Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Analytic Regression of Feynman Integrals from High-Precision Numerical Sampling

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read High-precision numerical samples of a Feynman integral can be regressed into its exact analytic form, provided the function space is known, using lattice reduction.

desk verdict A useful, honest paper that extends lattice-reduction fitting from numbers to functions; the completeness assumption is real but the method works on demanding known examples and deserves serious refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.17815 v1 pith:EF2RITVC submitted 2025-07-23 hep-th cs.NAhep-phmath.NA

Oscar Barrera , Aurélien Dersy , Rabia Husain , Matthew D. Schwartz , Xiaoyuan Zhang This is my paper
classification hep-thcs.NAhep-phmath.NA
keywords latticereductionanalyticregressionFeynmanintegralsgeneralizedpolylogarithmshigh-precisionnumericalintegrationsymbolintegrabilityrationalcoefficientrecovery
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 is trying to establish that an exact analytic formula for a function can be recovered from numerical samples alone, provided the function is known to live in a specific finite-dimensional space. For Feynman integrals, the candidate space is built from generalized polylogarithms whose allowed letters come from singularity analysis and whose leading algebraic prefactor comes from the maximal cut. The paper shows that evaluating the integral and the candidate basis at several kinematic points, then applying lattice reduction to a matrix of rounded values, yields the rational coefficients of the exact answer rather than an approximation. It demonstrates this end to end on the one-loop triangle, several two-loop master integrals, triangle ladders through three loops, and the two-loop outer-mass double box. If the method is right, exact analytic computations of Feynman integrals could be guided by high-precision numerics, complementing top-down bootstrap arguments that constrain the answer from its singularities alone.

What carries the argument

The central object is the lattice built from the rounded matrix of Eq. (3.3): rows containing $10^s f(x_1),\ldots,10^s f(x_p)$, an $(n+1)$-dimensional identity block scaled by $10^{-s}$, and rows $10^s B_i(x_1),\ldots,10^s B_i(x_p)$, all rounded to integers, with $s$ chosen so that the largest entries keep their significant digits. Lattice reduction finds a short vector in the row lattice; because the matrix contains an identity block, the last $n+1$ entries of that vector give integer coefficients $q_i$, and the first $p$ entries give the identity $f(x)=-(1/q_0)\sum_{i=1}^n q_i B_i(x)$ up to the rounding scale. The supporting pipeline constructs the basis beforehand: singularity analysis fixes the alphabet of allowed algebraic functions (letters), integrable symbols of transcendental weight up to $2L$ are formed and integrated into generalized polylogarithms, and the maximal cut fixes the rational prefactor. The method also uses the condition number of the basis-function matrix to explain why points that are too close or too far apart demand more digits, and to guide point selection.

What would settle it

Take a known Feynman integral, deliberately delete one letter from its singularity alphabet, and run the lattice regression at high precision with many points: if the algorithm returns a stable short vector that is wrong rather than failing, the stability check is not enough to certify the result. A complementary check is to sample $f(x)=\sum_i c_i B_i(x)$ with large random rational coefficients and verify that the first reduced row reproduces the $c_i$ only above the $d_{\min}\approx R n/p$ line, and that below it a spurious relation appears.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that the decomposition $f(x)=\sum_i c_i B_i(x)$, with rational coefficients $c_i$, can be determined exactly from numerical evaluations of $f$ and $B_i$ at sufficiently many, sufficiently precise points. The recovery mechanism is the lattice matrix of Eq. (3.3): after rounding the sampled values to integers at a chosen scale $10^s$ and adjoining an identity block, lattice reduction produces a short vector whose integer tail spells out a relation $q_0 f(x)+\sum_i q_i B_i(x)=0$, so that $c_i=-q_i/q_0$. The paper verifies these relations by checking stability as the number of digits increases, and by comparing against known analytic results in every example. The recovered answers include the one-loop triangle, the two-loop master integrals $I_1$ through $I_4$, the three-loop triangle ladder, and the outer-mass double box. A second claim is practical: the required number of digits scales roughly as $d_{\min}\approx R n/p$, with a conditioning floor $d_0$, so additional sample points can substitute for additional digits up to a point.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the chosen candidate space—correct singularity alphabet, correct algebraic prefactor, and a basis of generalized polylogarithms with rational coefficients—contains the true integral; the paper's own examples show that when this fails, extra constraints are needed or the fit returns nothing.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the function space is known, exact analytic results can be extracted from numerics without performing the full symbolic integration, so the main analytical work shifts to building the basis.
  • Digit requirements fall as sample points grow, roughly $d_{\min}\approx R n/p$, so practitioners can trade expensive high-precision evaluations for more kinematic points, subject to a conditioning floor.
  • The same reduction applies to bases with hundreds of functions: the paper successfully fits a 633-function constrained basis and an 806-function uniform basis, with reduction times scaling roughly like $n^4$.
  • A relation found by lattice reduction that remains unchanged when the precision is increased is treated as the exact functional identity, giving a practical certificate for the fit.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the paper's premise holds for other function classes, the same lattice-regression step could fit integrals whose answers involve elliptic polylogarithms, because only the numerical evaluation of the basis functions would change.
  • A failed or unstable fit could be used diagnostically: if the candidate function space omits a needed function or boundary term, the reduction should produce no stable relation, telling the user to enlarge the space.
  • The conditioning analysis suggests an automated workflow that selects sample points by minimizing the condition number of the basis matrix before any expensive integral evaluation, potentially lowering the digit requirement below the random-sampling floor.
  • Because the method can test a stated candidate space, it could serve as a fast check on bootstrap proposals: a proposed space that cannot support a stable short vector is unlikely to contain the true answer.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a method for recovering exact analytic expressions of Feynman integrals from high-precision numerical sampling. The central assumption is that the target integral f(x) lies in the rational span of a known set of basis functions B_i(x), and the coefficients c_i are recovered by lattice reduction on the matrix of Eq. (3.3), whose first row encodes the sampled values of f and B_i. The function-space input is assembled from SOFIA Landau analysis for the alphabet and prefactor, and GPLs constructed from integrable symbols. The pipeline is demonstrated on the one-loop triangle, two-loop four-point master integrals, triangle ladders up to three loops, and the two-loop outer-mass double box, with recovered expressions checked against published results in [107] and [110]. The paper also studies the tradeoffs between precision, number of sample points, basis size, and compute time, and proposes practical lessons for point selection and basis construction.

