Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Critical scaling for spectral functions

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Real-time spectral flows in 2+1D phi^4 theory yield a critical exponent near 0.10, consistent across three independent extractions.

desk verdict A careful proof-of-principle for real-time critical exponents, but the extracted η≈0.1 is truncation-dependent and not a quantitative result. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.09142 v1 pith:VUMYXWWE submitted 2025-06-10 hep-th

Konrad Kockler , Jan M. Pawlowski , Jonas Wessely This is my paper
classification hep-th
keywords spectralfunctionsCallan-Symanzikequationfunctionalrenormalisationgroupcriticalexponentsscalarphi^4theoryIsinguniversalityclassWilson-Fisherfixedpointreal-timedynamics
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 tries to show that real-time (Minkowski-space) correlation functions of 2+1-dimensional $\phi^4$ theory can be computed through the critical regime using the spectral Callan-Symanzik equation, and that the scaling of those spectral functions yields the Ising critical exponent $\eta$. The authors compute the single-particle spectral function and the s-channel spectral function of the four-point vertex, both in and outside the scaling window, and extract $\eta$ in three independent ways. The three extractions, $\eta_\rho = 0.101^{+0.004}_{-0.028}$, $\eta_{\rho_4}/2 = 0.077^{+0.002}_{-0.003}$, and $\eta = 0.095(9)$ from the pole flow of $Z_\phi$, are consistent with each other and with comparable real-time truncations in the literature. The point of the exercise is that a real-time renormalisation group flow that preserves causality can reach critical scaling, which matters for future applications to strongly correlated systems such as QCD near a critical end point.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the spectral functional Callan-Symanzik equation, a mass-flow renormalisation group equation whose regulator is the mass parameter itself, $m_\phi^2 = Z_\phi k^2$, so that the cutoff scale is exactly the on-shell pole mass. Combined with the Källén-Lehmann representation, the flow lives on real frequencies and preserves manifest Lorentz invariance and causality. The system is closed by an inhomogeneous Bethe-Salpeter equation for the four-point function, which amounts to an s-channel bubble resummation, $\Gamma^{(4)}(p) = \lambda_\phi / (1 + (\lambda_\phi/2) D_{\mathrm{fish}}(p))$, and by an effective potential with vanishing couplings beyond $\phi^4$. The momentum integrals in the tadpole and fish diagrams are done analytically, leaving one- and two-dimensional spectral integrals whose only non-perturbative input is the spectral functions themselves.

What would settle it

Run the same spectral flow with the full effective potential and with t- and u-channel contributions included, the extension sketched in Appendix H: if the three extractions continue to agree but the common $\eta$ stays near 0.1 instead of moving toward the Ising value $\eta = 0.03631(3)$, the claim that the current truncation resolves the universal scaling would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the spectral Callan-Symanzik equation, closed with an s-channel bubble-resummed four-point function and an effective potential truncated at order $\phi^4$, already captures the universal scaling of the 2+1D $\phi^4$ theory in the symmetric phase. On this truncation the propagator spectral function develops a power-law window $\rho(\lambda) \propto \lambda^{-2+\eta}$ and the s-channel vertex spectral function $\rho_4(\lambda) \propto \lambda^{1-2\eta}$, with the plateau of the sliding exponents allowing a numerical extraction of $\eta$. The authors report that the extracted exponents from the propagator, from the vertex, and from the on-shell wave-function flow agree within errors, and compare favourably with other real-time computations at a comparable truncation level, while remaining above the precise Ising value $\eta = 0.03631(3)$, a deviation the paper attributes to the $\phi^4$ truncation of the effective potential.

