Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 42 references

Feynman Fox integrals in the physical region

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Feynman integrals in the physical region can be recast as Fox functions on vertical contours that respect the Landau cut structure and the correct imaginary parts.

desk verdict A useful recipe, but the linchpin equivalence is unproved and the one worked numeric check in the paper is wrong. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.09590 v1 pith:Z3LUC34F submitted 2025-06-11 hep-ph hep-th

Giampiero Passarino (Turin U. , INFN , Turin) This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-th MSC 81T99 PACS 12.60.-i11.10.-z14.80.Bn02.30.Gp
keywords FoxfunctionsMellin-BarnesintegralsFeynmanphysicalregioncutstructureLauricellahighertranscendentalmulti-loopdiagrams
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 attempts to show that Feynman integrals evaluated in the physical region (real external momenta with mass-shell conditions) can be rewritten as Fox functions: Mellin-Barnes contour integrals taken along vertical contours $L_{i\infty}$, with the same cut structure and the same imaginary parts as the original integral. The claimed recipe has three steps: integrate Feynman parameters until a Lauricella hypergeometric function appears, apply Kummer-type or contiguity transformations until every argument is negative, and only then write down the Mellin-Barnes representation. If correct, multi-loop physical-region integrals would acquire a numerically computable Fox representation whose branch cuts are fixed by the Landau equations, addressing a known bottleneck in precision calculations for collider physics.

What carries the argument

The driving mechanism is the chain from Feynman parameters to Lauricella functions $F_D^{(N)}$ to Fox $H$-functions. The central identities are the Mellin-Barnes representation of the Lauricella function (Eq. (46)) and the Kummer transformations (Eqs. (36), (47), (48), (56)) with the contiguity relations (Eqs. (50), (51)) that reshuffle arguments until they are all negative, a condition under which the vertical-contour integral $L_{i\infty}$ converges and, by Eq. (85), carries the same cuts as the original Feynman integral. The Fox $H$-function (Eq. (9)) is the final container, with its contour choice guided by the parameters $\alpha,\beta,\lambda$; the paper selects $L_{i\infty}$ and checks convergence by the criteria of Ref. [31].

