Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 55 references

Feynman Diagrams from Conformal Integrals

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 Every momentum-space Feynman integral with massless internal lines is an $L$-fold limit of a conformal integral, so one conformal computation per family yields all of its diagrams exactly.

desk verdict A plausible organizing principle and some exact formulas that pass external checks, but the multi-loop bridge is asserted, not derived, so the classification claim is conditional. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.00101 v1 pith:QDVJFRFW submitted 2024-12-30 hep-th hep-ph

Siddharth G. Prabhu This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thhep-ph
keywords FeynmanintegralsconformalfamiliesladderdiagramsMellin-Barnesdimensionalregularizationposition-spacecorrelatorsmasslesspropagators
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 every momentum-space Feynman integral with massless internal lines, in any spacetime dimension and with arbitrary propagator powers, is an $L$-fold limit of a conformal integral: add one extra internal line to each loop so that the propagator powers in that loop sum to the spacetime dimension $d$, evaluate the conformal member, then collapse the extra lines. If the claim is right, Feynman integrals organize into conformal families, and computing the single conformal integral in a family fixes every other diagram in that family exactly, including off-shell and on-shell cases, with dimensionally regularized answers to all orders in the regulator. The paper demonstrates this by deriving exact answers for the triangle, box, and two-loop kite integrals from known conformal box, pentagon, and double-box results, and by converting known four-point ladder solutions into new three- and two-point ladder answers. A careful reader would care because the result reduces a large class of Feynman-integral computations to a smaller set of better-studied conformal integrals with a systematic classification.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the one-loop conformal-reconstruction identity (2.4), imported from the position-space result (B11): $M_{\Delta_1,\dots,\Delta_n}(\{P_{ij}/(P_{i(n+1)}P_{j(n+1)})\}_n) = \frac{\prod_{i=1}^n P_{i(n+1)}^{-\Delta_i}}{\Gamma(\Delta_{n+1})} M^{\mathrm{cft}}_{\Delta_1,\dots,\Delta_{n+1}}(\{P_{ij}\}_{n+1})$, with the conformal constraint $\sum_i \Delta_i = d$ on each loop. Iterating this identity on every loop builds the $L$-fold limit (3.1), and the Mellin-Barnes representations of contact correlators supply the actual evaluations. This identity is what turns the statement 'compute the conformal member' into 'compute every member of the family,' including prefactors.

What would settle it

Take a one-loop triangle in $d = 4-2\epsilon$ with generic off-shell momenta and propagator powers that do not sum to $d$, and evaluate both sides of (2.4) to a fixed order in $\epsilon$: the left side by direct Schwinger-parameter integration and the right side from the conformal box Mellin-Barnes representation times the stated prefactor. Any disagreement at that order falsifies the foundational identity and with it the $L$-loop construction; a match tests the mechanism at its base.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a position-space identity from the author's earlier work — an $n$-point massless contact correlator equals, up to a prefactor, an $(n+1)$-point conformal contact correlator for arbitrary kinematics — transports to momentum space, where each loop momentum plays the role of a vertex position. At one loop, relation (2.4) equates the general $n$-point loop integral $M_{\Delta_1,\dots,\Delta_n}$ to the conformal $(n+1)$-point integral $M^{\mathrm{cft}}_{\Delta_1,\dots,\Delta_{n+1}}$ whose scaling dimensions satisfy $\sum_i \Delta_i = d$, up to simple factors of momentum invariants. At $L$ loops, adding one extra internal line in each loop produces an $L$-fold limit (3.1), and collapsing lines of the conformal member generates the whole conformal family; knowing the conformal member fixes every other member. The concrete payoffs include the general off-shell triangle as an Appell $F_4$ combination, the off-shell and on-shell box and the two-loop off-shell and on-shell kite as Mellin-Barnes integrals, and the new $L$-loop two-point ladder value $M^{\mathrm{2\text{-}point}}_{L\text{-ladder}} = \frac{(2L)!}{(L!)^2}\,\zeta(2L-1)$ obtained from the known four-point ladder family.

