Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Telescoping Algorithms for $\Sigma^*$-Extensions via Complete Reductions

T0 review · 3 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 This paper proves that complete reductions lift through every level of a $\Sigma^*$-tower, so parameterized telescoping reduces to linear algebra on the remainders.

desk verdict A genuinely new complete-reduction framework for Sigma*-towers, with sound main theorems and a real practical payoff, though the benchmark evidence is still thin. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08767 v1 pith:54X4KIO5 submitted 2025-06-10 cs.SC

Shaoshi Chen , Yiman Gao , Hui Huang , Carsten Schneider This is my paper
classification cs.SC MSC 68W3012H10
keywords symbolicsummationcompletereductiontelescopingΣ*-extensionsdifferencefieldscreativeparameterized
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 proves that the additive-decomposition idea behind rational summation can be pushed through a whole tower of $\Sigma^*$-extensions, the difference fields that model indefinite nested sums such as harmonic numbers and their generalizations. Given a computable ground field with a complete reduction and an effective basis of its constant field, each new summation symbol receives its own complete reduction, writing every element as $f=\Delta(g)+r$ with the remainder $r$ in an explicitly described complementary space. This makes refined telescoping and parameterized telescoping, creative telescoping included, a matter of applying reductions and then solving a linear system over the constants on the remainders, rather than solving difference equations by degree and denominator bounds. The same construction connects to the fundamental structural theorem for reduced towers and, through an isomorphic rewriting, can lower the nesting depth of a given sum.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a complete reduction for a subspace $U$: a linear map $\phi$ with kernel exactly $U$ and with $f-\phi(f)\in U$, so that the space splits as $U\oplus\operatorname{im}(\phi)$. For a $\Sigma^*$-monomial $t$, the reduction $\psi_{(S,\theta)}$ is assembled from three pieces: the proper-rational reduction, which uses $\sigma$-factorization of denominators into representatives of shift-equivalence classes and produces remainders in $U_S$ without increasing denominator degree; the auxiliary subspace $A=\bigoplus_{i\in\mathbb{N}}\operatorname{im}(\phi)t^i$, which reduces polynomials coefficientwise using $\Sigma$-pairs in the base field; and the $\theta$-complement $V_\theta$, defined from a first pair $(g_t,\phi(\Delta(t)))$ and an effective basis element $\theta$, whose echelon basis spans $\Delta(F[t])\cap A$. Recursing up the tower with the same data gives the level-by-level complete reductions $\phi_i$.

What would settle it

Run the algorithm in the tower $F_0=\mathbb{Q}(x)$, $\sigma(x)=x+1$, $t_1$ with $\Delta(t_1)=1/(x+1)$, on an input whose denominator has two shift-equivalent irreducible factors; if two runs that break the $\sigma$-factorization differently produce remainders differing by a nonzero summable element, the claimed direct-sum uniqueness fails. A simpler check: take any returned remainder $r$ and test whether $r\in\Delta(F_n)$ by solving the first-order difference equation $\sigma(h)-h=r$; a nonzero answer would contradict $\Delta(F_n)\cap(U_S\oplus V_\theta)=\{0\}$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result is that complete reductions inherit through every layer of a $\Sigma^*$-tower. At a single extension step, Theorem 2 shows that a $\Sigma^*$-monomial $t$ over $(F,\sigma)$ inherits from a complete reduction $\phi$ for $\Delta(F)$ a complete reduction $\psi_{(S,\theta)}$ for $\Delta(F(t))$, with the direct sum $F(t)=\Delta(F(t))\oplus U_S\oplus V_\theta$; here $U_S$ collects proper rational functions whose denominators use only shift-equivalence representatives $S$, and $V_\theta$ is a polynomial complement selected by an effective basis element $\theta$. Theorem 3 iterates this step: starting from $\phi_0$ and an effective $C$-basis of $F_0$, the construction produces complete reductions $\phi_i$ for every $F_i$, with the pair $(\theta_i,c_i)$ chosen using the indicator of $\phi_{i-1}(\Delta(t_i))$. Because $\phi_n$ is a complete reduction, the parameterized telescoping equation $c_1f_1+\cdots+c_mf_m=\Delta(g)$ holds exactly when $c_1\phi_n(f_1)+\cdots+c_m\phi_n(f_m)=0$, so the original problem reduces to linear algebra over the constant field.

