Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

Electroweak double-box integrals for Moller scattering

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper constructs an $\varepsilon$-factorised basis for all ten planar and non-planar double-box integral families relevant to Møller scattering at NNLO, evaluating the elliptic ones as iterated integrals of elliptic periods.

desk verdict Genuinely useful two-loop integral computation; central claims hold up, weak spot is thin documentation of boundary-value and AMFlow checks. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.07522 v2 pith:NZ4UPVY2 submitted 2024-12-10 hep-ph

Niklas Schwanemann , Stefan Weinzierl This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords electroweakcorrectionsMøllerscatteringdouble-boxintegralsNNLOepsilon-factoriseddifferentialequationsellipticFeynmaniteratedmultiplepolylogarithms
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

This paper computes the two-loop double-box Feynman integrals that enter the next-to-next-to-leading-order electroweak corrections to electron–electron (Møller) scattering. Its claim is that all ten planar and non-planar integral families — five topologies each, with zero, one, or two massive gauge bosons and at least one photon — can be brought into an $\varepsilon$-factorised form, where the dimensional regulator factors out of the differential equation. If the claim is right, the hardest two-loop objects in this process are no longer an obstacle: the simpler families are expressed as multiple polylogarithms, while the two elliptic non-planar families are evaluated as iterated integrals of elliptic periods, with numerical routines that are fast and stable in the heavy-boson limit. That matters because low-energy Møller scattering is a proposed way to measure the weak mixing angle, and missing two-loop corrections are a main theory bottleneck.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the $\varepsilon$-factorised (canonical) differential equation. Starting from a pre-canonical basis produced by integration-by-parts reduction, the authors seek a transformation $U$ such that $dJ=\varepsilon A J$ with $A$ independent of $\varepsilon$; the check is a direct computation of $U\tilde{A}U^{-1}-U\,dU^{-1}$. The construction is guided by maximal cuts in the Baikov representation and uses the square roots $r_1,\dots,r_8$, rationalisation variable changes, and three elliptic curves ($E(a)$ for $\tilde{B}$, $E(b)$ and $E(c)$ for $\tilde{A}$) whose periods satisfy rational differential equations in $s,t,m^2$, so the elliptic one-forms can be written without explicit root expressions. Once the basis is found, iterated integration gives the $\varepsilon$-expansion; leading large logarithms $\ln(s/m^2)$ are extracted from a single matrix and the boundary vector.

What would settle it

Evaluate any elliptic master integral, for example $J^{\tilde{A}}_{45}$ or $J^{\tilde{B}}_{61}$, at a second point well inside the region $-t \lesssim s \ll m^2$ using direct sector-wise numerical integration of the original Feynman parameter integral, and compare the $\varepsilon^0$ through $\varepsilon^4$ coefficients with the published routines. A wrong boundary constant or a region-dependent analytic continuation would show up as a mismatch at low order in $\varepsilon$, while the single benchmark point would not expose it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is an explicit master-integral basis $J = U I$ for every topology, with the property $dJ = \varepsilon A J$ where $A$ depends on the kinematics but not on $\varepsilon$. The authors construct it by an educated guess informed by the maximal cut in the loop-by-loop Baikov representation and by elliptic-period calculus, then verify the factorization directly. The payoff is that the integrals can be integrated order by order in $\varepsilon$: topologies $E$ and $\tilde{E}$ reduce to harmonic polylogarithms, $B,C,D,\tilde{C},\tilde{D}$ to multiple polylogarithms after rationalising the relevant square roots, while $A$ requires iterated integrals, and the non-planar topologies $\tilde{A}$ and $\tilde{B}$ involve elliptic curves and are expressed as iterated integrals of elliptic periods. Boundary values are fixed at $t=0$, $m^2=\infty$ using power counting, vanishing conditions, and a PSLQ reconstruction over a small set of constants, after which a benchmark comparison with an independent numerical solver is reported.