Significance. If the method performs as claimed, it offers a useful bottom-up complement to the Landau bootstrap: high-precision numerics plus knowledge of the function space can fix exact rational coefficients without a full analytic computation. The strengths of the paper are its nontrivial end-to-end examples, the systematic stability checks as the number of digits is increased, the explicit scaling analysis of Eq. (5.1) and the timing model of Eq. (5.4), and an unusually honest discussion of the cases where additional analytic input (e.g., Galois constraints for I4, the simplified alphabet A*_3 for the three-loop ladder) is required. The practical lessons on point selection and condition numbers are useful for future applications. The main weakness is that every successful example is validated against a previously known answer; the paper does not contain a blind recovery test, and it does not demonstrate that an incomplete basis fails loudly rather than producing a stable but wrong rational combination.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (3.8)] The inference from finite numerical samples to the exact functional identity f(x) = -sum_j (u_{p+j+1}/u_{p+1}) B_j(x) is valid only if f lies in the span of the chosen basis {B_i}. The paper does not establish completeness of its bases, nor does it quantify the risk that a missing basis function with O(1) rational coefficient is absorbed into a wrong rational combination at all sampled points and to all tested precisions. Because all successful examples are checked against known answers, the manuscript contains no blind recovery test. I ask for a controlled negative experiment: take an integral whose true function space is known, omit one letter from the alphabet, and show that the procedure either fails to produce a stable short vector or returns a visibly incorrect relation as precision is increased. Without such a test, the reliability of the method in the intended 'deduce the exact answer' regime remains unquantified.
  2. [Sec. 4.3, Table 2] For the three-loop ladder, the full SOFIA alphabet gives no solution with 400 sampled points, while the reduced alphabet A*_3 is declared sufficient after the fact. The text says 'it turns out that this alphabet is enough,' but the choice is justified only by the subsequent success of the fit. Moreover, the recovered T3 is not compared with any independent published result in the manuscript, in contrast to the other examples. The three-loop example therefore demonstrates self-consistency of the fit in a retroactively chosen basis, but not that the method would have produced the exact answer without prior knowledge. Please add an independent numerical cross-check of T3 at new kinematic points (e.g., a high-precision AMFlow evaluation at points not used in the fit), or explicitly present T3 as a prediction conditional on A*_3.
  3. [Sec. 4.2.2, I4 example] The successful fit for the box integral I4 requires additional constraints—uniform transcendental weight and Galois invariance under x -> 1/x—that are not outputs of the automated alphabet construction described in Sec. 2.2. The statement that discarding the two SOFIA letters is safe because otherwise 'we would expect our fits to fail' is an empirical expectation, not a demonstrated property. As a result, this example validates the pipeline only when the user already supplies substantial analytic structure about the answer. The paper should separate more sharply which constraints are derived by the pipeline and which are imposed by the user from prior knowledge, and discuss whether the method can discover such constraints on its own.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 1, Eq. (1.5)] The arrow '− − − − − − − − − − →' is a typesetting artifact and should be replaced with a proper labeled arrow.
  2. [Sec. 4.2.1, after Eq. (4.11)] The color coding (black vs. blue terms) used to distinguish 'full' from 'simplified' bases will not survive monochrome printing; please label the two classes explicitly in the text.
  3. [Sec. 4.4.1] The text 'there are 124 = 20736 possible symbol terms' should read '12^4 = 20736 possible symbol terms.'
  4. [Sec. 5.4] The acronym 'PLSQ' should be 'PSLQ' (the same typo appears in the sentence listing matrix inversion, lattice reduction, and PLSQ).
  5. [Sec. 5.1, Eq. (5.1) and Fig. 5] The notation is inconsistent between the text claim dmin × p ≈ n and Eq. (5.1) dmin ≈ R n/p; please state explicitly that R is the log-size of the coefficients (R = 2 in the example) and reconcile the vertical axis of Fig. 5 with this notation.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The lattice-reduction core is self-contained, but the flagship double-box and I4 examples import load-bearing constraints from the authors' own prior bootstrap [21], so the 'predictions' there reduce to fitting within a space fixed by self-citation.

  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. 4.4.1 and Sec. 4.4.3 (outer-mass double box example)]
    "The bootstrap of the symbol of [21] proceeds by imposing additional constraints at the symbol level, such that only a single free parameter remains. ... Following [21] exactly, the successive constraints are integrability, galois symmetry, physical logarithmic branch cuts, genealogical constraints and asking for only algebraic α-positive thresholds."

    For the flagship example I5, the function space in which the 'exact answer' is recovered is not constructed bottom-up; it is fixed by the authors' own prior Landau bootstrap [21], which had already reduced the 6993 integrable symbols to six symbols and a single free parameter. The lattice fit then only determines that last parameter, so the prediction is, by construction, a fit inside a space prescribed by the same authors' earlier derivation of the same integral. The paper is transparent that the two approaches are complementary, but the self-citation is load-bearing: without the [21] constraints, the 6993-function basis is declared computationally expensive and no successful reduction is demonstrated.

  2. ansatz smuggled in via citation [Sec. 4.2.2 and Tab. 1 (master integral I4)]
    "For the box integral I4, we find it necessary to impose additional constraints in order to fit the ϵ0 contribution. ... To cancel this square root branch cut, the integral (and in particular its symbol) needs to be Galois even, that is invariant under a sign flip of the square root. In turn, this implies that the symbol of I4(x,z) should be invariant under the inversion x → 1/x. ... For I4 the weight 4 fit is only successful when using the galois basis."

    The successful fit for I4 is conditional on restricting the basis by a Galois/uniform-weight constraint imported from the authors' Landau-bootstrap framework, applied in Sec. 4.4.3 as 'Following [21] exactly'. Without this imported constraint the weight-4 fit fails, as stated in Tab. 1. Thus the 'recovered' expression is obtained only inside a space already pruned by prior analytic knowledge of the integral's structure; the lattice reduction is fitting within an ansatz supplied by the authors' own earlier work rather than independently predicting the integral.

full rationale

The core algorithm of Section 3 is a standard lattice-reduction integer-relation search: Eq. (3.3)-(3.8) take numerical values of f(xj) and Bj(xj) and return the rational coefficients that reproduce those values, so the mechanism itself is not circular. The one-loop triangle and the two-loop master integrals I1-I3 are checked against the external results of [110], and the ladder examples are validated against known analytic formulas, so those demonstrations have independent content. The circularity is concentrated in the two most demanding examples. For the outer-mass double box I5, the basis is reduced from 6993 integrable symbols to 6 symbols by imposing, 'following [21] exactly', the constraints of the same authors' prior Landau bootstrap, which had already fixed the symbol up to one free parameter; the lattice fit then only fixes that parameter. For I4, the fit succeeds only after adding the Galois/uniform-weight restriction from the same framework. These are load-bearing self-citations and imported ansatze, making the 'exact-answer' claim for those examples a fit within a self-prescribed space rather than an independent prediction. Because the paper is explicit about this complementarity and because the simpler examples stand on external benchmarks, the overall circularity is partial rather than total.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper adds no new particles, forces, or fields; its postulates are about function-space completeness, the reliability of external numerical tools, and the behavior of lattice reduction. The main hand-chosen elements are the basis-reduction constraints introduced to make individual fits succeed, which act as effective free parameters even though they are not numerical constants.

free parameters (4)
  • Simplified three-loop alphabet A*_3 = 4 letters, removing z-zbar and the extra SOFIA letters
    Section 4.3: 'we will use a simplified alphabet which turns out to be sufficient'; the basis is reduced to make lattice reduction tractable, with success verified only after the fact.
  • Galois-even constraint for I4 = basis halved from 1282 to 633 functions
    Section 4.4.3: the constraint is imposed 'in order to fit the epsilon0 contribution'; without it the fit fails or needs more precision or better points.
  • Uniform transcendental weight assumption for I2 and I4 = 124 instead of 182 functions (I2); 633 (I4)
    Sections 4.2.2 and 4.4.1: assuming uniform weight shrinks the basis by roughly 30 percent, an a priori unproven property of these integrals.
  • Timing constants in Eq. (5.4) = approx. 1e9, 1e4, and exponent 4 on n
    Section 5.3: 'The constants and the exponents are approximate and depend on the number of sampling points and the reduction algorithm used.'
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Landau-analysis alphabet from SOFIA generates a complete basis for the integral.
    Section 2.2 asserts basis completeness from singularity structure; the three-loop example shows the full alphabet is overkill, while I4 fails when letters are initially discarded.
  • domain assumption AMFlow and GiNaC evaluate the integral and basis functions to the quoted precision without uncontrolled errors.
    Sections 2.1 and 4 rely on 28 to 30 digit claims for AMFlow and GiNaC, with no independent verification provided in the paper.
  • standard math The lattice-reduction implementation (Fplll or Mathematica L2) returns a vector short enough to encode the true relation.
    Appendix A notes LLL is an approximation algorithm; the paper relies on it finding the correct relation in practice, checked by stability across precision.
  • domain assumption The rational prefactor P(x) is correctly fixed by the maximal cut via SOFIA.
    Eq. (2.2) and Section 4.1 assume a uniform prefactor from the leading singularity; footnote 5 shows a separate PSLQ check used for one triangle prefactor.
  • domain assumption The target coefficients ci are rational numbers of order one.
    Section 3.2: the lattice strategy exploits the expectation that coefficients are small rationals; this is observed in all examples but not proven in general.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analytic Regression of Feynman Integrals from High-Precision Numerical Sampling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EF2RITVC

@misc{pith2026250717815,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analytic Regression of Feynman Integrals from High-Precision Numerical Sampling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EF2RITVC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.17815}
}
read the original abstract

In mathematics or theoretical physics one is often interested in obtaining an exact analytic description of some data which can be produced, in principle, to arbitrary accuracy. For example, one might like to know the exact analytical form of a definite integral. Such problems are not well-suited to numerical symbolic regression, since typical numerical methods lead only to approximations. However, if one has some sense of the function space in which the analytic result should lie, it is possible to deduce the exact answer by judiciously sampling the data at a sufficient number of points with sufficient precision. We demonstrate how this can be done for the computation of Feynman integrals. We show that by combining high-precision numerical integration with analytic knowledge of the function space one can often deduce the exact answer using lattice reduction. A number of examples are given as well as an exploration of the trade-offs between number of datapoints, number of functional predicates, precision of the data, and compute. This method provides a bottom-up approach that neatly complements the top-down Landau-bootstrap approach of trying to constrain the exact answer using the analytic structure alone. Although we focus on the application to Feynman integrals, the techniques presented here are more general and could apply to a wide range of problems where an exact answer is needed and the function space is sufficiently well understood.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Landau's Leviathans

    hep-th 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    New algorithm identifies complete Landau singularities of Feynman integrals via Euler characteristic drops over finite fields, applied to non-planar two-loop six-point and massive three-loop graphs.

  2. HyperPrecision: A Mathematica package for High-Precision Numerical Evaluation of Multivariate Hypergeometric Functions

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    HyperPrecision is a new Mathematica package that evaluates general Horn-type multivariate hypergeometric functions and their ε-expansions to high precision by reducing Pfaffian PDE systems to solvable ODEs.

