Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Integration-by-parts reductions of Feynman integrals using Singular and GPI-Space

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper presents an analytic integration-by-parts reduction of the two-loop five-point nonplanar double-pentagon integrals up to numerator degree 4, obtained by trimming the IBP system with module intersections and solving it with a…

desk verdict A credible analytic IBP reduction of the nonplanar double pentagon, with real downloadable artifacts, though the completeness bound is heuristic and the pipeline is not yet a proven black box. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04301 v2 pith:MVL2ZEI2 submitted 2019-08-12 hep-th hep-phmath.AG

Dominik Bendle , Janko Boehm , Wolfram Decker , Alessandro Georgoudis , Franz-Josef Pfreundt , Mirko Rahn , Pascal Wasser , Yang Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thhep-phmath.AG MSC 13P1068W3081T18
keywords integration-by-partsreductionFeynmanintegralsmoduleintersectionGrobnerbasesparallelcomputeralgebradlogbasisdoublepentagonrationalfunctioninterpolation
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

The paper tries to show that integration-by-parts (IBP) reduction, normally the bottleneck in high-precision multiloop amplitude calculations, can be made practical for a complicated topology by combining two ideas: generate only the IBP relations that avoid double propagators and dimension shifts (found by an algebraic-geometry module intersection), and solve the resulting trimmed linear system by row-reducing at many semi-numeric points and interpolating the coefficients back to full analytic form. The demonstration is the two-loop five-point nonplanar double pentagon, where the authors reduce 26 target integrals up to numerator degree 4 to a basis of 108 master integrals with full dependence on five Mandelstam variables and $D$. The result is checked numerically against an independent IBP implementation. They then convert the reduction to a dlog basis (integrals writable as products of logarithmic differentials, a special case of uniformly transcendental bases) and find the coefficient file shrinks from about 2.0 GB to 0.48 GB on disk. A sympathetic reader would take this as evidence that algebraic trimming plus parallel reconstruction can push analytic reduction to topologies that were previously out of reach.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the module intersection $M_1 \cap M_2$ over $R = \mathbb{Q}(c_i)[z_1,\dots,z_m]$: $M_1$ is the module of polynomial multipliers $a_i(z), b(z)$ satisfying the syzygy relation $\sum_i a_i \partial P/\partial z_i + bP = 0$ (no dimension shifts), and $M_2$ imposes $a_i = b_i z_i$ for propagator variables (no double propagators). A Grobner-basis computation of this intersection, with a user-set degree bound, generates exactly the IBP relations the subsequent linear algebra needs. The second machinery is the parallel reduction workflow: a Petri-net description in the workflow manager GPI-Space schedules many semi-numeric row reductions, detects bad interpolation points, and reconstructs rational coefficients via a reference-point cancellation algorithm that reduces rational-function interpolation to polynomial interpolation. Together these two pieces turn a problem whose naive linear system is enormous into per-cut systems of roughly 1100 to 1250 relations.

What would settle it

Set a higher degree bound (for example 6 or 7) in the module-intersection step, rerun the reduction of the same 26 target integrals, and compare every coefficient with the published degree-5 result; any difference in the $26 \times 108$ matrices would disprove the claim that degree 5 yields sufficiently many IBP relations. A second check would evaluate the analytic coefficients at a rational kinematic point and compare with a high-precision independent IBP reduction at that point.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a complete analytic IBP reduction of the two-loop five-point nonplanar double pentagon family is achievable. The method computes, for each of the 11 spanning cuts, the module intersection of the syzygy module avoiding dimension shifts with the module avoiding double propagators, using a heuristic degree bound of 5 to keep the Grobner-basis computation small; finite-field checks then indicate that enough IBP relations were obtained. The small, block-triangular linear systems are reduced by a semi-numeric algorithm in which $c_4$, $c_5$, and the dimension $D$ stay symbolic while $c_2$ and $c_3$ are integer-valued, with rational-function interpolation reconstructing the final coefficients. The output is a $26 \times 108$ matrix of IBP coefficients in a Laporta basis, consistent with an independent numerical check. Converting the master-integral basis to a dlog basis yields the same reduction with coefficients whose maximal degree in $c_2$ and $c_3$ drops and whose total on-disk size falls by 76%.

