Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 33 references

$\pi\pi$ scattering from a similarity renormalization group perspective

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 The paper presents a similarity renormalization group treatment of pion-pion scattering that is claimed to soften the interaction into a band-diagonal form without changing the phase shifts.

desk verdict An interesting but incomplete proof-of-concept: the SRG evolution is shown to band-diagonalize, but the paper never demonstrates the preserved phase shifts it claims. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.01715 v1 pith:WZCENRAR submitted 2019-09-04 hep-ph

María Gómez-Rocha , Enrique Ruiz Arriola This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords pion-pionscatteringsimilarityrenormalizationgroupKadyshevskyequationphase-shiftequivalenceseparablepotentialsWilsongeneratorCrank-Nicolsonintegrationisospectrality
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 authors apply the similarity renormalization group (SRG) to low-energy pion-pion scattering, using the Kadyshevsky three-dimensional reduction of the Bethe-Salpeter equation so that the scattering problem has a Hamiltonian form. They claim that evolving the Hamiltonian with the Wilson generator, i.e. the relativistic kinetic energy, preserves the spectrum and therefore the phase shifts, while concentrating the interaction into a narrow band around the diagonal whose width is set by the similarity cutoff $\lambda$. They also propose a Crank-Nicolson based single-step integration of the SRG flow that is designed to preserve isospectrality at every step. If correct, this would provide a way to soften hadronic interactions without changing low-energy observables and would illustrate that scattering data do not determine a unique potential.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the double-commutator SRG flow equation $dH_s/ds = [[G_s, H_s], H_s]$ with the Wilson generator $G_s = T$, the relativistic kinetic energy $2E_p = 2\sqrt{p^2 + m_\pi^2}$, which drives the Hamiltonian to band-diagonal form while preserving its spectrum. The Kadyshevsky equation provides the Hamiltonian representation $2E_p\psi(p) + \int dq\, q^2/(2E_q^2)\, v(p,q)\psi(q) = \sqrt{s}\,\psi(p)$ that makes the scattering problem amenable to the flow. The numerical engine is a Crank-Nicolson single-step integration of the resulting nonlinear integro-differential equations, promoted as an isospectral integrator.

What would settle it

Compute the phase shifts from the evolved potential at a small value of $\lambda$ using the same Kadyshevsky integral equation and compare them with the original phase shifts up to $\sqrt{s}=1.4$ GeV; any difference beyond numerical tolerance would rule out the claimed isospectrality. As a simpler check, monitor the eigenvalues of the finite Hamiltonian matrix along the flow: if they drift by more than round-off error, the single-step integrator does not preserve the spectrum.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that applying SRG to the Kadyshevsky Hamiltonian for the $\pi\pi$ channels $JI=00$, $11$, and $02$ preserves the scattering phase shifts and turns the originally separable potential into a band-diagonal matrix whose bandwidth is controlled by $\lambda$. The paper shows the evolution of the Hamiltonian matrices from the initial long-tailed separable fits toward narrower and narrower diagonal bands, and states that in the large-flow limit the diagonal entries approach the eigenvalues of the original Hamiltonian. The novelty is the use of a single-step Crank-Nicolson finite-difference scheme for the matrix-valued SRG equation, which the authors assert keeps the spectrum invariant at every intermediate step.