Load-bearing premise

The construction stops unless the ground difference field supplies an explicitly given complete reduction, an effective basis of its constant field, and a decision procedure for shift equivalence of irreducible polynomials at every level; without these the recursive reduction cannot be computed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Summands built from harmonic numbers and generalized harmonic sums acquire a constructive refined identity $f=\Delta(g)+r$, so definite sums become a boundary term plus a simpler remainder sum.
  • Parameterized telescoping and creative telescoping reduce to solving a linear system over the constant field for the remainders $\phi_n(f_i)$, with the certificate $g$ assembled from the corresponding $g_i$.
  • The remainder is minimal in a precise degree sense: no other representation of the same summand can have a proper part with smaller denominator degree or a polynomial part with smaller degree.
  • Well-generated towers are reduced, so the fundamental theorem for reduced towers applies, and isomorphic rewriting can lower the nesting depth of an input sum.
  • The included experiments on small towers with high-degree polynomial summands show the reduction-based method completing the tested instances faster than the earlier refined-telescoping approach.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension not developed in the paper is to build complete reductions for product extensions ($\Pi$-monomials) and mixed $R\Pi\Sigma^*$-rings, which would bring $q$-hypergeometric and product-sum mixed terms under the same remainder-based umbrella.
  • Because the parameterized telescoping step is pure linear algebra on remainders, one would expect the method to combine well with sparse or modular linear algebra, making very large degrees and many terms more tractable than reported in the pilot timings.
  • The nesting-depth reduction in the worked example suggests that complete reductions could serve as a preprocessing oracle for finding depth-optimal sum representations, potentially replacing some of the recursive telescoping calls in existing depth-optimization algorithms.
  • The dependence on shift-equivalence testing could be made formal as an incremental procedure that grows the representative set $S$ on demand whenever a new irreducible denominator factor appears; the paper's implementation already hints at this, but a complexity analysis is left open.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a complete-reduction framework for symbolic summation in towers of Sigma*-extensions. A complete reduction is a linear idempotent map whose kernel is the summable subspace Delta(F), yielding a direct-sum decomposition F = Delta(F) ⊕ remainder space. The authors construct such reductions recursively: for a Sigma*-monomial t over F they give a decomposition F(t) = Delta(F(t)) ⊕ U_S ⊕ V_theta (Theorem 2), where U_S comes from shift-equivalence classes of irreducible denominators and V_theta from an echelon basis of Delta(F[t]) ∩ A. They then lift this construction to Sigma*-towers (Theorem 3), obtain an algorithmic version under shift-equivalence and computability assumptions (Theorem 4), specialize to polynomial Sigma*-ring towers where Problem SE is not needed (Corollary 7), and apply the framework to parameterized telescoping, creative telescoping, and depth reduction of nested sums. The paper includes several worked examples and an experimental comparison with the Mathematica package Sigma.

