In Rosten's review of exact RG (arXiv:1003.1366), exact RG can be recast as field redefinition, but I don't see why it should be general discussion. Could you possibly explain to me why exact RG should be expressed as field redefinition?
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
0
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
For what it's worth, Ref. 1 only claims that changes to redundant/inessential$^1$ coupling constants can be absorbed into quasi-local field redefinitions [by the very definition of the notion].
References:
- O.J. Rosten, Fundamentals of the Exact RG, arXiv:1003.1366; eqs. (3.20) + (3.47) + (5.8).
$^1$ NB: Redundant/inessential is not necessarily the same as irrelevant.