Load-bearing premise

The central fragile point is the assignment of boundary constants at $t=0$, $m^2=\infty$: they are fixed partly by power counting and partially reconstructed numerically with PSLQ, and the paper validates the full set against an independent numerical solver at only one kinematic point.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • NNLO electroweak corrections to Møller scattering can now include all double-box diagrams with three exchanged gauge bosons where at least one is a photon.
  • The two elliptic non-planar topologies are no longer a separate obstruction; they are evaluated in the $\varepsilon$-expansion as iterated integrals of elliptic periods with supplied numerical routines.
  • Large logarithms $\ln(s/m^2)$ at each order in $\varepsilon$ are read off from a matrix and the boundary values, giving the leading-logarithm behaviour relevant in the low-energy Møller region.
  • Because the constructed basis is crossing-invariant, the same integrals cover Bhabha scattering, Drell-Yan production, and quark-pair production in $e^+e^-$ annihilation.
  • The explicit basis and alphabets provide a concrete starting point for the remaining three-massive-boson double-box integrals, whose non-planar case is known to involve a genus-two curve.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same transformation-building pipeline could be applied to the three-massive-boson double boxes: the maximal-cut guide plus the ten-family alphabets give a concrete ansatz, but the boundary-value procedure would need an enlarged constant set beyond the seven constants used here.
  • The residual boundary-value risk could be closed by deriving boundary constants from the small-$s/m^2$ expansion of the elliptic periods themselves, and by documenting the precision of the independent numerical comparison at more than one kinematic point.
  • If the numerical routines are as fast as reported, the limiting step toward a complete NNLO electroweak Møller prediction becomes the remaining amplitude assembly and real-emission contributions rather than the double-box integrals.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper computes the ten planar and non-planar two-loop double-box integral families that arise in NNLO electroweak corrections to Møller scattering, for configurations where three gauge bosons are exchanged between the fermion lines and at least one of them is a photon. For each topology the authors derive a differential system via IBP reduction (Kira), construct (heuristically but verifiably) an epsilon-factorised master-integral basis, fix boundary values at (t=0, m^2=infinity), and integrate the system order-by-order in epsilon. The simpler topologies are expressed in multiple polylogarithms after rationalisation of the square roots; topologies A, A-tilde and B-tilde are given as iterated integrals, with A-tilde and B-tilde involving elliptic periods. C++ numerical routines and Maple files are supplied, and the results are reported to agree perfectly with AMFlow at the benchmark point of eq. (62). Section 6 extracts the leading large logarithms ln(s/m^2), and the paper explicitly states that the existence of an epsilon-factorised basis is in general open and that its construction here is a verified guess.

