Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 61 references

Tame multi-leg Feynman integrals beyond one loop

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A new representation rewrites any multi-loop Feynman integral as a low-dimensional integral over one-loop-like pieces.

desk verdict Novel branch-grouping representation, but the headline two-loop parameter count rests on a false graph bound and the central claim does not hold. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.21053 v1 pith:V4HL42AN submitted 2024-12-30 hep-ph

Li-Hong Huang , Rui-Jun Huang , Yan-Qing Ma This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords Feynmanintegralsmulti-loopbranchdecompositionfixed-branchauxiliarymassflowdimensionalregularizationnumericalintegrationscatteringamplitudes
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 claims that any multi-loop Feynman integral can be rewritten as an integral over a very small set of branch parameters, with an integrand that has the same structure as a one-loop integral. The number of remaining integration parameters is asserted to be independent of the number of external legs and bounded by $3L-3$, so at most 2 for two-loop integrals and 5 for three-loop integrals. If correct, this would turn the hard part of many multi-loop, multi-leg calculations into low-dimensional numerical quadrature, and it would let existing one-loop techniques be reused at higher loops. As a proof of concept, the authors evaluate two-loop non-planar six-leg integrals and report agreement with a known benchmark.

What carries the argument

The central object is the branch decomposition of a Feynman integral and the fixed-branch integrals (FBIs) that result. A branch is the set of propagators whose coefficient matrix $\hat{A}^{\alpha}_{ij}$ in the quadratic form of loop momenta is identical; grouping branches and applying Feynman parameters at two levels produces an outer integral over branch variables and an inner FBI whose integrand is one-loop-like. The machinery that makes FBIs tractable is a pair of integration-by-parts relations: a recursion relation involving a matrix $S$ and a dimension-shift relation, which together reduce every FBI in a sector to at most one master integral. These master integrals are computed by auxiliary mass flow in an auxiliary parameter $\eta$, and the outer integral over branch variables is handled by ordering regions, contour deformation, and subtraction of power-logarithmic boundary singularities.

What would settle it

Count the distinct quadratic-form matrices $A$ for the propagators of the two-loop graph with four vertices and five edges (K4 with one edge removed). Its propagators are $l_1^2$, $l_2^2$, $(l_1+l_2)^2$, and $(l_1-l_2)^2$, so $B=4$ and $B-1=3$, exceeding the paper's two-loop maximum of 2; this graph alone would refute the bound $B \le 3L-3$ as stated for ordinary Feynman integrals.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that an arbitrary $L$-loop Feynman integral can be expressed as a single integral over $B-1$ branch parameters, where $B$ is the number of distinct branches, meaning sets of propagators that share the same quadratic form in the loop momenta. The construction proceeds by a two-level Feynman parametrization: first combine propagators within each branch using $y$ parameters, then combine branches using $X$ parameters. Because the symmetric matrix $A$ in the combined denominator is independent of $y$, the loop-momentum integration can be performed explicitly, leaving an outer integral over $X$ whose integrand is a sum of fixed-branch integrals (FBIs) that resemble one-loop integrals. The paper asserts the graph-theoretic bound $B \le 3L-3$, so the outer integration has at most 2 variables at two loops and 5 at three loops, independent of the number of external legs. With FBIs evaluated by integration-by-parts reduction to at most one master integral per sector, auxiliary mass flow, and a dimension-changing transform, the remaining $X$-integral is computed numerically after contour deformation and boundary subtraction.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the graph-theoretic bound $B \le 3L-3$ for ordinary Feynman integrals, stated without proof in the 'A new representation' section; if some graphs have more branches, the remaining integration has more than the advertised two parameters at two loops or five at three loops.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Existing one-loop reduction and evaluation methods apply directly to FBIs, because the number of branches enters only as an unimportant parameter in the FBI machinery.
  • The number of outer integration variables is independent of external legs, so two-loop multi-leg integrals require at most a two-dimensional numerical integration after FBIs are computed.
  • Differential equations for FBI master integrals with respect to branch variables and kinematic variables can be set up, enabling analytic or semi-analytic evaluation of amplitudes.
  • The method is not limited to scalar integrals: numerator polynomials are carried through the momentum shift, so tensor integrals and amplitudes can be handled in the same representation.
  • The representation can be combined with existing techniques such as integration-by-parts reduction, asymptotic expansions, canonical differential equations, and intersection theory, which may all be applied to the FBIs or the outer integral.

