https://www.scribd.com/doc/77121290/FeynmanMotivesMMarcolliWorld2010WW
06/10/2013
text
original
NE W J E RSE Y • L ONDON • SI NGAP ORE • BE I J I NG • SHANGHAI • HONG KONG • TAI P E I • CHE NNAI
World Scientifc
Matilde Marcolli
California Institute of Technology, USA
British Library CataloguinginPublication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
For photocopying of material in this volume, please pay a copying fee through the Copyright
Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. In this case permission to
photocopy is not required from the publisher.
ISBN13 9789814271202
ISBN10 9814271209
ISBN13 9789814304481 (pbk)
ISBN10 9814304484 (pbk)
All rights reserved. This book, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage and retrieval
system now known or to be invented, without written permission from the Publisher.
Copyright © 2010 by World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.
Published by
World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.
5 Toh Tuck Link, Singapore 596224
USA office: 27 Warren Street, Suite 401402, Hackensack, NJ 07601
UK office: 57 Shelton Street, Covent Garden, London WC2H 9HE
Printed in Singapore.
FEYNMAN MOTIVES
Zvezda v Galaktike i voron na suku
ivut, ne muqimy xekspirovsko i dilemmo i.
No my — my pozdni i stil starewe i Vselenno i.
Ona skvoz nas poet svo tosku.
Yuri Manin – “(not yet quite) The Late Style”
This page intentionally left blank This page intentionally left blank
Preface
This book originates from the notes of a course on “Geometry and Arith
metic of Quantum Fields”, which I taught at Caltech in the fall of 2008.
Having just moved to Caltech and having my ﬁrst chance to oﬀer a class
there, I decided on a topic that would fall in between mathematics and
theoretical physics. Though it inevitably feels somewhat strange to be
teaching Feynman diagrams at Caltech, I hope that having made the main
focus of the lectures the yet largely unexplored relation between quantum
ﬁeld theory and Grothendieck’s theory of motives in algebraic geometry
may provide a suﬃciently diﬀerent viewpoint on the quantum ﬁeld the
oretic notions to make the resulting combination of topics appealing to
mathematicians and physicists alike.
I am not an expert in the theory of motives and this fact is clearly
reﬂected in the way this text is organized. Interested readers will have to
look elsewhere for a more informative introduction to the subject (a few
references are provided in the text). Also I do not try in any way to give
an exhaustive viewpoint of the current status of research on the connection
between quantum ﬁeld theory and motives. Many extremely interesting
results are at this point available in the literature. I try, whenever possible,
to provide an extensive list of references for the interested reader, and
occasionally to summarize some of the available results, but in general I
prefer to keep the text as close as possible to the very informal style of the
lectures, possibly at the cost of neglecting material that should certainly
be included in a more extensive monograph. In particular, the choice of
material covered here focuses mostly on those aspects of the subject where
I have been actively engaged in recent research work and therefore reﬂects
closely my own bias and personal viewpoint.
In particular, I will try to illustrate the fact that there are two possible
vii
viii Feynman Motives
complementary approaches to understanding the relation between Feynman
integrals and motives, which one may refer to as a “bottomup” and a “top
down” approach. The bottomup approach looks at individual Feynman
integrals for given Feynman graphs and, using the parametric representa
tion in terms of Schwinger and Feynman parameters, identiﬁes directly the
Feynman integral (modulo the important issue of divergences) with an inte
gral of an algebraic diﬀerential form on a cycle in an algebraic variety. One
then tries to understand the motivic nature of the piece of the relative coho
mology of the algebraic variety involved in the computation of the period,
trying to identify speciﬁc conditions under which it will be a realization of
a very special kind of motive, a mixed Tate motive. The other approach,
the topdown one, is based on the formal properties that the category of
mixed Tate motives satisﬁes, which are suﬃciently rigid to identify it (via
the Tannakian formalism) with a category of representations of an aﬃne
group scheme. One then approaches the question of the relation to Feyn
man integrals by showing that the data of Feynman integrals for all graphs
and arbitrary scalar ﬁeld theories also ﬁt together to form a category with
the same properties. This second approach was the focus of my joint work
with Connes on renormalization and the Riemann–Hilbert correspondence
and is already presented in much greater detail in our book “Noncommu
tative geometry, quantum ﬁelds, and motives”. However, for the sake of
completeness, I have also included a brief and less detailed summary of this
aspect of the theory in the present text, referring the readers to the more
complete treatment for further information. The bottomup approach was
largely developed in the work of Bloch–Esnault–Kreimer, though in this
book I will mostly relate aspects of this approach that come from my joint
work with Aluﬃ. I will also try to illustrate the points of contact between
these two diﬀerent approaches and where possible new developments may
arise that might eventually unify the somewhat fragmentary picture we
have at the moment. This book only partially reﬂects the state of the art
on this fastmoving subject at the speciﬁc time when these lectures were
delivered, but I hope that the timeliness of circulating these ideas in the
community of mathematicians and physicists will somehow make up for
lack of both rigor and of completeness.
Matilde Marcolli
Acknowledgments
A large part of the material covered in this book is based on recent joint
work with Paolo Aluﬃ and on previous joint work with Alain Connes, whom
I thank for their essential contributions to the development of those ideas
and results. I also thank Abhijnan Rej for conversations and collaboration
on some of the topics in this book, and for providing detailed comments on
an earlier draft of the manuscript. I thank the students of my “Geometry
and Arithmetic of Quantum Fields” course, especially Domenic Denicola
and Michael Smith, for their valuable comments and questions during the
class. Many thanks are due to Paolo Aluﬃ for his very detailed and useful
feedback on the ﬁnal version of the manuscript. I also thank Arthur Green
spoon for a ﬁnal proofreading of the text. This book was partly written
during stays of the author at MSRI and at the MPI. I thank both institutes
for the hospitality and for support. This work was partially supported by
NSF grants DMS0651925 and DMS0901221.
ix
This page intentionally left blank This page intentionally left blank
Contents
Preface vii
Acknowledgments ix
1. Perturbative quantum ﬁeld theory and Feynman diagrams 1
1.1 A calculus exercise in Feynman integrals . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 From Lagrangian to eﬀective action . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3 Feynman rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.4 Simplifying graphs: vacuum bubbles, connected graphs . . 12
1.5 Oneparticleirreducible graphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.6 The problem of renormalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1.7 Gamma functions, Schwinger and Feynman parameters . 20
1.8 Dimensional Regularization and Minimal Subtraction . . 21
2. Motives and periods 25
2.1 The idea of motives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.2 Pure motives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.3 Mixed motives and triangulated categories . . . . . . . . . 34
2.4 Motivic sheaves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2.5 The Grothendieck ring of motives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2.6 Tate motives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
2.7 The algebra of periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
2.8 Mixed Tate motives and the logarithmic extensions . . . . 45
2.9 Categories and Galois groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
2.10 Motivic Galois groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
xi
xii Feynman Motives
3. Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 53
3.1 The parametric Feynman integrals . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.2 The graph hypersurfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3.3 Landau varieties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.4 Integrals in aﬃne and projective spaces . . . . . . . . . . 67
3.5 Nonisolated singularities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
3.6 Cremona transformation and dual graphs . . . . . . . . . 72
3.7 Classes in the Grothendieck ring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
3.8 Motivic Feynman rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
3.9 Characteristic classes and Feynman rules . . . . . . . . . 81
3.10 Deletioncontraction relation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
3.11 Feynman integrals and periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
3.12 The mixed Tate mystery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
3.13 From graph hypersurfaces to determinant hypersurfaces . 97
3.14 Handling divergences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
3.15 Motivic zeta functions and motivic Feynman rules . . . . 115
4. Feynman integrals and Gelfand–Leray forms 119
4.1 Oscillatory integrals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
4.2 Leray regularization of Feynman integrals . . . . . . . . . 121
5. Connes–Kreimer theory in a nutshell 127
5.1 The Bogolyubov recursion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
5.1.1 Step 1: Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
5.1.2 Step 2: Counterterms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
5.1.3 Step 3: Renormalized values . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
5.2 Hopf algebras and aﬃne group schemes . . . . . . . . . . 130
5.3 The Connes–Kreimer Hopf algebra . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
5.4 Birkhoﬀ factorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
5.5 Factorization and RotaBaxter algebras . . . . . . . . . . 137
5.6 Motivic Feynman rules and RotaBaxter structure . . . . 139
6. The Riemann–Hilbert correspondence 143
6.1 From divergences to iterated integrals . . . . . . . . . . . 143
6.2 From iterated integrals to diﬀerential systems . . . . . . . 145
6.3 Flat equisingular connections and vector bundles . . . . . 146
6.4 The “cosmic Galois group” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Contents xiii
7. The geometry of DimReg 151
7.1 The motivic geometry of DimReg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
7.2 The noncommutative geometry of DimReg . . . . . . . . . 155
8. Renormalization, singularities, and Hodge structures 167
8.1 Projective Radon transform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
8.2 The polar ﬁltration and the Milnor ﬁber . . . . . . . . . . 170
8.3 DimReg and mixed Hodge structures . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
8.4 Regular and irregular singular connections . . . . . . . . . 176
9. Beyond scalar theories 185
9.1 Supermanifolds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
9.2 Parametric Feynman integrals and supermanifolds . . . . 190
9.3 Graph supermanifolds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
9.4 Noncommutative ﬁeld theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
Bibliography 207
Index 215
Chapter 1
Perturbative quantum ﬁeld theory
and Feynman diagrams
This ﬁrst chapter gives a very brief and informal introduction to pertur
bative quantum ﬁeld theory. We start with a simple ﬁnite dimensional
example, which is aimed at illustrating the main ideas in a context fa
miliar to most readers, where the more serious diﬃculties of the inﬁnite
dimensional setting are not present, but one can already see the logic be
hind the perturbative expansion as well as the roles of Feynman graphs.
We then brieﬂy describe the inﬁnite dimensional setting, in the case of a
scalar ﬁeld theory, and the corresponding Feynman rules. We also include a
brief discussion of dimensional regularization (DimReg) of divergent Feyn
man integrals, a subject to which we return later in the book from a more
geometric perspective. We include here also a brief discussion of some com
binatorial properties of Feynman graphs, which we need in later chapters.
We state the renormalization problem, which we discuss in more detail in
a later chapter, in the setting of the Connes–Kreimer approach. There are
many very good books on quantum ﬁeld theory. The subject is very rich
and can be approached from many diﬀerent perspectives. For the material
we are going to cover in this text, the reader may wish to consult [Bjorken
and Drell (1964)], [Bjorken and Drell (1965)], [Itzykson and Zuber (2006)],
[LeBellac (1991)], [Nakanishi (1971)]. A lively and very readable introduc
tion, by which the beginning part of this chapter is inspired, can be found
in the recent book [Zee (2003)].
1.1 A calculus exercise in Feynman integrals
To understand the role of Feynman graphs in perturbative quantum ﬁeld
theory, it is useful to ﬁrst see how graphs arise in the more familiar setting
of ﬁnite dimensional integrals, as a convenient way of parameterizing the
1
2 Feynman Motives
terms in the integration by parts of polynomials with respect to a Gaussian
measure. It all starts with the simplest Gaussian integral
_
R
e
−
1
2
ax
2
dx =
_
2π
a
_
1/2
, (1.1)
for a > 0, which follows from the usual polar coordinates calculation
_
∞
−∞
e
−
1
2
ax
2
dx
_
∞
−∞
e
−
1
2
ay
2
dy = 2π
_
∞
0
e
−
1
2
ar
2
r dr =
2π
a
_
∞
0
e
−u
du.
Similarly, the Gaussian integral with source term is given by
_
R
e
−
1
2
ax
2
+Jx
dx =
_
2π
a
_
1/2
e
J
2
2a
. (1.2)
This also follows easily from (1.1), by completing the square
−
ax
2
2
+Jx = −
a
2
(x
2
−
2Jx
a
) = −
a
2
(x −
J
a
)
2
+
J
2
2a
and then changing coordinates in the integral to y = x −
J
a
. In this one
dimensional setting a ﬁrst example of computation of an expectation value
can be given in the form
¸x
2n
) :=
_
R
x
2n
e
−
1
2
ax
2
dx
_
R
e
−
1
2
ax
2
dx
=
(2n − 1)!!
a
n
, (1.3)
where (2n−1)!! = (2n−1) (2n−3) 5 3 1. One obtains (1.3) inductively
from (1.1) by repeatedly applying the operator −2
d
da
to (1.1). It is worth
pointing out that the factor (2n−1)!! has a combinatorial meaning, namely
it counts all the diﬀerent ways of connecting in pairs the 2n linear terms x
in the monomial x
2n
= x x x in the integral (1.3). In physics one refers
to such pairings as Wick contractions. As we discuss below, the analog of
the Gaussian integrals in the inﬁnite dimensional setting of quantum ﬁeld
theory will be the free ﬁeld case, where only the quadratic terms are present
in the Lagrangian. The onedimensional analog of Lagrangians that include
interaction terms will be integrals of the form
Z(J) =
_
R
e
−
1
2
ax
2
+P(x)+Jx
dx, (1.4)
where P(x) is a polynomial in x of degree deg P ≥ 3. The main idea in such
cases, which we’ll see applied similarly to the inﬁnite dimensional case, is to
treat the additional term P(x) as a perturbation of the original Gaussian
integral and expand it out in Taylor series, reducing the problem in this
Perturbative quantum ﬁeld theory and Feynman diagrams 3
way to a series of terms, each given by the integral of a polynomial under
a Gaussian measure. Namely, one writes
Z(J) =
_
R
_
∞
n=0
P(x)
n
n!
_
e
−
1
2
ax
2
+Jx
dx. (1.5)
The perturbative expansion of the integral (1.4) is deﬁned to be the series
∞
n=0
1
n!
_
R
P(x)
n
e
−
1
2
ax
2
+Jx
dx. (1.6)
Notice then that, for a monomial x
k
, the integral above satisﬁes
_
R
x
k
e
−
1
2
ax
2
+Jx
dx =
_
d
dJ
_
k
_
R
e
−
1
2
ax
2
+Jx
dx. (1.7)
Using (1.2), this gives
_
R
x
k
e
−
1
2
ax
2
+Jx
dx =
_
2π
a
_
1/2
_
d
dJ
_
k
e
J
2
2a
.
Thus, in the case where the polynomial P(x) consists of a single term
P(x) =
λ
k!
x
k
,
one can rewrite each term in the perturbative expansion using (1.7), so that
one obtains
∞
n=0
1
n!
_
R
_
λ
k!
x
k
_
n
e
−
1
2
ax
2
+Jx
dx =
∞
n=0
1
n!
_
λ
k!
_
d
dJ
_
k
_
n
_
R
e
−
1
2
ax
2
+Jx
dx.
Thus, the perturbative expansion can be written in the form
Z(J) =
_
2π
a
_
1/2
exp
_
λ
k!
_
d
dJ
_
k
_
exp
_
J
2
2a
_
. (1.8)
Two examples of this kind that will reappear frequently in the inﬁnite
dimensional version are the cubic case with P(x) =
g
6
x
3
and the quartic
case with P(x) =
λ
4!
x
4
.
To see then how the combinatorics of graphs can be used as a convenient
device to label the terms of diﬀerent order in λ and J in the perturbative
series of Z(J), ﬁrst observe that the term of order λ
α
and J
β
in Z(J) is
produced by the combination of the term of order α in the Taylor expansion
4 Feynman Motives
of the exponential exp(
λ
k!
(
d
dJ
)
k
) and the term of order β + kα in J in the
Taylor expansion of the other exponential exp(
J
2
2a
) in (1.8). All the resulting
terms will be of a similar form, consisting of a combinatorial factor given by
a ratio of two products of factorials, a power of J, a power of λ and a power
of 2a in the denominator. The graphs are introduced as a visual way to
keep track of the power counting in these terms, which are associated to the
vertices and the internal and external edges of the graph. The combinatorial
factor can then also be described in terms of symmetries of the graphs.
Here, as in general in perturbative quantum ﬁeld theory, one thinks of
graphs as being constructed out of a set of vertices and a set of half edges.
Each half edge has an end that is connected to a vertex and another end
that may pair to another half edge or remain unpaired. An internal edge
of the graph consists of a pair of half edges, hence it is an edge in the
usual graph theoretic sense, connecting two vertices. An external edge is
an unpaired half edge attached to a vertex of the graph. The graphs we
consider will not necessarily be connected. It is sometimes convenient to
adopt the convention that a graph (or connected component of a graph)
consisting of a single line should be thought of as consisting of an internal
and two external edges.
The way one assigns graphs to monomials of the form
λ
α
J
β
a
κ
is by the
following rules.
• To each factor of λ one associates a vertex of valence equal to the
degree of the given monomial P(x) =
λ
k!
x
k
. This means a total of
α vertices, each with k half edges attached.
• To each factor J one associates an external edge.
• The power of a
−1
is then determined by the resulting number of
internal edges obtained by pairing all the half edges to form a graph.
Notice that the procedure described here produces not one but a ﬁnite
collection of graphs associated to a given monomial
λ
α
J
β
a
κ
, depending on all
the diﬀerent possible pairings between the half edges. This collection of
graphs can in turn be subdivided into isomorphism types, each occurring
with a given multiplicity, which corresponds to the number of diﬀerent
pairings that produce equivalent graphs. These combinatorial factors are
the symmetry factors of graphs. To see more precisely how these factors
can be computed, we can introduce the analog, in this 1dimensional toy
model, of the Green functions in quantum ﬁeld theory. The function Z(J)
Perturbative quantum ﬁeld theory and Feynman diagrams 5
of (1.4) can be thought of as a generating function for the Green functions
Z(J) =
∞
N=0
J
N
N!
_
R
x
N
e
−
1
2
ax
2
+P(x)
dx = Z
∞
N=0
J
N
G
N
, (1.9)
where Z =
_
R
e
−
1
2
ax
2
+P(x)
dx and the Green functions are
G
N
=
_
R
x
N
N!
e
−
1
2
ax
2
+P(x)
dx
_
R
e
−
1
2
ax
2
+P(x)
dx
. (1.10)
Upon expanding out the interaction term exp(P(x)), with P(x) =
λ
k!
x
k
and
formally exchanging the sum with the integral, one obtains
G
N
=
∞
n=0
_
x
N
N!
(λx
k
)
n
(k!)
n
n!
e
−
1
2
ax
2
dx
∞
n=0
_
(λx
k
)
n
(k!)
n
n!
e
−
1
2
ax
2
dx
. (1.11)
Using (1.9), we then see that one way of computing the coeﬃcient of a term
in
λ
α
J
β
a
κ
in the asymptotic expansion of Z(J) is to count all the pairings
(the Wick contractions) that occur in the integration
_
R
x
N
x
kn
e
−
1
2
ax
2
dx. (1.12)
As we have seen in (1.3), these are (N +kn−1)!! for even N +kn, with the
odd ones vanishing by symmetry. Taking into account the other coeﬃcients
that appear in (1.9) and (1.11), one obtains the factor
(N +kn − 1)!!
N! n! (k!)
n
.
The meaning of this factor in terms of symmetries of graphs can be ex
plained, by identifying (N + kn − 1)!! with the number of all the possible
pairings of half edges, from which one factors out N! permutations of the
external edges, k! permutations of the half edges attached to each valence
k vertex and n! permutations of the n valence k vertices along with their
star of half edges, leaving all the diﬀerent pairings of half edges. These then
correspond to the sum over all the possible topologically distinct graphs ob
tained via these pairings, each divided by its own symmetry factor. Thus,
in terms of graphs, the terms of the asymptotic series in the numerator of
(1.10) become of the form
Γ∈graphs
λ
#V (Γ)
J
#E
ext
(Γ)
#Aut(Γ) a
#E
int
(Γ)
. (1.13)
Notice also how, when computing the terms of the asymptotic series using
either the Taylor series of the exponentials of (1.8) or by ﬁrst using the
6 Feynman Motives
expansion in Green functions and then the terms (1.12), one is implicitly
using the combinatorial identity
(2n − 1)!! =
(2n)!
2
n
n!
.
Passing from the 1dimensional case to a ﬁnite dimensional case in many
variables is notationally more complicated but conceptually very similar.
One replaces an integral of the form
_
R
N
e
−
1
2
x
t
Ax+Jx
dx
1
dx
N
=
(2π)
N/2
(det A)
1/2
e
1
2
JA
−1
J
t
, (1.14)
where the positive real number a > 0 of the 1dimensional case is now
replaced by an N N real matrix A with A
t
= A and positive eigenvalues.
The real number J is here an Nvector, with Jx the inner product. The
form of (1.14) is obtained by diagonalizing the matrix and reducing it back
to the 1dimensional case. One can again compute the asymptotic series
for the integral
_
R
N
e
−
1
2
x
t
Ax+P(x)+Jx
dx
1
dx
N
,
where the interaction term here will be a polynomial in the coordinates
x
i
of x, such as P(x) =
λ
4!
(
N
i=1
x
4
i
). One can use the same method of
labeling the terms in the asymptotic series by graphs, where now instead
of attaching a factor a
−1
to the internal edges one ﬁnds factors (A
−1
)
ij
for
edges corresponding to a Wick contraction pairing an x
i
and an x
j
.
The conceptually more diﬃcult step is to adapt this computational pro
cedure for ﬁnite dimensional integral to a recipe that is used to make sense
of “analogous” computations of functional integrals in quantum ﬁeld theory.
1.2 From Lagrangian to eﬀective action
In the case of a scalar ﬁeld theory, one replaces the expression
1
2
x
2
+P(x)
of the onedimensional toy model we saw in the previous section with a
nonlinear functional, the Lagrangian density, deﬁned on a conﬁguration
space of classical ﬁelds. Here we give only a very brief account of the basics
of perturbative quantum ﬁeld theory. A more detailed presentation, aimed
at giving a selfcontained introduction to mathematicians, can be found in
the book [Connes and Marcolli (2008)].
Perturbative quantum ﬁeld theory and Feynman diagrams 7
In the scalar case the classical ﬁelds are (smooth) functions on a space
time manifold, say φ ∈ (
∞
(R
D
, R), and the Lagrangian density is given by
an expression of the form
L(φ) =
1
2
(∂φ)
2
−
m
2
2
φ
2
− T(φ), (1.15)
where (∂φ)
2
= g
µν
∂
µ
φ∂
ν
φ for g
µν
the Lorentzian metric of signature
(1, −1, −1, . . . , −1) on R
D
and a summation over repeated indices under
stood. The interaction term T(φ) in the Lagrangian is a polynomial in
the ﬁeld φ of degree deg T ≥ 3. Thus, when one talks about a scalar ﬁeld
theory one means the choice of the data of the Lagrangian density and the
spacetime dimension D. We can assume for simplicity that T(φ) =
λ
k!
φ
k
.
We will give explicit examples using the special case of the φ
3
theory in
dimension D = 6: while this is not a physically signiﬁcant example because
of the unstable equilibrium point of the potential at φ = 0, it is both suﬃ
ciently simple and suﬃciently generic with respect to the renormalization
properties (e.g. nonsuperrenormalizable), unlike the more physical φ
4
in
dimension D = 4 .
To the Lagrangian density one associates a classical action functional
S
L
(φ) =
_
R
D
L(φ)d
D
x. (1.16)
The subscript L here stands for the Lorentzian signature of the metric and
we’ll drop it when we pass to the Euclidean version. This classical action
is written as the sum of two terms S
L
(φ) = S
free,L
(φ) + S
int,L
(φ), where
the free ﬁeld part is
S
free,L
(φ) =
_
R
D
_
1
2
(∂φ)
2
−
m
2
2
φ
2
_
d
D
x
and the interaction part is given by
S
int,L
(φ) = −
_
R
D
P(φ)d
D
x.
The probability amplitude associated to the classical action is the expression
e
i
S
L
(φ)
, (1.17)
where = h/2π is Planck’s constant. In the following we follow the conven
tion of taking units where = 1 so that we do not have to write explicitly
the powers of in the terms of the expansions. An observable of a scalar
ﬁeld theory is a functional on the conﬁguration space of the classical ﬁelds,
8 Feynman Motives
which we write as O(φ). The expectation value of an observable is deﬁned
to be the functional integral
¸O(φ)) =
_
O(φ)e
iS
L
(φ)
T[φ]
_
e
iS
L
(φ)
T[φ]
, (1.18)
where the integration is supposed to take place on the conﬁguration space
of all classical ﬁelds. In particular, one has the Npoint Green functions,
deﬁned here as
G
N,L
(x
1
, . . . , x
N
) =
_
φ(x
1
) φ(x
N
) e
iS
L
(φ)
T[φ]
_
e
iS
L
(φ)
T[φ]
, (1.19)
for which the generating function is given again by a functional integral
with source term
_
e
iS
L
(φ)+J,φ
T[φ], (1.20)
where J is a linear functional (a distribution) on the space of classical
ﬁelds and ¸J, φ) = J(φ) is the pairing of the space of ﬁelds and its dual. If
J = J(x) is itself a smooth function then ¸J, φ) =
_
R
D
J(x)φ(x)d
D
x.
Although the notation of (1.18) and (1.19) is suggestive of what the
computation of expectation values should be, there are in fact formidable
obstacles in trying to make rigorous sense of the functional integral involved.
Despite the successes of constructive quantum ﬁeld theory in several im
portant cases, in general the integral is illdeﬁned mathematically. This is,
in itself, not an obstacle to doing quantum ﬁeld theory, as long as one re
gards the expression (1.18) as a shorthand for a corresponding asymptotic
expansion, obtained by analogy to the ﬁnite dimensional case we have seen
previously.
A closer similarity between (1.20) and (1.4) appears when one passes
to Euclidean signature by a Wick rotation to imaginary time t → it. This
has the eﬀect of switching the signature of the metric to (1, 1, . . . , 1), after
factoring out a minus sign, which turns the probability amplitude into the
Euclidean version
e
iS
L
(φ)
→ e
−S(φ)
, (1.21)
with the Euclidean action
S(φ) =
_
R
D
_
1
2
(∂φ)
2
+
m
2
2
φ
2
+ T(φ)
_
d
D
x. (1.22)
Thus, in the Euclidean version we are computing functional integrals of the
form
G
N
(x
1
, . . . , x
N
) =
_
φ(x
1
) φ(x
N
) e
−S(φ)
T[φ]
_
e
−S(φ)
T[φ]
, (1.23)
Perturbative quantum ﬁeld theory and Feynman diagrams 9
for which the generating function resembles (1.4) in the form
Z[J] =
_
e
−
R
D
1
2
(∂φ)
2
+
m
2
2
φ
2
+P(φ)+J(x)φ(x)
d
D
x
T[φ], (1.24)
satisfying
Z[J]
Z[0]
=
∞
N=0
1
N!
_
J(x
1
) J(x
N
) G
N
(x
1
, . . . , x
N
) d
D
x
1
d
D
x
N
, (1.25)
for
Z[0] =
_
e
−
R
D
1
2
(∂φ)
2
+
m
2
2
φ
2
+P(φ)
d
D
x
T[φ]. (1.26)
In order to make sense of this functional integral, one uses an analog of
the asymptotic expansion (1.6), where one expands out the exponential of
the interaction term S
int
(φ) =
_
R
D
T(x) d
D
x of the Euclidean action and
one follows the same formal rules about integration by parts as in the ﬁnite
dimensional case to label the terms of the expansion by graphs. What is
needed in order to write the contribution of a given graph to the asymptotic
series is to specify the rules that associate the analogs of the powers of λ,
J and a
−1
to the vertices, external and internal edges of the graph. These
are provided by the Feynman rules of the theory.
1.3 Feynman rules
By analogy to what we saw in the 1dimensional model, where one writes
the Green functions (1.11) in terms of integrals of the form (1.12), and
the latter in terms of sums over graphs as in (1.13), one also writes the
Green functions (1.23) in terms of an asymptotic series whose terms are
parameterized by graphs,
(
N
(p
1
, . . . , p
N
) =
Γ
V (Γ, p
1
, . . . , p
N
)
#Aut(Γ)
, (1.27)
where (
N
(p
1
, . . . , p
N
) is the Green function in momentum space, i.e. the
Fourier transform
(
N
(p
1
, . . . , p
N
) =
_
G
N
(x
1
, . . . , x
N
)e
i(p
1
x
1
+···+p
N
x
N
)
d
D
p
1
(2π)
D
d
D
p
N
(2π)
D
.
(1.28)
The reason for writing the contributions of Feynman integrals in momen
tum space is that in physics one does not only think of the Feynman graphs
as computational devices that do the bookkeeping of terms in integration
10 Feynman Motives
by parts of polynomials under a Gaussian measure, but one can think of a
diagram as representing a (part of) a physical process, where certain parti
cles with assigned momenta (external edges) interact (vertices) by creation
and annihilation of virtual particles (internal edges). The momenta ﬂowing
through the graph then represent the physical process. In fact, it is clear
from this point of view that what has physical meaning is not so much
an individual graph but the collection of all graphs with given external
edges and assigned external momenta, and among them the subset of all
those with a ﬁxed number of loops. The latter speciﬁes the order in the
perturbative expansion one is looking at. The terms V (Γ, p
1
, . . . , p
N
) are
constructed according to the Feynman rules as follows.
• Each internal edge e ∈ E
int
(Γ) contributes a momentum variable
k
e
∈ R
D
so that
V (Γ, p
1
, . . . , p
N
) =
_
1
Γ
(p
1
, . . . , p
N
, k
1
, . . . , k
n
)
d
D
k
1
(2π)
D
d
D
k
n
(2π)
D
,
(1.29)
for n = #E
int
(Γ). The term 1
Γ
(p
1
, . . . , p
N
, k
1
, . . . , k
n
) is con
structed according to the following procedure.
• Each vertex v ∈ V (Γ) contributes a factor of λ
v
(2π)
D
, where λ
v
is
the coupling constant of the monomial in the Lagrangian of order
equal to the valence of v and a conservation law for all the momenta
that ﬂow through that vertex,
δ
v
(k) := δ(
s(e)=v
k
e
−
t(e)=v
k
e
), (1.30)
written after chosing an orientation of the edges of the graph. In
the case of vertices with both internal and external edges (1.30) is
equivalently written in the form
δ
v
(k, p) := δ(
n
i=1
v,i
k
i
+
N
j=1
v,j
p
j
), (1.31)
where the incidence matrix of the graph Γ is the #V (Γ)#E(Γ)
matrix with
v,e
=
_
¸
¸
_
¸
¸
_
+1 for v = t(e)
−1 for v = s(e)
0 for v / ∈ ∂(e).
(1.32)
Perturbative quantum ﬁeld theory and Feynman diagrams 11
• Each internal edge contributes an inverse propagator, that is, a
term of the form q
−1
e
, where q
e
is a quadratic form, which in the
case of a scalar ﬁeld in Euclidean signature is given by
q
e
(k
e
) = k
2
e
+m
2
. (1.33)
• Each external edge e ∈ E
ext
(Γ) contributes a propagator q
e
(p
e
)
−1
,
with q
e
(p
e
) = p
2
e
+m
2
. The external momenta are assigned so that
they satisfy the conservation law
e
p
e
= 0, when summed over
the oriented external edges.
• The integrand 1
Γ
(p
1
, . . . , p
N
, k
1
, . . . , k
n
) is then a product
v∈V (Γ)
λ
v
(2π)
D
δ
v
(k
e
i
, p
e
j
)
e
i
∈E
int
(Γ)
q
e
i
(k
e
i
)
−1
e
j
∈E
ext
(Γ)
q
e
j
(p
e
j
)
−1
,
(1.34)
with linear relations among the momentum variables k
e
i
and p
e
j
imposed by the conservation laws δ
v
(k
e
i
, p
e
j
) at the vertices of the
graph.
We can then write the Feynman integral associated to a Feynman graph
Γ of the given theory in the form
V (Γ, p
1
, . . . , p
N
) = ε(p
1
, . . . , p
N
) U(Γ, p
1
, . . . , p
N
), (1.35)
where the factor ε(p) is the product of the inverse propagators of the ex
ternal edges
ε(p
1
, . . . , p
N
) =
e∈E
ext
(Γ)
q
e
(p
e
)
−1
, (1.36)
while the factor U(Γ, p) is given by
U(Γ, p
1
, . . . , p
N
) = C
_
δ(
n
i=1
v,i
k
i
+
N
j=1
v,j
p
j
)
q
1
(k
1
) q
n
(k
n
)
d
D
k
1
(2π)
D
d
D
k
n
(2π)
D
,
(1.37)
with C =
v∈V (Γ)
λ
v
(2π)
D
.
We work here for convenience always with Euclidean signature in the
Feynman integrals, so that our propagators contain quadratic terms of the
form (1.33). The study of parametric Feynman integral we discuss in greater
detail in Chapter 3 can be done also for the Lorentzian case, as shown for
instance in [Bjorken and Drell (1965)].
12 Feynman Motives
1.4 Simplifying graphs: vacuum bubbles, connected graphs
There are some useful simpliﬁcations that can be done in the combinatorics
of graphs that appear in the formal series (1.27).
The basic property that makes these simpliﬁcations possible is the mul
tiplicative form (1.34) of the Feynman integrand 1
Γ
(p
1
, . . . , p
N
, k
1
, . . . , k
n
).
This implies the following property.
Lemma 1.4.1. The Feynman integral V (Γ, p
1
, . . . , p
N
) is multiplicative on
connected components of the graph Γ.
Proof. This follows immediately from the form (1.34) and (1.35) with
(1.36), (1.37) of the Feynman integral. In fact, if the graph Γ has diﬀer
ent connected components, no linear relations arise between momentum
variables of the edges of diﬀerent components (as these have no common
vertices) and the corresponding integrals split as a product.
Moreover, one also has the following multiplicative form of the symme
try factors of graphs.
Lemma 1.4.2. For a graph Γ that is a union of connected components Γ
j
with multiplicities n
j
(i.e. there are n
j
connected components of Γ all iso
morphic to the same graph Γ
j
), the symmetry factor splits multiplicatively
on components according to the formula
#Aut(Γ) =
j
(n
j
)!
j
#Aut(Γ
j
)
n
j
. (1.38)
Proof. The factorials come from the symmetries of the graph Γ that
permute topologically equivalent components. All symmetries of Γ are
obtained by composing this type of symmetries with symmetries of each
component.
One then has a ﬁrst useful observation on the combinatorics of the
graphs that appear in the asymptotic expansion of the Green functions. A
graph with no external edges is commonly referred to as a vacuum bubble.
Lemma 1.4.3. The graphs of (1.27) do not contain any vacuum bubbles.
Proof. As we have seen in the ﬁnite dimensional toy model, these cor
respond to the terms with J = 0 in the asymptotic series. Thus, when
one writes the expansion (1.25) into Green functions, and then the expan
sion (1.27) of the latter into Feynman integrals of graphs, the expansion
Perturbative quantum ﬁeld theory and Feynman diagrams 13
of the functional integral Z[J] would count the contribution of all graphs
including components that are vacuum bubbles as in the case of (1.8) in
the ﬁnite dimensional case. The expansion of Z[0] on the other hand only
has contributions from the vacuum bubble graphs, and the multiplicative
properties of Lemma 1.4.1 and Lemma 1.4.2 then imply that the expansion
for Z[J]/Z[0] only has contributions from graphs which do not contain any
connected components that are vacuum bubbles.
One can then pass from multiconnected to connected graphs by rewrit
ing the functional integral Z[J] in an equivalent form in terms of
W[J] = log
_
Z[J]
Z[0]
_
. (1.39)
One can again write a formal asymptotic series for W[J] as
W[J] =
∞
N=0
1
N!
_
J(x
1
) J(x
N
) G
N,c
(x
1
, . . . , x
N
) d
D
x
1
d
D
x
N
,
(1.40)
where now the Green functions G
N,c
(x
1
, . . . , x
N
) will also have an expan
sion on graphs of the form (1.27), where, however, only a smaller class of
graphs will be involved.
Lemma 1.4.4. The connected Green functions G
N,c
(x
1
, . . . , x
N
) of (1.40)
have an expansion
(
N,c
(p
1
, . . . , p
N
) =
Γ connected
V (Γ, p
1
, . . . , p
N
)
#Aut(Γ)
, (1.41)
where (
N,c
(p
1
, . . . , p
N
) is the Fourier transform
(
N,c
(p
1
, . . . , p
N
) =
_
G
N,c
(x
1
, . . . , x
N
)e
i(p
1
x
1
+···+p
N
x
N
)
d
D
p
1
(2π)
D
d
D
p
N
(2π)
D
(1.42)
and the V (Γ, p
1
, . . . , p
N
) in (1.41) are computed as in (1.35).
Proof. We only sketch brieﬂy why the result holds. More detailed ex
positions can be found in standard Quantum Field Theory textbooks (for
example in [LeBellac (1991)]). Suppose that Γ is a disjoint union of con
nected components Γ = ∪
j
Γ
j
, with multiplicities n
j
and with N
j
external
edges, so that
j
n
j
N
j
= N. Then by Lemma 1.4.1 and 1.4.2 we get
V (Γ, p
1
, . . . , p
N
)
#Aut(Γ)
=
j
V (Γ
j
, p
1
, . . . , p
N
j
)
n
j
(n
j
)!#Aut(Γ
j
)
n
j
.
14 Feynman Motives
Thus, we can write
Z[J]
Z[0]
=
N
1
N!
_
J(x
1
) J(x
N
) G
N
(x
1
, . . . , x
N
)
i
d
D
x
i
=
N
j
n
j
N
j
=N
j
1
n
j
__
J(x
1
) J(x
N
j
)G
N
j
,c
(x
1
, . . . , x
N
j
)
_
n
j
= exp
_
N
1
N!
_
J(x
1
) J(x
N
) G
N,c
(x
1
, . . . , x
N
)
_
.
1.5 Oneparticleirreducible graphs
Further simpliﬁcations of the combinatorics of graphs can be obtained by
passing to the 1PI eﬀective action, or higher loop versions like the 2PI eﬀec
tive action, etc. We discuss here brieﬂy only the 1PI eﬀective action, though
we will later need to return to discussing higher connectivity conditions on
Feynman graphs. We ﬁrst recall the following notions of connectivity of
graphs.
Deﬁnition 1.5.1. The notion of kconnectivity of graphs is given as fol
lows:
• A graph is kedgeconnected if it cannot be disconnected by removal
of any set of k or fewer edges.
• A graph is 2vertexconnected if it has no looping edges, it has
at least 3 vertices, and it cannot be disconnected by removal of a
single vertex, where vertex removal is deﬁned as below.
• For k ≥ 3, a graph is kvertexconnected if it has no looping edges
and no multiple edges, it has at least k + 1 vertices, and it cannot
be disconnected by removal of any set of k − 1 vertices.
Here what one means by removing a vertex from a graph is the following.
Given a graph Γ and a vertex v ∈ V (Γ), the graph Γ v is the graph with
vertex set V (Γ) ¦v¦ and edge set E(Γ) ¦e : v ∈ ∂(e)¦, i.e. the graph
obtained by removing from Γ the star of the vertex v. Thus, 1vertex
connected and 1edgeconnected simply mean connected, while for k ≥ 2
the condition of being kvertexconnected is stronger than that of being
kedgeconnected. The terminology more commonly in use in the physics
literature is the following.
Perturbative quantum ﬁeld theory and Feynman diagrams 15
Deﬁnition 1.5.2. For k ≥ 2 a (k + 1)edgeconnected graph is also called
kparticleirreducible (kPI). For k = 1, a 2edgeconnected graph that is
not a tree is called oneparticleirreducible (1PI) graph. These cannot be
disconnected by removal of a single (internal) edge.
Notice that trees are all considered not to be 1PI, even though a tree
consisting of just n edges attached to a single valence n vertex cannot be
disconnected by removal of a single edge (such edges are not internal though
in this case).
Lemma 1.5.3. Any connected graph can be obtained from a tree, after
replacing the vertices by 1PI graphs with the number of external edges equal
to the valence of the vertex.
Proof. If the connected graph Γ is 1PI the tree consists of a single vertex
with the number of edges attached equal to the number of external edges of
the graph. Suppose the graph is not 1PI. Find an edge that disconnects the
graph. Look at each component and again repeat the operations ﬁnding
edges that disconnect them further until one is left with a collection of 1PI
graphs, Γ
1
, . . . , Γ
n
. It then suﬃces to show that the graph obtained from Γ
by shrinking each Γ
i
to a vertex is a tree. Since each of the internal edges
that remain in this graph was an edge whose removal increased the number
of connected components, this must still be true in the graph obtained after
collapsing all the Γ
i
. A graph that is disconnected by the removal of any
one internal edge is a tree with at least one internal edge.
This suggests that there should be a way to further simplify the combi
natorics of graphs in the asymptotic expansion of the functional integrals,
by counting separately the contributions of trees and that of 1PI graphs,
and getting back from these the contributions of all connected graphs.
This is done by passing to the 1PI eﬀective action, which is deﬁned as
the Legendre transform of the functional W[J], namely
S
eﬀ
(φ) = (¸φ, J) −W[J]) [
J=J(φ)
, (1.43)
evaluated at a stationary J, that is, a solution of the variational equation
δ
δJ
(¸φ, J) −W[J]) = 0.
The asymptotic expansion of the eﬀective action collects the contri
butions of all the 1PI graphs, so that the semiclassical calculations (i.e.
involving only graphs that are trees) done with the eﬀective action recover
16 Feynman Motives
the full quantum corrections to the classical action given by all the con
nected graphs that appear in the expansion of W[J]. We do not prove here
how one gets the asymptotic expansion for the eﬀective action and we refer
the interested reader to [Connes and Marcolli (2008)] and [LeBellac (1991)].
To explain more precisely the diﬀerence between edge and vertex con
nectivity in Deﬁnition 1.5.1 above, and their relation to the 1PI condition,
we recall the following observations from [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009a)].
Deﬁnition 1.5.4. A graph Γ
is a splitting of Γ at a vertex v ∈ V (Γ) if it
is obtained by partitioning the set E ⊂ E(Γ) of edges adjacent to v into
two disjoint nonempty subsets, E = E
1
∪ E
2
and inserting a new edge e
to whose end vertices v
1
and v
2
the edges in the two sets E
1
and E
2
are
respectively attached, as in the example in the ﬁgure.
We have the following relation between 2vertexconnectivity and 2
edgeconnectivity (1PI).
Lemma 1.5.5. Let Γ be a graph with at least 3 vertices and no looping
edges.
(1) If Γ is 2vertexconnected then it is also 2edgeconnected (1PI).
(2) Γ is 2vertexconnected if and only if all the graphs Γ
obtained as split
tings of Γ at any v ∈ V (Γ) are 2edgeconnected (1PI).
Proof. (1) We have to show that, for a graph Γ with at least 3 vertices and
no looping edges, 2vertexconnectivity implies 2edgeconnectivity. As
sume that Γ is not 1PI. Then there exists an edge e such that Γe has two
connected components Γ
1
and Γ
2
. Since Γ has no looping edges, e has two
distinct endpoints v
1
and v
2
, which belong to the two diﬀerent components
after the edge removal. Since Γ has at least 3 vertices, at least one of the
two components contains at least two vertices. Assume then that there
exists v ,= v
1
∈ V (Γ
1
). Then, after the removal of the vertex v
1
from Γ,
the vertices v and v
2
belong to diﬀerent connected components, so that Γ
is not 2vertexconnected.
(2) We need to show that 2vertexconnectivity is equivalent to all split
tings Γ
being 1PI. Suppose ﬁrst that Γ is not 2vertexconnected. Since
Perturbative quantum ﬁeld theory and Feynman diagrams 17
Γ has at least 3 vertices and no looping edges, the failure of 2vertex
connectivity means that there exists a vertex v whose removal disconnects
the graph. Let V ⊂ V (Γ) be the set of vertices other than v that are end
points of the edges adjacent to v. This set is a union V = V
1
∪ V
2
where
the vertices in the two subsets V
i
are contained in at least two diﬀerent
connected components of Γ v. Then the splitting Γ
of Γ at v obtained
by inserting an edge e such that the endpoints v
1
and v
2
are connected by
edges, respectively, to the vertices in V
1
and V
2
is not 1PI.
Conversely, assume that there exists a splitting Γ
of Γ at a vertex v
that is not 1PI. There exists an edge e of Γ
whose removal disconnects the
graph. If e already belonged to Γ, then Γ would not be 1PI (and hence not
2vertex connected, by (1)), as removal of e would disconnect it. So e must
be the edge added in the splitting of Γ at the vertex v.
Let v
1
and v
2
be the endpoints of e. None of the other edges adjacent
to v
1
or v
2
is a looping edge, by hypothesis; therefore there exist at least
another vertex v
1
,= v
2
adjacent to v
1
, and a vertex v
2
,= v
1
adjacent to v
2
.
Since Γ
e is disconnected, v
1
and v
2
are in distinct connected components
of Γ
e. Since v
1
and v
2
are in Γ v, and Γ v is contained in Γ
e, it
follows that removing v from Γ would also disconnect the graph. Thus Γ is
not 2vertexconnected.
Lemma 1.5.6. Let Γ be a graph with at least 4 vertices, with no looping
edges and no multiple edges. Then 3vertexconnectivity implies 3edge
connectivity.
Proof. We argue by contradiction. Assume that Γ is 3vertexconnected
but not 2PI. We know it is 1PI because of the previous lemma. Thus, there
exist two edges e
1
and e
2
such that the removal of both edges is needed
to disconnect the graph. Since we are assuming that Γ has no multiple or
looping edges, the two edges have at most one endpoint in common.
Suppose ﬁrst that they have a common endpoint v. Let v
1
and v
2
denote the remaining two endpoints, v
i
∈ ∂e
i
, v
1
,= v
2
. If the vertices v
1
and v
2
belong to diﬀerent connected components after removing e
1
and e
2
,
then the removal of the vertex v disconnects the graph, so that Γ is not 3
vertexconnected (in fact not even 2vertexconnected). If v
1
and v
2
belong
to the same connected component, then v must be in a diﬀerent component.
Since the graph has at least 4 vertices and no multiple or looping edges,
there exists at least one other edge attached to either v
1
, v
2
, or v, with
the other endpoint w / ∈ ¦v, v
1
, v
2
¦. If w is adjacent to v, then removing
v and v
1
leaves v
2
and w in diﬀerent connected components. Similarly,
18 Feynman Motives
if w is adjacent to (say) v
1
, then the removal of the two vertices v
1
and
v
2
leave v and w in two diﬀerent connected components. Hence Γ is not
3vertexconnected.
Next, suppose that e
1
and e
2
have no endpoint in common. Let v
1
and
w
1
be the endpoints of e
1
and v
2
and w
2
be the endpoints of e
2
. At least
one pair ¦v
i
, w
i
¦ belongs to two separate components after the removal of
the two edges, though not all four points can belong to diﬀerent connected
components, else the graph would not be 1PI. Suppose then that v
1
and w
1
are in diﬀerent components. It also cannot happen that v
2
and w
2
belong
to the same component, else the removal of e
1
alone would disconnect the
graph. We can then assume that, say, v
2
belongs to the same component
as v
1
while w
2
belongs to a diﬀerent component (which may or may not be
the same as that of w
1
). Then the removal of v
1
and w
2
leaves v
2
and w
1
in two diﬀerent components so that the graph is not 3vertexconnected.
Conditions of 3connectivity (3vertexconnected or 3edgeconnected)
arise in a more subtle manner in the theory of Feynman integrals, in the
analysis of Laundau singularities (see for instance [Sato, Miwa, Jimbo, Os
hima (1976)]). In particular, the 2PI eﬀective action is often considered
in quantum ﬁeld theory in relation to nonequilibrium phenomena, see e.g.
[Rammer (2007)], ¸10.5.1.
In the following we restrict our attention to Feynman integrals of graphs
that are at least 1PI.
1.6 The problem of renormalization
So far we have treated the integrals U(Γ, p
1
, . . . , p
N
) of (1.37) as purely
formal expressions. However, if one tries to assign to such integrals a nu
merical value, one soon realizes that most of them are in fact divergent.
This was historically one of the main problems in the development of per
turbative quantum ﬁeld theory, namely the renormalization problem: how
to extract in a consistent and physically signiﬁcant manner ﬁnite values
from the divergent integrals (1.37) that appear in the asymptotic expan
sion of the functional integrals of quantum ﬁeld theory.
The problem of renormalization consists of three main aspects:
• Regularization
• Subtraction
• Renormalization
Perturbative quantum ﬁeld theory and Feynman diagrams 19
Regularization consists of a procedure that replaces the divergent integrals
(1.37) by functions of some regularization parameters, in such a way that
the resulting function has a pole or a divergence for particular values or
limits of the additional parameters that correspond to the original diver
gent integral, but has ﬁnite values for other values of the regularization
parameters. Subtraction then consists of removing the divergent part of
the regularized integrals by a uniform procedure (such as removing the po
lar part of a Laurent series in the main example we use below). This is
not all there is yet. Renormalization means being able to perform the sub
traction procedure by modifying the parameters in the Lagrangian (which
become themselves functions of the regularization parameter).
To understand more clearly the last point, it is important to stress the
fact that the parameters that appear in the Lagrangian, such as masses and
coupling constants of the interaction terms, are not physical observables,
nor are they the same as the actual masses and physical quantities that one
can measure in experiments. In fact, the parameters in the Lagrangian can
be modiﬁed without aﬀecting the physics one observes. This is what makes
it possible, in a renormalizable theory, to correct for divergent graphs by
readjusting the parameters in the Lagrangian. Thus, if one introduces a
regularization of the divergent Feynman integrals in terms of a complex
parameter z (as we discuss below) or in terms of a cutoﬀ Λ, then the
Lagrangian can be modiﬁed by changing the coeﬃcients to
L(φ) =
_
1 +δZ
2
(∂φ)
2
+
m
2
+δm
2
2
φ
2
+
λ +δλ
k!
φ
k
_
, (1.44)
where the functions δZ, δm
2
and δλ depend on the regularization param
eter. They consist, in fact, of a formal series of contributions coming from
all the divergent graphs of the theory. Notice that a theory is still renor
malizable if, in addition to the modiﬁcations of the coeﬃcients of the terms
initially present in the Lagrangian, to compensate for divergent graphs one
needs to also add a ﬁnite number of other terms, i.e. other monomials
δλ
i
(k
i
)!
φ
k
i
, that were not initially present. In fact, one can just think of this
as being the eﬀect of having chosen an arbitrary value = 0 for the coef
ﬁcients of these terms in the initial Lagrangian. However, a theory is no
longer renormalizable if an inﬁnite number of additional terms is needed to
compensate for the divergences.
20 Feynman Motives
1.7 Gamma functions, Schwinger and Feynman parameters
We digress momentarily to recall some useful formulae involving Gamma
functions, which are extensively used in Feynman integral computations
and are the basis of both the dimensional regularization procedure we de
scribe below and the parametric representation of Feynman integrals that
we discuss later and which is the basis for the relation between Feynman
integrals and periods of algebraic varieties.
First recall that the Gamma function is deﬁned by the integral
Γ(t + 1) =
_
∞
0
s
t
e
−s
ds. (1.45)
It satisﬁes Γ(t+1) = t Γ(t), hence it extends the factorial, namely Γ(n+1) =
n! for nonnegative integers. The function Γ(t) deﬁned in this way extends
to a meromorphic function with poles at all the nonpositive integers.
As we are going to see in more detail below, a typical way of dealing
with divergences in Feynman integrals is to ﬁrst identify them with poles of
some meromorphic function and typically a product of Gamma functions.
The ﬁrst useful operation on Feynman integrals is the introduction of
Schwinger parameters. These are based on the very simple identity
1
q
=
_
∞
0
e
−sq
ds. (1.46)
This allows the reformulation of integrals where quadratic forms q
i
in the
momentum variables appear in the denominator in terms of Gaussian inte
grals where quadratic forms appear in the exponent. In terms of Schwinger
parameters, one writes the denominator of a Feynman integral of the form
(1.37) as
1
q
1
q
n
=
_
R
n
+
e
−(s
1
q
1
+···+s
n
q
n
)
ds
1
ds
n
. (1.47)
This is a special case of the more general useful identity
1
q
k
1
1
q
k
n
n
=
1
Γ(k
1
) Γ(k
n
)
_
R
n
+
e
−(s
1
q
1
+···+s
n
q
n
)
s
k
1
−1
1
s
k
n
−1
n
ds
1
ds
n
.
(1.48)
Another related way to reformulate the expression (1.37) of Feynman
integrals is based on the Feynman parameters. Here the basic example,
analogous to (1.46) is the Feynman trick
1
ab
=
_
1
0
1
(ta + (1 −t)b)
2
dt. (1.49)
Perturbative quantum ﬁeld theory and Feynman diagrams 21
The more general expression analogous to (1.47) is obtained by considering
the general formula (1.48) and performing a change of variables s
i
= St
i
with S = s
1
+ +s
n
so as to obtain
1
q
k
1
1
q
k
n
n
=
Γ(k
1
+ +k
n
)
Γ(k
1
) Γ(k
n
)
_
[0,1]
n
t
k
1
−1
1
t
k
n
−1
n
δ(1 −
i
t
i
)
(t
1
q
1
+ +t
n
q
n
)
n
dt
1
dt
n
.
(1.50)
In the particular case of the denominators of (1.37) this gives
1
q
1
q
n
= (n − 1)!
_
[0,1]
n
δ(1 −
i
t
i
)
(t
1
q
1
+ +t
n
q
n
)
n
dt
1
dt
n
. (1.51)
Thus, the integration is performed on the ndimensional topological simplex
σ
n
= ¦t = (t
1
, . . . , t
n
) ∈ R
n
+
[
i
t
i
= 1¦. (1.52)
1.8 Dimensional Regularization and Minimal Subtraction
Dimensional regularization (DimReg) is based on a formal procedure aimed
at making sense of integrals in “complexiﬁed dimension” D−z, with z ∈ C
∗
,
instead of integral dimension D ∈ N. It would seem at ﬁrst that one needs
to develop a notion of geometry in “complexiﬁed dimension” along with
measure spaces and a suitable theory of integration, in order to deﬁne
dimensional regularization property. In fact, much less is needed. Due to
the very special form of the Feynman integrals U(Γ, p
1
, . . . , p
N
), it suﬃces
to have a good deﬁnition for the Gaussian integrals in D dimensions,
_
e
−λt
2
d
D
t = π
D/2
λ
−D/2
, (1.53)
in the case where D is no longer a positive integer but a complex number. In
fact, one can then reformulate the Feynman integrals in terms of Gaussian
integrals, using the method of Schwinger parameters described brieﬂy in
¸1.7.
Clearly, since the right hand side of (1.53) continues to make sense for
D ∈ C, one can use the right hand side of (1.53) as the deﬁnition of the
left hand side and set
_
e
−λt
2
d
z
t := π
z/2
λ
−z/2
, ∀z ∈ C. (1.54)
22 Feynman Motives
One then obtains well deﬁned Feynman integrals in complexiﬁed dimen
sion D −z, which one writes formally as
U
z
µ
(Γ(p
1
, . . . , p
N
)) =
_
1
Γ
(p
1
, . . . , p
N
, k
1
, . . . , k
) µ
z
d
D−z
k
1
d
D−z
k
.
(1.55)
The variable µ has the physical units of a mass and appears in these inte
grals for dimensional reasons. It will play an important role later on, as it
sets the dependence on the energy scale of the renormalized values of the
Feynman integrals, hence the renormalization group ﬂow.
It is not an easy result to show that the dimensionally regularized in
tegrals give meromorphic functions in the variable z, with a Laurent series
expansion at z = 0. See a detailed discussion of this point in Chapter 1
of [Connes and Marcolli (2008)]. We will not enter into details here and
talk loosely about (1.55) as a meromorphic function of z depending on the
additional parameter µ.
The method of minimal subtraction consists of removing the divergent
part of the Laurent series expansion at z = 0 of a meromorphic function
obtained from the regularization of the Feynman integrals. One denotes by
T the operator of projection of a Laurent series onto its polar part. With
this notation, if U(Γ) = U(Γ)(z) is shorthand for the meromorphic function
obtained from the dimensional regularization of the Feynman integral asso
ciated to the graph Γ (suppressing the explicit dependence on the external
momenta), then (1 − T)U(Γ) would be its minimal subtraction. This is a
convergent power series in the variable z ∈ C
∗
, which then has a ﬁnite value
at z = 0.
As we see below (see also [Connes and Marcolli (2008)] for a more de
tailed explanation), taking (1 −T)U(Γ)[
z=0
does not suﬃce as a renormal
ization method, due to the role of subdivergences, i.e. smaller subgraphs
γ of the Feynman graph Γ which themselves already contribute divergent
Feynman integrals U(γ). The correct procedure that uses dimensional reg
ularization and minimal subtraction to extract ﬁnite values from divergent
Feynman integrals is given by the Bogolyubov recursion described below in
¸5.1.
We report here from [Connes and Marcolli (2008)], [Collins (1986)] the
simplest example of dimensional regularization, for the selfenergy graph of
the theory T with L
(φ) = φ
3
and D = 6.
Perturbative quantum ﬁeld theory and Feynman diagrams 23
k
p + k
p p
This corresponds to the divergent Feynman integral (neglecting the con
stant multiplicative factor containing the coupling constant λ and powers
of 2π) is given by
_
1
k
2
+m
2
1
(p +k)
2
+m
2
d
D
k
for the theory with Lagrangian L(φ) =
1
2
(∂φ)
2
+
m
2
2
φ
2
+
λ
6
φ
3
. This follows
directly from the application of the Feynman rules: the variables assigned
to the two internal edges are −k and p+k, with p the external momentum,
due to the eﬀect of the delta functions imposing the conservation law at the
two vertices. It is easy to see that this integral is divergent, for instance in
dimension D = 4 or D = 6, where it is usually interesting to consider this
scalar ﬁeld theory.
In this case, the method of Schwinger parameters described in ¸1.7 con
sists of replacing the integral above by
1
k
2
+m
2
1
(p +k)
2
+m
2
=
_
s>0, t>0
e
−s(k
2
+m
2
)−t((p+k)
2
+m
2
)
ds dt.
One can then diagonalize the quadratic form in the exponential to get
−Q(k) = −λ((k +xp)
2
+ ((x −x
2
)p
2
+m
2
))
with s = (1 − x)λ and t = xλ. One obtains in this way a Gaussian in
q = k +xp and using the prescription (1.54) one then gets
_
1
0
_
∞
0
e
−(λ(x−x
2
)p
2
+λm
2
)
_
e
−λq
2
d
D
q λdλ dx
= π
D/2
_
1
0
_
∞
0
e
−(λ(x−x
2
)p
2
+λm
2
)
λ
−D/2
λdλdx
= π
D/2
Γ(2 −D/2)
_
1
0
((x −x
2
)p
2
+ m
2
)
D/2−2
dx,
which makes sense for D ∈ C
∗
and shows the presence of a pole at D = 6.
It seems then that one could simply cure these divergences by removing
the polar part of the Laurent series obtained by dimensional regulariza
tion. Slightly more complicated examples with nested divergent graphs
24 Feynman Motives
(see [Connes and Marcolli (2008)] [Collins (1986)]) show why a renormal
ization procedure is indeed needed at this point. In fact, the main point is
that one would like to cancel the divergence by correcting the coeﬃcients
of the Lagrangian by functions of z, the counterterms, that is, by redoing
the Feynman integral computation for the modiﬁed Lagrangian
L(φ) =
1
2
(∂φ)
2
(1 −δZ) +
_
m
2
−δm
2
2
_
φ
2
−
g +δg
6
φ
3
.
While one can check that this works for the example given here above, it
does not seem to work any longer for more complicated examples where
the graph Γ contains divergent subgraphs. In such cases, one needs to
account for the way the divergences of the subgraphs have already been
renormalized, by correcting the Laurent series U(Γ) by a linear combination
of other Laurent series associated to the subgraphs. This will be explained
in more detail in ¸5.1 below.
We conclude this introductory section by recalling more formally the
main distinction we already mentioned between renormalizable and non
renormalizable theories.
Deﬁnition 1.8.1. A quantum ﬁeld theory with Lagrangian L(φ) =
1
2
(∂φ)
2
+
m
2
2
φ
2
+ T(φ), with polynomial interaction terms T(φ) deﬁnes
a renormalizable quantum ﬁeld theory if all the divergences arising from
the corresponding Feynman integrals U(Γ) can be corrected by repeatedly
altering the bare constants of the existing terms in the Lagrangian or by
adding a ﬁnite number of new polynomial terms to L(φ).
In the case of a nonrenormalizable theory, one can still follow the same
renormalization procedure. However, since inﬁnitely many new terms will
have to be added to the Lagrangian to correct for the divergences of increas
ingly complicated graphs, the theory will end up depending on inﬁnitely
many parameters.
Chapter 2
Motives and periods
After reviewing the main tools from quantum ﬁeld theory that we need,
we give here a very brief and sketchy account of the other subject whose
relation to quantum ﬁeld theory will then be the main topic of the rest of
the book, the theory of motives of algebraic varieties. This will be a simple
introduction, were we will inevitably avoid the deeper and more diﬃcult
aspects of the theory, and focus only on the minimal amount of information
that is necessary in order to explain how the connection to quantum ﬁeld
theory arises. We ﬁrst sketch the construction and main properties of pure
motives. As will become clearer in the following chapter, these do not suﬃce
for the quantum ﬁeld theoretic applications, for which the more complicated
theory of mixed motives is needed. We are even sketchier when it comes to
describing the world of mixed motives, but we give some concrete examples
of mixed Tate motives, which will be the type of motives that, at least
conjecturally, mainly arise in quantum ﬁeld theory. We describe brieﬂy
the role of periods, which will be the main point of contact with Feynman
integral computations, with special attention to the case of multiple zeta
values. We also show how one can estimate the complexity of a motive
through an associated invariant, a universal Euler characteristic given by
the class in the Grothendieck ring of varieties. Finally, we recall the role of
Galois symmetries in categories of motives.
2.1 The idea of motives
Grothendieck introduced the idea of motives as a universal cohomology the
ory for algebraic varieties. There are diﬀerent notions of cohomology that
can be deﬁned for algebraic varieties: Betti cohomology, algebraic de Rham
cohomology, ´etale cohomology. There are relations between them, like the
25
26 Feynman Motives
period isomorphism between de Rham and Betti cohomologies. The idea
of a universal cohomology that lies behind all of these diﬀerent realizations
asserts that properties which occur in all the reasonable cohomologies and
relations between them should come from properties that are motivic, i.e.
that already exist at the level of this universal cohomology. Setting up a
theory of motives is no easy task. The ﬁeld is in fact still a very active and
fast developing area of algebraic and arithmetic geometry. For a long time
the only available written reference giving a detailed account of the theory
of motives, along with some interesting algebrogeometric applications, was
[Manin (1968)], which is still an excellent short introduction to the subject.
A more recent reference that gives a broad survey of the current state of
the ﬁeld is [Andr´e (2004)]. An extensive series of papers on motives is
available in the proceedings of the 1991 Seattle conference, collected in the
two volumes [Jannsen, Kleiman, Serre (1994)]. For our purposes we will
try to follow the shortest path through this intricate theory that will allow
us to draw the connection to quantum ﬁeld theory and discuss the main
problems currently being investigated. Thus, this will be by no account an
accurate introduction to motives and we refer the readers interested in a
more serious and detailed account of the current state of research in this
area to the recent book [Andr´e (2004)].
The theory of motives comes in two ﬂavors, roughly corresponding to
the distinction between working with smooth projective varieties or with
everything else, meaning varieties that may be singular, or “noncompact”.
In the ﬁrst case, where one only considers motives of smooth projective
varieties, one obtains the theory of pure motives, which is built by ﬁrst
abstracting the main properties that a “good” cohomology theory of such
algebraic varieties should satisfy (Weil cohomologies) and then constructing
a category whose objects are smooth projective varieties together with the
data of a projector and a Tate twist, and where the morphisms are no longer
just given by morphisms of varieties but by more general correspondences
given by algebraic cycles in the product. Under a suitable choice of an
equivalence relation on the set of algebraic cycles, one can obtain in this
way an abelian category of pure motives and in fact a Tannakian category,
with a corresponding Galois group of symmetries, the motivic Galois group.
This part of the theory of motives is at this point on solid ground, although
problems like explicitly identifying the motivic Galois groups of various
signiﬁcant subcategories of the category of pure motives, or identifying
when a correspondence is realized by an algebraic cycle, remain extremely
challenging. While the general theory of pure motives is a beautiful and
Motives and periods 27
well established part of arithmetic algebraic geometry, the main problem of
establishing Grothendieck’s standard conjectures remains at this time open.
The situation is far more involved when it comes to mixed motives,
namely motives associated to varieties that are no longer necessarily smooth
and projective. The ﬁrst issue in this case is that of identifying the right
set of properties that a good cohomology theory is expected to have and
that should then be also associated to a good category of motives. As it
happens in topology, also in the context of algebraic varieties passing to the
“noncompact” case profoundly alters the main properties of the cohomol
ogy, with Poincar´e duality being replaced by the pairing of cohomologies
and cohomologies with compact support, and with a prominent role played
by Mayer–Vietoris type long exact sequences. The theory of mixed mo
tives, in the form which is presently available after the work of Voevodsky,
is based on triangulated categories, where these types of cohomology ex
act sequences manifest themselves in the form of distinguished triangles.
Only in very special cases, and for very particular subcategories of the
triangulated category of mixed motives, is it possible to extract from the
triangulated structure a heart giving rise to an abelian category. This is the
case for the subcategory of mixed motives that is most directly of interest
to quantum ﬁeld theory, namely the category of mixed Tate motives over a
number ﬁeld. As we are going to see in the next chapter, the reason why
it is mixed motives instead of the simpler pure motives that arise in the
quantum ﬁeld theoretic context lies in the fact that certain algebraic vari
eties naturally associated to Feynman graphs are typically singular, so that
they cannot be described, at the motivic level, using only pure motives.
When one is studying the motivic nature of certain classes of varieties,
as will be the case here with certain hypersurfaces associated to Feynman
graphs, it is often too compicated to work directly in the triangulated cate
gory of mixed motives, but one can sometime get useful information about
the motives by looking at their classes in the Grothendieck ring. This con
sists of isomorphism classes of varieties up to equivalence relations induced
by very rough “cutandpaste” operations on algebraic varieties, with the
same inclusionexclusion property of an Euler characteristic.
28 Feynman Motives
2.2 Pure motives
The main properties of a good cohomology theory of algebraic varieties are
summarized by the concept of Weil cohomology. We assume we are working
with smooth projective varieties over a ﬁeld K, which for our purposes we
can assume is Q or a ﬁnite algebraic extension (a number ﬁeld). This
means that, at each archimedean place of the number ﬁeld, such a variety
X deﬁnes a smooth complex manifold X(C), which is embedded in some
suﬃciently large projective space P
N
. The axioms of a Weil cohomology
are the following.
• H
·
is a contravariant functor from the category 1
K
of smooth projective
varieties to the category GrVect
K
of graded ﬁnite dimensional Kvector
spaces.
• H
i
(X) = 0 outside of the range i ∈ ¦0, . . . , 2 dim(X)¦.
• Poincar´e duality holds: H
2 dim(X)
(X) = K and there is a non
degenerate bilinear pairing
¸, ) : H
i
(X) H
2 dim(X)−i
(X)
−→K. (2.1)
• The K¨ unneth formula holds:
H
n
(X
1
K
X
2
) =
i+j=n
H
i
(X
1
) ⊗
K
H
j
(X
2
), (2.2)
with the isomorphism induced by the projection maps π
i
: X
1
K
X
2
→
X
i
, for i = 1, 2.
• Let Z
i
(X) denote the abelian group of algebraic cycles in X (smooth
connected subvarieties) of codimension i. Then there exists a cycle map
γ
i
X
: Z
i
(X) → H
2i
(X), (2.3)
which is functorial with respect to pullbacks and pushforwards and
satisfying
γ
n
X×Y
(Z W) = γ
i
X
(Z) ⊗γ
j
Y
(W),
with i + j = n, and normalized by γ
i
pt
: Z → K being the standard
inclusion.
• The weak Lefschetz isomorphisms hold: if H denotes a smooth hy
perplane section of X, with ι : H → X the inclusion, then ι
∗
:
H
i
(X) → H
i
(H) is an isomorphism for i ≤ dim(X) − 2 and injec
tive for i = dim(X) −1.
Motives and periods 29
• The hard Lefschetz isomorphisms hold: let L : H
i
(X) → H
i+2
(X)
be given by L : x → x ∪ γ
1
X
(H). Then L
dim(X)−i
: H
i
(X) →
H
2 dim(X)−i
(X) is an isomorphism for all i ≤ dim(X).
Algebraic de Rham cohomology H
∗
dR
(X, K) and Betti (singular) cohomol
ogy H
∗
B
(X) = H
∗
sing
(X(C), Q) are both examples of Weil cohomologies.
It is in general extremely diﬃcult to determine whether a given class in a
Weil cohomology H
∗
(X) lies in the image of the cycle map γ
∗
X
. The Hodge
conjecture, for example, is closely related to this question. The fact that
in general algebraic cycles are very complicated objects and one does not
know much about how to characterize them homologically constitutes the
main diﬃculty in the theory of pure motives, as the construction of the
category of pure motives that we now recall will show more clearly.
Grothendieck’s idea that gave birth to the whole theory of motives was
that there should be a cohomology theory for (smooth projective) algebraic
varieties that should map via realization functors to any cohomology satis
fying the axioms recalled above. The existence of isomorphisms between the
diﬀerent known Weil cohomologies, such as the period isomorphism between
Betti and de Rham cohomology, motivated this search for an underlying
universal theory.
The approach to constructing such a universal cohomology theory is
to remain suﬃciently close to the geometry of the varieties themselves,
instead of passing to associated vector spaces or modules over a ring, as
cohomologies typically do. One modiﬁes instead the maps between varieties
so as to obtain a category that still contains the usual category of smooth
projective varieties. It has additional objects and morphisms that make it
into a “linearization” of the category of varieties, that is, a category that
is good enough to behave as a category of modules over a ring.
The precise notion for a category that behaves like a category of modules
over a ring, namely a category that is good enough to do homological
algebra, is that of an abelian category, see [Gelfand and Manin (1994)].
Deﬁnition 2.2.1. An abelian category ( is a category satisfying the fol
lowing properties.
• For all X, Y ∈ Obj(() the set of morphisms Hom
C
(X, Y ) is an abelian
group (i.e. ( is preadditive). The composition of morphisms is com
patible with the abelian group structure of the Homsets.
• There is a zeroobject 0 ∈ Obj(() with Hom
C
(0, 0) = 0, the trivial
abelian group.
30 Feynman Motives
• There are ﬁnite products and coproducts in (.
• All morphisms have kernels and cokernels in the category and every
morphism f : X → Y has a canonical decomposition
K
k
→ X
i
→ I
j
→ Y
c
→ K
, (2.4)
with j ◦ i = f, and with K = Ker(f) ∈ Obj((), K
= Coker(f) ∈
Obj((), and I = Coker(k) = Ker(c) ∈ Obj(().
The property that an abelian category “behaves like a category of mod
ules over a ring” is made precise by the Freyd–Mitchell theorem, which
shows that indeed a small abelian category can be faithfully embedded as
a subcategory of a category of modules over a ring.
To obtain a category of pure motives one then aims at constructing
an abelian category of smooth projective varieties and correspondences,
which admits realization functors to vector spaces determined by the various
possible Weil cohomologies.
A morphism f : X → Y of varieties can be regarded as a correspondence
by considering its graph
((f) = ¦(x, y) ∈ X Y [ y = f(x)¦ ⊂ X Y. (2.5)
This is a closed connected subvariety of the product X Y of codimension
codim(((f)) = dim(Y ). (2.6)
Since one is aiming at constructing a universal cohomology theory, which
should be a contravariant functor, we regard the graph ((f) of a morphism
f : X → Y as a correspondence from Y to X,
((f) ∈ Corr
dim(Y )
(Y, X), (2.7)
where Corr
i
(Y, X) is the abelian group of correspondences from Y to X
given by algebraic cycles in Z
i
(X Y ). Thus, the generalization of mor
phisms f : X → Y is given by correspondences of the form Z =
j
n
j
Z
j
,
that are ﬁnite linear combinations with n
j
∈ Z of irreducible smooth alge
braic subvarieties Z
j
⊂ X Y . The usual composition of morphisms
X
1
f
1
→ X
2
f
2
→ X
3
is replaced by a composition of correspondences given by the ﬁber product
Z
◦ Z = Z
X
2
Z, (2.8)
for Z ⊂ X
1
X
2
and Z
⊂ X
2
X
3
. This means that, to obtain the
composition Z
◦ Z one does the following operations:
Motives and periods 31
• Take the preimages π
−1
32
(Z
) and π
−1
21
(Z) in X
1
X
2
X
3
, with π
ij
:
X
1
X
2
X
3
→ X
i
X
j
the projections.
• Intersect π
−1
32
(Z
) ∩ π
−1
21
(Z) in X
1
X
2
X
3
.
• Push forward the result along the remaining projection π
31
: X
1
X
2
X
3
→ X
1
X
3
,
Z
◦ Z = (π
31
)
∗
(π
−1
32
(Z
) ∩ π
−1
21
(Z)) ⊂ X
1
X
3
. (2.9)
• Extend by linearity to correspondences of the form Z =
j
n
j
Z
j
and
Z
=
r
n
r
Z
r
.
Because we are working with algebraic varieties as opposed to smooth man
ifolds, one in general cannot simply deform them to be in general position
so that the intersection π
−1
32
(Z
) ∩ π
−1
21
(Z) is transverse. Thus, one needs
to use some more sophisticated tools like excess intersection to deal with
intersection products in nontransverse situations, as one does in algebraic
geometry to deﬁne the product in the Chow ring, and use an equivalence
relation on the set of algebraic cycles that preserves the intersection prod
uct and allows for diﬀerent choices of representatives within the same class.
Reducing the size of the groups of algebraic cycles by an equivalence rela
tion is also desirable to obtain groups that are, at least in some cases, ﬁnite
dimensional.
There is more than one possible choice of an equivalence relation on
algebraic cycles, and the properties of the resulting category of motives
change according to which equivalence relation one considers. We only
mention here numerical and homological equivalence. We refer the reader to
[Andr´e (2004)] for a discussion of rational equivalence and the corresponding
properties. Imposing the numerical equivalence relation means identifying
two cycles Z
1
∼
num
Z
2
if their intersection products agree, #(Z
1
∩ Z) =
#(Z
2
∩ Z), for arbitrary subvarieties Z of complementary dimension. The
homological equivalence requires the choice of a Weil cohomology H
∗
and
prescribes that a cycle Z ∈ Z
i
(X Y ) is homologically trivial, Z ∼
hom
0,
if its image under the cycle map γ
i
X×Y
: Z
i
(X Y ) → H
2i
(X Y ) is
trivial, γ
i
X×Y
(Z) = 0. Although this second relation depends on the choice
of a Weil cohomology, it is part of Grothendieck’s standard conjectures
that numerical and homological equivalence agree, thus making the latter
independent of the choice of the cohomology. One denotes by Corr
i
∼
(XY )
the abelian group generated by the algebraic cycles of codimension i in
X Y modulo the equivalence relation ∼. This is compatible with the
composition of correspondences deﬁned using the ﬁber product. We also
32 Feynman Motives
use the notation
C
0
∼
(X, Y ) := Corr
dim(X)
∼
(Y X) ⊗
Z
Q. (2.10)
One can then deﬁne a category of motives as follows.
Deﬁnition 2.2.2. The category /
eﬀ
num
(K) of eﬀective numerical pure mo
tives has as objects pairs (X, p), where X is a smooth projective variety
over K and p ∈ C
0
num
(X, X) is an idempotent, p
2
= p. The morphisms are
given by
Hom
M
eff
num
(K)
((X, p), (Y, q)) = qC
0
∼
(X, Y )p. (2.11)
The reason for introducing projectors p
2
= p is in order to be able to
“cut out” pieces of the cohomology of a variety X, for example the piece
that corresponds to a certain degree only. It is in general very diﬃcult to
give an explicit description in terms of algebraic cycles of a projector that
isolates a given component of the cohomology of a variety. Notice also that,
since p ∈ C
0
∼
(X, X), the property of being idempotent also depends on the
choice of the equivalence relation. The set of morphisms here are Qvector
spaces instead of abelian groups (the category is Qlinear).
An important recent result [Jannsen (1992)] shows that the category
/
eﬀ
num
(K) is a semisimple abelian category. The semisimplicity property
means that there exists a set o of objects such that for all X ∈ o one
has Hom(X, X) = Q and Hom(X, Y ) = 0 for all X ,= Y ∈ o (simple
objects), and such that every object X of the category has a decomposition
X = ⊕
i
X
i
with summands X
i
∈ o.
The category /
eﬀ
num
(K) has a tensor product that comes form the prod
uct of varieties. This makes it into a tensor category. A desirable property
for a tensor category is a duality that makes it into a rigid tensor category.
Recall ﬁrst that a category ( where the set Hom
C
(X, Y ) is a Kvector
space, for any X, Y ∈ Obj((), is called Klinear. A tensor category over K
is a Klinear category (, with a bifunctor ⊗ : ( ( → ( and an object
1 ∈ Obj(() for which there are functorial isomorphisms
a
X,Y,Z
: X ⊗(Y ⊗Z) → (X ⊗Y ) ⊗Z
c
X,Y
: X ⊗Y → Y ⊗X
l
X
: X ⊗1 → X and r
X
: 1 ⊗X → X.
These satisfy consistency conditions expressed in the form of a triangle,
a pentagon, and a hexagon diagram, see [Andr´e (2004)] for details. One
Motives and periods 33
also generally assumes that commutativity holds, which means that c
Y,X
=
c
−1
X,Y
, although this can be replaced by a signed version.
Deﬁnition 2.2.3. A Klinear tensor category ( is rigid if there is a duality
∨ : ( → (
op
such that, for all X ∈ Obj(() the functor ⊗X
∨
is left adjoint
to ⊗ X and X
∨
⊗ is right adjoint to X ⊗ . Moreover, there are an
evaluation : X ⊗X
∨
→ 1 (the unit object for tensor product) and a unit
δ : 1 → X
∨
⊗X satisfying
( ⊗1) ◦ (1 ⊗δ) = 1
X
, (1 ⊗) ◦ (δ ⊗1) = 1
X
∨.
One also assumes that Hom
C
(1, 1) = K.
Recall here that given two functors F : ( → (
and G : (
→ ( satisfying
Hom
C
(F(X), Y ) = Hom
C
(X, G(Y )),
for all X ∈ Obj(() and Y ∈ Obj((
), with the identiﬁcation realized by a
natural isomorphism, one says that F is leftadjoint to G and G is right
adjoint to F.
The category of numerical eﬀective pure motives does not have a du
ality. One can see that, to have such a duality, one would need to take
the transpose of a correspondence Z ⊂ X Y , but this would have
the eﬀect of changing the codimension. Namely, if Z ∈ C
0
num
(X, Y ) =
Corr
dim(X)
num
(Y X)⊗
Z
Q, then the transpose Z
†
is in Corr
dim(X)
num
(XY )⊗
Z
Q,
but the latter is not C
0
num
(Y, X) = Corr
dim(Y )
num
(XY )⊗
Z
Q. Thus, to have a
duality one needs to include among morphisms also cycles of other codimen
sions. This can be achieved by introducing new objects, the Tate motives
Q(n). One deﬁnes the Tate motive Q(1) to be the formal inverse of the
Lefschetz motive L. This is the motive whose cohomological realization is
H
2
(P
1
). This means that one writes the motive of P
1
as 1⊕L, where 1 is the
motive of a point, which corresponds to the cohomology H
0
(P
1
). Similarly,
one writes the motive of P
n
as 1 ⊕ L ⊕ L
2
⊕ ⊕ L
n
, which corresponds
to the decomposition of P
n
into cells A
0
∪ A
1
∪ ∪ A
n
, and the corre
sponding cohomology ring H
∗
(P
n
; Z) = Z[u]/u
n+1
with the generator u in
degree 2. As an object in the category /
num
(K) (see Deﬁnition 2.2.4 be
low), the Lefschetz motive is given by the triple L = (Spec(K), id, −1), with
1 = (Spec(K), id, 0) being the motive of a point. Introducing the formal
inverse Q(1) = L
−1
= (Spec(K), id, 1), with Q(n) = Q(1)
⊗n
and Q(0) = 1,
has the eﬀect of shifting the codimensions of cycles in the deﬁnitions of
morphisms in the category of motives in the following way.
34 Feynman Motives
Deﬁnition 2.2.4. The category /
num
(K) has objects given by triples
(X, p, m) with (X, p) ∈ Obj(/
eﬀ
num
(K)) an eﬀective numerical motive and
m ∈ Z. The morphisms are given by
Hom
M
num
(K)
((X, p, m), (Y, q, n)) = qC
n−m
(X, Y )p, (2.12)
where
C
m−n
(X, Y ) = Corr
dim(X)+n−m
num
(Y X) ⊗
Z
Q (2.13)
The tensor product is then given by
(X, p, m) ⊗(Y, q, n) = (X Y, p ⊗q, n +m), (2.14)
and the duality is of the form
(X, p, m)
∨
= (X, p
†
, dim(X) −m). (2.15)
One obtains in this way a rigid tensor category. As we discuss in ¸2.9
below, the resulting category is in fact more than a rigid tensor category:
it has enough structure to be identiﬁed uniquely as the category of ﬁnite
dimensional linear representations of a group (more precisely of an aﬃne
group scheme) via the Tannakian formalism, see ¸2.9 below.
2.3 Mixed motives and triangulated categories
Having just quickly mentioned how one constructs a good category of pure
motives, we jump ahead and leave the world of smooth projective varieties
to venture into the more complicated and more mysterious realm of mixed
motives. One should think of mixed motives as objects that come endowed
with ﬁltrations whose graded pieces are pure motives. The diﬃcult nature
of mixed motives therefore lies in the nontrivial extensions of pure mo
tives. From the cohomological point of view, instead of working with Weil
cohomologies, one considers a diﬀerent set of properties that a universal
cohomology theory should satisfy in this case, where the varieties involved
may be noncompact or singular. The main properties that one expects
such a cohomology theory to satisfy become of the following form:
• Homotopy invariance: the projection π : X A
1
→ X induces an
isomorphism
π
∗
: H
∗
(X)
→ H
∗
(X A
1
). (2.16)
Motives and periods 35
• Mayer–Vietoris sequence: if U, V are an open covering of X then there
is a long exact cohomology sequence
→ H
i−1
(U ∩ V ) → H
i
(X) → H
i
(U) ⊕H
i
(V ) → H
i
(U ∩ V ) →
(2.17)
• Poincar´e duality is replaced by the duality between cohomology H
∗
and cohomology with compact support, H
∗
c
.
• The K¨ unneth formula still holds.
This replaces the notion of a Weil cohomology with “mixed Weil cohomolo
gies”. Ideally, one would like to have an abelian category //(K) of mixed
motives that has realization functors to all the mixed Weil cohomologies.
This is (at present) not available, although after a long series of develop
ments and deep results in the ﬁeld (see [Voevodsky (2000)], [Levine (1998)],
[Hanamura (1995)]) one has at least a weaker version available, in the form
of a triangulated category of mixed motives T/(K).
Triangulated categories still allow for several techniques from homolog
ical algebra, in particular in the form of long exact cohomology sequences.
Deﬁnition 2.3.1. A triangulated category T is an additive category en
dowed with an automorphism T : T → T (the shift functor) and a family
of distinguished triangles
X → Y → Z → T(X) (2.18)
with the following properties:
• X
id
→ X → 0 → T(X) is a distinguished triangle for all X ∈ Obj(T ).
• For all f ∈ Hom
T
(X, Y ), there exists an object C(f) ∈ Obj(T ) (the
mapping cone) with a morphism C(f) → T(X), such that X
f
→ Y →
C(f) → T(X) is a distinguished triangle.
• A triangle isomorphic to a distinguished triangle is distinguished (where
isomorphisms of triangles are isomorphisms of the objects such that the
resulting diagram commutes).
• Rotations Y → Z → T(X) → T(Y ) and T
−1
(Z) → X → Y → Z of a
distinguished triangle X → Y → Z → T(X) are distinguished.
• Given distinguished triangles X → Y → Z → T(X) and X
→ Y
→
Z
→ T(X
) and morphisms f : X → X
and h : Y → Y
such that
the square commutes, there exists a morphism Z → Z
such that all
squares commute, with T(f) : T(X) → T(X
) completing the diagram.
• Given X
f
→ Y → C(f) → T(X) and Y
h
→ Z → C(h) → T(Y ), and
the composite X
h◦f
→ Z → C(h ◦ f) → T(X), these three triangles can
36 Feynman Motives
be placed on the vertices and edges of an octahedron with morphisms
completing the picture so that all the faces are commutative diagrams.
One typically writes X[1] for T(X) and X[n] = T
n
(X) for n ∈ Z.
One more property of triangulated categories that follows from these
axioms, and which we will need explicitly later, is the following.
Lemma 2.3.2. Given a triangulated category T , a full subcategory T
is a
triangulated subcategory if and only if it is invariant under the shift T of
T and for any distinguished triangle X → Y → Z → X[1] for T where X
and Y are in T
there is an isomorphism Z · Z
where Z
is also an object
in T
.
A full triangulated subcategory T
⊂ T is thick if it is closed under
direct sums.
It is sometimes possible to extract an abelian category from a triangu
lated category using the method of tstructures.
Deﬁnition 2.3.3. A tstructure on a triangulated category T consists of
two full subcategories T
≤0
and T
≥0
with the following property. Upon
denoting by T
≥n
= T
≥0
[−n] and T
≤n
= T
≤0
[−n], one has
T
≤−1
⊂ T
≤0
, and T
≥1
⊂ T
≥0
with the property that
Hom
T
(X, Y ) = 0, ∀X ∈ Obj(T
≤0
), ∀Y ∈ Obj(T
≥1
),
and such that, for all Y ∈ Obj(T ), there exists a distinguished triangle
X → Y → Z → X[1]
with X ∈ Obj(T
≤0
) and Z ∈ Obj(T
≥1
).
When one has a tstructure on a triangulated category, one can con
sider the full subcategory T
0
= T
≤0
∩ T
≥0
. This is called the heart of
the tstructure and it is known to be an abelian category, see [Be˘ılinson,
Bernstein, Deligne (1982)], [Kashiwara and Schapira (1990)].
Theoretical physicists have recently become familiar with the formal
ism of tstructures in triangulated categories in the context of homological
mirror symmetry, see for instance [Bridgeland (2009)].
Motives and periods 37
2.4 Motivic sheaves
We also mention brieﬂy, for later use, a recent construction due to [Arapura
(2008)] of a category of motivic sheaves over a base scheme S, modeled on
Nori’s approach to the construction of categories of mixed motives. We will
return in Chapter 7 to discuss how this ﬁts with the motives associated to
Feynman diagrams.
The category of motivic sheaves constructed in [Arapura (2008)] is based
on Nori’s construction of categories of motives via representations of graphs
made up of objects and morphisms (cf. [Brugui`eres (2004)]).
According to [Arapura (2008)], one constructs a category of motivic
sheaves over a scheme S, by taking as vertices of the corresponding graph
objects of the form
(f : X → S, Y, i, w) , (2.19)
where f : X → S is a quasiprojective morphism, Y ⊂ X is a closed
subvariety, i ∈ N, and w ∈ Z. One thinks of such an object as determining a
motivic version h
i
S
(X, Y )(w) of the local system given by the (Tate twisted)
ﬁberwise cohomology of the pair H
i
S
(X, Y ; Q) = R
i
f
∗
j
!
Q
XY
, where j =
j
XY
: X Y → X is the open inclusion, i.e. the sheaf deﬁned by
U → H
i
(f
−1
(U), f
−1
(U) ∩ Y ; Q).
The edges are given by the geometric morphisms:
• morphisms of varieties over S,
(f
1
: X
1
→ S, Y
1
, i, w) → (f
2
: X
2
→ S, Y
2
= F(Y ), i, w), (2.20)
with f
2
◦ F = f
1
;
• the connecting morphisms
(f : X → S, Y, i + 1, w) → (f[
Y
: Y → S, Z, i, w), for Z ⊂ Y ⊂ X;
(2.21)
• the twisted projection morphisms
(f : XP
1
→ S, Y P
1
∪X¦0¦, i +2, w+1) → (f : X → S, Y, i, w).
(2.22)
The product in this category of motivic sheaves is given by the ﬁber product
(X → S, Y, i, w) (X
→ S, Y
, i
, w
) =
(X
S
X
→ S, Y
S
X
∪ X
S
Y
, i +i
, w +w
).
(2.23)
38 Feynman Motives
2.5 The Grothendieck ring of motives
An invariant of algebraic varieties and motives that contains a lot of in
formation and can be used to evaluate the motivic complexity of a given
algebraic variety is the class in the Grothendieck ring. This is constructed
by breaking up the variety into pieces, by simple cutandpaste operations
of the scissors congruence type. The operation of assigning to a variety its
class in the Grothendieck ring behaves like a universal Euler characteristic.
Deﬁnition 2.5.1. Let 1
K
denote the category of algebraic varieties over
a number ﬁeld K. The Grothendieck ring K
0
(1
K
) is the abelian group
generated by isomorphism classes [X] of varieties, with the relation
[X] = [Y ] + [X Y ], (2.24)
for Y ⊂ X closed. It is made into a ring by the product [X Y ] = [X][Y ].
Let /(K) denote, as above, the abelian category of (numerical) pure
motives over K. As above we write the objects of /(K) in the form
(X, p, m), with X a smooth projective variety over K, p = p
2
∈ End(X)
a projector, and m ∈ Z the Tate twist. Let K
0
(/(K)) denote the
Grothendieck ring of the abelian category /(K).
We’ll see that the class of a variety, or of a motive, in the corresponding
Grothendieck ring, can be thought of as a “universal Euler characteristic”.
To this purpose, we ﬁrst recall the notion of additive invariants of varieties.
Deﬁnition 2.5.2. An additive invariant is a map χ : 1
K
→ R, with values
in a commutative ring R, satisfying the following properties.
• Isomorphism invariance: χ(X) = χ(Y ) if X
∼
= Y are isomorphic.
• Inclusionexclusion: χ(X) = χ(Y ) +χ(X Y ), for a closed embedding
Y ⊂ X.
• Multiplicative property: χ(X Y ) = χ(X)χ(Y ).
The topological Euler characteristic clearly satisﬁes all of these proper
ties and is in fact the prototypical example of such an invariant. Counting
points over ﬁnite ﬁelds is another invariant that behaves in the same way
and factors through the Grothendieck ring.
By the deﬁnition of the relations on the Grothendieck ring one sees that
assigning an additive invariant with values in R is equivalent to assigning
a ring homomorphism χ : K
0
(1
K
) → R.
Motives and periods 39
The results of [Gillet and Soul´e (1996)] show that there exists an additive
invariant χ
mot
: 1
K
→ K
0
(/(K)). This assigns to a smooth projective
variety X the class χ
mot
(X) = [(X, id, 0)] ∈ K
0
(/(K)). The value assigned
to a more general variety is more complicated to describe and it is given
in [Gillet and Soul´e (1996)] in terms of an object W(X) in the category
of complexes over /(K). (Technically, here the category /(K) is taken
with the rational equivalence relation on algebraic cycles.) It is sometime
referred to as “motivic Euler characteristic”.
If L denotes the class L = [A
1
] ∈ K
0
(1
K
) then its image in K
0
(/(K)) is
the Lefschetz motive L = Q(−1) = [(Spec(K), id, −1)]. Since the Lefschetz
motive is invertible in K
0
(/(K)), its inverse being the Tate motive Q(1),
the ring homomorphism χ
mot
: 1
K
→ K
0
(/(K)) induces a ring homomor
phism
χ
mot
: K
0
(1
K
)[L
−1
] → K
0
(/(K)). (2.25)
This in particular means that one can work either in the Grothendieck
ring of varieties or of motives, being able to map the ﬁrst to the latter
through χ
mot
. In the following, we will usually refer to the Grothendieck
ring K
0
(1
K
). A particularly interesting subring is the one generated by the
Lefschetz motive L = [A
1
]. This is a polynomial ring Z[L] ⊂ K
0
(1
K
), or
a ring of Laurent polynomials Z[L, L
−1
] ⊂ K
0
(/(K)), which corresponds
to the classes of varieties that motivically are mixed Tate motives. See the
comment at the end of ¸2.6 below on the relation between the information
given by knowing that the class in the Grothendieck ring lies in the subring
Z[L] ⊂ K
0
(1
K
) and the question of whether the motive, as an object of the
triangulated category T/(K) is a mixed Tate motive.
2.6 Tate motives
Let T/(K) be the Voevodsky triangulated category of mixed motives over
a ﬁeld K [Voevodsky (2000)]. The triangulated category T/T (K) of mixed
Tate motives is the full triangulated thick subcategory of T/(K) generated
by the Tate objects Q(n). It is known that, over a number ﬁeld K, there
is a canonical tstructure on T/T (K) and one can therefore construct an
abelian category /T (K) of mixed Tate motives (see [Levine (1998)]).
For the kind of applications we are going to see in the rest of this book,
we will be especially interested in the question of when a given mixed mo
tive is mixed Tate. In suﬃciently simple cases, one can try to answer this
question using the properties of T/T (K) as a triangulated subcategory of
40 Feynman Motives
the triangulated category T/(K) of mixed motives. Although the avail
able explicit constructions of T/(K) given in [Voevodsky (2000)], [Levine
(1998)], [Hanamura (1995)], are technically very complicated and certainly
beyond the scope of this book, often when dealing with very speciﬁc con
crete examples, one does not need the full strength of the general construc
tion, but one can directly use the formal properties that the triangulated
category T/(K) satisﬁes. In particular, in order to understand whether
the motive of a given variety is mixed Tate, one can try to ﬁnd a geometric
decomposition, often in the form of a stratiﬁcation, of the variety, in such
a way that one has enough control on the strata to build the motive out
of pieces that are mixed Tate. More precisely, in such an approach one
wants to make repeated use of two properties of the triangulated category
T/(K):
• (Proposition 4.1.4 of [Voevodsky (2000)]) Over a ﬁeld of characteristic
zero, a closed embedding Y ⊂ X determines a distinguished triangle in
T/(K)
m(Y ) → m(X) → m(X Y ) → m(Y )[1], (2.26)
where the notation m(X) here stands for the motive with compact
support, denoted by C
c
∗
(X) in [Voevodsky (2000)].
• (Corollary 4.1.8 of [Voevodsky (2000)]) Homotopy invariance implies
the identity of motives
m(X A
1
) = m(X)(1)[2], (2.27)
where [n] is the shift, and (n) is the Tate twist by Q(n).
The distinguished triangle (2.26) implies that, since T/T (K) is a tri
angulated subcategory of T/(K), if two of the terms are known to be in
T/T (K) then the third one also is. This can often be used as a way to
reduce a motive to simpler building blocks for which it may be easier to
answer the question of whether they are mixed Tate or not, and then derive
information about the original motive via the distinguished triangles and
homotopy invariance property.
We reported above the distinguished triangles and homotopy invariance
properties for the motives with compact support in Voevodsky’s terminol
ogy. One can obtain analogous statements for motives without compact
support using the duality in T/(K) between mixed motives and mixed
motives with compact support, which replaces Poincar´e duality that holds
for Weil cohomologies in the pure motives setting.
Motives and periods 41
We give here an example from [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009a)], which will
be relevant to Feynman integrals (see ¸3.13 below), namely the case of de
terminant hypersurfaces. It is a well known fact that, motivically, these
varieties are mixed Tate (see [Belkale and Brosnan (2003a)]), but we il
lustrate here explicitly how one can argue that this is the case using only
the two properties listed above of the triangulated category of mixed Tate
motives.
Deﬁnition 2.6.1. Let
ˆ
T
⊂ A
2
be the hypersurface deﬁned by the van
ishing of the determinant
ˆ
T
= ¦x = (x
ij
) ∈ A
2
[ det(x) = 0¦. (2.28)
Let T
⊂ P
2
−1
be the corresponding projective hypersurface deﬁned by
the homogeneous polynomial det(x).
We have the following result on the motivic nature of the determinant
hypersurfaces. We formulate it in terms of hypersurface complements, as
that will be the natural geometric object to consider in the case of the Feyn
man integrals. Clearly, if the result holds for the hypersurface complement
it also holds for the hypersurface itself, by the ﬁrst property above on the
distinguished triangle of a closed embedding, and the fact that aﬃne and
projective spaces are Tate motives.
Theorem 2.6.2. The determinant hypersurface complement A
2
ˆ
T
de
ﬁnes an object in the category T/T of mixed Tate motives.
Proof. Since
ˆ
T
consists of matrices of rank < , in order to describe
the locus A
2
ˆ
T
we need to parameterize matrices of rank exactly equal
to , which can be done in the following way. Fix an dimensional vector
space E.
– Denote by J
1
the variety E ¦0¦;
– Note that J
1
is equipped with a trivial vector bundle E
1
= E J
1
,
and with a line bundle S
1
:= L
1
⊆ E
1
whose ﬁber over v
1
∈ J
1
consists
of the line spanned by v
1
;
– Let J
2
⊆ E
1
be the complement E
1
L
1
;
– Note that J
2
is equipped with a trivial vector bundle E
2
= E J
2
,
and two line subbundles of E
2
: the pullback of L
1
(still denoted L
1
)
and the linebundle L
2
whose ﬁber over v
2
∈ J
2
consists of the line
spanned by v
2
;
– By construction, L
1
and L
2
span a rank2 subbundle S
2
of E
2
;
42 Feynman Motives
– Let J
3
⊆ E
2
be the complement E
2
S
2
; and so on.
We ﬁrst show that the variety J
constructed as above is isomorphic
to the locus we want, namely A
2
ˆ
D
.
To see this, ﬁrst observe that at the kth step, the procedure described
above produces a variety J
k
, endowed with k line bundles L
1
, . . . , L
k
span
ning a rankk subbundle S
k
of the trivial vector bundle E
k
:= E J
k
. If
S
k
E
k
, deﬁne J
k+1
:= E
k
S
k
. Let E
k+1
= E J
k+1
, and deﬁne
the line subbundles L
1
, . . . , L
k
to be the pullbacks of the similarly named
line bundles on J
k
. Let L
k+1
be the line bundle whose ﬁber over v
k+1
is
the line spanned by v
k+1
. The line bundles L
1
, . . . , L
k+1
span a rank k +1
subbundle S
k+1
of E
k+1
, and the construction can continue. The sequence
stops at the th step, where S
has rank , equal to the rank of E
, so that
E
S
= ∅.
Each variety J
k
maps to A
2
as follows: a point of J
k
determines k
vectors v
1
, . . . , v
k
, and can be mapped to the matrix whose ﬁrst k rows
are v
1
, . . . , v
k
resp. (and the remaining rows are 0). By construction, this
matrix has rank exactly k. Conversely, any such rank k matrix is the image
of a point of J
k
, by construction.
Also notice that, in the construction described above, the bundle S
k
over J
k
is in fact trivial. An explicit trivialization is given by the map
K
k
J
k
α
→ S
k
deﬁned by α : ((c
1
, . . . , c
r
), (v
1
, . . . , v
r
)) → c
1
v
1
+ +c
r
v
r
,
where points of J
k
are parameterized by ktuples of vectors v
1
, . . . , v
k
spanning S
k
⊆ K
J
k
= E
k
.
We then apply the two properties of the triangulated category of mixed
motives described above, namely the existence of distinguished triangles
(2.26) associated to closed embeddings Y ⊂ X and the homotopy invari
ance (2.27) inductively to the loci constructed above, all of which are va
rieties deﬁned over Q. At the ﬁrst step, single points obviously belong to
the category of mixed Tate motives and we are taking the complement J
1
of a point in an aﬃne space, which gives a mixed Tate motive by the ﬁrst
observation above on distinguished triangles associated to closed embed
dings. At the next step one considers the complement of the line bundle
S
1
inside the trivial vector bundle E
1
over J
1
. Again, both m(S
1
) and
m(E
1
) are mixed Tate motives, since both are products by aﬃne spaces,
since we know that the bundles S
k
are trivial. Therefore m(E
1
S
1
) is also
mixed Tate. The same argument shows that, for all 1 ≤ k ≤ , the motive
m(E
k
S
k
) is mixed Tate, by repeatedly using the triviality of S
k
and the
two properties of T/T
Q
recalled above.
Motives and periods 43
The result for the projective hypersurface T
is then the same, since
ˆ
T
is the aﬃne cone over T
and the same two properties of the triangulated
category of mixed motives used above show that if
ˆ
T
is mixed Tate so
is T
. One can use the same geometric construction described above to
compute explicitly the class of
ˆ
T
in the Grothendieck ring of varieties.
One ﬁnds the following expression [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009a)].
Theorem 2.6.3. The class in the Grothendieck ring of varieties of the
aﬃne determinant hypersurface is
[A
2
ˆ
T
] = L
(
2
)
i=1
(L
i
−1) (2.29)
where L is the class of A
1
. In the projective case, the class is
[P
2
−1
T
] = L
(
2
)
i=2
(L
i
−1). (2.30)
Proof. Using the same argument as in Theorem 2.6.2, one shows induc
tively that the class of J
k
is given by
[J
k
] = (L
−1)(L
−L)(L
−L
2
) (L
−L
k−1
)
= L
(
k
2
)
(L
−1)(L
−1
−1) (L
−k+1
−1).
(2.31)
This suﬃces to obtain the expression (2.29). The formula (2.30) is then
obtained from (2.29) using the fact that
ˆ
T
is the aﬃne cone over T
.
Notice that, by Theorem 2.6.2, we already know that the class [A
2
ˆ
T
]
will be in the mixed Tate part Z[L] of the Grothendieck ring of varieties
K
0
(1
Q
). In general, computing the class in the Grothendieck ring may
be easier than knowing explicitly the motive in T/
Q
. If one only knows
that the class belongs to the Tate part Z[L] of the Grothendieck ring, this
does not imply that the motive itself will be in the subcategory T/T
Q
of mixed Tate motives, as in principle there may be cancellations that
happen in the Grothendieck ring that do not take place at the level of the
motives themselves. However, knowing that the class in the Grothendieck
ring is a function of the Lefschetz motive L is a very good indication of
the possible mixed Tate nature of the motive. In fact, as observed for
instance in [Andr´e (2009)], the Tate conjecture predicts that knowing the
number N
p
of points of the reduction mod p for almost all p would suﬃce
to determine the motive. For mixed Tate motives the numbers N
p
are
polynomial in p, and assuming the conjecture holds, knowing that this
44 Feynman Motives
is the case would conversely imply that the motive is mixed Tate. The
role in this of the class in the Grothendieck ring comes from the fact that
the counting of points N
p
over ﬁnite ﬁelds has the properties of an Euler
characteristic (as we saw above, an additive invariant), hence it factors
through the Grothendieck ring. Thus, assuming the conjecture, knowing
that the class in the Grothendieck ring is mixed Tate would suﬃce. Even
without these general considerations and the role of the Tate conjecture,
in the best cases, the same type of geometric information on stratiﬁcations
that one can use to compute the class in the Grothendieck ring K
0
(1
K
)
may already contain enough information to run an argument similar to the
one used in Theorem 2.6.2, directly at the level of objects in T/
K
, as we
have seen in the example of the determinant hypersurfaces.
2.7 The algebra of periods
Betti and de Rham cohomology are two of the possible Weil cohomologies
for smooth projective varieties. They are related by the period isomorphism
H
∗
dR
(X) ⊗
K
C · H
∗
B
(X) ⊗
Q
C, (2.32)
for varieties deﬁned over a number ﬁeld K. The isomorphism is induced
(over aﬃne pieces) by the pairing of diﬀerential forms and cycles
ω ⊗γ →
_
γ
ω, (2.33)
for
ω ∈ Ker(d : Ω
i
(X) → Ω
i+1
(X))
and
γ ∈ Ker(∂
i
: C
i
(X) → C
i−1
(X)),
where one identiﬁes Betti cohomology H
∗
B
(X) = Hom(H
∗
(X), Q) =
H
∗
sing
(X, Q) with the dual of singular homology H
i
(X, Z) =
Ker(∂
i
)/Im(∂
i+1
). When one is given a basis of H
∗
dR
(X) and of H
∗
B
(X),
the period isomorphism is speciﬁed by a period matrix.
Periods are typically transcendental numbers. From the number
theoretic point of view they are, arguably, the most interesting class of
numbers beyond the algebraic ones. In fact, while being transcendental,
they are obtained from a procedure that uses only algebraic data: an alge
braic diﬀerential form on an algebraic variety, paired with a cycle deﬁned
Motives and periods 45
by algebraic relations. Let us denote by T
C
the Qsubalgebra of C gener
ated by periods. An interesting problem is understanding the structure of
this algebra: what relations (over Q) exist between periods.
Following [Kontsevich and Zagier (2001)], one can deﬁne a Qalgebra T
as the algebra generated by “formal periods”, that is, equivalence classes
of elements of the form
[(X, D, ω, γ)], (2.34)
consisting of a smooth (aﬃne) variety X deﬁned over Q, a normal cross
ings divisor D in X, an algebraic diﬀerential form ω ∈ Ω
dim(X)
(X)
(not necessarily closed), and a class in the relative homology γ ∈
H
dim(X)
(X(C), D(C), Q). The equivalence in (2.34) is given by the fol
lowing relations
• Linearity: the expressions (X, D, ω, γ) are Qlinear in ω and γ.
• Change of variable formula: given a morphism f : (X, D) → (X
, D
)
and ω
∈ Ω
dim(X
)
(X
) and γ ∈ H
dim(X)
(X(C), D(C), Q) one has
[(X, D, f
∗
(ω), γ)] = [(X
, D
, ω, f
∗
(γ))]. (2.35)
• Stokes’ formula:
[(X, D, dω, γ)] = [(
˜
D,
˜
D
(1)
, ω, ∂γ)], (2.36)
where
˜
D is the normalization of D and
˜
D
(1)
is the normalization of
∪
i,j
(D
i
∩ D
j
) where D
i
are the components of the divisor D.
Kontsevich conjectured that the map T → T
C
⊂ C given by
[(X, D, ω, γ)] →
_
γ
ω (2.37)
is injective. This means that all possible nontrivial relations between pe
riods come from either a change of variable formula or Stokes’ theorem.
2.8 Mixed Tate motives and the logarithmic extensions
An interesting class of mixed Tate motives is associated to logarithm and
polylogarithm functions [Be˘ılinson and Deligne (1994)], see also [Ayoub
(2007)], [Bloch (1997)].
46 Feynman Motives
The extensions Ext
1
DM(K)
(Q(0), Q(1)) of Tate motives are given by the
Kummer motives M = [Z
u
→ G
m
] with u(1) = q ∈ K
∗
. This extension has
period matrix of the form
_
1 0
log q 2πi
_
. (2.38)
When, instead of working with motives over the base ﬁeld K, one works
with the relative setting of motivic sheaves over a base scheme S, instead
of the Tate motives Q(n) one considers the Tate sheaves Q
S
(n). These
correspond to the constant sheaf with the motive Q(n) over each point
s ∈ S. In the case where S = G
m
, there is a natural way to assemble the
Kummer motives into a unique extension in Ext
1
DM(G
m
)
(Q
G
m
(0), Q
G
m
(1)).
