Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 94 references

Wall crossing structure from quantum phenomena to Feynman Integrals

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Feynman integrals in Baikov form are exponential periods whose thimble decomposition matches master integrals, with wall crossings counting the independent ones.

desk verdict The Pearcey wall-crossing computation is solid and new, but the elliptic Betti result has an internal inconsistency that undermines the central two-dimensionality claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.03252 v1 pith:CODM2NQG submitted 2025-06-03 hep-th

Roberta Angius , Sergio Luigi Cacciatori , Anthony Massidda This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th MSC 32S4014D0781T18
keywords exponentialintegralstwisteddeRhamcohomologyBettihomologywall-crossingstructureBaikovrepresentationFeynmanmastervanishingcycles
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 tries to establish that a broad family of physical integrals, from saddle-point exponential integrals to Feynman integrals, can be understood as periods pairing twisted de Rham cohomology with Betti homology. For Feynman integrals, the multivalued logarithm of the Baikov polynomial plays the role of the exponent, making the integral an exponential period for any complex value of the dimensional-regularization parameter. The paper claims that the decomposition of these integrals over Lefschetz thimbles reproduces the standard master-integral decomposition, and that the wall-crossing structure in the auxiliary parameter plane gives a clean count of independent master integrals while avoiding Stokes ambiguities. The central worked example, an integral over a one-parameter family of elliptic curves, is computed explicitly: the middle cohomology is two-dimensional independently of the sign of the real part of the parameter, matching the two expected basis integrals. This matters because it would replace integration-by-parts reduction with a cohomological description of where master integrals come from.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the triple (X,D0,α), with X the complement of the zero locus of the Baikov polynomial, D0 the divisor controlling boundaries, and α the closed 1-form d log B. The covariant derivative ∇α = d − α∧ defines a twisted de Rham complex, while the Betti side is a local system of relative homology; the integral is the pairing of a class in each. Thimbles are the integration cycles: each starts at a zero of α and follows a level set of Im(γ log B), and their jumps across Stokes rays are encoded by Stokes automorphisms that define the wall-crossing structure. In the elliptic example the Betti computation also uses the real oriented blow-up of $P^{2}$ along the divisors, whose boundary over the elliptic curve is a circle bundle, a three-dimensional nilmanifold; the monodromy matrices of the local system on that boundary determine the twisted cohomology via group cohomology.

What would settle it

Compute the kernel of the differential $d^{1}$ in the group cohomology of the nilmanifold boundary for the elliptic example: if the twisted cohomology of that boundary is not 0 ⊕ $C^{2}$ ⊕ $C^{2}$ ⊕ 0, then the middle cohomology in equation (4.74) would not be $C^{2}$ and the match with two master integrals would fail. A more global test would be to apply the cohomological count to a known one-loop Baikov family, such as the two-point integral, and check that the number of independent periods equals the number of master integrals obtained by integration by parts.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery is that the exponential-integral formalism, originally developed for a holomorphic exponent, extends to the multivalued setting needed for Feynman integrals by replacing the exact form df with a closed algebraic 1-form α. In the Baikov representation one takes α = d log B, where B is the Baikov polynomial, and the integration cycles are Lefschetz thimbles built from vanishing cycles of the fibers of B; the exponential period pairing is then defined for every γ in C*. The paper's main claim is that the thimble decomposition of the Baikov integral coincides with the master-integral decomposition, and that the Stokes automorphisms between adjacent sectors form a wall-crossing structure whose generic sector determines the number of independent master integrals. The elliptic example makes this concrete: the global Betti cohomology is computed from the monodromy of the elliptic family, and equation (4.74) gives middle cohomology $C^{2}$ for both Re γ > 0 and Re γ < 0, so the period space has exactly two dimensions, matching the two master integrals.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the formal global-to-local isomorphisms between twisted de Rham and Betti cohomologies hold for the Baikov pair (X,D0,d log B); in the concrete elliptic example, the claimed two-dimensional middle cohomology also depends on a group-cohomology kernel computation for the nilmanifold boundary that the authors state is tedious but direct and leave to the reader.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Baikov Feynman integrals become exponential periods for every complex γ, so dimensional regularization, including irrational γ, no longer forces one to leave the geometric period picture.
  • The number of independent master integrals equals the dimension of the relevant twisted cohomology in a generic sector, giving a principled count that does not depend on choosing contours near Stokes lines.
  • A basis of thimbles provides explicit integration cycles whose integrals are the master integrals; at large γ their expansion coefficients are periods of the ordinary cohomology of the algebraic fibers.
  • In the elliptic example, the two-dimensional middle cohomology matches exactly two basis integrals, supporting the identification of thimble decomposition with master-integral decomposition.

