Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 48 references

Constitutive modeling of viscoelastic solids at large strains based on the theory of evolving natural configurations

T0 review · 3 major / 0 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper derives thermodynamically consistent finite-strain Maxwell, Kelvin-Voigt, Zener, and Poynting-Thompson solids from evolving natural configurations, showing that Kelvin-Voigt-type materials must be formulated in stress space while

desk verdict Plausible extension of the natural-configurations framework, but I can't verify it: the supplied full text is a different paper and the abstract alone doesn't give equations or fit details. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.05043 v1 pith:JV6MS5SS submitted 2025-08-07 cond-mat.soft physics.comp-ph

Tarun Singh , Sandipan Paul This is my paper
classification cond-mat.softphysics.comp-ph
keywords viscoelasticityfinitestrainevolvingnaturalconfigurationsMaxwellmodelKelvin-VoigtZenersolidPoynting-Thompsonconfigurationalforces
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 tries to show that the classic linear viscoelastic models—Maxwell, Kelvin-Voigt, Zener, and Poynting-Thompson—can be rebuilt as thermodynamically consistent finite-strain theories using the idea of evolving natural configurations. The central claim is a dual formulation: Maxwell-type materials (a spring in series with a dashpot) are naturally described in strain space, while Kelvin-Voigt-type materials (spring in parallel with dashpot) require a stress-space description with a rate-of-dissipation function written in terms of configurational forces. The paper also claims that the basic Maxwell and Kelvin-Voigt models emerge as limiting cases of the derived standard solids, and that the new Poynting-Thompson model matches published uniaxial stretching data for polymers over a large strain range. If right, this gives practitioners a single Lagrangian framework for choosing between strain- and stress-space formulations and for modeling large-strain viscoelasticity without ad hoc extensions.

What carries the argument

The 'evolving natural configuration' is the central object: a time-dependent reference configuration that represents the locally relaxed state of the material, obtained by a multiplicative decomposition of the deformation gradient. Its evolution is governed by a separate constitutive equation. The paper's specific instrument is the duality between strain-space formulation (where the evolution of natural configuration is driven by strain-like variables) for Maxwell-type materials and a stress-space formulation (where a rate-of-dissipation function depends on configurational forces) for Kelvin-Voigt-type materials. This pairing is what carries the thermodynamic consistency at large strains.

What would settle it

A holdout test: take published uniaxial stress-strain data for a polymer, fit the Poynting-Thompson parameters to the first half of the loading curve, then check whether the model predicts the second half, the unloading response, and the relaxation behavior. If the match degrades sharply, the claimed 'very good match' is calibration rather than prediction. Alternatively, construct a Kelvin-Voigt solid in strain space and show it produces negative dissipation in a cyclic finite-strain process, which would confirm the paper's central distinction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors derive nonlinear viscoelastic constitutive equations by letting the natural configuration (the local relaxed state) evolve, with the deformation gradient multiplicatively decomposed into elastic and inelastic parts. They find that Maxwell-type solids, whose dissipative element is in series with the elastic one, admit a clean strain-space formulation, whereas Kelvin-Voigt-type solids, with the dashpot in parallel, do not: a physically admissible formulation requires the rate of dissipation to be a function of configurational forces in stress space. From these, the Zener and Poynting-Thompson standard solids follow, and the elementary models are recovered as limiting cases. Numeric