What would settle it

Take the example of Eq. (34) at $z=2$: $I=\int_0^1 dx\,x^{-1/2}(1-2x)^{-1}$ interpreted with the $-i\delta$ prescription, and compare the direct numerical value with the Fox/$L_{i\infty}$ representation of Eq. (39). A mismatch in the imaginary part would falsify the equivalence asserted at Eq. (85).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core claim is that, once the Lauricella function arising from the first integration is transformed so that all its arguments are negative, the Mellin-Barnes integral taken over a vertical contour $L_{i\infty}$ equals the original Feynman integral with its Feynman $-i\delta$ prescription intact. Section 2 asserts the key equivalence at Eq. (85): comparing the $L_{i\infty}$ integral with the residue-summed $L_{\pm\infty}$ representations shows equal real and imaginary parts provided the original arguments satisfy $z_1,z_2>1$, and this transfer of branch cuts is reused in every subsequent example. The paper then demonstrates the construction on the triangle, box, sunrise, and kite integrals for virtual corrections, and on two real-emission processes, explicitly choosing sectors (e.g. $0<z<1$ vs. $z>1$) and applying transformations such as $z\to z/(z-1)$ so that the final Fox integrals are defined along $L_{i\infty}$ and free from spurious imaginary parts below thresholds. For infrared-divergent real-emission integrals, contiguity relations are used before the Mellin-Barnes representation to make the $\varepsilon\to 0$ limit explicit.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the unproved assertion in Section 2 (around Eq. (85)) that, after the prescribed Kummer/contiguity transformations, the vertical-contour Mellin-Barnes integral has exactly the same real and imaginary parts as the residue-summed $L_{\pm\infty}$ representations whenever the original arguments are greater than one.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Multi-loop virtual corrections such as triangle, box, sunrise, and kite can be written as Fox functions on vertical contours, enabling numerical evaluation without multidimensional residue summation.
  • Below a normal threshold the Fox representation develops no imaginary part; above the threshold it reproduces the Feynman imaginary part, so the Landau cut structure is respected by construction.
  • Real-emission phase-space integrals, illustrated with $H\to\gamma b\bar b$ and $H\to e^+e^-\gamma$, can be brought into the same Fox form after the appropriate Lauricella transformations.
  • The same recipe extends to arbitrary $N$-variable Lauricella functions: each mixed-sign sector is handled by a fixed set of transformations before the Mellin-Barnes representation is written.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if Eq. (85) is exact, each Fox integral constructed in Section 3 can be evaluated by one-dimensional numerical quadrature along $L_{i\infty}$, which is the numerical route the paper promises but leaves to forthcoming work.
  • Editorial inference: Eq. (85) predicts that a Lauricella function with arguments in $(0,1)$ must be transformed before a valid $L_{i\infty}$ representation exists; testing the single-variable example of Eq. (34) with direct integration at $z>1$ would give a quick independent check.
  • Editorial inference: because the transformations act separately on the signs of the arguments, the same method may extend to integrals with several physical thresholds by applying the Kummer/contiguity moves in each Landau sector, a case the paper does not work out.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a method for rewriting Feynman integrals defined in the physical region as Fox functions, i.e. Mellin-Barnes integrals over vertical Li∞ contours, with the aim of preserving the iδ prescription and the correct branch-cut structure. The method combines partial quadratization of Symanzik polynomials with Feynman-parameter integration to obtain Lauricella hypergeometric functions, followed by Kummer-type or contiguity transformations that make all Lauricella arguments negative, and then a Mellin-Barnes representation. Section 2 develops the one- and two-variable framework and states the key contour-equivalence assertion in Eq. (85). Section 3 applies the strategy to a triangle, a box, the sunrise and kite integrals, and two real-emission processes. No numerical evaluation is presented; the author states that numerical computation of Fox functions is deferred to a forthcoming paper [26].

