Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 8 cited by

An Analytic Computation of Three-Loop Five-Point Feynman Integrals

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper reports the first analytic evaluation of the three-loop five-point pentagon-box-box massless integral family, expressing all 316 master integrals up to transcendental weight six in the Euclidean region via a canonical…

desk verdict Genuine first computation of a three-loop five-point family that is likely correct; the Letter's evidence is thinner than its claims, especially on alphabet completeness and the pySecDec cross-check. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18697 v2 pith:TSEZ5ELL submitted 2024-11-27 hep-ph hep-th

Yuanche Liu , Antonela Matijašić , Julian Miczajka , Yingxuan Xu , Yongqun Xu , Yang Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-th MSC 81Q3033B30
keywords analyticFeynmanintegralsthree-loopfive-pointpentagon-box-boxcanonicaldifferentialequationuniformtranscendentalbasispolylogarithmsone-foldintegralrepresentationsymbolalphabet
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

This paper sets out to compute the three-loop five-point pentagon-box-box (PBB) massless Feynman integral family analytically, the first such three-loop five-point evaluation. Using a canonical differential equation, it derives expressions for all 316 master integrals up to transcendental weight six in the Euclidean region. The lower-weight parts are given as classical polylogarithms; the higher-weight parts are written as one-fold integrals of weight-three functions against weight-two kernels. The authors verify their results against independent numerical programs and provide a fast numerical implementation.

What carries the argument

The central objects are the canonical differential equation with its 31-letter alphabet and the weight-two auxiliary matrix $\tilde{B}$ defined by $d\tilde{B} = (d\tilde{A})\tilde{A}$, whose existence follows from the integrability condition $d((d\tilde{A})\tilde{A}) = 0$. The $\tilde{B}$ matrix is expressed in terms of logarithms and dilogarithms; substituting it into the new one-fold formula (Eq. (30)) expresses each weight-six integral as a single integral of known weight-three functions, making the evaluation practical. The uniform-transcendental basis is constructed via leading-singularity analysis and d-log integrand methods, with integration-by-parts reduction handled by computational algebraic geometry.

What would settle it

Compute the maximal cut of the pentagon-box-box graph at a generic kinematic point and factor the resulting polynomial; if any irreducible factor is not among the 31 letters $W_i$, the alphabet is incomplete and the analytic result fails. Alternatively, evaluate one weight-six master integral at a kinematic point with high precision using a completely independent numerical method and check whether the result matches the one-fold integral to more than the reported digits.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the entire PBB integral family admits a canonical differential equation $dI = \varepsilon d\tilde{A} I$ with a d-log alphabet consisting exactly of the 31 planar pentagon letters known from two-loop studies. Boundary values are fixed analytically at spurious-pole positions in the Euclidean region, including a parity-odd weight-three function whose boundary constant reduces to four terms involving the golden ratio. For weights four, five, and six, the paper introduces a new iterated-integral representation: an auxiliary matrix $\tilde{B}$ satisfying $d\tilde{B} = (d\tilde{A})\tilde{A}$ converts the weight-six solution into a one-fold integral over products of weight-three polylogarithmic functions with weight-two kernels. All master integrals are thereby expressed up to weight six, and the paper reports agreement with standard numerical programs for the full family wherever the latter are applicable.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that the 31 planar pentagon letters form a complete alphabet for the three-loop pentagon-box-box family; if a new letter appears in some sub-sector, every analytic result built from the differential equation would be incomplete.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The computation makes the N3LO correction to massless 2 to 3 processes such as three-jet, three-photon, and jet-plus-two-photon production a concrete next step.
  • The one-fold integral representation evaluates all uniform-transcendental integrals to 32 digits in under an hour on 30 cores, far faster than the numerical sector-decomposition runs used for validation.
  • The appearance of only the 31 planar pentagon letters, despite earlier expectations of new letters at three loops, constrains the function space of other three-loop five-point topologies.
  • The auxiliary-matrix formula (Eq. (30)) upgrades the weight-$(n+3)$ solution from weight-$n$ data, a structural gain that likely extends beyond this integral family.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the alphabet-completeness finding generalizes, all planar three-loop five-point topologies could be expressed in the same 31-letter function space, potentially unifying future three-loop five-point analytic results.
  • The new one-fold representation may be better suited for analytic continuation than multiple-polylogarithm expansions, because a single numerical integration can be performed along a path in the physical region once the branch structure of the weight-three data is known.
  • The golden-ratio boundary constant suggests that other boundary values of higher-loop families might also collapse to special values of polylogarithms at algebraic points, which could simplify boundary determination in future computations.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 manuscript presents the first analytic computation of a three-loop five-point Feynman integral family, the massless pentagon-box-box (PBB) family in dimensional regularization. The authors use NeatIBP and computational algebraic geometry to perform IBP reduction, construct a uniform-transcendentality basis for 316 master integrals, and derive a canonical differential equation whose alphabet is claimed to be the 31 planar pentagon letters. Weight-one to weight-three solutions are expressed with classical polylogarithms, including a parity-odd function P constructed by symbol matching and a numerical fit of the beyond-the-symbol term. Weight-four to weight-six solutions are written through a new one-fold integral representation involving an auxiliary matrix B. Boundary values are fixed by spurious-pole conditions and simplified using PSLQ, and a numerical comparison with pySecDec is reported for one top-sector integral.