Load-bearing premise

The computation stands or falls on the assumption that keeping only the s-channel momentum dependence of the four-point function and cutting the effective potential at order $\phi^4$ still captures the universal scaling of the propagator; if the omitted t- and u-channel momentum dependence or higher-order couplings dominate in the scaling regime, the extracted $\eta$ reflects the truncation rather than the physics.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The scaling regime sets in at pole masses below about one percent of the classical coupling, $m_\phi/\lambda_\phi \lesssim 10^{-2}$, meaning the power-law window is narrow in this truncation.
  • In that window the propagator spectral function follows $\rho(\lambda) \propto \lambda^{-2+\eta}$ and the s-channel vertex spectral function follows $\rho_4(\lambda) \propto \lambda^{1-2\eta}$.
  • The three extractions, $\eta_\rho = 0.101^{+0.004}_{-0.028}$, $\eta_{\rho_4}/2 = 0.077^{+0.002}_{-0.003}$, and $\eta = 0.095(9)$ from the flow of $Z_\phi$, are mutually consistent within errors.
  • The results agree with equally truncated real-time Dyson-Schwinger ($\eta \approx 0.11$) and Keldysh-fRG ($\eta = 0.0988$) computations, and the deviation from the conformal bootstrap value $0.03631(3)$ is largely attributed by the paper to the $\phi^4$ truncation of the effective potential.
  • Because the method preserves Lorentz invariance and causality, the setup is positioned to be transferred to the mesonic sector of QCD to study real-time physics near a potential critical end point.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: since the paper itself attributes much of the gap between $\eta \approx 0.10$ and the Ising value $0.036$ to the $V_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(n>2)} = 0$ truncation, a natural next test is to couple the spectral propagator flow to the full effective potential; if the exponent then moves toward $0.036$ while the three methods stay mutually consistent, that would confirm the truncation, n
  • Editorial inference: the s-channel-only spectral machinery could be tested at the upper boundary of the scaling window; the paper notes that this boundary is set by the classical coupling, so replacing the $\phi^4$ initial condition by a running effective coupling, as sketched in its Appendix H, is a concrete extension that would sharpen $\eta_\rho$ and turn $\eta_{\rho_4}$ from a lower bound into
  • Editorial inference: a cross-check by computing the same quantities in the broken phase, where the fixed-point field value is nonzero and convergence is expected to be faster, would test whether the symmetric-phase extraction underestimates the reliability of the truncation; agreement between the two phases would strengthen the universal-scaling claim.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a real-time spectral functional Callan-Symanzik framework for three-dimensional scalar phi^4 theory and uses it to compute the single-particle spectral function and the s-channel four-point spectral function in and outside the scaling regime. Working in the symmetric phase with an on-shell renormalisation condition, the authors close the flow of the inverse propagator by an s-channel bubble-resummed four-point function and a phi^4-truncated effective potential. From the scaling of rho(lambda), rho4(lambda), and the k-dependence of the on-shell wave function they extract eta_rho = 0.101(+0.004/-0.028), eta_rho4/2 = 0.077(+0.002/-0.003), and eta = 0.095(9), and compare these with Euclidean LPA' benchmarks and with other real-time truncations. The paper is explicit that the phi^4 truncation is responsible for much of the distance from the conformal-bootstrap value eta ~ 0.036 and that improvements such as a full effective potential and t/u-channel momentum dependence are left to future work.

