Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 46 references

From Modular Graph Forms to Iterated Integrals

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

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

Pith's one-line read Every admissible modular graph form maps to iterated Eisenstein integrals

desk verdict Useful tree-based MGF-to-EIEI conversion and a first alpha'^8 integrand result, but the 'any MGF' claim needs a proof of the HSR pairing cancellation and the appendix typos fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.05531 v1 pith:HCWO43MP submitted 2025-02-08 hep-th

Emiel Claasen , Mehregan Doroudiani This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th MSC 11F1111F1211M3281T30 PACS 11.25.-w11.25.Db
keywords modulargraphformsequivariantiteratedEisensteinintegralsholomorphicsubgraphreductionFayidentitiesone-loopsuperstringamplitudealpha-primeexpansionsingle-valuedmultiplezetavalueslatticesums
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

Modular graph forms (MGFs) are lattice sums attached to graphs that organize the low-energy expansion of genus-one closed-string amplitudes. The paper's central claim is that every convergent MGF without holomorphic or antiholomorphic subgraphs can be expanded, algorithmically and without loss of information, in equivariant iterated Eisenstein integrals (EIEIs), which are modular completions of iterated integrals of holomorphic Eisenstein series. The algorithm is implemented in the package MGFtoBeqv for topologies up to four vertices. Applied to the four-graviton one-loop Type II superstring integrand at order $\alpha'^8$, it produces the first depth-four integrals and fixes the new $\zeta_3\zeta_5$ analytic coefficients $79673/(9^7\cdot 3^3\cdot 6!)$ and $617/(9^7\cdot 6^2\cdot 4!)$. If correct, it removes the need for the degeneration-limit input that limited earlier dihedral-only expansions and opens higher-point amplitudes to the same treatment.

What carries the argument

The engine is the tree-representation of an MGF. Starting from a convergent MGF in the convention of purely antiholomorphic weight, the holomorphic differential operator $\pi\nabla_0$ is applied repeatedly; each resulting holomorphic Eisenstein-series factor spawns a new branch, and momentum conservation plus Fay identities and holomorphic subgraph reduction clear negative labels and closed holomorphic subgraphs until only Eisenstein series remain. The tree is then read upward: the EIEI differential equation (4.7) converts each branch's bottom data into candidates $\beta_{\mathrm{eqv}}$, and a finite linear-algebra problem fixes their coefficients. Modularity of the $\beta_{\mathrm{eqv}}$ fixes almost all integration constants, while modular-invariant vertices require matching cuspidal Laurent-polynomial constants, computed through the generating series of zeta generators in appendix B.

What would settle it

Take a convergent four-vertex MGF containing a closed holomorphic subgraph, reduce it with the paper's Fay and HSR pipeline, and inspect the output for any nonzero coefficient of $\hat G_2$ or $\pi/\tau_2$; finding one that survives to the Laurent expansion would disprove the claim that all such MGFs lie in the EIEI span.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a constructive dictionary: any convergent MGF free of holomorphic and antiholomorphic subgraphs is a $\mathbb{Q}$-linear combination of EIEIs, with rational coefficients determined by an explicit tree built from repeated holomorphic differentiation and identities such as momentum conservation, Fay identities, and holomorphic subgraph reduction. The tree records which holomorphic Eisenstein series are peeled off at each step, and integration back up along the tree solves a linear system obtained from the EIEI differential equation. The only underdetermined constants occur at modular-invariant vertices, and they are fixed by matching Laurent-polynomial constants from cuspidal expansions. This dictionary converts the entire four-graviton one-loop integrand at order $\alpha'^8$ into depth $\le 4$ EIEIs, and matching the UV-divergence data fixes the analytic contribution in (5.30).

