pith. sign in

arxiv: 2504.12855 · v2 · pith:5QE5MMJZnew · submitted 2025-04-17 · ✦ hep-ph · hep-th

Amplitudes and partial wave unitarity bounds

Luigi C. Bresciani , Gabriele Levati , Paride Paradisi This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 19:13 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph hep-th
keywords partial wave unitarityspinor-helicityN to M scatteringhigher spin theorieseffective field theoriespositivity boundsscattering amplitudes
0
0 comments X

The pith

Spinor-helicity techniques generalize partial wave unitarity bounds to N-to-M scattering and higher-spin theories.

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

The paper develops a formalism based on spinor-helicity variables to extend partial wave unitarity bounds to scattering processes with any number of incoming and outgoing particles. This covers N to M processes with N and M at least two, which matter for high-energy collider studies, and it reaches theories containing spin-2 or higher-spin particles that appear in effective descriptions of gravity. The method supplies concrete bounds that work alongside positivity constraints to restrict the allowed parameter space of effective field theories. Readers interested in scattering amplitudes see this as a route to apply unitarity checks in situations where conventional partial-wave projections become impractical.

Core claim

The authors introduce a spinor-helicity formalism that defines partial-wave projections and unitarity conditions for N to M scattering amplitudes and for theories with spin-2 or higher particles. The construction supplies explicit unitarity bounds that standard methods cannot reach, and it demonstrates the combined power of these bounds with positivity constraints when applied to effective field theories.

What carries the argument

The spinor-helicity representation applied to partial-wave projections and unitarity conditions for multi-particle and higher-spin amplitudes.

If this is right

  • Unitarity bounds become available for multi-particle final states expected at future high-energy colliders.
  • Effective field theories of gravity that include spin-2 or higher particles acquire new concrete constraints.
  • Positivity bounds and partial-wave unitarity bounds together restrict the parameter space of effective theories more tightly than either method alone.
  • Scattering processes previously inaccessible to partial-wave analysis can now be checked for unitarity.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Collider searches for beyond-standard-model effects could incorporate these bounds when analyzing multi-particle final states.
  • The same spinor-helicity approach might be tested on known low-energy processes to verify consistency with established results.
  • Numerical implementations of the formalism could be combined with automated amplitude generators for broader phenomenological scans.

Load-bearing premise

The spinor-helicity representation can be used to define partial-wave projections and enforce unitarity for N to M processes and higher-spin fields without losing essential S-matrix information or creating new inconsistencies.

What would settle it

A explicit computation of a specific N to M amplitude in a higher-spin effective theory that obeys all other consistency requirements yet violates the unitarity bound obtained from the new formalism would test the claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.12855 by Gabriele Levati, Luigi C. Bresciani, Paride Paradisi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Allowed regions for the Euler-Heisenberg EFT (upper plot) and the EFT of gravity (lower plot) by partial wave [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Partial wave unitarity bounds on the Wilson coef [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We develop a formalism, based on spinor-helicity techniques, to generalize the formulation of partial wave unitarity bounds. We discuss unitarity bounds for $N \to M$ (with $N,M \geq 2$) scattering processes -- relevant for high-energy future colliders -- and spin-2 or higher-spin theories -- relevant for effective field theories of gravity -- that are not approachable by standard methods. Moreover, we emphasize the power and complementarity of positivity and partial wave unitarity bounds to constrain the parameter space of effective field theories.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper develops a formalism based on spinor-helicity techniques to generalize partial-wave unitarity bounds to N→M scattering processes (N,M≥2) and to theories with spin-2 or higher-spin particles. These cases are relevant for high-energy colliders and effective field theories of gravity and are not accessible by standard methods. The work also stresses the complementarity between positivity bounds and partial-wave unitarity bounds for constraining EFT parameter spaces.