Significance. If the framework holds as stated, it gives a reduction-based alternative to Karr-style telescoping for Sigma*-extensions that avoids solving linear difference equations by degree/denominator bounds, and it connects complete reductions to Karr's structural theory. The main direct-sum theorems (Proposition 1, Proposition 4, Theorem 2, Theorem 3) are proved in detail, the worked examples are consistent, and the optimality statement in Corollary 4 is a genuine strengthening over plain additive decompositions. The paper is likely to be of interest to the symbolic summation community. Its central mathematical construction appears sound; however, the algorithmic scope is conditional on an external shift-equivalence decision procedure about which the paper itself supplies no details, and one of the core pseudocode algorithms has an indexing error.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1 (Problem SE) and §4.1 (Theorem 4)] The full algorithmic claim for arbitrary Sigma*-towers is conditional on solving Problem SE in each intermediate field F_{i-1}[t_i]. The paper does not provide an algorithm or proof for Problem SE; it cites [25, Cor. 1] and [36, Thm. 3.5] for the sigma*-computable cases without stating the relevant definitions or results. This is not a circularity, since the paper explicitly treats Problem SE as a hypothesis, but it is load-bearing: without a decision procedure for shift equivalence, ReductionForProperRationalFunctions cannot compute the sigma-factorization of the denominator, and the tower-level algorithm reduces to the polynomial-ring case of Corollary 7. Please state this dependence more prominently in the abstract and introduction, and either prove the needed SE solvability for the advertised classes or clearly mark the tower-level algorithm as conditional on that external decision procedure.
  2. [§3.2, Algorithm ReductionForPolynomials] Step (4) of Algorithm ReductionForPolynomials contains an off-by-one indexing error. After calling EchelonBasis(d, ...), the list L has entries L[0], ..., L[d], but the loop 'for i from d+1 to 1' reads L[i] and therefore accesses L[d+1] while never using L[0]. The correct iteration is 'for i from d down to 0' using L[i] (or equivalently 'for i from d+1 down to 1' using L[i-1]). The proof of Proposition 4 and Example 5 follow the corrected indexing, so the intended construction is clear, but the pseudocode as printed cannot be executed as written.
  3. [§5, Conclusion] The concluding sentence says the framework solves the problem of computing complete reductions in a tower of Sigma*-extensions 'if the problem can be solved in the ground difference field', citing Theorem 4 and Corollary 7. This is stronger than what Theorem 4 states: the tower-level algorithm additionally requires either solvability of Problem SE at every level, sigma*-computability, or the special constant-field setting of Property 3. Only Corollary 7 for polynomial-ring towers has the ground-field-only form. Please reword to avoid overstating the unconditional algorithmic scope.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.1, Example 2] In Example 2, the partial fraction decomposition of f is written as 1/t - 1/sigma(t), but the signs in the displayed difference are inconsistent with the later conclusion f = Delta(1/t); the correct decomposition is 1/sigma(t) - 1/t. The final conclusion that f is summable is unaffected.
  2. [§3.2, Proof of Proposition 2] The sentence 'Delta(t) is a monic linear polynomial in t' is not correct for a Sigma*-monomial, since sigma(t) = t + a implies Delta(t) = a is an element of F. What is needed is that Delta(t^d) has degree d-1; please correct the wording.
  3. [§4.1, Theorem 4] In Property 3, the statement 'F=C is a rational function field over an algebraic number field' uses F but should refer to F_0, and the condition should be clarified: if F_0 equals its constant field C, then sigma is the identity on F_0, so Delta(F_0)=0 and phi_0 is the identity. The current phrasing is ambiguous.
  4. [§4.1, Implementation aspects] The timing comparison reports average times but does not state the number of trials, the variance, or how the random polynomials were generated beyond total degree. Please give these details so the comparison is reproducible.
  5. [§4.1, Algorithms and text] There are several typos in the algorithmic discussion: 'CompeteReduction' should be 'CompleteReduction', 'Sigmain' should be 'Sigma', and the input description of Algorithm CompleteReduction says 'p in F[t]' while the body uses f in F(t). Please proofread and align notation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the tower construction is a recursive derivation whose inputs (ground-field complete reduction, effective basis, shift-equivalence oracle) are stated as preconditions, not as outputs.

full rationale

The paper's central result (Theorem 2 and Theorem 3) builds a complete reduction for a Sigma*-extension from an explicitly supplied complete reduction on the ground field, an effective basis, and shift-equivalence testing. No parameter is fitted to data and no prediction is read back from the construction; the remainder space U_S ⊕ V_theta is defined and then proved to satisfy the direct-sum decomposition by Lemma 3 and Proposition 4. The main recursive theorem is conditional on solving Problem SE in each intermediate field, and the cited results [25, Cor. 1] and [36, Thm. 3.5] are independent published algorithms for sigma*-computable fields, not restatements of the paper's own complete-reduction theorem. Thus the citations are real evidence and do not make the argument circular. The only caveat is the undischarged decidability precondition for arbitrary towers, which is a completeness restriction, not a circularity.