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the messy correction terms $\hat G_2$ and $\pi/\tau_2$ produced when reducing closed holomorphic subgraphs always cancel in pairs, including for higher-vertex graphs reached through Fay identities, and this cancellation is cited rather than proved for those cases; if a single allowed MGF violates it, the claimed EIEI expansion leaves the target space.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every convergent MGF without holomorphic or antiholomorphic subgraphs has a finite EIEI expansion, so the earlier dihedral-only, degeneration-limit construction extends to all allowed topologies up to four vertices.
  • The $\alpha'^8$ four-graviton integrand is the first place depth-4 EIEIs occur; its analytic part is given in (5.30), with new rational coefficients $79673/(9^7\cdot 3^3\cdot 6!)$ for $\zeta_3\zeta_5\sigma_2\sigma_3^2$ and $617/(9^7\cdot 6^2\cdot 4!)$ for $\zeta_3\zeta_5\sigma_4^2$.
  • The only true bottleneck is data for integration constants: Laurent polynomials of MGFs are known up to $|A|+|B|\le 12$ and for some higher cases, and EIEI constants are known up to depth 3 and degree 20, with the needed depth-4 degree-16 constants computed in appendix B.
  • Because the algorithm does not need the degeneration limit, installing higher-vertex MGF identities would let the same machinery convert five-point and higher amplitudes.
  • Running time is not a practical obstacle: conversions with $|A|+|B|\le 16$ take from split seconds to minutes on a laptop.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the pairing cancellation of $\hat G_2$ and $\pi/\tau_2$ terms holds only for the identities currently implemented, the 'any MGF' wording in the introduction overstates the theorem; the likely safe formulation would restrict to MGFs generated by one-loop closed-string integrands, for which the pairing is conjectured.
  • The tree representation behaves like a symbol for MGFs: it records only holomorphic Eisenstein kernels and rational constants, so it could serve as a combinatorial invariant to classify MGFs by depth and to predict which cusp forms can never appear.
  • A direct stress test is to implement HSR and Fay identities for five-vertex graphs and run the algorithm on a graph whose reduction creates two dihedral holomorphic subgraphs from the same Fay step; if the $\hat G_2$ and $\pi/\tau_2$ terms do not cancel, the target space needs an enlarged basis.
  • The two new $\zeta_3\zeta_5$ coefficients are concrete predictions for the $\alpha'^8$ analytic amplitude that can be checked independently by methods that compute the degeneration limit or by direct numerical integration over the fundamental domain.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper introduces an algorithmic procedure for converting convergent modular graph forms (MGFs) that are free of holomorphic and antiholomorphic subgraphs into equivariant iterated Eisenstein integrals (EIEIs). The algorithm iteratively applies holomorphic derivatives, momentum conservation, Fay identities, and holomorphic subgraph reduction to build a tree representation, then integrates back up using the differential equation satisfied by EIEIs. The authors provide the Mathematica package MGFtoBeqv for MGFs with up to four vertices and |B| <= 11. As an application, they convert the one-loop four-graviton Type II superstring integrand at order alpha'^8 into EIEIs and extract the zeta3 zeta5 contributions to the analytic part of the amplitude, obtaining the coefficients in eq. (5.30).

