID
classification math-phmath.MP MSC 81Q1081T1647B25
keywords spinbosonmodelultravioletrenormalizationself-energydressingtransformationinteriorboundaryconditionsnormresolventconvergencevanHove2-nilpotentinteraction
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 asks when a spin boson model—a finite-level quantum system linearly coupled to a bosonic field—has a genuine ultraviolet limit once the divergent self-energy is subtracted. The answer is that the limit exists whenever the matrix describing the system's state change upon emitting or absorbing a boson is normal or 2-nilpotent (or a commuting sum of the two), which covers the standard spin boson model, the rotating-wave approximation, and their many-spin versions. The limiting Hamiltonian is constructed explicitly: a dressing (Weyl) transformation cancels the divergence in the normal case, and an interior-boundary-condition operator does so in the nilpotent case. The paper proves that the UV-regularized Hamiltonians plus the self-energy counterterm converge to this limit in norm resolvent sense, and that in the normal case the condition $(1+\omega)^{-1}v \in L^2$ is optimal: if $v/\omega \notin L^2$, no bounded-below self-energy subtraction can yield strong resolvent convergence. A sympathetic reader would care because this establishes, for the first time, norm resolvent convergence for the massless spin boson model at arbitrary coupling, with a constructive description of the renormalized operator.

What carries the argument

Two mechanisms carry the argument. The first is the generalized Weyl (dressing) operator $W(F)=e^{i\phi(iF)}$, a unitary on the full Hilbert space; for normal $V_D$ it satisfies $W(\omega^{-1}V_D)\,\mathrm{d}\Gamma(\omega)\,W(\omega^{-1}V_D)^* = \mathrm{d}\Gamma(\omega)+\phi(V_D)+\langle V_D,V_D\rangle_{b_1}$ up to commutator terms, so the dressing absorbs the ultraviolet divergence and produces exactly the self-energy counterterm. The second is the interior-boundary-condition operator $H_{\mathrm{IBC},\lambda}(F)=(1+G_{F,\lambda})(\mathrm{d}\Gamma(\omega)+\lambda-T_{F,\lambda})(1+G_{F,\lambda}^*)$, where $G_{F,\lambda}=a(F)(\mathrm{d}\Gamma(\omega)+\lambda)^{-1}$ and $T_{F,\lambda}=\Theta_0+\Theta_1$ collects the two normal-ordering contractions. For 2-nilpotent $F$, nilpotency gives $(1+G_{F,\lambda})^{-1}=1-G_{F,\lambda}$, and the normal-ordering identity $a(F)(\mathrm{d}\Gamma(\omega)+\lambda)^{-1}a^*(F)=T_{F,\lambda}+\langle F,F\rangle_{b_1}$ turns $H_{\mathrm{IBC},\lambda}$ back into the original regularized Hamiltonian plus the counterterm (Proposition 2.3). Theorem 2.5 is assembled by conjugating the nilpotent part with the dressing of the normal part, treating the infrared part $\phi(V_\le)$ as an infinitesimal perturbation, and invoking continuity of both constructions in the relevant $b_2$ norms.