Load-bearing premise

The single-step Crank-Nicolson integration on a finite momentum grid, with the potential's very long high-momentum tails cut off, preserves the Hamiltonian spectrum exactly at every step, even though no direct comparison of phase shifts before and after evolution is shown.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • An SRG-evolved pion-pion potential remains phase-shift equivalent to the original while becoming banded and no longer separable, so it can be truncated to a finite momentum window with controlled error.
  • The same construction can be applied to other meson-meson channels, including coupled-channel cases where inelastic thresholds such as $K\bar{K}$ enter.
  • The bandwidth $\lambda$ defines a natural model-space size, suggesting a practical way to build low-momentum effective interactions for hadronic few-body problems.
  • The method offers a continuous alternative to discrete matrix diagonalization: evolving to small $\lambda$ approximately diagonalizes the Hamiltonian in infinitely many infinitesimal steps.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A decisive check the paper leaves open is to compute phase shifts from the evolved potential at $\lambda=0.32\ \mathrm{fm}^{-1}$ and compare them with the original ones; this would directly test the claimed isospectrality.
  • Because the fitted separable potentials extend to momenta of order 100 GeV, the finite grid and the treatment of the ultraviolet tails are likely to dominate the numerical error; varying the grid cutoff would reveal how robust the band-diagonalization really is.
  • If intermediate-step isospectrality holds, the same single-step Crank-Nicolson flow could serve as a preconditioner for scattering integral equations in other relativistic two-body problems.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper applies the Similarity Renormalization Group (SRG) with the Wilson generator to a Hamiltonian formulation of pion-pion scattering based on the Kadyshevsky equation. The authors consider the JI=00, 11, and 02 channels, using separable potentials whose parameters are refitted to the upgraded Madrid phase-shift analysis. They propose a Crank-Nicolson single-step finite-difference integration of the SRG flow equations and claim that this scheme preserves isospectrality at every step. The paper shows that SRG evolution makes the Hamiltonian matrix band-diagonal, with bandwidth decreasing as the similarity cutoff λ decreases, and concludes that the evolved Hamiltonian preserves the phase shifts while becoming a softer, more local interaction.

Significance. If the central claims were fully demonstrated, the paper would present a useful extension of SRG techniques from nuclear physics to meson-meson scattering, with the attractive feature that a Hamiltonian softened by SRG retains the same scattering phase shifts. The explicit separable model is transparent, and the proposed Crank-Nicolson integration method, if validated, could be a practical numerical tool. The paper also makes a falsifiable prediction (bandedness with width governed by λ) and calls attention to the problematic high-momentum tails of empirical hadronic potentials. However, in its current form the evidence for the key isospectrality claim is absent: no phase shifts are shown after SRG evolution, and the numerical method is deferred to a future publication. The significance is therefore conditional on the promised verification.