Significance. If the results are taken at face value, the paper provides a useful demonstration that a manifestly Lorentz-invariant, causal spectral fRG scheme can reach a scaling regime and produce power-law spectral functions with a nontrivial anomalous dimension. The technical execution has notable strengths: the momentum integrals in the tadpole and fish diagrams are performed analytically with explicit spectral representations (Appendix G), the extrapolation procedures are documented in detail (Appendix D), and the authors benchmark their truncation against LPA' fixed-point computations in different potential truncations (Appendix E). However, the significance is limited by the fact that the central quantitative output, eta ~ 0.1, is obtained in a truncation whose own benchmark shows a ~0.08 sensitivity to the effective-potential truncation alone; the method-specific validation would require an estimate of that systematic error or an improved truncation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III A and Appendix E] The uncertainties quoted in (32a), (32b), and (35) are extrapolation uncertainties only; no truncation error is included. The paper's own LPA' benchmark shows that changing only the effective-potential truncation from V^(n>2)_eff = 0 to the full potential moves eta from 0.1600 to 0.0802 (Table I and Table II, Appendix E), a shift of about 0.08 that is the same order as the gap between the three extractions and as the deviation from the Ising value. In this situation the statement that the three extractions are 'consistent with each other' (Section III A 1) supports only consistency within a single truncation, not a controlled extraction of the critical exponent. I would ask the authors to quote a systematic truncation-error band, or to reframe the quantitative claims as a demonstration of the real-time framework within a specified truncation rather than as an extraction of eta.
  2. [Eqs. (23)-(26) and Appendix H 2] The s-channel-only bubble resummation of Gamma^(4) omits the u-channel contribution that is equally important in the configuration Gamma^(4)(p,q,-q,-p) entering the tadpole diagram, as well as the constant t-channel part; the authors themselves note in Appendix H 2 that these channels shift the intrinsic scale and are needed for a uniform scaling limit. Because the flow equation (26) receives its entire momentum-dependent quantum correction through this vertex, the reported eta values may reflect the missing channels rather than the spectral CS method. A concrete test would be to include the constant t-channel contribution via the effective coupling described in Appendix H 2, or to show numerically how eta_rho changes when the u-channel is added; without such a test the central quantitative claim remains truncation-dominated.
  3. [Section III A 1 and Appendix B] The four-point spectral function rho4 is computed from the propagator spectral function through the fish diagram (25), so eta_rho4 is not an independent determination of eta. The paper acknowledges this by calling (32b) 'a consistency check and a lower bound,' but the subsequent sentence that the agreement 'further validates the computation' overstates the evidential value: the agreement mainly confirms that the fish-diagram construction is implemented consistently, not that the underlying truncation is accurate. This should be reworded so that the logical status of the cross-check is not inflated.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix D 1 and Figure 7a] The choice of the polynomial order (Nmax = 2 for eta_rho, Nmax = 5 for eta_rho4) is based on chi^2_red and overfitting behaviour, but the final lambda -> 0 extrapolation in Figure 7a is estimated from only the last three points and a family of fit functions chosen 'roughly'; this procedure should be described more quantitatively, for example by reporting the fit ranges and the spread of the three extrapolations.
  2. [Section III A 2, Eq. (35)] The value eta = 0.095(9) is quoted with an uncertainty, but the text does not explain how the error 0.009 is obtained; since this is one of the three main numerical results, the derivation of both the central value and the error should be specified.
  3. [Section II B 2, Eq. (23)] The Bethe-Salpeter kernel is taken as classical and the authors cite [1,3,6,11], but a one-sentence justification of why this is the leading non-trivial kernel in the present truncation would help the reader.
  4. [Section III A 1, below Eq. (29a)] The sentence 'The exponent in (29a) is the critical exponent eta ~ 0.036 of the three-dimensional Ising model, if no approximation is applied' is clear, but it could be sharpened to distinguish the exact theory value from the value obtained in the present truncation, which is the relevant comparison for the reader.
  5. [Appendix G 1, Eq. (G1c)] The convention Im(arctanh(x > 1)) = +pi/2 is stated, but the sign convention should be checked explicitly against the retarded limit p0 = -i(omega + i0+) to avoid ambiguity for readers who use the opposite arctanh branch.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the central anomalous dimension is obtained from the self-consistent spectral flow and is benchmarked against external results; the one soft spot is the four-point cross-check, which is derived from the same propagator spectral function and is non-independent but explicitly labeled as a consistency check.

  1. other [Section III A 1, Eqs. (29b) and (32b); Appendix B, Eq. (B3)]
    "The momentum dependence of the four-point function is entirely determined by the scattering tail of the spectral function of the propagator. Thus, this tail is the only possible source of scaling in ρ4. The critical exponent ηρ4 of the four-point spectral function should therefore be interpreted primarily as a consistency check and a lower bound for the critical exponent ηρ of the propagator."

    The four-point spectral function is not an independent observable: the fish diagram in Eq. (25) is an integral over two copies of the propagator spectral function, D_fish = ∫ ρρ, and Appendix B obtains ρ4(λ) ∝ λ^{1−2η} by inserting the propagator scaling form (29a) into Eq. (25). Therefore the plateau value ηρ4 is inherited from the same ηρ that it is compared with; the agreement between Eqs. (32b) and (32a) is a self-consistency condition rather than an independent confirmation. The paper is transparent about this dependency, explicitly labelling ηρ4 a cross-check and lower bound, so this is a mild epistemic non-independence, not a hidden circularity in the central ηρ or ηϕ extractions.

full rationale

The central result, the anomalous dimension extracted from the single-particle spectral function and from the k-scaling of Z_phi, is obtained by solving the spectral Callan-Symanzik flow equation (26) self-consistently with Eq. (A9); the exponent is not inserted as an input but emerges from the flow. The extraction via the sliding exponent (31a) is an operational measurement of the slope of a numerically computed spectral function, and the agreement with the independent Z_phi-flow result (35) is a genuine internal cross-check. The four-point result is non-independent because rho4 is computed from rho through the fish diagram, but the paper explicitly labels it a consistency check and lower bound, so this does not undermine the derivation. The result is also not fitted to the physical target: the extracted eta ≈ 0.1 differs substantially from the conformal-bootstrap and high-order fRG value eta ≈ 0.036, and the paper compares with external Keldysh-fRG results [38] as well as with spectral DSE [11]. Self-citations to [1,2,3,11] are used for the framework, the spectral implementation, and a benchmark; no uniqueness theorem is invoked to forbid alternatives, and the s-channel/phi^4 truncation is stated openly in Section II B and its limitations discussed in Appendix H. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained and the only soft spot is the explicitly non-independent four-point cross-check, which warrants a low score rather than a finding of substantial circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central computation rests on the CS flow equation from prior work, a specific on-shell regulator choice, an s-channel-only vertex resummation, and a phi^4-truncated effective potential. No new entities are introduced; the free parameters are analysis choices in the extrapolation procedure.