Significance. If fully established, this is a substantial technical advance: it bypasses the degeneration-limit bottleneck that restricted previous dihedral constructions and provides a systematic lattice-sum-to-iterated-integral dictionary for a large class of MGFs. The paper is commendably explicit: the worked example C+[2 1 1; 2 1 1] ending at eq. (5.10), the four-loop banana example in eq. (5.12), the Laurent-polynomial formulas in appendix A, and the depth-4 csv computation in appendix B are all concrete and checkable. The public package MGFtoBeqv is a further strength for reproducibility. The significance is, however, contingent on two caveats: the universal 'any MGF' claim rests on an unproven pairing cancellation in holomorphic subgraph reduction, and the headline alpha'^8 zeta3 zeta5 numbers are obtained by matching external UV-divergence data rather than by the algorithm alone.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, after eq. (3.1)] The assertion that 'MGFs that require HSR always come in pairs' is supported only by a single dihedral example and a citation to [6]. The cancellation of the last two terms of eq. (2.23), proportional to Ghat_2 and pi/tau_2, is necessary for the output to stay inside the EIEI space. For the trihedral, box, kite, and tetrahedral topologies generated iteratively by Fay identities, no proof is supplied, and [9] is cited as noting that higher-vertex HSR is cumbersome. If the pairing fails for some convergent MGF free of holomorphic subgraphs, the algorithm would produce terms outside the EIEI space and the 'any MGF' claim in the introduction would be false. Please provide a proof or a precise topology-dependent sufficient condition for the cancellation, or restrict the claim to the classes for which the pairing has been verified.
  2. [Section 1.1 and abstract] The abstract and Section 1 claim convertibility of 'any MGF free of holomorphic and antiholomorphic subgraphs', but Section 1.1 explicitly states two limitations: constant data are available only up to |A|+|B| <= 12 for n <= 3 (with partial exceptions), and the implemented identities cover only graphs with up to four vertices, so the package is limited to |B| <= 11. This is not an internal inconsistency, but the universal claim is broader than the verified implementation. The scope should be explicitly qualified in the abstract and introduction, for example by saying the procedure works 'in principle' with the stated data and identity-implementation limitations.
  3. [Section 5.3, eqs. (5.26)-(5.30)] The constants c1 and c2 in eqs. (5.24) and (5.25) are fixed by matching the zero mode I0 in eq. (5.26) to the UV-divergence data of [32], not by cuspidal expansions computed within the MGF-to-EIEI algorithm. The advertised zeta3 zeta5 coefficients in eq. (5.30) are therefore a calibration against external effective-field-theory input, rather than a prediction of the conversion procedure alone. This is a legitimate procedure, but the abstract's phrase 'which we use to calculate' should be qualified, for example as 'combined with UV-divergence data', to avoid overstating the role of the algorithm.
  4. [Section 4.2, eq. (4.7) and Section 5.1] The differential equation (4.7) contains an ellipsis for holomorphic cusp-form terms, and the paper asserts that these never appear for MGFs. Since the candidate ansatz in eqs. (5.1)-(5.2) is built only from Eisenstein kernels, the validity of ignoring the cusp-form terms is load-bearing for the general conversion claim. A justification or reference establishing the absence of cusp-form contributions for all MGFs in the stated class should be supplied.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.1 and Section 5.3] The four-vertex topologies (box, kite, tetrahedral) are defined only in eqs. (5.21)-(5.23); a forward reference from Section 2.1 would help the reader encountering these notations in earlier sections.
  2. [Section 5.3, eqs. (5.27)-(5.28)] The rational numbers 154781/2639952 and 55229/2933280 are presented without showing which contributions from appendix B (for example the csv values in eq. (B.9)) enter them; spelling this out would make the matching in eqs. (5.27)-(5.28) easier to verify.
  3. [Section 2.1] The acronym MGF is used for both modular graph forms and modular graph functions; the authors acknowledge this, but a more consistent typographic distinction would reduce ambiguity in statements such as 'the MGFs at those branches are modular graph forms'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the MGF-to-EIEI conversion is a dictionary with integration constants fixed by modularity or external cuspidal/UV data, not by the results being predicted.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a translation algorithm, not a fit masquerading as prediction. Starting from a lattice-sum MGF, the algorithm takes holomorphic derivatives, removes holomorphic Eisenstein series, and integrates back up using the differential equation (4.7) for equivariant iterated Eisenstein integrals; every step is an identity (momentum conservation, Fay, HSR) applied to the input, and the final expression is obtained by linear algebra over a finite candidate set. Integration constants for modular-invariant vertices are not derived by assuming the answer: the paper states 'we have to match the constants in the cuspidal expansions of the MGF with the iterated integral representation to fix the integration constants,' and for the alpha'^8 application it fixes c1 and c2 by 'matching the zero modes of the integrand' against I0 from the independent UV-divergence computation [32] via equations (5.27)-(5.28). The new zeta3 zeta5 coefficients in (5.30) are therefore carried by external input rather than independently predicted, but the paper says so explicitly ('the combination of missing constants was fixed by a correspondence with UV-divergences in effective field theory one-loop matrix elements'), so this is honest calibration, not circularity. The EIEI machinery and csv constants rely on prior work [19,20,30] that shares an author, but those are external mathematical constructions (with Brown's foundational [13]) and are used as tools, not as evidence for the present algorithm; the algorithm itself is implemented and demonstrated on concrete MGFs including those in the four-graviton integrand. The only substantive gap is the unproved assertion in Section 3 that 'MGFs that require HSR always come in pairs such that we can cancel the last two terms of (2.23),' which is load-bearing for the 'any MGF' claim but is not circular: it invokes an external identity (2.23) and an external reference [6], and is verified for the examples and topologies implemented. In sum, no step reduces by construction to its own output, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The conversion relies on the prior EIEI framework (beta_eqv and its differential equation), on known cuspidal and Laurent data, and on a cited but unproven pairing cancellation. The two physical constants c1 and c2 are recorded as free parameters because they are fixed by external UV-divergence data rather than derived by the algorithm. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • c1 = 79673/(9^7 * 3^3 * 6!) * zeta3 zeta5 (printed as 97x33x6!)
    Integration constant in the sigma2 sigma3^2 component of the alpha'^8 integrand (eq. 5.24), fixed by matching eq. (5.27) to UV-divergence input I0 (eq. 5.26) from [32].
  • c2 = 617/(9^7 * 6^2 * 4!) * zeta3 zeta5 (printed as 97x62x4!)
    Integration constant in the sigma4^2 component of the alpha'^8 integrand (eq. 5.25), fixed by matching eq. (5.28) to UV-divergence input I0 (eq. 5.26) from [32].
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The equivariant iterated Eisenstein integrals beta_eqv and their differential equation (4.7) exist and solve within the beta_eqv space for MGF inputs.
    Invoked throughout Sections 4-5; built on [13,14,17,19,20]. The solvability of the linear algebra problem is asserted without proof in Section 4.2.
  • ad hoc to paper MGFs that require holomorphic subgraph reduction appear in pairs so that the last two terms of (2.23), proportional to Ghat2 and pi/tau2, cancel.
    Stated in Section 3 after eq. (3.1) and cited to [6]; the entire conversion to pure EIEIs depends on this cancellation.
  • domain assumption Known cuspidal and Laurent-polynomial data suffice to fix integration constants; at alpha'^8 the missing constants are supplied by UV-divergence data of [32].
    Used in Sections 5.2-5.3; relies on [2,11,17,24,25,26,27,20,32].
  • domain assumption Uniform transcendentality constrains the svMZVs appearing in the Laurent polynomials, e.g., zeta3 zeta5 at transcendental weight 8.
    Used in Sections 5.2-5.3 and appendix B to identify the relevant svMZVs; per [5,24].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From Modular Graph Forms to Iterated Integrals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HCWO43MP