Reading between the lines

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

  • I infer that the practical payoff depends on how tightly the asserted bound $B \le 3L-3$ holds for realistic graphs; for graphs with more branches, the outer integration dimension grows and the advertised parameter counts would need revision.
  • The branch count $B$ is a graph invariant equal to the number of distinct quadratic-form matrices, so the method invites a graph-theoretic classification of which diagrams are tame under this representation.
  • Because FBIs are one-loop-like, the same auxiliary-mass-flow strategy could be adapted to produce results to high orders in $\epsilon$ for three-loop graphs with modest outer dimension, which is a direct testable extension.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The Letter proposes a 'branch decomposition' of L-loop Feynman integrals. Propagators with identical quadratic-form coefficient matrices are grouped into B branches; after nested Feynman parametrization and Gaussian loop-momentum integration, the integral is written as Eq. (8), an integral over B-1 branch parameters whose fixed-branch integrands resemble one-loop Feynman integrals in parameter form. The paper asserts that B is bounded by 3L-3 for ordinary Feynman integrals, so that the number of remaining integration parameters is at most 2 at two loops and 5 at three loops, independent of the number of external legs. It then describes an auxiliary-mass-flow method and a contour-deformation strategy for the branch integrations, and reports numerical results for two-loop diagrams with up to six external legs.

Significance. If the parameter-count statement were true, the representation would be a substantial advance: multi-loop multi-leg computations would reduce to low-dimensional numerical quadrature with an integrand that is no harder than a one-loop integral. The derivation leading to Eq. (8) is explicit and standard, and the numerical examples in Table I provide a nontrivial check against AMFlow. However, the central graph-theoretic bound is false, and the advertised universality is therefore not established. As presented, the method is a heuristic numerical scheme that may be useful for diagrams with few branches, but it does not deliver the paper's headline claim of a small, external-leg-independent integration dimension for general Feynman integrals.

major comments (3)
  1. [A new representation] The asserted bound 'B <= 3L-3 when L >= 2 for ordinary Feynman integrals' is false, and it is load-bearing: it is the sole basis for the abstract's claim that two-loop integrals need at most two branch parameters and three-loop integrals at most five. A concrete counterexample is the two-loop graph obtained from K4 by deleting one edge. Labeling the four vertices by the vectors (0,0), (1,0), (0,1), and (1,1), the five edge momenta have coefficient pairs (1,0), (0,1), (1,1), (-1,1), and (1,-1), giving four distinct quadratic forms l1^2, l2^2, (l1+l2)^2, and (l1-l2)^2. Thus B=4 > 3L-3=3. This is a connected, ordinary two-loop Feynman integral with four external legs, and Eq. (8) then requires B-1=3 branch-integration variables rather than the advertised two. No proof or reference is supplied for the bound, and similar constructions push B above 6 at three loops. The central claim of external-leg independence therefore fails as stated.
  2. [Evaluation of FBIs] The reduction claim that 'there is at most one MI in each sector' and that Eqs. (13) and (14) are 'sufficient to efficiently reduce all FBIs to their MIs' is asserted without a proof. Cases 1-4 only classify the behavior of the corner integral; they do not establish termination of the recursion for arbitrary exponent vectors nu, nor do they explain how sectors with det(S)=0 are handled when numerator insertions P(l) are present. Since the one-loop-like status of FBIs is central to the method's advertised simplicity, this gap needs to be filled by an explicit reduction algorithm or a reference to a complete proof.
  3. [Integration over branch variables] The contour deformation in Eqs. (23)-(24) is introduced with heuristic parameter tuning: lambda is initially set to 10^-2, all k_j to 10^-1, then each k_j is increased to a 'maximum allowed value' and lambda is later adjusted to half of its maximum. No criterion is provided that guarantees the deformed contour does not cross a singularity. The paper's claim of a 'fully controllable integrand' is therefore not supported by a rigorous argument; the numerical integration is validated only on the specific examples of Table I.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Evaluation of FBIs] Eq. (21) relies on the unpublished companion paper [41] for the dimension-changing transform. Since this transform is essential to the numerical evaluation, the companion should be made available or the transform should be derived in the Supplemental Material.
  2. [Two-loop examples] Table I does not identify the diagrams in a machine-readable form; the graph thumbnails are not legible in the text and no code or data files are provided, which hinders reproducibility.
  3. [Throughout] There are several typos and grammar issues: 'This difficulty proves to be formidably to surmount' should read 'formidable to surmount'; 'the remained integration' should be 'the remaining integration'; and '10 -3' in the contour-deformation paragraph has an unintended space.
  4. [Evaluation of FBIs] The phrase 'we choose a basis such that C is as nonzero as possible' is vague; the authors should specify the precise criterion (for example, maximal rank or a minimal-norm basis) because this choice affects the differential equation in Eq. (20).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the branch-parameter representation is an explicit Feynman-parameter rewrite, and the B≤3L−3 bound is an unproved graph claim, not a circular input.