free parameters (3)
  • Polynomial order Nmax for k->0 extrapolation of eta_rho = 2
    Chosen based on chi^2 and overfitting analysis in Appendix D 1; this is an analysis choice, not a physical parameter.
  • Polynomial order Nmax for k->0 extrapolation of eta_rho4 = 5
    Selected as the best fit order in Appendix D 1; influences the extracted limit.
  • Extrapolation function family for lambda->0 = linear, quadratic, constant+power-law
    Three function families are averaged to estimate the lambda->0 limit and systematic error in Appendix D 2.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Renormalised Callan-Symanzik equation (7) with the CS regulator identified as m^2_phi = Z_phi k^2.
    Taken from [1,2]; the specific regulator choice is central to the on-shell scheme.
  • domain assumption The four-point function is resummed in the s-channel only via the inhomogeneous Bethe-Salpeter equation with a classical kernel, Eq. (23)-(24).
    Neglects t- and u-channel momentum dependence and dressed scattering kernel; load-bearing for the flow of the propagator.
  • domain assumption The effective potential is truncated at order phi^4, V^(n>2)_eff = 0, Eq. (27) and below.
    Higher-order scatterings are dropped; the paper attributes much of the deviation of eta from 0.036 to this truncation.
  • domain assumption The spectral sum rule (16) is enforced by rescaling the spectral tail with the factor r in (F4).
    This numerical procedure modifies the self-energy (F5); it is imposed to maintain stability and unitarity.
  • domain assumption Initial condition for the two-point function at the UV scale is the two-loop sunset result, Eq. (F1).
    Perturbative initial condition at large mass; its accuracy affects the flow into the scaling regime.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Critical scaling for spectral functions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VUMYXWWE

@misc{pith2026250609142,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Critical scaling for spectral functions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VUMYXWWE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.09142}
}
abstract

We study real-time scalar $\phi^4$-theory in 2+1 dimensions near criticality. Specifically, we compute the single-particle spectral function and that of the $s$-channel four-point function in and outside the scaling regime. The computation is done with the spectral functional Callan-Symanzik equation, which exhibits manifest Lorentz invariance and preserves causality. We extract the scaling exponent $\eta$ from the spectral function and compare our result with that from a Euclidean fixed point analysis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.09142 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Flow of the inverse two-point function with the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Propagator and vertex spectral function in the scaling regime: The different curves correspond to spectral [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Sliding scaling exponents [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: also shows Zϕ, and the scaling limit is visible in both quantities. We read off the critical exponent η as the limit k → 0, with η = lim k→0 ηϕ = 0.095(9). (35) Equation (35) agrees well with the critical exponent ob￾tained from the single-particle spectral function, (…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Logarithmic derivatives [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Dependence of the extrapolation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Limit of the extrapolation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. Self-consistent graviton spectral function in Lorentzian quantum gravity

    hep-th 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A self-consistent spectral renormalisation group computation yields a positive, normalizable graviton spectral function with a massless pole and a multi-graviton continuum decaying as 1/(λ² log³ λ²).

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    (15) Owing to Lorentz invariance, the propagator is fully de- termined by its values at vanishing spatial momentum

    Two-point function The flow of the (inverse) two-point function in the full complex frequency plane is obtained by using the K¨ all´ en- 3 Lehmann representation of the propagator, G(p) = Z λ ρ(λ) λ2 + p2 , (14) with the spectral function ρ(ω) = 2 ImG p0 → −i(ω + i0+), ⃗ p= 0 . (15) Owing to Lorentz invariance, the propagator is fully de- termined by its ...

  2. [2]

    We follow [1, 3, 6, 11] and use the inhomogeneous Bethe- Salpeter equation with a classical scattering kernel

    Four-point function We close the system of coupled equations for correla- tion functions with that of the four-point function. We follow [1, 3, 6, 11] and use the inhomogeneous Bethe- Salpeter equation with a classical scattering kernel. This amounts to a bubble resummation of the four-point func- tion in the s-channel, Γ(4)(p) = λϕ 1 + λϕ 2 Dfish(p) , (2...

