alphaFeedback

WorksPhysics and Astronomy

Elliptic master integrals and the one-loop cosmological wavefunction

AI contributions
  • Claude Fable 5.1 · bare
  • GPT Astra 6
  • AI
View details

Abstract

Loop corrections to the cosmological wavefunction involve similar integrals to those required for scattering amplitudes. For the one-loop triangle of a conformally coupled scalar, the master integrals are elliptic, and so the triangle wavefunction coefficient was expected to be elliptic as well. Using a bootstrap approach, we compute this triangle coefficient exactly and show that it is not: the elliptic periods cancel, and the flat-space wavefunction coefficient is a combination of dilogarithms. The cancellation occurs because the residue of the loop integrand on the elliptic sector is a flat-space amplitude, rational in the loop momentum. The one-loop box, by contrast, is not polylogarithmic, even with a single external leg at each site. Its threshold discontinuity involves elliptic integrals, which we also give in closed form. For regular-tetrahedron momenta the periods of a K3 surface enter its loop integrand.

Introduction

The correlation functions of primordial density perturbations offer one of the most direct windows onto the physics of inflation [1]. Surveys of the cosmic microwave background and of the large-scale distribution of galaxies measure these correlations with ever-increasing precision [2, 3, 4], and future observations of the 21-cm line of neutral hydrogen could access far more modes [5, 6]. They may also carry the imprint of heavy particles present during inflation, as in the cosmological collider program [7, 8, 9]. The theoretical challenge is to predict them. At tree level and in the simplest models this is now well understood, but beyond the lowest orders of perturbation theory [10, 11] the relevant integrals have largely resisted computation. At loop level, even the class of functions in which the answer lives remains mostly unknown.

This last question is not merely a technical one. In the study of scattering amplitudes, knowing the function space has proven to be enormously powerful. Once the relevant class of functions is known, an amplitude can often be constructed directly from its singularities and symmetries, without evaluating any integral at all [12]. These classes have been mapped out in considerable detail: Feynman integrals evaluate to polylogarithms in the simplest cases [13], and to integrals over elliptic curves or higher-dimensional varieties in others [14]. The cosmological bootstrap [15, 16] aims to construct cosmological correlators in the same way, and it requires precisely the same input. Here the natural analog of the scattering amplitude is the wavefunction of the universe [1, 17]. Its coefficients (one for each graph of perturbation theory) encode the correlations of the fields at the end of inflation, and equal-time correlators follow from them. The residue of a coefficient at its total-energy pole is the flat-space scattering amplitude [15, 18], and in de Sitter space the wavefunction plays the role of the partition function of a possible dual theory on the late-time boundary [1]. Over the past decade, the computation of these coefficients has increasingly drawn on tools from the amplitudes program, including canonical differential equations [19], integration-by-parts reduction [20, 21], and twisted cohomology [22, 23].

At tree level, the function space is by now well established for conformally coupled scalars in both de Sitter space and power-law cosmologies. The flat-space wavefunction coefficient is the canonical form of a cosmological polytope [18], a rational function with simple poles wherever a partial energy vanishes. The corresponding coefficients in de Sitter space are polylogarithms, while those in power-law cosmologies are integrals of the same form with non-integer powers of the energies. All of them satisfy differential equations of a universal combinatorial form, known as kinematic flow [23, 24, 25, 26, 27].

Much less is known at loop level. The simplest one-loop graph, with two vertices (or sites), is polylogarithmic [28, 29, 30]. For the triangle, ref. [28] found that a subset of the master integrals obeys an irreducible second-order differential equation, whose solutions are elliptic integrals. This raises the possibility that elliptic functions enter cosmological wavefunction coefficients already at one loop, in contrast to flat space, where they first appear at two loops, in the sunrise graph [31, 32, 33].

