Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 95 references

A geometric rule on the Borel plane — the South-East rule — determines which saddles contribute to multidimensional oscillatory integrals, without solving downward-flow differential equations.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

A proposed "South-East rule" reads the directions of edges in a Borel-plane adjacency graph of critical values to decide, without steepest-descent flow computations, which complex and real saddles contribute to multidimensional oscillatory integrals.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-02 challenge →

load-bearing objection A genuinely new geometric shortcut for identifying relevant saddles in multidimensional oscillatory integrals, but it is a demonstrated proposal rather than a theorem and the algorithm's initialization has a real gap. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2606.28271 v2 pith:SJO57Z6E submitted 2026-06-26 math-ph gr-qchep-thmath.CAmath.MP

Which Saddles Contribute? The South-East Rule for Multidimensional Integrals

In\^es Aniceto , Job Feldbrugge , Christopher J. Howls This is my paper
classification math-ph gr-qchep-thmath.CAmath.MP MSC 41A6030E15
keywords South-East rulePicard-Lefschetz theoryBorel planeadjacency graphresurgenceoscillatory integralssaddle-point methodasymptotic expansion
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 sets out to answer a long-standing question in asymptotic analysis: for an oscillatory integral over R^d, which saddle points — real and complex — actually contribute to the expansion as k→∞? Its answer is a combinatorial-geometric algorithm, the South-East rule, that reads relevance off the arrangement of critical values in the Borel plane and the adjacency graph of the saddles. The rule tracks how the integration cycle changes as the phase of k is rotated and, when a south-east edge of the adjacency graph becomes horizontal, updates the intersection number of the lower saddle. This removes the need to solve the downward-flow partial differential equation that Picard-Lefschetz theory normally requires, and applies to bounded and unbounded exponentials (the latter via a regulator). If correct, it turns the relevance problem in any finite dimension into a finite bookkeeping procedure and gives a systematic route to identifying instantons in real-time path integrals.

Core claim

The authors claim that the intersection numbers n_j in the Picard-Lefschetz representation of the integral can be computed as follows. Start from the rotated integral at θ=π/2, where (for f bounded below) only real critical points are relevant and set their weights to 1. Then rotate back to θ=0; every adjacency-graph edge pointing from north-west to south-east, ordered by decreasing slope, corresponds to a Stokes transition that occurs exactly when that edge becomes horizontal. If the north-west endpoint is currently relevant, the south-east endpoint's weight is updated by n_k ← n_k + n_j K_jk. After all edges are processed, the saddles with non-zero weight are exactly the relevant ones. The

What carries the argument

The machinery has three ingredients: (1) the critical values t_j = -i f(x_j) plotted as branch-point singularities in the complex Borel plane; (2) the adjacency graph whose vertices are these images and whose edges, labelled by Stokes constants K_jk, record which branch points are visible to each other on the same Riemann sheet; and (3) the South-East rule, which processes only edges whose direction lies in the south-east quadrant, in order of decreasing slope, updating weights at the moment the edge becomes horizontal during a rotation of the integration contour. This converts the analytic data of the asymptotic series into a finite directed bookkeeping problem.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that, during the rotation back from θ=π/2 to θ=0, relevance changes occur exactly when a south-east edge of the fixed adjacency graph becomes horizontal, in slope order, and that the adjacency graph does not change through higher-order Stokes phenomena — a premise the paper illustrates but does not prove.