Load-bearing premise

The whole construction rests on one imported premise from the author's earlier work: that the value of a certain $n$-point correlation of massless fields, up to a simple prefactor, equals an $(n+1)$-point conformal version of the same quantity, even when the points are in generic positions. If that equality fails, or breaks when translated from position space to momentum space, the claimed limits do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any $L$-loop Feynman integral with massless internal lines can be obtained as an $L$-fold limit of a conformal integral, so every such diagram sits in a conformal family labelled by one conformal diagram.
  • Computing one conformal integral per family yields exact answers for all diagrams in the family, for general dimension, general propagator powers, and both off-shell and on-shell kinematics, including dimensionally regularized results to all orders in the regulator.
  • Known exact four-point ladder results in four dimensions give the corresponding three-point and two-point ladder answers; in particular, the $L$-loop massless two-point ladder is $\frac{(2L)!}{(L!)^2}\zeta(2L-1)$ and is finite for every $L$.
  • The general off-shell triangle in arbitrary dimension is a closed combination of Appell $F_4$ functions, while the off-shell and on-shell box and two-loop kite have Mellin-Barnes representations that can be expanded to any order in $\epsilon$.
  • The construction applies to planar and non-planar diagrams alike, so it extends the dual-conformal picture familiar from planar supersymmetric gauge theory to general Feynman integrals.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the foundational identity holds, the conformal-family organization suggests a practical workflow the paper does not spell out: tabulate conformal members once, then generate all diagrams in the family by limits, rather than computing each diagram independently.
  • The same mechanism may extend to massive internal lines, which the paper says it will treat elsewhere; a direct test is whether the extra-line insertion can be chosen to preserve the massive propagator structure while keeping each loop's conformal constraint.
  • The equivalence could let techniques developed for conformal correlation functions produce Feynman-integral master integrals, reversing the usual direction in which Feynman integrals feed into conformal data.
  • The paper notes that the number of Mellin integrals needed for an $n$-point contact conformal diagram equals the number of cross ratios; if so, the choice of which conformal completion to use affects computational complexity, and finding the minimal completion is a testable optimization problem.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that every momentum-space Feynman integral with massless internal lines and arbitrary (integer or non-integer) propagator powers can be obtained as a limit of a conformal integral in which each loop separately satisfies a conformal constraint on the sum of scaling dimensions. On the basis of this equivalence, the author organizes Feynman diagrams into 'conformal families' and claims that computing the conformal member of a family suffices to compute all members exactly. The paper gives one-loop relations (2.3)-(2.4), an L-loop generalization in Section III, and then computes several examples: ladder diagrams in four dimensions, the off-shell and on-shell triangle from the conformal box, the off-shell and on-shell box from the conformal pentagon, and the two-loop kite from the conformal double box. The on-shell box result is checked against Tarasov's result [21], and the ladder two-point values are checked against [20]. The central mechanism for multi-loop diagrams, however, is an identity (3.3) that is asserted rather than derived, and several Mellin-Barnes manipulations involve limit interchanges that are not justified.

Significance. If the claimed equivalence is correct, the paper provides a genuinely useful organizational principle: conformal integrals are often more symmetric than generic Feynman integrals, and known results for conformal integrals would automatically yield exact results for whole families of Feynman diagrams. The paper is honest about its checks: the one-loop on-shell box matches Tarasov [21], and the ladder two-point values at three and four loops match Baikov-Chetyrkin [20]. These are nontrivial and give real support to the one-loop framework and to the specific ladder computations. The weakness is that the load-bearing multi-loop identity (3.3) is imported from the author's prior work [10] in the contact case and then extended to internal vertices with no derivation in this paper; the L-loop classification therefore rests on an unproven step. The two-loop kite formula (5.12), which is the only new two-loop result, has no independent check. For these reasons the significance is real but conditional on closing the derivation gap for (3.3) and its L-loop generalization.

