From Kontsevich Graphs to Feynman graphs, a Viewpoint from the Star Products of Scalar Fields

Zhou Mai

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 15 references

From Kontsevich Graphs to Feynman graphs, a Viewpoint from the Star Products of Scalar Fields

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that the Kontsevich graphs of Bernoulli type are in one-to-one correspondence with loopless Feynman graphs, via a finite-dimensional Moyal-like star product.

desk verdict Correct finite-dimensional Moyal calculus and a known graph bijection, but the Wick theorem in Corollary 4.2 is false as written and Section 5 needs real work. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09666 v4 pith:SNQXC4DY submitted 2019-08-26 math-ph math.MPquant-ph

Zhou Mai This is my paper · ORCID

classification math-phmath.MPquant-ph MSC 53D5581T18

keywords deformationquantizationstarproductscalarfieldsKontsevichgraphsFeynmanWicktheoremMoyaladjacencymatrix

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 constructs star products for scalar fields in three layers: smooth functions on $\mathbb{R}^d$, fields, and functionals. Its starting point is a Moyal-like product $f(x)\star_K g(y)=\exp\{\hbar K\}(f(x)g(y))|_{x=y}$, where $K=\sum_{ij}K_{ij}\partial_i\otimes\partial_j$ is a bi-vector field whose coefficients $K_{ij}$ are abstract propagator entries; this finite-dimensional product is claimed to carry almost all algebraic and combinatorial information of the field and functional products. On this basis Theorem 3.2 states that the Kontsevich graphs of Bernoulli type, products of embedded Bernoulli graphs indexed by an adjacency matrix $M$, are in one-to-one correspondence with loopless Feynman graphs, with each factor $b_{ij}$ serving as one edge between vertices $i$ and $j$. The paper also derives Wick's theorem, Wick powers, and expectation values of Wick monomials from the function-level product, and identifies generalized Feynman amplitudes as the coefficients $\prod_{i

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Bernoulli graph $b_1\in G_{1,2}$: one internal vertex with two outgoing edges to a left and a right boundary vertex. Under Kontsevich's rule it evaluates to the bi-vector field $K$, so its $n$-fold product $b_1^n$ evaluates to $K^n$ and the formal graph $\exp\{\hbar b_1\}$ evaluates to $\exp\{\hbar K\}$. Embedding $b_1$ as a graph $b_{ij}$ whose boundary vertices are $i$ and $j$ carries the same computation to each pair, and the identity $\exp\{\hbar\sum_{i<j}b_{ij}\}\mapsto\exp\{\hbar\sum_{i<j}K_{ij}\}$ reduces the multiple star product to a sum over adjacency matrices. The graph $\prod_{i<j}b_{ij}^{m_{ij}}$ then literally looks like the Feynman diagram with $m_{ij}$ lines between vertices $i$ and $j$.

