Propagator from Nonperturbative Worldline Dynamics

Holger Gies; Sebasti\'an Franchino-Vi\~nas

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 60 references

Propagator from Nonperturbative Worldline Dynamics

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A nonperturbative worldline calculation traces the toy-model electron pole mass toward zero as the coupling approaches the critical value 0.72.

desk verdict A solid extension of worldline numerics to propagators, but the headline mass-vanishing curve is built on an extrapolation the paper itself has not validated. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04532 v1 pith:OW262WOG submitted 2019-08-13 hep-th hep-lathep-ph

Sebastián Franchino-Viñas , Holger Gies This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-thhep-lathep-ph

keywords worldlineformalismnonperturbativepathintegralquenchedapproximationS2QEDpolemasscriticalcouplingrenormalizationMonteCarlo

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper claims that a fully nonperturbative worldline path-integral computation can deliver the all-orders, quenched propagator of S2QED, a two-scalar toy model with a cubic interaction that mimics QED's diagram topology. Using Monte Carlo sampling of open worldlines plus a three-parameter probability distribution for the self-interaction potential, the authors renormalize the mass nonperturbatively and obtain a semi-analytic propagator valid beyond perturbation theory. The central physical result is that the dressed pole mass falls more steeply than the one-loop estimate once the coupling passes about 0.2, and appears to vanish at a critical coupling near 0.72, where the photon dressing would fully cancel the bare mass. A sympathetic reader should care because this is a concrete test bed for extracting all-order information from worldline methods, with the short-distance behavior still matching the free propagator as power counting predicts.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the worldline representation of the propagator, $G(\Delta x) = \frac{1}{(4\pi)^2}\int_0^\infty \frac{dT}{T^2} e^{-m_{WR}^2 T - \frac{\Delta x^2}{4T}} \langle e^{-gV[x]}\rangle$, where $V[x]$ is the self-interaction of one worldline with its own photon field. The evaluation is carried by the v-lines algorithm, which generates open discretized worldlines with Gaussian velocity distribution, and by a gamma-type probability density $P(v,\Delta y)=\frac{\beta^{1+\alpha}}{\Gamma(\alpha+1)}(v-v_0)^\alpha e^{-\beta(v-v_0)}$ for the potential. The parameters $\alpha(\Delta y)$ and $\beta(\Delta y)$ are fitted as polynomials in the rescaled distance $\Delta y$, while $v_0$ carries the logarithmic divergence and is fixed using the analytically known one-loop expectation value; this turns the path integral into a one-dimensional propertime integral whose large-distance fit yields the pole mass.

What would settle it

Compute the same propagator at distances $5 \lesssim \Delta \bar x \lesssim 10$ and couplings around $\bar g = 0.5$ using direct worldline Monte Carlo with $N$ large enough to measure the PDF parameters at those $\Delta y$ instead of extrapolating them, then compare the pole mass from a fresh fit; a statistically significant difference would falsify the gamma-PDF extrapolation and the critical-coupling estimate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that in S2QED the quenched propagator can be computed to all orders in the coupling by evaluating the worldline expectation value $\langle e^{-gV[x]}\rangle$ numerically, and that the result, after a nonperturbative mass renormalization, contains physics absent from one-loop resummation. Concretely, the pole mass $m_\star$ extracted from the large-distance exponential decay $A x^{-3/2} e^{-m_\star x}$ agrees with the one-loop result for weak coupling, but for $\bar g \gtrsim 0.2$ the all-order dressing makes $m_\star$ decrease more rapidly than the one-loop estimate, and the semi-analytic propertime integrand becomes non-decaying for $\bar g > \bar g_c \simeq 0.72$. The paper interprets this as the photon cloud compensating the bare mass completely at the critical coupling, and notes that the value of $\bar g_c$ is regularization dependent while the trend is not. It also claims that the short-distance propagator remains $G \sim 1/(4\pi^2 \Delta x^2)$, so the scalar electron has zero anomalous dimension beyond perturbation theory.

Load-bearing premise

The central mass curve rests on the assumption that the gamma-shaped probability distribution and the polynomial fits for $\alpha$ and $\beta$ remain valid at rescaled distances $\Delta y$ above about 5, where the paper's own validation criterion $T_{\mathrm{peak}} > 0.04$ no longer holds, so the pole-mass fit is made on an extrapolation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Below $\bar g \simeq 0.2$, the nonperturbative pole mass matches the one-loop result, validating the method in the perturbative regime.
Above that coupling, the all-order photon dressing lowers the pole mass faster than the one-loop estimate, implying that resummed radiative corrections dominate the mass shift in the strong-coupling regime.
At $\bar g \to \bar g_c \simeq 0.72$ the extracted pole mass approaches zero, meaning the dressed scalar electron would become massless at a finite, scheme-dependent critical coupling.
The short-distance propagator remains equal to the free one to leading order, so the anomalous dimension of the charged scalar stays zero even beyond perturbation theory, consistent with the super-renormalizable structure.
For all accessible couplings the propagator stays positive, so no violation of reflection positivity is observed in this computation.