Reading between the lines

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

  • This suggests a topological shortcut for master-integral counting in multi-scale families: compute the rank of the local system over a generic sector rather than running integration-by-parts reduction, with jumps across walls read off from Stokes automorphisms.
  • The same cohomological translation should apply to other parametric representations, such as Schwinger or Feynman parameters, wherever the integrand is a power of a polynomial; one test is whether the resulting master-integral counts agree with known integration-by-parts counts for one-loop N-point integrals.
  • The convergence condition noted for complex dimension at least three implies that not every thimble pairing is automatically a master integral; this predicts that for high-dimensional Baikov examples some basis elements require additional boundary data, a claim that could be checked numerically.
  • If the wall-crossing description extends to families with kinematic parameters, it gives a geometric picture of discontinuities in master-integral bases across thresholds, potentially unifying threshold expansions with the Stokes sectors.
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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper applies the Kontsevich–Soibelman framework for exponential integrals to several physics applications. After reviewing twisted de Rham and Betti cohomology for triples (X,D0,f), it studies the Pearcey integral relevant to gauged Skyrme models, computing thimbles, vanishing cycles, intersection numbers, and Stokes jump matrices for the three discriminant regimes. It then extends the formalism to closed 1-forms α = d log B, proposes this as a framework for Baikov Feynman integrals, and works out the example of the Legendre elliptic family B = y^2 + x(x−1)(x−λ), computing the global Betti cohomology via the long exact sequence of the pair and identifying thimble periods with elliptic integrals. The main claims are that the thimble decomposition aligns with the decomposition into master integrals and that the wall-crossing structure gives a sharp count of independent master integrals.

Significance. The ambition is high and the payoff would be significant if the claims hold: a geometric, parameter-free organization of master-integral decompositions and of their analytic continuation in dimensional-regularization parameters. The paper contains several concrete and checkable computations: the Pearcey monodromy matrices (3.54) and (3.63), the jump matrices (3.58) and (3.66), and the elliptic monodromies (4.58) with intersection form (4.59). These are not fitted and are not circular, and the review of [1] is useful for physicists. However, the central elliptic computation contains an inconsistency that invalidates the stated two-dimensionality result for Re γ < 0, and other load-bearing steps are asserted rather than proved. At present the main claims are therefore not established.