What would settle it

Construct a two-dimensional integral whose adjacency graph contains a chain t1 → t2 → t3 where t2 is a complex saddle that becomes relevant only because t1 turns it on, and t3 relevant only because t2 turns it on; compute the exact Picard-Lefschetz weights by numerically solving the downward-flow PDE for d=2 or by direct deformation, and compare with the South-East rule output. A discrepancy in any weight would show the rule misses or overcounts in the chain case.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Provides a dimension-independent method to identify relevant saddles, avoiding integration of the downward-flow PDE, which becomes intractable for d>2.
  • Gives a finite algorithm to compute Picard-Lefschetz intersection numbers n_j from adjacency alone, completing the earlier hyperasymptotic framework that assumed relevance known a priori.
  • For real-time path integrals, it offers a systematic way to find instanton contributions and a consistent smooth Wick-rotation prescription when the potential is bounded below.
  • For unbounded potentials, the regulated Airy example shows analytic continuation requires deforming the integration contour as well as the integrand, clarifying why naive Euclidean path integrals can diverge.
  • Combined with Borel-Padé resummation, it yields accurate numerical values of high-dimensional oscillatory integrals without direct numerical integration.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The present worked examples all have the property that a complex saddle never turns on another complex saddle; the update rule allows such chains, so a natural stress test is a configuration where relevance propagates through an intermediate complex saddle — if the rule fails there, its bookkeeping premise needs an additional clause.
  • The algorithm assumes the adjacency graph itself is fixed during the rotation; the paper notes adjacency can change through higher-order Stokes phenomena, so a robust implementation may need to recompute the graph at intermediate angles.
  • The geometric picture suggests the rule could be reinterpreted as counting directed paths in the south-east subgraph of the adjacency graph; such a reformulation would make the algorithm transparently algebraic and may suggest topological proofs.
  • For unbounded f, the regulator introduces auxiliary saddles at infinity; the order of limits (regulator removed vs. rotation) is an assumption that could be tested on a family of integrals with known exact answers.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an algorithm ('South-East rule') to identify which critical points of a multidimensional oscillatory integral ∫ e^{ik f(x)} dx contribute to its asymptotic expansion without solving the downward-flow PDE (2). The idea is to map critical points to branch points in the Borel plane t = -i f(x), encode their Riemann-sheet connections in an adjacency graph with Stokes constants K_jk, and rotate the phase θ from π/2 back to 0, updating relevance weights n_k ← n_k + n_j K_jk whenever a South-East edge becomes horizontal. The algorithm is demonstrated on the Pearcey, lens, swallowtail, and hyperbolic umbilic integrals, and used to produce resummed asymptotic approximations of the hyperbolic integral. The paper also discusses implications for Wick rotations and path integrals.