Reading between the lines

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

If the mass-vanishing signal persists in a model with genuine gauge invariance, it would suggest that photon dressing alone can drive a massive charged particle to zero mass at strong coupling; the scalar toy model lacks the local symmetry that would make that statement directly about QED.
Because $\bar g_c$ is explicitly non-universal, a decisive test is to repeat the pole-mass extraction with direct simulations at larger $N$ and larger $\Delta y$ rather than the extrapolated PDF; the qualitative trend should persist, but the critical value and even its existence could shift.
The gamma-PDF ansatz determines all higher cumulants of $V$ from just two parameters, so computing the variance or skewness of the binned histogram at large $\Delta y$ would test the ansatz directly and could suggest a better family of fits.
The same PDF machinery should transfer to other worldline observables with stable one-peak distributions, such as effective actions or pair-production rates, connecting this propagator computation to existing all-order worldline results.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The useful piece here is the method. The v-lines algorithm for open worldlines is a real step beyond the closed-loop algorithms, and adapting the PDF approach from effective actions to the propagator is genuinely new. The one-loop benchmark is clean: the analytic expression for agrees with the worldline Monte Carlo across N and Δy, and the PDF self-consistency check works up to Δy around 5. That part of the paper deserves credit.

The soft spot is the central claim. The pole mass is extracted from propagator values at x in [5,10], but the PDF fits for α and β are calibrated only for Δy ≲ 5, i.e. T ≳ 0.04. The reader's specific worry about Tpeak < T_est is not quite right: for x = 5–10 and moderate couplings, the integrand peak sits at T ≈ 0.05–0.11, above the stated cutoff. The sharper problem, as the stress test notes, is that the integrand still has non-negligible support at T < 0.04, where α and β are cubic extrapolations from data below Δy ≈ 5. So the mass curve at strong coupling depends on an ansatz continued beyond the validated region. The critical coupling also deserves a softer interpretation: g_c is fixed by the sign of the large-T coefficient using b_v0(0), and the red circles in Fig. 10 are extrapolations of the fit, not observations of a zero pole mass. Near g_c, with a small mass, the fixed x = 5–10 window is no longer safely asymptotic for the e^{-m x}/x^{3/2} fit.

The one-loop pole-mass extraction green triangles vs orange squares gives some confidence in the fitting procedure at weak coupling, but that does not carry over to the strongly coupled regime where the new physics is claimed. The conclusion that the mass vanishes is therefore too strong for the evidence as presented; "indications of a critical coupling" is the honest version.

This is a serious paper, not a desk reject. It needs referee time, but the referees should ask for a sensitivity check on the extrapolated tail: a different fit ansatz for α(Δy), β(Δy), or a targeted study with larger N and larger Δy, as well as a softened statement about the critical coupling. If the extrapolation is robust, the method is a solid contribution; if not, the algorithmic part still stands on its own.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a worldline Monte Carlo method to compute the quenched (small-N_f) propagator of S2QED, a two-scalar toy model with cubic interaction. The worldline expression (10) formally resums all photon-dressing diagrams of the charged scalar line. To evaluate it, the authors introduce a new algorithm for open worldlines ('v lines'), compute the one-loop expectation value of the worldline potential analytically, and parameterize the probability distribution of the potential by a gamma distribution (Eq. 30). The distance-dependent parameters alpha and beta are fitted to histograms and then represented by cubic polynomials (Eq. 35); the parameter v0 is fixed by the analytic one-loop mean value. This yields a semi-analytic propertime representation of the propagator (Eqs. 46-47). The paper compares the result with the one-loop propagator, extracts the pole mass from large-distance fits f(x)=A x^{-3/2} e^{-m_* x} in the window x in [5,10], and reports that the pole mass decreases faster than the one-loop estimate, vanishing near a critical coupling gbar_c ~ 0.72 (Fig. 10).

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would provide both a new nonperturbative worldline technique for correlation functions and a surprising strong-coupling phenomenon: the photon cloud completely screens the bare mass in a super-renormalizable toy QED. Strengths of the manuscript include the exact one-loop benchmark, the successful test of the v-lines algorithm against known Gaussian path-integral results, and the explicit self-consistency check of the PDF parameters up to Delta y ~ 5 (Eq. 34 and Fig. 5). These elements show that the numerical infrastructure is carefully tested. However, the headline physical result—the accelerated decrease of the pole mass and its vanishing at gbar_c—rests on an unvalidated extrapolation of the gamma-PDF fits beyond the region where they were checked, and on an assumed exponential tail of the potential distribution. The paper itself correctly identifies Delta y ~ 5 as the confidence limit, but the propagator integral and the pole-mass fits then venture outside that limit. The significance of the paper is therefore conditional: the method is promising, but the mass-vanishing claim is not yet supported by the evidence presented.

major comments (3)