major comments (5)
  1. [§4.3, Eq. (4.74)] The second line of (4.74) is inconsistent with Eqs. (4.72), (4.73) and the long exact sequence (4.32). Write A^k = H^k(X,L), B^k = H^k(DR_B, Π_*L), and P^k = H^k(∼X, DR_B, Π_*L). From (4.73), A^0 = A^1 = A^3 = A^4 = 0 and A^2 = C^2; from (4.72), B^0 = B^3 = 0 and B^1 = B^2 = C^2. The LES segment B^1 → P^2 → A^2 → B^2 → P^3 → A^3, together with P^1 = 0, forces B^1 → P^2 to be injective. Writing r = rank(A^2 → B^2), one obtains dim P^2 = 4 − r and dim P^3 = 2 − r. With r ∈ {0,1,2}, the possible pairs are (4,2), (3,1), and (2,0); the printed pair (2,4) cannot occur. Thus (4.74) cannot follow from the stated inputs. The two-dimensionality of the middle cohomology for Re γ < 0 is therefore unsupported: if r = 2 then H^3 vanishes rather than being C^4, and if r < 2 then H^2 has dimension at least three. This is a load-bearing error for the paper's central claim.
  2. [§4.3, Eqs. (4.71)–(4.72)] The computation of H•(DR_B, Π_*L) is not actually shown: the kernel of d^1 in the Heisenberg group cohomology is stated to be 'tedious but direct' and left to the reader. This is a load-bearing step, since (4.72) is the boundary input B^• in the long exact sequence that determines the final cohomology in (4.74). The full computation of ker d^1 and the image of d^0 must be supplied, or a precise reference to a lemma in [1] must be given. In addition, the reduction H^j(π_1(DR_B), V_{ρ*}) ≃ H^j(π_1(DR_B), V_ρ) for j = 0,1, stated after (4.66), needs justification; for group cohomology such an isomorphism is not automatic.
  3. [§4, Eq. (4.2)] The replacement B^{−γ} → e^{−γ log B} for non-rational γ is not a trivial reformulation. The exponential e^{−γ log B} is multi-valued when γ is not an integer, and the statement that this 'solves the issue' with γ ∉ Q requires a precise definition of the branch and a proof that the Baikov integral equals the resulting exponential period. This is load-bearing for the claimed applicability to Feynman integrals in dimensional regularization, where γ is generically not rational. The same issue affects Eq. (4.21), where e^{−γ f_i} is only locally defined. The paper asserts this identification rather than proving it.
  4. [§4.2, after Eq. (4.22); §1] The text acknowledges that the convergence condition for the thimble integral may fail when dim_C X ≥ 3. For Baikov representations of multi-loop Feynman integrals, the integration dimension is not bounded by two, so this is not a marginal restriction. The introductory claim that the strategy is not restricted by spacetime dimensions or special assumptions on the underlying geometry should be reconciled with this limitation, or the claim should be qualified.
  5. [Abstract, §4.3, §5] The headline claim that the thimble decomposition aligns with the decomposition into Master Integrals is not demonstrated. In the elliptic example the authors compute cohomology dimensions and identify the resulting periods with elliptic integrals, but they do not perform any integration-by-parts reduction or exhibit a master-integral basis; the 'alignment' remains a proposed correspondence. Similarly, the claim that the wall-crossing structure allows a sharp count of independent Master Integrals is not substantiated in the example: the Stokes rays are given in (4.75), but the Stokes automorphisms and jump matrices for the elliptic family are not computed.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§4.3, Eq. (4.64)] The right-hand side of (4.64) contains a stray period: the matrix should read [[2,1],[1,1]] rather than [[2,1],[1,1.]].
  2. [§4.3, before Eq. (4.74)] The sentence 'Finally, we can you use (4.62),(4.72) and (4.73)' is ungrammatical and should read 'we can use'.
  3. [§2, after Eq. (2.7)] The abbreviation 't.i.' should be 'i.e.'.
  4. [§3.4] The phrase 'let proceed extending' should be 'let us proceed by extending'.
  5. [Figure 7 caption and §3.2] The caption of Figure 7 refers to 'Stokes’ lines' on the Cγ plane, while the text defines Stokes rays in Cγ and Stokes lines in Cn; please make the terminology consistent.
  6. [§2.3, Eq. (2.50)] The coefficient c_{i,λ} in (2.40) is defined as a γ-independent expansion coefficient, but the expression in (2.50) has γ on the right-hand side; this should be clarified or corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the central computations are self-contained applications of [1], and the master-integral alignment is explicitly a proposal.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The mathematical framework is imported from the external work [1] (Kontsevich and Soibelman), not from the authors' own prior papers; the application to Pearcey integrals and to the elliptic Baikov example is carried out in the paper via explicit monodromy matrices, Picard-Lefschetz intersection numbers, and group-cohomology calculations. Self-citations such as [65] only motivate the Pearcey example physically and do not supply any of the load-bearing theorems. The claimed match between thimble decompositions and Master Integral decompositions is framed in Section 5 as a proposal ('We propose that the decomposition ... matches the standard notion of Master Integral decomposition'), so it is not a derived prediction that reduces to its own input. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no equation is defined in terms of the quantity it is used to derive. Two qualifications belong in a correctness review rather than a circularity score: (i) the computation of H^•(D_R^B,L) in Section 4.3 depends on a kernel of d^1 that the authors leave to the reader ('The explicit calculation of the kernel of d^1 is tedious but direct, and we leave the details to the readers'); and (ii) substituting the stated inputs (4.72)-(4.73) into the long exact sequence (4.32) appears to give H^2(pair)=4-r and H^3(pair)=2-r, which would make the printed second line of (4.74), 0⊕0⊕C^2⊕C^4⊕0, arithmetically inconsistent. These are internal-consistency and evidence issues, not circular reductions.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's contribution rests on the theorems of [1], taken as axioms, plus standard algebraic topology facts. The only ad hoc input is the asserted correspondence between thimbles and master integrals, which is the target of the program rather than a derived result.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Baikov representation of any D-dimensional L-loop Feynman integral (equation 4.1)
    The paper starts from the standard Baikov representation and treats the integral as an exponential with log B; the validity of this rewriting for non-rational gamma is asserted.
  • domain assumption Global-to-local isomorphisms phi_dR (equation 2.17) and phi_Betti (equation 2.28) hold for the triples (X,D0,f) and (X,D0,alpha)
    Theorems from [1] are taken as given; the paper's Betti computations use them to identify local and global cohomologies.
  • domain assumption Compactification with normal crossing divisors and no critical points at infinity exists (Section 2)
    The construction of the four cohomologies requires X smooth projective with D0 union Dv union Dh normal crossing and no critical points at infinity; the paper assumes this without checking for the elliptic example beyond stating Dv = Dh = empty.
  • standard math Picard-Lefschetz theorem (A.47) and self-intersection formula (A.42)
    Used to compute vanishing-cycle intersection numbers and monodromies throughout the Pearcey and elliptic examples.
  • standard math Alexander duality (4.33), Poincare duality (4.34), and the Serre spectral sequence for circle bundles (4.36), (4.38)
    Used to compute H^•(X,L) and boundary contributions in the elliptic example.
  • ad hoc to paper The thimble basis coincides with a master-integral basis for Baikov Feynman integrals
    Stated as a proposal in the abstract, Section 4, and conclusions; not proven and deferred to companion paper [70].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Wall crossing structure from quantum phenomena to Feynman Integrals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CODM2NQG

@misc{pith2026250603252,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Wall crossing structure from quantum phenomena to Feynman Integrals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CODM2NQG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.03252}
}
read the original abstract