  3. [3]

    The momentum-independent part is cancelled by the counter term S(2) ct in (12) due to the renormalisation condition (11)

    Wrap-up With the split (19), the tadpole contribution in (12) splits into a momentum-independent part and the contri- bution of Ddyn tad (p) in (21). The momentum-independent part is cancelled by the counter term S(2) ct in (12) due to the renormalisation condition (11). This condition also eliminates the (flowing) contribution of Ddyn tad (p) to the pole...

  4. [4]

    E. L. Solis, C. S. R. Costa, V. V. Luiz, and G. Krein, Few Body Syst. 60, 49 (2019), arXiv:1905.08710 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

    Our numerical results for the spectral functions are shown in the doubly logarithmic plots in Figure 2

    Spectral scaling We proceed with a discussion of the spectral functions ρ(λ) and ρ4(λ) as well as the respective critical expo- nents defined by the methods (1,2), discussed at the beginning of Section III. Our numerical results for the spectral functions are shown in the doubly logarithmic plots in Figure 2. The emergence of an increasing scaling window ...

  6. [6]

    The third method consists of using the k- scaling of the wave function at the pole as a proxy for the momentum and spectral scaling

    Cutoff scaling With (32a) and (32b) we have obtained η with the methods (1,2), discussed at the beginning of Sec- tion III. The third method consists of using the k- scaling of the wave function at the pole as a proxy for the momentum and spectral scaling. The result for Zϕ,k = Zϕ,k(p2 = −k2) as a function of the pole mass mpole = k is depicted in Figure ...

  7. [7]

    To extract the limit k → 0 we per- form an extrapolation

    Extrapolation towards k = 0 As expected, at k/λϕ = 10 −7 the value for the loga- rithmic derivative is not fully settled, especially at lower spectral parameters. To extract the limit k → 0 we per- form an extrapolation. We fit a polynomial of degree Nmax in k to the logarithmic derivative at several spec- tral parameters λ that lie in the respective scal...

  8. [8]

    Thus, to get a value for the (constant) anomalous dimension, we now have to take the limit λ → 0

    Extrapolation towards λ = 0 Even for the smallest cutoff scale k considered here, the scaling exponents still show a λ-dependence. Thus, to get a value for the (constant) anomalous dimension, we now have to take the limit λ → 0. The last three points of the limit k → 0 of the scaling exponent ηρ of the propagator spectral function (see Fig- ure 7a) show t...

Show all 90 references
  1. [9]

    The two-point function (and therefore the spectral function) was calculated on a logarithmic momentum grid, which over the course of the flow was expanded to include lower momenta

    Numerical implementation The numerical implementation uses Julia [67]. The two-point function (and therefore the spectral function) was calculated on a logarithmic momentum grid, which over the course of the flow was expanded to include lower momenta. To interpolate the values...

  2. [10]

    Initial condition At a sufficiently high renormalisation scale Λ, we can approximate Γ (2) using perturbation theory. The first relevant diagram is the sunset diagram with classical propagators and vertices at two-loop-level, since the con- stant tadpole is absorbed in the ren...

  3. [11]

    In the deep IR, the finite numerical precision leads to small, numeri- cal deviations from the sum rule, which, if not corrected, can build up to destabilize the flow

    Sum rule The frequency dependent two point function can be written as Γ(2)(ω) ≡ k2 − ω2 + Πk(ω) , (F3) where Πk(ω) is the loop induced self energy. In the deep IR, the finite numerical precision leads to small, numeri- cal deviations from the sum rule, which, if not corrected,...

  4. [12]

    Spectral diagrams Performing the momentum integral in the tadpole di- agram (21) leads to Ddyn tad (p) = Z λ ρ(λ1)ρ(λ2)ρ4(λ3)Ipol(λ1, λ2, λ3, p) . (G1a) with the analytic result of the momentum integration in Ipol(λ1, λ2, λ3, p) = Z q 1 (λ2 1 + q2)(λ2 2 + q2)(λ2 3 + (q + p)2) ...

  5. [13]

    Speeding up the numerical computation of the spectral integrals While the representation of the tadpole diagram in (G1) is perfectly valid, the numerical evaluation of the spectral integrals is the bottleneck of our computa- tion. It is computationally convenient to use a spec...

  6. [14]

    This can be accommo- dated for by coupling the flow of the propagator to that of the effective potential

    F ull effective potential and the broken regime To achieve quantitative precision for scaling exponents, the resolution of higher order scatterings is crucial, as dis- cussed in detail in Section III B. This can be accommo- dated for by coupling the flow of the propagator to t...

