Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 2 cited by

Scalar weak gravity bound from full unitarity

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper derives a weak gravity bound for a shift-symmetric scalar coupled to gravity: the cutoff cannot exceed a modest multiple of the Planck mass set by the self-coupling.

desk verdict A genuinely novel Hölder construction gives a plausible forward-limit weak gravity bound in 4D, but the improved smeared bound is heuristic and the Galileon/free-scalar exclusion is an extrapolation beyond the calculation's domain. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.10375 v2 pith:TXFGTTWQ submitted 2025-02-14 hep-th

Anna Tokareva , Yongjun Xu This is my paper
classification hep-th
keywords weakgravityconjecturepositivityboundsfullunitaritydispersionrelationsgravitonpoleshift-symmetricscalareffectivefieldtheoryPlanckmass
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

This paper asks whether the weak gravity conjecture—gravity must be the weakest force—can be derived for scalar fields from unitarity, causality, and locality alone. It studies a four-dimensional shift-symmetric scalar EFT coupled to gravity, completed by a unitary four-dimensional UV theory. By comparing the infrared $1/t$ divergence from the graviton pole with the one-loop running of the dimension-12 Wilson coefficient $g_4$, and using Hölder's inequality together with the full unitarity condition $0\le \operatorname{Im} f_j\le 2$, the paper obtains $\Lambda^2/M_P^2 < 0.0115 |\tilde{g}_2|$, where $\tilde{g}_2 = g_2 \Lambda^4$. The bound says the cutoff cannot be arbitrarily high; in particular, the exactly free/Galileon limit $g_2=0$ is incompatible with a unitary completion.

What carries the argument

The engine is the dispersion-relation moment $M_2(t)$, an arc integral of the full amplitude expressible in the UV as a positivity-preserving sum over partial waves $j$ and energies $\mu$: $[X(\mu,j)] = \sum_j 16(2j+1)\int d\mu \operatorname{Im} f_j(\mu) X(\mu,j)$. In the IR, $M_2$ has the graviton pole $1/(2tM_P^2)$; taking eight $t$-derivatives of $tM_2$ isolates a $1/t^5$ term proportional to the one-loop $\beta$ coefficient $b_2$ and the angular function $\phi(j)\propto j^{14}$. Hölder's inequality with $q=5$ binds the pole moment to $b_2$ through the high power of $j$ in $\phi(j)$, producing the forward bound; smeared dispersion relations with positive-definite hypergeometric kernels extend the same inequality to finite $t$ and produce the stronger Eq. (54).

What would settle it

A unitary four-dimensional completion of shift-symmetric scalars coupled to gravity whose high-energy amplitude in the Regge limit grows like $s^2$ at fixed $t$ would violate the vanishing boundary term and void the bound; checking the Regge behavior of explicit unitary completions, or finding any completion with $g_2=0$ and $\Lambda>0$, would settle it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is Eq. (54): $\Lambda^2/M_P^2 < 0.0115 |\tilde{g}_2|$, with $\tilde{g}_2 = g_2\Lambda^4$ the dimensionless coupling of the $s^2+t^2+u^2$ four-derivative operator. A weaker forward-limit version, Eq. (29), reads $\Lambda/M_P < 2.38 \tilde{g}_2^{1/5}$. The argument treats the graviton pole $M_2\sim 1/(2tM_P^2)$ and the scalar-loop logarithm that carries the $\beta$ coefficient $b_2 = g_2^2/(240\pi^2)$ as two moments of the same positive-definite UV spectral sum; Hölder's inequality then forces the ratio $\Lambda^2/M_P^2$ to be bounded by $\tilde{g}_2$. A consequence the paper draws is that a free scalar or a Galileon ($g_2=0$) cannot be unitarily UV-completed in the presence of gravity.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes that the full scattering amplitude including graviton exchange grows more slowly than $s^2$ at fixed $t$, so the boundary term in the dispersion relation (2) can be dropped; the improved bound further assumes that partial-wave tails above a $j$-dependent cutoff $R(j)=R_0 j^\eta$ with $2\le \eta<3$ stay subleading.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The cutoff of any such EFT is tied to the scalar self-coupling: $\Lambda \lesssim 0.107\,M_P |\tilde{g}_2|^{1/2}$, so for small $\tilde{g}_2$ the cutoff sits well below the Planck scale.
  • The exactly free scalar and the Galileon limit $g_2=0$ are excluded: a four-derivative self-interaction must be generated when a scalar couples to gravity.
  • The bound constrains the beta function of the EFT, not just a Wilson coefficient, so it is a genuinely new input that finite-$t$ positivity bounds alone do not deliver.
  • In early-universe models using shift-symmetric scalars, the derivative self-coupling is forced to be present, which shapes non-Gaussianities and preheating dynamics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The numerical coefficient $0.0115$ is not optimized; tuning the smearing parameters could only tighten the bound, so the physical threshold may be lower than the paper's headline value.
  • A similar pole-versus-running argument might apply to QED-like theories, where the photon self-coupling beta function could yield an analogous constraint on the charge-to-mass ratio, giving a field-theoretic route to the original weak gravity conjecture.
  • A numerical bootstrap scan of unitary four-dimensional S-matrices could test how close to saturation the bound is; the equality case would identify the UV completions that realize the maximal cutoff.
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