A growing body of evidence suggests that the complexity of Feynman integrals is best understood through geometry. Recent mathematical developments [Kontsevich and Soibelman, arXiv:2402.07343] have illuminated the role of exponential integrals as periods of twisted de Rham cocycles over Betti cycles, providing a structured approach to tackle this problem in many situations. In this paper, we apply these concepts to show how families of physically relevant integrals, ranging from exponentials to logarithmic multivalued functions, can be recast as twisted periods of differential forms over homology cycles. In the case of holomorphic exponents, we provide explicit decompositions as thimble expansions and reveal a geometric wall-crossing structure behind the analytic continuation in parameters. We then show that the generalization to multivalued functions provides the right framework to describe Feynman integrals in the Baikov representation, where the multivaluedness is governed by the logarithm of the Baikov polynomial. In this context, the thimble decomposition aligns with the decomposition into Master Integrals. We highlight how the wall-crossing structure allows for a sharp count of independent Master Integrals (or periods), circumventing complications arising from Stokes phenomena. Additionally, we study the large-parameter expansions of these integrals, whose coefficients correspond to periods of standard (co-)homology associated with families of algebraic varieties, and which reveal the dominant basis elements in different sectors of the wall crossing structure. This unifies perturbative expansions and geometric representation theory under a single cohomological framework.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Holomorphic Floer theory I: exponential integrals in finite and infinite dimensions, arXiv:2402.07343, 2024

    Maxim Kontsevich and Yan Soibelman. Holomorphic Floer theory I: exponential integrals in finite and infinite dimensions, arXiv:2402.07343, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    A.V. Kotikov. Differential equation method. the calculation of n-point feynman diagrams.Physics Letters B, 267(1):123–127, 1991

    1991

  3. [3]

    A.V. Kotikov. Differential equations method. New technique for massive Feynman diagram calculation. Physics Letters B, 254(1):158 – 164, 1991

    1991

  4. [4]

    F. A. Lunev. Differential equations for definition and evaluation of feynman integrals.Physical Review D, 50(10):6589–6593, November 1994

    1994

  5. [5]

    Differential equations for Feynman graph amplitudes.Nuovo Cim., A110:1435–1452, 1997

    Ettore Remiddi. Differential equations for Feynman graph amplitudes.Nuovo Cim., A110:1435–1452, 1997

    1997

  6. [6]

    Feynman Diagrams and Differential Equations.Int

    Mario Argeri and Pierpaolo Mastrolia. Feynman Diagrams and Differential Equations.Int. J. Mod. Phys. A, 22:4375–4436, 2007

    2007

  7. [7]

    Grimm and Arno Hoefnagels

    Thomas W. Grimm and Arno Hoefnagels. Reductions of GKZ systems and applications to cosmological correlators. JHEP, 04:196, 2025

    2025

  8. [8]

    Grimm, Arno Hoefnagels, and Mick van Vliet

    Thomas W. Grimm, Arno Hoefnagels, and Mick van Vliet. A Reduction Algorithm for Cosmological Correlators: Cuts, Contractions, and Complexity. 3 2025

    2025

Show all 94 references
  1. [9]

    Aomoto and M

    K. Aomoto and M. Kita.Theory of Hypergeometric Functions. Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Springer Japan, 2011

    2011

  2. [10]

    Yoshida.Hypergeometric Functions, My Love: Modular Interpretations of Configuration Spaces

    M. Yoshida.Hypergeometric Functions, My Love: Modular Interpretations of Configuration Spaces. Aspects of Mathematics. Vieweg+Teubner Verlag, 2013

    2013

  3. [11]

    Intersection Theory for Twisted Cycles.Mathematische Nachrichten, 166(1):287–304, 1994

    Michitake Kita and Masaaki Yoshida. Intersection Theory for Twisted Cycles.Mathematische Nachrichten, 166(1):287–304, 1994

    1994

  4. [12]

    Intersection Theory for Twisted Cycles II - Degenerate Arrangements

    Michitake Kita and Masaaki Yoshida. Intersection Theory for Twisted Cycles II - Degenerate Arrangements. Mathematische Nachrichten, 168(1):171–190, 1994. – 51 –

    1994

  5. [13]

    Quadratic Identities for Hypergeometric Series of Type(k,l )

    Keiji Matsumoto. Quadratic Identities for Hypergeometric Series of Type(k,l ). Kyushu Journal of Mathematics, 48(2):335–345, 1994

    1994

  6. [14]

    Intersection theory for twisted cohomologies and twisted Riemann’s period relations I.Nagoya Math

    Koji Cho and Keiji Matsumoto. Intersection theory for twisted cohomologies and twisted Riemann’s period relations I.Nagoya Math. J., 139:67–86, 1995

    1995

  7. [15]

    Twisted de Rham Cohomology Groups of Logarithmic Forms.Advances in Mathematics, 128(1):119 – 152, 1997

    Kazuhiko Aomoto, Michitake Kita, Peter Orlik, and Hiroaki Terao. Twisted de Rham Cohomology Groups of Logarithmic Forms.Advances in Mathematics, 128(1):119 – 152, 1997

    1997

  8. [16]

    Intersection numbers for logarithmick-forms

    Keiji Matsumoto. Intersection numbers for logarithmick-forms. Osaka J. Math., 35(4):873–893, 1998

    1998

  9. [17]

    On twisted de rham cohomology.Nagoya Mathematical Journal, 146:55–81, 1997

    Alan Adolphson and Steven Sperber. On twisted de rham cohomology.Nagoya Mathematical Journal, 146:55–81, 1997

