Scalar -loop Feynman integrals as meromorphic functions in space-time dimension , : Special kinematics
Abstract
Based on the method developed in [K. H. Phan and T. Riemann, Phys. Lett. B 791 (2019) 257], detailed analytic results for scalar one-loop two-, three-, four-point integrals in general -dimension are presented in this paper. The calculations are considered all external kinematic configurations and internal mass assignments. Analytic formulas are expressed in terms of generalized hypergeometric series such as Gauss , Appell and Lauricella functions.
keywords:
One-loop Feynman integrals, (generalized) hypergeometric functions, analytic methods for Quantum Field Theory, Dimensional regularization.1 Introduction
Scalar one-loop integrals in general are important for several reasons. In general framework for computing two-loop and higher-loop corrections, higher-terms in the -expansion () for one-loop integrals are necessary for building blocks. For example, they are used for building counterterms. Furthermore, in the evaluations for multi-loop Feynman integrals, we may combine several methods in [1, 2] to optimize the master integrals. As a result, the resulting integrals may include of one-loop functions in arbitrary space-time dimensions. Last but not least, scalar one-loop functions at with may be taken into account in the reduction for tensor one-loop Feynman integrals [3].
One-loop functions in space-time dimensions have been performed in [4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]. However, not all of the calculations have covered at general configurations of external momenta and internal masses. Recently, scalar one-loop three-point functions have been performed by applying multiple unitarity cuts for Feynman diagrams [10]. In Ref. [10], analytic results have been presented in terms of hypergeometric functions in special cases of external invariants and internal masses. In more general cases, the results have only presented -terms in space-time . The algebraic structure of cut Feynman integrals, the diagrammatic coaction and its applications have proposed in [11, 12, 13]. However, the detailed analytic results for one-loop Feynman integrals have not been shown in the mentioned papers. More recently, detailed analytic results for one-loop three-point functions which are expressed in terms of Appell hypergeometric functions have been reported in [15].
A recurrence relation in for Feynman loop integrals has proposed by Tarasov [2, 14, 16]. By solving the differential equation in , analytic results for scalar one-loop integrals up to four-points have been expressed in terms of generalized hypergeometric series such as Gauss , Appell , Lauricella-Saran functions. In [16], boundary terms have obtained by applying asymptotic theory of complex Laplace-type integrals. These terms are only valid in sub-domain of external momentum and mass configurations which the theory are applicable. Hence, the general solutions for one-loop integrals in arbitrary kinematics have not been found [16], as pointed out in [17, 18]. General solutions for this problem have been derived in [19] which proposed a different kind of recursion relation for one-loop integrals in comparison with [2, 14, 16]. In the scope of this paper, based on the method in Ref. [19], detailed analytic results for scalar one-loop two-, three- and four-point functions in general -dimensions are presented. The calculations are considered all external kinematic configurations and internal mass assignments. Thus, we go beyond the material presented in [19].
The layout of the paper is as follows: In section , we discuss briefly the method for evaluating one-loop integrals. We then apply this method for computing scalar one-loop two-, three- and four-point functions in sections . Conclusions and plans for future work are presented in section .
2 Method
In this section, we describe briefly the method for evaluating scalar one-loop -point Feynman integrals. Detailed description for this method can be found in Ref. [19]. A general recursion relation between scalar one-loop -point and --point Feynman integrals is shown in this section. From the representation, analytic formulas for scalar one-loop -point functions can be constructed from basic integrals which are scalar one-point integrals. For illustrating, analytic expressions for scalar one-loop two-, three-, four-point functions are derived in detail in next sections.
The scalar one-loop -point Feynman integrals are defined:
(1) |
The inverse Feynman propagators are given:
(2) |
Where () for are external momenta (internal masses) respectively. The momenta are given: and thanks to momentum conservation. They are inward as described in Fig. 1. The term is Feynman’s prescription and is space-time dimension. Several cases of physical interests for are with . In the complex-mass scheme [20], the internal masses take the form of where are decay widths of unstable particles.