Significance. The result, if correct, is a genuine step forward for NNLO electroweak corrections: it provides the first complete evaluation of the planar and non-planar double-box integrals for Møller scattering in all mass configurations with up to two massive gauge bosons, including the elliptic non-planar topologies A-tilde and B-tilde. The paper ships a complete, machine-checkable data package - transformation matrices, epsilon-factorised connection matrices, alphabets, boundary values, and C++ routines - and the epsilon-factorised property is verifiable by direct substitution into eq. (43). There are no free parameters: boundary constants are fixed by power-counting and vanishing constraints plus PSLQ over the explicit constant space of eq. (54). The reported cross-check against AMFlow, an independent implementation by a different group, anchors the calculation externally, and the authors honestly flag that a canonical basis is not guaranteed to exist and that their basis resulted from a checked heuristic. If the AMFlow comparison is quantified, I would regard the computational claims as verified rather than merely plausible.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.2] The determination of the boundary constants at (t=0, m^2=infinity) is load-bearing, because these constants are the input to the integration of the epsilon-factorised system and a wrong boundary vector shifts every master integral at all orders. The manuscript states that PSLQ was used for 'some master integrals (of intermediate complexity)' with 'about 50 digits', but it does not specify which integrals were fixed by PSLQ, which by power counting or t-independence, what rational relations were found, and - most importantly - how the high-precision numerical values feeding PSLQ were produced (AMFlow, sector decomposition, or a series expansion at the boundary point). This provenance matters: if the boundary constants are determined from AMFlow values and the final integrals are then validated against AMFlow, the validation is partly circular; naming a different input method would break that loop. Please also address the ansatz of eq. (54): state how constants outside the Q-span of {1, i*pi, zeta2, zeta3, i*pi*zeta2, zeta4, i*pi*zeta3} (for example ln 2 from alternating MZVs in a degenerate massless or t=0 limit) were excluded, or report that PSLQ simply found no relation for such cases.
  2. [Section 5] The sentence 'we compared our results to the results of the program AMFlow and found perfect agreement' is not quantified. For a calculation of this size the comparison should state the number of master integrals and epsilon-orders compared, the number of agreeing digits, and the kinematic point or points used. Quantification matters for the boundary-value argument: the path-ordered exponential of an epsilon-factorised flat connection is invertible at each order in epsilon, so the epsilon^j coefficient of any master integral at a generic point equals the corresponding j-th-order boundary constant plus explicit iterated-integral terms; a high-precision check at the benchmark point of eq. (62) would therefore expose an error in any boundary constant at any order. The current one-line statement makes the strength of this check unverifiable. Please also report whether the comparison covers all master integrals or only the selection in Table 3, and consider adding a second kinematic point to guard against accidental near-degeneracies.
  3. [Appendix B.2.1 and B.2.2] Many master integrals of the elliptic topologies A-tilde and B-tilde are defined through functions F that are 'determined by a triangular system of first-order differential equations', with explicit expressions deferred to the supplementary files. The paper does not state the initial conditions that fix these F's at the boundary point (t=0, m^2=infinity), nor whether those initial values are part of the PSLQ/regularity fit, nor whether the modular-transformation freedom of eq. (44) was used to ensure at most simple poles at the chosen boundary point. Since the integration path starts at the boundary point, the initial values of the F's are needed for the master integrals to be uniquely defined and reproducible. Please state these initial conditions explicitly (or state unambiguously where they are imposed in the electronic files) and confirm that the boundary values of the elliptic master integrals and of the F's are mutually consistent.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 6, eqs. (66)-(67)] Eq. (66) defines the leading-log one-form as omega_tilde_1 = d ln L with L = ln(s/m^2), but eq. (67) gives J_LL = sum_j (1/j!)(epsilon L)^j M_tilde_1^j J^(0)_boundary. Solving dJ = epsilon M_tilde_1 d ln L J along the m^2-flow produces factors (epsilon ln L)^j, not (epsilon L)^j; eq. (67) is the standard solution for omega_tilde_1 = d ln(m^2) (or d ln(m^2/s)). This is likely a typo, but as printed the derivation of eq. (67) does not follow from eq. (66). Please correct the definition and ensure the electronic files define M_tilde_1 consistently with it.
  2. [Section 4.2] The statement 'numerical evaluations with about 50 digits are sufficient' would be more informative if the paper gave the achieved PSLQ residual and at least one representative rational relation, which would allow a reader to gauge the identification confidence.
  3. [Section 4.2 and Table 3] The text says boundary values follow from power counting and t-independence, which would presumably set many constants to zero; yet Table 3 shows J_A-tilde_45 and J_B-tilde_61 with vanishing terms through epsilon^3 and a non-zero epsilon^4 term. Please explain how these higher-order boundary constants are fixed, since the listed constraints alone do not obviously determine them.
  4. [Appendix B.2.1 and B.2.2] The definitions J_A-tilde_41, J_A-tilde_44, J_A-tilde_48 and J_B-tilde_57 involve derivatives d/dm^2 of elliptic master integrals and the Wronskians W^(X)_m2 of eq. (38); a sentence stating how these derivatives are evaluated inside the numerical routines would help readers of the C++ code.
  5. [Section 4.1] The elliptic one-form sets H_A-tilde and H_B-tilde appear only in the supplementary files; please state in the text at least the number of independent one-forms in each set and how they are expressed in terms of the periods and their m^2-derivatives.
  6. [Section 5] The claim that the evaluation routines are 'significantly faster than AMFlow' would benefit from a concrete timing example (e.g., seconds per phase-space point at a given precision).
  7. [General presentation] Minor typographical and wording points: in Section 2.5, 'coordinates in a plane 1' should read 'coordinates in the plane' or similar; in Section 1, 'This paper is an example, how techniques...' should be 'This paper is an example of how techniques...'; and the caption of Fig. 1 could say 'photon lines' for clarity. The kinematic region is also repeated verbatim in eq. (5) and eq. (50).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the epsilon-factorised basis is verified by direct computation and the boundary values are checked against the independent program AMFlow; self-citations supply method and notation only.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The claimed new result, the epsilon-factorised master-integral basis, is not defined in terms of the output: after constructing J = U I, the paper explicitly states that one computes U A~ U^-1 - U dU^-1 and checks whether epsilon factors out. This is a direct algebraic verification of eq. (15), not a fitted quantity or an imported uniqueness theorem. The boundary values at (t=0, m^2=infinity) are fixed by power counting, vanishing conditions, t-independence and PSLQ over the constant space of eq. (54); this is an internal determination of integration constants, but the final master integrals are benchmarked against AMFlow [110-112], an independent program by a different group, with the paper reporting 'perfect agreement'. The concern that the AMFlow comparison is documented only at one kinematic point and without digit counts is a correctness-risk limitation, not circularity, because AMFlow does not share the paper's fitted inputs or PSLQ ansatz. Self-citations to [81] for kinematics and notation, to [47,48,89] for elliptic-integral techniques, and to [60] for a numerical kernel supply method and implementation rather than the truth of the computed integrals; the modular-freedom remark in eqs. (44)-(45) explicitly avoids importing any uniqueness claim. No step in the paper reduces by construction to its own inputs. The score of 2 reflects only the presence of non-load-bearing self-citations, not any substantive circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The computation rests on standard QFT techniques (IBP, differential equations, Baikov representation) and on the physical assumptions listed. No free parameters are fitted to physical data; however, for some master integrals the boundary constants are guessed from high-precision numerics via PSLQ (Section 4.2), which is a mild ad hoc element, mitigated by the AMFlow cross-check. The heuristic construction of the epsilon-factorised basis (Section 3) is the main unproven-but-verified step. No new physical entities are introduced; the elliptic curves E(a), E(b), E(c) are intrinsic features of the Feynman integrals, not postulated additions.

