$\Phi^4_3$ Theory from many-body quantum Gibbs states

Phan Th\`anh Nam; Rongchan Zhu; Xiangchan Zhu

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

$\Phi^4_3$ Theory from many-body quantum Gibbs states

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

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

Pith's one-line read The singular Φ⁴₃ field measure is shown to be the semiclassical limit of an interacting Bose gas just above critical density.

desk verdict A serious, technically demanding paper that closes the Φ^4_3 endpoint of the quantum-Gibbs-to-field-measure program; the load-bearing soft spot is the single coercivity estimate (4.10), which relies entirely on v̂ ≥ 0. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.04884 v2 pith:XMRQWPQN submitted 2025-02-07 math-ph math.APmath.MPmath.PR

Phan Thành Nam , Rongchan Zhu , Xiangchan Zhu This is my paper · ORCID

classification math-phmath.APmath.MPmath.PR MSC 81T0882B1060H1535R6081S10

keywords Phi-4_3theorymany-bodyquantumGibbsstateBose-EinsteincondensationstochasticquantizationparacontrolledcalculusHartreemeasuresemiclassicallimitrenormalization

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 prove that the singular Φ⁴₃ Euclidean field measure on the three-dimensional torus is not merely a formal or SPDE construction, but a genuine limit of many-body quantum mechanics: the grand-canonical Gibbs state of an interacting Bose gas, placed just above the Bose–Einstein critical density. If correct, this settles a long-standing gap, since earlier derivations stopped at Φ⁴₁ and Φ⁴₂, while Φ⁴₃ needs a logarithmic counterterm and an extra order-one mass shift. The proof proceeds in two steps: first the quantum Gibbs state is compared to a regular Hartree measure with a nonlocal interaction, and then that Hartree measure is shown to converge to Φ⁴₃ through stochastic quantization. The result includes convergence of one-particle observables and of correlation functions up to six particles in the physically relevant scaling regime, with the chemical potential carrying all renormalization counterterms.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the Hartree bridge: the quantum Gibbs state is compared, via relative-entropy variational formulas and de Finetti measures, to the Gaussian-absolutely-continuous Hartree measure dνε(Ψ) ∝ exp(-∫(|∇Ψ|² + m|Ψ|²) - ½∫ :|Ψ|²: vε(x-y) :|Ψ|²: + (aε-6bε)∫ :|Ψ|²:) dµ₀. The convergence of νε to the singular Φ⁴₃ measure is obtained from the stochastic quantization equation LΨε = -(vε * :|Ψε|²:)Ψε + (aε - 6bε + 1 - m)Ψε + ξ, analyzed with paracontrolled calculus, which makes sense of products of distributions that are one derivative too rough. The operator Rf = aεf - (vεG)*f formally vanishes as ε → 0 but produces the finite mass shift 2(C₁+C₂)Φ in the limiting equation, and uniqueness of invariant measures identifies the tight limit with ν.