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper would provide a uniform, numerically tractable representation of multi-loop Feynman integrals in the physical region, with explicit control of imaginary parts below and above thresholds. The manuscript contains a useful catalog of transformation formulas for Lauricella functions and a clear discussion of why the naive vertical-contour Mellin-Barnes representation fails for positive arguments. There are no fitted parameters and the manipulations are standard special-function identities, which is a methodological strength. However, the paper currently lacks any numerical verification of the main claim, and the only explicit numerical check in the method section is wrong. The significance therefore remains conditional on establishing the unproved equivalence in Eq. (85) and on validating the formalism against known sunrise and kite results.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (42)] The displayed identity in Eq. (42) is numerically incorrect as printed. For α=1 and λ=1, we have β²=-3 and the integral is ∫₀¹ dx/(x²-x+1)=2π/(3√3)≈1.2092. The right-hand side of Eq. (42) evaluates to approximately -35.1, because the second term is -64·₂F₁(1,1/2;3/2;-3). The formula also has a pole at α=1/2, where the original integral is analytic (it behaves like |x-1/2|^{-2α} near x=1/2 and converges for Re α<1). Since this is the first concrete check of the transformation chain in the methodological section, the discrepancy undermines confidence in the subsequent displayed identities and should be corrected and re-derived, or replaced by a verified example.
  2. [Section 2, Eq. (85)] The central claim of the paper rests on Eq. (85), where the equality of real and imaginary parts of the Li∞ and L± contours is asserted for z₁,z₂>1 with the phrase "Comparing L± with Li∞ shows the expected result: Re I_i∞ = Re I_±, Im I_i∞ = Im I_±, iff z_{1,2}>1." No proof or derivation is given. This is not a trivial contour-deformation statement: one must specify the branch of (-z)^s, verify that the vertical contour separates the two pole chains, and show that the iδ prescription is transferred to the Fox representation. The same unproved step is reused in Section 3 whenever the paper states that "no imaginary part will emerge" below a threshold (e.g., after Eqs. (137) and (138)). The equivalence must either be proved or supported by a numerical test for a case where the imaginary part is known independently.
  3. [Section 3.1, Sunrise and Kite] The paper provides no numerical validation of the central claim. The numerical computation of Fox functions is explicitly deferred to a forthcoming paper [26], and no comparison is made with the known sunrise and kite results cited as [40]-[42]. Given that Eq. (42) is already numerically wrong, the absence of any independent check of the imaginary-part structure leaves the main assertion unverified. At minimum, one of the Section 3 examples should be evaluated numerically in a physical region and compared with the known analytic or high-precision result, both below and above the normal threshold.
  4. [Section 2, multivariate Fox convergence] The paper invokes multivariate Fox functions but does not establish the convergence of the multiple Li∞ integrals constructed after the Lauricella transformations. The author correctly notes, citing Ref. [3], that the multiple integral may be overall divergent even when the iterated integrals converge. However, the manuscript does not check that the specific contours used in Eqs. (137)-(140), (156), or (180) satisfy the multivariate convergence criteria, nor does it specify the integration order for the iterated vertical contours. This is conceptually part of the unsupported Eq. (85) step and should be addressed explicitly, especially for the mixed-sign cases 4-7 of the Lauricella sector analysis.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and throughout] There are numerous typographical errors, including "emphasys" in the abstract, "wrire" after Eq. (82), "akas" in the Conclusions, "convinient" in Section 3.3, "variales" near Eq. (144), and "thrshold" in Section 3.3. The manuscript would benefit from a careful proofreading pass.
  2. [Section 2, around Eq. (85)] The notation "iff z_{1,2}>1" in Eq. (85) is ambiguous: it should be clarified whether this means z₁>1 and z₂>1, or z₁>1 or z₂>1. The surrounding discussion and the sector cases in Example 2 suggest the former, but the text should state this explicitly.
  3. [Section 2, Eq. (73)] In the displayed formula after Eq. (73), the prefactor contains Γ(b₂-a₃) in the denominator of the prefactor, while the numerator inside the integral contains Γ(b₂-a₃+s₂); the reader would benefit from a sentence explaining how the endpoint singularities are avoided when b₂-a₃ is not positive.
  4. [Section 3.2, Eq. (176)] The transformation in Eq. (176) is written for F_D^{(3)} with arguments -1,-β,β, and the author warns that c-Σb_j can be negative. It would be helpful to state which of the parameters are allowed to be non-positive and how the subsequent Mellin-Barnes representation is chosen in that case.
  5. [References] Reference [26] is cited as "To be submitted," and the current paper repeatedly relies on it for numerical evaluation. The paper would be more self-contained if the numerical algorithm were described at least in outline, or if the numerical results were included in an appendix.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Central physical-region claim is asserted at Eq. (85) rather than derived, with framework and numerical validation deferred to same-author Refs. [7] and [26].

  1. other [Section 2, Example 4, Eq. (85)]
    "Comparing L± with Li∞ shows the expected result: Re Ii∞ = Re I± , Im Ii∞ = Im I± , iff z1,2 > 1. (85)"

    The paper's stated program is to show that the Li∞ Mellin-Barnes/Fox representation reproduces the physical-region Feynman cut structure and imaginary part. Equation (85) is the step that is supposed to establish this for the generic Lauricella case, but it does not derive the equality: it asserts it with 'shows the expected result'. The equality of real and imaginary parts between the residue-summed L± contour and the vertical Li∞ contour is exactly the property needed in all later examples, including the repeated statements that 'no imaginary part will emerge' below thresholds and that standard MB representations can be used above them. The central conclusion is therefore assumed as the premise at Eq.

  2. self citation load bearing [Section 3.3, final paragraph, and Conclusions (Refs. [7], [26])]
    "Steps 1−4 have been described in details in Sect. 7 of Ref. [7]. ... The numerical computation of Fox functions will be the argument of a forthcoming paper [26]."