assumptions (7)
  • standard math Dimensional regularization and IBP reduction express any integral in a family as a linear combination of master integrals (refs. [82,83]).
    Used in Section 2.3 as the basis of the computation.
  • standard math The differential-equation method and epsilon-factorised form solve the master integrals order-by-order in epsilon (refs. [84-88]).
    Section 2.3 and Section 3.
  • standard math The elliptic curves are obtained from the maximal cut in the loop-by-loop Baikov representation (ref. [98]).
    Section 2.5.
  • domain assumption Electrons and neutrinos are massless, so external momenta satisfy p_i^2 = 0.
    Section 2.1, eq. (3). This defines the simplified kinematics; the paper does not compute electron-mass corrections.
  • domain assumption The physical region of interest is -t <= s << m^2 with heavy-boson mass m; the boundary point (t=0, m^2=infinity) and integration path are chosen for this region.
    Section 2.1, eq. (5) and Section 4.2. The results would need reworking for other kinematic regions.
  • domain assumption Mixed Z/W exchange between the fermion lines is excluded by the assumed initial and final states; three-massive-boson exchange is omitted due to an expected |t|/m^2 suppression.
    Section 1. This defines the scope of the ten computed families.
  • ad hoc to paper For each topology an epsilon-factorised basis exists and can be found by heuristic guess; the paper states this is an open question in general.
    Section 3: 'Currently it is an open question, if such a basis exists for any family of Feynman integrals.' The authors assert they constructed one for all ten families; the verification is a direct algebraic check.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Electroweak double-box integrals for Moller scattering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NZ4UPVY2

@misc{pith2026241207522,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Electroweak double-box integrals for Moller scattering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NZ4UPVY2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.07522}
}
read the original abstract

We present for Moller scattering planar and non-planar two-loop double-box integrals where three electroweak gauge bosons are exchanged between the fermion lines, among which at least one is a photon. These integrals are relevant for the NNLO electroweak corrections to Moller scattering.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.07522 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. fig. 1. The wavy lines are either [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. The planar double-box diagrams (left) and the non- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The auxiliary graph for the planar topologies. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (16 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The auxiliary graph for the non-planar topologies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Master sectors for planar double-box integrals (part 1). 24 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Master sectors for planar double-box integrals (part 2). 25 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Master sectors for planar double-box integrals (part 3). 26 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Master sectors for planar double-box integrals (part 4). 27 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Master sectors for planar double-box integrals (part 5). 28 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Master sectors for planar double-box integrals (part 6). 29 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Master sectors for non-planar double-box integrals (part 1). 30 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Master sectors for non-planar double-box integrals (part 2). 31 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Master sectors for non-planar double-box integrals (part 3). 32 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Master sectors for non-planar double-box integrals (part 4). 33 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Master sectors for non-planar double-box integrals (part 5). 34 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Master sectors for non-planar double-box integrals (part 6). 35 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Master sectors for non-planar double-box integrals (part 7). 36 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Master sectors for non-planar double-box integrals (part 8). 37 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Master sectors for non-planar double-box integrals (part 9). B List of master integrals In this appendix we present the master integrals, which lead to an ε-factorised differential equa￾tion. We list the master integrals for the planar topologies A, B, C, D and E in s…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Analytic result of a three-loop integral family in the Higgs decay to four massive bottom quarks

    hep-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 6.5 of 10

    Analytic master-integral results through O(ε²) are obtained for a three-loop family containing elliptic and K3 geometries by building and solving a mixed-sector ε-factorized differential equation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

113 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Benesch et al., (2014), arXiv:1411.4088

    MOLLER, J. Benesch et al., (2014), arXiv:1411.4088

    arXiv 2014

  2. [2]

    Dubovyk, A

    I. Dubovyk, A. Freitas, J. Gluza, T. Riemann, and J. Usovi tsch, Phys. Lett. B 762, 184 (2016), arXiv:1607.08375

    arXiv 2016

  3. [3]