What would settle it

Take the standard spin boson model with $B=\sigma_x$, $M=\mathbb{R}^3$, $\omega(k)=|k|$, and $v(k)=|k|^{-3/4}$ for $|k|>1$, $v=0$ otherwise. Then $(1+\omega)^{-1}v\in L^2$ and the paper's Theorem 2.5 predicts norm resolvent convergence of $H_{SB,\Lambda}+\|\omega^{-1/2}v_\Lambda\|^2$; an explicit computation of the resolvent norm difference, or a numerical extrapolation of the ground-state energy, that showed the norm not tending to zero would falsify the constructive result. For the sharpness direction, $v(k)=|k|^{-1/2}\chi_{\{|k|>1\}}$ gives $v/\omega\notin L^2$ and Theorem 2.8 predicts no strong resolvent limit for any bounded-below subtraction; exhibiting a convergent sequence for that form factor would falsify the optimality claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central result, Theorem 2.5, states that for every generalized spin boson Hamiltonian $H_{\mathrm{reg}}(S,V)=S+\mathrm{d}\Gamma(\omega)+\phi(V)$ on $\mathcal{H}_s\otimes \mathcal{F}(L^2(M))$ whose interaction splits as $V=V_\le+V_D+V_N$ with $V_\le\in b_1$, $V_D$ normal in $b_2$, and $V_N$ 2-nilpotent with $V_N(k)V_N(p)=0$ almost everywhere and $V_N\in b_{s_N}$ for some $s_N\in[1,2]$, the operators $H_{\mathrm{reg}}(S,V_n)+\langle V_{n,>},V_{n,>}\rangle_{b_1}$ converge in strong resolvent sense as the ultraviolet cutoff is removed, and in norm resolvent sense when the nilpotent part is subcritical or absent. The limit $H(S,V)$ is selfadjoint, lower-semibounded, explicitly constructed, and independent of the auxiliary parameter $\lambda$. The counterterm $\langle V_{>},V_{>}\rangle_{b_1}$ is the divergent self-energy. Theorem 2.8 proves that in the normal case the condition $v/\omega\in L^2$ is necessary: if a common eigenvector $\psi$ satisfies $V_D(k)\psi=v(k)\psi$ with $v/\omega\notin L^2$, then no sequence of bounded-below self-energy corrections can make the regularized Hamiltonians converge strongly. The paper thereby claims both a constructive ultraviolet limit for the standard spin boson and rotating-wave models and a sharp boundary for self-energy renormalizability.

Load-bearing premise

The sharpness claim (Theorem 2.8) rests on a lemma imported from [DM20a] that asserts norm resolvent convergence of the scalar van Hove model when the weighted $b_2$ norm of the form factor diverges; the paper only sketches that lemma's proof and delegates the hard step to a momentum discretization argument, so the claimed necessary condition would fail if that imported lemma were false or inapplicable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The standard spin boson model ($B=\sigma_x$) and its rotating-wave approximation ($B=\sigma_-$) have canonical ultraviolet limits: the regularized Hamiltonians with the explicit self-energy counterterm converge in norm resolvent sense to a definite lower-semibounded operator.
  • For normal interactions the threshold $(1+\omega)^{-1}v\in L^2$ is both necessary and sufficient for self-energy renormalizability; massless form factors with $v/\omega$ not square-integrable cannot be renormalized by any bounded-below subtraction.
  • The construction extends beyond two-state systems to any finite or infinite-dimensional spin space and to many-spin interactions $B=\sigma_x^{\otimes k}$ and $B=\sigma_-^{\otimes k}$, as well as to commuting sums of a normal and a 2-nilpotent part.
  • Norm resolvent convergence (not merely strong) holds when the nilpotent part is absent or subcritical, which implies uniform convergence of spectra and of functions of the Hamiltonian, a stronger stability property than previously available for these models.
  • The identity $H_{\mathrm{reg}}(0,V_N)=H_{\mathrm{IBC},\lambda}(V_N)-\langle V_N,V_N\rangle_{b_1}-\lambda$ gives an exact equivalence between the UV-regular nilpotent spin boson model and an interior-boundary-condition model, so spectral results transfer between the two representations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The method suggests a route to treating nilpotency of higher order: the identity $(1+G)^{-1}=1-G$ is special to 2-nilpotency, but a Neumann series still gives a bounded inverse when $G$ is a contraction, which may cover cubic and higher nilpotent interactions at small coupling.
  • Because the construction is independent of the infrared cutoff parameter $\kappa$ (the $b_2$-smallness condition can always be achieved by raising $\kappa$), the same scheme may yield a renormalized model for massless dispersions where the infrared behavior is separately controlled, potentially giving a functional-integral representation of the renormalized spin boson model as the authors suggest.
  • The non-renormalizability theorem only covers the normal component; it leaves open whether a strongly divergent 2-nilpotent part ($v/\omega\notin L^2$) might still be renormalizable by some other subtraction, since the paper provides no necessity result for that case.
  • The norm resolvent convergence in the normal case might be extended from diagonalizable operators to arbitrary normal operators with continuous spectrum by a limiting argument from finite-rank spectral projections, though the paper does not carry this out.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper constructs an ultraviolet renormalized generalized spin-boson Hamiltonian on Hs⊗F(L2(M)) for operator-valued form factors that split as V = V≤ + VD + VN, where V≤ is an infrared (b1) part, VD is a normal (b2) part, and VN is a 2-nilpotent (b_sN) part. Theorem 2.5 defines an explicit selfadjoint operator H(S,V) via a generalized Weyl dressing for VD and an interior-boundary-condition operator for VN, proves independence of the auxiliary parameter λ, and shows that H_reg(S,V_n) + ⟨V_{n,>}, V_{n,>}⟩_{b1} converges to H(S,V) in the strong resolvent sense, with norm resolvent convergence in two specified regimes. Theorem 2.8 claims a converse in the scalar-type normal supercritical case. The methods are explicit operator estimates, normal-ordering identities, and strong approximating sequences; the construction contains no fitted parameters.