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper derives a weak-gravity-type bound for a four-dimensional shift-symmetric scalar EFT coupled to gravity, using fixed-t dispersion relations, positivity of UV spectral moments, and full partial-wave unitarity 0 ≤ Im f_j ≤ 2. The forward-limit argument compares the graviton-pole 1/t divergence with the one-loop 1/t^5 divergence of the eighth t-derivative of tM2, applies Hölder's inequality, and obtains Λ/M_P < 2.38 g2^{1/5} in Eq. (29). A smeared version, introduced to handle oscillating Legendre polynomials, yields the improved bound Λ^2/M_P^2 < 0.0115 |g2| in Eq. (54). The authors conclude that the free-scalar/Galileon limit g2 = 0 is incompatible with a unitary UV completion coupled to gravity and argue that graviton-loop corrections do not destabilize the bound.

Significance. If established, the quantitative bound would be a notable step: a weak-gravity-type cutoff-coupling relation derived from unitarity and positivity rather than from string or black-hole arguments, with explicit numerical coefficients. The forward-limit power-counting logic is coherent: eight t-derivatives produce the j^14 growth of φ(j), and q = 5 correctly matches the 1/t divergence. The paper is also transparent about the main Regge-bound assumption and provides explicit closed-form hypergeometric kernels and numerical evaluations of the smeared sums, which makes the computation reproducible in principle. However, several load-bearing steps are regularizations or estimates rather than proofs, and the headline g2 = 0 conclusion is an extrapolation outside the derivation's domain, so the significance is conditional on substantial revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 5 and Eq. (54)] The claim that the free-scalar/Galileon limit g2 = 0 is excluded is not a consequence of the derivation. Eq. (54) is obtained from the Hölder construction with q = 5, which relies on the 1/t^5 divergence in Eq. (15) generated by b2 = g2^2/(240π^2) > 0. At g2 = 0 the assumed EFT amplitude in Eq. (7) has no s^2 term, b2 = 0, and Eq. (27) degenerates to 0 < 0, so taking g2 → 0 in Eq. (54) is outside the domain of validity of the inequalities. The heuristic argument in Sec. 4.3 that graviton loops generate a (∂φ)^4 counterterm is not derived from the dispersion relations and is not substituted back into the bound. The conclusion in Sec. 5 that a free scalar or Galileon cannot be coupled to gravity should either be proved by a separate argument or removed.
  2. [Secs. 2.3 and 3.1, Eqs. (15)–(17) and (25)–(28)] The forward-limit derivation identifies the IR coefficient -144 b2/t^5 with the UV moment [φ(j)/µ^10] by expanding the Legendre polynomial and taking t → 0 termwise. The authors themselves note in Sec. 2 that the partial-wave sum need not converge at t = 0, and under only the full-unitarity bound Im f_j ≤ 2 the sum in [φ(j)/µ^10] behaves like Σ j^15 and is divergent. Therefore the interchange of summation, integration, and the t → 0 limit in Eq. (17) is not justified as it stands. This is load-bearing because the Hölder inequality in Eq. (27) uses that moment as the b2 side of the bound. The forward-limit result Eq. (29) needs either a proof of the required uniform large-j convergence or an explicit regularization; otherwise it should be presented as heuristic and the smeared version should carry the claim.
  3. [Secs. 4.1–4.2, Eqs. (37), (43), (50), (54)] The improved bound rests on uncontrolled regularizations. Because F(µ,j) is not positive-definite for γ > 1 in four dimensions, Eq. (37) replaces F by |F| before applying Hölder; the subsequent truncation of the µ-integral at a j-dependent cutoff R(j) = R0 j^η with 2 ≤ η < 3 is justified only by the power-counting estimates in Eqs. (47)–(49), which are made at saturation Im f_j = 2 and do not control the omitted tails uniformly as q0 → 0. In addition, the numerical coefficient 0.0115 in Eq. (54) corresponds to a particular choice of smearing parameters (S = 0.198 in Eq. (53) rather than S = 0.939 in Eq. (52)); without a proof that S cannot be significantly smaller and that the truncation errors are bounded, Eq. (54) is a numerical estimate under additional assumptions rather than a theorem.
  4. [Sec. 2, Eq. (2)] The dispersion relation in Eq. (2) drops the boundary term at |s| → ∞ by assuming the full amplitude, including graviton exchange, satisfies |A(s,t)| < s^2 at fixed t. The authors correctly and explicitly state that this Regge-type bound cannot be derived from first principles in the presence of gravity and must be assumed. Since every subsequent inequality inherits this assumption, the abstract's phrasing that the result follows from 'full unitarity' is stronger than what is shown. The central claims should be formulated as conditional on the assumed Regge/eikonal behavior, or the Regge assumption should be listed as an explicit extra postulate in the statement of the theorem.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.1, Eq. (26)] The convergence condition for the sum over j is incomplete as written: with φ(j) ~ j^14, the sum in Eq. (25) converges only for 1 - 14p/q < -1, which for q > 1 gives p > 8/7, so the allowed window is 8/7 < p < 9/7 rather than just p < 9/7. The choice q = 5 (p = 5/4) still lies inside the correct window, so this is a typographical/consistency issue rather than a fatal error.
  2. [Sec. 4.3, Eq. (58)] The term O(1/M_P^6) in Eq. (58) appears inside a square root with the dimensionless quantity g2^2, which is dimensionally inconsistent as written; please clarify the intended scaling with Λ and M_P, especially since the g2 = 0 limit of Eq. (58) is otherwise meaningless.
  3. [Sec. 4.2, Eqs. (50)–(53)] The notation O(q0^0) for terms that are finite as q0 → 0 is nonstandard because q0 is a dimensionful quantity; the remainders should be written with explicit dimensionless ratios such as q0^2/r or the O symbol should be defined precisely in this context.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the bound is derived from independent UV spectral integrals and IR one-loop beta functions; no fitted parameter or self-citation chain produces the target inequality.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and not circular. The IR side of the dispersion relations is computed explicitly from the EFT amplitude (7) with the one-loop beta functions (8), including b2 = g2^2/(240 pi^2); the UV side is expressed as positive-definite sums and integrals over partial waves with full unitarity 0 <= Im f_j <= 2. The Holder construction in Sec. 3.1 and the smeared version in Sec. 4.1-4.2 relate these two independent inputs, and the numerical constants 2.38 and 0.0115 come from evaluating convergent sums and integrals over Legendre/hypergeometric functions, not from tuning parameters to reproduce the final inequality. No quantity that appears as an input is redefined as the predicted output, and no parameter is fitted to the target bound. The authors' prior work (Refs. [56,61,83]) is cited only for background technique and does not carry the argument; in particular, no uniqueness theorem from those papers is invoked to force the chosen construction. The main caveats -- the assumed Regge bound on the full amplitude, the j-dependent cutoff estimate at saturation Im f_j = 2, and the extrapolation of the bound to g2 = 0 despite the derivation requiring b2 > 0 -- are validity and domain-of-application concerns rather than circular reductions. In particular, the g2 = 0 conclusion is an extrapolation outside the domain of the Holder construction, not an equality-by-construction of input and output.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The bound rests on standard dispersion-relation assumptions, an assumed high-energy boundedness of gravitational amplitudes, the full-unitarity cap Im f_j ≤ 2, and several hand-chosen regulators (j0, η, R0, q0, smearing parameters). No new physical entities are introduced; the free parameters are technical choices that affect the numerical coefficient of the bound.