Load-bearing premise

The result depends on the heuristic choice of degree bound 5 in the module-intersection computation; if higher-degree generators are needed to capture all IBP relations, the trimmed system would omit relations and could produce wrong master-integral coefficients, and the numerical cross-check for this one example does not by itself prove the bound is sufficient in general.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • IBP systems without double propagators can be generated for every subsector, not just the top sector, making the reduction block-triangular and easier to solve; the paper states this extension and applies it to all 11 cuts.
  • The same module-intersection relations can simplify reductions for integrals that do have double or multiple propagators, since the generated relations do not raise propagator exponents.
  • A dlog or uniformly transcendental master-integral basis is not only convenient for differential equations; converting to it reduces IBP coefficient size on disk by 76% in this example and lowers interpolation degrees, so basis choice can be used as a practical simplification tool.
  • When only dlog-basis coefficients are wanted, interpolating the converted product directly rather than the Laporta coefficients reduces the number of semi-numeric runs.
  • The Petri-net parallelization of symbolic row reduction carries over to other large symbolic linear algebra problems with parameters, such as the algebraic-geometry solution of Bethe-Ansatz equations mentioned in the paper.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One can test the heuristic degree bound systematically: for a smaller integral family where the complete module intersection is computable, compare the degree-bounded IBP system against the full one and measure how often degree 5 would be insufficient; this would turn the heuristic into a quantitative reliability curve.
  • The 76% coefficient-size drop suggests a cost metric for basis selection: on-disk size and maximal parameter degrees may predict evaluation time of IBP coefficients, so one could benchmark numerical evaluation per phase-space point for Laporta versus dlog bases.
  • The same trimming-by-module-intersection strategy may extend beyond massless five-point integrals to families with massive propagators or elliptic sectors, where dlog or uniform-transcendentality reduction fails; the algebraic trimming and parallel reconstruction layers are independent of uniform transcendentality.
  • Since the interpolation algorithm works by heuristically matching leading exponents across semi-numeric points, adversarial rational functions with near-cancellations could require many points; a stress test on artificial IBP systems with known high-degree denominators would reveal the algorithm's failure modes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents an automated, parallel framework for integration-by-parts (IBP) reduction of multi-loop Feynman integrals, combining the computer algebra system Singular with the workflow manager GPI-Space. The method uses algebraic geometry—specifically module intersections with a heuristic degree bound—to trim the IBP system, followed by sparse linear algebra over finite fields and semi-numeric rational-function interpolation. The central demonstration is the analytic IBP reduction of the two-loop five-point nonplanar double-pentagon integral family up to numerator degree four, covering 26 target integrals, with coefficients in both a Laporta basis and a dlog basis. The authors report a 76% reduction in the on-disk size of the coefficients after conversion to the dlog basis, and state that the result has been cross-checked numerically against FIRE6.