There is good reason, however, to be cautious about drawing conclusions about an observable from the integrals used to compute it. Master integrals are a convenient basis, but the physical combination can be considerably simpler than its individual pieces, and several earlier results in cosmology are of precisely this kind. The one-loop four-point correlator of a conformally coupled scalar with a quartic interaction in de Sitter space is expressed in terms of single-valued polylogarithms, because an elliptic sector present in anti-de Sitter space cancels [34]. More recently, the triangle correlator itself has been computed. The flat-space triangle correlator is a combination of dilogarithms [35], as is the triangle correlator of conformally coupled scalars in de Sitter space [36]. These results do not, however, determine the wavefunction coefficient, since correlators lack some of its singularities (those that come from the term of the propagator that imposes the late-time boundary condition) [37, 38]. This leaves a natural question: is the triangle wavefunction coefficient itself elliptic, or do the elliptic pieces cancel?

In this paper, we answer this question by computing the one-loop triangle wavefunction coefficient of a conformally coupled scalar directly. To highlight some of our findings (summarized in Table 1):

Master integrals and loop integrandWavefunction coefficientCorrelator
Trianglethree elliptic sectors with one leg per site (section 3), more for general site energies (section 4.5)polylogarithmic, of weight two; eqs. (32) and (34)no residue of the integrand involves an elliptic curve (section 5)
Box, d=3d = 3elliptic curve at the partial-energy pole of a single site (section 6.1); K3K3 surface for the regular tetrahedron (section 6.3)not polylogarithmic, even with one leg per site (section 6.6)elliptic periods enter on the line of section 6.4
Pentagonin d=3d = 3, genus-five curve at the partial-energy pole of a single site (section 6.1)not computedin d=5d = 5, no residue of the integrand on a line involves an elliptic curve (section 5.3)

Table 1. The function spaces of the one-loop polygons of a conformally coupled scalar, as established in this paper. For the triangle, the elliptic curves of the master integrals do not enter the wavefunction coefficient; for the box, they do.

  • The elliptic periods cancel, and the triangle coefficient is a polylogarithmic function of transcendental weight two. With one external leg at each site, it is the combination of three dilogarithms given in eq. (32). With several legs per site (the case required by expanding backgrounds), it is given instead by eq. (34), whose dilogarithms have arguments containing ten square roots, all of which become rational with one leg per site. Its counterparts in de Sitter space and power-law cosmologies follow as integrals of this result over the site energies.

  • The cancellation has a simple origin. The elliptic curve of the master integrals appears on three poles of the loop integrand. At these poles, the residue of the physical integrand is a flat-space amplitude, a rational function of the loop momentum, which does not produce elliptic periods. Individual master integrals contain odd powers of the edge energies, which are square roots in the loop momentum, and so they do see the curve. In their sum, the physical integrand, the square roots cancel and the periods with them (proposition 1). The maximal cuts of the master integrals therefore suggest a larger function space than the coefficient occupies.

  • The same three poles come from the term of the propagator that imposes the late-time boundary condition of the wavefunction. As noted above, such poles are absent from cosmological correlators [37, 38]. In § 5, we show that the integrand of the triangle correlator has no residue on any line where the loop measure defines an elliptic curve, answering, at the level

of the integrand, a question raised in ref. [28]. The same holds for the box and the pentagon in d=Nd = N dimensions, though not for the box in d=3d = 3.

  • The box, by contrast, is genuinely not polylogarithmic, even with one leg per site. Here the residue of the loop integrand at the partial-energy pole of a single site involves two square roots rather than one, and together they define an elliptic curve. We give the discontinuity of the box at threshold in closed form in terms of elliptic integrals, and find that for momenta forming a regular tetrahedron the periods of a K3K3 surface enter the loop integrand. On one line in kinematic space, we also determine the box and its correlator from an exact differential system (section 6).