free parameters (7)
  • arc radius r = r = Λ^2 (maximal allowed)
    The bound is optimized by setting the dispersion-relation arc radius to the cutoff scale squared; this choice affects the numerical coefficient.
  • Hölder exponents q and p = q = 5, p = 5/4
    Chosen so both sides of Eq. (27) diverge as 1/t; the condition q > 9/2 is required for convergence and matching.
  • low-spin subtraction cutoff j0 = j0 = 8
    Chosen conservatively as the smallest even j from which φ(j) is positive; larger values are allowed, but j0 to infinity is not allowed.
  • Hölder optimization parameter a = a = 2^{-1/p}
    Saturates the unitarity bound a ≤ 2^{-1/p} to optimize the inequality.
  • smearing parameters (γ, α, γ1, α1) = e.g. γ=1.05, α=3/2, γ1=8.1, α1=6; also γ=1.1, α=2, γ1=3.1, α1=1
    Chosen to make the smeared kernels F and F1 positive or non-oscillating and to reduce the numerical factor S; different choices change S between roughly 0.94 and 0.20.
  • j-dependent cutoff exponent η and base R0 = η = 2, R0 = r
    Chosen in the allowed range 2 ≤ η < 3 to make the sums in Eq. (49) converge while keeping tails subleading.
  • smearing width q0 = q0 = 0.02√r
    Numerically chosen small enough to approximate the q0 to 0 limit.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The full scattering amplitude satisfies dispersion relations with branch cuts in s and u and Schwarz reflection.
    Used to write Eq. (2); assumes massless scalar amplitude is analytic outside the cuts with no other singularities.
  • domain assumption Amp(s,t) < s^2 as |s| goes to infinity at fixed t, so the boundary term at infinity vanishes.
    Stated in Sec. 2 as an assumption for amplitudes including graviton exchange; the authors note it cannot be derived from first principles.
  • domain assumption The UV completion is a unitary four-dimensional theory with partial waves satisfying 0 ≤ Im f_j ≤ 2.
    This is the full-unitarity input used in Secs. 2 through 4.
  • ad hoc to paper φ(j) is positive for all even j ≥ j0 = 8, and low-j Legendre contributions can be subtracted without changing the t to 0 divergence.
    Justifies dropping low-spin contributions in Secs. 3.1 and 4.1; supported by a plot rather than a proof.
  • ad hoc to paper The smeared kernels F and F1 built from hypergeometric functions have the stated positivity and large-j scaling properties.
    The paper asserts and plots positivity for chosen parameters; the convergence of the improved bound depends on this.
  • domain assumption The one-loop beta functions b1, b2, c1, c2 in Eq. (8) correctly capture the leading non-analytic terms at the arc scale r = Λ^2, with higher loops subleading.
    The IR side of the comparison uses these one-loop coefficients; graviton-loop and higher-loop terms are argued to be subleading by power counting.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scalar weak gravity bound from full unitarity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TXFGTTWQ