major comments (4)
  1. [§III, Eq. (3.3)] Equation (3.3) is the load-bearing step for every multi-loop claim in the paper: it asserts that a half-conformal two-loop diagram equals the fully conformal two-loop diagram up to a prefactor. The text says 'As we did for the contact diagram in §B' and then describes a position-space inversion and translation, but this is not a derivation. The position-space identity (B11) concerns n-point contact correlators, not correlators with internal vertices such as the half-conformal double box. The cited reference [10] is described as establishing contact-correlator identities, so it does not by itself justify (3.3). Because the classification claim 'Computing the conformal integral in each family suffices to compute all the Feynman diagrams in the family exactly' depends directly on (3.3), the paper should either provide a derivation of (3.3) or give an independent check, for example by evaluating both sides of (3.3) numerically for a simple two-loop topology at generic kinematics.
  2. [§III, L-loop classification] The generalization from two loops to L loops is stated in one paragraph: 'The picture at two loops gets naturally generalized to the L-loop case.' No induction or combinatorial proof is given that repeatedly contracting lines of a conformal diagram, one loop at a time, preserves the per-loop conformal constraint, produces the stated prefactors, and generates all members of the family. The subsequent statement that 'Computing this conformal member in each family suffices to determine every other diagram in the family' is therefore not established for L≥3. A formal inductive statement of the relation between an (L−1)-loop diagram and its L-loop conformal completion, with the effect of each contraction on the scaling-dimension sums, is needed to make the classification claim rigorous.
  3. [§V.B, Eqs. (5.10)-(5.12)] The on-shell reduction of the kite integral collapses the q integral and four of the a_i integrations and then performs the p integral to arrive at (5.12). This procedure exchanges an on-shell kinematic limit with multi-fold Mellin-Barnes contour integrals. No justification is given for the interchange, and the presence of poles such as the Γ(−2ε) factor in (5.2) shows that the conformal member can be singular in the limit, making the operation delicate. Since (5.12) is the only new two-loop result and has no independent numerical or analytic check, the derivation is not yet convincing. I ask the author to justify the limit interchange or to provide a check of (5.12), for example by evaluating both sides numerically at generic d or ε and comparing a few terms in an ε expansion.
  4. [§V.A, before Eq. (5.4)] The sentence 'In the limit that all the external momenta are on-shell, we find that only one of the five ratios is non-zero' is not justified and, as written, is unclear. The five ratios in (5.3) are not independent, and the statement that only one is non-zero is stronger than 'only one independent ratio remains.' The derivation of the on-shell box formula (5.4) depends on this reduction. The final result matches [21], which suggests the intended claim is correct under a specific convention, but the paper should state the convention explicitly and prove which ratios vanish and which remain, or else revise the sentence to describe the number of independent ratios.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§IV, Eq. (4.7)] The formula (4.7) is said to give the 'arbitrary loop contribution' to the massless two-point function, but for L=1 it evaluates to 2ζ(1), which is not finite. Please specify that the formula holds for L≥2, or clarify the range of validity.
  2. [§V.B, Eqs. (5.5) and (5.10)] The notation 'sq5' appears in (5.5) and (5.10) and is not defined; it appears to be a typo for s_5^q. Please define all Mellin variables and exponents before use.
  3. [§II, Eqs. (2.4) and (3.3)] The arguments on the left-hand sides of (2.4) and (3.3) are written as sets of ratios such as {Pij/(Pi(n+1)Pj(n+1))}^{(n)}, but the notation for evaluating a function at rescaled invariants is not formally defined. Please define this notation in Appendix A.
  4. [§II] The paper uses the term 'conformal integral' in a technical sense (per-loop conformal constraint), but it is not given a formal definition in the main text. A short definition near the beginning of Section II would improve readability.
  5. [Appendix B, Eq. (B11)] The identity (B11) is central to the paper, but it is quoted from [10] without a derivation or a precise statement of the theorem in [10] that implies it. Since [10] is the author's own prior work, including a self-contained statement (or an appendix reproducing the key steps) would make the present paper easier to evaluate.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The central Feynman-to-conformal equivalence is imported from the author's own prior paper [10] and extended to all loops by an unproven analogy; external checks on special diagrams keep the paper from being fully self-referential.

  1. self citation load bearing [§II, Eqs. (2.3)–(2.4); Appendix B, Eq. (B11)]
    "In particular, in [10], we showed that the n-point contact correlator of massless fields can be expressed as a conformal integral with ( n + 1)-points in the limit that the (n+1)th point is taken to infinity. This translates to the result that in momentum space, any 1-loop diagram with n internal massless fields can be written as a conformal integral."