[Sec. 4.3, Eq. (47) and Fig. 8] The pole-mass fits use the window x in [5,10], but in the rescaled integrand Delta y = 1/sqrt(T), so large distances x correspond to small propertimes. For x=10, the maximum of T^{-2} exp(-x^2 T - 1/(4T)) lies at T approximately 0.041, only marginally above the paper's own validity threshold T_est = 0.04. The integrand at T=0.04 is comparable to the peak, so a substantial fraction of the propagator integral samples Delta y > 5, where alpha and beta are continued by the unvalidated cubic fits (35). The paper describes a systematic-error estimate by integrating T<0.04, but that uncertainty is not propagated into the pole-mass points shown in Fig. 10. Thus the central mass curve is extracted from a region where the underlying PDF parameters are not validated.
[Sec. 4.2, Eqs. (30), (34), and (48)] The self-consistency check in Eq. (34) and Fig. 5 tests only the first moment of the potential distribution. The propagator, however, requires the Laplace transform F(gT) = integral dv P(v) exp(-gT v), which is sensitive to the full distribution and especially to its large-v tail. The gamma ansatz (30) has an exponential tail, and the critical-coupling condition (48) is controlled by b_v0(0), which is determined from the fitted alpha(0) and beta(0). The numerical histogram in Fig. 3 (left) already shows a systematic excess over the gamma fit at large v for Delta y=0, and no tail validation is provided for finite Delta y. Consequently the value gbar_c ~ 0.72 is not a direct observation of a vanishing pole mass but an algebraic consequence of an assumed exponential tail. A slower-decaying true tail would remove or shift the apparent large-T divergence, so the mass-vanishing claim is not robust.
[Sec. 4.3, Fig. 10] Near gbar_c the pole mass is small, so the condition m_* x >> 1 fails inside the fit window x in [5,10]. The one-loop benchmark (green triangles versus orange squares in Fig. 10) tests only the one-loop propagator, whose functional form and asymptotic regime are known from App. E; it does not validate the same fit procedure for the full nonperturbative propagator, especially when the correlation length grows. The red circles in Fig. 10 therefore represent an extrapolation of the fit ansatz in a regime where the asymptotic form f(x)=A x^{-3/2} e^{-m_* x} has not been independently justified. This is load-bearing for the claim that the mass vanishes at gbar_c rather than merely becoming very small within the approximation.

minor comments (4)

[Sec. 3, Eq. (22)] The short-distance limit should read <V> ~ (T/2) H_{N-1} + O(Delta y^2), not (1/(2T)) H_{N-1}; with the stated form the cancellation in Eqs. (24)-(25) does not work dimensionally. This appears to be a typographical error, but it should be corrected because Eq. (22) is used to motivate the mass counterterm.
[Sec. 4.3, Eq. (40)] The last exponential in Eq. (40) is written as exp(-gT b_v0 + g^2 T gamma); comparing with Eq. (47), the correct finite remainder is exp(-gT b_v0 + g T gamma/2). The g^2 is a typo that could mislead a reader tracking the renormalization.
[Sec. 4.3, Fig. 8] The statement that there is 'hardly any restriction on the coupling' in the T_max > T_est region should be quantified, since for Delta xbar near 10 the peak position is only marginally above 0.04. The axes and the normalization of the integrand in the left panel should also be labeled more explicitly.
[Sec. 5 and throughout] The algorithm is called 'v lines' in the main text but 'newv lines' in the conclusions; this should be made consistent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the pole-mass and critical-coupling results are derived outputs of a Monte-Carlo-calibrated PDF model, benchmarked against independent one-loop analytic expressions.

full rationale

The derivation is not circular. The starting point, Eq. (10), is obtained from the generating functional by a Gaussian functional integration and a small-Nf/quenched projection, not by assuming the final propagator. The numerical input consists of histograms of the worldline potential V[y]; the gamma-distribution fit (30) is an ansatz whose parameters α and β are calibrated to those histograms. The expectation ⟨V⟩ entering v0 is taken from the analytic one-loop expression (20) rather than from a fit to the propagator, and α, β are checked against that same analytic expression in Fig. 1 and in the self-consistency relation (34). The pole mass is then a secondary output: the propagator GP in Eqs. (46)-(47) is built from the calibrated PDF parameters, and m⋆ is obtained from the large-distance fit (49), not used as an input to the PDF fits. The critical coupling (48) follows algebraically from the large-T behavior of this semi-analytic integrand with the measured Δy=0 parameters; it is a consequence of the fitted ansatz and therefore an extrapolation whose reliability is a correctness question, but it is not a quantity that was fitted beforehand and then relabeled as a prediction. Citations to [18] are methodological provenance for S2QED and the PDF idea, not a load-bearing uniqueness theorem; the v-lines algorithm is independently tested against the exact action distribution in App. A.1. Any weakness in the Δy>5 regime is a validity and uncertainty concern, not a circular reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on two fitted functions (alpha, beta), a derived offset b_v0, and a hand-chosen cutoff T_est, plus the gamma-PDF ansatz and its extrapolation. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (4)

alpha(Delta y) polynomial coefficients = alpha = 7.51168 + 0.67579 x^2 - 0.021643 x^3
Fitted to Monte Carlo histograms of the worldline potential PDF; enters F in Eq. (39) and controls the propagator integral.
beta(Delta y) polynomial coefficients = beta = 6.12762 + 0.80933 x^2 - 0.0271248 x^3
Fitted to the same PDF data; appears in the exponent (beta/(beta+gT))^(1+alpha) and in the mass extraction.
b_v0(0) = approx -1.10 in units of m_WR^2
Derived from alpha(0), beta(0) and the analytic VR via Eq. (36); the critical coupling g_c is set by 1 + g b_v0(0) - g gamma/2 = 0 (Eq. 48).
T_est = 0.04
Hand-chosen propertime cutoff used to define the confidence region; the pole-mass fits at x in [5,10] are made in a region where Tpeak < T_est.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The worldline representation (Eq. 4) exactly represents the Klein-Gordon propagator in an A background.
Standard worldline formalism; used as starting point in Sect. 2.
domain assumption Quenched limit: the determinant det^{-1/2}(K[A]) is dropped as an O(Nf) correction (Eq. 3).
Leading order of the small-Nf expansion; defines the approximation.
domain assumption All UV divergences are contained in the disconnected part of <e^{-gV}> and are removed by a single mass counterterm (Eqs. 23-25).
Power-counting for super-renormalizable S2QED; the connected parts are assumed finite to all orders.
ad hoc to paper The PDF of V has the gamma form P(v) = beta^{1+alpha}/Gamma(alpha+1) (v-v0)^alpha e^{-beta(v-v0)} (Eq. 30).
An ansatz fitted to histograms; central to the closed-form propagator and not derived.
ad hoc to paper The polynomial fits for alpha and beta (Eq. 35) can be extrapolated beyond the confidence region Delta y < about 5.
Required for the x in [5,10] pole-mass fits; the paper provides no error control there.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Propagator from Nonperturbative Worldline Dynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OW262WOG

