Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 59 references

An $N$-independent tensor decomposition for SU($N$)

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper develops a general-$N$ Littlewood-Richardson rule: Algorithm 5 decomposes any SU($N$) tensor product of two pair-labeled irreducible representations into a direct sum, with per-term minimal $N$ tracking the $N$-dependence.

desk verdict A promising but unproven algorithm for N-independent SU(N) tensor products; deserves a serious referee who will push for a proof of the linking-sequence criterion. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22981 v1 pith:YMSVF7ZM submitted 2025-07-30 hep-ph hep-thmath-phmath.MPmath.RT

Stefan Keppeler , Malin Sjodahl , Bernanda Telalovic This is my paper
classification hep-phhep-thmath-phmath.MPmath.RT MSC 05E1022E70
keywords SU(N)representationtheoryYoungdiagrampairsLittlewood-Richardsonrulecolumn-wisemultiplicationN-independenttensordecompositionQCDcolorstructurelatticewordscompositediagrams
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper aims to make SU($N$) tensor-product decompositions valid for every $N$ at once, so that QCD color-structure calculations can keep the number of colors symbolic instead of fixing $N=3$ and recomputing for each gauge group. It labels each irreducible representation by a pair of Young diagrams — one ordinary diagram acting on quark (fundamental) factors and one barred diagram acting on antiquark (antifundamental) factors — and combines this labeling with a column-based version of the Littlewood-Richardson rule. The main result, Algorithm 5, multiplies two such pairs and returns the direct-sum decomposition with multiplicities that depend on $N$ through a tracked per-term minimal value $N_{\min}$. If correct, this provides a general-$N$ alternative to the earlier composite-diagram algorithm, which generates spurious intermediate terms that must later be subtracted.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are Young diagram pairs $(\rho,\sigma)$: an ordinary diagram acting on the fundamental (quark) factors and a barred diagram, drawn with bullets, acting on antifundamental (antiquark) factors, with the least $N$ for which the pair labels a representation given by its total number of rows, $N_{\min}$. Because the fixed-$N$ image of a pair has $N$-dependent column heights but $N$-independent column counts, the paper replaces the usual row-wise Littlewood-Richardson rule with column-wise multiplication (Algorithm 2), shown equivalent in Appendix B via transposition. The new device that carries the extra work is the linking sequence: after multiplying by the barred part and adding the first ordinary column, one scans the rows of the semitableau pair from bottom to top, writing 1 for rows containing both labels 1 and $\bar{1}$, 0 for rows containing neither, and inserting a vertical bar between the barred and ordinary regions; admissibility of this short sequence (Definition 1) decides whether the fixed-$N$ column sequence is admissible, and how far $N_{\min}$ must be raised when the sequence fails on the ordinary (right) side.

What would settle it

Run Algorithm 5 on a systematic sample of small pairs and compare each output term with the ordinary row-wise Littlewood-Richardson rule applied to the fixed-$N$ diagrams for several values of $N$ from $N_{\min}$ upward, say $N = N_{\min}$ up to $N = N_{\min}+k$. Any output whose multiplicity or $N_{\min}$ disagrees with the fixed-$N$ computation — for instance a term kept by the linking sequence whose fixed-$N$ column sequence is inadmissible at some valid $N$, or a right-of-bar failure requiring more inserted rows than Algorithm 5 adds — would falsify the criterion; the examples in Appendix D illustrate the intended behavior but do not rule out such a counterexample.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is a column-wise generalization of the Littlewood-Richardson rule to products of two Young diagram pairs: for irreps labeled $(\mu,\nu)$ and $(\rho,\sigma)$, the decomposition $(\mu,\nu)\otimes(\rho,\sigma)$ is produced directly as a direct sum of pair-labeled irreps, with each term carrying a subscript $N_{\min}$ recording the lowest $N$ for which it occurs. The construction multiplies by the barred part using Algorithm 4, appends the ordinary part's columns using Algorithm 3, and decides which intermediate semitableaux survive by reading off a linking sequence — built from rows containing both labels 1 and $\bar{1}$, or neither — and testing it against the standard admissibility condition of Definition 1. Terms failing the criterion to the left of the separating bar are discarded; terms failing only to its right are kept but with $N_{\min}$ increased by the number of missing 0s. The paper proves the column-wise rule (Algorithm 2) by transposition of the row-wise rule, shows the barred and fixed-$N$ admissibility notions to be equivalent, and checks the resulting algorithm against familiar low-$N$ decompositions such as the SU(3) octet product.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the linking-sequence test is complete: checking only the relative placement of the labels 1 and $\bar{1}$ — rows with just one of the two never affect admissibility, and a failure to the right of the separating bar is always repaired by increasing $N_{\min}$ by exactly the number of missing 0s — decides admissibility of the fixed-$N$ column sequence for every pair, a claim illustrated by examples in Appendix D, eqs. (D.1)–(D.3), rather than proved for arbitrary diagrams.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Multiplet-basis and Wigner-6j constructions for QCD color structure can be carried out with $N$ symbolic and specialized to any fixed $N$ only at the end, so no tensor decomposition needs to be redone for each gauge group.
  • The output's per-term $N_{\min}$ exposes the $N$-dependence directly: terms vanish below their $N_{\min}$, which makes large-$N$ limits and comparisons across different $N$ a matter of reading subscripts.
  • The earlier composite-diagram algorithm's overcounting, in which intermediate steps generate extra terms that later have to be subtracted, is avoided; Algorithm 5 produces the final terms in one pass using the standard admissibility checks plus one row scan.
  • The appendix's argument that the algorithms carry over unchanged to GL($N$), SL($N$), and U($N$) implies the general-$N$ decomposition is not tied to unitary groups.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the linking-sequence criterion is correct, the full admissibility problem for arbitrary $N$ has been collapsed to a small datum, the relative placement of labels 1 and $\bar{1}$; this suggests a short direct proof for all pairs should exist, since Appendix D currently only illustrates the mechanism.
  • The same column-wise pairing trick may extend to other tableau operations, such as products of more than two pairs, plethysm, or Kronecker products of composite diagrams, since the $N$-dependence has been isolated in column heights and in the single scalar $N_{\min}$.
  • A mechanical consistency test of Algorithm 5 could be built from the dimension formula: summing the $N$-dependent dimensions of the output terms must equal the product of the input dimensions as a polynomial identity in $N$ for every decomposition.
  • Automating Algorithm 5 and substituting $N=3$ into its general-$N$ multiplet labels should reproduce the known SU(3) color-space decompositions, giving QCD practitioners a direct check before relying on $N$-symbolic bases.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops an N-independent algorithm for reducing tensor products of SU(N) irreducible representations labeled by pairs of Young diagrams (one barred and one ordinary). After introducing barred diagrams and a column-wise version of the Littlewood-Richardson rule (Algorithm 2), the authors give algorithms for multiplying a pair by an ordinary Young diagram (Algorithm 3) and by a barred Young diagram (Algorithm 4). The main result, Algorithm 5, combines these to decompose the product of two pairs into a direct sum of pairs, with N-dependent multiplicities and an Nmin threshold for each term. The paper also derives a dimension formula for pairs and discusses extensions to GL(N), SL(N), and U(N) in Appendix A. The central claim is that Algorithm 5 avoids the overcounting of King's composite-diagram algorithm and provides a general-N Littlewood-Richardson rule for SU(N).

Significance. If the main algorithm is correct, it would be a useful and elegant tool for QCD color-structure calculations that must treat the number of colors as a parameter, and it would improve on King's earlier pair-based algorithm by avoiding intermediate overcounting. The paper has real strengths: Algorithm 2 is proven rigorously in Appendix B via transposition; Algorithms 3 and 4 are clearly motivated by mapping barred diagrams and pairs to ordinary N-dependent semitableaux; and the worked examples reproduce standard N=3 decompositions such as 8⊗8. The manuscript also avoids free parameters and does not fit the conclusion from data. However, the correctness of Algorithm 5, the main result, is not established in the manuscript: the linking-sequence criterion is supported only by examples in Appendix D and one worked example in Section 6. The significance is therefore conditional on filling this proof gap or supplying an independent verification for general pairs.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 6, Algorithm 5 and Appendix D] The linking-sequence criterion is the load-bearing part of Algorithm 5, but it is not proven for arbitrary Young diagram pairs. Appendix D reduces the admissibility of the full N-dependent column sequence to the relative placement of labels 1 and 1, arguing from row types (1)-(4) and stating that rows with only one of these labels 'do not affect admissibility' and that arbitrary stacks of two-box patterns contribute only admissible subsequences. The text extrapolates from two-row patterns to 'three or more' without an induction or a general combinatorial argument. Since Algorithm 5 is the main result, this is a central gap: a failure of the linking-sequence criterion for some pair would produce incorrect multiplicities or incorrect Nmin values. I recommend adding a formal proof by induction on the rows and columns of ρ and σ, or at least a systematic independent verification of Algorithm 5 against ordinary Littlewood-Richardson multiplication for fixed N for a range of pairs.
  2. [Appendix D, final paragraph, and Algorithm 5, step 4] The repair rule in Algorithm 5, step 4, which increases Nmin by the number of additional 0s required at the bar when the linking sequence is inadmissible to the right, is not proven to correspond to the actual number of missing labels -1 in the N-dependent column sequence. Appendix D shows three examples, eqs. (D.1)-(D.3), but does not prove that the linking-sequence deficit equals the number of inserted rows for arbitrary N, row lengths, and column lengths. This equality is essential: if the repair count is wrong, the Nmin values and hence the N-dependent multiplicities would be wrong for some N. A proof or a counterexample-free formal argument is needed before the general-N claim can be accepted.
  3. [Section 6, paragraph following eq. (6.1)] The assertion 'This is true in general'—that the only constraints beyond Algorithms 3 and 4 come from the relative placement of labels 1 and 1—is exactly the unproven step of the paper. Example (6.1) demonstrates that an extra constraint is needed, but it does not establish sufficiency of the proposed constraint for all pairs. Since this assertion underlies the definition of the linking sequence, it should be turned into a precise lemma with proof, or explicitly stated as a conjecture whose verification is left to future work.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 6, paragraph before eq. (6.1)] The phrase 'if admissibly fails in the ordinary part' should read 'if admissibility fails in the ordinary part'.
  2. [Eq. (5.5)] The text says terms 'like 112' were rejected due to non-admissibility, but the rejected semitableaux are not shown; displaying them would make the admissibility test easier to follow.
  3. [Sections 2 and 5] The symbol • is used both for a barred box and for the empty Young diagram; although the context usually disambiguates, a different symbol for the empty diagram (for example ∅) would avoid possible confusion.
  4. [Appendix D, Figure 1] The caption of Figure 1 does not explicitly state where the additional purple rows are inserted when N is increased beyond Nmin; an explicit description of the insertion position would clarify the repair rule.
  5. [Algorithm 5, step 3] The instruction to place a vertical bar 'between the entries corresponding to the barred diagram and to the ordinary Young diagram' is vague; it should specify that the bar is placed after the last row of the barred part of the semitableau pair.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Algorithm 5's derivation rests on standard Littlewood–Richardson transposition theory; the unproven linking-sequence criterion is a correctness gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper derives column-wise multiplication (Algorithm 2) from the standard row-wise Littlewood–Richardson rule via the transposition identity c^T(ν)_{T(λ),T(μ)} = c^ν_{λ,μ}, citing Fulton and giving its own proof in Appendix B. Algorithms 3 and 4 are then obtained by mapping barred diagrams and pairs to fixed-N ordinary diagrams and applying Algorithm 2; admissibility of the barred sequence is proved in Appendix C by relating reduced barred sequences to reduced column sequences of the N-dependent semitableaux. The final pair–pair algorithm introduces the linking sequence as an additional criterion for combining the barred and ordinary subsequences. The supporting argument in Appendix D is a case analysis of row types (1)–(4) rather than a complete formal induction, and the claim that Nmin can be repaired by inserting 0s at the separating bar is illustrated with examples rather than proved in full generality. This is a possible correctness or completeness gap in the main claim, but it is not circular: the linking-sequence criterion is checked against, not fitted to, the fixed-N column-multiplication standard, and no parameter is fit to a subset of outputs and then renamed a prediction. Self-citations to [30,31,38] provide the pair-labeling context and the ‘highest first occurrence’ characterization, but the correctness argument for Algorithm 5 does not reduce to those citations; the derivation is anchored in external standard results (Littlewood–Richardson numbers, transposition symmetry, Young-operator facts). The circularity burden is therefore very low.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted parameters. It relies on standard representation theory of SU(N) and on the new linking sequence criterion, which is an unproven combinatorial assumption in the main algorithm. No new physical entities are postulated.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math The Littlewood-Richardson rule computes SU(N) tensor product multiplicities via row-wise multiplication of Young diagrams.
    Used in Algorithm 1 and throughout as the starting point for the column-wise reformulation.
  • standard math The transpose property c^ν_{λ,μ} = c^{Tν}_{Tλ,Tμ} holds for Littlewood-Richardson coefficients.
    Invoked in the proof of Algorithm 2 in Appendix B via eq. (3.3).
  • standard math Young diagram pairs (ρ,σ) label irreducible SU(N) representations with vanishing contractions between fundamental and antifundamental factors.
    Relies on King [30] and Tung [48, Chapter 13] for existence and uniqueness; used in Section 4.
  • ad hoc to paper Admissibility of the full column sequence reduces to checking only the relative placement of labels 1 and 1, with rows containing only one of those labels never affecting admissibility.
    This is the key structural assumption behind the linking sequence in Algorithm 5; it is illustrated with examples in Appendix D but not proven in general.
  • ad hoc to paper A failure of the linking sequence to the right of the separating bar is always repaired by increasing Nmin by the number of missing 0s at the bar.
    Used in Algorithm 5 step 4; the correspondence to inserted rows with label -1 for larger N is argued in Appendix D but not proven for arbitrary pairs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An $N$-independent tensor decomposition for SU($N$)." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YMSVF7ZM