Significance. If correct, this is a milestone result: it would be the first analytic evaluation of a three-loop five-point integral family, with weight-six results in the Euclidean region, and it introduces a new one-fold integral representation that may be useful beyond this family. The paper ships machine-readable auxiliary files and a proof-of-concept evaluation code, which is a clear strength. The new auxiliary-matrix representation in Eq. (30) and the use of computational algebraic geometry for the IBP reduction are also valuable methodological contributions. However, as detailed below, the alphabet-completeness premise and the scope of numerical validation are not yet sufficient to support the full 'all integrals' claims made in the abstract and introduction.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section V, Eq. (14)] The claim that, for the PBB family, the CDE is decomposed with only the 31 planar pentagon letters W_i is load-bearing: every weight-one through weight-six expression in the Letter is built from these letters. The text cites a computational check but provides no certificate and no description of that check, while Ref. [58] explicitly anticipates new letters at three loops. A missing letter in any sub-sector would invalidate the canonical differential equation and all functions built from it. The single-point numerical check in Table II cannot exclude such a letter. Please provide an independent certificate (for example, the factorization of all entries of Atilde.m into products of the 31 W_i) or a systematic validation of the full family at several phase-space points.
  2. [Section VI A, Eq. (22)] The parity-odd weight-three function P is not obtained by a fully analytic derivation: the 526-term tilde-P is matched only at the symbol level, and the beyond-the-symbol pi^2 log term is found by numerically fitting the integrand. Furthermore, the text states that the construction is restricted to a smaller region with definitive signs and that one must construct a new basis or perform analytic continuation to define tilde-P elsewhere. This conflicts with the abstract's claim of analytic solutions in the Euclidean region. Please provide details and error control for the fitting procedure and either give the analytic continuation or restrict the final claim to the region in which P is actually defined.
  3. [Appendix A, Table II; Section I] The abstract and introduction state that the solutions agree with pySecDec 'for all integrals', but Table II displays a comparison for a single top-sector UT integral at one phase-space point. The agreement with AMFlow mentioned in Section I is not documented by any table or numerical data. Because the central claim concerns the entire 316-integral family, the validation should cover substantially more integrals, ideally all master integrals at one or more phase-space points, or the agreement claims should be scoped to what is actually checked.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section IV, last paragraph] The phrase 'the full UT basis for the PPB family' appears to contain a typo; it should read 'PBB family'.
  2. [Eq. (15)] The expansion index is confusing: for j=-6 one obtains I^{(0)} as the leading epsilon^{-6} coefficient, so the superscript (j+6) does not correspond to the 'weight-n part' as defined in the text. Please reindex or clarify the notation.
  3. [Section VI, Eq. (16)] The Euclidean-region notation s_{i,1+(i)5}<0 uses the cyclic subscript-five convention before it is defined; please introduce the notation earlier or explain it at first use.
  4. [Section VII, Eq. (26)] The PSLQ simplification of boundary values is stated without the numerical precision used or an independent consistency check; the equality of P(-1,-1,-1,-1,-1) with the one- and two-loop constant is currently a numerical observation, so please document the precision and validation.
  5. [Section VIII, Eq. (30)] Because dtilde A and tilde A are matrices, the ordering of factors in the one-fold integral is important; please state the matrix ordering explicitly and give a short derivation of Eq. (30) from Eq. (27).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the differential-equation derivation, one-fold integral representation, and numerical cross-checks are self-contained; the alphabet-completeness assertion is a gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is a standard canonical-differential-equation computation: IBP identities produce the 316×316 matrix Ã, Eq. (14), the UT basis is constructed via leading-singularity/dlog methods, boundary constants are fixed by cancellation of spurious poles and one trivial integral, Eq. (25), and the weight-six result follows from the exact one-fold integration formula Eq. (30). None of these steps is defined in terms of the final answer; the final functions are not used as inputs to produce themselves. The parity-odd weight-three function P is reconstructed by matching its symbol against a function basis and by numerically fitting the beyond-symbol π² log remainder, but this is a technique for solving a differential equation whose content comes from IBP reduction, not a circular identification of the target with its fit. The boundary constants are simplified with PSLQ, an accepted integer-relation method, and the result is independently benchmarked against pySecDec and AMFlow. The main caveat is Section V's assertion that the 31 planar pentagon letters from Ref. [57] are sufficient for the PBB family and that the non-planar letters are absent. This is a load-bearing completeness assumption that is checked computationally but not independently proved; a missing letter would invalidate the alphabet and all functions built from it. That is a correctness/completeness gap, not a circularity: the paper does not define 'the 31 letters are sufficient' in terms of the weight-six results, and the cross-check in Table II, though limited, is external numerical evidence rather than a re-statement of the input. Several tool citations, e.g. Refs. [28, 34, 47], involve current authors, but they support methodology and software and are not used to bypass an argument or to import a uniqueness theorem; the load-bearing alphabet references [57, 58] are external to the present author set. No equation in the paper is equivalent to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are postulated. The auxiliary matrices B and C in Section VIII are mathematical constructs fixed by d(B) = (dA) A and d(C) = (dA) B, not free inputs, so they are not listed as invented physical entities. The fit-based coefficients and PSLQ simplifications above are the main extras the central claim rests on.