    The paper's central equivalence (2.4) is not derived here; it is the position-space identity (B11) from the author's own [10] with momentum invariants substituted for position invariants. The abstract's claim that 'computing the conformal integral in each family suffices to compute all the Feynman diagrams in the family exactly' is therefore a restatement of that self-cited result, not an independent derivation. Since [10] is not machine-checked or code-reproduced in the present work, the citation is load-bearing and unverified. External matches for special diagrams provide some independent support, but the general one-loop bridge is imported verbatim from the author's prior paper.

  2. self citation load bearing [§III, Eq. (3.3) and surrounding text]
    "As we did for the contact diagram in §B, we move to position space, perform an inversion and translation by xn+2, and convert back into momentum space to see [Eq. (3.3)]."

    This is the only derivation offered for the two-loop bridge between the half-conformal and fully conformal diagrams, and the L-loop generalization is asserted immediately thereafter ('Contracting more lines ... provides all other members of this family'). No proof of the multi-loop analogue is given; the reference to §B points back to the self-cited contact-diagram identity (B11) from [10]. Thus the all-loop classification claim is supported by an unverified self-citation extended by analogy, rather than by an independent argument. This is a load-bearing gap in the derivation chain, though it is closer to an omitted proof than to a definitional circle.

full rationale

The derivation chain has two load-bearing links. First, the one-loop equivalence (2.3)/(2.4) is precisely the position-space identity (B11) of the author's own prior paper [10] with variables renamed; the present paper gives no independent derivation of (B11). Second, the multi-loop generalization (3.3) is asserted by analogy ('as we did for the contact diagram in §B') and underlies the all-loop classification; no proof or independent numerical check of this multi-loop step is supplied. These self-citations are not machine-checked or externally verified, so they raise the circularity/load-bearing score. However, the paper is not merely repackaging a fit: it uses conformal-integral evaluations by other groups, and several derived formulas are checked against external results—Davydychev–Usyukina [16,17] for ladders, Tarasov [21] for the on-shell box, and Baikov–Chetyrkin [20] for two-point zeta values. The on-shell kite formula (5.12) has no such external check, but that is a correctness risk rather than a definitional circle. No 'prediction' reduces by construction to a fitted parameter, and the central claim still has independent content in the worked examples. Overall circularity score: 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted numerical parameters. The central assumption is the position-space conformal representation from [10], which is not derived in this paper. The auxiliary conformal lines are formal tools rather than physical entities.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The n-point massless contact correlator equals, up to a prefactor, the (n+1)-point conformal contact correlator (identity B11 from [10]).
    This is the load-bearing result that underlies all the momentum-space limit formulas (2.3), (2.4), and (3.1) in the present paper. It is imported from the author's prior work [10] and not re-derived here.
  • standard math Mellin-Barnes integral representations of the conformal integrals are convergent in suitable regions and can be analytically continued.
    The formulas (5.1), (5.2), (5.10), and (5.12) rely on Mellin-Barnes representations of conformal integrals from [10] and from the conformal bootstrap literature. The paper does not prove convergence for the specific contours used.
  • domain assumption The operations of taking the limit of a point to infinity and of collapsing internal lines commute with the Mellin-Barnes integrations and with dimensional regularization.
    The derivations of the non-conformal diagrams from the conformal member involve limits (e.g., p^2 to infinity, or w to 1). The paper assumes these limits can be taken inside the integral representations without encountering unexpected singularities or a change in the base family.
invented entities (1)
  • Auxiliary conformal line (extra propagator added to each loop or vertex)
    purpose: To enforce the conformal constraint that the sum of scaling dimensions in each loop or at each vertex equals the spacetime dimension, thereby converting a general Feynman integral into a conformal integral.
    This is a bookkeeping device with no physical interpretation. It has no falsifiable handle outside the mathematical construction itself.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Feynman Diagrams from Conformal Integrals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QDVJFRFW

@misc{pith2026250100101,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Feynman Diagrams from Conformal Integrals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QDVJFRFW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.00101}
}
read the original abstract

We show that momentum space Feynman diagrams involving internal massless fields can be cast as conformal integrals. This leads to a classification of all Feynman diagrams into conformal families, labelled by conformal integrals. Computing the conformal integral in each family suffices to compute all the Feynman diagrams in the family exactly. Using known exact results for some conformal integrals, we present the solutions to the other Feynman diagrams in the corresponding families. These are answers to either finite or dimensionally regularized Feynman diagrams to all orders in the regularization parameter.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.00101 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Examples of 1 loop conformal families with the conformal diagrams in blue. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The conformal family of the conformal 2-box diagram with all blue lines. The middle diagram is, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The conformal family of the conformal 3-box diagram depicted with all blue lines. The diagrams on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The conformal family of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The conformal family of the four loop [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The 3-point triangle diagram with loop momentum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The 4-point box diagram [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [21]