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

The construction inherits a base complete reduction and several known difference-field lemmas; no numerical constants are fitted. The honest cost is the algorithmic assumptions listed above.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The ground field (F0, sigma) is computable, phi0-computable with an explicit complete reduction, and has an effective C-basis.
    Used as the base of the recursive construction in Theorem 3 and Theorem 4; without it no Sigma-pair for coefficients in F0 can be computed.
  • domain assumption Polynomial factorization over multivariate rational function field extensions of F0 is available and computable.
    Stated in Section 2 as a standing algorithmic assumption; needed for partial fraction decompositions in Proposition 1.
  • domain assumption Problem SE (shift equivalence of irreducible polynomials) is decidable in each F_{i-1}[t_i].
    Invoked in Section 3.1 to compute Karr's sigma-factorization; Theorem 4 reduces it to sigma*-computability for rational-function ground fields.
  • standard math Karr's criterion: t is a Sigma*-monomial over (F, sigma) iff Delta(t) is not in Delta(F) (Theorem 1 from [22]).
    Used repeatedly, for example in Corollary 1 and Lemma 6, to certify that remainders of Delta(t) generate new Sigma*-monomials.
  • standard math A nonzero sigma-simple proper rational function cannot be a summable element (Lemma 3 from [11]).
    Essential for the direct sum F(t)^(r) = Delta(F(t)^(r)) + U_S in Proposition 1.
  • standard math Degree bound for elements of Delta(F[t]): if p = Delta(q), then deg_t(q) is at most deg_t(p) + 1.
    Used in Lemma 5 and Proposition 3 to control leading coefficients of the echelon basis.
  • standard math For a Sigma*-ring extension E_i, if Delta(g) is in E_i with g in F_i, then g is in E_i ([40, Thm. 2.7]).
    Used in the proof of Corollary 6 to show the restricted reduction is complete on polynomial rings.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Telescoping Algorithms for $\Sigma^*$-Extensions via Complete Reductions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/54X4KIO5

@misc{pith2026250608767,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Telescoping Algorithms for $\Sigma^*$-Extensions via Complete Reductions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/54X4KIO5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08767}
}
abstract

A complete reduction on a difference field is a linear operator that enables one to decompose an element of the field as the sum of a summable part and a remainder such that the given element is summable if and only if the remainder is equal to zero. In this paper, we present a complete reduction in a tower of $\Sigma^*$-extensions that turns to a new efficient framework for the parameterized telescoping problem. Special instances of such $\Sigma^*$-extensions cover iterative sums such as the harmonic numbers and generalized versions that arise, e.g., in combinatorics, computer science or particle physics. Moreover, we illustrate how these new ideas can be used to reduce the depth of the given sum and provide structural theorems that connect complete reductions to Karr's Fundamental Theorem of symbolic summation.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Harmonic sums and polylogarithms generated by cyclotomic polynomials.J

    Jakob Ablinger, Johannes Bl¨ umlein, and Carsten Schneider. Harmonic sums and polylogarithms generated by cyclotomic polynomials.J. Math. Phys., 52(10):1–52, 2011. arXiv:1105.6063 [math-ph]

    arXiv 2011

  2. [2]

    Sergei A. Abramov. On the summation of rational functions.USSR Comput. Math. Math. Phys., 11(4):324–330, 1971

    work page 1971

  3. [3]

    Sergei A. Abramov. The rational component of the solution of a first-order linear recurrence relation with a rational right side.USSR Comput. Math. Math. Phys., 15(4):216–221, 1975

    work page 1975

  4. [4]

    Abramov, Manuel Bronstein, Marko Petkov ˇsek, and Carsten Schneider

    Sergei A. Abramov, Manuel Bronstein, Marko Petkov ˇsek, and Carsten Schneider. On rational and hypergeometric solutions of linear ordinary difference equations inΠΣ ∗-field extensions.J. Symbolic Comput., 107:23–66, 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Bl¨ umlein and S

    J. Bl¨ umlein and S. Kurth. Harmonic sums and Mellin transforms up to two-loop order.Phys. Rev., D60, 1999. 34 Shaoshi Chen, Yiman Gao, Hui Huang and Carsten Schneider

    work page 1999

  6. [6]