    The methodological core—partial quadratization of Symanzik polynomials and the Fox/Mellin-Barnes framework—is explicitly referred to the author's own Ref. [7], while the numerical computation of the Fox functions, the only validation offered for the Li∞ integrals, is deferred to the author's own unpublished Ref. [26]. The paper thus does not independently establish or verify the framework it builds on; the chain of support is internal to the same author's works, and the promised numerical check in [26] is not available to test Eq. (85) or the sunrise/kite results against the known results [40]–[42]. This is load-bearing self-citation rather than independent evidence.

full rationale

The paper contains no fitted parameters and no empirical prediction that equals a fit, so the usual 'fitted input called prediction' circularity is absent. The strongest circularity concern is the linchpin Eq. (85): the paper's goal is to prove that Li∞ MB representations reproduce the physical imaginary parts, and Eq. (85) simply asserts that equality ('shows the expected result') and then reuses it throughout Section 3. This is a petitio principii—the conclusion is assumed at the crucial step. Additionally, the framework (partial quadratization, Fox-function setting) is imported from the author's own Ref. [7], and the numerical computation of the Fox functions—the only validation offered—is deferred to the author's own unpublished Ref. [26], so the evidentiary chain is self-referential rather than independently checked. Separately, the explicit check in Eq. (42) appears numerically incorrect at α=1, λ=1 (the expression gives approximately -35.1 instead of 2π/(3√3)≈1.209) and exhibits a spurious pole at α=1/2; this is a correctness risk independent of circularity. No comparison with the known sunrise/kite results [40]–[42] is provided. On balance, the central derivation is not a statistical fit, but the crucial equivalence is assumed rather than derived, so partial circularity is present.

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

No fitted parameters and no invented entities. The paper's load-bearing input is a stock of standard hypergeometric identities (standard_math), the author's own partial-quadratization framework from Ref. [7] (domain_assumption), and one unproven central assertion: that the transformed vertical-contour Mellin-Barnes integrals carry the correct imaginary parts (ad_hoc_to_paper). The verification of that assertion is outsourced to a self-authored forthcoming paper, so the real burden of the ledger sits in the fifth axiom.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Fox/H-function convergence criteria (Refs. [2,3,31]) for choosing L-i-infinity, L-plus-infinity, or L-minus-infinity contours.
    Invoked throughout Section 2 (Eqs. (9)-(18)); the paper relies on these theorems to declare convergence or divergence of the Mellin-Barnes integrals it constructs.
  • standard math Kummer-type argument transformations and contiguity relations for 2F1, 3F2, and Lauricella F-D functions (Eqs. (36)-(38), (47)-(57), (68), (86)-(87), (91)) are valid for the stated parameter ranges.
    Taken from Refs. [28,30,31,36,37]; the paper itself flags one subtlety in Section 3.2, noting a transformation should be interpreted with due care when c minus the sum of b-j is negative.
  • domain assumption Partial quadratization of Symanzik polynomials and the connected reduction strategy are correct as established in Ref. [7] by the same author.
    Section 3.3 states that steps 1-4 have been described in detail in Section 7 of Ref. [7]; the sunrise, kite, and triangle derivations in Section 3.1 rest on this.
  • domain assumption The physical region of a process is the real phase space defined by mass-shell and momentum-conservation conditions, and Landau solutions outside it lie on the wrong sheet.
    Section 1, Eqs. (5)-(6); this defines which imaginary parts are physical and which branch choices are to be discarded.
  • ad hoc to paper After the prescribed transformations, the vertical-contour Mellin-Barnes integrals reproduce the imaginary part of the original Feynman integral (Eq. (85) and the no-imaginary-part statements near Eqs. (137)-(138)).
    This is the central assertion of the paper; it is not proven and its numerical check is deferred to the author's forthcoming Ref. [26].
  • domain assumption Complex-mass poles do not lie on the first Riemann sheet, so complex masses do not make Mellin-Barnes splitting easier.
    Section 2, Complex masses, derives a convergence obstruction in Eqs. (97)-(101) and presents it as a limitation of the scheme.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Feynman Fox integrals in the physical region." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z3LUC34F

@misc{pith2026250609590,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Feynman Fox integrals in the physical region},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z3LUC34F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.09590}
}
read the original abstract

Feynman integrals in the physical region are transformed into Fox functions with a special emphasys to their cut structure