@misc{pith2026190804532,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Propagator from Nonperturbative Worldline Dynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OW262WOG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04532}
}

abstract

We use the worldline representation for correlation functions together with numerical path integral methods to extract nonperturbative information about the propagator to all orders in the coupling in the quenched limit (small-$N_{\text{f}}$ expansion). Specifically, we consider a simple two-scalar field theory with cubic interaction (S${}^2$QED) in four dimensions as a toy model for QED-like theories. Using a worldline regularization technique, we are able to analyze the divergence structure of all-order diagrams and to perform the renormalization of the model nonperturbatively. Our method gives us access to a wide range of couplings and coordinate distances. We compute the pole mass of the S${}^2$QED electron and observe sizable nonperturbative effects in the strong-coupling regime arising from the full photon dressing. We also find indications for the existence of a critical coupling where the photon dressing compensates the bare mass such that the electron mass vanishes. The short distance behavior remains unaffected by the photon dressing in accordance with the power-counting structure of the model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04532 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Mean value hV i of the potential as a function of log2 N, the base two logarithm of the number N of point per loops, for lines whose endpoints distance are ∆y = 1 (left) and ∆y = 14 (right). The exact analytic expression (solid red line) and the fitting with a straight line (dashed green line) are also shown. and the analytical result is very satisfactory for all N and ∆y. The RMS error appears to overestimate the t… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Fit parameters aV (left) and bV (right) of the fit eq. (27) to the expectation value of the interaction potential (light blue points), as functions of the distance ∆y. The orange solid lines show the exact analytical prefactor (ln 2)/2 of the log divergence (left) and the remainder function of eq. (20) after subtraction of the log-divergence (right). 4.2. Probability distribution for the interaction potential. With … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Probability distributions P and the corresponding fits P for ∆y = 0, N = 5 (left) and ∆y = 1, N = 3, 4, · · · , 16 (right), with N increasing from left to right in the right plot. per loop. The fit P(v, 0) according to the ansatz (30) is also shown. As is visible from the plot, the proposed fit function P is compatible with the main features of the numerical data P: its decay for large and small potential, the exist… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (8 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The α (left) and β (right) parameters for ∆y = 1 as a function of N. The blue dots correspond to the data coming from the fit of our Ansatz P(v, ∆y) to P for different values of N, while the green solid line is the constant fit in the large N region. a linear increase …

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Left: N dependence of the fit parameter v0 for ∆y = 1; the blue dots show the results from fitting P(v, ∆y) to P for different values of N, and the green solid line represents the linear log2 N fit in the large N region. Right: self-consistency check using the regulari…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: PDF fit parameters α (left) and β (right) as a function of the distance ∆y. The blue dots corresponds to the large N fits of the α and β parameters, while the green solid line is a third order polynomial fit. For completeness, we consider the distance dependence of all…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: PDF fit parameters av0 (left) and and bv0 (right) representing the fit parameter v0 via eq. (32) as a function of the distance ∆y. The blue dots corresponds to the large N fits of the v0 parameter. In the left panel, the green solid line is a constant fit, whereas in t…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Left: peak-normalized integrand G of eq. (47), for ¯g = 0.5 and distances ∆¯x = 1, 3, 5 (solid violet, dashed blue and dotted cyan lines respectively). Right: density plot of the propertime peak position Tmax of G as a function of ¯g and ∆¯x. Additionally, we show in …

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Left panel: behaviour of the propagator G¯P (·) as a function of the distance for ¯g = 0.1 (dashed red line), ¯g = 0.4 (dot-dahed blue line) and g¯ = 0.7 (dotted green line). Right panel: propagator (dot-dashed red line) and the one-loop propagator G1−loop, WR in the w…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Pole mass m? as a function of the coupling constant for various estimates: within worldline regularization, the analytical one-loop result is shown as orange squares, exhibiting satisfactory agreement with the same result extracted from a fit procedure (green triangl…

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Probability distribution function for the action SW considering ∆y = 10, D = 4 and N = 25 . The histogram contains 100 bins and corresponds to an ensemble of 104 lines, whereas the solid green line is given by eq. (68). Appendix B. One-loop contribution to the propag…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

[1]

Mathematical formulation of the quantum theory of electro- magnetic interaction

R.P. Feynman. “Mathematical formulation of the quantum theory of electro- magnetic interaction”. Phys.Rev. 80 (1950), pp. 440–457 (cit. on p. 1)

work page 1950
[2]

Slow Electrons in a Polar Crystal

R. P. Feynman. “Slow Electrons in a Polar Crystal”. Phys. Rev. 97 (1955), pp. 660–665 (cit. on p. 1). 28 REFERENCES

work page 1955
[3]

The Particle Limit of Field Theory: A New Strong Coupling Expansion

M. B. Halpern and W. Siegel. “The Particle Limit of Field Theory: A New Strong Coupling Expansion”. Phys. Rev. D16 (1977), p. 2486 (cit. on pp. 1, 2)

work page 1977
[4]