Significance. The constructive part of the paper is a solid advance: it covers the massless case and arbitrary coupling for the standard examples, gives an explicit domain and resolvent estimates, proves norm resolvent convergence in important cases, and re-proves the needed boundary-condition lemmas rather than merely citing earlier work. If the hypothesis clarification below is made, Theorem 2.5 is a genuine contribution to the ultraviolet problem for spin-boson models. The optimality block is currently not on the same footing: it depends on an imported lemma whose proof is only sketched, it contains an apparent norm inconsistency, and it does not cover the 2-nilpotent class. The main construction itself appears sound; the paper should be accepted after the optimality claims and the missing hypothesis are resolved.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Theorem 2.8] The abstract advertises "an optimal renormalization result" for interactions that are normal or 2-nilpotent, but the only optimality statement, Theorem 2.8, concerns the normal case with a common eigenvector ψ and has no counterpart for the 2-nilpotent class. The claim of optimality should be restricted to the normal diagonalizable case, or a non-renormalizability theorem for the 2-nilpotent case should be supplied.
  2. [§4.3, Lemma 4.6] Theorem 2.8 depends on Proposition 4.7, whose proof uses Lemma 4.6 imported from [DM20a, Lemma 5.6] with only a "strategy of proof"; the norm-resolvent convergence is essential to the argument and is delegated to a momentum discretization in [DM20a]. Please either reproduce the proof with the hypotheses needed here or replace the lemma by an explicit citation of a published theorem, and confirm that the hypotheses of [DM20a] (measure space, omega bounds, regularity of the approximants) are satisfied in the present setting.
  3. [§4.3, Proposition 4.7] There is an inconsistency in the counterterm: Lemma 4.6 and Eq. (4.1) use ‖v_n‖²_{b1}, whereas Proposition 4.7 states its hypothesis as liminf(E_n − ‖v_n‖_{b1}) > −∞ and its proof sets E_n = ‖v_n‖_{b1}. As written, the proposition is not what Lemma 4.6 supplies and does not imply Eq. (4.1); the squared norm should appear in Proposition 4.7, and all subsequent lines should use it consistently.
  4. [Theorem 2.5; Lemma 4.4] The hypotheses of Theorem 2.5 impose commutativity only among D and N, but Lemma 4.4 applies Lemma 4.1(i) with F = ω^{-1}V_D and G = V≤ + V_N, which requires [V_D, V≤] = 0 (and [V_D^*, V≤] = 0 by normality). If the "three commuting parts" sentence in §2.3 is intended to include V≤, this must be stated in the theorem and used in the proof; otherwise the equality H~λ = H_reg + ⟨V>, V>⟩ can fail by additional cross terms involving V≤.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Notation, §2.1] The notation for norms is internally inconsistent: ‖F‖_{b_s} is the norm in (2.3), but several displays (Lemma 4.6, Eq. (4.1)) explicitly square it, while Proposition 3.1 uses products of norms. A convention such as always writing ‖F‖²_{b_s} for ⟨F,F⟩_{b_s} would prevent the ambiguity that affects Proposition 4.7.
  2. [Theorem 2.5] The theorem does not explicitly say that V_D and V_N are supported in {ω > κ}; the notation V> = V_D + V_N in Lemma 4.4 suggests this. State the support condition so the decomposition V = V≤ + V_D + V_N is unambiguous.
  3. [Eq. (1.2)] The notation B(CN ⊗ F) under the arrow in (1.2) is nonstandard for norm resolvent convergence; define it as ‖(H_Λ + i)^{-1} − (H + i)^{-1}‖ → 0 or remove the symbol.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: Theorem 2.5 is constructed directly, the renormalization subtraction is algebraic, and the only imported optimality lemma is external to the authors.