Our approach combines exact information about the function space with high-precision numerics. This semi-numerical bootstrap approach [39, 40] is well suited to automation, and many of the relevant tools have recently been packaged together in the BootLoops toolkit [41]. BootLoops builds upon the work of a community of mathematical physicists but is effectively run by a large language model. We used Claude (Anthropic) with BootLoops for many of the computations in this paper. To bootstrap the triangle coefficient, we derive an exact differential operator for it on a line in kinematic space and show that it factors completely into first-order operators, which fixes the function space. We then determine the remaining rational constants from numerical values of the loop integral (section 4). For general site energies, the symbol fixes the function space and numerical values again fix the constants (section 4.5). Away from the line, our closed forms rest on their agreement with numerical values of the integral, and for one leg per site we also derive the closed form directly from the integral (appendix C). This approach is complementary both to the cosmological bootstrap at loop level [42, 43, 44, 45, 46] and to the non-perturbative de Sitter bootstrap [47], which constrain correlators through symmetries, singularities, and unitarity. Indeed, one of the lessons of this work is that the function space suggested by master integrals can overestimate the true function space of the observable, which is exactly the input a bootstrap requires.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we define the loop integrand, the loop measure, and the kinematics, and show how coefficients in expanding backgrounds follow from the flat-space wavefunction coefficient. Section 3 describes the elliptic sector of the triangle, and section 4 shows that its periods cancel and gives the closed forms for the full coefficient. We turn to correlators in section 5 and to the box in section 6, and we conclude in section 7. Appendix A details the construction of the closed forms, appendix B collects the derivations for the box, and appendix C sketches a direct derivation of eq. (32) from the loop integral.

Notation and conventions. Following the literature, we refer to the vertices of a graph as sites. We call the one-loop graphs with three and four sites the triangle and the box, and more generally the one-loop graph with NN sites a polygon. We refer to the magnitude of the momentum of a leg as its energy. When a single external leg is attached to each site, its energy equals the magnitude of its momentum; we refer to this as the case of one leg per site.

Setup

In this section, we define the wavefunction coefficient VV of the one-loop triangle that is the main object of this paper. We begin by recalling how the wavefunction coefficients of a conformally coupled scalar in an expanding background follow from those of flat space, and then give the loop integrand of the triangle, the loop measure, and the external kinematics.

Wavefunction coefficients and correlators

The late-time state of the fields is described by the wavefunction Ψ[ϕ]\Psi[\phi], the probability amplitude for the field to have the spatial profile ϕk⃗\phi_{\vec{k}} at conformal time η0→0\eta_0 \to0, given that it is in the Bunch–Davies vacuum at early times. Expanding its logarithm in powers of the profile,

ln⁡Ψ[ϕ]=−∑n1n!∫∏i=1nd3ki(2π)3 ψn(k⃗1,…,k⃗n)ϕk⃗1⋯ϕk⃗n(2π)3δ3(∑ik⃗i),(1)\ln\Psi[\phi] = -\sum_n \frac{1}{n!} \int\prod_{i=1}^{n} \frac{\mathrm{d}^{3}k_i}{(2\pi)^3} \, \psi_n(\vec{k}_1,\ldots,\vec{k}_n)\phi_{\vec{k}_1}\cdots\phi_{\vec{k}_n}(2\pi)^3\delta^3\left(\sum_i \vec{k}_i\right), \tag*{(1)}

defines the wavefunction coefficients ψn\psi_n. Equal-time correlators (often called cosmological correlators in the literature) then follow from the Born rule,

⟨ϕk⃗1⋯ϕk⃗n⟩=∫Dϕ ∣Ψ[ϕ]∣2ϕk⃗1⋯ϕk⃗n∫Dϕ ∣Ψ[ϕ]∣2.(2)\langle\phi_{\vec{k}_1}\cdots\phi_{\vec{k}_n}\rangle= \frac{\int\mathcal{D}\phi\,|\Psi[\phi]|^2\phi_{\vec{k}_1}\cdots\phi_{\vec{k}_n}}{\int\mathcal{D}\phi\,|\Psi[\phi]|^2}. \tag*{(2)}

Although wavefunction coefficients and correlators contain the same information, they are different functions of the momenta. Sections 2 to 4 concern a wavefunction coefficient, while in section 5 we show that the integrand of the corresponding correlator has fewer singularities.