What would settle it

A decisive check of Theorem 3.2 is to enumerate all graphs $b_M$ for a fixed number of vertices, say $m=3$, and compare with all loopless Feynman graphs on three vertices; any mismatch would refute the bijection. A separate check on the field-level construction is that the Wick power $\phi(x)\star_K\phi(x)=\phi(x)^2+\hbar K(x,x)$ requires the diagonal value $K(x,x)$, so a non-smooth propagator with singular diagonal breaks it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the field-theoretic star-product structure can be encoded in the finite-dimensional formula $f(x)\star_K g(y)=\exp\{\hbar K\}(f(x)g(y))$, with $K=\sum_{ij}K_{ij}\partial_{x_i}\otimes\partial_{y_j}$ and coefficients $K_{ij}$ drawn from an auxiliary commutative algebra. Applying Kontsevich's rule to the Bernoulli graph $b_1$ gives $U_{b_1}(K)=K$, and embedding $b_1$ between boundary vertices $i<j$ yields $b_{ij}$ with evaluation $U_{b_{ij}}(K)=K_{ij}$. A product $b_M=\prod_{i<j} b_{ij}^{m_{ij}}$ over an adjacency matrix $M=(m_{ij})$ with zero diagonal is called a graph of Bernoulli type; Theorem 3.2 asserts that these graphs are in bijection with Feynman graphs without loops, where second-type vertices become Feynman vertices and each $b_{ij}$ factor becomes one edge between $i$ and $j$. Consequently the star-product coefficient $\prod_{i<j}K_{ij}^{m_{ij}}$ is a generalized Feynman amplitude, and the Wick theorem takes the form of a sum over all such adjacency matrices $M$ with multinomial coefficients and derivative orders $\alpha_i=\sum_j m_{ij}$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the propagator is smooth and that every functional is a finite sum of densities of the form a smooth function of the field at finitely many points times a volume form; for distributional propagators the field-level Wick powers and diagonal restrictions are not justified, as the paper's Remark 5.2 concedes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Every loopless Feynman graph with prescribed edge multiplicities $m_{ij}$ is the image of exactly one graph of Bernoulli type $b_M$, so Feynman graph enumeration can be rephrased as enumeration of zero-diagonal adjacency matrices.
The multiple star product $f_1\star_K\cdots\star_K f_d$ has an explicit expansion indexed by adjacency matrices, with coefficient $\frac{\hbar^k}{k!}\binom{k}{m_{12},\dots,m_{d-1,d}}f_1^{(\alpha_1)}\cdots f_d^{(\alpha_d)}\prod_{i<j}K_{ij}^{m_{ij}}$.
Wick powers $:x_i^l:_K$ are Hermite polynomials in $x_i$ built from $\hbar^kK_{ii}^k$, and the ordinary monomial $x_i^l$ is recovered from them by the inversion formula involving $(-\hbar K_{ii})^k$.
A Wick monomial $:x_1^{n_1}:\star\cdots\star:x_d^{n_d}:$ has nonzero expectation exactly when the total degree is even and $2n_i\le\sum_j n_j$ for every $i$.
At the field and functional levels the same formulas hold after replacing $x_i$ by $\phi(x_i)$ and $K_{ij}$ by $K(x_i,x_j)$; functionals of density form are multiplied by integrating the field-level star product.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the bijection is purely combinatorial and independent of the analytic form of $K(x,y)$, it should survive any regularization that makes the propagator smooth; only the values of the amplitudes change, not which graphs contribute.
A natural extension not taken in the paper is to allow diagonal entries $m_{ii}$ in $M$, identifying both boundary vertices of a Bernoulli graph; this would produce self-lines, so the same mechanism may cover Feynman graphs with loops once a prescription for $K(x,x)$ is fixed.
The construction assumes finite-density functionals; imposing wave-front-set conditions on $K$, as Remark 5.2 suggests, would likely keep the combinatorial expansion as the skeleton of a term-by-term distributional product.
The Wick theorem formula can be read as a finite-dimensional generating identity: choosing $f_i$ to be exponentials turns the adjacency-matrix expansion into a relation among Gaussian-type integrals, which could yield a combinatorial proof of the usual Wick theorem for free fields.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know upfront: this paper is a mixed bag, and the headline result in Corollary 4.2 is false as written. The finite-dimensional star-product calculus in Sections 2 and 4.1 is mostly correct, but the claimed Wick theorem for Wick powers has wrong coefficients. For :x_i^{n_i}:, the α-th derivative is n_i!/(n_i-α_i)! times :x_i^{n_i-α_i}:, not binom(n_i, α_i). The concrete check d=2, n_1=n_2=2, K_11=K_22=0, K_12=K, K^(2)=0 gives 2ℏ^2K^2 from the correct expansion and ℏ^2K^2/2 from formula (4.7). Corollary 5.1 inherits the same error.

What is actually fine: Theorem 2.1 and Proposition 4.1 are straightforward and correct; the graph bijection in Theorem 3.2 is also correct, but it is essentially the adjacency-matrix/Feynman-graph correspondence that Brouder already discussed, as Remark 3.2 acknowledges. The packaging in terms of graphs of Bernoulli type is new terminology, not a new theorem.