@misc{pith2026250205531,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From Modular Graph Forms to Iterated Integrals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HCWO43MP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.05531}
}
abstract

Modular graph forms are a class of non-holomorphic modular forms that arise in the low-energy expansion of genus-one closed string amplitudes. In this work, we introduce a systematic procedure to convert lattice-sum representations of modular graph forms into iterated integrals of holomorphic Eisenstein series and provide a \textsc{Mathematica} package that implements all modular graph form topologies up to four vertices. To achieve this, we introduce specific tree-representations of modular graph forms. The presented method enables the conversion of the integrand of the four-graviton one-loop superstring amplitude at eighth order in the inverse string tension $\alpha^{\prime 8}$, which we use to calculate the $\alpha^{\prime 8}\zeta_3\zeta_5$ contribution to the analytic part of the amplitude.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [6]

    Identities between modular g raph forms,

    E. D’Hoker and M. B. Green, “Identities between modular g raph forms,” J. Number Theory 189 (2018) 25–80 , arXiv:1603.00839 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2018

  2. [32]

    One-loop matrix elements of effective superstring interactions: α’-expanding loop integrands,

    A. Edison, M. Guillen, H. Johansson, O. Schlotterer, an d F. Teng, “One-loop matrix elements of effective superstring interactions: α’-expanding loop integrands,” JHEP 12 (2021) 007 , arXiv:2107.08009 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2021

