arxiv: 2604.23526 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-26 · ✦ hep-th · hep-ph

Recognition: unknown

Smooth Threshold Effects from Dimensional Regularization

Yannick Kluth

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 05:57 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-th hep-ph

keywords renormalization schemedimensional regularizationthreshold effectsdecouplingQCDmass-dependent schemepole subtractionminimal subtraction

0 comments

The pith

Subtracting all poles in dimensions at or above four yields a mass-dependent renormalization scheme with built-in smooth threshold effects.

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

The paper proposes a renormalization scheme in dimensional regularization where couplings and masses are defined by subtracting every pole that appears for spacetime dimensions d greater than or equal to four. This choice makes the finite parts of the renormalization constants depend explicitly on particle masses, so heavy-particle effects enter calculations continuously as the energy scale crosses each threshold. The resulting scheme matches the minimal subtraction scheme when all masses are much smaller than the energy, automatically enforces that heavy particles decouple from low-energy observables, and preserves gauge independence. Explicit one-loop QCD examples confirm these properties. A reader would care because the method removes the need to switch between schemes or insert manual threshold corrections when particles of very different masses are present in the same theory.

Core claim

By renormalizing couplings and masses to subtract all poles in d ≥ 4, the resulting scheme is mass-dependent and circumvents shortcomings of mass-independent schemes like minimal subtraction. At the same time, many advantages of minimal subtraction such as gauge independence are retained. Through explicit one-loop computations in QCD, this scheme reduces to minimal subtraction at high energies while providing smooth transitions at particle thresholds and implementing the decoupling of heavy particles from low-energy physics.

What carries the argument

The subtraction of every pole that arises in the loop integrals for all dimensions d ≥ 4, which fixes the renormalization constants in a mass-dependent manner and thereby encodes threshold behavior directly in the counterterms.

If this is right

The scheme coincides exactly with minimal subtraction when all masses are negligible compared to the energy scale.
Threshold crossings appear as smooth changes rather than abrupt jumps in the running couplings and masses.
Decoupling of heavy particles from low-energy physics is satisfied automatically.
Gauge independence of physical quantities is retained at one loop.
The scheme is demonstrated to work in explicit QCD calculations and avoids the need for separate threshold matching.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same pole-subtraction rule could be applied to higher-loop calculations to test whether consistency survives without new counterterms.
The approach may simplify matching between full theories and effective theories at different energy scales.
Comparisons with other mass-dependent schemes could be performed to quantify computational savings in multi-scale problems.
The method might extend naturally to theories with many widely spaced mass thresholds, such as grand unified models.

Load-bearing premise

That subtracting all poles in dimensions four and higher produces a consistent scheme whose physical predictions remain independent of the gauge choice and make heavy particles decouple from low-energy observables without extra counterterms or artifacts.

What would settle it

A two-loop calculation of a gauge-invariant observable in a theory containing both light and heavy particles that yields either a residual gauge dependence or a failure of the heavy particles to decouple at low energies would show the scheme is not consistent.

read the original abstract

We suggest a non-minimal renormalization scheme based on dimensional regularization that naturally incorporates threshold effects of heavy particles. By renormalizing couplings and masses to subtract all poles in $d \geq 4$, the resulting scheme is mass-dependent and circumvents shortcomings of mass-independent schemes like minimal subtraction. At the same time, many advantages of minimal subtraction such as gauge independence are retained. Through explicit one-loop computations in QCD, we demonstrate that this scheme reduces to minimal subtraction at high energies while providing smooth transitions at particle thresholds and implementing the Appelquist-Carazzone theorem. Potential future applications and extensions are discussed.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This paper defines a pole-subtraction rule in dimensional regularization to produce a mass-dependent scheme with smooth thresholds, shown explicitly at one loop in QCD.

read the letter

The main takeaway is a renormalization scheme that subtracts every pole appearing for d at or above 4. This makes the couplings and masses run in a mass-dependent way while keeping gauge independence and avoiding the usual manual threshold matching of minimal subtraction schemes. At high scales it reduces to MS-bar, and the one-loop QCD examples show continuous behavior across thresholds plus proper decoupling of heavy particles per the Appelquist-Carazzone theorem. That combination is the practical hook for effective-field-theory work. The construction itself is the clearest novelty here; prior mass-dependent schemes exist, but this particular all-poles-for-d-greater-than-or-equal-to-4 rule is not the standard one. The one-loop calculations are concrete and reproduce the expected limits without extra counterterms, which is the part that actually works on the page. The soft spot is exactly what the stress test flags: everything stops at one loop. Nothing demonstrates that the subtraction prescription closes under renormalization at two loops or higher. If new divergences or finite pieces appear, the scheme could lose its claimed simplicity or require case-by-case fixes, and the paper does not check this. The evidence for consistency is therefore limited to the order shown. This is for people doing precision loop calculations in QCD or similar theories who want a built-in way to handle thresholds without switching schemes by hand. A reader already comfortable with dimensional regularization and effective theories will see the technical point quickly. I would send it to peer review. The one-loop results are solid enough to justify referee time, even though the higher-order behavior needs to be settled before the scheme can be used confidently in production calculations.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a non-minimal renormalization scheme in dimensional regularization obtained by subtracting all poles appearing for d ≥ 4 when renormalizing couplings and masses. This produces a mass-dependent scheme that is claimed to incorporate smooth threshold effects, reduce to MS-bar at high scales, obey the Appelquist-Carazzone theorem, and retain gauge independence. The central evidence consists of explicit one-loop QCD computations demonstrating these properties.

Significance. If the scheme proves consistent to all orders and preserves its claimed advantages without additional artifacts, it would provide a useful alternative for calculations involving heavy-particle thresholds. The one-loop QCD examples constitute a concrete, reproducible demonstration of the desired features, which is a strength. However, the significance is limited by the absence of higher-order verification.

major comments (2)

[One-loop QCD computations] The manuscript verifies the pole-subtraction prescription and its consequences only at one loop in QCD. No demonstration is given that the definition of which poles to subtract for d ≥ 4 closes under renormalization at two loops; new poles or finite terms could appear that would require further counterterms, potentially spoiling gauge independence or the automatic implementation of Appelquist-Carazzone decoupling.
[Scheme definition and properties] The claim that the scheme 'retains many advantages of minimal subtraction such as gauge independence' is asserted after the one-loop examples but is not shown to follow from the subtraction rule itself; an explicit check of the gauge-parameter dependence of the counterterms (beyond one loop) is needed to support the central claim.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract and conclusion] The abstract and conclusion mention 'potential future applications' without concrete examples; adding one or two specific processes (e.g., Higgs production with top thresholds) would strengthen the discussion.
[Notation and definitions] Notation for the renormalization constants and the precise subtraction condition for d ≥ 4 should be collected in a single equation or table for clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive comments. We appreciate the recognition that the one-loop QCD computations provide a concrete demonstration of the scheme's features. We address each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [One-loop QCD computations] The manuscript verifies the pole-subtraction prescription and its consequences only at one loop in QCD. No demonstration is given that the definition of which poles to subtract for d ≥ 4 closes under renormalization at two loops; new poles or finite terms could appear that would require further counterterms, potentially spoiling gauge independence or the automatic implementation of Appelquist-Carazzone decoupling.

Authors: We agree that the explicit verification is performed only at one loop, as described in the abstract and throughout the paper. The scheme is defined perturbatively by subtracting all poles for d ≥ 4 at each order. At one loop this yields the reported smooth thresholds and decoupling. We do not claim a general all-order proof here; the definition is applied order by order using the standard poles of dimensional regularization. We will add a clarifying paragraph in the discussion section noting the one-loop scope and outlining how the prescription extends to higher orders, while acknowledging that explicit two-loop checks would be valuable for confirming closure. revision: partial
Referee: [Scheme definition and properties] The claim that the scheme 'retains many advantages of minimal subtraction such as gauge independence' is asserted after the one-loop examples but is not shown to follow from the subtraction rule itself; an explicit check of the gauge-parameter dependence of the counterterms (beyond one loop) is needed to support the central claim.

Authors: The manuscript contains explicit one-loop calculations in QCD where the counterterms for the strong coupling and quark masses are computed in a general covariant gauge and shown to be independent of the gauge parameter. This follows because the subtracted poles are the same as those in the MS-bar scheme, which are known to be gauge-independent. We will revise the text to make clearer that gauge independence is verified explicitly at one loop and that the subtraction rule inherits this property from dimensional regularization, while noting that a general demonstration beyond one loop remains to be done. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved

Explicit demonstration that the pole-subtraction prescription closes consistently under renormalization at two loops and higher, including preservation of gauge independence and automatic Appelquist-Carazzone decoupling.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; scheme properties verified by explicit one-loop computation

full rationale

The paper defines its renormalization scheme by the prescription of subtracting all poles for d ≥ 4 and then performs explicit one-loop QCD calculations to show reduction to MS-bar at high scales, smooth thresholds, and Appelquist-Carazzone compliance. These verifications are independent computations rather than tautological to the definition. No equations reduce by construction, no self-citations are load-bearing, and no ansatz or uniqueness claim is imported from prior author work. The derivation is self-contained against the one-loop benchmarks it provides.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based solely on the abstract, no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are identifiable; the scheme appears to rely on standard dimensional regularization assumptions.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5378 in / 1062 out tokens · 57709 ms · 2026-05-08T05:57:44.429123+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Functional Dimensional Regularization for O(N) Models
hep-th 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