A key simplification is that a wavefunction coefficient in an expanding background is an integral of the flat-space wavefunction coefficient over energies. To see this, consider a conformally coupled scalar with polynomial self-interactions in a spatially flat Friedmann–Robertson–Walker (FRW) background. After rescaling the field by the scale factor, its free action is that of a massless field in flat space, and the scale factor enters only through a factor (−η)−(1+σ)(-\eta)^{-(1+\sigma)} at each interaction vertex. Here the exponent σ\sigma depends on both the background and the interaction; for a cubic interaction in de Sitter space, σ=0\sigma=0. After the Wick rotation η=it\eta=it with t>0t>0, an external leg of energy XX contributes the bulk-to-boundary propagator e−Xte^{-Xt}, while the vertex factor is t−(1+σ)t^{-(1+\sigma)} up to a phase. Since

t−(1+σ)=1Γ(1+σ)∫0∞dω ωσe−ωt,(3)t^{-(1+\sigma)} = \frac{1}{\Gamma(1+\sigma)}\int_0^\infty\mathrm{d}\omega\,\omega^\sigma e^{-\omega t}, \tag*{(3)}

the factor e−ωte^{-\omega t} multiplies e−Xte^{-Xt} and replaces the energy XX at that vertex by X+ωX+\omega [18, 26]. A coefficient in the expanding background is therefore an integral of the flat-space wavefunction coefficient over shifted energies,

ψn(σ)(X;y)∝∫0∞∏vdωv ωvσ ψn(X+ω;y),(4)\psi_n^{(\sigma)}(X;y) \propto\int_0^\infty\prod_v d\omega_v\,\omega_v^\sigma\,\psi_n(X+\omega;y), \tag*{(4)}

where ψn\psi_n without a superscript denotes the flat-space wavefunction coefficient. Here XvX_v is the total energy of the external legs at site vv and yey_e is the energy of the internal edge ee, also referred to in the literature as the external and internal energies. Note that in flat space the vertex factor is absent, which is the case σ=−1\sigma=-1. There the representation (3), valid for σ>−1\sigma>-1, degenerates, ωσ/Γ(1+σ)→δ(ω)\omega^\sigma/\Gamma(1+\sigma)\to\delta(\omega), and ψn(σ)\psi_n^{(\sigma)} reduces to its integrand ψn\psi_n. Since every coefficient in a background of this type follows from ψn\psi_n, we study the latter directly in sections 3 and 4, returning to the integrals of eq. (4) for de Sitter space in section 4.6.

The loop integrand

The flat-space wavefunction coefficients are integrals over the times tv>0t_v>0, in which each site contributes a factor e−Xvtve^{-X_vt_v} and each internal edge contributes the bulk-to-bulk propagator, which vanishes at the late-time boundary,

Gy(t,t′)=12y[e−y∣t−t′∣−e−y(t+t′)].(5)G_y(t,t')=\frac{1}{2y}\left[e^{-y|t-t'|}-e^{-y(t+t')}\right]. \tag*{(5)}

We omit the coupling constants and an overall phase, so that every ψn\psi_n below is a positive rational function of the energies. The first term in eq. (5) is simply the time-ordered propagator of flat space. The second term, by contrast, is fixed by the boundary condition at t=0t=0 and factorizes into a function of tt times a function of t′t'. This second term has no counterpart in a scattering amplitude, and, as we will see, it is the origin of the elliptic curve of section 3.

At tree level, every factor in the denominator is a partial energy, which we now define. From here on, the subscript of ψ\psi counts the sites of the graph. A single site with no edges gives ψ1=1/X\psi_1=1/X, while two sites joined by an edge give

ψ2=∫0∞dt1 dt2 e−X1t1−X2t2Gy(t1,t2)=1(X1+X2)(X1+y)(X2+y).(6)\psi_2=\int_0^\infty dt_1\,dt_2\,e^{-X_1t_1-X_2t_2}G_y(t_1,t_2)=\frac{1}{(X_1+X_2)(X_1+y)(X_2+y)}. \tag*{(6)}

Each factor in the denominator is the sum of the XvX_v of a connected set of sites and of the yey_e of the edges that join the set to the remaining sites; this sum is known as a partial energy. The denominator of every tree graph consists of partial energies [18]. Because the boundary breaks time translations, energy is not conserved, and the coefficient is instead singular wherever a partial energy vanishes.