    The three-loop polarized singlet anomalous dimensions from off-shell operator matrix elements.Journal of High Energy Physics, 2022(193):0–32, 2022

    Johannes Bl¨ umlein, Peter Marquard, Carsten Schneider, and Kay Sch ¨onwald. The three-loop polarized singlet anomalous dimensions from off-shell operator matrix elements.Journal of High Energy Physics, 2022(193):0–32, 2022. arXiv:2111.12401 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Hermite reduction and creative telescoping for hyperexponential functions

    Alin Bostan, Shaoshi Chen, Fr ´ed´eric Chyzak, Ziming Li, and Guoce Xin. Hermite reduction and creative telescoping for hyperexponential functions. InProceedings of ISSAC’13, pages 77–84. ACM, New York, 2013

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Generalized hermite reduction, creative telescoping and definite integration of D-finite functions

    Alin Bostan, Fr ´ed´eric Chyzak, Pierre Lairez, and Bruno Salvy. Generalized hermite reduction, creative telescoping and definite integration of D-finite functions. InProceedings of ISSAC’18, pages 95–102. ACM, New York, 2018

    work page 2018

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Additive normal forms and integration of differential fractions.J

    Franc ¸ois Boulier, Franc ¸ois Lemaire, Joseph Lallemand, Georg Regensburger, and Markus Rosenkranz. Additive normal forms and integration of differential fractions.J. Symbolic Comput., 77:16–38, 2016

    2016

  2. [10]

    A p-adic study of the partial sums of the harmonic series.Experimental Mathematics, 3(4):287–302, 1994

    David W Boyd. A p-adic study of the partial sums of the harmonic series.Experimental Mathematics, 3(4):287–302, 1994

    1994

  3. [11]

    On solutions of linear ordinary difference equations in their coefficient field

    Manuel Bronstein. On solutions of linear ordinary difference equations in their coefficient field. J. Symbolic Comput., 29(6):841–877, 2000

    2000

  4. [12]

    A unified reduction for hyperge- ometric and q-hypergeometric creative telescoping, 2025

    Shaoshi Chen, Hao Du, Yiman Gao, Hui Huang, and Ziming Li. A unified reduction for hyperge- ometric and q-hypergeometric creative telescoping, 2025. Preprint: arXiv:2501.03837

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Lazy Hermite reduction and creative telescoping for algebraic functions

    Shaoshi Chen, Lixin Du, and Manuel Kauers. Lazy Hermite reduction and creative telescoping for algebraic functions. InProceedings of ISSAC’21, pages 75–82. ACM, New York, 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    Hermite reduction for D-finite functions via integral bases

    Shaoshi Chen, Lixin Du, and Manuel Kauers. Hermite reduction for D-finite functions via integral bases. InProceedings of ISSAC’23, pages 155–163. ACM, New York, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    A modified Abramov-Petkov ˇsek reduction and creative telescoping for hypergeometric terms

    Shaoshi Chen, Hui Huang, Manuel Kauers, and Ziming Li. A modified Abramov-Petkov ˇsek reduction and creative telescoping for hypergeometric terms. InProceedings of ISSAC’15, pages 117–124. ACM, New York, 2015

    2015

  8. [16]

    Reduction-based creative telescoping for algebraic functions

    Shaoshi Chen, Manuel Kauers, and Christoph Koutschan. Reduction-based creative telescoping for algebraic functions. InProceedings of ISSAC’16, pages 175–182. ACM, New York, 2016

    2016

  9. [17]

    Reduction-based creative telescoping for Fuchsian D-finite functions.J

    Shaoshi Chen, Mark van Hoeij, Manuel Kauers, and Christoph Koutschan. Reduction-based creative telescoping for Fuchsian D-finite functions.J. Symbolic Comput., 85:108–127, 2018

    2018

  10. [18]

    Complete reduction for derivatives in a primitive tower, 2025

    Hao Du, Yiman Gao, Wenqiao Li, and Ziming Li. Complete reduction for derivatives in a primitive tower, 2025. To appear in ISSAC’25

    2025

  11. [19]