full rationale

The central construction in Theorem 2.5 is self-contained: the limiting operator H(S,V) is defined explicitly by a Weyl dressing W(ω^{-1}V_D) and an interior-boundary-condition operator H_IBC,λ(V_N), and convergence of H_reg(S,V_n)+⟨V_{n,>},V_{n,>}⟩_{b1} is proved through direct resolvent estimates (Propositions 3.1, 3.5, 4.5 and Lemma 4.4). The subtraction ⟨V_{n,>},V_{n,>}⟩_{b1} is the standard divergent self-energy, and Lemma 4.4 derives the identity H̃_λ(S,V)=H_reg(S,V)+⟨V_{>},V_{>}⟩_{b1} algebraically rather than fitting the limiting operator to the sequence. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data, and the limiting operator is not defined in terms of the approximants' convergence. The only load-bearing imported result is Lemma 4.6 from [DM20a, Lemma 5.6], which is external to the present authors and is used only for the optimality/non-renormalizability direction (Theorem 2.8), not for the existence and convergence theorem. The paper labels its proof a 'strategy of proof' and delegates the norm-resolvent part to [DM20a]; this is a verification/completeness concern, not circularity. The absence of an analogous non-renormalizability statement for the 2-nilpotent class narrows the scope of the advertised 'optimal' result but again is not a circularity. Citations to the authors' own prior work ([LS19], [BL21], [Lam20], [DH22], etc.) are contextual or methodological; the estimates needed here are reproved in the text. Overall, no step reduces, by construction or by self-citation, to its own input.

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

The paper introduces no free parameters fitted to data and no new physical entities. The inputs are the structural assumptions on the form factor decomposition plus standard Fock-space analysis; the decisive external ingredient is Lemma 4.6, imported from Dam-Møller.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math Fock space calculus: free field dΓ(ω), creation and annihilation operators, field operators φ(F), canonical commutation relations, and pull-through formulas (Section 2.1, Lemma 2.2).
    Background for the model and for all norm estimates in the paper.
  • standard math Kato-Rellich theorem, spectral theorem, and strong graph/resolvent convergence equivalence (Reed-Simon).
    Used throughout for self-adjointness, lower-semiboundedness, and convergence statements.
  • domain assumption The interaction splits as V = V≤ + VD + VN with [V#, V♦] = 0, VD normal, and VN(k)VN(p) = 0 μ-a.e.; V≤ ∈ b1, VD ∈ b2, VN ∈ b_sN, and either sN < 2 or ||VN||b2 < 1/2.
    Defines the class of models in Theorem 2.5; all named examples satisfy it, but the result is restricted to this class.
  • standard math Lemma 4.6 from [DM20a, Lemma 5.6] on norm resolvent convergence of the van Hove model with divergent weighted b2 norm.
    Imported with only a strategy sketch in this paper; it is load-bearing for Theorem 2.8.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ultraviolet Renormalization of Spin Boson Models I. Normal and 2-Nilpotent Interactions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KYTQELYQ

@misc{pith2026250204876,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ultraviolet Renormalization of Spin Boson Models I. Normal and 2-Nilpotent Interactions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KYTQELYQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.04876}
}
read the original abstract

We study the ultraviolet problem for models of a finite-dimensional quantum mechanical system linearly coupled to a bosonic quantum field, such as the (many-)spin boson model or its rotating-wave approximation. If the state change of the system upon emission or absorption of a boson is either given by a normal matrix or by a 2-nilpotent one, which is the case for the previously named examples, we prove an optimal renormalization result. We complement it, by proving the norm resolvent convergence of appropriately regularized models to the renormalized one. Our method consists of a dressing transformation argument in the normal case and an appropriate interior boundary condition for the 2-nilpotent case.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Ultraviolet Renormalization of the van Hove-Miyatake Model: an Algebraic and Hamiltonian Approach

    math-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    For any distributional source, the van Hove-Miyatake model is renormalizable and both renormalization schemes yield the same dressed Hamiltonian: the free field second quantization dΓ(ϖ).