This is the Kummer extension
Q
G
m
(1) → / →Q
G
m
(0) →Q
G
m
(1)[1], (2.39)
where over the point s ∈ G
m
one is taking the Kummer extension M
s
=
[Z
u
→ G
m
] with u(1) = s. Because of the logarithm function log(s) that
appears in the period matrix for this extension, the Kummer extension
(2.39) is also referred to as the logarithmic motive, and denoted by / = Log,
cf. [Ayoub (2007)] [Be˘ılinson and Deligne (1994)].
Let T/(G
m
) be the Voevodsky category of mixed motives (motivic
sheaves) over the multiplicative group G
m
. When working with Q
coeﬃcients, so that one can include denominators in the deﬁnition of pro
jectors, one can then consider the logarithmic motives Log
n
, deﬁned by
Log
n
= Sym
n
(/), (2.40)
where the symmetric powers of an object in T/
Q
(G
m
) are deﬁned as
Sym
n
(X) =
1
#Σ
n
σ∈Σ
n
σ(X
n
). (2.41)
The polylogarithms appear naturally as period matrices for extensions
involving the symmetric powers Log
n
= Sym
n
(/), in the form [Bloch
(1997)]
0 → Log
n−1
(1) → L
n
→Q(0) → 0, (2.42)
where M(1) = M ⊗Q(1) and L
1
= Log. The mixed motive L
n
has period
matrix
_
1 0
M
(n)
Li
M
Log
n−1
(1)
_
(2.43)
Motives and periods 47
with
M
(n)
Li
= (−Li
1
(s), −Li
2
(s), , −Li
n
(s))
τ
, (2.44)
where τ means transpose and where
Li
1
(s) = −log(1 −s), and Li
n
(s) =
_
s
0
Li
n−1
(u)
du
u
,
equivalently deﬁned (on the principal branch) using the power series
Li
n
(s) =
k
s
k
k
n
,
and with
M
Log
n
(1)
=
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
2πi 0 0 0
2πi log(s) (2πi)
2
0 0
2πi
log
2
(s)
2!
(2πi)
2
log(s) (2πi)
3
0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2πi
log
n
(s)
n!
(2πi)
2
log
n−1
(s)
(n−1)!
(2πi)
3
log
n−2
(s)
(n−2)!
(2πi)
n
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
.
(2.45)
The period matrices for the motives Log
n
correspond to the description
of Log
n
as the extension of Q(0) by Log
n−1
(1), i.e. to the distinguished
triangles in T/(G
m
) of the form
Log
n−1
(1) → Log
n
→Q(0) → Log
n−1
(1)[1]. (2.46)
The motives Log
n
form a projective system under the canonical maps
β
n
: Log
n+1
→ Log
n
given by the composition of the morphisms Sym
n+m
(/) → Sym
n
(/) ⊗
Sym
m
(/), as in [Ayoub (2007)], Lemma 4.35, given by the fact that
Sym
n+m
(/) is canonically a direct factor of Sym
n
(/) ⊗ Sym
m
(/), and
the map Sym
m
(/) → Q(0) of (2.46), in the particular case m = 1. Let
Log
∞
denote the promotive obtained as the projective limit
Log
∞
= lim
←−
n
Log
n
. (2.47)
The analog of the period matrix (2.45) then becomes the inﬁnite matrix
M
Log
∞
(1)
=
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
2πi 0 0 0
2πi log(s) (2πi)
2
0 0
2πi
log
2
(s)
2!
(2πi)
2
log(s) (2πi)
3
0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2πi
log
n
(s)
n!
(2πi)
2
log
n−1
(s)
(n−1)!
(2πi)
3
log
n−2
(s)
(n−2)!
(2πi)
n
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
.
(2.48)
48 Feynman Motives
This can best be expressed in terms of mixed Hodge structures. These
comprise the analytic side of the theory of motives and they provide one of
the possible realizations of categories of mixed motives, hence another way
to test complexity of various types of mixed motives. One has the following
deﬁnition as in [Steenbrink (1994)].
Deﬁnition 2.8.1. A Qmixed Hodge structure consists of the data M =
(V, W
•
, F
•
) of a ﬁnitedimensional Qvector space, with an increasing
ﬁltration W
•
V (weight ﬁltration) and a decreasing ﬁltration F
•
V
C
for
V
C
= V ⊗
Q
C (the Hodge ﬁltration), satisfying
gr
W
n
V
C
= F
p
gr
W
n
V
C
⊕F
n−p+1
gr
W
n
V
C
, (2.49)
where
¯
F
•
is the complex conjugate of F
•
with respect to V
R
⊂ V
C
.
The Hodge structure (V, W
•
, F
•
) is pure of weight n if W
n
= V and
W
n−1
= 0.
A morphism M
1
→ M
2
of QMHS is a linear map φ : V
1
→ V
2
such
that φ(W
k
V
1
) ⊂ W
k
V
2
and φ(F
p
V
1,C
) ⊂ F
p
V
2,C
. Tensoring of QMHS is
also deﬁned, by considering V
1
⊗
Q
V
2
with ﬁltrations
W
m
(V
1
⊗
Q
V
2
) =
i+j=m
W
i
(V
1
) ⊗
Q
W
j
(V
2
),
F
p
(V
1
⊗
Q
V
2
) =
r+s=p
F
r
(V
1,C
) ⊗
C
F
s
(V
2,C
).
A Qmixed Hodge structure M = (V, W
•
, F
•
) is mixed Tate if
gr
W
2p
M = ⊕Q(−p), and gr
W
2p−1
M = 0.
The condition (2.49) is equivalent to a Hodge decomposition
gr
W
n
V
C
= ⊕
p+q=n
V
p,q
, (2.50)
V
p,q
= F
p
gr
W
p+q
V
C
∩ F
q
gr
W
p+q
V
C
. (2.51)
An example of pure Hodge structure of weight −2n is the Tate Hodge
structure with V = (2πi)
n
Q. These correspond to the pure Tate motives.
These deﬁne, by tensoring, Tate twists on Qmixed Hodge structures.
For Hodge–Tate structures one has an associated period matrix obtained
as in ¸2 of [Goncharov (1999)], as the composition S
−1
HT
◦ S
W
of an isomor
phism S
HT
: ⊕
p
gr
W
2p
(V
Q
)⊗
Q
C → V
C
and a splitting of the weight ﬁltration,
which is an isomorphism S
W
: ⊕
p
gr
W
2p
(V
Q
) ⊗
Q
C → V
C
, expressed in a
chosen basis of gr
W
2p
V
Q
.
Motives and periods 49
In the example above, the mixed Hodge structure associated to the
motives Log
n
is the one that has as the weight ﬁltrations W
−2k
the range
of multiplication by the matrix M
Log
n
deﬁned as in (2.45) on vectors in Q
n
with the ﬁrst k − 1 entries equal to zero, while the Hodge ﬁltration F
−k
is given by the range of multiplication of M
Log
n
on vectors of C
n
with the
entries from k + 1 to n equal to zero [Bloch (1997)].
2.9 Categories and Galois groups
We review here a type of structure on a category which is more rigid than
that of an abelian category we encountered before, and which is suﬃcient to
identify it uniquely as a category of ﬁnite dimensional linear representations
of a group, namely the notion of Tannakian category, see [Saavedra Rivano
(1972)], [Deligne and Milne (1982)].
Deﬁnition 2.9.1. A klinear rigid abelian tensor category ( is a Tannakian
category if it admits a ﬁber functor, i.e. an exact faithful tensor functor,
ω : ( → Vect
K
, with target the category of ﬁnitedimensional vector spaces
over a ﬁeld extension K of k. A Tannakian category ( is neutral if K = k.
Recall here that a functor ω : ( → (
is faithful if, for all X, Y ∈ Obj((),
the mapping ω : Hom
C
(X, Y ) → Hom
C
(ω(X), ω(Y )) is injective. If (
and (
are klinear categories, a functor ω is additive if the map of Hom
sets above is a klinear map. An additive functor ω is exact if, for any
exact sequence 0 → X → Y → Z → 0 in (, the corresponding sequence
0 → ω(X) → ω(Y ) → ω(Z) → 0 in (
is also exact. A functor ω : ( → (
between klinear tensor categories is a tensor functor if there are functorial
isomorphisms τ
1
: ω(1) → 1 and τ
X,Y
: ω(X ⊗Y ) → ω(X) ⊗ω(Y ).
The main result of the theory of Tannakian categories, of which we
are going to see an application to motives in the next section and one to
quantum ﬁeld theory in a later chapter, is the following statement that
reconstructs a group from the category.
Theorem 2.9.2. [Saavedra Rivano (1972)] Let ( be a neutral Tannakian
category, with ﬁber functor ω : ( → Vect
k
. Let G be the group of auto
morphisms (invertible natural transformations) of the ﬁber functor. Then
ω induces an equivalence of rigid tensor categories ω : ( → Rep
G
, where
Rep
G
is the category of ﬁnite dimensional linear representations of G.
50 Feynman Motives
In fact, here G is really an aﬃne group scheme in the sense that we are
going to recall in ¸5.2 below. The aﬃne group scheme G is referred to as
the Tannakian Galois group of (.
If a Tannakian category ( is semisimple, then it is known that the
Tannakian Galois group is reductive. For example, the Tannakian Galois
group of the category of pure motives is reductive. So is the one of the
Tannakian subcategory generated by the pure Tate motives Q(n). In fact,
the latter is the simplest example of a reductive group, the multiplicative
group G
m
.
2.10 Motivic Galois groups
We recalled above that, over a number ﬁeld K, it is possible to form an
abelian category /T (K) of mixed Tate motives, as the heart of a t
structure inside the triangulated subcategory T/T (K) of the triangulated
category T/(K) of mixed motives. In fact, over a number ﬁeld one has an
explicit description of the extensions in T/(K) between pure Tate motives
in terms of algebraic Ktheory as
Ext
1
DM(K)
(Q(0), Q(n)) = K
2n−1
(K) ⊗Q (2.52)
and Ext
2
DM(K)
(Q(0), Q(n)) = 0, see [Levine (1993)] and [Levine (1998)],
Appendix B. For example, the mixed Tate motives that correspond to ex
tensions in Ext
1
DM(K)
(Q(0), Q(1)) are the Kummer motives we have en
countered in the previous sections.
The resulting abelian category /T (K) of mixed Tate motives over a
number ﬁeld is in fact also a Tannakian category, with ﬁber functor ω to
Zgraded Qvector spaces, M → ω(M) = ⊕
n
ω
n
(M) with
ω
n
(M) = Hom(Q(n), Gr
w
−2n
(M)), (2.53)
where Gr
w
−2n
(M) = W
−2n
(M)/W
−2(n+1)
(M) is the graded structure asso
ciated to the ﬁnite increasing weight ﬁltration W.
The construction of a Tannakian category of mixed Tate motives
/T (O
V
) and the explicit form of its motivic Galois group are also known
for motivic sheaves over the scheme O
V
of V integers of a number ﬁeld K,
for V a set of ﬁnite places of K. This means that objects in this category are
mixed Tate motives over K that are unramiﬁed at each ﬁnite place v / ∈ V .
In this case one also has a Ktheory group parameterizing extensions in the
Motives and periods 51
form
Ext
1
DM(O
V
)
(Q(0), Q(n)) =
_
¸
¸
_
¸
¸
_
K
2n−1
(K) ⊗Q n ≥ 2
O
∗
V
⊗Q n = 1
0 n ≤ 0.
(2.54)
and Ext
2
DM(O
V
)
(Q(0), Q(n)) = 0. The aﬃne group scheme that gives the
motivic Galois group in this case is of the form U G
m
, where the reduc
tive group G
m
comes from the pure Tate motives, and U is a prounipotent
aﬃne group scheme, that takes into account the nontrivial extensions be
tween pure Tate motives. In fact, the corresponding Lie algebra Lie(U) is
freely generated by a set of homogeneous generators in degree n identiﬁed
with a basis of the dual of Ext
1
(Q(0), Q(n)), as proved in Proposition 2.3
of [Deligne and Goncharov (2005)]. There is however no canonical identi
ﬁcation between Lie(U) and the free Lie algebra generated by the graded
vector space ⊕Ext
1
(Q(0), Q(n))
∨
.
The following special case of this general result of [Deligne and Gon
charov (2005)] is especially relevant to the context of renormalization, since
it provides a motivic Galois group (noncanonically) isomorphic to the Tan
nakian Galois group of renormalization of [Connes and Marcolli (2004)],
which we review in Chapter 6.
Proposition 2.10.1. [Deligne and Goncharov (2005)] For K = Q(ζ
N
) the
cyclotomic ﬁeld of level N = 3 or N = 4 and O its ring of integers, the
motivic Galois group of the Tannakian category /T (O[1/N]) is of the form
U G
m
, where the Lie algebra Lie(U) is (noncanonically) isomorphic to
the free graded Lie algebra with one generator e
n
in each degree n ≤ −1.
Chapter 3
Feynman integrals and algebraic
varieties
In this chapter we begin to connect the two topics introduced above, pertur
bative quantum ﬁeld theory and motives. We follow ﬁrst what we referred
to as the “bottomup approach” in the introduction, by showing how to as
sociate to individual Feynman integrals an algebraic variety, in the form of
a hypersurface complement, and a (possibly divergent) period integral on a
chain with boundary on a normal crossings divisor. The motivic nature of
this period, and the question of whether this (after removing divergences)
will be a period of a mixed Tate motive can then be formulated as the ques
tion of whether a certain relative cohomology of the hypersurface comple
ment relative to the normal crossings divisor is a realization of a mixed Tate
motive. We begin by describing the parametric form of Feynman integrals
and the main properties of the two Kirchhoﬀ–Symanzik graph polynomials
involved in this formulation and the graph hypersurfaces deﬁned by the
ﬁrst polynomial. We show, as in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2008a)], how one can
sometimes obtain explicit computations of the classes in the Grothendieck
ring of varieties for some families of Feynman graphs, using the classical
Cremona transformation and dual graphs. These classes also satisfy a form
of deletion/contraction relation, as proved in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009b)].
We then describe, following the results of [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2008b)], a
way of formulating Feynman rules directly at the algebrogeometric level
of graph hypersurface complements. We give examples of such Feynman
rules that factor through the Grothendieck ring and others, deﬁned us
ing characteristic classes of singular varieties, that do not descend to the
level of isomorphism classes of varieties in the Grothendieck ring, although
they still satisfy an inclusionexclusion principle. We discuss the diﬀerence
between working with aﬃne or projective hypersurfaces in describing Feyn
man integrals. Finally, following [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009a)], we show
53
54 Feynman Motives
that one can reformulate the period computation underlying the Feynman
amplitudes in terms of a simpler hypersurface complement, using deter
minant hypersurfaces, whose mixed Tate nature is established, but with a
more complicated normal crossings divisor as the second term in the rela
tive cohomology whose motivic nature one wishes to establish. We describe
the advantages and the diﬃculties of this viewpoint.
3.1 The parametric Feynman integrals
Using the Feynman parameters introduced in ¸1.7 above, we show how to
reformulate the Feynman integral
U(Γ, p
1
, . . . , p
N
) =
_
δ(
n
i=1
v,i
k
i
+
N
j=1
v,j
p
j
)
q
1
(k
1
) q
n
(k
n
)
d
D
k
1
d
D
k
n
in the form known as the Feynman parametric representation. (We neglect
here an overall multiplicative factor in the coupling constants and powers
of 2π.)
The ﬁrst step is to rewrite the denominator q
1
q
n
of (1.37) in the
form of an integration over the topological simplex σ
n
as in (1.51), in terms
of the Feynman parameters t = (t
1
, . . . , t
n
) ∈ σ
n
.
In writing the integral (1.37) we have made a choice of an orientation
of the graph Γ, since the matrix
v,i
involved in writing the conservation
laws at vertices in (1.37) depends on the orientation given to the edges of
the graph. Now we also make a choice of a set of generators for the ﬁrst
homology group H
1
(Γ, Z), i.e. a choice of a maximal set of independent
loops in the graph, ¦l
1
, . . . , l
¦ with = b
1
(Γ) the ﬁrst Betti number.
We then deﬁne another matrix associated to the graph Γ, the circuit
matrix η = (η
ik
), with i ∈ E(Γ) and k = 1, . . . , ranging over the chosen
basis of loops, given by
η
ik
=
_
_
_
+1 if edge e
i
∈ loop l
k
, same orientation
−1 if edge e
i
∈ loop l
k
, reverse orientation
0 if edge e
i
/ ∈ loop l
k
.
(3.1)
There is a relation between the circuit matrix and the incidence matrix
of the graph, which is given as follows.
Lemma 3.1.1. The incidence matrix = (
v,i
) and the circuit matrix η =
(η
ik
) of a graph Γ satisfy the relation η = 0. This holds independently of
the choice of the orientation of the graph and the basis of H
1
(Γ, Z).
Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 55
Proof. The result follows from the observation that, independently of
the choices of orientations, for two given edges e
i
and e
j
in a loop l
k
, both
incident to a vertex v, one has
v,i
η
ik
= −
v,j
η
jk
so that one obtains
i
v,i
η
ik
= 0,
since
v,i
η
ik
,= 0 for only two edges in the loop l
k
, with diﬀerent signs, as
above; see ¸2.2 of [Nakanishi (1971)].
We then deﬁne the Kirchhoﬀ matrix of the graph, also known as the
Symanzik matrix.
Deﬁnition 3.1.2. The Kirchhoﬀ–Symanzik matrix M
Γ
(t) of the graph Γ
is the matrix given by
(M
Γ
(t))
kr
=
n
i=1
t
i
η
ik
η
ir
. (3.2)
Equivalently, it can be written as
M
Γ
(t) = η
†
Λ(t)η,
where † is the transpose and Λ(t) is the diagonal matrix with entries
(t
1
, . . . , t
n
). We think of M
Γ
as a function
M
Γ
: A
n
→A
2
, t = (t
1
, . . . , t
n
) → M
Γ
(t) = (M
Γ
(t))
kr
(3.3)
where A denotes the aﬃne line over a ﬁeld (here mostly C or R or Q).
Deﬁnition 3.1.3. The Kirchhoﬀ–Symanzik polynomial Ψ
Γ
(t) of the graph
Γ is deﬁned as
Ψ
Γ
(t) = det(M
Γ
(t)). (3.4)
Notice that, while the construction of the matrix M
Γ
(t) depends on the
choice of an orientation on the graph Γ and of a basis of H
1
(Γ, Z), the graph
polynomial is independent of these choices.
Lemma 3.1.4. The Kirchhoﬀ–Symanzik polynomial Ψ
Γ
(t) is independent
of the choice of edge orientation and of the choice of generators for
H
1
(Γ, Z).
56 Feynman Motives
Proof. A change of orientation in a given edge results in a change of sign
in one of the columns of η = η
ik
. The change of sign in the corresponding
row of η
†
leaves the determinant of M
Γ
(t) = η
†
Λ(t)η unaﬀected. A change
of basis for H
1
(Γ, Z) changes M
Γ
(t) → AM
Γ
(t)A
−1
, where A ∈ GL
(Z) is
the matrix that gives the change of basis. The determinant is once again
unchanged.
We view it as a function Ψ
Γ
: A
n
→ A. We deﬁne the aﬃne graph
hypersurface
ˆ
X
Γ
to be the locus of zeros of the graph polynomial
ˆ
X
Γ
= ¦t ∈ A
n
[ Ψ
Γ
(t) = 0¦. (3.5)
The polynomial Ψ
Γ
is by construction a homogeneous polynomial of degree
= b
1
(Γ), hence we can view it as deﬁning a hypersurface in projective
space P
n−1
= (A
n
¦0¦)/G
m
,
X
Γ
= ¦t ∈ P
n−1
[ Ψ
Γ
(t) = 0¦, (3.6)
of which
ˆ
X
Γ
is the aﬃne cone
ˆ
X
Γ
= C(X
Γ
).
After rewriting the denominator of the integrand in (1.37) in terms of
an integration over σ
n
using the Feynman parameters, we want to replace
in the Feynman integral U(Γ, p
1
, . . . , p
N
) the variables k
i
associated to the
internal edges, and the integration in these variables, by variables x
r
asso
ciated to the independent loops in the graph and an integration only over
these variables, using the linear constraints at the vertices. We set
k
i
= u
i
+
r=1
η
ir
x
r
, (3.7)
with the constraint
n
i=1
t
i
u
i
η
ir
= 0, ∀r = 1, . . . , , (3.8)
that is, we require that the column vector Λ(t)u is orthogonal to the rows
of the circuit matrix η.
The momentum conservation conditions in the delta function in the
numerator of (1.37) give
n
i=1
v,i
k
i
+
N
j=1
v,j
p
j
= 0. (3.9)
Lemma 3.1.5. Using the change of variables (3.7) and the constraint (3.8)
one ﬁnds the conservation condition
n
i=1
v,i
u
i
+
N
j=1
v,j
p
j
= 0. (3.10)
Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 57
Proof. This follows immediately from the orthogonality relation between
the incidence matrix and circuit matrix of Lemma 3.1.1.
The two equations (3.8) and (3.10) constitute the Krichhoﬀ laws of cir
cuits applied to the ﬂow of momentum through the Feynman graph. In
particular they determine uniquely the u
i
= u
i
(p) as functions of the exter
nal momenta. We see the explicit form of the solution in Proposition 3.1.7
below. First we give a convenient reformulation of the graph polynomial.
The graph polynomial Ψ
Γ
(t) has a more explicit combinatorial descrip
tion in terms of the graph Γ, as follows.
Proposition 3.1.6. The Kirchhoﬀ–Symanzik polynomial Ψ
Γ
(t) of (3.4) is
given by
Ψ
Γ
(t) =
T⊂Γ
e/ ∈E(T)
t
e
, (3.11)
where the sum is over all the spanning trees T of the graph Γ and for each
spanning tree the product is over all edges of Γ that are not in that spanning
tree.
Proof. The polynomial Ψ
Γ
= det(M
Γ
(t)) can equivalently be described
as the polynomial (see [Itzykson and Zuber (2006)], ¸623 and [Nakanishi
(1971)] ¸1.32)
Ψ
Γ
(t) =
S
e∈S
t
e
, (3.12)
where S ranges over all the subsets S ⊂ E
int
(Γ) of = b
1
(Γ) internal edges
of Γ, such that the removal of all the edges in S leaves a connected graph.
This can be seen to be equivalent to the formulation (3.11) in terms of
spanning trees of the graph Γ (see [Nakanishi (1971)] ¸1.3). In fact, each
spanning tree has #V (Γ) − 1 edges and is the complement of a set S as
above.
In the case of graphs with several connected components, one deﬁnes
the Kirchhoﬀ–Symanzik polynomial as in (3.11), with the sum over span
ning forests, by which we mean here collections of a spanning tree in each
connected component. This polynomial is therefore multiplicative over con
nected components.
We then have the following description of the resulting term
i
t
i
u
2
i
after the change of variables (3.7). This will be useful in Theorem 3.1.9
below.
58 Feynman Motives
Proposition 3.1.7. The term
i
t
i
u
2
i
is of the form
i
t
i
u
2
i
= p
†
R
Γ
(t)p,
where R
Γ
(t) is an N N matrix, with N = #E
ext
(Γ) with
p
†
R
Γ
(t)p =
v,v
∈V (Γ)
P
v
(D
Γ
(t)
−1
)
v,v
P
v
,
with
(D
Γ
(t))
v,v
=
n
i=1
v,i
v
,i
t
−1
i
(3.13)
and
P
v
=
e∈E
ext
(Γ),t(e)=v
p
e
. (3.14)
Proof. We give a quick sketch of the argument and we refer the reader
to [Nakanishi (1971)] and [Itzykson and Zuber (2006)], ¸623 for more
details. The result is a consequence of the fact that the u
i
, as functions
of the external momenta p = (p
j
), are determined by the Kirchhoﬀ law
(3.10). Thus, there is a matrix A
i,v
such that −
v
A
i,v
P
v
= t
i
u
i
, hence
i
t
i
u
2
i
=
i
v,v
P
v
P
v
A
i,v
A
i,v
t
−1
i
. The constraints on the u
i
given by
the Kirchhoﬀ laws also show that A
i,v
=
i,v
so that one obtains the matrix
D
Γ
(t) as in (3.13).
We set
V
Γ
(t, p) = p
†
R
Γ
(t)p +m
2
. (3.15)
In the massless case (m = 0), we will see below that this is a ratio of two
homogeneous polynomials in t,
V
Γ
(t, p)[
m=0
=
P
Γ
(t, p)
Ψ
Γ
(t, p)
, (3.16)
of which the denominator is the graph polynomial (3.4) and P
Γ
(t, p) is a
homogeneous polynomial of degree b
1
(Γ) +1. We have the following result;
see [Itzykson and Zuber (2006)], ¸623.
Proposition 3.1.8. The function V
Γ
(t, p) satisﬁes (3.16) in the massless
case, with the polynomial P
Γ
(t, p) of the form
P
Γ
(t, p) =
C⊂Γ
s
C
e∈C
t
e
, (3.17)
where the sum is over the cutsets C ⊂ Γ, i.e. the collections of b
1
(Γ) + 1
edges that divide the graph Γ into exactly two connected components Γ
1
∪Γ
2
.
Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 59
The coeﬃcient s
C
is a function of the external momenta attached to the
vertices in either one of the two components,
s
C
=
_
_
v∈V (Γ
1
)
P
v
_
_
2
=
_
_
v∈V (Γ
2
)
P
v
_
_
2
, (3.18)
where the P
v
are deﬁned as in (3.14), as the sum of the incoming external
momenta.
Proof. We give a brief sketch of the argument and refer the reader to the
more detailed treatment in [Nakanishi (1971)]. The matrix D
Γ
(t) of (3.13)
has determinant
det(D
Γ
(t)) =
T
e∈T
t
−1
e
,
where T ranges over the spanning trees of the graph Γ. This is related to
the polynomial Ψ
Γ
(t) by
Ψ
Γ
(t) = (
e
t
e
) det(D
Γ
(t)) =
T
e/ ∈T
t
e
.
Thus, for m = 0, the function (3.15) becomes
p
†
R
Γ
(t)p =
v,v
∈V (Γ)
P
v
(D
Γ
(t)
−1
)
v,v
P
v
=
1
Ψ
Γ
(t)
C⊂Γ
s
C
e∈C
t
e
.
We can now rewrite the Feynman integral in its parametric form as
follows; see [Bjorken and Drell (1964)] ¸8 and [Bjorken and Drell (1965)]
¸18.
Theorem 3.1.9. Up to a multiplicative constant C
n,
,the Feynman integral
U(Γ, p
1
, . . . , p
N
) can be equivalently written in the form
U(Γ, p
1
, . . . , p
N
) =
Γ(n −
D
2
)
(4π)
D/2
_
σ
n
ω
n
Ψ
Γ
(t)
D/2
V
Γ
(t, p)
n−D/2
, (3.19)
where ω
n
is the volume form on the simplex σ
n
.
Proof. We ﬁrst show that we have
_
d
D
x
1
d
D
x
(
n
i=0
t
i
q
i
)
n
= C
,n
det(M
Γ
(t))
−D/2
(
n
i=0
t
i
(u
2
i
+m
2
))
−n+D/2
, (3.20)
60 Feynman Motives
where u
i
= u
i
(p) as above. In fact, after the change of variables (3.7), the
left hand side of (3.20) reads
_
d
D
x
1
d
D
x
(
n
i=0
t
i
(u
2
i
+m
2
) +
k,r
(M
Γ
)
kr
x
k
x
r
)
n
.
The integral can then be reduced by a further change of variables that
diagonalizes the matrix M
Γ
to an integral of the form
_
d
D
y
1
d
D
y
(a +
k
λ
k
y
2
k
)
n
= C
,n
a
−n+D/2
k=1
λ
−D/2
k
,
with
C
,n
=
_
d
D
x
1
d
D
x
(1 +
k
x
2
k
)
n
.
We then write det M
Γ
(t) = Ψ
Γ
(t) and we use the expression of Proposition
3.1.7 to express the term (
i
t
i
(u
2
i
+m
2
))
−n+D/2
in terms of
i
t
i
(u
2
i
+m
2
) =
i
t
i
u
2
i
+m
2
= V
Γ
(t, p),
with V
Γ
(t, p) as in (3.15).
In the massless case, using the expression (3.16) of V
Γ
(t, p) in terms
of the polynomials P
Γ
(t, p) and Ψ
Γ
(t), one writes equivalently the integral
U(Γ, p) as
U(Γ, p
1
, . . . , p
N
) =
Γ(n −
D
2
)
(4π)
D/2
_
σ
n
P
Γ
(t, p)
−n+D/2
ω
n
Ψ
Γ
(t)
−n+D(+1)/2
. (3.21)
Up to a divergent Gammafactor, one is interested in understanding the
motivic nature (i.e. the nature as a period) of the remaining integral
1(Γ, p
1
, . . . , p
N
) =
_
σ
n
P
Γ
(t, p)
−n+D/2
ω
n
Ψ
Γ
(t)
−n+D(+1)/2
. (3.22)
3.2 The graph hypersurfaces
We introduced above the projective hypersurfaces X
Γ
⊂ P
n−1
, with n =
#E
int
(Γ), and the corresponding aﬃne hypersurface
ˆ
X
Γ
⊂ A
n
.
We observe here that these hypersurfaces are in general singular and
with singular locus of positive dimension; see ¸3.5 below for more details.
The fact that we are dealing with singular hypersurfaces in projective spaces
Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 61
implies that, when we consider motives associated to these geometric ob
jects, we will necessarily be dealing with mixed motives.
We consider only the case where the spacetime dimension D of the
quantum ﬁeld theory is suﬃciently large. This means that we look at the
parametric Feynman integrals (3.19) in the stable range where
n ≤ D/2, (3.23)
for n = #E
int
(Γ) and = b
1
(Γ). In this range, the algebraic diﬀerential
form that is integrated in the parametric representation of the Feynman
integral only has singularities along the graph hypersurface X
Γ
, while the
polynomial P
Γ
(t, p) only appears in the numerator. This range covers, in
particular, the special case of the log divergent graphs. These are the graphs
with n = D/2, for which the integral (3.22) reduces to the simpler form
1(Γ, p
1
, . . . , p
N
) =
_
σ
n
ω
n
Ψ
Γ
(t)
D/2
. (3.24)
We will not discuss the unstable range of small D, though it is often of
signiﬁcant physical interest, because of additional diﬃculties in treating
the hypersurfaces deﬁned by the second graph polynomial P
Γ
(t, p) caused
by the additional dependence on the external momenta. We only make
some general considerations about this case in ¸3.3 below.
In terms of graph hypersurfaces, the Feynman integral with the con
dition (3.23) can be regarded (modulo the problem of divergences) as a
period obtained by integrating an algebraic diﬀerential form deﬁned on the
hypersurface complement P
n−1
X
Γ
over a domain given by the topolog
ical simplex σ
n
, whose boundary ∂σ
n
is contained in the normal crossings
divisor Σ
n
given by the algebraic simplex (the union of the coordinate hy
perplanes). Thus, the motivic nature of this period should be detected by
the mixed motive
m(P
n−1
X
Γ
, Σ
n
(Σ
n
∩ X
Γ
)), (3.25)
whose realization is the relative cohomology
H
n−1
(P
n−1
X
Γ
, Σ
n
(Σ
n
∩ X
Γ
)). (3.26)
A possible strategy to showing that the Feynman integrals evaluate to num
bers that are periods of mixed Tate motives would be to show that the
motive (3.25) is mixed Tate. This is one of the main themes that we are
going to develop in the rest of the book.
It is important to stress the fact that identifying the motivic nature of
the relative cohomology above would only suﬃce up to the important issue
62 Feynman Motives
of divergences. Divergences occur where the graph hypersurface X
Γ
meets
the domain of integration σ
n
. Notice that the intersections X
Γ
∩σ
n
can only
occur on the boundary ∂σ
n
. In fact, in the interior of σ
n
all the coordinates
t
e
are strictly positive real numbers, and the graph polynomial is then
also strictly positive, Ψ
Γ
(t) > 0, as can easily be seen by the expression
(3.11). Thus, we have X
Γ
∩σ
n
⊂ X
Γ
∩Σ
n
. These intersections are usually
nonempty, so that some method of regularization needs to be introduced
to remove the corresponding divergences in the integral, before one can
identify the integration
_
σ
n
P
Γ
(t, p)
−n+D/2
ω
n
Ψ
Γ
(t)
−n+D(+1)/2
(3.27)
with a period of the motive (3.25). The regularization method proposed
in [Bloch, Esnault, Kreimer (2006)] consists of performing a number of
blowups of (strata of) the locus X
Γ
∩ Σ
n
, with the result of separating
the domain of integration and the hypersurface and therefore regularizing
the integral by replacing the original integration with one performed in the
blown up variety. This regularization procedure adds a further complication
to the problem of identifying the motivic nature of (3.25). Namely, one also
needs to know that the motive remains mixed Tate after the blowups. We
will return to this issue in more detail in ¸3.14 below, after we discuss the
approach of [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009a)].
We now discuss brieﬂy the diﬀerence between working with the aﬃne
or the projective hypersurfaces. While it is natural to work projectively
when one has equations deﬁned by homogeneous polynomials, there are
various reasons why the aﬃne context appears to be more natural in this
case. In particular, we argue as in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2008b)] that the
multiplicative property of the Feynman rules is more naturally reﬂected by
a corresponding multiplicative property of the aﬃne hypersurface comple
ments, which in the projective case is replaced by the more complicated
join operation.
As we saw in ¸1.3, the Feynman rules are multiplicative over disjoint
unions of graphs, namely
U(Γ, p) = U(Γ
1
, p
1
) U(Γ
k
, p
k
), (3.28)
for Γ = Γ
1
∪ ∪ Γ
k
a disjoint union of graphs with N
j
= #E
ext
(Γ
j
)
external edges, with external momenta
p = (p
1
, . . . , p
k
), with p
j
= (p
j,1
, . . . , p
j,N
j
).
The other “multiplicative” property that the Feynman rules satisfy is the
one we discussed in the ﬁrst chapter, which allows one to determine the
Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 63
Feynman integrals of non1PI graphs using the integrals for 1PI graphs. In
fact, upon representing an arbitrary (ﬁnite) graph as a tree T with vertices
v ∈ V (T) replaced by 1PI graphs Γ
v
with a number of external edges
#E
ext
(Γ
v
) = val(v) equal to the valence of the vertex, one obtains the
expression for the Feynman integral of the resulting graph Γ as
V (Γ, p) =
v∈V (T),e∈E
int
(T),v∈∂(e)
V (Γ
v
, p
v
)q
e
(p
v
)
−1
δ((p
v
)
e
−(p
v
)
e
), (3.29)
where, as in (1.35) we write
V (Γ, p
1
, . . . , p
N
) = ε(p
1
, . . . , p
N
) U(Γ, p
1
, . . . , p
N
),
with ε(p
1
, . . . , p
N
) =
e∈E
ext
(Γ)
q
e
(p
e
)
−1
.
In the particular case of a massive theory m ,= 0 where one sets all the
external momenta equal to zero, this becomes an actual product
U(Γ, p)[
p=0
= U(e, p
e
)[
#E
int
(T)
p
e
=0
v∈V (T)
U(Γ
v
, p
v
)[
p
v
=0
, (3.30)
where in this case the edge propagator U(e, p
e
)[
p
e
=0
= m
−2
is just a con
stant depending on the mass parameter m ,= 0.
One can then, following [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2008b)], deﬁne an abstract
Feynman rule in the following way.
Deﬁnition 3.2.1. An abstract Feynman rule is an assignment of an el
ement U(Γ) in a commutative ring ¹ for each ﬁnite graph Γ, with the
property that, for a disjoint union Γ = Γ
1
∪ ∪ Γ
k
this satisﬁes the mul
tiplicative property
U(Γ) = U(Γ
1
) U(Γ
k
) (3.31)
and for a non1PI graph obtained by inserting 1PI graphs Γ
v
at the vertices
of a tree T it satisﬁes
U(Γ) = U(L)
#E
int
(T)
v∈V (T)
U(Γ
v
). (3.32)
A ﬁrst diﬀerence one encounters between the projective graph hypersur
faces X
Γ
and the aﬃne
ˆ
X
Γ
, which is directly relevant to the quantum ﬁeld
theory setting, is the fact that the aﬃne hypersurface complements behave
multiplicatively as abstract Feynman rules are expected to do, while the
projective hypersurface complements do not. More precisely, we have the
following result from [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2008b)].
Lemma 3.2.2. Let Γ = Γ
1
∪ ∪ Γ
k
be a disjoint union of ﬁnite graphs.
Then the aﬃne hypersurface complements satisfy
A
n
ˆ
X
Γ
= (A
n
1
ˆ
X
Γ
1
) (A
n
k
ˆ
X
Γ
k
), (3.33)
where n
i
= #E
int
(Γ
i
).
64 Feynman Motives
Proof. Using the deﬁnition of the graph polynomials in terms of the
determinant Ψ
Γ
(t) = det /
Γ
(t) of the Kirchhoﬀ matrix of the graph, one
sees easily that if Γ = Γ
1
∪ ∪ Γ
k
is a disjoint union, then one has
Ψ
Γ
(t) =
k
i=1
Ψ
Γ
1
(t
i,1
, . . . , t
i,n
i
),
where t = (t
e
) = (t
i,j
)
i=1,...,k,j=1,...,n
i
are the edge variables of the internal
edges of Γ. This means that the aﬃne hypersurface
ˆ
X
Γ
is a union
ˆ
X
Γ
=
k
_
i=1
(A
n
1
A
n
i−1
ˆ
X
Γ
i
A
n
i+1
A
n
k
),
which implies that the hypersurface complement is then given by the prod
uct (3.33).
The situation with the projective hypersurfaces is more complicated.
Instead of getting directly a product of the complements one gets a
torus bundle. For instance, suppose given a disjoint union of two graphs
Γ = Γ
1
∪ Γ
2
and assume, moreover, that neither graph is a forest (the
assumption is not necessary in the aﬃne case). Then the projective hy
persurface complement P
n
1
+n
2
−1
X
Γ
is a G
m
bundle over the product
(P
n
1
−1
X
Γ
1
) (P
n
2
−1
X
Γ
2
). To see this, observe that in this case the
projective hypersurface X
Γ
is a union of cones C
n
2
(X
Γ
1
) and C
n
1
(X
Γ
2
) in
P
n
1
+n
2
−1
, respectively over X
Γ
1
and X
Γ
2
with vertices P
n
2
−1
and P
n
1
−1
,
respectively. The hypothesis that neither graph is a forest ensures that
there is a regular map
P
n
1
+n
2
−1
X
Γ
→ (P
n
1
−1
X
Γ
1
) (P
n
2
−1
X
Γ
2
) (3.34)
given by
(t
1,1
: : t
1,n
1
: t
2,1
: : t
2,n
2
) → ((t
1,1
: : t
1,n
1
), (t
2,1
: : t
2,n
2
)),
(3.35)
while if either Γ
i
happened to be a forest, the corresponding X
Γ
i
would be
empty, and the map (3.35) would not be deﬁned everywhere. Under the
assumption that neither Γ
i
is a forest, the map (3.34) is surjective and the
ﬁber over a point ((t
1,1
: : t
1,n
1
), (t
2,1
: : t
2,n
2
)) is a copy of the
multiplicative group G
m
given by all the points of the form
(ut
1,1
: : ut
1,n
1
: vt
2,1
: : vt
2,n
2
), with (u : v) ∈ P
1
, uv ,= 0.
Equivalently, notice that if Γ is not a forest, then there is a regular map
A
n
ˆ
X
Γ
→P
n−1
X
Γ
,
and (3.34) is then induced by the isomorphism in (3.33). This is no longer
the case if Γ is a forest.
Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 65
3.3 Landau varieties
For simplicity we restrict here everywhere to the case where the diﬀerential
form in the parametric Feynman integral has singularities only along the
graph hypersurface
ˆ
X
Γ
deﬁned by the vanishing of the graph polynomial
Ψ
Γ
(t). This is certainly the case within what we referred to as the “sta
ble range”, i.e. for D (considered as a variable) suﬃciently large so that
n ≤ D/2. This, however, is typically not the range of physical interest for
theories where D = 4 and the number of loops and internal edges violates
the above inequality. Away from this stable range, the second graph poly
nomial P
Γ
(t, p) also appears in the denominator, and the diﬀerential form
of the parametric Feynman integral is then deﬁned on the complement of
the hypersurface (family of hypersurfaces)
ˆ
Y
Γ
(p) = ¦t ∈ A
n
[ P
Γ
(t, p) = 0¦ (3.36)
or in projective space, since P
Γ
(, p) is homogeneous of degree b
1
(Γ) +1, on
the complement of
Y
Γ
(p) = ¦t ∈ P
n−1
[ P
Γ
(t, p) = 0¦, (3.37)
or else on the complement of the union of hypersurfaces
ˆ
Y
Γ
(p) ∪
ˆ
X
Γ
, again
depending on the values of n, and D.
We only discuss here the case where −n + D/2 ≥ 0, though some of
the same arguments extend to the other case as in [Marcolli (2008)]. The
hypersurfaces
ˆ
Y
Γ
(p) deﬁned by the vanishing of P
Γ
(p, t), for a ﬁxed value of
the external momenta p, are sometimes referred to as the Landau varieties.
The general type of arguments described above using the graph hypersur
faces
ˆ
X
Γ
should then be adapted to the case of the Landau varieties. In
such cases, however, the situation is more complicated because of the ex
plicit dependence on the additional parameters p. In particular, some of
the divergences of the integral, coming from the intersection of the hyper
surface Y
Γ
(p) with the domain of integration σ
n
, can occur in the interior
of the domain, not only on its boundary as in the case of X
Γ
; see [Bjorken
and Drell (1965)], ¸18.
For simplicity, it is also convenient to make the following assumption on
the polynomials P
Γ
(t, p) and Ψ
Γ
, so that we avoid cancellations of common
factors.
Deﬁnition 3.3.1. A 1PI graph Γ satisﬁes the generic condition on the
external momenta if, for p in a dense open set in the space of external
momenta, the polynomials P
Γ
(t, p) and Ψ
Γ
(t) have no common factor.
66 Feynman Motives
Recall that P
Γ
(t, p) is deﬁned in terms of external momenta and cut
sets through the functions P
v
and s
C
as in Proposition 3.1.8. In terms of
spanning trees, one has
P
Γ
(t, p) =
T
e
∈T
s
T,e
t
e
e∈T
c
t
e
, (3.38)
where s
T,e
= s
C
for the cutset C = T
c
∪ ¦e
¦.
The parameterizing space of the external momenta is the hyperplane in
the aﬃne space A
D·#E
ext
(Γ)
obtained by imposing the conservation law
e∈E
ext
(Γ)
p
e
= 0. (3.39)
Thus, the simplest possible conﬁguration of external momenta is the
one where one puts all the external momenta to zero, except for a pair
p
e
1
= p = −p
e
2
associated to a choice of a pair of external edges ¦e
1
, e
2
¦ ⊂
E
ext
(Γ). Let v
i
be the unique vertex attached to the external edge e
i
of
the chosen pair. We then have, in this case, P
v
1
= p = −P
v
2
. Upon writing
the polynomial P
Γ
(t, p) in the form (3.38), we obtain in this case
P
Γ
(p, t) = p
2
T
(
e
∈T
v
1
,v
2
t
e
)
e/ ∈T
t
e
, (3.40)
where T
v
1
,v
2
⊂ T is the unique path in T without backtrackings connecting
the vertices v
1
and v
2
. We use as in (3.18)
s
C
=
_
_
v∈V (Γ
1
)
P
v
_
_
2
=
_
_
v∈V (Γ
2
)
P
v
_
_
2
to get s
C
= p
2
for all the nonzero terms in this (3.40). These are all the
terms that correspond to cut sets C such that the vertices v
1
and v
2
belong
to diﬀerent components. These cut sets consist of the complement of a
spanning tree T and an edge of T
v
1
,v
2
. Consider for simplicity the case
where the polynomial Ψ
Γ
is irreducible. If we denote the linear functions
of (3.40) by
L
T
(t) = p
2
e∈T
v
1
,v
2
t
e
, (3.41)
we see that, if the polynomial Ψ
Γ
(t) divides (3.40), one would have
P
Γ
(p, t) = Ψ
Γ
(t) L(t),
for a degree one polynomial L(t), and this would give
T
(L
T
(t) −L(t))
e/ ∈T
t
e
≡ 0,
Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 67
for all t. One then sees, for example, that the 1PI condition on the graph
Γ is necessary in order to have the condition of Deﬁnition 3.3.1. In fact,
for a graph that is not 1PI, one may be able to ﬁnd vertices and momenta
as above such that the degree one polynomials L
T
(t) are all equal to the
same L(t). Generally, the validity of the condition of Deﬁnition 3.3.1 can
be checked algorithmically to be satisﬁed for large classes of 1PI graphs,
though a complete combinatorial characterization of the graphs satisfying
these properties does not appear to be known.
3.4 Integrals in aﬃne and projective spaces
As we have seen above, the homogeneous graph polynomial Ψ
Γ
deﬁnes
either a projective hypersurface X
Γ
⊂ P
n−1
, with n = #E
int
(Γ), or an
aﬃne hypersurface
ˆ
X
Γ
⊂ A
n
, the aﬃne cone over X
Γ
. Thus, assuming
we are in the stable range of suﬃciently high D where −n +D/2 ≥ 0, for
= b
1
(Γ) the number of loops, one can regard the Feynman integral U(Γ, p)
as computed over the aﬃne hypersurface complement A
n
ˆ
X
Γ
, but one can
also reformulate it in terms of the projective hypersurface complement.
In order then to reformulate in projective space P
n−1
integrals originally
deﬁned in aﬃne space A
n
, we ﬁrst recall some basic facts about diﬀerential
forms on aﬃne and projective spaces and their relation, following mostly
[Dimca (1992)], see also [Gelfand, Gindikin, and Graev (1980)].
The projective analog of the volume form
ω
n
= dt
1
∧ ∧ dt
n
is given by the form
Ω =
n
i=1
(−1)
i+1
t
i
dt
1
∧ ∧
´
dt
i
∧ ∧ dt
n
. (3.42)
The relation between the volume form dt
1
∧ ∧dt
n
and the homogeneous
form Ω of degree n of (3.42) is given by
Ω = ∆(ω
n
), (3.43)
where ∆ : Ω
k
→ Ω
k−1
is the operator of contraction with the Euler vector
ﬁeld
E =
i
t
i
∂
∂t
i
, (3.44)
∆(ω)(v
1
, . . . , v
k−1
) = ω(E, v
1
, . . . , v
k−1
). (3.45)
68 Feynman Motives
Let ¹ = C[t
1
, . . . , t
n
] be the ring of polynomials of A
n
. Let ¹
m
denote
the subset of homogeneous polynomials of degree m. Similarly, let Ω
k
denote the ¹module of kforms on A
n
and let Ω
k
m
denote the subset of
kforms that are homogeneous of degree m.
Let f be a homogeneous polynomial function f : A
n
→ A of de
gree deg(f). Let π : A
n
¦0¦ → P
n−1
be the standard projection t =
(t
1
, . . . , t
n
) → π(t) = (t
1
: : t
n
). We denote by
ˆ
X
f
= ¦t ∈ A
n
[ f(t) = 0¦
the aﬃne hypersurface and by X
f
= ¦π(t) ∈ P
n−1
[ f(t) = 0¦ the projective
hypersurface, and by
ˆ
T(f) = A
n
ˆ
X
f
and T(f) = P
n−1
X
f
the hyper
surface complements. With the notation introduced above, we can always
write a form ω ∈ Ω
k
(T(f)) as
ω =
η
f
m
, with η ∈ Ω
k
mdeg(f)
. (3.46)
We then have the following characterization of the pullback along π :
ˆ
T(f) → T(f) of forms on T(f).
Proposition 3.4.1. (see [Dimca (1992)], p.180 and [Dolgachev (1982)])
Given ω ∈ Ω
k
(T(f)), the pullback π
∗
(ω) ∈ Ω
k
(
ˆ
T(f)) is characterized by
the properties of being invariant under the G
m
action on A
n
¦0¦ and of
satisfying ∆(π
∗
(ω)) = 0, where ∆ is the contraction (3.45) with the Euler
vector ﬁeld E of (3.44).
Thus, since the sequence
0 → Ω
n
∆
→ Ω
n−1
∆
→
∆
→ Ω
1
∆
→ Ω
0
→ 0
is exact at all but the last term, one can write
π
∗
(ω) =
∆(η)
f
m
, with η ∈ Ω
k
mdeg(f)
. (3.47)
In particular, any (n −1)form on T(f) ⊂ P
n−1
can be written as
hΩ
f
m
, with h ∈ ¹
mdeg(f)−n
(3.48)
and with Ω = ∆(dt
1
∧ ∧ dt
n
) the (n − 1)form (3.42), homogeneous of
degree n.
We then obtain the following result formulating integrals in aﬃne spaces
in terms of integrals of pullbacks of forms from projective spaces.
Proposition 3.4.2. Let ω ∈ Ω
k
mdeg(f)
be a closed kform, which is ho
mogeneous of degree mdeg(f), and consider the form ω/f
m
on A
n
. Let
Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 69
σ ⊂ A
n
¦0¦ be a kdimensional domain with boundary ∂σ ,= ∅. Then the
integration of ω/f
m
over σ satisﬁes
mdeg(f)
_
σ
ω
f
m
=
_
∂σ
∆(ω)
f
m
+
_
σ
df ∧
∆(ω)
f
m+1
. (3.49)
Proof. Recall that we have ([Dimca (1992)], [Dolgachev (1982)])
d
_
∆(ω)
f
m
_
= −
∆(d
f
ω)
f
m+1
, (3.50)
where, for a form ω that is homogeneous of degree mdeg(f),
d
f
ω = f dω −mdf ∧ ω. (3.51)
Thus, we have
d
_
∆(ω)
f
m
_
= −
∆(dω)
f
m
+m
∆(df ∧ ω)
f
m+1
. (3.52)
Since the form ω is closed, dω = 0, and we have
∆(df ∧ ω) = deg(f) f ω −df ∧ ∆(ω), (3.53)
we obtain from the above
d
_
∆(ω)
f
m
_
= mdeg(f)
ω
f
m
−
df ∧ ∆(ω)
f
m+1
. (3.54)
By Stokes’ theorem we have
_
∂σ
∆(ω)
f
m
=
_
σ
d
_
∆(ω)
f
m
_
.
Using (3.54) this gives
_
∂σ
∆(ω)
f
m
= mdeg(f)
_
σ
ω
f
m
−
_
σ
df ∧ ∆(ω)
f
m+1
.
which gives (3.49).
In the range −n + D( + 1)/2 ≥ 0 we consider the Feynman integral
U(Γ, p) as deﬁned on the aﬃne hypersurface complement A
n
ˆ
X
Γ
and we
use the result above to reformulate the parametric Feynman integrals in
terms of integrals of forms that are pullbacks to A
n
¦0¦ of forms on a
hypersurface complement in P
n−1
. For simplicity, we remove here the diver
gent Γfactor from the parametric Feynman integral and we concentrate on
the residue given by the integration over the simplex σ as in (3.55) below.
70 Feynman Motives
Proposition 3.4.3. Under the generic condition on the external momenta,
and assuming that −n +D/2 ≥ 0, the parametric Feynman integral
U(Γ, p) =
_
σ
V
−n+D/2
Γ
ω
n
Ψ
D/2
Γ
, (3.55)
with V
Γ
(t, p) = P
Γ
(t, p)/Ψ
Γ
(t, p), can be computed as
U(Γ, p) =
1
C(n, D, )
__
∂σ
π
∗
(η) +
_
σ
df ∧
π
∗
(η)
f
_
, (3.56)
where π : A
n
¦0¦ → P
n−1
is the projection and η is the form on the
hypersurface complement T(f) in P
n−1
with
π
∗
(η) =
∆(ω)
f
m
, (3.57)
on A
n
, where f = Ψ
Γ
and m = −n+D(+1)/2, and ω = P
Γ
(t, p)
−n+D/2
ω
n
with ω
n
= dt
1
∧ ∧dt
n
the volume form on A
n
. The coeﬃcient C(n, D, )
in (3.56) is given by
C(n, D, ) = (−n +D( + 1)/2). (3.58)
Proof. Consider on A
n
the form given by ∆(ω)/f
m
, with f, m, and ω
as above. We assume the condition of Deﬁnition 3.3.1, i.e. for a generic
choice of the external momenta the polynomials P
Γ
and Ψ
Γ
have no common
factor. First notice that, since the polynomial Ψ
Γ
is homogeneous of degree
and P
Γ
is homogeneous of degree +1, the form ∆(ω)/f
m
is G
m
invariant
on A
n
¦0¦. Moreover, since it is of the form α = ∆(ω)/f
m
, it also
satisﬁes ∆(α) = 0, hence it is the pullback of a form η on T(f) ⊂ P
n−1
.
Also notice that the domain of integration σ ⊂ A
n
, given by the simplex
σ = σ
n
= ¦
i
t
i
= 1, t
i
≥ 0¦, is contained in a fundamental domain of the
action of the multiplicative group C
∗
on C
n
¦0¦.
Applying the result of Proposition 3.4.2 above, we obtain
_
σ
P
Γ
(t, p)
−n+D/2
dt
1
∧ ∧ dt
n
Ψ
−n+D(+1)/2
Γ
=
_
σ
ω
f
m
=
1
mdeg(f)
(
_
∂σ
∆(ω)
f
m
+
_
σ
df ∧
∆(ω)
f
m+1
)
= C(n, D, )
−1
__
∂σ
P
Γ
(t, p)
a
∆(ω
n
)
Ψ
m
Γ
+
_
σ
df ∧
P
Γ
(t, p)
a
∆(ω
n
)
Ψ
m+1
Γ
_
,
with a = −n +D/2 and m = −n +D( +1)/2. The coeﬃcient C(n, D, )
is given by C(n, D, ) = mdeg(f), with m and f as above, hence it is given
by (3.58).
Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 71
3.5 Nonisolated singularities
The graph hypersurfaces X
Γ
⊂ P
n−1
deﬁned by the vanishing of the poly
nomial Ψ
Γ
(t) = det(M
Γ
(t)) usually have nonisolated singularities. This
can easily be seen by the following observation.
Lemma 3.5.1. Let Γ be a graph with deg Ψ
Γ
> 2. The singular locus of
X
Γ
is given by the intersection of cones over the hypersurfaces X
Γ
e
, for
e ∈ E(Γ), where Γ
e
is the graph obtained by removing the edge e of Γ. The
cones C(X
Γ
e
) do not intersect transversely.
Proof. First observe that, since X
Γ
is deﬁned by a homogeneous equation
Ψ
Γ
(t) = 0, with Ψ
Γ
a polynomial of degree m, the Euler formula mΨ
Γ
(t) =
e
t
e
∂
∂t
e
Ψ
Γ
(t) implies that ∩
e
Z(∂
e
Ψ
Γ
) ⊂ X
Γ
, where Z(∂
e
Ψ
Γ
) is the zero
locus of the t
e
derivative. Thus, the singular locus of X
Γ
is just given by the
equations ∂
e
Ψ
Γ
= 0. The variables t
e
appear in the polynomial Ψ
Γ
(t) only
with degree zero or one, hence the polynomial ∂
e
Ψ
Γ
consists of only those
monomials of Ψ
Γ
that contain the variable t
e
, where one sets t
e
= 1. The
resulting polynomial is therefore of the form Ψ
Γ
e
, where Γ
e
is the graph
obtained from Γ by removing the edge e. In fact, one can see in terms of
spanning trees that, if T is a spanning tree containing the edge e, then T e
is no longer a spanning tree of Γ
e
, so the corresponding terms disappear
in passing from Ψ
Γ
to Ψ
Γ
e
, while if T is a spanning tree of Γ which does
not contain e, then T is still a spanning tree of Γ
e
and the corresponding
monomial m
T
of Ψ
Γ
e
is the same as the monomial m
T
in Ψ
Γ
without the
variable t
e
. Thus, the zero locus Z(Ψ
Γ
e
) ⊂ P
n−1
is a cone C(X
Γ
e
) over
the graph hypersurface X
Γ
e
⊂ P
n−2
with vertex at the coordinate point
v
e
= (0, . . . , 0, 1, 0, . . . 0) with t
e
= 1. To see that these cones do not
intersect transversely, notice that, in the case where deg Ψ
Γ
> 2, given any
two C(X
Γ
e
) and C(X
Γ
e
), the vertex of one cone is contained in the graph
hypersurface spanning the other cone.
In fact, the hypersurfaces X
Γ
tend to have singularity loci of low codi
mension. As we observe again later, this has important consequences from
the motivic viewpoint. Moreover, it makes it especially useful to adopt
methods from singularity theory to study these hypersurfaces. For exam
ple, we are going to see in the following sections how characteristic classes
of singular varieties can be employed in this context. These provide a way
of measuring how singular a hypersurface is, as we discuss more in detail
in ¸3.9 below. Ongoing work [Bergbauer and Rej (2009)] gives an analysis
72 Feynman Motives
of the singular locus of the graph hypersurfaces using a formula for the
Kirchhoﬀ polynomials Ψ
Γ
under insertion of subgraphs at vertices.
3.6 Cremona transformation and dual graphs
A useful tool to study the algebraic geometry of the projective graph hy
persurfaces X
Γ
is the Cremona transformation, which for planar graphs
relates the hypersurface of a graph with that of its dual. This was pointed
out in [Bloch (2007)] and we illustrate the principle here in the particular
completely explicit case of the “banana graphs” computed in [Aluﬃ and
Marcolli (2008a)]. Even for graphs that are nonplanar, one can still use
the image of the graph hypersurface under the Cremona transformation
to derive useful information on its motivic nature, as shown in the recent
results of [Bloch (2008)]. We follow [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2008a)].
Deﬁnition 3.6.1. The standard Cremona transformation of P
n−1
is the
map
( : (t
1
: : t
n
) →
_
1
t
1
: :
1
t
n
_
. (3.59)
Let ((() denote the closure of the graph of (. Then ((() is a subvariety
of P
n−1
P
n−1
with projections
((()
π
1
π
2
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
P
n−1
C
// _ _ _ _ _ _
P
n−1
(3.60)
We introduce the following notation. Let o
n
⊂ P
n−1
be deﬁned by the
ideal
1
S
n
= (t
1
t
n−1
, t
1
t
n−2
t
n
, . . . , t
1
t
3
t
n
, t
2
t
n
). (3.61)
Also, let L be the hyperplane deﬁned by the equation
L = ¦(t
1
: : t
n
) ∈ P
n−1
[ t
1
+ +t
n
= 0¦. (3.62)
The Cremona transformation is a priori deﬁned only away from the
algebraic simplex of coordinate axes
Σ
n
:= ¦(t
1
: : t
n
) ∈ P
n−1
[
i
t
i
= 0¦ ⊂ P
n−1
, (3.63)
Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 73
though, as we now show, it is in fact well deﬁned also on the general point
of Σ
n
, its locus of indeterminacies being only the singularity subscheme o
n
of the algebraic simplex Σ
n
.
Lemma 3.6.2. Let (, (((), o
n
, and L be as above.
(1) The indeterminacy locus of ( is o
n
.
(2) π
1
: ((() →P
n−1
is the blowup along o
n
.
(3) L intersects every component of o
n
transversely.
(4) Σ
n
cuts out a divisor with simple normal crossings on L.
Proof. The components of the map deﬁning ( given in (3.59) can be
rewritten as
(t
1
: : t
n
) → (t
2
t
n
: t
1
t
3
t
n
: : t
1
t
n−1
). (3.64)
Using (3.64), the map π
1
: ((() → P
n
may be identiﬁed with the blowup
of P
n
along the subscheme o
n
deﬁned by the ideal 1
S
n
of (3.61) generated
by the partial derivatives of the equation of the algebraic simplex (i.e. the
singular locus of Σ
n
). The properties (3) and (4) then follow.
Properties (3) and (4) of the proposition above only play a role implicitly
in the proof of Proposition 3.7.1 below, so we leave here the details to the
reader.
An example where it is easier to visualize the eﬀect of the Cremona
transformation is the case where n = 3. In this case, one can view the
algebraic simplex Σ
3
in the projective plane P
2
as a union of three lines,
each two intersecting in a point. These three points, the zerodimensional
strata of Σ
3
, are blown up in ((() and each replaced by a line. The proper
transforms of the 1dimensional components of Σ
3
are then blown down by
the other map π
2
of (3.60), so that the resulting image is again a triangle
of three lines in P
2
. The Cremona transformation (the horizontal rational
map in the diagram (3.60)) is an isomorphism of the complements of the
two triangles.
74 Feynman Motives
The dual graph Γ
∨
of a planar graph Γ is deﬁned by choosing an em
bedding ι : Γ → S
2
in the sphere and then taking as vertices v ∈ V (Γ
∨
) a
point in each connected component of S
2
ι(Γ),
#V (Γ
∨
) = b
0
(S
2
ι(Γ)), (3.65)
and edges E(Γ
∨
) given by adding an edge between two vertices v, w ∈
V (Γ
∨
) for each edge of Γ that is in the boundary between the regions of
S
2
ι(Γ) containing the points v and w. Thus, the dual graph has
#E(Γ
∨
) = #E(Γ). (3.66)
Notice that it is somewhat misleading to talk about the dual graph Γ
∨
,
since in fact this depends not only on Γ itself, but also on the choice of the
embedding ι : Γ → S
2
. One can give examples of diﬀerent embeddings ι
1
,
ι
2
of the same graph Γ, for which the corresponding dual graphs Γ
∨
1
and
Γ
∨
2
are topologically inequivalent, as the following ﬁgure shows.
Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 75
dual graph
dual graph
It was shown in [Bloch (2007)] that the Cremona transformation relates
the graph hypersurfaces of Γ and its dual Γ
∨
in the following way (see also
[Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2008a)]).
Lemma 3.6.3. Suppose given a planar graph Γ with #E(Γ) = n, with dual
graph Γ
∨
. Then the graph polynomials satisfy
Ψ
Γ
(t
1
, . . . , t
n
) = (
e∈E(Γ)
t
e
) Ψ
Γ
∨(t
−1
1
, . . . , t
−1
n
), (3.67)
hence the graph hypersurfaces are related by the Cremona transformation (
of (3.59),
((X
Γ
∩ (P
n−1
Σ
n
)) = X
Γ
∨ ∩ (P
n−1
Σ
n
). (3.68)
Proof. This follows from the combinatorial identity
Ψ
Γ
(t
1
, . . . , t
n
) =
T⊂Γ
e/ ∈E(T)
t
e
= (
e∈E(Γ)
t
e
)
T⊂Γ
e∈E(T)
t
−1
e
= (
e∈E(Γ)
t
e
)
T
⊂Γ
∨
e/ ∈E(T
)
t
−1
e
= (
e∈E(Γ)
t
e
)Ψ
Γ
∨(t
−1
1
, . . . , t
−1
n
).
The third equality uses the fact that #E(Γ) = #E(Γ
∨
) and #V (Γ
∨
) =
b
0
(S
2
Γ), so that deg Ψ
Γ
+deg Ψ
Γ
∨ = #E(Γ), and the fact that there is a
bijection between complements of spanning tree T in Γ and spanning trees
T
in Γ
∨
obtained by shrinking the edges of T in Γ and taking the dual graph
of the resulting connected graph. Written in the coordinates (s
1
: : s
n
)
of the target P
n−1
of the Cremona transformation, the identity (3.67) gives
Ψ
Γ
(t
1
, . . . , t
n
) = (
e∈E(Γ
∨
)
s
−1
e
)Ψ
Γ
∨(s
1
, . . . , s
n
)
from which (3.68) follows.
76 Feynman Motives
3.7 Classes in the Grothendieck ring
An example of an inﬁnite family of Feynman graphs for which the classes
in the Grothendieck ring K
0
(1) can be computed explicitly was considered
in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2008a)]. These are known as the banana graphs:
for n ≥ 2 the graph Γ
n
in this family has two vertices of valence n and n
parallel edges between them.
The banana graph Γ
n
has graph polynomial
Ψ
Γ
(t) = t
1
t
n
(
1
t
1
+ +
1
t
n
).
Thus, the parametric integral in this case is
_
σ
n
(t
1
t
n
)
(
D
2
−1)(n−1)−1
ω
n
Ψ
Γ
(t)
(
D
2
−1)n
,
up to an overall multiplicative factor proportional to the sum of external
momenta at a vertex.
We gave in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2008a)] an explicit formula for the class
in the Grothendieck ring of the graph hypersurfaces for the banana graphs.
This is given by the following result.
Proposition 3.7.1. The class in the Grothendieck ring of the hypersurface
X
Γ
n
of the nth banana graph is explicitly given by the formula
[X
Γ
n
] =
L
n
−1
L −1
−
(L −1)
n
−(−1)
n
L
−n(L −1)
n−2
. (3.69)
In particular, this formula shows that, in this example, the class [X
Γ
n
]
manifestly lies in the mixed Tate part Z[L] of the Grothendieck ring. We
sketch the proof here and refer the reader to [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2008a)]
for more details.
Proof. The formula (3.69) is proved using the method of Cremona trans
formation and dual graphs described above. In fact, one observes easily
Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 77
that, in the case of the banana graphs, the dual graph Γ
∨
n
is simply a poly
gon with n sides, and therefore the associated graph hypersurface X
Γ
∨
n
= L
is just a hyperplane in P
n−1
.
One then checks that the complement in this hyperplane of the algebraic
simplex has class
[L (L ∩ Σ
n
)] = [L] −[L ∩ Σ
n
] =
T
n−1
−(−1)
n−1
T + 1
where T = [G
m
] = [A
1
] − [A
0
] is the class of the multiplicative group.
Moreover, one ﬁnds that X
Γ
n
∩Σ
n
= o
n
, the scheme of singularities of Σ
n
.
The latter has class
[o
n
] = [Σ
n
] −nT
n−2
.
This then gives
[X
Γ
n
] = [X
Γ
n
∩ Σ
n
] + [X
Γ
n
(X
Γ
n
∩ Σ
n
)],
where one uses the Cremona transformation to identify
[X
Γ
n
] = [o
n
] + [L (L ∩ Σ
n
)].
In particular, since the class in the Grothendieck ring is a universal
Euler characteristic, this calculation also yields as a consequence the value
for the topological Euler characteristic of the (complex) variety X
Γ
n
(C),
which is of the form
χ(X
Γ
n
) = n + (−1)
n
,
for n ≥ 3, as one can see from the fact that the Euler characteristic is a ring
homomorphism from K
0
(1) to Z and that in (3.69) L = [A
1
] has Euler char
acteristic χ(A
1
) = 1. A diﬀerent computation of the Euler characteristic
χ(X
Γ
n
), based on the use of characteristic classes of singular varieties, is also
given in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2008a)] along with the more complicated ex
plicit computation of the Chern–Schwartz–MacPherson characteristic class
of the hypersurfaces X
Γ
n
.
More generally, the use of the Cremona transformation method can lead
to interesting results even in the case where the graphs are not necessarily
planar. In fact, one can still consider a dual hypersurface X
∨
Γ
obtained
as the image of X
Γ
under the Cremona transformation and still have an
isomorphism of X
Γ
and X
∨
Γ
away from the algebraic simplex Σ
n
,
X
Γ
(X
Γ
∩ Σ
n
)
C
· X
∨
Γ
(X
∨
Γ
∩ Σ
n
),
78 Feynman Motives
although in nonplanar cases X
∨
Γ
is no longer identiﬁed with the graph
hypersurface of a dual graph X
Γ
∨. By applying this method to the complete
graph Γ
N
on N vertices, Bloch proved in [Bloch (2008)] a very interesting
result showing that, although the individual hypersurfaces X
Γ
of Feynman
graphs are not always mixed Tate motives, if one sums the classes over
graphs with a ﬁxed number of vertices one obtains a class that is always in
the Tate part Z[L] of the Grothendieck ring. More precisely, it is shown in
[Bloch (2008)] that the class
S
N
=
#V (Γ)=N
[X
Γ
]
N!
#Aut(Γ)
,
where the sum is over all graphs with a ﬁxed number of vertices, is always in
Z[L]. This shows that there will be very interesting cancellations between
the classes [X
Γ
] at least for a suﬃciently large number of loops, where one
knows by the general result of [Belkale and Brosnan (2003a)] that non
mixedTate contributions will eventually appear.
This result ﬁts in well with the general fact that, in quantum ﬁeld
theory, individual Feynman graphs do not represent observable physical
processes and only sums over graphs (usually with ﬁxed external edges
and external momenta) can be physically meaningful. Although in the
more physical setting it would be natural to sum over graphs with a given
number of loops and with given external momenta, rather than over a
ﬁxed number of vertices, the result of [Bloch (2008)] suggests that a more
appropriate formulation of the conjecture on Feynman integrals and motives
should perhaps be given directly in terms that involve the full expansion of
perturbative quantum ﬁeld theory, with sums over graphs, rather than in
terms of individual graphs. This approach via families of graphs also ﬁts
in well with the treatment of gauge theories and Slavonov–Taylor identities
within the context of the Connes–Kreimer approach to renormalization via
Hopf algebras, as in [van Suijlekom (2007)], [van Suijlekom (2006)] and
also [Kreimer and van Suijlekom (2009)] in the setting of Dyson–Schwinger
equations.
3.8 Motivic Feynman rules
We have discussed above a deﬁnition of “abstract Feynman rules” based on
the multiplicative properties (3.31) and (3.32) that express the expectation
value of Feynman integrals associated to arbitrary Feynman graphs of a
Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 79
given scalar quantum ﬁeld theory ﬁrst in terms of connected graphs and
then in terms of 1PI graphs.
This more abstract deﬁnition of Feynman rules allows one to make sense
of algebrogeometric and motivic U(Γ), with the same formal properties as
the original Feynman integrals with respect to the combinatorics of graphs.
As we discuss later on in the book, this will be closely related to deﬁning
Feynman rules in terms of characters of the Connes–Kreimer Hopf algebra
of Feynman graphs and to the abstract form of the Birkhoﬀ factorization
that gives the renormalization procedure for Feynman integrals.
One can ﬁrst observe, as in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2008b)], that the hy
persurface complement A
n
ˆ
X
Γ
where the parametric Feynman integral is
computed behaves itself like a Feynman integral, in the sense that it satis
ﬁes the multiplicative properties (3.31) and (3.32). More precisely, we have
seen in Lemma 3.2.2 above that for a disjoint union of graphs Γ = Γ
1
∪ Γ
2
the hypersurface complement splits multiplicatively as
A
n
ˆ
X
Γ
= (A
n
1
ˆ
X
Γ
1
) (A
n
2
ˆ
X
Γ
2
).
Lemma 3.2.2 shows that the hypersurface complement A
n
ˆ
X
Γ
sat
isﬁes the multiplicative property (3.31), when we think of the Cartesian
product (A
n
1
ˆ
X
Γ
1
) (A
n
2
ˆ
X
Γ
2
) as deﬁning the product operation in a
suitable commutative ring. We will specify the ring more precisely below
as a reﬁnement of the Grothendieck ring of varieties, namely the ring of
immersed conical varieties introduced in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2008b)]. One
can similarly see that the second property of Feynman rules, the multiplica
tive property (3.32) reducing connected graphs to 1PI graphs and inverse
propagators, is also satisﬁed by the hypersurface complements.
Lemma 3.8.1. For a connected graph Γ that is obtained by inserting 1PI
graphs Γ
v
at the vertices of a ﬁnite tree T, the hypersurface complement
satisﬁes
A
n
ˆ
X
Γ
= A
#E(T)
v∈V (T)
(A
#E
int
(Γ
v
)
ˆ
X
Γ
v
). (3.70)
Proof. If Γ is a forest with n = #E(Γ), then A
n
ˆ
X
Γ
= A
n
. Also
notice that if Γ
1
and Γ
2
are graphs joined at a single vertex, then the same
argument given in Lemma 3.2.2 for the disjoint union still gives the desired
result. Thus, in the case of a connected graphs Γ obtained by inserting 1PI
graphs at vertices of a tree, these two observations combine to give
(A
n
1
ˆ
X
Γ
v
1
) (A
n
#V (T)
ˆ
X
Γ
v
#V (T)
) A
#E(T)
.
80 Feynman Motives
In the above, one can consider the hypersurface complements A
n
ˆ
X
Γ
modulo certain equivalence relations. For example, if these varieties are
considered up to isomorphism, and one imposes the inclusion–exclusion
relation [X] = [X Y ] +[Y ] for closed subvarieties Y ⊂ X, one can deﬁne
a Feynman rule with values in the Grothendieck ring of varieties
U(Γ) := [A
n
ˆ
X
Γ
] = [A
n
] −[
ˆ
X
Γ
] ∈ K
0
(1). (3.71)
This satisﬁes (3.31) and (3.32) as an immediate consequence of Lemma
3.2.2 and Lemma 3.8.1.
The relation between the classes in the Grothendieck ring of the aﬃne
and projective hypersurface complements is given by the formula
[A
n
ˆ
X
Γ
] = (L −1)[P
n−1
X
Γ
],
which expresses the fact that
ˆ
X
Γ
is the aﬃne cone over X
Γ
.
One can also impose a weaker equivalence relation, by identifying vari
eties not up to isomorphism, but only up to linear changes of coordinates
in an ambient aﬃne space. This leads to the following reﬁnement of the
Grothendieck ring of varieties ([Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2008b)]).
Deﬁnition 3.8.2. The ring of immersed conical varieties T
K
is generated
by classes [V ] of equivalence under linear coordinate changes of varieties
V ⊂ A
N
deﬁned by homogeneous ideals (hence the name “conical”) im
mersed in some arbitrarily large aﬃne space, with the inclusionexclusion
and product relations
[V ∪ W] = [V ] + [W] −[V ∩ W]
[V ] [W] = [V W].
By imposing equivalence under isomorphisms one falls back on the usual
Grothendieck ring K
0
(1).
Thus, one can deﬁne an ¹valued algebrogeometric Feynman rule, for
a given commutative ring ¹, as in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2008b)] in terms of
a ring homomorphism I : T → ¹ by setting
U(Γ) := I([A
n
]) −I([
ˆ
X
Γ
])
and by taking as value of the inverse propagator
U(L) = I([A
1
]).
This then satisﬁes both (3.31) and (3.32). The ring T is then the receptacle
of the universal algebrogeometric Feynman rule given by
U(Γ) = [A
n
ˆ
X
Γ
] ∈ T.
Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 81
A Feynman rule deﬁned in this way is motivic if the homomorphism I :
T → ¹ factors through the Grothendieck ring K
0
(1
K
). In this case the
inverse propagator is the Lefschetz motive (or the propagator is the Tate
motive).
The reason for working with T
K
instead is that it allowed us in [Aluﬃ
and Marcolli (2008b)] to construct invariants of the graph hypersurfaces
that behave like algebrogeometric Feynman rules and that measure to some
extent how singular these varieties are, and which do not factor through
the Grothendieck ring, since they contain speciﬁc information on how the
ˆ
X
Γ
are embedded in the ambient aﬃne space A
#E
int
(Γ)
.
3.9 Characteristic classes and Feynman rules
In the case of compact smooth varieties, the Chern classes of the tangent
bundle can be written as a class c(V ) = c(TV ) ∩ [V ] in homology whose
degree of the zero dimensional component satisﬁes the Poincar´e–Hopf theo
rem
_
c(TV ) ∩[V ] = χ(V ), which gives the topological Euler characteristic
of the smooth variety.
Chern classes for singular varieties that generalize this property were
introduced independently, following two diﬀerent approaches, in [Schwartz
(1965)] and [MacPherson (1974)]. The two deﬁnitions were later proved to
be equivalent.
The approach followed by Marie H´el`ene Schwartz generalized the deﬁ
nition of Chern classes as the homology classes of the loci where a family
of k +1 vector ﬁelds become linearly dependent (for the lowest degree case
one reads the Poincar´e–Hopf theorem as saying that the Euler characteris
tic measures where a single vector ﬁeld has zeros). In the case of singular
varieties a generalization is obtained, provided that one assigns some radial
conditions on the vector ﬁelds with respect to a stratiﬁcation with good
properties.
The approach followed by Robert MacPherson is instead based on func
toriality. The functor F of constructible functions assigns to an algebraic
variety V the Zmodule F(V ) spanned by the characteristic functions 1
W
of subvarieties W ⊂ V and to a proper morphism f : V → V
the map
f
∗
: F(V ) → F(V
) deﬁned by f
∗
(1
W
)(p) = χ(W ∩ f
−1
(p)), with χ the
Euler characteristic.
A conjecture of Grothendieck–Deligne predicted the existence of a
unique natural transformation c
∗
between the functor F and the homol
82 Feynman Motives
ogy (or Chow group) functor, which in the smooth case agrees with
c
∗
(1
V
) = c(TV ) ∩ [V ].
MacPherson constructed this natural transformation in terms of data
of Mather classes and local Euler obstructions and deﬁned in this way
what is usually referred to now as the Chern–Schwartz–MacPherson (CSM)
characteristic classes of (singular) algebraic varieties c
SM
(X) = c
∗
(1
X
).
It is convenient here to work inside an ambient space, for instance an
ambient projective space, so that one can regard c
∗
(1
X
) as taking values
in the homology (or Chow group) of the ambient P
N
, so that the charac
teristic class c
SM
(X) = c
∗
(1
X
) can be computed for X an arbitrary locally
closed subset of P
N
, without requiring a compactness hypothesis. This is
important in order to have an inclusionexclusion relation for these classes,
as explained below.
The results of [Aluﬃ (2006)] show that, in fact, it is possible to compute
these classes without having to use Mather classes and Euler obstructions
that are usually very diﬃcult to compute. Most notably, these characteristic
classes satisfy an inclusionexclusion formula for a closed Y ⊂ X,
c
SM
(X) = c
SM
(Y ) +c
SM
(X Y ),
but are not invariant under isomorphism, hence they are naturally deﬁned
on classes in T
K
but not on K
0
(1
K
).
For a smooth locally closed X in some ambient projective space P
N
,
the class c
SM
(X) can be obtained by a computation using Chern classes of
sheaves of diﬀerentials with logarithmic poles in a resolution of the closure
¯
X of X. Then inclusionexclusion gives a way to compute any embedded
c
SM
without recourse to MacPherson’s Euler obstructions or ChernMather
classes.
The CSM classes give good information on the singularities of a variety:
for example, in the case of hypersurfaces with isolated singularities, they
can be expressed in terms of Milnor numbers.
To construct a Feynman rule out of these Chern classes, one uses the
following procedure, [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2008b)]. Given a variety
ˆ
X ⊂ A
N
,
one can view it as a locally closed locus in P
N
, hence one can apply to
its characteristic function 1
ˆ
X
the natural transformation c
∗
that gives an
element in the Chow group A(P
N
) or in the homology H
∗
(P
N
). This gives
as a result a class of the form
c
∗
(1
ˆ
X
) = a
0
[P
0
] +a
1
[P
1
] + +a
N
[P
N
].
One then deﬁnes an associated polynomial given by
G
ˆ
X
(T) := a
0
+a
1
T + +a
N
T
N
.
Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 83
It is in fact independent of N as it stops in degree equal to dim
ˆ
X. It is by
construction invariant under linear changes of coordinates. It also satisﬁes
an inclusionexclusion property coming from the fact that the classes c
SM
satisfy inclusionexclusion, namely
G
ˆ
X∪
ˆ
Y
(T) = G
ˆ
X
(T) +G
ˆ
Y
(T) −G
ˆ
X∩
ˆ
Y
(T)
It is a more delicate result to show that it is multiplicative, namely that
the following holds.
Theorem 3.9.1. The polynomials G
ˆ
X
(T) satisfy
G
ˆ
X×
ˆ
Y
(T) = G
ˆ
X
(T) G
ˆ
Y
(T).
Proof. The proof of this fact is obtained in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2008b)]
using an explicit formula for the CSM classes of joins in projective spaces,
where the join J(X, Y ) ⊂ P
m+n−1
of two X ⊂ P
m−1
and Y ⊂ P
n−1
is
deﬁned as the set of
(sx
1
: : sx
m
: ty
1
: : ty
n
), with (s : t) ∈ P
1
,
and is related to the product in aﬃne spaces by the property that the
product
ˆ
X
ˆ
Y of the aﬃne cones over X and Y is the aﬃne cone over
J(X, Y ). One has
c
∗
(1
J(X,Y )
) = ((f(H) +H
m
)(g(H) +H
n
) −H
m+n
) ∩ [P
m+n−1
],
where c
∗
(1
X
) = H
n
f(H) ∩ [P
n+m−1
] and c
∗
(1
Y
) = H
m
g(H) ∩ [P
n+m−1
],
as functions of the hyperplane class H in P
n+m−1
. We refer the reader to
[Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2008b)] for more details.
The resulting multiplicative property of the polynomials G
ˆ
X
(T) shows
that one has a ring homomorphism I
CSM
: T →Z[T] deﬁned by
I
CSM
([
ˆ
X]) = G
ˆ
X
(T)
and an associated Feynman rule
U
CSM
(Γ) = C
Γ
(T) = I
CSM
([A
n
]) −I
CSM
([
ˆ
X
Γ
]).
This is not motivic, i.e. it does not factor through the Grothendieck
ring K
0
(1
K
), as can be seen by the example given in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli
(2008b)] of two graphs (see the ﬁgure below) that have diﬀerent U
CSM
(Γ),
C
Γ
1
(T) = T(T + 1)
2
C
Γ
2
(T) = T(T
2
+T + 1)
but the same hypersurface complement class in the Grothendieck ring,
[A
n
ˆ
X
Γ
i
] = [A
3
] −[A
2
] ∈ K
0
(1).
84 Feynman Motives
There is an interesting positivity property that the CSM classes of the
graph hypersurfaces X
Γ
appear to satisfy, namely the coeﬃcients of all the
powers H
k
in the expression of the CMS class of X
Γ
as a polynomial in
H are positive. This was observed in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2008a)] on the
basis of numerical computations of these classes, done using the program
of [Aluﬃ (2003)], for sample graphs. As the graphs that are accessible
to computer calculations of the corresponding CSM classes are necessarily
combinatorially simple (and all planar), it is at present not known whether
the observed positivity phenomenon holds more generally. This property
may be related to other positivity phenomena observed for CSM classes of
similarly combinatorial objects such as Schubert varieties [Aluﬃ and Mi
halcea (2006)]. We see in the last chapter that, in the case of quantum ﬁeld
theories on noncommutative spacetimes and the corresponding modiﬁcation
of the graph polynomials, positivity fails in nonplanar cases.
3.10 Deletioncontraction relation
We report here brieﬂy the recent results of [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009b)] on
deletion–contraction relations for motivic Feynman rules.
We have seen above that one can construct a polynomial invariant C
Γ
(T)
of graphs that is an algebrogeometric Feynman rule in the sense of [Aluﬃ
and Marcolli (2008b)], which does not factor through the Grothendieck
ring of varieties but satisﬁes an inclusion–exclusion principle. The polyno
mial C
Γ
(T) is deﬁned in terms of CSM classes of the graph hypersurface
complement.
Several well known examples of polynomial invariants of graphs are ex
amples of Tutte–Grothendieck invariants and are obtained as specializations
of the Tutte polynomial of graphs, and they all have the property that they
satisfy deletion–contraction relations, which make it possible to compute
the invariant indictively from simpler graphs. These relations express the
invariant of a given graph in terms of the invariants of the graphs obtained
by deleting or contracting edges.
Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 85
The results of [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009b)] investigate to what extent
motivic and algebrogeometric Feynman rules satisfy deletion–contraction
relations. Since such relations make it possible to control the invariant
for more complicated graphs in terms of combinatorially simpler ones, the
validity or failure of such relations can provide useful information that can
help to identify where the motivic complexity of the graph hypersurfaces
increases beyond the mixed Tate case (see ¸3.12 below).
In particular, it was shown in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009b)] that the poly
nomial C
Γ
(T) is not a specialization of the Tutte polynomial. However, a
form of deletion–contraction relation does hold for the motivic Feynman
rule [A
n
ˆ
X
Γ
] ∈ K
0
(1). The latter, unlike the relation satisﬁed by Tutte–
Grothendieck invariants, contains a term expressed as the class of an inter
section of hypersurfaces which does not appear to be easily controllable in
terms of combinatorial information alone. However, this form of deletion–
contraction relations suﬃces to obtain explicit recursive relation for certain
operations on graphs, such as replacing an edge by multiple parallel copies.
We start by recalling the case of the Tutte polynomial of graphs and
the form of the deletion–contraction relation in that well known classical
case. The Tutte polynomial T
Γ
∈ C[x, y] of ﬁnite graphs Γ is completely
determined by the following properties:
• If e ∈ E(Γ) is neither a looping edge nor a bridge the deletion–
contraction relation holds:
T
Γ
(x, y) = T
Γe
(x, y) +T
Γ/e
(x, y). (3.72)
• If e ∈ E(Γ) is a looping edge then
T
Γ
(x, y) = yT
Γ/e
(x, y).
• If e ∈ E(Γ) is a bridge then
T
Γ
(x, y) = xT
Γe
(x, y)
• If Γ has no edges then T
Γ
(x, y) = 1.
Here we call an edge e a “bridge” if the removal of e disconnects the
graph Γ, and a “looping edge” if e starts and ends at the same vertex.
Tutte–Grothendieck invariants are specializations of the Tutte polynomial.
Among them one has well known invariants such as the chromatic polyno
mial and the Jones polynomial.
A ﬁrst observation of [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009b)] is that the Tutte
polynomial can be regarded as a Feynman rule, in the sense that it has the
86 Feynman Motives
right multiplicative properties over disjoint unions and over decompositions
of connected graphs in terms of trees and 1PI graphs.
Proposition 3.10.1. The Tutte polynomial invariant deﬁnes an abstract
Feynman rule with values in the polynomial ring C[x, y], by assigning
U(Γ) = T
Γ
(x, y), with inverse propagator U(L) = x. (3.73)
Proof. One can ﬁrst observe that the properties listed above for the Tutte
polynomial determine the closed form
T
Γ
(x, y) =
γ⊂Γ
(x −1)
#V (Γ)−b
0
(Γ)−(#V (γ)−b
0
(γ))
(y −1)
#E(γ)−#V (γ)+b
0
(γ)
,
(3.74)
where the sum is over subgraphs γ ⊂ Γ with vertex set V (γ) = V (Γ) and
edge set E(γ) ⊂ E(Γ). This can be written equivalently as
T
Γ
(x, y) =
γ⊂Γ
(x −1)
b
0
(γ)−b
0
(Γ)
(y −1)
b
1
(γ)
.
This is sometime referred to as the “sum over states” formula for the Tutte
polynomial.
The multiplicative property under disjoint unions of graphs is clear from
the closed expression (3.74), since for Γ = Γ
1
∪Γ
2
we can identify subgraphs
γ ⊂ Γ with V (γ) = V (Γ) and E(γ) ⊂ E(Γ) with all possible pairs of
subgraphs (γ
1
, γ
2
) with V (γ
i
) = V (Γ
i
) and E(γ
i
) ⊂ E(Γ
i
), with b
0
(γ) =
b
0
(γ
1
) + b
0
(γ
2
), #V (Γ) = #V (Γ
1
) + #V (Γ
2
), and #E(γ) = #E(γ
1
) +
#E(γ
2
). Thus, we get
T
Γ
(x, y) =
γ=(γ
1
,γ
2
)
(x −1)
b
0
(γ
1
)+b
0
(γ
2
)−b
0
(Γ)
(y −1)
b
1
(γ
1
)+b
1
(γ
2
)
= T
Γ
1
(x, y) T
Γ
2
(x, y).
The property for connected and 1PI graphs follows from the fact that,
when writing a connected graph in the form Γ = ∪
v∈V (T)
Γ
v
, with Γ
v
1PI
graphs inserted at the vertices of the tree T, the internal edges of the
tree are all bridges in the resulting graph, hence the property of the Tutte
polynomial for the removal of bridges gives
T
Γ
(x, y) = x
#E
int
(T)
T
Γ∪
e∈E
int
(T)
e
(x, y).
Then one obtains an abstract Feynman rule with values in ¹ = C[x, y] of
the form (3.73).
Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 87
It follows that Tutte–Grothendieck invariants such as the chromatic and
Jones polynomials can also be regarded as Feynman rules.
One can then observe, however, that the algebro–geometric Feynman
rule
C
Γ
(T) = I
CSM
([A
n
ˆ
X
Γ
])
that we discussed in the previous section is not a specialization of the Tutte
polynomial.
Proposition 3.10.2. The polynomial invariant C
Γ
(T) is not a specializa
tion of the Tutte polynomial.
Proof. We show that one cannot ﬁnd functions x = x(T) and y = y(T)
such that
C
Γ
(T) = T
Γ
(x(T), y(T)).
First notice that, if e ∈ E(Γ) is a bridge, the polynomial C
Γ
(T) satisﬁes
the relation
C
Γ
(T) = (T + 1)C
Γe
(T). (3.75)
In fact, (T +1) is the inverse propagator of the algebrogeometric Feynman
rule U(Γ) = C
Γ
(T) and the property of abstract Feynman rules for 1PI
graphs connected by a bridge gives (3.75). In the case where e ∈ E(Γ) is a
looping edge, we have
C
Γ
(T) = T C
Γ/e
(T). (3.76)
In fact, adding a looping edge to a graph corresponds, in terms of graph
hypersurfaces, to taking a cone on the graph hypersurface and intersecting
it with the hyperplane deﬁned by the coordinate of the looping edge. This
implies that the universal algebrogeometric Feynman rule with values in
the Grothendieck ring T of immersed conical varieties satisﬁes
U(Γ) = ([A
1
] −1)U(Γ/e)
if e is a looping edge of Γ and U(Γ) = [A
n
ˆ
X
Γ
] ∈ T. The property
(3.76) then follows since the image of the class [A
1
] is the inverse propagator
(T +1). (See ¸3.9 above and Proposition 2.5 and ¸2.2 of [Aluﬃ and Marcolli
(2008b)].)
This implies that, if C
Γ
(T) has to be a specialization of the Tutte poly
nomial, the relations for bridges and looping edges imply that one has to
identify x(T) = T + 1 and y(T) = T. However, this is not compatible
with the behavior of the invariant C
Γ
(T) on more complicated graphs. For
example, for the triangle graph one has C
Γ
(T) = T(T + 1)
2
while the
specialization T
Γ
(x(T), y(T)) = (T + 1)
2
+ (T + 1) +T.
88 Feynman Motives
One can then investigate what kind of deletion–contraction relations
hold in the case of motivic and algebro–geometric Feynman rules. An
answer is given in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009b)] for the motivic case, that
is, for the Feynman rule
U(Γ) = [A
n
ˆ
X
Γ
] ∈ K
0
(1).
Theorem 3.10.3. Let Γ be a graph with n > 1 edges.
(1) If e ∈ E(Γ) is neither a bridge nor a looping edge then the following
deletion–contraction relation holds:
[A
n
´
X
Γ
] = L [A
n−1
(
´
X
Γe
∩
´
X
Γ/e
)] −[A
n−1
´
X
Γe
]. (3.77)
(2) If the edge e is a bridge in Γ, then
[A
n
´
X
Γ
] = L [A
n−1
´
X
Γe
] = L [A
n−1
´
X
Γ/e
]. (3.78)
(3) If e is a looping edge in Γ, then
[A
n
´
X
Γ
] = (L−1) [A
n−1
´
X
Γe
] = (L−1) [A
n−1
´
X
Γ/e
]. (3.79)
(4) If Γ contains at least two loops, then the projective version of (3.77)
also holds, in the form
[P
n−1
X
Γ
] = L [P
n−2
(X
Γe
∩ X
Γ/e
)] −[P
n−2
X
Γe
]. (3.80)
(5) Under the same hypotheses, the Euler characteristics satisfy
χ(X
Γ
) = n +χ(X
Γe
∩ X
Γ/e
) −χ(X
Γe
). (3.81)
Proof. (1) and (4): Let Γ be a graph with n ≥ 2 edges e
1
, . . . , e
n−1
, e =
e
n
, with (t
1
: . . . : t
n
) the corresponding variables in P
n−1
. As above we
consider the Kirchhoﬀ polynomial Ψ
Γ
and the aﬃne and projective graph
hypersurfaces
ˆ
X
Γ
⊂ A
n
and X
Γ
⊂ P
n−1
. We assume deg Ψ
Γ
= > 0.
We consider an edge e that is not a bridge or looping edge. Then the
polynomials for the deletion Γ e and contraction Γ/e of the edge e = e
n
are both nontrivial and given by
F :=
∂Ψ
Γ
∂t
n
= Ψ
Γe
and G := Ψ
Γ
[
t
n
=0
= Ψ
Γ/e
. (3.82)
The Kirchhoﬀ polynomial Ψ
Γ
satisﬁes
Ψ
Γ
(t
1
, . . . , t
n
) = t
n
F(t
1
, . . . , t
n−1
) +G(t
1
, . . . , t
n−1
). (3.83)
Given a projective hypersurface Y ⊂ P
N−1
we denote by
ˆ
Y the aﬃne
cone in A
N
, and we use the notation
¯
Y for the projective cone in P
N
.
Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 89
It is proved in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009b)], Theorem 3.3, in a more gen
eral context that includes the case under consideration, that the projection
from the point (0 : : 0 : 1) induces an isomorphism
X
Γ
(X
Γ
∩ X
Γe
)
∼
−→P
n−2
X
Γe
, (3.84)
where X
Γe
is the hypersurface in P
n−2
deﬁned by the polynomial F. In
fact, the projection P
n−1
P
n−2
from p = (0 : : 0 : 1) acts as
(t
1
: : t
n
) → (t
1
: : t
n−1
).
If F is constant (that is, if deg ψ = 1), then X
Γe
= X
Γe
= ∅ and the
statement is trivial. Thus, assume deg F > 0. In this case, Ψ
Γ
(p) = F(p) =
0, hence p ∈ X
Γ
∩ X
Γe
, and hence p ,∈ X (X
Γ
∩ X
Γe
). Therefore, the
projection restricts to a regular map
X
Γ
(X
Γ
∩ X
Γe
) →P
n−2
.
The image is clearly contained in P
n−2
X
Γe
, and the statement is that
this map induces an isomorphism
X
Γ
(X
Γ
∩ X
Γe
)
∼
−→P
n−2
X
Γe
.
Let q = (q
1
: : q
n−1
). The line from p to q is parametrized by
(q
1
: : q
n−1
: t).
We show that this line meets X
Γ
(X
Γ
∩X
Γe
) transversely at one point.
The intersection with X
Γ
is determined by the equation
tF(q
1
: : q
n−1
) +G(q
1
: : q
n−1
) = 0.
Since F(q) ,= 0, this is a polynomial of degree exactly 1 in t, and determines
a reduced point, as needed.
It then follows that, in the Grothendieck ring K
0
(1) we have identities
[P
n−1
X
Γ
] = [P
n−1
(X
Γ
∩ X
Γe
)] −[P
n−2
X
Γe
]. (3.85)
If Γ has at least two loops, so that deg Ψ
Γ
> 1, then we also have
[P
n−1
X
Γ
] = L [P
n−2
(X
Γe
∩ X
Γ/e
)] −[P
n−2
X
Γe
], (3.86)
where L = [A
1
] is the Lefschetz motive and X
Γ/e
is the hypersurface G = 0.
Indeed, the ideal of X
Γ
∩ X
Γe
is
(ψ, F) = (t
n
F +G, F) = (F, G).
This means that
X
Γ
∩ X
Γe
= X
Γe
∩ X
Γ/e
. (3.87)
90 Feynman Motives
If deg X
Γ
> 1, then F is not constant, hence X
Γe
,= ∅. It then follows
that X
Γe
∩ X
Γ/e
contains the point p = (0 : : 0 : 1). The ﬁbers of the
projection
P
n−1
(X
Γe
∩ X
Γ/e
) →P
n−2
X
Γe
with center p are then all isomorphic to A
1
, and it follows that
[P
n−1
(X
Γe
∩ X
Γ/e
)] = L [P
n−2
(X
Γe
∩ X
Γ/e
)].
The aﬃne version (3.77) follows by observing that, if deg X
Γ
> 1, then
deg F > 0, hence
X
Γ
∩ X
Γe
and
´
X
Γe
∩
´
X
Γ/e
contain the origin. In this case, the classes in the Grothendieck ring satisfy
[A
N
X
Γ
∩ X
Γe
] = (L −1) [P
N−1
(X
Γ
∩ X
Γe
)]
[A
N
(
´
X
Γe
∩
´
X
Γ/e
)] = (L −1) [P
N−1
(X
Γe
∩ X
Γ/e
)].
Then (3.77) follows from the formula for the projective case, while it can
be checked directly for the remaning case with deg X
Γ
= 1.
(2) If e is a bridge, then Ψ
Γ
does not depend on the variable t
e
and
F ≡ 0. The equation for X
Γe
is Ψ
Γ
= 0 again, but viewed in one fewer
variables. The equation for X
Γ/e
is the same.
(3) If e is a looping edge, then Ψ
Γ
is divisible by t
e
, so that G ≡ 0. The
equation for X
Γ/e
is obtained by dividing Ψ
Γ
through by t
e
, and one has
X
Γe
= X
Γ/e
.
(5) Under the hypothesis that deg X
Γ
> 1, the statement about the
Euler characteristics follows from (3.80). One has from (3.84) the identity
χ(P
n−1
(X
Γ
∪ X
Γe
)) = 0.
In the case where deg X
Γ
= 1 one has χ(X
Γ
) = n −1.
This general result on deletioncontraction relations for motivic Feyn
man rules was applied in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009b)] to analyze some
operations on graphs, which have the property that the problem of describ
ing the intersection X
Γe
∩ X
Γ/e
can be bypassed and the class of more
complicated graphs can be computed inductively only in terms of combi
natorial data.
One such operation replaces a chosen edge e in a graph Γ with m parallel
edges connecting the same two vertices ∂(e). Another operation consists of
replacing an edge with a chain of triangles (referred to as a “lemon graph”).
Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 91
The latter operation can easily be generalized to chains of polygons as
explained in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009b)].
Assume that e is an edge of Γ, and denote by Γ
me
the graph obtained
from Γ by replacing e by m parallel edges. (Thus, Γ
0e
= Γe, and Γ
e
= Γ.)
Theorem 3.10.4. Let e be an edge of a graph Γ. Let T = L −1 = [G
m
] ∈
K
0
(1).
(1) If e is a looping edge, then
m≥0
U(Γ
me
)
s
m
m!
= e
Ts
U(Γ e). (3.88)
(2) If e is a bridge, then
m≥0
U(Γ
me
)
s
m
m!
=
_
T
e
Ts
−e
−s
T + 1
+s e
Ts
+ 1
_
U(Γ e). (3.89)
(3) If e is not a bridge nor a looping edge, then
m≥0
U(Γ
me
)
s
m
m!
=
e
Ts
−e
−s
T + 1
U(Γ)
+
e
Ts
+Te
−s
T + 1
U(Γ e)
+
_
s e
Ts
−
e
Ts
−e
−s
T + 1
_
U(Γ/e).
(3.90)
The result is proved in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009b)] by ﬁrst deriving the
relation in the case of doubling an edge and then repeating the construction.
We do not report here the details of the proof, and we refer the readers to
the paper for more details, but it is worth pointing out that the main step
that makes it possible to obtain in this case a completely explicit formula
in terms of U(Γ), U(Γ e) and U(Γ/e) is a cancellation that occurs in the
calculation of the classes in the operation of doubling an edge. In fact, one
ﬁrst expresses the class U(Γ
2e
) as
U(Γ
2e
) = L [A
n
(
ˆ
X
Γ
∩
ˆ
X
Γ
o
)] −U(Γ),
where n = #E(Γ) and Γ
o
denotes the graph obtained by attaching a looping
edge named e to Γ/e. In the notation we used earlier in this section, the
equation for Γ
o
is given by the polynomial t
e
G. Using inclusion–exclusion
for classes in the Grothendieck ring, it is then shown in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli
(2009b)] that one has
[
ˆ
X
Γ
∩
ˆ
X
Γ
o
] = [
ˆ
X
Γ/e
] + (L −1) [
ˆ
X
Γe
∩
ˆ
X
Γ/e
].
92 Feynman Motives
Thus, one obtains
U(Γ
2e
) = (L −2) U(Γ) + (L −1) U(Γ e) +L U(Γ/e).
This expression no longer contains classes of intersections of graph hyper
surfaces, and can be iterated to obtain the general formula for U(Γ
me
).
It is shown in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009b)] that the recursive relation
obtained in this way for the operation of multiplying edges is very sim
ilar in form to the recursive relation that the Tutte polynomial satisﬁes
under the same operation. In fact, they both are solutions to a universal
recursive relation with diﬀerent initial conditions. One also derives from
the same universal recursion a conjectural form for the recursion relation,
under the operation of multiplying edges Γ → Γ
me
, for the polynomial
invariant C
Γ
(T) = I
CSM
([A
n
ˆ
X
Γ
]).
The operation of replacing an edge with a chain of triangles, or “lemon
graph” depicted in the ﬁgure produces, similarly, a recursive formula for
the motivic Feynman rule U(Γ
Λ
m
), where Γ
Λ
m
is the graph obtained from Γ
by replacing an edge e by a lemon graph Λ
m
.
!
e
Proposition 3.10.5. Let e be an edge of a graph Γ, and assume that e
is neither a bridge nor a looping edge. Let Γ
Λ
m
be the “lemonade graph”
obtained by building an mlemon fanning out from e. Then
m≥0
U(Γ
Λ
m
)s
m
=
1
1 −T(T + 1)s −T(T + 1)
2
s
2
_
(1 −(T + 1)s) U(Γ) + (T + 1)Ts U(Γ e) + (T + 1)
2
s U(Γ/e)
_
.
This result is proven in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009b)] by ﬁrst obtaining
a recursive formula for the classes U(Λ
m
) of the lemon graphs. This is a
succession of operations where one ﬁrst doubles an edge and then splits
the added edge by inserting a vertex. The ﬁrst operation is covered by
the expression derived before for the class U(Γ
2e
) while splitting an edge
with a vertex corresponds to taking a cone over the corresponding graph
Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 93
hypersurface. Thus, both operations are well understood at the level of
classes in the Grothendieck ring and they give the recursive relation
U(Λ
m+1
) = T(T + 1)U(Λ
m
) +T(T + 1)
2
U(Λ
m−1
),
for m ≥ 1, which gives then
U(Λ
m
) = (T + 1)
m+1
m
i=0
_
m−i
i
_
T
m−i
.
It is interesting to observe that the sequence a
m
= U(Λ
m
) is a divisibility
sequence, in the sense that U(Λ
m−1
) divides U(Λ
n−1
) if m divides n. This is
the property satisﬁed, for instance, by the sequence of Fibonacci numbers.
(See [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009b)], Corollary 5.12 for more details.)
Returning to the classes U(Γ
Λ
m
), one then shows that these also satisfy
a relation of the form
U(Γ
Λ
m
) = f
m
(T)U(Γ) +g
m
(T)U(Γ e) +h
m
(T)U(Γ/e),
where the f
m
, g
m
, h
m
satisfy the same recursion that gives U(Λ
m
), but
with diﬀerent seeds given by
_
¸
¸
_
¸
¸
_
f
0
(T) = 1 , f
1
(T) = T
2
−1
g
0
(T) = 0 , g
1
(T) = T(T + 1)
h
0
(T) = 0 , h
1
(T) = (T + 1)
2
.
For more details we refer the reader to [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009b)].
3.11 Feynman integrals and periods
Numerical calculations performed in [Broadhurst and Kreimer (1997)] gave
very strong evidence for a relation between residues of Feynman integrals
and periods of mixed Tate motives. In fact, the numerical evidence in
dicates that the values computed in the log divergent case are Qlinear
combinations of multiple zeta values, which, as we recalled in the previous
chapter, can be realized as periods of mixed Tate motives.
Multiple zeta values are real numbers obtained by summing convergent
series of the form
ζ(n
1
, . . . , n
r
) =
0<k
1
<k
2
<···<k
r
1
k
n
1
1
k
n
r
r
, (3.91)
where the n
i
are positive integers with n
r
≥ 2. There are ways to real
ize multiple zeta values as periods of mixed Tate motives; see [Goncharov
94 Feynman Motives
(2001)], [Goncharov and Manin (2004)], [Terasoma (2002)]. In [Goncharov
and Manin (2004)], for instance, as well as in [Brown (2006)], multiple zeta
values are explicitly realized as periods on the moduli spaces of curves. It is
the occurrence of multiple zeta values in Feynman integral computations,
along with the fact that these numbers arise as periods of mixed Tate mo
tives, that gave rise to the idea of a deeper relation between perturbative
quantum ﬁeld theory and motives.
Among the examples of Feynman graphs computed in [Broadhurst and
Kreimer (1997)], the wheel with n spokes graphs give simple zeta values
ζ(2n − 3). It is also shown in [Broadhurst and Kreimer (1997)] that the
nonplanar graph given by the complete bipartite graph K
3,4
evaluates to
the double zeta value ζ(5, 3).
Recent results of [Brown (2009a)] for multiloop Feynman diagrams pro
vide a new method for evaluating the case of primitive divergent graphs (i.e.
those that do not contain any smaller divergent subgraph, and are there
fore primitive elements in the Connes–Kreimer Hopf algebra). This shows
the occurrence of values at roots of unity of multiple polylogarithms, in
addition to the multiple zeta values observed in [Broadhurst and Kreimer
(1997)]. The multiple polylogarithm function, introduced in [Goncharov
(2001)] is deﬁned as
Li
n
1
,...,n
r
(x
1
, . . . , x
r
) =
0<k
1
<k
2
<···<k
r
x
k
1
1
x
k
r
r
k
n
1
1
k
n
r
r
. (3.92)
It is absolutely convergent for [x
i
[ < 1 and it extends analytically to an open
domain in C
r
as a multivalued holomorphic function. As shown in [Gon
charov (2001)], the multiple polylogarithms are also associated to objects
in the category of mixed Tate motives.
3.12 The mixed Tate mystery
The results recalled in the previous section suggest that, in its strongest
possible form, one could formulate a conjecture as follows.
Conjecture 3.12.1. Are all residues of Feynman graphs of perturbative
scalar ﬁeld theories (possibly after a suitable regularization and renormal
ization procedure is used) periods of mixed Tate motives?
In this form the conjecture is somewhat vaguely formulated, but it does
not matter since it is unlikely to hold true in such generality. One can
Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 95
however reﬁne the question and formulate it more precisely in the following
form.
Question 3.12.2. Under what conditions on the graphs, the scalar ﬁeld
theory, and the renormalization procedure are the residues of Feynman
graphs periods of mixed Tate motives?
As we have seen above, using the Feynman parameters, one can write
the Feynman integrals in a form that looks exactly like a period of an
algebraic variety obtained as a hypersurface complement, modulo the issue
of divergences which needs to be handled separately. In the stable range for
D, this hypersurface is the graph variety X
Γ
, while in the unstable range
it is the Landau variety Y
Γ
, or the union of the two.