    A𝑞-analogue of the modified Abramov-Petkovˇsek reduction

    Hao Du, Hui Huang, and Ziming Li. A𝑞-analogue of the modified Abramov-Petkovˇsek reduction. InAdvances in Computer Algebra, volume 226 ofSpringer Proc. Math. Stat., pages 105–129. Springer, Cham, 2018

    2018

  12. [20]

    PhD thesis, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China, May 2024

    Yiman Gao.Additive Decomposition and Elementary Integration over Exponential Extensions. PhD thesis, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China, May 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    William Gosper, Jr

    R. William Gosper, Jr. Decision procedure for indefinite hypergeometric summation.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 75(1):40–42, 1978

    1978

  14. [22]

    Summation in finite terms.J

    Michael Karr. Summation in finite terms.J. Assoc. Comput. Mach., 28(2):305–350, 1981

    1981

  15. [23]

    Theory of summation in finite terms.J

    Michael Karr. Theory of summation in finite terms.J. Symbolic Comput., 1(3):303–315, 1985

    1985

  16. [24]

    Springer Cham, Switzerland, 2023

    Manuel Kauers.D-Finite Functions. Springer Cham, Switzerland, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    Indefinite summation with unspecified summands.Discrete Math., 306(17):2073–2083, 2006

    Manuel Kauers and Carsten Schneider. Indefinite summation with unspecified summands.Discrete Math., 306(17):2073–2083, 2006

    2006

  18. [26]

    Knuth.The Art of Computer Programming, volume 1: Fundamental Algorithms

    Donald E. Knuth.The Art of Computer Programming, volume 1: Fundamental Algorithms. Addison-Wesley, third edition, 1997

    1997

  19. [27]

    Koornwinder

    Tom H. Koornwinder. On Zeilberger’s algorithm and its𝑞-analogue.J. Comput. Appl. Math., 48(1-2):91–111, 1993

    1993

  20. [28]

    Greatest factorial factorization and symbolic summation.J

    Peter Paule. Greatest factorial factorization and symbolic summation.J. Symbolic Comput., 20(3):235–268, 1995

    1995

  21. [29]

    A Mathematica𝑞-analogue of Zeilberger’s algorithm based on an algebraically motivated approach to𝑞-hypergeometric telescoping

    Peter Paule and Axel Riese. A Mathematica𝑞-analogue of Zeilberger’s algorithm based on an algebraically motivated approach to𝑞-hypergeometric telescoping. InSpecial functions,𝑞-series and related topics (Toronto, ON, 1995), volume 14 ofFields Inst. Commun., pages 179–210. Amer...

    1995

  22. [30]

    Computer proofs of a new family of harmonic number identities

    Peter Paule and Carsten Schneider. Computer proofs of a new family of harmonic number identities. Adv. in Appl. Math., 31(2):359–378, 2003. Telescoping Algorithms forΣ∗-Extensions via Complete Reductions 35

    2003

  23. [31]

    A Mathematica version of Zeilberger’s algorithm for proving bi- nomial coefficient identities.J

    Peter Paule and Markus Schorn. A Mathematica version of Zeilberger’s algorithm for proving bi- nomial coefficient identities.J. Symbolic Comput., 20(5-6):673–698, 1995. Symbolic computation in combinatoricsΔ 1 (Ithaca, NY, 1993)

    1995

  24. [32]

    Wilf, and Doron Zeilberger.𝐴=𝐵

    Marko Petkov ˇsek, Herbert S. Wilf, and Doron Zeilberger.𝐴=𝐵. A K Peters, Ltd., Wellesley, MA, 1996

    1996

  25. [33]

    PhD thesis, RISC-Linz, Johannes Kepler University, May 2001

    Carsten Schneider.Symbolic Summation in Difference Fields. PhD thesis, RISC-Linz, Johannes Kepler University, May 2001

    2001

  26. [34]

    Symbolic summation with single-nested sum extensions

    Carsten Schneider. Symbolic summation with single-nested sum extensions. InProceedings of ISSAC’04, pages 282–289. ACM, New York, 2004

    2004

  27. [35]

    Finding telescopers with minimal depth for indefinite nested sum and product expressions