Significance. If the result is correct, this is a significant computational advance: it is the first analytic IBP reduction of the two-loop five-point nonplanar double pentagon with numerator degree up to four, a problem with five kinematic variables plus the spacetime dimension. The paper also demonstrates a genuinely parallel, automatized architecture that scales to hundreds of cores, and the dlog-basis conversion is practically useful for amplitude computations. Strengths include the principled use of module intersections from prior work [59], the detailed Petri-net description of the parallel algorithm, and the independent FIRE6 consistency check. However, the advertised analytic result rests on two empirical heuristics—the degree-bound completeness in Section 6.1 and the majority-vote interpolation in Appendix A—neither of which is accompanied by a proof or a sufficiently detailed validation protocol. The absence of source code or scripts also limits external reproducibility of the completeness claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 6.1] The completeness of the trimmed IBP system is asserted through an empirical degree bound. The text states: 'choosing the degree bound 5 ... Later on, by finite-field methods, we find that with this choice of degree bound, we obtain sufficiently many IBPs for our problem.' This verifies sufficiency only at the specific finite-field kinematics used in the trimming step. The module intersection M1∩M2 could contain independent generators of degree greater than 5 that are needed only at generic kinematic points; if so, the cut systems in Table 2 would be rank-deficient and the coefficients of the 26 target integrals in Section 6.2 would be incorrect. The FIRE6 consistency check in Section 6.2 ('By setting all Mandelstam variables to integers') is not described with enough detail to certify the analytic result: finitely many integer-kinematics checks cannot exclude rational functions that agree at the tested points but differ elsewhere. I therefore ask for either a proof of the degree-bound completeness, for example a Gröbner basis certificate, or a much more extensive and documented finite-field verification at many random generic points, with the number of points and prime fields stated.
  2. [Appendix A] The rational function interpolation relies on a majority-vote heuristic. Step 2 drops all semi-numeric results whose leading exponent in x_{k+1},...,x_k is not the most frequent value r, on the claim that this 'ensures that the gcd ... is just an integer.' This is not a proof: cancellations after substituting integer values for x_1,...,x_{k1} can occur for a subset of points, and the leading-exponent majority vote does not guarantee that every retained point has the same polynomial common-factor structure. The normalization formulas (A.12)–(A.14) then need not yield the true F/G. Since the final Laporta and dlog coefficients are produced by this interpolation, a failure here would invalidate the central result. Please provide a rigorous correctness statement with explicit genericity assumptions, or replace the heuristic by a provably correct reconstruction algorithm with verification steps.
  3. [Section 6.2 / Table 2] The interpolation degree bounds d2 and d3 are determined from univariate reductions in which one parameter is symbolic and all others are numeric. The text states that this 'easily' determines the maximal degree. For a multivariate rational function, the degree in c2 at a single generic point can be smaller than the maximal degree over the full kinematic domain, so the number of interpolation points (d2+1)(d3+1), as used after Eq. (2.11), is not guaranteed to be sufficient. The manuscript does not report how many univariate substitutions were used, whether they were varied, or whether the resulting multivariate interpolation was independently verified beyond the single integer-kinematics FIRE6 check. Please either prove the degree bounds from the algebraic structure of the reduction or document a validation strategy that checks the interpolated coefficients at additional random points.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains a typo: 'algebro-geometrically motived' should be 'algebro-geometrically motivated'.
  2. [Section 6, first paragraph] The list of independent Mandelstam variables repeats s45: 's12, s23, s34, s45, s45, s15' should be a list of five distinct variables, presumably omitting one duplicate.
  3. [Section 4.4 / Table 1] The row for one core reports a 'relative speedup' of 1.201 and an efficiency of 1.201, which is confusing because the text explains that the single-core timing is special and the 15-core run is used as the reference; please clarify this in the table caption or add a footnote.
  4. [Section 2.1] The notation 'κ' is introduced without an explicit definition in the sentence 'Suppose we wish to reduce an integral family with nj ≤ 0, j = κ+1,...,m'; defining κ as the number of propagators with positive index would improve readability.
  5. [Figure 8] The spelling 'non-planar' appears with a hyphen in the caption but as 'nonplanar' elsewhere in the paper; please unify the spelling.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the IBP reduction is computed from the syzygy/module-intersection system and checked against FIRE6; self-citations are tool citations, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained: IBP relations are generated from the syzygy equations (2.6)-(2.7), the simultaneous solutions are computed as the module intersection M1∩M2, and the resulting linear system is reduced by row-reduction and rational-function interpolation. No fitted parameter is reused as a prediction: the degree bounds d2 and d3 are obtained from univariate reductions and used only to fix the number of interpolation points, and the sufficiency of the degree-bound-5 module intersection is tested over finite fields and cross-checked against FIRE6 at integer kinematics. The dlog basis is imported from prior work [77] by overlapping authors, and the module-intersection method from [59], but these are computational tools and input bases, not the claimed output; the claimed output (analytic reduction coefficients for the 26 double-pentagon integrals) is computed, not assumed. The degree-bound heuristic in Section 6.1 is a completeness risk rather than a circularity, and the FIRE6 check provides external mitigation. Score 1 reflects minor self-citations that are not load-bearing.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central computation depends on standard algebraic-geometry assumptions (module intersection, Gröbner basis completeness) and on two heuristic choices: the degree bound 5 for module intersections and the interpolation degree bounds d2,d3 used to choose evaluation points. No new physical entities are introduced. The dlog basis is taken from prior work rather than derived here.

free parameters (2)
  • module intersection degree bound (degbound) = 5
    Chosen so that each module intersection finishes in about five minutes per cut (Section 6.1). Sufficiency is established only empirically via finite-field checks and the FIRE6 cross-check. If the true generating set needs higher degree, the trimmed IBP system would be incomplete.
  • interpolation degree bounds d2 and d3 = per cut, d2 up to 35 and d3 up to 30; dlog basis d2'=20, d3'=20
    Obtained from univariate reductions with all other parameters numeric. They set the number of semi-numeric interpolation points via (d2+1)(d3+1). The bounds are heuristic, and underestimation would alter the reconstructed rational coefficients.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Gröbner basis computation of M1 intersect M2 gives the full module intersection.
    Section 2.1 relies on the standard module intersection algorithm; no proof is included in the paper.
  • domain assumption Baikov representation and IBP identities as total derivatives with no surface terms.
    Equations (2.2) through (2.5) are taken as the working definition of IBP reduction; this is standard in the field but assumed.
  • domain assumption IBPs without double propagators generated from (2.6) and (2.7) are sufficient to reduce the 26 target integrals.
    The paper verifies this on finite fields and against FIRE6 but does not prove completeness for all numerator degrees up to 4.
  • ad hoc to paper Rational function reconstruction from a reference point plus majority-vote degree selection.
    Appendix A explicitly says the cancellation problem is solved 'in a heuristic way'; the algorithm assumes the majority exponent identifies the true numerator and denominator degrees.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Integration-by-parts reductions of Feynman integrals using Singular and GPI-Space." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MVL2ZEI2