@misc{pith2026250210375,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scalar weak gravity bound from full unitarity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TXFGTTWQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.10375}
}
abstract

Weak gravity conjecture can be formulated as a statement that gravity must be the weakest force, compared to the other interactions in low energy effective field theory (EFT). Several arguments in favor of this statement were presented from the side of string theory and black hole physics. However, it is still an open question whether the statement of weak gravity can be proven based on more general assumptions of causality, unitarity, and locality of the fundamental theory. These consistency requirements imply the dispersion relations for the scattering amplitudes which allow to bound the EFT coefficients. The main difficulty for obtaining these constraints in the presence of gravity is related to the graviton pole which makes the required dispersion relations divergent in the forward limit. In this work, we present a new way of deriving the bound on the ratio between the EFT cutoff scale and Planck mass from confronting the IR divergences from graviton pole and one-loop running of the EFT Wilson coefficient in front of the dimension-12 operator. Our method also allows the incorporation of full unitarity of partial wave expansion of the UV theory. We examine the EFT of a single shift-symmetric scalar in four dimensions and find that the maximal value of the cutoff scale of the EFT coupled to gravity must be lower than about $O(10)$ Planck mass.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.10375 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Integration contour used in (2) and branch cut singularities of the scattering amplitude at fixed real t < 0. Here Λ is an EFT cutoff scale, and r < Λ is the radius of the arc. If we assume the Schwarz reflection principle, A(µ, t) = A∗ (µ ∗ , t), we have, Discs A(µ, t) = ImA(µ, t). (3) The last term in (2) is a boundary term, which vanishes if the amplitude is bounded Amp < s2 in the limit of |s| → ∞ at fixed t. Th… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The value of ϕ(j) as a function of j; the picture shows that it is not positive definite for small j. to contributions from asymptotically large angular momentum — we can safely subtract a finite number of low-spin contributions from both sides of the inequality. This subtraction does not affect the validity of the inequality in the t → 0 limit. Specifically, we subtract the UV spectral contributions from angular mo… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Hypergeometric functions for different smearing parameters. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Hypergeometric functions F1(µ, j) (left plot) and F(µ, j) (right plot) for different smearing parameters. The normalization factor N is adjusted such that the values of the plotted functions are of order 1. 3 4 J 5.G10-14 1.G10-13 1.5G10-13 2.G10-13 2.5G10-13 3.G10-13 …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A sketch of the hypergeometric function F1(µ, j) for small j (left plot) and values of j 3Sj for different smearing parameters and η = 2 (right plot). Summarizing, we obtained Λ 2 M2 P < 0.0115|g˜2|. (54) In this work, we aim to show the existence of a bound on gravita…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Analytic Boundaries of Infinite-Spin-Tower Amplitudes from Hidden Zero

    hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The exact analytic boundary of unitary infinite-spin-tower amplitudes is derived and shown to be maximal unless energy poles accumulate.