    1997

  10. [18]

    Intersection Numbers of Twisted Cycles and the Correlation Functions of the Conformal Field Theory.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 234(2):339–358, 2003

    Katsuhisa Mimachi and Masaaki Yoshida. Intersection Numbers of Twisted Cycles and the Correlation Functions of the Conformal Field Theory.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 234(2):339–358, 2003

    2003

  11. [19]

    Intersection numbers of twisted cohomology groups associated with Selberg-type integrals

    Katsuyoshi Ohara. Intersection numbers of twisted cohomology groups associated with Selberg-type integrals. http://www.math.kobe-u.ac.jp/HOME/ohara/Math/980523.ps, 1998

    1998

  12. [20]

    Katsuhisa Mimachi and Masaaki Yoshida. Intersection numbers of twisted cycles associated with the selberg integral and an application to the conformal field theory.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 250(1):23–45, Aug 2004

    2004

  13. [21]

    Quadratic Relations for Generalized Hypergeometric FunctionspFp−1

    Katsuyoshi Ohara, Yuichi Sugiki, and Nobuki Takayama. Quadratic Relations for Generalized Hypergeometric FunctionspFp−1. Funkcialaj Ekvacioj, 46(2):213–251, 2003

    2003

  14. [22]

    Twisted Cycles and Twisted Period Relations for Lauricella’s Hypergeometric FunctionFC

    Yoshiaki Goto. Twisted Cycles and Twisted Period Relations for Lauricella’s Hypergeometric FunctionFC. International Journal of Mathematics, 24(12):1350094, 2013

    2013

  15. [23]

    Intersection Numbers and Twisted Period Relations for the Generalized Hypergeometric Functionm+1Fm

    Yoshiaki Goto. Intersection Numbers and Twisted Period Relations for the Generalized Hypergeometric Functionm+1Fm. Kyushu Journal of Mathematics, 69(1):203–217, 2015

    2015

  16. [24]

    The monodromy representation and twisted period relations for Appell’s hypergeometric functionF4

    Yoshiaki Goto and Keiji Matsumoto. The monodromy representation and twisted period relations for Appell’s hypergeometric functionF4. Nagoya Math. J., 217:61–94, 03 2015

    2015

  17. [25]

    An algorithm of computing cohomology intersection number of hypergeometric integrals.Nagoya Mathematical Journal, pages 1–17, 2019

    Saiei-Jaeyeong Matsubara-Heo and Nobuki Takayama. An algorithm of computing cohomology intersection number of hypergeometric integrals.Nagoya Mathematical Journal, pages 1–17, 2019

    2019

  18. [26]

    Homology and cohomology intersection numbers of gkz systems.Indagationes Mathematicae, 33(3):546–580, 2022

    Yoshiaki Goto and Saiei-Jaeyeong Matsubara-Heo. Homology and cohomology intersection numbers of gkz systems.Indagationes Mathematicae, 33(3):546–580, 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    Computing cohomology intersection numbers of GKZ hypergeometric systems

    Saiei-Jaeyeong Matsubara-Heo. Computing cohomology intersection numbers of GKZ hypergeometric systems. PoS, MA2019:013, 2022

    2022

  20. [28]

    S. J. Matsubara-Heo. Localization formulas of cohomology intersection numbers.Journal of the Mathematical Society of Japan, pages 1 – 32, 2022

    2022

  21. [29]

    Feynman Integrals and Intersection Theory.JHEP, 02:139, 2019

    Pierpaolo Mastrolia and Sebastian Mizera. Feynman Integrals and Intersection Theory.JHEP, 02:139, 2019

    2019

  22. [30]

    Co-Homology of Differential Forms and Feynman Diagrams.Universe, 7(9):328, 2021

    Sergio Luigi Cacciatori, Maria Conti, and Simone Trevisan. Co-Homology of Differential Forms and Feynman Diagrams.Universe, 7(9):328, 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

    Mixed Lefschetz Theorems and Hodge-Riemann Bilinear Relations.International Mathematics Research Notices, 2008:rnn025, 01 2008

    Eduardo Cattani. Mixed Lefschetz Theorems and Hodge-Riemann Bilinear Relations.International Mathematics Research Notices, 2008:rnn025, 01 2008

    2008

  24. [32]

    K. G. Chetyrkin and F. V. Tkachov. Integration by Parts: The Algorithm to Calculate beta Functions in 4 Loops.Nucl. Phys., B192:159–204, 1981

    1981

  25. [33]

    S. Laporta. High precision calculation of multiloop feynman integrals by difference equations.Int. J. Mod. Phys. A, 15:5087–5159, 2000. – 52 –

    2000

  26. [34]

    Mandal, Pierpaolo Mastrolia, Luca Mattiazzi, and Sebastian Mizera

    Hjalte Frellesvig, Federico Gasparotto, Stefano Laporta, Manoj K. Mandal, Pierpaolo Mastrolia, Luca Mattiazzi, and Sebastian Mizera. Decomposition of Feynman Integrals on the Maximal Cut by Intersection Numbers. JHEP, 05:153, 2019