Significance. If correct, the rule would provide a genuinely dimension-independent alternative to Picard-Lefschetz flow computations and would be useful in asymptotics and path-integral applications. The paper has clear strengths: the Borel-plane adjacency formalism is explained carefully; Stokes constants are computed independently via Borel-Padé rather than fitted; and Fig. 18 is a predictive check in which the relevant complex saddle is identified before comparison. However, the central algorithm as stated has a logical gap concerning real-real adjacencies, and the general bookkeeping principle is not proven. The evidence is mostly one-dimensional plus one reduced d=2 example, so the strong claims in the abstract are not yet fully supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [Algorithm 1, Steps 2-3; §VI.C] The algorithm is not well-defined for multiple real critical points. Step 2 sets n_j = 1 for every real critical point and n_j = 0 for complex points, claiming this corresponds to Ψ_{θ=π/2}. Step 3 then processes every South-East edge with slope in [-π/2,0] (Eq. 45), including vertical edges between two real critical points. A vertical edge between real critical points has slope -π/2 and is horizontal exactly at the initial angle θ=π/2; since both endpoints are initialized as relevant, Step 3 immediately gives n_k ← n_k + n_j K_jk. The paper's own region 1 of the hyperbolic umbilic (§VI.C, Fig. 16) has two adjacent real critical points 1 and 2, so K_12 ≠ 0; applying Step 3 would change the weights away from (1,1). No example runs Algorithm 1 on such a configuration, and no alternative prescription for vertical real-real edges or for the correct θ=π/2 initial weights is given. This affect
  2. [§V.A, §III.C, §VII] The derivation assumes that (i) the Riemann sheet structure of the Borel-plane Jacobian is completely captured by the adjacency graph, and (ii) during rotation from θ=π/2 to θ=0, relevance changes occur exactly when a South-East edge becomes horizontal, in slope order, with only the lower-right endpoint updated. No proof or precise statement of hypotheses is provided. The paper itself concedes in Section VII that adjacency relations may change as a function of ϑ via higher-order Stokes phenomena, while Algorithm 1 uses a fixed graph. Without conditions excluding such phenomena, or a proof that they do not affect the update order, the claimed dimension-independent criterion is not established. The authors should state a precise theorem and prove it for a general class, or at least for d=1 and d=2 under explicit assumptions.
  3. [§VI.C, Eq. (64), Fig. 18] The demonstration does not exercise the full d-dimensional rule. The only d=2 example, the hyperbolic umbilic, is reduced to a one-dimensional integral representation (Eq. 64) for the adjacency analysis, and the numerical validation in Fig. 18 is a single visual comparison without error bars or a quantitative discrepancy measure. The paper also states at the opening of §VI that in all examples a complex critical point that becomes relevant does not turn on further complex critical points, so the general update rule (44) is never tested in the chain case. Thus the key bookkeeping assumption remains untested in exactly the situation where the algorithm is most nontrivial.
  4. [§V.B, Eq. (48)] The extension to unbounded f replaces f by f + r_L and defines Ψ_θ as the L→∞ limit, with the claim that dominated convergence and the vanishing of auxiliary critical points justify the procedure. The original integral is only conditionally convergent, so dominated convergence does not apply as stated, and the L→∞ limit does not trivially commute with the Picard-Lefschetz decomposition. The auxiliary critical points may turn on or off Stokes constants before moving to infinity. This is load-bearing for the claimed inclusion of unbounded f, as in the swallowtail example (59). A precise limiting argument, or at least an explicit check that the algorithm's output stabilizes as L→∞, is required.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§IV, Eq. (41); Algorithm 1] The sign conventions for the Stokes constants K_jk and for the initial real-saddle weights n_j are not specified. Step 2 says 'often set to 1', but the algorithm is supposed to output signed intersection numbers; an orientation rule is needed.
  2. [Fig. 18] The numerical comparison would be more convincing with error bars or a quantitative residual, especially since the claim is that including the complex saddle gives 'excellent improvement' for small |k|.
  3. [Throughout] There are several minor typographical issues, for example 'evalaution' in the caption of Fig. 3 and inconsistent accents in 'Borel-Pad´e'. These do not affect the mathematics.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; the South-East rule is an independent geometric algorithm. Its unproven edge cases and real-real initialization are correctness/rigor risks, not circular reductions.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is: (i) Picard–Lefschetz representation with intersection numbers n_j; (ii) reduction to the Borel plane where adjacency is determined by Riemann-sheet visibility; (iii) independent extraction of Stokes constants K_jk from Borel–Padé residues of transseries coefficients (Section IV); (iv) rotation from θ=π/2 back to θ=0 with updates n_k ← n_k + n_j K_jk when a South-East edge becomes horizontal. None of these steps defines the target relevance vector n_j(0) in terms of itself. The θ=π/2 initialization n_j=1 for real critical points is not a fitted input: it is justified by Picard–Lefschetz theory (Section II: 'It follows that the real critical points are always relevant') and is not obtained from the adjacency data used to update complex points. The Stokes constants entering Step 3 are computed from large-order/Borel–Padé data independent of the unknown n_j, and the examples in Section VI are checked against known Picard–Lefschetz deformations and direct numerical comparison (Section VI.C, fig. 18, 'excellent improvement in agreement' when the predicted complex saddle is included). Thus the central claim does not reduce to its inputs. The paper's own warnings — 'the adjacency relations may change as a function of ϑ via higher-order Stokes phenomena' (Section VII) and 'our present methods are inconclusive' (Section V.B) — as well as the unaddressed real-real vertical-edge case in Algorithm 1, are correctness/rigor limitations rather than circular reductions. Self-citations to [23,26,27] provide background machinery, but adjacency is recomputed here via Borel–Padé methods and supported by independent numerical checks, so the self-citations are not load-bearing in a circular sense.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the Picard-Lefschetz definition of relevance, the resurgence/Stokes structure inherited mainly from the authors' own prior work, the new (unproven) South-East bookkeeping rule, and an asserted regulator limit for unbounded phases. No parameters are fitted to the target relevance: the Stokes constants and sector series are computed independently of the sought intersection numbers. The heaviest implicit load is that the fixed adjacency graph correctly predicts all relevance-changing events during the θ-rotation. No new physical entities are postulated; the regulator's auxiliary critical points are computational scaffolding.