Significance. If the formalism is rigorously derived and shown to preserve the necessary analytic properties of the S-matrix, the result would be a useful extension of amplitude techniques to multi-particle and higher-spin settings. This could strengthen constraints on EFTs at future colliders and in gravity theories by providing bounds that complement existing positivity methods. The approach leverages established spinor-helicity tools, which is a natural and potentially powerful choice.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.1, Eq. (3.7)] §3.1, Eq. (3.7): the generalized partial-wave projection for N>2 appears to integrate over a reduced kinematic measure; it is unclear whether this exactly reproduces the optical theorem relation of Eq. (2.4) without additional assumptions on the analytic continuation. An explicit verification for a simple scalar 3→2 process would confirm that no S-matrix information is lost.
  2. [§4.2] §4.2: the unitarity bound for the spin-2 EFT coefficient is obtained at tree level; the manuscript does not discuss how loop corrections or higher-order terms in the amplitude would modify the bound, which is load-bearing for the claimed applicability to realistic gravity EFTs.
minor comments (3)
  1. Figure 3: the color coding for different helicity configurations is difficult to distinguish in black-and-white print; adding line styles or markers would improve readability.
  2. [§5] The discussion of complementarity with positivity bounds in §5 would benefit from a short table comparing the two approaches on a common benchmark EFT.
  3. A few references to classic works on partial-wave unitarity (e.g., the original Froissart–Martin bounds) are missing from the introduction.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive comments, which have helped us improve the clarity of the presentation. We address each major comment below and have incorporated revisions to strengthen the discussion of the formalism and its applicability.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3.1, Eq. (3.7)] §3.1, Eq. (3.7): the generalized partial-wave projection for N>2 appears to integrate over a reduced kinematic measure; it is unclear whether this exactly reproduces the optical theorem relation of Eq. (2.4) without additional assumptions on the analytic continuation. An explicit verification for a simple scalar 3→2 process would confirm that no S-matrix information is lost.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee's request for explicit verification. The integration measure in Eq. (3.7) is derived directly from the multi-particle phase-space factorization in the spinor-helicity formalism and is constructed to be consistent with the optical theorem of Eq. (2.4) by preserving the imaginary part of the forward amplitude. The reduced measure accounts for the on-shell conditions and helicity projections without introducing additional assumptions beyond standard S-matrix analyticity. To address the concern, we have added an explicit verification for the scalar 3→2 process in the revised §3.1, confirming that the projection reproduces the optical theorem relation exactly and that no S-matrix information is lost under the usual analytic continuation. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4.2] §4.2: the unitarity bound for the spin-2 EFT coefficient is obtained at tree level; the manuscript does not discuss how loop corrections or higher-order terms in the amplitude would modify the bound, which is load-bearing for the claimed applicability to realistic gravity EFTs.

    Authors: We thank the referee for this observation. The tree-level bound in §4.2 is presented as the leading-order constraint on the spin-2 EFT coefficient, consistent with the standard approach for deriving unitarity bounds in effective theories where the leading interactions dominate at high energies. Loop corrections enter at higher orders in the perturbative expansion and are suppressed by additional powers of the coupling in the regime where the bound is applied. To improve the discussion of applicability to realistic gravity EFTs, we have added a paragraph in the revised §4.2 that addresses the potential impact of higher-order terms and clarifies the perturbative regime of validity. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper develops a formalism based on spinor-helicity techniques to generalize partial-wave unitarity bounds for N→M scattering and higher-spin theories. The central derivation relies on standard analytic properties of the S-matrix and established spinor-helicity representations without any load-bearing step that reduces by construction to a fitted input, self-definition, or self-citation chain. The approach is self-contained against external benchmarks of unitarity and helicity amplitudes, with no equations or claims that rename known results or smuggle ansatze via prior self-citations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The formalism rests on standard quantum field theory assumptions; no new free parameters or invented entities are mentioned in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • standard math Unitarity of the S-matrix and Lorentz invariance hold for the scattering processes under consideration.
    These are background assumptions invoked whenever partial-wave unitarity is discussed.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5612 in / 1072 out tokens · 32880 ms · 2026-05-22T19:13:54.908673+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Multipositivity Constrains the Chiral Lagrangian

    hep-th 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Multipositivity bounds derived from planar tree-level scattering amplitudes constrain Wilson coefficients of the chiral Lagrangian from below by the chiral anomaly.

  2. The Equivalence Principle at High Energies Completes the Spectrum

    hep-th 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Tree-level gravitational scattering under the equivalence principle mandates single-particle states in all irreducible representations constructible from a single seed charge, with equal interaction strengths.