    Carsten Schneider. Finding telescopers with minimal depth for indefinite nested sum and product expressions. InProceedings of ISSAC’05, pages 285–292. ACM, New York, 2005

    2005

  28. [36]

    Product representations inΠΣ-fields.Ann

    Carsten Schneider. Product representations inΠΣ-fields.Ann. Comb., 9(1):75–99, 2005

    2005

  29. [37]

    Symbolic summation assists combinatorics.S ´em

    Carsten Schneider. Symbolic summation assists combinatorics.S ´em. Lothar. Combin., 56:Art. B56b, 36, 2006/07

    2006

  30. [38]

    Simplifying sums inΠΣ ∗-extensions.J

    Carsten Schneider. Simplifying sums inΠΣ ∗-extensions.J. Algebra Appl., 6(3):415–441, 2007

    2007

  31. [39]

    A refined difference field theory for symbolic summation.J

    Carsten Schneider. A refined difference field theory for symbolic summation.J. Symbolic Comput., 43(9):611–644, 2008

    2008

  32. [40]

    Parameterized telescoping proves algebraic independence of sums.Ann

    Carsten Schneider. Parameterized telescoping proves algebraic independence of sums.Ann. Comb., 14(4):533–552, 2010. arXiv:0808.2596

    2010 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Structural theorems for symbolic summation.Appl

    Carsten Schneider. Structural theorems for symbolic summation.Appl. Algebra Engrg. Comm. Comput., 21(1):1–32, 2010

    2010

  34. [42]

    Fast algorithms for refined parameterized telescoping in difference fields

    Carsten Schneider. Fast algorithms for refined parameterized telescoping in difference fields. In Jaime Gutierrez, Josef Schicho, and Martin Weimann, editors,Computer Algebra and Polynomials, Applications of Algebra and Number Theory, volume 8942 ofLecture Notes in Computer Sc...

    2015 arXiv

  35. [43]

    A difference ring theory for symbolic summation.J

    Carsten Schneider. A difference ring theory for symbolic summation.J. Symbolic Comput., 72:82–127, 2016

    2016

  36. [44]

    Summation theory II: Characterizations of𝑅ΠΣ ∗-extensions and algorithmic aspects.J

    Carsten Schneider. Summation theory II: Characterizations of𝑅ΠΣ ∗-extensions and algorithmic aspects.J. Symbolic Comput., 80:616–664, 2017

    2017

  37. [45]

    Term algebras, canonical representations and difference ring theory for sym- bolic summation

    Carsten Schneider. Term algebras, canonical representations and difference ring theory for sym- bolic summation. InAnti-Differentiation and the Calculation of Feynman Amplitudes, Texts Monogr. Symbol. Comput., pages 423–485. Springer, Cham, 2021

    2021

  38. [46]

    The absent-minded passengers problem: A motivating challenge solved by computer algebra.Mathematics in Computer Science, 15(4):577–588, 2021

    Carsten Schneider. The absent-minded passengers problem: A motivating challenge solved by computer algebra.Mathematics in Computer Science, 15(4):577–588, 2021. arXiv:2003.01921 [math.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Refined telescoping algorithms in𝑅ΠΣ-extensions to reduce the degrees of the denominators

    Carsten Schneider. Refined telescoping algorithms in𝑅ΠΣ-extensions to reduce the degrees of the denominators. InProceedings of ISSAC’23, pages 498–507. ACM, July 2023. arXiv:2302.03563 [cs.SC]

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Constructing reductions for creative telescoping: the general differentially finite case.Appl

    Joris van der Hoeven. Constructing reductions for creative telescoping: the general differentially finite case.Appl. Algebra Engrg. Comm. Comput., 32(5):575–602, 2021

    2021

  41. [49]

    A holonomic systems approach to special functions identities.J

    Doron Zeilberger. A holonomic systems approach to special functions identities.J. Comput. Appl. Math., 32(3):321–368, 1990

    1990

  42. [50]

    The method of creative telescoping.J

    Doron Zeilberger. The method of creative telescoping.J. Symbolic Comput., 11(3):195–204, 1991

    1991

Pith tools

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