What would settle it

Take a potential v that satisfies all of (Hv) except v̂(k₀) = -δ for one nonzero frequency k₀, and test the coercivity form Vε(f) = Σ_k v̂ε(k)|⟨|f|², e_k⟩|² on f = e_{k₀} + e_{-k₀}. A negative contribution of order δ appears in the cross terms, and for δ not tiny Vε(f) drops below c‖f‖⁴_{L²}; checking whether the theorem's conclusions survive for such a sign-changing v would show whether positivity of v̂ is essential or merely convenient.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that for the bosonic Fock-space Gibbs state Γλ = $Zλ^{{-1}}$$e^{{-Hλ}}$ with Hamiltonian λ∑(-Δ-ϑ) + λ²∑ vε(xᵢ-xⱼ), the choice of chemical potential ϑ = ζ(3/2)(4π)^{-3/2}$λ^{{-1/2}}$ + C₀ + aε - 6bε + 2C₁ + 2C₂ - m₀ makes the state converge, as λ, ε → 0 with λ^η ≤ ε, to the Φ⁴₃ measure of mass m₀. More precisely, Tr[f(λa*(φ)a(φ))Γλ] → ∫ f(|⟨φ,u⟩|²) dν(u), and n!λⁿ⟨φ^⊗n, Γλ^(n)φ^⊗n⟩ → ∫ |⟨φ,Φ⟩|^{2n} dν(Φ) for 1 ≤ n ≤ 6, with all n under the stronger condition |log λ|^{-η} ≤ ε. The counterterms aε ≍ $ε^{{-1}}$, 6bε ≍ |log ε|, and the finite constants C₁, C₂ enter only through the chemical potential, so renormalization in the field theory is reinterpreted as density tuning in the quantum gas.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends crucially on Assumption (Hv) that the interaction potential has a nonnegative Fourier transform, because that single inequality provides the dissipative coercivity that yields all uniform-in-ε bounds; if it fails, the tightness argument collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the theorem is right, the Φ⁴₃ measure is a first-principles many-body quantum limit, not just a stochastic-quantization construction: it is the distribution of a Bose gas tuned to the critical density.
The chemical potential carries the entire renormalization: the ε^{-1} divergence, the log ε divergence, and the order-one mass shift all enter only through ϑ, so field-theoretic renormalization is reinterpreted as a physical density adjustment.
The convergence of correlation functions for n ≤ 6 under λ^η ≤ ε, and for all n under |log λ|^{-η} ≤ ε, gives a precise correspondence between quantum reduced density matrices and moments of the classical field.
The same machinery is claimed to extend to two dimensions with a wider class of nonlocal potentials and to N complex components, yielding an O(2N) Φ⁴ model as a semiclassical limit.

Reading between the lines

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

The n ≤ 6 restriction under polynomial scaling appears to come from a moment bound that holds up to k ≤ 7; a natural extension would strengthen that moment bound and thereby obtain all correlation functions in the same regime.
Positivity of v̂ is used at exactly one coercivity step, so replacing v̂ ≥ 0 by a small negative lower bound may preserve the conclusions with δ-dependent constants, which would show that the result is robust to slightly non-positive interaction kernels.
For an explicit potential such as a Gaussian, the constants C₁ and C₂ can be computed in closed form, giving a direct numerical check of the predicted mass shift against stochastic-quantization simulations of the Φ⁴₃ measure.
The conjectured duality with Bose–Einstein condensation in three-dimensional repulsive gases is not proven here, but the quantitative machinery of this paper could plausibly be adapted to attack that phase-transition problem.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know two things about arXiv:2502.04884. First, it is the right paper for a real open problem: the Φ^4_3 measure as a semiclassical limit of an interacting Bose gas, left open by LNR15/FKSS17-23. Second, the result is built on one structural premise that deserves scrutiny: the positivity of v̂, used once to get coercivity for the Hartree measures.

The paper does several things well. The two-step architecture (quantum Gibbs state → Hartree measure → Φ^4_3) is executed with serious new machinery: the −6bε counterterm beyond Wick renormalization, the operator R that converts the nonlocal Wick renormalization into a mass renormalization, and the finite constants C1, C2 describing the resulting mass shift. The theorem statements are precise about what is tuning and what is output: the target mass m0 enters the chemical potential explicitly, and Remark 2.7 is honest that the alternative counterterm (1.6) would remove C1+C2 but is not accessible from the quantum side. The chemical potential is tuned to the ideal-gas critical density, so the result is a well-posed convergence theorem, not a prediction of the mass. The transparency about the limited correlation convergence (n ≤ 6 under λ^η ≤ ε) is also a good sign.

Now the soft spots, in proportion.