The Cayley and Gram determinants [16] related to one-loop Feynman -point topologies are defined as follows:
(11) |
with .
In this report, analytic solutions for one-loop integrals are expressed in terms of generalized hypergeometric with arguments given by ratios of the above determinants. Hence, it is worth to introduce the following kinematic variables
(13) |
The kinematics play a role of the squared internal masses. In fact, when we shift , one verifies easily that [16].
The recursion relation for [19] is given (master equation):
for and . Here the operator is defined as [19]
(15) |
The relation (2) indicates that the integral can be constructed by taking one-fold Mellin-Barnes (MB) integration over in . This representation has several advantages. First, analytic formulas for can be derived from basic functions which are scalar one-loop one-point functions. Second, is expressed as functions of kinematic variables such as for and . As a consequence of this fact, analytic expressions for reflect the symmetry as well as threshold behavior of the corresponding Feynman topologies. Two special cases of (2) are also mentioned as follows:
-
1.
and : In this case, and we have [16] (deriving this equation for is shown in the appendix )
(16) - 2.
We turn our attention to apply the method for evaluating scalar one-loop Feynman integrals. The detailed evaluations for scalar one-loop two-, three- and four-point functions are presented in next sections. As we pointed out in this section, the prescription always follows with as . In order to simplify the notation, we omit in in the next calculations. This term puts back into the final results when it is necessary.
3 One-loop two-point functions
The master equation for is obtained by setting in (2). MB representation for then reads
Note that we used the analytic formula for in [22] with shifted to . We write in explicitly as follows:
(19) |
In order to evaluate the MB integrals in (3), we close the integration contour to the right. The residue contributions to at the sequence poles of and are taken into account.
First, we calculate the residue at the poles of . In this case, for . Subsequently, we can apply the reflect formula for gamma functions (253) in the appendix . In detail, it is implied that
(20) |
With the help of (20), the MB representation in (3) is casted into the form of
Using () in Ref. [25], these MB integrals are expressed in terms of Gauss hypergeometric series as follows:
(24) |
provided that , and e. Using () in [25], we arrive at another representation for (24)
(27) |
provided that , and e.
We next consider the residue at the second sequence poles of . In this case, for . These contributions read
(30) | |||||
Noting that from (30) to (30), we have already applied the reflect formulas for gamma functions (see (253) in appendix for more detail). Summing all the above contributions in Eqs. (27, 30), we finally get
(34) | |||||
provided that , and e. Eq. (34) is unchanged with exchanging . This reflects the symmetry of the scalar one-loop two-point Feynman diagrams. The result in (34) has shown in [18] and gives fully agreement with [16]. It is an important to remark that the solution for in (34) is also valid when for . We would like to stress that one can perform the analytic continuation for in (34) to extend the kinematic regions for one-loop two-point functions. The analytic continuation formulas for Gauss hypergeometric functions are given from (271) to (286) in the appendix . As an example, using (277), the result reads
(37) |
With (268), we arrive at
(40) |
We are going to consider special cases for scalar one-loop two-point Feynman integrals.
3.1 and
If , we verify that , or . Applying (16) for the result reads
(41) |
In the limit of and , the result reads
(42) |
3.2
3.3 or
For the case of or , one relies on . If , the result in (40) simplifies to
(47) |
Under the condition e, when , one then gets .
3.4
4 One-loop three-point functions
Setting in (2), master equation for reads
for . The term becomes scalar one-loop two-point functions by shrinking an propagator -th in the integrand of . In the next steps, we take the contour integrals in (4). In order to understand how to take the contour integrals, we chose the term with in (4) for illustrating. This term is written explicitly as follows:
(54) | |||||
For taking the MB integrals in (54), one closes the integration contour to the right. The residue contributions at the poles of the are taken into account.