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Arai and M

    A. Arai and M. Hirokawa. On the Existence and Uniqueness of Ground States of the Spin-Boson H amiltonian. Hokkaido Univ. Prepr. Ser. Math. , 309:2--20, 1995. doi:10.14943/83456

    work page doi:10.14943/83456 1995

  2. [2]

    Arai and M

    A. Arai and M. Hirokawa. On the Existence and Uniqueness of Ground States of a Generalized Spin-Boson Model. J. Funct. Anal. , 151(2):455--503, 1997. doi:10.1006/jfan.1997.3140

    work page arXiv 1997

  3. [3]

    Alvarez and J

    B. Alvarez and J. S. M ller. Ultraviolet Renormalisation of a quantum field toy model I. Preprint, 2021, arXiv:2103.13770 http://arxiv.org/abs/2103.13770

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Ultraviolet Renormalisation of a Quantum Field Toy Model II

    B. Alvarez and J. S. M ller. Ultraviolet Renormalisation of a Quantum Field Toy Model II. Preprint, 2023, arXiv:2312.10496 http://arxiv.org/abs/2312.10496

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    A. Amann. Ground states of a spin-boson model. Ann. Phys. , 208(2):414--448, 1991. doi:10.1016/0003-4916(91)90302-O

    work page doi:10.1016/0003-4916(91)90302-o 1991

  6. [6]

    Z. Ammari. Asymptotic Completeness for a Renormalized Nonrelativistic H amiltonian in Quantum Field Theory: The N elson Model. Math. Phys. Anal. Geom. , 3(3):217--285, 2000. doi:10.1023/A:1011408618527

    doi:10.1023/a:1011408618527

  7. [7]

    A. Arai. Analysis on F ock Spaces and Mathematical Theory of Quantum Fields . World Scientific, New Jersey, 2018. doi:10.1142/10367

    doi:10.1142/10367 2018

  8. [8]

    V. Bach, M. Ballesteros, M. K \"o nenberg, and L. Menrath. Existence of ground state eigenvalues for the spin–boson model with critical infrared divergence and multiscale analysis. J. Math. Anal. Appl. , 453(2):773--797, 2017, arXiv:1605.08348 http://arxiv.org/abs/1605.08348 . doi:10.1016/j.jmaa.2017.03.075

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Ballesteros, D.-A

    M. Ballesteros, D.-A. Deckert, and F. H\" a nle. Analyticity of resonances and eigenvalues and spectral properties of the massless Spin-Boson model. J. Funct. Anal. , 276(8):2524--2581, 2019, arXiv:1801.04021 http://arxiv.org/abs/1801.04021 . doi:10.1016/j.jfa.2019.02.008

    2019 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Bachmann, D.-A

    S. Bachmann, D.-A. Deckert, and A. Pizzo. The mass shell of the N elson model without cut-offs. J. Funct. Anal. , 263(5):1224--1282, 2012, arXiv:1104.3271 http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.3271 . doi:10.1016/j.jfa.2012.04.021

    2012 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Bach and A

    V. Bach and A. Hach. On the Ultraviolet Limit of the P auli- F ierz H amiltonian in the L ieb- L oss Model. Ann. Henri Poincar\' e , 23(6):2207--2245, 2022, arXiv:2004.06494 http://arxiv.org/abs/2004.06494 . doi:10.1007/s00023-021-01124-2

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    V. Betz, B. Hinrichs, M. N. Kraft, and S. Polzer. On the I sing Phase Transition in the Infrared-Divergent Spin Boson Model. Preprint, 2025, arXiv:2501.19362 http://arxiv.org/abs/2501.19362

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Binz and J

    T. Binz and J. Lampart. An abstract framework for interior-boundary conditions. Preprint, 2021, arXiv:2103.17124 http://arxiv.org/abs/2103.17124