The stress-test note is correct on the mathematics: the uniform-in-ε estimates of Section 4 rest on inequality (4.10), V^ε(f) ≳ ||f||^4_{L²}, which requires v̂ ≥ 0. That single lower bound is the dissipation that drives Proposition 4.10 and hence Theorem 4.1. If v̂ were allowed to change sign, the quadratic form could be small or negative on high frequencies and the tightness argument collapses. This is a real limitation of the theorem, not an inconsistency—(Hv) is stated explicitly—but it confines the derivation to positive-type interactions. Second, the hypothesis λ^η ≤ ε involves an η that the authors leave implicit; they say it can be determined, but this slows verification. Third, Theorem 3.18 (dynamics convergence) and some of the surrounding corollary estimates are deferred to Appendix B and inherit large parts of their stochastic bounds from CC18/ZZ18; the vε modifications are described but not fully re-derived in the main text. These are judgment calls, not fatal flaws. The central claim holds together as far as I can tell.

Who this is for: mathematical physicists working on rigorous constructive QFT from many-body quantum mechanics, stochastic quantization, or BEC. The citation pattern is appropriate: the open endpoint is genuinely documented in the earlier papers, and the new counterterms are clearly attributed. The paper deserves a careful referee—it is exactly the kind of long, technical, high-stakes result that needs an expert check on the SPDE estimates and the energy argument. I would accept it for peer review; my own verdict would be conditional on the positivity assumption being clearly flagged and on the deferred appendices being verified, but not on any major restructuring.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper claims a rigorous derivation of the three-dimensional Phi^4 measure (Phi^4_3) on the torus as a limit of the grand-canonical Gibbs state of an interacting Bose gas. The main theorem (Theorem 2.1) states that, for a positive-type interaction potential v satisfying (Hv), and with the chemical potential chosen as the critical-density value plus the explicit counterterms in (2.13), the limits of the quantum correlation functions agree with the correlation functions of the Phi^4_3 measure with a prescribed mass m0. The proof proceeds in two steps: first, the Hartree measure nu_epsilon with nonlocal interaction is shown to converge to the Phi^4_3 measure (Theorem 2.6), using stochastic quantization, paracontrolled calculus, and uniform-in-epsilon energy estimates; second, the quantum Gibbs state is compared with the Hartree measure (Theorem 2.8) using variational methods, de Finetti measures, and correlation inequalities from [DNN25]. The paper is long and technically dense, with numerous supporting lemmas and several proofs deferred to appendices.

Significance. If correct, this is a significant result: it provides a concrete many-body quantum route to a singular Euclidean field theory, connecting the critical density of the ideal Bose gas with the renormalized Phi^4_3 measure. It also develops useful tools, including a quantitative comparison between de Finetti measures and the Gaussian free field, and a variational treatment of Hartree-type measures with singular potentials. The theorem statements are precise, and the overall strategy is credible. The main caveat is that the result is restricted to interactions with nonnegative Fourier transform, and this positivity is used in a load-bearing way at inequality (4.10). The paper is transparent about this assumption, but the scope of the claimed derivation should be stated more prominently.

major comments (4)