major comments (3)
  1. [SRG evolution, Figure 2] The central claim that 'the evolved Hamiltonian preserves the phase-shifts' is not supported by any numerical evidence in the paper. Figure 2 shows only that the Hamiltonian matrix becomes band-diagonal under SRG evolution. Bandedness concerns the size of off-diagonal matrix elements; it does not by itself imply that the on-shell T-matrix, and hence the phase shifts δ00, δ11, and δ02 computed from Eqs. (5)-(7) with the evolved potential V_s, remain unchanged. The authors should compute the phase shifts from the evolved Hamiltonians at the displayed values of λ (e.g., λ=10 and 0.32 fm^-1) and compare them with the original phase shifts in Fig. 1. Without such a check, the paper demonstrates softening of the potential but not preservation of scattering observables.
  2. [Abstract and SRG evolution] The assertion that the Crank-Nicolson single-step finite difference 'preserves isospectrality at any step of the calculations' is unverifiable from the manuscript. The discretized flow equation, the momentum grid size N, the momentum cutoff, and the treatment of the long high-momentum tails (which extend up to 100 GeV) are not specified; they are deferred to the forthcoming Ref. [31]. The SRG flow equation is a nonlinear integro-differential equation, and formal unitarity of an exact evolution does not automatically extend to a truncated finite-difference scheme on a finite grid with long tails. The authors should either provide the details of the scheme, a convergence test in N and the cutoff, or at least a numerical comparison of the spectrum of H_s with that of H_0 (or of the resulting phase shifts) to support this load-bearing claim.
  3. [The model and Figure 1] The text states that the parameters of the separable potentials have been refitted to the upgraded Madrid analysis [17], and Figure 1 compares the resulting phase shifts with the same data. This comparison is therefore a measure of the quality of the fit, not a test of the SRG procedure. The paper should state this explicitly and, more importantly, provide an out-of-sample check of the SRG claim by comparing phase shifts computed before and after evolution from the same initial Hamiltonian. As it stands, the agreement in Figure 1 cannot be used as evidence for the validity of the SRG evolution, because it is built into the input potential by construction.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Introduction and SRG method] The notation is confusing because s is used both for the SRG flow parameter in Eq. (1) and for the Mandelstam variable √s in the scattering equations and Figure 1; the relation s = 1/λ^2 is only given in passing. Using a different symbol, e.g., t or α, for the flow parameter would greatly improve readability.
  2. [SRG evolution] In Eq. (17) and surrounding text, the phrase 'the effect for SRG evolving is narrowing the interaction to a region of a width ∼ λ' should be stated more precisely: the suppression factor is exp[-s(2Ep' - 2Ep)^2], and the width in momentum-difference space is governed by 1/s^(1/2) = λ. Also, in the same paragraph, the text mentions 'the matris' — a typo for 'the matrix.'
  3. [The model] The reference to the separable model of 'Garzilazo and Mathelitsch' appears to be a misspelling of Garcilazo and Mathelitsch, Ref. [18]. Please correct the spelling and ensure consistency throughout.
  4. [Figure 2] The caption of Figure 2 would benefit from a statement of the momentum grid size and the cutoff used in the numerical evolution, since the claim that the band width is 'about the value of λ' cannot be gauged without these details.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper transparently fits its potential to Madrid data and never presents that fit as a prediction, while the SRG phase-shift preservation claim is an unverified assertion, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's only data comparison, Figure 1, compares a separable potential that was explicitly re-fitted to the upgraded Madrid analysis [17]; the text even calls the result 'the fit is rather reasonable,' so the agreement is presented as a fit rather than as an independent prediction. The SRG evolution property that H_s remains unitarily equivalent to H_0 is a standard mathematical feature quoted from Wegner and from Głazek and Wilson, and the statement that the evolved Hamiltonian preserves phase shifts is a formal consequence of that equivalence, not an inference from the fitted parameters. No post-evolution phase shifts are computed, so there is no numerical claim that could be 'forced' by the fit; the absence of such a calculation is a missing validation, not circularity. The Crank-Nicolson single-step isospectrality assertion is deferred to the authors' own forthcoming work [31] and is therefore unsupported in this manuscript, but that is an evidentiary gap rather than a reduction of the conclusion to an input by construction. Self-citations [21,22,32,33] are contextual and do not carry the derivation. No equation in the paper is equivalent to its input by definition, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction; accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

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

The central calculation rests on a fitted separable Hamiltonian and the assumption that SRG flow preserves the spectrum on a finite grid. The free parameters are the form factor coefficients re-fitted to the Madrid phase-shift analysis; no independent handle on these coefficients is provided. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (5)
  • g00 form factor coefficients = 617.865, 99.3951, 423.64, 1034.75
    Fitted to the Madrid analysis [17] for the JI=00 channel; appear in Eq. (10).
  • g11 form factor coefficients = 132.237, 900.462, -5.11596, 21.9744
    Fitted to the Madrid analysis [17] for the JI=11 channel; appear in Eq. (11).
  • g02 form factor coefficients = 3.65, 3.9601, 175.7, 357.21
    Fitted to the Madrid analysis [17] for the JI=02 channel; appear in Eq. (12).
  • signs eta_alpha = -1, -1, +1
    Attractive or repulsive channel signs, Eq. (13), chosen to match the phase shift behavior.
  • Momentum grid size N = 100
    Used for the energy-shift (grid) solution in Figure 1; chosen by hand.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Kadyshevsky equation is a valid 3D reduction of the Bethe-Salpeter equation and admits a Hamiltonian interpretation.
    Used to define the Hamiltonian in Eq. (8) that is then evolved by SRG. Not derived in this paper.
  • standard math The SRG flow generated by the anti-Hermitian operator [[G,H],H] preserves the spectrum.
    Invoked in the text: 'One property of the SRG is that the evolved Hamiltonian Hs has the same spectrum as the original one'. Assumed for the numerical method.
  • domain assumption The separable potential model of Ref. [18], with re-fitted parameters, adequately describes pi pi scattering up to sqrt(s)=1.4 GeV in the three channels.
    All results depend on this input Hamiltonian. The authors note discrepancies above the K Kbar threshold in the 00 channel.
  • domain assumption The pion can be treated as an elementary field and inelastic channels can be neglected up to 1.4 GeV.
    The model omits K Kbar and f0(960) effects, as acknowledged below Figure 1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of $\pi\pi$ scattering from a similarity renormalization group perspective." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WZCENRAR