  3. [9]

    Holomorphic subgraph reduction of higher-point modular graph forms

    J. E. Gerken and J. Kaidi, “Holomorphic subgraph reducti on of higher-point modular graph forms,” JHEP 01 (2019) 131 , arXiv:1809.05122 [hep-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  4. [1]

    Low-energy expansion of the o ne-loop type-II superstring amplitude,

    M. B. Green and P. Vanhove, “Low-energy expansion of the o ne-loop type-II superstring amplitude,” Physical Review D 61 no. 10, (Apr., 2000) . http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.61.104011

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.61.104011

  5. [2]

    Low energy expan sion of the four-particle genus-one amplitude in type II superstring theory,

    M. B. Green, J. G. Russo, and P. Vanhove, “Low energy expan sion of the four-particle genus-one amplitude in type II superstring theory,” JHEP 02 (2008) 020 , arXiv:0801.0322 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2008

  6. [3]

    On the modular st ructure of the genus-one Type II superstring low energy expansion,

    E. D’Hoker, M. B. Green, and P. Vanhove, “On the modular st ructure of the genus-one Type II superstring low energy expansion,” JHEP 08 (2015) 041 , arXiv:1502.06698 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2015

  7. [4]

    Exploring transcendentalit y in superstring amplitudes,

    E. D’Hoker and M. B. Green, “Exploring transcendentalit y in superstring amplitudes,” JHEP 07 (2019) 149 , arXiv:1906.01652 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2019

  8. [5]

    Mod ular Graph Functions,

    E. D’Hoker, M. B. Green, O. Gürdogan, and P. Vanhove, “Mod ular Graph Functions,” Commun. Num. Theor. Phys. 11 (2017) 165–218 , arXiv:1512.06779 [hep-th] . – 34 –

    arXiv 2017

Show all 46 references
  1. [7]

    Proof of a modula r relation between 1-, 2- and 3-loop Feynman diagrams on a torus,

    E. D’Hoker, M. B. Green, and P. Vanhove, “Proof of a modula r relation between 1-, 2- and 3-loop Feynman diagrams on a torus,” J. Number Theory (2018) 381 , arXiv:1509.00363 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Hierarchy of Modular Graph Iden tities,

    E. D’Hoker and J. Kaidi, “Hierarchy of Modular Graph Iden tities,” JHEP 11 (2016) 051 , arXiv:1608.04393 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Proving relations between modular graph func tions,

    A. Basu, “Proving relations between modular graph func tions,” Class. Quant. Grav. 33 no. 23, (2016) 235011 , arXiv:1606.07084 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Basis Decompositions and a Mathematica P ackage for Modular Graph Forms,

    J. E. Gerken, “Basis Decompositions and a Mathematica P ackage for Modular Graph Forms,” J. Phys. A 54 no. 19, (2021) 195401 , arXiv:2007.05476 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Tetrahedral modul ar graph functions,

    A. Kleinschmidt and V. Verschinin, “Tetrahedral modul ar graph functions,” JHEP 09 (2017) 155 , arXiv:1706.01889 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  6. [13]

    A class of non-holomorphic modular forms I,

    F. Brown, “A class of non-holomorphic modular forms I,” Res. Math. Sci. 5 (2018) 5:7 , arXiv:1707.01230 [math.NT]

    2018 arXiv

  7. [14]

    A class of non-holomorphic modular forms II : equivariant iterated Eisenstein integrals,

    F. Brown, “A class of non-holomorphic modular forms II : equivariant iterated Eisenstein integrals,” Forum of Mathematics, Sigma 8 (2020) 1 , arXiv:1708.03354 [math.NT]

    2020 arXiv

  8. [15]

    From ellip tic multiple zeta values to modular graph functions: open and closed strings at one loop,

    J. Broedel, O. Schlotterer, and F. Zerbini, “From ellip tic multiple zeta values to modular graph functions: open and closed strings at one loop,” JHEP 01 (2019) 155 , arXiv:1803.00527 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  9. [16]