  2. Impact of quantum gravity on the UV sensitivity of extremal black holes

    hep-th 2025-09 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    Asymptotically safe quantum gravity predicts a positive Goroff-Sagnotti Wilson coefficient at the Planck scale, which would keep extremal Kerr black hole tidal forces finite, but the paper's bound on the quantum gravi...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

107 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    The String landscape, black holes and gravity as the weakest force,

    N. Arkani-Hamed, L. Motl, A. Nicolis, and C. Vafa, “The String landscape, black holes and gravity as the weakest force,” JHEP 06 (2007) 060, arXiv:hep-th/0601001. 17

    arXiv 2007

  2. [2]

    Proving the Weak Gravity Conjecture in Perturbative String Theory, Part I: The Bosonic String,

    B. Heidenreich and M. Lotito, “Proving the Weak Gravity Conjecture in Perturbative String Theory, Part I: The Bosonic String,” arXiv:2401.14449 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  3. [3]

    The Swampland: Introduction and Review,

    E. Palti, “The Swampland: Introduction and Review,” Fortsch. Phys. 67 no. 6, (2019) 1900037, arXiv:1903.06239 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    Weak gravity conjecture,

    D. Harlow, B. Heidenreich, M. Reece, and T. Rudelius, “Weak gravity conjecture,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 95 no. 3, (2023) 035003, arXiv:2201.08380 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Castellano, The Quantum Gravity Scale and the Swampland

    A. Castellano, The Quantum Gravity Scale and the Swampland . PhD thesis, U. Autonoma, Madrid (main), 2024. arXiv:2409.10003 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Weak gravity bounds in asymptotic string compactifications,

    B. Bastian, T. W. Grimm, and D. van de Heisteeg, “Weak gravity bounds in asymptotic string compactifications,” JHEP 06 (2021) 162, arXiv:2011.08854 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Proof of the Weak Gravity Conjecture from Black Hole Entropy,

    C. Cheung, J. Liu, and G. N. Remmen, “Proof of the Weak Gravity Conjecture from Black Hole Entropy,” JHEP 10 (2018) 004, arXiv:1801.08546 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    Weak Gravity Conjecture and extremal black holes,

    G. Shiu, P. Soler, and W. Cottrell, “Weak Gravity Conjecture and extremal black holes,” Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 62 no. 11, (2019) 110412, arXiv:1611.06270 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2019

Show all 107 references
  1. [9]

    The Weak Gravity Conjecture and the Axionic Black Hole Paradox,

    A. Hebecker and P. Soler, “The Weak Gravity Conjecture and the Axionic Black Hole Paradox,” JHEP 09 (2017) 036, arXiv:1702.06130 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Black hole extremality in nonlinear electrodynamics: a lesson for weak gravity and Festina Lente bounds,

    Y. Abe, T. Noumi, and K. Yoshimura, “Black hole extremality in nonlinear electrodynamics: a lesson for weak gravity and Festina Lente bounds,” JHEP 09 (2023) 024, arXiv:2305.17062 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Implications of the weak gravity conjecture for tidal Love numbers of black holes,

    V. De Luca, J. Khoury, and S. S. C. Wong, “Implications of the weak gravity conjecture for tidal Love numbers of black holes,” Phys. Rev. D 108 no. 4, (2023) 044066, arXiv:2211.14325 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Running Love Numbers and the Effective Field Theory of Gravity,

    S. Barbosa, P. Brax, S. Fichet, and L. de Souza, “Running Love Numbers and the Effective Field Theory of Gravity,” arXiv:2501.18684 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  5. [13]

    Effective field theory in light of relative entropy,

    Q.-H. Cao, N. Kan, and D. Ueda, “Effective field theory in light of relative entropy,” JHEP 07 (2023) 111, arXiv:2211.08065 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Entropy constraints on effective field theory,

    Q.-H. Cao and D. Ueda, “Entropy constraints on effective field theory,” Phys. Rev. D 108 no. 2, (2023) 025011, arXiv:2201.00931 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Weak Gravity Conjecture, Black Hole Entropy, and Modular Invariance,

    L. Aalsma, A. Cole, and G. Shiu, “Weak Gravity Conjecture, Black Hole Entropy, and Modular Invariance,” JHEP 08 (2019) 022, arXiv:1905.06956 [hep-th]. 18

    2019 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Positivity of Amplitudes, Weak Gravity Conjecture, and Modified Gravity,

    B. Bellazzini, M. Lewandowski, and J. Serra, “Positivity of Amplitudes, Weak Gravity Conjecture, and Modified Gravity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 no. 25, (2019) 251103, arXiv:1902.03250 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Weak Gravity Conjecture from Unitarity and Causality,

    Y. Hamada, T. Noumi, and G. Shiu, “Weak Gravity Conjecture from Unitarity and Causality,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 no. 5, (2019) 051601, arXiv:1810.03637 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Causality, unitarity, and the weak gravity conjecture,

    N. Arkani-Hamed, Y.-t. Huang, J.-Y. Liu, and G. N. Remmen, “Causality, unitarity, and the weak gravity conjecture,” JHEP 03 (2022) 083, arXiv:2109.13937 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Rigorous bounds on light-by-light scattering,

    J. Henriksson, B. McPeak, F. Russo, and A. Vichi, “Rigorous bounds on light-by-light scattering,” JHEP 06 (2022) 158, arXiv:2107.13009 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    QED positivity bounds,