    2021 arXiv

  6. [14]

    J. Cannon. Quantum field theoretic properties of a model of N elson: Domain and eigenvector stability for perturbed linear operators. J. Funct. Anal. , 8(1):101--152, 1971. doi:10.1016/0022-1236(71)90023-1

    1971 doi

  7. [15]

    Derezi \'n ski

    J. Derezi \'n ski. Van H ove H amiltonians -- Exactly Solvable Models of the Infrared and Ultraviolet Problem. Ann. Henri Poincar\'e , 4(4):713--738, 2003. doi:10.1007/s00023-003-0145-5

    2003 doi

  8. [16]

    T. N. Dam and B. Hinrichs. Absence of ground states in the renormalized massless translation-invariant N elson model. Rev. Math. Phys. , 34(10):2250033, 2022, arXiv:1909.07661 http://arxiv.org/abs/1909.07661 . doi:10.1142/S0129055X22500337

    2022 arXiv

  9. [17]

    T. N. Dam and J. S. M ller. Asymptotics in Spin-Boson type models. Commun. Math. Phys. , 374(3):1389--1415, 2020, arXiv:1808.00085 http://arxiv.org/abs/1808.00085 . doi:10.1007/s00220-020-03685-5

    2020 arXiv

  10. [18]

    T. N. Dam and J. S. M ller. Spin-Boson type models analysed using symmetries. Kyoto J. Math. , 60(4):1261--1332, 2020, arXiv:1803.05812 http://arxiv.org/abs/1803.05812 . doi:10.1215/21562261-2019-0062

    2020 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Deckert and A

    D.-A. Deckert and A. Pizzo. Ultraviolet Properties of the Spinless, One-Particle Y ukawa Model. Commun. Math. Phys. , 327(3):887--920, 2014, arXiv:1208.2646 http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.2646 . doi:10.1007/s00220-013-1877-9

    2014 arXiv

  12. [20]

    J.-P. Eckmann. A model with persistent vacuum. Commun. Math. Phys. , 18:247--264, 1970. doi:10.1007/BF01649435

    1970 doi

  13. [21]

    Gubinelli, F

    M. Gubinelli, F. Hiroshima, and J. L o rinczi. Ultraviolet renormalization of the N elson H amiltonian through functional integration. J. Funct. Anal. , 267(9):3125--3153, 2014, arXiv:1304.6662 http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.6662 . doi:10.1016/j.jfa.2014.08.002

    2014 arXiv

  14. [22]

    u nsch. On the domain of the F r \

    M. Griesemer and A. W \"u nsch. On the domain of the F r \"o hlich H amiltonian. J. Math. Phys. , 57(2):021902, 2016, arXiv:1508.02533 http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.02533 . doi:10.1063/1.4941561

    2016 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Griesemer and A

    M. Griesemer and A. W \"u nsch. On the domain of the N elson H amiltonian. J. Math. Phys. , 59(4):042111, 2018, arXiv:1711.10916 http://arxiv.org/abs/1711.10916 . doi:10.1063/1.5018579

    2018 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Hasler and I

    D. Hasler and I. Herbst. Ground States in the Spin Boson Model. Ann. Henri Poincar\'e , 12(4):621--677, 2011, arXiv:1003.5923 http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.5923 . doi:10.1007/s00023-011-0091-6

    2011 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Hirokawa, F

    M. Hirokawa, F. Hiroshima, and J. L o rinczi. Spin-boson model through a P oisson-driven stochastic process. Math. Z. , 277(3):1165--1198, 2014, arXiv:1209.5521 http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.5521 . doi:10.1007/s00209-014-1299-1

    2014 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Hasler, B

    D. Hasler, B. Hinrichs, and O. Siebert. On Existence of Ground States in the Spin Boson Model. Commun. Math. Phys. , 388(1):419--433, 2021, arXiv:2102.13373 http://arxiv.org/abs/2102.13373 . doi:10.1007/s00220-021-04185-w

    2021 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Hasler, B

    D. Hasler, B. Hinrichs, and O. Siebert. FKN Formula and Ground State Energy for the Spin Boson Model with External Magnetic Field. Ann. Henri Poincar\'e , 23(8):2819--2853, 2022, arXiv:2106.08659 http://arxiv.org/abs/2106.08659 . doi:10.1007/s00023-022-01160-6

