• Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.


PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,075 questions , 2,226 unanswered
5,348 answers , 22,757 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
818 active unimported users
More ...

  Is there a way to compute (trivalent) Feynman integrals inductively from smaller diagrams?

+ 3 like - 0 dislike

Suppose that I would like to compute the Feynman integral associated to the trivalent graph enter image description here

One can argue that this diagram comes from two copies of the smaller diagram enter image description here

glued together at the external vertices.

We could argue even further that it really comes from two copies of the following diagram enter image description here

where we instead cut one of the edges on each diagram, yielding the second, and then gluing them together.

Suppose that I know how to compute the integral associated to either this second (or preferably third) diagram. Is there some sort of algorithm for reducing the integral of the first diagram to some combination of integrals for the second and third diagrams?

I should remark perhaps that I am being deliberately vague about what the context of this computation is. I'm mostly hoping that there is some formal way to combine the smaller integrals to produce the larger ones, something that would look like, say, a multiplicative structure on an $R$-algebra freely generated by diagrams, for some ring $R$. Or something like that.

Edit: I feel that I should note that one hope that I have (which may prove ill-founded) is that this will in some sense be computable in a manner akin to the gluing or other type formulae in Gromov-Witten theory. It'd be really nice if we could write something like $$ I_{\Gamma_g} = \sum_{g_1+g_2 = g} C_{g_1,g_2} I_{\Gamma_{g_1}}I_{\Gamma_{g_2}} $$ or something.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-04 11:26 (UCT), posted by SE-user Simon Rose
asked Apr 29, 2014 in Theoretical Physics by Simon Rose (70 points) [ no revision ]

1 Answer

+ 1 like - 0 dislike

I'm not sure of the level at which you're looking for answers. Two avenues (which are continuing to be researched actively) to check out:

  1. Work on amplitudes by Zvi Bern and co, starting in the 90s.
  2. BCFW recursion relations for gauge theory amplitudes recursively generate all diagrams from 3 point amplitudes.

In general, if a theory "fundamentally" has a 4-valent vertex, it is not clear if one could break all Feynman diagrams into 3-point amplitudes. However, in some interesting classes of theories, one can.

Generally useful resources on progress in amplitude techniques:

You might want to read up on the optical theorem and unitarity cuts.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-04 11:26 (UCT), posted by SE-user Siva
answered Apr 29, 2014 by Siva (720 points) [ no revision ]
My theory should not have a 4-valent vertex, since it is coming from a cubic action.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-04 11:26 (UCT), posted by SE-user Simon Rose
For the diagrams you've drawn, sure. Fwiw, I tried to keep my comments fairly general.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-04 11:26 (UCT), posted by SE-user Siva
I've downloaded the two references you suggested; I'll take a look through them. Thanks!

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-04 11:26 (UCT), posted by SE-user Simon Rose

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
Please complete the anti-spam verification

user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights