Symbols from Bi-Projections

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2509.21829
• Title: Symbols from Bi-Projections
• Authors: Jianyu Gong (宫健宇), You Wang (王悠), Ellis Ye Yuan (袁野)
• Classification: hep-th (High Energy Physics - Theory)
• Submission Date: 2025
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.21829

Abstract

This paper establishes a systematic framework for analyzing the analytic properties of finite Feynman integrals (multiple polylogarithmic functions). Based on Feynman parameter representations in complex projective space, the authors provide a complete classification of logarithmic singularities on the principal branch of the integral through "touching configurations"—geometric relationships between singularities of the integrand and linear subspaces related to boundary elements of the integration contour. These touching configurations both indicate the leading term of the integral symbol and induce a special set of integrals called "fundamental discontinuities." These fundamental discontinuities are derived through "bi-projection" operations, with actual logarithmic branch-cut discontinuities being linear combinations thereof. By recursively applying the same analysis, one can completely construct the symbol of the original integral. The authors explicitly demonstrate how this analysis works for single-loop massless hexagon integrals and box integrals with two massive and two massless propagators.

Research Background and Motivation

Problem Context

1. Importance of the Symbol Method: Since its introduction to scattering amplitude analysis, the symbol has become an important tool, providing a powerful method for simplifying loop-level amplitude expressions and helping reveal novel structures at loop level.
2. Limitations of Existing Methods:
   • Traditional approaches compute symbols through systems of differential equations, requiring identification of master integrals and use of IBP relations
   • When integrals contain multiple parameters/scales, this approach is not always preferred
   • Generalization to higher-loop integrals faces difficulties
3. Need for Direct Construction: A more direct method is needed to compute symbols from the Feynman integral definition, avoiding explicit calculation of the function itself.

Research Motivation

The authors observe that the leading term of the symbol encodes information about logarithmic singularities visible on the principal branch of the function, while discontinuities provide key information about symbol structure. Based on this observation, they propose a new strategy for directly constructing symbols through geometric analysis.

Core Contributions

1. Established a Systematic Geometric Framework: Based on Feynman parameter representations in complex projective space, completely classified logarithmic singularities of integrals
2. Introduced the Concept of Touching Configurations: Classified singularities through geometric relationships between integrand singularities and contour faces
3. Developed the Bi-Projection Method: Generalized the point projection concept to effectively compute various fundamental discontinuities
4. Provided a Complete Symbol Construction Algorithm: Recursive application of the analysis completely constructs the original integral symbol
5. Verified Method Validity: Explicitly demonstrated the method's application to massless hexagon and dual-mass box integrals

Detailed Methodology

Task Definition

Construct the complete symbol of finite Feynman integrals (multiple polylogarithmic functions), where:

• Input: Integrals in complex projective space CPd with rational integrands
• Output: Complete symbol representation SF = Σᵢ SFᵢ ⊗ Rᵢ
• Constraint: Integrals possess uniform transcendental weight

Core Concepts and Architecture

1. Integral Representation in Complex Projective Space

Integrals are defined on CPd:

∫_C ⟨XdXᵈ⟩ F(X)/G(X)

where C is the integration contour, ⟨XdXᵈ⟩ is the standard volume element, and F and G are homogeneous polynomials.

2. Classification of Touching Configurations

Definition: Configurations where the ambient space of one or more proper faces of the contour simplex is contained in the hypersurface of integrand singularities.

For a k-face V₀V₁...Vₖ, its ambient space V₀V₁...Vₖ ⊂ S is equivalent to:

G(t₀V₀ + t₁V₁ + ... + tₖVₖ) = 0, ∀[t₀:t₁:...:tₖ] ∈ CPᵏ

3. Stratification of Touching Configurations

Stratified according to singularity degree g:

• Hyperplane Case (g=1): Only 0-face touching configurations need consideration
• Quadric Surface Case (g=2): Both 0-face and 1-face touching configurations must be considered, including 5 types of jumps

4. Bi-Projection "Fibration"

Generalizes the point projection concept to "fibrate" CPd into CP¹ subspaces:

• Select two reference subspaces: CPᵏ and CPᵈ⁻ᵏ⁻¹
• Each CP¹ is determined by point pairs from the two reference subspaces
• Coordinate reparametrization: X = t₁n₀:...:nᵈ⁻ᵏ⁻¹:0:...:0 + t₀0:...:0:m₀:...:mₖ

Technical Innovations

1. Ambient Space Concept: Introduces the ambient space of contour faces to uniformly describe singularity occurrence mechanisms
2. Geometric Classification Method: Classifies singularities through geometric relationships rather than algebraic equations
3. Fundamental Discontinuities: Identifies special sets of discontinuities closely related to contour face elements
4. Bi-Projection Operation: Generalizes point projection to handle more complex touching configurations

Experimental Setup

Test Integrals

1. Massless Hexagon Integral

Iₕₑₓ = √q₀ ∫_▽ ⟨XdX⁵⟩/(XQ₀X)³

where Q₀ is a 6×6 quadratic form matrix, corresponding to a massless hexagon graph in 6-dimensional spacetime.

2. Dual-Mass Box Integral

Iᵦₒₓ = ∫_▽ 4√q₂⟨XdX³⟩/(XQ₂X)²

corresponding to a box graph in 4 dimensions with two massless particles exchanged between two particles of mass m.

Verification Methods

• Comparison with known differential equation results
• Comparison with spherical contour method results
• Verification of symbol integrability conditions
• Verification of rescaling invariance

Experimental Results

Main Results

1. Massless Hexagon Symbol

Successfully constructed the complete symbol:

S[Iₕₑₓ] = Σ_cyclic (u₁ ⊗ (1-u₁) ⊗ r₀ - u₁ ⊗ u₂ ⊗ r₃ - u₁ ⊗ u₃ ⊗ r₂)

where rᵢ are specific ratio functions, in complete agreement with known results.

2. Dual-Mass Box Symbol

Obtained symbol representation:

S[Iᵦₒₓ] = 2((tu) ⊗ (√st+√(-4+st-4tu))/(√st-√(-4+st-4tu)) + ...)

satisfying symbol integrability conditions.

Method Verification

1. Rescaling Invariance

Proved that symbol construction remains invariant under arbitrary rescaling of the quadratic form, verifying method consistency.

2. Recursive Structure

Successfully demonstrated how to recursively analyze induced integrals, completely constructing the original integral symbol.

3. Geometric Consistency

Different geometric analysis methods (e.g., point projection vs. bi-projection) yield consistent results, verifying the correctness of the geometric framework.

Related Work

Development of Symbol Methods

• Goncharov et al.: Introduced the symbol concept to scattering amplitudes
• Differential Equation Method: Computes symbols through IBP relations and master integral systems
• Bootstrap Method: Determines symbol alphabets using consistency constraints

Geometric Methods

• Spherical Contours: Efficiently handles single-loop integrals but difficult to generalize to higher loops
• Point Projection: More fundamental perspective on discontinuities but requires additional regularization
• Landau Equations: Used to determine symbol alphabets

Advantages of This Work

• Uniformly handles various singularity types
• No regularization procedures needed
• Natural potential for generalization to higher-loop integrals

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Established a complete geometric framework based on touching configurations to analyze Feynman integral singularities
2. The bi-projection method effectively computes various fundamental discontinuities
3. Recursive application completely constructs integral symbols
4. The method is thoroughly verified for single-loop integrals

Limitations

1. Currently handles only integrals with uniform transcendental weight
2. Mixed-weight integrals require careful treatment of numerators
3. Degenerate quadratic forms (det(Q)=0) require further investigation
4. Higher-loop generalization, while promising, remains unimplemented

Future Directions

1. Higher-Order Singularities: Generalize to cubic and higher-degree integrand singularities
2. Multi-Loop Integrals: Extend the framework to two-loop and higher-loop integrals
3. Elliptic Integrals: Handle elliptic cases arising from irrational cubic surfaces
4. Mixed Weights: Develop techniques for handling tensor numerators
5. Symbol Alphabets: Develop more efficient methods targeting only symbol alphabets

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Theoretical Innovation: The touching configuration concept provides a new geometric perspective for understanding Feynman integral singularities
2. Systematic Methodology: Establishes a complete classification and computational framework
3. Advanced Techniques: The bi-projection method cleverly generalizes existing techniques
4. Thorough Verification: The method's validity is detailed through concrete examples
5. Clear Presentation: The paper is well-structured with rigorous mathematical derivations

Weaknesses

1. Limited Scope: Currently restricted to single-loop uniform-weight integrals
2. Computational Complexity: For complex integrals, computational cost may be substantial
3. Practical Utility: Actual advantages compared to existing IBP methods require further assessment
4. Generalization Path: The concrete implementation path for higher-loop generalization remains unclear

Impact

1. Theoretical Contribution: Provides new geometric tools for Feynman integral analysis
2. Methodological Value: The geometric perspective may inspire research on related problems
3. Practical Potential: May offer a more direct alternative to traditional methods for multi-parameter integrals
4. Disciplinary Impact: Bridges techniques from algebraic geometry and high-energy physics

Applicable Scenarios

1. Multi-Parameter Feynman Integrals: Alternative to traditional IBP methods when they become complex
2. Symbol Construction: When direct symbol construction from integral definitions is needed
3. Theoretical Research: Fundamental tools for understanding Feynman integral analytic structure
4. High-Precision Computation: May provide analytic guidance for numerical calculations

References

The paper cites 55 important references covering core works in symbol methods, Feynman integrals, algebraic geometry and related fields, particularly pioneering contributions by Goncharov, Dixon, Henn and others on symbols and multiple polylogarithms.

This paper provides an innovative geometric framework for symbol analysis of Feynman integrals. While currently limited in application scope, its theoretical value and future development potential merit attention. The introduction of the bi-projection method is particularly noteworthy, providing effective tools for handling complex geometric configurations.