@misc{pith2026250722981,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An $N$-independent tensor decomposition for SU($N$)},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YMSVF7ZM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22981}
}
abstract

To facilitate a simultaneous treatment of an arbitrary number of colors in representation theory-based descriptions of QCD color structure, we derive an $N$-independent reduction of SU($N$) tensor products. To this end, we label each irreducible representation by a pair of Young diagrams, with parts acting on quarks and antiquarks. By combining this with a column-wise multiplication of Young diagrams, we generalize the Littlewood-Richardson rule for the product of two Young diagrams to the product of two Young diagram pairs, achieving a general-$N$ decomposition.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Paton and H.-M

    J.E. Paton and H.-M. Chan, Generalized Veneziano model with isospin , Nucl. Phys. B 10 (1969) 516

    work page 1969

  2. [2]

    Dittner, Invariant tensors in su(3)

    P. Dittner, Invariant tensors in su(3). 2. , Commun. Math. Phys. 27 (1972) 44

    work page 1972

  3. [3]

    Cvitanovic, Group theory for Feynman diagrams in non-Abelian gauge theories , Phys

    P. Cvitanovic, Group theory for Feynman diagrams in non-Abelian gauge theories , Phys. Rev. D 14 (1976) 1536

    work page 1976

  4. [4]

    Berends and W

    F.A. Berends and W. Giele, The Six Gluon Process as an Example of Weyl-Van Der Waerden Spinor Calculus , Nucl. Phys. B294 (1987) 700

    work page 1987

  5. [5]

    Mangano, S.J

    M.L. Mangano, S.J. Parke and Z. Xu, Duality and Multi - Gluon Scattering , Nucl. Phys. B298 (1988) 653

    work page 1988

  6. [6]

    Mangano, The color structure of gluon emission , Nucl

    M.L. Mangano, The color structure of gluon emission , Nucl. Phys. B 309 (1988) 461

    work page 1988

  7. [7]