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [26]

    Passarino, Numerical computation of fox functions, To be submitted

    G. Passarino, Numerical computation of fox functions, To be submitted. (3, 5, 29)

    work page

  2. [40]

    Adams, C

    L. Adams, C. Bogner, S. Weinzierl, The sunrise integral and elliptic polylogarithms, PoS LL2016 (2016) 033.arXiv:1606.09457,doi: 10.22323/1.260.0033. (17)

    arXiv 2016

  3. [42]

    Adams, C

    L. Adams, C. Bogner, A. Schweitzer, S. Weinzierl, The kite integral to all orders in terms of elliptic polylogarithms, J. Math. Phys. 57 (12) (2016) 122302.arXiv:1607.01571,doi:10.1063/1.4969060. (19) 31

    arXiv 2016

  4. [3]

    N. Hai, H. Srivastava, The convergence problem of certain multiple Mellin-Barnes contour integrals representing H-functions in several variables, Computers Math. Applic. V ol. 29, No. 6, pp. 17-25, 1995 (1995). (2, 5)

    work page 1995

  5. [1]

    Fox, The G and H functions as symmetrical Fourier kernels, Trans

    C. Fox, The G and H functions as symmetrical Fourier kernels, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 98 (1961) 395–429 (1961). (2)

    work page 1961

  6. [2]

    Mathai, R

    A. Mathai, R. Saxena, H. Haubold, The H-function: Theory and applications, Springer New York, NY DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1- 4419-0916-9 (2010). (4, 6, 10, 12)

    doi:10.1007/978-1- 2010

  7. [4]

    Inayat-Hussain, New properties of hypergeometric series derivable from Feynman integrals II

    A. Inayat-Hussain, New properties of hypergeometric series derivable from Feynman integrals II. a generalisation of the H function, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 20 4119 (1987)

    work page 1987

  8. [5]

    Buschman, H

    R. Buschman, H. Srivastava, The H function associated with a certain class of Feynman integrals, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 23 (1990) 4707-4710 (1990)

    work page 1990

Show all 42 references
  1. [6]

    Srivastava, S

    H. Srivastava, S. Lin, P. Wang, Some fractional-calculus results for the H-function associated with a class of Feynman integrals, Russian J. Math. Phys. 2006, 13, 94–100 (2006)

    2006

  2. [7]

    Passarino, Feynman integrals and Fox functionsarXiv:2405.18755

    G. Passarino, Feynman integrals and Fox functionsarXiv:2405.18755. (2, 3, 17, 19, 28)

    arXiv

  3. [8]

    Dubovyk, J

    I. Dubovyk, J. Gluza, G. Somogyi, Mellin-Barnes Integrals: A Primer on Particle Physics Applications, Lect. Notes Phys. 1008 (2022) pp. arXiv:2211.13733,doi:10.1007/978-3-031-14272-7

    2022 arXiv

  4. [9]

    M. Y . Kalmykov, B. A. Kniehl, Mellin-Barnes representations of Feynman diagrams, linear systems of differential equations, and polynomial solutions, Phys. Lett. B 714 (2012) 103–109.arXiv:1205.1697,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.06.045. (2)

    2012 arXiv

  5. [10]

    Braaksma, Asymptotic expansions and analytic continuations for a class of Barnes-integrals, Compositio Mathematica, tome 15 (1962- 1964), p

    B. Braaksma, Asymptotic expansions and analytic continuations for a class of Barnes-integrals, Compositio Mathematica, tome 15 (1962- 1964), p. 239-341 (1962). (2)

    1962

  6. [11]

    Srivastava, K

    H. Srivastava, K. Gupta, S. Goyal, The H-functions of one and two variables with applications, South Asian Publishers, New Delhi (1982)

    1982

  7. [12]

    D. S. Kershaw, Feynman amplitudes as power series, Phys. Rev. D 8 (1973) 2708–2713.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.8.2708. (2)

    1973 doi

  8. [13]

    L. D. Landau, On analytic properties of vertex parts in quantum field theory, Nucl. Phys. 13 (1959) 181–192.doi:10.1016/0029-5582(59) 90154-3. (2)