[Section 4, Eq. (4.10)] The uniform-in-epsilon estimates (Proposition 4.10 and Theorem 4.1) rely crucially on the lower bound V^epsilon(f) = sum_k vhat_epsilon(k) |<|f|^2,e_k>|^2 >= ||f||^4_{L^2}. This bound uses the positivity vhat(k) >= 0 from Assumption (Hv). If vhat changes sign, the quadratic form is no longer positive definite and the coercivity, tightness, and the identification of the limit as the Phi^4_3 measure all collapse. This is not an internal inconsistency, since (Hv) is stated explicitly, but it is a structural limitation of the derivation. I recommend stating in the introduction and in the statement of Theorem 2.1 that the result is confined to repulsive interactions of positive type, and adding a remark explaining why the mass counterterms a_epsilon - 6b_epsilon cannot replace this positivity.
[Theorem 2.1 and Remark 2.2] The condition 'lambda^eta <= epsilon for a sufficiently small constant eta > 0' is not quantified. As written, the theorem asserts existence of some eta, but Remark 2.2 says the constant can be determined explicitly and depends on delta0 in (Hv), without giving a formula or a range. Since both Theorem 2.8 and Theorem 2.1 depend on this condition, the statement should be made precise, for example by writing 'there exists eta0 > 0 such that for every 0 < eta < eta0, ...' or by providing an explicit admissible eta in terms of delta0.
[Theorem 3.18 and Appendix B] Theorem 3.18 is a load-bearing step: it identifies the limit of the stochastic quantization dynamics, and it is used in Theorem 4.2 to identify any tight subsequential limit of the Hartree measures with the Phi^4_3 measure. The proof is deferred to Appendix B and the main text says only that it follows by the same reasoning as [ZZ18, Section 5] with the new lemmas. Given that the operator R and the nonlocal v_epsilon-dependent terms are new and delicate, the appendix must contain a complete proof of the convergence estimates, including all constants and the handling of the terms in Lemmas 3.19-3.22. A reference to [ZZ18] plus a list of changed terms is not sufficient for a theorem of this importance.
[Eq. (2.13) and Remark 2.7] The limiting mass m0 enters the chemical potential explicitly through the term -m0, and the constants C1 and C2 are also added to the chemical potential. Thus the mass of the limiting Phi^4_3 measure is an input, not an output, of the construction. The paper is transparent about this in Remark 2.7, but the abstract and introduction should make clear that the result derives a prescribed family of Phi^4_3 measures (one for each m0) rather than predicting a specific mass from the many-body parameters. This does not invalidate the theorem, but it is important for the interpretation of the word 'derivation'.

minor comments (4)

[Section 3.2.2, after Eq. (3.33)] The phrase 'b_epsilon given in (2.20)' should refer to Eq. (2.12), since (2.20) defines the alternative measure, not the constant b_epsilon.
[Sections 3.1 and 3.2] The notation Z is used both for the stationary solution of the linear stochastic equation and for renormalized stochastic objects such as Z_contour and Z_contour. A single notation table near Section 3.1 would reduce the risk of confusion.
[Theorem 4.2] The statement 'any correlation function gamma_epsilon_n converges' is fine on the classical side, but it may be confused with the quantum correlation convergence in Theorem 2.1, which is restricted to n <= 6 under the weaker scaling. Please add a sentence clarifying that Theorem 4.2 is on the classical Hartree side and holds for all n >= 1.
[Section 12] The introduction and section list promise a discussion of the two-dimensional case in Section 12. In the provided version the text is truncated before that section; if the final version contains only a brief remark, that should be stated explicitly in the introduction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the target mass is a tunable chemical-potential parameter, not an output; the quartic structure, log-divergent counterterm, mass shift, and correlation convergence are independently proved.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: (i) Hartree measure νε in (2.17) with classical counterterms aε−6bε converges to the Φ⁴₃ measure via stochastic quantization (Theorem 2.6, Sections 3–4); (ii) the quantum Gibbs state with chemical potential (2.13) converges to the Hartree measure (Theorem 2.8, Sections 6–11); (iii) composing the two yields Theorem 2.1. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to its own input. The mass m0 enters the construction through the chemical potential, namely ϑ = ζ(3/2)(4π)^{−3/2}λ^{−1/2} + C0 + aε − 6bε + 2C1 + 2C2 − m0. This is a transparent tuning of a free parameter, explicitly acknowledged: Remark 2.7 states that 'the chemical potential is the only parameter we can adjust in the quantum problem.' The target mass is therefore an input of the model family, not a predicted output, but this is standard matching of a free thermodynamic parameter and is not circular. The substantive content—the non-Gaussian quartic term, the log-divergent correction −6bε, the finite mass shift 2C1+2C2, and convergence of correlations for all test functions φ—is not encoded in the scalar ϑ and is established by independent SPDE, paracontrolled, variational, and de Finetti arguments. The reliance on Assumption (Hv), especially 0 ≤ v̂ used in the coercivity bound (4.10), is a genuine scope restriction on the interaction potentials, but a conditional theorem is not a circular one. Citations to [LNR21], [DNN25], [BG20], [CC18], and [MW17] provide external proofs of lemmas and theorems; none is a self-citation whose content is the conclusion of the present paper. The uniqueness of the invariant measure for the dynamical Φ⁴₃ model is cited to external literature ([HM18], [HS22], [GH21]), not imported from a self-authored uniqueness theorem. No circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard machinery of paracontrolled calculus and the dynamical Φ⁴₃ model (existence and uniqueness from CC18/MW17/GH21/HM18), the variational and correlation machinery from LNR21/DNN25, the Boué-Dupuis formula, the semiclassical limit of the ideal Bose gas (Appendix C), and the model assumption (Hv), whose positivity supplies the only dissipative coercivity (4.10). The mass m0 of the target measure is a free input entering through the chemical potential; the exponent η in the scaling λ^η ≤ ε is left implicit. The operator R and the constants C1, C2 are derived technical constructs, not postulated physical entities.