    Baikov and K.G

    P.A. Baikov and K.G. Chetyrkin, Four Loop Massless Propagators: An Algebraic Evaluation of All Master Integrals, Nucl. Phys. B 837 (2010) 186 [ 1004.1153]

    arXiv 2010

  2. [20]

    Bierenbaum, The massless two-loop two-point function and zeta functions in counterterms of Feynman diagrams, other thesis, 2, 2005

    I. Bierenbaum, The massless two-loop two-point function and zeta functions in counterterms of Feynman diagrams, other thesis, 2, 2005

    work page 2005

  3. [10]

    Dolan and H

    F.A. Dolan and H. Osborn, Conformal Partial Waves: Further Mathematical Results , 1108.6194

    arXiv

  4. [1]

    Smirnov, Analytic tools for Feynman integrals , vol

    V.A. Smirnov, Analytic tools for Feynman integrals , vol. 250 (2012), 10.1007/978-3-642-34886-0

    doi:10.1007/978-3-642-34886-0 2012

  5. [2]

    Weinzierl, Feynman Integrals

    S. Weinzierl, Feynman Integrals. A Comprehensive Treatment for Students and Researchers , UNITEXT for Physics, Springer (2022), 10.1007/978-3-030-99558-4, [ 2201.03593]

    arXiv 2022

  6. [3]

    ∆2, ∆4, ˜∆01234 − ˜∆0234 + 1, − ˜∆0124 + 1; −r3 # + Γ(∆1 + 2∆0234)Γ(− ˜∆0234)Γ( ˜∆023)Γ (∆3,1) Γ ˜∆034 r ˜∆0234 3F2

    This means that we can use it to find the triangle diagram in dimensional regularization to arbitrary order in the regularization parameter. The next example is the relation between the general box diagram and the conformal pentagon diagram, depicted in Fig. 1. The 4-point box diagram, shown in Fig. 7 is similar to the 4-point position space contact diagr...

    work page 2021

  7. [4]

    Symanzik, On Calculations in conformal invariant field theories , Lett

    K. Symanzik, On Calculations in conformal invariant field theories , Lett. Nuovo Cim. 3 (1972) 734

    work page 1972

  8. [5]

    Ferrara, A.F

    S. Ferrara, A.F. Grillo, G. Parisi and R. Gatto, Covariant expansion of the conformal four-point function, Nucl. Phys. B 49 (1972) 77

    1972

Show all 55 references
  1. [6]

    Ferrara, A.F

    S. Ferrara, A.F. Grillo, R. Gatto and G. Parisi, Analyticity properties and asymptotic expansions of conformal covariant green ’s functions, Nuovo Cim. A 19 (1974) 667

    1974

  2. [7]

    Ferrara, R

    S. Ferrara, R. Gatto and A.F. Grillo, Properties of Partial Wave Amplitudes in Conformal Invariant Field Theories, Nuovo Cim. A 26 (1975) 226

    1975

  3. [8]

    Dolan and H

    F.A. Dolan and H. Osborn, Conformal four point functions and the operator product expansion , Nucl. Phys. B 599 (2001) 459 [ hep-th/0011040]

    2001 arXiv

  4. [9]

    Dolan and H

    F.A. Dolan and H. Osborn, Conformal partial waves and the operator product expansion , Nucl. Phys. B 678 (2004) 491 [ hep-th/0309180]

    2004 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Prabhu, Conformality of non-conformal correlators , 2312.17067

    S.G. Prabhu, Conformality of non-conformal correlators , 2312.17067

    arXiv

  6. [12]

    Drummond, J

    J.M. Drummond, J. Henn, V.A. Smirnov and E. Sokatchev, Magic identities for conformal four-point integrals, JHEP 01 (2007) 064 [ hep-th/0607160]