free parameters (3)
  • Initial real-saddle weights n_j = ±1 ("often set to 1")
    Algorithm 1 Step 2 assigns weights to all real critical points at θ=π/2; the correct weight of non-minimal real saddles in the rotated Laplace-type integral is asserted, not analyzed (§V.A).
  • Regulator r_L(x) for unbounded f = e.g. x^4/L for the Airy example
    Needed to make f bounded below; the paper asserts regulator-independence of the L→∞ limit but gives no proof here (§V.B).
  • Padé order M and conformal map in Stokes-constant extraction = M = 30 shown in Fig. 4
    Numerical parameters in §IV controlling the reliability of adjacency detection; not physical, and no convergence criteria are given.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Oscillatory integrals are defined by analyticity (smooth analytic regulators), making the Picard-Lefschetz deformation exact.
    §II: 'we define the conditionally convergent integral using analyticity ... for more details, see [52]'. The entire notion of relevance as intersection numbers rests on this choice.
  • domain assumption All critical points are isolated and non-degenerate (∇f = 0, det Hf ≠ 0); critical points at infinite f are excluded.
    §II eq. (3); degenerate and infinity cases are deferred to future work, so the rule is not claimed there.
  • domain assumption The resurgence relation (15) with integer Stokes constants holds for multidimensional integrals, and adjacency is extractable from sector series.
    §IV relies on [23,26,36] (mostly the same authors) and Borel-Padé; the d>1 Stokes-constant framework comes from [26], which itself assumed relevant points known a priori.
  • ad hoc to paper The Riemann sheet structure of the Borel-plane Jacobian is fully captured by the adjacency graph.
    §III.C: 'the geometry of the Riemann sheet structure is completely captured by the adjacency relations'. The paper's own §VI.C shows naive geometric visibility can over-predict in d>1 (symmetric pairs cancel to K=0), so the operative definition is computed Stokes constants, not visibility.
  • ad hoc to paper For bounded-below f, at θ=π/2 the relevant points are exactly the real critical points with weights ±1, and rotating back to θ=0, only slope-ordered South-East edges transfer weight n_k ← n_k + n_j K_jk.
    This is Algorithm 1 (§V.A), the new rule itself, justified heuristically by the fig. 6 rotation picture; no proof is given, and §VII concedes adjacency may change with ϑ via higher-order Stokes phenomena.
  • ad hoc to paper The regulator limit L→∞ commutes with the thimble deformation; auxiliary critical points vanish in the limit.
    §V.B eqs. (48)-(49) and the Airy example; asserted via dominated convergence with a citation to [52], not demonstrated.

reviewed 2026-08-02 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Which Saddles Contribute? The South-East Rule for Multidimensional Integrals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SJO57Z6E

@misc{pith2026260628271,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Which Saddles Contribute? The South-East Rule for Multidimensional Integrals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SJO57Z6E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.28271}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

