Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 47 references

The CEGM NLSM

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For each pair $(k,n)$, a pure kinematic shift of the CEGM amplitude produces, at leading order in an infinite shift, a generalized NLSM amplitude, and the ordinary NLSM emerges as a residue of the mixed $(3,n+2)$ amplitude.

desk verdict A genuinely new deformation construction with real combinatorial content, but the flagship consistency theorem is a sketch and the abstract overstates what is proven. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.08016 v2 pith:FTYXPGMK submitted 2025-02-11 hep-th math.CO

Nick Early This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thmath.CO
keywords scatteringamplitudesCEGMnonlinearsigmamodelkinematicshiftszero-preservingdeformationsAdlerzerotropicalGrassmannianpositiveconfigurationspace
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 show that the mechanism which turns $\mathrm{tr}(\phi^3)$ amplitudes into nonlinear $\sigma$ model (NLSM) amplitudes—apply a carefully chosen kinematic shift and keep the leading term as the shift grows—is not an accident of the $k=2$ case. It claims that each generalized biadjoint (CEGM) amplitude $m_n^{(k)}$ carries a space of pure kinematic shifts of dimension $\gcd(k,n)-1$, and that taking $\delta\to\infty$ in such a shift produces a rational amplitude $A_n^{(k),\sigma}$, the generalized NLSM amplitude. As a consistency check, it proves that an $(n-2)$-point ordinary NLSM amplitude appears as a further residue of a mixed $(3,n+2)$ generalized NLSM amplitude, so the familiar theory sits inside the new one. It also verifies for the first new case, $(k,n)=(3,6)$, that all soft and hard limits of $A_6^{(3),\sigma}$ vanish identically, an analog of the Adler zero, and conjectures the same for all $(3,n)$ with $3\mid n$. If the construction is right, the NLSM is one member of a whole family of pion-like theories indexed by $(k,n)$, with links to tropical Grassmannians and generalized string integrals.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the planar basis of kinematic invariants $X_J$ for CEGM amplitudes, indexed by $k$-element subsets and built from directed distance functions on the hypersimplex, together with the pure kinematic shifts $\sigma_i$ defined by $X_J \mapsto X_J + \delta(|J\cap\{i,i+g,\dots\}| - k/g)$. These shifts are zero-preserving: they leave all non-cyclic Mandelstam invariants at zero, so they act only on the poles of $m_n^{(k)}$ and are visible through the $X$-basis. The generalized NLSM amplitude is then the leading coefficient in $\delta\to\infty$ of the shifted amplitude, computed with a Global Schwinger parameterization modified by an imaginary $i\delta$ factor to regulate the otherwise divergent integral. The embedding of the ordinary NLSM is carried by a mixed deformation of $m_n^{(3)}$, where matroidal subdivisions and the compatibility criterion for $X$-variables control which residues survive and reassemble into lower-point amplitudes.