full rationale

The derivation starts from the standard Feynman-parameter identity in Eq. (2), groups propagators with identical quadratic-form coefficients into branches, and obtains Eqs. (8)–(9) by completing the square and shifting loop momenta. This is a direct algebraic rewriting with no fitted parameters and no assumption equivalent to the target representation. The IBP reduction for FBIs (Eqs. (13)–(15)) is derived in the Supplementary Material from standard IBP identities; the dimension-changing transform in Eq. (21) is stated explicitly (attributed to companion paper [41]) rather than assumed as the conclusion, so any issue there is one of independent verification, not circularity. Numerical agreement with AMFlow [42] is a benchmark, not a fit. The claim B≤3L−3 is stated without proof and is apparently false for a two-loop K4-minus-edge graph, but that is a mathematical correctness/support problem, not a circular reduction. Accordingly, no step in the derivation reduces to its own input, and the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The representation itself uses standard Feynman parametrization (one axiom), but the advertised low parameter count rests on an unproved and false graph-theoretic bound, and the numerical evaluation rests on unpublished companion methods and heuristic contour tuning.

free parameters (1)
  • Contour deformation parameters lambda and k_j = lambda=10^-2 (initial), then 10^-3; k_j initially 10^-1, tuned to maximum allowed values
    Hand-chosen numerical parameters in Eq. (24) that control the deformation of the integration contour; their values are adjusted to avoid singularities and do not affect the exact integral if the deformation is valid, but they are free algorithmic choices.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper For ordinary L-loop Feynman integrals, the number of branches satisfies B <= 3L-3
    Stated without proof in the 'A new representation' section; it is the basis for the 'at most 2 for two-loop' claim. A two-loop graph with four vertices and five edges (K4 minus one edge) has four distinct quadratic-form branches, so the bound is false for ordinary graphs.
  • ad hoc to paper The IBP relations in Eqs. (13) and (14) are sufficient to reduce any fixed-branch integral to at most one master integral per sector
    The four-case classification is asserted without a termination or completeness proof; the Supplementary Material only derives the IBP identities, not the reduction theorem.
  • ad hoc to paper The contour deformation in Eq. (23) can be tuned to avoid all singularities with the described heuristic
    The choice of kappa, lambda, and k_j is empirical; no proof of an intersection-free deformed contour is given.
  • domain assumption The dimension-changing transform of the companion paper [41] is valid
    The evaluation of FBIs relies on Ref. [41] for DCT, which is an unpublished companion paper with a placeholder arXiv ID.
  • standard math Standard dimensional-regularization and Feynman-parametrization manipulations
    Eqs. (2)-(9) use standard Feynman parametrization and loop-momentum shifts; these are routine and not the weak point.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tame multi-leg Feynman integrals beyond one loop." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V4HL42AN