    All -order differential equations for one-loop closed-string integrals and modular graph forms,

    J. E. Gerken, A. Kleinschmidt, and O. Schlotterer, “All -order differential equations for one-loop closed-string integrals and modular graph forms, ” JHEP 01 (2020) 064 , arXiv:1911.03476 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Gen erating series of all modular graph forms from iterated Eisenstein integrals,

    J. E. Gerken, A. Kleinschmidt, and O. Schlotterer, “Gen erating series of all modular graph forms from iterated Eisenstein integrals,” JHEP 07 no. 07, (2020) 190 , arXiv:2004.05156 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Laplace-eigenvalue equations for length three modular iterated integrals,

    J. Drewitt, “Laplace-eigenvalue equations for length three modular iterated integrals,” Journal of Number Theory 239 (2022) 78–112 , arXiv:2104.09916 [math]

    2022 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Modular graph forms from eq uivariant iterated Eisenstein integrals,

    D. Dorigoni, M. Doroudiani, J. Drewitt, M. Hidding, A. K leinschmidt, N. Matthes, O. Schlotterer, and B. Verbeek, “Modular graph forms from eq uivariant iterated Eisenstein integrals,” JHEP 12 (2022) 162 , arXiv:2209.06772 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Non-holomorphic modular forms from zeta generators,

    D. Dorigoni, M. Doroudiani, J. Drewitt, M. Hidding, A. K leinschmidt, O. Schlotterer, L. Schneps, and B. Verbeek, “Non-holomorphic modular forms from zeta generators,” JHEP 10 (2024) 53 , arXiv:2403.14816 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [21]

    J. E. Gerken, Modular Graph Forms and Scattering Amplitudes in String The ory. PhD thesis, Humboldt U., Berlin, Humboldt U., Berlin, 2020. arXiv:2011.08647 [hep-th] . – 35 –

    2020 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Elliptic m odular graph forms II: Iterated integrals,

    M. Hidding, O. Schlotterer, and B. Verbeek, “Elliptic m odular graph forms II: Iterated integrals,” arXiv:2208.11116 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  16. [23]

    Classical Polylogarithms for Amplitudes and Wilson Loops,

    A. B. Goncharov, M. Spradlin, C. Vergu, and A. Volovich, “Classical Polylogarithms for Amplitudes and Wilson Loops,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010) 151605 , arXiv:1006.5703 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Single-valued multiple zeta values in gen us 1 superstring amplitudes,

    F. Zerbini, “Single-valued multiple zeta values in gen us 1 superstring amplitudes,” Commun. Num. Theor. Phys. 10 (2016) 703–737 , arXiv:1512.05689 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Absence of irreducible mult iple zeta-values in melon modular graph functions,

    E. D’Hoker and M. B. Green, “Absence of irreducible mult iple zeta-values in melon modular graph functions,” Commun. Num. Theor. Phys. 14 no. 2, (2020) 315–324 , arXiv:1904.06603 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Genus-zero and genus-one str ing amplitudes and special multiple zeta values,

    D. Zagier and F. Zerbini, “Genus-zero and genus-one str ing amplitudes and special multiple zeta values,” Commun. Num. Theor. Phys. 14 no. 2, (2020) 413–452 , arXiv:1906.12339 [math.NT]

    2020 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Building blocks of closed an d open string amplitudes,

    P. Vanhove and F. Zerbini, “Building blocks of closed an d open string amplitudes,” PoS MA2019 (2022) 022 , arXiv:2007.08981 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Poi ncaré series for modular graph forms at depth two. Part I. Seeds and Laplace systems,

    D. Dorigoni, A. Kleinschmidt, and O. Schlotterer, “Poi ncaré series for modular graph forms at depth two. Part I. Seeds and Laplace systems,” JHEP 01 (2022) 133 , arXiv:2109.05017 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Poi ncaré series for modular graph forms at depth two. Part II. Iterated integrals of cusp forms,