Kontsevich formulated the conjecture that the graph hypersurfaces X
Γ
themselves may always be mixed Tate motives, which would imply Con
jecture 3.12.1. Although numerically this conjecture was at ﬁrst veriﬁed
up to a large number of loops in [Stembridge (1998)], it was later dis
proved in [Belkale and Brosnan (2003a)]. They proved that the varieties
X
Γ
can be arbitrarily complicated as motives: indeed, the X
Γ
generate the
Grothendieck ring of varieties.
The fact that the classes [X
Γ
] can be arbitrarily far from the mixed Tate
part Z[L] of the Grothendieck ring K
0
(1) seems to indicate at ﬁrst that
Conjecture 3.12.1 cannot hold. However, that is not necessarily the case. In
fact, only a part of the cohomology of the complement of the hypersurface
X
Γ
is involved in the period computation of the Feynman integral. As
we have seen earlier in this chapter, ignoring divergences, one is in fact
considering only a certain relative cohomology group, namely
H
n−1
(P
n−1
X
Γ
, Σ
n
(Σ
n
∩ X
Γ
)), (3.93)
where n = #E
int
(Γ) and Σ
n
= ¦t ∈ P
n−1
[
i
t
i
= 0¦ denotes the normal
crossings divisor given by the union of the coordinate hyperplanes. In
fact, if one ignores momentarily the issue of divergences, the evaluation of
the integral
_
σ
n
P
Γ
(p, t)
−n+D/2
Ψ
Γ
(t)
−n+(+1)D/2
ω
n
(3.94)
can be seen as a pairing of a diﬀerential form on the hypersurface comple
ment with a chain σ
n
with boundary ∂σ
n
⊂ Σ
n
contained in the normal
crossings divisor. Thus, one is working with a relative cohomology, and we
have seen that the question of whether the integral above (i.e. the residue of
96 Feynman Motives
the Feynman graph after dropping the divergent Gamma factor in the para
metric Feynman integral) evaluates to a period of a mixed Tate motive can
be addressed in terms of the question of whether the relative cohomology
(3.93) is a realization of a mixed Tate motive
m(P
n−1
X
Γ
, Σ
n
X
Γ
∩ Σ
n
). (3.95)
This could still be the case even though the motive of X
Γ
itself need not
be mixed Tate. However, this observation makes it clear that, if something
like Conjecture 3.12.1 holds, it is due to a very subtle interplay between
the geometry of the graph hypersurface X
Γ
and the locus of intersection
X
Γ
∩Σ
n
. Notice that this locus is also the one that is responsible for the di
vergences of the integral (3.94), so that the situation is further complicated,
when one tries to eliminate divergences, by possibly performing blowups
of this locus. Even without introducing immediately the further diﬃculties
related to eliminating divergences, the main problem remains that as the
graphs increase in combinatorial complexity, it becomes extemely diﬃcult
to control the motivic nature of (3.95). Thus, at present, not only is the
conjecture in its stronger form 3.12.1 still open, but not much is understood
on speciﬁc conditions that would ensure that (3.95) is in fact mixed Tate,
according to the formulation of Question 3.12.2.
Some new work of Francis Brown, which became available in the preprint
[Brown (2009b)] while this book was going to print, identiﬁes speciﬁc fam
ilies of graphs for which (3.95) is shown to give a mixed Tate motive and
for which the corresponding Feynman integrals evaluate to multiple zeta
values.
In fact, a weaker statement than the relative cohomology (3.93) being
mixed Tate may still suﬃce to prove that the residue of the Feynman in
tegral is a period of a mixed Tate motive, since the period only captures
a piece of the relative cohomology (3.93), so that the question on the mo
tivic nature of this relative cohomology provides a suﬃcient condition for
a mixed Tate period, but not a necessary one.
Very nice recent results of [Doryn (2008)] compute the middle coho
mology of the graph hypersurfaces for a larger class of graphs than those
originally considered in the work of [Bloch, Esnault, Kreimer (2006)], con
sisting of so called “zigzag graphs”. This identiﬁes in a signiﬁcant class of
examples a mixed Tate piece of the cohomology.
As we mentioned in relation to the recent result of [Bloch (2008)] on
sums of graphs with ﬁxed number of vertices, one should also take into ac
count that the possible occurrence of nonmixed Tate periods in the Feyn
man amplitudes for more complicated graphs may cancel out in sums over
Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 97
graphs with ﬁxed external structure or ﬁxed number of vertices and leave
only a mixed Tate contribution.
One should also keep in mind that, in the case of divergent Feynman
integrals, handling divergences in diﬀerent ways might aﬀect the nature of
the resulting periods, after subtraction of inﬁnities.
3.13 From graph hypersurfaces to determinant hypersur
faces
An attempt to provide speciﬁc conditions, as stated in Question 3.12.2
above, that would ensure that certain Feynman integrals evaluate to periods
of mixed Tate motives was developed in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009a)].
One can use the properties of periods, in particular the change of vari
able formula, to recast the computation of a given integral
_
σ
ω computing
a period in a diﬀerent geometric ambient variety, whose motivic nature is
easier to control. As long as no information is lost in the period computa
tion, one can hope to obtain in this way some suﬃcient conditions that will
ensure that the periods associated to Feynman integrals are mixed Tate.
A period
_
σ
ω associated to the data (X, D, ω, σ) of a variety X, a
divisor D, a diﬀerential form ω on X, and an integration domain σ with
boundary ∂σ ⊂ D can be computed equivalently after a change of variables
obtained by mapping it via a morphism f of varieties to another set of data
(X
, D
, ω
, σ
), with ω = f
∗
(ω
) and σ
= f
∗
(σ).
In the case of parametric Feynman integrals one can proceed in the fol
lowing way. The matrix M
Γ
(t) associated to a Feynman graph Γ determines
a linear map of aﬃne spaces
Υ : A
n
→A
2
, Υ(t)
kr
=
i
t
i
η
ik
η
ir
(3.96)
such that the aﬃne graph hypersurface is obtained as the preimage
ˆ
X
Γ
= Υ
−1
(
ˆ
T
)
under this map of the determinant hypersurface,
ˆ
T
= ¦x = (x
ij
) ∈ A
2
[ det(x
ij
) = 0¦.
One can give explicit combinatorial conditions on the graph that ensure
that the map Υ is an embedding. As shown in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009a)],
for any 3edgeconnected graph with at least 3 vertices and no looping edges,
which admit a closed 2cell embedding of face width at least 3, the map Υ
98 Feynman Motives
is injective. To see why this is the case, one can start with the following
observation on the properties of the matrix M
Γ
(t) that deﬁnes the map Υ
of (3.96).
Lemma 3.13.1. The matrix M
Γ
(t) = η
†
Λη deﬁning the map Υ has the
following properties.
• For i ,= j, the corresponding entry is the sum of ±t
k
, where the t
k
correspond to the edges common to the ith and jth loop, and the sign
is +1 if the orientations of the edges both agree or both disagree with
the loop orientations, and −1 otherwise.
• For i = j, the entry is the sum of the variables t
k
corresponding to the
edges in the ith loop (all taken with sign +).
Similarly, for a speciﬁc edge e, with t
e
the corresponding variable, one has
the following.
• The variable t
e
appears in η
†
Λη if and only if e is part of at least one
loop.
• If e belongs to a single loop
i
, then t
e
only appears in the diagonal entry
(i, i), added to the variables corresponding to the other edges forming
the loop
i
.
• If there are two loops
i
,
j
containing e, and not having any other edge
in common, then the ±t
e
appears by itself at the entries (i, j) and (j, i)
in the matrix η
†
Λη.
In the following, we denote by Υ
i
the composition of the map Υ with
the projection to the ith row of the matrix η
†
Λη, viewed as a map of the
variables corresponding only to the edges that belong to the ith loop in
the chosen bases of the ﬁrst homology of the graph Γ.
Lemma 3.13.2. If Υ
i
is injective for i ranging over a set of loops such
that every edge of Γ is part of a loop in that set, then Υ is itself injective.
Proof. Let (t
1
, . . . , t
n
) = (c
1
, . . . , c
n
) be in the kernel of τ. Since each
(i, j) entry in the target matrix is a combination of edges in the ith loop,
the map τ
i
must send to zero the tuple of c
j
’s corresponding to the edges
in the ith loop. Since we are assuming τ
i
to be injective, that tuple is
the zerotuple. Since every edge is in some loop for which τ
i
is injective, it
follows that every c
j
is zero, as needed.
One can then give conditions based on properties of the graph that
Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 99
ensure that the components Υ
i
are injective. This is done in [Aluﬃ and
Marcolli (2009a)] as follows.
Lemma 3.13.3. The map Υ
i
is injective if the following conditions are
satisﬁed:
• For every edge e of the ith loop, there is another loop having only e in
common with the ith loop, and
• The ith loop has at most one edge not in common with any other loop.
Proof. In this situation, all but at most one edge variable appear by
themselves as an entry of the ith row, and the possible last remaining
variable appears summed together with the other variables. More explicitly,
if t
i
1
, . . . , t
i
v
are the variables corresponding to the edges of a loop
i
, up
to rearranging the entries in the corresponding row of η
†
Λη and neglecting
other entries, the map Υ
i
is given by
(t
i
1
, . . . , t
i
v
) → (t
i
1
+ +t
i
v
, ±t
i
1
, . . . , ±t
i
v
)
if
i
has no edge not in common with any other loop, and
(t
i
1
, . . . , t
i
v
) → (t
i
1
+ +t
i
v
, ±t
i
1
, . . . , ±t
i
v−1
)
if
i
has a single edge t
v
not in common with any other loop. In either case
the map Υ
i
is injective, as claimed.
Every (ﬁnite) graph Γ may be embedded in a compact orientable surface
of ﬁnite genus. The minimum genus of an orientable surface in which Γ may
be embedded is the genus of Γ. Thus, Γ is planar if and only if it may be
embedded in a sphere, if and only if its genus is 0.
Deﬁnition 3.13.4. An embedding of a graph Γ in an orientable surface
S is a 2cell embedding if the complement of Γ in S is homeomorphic to a
union of open 2cells (the faces, or regions determined by the embedding).
An embedding of Γ in S is a closed 2cell embedding if the closure of every
face is a disk.
It is known that an embedding of a connected graph is minimal genus
if and only if it is a 2cell embedding ([Mohar and Thomassen (2001)],
Proposition 3.4.1 and Theorem 3.2.4). We discuss below conditions on the
existence of closed 2cell embeddings, cf. [Mohar and Thomassen (2001)],
¸5.5.
For our purposes, the advantage of having a closed 2cell embedding for
a graph Γ is that the faces of such an embedding determine a choice of loops
100 Feynman Motives
of Γ, by taking the boundaries of the 2cells of the embedding together with
a basis of generators for the homology of the Riemann surface in which the
graph is embedded.
Lemma 3.13.5. A closed 2cell embedding ι : Γ → S of a connected graph
Γ on a surface of (minimal) genus g, together with the choice of a face of
the embedding and a basis for the homology H
1
(S, Z) determine a basis of
H
1
(Γ, Z) given by 2g + f − 1 loops, where f is the number of faces of the
embedding.
Proof. Orient (arbitrarily) the edges of Γ and the faces, and then add
the edges on the boundary of each face with sign determined by the orien
tations. The fact that the closure of each face is a 2disk guarantees that
the boundary is nullhomotopic. This produces a number of loops equal to
the number f of faces. It is clear that these f loops are not independent:
the sum of any f − 1 of them must equal the remaining one, up to sign.
Any f −1 loops, however, will be independent in H
1
(Γ). Indeed, these f −1
loops, together with 2g generators of the homology of S, generate H
1
(Γ).
The homology group H
1
(Γ) has rank 2g + f − 1, as one can see from the
Euler characteristic formula
b
0
(S) −b
1
(S) +b
2
(S) = 2 −2g
= χ(S) = v −e +f = b
0
(Γ) −b
1
(Γ) +f = 1 − +f,
so there will be no other relations.
One refers to the chosen one among the f faces as the “external face”
and the remaining f −1 faces as the “internal faces”.
Thus, given a closed 2cell embedding ι : Γ → S, we can use a basis of
H
1
(Γ, Z) constructed as in Lemma 3.13.5 to compute the map Υ and the
maps Υ
i
of (3.13.1). We then have the following result.
Lemma 3.13.6. Assume that Γ is closed2cell embedded in a surface.
With notation as above, assume that
• any two of the f faces have at most one edge in common.
Then the f −1 maps Υ
i
, deﬁned with respect to a choice of basis for H
1
(Γ)
as in Lemma 3.13.5, are all injective. If further
• every edge of Γ is in the boundary of two of the f faces,
then Υ is injective.
Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 101
Proof. The injectivity of the f −1 maps Υ
i
follows from Lemma 3.13.3.
If is a loop determined by an internal face, the variables corresponding
to edges in common between and any other internal loop will appear as
(±) individual entries on the row corresponding to . Since has at most
one edge in common with the external region, this accounts for all but at
most one of the edges in . By Lemma 3.13.3, the injectivity of Υ
i
follows.
Finally, as shown in Lemma 3.13.2, the map Υ is injective if every edge is
in one of the f −1 loops and the f −1 maps Υ
i
are injective. The stated
condition guarantees that the edge appears in the loops corresponding to
the faces separated by that edge. At least one of them is internal, so that
every edge is accounted for.
Recall the notions of connectivity of graphs that we discussed in the
ﬁrst chapter in relation to the 1PI condition, Deﬁnition 1.5.1.
We also recall the notion of face width for an embedding of a graph in
a Riemann surface.
Deﬁnition 3.13.7. Let ι : Γ → S be a given embedding of a graph Γ on
a Riemann surface S. The face width fw(Γ, ι) is the largest number k ∈ N
such that every noncontractible simple closed curve in S intersects Γ at
least k times. When S is a sphere, hence ι : Γ → S is a planar embedding,
one sets fw(Γ, ι) = ∞.
For a graph Γ with at least 3 vertices and with no looping edges, the
condition that an embedding ι : Γ → S is a closed 2cell embedding is
equivalent to the properties that Γ is 2vertexconnected and that the em
bedding has face width fw(Γ, ι) ≥ 2; see Proposition 5.5.11 of [Mohar
and Thomassen (2001)]. It is not known whether every 2vertexconnected
graph Γ admits a closed 2cell embedding. The “strong orientable embed
ding conjecture” states that this is the case, namely, that every 2vertex
connected graph Γ admits a closed 2cell embedding in some orientable
surface S, of face width at least two (see [Mohar and Thomassen (2001)],
Conjecture 5.5.16).
Theorem 3.13.8. The following conditions imply the injectivity of Υ.
(1) Let Γ be a graph with at least 3 vertices and with no looping edges,
which is closed2cell embedded in an orientable surface S. Then, if
any two of the faces have at most one edge in common, the map Υ is
injective.
102 Feynman Motives
(2) Let Γ be a 3edgeconnected graph, with at least 3 vertices and no looping
edges, admitting a closed2cell embedding ι : Γ → S with face width
fw(Γ, ι) ≥ 3. Then the maps Υ
i
, Υ are all injective.
Proof. (1) It suﬃces to show that, under these conditions on the graph
Γ, the second condition of Lemma 3.13.6 is automatically satisﬁed, so that
only the ﬁrst condition remains to be checked. That is, we show that every
edge of Γ is in the boundary of two faces. Assume an edge is not in the
boundary of two faces. Then that edge must bound the same face on both
of its sides. The closure of the face is a cell, by assumption. Let γ be a
path from one side of the edge to the other. Since γ splits the cell into two
connected components, it follows that removing the edge splits Γ into two
connected components, hence Γ is not 2edgeconnected. However, the fact
that Γ has at least 3 vertices and no looping edges and it admits a closed
2cell embedding implies that Γ is 2vertexconnected, hence in particular
it is 1PI by Lemma 1.5.5, and this gives a contradiction.
(2) The previous result shows that the second condition stated in
Lemma 3.13.6 is automatically satisﬁed, so the only thing left to check
is that the ﬁrst condition stated in Lemma 3.13.6 holds. Assume that two
faces F
1
, F
2
have more than one edge in common. Since F
1
, F
2
are (path)
connected, there are paths γ
i
in F
i
connecting corresponding sides of the
edges. With suitable care, it can be arranged that γ
1
∪ γ
2
is a closed path
γ meeting Γ in 2 points. Since the embedding has face width ≥ 3, γ must
be nullhomotopic in the surface, and in particular it splits it into two con
nected components. Therefore Γ is split into two connected components by
removing the two edges, hence Γ cannot be 3edgeconnected.
A more geometric description of these combinatorial properties in terms
of wheel neighborhoods at the vertices of the graph is discussed in [Aluﬃ and
Marcolli (2009a)]. Further, it is shown there that the injectivity property
of the map Υ extends from the classes of graphs described in the previous
theorem to other graphs obtained from these by simple combinatorial op
erations such as attaching a looping edge at a vertex of a given graph or
subdividing edges by adding intermediate valence two vertices.
The combinatorial conditions of Theorem 3.13.8 are fairly natural from
a physical viewpoint. In fact, 2edgeconnected is just the usual 1PI condi
tion, while 3edgeconnected or 2PI is the next strengthening of this con
dition (the 2PI eﬀective action is often considered in quantum ﬁeld the
ory), and the face width condition is also the next strengthening of face
width 2, which a well known combinatorial conjecture on graphs [Mohar
Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 103
and Thomassen (2001)] expects should simply follow for graphs that are 2
vertexconnected. (The latter condition is a bit more than 1PI: for graphs
with at least two vertices and no looping edges it is equivalent to all the
splittings of the graph at vertices also being 1PI, as we showed in Lemma
1.5.5.) The condition that the graph has no looping edges is only a tech
nical device for the proof. In fact, it is then easy to show (see [Aluﬃ and
Marcolli (2009a)]) that adding looping edges does not aﬀect the injectivity
of the map Υ.
When the map Υ is injective, it is possible to rephrase the computation
of the parametric Feynman integral as a period of the complement of the
determinant hypersurface
ˆ
T
⊂ A
2
. Notice also that if the map Υ is
injective then one has a well deﬁned map P
n−1
→P
2
−1
, which is otherwise
not everywhere deﬁned. Motivically, when the map Υ : A
n
→ A
2
is
injective, the complexity of Feynman integrals of the graph Γ as a period is
controlled by the motive m(A
2
ˆ
T
,
ˆ
Σ
Γ
(
ˆ
T
∩
ˆ
Σ
Γ
)), where
ˆ
Σ
Γ
is a normal
crossings divisor in A
2
such that Υ(∂σ
n
) ⊂
ˆ
Σ
Γ
. We recall below how to
construct the divisor
ˆ
Σ
Γ
.
One can in fact rewrite the Feynman integral (as usual up to a divergent
Γfactor) in the form
U(Γ) =
_
Υ(σ
n
)
T
Γ
(x, p)
−n+D/2
ω
Γ
(x)
det(x)
−n+(+1)D/2
,
for a polynomial T
Γ
(x, p) on A
2
that restricts to P
Γ
(t, p), and with ω
Γ
(x)
the image of the volume form. Let then
ˆ
Σ
Γ
be a normal crossings divisor in
A
2
, which contains the boundary of the domain of integration, Υ(∂σ
n
) ⊂
ˆ
Σ
Γ
. The question on the motivic nature of the resulting period can then
be reformulated (again modulo divergences) in this case as the question of
whether the motive
m(A
2
ˆ
T
,
ˆ
Σ
Γ
(
ˆ
Σ
Γ
∩
ˆ
T
)) (3.97)
is mixed Tate.
The advantage of moving the period computation via the map Υ =
Υ
Γ
from the hypersurface complement A
n
ˆ
X
Γ
to the complement of the
determinant hypersurface A
2
ˆ
T
is that, unlike what happens with the
graph hypersurfaces, it is well known that the determinant hypersurface
ˆ
T
is a mixed Tate motive, as we have already seen in detail in Theorems 2.6.2
and 2.6.3 above.
One then sees that, in this approach, the diﬃculty has been moved
from understanding the motivic nature of the hypersurface complement to
104 Feynman Motives
having some control on the other term of the relative cohomology, namely
the normal crossings divisor
ˆ
Σ
Γ
and the way it intersects the determinant
hypersurface.
If the motive of
ˆ
Σ
Γ
(
ˆ
Σ
Γ
∩
ˆ
T
) is mixed Tate, then knowing that A
2
ˆ
T
is always mixed Tate, the fact that mixed Tate motives form a triangulated
subcategory of the triangulated category of mixed motives would show that
the motive (3.97) whose realization is the relative cohomology would also
be mixed Tate.
Thus, Question 3.12.2 can be reformulated, under the combinatorial
conditions given above for the embedding, as a question on when the mo
tive of
ˆ
Σ
Γ
(
ˆ
Σ
Γ
∩
ˆ
T
) is mixed Tate. This requires, ﬁrst of all, a better
description of the divisor
ˆ
Σ
Γ
that contains the boundary ∂(Υ(σ
n
)).
A ﬁrst observation in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009a)] is that one can use
the same normal crossings divisor
ˆ
Σ
,g
for all graphs Γ with a ﬁxed number
of loops and a ﬁxed genus (that is, the minimal genus of an orientable
surface in which the graph can be embedded). This divisor is given by a
union of linear spaces.
Proposition 3.13.9. There exists a normal crossings divisor
ˆ
Σ
,g
⊂ A
2
,
which is a union of N =
_
f
2
_
linear spaces,
ˆ
Σ
,g
:= L
1
∪ ∪ L
N
, (3.98)
such that, for all graphs Γ with loops and genus g closed 2cell embedding,
the preimage under Υ = Υ
Γ
of the union
ˆ
Σ
Γ
of a subset of components of
ˆ
Σ
,g
is the algebraic simplex Σ
n
in A
n
. More explicitly, the components of
the divisor
ˆ
Σ
,g
can be described by the N =
_
f
2
_
equations
_
x
ij
= 0 1 ≤ i < j ≤ f −1
x
i1
+ +x
i,f−1
= 0 1 ≤ i ≤ f −1,
(3.99)
where f = − 2g + 1 is the number of faces of the embedding of the graph
Γ on a surface of genus g.
Proof. The polynomial det M
Γ
(t) does not depend on the choice of ori
entation for the loops of Γ. Thus, we can make the following convenient
choice of these orientations. We have chosen a closed 2cell embedding of Γ
into an orientable surface of genus g. Such an embedding has f faces, with
= 2g+f −1. We can arrange M
Γ
(t) so that the ﬁrst f −1 rows correspond
to the f −1 loops determined by the ‘internal’ faces of the embedding. On
each face, we choose the positive orientation (counterclockwise with respect
to an outgoing normal vector). Then each edgevariable in common between
Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 105
two faces i, j will appear with a minus sign in the entries (i, j) and (j, i) of
M
Γ
(t). These entries are both in the ( −2g) ( −2g) upperleft minor.
We have in fact seen that the injectivity of an ( −2g) ( −2g) minor
of the matrix M
Γ
suﬃces to control the injectivity of the map Υ, and we
can arrange so that the minor is the upperleft part of the ambient
matrix. Then the hyperplanes in A
n
associated to the coordinates t
i
can be
obtained by pulling back linear spaces along this minor. On the diagonal
of the (f − 1) (f − 1) submatrix we ﬁnd all edges making up each face,
with a positive sign. It follows that the pullbacks of the equations (3.99)
produce a list of all the edge variables, possibly with redundancies. The
components of
ˆ
Σ
,g
that form the divisor
ˆ
Σ
Γ
are selected by eliminating
those components of
ˆ
Σ
,g
that contain the image of the graph hypersurface
(i.e. coming from the zero entries of the matrix M
Γ
(t)).
A second observation of [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009a)] is then that, using
inclusionexclusion, it suﬃces to show that arbitrary intersections of the
components L
i
of
ˆ
Σ
,g
have the property that
(∩
i∈I
L
i
)
ˆ
T
(3.100)
is mixed Tate. In fact, this would then imply that also the locus
ˆ
Σ
Γ
(
ˆ
T
∩
ˆ
Σ
Γ
)
is mixed Tate, by repeatedly using inclusion–exclusion.
Notice that the intersection ∩
i∈I
L
i
is a linear subspace of codimension
#I in A
2
. In general, the intersection of a linear subspace with the de
terminant is not mixed Tate. For example, the intersection of a general
A
3
with
ˆ
T
3
is a cone over a genus1 curve. In fact, working projectively,
T
3
is a degree3 hypersurface in P
8
, with singularities in codimension > 1.
Therefore, the intersection with a general P
2
is a nonsingular cubic curve,
therefore a curve of genus = 1. The aﬃne version is a cone over this. Thus,
in order to understand under what conditions the locus (3.100) will be
mixed Tate, we have to understand in what sense the intersections ∩
i∈I
L
i
are special.
The following characterization, which is given in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli
(2009a)], leads to a reformulation of the problem in terms of certain “man
ifolds of frames”.
Lemma 3.13.10. Let E be a ﬁxed dimensional vector space. Every I ⊆
¦1, . . . , N¦ determines a choice of linear subspaces V
1
, . . . , V
of E with the
property that
∩
k∈I
L
k
= ¦(v
1
, . . . , v
) ∈ A
2
[ ∀i, v
i
∈ V
i
¦. (3.101)
106 Feynman Motives
Here, we denote an matrix in A
2
by its rowvectors v
i
∈ E.
Further, dimV
i
≥ i −1. Further still, there exists a basis (e
1
, . . . , e
) of
E such that each space V
i
is the span of a subset (of cardinality ≥ i −1) of
the vectors e
j
.
Proof. Recall (Proposition 3.13.9) that the components L
k
of
ˆ
Σ
,g
consist
of matrices for which either the (i, j) entry x
ij
equals 0, for 1 ≤ i < j ≤
−2g, or
x
i1
+ +x
i,−2g
= 0
for 1 ≤ i ≤ −2g. Thus, each L
k
consists of tuples (v
1
, . . . , v
) for which
exactly one row v
i
belongs to a ﬁxed hyperplane of E, and more precisely
to one of the hyperplanes
x
1
+ +x
−2g
= 0, x
2
= 0, . . . x
−2g
= 0. (3.102)
The statement follows by choosing V
i
to be the intersection of the hy
perplanes corresponding to the L
k
in the ith row, among those listed in
(3.102). Since there are at most − 2g − i + 1 hyperplanes L
k
in the ith
row,
dimV
i
≥ −( −2g −i + 1) = 2g +i −1 ≥ i −1 .
Finally, to obtain the basis (e
1
, . . . , e
) mentioned in the statement, simply
choose the basis dual to the basis (x
1
+ +x
−2g
, x
2
, . . . , x
) of the dual
space to E.
A suﬃcient condition that would ensure that the locus
ˆ
Σ
Γ
(
ˆ
Σ
Γ
∩
ˆ
T
)
is mixed Tate is then described in terms of manifolds of frames.
Deﬁnition 3.13.11. For a given ambient space V = A
and an assigned
collection of linear subspaces V
i
, i = 1, . . . , , the manifold of frames
F(V
1
, . . . , V
) is deﬁned as the locus
F(V
1
, . . . , V
) := ¦(v
1
, . . . , v
) ∈ A
2
[ v
k
∈ V
k
¦ ∩ (A
2
ˆ
T
). (3.103)
More generally, F(V
1
, . . . , V
r
) ⊂ V
1
V
r
denotes the locus of rtuples
of linearly independent vectors in a given vector space V , where each v
i
is
constrained to belong to the given subspace V
i
.
The previous characterization of the locus (3.100), together with the use
of inclusion–exclusion arguments, shows that if, for a ﬁxed , the manifold
of frames is mixed Tate for all choices of the subspaces V
i
, this suﬃces to
guarantee that the motive
m(A
2
ˆ
T
,
ˆ
Σ
,g
(
ˆ
Σ
,g
∩
ˆ
T
)) (3.104)
Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 107
is also mixed Tate. When this is the case, the result then implies that,
modulo divergences, the residues of Feynman graphs Γ with loops and
genus g, for which the injectivity condition on Υ holds, are all periods of
mixed Tate motives.
In the case of two and three loops, one can verify explicitly that the
manifolds of frames F(V
1
, V
2
) and F(V
1
, V
2
, V
3
) are mixed Tate. This is
done in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009a)] by exhibiting an explicit stratiﬁca
tion, from which, as in the case of the determinant hypersurface discussed
above, one can show that the motive deﬁnes an object in the category of
mixed Tate motives as a subtriangulated category of the category of mixed
motives. One can also compute explicitly the corresponding classes in the
Grothendieck ring, as a function of the Lefschetz motive L. They are of the
following form.
Proposition 3.13.12. For given subspaces V
1
, V
2
, the manifold of frames
F(V
1
, V
2
) is a mixed Tate motive, whose class in the Grothendieck ring is
[F(V
1
, V
2
)] = L
d
1
+d
2
−L
d
1
−L
d
2
−L
d
12
+1
+L
d
12
+L,
with d
i
= dim(V
i
) and d
ij
= dim(V
i
∩ V
j
).
Proof. We want to parameterize all pairs (v
1
, v
2
) of vectors such that
v
1
∈ V
1
, v
2
∈ V
2
, and dim¸v
1
, v
2
) = 2. This locus can be decomposed into
the two (possibly empty) pieces
(1) v
1
∈ V
1
(V
1
∩ V
2
), and v
2
∈ V
2
¦0¦;
(2) v
1
∈ (V
1
∩ V
2
) ¦0¦, and v
2
∈ V
2
¸v
1
).
This exhausts all the possible ways of obtaining linearly independent vectors
with the ﬁrst one in V
1
and the second one in V
2
and the manifold of frames
F(V
1
, V
2
) is the union of these two loci. The ﬁrst case describes the locus
(V
1
(V
1
∩ V
2
)) (V
2
¦0¦)
which is clearly mixed Tate, being obtained by taking products and com
plements of aﬃne spaces. Its class in the Grothendieck ring is of the form
(L
d
1
−L
d
12
)(L
d
2
−1).
The locus deﬁned by the second case can be described equivalently by
the following procedure. Consider the projective space P(V
1
∩ V
2
), and
the trivial bundles 1
12
⊆ 1
2
with ﬁber V
1
∩ V
2
⊆ V
2
. The tautological line
bundle O
12
(−1) over P(V
1
∩V
2
) sits inside 1
12
, hence inside 1
2
. The desired
pairs of vectors (v
1
, v
2
) are obtained by choosing a point p ∈ P(V
1
∩ V
2
), a
108 Feynman Motives
vector v
1
,= 0 in the ﬁber of O
12
(−1) over p, and a vector v
2
in the ﬁber of
1
2
O
12
(−1) over p. This again deﬁnes a mixed Tate locus, using the same
two properties of the existence of distinguished triangles in the category of
mixed motives associated to closed embeddings and homotopy invariance,
as in Theorems 2.6.2 and 2.6.3. The homotopy invariance property, which
is formulated for products, extends in fact to the locally trivial case of
vector bundles or projective bundles, see [Voevodsky (2000)]. The class in
the Grothendieck ring, in this case, is then given by the expression
(L
d
12
−1)(L
d
2
−L).
Thus, the class of F(V
1
, V
2
) is the sum of these two classes,
[F(V
1
, V
2
)] = (L
d
1
+d
2
−L
d
1
−L
d
2
+d
12
+L
d
12
) +(L
d
2
+d
12
−L
d
12
+1
−L
d
2
+L)
= L
d
1
+d
2
−L
d
1
−L
d
2
−L
d
12
+1
+L
d
12
+L.
The case of three subspaces already requires a more delicate analysis
of the contribution of the various strata, as in ¸6.2 of [Aluﬃ and Marcolli
(2009a)], which we reproduce here below.
Theorem 3.13.13. Let V
1
, V
2
, V
3
be assigned subspaces of a vector space
V . Then the manifold of frames F(V
1
, V
2
, V
3
) is a mixed Tate motive, with
class in the Grothendieck ring given by
[F(V
1
, V
2
, V
3
)] = (L
d
1
−1)(L
d
2
−1)(L
d
3
−1)
−(L −1)((L
d
1
−L)(L
d
23
−1) + (L
d
2
−L)(L
d
13
−1) + (L
d
3
−L)(L
d
12
−1)
+(L −1)
2
(L
d
1
+d
2
+d
3
−D
−L
d
123
+1
) + (L −1)
3
,
where d
i
= dim(V
1
), d
ij
= dim(V
i
∩ V
j
), d
ijk
= dim(V
i
∩ V
j
∩ V
k
), and
D = D
ijk
= dim(V
i
+V
j
+V
k
).
Proof. This time one can proceed in the following way to obtain a strati
ﬁcation. One can look for a stratiﬁcation ¦S
α
¦ of V
3
which is ﬁner than the
one induced by the subspace arrangement V
1
∩ V
3
, V
2
∩ V
3
and such that,
for v
3
in S
α
, the class F
α
:= [F(π(V
1
), π(V
2
))], with π : V → V
:= V/¸v
3
)
the projection, depends only on α and not on the chosen vector v
3
∈ S
α
.
In other words, we want to construct a stratiﬁcation of V
3
such that the
dimensions of the spaces π(V
1
), π(V
2
) and π(V
1
∩ V
2
) are constant along
the strata. The following ﬁve loci deﬁne such a stratiﬁcation of V
3
¦0¦:
(1) S
123
:= (V
1
∩ V
2
∩ V
3
) ¦0¦;
Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 109
(2) S
13
:= (V
1
∩ V
3
) (V
1
∩ V
2
∩ V
3
);
(3) S
23
:= (V
2
∩ V
3
) (V
1
∩ V
2
∩ V
3
);
(4) S
(12)3
:= ((V
1
+V
2
) ∩ V
3
) ((V
1
∪ V
2
) ∩ V
3
);
(5) S
3
:= V
3
((V
1
+V
2
) ∩ V
3
).
The dimensions are indeed constant along the strata and given by
dimπ(V
1
) dimπ(V
2
) dim(π(V
1
) ∩ π(V
2
))
S
123
d
1
−1 d
2
−1 d
12
−1
S
13
d
1
−1 d
2
d
12
S
23
d
1
d
2
−1 d
12
S
(12)3
d
1
d
2
d
12
+ 1
S
3
d
1
d
2
d
12
This information can then be translated into explicit classes [F
α
] in the
Grothendieck ring associated to the strata S
α
so that the class of the frame
manifold is of the form
[F(V
1
, V
2
, V
3
)] =
α
L
s
α
[F
α
][S
α
], (3.105)
where the number s
α
is the number of subspaces V
i
, i = 1, 2 containing
the vector v
3
∈ S
α
. This is also independent of the choice of v
3
and only
dependent on α by the properties of the stratiﬁcation. For the table of
dimensions obtained above the corresponding classes [F
α
] are as follows.
[F
α
]
S
123
L
d
1
+d
2
−2
−L
d
1
−1
−L
d
2
−1
−L
d
12
+L
d
12
−1
+L
S
13
L
d
1
+d
2
−1
−L
d
1
−1
−L
d
2
−L
d
12
+1
+L
d
12
+L
S
23
L
d
1
+d
2
−1
−L
d
1
−L
d
2
−1
−L
d
12
+1
+L
d
12
+L
S
(12)3
L
d
1
+d
2
−L
d
1
−L
d
2
−L
d
12
+2
+L
d
12
+1
+L
S
3
L
d
1
+d
2
−L
d
1
−L
d
2
−L
d
12
+1
+L
d
12
+L
One then obtains the following values for the class of the stratum [S
α
]
and the number s
α
.
[S
α
] s
α
S
123
L
d
123
−1 2
S
13
L
d
13
−L
d
123
1
S
23
L
d
23
−L
d
123
1
S
(12)3
L
d
1
+d
2
+d
3
−D−d
12
−L
d
13
−L
d
23
+L
d
123
0
S
3
L
d
3
−L
d
1
+d
2
+d
3
−D−d
12
0
110 Feynman Motives
Using the formula (3.105) then gives the stated result. Although the
stratiﬁcation is used there only to compute the class in the Grothendieck
group, an argument similar to the one of Theorems 2.6.2 and 2.6.3 can be
used to show that the same stratiﬁcations used to compute [F(V
1
, V
2
)] and
[F(V
1
, V
2
, V
3
)] also show that F(V
1
, V
2
) and F(V
1
, V
2
, V
3
) deﬁne objects in
the triangulated category of mixed Tate motives.
One can use these explicit computations of classes of manifolds of frames
for two and three subspaces to obtain speciﬁc information about the motives
m(A
2
ˆ
T
,
ˆ
Σ
Γ
(
ˆ
Σ
Γ
∩
ˆ
T
))
for speciﬁc Feynman graphs with up to three loops. For example, we report
here brieﬂy the case of the wheelwiththreespokes graph (the 1skeleton
of a tetrahedron) described in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009a)].
5
t
4
t
6
t
2
t
1
t
3
1
2
3
t
This graph has matrix M
Γ
(t) given by
_
_
t
1
+t
2
+t
5
−t
1
−t
2
−t
1
t
1
+t
3
+t
4
−t
3
−t
2
−t
3
t
2
+t
3
+t
6
_
_
.
Labeling entries of the matrix as x
ij
, we can obtain t
1
, . . . , t
6
as pullbacks
of the following:
_
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
_
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
_
t
1
= −x
12
t
2
= −x
13
t
3
= −x
23
t
4
= x
21
+x
22
+x
23
t
5
= x
11
+x
12
+x
13
t
6
= x
31
+x
32
+x
33
Thus, we can consider as
ˆ
Σ
Γ
the normal crossings divisor deﬁned by the
equation
x
12
x
13
x
23
(x
11
+x
12
+x
13
)(x
21
+x
22
+x
23
)(x
31
+x
32
+x
33
) = 0.
Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 111
In order to compute the class in the Grothendieck ring of the intersection
ˆ
Σ
Γ
∩ (A
9
ˆ
T
3
), one can use inclusionexclusion and compute the classes
for all the intersections of subsets of components of the divisor
ˆ
Σ
Γ
. This
divisor has 6 components, hence there are 2
6
= 64 such intersections. Each
of them determines a choice of three subspaces V
1
, V
2
, V
3
corresponding
to the linearly independent vectors given by the rows of the matrix (x
ij
)
in A
9
. All of the corresponding classes [F(V
1
, V
2
, V
3
)], for each of the 64
possibilities, were computed explicitly in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009a)]. We
do not reproduce them all here, but we only give the ﬁnal result, which
shows that the resulting class is then of the form
[
ˆ
Σ
Γ
(
ˆ
T
3
∩
ˆ
Σ
Γ
)] = L(6L
4
−3L
3
+ 2L
2
+ 2L −1)(L −1)
3
.
By arguing as in Theorem 2.6.2, and using the same stratiﬁcation of the
complement A
9
ˆ
T
3
induced by the divisor
ˆ
Σ
Γ
as in the computation of
the class above, one can improve the result from a statement about the
class in the Grothendieck ring being a polynomial function of the Lefschetz
motive L to one about the motive m(
ˆ
Σ
Γ
(
ˆ
T
3
∩
ˆ
Σ
Γ
)) itself being an object
in the triangulated subcategory T/T
Q
of mixed Tate motives inside the
triangulated category T/
Q
of mixed motives. Then this fact, together with
the fact that the hypersurface complement itself is a mixed Tate motive,
and the distinguished triangle corresponding to the long exact cohomology
sequence, suﬃce to show that the mixed motive
m(A
9
ˆ
T
3
,
ˆ
Σ
Γ
(
ˆ
Σ
Γ
∩
ˆ
T
3
))
is mixed Tate for the case of the wheel with three spokes. The result for
other graphs with three loops can be derived from the same analysis used
for the wheel with three spokes, by restricting only to certain components
of the divisor, as explained in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009a)].
For the cases of manifolds of frames F(V
1
, . . . , V
r
) with more than three
subspaces, it would seem at ﬁrst that one should be able to establish an
inductive argument that would take care of the cases of more subspaces,
but the combinatorics of the possible subspace arrangements quickly be
comes very diﬃcult to control. In fact, in general it seems unlikely that
the frame manifolds F(V
1
, . . . , V
) will continue to be mixed Tate for large
and for arbitrarily complex subspace arrangements. The situation may
in fact be somewhat similar to that of “Murphy’s law in algebraic geome
try” described in [Vakil (2006)], where a suﬃciently general case may be as
bad as possible, while speciﬁc cases one can explicitly construct are much
better behaved. The connection can probably be made more precise, given
112 Feynman Motives
that both the result of [Belkale and Brosnan (2003a)] on the general mo
tivic properties of the graph hypersurfaces X
Γ
and Murphy’s law result of
[Vakil (2006)] are based on the same universality result for matroid repre
sentations of [Mn¨ev (1988)]. Another observation from the point of view
of matroids is that, while the result of [Belkale and Brosnan (2003a)] is
nonconstructive, in the sense that it shows that the graph hypersurfaces
generate the Grothendieck ring of motives but it does not provide an ex
plicit construction of matroids on which to test the mixed Tate property, it
may be that the loci
ˆ
Σ
Γ
∩(A
2
ˆ
T
) considered here may provide a possible
way to make that general result more explicit, by constructing explicit ma
troids, along the lines of [Gelfand and Serganova (1987)]. A reformulation
of the problem of understanding when frame manifolds are mixed Tate is
given in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009a)] in terms of intersections of unions of
Schubert cells in ﬂag varieties. This version of the problem suggests a pos
sible connection to Kazhdan–Lusztig theory [Kazhdan and Lusztig (1980)].
3.14 Handling divergences
All the considerations above on the motivic nature of the relative coho
mology involved in the computation of the parametric Feynman integral,
either in the hypersurface complement P
n−1
X
Γ
or in the complement of
the determinant hypersurface P
2
−1
T
, assume that the integral is con
vergent and therefore directly deﬁnes a period. In other words, the issue
of divergences is not dealt with in this approach. However, one knows very
well that most Feynman integrals are divergent, even when in the para
metric form one removes the divergent Gamma factor and only looks at
the residue, and that some regularization and renormalization procedure is
needed to handle these divergences.
In terms of the geometry, after removing the divergent Gamma factor,
the source of other possible divergences in the parametric Feynman integral
is the locus of intersection of the graph hypersurface X
Γ
with the domain
of integration σ
n
.
Notice that the poles of the integrand that fall inside the integration
domain σ
n
occur necessarily along the boundary ∂σ
n
, since in the interior
the graph polynomial Ψ
Γ
takes only strictly positive real values.
Thus, one needs to modify the integrals suitably in such a way as to
eliminate, by a regularization procedure, the intersections X
Γ
∩∂σ
n
, or (to
Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 113
work in algebrogeometric terms) the intersections X
Γ
∩Σ
n
which contains
the former.
There are diﬀerent possible ways to achieve such a regularization pro
cedure. We mention here three possible approaches. We discuss the third
one in more detail in the following chapter.
One method was developed in [Belkale and Brosnan (2003b)] in the log
arithmically divergent case where n = D/2, that is, when the polynomial
P
Γ
(t, p) is not present and only the denominator Ψ
Γ
(t)
D/2
appears in the
parametric Feynman integral. As we have already mentioned, using dimen
sional regularization, one can, in this case, rewrite the Feynman integral in
the form of a local Igusa Lfunction
I(s) =
_
σ
f(t)
s
ω,
for f = Ψ
Γ
. They prove that this Lfunction has a Laurent series expansion
where all the coeﬃcients are periods. In this setting, the issue of eliminat
ing divergences becomes similar to the techniques used, for instance, in
the context of log canonical thresholds. The result was more recently ex
tended algorithmically to the nonlogdivergent case [Bogner and Weinzierl
(2007a)], [Bogner and Weinzierl (2007b)].
Another method, used in [Bloch, Esnault, Kreimer (2006)], consists of
eliminating the divergences by separating Σ
n
and X
Γ
performing a series of
blowups. Similarly, working in the setting of the determinant hypersurface
complement A
2
ˆ
T
one can perform blowups to separate the locus of
intersection of the determinant hypersurface
ˆ
T
with the divisor
ˆ
Σ
,g
. To
make sure that this operation does not change the motivic properties of the
resulting period integrals, one needs to ensure that blowups along
ˆ
Σ
,g
∩
ˆ
T
maintain the mixed Tate properties if we know that (3.104) is mixed Tate.
For blowups performed over a smooth locus one has projective bundles,
for which one knows that the mixed Tate property is maintained, since
one has an explicit formula for the motive of a projective bundle in the
Voevodsky category, which is a sum of Tate twisted copies of the motive of
the base, but when the locus is singular, as is typically the case here, then
the required analysis is more delicate.
Yet another method was proposed in [Marcolli (2008)], based on defor
mations instead of resolutions. By considering the graph hypersurface X
Γ
as the special ﬁber X
0
of a family X
s
of varieties deﬁned by the level sets
f
−1
(s), for f = Ψ
Γ
: A
n
→A
1
, one can form a tubular neighborhood
D
(X) = ∪
s∈∆
∗
X
s
,
114 Feynman Motives
for ∆
∗
a punctured disk of radius , and a circle bundle π
: ∂D
(X) → X
.
One can then regularize the Feynman integral by integrating “around the
singularities” in the ﬁber π
−1
(σ ∩ X
). The regularized integral has a
Laurent series expansion in the parameter .
Motivically, one should take into account the fact that the presence of
singularities in the hypersurface X
Γ
increases the likelihood that the part
of the cohomology involved in the period computation can be mixed Tate.
In fact, if these were smooth hypersurfaces, they would typically not be
mixed Tate even for a small number of loops, while it is precisely because
of the fact that they are highly singular that the X
Γ
continue to be mixed
Tate for a fairly large number of loops and even though one knows that
eventually one will run into graphs for which X
Γ
is no longer mixed Tate,
the fact that they continue to be singular in low codimension stil makes
it possible to have a signiﬁcant part of the cohomology that will still be a
realization of a mixed Tate motive.
The use of deformations X
to regularize the integral, which we describe
more in detail in the following chapter, is natural from the point of view of
singularity theory, where one works with Milnor ﬁbers of singularites. The
singularities of the hypersurfaces X
Γ
are nonisolated, but many techniques
of singularity theory are designed to cover also this more general case.
From this viewpoint, it is not clear though how to perform the regu
larization and subtraction of divergences in a way that does not alter the
motivic properties. In fact, while the special singular ﬁber may be mixed
Tate, the generic ﬁber in a family used as deformation can be a general
hypersurface that will not be motivically mixed Tate any longer. However,
there are notions such as a motivic tubular neighborhood [Levine (2005)]
that may be useful in this context, as well as the theory of limiting mixed
Hodge structures for a degeneration of a family of algebraic varieties. It is
not yet clear how to use this type of methods to obtain motivic information
on Feynman integrals after subtraction of divergences.
In general, as we discuss more at length in Chapter 4.2, a regularization
procedure for Feynman integrals replaces a divergent integral with a func
tion of some regularization parameters (such as the complexiﬁed dimension
of DimReg, or the deformation parameter in the example here above) in
which the resulting function has a Laurent series expansion around the pole
that corresponds to the divergent integral originally considered. One then
uses a procedure of extraction of ﬁnite values to eliminate the polar parts
of these Laurent series in a way that is consistent over graphs, that is, a
renormalization procedure.
Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 115
3.15 Motivic zeta functions and motivic Feynman rules
As we mentioned brieﬂy in describing the Grothendieck ring as a universal
Euler characteristic, the counting of points of a variety over ﬁnite ﬁelds
is an example of an additive invariant that, as such, factors through the
Grothendieck ring. The behavior of the number of points over ﬁnite ﬁelds
is one of the properties of a variety that reveal its motivic nature. For
example, if a variety, say deﬁned over Q, is motivically mixed Tate, then
the number of points of the reductions mod p is polynomial in p.
The information on the number of points over ﬁnite ﬁelds is conveniently
packaged in the form of a zeta function
Z
X
(t) = exp
_
n
#X(F
q
n)
n
t
n
_
(3.106)
Notice that this can be written equivalently in terms of symmetric products
as
Z
X
(t) =
n≥0
#s
n
(X)(F
q
) t
n
,
where s
n
(X) denotes the nth symmetric power of X.
The fact that the counting of the number of points behaves like an Euler
characteristic, hence it descends from the Grothendieck ring, suggested that
the zeta function itself may be lifted at the motivic level. This was done in
[Kapranov (2000)], where the motivic zeta function is deﬁned as
Z
X
(t) =
n≥0
[s
n
(X)] t
n
(3.107)
where [s
n
(X)] are the classes in the Grothendieck ring and the zeta function
can be seen as an element of K
0
(1
K
)[[t]]. For example, one has
Z
P
1(t) = (1 −t)
−1
(1 −Lt)
−1
.
Kapranov proved that, when X is the motive of a curve, then the zeta
function is a rational function, in the sense that, given a motivic measure
µ : K
0
(/) → ¹, the zeta function Z
X,µ
(T) ∈ ¹[[T]] is a rational function
of T. Later, it was proved in [Larsen and Lunts (2003)] that in general this
is not true in the case of algebraic surfaces.
One recovers the zeta function of the variety, for a ﬁnite ﬁeld K = F
q
, by
applying a “counting of points” homomorphism K
0
(1
K
) →Z to the motivic
zeta function. One obtains other kinds of zeta functions by applying other
“motivic measures” µ : K
0
(1
K
) → ¹, which give
Z
X,R
(t) =
n≥0
µ(s
n
(X)) t
n
∈ ¹[[t]].
116 Feynman Motives
It is well known that the motivic zeta function contains all the informa
tion on the behavior of the number of points of reductions mod p, hence
potentially the information on the mixed Tate nature of a variety. A recent
survey of these ideas is given in [Andr´e (2009)], where it is also observed
that the motivic zeta function should play a useful role in the case of mo
tives associated to Feynman graphs.
There are other reasons why one can expect that, indeed, Kapranov’s
motivic zeta functions may be especially suitable tools to investigate mo
tivic properties of Feynman integrals. One is, for example, the observation
made at the end of [Marcolli (2008)] which suggests that the function Ψ
s
Γ
,
for s a complex variable, that appears in the dimensional regularization of
parametric Feynman integrals, regarded as a zeta function
Z
Γ
(T) :=
n≥0
log
n
Ψ
Γ
n!
T
n
= Ψ
T
Γ
,
may be related to a motivic zeta function
Z
Log,Γ
(T) :=
n≥0
s
n
(Log
Γ
) T
n
,
where the motive Log
Γ
is the pullback of the logarithmic motive (2.39), via
the map Ψ
Γ
.
Another reason is the formulation of parametric Feynman integrals as
local Igusa Lfunctions given in [Belkale and Brosnan (2003b)]. There is a
motivic Igusa Lfunction constructed by [Denef and Loeser (1998)], which
may provide the right tool for a motivic formulation of the dimensionally
regularized parametric Feynman integrals.
In quantum ﬁeld theory it is customary to consider the full partition
function of the theory, arranged in an asymptotic series by loop number,
instead of looking only at the contribution of individual Feynman graphs.
Besides the loop number = b
1
(Γ), other suitable gradings δ(Γ) are given
by the number n = #E
int
(Γ) of internal edges, or by #E
int
(Γ) − b
1
(Γ) =
#V (Γ) − b
0
(Γ), the number of vertices minus the number of connected
components. As shown in [Connes and Marcolli (2008)] p.77, these all
deﬁne gradings on the Connes–Kreimer Hopf algebra of Feynman graphs.
When one considers motivic Feynman rules, these partition functions
appear to be interesting analogs of the motivic zeta functions considered
in [Kapranov (2000)], [Larsen and Lunts (2003)]. For instance, one can
Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 117
consider a partition function given by the formal series
Z(t) =
N≥0
δ(Γ)=N
U(Γ)
#Aut(Γ)
t
N
, (3.108)
where δ(Γ) is any one of the gradings described above and where U(Γ) =
[A
n
ˆ
X
Γ
] ∈ K
0
(1
K
). Given a motivic measure µ : K
0
(1
K
) → ¹, this gives
a zeta function with values in ¹[[t]] of the form
Z
R
(t) =
N≥0
δ(Γ)=N
µ(U(Γ))
#Aut(Γ)
t
N
.
In the case of the sums over graphs
S
N
=
#V (Γ)=N
[X
Γ
]
N!
#Aut(Γ)
considered in [Bloch (2008)], one ﬁnds that cancellations between the classes
occur in the Grothendieck ring K
0
(1
K
) and the resulting class S
N
is always
in the Tate subring Z[L] even if the individual terms [X
Γ
] may be nonmixed
Tate. Similarly, it is possible that interesting cancellations of a similar
nature may occur in suitable evaluations of the zeta functions (3.108).
Chapter 4
Feynman integrals and Gelfand–Leray
forms
We focus in this chapter, following [Marcolli (2008)], on the similarities
between the parametric form of the Feynman integrals and the oscillatory
integrals used in singularity theory to describe integrals of holomorphic
forms over vanishing cycles of a singularity and to relate these to mixed
Hodge structures, see [Arnold, Goryunov, Lyashko, Vasilev (1998)] and
Vol.II of [Arnold, GuseinZade, Varchenko (1988)]. In particular, we show
that dimensionally regularized parametric Feynman integrals can be related
to the Mellin transform of a Gelfand–Leray form, whose Fourier transform
is an oscillatory integral of the sort considered in the context of singularity
theory. We show that one can deﬁne in this way a regularization procedure
for the parametric Feynman integrals, based on the use of Leray cocycles,
aimed at eliminating the divergences coming from the intersections X
Γ
∩σ
n
,
as mentioned in §3.14 above.
4.1 Oscillatory integrals
An oscillatory integral is an expression of the form
I(α) =
R
n
e
iαf(x)
φ(x) dx
1
· · · dx
n
, (4.1)
where f : R
n
→ R and φ : R
n
→ R are smooth functions and α ∈ R
∗
+
is a
real parameter. It is well known that, if the phase f(x) is an analytic func
tion in a neighborhood of a critical point x
0
, then (4.1) has an asymptotic
development for α → ∞ given by a series
I(α) ∼ e
iαf(x
0
)
u
n−1
k=0
a
k,u
(φ) α
u
(log α)
k
, (4.2)
119
120 Feynman Motives
where u runs over a ﬁnite set of arithmetic progressions of negative rational
numbers depending only on the phase f(x), and the a
k,u
are distributions
supported on the critical points of the phase, cf. §2.6.1, Vol.II of [Arnold,
GuseinZade, Varchenko (1988)].
It is also well known that the integral (4.1) can be reformulated in
terms of onedimensional integrals using the Gelfand–Leray forms, deﬁned
as follows.
Deﬁnition 4.1.1. Let X
t
be the level hypersurfaces X
t
= {x f(x) = t}.
Then the Gelfand–Leray form ω
f
(x, t) of f is the unique (n − 1)form on
the level hypersurface X
t
with the property that
df ∧ ω
f
(x, t) = dx
1
∧ · · · ∧ dx
n
. (4.3)
Notice that there is an ambiguity given by diﬀerent possible choices of
an (n − 1)form satisfying (4.3), but their restrictions to X
t
all agree so
that the Gelfand–Leray form on X
t
is well deﬁned.
More generally, given a form α, we say that α admits a Gelfand–Leray
form with respect to f if there is a diﬀerential form, which we denote by
α/df, satisfying
df ∧
α
df
= α. (4.4)
As above, the restriction of the form (α/df)(x, t) to X
t
is uniquely deﬁned.
The form ω
f
(x, t) above is the Gelfand–Leray form of the volume form
α = dx
1
∧ · · · ∧ dx
n
, hence one writes it with the notation
ω
f
(x, t) =
dx
1
∧ · · · ∧ dx
n
df
. (4.5)
The Gelfand–Leray form is given by the Poincar´e residue
α
df
= Res
=0
α
f −
. (4.6)
The Gelfand–Leray function is the associated function
J(t) :=
X
t
φ(x)ω
f
(x, t). (4.7)
The oscillatory integral, expressed in terms of Gelfand–Leray forms, is
then written as
I(α) =
R
e
iαt
X
t
(R)
φ(x)ω
f
(x, t)
dt, (4.8)
Feynman integrals and Gelfand–Leray forms 121
where X
t
(R) ⊂ R
n
is the level set X
t
(R) = {x ∈ R
n
: f(x) = t} and
ω
f
(x, t) is the Gelfand–Leray form of f. For more details, see §2.6 and
§2.7, Vol.II [Arnold, GuseinZade, Varchenko (1988)].
Notice that, up to throwing away a set of measure zero, we can assume
here that the integration is over the values t ∈ R such that the level set X
t
is a smooth hypersurface.
4.2 Leray regularization of Feynman integrals
We consider here the case of complex hypersurfaces X ⊂ A
n
= C
n
, with
deﬁning polynomial equation f = 0 (where f will be the graph polynomial
Ψ
Γ
) and the hypersurface complement D(f) ⊂ A
n
, such that the restriction
of f to the interior of the domain of integration σ
n
⊂ A
n
takes strictly
positive real values.
Deﬁnition 4.2.1. The Leray coboundary L(σ) of a kchain σ in X is a
(k +1)chain in D(f) obtained by considering a tubular neighborhood of X
in A
n
, in the following way. If X is a smooth hypersurface, the boundary
of its tubular neighborhood is a circle bundle over X. One considers the
preimage of σ under the projection map as a chain in D(f).
The Leray coboundary L(σ) is a cycle if σ is a cycle, and if one changes
σ by a boundary then L(σ) also changes by a boundary.
Lemma 4.2.2. Let σ
be a kchain in X
= {t ∈ A
n
f(t) = } and let
L(σ
) be its Leray coboundary in D(f − ). Then, for a form α ∈ Ω
k
that
admits a Gelfand–Leray form, one has
1
2πi
L(σ())
df ∧
α
f −
=
σ()
α, (4.9)
where
d
d
σ()
α =
σ()
dα
df
−
∂σ()
α
df
. (4.10)
Proof. First let us show that if α has a Gelfand–Leray form then dα also
does. We have a form α/df such that
df ∧
α
df
= α.
Its diﬀerential gives
dα = d
df ∧
α
df
= −df ∧ d
α
df
.
122 Feynman Motives
Thus, the form
dα
df
= −d
α
df
is a Gelfand–Leray form for dα.
Then we proceed to prove the ﬁrst statement. One can write
1
2πi
L(σ())
df ∧
α
f −
=
1
2πi
γ
σ(s)
α
ds
s −
,
where γ
∼
= S
1
is the boundary of a small disk centered at ∈ C. This can
then be written as
=
1
2πi
γ
σ()
α
ds
s −
+
1
2πi
γ
σ(s)
α
ds
s −
−
1
2πi
γ
σ()
α
ds
s −
.
The last term can be made arbitrarily small, so one gets (4.9). To obtain
(4.10) notice that
1
2πi
d
d
L(σ())
df ∧
α
f −
=
1
2πi
L(σ())
df ∧
α
(f −)
2
.
One then uses
d
α
f −
=
dα
f −
−
α
(f −)
2
to rewrite the above as
1
2πi
L(σ())
dα
f −
−
L(σ())
d
α
f −
=
1
2πi
L(σ())
df ∧
dα
df
f −
−
1
2πi
L(∂σ())
α
f −
=
1
2πi
L(σ())
df ∧
dα
df
f −
−
1
2πi
L(∂σ())
df ∧
α
df
f −
,
where dα/df is a Gelfand–Leray form such that
df ∧
dα
df
= dα,
and α/df is a Gelfand–Leray form with the property that
df ∧
α
df
= α.
This then gives by (4.9)
d
d
σ()
α =
σ()
dα
df
−
∂σ()
α
df
.
This completes the proof.
Feynman integrals and Gelfand–Leray forms 123
The formulation given in Proposition 3.4.3 of the parametric Feynman
integrals suggests a regularization procedure based on Leray coboundaries,
which has the eﬀect of replacing a divergent integral with a meromorphic
function of a regularization parameter , similarly to what happens in the
case of DimReg. We know that the divergences of the parametric Feynman
integral appear at the intersections X
Γ
∩σ
n
, so we can concentrate only on
the part of the integral that is supported near this locus.
As mentioned brieﬂy in §3.14 above, one considers a neighborhood
D
(X) of a hypersurface X in a projective space P
n−1
, given by the level
sets
D
(X) = ∪
s∈∆
∗
X
s
, (4.11)
where X
s
= {tf(t) = s} and ∆
∗
⊂ C
∗
is a small punctured disk of radius
> 0. The boundary ∂D
(X) is given by
∂D
(X) = ∪
s∈∂∆
∗
X
s
. (4.12)
It is a circle bundle over the generic ﬁber X
, with projection
π
: ∂D
(X) → X
.
Given a domain of integration σ, possibly with boundary, we consider
the intersection σ∩D
(X). This contains the locus σ∩X which is of interest
to us in terms of divergences in the Feynman integral. We let L
(σ) denote
the set
L
(σ) = π
−1
(σ ∩ X
). (4.13)
This satisﬁes L
(∂σ) = ∂L
(σ).
We consider forms
π
∗
(η
m
) =
∆(ω)
f
m
, (4.14)
as in Proposition 3.4.3, where X = {f = 0} with order of vanishing m =
−n+D(+1)/2, and ω = P
Γ
(t, p)
−n+D/2
ω
n
, with ω
n
the standard volume
form. We can then regularize the Feynman integral, written in the form of
Proposition 3.4.3, in the following way.
Deﬁnition 4.2.3. The Leray regularized Feynman integral is obtained
from (3.56) by replacing the part
∂σ
n
∩D
(X
Γ
)
π
∗
(η
m
) +
σ
n
∩D
(X
Γ
)
df ∧
π
∗
(η
m
)
f
(4.15)
of (3.56) with the integral
L
(∂σ
n
)
π
∗
(η
m−1
)
f −
+
L
(σ
n
)
df ∧
π
∗
(η
m
)
f −
, (4.16)
where f = Ψ
Γ
and m = −n + D( + 1)/2.
124 Feynman Motives
Thus, the Leray regularization introduced here consists in replacing the
integral over σ
n
∩D
(X
Γ
) with an integral over L
(σ
n
) (σ
n
∩X
Γ,
) ×S
1
,
which avoids the locus σ
n
∩ X
Γ
where the divergence can occur by going
around it along a circle of small radius > 0. Here X
Γ,
is the level set
of f = Ψ
Γ
.
Lemma 4.2.4. The Leray regularization of the Feynman integral (3.56)
can be equivalently written in the form
U(Γ)
=
1
C(n, D, )
∂σ
n
∩D
(X
Γ
)
c
π
∗
(η
m
) +
σ
n
∩D
(X
Γ
)
c
df ∧
π
∗
(η
m
)
f
+
2πi
C(n, D, )
∂σ
n
∩X
Γ,
π
∗
(η
m−1
)
df
+
σ
n
∩X
Γ,
π
∗
(η
m
)
,
(4.17)
with π
∗
(η
m
) = ∆(ω)/f
m
as in (4.14) and Proposition 3.4.3 and D
(X
Γ
)
c
denoting the complement of D
(X
Γ
).
Proof. The result follows directly from Proposition 3.4.3 and Lemma
4.2.2 applied to (4.16).
We now study the dependence on the parameter > 0 of the Leray
regularized Feynman integral (4.16), i.e. of an integral of the form
I
:=
∂σ∩X
π
∗
(η
m−1
)
df
+
σ∩X
π
∗
(η
m
). (4.18)
Theorem 4.2.5. The function I
of (4.18) is inﬁnitely diﬀerentiable in
. Moreover, it extends to a holomorphic function for ∈ ∆
∗
⊂ C, a
small punctured disk, with a pole of order at most m at = 0, with m =
−n + D( + 1)/2.
Proof. To prove the diﬀerentiability of I
, let us write
A
(η) =
σ∩X
π
∗
(η), (4.19)
with π
∗
(η) as in (3.57). By Lemma 4.2.2 above, and the fact that dπ
∗
(η) =
0, we obtain
d
d
A
(η) = −
∂σ∩X
π
∗
(η)
df
, (4.20)
where X
= {f = } and π
∗
(η)/df is the Gelfand–Leray form of π
∗
(η).
Thus, we can write
I
= A
(η
m
) −
d
d
A
(η
m−1
).
Feynman integrals and Gelfand–Leray forms 125
Thus, to check the diﬀerentiability in the variable to all orders of I
is
equivalent to checking that of A
. We then deﬁne Υ : Ω
n
→ Ω
n
by setting
Υ(α) = d
α
df
, (4.21)
where α/df is a Gelfand–Leray form for α. In turn, the nform Υ(α) also
has a Gelfand–Leray form, which we denote by
δ(α) =
Υ(α)
df
=
d
α
df
df
. (4.22)
We then prove that, for k ≥ 2,
d
k
d
k
A
= −
∂σ∩X
δ
k−1
π
∗
(η)
df
. (4.23)
This follows by induction. In fact, we ﬁrst see that
d
2
d
2
A
= −
d
d
∂σ∩X
π
∗
(η)
df
which, applying Lemma 4.2.2 gives
= −
∂σ∩X
d
π
∗
(η)
df
df
.
Assuming then that
d
k
d
k
A
= −
∂σ∩X
δ
k−1
π
∗
(η)
df
we obtain again by a direct application of Lemma 4.2.2
d
k+1
d
k+1
A
= −
∂σ∩X
d
δ
k−1
π
∗
(η)
df
df
df
= −
∂σ∩X
δ
k
π
∗
(η)
df
.
This proves diﬀerentiability to all orders.
Notice then that, while the expression (4.16) used in Deﬁnition 4.2.3
is, a priori, only deﬁned for > 0, the equivalent expression given in the
second line of (4.17) and in (4.18) is clearly deﬁned for any complex ∈ ∆
∗
in a punctured disk around = 0 of suﬃciently small radius. It can then be
seen that the expression (4.18) depends holomorphically on the parameter
by the general argument on holomorphic dependence on parameters given
in Part III, §10.2 of Vol.II of [Arnold, GuseinZade, Varchenko (1988)].
Finally, to see that I
has a pole of order at most m at = 0, notice
that the form π
∗
(η
m
) of (4.14) is given by ∆(ω)/f
m
and has a pole of order
at most m at X.
126 Feynman Motives
Notice that the regularization procedure described here is natural from
the point of view of singularity theory and oscillatory integrals, but cannot
be used directly to derive information at the motivic level. To be able to
do so one would have to ﬁrst derive an algebraic version of the procedure
described here, possibly involving a motivic version of the notion of “tubular
neighborhood”, see e.g. [Levine (2005)], applied to the locus Σ ∩ X
Γ
, with
Σ a normal crossings divisor containing the boundary ∂σ
n
of the domain
of integration, such as Σ = Σ
n
the union of the coordinate hyperplanes.
Algebrogeometric notions of tubular neighborhood were also elaborated
upon in Grothendieck’s “Esquisse d’un Programme”. The role of such
notion in the algebrogeometric theory of Feynman integrals awaits further
investigation.
Chapter 5
Connes–Kreimer theory in a nutshell
So far we focused on individual Feynman graphs and associated algebro
geometric constructions. However, it is well known in quantum ﬁeld the
ory that the process of removing divergences from Feynman integrals via
renormalization cannot be achieved without taking into account the nested
structure of divergences, i.e. the presence of subgraphs inside a given Feyn
man graph that already contribute divergences to the Feynman integral.
A process of subtracting divergences that takes into account this hierar
chy of nested subdivergences was developed in [Bogolyubov and Parasiuk
(1957)] and later completed by [Hepp (1966)] and [Zimmermann (1969)].
A very elegant geometric formulation of the BPHZ renormalization proce
dure was given in [Connes and Kreimer (2000)] and [Connes and Kreimer
(2001)] in terms of a Hopf algebra of Feynman graphs, where the coproduct
encodes the information on the subdivergences, and the BPHZ procedure
becomes an extraction of ﬁnite values via the Birkhoﬀ factorization of loops
in a prounipotent Lie group of characters of the Hopf algebra of Feynman
graphs. In this chapter we give a very brief account of the main steps in
the Connes–Kreimer theory. For brevity, we skip several important tech
nical points, such as how to deal with external momenta and we also do
not reproduce full proofs of the main results. In fact, these are already
described in full detail in the original papers of Connes and Kreimer and
also in the ﬁrst chapter of the book [Connes and Marcolli (2008)], so we do
not duplicate them here. We restrict to the essential skeleton of what we
need in order to continue with our narrative in the following chapters.
127
128 Feynman Motives
5.1 The Bogolyubov recursion
The main steps of the Bogolyubov–Parasiuk–Hepp–Zimmermann renormal
ization procedure (BPHZ) are summarized as follows. (Again, for more
details the reader is invited to look at Chapter 1 on [Connes and Marcolli
(2008)]).
5.1.1 Step 1: Preparation
One replaces the Feynman integral U(Γ) of (1.55) by the expression
¯
R(Γ) = U(Γ) +
γ∈V(Γ)
C(γ)U(Γ/γ). (5.1)
Here we suppress the dependence on z, µ and the external momenta p for
simplicity of notation. The expression (5.1) is to be understood as a sum
of Laurent series in z, depending on the extra parameter µ. The coeﬀcients
C(γ), themselves Laurent series, are deﬁned recursively in (5.2) below.
The sum in (5.1) is over the set 1(Γ) of (not necessarily connected)
proper nonempty subgraphs γ ⊂ Γ with the property that the residue
Res(γ
i
) of each component γ
i
of the graph γ has valence equal to one of the
monomials in the Lagrangian L(φ). Here the residue is deﬁned as follows.
Deﬁnition 5.1.1. The residue Res(Γ) of a connected Feynman graph Γ is
the Feynman graph consisting of a single vertex and as many half edges
attached to it as the number of external edges of Γ, i.e. the graph obtained
by contracting all the internal edges of Γ to a single vertex.
5.1.2 Step 2: Counterterms
These are the expressions by which the Lagrangian needs to be modiﬁed
to cancel the divergence produced by the graph Γ. They are deﬁned as the
polar part of the Laurent series
¯
R(Γ),
C(Γ) = −T(
¯
R(Γ)). (5.2)
Here T denotes the operator of projection of Laurent series onto their polar
part. Notice how the counterterms C(Γ) are deﬁned here by a recursion,
where in the right hand side of (5.2) only terms C(γ) for strictly smaller
graphs γ ⊂ Γ are involved.
We discuss here brieﬂy a property of the operator T that will be useful
later. We’ll see in ¸5.5 below that this property corresponds to the fact
Connes–Kreimer theory in a nutshell 129
that the diﬀerential ﬁeld / of convergent Laurent series with the operator
T has the structure of a Rota–Baxter algebra.
Lemma 5.1.2. Let / be the ﬁeld of convergent Laurent series (germs of
meromorphic functions at the origin). Let T be, as above, the operator that
projects a Laurent series onto its polar part. This satisﬁes the identity
T(f
1
)T(f
2
) = T(f
1
T(f
2
)) +T(T(f
1
)f
2
) −T(f
1
f
2
). (5.3)
Proof. If f
1
=
∞
k=−N
1
a
k
z
k
and f
2
=
∞
r=−N
2
b
r
z
r
then
T(f
1
f
2
) =
−1
m=−(N
1
+N
2
)
k+r=m
a
k
b
r
z
m
.
On the other hand, we also have
T(f
1
)T(f
2
) = (
−1
k=−N
1
a
k
z
k
)(
−1
r=−N
2
b
r
z
r
).
One then ﬁnds the identity (5.3), since all the terms that appear in T(f
1
f
2
)
are accounted for with multiplicity one by summing
T(T(f
1
)f
2
) = T((
−1
k=−N
1
a
k
z
k
)(
∞
r=−N
2
b
r
z
r
))
and
T(f
1
T(f
2
)) = T((
∞
k=−N
1
a
k
z
k
)(
−1
r=−N
2
b
r
z
r
))
and then subtracting T(f
1
)T(f
2
), which has the eﬀect of removing the terms
that had been counted twice in the previous sum and leaving exactly the
terms that constitute the polar part T(f
1
f
2
).
5.1.3 Step 3: Renormalized values
One can then extract a ﬁnite value from the integral U(Γ) by removing the
polar part, not of U(Γ) itself but of its preparation. Namely, one sets
R(Γ) =
¯
R(Γ) +C(Γ) = U(Γ) +C(Γ) +
γ∈V(Γ)
C(γ)U(Γ/γ), (5.4)
which we also write equivalently as
R(Γ) = U(Γ) +
γ∈V(Γ)
C(γ)U(Γ/γ) −T
U(Γ) +
γ∈V(Γ)
C(γ)U(Γ/γ)
,
(5.5)
130 Feynman Motives
that is, the minimal subtraction of the polar part not of the original Laurent
series U(Γ) but of the corrected one
¯
R(Γ).
The main result of BPHZ is that, unlike what happens typically with
the Laurent series U(Γ) alone, the coeﬃcient of pole of the corrected Lau
rent series
¯
R(Γ) provided by the Bogolyubov preparation is always a local
expression in the variables of the external momenta, hence one that can be
corrected either by altering the coeﬃcients of the already existing terms in
the Lagrangian or by a adding a ﬁnite number of new polynomial terms to
the Lagrangian. Namely, the following statement is the ﬁnal result of the
combined [Bogolyubov and Parasiuk (1957)], [Hepp (1966)] and [Zimmer
mann (1969)].
Theorem 5.1.3. The coeﬃcient of pole of
¯
R(Γ) is local.
Here local means that it can be expressed as a local function in the mo
mentum variables (involving only polynomials and derivatives). In fact, if
one wants to be able to remove the polar part by correcting the Lagrangian
by adding suitable counterterms, these themselves have to be local functions
as the terms already present in the Lagrangian are.
The BPHZ procedure also goes under the name of Bogolyubov recursion,
because of the recursive nature of the deﬁnition of the counterterms C(Γ) in
(5.2). A very nice conceptual understanding of the BPHZ renormalization
procedure with the DimReg+MS regularization was obtained by Connes
and Kreimer [Connes and Kreimer (2000)], [Connes and Kreimer (2001)],
based on a reformulation of the BPHZ procedure in geometric terms. A
detailed account of the Connes–Kreimer theory was given in Chapter 1
of [Connes and Marcolli (2008)], so we limit ourselves to a more sketchy
overview here and refer the reader to that more detailed treatment.
5.2 Hopf algebras and aﬃne group schemes
In the following we work with algebras deﬁned over a ﬁeld Kof characteristic
zero. In fact, for our main application, K will be either Q or C. We also
restrict our attention here to commutative Hopf algebras, because the Hopf
algebras that appear in applications to the theory of renormalization in
quantum ﬁeld theory are usually of this kind.
Deﬁnition 5.2.1. A commutative Hopf algebra over K is a commutative
Kalgebra H endowed with an algebra homomorphism ∆ : H → H ⊗ H,
Connes–Kreimer theory in a nutshell 131
the coproduct, an algebra homomorphism ε : H → K, the counit, and an
algebra antihomomorphism S : H → H, the antipode. These satisfy the
coassociativity
(∆⊗id)∆ = (id ⊗∆)∆
as morphisms H → H ⊗
K
H ⊗
K
H, the compatibility of the coproduct ∆
with the counit ε,
(id ⊗ε)∆ = id = (ε ⊗id)∆
as morphisms H → H, and the compatibility of comultiplication ∆, an
tipode S, and multiplication µ,
µ(id ⊗S)∆ = µ(S ⊗id)∆ = 1 ε
as morphisms H →H.
Notice that in general the coproduct will not be cocommutative.
A useful notion we refer to often in the following, which also already
appeared in ¸2.9 and ¸2.10, in the context of the Tannakian formalism and
motivic Galois groups, is that of aﬃne group scheme. As we recall brieﬂy
here (see also [Waterhouse (1979)]) this is a functor from algebras to groups
naturally associated to a commutative Hopf algebra.
Proposition 5.2.2. A commutative Hopf algebra H over a ﬁeld K of char
acteristic zero determines a covariant functor G from the category /
K
of
commutative algebras over K to the category of groups, by setting
G(A) = Hom
A
K
(H, A), (5.6)
for A ∈ Obj(/
K
).
Proof. We need to show that the set G(A) is a group. Elements of G(A)
are homomorphisms of Kalgebras
φ : H →A, φ(xy) = φ(x)φ(y), ∀x, y ∈ H, φ(1) = 1 .
There is a product operation on G(A) deﬁned by the coproduct ∆ of H
φ
1
∗ φ
2
(x) = ¸φ
1
⊗φ
2
, ∆(x)) . (5.7)
It is associative because of the coassociativity of ∆. There is a unit element
in G(A) which is determined by the counit ε of H by
1
G(A)
: H
ε
→K →A.
The property that this is a unit with respect to the multiplication in G(A)
come from the compatibility relation between counit and coproduct in the
132 Feynman Motives
axioms of Hopf algebra. Similarly, there is an inverse φ
−1
= φ◦S, deﬁned by
precomposing a morphism φ : H →A with the antipode S : H →H. The
fact that it satisﬁes the correct properties with respect to the multiplication
and unit,
φ ∗ φ
−1
= φ
−1
∗ φ = 1,
to be the inverse in the group G(A) follows from the remaining axiom of the
Hopf algebra structure that gives the compatibility between the counit, co
multiplication, and antipode. The map φ →φ
−1
is an antihomomorphism,
(φ
1
∗ φ
2
)
−1
= φ
−1
2
∗ φ
−1
1
, because S is an antihomomorphism of the Hopf
algebra H.
An aﬃne group scheme is a representable covariant functor from the
category of commutative algebras over the ﬁeld K to the category of groups.
So the above shows that a commutative Hopf algebra determines an aﬃne
group scheme. Any such representable functor will be of the form (5.6), for
some commutative algebra H, which in turn inherits the structure of Hopf
algebra from the group structure of G(A).
The simplest examples of aﬃne group schemes are the additive and the
multiplicative group, G
a
and G
m
, respectively, which correspond to the
Hopf algebras
• The additive group G
a
corresponds to the Hopf algebra H = K[t] with
coproduct ∆(t) = t ⊗1+1⊗t, counit ε(t) = 0 and antipode S(t) = −t.
• The multiplicative group G
m
corresponds to the Hopf algebra H =
K[t, t
−1
], with coproduct ∆(t) = t ⊗ t, counit ε(t) = 1 and antipode
S(t) = t
−1
.
The main examples in the following will be prounipotent aﬃne group
schemes. These are projective limits of unipotent algebraic groups, where
by algebraic groups we mean here subgroups of the aﬃne group scheme
GL
n
. These prounipotent cases arise from Hopf algebras that are graded,
H = ⊕
n≥0
H
n
and connected, H
0
= K, as the Connes–Kreimer Hopf al
gebra is. We discuss more the example of GL
n
as an aﬃne group scheme
in Proposition 5.4.2 below. For more detailed information on aﬃne group
schemes, we refer the reader to [Demazure and Grothendieck (1970)] and
[Waterhouse (1979)].
Connes–Kreimer theory in a nutshell 133
5.3 The Connes–Kreimer Hopf algebra
The Hopf algebra of Feynman graphs introduced in [Connes and Kreimer
(2000)] depends on the choice of the physical theory, in the sense that it
involves only those graphs that are Feynman graphs for the speciﬁed La
grangian L(φ), and, as we see below, the coproduct formula also involves
only those subgraphs whose residue graph corresponds to one of the mono
mials in the Lagrangian.
As an algebra H
CK
it is the free commutative algebra with generators
the 1PI Feynman graphs Γ of the speciﬁed physical theory. It is graded by
loop number, or by the number of internal lines, with
deg(Γ
1
Γ
n
) =
i
deg(Γ
i
), deg(1) = 0.
This grading corresponds to the order in the perturbative expansion.
The most interesting part of the structure is the coproduct, which is
given on generators by
∆(Γ) = Γ ⊗1 + 1 ⊗Γ +
γ∈V(Γ)
γ ⊗Γ/γ. (5.8)
The sum is over the class 1(Γ) of proper subgraphs of Γ with the property
that the quotient graph Γ/γ is still a 1PI Feynman graph of the same theory.
The subgraphs in 1(Γ) are not necessarily connected. In the case of
several connected components, the quotient graph Γ/γ is understood as
the graph obtained by shrinking each component of γ ⊂ Γ to a vertex.
The condition that Γ/γ is a 1PI Feynman graph can be formulated in
terms of residue graphs Res(γ) of the sugraphs γ ⊂ Γ. For a given graph Γ
the residue Res(Γ) is the graph that is obtained by keeping all the external
edges of Γ and shrinking all internal edges to a single vertex. The valence
of this vertex is then equal to the number of external edges. The class of
subgraphs 1(Γ) can then be charcterized by requiring that the components
of γ ⊂ Γ are 1PI Feynman graphs with the property that the residue Res(Γ)
has valence corresponding to one of the monomials in the Lagrangian of the
theory. This in fact ensures that the corresponding vertex in the quotient
graph Γ/γ has an admissible valence for it to be a Feynman graph. The fact
that Γ/γ is 1PI then follows from the fact that Γ and all the components
of γ are 1PI.
The antipode is deﬁned inductively by
S(X) = −X −
S(X
)X
,
134 Feynman Motives
where X is an element with coproduct ∆(X) = X⊗1+1⊗X+
X
⊗X
,
where all the X
and X
have lower degrees.
The aﬃne group scheme dual to the Connes–Kreimer Hopf algebra is
referred to as the group of diﬀeographisms. Its set of complex points
G(C) = Hom(H
CK
, C)
is a prounipotent complex Lie group G(C). It was proved in [Connes
and Kreimer (2000)] that this group acts by local diﬀeomorphisms on the
coupling constants of the theory.
A variant of the Connes–Kreimer Hopf algebra, which is useful in
algebrogeometric applications, was considered in [Bloch and Kreimer
(2008)], see also [Kreimer (2009)]. It is referred to as the core Hopf al
gebra and it is simply deﬁned by considering as generators all 1PI graphs
without restriction on the valence of vertices. This would correspond in
physical terms to arbitrarily large powers φ
k
in the Lagrangian. Corre
spondingly, the coproduct is taken over all the subgraphs whose connected
components are 1PI, without restriction on the residue graphs.
The algebrogeometric Feynman rules discussed above and introduced in
[Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2008b)] deﬁne ring homomorphisms from the core Hopf
algebra to the Grothendieck ring of varieties, or to the ring of immersed
conical varieties deﬁned in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2008b)].
A further important remark about the Connes–Kreimer Hopf algebra:
the version we recalled brieﬂy here is only the combinatorial part of a larger
Hopf algebra, whose generators are pairs (Γ, σ) of a 1PI graph and a dis
tribution on the space of test functions of the external momenta. This
continuous version of the the Hopf algebra of renormalization is necessary
when taking into account the external momenta of the graphs in the ex
traction of subdivergences. This additional structure is described in detail
in [Connes and Kreimer (2000)] as well as in Chapter 1 of [Connes and
Marcolli (2008)].
Finally, the Connes–Kreimer construction of the Hopf algebra is given
for scalar quantum ﬁeld theories. Generalizations to vector valued ﬁelds do
not present any problem, while extending the same setting to gauge theories
and chiral theories is more subtle. The results were recently generalized to
gauge theories in [van Suijlekom (2007)], [van Suijlekom (2006)], [van Sui
jlekom (2008)], by showing that the Ward identities deﬁne Hopf ideals. The
case of chiral theories runs into a well known problem of reconciling the use
of dimensional regularization with the chirality operator γ
5
, see [Jegerlehner
(2001)]. A way to describe the prescription of [Breitenlohner and Maison
Connes–Kreimer theory in a nutshell 135
(1977)] to express the chirality operator γ
5
within DimReg in terms of
noncommutative geometry was given in the unpublished [Connes and Mar
colli (2005b)]; see also Chapter 1 of [Connes and Marcolli (2008)]. In this
setting the operation of dimensional regularization is then expressed as a
cup product of spectral triples. Recently, a version of the Connes–Kreimer
renormalization as Birkhoﬀ factorization, based on zeta function regulariza
tion instead of DimReg and adapted to curved backgrounds was developed
in [Agarwala (2009)]. An extension of the parametric Feynman integrals to
theories with bosonic and fermionic ﬁelds, using periods of supermanifolds,
was given in [Marcolli and Rej (2008)], though the most appropriate form
of the Connes–Kreimer renormalization procedure in that context remains
to be properly discussed. Another interesting recent result is a categori
ﬁcation of the Connes–Kreimer Hopf algebra obtained in [Kremnizer and
Szczesny (2008)], where the dual Hopf algebra is identiﬁed with the Hall
algebra of a ﬁnitary abelian category.
5.4 Birkhoﬀ factorization
We give an algebraic formulation of Birkhoﬀ factorization in the group
scheme G of a commutative Hopf algebra in terms of the Hopf algebra H
and its characters.
Deﬁnition 5.4.1. Suppose given an algebra homomorphism φ ∈
Hom(H, /), where / is the ﬁeld of convergent Laurent series, i.e. germs
of meromorphic functions at z = 0. Then φ has a Birkhoﬀ factorization if
there exist algebra homomorphisms φ
+
∈ Hom(H, O), with O the complex
algebra of convergent power series, and φ
−
∈ Hom(H, Q), with values in
the polynomial algebra Q = C[z
−1
], such that
φ = (φ
−
◦ S) φ
+
, (5.9)
where S is the antipode in the Hopf algebra and is the product in G
dual to the coproduct in the Hopf algebra. The factorization (5.9), if it
exists, is not unique. To make it unique one also requires the normalization
condition
−
◦ φ
−
= , (5.10)
where
−
: C[z
−1
] →C is the augmentation and is the counit of the Hopf
algebra H.
136 Feynman Motives
The characters φ ∈ Hom(H, /) can be equally interpreted as loops de
ﬁned on an inﬁnitesimal punctured disk ∆
∗
around the origin z = 0 in C
∗
and with values in the prounipotent complex Lie group G(C) = Hom(H, C)
of algebra homomorphisms from H to C, so that the recursive formula for
the factorization of φ gives the Birkhoﬀ factorization of loops written in the
more traditional form
γ(z) = γ
−
(z)
−1
γ
+
(z), (5.11)
with the normalization condition γ
−
(∞) = 1.
Not all commutative Hopf algebras admit a Birkhoﬀ factorization for
arbitrary elements φ ∈ Hom(H, /). The following example illustrates a case
where there are elements in Hom(H, /) that do not admit a factorization
of the form (5.9).
Proposition 5.4.2. Consider the commutative Hopf algebra H =
C[x
ij
, t]/(det(x
ij
) −t) with the coproduct
∆(x
ij
) =
k
x
ik
⊗x
kj
.
Then there exist elements φ ∈ Hom(H, /) that do not admit a factorization
of the form (5.9).
Proof. The aﬃne group scheme dual to the Hopf algebra H =
C[x
ij
, t]/(det(x
ij
) − t) with the given coproduct is the group GL
n
. To see
that there exist elements of φ ∈ Hom(H, /) that do not admit a Birkhoﬀ
factorization in the form stated above, we can give an equivalent formula
tion in terms of loops in a complex Lie group. We can use the equivalent
description of characters φ ∈ Hom(H, /) in terms of loops γ : ∆
∗
→ GL
n
,
as above. Then, it suﬃces to notice that, if we use the function γ(z) to de
ﬁne the transition function of a holomorphic vector bundle over the 2sphere
P
1
(C), the existence of a factorization (5.11) shows that the resulting bun
dle is trivial. However, one knows that there are nontrivial holomorphic
vector bundles on P
1
(C), so it suﬃces to take one such nontrivial vector
bundle E and a transition function γ(z) relating the trivializations of E
on the two contractible sets ∆ and P
1
(C) ∆ to see that this loop cannot
admit a factorization of the form (5.11).
One of the main results of the Connes–Kreimer theory is a recursive
formula for the Birkhoﬀ factorization in the case of graded connected com
mutative Hopf algebras. We review this result in the next section.
Connes–Kreimer theory in a nutshell 137
5.5 Factorization and RotaBaxter algebras
Let H be a graded connected commutative Hopf algebra H = ⊕
n≥0
H
n
,
where the H
n
are ﬁnite dimensional. The connectedness condition means
that H
0
= C, for an algebra deﬁned over the ﬁeld of complex numbers.
Notice that here the condition that His a commutative graded Hopf algebra
does not mean that it is “gradedcommutative”: the commutators are not
graded commutators but ordinary commutators. It behaves like the case of
a graded–commutative Hopf algebra where the graded pieces are nonzero
only in even degrees.
Let / denote the ﬁeld of convergent Laurent series. We consider, as
above, elements φ ∈ Hom(H, /) and we ask whether all such elements
admit a Birkhoﬀ factorization as in (5.9). The Connes–Kreimer formula
[Connes and Kreimer (2000)] gives a positive answer, for the class of Hopf
algebras mentioned above, in the form of an explicit recursive formula. In
fact, for later use, we can formulate their result in a slightly more general
form, as was done for instance in [EbrahimiFard, Guo, Kreimer (2004)],
using the formalism of Rota–Baxter algebras.
To this purpose we recall some preliminary notions on Rota–Baxter
algebras and operators.
Deﬁnition 5.5.1. A commutative Rota–Baxter algebra of weight λ is a
commutative algebra / endowed with a linear operator R satisfying the
Rota–Baxter identity
R(x)R(y) = R(xR(y)) +R(R(x)y) +λR(xy). (5.12)
Such an operator is called a Rota–Baxter operator of weight λ.
The prototype of a Rota–Baxter operator is integration, for which the
Rota–Baxter identity is the integration by parts formula.
Lemma 5.5.2. The pair (/, T) of the ﬁeld of convergent Laurent series
with the projection on the polar part is a Rota–Baxter algebra of weight
λ = −1.
Proof. This is an immediate consequence of Lemma 5.1.2.
Lemma 5.5.3. Given a commutative unital Rota–Baxter algebra (/, R) of
weight λ = −1, one obtains two commutative unital algebras /
±
by taking
as /
−
the image R(/) with a unit adjoined (i.e. the smallest unital algebra
containing R(/) as an ideal) and /
+
= (1 −R)(/).
138 Feynman Motives
Proof. These are indeed algebras. In fact, for x, y ∈ /
−
we have x =
R(a) and y = R(b) for some a, b ∈ /. The product R(a)R(b) = R(aR(b) +
R(a)b + λab) is also in the range of R, hence in /
−
. Similarly, given
x, y ∈ /
+
we have x = a −R(a) and y = b −R(b) for some a, b ∈ /. Then
xy = (a −R(a))(b −R(b)) = ab −aR(b) −bR(a) +R(a)R(b)
= ab −aR(b) −bR(a) +R(aR(b) +R(a)b +λab).
Thus, for λ = −1, one obtains
xy = (ab −aR(b) −bR(a)) −R(ab −aR(b) −bR(a)) ∈ /
+
.
Just as Deﬁnition 5.4.1 formulates the Birkhoﬀ factorization for algebra
homomorphisms φ ∈ Hom(H, /) we can similarly consider the same prob
lems for algebra homomorphisms from the Hopf algebra H with values in
any Rota–Baxter algebra (/, R) of weight λ = −1. Given φ ∈ Hom(H, /),
we look for algebra homomorphisms φ
±
∈ Hom(H, /
±
) with the algebras
/
±
obtained as in Lemma 5.5.3, satisfying the factorization
φ = (φ
−
◦ S) φ
+
, (5.13)
as in (5.9), where here we use the fact that /
±
⊂ / so that the equality
above is understood as the equality
φ(X) = (φ
−
◦ S)(X) φ
+
(X), ∀X ∈ H
viewed as an equality of elements in /. The normalization condition is
also formulated in this case as
−
◦ φ
−
= , where
−
: /
−
→ C is the
augmentation map and is the counit of the Hopf algebra H.
It was proved in [Connes and Kreimer (2000)], and reformulated in the
RotaBaxter context in [EbrahimiFard, Guo, Kreimer (2004)], that if H
is a graded connected commutative Hopf algebra and (/, R) is a unital
Rota–Baxter algebra of weight λ = −1, then any homomorphism of uni
tal commutative algebras φ ∈ Hom(H, /) admits a Birkhoﬀ factorization
(5.13) where the homomorphisms φ
±
∈ Hom(H, /
±
) are deﬁned induc
tively by the formulae
φ
−
(X) = −R
φ(X) +
φ
−
(X
)φ(X
)
, (5.14)
where ∆(X) = X ⊗ 1 + 1 ⊗ X +
X
⊗ X
, with X
and X
of lower
degree, and
φ
+
(X) = (1 −R)
φ(X) +
φ
−
(X
)φ(X
)
. (5.15)
Connes–Kreimer theory in a nutshell 139
The RotaBaxter property of the operator R with weight −1 is needed to
show that the φ
±
deﬁned recursively in this way are algebra homomor
phisms, φ
±
(XY ) = φ
±
(X)φ
±
(Y ).
Thus, the results of [Connes and Kreimer (2000)] and [Connes and
Kreimer (2001)] show that, in terms of Birkhoﬀ factorization, the formulae
of the BPHZ renormalization procedure (5.2), (5.4), (5.5) are exactly the re
cursive formulae for the Birkhoﬀ factorization of characters of the Connes–
Kreimer Hopf algebra with values in a Rota–Baxter algebra, namely
U
−
(Γ) = −T
U(Γ) +
γ⊂Γ
U
−
(γ)U(Γ/γ)
, (5.16)
U
+
(Γ) = (1 −T)
U(Γ) +
γ⊂Γ
U
−
(γ)U(Γ/γ)
. (5.17)
This is just the same as the formulae (5.14) and (5.14), given above for any
algebra homomorphism from a graded connected commutative Hopf algebra
H to a commutative Rota–Baxter algebra (/, R) of weight −1, applied to
the case where H = H
CK
is the Connes–Kreimer Hopf algebra and where
the RotaBaxter algebra is given by Laurent series in the DimReg variable
z and R = T is the projection onto the polar part, and the homomorphism
U is the usual Feynman amplitude regularized using DimReg. Then the
C(Γ) = U
−
(Γ) are the counterterms and the R(Γ) = U
+
(Γ)[
z=0
are the
renormalized values.
5.6 Motivic Feynman rules and RotaBaxter structure
We have seen, following [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2008b)], that one can de
ﬁne motivic Feynman rules in terms of the class [A
n
ˆ
X
Γ
] of the graph
hypersurface complement in the Grothendieck ring of varieties K
0
(1).
A variant of such motivic Feynman rules is obtained by setting
U(Γ) =
[A
n
ˆ
X
Γ
]
L
n
, (5.18)
with values in the ring K
0
(1)[L
−1
], where one inverts the Lefschetz motive,
or equivalently, via the additive invariant of [Gillet and Soul´e (1996)], with
values in the Grothendieck ring of motives K
0
(/). Dividing by L
n
has
the eﬀect of normalizing the “motivic Feynman rule” [A
n
ˆ
X
Γ
] by the
value it would have if Γ were a forest on the same number of edges. For
140 Feynman Motives
the original Feynman integrals this would measure the amount of linear
dependence between the edge momentum variables created by the presence
of the interaction vertices.
In the ring K
0
(1)[L
−1
] or K
0
(/) one can still consider the Rota–Baxter
structure given by the operator R of projection onto the polar part in the
variable L. The renormalized Feynman rule
U
+
(Γ) = (1 −R)
U(Γ) +
γ⊂Γ
U
−
(γ)U(Γ/γ)
then gives a class in the Grothendieck ring of varieties K
0
(1). More inter
estingly, the renormalized value of the Feynman integral, in this case, gives
some information on the birational geometry of the graph hypersurface.
In fact, we ﬁrst recall the following useful result of [Larsen and Lunts
(2003)]. We work here with the Grothendieck ring K
0
(1
C
) for varieties over
the ﬁeld of complex numbers.
It is proved in [Larsen and Lunts (2003)] that the quotient of the
Grothendieck ring K
0
(1
C
) by the ideal generated by L = [A
1
] is isomorphic
as a ring to Z[SB], the ring of the multiplicative monoid SB of stable bi
rational equivalence classes of varieties in 1
C
. Recall that two (irreducible)
varieties X and Y are stably birationally equivalent if X P
n
and Y P
m
are birationally equivalent for some n, m ≥ 0.
We then see that the renormalized value is in this case
U
+
(Γ)[
L=0
= (1 −R)
U(Γ) +
γ⊂Γ
U
−
(γ)U(Γ/γ)
[
L=0
∈ Z[SB]. (5.19)
Notice that the parts of [A
n
ˆ
X
Γ
], [A
n
1
ˆ
X
γ
] and [A
n
2
ˆ
X
Γ/γ
] that are
contained in the ideal (L) ⊂ K
0
(1
0
) contribute cancellations to the L
n
in
the denominator. It is possible that this invariant and the Birkhoﬀ factor
ization of U(Γ) may help to detect the presence of nonmixedTate strata in
the graph hypersurface X
Γ
coming from the contributions of hypersurfaces
of smaller graphs γ ⊂ Γ or quotient graphs Γ/γ.
The class of a graph hypersurface X
Γ
in the ring Z[SB] of stable bi
rational equivalence classes detects some of the properties of the graph
Γ. For example, it was shown in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2008b)] that the
class is trivial, [X
Γ
]
SB
= 1, whenever the graph is not 1PI. In fact, if
a graph is not 1PI then in the Grothendieck ring one has [A
n
ˆ
X
Γ
] =
L [A
n−1
ˆ
X
Γ
], where Γ
is the graph obtained by removing a disconnect
ing edge of Γ. Thus, [A
n
ˆ
X
Γ
]
SB
= 0 ∈ Z[SB]. Using then the fact that
Connes–Kreimer theory in a nutshell 141
[A
n
ˆ
X
Γ
] = L
n
− 1 − (L − 1)[X
Γ
] in the Grothendieck ring, one obtains
[A
n
ˆ
X
Γ
]
SB
= −1 + [X
Γ
]
SB
= 0.
It would be interesting to see if there are other natural Rota–Baxter
structures on the Grothendieck ring of varieties, or in the ring of immersed
conical varieties, that can be used in deﬁning a renormalized version of
motivic and algebrogeometric Feynman rules.
Chapter 6
The Riemann–Hilbert correspondence
This chapter is dedicated to the Riemann–Hilbert correspondence of renor
malization, as derived in [Connes and Marcolli (2004)]. A very detailed
account of this topic is available in [Connes and Marcolli (2008)], hence the
treatment given here will be shorter and will only aim at summarizing the
main steps involved in the main result of [Connes and Marcolli (2004)]. The
interested reader is encouraged to look at [Connes and Marcolli (2006b)]
and at the ﬁrst chapter of [Connes and Marcolli (2008)] for more extensive
details, and to [Connes and Marcolli (2005a)] for a shorter survey.
The purpose of this approach is to parameterize the data of divergences
in perturbative scalar quantum ﬁeld theories in terms of suitable gauge
equivalence classes of diﬀerential systems with irregular singularities. These
are then classiﬁed in terms of the Riemann–Hilbert correspondence, which
means that one shows that these diﬀerential systems form a Tannakian
category, hence they can be classiﬁed in terms of ﬁnite dimensional linear
representations of an associated aﬃne group scheme. The Riemann–Hilbert
correspondence is the equivalence of categories between the analytic data
of diﬀerential systems and the representation theoretic data.
6.1 From divergences to iterated integrals
The ﬁrst step in reformulating the divergences of renormalization in terms
of diﬀerential systems consists of writing the negative piece γ
−
(z) of the
Birkhoﬀ factorization as an iterated integral depending on a single element
β in the Lie algebra Lie(G) of the aﬃne group scheme dual to the Connes–
Kreimer Hopf algebra. This is a way of formulating what is known in physics
as the ’t Hooft–Gross relations. These express the fact that counterterms
143
144 Feynman Motives
only depend on the beta function of the theory, that is, the inﬁnitesimal
generator of the renormalization group ﬂow.
The starting point is the observation that, in the Birkhoﬀ factorization,
there is a dependence on a mass (energy) scale µ, inherited from the same
dependence of the dimensionally regularized Feynman integrals U
µ
(Γ), dis
cussed in (1.55) above. Thus, we have
γ
µ
(z) = γ
−
(z)
−1
γ
µ,+
(z),
where one knows by reasons of dimensional analysis (see [Collins (1986)])
that the negative part is independent of µ.
This negative part γ
−
(z) can then be written as a time ordered expo
nential
γ
−
(z) = Te
−
1
z
∞
0
θ
−t
(β)dt
= 1 +
∞
n=1
d
n
(β)
z
n
,
where
d
n
(β) =
s
1
≥s
2
≥···≥s
n
≥0
θ
−s
1
(β) θ
−s
n
(β)ds
1
ds
n
,
and where β ∈ Lie(G) is the beta function, that is, the inﬁnitesimal gen
erator of renormalization group ﬂow, and the action θ
t
is induced by the
grading of the Hopf algebra by
θ
u
(X) = u
n
X, for u ∈ G
m
, and X ∈ H, with deg(X) = n,
with generator the grading operator Y (X) = nX. This result follows from
the analysis of the renormalization group given in [Connes and Kreimer
(2000)] [Connes and Kreimer (2001)], after the recursive formula for the
coeﬃcients d
n
is explicitly solved, so as to give the time ordered exponential
above.
The loop γ
µ
(z) collects all the unrenormalized values U
µ
(Γ) of the Feyn
man integrals in the form of an algebra homomorphism φ
µ
: H → C(¦z¦)
from the Connes–Kreimer Hopf algebra to the ﬁeld of germs of meromorphic
functions, given on generators by φ
µ
(Γ) = U
µ
(Γ).
The renormalization group analysis of [Connes and Kreimer (2001)]
shows that γ
µ
(z) satisﬁes the scaling property
γ
e
t
µ
(z) = θ
tz
(γ
µ
(z)) (6.1)
in addition to the property that its negative part is independent of µ,
∂
∂µ
γ
−
(z) = 0. (6.2)
The Riemann–Hilbert correspondence 145
The Birkhoﬀ factorization is then written in [Connes and Marcolli (2004)]
in terms of iterated integrals as
γ
µ,+
(z) = Te
−
1
z
−z log µ
0
θ
−t
(β)dt
θ
z log µ
(γ
reg
(z)).
Thus γ
µ
(z) is speciﬁed by β up to an equivalence given by the regular term
γ
reg
(z). The equivalence corresponds to “having the same negative part of
the Birkhoﬀ factorization”.
6.2 From iterated integrals to diﬀerential systems
Having written the counterterms as iterated integrals has the advantage
that it makes it possible to reformulate these data in terms of diﬀerential
systems. In fact, one can use the fact that iterated integrals are uniquely
solutions of certain diﬀerential equations.
An iterated integral (or timeordered exponential) g(b) = Te
b
a
α(t)dt
is
the unique solution of a diﬀerential equation dg(t) = g(t)α(t)dt with initial
condition g(a) = 1. In particular, suppose given the diﬀerential ﬁeld (/, δ),
where / = C(¦z¦) is the ﬁeld of convergent Laurent series and δ(f) = f
,
and an aﬃne group scheme G. One then has a logarithmic derivative
G(/) ÷ f → D(f) = f
−1
δ(f) ∈ Lie(G(/)),
and one can consider diﬀerential equations of the form D(f) = ω, for a ﬂat
Lie(G(C))valued connection ω, singular at z = 0 ∈ ∆
∗
. The existence of
solutions is ensured by the condition of trivial monodromy on ∆
∗
M(ω)() = Te
1
0
∗
ω
= 1, ∈ π
1
(∆
∗
).
In [Connes and Marcolli (2004)] these diﬀerential systems are consid
ered up to a gauge equivalence relation by a regular gauge transformation,
D(fh) = Dh+h
−1
Df h, for h ∈ G(C¦z¦), with C¦z¦ the ring of convergent
power series (germs of holomorphic functions). This gauge equivalence is
the same thing as the requirement that solutions have the same negative
piece of the Birkhoﬀ factorization,
ω
= Dh +h
−1
ωh ⇔ f
ω
−
= f
ω
−
,
where D(f
ω
) = ω and D(f
ω
) = ω
.
The fact that, by dimensional analysis, counterterms are independent
of the energy scale corresponds to the fact that the diﬀerential systems
are given by connections satisfying an equisingularity condition, as we re
call below. More precisely, in [Connes and Marcolli (2004)] a geometric
146 Feynman Motives
reformulation of the two conditions (6.1), (6.2) is given in terms of prop
erties of connections on a principal Gbundle P = B G over a ﬁbration
G
b
→ B → ∆, where z ∈ ∆ is the complexiﬁed dimension of DimReg and
the ﬁber µ
z
∈ G
m
over z corresponds to the changing mass scale. The
multiplicative group acts by
u(b, g) = (u(b), u
Y
(g)) ∀u ∈ G
m
.
The two conditions (6.1) and (6.2) correspond to the properties that the
ﬂat connection on P
∗
is equisingular, that is, it satisﬁes:
• Under the action of u ∈ G
m
the connection transforms like
(z, u(v)) = u
Y
((z, u)).
• If γ is a solution in G(C(¦z¦)) of the equation Dγ = , then the
restrictions along diﬀerent sections σ
1
, σ
2
of B with σ
1
(0) = σ
2
(0) have
“the same type of singularities”, namely
σ
∗
1
(γ) ∼ σ
∗
2
(γ),
where f
1
∼ f
2
means that f
−1
1
f
2
∈ G(C¦z¦), regular at zero.
The ﬁrst property of equisingular connections corresponds to the scaling
property (6.1) for the solutions of the corresponding diﬀerential systems,
while the second property expresses geometrically the independence of the
counterterms from the mass scale, that is, equation (6.2).
6.3 Flat equisingular connections and vector bundles
The setting described above still depends on the choice of a given physical
theory through the group G of diﬀeographisms, dual to the Connes–Kreimer
Hopf algebra of the theory.
The aﬃne group scheme G is uniquely determined by its Tannakian
category of ﬁnite dimensional linear representations Rep
G
. Thus, without
loss of information, one can replace singular connections on the principal
Gbundle P = B G with singular connections on associated vector bun
dles E = B V obtained by ﬁnite dimensional linear representations of
G in GL(V ). This provides a natural larger ambient category where the
diﬀerent diﬀeographism groups G of diﬀerent physical theories can be com
pared. It is obtained by working with all ﬂat equisingular vector bundles.
Among them one will identify a subcategory of those that are obtained
The Riemann–Hilbert correspondence 147
from representations of a given G, thus reconstructing the data associated
to divergences of a particular physical theory.
It is proved in [Connes and Marcolli (2004)] (see also Chapter 1 of
[Connes and Marcolli (2008)]) that ﬂat equisingular vector bundles form a
Tannakian category. We recall here brieﬂy the main steps of the construc
tion of this category.
The objects Obj(c) are pairs Θ = (V, [∇]), where V is a ﬁnite dimen
sional Zgraded vector space, out of which one forms a bundle E = B V .
The vector space has a ﬁltration W
−n
(V ) = ⊕
m≥n
V
m
induced by the
grading and a G
m
action also coming from the grading. The class [∇] is
an equivalence class of equisingular connections on the vector bundle E,
singular over the preimage in B of the point 0 ∈ ∆, which are compati
ble with the ﬁltration and trivial on the induced graded spaces Gr
W
−n
(V ),
up to the equivalence relation of Wequivalence. This is deﬁned by
T ◦ ∇
1
= ∇
2
◦ T for some T ∈ Aut(E) which is compatible with the
ﬁltration and trivial on Gr
W
−n
(V ). Here the condition that the connections
∇ are equisingular means that they are G
m
invariant and that restrictions
of solutions to sections of B with the same σ(0) are Wequivalent. The
morphisms Hom
E
(Θ, Θ
) are linear maps T : V → V
that are compatible
with the grading, and such that on E ⊕ E
the following connections are
Wequivalent:
∇
0
0 ∇
W−equiv
·
∇
T∇−∇
T
0 ∇
. (6.3)
Notice that, as usual, the diﬃcult part in deﬁning a good categorical
setting is to have the correct notion of morphisms. The reason why (6.3) is
the correct notion here is that one needs to bypass a well known obstacle,
which also arises when dealing with categories of Hodge structures, namely
the fact that ﬁltered spaces do not form an abelian category, so the ﬁrst
guess about the choice of morphisms, namely linear maps intertwining the
connections and compatible with the ﬁltrations, has to be corrected to
account for this problem.