free parameters (3)

m0
Mass parameter of the target Φ⁴₃ measure, free real input in Theorem 2.1. It enters the chemical potential in (2.13) with a minus sign, so each choice of m0 produces a different tuned Hamiltonian. This is a parameter of the statement, not a fit to data.
η (implicit exponent in λ^η ≤ ε) = unspecified positive constant
The main theorems assume λ^η ≤ ε for 'a sufficiently small constant η > 0'. Remark 2.2 states η could be made explicit but is left implicit because it depends on δ0 in (Hv). The quantitative regime of the theorem is therefore not fully specified.
ε(λ) scaling relation = ε → 0 with λ^η ≤ ε
The relation between the interaction range ε and the semiclassical parameter λ is chosen by hand to make both the quantum-to-Hartree and Hartree-to-Φ⁴₃ limits work. The physically motivated regime λ^η ≤ ε is the main case; the easier case |log λ|^(-η) ≤ ε gives convergence for all correlation orders.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption Interaction condition (Hv): v ≥ 0, v̂(0) = 1, 0 ≤ v̂(k) ≲ (1+|k|)^{-(3+δ0)}, with derivative decay
Assumed on the two-body potential in Section 2.1. Positivity of v̂ gives the coercive lower bound (4.10); the decay makes the counterterms aε, bε, C1, C2 in (2.12) finite and gives (3.2).
domain assumption Well-posedness and uniqueness of the invariant measure for the limiting dynamical Φ⁴₃ model (3.3)
Theorem 3.7 is taken from [CC18, MW17] and Theorem 3.8 from [HM18, HS22, GH21]. The identification of the weak limit of νε as ν in Theorem 4.2 uses this uniqueness.
standard math Correlation inequalities from [DNN25], including the sharp Duhamel two-point estimate based on Stahl's theorem (BMV conjecture)
Used in Sections 7-9 to obtain higher-order moment bounds of the quantum Gibbs state, e.g., (2.33) from Theorem 9.1. Assumed as an external, separately proved result.
standard math Variational characterization of the quantum Gibbs state and the quantitative de Finetti theorem at scale λ from [LNR15, LNR21]
The quantum partition function approximation (2.32) in Theorem 8.1 uses the variational principle (2.29) and de Finetti measures (2.31), inherited from [LNR15, LNR18, LNR21].
standard math Paracontrolled calculus toolkit: Bony paraproduct estimates, commutator lemmas A.7-A.11, Besov embedding A.1, Schauder estimates A.3
From [GIP15, CC18, ZZ18], stated in Appendix A; used throughout Sections 3-6 for the stochastic quantization analysis.
standard math Boué-Dupuis variational formula (Lemma 6.3)
Reformulates the classical partition functions as a stochastic control problem in Section 6, the basis for the uniform bounds on the classical measures.
standard math Semiclassical limit of the ideal Bose gas: n!λ^n Γ₀^(n) → ∫|u^⊗n⟩⟨u^⊗n|dµ0 and the critical density expansion (2.6)-(2.8)
The free Gibbs state converges to the Gaussian free field µ0; the leading density is Einstein's critical density, with finite-volume correction C0. Proven in Appendix C.