free parameters (2)
  • Coefficients of the 526-term tilde-P and the pi^2 log correction in Eq. (22) = Rational coefficients not fully printed; Eq. (22) shows the pi^2 log part
    Section VI A: tilde-P is obtained by matching the symbol of P over more than 2800 candidate weight-three functions; P - tilde-P is 'found by numerically fitting the integrand after subtracting tilde-P onto a basis of pi^2 log'. These coefficients are fitted to the target integral, not derived from an external principle.
  • PSLQ-reduced rational coefficients for boundary constants = Q-combinations such as Eq. (26) and Eq. (25)
    Section VII: boundary values are numerically evaluated with NumPolyLog and then PSLQ is used to convert decimals to compact exact forms. PSLQ finds integer relations from numerical input, so without independent verification the constant identities are not fully proven.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The canonical differential equation can be constructed for the PBB family with a uniform-transcendental basis of 316 master integrals.
    Section IV describes the search for UT integrals with Dlogbasis, INITIAL, Magnus series, and tail corrections, but no proof of completeness of the basis is given; the computation relies on the basis being complete and epsilon-factorized.
  • domain assumption Only the 31 planar pentagon alphabet letters A_P occur; non-planar W_{20+i} letters are absent.
    Section V states this explicitly. Ref. [58] anticipates additional letters at three loops, so absence is a nontrivial computational finding rather than a known theorem.
  • domain assumption Boundary conditions are fixed by the vanishing of residues at spurious poles at x0={-1,...,-1}, x1 and x6, and no other boundary contributions are needed.
    Section VII uses Eq. (24) to determine boundary values from pole cancellation. This assumes the chosen points lie on the correct branch and that the DE is regular at these points.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An Analytic Computation of Three-Loop Five-Point Feynman Integrals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TSEZ5ELL