First, the contributions of residua at the poles with . In this case, one first applies the reflect formula (253) for gamma function:
(55) |
Using this identity, the first MB integration reads
This MB integral is then expressed in terms of hypergeometric as follows:
(59) |
provided that and e. The second MB integral reads
provided that , and e.
In the next steps, the residue contributions at the second sequence poles for are taken into account. The next MB integrations are considered as follows:
(69) | |||||
provided that , and .
Summing all the above contributions, the final result for is written as a compact form
Where is obtained from (59) and (4). It is given by
provided that , for and e. The latter condition always meets when . The kinematic variables and for , etc., may not satisfy the former conditions. If the absolute value of the arguments of and the Appell functions in (4) are larger than one, we have to perform analytic continuations for these functions as in [25, 31]. The result for has been shown in [18, 19]. The term is obtained from (LABEL:j3bound1, 4) or taking of (4). This term is given
We emphasis that the solution for with is equivalent to () in Ref. [16]. But the terms in our solution cover the condition () in Ref. [16]. Since the boundary term given in () of Ref. [16] was obtained by asymptotic theory of complex Laplace-type integrals. This term is only valid in a kinematic sub-domain in which the asymptotic theory of Laplace-type can be applied. The analytic continuation for the boundary term in [16] has not been discussed. We provide a complete analytic solution for in comparison with () in Ref. [16]. We refer to our previous work [18] in which the numerical studies for this problem have discussed.
One-fold integral and all transformations for can be found in appendix . Applying the relation (Appell series) for in appendix , we arrive at another representation for (4, 4):
(79) | |||||
(82) |
provided that the absolute value of the arguments of and the Appell functions in this presentation are less than .
4.1 Massless internal lines
For the massless case, under the condition e, all terms related to Appell functions in (4) vanish, the result then reads
In order to cross check with the result in [6], we write as a function of explicitly
(95) | |||||
Here is the Källén function. We remark that in this formula. With applying () in Ref. [25], one can present as
(102) | |||||
provided that and e. This equation is equivalent to () in [6]. We note that we can arrive to this result by inserting at in (48) into (4) and taking the corresponding MB integrals.
4.2
We consider the terms in with as an example. In this case, the terms and are given in the same form of (4) or (79). While the term is obtained by performing analytic continuation the result in (79). In detail, one takes the limit of in (79), we arrive at
(103) |
Using () in Ref. [30], the term simplifies to
(106) |
provided that e and for . Taking , we have
(109) |
4.3 for
Next we consider as an example. In this case, the terms are given by (4). Beside that, one verifies
(110) |
As a result, we obtain
(113) | |||||
(114) |
provided that the amplitude of arguments of hypergeometric functions appearing in this formula are less that . For , the function in (114) is equal . The result reads
(115) |
4.4 for
4.5 and
4.6 for
4.7
4.8 for
are the Gram determinants of two-point functions which are obtained by shrinking a propagator in the three-point ones. Taking as an example, the term is evaluated as follows. We put in (45) into (4). Taking the corresponding MB integrations, the results read as form of (4) with
(147) | |||||
(150) |
It is valid under the conditions that the arguments of the hypergeometric fuctions appearing in this formula are less that and e.
4.9 Cross check with other papers
We consider and as an example [10, 15]. We confirm that
(151) |
The in (4) becomes
We note that the first term in curly bracket of (4.9) is in the case of (48) with shifted to . While the second term in curly bracket of (4.9) is corresponding to in (45) at (and with a massless internal line). In the following we perform the contour integration of (4.9) starting with the second contour integral:
(153) |
By closing the integration contour to the right, the residue contributions at the poles of and are calculated. For the first sequence poles, the result reads
(156) | |||||
(159) |
For the second sequence poles, we arrive at
(162) | |||||
(165) |
Second type of MB integral is considered
For the first sequence poles of , the result is
(170) |
Applying transforms for Gauss hypergeometric function which are (see in [25] for the first relations and page , [26] for the later case)
(175) | |||||
(180) |
one obtains
(183) |
Taking into account the residue at the poles , we get
(186) |
Using the relation (see Eq. in [27])
(191) |
one gets
(194) |
Combining all the terms, reads
(200) | |||||
provided that and e. It agrees with Eq. () in [10] and () in [15].