What would settle it

Take the mixed deformation of $m_8^{(3)}$ defined by $X_{ijk}\mapsto X_{ijk}+\delta(|ijk\cap 1357|-1)$, set the propagators $X_{238},X_{348},X_{458},X_{568},X_{168}$ to zero, and compare the resulting residue with the 6-point NLSM amplitude; if they disagree, the residual embedding of Theorem 4.3 is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that pure kinematic shifts—deformations supported only on the cyclically consecutive Mandelstam invariants—exist for every CEGM amplitude $m_n^{(k)}$, and their leading-order behavior defines new amplitudes $A_n^{(k),\sigma}$. In the planar $X$-basis the shifts take the form $X_J \mapsto X_J + \delta\bigl(|J\cap\{i,i+g,\dots\}| - k/g\bigr)$ with $g=\gcd(k,n)$, and the paper proves the space of such shifts has dimension $g-1$. The main structural result is Theorem 4.3: under a mixed deformation of $m_n^{(3)}$, a further residue with $X_{1,n-2,n}=0$ is identified with the $(n-2)$-point NLSM amplitude, so the ordinary NLSM is embedded in the generalized CEGM NLSM. The paper also computes $A_6^{(3),\sigma}$ explicitly and shows all its hard and soft limits vanish, interpreting this as an Adler-zero analog. On the author's terms, this establishes that the NLSM is a residue of a larger family of CEGM amplitudes, not an isolated $k=2$ phenomenon.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the limit in which the kinematic shift goes to infinity is well-defined and independent of how the shifted integral is regularized, which the paper explicitly leaves to future work.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For every $(k,n)$ with $\gcd(k,n)>1$, at least one generalized NLSM amplitude exists, and the pure kinematic shifts form a space of dimension $\gcd(k,n)-1$; the $k=2$, even-$n$ case recovers the ordinary NLSM.
  • The ordinary $(n-2)$-point NLSM amplitude is contained as a residue of the mixed $(3,n+2)$ generalized NLSM amplitude, giving an explicit embedding that can generate NLSM amplitudes from CEGM data.
  • The $(3,6)$ generalized NLSM amplitude $A_6^{(3),\sigma}$ satisfies an Adler-zero analog: all soft and hard limits vanish identically, so it behaves like a massless Goldstone-type amplitude.
  • The deformed amplitudes sit on the same positive configuration spaces $X^+(k,n)$ that carry generalized Koba-Nielsen string integrals, so the construction extends naturally to a stringy setting rather than being purely field-theoretic.
  • The linear-independence proof puts the planar kinematic invariants $X_J$ on firm footing as a basis of the dual kinematic space, making deformation calculations in the $X$-basis unambiguous.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural test of the Adler-zero conjecture is to compute all single soft limits of the pure $(3,9)$ generalized NLSM amplitude; vanishing would extend the $(3,6)$ result, and a nonzero limit would show the conjecture needs refinement.
  • If the algebraic Laurent definition of $A_n^{(k),\sigma}$—reading off the leading coefficient of the shifted rational function $m_n^{(k)}(\sigma\delta)$—agrees with the $i\delta$-regularized integral wherever both are computable, then the analytic regularization is a convenience rather than a logical necessity.
  • The dimension formula $\gcd(k,n)-1$ suggests the pure shifts are organized by cyclic symmetry: the $g-1$ basis directions likely correspond to independent ways of pairing the $n$ cyclic Plücker coordinates under rotation, which could be checked by comparing the amplitudes obtained from $\sigma_i$ for different $i$.
  • The residue embedding in Theorem 4.3 hints at a tower of inclusions, with NLSM amplitudes of increasing point count appearing at successive residues of CEGM NLSM amplitudes; an explicit recursion for these residues would be a sharper formulation of the embedding.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a generalization of the nonlinear sigma model (NLSM) in the context of CEGM amplitudes. For each (k,n), a pure kinematic shift σ is applied to the generalized biadjoint scalar amplitude m(k)_n, and the generalized NLSM amplitude A(k),σ_n is defined as the leading coefficient in the δ→∞ expansion. The paper proves that the dimension of pure kinematic shifts is gcd(k,n)-1, gives a new proof of linear independence of the planar X-variables, introduces a modified Global Schwinger parameterization, and claims a residual embedding of the ordinary NLSM into mixed (3,n+2) CEGM NLSM amplitudes. It also verifies vanishing hard and soft limits for the (3,6) case and conjectures an Adler-zero analog.