    2019

  27. [35]

    From Infinity to Four Dimensions: Higher Residue Pairings and Feynman Integrals.JHEP, 02:159, 2020

    Sebastian Mizera and Andrzej Pokraka. From Infinity to Four Dimensions: Higher Residue Pairings and Feynman Integrals.JHEP, 02:159, 2020

    2020

  28. [36]

    Mandal, Pierpaolo Mastrolia, Luca Mattiazzi, and Sebastian Mizera

    Hjalte Frellesvig, Federico Gasparotto, Manoj K. Mandal, Pierpaolo Mastrolia, Luca Mattiazzi, and Sebastian Mizera. Vector Space of Feynman Integrals and Multivariate Intersection Numbers.Phys. Rev. Lett., 123(20):201602, 2019

    2019

  29. [37]

    Mandal, Pierpaolo Mastrolia, Luca Mattiazzi, and Sebastian Mizera

    Hjalte Frellesvig, Federico Gasparotto, Stefano Laporta, Manoj K. Mandal, Pierpaolo Mastrolia, Luca Mattiazzi, and Sebastian Mizera. Decomposition of Feynman Integrals by Multivariate Intersection Numbers. JHEP, 03:027, 2021

    2021

  30. [38]

    Inverse of the String Theory KLT Kernel.JHEP, 06:084, 2017

    Sebastian Mizera. Inverse of the String Theory KLT Kernel.JHEP, 06:084, 2017

    2017

  31. [39]

    Scattering Amplitudes from Intersection Theory.Phys

    Sebastian Mizera. Scattering Amplitudes from Intersection Theory.Phys. Rev. Lett., 120(14):141602, 2018

    2018

  32. [40]

    A note on the Drinfeld associator for genus-zero superstring amplitudes in twisted de Rham theory

    André Kaderli. A note on the Drinfeld associator for genus-zero superstring amplitudes in twisted de Rham theory. J. Phys. A, 53(41):415401, 2020

    2020

  33. [41]

    Nikhil Kalyanapuram and Raghav G. Jha. Positive Geometries for all Scalar Theories from Twisted Intersection Theory. Phys. Rev. Res., 2(3):033119, 2020

    2020

  34. [42]

    Mixed QCD-EW corrections for Higgs leptonic decay viaHW +W − vertex

    Chichuan Ma, Yuxuan Wang, Xiaofeng Xu, Li Lin Yang, and Bin Zhou. Mixed QCD-EW corrections for Higgs leptonic decay viaHW +W − vertex. JHEP, 09:114, 2021

    2021

  35. [43]

    Correlation functions on the lattice and twisted cocycles.Phys

    Stefan Weinzierl. Correlation functions on the lattice and twisted cocycles.Phys. Lett. B, 805:135449, 2020

    2020

  36. [44]

    Nonperturbative computation of lattice correlation functions by differential equations.Phys

    Federico Gasparotto, Andreas Rapakoulias, and Stefan Weinzierl. Nonperturbative computation of lattice correlation functions by differential equations.Phys. Rev. D, 107(1):014502, 2023

    2023

  37. [45]

    Baikov representations, intersection theory, and canonical Feynman integrals.JHEP, 07:066, 2022

    Jiaqi Chen, Xuhang Jiang, Chichuan Ma, Xiaofeng Xu, and Li Lin Yang. Baikov representations, intersection theory, and canonical Feynman integrals.JHEP, 07:066, 2022

    2022

  38. [46]

    Loop-by-loop differential equations for dual (elliptic) Feynman integrals.JHEP, 03:155, 2023

    Mathieu Giroux and Andrzej Pokraka. Loop-by-loop differential equations for dual (elliptic) Feynman integrals.JHEP, 03:155, 2023

    2023

  39. [47]

    Two-loop vertices with vacuum polarization insertion.JHEP, 01:010, 2024

    Taushif Ahmed, Giulio Crisanti, Federico Gasparotto, Syed Mehedi Hasan, and Pierpaolo Mastrolia. Two-loop vertices with vacuum polarization insertion.JHEP, 01:010, 2024

    2024

  40. [48]

    On the electron self-energy to three loops in QED.JHEP, 11:020, 2024

    Claude Duhr, Federico Gasparotto, Christoph Nega, Lorenzo Tancredi, and Stefan Weinzierl. On the electron self-energy to three loops in QED.JHEP, 11:020, 2024

    2024

  41. [49]

    Feynman integral reductions by intersection theory with orthogonal bases and closed formulae.JHEP, 09:018, 2024

    Giulio Crisanti and Sid Smith. Feynman integral reductions by intersection theory with orthogonal bases and closed formulae.JHEP, 09:018, 2024

    2024

  42. [50]

    Mandal, and Pierpaolo Mastrolia

    Giacomo Brunello, Vsevolod Chestnov, Giulio Crisanti, Hjalte Frellesvig, Manoj K. Mandal, and Pierpaolo Mastrolia. Intersection numbers, polynomial division and relative cohomology.JHEP, 09:015, 2024