Load-bearing premise

The whole construction rests on the assumed forms of the stored-energy function and the rate-of-dissipation function in configurational forces; thermodynamics alone does not determine those forms, and the paper does not show they are unique or derived from the data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the stress-space formulation is indeed required for Kelvin-Voigt-type materials, then existing finite-strain Kelvin-Voigt models built purely in strain space are likely thermodynamically inconsistent or restricted to small strains.
  • The limiting-case reductions mean that the standard solid models can serve as a single set of equations from which both the relaxation (Maxwell/Zener) and creep/retardation (Kelvin-Voigt/Poynting-Thompson) behaviors are recovered by taking appropriate parameters to zero or infinity.
  • The reported match with uniaxial polymer stretching data suggests the Poynting-Thompson model is a practical candidate for finite-element simulation of polymers at large strains, with the integration algorithms supplied in the paper.
  • The strain-space/stress-space distinction gives material modelers a criterion for choosing the right formulation: classify the rheological network by where the dissipative element sits relative to the elastic one.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The strain-space/stress-space duality may generalize beyond these four models: any rheological network whose dissipative branch is in series should admit a strain-space evolving-natural-configuration description, while parallel dissipative branches should require stress space; this could be tested on Burgers-type models.
  • A direct out-of-sample test of the Poynting-Thompson model would settle the benchmark claim: fit parameters to one portion of a uniaxial curve and predict the rest, rather than using the full curve for calibration. The paper does not state that parameters were fit to held-out data.
  • The provided full text for this arXiv record is a different manuscript (on crossing symmetry in perturbative QFT), so the derivation and integration-algorithm details behind these claims are not available in the supplied text; the summary above rests on the abstract.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper claims to use the theory of evolving natural configurations to derive, within a Lagrangian framework, finite-strain constitutive models for Maxwell and Kelvin-Voigt solids and for the associated Zener and Poynting-Thompson standard solids. The abstract asserts that Maxwell-type materials are naturally formulated in strain space, while Kelvin-Voigt-type materials require a stress-space formulation with a rate-of-dissipation function written in terms of configurational forces; that the elementary Maxwell and Kelvin-Voigt models emerge as limiting cases of the derived standard-solid models; that integration algorithms are developed; and that the Poynting-Thompson model matches published uniaxial polymer stretching data over a large strain range. The supplied full text, however, is not this manuscript: it is a hep-th paper on crossing symmetry for non-planar diagrams. Therefore none of the derivations, model equations, numerical algorithms, or benchmark details that would substantiate the abstract's claims are available for review.

Significance. If the claims were substantiated, the paper would offer a thermodynamically consistent, finite-strain recipe for constructing classical viscoelastic models from evolving natural configurations, with potentially useful integration algorithms and a concrete experimental benchmark. The proposed distinction between strain-space and stress-space formulations for Maxwell- vs. Kelvin-Voigt-type materials could be a valuable organizing principle. However, because the actual manuscript is absent, none of these contributions can be verified. The most falsifiable element, the claimed 'very good match' with polymer uniaxial data, cannot be checked for fit quality, parameter-calibration protocol, or predictive content. The paper therefore currently supplies no verifiable evidence for its central claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Full text] The supplied full text is arXiv:2508.05044v3 [hep-th], 'Crossing symmetry including non planar diagrams in perturbative QFT' by Ritabrata Bhattacharya, which is unrelated to the claimed title 'Constitutive modeling of viscoelastic solids at large strains based on the theory of evolving natural configurations'. None of the equations, derivations, integration algorithms, or benchmark descriptions called for in the abstract appear in the provided material. This is a load-bearing missing-evidence condition: the central claims cannot be checked in any form.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract asserts that Maxwell-type materials are 'naturally' modeled in strain space while Kelvin-Voigt-type materials require a stress-space formulation with a rate of dissipation function in terms of configurational forces. No constitutive equations are given for the stored energy or the rate of dissipation, nor is the evolution equation for the natural configuration stated. Without these, the claimed derivations of the Zener and Poynting-Thompson models and their limiting reductions to Maxwell and Kelvin-Voigt cannot be verified; those reductions may simply reflect the particular constitutive choices made rather than a necessary consequence of the framework.
  3. [Abstract] The benchmark claim that the Poynting-Thompson model shows 'a very good match' with uniaxial polymer data is not supported by any fit statistic, error bar, or description of the calibration protocol. If the model parameters were fitted to the same experimental data, the match would be an in-sample interpolation rather than a falsifiable prediction. The abstract should state whether the parameters were fitted to the displayed data, to other data, or derived from independent measurements; currently the claim is uncheckable and potentially circular.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity can be established: the supplied full text is a different paper and the abstract contains no equations to reduce.