@misc{pith2026241221053,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tame multi-leg Feynman integrals beyond one loop},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V4HL42AN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.21053}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce a novel structure for Feynman integrals, reformulating them as integrals over a small set of parameters with a fully controllable integrand. The integrand closely resembles one-loop Feynman integrals, and they are very easy to handle. Remarkably, the number of remaining integration parameters is independent of the number of external legs and small -- at most 2 for two-loop integrals and 5 for three-loop integrals -- facilitating the application of a wide range of established methods, both specific to Feynman integrals and more general techniques. This approach is expected to mitigate the computational challenges of multi-loop, multi-leg Feynman integrals. As a proof of concept, we successfully computed two-loop non-planar Feynman integrals with six external legs, demonstrating high efficiency.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [41]

    P. A. Baikov, Explicit solutions of the multiloop integral recurrence relations and its application , Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 389 (1997) 347–349 [ hep-ph/9611449] [InSPIRE]

    arXiv 1997

  2. [1]

    (13) to reduce all FBIs to corner FBI, defined by νi = 1 for all i, as well as to FBIs in subsectors, defined by νi ≤ 0 for some i

    det( S) ̸= 0 and C ̸= 0: In this case we use Eq. (13) to reduce all FBIs to corner FBI, defined by νi = 1 for all i, as well as to FBIs in subsectors, defined by νi ≤ 0 for some i. Additionally, Eq. (14) can be used to shift integrals to the same dimension. Thus there is exactly one MI in this sector

    work page

  3. [2]

    (13) to reduce all FBIs to corner FBI

    det( S) ̸= 0 and C = 0: We can still use Eq. (13) to reduce all FBIs to corner FBI. However, the re- lation Eq. (14) becomes (2∆ − ν − B) I ∆ ⃗ ν= − NX α=1 zαI ∆−1 ⃗ ν−⃗ eα , (16) which reduces the value of ν for any FBI in this sector, including the corner FBI. Therefore, there is no MI in this sector

    work page

  4. [3]

    (14) be- comes CI ∆−1 ⃗ ν = NX α=1 zαI ∆−1 ⃗ ν−⃗ eα , (17) which also always reduce the value of ν in this sec- tor, resulting no MI in this sector

    det( S) = 0 and C ̸= 0: In this case Eq. (14) be- comes CI ∆−1 ⃗ ν = NX α=1 zαI ∆−1 ⃗ ν−⃗ eα , (17) which also always reduce the value of ν in this sec- tor, resulting no MI in this sector

    work page

  5. [4]

    Suppose that |zβ| is the largest among these values, then Eq

    det( S) = 0 and C = 0: In this case at least one of zα terms is nonzero. Suppose that |zβ| is the largest among these values, then Eq. (14) becomes I ∆ ⃗ ν= − X α̸=β zα zβ I ∆ ⃗ ν+⃗ eβ −⃗ eα , (18) which decreases the values of otherνα at the cost of increasing νβ. Ultimately, this can reduce all FBIs to subsectors, leaving no MI in this sector. Therefore...

    work page

  6. [5]

    Azzi et al

    P. Azzi et al. , Report from Working Group 1: Standard Model Physics at the HL-LHC and HE-LHC , CERN Yellow Rep. Monogr. 7 (2019) 1–220 [arXiv:1902.04070] [InSPIRE]

    arXiv 2019

  7. [6]

    Cepeda et al

    M. Cepeda et al. , Report from Working Group 2: Higgs Physics at the HL-LHC and HE-LHC , CERN Yellow Rep. Monogr. 7 (2019) 221–584 [ arXiv:1902.00134] [InSPIRE]

    arXiv 2019

  8. [7]

    ’t Hooft and M

    G. ’t Hooft and M. J. G. Veltman, Scalar One Loop Integrals, Nucl. Phys. B 153 (1979) 365–401 [ InSPIRE]

    1979

Show all 61 references
  1. [8]

    Passarino and M

    G. Passarino and M. J. G. Veltman, One Loop Corrections for e+ e- Annihilation Into mu+ mu- in the Weinberg Model, Nucl. Phys. B 160 (1979) 151–207 [InSPIRE]

    1979

  2. [9]

    Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon, and D. A. Kosower, Dimensionally regulated pentagon integrals, Nucl. Phys. B 412 (1994) 751–816 [hep-ph/9306240] [InSPIRE]

    1994 arXiv

  3. [10]