  7. [15]

    In scalar models, momentum dependences can be incorporated with the BMW-approximation [53– 55], for applications see [15]

    and [52]. In scalar models, momentum dependences can be incorporated with the BMW-approximation [53– 55], for applications see [15]. The BMW-approximation requires the computation of the two-dimensional dressing function of the two-point function in terms of momenta p and cons...

  8. [16]

    Here, p is the external mo- mentum and q the loop momentum

    Momentum dependence of the four-point function The four-point function only appears in the tadpole- diagram, which only depends on the momentum config- uration Γ (4)(p, q,−q, −p). Here, p is the external mo- mentum and q the loop momentum. In this specific mo- mentum configura...

  9. [17]

    Braun et al

    J. Braun et al. , SciPost Phys. Core 6, 061 (2023), arXiv:2206.10232 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Fehre, D

    J. Fehre, D. F. Litim, J. M. Pawlowski, and M. Reichert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 081501 (2023), arXiv:2111.13232 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Horak, F

    J. Horak, F. Ihssen, J. M. Pawlowski, J. Wessely, and N. Wink, Phys. Rev. D 110, 056009 (2024), arXiv:2303.16719 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Mezrag and G

    C. Mezrag and G. Salm` e, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 34 (2021), arXiv:2006.15947 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Horak, J

    J. Horak, J. M. Pawlowski, and N. Wink, Phys. Rev. D 102, 125016 (2020), arXiv:2006.09778 [hep-th]. 16

    2020 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Horak, J

    J. Horak, J. Papavassiliou, J. M. Pawlowski, and N. Wink, Phys. Rev. D 104, 074017 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    Horak, J

    J. Horak, J. M. Pawlowski, and N. Wink, (2022), arXiv:2202.09333 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Horak, J

    J. Horak, J. M. Pawlowski, and N. Wink, (2022), arXiv:2210.07597 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    J. M. Pawlowski and J. Wessely, (2024), arXiv:2412.12033 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Eichmann, A

    G. Eichmann, A. G´ omez, J. Horak, J. M. Pawlowski, J. Wessely, and N. Wink, Phys. Rev. D 109, 096024 (2024), arXiv:2310.16353 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    D. F. Litim and D. Zappala, Phys. Rev. D 83, 085009 (2011), arXiv:1009.1948 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Balog, H

    I. Balog, H. Chat´ e, B. Delamotte, M. Marohnic, and N. Wschebor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 240604 (2019), arXiv:1907.01829 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    De Polsi, I

    G. De Polsi, I. Balog, M. Tissier, and N. Wsche- bor, Phys. Rev. E 101, 042113 (2020), arXiv:2001.07525 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2020 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Dupuis, L

    N. Dupuis, L. Canet, A. Eichhorn, W. Metzner, J. M. Pawlowski, M. Tissier, and N. Wschebor, Phys. Rept. 910, 1–114 (2021), arXiv:2006.04853 [cond-mat.stat- mech]

    2021 arXiv

  23. [31]

    El-Showk, M

    S. El-Showk, M. F. Paulos, D. Poland, S. Rychkov, D. Simmons-Duffin, and A. Vichi, Phys. Rev. D 86, 025022 (2012), arXiv:1203.6064 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  24. [32]

    El-Showk, M

    S. El-Showk, M. F. Paulos, D. Poland, S. Rychkov, D. Simmons-Duffin, and A. Vichi, J. Stat. Phys. 157, 869 (2014), arXiv:1403.4545 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Gasenzer and J

    T. Gasenzer and J. M. Pawlowski, Phys. Lett. B 670, 135–140 (2008), arXiv:0710.4627 [cond-mat.other]

    2008 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Berges and G

    J. Berges and G. Hoffmeister, Nucl. Phys. B 813, 383 (2009), arXiv:0809.5208 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Gasenzer, S

    T. Gasenzer, S. Kessler, and J. M. Pawlowski, Eur.Phys.J. C70, 423–443 (2010), arXiv:1003.4163 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2010 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Floerchinger, JHEP 1205, 021 (2012), arXiv:1112.4374 [hep-th]

    S. Floerchinger, JHEP 1205, 021 (2012), arXiv:1112.4374 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Kamikado, N

    K. Kamikado, N. Strodthoff, L. von Smekal, and J. Wambach, Eur.Phys.J. C74, 2806 (2014), arXiv:1302.6199 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Mesterh´ azy, J

    D. Mesterh´ azy, J. H. Stockemer, L. F. Palhares, and J. Berges, Phys. Rev. B 88, 174301 (2013), arXiv:1307.1700 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2013 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Tripolt, N