Significance. If the central definition is made fully rigorous, the paper opens a new direction: systematic zero-preserving deformations of CEGM amplitudes that produce generalized NLSM-like theories, with a concrete consistency check via residual embeddings and with potential connections to positive geometry and stringy integrals. The paper contains useful self-contained results: Proposition 2.2 on the dimension of pure kinematic shifts, Theorem 3.4 with a new proof of linear independence of the X-variables, and explicit computations for n=6 and n=8. These are genuine strengths and give the paper independent value beyond the advertised NLSM generalization. However, the main construction and the main theorem currently rest on deferred definitions and unproved limit interchanges, so the significance of the central claim is not yet fully secured.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.1, Definition 2.3 and Eq. (2.6)] The central object A(k),σ_n is defined as the leading coefficient in the δ→∞ expansion of a shifted CEGM amplitude, but the only proposed integral definition, the modified Global Schwinger parameterization, is explicitly deferred: the text states that 'naively introducing a δ-deformation leads to non-convergent integral' and that 'a detailed treatment is beyond the scope of this paper.' No argument is supplied that the algebraic Laurent coefficient of the shifted rational CEGM formula is independent of the regularization, nor that the iδ prescription used in Eq. (2.6) produces the same object for general (k,n). Since this object is the foundation for all subsequent claims, the definition is not yet established.
  2. [§4.1, Theorem 4.3 and the n=8 example] The proof of Theorem 4.3 is a short identification argument: it invokes [18] for the residue embedding of m(2)_n in m(3)_n and [3] for the k=2 NLSM deformation, and then asserts that specializing the mixed deformation (4.1) 'gives the usual pure NLSM-type deformation.' The promised explicit formula for the residual embedding for arbitrary even n is not written down, and the n=8 computation explicitly assumes that taking the residue and taking δ→∞ commute ('since the operations commute') without proof. The residual identification is therefore not demonstrated for general n.
  3. [§5, hard and soft limits] The paper claims that all soft and hard limits of A(3),σ_6 vanish identically, but only the hard limit is computed. The soft limit is inferred from the duality m(k)_n ↦ m(n−k)_n, which 'also interchanges hard and soft boundaries'; the paper does not show that the pure deformation σ or the generalized amplitude A(3),σ_6 is invariant under this duality in the required way. Without this verification, the Adler-zero analog for the soft direction is not established.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.1, proof of Theorem 4.3] The phrase 'restrict to the case at hand, i.e. when k = n' appears to be a typo; the specialization should be to the residue surface X_ij = X_ijn, i.e. to the k=2 sector, not k=n.
  2. [§4.1, n=8 display] In the displayed residue computation, 'Res_{X168=0}(A^{(3),σ})_6' should presumably be 'Res_{X168=0}(A^{(3),σ}_8)' or the notation for the mixed 8-point amplitude should be fixed.
  3. [§2.1, Eq. (2.6)] The imaginary unit i is introduced in the regulated Schwinger integral and then the text says 'we suppress the imaginary unit i from the deformation factor'; please clarify whether the later algebraic computations are intended to be independent of this regulator and how the suppression is justified.
  4. [§1.1 and §2.1] The notation alternates between X'_{246}, X'_{135} and the later X′_{246}+X_{246}=...; a single consistent definition of the primed variables would help the reader.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the generalized NLSM is defined as a δ→∞ coefficient of shifted CEGM amplitudes, and the Theorem 4.3 residue check is a transparent, partially-by-construction consistency check; the (3,6) soft-limit vanishing and dimension theorem are independent.

  1. other [Theorem 4.3 and Eq. (4.1), Section 4]
    "Supposing that n is even, we propose an embedding of the (n − 2)-particle NLSM amplitude as a residue of the mixed deformation σ of m(3)_n given by Xijk 7→ Xijk + δ(|135 · · ·n − 1| −1). ... Note that this gives the usual pure NLSM-type deformation, since we have the specialization under Xij = Xijn of Equation (4.3) to Xij 7→ Xij + δ(|ij ∩ 135 · · ·n − 1| −1)."

    The mixed deformation (4.1)/(4.3) is deliberately chosen so that on the residue chain supplied by Theorem 4.1 (the author's prior result [18]) it specializes to exactly the k=2 NLSM deformation of [3], i.e. Xij → Xij + δ(|ij ∩ 135...| − 1). Theorem 4.3's conclusion — that one more residue yields the (n−2)-point NLSM amplitude — therefore follows largely from this engineered specialization plus the known [3] result, so part of the 'emergence' is built into the choice of deformation. Mitigating: the paper explicitly frames this as 'a strong consistency check,' the n=8 residue evaluation is a real computation, and A(k),σ_n is defined independently (Definition 2.3) without reference to the NLSM. This is a mild, partially-by-construction check, not a full circular reduction.