    G. J. van Oldenborgh and J. A. M. Vermaseren, New Algorithms for One Loop Integrals , Z. Phys. C 46 (1990) 425–438 [ InSPIRE]

    1990

  4. [11]

    Hahn and M

    T. Hahn and M. Perez-Victoria, Automatized one loop calculations in four-dimensions and D-dimensions , Comput. Phys. Commun. 118 (1999) 153–165 [hep-ph/9807565] [InSPIRE]

    1999 arXiv

  5. [12]

    R. K. Ellis and G. Zanderighi, Scalar one-loop integrals for QCD , JHEP 02 (2008) 002 [ arXiv:0712.1851] [InSPIRE]

    2008 arXiv

  6. [13]

    van Hameren, OneLOop: For the evaluation of one-loop scalar functions , Comput

    A. van Hameren, OneLOop: For the evaluation of one-loop scalar functions , Comput. Phys. Commun. 182 (2011) 2427–2438 [ arXiv:1007.4716] [InSPIRE]

    2011 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Denner, S

    A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, and L. Hofer, Collier: a fortran-based Complex One-Loop LIbrary in Extended Regularizations, Comput. Phys. Commun. 212 (2017) 220–238 [arXiv:1604.06792] [InSPIRE]

    2017 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Cullen, J

    G. Cullen, J. P. Guillet, G. Heinrich, T. Kleinschmidt, E. Pilon, T. Reiter, and M. Rodgers, Golem95C: A library for one-loop integrals with complex masses , Comput. Phys. Commun. 182 (2011) 2276–2284 [arXiv:1101.5595] [InSPIRE]

    2011 arXiv

  9. [16]

    H. H. Patel, Package-X: A Mathematica package for the analytic calculation of one-loop integrals , Comput. Phys. Commun. 197 (2015) 276–290 [ arXiv:1503.01469] [InSPIRE]

    2015 arXiv

  10. [17]

    K. G. Chetyrkin and F. V. Tkachov, Integration by parts: The algorithm to calculate β-functions in 4 loops , Nucl. Phys. B 192 (1981) 159–204 [ InSPIRE]

    1981

  11. [18]

    F. V. Tkachov, A theorem on analytical calculability of 4-loop renormalization group functions , Phys. Lett. B 100 (1981) 65–68 [ InSPIRE]

    1981

  12. [19]

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

    S. Laporta, High-precision calculation of multiloop Feynman integrals by difference equations, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 15 (2000) 5087–5159 [ hep-ph/0102033] [InSPIRE]

    2000 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Anastasiou and A

    C. Anastasiou and A. Lazopoulos, Automatic integral reduction for higher order perturbative calculations , JHEP 07 (2004) 046 [ hep-ph/0404258] [InSPIRE]

    2004 arXiv

  14. [21]

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

    2008 arXiv

  15. [22]

    A. V. Smirnov and M. Zeng, FIRE 6.5: Feynman integral reduction with new simplification library , Comput. Phys. Commun. 302 (2024) 109261 [arXiv:2311.02370] [InSPIRE]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Studerus, Reduze – Feynman integral reduction in C++, Comput

    C. Studerus, Reduze – Feynman integral reduction in C++, Comput. Phys. Commun. 181 (2010) 1293–1300 [arXiv:0912.2546] [InSPIRE]

    2010 arXiv

  17. [24]

    R. N. Lee, LiteRed 1.4: a powerful tool for reduction of multiloop integrals, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 523 (2014) 012059 [arXiv:1310.1145] [InSPIRE]

    2014 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Maierh¨ ofer, J

    P. Maierh¨ ofer, J. Usovitsch, and P. Uwer,Kira—A Feynman integral reduction program, Comput. Phys. Commun. 230 (2018) 99–112 [ arXiv:1705.05610] [InSPIRE]

    2018 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Peraro, FiniteFlow: multivariate functional 6 reconstruction using finite fields and dataflow graphs , JHEP 07 (2019) 031 [ arXiv:1905.08019] [InSPIRE]

    T. Peraro, FiniteFlow: multivariate functional 6 reconstruction using finite fields and dataflow graphs , JHEP 07 (2019) 031 [ arXiv:1905.08019] [InSPIRE]