    R.-A. Tripolt, N. Strodthoff, L. von Smekal, and J. Wambach, Phys. Rev. D89, 034010 (2014), arXiv:1311.0630 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  32. [40]

    J. M. Pawlowski and N. Strodthoff, Phys. Rev. D92, 094009 (2015), arXiv:1508.01160 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Kamikado, T

    K. Kamikado, T. Kanazawa, and S. Uchino, Phys. Rev. A95, 013612 (2017), arXiv:1606.03721 [cond-mat.quant- gas]

    2017 arXiv

  34. [42]

    C. Jung, F. Rennecke, R.-A. Tripolt, L. von Smekal, and J. Wambach, Phys. Rev. D95, 036020 (2017), arXiv:1610.08754 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  35. [43]

    J. M. Pawlowski, N. Strodthoff, and N. Wink, Phys. Rev. D98, 074008 (2018), arXiv:1711.07444 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Wang and P

    Z. Wang and P. Zhuang, Phys. Rev. D96, 014006 (2017), arXiv:1703.01035 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Tripolt, C

    R.-A. Tripolt, C. Jung, N. Tanji, L. von Smekal, and J. Wambach, Proceedings, 27th International Conference on Ultrarelativistic Nucleus-Nucleus Collisions (Quark Matter 2018): Venice, Italy, May 14-19, 2018 , Nucl. Phys. A982, 775–778 (2019), arXiv:1807.04952 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Tripolt, J

    R.-A. Tripolt, J. Weyrich, L. von Smekal, and J. Wambach, Phys. Rev. D98, 094002 (2018), arXiv:1807.11708 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Corell, A

    L. Corell, A. K. Cyrol, M. Heller, and J. M. Pawlowski, Phys. Rev. D 104, 025005 (2021), arXiv:1910.09369 [hep- th]

    2021 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Huelsmann, S

    S. Huelsmann, S. Schlichting, and P. Scior, Phys. Rev. D 102, 096004 (2020), arXiv:2009.04194 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Jung, J.-H

    C. Jung, J.-H. Otto, R.-A. Tripolt, and L. von Smekal, Phys. Rev. D 104, 094011 (2021), arXiv:2107.10748 [hep- ph]

    2021 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Tan, Y.-r

    Y.-y. Tan, Y.-r. Chen, and W.-j. Fu, SciPost Phys. 12, 026 (2022), arXiv:2107.06482 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Heller and J

    M. Heller and J. M. Pawlowski, (2021), arXiv:2112.12652 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  44. [52]

    J. V. Roth, D. Schweitzer, L. J. Sieke, and L. von Smekal, Phys. Rev. D 105, 116017 (2022), arXiv:2112.12568 [hep- ph]

    2022 arXiv

  45. [53]

    J. V. Roth and L. von Smekal, JHEP 10, 065 (2023), arXiv:2303.11817 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  46. [54]

    J. V. Roth, Y. Ye, S. Schlichting, and L. von Smekal, JHEP 01, 118 (2025), arXiv:2403.04573 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  47. [55]

    J. V. Roth, Y. Ye, S. Schlichting, and L. von Smekal, (2024), arXiv:2409.14470 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    T¨ opfel, J

    S. T¨ opfel, J. M. Pawlowski, and J. Braun, (2024), arXiv:2412.16059 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    W.-j. Fu, J. M. Pawlowski, R. D. Pisarski, F. Rennecke, R. Wen, and S. Yin, (2024), arXiv:2412.15949 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    J. V. Roth, Y. Ye, S. Schlichting, and L. von Smekal, (2025), arXiv:2503.21746 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Ellwanger, M

    U. Ellwanger, M. Hirsch, and A. Weber, Z.Phys. C69, 687–698 (1996), arXiv:hep-th/9506019 [hep-th]

    1996 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Ellwanger, M

    U. Ellwanger, M. Hirsch, and A. Weber, Eur.Phys.J. C1, 563–578 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9606468 [hep-ph]

    1998 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Bergerhoff and C

    B. Bergerhoff and C. Wetterich, Phys. Rev. D 57, 1591 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9708425

    1998 arXiv

  54. [62]

    J. M. Pawlowski, D. F. Litim, S. Nedelko, and L. von Smekal, Phys.Rev.Lett. 93, 152002 (2004), arXiv:hep- th/0312324 [hep-th]

    2004

  55. [63]

    Mitter, J

    M. Mitter, J. M. Pawlowski, and N. Strodthoff, Phys. Rev. D91, 054035 (2015), arXiv:1411.7978 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  56. [64]