    Kosower, Color Factorization for Fermionic Amplitudes , Nucl

    D.A. Kosower, Color Factorization for Fermionic Amplitudes , Nucl. Phys. B315 (1989) 391. – 26 –

    work page 1989

  8. [8]

    Nagy and D.E

    Z. Nagy and D.E. Soper, Parton showers with quantum interference , JHEP 09 (2007) 114 [0706.0017]

    arXiv 2007

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    Sjodahl, Color structure for soft gluon resummation – a general recipe , JHEP 0909 (2009) 087 [ 0906.1121]

    M. Sjodahl, Color structure for soft gluon resummation – a general recipe , JHEP 0909 (2009) 087 [ 0906.1121]

    2009 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Alwall, M

    J. Alwall, M. Herquet, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer and T. Stelzer, MadGraph 5 : Going Beyond, JHEP 1106 (2011) 128 [ 1106.0522]

    2011 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Sj¨ odahl,ColorMath - A package for color summed calculations in SU( Nc), Eur

    M. Sj¨ odahl,ColorMath - A package for color summed calculations in SU( Nc), Eur. Phys. J. C73 (2013) 2310 [ 1211.2099]

    2013 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Sjodahl, ColorFull – a C++ library for calculations in SU( Nc) color space, Eur.Phys.J

    M. Sjodahl, ColorFull – a C++ library for calculations in SU( Nc) color space, Eur.Phys.J. C75 (2015) 236 [ 1412.3967]

    2015 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Pl¨ atzer and M

    S. Pl¨ atzer and M. Sjodahl,Subleading Nc improved parton showers, JHEP 07 (2012) 042 [1201.0260]

    2012 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Pl¨ atzer, M

    S. Pl¨ atzer, M. Sjodahl and J. Thor´ en,Color matrix element corrections for parton showers , JHEP 11 (2018) 009 [ 1808.00332]

    2018 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Frederix and T

    R. Frederix and T. Vitos, The colour matrix at next-to-leading-colour accuracy for tree-level multi-parton processes, JHEP 12 (2021) 157 [ 2109.10377]

    2021 arXiv

  8. [16]

    ’t Hooft, A Planar Diagram Theory for Strong Interactions , Nucl

    G. ’t Hooft, A Planar Diagram Theory for Strong Interactions , Nucl. Phys. B72 (1974) 461

    1974

  9. [17]

    Kanaki and C.G

    A. Kanaki and C.G. Papadopoulos, HELAC-PHEGAS: Automatic computation of helicity amplitudes and cross-sections , hep-ph/0012004

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    Maltoni, K

    F. Maltoni, K. Paul, T. Stelzer and S. Willenbrock, Color Flow Decomposition of QCD Amplitudes, Phys. Rev. D67 (2003) 014026 [ hep-ph/0209271]

    2003 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Kilian, T

    W. Kilian, T. Ohl, J. Reuter and C. Speckner, QCD in the Color-Flow Representation , JHEP 10 (2012) 022 [ 1206.3700]

    2012 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Pl¨ atzer,Summing Large-N Towers in Colour Flow Evolution , Eur

    S. Pl¨ atzer,Summing Large-N Towers in Colour Flow Evolution , Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 2907 [1312.2448]

    2014 arXiv

  13. [21]

    ´Angeles Mart ´ ınez, M

    R. ´Angeles Mart ´ ınez, M. De Angelis, J.R. Forshaw, S. Pl¨ atzer and M.H. Seymour,Soft gluon evolution and non-global logarithms , JHEP 05 (2018) 044 [ 1802.08531]

    2018 arXiv

  14. [22]

    De Angelis, J.R

    M. De Angelis, J.R. Forshaw and S. Pl¨ atzer, Resummation and Simulation of Soft Gluon Effects beyond Leading Color , Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (2021) 112001 [ 2007.09648]

    2021 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Pl¨ atzer and I

    S. Pl¨ atzer and I. Ruffa,Towards Colour Flow Evolution at Two Loops , JHEP 06 (2021) 007 [2012.15215]

    2021 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Sjodahl and J

    M. Sjodahl and J. Thor´ en,Decomposing color structure into multiplet bases , JHEP 09 (2015) 055 [ 1507.03814]

    2015 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Isaacson and S

    J. Isaacson and S. Prestel, Stochastically sampling color configurations , Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 014021 [ 1806.10102]

