1

I am trying to use the TiKZ-Feynman package to create Feynman diagrams for a report. However when I try to refer to them by their figure number, it is not generating the number correctly in some cases. It may be something to do with the section or subsection in which the diagram is contained. I am using TiKZ-Feynman 1.1.0 and compiling with LuaLaTeX on sharelatex.

\documentclass[a4paper]{article}

% packages
\usepackage[margin=2.75 cm]{geometry} % margins
\usepackage{tikz}
\usepackage[compat=1.1.0]{tikz-feynman}

\begin{document}

\section{Section 1}
This is the first section, including correctly-numbered figure \ref{fig:first}.

% Figure 1
\begin{figure}[h]
    \label{fig:first}
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{figures/firstfigure.png}
    \caption{Caption correctly numbered.}
\end{figure}


\section{Section 2}

\subsection{Subsection 2.1}

Reference to a tikz-feynman diagram with incorrect figure number \ref{fig:second}.

\begin{figure}[h]
    \centering
    \label{fig:second}
    \feynmandiagram [horizontal=a to b] {
    i1 [particle=\(e^{-}\)] -- [fermion] a -- [fermion] i2 [particle=\(e^{+}\)],
    a -- [photon, edge label=\(\gamma\), momentum'=\(k\)] b,
    f1 [particle=\(\mu^{+}\)] -- [fermion] b -- [fermion] f2 [particle=\(\mu^{-}\)],
};
    \caption{Caption gives the correct numbering}
\end{figure}

\end{document}

Specifically, it labels the first as 'Figure 1' both in the text and in the caption. For the second, however, the caption generates correctly ('Figure 2') while the reference in the text says 'Figure 2.1'.

Torbjørn T.
  • 206,688
  • 1
    Hi, welcome. The \label always has to come after or within the \caption. – Torbjørn T. Aug 31 '17 at 10:34
  • Hi Torbjørn, many thanks for your help. That fixed it! – DylanJaide Aug 31 '17 at 10:37
  • This has nothing to do with tikz-feynman really (remove that diagram as and the image in the first figure and try again). The first cross-reference isn't actually correct, it just looks correct because it likely picks up section 1, whereas the second figure picks up subsection 2.1. – Torbjørn T. Aug 31 '17 at 10:37
  • That makes a lot more sense - I had a hunch it might be to do with the subsection number in the second case, but I didn't realise that there was also a problem in the first as well that looked correct only by coincidence. Many thanks :) – DylanJaide Aug 31 '17 at 10:39

0 Answers0