Section 5 is the softest part. The field- and functional-level star products are defined only for smooth propagators and finite density functions of the form (5.10). Well-definedness is asserted, not proved; the Jacobi identity for the Poisson bracket is stated without proof; and there is no comparison with the pAQFT products of [7]-[9] that the paper claims to generalize. Remark 5.2 honestly concedes the wave-front-set problem, but the theorems are not formulated under those conditions, so the infinite-dimensional claims are not established.

The citation pattern is honest—Brouder is credited for the adjacency correspondence—but the abstract overstates the reach of the construction. The definition of expectation (Def 4.2) is idiosyncratic, tied to the highest ℏ coefficient, not the standard pAQFT vacuum expectation, and its physical meaning is not justified.

Who would get value from this? Someone working on formal deformation quantization for scalar fields might find the function-level calculus a useful starting point, but they would need to fix the Wick coefficients and supply the missing analytic hypotheses. It does deserve a serious referee—the finite-dimensional parts are checkable and the error is specific enough to be corrigible—but the paper should not be accepted in its current form.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a three-level construction of star products for scalar fields: first a finite-dimensional Moyal-like product on R^d whose coefficients are given by a propagator matrix K, then a star product for fields of the form f(ϕ(x_1),...,ϕ(x_d)) obtained by substitution, and then a functional-level product obtained by integrating such densities. The paper proves associativity of the function-level product, introduces Kontsevich Bernoulli graphs, and establishes a one-to-one correspondence between Bernoulli-type Kontsevich graphs and loopless Feynman graphs via adjacency matrices. It also derives a Wick theorem, Wick powers expressed as Hermite polynomials, expectations of Wick monomials, and a criterion for admissible degree sequences.

Significance. The finite-dimensional viewpoint is attractive: it reduces many algebraic and combinatorial aspects of scalar-field star products to an explicit exponential of a differential operator. The Bernoulli-graph/Feynman-graph bijection (Theorem 3.2) is a clean statement, although it is essentially the standard adjacency-matrix correspondence already noted in [1]. The Wick theorem and Wick-power formulas are useful calculational tools if corrected. The paper is self-contained, does not rely on parameter fitting, and makes its algebraic manipulations explicit. Its main limitation is that the field- and functional-level constructions are developed only for smooth propagators and for densities of the special form (5.10), as the authors concede in Remark 5.2.

major comments (4)

[Section 4, Corollary 4.2 (Eq. (4.7))] The coefficient in the Wick theorem is incorrect. Applying Theorem 4.1 with f_i = :x_i^{n_i}:_K and using ∂^α :x_i^n:_K = (n!/(n-α)!):x_i^{n-α}:_K gives a factor ∏_i n_i!/(n_i-α_i)!, not ∏_i binom(n_i, α_i). The error already appears for d=2, n1=n2=2, K=0, K^{(1)}=K, K^{(2)}=0: the left side of (4.7) equals x_1^2 x_2^2 + 4ℏ K x_1x_2 + 2ℏ^2 K^2, while the printed right side gives x_1^2 x_2^2 + 4ℏ K x_1x_2 + (1/2)ℏ^2 K^2. This invalidates Corollary 4.2 and its field-level analogue Corollary 5.1.
[Section 4, Definition 4.2 (Eqs. (4.8)–(4.9)) and Section 5, Definition 5.3 (Eq. (5.9))] The expectation formula is also wrong. For d=2, n1=n2=2, K=0, K^{(1)}=K, the highest-ℏ coefficient of :x_1^2:_K ⋆_{K^{(1)}} :x_2^2:_K is 2K^2, but (4.9) gives K^2/2. The formula is missing the factor ∏ n_i!; when α_i = n_i the correct highest-order coefficient is ∑_M (∏ n_i!)/(∏ m_ij!) ∏(K^{(1)}_{ij})^{m_ij}. Moreover, (4.9) involves only K^{(1)} and not the propagator K used to define the Wick powers; for example, for d=1, n1=2, (4.4) gives :x_1^2:_K = x_1^2 + ℏ K_{11}, so the highest-ℏ coefficient is K_{11}, while (4.9) returns 0 because no admissible adjacency matrix exists. The definition therefore needs to be reconsidered, not merely rescaled.
[Section 4, proof of Theorem 4.2] The induction step in the case n1 > n_{d+1} is invalid. The reduction n'_1 = n1 - n_{d+1} does not preserve condition (4.11): for (n1,n2,n3)=(8,7,3), condition (4.11) holds (S=18), but the reduced sequence (7,5) has S'=12 and 2·7=14>12, so the induction hypothesis cannot be applied; an adjacency matrix exists anyway (m12=6, m13=2, m23=1). The theorem is true, but the proof as written has a gap and should be replaced by a correct argument.
[Section 5, Definitions 5.1 and 5.4] The well-definedness of the field- and functional-level products is not proven. In Definition 5.1 the coefficients K_{ij}=K(x_i,y_j) appear in the same expression in which ∂_{x_i} and ∂_{y_j} act; the paper should state explicitly that these coefficients are held fixed during differentiation, i.e. treated as elements of the coefficient algebra A, and that associativity and the Jacobi identity are then inherited from the function level pointwise. Without this specification the exponential series is ambiguous. In addition, the functionals in (5.10) are only a restricted class, and the assertion at the end of Section 5 that the products are well defined and satisfy all needed conditions needs a proof or a precise set of hypotheses.

minor comments (7)

[Abstract] There is a typo in the abstract: 'ono-one correspondence' should be 'one-to-one correspondence'.
[Throughout] The text contains repeated typos: 'tenser' should be 'tensor', 'emphases' should be 'emphasizes', 'costructed' should be 'constructed', and 'Duo to' should be 'Due to'.
[Section 5, Theorem 5.1] In formula (5.5), the sentence 'Where the second sum in the formula (5.3)' should refer to (5.5), not (5.3).
[Section 5, Definition 5.4] The references in Definition 5.4 to 'definition 5.3' should be to 'definition 5.4'.
[Section 5] The notation x_i is overloaded: it denotes both the formal variable of f and the spacetime point in ϕ(x_i). Using different symbols, e.g. y_i for the formal variables, would remove the ambiguity.
[Section 3, Remark 3.2 and Table 2] The discussion of RSK and semi-standard Young tableaux is not used in the proofs; either connect it explicitly to the Feynman-graph correspondence or remove it to keep the paper focused.
[Section 3, Theorem 3.2 proof] The proof does not account for the vertices of the first type in the graph b_M; the mapping should state that only the second-type vertices become Feynman vertices and each factor b_ij becomes an edge, while the first-type vertices are auxiliary.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the main graph correspondence is a definitional bijection rather than a derived prediction, and the only self-citation is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central construction is an explicit exponential star product at function level, and the later field- and functional-level products are obtained by substituting xi = phi(x_i) into the function-level formulas; no parameter is fitted and no externally measured quantity is renamed as a prediction. The one-one correspondence in Theorem 3.2 is a combinatorial bijection built into the definition of the Bernoulli-type graphs b_M = prod_{i<j} b_{ij}^{m_ij}, with each b_ij assigned to an edge of the corresponding Feynman graph; it relies only on the standard adjacency-matrix parametrisation of loopless multigraphs, cited to the external source [1], and is not a self-referential derivation. The only self-citation, [15], is invoked as background ('the main outline of our construction is along the idea in our earlier work') and does not carry the proof. Remark 5.2 explicitly limits the distributional case, so the smoothness assumption is stated rather than concealed. Abstract claims that the function-level product contains 'all' information are heuristic summaries, not derived equivalences. The possible coefficient error in Corollaries 4.2 and 5.1 is a correctness issue, not a circularity issue, and does not affect this score.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted constants; the propagator matrix K is an input, not a parameter tuned to data. It uses standard graph combinatorics and a smoothness ansatz. The main risk is the unproven extension to distributional propagators and general functionals; the one-to-one theorem is a restatement of the known adjacency-matrix bijection with extra notation.