@misc{pith2026190804301,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Integration-by-parts reductions of Feynman integrals using Singular and GPI-Space},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MVL2ZEI2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04301}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce an algebro-geometrically motived integration-by-parts (IBP) reduction method for multi-loop and multi-scale Feynman integrals, using a framework for massively parallel computations in computer algebra. This framework combines the computer algebra system Singular with the workflow management system GPI-Space, which is being developed at the Fraunhofer Institute for Industrial Mathematics (ITWM). In our approach, the IBP relations are first trimmed by modern algebraic geometry tools and then solved by sparse linear algebra and our new interpolation methods. These steps are efficiently automatized and automatically parallelized by modeling the algorithm in GPI-Space using the language of Petri-nets. We demonstrate the potential of our method at the nontrivial example of reducing two-loop five-point nonplanar double-pentagon integrals. We also use GPI-Space to convert the basis of IBP reductions, and discuss the possible simplification of IBP coefficients in a uniformly transcendental basis.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Kira 3: integral reduction with efficient seeding and optimized equation selection

    hep-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Kira 3 cuts Feynman-integral reduction cost by up to two orders of magnitude using smarter seeding and equation selection.

  2. Rational-function interpolation from p-adic evaluations in scattering amplitude calculations

    hep-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    A p-adic interpolation method reconstructs loop-amplitude rational functions directly in partial-fractioned form, cutting required probes by about 25x and output size by about 134x on a challenging two-loop five-point...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [59]

    B¨ ohm, A

    J. B¨ ohm, A. Georgoudis, K. J. Larsen, H. Sch¨ onemann, and Y. Zhang,Complete integration-by-parts reductions of the non-planar hexagon-box via module intersections , JHEP 09 (2018) 024, [ arXiv:1805.01873]

    arXiv 2018

  2. [1]

    Badger, H

    S. Badger, H. Frellesvig, and Y. Zhang, A Two-Loop Five-Gluon Helicity Amplitude in QCD , JHEP 12 (2013) 045, [ arXiv:1310.1051]

    arXiv 2013

  3. [2]

    Gehrmann, J

    T. Gehrmann, J. M. Henn, and N. A. Lo Presti, Analytic form of the two-loop planar five-gluon all-plus-helicity amplitude in QCD , Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016), no. 6 062001, [arXiv:1511.05409]. [Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett.116,no.18,189903(2016)]

    arXiv 2016

  4. [3]

    Badger, C

    S. Badger, C. Brnnum-Hansen, H. B. Hartanto, and T. Peraro, First look at two-loop five-gluon scattering in QCD , Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018), no. 9 092001, [arXiv:1712.02229]

    arXiv 2018

  5. [4]

    Abreu, F

    S. Abreu, F. Febres Cordero, H. Ita, B. Page, and M. Zeng, Planar Two-Loop Five-Gluon Amplitudes from Numerical Unitarity , Phys. Rev. D97 (2018), no. 11 116014, [arXiv:1712.03946]

    arXiv 2018

  6. [5]

    Abreu, L

    S. Abreu, L. J. Dixon, E. Herrmann, B. Page, and M. Zeng, The two-loop five-point amplitude inN = 4 super-Yang-Mills theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (2019), no. 12 121603, [arXiv:1812.08941]

    arXiv 2019

  7. [6]

    Abreu, F

    S. Abreu, F. Febres Cordero, H. Ita, B. Page, and V. Sotnikov, Planar Two-Loop Five-Parton Amplitudes from Numerical Unitarity , JHEP 11 (2018) 116, [ arXiv:1809.09067]

    arXiv 2018

  8. [7]

    R. H. Boels, Q. Jin, and H. Luo, Efficient integrand reduction for particles with spin , arXiv:1802.06761

    arXiv

Show all 82 references
  1. [8]

    Gehrmann, J

    T. Gehrmann, J. M. Henn, and N. A. Lo Presti, Pentagon functions for massless planar scattering amplitudes, JHEP 10 (2018) 103, [ arXiv:1807.09812]