5 One-loop four-point functions
The master equation for is obtained from (2) with ,
We substitute the analytic solution for in (4) into (5) and take the contour integrals in (5). With the help of MB integrations in (318, 321) in appendix , a compact expression for can be derived and expressed as follows:
with
(205) | |||
Where are given by (4). It is important that this representation is valid under the conditions that e and the absolute values of arguments of hypergeometric functions are smaller than one. If the absolute value of these arguments are larger than one, we have to perform analytic continuations for the Gauss hypergeometric and Appell functions, cf. [25, 31]. Further, the Saran function may be expressed by a Mellin-Barnes representation, or Euler integrals in this case. The result for has been shown in [19]. There are two important points we would like to emphasize in this paper as follows. (i) Ref. [16] have not shown conditions for the boundary term in . (ii) is constructed from for arbitrary kinematics. However, the boundary term for for general kinematics have not been provided in [16], as mentioned in the previous section and in [18]. Subsequently, the first term in of [16] is only valid in special kinematic regions. Therefore, the solution in () of Ref. [16] may not be considered as a complete solution for . In contrast to [16], we provide a complete solution for in this article.
5.1 Massless internal lines
We are going to take for . The terms related to vanish. Therefore, in the massless case the result reads
(211) | |||||
provided that e and that the absolute values of arguments of the hypergeometric functions are smaller than one. Taking , we have
(220) | |||||
This is a new result for in the massless case at general . We are going to consider the special cases for in the following subsections.
5.2
5.3 for
5.4 for
5.5 for
5.6 for
We assume that in (5) contains as an example. The term in (205) with is evaluated by applying the same previous procedure. The result reads
Where is Kamp de Friet [33] (see appendix for more detail). We also refer to [34] which analytic continuations for a class of the Kamp de Friet functions have been studied. This representation is valid if the amplitude of arguments of these hypergeometric functions are less than and e. In the massless case, one has
(232) | |||||
5.7 for
5.8 for
5.9 for
We consider that in (5) with . In this case, the terms and are unchanged. The terms and with are evaluated again by applying same previous procedure. Taking as an example. The result reads
This representation is valid if the amplitude of arguments of these hypergeometric functions are less than and e.
5.10 or for
5.11
5.12 for
In the same notation, are the Gram determinants of that are obtained by shrinking -th propagator in . We take as an example. By using (140) for , we then evaluate again, the result is
This representation is valid if the amplitude of arguments of these hypergeometric functions are less than and e.
5.13 for
One assumes that the term has . Recalculating this term, the result reads in term of Gauss and Appell functions
Where the terms and are given in (4). This representation is valid if the amplitude of arguments of these hypergeometric functions are less than and e. The Appell functions are described in detail in appendix (see (303) in more detail).
For future prospect of this work, a package which provides a general -expansion and numerical evaluations for one-loop functions at general is planned. To achieve this purpose, many related works are worth mentioning in this paragraph. First, automatized analytic continuation of Mellin-Barnes integrals have been presented in [38]. The construction of Mellin-Barnes representations for Feynman integrals has been performed in [39, 40]. Recent development for treating numerically Mellin-Barnes integrals in physical regions has been proposed in [41, 42, 43]. The hypergeometric functions in this work can be expressed as the multi-fold MB integrals and they may be evaluated numerically by following the above works. Furthermore, the -expansion of the hypergeometric functions appearing in our analytic results may be also performed by using the packages Sigma, EvaluateMultiSums and Harmonic Sums [44]. Numerical -expansion of hypergeometric functions may be done by using NumEXP [45]. Besides that, analytic -expansion for the hypergeometric functions has been carried out in [46, 47, 49, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53]. Differential reduction of generalized hypergeometric functions has been also reported in [54, 55, 56, 57].