full rationale

The target manuscript (arXiv:2508.05043, viscoelastic solids) is represented here only by its abstract. The full text supplied is arXiv:2508.05044v3, a hep-th paper by Ritabrata Bhattacharya on crossing symmetry, not the cond-mat.soft viscoelasticity paper. With no equations for the stored energy, rate of dissipation, configurational forces, multiplicative decomposition, evolution equation, or parameter-fitting procedure, there is no derivation chain I can walk. The abstract-level claims—strain-space versus stress-space formulations, limiting cases, and agreement with uniaxial polymer data—cannot be reduced to their inputs by construction because the inputs themselves are not quoted. The benchmark agreement could conceivably be an in-sample fit, but the instructions require exhibiting the specific reduction (e.g., Eq. X = Eq. Y by construction, or fitted parameter renamed as prediction); no such reduction is available. Absence of evidence is not circularity, and speculating that the parameters were fitted would violate the hard rules. Therefore the honest finding is no significant circularity, score 0, with the caution that the manuscript could not be fully audited due to the text mismatch.

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

The abstract implies three unstated inputs: the evolution law for the natural configuration, the form of the stored energy, and the form of the dissipation function in configurational forces. On top of these, the benchmark requires a set of material parameters whose fitting status is unstated. None of these are visible in the abstract, so the ledger cannot be closed; the entries above are the minimal set implied by the abstract's own formulation. Because the review is abstract-only, all fitted values are unknown.

free parameters (3)
  • Material parameters of the Poynting-Thompson model (elastic moduli, viscosity, relaxation time) = not stated in abstract
    The abstract reports a 'very good match' with uniaxial polymer data. If these parameters were fitted to that data, the match is an interpolation. Values and fitting procedure are not given.
  • Material parameters of the Maxwell, Kelvin-Voigt, and Zener models = not stated in abstract
    Concrete stress-strain predictions require calibrated moduli and viscosities; the abstract does not state whether these were fitted or taken from the literature.
  • Form of the rate of dissipation function in terms of configurational forces = not stated in abstract
    The stress-space formulation 'incorporates a rate of dissipation function'; its functional form is a constitutive choice that shapes the predicted response and is not specified in the abstract.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption A smooth, evolving, stress-free natural configuration exists at every material point
    This is the core construct of the framework invoked in the abstract's first sentence. Its evolution equation is a load-bearing modeling choice that the abstract does not state.
  • domain assumption The second law / dissipation inequality selects admissible evolution of the natural configuration
    Standard in the Rajagopal-Srinivasa program and implied by calling the framework thermodynamically consistent. It constrains but does not fix the constitutive functions.
  • domain assumption Finite-strain kinematics decompose multiplicatively into elastic and natural-configuration parts
    Implied by the abstract's Lagrangian, large-strain treatment with natural configurations. Not stated in the abstract but structurally necessary for the derivation.
invented entities (1)
  • Evolving natural configuration (a field of stress-free reference states)
    purpose: Serves as the dissipative intermediate configuration whose evolution encodes inelastic deformation and energy dissipation
    This construct is introduced in prior work (Rajagopal-Srinivasa lineage), so it is not new to this paper; this paper applies it. It has no direct experimental observable, which limits independent falsifiability of the framework, but this is a property of the pre-existing theory.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constitutive modeling of viscoelastic solids at large strains based on the theory of evolving natural configurations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JV6MS5SS

@misc{pith2026250805043,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constitutive modeling of viscoelastic solids at large strains based on the theory of evolving natural configurations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JV6MS5SS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.05043}
}
read the original abstract

The theory of evolving natural configurations is an effective technique to model dissipative processes. In this paper, we use this theory to revisit nonlinear constitutive models of viscoelastic solids. Particularly, a Maxwell and a Kelvin-Voigt model and their associated standard solids, viz., a Zener and a Poynting-Thompson solids respectively, have been modeled within a Lagrangian framework. We show that while a strain-space formulation of the evolving natural configurations is useful in modeling Maxwell-type materials, a stress-space formulation that incorporates a rate of dissipation function in terms of the relevant configurational forces is required for modeling the Kelvin-Voigt type materials. Furthermore, we also show that the basic Maxwell and Kelvin-Voigt models can be obtained as limiting cases from the derived standard solid models. Integration algorithms for the proposed models have been developed and numerical solutions for a relevant boundary value problem are obtained. The response of the developed models have been compared and benchmarked with experimental data. Specifically, the response of the novel Poynting-Thompson model is studied in details. This model shows a very good match with the existing experimental data obtained from a uniaxial stretching of polymers over a large extent of strain. The relaxation behavior and rate effects for the developed models have been studied.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [4]