full rationale

The central object A(k),σ_n is defined (Definition 2.3) as the leading coefficient in the δ→∞ expansion of the shifted CEGM amplitude, with no reference to the ordinary NLSM; for the pure (3,6) case the paper exhibits the explicit amplitude in Eq. (1.5) and verifies directly in Section 5 that all hard and soft limits vanish, a substantive computation that does not import the NLSM. Proposition 2.2 (dimension gcd(k,n)−1) is proved self-contained from a circulant system, and Theorem 3.4 (linear independence of the X-basis) is re-proved in the paper. The self-citations that are load-bearing — Theorem 4.1 from [18] (residual embedding of m(2)_n in m(3)_n) and Theorem 3.8 from [22] (compatibility of X variables) — are parameter-free mathematical theorems about the undeformed CEGM machinery, not results assuming the target NLSM identification, so they count as real evidence under the review rules. The one by-construction element is Theorem 4.3, described above: the mixed deformation (4.1)/(4.3) is chosen so that on the residue chain it specializes to the known k=2 NLSM deformation of [3], making the residue check substantially engineered; however, the paper labels it openly as 'a strong consistency check,' the explicit n=8 computation still requires nontrivial evaluation, and the generalized amplitude is not defined by this property. The admitted gap in Section 2.1 — 'a detailed treatment is beyond the scope of this paper' for the iδ-regularized Global Schwinger integral — concerns analytic well-definedness of the integral representation rather than a circular reduction, and is a completeness/correctness risk, not circularity. Net: no genuine circularity; score 2.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central construction rests on the CEGM amplitude formalism and on two recent theorems: NLSM-from-deformation [3] and the residual embedding [18]. These are taken as axioms from the prior literature, not re-derived here. The only input chosen by hand is the deformation direction sigma in the examples, which is an element of a finite-dimensional vector space rather than a fitted number. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Deformation direction sigma = Not fitted; examples use vectors such as e234+e156-e123-e456 for K3,6.
    The generalized amplitude and its residue/soft-limit behavior depend on the direction sigma in the (gcd(k,n)-1)-dimensional space of pure shifts. The paper chooses specific sigma by hand to produce examples and to match the known NLSM deformation on residues; this is an input choice, not a measured quantity.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The CEGM amplitude m(k)_n is defined by the CHY-style critical point sum and has the pole structure used throughout.
    Invoked from [1] as the starting object for deformations.
  • domain assumption The NLSM amplitude is obtained as the leading delta-to-infinity coefficient of the deformed biadjoint scalar amplitude m(2)_n.
    This is the 2024 result [3]; used as the base case and as the target of the residual embedding.
  • domain assumption The residual embedding of m(2)_n into m(3)_n by the residues X23n=...=X(n-4,n-3,n)=0 (Theorem 4.1) is valid.
    Quoted from [18]; Theorem 4.3 of this paper builds directly on it.
  • domain assumption X_J admit the decorated ordered set partition formula of Proposition 3.3.
    Taken from [23]; used in the proof of linear independence and in residue identifications.
  • domain assumption The positive tropical Grassmannian is characterized by the 3-term positive tropical Plucker relations of Eq (2.1).
    Quoted from [15,16]; used for propagator compatibility.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The CEGM NLSM." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FTYXPGMK

@misc{pith2026250208016,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The CEGM NLSM},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FTYXPGMK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.08016}
}
abstract

Studying quantum field theories through geometric principles has revealed deep connections between physics and mathematics, including the discovery by Cachazo, Early, Guevara and Mizera (CEGM) of a generalization of biadjoint scalar amplitudes. However, extending this to generalizations of other quantum field theories remains a central challenge. Recently it has been discovered that the nonlinear sigma model (NLSM) emerges after a certain zero-preserving deformation from $\text{tr}(\phi^3)$. In this work, we find a much richer story of zero-preserving deformations in the CEGM context, yielding generalized NLSM amplitudes. We prove an explicit formula for the residual embedding of an $n$-point NLSM amplitude in a mixed $n+2$ point generalized NLSM amplitude, which provides a strong consistency check on our generalization. We show that the dimension of the space of pure kinematic deformations is $\gcd(k,n)-1$, we introduce a deformation-compatible modification of the Global Schwinger Parameterization, and we include a new proof, using methods from matroidal blade arrangements, of the linear independence for the set of planar kinematic invariants for CEGM amplitudes. Our framework is compatible with string theory through recent generalizations of the Koba-Nielsen string integral to any positive configuration space $X^+(k,n)$, where the usual Koba-Nielsen string integral corresponds to $X(2,n) = \mathcal{M}_{0,n}$.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [18]

    Cachazo and N

    F. Cachazo and N. Early, Biadjoint scalars and associahedra from residues of generalized amplitudes, JHEP 10 (2023) 015 [ 2204.01743]

    arXiv 2023

  2. [3]

    Arkani-Hamed, Q

    N. Arkani-Hamed, Q. Cao, J. Dong, C. Figueiredo and S. He, Nonlinear Sigma model amplitudes to all loop orders are contained in the Tr( Φ3) theory, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 065018 [2401.05483]

    arXiv 2024

  3. [1]

    Cachazo, N

    F. Cachazo, N. Early, A. Guevara and S. Mizera, Scattering Equations: From Projective Spaces to Tropical Grassmannians, JHEP 06 (2019) 039 [ 1903.08904]

    arXiv 2019

  4. [2]

    Arkani-Hamed, S

    N. Arkani-Hamed, S. He and T. Lam, Stringy canonical forms , JHEP 02 (2021) 069 [1912.08707]

    arXiv 2021

  5. [4]

    Arkani-Hamed, H

    N. Arkani-Hamed, H. Frost, G. Salvatori, P.-G. Plamondon and H. Thomas, All Loop Scattering As A Counting Problem , 2309.15913

    arXiv

  6. [5]