    2019 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Forshaw, S

    J.R. Forshaw, S. Pl¨ atzer and F.T. Gonz´ alez,Exact colour evolution for jet observables , 2502.12133

    arXiv

  19. [27]

    Forshaw, S

    J.R. Forshaw, S. Pl¨ atzer and F.T. Gonz´ alez,Fully Differential Soft Gluon Evolution at the Amplitude Level, 2505.13183

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    Robinson, ed., The collected papers of Alfred Young (1873–1940) , University of Toronto Press, Toronto (1977), 10.3138/9781487575625

    G.d.B. Robinson, ed., The collected papers of Alfred Young (1873–1940) , University of Toronto Press, Toronto (1977), 10.3138/9781487575625. – 27 –

    1977 doi

  21. [29]

    Littlewood and A.R

    D.E. Littlewood and A.R. Richardson, Group characters and algebra , Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 233 (1934) 99

    1934

  22. [30]

    King, Generalized Young tableaux and the general linear group , J

    R.C. King, Generalized Young tableaux and the general linear group , J. Math. Phys. 11 (1970) 280

    1970

  23. [31]

    Sjodahl and J

    M. Sjodahl and J. Thor´ en,QCD multiplet bases with arbitrary parton ordering , JHEP 11 (2018) 198 [ 1809.05002]

    2018 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Macfarlane, A

    A. Macfarlane, A. Sudbery and P. Weisz, On Gell-Mann ’s λ-matrices, d- and f -tensors, octets, and parametrizations of SU(3) , Commun. Math. Phys. 11 (1968) 77

    1968

  25. [33]

    Butera, G.M

    P. Butera, G.M. Cicuta and M. Enriotti, Group Weight and Vanishing Graphs , Phys. Rev. D21 (1980) 972

    1980

  26. [34]

    Kyrieleis and M.H

    A. Kyrieleis and M.H. Seymour, The colour evolution of the process qq → qqg , JHEP 01 (2006) 085 [ hep-ph/0510089]

    2006 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Dokshitzer and G

    Y.L. Dokshitzer and G. Marchesini, Soft gluons at large angles in hadron collisions , JHEP 01 (2006) 007 [ hep-ph/0509078]

    2006 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Sjodahl, Color evolution of 2 → 3 processes, JHEP 12 (2008) 083 [ 0807.0555]

    M. Sjodahl, Color evolution of 2 → 3 processes, JHEP 12 (2008) 083 [ 0807.0555]

    2008 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Beneke, P

    M. Beneke, P. Falgari and C. Schwinn, Soft radiation in heavy-particle pair production: All-order colour structure and two-loop anomalous dimension , Nucl. Phys. B 828 (2010) 69 [0907.1443]

    2010 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Keppeler and M

    S. Keppeler and M. Sjodahl, Orthogonal multiplet bases in SU(Nc) color space, JHEP 09 (2012) 124 [ 1207.0609]

    2012 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Y.-J. Du, M. Sj¨ odahl and J. Thor´ en,Recursion in multiplet bases for tree-level MHV gluon amplitudes, JHEP 05 (2015) 119 [ 1503.00530]

    2015 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Keppeler and M

    S. Keppeler and M. Sj¨ odahl,Hermitian Young Operators, J. Math. Phys. 55 (2014) 021702 [1307.6147]

    2014 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Alcock-Zeilinger and H

    J. Alcock-Zeilinger and H. Weigert, Simplification rules for birdtrack operators , J. Math. Phys. 58 (2017) 051701 [ 1610.08801]

    2017 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Alcock-Zeilinger and H

    J. Alcock-Zeilinger and H. Weigert, Compact Hermitian Young Projection Operators, J. Math. Phys. 58 (2017) 051702 [ 1610.10088]