Gauge Fields and Strings

Alexander M. Polyakov. “Gauge Fields and Strings”. Contemp. Concepts Phys. 3 (1987), pp. 1–301 (cit. on p. 1)

work page 1987
[5]

A New Approach to One Loop Calculations in Gauge Theories

Zvi Bern and David A. Kosower. “A New Approach to One Loop Calculations in Gauge Theories”. Phys.Rev. D38 (1988), p. 1888 (cit. on p. 1)

work page 1988
[6]

Field theory without Feynman diagrams: One loop eﬀective actions

Matthew J. Strassler. “Field theory without Feynman diagrams: One loop eﬀective actions”. Nucl. Phys. B385 (1992), pp. 145–184. arXiv: hep - ph / 9205205 [hep-ph] (cit. on p. 1)

work page 1992
[7]

On the calculation of eﬀective actions by string methods

Michael G. Schmidt and Christian Schubert. “On the calculation of eﬀective actions by string methods”. Phys. Lett. B318 (1993), pp. 438–446. arXiv: hep-th/9309055 [hep-th] (cit. on p. 1)

arXiv 1993
[8]

Vacuum polarization in QED with world- line methods

W. Dittrich and R. Shaisultanov. “Vacuum polarization in QED with world- line methods”. Phys. Rev. D62 (2000), p. 045024. arXiv: hep- th/0001171 [hep-th] (cit. on p. 1)

work page arXiv 2000

Show all 60 references

[9]

Perturbative quantum ﬁeld theory in the string inspired formalism

Christian Schubert. “Perturbative quantum ﬁeld theory in the string inspired formalism”. Phys. Rept. 355 (2001), pp. 73–234. arXiv: hep - th / 0101036 [hep-th] (cit. on pp. 1, 2, 5)

2001
[10]

Pair Production at Strong Coupling in Weak External Fields

Ian K. Aﬄeck, Orlando Alvarez, and Nicholas S. Manton. “Pair Production at Strong Coupling in Weak External Fields”. Nucl.Phys. B197 (1982), p. 509 (cit. on pp. 1, 2)

1982
[11]

Variational treatment of quenched QED using the worldline technique

A. W. Schreiber, C. Alexandrou, and R. Rosenfelder. “Variational treatment of quenched QED using the worldline technique”. Nucl. Phys. A631 (1998), pp. 635C–639C. arXiv: nucl-th/9709052 [nucl-th] (cit. on pp. 1, 2)

1998 arXiv
[12]

From the Feynman-Schwinger represen- tation to the nonperturbative relativistic bound state interaction

Nora Brambilla and Antonio Vairo. “From the Feynman-Schwinger represen- tation to the nonperturbative relativistic bound state interaction”.Phys. Rev. D56 (1997), pp. 1445–1454. arXiv: hep-ph/9703378 [hep-ph] (cit. on p. 1)

1997 arXiv
[13]

Feynman-Schwinger representa- tion approach to nonperturbative physics

Cetin Savkli, John Tjon, and Franz Gross. “Feynman-Schwinger representa- tion approach to nonperturbative physics”. Phys. Rev. C60 (1999). [Erratum: Phys. Rev.C61,069901(2000)], p. 055210. arXiv: hep-ph/9906211 [hep-ph] (cit. on p. 1)

1999 arXiv
[14]

Nonperturbative quenched propaga- tor beyond the infrared approximation

J. Sanchez-Guillen and R. A. Vazquez. “Nonperturbative quenched propaga- tor beyond the infrared approximation”. Phys. Rev. D65 (2002), p. 105001. arXiv: hep-th/0201065 [hep-th] (cit. on p. 1)

2002 arXiv
[15]

Nonperturbative dynamics of scalar ﬁeld theories through the Feynman-Schwinger representation

Cetin Savkli, Franz Gross, and John Tjon. “Nonperturbative dynamics of scalar ﬁeld theories through the Feynman-Schwinger representation”. Phys. Atom. Nucl. 68 (2005). [Yad. Fiz.68,874(2005)], pp. 842–860. arXiv: nucl- th/0404068 [nucl-th] (cit. on pp. 1, 2)

2005
[16]

Worldline variational approximation: A New approach to the relativistic binding problem

K. Barro-Bergﬂodt, R. Rosenfelder, and M. Stingl. “Worldline variational approximation: A New approach to the relativistic binding problem”. Mod. Phys. Lett. A20 (2005), pp. 2533–2544. arXiv: hep- ph/0403304 [hep-ph] (cit. on pp. 1, 2)

2005
[17]

Chirality and parity in a ﬁrst quantized representation

C. D. Fosco. “Chirality and parity in a ﬁrst quantized representation” (2004). arXiv: hep-th/0404068 [hep-th] (cit. on p. 1)

2004 arXiv
[18]

Quantum eﬀective actions from nonperturbative worldline dynamics

H. Gies, J. Sanchez-Guillen, and R. A. Vazquez. “Quantum eﬀective actions from nonperturbative worldline dynamics”. JHEP 08 (2005), p. 067. arXiv: hep-th/0505275 [hep-th] (cit. on pp. 1–3, 5, 7, 10, 11, 19, 20, 22)

2005 arXiv
[19]

New tests and applica- tions of the worldline path integral in the ﬁrst order formalism