6.4 The “cosmic Galois group”
The proof given in [Connes and Marcolli (2004)] and [Connes and Marcolli
(2008)] of the fact that the resulting category c is Tannakian directly ex
hibits an equivalence of categories with Rep
U
∗ for an aﬃne group scheme
U
∗
= U G
m
where U is dual, under the relation U(A) = Hom(H
U
, A),
148 Feynman Motives
to the Hopf algebra H
U
= U(L)
∨
dual (as Hopf algebra) to the universal
enveloping algebra of the free graded Lie algebra L = T(e
−1
, e
−2
, e
−3
, ).
The key step of the proof is showing that, for any given object Θ =
(V, [∇]) in c there exists unique ρ ∈ Rep
U
∗ such that
Dρ(γ
U
)
W−equiv
· ∇,
where γ
U
is the universal singular frame deﬁned as
γ
U
(z, v) = Te
−
1
z
v
0
u
Y
(e)
du
u
,
where the element e =
∞
n=1
e
−n
is the generator of a 1parameter subgroup
of U
∗
which lifts the renormalization group at the level of the group U
∗
.
Notice that the inﬁnite sum is well deﬁned since the Lie algebra is pro
nilpotent.
The group homomorphism U → G that realizes the ﬁnite dimensional
linear representations of G with equisingular connections as a subcategory
of c is obtained by mapping the generators e
−n
→ β
n
to the nth graded
piece of the beta function of the theory, seen as an element β =
n
β
n
in
the Lie algebra Lie(G).
Thus, the universal singular frame can be regarded as a universal source
for the counterterms for all given physical theories, as it maps to the correct
counterterms under the map of the generators e
−n
to the graded compo
nents of the beta function.
It is shown in Proposition 1.98 of [Connes and Marcolli (2008)] that
the universal singular frame is given, in terms of the generators of the Lie
algebra, in the form
γ
U
(−z, v) =
n≥0,k
j
>0
e
−k
1
e
−k
n
k
1
(k
1
+k
2
) (k
1
+k
2
+ +k
n
)
v
j
k
j
z
−n
.
The occurrence of these coeﬃcients, which also appear in the local index
formula of [Connes and Moscovici (1995)], has a natural explanation in
terms of the combinatorics of Dynkin idempotents and Dynkin operators
for free Lie algebras, as shown in [EbrahimiFard, GraciaBond
´
ia, Patras
(2007)].
Cartier conjectured the existence of a group, closely related to symme
tries of multiple zeta values, that would act on all the coupling constants
of scalar quantum ﬁeld theories, generalizing the renormalization group ac
tion. He referred to it as the “cosmic Galois group”. The result of [Connes
and Marcolli (2004)] reported here above gives a positive answer to Cartier’s
The Riemann–Hilbert correspondence 149
conjecture. In fact, the Tannakian Galois group U
∗
= UG
m
obtained as
above acts on the coupling constants via its map to the Connes–Kreimer
group of diﬀeographisms given by the β function, which in turn acts on the
coupling constants by the result of [Connes and Kreimer (2000)]. The rela
tion between the aﬃne group scheme U
∗
and symmetries of multiple zeta
values can be seen via the fact that the same group appears as a motivic
Galois group for a category of mixed Tate motives via the result of [Deligne
and Goncharov (2005)].
Chapter 7
The geometry of DimReg
Usually, as we have seen in the ﬁrst chapter of this book, the procedure of
dimensional regularization of divergent Feynman integrals, is deﬁned as a
purely formal procedure based on analytic continuation to a complex vari
able of the integral of a Gaussian in dimension D, as a function of D. This
means that, while this provides an eﬃcient recipe for analytically contin
uing Feynman integrals to a complexiﬁed dimension, typically no attempt
is made to make sense of an underlying geometry in the complexiﬁed di
mension, that would justify the formal procedures used in dimensional reg
ularization. We describe in this chapter two diﬀerent possible approaches
to a geometric description of dimensional regularization. The ﬁrst is based
on motivic notions and it applies to individual motives (motivic sheaves)
associated to given Feynman graphs, in the way we have seen through the
previous chapters. This ﬁrst method was discussed in [Marcolli (2008)].
The second method is based on the use of techniques from noncommuta
tive geometry and was ﬁrst discussed in Chapter 1 of [Connes and Marcolli
(2008)] and in the unpublished manuscript [Connes and Marcolli (2005b)].
We concentrate here especially on the later part of [Connes and Marcolli
(2005b)], which was not reported in [Connes and Marcolli (2008)], and
which makes contact with the motivic notions considered here, through the
language of mixed Hodge structures.
7.1 The motivic geometry of DimReg
Let us consider again the mixed Tate motives (motivic sheaves) deﬁned
by the logarithmic extension Log of (2.39) and its symmetric powers Log
n
of (2.40), as objects in the triangulated category T/
Q
(G
m
) of motivic
sheaves over G
m
.
151
152 Feynman Motives
As we have seen, the period matrix (2.48) for the promotive Log
∞
of (2.47) deﬁnes the mixed Hodge structure associated to the motive. In
this Hodge realization, the H
0
piece corresponds to the ﬁrst column of the
matrix M
Log
n
, where the kth entry corresponds to the kth graded piece
of the weight ﬁltration.
Let us consider then the corresponding grading operator, that multi
plies the kth entry by T
k
. One can then associate to the h
0
piece of the
Log
∞
motive the following formal expression that corresponds in the period
matrix (2.48) to the H
0
part in the MHS realization:
Q
k
log
k
(s)
k!
T
k
=: Q s
T
. (7.1)
The formal expression (7.1) has in fact an interpretation in terms of
periods. This follows from a well known result (cf. e.g. [Goncharov (2001)],
Lemma 2.10) expressing the powers of the logarithm in terms of iterated
integrals. For iterated integrals we use the notation as in [Goncharov (2001)]
_
b
a
ds
s
◦
ds
s
◦ ◦
ds
s
=
_
a≤s
1
≤···≤s
n
≤b
ds
1
s
1
∧ ∧
ds
n
s
n
. (7.2)
We also denote by Λ
a,b
(n) the domain
Λ
a,b
(n) = ¦(s
1
, . . . , s
n
) [ a ≤ s
1
≤ ≤ s
n
≤ b¦. (7.3)
Lemma 7.1.1. The expression (7.1) is obtained as rational multiples of
the pairing
s
T
=
_
Λ
1,s
(∞)
η(T), (7.4)
with Λ
1,s
(∞) = ∪
n
Λ
1,s
(n) and the form
η(T) :=
n
ds
1
s
1
∧ ∧
ds
n
s
n
T
n
. (7.5)
Proof. The result follows from the basic identity (cf. [Goncharov (2001)],
Lemma 2.10)
_
Λ
a,b
(n)
ds
1
s
1
∧ ∧
ds
n
s
n
=
log
_
b
a
_
n
n!
. (7.6)
Observe then that, in terms of the motivic sheaves deﬁned as in [Arapura
(2008)] (see the discussion in ¸2.4 above), one can associate to the graph
The geometry of DimReg 153
hypersurfaces X
Γ
and the divisors Σ
n
with ∂σ
n
⊂ Σ
n
objects in the Arapura
category of motivic sheaves over G
m
, by considering the morphism
Ψ
Γ
: A
#E
Γ
ˆ
X
Γ
→G
m
(7.7)
deﬁned by the graph polynomial Ψ
Γ
(s) = det(M
Γ
(s)).
Deﬁnition 7.1.2. The category of Feynman motivic sheaves, for a ﬁxed
scalar quantum ﬁeld theory, is the subcategory of the Arapura category of
motivic sheaves over G
m
spanned by the objects of the form
(Ψ
Γ
: A
n
ˆ
X
Γ
→G
m
,
ˆ
Σ
n
(
ˆ
Σ
n
∩
ˆ
X
Γ
), n −1, n −1), (7.8)
with n = #E
int
(Γ) and where Γ ranges over the Feynman graphs of the
given scalar ﬁeld theory, and where
ˆ
Σ
n
= ¦t ∈ A
n
[
i
t
i
= 0¦ is the union
of the coordinate hyperplanes.
The above correspond to the local systems
H
n−1
G
m
(A
n
ˆ
X
Γ
,
ˆ
Σ
n
(
ˆ
Σ
n
∩
ˆ
X
Γ
), Q(n −1)). (7.9)
We can then consider the pullback of the logarithmic motive Log ∈
T/(G
m
) by this morphism, as in the construction of the logarithmic spe
cialization system given in [Ayoub (2007)]. This gives a motive
Log
Γ
:= Ψ
∗
Γ
(Log) ∈ T/(U
Γ
), (7.10)
where U
Γ
= A
#E
Γ
ˆ
X
Γ
.
In terms of periods, for the product of motivic sheaves deﬁned by (2.23)
one has the following.
Lemma 7.1.3. Suppose given σ ⊂ X and σ
⊂ X
, deﬁning relative ho
mology cycles for (X, Σ) and (X
, Σ
), respectively. One then has, for the
ﬁber product (2.23), the period pairing
_
σ×
S
σ
π
∗
X
(ω) ∧ π
∗
X
(η) =
_
σ
ω ∧ f
∗
f
∗
(η), (7.11)
where f : σ → S and f
: σ
→ S are the restrictions of the maps X → S
and X
→S.
Proof. First recall that, when integrating a diﬀerential form over a ﬁber
product, one has the formula
_
X×
S
X
π
∗
X
(ω) ∧ π
∗
X
(η) =
_
X
ω ∧ (π
X
)
∗
π
∗
X
(η) =
_
X
ω ∧ f
∗
f
∗
(η), (7.12)
154 Feynman Motives
which corresponds to the diagram
X
S
X
π
X
zzv
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
π
X
$$
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
X
f
$$
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
X
f
zzt
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
S
(7.13)
Suppose then given σ ⊂ X such that ∂σ ⊂ Σ and σ
⊂ X
with ∂σ
⊂ Σ
.
One has
∂(σ
S
σ
) = ∂σ
S
σ
∪ σ
S
∂σ
⊂ Σ
S
X
∪ X
S
Σ
,
so that σ
S
σ
deﬁnes a relative homology class in
(X
S
X
, Σ
S
X
∪ X
S
Σ
).
Given elements [ω] ∈ H
·
S
(X, Σ) and [η] ∈ H
·
S
(X
, Σ
), we then apply the
formula (7.12) to the integration on σ
S
σ
and obtain (7.11).
In these terms, the procedure of dimensional regularization can then be
thought of as follows. Consider again the logarithmic (pro)motive, viewed
itself as a motivic sheaf X
Log
∞
→ G
m
over G
m
. One can then take the
product of a Feynman motive
(Ψ
Γ
: A
n
ˆ
X
Γ
→G
m
, Σ
n
(Σ
n
∩
ˆ
X
Γ
), n −1, n −1), (7.14)
by the (pro)motive
(X
∞
Log
→G
m
, Λ
∞
, 0, 0), (7.15)
where Λ
∞
is such that the domain of integration Λ
1,t
(∞) of the period
computation of Lemma 7.1.1 deﬁnes a cycle. The product is then given by
a ﬁber product as in (2.23), namely
Ψ
∗
Γ
(Log
∞
) = (A
n
ˆ
X
Γ
)
G
m
X
Log
∞
//
X
Log
∞
A
n
ˆ
X
Γ
Ψ
Γ
//
G
m
(7.16)
We then have the following interpretation of the dimensionally regular
ized Feynman integrals.
Proposition 7.1.4. The dimensionally regularized Feynman integrals are
periods on the product, in the category of motivic sheaves enlarged to in
clude projective limits, of the Feynman motive (7.14) by the logarithmic
promotive Log
∞
of (7.15).
The geometry of DimReg 155
Proof. Consider the product (7.16), with the two projections
π
X
: Ψ
∗
Γ
(Log
∞
) →A
n
ˆ
X
Γ
π
L
: Ψ
∗
Γ
(Log
∞
) →X
Log
∞
and the form π
∗
X
(α) ∧ π
∗
L
(η(T)), where α is the form involved in the para
metric Feynman integral, and η(T) is the form on X
Log
∞
that gives the
period (7.4). The period computation of Lemma 7.1.1 gives
Ψ
∗
Γ
_
_
Λ
1,s
(∞)
η(T)
_
=
_
Λ
1,Ψ
Γ
(t)
(∞)
η(T) =
n
log(Ψ
Γ
(t))
n
n!
T
n
= Ψ
Γ
(t)
T
.
(7.17)
We then have, by (7.11),
_
σ
n
×
G
m
Λ
1,Ψ
Γ
(t)
(∞)
π
∗
X
(α) ∧ π
∗
L
(η(T)) =
_
σ
n
α ∧ (π
X
)
∗
π
∗
L
(η(T)) =
_
σ
n
Ψ
T
Γ
α.
This is the dimensionally regularized integral, up to replacing the formal
variable T of (7.1) with the complex DimReg variable z.
7.2 The noncommutative geometry of DimReg
We now discuss a diﬀerent approach to the geometry of DimReg, based on
[Connes and Marcolli (2005b)], using spectral triples and noncommutative
geometry and we discuss its points of contact with motivic notions.
The notion of metric space in noncommutative geometry is provided
by spectral triples, see [Connes (1995)]. These consist of data of the form
X = (/, H, T), with / an associative involutive algebra represented as an
algebra of bounded operators on a Hilbert space H, together with a self
adjoint operator T on H, with compact resolvent, and with the property
that the commutators [a, T] are bounded operators on H, for all a ∈ /. A
spectral triple is even if there is a linear involution, γ
2
= 1, on the Hilbert
space H satisfying [a, γ] = 0 and Dγ +γD = 0. Assume for simplicity that
the operator D is invertible. Then the spectral triple is ﬁnitely summable
if, for some real s, the operator [D[
s
is of trace class, Tr([D[
s
) < ∞.
This structure generalizes the data of a compact Riemannian spin mani
fold, with the (commutative) algebra of smooth functions, the Hilbert space
of square integrable spinors and the Dirac operator. It makes sense, how
ever, for a wide range of examples that are not ordinary manifolds, such as
quantum groups, fractals, noncommutative tori, etc.
156 Feynman Motives
For such spectral triples there are various diﬀerent notions of dimension.
The most sophisticated one is the dimension spectrum which is not a single
number but a subset of the complex plane consisting of all poles of the
family of zeta functions associated to the spectral triple,
Dim = ¦s ∈ C[ζ
a
(s) = Tr(a[D[
−s
) have poles ¦.
These are points where one has a well deﬁned integration theory on the
noncommutative space, the analog of a volume form, given in terms of a
residue for the zeta functions.
It is shown in [Connes and Marcolli (2005b)], [Connes and Marcolli
(2008)] that there exists a (type II) spectral triple X
z
with the properties
that the dimension spectrum is Dim = ¦z¦ and that one recoves the DimReg
prescription for the Gaussian integration in the form
Tr(e
−λD
2
z
) = π
z/2
λ
−z/2
.
The operator D
z
is of the form D
z
= ρ(z)F[Z[
1/z
, where Z = F[Z[ is a
selfadjoint operator aﬃliated to a type II
∞
von Neumann algebra ^ and
ρ(z) = π
−1/2
(Γ(1 + z/2))
1/z
, with the spectral measure Tr(χ
[a,b]
(Z)) =
1
2
_
[a,b]
dt, for the type II trace.
The technical aspects of the diﬀerence between ordinary spectral triples
and type II spectral triples are beyond the purpose of this book, and we
simply refer the reader to the relevant literature, especially [Carey, Phillips,
Rennie, Sukochev (2006a)] and [Carey, Phillips, Rennie, Sukochev (2006b)].
The ordinary spacetime over which the quantum ﬁeld theory is con
structed can itself be modeled as a (commutative) spectral triple
X = (/, H, T) = ((
∞
(X), L
2
(X, S), / D
X
)
and one can take a product X X
z
given by the cup product of spectral
triples (adapted to the type II case)
(/, H, T) ∪ (/
z
, H
z
, D
z
) = (/⊗/
z
, H⊗H
z
, T ⊗1 +γ ⊗D
z
).
This agrees with what is known in physics as the Breitenlohner–Maison
prescription to resolve the problem of the compatibility of the chirality
operator γ
5
with the DimReg procedure [Breitenlohner and Maison (1977)].
The Breitenlohner–Maison prescription consists of changing the usual Dirac
operator to a product, which is indeed of the form as in the cup product of
spectral triples,
T ⊗1 +γ ⊗D
z
.
The geometry of DimReg 157
It is shown in [Connes and Marcolli (2005b)] and [Connes and Marcolli
(2008)] that an explicit example of a space X
z
that can be used to perform
dimensional regularization geometrically can be constructed from the ad`ele
class space, the noncommutative space underlying the spectral realization of
the Riemann zeta function in noncommutative geometry (see e.g. [Connes
(1999)] and Chapters 2 and 4 of [Connes and Marcolli (2008)]), by taking
the crossed product of the partially deﬁned action
^ = L
∞
(
ˆ
Z R
∗
) GL
1
(Q)
and the trace
Tr
N
(f) =
_
ˆ
Z×R
∗
f(1, a) da,
with the operator
Z(1, ρ, λ) = λ, Z(r, ρ, λ) = 0, r ,= 1 ∈ Q
∗
.
The type II
∞
factor obtained in this way is dual (in the sense of the duality
introduced in [Connes (1973)]) to the type III
1
factor associated to the
KMS state at “critical temperature” β = 1 on the Bost–Connes system,
see [Bost and Connes (1995)], [Connes and Marcolli (2006a)], and Chapter
3 of [Connes and Marcolli (2008)].
This setting for the geometrization of DimReg provides a way of com
puting the anomalous graphs of quantum ﬁeld theory in terms of index co
cycles in noncommutative geometry, as explained in [Connes and Marcolli
(2005b)] and Chapter 1 of [Connes and Marcolli (2008)]. Here we concen
trate on a related aspect that brings us back to motivic notions, namely an
interesting formal analogy between the evanescent gauge potentials in the
noncommutative geometry of DimReg and the complexes of vanishing and
nearby cycles in algebraic geometry.
Suppose given a spectral triple (/, H, T), which may correspond, as
above, to the ordinary spacetime over which a given quantum ﬁeld theory
is considered. We assume that it is an even spectral triple, so that one has a
chirality operator γ, which is the usual γ
5
in dimension four. Then consider
the algebra
˜
/ generated by / and γ, endowed with a Z/2Z grading with
deg(a) = 1 for a ∈ / and deg(γ) = −1. The usual commutators are then
replaced by graded commutators
[T, a]
−
:= Ta −(−1)
deg(a)
aT (7.18)
We consider then the spectral triple where the Hilbert space and Dirac
operator are given by the product with X
z
,
(H⊗H
z
, T ⊗1 +γ ⊗T
z
)
158 Feynman Motives
and the algebra is
˜
/, acting by a ⊗1. We use the notation
T
= T
z
,
¯
T = T ⊗1,
ˆ
T = γ ⊗T
T
=
¯
T +
ˆ
T, (7.19)
as in [Connes and Marcolli (2005b)]. The lack of invariance of T
under the
chiral gauge transformation γ gives rise to new evanescent gauge potentials
coming from the presence of a nontrivial commutator
[T
, γ]
−
= 2γ
ˆ
T, (7.20)
which disappears when one is back in the case z = 0. These evanescent
gauge potentials ﬁgure prominently in the computations of anomalies in
[Connes and Marcolli (2005b)].
We now show that these evanescent gauge potentials also give rise to
a complex reminiscent of vanishing cycles. We use an approach based on
polarized Hodge–Lefschetz modules, which we have already described in a
very similar form in [Consani and Marcolli (2006)] in the context of the
archimedean cohomology of [Consani (1998)] and its relation to noncom
mutative geometry, [Consani and Marcolli (2004)].
The two geometric settings we will compare are the following. On the
algebrogeometric side, we consider the case of a geometric degeneration of
a family X of smooth algebraic varieties over a disk ∆ ⊂ C. Here X is a
complex analytic manifold of dimension dim
C
X = n+1 and f : X →∆ is a
ﬂat, proper morphism with projective ﬁbers. We assume that the map f is
smooth on X
∗
= XY and that Y is a divisor with normal crossings in X.
On the side of noncommutative geometry, we consider the noncommutative
spaces (/
, H
, D
) obtained by taking the cup product of a spectral triple
(/, H, D) with a noncommutative space X
z
in “complexiﬁed dimension”
z ∈ ∆, with the algebra /
=
˜
/ as above.
We shall see that the complex of gauge potentials on (/
, H
, D
) be
haves in many ways like a complex of forms with logarithmic poles associ
ated to the family X of smooth algebraic varieties over the disk z ∈ ∆. In
particular, in the algebrogeometric case, it is known that the special ﬁber
f
−1
(0) of f : X →∆ carries a mixed Hodge structure, [Steenbrink (1976)],
[Guill´en and Navarro Aznar (1990)].
To describe the analogous structure associated to the complex of gauge
potentials in the case of a noncommutative space and its deformation to
complexiﬁed dimension, we take the point of view of Saito’s polarized
Hodge–Lefschetz modules, [Saito (1988)] and [Guill´en and Navarro Aznar
(1990)], formulated as in [Consani and Marcolli (2006)].
The geometry of DimReg 159
Let L = ⊕
i,j∈Z
L
i,j
be a ﬁnite dimensional bigraded real vector space.
Let
1
,
2
be endomorphisms of L, with [
1
,
2
] = 0 and
1
: L
i,j
→L
i+2,j
,
2
: L
i,j
→L
i,j+2
. (7.21)
The data (L,
1
,
2
) deﬁne a bigraded Lefschetz module if
i
1
: L
−i,j
→L
i,j
and
j
2
: L
i,−j
→L
i,j
(7.22)
are isomorphisms for i > 0 and j > 0, respectively.
In the case of a geometric degeneration, with the generic ﬁber a compact
K¨ahler manifold, one can obtain such a structure from the action of the
Lefschetz operator on the primitive part of the cohomology (induced by
wedging with the K¨ahler form) and of the monodromy: the Lefschetz and
the log of the monodromy give the endomorphisms
1
,
2
.
Bigraded Lefschetz modules correspond bijectively to ﬁnite dimensional
representations of SL(2, R) SL(2, R). We will use the following notation:
χ(λ) :=
_
λ 0
0 λ
−1
_
, u(s) :=
_
1 s
0 1
_
, w :=
_
0 1
−1 0
_
, (7.23)
for λ ∈ R
∗
and s ∈ R, and
u =
_
0 1
0 0
_
=
d
ds
u(s)[
s=0
.
In these terms, the representation σ = σ
(L,
1
,
2
)
satisﬁes
dσ(u, 1) =
1
, dσ(1, u) =
2
, σ(χ(λ), χ(t)) = λ
i
t
j
x, ∀x ∈ L
i,j
.
The data (L,
1
,
2
) deﬁne a bigraded Hodge–Lefschetz module if all the
L
i,j
have a real Hodge structure and
1
,
2
are morphisms of Hodge struc
tures.
A polarization on (L,
1
,
2
) is a bilinear form
ψ : L ⊗L →R (7.24)
which is compatible with the Hodge structure, satisﬁes
ψ(
k
x, y) +ψ(x,
k
y) = 0, k = 1, 2, (7.25)
and is such that
ψ(, C
i
1
j
2
) (7.26)
is symmetric and positive deﬁnite on L
−i,−j
. (Here C is the Weil operator.)
The data (L,
1
,
2
, ψ) then deﬁne a bigraded polarized Hodge–Lefschetz
module.
160 Feynman Motives
It is also convenient (e.g. when working at the level of forms) to consider
diﬀerential bigraded polarized Hodge–Lefschetz modules (L,
1
,
2
, ψ, d),
where
d : L
i,j
→L
i+1,j+1
is a diﬀerential (d
2
= 0) satisfying
[
1
, d] = 0 = [
2
, d]
and
ψ(dx, y) = ψ(x, dy).
In this case, the cohomology H
∗
(L, d) inherits the structure of a bi
graded polarized Hodge–Lefschetz module. Moreover, H
∗
is identiﬁed with
Ker(), where = d
∗
d +dd
∗
, where
d
∗
= σ(w, w)
−1
◦ d ◦ σ(w, w),
for w as in (7.23) and σ = σ
(L,
1
,
2
)
, the representation of SL(2, R)
SL(2, R).
We now introduce an analog of this structure for noncommutative
spaces. We let (/, H, D) be an even ﬁnitely summable spectral triple. Let γ
be the grading operator. We consider the graded algebra
˜
/ generated by /
and by γ. Let (/
, H
, D
) be the noncommutative space obtained as the
product of (
˜
/, H, D) with the noncommutative space X
z
in “complexiﬁed
dimension” z. Namely, we have
/
=
˜
/, H
= H⊗H
and
D
= D
z
= D ⊗1 +γ ⊗D
z
,
where as above D
z
is the Dirac operator on the space X
z
. We let Ω
∗
D
(/)
denote the complex of gauge potentials of a triple (/, H, D), and H
∗
D
(/)
its cohomology.
We begin now by considering the complex Ω
m,r,k
, with diﬀerentials δ :
Ω
m,r,k
→ Ω
m+1,r,k
and δ
: Ω
m,r,k
→ Ω
m,r+1,k
. Here we take Ω
m,r,k
to be
the span of elements of the form
∇
k
(ω)D
2r
, (7.27)
with ω ∈ Ω
m
D
(
˜
/). Here we deﬁne ∇(a) = [D
2
, a] as before, for an element
a ∈ / or a ∈ [D, /], while we set ∇(aγ) := [D
2
, a]γ, for all a ∈ / or
a ∈ [D, /].
The geometry of DimReg 161
We consider a descending ﬁltration ⊃ F
p
⊃ F
p+1
⊃ on Ω
∗
D
(
˜
/)
deﬁned by setting
F
p
Ω
m
D
(
˜
/) = ⊕
t+s=m,t≥p
Ω
t,s
D
(
˜
/), (7.28)
where Ω
t,s
D
(
˜
/) = Ω
t
D
(/)θ
s
is the span of ω θ
s
, with ω ∈ Ω
t
D
(/) and θ = γ
ˆ
D.
We take
F
m+r−k
Ω
m
D
(
˜
/) = ⊕
t+s=m,s+r≤k
Ω
t
D
(/) θ
s
. (7.29)
In this way, we can endow the complex Ω
m,r,k
with a tensor product of two
“Hodge structures”, where the second is 1dimensional with F
−r
D
(C) :=
C D
2r
and F
−(r+1)
D
(C) = 0. We have
Ω
m,r,k
= F
m+r−k
Ω
m
D
(
˜
/) ⊗
C
F
−r
D
(C). (7.30)
The index of the resulting ﬁltration is i−k, where i = 2r+m, hence we then
take the Ω
m,r,k
with the conditions k ≥ 0 and k ≥ 2r +m. The diﬀerential
d = δ + δ
on this complex is the same as described above, induced by
da = [D
, a] for a ∈ ∇
k
(/), when decomposing D
= D ⊗ 1 + γ ⊗ D
z
, so
that δ
a = [
¯
D, a] and δ
(a) = [
ˆ
D, a].
Notice that the decomposition of the total diﬀerential d = δ +δ
, where
δ is essentially the original de Rham diﬀerential on Ω
∗
D
(/) and δ
acts by
wedging with the diﬀerential θ = γ
ˆ
D, resembles very closely the case of
geometric degenerations, where one also has a total diﬀerential d = δ +δ
,
with δ the usual de Rham diﬀerential and δ
given by wedging with the
form θ = f
∗
(dz/z), for f : X →∆ and z the coordinate on the base ∆ (cf.
[Steenbrink (1976)]).
We introduce endomorphisms
1
: Ω
m,r,k
→ Ω
m,r+1,k+1
and
2
:
Ω
m,r,k
→Ω
m+2,r−1,k
of (Ω, d = δ +δ
) deﬁned as follows:
1
(∇
k
(ω)D
2r
) = (∇
k
(ω)D
2r
) = ∇
k+1
(ω)D
2(r−1)
(7.31)
2
(∇
k
(ω)D
2r
) =
√
−1 ∇
k
(ω) ∧ θ
2
D
2(r+1)
=
√
−1 ∇
k
(ω θ
2
) D
2(r+1)
,
(7.32)
where for simplicity we write θ for the term θ = γ
ˆ
D.
We then have the following result.
Lemma 7.2.1. The endomorphisms
1
and
2
satisfy [
1
,
2
] = 0 and are
compatible with the diﬀerential, namely, [
1
, d] = 0 and [
2
, d] = 0.
162 Feynman Motives
Proof. It is immediate to verify that [
1
,
2
] = 0. We check compatibility
with the diﬀerential. We have [
1
, d] = 0. In fact, we can check the result
on elements of the form ∇
k
(a)D
2r
or ∇
k
(γa)D
2r
for a ∈ /. We have
(
1
δ −δ
1
)∇
k
(a)D
2r
= [D
2
, [D, ∇
k
(a)]]D
2(r−1)
−[D, ∇
k+1
(a)]D
2(r−1)
= 0,
since [D
2
, [D, b]] = −[D, [D
2
, b]], for all b ∈ ∇
k
(/). We also have
(
1
δ −δ
1
)∇
k
(γa)D
2r
= [D
2
, [
ˆ
D, γ∇
k
(a)]]D
2(r−1)
−[
ˆ
D, γ∇
k+1
(a)]D
2(r−1)
= 0,
where we use the fact that we have set
∇(γa) := γ∇(a)
and we get
[D
2
, [
ˆ
D, γb]] = [D
2
, 2γb
ˆ
D] = 2[D
2
, b]γ
ˆ
D
and
[
ˆ
D, γ[D
2
, b]] = 2[D
2
, b]γ
ˆ
D.
Similarly, we verify that [
2
, d] = 0. This can be seen easily on elements of
the form bD
2r
, since
[D, b(γ
ˆ
D)
2
] = −[D, b](γ
ˆ
D)
2
,
and on elements γbD
2r
, where
2
[
ˆ
D, γb] = 2
√
−1 bθ
3
= −[
ˆ
D,
2
(γb)].
Thus,
1
,
2
induce endomorphisms on the cohomology of the double
complex.
We introduce an SL(2, R)SL(2, R) representation (σ
1
, σ
2
) on the com
plex introduced above, which is associated to the operators
1
,
2
.
Deﬁnition 7.2.2. Assume that the spectral triple (/, H, D) is N
summable with N = 2n. Consider σ
1
and σ
2
deﬁned by
σ
1
(χ(λ)) = λ
2r+m
, σ
1
(u(s)) = exp(s
1
), σ
1
(w) = S
1
. (7.33)
σ
2
(χ(λ)) = λ
n−m
, σ
2
(u(s)) = exp(s
2
), σ
2
(w) = S
2
. (7.34)
The geometry of DimReg 163
Here the operators S
1
and S
2
are deﬁned by powers of
1
,
2
, in the following
way. We consider involutions
ˆ
S
1
: Ω
m,r,k
→Ω
m,−(r+m),k−(2r+m)
ˆ
S
2
: Ω
m,r,k
→Ω
2n−m,r−(n−m),k
of the form
ˆ
S
1
(∇
k
(ω)D
2r
) =
−(2r+m)
1
(∇
k
(ω)D
2r
)
ˆ
S
2
(∇
k
(ω)D
2r
) =
n−m
2
(∇
k
(ω)D
2r
),
(7.35)
for ω ∈ Ω
m
D
(
˜
/). We set S
1
=
√
−1
m
ˆ
S
1
.
These satisfy the following property.
Proposition 7.2.3. The data speciﬁed in Deﬁnition 7.2.2 deﬁne a repre
sentation of SL(2, R) SL(2, R) on (Ω, d).
Proof. In order to show that σ = σ
k
, for k = 1, 2, deﬁned by (7.33) and
(7.34) is indeed a representations of SL(2, R) it is suﬃcient ([Lang (1975)]
¸XI.2) to check that it satisﬁes the relations
σ(w)
2
= σ(χ(−1)),
σ(χ(λ))σ(u(s))σ(χ(λ
−1
)) = σ(u(sλ
2
)).
(7.36)
The ﬁrst relation is clearly satisﬁed and the second can be veriﬁed easily
on elements ∇
k
(ω)D
2r
, with ω ∈ Ω
m
D
(/), where we have
σ
1
(χ(λ)) σ
1
(u(s)) σ
1
(χ(λ
−1
)) ∇
k
(ω)D
2r
=
σ
1
(χ(λ))
_
1 +s
1
+
s
2
2
2
1
+
_
λ
−(2r+m)
∇
k
(ω)D
2r
=
_
1 +λ
2(r+1)+m
s
1
λ
−(2r+m)
+λ
2(r+2)+m
s
2
2
2
1
λ
−(2r+m)
+
_
∇
k
(ω)D
2r
= exp(sλ
2
1
) ∇
k
(ω)D
2r
,
and
σ
2
(χ(λ)) σ
2
(u(s)) σ
2
(χ(λ
−1
)) ∇
k
(ω)D
2r
=
σ
2
(χ(λ))
_
1 +s
2
+
s
2
2
2
2
+
_
λ
n−m
∇
k
(ω)D
2r
=
_
1 +λ
−n+m+2
s
2
λ
n−m
+λ
−n+m+4
s
2
2
2
2
λ
n−m
+
_
∇
k
(ω)D
2r
=
exp(sλ
2
2
) ∇
k
(ω)D
2r
.
164 Feynman Motives
Notice that, in the case of the representation associated to the “Lef
schetz”
2
, the analog of the Hodge on forms, which appears in σ
1
(w), is
realized by a power of
2
, by analogy to what happens in the classical case,
where the Hodge can be realized (on the primitive cohomology) by the
(n −m)th power of the Lefschetz operator.
This construction parallels exactly what happens in the construction
of the archimedean cohomology of [Consani (1998)] for the ﬁbers at in
ﬁnity of arithmetic varieties, in the form presented in [Consani and Mar
colli (2006)]. This deﬁnes a structure that is analogous to the diﬀeren
tial bigraded Hodge–Lefschetz modules, by setting L
i,j
= ⊕
k
Ω
m,r,k
with
i = 2r +m and j = −n +m.
We now discuss the polarization. Deﬁne the bilinear form ψ by setting
ψ(∇
k
(ω)D
2r
, ∇
k
(ω
)D
2r
) :=
_
−γ∇
k
(η
∗
)∇
k
(η
)D
2(r+r
)
(7.37)
where ω = ηθ
s
and ω
= η
θ
s
.
Lemma 7.2.4. The bilinear form (7.37) satisﬁes the relation (7.25).
Proof. For a = ∇
k
(η)θ
s
D
2r
and b = ∇
k
(η
)θ
s
D
2r
, we have
ψ(
1
(a), b) =
_
−γ∇
k+1
(η
∗
)∇
k
(η
) D
2(r−1+r
)
,
while
ψ(a,
1
(b)) =
_
−γ∇
k
(η)∇
k
+1
(η
) D
2(r+r
−1)
.
Thus, integration by parts gives ψ(
1
(a), b) +ψ(a,
1
(b)) = 0.
We also have
ψ(
2
(a), b) =
_
−γ(−
√
−1 ∇
k
(η
∗
))∇
k
(η
) D
2(r+1+r
)
,
and
ψ(a,
2
(b)) =
_
−γ∇
k
(η
∗
)
√
−1 ∇
k
(η
) D
2(r+r
+1)
.
Thus, we also have ψ(
2
(a), b) +ψ(a,
2
(b)) = 0.
We also have the following result, analogous to the requirement (7.26)
for polarizations of Hodge–Lefschetz modules. We work here under an
assumption of “tameness” for spectral triples deﬁned in [V´arilly and Gracia
Bond
´
ia (1993)].
The geometry of DimReg 165
Lemma 7.2.5. The bilinear form (7.37) has the property that
¸a
∗
, b) := ψ(a,
i
1
j
2
b)
agrees on L
−i,−j
with the integral with respect to the volume form of
(/, H, D). Under the assumptions of “tameness” for (/, H, D), it agrees
with the inner product on the complex of gauge potentials.
Proof. For b = ∇
k
(η
)θ
s
D
2r
in L
−i,−j
, we have
j
2
(b) = ∇
k
(η
)θ
s
+2j
D
2r+2j
.
We then have
i
1
j
2
(b) = ∇
k
+i
(η
)θ
s
+2j
D
2r+2j−2i
.
This gives
i
1
j
2
(b) = ∇
k
+2r+m
(η
)θ
s
+2(m−n)
D
−2r−2n
.
Thus, for a = ∇
k
(η)θ
s
D
2r
in L
−i,−j
, we obtain
ψ(a,
i
1
j
2
(b)) =
_
−γ∇
k
(η
∗
)∇
k
+2r+m
(η
)D
−2n
.
Recall that
_
a :=
_
−aD
−2n
is the integration with respect to the volume
form D
−2n
of the spectral triple (/, H, D). Under the assumption of “tame
ness” this satisﬁes
_
ab =
_
ba and
_
a
∗
a ≥ 0, so that ¸a
∗
, b) agrees with
the inner product of forms in Ω
∗
D
(
˜
/).
The fact that the structure described here in terms of Hodge–Lefschetz
modules parallels very closely the construction of the archimedean coho
mology of [Consani (1998)], in the form presented in [Consani and Marcolli
(2006)], suggests that the formalism of DimReg via noncommutative ge
ometry may be useful also to describe a “neighborhood” of the ﬁbers at
inﬁnity of an arithmetic variety.
In the algebrogeometric setting of a degeneration over a disk, the lo
cal monodromy plays an important role in determining the limiting mixed
Hodge structure. In fact, geometrically, the diﬀerence between the coho
mology of the generic ﬁber and of the special ﬁber is measured by the van
ishing cycles. These span the reduced cohomology
˜
H
∗
(M
z
, C) of the Milnor
ﬁber M
z
:= B
P
∩ f
−1
(z), deﬁned for P ∈ Y , B
P
a small ball around P,
and a suﬃciently small z ∈ ∆
∗
. The nearby cycles span the cohomology
H
∗
(M
z
, C). To eliminate the noncanonical dependence of everything upon
the choice of z, one usually considers all choices by passing to the universal
166 Feynman Motives
cover
˜
∆
∗
= H of the punctured disk and replacing M
z
by
˜
X
∗
= X
∆
˜
∆
∗
.
The identiﬁcation (cf. [Steenbrink (1976)])
H
m
(
˜
X
∗
, C)
→H
m
(Y, Ω
·
X/∆
(log Y ) ⊗
O
X
O
Y
) (7.38)
shows that, when working with nearby cycles, one can use a complex of
forms with logarithmic diﬀerentials. This approach, with an explicit reso
lution of the complex, was used ([Steenbrink (1976)], [Guill´en and Navarro
Aznar (1990)]) to obtain a mixed Hodge structure on H
m
(
˜
X
∗
, C) deter
mined by (H
m
(
˜
X
∗
, C), L
·
, F
·
), where F
·
is the Hodge ﬁltration and L
·
is
the Picard–Lefschetz ﬁltration associated to the local monodromy.
The analogy described above with the structure of polarized Hodge–
Lefschetz modules allows one to think of the operator
Θ(a) =
∞
n=1
(−1)
n+1
n
∇
n
(a)D
−2n
. (7.39)
as the logarithm of the local monodromy, with
1
satisfying e
Θ
= 1+
1
, and
with the induced action of (2π
√
−1)
1
on the cohomology corresponding to
the residue of the Gauss–Manin connection in the algebrogeometric setting.
The operator Θ of (7.39) is the derivation that appears in [Connes and
Moscovici (1995)] in the context of the local index formula for spectral
triples.
Chapter 8
Renormalization, singularities, and
Hodge structures
As we have seen, the graph hypersurfaces X
Γ
are typically singular with
nonisolated singularities and a singular locus of small codimension. Among
various techniques introduced for the study of nonisolated singularities, a
common procedure consists of cutting the ambient space with linear spaces
of dimension complementary to that of the singular locus of the hypersur
face (cf. e.g. [Teissier (1975)]). In this case, the restriction of the function
deﬁning the hypersurface to these linear spaces deﬁnes hypersurfaces with
isolated singularities, to which the usual invariants and constructions for
isolated singularities can be applied.
In many cases one ends up slicing the graph hypersurfaces by planes P
2
intersecting the hypersurface into a curve with isolated singular points. This
corresponds to cases where the singular locus is of (complex) codimension
one in the hypersurface. When the singular locus is of codimension two in
the hypersurface, the slicing is given by 3dimensional spaces cutting the
hypersurface into a family of surfaces in P
3
with isolated singularities.
The parametric Feynman integrals can in turn be expressed in terms of
this slicing, using projective Radon transforms, and we use the resulting
integrals on the slices as a way to relate the Feynman integrals to Hodge
structures for isolated singularities. We follow here the approach outlined
in [Marcolli (2008)].
8.1 Projective Radon transform
We recall the basic setting for integral transforms on projective spaces (cf.
¸II of [Gelfand, Gindikin, and Graev (1980)]). On any kdimensional sub
space A
k
⊂ A
n
there is a unique (up to a multiplicative constant) (k −1)
form that is invariant under the action of SL
k
. It is given as in (3.42) by
167
168 Feynman Motives
the expression
Ω
k
=
k
i=1
(−1)
i+1
t
i
dt
1
∧ ∧
´
dt
i
∧ ∧ dt
k
. (8.1)
The form (8.1) is homogeneous of degree k. Suppose given a function f on
A
n
which satisﬁes the homogeneity condition
f(λt) = λ
−k
f(t), ∀t ∈ A
n
, λ ∈ G
m
. (8.2)
Then the integrand fΩ
k
is well deﬁned on the corresponding projective
space P
k−1
⊂ P
n−1
and one deﬁnes the integral by integrating on a funda
mental domain in A
k
¦0¦, i.e. on a surface that intersects each line from
the origin once.
Suppose given linearly independent dual vectors ξ
i
∈ (A
n
)
, for i =
1, . . . , n − k. These deﬁne a kdimensional linear subspace Π = Π
ξ
⊂ A
n
by the vanishing
Π
ξ
= ¦t ∈ A
n
[ ¸ξ
i
, t) = 0, i = 1, . . . , n −k¦. (8.3)
Given a choice of a subspace Π
ξ
, there exists a (k − 1)form Ω
ξ
on A
n
satisfying
¸ξ
1
, dt) ∧ ∧ ¸ξ
n−k
, dt) ∧ Ω
ξ
= Ω
n
, (8.4)
with Ω
n
the (n −1)form of (3.42), cf. (8.1). The form Ω
ξ
is not uniquely
deﬁned on A
n
, but its restriction to Π
ξ
is uniquely deﬁned by (8.4). Then,
given a function f on A
n
with the homogeneity condition (8.2), one can
consider the integrand fΩ
ξ
and deﬁne its integral over the projective space
π(Π
ξ
) ⊂ P
n−1
as above. This deﬁnes the integral transform, that is, the
(k −1)dimensional projective Radon transform (¸II of [Gelfand, Gindikin,
and Graev (1980)]) as
T
k
(f)(ξ) =
_
π(Π
ξ
)
f(t) Ω
ξ
(t) =
_
P
n−1
f(t)
n−k
i=1
δ(¸ξ
i
, t)) Ω
ξ
(t). (8.5)
For our purposes, it is convenient to also consider the following variant
of the Radon transform (8.5).
Deﬁnition 8.1.1. Let σ ⊂ A
n
be a compact region that is contained in a
fundamental domain of the action of G
m
on A
n
¦0¦. The partial (k −1)
dimensional projective Radon transform is given by the expression
T
σ,k
(f)(ξ) =
_
σ∩π(Π
ξ
)
f(t) Ω
ξ
(t) =
_
σ∩π(Π
ξ
)
f(t)
n−k
i=1
δ(¸ξ
i
, t)) Ω
ξ
(t), (8.6)
where one identiﬁes σ with its image π(σ) ⊂ P
n−1
.
Renormalization, singularities, and Hodge structures 169
Let us now return to the parametric Feynman integrals we are consid
ering.
Proposition 8.1.2. The parametric Feynman integral can be reformulated
as
U(Γ) =
Γ(k −
D
2
)
(4π)
D/2
_
T
σ
n
,k
(f
Γ
)(ξ) ¸ξ, dt), (8.7)
where ξ is an (n − k)frame in A
n
and T
σ
n
,k
(f) is the Radon transform,
with σ
n
the simplex
i
t
i
= 1, t
i
≥ 0, and with
f
Γ
(t) =
V
Γ
(t, p)
−k+D/2
Ψ
Γ
(t)
D/2
. (8.8)
Proof. We write the parametric Feynman integral as
U(Γ) = (4π)
−D/2
_
A
n
χ
+
(t)
e
−V
Γ
(t,p)
Ψ
Γ
(t)
D/2
dt
1
dt
n
, (8.9)
where χ
+
(t) is the characteristic function of the domain R
n
+
.
Given a choice of an (n − k)frame ξ, we can then write the Feynman
integrals in the form
U(Γ) = (4π)
−D/2
_
_
_
Π
ξ
χ
+
(t)
e
−V
Γ
(t,p)
Ψ
Γ
(t)
D/2
ω
ξ
_
¸ξ, dt), (8.10)
where ¸ξ, dt) is a shorthand notation for
¸ξ, dt) = ¸ξ
1
, dt) ∧ ∧ ¸ξ
n−k
, dt)
and ω
ξ
satisﬁes
¸ξ, dt) ∧ ω
ξ
= ω
n
= dt
1
∧ ∧ dt
n
. (8.11)
We then follow the same procedure we used in the derivation of the
parametric form of the Feynman integral, applied to the integral over Π
ξ
and we write it in the form
_
Π
ξ
χ
+
(t)
e
−V
Γ
(t,p)
Ψ
Γ
(t)
D/2
ω
ξ
(t) =
Γ(k −
D
2
)
_
Π
ξ
δ(1 −
i
t
i
)
ω
ξ
(t)
Ψ
Γ
(t)
D/2
V
Γ
(t, p)
k−D/2
.
(8.12)
The function f
Γ
(t) of (8.8) satisﬁes the scaling property (8.2) and the
integrand
ω
ξ
(t)
Ψ
Γ
(t)
D/2
V
Γ
(t, p)
k−D/2
170 Feynman Motives
is therefore G
m
invariant, since the form ω
ξ
is homogeneous of degree k.
Moreover, the domain σ
n
of integration is contained in a fundamental do
main for the action of G
m
. Thus, we can reformulate the integral (8.12) in
projective space, in terms of the Radon transform, as
Γ(k −
D
2
) (4π)
−D/2
_
T
σ
n
,k
(f
Γ
)(ξ) ¸ξ, dt), (8.13)
where T
σ
n
,k
(f
Γ
) is the Radon transform over the simplex σ
n
, as in Deﬁni
tion 8.1.1.
In the following, we will then consider integrals of the form
U(Γ)
ξ
= T
σ
n
,k
(f
Γ
)(ξ) =
_
Π
ξ
δ(1 −
i
t
i
)
ω
ξ
(t)
Ψ
Γ
(t)
D/2
V
Γ
(t, p)
k−D/2
(8.14)
=
_
σ
ξ
ω
ξ
(t)
Ψ
Γ
(t)
D/2
V
Γ
(t, p)
k−D/2
as well as their dimensional regularizations
U(Γ)
ξ
(z) =
_
σ
ξ
ω
ξ
(t)
Ψ
Γ
(t)
(D+z)/2
V
Γ
(t, p)
k−(D+z)/2
, (8.15)
where Π
ξ
is a generic linear subspace of dimension equal to the codimension
of the singular locus of the hypersurface X
Γ
∪ Y
Γ
, with X
Γ
= ¦Ψ
Γ
(t) = 0¦
and Y
Γ
= ¦P
Γ
(t, p) = 0¦ as before, and σ
ξ
= σ
n
∩ Π
ξ
.
So far we have always made the simplifying assumption, in dealing with
the parametric Feynman integrals, that the spacetime dimension D is in the
“stable range” where n ≤ D/2, so that the integral lives on the hypersur
face complement of the graph hypersurface X
Γ
and the zeros of the second
graph polynomial P
Γ
(t, p) do not contribute to singularities of the diﬀer
ential form. Here the corresponding condition would then be k ≤ D/2,
which is also satisﬁed in the original stable range, so we continue to restrict
only to that case.
8.2 The polar ﬁltration and the Milnor ﬁber
Algebraic diﬀerential forms ω ∈ Ω
k
(T(f)) on a hypersurface complement
can always be written in the form ω = η/f
m
as in (3.46), for some m ∈ N
and some η ∈ Ω
k
mdeg(f)
. The minimal m such that ω can be written in the
form ω = η/f
m
is called the order of the pole of ω along the hypersurface
X and is denoted by ord
X
(ω). The order of the pole induces a ﬁltration,
Renormalization, singularities, and Hodge structures 171
called the polar ﬁltration, on the de Rham complex of diﬀerential forms on
the hypersurface complement. One denotes by P
r
Ω
k
P
n
⊂ Ω
k
P
n
the subspace
of forms of order ord
X
(ω) ≤ k − r + 1, if k − r + 1 ≥ 0, or P
r
Ω
k
= 0 for
k −r +1 < 0. The polar ﬁltration P
•
is related to the Hodge ﬁltration F
•
by P
r
Ω
m
⊃ F
r
Ω
m
, by a result of [Deligne and Dimca (1990)].
Proposition 8.2.1. Under the generic condition on the external momenta,
and in the stable range n ≤ D/2, the forms
Ω
ξ
Ψ
D/2
Γ
V
k−D/2
Γ
(8.16)
span subspaces P
r,k
ξ
of the polar ﬁltration P
r
Ω
k−1
P
n−1
of a hypersurface com
plement (f) ⊂ P
n−1
, where f = Ψ
Γ
and for the index r of the ﬁltration
in the range r ≤ 2k −D( + 1)/2.
Proof. We are assuming that P
Γ
and Ψ
Γ
have no common factor, for
generic external momenta. We also have that k ≤ D/2, so that also
k −D( + 1)/2 < 0. In this case, we write (8.16) in the form
∆(α)
f
m
=
P
−k+D/2
Γ
Ω
ξ
Ψ
−k+D(+1)/2
Γ
, (8.17)
where
α = P
−k+D/2
Γ
ω
ξ
, and f = Ψ
Γ
and m = −k +D( +1)/2. (8.18)
We are considering here the polar ﬁltration on forms on the complement of
the hypersurface X
Γ
deﬁned by Ψ
Γ
= 0. Varying the external momenta p
correspondingly varies the polynomial P
Γ
(t, p). We then obtain, for generic
ξ and varying p, a subspace of P
r,k
ξ
of the ﬁltration P
r
Ω
k−1
P
n−1
, for all r ≤
2k −D( + 1)/2.
Suppose then that k = codimSing(X), where Sing(X) is the singular
locus of the hypersurface X = ¦f = 0¦, with f as in Proposition 8.2.1
above. In this case, for generic ξ, the linear space Π
ξ
cuts the singular
locus Sing(X) transversely and the restriction X
ξ
= X ∩ Π
ξ
has isolated
singularities.
Recall that, in the case of isolated singularities, there is an isomorphism
between the cohomology of the Milnor ﬁber F
ξ
of X
ξ
and the total co
homology of the Koszul–de Rham complex of forms (3.46) with the total
diﬀerential d
f
ω = f dω −mdf ∧ ω as in (3.51).
The explict isomorphism is given by the Poincar´e residue map and can
be written in the form
[ω] → [j
∗
∆(ω
ξ
)], (8.19)
172 Feynman Motives
where j : F
ξ
→ Π
ξ
is the inclusion of the Milnor ﬁber in the ambient space
(see [Dimca (1992)], ¸6).
Let M(f) be the Milnor algebra of f, i.e. the quotient of the polynomial
ring in the coordinates of the ambient projective space by the ideal of the
derivatives of f. When f has isolated singularities, the Milnor algebra is
ﬁnite dimensional. One denotes by M(f)
m
the homogeneous component of
degree m of M(f).
It then follows from the identiﬁcation (8.19) above ([Dimca (1992)],¸6.2)
that, in the case of isolated singularities, a basis for the cohomology H
r
(F
ξ
)
of the Milnor ﬁber, with r = dimΠ
ξ
−1 is given by elements of the form
ω
α
=
t
α
∆(ω
ξ
)
f
m
, with t
α
∈ M(f)
mdeg(f)−k
, (8.20)
where f is the restriction to Π
ξ
of the function of Ψ
Γ
. We then have the
following consequence of Proposition 8.2.1.
Corollary 8.2.2. For n ≤ D/2 and for a generic (n − k)frame ξ with
n − k = dimSing(X), with X = X
Γ
, and for a ﬁxed generic choice of the
external momenta p under the generic assumption of Deﬁnition 3.3.1, the
Feynman integrand (8.16) of (8.14) deﬁnes a cohomology class in H
r
(F
ξ
),
with r = dimΠ
ξ
−1 and F
ξ
⊂ Π
ξ
the Milnor ﬁber of the hypersurface with
isolated singularities X
ξ
= X ∩ Π
ξ
⊂ Π
ξ
.
Proof. By Proposition 8.2.1, in the stable range for D, the form (8.16)
can be written as
h∆(ω
ξ
)
f
m
, (8.21)
where f = Ψ
Γ
and h = P
−k+D/2
Γ
. Let 1
ξ
denote the ideal of derivatives of
the restriction f[
Π
ξ
of f to Π
ξ
. Then let
h
ξ
= h mod 1
ξ
. (8.22)
For a ﬁxed generic choice of the external momenta, this deﬁnes an element
in the Milnor algebra M(f[
Π
ξ
), which lies in the homogeneous component
M(f[
Π
ξ
)
mdeg(f)−k
, for m = −k +D( +1)/2. Thus, the form (8.21) deﬁnes
a class in the cohomology H
r
(F
ξ
) with r = dimΠ
ξ
−1.
We have not discussed so far the dependence of our slicing method upon
the choice of the slice. This will be treated in ¸8.4 below, where we show
that one can include the choice of slices as additional data in the Hopf
algebra combinatorics, so as to consider all slices simultaneously, with a
Renormalization, singularities, and Hodge structures 173
combinatorial organizing principle. In particular, notice that in terms of the
Radon transform decomposition (8.10) only the general slices matter as the
special slices (for instance those where Π
ξ
is contained in the hypersurface
X
Γ
) form a set of measure zero in the space of (n −k)frames.
It is also worth pointing out that the construction described in this
section can also be formulated without slicing. Namely, the operations of
taking the ideal of derivatives of f, ﬁnding the class of the numerator mod
ulo these derivatives, and then ranging over all choices of external momenta
to get a subspace can be performed without the slicing operation. What
is missing in this case is the interpretation of the resulting space as the
cohomology of a Milnor ﬁber.
8.3 DimReg and mixed Hodge structures
We assume here to be in the case of isolated singularities, possibly after
replacing the original Feynman integrals with their slices along planes Π
ξ
of
dimension complementary to that of the singular locus of the hypersurface,
as above.
The cohomological Milnor ﬁbration has ﬁber over given by the complex
vector space H
k−1
(F
, C), where the Milnor ﬁber F
of X
ξ
is homotopically
a bouquet of µ spheres S
k−1
, with k = dimΠ
ξ
− 1 and with µ the Milnor
number of the isolated singularity. A holomorphic kform α = hω
ξ
/f
m
determines a section of the cohomological Milnor ﬁbration by taking the
classes
_
α
df
[
F
_
∈ H
k−1
(F
, C). (8.23)
We then have the following results ([Arnold, GuseinZade, Varchenko
(1988)], Vol.II ¸13). The asymptotic formula for the Gelfand–Leray func
tions implies that the function of obtained by pairing the section (8.23)
with a locally constant section of the homological Milnor ﬁbration has an
asymptotic expansion
__
α
df
_
, δ
_
∼
λ,r
a
r,λ
r!
λ
log()
r
, (8.24)
for → 0, where δ() ∈ H
k−1
(F
, Z). Moreover, there exist classes
η
α
r,λ
() ∈ H
k−1
(F
, C) (8.25)
such that the coeﬃcients a
r,λ
of (8.24) are given by
¸η
α
r,λ
(), δ()) = a
r,λ
. (8.26)
174 Feynman Motives
Thus, one deﬁnes the “geometric section” associated to the holomorphic
kform α as
σ(α) :=
r,λ
η
α
r,λ
()
λ
log()
r
r!
. (8.27)
The order of the geometric section σ(α) is deﬁned as being the smallest λ
in the discrete set Ξ ⊂ R such that η
α
0,λ
,= 0. One denotes it by λ
α
. The
principal part of σ(α) is then deﬁned as
σ
max
(α)() :=
λ
α
_
η
α
0,λ
α
+ +
log()
k−1
(k −1)!
η
α
k−1,λ
α
_
, (8.28)
where one knows that
η
α
r,λ
= ^
r
η
α
0,λ
, (8.29)
where ^ is the nilpotent operator given by the logarithm of the unipotent
monodromy, given by
^ = −
1
2πi
log T
with log T =
r≥1
(−1)
r+1
(T −id)
r
/r.
The asymptotic mixed Hodge structure on the ﬁbers of the cohomological
Milnor ﬁbration constructed by Varchenko ([Varchenko (1980)], [Varchenko
(1981)]) has as the Hodge ﬁltration the subspaces F
r
⊂ H
k−1
(F
, C) deﬁned
by
F
r
= ¦[α/df] [ λ
α
≤ k −r −1¦ (8.30)
and as weight ﬁltration W
⊂ H
k−1
(F
, C) the ﬁltration associated to the
nilpotent monodromy operator ^. This mixed Hodge structure has the
same weight ﬁltration as the limiting mixed Hodge structure constructed
by Steenbrink ([Steenbrink (1976)], [Steenbrink (1977)]), but the Hodge
ﬁltration is diﬀerent, though the two agree on the graded pieces of the
weight ﬁltration.
We show that, upon varying the choice of the external momenta p and
of the spacetime dimension D, the corresponding Feynman integrands, in a
neighborhood of an isolated singular point of X
Γ
∩Π
ξ
, determine a subspace
of the cohomology H
k−1
(F
ξ
, C) of the Milnor ﬁber of X
Γ
∩Π
ξ
. This inherits
a Hodge and a weight ﬁltration from the Milnor ﬁber cohomology with its
asymptotic mixed Hodge structure. We concentrate again only on the case
where k −D/2 ≤ 0, so that we can consider, for ﬁxed k, arbitrarily large
values of D ∈ N.
Renormalization, singularities, and Hodge structures 175
Proposition 8.3.1. Consider Feynman integrals, sliced along a linear
space Π
ξ
as in (8.14). We write the integrand in the form
α
ξ
=
hΩ
ξ
f
m
, (8.31)
with
_
¸
¸
_
¸
¸
_
h = P
−k+D/2
Γ
f = Ψ
Γ
m = −k +D( + 1)/2,
(8.32)
as in (8.18), with k −D/2 ≤ 0. Upon varying the external momenta p in
P
Γ
(p, t) and the spacetime dimension D ∈ N, with k −D/2 ≤ 0, the forms
α
ξ
as above determine a subspace
H
k−1
Feynman
(F
, C) ⊂ H
k−1
(F
, C),
of the ﬁbers of the cohomological Milnor ﬁbration, spanned by elements of
the form (8.31), where the polynomials h = h
T,v,w,p
are of the form
h(t) =
−k+D/2
i=1
L
T
i
(t)
e/ ∈T
i
t
e
, (8.33)
where the T
i
are spanning trees and the L
T
i
(t) are the linear functions of
(3.41).
Proof. Consider the explicit expression of the polynomial P
Γ
(t, p) as a
function of the external momenta, through the coeﬃcients s
C
of (3.18). One
can see that, by varying arbitrarily the external momenta, subject to the
global conservation law (3.39), one can reduce to the simplest possible case,
where all external momenta are zero except for a pair of opposite momenta
P
v
1
= p = −P
v
2
associated to a pair of external edges attached to a pair of
vertices v
1
, v
2
. In such a case, the polynomial P
Γ
(t, p) becomes of the form
(3.40). Thus, when considering powers P
Γ
(t, p)
−k+D/2
for varying D, we
obtain all polynomials of the form (8.33).
We denote by H
k−1
Feynman
(F
, C) the subspace of the cohomology
H
k−1
(F
, C) of the Milnor ﬁber spanned by the classes [α
ξ
/df] with α
ξ
of the form (8.31), with h of the form (8.33), considered modulo the
ideal generated by the derivatives of f = Ψ
Γ
and localized at an iso
lated singular point, i.e. viewed as elements in the Milnor algebra M(f).
The subspace H
k−1
Feynman
(F
, C) inherits a Hodge and a weight ﬁltration
176 Feynman Motives
F
•
∩ H
k−1
Feynman
and W
•
∩ H
k−1
Feynman
from the asymptotic mixed Hodge
structure of Varchenko on H
k−1
(F
, C). It is an interesting problem to
see whether the subspace H
k−1
Feynman
recovers the full H
k−1
(F
, C) and if
(F
•
∩H
k−1
Feynman
, W
•
∩H
k−1
Feynman
) still give a mixed Hodge structure, at least
for some classes of graphs Γ.
8.4 Regular and irregular singular connections
An important and still mysterious aspect of the motivic approach to
Feynman integrals and renormalization is the problem of reconciling the
Riemann–Hilbert correspondence of perturbative renormalization formu
lated in [Connes and Marcolli (2004)] (see Chapter 1 of [Connes and Mar
colli (2008)]), based on equivalence classes of certain irregular singular con
nections, with the setting of motives (especially mixed Tate motives) and
mixed Hodge structures, which are naturally related to regular singular
connections. The irregular singular connections of [Connes and Marcolli
(2004)] have values in the Lie algebra of the Connes–Kreimer group of dif
feographisms and are deﬁned on a ﬁbration over a punctured disk with
ﬁber the multiplicative group, respectively representing the complex vari
able z of dimensional regularization and the energy scale µ (or rather µ
z
)
upon which the dimensionally regularized Feynman integrals depend. On
the other hand, in the case of hypersurfaces in projective spaces, the nat
ural associated regular singular connection is the Gauss–Manin connection
on the cohomology of the Milnor ﬁber and the Picard–Fuchs equation for
the vanishing cycles. We sketch here a relation between this regular sin
gular connection and the irregular equisingular connections of [Connes and
Marcolli (2004)].
We explain here, following [Marcolli (2008)], how regular singular
Gauss–Manin connections associated to singularities of individual graph
hypersurfaces X
Γ
can be assembled, over diﬀerent graphs, to give rise to
an irregular singular connection of the kind used in [Connes and Marcolli
(2004)].
In the following we let
_
ω
i
df
_
i = 1, . . . , µ (8.34)
be a basis for the vanishing cohomology bundle, written with the same
notation we used above for the Gelfand–Leray form. Then the Gauss–
Manin connection on the vanishing cohomology bundle, which is deﬁned by
Renormalization, singularities, and Hodge structures 177
the integer cohomology lattice in each real cohomology ﬁber, acts on the
basis (8.34) by
∇
GM
s
_
ω
i
df
_
s
=
j
p
ij
(s)
_
ω
j
df
_
s
, (8.35)
where the p
ij
(s) are holomorphic away from s = 0 and have a pole at s = 0.
The Gauss–Manin connection is regular singular and its monodromy agrees
with the monodromy of the singularity (see [Arnold, Goryunov, Lyashko,
Vasilev (1998)], ¸2.3). Given a covariantly constant section δ(s) of the
vanishing homology bundle, the function
I(s) =
_
_
δ(s)
ω
1
df
, . . . ,
_
δ(s)
ω
µ
df
_
(8.36)
is a solution of the regular singular Picard–Fuchs equation
d
ds
I(s) = P(s)I(s), with P(s)
ij
= p
ij
(s). (8.37)
Similarly, suppose given a holomorphic nform ω and let ω/df be the
corresponding Gelfand–Leray form, deﬁning a section [ω/df] of the vanish
ing cohomology bundle. Let δ
1
, . . . , δ
µ
be a basis of the vanishing homology,
δ
i
(s) ∈ H
n−1
(F
s
, Z). Then the function
I(s) =
_
_
δ
1
(s)
ω
df
, . . . ,
_
δ
µ
(s)
ω
df
_
(8.38)
satisﬁes a regular singular order diﬀerential equation
I
()
(s) +p
1
(s)I
(−1)
(s) + +p
(s)I(s) = 0, (8.39)
where the order is bounded above by the multiplicity of the critical point
(see [Arnold, GuseinZade, Varchenko (1988)], ¸12.2.1). One refers to
(8.39), or to the equivalent system of regular singular homogeneous ﬁrst
order equations
d
ds
1(s) = T(s)1(s), (8.40)
with
1
r
(s) = s
r−1
I
(r−1)
(s), (8.41)
as the Picard–Fuchs equation of ω. For the relation between Picard–Fuchs
equations and mixed Hodge structures see ¸12 of [Arnold, GuseinZade,
Varchenko (1988)] and [Kulikov (1998)].
178 Feynman Motives
We also recall some of the properties of the irregular singular, equi
singular connections of [Connes and Marcolli (2004)] which we need here.
We let g denote the Lie algebra g = Lie(G). Let K denote the ﬁeld of
germs of meromorphic functions at z = 0. We also let B denote a ﬁbration
over an inﬁnitesimal disk ∆
∗
with ﬁber the multiplicative group G
m
and we
denote by P the principal Gbundle P = BG. We consider Lie(G)valued
ﬂat connections ω that are equisingular. As we recalled earlier, this means
that they satisfy the following conditions.
• The connections satisfy ω(z, λu) = λ
Y
ω(z, u), for λ ∈ G
m
, with Y the
grading operator.
• Solutions of Dγ = ω, have the property that their pullbacks σ
∗
(γ) ∈
G(K) along any section σ : ∆ → B with ﬁxed value σ(0) have the same
negative piece of the Birkhoﬀ factorization σ
∗
(γ)
−
.
The ﬁrst condition and the ﬂatness condition imply that the connection
ω(z, u) can be written in the form
ω(z, u) = u
Y
(a(z)) dz +u
Y
(b(z))
du
u
, (8.42)
where a(z) and b(z) are elements of g(K) satisfying the ﬂatness condition
db
dz
−Y (a) + [a, b] = 0. (8.43)
Recall that the Lie bracket in the Lie algebra Lie(G) of the Connes–
Kreimer Hopf algebra is obtained by assigning (see [Connes and Kreimer
(2000)], [Connes and Kreimer (2001)])
[Γ, Γ
] =
v∈V (Γ)
Γ ◦
v
Γ
−
v
∈V (Γ
)
Γ
◦
v
Γ, (8.44)
where Γ◦
v
Γ
denotes the graph obtained by inserting Γ
into Γ at the vertex
v ∈ V (Γ) and the sum is over all vertices where an insertion is possible.
Counting all possible ways in which a given graph can be inserted into
another at a speciﬁed vertex attaches multiplicities to each insertion that
appear in the form of symmetry factors.
The equisingularity condition, which determines the behavior of pull
backs of solutions along sections of the ﬁbration G
m
→ B → ∆, can be
checked by writing the equation Df = ω in the more explicit form
γ
−1
dγ
dz
= a(z), and γ
−1
Y (γ) = b(z). (8.45)
Renormalization, singularities, and Hodge structures 179
When one interprets elements γ ∈ G(K) as algebra homomorphisms φ ∈
Hom(H, K), one can write the above equivalently in the form
(φ ◦ S) ∗
dφ
dz
= a, and (φ ◦ S) ∗ Y (φ) = b, (8.46)
where S is the antipode in H and ∗ is the product dual to the coproduct
in the Hopf algebra. This means, on generators Γ of H,
¸(φ ◦ S) ⊗
dφ
dz
, ∆(Γ)) = a
Γ
, and ¸(φ ◦ S) ⊗Y (φ), ∆(Γ)) = b
Γ
, (8.47)
where
∆(Γ) = Γ ⊗1 + 1 ⊗Γ +
γ
γ ⊗Γ/γ
with the sum over subdivergences, and the antipode is given inductively by
S(X) = −X −
S(X
)X
, (8.48)
for ∆(X) = X ⊗1 +1 ⊗X +
X
⊗X
, with X
and X
of lower degree.
We now show how to produce a ﬂat connection of the desired form
(8.42), with irregular singularities, starting from the graph hypersuraces
X
Γ
, a consistent choice of slicing Π
ξ
, and the regular singular Picard–Fuchs
equation associated to the resulting isolated singularities of X
Γ
∩ Π
ξ
.
We begin by introducing a small modiﬁcation of the Hopf algebra and
coproduct, which accounts for the fact of having to choose a slicing Π
ξ
. This
is similar to what happens when one enriches the discrete Hopf algebra by
adding the data of the external momenta.
Let o
Γ
denote the manifold of planes Π
ξ
in A
#E(Γ)
with dimΠ
ξ
≤
codimSing(X
Γ
). We can write o
Γ
as a disjoint union
o
Γ
=
codimSing(X
Γ
)
_
m=1
o
Γ,m
, (8.49)
where o
Γ,m
is the manifold of mdimensional planes in A
#E(Γ)
. We denote
by (
∞
(o
Γ
) the space of test functions on o
Γ
and by (
−∞
c
(o
Γ
) its dual space
of distributions.
Lemma 8.4.1. Suppose given a subgraph γ ⊂ Γ. Then the choice of a
distribution σ ∈ (
−∞
c
(o
Γ
) induces distributions σ
γ
∈ (
−∞
c
(o
γ
) and σ
Γ/γ
∈
(
−∞
c
(o
Γ/γ
).
180 Feynman Motives
Proof. Given γ ⊂ Γ, neglecting external edges, we can realize the aﬃne
X
γ
as a hypersurface inside a linear subspace A
#E(γ)
⊂ A
#E(Γ)
and sim
ilarly for the aﬃne X
Γ/γ
, seen as a hypersurface inside a linear subspace
A
#E(Γ/γ)
⊂ A
#E(Γ)
, where we simply identify the edges of γ or Γ/γ with a
subset of the edges of the original graph Γ.
One then has a restriction map T
γ
: o
Γ,γ
→ o
γ
, where o
Γ,γ
⊂ o
Γ
is the
union of the components o
Γ,m
of o
Γ
with m ≤ codimSing(X
γ
),
o
Γ,γ
=
codimSing(X
γ
)
_
m=1
o
Γ,m
, (8.50)
which is given by
T
γ
(Π
ξ
) = Π
ξ
∩ A
#E(γ)
. (8.51)
This induces a map T
γ
: (
∞
(o
γ
) → (
∞
(o
Γ
) given by
T
γ
(f)(Π
ξ
) =
_
f(T
γ
(Π
ξ
)) Π
ξ
∈ o
Γ,γ
0 otherwise.
(8.52)
In turn, this deﬁnes a map T
γ
: (
−∞
c
(o
Γ
) → (
−∞
c
(o
γ
), at the level of
distributions, by
T
γ
(σ)(f) = σ(T
γ
(f)). (8.53)
The argument for Γ/γ is analogous. One sets σ
γ
= T
γ
(σ
Γ
) and σ
Γ/γ
=
T
Γ/γ
(σ
Γ
).
We then enrich the original Hopf algebra H by adding the datum of the
slicing Π
ξ
. We consider the commutative algebra
˜
H = Sym((
−∞
c
(o)), (8.54)
where o = ∪
Γ
o
Γ
, endowed with the coproduct
∆(Γ, σ) = (Γ, σ) ⊗1 + 1 ⊗(Γ, σ) +
γ
(γ, σ
γ
) ⊗(Γ/γ, σ
Γ/γ
). (8.55)
The following result is then proved by the same argument used in
[Connes and Marcolli (2008)], Theorem 1.27.
Lemma 8.4.2. The coproduct (8.55) is coassociative and
˜
H is a Hopf al
gebra.
Renormalization, singularities, and Hodge structures 181
We then proceed as follows. We pass to the projective instead of the
aﬃne formulation and we ﬁx a small neighborhood of an isolated singular
point of X
Γ
∩ Π
ξ
, for Π
ξ
a linear space of dimension at most equal to the
codimension of Sing(X
Γ
). Suppose given a holomorphic kform α
ξ
on Π
ξ
.
Then there exists an associated regular singular Picard–Fuchs equation
J
()
Γ,ξ
(s) +p
1
(s)J
(−1)
Γ,ξ
(s) + +p
(s)J
Γ,ξ
(s) = 0, (8.56)
with the property that any solution J
Γ,ξ
(s) is a linear combination of the
functions
J
Γ,ξ,i
(s) =
_
δ
i
(s)
α
ξ
df
, (8.57)
where δ
1
, . . . , δ
µ
is a basis of locally constant sections of the homological
Milnor ﬁbration, δ
i
(s) ∈ H
k−1
(F
s
, Z), and α
ξ
/df is the Gelfand–Leray form
associated to the holomorphic kform α
ξ
.
This depends on the choice of a singular point and can be localized in a
small neighborhood of the singular point in X
Γ
∩ Π
ξ
. In fact, introducing
a cutoﬀ χ
ξ
that is supported near the singularities of X
Γ
∩ Π
ξ
amounts
to adding the expressions (8.57) for the diﬀerent singular points. Thus,
to simplify notation, we can just assume that we have a single expression
J
Γ,ξ
(s) at a unique isolated critical point.
We then have the following result, which constructs irregular singular
connections from solutions of the regular singular Picard–Fuchs equation.
Theorem 8.4.3. Any solution J
Γ,ξ
of the regular singular Picard–Fuchs
equation (8.56) determines a ﬂat g(K)valued connection ω(z, u) of the form
(8.42). Moreover, if the kform α
ξ
is given by P
Γ
Ω
ξ
as above, then the
connection is equisingular.
Proof. We consider the Mellin transform
T
Γ,ξ
(z) =
_
∞
0
s
z
J
Γ,ξ
(s) ds. (8.58)
As in ¸7 of [Arnold, GuseinZade, Varchenko (1988)], the function T
Γ,ξ
(z)
admits an analytic continuation to a meromorphic function with poles at
points z = −(λ+1) with λ ∈ Ξ
Γ,ξ
a discrete set in R of points related to the
multiplicities of an embedded resolution of the singular point of X
Γ
∩ Π
ξ
.
We look at the function T
Γ,ξ
(z) in a small neighborhood of a chosen point
z = −D. It has an expansion as a Laurent series, with a pole at z = −D if
−D ∈ Ξ
Γ,ξ
.
182 Feynman Motives
After a change of variables on the complex coordinate z, so that we have
z ∈ ∆
∗
a small neighborhood of z = 0, we deﬁne
φ
µ
(Γ, σ)(z) := µ
−z b
1
(Γ)
σ
_
T
Γ,ξ
(−
D +z
2
)
_
, (8.59)
where we consider T
Γ,ξ
as a function of ξ to which we apply the distribution
σ. More precisely, after identifying T
Γ,ξ
with its Laurent series expansion,
we apply σ to the coeﬃcients seen as functions of ξ. This deﬁnes an algebra
homomorphism φ
µ
∈ Hom(
˜
H, K), by assigning the values (8.59) on genera
tors. Here µ is the mass scale. The homomorphism φ deﬁned by (8.59) can
be equivalently described as a family of
˜
G(C)valued loops γ
µ
: ∆
∗
→
˜
G(C),
depending on the mass scale µ. Here
˜
G denotes the aﬃne group scheme
dual to the commutative Hopf algebra
˜
H. The dependence on µ of (8.59)
implies that γ
µ
satisﬁes the scaling property
γ
e
t
µ
(z) = θ
tz
(γ
µ
(z)), (8.60)
where θ
t
is the oneparameter family of automorphisms of
˜
H generated by
the grading,
d
dt
θ
t
[
t=0
= Y . Then one sets
a
µ
(z) := (φ
µ
◦ S) ∗
d
dz
φ
µ
, and b
µ
(z) := (φ
µ
◦ S) ∗ Y (φ
µ
), (8.61)
where S and ∗ are the antipode of
˜
H and the product dual to the coproduct
∆ of (8.55). These deﬁne elements a
µ
, b
µ
Ω
1
(g(K)), which one can use to
deﬁne a connection ω(z, u) of the form (8.42). More precisely, for µ = e
t
,
one has
γ
−1
µ
d
dz
γ
µ
= θ
t
(γ
−1
d
dz
γ) = u
Y
(a(z)),
where we set u
Y
= e
tY
and then extend the resulting expression to
u ∈ G
m
(C) = C
∗
. Similarly, we get γ
−1
µ
Y (γ
µ
) = u
Y
(b(z)). Thus, the
connection ω(z, u) deﬁned in this way satisﬁes by construction the ﬁrst
condition of the equisingularity property, namely ω(z, λu) = λ
Y
ω(z, u), for
all λ ∈ G
m
. One can see that the connection is ﬂat since we have
d
dz
b
µ
(z) −Y (a
µ
(z)) =
dγ
−1
µ
(z)
dz
Y (γ
µ
(z)) +γ
−1
µ
(z)
d
dz
(Y (γ
µ
(z)))
−Y (γ
−1
µ
(z))
d
dz
γ
µ
(z) −γ
−1
µ
(z)
d
dz
(Y (γ
µ
(z)))
= −γ
−1
µ
(z)
d
dz
(γ
µ
(z))γ
−1
µ
(z)Y (γ
µ
(z)) −γ
−1
µ
(z)Y (γ
µ
(z))γ
−1
µ
(z)
Renormalization, singularities, and Hodge structures 183
= −[a(z), b(z)].
The second condition of equisingularity is the property that, in the
Birkhoﬀ factorization
γ
µ
(z) = γ
µ,−
(z)
−1
γ
µ,+
(z),
the negative part satisﬁes
d
dµ
γ
µ,−
(z) = 0.
By dimensional analysis on the counterterms, in the case of dimensional
regularization and minimal subtraction, it is possible to show (see [Collins
(1986)] ¸5.8.1) that the counterterms obtained by the BPHZ procedure
applied to the Feynman integral U
µ
(Γ)(z) do not depend on the mass pa
rameter µ. This means, as shown in [Connes and Kreimer (2000)] (see also
Proposition 1.44 of [Connes and Marcolli (2008)]), that the Feynman in
tegrals U
µ
(Γ)(z) deﬁne a G(C)valued loop γ
µ
(z) with the property that
∂
µ
γ
µ,−
(z) = 0. The integrals (8.58) considered here correspond to slices
along a linear space Π
ξ
of the Feynman integrals, localized by a cutoﬀ χ
ξ
near the singular points. The explicit dependence on µ in the Feynman
integrals is as in (8.59), which is unchanged with respect to that of the
original dimensionally regularized Feynman integrals. Thus, the same ar
gument as in [Collins (1986)] ¸5.8.1 and Proposition 1.44 of [Connes and
Marcolli (2008)] applies to this case to show that ∂
µ
γ
µ,−
(z) = 0.
Chapter 9
Beyond scalar theories
In this ﬁnal chapter we give a few examples of how the theme of Feynman
integrals and motives, based on the parametric representation of Feynman
integrals and the associated algebraic varieties, can be extended beyond
the original setting of scalar quantum ﬁeld theories. We concentrate here
only on two simple kinds of extensions, where one can already see some
new feature appearing. The ﬁrst extension we discuss is to theories with
fermionic ﬁelds, based on the results of [Marcolli and Rej (2008)]. In this
case one can again express a parametric form of the Feynman integral
in terms of periods, this time on a supermanifold, with the determinant
deﬁning the graph polynomial replaced by a Berezinian, which is a natural
analog in the supergeometry context. The second case we discuss is that
of scalar quantum ﬁeld theories, and in particular the φ
4
theory, over a
spacetime that is deformed to a noncommutative manifold with a Moyal
product. In this case it is also known that a parametric formulation of
Feynman integrals exists, and we report some observations of [Aluﬃ and
Marcolli (2008a)] on computations of characteristic classes for the resulting
graph hypersurfaces.
9.1 Supermanifolds
We describe here an extension of the parametric Feynman integral and
its motivic interpretation to the case of theories with both fermionic and
bosonic variables, where we can reformulate the parametric integral as a
period of a supermanifold, deﬁned in terms of Berezinians instead of de
terminants and fermionic integration. The results reported here are from
[Marcolli and Rej (2008)].
We report a few basic facts about the geometry of supermanifolds, fol
185
186 Feynman Motives
lowing [Manin (1988)].
By a complex supermanifold one understands a datum X = (X, A)
with the following properties: A is a sheaf of supercommutative rings
on X; (X, O
X
) is a complex manifold, where O
X
= A/N, with N the
ideal of nilpotents in A; the quotient E = N/N
2
is locally free over O
X
and A is locally isomorphic to the exterior algebra Λ
•
O
X
(E), where the
grading is the Z/2Zgrading by odd/even degrees. The supermanifold is
split if the isomorphism A
∼
= Λ
•
O
X
(E) is global. Thus, in local coordi
nates, a supermanifold is parameterized by bosonic and fermionic variables
(x
0
, . . . , x
n
; θ
1
, . . . , θ
m
), where the x
i
are ordinary, commuting, scalar vari
ables, while the θ
j
are anticommuting Grassmann variables. The bosonic
variables x
i
generate the order zero, or even degree, part and the fermionic
variables θ
j
the order one, or odd degree part with respect to the Z/2Z
grading.
A simple example is given by the projective superspaces. The complex
projective superspace P
nm
is the supermanifold (X, A) with X = P
n
the
usual complex projective space and
A = Λ
•
(C
m
⊗
C
O(−1)),
with the exterior powers Λ
•
graded by odd/even degree. It is a split super
manifold.
A morphism F : X
1
→ X
2
of supermanifolds X
i
= (X
i
, A
i
), i = 1, 2,
consists of a pair F = (f, f
#
) of a morphism of the underlying complex
manifolds f : X
1
→ X
2
together with a morphism f
#
: A
2
→ f
∗
A
1
of
sheaves of supercommutative rings with the property that at each point
x ∈ X
1
the induced morphism f
#
x
: (A
2
)
f(x)
→ (A
1
)
x
satisﬁes f
#
x
(m
f(x)
) ⊂
m
x
, on the maximal ideals of germs of sections vanishing at the point (cf.
[Manin (1988)], §4.1).
In particular, an embedding of complex supermanifolds is a morphism
F = (f, f
#
) as above, with the property that f : X
1
→ X
2
is an embedding
and f
#
: A
2
→ f
∗
A
1
is surjective. As in ordinary geometry, we deﬁne the
ideal sheaf of X
1
to be the kernel
I
X
1
:= Ker(f
#
: A
2
→ f
∗
A
1
). (9.1)
An equivalent characterization of an embedding of supermanifold is
given as follows. If we denote by E
i
, for i = 1, 2 the holomorphic vec
tor bundles on X
i
such that O(E
i
) = E
i
= N
i
/N
2
i
, with the notation as
above, then an embedding F : X
1
→ X
2
is an embedding f : X
1
→ X
2
such
Beyond scalar theories 187
that the induced morphism of vector bundles f
∗
: E
2
→ E
1
is surjective.
Thus, we say that Y = (Y, B) is a closed subsupermanifold of X = (X, A)
when there exists a closed embedding Y ⊂ X and the pullback of E
A
under
this embedding surjects to E
B
.
An open submanifold U = (U, B) → X = (X, A) is given by an open em
bedding U → X of the underlying complex manifolds and an isomorphism
of sheaves A
U
∼
= B. When Y ⊂ X is a closed embedding and U = X Y ,
the ideal sheaf of Y satisﬁes I
Y

U
= A
U
.
A subvariety in superprojective space is a supermanifold
X = (X ⊂ P
n
, (Λ
•
(C
m
⊗
C
O(−1))/I)
X
), (9.2)
where I = I
X
is an ideal generated by ﬁnitely many homogeneous
polynomials of given Z/2parity. In other words, if we denote by
(x
0
, . . . , x
n
, θ
1
, . . . , θ
m
) the bosonic and fermionic coordinates of P
nm
, then
a projective subvariety can be obtained by assigning a number of equations
of the form
Ψ
ev/odd
(x
0
, . . . , x
n
, θ
1
, . . . , θ
m
) =
i
1
<···<i
k
P
I
(x
0
, . . . , x
n
)θ
i
1
· · · θ
i
k
= 0,
(9.3)
where I = (i
1
, . . . , i
k
), and the P
I
(x
0
, . . . , x
n
) are homogeneous polynomials
in the bosonic variables.
In [Marcolli and Rej (2008)] an analog of the Grothendieck ring of va
rieties is considered for supermanifolds, deﬁned as follows.
Deﬁnition 9.1.1. Let SV
C
be the category of complex supermanifolds
with morphisms deﬁned as above. Let K
0
(SV
C
) denote the free abelian
group generated by the isomorphism classes of objects X ∈ SV
C
subject
to the following relations. Let F : Y → X be a closed embedding of
supermanifolds. Then
[X] = [Y] + [X Y], (9.4)
where X Y is the supermanifold
X Y = (X Y, A
X

XY
). (9.5)
Here the notation A
X
means the following, see [Kashiwara and Schapira
(1990)] §II.2.3. Given a locally closed subset Y ⊂ X and a sheaf A on X,
there exists a unique sheaf A
Y
with the property that
A
Y

Y
= A
Y
and A
Y

XY
= 0. (9.6)
188 Feynman Motives
In the case where Y is closed, this satisﬁes A
Y
= i
∗
(A
Y
) where i : Y → X
is the inclusion. When Y is open it satisﬁes A
Y
= Ker(A → j
∗
(A
XY
)),
where in this case j : X Y → X is the closed embedding of the comple
ment.
In particular, in the case where A = O
X
is the structure sheaf of X,
the relation (9.4) reduces to the usual relation
[X] = [Y ] + [X Y ]. (9.7)
in the Grothendieck group of ordinary varieties, for a closed embedding
Y ⊂ X.
Proposition 9.1.2. The Grothendieck ring K
0
(SV
C
) of supervarieties is
a polynomial ring over the Grothendieck ring of ordinary varieties of the
form
K
0
(SV
C
) = K
0
(V
C
)[T], (9.8)
where T = [A
01
] is the class of the aﬃne superspace of dimension (0, 1).
Proof. We show that all supermanifolds decompose in K
0
(SV
C
) as a
ﬁnite combination of split supermanifolds, and in fact of supermanifolds
where the vector bundle E with O(E) = E = N/N
2
is trivial. This is a
consequence of the d´evissage of coherent sheaves, see [Shafarevich (1996)],
§3.3, Propositions 1–3. Namely, for any coherent sheaf A over a Noetherian
reduced irreducible scheme there exists a dense open set U such that A
U
is free. The relation (9.4) then ensures that, given a pair X = (X, A) and
the sequence of sheaves
0 → i
!
(A
U
) → A → j
∗
(A
Y
) → 0,
associated to the open embedding U ⊂ X with complement Y = X U,
the class [X, A] satisﬁes
[X, A] = [U, A
U

U
] + [Y, A
Y

Y
].
The sheaf A
Y
on X, which has support Y , has a chain of subsheaves A
Y
⊃
A
1
⊃ · · · ⊃ A
k
= 0 such that each quotient A
i
/A
i+1
is coherent on Y ,
[Shafarevich (1996)], §3.3, Proposition 3. Thus, one can ﬁnd a stratiﬁcation
where on each open stratum the supermanifold is split and with trivial
vector bundle. The supermanifold X = (X, A) decomposes as a sum of the
corresponding classes in the Grothendieck group. It is then clear that the
product makes K
0
(SV
C
) into a ring with
[X][Y] = [X ×Y],
Beyond scalar theories 189
and the stated result then follows. The fact that it is indeed a polynomial
ring in the class [A
01
] without further relation is a consequence of the fact
that A
01
is parameterized by a single Grassmann variable and that the
A
0n
are nonisomorphic supermanifolds.
The fact that the vector bundle that constitutes the fermionic part of a
supermanifold is trivial when seen in the Grothendieck group is the analog
for supermanifolds of the fact that any locally trivial ﬁbration is equivalent
to a product in the Grothendieck group of ordinary varieties.
Notice that, in the supermanifold case, there are now two diﬀerent types
of Lefschetz motives, namely the bosonic one L
b
= [A
10
] and the fermionic
one L
f
= [A
01
]. The formal inverses of L
f
and L
b
correspond to two
types of Tate objects for motives of supermanifolds, respectively fermionic
and bosonic Tate motives. The contribution of the fermionic part of a
supermanifold to the class in the Grothendieck ring is always of (fermonic)
Tate type, while only the bosonic part can provide nonTate contributions.
The analog of the determinant in supergeometry is given by the
Berezinian. This is deﬁned in the following way. Suppose given a matrix
M of the form
M =
_
M
11
M
12
M
21
M
22
_
,
where the M
11
and M
22
are square matrices with entries of order zero and
the M
12
and M
21
have elements of order one. Then the Berezinian of M
is the expression
Ber(M) :=
det(M
11
−M
12
M
−1
22
M
21
)
det(M
22
)
. (9.9)
It satisﬁes Ber(MN) = Ber(M)Ber(N).
Grassmann variables integration is deﬁned in terms of the Berezinian
integral, which is determined by the property that, for a form ω =
I
f
I
(x
0
, . . . , x
n
)θ
I
in the local coordinates (x
0
, . . . , x
n
; θ
1
, . . . , θ
m
), the
integral gives (see Chapter 4, §6 of [Manin (1988)])
_
ω =
_
f
1,...,m
(x
0
, . . . , x
n
) dx
1
· · · dx
n
, (9.10)
or equivalently by the property that
_
(h
0
(x) +h
1
(x)θ) dθ = h
1
(x), (9.11)
190 Feynman Motives
for x an ordinary and θ a Grassmann variable. It is shown in [Bernˇste˘ın
and Le˘ıtes (1977)] that Grassmann integration satisﬁes a change of vari
able formula where the Jacobian of the coordinate change is given by the
Berezinian Ber(J) with J the matrix J =
∂X
α
∂Y
β
with X
α
= (x
i
, ξ
r
) and
Y
β
= (y
j
, η
s
).
There is also a well developed theory of divisors on supermanifolds,
originating from [Rosly, Schwarz, Voronov (1988)]. A Cartier divisor on
a supermanifold X of dimension (nm) is deﬁned by a collection of even
meromorphic functions φ
i
deﬁned on an open covering U
i
→ X, with φ
i
φ
−1
j
a holomorphic function on U
i
∩ U
j
nowhere vanishing on the underlying
U
i
∩U
j
. Classes of divisors correspond to equivalence classes of line bundles
and can be described in terms of integer linear combinations of (n −1m)
dimensional subvarieties Y ⊂ X.
9.2 Parametric Feynman integrals and supermanifolds
Consider now the case of Feynman propagators and Feynman diagrams
that come from theories with both bosonic and fermionic ﬁelds. It is well
known that for such theories the form of the possible fermionic terms in
the Lagrangian is severely constrained: for instance, in dimension D = 4
renormalizable interaction terms can only involve at most two fermion and
one boson ﬁeld, see [Ramond (1990)], §5.3.
The perturbative expansion for such theories corresponsingly involve
graphs Γ with two diﬀerent types of edges: fermionic and bosonic edges.
The Feynman rules assign to each bosonic edge a propagator of the usual
form we have encountered so far, and to fermionic edges a propagator
i
/ p +m
p
2
−m
2
=
i
/ p −m
. (9.12)
More generally, in cases with tensor indices, we would have / p = p
µ
γ
µ
,
involving γmatrices expressing fermions in spinorial form.
In the following we use the notation
q(p) = p
2
−m
2
, / q(p) = i(/ p +m) (9.13)
for the quadratic and linear forms that appear in the bosonic and fermionic
propagators. In the following, again just to simplify notation, we also
drop the mass terms in the propagator, i.e. we set m = 0, and ignore, for
simplicity, the resulting infrared divergence problem.
Beyond scalar theories 191
Thus, the terms of the form (q
1
· · · q
n
)
−1
, which we encountered in the
purely bosonic case, are now replaced by terms of the form
/ q
1
· · · / q
f
q
1
· · · q
n
, (9.14)
where n = #E(Γ) is the total number of edges in the graph and f = #E
f
(Γ)
is the number of fermionic edges.
We have an analog of the Feynman trick we saw in the ﬁrst chapter,
where we now introduce an extra set of Grassmann variables associated
to the fermionic edges. The derivation we present suﬀers from a kind of
“fermion doubling problem”, as each fermionic edge contributes an ordinary
integration variable, which essentially account for the denominator q
i
in
(9.12) and (9.14), as well as a pair of Grassmann variables accounting for
the numerator / q
i
in (9.12) and (9.14). Other formulations of parametric
Feynman integrals for theories with fermionic variables are possible, for
example as done in [Medvedev (1978)].
Let Q
f
denote the 2f ×2f antisymmetric matrix
Q
f
=
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
0 / q
1
0 0 · · · 0 0
−/ q
1
0 0 0 · · · 0 0
0 0 0 / q
2
· · · 0 0
0 0 −/ q
2
0 · · · 0 0
.
.
. · · ·
.
.
.
0 0 0 0 · · · 0 / q
f
0 0 0 0 · · · −/ q
f
0
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
. (9.15)
Lemma 9.2.1. Let σ
n2f
denote the superspace σ
n
× A
02f
. Then the fol
lowing identity holds:
/ q
1
· · · / q
f
q
1
· · · q
n
= K
n,f
_
σ
n2f
dt
1
· · · dt
n−1
dθ
1
· · · dθ
2f
(t
1
q
1
+· · · t
n
q
n
+
1
2
θ
t
Q
f
θ)
n−f
, (9.16)
with
K
n,f
=
2
f
(n −1)!
f
k=1
(−n +f −k + 1)
.
Proof. We ﬁrst show that the following identity holds for integration in
the Grassmann variables θ = (θ
1
, . . . , θ
2f
):
_
dθ
1
· · · dθ
2f
(1 +
1
2
θ
t
Q
f
θ)
α
=
f!
2
f
_
−α
f
_
/ q
1
· · · / q
f
. (9.17)
192 Feynman Motives
In fact, we expand using the Taylor series
(1 +x)
β
=
∞
k=0
_
β
k
_
x
k
and the identity
1
2
θ
t
Q
f
θ =
f
i=1
/ q
i
θ
2i−1
θ
2i
,
together with the fact that the degree zero variables x
i
= θ
2i−1
θ
2i
commute,
to obtain
(1 +
1
2
θ
t
Q
f
θ)
−α
=
∞
k=0
_
−α
k
_
(
f
i=1
/ q
i
θ
2i−1
θ
2i
)
k
.
The rules of Grassmann integration then imply that only the coeﬃcient of
θ
1
· · · θ
2f
remains as a result of the integration. This gives (9.17).
For simplicity of notation, we then write T = t
1
q
1
+· · · t
n
q
n
, so that we
have
_
σ
n2f
1
(t
1
q
1
+· · · t
n
q
n
+
1
2
θ
t
Q
f
θ)
n−f
dt
1
· · · dt
n−1
dθ
1
· · · dθ
2f
=
f!
2
f
_
−n +f
f
_
/ q
1
· · · / q
f
_
σ
n
T
−n+f
T
−f
dt
1
· · · dt
n−1
=
f!
2
f
_
−n +f
f
_
/ q
1
· · · / q
f
_
σ
n
dt
1
· · · dt
n−1
(t
1
q
1
+· · · +t
n
q
n
)
n
=
f!
2
f
(n −1)!
_
−n +f
f
_
/ q
1
· · · / q
f
q
1
· · · q
n
.
Consider now the case of graphs that have both bosonic and fermionic
legs. We mimic the procedure described earlier in this chapter to obtain
a parametric form for the Feynman integral. We will deal here with a
particular class of graph, which can be considered an equivalent, in the
case with fermionic variables, of the log divergent graphs, for which the
parametric form of the Feynman integral is simpliﬁed by the lack of the
second graph polynomial (see §3.1). As we are going to see below, here the
condition that characterizes the class of graphs with this property will no
longer depend only on the number of internal edges and loops but also on
a particular choice of a basis of loops.
Beyond scalar theories 193
Theorem 9.2.2. Suppose given a graph Γ with n edges, of which f are
fermionic and b = n − f bosonic. Assume that there exists a choice of a
basis for H
1
(Γ) satisfying the condition
n −
f
2
+
D
2
(
f
−
b
) = 0. (9.18)
Then the following identity holds:
_
/ q
1
· · · / q
f
q
1
· · · q
n
d
D
s
1
· · · d
D
s
b
d
D
σ
1
· · · d
D
σ
f
=
_
σ
n
Λ(t)
Ber(M(t))
D/2
dt
1
· · · dt
n
.
(9.19)
Proof. We divide the edge indices i = 1, . . . , n of the Feynman graph into
two sets i
b
= 1, . . . , n
b
and i
f
= 1, . . . , n
f
, with n = n
b
+ n
f
, respectively
labeling the bosonic and fermionic legs. Consequently, given a choice of a
basis for the ﬁrst homology of the graph, indexed as above by r = 1, . . . , ,
we replace the circuit matrix η
ir
of (3.1) with a matrix of the form
_
η
i
f
r
f
η
i
f
r
b
η
i
b
r
f
η
i
b
r
b
_
. (9.20)
Here the loop indices r = 1, . . . , are at ﬁrst divided into three
sets {1, . . . ,
ff
}, labelling the loops consisiting of only fermionic edges,
{1, . . . ,
bb
} labelling the loops consisting of only bosonic edges, and the
remaning variables {1, . . . ,
bf
= −(
ff
+
bb
)} for the loops that contain
both fermionic and bosonic edges. We then introduce two sets of momen
tum variables: ordinary variables / s
r
b
∈ A
D0
, with r
b
= 1, . . . ,
b
=
bb
+
bf
,
and Grassmann variables σ
r
f
∈ A
0D
with r
f
= 1, . . . ,
f
=
ff
+
bf
. That
is, we assign to each purely fermionic loop a Grassmann momentum vari
able, to each purely bosonic loop an ordinary momentum variable, and to
the loops containing both fermionic and bosonic legs a pair (/ s
r
, σ
r
) of an
ordinary and a Grassman variable. In (9.20) above we write r
f
and r
b
, re
spectively, for the indexing sets of these Grassmann and ordinary variables.
We then consider a change of variables
/ p
i
b
= / u
i
b
+
r
f
η
i
b
r
f
σ
r
f
+
r
b
η
i
b
r
b
/ s
r
b
, / p
i
f
= / u
i
f
+
r
f
η
i
f
r
f
σ
r
f
+
r
b
η
i
f
r
b
/ s
r
b
.
(9.21)
analogous to the one used before, where now, for reasons of homogeneity,
we need to assume that the η
ir
f
are of degree one and the η
ir
b
are of degree
zero, since the / p
i
are even (ordinary) variables.
We apply the change of variables (9.21) to the expression
i
t
i
p
2
i
+
i
f
θ
2i
f
−1
θ
2i
f
/ p
i
f
. (9.22)
194 Feynman Motives
We assume again, as in the purely bosonic case (cf. (18.35) of [Bjorken
and Drell (1965)]), the relations
i
t
i
/ u
i
η
ir
= 0
for each loop variable r = r
b
and r = r
f
.
We can then rewrite (9.22) in the form
i
t
i
u
2
i
+
i
f
θ
2i
f
−1
θ
2i
f
/ u
i
f
+
r
b
,r
b
(
i
t
i
η
ir
b
η
ir
b
)/ s
r
b
/ s
r
b
−
r
f
r
f
(
i
t
i
η
ir
f
η
ir
f
)σ
r
f
σ
r
f
+
r
b
r
f
_
(
i
t
i
η
ir
b
η
ir
f
)/ s
r
b
σ
r
f
−σ
τ
r
f
/ s
τ
r
b
(
i
t
i
η
ir
f
η
ir
b
)
_
+
r
b
(
i
f
θ
2i
f
−1
θ
2i
f
η
i
f
r
b
)/ s
r
b
+
r
f
(
i
f
θ
2i
f
−1
θ
2i
f
η
i
f
r
f
)σ
r
f
.
Notice the minus sign in front of the quadratic term in the σ
r
f
, since for
orderone variables σ
r
f
η
ir
f
= −η
ir
f
σ
r
f
. We write the above in the simpler
notation
T + / s
τ
M
b
(t)/ s −σ
τ
M
f
(t)σ +σ
τ
M
fb
(t)/ s − / s
τ
M
bf
(t)σ +N
b
(θ)/ s +N
f
(θ)σ,
(9.23)
where τ denotes transposition, / s = (/ s
r
b
), σ = (σ
r
f
), and
T =
i
t
i
u
2
i
+
i
f
θ
2i
f
−1
θ
2i
f
/ u
i
f
,
M
b
(t) =
i
t
i
η
ir
b
η
ir
b
,
M
f
(t) =
i
t
i
η
ir
f
η
ir
f
= −M
f
(t)
τ
,
M
fb
(t) =
i
t
i
η
ir
b
η
ir
f
,
N
b
(θ) =
i
f
θ
2i
f
−1
θ
2i
f
η
i
f
r
b
,
N
f
(θ) =
i
f
θ
2i
f
−1
θ
2i
f
η
i
f
r
f
.
(9.24)
Since the η
i,r
f
are of degree one and the η
i,r
b
of degree zero, the matrices
M
b
and M
f
are of degree zero, the M
bf
and M
fb
of degree one, while the
N
b
and N
f
are, respectively, of degree zero and one. Thus, the expression
(9.23) is of degree zero. Notice that, since the η
ir
f
are of order one, the
matrix M
f
(t) is antisymmetric. We also set M
bf
(t) = M
fb
(t) = M
fb
(t)
τ
.
Beyond scalar theories 195
We then consider an integral of the form
_
d
D
/ s
1
· · · d
D
/ s
b
d
D
σ
1
· · · d
D
σ
f
(
i
t
i
p
2
i
+
i
f
θ
2i
f
−1
θ
2i
f
/ p
i
f
)
n−f
=
_
d
D
/ s
1
· · · d
D
/ s
b
d
D
σ
1
· · · d
D
σ
f
R(/ s, σ, θ, t)
n−f
, (9.25)
where
R(/ s, σ, θ, t) = T + / s
τ
M
b
(t)/ s +N
b
(θ)/ s −σ
τ
M
f
(t)σ
+σ
τ
M
fb
(t)/ s − / s
τ
M
fb
(t)
τ
σ +N
f
(θ)σ
(9.26)
and where the integrations in the variables d
D
σ
i
= dσ
i1
· · · dσ
iD
are Grass
mann variables integrations satisfying the properties of the Berezinian in
tegral (9.10) and (9.11), while the integrations in d
D
/ s
i
are ordinary inte
grations.
Recall that for Grassmann variables we have the following change of
variable formula. Suppose given an invertible antisymmetric N ×N matrix
A with entries of degree zero and an Nvector J with entries of degree one.
Then we have
σ
τ
Aσ +
1
2
(J
τ
σ −σ
τ
J) = η
τ
Aη +
1
4
J
τ
A
−1
J, (9.27)
for η = σ −
1
2
A
−1
J. This follows immediately since A
τ
= −A and we have
η
τ
Aη = σ
τ
Aσ +
1
2
J
τ
σ −
1
2
σ
τ
J −
1
4
J
τ
A
−1
J.
We then use this change of variable to write
−σ
τ
M
f
(t)σ +σ
τ
M
fb
(t)/ s − / s
τ
M
fb
(t)
τ
σ +
1
2
(σ
τ
N
f
(θ) −N
f
(θ)
τ
σ) =
−η
τ
M
f
(t)η −
1
4
(M
fb
(t)/ s +
1
2
N
f
(θ))
τ
M
f
(t)
−1
(M
fb
(t)/ s +
1
2
N
f
(θ))
(9.28)
with
η = σ −
1
2
M
f
(t)
−1
_
M
fb
(t)/ s +
1
2
N
f
(θ)
_
. (9.29)
We have
1
4
(M
fb
(t)/ s +
1
2
N
f
(θ))
τ
M
f
(t)
−1
(M
fb
(t)/ s +
1
2
N
f
(θ)) =
1
4
/ s
τ
M
bf
(t)M
f
(t)
−1
M
fb
(t)/ s
196 Feynman Motives
+
1
8
(N
f
(θ)
τ
M
f
(t)
−1
M
fb
(t)/ s + / s
τ
M
bf
(t)M
f
(t)
−1
N
f
(θ))
+
1
16
N
f
(θ)
τ
M
f
(t)
−1
N
f
(θ).
We then let
U(t, θ, / s) := T +C(t, θ) + / s
τ
A
b
(t)/ s +B
b
(t, θ)/ s, (9.30)
where
A
b
(t) = M
b
(t) −
1
4
M
bf
(t)M
f
(t)
−1
M
fb
(t)
B
b
(t, θ) = N
b
(θ) −
1
4
N
f
(θ)
τ
M
f
(t)
−1
M
fb
(t)
C(t, θ) = −
1
16
N
f
(θ)
τ
M
f
(t)
−1
N
f
(θ).
(9.31)
Thus, we write the denominator of (9.25) in the form
U(t, θ, / s)
n−f
_
1 +
1
2
η
τ
X
f
(t, θ, / s)η
_
n−f
, (9.32)
where we use the notation
X
f
(t, θ, / s) := 2U(t, θ, / s)
−1
M
f
(t). (9.33)
Thus, the Grassmann integration in (9.25) gives, as in Lemma 9.2.1,
_
d
D
η
1
· · · d
D
η
f
_
1 +
1
2
η
τ
X
f
(t, θ, / s)η
_
n−f
= C
n,f,
f
2
D
f
/2
U(t, θ, / s)
D
f
/2
det(M
f
(t))
D/2
,
(9.34)
where C
n,f,
f
is a combinatorial factor, as we have already encountered in
the case of ordinary parametric Feynman integrals for ordinary variables.
We then proceed to the remaining ordinary integration in (9.25). We
have, dropping a multiplicative constant,
det(M
f
(t))
D/2
_
d
D
/ s
1
· · · d
D
/ s
b
U(t, θ, / s)
n−f+D
f
/2
. (9.35)
We use the change of variables / v = / s +
1
2
M
b
(t)
−1
N
b
(θ)
τ
. We then have
/ v
τ
A
b
(t)/ v = / s
τ
A
b
(t)/ s +
1
2
/ s
τ
B
b
(t, θ)
τ
+
1
2
B
b
(t, θ)/ s +
1
4
B
b
(t, θ)A
b
(t)
−1
B
b
(t, θ)
τ
,
(9.36)
where A
b
(t)
τ
= A
b
(t) and (B
b
(t, θ)/ s)
τ
= B
b
(t, θ)/ s.
We then rewrite (9.35) in the form
det(M
f
(t))
D/2
_
d
D
/ v
1
· · · d
D
/ v
b
(T +C −
1
4
B
b
A
−1
b
B
τ
b
+ / v
τ
A
b
/ v)
n−f+D
f
/2
. (9.37)
Beyond scalar theories 197
Set then
˜
T(t, θ) = T(t, θ) +C(t, θ) −
1
4
B
b
(t, θ)A
−1
b
(t)B
b
(t, θ)
τ
, (9.38)
so that we write the above as
det(M
f
(t))
D/2
˜
T(t, θ)
n−f+D
f
/2
_
d
D
/ v
1
· · · d
D
/ v
b
(1 + / v
τ
X
b
(t, θ)/ v)
n−f+D
f
/2
,
with
X
b
(t, θ) =
˜
T(t, θ)
−1
A
b
(t).
