Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compare the solutions of one-scale Dyson–Schwinger equations (DSEs) in the minimal subtraction (MS) scheme to the solutions in kinematic momentum subtraction (MOM) renormalization schemes. We establish that the MS-solution can be interpreted as a MOM-solution, but with a shifted renormalization point, where the shift itself is a function of the coupling. We derive relations between this shift and various renormalization group functions and counterterms in perturbation theory. As concrete examples, we examine three different one-scale Dyson–Schwinger equations: one based on the 1-loop multiedge graph in D=4 dimensions, one for D=6 dimensions, and one for mathematical toy model. For each of the integral kernels, we examine both the linear and nine different non-linear Dyson–Schwinger equations. For the linear cases, we empirically find exact functional forms of the shift between MOM and MS renormalization points. For the non-linear DSEs, the results for the shift suggest a factorially divergent power series. We determine the leading asymptotic growth parameters and find them in agreement with the ones of the anomalous dimension. Finally, we present a tentative exact solution to one of the non-linear DSEs of the toy model.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".