C. D. Fosco, J. Sanchez-Guillen, and R. A. Vazquez. “New tests and applica- tions of the worldline path integral in the ﬁrst order formalism”. Phys. Rev. D73 (2006), p. 045010. arXiv: hep-th/0511026 [hep-th] (cit. on p. 1). REFERENCES 29

2006 arXiv
[20]

Pair creation in inhomogeneous ﬁelds from worldline instantons

Gerald Dunne and Christian Schubert. “Pair creation in inhomogeneous ﬁelds from worldline instantons”. AIP Conf.Proc. 857 (2006), pp. 240–248. arXiv: hep-ph/0604089 [hep-ph] (cit. on pp. 1, 2)

2006 arXiv
[21]

Variational worldline approximation for the relativistic two-body bound state in a scalar model

K. Barro-Bergﬂodt, R. Rosenfelder, and M. Stingl. “Variational worldline approximation for the relativistic two-body bound state in a scalar model”. Few Body Syst. 39 (2006), pp. 193–253. arXiv: hep- ph/0601220 [hep-ph] (cit. on pp. 1, 2)

2006
[22]

Integral representations combining ladders and crossed- ladders

F. Bastianelli et al. “Integral representations combining ladders and crossed- ladders”. JHEP 07 (2014), p. 066. arXiv: 1405.7770 [hep-ph] (cit. on p. 1)

2014 arXiv
[23]

Lattice worldline represen- tation of correlators in a background ﬁeld

Thomas Epelbaum, Francois Gelis, and Bin Wu. “Lattice worldline represen- tation of correlators in a background ﬁeld”. JHEP 06 (2015), p. 148. arXiv: 1503.05333 [hep-ph] (cit. on p. 1)

2015 arXiv
[24]

Worldline holography to all orders and higher spins

Dennis D. Dietrich. “Worldline holography to all orders and higher spins”. Phys. Rev. D94.8 (2016), p. 086013. arXiv: 1507.04350 [hep-ph] (cit. on p. 1)

2016 arXiv
[25]

Dressed scalar propagator in a non-Abelian background from the worldline formalism

Naser Ahmadiniaz, Fiorenzo Bastianelli, and Olindo Corradini. “Dressed scalar propagator in a non-Abelian background from the worldline formalism”.Phys. Rev. D93.2 (2016). [Addendum: Phys. Rev.D93,no.4,049904(2016)], p. 025035. arXiv: 1508.05144 [hep-th] (cit. on p. 1)

2016 arXiv
[26]

Thermal Schwinger pair production at arbitrary coupling

Oliver Gould and Arttu Rajantie. “Thermal Schwinger pair production at arbitrary coupling”. Phys. Rev. D96.7 (2017), p. 076002. arXiv: 1704.04801 [hep-th] (cit. on p. 1)

2017 arXiv
[27]

Worldline sphaleron for ther- mal Schwinger pair production

Oliver Gould, Arttu Rajantie, and Cheng Xie. “Worldline sphaleron for ther- mal Schwinger pair production”. Phys. Rev. D98.5 (2018), p. 056022. arXiv: 1806.02665 [hep-th] (cit. on p. 1)

2018 arXiv
[28]

FEYN CALC: Computer algebraic calculation of Feynman amplitudes

R. Mertig, M. Bohm, and Ansgar Denner. “FEYN CALC: Computer algebraic calculation of Feynman amplitudes”. Comput. Phys. Commun. 64 (1991), pp. 345–359 (cit. on p. 1)

1991
[29]

Three- loop Euler-Heisenberg Lagrangian in 1+1 QED, part 1: single fermion-loop part

Idrish Huet, Michel Rausch De Traubenberg, and Christian Schubert. “Three- loop Euler-Heisenberg Lagrangian in 1+1 QED, part 1: single fermion-loop part” (2018). arXiv: 1812.08380 [hep-th] (cit. on p. 2)

2018 arXiv
[30]

Euler-Heisenberg lagrangians and asymptotic analysis in 1+1 QED, part 1: Two-loop

I. Huet, D. G. C. McKeon, and C. Schubert. “Euler-Heisenberg lagrangians and asymptotic analysis in 1+1 QED, part 1: Two-loop”. JHEP 12 (2010), p. 036. arXiv: 1010.5315 [hep-th] (cit. on p. 2)

2010 arXiv
[31]

The Euler-Heisenberg Lagrangian Beyond One Loop

Idrish Huet, Michel Rausch de Traubenberg, and Christian Schubert. “The Euler-Heisenberg Lagrangian Beyond One Loop”. Int. J. Mod. Phys. Conf. Ser. 14 (2012), pp. 383–393. arXiv: 1112.1049 [hep-th] (cit. on p. 2)

2012 arXiv
[32]

Multiloop Euler–Heisenberg Lagrangians, Schwinger Pair Creation, and the Photon S-Matrix

I. Huet, M. R. Traubenberg, and C. Schubert. “Multiloop Euler–Heisenberg Lagrangians, Schwinger Pair Creation, and the Photon S-Matrix”.Russ. Phys. J. 59.11 (2017), pp. 1746–1751 (cit. on p. 2)

2017
[33]

Mul- tiloop Euler-Heisenberg Lagrangians, Schwinger pair creation, and the QED N - photon amplitudes

Idrish Huet, Michel Rausch de Traubenberg, and Christian Schubert. “Mul- tiloop Euler-Heisenberg Lagrangians, Schwinger pair creation, and the QED N - photon amplitudes”. PoS LL2018 (2018), p. 035. arXiv: 1807 . 05938 [hep-th] (cit. on p. 2)

2018
[34]

Worldline instantons. II. The Fluctuation prefactor

Gerald V. Dunne et al. “Worldline instantons. II. The Fluctuation prefactor”. Phys. Rev. D73 (2006), p. 065028. arXiv: hep-th/0602176 [hep-th] (cit. on p. 2)

2006 arXiv
[35]

Dynamically assisted Schwinger mechanism

Ralf Schutzhold, Holger Gies, and Gerald Dunne. “Dynamically assisted Schwinger mechanism”. Phys. Rev. Lett.101 (2008), p. 130404. arXiv:0807.0754 [hep-th] (cit. on p. 2)

2008 arXiv
[36]

Localisation in worldline pair production and lightfront zero- modes

Anton Ilderton. “Localisation in worldline pair production and lightfront zero- modes”. JHEP 09 (2014), p. 166. arXiv: 1406.1513 [hep-th] (cit. on p. 2). 30 REFERENCES

2014 arXiv
[37]

Pair production from residues of complex worldline instantons

Anton Ilderton, Greger Torgrimsson, and Jonatan W˚ ardh. “Pair production from residues of complex worldline instantons”. Phys. Rev. D92.2 (2015), p. 025009. arXiv: 1503.08828 [hep-th] (cit. on p. 2)

2015 arXiv
[38]

Doubly assisted Sauter-Schwinger eﬀect

Greger Torgrimsson, Johannes Oertel, and Ralf Sch¨ utzhold. “Doubly assisted Sauter-Schwinger eﬀect”. Phys. Rev. D94.6 (2016), p. 065035. arXiv: 1607. 02448 [hep-th] (cit. on p. 2)

2016
[39]

Dynamically assisted Sauter-Schwinger eﬀect — non-perturbative versus perturbative aspects

Greger Torgrimsson et al. “Dynamically assisted Sauter-Schwinger eﬀect — non-perturbative versus perturbative aspects”.JHEP 06 (2017), p. 043. arXiv: 1703.09203 [hep-th] (cit. on p. 2)

2017 arXiv
[40]

Euclidean mirrors: enhanced vac- uum decay from reﬂected instantons

Ibrahim Akal and Gudrid Moortgat-Pick. “Euclidean mirrors: enhanced vac- uum decay from reﬂected instantons”. J. Phys. G45.5 (2018), p. 055007. arXiv: 1706.06447 [hep-th] (cit. on p. 2)

2018 arXiv
[41]

The self-energy of the scalar nucleon

Koichi Mano. “The self-energy of the scalar nucleon”. PhD thesis. Caltech, 1955 (cit. on p. 2)

1955
[42]

Stochastic solution to highly nonlocal actions: The Polaron problem

C. Alexandrou and R. Rosenfelder. “Stochastic solution to highly nonlocal actions: The Polaron problem”. Phys. Rept. 215 (1992), pp. 1–48 (cit. on p. 2)

1992
[43]

Polaron variational methods in the particle representation of ﬁeld theory. 1. General Formalism

R. Rosenfelder and A. W. Schreiber. “Polaron variational methods in the particle representation of ﬁeld theory. 1. General Formalism”.Phys. Rev. D53 (1996), pp. 3337–3353. arXiv: nucl-th/9504002 [nucl-th] (cit. on p. 2)

1996 arXiv
[44]

Polaron variational methods in the par- ticle representation of ﬁeld theory. 2. Numerical results for the propagator

R. Rosenfelder and A. W. Schreiber. “Polaron variational methods in the par- ticle representation of ﬁeld theory. 2. Numerical results for the propagator”. Phys. Rev. D53 (1996), pp. 3354–3365. arXiv: nucl-th/9504005 [nucl-th] (cit. on p. 2)

1996 arXiv
[45]

UV Completion on the Worldline

Steven Abel and Nicola Andrea Dondi. “UV Completion on the Worldline” (2019). arXiv: 1905.04258 [hep-th] (cit. on p. 2)

2019 arXiv
[46]

Quantum diﬀusion of magnetic ﬁelds in a numerical worldline approach

Holger Gies and Kurt Langfeld. “Quantum diﬀusion of magnetic ﬁelds in a numerical worldline approach”. Nucl. Phys. B613 (2001), pp. 353–365. arXiv: hep-ph/0102185 [hep-ph] (cit. on pp. 2, 5)

2001 arXiv
[47]

Loops and loop clouds: A Numerical ap- proach to the worldline formalism in QED

Holger Gies and Kurt Langfeld. “Loops and loop clouds: A Numerical ap- proach to the worldline formalism in QED”. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A17 (2002), pp. 966–978. arXiv: hep-ph/0112198 [hep-ph] (cit. on p. 2)

2002 arXiv
[48]

Casimir eﬀect on the worldline

Holger Gies, Kurt Langfeld, and Laurent Moyaerts. “Casimir eﬀect on the worldline”. JHEP 0306 (2003), p. 018. arXiv: hep - th / 0303264 [hep-th] (cit. on pp. 2, 20)

2003
[49]

Quantum energies with worldline numer- ics

Holger Gies and Klaus Klingmuller. “Quantum energies with worldline numer- ics”. J. Phys. A39 (2006), pp. 6415–6422. arXiv: hep-th/0511092 [hep-th] (cit. on p. 2)

2006 arXiv
[50]