    Y . Du, A. Freitas, H. H. Patel, and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, Ph ys. Rev. Lett. 126, 131801 (2021), arXiv:1912.08220

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Erler, R

    J. Erler, R. Ferro-Hernández, and A. Freitas, JHEP 08, 183 (2022), arXiv:2202.11976

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Dubovyk et al., Phys

    I. Dubovyk et al., Phys. Rev. D 106, L111301 (2022), arXiv:2201.02576

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Armadillo, R

    T. Armadillo, R. Bonciani, S. Devoto, N. Rana, and A. Vici ni, Comput. Phys. Commun. 282, 108545 (2023), arXiv:2205.03345

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    A. G. Aleksejevs, S. G. Barkanova, Y . M. Bystritskiy, E. A . Kuraev, and V . A. Zykunov, Phys. Part. Nucl. Lett. 12, 645 (2015), arXiv:1504.03560

    arXiv 2015

  8. [8]

    A. G. Aleksejevs, S. G. Barkanova, V . A. Zykunov, and E. A. Kuraev, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 76, 888 (2013)

    2013

Show all 113 references
  1. [9]

    A. G. Aleksejevs et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 2249 (2012)

    2012

  2. [10]

    Delto, C

    M. Delto, C. Duhr, L. Tancredi, and Y . J. Zhu, Phys. Rev. L ett. 132, 231904 (2024), arXiv:2311.06385

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Abada et al., Eur

    FCC, A. Abada et al., Eur. Phys. J. ST 228, 261 (2019)

    2019

  4. [12]

    V . A. Smirnov, Phys. Lett. B460, 397 (1999), hep-ph/9905323

    1999 arXiv

  5. [13]

    J. B. Tausk, Phys. Lett. B469, 225 (1999), hep-ph/9909506

    1999 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Sabry, Nucl

    A. Sabry, Nucl. Phys. 33, 401 (1962). 60

    1962

  7. [15]

    D. J. Broadhurst, J. Fleischer, and O. Tarasov, Z.Phys. C60, 287 (1993), arXiv:hep-ph/9304303

    1993 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Laporta and E

    S. Laporta and E. Remiddi, Nucl. Phys. B704, 349 (2005), hep-ph/0406160

    2005 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Müller-Stach, S

    S. Müller-Stach, S. Weinzierl, and R. Zayadeh, Commun. Num. Theor. Phys. 6, 203 (2012), arXiv:1112.4360

    2012 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Adams, C

    L. Adams, C. Bogner, and S. Weinzierl, J. Math. Phys. 54, 052303 (2013), arXiv:1302.7004

    2013 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Bloch and P

    S. Bloch and P . V anhove, J. Numb. Theor. 148, 328 (2015), arXiv:1309.5865

    2015 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Remiddi and L

    E. Remiddi and L. Tancredi, Nucl.Phys. B880, 343 (2014), arXiv:1311.3342

    2014 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Adams, C

    L. Adams, C. Bogner, and S. Weinzierl, J. Math. Phys. 55, 102301 (2014), arXiv:1405.5640

    2014 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Bloch, M

    S. Bloch, M. Kerr, and P . V anhove, Compos. Math. 151, 2329 (2015), arXiv:1406.2664

    2015 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Adams, C

    L. Adams, C. Bogner, and S. Weinzierl, J. Math. Phys. 56, 072303 (2015), arXiv:1504.03255

    2015 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Adams, C

    L. Adams, C. Bogner, and S. Weinzierl, J. Math. Phys. 57, 032304 (2016), arXiv:1512.05630

    2016 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Bloch, M

    S. Bloch, M. Kerr, and P . V anhove, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys . 21, 1373 (2017), arXiv:1601.08181