    2007 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Z. Bern, M. Czakon, L.J. Dixon, D.A. Kosower and V.A. Smirnov, The Four-Loop Planar Amplitude and Cusp Anomalous Dimension in Maximally Supersymmetric Yang-Mills Theory , Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 085010 [ hep-th/0610248]

    2007 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Drummond, G.P

    J.M. Drummond, G.P. Korchemsky and E. Sokatchev, Conformal properties of four-gluon planar amplitudes and Wilson loops , Nucl. Phys. B 795 (2008) 385 [ 0707.0243]

    2008 arXiv

  9. [15]

    Tkachov, A theorem on analytical calculability of 4-loop renormalization group functions , Phys

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

    1981

  10. [16]

    Chetyrkin and F.V

    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

    1981

  11. [17]

    Usyukina and A.I

    N.I. Usyukina and A.I. Davydychev, An Approach to the evaluation of three and four point ladder diagrams, Phys. Lett. B 298 (1993) 363

    1993

  12. [18]

    Usyukina and A.I

    N.I. Usyukina and A.I. Davydychev, Exact results for three and four point ladder diagrams with an arbitrary number of rungs , Phys. Lett. B 305 (1993) 136

    1993

  13. [19]

    Chetyrkin, A.L

    K.G. Chetyrkin, A.L. Kataev and F.V. Tkachov, New Approach to Evaluation of Multiloop Feynman Integrals: The Gegenbauer Polynomial x Space Technique , Nucl. Phys. B 174 (1980) 345

    1980

  14. [22]

    Tarasov, Massless on-shell box integral with arbitrary powers of propagators , J

    O.V. Tarasov, Massless on-shell box integral with arbitrary powers of propagators , J. Phys. A 51 (2018) 275401 [ 1709.07526]

    2018 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Bern, L.J

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

    1994 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Bzowski, P

    A. Bzowski, P. McFadden and K. Skenderis, Implications of conformal invariance in momentum space, JHEP 03 (2014) 111 [ 1304.7760]

    2014 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Bzowski, P

    A. Bzowski, P. McFadden and K. Skenderis, Evaluation of conformal integrals , JHEP 02 (2016) 068 [1511.02357]

    2016 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Bzowski, P

    A. Bzowski, P. McFadden and K. Skenderis, Conformal correlators as simplex integrals in momentum space, JHEP 01 (2021) 192 [ 2008.07543]

    2021 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Rattazzi, V.S

    R. Rattazzi, V.S. Rychkov, E. Tonni and A. Vichi, Bounding scalar operator dimensions in 4D CFT , JHEP 12 (2008) 031 [ 0807.0004]. 16

    2008 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Poland, S

    D. Poland, S. Rychkov and A. Vichi, The Conformal Bootstrap: Theory, Numerical Techniques, and Applications, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91 (2019) 015002 [ 1805.04405]

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Costa, J

    M.S. Costa, J. Penedones, D. Poland and S. Rychkov, Spinning Conformal Blocks , JHEP 11 (2011) 154 [1109.6321]

    2011 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Simmons-Duffin, Projectors, Shadows, and Conformal Blocks , JHEP 04 (2014) 146 [ 1204.3894]

    D. Simmons-Duffin, Projectors, Shadows, and Conformal Blocks , JHEP 04 (2014) 146 [ 1204.3894]

    2014 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Hogervorst and S

    M. Hogervorst and S. Rychkov, Radial Coordinates for Conformal Blocks , Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 106004 [1303.1111]

    2013 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Alkalaev and V.A

    K.B. Alkalaev and V.A. Belavin, From global to heavy-light: 5-point conformal blocks , JHEP 03 (2016) 184 [ 1512.07627]

    2016 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Karateev, P

    D. Karateev, P. Kravchuk and D. Simmons-Duffin, Weight Shifting Operators and Conformal Blocks , JHEP 02 (2018) 081 [ 1706.07813]

    2018 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Rosenhaus, Multipoint Conformal Blocks in the Comb Channel , JHEP 02 (2019) 142 [1810.03244]

    V. Rosenhaus, Multipoint Conformal Blocks in the Comb Channel , JHEP 02 (2019) 142 [1810.03244]

    2019 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Parikh, Holographic dual of the five-point conformal block , JHEP 05 (2019) 051 [ 1901.01267]