In this paper, we introduce and demonstrate a simple geometric algorithm to determine which critical points, both complex as well as real, contribute to the asymptotic evaluation of multiple integrals with exponential integrands of the form $e^{ikf(\boldsymbol{x})}$ over $\mathbb R^d$, for finite $d\ge 1$ and $f$ is analytic. In so doing, the algorithm removes the need to compute the flows of $-\text{Re} (i\nabla f)$ in $\mathbb C^d$ that is required to identify such relevant critical points in Picard-Lefschetz approaches to the derivation of such asymptotic expansions. By contrast, our algorithm relies on the combination of three simple features: the values of $f$ at all the critical points plotted in the complex Borel plane, the concept of adjacency between such points derived from algebraic resurgence/hyperasymptotic approaches and the new result here of a geometric "South-East" rule. The algorithm incorporates functions $f$ that remain bounded or unbounded on $\mathbb R^d$. We illustrate this new approach with both pedagogical and advanced examples, and draw conclusions as to its importance for resolving issues associated with Wick rotations and its implications for path integrals. This is a significant step towards a systematic way of identifying instanton contributions in real-time path integrals.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.28271 by Christopher J. Howls, In\^es Aniceto, Job Feldbrugge.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Pearcey integral for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: The analytic continuation of the Pearcey integral Ψ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: The analytic continuation of the Pearcey integral Ψ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Superposition of the singularity structure of the Borel planes for each of the 3 critical points of the Pearcey [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: A sketch of the steepest descent manifold [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: A sketch of the Borel plane for a constructed example, for illustrative purposes, for different angles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: This is the Pearcey integral for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: The analytic continuation of Airy function at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: The regulated Airy function for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: The unfolding of the cusp caustic, with the fold caustic (the red curve) and the Stokes line (the green [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: The adjacency graph of the Pearcey integral associated with the unfolding of the cusp catastrophe in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: The Picard-Lefschetz deformation of the one-dimensional double Lorentzian lens model in the complex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: The unfolding of the swallowtail caustic for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: The regulated swallowtail diffraction integral ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15: The unfolding of the hyperbolic umbilic caustic, with the fold caustic (the red curve) and the Stokes line [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16: The adjacency graph (the red graph) in the complex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17: Borel-Pad´e prediction of the adjacency graph in the complex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18: The hyperbolic integral and the relevance of complex critical points. Left: The hyperbolic integral in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_18.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

95 extracted references · 24 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Schneider, J

    P. Schneider, J. Ehlers, and E. E. Falco,Gravitational Lenses(1992)

    1992

  2. [2]

    Feldbrugge, U.-L

    J. Feldbrugge, U.-L. Pen, and N. Turok, Annals of Physics451, 169255 (2023)

    2023

  3. [3]

    Bonga, J

    B. Bonga, J. Feldbrugge, and A. R. Metidieri, Phys. Rev. D111, 063061 (2025), arXiv:2410.03828 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Feldbrugge and N

    J. Feldbrugge and N. Turok, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2008.01154 (2020), arXiv:2008.01154 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  5. [5]

    Balian, G

    R. Balian, G. Parisi, and A. Voros, Phys. Rev. Lett.41, 1141 (1978)

    1978

  6. [6]

    Sali` eres, B

    P. Sali` eres, B. Carr´ e, L. L. D´ eroff, F. Grasbon, G. G. Paulus, H. Walther, R. Kopold, W. Becker, D. B. Miloˇ sevi´ c, A. Sanpera, and M. Lewenstein, Science292, 902 (2001), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.108836

    doi:10.1126/science.108836 2001

  7. [7]

    Pisanty, M

    E. Pisanty, M. F. Ciappina, and M. Lewenstein, Journal of Physics: Photonics2, 034013 (2020), arXiv:2003.00277 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    D. B. Miloˇ sevi´ c, A. S. Jaˇ sarevi´ c, D. Habibovi´ c, E. Hasovi´ c, A.ˇCerki´ c, and W. Becker, J. Phys. A Math. Theor.57, 393001 (2024)

    2024

  9. [9]

    R. P. Feynman, Reviews of Modern Physics20, 367 (1948)

    1948

  10. [10]

    R. P. Feynman and A. R. Hibbs,Quantum mechanics and path integrals, International series in pure and applied physics (McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1965)

    1965

  11. [11]

    Jones and K

    D. Jones and K. M, Journal of Mathematics and Physics37, 1 (1958)

    1958

  12. [12]

    Bleistein N., Handlesman, Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications27, 434 (1969)

    R. Bleistein N., Handlesman, Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications27, 434 (1969)

    1969

  13. [13]