  3. Theoretical and Experimental Constraints in the $\mu$--$\tau$ Four-Lepton Sector of the SMEFT: implications to neutrino self interactions

    hep-ph 2026-04 conditional novelty 5.0

    Current constraints on μ-τ SMEFT four-lepton operators exclude heavy-mediator UV completions of strong neutrino self-interactions in the dimension-six SMEFT without tuned cancellations, while leaving light-mediator sc...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers · 19 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Find a set of kinematic monomials in spinor-helicity variables that are consistent with the particle he- licities, span Vi→f, and are independent after ac- counting for momentum conservation and Schouten identities [33]

    work page

  2. [2]

    Apply the Pauli-Lubanski operator squared [34] W2 I = 1 8 P2 I ϵαγϵβδ MI,αβMI,γδ + ϵ ˙α ˙γϵ ˙β ˙δeMI, ˙α ˙β eMI, ˙γ ˙δ + 1 4 Pα ˙α I Pβ ˙β I MI,αβeMI, ˙α ˙β , (9) where Pα ˙α I = X i∈I λα ieλ ˙α i , (10) Mαβ I = X i∈I λα i ∂ ∂λi,β + λβ i ∂ ∂λi,α , (11) eM ˙α ˙β I = X i∈I eλ ˙α i ∂ ∂eλi, ˙β +eλ ˙β i ∂ ∂eλi, ˙α ! , (12) and I = i, f [35], to these monomials...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Find the eigenvectors of the above matrix and the associated values of angular momentum from the Casimir eigenvalues −P 2 I JI(JI + 1)

    work page

  4. [4]

    Quantum Frontiers

    Normalize the elements of the so obtained orthog- onal basis so that their norm is equal to √2JI + 1. As expected, for 2 → 2 scattering, the basis |BJ i→f ⟩ is proportional to the Wigner d-matrix [23]. Moreover, we have explicitly verified that the partial wave coefficients for N → M scattering (with N, M ≥ 2) exactly repro- duce the elements of the reduc...

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    B. W. Lee, C. Quigg, and H. B. Thacker, The Strength of Weak Interactions at Very High-Energies and the Higgs Boson Mass, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 883 (1977)

    work page 1977

  6. [6]

    B. W. Lee, C. Quigg, and H. B. Thacker, Weak Inter- actions at Very High-Energies: The Role of the Higgs Boson Mass, Phys. Rev. D 16, 1519 (1977)

    work page 1977

  7. [7]

    G. J. Gounaris, J. Layssac, J. E. Paschalis, and F. M. Renard, Unitarity constraints for new physics induced by dim-6 operators, Z. Phys. C 66, 619 (1995), arXiv:hep- ph/9409260

    work page arXiv 1995

  8. [8]

    Unitarity Constraints on Dimension-Six Operators

    T. Corbett, O. J. P. ´Eboli, and M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, Unitarity Constraints on Dimension-Six Operators, Phys. Rev. D 91, 035014 (2015), arXiv:1411.5026 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  9. [9]

    Unitarity Constraints on Dimension-six Operators II: Including Fermionic Operators

    T. Corbett, O. J. P. ´Eboli, and M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, Unitarity Constraints on Dimension-six Operators II: In- cluding Fermionic Operators, Phys. Rev. D 96, 035006 (2017), arXiv:1705.09294 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  10. [10]

    What is the scale of new physics behind the $B$-flavour anomalies?

    L. Di Luzio and M. Nardecchia, What is the scale of new physics behind the B-flavour anomalies?, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 536 (2017), arXiv:1706.01868 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  11. [11]

    Jacob and G

    M. Jacob and G. C. Wick, On the General Theory of Collisions for Particles with Spin, Annals Phys. 7, 404 (1959)

    work page 1959

  12. [12]

    Abada et al

    A. Abada et al. (FCC), FCC Physics Opportunities: Fu- ture Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Volume 1, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 474 (2019)

    work page 2019

  13. [13]

    Accettura et al., Eur

    C. Accettura et al., Towards a muon collider, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 864 (2023), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 84, 36 (2024)], arXiv:2303.08533 [physics.acc-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  14. [14]

    Renormalization group coefficients and the S-matrix

    S. Caron-Huot and M. Wilhelm, Renormalization group coefficients and the S-matrix, JHEP 12, 010, arXiv:1607.06448 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  15. [15]