@misc{pith2026241118697,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An Analytic Computation of Three-Loop Five-Point Feynman Integrals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TSEZ5ELL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18697}
}
read the original abstract

We evaluate the three-loop five-point pentagon-box-box massless integral family in the dimensional regularization scheme, via canonical differential equation. We use tools from computational algebraic geometry to enable the necessary integral reductions. The boundary values of the differential equation are determined analytically in the Euclidean region. To express the final result, we introduce a new representation of weight six functions in terms of one-fold integrals over the product of weight-three functions with weight-two kernels that are derived from the differential equation. Our work paves the way to the analytic computation of three-loop multi-leg Feynman integrals.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18697 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Pentagon-box-box Feynman Integral We use standard kinematic variables, s12, s23, s34, s45, s15, where sij = 2ki · kj , and the parity-odd invariant ǫ5 = 4iǫµνρσk µ 1 k ν 2 k ρ 3 k σ 4 . (2) III. USING COMPUTATIONAL ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY FOR IBP REDUCTION IBP reductions are currently a crucial step in con￾structing a differential equation for an integral family. However, their computational complexity poses a bottle￾nec… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. All integrals from the family take the form Iν1,...,ν18 (N ) = e 3εγE Z Y 3 j=1 d 4−2ε ℓj (iπ) 2−ε N (ℓ, k) Q18 k=1 D νk k (1) where ε is the dimensional regulator, γE is the Euler– Mascheroni constant, νk are the propagator powers and N is a kinematic numerator. The inverse propagators are defined as follows: D1 = ℓ 2 1 , D2 = (ℓ1 − k1) 2 , D3 = (ℓ1 − k1 − k2) 2 , D4 = (ℓ1 − k1 − k2 − k3) 2 , D5 = ℓ 2 2 , D6 = (ℓ2 … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 8 Pith papers

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

  1. Complete function space for planar two-loop six-particle scattering amplitudes

    hep-ph 2025-01 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    Planar two-loop six-particle massless master integrals are solved analytically up to weight four as Chen iterated integrals, with a complete 245-letter alphabet and a validated numerical implementation.

  2. Numerical evaluation of two-loop QCD helicity amplitudes for $gg\to t \bar{t} g$ at leading colour

    hep-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    The two-loop finite remainders for gg to ttbar g at leading colour are evaluated numerically at one benchmark point, with elliptic functions confined to the finite part.

  3. Geometric Landau Analysis and Symbol Bootstrap

    hep-th 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Boundary structure of negative geometries, combined with Landau analysis, determines physical singularities and yields symbol alphabets for six-point two-loop and five-point three-loop ladder integrals in planar N=4 s...

  4. Feynman Integrals Meet Second-Order Partial Differential Equations

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Feynman integrals can be solved globally over phase space by rewriting them as second-order PDE equilibrium problems and discretizing with finite elements.

  5. Kira 3: integral reduction with efficient seeding and optimized equation selection

    hep-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Kira 3 cuts Feynman-integral reduction cost by up to two orders of magnitude using smarter seeding and equation selection.

  6. AMFlow 2.0: significant algorithmic and software improvements for Feynman integral evaluation

    hep-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

    AMFlow 2.0 cuts symbolic and numerical cost of multi-loop Feynman integral evaluation via an FT recursion mode, a C++ DE solver, and modern IBP reducers, demonstrated on a three-loop five-point family.

  7. Singularities of massless scattering and cluster algebras

    hep-th 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Partial flag cluster algebras reproduce a large part of the two-loop five- and six-point massless scattering symbol alphabets, with the momentum twistor embedding stronger at six points after permutation completion.