    Ursell, Math

    F. Ursell, Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc.87, 249 (1980)

    1980

  14. [14]

    M. V. Fedoryuk,Metod perevala(Nauka, Moscow, 1977)

    1977

  15. [15]

    V. A. Vasiliev,Ramified Integrals(Birkh¨ auser, Boston, 1995). 28

    1995

  16. [16]

    V. I. Arnold, A. N. Varchenko, and S. M. Gusein-Zade,Singularities of Differentiable Maps, Volume I(Birkh¨ auser, 1985)

    1985

  17. [17]

    V. I. Arnold, A. N. Varchenko, and S. M. Gusein-Zade,Singularities of Differentiable Maps, Volume II(Birkh¨ auser, 1988)

    1988

  18. [18]

    Wong,Asymptotic Approximations of Integrals(Academic Press, Boston, 1989)

    R. Wong,Asymptotic Approximations of Integrals(Academic Press, Boston, 1989)

    1989

  19. [19]

    Benaissa and C

    A. Benaissa and C. Roger, Compte Rendus de l’Acad ’emie des Sci´ ences333, 17 (2001)

    2001

  20. [20]

    Benaissa and C

    A. Benaissa and C. Roger, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A469(2013), 10.1098/rspa.2013.0109

    arXiv 2013

  21. [21]

    N. G. de Bruijn,Asymptotic Methods in Analysis(North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1958)

    1958

  22. [22]

    E. T. Copson,Asymptotic Expansions, Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics, Vol. 55 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1965)

    1965

  23. [23]

    M. V. Berry and C. J. Howls, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A434, 657 (1991)

    1991

  24. [24]

    Bennett, C

    T. Bennett, C. J. Howls, G. Nemes, and A. B. Olde Daalhuis, SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis50, 2144 (2018)

    2018

  25. [25]

    Pham, Bulletin de la Soci´ et´ e Math´ ematique de France93, 333 (1965)

    F. Pham, Bulletin de la Soci´ et´ e Math´ ematique de France93, 333 (1965)

    1965

  26. [26]

    C. J. Howls, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences453, 2271 (1997), https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rspa/article-pdf/453/1966/2271/633855/rspa.1997.0122.pdf

    arXiv 1997

  27. [27]

    Delabaere and C

    E. Delabaere and C. J. Howls, Duke Mathematical Journal112, 199 (2002)

    2002

  28. [28]

    Feldbrugge, J.-L

    J. Feldbrugge, J.-L. Lehners, and N. Turok, Phys. Rev. D95, 103508 (2017), arXiv:1703.02076 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  29. [29]

    F. J. Dyson, Physical Review85, 631 (1952)

    1952

  30. [30]

    Dingle,Asymptotic Expansions: Their Derivation and Interpretation(Academic Press, 1973)

    R. Dingle,Asymptotic Expansions: Their Derivation and Interpretation(Academic Press, 1973)

    1973

  31. [31]

    ´Ecalle,Les Fonctions R´ esurgentes(Publications Math´ ematiques d’Orsay, 1981) vol

    J. ´Ecalle,Les Fonctions R´ esurgentes(Publications Math´ ematiques d’Orsay, 1981) vol. 1: 81-05, Vol. 2: 81-06, Vol. 3: 85-05 (published in 1981 and 1985)

    1981

  32. [32]

    M. V. Berry and C. J. Howls, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A430, 653 (1990)

    1990

  33. [33]

    ´Ecalle, inBifurcations and periodic orbits of vector fields(Springer, 1993) pp

    J. ´Ecalle, inBifurcations and periodic orbits of vector fields(Springer, 1993) pp. 75–184

    1993

  34. [34]

    A. O. Daalhuis, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics76, 255 (1996)

    1996

  35. [35]

    A. O. Daalhuis, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics89, 87 (1998)

    1998

  36. [36]

    Daalhuis, Research Institute for Mathematical Sciences, Kyoto University1088, 68 (1999)

    A. Daalhuis, Research Institute for Mathematical Sciences, Kyoto University1088, 68 (1999)

    1999

  37. [37]