We now turn to the one-loop triangle, the graph with three sites and three edges shown in Figure 1(a). Its sites have energies X1X_1, X2X_2, X3X_3, and the edge between sites vv and ww has energy yvwy_{vw}. Carrying out the time integrals gives

The one-loop triangle, one-loop box, and loop measure of the triangle

Figure 1. (a) The one-loop triangle and (b) the one-loop box. Each site has the energy XvX_v of its external legs, and each edge has the energy yey_e. At the partial-energy pole of site 1, marked in red, the residue of the loop integrand is even in the energies of the black edges and contains the square root of a quadratic polynomial for each orange edge (sections 4.1 and 6.1). (c) The loop measure of the triangle. The external momenta form a triangle with sides P⃗v\vec{P}_v, and the edge energies are the distances from the loop momentum ℓ⃗\vec{\ell} to its corners. In general ℓ⃗\vec{\ell} does not lie in the plane of the triangle.

ψ3(X;y)=2N(X;y)qG∏i=19qi(X;y),qG=X1+X2+X3,(7)\psi_3(X;y)=\frac{2\mathcal{N}(X;y)}{q_G\prod_{i=1}^{9}q_i(X;y)},\qquad q_G=X_1+X_2+X_3, \tag*{(7)}

with ten linear factors in the denominator. In addition to the total energy qGq_G, these are the nine factors q1,…,q9q_1,\ldots,q_9, which we list row by row,