In the context of dimensional recurrence relations, the tensor reductions for one-loop up to five-point functions have been worked out in [58] and for higher-point functions have been developed in [59]. In practice, one encounters integrals with denominator powers higher than one and their reduction needs to be considered, see e.g. [3] for the scalar case. IBP reduction can be combined with dimensional recurrence relations to reduce them to master integrals of higher space-time dimensions.
6 Conclusions
In this article, we have been presented the
analytic results for scalar one-loop
two-, three- and four-point functions
in detail. The results have been
expressed in terms
of Gauss , Appell and
hypergeometric functions.
All cases of external momentum
and internal mass assignments have
considered in detail in this work.
The higher-terms in the -expansion
for one-loop integrals can be performed
directly from analytic expressions in this
work. These terms are necessary building blocks
in computing
two-loop and higher-loop
corrections. Moreover, one-loop functions in
arbitrary in this work may be taken account
in the evaluations for higher-loop Feynman
integrals. The one-loop functions with
can
also used in the reduction
for tensor one-loop Feynman integrals.
For future works,
a package for numerical evaluations
for one-loop integrals at general and general
-expansion for these integrals
is planned. Additionally, the method
can extend to evaluate two- and higher-loop
Feynman integrals.
Acknowledgment: This research is funded by Vietnam National Foundation for Science and Technology Development (NAFOSTED) under the grant number -. The author would like to thank T. Riemann for helpful discussions and comments.
Appendix A: Useful formulas
Appendix B: Generalized hypergeometric series
Generalized hypergeometric functions are presented in this appendix.
Gauss hypergeometric series
The integral representation for Gauss hypergeometric functions [25] reads
(260) |
provided that and ReRe.
Appell series
We collect all transformations for Appell functions from Refs. [25, 30]. The first relation for is mentioned,
(289) |
If , we arrive at the well-known Pfaff–Kummer transformation for the . Further, we have
(290) |
Furthermore, if , one then obtains
(293) | |||||
(296) |
Similarly,
(297) |
and
(298) | |||
(299) |
A further relation for is given
Appell series
J. Kampé de Fériet series
Lauricella-Saran function
Appendix C: The contour integrations
Type 1
Mellin-Barnes relation [29] is given:
(307) |
provided that . The integration contour is chosen in such a way that the poles of and are well-separated.
Type 2
Type 3
The next Barnes-type integral applied in this paper is
(313) |
with , and and . Under these conditions, one could close the contour of integration to the right. Subsequently, we have to take into account the residua of the sequence poles of . The result is expressed as the summation of Gauss hypergeometric function. The summation is then identical as a series of Appell functions [30] as follows:
(317) |
Type 4
Furthermore, in this paper we evaluate the following integral:
(318) | |||
We close the contour of integration to the right. By taking into account the residua of the sequence poles of , the result reads
(319) |
One applies the relation (289) for Appell functions in (319) as follows
Eq. (319) is then presented as a series of Lauricella functions [35]
(321) | |||
provided that , and .
Appendix : Master equation for
General relation for have been proved in [18]. In this appendix, we consider as an example. Performing Feynman parameterization for , one arrives at
Above coefficients
are shown
. |
We used the following notation
The integrand of is
(331) | |||||
(335) | |||||
(336) |
These matrices are given
(343) |
The reads
(344) | |||||
The vector is defined as: . We write explicitly and as follows:
(345) | |||||
First, we consider and . In this case, Mellin-Barnes relation is applied to decompose ’s integrand as follows:
(346) |
provided that . With the help of the Mellin-Barnes relation, this brings the Feynman parameters integration to the simpler form:
(347) |
In order to carry out this integral, we consider the following differential operator (see theorem of Bernshtein [36], or [37])
(348) |
It is easy to check that
(349) |
As a matter of this fact, we can rewrite Feynman parameter integral as
(351) | |||||
The last term in this equation is proportional to . It is then combined with on the left side of Eq. (351). As a result, Eq. (351) is then casted into the form:
Taking over a Feynman parameter integration in Eq. (Appendix : Master equation for ), the result reads
(353) | |||||
The coefficients are given in Table (1).