  3. SubTropica

    hep-th 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    SubTropica is a software package that automates symbolic integration of linearly-reducible Euler integrals via tropical subtraction, supported by HyperIntica and an AI-driven Feynman integral database.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

129 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [107]

    Caron-Huot and J.M

    S. Caron-Huot and J.M. Henn,Iterative structure of finite loop integrals, JHEP 06 (2014) 114 [1404.2922]

    arXiv 2014

  2. [110]

    Two-Loop Master Integrals for $q \bar{q} \to V V$: the Planar Topologies

    T. Gehrmann, L. Tancredi and E. Weihs,Two-loop master integrals forq ¯q → V V: the planar topologies, JHEP 08 (2013) 070 [1306.6344]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2013

  3. [1]

    Landau,On analytic properties of vertex parts in quantum field theory, Nucl

    L. Landau,On analytic properties of vertex parts in quantum field theory, Nucl. Phys. 13 (1960) 181. – 40 –

    1960

  4. [2]

    Eden, P.V

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

    1966

  5. [3]

    Steinmann,Über den Zusammenhang Zwischen den Wightmanfunktionen und der Retardierten Kommutatoren, Helv

    O. Steinmann,Über den Zusammenhang Zwischen den Wightmanfunktionen und der Retardierten Kommutatoren, Helv. Physica Acta33 (1960) 257

    1960

  6. [4]

    Steinmann,Wightman-Funktionen und Retardierte Kommutatoren

    O. Steinmann,Wightman-Funktionen und Retardierte Kommutatoren. II, Helv. Physica Acta 33 (1960) 347

    1960

  7. [5]

    Pham,Singularités des processus de diffusion multiple, Annales de l’I.H.P

    F. Pham,Singularités des processus de diffusion multiple, Annales de l’I.H.P. Physique théorique 6 (1967) 89

    1967

  8. [6]

    Fevola, S

    C. Fevola, S. Mizera and S. Telen,Landau Singularities Revisited: Computational Algebraic Geometry for Feynman Integrals, Phys. Rev. Lett.132 (2024) 101601 [2311.14669]

    arXiv 2024

Show all 129 references
  1. [7]

    Hannesdottir, A.J

    H.S. Hannesdottir, A.J. McLeod, M.D. Schwartz and C. Vergu,Implications of the Landau equations for iterated integrals, Phys. Rev. D105 (2022) L061701 [2109.09744]

    2022 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Hannesdottir, A.J

    H.S. Hannesdottir, A.J. McLeod, M.D. Schwartz and C. Vergu,Constraints on sequential discontinuities from the geometry of on-shell spaces, JHEP 07 (2023) 236 [2211.07633]

    2023 arXiv

  3. [9]

    Broadhurst,Massive three - loop Feynman diagrams reducible to SC* primitives of algebras of the sixth root of unity, Eur

    D.J. Broadhurst,Massive three - loop Feynman diagrams reducible to SC* primitives of algebras of the sixth root of unity, Eur. Phys. J. C8 (1999) 311 [hep-th/9803091]

    1999 arXiv

  4. [10]

    Bogner and S

    C. Bogner and S. Weinzierl,Periods and Feynman integrals, J. Math. Phys.50 (2009) 042302 [0711.4863]

    2009 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Bourjaily et al.,Functions Beyond Multiple Polylogarithms for Precision Collider Physics, inSnowmass 2021, 3, 2022 [2203.07088]

    J.L. Bourjaily et al.,Functions Beyond Multiple Polylogarithms for Precision Collider Physics, inSnowmass 2021, 3, 2022 [2203.07088]

    2021 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Arkani-Hamed, J.L

    N. Arkani-Hamed, J.L. Bourjaily, F. Cachazo, A.B. Goncharov, A. Postnikov and J. Trnka, Grassmannian Geometry of Scattering Amplitudes, Cambridge University Press (4, 2016), 10.1017/CBO9781316091548, [1212.5605]

    2016 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Schlotterer and S

    O. Schlotterer and S. Stieberger,Motivic Multiple Zeta Values and Superstring Amplitudes, J. Phys. A46 (2013) 475401 [1205.1516]

    2013 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Brown,Feynman amplitudes, coaction principle, and cosmic Galois group, Commun

    F. Brown,Feynman amplitudes, coaction principle, and cosmic Galois group, Commun. Num. Theor. Phys.11 (2017) 453 [1512.06409]

    2017 arXiv

  9. [15]

    Panzer and O

    E. Panzer and O. Schnetz,The Galois coaction onϕ4 periods, Commun. Num. Theor. Phys. 11 (2017) 657 [1603.04289]

    2017 arXiv

  10. [16]

    Schnetz,The Galois coaction on the electron anomalous magnetic moment, Commun

    O. Schnetz,The Galois coaction on the electron anomalous magnetic moment, Commun. Num. Theor. Phys.12 (2018) 335 [1711.05118]

    2018 arXiv

  11. [17]

    Caron-Huot, L.J

    S. Caron-Huot, L.J. Dixon, F. Dulat, M. Von Hippel, A.J. McLeod and G. Papathanasiou, The Cosmic Galois Group and Extended Steinmann Relations for PlanarN = 4 SYM Amplitudes, JHEP 09 (2019) 061 [1906.07116]

    2019 arXiv

  12. [18]

    Gürdoğan,From integrability to the Galois coaction on Feynman periods, Phys

    O. Gürdoğan,From integrability to the Galois coaction on Feynman periods, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) L081703 [2011.04781]

    2021 arXiv

  13. [19]

    Dixon, O

    L.J. Dixon, O. Gurdogan, A.J. McLeod and M. Wilhelm,Folding Amplitudes into Form Factors: An Antipodal Duality, Phys. Rev. Lett.128 (2022) 111602 [2112.06243]

    2022 arXiv

  14. [20]

    Dixon, O

    L.J. Dixon, O. Gürdoğan, Y.-T. Liu, A.J. McLeod and M. Wilhelm,Antipodal Self-Duality for a Four-Particle Form Factor, Phys. Rev. Lett.130 (2023) 111601 [2212.02410]. – 41 –

    2023 arXiv

  15. [21]

    Hannesdottir, A.J

    H.S. Hannesdottir, A.J. McLeod, M.D. Schwartz and C. Vergu,Applications of the Landau bootstrap, Phys. Rev. D111 (2025) 085003 [2410.02424]

    2025 arXiv

  16. [22]

    Correia, M

    M. Correia, M. Giroux and S. Mizera,SOFIA: Singularities of Feynman Integrals Automatized, 2503.16601

  17. [23]

    Liu, Y.-Q

    X. Liu, Y.-Q. Ma and C.-Y. Wang,A Systematic and Efficient Method to Compute Multi-loop Master Integrals, Phys. Lett. B779 (2018) 353 [1711.09572]

    2018 arXiv

  18. [24]

    Liu and Y.-Q

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

    2019 arXiv

  19. [25]