assumptions (4)

standard math Known bijection between loopless undirected multigraphs (Feynman graphs without self-lines) and symmetric zero-diagonal adjacency matrices
Invoked in Remark 3.2 and used in the converse direction of Theorem 3.2; cited to [1] and the RSK literature.
standard math Kontsevich's rule associates a bidifferential operator to each admissible graph
Used in Section 3.2 to identify U_{b_1}(K)=K and U_{b_M}(K^⊗)=∏K_{ij}^{m_{ij}}; the paper cites [11],[12],[13] without proof.
domain assumption Smooth propagator K(x,y) and finite-point density functionals suffice for the field and functional star products
Section 5, Definition 5.1 and (5.10)-(5.11) restrict to C∞(X×X) and integrals of f(...φ(x_i)...) dV_d; general pAQFT uses distributional K and more general functionals.
domain assumption The algebra A of abstract coefficients is finite generated and commutative, treated as constants by derivatives
Section 2.1, C_A^∞ definition; needed for the tensor-form product to make sense.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From Kontsevich Graphs to Feynman graphs, a Viewpoint from the Star Products of Scalar Fields." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SNQXC4DY

@misc{pith2026190809666,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From Kontsevich Graphs to Feynman graphs, a Viewpoint from the Star Products of Scalar Fields},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SNQXC4DY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09666}
}

read the original abstract

In the present paper we construct the star products concerning scalar fields in the covariant case from a new approach. We construct the star products at three levels, which are levels of functions on Rd, fields and functionals respectively. We emphases that the star product at level of functions is essence and starting point for our setting. Firstly the star product of functions includes all algebraic and combinatorial information of the star products concerning the scalar fields and functionals almost. Secondly, a more interesting point is that the star product of functions concerns only finite dimensional issue, which is a Moyal-like star product on Rd generated by a bi-vector field with abstract coefficients. Thus the Kontsevich graphs play some roles naturally. Actually we prove that there is an ono-one correspondence between a class of Kontsevich graphs and the Feynman graphs. Additionally the Wick theorem, Wick power and the expectation of Wick-monomial are discussed in terms of the star product at level of functions. Our construction can be considered as the generalisation of the star products in perturbative algebraic quantum fields theory and twist product introduced in [1],[2].

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

15 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

[7]

D¨ utsch and K

M. D¨ utsch and K. Fredenhagen, Algebraic quantum ﬁeld theory, perturbative theory, and the loop expansion , Commun. Math. Phys. 219 (2001), no.1, 5- 30,[arXiv:hep-th/0001129]

arXiv 2001
[9]

Hawkins and K

E. Hawkins and K. Rejzner, The star product interacting quantum ﬁeld theory , [arXiv:math-phy/1612.0915v4]

work page arXiv
[1]

Brouder, Quantum ﬁeld theory meets Hopf algebra , Math

Ch. Brouder, Quantum ﬁeld theory meets Hopf algebra , Math. Nachr., 282: 1664- 1690, 2009

work page 2009
[2]

Quantum groups and quantum field theory: I. The free scalar field

Ch. Brouder and R. Oeckl, Quantum groups and quantum ﬁeld theory: The free scalar ﬁeld, Mathematical physics research on the leading edge, Nova Sc ience, Haup- pauge NY, 2003, [arXiv:hep-th/0208118]

work page Pith review arXiv 2003
[3]

Brualdi and Shi-Mei Ma, Enumeration of involutions by descents and symmetric matrices, European J

R. Brualdi and Shi-Mei Ma, Enumeration of involutions by descents and symmetric matrices, European J. Combin., 43: 220-228, 2015

work page 2015
[4]

Combinatorial Proofs of Identities Involving Symmetric Matrices

S. Dahlberg, Combinatorial proof of identities involving symmetric matr ices, [arXiv:1410.7356v2]

work page Pith review arXiv
[5]

Dito, Star-product approach to quantum ﬁeld theory:the free scal ar ﬁeld , Letters in Math

J. Dito, Star-product approach to quantum ﬁeld theory:the free scal ar ﬁeld , Letters in Math. Phys. 20 (1990), no.2, 125-134

work page 1990
[6]