    2019 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Klappert, F

    J. Klappert, F. Lange, P. Maierh¨ ofer, and J. Usovitsch, Integral reduction with Kira 2.0 and finite field methods , Comput. Phys. Commun. 266 (2021) 108024 [arXiv:2008.06494] [InSPIRE]

    2021 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Z. Wu, J. Boehm, R. Ma, H. Xu, and Y. Zhang, NeatIBP 1.0, a package generating small-size integration-by-parts relations for Feynman integrals, Comput. Phys. Commun. 295 (2024) 108999 [arXiv:2305.08783] [InSPIRE]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [29]

    X. Guan, X. Liu, Y.-Q. Ma, and W.-H. Wu, Blade: A package for block-triangular form improved Feynman integrals decomposition, [arXiv:2405.14621] [InSPIRE]

    arXiv

  23. [30]

    Binoth and G

    T. Binoth and G. Heinrich, An automatized algorithm to compute infrared divergent multiloop integrals , Nucl. Phys. B 585 (2000) 741–759 [ hep-ph/0004013] [InSPIRE]

    2000 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Heinrich, Sector Decomposition, Int

    G. Heinrich, Sector Decomposition, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 23 (2008) 1457–1486 [ arXiv:0803.4177] [InSPIRE]

    2008 arXiv

  25. [32]

    V. A. Smirnov, Analytical result for dimensionally regularized massless on shell double box , Phys. Lett. B 460 (1999) 397–404 [ hep-ph/9905323] [InSPIRE]

    1999 arXiv

  26. [33]

    A. V. Kotikov, Differential equations method: New technique for massive Feynman diagrams calculation , Phys. Lett. B 254 (1991) 158–164 [ InSPIRE]

    1991

  27. [34]

    Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon, and D. A. Kosower, Dimensionally regulated one loop integrals, Phys. Lett. B 302 (1993) 299–308 [hep-ph/9212308] [InSPIRE]. [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 318, 649 (1993)]

    1993 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Remiddi, Differential equations for Feynman graph amplitudes, Nuovo Cim

    E. Remiddi, Differential equations for Feynman graph amplitudes, Nuovo Cim. A 110 (1997) 1435–1452 [hep-th/9711188] [InSPIRE]

    1997 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Gehrmann and E

    T. Gehrmann and E. Remiddi, Differential equations for two-loop four-point functions , Nucl. Phys. B 580 (2000) 485–518 [hep-ph/9912329] [InSPIRE]

    2000 arXiv

  30. [37]

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

    2013 arXiv

  31. [38]

    R. N. Lee, Reducing differential equations for multiloop master integrals, JHEP 04 (2015) 108 [arXiv:1411.0911] [InSPIRE]

    2015 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Adams, E

    L. Adams, E. Chaubey, and S. Weinzierl, Simplifying Differential Equations for Multiscale Feynman Integrals beyond Multiple Polylogarithms , Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 (2017) 141602 [ arXiv:1702.04279] [InSPIRE]

    2017 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Liu, Y.-Q

    X. Liu, Y.-Q. Ma, and C.-Y. Wang, A Systematic and Efficient Method to Compute Multi-loop Master Integrals, Phys. Lett. B 779 (2018) 353–357 [arXiv:1711.09572] [InSPIRE]

    2018 arXiv

  34. [42]

    P. A. Baikov, A Practical criterion of irreducibility of multi-loop Feynman integrals, Phys. Lett. B 634 (2006) 325–329 [hep-ph/0507053] [InSPIRE]

    2006 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Liu and Y.-Q

    X. Liu and Y.-Q. Ma, Determining arbitrary Feynman integrals by vacuum integrals , Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 071501 [arXiv:1801.10523] [InSPIRE]

    2019 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Duplancic and B

    G. Duplancic and B. Nizic, Reduction method for dimensionally regulated one loop N point Feynman integrals, Eur. Phys. J. C 35 (2004) 105–118 [hep-ph/0303184] [InSPIRE]

    2004 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Huang, D.-S

    R.-J. Huang, D.-S. Jian, Y.-Q. Ma, D.-M. Mu, and W.-H. Wu, Efficient Computation of One-Loop Feynman Integrals and Fixed-Branch Integrals to High Orders in ϵ, [arXiv:2412.xxxxx]