  8. LINE: Loop Integrals Numerical Evaluation

    hep-ph 2025-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    LINE numerically evaluates loop master integrals by solving their differential equations with series expansions, with boundary conditions from auxiliary mass flow or expansion by regions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 8 Pith papers

  1. [58]

    Chicherin, J

    D. Chicherin, J. Henn, and V. Mitev, JHEP 05, 164 (2018), 1712.09610

    arXiv 2018

  2. [1]

    Zurbano Fernandez et al

    I. Zurbano Fernandez et al. , 10/2020 (2020)

    work page 2020

  3. [2]

    Zimmermann et al

    FCC, F. Zimmermann et al. , JACoW IP AC2024, WEPR14 (2024)

    work page 2024

  4. [3]

    Aarons et al

    ILC, G. Aarons et al. , (2007), 0709.1893

    arXiv 2007

  5. [4]

    Abdallah et al

    CEPC Study Group, W. Abdallah et al. , Radiat. Detect. Technol. Methods 8, 1 (2024), 2312.14363

    arXiv 2024

  6. [5]

    Precision QCD, Hadronic Structure & Forward QCD, Heavy Ions: Report of Energy Frontier Topical Groups 5, 6, 7 submitted to Snowmass 2021

    M. Begel et al. , (2022), 2209.14872

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  7. [6]

    A. Huss, J. Huston, S. Jones, and M. Pellen, J. Phys. G 50, 043001 (2023), 2207.02122

    arXiv 2023

  8. [7]

    Caola et al

    F. Caola et al. , The Path forward to N 3LO, in Snowmass 2021, 2022, 2203.06730

    arXiv 2021

Show all 75 references
  1. [8]

    Andersen et al

    J. Andersen et al. , Les Houches 2023: Physics at TeV Colliders: Standard Model Working Group Report, in Physics of the TeV Scale and Beyond the Standard Model: Intensifying the Quest for New Physics , 2024, 7 2406.00708

    2023 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Navas et al

    Particle Data Group, S. Navas et al. , Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  3. [10]

    J. M. Henn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 251601 (2013), 1304.1806

    2013 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Borowka et al

    S. Borowka et al. , Comput. Phys. Commun. 222, 313 (2018), 1703.09692

    2018 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Liu and Y.-Q

    X. Liu and Y.-Q. Ma, Comput. Phys. Commun. 283, 108565 (2023), 2201.11669

    2023 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Liu, Y.-Q

    X. Liu, Y.-Q. Ma, and C.-Y. Wang, Phys. Lett. B 779, 353 (2018), 1711.09572

    2018 arXiv

  7. [14]

    R. N. Lee and V. A. Smirnov, JHEP 12, 104 (2012), 1209.0339

    2012 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Chicherin et al

    D. Chicherin et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 041603 (2019), 1812.11160

    2019 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Abreu, B

    S. Abreu, B. Page, and M. Zeng, JHEP 01, 006 (2019), 1807.11522

    2019 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Chicherin and V

    D. Chicherin and V. Sotnikov, JHEP 20, 167 (2020), 2009.07803

    2020 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Abreu et al

    S. Abreu et al. , JHEP 11, 117 (2020), 2005.04195

    2020 arXiv

  12. [19]

    D. D. Canko, C. G. Papadopoulos, and N. Syrrakos, JHEP 01, 199 (2021), 2009.13917

    2021 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Abreu, H

    S. Abreu, H. Ita, B. Page, and W. Tschernow, JHEP 03, 182 (2022), 2107.14180

    2022 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Chicherin, V

    D. Chicherin, V. Sotnikov, and S. Zoia, JHEP 01, 096 (2022), 2110.10111

    2022 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Abreu et al

    S. Abreu et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 141601 (2024), 2306.15431

    2024 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Rethinking Quan- tum Field Theory

    evaluated at these spurious poles, up to one trivial integral I1(x0) = − 1 + π 2 4 ε2 + 7ζ3ε3 + 37π 4 480 ε4 + ( 93ζ5 5 − 7π 2ζ3 4 ) ε5 + ( 943π 6 120960 − 49ζ2 3 2 ) ε6 + O ( ε7) . (25) Intriguingly, we found that the weight–three boundary constant for the integral P is numer...