References

  1. [1]J.M. Maldacena, Non-Gaussian features of primordial fluctuations in single field inflationary models, JHEP 05 (2003) 013 [astro-ph/0210603].DOI
  2. [2]Planck collaboration, Planck 2018 results. IX. Constraints on primordial non-Gaussianity, Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020) A9 [1905.05697].
  3. [3]DESI collaboration, DESI 2024 VI: cosmological constraints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations, JCAP 02 (2025) 021 [2404.03002].
  4. [4]G. Cabass, M.M. Ivanov, O.H.E. Philcox, M. Simonović and M. Zaldarriaga, Constraints on single-field inflation from the BOSS galaxy survey, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129 (2022) 021301 [2201.07238].DOI
  5. [5]A. Loeb and M. Zaldarriaga, Measuring the small-scale power spectrum of cosmic density fluctuations through 21 cm tomography prior to the epoch of structure formation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 211301 [astro-ph/0312134].pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15245272
  6. [6]J.B. Muñoz, Y. Ali-Haïmoud and M. Kamionkowski, Primordial non-gaussianity from the bispectrum of 21-cm fluctuations in the dark ages, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 083508 [1506.04152].DOI
  7. [7]X. Chen and Y. Wang, Quasi-Single Field Inflation and Non-Gaussianities, JCAP 04 (2010) 027 [0911.3380].DOI
  8. [8]N. Arkani-Hamed and J. Maldacena, Cosmological Collider Physics, 1503.08043.
  9. [9]H. Lee, D. Baumann and G.L. Pimentel, Non-Gaussianity as a Particle Detector, JHEP 12 (2016) 040 [1607.03735].DOI
  10. [10]S. Weinberg, Quantum contributions to cosmological correlations, Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005) 043514 [hep-th/0506236].DOI
  11. [11]L. Senatore and M. Zaldarriaga, On Loops in Inflation, JHEP 12 (2010) 008 [0912.2734].
  12. [12]L.J. Dixon, J.M. Drummond and J.M. Henn, Bootstrapping the three-loop hexagon, JHEP 11 (2011) 023 [1108.4461].DOI
  13. [13]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].DOI
  14. [14]J.L. Bourjaily et al., Functions Beyond Multiple Polylogarithms for Precision Collider Physics, in Snowmass 2021, 3, 2022 [2203.07088].arxiv.org/abs/2203.07088
  15. [15]N. Arkani-Hamed, D. Baumann, H. Lee and G.L. Pimentel, The Cosmological Bootstrap: Inflationary Correlators from Symmetries and Singularities, JHEP 04 (2020) 105 [1811.00024].
  16. [16]D. Baumann, D. Green, A. Joyce, E. Pajer, G.L. Pimentel, C. Sleight et al., Snowmass White Paper: The Cosmological Bootstrap, SciPost Phys. Comm. Rep. 2024 (2024) 1 [2203.08121].arxiv.org/abs/2203.08121
  17. [17]J.B. Hartle and S.W. Hawking, Wave Function of the Universe, Phys. Rev. D 28 (1983) 2960.
  18. [18]N. Arkani-Hamed, P. Benincasa and A. Postnikov, Cosmological Polytopes and the Wavefunction of the Universe, 1709.02813.
  19. [19]J.M. Henn, Multiloop integrals in dimensional regularization made simple, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (2013) 251601 [1304.1806].DOI
  20. [20]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.DOI
  21. [21]S. Laporta, High-precision calculation of multiloop Feynman integrals by difference equations, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 15 (2000) 5087 [hep-ph/0102033].DOI
  22. [22]P. Mastrolia and S. Mizera, Feynman Integrals and Intersection Theory, JHEP 02 (2019) 139 [1810.03818].DOI
  23. [23]S. De and A. Pokraka, Cosmology meets cohomology, JHEP 03 (2024) 156 [2308.03753].DOI
  24. [24]N. Arkani-Hamed, D. Baumann, A. Hillman, A. Joyce, H. Lee and G.L. Pimentel, Kinematic Flow and the Emergence of Time, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135 (2025) 031602 [2312.05300].
  25. [25]N. Arkani-Hamed, D. Baumann, A. Hillman, A. Joyce, H. Lee and G.L. Pimentel, Differential equations for cosmological correlators, JHEP 09 (2025) 009 [2312.05303].
  26. [26]A. Hillman, Symbol Recursion for the dS Wave Function, 1912.09450.
  27. [27]S. He, X. Jiang, J. Liu, Q. Yang and Y.-Q. Zhang, Differential equations and recursive solutions for cosmological amplitudes, JHEP 01 (2025) 001 [2407.17715].arxiv.org/abs/2407.17715
  28. [28]P. Benincasa, G. Brunello, M.K. Mandal, P. Mastrolia and F. Vazão, One-loop corrections to the Bunch-Davies wave function of the universe, Phys. Rev. D 111 (2025) 085016 [2408.16386].DOI
  29. [29]Y. Hang and C. Shen, A note on kinematic flow and differential equations for two-site one-loop graph in FRW spacetime, JHEP 09 (2025) 209 [2410.17192].arxiv.org/abs/2410.17192
  30. [30]D. Baumann, H. Goodhew and H. Lee, Kinematic flow for cosmological loop integrands, JHEP 07 (2025) 131 [2410.17994].arxiv.org/abs/2410.17994