    2017 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Adams and S

    L. Adams and S. Weinzierl, Commun. Num. Theor. Phys. 12, 193 (2018), arXiv:1704.08895

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Bogner, A

    C. Bogner, A. Schweitzer, and S. Weinzierl, Nucl. Phys. B922, 528 (2017), arXiv:1705.08952

    2017 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Adams and S

    L. Adams and S. Weinzierl, Phys. Lett. B781, 270 (2018), arXiv:1802.05020

    2018 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Hönemann, K

    I. Hönemann, K. Tempest, and S. Weinzierl, Phys. Rev. D98, 113008 (2018), arXiv:1811.09308

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Søgaard and Y

    M. Søgaard and Y . Zhang, Phys. Rev. D91, 081701 (2015), arXiv:1412.5577

    2015 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Tancredi, Nucl

    L. Tancredi, Nucl. Phys. B901, 282 (2015), arXiv:1509.03330

    2015 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Primo and L

    A. Primo and L. Tancredi, Nucl. Phys. B916, 94 (2017), arXiv:1610.08397

    2017 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Remiddi and L

    E. Remiddi and L. Tancredi, Nucl. Phys. B907, 400 (2016), arXiv:1602.01481

    2016 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Adams, C

    L. Adams, C. Bogner, A. Schweitzer, and S. Weinzierl, J. Math. Phys. 57, 122302 (2016), arXiv:1607.01571

    2016 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Bonciani et al., JHEP 12, 096 (2016), arXiv:1609.06685

    R. Bonciani et al., JHEP 12, 096 (2016), arXiv:1609.06685

    2016 arXiv

  28. [36]

    von Manteuffel and L

    A. von Manteuffel and L. Tancredi, JHEP 06, 127 (2017), arXiv:1701.05905

    2017 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Adams, E

    L. Adams, E. Chaubey, and S. Weinzierl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 141602 (2017), arXiv:1702.04279

    2017 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Ablinger et al., J

    J. Ablinger et al., J. Math. Phys. 59, 062305 (2018), arXiv:1706.01299

    2018 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Primo and L

    A. Primo and L. Tancredi, Nucl. Phys. B921, 316 (2017), arXiv:1704.05465

    2017 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Passarino, European Physical Journal C 77, 77 (2017), arXiv:1610.06207

    G. Passarino, European Physical Journal C 77, 77 (2017), arXiv:1610.06207

    2017 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Remiddi and L

    E. Remiddi and L. Tancredi, Nucl. Phys. B925, 212 (2017), arXiv:1709.03622

    2017 arXiv

  34. [42]

    J. L. Bourjaily, A. J. McLeod, M. Spradlin, M. von Hippel , and M. Wilhelm, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 121603 (2018), arXiv:1712.02785

    2018 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Hidding and F

    M. Hidding and F. Moriello, JHEP 01, 169 (2019), arXiv:1712.04441

    2019 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Broedel, C

    J. Broedel, C. Duhr, F. Dulat, and L. Tancredi, JHEP 05, 093 (2018), arXiv:1712.07089

    2018 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Broedel, C

    J. Broedel, C. Duhr, F. Dulat, and L. Tancredi, Phys. Rev . D97, 116009 (2018), arXiv:1712.07095

    2018 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Broedel, C

    J. Broedel, C. Duhr, F. Dulat, B. Penante, and L. Tancred i, JHEP 08, 014 (2018), arXiv:1803.10256

    2018 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Adams, E

    L. Adams, E. Chaubey, and S. Weinzierl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 142001 (2018), arXiv:1804.11144

    2018 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Adams, E

    L. Adams, E. Chaubey, and S. Weinzierl, JHEP 10, 206 (2018), arXiv:1806.04981. 61

    2018 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Broedel, C

    J. Broedel, C. Duhr, F. Dulat, B. Penante, and L. Tancred i, JHEP 01, 023 (2019), arXiv:1809.10698

    2019 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Ablinger, J

    J. Ablinger, J. Blümlein, P . Marquard, N. Rana, and C. Sc hneider, Nucl. Phys. B939, 253 (2019), arXiv:1810.12261

    2019 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Broedel, C

    J. Broedel, C. Duhr, F. Dulat, B. Penante, and L. Tancred i, JHEP 05, 120 (2019), arXiv:1902.09971

    2019 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Blümlein, (2019), arXiv:1905.02148

    J. Blümlein, (2019), arXiv:1905.02148

    2019 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Broedel and A

    J. Broedel and A. Kaderli, J. Phys. A 53, 245201 (2020), arXiv:1906.11857

    2020 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Bogner, S

    C. Bogner, S. Müller-Stach, and S. Weinzierl, Nucl. Phy s. B 954, 114991 (2020), arXiv:1907.01251

    2020 arXiv

  47. [55]

    B. A. Kniehl, A. V . Kotikov, A. I. Onishchenko, and O. L. V eretin, Nucl. Phys. B948, 114780 (2019), arXiv:1907.04638

    2019 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Broedel et al., JHEP 09, 112 (2019), arXiv:1907.03787