  38. [46]

    Liu and Y.-Q

    X. Liu and Y.-Q. Ma, AMFlow: A Mathematica package for Feynman integrals computation via auxiliary mass flow, Comput. Phys. Commun. 283 (2023) 108565 [arXiv:2201.11669] [InSPIRE]

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Mizera, Scattering Amplitudes from Intersection Theory, Phys

    S. Mizera, Scattering Amplitudes from Intersection Theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) 141602 [arXiv:1711.00469] [InSPIRE]

    2018 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Mastrolia and S

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

    2019 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Frellesvig, F

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

    2019 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Frellesvig, F

    H. Frellesvig, F. Gasparotto, M. K. Mandal, P. Mastrolia, L. Mattiazzi, and S. Mizera, Vector Space of Feynman Integrals and Multivariate Intersection Numbers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (2019) 201602 [arXiv:1907.02000] [InSPIRE]

    2019 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Mizera and A

    S. Mizera and A. Pokraka, From Infinity to Four Dimensions: Higher Residue Pairings and Feynman Integrals, JHEP 02 (2020) 159 [ arXiv:1910.11852] [InSPIRE]

    2020 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Mizera, Status of Intersection Theory and Feynman Integrals, PoS MA2019 (2019) 016 [ arXiv:2002.10476] [InSPIRE]

    S. Mizera, Status of Intersection Theory and Feynman Integrals, PoS MA2019 (2019) 016 [ arXiv:2002.10476] [InSPIRE]

    2019 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Frellesvig, F

    H. Frellesvig, F. Gasparotto, S. Laporta, M. K. Mandal, P. Mastrolia, L. Mattiazzi, and S. Mizera, Decomposition of Feynman Integrals by Multivariate Intersection Numbers, JHEP 03 (2021) 027 [arXiv:2008.04823] [InSPIRE]

    2021 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Caron-Huot and A

    S. Caron-Huot and A. Pokraka, Duals of Feynman integrals. Part I. Differential equations , JHEP 12 (2021) 045 [ arXiv:2104.06898] [InSPIRE]

    2021 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Caron-Huot and A

    S. Caron-Huot and A. Pokraka, Duals of Feynman Integrals. Part II. Generalized unitarity , JHEP 04 (2022) 078 [ arXiv:2112.00055] [InSPIRE]

    2022 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Chestnov, F

    V. Chestnov, F. Gasparotto, M. K. Mandal, P. Mastrolia, S. J. Matsubara-Heo, H. J. Munch, and N. Takayama, Macaulay matrix for Feynman integrals: linear relations and intersection numbers , JHEP 09 (2022) 187 [ arXiv:2204.12983] [InSPIRE]

    2022 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Fontana and T

    G. Fontana and T. Peraro, Reduction to master integrals via intersection numbers and polynomial expansions , JHEP 08 (2023) 175 [ arXiv:2304.14336] [InSPIRE]

    2023 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Brunello, V

    G. Brunello, V. Chestnov, G. Crisanti, H. Frellesvig, M. K. Mandal, and P. Mastrolia, Intersection numbers, polynomial division and relative cohomology , JHEP 09 (2024) 015 [ arXiv:2401.01897] [InSPIRE]

    2024 arXiv

  51. [59]

    M. Lu, Z. Wang, and L. L. Yang, Intersection theory, relative cohomology and the Feynman parametrization , [arXiv:2411.05226] [InSPIRE]

    arXiv

  52. [60]

    Liu and Y.-Q

    X. Liu and Y.-Q. Ma, Multiloop corrections for collider processes using auxiliary mass flow , Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) L051503 [ arXiv:2107.01864] [InSPIRE]

    2022 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Liu and Y.-Q

    Z.-F. Liu and Y.-Q. Ma, Determining Feynman Integrals with Only Input from Linear Algebra , Phys. Rev. Lett. 129 (2022) 222001 [ arXiv:2201.11637] [InSPIRE]. 7 Supplementary Material Derivation of IBP for FBIs. — When dealing with an integral that has a delta function within i...

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.