    2022 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Hinrichs and J

    B. Hinrichs and J. Lampart. A Lower Bound on the Critical Momentum of an Impurity in a Bose--Einstein Condensate. C.\,R. Math. , 362:1399--1412, 2024, arXiv:2311.05361 http://arxiv.org/abs/2311.05361 . doi:10.5802/crmath.652

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Hiroshima and O

    F. Hiroshima and O. Matte. Ground states and their associated path measures in the renormalized N elson model. Rev. Math. Phys. , 34(2):2250002, 2022, arXiv:1903.12024 http://arxiv.org/abs/1903.12024 . doi:10.1142/S0129055X22500027

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Hinrichs and O

    B. Hinrichs and O. Matte. F eynman-- K ac formula for fiber H amiltonians in the relativistic N elson model in two spatial dimensions. Preprint, 2023, arXiv:2309.09005 http://arxiv.org/abs/2309.09005

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Hinrichs and O

    B. Hinrichs and O. Matte. F eynman-- K ac Formula and Asymptotic Behavior of the Minimal Energy for the Relativistic N elson Model in Two Spatial Dimensions. Ann. Henri Poincar\'e , 25(6):2877--2940, 2024, arXiv:2211.14046 http://arxiv.org/abs/2211.14046 . doi:10.1007/s00023-0...

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Hinrichs and O

    B. Hinrichs and O. Matte. F eynman-- K ac formulas for semigroups generated by multi-polaron H amiltonians in magnetic fields and on general domains. Preprint, 2024, arXiv:2403.12147 http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.12147

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    H\" u bner and H

    M. H\" u bner and H. Spohn. Radiative decay: nonperturbative approaches. Rev. Math. Phys. , 7(3):363--387, 1995. doi:10.1142/S0129055X95000165

    1995 doi

  26. [34]

    S. G. Kre n and Y. I. Petunin. Scales of B anach spaces. Uspehi Mat. Nauk , 21(2):89--159, 1966. doi:10.1070/RM1966v021n02ABEH004151

    1966 doi

  27. [35]

    J. Lampart. The renormalized B ogoliubov- F r\" o hlich H amiltonian. J. Math. Phys. , 61(10):101902, 2020, arXiv:1909.02430 http://arxiv.org/abs/1909.02430 . doi:10.1063/5.0014217

    2020 arXiv

  28. [36]

    J. Lampart. Hamiltonians for Polaron Models with Subcritical Ultraviolet Singularities. Ann. Henri Poincar \'e , 24(8):2687--2728, 2023, arXiv:2203.07253 http://arxiv.org/abs/2203.07253 . doi:10.1007/s00023-023-01285-2

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    A. J. Leggett, S. Chakravarty, A. T. Dorsey, M. P. A. Fisher, A. Garg, and W. Zwerger. Dynamics of the dissipative two-state system. Rev. Mod. Phys. , 59(1):1--85, 1987

    1987

  30. [38]

    E. H. Lieb and M. Loss. Self-Energy of Electrons in Non-Perturbative QED. In W. Thirring, editor, The Stability of Matter: From Atoms to Stars: Selecta of Elliott H. Lieb , pages 607--623, Berlin, 2005. Springer, arXiv:math-ph/9908020 http://arxiv.org/abs/math-ph/9908020 . doi...

    2005 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Lill and D

    S. Lill and D. Lonigro. Self-adjointness and domain of generalized spin-boson models with mild ultraviolet divergences. Preprint, 2023, arXiv:2307.14727 http://arxiv.org/abs/2307.14727

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    D. Lonigro. Generalized spin-boson models with non-normalizable form factors. J. Math. Phys. , 63(7):072105, 2022, arXiv:2111.06121 http://arxiv.org/abs/2111.06121 . doi:10.1063/5.0085576

    2022 arXiv

  33. [41]

    D. Lonigro. Self-Adjointness of a Class of Multi-Spin-Boson Models with Ultraviolet Divergences. Math. Phys. Anal. Geom. , 26(2):15, 2023, arXiv:2301.10694 http://arxiv.org/abs/2301.10694 . doi:10.1007/s11040-023-09457-6