    J. Broedel et al., JHEP 09, 112 (2019), arXiv:1907.03787

    2019 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Abreu, M

    S. Abreu, M. Becchetti, C. Duhr, and R. Marzucca, JHEP 02, 050 (2020), arXiv:1912.02747

    2020 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Duhr and L

    C. Duhr and L. Tancredi, JHEP 02, 105 (2020), arXiv:1912.00077

    2020 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Weinzierl, Nucl

    S. Weinzierl, Nucl. Phys. B 964, 115309 (2021), arXiv:2011.07311

    2021 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Walden and S

    M. Walden and S. Weinzierl, Comput. Phys. Commun. 265, 108020 (2021), arXiv:2010.05271

    2021 arXiv

  53. [61]

    M. A. Bezuglov, A. I. Onishchenko, and O. L. V eretin, Nuc l. Phys. B 963, 115302 (2021), arXiv:2011.13337

    2021 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Kristensson, M

    A. Kristensson, M. Wilhelm, and C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Let t. 127, 251603 (2021), arXiv:2106.14902

    2021 arXiv

  55. [63]

    J. L. Bourjaily, N. Kalyanapuram, C. Langer, and K. Pata toukos, Phys. Rev. D 104, 125009 (2021), arXiv:2102.02210

    2021 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Badger, E

    S. Badger, E. Chaubey, H. B. Hartanto, and R. Marzucca, J HEP 06, 163 (2021), arXiv:2102.13450

    2021 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Broedel, C

    J. Broedel, C. Duhr, and N. Matthes, JHEP 02, 184 (2022), arXiv:2109.15251

    2022 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Frellesvig, JHEP 03, 079 (2022), arXiv:2110.07968

    H. Frellesvig, JHEP 03, 079 (2022), arXiv:2110.07968

    2022 arXiv

  59. [67]

    C. Duhr, V . A. Smirnov, and L. Tancredi, JHEP 09, 120 (2021), arXiv:2108.03828

    2021 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Wilhelm and C

    M. Wilhelm and C. Zhang, JHEP 01, 089 (2023), arXiv:2206.08378

    2023 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Morales, A

    R. Morales, A. Spiering, M. Wilhelm, Q. Y ang, and C. Zhan g, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 041601 (2023), arXiv:2212.09762

    2023 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Pögel, X

    S. Pögel, X. Wang, and S. Weinzierl, JHEP 09, 062 (2022), arXiv:2207.12893

    2022 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Giroux and A

    M. Giroux and A. Pokraka, JHEP 03, 155 (2023), arXiv:2210.09898

    2023 arXiv

  64. [72]

    J. L. Bourjaily et al., Functions Beyond Multiple Polylogarithms for Precision Collider Physics, in Snowmass 2021, 2022, arXiv:2203.07088

    2021 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Jiang, X

    X. Jiang, X. Wang, L. L. Y ang, and J. Zhao, JHEP 09, 187 (2023), arXiv:2305.13951

    2023 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Frellesvig and S

    H. Frellesvig and S. Weinzierl, SciPost Phys. 16, 150 (2024), arXiv:2301.02264

    2024 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Görges, C

    L. Görges, C. Nega, L. Tancredi, and F. J. Wagner, JHEP 07, 206 (2023), arXiv:2305.14090

    2023 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Ahmed, E

    T. Ahmed, E. Chaubey, M. Kaur, and S. Maggio, JHEP 05, 064 (2024), arXiv:2402.07311

    2024 arXiv

  69. [77]

    C. Duhr, F. Gasparotto, C. Nega, L. Tancredi, and S. Wein zierl, JHEP 11, 020 (2024), arXiv:2408.05154

    2024 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Forner, C

    F. Forner, C. Nega, and L. Tancredi, (2024), arXiv:2411 .19042

    2024

  71. [79]

    C. Duhr, F. Porkert, and S. F. Stawinski, JHEP 02, 014 (2025), arXiv:2412.02300. 62

    2025

  72. [80]

    Marzucca, A

    R. Marzucca, A. J. McLeod, B. Page, S. Pögel, and S. Weinz ierl, Phys. Rev. D 109, L031901 (2024), arXiv:2307.11497

    2024 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Böttcher, N

    N. Böttcher, N. Schwanemann, and S. Weinzierl, Eur. Phy s. J. C 84, 495 (2024), arXiv:2312.06773

    2024 arXiv

  74. [82]

    F. V . Tkachov, Phys. Lett. B 100, 65 (1981)

    1981

  75. [83]

    K. G. Chetyrkin and F. V . Tkachov, Nucl. Phys. B 192, 159 (1981)

    1981

  76. [84]

    A. V . Kotikov, Phys. Lett. B 254, 158 (1991)

    1991

  77. [85]

    A. V . Kotikov, Phys. Lett. B 267, 123 (1991), [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 295, 409–409 (1992)]