    A proof of the crossing property for two-particle amplitudes in general quantum field theory

    J. Bros, H. Epstein, and V. Glaser, “A proof of the crossing property for two-particle amplitudes in general quantum field theory”, Commun. Math. Phys. 1, 240 (1965)

    work page 1965

  2. [5]

    Local analyticity properties of the n particle scattering amplitude

    J. Bros, V. Glaser, and H. Epstein, “Local analyticity properties of the n particle scattering amplitude”, Helv. Phys. Acta 45, 149 (1972)

    work page 1972

  3. [6]

    Derivation of asymptotic crossing domains for multiparticle processes in ax- iomatic quantum field theory: A general approach and a complete proof for 2�3 particle processes

    J. Bros, “Derivation of asymptotic crossing domains for multiparticle processes in ax- iomatic quantum field theory: A general approach and a complete proof for 2�3 particle processes”, Phys. Rept. 134, 325 (1986)

    work page 1986

  4. [7]

    Zur Formulierung quantisierter Feldthe- orien

    H. Lehmann, K. Symanzik, W. Zimmermann, “Zur Formulierung quantisierter Feldthe- orien”, (January 1955) Il Nuovo Cimento (in German). 1 (1). Italian Physical Society: 205–225

    work page 1955

  5. [8]

    H. Epstein, “Some analytic properties of scattering amplitudes in quantum field theory, in 8th Brandeis University Summer Institute in Theoretical Physics: Particle symmetries and axiomatic field theory”, (Gordon and Breach, Science Publishers, New York, 1966) pp. 1–128

    work page 1966

  6. [9]

    Present state of rigorous analytic properties of scattering amplitudes

    G. Sommer, “Present state of rigorous analytic properties of scattering amplitudes”, Fortsch. Phys. 18, 577 (1970)

    work page 1970

  7. [10]

    General Principles of Quantum Field Theory

    N. Bogolubov, A. Logunov, A. Oksak, and I. Todorov, “General Principles of Quantum Field Theory”, Mathematical Physics and Applied Mathematics (Springer Netherlands, 1989)

    work page 1989

  8. [11]

    Analytic structure of Green ’s functions in quantum field theory

    J. Bros, “Analytic structure of Green ’s functions in quantum field theory”, in Math- ematical Problems in Theoretical Physics, edited by K. Osterwalder (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1980) pp. 166–199

    work page 1980

Show all 48 references
  1. [12]

    Analyticity and crossing symmetry of superstring loop amplitudes,

    C. de Lacroix, H. Erbin and A. Sen, “Analyticity and crossing symmetry of superstring loop amplitudes,” JHEP05(2019) 139 [arXiv:1810.07197]

    2019 arXiv

  2. [13]

    Analyticity of off-shell Green’s functions in superstring field theory

    Ritabrata Bhattacharya, Ratul Mahanta, “Analyticity of off-shell Green’s functions in superstring field theory”, JHEP 01 (2021) 010 [arXiv: 2009.03375 [hep-th]]

    2021 arXiv

  3. [14]

    On analytic properties of vertex parts in quantum field theory

    L. D. Landau, “On analytic properties of vertex parts in quantum field theory”, Nucl.Phys. 13 (1959) 1, 181-192, Sov.Phys.JETP 10 (1960) 1, 45-50, Zh.Eksp.Teor.Fiz. 37 (1959) 1, 62-70

    1959

  4. [15]

    Singularities in the physical region

    S. Coleman, R. E. Norton, “Singularities in the physical region”, Nuovo Cim. 38 (1965) 438-442

    1965

  5. [16]

    Nakanishi,Graph Theory and Feynman Integrals, Mathematics and its applications: a series of monographs and texts (Gordon and Breach, 1971)

    N. Nakanishi,Graph Theory and Feynman Integrals, Mathematics and its applications: a series of monographs and texts (Gordon and Breach, 1971)

    1971

  6. [17]