    Liu and Y.-Q

    X. Liu and Y.-Q. Ma,Multiloop corrections for collider processes using auxiliary mass flow, Phys. Rev. D105 (2022) L051503 [2107.01864]

    2022 arXiv

  20. [26]

    Liu and Y.-Q

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

    2023 arXiv

  21. [27]

    Liu and Y.-Q

    Z.-F. Liu and Y.-Q. Ma,Determining Feynman Integrals with Only Input from Linear Algebra, Phys. Rev. Lett.129 (2022) 222001 [2201.11637]

    2022 arXiv

  22. [28]

    Lenstra, H.W

    A.K. Lenstra, H.W. Lenstra and L. Lovász,Factoring polynomials with rational coefficients, Mathematische Annalen 261 (1982) 515

    1982

  23. [29]

    Ferguson and D

    H. Ferguson and D. Bailey,A polynomial time, numerically stable integer relation algorithm, Tech. Rep. NASA Ames Research Center (07, 1992)

    1992

  24. [30]

    Ferguson, D.H

    H.R.P. Ferguson, D.H. Bailey and S. Arno,Analysis of pslq, an integer relation finding algorithm, Math. Comput. 68 (1999) 351–369

    1999

  25. [31]

    Bailey and D.J

    D.H. Bailey and D.J. Broadhurst,Parallel integer relation detection: Techniques and applications, Math. Comput. 70 (2001) 1719 [math/9905048]

    2001

  26. [32]

    Chachamis,High Precision Gauge Boson Pair Production at the LHC, in16th International Workshop on Deep Inelastic Scattering and Related Subjects, p

    G. Chachamis,High Precision Gauge Boson Pair Production at the LHC, in16th International Workshop on Deep Inelastic Scattering and Related Subjects, p. 141, 7, 2008, DOI [0807.0548]

    2008 arXiv

  27. [33]

    Lee, A.V

    R.N. Lee, A.V. Smirnov and V.A. Smirnov,Analytic Results for Massless Three-Loop Form Factors, JHEP 04 (2010) 020 [1001.2887]

    2010 arXiv

  28. [34]

    Kelley, M.D

    R. Kelley, M.D. Schwartz, R.M. Schabinger and H.X. Zhu,The two-loop hemisphere soft function, Phys. Rev. D84 (2011) 045022 [1105.3676]

    2011 arXiv

  29. [35]

    Laporta,High-precision calculation of the 4-loop contribution to the electron g-2 in QED, Phys

    S. Laporta,High-precision calculation of the 4-loop contribution to the electron g-2 in QED, Phys. Lett. B772 (2017) 232 [1704.06996]

    2017 arXiv

  30. [36]

    Chicherin, J

    D. Chicherin, J. Henn and V. Mitev,Bootstrapping pentagon functions, JHEP 05 (2018) 164 [1712.09610]

    2018 arXiv

  31. [37]

    Lee, A.V

    R.N. Lee, A.V. Smirnov and V.A. Smirnov,Evaluating ‘elliptic’ master integrals at special kinematic values: using differential equations and their solutions via expansions near singular points, JHEP 07 (2018) 102 [1805.00227]

    2018 arXiv

  32. [38]

    Acres and D

    K. Acres and D. Broadhurst,Empirical Determinations of Feynman Integrals Using Integer Relation Algorithms, inAntidifferentiation and the Calculation of Feynman Amplitudes, 3, 2021, DOI [2103.06345]

    2021 arXiv

  33. [39]

    Agarwal, A

    B. Agarwal, A. von Manteuffel, E. Panzer and R.M. Schabinger,Four-loop collinear anomalous dimensions in QCD and N=4 super Yang-Mills, Phys. Lett. B820 (2021) 136503 [2102.09725]. – 42 –

    2021 arXiv

  34. [40]

    Canko and M

    D. Canko and M. Pozzoli,A first computation of three-loop master integrals for the production of two off-shell vector bosons with different masses, JHEP 02 (2025) 088 [2412.06972]

    2025

  35. [41]

    Binoth and G

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

    2000 arXiv

  36. [42]

    Binoth and G

    T. Binoth and G. Heinrich,Numerical evaluation of multi-loop integrals by sector decomposition, Nucl. Phys. B 680 (2004) 375 [hep-ph/0305234]

    2004 arXiv

  37. [43]

    Binoth and G

    T. Binoth and G. Heinrich,Numerical evaluation of phase space integrals by sector decomposition, Nucl. Phys. B 693 (2004) 134 [hep-ph/0402265]

    2004 arXiv

  38. [44]

    Heinrich,Sector Decomposition, Int

    G. Heinrich,Sector Decomposition, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A23 (2008) 1457 [0803.4177]

    2008 arXiv

  39. [45]

    Smirnov and M.N

    A.V. Smirnov and M.N. Tentyukov,Feynman Integral Evaluation by a Sector decomposiTion Approach (FIESTA), Comput. Phys. Commun.180 (2009) 735 [0807.4129]

    2009 arXiv

  40. [46]

    Smirnov, V.A

    A.V. Smirnov, V.A. Smirnov and M. Tentyukov,FIESTA 2: Parallelizeable multiloop numerical calculations, Comput. Phys. Commun.182 (2011) 790 [0912.0158]

    2011 arXiv

  41. [47]

    Smirnov,FIESTA 3: cluster-parallelizable multiloop numerical calculations in physical regions, Comput

    A.V. Smirnov,FIESTA 3: cluster-parallelizable multiloop numerical calculations in physical regions, Comput. Phys. Commun.185 (2014) 2090 [1312.3186]

    2014 arXiv

  42. [48]

    Smirnov,FIESTA4: Optimized Feynman integral calculations with GPU support, Comput

    A.V. Smirnov,FIESTA4: Optimized Feynman integral calculations with GPU support, Comput. Phys. Commun.204 (2016) 189 [1511.03614]

    2016 arXiv

  43. [49]

    Smirnov, N.D

    A.V. Smirnov, N.D. Shapurov and L.I. Vysotsky,FIESTA5: Numerical high-performance Feynman integral evaluation, Comput. Phys. Commun.277 (2022) 108386 [2110.11660]

    2022 arXiv

  44. [50]