    A. K. Cyrol, M. Mitter, J. M. Pawlowski, and N. Strodthoff, Phys. Rev. D97, 054006 (2018), arXiv:1706.06326 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Ihssen, J

    F. Ihssen, J. M. Pawlowski, F. R. Sattler, and N. Wink, (2024), arXiv:2408.08413 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  58. [66]

    W.-j. Fu, C. Huang, J. M. Pawlowski, Y.-y. Tan, and L.-j. Zhou, (2025), arXiv:2502.14388 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  59. [67]

    github.io/

    fQCD collaboration, https://fqcd-collaboration. github.io/

  60. [68]

    J. P. Blaizot, R. Mendez Galain, and N. Wschebor, Phys. Lett. B 632, 571 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0503103

    2006 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Blaizot, R

    J.-P. Blaizot, R. Mendez-Galain, and N. Wschebor, Phys. Rev. E 74, 051116 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0512317

    2006 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Blaizot, R

    J.-P. Blaizot, R. Mendez-Galain, and N. Wschebor, Phys. Rev. E 74, 051117 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0603163

    2006 arXiv

  63. [71]

    A. J. Helmboldt, J. M. Pawlowski, and N. Strodthoff, Phys. Rev. D91, 054010 (2015), arXiv:1409.8414 [hep- ph]

    2015 arXiv

  64. [72]

    A. K. Cyrol, J. M. Pawlowski, A. Rothkopf, and N. Wink, SciPost Phys. 5, 065 (2018), arXiv:1804.00945 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Bonanno, T

    A. Bonanno, T. Denz, J. M. Pawlowski, and M. Reichert, SciPost Phys. 12, 001 (2022), arXiv:2102.02217 [hep-th]. 17

    2022 arXiv

  66. [74]

    F. Gao, J. Papavassiliou, and J. M. Pawlowski, Phys. Rev. D 103, 094013 (2021), arXiv:2102.13053 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  67. [75]

    D. F. Litim, Phys. Lett. B 486, 92 (2000), arXiv:hep- th/0005245

    2000

  68. [76]

    D. F. Litim, JHEP 0111, 059 (2001), arXiv:hep- th/0111159 [hep-th]

    2001

  69. [77]

    D. F. Litim, Nucl.Phys. B631, 128–158 (2002), arXiv:hep-th/0203006 [hep-th]

    2002 arXiv

  70. [78]

    J. M. Pawlowski, Annals Phys. 322, 2831–2915 (2007), arXiv:hep-th/0512261 [hep-th]

    2007 arXiv

  71. [79]

    J. M. Pawlowski, M. M. Scherer, R. Schmidt, and S. J. Wetzel, Annals Phys. 384, 165–197 (2017), arXiv:1512.03598 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Ihssen and J

    F. Ihssen and J. M. Pawlowski, (2023), arXiv:2305.00816 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Ihssen and J

    F. Ihssen and J. M. Pawlowski, (2024), arXiv:2409.13679 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Bezanson, A

    J. Bezanson, A. Edelman, S. Karpinski, and V. B. Shah, SIAM Review 59, 65 (2017)

    2017

  75. [83]

    Grossi and N

    E. Grossi and N. Wink, SciPost Phys. Core 6, 071 (2023), arXiv:1903.09503 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Grossi, F

    E. Grossi, F. J. Ihssen, J. M. Pawlowski, and N. Wink, Phys. Rev. D 104, 016028 (2021), arXiv:2102.01602 [hep- ph]

    2021 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Koenigstein, M

    A. Koenigstein, M. J. Steil, N. Wink, E. Grossi, J. Braun, M. Buballa, and D. H. Rischke, Phys. Rev. D 106, 065012 (2022), arXiv:2108.02504 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2022 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Koenigstein, M

    A. Koenigstein, M. J. Steil, N. Wink, E. Grossi, and J. Braun, Phys. Rev. D 106, 065013 (2022), arXiv:2108.10085 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2022 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Ihssen, J

    F. Ihssen, J. M. Pawlowski, F. R. Sattler, and N. Wink, Comput. Phys. Commun. 300, 109182 (2024), arXiv:2207.12266 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Ihssen, F

    F. Ihssen, F. R. Sattler, and N. Wink, Phys. Rev. D 107, 114009 (2023), arXiv:2302.04736 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Ihssen, J

    F. Ihssen, J. M. Pawlowski, F. R. Sattler, and N. Wink, Phys. Rev. D 111, 036030 (2025), arXiv:2309.07335 [hep- th]

    2025 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Zorbach, A

    N. Zorbach, A. Koenigstein, and J. Braun, (2024), arXiv:2412.16053 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.