We then write the coefficients in terms of external momenta and internal masses which are given in Table (2).
This equation is then written as follows:
In the case of , there is no Mellin-Barnes integral for . We only apply the ring operator , the result arrives
(357) |
References
- [1] S. Laporta, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 15 (2000) 5087.
- [2] O. V. Tarasov, Phys. Rev. D 54 (1996) 6479.
- [3] A. I. Davydychev, J. Math. Phys. 33 (1992) 358.
- [4] E. E. Boos and A. I. Davydychev, Theor. Math. Phys. 89 (1991) 1052 [Teor. Mat. Fiz. 89 (1991) 56].
- [5] A. I. Davydychev and R. Delbourgo, J. Math. Phys. 39 (1998) 4299.
- [6] A. I. Davydychev, Phys. Rev. D 61 (2000) 087701.
- [7] A. I. Davydychev and M. Y. Kalmykov, Nucl. Phys. B 699 (2004) 3.
- [8] A. I. Davydychev, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 559 (2006) 293.
- [9] C. Anastasiou, E. W. N. Glover and C. Oleari, Nucl. Phys. B 572 (2000) 307.
- [10] S. Abreu, R. Britto and H. Grönqvist, JHEP 1507 (2015) 111.
- [11] S. Abreu, R. Britto, C. Duhr and E. Gardi, JHEP 1706 (2017) 114.
- [12] S. Abreu, R. Britto, C. Duhr and E. Gardi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017) no.5, 051601.
- [13] S. Abreu, R. Britto, C. Duhr and E. Gardi, JHEP 1712 (2017) 090.
- [14] O. V. Tarasov, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 89 (2000) 237.
- [15] K. H. Phan and D. T. Tran, PTEP 2019 (2019) no.6, 063B01.
- [16] J. Fleischer, F. Jegerlehner and O. V. Tarasov, Nucl. Phys. B 672 (2003) 303.
- [17] J. Blümlein, K. H. Phan and T. Riemann, Nucl. Part. Phys. Proc. 270-272 (2016) 227.
- [18] J. Blümlein, K. H. Phan and T. Riemann, Acta Phys. Polon. B 48 (2017) 2313.
- [19] K. H. Phan and T. Riemann, Phys. Lett. B 791 (2019) 257.
- [20] A. Denner and S. Dittmaier, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 160 (2006) 22.
- [21] G. Devaraj and R. G. Stuart, Nucl. Phys. B 519 (1998) 483.
- [22] G. ’t Hooft and M. J. G. Veltman, Nucl. Phys. B 153 (1979) 365.
- [23] Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon and D. A. Kosower, Nucl. Phys. B 412 (1994) 751.
- [24] B. C. Carlson, Special functions of applied mathematics, (New York: Academic Press 1977).
- [25] L. J. Slater, Generalized Hypergeometric Functions, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1966).
- [26] Bruce C. Berndt, Ramanujan’s Notebooks, Part , springer Press, .
- [27] George E. Andrews, Richard Askey, Ranjan Roy, Special Functions, Cambridge university Press, .
- [28] E. W. Barnes, Proc. London Math. Soc. (1908) s2-6 (1): 141-177.
- [29] E. T. Whittaker, G. N. Watson, A Course of Mordern Analysis, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1952).
- [30] Michael J. Schlosser, arXiv:1305.1966 [math.CA].
- [31] P. O. M. Olsson, J. Math. Phys. 5 (1964) 420.
- [32] P. Appell, J. Kampé de Fériet, Fonctions Hypergeometriques et Hyperspheriques. Polynomes d′ Hermite, Gauthier–Villars, Paris, 1926.
