Stop comparing resummation methods
Johan L\"ofgren

TL;DR
This paper clarifies that resummation methods are consistent when based on a proper power counting from scale hierarchies, resolving common issues in thermal field theory studies.
Contribution
It demonstrates that establishing a power counting scheme ensures the consistency of resummation methods and addresses multiple longstanding problems in thermal field theory.
Findings
Resummation consistency depends on power counting from scale hierarchies.
Adopting a strict perturbative expansion resolves gauge dependence and IR issues.
Proper resummation can eliminate artifacts like the Goldstone boson catastrophe.
Abstract
I argue that the consistency of any resummation method can be established if the method follows a power counting derived from a hierarchy of scales. I.e., whether it encodes a top-down effective field theory. This resolves much confusion over which resummation method to use once an approximation scheme is settled on. And if no hierarchy of scales exists, you should be wary about resumming. I give evidence from the study of phase transitions in thermal field theory, where adopting a consistent power-counting scheme and performing a strict perturbative expansion dissolves many common problems of such studies: gauge dependence, strong renormalization scale dependence, the Goldstone boson catastrophe, IR divergences, imaginary potentials, mirages (illusory barriers), perturbative breakdown, and linear terms.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsAdvanced Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics · Cosmology and Gravitation Theories · Statistical Mechanics and Entropy