    1959 doi

  9. [14]

    R. J. Eden, P. V . Landshoff, D. I. Olive, J. C. Polkinghorne, The analytic S-matrix, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1966

    1966

  10. [15]

    Nakanishi, Classical motion of particles and the physical-region singularity of the feynman integral, Prog

    N. Nakanishi, Classical motion of particles and the physical-region singularity of the feynman integral, Prog. Theor. Phys. 39 (1968) 768–771. doi:10.1143/PTP.39.768

    1968 doi

  11. [16]

    N. Nakanishi, Ordinary and anomalous thresholds in perturbation theory, Progress of Theoretical Physics 22 (1) (1959) 128–144.arXiv: /oup/backfile/content_public/journal/ptp/22/1/10.1143/ptp.22.128/2/22-1-128.pdf,doi:10.1143/PTP.22.128. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1143/PTP.22.128(2)

    1959 doi

  12. [17]

    Passarino, Peaks and cusps: anomalous thresholds and LHC physicsarXiv:1807.00503

    G. Passarino, Peaks and cusps: anomalous thresholds and LHC physicsarXiv:1807.00503. (2, 14)

    arXiv

  13. [18]

    Kershaw, Algebraic factorization of scattering amplitudes at physical Landau singularities, Phys

    D. Kershaw, Algebraic factorization of scattering amplitudes at physical Landau singularities, Phys. Rev. D5 (1972) 1976–1982.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.5.1976. (2)

    1972 doi

  14. [19]

    Passarino, S

    G. Passarino, S. Uccirati, Algebraic numerical evaluation of Feynman diagrams: Two loop selfenergies, Nucl. Phys. B629 (2002) 97–187. arXiv:hep-ph/0112004,doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(02)00138-4. (2)

    2002 arXiv

  15. [20]

    Kumar, Covariant phase-space calculations of n-body decay and production processes, Phys

    R. Kumar, Covariant phase-space calculations of n-body decay and production processes, Phys. Rev. 185 (1969) 1865–1875.doi:10.1103/ PhysRev.185.1865. (2)

    1969

  16. [21]

    Weinzierl, Feynman Graphs, in: Computer Algebra in Quantum Field Theory

    S. Weinzierl, Feynman Graphs, in: Computer Algebra in Quantum Field Theory. Integration, Summation and Special Functions. Proceedings, LHCPhenoNet School: Linz, Austria, 9-13 July 2012, 2013, pp. 381–406.arXiv:1301.6918. URLhttp://inspirehep.net/record/1216688/files/arXiv:1301...

    2012 arXiv

  17. [22]

    Bogner, S

    C. Bogner, S. Weinzierl, Feynman graph polynomials, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 25 (2010) 2585–2618.arXiv:1002.3458,doi:10.1142/ S0217751X10049438. (3)

    2010 arXiv

  18. [23]

    Cattani, A

    E. Cattani, A. Dickenstein, B. Sturmfels, Computing multidimensional residues, Mathematics and Statistics Department Faculty Publication Series. 1154 (1994). URLhttps://scholarworks.umass.edu/math_faculty_pubs/1154(3)

    1994

  19. [24]

    Tsikh, Multidimensional residues and their applications, Translations of Mathematical Monographs 103

    A. Tsikh, Multidimensional residues and their applications, Translations of Mathematical Monographs 103. American Mathematical Society (1992)

    1992

  20. [25]

    Zhdanov, A

    O. Zhdanov, A. Tsikh, Investigation of multiple Mellin–Barnes integrals by means of multidimensional residues, Sibirsk. Mat. Zh., 39:2 (1998), 281–298; Siberian Math. J., 39:2 (1998), 245–260 (1998). (3)

    1998

  21. [27]

    Freitas, Y .-C

    A. Freitas, Y .-C. Huang, On the Numerical Evaluation of Loop Integrals With Mellin-Barnes Representations, JHEP 04 (2010) 074.arXiv: 1001.3243,doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2010)074. (3)

    2010 arXiv

  22. [28]