    L. Alberte, C. de Rham, S. Jaitly, and A. J. Tolley, “QED positivity bounds,” Phys. Rev. D 103 no. 12, (2021) 125020, arXiv:2012.05798 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Weak gravity conjecture in the AdS/CFT correspondence,

    Y. Nakayama and Y. Nomura, “Weak gravity conjecture in the AdS/CFT correspondence,” Phys. Rev. D 92 no. 12, (2015) 126006, arXiv:1509.01647 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Wormholes, Emergent Gauge Fields, and the Weak Gravity Conjecture,

    D. Harlow, “Wormholes, Emergent Gauge Fields, and the Weak Gravity Conjecture,” JHEP 01 (2016) 122, arXiv:1510.07911 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Universal Bounds on Charged States in 2d CFT and 3d Gravity,

    N. Benjamin, E. Dyer, A. L. Fitzpatrick, and S. Kachru, “Universal Bounds on Charged States in 2d CFT and 3d Gravity,” JHEP 08 (2016) 041, arXiv:1603.09745 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  16. [24]

    The Weak Gravity Conjecture in three dimensions,

    M. Montero, G. Shiu, and P. Soler, “The Weak Gravity Conjecture in three dimensions,” JHEP 10 (2016) 159, arXiv:1606.08438 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Evidence for an Electrifying Violation of Cosmic Censorship,

    G. T. Horowitz, J. E. Santos, and B. Way, “Evidence for an Electrifying Violation of Cosmic Censorship,” Class. Quant. Grav. 33 no. 19, (2016) 195007, arXiv:1604.06465 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Testing the Weak Gravity - Cosmic Censorship Connection,

    T. Crisford, G. T. Horowitz, and J. E. Santos, “Testing the Weak Gravity - Cosmic Censorship Connection,” Phys. Rev. D 97 no. 6, (2018) 066005, arXiv:1709.07880 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Cosmic censorship and Weak Gravity Conjecture in the Einstein–Maxwell-dilaton theory,

    T.-Y. Yu and W.-Y. Wen, “Cosmic censorship and Weak Gravity Conjecture in the Einstein–Maxwell-dilaton theory,” Phys. Lett. B 781 (2018) 713–718, arXiv:1803.07916 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Fencing in the Swampland: Quantum Gravity Constraints on Large Field Inflation,

    J. Brown, W. Cottrell, G. Shiu, and P. Soler, “Fencing in the Swampland: Quantum Gravity Constraints on Large Field Inflation,” JHEP 10 (2015) 023, arXiv:1503.04783 [hep-th]. 19

    2015 arXiv

  21. [29]

    On Axionic Field Ranges, Loopholes and the Weak Gravity Conjecture,

    J. Brown, W. Cottrell, G. Shiu, and P. Soler, “On Axionic Field Ranges, Loopholes and the Weak Gravity Conjecture,” JHEP 04 (2016) 017, arXiv:1504.00659 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Sharpening the Weak Gravity Conjecture with Dimensional Reduction,

    B. Heidenreich, M. Reece, and T. Rudelius, “Sharpening the Weak Gravity Conjecture with Dimensional Reduction,” JHEP 02 (2016) 140, arXiv:1509.06374 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Evidence for a sublattice weak gravity conjecture,

    B. Heidenreich, M. Reece, and T. Rudelius, “Evidence for a sublattice weak gravity conjecture,” JHEP 08 (2017) 025, arXiv:1606.08437 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Tensionless Strings and the Weak Gravity Conjecture,

    S.-J. Lee, W. Lerche, and T. Weigand, “Tensionless Strings and the Weak Gravity Conjecture,” JHEP 10 (2018) 164, arXiv:1808.05958 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Infrared Consistency and the Weak Gravity Conjecture,

    C. Cheung and G. N. Remmen, “Infrared Consistency and the Weak Gravity Conjecture,” JHEP 12 (2014) 087, arXiv:1407.7865 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  26. [34]

    A Tower Weak Gravity Conjecture from Infrared Consistency,

    S. Andriolo, D. Junghans, T. Noumi, and G. Shiu, “A Tower Weak Gravity Conjecture from Infrared Consistency,” Fortsch. Phys. 66 no. 5, (2018) 1800020, arXiv:1802.04287 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Gravity-Induced Photon Interactions and Infrared Consistency in any Dimensions,

    P. Bittar, S. Fichet, and L. de Souza, “Gravity-Induced Photon Interactions and Infrared Consistency in any Dimensions,” arXiv:2404.07254 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  28. [36]

    Weak gravity conjecture and effective field theory,

    P. Saraswat, “Weak gravity conjecture and effective field theory,” Phys. Rev. D 95 no. 2, (2017) 025013, arXiv:1608.06951 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Where Is String Theory in the Space of Scattering Amplitudes?,