    D. Dorigoni, A. Kleinschmidt, and O. Schlotterer, “Poi ncaré series for modular graph forms at depth two. Part II. Iterated integrals of cusp forms,” JHEP 01 (2022) 134 , arXiv:2109.05018 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Canonicalizing zeta generator s: genus zero and genus one,

    D. Dorigoni, M. Doroudiani, J. Drewitt, M. Hidding, A. K leinschmidt, O. Schlotterer, L. Schneps, and B. Verbeek, “Canonicalizing zeta generator s: genus zero and genus one,” arXiv:2406.05099 [math.QA]

  24. [31]

    Transcendentality of Ty pe II superstring amplitude at one-loop,

    E. Claasen and M. Doroudiani, “Transcendentality of Ty pe II superstring amplitude at one-loop,” arXiv:2412.04381 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    Lectures on modular forms and s trings,

    E. D’Hoker and J. Kaidi, “Lectures on modular forms and s trings,” arXiv:2208.07242 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  26. [34]

    Serre, A course in arithmetic , vol

    J.-P. Serre, A course in arithmetic , vol. 7. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    2012

  27. [35]

    Fourier series of modular graph functions,

    E. D’Hoker and W. Duke, “Fourier series of modular graph functions,” J. Number Theory 192 (2018) 1–36 , arXiv:1708.07998 [math.NT]

    2018 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Maass, Lectures on modular functions of one complex variable , vol

    H. Maass, Lectures on modular functions of one complex variable , vol. 29 of Tata Institute of Fundamental Research Lectures on Mathematics and Physics . Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bombay, second ed., 1983. With notes by Sunder Lal

    1983

  29. [37]

    Unpublished; notes on lattice sums

    D. Zagier, “Unpublished; notes on lattice sums. ” Unpus blished. – 36 –

  30. [38]

    J. D. Fay, Theta functions on Riemann surfaces . Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 352. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1973

    1973

  31. [40]

    A class of non-holomorphic modular forms III : Real analytic cusp forms for SL2(Z),

    F. Brown, “A class of non-holomorphic modular forms III : Real analytic cusp forms for SL2(Z),” Research in the Mathematical Sciences 5 no. 3, (2018) Paper No. 34, 36 , arXiv:1710.07912

    2018 arXiv

  32. [41]

    Relations between derivations arising fr om modular forms,

    A. Pollack, “Relations between derivations arising fr om modular forms,” https://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/handle/10161/1281, 2009. Undergraduate thesis, Duke University

    2009

  33. [42]

    On some derivations of Lie algebras relat ed to Galois representations,

    H. Tsunogai, “On some derivations of Lie algebras relat ed to Galois representations,” Publ. Res. Inst. Math. Sci. 31 no. 1, (1995) 113–134

    1995

  34. [43]

    On the algebraic structure of iterated int egrals of quasimodular forms,

    N. Matthes, “On the algebraic structure of iterated int egrals of quasimodular forms,” Algebra & Number Theory 11 no. 9, (2017) 2113–2130 , arXiv:math-NT/1708.04561

    2017 arXiv

  35. [44]

    The Low-energy expansion of the one loop type II superstring amplitude,

    M. B. Green and P. Vanhove, “The Low-energy expansion of the one loop type II superstring amplitude,” Phys.Rev. D61 (2000) 104011 , arXiv:hep-th/9910056 [hep-th]

    2000 arXiv

  36. [45]

    Supersymmetrical String Theories,

    M. B. Green and J. H. Schwarz, “Supersymmetrical String Theories,” Phys. Lett. B 109 (1982) 444–448

    1982

  37. [46]

    Multiple modular values and the relative com pletion of the fundamental group of M1,1,

    F. Brown, “Multiple modular values and the relative com pletion of the fundamental group of M1,1,” arXiv:1407.5167 [math.NT]

    arXiv

  38. [47]

    Universal mixed elliptic mot ives,

    R. Hain and M. Matsumoto, “Universal mixed elliptic mot ives,” Journal of the Institute of Mathematics of Jussieu 19 no. 3, (2020) 663–766 , arXiv:1512.03975 [math.AG] . – 37 –

    2020 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.