    2018 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Badger, C

    S. Badger, C. Brnnum-Hansen, H. B. Hartanto, and T. Peraro, Analytic helicity amplitudes for two-loop five-gluon scattering: the single-minus case , JHEP 01 (2019) 186, [arXiv:1811.11699]

    2019 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Abreu, J

    S. Abreu, J. Dormans, F. Febres Cordero, H. Ita, and B. Page, Analytic Form of Planar Two-Loop Five-Gluon Scattering Amplitudes in QCD , Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (2019), no. 8 082002, [arXiv:1812.04586]

    2019 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Chicherin, T

    D. Chicherin, T. Gehrmann, J. M. Henn, P. Wasser, Y. Zhang, and S. Zoia, Analytic result for a two-loop five-particle amplitude , Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (2019), no. 12 121602, [arXiv:1812.11057]

    2019 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Chicherin, T

    D. Chicherin, T. Gehrmann, J. M. Henn, P. Wasser, Y. Zhang, and S. Zoia, The two-loop five-particle amplitude in N = 8 supergravity, JHEP 03 (2019) 115, [ arXiv:1901.05932]

    2019 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Abreu, L

    S. Abreu, L. J. Dixon, E. Herrmann, B. Page, and M. Zeng, The two-loop five-point amplitude inN = 8 supergravity, JHEP 03 (2019) 123, [ arXiv:1901.08563]

    2019 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Abreu, J

    S. Abreu, J. Dormans, F. Febres Cordero, H. Ita, B. Page, and V. Sotnikov, Analytic Form of the Planar Two-Loop Five-Parton Scattering Amplitudes in QCD , JHEP 05 (2019) 084, [arXiv:1904.00945]

    2019 arXiv

  8. [15]

    H. B. Hartanto, S. Badger, C. Brnnum-Hansen, and T. Peraro, A numerical evaluation of planar two-loop helicity amplitudes for a W-boson plus four partons , arXiv:1906.11862

    1906 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Zhang, Integrand-Level Reduction of Loop Amplitudes by Computational Algebraic Geometry Methods, JHEP 09 (2012) 042, [ arXiv:1205.5707]

    Y. Zhang, Integrand-Level Reduction of Loop Amplitudes by Computational Algebraic Geometry Methods, JHEP 09 (2012) 042, [ arXiv:1205.5707]. – 28 –

    2012 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Mastrolia, E

    P. Mastrolia, E. Mirabella, G. Ossola, and T. Peraro, Scattering Amplitudes from Multivariate Polynomial Division , Phys. Lett. B718 (2012) 173–177, [ arXiv:1205.7087]

    2012 arXiv

  11. [18]

    J. M. Henn, Multiloop integrals in dimensional regularization made simple , Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (2013) 251601, [ arXiv:1304.1806]

    2013 arXiv

  12. [19]

    J. M. Henn, Lectures on differential equations for Feynman integrals , J. Phys. A48 (2015) 153001, [arXiv:1412.2296]

    2015 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Ita, Two-loop Integrand Decomposition into Master Integrals and Surface Terms , Phys

    H. Ita, Two-loop Integrand Decomposition into Master Integrals and Surface Terms , Phys. Rev. D94 (2016), no. 11 116015, [ arXiv:1510.05626]

    2016 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Abreu, F

    S. Abreu, F. Febres Cordero, H. Ita, M. Jaquier, B. Page, and M. Zeng, Two-Loop Four-Gluon Amplitudes from Numerical Unitarity , Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017), no. 14 142001, [arXiv:1703.05273]

    2017 arXiv

  15. [22]

    L. J. Dixon, J. M. Drummond, and J. M. Henn, Bootstrapping the three-loop hexagon, JHEP 11 (2011) 023, [ arXiv:1108.4461]

    2011 arXiv

  16. [23]

    L. J. Dixon, J. M. Drummond, M. von Hippel, and J. Pennington, Hexagon functions and the three-loop remainder function, JHEP 12 (2013) 049, [ arXiv:1308.2276]

    2013 arXiv

  17. [24]

    L. J. Dixon and M. von Hippel, Bootstrapping an NMHV amplitude through three loops , JHEP 10 (2014) 065, [ arXiv:1408.1505]

    2014 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Caron-Huot, L

    S. Caron-Huot, L. J. Dixon, A. McLeod, and M. von Hippel, Bootstrapping a Five-Loop Amplitude Using Steinmann Relations , Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (2016), no. 24 241601, [arXiv:1609.00669]

    2016 arXiv

  19. [26]

    L. J. Dixon, M. von Hippel, and A. J. McLeod, The four-loop six-gluon NMHV ratio function, JHEP 01 (2016) 053, [ arXiv:1509.08127]