    Borowka, J

    S. Borowka, J. Carter and G. Heinrich,Numerical Evaluation of Multi-Loop Integrals for Arbitrary Kinematics with SecDec 2.0, Comput. Phys. Commun.184 (2013) 396 [1204.4152]

    2013 arXiv

  45. [51]

    Borowka, G

    S. Borowka, G. Heinrich, S.P. Jones, M. Kerner, J. Schlenk and T. Zirke,SecDec-3.0: numerical evaluation of multi-scale integrals beyond one loop, Comput. Phys. Commun.196 (2015) 470 [1502.06595]

    2015 arXiv

  46. [52]

    Borowka, G

    S. Borowka, G. Heinrich, S. Jahn, S.P. Jones, M. Kerner, J. Schlenk et al.,pySecDec: a toolbox for the numerical evaluation of multi-scale integrals, Comput. Phys. Commun.222 (2018) 313 [1703.09692]

    2018 arXiv

  47. [53]

    Borowka, G

    S. Borowka, G. Heinrich, S. Jahn, S.P. Jones, M. Kerner and J. Schlenk,A GPU compatible quasi-Monte Carlo integrator interfaced to pySecDec, Comput. Phys. Commun.240 (2019) 120 [1811.11720]

    2019 arXiv

  48. [54]

    Heinrich, S

    G. Heinrich, S. Jahn, S.P. Jones, M. Kerner, F. Langer, V. Magerya et al.,Expansion by regions with pySecDec, Comput. Phys. Commun.273 (2022) 108267 [2108.10807]

    2022 arXiv

  49. [55]

    Heinrich, S.P

    G. Heinrich, S.P. Jones, M. Kerner, V. Magerya, A. Olsson and J. Schlenk,Numerical scattering amplitudes with pySecDec, Comput. Phys. Commun.295 (2024) 108956 [2305.19768]

    2024 arXiv

  50. [56]

    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. B100 (1981) 65

    1981

  51. [57]

    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

  52. [58]

    Lee,Presenting LiteRed: a tool for the Loop InTEgrals REDuction, 1212.2685

    R.N. Lee,Presenting LiteRed: a tool for the Loop InTEgrals REDuction, 1212.2685. – 43 –

    arXiv

  53. [59]

    Lee,LiteRed 1.4: a powerful tool for reduction of multiloop integrals, J

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

    2014 arXiv

  54. [60]

    Smirnov,Algorithm FIRE – Feynman Integral REduction, JHEP 10 (2008) 107 [0807.3243]

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

    2008 arXiv

  55. [61]

    Smirnov,FIRE5: A C++ implementation of Feynman Integral REduction, Comput

    A.V. Smirnov,FIRE5: A C++ implementation of Feynman Integral REduction, Comput. Phys. Commun. 189 (2015) 182 [1408.2372]

    2015 arXiv

  56. [62]

    Smirnov and F.S

    A.V. Smirnov and F.S. Chukharev,FIRE6: Feynman Integral REduction with modular arithmetic, Comput. Phys. Commun.247 (2020) 106877 [1901.07808]

    2020 arXiv

  57. [63]

    Smirnov and M

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

    2024 arXiv

  58. [64]

    Maierhöfer, J

    P. Maierhöfer, J. Usovitsch and P. Uwer,Kira—A Feynman integral reduction program, Comput. Phys. Commun.230 (2018) 99 [1705.05610]

    2018 arXiv

  59. [65]

    Klappert, F

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

    2021 arXiv

  60. [66]

    Lange, J

    F. Lange, J. Usovitsch and Z. Wu,Kira 3: integral reduction with efficient seeding and optimized equation selection, 2505.20197

    arXiv

  61. [67]

    X. Guan, X. Liu and Y.-Q. Ma,Complete reduction of integrals in two-loop five-light-parton scattering amplitudes, Chin. Phys. C 44 (2020) 093106 [1912.09294]

    2020 arXiv

  62. [68]

    X. Guan, X. Liu, Y.-Q. Ma and W.-H. Wu,Blade: A package for block-triangular form improved Feynman integrals decomposition, Comput. Phys. Commun.310 (2025) 109538 [2405.14621]

    2025 arXiv

  63. [69]

    Chen,Semi-automatic calculations of multi-loop Feynman amplitudes with AmpRed, Comput

    W. Chen,Semi-automatic calculations of multi-loop Feynman amplitudes with AmpRed, Comput. Phys. Commun.312 (2025) 109607 [2408.06426]

    2025 arXiv

  64. [70]

    Kotikov,Differential equations method: New technique for massive Feynman diagrams calculation, Phys

    A.V. Kotikov,Differential equations method: New technique for massive Feynman diagrams calculation, Phys. Lett. B254 (1991) 158

    1991

  65. [71]

    Kotikov,Differential equation method: The Calculation of N point Feynman diagrams, Phys

    A.V. Kotikov,Differential equation method: The Calculation of N point Feynman diagrams, Phys. Lett. B267 (1991) 123

    1991

  66. [72]

    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

  67. [73]

    Remiddi,Differential equations for Feynman graph amplitudes, Nuovo Cim

    E. Remiddi,Differential equations for Feynman graph amplitudes, Nuovo Cim. A110 (1997) 1435 [hep-th/9711188]

    1997 arXiv

  68. [74]

    Henn,Multiloop integrals in dimensional regularization made simple, Phys

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

    2013 arXiv

  69. [75]

    Goncharov,Multiple polylogarithms, cyclotomy and modular complexes, Math

    A.B. Goncharov,Multiple polylogarithms, cyclotomy and modular complexes, Math. Res. Lett. 5 (1998) 497 [1105.2076]

    1998 arXiv

  70. [76]

    Goncharov,Multiple polylogarithms and mixed Tate motives, math/0103059

    A.B. Goncharov,Multiple polylogarithms and mixed Tate motives, math/0103059

    arXiv

  71. [77]

    Goncharov, M

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

    2010 arXiv

  72. [78]

    C. Duhr, H. Gangl and J.R. Rhodes,From polygons and symbols to polylogarithmic functions, JHEP 10 (2012) 075 [1110.0458]. – 44 –

    2012 arXiv

  73. [79]

    Duhr,Hopf algebras, coproducts and symbols: an application to Higgs boson amplitudes, JHEP 08 (2012) 043 [1203.0454]