Dito, An example of cancellation of inﬁnities in the star-quantiz ation of ﬁelds , Letters in Math

J. Dito, An example of cancellation of inﬁnities in the star-quantiz ation of ﬁelds , Letters in Math. Phys. 27 (1993), 73-80

work page 1993

Show all 15 references

[8]

D¨ utsch and K

M. D¨ utsch and K. Fredenhagen,Perturbative algebraic ﬁeld theory, and deformation quantization, Proceedings of the conference on mathematical physics in m athematics and physics, Siena, June 20-25, 2000,[arXiv:hep-th/0101o 79v1]

2000
[10]

A. C. Hirshfeld and P. Henselder, Star product and perturbative quantum ﬁeld theory , Ann. Physics, 298 (2002), 382-393

2002
[11]

L. M. Ionescu, A combinatorial approach to coeﬃcients in deformation quan tization, [arXiv:math/0404389v1]

arXiv
[12]

Kathotia, Kontsevich’s universal formula for deformation quantizat ion and the Campbell-Baker-Hausdorﬀ formula, I , Internat

V. Kathotia, Kontsevich’s universal formula for deformation quantizat ion and the Campbell-Baker-Hausdorﬀ formula, I , Internat. J. Math. 11 (2000), no.4, 523- 551,[arXiv:math. QA/9811174]

2000
[13]

Kontsevich, Deformation quantization of Poisson manifolds , Letters Math

M. Kontsevich, Deformation quantization of Poisson manifolds , Letters Math. Phys. 66 (2003), no.3, 157-216,[arXiv:q-alg/9709040]

2003 arXiv
[14]

R. P. Stanley, Enumerative Combinatorics, Vol.1, second edition.(version of 15 July 2011)

2011
[15]

Jie Wu and Mai Zhou, The deformation quantization of the scalar ﬁelds , [arXiv:math-ph/1807.04593] 27

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [7]

D¨ utsch and K

M. D¨ utsch and K. Fredenhagen, Algebraic quantum ﬁeld theory, perturbative theory, and the loop expansion , Commun. Math. Phys. 219 (2001), no.1, 5- 30,[arXiv:hep-th/0001129]

arXiv 2001

[2] [9]

Hawkins and K

E. Hawkins and K. Rejzner, The star product interacting quantum ﬁeld theory , [arXiv:math-phy/1612.0915v4]

work page arXiv

[3] [1]

Brouder, Quantum ﬁeld theory meets Hopf algebra , Math

Ch. Brouder, Quantum ﬁeld theory meets Hopf algebra , Math. Nachr., 282: 1664- 1690, 2009

work page 2009

[4] [2]

Quantum groups and quantum field theory: I. The free scalar field

Ch. Brouder and R. Oeckl, Quantum groups and quantum ﬁeld theory: The free scalar ﬁeld, Mathematical physics research on the leading edge, Nova Sc ience, Haup- pauge NY, 2003, [arXiv:hep-th/0208118]

work page Pith review arXiv 2003

[5] [3]

Brualdi and Shi-Mei Ma, Enumeration of involutions by descents and symmetric matrices, European J

R. Brualdi and Shi-Mei Ma, Enumeration of involutions by descents and symmetric matrices, European J. Combin., 43: 220-228, 2015

work page 2015

[6] [4]

Combinatorial Proofs of Identities Involving Symmetric Matrices

S. Dahlberg, Combinatorial proof of identities involving symmetric matr ices, [arXiv:1410.7356v2]

work page Pith review arXiv

[7] [5]

Dito, Star-product approach to quantum ﬁeld theory:the free scal ar ﬁeld , Letters in Math

J. Dito, Star-product approach to quantum ﬁeld theory:the free scal ar ﬁeld , Letters in Math. Phys. 20 (1990), no.2, 125-134

work page 1990

[8] [6]

Dito, An example of cancellation of inﬁnities in the star-quantiz ation of ﬁelds , Letters in Math

J. Dito, An example of cancellation of inﬁnities in the star-quantiz ation of ﬁelds , Letters in Math. Phys. 27 (1993), 73-80

work page 1993