    2016 arXiv

  20. [27]

    L. J. Dixon, J. Drummond, T. Harrington, A. J. McLeod, G. Papathanasiou, and M. Spradlin, Heptagons from the Steinmann Cluster Bootstrap , JHEP 02 (2017) 137, [arXiv:1612.08976]

    2017 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Chicherin, J

    D. Chicherin, J. Henn, and V. Mitev, Bootstrapping pentagon functions, JHEP 05 (2018) 164, [arXiv:1712.09610]

    2018 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Caron-Huot, L

    S. Caron-Huot, L. J. Dixon, F. Dulat, M. von Hippel, A. J. McLeod, and G. Papathanasiou, Six-Gluon Amplitudes in Planar N = 4 Super-Yang-Mills Theory at Six and Seven Loops , arXiv:1903.10890

    1903 arXiv

  23. [30]

    von Manteuffel and R

    A. von Manteuffel and R. M. Schabinger, A novel approach to integration by parts reduction , Phys. Lett. B744 (2015) 101–104, [ arXiv:1406.4513]

    2015 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Peraro, Scattering amplitudes over finite fields and multivariate functional reconstruction , JHEP 12 (2016) 030, [ arXiv:1608.01902]

    T. Peraro, Scattering amplitudes over finite fields and multivariate functional reconstruction , JHEP 12 (2016) 030, [ arXiv:1608.01902]

    2016 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Klappert and F

    J. Klappert and F. Lange, Reconstructing Rational Functions with FireFly, arXiv:1904.00009

    1904 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Peraro, FiniteFlow: multivariate functional reconstruction using finite fields and dataflow graphs, JHEP 07 (2019) 031, [ arXiv:1905.08019]

    T. Peraro, FiniteFlow: multivariate functional reconstruction using finite fields and dataflow graphs, JHEP 07 (2019) 031, [ arXiv:1905.08019]

    2019 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Chetyrkin and F

    K. Chetyrkin and F. Tkachov, Integration by parts: The algorithm to calculate -functions in 4 loops, Nuclear Physics B 192 (1981), no. 1 159 – 204

    1981

  28. [35]

    Laporta, High precision calculation of multiloop Feynman integrals by difference equations , – 29 – Int

    S. Laporta, High precision calculation of multiloop Feynman integrals by difference equations , – 29 – Int. J. Mod. Phys. A15 (2000) 5087–5159, [ hep-ph/0102033]

    2000 arXiv

  29. [36]

    A. V. Smirnov, Algorithm FIRE – Feynman Integral REduction , JHEP 10 (2008) 107, [arXiv:0807.3243]

    2008 arXiv

  30. [37]

    A. V. Smirnov, FIRE5: a C++ implementation of Feynman Integral REduction , Comput. Phys. Commun. 189 (2015) 182–191, [ arXiv:1408.2372]

    2015 arXiv

  31. [38]

    A. V. Smirnov and F. S. Chuharev, FIRE6: Feynman Integral REduction with Modular Arithmetic, arXiv:1901.07808

    1901 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Maierhoefer, J

    P. Maierhoefer, J. Usovitsch, and P. Uwer, Kira - A Feynman Integral Reduction Program , Comput. Phys. Commun. 230 (2018) 99–112, [ arXiv:1705.05610]

    2018 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Maierhfer and J

    P. Maierhfer and J. Usovitsch, Kira 1.2 Release Notes , arXiv:1812.01491

    arXiv

  34. [41]

    von Manteuffel and C

    A. von Manteuffel and C. Studerus, Reduze 2 - Distributed Feynman Integral Reduction , arXiv:1201.4330

    arXiv

  35. [42]

    Gluza, K

    J. Gluza, K. Kajda, and D. A. Kosower, Towards a Basis for Planar Two-Loop Integrals , Phys.Rev. D83 (2011) 045012, [ arXiv:1009.0472]

    2011 arXiv

  36. [43]

    R. M. Schabinger, A New Algorithm For The Generation Of Unitarity-Compatible Integration By Parts Relations , JHEP 01 (2012) 077, [ arXiv:1111.4220]

    2012 arXiv

  37. [44]

    K. J. Larsen and Y. Zhang, Integration-by-parts reductions from unitarity cuts and algebraic geometry, Phys. Rev. D93 (2016), no. 4 041701, [ arXiv:1511.01071]

    2016 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Z. Bern, M. Enciso, H. Ita, and M. Zeng, Dual Conformal Symmetry, Integration-by-Parts Reduction, Differential Equations and the Nonplanar Sector , Phys. Rev. D96 (2017), no. 9 096017, [arXiv:1709.06055]