Then, up to a multiplicative constant, the integral gives
˜
T
−n+f−
D
f
2
+
D
b
2
det(M
f
(t))
D/2
det(A
b
(t))
D/2
. (9.39)
Consider ﬁrst the term
det(M
f
(t))
D/2
det(A
b
(t))
D/2
in (9.39) above. This can be identiﬁed with a Berezinian. In fact, we have
det(M
f
(t))
D/2
det(M
b
(t) −
1
4
M
fb
(t)M
f
(t)
−1
M
fb
(t))
D/2
= Ber(M(t))
−D/2
, (9.40)
where
M(t) =
_
M
b
(t)
1
2
M
fb
(t)
1
2
M
bf
(t) M
f
(t)
_
. (9.41)
We now look more closely at the remaining term
˜
T
−n+f−
D
f
2
+
D
b
2
in
(9.39). We know from (9.38), (9.31), and (9.24) that we can write
˜
T(t, θ)
in the form
˜
T(t, θ) =
i
u
2
i
t
i
+
j
/ u
i
θ
2j−1
θ
2j
+
i<j
C
ij
(t)θ
2i−1
θ
2i
θ
2j−1
θ
2j
, (9.42)
where the ﬁrst sum is over all edges and the other two sums are over
fermionic edges. We set λ
i
= θ
2i−1
θ
2i
. Using a change of variables
˜
λ
i
= λ
i
+
1
2
C/ u,
we rewrite the above as
˜
T(t, θ) =
i
u
2
i
t
i
−
1
4
/ u
τ
C/ u +
i<j
C
ij
η
2i−1
η
2i
η
2j−1
η
2j
,
198 Feynman Motives
with
˜
λ
i
= η
2i−1
η
2i
.
We write
ˆ
T(t) =
i
u
2
i
t
i
−
1
4
/ u
τ
C/ u
and we write
˜
T
−α
=
ˆ
T
−α
∞
k=0
_
−α
k
_
_
1
2
˜
λ
τ
C
˜
λ
ˆ
T
_
k
,
where we use the notation
1
2
˜
λ
τ
C
˜
λ =
i<j
C
ij
η
2i−1
η
2i
η
2j−1
η
2j
.
Thus, we can write the Feynman integral in the form
_
/ q
1
· · · / q
f
q
1
· · · q
n
d
D
s
1
· · · d
D
s
b
d
D
σ
1
· · · d
D
σ
f
=
κ
_
Σ
n2f
Λ(t)η
1
· · · η
2f
ˆ
T(t)
n−
f
2
+
D
2
(
f
−
b
)
Ber(M(t))
D/2
dt
1
· · · dt
n
dη
1
· · · dη
2f
, (9.43)
where Λ(t) is
ˆ
T
f/2
times the coeﬃcient of η
1
· · · η
2f
in the expansion
∞
k=0
_
−α
k
_
_
1
2
˜
λ
τ
C
˜
λ
ˆ
T
_
k
.
More explicitly, this term is of the form
Λ(t) =
C
i
1
i
2
(t) · · · C
i
f−1
i
f
(t),
over indices i
a
with i
2a−1
< i
2a
and for k = f/2. The multiplicative
constant in front of the integral on the right hand side above is given by
κ =
_
−n +f −
D
2
(
f
−
b
)
f/2
_
.
After imposing n −
f
2
+
D
2
(
f
−
b
) = 0 and performing the Grassmann
integration of the resulting term
_
σ
n2f
Λ(t)η
1
· · · η
2f
Ber(M(t))
D/2
dt
1
· · · dt
n
dη
1
· · · dη
2f
, (9.44)
the result follows directly from (9.43).
Beyond scalar theories 199
9.3 Graph supermanifolds
The result of the previous section shows that we have an analog of the
period integral
_
σ
n
dt
1
· · · dt
n
det(M
Γ
(t))
D/2
given by the similar expression
_
σ
n
Λ(t)
Ber(M(t))
D/2
dt
1
· · · dt
n
. (9.45)
Again we see that, in this case, divergences arise from the intersections
between the domain of integration given by the simplex σ
n
and the variety
deﬁned by the solutions of the equation
Ber(M(t))
D/2
Λ(t)
= 0. (9.46)
Lemma 9.3.1. For generic graphs, the set of zeros of (9.46) deﬁnes a
hypersurface in P
n
, hence a divisor in P
n−12f
of dimension (n−22f). The
support of this divisor is the same as that of the principal divisor deﬁned
by Ber(M(t)).
Proof. The generic condition on graphs is imposed to avoid the cases
with M
f
(t) ≡ 0. Thus, suppose given a pair (Γ, B) that is generic, in the
sense that M
f
(t) is not identically zero. The equation (9.46) is satisﬁed by
solutions of
det(M
b
(t) −
1
4
M
bf
(t)M
f
(t)
−1
M
fb
(t)) = 0 (9.47)
and by poles of Λ(t). (The factor 1/4 in (9.47) comes from the change of
variable formula (9.27).) Using the formulae (9.31) and (9.24) we see that
the denominator of Λ(t) is given by powers of det(M
f
(t)) and det(A
b
(t)) =
det(M
b
(t) −
1
4
M
bf
(t)M
f
(t)
−1
M
fb
(t)). Thus, the set of solutions of (9.46)
is the union of zeros and poles of Ber(M(t)). The multiplicities are given
by the powers of these determinants that appear in Λ(t)Ber(M(t))
−D/2
.
Deﬁnition 9.3.2. Let Γ be a graph with bosonic and fermionic edges and
B a choice of a basis of H
1
(Γ). We denote by X
(Γ,B)
⊂ P
n−12f
the locus
of zeros and poles of Ber(M(t)) = 0. We refer to X
(Γ,B)
as the graph
supermanifold.
200 Feynman Motives
In the degenerate cases of graphs such that M
f
(t) ≡ 0, we simply set
X
(Γ,B)
= P
n−12f
. Examples of this sort are provided by data (Γ, B) such
that there is only one loop in B containing fermionic edges. Other special
cases arise when we consider graphs with only bosonic or only fermionic
edges. In the ﬁrst case, we go back to the original calculation without
Grassmann variables and we therefore simply recover
X
(Γ,B)
= X
Γ
= {t : det(M
b
(t)) = 0} ⊂ P
n−10
.
In the case with only fermionic edges, we have det(M
b
(t) −
1
4
M
bf
(t)M
f
(t)
−1
M
fb
(t)) ≡ 0 since both M
b
(t) and M
bf
(t) are identically
zero. It is then natural to simply assume that, in such cases, the graph
supermanifold is simply given by X
(Γ,B)
= P
f−12f
.
1
t
2
t
3
t
5
t
4
t
Consider the example of the ﬁgure, with a choice of the basis of loops
satisfying the condition (9.18). It is easy to see that such a choice is possible:
it has two generators, one of them a loop made of fermionic edges and the
second a loop containing both fermionic and bosonic edges. Let us assign
the ordinary variables t
i
with i = 1, . . . , 5 to the edges as in the ﬁgure
above. We then have
M
b
(t) = t
1
+t
2
+t
3
since only the second loop in the basis contains bosonic edges, while we
have
M
bf
(t) = (t
1
+t
2
, t
1
+t
2
+t
3
)
= t
1
(1, 1) +t
2
(1, 1) +t
3
(0, 1) +t
4
(0, 0) +t
5
(0, 0)
and
M
f
(t) =
_
0 t
1
+t
2
−(t
1
+t
2
) 0
_
.
Thus, we obtain in this case
M
bf
(t)M
f
(t)
−1
M
fb
(t) =
Beyond scalar theories 201
(t
1
+t
2
, t
1
+t
2
+t
3
)
_
0
−1
t
1
+t
2
1
t
1
+t
2
0
_
_
t
1
+t
2
t
1
+t
2
+t
3
_
= (t
1
+t
2
, t
1
+t
2
+t
3
)
_
−(t
1
+t
2
+t
3
)
t
1
+t
2
1
_
= −(t
1
+t
2
+t
3
) +t
1
+t
2
+t
3
≡ 0.
Thus, in this particular example we have M
bf
(t)M
f
(t)
−1
M
fb
(t) ≡ 0 for all
t = (t
1
, . . . , t
5
), so that
Ber(M(t)) = det(M
b
(t)) det(M
f
(t))
−1
= (t
1
+t
2
+t
3
)/(t
1
+t
2
)
2
and the locus of zeros and poles X
(Γ,B)
⊂ P
58
is the union of t
1
+t
2
+t
3
= 0
and t
1
+ t
2
= 0 in P
5
(the latter counted with multiplicity two), with the
restriction of the sheaf from P
58
.
It is also shown in [Marcolli and Rej (2008)] that the universality result
of [Belkale and Brosnan (2003a)] implies a similar result for the super
manifold case, using the simple relation of Proposition 9.1.2 between the
Grothendieck ring of ordinary manifolds and of supermanifolds.
9.4 Noncommutative ﬁeld theories
Scalar quantum ﬁeld theories, especially φ
4
theories, over a noncommuta
tive spacetime have been investigated extensively in recent years, especially
in relation to their renormalization properties. Such theories arise as eﬀec
tive limits of string theory [Connes, Douglas, Schwarz (1998)], [Seiberg and
Witten (1999)], where the underlying spacetime is deformed to a Moyal
type noncommutative space.
We do not give here a detailed exposition of these theories, and we re
fer the reader to the lectures [Grosse and Wulkenhaar (2008)] for a nice
and detailed overview. We only recall that in dimension D = 4, when
the underlying R
4
is made noncommutative by deformation to R
4
θ
with the
Moyal product, the theory suﬀers from a new type of divergences, coming
from UV/IR (ultraviolet/infrared) mixing. These render the theory non
renormalizable. However, perturbative renormalization can be restored in
the φ
4
theory in diﬀerent ways. In the Grosse–Wulkenhaar model [Grosse
and Wulkenhaar (2005)], this is done by the addition of a harmonic oscilla
tor term that is quite natural from the point of view of the Moyal product,
but which breaks the translation invariance of the theory. More recently, a
202 Feynman Motives
diﬀerent approach to restoring renormalization for the φ
4
theory on Moyal
spaces, which maintains translation invariance, was introduced in [Gurau,
Magnen, Rivasseu, Tanasa (2009)]. Both models are renormalizable to all
orders.
What interests us most here is the fact that, in these theories, it is also
possible to obtain a parametric representation of Feynman integrals. Due
to the fact that the underlying spacetime coordinates no longer commute,
ordinary Feynman graphs are replaced in this context by ribbon graphs and
the planarity or nonplanarity of the ribbon graphs plays an important role
in the properties of the corresponding Feynman integrals. We concentrate
on some special examples among the parametric representation described
in [Gurau and Rivasseu (2007)], [Tanasa (2007)].
Among the family of “banana graphs”, whose motivic properties were
described in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2008a)], the only ones that can appear
as Feynman graphs of a φ
4
theory are the oneloop case (with two external
edges at each vertex), the twoloop case (with one external edge at each
vertex) and the threeloop case as a vacuum bubble. Excluding the vac
uum bubble because of the presence of the polynomial P
Γ
(t), we see that
the eﬀect of making the underlying spacetime noncommutative turns the
remaining two graphs into the following ribbon graphs. (Notice how the
twoloop ribbon graph now has two distinct versions, only one of which is
a planar graph.)
! !
2
3
" "
The usual Kirchhoﬀ polynomial Ψ
Γ
(t) of the Feynman graph, as well as
the polynomial P
Γ
(t, p), are replaced by new polynomials involving pairs of
spanning trees, one in the graph itself and one in another associated graph
Beyond scalar theories 203
which is a dual graph in the planar case and that is obtained from an em
bedding of the ribbon graph on a Riemann surface in the more general
case. Unlike the commutative case, these polynomials are no longer homo
geneous, hence the corresponding graph hypersurface only makes sense as
an aﬃne hypersurface. The relation of the hypersurface for the noncom
mutative case and the one of the original commutative case (also viewed as
an aﬃne hypersurface) is given by the following statement.
Proposition 9.4.1. Let
˜
Γ be a ribbon graph in the noncommutative φ
4

theory that corresponds in the ordinary φ
4
theory to a graph Γ with n inter
nal edges. Then instead of a single graph hypersurface
ˆ
X
Γ
one has a one
parameter family of aﬃne hypersurfaces
ˆ
X
˜
Γ,s
⊂ A
n
, where the parameter
s ∈ R
+
depends upon the deformation parameter θ of the noncommutative
R
4
θ
and on the parameter Ω of the harmonic oscillator term in the Grosse–
Wulkenhaar model. The hypersurface corresponding to the value s = 0 has
a singularity at the origin 0 ∈ A
n
whose tangent cone is the (aﬃne) graph
hypersurface
ˆ
X
Γ
.
Proof. This follows directly from the relation between the graph poly
nomial for the ribbon graph
˜
Γ given in [Gurau and Rivasseu (2007)] and
the Kirchhoﬀ polynomial Ψ
Γ
. It suﬃces to see that (a constant multiple
of) the Kirchhoﬀ polynomial is contained in the polynomial for
˜
Γ for all
values of the parameter s, and that it gives the part of lowest order in the
variables t
i
when s = 0.
In the speciﬁc examples of the banana graphs
˜
Γ
2
and
˜
Γ
3
of the ﬁg
ure above, the polynomials have been computed explicitly in [Gurau and
Rivasseu (2007)] and they are of the form
Ψ
˜
Γ
2
= (1 + 4s
2
)(t
1
+t
2
+t
2
1
t
2
+t
1
t
2
2
), (9.48)
where the parameter s = (4θΩ)
−1
is a function of the deformation pa
rameter θ ∈ R of the Moyal plane and of the parameter Ω in the harmonic
oscillator term in the Grosse–Wulkenhaar action functional (see [Grosse and
Wulkenhaar (2008)]). One can see the polynomial Ψ
Γ
2
(t) = t
1
+t
2
appear
ing as lowest order term. Similarly for the two graphs
˜
Γ
3
that correspond
to the banana graph Γ
3
one has ([Gurau and Rivasseu (2007)])
Ψ
˜
Γ
3
(t) = (1 + 8s
2
+ 16s
4
)(t
1
t
2
+t
2
t
3
+t
1
t
3
+t
2
1
t
2
t
3
+t
1
t
2
2
t
3
+t
1
t
2
t
2
3
)
+ 16s
2
(t
2
2
+t
2
1
t
2
3
)
(9.49)
204 Feynman Motives
for the planar case, while for the nonplanar case one has
Ψ
˜
Γ
3
(t) = (1 + 8s
2
+ 16s
4
)(t
1
t
2
+t
2
t
3
+t
1
t
3
+t
2
1
t
2
t
3
+t
1
t
2
2
t
3
+t
1
t
2
t
2
3
)
+ 4s
2
(t
2
2
+t
2
1
t
2
3
+t
2
1
+t
2
2
t
2
3
+t
2
3
+t
2
1
t
2
2
+ 1 +t
2
1
t
2
2
t
2
3
).
(9.50)
In both cases, one readily recognizes the polynomial Ψ
Γ
3
(t) = t
1
t
2
+t
2
t
3
+
t
1
t
3
as the lowest order part at s = 0. Notice how, when s = 0, one ﬁnds
other terms of order less than or equal to that of the polynomial Ψ
Γ
3
(t),
such as t
2
2
in (9.49) and 1 + t
2
1
+ t
2
2
+ t
2
3
in (9.50). Notice also how, at the
limit value s = 0 of the parameter, the two polynomials for the two diﬀerent
ribbon graphs corresponding to the third banana graph Γ
3
agree.
For each value of the parameter s = (4θΩ)
−1
one obtains in this way
an aﬃne hypersurface, which is a curve in A
2
or a surface in A
3
, and that
has the corresponding aﬃne
ˆ
X
Γ
n
as tangent cone at the origin in the case
s = 0. The latter is a line in the n = 2 case and a cone on a nonsingular
conic in the case n = 3.
Following [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2008a)], we now look at what happens
to the invariants such as the Chern–Schwartz–MacPherson (CSM) class of
the graph hypersurfaces, when passing to the nocommutative case. An
interesting observation one obtains in this way is that the CSM classes
detect certain special values of the deformation parameter s = (4θΩ)
−1
where the hypersurface
ˆ
X
˜
Γ
3
becomes more singular and gives a quantitative
estimate of the amount by which the singularities change.
The CSM class is naturally deﬁned for projective varieties. In the case
of an aﬃne hypersurface deﬁned by a nonhomogeneous equation, one can
choose to compactify it in projective space by adding an extra variable
and making the equation homogeneous and then computing the CSM class
of the corresponding projective hypersurface. However, in doing so one
should be aware of the fact that the CSM class of an aﬃne variety, deﬁned
by choosing an embedding in a larger compact ambient variety, depends on
the choice of the embedding. An intrinsic deﬁnition of CSM classes for non
compact varieties which does not depend on the embedding was given in
[Aluﬃ (2006)]. However, for our purposes here it suﬃces to take the simpler
viewpoint of making the equation homogeneous and then computing CSM
classes with the Macaulay2 program of [Aluﬃ (2003)].
Proposition 9.4.2. Let
ˆ
X
˜
Γ
3
denote the aﬃne surface deﬁned by the equa
tion (9.49) and let
¯
X
˜
Γ
3
⊂ P
3
be the hypersurface obtained by making
the equation (9.49) homogeneous. For general values of the parameter
Beyond scalar theories 205
s = (4θΩ)
−1
the CSM class is given by
c(
¯
X
˜
Γ
3
) = 14H
3
+ 4H. (9.51)
For the special value s = 1/2 of the parameter, the CSM class becomes of
the form
c(
¯
X
˜
Γ
3
)
s=1/2
= 5H
3
+ 5H
2
+ 4H, (9.52)
while in the limit s → 0 one has
c(
¯
X
˜
Γ
3
)
s=0
= 11H
3
+ 4H. (9.53)
It is also interesting to notice that, when we consider the second equa
tion (9.50) for the nonplanar ribbon graph associated to the third banana
graph Γ
3
, we see an example where the graph hypersurfaces of the non
planar graphs of noncommutative ﬁeld theory no longer satisfy the positiv
ity property conjectured for the the graph hypersurfaces of the commutative
ﬁeld theories in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2008a)]. In fact, as in the case of the
equation for the planar graph (9.49), we now ﬁnd the following result.
Proposition 9.4.3. Let X
˜
Γ
3
⊂ P
3
denote the aﬃne surface deﬁned by the
equation (9.50) and let
¯
X
˜
Γ
3
⊂ P
3
be the hypersurface obtained by making
the equation (9.50) homogeneous. For general values of the parameter s =
(4θΩ)
−1
the CSM class is given by
c(
¯
X
˜
Γ
3
) = 33H
3
−9H
2
+ 6H. (9.54)
The special case s = 1/2 is given by
c(
¯
X
˜
Γ
3
)
s=1/2
= 9H
3
−3H
2
+ 6H (9.55)
Notice that, in the case of ordinary Feynman graphs of commutative
scalar ﬁeld theories, all the examples where the CSM classes of the corre
sponding hypersurfaces have been computed explicitly (either theoretically
or numerically) are planar graphs. Although it seems unlikely that pla
narity will play a role in the conjectured positivity of the coeﬃcients of the
CSM classes in the ordinary case, the example above showing that CSM
classes of graph hypersurfaces of nonplanar ribbon graphs in noncommu
tative ﬁeld theories can have negative coeﬃcients makes it more interesting
to check the case of nonplanar graphs in the ordinary case as well. It is
well known that, for an ordinary graph to be nonplanar, it or a quotient
by a subgraph has to contain a copy of either the complete graph K
5
on
ﬁve vertices or the complete bipartite graph K
3,3
on six vertices. Either
one of these graphs corresponds to a graph polynomial that is currently
206 Feynman Motives
beyond the reach of the available Macaulay2 routine and a theoretical ar
gument that provides a more direct approach to the computation of the
corresponding CSM class does not seem to be easily available. It remains
an interesting question to compute these CSM classes, especially in view of
the fact that the original computations of [Broadhurst and Kreimer (1997)]
of Feynman integrals of graphs appear to indicate that the nonplanarity
of the graph is somehow related to the presence of more interesting periods
(e.g. multiple as opposed to simple zeta values). It would be interesting to
see whether it also has an eﬀect on invariants such as the CSM class.
Bibliography
S. Agarwala, The Geometry of Renormalization. PhD Thesis, Johns Hopkins Uni
versity, 2009.
P. Aluﬃ, Limits of Chow groups, and a new construction of ChernSchwartz
MacPherson classes. Pure Appl. Math. Q. 2 (2006), no. 4, part 2, 915–941.
P. Aluﬃ, Computing characteristic classes of projective schemes. J. Symbolic
Comput. 35 (2003), no. 1, 3–19.
P. Aluﬃ, M. Marcolli, Feynman motives of banana graphs, Communications in
Number Theory and Physics, Vol.3 (2009) N.1, 1–57.
P. Aluﬃ, M. Marcolli, Algebrogeometric Feynman rules, arXiv:0811.2514.
P. Aluﬃ, M. Marcolli, Parametric Feynman integrals and determinant hypersur
faces, preprint arXiv:0901.2107, to appear in Advances in Theoretical and
Mathematical Physics.
P. Aluﬃ, M. Marcolli, Feynman motives and deletioncontraction relations,
arXiv:0907.3225.
P. Aluﬃ, L.C. Mihalcea, Chern classes of Schubert cells and varieties,
arXiv:math/0607752, to appear in Journal of Algebraic Geometry.
Y. Andr´e, Une introduction aux motifs, Societ´e Math´ematique de France, 2004.
Y. Andr´e, An introduction to motivic zeta functions of motives, arXiv:0812.3920.
D. Arapura, A category of motivic sheaves, preprint arXiv:0801.0261.
V.I. Arnold, V.V. Goryunov, O.V. Lyashko, V.A. Vasilev, Singularity theory, I,
Springer Verlag, 1998.
V.I. Arnold, S.M. GuseinZade, A.N. Varchenko, Singularities of diﬀerentiable
maps, Vol.II, Birkh¨auser, 1988.
J. Ayoub, The motivic vanishing cycles and the conservation conjecture, in “Al
gebraic Cycles and Motives”, London Mathematical Society Lecture Note
Series, Vol.343, pp.3–54, Cambridge University Press, 2007.
A. Be˘ılinson, J. Bernstein, P. Deligne, Faisceaux pervers, in “Analysis and topol
ogy on singular spaces, I” (Luminy, 1981), 5–171, Ast´erisque, 100, Soc.
Math. France, Paris, 1982.
A. Be˘ılinson, P. Deligne, Interpr´etation motivique de la conjecture de Zagier re
liant polylogarithmes et r´egulateurs. in “Motives” (Seattle, WA, 1991), 97–
121, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., 55, Part 2, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence,
207
208 Feynman Motives
RI, 1994.
P. Belkale, P. Brosnan, Matroids, motives, and a conjecture of Kontsevich, Duke
Math. Journal, Vol.116 (2003) 147–188.
P. Belkale, P. Brosnan, Periods and Igusa local zeta functions. Int. Math. Res.
Not. 2003, no. 49, 2655–2670.
C. Bergbauer, A. Rej, Insertion of graphs and singularities of graph hypersurfaces,
preprint 2009.
I.N. Bernˇste˘ın, D.A. Le˘ıtes, Integral forms and the Stokes formula on superman
ifolds. Functional Anal. Appl. 11 (1977), no. 1, 45–47.
J. Bjorken, S. Drell, Relativistic Quantum Mechanics, McGrawHill, 1964.
J. Bjorken, S. Drell, Relativistic Quantum Fields, McGrawHill, 1965.
S. Bloch, Lectures on mixed motives. Algebraic geometry—Santa Cruz 1995, 329–
359, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., 62, Part 1, Amer. Math. Soc., 1997.
S. Bloch, Motives associated to graphs, Japan J. Math., Vol.2 (2007) 165–196.
S. Bloch, Motives associated to sums of graphs, arXiv:0810.1313.
S. Bloch, E. Esnault, D. Kreimer, On motives associated to graph polynomials,
Commun. Math. Phys., Vol.267 (2006) 181–225.
S. Bloch, D. Kreimer, Mixed Hodge structures and renormalization in physics,
Commun. Number Theory Phys. 2 (2008), no. 4, 637–718.
N.N. Bogoliubov, O. Parasiuk,
¨
Uber die Multiplikation der Kausal Funktionen in
der Quantentheorie der Felder, Acta Mathematica 97 (1957) 227–266.
C. Bogner, S. Weinzierl, Periods and Feynman integrals, J. Math. Phys. 50 (2009),
no. 4, 042302, 16 pp.
C. Bogner, S. Weinzierl, Resolution of singularities for multiloop integrals,
arXiv:0709.4092.
J.B. Bost, A. Connes, Hecke algebras, Type III factors and phase transitions
with spontaneous symmetry breaking in number theory, Selecta Math. (New
Series) Vol.1 (1995) N.3, 411–457.
P. Breitenlohner, D. Maison, Dimensional renormalization and the action princi
ple, Comm. Math. Phys. Vol.52 (1977) N.1, 11–38.
T. Bridgeland, Spaces of stability conditions, Proc. Symposium Pure Math., Vol.
80 (2009) N.1, 1–21.
D. Broadhurst, D. Kreimer, Association of multiple zeta values with positive knots
via Feynman diagrams up to 9 loops, Phys. Lett. B, Vol.393 (1997) 403–412.
F. Brown, The massless higherloop twopoint function, Commun. Math. Phys.
Vol.287 (2009) 925–958.
F. Brown, On the periods of some Feynman integrals, arXiv:0910.0114.
F. Brown, Multiple zeta values and periods of moduli spaces M
0,n
,
arXiv:math/0606419.
A. Brugui`eres, On a Tannakian theorem due to Nori, preprint 2004.
A.L. Carey, J. Phillips, A. Rennie, F. A. Sukochev The Local Index Formula in
Semiﬁnite von Neumann Algebras I: Spectral Flow Adv. Math. 202 (2006),
no. 2, 451–516.
A.L. Carey, J. Phillips, A. Rennie, F. A. Sukochev The Local Index Formula
in Semiﬁnite von Neumann Algebras II: The Even Case Adv. Math. 202
(2006), no. 2, 517–554.
Bibliography 209
J. Collins, Renormalization, Cambridge University Press, 1986.
A. Connes, Une classiﬁcation des facteurs de type III. Ann. Sci.
´
Ecole Norm. Sup.
(4) 6 (1973), 133–252.
A. Connes, Geometry from the spectral point of view. Lett. Math. Phys. 34 (1995),
no. 3, 203–238.
A. Connes, Trace formula in noncommutative geometry and the zeros of the Rie
mann zeta function. Selecta Math. (N.S.) 5 (1999), no. 1, 29–106.
A. Connes, M. Douglas, A. Schwarz, Noncommutative geometry and matrix the
ory: compactiﬁcation on tori. JHEP 9802 (1998) 3–43.
A. Connes, D. Kreimer, Renormalization in quantum ﬁeld theory and the
Riemann–Hilbert problem I. The Hopf algebra structure of graphs and the
main theorem, Comm. Math. Phys., Vol.210 (2000) 249–273.
A. Connes, D. Kreimer, Renormalization in quantum ﬁeld theory and the
RiemannHilbert problem. II. The βfunction, diﬀeomorphisms and the
renormalization group. Comm. Math. Phys. 216 (2001), no. 1, 215–241.
A. Connes, M. Marcolli, Renormalization and motivic Galois theory. International
Math. Res. Notices (2004) N.76, 4073–4091.
A. Connes, M. Marcolli, Quantum ﬁelds and motives, Journal of Geometry and
Physics, Volume 56, (2005) N.1, 55–85.
A. Connes, M. Marcolli, Anomalies, Dimensional Regularization and non
commutative geometry, unpublished manuscript, 2005, available at
www.its.caltech.edu/~matilde/work.html
A. Connes, M. Marcolli, From physics to number theory via noncommutative ge
ometry, Part I: Quantum statistical mechanics of Qlattices, in “Frontiers in
Number Theory, Physics, and Geometry. I”, pp.269–347, Springer Verlag,
2006.
A. Connes, M. Marcolli, From Physics to Number Theory via Noncommutative
Geometry. Part II: Renormalization, the RiemannHilbert correspondence,
and motivic Galois theory, in ”Frontiers in Number Theory, Physics, and
Geometry, II” pp.617–713, Springer Verlag, 2006.
A. Connes, M. Marcolli, Noncommutative Geometry, Quantum Fields, and Mo
tives, Colloquium Publications, Vol.55, American Mathematical Society,
2008.
A. Connes, H. Moscovici, The local index formula in noncommutative geometry,
Geom. Funct. Anal. 5 (1995), no. 2, 174–243.
C. Consani, Double complexes and Euler Lfactors. Compositio Math. 111 (1998),
no. 3, 323–358.
C. Consani, M. Marcolli, Noncommutative geometry, dynamics, and ∞adic
Arakelov geometry. Selecta Math. (N.S.) 10 (2004), no. 2, 167–251.
C. Consani, M. Marcolli, Archimedean cohomology revisited, in “Noncommutative
geometry and number theory”, pp.109–140, Aspects Math., E37, Vieweg
Verlag, 2006.
P. Deligne and A. Dimca, Filtrations de Hodge et par d’ordre du pˆole pour les
hypersurfaces singuli`eres, Ann. Sci.
´
Ecole Norm. Sup. 23 (1990) 645–656.
P. Deligne, A.B. Goncharov, Groupes fondamentaux motiviques de Tate mixte,
Ann. Sci.
´
Ecole Norm. Sup. (4) 38 (2005), no. 1, 1–56.
210 Feynman Motives
P. Deligne, J.S. Milne, Tannakian categories, in “Hodge cycles, motives, and
Shimura varieties”, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 900, pp.101–228.
SpringerVerlag, 1982.
M. Demazure, A. Grothendieck, et al. S´eminaire G´eometrie Alg´ebrique: Sch´emas
en Groupes, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 151, 152, 153. Springer,
1970.
J. Denef, F. Loeser, Motivic Igusa zeta functions. J. Algebraic Geom. 7 (1998),
no. 3, 505–537.
A. Dimca, Singularities and topology of hypersurfaces, Universitext, Springer
Verlag, 1992.
I. Dolgachev, Weighted projective varieties, in “Group actions and vector ﬁelds”,
LNM 956, pp. 34–71, SpringerVerlag, 1982.
D. Doryn, Cohomology of graph hypersurfaces associated to certain Feynman
graphs, PhD Thesis, University of DuisburgEssen, arXiv:0811.0402.
K. EbrahimiFard, L. Guo, D. Kreimer, Spitzer’s identity and the algebraic
Birkhoﬀ decomposition in pQFT. J. Phys. A 37 (2004), no. 45, 11037–11052.
K. EbrahimiFard, J.M. GraciaBond
´
ia, F. Patras, A Lie theoretic approach to
renormalization, Commun.Math.Phys. Vol.276 (2007) 519–549.
I.M. Gel’fand, S.G. Gindikin, M.I. Graev, Integral geometry in aﬃne and pro
jective spaces. Current problems in mathematics, Vol. 16, pp. 53–226, 228,
Akad. Nauk SSSR, Vsesoyuz. Inst. Nauchn. i Tekhn. Informatsii, Moscow,
1980.
S.I. Gelfand, Yu.I. Manin, Homological algebra, Encyclopedia of Mathematical
Sciences, Vol.38, Springer Verlag, 1994.
I.M. Gelfand, V.V. Serganova, Combinatorial geometries and the strata of a torus
on homogeneous compact manifolds. Uspekhi Mat. Nauk 42 (1987), no.
2(254), 107–134, 287.
H. Gillet, C. Soul´e, Descent, motives and Ktheory. J. Reine Angew. Math. 478
(1996), 127–176.
A.B. Goncharov, Volumes of hyperbolic manifolds and mixed Tate motives. J.
Amer. Math. Soc. 12 (1999), no. 2, 569–618.
A.B. Goncharov, Multiple polylogarithms and mixed Tate motives,
math.AG/0103059.
A.B. Goncharov, Yu.I. Manin, Multiple ζmotives and moduli spaces M
0,n
. Com
pos. Math. 140 (2004), no. 1, 1–14.
H. Grosse, R. Wulkenhaar, Renormalization of noncommutative quantum ﬁeld
theory, in “An invitation to Noncommutative Geometry” pp.129–168,
World Scientiﬁc, 2008.
H. Grosse, R. Wulkenhaar, Renormalization of φ
4
theory on noncommutative R
4
in the matrix base, Commun. Math. Phys. 256 (2005) 305–374.
F. Guill´en, V. Navarro Aznar, Sur le th´eor`eme local des cycles invariants. Duke
Math. J. 61 (1990), no. 1, 133–155.
R. Gurau, J. Magnen, V. Rivasseu, A. Tanasa, A translationinvariant renormal
izable noncommutative scalar model, Commun. Math. Phys. 287 (2009)
275–290.
R. Gurau, V. Rivasseau, Parametric Representation of Noncommutative Field
Bibliography 211
Theory, Commun. Math. Phys. Vol. 272 (2007) N.3, 811–835.
M. Hanamura, Mixed motives and algebraic cycles. I. Math. Res. Letters, Vol.2
(1995) N.6, 811–821.
K. Hepp, Proof of the BogoliubovParasiuk theorem on renormalization, Comm.
Math. Phys. 2, (1966), 301–326.
C. Itzykson, J.B. Zuber, Quantum Field Theory, Dover Publications, 2006.
U. Jannsen, Motives, numerical equivalence, and semisimplicity, Invent. Math.
107 (1992) N.3, 447–452.
U. Jannsen, S. Kleiman and J.P. Serre (Eds.) Motives. Proceedings of Symposia
in Pure Mathematics, 55, Part 12. American Mathematical Society, Prov
idence, RI, 1994.
F. Jegerlehner, Facts of life with γ
5
, Eur. Phys. J. C 18 (2001) 673–679.
M. Kapranov, The elliptic curve in the Sduality theory and Eisenstein series for
KacMoody groups, arXiv:math.AG/0001005.
M. Kashiwara, P. Schapira, Sheaves on manifolds, Springer, 1990.
D. Kazhdan, G. Lusztig, Schubert varieties and Poincar´e duality. in “Geometry
of the Laplace operator” pp. 185–203, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., XXXVI,
Amer. Math. Soc. 1980.
M. Kontsevich, D. Zagier, Periods. in “Mathematics unlimited—2001 and be
yond”, pp.771–808, Springer, 2001.
D. Kreimer, The core Hopf algebra, preprint 2009.
D. Kreimer, W.D. van Suijlekom, Recursive relations in the core Hopf algebra,
arXiv:0903.2849.
K. Kremnizer, M. Szczesny, Feynman graphs, rooted trees, and RingelHall alge
bras, arXiv:0806.1179.
V.S. Kulikov, Mixed Hodge structures and singularities. Cambridge University
Press, 1998.
S. Lang, SL
2
(R), Addison–Wesley, 1975.
M. Larsen, V. Lunts, Motivic measures and stable birational geometry, Moscow
Math. Journal, Vol.3 (2003) N.1, 85–95.
M. LeBellac, Quantum and statistical ﬁeld theory, Oxford Science Publications,
1991.
M. Levine, Tate motives and the vanishing conjectures for algebraic Ktheory,
in Algebraic Ktheory and algebraic topology (Lake Louise, AB, 1991),
167188, NATO Adv. Sci. Inst. Ser. C Math. Phys. Sci., 407, Kluwer Acad.
Publ., 1993.
M. Levine, Mixed motives, Math. Surveys and Monographs, Vol.57, American
Mathematical Society, 1998.
M. Levine, Motivic Tubular Neighborhoods, arXiv:math/0509463
R.D. MacPherson, Chern classes for singular algebraic varieties. Ann. of Math.
(2) 100 (1974), 423–432.
Yu.I. Manin, Correspondences, motifs and monoidal transformations, Math.
USSRSb. 6 (1968), 439–470.
Yu.I. Manin, Gauge ﬁeld theory and complex geometry, Springer Verlag, 1988.
M. Marcolli, Motivic renormalization and singularities, preprint arXiv:0804.4824.
M. Marcolli, A. Rej, Supermanifolds from Feynman graphs, Journal of Physics A,
212 Feynman Motives
Vol.41 (2008) 315402 (21pp). arXiv:0806.1681.
P.B. Medvedev, α representation in scalar supersymmetric theory, Teoretich
eskaya i matematicheskaya ﬁzika (transl.Institute of Theoretical and Ex
perimental Physics) Vol.35 (1978) N.1, 37–47.
B. Mohar, C. Thomassen, Graphs on Surfaces, Johns Hopkins University Press,
2001.
N. Mn¨ev, The universality theorems on the classiﬁcation problem of conﬁguration
varieties and convex polytopes varieties, in “Topology and geometry  Rohlin
seminar”. Lect. Notes Math., vol. 1346, pp. 527–543, Springer 1988.
N. Nakanishi Graph Theory and Feynman Integrals. Gordon and Breach, 1971.
J. Rammer, Quantum ﬁeld theory of nonequilibrium states, Cambridge University
Press, 2007.
P. Ramond, Field theory: a modern primer. Addison Wesley, 1990.
A.A. Rosly, A.S. Schwarz, A.A. Voronov, Geometry of superconformal manifolds,
Comm. Math. Phys., Vol.119 (1988) 129–152.
N. Saavedra Rivano, Cat´egories Tannakiennes. Lecture Notes in Mathematics,
Vol. 265. SpringerVerlag, 1972.
M. Saito, Modules de Hodge polarisables. Publ. Res. Inst. Math. Sci. 24 (1988),
no. 6, 849–995 (1989).
M. Sato, T. Miwa, M. Jimbo, T. Oshima, Holonomy structure of Landau sin
gularities and Feynman integrals, Publ. Res. Inst. Math. Sci. Volume 12,
Supplement (1976/1977) (1976), 387–439.
M.H. Schwartz, Classes caract´eristiques d´eﬁnies par une stratiﬁcation d’une
vari´et´e analytique complexe. I. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Vol.260 (1965) 3262–
3264.
N. Seiberg, E. Witten, String theory and noncommutative geometry, JHEP 9909
(1999) 32–131.
I.R. Shafarevich, Basic Algebraic Geometry 2: Schemes and Complex Manifolds.
Second edition, Springer, 1996.
J. Steenbrink, Limits of Hodge structures. Invent. Math. 31 (1976), 229–257.
J. Steenbrink, Mixed Hodge structure on the vanishing cohomology. in “Real and
complex singularities” (Proc. Ninth Nordic Summer School/NAVF Sympos.
Math., Oslo, 1976), pp. 525–563. Sijthoﬀ and Noordhoﬀ, Alphen aan den
Rijn, 1977.
J. Steenbrink, A summary of mixed Hodge theory. in “Motives” (Seattle, WA,
1991), 31–41, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., 55, Part 1, Amer. Math. Soc.,
Providence, RI, 1994.
J. Stembridge, Counting points on varieties over ﬁnite ﬁelds related to a conjecture
of Kontsevich. Ann. Comb. 2 (1998), no. 4, 365–385.
A. Tanasa, Overview of the parametric representation of renormalizable non
commutative ﬁeld theory, arXiv:0709.2270.
B. Teissier, Introduction to equisingularity problems. Algebraic geometry (Proc.
Sympos. Pure Math., Vol. 29, Humboldt State Univ., Arcata, Calif., 1974),
pp. 593–632. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R.I., 1975.
T. Terasoma, Mixed Tate motives and multiple zeta values. Invent. Math. 149
(2002), no. 2, 339–369.
Bibliography 213
R. Vakil, Murphy’s law in algebraic geometry: badlybehaved deformation spaces.
Invent. Math. 164 (2006), no. 3, 569–590.
W. van Suijlekom, Renormalization of gauge ﬁelds: a Hopf algebra approach.
Comm. Math. Phys. 276 (2007), no. 3, 773–798.
W. van Suijlekom, The Hopf algebra of Feynman graphs in quantum electrody
namics. Lett. Math. Phys. 77 (2006), N.3, 265–281.
W. van Suijlekom, Representing Feynman graphs on BValgebras, preprint,
arXiv:0807.0999.
A.N. Varchenko, Asymptotic behavior of holomorphic forms determines a mixed
Hodge structure. Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 255 (1980), no. 5, 1035–1038.
A.N. Varchenko, Asymptotic Hodge structure on vanishing cohomology. Izv. Akad.
Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat. 45 (1981), no. 3, 540–591, 688.
J.C. V´arilly, J.M. GraciaBond
´
ia, Connes’ noncommutative diﬀerential geometry
and the standard model. J. Geom. Phys. 12 (1993), no. 4, 223–301.
V. Voevodsky, Triangulated categories of motives over a ﬁeld. in “Cycles, trans
fer and motivic homology theories”, pp.188–238, Annals of Mathematics
Studies, Vol.143, Princeton University Press, 2000.
W.C. Waterhouse, Introduction to aﬃne group schemes. Graduate Texts in Math
ematics, 66. Springer, 1979.
A. Zee, Quantum ﬁeld theory in a nutshell, Princeton University Press, 2003.
W. Zimmermann, Convergence of Bogoliubov’s method of renormalization in mo
mentum space, Comm. Math. Phys. 15, (1969), 208–234.
This page intentionally left blank This page intentionally left blank
Index
1PI, 14, 15, 63, 67, 79, 86, 101
2PI, 14, 102
action functional, 7
additive invariant, 38
adele class space, 157
aﬃne group scheme, 34, 50, 131, 148,
182
algebraic simplex, 72, 77, 95
singularities, 73
anomalies, 158
anomalous graphs, 157
antipode, 133, 179
arithmetic progression, 120
augmentation, 135
banana graphs, 76, 202
Berezinian, 185, 189, 193, 197, 199
beta function, 144, 148
Birkhoﬀ factorization, 79, 127, 135,
144, 178, 183
blowups, 62, 73, 96, 113
Bogolyubov recursion, 22, 127, 128
BostConnes system, 157
boundary, 62
BPHZ renormalization, 127, 128, 183
BreitenlohnerMaison prescription,
156
bridge, 85
categoriﬁcation, 135
category
abelian, 29
linear, 32, 49
neutral tannakian, 49
of pure motives, 32
rigid, 33, 49
semisimple, 32, 50
tannakian, 49, 50, 143, 146
tensor, 32, 49
thick, 36, 39
triangulated, 27, 35, 39, 104
triangulated subcategory, 36, 39
chains of polygons, 91
change of variables, 45, 97, 195
ChernSchwartzMacPherson classes,
77, 81, 204
positivity, 84, 205
chiral, 134
Chow group, 82
Chow ring, 31
chromatic polynomial, 85, 87
circuit matrix, 54, 57
closed 2cell embedding, 98, 99, 104
closed embedding, 38, 40, 42, 108
coherent sheaves
d´evissage, 188
cohomology
archimedean, 158, 164
Betti, 29, 44
de Rham, 29, 44
middle dimension, 96
mixed Weil, 35
primitive, 159
215
216 Feynman Motives
relative, 54, 61, 95, 103
universal, 26
vanishing, 177
Weil, 28
combinatorial factor, 4
compact support, 35, 40
complete bipartite graph, 94, 205
complete graph, 78, 205
cones, 71
connection, 146
equisingular, 146, 178, 183
ﬂat, 146, 178, 182
irregular singular, 176, 181
regular singular, 176, 181
connectivity, 14, 101
edge, 14, 98
vertex, 14
ConnesKreimer
Hopf algebra, 79, 94, 116, 133, 146,
178
combinatorial, 134
continuous, 134
Lie algebra, 178
theory, 127
constructible functions, 81
coproduct, 133, 179, 180
correspondence, 30
counterterms, 128, 145, 148, 183
coupling constant, 19, 134, 149
Cremona transformation, 53, 72
critical points, 120, 177, 181
cutset, 58, 66
cycle map, 28
cyclotomic ﬁeld, 51
deformation, 113
deletioncontraction, 84, 88
determinant hypersurface, 41, 54, 103
diﬀeographisms, 134, 146, 176
diﬀerential forms
hypersurface complement, 67
pullbacks, 68, 70, 178
with logarithmic poles, 82, 158
diﬀerential systems, 145
dimension spectrum, 156
dimensional analysis, 144
dimensional regularization, 21, 114,
119, 135, 144, 151, 154, 176
Dirac operator, 155
distinguished triangle, 35, 40
divergences, 62, 96, 112
divisibility sequence, 93
dual graph, 74
dual hypersurface, 77
duality, 33
Dynkin operator, 148
Dyson–Schwinger equation, 78
edge doubling, 91
edges
external, 4
fermionic, 191
half, 4
internal, 4
parallel, 85, 91
eﬀective action, 14
energy scale, 22, 144–146, 176, 183
equivalence
homological, 31
numerical, 31
rational, 31, 39
Euler characteristic, 27, 38, 115
motivic, 39
topological, 38, 77, 81
universal, 38, 77
Euler obstruction, 82
Euler vector ﬁeld, 68
evanescent gauge potentials, 157
expectation value, 2, 8
external momenta, 59, 63, 66, 134,
171, 175, 179
face width, 101
factorization of loops, 136
fermion doubling, 191
fermions, 185, 190
Feynman
motivic sheaves, 153
parametric representation, 54
Feynman graph, 11
residue, 96, 128, 133
Feynman parameters, 20, 54
Index 217
Feynman rules, 4, 10
abstract, 63, 79, 86
aﬃne hypersurface complement,
63, 79
algebrogeometric, 80, 83, 134
motivic, 79, 84, 88, 139
multiplicative property, 12, 62, 79
Feynman trick, 20, 191
ﬁber functor, 49, 50
ﬁber product, 30, 37, 153
Fibonacci numbers, 93
ﬁltered spaces, 147
ﬁltration, 161
ﬁnitely summable, 155
ﬂag varieties, 112
forest, 64
Fourier transform, 13
FreydMitchell theorem, 30
Galois group
cosmic, 148
motivic, 50, 51, 131, 149
Tannakian, 50
Gamma factor, 69, 96, 112
Gamma function, 20
gauge equivalence, 143, 145
gauge potentials, 160
gauge theories, 134
GaussManin connection, 166, 176
Gaussian integral, 2, 21, 156
GelfandLeray form, 120, 176, 181
GelfandLeray function, 120
generating function, 91–93
generic condition, 65, 172
genus, 99, 104
germs of meromorphic functions, 135,
144
graph hypersurface, 56
projective and aﬃne, 63
graph polynomial, 57
Grassmann integration, 190, 192, 196
Grassmann variables, 186, 189, 191
Green function, 5, 8
connected, 13
Gross’t Hooft relations, 144
Grothendieck ring, 38, 53, 76, 80, 95,
115, 134, 139
supermanifolds, 187, 201
GrothendieckDeligne conjecture, 82
Hall algebra, 135
harmonic oscillator, 203
Hodge conjecture, 29
Hodge decomposition, 48
Hodge ﬁltration, 49
Hodge structure, 147, 159
asymptotic mixed, 174
limiting mixed, 174
mixed, 48, 119, 152, 176, 177
pure, 48
Hodge structures
mixed, 151
HodgeLefschetz module, 158, 159
polarized, 158
homotopy invariance, 34, 40, 108
Hopf algebra, 130
character, 135
commutative, 130
core, 134
graded, 137, 144
Igusa Lfunction, 113, 116
incidence matrix, 10, 54, 57
inclusionexclusion, 27, 38, 82, 105,
111
insertion, 72, 178
interaction term, 2
irregular singular, 178, 179
iterated integrals, 145, 152
join, 62, 83
Jones polynomial, 85, 87
K¨ unneth formula, 28, 35
KazhdanLusztig theory, 112
Kirchhoﬀ law, 58
KirchhoﬀSymanzik matrix, 55, 98
KirchhoﬀSymanzik polynomial, 53,
55, 57, 153, 202
KMS state, 157
Kontsevich conjecture, 95
218 Feynman Motives
Koszulde Rham complex, 171
Kummer extension, 46
Kummer motive, 46, 50, 151
Lagrangian, 130, 133, 190
density, 7
Landau varieties, 65, 95
Laurent series, 22, 129, 181
Lefschetz
hard, 29
modules, 159
motive, 33, 39, 107
motive (fermionic), 189
operator, 164
weak, 28
Legendre transform, 15
lemon graph, 91, 92
Leray coboundary, 121
Leray regularization, 123
level set, 120
Lie algebra, 51, 144, 148, 176, 178
local system, 153
log canonical threshold, 113
logarithmic extension, 151
logarithmically divergent, 61, 93, 113,
192
looping edge, 85, 102
manifold of frames, 110
manifolds of frames, 105, 106
massive theory, 63
massless theory, 60, 190
Mather classes, 82
matroid, 112
MayerVietoris, 27, 35
Mellin transform, 119, 181
Milnor algebra, 172
Milnor ﬁber, 114, 172, 176, 181
Milnor number, 82
minimal subtraction, 22, 130
mirror symmetry, 36
mixed Hodge structure, 48
moduli space of curves, 94
momentum conservation, 56
monodromy, 145, 159, 165, 166
motives
eﬀective, 32
logarithmic, 46, 153
mixed, 27, 35, 61
mixed Tate, 39, 51, 61, 78, 85, 93,
94, 96, 103, 105, 110, 114,
149
Nori construction, 37
pullback, 153
pure, 26, 32, 50
Tate, 27, 33, 39, 76
motivic measure, 116
motivic sheaves, 37, 46, 151, 153
motivic zeta function, 115
Moyal product, 185, 201
multiple polylogarithms, 94
multiple zeta values, 93, 149
nearby cycles, 157, 165
nonrenormalizable theory, 24
noncommutative geometry, 151, 155,
185, 201
normal crossings, 54, 73, 95, 104
number ﬁeld, 28
orientation, 54, 55, 100, 104
oscillatory integrals, 119
parametric Feynman integral, 59, 70,
103, 119, 169, 185, 202
period isomorphism, 29, 44
period matrix, 44, 46–48
periods, 45, 61, 93, 97, 152, 199
algebra, 45
conjecture, 45
formal, 45
perturbative expansion, 3
PicardFuchs, 179
PicardFuchs equation, 176, 177, 181
PicardLefschetz ﬁltration, 166
Poincar´e duality, 28, 35
Poincar´e residue, 120, 171
Poincar´eHopf theorem, 81
polar ﬁltration, 171
polar part, 22, 128, 129, 140
polarization, 159
polylogarithms, 45, 47
Index 219
principal bundle, 146
promotive, 47, 152
pronilpotent, 148
prounipotent, 51, 132
probability amplitude, 7
projective superspace, 186
projective system, 47, 154
projector, 32, 38
propagator, 11, 79
aﬃne line, 80
fermionic, 190
Lefschetz motive, 81
Radon transform, 167
realization functors, 29
reductive, 50, 51
regular singular, 177, 179
regularization, 18, 62, 114
parameter, 19
renormalization, 18
renormalization group, 144, 148
representable functor, 132
residue, 69
ribbon graphs, 202
Riemann zeta function, 157
RiemannHilbert correspondence,
143, 176
ring of immersed conical varieties, 79,
80, 82, 134
RotaBaxter algebra, 129, 137
RotaBaxter operator, 137
scaling, 144, 146, 182
Schubert cells, 112
Schwinger parameters, 20
selfenergy graph, 22
shift functor, 35
signature
Euclidean, 7
Lorentzian, 7
singularities, 61, 65, 82, 114, 181
nonisolated, 71, 114, 167
SlavonovTaylor identities, 78
slicing, 167, 172, 179, 180
source term, 2
spanning forest, 57
spanning tree, 57, 66
special ﬁber, 158, 165
spectral triple, 135, 155
cup product, 156
local index formula, 166
tame, 164
type II, 156
splitting at a vertex, 17
stable birational equivalence, 140
stable range, 61, 65, 170
standard conjectures, 27
Stokes’ formula, 45, 69
stratiﬁcation, 81, 108, 110
strong orientable embedding
conjecture, 101
subtraction, 18
sum over states, 86
supergeometry, 185
supermanifold, 186
divisors, 190, 199
embedding, 186
morphisms, 186
split, 186
superrenormalizable, 7
symmetry factor, 4, 178
tstructure, 36, 39
heart, 36, 50
tangent cone, 203, 204
Tannakian formalism, 34, 49, 131
Tate conjecture, 43
Tate Hodge structure, 48
Tate sheaves, 46
Tate twist, 40, 48
time ordered exponential, 144
topological simplex, 21, 95, 112, 170
tubular neighborhood, 113, 121, 126
Tutte polynomial, 85, 86
TutteGrothendieck invariants, 84,
85, 87
universal enveloping algebra, 148
universal recursive relation, 92
universal singular frame, 148
unstable range, 61
220 Feynman Motives
vacuum bubble, 12
vanishing cycles, 119, 157, 165, 176
vector bundles
ﬂat equisingular, 147
holomorphic, 136, 186
vector ﬁeld, 81
von Neumann algebra, 156
Wequivalence, 147
Ward identities, 134
weight ﬁltration, 48, 50, 147, 152
wheel neighborhood, 102
wheel with spokes graph, 94, 110
Wick contraction, 5
zigzag graphs, 96
This page intentionally left blank
California Institute of Technology, USA
Matilde Marcolli
World Scientific
NEW JERSEY
•
LONDON
•
SINGAPORE
•
BEIJING
•
SHANGHAI
•
HONG KONG
•
TA I P E I
•
CHENNAI
Ltd. Pte. All rights reserved. recording or any information storage and retrieval system now known or to be invented. FEYNMAN MOTIVES Copyright © 2010 by World Scientific Publishing Co. 222 Rosewood Drive. or parts thereof. Danvers. without written permission from the Publisher. ISBN13 ISBN10 ISBN13 ISBN10 9789814271202 9814271209 9789814304481 (pbk) 9814304484 (pbk) Printed in Singapore. USA. including photocopying. may not be reproduced in any form or by any means. Inc. please pay a copying fee through the Copyright Clearance Center. Singapore 596224 USA office: 27 Warren Street. NJ 07601 UK office: 57 Shelton Street. Covent Garden.. .Published by World Scientific Publishing Co. 5 Toh Tuck Link. For photocopying of material in this volume. In this case permission to photocopy is not required from the publisher. Pte. MA 01923. electronic or mechanical. Suite 401402. London WC2H 9HE British Library CataloguinginPublication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Hackensack. Ltd. This book.
No my — my pozdnii stil stare wei Vselennoi.Zvezda v Galaktike i voron na suku ivut. ne muqimy xekspirovskoi dilemmoi. Ona skvoz nas poet svo tosku. Yuri Manin – “(not yet quite) The Late Style” .
This page intentionally left blank .
possibly at the cost of neglecting material that should certainly be included in a more extensive monograph. Many extremely interesting results are at this point available in the literature. In particular. I try. whenever possible. I hope that having made the main focus of the lectures the yet largely unexplored relation between quantum ﬁeld theory and Grothendieck’s theory of motives in algebraic geometry may provide a suﬃciently diﬀerent viewpoint on the quantum ﬁeld theoretic notions to make the resulting combination of topics appealing to mathematicians and physicists alike. In particular. which I taught at Caltech in the fall of 2008.Preface This book originates from the notes of a course on “Geometry and Arithmetic of Quantum Fields”. Having just moved to Caltech and having my ﬁrst chance to oﬀer a class there. to provide an extensive list of references for the interested reader. Though it inevitably feels somewhat strange to be teaching Feynman diagrams at Caltech. I decided on a topic that would fall in between mathematics and theoretical physics. but in general I prefer to keep the text as close as possible to the very informal style of the lectures. I will try to illustrate the fact that there are two possible vii . I am not an expert in the theory of motives and this fact is clearly reﬂected in the way this text is organized. and occasionally to summarize some of the available results. Interested readers will have to look elsewhere for a more informative introduction to the subject (a few references are provided in the text). Also I do not try in any way to give an exhaustive viewpoint of the current status of research on the connection between quantum ﬁeld theory and motives. the choice of material covered here focuses mostly on those aspects of the subject where I have been actively engaged in recent research work and therefore reﬂects closely my own bias and personal viewpoint.
and motives”. One then tries to understand the motivic nature of the piece of the relative cohomology of the algebraic variety involved in the computation of the period. identiﬁes directly the Feynman integral (modulo the important issue of divergences) with an integral of an algebraic diﬀerential form on a cycle in an algebraic variety. I have also included a brief and less detailed summary of this aspect of the theory in the present text. This book only partially reﬂects the state of the art on this fastmoving subject at the speciﬁc time when these lectures were delivered. The bottomup approach was largely developed in the work of Bloch–Esnault–Kreimer. which are suﬃciently rigid to identify it (via the Tannakian formalism) with a category of representations of an aﬃne group scheme. using the parametric representation in terms of Schwinger and Feynman parameters. but I hope that the timeliness of circulating these ideas in the community of mathematicians and physicists will somehow make up for lack of both rigor and of completeness. I will also try to illustrate the points of contact between these two diﬀerent approaches and where possible new developments may arise that might eventually unify the somewhat fragmentary picture we have at the moment. referring the readers to the more complete treatment for further information. for the sake of completeness. which one may refer to as a “bottomup” and a “topdown” approach. The bottomup approach looks at individual Feynman integrals for given Feynman graphs and. the topdown one. Matilde Marcolli . though in this book I will mostly relate aspects of this approach that come from my joint work with Aluﬃ.viii Feynman Motives complementary approaches to understanding the relation between Feynman integrals and motives. quantum ﬁelds. One then approaches the question of the relation to Feynman integrals by showing that the data of Feynman integrals for all graphs and arbitrary scalar ﬁeld theories also ﬁt together to form a category with the same properties. trying to identify speciﬁc conditions under which it will be a realization of a very special kind of motive. is based on the formal properties that the category of mixed Tate motives satisﬁes. a mixed Tate motive. However. This second approach was the focus of my joint work with Connes on renormalization and the Riemann–Hilbert correspondence and is already presented in much greater detail in our book “Noncommutative geometry. The other approach.
especially Domenic Denicola and Michael Smith. ix . I thank both institutes for the hospitality and for support. Many thanks are due to Paolo Aluﬃ for his very detailed and useful feedback on the ﬁnal version of the manuscript. I thank the students of my “Geometry and Arithmetic of Quantum Fields” course.Acknowledgments A large part of the material covered in this book is based on recent joint work with Paolo Aluﬃ and on previous joint work with Alain Connes. whom I thank for their essential contributions to the development of those ideas and results. and for providing detailed comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript. for their valuable comments and questions during the class. I also thank Arthur Greenspoon for a ﬁnal proofreading of the text. This book was partly written during stays of the author at MSRI and at the MPI. This work was partially supported by NSF grants DMS0651925 and DMS0901221. I also thank Abhijnan Rej for conversations and collaboration on some of the topics in this book.
This page intentionally left blank .
. . . . Motivic Galois groups .Contents Preface Acknowledgments 1. . . . . . . . . Schwinger and Feynman parameters Dimensional Regularization and Minimal Subtraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . From Lagrangian to eﬀective action . . . . . . . . . Gamma functions.3 2. . . Perturbative quantum ﬁeld theory and Feynman diagrams 1. .5 1. . . . . connected graphs .9 2. . . . . .6 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Motivic sheaves . . . . . .5 2. . .7 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . The problem of renormalization . . . . . .7 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Motives and periods 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tate motives . . . . . . . . Feynman rules . . . . . . Oneparticleirreducible graphs . . . .4 2. . . . . . xi . .8 A calculus exercise in Feynman integrals . . Mixed motives and triangulated categories . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 28 34 37 38 39 44 45 49 50 2. . . . . . .6 1.4 1.1 2. . Simplifying graphs: vacuum bubbles. . . . . .8 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mixed Tate motives and the logarithmic extensions Categories and Galois groups . . . Pure motives . . . . . vii ix 1 1 6 9 12 14 18 20 21 25 . . . . . . . . . . . .3 1. . . . . . . . . .10 The idea of motives . . . .2 2. . . . . . . The algebra of periods . . . . The Grothendieck ring of motives .1 1. . . . . . . .2 1. . . . . . . . .
. . . structure . . . .5 3.15 The parametric Feynman integrals . . . . Flat equisingular connections and vector bundles The “cosmic Galois group” . . Landau varieties . . . . . Characteristic classes and Feynman rules . . . . .2 Oscillatory integrals . . . . . . .10 3. 93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xii Feynman Motives 3. . . . .8 3. . . . . . . . . . . . Hopf algebras and aﬃne group schemes The Connes–Kreimer Hopf algebra . . . . 81 . . . .12 3. . . . . From iterated integrals to diﬀerential systems . . . 76 . . . . . Motivic zeta functions and motivic Feynman rules . . . . . . .1 Step 1: Preparation . .2 5.13 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 . . . . . . .3 Step 3: Renormalized values . 128 128 128 129 130 133 135 137 139 143 . . . . . . . . 78 . . . 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Step 2: Counterterms .9 3. . . . . 121 127 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 . . Nonisolated singularities . . . . Factorization and RotaBaxter algebras Motivic Feynman rules and RotaBaxter 5.14 3. . . Deletioncontraction relation . . . .4 5. . . . . . . .1. . 65 . 143 145 146 147 5. . . 72 . . .3 5. . . . . . . 54 . The graph hypersurfaces . . . .1. . . . . . . .1 6. 71 . . Birkhoﬀ factorization . . 119 Leray regularization of Feynman integrals . . . . . . . . . . . The Riemann–Hilbert correspondence 6. . . . . . . . . . 115 119 4. . . . . . . 53 .11 3. . . . . Integrals in aﬃne and projective spaces . . . . . . . . . .1 4. . . . . . . .1 The Bogolyubov recursion . . . . . . . . . . . 60 . The mixed Tate mystery . . .3 6. . . .6 6. . . . .4 3. . . .2 3.6 3. . . . . .1. . . .2 6. Feynman integrals and Gelfand–Leray forms 4. . . . .4 From divergences to iterated integrals . . . . . . . . 97 . .5 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 3. . . . . . . . Connes–Kreimer theory in a nutshell 5. From graph hypersurfaces to determinant hypersurfaces Handling divergences . . . . Classes in the Grothendieck ring . . . . . 5. . . . 94 . . 112 . Feynman integrals and periods . . .7 3. . . . . . . . 5. . . . . . Motivic Feynman rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 3. . . . . Cremona transformation and dual graphs . . . . .1 3. . . . . . . . . .
. . The polar ﬁltration and the Milnor ﬁber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DimReg and mixed Hodge structures . . . . . singularities. . . . . . 155 167 .1 8. . 9.3 9. . . 185 190 199 201 207 215 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Parametric Feynman integrals and supermanifolds Graph supermanifolds . .3 8. Bibliography Index . . . . Noncommutative ﬁeld theories . . . . . . . Renormalization. . . . . . .2 8. 167 170 173 176 185 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 9. . Beyond scalar theories 9. .1 9. . . . . . and Hodge structures 8. . . . . . . The geometry of DimReg 7. .4 Projective Radon transform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 The noncommutative geometry of DimReg . . . .4 Supermanifolds . . . . . . . . . .2 151 The motivic geometry of DimReg . . .1 7.Contents xiii 7. . . . Regular and irregular singular connections . . .
We include here also a brief discussion of some combinatorial properties of Feynman graphs. and the corresponding Feynman rules. The subject is very rich and can be approached from many diﬀerent perspectives. 1. but one can already see the logic behind the perturbative expansion as well as the roles of Feynman graphs. in the case of a scalar ﬁeld theory. [Nakanishi (1971)]. by which the beginning part of this chapter is inspired. a subject to which we return later in the book from a more geometric perspective. which we discuss in more detail in a later chapter. where the more serious diﬃculties of the inﬁnite dimensional setting are not present.1 A calculus exercise in Feynman integrals To understand the role of Feynman graphs in perturbative quantum ﬁeld theory. We also include a brief discussion of dimensional regularization (DimReg) of divergent Feynman integrals. which is aimed at illustrating the main ideas in a context familiar to most readers. the reader may wish to consult [Bjorken and Drell (1964)]. can be found in the recent book [Zee (2003)]. [Itzykson and Zuber (2006)]. which we need in later chapters. For the material we are going to cover in this text. as a convenient way of parameterizing the 1 . in the setting of the Connes–Kreimer approach. There are many very good books on quantum ﬁeld theory. A lively and very readable introduction. We start with a simple ﬁnite dimensional example. We state the renormalization problem. We then brieﬂy describe the inﬁnite dimensional setting.Chapter 1 Perturbative quantum ﬁeld theory and Feynman diagrams This ﬁrst chapter gives a very brief and informal introduction to perturbative quantum ﬁeld theory. it is useful to ﬁrst see how graphs arise in the more familiar setting of ﬁnite dimensional integrals. [Bjorken and Drell (1965)]. [LeBellac (1991)].
1). is to treat the additional term P (x) as a perturbation of the original Gaussian integral and expand it out in Taylor series.1) for a > 0.2 Feynman Motives terms in the integration by parts of polynomials with respect to a Gaussian measure.3) inductively d from (1. J2 (1. It is worth pointing out that the factor (2n − 1)!! has a combinatorial meaning.3) where (2n−1)!! = (2n−1)·(2n−3) · · · 5·3·1. the Gaussian integral with source term is given by e− 2 ax R 1 2 +Jx dx = 2π a 1/2 e 2a . In this onea dimensional setting a ﬁrst example of computation of an expectation value can be given in the form x2n := R x2n e− 2 ax dx R 1 2 e− 2 ax dx 1 2 = (2n − 1)!! . namely it counts all the diﬀerent ways of connecting in pairs the 2n linear terms x in the monomial x2n = x · x · · · x in the integral (1.4) where P (x) is a polynomial in x of degree deg P ≥ 3. by completing the square − a 2Jx a J J2 ax2 + Jx = − (x2 − ) = − (x − )2 + 2 2 a 2 a 2a and then changing coordinates in the integral to y = x − J . (1.3). reducing the problem in this . The main idea in such cases. where only the quadratic terms are present in the Lagrangian. the analog of the Gaussian integrals in the inﬁnite dimensional setting of quantum ﬁeld theory will be the free ﬁeld case. (1. The onedimensional analog of Lagrangians that include interaction terms will be integrals of the form Z(J) = R e− 2 ax 1 2 +P (x)+Jx dx. In physics one refers to such pairings as Wick contractions.1) by repeatedly applying the operator −2 da to (1.1). an (1. Similarly. As we discuss below. It all starts with the simplest Gaussian integral e− 2 ax dx = R 1 2 2π a ∞ 0 1/2 . which follows from the usual polar coordinates calculation ∞ −∞ e− 2 ax dx 1 2 ∞ −∞ e− 2 ay dy = 2π 1 2 e− 2 ar r dr = 1 2 2π a ∞ 0 e−u du. One obtains (1. which we’ll see applied similarly to the inﬁnite dimensional case.2) This also follows easily from (1.
ﬁrst observe that the term of order λα and J β in Z(J) is produced by the combination of the term of order α in the Taylor expansion .2). To see then how the combinatorics of graphs can be used as a convenient device to label the terms of diﬀerent order in λ and J in the perturbative series of Z(J).6) Notice then that.4) is deﬁned to be the series 1 n! n=0 ∞ P (x)n e− 2 ax R 1 2 +Jx dx. Namely. the integral above satisﬁes xk e− 2 ax R 1 2 +Jx dx = d dJ k e− 2 ax R 1 2 +Jx dx. for a monomial xk . (1. in the case where the polynomial P (x) consists of a single term λ k x . Thus.7) Using (1.7). (1. each given by the integral of a polynomial under a Gaussian measure.8) Two examples of this kind that will reappear frequently in the inﬁnite dimensional version are the cubic case with P (x) = g x3 and the quartic 6 λ case with P (x) = 4! x4 . the perturbative expansion can be written in the form Z(J) = 2π a 1/2 exp λ k! d dJ k exp J2 2a . k! one can rewrite each term in the perturbative expansion using (1. this gives xk e− 2 ax R 1 2 +Jx dx = 2π a 1/2 d dJ k e 2a . J2 Thus.Perturbative quantum ﬁeld theory and Feynman diagrams 3 way to a series of terms. (1. (1. so that one obtains P (x) = 1 n! n=0 1 n! n=0 ∞ ∞ R λ k x k! d dJ k n e− 2 ax n 1 2 +Jx dx = λ k! e− 2 ax R 1 2 +Jx dx.5) The perturbative expansion of the integral (1. one writes Z(J) = R P (x)n n! n=0 ∞ e− 2 ax 1 2 +Jx dx.
Notice that the procedure described here produces not one but a ﬁnite α β J collection of graphs associated to a given monomial λ aκ . • The power of a−1 is then determined by the resulting number of internal edges obtained by pairing all the half edges to form a graph. hence it is an edge in the usual graph theoretic sense. consisting of a combinatorial factor given by a ratio of two products of factorials. a power of J. • To each factor of λ one associates a vertex of valence equal to the λ degree of the given monomial P (x) = k! xk . An external edge is an unpaired half edge attached to a vertex of the graph. as in general in perturbative quantum ﬁeld theory. An internal edge of the graph consists of a pair of half edges. The graphs we consider will not necessarily be connected. a power of λ and a power of 2a in the denominator. All the resulting 2a terms will be of a similar form. The combinatorial factor can then also be described in terms of symmetries of the graphs. This means a total of α vertices. These combinatorial factors are the symmetry factors of graphs. depending on all the diﬀerent possible pairings between the half edges. one thinks of graphs as being constructed out of a set of vertices and a set of half edges. which corresponds to the number of diﬀerent pairings that produce equivalent graphs. each with k half edges attached. which are associated to the vertices and the internal and external edges of the graph. connecting two vertices.4 Feynman Motives λ d of the exponential exp( k! ( dJ )k ) and the term of order β + kα in J in the 2 Taylor expansion of the other exponential exp( J ) in (1. of the Green functions in quantum ﬁeld theory. α β J The way one assigns graphs to monomials of the form λ aκ is by the following rules. in this 1dimensional toy model. each occurring with a given multiplicity. The function Z(J) . Each half edge has an end that is connected to a vertex and another end that may pair to another half edge or remain unpaired.8). we can introduce the analog. This collection of graphs can in turn be subdivided into isomorphism types. It is sometimes convenient to adopt the convention that a graph (or connected component of a graph) consisting of a single line should be thought of as consisting of an internal and two external edges. Here. The graphs are introduced as a visual way to keep track of the power counting in these terms. • To each factor J one associates an external edge. To see more precisely how these factors can be computed.
9) where Z = R e− 2 ax 1 +P (x) dx and the Green functions are xN R N! R GN = e− 2 ax 1 2 +P (x) dx 1 2 e− 2 ax +P (x) dx . with P (x) = formally exchanging the sum with the integral. k )n ∞ (λx − 1 ax2 dx 2 n=0 (k!)n n! e and (1.10) become of the form λ#V (Γ) J #Eext (Γ) . from which one factors out N ! permutations of the external edges. with the odd ones vanishing by symmetry.9) and (1. #Aut(Γ) a#Eint (Γ) Γ∈graphs (1.10) λ k k! x Upon expanding out the interaction term exp(P (x)). by identifying (N + kn − 1)!! with the number of all the possible pairings of half edges. k! permutations of the half edges attached to each valence k vertex and n! permutations of the n valence k vertices along with their star of half edges. (1. we then see that one way of computing the coeﬃcient of a term α β J in λ aκ in the asymptotic expansion of Z(J) is to count all the pairings (the Wick contractions) that occur in the integration xN xkn e− 2 ax dx. These then correspond to the sum over all the possible topologically distinct graphs obtained via these pairings. the terms of the asymptotic series in the numerator of (1.Perturbative quantum ﬁeld theory and Feynman diagrams 5 of (1. when computing the terms of the asymptotic series using either the Taylor series of the exponentials of (1. these are (N + kn − 1)!! for even N + kn.3).11) Using (1. each divided by its own symmetry factor. Taking into account the other coeﬃcients that appear in (1. one obtains GN = k n ∞ xN (λx ) − 1 ax2 2 dx n=0 N ! (k!)n n! e .4) can be thought of as a generating function for the Green functions ∞ Z(J) = N =0 JN N! 2 xN e− 2 ax R 1 2 ∞ +P (x) dx = Z · N =0 J N GN .13) Notice also how.11).12) As we have seen in (1.9). N ! n! (k!)n The meaning of this factor in terms of symmetries of graphs can be explained.8) or by ﬁrst using the . (1. Thus. leaving all the diﬀerent pairings of half edges. one obtains the factor (N + kn − 1)!! . in terms of graphs. R 1 2 (1.
1. such as P (x) = 4! ( i=1 x4 ).2 From Lagrangian to eﬀective action In the case of a scalar ﬁeld theory. one replaces the expression 1 x2 + P (x) 2 of the onedimensional toy model we saw in the previous section with a nonlinear functional. One replaces an integral of the form e− 2 x RN 1 t Ax+Jx dx1 · · · dxN = (2π)N/2 1 JA−1 J t . The real number J is here an N vector. with Jx the inner product. One can use the same method of i labeling the terms in the asymptotic series by graphs. the Lagrangian density.6 Feynman Motives expansion in Green functions and then the terms (1. where now instead of attaching a factor a−1 to the internal edges one ﬁnds factors (A−1 )ij for edges corresponding to a Wick contraction pairing an xi and an xj . A more detailed presentation. aimed at giving a selfcontained introduction to mathematicians. e2 (det A)1/2 (1. can be found in the book [Connes and Marcolli (2008)].12). Here we give only a very brief account of the basics of perturbative quantum ﬁeld theory. deﬁned on a conﬁguration space of classical ﬁelds. where the interaction term here will be a polynomial in the coordinates N λ xi of x. . One can again compute the asymptotic series for the integral e− 2 x RN 1 t Ax+P (x)+Jx dx1 · · · dxN . 2n n! Passing from the 1dimensional case to a ﬁnite dimensional case in many variables is notationally more complicated but conceptually very similar. The conceptually more diﬃcult step is to adapt this computational procedure for ﬁnite dimensional integral to a recipe that is used to make sense of “analogous” computations of functional integrals in quantum ﬁeld theory. one is implicitly using the combinatorial identity (2n − 1)!! = (2n)! .14) is obtained by diagonalizing the matrix and reducing it back to the 1dimensional case. The form of (1.14) where the positive real number a > 0 of the 1dimensional case is now replaced by an N × N real matrix A with At = A and positive eigenvalues.
17) where = h/2π is Planck’s constant.L (φ) = RD 1 m2 2 D (∂φ)2 − φ d x 2 2 and the interaction part is given by Sint. .g. .15) where (∂φ)2 = g µν ∂µ φ∂ν φ for g µν the Lorentzian metric of signature (1. The probability amplitude associated to the classical action is the expression ei SL (φ) . The interaction term P(φ) in the Lagrangian is a polynomial in the ﬁeld φ of degree deg P ≥ 3. −1. We will give explicit examples using the special case of the φ3 theory in dimension D = 6: while this is not a physically signiﬁcant example because of the unstable equilibrium point of the potential at φ = 0.16) The subscript L here stands for the Lorentzian signature of the metric and we’ll drop it when we pass to the Euclidean version. To the Lagrangian density one associates a classical action functional SL (φ) = RD L(φ)dD x. This classical action is written as the sum of two terms SL (φ) = Sf ree. unlike the more physical φ4 in dimension D = 4 . We can assume for simplicity that P(φ) = k! φk . R).L (φ). . In the following we follow the convention of taking units where = 1 so that we do not have to write explicitly the powers of in the terms of the expansions.Perturbative quantum ﬁeld theory and Feynman diagrams 7 In the scalar case the classical ﬁelds are (smooth) functions on a spacetime manifold. it is both suﬃciently simple and suﬃciently generic with respect to the renormalization properties (e. (1.L (φ) + Sint. and the Lagrangian density is given by an expression of the form L(φ) = 1 m2 2 (∂φ)2 − φ − P(φ). −1) on RD and a summation over repeated indices understood.L (φ) = − RD P (φ)dD x. Thus. when one talks about a scalar ﬁeld theory one means the choice of the data of the Lagrangian density and the λ spacetime dimension D. say φ ∈ C ∞ (RD . where the free ﬁeld part is Sf ree. An observable of a scalar ﬁeld theory is a functional on the conﬁguration space of the classical ﬁelds. . (1. nonsuperrenormalizable). −1. 2 2 (1. .
.22) 2 2 RD Thus. If J = J(x) is itself a smooth function then J. 1).19) GN.4) appears when one passes to Euclidean signature by a Wick rotation to imaginary time t → it. xN ) = . . . in the Euclidean version we are computing functional integrals of the form φ(x1 ) · · · φ(xN ) e−S(φ) D[φ] GN (x1 . The expectation value of an observable is deﬁned to be the functional integral O(φ)eiSL (φ) D[φ] . (1.φ D[φ]. after factoring out a minus sign.8 Feynman Motives which we write as O(φ). φ = J(φ) is the pairing of the space of ﬁelds and its dual. Although the notation of (1. with the Euclidean action 1 m2 2 (∂φ)2 + φ + P(φ) dD x.18) as a shorthand for a corresponding asymptotic expansion. φ = RD J(x)φ(x)dD x. as long as one regards the expression (1. xN ) = eiSL (φ) D[φ] for which the generating function is given again by a functional integral with source term O(φ) = eiSL (φ)+ J. . obtained by analogy to the ﬁnite dimensional case we have seen previously. Despite the successes of constructive quantum ﬁeld theory in several important cases.23) e−S(φ) D[φ] S(φ) = (1.18) and (1. there are in fact formidable obstacles in trying to make rigorous sense of the functional integral involved. . which turns the probability amplitude into the Euclidean version eiSL (φ) → e−S(φ) . In particular. (1. This has the eﬀect of switching the signature of the metric to (1. . 1.19) is suggestive of what the computation of expectation values should be. This is. in general the integral is illdeﬁned mathematically. .20) and (1.20) where J is a linear functional (a distribution) on the space of classical ﬁelds and J.L (x1 . (1. one has the N point Green functions. A closer similarity between (1. in itself. . (1. deﬁned here as φ(x1 ) · · · φ(xN ) eiSL (φ) D[φ] . . . . not an obstacle to doing quantum ﬁeld theory.21) . (1.18) eiSL (φ) D[φ] where the integration is supposed to take place on the conﬁguration space of all classical ﬁelds. .
27) where GN (p1 . . and the latter in terms of sums over graphs as in (1. .11) in terms of integrals of the form (1. pN ) = GN (x1 . . . .24) ∞ N =0 1 N! J(x1 ) · · · J(xN ) GN (x1 . pN ) .23) in terms of an asymptotic series whose terms are parameterized by graphs. (1. (1. . . where one expands out the exponential of the interaction term Sint (φ) = RD P(x) dD x of the Euclidean action and one follows the same formal rules about integration by parts as in the ﬁnite dimensional case to label the terms of the expansion by graphs. . . What is needed in order to write the contribution of a given graph to the asymptotic series is to specify the rules that associate the analogs of the powers of λ. . one uses an analog of the asymptotic expansion (1. D (2π) (2π)D (1.25) φ2 +P(φ) dD x D[φ]. GN (p1 . one also writes the Green functions (1. . . where one writes the Green functions (1. . . . .e. . .4) in the form Z[J] = satisfying Z[J] = Z[0] for Z[0] = e − RD 2 1 m2 2 (∂φ) + 2 e − RD 2 1 m2 2 (∂φ) + 2 φ2 +P(φ)+J(x)φ(x) dD x D[φ]. external and internal edges of the graph. . These are provided by the Feynman rules of the theory. #Aut(Γ) (1.6). .28) The reason for writing the contributions of Feynman integrals in momentum space is that in physics one does not only think of the Feynman graphs as computational devices that do the bookkeeping of terms in integration . p1 . pN ) = Γ V (Γ. . 1. i. . pN ) is the Green function in momentum space.Perturbative quantum ﬁeld theory and Feynman diagrams 9 for which the generating function resembles (1. . (1. xN ) dD x1 · · · dD xN .26) In order to make sense of this functional integral.13). .3 Feynman rules By analogy to what we saw in the 1dimensional model. the Fourier transform d D pN d D p1 GN (p1 . xN )ei(p1 x1 +···+pN xN ) ··· . J and a−1 to the vertices.12).
pN . and among them the subset of all those with a ﬁxed number of loops.30) is equivalently written in the form n N v.e = 0 for v ∈ ∂(e). The momenta ﬂowing through the graph then represent the physical process. . . V (Γ. . The latter speciﬁes the order in the perturbative expansion one is looking at. . • Each internal edge e ∈ Eint (Γ) contributes a momentum variable ke ∈ RD so that dD k1 dD kn ··· . . • Each vertex v ∈ V (Γ) contributes a factor of λv (2π)D . In the case of vertices with both internal and external edges (1. In fact. k1 . . but one can think of a diagram as representing a (part of) a physical process. . k1 .32) −1 for v = s(e) v.31) where the incidence matrix of the graph Γ is the #V (Γ)×#E(Γ)matrix with +1 for v = t(e) (1. .i ki i=1 δv (k. p1 .29) for n = #Eint (Γ). pN . D (2π) (2π)D (1. . . pN ) are constructed according to the Feynman rules as follows. p) := δ( + j=1 v. kn ) is constructed according to the following procedure. / . (1. . The terms V (Γ. The term IΓ (p1 . it is clear from this point of view that what has physical meaning is not so much an individual graph but the collection of all graphs with given external edges and assigned external momenta. . kn ) δv (k) := δ( s(e)=v ke − t(e)=v ke ). where certain particles with assigned momenta (external edges) interact (vertices) by creation and annihilation of virtual particles (internal edges).30) written after chosing an orientation of the edges of the graph. (1. . . . .j pj ). . . . . . pN ) = IΓ (p1 . where λv is the coupling constant of the monomial in the Lagrangian of order equal to the valence of v and a conservation law for all the momenta that ﬂow through that vertex. . p1 .10 Feynman Motives by parts of polynomials under a Gaussian measure. . .
pN ) = ε(p1 . pN ) = e∈Eext (Γ) qe (pe )−1 . pN ). • The integrand IΓ (p1 . k1 . . (1. p1 . . .i ki + N j=1 v. . pN ) U (Γ. . . (1. pej ) at the vertices of the graph. . (1. where qe is a quadratic form. We can then write the Feynman integral associated to a Feynman graph Γ of the given theory in the form V (Γ. We work here for convenience always with Euclidean signature in the Feynman integrals. .Perturbative quantum ﬁeld theory and Feynman diagrams 11 • Each internal edge contributes an inverse propagator. when summed over the oriented external edges. . . p) is given by U (Γ. . pN . . that is. .33) • Each external edge e ∈ Eext (Γ) contributes a propagator qe (pe )−1 . . so that our propagators contain quadratic terms of the form (1. .37) with C = v∈V (Γ) λv (2π)D .j pj ) q1 (k1 ) · · · qn (kn ) dD k1 dD kn ··· .33). . as shown for instance in [Bjorken and Drell (1965)]. . . . . (2π)D (2π)D (1. . . The study of parametric Feynman integral we discuss in greater detail in Chapter 3 can be done also for the Lorentzian case. . . which in the case of a scalar ﬁeld in Euclidean signature is given by 2 qe (ke ) = ke + m2 . (1. .35) where the factor ε(p) is the product of the inverse propagators of the external edges ε(p1 . kn ) is then a product λv (2π)D δv (kei .34) with linear relations among the momentum variables kei and pej imposed by the conservation laws δv (kei .36) while the factor U (Γ. pN ) = C δ( n i=1 v. p1 . . pej ) v∈V (Γ) ei ∈Eint (Γ) qei (kei )−1 ej ∈Eext (Γ) qej (pej )−1 . . p1 . . . a −1 term of the form qe . The external momenta are assigned so that e they satisfy the conservation law e pe = 0. with qe (pe ) = p2 + m2 .
Lemma 1. The basic property that makes these simpliﬁcations possible is the multiplicative form (1.27) do not contain any vacuum bubbles.3. . when one writes the expansion (1. . As we have seen in the ﬁnite dimensional toy model. . pN ) is multiplicative on connected components of the graph Γ. p1 .4.36).4.4. Lemma 1. . . . Moreover.2. the symmetry factor splits multiplicatively on components according to the formula #Aut(Γ) = j (nj )! j #Aut(Γj )nj . Proof. The factorials come from the symmetries of the graph Γ that permute topologically equivalent components.37) of the Feynman integral. . One then has a ﬁrst useful observation on the combinatorics of the graphs that appear in the asymptotic expansion of the Green functions. if the graph Γ has diﬀerent connected components. (1. and then the expansion (1.12 Feynman Motives 1. pN .35) with (1. the expansion .34) of the Feynman integrand IΓ (p1 .4 Simplifying graphs: vacuum bubbles. A graph with no external edges is commonly referred to as a vacuum bubble. k1 . The graphs of (1. connected graphs There are some useful simpliﬁcations that can be done in the combinatorics of graphs that appear in the formal series (1. All symmetries of Γ are obtained by composing this type of symmetries with symmetries of each component. The Feynman integral V (Γ. Proof. one also has the following multiplicative form of the symmetry factors of graphs. For a graph Γ that is a union of connected components Γj with multiplicities nj (i. .e. there are nj connected components of Γ all isomorphic to the same graph Γj ). no linear relations arise between momentum variables of the edges of diﬀerent components (as these have no common vertices) and the corresponding integrals split as a product.1. This implies the following property. . these correspond to the terms with J = 0 in the asymptotic series. kn ).27). Thus. . .27) of the latter into Feynman integrals of graphs.25) into Green functions.38) Proof. Lemma 1.34) and (1. This follows immediately from the form (1. In fact. . (1.
. xN ) of (1. only a smaller class of graphs will be involved.c (x1 . . Suppose that Γ is a disjoint union of connected components Γ = ∪j Γj . GN.c (p1 .4. with multiplicities nj and with Nj external edges. . . One can then pass from multiconnected to connected graphs by rewriting the functional integral Z[J] in an equivalent form in terms of W [J] = log Z[J] Z[0] . . .Perturbative quantum ﬁeld theory and Feynman diagrams 13 of the functional integral Z[J] would count the contribution of all graphs including components that are vacuum bubbles as in the case of (1.c (x1 . . . p1 .c (p1 . . . . . .2 then imply that the expansion for Z[J]/Z[0] only has contributions from graphs which do not contain any connected components that are vacuum bubbles. . (nj )!#Aut(Γj )nj j .40) have an expansion GN.4. . pN ) = GN.8) in the ﬁnite dimensional case.4. Lemma 1.4.4. . #Aut(Γ) (1. .1 and 1. . xN )ei(p1 x1 +···+pN xN ) Proof. . More detailed expositions can be found in standard Quantum Field Theory textbooks (for example in [LeBellac (1991)]). .42) and the V (Γ. . . . .27).2 we get V (Γ. . (1.c (p1 .39) One can again write a formal asymptotic series for W [J] as ∞ W [J] = N =0 1 N! J(x1 ) · · · J(xN ) GN. so that j nj Nj = N . xN ) dD x1 · · · dD xN . We only sketch brieﬂy why the result holds.4. and the multiplicative properties of Lemma 1. . pN ) = Γ connected V (Γ. . (1.c (x1 . The expansion of Z[0] on the other hand only has contributions from the vacuum bubble graphs. . . The connected Green functions GN. . pN ) is the Fourier transform d D p1 d D pN ··· (2π)D (2π)D (1. Then by Lemma 1. . .c (x1 . p1 . .35). p1 . . p1 . pN ) in (1.41) where GN. . pNj )nj .1 and Lemma 1. . where. . however. pN ) . . . . . .41) are computed as in (1.40) where now the Green functions GN. . xN ) will also have an expansion on graphs of the form (1. pN ) = #Aut(Γ) V (Γj . .
. . a graph is kvertexconnected if it has no looping edges and no multiple edges.c (x1 . where vertex removal is deﬁned as below. Given a graph Γ and a vertex v ∈ V (Γ). . 1. and it cannot be disconnected by removal of a single vertex. Thus. . or higher loop versions like the 2PI eﬀective action. . Here what one means by removing a vertex from a graph is the following. . and it cannot be disconnected by removal of any set of k − 1 vertices. The terminology more commonly in use in the physics literature is the following. . the graph obtained by removing from Γ the star of the vertex v.14 Feynman Motives Thus. The notion of kconnectivity of graphs is given as follows: • A graph is kedgeconnected if it cannot be disconnected by removal of any set of k or fewer edges. it has at least k + 1 vertices. . We discuss here brieﬂy only the 1PI eﬀective action. we can write Z[J] 1 = Z[0] N! N J(x1 ) · · · J(xN ) GN (x1 . while for k ≥ 2 the condition of being kvertexconnected is stronger than that of being kedgeconnected. xNj ) = exp N 1 N! J(x1 ) · · · J(xN ) GN. • For k ≥ 3. xN ) . . i. etc.5. • A graph is 2vertexconnected if it has no looping edges. We ﬁrst recall the following notions of connectivity of graphs. . 1vertexconnected and 1edgeconnected simply mean connected. .e. . the graph Γ v is the graph with vertex set V (Γ) {v} and edge set E(Γ) {e : v ∈ ∂(e)}.5 Oneparticleirreducible graphs Further simpliﬁcations of the combinatorics of graphs can be obtained by passing to the 1PI eﬀective action. xN ) i dD xi nj = N j nj Nj =N j 1 nj J(x1 ) · · · J(xNj )GNj .1. it has at least 3 vertices.c (x1 . though we will later need to return to discussing higher connectivity conditions on Feynman graphs. Deﬁnition 1. .
For k = 1. a 2edgeconnected graph that is not a tree is called oneparticleirreducible (1PI) graph. Since each of the internal edges that remain in this graph was an edge whose removal increased the number of connected components. This suggests that there should be a way to further simplify the combinatorics of graphs in the asymptotic expansion of the functional integrals. J − W [J]) J=J(φ) . after replacing the vertices by 1PI graphs with the number of external edges equal to the valence of the vertex. Find an edge that disconnects the graph. . Suppose the graph is not 1PI. If the connected graph Γ is 1PI the tree consists of a single vertex with the number of edges attached equal to the number of external edges of the graph. (1.43) evaluated at a stationary J. Notice that trees are all considered not to be 1PI. This is done by passing to the 1PI eﬀective action. For k ≥ 2 a (k + 1)edgeconnected graph is also called kparticleirreducible (kPI). which is deﬁned as the Legendre transform of the functional W [J]. δJ The asymptotic expansion of the eﬀective action collects the contributions of all the 1PI graphs. Any connected graph can be obtained from a tree. so that the semiclassical calculations (i. A graph that is disconnected by the removal of any one internal edge is a tree with at least one internal edge.5. involving only graphs that are trees) done with the eﬀective action recover . It then suﬃces to show that the graph obtained from Γ by shrinking each Γi to a vertex is a tree. J − W [J]) = 0.e. namely Seﬀ (φ) = ( φ. this must still be true in the graph obtained after collapsing all the Γi . Γn . Proof. even though a tree consisting of just n edges attached to a single valence n vertex cannot be disconnected by removal of a single edge (such edges are not internal though in this case).Perturbative quantum ﬁeld theory and Feynman diagrams 15 Deﬁnition 1. These cannot be disconnected by removal of a single (internal) edge. Γ1 . a solution of the variational equation δ ( φ. . Lemma 1. . Look at each component and again repeat the operations ﬁnding edges that disconnect them further until one is left with a collection of 1PI graphs. and getting back from these the contributions of all connected graphs.2. that is.5. by counting separately the contributions of trees and that of 1PI graphs. .3.
for a graph Γ with at least 3 vertices and no looping edges.5. We do not prove here how one gets the asymptotic expansion for the eﬀective action and we refer the interested reader to [Connes and Marcolli (2008)] and [LeBellac (1991)]. after the removal of the vertex v1 from Γ. A graph Γ is a splitting of Γ at a vertex v ∈ V (Γ) if it is obtained by partitioning the set E ⊂ E(Γ) of edges adjacent to v into two disjoint nonempty subsets. (2) We need to show that 2vertexconnectivity is equivalent to all splittings Γ being 1PI. Then. so that Γ is not 2vertexconnected. (2) Γ is 2vertexconnected if and only if all the graphs Γ obtained as splittings of Γ at any v ∈ V (Γ) are 2edgeconnected (1PI). at least one of the two components contains at least two vertices. we recall the following observations from [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009a)]. Since Γ has no looping edges. Since Γ has at least 3 vertices. Then there exists an edge e such that Γ e has two connected components Γ1 and Γ2 . Suppose ﬁrst that Γ is not 2vertexconnected. and their relation to the 1PI condition. 2vertexconnectivity implies 2edgeconnectivity. (1) If Γ is 2vertexconnected then it is also 2edgeconnected (1PI). To explain more precisely the diﬀerence between edge and vertex connectivity in Deﬁnition 1. Assume that Γ is not 1PI. We have the following relation between 2vertexconnectivity and 2edgeconnectivity (1PI).4. Since . as in the example in the ﬁgure. Let Γ be a graph with at least 3 vertices and no looping edges.1 above.5. Proof. Assume then that there exists v = v1 ∈ V (Γ1 ). Deﬁnition 1. which belong to the two diﬀerent components after the edge removal. e has two distinct endpoints v1 and v2 .5. Lemma 1. (1) We have to show that.16 Feynman Motives the full quantum corrections to the classical action given by all the connected graphs that appear in the expansion of W [J]. the vertices v and v2 belong to diﬀerent connected components.5. E = E1 ∪ E2 and inserting a new edge e to whose end vertices v1 and v2 the edges in the two sets E1 and E2 are respectively attached.
v1 and v2 are in distinct connected components of Γ e. Let V ⊂ V (Γ) be the set of vertices other than v that are endpoints of the edges adjacent to v. If v1 and v2 belong to the same connected component. Let Γ be a graph with at least 4 vertices. as removal of e would disconnect it.6. then the removal of the vertex v disconnects the graph. then v must be in a diﬀerent component. v1 = v2 . We know it is 1PI because of the previous lemma. therefore there exist at least another vertex v1 = v2 adjacent to v1 . Lemma 1. Since v1 and v2 are in Γ v. so that Γ is not 3vertexconnected (in fact not even 2vertexconnected). Similarly. v2 . If the vertices v1 and v2 belong to diﬀerent connected components after removing e1 and e2 . there exists at least one other edge attached to either v1 . and a vertex v2 = v1 adjacent to v2 . We argue by contradiction. to the vertices in V1 and V2 is not 1PI. vi ∈ ∂ei . Since the graph has at least 4 vertices and no multiple or looping edges. . by hypothesis.Perturbative quantum ﬁeld theory and Feynman diagrams 17 Γ has at least 3 vertices and no looping edges. v2 }. Thus. Assume that Γ is 3vertexconnected but not 2PI. respectively. Thus Γ is not 2vertexconnected. So e must be the edge added in the splitting of Γ at the vertex v. Proof. Then the splitting Γ of Γ at v obtained by inserting an edge e such that the endpoints v1 and v2 are connected by edges. Since Γ e is disconnected. If w is adjacent to v. There exists an edge e of Γ whose removal disconnects the graph. or v.5. Since we are assuming that Γ has no multiple or looping edges. the failure of 2vertexconnectivity means that there exists a vertex v whose removal disconnects the graph. by (1)). Let v1 and v2 be the endpoints of e. the two edges have at most one endpoint in common. with the other endpoint w ∈ {v. assume that there exists a splitting Γ of Γ at a vertex v that is not 1PI. Conversely. then Γ would not be 1PI (and hence not 2vertex connected. Suppose ﬁrst that they have a common endpoint v. it follows that removing v from Γ would also disconnect the graph. If e already belonged to Γ. there exist two edges e1 and e2 such that the removal of both edges is needed to disconnect the graph. v1 . and Γ v is contained in Γ e. with no looping edges and no multiple edges. then removing / v and v1 leaves v2 and w in diﬀerent connected components. None of the other edges adjacent to v1 or v2 is a looping edge. Let v1 and v2 denote the remaining two endpoints. Then 3vertexconnectivity implies 3edgeconnectivity. This set is a union V = V1 ∪ V2 where the vertices in the two subsets Vi are contained in at least two diﬀerent connected components of Γ v.
It also cannot happen that v2 and w2 belong to the same component.g. Hence Γ is not 3vertexconnected. . Next. Jimbo. The problem of renormalization consists of three main aspects: • Regularization • Subtraction • Renormalization . else the graph would not be 1PI. if one tries to assign to such integrals a numerical value.37) that appear in the asymptotic expansion of the functional integrals of quantum ﬁeld theory. though not all four points can belong to diﬀerent connected components. Miwa. the 2PI eﬀective action is often considered in quantum ﬁeld theory in relation to nonequilibrium phenomena. p1 . one soon realizes that most of them are in fact divergent. 1. say. [Rammer (2007)]. Conditions of 3connectivity (3vertexconnected or 3edgeconnected) arise in a more subtle manner in the theory of Feynman integrals. . pN ) of (1.37) as purely formal expressions. . Then the removal of v1 and w2 leaves v2 and w1 in two diﬀerent components so that the graph is not 3vertexconnected. Oshima (1976)]). see e. In the following we restrict our attention to Feynman integrals of graphs that are at least 1PI. wi } belongs to two separate components after the removal of the two edges. However.5. then the removal of the two vertices v1 and v2 leave v and w in two diﬀerent connected components. in the analysis of Laundau singularities (see for instance [Sato. We can then assume that. Suppose then that v1 and w1 are in diﬀerent components. v2 belongs to the same component as v1 while w2 belongs to a diﬀerent component (which may or may not be the same as that of w1 ). namely the renormalization problem: how to extract in a consistent and physically signiﬁcant manner ﬁnite values from the divergent integrals (1. In particular.18 Feynman Motives if w is adjacent to (say) v1 . §10. . At least one pair {vi . This was historically one of the main problems in the development of perturbative quantum ﬁeld theory. suppose that e1 and e2 have no endpoint in common. Let v1 and w1 be the endpoints of e1 and v2 and w2 be the endpoints of e2 .1.6 The problem of renormalization So far we have treated the integrals U (Γ. else the removal of e1 alone would disconnect the graph.
then the Lagrangian can be modiﬁed by changing the coeﬃcients to L(φ) = 1 + δZ m2 + δm2 2 λ + δλ k (∂φ)2 + φ + φ . the parameters in the Lagrangian can be modiﬁed without aﬀecting the physics one observes. in such a way that the resulting function has a pole or a divergence for particular values or limits of the additional parameters that correspond to the original divergent integral. However. Subtraction then consists of removing the divergent part of the regularized integrals by a uniform procedure (such as removing the polar part of a Laurent series in the main example we use below). it is important to stress the fact that the parameters that appear in the Lagrangian. .44) where the functions δZ.37) by functions of some regularization parameters.e. are not physical observables. if one introduces a regularization of the divergent Feynman integrals in terms of a complex parameter z (as we discuss below) or in terms of a cutoﬀ Λ. of a formal series of contributions coming from all the divergent graphs of the theory. 2 2 k! (1. nor are they the same as the actual masses and physical quantities that one can measure in experiments. This is what makes it possible. but has ﬁnite values for other values of the regularization parameters. a theory is no longer renormalizable if an inﬁnite number of additional terms is needed to compensate for the divergences. to correct for divergent graphs by readjusting the parameters in the Lagrangian. In fact. to compensate for divergent graphs one needs to also add a ﬁnite number of other terms. Notice that a theory is still renormalizable if. δm2 and δλ depend on the regularization parameter. such as masses and coupling constants of the interaction terms. that were not initially present. Thus. In fact. Renormalization means being able to perform the subtraction procedure by modifying the parameters in the Lagrangian (which become themselves functions of the regularization parameter). i. in fact. To understand more clearly the last point. one can just think of this as being the eﬀect of having chosen an arbitrary value = 0 for the coefﬁcients of these terms in the initial Lagrangian. in addition to the modiﬁcations of the coeﬃcients of the terms initially present in the Lagrangian. other monomials δλi ki (ki )! φ . They consist.Perturbative quantum ﬁeld theory and Feynman diagrams 19 Regularization consists of a procedure that replaces the divergent integrals (1. This is not all there is yet. in a renormalizable theory.
46) This allows the reformulation of integrals where quadratic forms qi in the momentum variables appear in the denominator in terms of Gaussian integrals where quadratic forms appear in the exponent. (1. (ta + (1 − t)b)2 (1.46) is the Feynman trick 1 = ab 1 0 1 dt.45) It satisﬁes Γ(t+1) = t Γ(t). In terms of Schwinger parameters.37) as 1 = q1 · · · qn 1 1 = kn Γ(k1 ) · · · Γ(kn ) · · · qn Rn + e−(s1 q1 +···+sn qn ) ds1 · · · dsn .48) Another related way to reformulate the expression (1. n 1 (1. Schwinger and Feynman parameters We digress momentarily to recall some useful formulae involving Gamma functions. The ﬁrst useful operation on Feynman integrals is the introduction of Schwinger parameters. one writes the denominator of a Feynman integral of the form (1. (1. These are based on the very simple identity 1 = q ∞ 0 e−sq ds.7 Gamma functions. (1.20 Feynman Motives 1. hence it extends the factorial. which are extensively used in Feynman integral computations and are the basis of both the dimensional regularization procedure we describe below and the parametric representation of Feynman integrals that we discuss later and which is the basis for the relation between Feynman integrals and periods of algebraic varieties. First recall that the Gamma function is deﬁned by the integral ∞ Γ(t + 1) = 0 st e−s ds. analogous to (1. Here the basic example. The function Γ(t) deﬁned in this way extends to a meromorphic function with poles at all the nonpositive integers.47) This is a special case of the more general useful identity k q1 1 Rn + e−(s1 q1 +···+sn qn ) sk1 −1 · · · skn −1 ds1 · · · dsn .37) of Feynman integrals is based on the Feynman parameters. As we are going to see in more detail below.49) . a typical way of dealing with divergences in Feynman integrals is to ﬁrst identify them with poles of some meromorphic function and typically a product of Gamma functions. namely Γ(n+1) = n! for nonnegative integers.
instead of integral dimension D ∈ N. (t1 q1 + · · · + tn qn )n (1. one can then reformulate the Feynman integrals in terms of Gaussian integrals. (1. in order to deﬁne dimensional regularization property. .53) as the deﬁnition of the left hand side and set e−λt dz t := π z/2 λ−z/2 . tn ) ∈ Rn  + i ti = 1}. .52) 1. it suﬃces to have a good deﬁnition for the Gaussian integrals in D dimensions. much less is needed. Due to the very special form of the Feynman integrals U (Γ.7. . Clearly.Perturbative quantum ﬁeld theory and Feynman diagrams 21 The more general expression analogous to (1. e−λt dD t = π D/2 λ−D/2 . using the method of Schwinger parameters described brieﬂy in §1. .1]n (1. In fact.51) [0. the integration is performed on the ndimensional topological simplex σn = {t = (t1 . . (t1 q1 + · · · + tn qn )n [0. (1.53) continues to make sense for D ∈ C.50) In the particular case of the denominators of (1.54) .37) this gives 1 Γ(k1 + · · · + kn ) = k1 kn Γ(k1 ) · · · Γ(kn ) q1 · · · qn 1 = (n − 1)! q1 · · · qn δ(1 − i ti ) dt1 · · · dtn .1]n Thus.8 Dimensional Regularization and Minimal Subtraction Dimensional regularization (DimReg) is based on a formal procedure aimed at making sense of integrals in “complexiﬁed dimension” D−z. one can use the right hand side of (1. p1 . 2 ∀z ∈ C.47) is obtained by considering the general formula (1. .53) in the case where D is no longer a positive integer but a complex number. with z ∈ C∗ . . In fact.48) and performing a change of variables si = Sti with S = s1 + · · · + sn so as to obtain tk1 −1 · · · tkn −1 δ(1 − i ti ) n 1 dt1 · · · dtn . It would seem at ﬁrst that one needs to develop a notion of geometry in “complexiﬁed dimension” along with measure spaces and a suitable theory of integration. 2 (1. pN ). since the right hand side of (1. .
[Collins (1986)] the simplest example of dimensional regularization. It is not an easy result to show that the dimensionally regularized integrals give meromorphic functions in the variable z. k1 . smaller subgraphs γ of the Feynman graph Γ which themselves already contribute divergent Feynman integrals U (γ). . We will not enter into details here and talk loosely about (1. taking (1 − T)U (Γ)z=0 does not suﬃce as a renormalization method. . then (1 − T)U (Γ) would be its minimal subtraction. . See a detailed discussion of this point in Chapter 1 of [Connes and Marcolli (2008)]. .22 Feynman Motives One then obtains well deﬁned Feynman integrals in complexiﬁed dimension D − z.55) The variable µ has the physical units of a mass and appears in these integrals for dimensional reasons. k ) µz dD−z k1 · · · dD−z k . (1. One denotes by T the operator of projection of a Laurent series onto its polar part. as it sets the dependence on the energy scale of the renormalized values of the Feynman integrals. which one writes formally as z Uµ (Γ(p1 . We report here from [Connes and Marcolli (2008)].1. . . . which then has a ﬁnite value at z = 0. . . . With this notation. if U (Γ) = U (Γ)(z) is shorthand for the meromorphic function obtained from the dimensional regularization of the Feynman integral associated to the graph Γ (suppressing the explicit dependence on the external momenta).e. for the selfenergy graph of the theory T with L (φ) = φ3 and D = 6. .55) as a meromorphic function of z depending on the additional parameter µ. It will play an important role later on. i. As we see below (see also [Connes and Marcolli (2008)] for a more detailed explanation). The correct procedure that uses dimensional regularization and minimal subtraction to extract ﬁnite values from divergent Feynman integrals is given by the Bogolyubov recursion described below in §5. pN . . hence the renormalization group ﬂow. due to the role of subdivergences. . with a Laurent series expansion at z = 0. pN )) = IΓ (p1 . This is a convergent power series in the variable z ∈ C∗ . The method of minimal subtraction consists of removing the divergent part of the Laurent series expansion at z = 0 of a meromorphic function obtained from the regularization of the Feynman integrals.
Slightly more complicated examples with nested divergent graphs . One obtains in this way a Gaussian in q = k + xp and using the prescription (1. where it is usually interesting to consider this scalar ﬁeld theory. 2 + m2 (p + k)2 + m2 k s>0. This follows 2 2 6 directly from the application of the Feynman rules: the variables assigned to the two internal edges are −k and p + k.54) one then gets 1 0 0 1 ∞ 0 1 ∞ 2 e−(λ(x−x 2 )p2 +λ m2 ) e−λ q dD q λ dλ dx λ−D/2 λ dλ dx 2 = π D/2 0 e−(λ(x−x 2 )p2 +λ m2 ) = π D/2 Γ(2 − D/2) 0 ((x − x2 )p2 + m2 )D/2−2 dx. due to the eﬀect of the delta functions imposing the conservation law at the two vertices. In this case. the method of Schwinger parameters described in §1. t>0 One can then diagonalize the quadratic form in the exponential to get −Q(k) = −λ ((k + xp)2 + ((x − x2 )p2 + m2 )) with s = (1 − x)λ and t = x λ. with p the external momentum. for instance in dimension D = 4 or D = 6. It is easy to see that this integral is divergent.7 consists of replacing the integral above by 2 2 2 2 1 1 = e−s(k +m )−t((p+k) +m ) ds dt. which makes sense for D ∈ C∗ and shows the presence of a pole at D = 6. It seems then that one could simply cure these divergences by removing the polar part of the Laurent series obtained by dimensional regularization.Perturbative quantum ﬁeld theory and Feynman diagrams 23 p+k p k p This corresponds to the divergent Feynman integral (neglecting the constant multiplicative factor containing the coupling constant λ and powers of 2π) is given by 1 1 dD k k 2 + m2 (p + k)2 + m2 for the theory with Lagrangian L(φ) = 1 (∂φ)2 + m φ2 + λ φ3 .