    Elias Mir´ o, J

    J. Elias Mir´ o, J. Ingoldby, and M. Riembau, EFT anomalous dimensions from the S-matrix, JHEP 09, 163, arXiv:2005.06983 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2005

  16. [16]

    Baratella, C

    P. Baratella, C. Fernandez, and A. Pomarol, Renor- malization of Higher-Dimensional Operators from On- shell Amplitudes, Nucl. Phys. B 959, 115155 (2020), arXiv:2005.07129 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  17. [17]

    Jiang, T

    M. Jiang, T. Ma, and J. Shu, Renormalization Group Evolution from On-shell SMEFT, JHEP 01, 101, arXiv:2005.10261 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2005

  18. [18]

    Z. Bern, J. Parra-Martinez, and E. Sawyer, Structure of two-loop SMEFT anomalous dimensions via on-shell methods, JHEP 10, 211, arXiv:2005.12917 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2005

  19. [19]

    Baratella, C

    P. Baratella, C. Fernandez, B. von Harling, and A. Po- marol, Anomalous Dimensions of Effective Theories from Partial Waves, JHEP03, 287, arXiv:2010.13809 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2010

  20. [20]

    Accettulli Huber and S

    M. Accettulli Huber and S. De Angelis, Standard Model EFTs via on-shell methods, JHEP 11, 221, arXiv:2108.03669 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv

  21. [21]

    Elias Miro, C

    J. Elias Miro, C. Fernandez, M. A. Gumus, and A. Po- marol, Gearing up for the next generation of LFV experiments, via on-shell methods, JHEP 06, 126, arXiv:2112.12131 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv

  22. [22]

    Baratella, S

    P. Baratella, S. Maggio, M. Stadlbauer, and T. Theil, Two-loop infrared renormalization with on-shell meth- ods, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 751 (2023), arXiv:2207.08831 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    C. S. Machado, S. Renner, and D. Sutherland, Build- ing blocks of the flavourful SMEFT RG, JHEP 03, 226, arXiv:2210.09316 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv

  24. [24]

    L. C. Bresciani, G. Levati, P. Mastrolia, and P. Para- disi, Anomalous dimensions via on-shell methods: Oper- ator mixing and leading mass effects, Phys. Rev. D 110, 056041 (2024), arXiv:2312.05206 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    L. C. Bresciani, G. Brunello, G. Levati, P. Mastrolia, and P. Paradisi, Renormalization of effective field theories via on-shell methods: the case of axion-like particles, (2024), arXiv:2412.04160 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    Aebischer, L

    J. Aebischer, L. C. Bresciani, and N. Selimovic, Anoma- lous Dimension of a General Effective Gauge Theory I: Bosonic Sector, (2025), arXiv:2502.14030 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Jiang, J

    M. Jiang, J. Shu, M.-L. Xiao, and Y.-H. Zheng, Par- tial Wave Amplitude Basis and Selection Rules in Effec- tive Field Theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 011601 (2021), arXiv:2001.04481 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  28. [28]

    L. J. Dixon, A brief introduction to modern amplitude methods, in Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Ele- mentary Particle Physics: Particle Physics: The Higgs Boson and Beyond (2014) pp. 31–67, arXiv:1310.5353 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  29. [29]

    Effective Field Theory Amplitudes the On-Shell Way: Scalar and Vector Couplings to Gluons

    Y. Shadmi and Y. Weiss, Effective Field Theory Ampli- tudes the On-Shell Way: Scalar and Vector Couplings to Gluons, JHEP 02, 165, arXiv:1809.09644 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  30. [30]

    Durieux, T

    G. Durieux, T. Kitahara, Y. Shadmi, and Y. Weiss, The electroweak effective field theory from on-shell ampli- tudes, JHEP 01, 119, arXiv:1909.10551 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 1909

  31. [31]

    Z.-Y. Dong, T. Ma, and J. Shu, Constructing on-shell operator basis for all masses and spins, Phys. Rev. D 107, L111901 (2023), arXiv:2103.15837 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  32. [32]

    H.-L. Li, Z. Ren, M.-L. Xiao, J.-H. Yu, and Y.-H. Zheng, Operators for generic effective field theory at any dimen- sion: on-shell amplitude basis construction, JHEP 04, 140, arXiv:2201.04639 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv

  33. [33]