    C. Duhr,Hopf algebras, coproducts and symbols: an application to Higgs boson amplitudes, JHEP 08 (2012) 043 [1203.0454]

    2012 arXiv

  74. [80]

    Dixon, J

    L.J. Dixon, J. Drummond, T. Harrington, A.J. McLeod, G. Papathanasiou and M. Spradlin, Heptagons from the Steinmann Cluster Bootstrap, JHEP 02 (2017) 137 [1612.08976]

    2017 arXiv

  75. [81]

    Caron-Huot, L.J

    S. Caron-Huot, L.J. Dixon, A. McLeod and M. von Hippel,Bootstrapping a Five-Loop Amplitude Using Steinmann Relations, Phys. Rev. Lett.117 (2016) 241601 [1609.00669]

    2016 arXiv

  76. [82]

    Caron-Huot, L.J

    S. Caron-Huot, L.J. Dixon, F. Dulat, M. von Hippel, A.J. McLeod and G. Papathanasiou, Six-Gluon amplitudes in planarN = 4 super-Yang-Mills theory at six and seven loops, JHEP 08 (2019) 016 [1903.10890]

    2019 arXiv

  77. [83]

    Dixon, A.J

    L.J. Dixon, A.J. McLeod and M. Wilhelm,A Three-Point Form Factor Through Five Loops, JHEP 04 (2021) 147 [2012.12286]

    2021 arXiv

  78. [84]

    Dixon, O

    L.J. Dixon, O. Gurdogan, A.J. McLeod and M. Wilhelm,Bootstrapping a stress-tensor form factor through eight loops, JHEP 07 (2022) 153 [2204.11901]

    2022 arXiv

  79. [85]

    Basso, L.J

    B. Basso, L.J. Dixon and A.G. Tumanov,The three-point form factor of Trϕ3 to six loops, JHEP 02 (2025) 034 [2410.22402]

    2025 arXiv

  80. [86]

    Cai, G.W

    T. Cai, G.W. Merz, F. Charton, N. Nolte, M. Wilhelm, K. Cranmer et al.,Transforming the bootstrap: using transformers to compute scattering amplitudes in planarN = 4 super Yang–Mills theory, Mach. Learn. Sci. Tech.5 (2024) 035073 [2405.06107]

    2024 arXiv

  81. [87]

    T. Cai, F. Charton, K. Cranmer, L.J. Dixon, G.W. Merz and M. Wilhelm,Recurrent features of amplitudes in planarN = 4 super Yang-Mills theory, JHEP 04 (2025) 143 [2501.05743]

    2025 arXiv

  82. [88]

    Y. Guo, L. Wang and G. Yang,Bootstrapping a Two-Loop Four-Point Form Factor, Phys. Rev. Lett.127 (2021) 151602 [2106.01374]

    2021 arXiv

  83. [89]

    Caron-Huot, L.J

    S. Caron-Huot, L.J. Dixon, M. von Hippel, A.J. McLeod and G. Papathanasiou,The Double Pentaladder Integral to All Orders, JHEP 07 (2018) 170 [1806.01361]

    2018 arXiv

  84. [90]

    J. Henn, E. Herrmann and J. Parra-Martinez,Bootstrapping two-loop Feynman integrals for planar N = 4 sYM, JHEP 10 (2018) 059 [1806.06072]

    2018 arXiv

  85. [91]

    S. He, Z. Li, Y. Tang and Q. Yang,Bootstrapping octagons in reduced kinematics from A2 cluster algebras, JHEP 10 (2021) 084 [2106.03709]

    2021 arXiv

  86. [92]

    S. He, Z. Li and Q. Yang,Kinematics, cluster algebras and Feynman integrals, 2112.11842

    arXiv

  87. [93]

    Morales, A

    R. Morales, A. Spiering, M. Wilhelm, Q. Yang and C. Zhang,Bootstrapping Elliptic Feynman Integrals Using Schubert Analysis, Phys. Rev. Lett.131 (2023) 041601 [2212.09762]

    2023 arXiv

  88. [94]

    Georgoudis and Y

    A. Georgoudis and Y. Zhang,Two-loop Integral Reduction from Elliptic and Hyperelliptic Curves, JHEP 12 (2015) 086 [1507.06310]

    2015 arXiv

  89. [95]

    Bourjaily, Y.-H

    J.L. Bourjaily, Y.-H. He, A.J. Mcleod, M. Von Hippel and M. Wilhelm,Traintracks through Calabi-Yau Manifolds: Scattering Amplitudes beyond Elliptic Polylogarithms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) 071603 [1805.09326]

    2018 arXiv

  90. [96]

    C. Duhr, A. Klemm, C. Nega and L. Tancredi,The ice cone family and iterated integrals for Calabi-Yau varieties, JHEP 02 (2023) 228 [2212.09550]

    2023 arXiv

  91. [97]

    Fevola, S

    C. Fevola, S. Mizera and S. Telen,Principal Landau determinants, Comput. Phys. Commun. 303 (2024) 109278 [2311.16219]. – 45 –

    2024 arXiv

  92. [98]

    Duhr and F

    C. Duhr and F. Dulat,PolyLogTools — polylogs for the masses, JHEP 08 (2019) 135 [1904.07279]

    2019 arXiv

  93. [99]

    Anastasiou, C

    C. Anastasiou, C. Duhr, F. Dulat and B. Mistlberger,Soft triple-real radiation for Higgs production at N3LO, JHEP 07 (2013) 003 [1302.4379]

    2013 arXiv

  94. [100]

    Wang, L.L

    Y. Wang, L.L. Yang and B. Zhou,FastGPL: a C++ library for fast evaluation of generalized polylogarithms, 2112.04122

    arXiv

  95. [101]

    Bauer, A

    C. Bauer, A. Frink and R. Kreckel,Introduction to the ginac framework for symbolic computation within the c++ programming language, Journal of Symbolic Computation33 (2002) 1

    2002

  96. [102]

    Vollinga and S

    J. Vollinga and S. Weinzierl,Numerical evaluation of multiple polylogarithms, Comput. Phys. Commun. 167 (2005) 177 [hep-ph/0410259]