Deﬁnition 1. the main point is that one would like to cancel the divergence by correcting the coeﬃcients of the Lagrangian by functions of z. it does not seem to work any longer for more complicated examples where the graph Γ contains divergent subgraphs. 6 While one can check that this works for the example given here above. since inﬁnitely many new terms will have to be added to the Lagrangian to correct for the divergences of increasingly complicated graphs. the theory will end up depending on inﬁnitely many parameters. In such cases. with polynomial interaction terms P(φ) deﬁnes a renormalizable quantum ﬁeld theory if all the divergences arising from the corresponding Feynman integrals U (Γ) can be corrected by repeatedly altering the bare constants of the existing terms in the Lagrangian or by adding a ﬁnite number of new polynomial terms to L(φ). In the case of a nonrenormalizable theory. This will be explained in more detail in §5.1 below.24 Feynman Motives (see [Connes and Marcolli (2008)] [Collins (1986)]) show why a renormalization procedure is indeed needed at this point. . the counterterms. A quantum ﬁeld theory with Lagrangian L(φ) = 1 m2 2 2 2 (∂φ) + 2 φ + P(φ). We conclude this introductory section by recalling more formally the main distinction we already mentioned between renormalizable and nonrenormalizable theories. by redoing the Feynman integral computation for the modiﬁed Lagrangian L(φ) = 1 (∂φ)2 (1 − δZ) + 2 m2 − δm2 2 φ2 − g + δg 3 φ . However.8. by correcting the Laurent series U (Γ) by a linear combination of other Laurent series associated to the subgraphs. one needs to account for the way the divergences of the subgraphs have already been renormalized. that is. In fact. one can still follow the same renormalization procedure.1.
We describe brieﬂy the role of periods. we give here a very brief and sketchy account of the other subject whose relation to quantum ﬁeld theory will then be the main topic of the rest of the book. a universal Euler characteristic given by the class in the Grothendieck ring of varieties. There are diﬀerent notions of cohomology that can be deﬁned for algebraic varieties: Betti cohomology. As will become clearer in the following chapter.Chapter 2 Motives and periods After reviewing the main tools from quantum ﬁeld theory that we need.1 The idea of motives Grothendieck introduced the idea of motives as a universal cohomology theory for algebraic varieties. which will be the type of motives that. but we give some concrete examples of mixed Tate motives. We are even sketchier when it comes to describing the world of mixed motives. for which the more complicated theory of mixed motives is needed. we recall the role of Galois symmetries in categories of motives. mainly arise in quantum ﬁeld theory. at least conjecturally. and focus only on the minimal amount of information that is necessary in order to explain how the connection to quantum ﬁeld theory arises. with special attention to the case of multiple zeta values. Finally. these do not suﬃce for the quantum ﬁeld theoretic applications. ´tale cohomology. the theory of motives of algebraic varieties. This will be a simple introduction. We also show how one can estimate the complexity of a motive through an associated invariant. like the e 25 . were we will inevitably avoid the deeper and more diﬃcult aspects of the theory. 2. which will be the main point of contact with Feynman integral computations. We ﬁrst sketch the construction and main properties of pure motives. There are relations between them. algebraic de Rham cohomology.
e. although problems like explicitly identifying the motivic Galois groups of various signiﬁcant subcategories of the category of pure motives. or “noncompact”. with a corresponding Galois group of symmetries. roughly corresponding to the distinction between working with smooth projective varieties or with everything else. Thus. For our purposes we will try to follow the shortest path through this intricate theory that will allow us to draw the connection to quantum ﬁeld theory and discuss the main problems currently being investigated. remain extremely challenging. that already exist at the level of this universal cohomology. The idea of a universal cohomology that lies behind all of these diﬀerent realizations asserts that properties which occur in all the reasonable cohomologies and relations between them should come from properties that are motivic. An extensive series of papers on motives is e available in the proceedings of the 1991 Seattle conference. Serre (1994)]. collected in the two volumes [Jannsen. along with some interesting algebrogeometric applications. Setting up a theory of motives is no easy task. e The theory of motives comes in two ﬂavors. While the general theory of pure motives is a beautiful and . or identifying when a correspondence is realized by an algebraic cycle. A more recent reference that gives a broad survey of the current state of the ﬁeld is [Andr´ (2004)]. For a long time the only available written reference giving a detailed account of the theory of motives.26 Feynman Motives period isomorphism between de Rham and Betti cohomologies. was [Manin (1968)]. one can obtain in this way an abelian category of pure motives and in fact a Tannakian category. i. which is built by ﬁrst abstracting the main properties that a “good” cohomology theory of such algebraic varieties should satisfy (Weil cohomologies) and then constructing a category whose objects are smooth projective varieties together with the data of a projector and a Tate twist. one obtains the theory of pure motives. The ﬁeld is in fact still a very active and fast developing area of algebraic and arithmetic geometry. the motivic Galois group. Kleiman. This part of the theory of motives is at this point on solid ground. this will be by no account an accurate introduction to motives and we refer the readers interested in a more serious and detailed account of the current state of research in this area to the recent book [Andr´ (2004)]. meaning varieties that may be singular. and where the morphisms are no longer just given by morphisms of varieties but by more general correspondences given by algebraic cycles in the product. which is still an excellent short introduction to the subject. In the ﬁrst case. Under a suitable choice of an equivalence relation on the set of algebraic cycles. where one only considers motives of smooth projective varieties.
When one is studying the motivic nature of certain classes of varieties. using only pure motives. .Motives and periods 27 well established part of arithmetic algebraic geometry. namely the category of mixed Tate motives over a number ﬁeld. the main problem of establishing Grothendieck’s standard conjectures remains at this time open. it is often too compicated to work directly in the triangulated category of mixed motives. and with a prominent role played by Mayer–Vietoris type long exact sequences. with Poincar´ duality being replaced by the pairing of cohomologies e and cohomologies with compact support. as will be the case here with certain hypersurfaces associated to Feynman graphs. Only in very special cases. The situation is far more involved when it comes to mixed motives. is based on triangulated categories. As we are going to see in the next chapter. also in the context of algebraic varieties passing to the “noncompact” case profoundly alters the main properties of the cohomology. As it happens in topology. The theory of mixed motives. but one can sometime get useful information about the motives by looking at their classes in the Grothendieck ring. so that they cannot be described. is it possible to extract from the triangulated structure a heart giving rise to an abelian category. in the form which is presently available after the work of Voevodsky. the reason why it is mixed motives instead of the simpler pure motives that arise in the quantum ﬁeld theoretic context lies in the fact that certain algebraic varieties naturally associated to Feynman graphs are typically singular. and for very particular subcategories of the triangulated category of mixed motives. This consists of isomorphism classes of varieties up to equivalence relations induced by very rough “cutandpaste” operations on algebraic varieties. where these types of cohomology exact sequences manifest themselves in the form of distinguished triangles. at the motivic level. This is the case for the subcategory of mixed motives that is most directly of interest to quantum ﬁeld theory. with the same inclusionexclusion property of an Euler characteristic. The ﬁrst issue in this case is that of identifying the right set of properties that a good cohomology theory is expected to have and that should then be also associated to a good category of motives. namely motives associated to varieties that are no longer necessarily smooth and projective.
The axioms of a Weil cohomology are the following. . for i = 1. • H i (X) = 0 outside of the range i ∈ {0. at each archimedean place of the number ﬁeld.2 Pure motives The main properties of a good cohomology theory of algebraic varieties are summarized by the concept of Weil cohomology. • The K¨nneth formula holds: u H n (X1 ×K X2 ) = i+j=n (2. . • Let Zi (X) denote the abelian group of algebraic cycles in X (smooth connected subvarieties) of codimension i. • Poincar´ duality holds: H 2 dim(X) (X) = K and there is a none degenerate bilinear pairing ·. which for our purposes we can assume is Q or a ﬁnite algebraic extension (a number ﬁeld). 2. (2. with ι : H → H i (X) → H i (H) is an isomorphism for tive for i = dim(X) − 1. 2 dim(X)}. such a variety X deﬁnes a smooth complex manifold X(C). which is embedded in some suﬃciently large projective space PN . and normalized by γpt : inclusion. Z → K being the standard if H denotes a smooth hyX the inclusion. then ι∗ : i ≤ dim(X) − 2 and injec . i with i + j = n. • H · is a contravariant functor from the category VK of smooth projective varieties to the category GrVectK of graded ﬁnite dimensional Kvector spaces. · : H i (X) × H 2 dim(X)−i (X) −→ K.28 Feynman Motives 2.1) H i (X1 ) ⊗K Hj (X2 ). This means that. • The weak Lefschetz isomorphisms hold: perplane section of X. We assume we are working with smooth projective varieties over a ﬁeld K.3) which is functorial with respect to pullbacks and pushforwards and satisfying j n i γX×Y (Z × W ) = γX (Z) ⊗ γY (W ).2) with the isomorphism induced by the projection maps πi : X1 ×K X2 → Xi . . . Then there exists a cycle map i γX : Zi (X) → H 2i (X). (2.
• There is a zeroobject 0 ∈ Obj(C) with HomC (0. such as the period isomorphism between Betti and de Rham cohomology. The precise notion for a category that behaves like a category of modules over a ring. It has additional objects and morphisms that make it into a “linearization” of the category of varieties.2. The existence of isomorphisms between the diﬀerent known Weil cohomologies. Q) are both examples of Weil cohomologies. C is preadditive). motivated this search for an underlying universal theory. One modiﬁes instead the maps between varieties so as to obtain a category that still contains the usual category of smooth projective varieties. Y ) is an abelian group (i. namely a category that is good enough to do homological algebra. The approach to constructing such a universal cohomology theory is to remain suﬃciently close to the geometry of the varieties themselves. as the construction of the category of pure motives that we now recall will show more clearly. instead of passing to associated vector spaces or modules over a ring. Deﬁnition 2. It is in general extremely diﬃcult to determine whether a given class in a ∗ Weil cohomology H ∗ (X) lies in the image of the cycle map γX . see [Gelfand and Manin (1994)]. . The composition of morphisms is compatible with the abelian group structure of the Homsets.1. is that of an abelian category. ∗ Algebraic de Rham cohomology HdR (X. The Hodge conjecture. for example. the trivial abelian group. Then Ldim(X)−i : H i (X) → 2 dim(X)−i H (X) is an isomorphism for all i ≤ dim(X). 0) = 0. is closely related to this question. K) and Betti (singular) cohomol∗ ∗ ogy HB (X) = Hsing (X(C). Grothendieck’s idea that gave birth to the whole theory of motives was that there should be a cohomology theory for (smooth projective) algebraic varieties that should map via realization functors to any cohomology satisfying the axioms recalled above. as cohomologies typically do. • For all X. The fact that in general algebraic cycles are very complicated objects and one does not know much about how to characterize them homologically constitutes the main diﬃculty in the theory of pure motives. An abelian category C is a category satisfying the following properties.e. a category that is good enough to behave as a category of modules over a ring.Motives and periods 29 • The hard Lefschetz isomorphisms hold: let L : H i (X) → H i+2 (X) 1 be given by L : x → x ∪ γX (H). that is. Y ∈ Obj(C) the set of morphisms HomC (X.
To obtain a category of pure motives one then aims at constructing an abelian category of smooth projective varieties and correspondences. and I = Coker(k) = Ker(c) ∈ Obj(C). (2.5) This is a closed connected subvariety of the product X × Y of codimension codim(G(f )) = dim(Y ). the generalization of morphisms f : X → Y is given by correspondences of the form Z = j nj Zj . (2. X) is the abelian group of correspondences from Y to X given by algebraic cycles in Zi (X × Y ).7) where Corri (Y.4) with j ◦ i = f . (2.30 Feynman Motives • There are ﬁnite products and coproducts in C. Thus. The usual composition of morphisms X1 → X2 → X3 is replaced by a composition of correspondences given by the ﬁber product Z ◦ Z = Z ×X2 Z. This means that. (2. G(f ) ∈ Corrdim(Y ) (Y. X). • All morphisms have kernels and cokernels in the category and every morphism f : X → Y has a canonical decomposition K→X→I→Y →K. to obtain the composition Z ◦ Z one does the following operations: .6) Since one is aiming at constructing a universal cohomology theory. which admits realization functors to vector spaces determined by the various possible Weil cohomologies.8) f1 f2 for Z ⊂ X1 × X2 and Z ⊂ X2 × X3 . k i j c (2. K = Coker(f ) ∈ Obj(C). The property that an abelian category “behaves like a category of modules over a ring” is made precise by the Freyd–Mitchell theorem. we regard the graph G(f ) of a morphism f : X → Y as a correspondence from Y to X. which shows that indeed a small abelian category can be faithfully embedded as a subcategory of a category of modules over a ring. y) ∈ X × Y  y = f (x)} ⊂ X × Y. and with K = Ker(f ) ∈ Obj(C). that are ﬁnite linear combinations with nj ∈ Z of irreducible smooth algebraic subvarieties Zj ⊂ X × Y . A morphism f : X → Y of varieties can be regarded as a correspondence by considering its graph G(f ) = {(x. which should be a contravariant functor.
and the properties of the resulting category of motives change according to which equivalence relation one considers. We also . • Push forward the result along the remaining projection π31 : X1 × X2 × X3 → X1 × X3 . −1 −1 • Intersect π32 (Z ) ∩ π21 (Z) in X1 × X2 × X3 . and use an equivalence relation on the set of algebraic cycles that preserves the intersection product and allows for diﬀerent choices of representatives within the same class. Although this second relation depends on the choice of a Weil cohomology. There is more than one possible choice of an equivalence relation on algebraic cycles. Z ∼hom 0. at least in some cases. We only mention here numerical and homological equivalence. Reducing the size of the groups of algebraic cycles by an equivalence relation is also desirable to obtain groups that are.9) j • Extend by linearity to correspondences of the form Z = Z = r nr Zr . This is compatible with the composition of correspondences deﬁned using the ﬁber product. We refer the reader to [Andr´ (2004)] for a discussion of rational equivalence and the corresponding e properties. i if its image under the cycle map γX×Y : Zi (X × Y ) → H 2i (X × Y ) is i trivial. Thus. one needs to use some more sophisticated tools like excess intersection to deal with intersection products in nontransverse situations. The homological equivalence requires the choice of a Weil cohomology H ∗ and prescribes that a cycle Z ∈ Zi (X × Y ) is homologically trivial. γX×Y (Z) = 0. −1 −1 Z ◦ Z = (π31 )∗ (π32 (Z ) ∩ π21 (Z)) ⊂ X1 × X3 . for arbitrary subvarieties Z of complementary dimension. nj Zj and Because we are working with algebraic varieties as opposed to smooth manifolds. one in general cannot simply deform them to be in general position −1 −1 so that the intersection π32 (Z ) ∩ π21 (Z) is transverse. (2. it is part of Grothendieck’s standard conjectures that numerical and homological equivalence agree. as one does in algebraic geometry to deﬁne the product in the Chow ring. One denotes by Corri (X ×Y ) ∼ the abelian group generated by the algebraic cycles of codimension i in X × Y modulo the equivalence relation ∼.Motives and periods 31 −1 −1 • Take the preimages π32 (Z ) and π21 (Z) in X1 × X2 × X3 . ﬁnite dimensional. with πij : X1 × X2 × X3 → Xi × Xj the projections. thus making the latter independent of the choice of the cohomology. #(Z1 ∩ Z) = #(Z2 ∩ Z). Imposing the numerical equivalence relation means identifying two cycles Z1 ∼num Z2 if their intersection products agree.
X) = Q and Hom(X. An important recent result [Jannsen (1992)] shows that the category Meﬀ (K) is a semisimple abelian category. Y ) is a Kvector space. see [Andr´ (2004)] for details. The category Meﬀ (K) has a tensor product that comes form the prodnum uct of varieties. with a bifunctor ⊗ : C × C → C and an object 1 ∈ Obj(C) for which there are functorial isomorphisms aX.32 Feynman Motives use the notation C0 (X. Recall ﬁrst that a category C where the set HomC (X. the property of being idempotent also depends on the ∼ choice of the equivalence relation. ∼ ∼ One can then deﬁne a category of motives as follows. a pentagon. These satisfy consistency conditions expressed in the form of a triangle.2. for any X. Y ) = 0 for all X = Y ∈ S (simple objects). is called Klinear. p2 = p. The category Meﬀ (K) of eﬀective numerical pure monum tives has as objects pairs (X. One e . It is in general very diﬃcult to give an explicit description in terms of algebraic cycles of a projector that isolates a given component of the cohomology of a variety. The morphisms are num given by HomMeff (K) ((X. Notice also that.Y : X ⊗ Y → Y ⊗ X lX : X ⊗ 1 → X and rX : 1 ⊗ X → X.2. This makes it into a tensor category. A tensor category over K is a Klinear category C. ∼ num (2. The set of morphisms here are Qvector spaces instead of abelian groups (the category is Qlinear). p).Y.11) (2. Deﬁnition 2. q)) = qC0 (X.10) The reason for introducing projectors p2 = p is in order to be able to “cut out” pieces of the cohomology of a variety X. and a hexagon diagram. (Y. X) is an idempotent. and such that every object X of the category has a decomposition X = ⊕i Xi with summands Xi ∈ S. p). The semisimplicity property num means that there exists a set S of objects such that for all X ∈ S one has Hom(X. Y ) := Corrdim(X) (Y × X) ⊗Z Q. since p ∈ C0 (X. A desirable property for a tensor category is a duality that makes it into a rigid tensor category.Z : X ⊗ (Y ⊗ Z) → (X ⊗ Y ) ⊗ Z cX. where X is a smooth projective variety over K and p ∈ C0 (X. Y )p. Y ∈ Obj(C). X). for example the piece that corresponds to a certain degree only.
This means that one writes the motive of P1 as 1⊕L. one would need to take the transpose of a correspondence Z ⊂ X × Y .X = c−1 . 1) = K. but this would have the eﬀect of changing the codimension. The category of numerical eﬀective pure motives does not have a duality. id. one says that F is leftadjoint to G and G is rightadjoint to F . X) = Corrdim(Y ) (X ×Y )⊗Z Q.4 below). . Recall here that given two functors F : C → C and G : C → C satisfying HomC (F (X). −1).2. G(Y )). although this can be replaced by a signed version. which means that cY.Y Deﬁnition 2.3. num num but the latter is not C0 (Y. Z) = Z[u]/un+1 with the generator u in degree 2. Namely. One also assumes that HomC (1. One can see that. then the transpose Z † is in Corrdim(X) (X×Y )⊗Z Q. This can be achieved by introducing new objects. with 1 = (Spec(K). to have a num num duality one needs to include among morphisms also cycles of other codimensions. Y ) = num Corrdim(X) (Y ×X)⊗Z Q. Thus. for all X ∈ Obj(C) and Y ∈ Obj(C ). 1). the Lefschetz motive is given by the triple L = (Spec(K). Moreover. This is the motive whose cohomological realization is H 2 (P1 ). if Z ∈ C0 (X. which corresponds to the cohomology H 0 (P1 ). Introducing the formal inverse Q(1) = L−1 = (Spec(K). to have such a duality. One deﬁnes the Tate motive Q(1) to be the formal inverse of the Lefschetz motive L. one writes the motive of Pn as 1 ⊕ L ⊕ L2 ⊕ · · · ⊕ Ln . and the corresponding cohomology ring H ∗ (Pn . for all X ∈ Obj(C) the functor · ⊗ X ∨ is left adjoint to · ⊗ X and X ∨ ⊗ · is right adjoint to X ⊗ ·. with the identiﬁcation realized by a natural isomorphism. the Tate motives Q(n). (1 ⊗ ) ◦ (δ ⊗ 1) = 1X ∨ . has the eﬀect of shifting the codimensions of cycles in the deﬁnitions of morphisms in the category of motives in the following way. Similarly. Y ) = HomC (X. with Q(n) = Q(1)⊗n and Q(0) = 1. As an object in the category Mnum (K) (see Deﬁnition 2.Motives and periods 33 also generally assumes that commutativity holds. X. id. where 1 is the motive of a point. there are an evaluation : X ⊗ X ∨ → 1 (the unit object for tensor product) and a unit δ : 1 → X ∨ ⊗ X satisfying ( ⊗ 1) ◦ (1 ⊗ δ) = 1X . 0) being the motive of a point.2. A Klinear tensor category C is rigid if there is a duality ∨ : C → C op such that. which corresponds to the decomposition of Pn into cells A0 ∪ A1 ∪ · · · ∪ An . id.
and the duality is of the form (X. m) ⊗ (Y. One should think of mixed motives as objects that come endowed with ﬁltrations whose graded pieces are pure motives.15) (2. see §2. we jump ahead and leave the world of smooth projective varieties to venture into the more complicated and more mysterious realm of mixed motives. 2. (2. p. n + m).13) The tensor product is then given by (X. n) = (X × Y. p. The main properties that one expects such a cohomology theory to satisfy become of the following form: • Homotopy invariance: the projection π : X × A1 → X induces an isomorphism π ∗ : H ∗ (X) → H ∗ (X × A1 ). m)∨ = (X. p† . Y )p. m) with (X.14) One obtains in this way a rigid tensor category. From the cohomological point of view.9 below. p. q.2. n)) = qCn−m (X. instead of working with Weil cohomologies. where the varieties involved may be noncompact or singular.12) (2. q. m). The diﬃcult nature of mixed motives therefore lies in the nontrivial extensions of pure motives.34 Feynman Motives Deﬁnition 2. Y ) = Corrnum (Y × X) ⊗Z Q (2. p) ∈ Obj(Meﬀ (K)) an eﬀective numerical motive and num m ∈ Z.16) .4. p. the resulting category is in fact more than a rigid tensor category: it has enough structure to be identiﬁed uniquely as the category of ﬁnite dimensional linear representations of a group (more precisely of an aﬃne group scheme) via the Tannakian formalism. dim(X) − m).3 Mixed motives and triangulated categories Having just quickly mentioned how one constructs a good category of pure motives. p ⊗ q.9 below. (Y. The morphisms are given by HomMnum (K) ((X. one considers a diﬀerent set of properties that a universal cohomology theory should satisfy in this case. The category Mnum (K) has objects given by triples (X. As we discuss in §2. (2. where dim(X)+n−m Cm−n (X.
A triangulated category T is an additive category endowed with an automorphism T : T → T (the shift functor) and a family of distinguished triangles X → Y → Z → T (X) with the following properties: • X → X → 0 → T (X) is a distinguished triangle for all X ∈ Obj(T ). in the form of a triangulated category of mixed motives DM(K). one would like to have an abelian category MM(K) of mixed motives that has realization functors to all the mixed Weil cohomologies. • The K¨nneth formula still holds. in particular in the form of long exact cohomology sequences. such that X → Y → C(f ) → T (X) is a distinguished triangle. Y ). Triangulated categories still allow for several techniques from homological algebra.3. • Rotations Y → Z → T (X) → T (Y ) and T −1 (Z) → X → Y → Z of a distinguished triangle X → Y → Z → T (X) are distinguished.1. [Hanamura (1995)]) one has at least a weaker version available.17) • Poincar´ duality is replaced by the duality between cohomology H ∗ e ∗ and cohomology with compact support. u This replaces the notion of a Weil cohomology with “mixed Weil cohomologies”. • For all f ∈ HomT (X. [Levine (1998)].Motives and periods 35 • Mayer–Vietoris sequence: if U. Ideally.18) . there exists a morphism Z → Z such that all squares commute. • Given X → Y → C(f ) → T (X) and Y → Z → C(h) → T (Y ). • A triangle isomorphic to a distinguished triangle is distinguished (where isomorphisms of triangles are isomorphisms of the objects such that the resulting diagram commutes). although after a long series of developments and deep results in the ﬁeld (see [Voevodsky (2000)]. these three triangles can h◦f f h f id (2. • Given distinguished triangles X → Y → Z → T (X) and X → Y → Z → T (X ) and morphisms f : X → X and h : Y → Y such that the square commutes. V are an open covering of X then there is a long exact cohomology sequence · · · → H i−1 (U ∩ V ) → H i (X) → H i (U ) ⊕ H i (V ) → H i (U ∩ V ) → · · · (2. there exists an object C(f ) ∈ Obj(T ) (the mapping cone) with a morphism C(f ) → T (X). and the composite X → Z → C(h ◦ f ) → T (X). Deﬁnition 2. This is (at present) not available. with T (f ) : T (X) → T (X ) completing the diagram. Hc .
36
Feynman Motives
be placed on the vertices and edges of an octahedron with morphisms completing the picture so that all the faces are commutative diagrams. One typically writes X[1] for T (X) and X[n] = T n (X) for n ∈ Z. One more property of triangulated categories that follows from these axioms, and which we will need explicitly later, is the following. Lemma 2.3.2. Given a triangulated category T , a full subcategory T is a triangulated subcategory if and only if it is invariant under the shift T of T and for any distinguished triangle X → Y → Z → X[1] for T where X and Y are in T there is an isomorphism Z Z where Z is also an object in T . A full triangulated subcategory T ⊂ T is thick if it is closed under direct sums. It is sometimes possible to extract an abelian category from a triangulated category using the method of tstructures. Deﬁnition 2.3.3. A tstructure on a triangulated category T consists of two full subcategories T ≤0 and T ≥0 with the following property. Upon denoting by T ≥n = T ≥0 [−n] and T ≤n = T ≤0 [−n], one has T ≤−1 ⊂ T ≤0 , with the property that HomT (X, Y ) = 0, ∀X ∈ Obj(T ≤0 ), ∀Y ∈ Obj(T ≥1 ), and T ≥1 ⊂ T ≥0
and such that, for all Y ∈ Obj(T ), there exists a distinguished triangle X → Y → Z → X[1] with X ∈ Obj(T ≤0 ) and Z ∈ Obj(T ≥1 ). When one has a tstructure on a triangulated category, one can consider the full subcategory T 0 = T ≤0 ∩ T ≥0 . This is called the heart of the tstructure and it is known to be an abelian category, see [Be˘ ılinson, Bernstein, Deligne (1982)], [Kashiwara and Schapira (1990)]. Theoretical physicists have recently become familiar with the formalism of tstructures in triangulated categories in the context of homological mirror symmetry, see for instance [Bridgeland (2009)].
Motives and periods
37
2.4
Motivic sheaves
We also mention brieﬂy, for later use, a recent construction due to [Arapura (2008)] of a category of motivic sheaves over a base scheme S, modeled on Nori’s approach to the construction of categories of mixed motives. We will return in Chapter 7 to discuss how this ﬁts with the motives associated to Feynman diagrams. The category of motivic sheaves constructed in [Arapura (2008)] is based on Nori’s construction of categories of motives via representations of graphs made up of objects and morphisms (cf. [Brugui`res (2004)]). e According to [Arapura (2008)], one constructs a category of motivic sheaves over a scheme S, by taking as vertices of the corresponding graph objects of the form (f : X → S, Y, i, w) , (2.19)
where f : X → S is a quasiprojective morphism, Y ⊂ X is a closed subvariety, i ∈ N, and w ∈ Z. One thinks of such an object as determining a motivic version hi (X, Y )(w) of the local system given by the (Tate twisted) S i ﬁberwise cohomology of the pair HS (X, Y ; Q) = Ri f∗ j! QX Y , where j = jX Y : X Y → X is the open inclusion, i.e. the sheaf deﬁned by U → H i (f −1 (U ), f −1 (U ) ∩ Y ; Q). The edges are given by the geometric morphisms: • morphisms of varieties over S, (f1 : X1 → S, Y1 , i, w) → (f2 : X2 → S, Y2 = F (Y ), i, w), with f2 ◦ F = f1 ; • the connecting morphisms (f : X → S, Y, i + 1, w) → (f Y : Y → S, Z, i, w), • the twisted projection morphisms (f : X × P1 → S, Y × P1 ∪ X × {0}, i + 2, w + 1) → (f : X → S, Y, i, w). (2.22) The product in this category of motivic sheaves is given by the ﬁber product (X → S, Y, i, w) × (X → S, Y , i , w ) = (X ×S X → S, Y ×S X ∪ X ×S Y , i + i , w + w ). for Z ⊂ Y ⊂ X; (2.21) (2.20)
(2.23)
38
Feynman Motives
2.5
The Grothendieck ring of motives
An invariant of algebraic varieties and motives that contains a lot of information and can be used to evaluate the motivic complexity of a given algebraic variety is the class in the Grothendieck ring. This is constructed by breaking up the variety into pieces, by simple cutandpaste operations of the scissors congruence type. The operation of assigning to a variety its class in the Grothendieck ring behaves like a universal Euler characteristic. Deﬁnition 2.5.1. Let VK denote the category of algebraic varieties over a number ﬁeld K. The Grothendieck ring K0 (VK ) is the abelian group generated by isomorphism classes [X] of varieties, with the relation [X] = [Y ] + [X Y ], (2.24) for Y ⊂ X closed. It is made into a ring by the product [X × Y ] = [X][Y ]. Let M(K) denote, as above, the abelian category of (numerical) pure motives over K. As above we write the objects of M(K) in the form (X, p, m), with X a smooth projective variety over K, p = p2 ∈ End(X) a projector, and m ∈ Z the Tate twist. Let K0 (M(K)) denote the Grothendieck ring of the abelian category M(K). We’ll see that the class of a variety, or of a motive, in the corresponding Grothendieck ring, can be thought of as a “universal Euler characteristic”. To this purpose, we ﬁrst recall the notion of additive invariants of varieties. Deﬁnition 2.5.2. An additive invariant is a map χ : VK → R, with values in a commutative ring R, satisfying the following properties. ∼ • Isomorphism invariance: χ(X) = χ(Y ) if X = Y are isomorphic. • Inclusionexclusion: χ(X) = χ(Y ) + χ(X Y ), for a closed embedding Y ⊂ X. • Multiplicative property: χ(X × Y ) = χ(X)χ(Y ). The topological Euler characteristic clearly satisﬁes all of these properties and is in fact the prototypical example of such an invariant. Counting points over ﬁnite ﬁelds is another invariant that behaves in the same way and factors through the Grothendieck ring. By the deﬁnition of the relations on the Grothendieck ring one sees that assigning an additive invariant with values in R is equivalent to assigning a ring homomorphism χ : K0 (VK ) → R.
Motives and periods
39
The results of [Gillet and Soul´ (1996)] show that there exists an additive e invariant χmot : VK → K0 (M(K)). This assigns to a smooth projective variety X the class χmot (X) = [(X, id, 0)] ∈ K0 (M(K)). The value assigned to a more general variety is more complicated to describe and it is given in [Gillet and Soul´ (1996)] in terms of an object W (X) in the category e of complexes over M(K). (Technically, here the category M(K) is taken with the rational equivalence relation on algebraic cycles.) It is sometime referred to as “motivic Euler characteristic”. If L denotes the class L = [A1 ] ∈ K0 (VK ) then its image in K0 (M(K)) is the Lefschetz motive L = Q(−1) = [(Spec(K), id, −1)]. Since the Lefschetz motive is invertible in K0 (M(K)), its inverse being the Tate motive Q(1), the ring homomorphism χmot : VK → K0 (M(K)) induces a ring homomorphism (2.25) χmot : K0 (VK )[L−1 ] → K0 (M(K)). This in particular means that one can work either in the Grothendieck ring of varieties or of motives, being able to map the ﬁrst to the latter through χmot . In the following, we will usually refer to the Grothendieck ring K0 (VK ). A particularly interesting subring is the one generated by the Lefschetz motive L = [A1 ]. This is a polynomial ring Z[L] ⊂ K0 (VK ), or a ring of Laurent polynomials Z[L, L−1 ] ⊂ K0 (M(K)), which corresponds to the classes of varieties that motivically are mixed Tate motives. See the comment at the end of §2.6 below on the relation between the information given by knowing that the class in the Grothendieck ring lies in the subring Z[L] ⊂ K0 (VK ) and the question of whether the motive, as an object of the triangulated category DM(K) is a mixed Tate motive.
2.6
Tate motives
Let DM(K) be the Voevodsky triangulated category of mixed motives over a ﬁeld K [Voevodsky (2000)]. The triangulated category DMT (K) of mixed Tate motives is the full triangulated thick subcategory of DM(K) generated by the Tate objects Q(n). It is known that, over a number ﬁeld K, there is a canonical tstructure on DMT (K) and one can therefore construct an abelian category MT (K) of mixed Tate motives (see [Levine (1998)]). For the kind of applications we are going to see in the rest of this book, we will be especially interested in the question of when a given mixed motive is mixed Tate. In suﬃciently simple cases, one can try to answer this question using the properties of DMT (K) as a triangulated subcategory of
1. in such a way that one has enough control on the strata to build the motive out of pieces that are mixed Tate. The distinguished triangle (2. This can often be used as a way to reduce a motive to simpler building blocks for which it may be easier to answer the question of whether they are mixed Tate or not. [Levine (1998)]. Although the available explicit constructions of DM(K) given in [Voevodsky (2000)].4 of [Voevodsky (2000)]) Over a ﬁeld of characteristic zero. • (Corollary 4.8 of [Voevodsky (2000)]) Homotopy invariance implies the identity of motives m(X × A1 ) = m(X)(1)[2]. [Hanamura (1995)]. denoted by C∗ (X) in [Voevodsky (2000)]. a closed embedding Y ⊂ X determines a distinguished triangle in DM(K) m(Y ) → m(X) → m(X Y ) → m(Y )[1]. One can obtain analogous statements for motives without compact support using the duality in DM(K) between mixed motives and mixed motives with compact support.27) .40 Feynman Motives the triangulated category DM(K) of mixed motives. often in the form of a stratiﬁcation. but one can directly use the formal properties that the triangulated category DM(K) satisﬁes.1. More precisely. one does not need the full strength of the general construction.26) where the notation m(X) here stands for the motive with compact c support. of the variety. In particular. where [n] is the shift. We reported above the distinguished triangles and homotopy invariance properties for the motives with compact support in Voevodsky’s terminology. and (n) is the Tate twist by Q(n). (2. which replaces Poincar´ duality that holds e for Weil cohomologies in the pure motives setting. and then derive information about the original motive via the distinguished triangles and homotopy invariance property. often when dealing with very speciﬁc concrete examples. if two of the terms are known to be in DMT (K) then the third one also is. in such an approach one wants to make repeated use of two properties of the triangulated category DM(K): • (Proposition 4. in order to understand whether the motive of a given variety is mixed Tate. since DMT (K) is a triangulated subcategory of DM(K). are technically very complicated and certainly beyond the scope of this book.26) implies that. one can try to ﬁnd a geometric decomposition. (2.
if the result holds for the hypersurface complement it also holds for the hypersurface itself. 2 ˆ D de ˆ Proof. which can be done in the following way.28) 2 ˆ D = {x = (xij ) ∈ A  det(x) = 0}. – Note that W1 is equipped with a trivial vector bundle E1 = E × W1 . Since D consists of × matrices of rank < . by the ﬁrst property above on the distinguished triangle of a closed embedding. – Let W2 ⊆ E1 be the complement E1 L1 . It is a well known fact that. Fix an dimensional vector space E. Theorem 2. Clearly. these varieties are mixed Tate (see [Belkale and Brosnan (2003a)]).13 below). and two line subbundles of E2 : the pullback of L1 (still denoted L1 ) and the linebundle L2 whose ﬁber over v2 ∈ W2 consists of the line spanned by v2 . We formulate it in terms of hypersurface complements. We have the following result on the motivic nature of the determinant hypersurfaces. . – Note that W2 is equipped with a trivial vector bundle E2 = E × W2 . which will be relevant to Feynman integrals (see §3.6.1. and with a line bundle S1 := L1 ⊆ E1 whose ﬁber over v1 ∈ W1 consists of the line spanned by v1 . motivically. ˆ Deﬁnition 2. Let D ⊂ A ishing of the determinant 2 be the hypersurface deﬁned by the van(2.Motives and periods 41 We give here an example from [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009a)]. in order to describe 2 ˆ the locus A D we need to parameterize matrices of rank exactly equal to . – By construction. namely the case of determinant hypersurfaces.2. The determinant hypersurface complement A ﬁnes an object in the category DMT of mixed Tate motives. – Denote by W1 the variety E {0}. L1 and L2 span a rank2 subbundle S2 of E2 .6. 2 Let D ⊂ P −1 be the corresponding projective hypersurface deﬁned by the homogeneous polynomial det(x). but we illustrate here explicitly how one can argue that this is the case using only the two properties listed above of the triangulated category of mixed Tate motives. as that will be the natural geometric object to consider in the case of the Feynman integrals. and the fact that aﬃne and projective spaces are Tate motives.
27) inductively to the loci constructed above. By construction. Lk spanning a rankk subbundle Sk of the trivial vector bundle Ek := E × Wk . the bundle Sk over Wk is in fact trivial. deﬁne Wk+1 := Ek Sk . . all of which are varieties deﬁned over Q. 2 Each variety Wk maps to A as follows: a point of Wk determines k vectors v1 .26) associated to closed embeddings Y ⊂ X and the homotopy invariance (2. To see this. vk resp. Lk to be the pullbacks of the similarly named line bundles on Wk . the procedure described above produces a variety Wk . (v1 . so that E S = ∅. . If Sk Ek . Therefore m(E1 S1 ) is also mixed Tate. . . . . the motive m(Ek Sk ) is mixed Tate. since we know that the bundles Sk are trivial. The same argument shows that. any such rank k matrix is the image of a point of Wk . . . namely A D. . vr )) → c1 v1 + · · · + cr vr . in the construction described above. . . . Conversely. . and so on. . this matrix has rank exactly k. . . and the construction can continue. . since both are products by aﬃne spaces. We then apply the two properties of the triangulated category of mixed motives described above. . where points of Wk are parameterized by ktuples of vectors v1 . and can be mapped to the matrix whose ﬁrst k rows are v1 . endowed with k line bundles L1 . where S has rank . vk spanning Sk ⊆ K × Wk = Ek . (and the remaining rows are 0). both m(S1 ) and m(E1 ) are mixed Tate motives. At the next step one considers the complement of the line bundle S1 inside the trivial vector bundle E1 over W1 . . . . We ﬁrst show that the variety W constructed as above is isomorphic 2 ˆ to the locus we want. .42 Feynman Motives – Let W3 ⊆ E2 be the complement E2 S2 . for all 1 ≤ k ≤ . At the ﬁrst step. single points obviously belong to the category of mixed Tate motives and we are taking the complement W1 of a point in an aﬃne space. . by construction. . . Again. ﬁrst observe that at the kth step. . The sequence stops at the th step. . The line bundles L1 . Also notice that. . . Lk+1 span a rank k + 1 subbundle Sk+1 of Ek+1 . and deﬁne the line subbundles L1 . by repeatedly using the triviality of Sk and the two properties of DMTQ recalled above. . cr ). Let Ek+1 = E × Wk+1 . An explicit trivialization is given by the map α Kk × Wk → Sk deﬁned by α : ((c1 . equal to the rank of E . Let Lk+1 be the line bundle whose ﬁber over vk+1 is the line spanned by vk+1 . . vk . . which gives a mixed Tate motive by the ﬁrst observation above on distinguished triangles associated to closed embeddings. . namely the existence of distinguished triangles (2.
The class in the Grothendieck ring of varieties of the aﬃne determinant hypersurface is [A 2 ˆ D ] = L(2) i=1 (Li − 1) (2. This suﬃces to obtain the expression (2.6. we already know that the class [A D] will be in the mixed Tate part Z[L] of the Grothendieck ring of varieties K0 (VQ ). by Theorem 2.3. knowing that the class in the Grothendieck ring is a function of the Lefschetz motive L is a very good indication of the possible mixed Tate nature of the motive. (2. In general. the Tate conjecture predicts that knowing the e number Np of points of the reduction mod p for almost all p would suﬃce to determine the motive.30) is then ˆ obtained from (2. knowing that this . One can use the same geometric construction described above to ˆ compute explicitly the class of D in the Grothendieck ring of varieties. one shows inductively that the class of Wk is given by [Wk ] = (L − 1)(L − L)(L − L2 ) · · · (L − Lk−1 ) k = L(2) (L − 1)(L (2. the class is [P 2 −1 D ] = L(2) i=2 (Li − 1). However.2. In fact. For mixed Tate motives the numbers Np are polynomial in p. this does not imply that the motive itself will be in the subcategory DMTQ of mixed Tate motives. since D is the aﬃne cone over D and the same two properties of the triangulated ˆ category of mixed motives used above show that if D is mixed Tate so is D . One ﬁnds the following expression [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009a)]. In the projective case.31) −1 − 1) · · · (L −k+1 − 1). as in principle there may be cancellations that happen in the Grothendieck ring that do not take place at the level of the motives themselves. If one only knows that the class belongs to the Tate part Z[L] of the Grothendieck ring. and assuming the conjecture holds. computing the class in the Grothendieck ring may be easier than knowing explicitly the motive in DMQ . as observed for instance in [Andr´ (2009)].30) Proof.6. Theorem 2.6. Using the same argument as in Theorem 2. 2 ˆ Notice that.29). The formula (2.29) using the fact that D is the aﬃne cone over D .Motives and periods 43 ˆ The result for the projective hypersurface D is then the same.2.29) where L is the class of A1 .
(2. They are related by the period isomorphism ∗ HdR (X) ⊗K C ∗ HB (X) ⊗Q C. The role in this of the class in the Grothendieck ring comes from the fact that the counting of points Np over ﬁnite ﬁelds has the properties of an Euler characteristic (as we saw above.32) for varieties deﬁned over a number ﬁeld K. In fact. Q) = ∗ Hsing (X. Even without these general considerations and the role of the Tate conjecture. paired with a cycle deﬁned .6. the same type of geometric information on stratiﬁcations that one can use to compute the class in the Grothendieck ring K0 (VK ) may already contain enough information to run an argument similar to the one used in Theorem 2. assuming the conjecture. When one is given a basis of HdR (X) and of HB (X). the period isomorphism is speciﬁed by a period matrix. knowing that the class in the Grothendieck ring is mixed Tate would suﬃce. directly at the level of objects in DMK . Periods are typically transcendental numbers. in the best cases. while being transcendental. Z) = ∗ ∗ Ker(∂i )/Im(∂i+1 ). From the numbertheoretic point of view they are. The isomorphism is induced (over aﬃne pieces) by the pairing of diﬀerential forms and cycles ω⊗γ → γ ω. 2. hence it factors through the Grothendieck ring. ∗ where one identiﬁes Betti cohomology HB (X) = Hom(H∗ (X). they are obtained from a procedure that uses only algebraic data: an algebraic diﬀerential form on an algebraic variety.33) for ω ∈ Ker(d : Ωi (X) → Ωi+1 (X)) and γ ∈ Ker(∂i : Ci (X) → Ci−1 (X)). (2. as we have seen in the example of the determinant hypersurfaces. the most interesting class of numbers beyond the algebraic ones. Q) with the dual of singular homology Hi (X. Thus. arguably.2.7 The algebra of periods Betti and de Rham cohomology are two of the possible Weil cohomologies for smooth projective varieties. an additive invariant).44 Feynman Motives is the case would conversely imply that the motive is mixed Tate.
Motives and periods 45 by algebraic relations. (2. ω. γ)] = [(D. D(1) . D. see also [Ayoub (2007)]. equivalence classes of elements of the form [(X. γ)] = [(X .8 Mixed Tate motives and the logarithmic extensions An interesting class of mixed Tate motives is associated to logarithm and polylogarithm functions [Be˘ ılinson and Deligne (1994)]. a normal crossings divisor D in X.36) (2. (2. dω. D) → (X . one can deﬁne a Qalgebra P as the algebra generated by “formal periods”. Q). D.37) is injective. D(C). . that is. Kontsevich conjectured that the map P → PC ⊂ C given by [(X. D.34) is given by the following relations • Linearity: the expressions (X. ω. ω. f ∗ (ω). D . D. This means that all possible nontrivial relations between periods come from either a change of variable formula or Stokes’ theorem. • Stokes’ formula: ˜ ˜ [(X. Following [Kontsevich and Zagier (2001)]. Let us denote by PC the Qsubalgebra of C generated by periods. γ)].j (Di ∩ Dj ) where Di are the components of the divisor D. • Change of variable formula: given a morphism f : (X. γ)] → γ ω (2. ω. D. 2. An interesting problem is understanding the structure of this algebra: what relations (over Q) exist between periods. an algebraic diﬀerential form ω ∈ Ωdim(X) (X) (not necessarily closed).35) ˜ ˜ where D is the normalization of D and D(1) is the normalization of ∪i. [Bloch (1997)]. The equivalence in (2. γ) are Qlinear in ω and γ. f∗ (γ))]. Q) one has [(X. ∂γ)]. D(C). ω.34) consisting of a smooth (aﬃne) variety X deﬁned over Q. D ) and ω ∈ Ωdim(X ) (X ) and γ ∈ Hdim(X) (X(C). and a class in the relative homology γ ∈ Hdim(X) (X(C).
one can then consider the logarithmic motives Logn .46 Feynman Motives The extensions Ext1 DM(K) (Q(0). deﬁned by Logn = Symn (K).39) is also referred to as the logarithmic motive. This is the Kummer extension QGm (1) → K → QGm (0) → QGm (1)[1]. (2. This extension has period matrix of the form 1 0 log q 2πi . The mixed motive Ln has period matrix 1 0 (n) MLi MLogn−1 (1) (2. and denoted by K = Log.42) where M (1) = M ⊗ Q(1) and L1 = Log. in the form [Bloch (1997)] 0 → Logn−1 (1) → Ln → Q(0) → 0. σ∈Σn (2. instead of the Tate motives Q(n) one considers the Tate sheaves QS (n). Because of the logarithm function log(s) that appears in the period matrix for this extension. QGm (1)). Q(1)) of Tate motives are given by the u Kummer motives M = [Z → Gm ] with u(1) = q ∈ K∗ .41) The polylogarithms appear naturally as period matrices for extensions involving the symmetric powers Logn = Symn (K). When working with Qcoeﬃcients. cf. (2.40) where the symmetric powers of an object in DMQ (Gm ) are deﬁned as Symn (X) = 1 #Σn σ(X n ). instead of working with motives over the base ﬁeld K. Let DM(Gm ) be the Voevodsky category of mixed motives (motivic sheaves) over the multiplicative group Gm . so that one can include denominators in the deﬁnition of projectors. the Kummer extension (2. there is a natural way to assemble the Kummer motives into a unique extension in Ext1 DM(Gm ) (QGm (0). These correspond to the constant sheaf with the motive Q(n) over each point s ∈ S.39) where over the point s ∈ Gm one is taking the Kummer extension Ms = u [Z → Gm ] with u(1) = s. one works with the relative setting of motivic sheaves over a base scheme S. In the case where S = Gm .38) When.43) . (2. (2. [Ayoub (2007)] [Be˘ ılinson and Deligne (1994)].
where τ means transpose and where s (n) (2. ··· logn (s) logn−1 (s) logn−2 (s) 2πi n! (2πi)2 (n−1)! (2πi)3 (n−2)! · · · (2πi)n · · · . . .48) . . . . and Lin (s) = Lin−1 (u) 0 k and with 2πi 0 2πi log(s) (2πi)2 log2 (s) (2πi)2 log(s) = 2πi 2! . i. to the distinguished triangles in DM(Gm ) of the form Logn−1 (1) → Logn → Q(0) → Logn−1 (1)[1]. . ··· . ··· . u equivalently deﬁned (on the principal branch) using the power series sk Lin (s) = . Let Log∞ denote the promotive obtained as the projective limit Log∞ = lim Logn . .e.46) n The motives Log form a projective system under the canonical maps βn : Logn+1 → Logn given by the composition of the morphisms Symn+m (K) → Symn (K) ⊗ Symm (K).44) du . and the map Symm (K) → Q(0) of (2. . −Li2 (s). in the particular case m = 1.45) The period matrices for the motives Logn correspond to the description of Logn as the extension of Q(0) by Logn−1 (1). Lemma 4. ··· (2.Motives and periods 47 with MLi = (−Li1 (s). . n−2 ··· ··· ··· ··· 0 0 0 . −Lin (s))τ . kn Li1 (s) = − log(1 − s).46). . . given by the fact that Symn+m (K) is canonically a direct factor of Symn (K) ⊗ Symm (K). . (2. .35. . · · · . .45) then becomes the inﬁnite matrix 2πi 0 0 ··· 0 ··· 2πi log(s) (2πi)2 0 ··· 0 ··· 2 3 2πi log2!(s) (2πi)2 log(s) (2πi) ··· 0 ··· . . . . . (2. . (2. . as in [Ayoub (2007)]. . . . . n n−1 MLogn (1) 0 0 (2πi)3 . . MLog∞ (1) = .47) ← − n The analog of the period matrix (2. . . . 2πi logn!(s) (2πi)2 log (s) (2πi)3 log (s) · · · (2πi)n (n−1)! (n−2)! .
n V p. which is an isomorphism SW : ⊕p grW (VQ ) ⊗Q C → VC . W• . Tensoring of QMHS is also deﬁned. These deﬁne. expressed in a 2p chosen basis of grW VQ . One has the following deﬁnition as in [Steenbrink (1994)]. as the composition SHT ◦ SW of an isomorW phism SHT : ⊕p gr2p (VQ ) ⊗Q C → VC and a splitting of the weight ﬁltration.C . with an increasing ﬁltration W• V (weight ﬁltration) and a decreasing ﬁltration F • VC for VC = V ⊗Q C (the Hodge ﬁltration). by considering V1 ⊗Q V2 with ﬁltrations Wm (V1 ⊗Q V2 ) = i+j=m Wi (V1 ) ⊗Q Wj (V2 ). F • ) of a ﬁnitedimensional Qvector space. 2p . by tensoring.8. W• .C ) ⊂ F p V2.51) An example of pure Hodge structure of weight −2n is the Tate Hodge structure with V = (2πi)n Q. F p (V1 ⊗Q V2 ) = r+s=p A Qmixed Hodge structure M = (V. Tate twists on Qmixed Hodge structures. For Hodge–Tate structures one has an associated period matrix obtained −1 as in §2 of [Goncharov (1999)]. 2p−1 The condition (2. satisfying W grn VC = F p grW VC ⊕ F n−p+1 grW VC . Deﬁnition 2. 2p and grW M = 0.C ) ⊗C F s (V2.49) ¯ where F • is the complex conjugate of F • with respect to VR ⊂ VC .48 Feynman Motives This can best be expressed in terms of mixed Hodge structures. F • ) is mixed Tate if grW M = ⊕Q(−p). n n (2.q . A morphism M1 → M2 of QMHS is a linear map φ : V1 → V2 such that φ(Wk V1 ) ⊂ Wk V2 and φ(F p V1. W• .q = F p grW VC ∩ F q grW VC . p+q p+q (2. These comprise the analytic side of the theory of motives and they provide one of the possible realizations of categories of mixed motives.49) is equivalent to a Hodge decomposition grW VC = ⊕p+q=n V p.50) (2.C ). F r (V1. These correspond to the pure Tate motives.1. A Qmixed Hodge structure consists of the data M = (V. F • ) is pure of weight n if Wn = V and Wn−1 = 0. hence another way to test complexity of various types of mixed motives. The Hodge structure (V.
an exact faithful tensor functor. Let G be the group of automorphisms (invertible natural transformations) of the ﬁber functor. . 2. the mixed Hodge structure associated to the motives Logn is the one that has as the weight ﬁltrations W−2k the range of multiplication by the matrix MLogn deﬁned as in (2. [Deligne and Milne (1982)]. The main result of the theory of Tannakian categories.e. [Saavedra Rivano (1972)] Let C be a neutral Tannakian category. A Tannakian category C is neutral if K = k. A klinear rigid abelian tensor category C is a Tannakian category if it admits a ﬁber functor. where RepG is the category of ﬁnite dimensional linear representations of G. with ﬁber functor ω : C → Vectk .Motives and periods 49 In the example above. A functor ω : C → C between klinear tensor categories is a tensor functor if there are functorial isomorphisms τ1 : ω(1) → 1 and τX.1. with target the category of ﬁnitedimensional vector spaces over a ﬁeld extension K of k. for all X.2. for any exact sequence 0 → X → Y → Z → 0 in C. while the Hodge ﬁltration F −k is given by the range of multiplication of MLogn on vectors of Cn with the entries from k + 1 to n equal to zero [Bloch (1997)]. the corresponding sequence 0 → ω(X) → ω(Y ) → ω(Z) → 0 in C is also exact. Y ) → HomC (ω(X). a functor ω is additive if the map of Hom sets above is a klinear map. ω(Y )) is injective. Deﬁnition 2. Recall here that a functor ω : C → C is faithful if.9 Categories and Galois groups We review here a type of structure on a category which is more rigid than that of an abelian category we encountered before. is the following statement that reconstructs a group from the category. i. An additive functor ω is exact if.Y : ω(X ⊗ Y ) → ω(X) ⊗ ω(Y ). see [Saavedra Rivano (1972)]. Then ω induces an equivalence of rigid tensor categories ω : C → RepG . Y ∈ Obj(C). and which is suﬃcient to identify it uniquely as a category of ﬁnite dimensional linear representations of a group. ω : C → VectK . namely the notion of Tannakian category. If C and C are klinear categories. of which we are going to see an application to motives in the next section and one to quantum ﬁeld theory in a later chapter. Theorem 2. the mapping ω : HomC (X.45) on vectors in Qn with the ﬁrst k − 1 entries equal to zero.9.9.
The construction of a Tannakian category of mixed Tate motives MT (OV ) and the explicit form of its motivic Galois group are also known for motivic sheaves over the scheme OV of V integers of a number ﬁeld K. Q(1)) are the Kummer motives we have encountered in the previous sections. In fact. the multiplicative group Gm .50 Feynman Motives In fact. The aﬃne group scheme G is referred to as the Tannakian Galois group of C. the Tannakian Galois group of the category of pure motives is reductive. over a number ﬁeld one has an explicit description of the extensions in DM(K) between pure Tate motives in terms of algebraic Ktheory as Ext1 DM(K) (Q(0). here G is really an aﬃne group scheme in the sense that we are going to recall in §5. For example. the latter is the simplest example of a reductive group. The resulting abelian category MT (K) of mixed Tate motives over a number ﬁeld is in fact also a Tannakian category. So is the one of the Tannakian subcategory generated by the pure Tate motives Q(n). Q(n)) = K2n−1 (K) ⊗ Q (2. This means that objects in this category are mixed Tate motives over K that are unramiﬁed at each ﬁnite place v ∈ V . with ﬁber functor ω to Zgraded Qvector spaces.53) where Grw (M ) = W−2n (M )/W−2(n+1) (M ) is the graded structure asso−2n ciated to the ﬁnite increasing weight ﬁltration W . M → ω(M ) = ⊕n ωn (M ) with ωn (M ) = Hom(Q(n). / In this case one also has a Ktheory group parameterizing extensions in the . −2n (2.52) and Ext2 DM(K) (Q(0). In fact. Appendix B. the mixed Tate motives that correspond to extensions in Ext1 DM(K) (Q(0). see [Levine (1993)] and [Levine (1998)]. If a Tannakian category C is semisimple.10 Motivic Galois groups We recalled above that. for V a set of ﬁnite places of K. Grw (M )). over a number ﬁeld K. it is possible to form an abelian category MT (K) of mixed Tate motives. Q(n)) = 0. For example. then it is known that the Tannakian Galois group is reductive. 2.2 below. as the heart of a tstructure inside the triangulated subcategory DMT (K) of the triangulated category DM(K) of mixed motives.
Q(n))∨ . The aﬃne group scheme that gives the motivic Galois group in this case is of the form U Gm . (2. where the reductive group Gm comes from the pure Tate motives. since it provides a motivic Galois group (noncanonically) isomorphic to the Tannakian Galois group of renormalization of [Connes and Marcolli (2004)]. which we review in Chapter 6. as proved in Proposition 2. In fact. Q(n)) = 0. Q(n)). the motivic Galois group of the Tannakian category MT (O[1/N ]) is of the form U Gm . and U is a prounipotent aﬃne group scheme.1.3 of [Deligne and Goncharov (2005)].Motives and periods 51 form K2n−1 (K) ⊗ Q n ≥ 2 1 ∗ ExtDM(OV ) (Q(0). The following special case of this general result of [Deligne and Goncharov (2005)] is especially relevant to the context of renormalization. . the corresponding Lie algebra Lie(U) is freely generated by a set of homogeneous generators in degree n identiﬁed with a basis of the dual of Ext1 (Q(0).10. that takes into account the nontrivial extensions between pure Tate motives. [Deligne and Goncharov (2005)] For K = Q(ζN ) the cyclotomic ﬁeld of level N = 3 or N = 4 and O its ring of integers.54) and Ext2 DM(OV ) (Q(0). where the Lie algebra Lie(U) is (noncanonically) isomorphic to the free graded Lie algebra with one generator en in each degree n ≤ −1. There is however no canonical identiﬁcation between Lie(U) and the free Lie algebra generated by the graded vector space ⊕Ext1 (Q(0). Q(n)) = OV ⊗ Q n=1 0 n ≤ 0. Proposition 2.
a way of formulating Feynman rules directly at the algebrogeometric level of graph hypersurface complements. deﬁned using characteristic classes of singular varieties. although they still satisfy an inclusionexclusion principle. as in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2008a)]. following the results of [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2008b)]. We discuss the diﬀerence between working with aﬃne or projective hypersurfaces in describing Feynman integrals. as proved in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009b)]. These classes also satisfy a form of deletion/contraction relation. following [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009a)]. We begin by describing the parametric form of Feynman integrals and the main properties of the two Kirchhoﬀ–Symanzik graph polynomials involved in this formulation and the graph hypersurfaces deﬁned by the ﬁrst polynomial. that do not descend to the level of isomorphism classes of varieties in the Grothendieck ring. We follow ﬁrst what we referred to as the “bottomup approach” in the introduction. perturbative quantum ﬁeld theory and motives. The motivic nature of this period. by showing how to associate to individual Feynman integrals an algebraic variety. Finally. we show 53 . We then describe. using the classical Cremona transformation and dual graphs. how one can sometimes obtain explicit computations of the classes in the Grothendieck ring of varieties for some families of Feynman graphs. and a (possibly divergent) period integral on a chain with boundary on a normal crossings divisor.Chapter 3 Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties In this chapter we begin to connect the two topics introduced above. We give examples of such Feynman rules that factor through the Grothendieck ring and others. We show. in the form of a hypersurface complement. and the question of whether this (after removing divergences) will be a period of a mixed Tate motive can then be formulated as the question of whether a certain relative cohomology of the hypersurface complement relative to the normal crossings divisor is a realization of a mixed Tate motive.
i ki + N j=1 v.1. {l1 . we show how to reformulate the Feynman integral U (Γ. We describe the advantages and the diﬃculties of this viewpoint. . ranging over the chosen basis of loops. . whose mixed Tate nature is established. a choice of a maximal set of independent loops in the graph. . The incidence matrix = ( v. l } with = b1 (Γ) the ﬁrst Betti number. with i ∈ E(Γ) and k = 1. .7 above. . i. Lemma 3. . . Z). . . In writing the integral (1. tn ) ∈ σn . Z). using determinant hypersurfaces. . .51). / There is a relation between the circuit matrix and the incidence matrix of the graph. . 3.37) in the form of an integration over the topological simplex σn as in (1.e. . since the matrix v. but with a more complicated normal crossings divisor as the second term in the relative cohomology whose motivic nature one wishes to establish.37) depends on the orientation given to the edges of the graph. We then deﬁne another matrix associated to the graph Γ. .1 The parametric Feynman integrals Using the Feynman parameters introduced in §1. .37) we have made a choice of an orientation of the graph Γ.54 Feynman Motives that one can reformulate the period computation underlying the Feynman amplitudes in terms of a simpler hypersurface complement. same orientation ηik = −1 if edge ei ∈ loop lk . which is given as follows.1) 0 if edge ei ∈ loop lk . This holds independently of the choice of the orientation of the graph and the basis of H1 (Γ. pN ) = δ( n i=1 v.i ) and the circuit matrix η = (ηik ) of a graph Γ satisfy the relation η = 0.j pj ) q1 (k1 ) · · · qn (kn ) dD k1 · · · dD kn in the form known as the Feynman parametric representation. given by +1 if edge ei ∈ loop lk . .i involved in writing the conservation laws at vertices in (1.) The ﬁrst step is to rewrite the denominator q1 · · · qn of (1. reverse orientation (3. (We neglect here an overall multiplicative factor in the coupling constants and powers of 2π. Now we also make a choice of a set of generators for the ﬁrst homology group H1 (Γ. the circuit matrix η = (ηik ). in terms of the Feynman parameters t = (t1 .1. . p1 .
with diﬀerent signs. for two given edges ei and ej in a loop lk . the graph polynomial is independent of these choices.3. The Kirchhoﬀ–Symanzik polynomial ΨΓ (t) is independent of the choice of edge orientation and of the choice of generators for H1 (Γ. We then deﬁne the Kirchhoﬀ matrix of the graph.i ηik =− v. Lemma 3. Z).j ηjk so that one obtains v.1.i ηik i = 0. Deﬁnition 3.4. . both incident to a vertex v.2 of [Nakanishi (1971)]. 2 t = (t1 . . The result follows from the observation that.i ηik = 0 for only two edges in the loop lk . The Kirchhoﬀ–Symanzik polynomial ΨΓ (t) of the graph Γ is deﬁned as ΨΓ (t) = det(MΓ (t)). (3. see §2. where † is the transpose and Λ(t) is the diagonal matrix with entries (t1 . tn ).2. as above. (3. since v. .3) where A denotes the aﬃne line over a ﬁeld (here mostly C or R or Q). . Deﬁnition 3.1.4) Notice that. . . one has v. Z). The Kirchhoﬀ–Symanzik matrix MΓ (t) of the graph Γ is the × matrix given by n (MΓ (t))kr = i=1 ti ηik ηir . . . it can be written as MΓ (t) = η † Λ(t)η. tn ) → MΓ (t) = (MΓ (t))kr (3. also known as the Symanzik matrix. independently of the choices of orientations. while the construction of the matrix MΓ (t) depends on the choice of an orientation on the graph Γ and of a basis of H1 (Γ.1. We think of MΓ as a function MΓ : A n → A . .2) Equivalently.Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 55 Proof.
we require that the column vector Λ(t)u is orthogonal to the rows of the circuit matrix η.5. (3.10) . . . hence we can view it as deﬁning a hypersurface in projective space Pn−1 = (An {0})/Gm .37) in terms of an integration over σn using the Feynman parameters.6) ˆ ˆ of which XΓ is the aﬃne cone XΓ = C(XΓ ). After rewriting the denominator of the integrand in (1.j pj = 0. XΓ = {t ∈ Pn−1  ΨΓ (t) = 0}. by variables xr associated to the independent loops in the graph and an integration only over these variables. (3. The determinant is once again unchanged. .9) Lemma 3.56 Feynman Motives Proof. . We view it as a function ΨΓ : An → A. (3.5) The polynomial ΨΓ is by construction a homogeneous polynomial of degree = b1 (Γ). The change of sign in the corresponding row of η † leaves the determinant of MΓ (t) = η † Λ(t)η unaﬀected. and the integration in these variables. .1. we want to replace in the Feynman integral U (Γ. Using the change of variables (3. p1 . . . The momentum conservation conditions in the delta function in the numerator of (1. .8) that is. A change of orientation in a given edge results in a change of sign in one of the columns of η = ηik . .j pj = 0.i ui i=1 N + j=1 v. where A ∈ GL (Z) is the matrix that gives the change of basis. We deﬁne the aﬃne graph ˆ hypersurface XΓ to be the locus of zeros of the graph polynomial ˆ XΓ = {t ∈ An  ΨΓ (t) = 0}.8) one ﬁnds the conservation condition n v. Z) changes MΓ (t) → AMΓ (t)A−1 . using the linear constraints at the vertices. pN ) the variables ki associated to the internal edges.37) give n v.7) and the constraint (3.i ki i=1 N + j=1 v.7) with the constraint n ti ui ηir = 0. (3. i=1 ∀r = 1. (3. (3. A change of basis for H1 (Γ. We set ki = ui + r=1 ηir xr .
each spanning tree has #V (Γ) − 1 edges and is the complement of a set S as above.9 below. This will be useful in Theorem 3. with the sum over spanning forests. such that the removal of all the edges in S leaves a connected graph. Proposition 3.Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 57 Proof. by which we mean here collections of a spanning tree in each connected component.11).1. We see the explicit form of the solution in Proposition 3. This can be seen to be equivalent to the formulation (3. The two equations (3.12) where S ranges over all the subsets S ⊂ Eint (Γ) of = b1 (Γ) internal edges of Γ.10) constitute the Krichhoﬀ laws of circuits applied to the ﬂow of momentum through the Feynman graph. (3.1. The Kirchhoﬀ–Symanzik polynomial ΨΓ (t) of (3.8) and (3.7). In the case of graphs with several connected components. We then have the following description of the resulting term i ti u2 i after the change of variables (3. In fact.4) is given by ΨΓ (t) = T ⊂Γ e∈E(T ) / te . First we give a convenient reformulation of the graph polynomial.7 below.1. In particular they determine uniquely the ui = ui (p) as functions of the external momenta. as follows. Proof. This polynomial is therefore multiplicative over connected components. . The graph polynomial ΨΓ (t) has a more explicit combinatorial description in terms of the graph Γ. This follows immediately from the orthogonality relation between the incidence matrix and circuit matrix of Lemma 3.3).32) ΨΓ (t) = S e∈S te .1. (3.1.11) where the sum is over all the spanning trees T of the graph Γ and for each spanning tree the product is over all edges of Γ that are not in that spanning tree. §623 and [Nakanishi (1971)] §1.11) in terms of spanning trees of the graph Γ (see [Nakanishi (1971)] §1. The polynomial ΨΓ = det(MΓ (t)) can equivalently be described as the polynomial (see [Itzykson and Zuber (2006)].6. one deﬁnes the Kirchhoﬀ–Symanzik polynomial as in (3.
v Pv Pv Ai.i ti (3.4) and PΓ (t.v Ai. VΓ (t. with the polynomial PΓ (t. we will see below that this is a ratio of two homogeneous polynomials in t. i i where RΓ (t) is an N × N matrix. (3.7. §623 for more details. We have the following result. The term i ti u2 is of the form i ti u2 = p† RΓ (t)p. ΨΓ (t. the collections of b1 (Γ) + 1 edges that divide the graph Γ into exactly two connected components Γ1 ∪Γ2 .v ∈V (Γ) Pv (DΓ (t)−1 )v. §623.13) and Pv = e∈Eext (Γ).v ti .v = i=1 −1 v.v so that one obtains the matrix DΓ (t) as in (3.58 Feynman Motives Proposition 3. The constraints on the ui given by the Kirchhoﬀ laws also show that Ai. p) (3. p) is a homogeneous polynomial of degree b1 (Γ) + 1. p) = p† RΓ (t)p + m2 . are determined by the Kirchhoﬀ law (3.15) In the massless case (m = 0). We set VΓ (t.e. p) satisﬁes (3. see [Itzykson and Zuber (2006)].14) Proof. p) of the form PΓ (t. The result is a consequence of the fact that the ui . Proposition 3.13).1.16) of which the denominator is the graph polynomial (3.16) in the massless case. . i. p)m=0 = PΓ (t. The function VΓ (t. with N = #Eext (Γ) with p† RΓ (t)p = v.v = i. p) = C⊂Γ sC e∈C te . there is a matrix Ai. We give a quick sketch of the argument and we refer the reader to [Nakanishi (1971)] and [Itzykson and Zuber (2006)].i v .10).v Pv = ti ui .v such that − v Ai. hence −1 2 i ti u i = i v.t(e)=v pe .v Pv . (3.17) where the sum is over the cutsets C ⊂ Γ. with n (DΓ (t))v. as functions of the external momenta p = (pj ). Thus.1. (3.8. p) .
pN ) can be equivalently written in the form U (Γ. p) /2 . (3. .19) σn where ωn is the volume form on the simplex σn . p1 . .18) where the Pv are deﬁned as in (3. 2 2 sC = v∈V (Γ1 ) Pv = v∈V (Γ2 ) Pv . Proof.v ∈V (Γ) Pv (DΓ (t)−1 )v. (3. Up to a multiplicative constant Cn. (3. The matrix DΓ (t) of (3. We ﬁrst show that we have n .v Pv = 1 ΨΓ (t) sC C⊂Γ e∈C te .14). Theorem 3. . . This is related to the polynomial ΨΓ (t) by ΨΓ (t) = ( e te ) det(DΓ (t)) = T e∈T / te . pN ) = Γ(n − D ) 2 (4π)D /2 ΨΓ (t)D/2 V ωn n−D Γ (t.15) becomes p† RΓ (t)p = v. . Thus. . .n dD x1 · · · dD x =C n ( i=0 ti qi )n det(MΓ (t))−D/2 ( i=0 ti (u2 + m2 ))−n+D i /2 . e where T ranges over the spanning trees of the graph Γ.9.13) has determinant det(DΓ (t)) = T e∈T t−1 . Proof.20) . the function (3.Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 59 The coeﬃcient sC is a function of the external momenta attached to the vertices in either one of the two components. see [Bjorken and Drell (1964)] §8 and [Bjorken and Drell (1965)] §18.1. We can now rewrite the Feynman integral in its parametric form as follows. . We give a brief sketch of the argument and refer the reader to the more detailed treatment in [Nakanishi (1971)]. for m = 0. as the sum of the incoming external momenta.the Feynman integral U (Γ. p1 . .
. p)−n+D /2 ωn . with VΓ (t. The fact that we are dealing with singular hypersurfaces in projective spaces . . after the change of variables (3.1.e. . .r (MΓ )kr xk xr )n The integral can then be reduced by a further change of variables that diagonalizes the matrix MΓ to an integral of the form d D y1 · · · d D y =C 2 (a + k λk yk )n with C . with n = ˆ #Eint (Γ).21) σn Up to a divergent Gammafactor. We observe here that these hypersurfaces are in general singular and with singular locus of positive dimension. ΨΓ (t)−n+D( +1)/2 (3. p)−n+D /2 ωn .60 Feynman Motives where ui = ui (p) as above. p) and ΨΓ (t).15). and the corresponding aﬃne hypersurface XΓ ⊂ An . (1 + k x2 )n k We then write det MΓ (t) = ΨΓ (t) and we use the expression of Proposition 3. p1 . . p) as U (Γ. the left hand side of (3. p) in terms of the polynomials PΓ (t. one is interested in understanding the motivic nature (i. ΨΓ (t)−n+D( +1)/2 (3. + m2 ) + k.5 below for more details. the nature as a period) of the remaining integral I(Γ. = dD x1 · · · dD x . p) as in (3. .7 to express the term ( i ti (u2 + m2 ))−n+D /2 in terms of i 2 ti (ui + m2 ) = i i 2 ti ui + m2 = VΓ (t.n a−n+D /2 k=1 λk −D/2 .22) 3. see §3.n .16) of VΓ (t. pN ) = Γ(n − D ) 2 (4π)D /2 PΓ (t. . p1 .2 The graph hypersurfaces We introduced above the projective hypersurfaces XΓ ⊂ Pn−1 . pN ) = σn PΓ (t.20) reads ( n 2 i=0 ti (ui dD x1 · · · dD x . . using the expression (3. one writes equivalently the integral U (Γ. p). In fact. In the massless case.7).
the motivic nature of this period should be detected by the mixed motive m(Pn−1 X Γ . ΨΓ (t)D/2 (3. (3. It is important to stress the fact that identifying the motivic nature of the relative cohomology above would only suﬃce up to the important issue . (3. Σn (Σn ∩ XΓ )). We consider only the case where the spacetime dimension D of the quantum ﬁeld theory is suﬃciently large. We only make some general considerations about this case in §3. p) only appears in the numerator. p) caused by the additional dependence on the external momenta.22) reduces to the simpler form I(Γ. the Feynman integral with the condition (3. though it is often of signiﬁcant physical interest.Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 61 implies that. whose boundary ∂σn is contained in the normal crossings divisor Σn given by the algebraic simplex (the union of the coordinate hyperplanes). for which the integral (3. .19) in the stable range where n ≤ D /2.26) A possible strategy to showing that the Feynman integrals evaluate to numbers that are periods of mixed Tate motives would be to show that the motive (3. . when we consider motives associated to these geometric objects.25) whose realization is the relative cohomology H n−1 (Pn−1 X Γ .23) can be regarded (modulo the problem of divergences) as a period obtained by integrating an algebraic diﬀerential form deﬁned on the hypersurface complement Pn−1 XΓ over a domain given by the topological simplex σn . In terms of graph hypersurfaces. p1 . These are the graphs with n = D /2. This means that we look at the parametric Feynman integrals (3.23) for n = #Eint (Γ) and = b1 (Γ).25) is mixed Tate. In this range. we will necessarily be dealing with mixed motives. This is one of the main themes that we are going to develop in the rest of the book.24) We will not discuss the unstable range of small D. the algebraic diﬀerential form that is integrated in the parametric representation of the Feynman integral only has singularities along the graph hypersurface XΓ . pN ) = σn ωn . This range covers. Σn (Σn ∩ XΓ )). while the polynomial PΓ (t. because of additional diﬃculties in treating the hypersurfaces deﬁned by the second graph polynomial PΓ (t. in particular. (3. Thus. the special case of the log divergent graphs. . .3 below.
we have XΓ ∩ σn ⊂ XΓ ∩ Σn . the Feynman rules are multiplicative over disjoint unions of graphs. As we saw in §1. so that some method of regularization needs to be introduced to remove the corresponding divergences in the integral. This regularization procedure adds a further complication to the problem of identifying the motivic nature of (3.28) for Γ = Γ1 ∪ · · · ∪ Γk a disjoint union of graphs with Nj = #Eext (Γj ) external edges. and the graph polynomial is then also strictly positive. we argue as in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2008b)] that the multiplicative property of the Feynman rules is more naturally reﬂected by a corresponding multiplicative property of the aﬃne hypersurface complements. Thus. ΨΓ (t) > 0. as can easily be seen by the expression (3. before one can identify the integration PΓ (t. pk ). namely U (Γ.25). We now discuss brieﬂy the diﬀerence between working with the aﬃne or the projective hypersurfaces. which allows one to determine the . . p)−n+D /2 ωn (3. p) = U (Γ1 . .3. with external momenta p = (p1 . These intersections are usually nonempty. pj. Notice that the intersections XΓ ∩σn can only occur on the boundary ∂σn .14 below. While it is natural to work projectively when one has equations deﬁned by homogeneous polynomials.62 Feynman Motives of divergences.1 . In fact. there are various reasons why the aﬃne context appears to be more natural in this case. . which in the projective case is replaced by the more complicated join operation. one also needs to know that the motive remains mixed Tate after the blowups. after we discuss the approach of [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009a)]. In particular. Kreimer (2006)] consists of performing a number of blowups of (strata of) the locus XΓ ∩ Σn . . in the interior of σn all the coordinates te are strictly positive real numbers. with the result of separating the domain of integration and the hypersurface and therefore regularizing the integral by replacing the original integration with one performed in the blown up variety. . Esnault. .Nj ). Divergences occur where the graph hypersurface XΓ meets the domain of integration σn . . Namely. p1 ) · · · U (Γk . The other “multiplicative” property that the Feynman rules satisfy is the one we discussed in the ﬁrst chapter. The regularization method proposed in [Bloch. with pj = (pj.27) −n+D( +1)/2 σn ΨΓ (t) with a period of the motive (3. We will return to this issue in more detail in §3. (3. pk ).11). .25).
with ε(p1 . . pN ) U (Γ.31) and for a non1PI graph obtained by inserting 1PI graphs Γv at the vertices of a tree T it satisﬁes U (Γ) = U (L)#Eint (T ) U (Γv ). p1 .1. pN ). . . while the projective hypersurface complements do not. we have the following result from [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2008b)].2.v∈∂(e) where. . as in (1. An abstract Feynman rule is an assignment of an element U (Γ) in a commutative ring R for each ﬁnite graph Γ. . deﬁne an abstract Feynman rule in the following way. (3. . More precisely.2.Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 63 Feynman integrals of non1PI graphs using the integrals for 1PI graphs. this becomes an actual product #Eint (T ) U (Γ. . . with the property that.35) we write V (Γ. In the particular case of a massive theory m = 0 where one sets all the external momenta equal to zero. Deﬁnition 3. In fact. p1 . pe )pe =0 = m−2 is just a constant depending on the mass parameter m = 0. which is directly relevant to the quantum ﬁeld theory setting. Then the aﬃne hypersurface complements satisfy ˆ ˆ ˆ (3. upon representing an arbitrary (ﬁnite) graph as a tree T with vertices v ∈ V (T ) replaced by 1PI graphs Γv with a number of external edges #Eext (Γv ) = val(v) equal to the valence of the vertex. pv )qe (pv )−1 δ((pv )e −(pv )e ). where ni = #Eint (Γi ). is the fact that the aﬃne hypersurface complements behave multiplicatively as abstract Feynman rules are expected to do. . p)p=0 = U (e. for a disjoint union Γ = Γ1 ∪ · · · ∪ Γk this satisﬁes the multiplicative property U (Γ) = U (Γ1 ) · · · U (Γk ) (3. .30) v∈V (T ) where in this case the edge propagator U (e. . pv )pv =0 .29) v∈V (T ). . (3. p) = V (Γv .33) An XΓ = (An1 XΓ1 ) × · · · × (Ank XΓk ). pN ) = e∈Eext (Γ) qe (pe )−1 . pe )pe =0 U (Γv . . . . Let Γ = Γ1 ∪ · · · ∪ Γk be a disjoint union of ﬁnite graphs. pN ) = ε(p1 . one obtains the expression for the Feynman integral of the resulting graph Γ as V (Γ. One can then. following [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2008b)]. .e∈Eint (T ). (3. Lemma 3.32) v∈V (T ) A ﬁrst diﬀerence one encounters between the projective graph hypersurˆ faces XΓ and the aﬃne XΓ . .2.
34) is then induced by the isomorphism in (3.35) while if either Γi happened to be a forest. Then the projective hypersurface complement Pn1 +n2 −1 XΓ is a Gm bundle over the product (Pn1 −1 XΓ1 ) × (Pn2 −1 XΓ2 ). then one has k ΨΓ (t) = i=1 ΨΓ1 (ti.1 . .33). . XΓ → (Pn1 −1 XΓ1 ) × (Pn2 −1 X Γ2 ) (3.1 : · · · : t1. For instance. This means that the aﬃne hypersurface XΓ is a union k ˆ XΓ = i=1 ˆ (An1 × · · · × Ani−1 × XΓi × Ani+1 × · · · × Ank ).1 : · · · : t2.. where t = (te ) = (ti.1 : · · · : t1.1 : · · · : vt2. To see this. notice that if Γ is not a forest..64 Feynman Motives Proof. and the map (3.. the map (3. uv = 0. Instead of getting directly a product of the complements one gets a torus bundle. This is no longer the case if Γ is a forest.n1 : vt2.1 : · · · : t1.. Equivalently.34) .33). Using the deﬁnition of the graph polynomials in terms of the determinant ΨΓ (t) = det MΓ (t) of the Kirchhoﬀ matrix of the graph. The hypothesis that neither graph is a forest ensures that there is a regular map Pn1 +n2 −1 given by (t1.. then there is a regular map ˆ An XΓ → Pn−1 XΓ .n2 ).n1 ). and (3. which implies that the hypersurface complement is then given by the product (3.ni are the edge variables of the internal ˆ edges of Γ. that neither graph is a forest (the assumption is not necessary in the aﬃne case). with (u : v) ∈ P1 .ni ).n2 )). the corresponding XΓi would be empty.1 : · · · : ut1. (t2.. respectively over XΓ1 and XΓ2 with vertices Pn2 −1 and Pn1 −1 . . moreover. (t2. one sees easily that if Γ = Γ1 ∪ · · · ∪ Γk is a disjoint union.1 : · · · : t2.. respectively.n1 ). suppose given a disjoint union of two graphs Γ = Γ1 ∪ Γ2 and assume.n2 )) is a copy of the multiplicative group Gm given by all the points of the form (ut1. observe that in this case the projective hypersurface XΓ is a union of cones C n2 (XΓ1 ) and C n1 (XΓ2 ) in Pn1 +n2 −1 ..35) would not be deﬁned everywhere.j )i=1.n2 ) → ((t1. (3.n1 : t2. .j=1. ti.34) is surjective and the ﬁber over a point ((t1. Under the assumption that neither Γi is a forest.k.1 : · · · : t2. The situation with the projective hypersurfaces is more complicated.
on the complement of YΓ (p) = {t ∈ Pn−1  PΓ (t.Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 65 3.37) ˆ ˆ or else on the complement of the union of hypersurfaces YΓ (p) ∪ XΓ . the polynomials PΓ (t. §18. and the diﬀerential form of the parametric Feynman integral is then deﬁned on the complement of the hypersurface (family of hypersurfaces) ˆ YΓ (p) = {t ∈ An  PΓ (t. though some of the same arguments extend to the other case as in [Marcolli (2008)]. This is certainly the case within what we referred to as the “stable range”. Away from this stable range. The general type of arguments described above using the graph hypersurˆ faces XΓ should then be adapted to the case of the Landau varieties. A 1PI graph Γ satisﬁes the generic condition on the external momenta if. In such cases. can occur in the interior of the domain. some of the divergences of the integral.e. for p in a dense open set in the space of external momenta.3 Landau varieties For simplicity we restrict here everywhere to the case where the diﬀerential form in the parametric Feynman integral has singularities only along the ˆ graph hypersurface XΓ deﬁned by the vanishing of the graph polynomial ΨΓ (t). p) also appears in the denominator. t). so that we avoid cancellations of common factors. is typically not the range of physical interest for theories where D = 4 and the number of loops and internal edges violates the above inequality. Deﬁnition 3. p) and ΨΓ . i. p) = 0} (3. p) is homogeneous of degree b1 (Γ) + 1. are sometimes referred to as the Landau varieties. however. (3. coming from the intersection of the hypersurface YΓ (p) with the domain of integration σn . it is also convenient to make the following assumption on the polynomials PΓ (t. We only discuss here the case where −n + D /2 ≥ 0. The ˆ hypersurfaces YΓ (p) deﬁned by the vanishing of PΓ (p. For simplicity. however. since PΓ (·.1. and D. for a ﬁxed value of the external momenta p. see [Bjorken and Drell (1965)]. for D (considered as a variable) suﬃciently large so that n ≤ D /2. again depending on the values of n. the situation is more complicated because of the explicit dependence on the additional parameters p. This. the second graph polynomial PΓ (t. not only on its boundary as in the case of XΓ .36) or in projective space. p) and ΨΓ (t) have no common factor. . In particular.3. p) = 0}.
1. e2 } ⊂ Eext (Γ). the simplest possible conﬁguration of external momenta is the one where one puts all the external momenta to zero. one has PΓ (t.39) Thus.v2 te ) e∈T / te .e = sC for the cutset C = T c ∪ {e }. In terms of spanning trees. These cut sets consist of the complement of a spanning tree T and an edge of Tv1 . if the polynomial ΨΓ (t) divides (3. t) = ΨΓ (t) · L(t). and this would give (LT (t) − L(t)) T e∈T / te ≡ 0.40) by LT (t) = p2 e∈Tv1 . t) = p2 T ( e ∈Tv1 . (3.v2 te . (3. . except for a pair pe1 = p = −pe2 associated to a choice of a pair of external edges {e1 . Upon writing the polynomial PΓ (t.40).38) where sT.66 Feynman Motives Recall that PΓ (t. p) in the form (3. one would have PΓ (p. we obtain in this case PΓ (p. These are all the terms that correspond to cut sets C such that the vertices v1 and v2 belong to diﬀerent components. The parameterizing space of the external momenta is the hyperplane in the aﬃne space AD·#Eext (Γ) obtained by imposing the conservation law pe = 0. If we denote the linear functions of (3.v2 .38). e∈Eext (Γ) (3. p) = T e ∈T sT.18) 2 2 sC = v∈V (Γ1 ) Pv = v∈V (Γ2 ) Pv to get sC = p2 for all the nonzero terms in this (3.41) we see that. We use as in (3.40). for a degree one polynomial L(t). (3. Consider for simplicity the case where the polynomial ΨΓ is irreducible. in this case. Let vi be the unique vertex attached to the external edge ei of the chosen pair. p) is deﬁned in terms of external momenta and cutsets through the functions Pv and sC as in Proposition 3. Pv1 = p = −Pv2 .v2 ⊂ T is the unique path in T without backtrackings connecting the vertices v1 and v2 . We then have.e te e∈T c te .40) where Tv1 .8.
.42) is given by Ω = ∆(ωn ). where ∆ : Ω → Ω ﬁeld k k−1 (3. . but one can also reformulate it in terms of the projective hypersurface complement. one can regard the Feynman integral U (Γ. the validity of the condition of Deﬁnition 3. .4 Integrals in aﬃne and projective spaces As we have seen above. ∂ti (3.44) (3. assuming we are in the stable range of suﬃciently high D where −n + D /2 ≥ 0.Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 67 for all t.3. 3.3. One then sees. for example.1 can be checked algorithmically to be satisﬁed for large classes of 1PI graphs. one may be able to ﬁnd vertices and momenta as above such that the degree one polynomials LT (t) are all equal to the same L(t). we ﬁrst recall some basic facts about diﬀerential forms on aﬃne and projective spaces and their relation. p) ˆ as computed over the aﬃne hypersurface complement An XΓ .43) is the operator of contraction with the Euler vector E= i ti ∂ . . Gindikin. vk−1 ). following mostly [Dimca (1992)].42) The relation between the volume form dt1 ∧ · · · ∧ dtn and the homogeneous form Ω of degree n of (3. or an ˆ aﬃne hypersurface XΓ ⊂ An . . the homogeneous graph polynomial ΨΓ deﬁnes either a projective hypersurface XΓ ⊂ Pn−1 . vk−1 ) = ω(E. Thus. for a graph that is not 1PI. for = b1 (Γ) the number of loops. . see also [Gelfand. . that the 1PI condition on the graph Γ is necessary in order to have the condition of Deﬁnition 3. . with n = #Eint (Γ). the aﬃne cone over XΓ . . In order then to reformulate in projective space Pn−1 integrals originally deﬁned in aﬃne space An . though a complete combinatorial characterization of the graphs satisfying these properties does not appear to be known. In fact. v1 . The projective analog of the volume form ωn = dt1 ∧ · · · ∧ dtn is given by the form n Ω= i=1 (−1)i+1 ti dt1 ∧ · · · ∧ dti ∧ · · · ∧ dtn .1. (3.45) ∆(ω)(v1 . Generally. and Graev (1980)].
tn ) → π(t) = (t1 : · · · : tn ).180 and [Dolgachev (1982)]) ˆ Given ω ∈ Ωk (D(f )). . (see [Dimca (1992)]. since the sequence 0 → Ωn → Ωn−1 → · · · → Ω1 → Ω0 → 0 is exact at all but the last term. . and consider the form ω/f m on An . tn ] be the ring of polynomials of An . Proposition 3. and by D(f ) = An Xf and D(f ) = Pn−1 Xf the hypersurface complements. We denote by Xf = {t ∈ An  f (t) = 0} n−1 the aﬃne hypersurface and by Xf = {π(t) ∈ P  f (t) = 0} the projective ˆ ˆ hypersurface. homogeneous of degree n.44). .1.42). Let . Let Rm denote the subset of homogeneous polynomials of degree m. with η ∈ Ωk deg(f ) . p.48) and with Ω = ∆(dt1 ∧ · · · ∧ dtn ) the (n − 1)form (3. any (n − 1)form on D(f ) ⊂ Pn−1 can be written as hΩ . where ∆ is the contraction (3.2. . We then obtain the following result formulating integrals in aﬃne spaces in terms of integrals of pullbacks of forms from projective spaces.45) with the Euler vector ﬁeld E of (3. Let ω ∈ Ωk deg(f ) be a closed kform. which is hom mogeneous of degree m deg(f ).4.47) ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ In particular. Similarly.4. m (3. fm with η ∈ Ωk deg(f ) .68 Feynman Motives Let R = C[t1 . fm with h ∈ Rm deg(f )−n (3.46) m f We then have the following characterization of the pullback along π : ˆ D(f ) → D(f ) of forms on D(f ). Thus. let Ωk denote the Rmodule of kforms on An and let Ωk denote the subset of m kforms that are homogeneous of degree m. one can write π ∗ (ω) = ∆(η) . Proposition 3. the pullback π ∗ (ω) ∈ Ωk (D(f )) is characterized by the properties of being invariant under the Gm action on An {0} and of satisfying ∆(π ∗ (ω)) = 0. . With the notation introduced above. Let π : An {0} → Pn−1 be the standard projection t = ˆ (t1 . we can always write a form ω ∈ Ωk (D(f )) as η ω = m . . Let f be a homogeneous polynomial function f : An → A of degree deg(f ). (3. . .
Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 69 σ ⊂ An {0} be a kdimensional domain with boundary ∂σ = ∅. Then the integration of ω/f m over σ satisﬁes m deg(f ) σ ω = fm ∂σ ∆(ω) + fm df ∧ σ ∆(ω) . f m+1 (3. we remove here the divergent Γfactor from the parametric Feynman integral and we concentrate on the residue given by the integration over the simplex σ as in (3. df ω = f dω − m df ∧ ω. for a form ω that is homogeneous of degree m deg(f ).49). . we have d ∆(ω) fm =− ∆(dω) ∆(df ∧ ω) +m . fm f m+1 (3.51) Since the form ω is closed. Using (3.50) where. Recall that we have ([Dimca (1992)].55) below. f m+1 ∂σ σ σ which gives (3. Thus.54) this gives ∆(ω) = m deg(f ) fm ω − fm df ∧ ∆(ω) . we obtain from the above d ∆(ω) fm = m deg(f ) ω df ∧ ∆(ω) − .54) (3. dω = 0. In the range −n + D( + 1)/2 ≥ 0 we consider the Feynman integral ˆ U (Γ.53) By Stokes’ theorem we have ∆(ω) = fm d σ ∂σ ∆(ω) fm . f m+1 (3.52) (3. For simplicity. and we have ∆(df ∧ ω) = deg(f ) f ω − df ∧ ∆(ω). p) as deﬁned on the aﬃne hypersurface complement An XΓ and we use the result above to reformulate the parametric Feynman integrals in terms of integrals of forms that are pullbacks to An {0} of forms on a hypersurface complement in Pn−1 . fm f m+1 (3. [Dolgachev (1982)]) d ∆(ω) fm =− ∆(df ω) .49) Proof.
p) = 1 C(n. D. The coeﬃcient C(n. p)−n+D /2 ωn with ωn = dt1 ∧ · · · ∧ dtn the volume form on An . p)a ∆(ωn ) + Ψm Γ df ∧ σ with a = −n + D /2 and m = −n + D( + 1)/2. We assume the condition of Deﬁnition 3.2 above. ) = (−n + D( + 1)/2) . can be computed as U (Γ. D. p)a ∆(ωn ) Ψm+1 Γ . p) = PΓ (t.4.55) with VΓ (t. ) = m deg(f ). D. Consider on An the form given by ∆(ω)/f m . where f = ΨΓ and m = −n+D( +1)/2. ) in (3. and ω as above. with m and f as above. m. hence it is the pullback of a form η on D(f ) ⊂ Pn−1 . )−1 1 ( m deg(f ) df ∧ σ ∂σ ∆(ω) ) f m+1 PΓ (t. First notice that.e. ∂σ PΓ (t.3. . is contained in a fundamental domain of the action of the multiplicative group C∗ on Cn {0}. ) π ∗ (η) + ∂σ σ df ∧ π ∗ (η) f .58). the form ∆(ω)/f m is Gm invariant on An {0}. it also satisﬁes ∆(α) = 0. p)−n+D σ dt1 ∧ · · · −n+D( +1)/2 ΨΓ ∆(ω) + fm /2 ∧ dtn = σ ω fm = = C(n.3. f on An . Also notice that the domain of integration σ ⊂ An .4. D. ) is given by C(n. the parametric Feynman integral U (Γ. p) = σ VΓ −n+D /2 D/2 ΨΓ ωn . Applying the result of Proposition 3.58) Proof. D. D. given by the simplex σ = σn = { i ti = 1. we obtain PΓ (t. with f . Under the generic condition on the external momenta. since it is of the form α = ∆(ω)/f m . (3.56) is given by C(n. p)/ΨΓ (t. (3. for a generic choice of the external momenta the polynomials PΓ and ΨΓ have no common factor. i. and assuming that −n + D /2 ≥ 0. The coeﬃcient C(n. p). hence it is given by (3. ti ≥ 0}.70 Feynman Motives Proposition 3. Moreover.57) π ∗ (η) = m . and ω = PΓ (t. since the polynomial ΨΓ is homogeneous of degree and PΓ is homogeneous of degree +1.56) where π : An {0} → Pn−1 is the projection and η is the form on the hypersurface complement D(f ) in Pn−1 with ∆(ω) (3. (3.1.
Let Γ be a graph with deg ΨΓ > 2. with ΨΓ a polynomial of degree m. while if T is a spanning tree of Γ which does not contain e. The resulting polynomial is therefore of the form ΨΓe . as we discuss more in detail in §3. given any two C(XΓe ) and C(XΓe ). the singular locus of XΓ is just given by the equations ∂e ΨΓ = 0. . In fact. hence the polynomial ∂e ΨΓ consists of only those monomials of ΨΓ that contain the variable te . Ongoing work [Bergbauer and Rej (2009)] gives an analysis . it makes it especially useful to adopt methods from singularity theory to study these hypersurfaces. then T e is no longer a spanning tree of Γe . the hypersurfaces XΓ tend to have singularity loci of low codimension. the zero locus Z(ΨΓe ) ⊂ Pn−1 is a cone C(XΓe ) over the graph hypersurface XΓe ⊂ Pn−2 with vertex at the coordinate point ve = (0. where Γe is the graph obtained from Γ by removing the edge e. 0. Thus. so the corresponding terms disappear in passing from ΨΓ to ΨΓe . For example. To see that these cones do not intersect transversely. . 0. Moreover. one can see in terms of spanning trees that. notice that. In fact. where Z(∂e ΨΓ ) is the zero locus of the te derivative. Thus. since XΓ is deﬁned by a homogeneous equation ΨΓ (t) = 0. . This can easily be seen by the following observation. . First observe that. this has important consequences from the motivic viewpoint. the Euler formula mΨΓ (t) = ∂ e te ∂te ΨΓ (t) implies that ∩e Z(∂e ΨΓ ) ⊂ XΓ . where Γe is the graph obtained by removing the edge e of Γ. The singular locus of XΓ is given by the intersection of cones over the hypersurfaces XΓe . we are going to see in the following sections how characteristic classes of singular varieties can be employed in this context.9 below.Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 71 3. As we observe again later. for e ∈ E(Γ). if T is a spanning tree containing the edge e. Proof. The cones C(XΓe ) do not intersect transversely. the vertex of one cone is contained in the graph hypersurface spanning the other cone. . . 0) with te = 1. . in the case where deg ΨΓ > 2.1. where one sets te = 1.5. Lemma 3. The variables te appear in the polynomial ΨΓ (t) only with degree zero or one. These provide a way of measuring how singular a hypersurface is. then T is still a spanning tree of Γe and the corresponding monomial mT of ΨΓe is the same as the monomial mT in ΨΓ without the variable te .5 Nonisolated singularities The graph hypersurfaces XΓ ⊂ Pn−1 deﬁned by the vanishing of the polynomial ΨΓ (t) = det(MΓ (t)) usually have nonisolated singularities. 1.
Deﬁnition 3. . 3. . This was pointed out in [Bloch (2007)] and we illustrate the principle here in the particular completely explicit case of the “banana graphs” computed in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2008a)]. t2 · · · tn ). We follow [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2008a)]. Then G(C) is a subvariety of Pn−1 × Pn−1 with projections G(C) ?? ??π2 ?? ? C Pn−1 _ _ _ _ _ _/ Pn−1 π1 (3.6.61) The Cremona transformation is a priori deﬁned only away from the algebraic simplex of coordinate axes Σn := {(t1 : · · · : tn ) ∈ Pn−1  i ti = 0} ⊂ Pn−1 .62) (3. Let Sn ⊂ Pn−1 be deﬁned by the ideal ISn = (t1 · · · tn−1 .59) Let G(C) denote the closure of the graph of C. (3. .60) We introduce the following notation. (3. one can still use the image of the graph hypersurface under the Cremona transformation to derive useful information on its motivic nature. Also.72 Feynman Motives of the singular locus of the graph hypersurfaces using a formula for the Kirchhoﬀ polynomials ΨΓ under insertion of subgraphs at vertices. Even for graphs that are nonplanar. let L be the hyperplane deﬁned by the equation L = {(t1 : · · · : tn ) ∈ Pn−1  t1 + · · · + tn = 0}.63) . t1 t3 · · · tn .1. (3. which for planar graphs relates the hypersurface of a graph with that of its dual. as shown in the recent results of [Bloch (2008)].6 Cremona transformation and dual graphs A useful tool to study the algebraic geometry of the projective graph hypersurfaces XΓ is the Cremona transformation. . The standard Cremona transformation of Pn−1 is the map C : (t1 : · · · : tn ) → 1 1 : ··· : t1 tn . t1 · · · tn−2 tn .
61) generated by the partial derivatives of the equation of the algebraic simplex (i. Σn cuts out a divisor with simple normal crossings on L.64) Using (3. it is in fact well deﬁned also on the general point of Σn .6. The Cremona transformation (the horizontal rational map in the diagram (3. These three points. Properties (3) and (4) of the proposition above only play a role implicitly in the proof of Proposition 3. its locus of indeterminacies being only the singularity subscheme Sn of the algebraic simplex Σn .59) can be rewritten as (t1 : · · · : tn ) → (t2 · · · tn : t1 t3 · · · tn : · · · : t1 · · · tn−1 ). An example where it is easier to visualize the eﬀect of the Cremona transformation is the case where n = 3. Let C.7. so that the resulting image is again a triangle of three lines in P2 . the singular locus of Σn ). are blown up in G(C) and each replaced by a line.64).1 below.Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 73 though. as we now show.60)) is an isomorphism of the complements of the two triangles. so we leave here the details to the reader. The proper transforms of the 1dimensional components of Σ3 are then blown down by the other map π2 of (3. . The components of the map deﬁning C given in (3.e.2. and L be as above. (3. the map π1 : G(C) → Pn may be identiﬁed with the blowup of Pn along the subscheme Sn deﬁned by the ideal ISn of (3. The properties (3) and (4) then follow. L intersects every component of Sn transversely. each two intersecting in a point. one can view the algebraic simplex Σ3 in the projective plane P2 as a union of three lines.60). π1 : G(C) → Pn−1 is the blowup along Sn . Lemma 3. the zerodimensional strata of Σ3 . G(C). (1) (2) (3) (4) The indeterminacy locus of C is Sn . Sn . In this case. Proof.
but also on the choice of the embedding ι : Γ → S 2 .65) and edges E(Γ∨ ) given by adding an edge between two vertices v. the dual graph has #E(Γ∨ ) = #E(Γ). ι2 of the same graph Γ. (3.66) Notice that it is somewhat misleading to talk about the dual graph Γ∨ . (3. since in fact this depends not only on Γ itself. w ∈ V (Γ∨ ) for each edge of Γ that is in the boundary between the regions of S 2 ι(Γ) containing the points v and w. One can give examples of diﬀerent embeddings ι1 . Thus. for which the corresponding dual graphs Γ∨ and 1 Γ∨ are topologically inequivalent. 2 .74 Feynman Motives The dual graph Γ∨ of a planar graph Γ is deﬁned by choosing an embedding ι : Γ → S 2 in the sphere and then taking as vertices v ∈ V (Γ∨ ) a point in each connected component of S 2 ι(Γ). #V (Γ∨ ) = b0 (S 2 ι(Γ)). as the following ﬁgure shows.
.59). sn ) e from which (3. C(XΓ ∩ (Pn−1 Σn )) = XΓ∨ ∩ (Pn−1 Σn ). . .68) Proof.Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 75 dual graph dual graph It was shown in [Bloch (2007)] that the Cremona transformation relates the graph hypersurfaces of Γ and its dual Γ∨ in the following way (see also [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2008a)]). . tn ). and the fact that there is a bijection between complements of spanning tree T in Γ and spanning trees T in Γ∨ obtained by shrinking the edges of T in Γ and taking the dual graph of the resulting connected graph. . tn ). . (3. 1 The third equality uses the fact that #E(Γ) = #E(Γ∨ ) and #V (Γ∨ ) = b0 (S 2 Γ). Lemma 3. . .6. (3. This follows from the combinatorial identity ΨΓ (t1 .68) follows. . Suppose given a planar graph Γ with #E(Γ) = n. .67) 1 e∈E(Γ) hence the graph hypersurfaces are related by the Cremona transformation C of (3. . . . with dual graph Γ∨ . . . Then the graph polynomials satisfy −1 ΨΓ (t1 . . . the identity (3. .67) gives ΨΓ (t1 . tn ) = ( e∈E(Γ∨ ) s−1 )ΨΓ∨ (s1 .3. . tn ) = ( te ) ΨΓ∨ (t−1 . . . so that deg ΨΓ + deg ΨΓ∨ = #E(Γ). . . . Written in the coordinates (s1 : · · · : sn ) of the target Pn−1 of the Cremona transformation. tn ) = T ⊂Γ e∈E(T ) te / =( =( e∈E(Γ) te ) e∈E(Γ) te ) T ⊂Γ T ⊂Γ∨ −1 e∈E(T ) te −1 e∈E(T ) te / −1 = ( e∈E(Γ) te )ΨΓ∨ (t−1 . .
this formula shows that. The banana graph Γn has graph polynomial 1 1 ΨΓ (t) = t1 · · · tn ( + · · · + ). t1 tn Thus.69) is proved using the method of Cremona transformation and dual graphs described above. The formula (3. This is given by the following result. one observes easily . up to an overall multiplicative factor proportional to the sum of external momenta at a vertex. Proof. L−1 L (3.7 Classes in the Grothendieck ring An example of an inﬁnite family of Feynman graphs for which the classes in the Grothendieck ring K0 (V) can be computed explicitly was considered in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2008a)]. the parametric integral in this case is (t1 · · · tn )( 2 −1)(n−1)−1 ωn σn D ΨΓ (t)( 2 −1)n D .1.76 Feynman Motives 3. These are known as the banana graphs: for n ≥ 2 the graph Γn in this family has two vertices of valence n and n parallel edges between them.7. We sketch the proof here and refer the reader to [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2008a)] for more details. We gave in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2008a)] an explicit formula for the class in the Grothendieck ring of the graph hypersurfaces for the banana graphs. The class in the Grothendieck ring of the hypersurface XΓn of the nth banana graph is explicitly given by the formula [XΓn ] = Ln − 1 (L − 1)n − (−1)n − − n (L − 1)n−2 . Proposition 3. the class [XΓn ] manifestly lies in the mixed Tate part Z[L] of the Grothendieck ring. In fact.69) In particular. in this example.
one ﬁnds that XΓn ∩ Σn = Sn . This then gives [XΓn ] = [XΓn ∩ Σn ] + [XΓn (XΓn ∩ Σn )]. this calculation also yields as a consequence the value for the topological Euler characteristic of the (complex) variety XΓn (C). is also given in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2008a)] along with the more complicated explicit computation of the Chern–Schwartz–MacPherson characteristic class of the hypersurfaces XΓn . .Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 77 that. one can still consider a dual hypersurface XΓ obtained as the image of XΓ under the Cremona transformation and still have an ∨ isomorphism of XΓ and XΓ away from the algebraic simplex Σn . One then checks that the complement in this hyperplane of the algebraic simplex has class [L (L ∩ Σn )] = [L] − [L ∩ Σn ] = Tn−1 − (−1)n−1 T+1 where T = [Gm ] = [A1 ] − [A0 ] is the class of the multiplicative group. The latter has class [Sn ] = [Σn ] − nTn−2 . which is of the form χ(XΓn ) = n + (−1)n .69) L = [A1 ] has Euler characteristic χ(A1 ) = 1. More generally. based on the use of characteristic classes of singular varieties. as one can see from the fact that the Euler characteristic is a ring homomorphism from K0 (V) to Z and that in (3. for n ≥ 3. the dual graph Γ∨ is simply a polyn gon with n sides. XΓ (XΓ ∩ Σn ) C ∨ XΓ ∨ (XΓ ∩ Σn ). In particular. the use of the Cremona transformation method can lead to interesting results even in the case where the graphs are not necessarily ∨ planar. the scheme of singularities of Σn . In fact. in the case of the banana graphs. A diﬀerent computation of the Euler characteristic χ(XΓn ). Moreover. since the class in the Grothendieck ring is a universal Euler characteristic. and therefore the associated graph hypersurface XΓ∨ = L n is just a hyperplane in Pn−1 . where one uses the Cremona transformation to identify [XΓn ] = [Sn ] + [L (L ∩ Σn )].
rather than over a ﬁxed number of vertices. rather than in terms of individual graphs. [van Suijlekom (2006)] and also [Kreimer and van Suijlekom (2009)] in the setting of Dyson–Schwinger equations. Bloch proved in [Bloch (2008)] a very interesting result showing that.31) and (3. where one knows by the general result of [Belkale and Brosnan (2003a)] that nonmixedTate contributions will eventually appear. #Aut(Γ) where the sum is over all graphs with a ﬁxed number of vertices. individual Feynman graphs do not represent observable physical processes and only sums over graphs (usually with ﬁxed external edges and external momenta) can be physically meaningful. is always in Z[L]. although the individual hypersurfaces XΓ of Feynman graphs are not always mixed Tate motives.8 Motivic Feynman rules We have discussed above a deﬁnition of “abstract Feynman rules” based on the multiplicative properties (3. Although in the more physical setting it would be natural to sum over graphs with a given number of loops and with given external momenta. with sums over graphs. By applying this method to the complete graph ΓN on N vertices. 3. This shows that there will be very interesting cancellations between the classes [XΓ ] at least for a suﬃciently large number of loops.78 Feynman Motives ∨ although in nonplanar cases XΓ is no longer identiﬁed with the graph hypersurface of a dual graph XΓ∨ . it is shown in [Bloch (2008)] that the class SN = #V (Γ)=N [XΓ ] N! . the result of [Bloch (2008)] suggests that a more appropriate formulation of the conjecture on Feynman integrals and motives should perhaps be given directly in terms that involve the full expansion of perturbative quantum ﬁeld theory. if one sums the classes over graphs with a ﬁxed number of vertices one obtains a class that is always in the Tate part Z[L] of the Grothendieck ring. in quantum ﬁeld theory. More precisely. as in [van Suijlekom (2007)].32) that express the expectation value of Feynman integrals associated to arbitrary Feynman graphs of a . This approach via families of graphs also ﬁts in well with the treatment of gauge theories and Slavonov–Taylor identities within the context of the Connes–Kreimer approach to renormalization via Hopf algebras. This result ﬁts in well with the general fact that.
with the same formal properties as the original Feynman integrals with respect to the combinatorics of graphs.8. For a connected graph Γ that is obtained by inserting 1PI graphs Γv at the vertices of a ﬁnite tree T .Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 79 given scalar quantum ﬁeld theory ﬁrst in terms of connected graphs and then in terms of 1PI graphs. More precisely.2. If Γ is a forest with n = #E(Γ). Thus. As we discuss later on in the book.2. that the hyˆ persurface complement An XΓ where the parametric Feynman integral is computed behaves itself like a Feynman integral. 1 2 ˆ Lemma 3.2. namely the ring of immersed conical varieties introduced in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2008b)]. is also satisﬁed by the hypersurface complements. when we think of the Cartesian ˆ ˆ product (An1 XΓ1 ) × (An2 XΓ2 ) as deﬁning the product operation in a suitable commutative ring. in the case of a connected graphs Γ obtained by inserting 1PI graphs at vertices of a tree. Also notice that if Γ1 and Γ2 are graphs joined at a single vertex. the hypersurface complement satisﬁes ˆ ˆ An XΓ = A#E(T ) × (A#Eint (Γv ) XΓ ).2 shows that the hypersurface complement An XΓ satisﬁes the multiplicative property (3. One can ﬁrst observe.70) v v∈V (T ) ˆ Proof. One can similarly see that the second property of Feynman rules.31) and (3. then the same argument given in Lemma 3. in the sense that it satisﬁes the multiplicative properties (3.31). (3. This more abstract deﬁnition of Feynman rules allows one to make sense of algebrogeometric and motivic U (Γ).32) reducing connected graphs to 1PI graphs and inverse propagators. (An1 XΓ ) × · · · × (An#V (T ) XΓ v1 v#V (T ) . Lemma 3. these two observations combine to give ˆ ˆ ) × A#E(T ) . then An XΓ = An .2 above that for a disjoint union of graphs Γ = Γ1 ∪ Γ2 the hypersurface complement splits multiplicatively as ˆ ˆ ˆ An XΓ = (An1 XΓ ) × (An2 XΓ ).32). we have seen in Lemma 3. the multiplicative property (3. as in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2008b)]. We will specify the ring more precisely below as a reﬁnement of the Grothendieck ring of varieties.2 for the disjoint union still gives the desired result.1. this will be closely related to deﬁning Feynman rules in terms of characters of the Connes–Kreimer Hopf algebra of Feynman graphs and to the abstract form of the Birkhoﬀ factorization that gives the renormalization procedure for Feynman integrals.