    2024

  43. [51]

    Relative Twisted Homology and Cohomology Groups Associated with Lauricella’s FD

    Keiji Matsumoto. Relative Twisted Homology and Cohomology Groups Associated with Lauricella’s FD. Funkcialaj Ekvacioj, 67(2):105–147, 2024

    2024

  44. [52]

    Duals of Feynman integrals

    Simon Caron-Huot and Andrzej Pokraka. Duals of Feynman integrals. Part I. Differential equations. JHEP, 12:045, 2021

    2021

  45. [53]

    Duals of Feynman Integrals

    Simon Caron-Huot and Andrzej Pokraka. Duals of Feynman Integrals. Part II. Generalized unitarity. JHEP, 04:078, 2022. – 53 –

    2022

  46. [54]

    Mandal, Pierpaolo Mastrolia, Saiei J

    Vsevolod Chestnov, Federico Gasparotto, Manoj K. Mandal, Pierpaolo Mastrolia, Saiei J. Matsubara-Heo, Henrik J. Munch, and Nobuki Takayama. Macaulay matrix for Feynman integrals: linear relations and intersection numbers.JHEP, 09:187, 2022

    2022

  47. [55]

    Mandal, and Pierpaolo Mastrolia

    Vsevolod Chestnov, Hjalte Frellesvig, Federico Gasparotto, Manoj K. Mandal, and Pierpaolo Mastrolia. Intersection numbers from higher-order partial differential equations.JHEP, 06:131, 2023

    2023

  48. [56]

    Reduction to master integrals and transverse integration identities.JHEP, 03:113, 2025

    Vsevolod Chestnov, Gaia Fontana, and Tiziano Peraro. Reduction to master integrals and transverse integration identities.JHEP, 03:113, 2025

    2025

  49. [57]

    Intersection numbers from companion tensor algebra, 2024

    Giacomo Brunello, Vsevolod Chestnov, and Pierpaolo Mastrolia. Intersection numbers from companion tensor algebra, 2024

    2024

  50. [58]

    Cacciatori and Pierpaolo Mastrolia

    Sergio L. Cacciatori and Pierpaolo Mastrolia. Intersection Numbers in Quantum Mechanics and Field Theory, arXiv:2211.03729, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Kontsevich and D

    M. Kontsevich and D. Zagier. Periods.Mathematics Unlimited — 2001 and Beyond, page 771–808, 2001

    2001

  52. [60]

    Fourier calculus from intersection theory.Phys

    Giacomo Brunello, Giulio Crisanti, Mathieu Giroux, Pierpaolo Mastrolia, and Sid Smith. Fourier calculus from intersection theory.Phys. Rev. D, 109:094047, 2024

    2024

  53. [61]

    Analytic Continuation Of Chern-Simons Theory.AMS/IP Stud

    Edward Witten. Analytic Continuation Of Chern-Simons Theory.AMS/IP Stud. Adv. Math., 50:347–446, 2011

    2011

  54. [62]

    Alvarez, Sergio L

    Pedro D. Alvarez, Sergio L. Cacciatori, Fabrizio Canfora, and Bianca L. Cerchiai. Analytic SU(N) Skyrmions at finite Baryon density.Phys. Rev. D, 101(12):125011, 2020

    2020

  55. [63]

    Cacciatori, Fabrizio Canfora, Marcela Lagos, Federica Muscolino, and Aldo Vera

    Sergio L. Cacciatori, Fabrizio Canfora, Marcela Lagos, Federica Muscolino, and Aldo Vera. Analytic multi-Baryonic solutions in the SU(N)-Skyrme model at finite density.JHEP, 12:150, 2021

    2021

  56. [64]

    S. L. Cacciatori, F. Canfora, M. Lagos, F. Muscolino, and A. Vera. Cooking pasta with Lie groups. Nucl. Phys. B, 976:115693, 2022

    2022

  57. [65]

    Cacciatori, Fabrizio Canfora, and Federica Muscolino

    Sergio L. Cacciatori, Fabrizio Canfora, and Federica Muscolino. Pearcey integrals, Stokes lines and exact baryonic layers in the low energy limit of QCD.Nucl. Phys. B, 1000:116477, 2024

    2024

  58. [66]

    Belgiorno, S

    F. Belgiorno, S. L. Cacciatori, and A. Viganò. Analog Hawking effect: A master equation.Phys. Rev. D, 102(10):105003, 2020

    2020

  59. [67]

    Belgiorno, S

    F. Belgiorno, S. L. Cacciatori, A. Farahat, and A. Viganò. Analog Hawking effect: BEC and surface waves. Phys. Rev. D, 102(10):105004, 2020

    2020

  60. [68]

    Cacciatori, and Simone Trevisan

    Francesco Belgiorno, Sergio L. Cacciatori, and Simone Trevisan. Analogous Hawking Radiation in Dispersive Media. Universe, 10(11):412, 2024

    2024

  61. [69]