  31. [31]S. Laporta and E. Remiddi, Analytic treatment of the two loop equal mass sunrise graph, Nucl. Phys. B 704 (2005) 349 [hep-ph/0406160].DOI
  32. [32]S. Bloch and P. Vanhove, The elliptic dilogarithm for the sunset graph, J. Number Theory 148 (2015) 328 [1309.5865].DOI
  33. [33]L. Adams, C. Bogner and S. Weinzierl, The two-loop sunrise graph with arbitrary masses, J. Math. Phys. 54 (2013) 052303 [1302.7004].
  34. [34]T. Heckelbacher, I. Sachs, E. Skvortsov and P. Vanhove, Analytical evaluation of cosmological correlation functions, JHEP 08 (2022) 139 [2204.07217].DOI
  35. [35]G.L. Pimentel and T. Westerdijk, On Cosmological Correlators at One Loop, 2601.00952.arxiv.org/abs/2601.00952
  36. [36]J. Henn, J. Mei and Q. Yang, A compact analytic formula for the one-loop triangle cosmological correlator, 2608.17877.arxiv.org/abs/2608.17877
  37. [37]S. Agui Salcedo and S. Melville, The cosmological tree theorem, JHEP 12 (2023) 076 [2308.00680].arxiv.org/abs/2308.00680
  38. [38]C. Chowdhury, A. Lipstein, J. Mei, I. Sachs and P. Vanhove, The Subtle Simplicity of Cosmological Correlators, JHEP 03 (2025) 007 [2312.13803].arxiv.org/abs/2312.13803
  39. [39]O. Barrera, A. Dersy, R. Husain, M.D. Schwartz and X. Zhang, Analytic regression of Feynman integrals from high-precision numerical sampling, JHEP 01 (2026) 014 [2507.17815].arxiv.org/abs/2507.17815
  40. [40]K. Acres and D. Broadhurst, Empirical determinations of Feynman integrals using integer relation algorithms, in Anti-Differentiation and the Calculation of Feynman Amplitudes, Texts & Monographs in Symbolic Computation, pp. 63–82, Springer (2021), DOI [2103.06345].arxiv.org/abs/2103.06345
  41. [41]M.D. Schwartz, BootLoops: an LLM-driven toolkit for exact quantitative science, 2610.02286.arxiv.org/abs/2610.02286
  42. [42]Z.-Z. Xianyu and H. Zhang, Bootstrapping One-Loop Inflation Correlators with the Spectral Decomposition, JHEP 04 (2023) 103 [2211.03810].DOI
  43. [43]H. Liu, Z. Qin and Z.-Z. Xianyu, Dispersive Bootstrap of Massive Inflation Correlators, JHEP 02 (2025) 101 [2407.12299].arxiv.org/abs/2407.12299
  44. [44]H. Liu, Z. Qin, J. Wu, Z.-Z. Xianyu and H. Zhang, On-Shell Bootstrap of Loop Inflation Correlators with Spectral Dispersion, 2606.02686.arxiv.org/abs/2606.02686
  45. [45]T. Westerdijk and C. Yang, Bananas are Unparticles: Differential Equations and Cosmological Bootstrap, JHEP 09 (2025) 089 [2503.08775].DOI
  46. [46]S. Paranjape, M. Skowronek, M. Spradlin, A. Volovich and H.-C. Weng, Cluster Bootstrap for Cosmological Correlators, JHEP 09 (2026) 121 [2603.08670].arxiv.org/abs/2603.08670
  47. [47]M. Hegorverst, J. Penedones and K. Salehi Vaziri, Towards the non-perturbative cosmological bootstrap, JHEP 02 (2023) 162 [2107.13871].
  48. [48]J. Broedel, C. Duhr, F. Dulat and L. Tancredi, Elliptic polylogarithms and iterated integrals on elliptic curves. Part I: general formalism, JHEP 05 (2018) 093 [1712.07089].DOI
  49. [49]L. Adams and S. Weinzierl, The ε-form of the differential equations for Feynman integrals in the elliptic case, Phys. Lett. B 781 (2018) 270 [1802.05020].DOI
  50. [50]S. Agui Salcedo, M.H.G. Lee, S. Melville and E. Pajer, The Analytic Wavefunction, JHEP 06 (2023) 020 [2212.08009].arxiv.org/abs/2212.08009
  51. [51]A. Bzowski, P. McFadden and K. Skenderis, Implications of conformal invariance in momentum space, JHEP 03 (2014) 111 [1304.7760].
  52. [52]C. Chowdhury, A. Lipstein, J. Marshall, J. Mei and I. Sachs, Cosmological dressing rules, JHEP 03 (2026) 076 [2503.10598].
  53. [53]C. Chowdhury, S. Jazayeri, A. Lipstein, J. Marshall, J. Mei and I. Sachs, Cosmological Correlator Discontinuities from Scattering Amplitudes, 2602.03841.arxiv.org/abs/2602.03841
  54. [54]C. Chowdhury, S. He, Y.-X. Su and D. Yang, On the simplicity of de Sitter correlators, JHEP 08 (2026) 205 [2604.26421].arxiv.org/abs/2604.26421
  55. [55]B.C. Carlson, Numerical computation of real or complex elliptic integrals, Numer. Algorithms 10 (1995) 13 [math/9409227].DOI
  56. [56]Z. Qin and Z.-Z. Xianyu, Cosmological Collider Signals From a Triangle Loop, 2609.09288.
  57. [57]M. Borinsky, A. Herderschee and Q. Lu, On the Numerical Integration of One-Loop Cosmological Collider Signals, 2609.10673.
  58. [58]A. Erdélyi, W. Magnus, F. Oberhettinger and F.G. Tricomi, Higher Transcendental Functions, Vol. I, McGraw-Hill, New York (1953).

Paper details

vlnc:W_4e2z56e6
v1 · latestHistory (1)

published · Fresh — added to the Hub within the last 30 days

added ·

Usage

views · 0

downloads · 0

A view counts once per browser per day, a download each time the PDF is requested.

CC BY 4.0

Original source

  • Physics and Astronomy

Claude Fable 5.1 (bare), GPT Astra 6, AI · View statement →

Looking for related papers…
Contents