32) as an immediate consequence of Lemma 3.2. By imposing equivalence under isomorphisms one falls back on the usual Grothendieck ring K0 (V). if these varieties are considered up to isomorphism. This leads to the following reﬁnement of the Grothendieck ring of varieties ([Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2008b)]).1.31) and (3. This then satisﬁes both (3.31) and (3. ˆ which expresses the fact that XΓ is the aﬃne cone over XΓ .2. for a given commutative ring R. by identifying varieties not up to isomorphism. one can deﬁne an Rvalued algebrogeometric Feynman rule.71) This satisﬁes (3. The relation between the classes in the Grothendieck ring of the aﬃne and projective hypersurface complements is given by the formula ˆ [An XΓ ] = (L − 1)[Pn−1 XΓ ]. The ring F is then the receptacle of the universal algebrogeometric Feynman rule given by ˆ U(Γ) = [An XΓ ] ∈ F.80 Feynman Motives ˆ In the above. .8.32). as in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2008b)] in terms of a ring homomorphism I : F → R by setting ˆ U(Γ) := I([An ]) − I([XΓ ]) and by taking as value of the inverse propagator U(L) = I([A1 ]). Deﬁnition 3. (3.8. one can consider the hypersurface complements An XΓ modulo certain equivalence relations. but only up to linear changes of coordinates in an ambient aﬃne space. and one imposes the inclusion–exclusion relation [X] = [X Y ] + [Y ] for closed subvarieties Y ⊂ X.2 and Lemma 3. with the inclusionexclusion and product relations [V ∪ W ] = [V ] + [W ] − [V ∩ W ] [V ] · [W ] = [V × W ]. The ring of immersed conical varieties FK is generated by classes [V ] of equivalence under linear coordinate changes of varieties V ⊂ AN deﬁned by homogeneous ideals (hence the name “conical”) immersed in some arbitrarily large aﬃne space. Thus. one can deﬁne a Feynman rule with values in the Grothendieck ring of varieties ˆ ˆ U(Γ) := [An XΓ ] = [An ] − [XΓ ] ∈ K0 (V). For example. One can also impose a weaker equivalence relation.
Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties
81
A Feynman rule deﬁned in this way is motivic if the homomorphism I : F → R factors through the Grothendieck ring K0 (VK ). In this case the inverse propagator is the Lefschetz motive (or the propagator is the Tate motive). The reason for working with FK instead is that it allowed us in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2008b)] to construct invariants of the graph hypersurfaces that behave like algebrogeometric Feynman rules and that measure to some extent how singular these varieties are, and which do not factor through the Grothendieck ring, since they contain speciﬁc information on how the ˆ XΓ are embedded in the ambient aﬃne space A#Eint (Γ) .
3.9
Characteristic classes and Feynman rules
In the case of compact smooth varieties, the Chern classes of the tangent bundle can be written as a class c(V ) = c(T V ) ∩ [V ] in homology whose degree of the zero dimensional component satisﬁes the Poincar´–Hopf theoe rem c(T V ) ∩ [V ] = χ(V ), which gives the topological Euler characteristic of the smooth variety. Chern classes for singular varieties that generalize this property were introduced independently, following two diﬀerent approaches, in [Schwartz (1965)] and [MacPherson (1974)]. The two deﬁnitions were later proved to be equivalent. The approach followed by Marie H´l`ne Schwartz generalized the deﬁee nition of Chern classes as the homology classes of the loci where a family of k + 1 vector ﬁelds become linearly dependent (for the lowest degree case one reads the Poincar´–Hopf theorem as saying that the Euler characterise tic measures where a single vector ﬁeld has zeros). In the case of singular varieties a generalization is obtained, provided that one assigns some radial conditions on the vector ﬁelds with respect to a stratiﬁcation with good properties. The approach followed by Robert MacPherson is instead based on functoriality. The functor F of constructible functions assigns to an algebraic variety V the Zmodule F(V ) spanned by the characteristic functions 1W of subvarieties W ⊂ V and to a proper morphism f : V → V the map f∗ : F(V ) → F(V ) deﬁned by f∗ (1W )(p) = χ(W ∩ f −1 (p)), with χ the Euler characteristic. A conjecture of Grothendieck–Deligne predicted the existence of a unique natural transformation c∗ between the functor F and the homol
82
Feynman Motives
ogy (or Chow group) functor, which in the smooth case agrees with c∗ (1V ) = c(T V ) ∩ [V ]. MacPherson constructed this natural transformation in terms of data of Mather classes and local Euler obstructions and deﬁned in this way what is usually referred to now as the Chern–Schwartz–MacPherson (CSM) characteristic classes of (singular) algebraic varieties cSM (X) = c∗ (1X ). It is convenient here to work inside an ambient space, for instance an ambient projective space, so that one can regard c∗ (1X ) as taking values in the homology (or Chow group) of the ambient PN , so that the characteristic class cSM (X) = c∗ (1X ) can be computed for X an arbitrary locally closed subset of PN , without requiring a compactness hypothesis. This is important in order to have an inclusionexclusion relation for these classes, as explained below. The results of [Aluﬃ (2006)] show that, in fact, it is possible to compute these classes without having to use Mather classes and Euler obstructions that are usually very diﬃcult to compute. Most notably, these characteristic classes satisfy an inclusionexclusion formula for a closed Y ⊂ X, cSM (X) = cSM (Y ) + cSM (X Y ), but are not invariant under isomorphism, hence they are naturally deﬁned on classes in FK but not on K0 (VK ). For a smooth locally closed X in some ambient projective space PN , the class cSM (X) can be obtained by a computation using Chern classes of sheaves of diﬀerentials with logarithmic poles in a resolution of the closure ¯ X of X. Then inclusionexclusion gives a way to compute any embedded cSM without recourse to MacPherson’s Euler obstructions or ChernMather classes. The CSM classes give good information on the singularities of a variety: for example, in the case of hypersurfaces with isolated singularities, they can be expressed in terms of Milnor numbers. To construct a Feynman rule out of these Chern classes, one uses the ˆ following procedure, [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2008b)]. Given a variety X ⊂ AN , N one can view it as a locally closed locus in P , hence one can apply to its characteristic function 1X the natural transformation c∗ that gives an ˆ element in the Chow group A(PN ) or in the homology H∗ (PN ). This gives as a result a class of the form c∗ (1X ) = a0 [P0 ] + a1 [P1 ] + · · · + aN [PN ]. ˆ One then deﬁnes an associated polynomial given by GX (T ) := a0 + a1 T + · · · + aN T N . ˆ
Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties
83
ˆ It is in fact independent of N as it stops in degree equal to dim X. It is by construction invariant under linear changes of coordinates. It also satisﬁes an inclusionexclusion property coming from the fact that the classes cSM satisfy inclusionexclusion, namely GX∪Y (T ) = GX (T ) + GY (T ) − GX∩Y (T ) ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ It is a more delicate result to show that it is multiplicative, namely that the following holds. Theorem 3.9.1. The polynomials GX (T ) satisfy ˆ GX×Y (T ) = GX (T ) · GY (T ). ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ Proof. The proof of this fact is obtained in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2008b)] using an explicit formula for the CSM classes of joins in projective spaces, where the join J(X, Y ) ⊂ Pm+n−1 of two X ⊂ Pm−1 and Y ⊂ Pn−1 is deﬁned as the set of (sx1 : · · · : sxm : ty1 : · · · : tyn ), with (s : t) ∈ P1 , and is related to the product in aﬃne spaces by the property that the ˆ ˆ product X × Y of the aﬃne cones over X and Y is the aﬃne cone over J(X, Y ). One has c∗ (1J(X,Y ) ) = ((f (H) + H m )(g(H) + H n ) − H m+n ) ∩ [Pm+n−1 ], where c∗ (1X ) = H n f (H) ∩ [Pn+m−1 ] and c∗ (1Y ) = H m g(H) ∩ [Pn+m−1 ], as functions of the hyperplane class H in Pn+m−1 . We refer the reader to [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2008b)] for more details. The resulting multiplicative property of the polynomials GX (T ) shows ˆ that one has a ring homomorphism ICSM : F → Z[T ] deﬁned by ˆ ICSM ([X]) = G ˆ (T )
X
and an associated Feynman rule ˆ UCSM (Γ) = CΓ (T ) = ICSM ([An ]) − ICSM ([XΓ ]). This is not motivic, i.e. it does not factor through the Grothendieck ring K0 (VK ), as can be seen by the example given in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2008b)] of two graphs (see the ﬁgure below) that have diﬀerent UCSM (Γ), CΓ1 (T ) = T (T + 1)2 CΓ2 (T ) = T (T 2 + T + 1) but the same hypersurface complement class in the Grothendieck ring, ˆ [An XΓ ] = [A3 ] − [A2 ] ∈ K0 (V).
i
84
Feynman Motives
There is an interesting positivity property that the CSM classes of the graph hypersurfaces XΓ appear to satisfy, namely the coeﬃcients of all the powers H k in the expression of the CMS class of XΓ as a polynomial in H are positive. This was observed in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2008a)] on the basis of numerical computations of these classes, done using the program of [Aluﬃ (2003)], for sample graphs. As the graphs that are accessible to computer calculations of the corresponding CSM classes are necessarily combinatorially simple (and all planar), it is at present not known whether the observed positivity phenomenon holds more generally. This property may be related to other positivity phenomena observed for CSM classes of similarly combinatorial objects such as Schubert varieties [Aluﬃ and Mihalcea (2006)]. We see in the last chapter that, in the case of quantum ﬁeld theories on noncommutative spacetimes and the corresponding modiﬁcation of the graph polynomials, positivity fails in nonplanar cases.
3.10
Deletioncontraction relation
We report here brieﬂy the recent results of [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009b)] on deletion–contraction relations for motivic Feynman rules. We have seen above that one can construct a polynomial invariant CΓ (T ) of graphs that is an algebrogeometric Feynman rule in the sense of [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2008b)], which does not factor through the Grothendieck ring of varieties but satisﬁes an inclusion–exclusion principle. The polynomial CΓ (T ) is deﬁned in terms of CSM classes of the graph hypersurface complement. Several well known examples of polynomial invariants of graphs are examples of Tutte–Grothendieck invariants and are obtained as specializations of the Tutte polynomial of graphs, and they all have the property that they satisfy deletion–contraction relations, which make it possible to compute the invariant indictively from simpler graphs. These relations express the invariant of a given graph in terms of the invariants of the graphs obtained by deleting or contracting edges.
this form of deletion– contraction relations suﬃces to obtain explicit recursive relation for certain operations on graphs. • If e ∈ E(Γ) is a bridge then TΓ (x.12 below). However. y). Since such relations make it possible to control the invariant for more complicated graphs in terms of combinatorially simpler ones. In particular. Among them one has well known invariants such as the chromatic polynomial and the Jones polynomial. y) = 1. However. y) + TΓ/e (x. the validity or failure of such relations can provide useful information that can help to identify where the motivic complexity of the graph hypersurfaces increases beyond the mixed Tate case (see §3. We start by recalling the case of the Tutte polynomial of graphs and the form of the deletion–contraction relation in that well known classical case.Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 85 The results of [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009b)] investigate to what extent motivic and algebrogeometric Feynman rules satisfy deletion–contraction relations. it was shown in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009b)] that the polynomial CΓ (T ) is not a specialization of the Tutte polynomial. The Tutte polynomial TΓ ∈ C[x. The latter. Tutte–Grothendieck invariants are specializations of the Tutte polynomial. contains a term expressed as the class of an intersection of hypersurfaces which does not appear to be easily controllable in terms of combinatorial information alone. such as replacing an edge by multiple parallel copies. y) = TΓ e (x. y) = yTΓ/e (x. (3. A ﬁrst observation of [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009b)] is that the Tutte polynomial can be regarded as a Feynman rule. a form of deletion–contraction relation does hold for the motivic Feynman ˆ rule [An XΓ ] ∈ K0 (V). y). Here we call an edge e a “bridge” if the removal of e disconnects the graph Γ. in the sense that it has the e (x. y) = xTΓ • If Γ has no edges then TΓ (x. y] of ﬁnite graphs Γ is completely determined by the following properties: • If e ∈ E(Γ) is neither a looping edge nor a bridge the deletion– contraction relation holds: TΓ (x. unlike the relation satisﬁed by Tutte– Grothendieck invariants.72) • If e ∈ E(Γ) is a looping edge then TΓ (x. y) . and a “looping edge” if e starts and ends at the same vertex.
since for Γ = Γ1 ∪Γ2 we can identify subgraphs γ ⊂ Γ with V (γ) = V (Γ) and E(γ) ⊂ E(Γ) with all possible pairs of subgraphs (γ1 . we get TΓ (x.73). y) TΓ2 (x. The property for connected and 1PI graphs follows from the fact that. y). (3.1. (3. y) = x#Eint (T ) TΓ ∪e∈Eint (T ) e (x. y) = γ=(γ1 .86 Feynman Motives right multiplicative properties over disjoint unions and over decompositions of connected graphs in terms of trees and 1PI graphs.10. Thus. y). The multiplicative property under disjoint unions of graphs is clear from the closed expression (3.74) where the sum is over subgraphs γ ⊂ Γ with vertex set V (γ) = V (Γ) and edge set E(γ) ⊂ E(Γ). One can ﬁrst observe that the properties listed above for the Tutte polynomial determine the closed form TΓ (x. y] of the form (3. Proposition 3. with b0 (γ) = b0 (γ1 ) + b0 (γ2 ). y). Then one obtains an abstract Feynman rule with values in R = C[x. The Tutte polynomial invariant deﬁnes an abstract Feynman rule with values in the polynomial ring C[x. y) = γ⊂Γ (x − 1)#V (Γ)−b0 (Γ)−(#V (γ)−b0 (γ)) (y − 1)#E(γ)−#V (γ)+b0 (γ) . when writing a connected graph in the form Γ = ∪v∈V (T ) Γv . with Γv 1PI graphs inserted at the vertices of the tree T . with inverse propagator U (L) = x. γ2 ) with V (γi ) = V (Γi ) and E(γi ) ⊂ E(Γi ). This can be written equivalently as TΓ (x.74). y) = γ⊂Γ (x − 1)b0 (γ)−b0 (Γ) (y − 1)b1 (γ) . . the internal edges of the tree are all bridges in the resulting graph.73) Proof. by assigning U (Γ) = TΓ (x. hence the property of the Tutte polynomial for the removal of bridges gives TΓ (x. y]. This is sometime referred to as the “sum over states” formula for the Tutte polynomial.γ2 ) (x − 1)b0 (γ1 )+b0 (γ2 )−b0 (Γ) (y − 1)b1 (γ1 )+b1 (γ2 ) = TΓ1 (x. and #E(γ) = #E(γ1 ) + #E(γ2 ). #V (Γ) = #V (Γ1 ) + #V (Γ2 ).
In the case where e ∈ E(Γ) is a looping edge. y(T )).2 of [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2008b)]. For example. to taking a cone on the graph hypersurface and intersecting it with the hyperplane deﬁned by the coordinate of the looping edge. (T + 1) is the inverse propagator of the algebrogeometric Feynman rule U (Γ) = CΓ (T ) and the property of abstract Feynman rules for 1PI graphs connected by a bridge gives (3. . (3. if CΓ (T ) has to be a specialization of the Tutte polynomial. adding a looping edge to a graph corresponds.) This implies that. the relations for bridges and looping edges imply that one has to identify x(T ) = T + 1 and y(T ) = T . the polynomial CΓ (T ) satisﬁes the relation CΓ (T ) = (T + 1)CΓ e (T ). One can then observe.10. however. (See §3. for the triangle graph one has CΓ (T ) = T (T + 1)2 while the specialization TΓ (x(T ). Proof. We show that one cannot ﬁnd functions x = x(T ) and y = y(T ) such that CΓ (T ) = TΓ (x(T ). The property 1 (3.5 and §2. However. Proposition 3.Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 87 It follows that Tutte–Grothendieck invariants such as the chromatic and Jones polynomials can also be regarded as Feynman rules. The polynomial invariant CΓ (T ) is not a specialization of the Tutte polynomial. that the algebro–geometric Feynman rule ˆ CΓ (T ) = ICSM ([An XΓ ]) that we discussed in the previous section is not a specialization of the Tutte polynomial.76) In fact.75). this is not compatible with the behavior of the invariant CΓ (T ) on more complicated graphs. (3.2. First notice that. in terms of graph hypersurfaces.75) In fact. we have CΓ (T ) = T CΓ/e (T ).76) then follows since the image of the class [A ] is the inverse propagator (T +1). if e ∈ E(Γ) is a bridge.9 above and Proposition 2. y(T )) = (T + 1)2 + (T + 1) + T . This implies that the universal algebrogeometric Feynman rule with values in the Grothendieck ring F of immersed conical varieties satisﬁes U(Γ) = ([A1 ] − 1)U(Γ/e) ˆ if e is a looping edge of Γ and U(Γ) = [An XΓ ] ∈ F.
tn ) = tn F (t1 . We consider an edge e that is not a bridge or looping edge. (3. and we use the notation Y for the projective cone in PN . (3. Then the polynomials for the deletion Γ e and contraction Γ/e of the edge e = en are both nontrivial and given by ∂ΨΓ = ΨΓ e and G := ΨΓ tn =0 = ΨΓ/e . with (t1 : . . Let Γ be a graph with n > 1 edges.82) F := ∂tn The Kirchhoﬀ polynomial ΨΓ satisﬁes ΨΓ (t1 . then [An XΓ ] = L · [An−1 XΓ e] XΓ/e ].3. As above we consider the Kirchhoﬀ polynomial ΨΓ and the aﬃne and projective graph ˆ hypersurfaces XΓ ⊂ An and XΓ ⊂ Pn−1 . . An answer is given in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009b)] for the motivic case. (3. for the Feynman rule U(Γ) = [An ˆ XΓ ] ∈ K0 (V). then the projective version of (3.77) also holds. . .80) (5) Under the same hypotheses. We assume deg ΨΓ = > 0. . . .81) Proof. . (3. (1) If e ∈ E(Γ) is neither a bridge nor a looping edge then the following deletion–contraction relation holds: [An XΓ ] = L · [An−1 (XΓ e ∩ XΓ/e )] − [An−1 = L · [An−1 XΓ e ]. : tn ) the corresponding variables in Pn−1 . .83) ˆ Given a projective hypersurface Y ⊂ P we denote by Y the aﬃne ¯ cone in AN . . . (3. . N −1 (3. tn−1 ) + G(t1 . . . (3. e = en . . the Euler characteristics satisfy χ(XΓ ) = n + χ(XΓ e ∩ XΓ/e ) − χ(XΓ e ). (1) and (4): Let Γ be a graph with n ≥ 2 edges e1 . in the form [Pn−1 XΓ ] = L · [Pn−2 (XΓ e ∩ XΓ/e )] − [Pn−2 XΓ e ]. .10.79) (4) If Γ contains at least two loops. .77) (2) If the edge e is a bridge in Γ. . that is.88 Feynman Motives One can then investigate what kind of deletion–contraction relations hold in the case of motivic and algebro–geometric Feynman rules. en−1 . Theorem 3.78) (3) If e is a looping edge in Γ. . tn−1 ). then [An XΓ ] = (L − 1) · [An−1 XΓ e] = (L − 1) · [An−1 XΓ/e ].
It then follows that. Therefore. This means that XΓ ∩ X Γ e = XΓ e ∩ X Γ/e .87) . Thus. Indeed. (3. Theorem 3. ΨΓ (p) = F (p) = 0. F ) = (F. −→ Pn−2 e Let q = (q1 : · · · : qn−1 ). the projection restricts to a regular map XΓ (XΓ ∩ X Γ e) → Pn−2 . in the Grothendieck ring K0 (V) we have identities [Pn−1 XΓ ] = [Pn−1 (XΓ ∩ X Γ e )] − [Pn−2 XΓ e ]. this is a polynomial of degree exactly 1 in t. assume deg F > 0. the projection Pn−1 Pn−2 from p = (0 : · · · : 0 : 1) acts as (t1 : · · · : tn ) → (t1 : · · · : tn−1 ). We show that this line meets XΓ (XΓ ∩ X Γ e ) transversely at one point. The intersection with XΓ is determined by the equation tF (q1 : · · · : qn−1 ) + G(q1 : · · · : qn−1 ) = 0.86) where L = [A ] is the Lefschetz motive and XΓ/e is the hypersurface G = 0. so that deg ΨΓ > 1. Since F (q) = 0.84) where XΓ e is the hypersurface in Pn−2 deﬁned by the polynomial F . The image is clearly contained in Pn−2 this map induces an isomorphism XΓ (XΓ ∩ X Γ e) ∼ XΓ and the statement is that XΓ . (3. (3. In this case. hence p ∈ XΓ ∩ X Γ e . e. F ) = (tn F + G. as needed.85) If Γ has at least two loops. In fact. then we also have [Pn−1 XΓ ] = L · [Pn−2 1 (XΓ e ∩ XΓ/e )] − [Pn−2 XΓ e ]. then XΓ e = X Γ e = ∅ and the statement is trivial. G). (3.3. in a more general context that includes the case under consideration.Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 89 It is proved in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009b)]. the ideal of XΓ ∩ X Γ e is (ψ. and determines a reduced point. If F is constant (that is. and hence p ∈ X (XΓ ∩ X Γ e ). The line from p to q is parametrized by (q1 : · · · : qn−1 : t). if deg ψ = 1). that the projection from the point (0 : · · · : 0 : 1) induces an isomorphism XΓ (XΓ ∩ X Γ e) −→ Pn−2 ∼ XΓ e.
77) follows by observing that. This general result on deletioncontraction relations for motivic Feynman rules was applied in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009b)] to analyze some operations on graphs. It then follows that X Γ e ∩ X Γ/e contains the point p = (0 : · · · : 0 : 1). (3) If e is a looping edge. then ΨΓ is divisible by te . then F is not constant.80).77) follows from the formula for the projective case. then deg F > 0. . One such operation replaces a chosen edge e in a graph Γ with m parallel edges connecting the same two vertices ∂(e).84) the identity χ(Pn−1 (XΓ ∪ X Γ e )) = 0. then ΨΓ does not depend on the variable te and F ≡ 0. (2) If e is a bridge. which have the property that the problem of describing the intersection XΓ e ∩ XΓ/e can be bypassed and the class of more complicated graphs can be computed inductively only in terms of combinatorial data. the statement about the Euler characteristics follows from (3. and one has XΓ e = XΓ/e . In the case where deg XΓ = 1 one has χ(XΓ ) = n − 1.90 Feynman Motives If deg XΓ > 1. In this case. The equation for XΓ/e is the same. One has from (3. if deg XΓ > 1. hence XΓ ∩ X Γ e and XΓ e ∩ XΓ/e contain the origin. while it can be checked directly for the remaning case with deg XΓ = 1. The aﬃne version (3. The equation for XΓ/e is obtained by dividing ΨΓ through by te . Another operation consists of replacing an edge with a chain of triangles (referred to as a “lemon graph”). so that G ≡ 0. The equation for XΓ e is ΨΓ = 0 again. and it follows that [Pn−1 (X Γ e ∩ X Γ/e )] = L · [Pn−2 (XΓ e ∩ XΓ/e )]. the classes in the Grothendieck ring satisfy [AN [AN XΓ ∩ X Γ (XΓ e e] = (L − 1) · [PN −1 (XΓ ∩ X Γ (XΓ e e )] ∩ XΓ/e )] = (L − 1) · [PN −1 ∩ XΓ/e )]. hence X Γ e = ∅. but viewed in one fewer variables. The ﬁbers of the projection Pn−1 (X Γ e ∩ X Γ/e ) → Pn−2 1 XΓ e with center p are then all isomorphic to A . Then (3. (5) Under the hypothesis that deg XΓ > 1.
Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties
91
The latter operation can easily be generalized to chains of polygons as explained in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009b)]. Assume that e is an edge of Γ, and denote by Γme the graph obtained from Γ by replacing e by m parallel edges. (Thus, Γ0e = Γ e, and Γe = Γ.) Theorem 3.10.4. Let e be an edge of a graph Γ. Let T = L − 1 = [Gm ] ∈ K0 (V). (1) If e is a looping edge, then U(Γme )
m≥0
sm = eTs U(Γ m!
e).
(3.88)
(2) If e is a bridge, then U(Γme )
m≥0
sm = m!
T·
eTs − e−s + s eTs + 1 U(Γ T+1
e).
(3.89)
(3) If e is not a bridge nor a looping edge, then U(Γme )
m≥0
eTs − e−s sm = U(Γ) m! T+1 + eTs + Te−s U(Γ e) T+1 eTs − e−s + s eTs − U(Γ/e). T+1 (3.90)
The result is proved in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009b)] by ﬁrst deriving the relation in the case of doubling an edge and then repeating the construction. We do not report here the details of the proof, and we refer the readers to the paper for more details, but it is worth pointing out that the main step that makes it possible to obtain in this case a completely explicit formula in terms of U(Γ), U(Γ e) and U(Γ/e) is a cancellation that occurs in the calculation of the classes in the operation of doubling an edge. In fact, one ﬁrst expresses the class U(Γ2e ) as ˆ ˆ U(Γ2e ) = L · [An (XΓ ∩ XΓ )] − U(Γ),
o
where n = #E(Γ) and Γo denotes the graph obtained by attaching a looping edge named e to Γ/e. In the notation we used earlier in this section, the equation for Γo is given by the polynomial te G. Using inclusion–exclusion for classes in the Grothendieck ring, it is then shown in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009b)] that one has ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ [XΓ ∩ XΓ ] = [XΓ/e ] + (L − 1) · [XΓ e ∩ XΓ/e ].
o
92
Feynman Motives
Thus, one obtains U(Γ2e ) = (L − 2) · U(Γ) + (L − 1) · U(Γ e) + L · U(Γ/e).
This expression no longer contains classes of intersections of graph hypersurfaces, and can be iterated to obtain the general formula for U(Γme ). It is shown in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009b)] that the recursive relation obtained in this way for the operation of multiplying edges is very similar in form to the recursive relation that the Tutte polynomial satisﬁes under the same operation. In fact, they both are solutions to a universal recursive relation with diﬀerent initial conditions. One also derives from the same universal recursion a conjectural form for the recursion relation, under the operation of multiplying edges Γ → Γme , for the polynomial ˆ invariant CΓ (T ) = ICSM ([An XΓ ]). The operation of replacing an edge with a chain of triangles, or “lemon graph” depicted in the ﬁgure produces, similarly, a recursive formula for the motivic Feynman rule U(ΓΛ ), where ΓΛ is the graph obtained from Γ m m by replacing an edge e by a lemon graph Λm .
e !
Proposition 3.10.5. Let e be an edge of a graph Γ, and assume that e is neither a bridge nor a looping edge. Let ΓΛ be the “lemonade graph” m obtained by building an mlemon fanning out from e. Then U(ΓΛ )sm = m
m≥0
1 1 − T(T + 1)s − T(T + 1)2 s2 e) + (T + 1)2 s U(Γ/e) .
· (1 − (T + 1)s) U(Γ) + (T + 1)Ts U(Γ
This result is proven in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009b)] by ﬁrst obtaining a recursive formula for the classes U(Λm ) of the lemon graphs. This is a succession of operations where one ﬁrst doubles an edge and then splits the added edge by inserting a vertex. The ﬁrst operation is covered by the expression derived before for the class U(Γ2e ) while splitting an edge with a vertex corresponds to taking a cone over the corresponding graph
Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties
93
hypersurface. Thus, both operations are well understood at the level of classes in the Grothendieck ring and they give the recursive relation U(Λm+1 ) = T(T + 1)U(Λm ) + T(T + 1)2 U(Λm−1 ), for m ≥ 1, which gives then
m
U(Λm ) = (T + 1)m+1
i=0
m − i m−i T . i
It is interesting to observe that the sequence am = U(Λm ) is a divisibility sequence, in the sense that U(Λm−1 ) divides U(Λn−1 ) if m divides n. This is the property satisﬁed, for instance, by the sequence of Fibonacci numbers. (See [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009b)], Corollary 5.12 for more details.) Returning to the classes U(ΓΛ ), one then shows that these also satisfy m a relation of the form U(ΓΛ ) = fm (T)U(Γ) + gm (T)U(Γ m where the fm , gm , hm satisfy the with diﬀerent seeds given by f0 (T) = 1 , g (T) = 0 , 0 h (T) = 0 ,
0
e) + hm (T)U(Γ/e),
same recursion that gives U(Λm ), but f1 (T) = T2 − 1 g1 (T) = T(T + 1) h1 (T) = (T + 1)2 .
For more details we refer the reader to [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009b)]. 3.11 Feynman integrals and periods
Numerical calculations performed in [Broadhurst and Kreimer (1997)] gave very strong evidence for a relation between residues of Feynman integrals and periods of mixed Tate motives. In fact, the numerical evidence indicates that the values computed in the log divergent case are Qlinear combinations of multiple zeta values, which, as we recalled in the previous chapter, can be realized as periods of mixed Tate motives. Multiple zeta values are real numbers obtained by summing convergent series of the form 1 ζ(n1 , . . . , nr ) = (3.91) n n , k1 1 · · · kr r
0<k1 <k2 <···<kr
where the ni are positive integers with nr ≥ 2. There are ways to realize multiple zeta values as periods of mixed Tate motives; see [Goncharov
94
Feynman Motives
(2001)], [Goncharov and Manin (2004)], [Terasoma (2002)]. In [Goncharov and Manin (2004)], for instance, as well as in [Brown (2006)], multiple zeta values are explicitly realized as periods on the moduli spaces of curves. It is the occurrence of multiple zeta values in Feynman integral computations, along with the fact that these numbers arise as periods of mixed Tate motives, that gave rise to the idea of a deeper relation between perturbative quantum ﬁeld theory and motives. Among the examples of Feynman graphs computed in [Broadhurst and Kreimer (1997)], the wheel with n spokes graphs give simple zeta values ζ(2n − 3). It is also shown in [Broadhurst and Kreimer (1997)] that the nonplanar graph given by the complete bipartite graph K3,4 evaluates to the double zeta value ζ(5, 3). Recent results of [Brown (2009a)] for multiloop Feynman diagrams provide a new method for evaluating the case of primitive divergent graphs (i.e. those that do not contain any smaller divergent subgraph, and are therefore primitive elements in the Connes–Kreimer Hopf algebra). This shows the occurrence of values at roots of unity of multiple polylogarithms, in addition to the multiple zeta values observed in [Broadhurst and Kreimer (1997)]. The multiple polylogarithm function, introduced in [Goncharov (2001)] is deﬁned as Lin1 ,...,nr (x1 , . . . , xr ) =
0<k1 <k2 <···<kr
xk1 · · · xkr r 1 n n . k1 1 · · · kr r
(3.92)
It is absolutely convergent for xi  < 1 and it extends analytically to an open domain in Cr as a multivalued holomorphic function. As shown in [Goncharov (2001)], the multiple polylogarithms are also associated to objects in the category of mixed Tate motives. 3.12 The mixed Tate mystery
The results recalled in the previous section suggest that, in its strongest possible form, one could formulate a conjecture as follows. Conjecture 3.12.1. Are all residues of Feynman graphs of perturbative scalar ﬁeld theories (possibly after a suitable regularization and renormalization procedure is used) periods of mixed Tate motives? In this form the conjecture is somewhat vaguely formulated, but it does not matter since it is unlikely to hold true in such generality. One can
In the stable range for D. As we have seen earlier in this chapter. if one ignores momentarily the issue of divergences. or the union of the two.12. The fact that the classes [XΓ ] can be arbitrarily far from the mixed Tate part Z[L] of the Grothendieck ring K0 (V) seems to indicate at ﬁrst that Conjecture 3. only a part of the cohomology of the complement of the hypersurface XΓ is involved in the period computation of the Feynman integral. In fact. the evaluation of the integral PΓ (p. Kontsevich formulated the conjecture that the graph hypersurfaces XΓ themselves may always be mixed Tate motives. namely H n−1 (Pn−1 X Γ . one can write the Feynman integrals in a form that looks exactly like a period of an algebraic variety obtained as a hypersurface complement.12. Question 3. it was later disproved in [Belkale and Brosnan (2003a)].93) where n = #Eint (Γ) and Σn = {t ∈ Pn−1  i ti = 0} denotes the normal crossings divisor given by the union of the coordinate hyperplanes. which would imply Conjecture 3. However. this hypersurface is the graph variety XΓ . one is working with a relative cohomology. the XΓ generate the Grothendieck ring of varieties. In fact. the scalar ﬁeld theory. Σn (Σn ∩ XΓ )).Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 95 however reﬁne the question and formulate it more precisely in the following form. one is in fact considering only a certain relative cohomology group. modulo the issue of divergences which needs to be handled separately.12. using the Feynman parameters. ignoring divergences. They proved that the varieties XΓ can be arbitrarily complicated as motives: indeed. and the renormalization procedure are the residues of Feynman graphs periods of mixed Tate motives? As we have seen above. Although numerically this conjecture was at ﬁrst veriﬁed up to a large number of loops in [Stembridge (1998)]. Under what conditions on the graphs.94) σn can be seen as a pairing of a diﬀerential form on the hypersurface complement with a chain σn with boundary ∂σn ⊂ Σn contained in the normal crossings divisor. the residue of .1. t)−n+D /2 ωn ΨΓ (t)−n+( +1)D/2 (3. and we have seen that the question of whether the integral above (i.1 cannot hold. while in the unstable range it is the Landau variety YΓ .e. that is not necessarily the case.2. Thus. (3.
not only is the conjecture in its stronger form 3.93) is a realization of a mixed Tate motive m(Pn−1 XΓ .12. Kreimer (2006)]. which became available in the preprint [Brown (2009b)] while this book was going to print.94). a weaker statement than the relative cohomology (3. In fact. (3. As we mentioned in relation to the recent result of [Bloch (2008)] on sums of graphs with ﬁxed number of vertices. Some new work of Francis Brown.93) being mixed Tate may still suﬃce to prove that the residue of the Feynman integral is a period of a mixed Tate motive. but not much is understood on speciﬁc conditions that would ensure that (3. identiﬁes speciﬁc families of graphs for which (3. Σn XΓ ∩ Σn ).2. consisting of so called “zigzag graphs”. it is due to a very subtle interplay between the geometry of the graph hypersurface XΓ and the locus of intersection XΓ ∩ Σn . so that the situation is further complicated. Notice that this locus is also the one that is responsible for the divergences of the integral (3.93). Esnault.95) This could still be the case even though the motive of XΓ itself need not be mixed Tate. at present.95) is in fact mixed Tate. this observation makes it clear that. Very nice recent results of [Doryn (2008)] compute the middle cohomology of the graph hypersurfaces for a larger class of graphs than those originally considered in the work of [Bloch.12. if something like Conjecture 3. This identiﬁes in a signiﬁcant class of examples a mixed Tate piece of the cohomology.95).95) is shown to give a mixed Tate motive and for which the corresponding Feynman integrals evaluate to multiple zeta values. but not a necessary one. according to the formulation of Question 3. However.96 Feynman Motives the Feynman graph after dropping the divergent Gamma factor in the parametric Feynman integral) evaluates to a period of a mixed Tate motive can be addressed in terms of the question of whether the relative cohomology (3.12. Even without introducing immediately the further diﬃculties related to eliminating divergences. since the period only captures a piece of the relative cohomology (3. the main problem remains that as the graphs increase in combinatorial complexity. one should also take into account that the possible occurrence of nonmixed Tate periods in the Feynman amplitudes for more complicated graphs may cancel out in sums over .1 holds.1 still open. it becomes extemely diﬃcult to control the motivic nature of (3. when one tries to eliminate divergences. so that the question on the motivic nature of this relative cohomology provides a suﬃcient condition for a mixed Tate period. by possibly performing blowups of this locus. Thus.
One can use the properties of periods. a divisor D. In the case of parametric Feynman integrals one can proceed in the following way. with ω = f ∗ (ω ) and σ = f∗ (σ). D. One can give explicit combinatorial conditions on the graph that ensure that the map Υ is an embedding.Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 97 graphs with ﬁxed external structure or ﬁxed number of vertices and leave only a mixed Tate contribution. σ ). A period σ ω associated to the data (X. after subtraction of inﬁnities. The matrix MΓ (t) associated to a Feynman graph Γ determines a linear map of aﬃne spaces Υ : An → A . 2 Υ(t)kr = i ti ηik ηir (3. in the case of divergent Feynman integrals. a diﬀerential form ω on X.96) such that the aﬃne graph hypersurface is obtained as the preimage ˆ ˆ XΓ = Υ−1 (D ) under this map of the determinant hypersurface. D . to recast the computation of a given integral σ ω computing a period in a diﬀerent geometric ambient variety. handling divergences in diﬀerent ways might aﬀect the nature of the resulting periods. As shown in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009a)]. σ) of a variety X. one can hope to obtain in this way some suﬃcient conditions that will ensure that the periods associated to Feynman integrals are mixed Tate. whose motivic nature is easier to control. 3. ω. the map Υ . which admit a closed 2cell embedding of face width at least 3. and an integration domain σ with boundary ∂σ ⊂ D can be computed equivalently after a change of variables obtained by mapping it via a morphism f of varieties to another set of data (X . 2 ˆ D = {x = (xij ) ∈ A  det(xij ) = 0}. in particular the change of variable formula.2 above. for any 3edgeconnected graph with at least 3 vertices and no looping edges. ω . One should also keep in mind that. as stated in Question 3.13 From graph hypersurfaces to determinant hypersurfaces An attempt to provide speciﬁc conditions. that would ensure that certain Feynman integrals evaluate to periods of mixed Tate motives was developed in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009a)]. As long as no information is lost in the period computation.12.
j) entry in the target matrix is a combination of edges in the ith loop. viewed as a map of the variables corresponding only to the edges that belong to the ith loop in the chosen bases of the ﬁrst homology of the graph Γ. it follows that every cj is zero. In the following. and not having any other edge in common. as needed. Similarly. Since each (i. . then te only appears in the diagonal entry (i. j) and (j. • For i = j. for a speciﬁc edge e. added to the variables corresponding to the other edges forming the loop i . . then the ±te appears by itself at the entries (i. . Since every edge is in some loop for which τi is injective. then Υ is itself injective. One can then give conditions based on properties of the graph that . Let (t1 . and the sign is +1 if the orientations of the edges both agree or both disagree with the loop orientations. i) in the matrix η † Λη. we denote by Υi the composition of the map Υ with the projection to the ith row of the matrix η † Λη. Lemma 3. where the tk correspond to the edges common to the ith and jth loop. . i).96). • The variable te appears in η † Λη if and only if e is part of at least one loop.13. • If there are two loops i . with te the corresponding variable. the entry is the sum of the variables tk corresponding to the edges in the ith loop (all taken with sign +). the corresponding entry is the sum of ±tk . the map τi must send to zero the tuple of cj ’s corresponding to the edges in the ith loop.13. . • For i = j.98 Feynman Motives is injective. one has the following. The matrix MΓ (t) = η † Λη deﬁning the map Υ has the following properties. that tuple is the zerotuple. Since we are assuming τi to be injective.1. Lemma 3. and −1 otherwise. To see why this is the case. Proof. . . cn ) be in the kernel of τ .2. tn ) = (c1 . • If e belongs to a single loop i . one can start with the following observation on the properties of the matrix MΓ (t) that deﬁnes the map Υ of (3. . If Υi is injective for i ranging over a set of loops such that every edge of Γ is part of a loop in that set. j containing e.
tiv are the variables corresponding to the edges of a loop i . . tiv ) → (ti1 + · · · + tiv . . as claimed. tiv ) → (ti1 + · · · + tiv . cf. For our purposes. More explicitly. . [Mohar and Thomassen (2001)]. In either case the map Υi is injective.5.4. It is known that an embedding of a connected graph is minimal genus if and only if it is a 2cell embedding ([Mohar and Thomassen (2001)]. Thus.4. . .3. ±tiv−1 ) if i has a single edge tv not in common with any other loop. ±ti1 . Proposition 3. In this situation. An embedding of Γ in S is a closed 2cell embedding if the closure of every face is a disk.13.4). The map Υi is injective if the following conditions are satisﬁed: • For every edge e of the ith loop. Deﬁnition 3. §5. . . the advantage of having a closed 2cell embedding for a graph Γ is that the faces of such an embedding determine a choice of loops . if and only if its genus is 0.1 and Theorem 3. Proof. ±tiv ) if i has no edge not in common with any other loop. and the possible last remaining variable appears summed together with the other variables. and (ti1 . the map Υi is given by (ti1 . Γ is planar if and only if it may be embedded in a sphere. ±ti1 . The minimum genus of an orientable surface in which Γ may be embedded is the genus of Γ. . . . and • The ith loop has at most one edge not in common with any other loop. there is another loop having only e in common with the ith loop. Every (ﬁnite) graph Γ may be embedded in a compact orientable surface of ﬁnite genus.Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 99 ensure that the components Υi are injective. up to rearranging the entries in the corresponding row of η † Λη and neglecting other entries.2. . Lemma 3. . An embedding of a graph Γ in an orientable surface S is a 2cell embedding if the complement of Γ in S is homeomorphic to a union of open 2cells (the faces. . or regions determined by the embedding).13. This is done in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009a)] as follows. . . all but at most one edge variable appear by themselves as an entry of the ith row. . . We discuss below conditions on the existence of closed 2cell embeddings. . if ti1 . . .
If further • every edge of Γ is in the boundary of two of the f faces. A closed 2cell embedding ι : Γ → S of a connected graph Γ on a surface of (minimal) genus g. Z) determine a basis of H1 (Γ. Indeed. generate H1 (Γ). Then the f − 1 maps Υi .5. Orient (arbitrarily) the edges of Γ and the faces.13. One refers to the chosen one among the f faces as the “external face” and the remaining f − 1 faces as the “internal faces”. these f −1 loops. We then have the following result. as one can see from the Euler characteristic formula b0 (S) − b1 (S) + b2 (S) = 2 − 2g = χ(S) = v − e + f = b0 (Γ) − b1 (Γ) + f = 1 − + f. It is clear that these f loops are not independent: the sum of any f − 1 of them must equal the remaining one. This produces a number of loops equal to the number f of faces. Z) constructed as in Lemma 3. Any f −1 loops.5 to compute the map Υ and the maps Υi of (3. where f is the number of faces of the embedding. then Υ is injective. together with the choice of a face of the embedding and a basis for the homology H1 (S.13. so there will be no other relations. deﬁned with respect to a choice of basis for H1 (Γ) as in Lemma 3. we can use a basis of H1 (Γ.13. together with 2g generators of the homology of S. assume that • any two of the f faces have at most one edge in common.13. will be independent in H1 (Γ). Assume that Γ is closed2cell embedded in a surface.100 Feynman Motives of Γ.13. Z) given by 2g + f − 1 loops. Lemma 3. Lemma 3. by taking the boundaries of the 2cells of the embedding together with a basis of generators for the homology of the Riemann surface in which the graph is embedded. . however.5. and then add the edges on the boundary of each face with sign determined by the orientations. With notation as above. The homology group H1 (Γ) has rank 2g + f − 1. Proof.6. The fact that the closure of each face is a 2disk guarantees that the boundary is nullhomotopic. are all injective. given a closed 2cell embedding ι : Γ → S. Thus.1). up to sign.
If is a loop determined by an internal face. which is closed2cell embedded in an orientable surface S. .2. the map Υ is injective if every edge is in one of the f − 1 loops and the f − 1 maps Υi are injective. Deﬁnition 1. that every 2vertexconnected graph Γ admits a closed 2cell embedding in some orientable surface S. this accounts for all but at most one of the edges in . one sets f w(Γ.13. of face width at least two (see [Mohar and Thomassen (2001)]. Then. if any two of the faces have at most one edge in common. The injectivity of the f − 1 maps Υi follows from Lemma 3. the condition that an embedding ι : Γ → S is a closed 2cell embedding is equivalent to the properties that Γ is 2vertexconnected and that the embedding has face width f w(Γ. Conjecture 5. At least one of them is internal.1. We also recall the notion of face width for an embedding of a graph in a Riemann surface.7. Theorem 3. The “strong orientable embedding conjecture” states that this is the case. the variables corresponding to edges in common between and any other internal loop will appear as (±) individual entries on the row corresponding to .5.13.16). hence ι : Γ → S is a planar embedding. The stated condition guarantees that the edge appears in the loops corresponding to the faces separated by that edge. For a graph Γ with at least 3 vertices and with no looping edges. as shown in Lemma 3.Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 101 Proof.3. the map Υ is injective. Deﬁnition 3.5.13.8. namely.11 of [Mohar and Thomassen (2001)]. The face width f w(Γ.13. the injectivity of Υi follows. ι) ≥ 2. ι) is the largest number k ∈ N such that every noncontractible simple closed curve in S intersects Γ at least k times. Finally. By Lemma 3. ι) = ∞. Recall the notions of connectivity of graphs that we discussed in the ﬁrst chapter in relation to the 1PI condition.13.5. (1) Let Γ be a graph with at least 3 vertices and with no looping edges. Since has at most one edge in common with the external region. so that every edge is accounted for. The following conditions imply the injectivity of Υ. Let ι : Γ → S be a given embedding of a graph Γ on a Riemann surface S. When S is a sphere. It is not known whether every 2vertexconnected graph Γ admits a closed 2cell embedding.3. see Proposition 5.
That is. we show that every edge of Γ is in the boundary of two faces. F2 are (path)connected. Proof.13. while 3edgeconnected or 2PI is the next strengthening of this condition (the 2PI eﬀective action is often considered in quantum ﬁeld theory). Since γ splits the cell into two connected components. under these conditions on the graph Γ. and this gives a contradiction. 2edgeconnected is just the usual 1PI condition. and the face width condition is also the next strengthening of face width 2. hence Γ cannot be 3edgeconnected. hence Γ is not 2edgeconnected. The closure of the face is a cell.6 is automatically satisﬁed. and in particular it splits it into two connected components. (2) The previous result shows that the second condition stated in Lemma 3.5. so the only thing left to check is that the ﬁrst condition stated in Lemma 3.13.8 are fairly natural from a physical viewpoint. Assume that two faces F1 . (1) It suﬃces to show that. there are paths γi in Fi connecting corresponding sides of the edges. The combinatorial conditions of Theorem 3. Let γ be a path from one side of the edge to the other. In fact.102 Feynman Motives (2) Let Γ be a 3edgeconnected graph.13. With suitable care. γ must be nullhomotopic in the surface.13. ι) ≥ 3. A more geometric description of these combinatorial properties in terms of wheel neighborhoods at the vertices of the graph is discussed in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009a)]. However.6 holds. hence in particular it is 1PI by Lemma 1. Further. the fact that Γ has at least 3 vertices and no looping edges and it admits a closed 2cell embedding implies that Γ is 2vertexconnected. Assume an edge is not in the boundary of two faces. Since the embedding has face width ≥ 3. it can be arranged that γ1 ∪ γ2 is a closed path γ meeting Γ in 2 points. with at least 3 vertices and no looping edges. admitting a closed2cell embedding ι : Γ → S with face width f w(Γ. Then that edge must bound the same face on both of its sides.5. it is shown there that the injectivity property of the map Υ extends from the classes of graphs described in the previous theorem to other graphs obtained from these by simple combinatorial operations such as attaching a looping edge at a vertex of a given graph or subdividing edges by adding intermediate valence two vertices.6 is automatically satisﬁed. the second condition of Lemma 3. Therefore Γ is split into two connected components by removing the two edges. by assumption. F2 have more than one edge in common. so that only the ﬁrst condition remains to be checked. Then the maps Υi . it follows that removing the edge splits Γ into two connected components. Since F1 . which a well known combinatorial conjecture on graphs [Mohar . Υ are all injective.
) The condition that the graph has no looping edges is only a technical device for the proof. One then sees that. p). it is possible to rephrase the computation of the parametric Feynman integral as a period of the complement of the 2 ˆ determinant hypersurface D ⊂ A . the complexity of Feynman integrals of the graph Γ as a period is 2 ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ D . We recall below how to crossings divisor in A such that Υ(∂σn ) ⊂ Σ ˆ construct the divisor ΣΓ .5. which contains the boundary of the domain of integration. Υ(∂σn ) ⊂ ˆ ΣΓ .3 above. where ΣΓ is a normal controlled by the motive m(A 2 ˆ Γ . and with ωΓ (x) ˆ the image of the volume form.Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 103 and Thomassen (2001)] expects should simply follow for graphs that are 2vertexconnected. The advantage of moving the period computation via the map Υ = ˆ ΥΓ from the hypersurface complement An XΓ to the complement of the 2 ˆ determinant hypersurface A D is that. when the map Υ : An → A is injective. When the map Υ is injective. In fact. The question on the motivic nature of the resulting period can then be reformulated (again modulo divergences) in this case as the question of whether the motive m(A 2 ˆ ˆ D .6.6. as we have already seen in detail in Theorems 2. One can in fact rewrite the Feynman integral (as usual up to a divergent Γfactor) in the form U (Γ) = Υ(σn ) 2 PΓ (x.2 and 2. it is well known that the determinant hypersurface D is a mixed Tate motive. (The latter condition is a bit more than 1PI: for graphs with at least two vertices and no looping edges it is equivalent to all the splittings of the graph at vertices also being 1PI. in this approach.97) is mixed Tate.5. ΣΓ (D ∩ ΣΓ )). it is then easy to show (see [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009a)]) that adding looping edges does not aﬀect the injectivity of the map Υ. Notice also that if the map Υ is 2 injective then one has a well deﬁned map Pn−1 → P −1 . unlike what happens with the ˆ graph hypersurfaces. det(x)−n+( +1)D/2 for a polynomial PΓ (x. the diﬃculty has been moved from understanding the motivic nature of the hypersurface complement to . ΣΓ ˆ ˆ (ΣΓ ∩ D )) (3. p) on A that restricts to PΓ (t. p)−n+D /2 ωΓ (x) . Let then ΣΓ be a normal crossings divisor in 2 A . as we showed in Lemma 1. which is otherwise 2 not everywhere deﬁned. Motivically.
namely ˆ the normal crossings divisor ΣΓ and the way it intersects the determinant hypersurface.g for all graphs Γ with a ﬁxed number of loops and a ﬁxed genus (that is.12.g is the algebraic simplex Σn in An . then knowing that A D is always mixed Tate. This requires. Thus.104 Feynman Motives having some control on the other term of the relative cohomology. (3. A ﬁrst observation in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009a)] is that one can use ˆ the same normal crossings divisor Σ . such that. 2 ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ If the motive of ΣΓ (ΣΓ ∩ D ) is mixed Tate. as a question on when the moˆ ˆ ˆ tive of ΣΓ (ΣΓ ∩ D ) is mixed Tate.98) 2 := L1 ∪ · · · ∪ LN . the fact that mixed Tate motives form a triangulated subcategory of the triangulated category of mixed motives would show that the motive (3. Proof.9. the components of ˆ the divisor Σ . Question 3. This divisor is given by a union of linear spaces.g . Thus.2 can be reformulated. We have chosen a closed 2cell embedding of Γ into an orientable surface of genus g. the minimal genus of an orientable surface in which the graph can be embedded).99) where f = − 2g + 1 is the number of faces of the embedding of the graph Γ on a surface of genus g.97) whose realization is the relative cohomology would also be mixed Tate. (3. Then each edgevariable in common between . The polynomial det MΓ (t) does not depend on the choice of orientation for the loops of Γ. There exists a normal crossings divisor Σ which is a union of N = f linear spaces. with = 2g +f −1. ˆ the preimage under Υ = ΥΓ of the union ΣΓ of a subset of components of ˆ Σ . We can arrange MΓ (t) so that the ﬁrst f −1 rows correspond to the f − 1 loops determined by the ‘internal’ faces of the embedding. ﬁrst of all. we choose the positive orientation (counterclockwise with respect to an outgoing normal vector). a better ˆ description of the divisor ΣΓ that contains the boundary ∂(Υ(σn )). we can make the following convenient choice of these orientations. under the combinatorial conditions given above for the embedding.g ⊂A .g can be described by the N = f equations 2 xij = 0 xi1 + · · · + xi. ˆ Proposition 3.13. On each face. 2 ˆ Σ . More explicitly. Such an embedding has f faces.f −1 = 0 1≤i<j ≤f −1 1 ≤ i ≤ f − 1. for all graphs Γ with loops and genus g closed 2cell embedding.
It follows that the pullbacks of the equations (3. .10. Let E be a ﬁxed dimensional vector space. . The ˆ ˆ components of Σ . j will appear with a minus sign in the entries (i.13. . possibly with redundancies. . In general. . leads to a reformulation of the problem in terms of certain “manifolds of frames”. . . D3 is a degree3 hypersurface in P8 . with a positive sign. A second observation of [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009a)] is then that. 2 (3. These entries are both in the ( − 2g) × ( − 2g) upperleft minor. Therefore.g that contain the image of the graph hypersurface those components of Σ (i. . this would then imply that also the locus ˆ ˆ ˆ ΣΓ (D ∩ ΣΓ ) is mixed Tate. N } determines a choice of linear subspaces V1 . We have in fact seen that the injectivity of an ( − 2g) × ( − 2g) minor of the matrix MΓ suﬃces to control the injectivity of the map Υ. Then the hyperplanes in An associated to the coordinates ti can be obtained by pulling back linear spaces along this minor.e.100) (∩i∈I Li ) D is mixed Tate. Lemma 3.g have the property that ˆ (3. j) and (j. we have to understand in what sense the intersections ∩i∈I Li are special. v ) ∈ A  ∀i.100) will be mixed Tate.99) produce a list of all the edge variables. In fact. vi ∈ Vi }. . and we can arrange so that the minor is the upperleft part of the × ambient matrix. V of E with the property that ∩k∈I Lk = {(v1 . Notice that the intersection ∩i∈I Li is a linear subspace of codimension 2 #I in A . it suﬃces to show that arbitrary intersections of the ˆ components Li of Σ .g that form the divisor ΣΓ are selected by eliminating ˆ . The aﬃne version is a cone over this. in order to understand under what conditions the locus (3. the intersection of a linear subspace with the determinant is not mixed Tate. using inclusionexclusion. On the diagonal of the (f − 1) × (f − 1) submatrix we ﬁnd all edges making up each face. In fact. Every I ⊆ {1. Thus.Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 105 two faces i. the intersection with a general P2 is a nonsingular cubic curve. working projectively. For example. the intersection of a general ˆ A3 with D3 is a cone over a genus1 curve. with singularities in codimension > 1. i) of MΓ (t). . The following characterization. by repeatedly using inclusion–exclusion.101) . coming from the zero entries of the matrix MΓ (t)). . which is given in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009a)]. . therefore a curve of genus = 1.
the manifold of frames is mixed Tate for all choices of the subspaces Vi . . . F(V1 . . .11..103) More generally.104) .100). x2 . . e ) mentioned in the statement. . . v ) for which exactly one row vi belongs to a ﬁxed hyperplane of E. . Deﬁnition 3. there exists a basis (e1 . j) entry xij equals 0. . Further. . . . . . Recall (Proposition 3. x2 = 0. . simply choose the basis dual to the basis (x1 + · · · + x −2g . . Since there are at most − 2g − i + 1 hyperplanes Lk in the ith row. x −2g = 0. . V ) := {(v1 . . . ˆ Proof. where each vi is constrained to belong to the given subspace Vi . together with the use of inclusion–exclusion arguments. . (3. For a given ambient space V = A and an assigned collection of linear subspaces Vi . . . this suﬃces to guarantee that the motive 2 ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ m(A D . Σ . . . . . for 1 ≤ i < j ≤ − 2g. (3. The previous characterization of the locus (3. . V ) is deﬁned as the locus 2 2 ˆ F(V1 . Thus. .g ∩ D )) (3. or xi1 + · · · + xi. dim Vi ≥ − ( − 2g − i + 1) = 2g + i − 1 ≥ i − 1 . .9) that the components Lk of Σ .102). among those listed in (3.106 Feynman Motives 2 Here. x ) of the dual space to E.13. each Lk consists of tuples (v1 . . shows that if. and more precisely to one of the hyperplanes x1 + · · · + x −2g = 0. Further still. i = 1. .13.g consist of matrices for which either the (i. . . .102) The statement follows by choosing Vi to be the intersection of the hyperplanes corresponding to the Lk in the ith row. for a ﬁxed . ˆ ˆ ˆ A suﬃcient condition that would ensure that the locus ΣΓ (ΣΓ ∩ D ) is mixed Tate is then described in terms of manifolds of frames.. to obtain the basis (e1 . . −2g =0 for 1 ≤ i ≤ − 2g. dim Vi ≥ i − 1. . . v ) ∈ A  vk ∈ Vk } ∩ (A D ).g (Σ . . Vr ) ⊂ V1 × · · · × Vr denotes the locus of rtuples of linearly independent vectors in a given vector space V . Finally. e ) of E such that each space Vi is the span of a subset (of cardinality ≥ i − 1) of the vectors ej . we denote an × matrix in A by its rowvectors vi ∈ E. the manifold of frames F(V1 .
the residues of Feynman graphs Γ with loops and genus g. as a function of the Lefschetz motive L.Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 107 is also mixed Tate. being obtained by taking products and complements of aﬃne spaces. We want to parameterize all pairs (v1 . V2 ) and F(V1 . One can also compute explicitly the corresponding classes in the Grothendieck ring. V2 . The tautological line bundle O12 (−1) over P(V1 ∩V2 ) sits inside V12 . This locus can be decomposed into the two (possibly empty) pieces (1) v1 ∈ V1 (V1 ∩ V2 ). for which the injectivity condition on Υ holds. The ﬁrst case describes the locus (V1 (V1 ∩ V2 )) × (V2 {0}) which is clearly mixed Tate. V2 ) is a mixed Tate motive. The locus deﬁned by the second case can be described equivalently by the following procedure. v2 ) are obtained by choosing a point p ∈ P(V1 ∩ V2 ). Consider the projective space P(V1 ∩ V2 ).13. For given subspaces V1 . They are of the following form. v2 = 2. V3 ) are mixed Tate. and the trivial bundles V12 ⊆ V2 with ﬁber V1 ∩ V2 ⊆ V2 . are all periods of mixed Tate motives. The desired pairs of vectors (v1 . one can show that the motive deﬁnes an object in the category of mixed Tate motives as a subtriangulated category of the category of mixed motives.12. This is done in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009a)] by exhibiting an explicit stratiﬁcation. with di = dim(Vi ) and dij = dim(Vi ∩ Vj ). V2 ) is the union of these two loci. from which. modulo divergences. Proof. When this is the case. (2) v1 ∈ (V1 ∩ V2 ) {0}. hence inside V2 . v2 ) of vectors such that v1 ∈ V1 . as in the case of the determinant hypersurface discussed above. V2 . and dim v1 . a . This exhausts all the possible ways of obtaining linearly independent vectors with the ﬁrst one in V1 and the second one in V2 and the manifold of frames F(V1 . the result then implies that. and v2 ∈ V2 v1 . whose class in the Grothendieck ring is [F(V1 . v2 ∈ V2 . Proposition 3. and v2 ∈ V2 {0}. V2 )] = Ld1 +d2 − Ld1 − Ld2 − Ld12 +1 + Ld12 + L. the manifold of frames F(V1 . In the case of two and three loops. one can verify explicitly that the manifolds of frames F(V1 . Its class in the Grothendieck ring is of the form (Ld1 − Ld12 )(Ld2 − 1).
Then the manifold of frames F(V1 . Theorem 3. V3 )] = (Ld1 − 1)(Ld2 − 1)(Ld3 − 1) −(L − 1)((Ld1 − L)(Ld23 − 1) + (Ld2 − L)(Ld13 − 1) + (Ld3 − L)(Ld12 − 1) +(L − 1)2 (Ld1 +d2 +d3 −D − Ld123 +1 ) + (L − 1)3 .2 and 2. V2 . . V2 ∩ V3 and such that. V2 . Let V1 . Proof. the class of F(V1 . see [Voevodsky (2000)]. as in §6. Thus. The following ﬁve loci deﬁne such a stratiﬁcation of V3 {0}: (1) S123 := (V1 ∩ V2 ∩ V3 ) {0}. the class Fα := [F(π(V1 ).6. π(V2 ))]. where di = dim(V1 ). V2 )] = (Ld1 +d2 − Ld1 − Ld2 +d12 + Ld12 ) + (Ld2 +d12 − Ld12 +1 − Ld2 + L) = Ld1 +d2 − Ld1 − Ld2 − Ld12 +1 + Ld12 + L. as in Theorems 2. V2 . we want to construct a stratiﬁcation of V3 such that the dimensions of the spaces π(V1 ). and D = Dijk = dim(Vi + Vj + Vk ). and a vector v2 in the ﬁber of V2 O12 (−1) over p. which we reproduce here below. [F(V1 .6. with class in the Grothendieck ring given by [F(V1 .108 Feynman Motives vector v1 = 0 in the ﬁber of O12 (−1) over p. dij = dim(Vi ∩ Vj ).13.3. The homotopy invariance property. for v3 in Sα . depends only on α and not on the chosen vector v3 ∈ Sα . V3 ) is a mixed Tate motive. The class in the Grothendieck ring.13. V3 be assigned subspaces of a vector space V . in this case. with π : V → V := V / v3 the projection. One can look for a stratiﬁcation {Sα } of V3 which is ﬁner than the one induced by the subspace arrangement V1 ∩ V3 . which is formulated for products. The case of three subspaces already requires a more delicate analysis of the contribution of the various strata. is then given by the expression (Ld12 − 1)(Ld2 − L). using the same two properties of the existence of distinguished triangles in the category of mixed motives associated to closed embeddings and homotopy invariance. dijk = dim(Vi ∩ Vj ∩ Vk ). extends in fact to the locally trivial case of vector bundles or projective bundles.2 of [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009a)]. This time one can proceed in the following way to obtain a stratiﬁcation. π(V2 ) and π(V1 ∩ V2 ) are constant along the strata. This again deﬁnes a mixed Tate locus. In other words. V2 ) is the sum of these two classes.
2 containing the vector v3 ∈ Sα . V2 . i = 1. This is also independent of the choice of v3 and only dependent on α by the properties of the stratiﬁcation. The dimensions are indeed constant along the strata and given by dim π(V1 ) S123 S13 S23 S(12)3 S3 d1 − 1 d1 − 1 d1 d1 d1 dim π(V2 ) d2 − 1 d2 d2 − 1 d2 d2 dim(π(V1 ) ∩ π(V2 )) d12 − 1 d12 d12 d12 + 1 d12 This information can then be translated into explicit classes [Fα ] in the Grothendieck ring associated to the strata Sα so that the class of the frame manifold is of the form [F(V1 . S3 := V3 ((V1 + V2 ) ∩ V3 ). S23 := (V2 ∩ V3 ) (V1 ∩ V2 ∩ V3 ). [Fα ] S123 S13 S23 S(12)3 S3 L −L − Ld2 −1 − Ld12 + Ld12 −1 + L Ld1 +d2 −1 − Ld1 −1 − Ld2 − Ld12 +1 + Ld12 + L Ld1 +d2 −1 − Ld1 − Ld2 −1 − Ld12 +1 + Ld12 + L Ld1 +d2 − Ld1 − Ld2 − Ld12 +2 + Ld12 +1 + L Ld1 +d2 − Ld1 − Ld2 − Ld12 +1 + Ld12 + L d1 +d2 −2 d1 −1 One then obtains the following values for the class of the stratum [Sα ] and the number sα . S(12)3 := ((V1 + V2 ) ∩ V3 ) ((V1 ∪ V2 ) ∩ V3 ). (3. [Sα ] d123 sα 2 1 1 0 0 S123 S13 S23 S(12)3 S3 L −1 Ld13 − Ld123 Ld23 − Ld123 d1 +d2 +d3 −D−d12 L − Ld13 − Ld23 + Ld123 d3 d1 +d2 +d3 −D−d12 L −L . V3 )] = α Lsα [Fα ][Sα ].Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 109 (2) (3) (4) (5) S13 := (V1 ∩ V3 ) (V1 ∩ V2 ∩ V3 ).105) where the number sα is the number of subspaces Vi . For the table of dimensions obtained above the corresponding classes [Fα ] are as follows.
Although the stratiﬁcation is used there only to compute the class in the Grothendieck group. V2 . .6. we can consider as ΣΓ the normal crossings divisor deﬁned by the equation x12 x13 x23 (x11 + x12 + x13 )(x21 + x22 + x23 )(x31 + x32 + x33 ) = 0. . V2 )] and [F(V1 . V3 ) deﬁne objects in the triangulated category of mixed Tate motives.6. V3 )] also show that F(V1 . For example.3 can be used to show that the same stratiﬁcations used to compute [F(V1 . . V2 .110 Feynman Motives Using the formula (3. we can obtain t1 . . .105) then gives the stated result. t6 as pullbacks of the following: t1 = −x12 t2 = −x13 t = −x 3 23 t4 = x21 + x22 + x23 t5 = x11 + x12 + x13 t6 = x31 + x32 + x33 ˆ Thus. −t1 t 1 + t3 + t 4 −t3 −t2 −t3 t 2 + t 3 + t6 Labeling entries of the matrix as xij . an argument similar to the one of Theorems 2. One can use these explicit computations of classes of manifolds of frames for two and three subspaces to obtain speciﬁc information about the motives 2 ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ m(A D . we report here brieﬂy the case of the wheelwiththreespokes graph (the 1skeleton of a tetrahedron) described in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009a)]. V2 ) and F(V1 . t5 t2 t1 1 3 t6 2 t3 t4 This graph has matrix MΓ (t) given by t 1 + t 2 + t5 −t1 −t2 . ΣΓ (ΣΓ ∩ D )) for speciﬁc Feynman graphs with up to three loops.2 and 2.
. . but the combinatorics of the possible subspace arrangements quickly becomes very diﬃcult to control. By arguing as in Theorem 2. .Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 111 In order to compute the class in the Grothendieck ring of the intersection ˆ ˆ ΣΓ ∩ (A9 D3 ). and the distinguished triangle corresponding to the long exact cohomology sequence. one can improve the result from a statement about the class in the Grothendieck ring being a polynomial function of the Lefschetz ˆ ˆ ˆ motive L to one about the motive m(ΣΓ (D3 ∩ ΣΓ )) itself being an object in the triangulated subcategory DMTQ of mixed Tate motives inside the triangulated category DMQ of mixed motives. . Each of them determines a choice of three subspaces V1 . For the cases of manifolds of frames F(V1 . In fact. The situation may in fact be somewhat similar to that of “Murphy’s law in algebraic geometry” described in [Vakil (2006)]. given . one can use inclusionexclusion and compute the classes ˆ for all the intersections of subsets of components of the divisor ΣΓ . as explained in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009a)]. ΣΓ ˆ ˆ (ΣΓ ∩ D3 )) is mixed Tate for the case of the wheel with three spokes. V ) will continue to be mixed Tate for large and for arbitrarily complex subspace arrangements. together with the fact that the hypersurface complement itself is a mixed Tate motive. . and using the same stratiﬁcation of the ˆ ˆ complement A9 D3 induced by the divisor ΣΓ as in the computation of the class above. but we only give the ﬁnal result. V2 . V3 corresponding to the linearly independent vectors given by the rows of the matrix (xij ) in A9 . which shows that the resulting class is then of the form ˆ [ΣΓ ˆ ˆ (D3 ∩ ΣΓ )] = L(6L4 − 3L3 + 2L2 + 2L − 1)(L − 1)3 . The connection can probably be made more precise. while speciﬁc cases one can explicitly construct are much better behaved. We do not reproduce them all here. The result for other graphs with three loops can be derived from the same analysis used for the wheel with three spokes. Vr ) with more than three subspaces. it would seem at ﬁrst that one should be able to establish an inductive argument that would take care of the cases of more subspaces. where a suﬃciently general case may be as bad as possible.2. All of the corresponding classes [F(V1 . . V3 )]. were computed explicitly in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009a)]. by restricting only to certain components of the divisor. . in general it seems unlikely that the frame manifolds F(V1 .6. Then this fact. . This 6 divisor has 6 components. suﬃce to show that the mixed motive m(A9 ˆ ˆ D3 . for each of the 64 possibilities. hence there are 2 = 64 such intersections. V2 .
and that some regularization and renormalization procedure is needed to handle these divergences. the issue of divergences is not dealt with in this approach. either in the hypersurface complement Pn−1 XΓ or in the complement of 2 the determinant hypersurface P −1 D . Another observation from the point of view e of matroids is that. This version of the problem suggests a possible connection to Kazhdan–Lusztig theory [Kazhdan and Lusztig (1980)]. 3. in the sense that it shows that the graph hypersurfaces generate the Grothendieck ring of motives but it does not provide an explicit construction of matroids on which to test the mixed Tate property. However. along the lines of [Gelfand and Serganova (1987)]. or (to . Thus. In other words. since in the interior the graph polynomial ΨΓ takes only strictly positive real values. by constructing explicit matroids. one knows very well that most Feynman integrals are divergent. even when in the parametric form one removes the divergent Gamma factor and only looks at the residue. Notice that the poles of the integrand that fall inside the integration domain σn occur necessarily along the boundary ∂σn . it 2 ˆ ˆ may be that the loci ΣΓ ∩(A D ) considered here may provide a possible way to make that general result more explicit. by a regularization procedure. In terms of the geometry. A reformulation of the problem of understanding when frame manifolds are mixed Tate is given in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2009a)] in terms of intersections of unions of Schubert cells in ﬂag varieties. while the result of [Belkale and Brosnan (2003a)] is nonconstructive. the intersections XΓ ∩ ∂σn .14 Handling divergences All the considerations above on the motivic nature of the relative cohomology involved in the computation of the parametric Feynman integral. the source of other possible divergences in the parametric Feynman integral is the locus of intersection of the graph hypersurface XΓ with the domain of integration σn . after removing the divergent Gamma factor.112 Feynman Motives that both the result of [Belkale and Brosnan (2003a)] on the general motivic properties of the graph hypersurfaces XΓ and Murphy’s law result of [Vakil (2006)] are based on the same universality result for matroid representations of [Mn¨v (1988)]. one needs to modify the integrals suitably in such a way as to eliminate. assume that the integral is convergent and therefore directly deﬁnes a period.
in this case. then the required analysis is more delicate. We mention here three possible approaches. p) is not present and only the denominator ΨΓ (t)D/2 appears in the parametric Feynman integral. There are diﬀerent possible ways to achieve such a regularization procedure. as is typically the case here. for instance. They prove that this Lfunction has a Laurent series expansion where all the coeﬃcients are periods. We discuss the third one in more detail in the following chapter. To make sure that this operation does not change the motivic properties of the ˆ ˆ resulting period integrals. for which one knows that the mixed Tate property is maintained. one can form a tubular neighborhood D (X) = ∪s∈∆∗ Xs . rewrite the Feynman integral in the form of a local Igusa Lfunction I(s) = σ f (t)s ω. one needs to ensure that blowups along Σ . since one has an explicit formula for the motive of a projective bundle in the Voevodsky category. As we have already mentioned. . working in the setting of the determinant hypersurface 2 ˆ complement A D one can perform blowups to separate the locus of ˆ ˆ intersection of the determinant hypersurface D with the divisor Σ . using dimensional regularization. consists of eliminating the divergences by separating Σn and XΓ performing a series of blowups. Similarly. Kreimer (2006)].104) is mixed Tate. One method was developed in [Belkale and Brosnan (2003b)] in the logarithmically divergent case where n = D /2. [Bogner and Weinzierl (2007b)]. the issue of eliminating divergences becomes similar to the techniques used. Esnault. used in [Bloch. Yet another method was proposed in [Marcolli (2008)]. when the polynomial PΓ (t. In this setting. one can. which is a sum of Tate twisted copies of the motive of the base. for f = ΨΓ . By considering the graph hypersurface XΓ as the special ﬁber X0 of a family Xs of varieties deﬁned by the level sets f −1 (s). For blowups performed over a smooth locus one has projective bundles. The result was more recently extended algorithmically to the nonlogdivergent case [Bogner and Weinzierl (2007a)]. that is. in the context of log canonical thresholds.Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 113 work in algebrogeometric terms) the intersections XΓ ∩ Σn which contains the former. for f = ΨΓ : An → A1 .g . based on deformations instead of resolutions. Another method.g ∩ D maintain the mixed Tate properties if we know that (3. but when the locus is singular.
. In general. a regularization procedure for Feynman integrals replaces a divergent integral with a function of some regularization parameters (such as the complexiﬁed dimension of DimReg. as we discuss more at length in Chapter 4. it is not clear though how to perform the regularization and subtraction of divergences in a way that does not alter the motivic properties. Motivically. and a circle bundle π : ∂D (X) → X . One can then regularize the Feynman integral by integrating “around the singularities” in the ﬁber π −1 (σ ∩ X ). It is not yet clear how to use this type of methods to obtain motivic information on Feynman integrals after subtraction of divergences. that is. The regularized integral has a Laurent series expansion in the parameter . One then uses a procedure of extraction of ﬁnite values to eliminate the polar parts of these Laurent series in a way that is consistent over graphs. one should take into account the fact that the presence of singularities in the hypersurface XΓ increases the likelihood that the part of the cohomology involved in the period computation can be mixed Tate. The singularities of the hypersurfaces XΓ are nonisolated.2. the fact that they continue to be singular in low codimension stil makes it possible to have a signiﬁcant part of the cohomology that will still be a realization of a mixed Tate motive. a renormalization procedure. as well as the theory of limiting mixed Hodge structures for a degeneration of a family of algebraic varieties. while it is precisely because of the fact that they are highly singular that the XΓ continue to be mixed Tate for a fairly large number of loops and even though one knows that eventually one will run into graphs for which XΓ is no longer mixed Tate. which we describe more in detail in the following chapter.114 Feynman Motives for ∆∗ a punctured disk of radius . the generic ﬁber in a family used as deformation can be a general hypersurface that will not be motivically mixed Tate any longer. or the deformation parameter in the example here above) in which the resulting function has a Laurent series expansion around the pole that corresponds to the divergent integral originally considered. but many techniques of singularity theory are designed to cover also this more general case. where one works with Milnor ﬁbers of singularites. In fact. In fact. is natural from the point of view of singularity theory. However. there are notions such as a motivic tubular neighborhood [Levine (2005)] that may be useful in this context. The use of deformations X to regularize the integral. if these were smooth hypersurfaces. they would typically not be mixed Tate even for a small number of loops. From this viewpoint. while the special singular ﬁber may be mixed Tate.
suggested that the zeta function itself may be lifted at the motivic level. factors through the Grothendieck ring. Kapranov proved that. then the number of points of the reductions mod p is polynomial in p. as such. for a ﬁnite ﬁeld K = Fq . in the sense that. it was proved in [Larsen and Lunts (2003)] that in general this is not true in the case of algebraic surfaces. hence it descends from the Grothendieck ring. one has ZP1 (t) = (1 − t)−1 (1 − Lt)−1 .107) where [sn (X)] are the classes in the Grothendieck ring and the zeta function can be seen as an element of K0 (VK )[[t]]. The behavior of the number of points over ﬁnite ﬁelds is one of the properties of a variety that reveal its motivic nature. by applying a “counting of points” homomorphism K0 (VK ) → Z to the motivic zeta function. where the motivic zeta function is deﬁned as ZX (t) = n≥0 [sn (X)] tn (3. One recovers the zeta function of the variety.R (t) = n≥0 µ(sn (X)) tn ∈ R[[t]].106) Notice that this can be written equivalently in terms of symmetric products as ZX (t) = n≥0 #sn (X)(Fq ) tn . which give ZX.µ (T ) ∈ R[[T ]] is a rational function of T . The information on the number of points over ﬁnite ﬁelds is conveniently packaged in the form of a zeta function ZX (t) = exp n #X(Fqn ) n t n (3. then the zeta function is a rational function. if a variety. say deﬁned over Q. when X is the motive of a curve.15 Motivic zeta functions and motivic Feynman rules As we mentioned brieﬂy in describing the Grothendieck ring as a universal Euler characteristic. For example. The fact that the counting of the number of points behaves like an Euler characteristic. the counting of points of a variety over ﬁnite ﬁelds is an example of an additive invariant that. One obtains other kinds of zeta functions by applying other “motivic measures” µ : K0 (VK ) → R. This was done in [Kapranov (2000)]. the zeta function ZX. where sn (X) denotes the nth symmetric power of X.Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 115 3. Later. is motivically mixed Tate. For example. given a motivic measure µ : K0 (M) → R. .
one can . Another reason is the formulation of parametric Feynman integrals as local Igusa Lfunctions given in [Belkale and Brosnan (2003b)]. Kapranov’s motivic zeta functions may be especially suitable tools to investigate motivic properties of Feynman integrals. There is a motivic Igusa Lfunction constructed by [Denef and Loeser (1998)].116 Feynman Motives It is well known that the motivic zeta function contains all the information on the behavior of the number of points of reductions mod p. Γ n! may be related to a motivic zeta function ZLog. or by #Eint (Γ) − b1 (Γ) = #V (Γ) − b0 (Γ). As shown in [Connes and Marcolli (2008)] p.Γ (T ) := n≥0 sn (LogΓ ) T n . instead of looking only at the contribution of individual Feynman graphs.77. the number of vertices minus the number of connected components. these partition functions appear to be interesting analogs of the motivic zeta functions considered in [Kapranov (2000)]. Besides the loop number = b1 (Γ). There are other reasons why one can expect that. In quantum ﬁeld theory it is customary to consider the full partition function of the theory. For instance. via the map ΨΓ . regarded as a zeta function ZΓ (T ) := n≥0 logn ΨΓ n T = ΨT . that appears in the dimensional regularization of parametric Feynman integrals. A recent survey of these ideas is given in [Andr´ (2009)]. When one considers motivic Feynman rules. [Larsen and Lunts (2003)]. Γ for s a complex variable. hence potentially the information on the mixed Tate nature of a variety. which may provide the right tool for a motivic formulation of the dimensionally regularized parametric Feynman integrals. where the motive LogΓ is the pullback of the logarithmic motive (2. indeed. arranged in an asymptotic series by loop number.39). the observation made at the end of [Marcolli (2008)] which suggests that the function Ψs . these all deﬁne gradings on the Connes–Kreimer Hopf algebra of Feynman graphs. One is. where it is also observed e that the motivic zeta function should play a useful role in the case of motives associated to Feynman graphs. for example. other suitable gradings δ(Γ) are given by the number n = #Eint (Γ) of internal edges.
#Aut(Γ) In the case of the sums over graphs SN = #V (Γ)=N [XΓ ] N! #Aut(Γ) considered in [Bloch (2008)]. #Aut(Γ) (3. Given a motivic measure µ : K0 (VK ) → R. one ﬁnds that cancellations between the classes occur in the Grothendieck ring K0 (VK ) and the resulting class SN is always in the Tate subring Z[L] even if the individual terms [XΓ ] may be nonmixed Tate.108) where δ(Γ) is any one of the gradings described above and where U (Γ) = ˆ [An XΓ ] ∈ K0 (VK ). this gives a zeta function with values in R[[t]] of the form ZR (t) = N ≥0 δ(Γ)=N µ(U (Γ)) N t .Feynman integrals and algebraic varieties 117 consider a partition function given by the formal series Z(t) = N ≥0 δ(Γ)=N U (Γ) tN .108). Similarly. it is possible that interesting cancellations of a similar nature may occur in suitable evaluations of the zeta functions (3. .
following [Marcolli (2008)]. whose Fourier transform is an oscillatory integral of the sort considered in the context of singularity theory. if the phase f (x) is an analytic function in a neighborhood of a critical point x0 . Lyashko. based on the use of Leray cocycles.u (φ) αu (log α)k . We show that one can deﬁne in this way a regularization procedure for the parametric Feynman integrals.1) where f : Rn → R and φ : Rn → R are smooth functions and α ∈ R∗ is a + real parameter.Chapter 4 Feynman integrals and Gelfand–Leray forms We focus in this chapter. we show that dimensionally regularized parametric Feynman integrals can be related to the Mellin transform of a Gelfand–Leray form. then (4.II of [Arnold. It is well known that. GuseinZade. In particular.1) has an asymptotic development for α → ∞ given by a series n−1 I(α) ∼ eiαf (x0 ) u k=0 ak. Goryunov. aimed at eliminating the divergences coming from the intersections XΓ ∩σn .2) 119 . see [Arnold.14 above.1 Oscillatory integrals An oscillatory integral is an expression of the form I(α) = Rn eiαf (x) φ(x) dx1 · · · dxn . (4. as mentioned in §3. Varchenko (1988)]. on the similarities between the parametric form of the Feynman integrals and the oscillatory integrals used in singularity theory to describe integrals of holomorphic forms over vanishing cycles of a singularity and to relate these to mixed Hodge structures. (4. Vasilev (1998)] and Vol. 4.
is then written as I(α) = R eiαt Xt (R) φ(x)ωf (x. given a form α. the restriction of the form (α/df )(x. t).7) The oscillatory integral. Deﬁnition 4. Let Xt be the level hypersurfaces Xt = {x  f (x) = t}. and the ak. Then the Gelfand–Leray form ωf (x. t) to Xt is uniquely deﬁned.1.120 Feynman Motives where u runs over a ﬁnite set of arithmetic progressions of negative rational numbers depending only on the phase f (x).6) φ(x)ωf (x. The form ωf (x. Vol.II of [Arnold. (4. deﬁned as follows.1) can be reformulated in terms of onedimensional integrals using the Gelfand–Leray forms. df (4. §2. More generally.u are distributions supported on the critical points of the phase. t) = dx1 ∧ · · · ∧ dxn . t) dt. t) above is the Gelfand–Leray form of the volume form α = dx1 ∧ · · · ∧ dxn .3) Notice that there is an ambiguity given by diﬀerent possible choices of an (n − 1)form satisfying (4. hence one writes it with the notation ωf (x.5) The Gelfand–Leray form is given by the Poincar´ residue e α α = Res =0 . (4. t) of f is the unique (n − 1)form on the level hypersurface Xt with the property that df ∧ ωf (x. t) = dx1 ∧ · · · ∧ dxn . satisfying α df ∧ = α.6. but their restrictions to Xt all agree so that the Gelfand–Leray form on Xt is well deﬁned. Varchenko (1988)]. (4. (4. expressed in terms of Gelfand–Leray forms.8) . we say that α admits a Gelfand–Leray form with respect to f if there is a diﬀerential form. which we denote by α/df .4) df As above. cf. GuseinZade.1.1. It is also well known that the integral (4.3). df f− The Gelfand–Leray function is the associated function J(t) := Xt (4.
up to throwing away a set of measure zero. The Leray coboundary L(σ) is a cycle if σ is a cycle. The Leray coboundary L(σ) of a kchain σ in X is a (k + 1)chain in D(f ) obtained by considering a tubular neighborhood of X in An . df (4.2. such that the restriction of f to the interior of the domain of integration σn ⊂ An takes strictly positive real values. t) is the Gelfand–Leray form of f .7. we can assume here that the integration is over the values t ∈ R such that the level set Xt is a smooth hypersurface. in the following way. Then.2.9) 2πi L(σ( )) f− σ( ) where d d α= σ( ) σ( ) dα − df ∂σ( ) α .II [Arnold. Let σ be a kchain in X = {t ∈ An f (t) = } and let L(σ ) be its Leray coboundary in D(f − ).1. with deﬁning polynomial equation f = 0 (where f will be the graph polynomial ΨΓ ) and the hypersurface complement D(f ) ⊂ An . the boundary of its tubular neighborhood is a circle bundle over X. For more details.2.Feynman integrals and Gelfand–Leray forms 121 where Xt (R) ⊂ Rn is the level set Xt (R) = {x ∈ Rn : f (x) = t} and ωf (x. Notice that. 4. and if one changes σ by a boundary then L(σ) also changes by a boundary. Deﬁnition 4.6 and §2. Lemma 4.10) Proof. df df . (4. Vol. one has 1 α df ∧ = α. GuseinZade. If X is a smooth hypersurface. We have a form α/df such that α = α. Varchenko (1988)]. see §2. for a form α ∈ Ωk that admits a Gelfand–Leray form.2 Leray regularization of Feynman integrals We consider here the case of complex hypersurfaces X ⊂ An = Cn . First let us show that if α has a Gelfand–Leray form then dα also does. One considers the preimage of σ under the projection map as a chain in D(f ). df ∧ df Its diﬀerential gives α α dα = d df ∧ = −df ∧ d .
d σ( ) σ( ) df ∂σ( ) df This completes the proof. . The last term can be made arbitrarily small.9).122 Feynman Motives Thus. Then we proceed to prove the ﬁrst statement. so one gets (4. This can α σ( ) where γ ∼ S 1 is the boundary of a small disk centered at = then be written as ds ds 1 1 1 α + α − = 2πi γ σ( ) s − 2πi γ σ(s) s − 2πi γ ds s− . the form dα α = −d df df is a Gelfand–Leray form for dα. 2πi d L(σ( )) f− 2πi L(σ( )) (f − )2 One then uses d α f− = α dα − f− (f − )2 α f− α f− α df to rewrite the above as 1 2πi L(σ( = 1 2πi )) dα − f− df ∧ dα df d L(σ( )) L(σ( )) f− dα df − 1 2πi L(∂σ( )) 1 = 2πi df ∧ L(σ( )) f− 1 − 2πi df ∧ L(∂σ( )) f− . s− ∈ C. df ∧ df and α/df is a Gelfand–Leray form with the property that α df ∧ = α. One can write 1 2πi df ∧ L(σ( )) α f− = 1 2πi α γ σ(s) ds . To obtain (4.10) notice that 1 d α 1 α df ∧ = df ∧ . where dα/df is a Gelfand–Leray form such that dα = dα.9) d dα α α= − . df This then gives by (4.
This contains the locus σ∩X which is of interest to us in terms of divergences in the Feynman integral. (4. (4. and ω = PΓ (t.16) f− f− L (∂σn ) L (σn ) where f = ΨΓ and m = −n + D( + 1)/2.56) by replacing the part π ∗ (ηm ) (4. so we can concentrate only on the part of the integral that is supported near this locus. .3.14 above. π ∗ (ηm ) = Deﬁnition 4. similarly to what happens in the case of DimReg. We consider forms ∆(ω) .11) ∗ ∗ where Xs = {tf (t) = s} and ∆ ⊂ C is a small punctured disk of radius > 0.4. The boundary ∂D (X) is given by ∂D (X) = ∪s∈∂∆∗ Xs . written in the form of Proposition 3. We know that the divergences of the parametric Feynman integral appear at the intersections XΓ ∩ σn .4. with projection π : ∂D (X) → X . where X = {f = 0} with order of vanishing m = −n + D( + 1)/2. possibly with boundary. which has the eﬀect of replacing a divergent integral with a meromorphic function of a regularization parameter .3.15) π ∗ (ηm ) + df ∧ f ∂σn ∩D (XΓ ) σn ∩D (XΓ ) of (3. We can then regularize the Feynman integral. we consider the intersection σ∩D (X). As mentioned brieﬂy in §3. in the following way.3 of the parametric Feynman integrals suggests a regularization procedure based on Leray coboundaries. one considers a neighborhood D (X) of a hypersurface X in a projective space Pn−1 .Feynman integrals and Gelfand–Leray forms 123 The formulation given in Proposition 3. We let L (σ) denote the set L (σ) = π −1 (σ ∩ X ).14) fm as in Proposition 3.4.3.2. with ωn the standard volume form.12) It is a circle bundle over the generic ﬁber X . p)−n+D /2 ωn . (4. (4.56) with the integral π ∗ (ηm−1 ) π ∗ (ηm ) + df ∧ . Given a domain of integration σ. given by the level sets D (X) = ∪s∈∆∗ Xs . The Leray regularized Feynman integral is obtained from (3. (4.13) This satisﬁes L (∂σ) = ∂L (σ).
57).17) with π ∗ (ηm ) = ∆(ω)/f m as in (4.4.124 Feynman Motives Thus. σn ∩XΓ. We now study the dependence on the parameter > 0 of the Leray regularized Feynman integral (4.19) with π ∗ (η) as in (3. The result follows directly from Proposition 3.2 above. π ∗ (ηm−1 ) + df π ∗ (ηm ) .2 applied to (4. The function I of (4. we obtain d π ∗ (η) A (η) = − .16). D. it extends to a holomorphic function for ∈ ∆∗ ⊂ C. Thus. ) 2πi C(n. of an integral of the form π ∗ (ηm−1 ) I := + π ∗ (ηm ).2.2.56) can be equivalently written in the form U(Γ) = 1 C(n. Lemma 4. ) π ∗ (ηm ) + ∂σn ∩D (XΓ )c σn ∩D (XΓ )c df ∧ π ∗ (ηm ) f + ∂σn ∩XΓ. which avoids the locus σn ∩ XΓ where the divergence can occur by going around it along a circle of small radius > 0. (4.3 and D (XΓ )c denoting the complement of D (XΓ ).2. and the fact that dπ ∗ (η) = 0. (4. (4. To prove the diﬀerentiability of I .20) d df ∂σ∩X where X = {f = } and π ∗ (η)/df is the Gelfand–Leray form of π ∗ (η). we can write d I = A (ηm ) − A (ηm−1 ). a small punctured disk. d . ) × S 1 . Here XΓ. the Leray regularization introduced here consists in replacing the integral over σn ∩ D (XΓ ) with an integral over L (σn ) (σn ∩ XΓ. The Leray regularization of the Feynman integral (3. (4.16). with a pole of order at most m at = 0. is the level set of f = ΨΓ . D.e.3 and Lemma 4. Proof. Moreover. with m = −n + D( + 1)/2.18) df ∂σ∩X σ∩X Theorem 4.4. i.14) and Proposition 3.4. Proof.5. By Lemma 4. let us write A (η) = σ∩X π ∗ (η).2.18) is inﬁnitely diﬀerentiable in .
It can then be seen that the expression (4. dk π ∗ (η) A =− δ k−1 d k df ∂σ∩X This follows by induction. the equivalent expression given in the second line of (4. In turn. In fact. df df (4. while the expression (4.21) df where α/df is a Gelfand–Leray form for α.22) We then prove that. We then deﬁne Υ : Ωn → Ωn by setting α Υ(α) = d . which we denote by δ(α) = α d df Υ(α) = .2 gives d =− ∂σ∩X π ∗ (η) df .14) is given by ∆(ω)/f m and has a pole of order at most m at X. Varchenko (1988)].2.2. to see that I has a pole of order at most m at = 0. applying Lemma 4.23) df . (4.18) depends holomorphically on the parameter by the general argument on holomorphic dependence on parameters given in Part III. (4. we ﬁrst see that d2 d π ∗ (η) A =− 2 d d ∂σ∩X df which. GuseinZade. to check the diﬀerentiability in the variable to all orders of I is equivalent to checking that of A .2 of Vol. only deﬁned for > 0.3 is.2. .2 dk+1 A =− d k+1 =− ∂σ∩X d ∂σ∩X δ k−1 π ∗ (η) d f df df π (η) df ∗ δk . Notice then that.Feynman integrals and Gelfand–Leray forms 125 Thus. Assuming then that dk π ∗ (η) A =− δ k−1 d k df ∂σ∩X we obtain again by a direct application of Lemma 4. notice that the form π ∗ (ηm ) of (4. the nform Υ(α) also has a Gelfand–Leray form.18) is clearly deﬁned for any complex ∈ ∆∗ in a punctured disk around = 0 of suﬃciently small radius.17) and in (4.II of [Arnold. Finally. for k ≥ 2. §10.16) used in Deﬁnition 4. a priori. This proves diﬀerentiability to all orders.
but cannot be used directly to derive information at the motivic level.126 Feynman Motives Notice that the regularization procedure described here is natural from the point of view of singularity theory and oscillatory integrals. The role of such notion in the algebrogeometric theory of Feynman integrals awaits further investigation. . applied to the locus Σ ∩ XΓ . see e.g. possibly involving a motivic version of the notion of “tubular neighborhood”. To be able to do so one would have to ﬁrst derive an algebraic version of the procedure described here. Algebrogeometric notions of tubular neighborhood were also elaborated upon in Grothendieck’s “Esquisse d’un Programme”. such as Σ = Σn the union of the coordinate hyperplanes. with Σ a normal crossings divisor containing the boundary ∂σn of the domain of integration. [Levine (2005)].
e. In fact. where the coproduct encodes the information on the subdivergences. We restrict to the essential skeleton of what we need in order to continue with our narrative in the following chapters.Chapter 5 Connes–Kreimer theory in a nutshell So far we focused on individual Feynman graphs and associated algebrogeometric constructions. it is well known in quantum ﬁeld theory that the process of removing divergences from Feynman integrals via renormalization cannot be achieved without taking into account the nested structure of divergences. so we do not duplicate them here. In this chapter we give a very brief account of the main steps in the Connes–Kreimer theory. the presence of subgraphs inside a given Feynman graph that already contribute divergences to the Feynman integral. A very elegant geometric formulation of the BPHZ renormalization procedure was given in [Connes and Kreimer (2000)] and [Connes and Kreimer (2001)] in terms of a Hopf algebra of Feynman graphs. i. A process of subtracting divergences that takes into account this hierarchy of nested subdivergences was developed in [Bogolyubov and Parasiuk (1957)] and later completed by [Hepp (1966)] and [Zimmermann (1969)]. However. For brevity. these are already described in full detail in the original papers of Connes and Kreimer and also in the ﬁrst chapter of the book [Connes and Marcolli (2008)]. we skip several important technical points. and the BPHZ procedure becomes an extraction of ﬁnite values via the Birkhoﬀ factorization of loops in a prounipotent Lie group of characters of the Hopf algebra of Feynman graphs. such as how to deal with external momenta and we also do not reproduce full proofs of the main results. 127 .
1) is to be understood as a sum of Laurent series in z. Notice how the counterterms C(Γ) are deﬁned here by a recursion.1. 5. depending on the extra parameter µ. Deﬁnition 5. The expression (5. (5.1.1 The Bogolyubov recursion The main steps of the Bogolyubov–Parasiuk–Hepp–Zimmermann renormalization procedure (BPHZ) are summarized as follows. They are deﬁned as the ¯ polar part of the Laurent series R(Γ). Here the residue is deﬁned as follows. We’ll see in §5.1. the graph obtained by contracting all the internal edges of Γ to a single vertex.e. where in the right hand side of (5.2) only terms C(γ) for strictly smaller graphs γ ⊂ Γ are involved. themselves Laurent series. 5. The residue Res(Γ) of a connected Feynman graph Γ is the Feynman graph consisting of a single vertex and as many half edges attached to it as the number of external edges of Γ.2 Step 2: Counterterms These are the expressions by which the Lagrangian needs to be modiﬁed to cancel the divergence produced by the graph Γ.55) by the expression ¯ R(Γ) = U (Γ) + γ∈V(Γ) C(γ)U (Γ/γ). (Again. The sum in (5.1) is over the set V(Γ) of (not necessarily connected) proper nonempty subgraphs γ ⊂ Γ with the property that the residue Res(γi ) of each component γi of the graph γ has valence equal to one of the monomials in the Lagrangian L(φ). for more details the reader is invited to look at Chapter 1 on [Connes and Marcolli (2008)]). i.128 Feynman Motives 5. We discuss here brieﬂy a property of the operator T that will be useful later.2) Here T denotes the operator of projection of Laurent series onto their polar part. are deﬁned recursively in (5.5 below that this property corresponds to the fact .2) below. ¯ C(Γ) = −T(R(Γ)).1 Step 1: Preparation One replaces the Feynman integral U (Γ) of (1.1) Here we suppress the dependence on z. (5. The coeﬀcients C(γ). µ and the external momenta p for simplicity of notation.1.
2. One then ﬁnds the identity (5. Lemma 5. If f1 = ∞ k=−N1 (5. as above.3). since all the terms that appear in T(f1 f2 ) are accounted for with multiplicity one by summing −1 ∞ T(T(f1 )f2 ) = T(( k=−N1 ak z k )( r=−N2 −1 br z r )) and ∞ T(f1 T(f2 )) = T(( k=−N1 ak z k )( r=−N2 br z r )) and then subtracting T(f1 )T(f2 ). On the other hand. (5. Let T be. (5. This satisﬁes the identity T(f1 )T(f2 ) = T(f1 T(f2 )) + T(T(f1 )f2 ) − T(f1 f2 ).3 Step 3: Renormalized values One can then extract a ﬁnite value from the integral U (Γ) by removing the polar part. 5.Connes–Kreimer theory in a nutshell 129 that the diﬀerential ﬁeld K of convergent Laurent series with the operator T has the structure of a Rota–Baxter algebra. one sets ¯ R(Γ) = R(Γ) + C(Γ) = U (Γ) + C(Γ) + C(γ)U (Γ/γ). Namely.1. the operator that projects a Laurent series onto its polar part. not of U (Γ) itself but of its preparation.4) γ∈V(Γ) which we also write equivalently as R(Γ) = U (Γ) + γ∈V(Γ) C(γ)U (Γ/γ) − T U (Γ) + γ∈V(Γ) C(γ)U (Γ/γ) .1.5) . we also have −1 −1 T(f1 )T(f2 ) = ( k=−N1 ak z k )( r=−N2 br z r ). Let K be the ﬁeld of convergent Laurent series (germs of meromorphic functions at the origin).3) ak z k and f2 = −1 ∞ r r=−N2 br z then T(f1 f2 ) = m=−(N1 +N2 ) k+r=m ak br z m . which has the eﬀect of removing the terms that had been counted twice in the previous sum and leaving exactly the terms that constitute the polar part T(f1 f2 ). Proof.
Namely. these themselves have to be local functions as the terms already present in the Lagrangian are. A commutative Hopf algebra over K is a commutative Kalgebra H endowed with an algebra homomorphism ∆ : H → H ⊗ H. The main result of BPHZ is that. based on a reformulation of the BPHZ procedure in geometric terms. so we limit ourselves to a more sketchy overview here and refer the reader to that more detailed treatment. [Hepp (1966)] and [Zimmermann (1969)]. K will be either Q or C. [Connes and Kreimer (2001)].1. In fact. because the Hopf algebras that appear in applications to the theory of renormalization in quantum ﬁeld theory are usually of this kind.2.2).130 Feynman Motives that is. unlike what happens typically with the Laurent series U (Γ) alone. The coeﬃcient of pole of R(Γ) is local.3.1. 5. for our main application.2 Hopf algebras and aﬃne group schemes In the following we work with algebras deﬁned over a ﬁeld K of characteristic zero. because of the recursive nature of the deﬁnition of the counterterms C(Γ) in (5. Here local means that it can be expressed as a local function in the momentum variables (involving only polynomials and derivatives). A very nice conceptual understanding of the BPHZ renormalization procedure with the DimReg+MS regularization was obtained by Connes and Kreimer [Connes and Kreimer (2000)]. . A detailed account of the Connes–Kreimer theory was given in Chapter 1 of [Connes and Marcolli (2008)]. the following statement is the ﬁnal result of the combined [Bogolyubov and Parasiuk (1957)]. Deﬁnition 5. ¯ Theorem 5. The BPHZ procedure also goes under the name of Bogolyubov recursion. In fact. the minimal subtraction of the polar part not of the original Laurent ¯ series U (Γ) but of the corrected one R(Γ). the coeﬃcient of pole of the corrected Lau¯ rent series R(Γ) provided by the Bogolyubov preparation is always a local expression in the variables of the external momenta. if one wants to be able to remove the polar part by correcting the Lagrangian by adding suitable counterterms. We also restrict our attention here to commutative Hopf algebras. hence one that can be corrected either by altering the coeﬃcients of the already existing terms in the Lagrangian or by a adding a ﬁnite number of new polynomial terms to the Lagrangian.
6) There is a product operation on G(A) deﬁned by the coproduct ∆ of H φ1 ∗ φ2 (x) = φ1 ⊗ φ2 . A useful notion we refer to often in the following. φ(x y) = φ(x)φ(y). the compatibility of the coproduct ∆ with the counit ε. y ∈ H . Elements of G(A) are homomorphisms of Kalgebras φ : H → A. for A ∈ Obj(AK ). (5.2. Proof. by setting G(A) = HomAK (H. ∀x.10. A). These satisfy the coassociativity (∆ ⊗ id)∆ = (id ⊗ ∆)∆ as morphisms H → H ⊗K H ⊗K H. (5. and an algebra antihomomorphism S : H → H. We need to show that the set G(A) is a group. in the context of the Tannakian formalism and motivic Galois groups. the antipode. There is a unit element in G(A) which is determined by the counit ε of H by 1G(A) : H → K → A. ∆(x) . is that of aﬃne group scheme. The property that this is a unit with respect to the multiplication in G(A) come from the compatibility relation between counit and coproduct in the ε . µ(id ⊗ S)∆ = µ(S ⊗ id)∆ = 1 ε as morphisms H → H. which also already appeared in §2.Connes–Kreimer theory in a nutshell 131 the coproduct. and the compatibility of comultiplication ∆. As we recall brieﬂy here (see also [Waterhouse (1979)]) this is a functor from algebras to groups naturally associated to a commutative Hopf algebra. Notice that in general the coproduct will not be cocommutative. Proposition 5.7) It is associative because of the coassociativity of ∆. an algebra homomorphism ε : H → K. the counit. φ(1) = 1 . (id ⊗ ε)∆ = id = (ε ⊗ id)∆ as morphisms H → H. A commutative Hopf algebra H over a ﬁeld K of characteristic zero determines a covariant functor G from the category AK of commutative algebras over K to the category of groups.9 and §2.2. antipode S. and multiplication µ.
we refer the reader to [Demazure and Grothendieck (1970)] and [Waterhouse (1979)]. t−1 ].132 Feynman Motives axioms of Hopf algebra. and antipode. Ga and Gm . (φ1 ∗ φ2 )−1 = φ−1 ∗ φ−1 . These prounipotent cases arise from Hopf algebras that are graded. counit ε(t) = 1 and antipode S(t) = t−1 . there is an inverse φ−1 = φ◦S. which correspond to the Hopf algebras • The additive group Ga corresponds to the Hopf algebra H = K[t] with coproduct ∆(t) = t ⊗ 1 + 1 ⊗ t. with coproduct ∆(t) = t ⊗ t. An aﬃne group scheme is a representable covariant functor from the category of commutative algebras over the ﬁeld K to the category of groups. So the above shows that a commutative Hopf algebra determines an aﬃne group scheme. These are projective limits of unipotent algebraic groups. • The multiplicative group Gm corresponds to the Hopf algebra H = K[t. for some commutative algebra H. where by algebraic groups we mean here subgroups of the aﬃne group scheme GLn . H0 = K. . Any such representable functor will be of the form (5. For more detailed information on aﬃne group schemes. The simplest examples of aﬃne group schemes are the additive and the multiplicative group. deﬁned by precomposing a morphism φ : H → A with the antipode S : H → H. The main examples in the following will be prounipotent aﬃne group schemes.6). Similarly. The map φ → φ−1 is an antihomomorphism. comultiplication. φ ∗ φ−1 = φ−1 ∗ φ = 1. to be the inverse in the group G(A) follows from the remaining axiom of the Hopf algebra structure that gives the compatibility between the counit. The fact that it satisﬁes the correct properties with respect to the multiplication and unit. counit ε(t) = 0 and antipode S(t) = −t. respectively. as the Connes–Kreimer Hopf algebra is. which in turn inherits the structure of Hopf algebra from the group structure of G(A). because S is an antihomomorphism of the Hopf 2 1 algebra H.2 below.4. H = ⊕n≥0 Hn and connected. We discuss more the example of GLn as an aﬃne group scheme in Proposition 5.
as we see below. and. The valence of this vertex is then equal to the number of external edges. In the case of several connected components. This in fact ensures that the corresponding vertex in the quotient graph Γ/γ has an admissible valence for it to be a Feynman graph. As an algebra HCK it is the free commutative algebra with generators the 1PI Feynman graphs Γ of the speciﬁed physical theory. The condition that Γ/γ is a 1PI Feynman graph can be formulated in terms of residue graphs Res(γ) of the sugraphs γ ⊂ Γ. in the sense that it involves only those graphs that are Feynman graphs for the speciﬁed Lagrangian L(φ). (5. The fact that Γ/γ is 1PI then follows from the fact that Γ and all the components of γ are 1PI.8) The sum is over the class V(Γ) of proper subgraphs of Γ with the property that the quotient graph Γ/γ is still a 1PI Feynman graph of the same theory. which is given on generators by ∆(Γ) = Γ ⊗ 1 + 1 ⊗ Γ + γ∈V(Γ) γ ⊗ Γ/γ.Connes–Kreimer theory in a nutshell 133 5. with deg(Γ1 · · · Γn ) = i deg(Γi ). the quotient graph Γ/γ is understood as the graph obtained by shrinking each component of γ ⊂ Γ to a vertex. The subgraphs in V(Γ) are not necessarily connected. This grading corresponds to the order in the perturbative expansion. For a given graph Γ the residue Res(Γ) is the graph that is obtained by keeping all the external edges of Γ and shrinking all internal edges to a single vertex. or by the number of internal lines. It is graded by loop number. The most interesting part of the structure is the coproduct. The class of subgraphs V(Γ) can then be charcterized by requiring that the components of γ ⊂ Γ are 1PI Feynman graphs with the property that the residue Res(Γ) has valence corresponding to one of the monomials in the Lagrangian of the theory. The antipode is deﬁned inductively by S(X) = −X − S(X )X .3 The Connes–Kreimer Hopf algebra The Hopf algebra of Feynman graphs introduced in [Connes and Kreimer (2000)] depends on the choice of the physical theory. the coproduct formula also involves only those subgraphs whose residue graph corresponds to one of the monomials in the Lagrangian. . deg(1) = 0.