    The Analytic S-Matrix

    R. J. Eden, P. V. Landshoff, D. I. Olive, and J. C. Polkinghorne, “The Analytic S-Matrix” (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1966). 34

    1966

  7. [18]

    Analytic Properties of Feynman Diagrams in Quantum Field Theory

    I. Todorov, “Analytic Properties of Feynman Diagrams in Quantum Field Theory”, edited by D. Haar, International Series of Monographs in Natural Philosophy (Elsevier Science, 2014)

    2014

  8. [19]

    Crossing symmetry in the planar limit

    Sebastian Mizera, “Crossing symmetry in the planar limit”, Phys.Rev.D 104 (2021) 4, 045003 [arXiv: 2104.12776 [hep-th]]

    2021 arXiv

  9. [20]

    Explicit solutions of the multiloop integral recurrence relations and its application

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

    1997 arXiv

  10. [21]

    The loop-by-loop Baikov representation — Strategies and implementa- tion

    Hjalte Frellesvig, “The loop-by-loop Baikov representation — Strategies and implementa- tion”, JHEP 04 (2025) 111 [arXiv: 2412.01804 [hep-th]]

    2025 arXiv

  11. [22]

    Homology and Feynman integrals

    R. C. Hwa and V. L. Teplitz, “Homology and Feynman integrals”, Mathematical physics monograph series (Benjamin, New York, NY, 1966)

    1966

  12. [23]

    Introduction ` a l’´ etude topologique des singularit´ es de Landau

    F. Pham, “Introduction ` a l’´ etude topologique des singularit´ es de Landau”, (Gauthier- Villars, 1967)

    1967

  13. [24]

    Singularities of Integrals: Homology, Hyperfunctions and Microlocal Analy- sis

    F. Pham, “Singularities of Integrals: Homology, Hyperfunctions and Microlocal Analy- sis”, (Springer-Verlag London, 2011)

    2011

  14. [25]

    Scattering in Quantum Field Theories: The Axiomatic and Constructive Approaches

    D. Iagolnitzer, “Scattering in Quantum Field Theories: The Axiomatic and Constructive Approaches”, Vol. 48 (Princeton University Press, 2014)

    2014

  15. [26]

    Causality in S-Matrix Theory

    C. Chandler, “Causality in S-Matrix Theory”, Phys. Rev. 174, 1749 (1968)

    1968

  16. [27]

    Crossing, Hermitian Analyticity, and the Connection between Spin and Statistics

    H. P. Stapp, “Crossing, Hermitian Analyticity, and the Connection between Spin and Statistics”, J. Math. Phys. 9, 1548 (1968)

    1968

  17. [28]

    Space-time properties and physical region analyticity in S-matrix theory

    D. Iagolnitzer, “Space-time properties and physical region analyticity in S-matrix theory”, Lect. Theor. Phys. D 11, 221 (1969)

    1969

  18. [29]

    Macroscopic causality and physical region analyticity in S-matrix theory

    D. Iagolnitzer and H. P. Stapp, “Macroscopic causality and physical region analyticity in S-matrix theory”, Commun. Math. Phys. 14, 15 (1969)

    1969

  19. [30]

    Macroscopic causality conditions and properties of scat- tering amplitudes

    C. Chandler and H. P. Stapp, “Macroscopic causality conditions and properties of scat- tering amplitudes”, J. Math. Phys. 10, 826 (1969)

    1969

  20. [31]

    S-Matrix Singularity Structure in the Physical Region. III. General Discussion of Simple Landau Singularities

    M. J. W. Bloxham, D. I. Olive, and J. C. Polkinghorne, “S-Matrix Singularity Structure in the Physical Region. III. General Discussion of Simple Landau Singularities”, Journal of Mathematical Physics 10, 553 (1969)

    1969

  21. [32]

    Construction of Vanishing Cycles for Integrals over Hyperspheres

    J. B. Boyling, “Construction of Vanishing Cycles for Integrals over Hyperspheres”, J. Math. Phys. 7, 1749 (1966)

    1966

  22. [33]

    Physical-region discontinuity equation

    J. Coster and H. P. Stapp, “Physical-region discontinuity equation”, J. Math. Phys. 11, 2743 (1970). 35

    1970

  23. [34]