    Koba and H.B

    Z. Koba and H.B. Nielsen, Manifestly crossing invariant parametrization of n meson amplitude , Nucl. Phys. B 12 (1969) 517

    work page 1969

  7. [6]

    Cachazo, S

    F. Cachazo, S. He and E.Y. Yuan, Scattering of Massless Particles in Arbitrary Dimensions , Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (2014) 171601 [ 1307.2199]

    arXiv 2014

  8. [7]

    Early, Planar kinematic invariants, matroid subdivisions and generalized Feynman diagrams , 1912.13513

    N. Early, Planar kinematic invariants, matroid subdivisions and generalized Feynman diagrams , 1912.13513

    arXiv 1912

Show all 47 references
  1. [8]

    Early, Weighted blade arrangements and the positive tropical Grassmannian , 2005.12305

    N. Early, Weighted blade arrangements and the positive tropical Grassmannian , 2005.12305

    2005 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Arkani-Hamed, T

    N. Arkani-Hamed, T. Lam and M. Spradlin, Non-perturbative geometries for planar N = 4 SYM amplitudes , JHEP 03 (2021) 065 [ 1912.08222]

    2021 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Speyer and L

    D. Speyer and L. Williams, The tropical totally positive Grassmannian , J. Algebraic Combin. 22 (2005) 189

    2005

  4. [11]

    Speyer and B

    D. Speyer and B. Sturmfels, The tropical Grassmannian, Adv. Geom. 4 (2004) 389

    2004

  5. [12]

    Cachazo, N

    F. Cachazo, N. Early and Y. Zhang, Color-dressed generalized biadjoint scalar amplitudes: Local planarity, SIGMA. Symmetry, Integrability and Geometry: Methods and Applications 20 (2024) 016

    2024

  6. [13]

    Cachazo, N

    F. Cachazo, N. Early and Y. Zhang, Generalized color orderings: CEGM integrands and decoupling identities, Nucl. Phys. B 1004 (2024) 116552 [ 2304.07351]

    2024 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Antolini and N

    D. Antolini and N. Early, The Chirotropical Grassmannian, 2411.07293

  8. [15]

    Arkani-Hamed, T

    N. Arkani-Hamed, T. Lam and M. Spradlin, Positive configuration space, Commun. Math. Phys. 384 (2021) 909 [ 2003.03904]

    2021 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Speyer and L.K

    D. Speyer and L.K. Williams, The positive Dressian equals the positive tropical Grassmannian , Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. Ser. B 8 (2021) 330. – 29 –

    2021

  10. [17]

    Ingleton, The rank of circulant matrices , Journal of the London Mathematical Society 1 (1956) 445

    A.W. Ingleton, The rank of circulant matrices , Journal of the London Mathematical Society 1 (1956) 445

    1956

  11. [19]

    Cachazo and N

    F. Cachazo and N. Early, Minimal Kinematics: An All k and n Peek into Trop+G(k, n), SIGMA 17 (2021) 078 [ 2003.07958]

    2021 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Cachazo and N

    F. Cachazo and N. Early, Planar kinematics: cyclic fixed points, mirror superpotential, k-dimensional catalan numbers, and root polytopes , Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincar´ e D, Combinatorics, Physics and their Interactions (2020)

    2020

  13. [21]

    Early, Planarity in Generalized Scattering Amplitudes: PK Polytope, Generalized Root Systems and Worldsheet Associahedra , 2106.07142

    N. Early, Planarity in Generalized Scattering Amplitudes: PK Polytope, Generalized Root Systems and Worldsheet Associahedra , 2106.07142

    arXiv

  14. [22]

    Early, From weakly separated collections to matroid subdivisions , Combin

    N. Early, From weakly separated collections to matroid subdivisions , Combin. Theor. 2 (2022) qt9265777p

    2022

  15. [23]

    Early, Factorization for Generalized Biadjoint Scalar Amplitudes via Matroid Subdivisions , 2211.16623

    N. Early, Factorization for Generalized Biadjoint Scalar Amplitudes via Matroid Subdivisions , 2211.16623

    arXiv

  16. [24]

    Early, Generalized permutohedra in the kinematic space , JHEP 06 (2024) 072 [ 1804.05460]

    N. Early, Generalized permutohedra in the kinematic space , JHEP 06 (2024) 072 [ 1804.05460]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Cachazo, P