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Lampart and J

    J. Lampart and J. Schmidt. On N elson-Type H amiltonians and Abstract Boundary Conditions. Commun. Math. Phys. , 367(2):629--663, 2019, arXiv:1803.00872 http://arxiv.org/abs/1803.00872 . doi:10.1007/s00220-019-03294-x

    2019 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Lampart, J

    J. Lampart, J. Schmidt, S. Teufel, and R. Tumulka. Particle Creation at a Point Source by Means of Interior-Boundary Conditions. Math. Phys. Anal. Geom. , 21(2):12, 2018, arXiv:1703.04476 http://arxiv.org/abs/1703.04476 . doi:10.1007/s11040-018-9270-8

    2018 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Matte and J

    O. Matte and J. S. M ller. F eynman- K ac Formulas for the Ultra-Violet Renormalized N elson Model. Ast\' e risque , 404, 2018, arXiv:1701.02600 http://arxiv.org/abs/1701.02600 . doi:10.24033/ast.1054

    2018 arXiv

  37. [45]

    E. Nelson. Interaction of Nonrelativistic Particles with a Quantized Scalar Field. J. Math. Phys. , 5(9):1190--1197, 1964. doi:10.1063/1.1704225

    1964 doi

  38. [46]

    K. R. Parthasarathy. An Introduction to Quantum Stochastic Calculus , volume 85 of Monographs in Mathematics . Birkh\" a user, Basel, 1992. doi:10.1007/978-3-0348-0566-7

    1992 doi

  39. [47]

    Posilicano

    A. Posilicano. On the Self-Adjointness of H+A^*+A . Math. Phys. Anal. Geom. , 23(4):37, 2020, arXiv:2003.05412 http://arxiv.org/abs/2003.05412 . doi:10.1007/s11040-020-09359-x

    2020 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Posilicano

    A. Posilicano. On the Resolvent of H+A^*+A . Math. Phys. Anal. Geom. , 27(3):11, 2024, arXiv:2307.13830 http://arxiv.org/abs/2307.13830 . doi:10.1007/s11040-024-09481-0

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Reed and B

    M. Reed and B. Simon. Functional Analysis , volume 1 of Methods of Modern Mathematical Physics . Academic Press, San Diego, 1972

    1972

  42. [50]

    Schm\" u dgen

    K. Schm\" u dgen. Unbounded Self-adjoint Operators on H ilbert Space , volume 265 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics . Springer, Dordrecht, 2012. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-4753-1

    2012 doi

  43. [51]

    J. Schmidt. On a direct description of pseudorelativistic N elson H amiltonians. J. Math. Phys. , 60(10):102303, 2019, arXiv:1810.03313 http://arxiv.org/abs/1810.03313 . doi:10.1063/1.5109640

    2019 arXiv

  44. [52]

    J. Schmidt. The Massless N elson H amiltonian and its Domain. In A. Michelangeli, editor, Mathematical Challenges of Zero-Range Physics , volume 42 of Springer INdAM Series . Springer, 2021, arXiv:1901.05751 http://arxiv.org/abs/1901.05751 . doi:10.1007/978-3-030-60453-0

    2021 arXiv

  45. [53]

    A. D. Sloan. The polaron without cutoffs in two space dimensions. J. Math. Phys. , 15:190--201, 1974. doi:10.1063/1.1666620

    1974 doi

  46. [54]

    H. Spohn. Ground State(s) of the Spin-Boson H amiltonian. Commun. Math. Phys. , 123(2):277--304, 1989. doi:10.1007/BF01238859

    1989 doi

  47. [55]

    Van Hove

    L. Van Hove. Les difficult\'es de divergences pour un modelle particulier de champ quantifi\'e. Physica , 18:145--159, 1952. doi:10.1016/S0031-8914(52)80017-5

    1952 doi

  48. [56]

    D. R. Yafaev. On a zero-range interaction of a quantum particle with the vacuum. J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. , 25(4):963--978, 1992. doi:10.1088/0305-4470/25/4/031

    1992 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.