    C. J. Howls, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical and Physical Sciences439, 373 (1992)

    1992

  38. [38]

    Kaminski, Methods and Applications of Analysis1, 44 (1994)

    D. Kaminski, Methods and Applications of Analysis1, 44 (1994)

    1994

  39. [39]

    Weber, J

    A. Weber, J. Feldbrugge, and E. Pisanty, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2510.12545 (2025), arXiv:2510.12545 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    Shoji and K

    Y. Shoji and K. Trailovi´ c, Physics Letters B873, 140198 (2026), arXiv:2510.06334 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2026

  41. [41]

    A. B. O. Daalhuis, Proceedings: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences454, 1 (1998)

    1998

  42. [42]

    A. B. O. Daalhuis, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences454, 1 (1998), https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rspa/article-pdf/454/1968/1/633921/rspa.1998.0145.pdf

    arXiv 1998

  43. [43]

    Aniceto, B

    I. Aniceto, B. Meiring, J. Jankowski, and M. Spali´ nski, JHEP02, 073 (2019), arXiv:1810.07130 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  44. [44]

    Borel-pad´ e exponential asymptotics for the discrete nonlinear schr¨ odinger model with next-to-nearest neighbour interactions,

    C. J. Lustri, I. Aniceto, and P. G. Kevrekidis, “Borel-pad´ e exponential asymptotics for the discrete nonlinear schr¨ odinger model with next-to-nearest neighbour interactions,” (2025), arXiv:2506.21120 [nlin.PS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    Costin and G

    O. Costin and G. V. Dunne, J. Phys. A52, 445205 (2019), arXiv:1904.11593 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  46. [46]

    Costin and G

    O. Costin and G. V. Dunne, The European Physical Journal Special Topics230, 2679 (2021)

    2021

  47. [47]

    Serone, G

    M. Serone, G. Spada, and G. Villadoro, Journal of High Energy Physics2017, 56 (2017), arXiv:1702.04148 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  48. [48]

    R. C. Assier, A. V. Shanin, and A. I. Korolkov, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2204.02729 (2022), arXiv:2204.02729 [math.AP]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  49. [49]

    A. V. Shanin, A. I. Korolkov, N. M. Artemov, and R. C. Assier, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2412.02481 (2024), arXiv:2412.02481 [math-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  50. [50]

    Kaminski and R

    D. Kaminski and R. B. Paris, SIAM Review39, 503 (1997)

    1997

  51. [51]

    Kaminski and R

    D. Kaminski and R. B. Paris, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences453, 2695 (1997)

    1997

  52. [52]

    Feldbrugge and N

    J. Feldbrugge and N. Turok, Annals of Physics454, 169315 (2023), arXiv:2207.12798 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  53. [53]

    Pham,Singularities of integrals: Homology, hyperfunctions and microlocal analysis, Universitext (Springer Science & Business Media, 2011)

    F. Pham,Singularities of integrals: Homology, hyperfunctions and microlocal analysis, Universitext (Springer Science & Business Media, 2011)

    2011

  54. [54]

    Howls, P

    C. Howls, P. Langman, and A. Olde Daalhuis, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences460, 2285 (2004)

    2004

  55. [55]

    §36.2 definitions and basic properties,

    NIST Digital Library of Mathematical Functions, “§36.2 definitions and basic properties,”https://dlmf.nist.gov/36.2 (2025), equation 36.2.10, Release 1.2.4 of 2025-03-15

    2025

  56. [56]

    Aniceto, G

    I. Aniceto, G. Basar, and R. Schiappa, Phys. Rept.809, 1 (2019), arXiv:1802.10441 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  57. [57]

    Nemes, Constr

    G. Nemes, Constr. Approx.38, 471–487 (2013)

    2013

  58. [58]

    Feldbrugge, S

    J. Feldbrugge, S. Crew, and U.-L. Pen, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2602.21493 (2026), arXiv:2602.21493 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  59. [59]