- [33] Kampé de Fériet, J. La fonction hypergéométrique. Gauthier–Villars, Paris (1937).
- [34] B. Ananthanarayan, S. Friot and S. Ghosh, [arXiv:2003.12030 [hep-ph]].
- [35] S. Saran, Acta Math. 93 (1955) 293.
- [36] I. N. Bershtein, "Modules over the ring of differential operators. A study of the fundamental solutions of differential equations with constant coefficients," Funk. Analiz, 5, No. 2, 1-16 (1971).
- [37] Golubeva, V.A. and nol’skii, V.Z. Mathematical Notes of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR (1978) 23: 63. doi:10.1007/BF01104888.
- [38] M. Czakon, Comput. Phys. Commun. 175 (2006) 559.
- [39] J. Gluza, K. Kajda and T. Riemann, Comput. Phys. Commun. 177 (2007) 879.
- [40] J. Gluza, K. Kajda, T. Riemann and V. Yundin, Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1516.
- [41] I. Dubovyk, J. Gluza, T. Jelinski, T. Riemann and J. Usovitsch, Acta Phys. Polon. B 48 (2017) 995.
- [42] J. Usovitsch, I. Dubovyk and T. Riemann, PoS LL 2018 (2018) 046.
- [43] I. Dubovyk, J. Gluza and T. Riemann, Acta Phys. Polon. B 50 (2019) 1993.
-
[44]
C. Schneider, Sém. Lothar. Combin.
56 (2007) 1, article B56b;
in: Computer Algebra in Quantum Field Theory: Integration,
Summation and Special Functions, Texts and Monographs in Symbolic
Computation, eds. C. Schneider and J. Blümlein (Springer, Wien, 2013) 325 arXiv:1304.4134 [cs.SC];
J. Ablinger, J. Blümlein, S. Klein and C. Schneider, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 205-206 (2010) 110;
J. Blümlein, A. Hasselhuhn and C. Schneider, PoS (RADCOR 2011) 032;
C. Schneider, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 523 (2014) 012037;
J. Ablinger, arXiv:1305.0687 [math-ph]; arXiv:1011.1176 [math-ph];
J. Ablinger, J. Blümlein and C. Schneider, J. Math. Phys. 52 (2011) 102301; J. Math. Phys. 54 (2013) 082301. - [45] Z. W. Huang and J. Liu, Comput. Phys. Commun. 184 (2013) 1973.
- [46] T. Huber and D. Maitre, Comput. Phys. Commun. 175 (2006) 122.
- [47] T. Huber and D. Maitre, Comput. Phys. Commun. 178 (2008) 755.
- [48] M. Y. Kalmykov, JHEP 0604 (2006) 056.
- [49] M. Y. Kalmykov, B. F. L. Ward and S. Yost, JHEP 0702 (2007) 040.
- [50] S. Moch and P. Uwer, Comput. Phys. Commun. 174 (2006), 759-770 doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2005.12.014.
- [51] S. Friot and D. Greynat, J. Math. Phys. 53 (2012) 023508.
- [52] D. Greynat and J. Sesma, Comput. Phys. Commun. 185 (2014) 472.
- [53] D. Greynat, J. Sesma and G. Vulvert, arXiv:1310.7700 [math-ph].
- [54] V. V. Bytev, M. Y. Kalmykov and B. A. Kniehl, Nucl. Phys. B 836 (2010) 129.
- [55] V. V. Bytev, M. Y. Kalmykov and B. A. Kniehl, Comput. Phys. Commun. 184 (2013) 2332.
- [56] V. V. Bytev and B. A. Kniehl, Comput. Phys. Commun. 189 (2015) 128.
- [57] V. V. Bytev, M. Y. Kalmykov and S. O. Moch, Comput. Phys. Commun. 185 (2014) 3041.
- [58] J. Fleischer and T. Riemann, Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011) 073004.
- [59] J. Fleischer and T. Riemann, Phys. Lett. B 707 (2012), 375-380.