    I. R. Klebanov and A. M. Polyakov, AdS dual of the crit- ical O(N) vector model, Phys. Lett. B 550, 213 (2002), arXiv:hep-th/0210114

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  34. [34]

    Adams, N

    A. Adams, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dubovsky, A. Nicolis, and R. Rattazzi, Causality, analyticity and an IR ob- struction to UV completion, JHEP 10, 014, arXiv:hep- th/0602178. 7

    work page arXiv

  35. [35]

    Shu, M.-L

    J. Shu, M.-L. Xiao, and Y.-H. Zheng, Constructing the general partial wave and renormalization in effec- tive field theory, Phys. Rev. D 107, 095040 (2023), arXiv:2111.08019 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2023

  36. [36]

    Explicit parameterizations for the n-body phase space in terms of spinor-helicity variables are available in [11, 56– 59]

    work page

  37. [37]

    Public Mathematica packages that allow one to perform this task are available in [28, 60]

    work page

  38. [38]

    Perturbative Gauge Theory As A String Theory In Twistor Space

    E. Witten, Perturbative gauge theory as a string theory in twistor space, Commun. Math. Phys. 252, 189 (2004), arXiv:hep-th/0312171

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  39. [39]

    Angle and square brackets are then defined as ⟨ij⟩ = λα i λj,α and [ij] = ˜λi, ˙α˜λ ˙α j , respectively

    We use the conventionϵ12 = ϵ ˙1 ˙2 = 1, where spinor indices are raised and lowered as λα = ϵαβλβ and ˜λ ˙α = ϵ ˙α ˙β ˜λ ˙β. Angle and square brackets are then defined as ⟨ij⟩ = λα i λj,α and [ij] = ˜λi, ˙α˜λ ˙α j , respectively

    work page

  40. [40]

    Chang and M

    S. Chang and M. A. Luty, The Higgs Trilinear Cou- pling and the Scale of New Physics, JHEP 03, 140, arXiv:1902.05556 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 1902

  41. [41]

    Falkowski and R

    A. Falkowski and R. Rattazzi, Which EFT, JHEP 10, 255, arXiv:1902.05936 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 1902

  42. [42]

    Cohen, N

    T. Cohen, N. Craig, X. Lu, and D. Sutherland, Unitarity violation and the geometry of Higgs EFTs, JHEP 12, 003, arXiv:2108.03240 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv

  43. [43]

    Mahmud and K

    S. Mahmud and K. Tobioka, High Energy Vector Bo- son Scattering in Four-Body Final States to Probe Higgs Cubic, Quartic, and HEFT interactions, (2025), arXiv:2501.16439 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Arkani-Hamed, T.-C

    N. Arkani-Hamed, T.-C. Huang, and Y.-t. Huang, Scat- tering amplitudes for all masses and spins, JHEP11, 070, arXiv:1709.04891 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv

  45. [45]

    The convention for the Levi-Civita tensor is ϵ0123 = 1/√−g

    work page

  46. [46]

    Consequences of Dirac Theory of the Positron

    W. Heisenberg and H. Euler, Consequences of Dirac’s theory of positrons, Z. Phys. 98, 714 (1936), arXiv:physics/0605038

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1936

  47. [47]

    An effective formalism for testing extensions to General Relativity with gravitational waves

    S. Endlich, V. Gorbenko, J. Huang, and L. Senatore, An effective formalism for testing extensions to Gen- eral Relativity with gravitational waves, JHEP 09, 122, arXiv:1704.01590 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  48. [48]

    Ruhdorfer, J

    M. Ruhdorfer, J. Serra, and A. Weiler, Effective Field Theory of Gravity to All Orders, JHEP 05, 083, arXiv:1908.08050 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 1908

  49. [49]

    H.-L. Li, Z. Ren, M.-L. Xiao, J.-H. Yu, and Y.-H. Zheng, On-shell operator construction in the effective field the- ory of gravity, JHEP 10, 019, arXiv:2305.10481 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv

  50. [50]

    The EFT-Hedron,

    N. Arkani-Hamed, T.-C. Huang, and Y.-t. Huang, The EFT-Hedron, JHEP 05, 259, arXiv:2012.15849 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2012

  51. [51]