The case of chiral theories runs into a well known problem of reconciling the use of dimensional regularization with the chirality operator γ5 . where all the X and X have lower degrees. Correspondingly. whose generators are pairs (Γ. A way to describe the prescription of [Breitenlohner and Maison . It was proved in [Connes and Kreimer (2000)] that this group acts by local diﬀeomorphisms on the coupling constants of the theory. [van Suijlekom (2008)]. The aﬃne group scheme dual to the Connes–Kreimer Hopf algebra is referred to as the group of diﬀeographisms. It is referred to as the core Hopf algebra and it is simply deﬁned by considering as generators all 1PI graphs without restriction on the valence of vertices. the coproduct is taken over all the subgraphs whose connected components are 1PI. [van Suijlekom (2006)]. Its set of complex points G(C) = Hom(HCK . by showing that the Ward identities deﬁne Hopf ideals. This would correspond in physical terms to arbitrarily large powers φk in the Lagrangian. The results were recently generalized to gauge theories in [van Suijlekom (2007)]. or to the ring of immersed conical varieties deﬁned in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2008b)]. The algebrogeometric Feynman rules discussed above and introduced in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2008b)] deﬁne ring homomorphisms from the core Hopf algebra to the Grothendieck ring of varieties. This additional structure is described in detail in [Connes and Kreimer (2000)] as well as in Chapter 1 of [Connes and Marcolli (2008)]. Finally. which is useful in algebrogeometric applications. σ) of a 1PI graph and a distribution on the space of test functions of the external momenta. Generalizations to vector valued ﬁelds do not present any problem. see [Jegerlehner (2001)].134 Feynman Motives where X is an element with coproduct ∆(X) = X ⊗ 1 + 1 ⊗ X + X ⊗ X . see also [Kreimer (2009)]. A variant of the Connes–Kreimer Hopf algebra. A further important remark about the Connes–Kreimer Hopf algebra: the version we recalled brieﬂy here is only the combinatorial part of a larger Hopf algebra. was considered in [Bloch and Kreimer (2008)]. while extending the same setting to gauge theories and chiral theories is more subtle. the Connes–Kreimer construction of the Hopf algebra is given for scalar quantum ﬁeld theories. without restriction on the residue graphs. C) is a prounipotent complex Lie group G(C). This continuous version of the the Hopf algebra of renormalization is necessary when taking into account the external momenta of the graphs in the extraction of subdivergences.
An extension of the parametric Feynman integrals to theories with bosonic and fermionic ﬁelds. such that φ = (φ− ◦ S) φ+ .9). Another interesting recent result is a categoriﬁcation of the Connes–Kreimer Hopf algebra obtained in [Kremnizer and Szczesny (2008)]. if it exists.10) is the counit of the Hopf where − : C[z −1 ] → C is the augmentation and algebra H. K).1. Then φ has a Birkhoﬀ factorization if there exist algebra homomorphisms φ+ ∈ Hom(H.Connes–Kreimer theory in a nutshell 135 (1977)] to express the chirality operator γ5 within DimReg in terms of noncommutative geometry was given in the unpublished [Connes and Marcolli (2005b)].4 Birkhoﬀ factorization We give an algebraic formulation of Birkhoﬀ factorization in the group scheme G of a commutative Hopf algebra in terms of the Hopf algebra H and its characters. where the dual Hopf algebra is identiﬁed with the Hall algebra of a ﬁnitary abelian category. . In this setting the operation of dimensional regularization is then expressed as a cup product of spectral triples. was given in [Marcolli and Rej (2008)]. germs of meromorphic functions at z = 0. (5. i.4.e. Q). with values in the polynomial algebra Q = C[z −1 ]. and φ− ∈ Hom(H. (5. see also Chapter 1 of [Connes and Marcolli (2008)]. is not unique.9) where S is the antipode in the Hopf algebra and is the product in G dual to the coproduct in the Hopf algebra. Recently. To make it unique one also requires the normalization condition − ◦ φ− = . though the most appropriate form of the Connes–Kreimer renormalization procedure in that context remains to be properly discussed. 5. where K is the ﬁeld of convergent Laurent series. using periods of supermanifolds. with O the complex algebra of convergent power series. Suppose given an algebra homomorphism φ ∈ Hom(H. Deﬁnition 5. based on zeta function regularization instead of DimReg and adapted to curved backgrounds was developed in [Agarwala (2009)]. a version of the Connes–Kreimer renormalization as Birkhoﬀ factorization. O). The factorization (5.
K). Not all commutative Hopf algebras admit a Birkhoﬀ factorization for arbitrary elements φ ∈ Hom(H. so it suﬃces to take one such nontrivial vector bundle E and a transition function γ(z) relating the trivializations of E on the two contractible sets ∆ and P1 (C) ∆ to see that this loop cannot admit a factorization of the form (5.136 Feynman Motives The characters φ ∈ Hom(H. t]/(det(xij ) − t) with the coproduct ∆(xij ) = k = xik ⊗ xkj . One of the main results of the Connes–Kreimer theory is a recursive formula for the Birkhoﬀ factorization in the case of graded connected commutative Hopf algebras. The aﬃne group scheme dual to the Hopf algebra H = C[xij .9).2. K) can be equally interpreted as loops deﬁned on an inﬁnitesimal punctured disk ∆∗ around the origin z = 0 in C∗ and with values in the prounipotent complex Lie group G(C) = Hom(H. C) of algebra homomorphisms from H to C. Proof. However.11). We can use the equivalent description of characters φ ∈ Hom(H. Proposition 5. one knows that there are nontrivial holomorphic vector bundles on P1 (C). if we use the function γ(z) to deﬁne the transition function of a holomorphic vector bundle over the 2sphere P1 (C). we can give an equivalent formulation in terms of loops in a complex Lie group. Consider the commutative Hopf algebra H C[xij . K) that do not admit a Birkhoﬀ factorization in the form stated above. K) that do not admit a factorization of the form (5. Then there exist elements φ ∈ Hom(H.11) shows that the resulting bundle is trivial. K) that do not admit a factorization of the form (5. We review this result in the next section. (5. it suﬃces to notice that. To see that there exist elements of φ ∈ Hom(H.11) with the normalization condition γ− (∞) = 1. as above. . the existence of a factorization (5. so that the recursive formula for the factorization of φ gives the Birkhoﬀ factorization of loops written in the more traditional form γ(z) = γ− (z)−1 γ+ (z). K) in terms of loops γ : ∆∗ → GLn . Then. The following example illustrates a case where there are elements in Hom(H. t]/(det(xij ) − t) with the given coproduct is the group GLn .4.9).
5 Factorization and RotaBaxter algebras Let H be a graded connected commutative Hopf algebra H = ⊕n≥0 Hn . Given a commutative unital Rota–Baxter algebra (A. one obtains two commutative unital algebras A± by taking as A− the image R(A) with a unit adjoined (i. for the class of Hopf algebras mentioned above. The prototype of a Rota–Baxter operator is integration. R) of weight λ = −1. We consider. using the formalism of Rota–Baxter algebras.5.5. in the form of an explicit recursive formula. Guo. This is an immediate consequence of Lemma 5. for which the Rota–Baxter identity is the integration by parts formula. T) of the ﬁeld of convergent Laurent series with the projection on the polar part is a Rota–Baxter algebra of weight λ = −1. The connectedness condition means that H0 = C.2. as above. To this purpose we recall some preliminary notions on Rota–Baxter algebras and operators. K) and we ask whether all such elements admit a Birkhoﬀ factorization as in (5. A commutative Rota–Baxter algebra of weight λ is a commutative algebra A endowed with a linear operator R satisfying the Rota–Baxter identity R(x)R(y) = R(xR(y)) + R(R(x)y) + λR(xy). Such an operator is called a Rota–Baxter operator of weight λ. Let K denote the ﬁeld of convergent Laurent series. for later use.2. (5. Lemma 5.9).1.1. elements φ ∈ Hom(H.5. It behaves like the case of a graded–commutative Hopf algebra where the graded pieces are nonzero only in even degrees. for an algebra deﬁned over the ﬁeld of complex numbers.Connes–Kreimer theory in a nutshell 137 5. In fact. . where the Hn are ﬁnite dimensional. the smallest unital algebra containing R(A) as an ideal) and A+ = (1 − R)(A).3. The pair (K.12) Lemma 5. The Connes–Kreimer formula [Connes and Kreimer (2000)] gives a positive answer. we can formulate their result in a slightly more general form. Kreimer (2004)]. as was done for instance in [EbrahimiFard. Notice that here the condition that H is a commutative graded Hopf algebra does not mean that it is “gradedcommutative”: the commutators are not graded commutators but ordinary commutators. Proof.e. Deﬁnition 5.
we look for algebra homomorphisms φ± ∈ Hom(H. A± ) are deﬁned inductively by the formulae φ− (X) = −R φ(X) + where ∆(X) = X ⊗ 1 + 1 ⊗ X + degree. y ∈ A+ we have x = a − R(a) and y = b − R(b) for some a. Then xy = (a − R(a))(b − R(b)) = ab − aR(b) − bR(a) + R(a)R(b) = ab − aR(b) − bR(a) + R(aR(b) + R(a)b + λab). b ∈ A. φ+ (X) = (1 − R) φ(X) + . one obtains xy = (ab − aR(b) − bR(a)) − R(ab − aR(b) − bR(a)) ∈ A+ . The normalization condition is also formulated in this case as − ◦ φ− = . for λ = −1. where here we use the fact that A± ⊂ A so that the equality above is understood as the equality φ(X) = (φ− ◦ S)(X) φ+ (X). given x. Kreimer (2004)]. for x.9).14) of lower (5. K) we can similarly consider the same problems for algebra homomorphisms from the Hopf algebra H with values in any Rota–Baxter algebra (A. Given φ ∈ Hom(H. In fact. that if H is a graded connected commutative Hopf algebra and (A. A) admits a Birkhoﬀ factorization (5. with X and X φ− (X )φ(X ) . hence in A− . It was proved in [Connes and Kreimer (2000)]. Guo. R) is a unital Rota–Baxter algebra of weight λ = −1. satisfying the factorization φ = (φ− ◦ S) φ+ .15) X ⊗ X . and φ− (X )φ(X ) .13) as in (5. These are indeed algebras. where − : A− → C is the augmentation map and is the counit of the Hopf algebra H. and reformulated in the RotaBaxter context in [EbrahimiFard. then any homomorphism of unital commutative algebras φ ∈ Hom(H. A± ) with the algebras A± obtained as in Lemma 5. A). Thus. Just as Deﬁnition 5. (5. b ∈ A. ∀X ∈ H viewed as an equality of elements in A.4.1 formulates the Birkhoﬀ factorization for algebra homomorphisms φ ∈ Hom(H. The product R(a)R(b) = R(aR(b) + R(a)b + λab) is also in the range of R. y ∈ A− we have x = R(a) and y = R(b) for some a. R) of weight λ = −1.138 Feynman Motives Proof.13) where the homomorphisms φ± ∈ Hom(H.5.3. (5. Similarly.
(5. where one inverts the Lefschetz motive.2). following [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2008b)]. the formulae of the BPHZ renormalization procedure (5. (5.14). that one can deˆ ﬁne motivic Feynman rules in terms of the class [An XΓ ] of the graph hypersurface complement in the Grothendieck ring of varieties K0 (V). in terms of Birkhoﬀ factorization. the results of [Connes and Kreimer (2000)] and [Connes and Kreimer (2001)] show that.17) This is just the same as the formulae (5. and the homomorphism U is the usual Feynman amplitude regularized using DimReg.5) are exactly the recursive formulae for the Birkhoﬀ factorization of characters of the Connes– Kreimer Hopf algebra with values in a Rota–Baxter algebra. A variant of such motivic Feynman rules is obtained by setting ˆ [An XΓ ] .4). applied to the case where H = HCK is the Connes–Kreimer Hopf algebra and where the RotaBaxter algebra is given by Laurent series in the DimReg variable z and R = T is the projection onto the polar part. R) of weight −1.6 Motivic Feynman rules and RotaBaxter structure We have seen.14) and (5. via the additive invariant of [Gillet and Soul´ (1996)]. (5. (5. φ± (XY ) = φ± (X)φ± (Y ). (5. Then the C(Γ) = U− (Γ) are the counterterms and the R(Γ) = U+ (Γ)z=0 are the renormalized values. Thus.18) U (Γ) = n L with values in the ring K0 (V)[L−1 ]. For . 5. namely U− (Γ) = −T U (Γ) + γ⊂Γ U− (γ)U (Γ/γ) .Connes–Kreimer theory in a nutshell 139 The RotaBaxter property of the operator R with weight −1 is needed to show that the φ± deﬁned recursively in this way are algebra homomorphisms. Dividing by Ln has ˆ the eﬀect of normalizing the “motivic Feynman rule” [An XΓ ] by the value it would have if Γ were a forest on the same number of edges.16) U+ (Γ) = (1 − T) U (Γ) + γ⊂Γ U− (γ)U (Γ/γ) . given above for any algebra homomorphism from a graded connected commutative Hopf algebra H to a commutative Rota–Baxter algebra (A. with e values in the Grothendieck ring of motives K0 (M). or equivalently.
the ring of the multiplicative monoid SB of stable birational equivalence classes of varieties in VC . Recall that two (irreducible) varieties X and Y are stably birationally equivalent if X × Pn and Y × Pm are birationally equivalent for some n. In fact. gives some information on the birational geometry of the graph hypersurface. It is possible that this invariant and the Birkhoﬀ factorization of U (Γ) may help to detect the presence of nonmixedTate strata in the graph hypersurface XΓ coming from the contributions of hypersurfaces of smaller graphs γ ⊂ Γ or quotient graphs Γ/γ. the renormalized value of the Feynman integral. if ˆ a graph is not 1PI then in the Grothendieck ring one has [An XΓ ] = n−1 ˆ L · [A XΓ ]. (5. We then see that the renormalized value is in this case U+ (Γ)L=0 = (1 − R) U (Γ) + γ⊂Γ U− (γ)U (Γ/γ) L=0 ∈ Z[SB].140 Feynman Motives the original Feynman integrals this would measure the amount of linear dependence between the edge momentum variables created by the presence of the interaction vertices. In fact. [XΓ ]SB = 1. For example. In the ring K0 (V)[L−1 ] or K0 (M) one can still consider the Rota–Baxter structure given by the operator R of projection onto the polar part in the variable L. in this case. m ≥ 0. We work here with the Grothendieck ring K0 (VC ) for varieties over the ﬁeld of complex numbers.19) ˆ ˆ ˆ Notice that the parts of [An XΓ ]. we ﬁrst recall the following useful result of [Larsen and Lunts (2003)]. It is proved in [Larsen and Lunts (2003)] that the quotient of the Grothendieck ring K0 (VC ) by the ideal generated by L = [A1 ] is isomorphic as a ring to Z[SB]. More interestingly. Thus. Using then the fact that . The class of a graph hypersurface XΓ in the ring Z[SB] of stable birational equivalence classes detects some of the properties of the graph Γ. where Γ is the graph obtained by removing a disconnectˆ ing edge of Γ. it was shown in [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2008b)] that the class is trivial. The renormalized Feynman rule U+ (Γ) = (1 − R) U (Γ) + γ⊂Γ U− (γ)U (Γ/γ) then gives a class in the Grothendieck ring of varieties K0 (V). [An1 Xγ ] and [An2 XΓ/γ ] that are contained in the ideal (L) ⊂ K0 (V0 ) contribute cancellations to the Ln in the denominator. [An XΓ ]SB = 0 ∈ Z[SB]. whenever the graph is not 1PI.
Connes–Kreimer theory in a nutshell 141 [An [An ˆ XΓ ] = Ln − 1 − (L − 1)[XΓ ] in the Grothendieck ring. that can be used in deﬁning a renormalized version of motivic and algebrogeometric Feynman rules. one obtains ˆ Γ ]SB = −1 + [XΓ ]SB = 0. or in the ring of immersed conical varieties. X It would be interesting to see if there are other natural Rota–Baxter structures on the Grothendieck ring of varieties. .
hence they can be classiﬁed in terms of ﬁnite dimensional linear representations of an associated aﬃne group scheme. This is a way of formulating what is known in physics as the ’t Hooft–Gross relations. 6. The interested reader is encouraged to look at [Connes and Marcolli (2006b)] and at the ﬁrst chapter of [Connes and Marcolli (2008)] for more extensive details. and to [Connes and Marcolli (2005a)] for a shorter survey. as derived in [Connes and Marcolli (2004)].1 From divergences to iterated integrals The ﬁrst step in reformulating the divergences of renormalization in terms of diﬀerential systems consists of writing the negative piece γ− (z) of the Birkhoﬀ factorization as an iterated integral depending on a single element β in the Lie algebra Lie(G) of the aﬃne group scheme dual to the Connes– Kreimer Hopf algebra. A very detailed account of this topic is available in [Connes and Marcolli (2008)]. which means that one shows that these diﬀerential systems form a Tannakian category. hence the treatment given here will be shorter and will only aim at summarizing the main steps involved in the main result of [Connes and Marcolli (2004)].Chapter 6 The Riemann–Hilbert correspondence This chapter is dedicated to the Riemann–Hilbert correspondence of renormalization. The Riemann–Hilbert correspondence is the equivalence of categories between the analytic data of diﬀerential systems and the representation theoretic data. These express the fact that counterterms 143 . These are then classiﬁed in terms of the Riemann–Hilbert correspondence. The purpose of this approach is to parameterize the data of divergences in perturbative scalar quantum ﬁeld theories in terms of suitable gauge equivalence classes of diﬀerential systems with irregular singularities.
discussed in (1. for u ∈ Gm . that is. Thus. and X ∈ H. inherited from the same dependence of the dimensionally regularized Feynman integrals Uµ (Γ). and the action θt is induced by the grading of the Hopf algebra by θu (X) = un X. The renormalization group analysis of [Connes and Kreimer (2001)] shows that γµ (z) satisﬁes the scaling property γet µ (z) = θtz (γµ (z)) ∂ γ− (z) = 0. with deg(X) = n. in the Birkhoﬀ factorization. we have γµ (z) = γ− (z)−1 γµ. with generator the grading operator Y (X) = nX. that is. after the recursive formula for the coeﬃcients dn is explicitly solved. the inﬁnitesimal generator of the renormalization group ﬂow. where one knows by reasons of dimensional analysis (see [Collins (1986)]) that the negative part is independent of µ. so as to give the time ordered exponential above. This negative part γ− (z) can then be written as a time ordered exponential γ− (z) = T e− z where dn (β) = s1 ≥s2 ≥···≥sn ≥0 1 ∞ 0 θ−t (β)dt =1+ dn (β) .55) above. zn n=1 ∞ θ−s1 (β) · · · θ−sn (β)ds1 · · · dsn . This result follows from the analysis of the renormalization group given in [Connes and Kreimer (2000)] [Connes and Kreimer (2001)]. ∂µ (6. The loop γµ (z) collects all the unrenormalized values Uµ (Γ) of the Feynman integrals in the form of an algebra homomorphism φµ : H → C({z}) from the Connes–Kreimer Hopf algebra to the ﬁeld of germs of meromorphic functions. The starting point is the observation that.2) . there is a dependence on a mass (energy) scale µ. (6. and where β ∈ Lie(G) is the beta function.1) in addition to the property that its negative part is independent of µ. given on generators by φµ (Γ) = Uµ (Γ).+ (z).144 Feynman Motives only depend on the beta function of the theory. the inﬁnitesimal generator of renormalization group ﬂow.
singular at z = 0 ∈ ∆∗ . The existence of solutions is ensured by the condition of trivial monodromy on ∆∗ M (ω)( ) = T e 1 0 ∗ ω = 1.The Riemann–Hilbert correspondence 145 The Birkhoﬀ factorization is then written in [Connes and Marcolli (2004)] in terms of iterated integrals as γµ. one can use the fact that iterated integrals are uniquely solutions of certain diﬀerential equations. Thus γµ (z) is speciﬁed by β up to an equivalence given by the regular term γreg (z). b An iterated integral (or timeordered exponential) g(b) = T e a α(t)dt is the unique solution of a diﬀerential equation dg(t) = g(t)α(t)dt with initial condition g(a) = 1. In [Connes and Marcolli (2004)] these diﬀerential systems are considered up to a gauge equivalence relation by a regular gauge transformation. by dimensional analysis.2 From iterated integrals to diﬀerential systems Having written the counterterms as iterated integrals has the advantage that it makes it possible to reformulate these data in terms of diﬀerential systems. The equivalence corresponds to “having the same negative part of the Birkhoﬀ factorization”. suppose given the diﬀerential ﬁeld (K. and an aﬃne group scheme G. and one can consider diﬀerential equations of the form D(f ) = ω. This gauge equivalence is the same thing as the requirement that solutions have the same negative piece of the Birkhoﬀ factorization. with C{z} the ring of convergent power series (germs of holomorphic functions). for a ﬂat Lie(G(C))valued connection ω. 6. More precisely. In fact. as we recall below. ∈ π1 (∆∗ ). where K = C({z}) is the ﬁeld of convergent Laurent series and δ(f ) = f . δ). in [Connes and Marcolli (2004)] a geometric .+ (z) = T e− z 1 −z log µ 0 θ−t (β)dt θz log µ (γreg (z)). where D(f ω ) = ω and D(f ω ) = ω . for h ∈ G(C{z}). counterterms are independent of the energy scale corresponds to the fact that the diﬀerential systems are given by connections satisfying an equisingularity condition. One then has a logarithmic derivative G(K) f → D(f ) = f −1 δ(f ) ∈ Lie(G(K)). D(f h) = Dh+h−1 Df h. In particular. ω ω ω = Dh + h−1 ωh ⇔ f− = f− . The fact that.
1) for the solutions of the corresponding diﬀerential systems.3 Flat equisingular connections and vector bundles The setting described above still depends on the choice of a given physical theory through the group G of diﬀeographisms. dual to the Connes–Kreimer Hopf algebra of the theory. regular at zero.2) is given in terms of properties of connections on a principal Gbundle P = B × G over a ﬁbration Gb → B → ∆. g) = (u(b).1). u(v)) = uY ( (z. u)). equation (6.1) and (6. The two conditions (6. • If γ is a solution in G(C({z})) of the equation Dγ = . Thus. namely ∗ ∗ σ1 (γ) ∼ σ2 (γ). where z ∈ ∆ is the complexiﬁed dimension of DimReg and the ﬁber µz ∈ Gm over z corresponds to the changing mass scale. one can replace singular connections on the principal Gbundle P = B × G with singular connections on associated vector bundles E = B × V obtained by ﬁnite dimensional linear representations of G in GL(V ). while the second property expresses geometrically the independence of the counterterms from the mass scale. It is obtained by working with all ﬂat equisingular vector bundles. σ2 of B with σ1 (0) = σ2 (0) have “the same type of singularities”.2) correspond to the properties that the ﬂat connection on P ∗ is equisingular. that is. The multiplicative group acts by u(b. then the restrictions along diﬀerent sections σ1 . The aﬃne group scheme G is uniquely determined by its Tannakian category of ﬁnite dimensional linear representations RepG . 6. Among them one will identify a subcategory of those that are obtained . The ﬁrst property of equisingular connections corresponds to the scaling property (6. it satisﬁes: • Under the action of u ∈ Gm the connection transforms like (z. −1 where f1 ∼ f2 means that f1 f2 ∈ G(C{z}). without loss of information.2).146 Feynman Motives reformulation of the two conditions (6. (6. This provides a natural larger ambient category where the diﬀerent diﬀeographism groups G of diﬀerent physical theories can be compared. that is. uY (g)) ∀u ∈ Gm .
The reason why (6.The Riemann–Hilbert correspondence 147 from representations of a given G. The objects Obj(E) are pairs Θ = (V. which also arises when dealing with categories of Hodge structures. The morphisms HomE (Θ. This is deﬁned by T ◦ 1 = 2 ◦ T for some T ∈ Aut(E) which is compatible with the W ﬁltration and trivial on Gr−n (V ). where V is a ﬁnite dimensional Zgraded vector space. up to the equivalence relation of W equivalence. the diﬃcult part in deﬁning a good categorical setting is to have the correct notion of morphisms. (6. and such that on E ⊕ E the following connections are W equivalent: 0 0 W −equiv T 0 − T . has to be corrected to account for this problem. namely linear maps intertwining the connections and compatible with the ﬁltrations. singular over the preimage in B of the point 0 ∈ ∆. [ ]). which are compatiW ble with the ﬁltration and trivial on the induced graded spaces Gr−n (V ).3) is the correct notion here is that one needs to bypass a well known obstacle. Θ ) are linear maps T : V → V that are compatible with the grading. Here the condition that the connections are equisingular means that they are Gm invariant and that restrictions of solutions to sections of B with the same σ(0) are W equivalent. as usual. We recall here brieﬂy the main steps of the construction of this category. The vector space has a ﬁltration W −n (V ) = ⊕m≥n Vm induced by the grading and a Gm action also coming from the grading. so the ﬁrst guess about the choice of morphisms.3) Notice that. namely the fact that ﬁltered spaces do not form an abelian category. out of which one forms a bundle E = B × V . The class [ ] is an equivalence class of equisingular connections on the vector bundle E. . thus reconstructing the data associated to divergences of a particular physical theory. It is proved in [Connes and Marcolli (2004)] (see also Chapter 1 of [Connes and Marcolli (2008)]) that ﬂat equisingular vector bundles form a Tannakian category. 6. A). under the relation U(A) = Hom(HU .4 The “cosmic Galois group” The proof given in [Connes and Marcolli (2004)] and [Connes and Marcolli (2008)] of the fact that the resulting category E is Tannakian directly exhibits an equivalence of categories with RepU∗ for an aﬃne group scheme U∗ = U Gm where U is dual.
Notice that the inﬁnite sum is well deﬁned since the Lie algebra is pronilpotent. where the element e = is the generator of a 1parameter subgroup ∗ of U which lifts the renormalization group at the level of the group U∗ . e−2 . v) = v j kj z −n . k1 (k1 + k2 ) · · · (k1 + k2 + · · · + kn ) n≥0.kj >0 The occurrence of these coeﬃcients. · · · ). He referred to it as the “cosmic Galois group”. as shown in [EbrahimiFard. in terms of the generators of the Lie algebra. the universal singular frame can be regarded as a universal source for the counterterms for all given physical theories. has a natural explanation in terms of the combinatorics of Dynkin idempotents and Dynkin operators for free Lie algebras. The key step of the proof is showing that. which also appear in the local index formula of [Connes and Moscovici (1995)]. seen as an element β = n βn in the Lie algebra Lie(G). in the form e−k1 · · · e−kn γU (−z.148 Feynman Motives to the Hopf algebra HU = U (L)∨ dual (as Hopf algebra) to the universal enveloping algebra of the free graded Lie algebra L = F(e−1 . GraciaBond´ Patras ia. where γU is the universal singular frame deﬁned as γU (z. for any given object Θ = (V. as it maps to the correct counterterms under the map of the generators e−n to the graded components of the beta function. [ ]) in E there exists unique ρ ∈ RepU∗ such that Dρ(γU ) W −equiv . The group homomorphism U → G that realizes the ﬁnite dimensional linear representations of G with equisingular connections as a subcategory of E is obtained by mapping the generators e−n → βn to the nth graded piece of the beta function of the theory. e−3 . v) = T e− z ∞ n=1 e−n 1 v 0 uY (e) du u . that would act on all the coupling constants of scalar quantum ﬁeld theories. The result of [Connes and Marcolli (2004)] reported here above gives a positive answer to Cartier’s .98 of [Connes and Marcolli (2008)] that the universal singular frame is given. Cartier conjectured the existence of a group. (2007)]. Thus. generalizing the renormalization group action. It is shown in Proposition 1. closely related to symmetries of multiple zeta values.
the Tannakian Galois group U∗ = U Gm obtained as above acts on the coupling constants via its map to the Connes–Kreimer group of diﬀeographisms given by the β function. . The relation between the aﬃne group scheme U∗ and symmetries of multiple zeta values can be seen via the fact that the same group appears as a motivic Galois group for a category of mixed Tate motives via the result of [Deligne and Goncharov (2005)]. which in turn acts on the coupling constants by the result of [Connes and Kreimer (2000)]. In fact.The Riemann–Hilbert correspondence 149 conjecture.
through the language of mixed Hodge structures. The ﬁrst is based on motivic notions and it applies to individual motives (motivic sheaves) associated to given Feynman graphs.1 The motivic geometry of DimReg Let us consider again the mixed Tate motives (motivic sheaves) deﬁned by the logarithmic extension Log of (2. which was not reported in [Connes and Marcolli (2008)]. typically no attempt is made to make sense of an underlying geometry in the complexiﬁed dimension. as we have seen in the ﬁrst chapter of this book. is deﬁned as a purely formal procedure based on analytic continuation to a complex variable of the integral of a Gaussian in dimension D.39) and its symmetric powers Logn of (2. We concentrate here especially on the later part of [Connes and Marcolli (2005b)]. The second method is based on the use of techniques from noncommutative geometry and was ﬁrst discussed in Chapter 1 of [Connes and Marcolli (2008)] and in the unpublished manuscript [Connes and Marcolli (2005b)]. as a function of D. This ﬁrst method was discussed in [Marcolli (2008)].Chapter 7 The geometry of DimReg Usually. 7. and which makes contact with the motivic notions considered here. We describe in this chapter two diﬀerent possible approaches to a geometric description of dimensional regularization. that would justify the formal procedures used in dimensional regularization. in the way we have seen through the previous chapters. 151 . the procedure of dimensional regularization of divergent Feynman integrals.40). while this provides an eﬃcient recipe for analytically continuing Feynman integrals to a complexiﬁed dimension. This means that. as objects in the triangulated category DMQ (Gm ) of motivic sheaves over Gm .
1. the H 0 piece corresponds to the ﬁrst column of the matrix MLogn .48) to the H 0 part in the MHS realization: Q· k logk (s) k T =: Q · sT . s1 sn (7. Let us consider then the corresponding grading operator. This follows from a well known result (cf.152 Feynman Motives As we have seen. One can then associate to the h0 piece of the Log∞ motive the following formal expression that corresponds in the period matrix (2. Lemma 2.1.10) expressing the powers of the logarithm in terms of iterated integrals. (7. In this Hodge realization. .5) Proof. .s (∞) η(T ). that multiplies the kth entry by T k .s (∞) = ∪n Λ1. s1 sn (7.b (n) the domain Λa.1) The formal expression (7. in terms of the motivic sheaves deﬁned as in [Arapura (2008)] (see the discussion in §2. (7.6) Λa.1) is obtained as rational multiples of the pairing sT = Λ1. one can associate to the graph .2) We also denote by Λa. k! (7. [Goncharov (2001)]. [Goncharov (2001)]. .b (n) Observe then that. e. the period matrix (2.1) has in fact an interpretation in terms of periods. Lemma 2. where the kth entry corresponds to the kth graded piece of the weight ﬁltration.4 above). The result follows from the basic identity (cf.g.b (n) = {(s1 .10) b log a ds1 dsn ∧ ··· ∧ = s1 sn n! n .48) for the promotive Log∞ of (2.47) deﬁnes the mixed Hodge structure associated to the motive. (7. .4) with Λ1.3) Lemma 7. For iterated integrals we use the notation as in [Goncharov (2001)] b a ds ds ds ◦ ◦ ··· ◦ = s s s a≤s1 ≤···≤sn ≤b ds1 dsn ∧ ··· ∧ .s (n) and the form η(T ) := n dsn n ds1 ∧ ··· ∧ T . The expression (7. sn )  a ≤ s1 ≤ · · · ≤ sn ≤ b}.
(7. by considering the morphism ΨΓ : A#EΓ ˆ XΓ → Gm (7. First recall that. Γ (7. deﬁning relative homology cycles for (X. One then has.3. for the product of motivic sheaves deﬁned by (2.23) one has the following. and where Σn = {t ∈ An  i ti = 0} is the union of the coordinate hyperplanes.7) deﬁned by the graph polynomial ΨΓ (s) = det(MΓ (s)). for a ﬁxed scalar quantum ﬁeld theory. Σn ˆ ˆ (Σn ∩ XΓ ). (7. Q(n − 1)). respectively.1. (7.8) with n = #Eint (Γ) and where Γ ranges over the Feynman graphs of the ˆ given scalar ﬁeld theory. n − 1).10) ˆ where UΓ = A#EΓ XΓ . Proof. The above correspond to the local systems n−1 HGm (An ˆ ˆ X Γ .23).11) where f : σ → S and f : σ → S are the restrictions of the maps X → S and X → S. when integrating a diﬀerential form over a ﬁber product. In terms of periods.9) We can then consider the pullback of the logarithmic motive Log ∈ DM(Gm ) by this morphism. for the ﬁber product (2. This gives a motive LogΓ := Ψ∗ (Log) ∈ DM(UΓ ). Σ) and (X .2.12) . Σ ). Lemma 7. is the subcategory of the Arapura category of motivic sheaves over Gm spanned by the objects of the form (ΨΓ : An ˆ ˆ XΓ → Gm . Σn ˆ ˆ (Σn ∩ XΓ ). The category of Feynman motivic sheaves.1.The geometry of DimReg 153 hypersurfaces XΓ and the divisors Σn with ∂σn ⊂ Σn objects in the Arapura category of motivic sheaves over Gm . (7. n − 1. Deﬁnition 7. one has the formula ∗ ∗ πX (ω) ∧ πX (η) = X×S X X ∗ ω ∧ (πX )∗ πX (η) = X ω ∧ f ∗ f∗ (η). as in the construction of the logarithmic specialization system given in [Ayoub (2007)]. Suppose given σ ⊂ X and σ ⊂ X . the period pairing ∗ ∗ πX (ω) ∧ πX (η) = σ×S σ σ ω ∧ f ∗ f∗ (η).
0).14) by the logarithmic promotive Log∞ of (7. Consider again the logarithmic (pro)motive. Σ ×S X ∪ X ×S Σ ).1 deﬁnes a cycle. n − 1. we then apply the formula (7. Λ∞ . The product is then given by a ﬁber product as in (2.4. namely Ψ∗ (Log∞ ) = (An Γ An ˆ XΓ ) Gm XLog∞ / XLog∞ (7.15). n − 1). . the procedure of dimensional regularization can then be thought of as follows. Σn (Σn ∩ XΓ ). so that σ ×S σ deﬁnes a relative homology class in (X ×S X .16) / Gm ˆ XΓ ΨΓ We then have the following interpretation of the dimensionally regularized Feynman integrals. in the category of motivic sheaves enlarged to include projective limits. Proposition 7.13) X II X II f tt f tt II II tt II tt $ ztt S Suppose then given σ ⊂ X such that ∂σ ⊂ Σ and σ ⊂ X with ∂σ ⊂ Σ .t (∞) of the period computation of Lemma 7.11). In these terms.154 Feynman Motives which corresponds to the diagram X ×S X II v II vv II v v πX II vv πX I$ v zv (7.12) to the integration on σ ×S σ and obtain (7. One has ∂(σ ×S σ ) = ∂σ ×S σ ∪ σ ×S ∂σ ⊂ Σ ×S X ∪ X ×S Σ . · · Given elements [ω] ∈ HS (X. 0.14) by the (pro)motive ∞ (XLog → Gm .1. The dimensionally regularized Feynman integrals are periods on the product.1.23).15) where Λ∞ is such that the domain of integration Λ1. Σ ). (7. viewed itself as a motivic sheaf XLog∞ → Gm over Gm . of the Feynman motive (7. (7. One can then take the product of a Feynman motive ˆ ˆ (ΨΓ : An XΓ → Gm . Σ) and [η] ∈ HS (X .
where α is the form involved in the parametric Feynman integral.2 The noncommutative geometry of DimReg We now discuss a diﬀerent approach to the geometry of DimReg.11). for some real s. based on [Connes and Marcolli (2005b)]. with A an associative involutive algebra represented as an algebra of bounded operators on a Hilbert space H.ΨΓ (t) (∞) σn ∗ α ∧ (πX )∗ πL (η(T )) = σn ΨT α.16). Assume for simplicity that the operator D is invertible. etc. 7.ΨΓ (t) (∞) η(T ) = n log(ΨΓ (t))n n T = ΨΓ (t)T . for a wide range of examples that are not ordinary manifolds. and with the property that the commutators [a. fractals. for all a ∈ A.The geometry of DimReg 155 Proof. up to replacing the formal variable T of (7. D).4). γ 2 = 1. The notion of metric space in noncommutative geometry is provided by spectral triples. Then the spectral triple is ﬁnitely summable if. noncommutative tori. such as quantum groups. on the Hilbert space H satisfying [a. using spectral triples and noncommutative geometry and we discuss its points of contact with motivic notions. by (7. the Hilbert space of square integrable spinors and the Dirac operator.17) We then have. A spectral triple is even if there is a linear involution. and η(T ) is the form on XLog∞ that gives the period (7. together with a selfadjoint operator D on H. the operator Ds is of trace class.1 gives Ψ∗ Γ Λ1. with compact resolvent.1) with the complex DimReg variable z. It makes sense. The period computation of Lemma 7. with the (commutative) algebra of smooth functions. D] are bounded operators on H. . Γ This is the dimensionally regularized integral. These consist of data of the form X = (A. see [Connes (1995)]. n! (7. γ] = 0 and Dγ + γD = 0.s (∞) η(T ) = Λ1.1. ∗ ∗ πX (α) ∧ πL (η(T )) = σn ×Gm Λ1. however. Consider the product (7. with the two projections πX : Ψ∗ (Log∞ ) → An Γ ˆ XΓ πL : Ψ∗ (Log∞ ) → XLog∞ Γ ∗ ∗ and the form πX (α) ∧ πL (η(T )). This structure generalizes the data of a compact Riemannian spin manifold. Tr(Ds ) < ∞. H.
The ordinary spacetime over which the quantum ﬁeld theory is constructed can itself be modeled as a (commutative) spectral triple X = (A.156 Feynman Motives For such spectral triples there are various diﬀerent notions of dimension.b] (Z)) = 1 2 [a. especially [Carey. with the spectral measure Tr(χ[a. the analog of a volume form. The Breitenlohner–Maison prescription consists of changing the usual Dirac operator to a product. D) = (C ∞ (X). Rennie. Dim = {s ∈ Cζa (s) = Tr(aD−s ) have poles }. given in terms of a residue for the zeta functions. which is indeed of the form as in the cup product of spectral triples. H. D ⊗ 1 + γ ⊗ Dz ). These are points where one has a well deﬁned integration theory on the noncommutative space. The operator Dz is of the form Dz = ρ(z)F Z1/z . H ⊗ Hz . The most sophisticated one is the dimension spectrum which is not a single number but a subset of the complex plane consisting of all poles of the family of zeta functions associated to the spectral triple. Hz . Rennie. [Connes and Marcolli (2008)] that there exists a (type II) spectral triple Xz with the properties that the dimension spectrum is Dim = {z} and that one recoves the DimReg prescription for the Gaussian integration in the form Tr(e−λDz ) = π z/2 λ−z/2 . Dz ) = (A ⊗ Az . and we simply refer the reader to the relevant literature. Phillips. DX ) / and one can take a product X × Xz given by the cup product of spectral triples (adapted to the type II case) (A. Phillips. It is shown in [Connes and Marcolli (2005b)]. Sukochev (2006a)] and [Carey. where Z = F Z is a selfadjoint operator aﬃliated to a type II∞ von Neumann algebra N and ρ(z) = π −1/2 (Γ(1 + z/2))1/z . D ⊗ 1 + γ ⊗ Dz . for the type II trace.b] dt. The technical aspects of the diﬀerence between ordinary spectral triples and type II spectral triples are beyond the purpose of this book. S). L2 (X. Sukochev (2006b)]. 2 . H. D) ∪ (Az . This agrees with what is known in physics as the Breitenlohner–Maison prescription to resolve the problem of the compatibility of the chirality operator γ5 with the DimReg procedure [Breitenlohner and Maison (1977)].
Here we concentrate on a related aspect that brings us back to motivic notions. see [Bost and Connes (1995)]. The usual commutators are then replaced by graded commutators [D. [Connes and Marcolli (2006a)].18) We consider then the spectral triple where the Hilbert space and Dirac operator are given by the product with Xz . ρ. a) da. by taking the crossed product of the partially deﬁned action ˆ N = L∞ (Z × R∗ ) GL1 (Q) and the trace TrN (f ) = with the operator Z(1. ρ. as above.g. λ) = λ. [Connes (1999)] and Chapters 2 and 4 of [Connes and Marcolli (2008)]). (H ⊗ Hz . H. Then consider ˜ the algebra A generated by A and γ. as explained in [Connes and Marcolli (2005b)] and Chapter 1 of [Connes and Marcolli (2008)]. r = 1 ∈ Q∗ . to the ordinary spacetime over which a given quantum ﬁeld theory is considered. We assume that it is an even spectral triple. so that one has a chirality operator γ. a]− := Da − (−1)deg(a) aD (7. The type II∞ factor obtained in this way is dual (in the sense of the duality introduced in [Connes (1973)]) to the type III1 factor associated to the KMS state at “critical temperature” β = 1 on the Bost–Connes system. ˆ Z×R∗ . Suppose given a spectral triple (A. λ) = 0. endowed with a Z/2Z grading with deg(a) = 1 for a ∈ A and deg(γ) = −1. This setting for the geometrization of DimReg provides a way of computing the anomalous graphs of quantum ﬁeld theory in terms of index cocycles in noncommutative geometry. D). the noncommutative space underlying the spectral realization of the Riemann zeta function in noncommutative geometry (see e.The geometry of DimReg 157 It is shown in [Connes and Marcolli (2005b)] and [Connes and Marcolli (2008)] that an explicit example of a space Xz that can be used to perform dimensional regularization geometrically can be constructed from the ad`le e class space. which may correspond. which is the usual γ5 in dimension four. namely an interesting formal analogy between the evanescent gauge potentials in the noncommutative geometry of DimReg and the complexes of vanishing and nearby cycles in algebraic geometry. Z(r. and Chapter 3 of [Connes and Marcolli (2008)]. D ⊗ 1 + γ ⊗ Dz ) f (1.
in the algebrogeometric case. Here X is a complex analytic manifold of dimension dimC X = n + 1 and f : X → ∆ is a ﬂat. we consider the case of a geometric degeneration of a family X of smooth algebraic varieties over a disk ∆ ⊂ C. We now show that these evanescent gauge potentials also give rise to a complex reminiscent of vanishing cycles. which we have already described in a very similar form in [Consani and Marcolli (2006)] in the context of the archimedean cohomology of [Consani (1998)] and its relation to noncommutative geometry.19) as in [Connes and Marcolli (2005b)]. [Guill´n and Navarro Aznar (1990)]. we take the point of view of Saito’s polarized Hodge–Lefschetz modules. We use an approach based on polarized Hodge–Lefschetz modules. (7. The lack of invariance of D under the chiral gauge transformation γ gives rise to new evanescent gauge potentials coming from the presence of a nontrivial commutator ˆ [D . H . These evanescent gauge potentials ﬁgure prominently in the computations of anomalies in [Connes and Marcolli (2005b)]. proper morphism with projective ﬁbers. On the side of noncommutative geometry. .158 Feynman Motives ˜ and the algebra is A. On the algebrogeometric side. D ) behaves in many ways like a complex of forms with logarithmic poles associated to the family X of smooth algebraic varieties over the disk z ∈ ∆. H . [Steenbrink (1976)]. We assume that the map f is smooth on X∗ = X Y and that Y is a divisor with normal crossings in X. formulated as in [Consani and Marcolli (2006)]. H. (7. In particular. ¯ D = D ⊗ 1. D ) obtained by taking the cup product of a spectral triple (A. with the algebra A = A as above. it is known that the special ﬁber f −1 (0) of f : X → ∆ carries a mixed Hodge structure. acting by a ⊗ 1. We shall see that the complex of gauge potentials on (A . γ]− = 2γ D.20) which disappears when one is back in the case z = 0. e To describe the analogous structure associated to the complex of gauge potentials in the case of a noncommutative space and its deformation to complexiﬁed dimension. [Saito (1988)] and [Guill´n and Navarro Aznar e (1990)]. We use the notation D = Dz . D) with a noncommutative space Xz in “complexiﬁed dimension” ˜ z ∈ ∆. we consider the noncommutative spaces (A . The two geometric settings we will compare are the following. ˆ D =γ⊗D ¯ ˆ D = D + D. [Consani and Marcolli (2004)].
2 ) is a bilinear form ψ :L⊗L→R which is compatible with the Hodge structure. with [ 1 .22) :L are isomorphisms for i > 0 and j > 0. y) + ψ(x. 2 ] = 0 and 1 : Li. ds 1. R) × SL(2. σ(χ(λ). 1 .j 2 : Li. ψ) then deﬁne a bigraded polarized Hodge–Lefschetz module. and u= 01 00 = d u(s)s=0 .−j . A polarization on (L. 1) = 1. . In the case of a geometric degeneration. u(s) := 1s 01 . 1 .j+2 . R).j have a real Hodge structure and 1 . w := 0 1 −1 0 . (Here C is the Weil operator.The geometry of DimReg 159 Let L = ⊕i.j .j∈Z Li.j → Li. Bigraded Lefschetz modules correspond bijectively to ﬁnite dimensional representations of SL(2. 1 .) The data (L. 2 .j (7. ∀x ∈ Li. The data (L. We will use the following notation: χ(λ) := λ 0 0 λ−1 . k = 1.j and : Li. 2 . 2) i 1 deﬁne a bigraded Lefschetz module if → Li. one can obtain such a structure from the action of the a Lefschetz operator on the primitive part of the cohomology (induced by wedging with the K¨hler form) and of the monodromy: the Lefschetz and a the log of the monodromy give the endomorphisms 1 .25) (7.23) for λ ∈ R∗ and s ∈ R. 2 be endomorphisms of L. respectively. u) = 2. χ(t)) = λi tj x. 2 are morphisms of Hodge structures. with the generic ﬁber a compact K¨hler manifold.−j → Li. 2 ) deﬁne a bigraded Hodge–Lefschetz module if all the Li. 2) In these terms. 2.j → Li+2.j be a ﬁnite dimensional bigraded real vector space. (7.26) is symmetric and positive deﬁnite on L−i. −i.21) The data (L.j . C i j 1 2 ·) k y) (7.24) = 0. 1. satisﬁes ψ( k x. j 2 (7. (7. dσ(u. Let 1 . satisﬁes dσ(1. the representation σ = σ(L. and is such that ψ(·.
We let (A. Moreover. In this case. R). where = d∗ d + dd∗ . H ∗ is identiﬁed with Ker( ).r. We now introduce an analog of this structure for noncommutative spaces. A]. H. D).27) ˜ with ω ∈ Ωm (A).k . D ) be the noncommutative space obtained as the ˜ product of (A. Namely. for all a ∈ A or a ∈ [D. 2 ) . (7. the representation of SL(2. d). for an element D a ∈ A or a ∈ [D. Here we take Ωm. where d : Li. 1 . D) be an even ﬁnitely summable spectral triple. . and HD (A) its cohomology.160 Feynman Motives It is also convenient (e. d) inherits the structure of a bigraded polarized Hodge–Lefschetz module. a]γ. Here we deﬁne (a) = [D2 . D) with the noncommutative space Xz in “complexiﬁed dimension” z.k to be the span of elements of the form k H =H⊗H (ω)D2r . 1 . dy).r. y) = ψ(x.k . Let γ ˜ be the grading operator. Let (A . ∗ where as above Dz is the Dirac operator on the space Xz . We begin now by considering the complex Ωm.r.j → Li+1. H . d] = 0 = [ 2 . A]. the cohomology H ∗ (L. when working at the level of forms) to consider diﬀerential bigraded polarized Hodge–Lefschetz modules (L.r. 2 . while we set (aγ) := [D2 .g.23) and σ = σ(L.r+1.r.k → Ωm+1. We consider the graded algebra A generated by A and by γ. a] as before.k → Ωm. We let ΩD (A) ∗ denote the complex of gauge potentials of a triple (A. for w as in (7.j+1 is a diﬀerential (d2 = 0) satisfying [ 1 . H. w)−1 ◦ d ◦ σ(w. R) × SL(2.k and δ : Ωm. and D = Dz = D ⊗ 1 + γ ⊗ Dz . w). H. where d∗ = σ(w. d] and ψ(dx. we have ˜ A = A. with diﬀerentials δ : Ωm. ψ.
k = F m+r−k Ωm (A) ⊗C FD (C). a] for a ∈ k (A).29) In this way.k with a tensor product of two −r “Hodge structures”.r. 2 ] = 0 and are compatible with the diﬀerential. resembles very closely the case of geometric degenerations. The endomorphisms 1 and 2 satisfy [ 1 .k with the conditions k ≥ 0 and k ≥ 2r + m. so ¯ ˆ that δ a = [D.s (A) = Ωt (A)θs is the span of ω θs . induced by da = [D . for f : X → ∆ and z the coordinate on the base ∆ (cf. a] and δ (a) = [D. where the second is 1dimensional with FD (C) := −(r+1) C · D2r and FD (C) = 0.s+r≤k Ωt (A) θs . Lemma 7. We introduce endomorphisms 1 : Ωm. d = δ + δ ) deﬁned as follows: 1( k (ω)D2r ) = ( k k (ω)D2r ) = −1 −1 k k k+1 (ω)D2(r−1) (7. when decomposing D = D ⊗ 1 + γ ⊗ Dz . hence we then take the Ωm. with δ the usual de Rham diﬀerential and δ given by wedging with the form θ = f ∗ (dz/z). where δ is essentially the original de Rham diﬀerential on Ω∗ (A) and δ acts by D ˆ wedging with the diﬀerential θ = γ D.k → Ωm+2.31) 2( (ω)D2r ) = = √ √ (ω) ∧ θ2 D2(r+1) (7. D D (7. where i = 2r+m. We have −r ˜ Ωm. [Steenbrink (1976)]).k+1 and 2 : Ωm. namely. d] = 0.t≥p Ωt. [ 1 . Notice that the decomposition of the total diﬀerential d = δ + δ .1.r.s (A). we can endow the complex Ωm. We then have the following result.28) ˜ ˆ where Ωt. .r.30) The index of the resulting ﬁltration is i−k. D D D We take ˜ F m+r−k Ωm (A) = ⊕t+s=m. ˆ where for simplicity we write θ for the term θ = γ D. D (7. with ω ∈ Ωt (A) and θ = γ D.k → Ωm.r+1.2. d] = 0 and [ 2 . D D (7.The geometry of DimReg 161 ˜ We consider a descending ﬁltration · · · ⊃ F p ⊃ F p+1 ⊃ · · · on Ω∗ (A) D deﬁned by setting ˜ ˜ F p Ωm (A) = ⊕t+s=m. a].r.32) (ω θ2 ) D2(r+1) . The diﬀerential d = δ + δ on this complex is the same as described above. where one also has a total diﬀerential d = δ + δ .k of (Ω.r.r−1.
2 induce endomorphisms on the cohomology of the double complex. σ2 (χ(λ)) = λn−m . b]γ D and ˆ ˆ [D. 2 . since ˆ ˆ [D. γ[D2 . [D. b](γ D)2 . for all b ∈ ( 1δ − δ 1) k ˆ (γa)D2r = [D2 . [D. Assume that the spectral triple (A. where we use the fact that we have set (γa) := γ (a) and we get ˆ ˆ ˆ [D2 . [D2 . 2γbD] = 2[D2 . γ (a)]]D2(r−1) k+1 (a)]D2(r−1) = 0. γ ˆ −[D. Consider σ1 and σ2 deﬁned by σ1 (χ(λ)) = λ2r+m . we verify that [ 2 . We have [ 1 . −[D. . (7. It is immediate to verify that [ 1 .34) 2 ). and on elements γbD2r . We have ( 1δ − δ 1) k (a)D2r = [D2 . σ2 (w) = S2 . Similarly. b]] = 2[D2 . γb]] = [D2 . H. We check compatibility with the diﬀerential. σ1 (u(s)) = exp(s σ2 (u(s)) = exp(s 1 ). b]γ D. R) representation (σ1 . we can check the result on elements of the form k (a)D2r or k (γa)D2r for a ∈ A. (A).2. where 2 [D. d] = 0. 1 .162 Feynman Motives Proof. b]]. b(γ D)2 ] = −[D. d] = 0. [D.33) (7. We also have k since [D2 . Deﬁnition 7. γb] ˆ √ ˆ = 2 −1 bθ3 = −[D. 2 (γb)]. This can be seen easily on elements of the form bD2r . which is associated to the operators 1 . σ1 (w) = S1 .2. b]] = −[D. In fact. σ2 ) on the complex introduced above. 2 ] = 0. Thus. [D. k (a)]]D2(r−1) k+1 k (a)]D2(r−1) = 0. D) is N summable with N = 2n. We introduce an SL(2. R) × SL(2.
2. R) it is suﬃcient ([Lang (1975)] §XI.3. for k = 1. k σ2 (χ(λ)) σ2 (u(s)) σ2 (χ(λ−1 )) σ2 (χ(λ)) 1 + s 2 (ω)D2r = k + s2 2 2 2 + ··· s2 2 k λn−m 2 n−m 2λ (ω)D2r = k 1 + λ−n+m+2 s 2 λn−m + λ−n+m+4 exp(sλ2 2) + ··· (ω)D2r = (ω)D2r . (7.r. Here the operators S1 and S2 are deﬁned by powers of 1 .k → Ωm.34) is indeed a representations of SL(2.2. We set S1 = −1 S These satisfy the following property. The data speciﬁed in Deﬁnition 7. deﬁned by (7. We consider involutions ˆ S1 : Ωm.−(r+m). way. for ω ∈ ΩD (A). R) on (Ω. Proof.r. d).35) (ω)D2r ) = n−m ( 2 √ m m ˜ ˆ1 . R) × SL(2.k−(2r+m) ˆ S2 : Ωm. In order to show that σ = σk .r−(n−m).k of the form ˆ S1 ( ˆ S2 ( k in the following (ω)D2r ) = k −(2r+m) ( 1 k k (ω)D2r ) (7.2) to check that it satisﬁes the relations σ(w)2 = σ(χ(−1)).The geometry of DimReg 163 2.k → Ω2n−m. .33) and (7. (ω)D2r ).2 deﬁne a representation of SL(2. where we have D σ1 (χ(λ)) σ1 (u(s)) σ1 (χ(λ−1 )) σ1 (χ(λ)) 1 + s 1 k (ω)D2r = k + s2 2 2 1 + ··· λ−(2r+m) s2 2 (ω)D2r = + ··· k 1 + λ2(r+1)+m s 1 λ−(2r+m) + λ2(r+2)+m = exp(sλ2 and 1) 2 −(2r+m) 1λ (ω)D2r k (ω)D2r . The ﬁrst relation is clearly satisﬁed and the second can be veriﬁed easily on elements k (ω)D2r . with ω ∈ Ωm (A). Proposition 7.36) σ(χ(λ))σ(u(s))σ(χ(λ−1 )) = σ(u(sλ2 )). 2.
k with i = 2r + m and j = −n + m. We also have √ ψ( 2 (a). the analog of the Hodge on forms.2. Thus. 2 (b)) = −γ k √ (η ∗ ) −1 2 (b)) k (η ) D2(r+r +1) . b) = −γ while ψ(a. which appears in σ1 (w).25). ia .j = ⊕k Ωm. b) = −γ(− −1 k (η ∗ )) k (η ) D2(r+1+r ) . This construction parallels exactly what happens in the construction of the archimedean cohomology of [Consani (1998)] for the ﬁbers at inﬁnity of arithmetic varieties. We now discuss the polarization.26) for polarizations of Hodge–Lefschetz modules. is realized by a power of 2 . = −γ k (η) k +1 (η ) D2(r+r −1) . in the form presented in [Consani and Marcolli (2006)]. This deﬁnes a structure that is analogous to the diﬀerential bigraded Hodge–Lefschetz modules.4. by setting Li. The bilinear form (7. k (ω )D2r ) := −γ k (η ∗ ) k (η )D2(r+r ) (7. Lemma 7. Thus.37) satisﬁes the relation (7. For a = k (η)θs D2r and b = k+1 k (η )θs D2r .37) where ω = ηθs and ω = η θs . we also have ψ( 2 (a). and ψ(a. we have k ψ( 1 (a). We work here under an assumption of “tameness” for spectral triples deﬁned in [V´rilly and Graciaa Bond´ (1993)]. analogous to the requirement (7. We also have the following result. 1 (b)) (η ∗ ) (η ) D2(r−1+r ) .164 Feynman Motives Notice that. where the Hodge can be realized (on the primitive cohomology) by the (n − m)th power of the Lefschetz operator. = 0. integration by parts gives ψ( 1 (a). b) + ψ(a. in the case of the representation associated to the “Lefschetz” 2 . by analogy to what happens in the classical case. Deﬁne the bilinear form ψ by setting ψ( k (ω)D2r .r. 1 (b)) = 0. b) + ψ(a. Proof.
we obtain i j 1 2 (b)) ψ(a. Under the assumptions of “tameness” for (A. and a suﬃciently small z ∈ ∆∗ .The geometry of DimReg 165 Lemma 7. H. the local monodromy plays an important role in determining the limiting mixed Hodge structure. = −γ k (η ∗ ) k +2r+m (η )D−2n . The bilinear form (7. i j 1 2 b) agrees on L−i. it agrees with the inner product on the complex of gauge potentials. so that a∗ . C) of the Milnor −1 ﬁber Mz := BP ∩ f (z). D). in the form presented in [Consani and Marcolli (2006)].37) has the property that a∗ . one usually considers all choices by passing to the universal .−j with the integral with respect to the volume form of (A. D The fact that the structure described here in terms of Hodge–Lefschetz modules parallels very closely the construction of the archimedean cohomology of [Consani (1998)].−j . b agrees with ˜ the inner product of forms in Ω∗ (A). D). This gives i j 1 2 (b) = k +2r+m (η )θs +2(m−n) D−2r−2n . the diﬀerence between the cohomology of the generic ﬁber and of the special ﬁber is measured by the van˜ ishing cycles. Proof. H. In fact. Recall that a := −aD−2n is the integration with respect to the volume form D−2n of the spectral triple (A.2. Thus. D).5. C). geometrically. b := ψ(a.−j . deﬁned for P ∈ Y . In the algebrogeometric setting of a degeneration over a disk. For b = k (η )θs D2r in L−i. suggests that the formalism of DimReg via noncommutative geometry may be useful also to describe a “neighborhood” of the ﬁbers at inﬁnity of an arithmetic variety. H. Under the assumption of “tameness” this satisﬁes ab = ba and a∗ a ≥ 0. To eliminate the noncanonical dependence of everything upon the choice of z. The nearby cycles span the cohomology H ∗ (Mz . We then have i j 1 2 (b) = k +i (η )θs +2j D2r+2j−2i . These span the reduced cohomology H ∗ (Mz . we have j 2 (b) = k (η )θs +2j D2r+2j . BP a small ball around P . for a = k (η)θs D2r in L−i.
39) is the derivation that appears in [Connes and Moscovici (1995)] in the context of the local index formula for spectral triples. and √ with the induced action of (2π −1) 1 on the cohomology corresponding to the residue of the Gauss–Manin connection in the algebrogeometric setting. The identiﬁcation (cf. one can use a complex of forms with logarithmic diﬀerentials.39) as the logarithm of the local monodromy. C) → Hm (Y. with 1 satisfying eΘ = 1 + 1 . This approach. The operator Θ of (7.38) shows that. Ω· (log Y ) ⊗OX OY ) X/∆ (7. The analogy described above with the structure of polarized Hodge– Lefschetz modules allows one to think of the operator Θ(a) = (−1)n+1 n n=1 ∞ n (a)D−2n . [Guill´n and Navarro e ˜ Aznar (1990)]) to obtain a mixed Hodge structure on H m (X∗ . (7.166 Feynman Motives ˜ ˜ ˜ cover ∆∗ = H of the punctured disk and replacing Mz by X∗ = X ×∆ ∆∗ . [Steenbrink (1976)]) ˜ H m (X∗ . L· . . where F is the Hodge ﬁltration and L· is the Picard–Lefschetz ﬁltration associated to the local monodromy. C). when working with nearby cycles. was used ([Steenbrink (1976)]. C) determ ˜∗ · · mined by (H (X . F ). with an explicit resolution of the complex.
and we use the resulting integrals on the slices as a way to relate the Feynman integrals to Hodge structures for isolated singularities. the slicing is given by 3dimensional spaces cutting the hypersurface into a family of surfaces in P3 with isolated singularities. §II of [Gelfand. the restriction of the function deﬁning the hypersurface to these linear spaces deﬁnes hypersurfaces with isolated singularities. This corresponds to cases where the singular locus is of (complex) codimension one in the hypersurface. and Graev (1980)]). Among various techniques introduced for the study of nonisolated singularities.Chapter 8 Renormalization.42) by 167 . using projective Radon transforms. We follow here the approach outlined in [Marcolli (2008)]. singularities. It is given as in (3. When the singular locus is of codimension two in the hypersurface. On any kdimensional subspace Ak ⊂ An there is a unique (up to a multiplicative constant) (k − 1)form that is invariant under the action of SLk . [Teissier (1975)]). In many cases one ends up slicing the graph hypersurfaces by planes P2 intersecting the hypersurface into a curve with isolated singular points. the graph hypersurfaces XΓ are typically singular with nonisolated singularities and a singular locus of small codimension. to which the usual invariants and constructions for isolated singularities can be applied. 8. e.1 Projective Radon transform We recall the basic setting for integral transforms on projective spaces (cf. and Hodge structures As we have seen. Gindikin. The parametric Feynman integrals can in turn be expressed in terms of this slicing.g. In this case. a common procedure consists of cutting the ambient space with linear spaces of dimension complementary to that of the singular locus of the hypersurface (cf.
on a surface that intersects each line from the origin once.3) Given a choice of a subspace Πξ . .42). cf.2). i = 1. n − k}. ∀t ∈ An . . Then. λ ∈ Gm . there exists a (k − 1)form Ωξ on An satisfying ξ1 . . . one can consider the integrand f Ωξ and deﬁne its integral over the projective space π(Πξ ) ⊂ Pn−1 as above. that is. (8. (8. given a function f on An with the homogeneity condition (8. . Let σ ⊂ An be a compact region that is contained in a fundamental domain of the action of Gm on An {0}.168 Feynman Motives the expression k Ωk = i=1 (−1)i+1 ti dt1 ∧ · · · ∧ dti ∧ · · · ∧ dtk .1) is homogeneous of degree k. . dt ∧ Ωξ = Ωn . Suppose given linearly independent dual vectors ξi ∈ (An ) .4). (8. n − k. dt ∧ · · · ∧ ξn−k . . (8. (8. The form Ωξ is not uniquely deﬁned on An .6) . and Graev (1980)]) as n−k Fk (f )(ξ) = π(Πξ ) f (t) Ωξ (t) = Pn−1 f (t) i=1 δ( ξi . .1) The form (8.e. t ) Ωξ (t). (8. Suppose given a function f on An which satisﬁes the homogeneity condition f (λt) = λ−k f (t).4) with Ωn the (n − 1)form of (3. the (k − 1)dimensional projective Radon transform (§II of [Gelfand. These deﬁne a kdimensional linear subspace Π = Πξ ⊂ An by the vanishing Πξ = {t ∈ An  ξi . but its restriction to Πξ is uniquely deﬁned by (8. t ) Ωξ (t).k (f )(ξ) = σ∩π(Πξ ) f (t) Ωξ (t) = σ∩π(Πξ ) f (t) i=1 n−1 δ( ξi . (8.1). it is convenient to also consider the following variant of the Radon transform (8.1. where one identiﬁes σ with its image π(σ) ⊂ P . i. This deﬁnes the integral transform. Deﬁnition 8.5).2) Then the integrand f Ωk is well deﬁned on the corresponding projective space Pk−1 ⊂ Pn−1 and one deﬁnes the integral by integrating on a fundamental domain in Ak {0}. The partial (k − 1)dimensional projective Radon transform is given by the expression n−k Fσ.5) For our purposes. for i = 1. Gindikin.1. t = 0.
singularities.2) and the integrand ΨΓ (t)D/2 V ωξ (t) k−D Γ (t. The parametric Feynman integral can be reformulated as U (Γ) = Γ(k − D ) 2 (4π) D/2 Fσn .9) where χ+ (t) is the characteristic function of the domain Rn . and with fΓ (t) = Proof. and Hodge structures 169 Let us now return to the parametric Feynman integrals we are considering.1.p) dt1 · · · dtn .p) ωξ ΨΓ (t)D/2 ξ. p) /2 . (8.12) . dt ∧ ωξ = ωn = dt1 ∧ · · · ∧ dtn . + Given a choice of an (n − k)frame ξ. ti ≥ 0. (8. dt is a shorthand notation for ξ. (8. p)k−D Πξ i χ+ (t) (8.Renormalization.8) We write the parametric Feynman integral as U (Γ) = (4π)− D/2 An χ+ (t) e−VΓ (t.p) ωξ (t) = ΨΓ (t)D/2 Πξ D ωξ (t) Γ(k − ) δ(1 − ti ) 2 ΨΓ (t)D/2 VΓ (t.8) satisﬁes the scaling property (8. applied to the integral over Πξ and we write it in the form e−VΓ (t. dt = ξ1 . /2 The function fΓ (t) of (8.2. VΓ (t. with σn the simplex i ti = 1. dt . ΨΓ (t)D/2 (8.7) where ξ is an (n − k)frame in An and Fσn .10) where ξ. (8. we can then write the Feynman integrals in the form U (Γ) = (4π)− D/2 Πξ χ+ (t) e−VΓ (t. p)−k+D ΨΓ (t)D/2 /2 .k (f ) is the Radon transform. dt ∧ · · · ∧ ξn−k .k (fΓ )(ξ) ξ. Proposition 8.11) We then follow the same procedure we used in the derivation of the parametric form of the Feynman integral. dt and ωξ satisﬁes ξ. dt .
in dealing with the parametric Feynman integrals. p) do not contribute to singularities of the diﬀerential form.1. (8. with XΓ = {ΨΓ (t) = 0} and YΓ = {PΓ (t. that the spacetime dimension D is in the “stable range” where n ≤ D /2.1.170 Feynman Motives is therefore Gm invariant. as in Deﬁnition 8. dt . The order of the pole induces a ﬁltration. So far we have always made the simplifying assumption. we will then consider integrals of the form U(Γ)ξ = Fσn .13) where Fσn . the domain σn of integration is contained in a fundamental domain for the action of Gm . p) = 0} as before. since the form ωξ is homogeneous of degree k. in terms of the Radon transform. and σξ = σn ∩ Πξ .k (fΓ )(ξ) ξ.15) where Πξ is a generic linear subspace of dimension equal to the codimension of the singular locus of the hypersurface XΓ ∪ YΓ . In the following. which is also satisﬁed in the original stable range.12) in projective space. p)k−D /2 as well as their dimensional regularizations U(Γ)ξ (z) = σξ ωξ (t) ΨΓ (t)(D+z)/2 VΓ (t.2 The polar ﬁltration and the Milnor ﬁber Algebraic diﬀerential forms ω ∈ Ωk (D(f )) on a hypersurface complement can always be written in the form ω = η/f m as in (3. so that the integral lives on the hypersurface complement of the graph hypersurface XΓ and the zeros of the second graph polynomial PΓ (t. p) /2 (8. p)k−(D+z) /2 . for some m ∈ N and some η ∈ Ωk deg(f ) . Moreover.k (fΓ )(ξ) = Πξ δ(1 − i ti ) ΨΓ (t)D/2 V ωξ (t) k−D Γ (t. The minimal m such that ω can be written in the m form ω = η/f m is called the order of the pole of ω along the hypersurface X and is denoted by ordX (ω).46).k (fΓ ) is the Radon transform over the simplex σn . 8. as Γ(k − D ) (4π)− 2 D/2 Fσn . Thus. Here the corresponding condition would then be k ≤ D /2. . so we continue to restrict only to that case. (8. we can reformulate the integral (8.14) = σξ ωξ (t) ΨΓ (t)D/2 VΓ (t.
on the de Rham complex of diﬀerential forms on k the hypersurface complement.Renormalization. and in the stable range n ≤ D /2. the linear space Πξ cuts the singular locus Sing(X) transversely and the restriction Xξ = X ∩ Πξ has isolated singularities. Suppose then that k = codim Sing(X). (8. singularities.k ξ and varying p. Proof. with f as in Proposition 8. (8. In this case.18) We are considering here the polar ﬁltration on forms on the complement of the hypersurface XΓ deﬁned by ΨΓ = 0. for generic external momenta. We then obtain. for generic ξ. Recall that.2. for generic r. Under the generic condition on the external momenta. where f = ΨΓ and for the index r of the ﬁltration in the range r ≤ 2k − D( + 1)/2.k k−1 span subspaces Pξ of the polar ﬁltration P r ΩPn−1 of a hypersurface complement U(f ) ⊂ Pn−1 . We are assuming that PΓ and ΨΓ have no common factor.17) ωξ . One denotes by P r ΩPn ⊂ Ωkn the subspace P of forms of order ordX (ω) ≤ k − r + 1. in the case of isolated singularities.19) . for all r ≤ Pn−1 2k − D( + 1)/2.1. p). where Sing(X) is the singular locus of the hypersurface X = {f = 0}. there is an isomorphism between the cohomology of the Milnor ﬁber Fξ of Xξ and the total cohomology of the Koszul–de Rham complex of forms (3. The polar ﬁltration P • is related to the Hodge ﬁltration F • by P r Ωm ⊃ F r Ωm . Proposition 8. +1)/2 (8.46) with the total diﬀerential df ω = f dω − m df ∧ ω as in (3. we write (8. and Hodge structures 171 called the polar ﬁltration.2.16) D/2 k−D /2 ΨΓ VΓ r. We also have that k ≤ D /2. The explict isomorphism is given by the Poincar´ residue map and can e be written in the form [ω] → [j ∗ ∆(ωξ )]. a subspace of Pξ of the ﬁltration P r Ωk−1 .16) in the form PΓ ∆(α) = −k+D( fm ΨΓ where α = PΓ −k+D /2 −k+D /2 Ωξ . Varying the external momenta p correspondingly varies the polynomial PΓ (t. the forms Ωξ (8.51). In this case. and f = ΨΓ and m = −k + D( + 1)/2. by a result of [Deligne and Dimca (1990)]. if k − r + 1 ≥ 0.1 above. so that also k − D( + 1)/2 < 0. or P r Ωk = 0 for k − r + 1 < 0.
14) deﬁnes a cohomology class in H r (Fξ ).§6.2. so as to consider all slices simultaneously. a basis for the cohomology H r (Fξ ) of the Milnor ﬁber.3. which lies in the homogeneous component M (f Πξ )m deg(f )−k . (8. (8. in the case of isolated singularities. with r = dim Πξ − 1 is given by elements of the form ωα = tα ∆(ωξ ) .1.172 Feynman Motives where j : Fξ → Πξ is the inclusion of the Milnor ﬁber in the ambient space (see [Dimca (1992)].e. (8.22) −k+D /2 For a ﬁxed generic choice of the external momenta.4 below. It then follows from the identiﬁcation (8. §6). We then have the following consequence of Proposition 8.16) of (8. the form (8.1. the Milnor algebra is ﬁnite dimensional. When f has isolated singularities. Let M (f ) be the Milnor algebra of f . For n ≤ D /2 and for a generic (n − k)frame ξ with n − k = dim Sing(X). One denotes by M (f )m the homogeneous component of degree m of M (f ). for m = −k + D( + 1)/2.19) above ([Dimca (1992)]. Corollary 8. the form (8. Let Iξ denote the ideal of derivatives of the restriction f Πξ of f to Πξ . fm with tα ∈ M (f )m deg(f )−k .20) where f is the restriction to Πξ of the function of ΨΓ . Thus. with a .2. the quotient of the polynomial ring in the coordinates of the ambient projective space by the ideal of the derivatives of f . Proof. By Proposition 8. and for a ﬁxed generic choice of the external momenta p under the generic assumption of Deﬁnition 3. with X = XΓ .16) can be written as h∆(ωξ ) . We have not discussed so far the dependence of our slicing method upon the choice of the slice.2) that. where we show that one can include the choice of slices as additional data in the Hopf algebra combinatorics. with r = dim Πξ − 1 and Fξ ⊂ Πξ the Milnor ﬁber of the hypersurface with isolated singularities Xξ = X ∩ Πξ ⊂ Πξ . Then let hξ = h mod Iξ . This will be treated in §8.1. this deﬁnes an element in the Milnor algebra M (f Πξ ). the Feynman integrand (8.2. i.21) fm where f = ΨΓ and h = PΓ . in the stable range for D.21) deﬁnes a class in the cohomology H r (Fξ ) with r = dim Πξ − 1.2.
Z). It is also worth pointing out that the construction described in this section can also be formulated without slicing.λ λ α . ﬁnding the class of the numerator modulo these derivatives. C) (8.Renormalization. with k = dim Πξ − 1 and with µ the Milnor number of the isolated singularity. the operations of taking the ideal of derivatives of f . Vol.24) are given by α ηr. and then ranging over all choices of external momenta to get a subspace can be performed without the slicing operation.II §13).r for → 0. where δ( ) ∈ Hk−1 (F . . Varchenko (1988)]. Moreover. 8. notice that in terms of the Radon transform decomposition (8. δ( ) = ar. The asymptotic formula for the Gelfand–Leray functions implies that the function of obtained by pairing the section (8. and Hodge structures 173 combinatorial organizing principle.λ ( ).23) df We then have the following results ([Arnold. GuseinZade. The cohomological Milnor ﬁbration has ﬁber over given by the complex vector space H k−1 (F . What is missing in this case is the interpretation of the resulting space as the cohomology of a Milnor ﬁber. there exist classes α ηr.λ ( ) ∈ H k−1 (F .3 DimReg and mixed Hodge structures We assume here to be in the case of isolated singularities. (8. C).δ ∼ log( )r .λ of (8.23) with a locally constant section of the homological Milnor ﬁbration has an asymptotic expansion ar. In particular. where the Milnor ﬁber F of Xξ is homotopically a bouquet of µ spheres S k−1 .λ .25) (8. C). (8. Namely. as above. possibly after replacing the original Feynman integrals with their slices along planes Πξ of dimension complementary to that of the singular locus of the hypersurface. singularities.26) such that the coeﬃcients ar. A holomorphic kform α = hωξ /f m determines a section of the cohomological Milnor ﬁbration by taking the classes α F ∈ H k−1 (F .10) only the general slices matter as the special slices (for instance those where Πξ is contained in the hypersurface XΓ ) form a set of measure zero in the space of (n − k)frames.24) df r! λ.
This inherits a Hodge and a weight ﬁltration from the Milnor ﬁber cohomology with its asymptotic mixed Hodge structure. C) deﬁned by F r = {[α/df ]  λα ≤ k − r − 1} k−1 (8. upon varying the choice of the external momenta p and of the spacetime dimension D. One denotes it by λα .λ .λ = N r η0. The principal part of σ(α) is then deﬁned as σmax (α)( ) := where one knows that α α ηr. (8. C) the ﬁltration associated to the nilpotent monodromy operator N .174 Feynman Motives Thus. arbitrarily large values of D ∈ N.λ α ηr.λα + · · · + log( )k−1 α η (k − 1)! k−1. one deﬁnes the “geometric section” associated to the holomorphic kform α as λ σ(α) := r. The asymptotic mixed Hodge structure on the ﬁbers of the cohomological Milnor ﬁbration constructed by Varchenko ([Varchenko (1980)]. This mixed Hodge structure has the same weight ﬁltration as the limiting mixed Hodge structure constructed by Steenbrink ([Steenbrink (1976)]. r! (8. [Varchenko (1981)]) has as the Hodge ﬁltration the subspaces F r ⊂ H k−1 (F .λ ( ) log( )r . . the corresponding Feynman integrands. λα α η0.λ = 0.λα . C) of the Milnor ﬁber of XΓ ∩Πξ . determine a subspace of the cohomology H k−1 (Fξ . though the two agree on the graded pieces of the weight ﬁltration. for ﬁxed k.28) (8.30) and as weight ﬁltration W ⊂ H (F . but the Hodge ﬁltration is diﬀerent. We concentrate again only on the case where k − D /2 ≤ 0. given by N =− 1 log T 2πi with log T = r≥1 (−1)r+1 (T − id)r /r. in a neighborhood of an isolated singular point of XΓ ∩Πξ .29) where N is the nilpotent operator given by the logarithm of the unipotent monodromy. We show that. so that we can consider.27) The order of the geometric section σ(α) is deﬁned as being the smallest λ α in the discrete set Ξ ⊂ R such that η0. [Steenbrink (1977)]).
We write the integrand in the form αξ = with −k+D /2 h = PΓ f = ΨΓ m = −k + D( + 1)/2.41).40).32) as in (8.18). viewed as elements in the Milnor algebra M (f ). with k − D /2 ≤ 0.14). where all external momenta are zero except for a pair of opposite momenta Pv1 = p = −Pv2 associated to a pair of external edges attached to a pair of vertices v1 . spanned by elements of the form (8. considered modulo the ideal generated by the derivatives of f = ΨΓ and localized at an isolated singular point. through the coeﬃcients sC of (3.39). C) ⊂ H k−1 (F .31).w.1. we obtain all polynomials of the form (8.33).33) where the Ti are spanning trees and the LTi (t) are the linear functions of (3. Thus.p are of the form −k+D /2 h(t) = i=1 LTi (t) e∈Ti / te . the forms αξ as above determine a subspace k−1 HFeynman (F . with h of the form (8. Consider Feynman integrals. fm (8. C) inherits a Hodge and a weight ﬁltration . one can reduce to the simplest possible case. One can see that.3.v. p) as a function of the external momenta.18). of the ﬁbers of the cohomological Milnor ﬁbration. where the polynomials h = hT. v2 .31) (8. with k − D /2 ≤ 0. Proof. C) of the Milnor ﬁber spanned by the classes [αξ /df ] with αξ of the form (8.e.31). Upon varying the external momenta p in PΓ (p. sliced along a linear space Πξ as in (8. In such a case.33). singularities. Consider the explicit expression of the polynomial PΓ (t. hΩξ . subject to the global conservation law (3. when considering powers PΓ (t. p)−k+D /2 for varying D. (8. by varying arbitrarily the external momenta.Renormalization. k−1 The subspace HFeynman (F . and Hodge structures 175 Proposition 8. k−1 We denote by HFeynman (F . C) the subspace of the cohomology H k−1 (F . i. the polynomial PΓ (t. p) becomes of the form (3. t) and the spacetime dimension D ∈ N. C).
following [Marcolli (2008)]. written with the same notation we used above for the Gelfand–Leray form. We explain here. at least for some classes of graphs Γ. In the following we let ωi i = 1. The irregular singular connections of [Connes and Marcolli (2004)] have values in the Lie algebra of the Connes–Kreimer group of diffeographisms and are deﬁned on a ﬁbration over a punctured disk with ﬁber the multiplicative group. to give rise to an irregular singular connection of the kind used in [Connes and Marcolli (2004)]. based on equivalence classes of certain irregular singular connections. .4 Regular and irregular singular connections An important and still mysterious aspect of the motivic approach to Feynman integrals and renormalization is the problem of reconciling the Riemann–Hilbert correspondence of perturbative renormalization formulated in [Connes and Marcolli (2004)] (see Chapter 1 of [Connes and Marcolli (2008)]). with the setting of motives (especially mixed Tate motives) and mixed Hodge structures.176 Feynman Motives k−1 k−1 F • ∩ HFeynman and W• ∩ HFeynman from the asymptotic mixed Hodge structure of Varchenko on H k−1 (F . µ (8.34) df be a basis for the vanishing cohomology bundle. It is an interesting problem to k−1 see whether the subspace HFeynman recovers the full H k−1 (F . how regular singular Gauss–Manin connections associated to singularities of individual graph hypersurfaces XΓ can be assembled. . over diﬀerent graphs. in the case of hypersurfaces in projective spaces. the natural associated regular singular connection is the Gauss–Manin connection on the cohomology of the Milnor ﬁber and the Picard–Fuchs equation for the vanishing cycles. Then the Gauss– Manin connection on the vanishing cohomology bundle. C). W• ∩ HFeynman ) still give a mixed Hodge structure. . which are naturally related to regular singular connections. On the other hand. 8. We sketch here a relation between this regular singular connection and the irregular equisingular connections of [Connes and Marcolli (2004)]. which is deﬁned by . respectively representing the complex variable z of dimensional regularization and the energy scale µ (or rather µz ) upon which the dimensionally regularized Feynman integrals depend. C) and if k−1 k−1 (F • ∩ HFeynman . .
Lyashko. Then the function I(s) = δ1 (s) ω . singularities. GuseinZade... §12.1). The Gauss–Manin connection is regular singular and its monodromy agrees with the monodromy of the singularity (see [Arnold.. §2. . or to the equivalent system of regular singular homogeneous ﬁrst order equations d I(s) = P(s)I(s).. . .39). Let δ1 .. deﬁning a section [ω/df ] of the vanishing cohomology bundle. df δ(s) ωµ df (8. Vasilev (1998)]. . δi (s) ∈ Hn−1 (Fs .3). (8. Z). acts on the basis (8. One refers to (8. GuseinZade. s (8. Varchenko (1988)].Renormalization. Given a covariantly constant section δ(s) of the vanishing homology bundle. . and Hodge structures 177 the integer cohomology lattice in each real cohomology ﬁber..35) where the pij (s) are holomorphic away from s = 0 and have a pole at s = 0.38) satisﬁes a regular singular order I ( ) (s) + p1 (s)I ( diﬀerential equation (s) + · · · + p (s)I(s) = 0. (8. ds with Ir (s) = sr−1 I (r−1) (s). with P (s)ij = pij (s). For the relation between Picard–Fuchs equations and mixed Hodge structures see §12 of [Arnold. (8.34) by GM s ωi df = s j pij (s) ωj df . Goryunov..39) −1) where the order is bounded above by the multiplicity of the critical point (see [Arnold.41) (8.40) as the Picard–Fuchs equation of ω. df δµ (s) ω df (8.. suppose given a holomorphic nform ω and let ω/df be the corresponding Gelfand–Leray form.37) ds Similarly. Varchenko (1988)] and [Kulikov (1998)].2. δµ be a basis of the vanishing homology.36) is a solution of the regular singular Picard–Fuchs equation d I(s) = P (s)I(s). the function I(s) = δ(s) ω1 .
for λ ∈ Gm .43) Recall that the Lie bracket in the Lie algebra Lie(G) of the Connes– Kreimer Hopf algebra is obtained by assigning (see [Connes and Kreimer (2000)]. equisingular connections of [Connes and Marcolli (2004)] which we need here. (8. Counting all possible ways in which a given graph can be inserted into another at a speciﬁed vertex attaches multiplicities to each insertion that appear in the form of symmetry factors. λu) = λY ω(z. b] = 0. dz (8. dz and γ −1 Y (γ) = b(z). The ﬁrst condition and the ﬂatness condition imply that the connection ω(z. As we recalled earlier.44) where Γ◦v Γ denotes the graph obtained by inserting Γ into Γ at the vertex v ∈ V (Γ) and the sum is over all vertices where an insertion is possible. with Y the grading operator. u) = uY (a(z)) dz + uY (b(z)) du .45) . • The connections satisfy ω(z. We also let B denote a ﬁbration over an inﬁnitesimal disk ∆∗ with ﬁber the multiplicative group Gm and we denote by P the principal Gbundle P = B ×G. We consider Lie(G)valued ﬂat connections ω that are equisingular. can be checked by writing the equation Df = ω in the more explicit form γ −1 dγ = a(z). • Solutions of Dγ = ω. have the property that their pullbacks σ ∗ (γ) ∈ G(K) along any section σ : ∆ → B with ﬁxed value σ(0) have the same negative piece of the Birkhoﬀ factorization σ ∗ (γ)− .178 Feynman Motives We also recall some of the properties of the irregular singular.42) where a(z) and b(z) are elements of g(K) satisfying the ﬂatness condition db − Y (a) + [a. We let g denote the Lie algebra g = Lie(G). this means that they satisfy the following conditions. (8. Let K denote the ﬁeld of germs of meromorphic functions at z = 0. The equisingularity condition. u) can be written in the form ω(z. which determines the behavior of pullbacks of solutions along sections of the ﬁbration Gm → B → ∆. u). u (8. [Connes and Kreimer (2001)]) [Γ. Γ ] = v∈V (Γ) Γ ◦v Γ − v ∈V (Γ ) Γ ◦v Γ.
Lemma 8. with X and X of lower degree. (8. singularities. Then the choice of a −∞ −∞ distribution σ ∈ Cc (SΓ ) induces distributions σγ ∈ Cc (Sγ ) and σΓ/γ ∈ −∞ Cc (SΓ/γ ).48) for ∆(X) = X ⊗ 1 + 1 ⊗ X + X ⊗ X . Let SΓ denote the manifold of planes Πξ in A#E(Γ) with dim Πξ ≤ codim Sing(XΓ ). (8.Renormalization. (8. and Hodge structures 179 When one interprets elements γ ∈ G(K) as algebra homomorphisms φ ∈ Hom(H. starting from the graph hypersuraces XΓ . with irregular singularities.46) where S is the antipode in H and ∗ is the product dual to the coproduct in the Hopf algebra. a consistent choice of slicing Πξ . (φ ◦ S) ⊗ where ∆(Γ) = Γ ⊗ 1 + 1 ⊗ Γ + γ dφ . and the regular singular Picard–Fuchs equation associated to the resulting isolated singularities of XΓ ∩ Πξ . K). dz and (φ ◦ S) ∗ Y (φ) = b. We can write SΓ as a disjoint union codim Sing(XΓ ) SΓ = m=1 SΓ. . which accounts for the fact of having to choose a slicing Πξ . and the antipode is given inductively by S(X) = −X − S(X )X . on generators Γ of H. ∆(Γ) = bΓ .47) γ ⊗ Γ/γ with the sum over subdivergences. We now show how to produce a ﬂat connection of the desired form (8.42). This is similar to what happens when one enriches the discrete Hopf algebra by adding the data of the external momenta. We denote −∞ by C ∞ (SΓ ) the space of test functions on SΓ and by Cc (SΓ ) its dual space of distributions. (8. ∆(Γ) = aΓ .49) where SΓ.m is the manifold of mdimensional planes in A#E(Γ) . dz and (φ ◦ S) ⊗ Y (φ).1.m .4. one can write the above equivalently in the form (φ ◦ S) ∗ dφ = a. We begin by introducing a small modiﬁcation of the Hopf algebra and coproduct. This means. Suppose given a subgraph γ ⊂ Γ.
50) which is given by Tγ (Πξ ) = Πξ ∩ A#E(γ) . we can realize the aﬃne Xγ as a hypersurface inside a linear subspace A#E(γ) ⊂ A#E(Γ) and similarly for the aﬃne XΓ/γ . where SΓ.55) is coassociative and H is a Hopf algebra.180 Feynman Motives Proof. σ) + γ (γ. seen as a hypersurface inside a linear subspace A#E(Γ/γ) ⊂ A#E(Γ) .55) The following result is then proved by the same argument used in [Connes and Marcolli (2008)].m of SΓ with m ≤ codim Sing(Xγ ). .52) (8. by Tγ (σ)(f ) = σ(Tγ (f )). Given γ ⊂ Γ. We then enrich the original Hopf algebra H by adding the datum of the slicing Πξ . codim Sing(Xγ ) SΓ. σγ ) ⊗ (Γ/γ. (8.m .4. neglecting external edges.γ 0 otherwise. where we simply identify the edges of γ or Γ/γ with a subset of the edges of the original graph Γ. (8. σΓ/γ ). at the level of distributions. One sets σγ = Tγ (σΓ ) and σΓ/γ = TΓ/γ (σΓ ). endowed with the coproduct ∆(Γ. σ) ⊗ 1 + 1 ⊗ (Γ. σ) = (Γ. (8.54) where S = ∪Γ SΓ .51) −∞ −∞ In turn. This induces a map Tγ : C ∞ (Sγ ) → C ∞ (SΓ ) given by Tγ (f )(Πξ ) = f (Tγ (Πξ )) Πξ ∈ SΓ.γ = m=1 SΓ. (8. ˜ Lemma 8. The coproduct (8. (8.53) The argument for Γ/γ is analogous.γ ⊂ SΓ is the union of the components SΓ. One then has a restriction map Tγ : SΓ. Theorem 1.γ → Sγ .2. We consider the commutative algebra −∞ ˜ H = Sym(Cc (S)).27. this deﬁnes a map Tγ : Cc (SΓ ) → Cc (Sγ ).
which constructs irregular singular connections from solutions of the regular singular Picard–Fuchs equation. This depends on the choice of a singular point and can be localized in a small neighborhood of the singular point in XΓ ∩ Πξ .Renormalization. We then have the following result. Suppose given a holomorphic kform αξ on Πξ .42). δµ is a basis of locally constant sections of the homological Milnor ﬁbration.58) As in §7 of [Arnold. Varchenko (1988)].56) determines a ﬂat g(K)valued connection ω(z. for Πξ a linear space of dimension at most equal to the codimension of Sing(XΓ ).57) where δ1 .ξ (s) is a linear combination of the functions JΓ. with a pole at z = −D if −D ∈ ΞΓ. δi (s) ∈ Hk−1 (Fs .ξ a discrete set in R of points related to the multiplicities of an embedded resolution of the singular point of XΓ ∩ Πξ .4.ξ ( ) ( −1) (s) + · · · + p (s)JΓ. df (8. (8. In fact. introducing a cutoﬀ χξ that is supported near the singularities of XΓ ∩ Πξ amounts to adding the expressions (8.3. Theorem 8. Moreover. . . to simplify notation. and αξ /df is the Gelfand–Leray form associated to the holomorphic kform αξ . .ξ (s) ds.ξ (z) in a small neighborhood of a chosen point z = −D. Thus.i (s) = δi (s) αξ .57) for the diﬀerent singular points.ξ of the regular singular Picard–Fuchs equation (8. u) of the form (8. we can just assume that we have a single expression JΓ. Z). GuseinZade. and Hodge structures 181 We then proceed as follows. .ξ (z) = 0 sz JΓ. Then there exists an associated regular singular Picard–Fuchs equation JΓ. Proof. (8. Any solution JΓ.ξ (s) at a unique isolated critical point.ξ . then the connection is equisingular. It has an expansion as a Laurent series.ξ.ξ (s) + p1 (s)JΓ.ξ (z) admits an analytic continuation to a meromorphic function with poles at points z = −(λ+1) with λ ∈ ΞΓ.56) with the property that any solution JΓ. if the kform αξ is given by PΓ Ωξ as above. We pass to the projective instead of the aﬃne formulation and we ﬁx a small neighborhood of an isolated singular point of XΓ ∩ Πξ . the function FΓ. We look at the function FΓ. . singularities. We consider the Mellin transform ∞ FΓ.ξ (s) = 0.
u) of the form (8. K).59) where we consider FΓ. γµ dz dz where we set uY = etY and then extend the resulting expression to −1 u ∈ Gm (C) = C∗ .182 Feynman Motives After a change of variables on the complex coordinate z. These deﬁne elements aµ . one has d −1 d γµ = θt (γ −1 γ) = uY (a(z)). ˜ denotes the aﬃne group scheme depending on the mass scale µ. for all λ ∈ Gm . One can see that the connection is ﬂat since we have −1 dγµ (z) d d −1 bµ (z) − Y (aµ (z)) = Y (γµ (z)) + γµ (z) (Y (γµ (z))) dz dz dz −1 −Y (γµ (z)) d d −1 γµ (z) − γµ (z) (Y (γµ (z))) dz dz −1 = −γµ (z) d −1 −1 −1 (γµ (z))γµ (z)Y (γµ (z)) − γµ (z)Y (γµ (z))γµ (z) dz .61) ˜ where S and ∗ are the antipode of H and the product dual to the coproduct ∆ of (8. More precisely. Here µ is the mass scale. Thus. The homomorphism φ deﬁned by (8.59) can ˜ ˜ be equivalently described as a family of G(C)valued loops γµ : ∆∗ → G(C). More precisely. (8.ξ as a function of ξ to which we apply the distribution σ. after identifying FΓ. Similarly. namely ω(z.60) ˜ where θt is the oneparameter family of automorphisms of H generated by d the grading. Here G ˜ dual to the commutative Hopf algebra H. λu) = λY ω(z. u). This deﬁnes an algebra ˜ homomorphism φµ ∈ Hom(H.ξ (− D+z ) . σ)(z) := µ−z b1 (Γ) σ FΓ. which one can use to deﬁne a connection ω(z. (8. bµ Ω1 (g(K)). we get γµ Y (γµ ) = uY (b(z)). 2 (8. for µ = et . we deﬁne φµ (Γ. by assigning the values (8. u) deﬁned in this way satisﬁes by construction the ﬁrst condition of the equisingularity property.ξ with its Laurent series expansion.55). we apply σ to the coeﬃcients seen as functions of ξ. The dependence on µ of (8. so that we have z ∈ ∆∗ a small neighborhood of z = 0. dz and bµ (z) := (φµ ◦ S) ∗ Y (φµ ). the connection ω(z.42).59) implies that γµ satisﬁes the scaling property γet µ (z) = θtz (γµ (z)). dt θt t=0 = Y .59) on generators. Then one sets aµ (z) := (φµ ◦ S) ∗ d φµ .
as shown in [Connes and Kreimer (2000)] (see also Proposition 1.44 of [Connes and Marcolli (2008)]).8. in the case of dimensional regularization and minimal subtraction. The integrals (8. localized by a cutoﬀ χξ near the singular points.8.1 and Proposition 1. that the Feynman integrals Uµ (Γ)(z) deﬁne a G(C)valued loop γµ (z) with the property that ∂µ γµ. the same argument as in [Collins (1986)] §5. .− (z)−1 γµ. Thus.− (z) = 0. singularities.44 of [Connes and Marcolli (2008)] applies to this case to show that ∂µ γµ. b(z)]. This means.− (z) = 0. The explicit dependence on µ in the Feynman integrals is as in (8. it is possible to show (see [Collins (1986)] §5.− (z) = 0.Renormalization.1) that the counterterms obtained by the BPHZ procedure applied to the Feynman integral Uµ (Γ)(z) do not depend on the mass parameter µ.58) considered here correspond to slices along a linear space Πξ of the Feynman integrals. in the Birkhoﬀ factorization γµ (z) = γµ. which is unchanged with respect to that of the original dimensionally regularized Feynman integrals.+ (z). The second condition of equisingularity is the property that. and Hodge structures 183 = −[a(z).59). dµ By dimensional analysis on the counterterms. the negative part satisﬁes d γµ.
where we can reformulate the parametric integral as a period of a supermanifold. and in particular the φ4 theory. We concentrate here only on two simple kinds of extensions. based on the results of [Marcolli and Rej (2008)]. with the determinant deﬁning the graph polynomial replaced by a Berezinian. where one can already see some new feature appearing. The ﬁrst extension we discuss is to theories with fermionic ﬁelds. fol185 . this time on a supermanifold. based on the parametric representation of Feynman integrals and the associated algebraic varieties. deﬁned in terms of Berezinians instead of determinants and fermionic integration. and we report some observations of [Aluﬃ and Marcolli (2008a)] on computations of characteristic classes for the resulting graph hypersurfaces. can be extended beyond the original setting of scalar quantum ﬁeld theories. which is a natural analog in the supergeometry context. over a spacetime that is deformed to a noncommutative manifold with a Moyal product. In this case one can again express a parametric form of the Feynman integral in terms of periods. We report a few basic facts about the geometry of supermanifolds. In this case it is also known that a parametric formulation of Feynman integrals exists. The second case we discuss is that of scalar quantum ﬁeld theories. 9.Chapter 9 Beyond scalar theories In this ﬁnal chapter we give a few examples of how the theme of Feynman integrals and motives.1 Supermanifolds We describe here an extension of the parametric Feynman integral and its motivic interpretation to the case of theories with both fermionic and bosonic variables. The results reported here are from [Marcolli and Rej (2008)].
(9. In particular. with the exterior powers Λ• graded by odd/even degree. The complex projective superspace Pnm is the supermanifold (X. we deﬁne the ideal sheaf of X1 to be the kernel IX1 := Ker(f # : A2 → f∗ A1 ). §4. while the θj are anticommuting Grassmann variables. consists of a pair F = (f. with the property that f : X1 → X2 is an embedding and f # : A2 → f∗ A1 is surjective. . f # ) as above. A) with the following properties: A is a sheaf of supercommutative rings on X. If we denote by Ei . or even degree. . in local coordi= O nates. The supermanifold is split if the isomorphism A ∼ Λ• X (E) is global.1). [Manin (1988)]. on the maximal ideals of germs of sections vanishing at the point (cf. with the notation as above. f # ) of a morphism of the underlying complex manifolds f : X1 → X2 together with a morphism f # : A2 → f∗ A1 of sheaves of supercommutative rings with the property that at each point # # x ∈ X1 the induced morphism fx : (A2 )f (x) → (A1 )x satisﬁes fx (mf (x) ) ⊂ mx . . A) with X = Pn the usual complex projective space and A = Λ• (Cm ⊗C O(−1)). where the xi are ordinary. A morphism F : X1 → X2 of supermanifolds Xi = (Xi . . (X. . It is a split supermanifold. for i = 1. scalar variables. part and the fermionic variables θj the order one. then an embedding F : X1 → X2 is an embedding f : X1 → X2 such . with N the ideal of nilpotents in A. i = 1. 2 the holomorphic vector bundles on Xi such that O(Ei ) = Ei = Ni /Ni2 . an embedding of complex supermanifolds is a morphism F = (f. The bosonic variables xi generate the order zero. Ai ). By a complex supermanifold one understands a datum X = (X. θm ). a supermanifold is parameterized by bosonic and fermionic variables (x0 . 2. xn .1) An equivalent characterization of an embedding of supermanifold is given as follows. where OX = A/N . commuting.186 Feynman Motives lowing [Manin (1988)]. or odd degree part with respect to the Z/2Zgrading. Thus. . . . θ1 . A simple example is given by the projective superspaces. As in ordinary geometry. the quotient E = N /N 2 is locally free over OX and A is locally isomorphic to the exterior algebra Λ• X (E). where the O grading is the Z/2Zgrading by odd/even degrees. OX ) is a complex manifold.
. . A subvariety in superprojective space is a supermanifold X = (X ⊂ Pn . AX X Y Y]. Let F : Y → X be a closed embedding of supermanifolds. = the ideal sheaf of Y satisﬁes IY U = AU . Thus. θ1 . . . . (9. (9.1. (Λ• (Cm ⊗C O(−1))/I)X ).3) where I = (i1 . we say that Y = (Y. B) is a closed subsupermanifold of X = (X. xn ) are homogeneous polynomials in the bosonic variables. deﬁned as follows. Let SVC be the category of complex supermanifolds with morphisms deﬁned as above. . (9. . ik ). . . (9. . Given a locally closed subset Y ⊂ X and a sheaf A on X. . . and the PI (x0 . .4) ). θm ) = i1 <···<ik PI (x0 . .6) . . Deﬁnition 9. Then [X ] = [Y] + [X where X Y is the supermanifold X Y = (X Y. see [Kashiwara and Schapira (1990)] §II. A) is given by an open embedding U → X of the underlying complex manifolds and an isomorphism of sheaves AU ∼ B. . When Y ⊂ X is a closed embedding and U = X Y . . B) → X = (X. there exists a unique sheaf AY with the property that AY Y = AY and AY X Y = 0. . . . An open submanifold U = (U.1. . θm ) the bosonic and fermionic coordinates of Pnm .Beyond scalar theories 187 that the induced morphism of vector bundles f ∗ : E2 → E1 is surjective.3. xn .5) Here the notation AX means the following.2. then a projective subvariety can be obtained by assigning a number of equations of the form Ψev/odd (x0 . A) when there exists a closed embedding Y ⊂ X and the pullback of EA under this embedding surjects to EB . xn )θi1 · · · θik = 0. . xn . . In [Marcolli and Rej (2008)] an analog of the Grothendieck ring of varieties is considered for supermanifolds. In other words. .2) where I = IX is an ideal generated by ﬁnitely many homogeneous polynomials of given Z/2parity. (9. θ1 . . . . Let K0 (SVC ) denote the free abelian group generated by the isomorphism classes of objects X ∈ SVC subject to the following relations. if we denote by (x0 . .
for a closed embedding Y ⊂ X. U. e §3.4) then ensures that. AY Y ]. This is a consequence of the d´vissage of coherent sheaves. The relation (9. which has support Y . [Shafarevich (1996)]. . in the case where A = OX is the structure sheaf of X.2. Propositions 1–3.3. see [Shafarevich (1996)]. When Y is open it satisﬁes AY = Ker(A → j∗ (AX Y )). §3.7) in the Grothendieck group of ordinary varieties. given a pair X = (X. AU U ] + [Y. the relation (9.4) reduces to the usual relation [X] = [Y ] + [X Y ]. (9.1. A) decomposes as a sum of the corresponding classes in the Grothendieck group. It is then clear that the product makes K0 (SVC ) into a ring with [X ][Y] = [X × Y]. has a chain of subsheaves AY ⊃ A1 ⊃ · · · ⊃ Ak = 0 such that each quotient Ai /Ai+1 is coherent on Y . 1). The Grothendieck ring K0 (SVC ) of supervarieties is a polynomial ring over the Grothendieck ring of ordinary varieties of the form K0 (SVC ) = K0 (VC )[T ]. Namely. A) and the sequence of sheaves 0 → i! (AU ) → A → j∗ (AY ) → 0.3.8) where T = [A01 ] is the class of the aﬃne superspace of dimension (0. and in fact of supermanifolds where the vector bundle E with O(E) = E = N /N 2 is trivial. In particular. (9. associated to the open embedding U ⊂ X with complement Y = X the class [X. Proposition 9. We show that all supermanifolds decompose in K0 (SVC ) as a ﬁnite combination of split supermanifolds. The sheaf AY on X. Proof. The supermanifold X = (X. Proposition 3. A] = [U. this satisﬁes AY = i∗ (AY ) where i : Y → X is the inclusion.188 Feynman Motives In the case where Y is closed. A] satisﬁes [X. one can ﬁnd a stratiﬁcation where on each open stratum the supermanifold is split and with trivial vector bundle. for any coherent sheaf A over a Noetherian reduced irreducible scheme there exists a dense open set U such that AU is free. Thus. where in this case j : X Y → X is the closed embedding of the complement.
namely the bosonic one Lb = [A10 ] and the fermionic one Lf = [A01 ]. . The fact that it is indeed a polynomial ring in the class [A01 ] without further relation is a consequence of the fact that A01 is parameterized by a single Grassmann variable and that the A0n are nonisomorphic supermanifolds. for a form ω = I I fI (x0 . Grassmann variables integration is deﬁned in terms of the Berezinian integral.. . §6 of [Manin (1988)]) ω= f1. Suppose given a matrix M of the form M= M11 M12 M21 M22 .m (x0 . in the supermanifold case. . respectively fermionic and bosonic Tate motives. . θ1 . xn ) dx1 · · · dxn . where the M11 and M22 are square matrices with entries of order zero and the M12 and M21 have elements of order one. θm ). xn . (9. . while only the bosonic part can provide nonTate contributions. The fact that the vector bundle that constitutes the fermionic part of a supermanifold is trivial when seen in the Grothendieck group is the analog for supermanifolds of the fact that any locally trivial ﬁbration is equivalent to a product in the Grothendieck group of ordinary varieties.. which is determined by the property that. The formal inverses of Lf and Lb correspond to two types of Tate objects for motives of supermanifolds. the integral gives (see Chapter 4. . det(M22 ) (9. . there are now two diﬀerent types of Lefschetz motives. ..11) . .10) or equivalently by the property that (h0 (x) + h1 (x)θ) dθ = h1 (x).9) It satisﬁes Ber(MN ) = Ber(M)Ber(N ). The analog of the determinant in supergeometry is given by the Berezinian. . . This is deﬁned in the following way. (9.. Notice that. Then the Berezinian of M is the expression Ber(M) := −1 det(M11 − M12 M22 M21 ) . .Beyond scalar theories 189 and the stated result then follows. xn )θ in the local coordinates (x0 . The contribution of the fermionic part of a supermanifold to the class in the Grothendieck ring is always of (fermonic) Tate type. . . . .
Classes of divisors correspond to equivalence classes of line bundles and can be described in terms of integer linear combinations of (n − 1m)dimensional subvarieties Y ⊂ X . for simplicity. It is well known that for such theories the form of the possible fermionic terms in the Lagrangian is severely constrained: for instance.e. ξr ) and ∂Y Yβ = (yj . originating from [Rosly. §5. In the following. with φi φ−1 j a holomorphic function on Ui ∩ Uj nowhere vanishing on the underlying Ui ∩Uj . in cases with tensor indices. ηs ). It is shown in [Bernˇte˘ s ın and Le˘ ıtes (1977)] that Grassmann integration satisﬁes a change of variable formula where the Jacobian of the coordinate change is given by the α Berezinian Ber(J) with J the matrix J = ∂Xβ with Xα = (xi . A Cartier divisor on a supermanifold X of dimension (nm) is deﬁned by a collection of even meromorphic functions φi deﬁned on an open covering Ui → X . and ignore. and to fermionic edges a propagator i p+m / i = . we set m = 0. Voronov (1988)]. i.2 Parametric Feynman integrals and supermanifolds Consider now the case of Feynman propagators and Feynman diagrams that come from theories with both bosonic and fermionic ﬁelds. p2 − m2 p−m / (9. In the following we use the notation q(p) = p2 − m2 . we would have p = pµ γµ . / involving γmatrices expressing fermions in spinorial form. 9.3.12) More generally. see [Ramond (1990)]. we also drop the mass terms in the propagator. There is also a well developed theory of divisors on supermanifolds. The perturbative expansion for such theories corresponsingly involve graphs Γ with two diﬀerent types of edges: fermionic and bosonic edges. the resulting infrared divergence problem.190 Feynman Motives for x an ordinary and θ a Grassmann variable. The Feynman rules assign to each bosonic edge a propagator of the usual form we have encountered so far.13) for the quadratic and linear forms that appear in the bosonic and fermionic propagators. q (p) = i(/ + m) / p (9. .