invented entities (2)

Operator R: Rf = aε f - (vεG) * f (and finite-dimensional R_N^t)
purpose: Bookkeeping operator that rewrites the natural Wick renormalization (vεG)*Ψ as the mass renormalization aεΨ in the stochastic quantization equation (3.30), making the quantum chemical potential (which controls only the mass) sufficient. Its asymptotic contribution produces the new mass terms C1 and C2 in the limiting Φ⁴₃ equation (3.3).
A technical construct of the proof, not a physical entity. Lemma 3.10 shows R smooths uniformly: ‖Rf‖_{B_p^{α-1-η}} ≲ ε^η ‖f‖_{B_p^α}; Proposition 3.11 shows the induced renormalization constants satisfy cε_1 → C1 and cε_2 → C2, with C1, C2 the finite integrals in (2.12).
Mass shift constants C1, C2 in the limiting measure and chemical potential
purpose: Finite corrections generated when the nonlocal Wick renormalization is converted into a local mass renormalization (Remark 3.1). They must be added to ϑ as 2C1 + 2C2 so the limiting measure has the target mass m0; without them the limit acquires a shifted mass (Remark 2.3).
Derived, not postulated: they emerge from the limiting values of renormalization constants in Proposition 3.11 and appear as explicit convergent integrals in (2.12). The alternative measure (1.6) uses a different counterterm and produces the same limit without C1, C2.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of $\Phi^4_3$ Theory from many-body quantum Gibbs states." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XMRQWPQN

@misc{pith2026250204884,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: $\Phi^4_3$ Theory from many-body quantum Gibbs states},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XMRQWPQN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.04884}
}

abstract

We derive the $\Phi^4_3$ measure on the torus as a rigorous limit of the quantum Gibbs state of an interacting Bose gas. To be precise, starting from many-body quantum mechanics, where the problem is linear and regular but involving non commutative operators, we justify the emergence of the $\Phi^4_3$ measure as a semiclassical limit which captures the formation of Bose--Einstein condensation just above the critical temperature. We employ and develop several tools from both stochastic quantization and many-body quantum mechanics. Since the quantum problem is typically formulated using a nonlocal interaction potential, our first key step involves approximating the $\Phi^4_3$ measure through a Hartree measure with nonlocal interaction, achieved by developing new techniques in paracontrolled calculus. The connection between the quantum problem and the Hartree measure emerges through a variational interplay between classical and quantum models.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

$\mathcal{P}(\Phi)_2$ Theory from many-body quantum Gibbs states
math-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 8.0 of 10

Grand-canonical boson Gibbs states with general p-body interactions converge in the simultaneous semiclassical and zero-range limit to the Φ^{2p}_2 field measure, including free energy and correlations.
Nonlocal Cubic Density Gibbs Measures from Bosonic Gibbs States with Three-Body Interactions
math-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

In d=2,3, bosonic Gibbs states with renormalized nonlocal three-body interactions converge to a nonlinear classical Gibbs measure in the high-temperature mean-field limit, including all fixed-order reduced density matrices.
$\Phi^4_2$ theory limit of a many-body bosonic free energy
math.AP 2025-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

With interaction range ε = λ^η (η < 1/24), the 2D Bose gas relative free energy converges to the Φ⁴₂ free energy as λ → 0.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

[4]

Chandra, G

[CFW24] A. Chandra, G. de Lima Feltes, H. Weber, A priori bounds for 2-d generalised Parabolic Anderson Model, arXiv:2402.05544,

arXiv
[5]

Chandra and M

[CH16] A. Chandra and M. Hairer. An analytic BPHZ theorem for regularity structures. arxiv:1612.08138. [CHS18] A. Chandra, M. Hairer, and H. Shen. The dynamical sine-Gordon model in the full subcritical regime, August

arXiv
[9]