    2017 arXiv

  39. [46]

    R. N. Lee and A. A. Pomeransky, Critical points and number of master integrals , JHEP 11 (2013) 165, [ arXiv:1308.6676]

    2013 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Georgoudis, K

    A. Georgoudis, K. J. Larsen, and Y. Zhang, Azurite: An algebraic geometry based package for finding bases of loop integrals , Comput. Phys. Commun. 221 (2017) 203–215, [arXiv:1612.04252]

    2017 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Bitoun, C

    T. Bitoun, C. Bogner, R. P. Klausen, and E. Panzer, Feynman integral relations from parametric annihilators, arXiv:1712.09215

    arXiv

  42. [49]

    H. A. Chawdhry, M. A. Lim, and A. Mitov, Two-loop five-point massless QCD amplitudes within the IBP approach , arXiv:1805.09182

    arXiv

  43. [50]

    Badger, D

    S. Badger, D. Chicherin, T. Gehrmann, G. Heinrich, J. M. Henn, T. Peraro, P. Wasser, Y. Zhang, and S. Zoia, Analytic form of the full two-loop five-gluon all-plus helicity amplitude, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (2019), no. 7 071601, [ arXiv:1905.03733]

    2019 arXiv

  44. [51]

    D. A. Kosower, Direct Solution of Integration-by-Parts Systems , Phys. Rev. D98 (2018), no. 2 025008, [ arXiv:1804.00131]

    2018 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Mastrolia and S

    P. Mastrolia and S. Mizera, Feynman Integrals and Intersection Theory , JHEP 02 (2019) 139, [arXiv:1810.03818]

    2019 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Frellesvig, F

    H. Frellesvig, F. Gasparotto, S. Laporta, M. K. Mandal, P. Mastrolia, L. Mattiazzi, and S. Mizera, Decomposition of Feynman Integrals on the Maximal Cut by Intersection Numbers, JHEP 05 (2019) 153, [ arXiv:1901.11510]

    2019 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Frellesvig, F

    H. Frellesvig, F. Gasparotto, M. K. Mandal, P. Mastrolia, L. Mattiazzi, and S. Mizera, Vector – 30 – Space of Feynman Integrals and Multivariate Intersection Numbers , arXiv:1907.02000

    1907 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Liu and Y.-Q

    X. Liu and Y.-Q. Ma, Determining arbitrary Feynman integrals by vacuum integrals , Phys. Rev. D99 (2019), no. 7 071501, [ arXiv:1801.10523]

    2019 arXiv

  49. [56]

    Liu, Y.-Q

    X. Liu, Y.-Q. Ma, and C.-Y. Wang, A Systematic and Efficient Method to Compute Multi-loop Master Integrals, Phys. Lett. B779 (2018) 353–357, [ arXiv:1711.09572]

    2018 arXiv

  50. [57]

    Y. Wang, Z. Li, and N. Ul Basat, Direct Reduction of Amplitude, arXiv:1901.09390

    1901 arXiv

  51. [58]

    Kardos, A new reduction strategy for special negative sectors of planar two-loop integrals without Laporta algorithm, arXiv:1812.05622

    A. Kardos, A new reduction strategy for special negative sectors of planar two-loop integrals without Laporta algorithm, arXiv:1812.05622

    arXiv

  52. [60]

    B¨ ohm, A

    J. B¨ ohm, A. Georgoudis, K. J. Larsen, M. Schulze, and Y. Zhang, Complete sets of logarithmic vector fields for integration-by-parts identities of Feynman integrals , Phys. Rev. D98 (2018), no. 2 025023, [ arXiv:1712.09737]

    2018 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Singular 4-1-1 — A computer algebra system for polynomial computations

    W. Decker, G.-M. Greuel, G. Pfister, and H. Sch¨ onemann, “Singular 4-1-1 — A computer algebra system for polynomial computations.” http://www.singular.uni-kl.de, 2018

    2018

  54. [62]

    Pfreundt and M

    F.-J. Pfreundt and M. Rahn, GPI-Space, 2018. Fraunhofer ITWM Kaiserslautern, http://www.gpi-space.de/

    2018

  55. [63]

    Wasser, Analytic properties of Feynman integrals for scattering amplitudes , M.Sc

    P. Wasser, Analytic properties of Feynman integrals for scattering amplitudes , M.Sc. (2016) [https://publications.ub.uni-mainz.de/theses/frontdoor.php?source opus=100001967]

    2016

  56. [64]

    P. A. Baikov, Explicit solutions of the three loop vacuum integral recurrence relations , Phys. Lett. B385 (1996) 404–410, [ hep-ph/9603267]