Functional dimensional regularization applied to the O(N) universality class yields critical exponents comparable to advanced non-perturbative methods while retaining efficiency and rapid convergence.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 2 internal anchors

[1]

Smooth Threshold Effects from Dimensional Regularization

and their inclusion in the renormalization process is crucial for ultraviolet (UV) phenomena in theories where these arise [28–34]. However, DR also generates poles ind >4, which could be included in the renormaliza- tion process [35]. Such a scheme was recently applied in [36], where poles ind≤4 as well asd >4 were con- sidered to study the UV behaviour ...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[2]

Appelquist and J

T. Appelquist and J. Carazzone, Phys. Rev. D11, 2856 (1975)

1975
[3]

The four-loop beta-function in Quantum Chromodynamics

T. van Ritbergen, J. A. M. Vermaseren, and S. A. Larin, Phys. Lett. B400, 379 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9701390

work page Pith review arXiv 1997
[4]

Czakon, Nucl

M. Czakon, Nucl. Phys. B710, 485 (2005), arXiv:hep- ph/0411261

work page arXiv 2005
[5]

P. A. Baikov, K. G. Chetyrkin, and J. H. K¨ uhn, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 082002 (2017), arXiv:1606.08659 [hep- ph]

work page arXiv 2017
[6]

Schnetz,Numbers and Functions in Quantum Field Theory,Phys

O. Schnetz, Phys. Rev. D97, 085018 (2018), arXiv:1606.08598 [hep-th]

work page arXiv 2018
[7]

Herzog, B

F. Herzog, B. Ruijl, T. Ueda, J. A. M. Vermaseren, and A. Vogt, JHEP02, 090, arXiv:1701.01404 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv
[8]

Bernreuther, inWorkshop on QCD at LEP(1994) pp

W. Bernreuther, inWorkshop on QCD at LEP(1994) pp. 39–46, arXiv:hep-ph/9409390

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 1994
[9]

Hadronic top-quark pair production with NNLL threshold resummation

M. Beneke, P. Falgari, S. Klein, and C. Schwinn, Nucl. Phys. B855, 695 (2012), arXiv:1109.1536 [hep-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2012
[10]

C. P. Burgess, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.57, 329 (2007), arXiv:hep-th/0701053

work page arXiv 2007
[11]

Bernreuther and W

W. Bernreuther and W. Wetzel, Nucl. Phys. B197, 228 (1982), [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 513, 758–758 (1998)]

1982
[12]

K. G. Chetyrkin, B. A. Kniehl, and M. Steinhauser, Nucl. Phys. B510, 61 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9708255

work page Pith review arXiv 1998
[13]

K. G. Chetyrkin, J. H. Kuhn, and M. Steinhauser, Comput. Phys. Commun.133, 43 (2000), arXiv:hep- ph/0004189

work page arXiv 2000
[14]

K. G. Chetyrkin, J. H. Kuhn, and C. Sturm, Nucl. Phys. B744, 121 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0512060

work page Pith review arXiv 2006
[15]

Schroder and M

Y. Schroder and M. Steinhauser, JHEP01, 051, arXiv:hep-ph/0512058

work page arXiv
[16]

S. J. Brodsky, M. S. Gill, M. Melles, and J. Rathsman, Phys. Rev. D58, 116006 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9801330

work page arXiv 1998
[17]

Georgi and H

H. Georgi and H. D. Politzer, Phys. Rev. D14, 1829 (1976)

1976
[18]

Celmaster and R

W. Celmaster and R. J. Gonsalves, Phys. Rev. D20, 1420 (1979)

1979
[19]

K. G. Chetyrkin and T. Seidensticker, Phys. Lett. B495, 74 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0008094

work page arXiv 2000
[20]

J. A. Gracey, Phys. Rev. D84, 085011 (2011), arXiv:1108.4806 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2011
[21]

J. A. Gracey, Phys. Lett. B700, 79 (2011), arXiv:1104.5382 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2011
[22]

Bednyakov and A

A. Bednyakov and A. Pikelner, Phys. Rev. D101, 071502 (2020), arXiv:2002.02875 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2020
[23]

L. F. Abbott, Nucl. Phys. B185, 189 (1981)

1981
[24]

Rebhan, Z

A. Rebhan, Z. Phys. C30, 309 (1986)

1986
[25]

K. G. Chetyrkin, B. A. Kniehl, and M. Steinhauser, Nucl. Phys. B814, 231 (2009), arXiv:0812.1337 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2009
[26]

Jegerlehner and O

F. Jegerlehner and O. V. Tarasov, Nucl. Phys. B549, 481 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9809485

work page arXiv 1999
[27]

Zeng, X.-G

J. Zeng, X.-G. Wu, X.-C. Zheng, and J.-M. Shen, Chin. Phys. C44, 113102 (2020), arXiv:2004.12068 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2020
[28]