Einstein

[Ein24] A. Einstein. Quantentheorie des einatomigen idealen Gases. K¨ onigliche Preuβische Akademie der Wis- senschaften, Sitzungsberichte (1924), 261–267. [FKSS17] J. Fr¨ ohlich, A. Knowles, B. Schlein, and V. Sohinger, Gibbs measures of nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equations as limits of many-body quantum states in dimensions d ⩽ 3, Commun. Math. Phys. , 356...

work page 1924
[10]

Fr¨ ohlich, A

[FKSS23] J. Fr¨ ohlich, A. Knowles, B. Schlein, and V. Sohinger, The Euclidean Φ 4 2 theory as a limit of an interacting Bose gas, To appear in J. Eur. Math. Soc. , arXiv:2201.07632.,

arXiv
[13]

Hoshino, Global well-posedness of complex Ginzburg–Landau equation with a space-time white noise, Ann

[Hos18] M. Hoshino, Global well-posedness of complex Ginzburg–Landau equation with a space-time white noise, Ann. Inst. Henri Poincar´ e Probab. Stat.54, no. 4, 1969–2001,

work page 1969
[16]

Rougerie, De Finetti theorems, mean-field limits and Bose-Einstein condensation, ArXiv e-prints, (2015)

[R15] N. Rougerie, De Finetti theorems, mean-field limits and Bose-Einstein condensation, ArXiv e-prints, (2015). [She21] H. Shen. Stochastic quantization of an Abelian gauge theory. Comm. Math. Phys. , 384(3):1445–1512,

work page 2015
[19]

Zhang, R

[ZZZ22] X. Zhang, R. Zhu, X. Zhu, Singular HJB equations with applications to KPZ on the real line, Probab. Theory Relat. Fields 183 no. 3-4, 789–869, 2022 (P. T. Nam) LMU Munich, Department of Mathematics, Theresienstrasse 39, 80333 Munich, Germany Email address : nam@math.lmu.de (R. Zhu) Department of Mathematics, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijin...

work page 2022
[1972]

Rougerie and S

[RS16] N. Rougerie and S. Serfaty, Higher dimensional coulomb gases and renormalized energy functionals, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. , 69 (2016), pp. 519–605,

work page 2016

Show all 19 references

[1987]

Glimm, A

[GJS74] J. Glimm, A. Jaffe, and T. Spencer, The Wightman axioms and particle structure in the P(φ)2 quantum field model, Ann. of Math. (2), 100 (1974), pp. 585–632. [GM24] M. Gubinelli and S.-J. Meyer. The FBSDE approach to sine-Gordon up to 6 π. arXiv:2401.13648, January

1974 arXiv
[2005]

Symanzik, Euclidean quantum field theory

[S66] K. Symanzik, Euclidean quantum field theory. I. Equations for a scalar model, J. Mathematical Phys. , 7, (1966), pp. 510–525,

1966
[2013]

Paperback edition of the 2007 original [MR2345069]. [ZZ15] Rongchan Zhu, Xiangchan Zhu, Three-dimensional Navier-Stokes equations driven by space-time white noise, Journal of Differential Equations , 259, 9, 5, 2015, 4443-4508 [ZZ18] R. Zhu and X. Zhu. Lattice approximation to...

2007
[2014]

Da Prato, A

[DD03] G. Da Prato, A. Debussche, Strong solutions to the stochastic quantization equations. Ann. Probab., 31(4):1900–1916,

1900
[2017]

Guerra, L

[GRS75] F. Guerra, L. Rosen, and B. Simon, The P(φ)2 Euclidean quantum field theory as classical statistical mechanics. I, II, Ann. of Math. (2), 101, pp. 111–189, 1975; ibid. (2) 101 191–259,

1975
[2018]

Lewin, P

[LNR21] M. Lewin, P. T. Nam, and N. Rougerie. Classical field theory limit of many-body quantum Gibbs states in 2D and 3D. Invent. Math. 224, 315–444, 2021 [LOT23] P. Linares, F. Otto, and M. Tempelmayr. The structure group for quasi-linear equations via universal enveloping a...