  17. [24]

    Abreu, D

    S. Abreu, D. Chicherin, V. Sotnikov, and S. Zoia, JHEP 10, 167 (2024), 2408.05201

    2024 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Jiang, J

    X. Jiang, J. Liu, X. Xu, and L. L. Yang, (2024), 2401.07632

    2024 arXiv

  19. [26]

    J. M. Henn, J. Lim, and W. J. Torres Bobadilla, JHEP 05, 026 (2023), 2302.12776

    2023 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Di Vita, P

    S. Di Vita, P. Mastrolia, U. Schubert, and V. Yundin, JHEP 09, 148 (2014), 1408.3107

    2014 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Long, (2024), 2410.15431

    M.-M. Long, (2024), 2410.15431

    2024 arXiv

  22. [29]

    J. Henn, T. Peraro, Y. Xu, and Y. Zhang, JHEP 03, 056 (2022), 2112.10605

    2022 arXiv

  23. [30]

    J. M. Henn et al. , JHEP 08, 027 (2024), 2403.19742

    2024 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Chen et al

    L.-B. Chen et al. , Phys. Rev. D 106, 096029 (2022), 2208.08786

    2022 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Chen et al

    L.-B. Chen et al. , JHEP 07, 089 (2023), 2212.07190

    2023 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Klappert, F

    J. Klappert, F. Lange, P. Maierh¨ ofer, and J. Uso- vitsch, Comput. Phys. Commun. 266, 108024 (2021), 2008.06494

    2021 arXiv

  27. [34]

    A. V. Smirnov and F. S. Chukharev, Comput. Phys. Commun. 247, 106877 (2020), 1901.07808

    2020 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Z. Wu, J. Boehm, R. Ma, H. Xu, and Y. Zhang, Comput. Phys. Commun. 295, 108999 (2024), 2305.08783

    2024 arXiv

  29. [36]

    J. Chen, X. Jiang, C. Ma, X. Xu, and L. L. Yang, JHEP 07, 066 (2022), 2202.08127

    2022 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Dlapa, J

    C. Dlapa, J. M. Henn, and F. J. Wagner, JHEP 08, 120 (2023), 2211.16357

    2023 arXiv

  31. [38]

    J. Henn, B. Mistlberger, V. A. Smirnov, and P. Wasser, JHEP 04, 167 (2020), 2002.09492

    2020 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Z. Li, J. Wang, Q.-S. Yan, and X. Zhao, Chin. Phys. C 40, 033103 (2016), 1508.02512

    2016 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Borowka et al

    S. Borowka et al. , Comput. Phys. Commun. 240, 120 (2019), 1811.11720

    2019 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Gluza, K

    J. Gluza, K. Kajda, and D. A. Kosower, Phys. Rev. D 83, 045012 (2011), 1009.0472

    2011 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Georgoudis, K

    A. Georgoudis, K. J. Larsen, and Y. Zhang, Comput. Phys. Commun. 221, 203 (2017), 1612.04252

    2017 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Badger, H

    S. Badger, H. Frellesvig, and Y. Zhang, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 523, 012061 (2014), 1310.4445

    2014 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Zhang, JHEP 09, 042 (2012), 1205.5707

    Y. Zhang, JHEP 09, 042 (2012), 1205.5707

    2012 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Boehm et al

    J. Boehm et al. , PoS MA2019, 004 (2022), 2010.06895

    2022 arXiv

  39. [46]

    B¨ ohm, A

    J. B¨ ohm, A. Georgoudis, K. J. Larsen, H. Sch¨ onemann, and Y. Zhang, JHEP 09, 024 (2018), 1805.01873

    2018 arXiv

  40. [47]

    K. J. Larsen and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 93, 041701 (2016), 1511.01071

    2016 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Wu and Y

    Z. Wu and Y. Zhang, (2024), 2406.20016

    2024 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Laporta, Int

    S. Laporta, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 15, 5087 (2000), hep- ph/0102033

    2000

  43. [50]

    Magerya, (2022), 2211.03572

    V. Magerya, (2022), 2211.03572

    2022 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Peraro, JHEP 07, 031 (2019), 1905.08019

    T. Peraro, JHEP 07, 031 (2019), 1905.08019

    2019 arXiv

  45. [52]