Worldline algorithms for Casimir con- ﬁgurations

Holger Gies and Klaus Klingmuller. “Worldline algorithms for Casimir con- ﬁgurations”. Phys. Rev. D74 (2006), p. 045002. arXiv: quant- ph/0605141 [quant-ph] (cit. on p. 2)

2006
[51]

Casimir Forces via Worldline Numerics: Method Improve- ments and Potential Engineering Applications

Klaus Aehlig et al. “Casimir Forces via Worldline Numerics: Method Improve- ments and Potential Engineering Applications” (2011). arXiv: 1110 . 5936 [hep-th] (cit. on p. 2)

2011
[52]

Parallel Worldline Numerics: Implementa- tion and Error Analysis

Dan Mazur and Jeremy S. Heyl. “Parallel Worldline Numerics: Implementa- tion and Error Analysis” (2014). arXiv: 1407.7486 [hep-th] (cit. on p. 2)

2014 arXiv
[53]

Pair production in inhomogeneous ﬁelds

Holger Gies and Klaus Klingmuller. “Pair production in inhomogeneous ﬁelds”. Phys.Rev. D72 (2005), p. 065001. arXiv: hep-ph/0505099 [hep-ph] (cit. on p. 2)

2005 arXiv
[54]

Integral transforms of the quantum mechanical path integral: hit function and path averaged potential

James P. Edwards et al. “Integral transforms of the quantum mechanical path integral: hit function and path averaged potential”. Phys. Rev. E97.4 (2018), p. 042114. arXiv: 1709.04984 [quant-ph] (cit. on p. 2). REFERENCES 31

2018 arXiv
[55]

Applications of the worldline Monte Carlo formalism in quantum mechanics

James P. Edwards et al. “Applications of the worldline Monte Carlo formalism in quantum mechanics” (2019). arXiv: 1903.00536 [quant-ph] (cit. on p. 2)

2019 arXiv
[56]

Scalar model of eﬀective ﬁeld theory in curved space

Tiago G. Ribeiro and Ilya L. Shapiro. “Scalar model of eﬀective ﬁeld theory in curved space” (2019). arXiv: 1908.01937 [hep-th] (cit. on p. 3)

2019 arXiv
[57]

Unitarity, stability and loops of unstable ghosts

John F. Donoghue and Gabriel Menezes. “Unitarity, stability and loops of unstable ghosts” (2019). arXiv: 1908.02416 [hep-th] (cit. on p. 3)

2019 arXiv
[58]

Worldline Numerics for Energy- Momentum Tensors in Casimir Geometries

Marco Schafer, Idrish Huet, and Holger Gies. “Worldline Numerics for Energy- Momentum Tensors in Casimir Geometries”.J. Phys. A49.13 (2016), p. 135402. arXiv: 1509.03509 [hep-th] (cit. on p. 20)

2016 arXiv
[59]

Energy-Momentum Tensors with Worldline Numerics

Marco Schafer, Idrish Huet, and Holger Gies. “Energy-Momentum Tensors with Worldline Numerics”. Int. J. Mod. Phys. Conf. Ser. 14 (2012), pp. 511–

2012
[520]

arXiv: 1112.0469 [hep-th] (cit. on p. 20)

arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Mathematical formulation of the quantum theory of electro- magnetic interaction

R.P. Feynman. “Mathematical formulation of the quantum theory of electro- magnetic interaction”. Phys.Rev. 80 (1950), pp. 440–457 (cit. on p. 1)

work page 1950

[2] [2]

Slow Electrons in a Polar Crystal

R. P. Feynman. “Slow Electrons in a Polar Crystal”. Phys. Rev. 97 (1955), pp. 660–665 (cit. on p. 1). 28 REFERENCES

work page 1955

[3] [3]

The Particle Limit of Field Theory: A New Strong Coupling Expansion

M. B. Halpern and W. Siegel. “The Particle Limit of Field Theory: A New Strong Coupling Expansion”. Phys. Rev. D16 (1977), p. 2486 (cit. on pp. 1, 2)

work page 1977

[4] [4]

Gauge Fields and Strings

Alexander M. Polyakov. “Gauge Fields and Strings”. Contemp. Concepts Phys. 3 (1987), pp. 1–301 (cit. on p. 1)

work page 1987

[5] [5]

A New Approach to One Loop Calculations in Gauge Theories

Zvi Bern and David A. Kosower. “A New Approach to One Loop Calculations in Gauge Theories”. Phys.Rev. D38 (1988), p. 1888 (cit. on p. 1)

work page 1988

[6] [6]

Field theory without Feynman diagrams: One loop eﬀective actions

Matthew J. Strassler. “Field theory without Feynman diagrams: One loop eﬀective actions”. Nucl. Phys. B385 (1992), pp. 145–184. arXiv: hep - ph / 9205205 [hep-ph] (cit. on p. 1)

work page 1992

[7] [7]

On the calculation of eﬀective actions by string methods

Michael G. Schmidt and Christian Schubert. “On the calculation of eﬀective actions by string methods”. Phys. Lett. B318 (1993), pp. 438–446. arXiv: hep-th/9309055 [hep-th] (cit. on p. 1)

arXiv 1993

[8] [8]

Vacuum polarization in QED with world- line methods

W. Dittrich and R. Shaisultanov. “Vacuum polarization in QED with world- line methods”. Phys. Rev. D62 (2000), p. 045024. arXiv: hep- th/0001171 [hep-th] (cit. on p. 1)

work page arXiv 2000