    F. Cachazo, P. Cha and S. Mizera, Extensions of Theories from Soft Limits , JHEP 06 (2016) 170 [1604.03893]

    2016 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Low and Z

    I. Low and Z. Yin, The Infrared Structure of Nambu-Goldstone Bosons , JHEP 10 (2018) 078 [1804.08629]

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    S. He, L. Ren and Y. Zhang, Notes on polytopes, amplitudes and boundary configurations for Grassmannian string integrals, JHEP 04 (2020) 140 [ 2001.09603]

    2020 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Garc ´ ıa Sep´ ulveda and A

    D. Garc ´ ıa Sep´ ulveda and A. Guevara,A Soft Theorem for the Tropical Grassmannian , 1909.05291

    1909 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Arkani-Hamed and C

    N. Arkani-Hamed and C. Figueiredo, Circles and Triangles, the NLSM and Tr( Φ3), 2403.04826

    arXiv

  22. [30]

    Early and V

    N. Early and V. Reiner, On configuration spaces and Whitehouse’s lifts of the Eulerian representations, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 223 (2019) 4524

    2019

  23. [31]

    Cachazo, N

    F. Cachazo, N. Early, A. Guevara and S. Mizera, ∆ -algebra and scattering amplitudes , JHEP 02 (2019) 005 [ 1812.01168]

    2019 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Drummond, J

    J. Drummond, J. Foster, O. G¨ urdogan and C. Kalousios, Tropical Grassmannians, cluster algebras and scattering amplitudes , JHEP 04 (2020) 146 [ 1907.01053]

    2020 arXiv

  25. [33]

    L. Ren, M. Spradlin and A. Volovich, Symbol alphabets from tensor diagrams , JHEP 12 (2021) 079 [2106.01405]

    2021 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Henke and G

    N. Henke and G. Papathanasiou, Singularities of eight- and nine-particle amplitudes from cluster algebras and tropical geometry , JHEP 10 (2021) 007 [ 2106.01392]

    2021 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Sturmfels and S

    B. Sturmfels and S. Telen, Likelihood Equations and Scattering Amplitudes , 2012.05041

    2012 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Agostini, T

    D. Agostini, T. Brysiewicz, C. Fevola, L. K¨ uhne, B. Sturmfels, S. Telen et al., Likelihood degenerations, Adv. Math. 414 (2023) 108863 [ 2107.10518]. – 30 –

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Lukowski, M

    T. Lukowski, M. Parisi and L.K. Williams, The Positive Tropical Grassmannian, the Hypersimplex, and the m = 2 Amplituhedron , Int. Math. Res. Not. 2023 (2023) 16778 [2002.06164]

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Early and J.-R

    N. Early and J.-R. Li, Tropical geometry, quantum affine algebras, and scattering amplitudes , J. Phys. A 57 (2024) 495201 [ 2303.05618]

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Early, A

    N. Early, A. Pfister and B. Sturmfels, Minimal Kinematics on M0,n, 2402.03065

    arXiv

  32. [40]

    Arkani-Hamed, Q

    N. Arkani-Hamed, Q. Cao, J. Dong, C. Figueiredo and S. He, Hidden zeros for particle/string amplitudes and the unity of colored scalars, pions and gluons , JHEP 10 (2024) 231 [2312.16282]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Arkani-Hamed and C

    N. Arkani-Hamed and C. Figueiredo, All-order splits and multi-soft limits for particle and string amplitudes , 2405.09608

    arXiv

  34. [42]

    Cachazo, N

    F. Cachazo, N. Early and B. Gim´ enez Umbert, Smoothly splitting amplitudes and semi-locality , JHEP 08 (2022) 252 [ 2112.14191]

    2022 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Zhang, New Factorizations of Yang-Mills Amplitudes , 2406.08969

    Y. Zhang, New Factorizations of Yang-Mills Amplitudes , 2406.08969

  36. [44]

    Gim´ enez Umbert and B

    B. Gim´ enez Umbert and B. Sturmfels, Splitting CEGM Amplitudes , 2501.10805

    arXiv

  37. [45]

    Early, A

    N. Early, A. Geiger, M. Panizzut, B. Sturmfels and C.H. Yun, Positive del Pezzo Geometry , 2306.13604

    arXiv

  38. [46]

    Maazouz, A

    Y.E. Maazouz, A. Pfister and B. Sturmfels, Spinor-Helicity Varieties, 2406.17331

    arXiv

  39. [47]

    Early, L

    N. Early, L. K¨ uhne and L. Monin,When alcoved polytopes add , 2501.17249. – 31 –

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.