    1991

  78. [86]

    Remiddi, Nuovo Cim

    E. Remiddi, Nuovo Cim. A 110, 1435 (1997), arXiv:hep-th/9711188

    1997 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Gehrmann and E

    T. Gehrmann and E. Remiddi, Nucl. Phys. B 580, 485 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/9912329

    2000 arXiv

  80. [88]

    J. M. Henn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 251601 (2013), arXiv:1304.1806

    2013 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Müller and S

    H. Müller and S. Weinzierl, JHEP 07, 101 (2022), arXiv:2205.04818

    2022 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Bogner and S

    C. Bogner and S. Weinzierl, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A25, 2585 (2010), arXiv:1002.3458

    2010 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Maierhöfer, J

    P . Maierhöfer, J. Usovitsch, and P . Uwer, Comput. Phys. Commun. 230, 99 (2018), arXiv:1705.05610

    2018 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Klappert, F

    J. Klappert, F. Lange, P . Maierhöfer, and J. Usovitsch, Comput. Phys. Commun. 266, 108024 (2021), arXiv:2008.06494

    2021 arXiv

  85. [93]

    A. V . Smirnov and A. V . Petukhov, Lett. Math. Phys. 97, 37 (2011), arXiv:1004.4199

    2011 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Chen, Bull

    K.-T. Chen, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 83, 831 (1977)

    1977

  87. [95]

    Weinzierl, Feynman Integrals

    S. Weinzierl, Feynman Integrals. A Comprehensive Treatment for Students and ResearchersUNITEXT for Physics (Springer, 2022), arXiv:2201.03593

    2022 arXiv

  88. [96]

    O. V . Tarasov, Phys. Rev. D 54, 6479 (1996), arXiv:hep-th/9606018

    1996 arXiv

  89. [97]

    O. V . Tarasov, Nucl. Phys. B 502, 455 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9703319

    1997 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Frellesvig and C

    H. Frellesvig and C. G. Papadopoulos, JHEP 04, 083 (2017), arXiv:1701.07356

    2017 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Besier, D

    M. Besier, D. V an Straten, and S. Weinzierl, Commun. Num . Theor. Phys. 13, 253 (2019), arXiv:1809.10983

    2019 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Besier, P

    M. Besier, P . Wasser, and S. Weinzierl, Comput. Phys. C ommun. 253, 107197 (2020), arXiv:1910.13251

    2020 arXiv

  93. [101]

    H. R. P . Ferguson and R. W . Forcade, Bull. Amer. Math. So c. (N.S.) 1, 912 (1979)

    1979

  94. [102]

    H. R. P . Ferguson and D. H. Bailey, RNR Technical Report RNR-91-032 (1992)

    1992

  95. [103]

    Ferguson, D

    H. Ferguson, D. Bailey, and S. Arno, Math. Comput. 68, 351 (1999)

    1999

  96. [104]

    D. H. Bailey and D. J. Broadhurst, Math. Comput. 70, 1719 (2001), arXiv:math/9905048

    2001

  97. [105]

    J. A. M. V ermaseren, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A14, 2037 (1999), hep-ph/9806280

    1999 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Remiddi and J

    E. Remiddi and J. A. M. V ermaseren, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A15, 725 (2000), hep-ph/9905237

    2000 arXiv

  99. [107]

    A. B. Goncharov, Math. Res. Lett. 5, 497 (1998)

    1998

  100. [108]

    J. M. Borwein, D. M. Bradley, D. J. Broadhurst, and P . Li sonek, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 353:3, 907 (2001), math.CA/9910045

    2001

  101. [109]

    V ollinga and S

    J. V ollinga and S. Weinzierl, Comput. Phys. Commun. 167, 177 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0410259

    2005 arXiv

  102. [110]

    Liu and Y .-Q

    X. Liu and Y .-Q. Ma, Comput. Phys. Commun. 283, 108565 (2023), arXiv:2201.11669

    2023 arXiv

  103. [111]

    Liu, Y .-Q

    X. Liu, Y .-Q. Ma, and C.-Y . Wang, Phys. Lett. B 779, 353 (2018), arXiv:1711.09572

    2018 arXiv

  104. [112]

    Liu and Y .-Q

    Z.-F. Liu and Y .-Q. Ma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 222001 (2022), arXiv:2201.11637

    2022 arXiv

  105. [113]

    Bauer, A

    C. Bauer, A. Frink, and R. Kreckel, J. Symbolic Computa tion 33, 1 (2002), cs.sc/0004015. 63

    2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.