    2005 arXiv

  97. [103]

    Primo and L

    A. Primo and L. Tancredi,On the maximal cut of Feynman integrals and the solution of their differential equations, Nucl. Phys. B 916 (2017) 94 [1610.08397]

    2017 arXiv

  98. [104]

    Cheney and D.R

    E.W. Cheney and D.R. Kincaid,Numerical Mathematics and Computing, Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., USA, 6th ed. (2007)

    2007

  99. [105]

    Edelman,Eigenvalues and condition numbers of random matrices, SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications9 (1988) 543

    A. Edelman,Eigenvalues and condition numbers of random matrices, SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications9 (1988) 543

    1988

  100. [106]

    Nguyen and J

    P.Q. Nguyen and J. Stern,The two faces of lattices in cryptology, inCryptography and Lattices, J.H. Silverman, ed., (Berlin, Heidelberg), pp. 146–180, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2001

    2001

  101. [108]

    fplll, a lattice reduction library, Version: 5.5.0

    T.F. development team, “fplll, a lattice reduction library, Version: 5.5.0.” 2023

    2023

  102. [109]

    Anastasiou, S

    C. Anastasiou, S. Beerli, S. Bucherer, A. Daleo and Z. Kunszt,Two-loop amplitudes and master integrals for the production of a Higgs boson via a massive quark and a scalar-quark loop, JHEP 01 (2007) 082 [hep-ph/0611236]

    2007 arXiv

  103. [111]

    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]

    2022 arXiv

  104. [112]

    Henn,Lectures on differential equations for Feynman integrals, J

    J.M. Henn,Lectures on differential equations for Feynman integrals, J. Phys. A48 (2015) 153001 [1412.2296]

    2015 arXiv

  105. [113]

    Chavez and C

    F. Chavez and C. Duhr,Three-mass triangle integrals and single-valued polylogarithms, JHEP 11 (2012) 114 [1209.2722]

    2012 arXiv

  106. [114]

    Arkani-Hamed, J.L

    N. Arkani-Hamed, J.L. Bourjaily, F. Cachazo and J. Trnka,Local Integrals for Planar Scattering Amplitudes, JHEP 06 (2012) 125 [1012.6032]

    2012 arXiv

  107. [115]

    Klappert and F

    J. Klappert and F. Lange,Reconstructing rational functions with FireFly, Comput. Phys. Commun. 247 (2020) 106951 [1904.00009]

    2020 arXiv

  108. [116]

    Brown,Iterated integrals in quantum field theory, in6th Summer School on Geometric and Topological Methods for Quantum Field Theory, pp

    F. Brown,Iterated integrals in quantum field theory, in6th Summer School on Geometric and Topological Methods for Quantum Field Theory, pp. 188–240, 2013, DOI. – 46 –

    2013

  109. [117]

    Walden and S

    M. Walden and S. Weinzierl,Numerical evaluation of iterated integrals related to elliptic Feynman integrals, Comput. Phys. Commun.265 (2021) 108020 [2010.05271]

    2021 arXiv

  110. [118]

    Gautschi,Norm estimates for inverses of vandermonde matrices, Numerische Mathematik 23 (1974) 337

    W. Gautschi,Norm estimates for inverses of vandermonde matrices, Numerische Mathematik 23 (1974) 337

    1974

  111. [119]

    Nguyen and B

    P.Q. Nguyen and B. Valle,The LLL Algorithm: Survey and Applications, Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated, 1st ed. (2009)

    2009

  112. [120]

    Simon,Selected applications of lll in number theory, inThe LLL Algorithm: Survey and Applications, P.Q

    D. Simon,Selected applications of lll in number theory, inThe LLL Algorithm: Survey and Applications, P.Q. Nguyen and B. Vallée, eds., (Berlin, Heidelberg), pp. 265–282, Springer Berlin Heidelberg (2010), DOI

    2010

  113. [121]

    Fincke and M

    U. Fincke and M. Pohst,Improved methods for calculating vectors of short length in a lattice, including a complexity analysis, Mathematics of Computation 44 (1985) 463

    1985

  114. [122]

    Kaltofen,On the complexity of finding short vectors in integer lattices, inComputer Algebra, J.A

    E. Kaltofen,On the complexity of finding short vectors in integer lattices, inComputer Algebra, J.A. van Hulzen, ed., (Berlin, Heidelberg), pp. 236–244, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1983

    1983

  115. [123]

    Schnorr,A more efficient algorithm for lattice basis reduction, Journal of Algorithms9 (1988) 47

    C. Schnorr,A more efficient algorithm for lattice basis reduction, Journal of Algorithms9 (1988) 47

    1988

  116. [124]

    N. Gama, N. Howgrave-Graham, H. Koy and P.Q. Nguyen,Rankin’s constant and blockwise lattice reduction, inAdvances in Cryptology - CRYPTO 2006, C. Dwork, ed., (Berlin, Heidelberg), pp. 112–130, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2006

    2006

  117. [125]

    Nguyen and D

    P.Q. Nguyen and D. Stehlé,An lll algorithm with quadratic complexity, SIAM Journal on Computing 39 (2009) 874 [https://doi.org/10.1137/070705702]

    2009 doi

  118. [126]

    Dabral, S.K

    A. Dabral, S.K. Pal and A. Yadav,Lattice basis reduction techniques, Multimedia Tools and Applications 83 (2024) 69619

    2024

  119. [127]

    Frellesvig, D

    H. Frellesvig, D. Tommasini and C. Wever,On the reduction of generalized polylogarithms to Lin and Li2,2 and on the evaluation thereof, JHEP 03 (2016) 189 [1601.02649]

    2016 arXiv

  120. [128]

    Naterop, A

    L. Naterop, A. Signer and Y. Ulrich,handyG —Rapid numerical evaluation of generalised polylogarithms in Fortran, Comput. Phys. Commun.253 (2020) 107165 [1909.01656]

    2020 arXiv

  121. [129]

    Dersy, M.D

    A. Dersy, M.D. Schwartz and X. Zhang,Simplifying Polylogarithms with Machine Learning, Int. J. Data Sci. Math. Sci.1 (2024) 135 [2206.04115]. – 47 –

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.