@misc{pith2026190901715,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: $\pi\pi$ scattering from a similarity renormalization group perspective},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WZCENRAR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.01715}
}
abstract

A Wilsonian approach based on the Similarity Renormalization Group to $\pi\pi$ scattering is analyzed in the $JI=$00, 11 and 02 channels in momentum space up to a maximal CM energy of $\sqrt{s}=1.4$ GeV. We identify the Hamiltonian by means of the 3D reduction of the Bethe-Salpeter equation in the Kadyschevsky scheme. We propose a new method to integrate the SRG equations based in the Crank-Nicolson algorithm with a single step finite difference so that isospectrality is preserved at any step of the calculations. We discuss issues on the high momentum tails present in the fitted interactions hampering calculations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.01715 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIGURE 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIGURE 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [31]

    Gómez-Rocha and E

    M. Gómez-Rocha and E. Ruiz Arriola, (In preparation)

    work page

  2. [17]

    The Pion-pion scattering amplitude. IV: Improved analysis with once subtracted Roy-like equations up to 1100 MeV,

    R. Garcia-Martin, R. Kaminski, J. R. Pelaez, J. Ruiz de Elvira, and F. J. Yndurain, “The Pion-pion scattering amplitude. IV: Improved analysis with once subtracted Roy-like equations up to 1100 MeV,” Phys. Rev.D83, 074004 (2011), arXiv:1102.2183 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2011

  3. [1]

    The Renormalization group and the epsilon expansion,

    K. G. Wilson and J. B. Kogut, “The Renormalization group and the epsilon expansion,” Phys. Rept. 12, 75–199 (1974)

    work page 1974

  4. [2]

    Flow equations for hamiltonians,

    F. J. Wegner, “Flow equations for hamiltonians,” Physics Reports 348, 77–89 (2001)

    work page 2001

  5. [3]

    Renormalization of Hamiltonians,

    S. D. Glazek and K. G. Wilson, “Renormalization of Hamiltonians,” Phys. Rev. D48, 5863–5872 (1993)

    work page 1993

  6. [4]

    Renormalized quark–antiquark Hamiltonian induced by a gluon mass ansatz in heavy-flavor QCD,

    S. D. Głazek, M. Gómez-Rocha, J. More, and K. Serafin, “Renormalized quark–antiquark Hamiltonian induced by a gluon mass ansatz in heavy-flavor QCD,” Phys. Lett. B773, 172–178 (2017), arXiv:1705.07629 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2017

  7. [5]

    Approximate Hamiltonian for baryons in heavy-flavor QCD,

    K. Serafin, M. Gómez-Rocha, J. More, and S. D. Głazek, “Approximate Hamiltonian for baryons in heavy-flavor QCD,” Eur. Phys. J. C78, 964 (2018), arXiv:1805.03436 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2018

  8. [6]

    Asymptotic freedom in the front-form Hamiltonian for quantum chromodynamics of gluons,