    This yields the factors − Resz=0 Z d¯z 1 + (z¯z)2S + (1 + z¯z)2S (1 + z¯z)2S+2 = 2S + 3 2S + 1 that appear in Eq

    In this case, the phase space integral can be achieved, e.g., by parameterizing the final-state spinors as [21, 57] λ3 λ4 = 1√1 + z¯z 1 ¯ z −z 1 λ1 λ2 and writing the phase space measure as Z dΦ34 = −1 2 1 8π I dz 2πi Z d¯z (1 + z¯z)2 , where we included the 1/2 symmetry factor due to indis- tinguishable particles. This yields the factors − Resz=0 Z d¯z 1...

    work page

  52. [52]

    Polarization effects in light-by-light scattering: Euler-Heisenberg versus Born-Infeld

    A. Rebhan and G. Turk, Polarization effects in light-by-light scattering: Euler–Heisenberg versus Born–Infeld, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 32, 1750053 (2017), arXiv:1701.07375 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  53. [53]

    G. N. Remmen and N. L. Rodd, Consistency of the Standard Model Effective Field Theory, JHEP 12, 032, arXiv:1908.09845 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 1908

  54. [54]

    Henriksson, B

    J. Henriksson, B. McPeak, F. Russo, and A. Vichi, Rig- orous bounds on light-by-light scattering, JHEP 06, 158, arXiv:2107.13009 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv

  55. [55]

    Causality Constrains Higher Curvature Corrections to Gravity

    A. Gruzinov and M. Kleban, Causality Constrains Higher Curvature Corrections to Gravity, Class. Quant. Grav. 24, 3521 (2007), arXiv:hep-th/0612015

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  56. [56]

    Quantum Gravity Constraints from Unitarity and Analyticity

    B. Bellazzini, C. Cheung, and G. N. Remmen, Quan- tum Gravity Constraints from Unitarity and Analyticity, Phys. Rev. D 93, 064076 (2016), arXiv:1509.00851 [hep- th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  57. [57]

    Caron-Huot, Y.-Z

    S. Caron-Huot, Y.-Z. Li, J. Parra-Martinez, and D. Simmons-Duffin, Causality constraints on corrections to Einstein gravity, JHEP 05, 122, arXiv:2201.06602 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv

  58. [58]

    Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian

    B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak, and J. Rosiek, Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian, JHEP 10, 085, arXiv:1008.4884 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  59. [59]

    In partic- ular, the structure constants of the SU (N) group, which has dimension d(SU (N)) = N 2 − 1, are normalized such that C2(SU (N)) = N

    C2(G) is defined by f ACD f BCD = C2(G)δAB. In partic- ular, the structure constants of the SU (N) group, which has dimension d(SU (N)) = N 2 − 1, are normalized such that C2(SU (N)) = N

    work page

  60. [60]

    B. I. Zwiebel, From Scattering Amplitudes to the Di- latation Generator in N=4 SYM, J. Phys. A 45, 115401 (2012), arXiv:1111.0083 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  61. [61]

    Double-Cut of Scattering Amplitudes and Stokes' Theorem

    P. Mastrolia, Double-Cut of Scattering Amplitudes and Stokes’ Theorem, Phys. Lett. B 678, 246 (2009), arXiv:0905.2909 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  62. [62]

    Independently Parameterised Momenta Variables and Monte Carlo IR Subtraction

    P. Cox and T. Melia, Independently Parameterised Mo- menta Variables and Monte Carlo IR Subtraction, JHEP 12, 038, arXiv:1809.09325 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  63. [63]

    A. J. Larkoski and T. Melia, Covariantizing phase space, Phys. Rev. D 102, 094014 (2020), arXiv:2008.06508 [hep- ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  64. [64]

    De Angelis, Amplitude bases in generic EFTs, JHEP 08, 299, arXiv:2202.02681 [hep-th]

    S. De Angelis, Amplitude bases in generic EFTs, JHEP 08, 299, arXiv:2202.02681 [hep-th]. 8 Appendix: Angular momentum basis for 2 → 3 amplitudes Here, we list the normalized kinematic polynomials with definite angular momentum J12 relevant for 2 → 3 helicity amplitudes. They are denoted by |BJ12 i→f ⟩, where i = (1 −h1 , 2−h2) and f = (3 h3 , 4h4 , 5h5), ...

    work page arXiv 1920