    Bezrodnykh, The Lauricella hypergeometric function F N D , Russian Mathematical Surveys, 2018, V olume 73, Issue 6, 941–1031 DOI: 10.1070/RM9841 (2083)

    S. Bezrodnykh, The Lauricella hypergeometric function F N D , Russian Mathematical Surveys, 2018, V olume 73, Issue 6, 941–1031 DOI: 10.1070/RM9841 (2083). (3, 5, 8, 9)

    2018 doi

  23. [29]

    Carlson, Lauricella’s hypergeometric function F D, Journal of Mathematical Analysys and Applications, 7, 452-470 (1963)

    B. Carlson, Lauricella’s hypergeometric function F D, Journal of Mathematical Analysys and Applications, 7, 452-470 (1963)

    1963

  24. [30]

    Schlosser, chapter in the book computer algebra in quantum field theory, Springer-Verlag Wien 2013 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3- 7091-1616-6 (2013)

    M. Schlosser, chapter in the book computer algebra in quantum field theory, Springer-Verlag Wien 2013 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3- 7091-1616-6 (2013). (3, 8, 9)

    2013 doi

  25. [31]

    Erdèlyi, W

    A. Erdèlyi, W. Magnus, F. Oberhettinger, F. G. Tricomi, Higher Transcendental Functions, V ol. 1, McGraw-Hill, 1953, compiled by the staff of the Bateman Manuscript Project. (3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10)

    1953

  26. [32]

    N. Hai, Y . S., The double Mellin-Barnes type integrals and their applications to convolution theory., Series on Soviet and East European Mathematics, 6. World Scientific Publishing, Singapore, New Jersey (1992). (5)

    1992

  27. [33]

    Buschman, H

    R. Buschman, H. Srivastava, Convergence regions for some multiple Mellin-Barnes contour integrals representing generalized hypergeometric functions, Pages 605-609, Published online: 09 Jul 2006 https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739860170509 (2006). (5)

    2006 doi

  28. [34]

    Hadamard, Lectures on Cauchy’s problem in linear partial differential equations, Dover Phoenix editions, Dover Publications, New York, p

    J. Hadamard, Lectures on Cauchy’s problem in linear partial differential equations, Dover Phoenix editions, Dover Publications, New York, p. 316, ISBN 978-0-486-49549-1 (1923). (7) 30

    1923

  29. [35]

    Blanchet, G

    L. Blanchet, G. Faye, Hadamard regularization, Journal of Mathematical Physics, 41 (11): 7675–7714, arXiv:gr-qc/0004008 (2000). (7)

    2000 arXiv

  30. [36]

    Nørlund, Hypergeometric functions, Acta Math

    N. Nørlund, Hypergeometric functions, Acta Math. 94 (1955), 289-349 (1955). (11)

    1955

  31. [37]

    Çetinkaya, D

    A. Çetinkaya, D. Karp, E. Prilepkina, Hypergeometric functions at unit argument: Simple derivation of old and new identities, Symmetry, Integrability and Geometry: Methods and Applicationsdoi:10.3842/sigma.2021.098. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.3842/SIGMA.2021.098(11)

    2021 doi

  32. [38]

    Actis, G

    S. Actis, G. Passarino, Two-Loop Renormalization in the Standard Model Part III: Renormalization Equations and their Solutions, Nucl. Phys. B777 (2007) 100–156.arXiv:hep-ph/0612124,doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2007.04.027. (14)

    2007 arXiv

  33. [39]

    Passarino, C

    G. Passarino, C. Sturm, S. Uccirati, Higgs Pseudo-Observables, Second Riemann Sheet and All That, Nucl. Phys. B834 (2010) 77–115. arXiv:1001.3360,doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2010.03.013. (14)

    2010 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Remiddi, L

    E. Remiddi, L. Tancredi, Differential equations and dispersion relations for Feynman amplitudes. The two-loop massive sunrise and the kite integral, Nucl. Phys. B 907 (2016) 400–444.arXiv:1602.01481,doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2016.04.013. (17, 19)

    2016 arXiv

Pith tools

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