    D. S. Gaunt and A. J. Gutmann, Physics Reports3, 181 (1974)

    1974

  60. [60]

    Henrici,Applied and Computational Complex Analysis, Vol

    P. Henrici,Applied and Computational Complex Analysis, Vol. 1 (Wiley, New York, 1977)

    1977

  61. [61]

    A. B. Olde Daalhuis and F. W. J. Olver, Methods and Applications of Analysis2, 173 (1995)

    1995

  62. [62]

    Introduction to 1-summability and resurgence,

    D. Sauzin, “Introduction to 1-summability and resurgence,” (2014), arXiv:1405.0356 [math.DS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  63. [63]

    Voros, Annales de l’I.H.P

    A. Voros, Annales de l’I.H.P. Physique th´ eorique39, 211 (1983)

    1983

  64. [64]

    U. D. Jentschura and G. Soff, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.34, 1451 (2001)

    2001

  65. [65]

    Caliceti, M

    E. Caliceti, M. Meyer-Hermann, P. Ribeca, A. Surzhykov, and U. D. Jentschura, Phys. Rep.446, 1 (2007)

    2007

  66. [66]

    Pad´ e approximants, encyclopedia of mathematics,

    P. Graves-Morris and G. Baker, “Pad´ e approximants, encyclopedia of mathematics,” (1981)

    1981

  67. [67]

    G. W. Gibbons, S. W. Hawking, and M. J. Perry, Nuclear Physics B138, 141 (1978). 29

    1978

  68. [68]

    S. W. Hawking, inGeneral Relativity: An Einstein centenary survey, edited by S. W. Hawking and W. Israel (1979) pp. 746–789

    1979

  69. [69]

    P. O. Mazur and E. Mottola, Nuclear Physics B341, 187 (1990)

    1990

  70. [70]

    E. Y. Loh, Jr., J. E. Gubernatis, R. T. Scalettar, S. R. White, D. J. Scalapino, and R. L. Sugar, Phys. Rev. B41, 9301 (1990)

    1990

  71. [71]

    T. D. Kieu and C. J. Griffin, Phys. Rev. E49, 3855 (1994), arXiv:hep-lat/9311072 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  72. [72]

    Pan and Z

    G. Pan and Z. Y. Meng, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2204.08777 (2022), arXiv:2204.08777 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  73. [73]

    NIST Digital Library of Mathematical Functions,

    DLMF, “NIST Digital Library of Mathematical Functions,”https://dlmf.nist.gov/, Release 1.2.6 of 2026-03-15, f. W. J. Olver, A. B. Olde Daalhuis, D. W. Lozier, B. I. Schneider, R. F. Boisvert, C. W. Clark, B. R. Miller, B. V. Saunders, H. S. Cohl, and M. A. McClain, eds

    2026

  74. [74]

    M. V. Berry and C. J. Howls, Nonlinearity3, 281 (1990)

    1990

  75. [75]

    G. V. Dunne and M. ¨Unsal, Journal of High Energy Physics2012, 170 (2012), arXiv:1210.2423 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  76. [76]

    Basar, G

    G. Basar, G. V. Dunne, and M. ¨Unsal, Journal of High Energy Physics2017, 87 (2017), arXiv:1701.06572 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  77. [77]

    Mari˜ no and T

    M. Mari˜ no and T. Reis, (2019), 10.1088/1742-5468/ab4802, arXiv:1905.09569 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  78. [78]

    Fujimori, M

    T. Fujimori, M. Honda, S. Kamata, T. Misumi, N. Sakai, and T. Yoda, PTEP2021, 103B04 (2021), arXiv:2103.13654 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  79. [79]

    Bajnok, J

    Z. Bajnok, J. Balog, A. Hegedus, and I. Vona, JHEP09, 001 (2022), arXiv:2204.13365 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  80. [80]

    Schiappa, M

    R. Schiappa, M. Schwick, and N. Tamarin, SciPost Phys.20, 135 (2026), arXiv:2301.05214 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 2, 2026.