    A. Guerrieri, J. Penedones, and P. Vieira, “Where Is String Theory in the Space of Scattering Amplitudes?,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 no. 8, (2021) 081601, arXiv:2102.02847 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Evaluation of the Derivative Quartic Terms of the Meson Chiral Lagrangian From Forward Dispersion Relation,

    T. N. Pham and T. N. Truong, “Evaluation of the Derivative Quartic Terms of the Meson Chiral Lagrangian From Forward Dispersion Relation,” Phys. Rev. D 31 (1985) 3027

    1985

  31. [39]

    The Chiral Lagrangian parameters, l1, l2, are determined by the rho resonance,

    M. R. Pennington and J. Portoles, “The Chiral Lagrangian parameters, l1, l2, are determined by the rho resonance,” Phys. Lett. B 344 (1995) 399–406, arXiv:hep-ph/9409426

    1995 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Energy’s and amplitudes’ positivity,

    A. Nicolis, R. Rattazzi, and E. Trincherini, “Energy’s and amplitudes’ positivity,” JHEP 05 (2010) 095, arXiv:0912.4258 [hep-th]. [Erratum: JHEP 11, 128 (2011)]

    2010 arXiv

  33. [41]

    On Renormalization Group Flows in Four Dimensions,

    Z. Komargodski and A. Schwimmer, “On Renormalization Group Flows in Four Dimensions,” JHEP 12 (2011) 099, arXiv:1107.3987 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Consistency of the Standard Model Effective Field Theory,

    G. N. Remmen and N. L. Rodd, “Consistency of the Standard Model Effective Field Theory,” JHEP 12 (2019) 032, arXiv:1908.09845 [hep-ph]. 20

    2019 arXiv

  35. [43]

    To Positivity and Beyond, where Higgs-Dilaton Inflation has never gone before,

    M. Herrero-Valea, I. Timiryasov, and A. Tokareva, “To Positivity and Beyond, where Higgs-Dilaton Inflation has never gone before,” JCAP 11 (2019) 042, arXiv:1905.08816 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Beyond Positivity Bounds and the Fate of Massive Gravity,

    B. Bellazzini, F. Riva, J. Serra, and F. Sgarlata, “Beyond Positivity Bounds and the Fate of Massive Gravity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 no. 16, (2018) 161101, arXiv:1710.02539 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Positivity bounds for scalar field theories,

    C. de Rham, S. Melville, A. J. Tolley, and S.-Y. Zhou, “Positivity bounds for scalar field theories,” Phys. Rev. D 96 no. 8, (2017) 081702, arXiv:1702.06134 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  38. [46]

    UV complete me: Positivity Bounds for Particles with Spin,

    C. de Rham, S. Melville, A. J. Tolley, and S.-Y. Zhou, “UV complete me: Positivity Bounds for Particles with Spin,” JHEP 03 (2018) 011, arXiv:1706.02712 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Massive Galileon Positivity Bounds,

    C. de Rham, S. Melville, A. J. Tolley, and S.-Y. Zhou, “Massive Galileon Positivity Bounds,” JHEP 09 (2017) 072, arXiv:1702.08577 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Generalized positivity bounds on chiral perturbation theory,

    Y.-J. Wang, F.-K. Guo, C. Zhang, and S.-Y. Zhou, “Generalized positivity bounds on chiral perturbation theory,” JHEP 07 (2020) 214, arXiv:2004.03992 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Gravitational positivity bounds,

    J. Tokuda, K. Aoki, and S. Hirano, “Gravitational positivity bounds,” JHEP 11 (2020) 054, arXiv:2007.15009 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Positivity in Multifield Effective Field Theories,

    X. Li, H. Xu, C. Yang, C. Zhang, and S.-Y. Zhou, “Positivity in Multifield Effective Field Theories,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 no. 12, (2021) 121601, arXiv:2101.01191 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Sharp boundaries for the swampland,

    S. Caron-Huot, D. Mazac, L. Rastelli, and D. Simmons-Duffin, “Sharp boundaries for the swampland,” JHEP 07 (2021) 110, arXiv:2102.08951 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Triple crossing positivity bounds for multi-field theories,

    Z.-Z. Du, C. Zhang, and S.-Y. Zhou, “Triple crossing positivity bounds for multi-field theories,” JHEP 12 (2021) 115, arXiv:2111.01169 [hep-th]

    2021

  45. [53]

    Gravitational effective field theory islands, low-spin dominance, and the four-graviton amplitude,

    Z. Bern, D. Kosmopoulos, and A. Zhiboedov, “Gravitational effective field theory islands, low-spin dominance, and the four-graviton amplitude,” J. Phys. A 54 no. 34, (2021) 344002, arXiv:2103.12728 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Moments for positivity: using Drell-Yan data to test positivity bounds and reverse-engineer new physics,