    M. Gómez-Rocha and S. D. Głazek, “Asymptotic freedom in the front-form Hamiltonian for quantum chromodynamics of gluons,” Phys. Rev. D92, 065005 (2015), arXiv:1505.06688 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2015

Show all 33 references
  1. [7]

    Towards a model independent low momentum nucleon nucleon interaction,

    S. K. Bogner, T. T. S. Kuo, A. Schwenk, D. R. Entem, and R. Machleidt, “Towards a model independent low momentum nucleon nucleon interaction,” Phys. Lett. B576, 265–272 (2003), arXiv:nucl-th/0108041 [nucl-th]

    2003 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Model independent low momentum nucleon interaction from phase shift equivalence,

    S. K. Bogner, T. T. S. Kuo, and A. Schwenk, “Model independent low momentum nucleon interaction from phase shift equivalence,” Phys. Rept. 386, 1–27 (2003), arXiv:nucl-th/0305035 [nucl-th]

    2003 arXiv

  3. [9]

    The In-Medium Similarity Renormalization Group: A Novel Ab Initio Method for Nuclei,

    H. Hergert, S. K. Bogner, T. D. Morris, A. Schwenk, and K. Tsukiyama, “The In-Medium Similarity Renormalization Group: A Novel Ab Initio Method for Nuclei,” Phys. Rept. 621, 165–222 (2016), arXiv:1512.06956 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  4. [10]

    The pi pi S wave scattering lengths,

    G. Colangelo, J. Gasser, and H. Leutwyler, “The pi pi S wave scattering lengths,” Phys. Lett. B488, 261–268 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0007112 [hep-ph]

    2000 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Roy equation analysis of pi pi scattering,

    B. Ananthanarayan, G. Colangelo, J. Gasser, and H. Leutwyler, “Roy equation analysis of pi pi scattering,” Phys. Rept. 353, 207–279 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0005297 [hep-ph]

    2001 arXiv

  6. [12]

    ππ scattering,

    G. Colangelo, J. Gasser, and H. Leutwyler, “ ππ scattering,” Nucl. Phys. B603, 125–179 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0103088 [hep-ph]

    2001 arXiv

  7. [13]

    On the precision of the theoretical predictions for pi pi scattering,

    I. Caprini, G. Colangelo, J. Gasser, and H. Leutwyler, “On the precision of the theoretical predictions for pi pi scattering,” Phys. Rev. D68, 074006 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0306122 [hep-ph]

    2003 arXiv

  8. [14]

    The Pion-pion scattering amplitude,

    J. R. Pelaez and F. J. Yndurain, “The Pion-pion scattering amplitude,” Phys. Rev. D71, 074016 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0411334 [hep-ph]

    2005 arXiv

  9. [15]

    The pion-pion scattering amplitude. II. Improved analysis above bar K anti-K threshold,

    R. Kaminski, J. R. Pelaez, and F. J. Yndurain, “The pion-pion scattering amplitude. II. Improved analysis above bar K anti-K threshold,” Phys. Rev. D74, 014001 (2006), [Erratum: Phys. Rev.D74,079903(2006)], arXiv:hep-ph/0603170 [hep-ph]

    2006 arXiv

  10. [16]

    The Pion-pion scattering amplitude. III. Improving the analysis with forward dispersion relations and Roy equations,

    R. Kaminski, J. R. Pelaez, and F. J. Yndurain, “The Pion-pion scattering amplitude. III. Improving the analysis with forward dispersion relations and Roy equations,” Phys. Rev.D77, 054015 (2008), arXiv:0710.1150 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Separable Potentials for Relativistic Three-body Calculations of the NNN , NN π, Nππ , and πππ Systems,

    L. Mathelitsch and H. Garcilazo, “Separable Potentials for Relativistic Three-body Calculations of the NNN , NN π, Nππ , and πππ Systems,” Phys. Rev. C32, 1635–1645 (1985)

    1985

  12. [19]