    A basic discontinuity equation

    K. E. Cahill and H. P. Stapp, “A basic discontinuity equation”, Phys. Rev. D 6, 1007 (1972)

    1972

  24. [35]

    Discontinuity Formula and Sato’s Conjecture

    T. Kawai and H. P. Stapp, “Discontinuity Formula and Sato’s Conjecture”, Publ. Res. Inst. Math. Sci. 12, 155 (1977)

    1977

  25. [36]

    Singularit´ es des processus de diffusion multiple

    F. Pham, “Singularit´ es des processus de diffusion multiple”, Ann. Inst. H. Poincar´ e 6, 89 (1967)

    1967

  26. [37]

    A homological approach to parametric Feynman integrals

    J. B. Boyling, “A homological approach to parametric Feynman integrals”, Nuovo Cim. 53, 351 (1968)

    1968

  27. [38]

    Optical theorems and Steinmann relations

    K. E. Cahill and H. P. Stapp, “Optical theorems and Steinmann relations”, Ann. Phys. 90, 438 (1975)

    1975

  28. [39]

    Optical theorems for three-to-three processes

    J. Coster and H. P. Stapp, “Optical theorems for three-to-three processes”, J. Math. Phys. 16, 1288 (1975)

    1975

  29. [40]

    On the relevancy of the singularities of the functions associated with the Feynman graphs

    B. Andersson, “On the relevancy of the singularities of the functions associated with the Feynman graphs”, Nucl. Phys. 87, 501 (1966)

    1966

  30. [41]

    A Criterion for Singularities in Perturbation Theory

    F. R. Halpern, “A Criterion for Singularities in Perturbation Theory”, J. Math. Phys. 3, 1130 (1962)

    1962

  31. [42]

    Singularities of scattering amplitudes at isolated real points

    D. I. Olive and J. C. Taylor, “Singularities of scattering amplitudes at isolated real points”, Nuovo Cim. 24, 814 (1962)

    1962

  32. [43]

    Leading Landau Curves of a Class of Feynman Diagrams

    J. N. Islam, “Leading Landau Curves of a Class of Feynman Diagrams”, J. Math. Phys. 7, 652 (1966)

    1966

  33. [44]

    Analyticity of the Envelope Diagrams

    C. Risk, “Analyticity of the Envelope Diagrams”, J. Math. Phys. 9, 2168 (1968)

    1968

  34. [45]

    Landau Singularities Revisited: Computational Alge- braic Geometry for Feynman Integrals

    C. Fevola, S. Mizera, S. Telen, “Landau Singularities Revisited: Computational Alge- braic Geometry for Feynman Integrals”, Phys.Rev.Lett. 132 (2024) 10, 101601 [arXiv: 2311.14669 [hep-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [46]

    Principal Landau determinants

    C. Fevola, S. Mizera, S. Telen, “Principal Landau determinants”, Comput.Phys.Commun. 303 (2024) 109278 [arXiv: 2311.16219 [math-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [47]

    SOFIA: Singularities of Feynman Integrals Automatized

    Miguel Correia, Mathieu Giroux, Sebastian Mizera, “SOFIA: Singularities of Feynman Integrals Automatized”, [arXiv:2503.16601 [hep-th]]

  37. [48]

    V. A. Smirnov, “Renormalization and Asymptotic Expansions(Birkh¨ auser, 1991)

    1991

  38. [49]

    Modern Graph Theory, Graduate Texts in Mathematics

    B. Bollob´ as, “Modern Graph Theory, Graduate Texts in Mathematics” (Springer New York, 2013) Ch. II

    2013

  39. [50]

    Experimental tests of Quantum electrodynamics and spectral representa- tions of Green ’s functions in perturbation theory

    J. D. Bjorken, “Experimental tests of Quantum electrodynamics and spectral representa- tions of Green ’s functions in perturbation theory”, Ph.D. thesis, Stanford U. (1959)

    1959

  40. [51]

    Application of Linear Network Analysis to Feynman Diagrams

    J. Mathews, “Application of Linear Network Analysis to Feynman Diagrams”, Phys. Rev. 113, 381 (1959). 36

    1959

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.