    2017 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Alcock-Zeilinger and H

    J. Alcock-Zeilinger and H. Weigert, Transition Operators, J. Math. Phys. 58 (2017) 051703 [1610.08802]

    2017 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Ohl, Birdtracks of exotic SU(N ) color structures, JHEP 2024 (2024) 203 [ 2403.04685]

    T. Ohl, Birdtracks of exotic SU(N ) color structures, JHEP 2024 (2024) 203 [ 2403.04685]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Sjodahl, Orthogonal color bases for exotic representations , Phys

    M. Sjodahl, Orthogonal color bases for exotic representations , Phys. Lett. B 868 (2025) 139715 [2412.07390]

    2025 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Alcock-Zeilinger, S

    J. Alcock-Zeilinger, S. Keppeler, S. Pl¨ atzer and M. Sjodahl, Wigner 6j symbols for SU(N ): Symbols with at least two quark-lines , J. Math. Phys. 64 (2023) 023504 [ 2209.15013]

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Keppeler, S

    S. Keppeler, S. Pl¨ atzer and M. Sjodahl, Wigner 6j symbols with gluon lines: completing the set of 6j symbols required for color decomposition , JHEP 05 (2024) 051 [ 2312.16688]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Tung, Group Theory in Physics , World Scientific Publishing Co., Philadelphia, PA (1985)

    W.-K. Tung, Group Theory in Physics , World Scientific Publishing Co., Philadelphia, PA (1985)

    1985

  41. [49]

    Cvitanovi´ c,Group Theory: Birdtracks, Lie’s, and Exceptional Groups , Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ (2008)

    P. Cvitanovi´ c,Group Theory: Birdtracks, Lie’s, and Exceptional Groups , Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ (2008). – 28 –

    2008

  42. [50]

    Littlewood, The Theory of Group Characters and Matrix Representations of Groups , Oxford University Press, London (1950)

    D.E. Littlewood, The Theory of Group Characters and Matrix Representations of Groups , Oxford University Press, London (1950)

    1950

  43. [51]

    Hamermesh, Group Theory and its Application to Physical Problems , Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA (1962)

    M. Hamermesh, Group Theory and its Application to Physical Problems , Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA (1962)

    1962

  44. [52]

    Lichtenberg, Unitary Symmetry and Elementary Particles , Academic Press, New York, San Francisco, London, 2nd ed

    D.B. Lichtenberg, Unitary Symmetry and Elementary Particles , Academic Press, New York, San Francisco, London, 2nd ed. (1978)

    1978

  45. [53]

    Jones, Groups, Representations and Physics , Adam Hilger, Ltd., Bristol (1990), 10.1887/0750305045

    H.F. Jones, Groups, Representations and Physics , Adam Hilger, Ltd., Bristol (1990), 10.1887/0750305045

    1990 doi

  46. [54]

    Fulton, Young Tableaux, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1997)

    W. Fulton, Young Tableaux, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1997)

    1997

  47. [55]

    Sagan, The Symmetric Group - Representations, Combinatorical Algorithms, and Symmetric Functions , Springer, New York, 2nd ed

    B.E. Sagan, The Symmetric Group - Representations, Combinatorical Algorithms, and Symmetric Functions , Springer, New York, 2nd ed. (2000), 10.1007/978-1-4757-6804-6

    2000 doi

  48. [56]

    King, The dimensions of irreducible representations of linear groups , Canadian Journal of Mathematics 22 (1970) 436–448

    R.C. King, The dimensions of irreducible representations of linear groups , Canadian Journal of Mathematics 22 (1970) 436–448

    1970

  49. [57]

    Black, R.C

    G.R.E. Black, R.C. King and B.G. Wybourne, Kronecker products for compact semisimple lie groups, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 16 (1983) 1555

    1983

  50. [58]

    Cummins and R.C

    C.J. Cummins and R.C. King, Composite Young diagrams, supercharacters of U(M/N) and modification rules, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 20 (1987) 3121

    1987

  51. [59]

    Fulton and J

    W. Fulton and J. Harris, Representation Theory. A first course , Springer-Verlag, New York (1991), 10.1007/978-1-4612-0979-9. – 29 –

    1991 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.