2021
[2019]

[DNY22] Y. Deng, A. R. Nahmod, and H. Yue. Random tensors, propagation of randomness, and nonlinear dis- persive equations. Invent. Math. , 228(2):539–686, 2022 [Duc21] P. Duch. Flow equation approach to singular stochastic PDEs. arXiv:2109.11380, September

2022 arXiv
[2022]

Bringmann and S

[BC23] B. Bringmann and S. Cao. A para-controlled approach to the stochastic Yang-Mills equation in two dimensions. arXiv:2305.07197, May

arXiv
[2023]

Bringmann and S

[BC24] B. Bringmann and S. Cao. Global well-posedness of the stochastic Abelian-Higgs equations in two dimen- sions. arXiv:2403.16878,

arXiv
[2024]

Bringmann and S

[BC24a] B. Bringmann and S. Cao. Global well-posedness of the dynamical sine-Gordan model up to 6 π. arXiv:2410.15493,

arXiv
[2025]

116 PHAN TH `ANH NAM, RONGCHAN ZHU, AND XIANGCHAN ZHU [DNY19] Y. Deng, A. R. Nahmod, and H. Yue. Invariant Gibbs measures and global strong solutions for nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equations in dimension two. arXiv:1910.08492, October

1910 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [4]

Chandra, G

[CFW24] A. Chandra, G. de Lima Feltes, H. Weber, A priori bounds for 2-d generalised Parabolic Anderson Model, arXiv:2402.05544,

arXiv

[2] [5]

Chandra and M

[CH16] A. Chandra and M. Hairer. An analytic BPHZ theorem for regularity structures. arxiv:1612.08138. [CHS18] A. Chandra, M. Hairer, and H. Shen. The dynamical sine-Gordon model in the full subcritical regime, August

arXiv

[3] [9]

Einstein

[Ein24] A. Einstein. Quantentheorie des einatomigen idealen Gases. K¨ onigliche Preuβische Akademie der Wis- senschaften, Sitzungsberichte (1924), 261–267. [FKSS17] J. Fr¨ ohlich, A. Knowles, B. Schlein, and V. Sohinger, Gibbs measures of nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equations as limits of many-body quantum states in dimensions d ⩽ 3, Commun. Math. Phys. , 356...

work page 1924

[4] [10]

Fr¨ ohlich, A

[FKSS23] J. Fr¨ ohlich, A. Knowles, B. Schlein, and V. Sohinger, The Euclidean Φ 4 2 theory as a limit of an interacting Bose gas, To appear in J. Eur. Math. Soc. , arXiv:2201.07632.,

arXiv

[5] [13]

Hoshino, Global well-posedness of complex Ginzburg–Landau equation with a space-time white noise, Ann

[Hos18] M. Hoshino, Global well-posedness of complex Ginzburg–Landau equation with a space-time white noise, Ann. Inst. Henri Poincar´ e Probab. Stat.54, no. 4, 1969–2001,

work page 1969

[6] [16]

Rougerie, De Finetti theorems, mean-field limits and Bose-Einstein condensation, ArXiv e-prints, (2015)

[R15] N. Rougerie, De Finetti theorems, mean-field limits and Bose-Einstein condensation, ArXiv e-prints, (2015). [She21] H. Shen. Stochastic quantization of an Abelian gauge theory. Comm. Math. Phys. , 384(3):1445–1512,

work page 2015

[7] [19]

Zhang, R

[ZZZ22] X. Zhang, R. Zhu, X. Zhu, Singular HJB equations with applications to KPZ on the real line, Probab. Theory Relat. Fields 183 no. 3-4, 789–869, 2022 (P. T. Nam) LMU Munich, Department of Mathematics, Theresienstrasse 39, 80333 Munich, Germany Email address : nam@math.lmu.de (R. Zhu) Department of Mathematics, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijin...

work page 2022

[8] [1972]

Rougerie and S

[RS16] N. Rougerie and S. Serfaty, Higher dimensional coulomb gases and renormalized energy functionals, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. , 69 (2016), pp. 519–605,

work page 2016