    J. M. Henn, A. V. Smirnov, and V. A. Smirnov, JHEP 07, 128 (2013), 1306.2799

    2013 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Magnus, Commun

    W. Magnus, Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 7, 649 (1954)

    1954

  47. [54]

    Argeri et al

    M. Argeri et al. , JHEP 03, 082 (2014), 1401.2979

    2014 arXiv

  48. [55]

    He et al

    S. He et al. , JHEP 10, 165 (2022), 2206.04609

    2022 arXiv

  49. [56]

    Meyer, JHEP 04, 006 (2017), 1611.01087

    C. Meyer, JHEP 04, 006 (2017), 1611.01087

    2017 arXiv

  50. [57]

    Dlapa, X

    C. Dlapa, X. Li, and Y. Zhang, JHEP 07, 227 (2021), 2103.04638

    2021 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Chicherin, J

    D. Chicherin, J. Henn, J. Trnka, and S.-Q. Zhang, (2024), 2410.11456

    2024 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Gehrmann, J

    T. Gehrmann, J. M. Henn, and N. A. Lo Presti, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 062001 (2016), 1511.05409, [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 116, 189903 (2016)]

    2016 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Gehrmann, J

    T. Gehrmann, J. M. Henn, and N. A. Lo Presti, JHEP 10, 103 (2018), 1807.09812

    2018 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Caron-Huot, D

    S. Caron-Huot, D. Chicherin, J. Henn, Y. Zhang, and S. Zoia, JHEP 10, 188 (2020), 2003.03120

    2020 arXiv

  55. [63]

    R. N. Lee, (2024), 2407.12503

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    C. Duhr, H. Gangl, and J. R. Rhodes, JHEP 10, 075 (2012), 1110.0458

    2012 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Heller, A

    M. Heller, A. von Manteuffel, and R. M. Schabinger, Phys. Rev. D 102, 016025 (2020), 1907.00491

    2020 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Zoia, Modern analytic methods for scattering ampli- tudes, with an application to two-loop five-particle pro- cesses, 2021

    S. Zoia, Modern analytic methods for scattering ampli- tudes, with an application to two-loop five-particle pro- cesses, 2021

    2021

  59. [67]

    Duhr and F

    C. Duhr and F. Dulat, JHEP 08, 135 (2019), 1904.07279

    2019 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Frellesvig, D

    H. Frellesvig, D. Tommasini, and C. Wever, JHEP 03, 189 (2016), 1601.02649

    2016 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Del Duca, C

    V. Del Duca, C. Duhr, E. W. Nigel Glover, and V. A. Smirnov, JHEP 01, 042 (2010), 0905.0097

    2010 arXiv

  62. [70]

    J. M. Henn, K. Melnikov, and V. A. Smirnov, JHEP 05, 090 (2014), 1402.7078

    2014 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Chicherin et al

    D. Chicherin et al. , JHEP 03, 042 (2019), 1809.06240

    2019 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Li, Multiple-polylogarithm, https://github.com/munuxi/Multiple-Polylogarithm, 2021

    Z. Li, Multiple-polylogarithm, https://github.com/munuxi/Multiple-Polylogarithm, 2021

    2021

  65. [73]

    Caron-Huot and J

    S. Caron-Huot and J. M. Henn, JHEP 06, 114 (2014), 1404.2922

    2014 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Wang and Y

    J. Wang and Y. Wang, JHEP 02, 127 (2023), 2211.13713. Appendix A: Supplemental Material In this appendix, we first briefly introduce some of the auxiliary files mentioned in this paper. Then we show how to validate our computation by the numerical cross check. 8 • Canonical_Basis...

    2023 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Evaluating the full family with the current version of AMFlow is not yet feasible

    in the top sector with several dig- its, which is shown in Table II. Evaluating the full family with the current version of AMFlow is not yet feasible. ε-order pySecDec results Analytic results ε0 +1.1666667 ± 3.80 × 10− 8 +1.1666666 ε1 − 3.2652194 ± 1.20 × 10− 6 − 3.2652203 ε...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.