    S. Parikh, Holographic dual of the five-point conformal block , JHEP 05 (2019) 051 [ 1901.01267]

    2019 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Fortin and W

    J.-F. Fortin and W. Skiba, New methods for conformal correlation functions , JHEP 06 (2020) 028 [1905.00434]

    2020 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Parikh, A multipoint conformal block chain in d dimensions, JHEP 05 (2020) 120 [ 1911.09190]

    S. Parikh, A multipoint conformal block chain in d dimensions, JHEP 05 (2020) 120 [ 1911.09190]

    2020 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Fortin, W

    J.-F. Fortin, W. Ma and W. Skiba, Higher-Point Conformal Blocks in the Comb Channel , JHEP 07 (2020) 213 [ 1911.11046]

    2020 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Pal and K

    A. Pal and K. Ray, Conformal Correlation functions in four dimensions from Quaternionic Lauricella system, Nucl. Phys. B 968 (2021) 115433 [ 2005.12523]

    2021 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Buric, S

    I. Buric, S. Lacroix, J.A. Mann, L. Quintavalle and V. Schomerus, From Gaudin Integrable Models to d-dimensional Multipoint Conformal Blocks , Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (2021) 021602 [ 2009.11882]

    2021 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Buric, S

    I. Buric, S. Lacroix, J.A. Mann, L. Quintavalle and V. Schomerus, Gaudin models and multipoint conformal blocks: general theory , JHEP 10 (2021) 139 [ 2105.00021]

    2021 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Pal and K

    A. Pal and K. Ray, Conformal integrals in four dimensions , JHEP 10 (2022) 087 [ 2109.09379]

    2022 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Pal and K

    A. Pal and K. Ray, Conformal integrals in all dimensions as GKZ hypergeometric functions and Clifford groups, 2303.17326

    arXiv

  36. [44]

    Ananthanarayan, S

    B. Ananthanarayan, S. Banik, S. Friot and S. Ghosh, Multiple Series Representations of N-fold Mellin-Barnes Integrals, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 (2021) 151601 [ 2012.15108]

    2021 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Ananthanarayan, S

    B. Ananthanarayan, S. Banik, S. Friot and S. Ghosh, Double box and hexagon conformal Feynman integrals, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 091901 [ 2007.08360]

    2020 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Banik and S

    S. Banik and S. Friot, Multiple Mellin-Barnes integrals with straight contours , Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 016007 [ 2212.11839]

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Banik and S

    S. Banik and S. Friot, Multiple Mellin-Barnes integrals and triangulations of point configurations , Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 036002 [ 2309.00409]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Banik and S

    S. Banik and S. Friot, Analytic Evaluation of Multiple Mellin-Barnes Integrals , PoS LL2024 (2024) 039 [2407.20120]

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Hoback and S

    S. Hoback and S. Parikh, Towards Feynman rules for conformal blocks , JHEP 01 (2021) 005 [2006.14736]

    2021 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Fortin, W.-J

    J.-F. Fortin, W.-J. Ma, V. Prilepina and W. Skiba, Efficient rules for all conformal blocks , JHEP 11 (2021) 052 [ 2002.09007]

    2021 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Fortin, S

    J.-F. Fortin, S. Hoback, W.-J. Ma, S. Parikh and W. Skiba, Feynman rules for scalar conformal blocks, JHEP 10 (2022) 097 [ 2204.08909]

    2022 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Bourjaily, S

    J.L. Bourjaily, S. Caron-Huot and J. Trnka, Dual-Conformal Regularization of Infrared Loop Divergences and the Chiral Box Expansion , JHEP 01 (2015) 001 [ 1303.4734]

    2015 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Bourjaily, F

    J.L. Bourjaily, F. Dulat and E. Panzer, Manifestly Dual-Conformal Loop Integration , Nucl. Phys. B 942 (2019) 251 [ 1901.02887]

    2019 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Bourjaily, M

    J.L. Bourjaily, M. Volk and M. Von Hippel, Conformally Regulated Direct Integration of the Two-Loop Heptagon Remainder, JHEP 02 (2020) 095 [ 1912.05690]

    2020 arXiv

  47. [55]

    D. Jain, S. Kundu, S. Minwalla, O. Parrikar, S.G. Prabhu and P. Shrivastava, The S-matrix and boundary correlators in flat space , 2311.03443

    arXiv

Pith tools

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