    Coarse graining ππ scattering,

    J. Ruiz de Elvira and E. Ruiz Arriola, “Coarse graining ππ scattering,” Eur. Phys. J.C78, 878 (2018), arXiv:1807.10837 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  13. [20]

    This is at difference with the non-relativistic case [2, 3] where λ = 1/s 1 4 and in RGPEP [4, 5, 6] where λ = 1/s

  14. [21]

    Fixed points of the Similarity Renormalization Group and the Nuclear Many-Body Problem,

    E. Ruiz Arriola, S. Szpigel, and V . S. Timoteo, “Fixed points of the Similarity Renormalization Group and the Nuclear Many-Body Problem,” Proceedings, 22nd European Conference on Few-Body Problems in Physics (EFB22): Cracow, Poland, September 9-13, 2013 , Few Body Syst. 55, 9...

    2014 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Fixed points of the SRG evolution and the on-shell limit of the nuclear force,

    E. Ruiz Arriola, S. Szpigel, and V . S. Timóteo, “Fixed points of the SRG evolution and the on-shell limit of the nuclear force,” Annals Phys. 371, 398–436 (2016), arXiv:1601.02360 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  16. [23]

    A Relativistic equation for bound state problems,

    E. E. Salpeter and H. A. Bethe, “A Relativistic equation for bound state problems,” Phys. Rev. 84, 1232–1242 (1951)

    1951

  17. [24]

    Quasipotential type equation for the relativistic scattering amplitude,

    V . G. Kadyshevsky, “Quasipotential type equation for the relativistic scattering amplitude,” Nucl. Phys.B6, 125–148 (1968)

    1968

  18. [25]

    Spectral representations in the quasioptical approach,

    M. Polivanov and S. Khoruzhii, “Spectral representations in the quasioptical approach,” SOVIET PHYSICS JETP 19 (1964)

    1964

  19. [26]

    Analytic properties of the relativistic scattering amplitude in the quasipotential approach,

    N. B. Skachkov, “Analytic properties of the relativistic scattering amplitude in the quasipotential approach,” Teor. Mat. Fiz. 5, 57–65 (1970)

    1970

  20. [27]

    Spurious singularities in quasipotential amplitudes,

    R. J. Yaes, “Spurious singularities in quasipotential amplitudes,” Prog. Theor. Phys. 50, 945–956 (1973)

    1973

  21. [28]

    Spurious bound states in relativistic three-body equations,

    H. Garcilazo and L. Mathelitsch, “Spurious bound states in relativistic three-body equations,” Phys. Rev. C28, 1272–1276 (1983)

    1983

  22. [29]

    A practical method for numerical evaluation of solutions of partial differential equations of the heat-conduction type,

    J. Crank and P. Nicolson, “A practical method for numerical evaluation of solutions of partial differential equations of the heat-conduction type,” in Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society , V ol. 43 (Cambridge University Press, 1947) pp. 50–67

    1947

  23. [30]

    A practical method for numerical evaluation of solutions of partial differential equations of the heat-conduction type,

    J. Crank and P. Nicolson, “A practical method for numerical evaluation of solutions of partial differential equations of the heat-conduction type,” Advances in Computational Mathematics6, 207–226 (1996)

    1996

  24. [32]

    Implicit vs Explicit Renormalization and Effective Interactions,

    E. Ruiz Arriola, S. Szpigel, and V . S. Timoteo, “Implicit vs Explicit Renormalization and Effective Interactions,” Phys. Lett. B728, 596–601 (2014), arXiv:1307.1231 [nucl-th]

    2014 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Implicit and explicit renormalization: two complementary views of effective interactions,

    E. Ruiz Arriola, S. Szpigel, and V . S. Timóteo, “Implicit and explicit renormalization: two complementary views of effective interactions,” Annals Phys. 353, 129–149 (2014), arXiv:1407.8449 [nucl-th]

    2014 arXiv

Pith tools

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