    1996 arXiv

  57. [65]

    R. N. Lee, Modern techniques of multiloop calculations , in Proceedings, 49th Rencontres de Moriond on QCD and High Energy Interactions: La Thuile, Italy, March 22-29, 2014 , pp. 297–300, 2014. arXiv:1405.5616

    2014 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Zhang, Lecture Notes on Multi-loop Integral Reduction and Applied Algebraic Geometry ,

    Y. Zhang, Lecture Notes on Multi-loop Integral Reduction and Applied Algebraic Geometry ,

  59. [67]

    http://github.com/cbouilla/spasm

    The SpaSM group, SpaSM: a Sparse direct Solver Modulo p, v1.2 ed., 2017. http://github.com/cbouilla/spasm

    2017

  60. [68]

    E. W. Mayr and A. R. Meyer, The complexity of the word problems for commutative semigroups and polynomial ideals , Advances in Mathematics 46 (1982), no. 3 305 – 329

    1982

  61. [69]

    B¨ ohm, W

    J. B¨ ohm, W. Decker, A. Fr¨ ubis-Kr¨ uger, F.-J. Pfreundt, M. Rahn, and L. Ristau,Towards massively parallel computations in algebraic geometry , arXiv:1808.09727

    arXiv

  62. [70]

    Jordan, M

    C. Jordan, M. Joswig, and L. Kastner, Parallel enumeration of triangulations , Electron. J. Combin. 25 (2018), no. 3 Paper 3.6, 27

    2018

  63. [71]

    Ristau, Using Petri nets to parallelize algebraic algorithms , 2019

    L. Ristau, Using Petri nets to parallelize algebraic algorithms , 2019. Ph.D. Thesis

    2019

  64. [72]

    Reinbold, Computation of the GIT-fan using a massively parallel implementation , 2018

    C. Reinbold, Computation of the GIT-fan using a massively parallel implementation , 2018. Master’s Thesis

    2018

  65. [73]

    Bendle, Massively parallel computation of tropical varieties , 2018

    D. Bendle, Massively parallel computation of tropical varieties , 2018. Bachelor’s Thesis

    2018

  66. [74]

    Z. Bern, E. Herrmann, S. Litsey, J. Stankowicz, and J. Trnka, Logarithmic Singularities and – 31 – Maximally Supersymmetric Amplitudes , JHEP 06 (2015) 202, [ arXiv:1412.8584]

    2015 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Arkani-Hamed, J

    N. Arkani-Hamed, J. L. Bourjaily, F. Cachazo, and J. Trnka, Local Integrals for Planar Scattering Amplitudes, JHEP 06 (2012) 125, [ arXiv:1012.6032]

    2012 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Chicherin, T

    D. Chicherin, T. Gehrmann, J. M. Henn, N. A. Lo Presti, V. Mitev, and P. Wasser, Analytic result for the nonplanar hexa-box integrals , JHEP 03 (2019) 042, [ arXiv:1809.06240]

    2019 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Chicherin, T

    D. Chicherin, T. Gehrmann, J. M. Henn, P. Wasser, Y. Zhang, and S. Zoia, All master integrals for three-jet production at NNLO , Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (2019), no. 4 041603, [arXiv:1812.11160]

    2019 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Lykke Jacobsen, Y

    J. Lykke Jacobsen, Y. Jiang, and Y. Zhang, Torus partition function of the six-vertex model from algebraic geometry, JHEP 03 (2019) 152, [ arXiv:1812.00447]

    2019 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Jiang and Y

    Y. Jiang and Y. Zhang, Algebraic geometry and Bethe ansatz. Part I. The quotient ring for BAE, JHEP 03 (2018) 087, [ arXiv:1710.04693]

    2018 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Zippel, Probabilistic algorithms for sparse polynomials , vol

    R. Zippel, Probabilistic algorithms for sparse polynomials , vol. 72, pp. 216–226, 01, 1979

    1979

  73. [81]

    Ben Or and P

    M. Ben Or and P. Tiwari, A deterministic algorithm for sparse multivariate polynomial interpolation, Proceedings of the 20th Annual STOC (01, 1988)

    1988

  74. [82]

    Kaltofen, W.-s

    E. Kaltofen, W.-s. Lee, and A. Lobo, Early Termination in Ben-Or/Tiwari Sparse Interpolation and a Hybrid of Zippel’s Algorithm* , Proceedings of the International Symposium on Symbolic and Algebraic Computation, ISSAC (05, 2001). – 32 –

    2001

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.