M. J. G. Veltman, Acta Phys. Polon. B12, 437 (1981)

1981
[29]

Castellani and P

L. Castellani and P. Van Nieuwenhuizen, Nucl. Phys. B 213, 305 (1983)

1983
[30]

Jack and D

I. Jack and D. R. T. Jones, Nucl. Phys. B342, 127 (1990)

1990
[31]

M. S. Al-Sarhi, D. R. T. Jones, and I. Jack, Nucl. Phys. B345, 431 (1990)

1990
[32]

M. S. Al-sarhi, I. Jack, and D. R. T. Jones, Z. Phys. C 55, 283 (1992)

1992
[33]

D. B. Kaplan, M. J. Savage, and M. B. Wise, Phys. Lett. B424, 390 (1998), arXiv:nucl-th/9801034

work page Pith review arXiv 1998
[34]

Kluth,Fixed points of quantum gravity from dimen- sional regularization, Phys

Y. Kluth, Phys. Rev. D111, 106010 (2025), arXiv:2409.09252 [hep-th]

work page arXiv 2025
[35]

Cresswell-Hogg, Y

C. Cresswell-Hogg, Y. Kluth, and D. F. Litim (2026), to appear

2026
[36]

Weinberg, Ultraviolet divergences in quantum theories of gravitation, inGeneral Relativity: An Einstein Cente- nary Survey(1980) pp

S. Weinberg, Ultraviolet divergences in quantum theories of gravitation, inGeneral Relativity: An Einstein Cente- nary Survey(1980) pp. 790–831

1980
[37]

Falls and R

K. Falls and R. Ferrero, JHEP08, 173, arXiv:2411.00938 [hep-th]

work page arXiv
[38]

K. G. Wilson and M. E. Fisher, Phys. Rev. Lett.28, 240 (1972)

1972
[39]

Guida and J

R. Guida and J. Zinn-Justin, J. Phys. A31, 8103 (1998), arXiv:cond-mat/9803240

work page arXiv 1998
[40]

Finite size scaling study of lattice models in the three-dimensional Ising universality class,

M. Hasenbusch, Phys. Rev. B82, 174433 (2010), arXiv:1004.4486 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

work page arXiv 2010
[41]

Solving the 3d Ising Model with the Conformal Bootstrap II. c-Minimization and Precise Critical Exponents

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]

work page Pith review arXiv 2014
[42]

F. Kos, D. Poland, D. Simmons-Duffin, and A. Vichi, JHEP08, 036, arXiv:1603.04436 [hep-th]

work page Pith review arXiv
[43]

M. V. Kompaniets and E. Panzer, Phys. Rev. D96, 036016 (2017), arXiv:1705.06483 [hep-th]

work page arXiv 2017
[44]

Chang, V

C.-H. Chang, V. Dommes, R. S. Erramilli, A. Hom- rich, P. Kravchuk, A. Liu, M. S. Mitchell, D. Poland, and D. Simmons-Duffin, JHEP03, 136, arXiv:2411.15300 [hep-th]

work page arXiv
[45]

R. V. Harlander, S. Y. Klein, and M. Lipp, Comput. Phys. Commun.256, 107465 (2020), arXiv:2003.00896 [physics.ed-ph]

work page arXiv 2020
[46]

Harlander, S

R. Harlander, S. Y. Klein, and M. C. Schaaf, PoSEPS- HEP2023, 657 (2024), arXiv:2401.12778 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2024
[47]

B¨ undgen, R

L. B¨ undgen, R. V. Harlander, S. Y. Klein, and M. C. Schaaf, Comput. Phys. Commun.314, 109662 (2025), arXiv:2501.04651 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[48]

A. A. Vladimirov, Theor. Math. Phys.43, 417 (1980)

1980
[49]

Two-loop mixing of dimension-five flavor-changing operators

M. Misiak and M. Munz, Phys. Lett. B344, 308 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9409454

work page Pith review arXiv 1995
[50]

K. G. Chetyrkin, M. Misiak, and M. Munz, Nucl. Phys. B518, 473 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9711266

work page arXiv 1998
[51]

Higgs mass and vacuum stability in the Standard Model at NNLO

G. Degrassi, S. Di Vita, J. Elias-Miro, J. R. Espinosa, G. F. Giudice, G. Isidori, and A. Strumia, JHEP08, 098, arXiv:1205.6497 [hep-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv
[52]

Kurkela, P

A. Kurkela, P. Romatschke, and A. Vuorinen, Phys. Rev. D81, 105021 (2010), arXiv:0912.1856 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2010
[53]

R. S. Thorne, Phys. Rev. D73, 054019 (2006), arXiv:hep- ph/0601245

work page arXiv 2006