    Exact solutions for analog Hawking effect in dielectric media.Phys

    Simone Trevisan, Francesco Belgiorno, and Sergio Luigi Cacciatori. Exact solutions for analog Hawking effect in dielectric media.Phys. Rev. D, 110(8):085009, 2024

    2024

  62. [70]

    Cacciatori, Anthony Massidda, and Simone Noja

    Roberta Angius, Sergio L. Cacciatori, Anthony Massidda, and Simone Noja. Exponential integrals for Feynman diagrams. To appear

  63. [71]

    An Invitation to Morse Theory, pages 151–191

    Liviu Nicolaescu. An Invitation to Morse Theory, pages 151–191. Springer New York, New York, NY, 2007

    2007

  64. [72]

    Singular Points of Complex Hypersurfaces.Annals of Mathematics Studies

    John Milnor. Singular Points of Complex Hypersurfaces.Annals of Mathematics Studies. Princeton University Press, 1969

    1969

  65. [73]

    Bjørn Ian Dundas.A Short Course In Differential Topology.Cambridge University Press, 2018

    2018

  66. [74]

    The Milnor Lattices of the Elliptic Hypersurface Singularities.Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, s3-53(1):85–111, 07 1986

    Wolfgang Ebeling. The Milnor Lattices of the Elliptic Hypersurface Singularities.Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, s3-53(1):85–111, 07 1986

    1986

  67. [75]

    W. Ebeling. The monodromy groups of isoleted singularities of complete intersections. Lectures Notes in Mathematics. Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 1980. – 54 –

    1980

  68. [76]

    Monodromy, 2005

    Wolfgang Ebeling. Monodromy, 2005

    2005

  69. [77]

    Gabrielov

    A.M. Gabrielov. Polar curves and intersection matrices of singularities.Inventiones mathematicae, 54:15–22, 1979

    1979

  70. [78]

    Kulikov.Mixed Hodge Structures and Singularities

    Valentine S. Kulikov.Mixed Hodge Structures and Singularities. Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, 1998

    1998

  71. [79]

    Die monodromie der isolierten singularitäten von hyperflächen.Manuscripta mathematica, 2:103–162, 1970

    Egbert Brieskorn. Die monodromie der isolierten singularitäten von hyperflächen.Manuscripta mathematica, 2:103–162, 1970

    1970

  72. [80]

    Malgrange

    B. Malgrange. Chap. IV: Regular connexions after Deligne.Algebraic D-Modules, pages 151–172, 1994

    1994

  73. [81]

    Lefschetz

    S. Lefschetz. L’analysis situs et la géométrie algébrique.Gauthier-Villars, 1924

    1924

  74. [82]

    The monodromy groups of isoleted singularities of hypersurfaces.Russian Mathematical Surveys, 32(2):23, apr 1977

    S M Husein-Zade. The monodromy groups of isoleted singularities of hypersurfaces.Russian Mathematical Surveys, 32(2):23, apr 1977

    1977

  75. [83]

    Analyticity and resurgence in wall-crossing formulas

    Maxim Kontsevich and Yan Soibelman. Analyticity and resurgence in wall-crossing formulas. 2022

    2022

  76. [84]

    On classification of N=2 supersymmetric theories.Commun

    Sergio Cecotti and Cumrun Vafa. On classification of N=2 supersymmetric theories.Commun. Math. Phys., 158:569–644, 1993

    1993

  77. [85]

    Introduction á l’étude topologique des singularités de landau.Mémorial des sciences mathématiques, (164), September 1967

    Frédéric Pham. Introduction á l’étude topologique des singularités de landau.Mémorial des sciences mathématiques, (164), September 1967

    1967

  78. [86]

    Arnold, S.M

    V.I. Arnold, S.M. Gusein–Zade and A.N. Varčenko,.Singularities of Differentiable Maps, Vol.II. Birkhäusser, Boston, 1988

    1988

  79. [87]

    Lecture notes on sheaves and perverse sheaves, 2021

    Mark Goresky. Lecture notes on sheaves and perverse sheaves, 2021

    2021

  80. [88]

    Olver.Asymptotics and Special Functions

    Frank W.I. Olver.Asymptotics and Special Functions. CRC Press, 1997

    1997

  81. [89]

    Stability structures, motivic donaldson-thomas invariants and cluster transformations, 2008

    Maxim Kontsevich and Yan Soibelman. Stability structures, motivic donaldson-thomas invariants and cluster transformations, 2008

    2008

  82. [90]

    P. A. Baikov. Explicit solutions of the multiloop integral recurrence relations and its application. Nucl. Instrum. Meth., A389:347–349, 1997

    1997

  83. [91]

    A. G. Grozin. Integration by parts: An Introduction.Int. J. Mod. Phys., A26:2807–2854, 2011

    2011

  84. [92]

    K. Kodaira. On the structure of compact complex analytic surfaces.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 50(2):218–221, 1963

    1963

  85. [93]

    K. Kodaira. On the structure of compact complex analytic surfaces, ii.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 51(6):1100–1104, 1964

    1964

  86. [94]

    G. E. Bredon.Sheaf Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1967. – 55 –

    1967

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.