    X. Li, K. Mimasu, K. Yamashita, C. Yang, C. Zhang, and S.-Y. Zhou, “Moments for positivity: using Drell-Yan data to test positivity bounds and reverse-engineer new physics,” JHEP 10 (2022) 107, arXiv:2204.13121 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Causality constraints on corrections to Einstein gravity,

    S. Caron-Huot, Y.-Z. Li, J. Parra-Martinez, and D. Simmons-Duffin, “Causality constraints on corrections to Einstein gravity,” JHEP 05 (2023) 122, arXiv:2201.06602 [hep-th]. 21

    2023 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Massless positivity in graviton exchange,

    M. Herrero-Valea, R. Santos-Garcia, and A. Tokareva, “Massless positivity in graviton exchange,” Phys. Rev. D 104 no. 8, (2021) 085022, arXiv:2011.11652 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Bridging positivity and S-matrix bootstrap bounds,

    J. Elias Miro, A. Guerrieri, and M. A. Gumus, “Bridging positivity and S-matrix bootstrap bounds,” JHEP 05 (2023) 001, arXiv:2210.01502 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  50. [58]

    IR side of positivity bounds,

    B. Bellazzini, M. Riembau, and F. Riva, “IR side of positivity bounds,” Phys. Rev. D 106 no. 10, (2022) 105008, arXiv:2112.12561 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Crossing Symmetric Dispersion Relations in Quantum Field Theories,

    A. Sinha and A. Zahed, “Crossing Symmetric Dispersion Relations in Quantum Field Theories,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 no. 18, (2021) 181601, arXiv:2012.04877 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Causality, unitarity and symmetry in effective field theory,

    T. Trott, “Causality, unitarity and symmetry in effective field theory,” JHEP 07 (2021) 143, arXiv:2011.10058 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  53. [61]

    UV graviton scattering and positivity bounds from IR dispersion relations,

    M. Herrero-Valea, A. S. Koshelev, and A. Tokareva, “UV graviton scattering and positivity bounds from IR dispersion relations,” Phys. Rev. D 106 no. 10, (2022) 105002, arXiv:2205.13332 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Causality bounds on scalar-tensor EFTs,

    D.-Y. Hong, Z.-H. Wang, and S.-Y. Zhou, “Causality bounds on scalar-tensor EFTs,” JHEP 10 (2023) 135, arXiv:2304.01259 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  55. [63]

    (Non)-projective bounds on gravitational EFT,

    L.-Y. Chiang, Y.-t. Huang, W. Li, L. Rodina, and H.-C. Weng, “(Non)-projective bounds on gravitational EFT,” arXiv:2201.07177 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  56. [64]

    Carving out the Space of Open-String S-matrix,

    Y.-t. Huang, J.-Y. Liu, L. Rodina, and Y. Wang, “Carving out the Space of Open-String S-matrix,” JHEP 04 (2021) 195, arXiv:2008.02293 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Gravitational positivity bounds on scalar potentials,

    T. Noumi and J. Tokuda, “Gravitational positivity bounds on scalar potentials,” Phys. Rev. D 104 no. 6, (2021) 066022, arXiv:2105.01436 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Triple crossing positivity bounds, mass dependence and cosmological scalars: Horndeski theory and DHOST,

    H. Xu and S.-Y. Zhou, “Triple crossing positivity bounds, mass dependence and cosmological scalars: Horndeski theory and DHOST,” JCAP 11 (2023) 076, arXiv:2306.06639 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Capping the positivity cone: dimension-8 Higgs operators in the SMEFT,

    Q. Chen, K. Mimasu, T. A. Wu, G.-D. Zhang, and S.-Y. Zhou, “Capping the positivity cone: dimension-8 Higgs operators in the SMEFT,” JHEP 03 (2024) 180, arXiv:2309.15922 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Finite energy sum rules for gravitational Regge amplitudes,

    T. Noumi and J. Tokuda, “Finite energy sum rules for gravitational Regge amplitudes,” JHEP 06 (2023) 032, arXiv:2212.08001 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Snowmass White Paper: UV Constraints on IR Physics,

    C. de Rham, S. Kundu, M. Reece, A. J. Tolley, and S.-Y. Zhou, “Snowmass White Paper: UV Constraints on IR Physics,” in Snowmass 2021 . 3, 2022. arXiv:2203.06805 [hep-th]. 22

    2021 arXiv

  62. [70]

    On Capped Higgs Positivity Cone,

    D.-Y. Hong, Z.-H. Wang, and S.-Y. Zhou, “On Capped Higgs Positivity Cone,” 4, 2024. arXiv:2404.04479 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Effective Field Theory islands from perturbative and nonperturbative four-graviton amplitudes,

    Z. Bern, E. Herrmann, D. Kosmopoulos, and R. Roiban, “Effective Field Theory islands from perturbative and nonperturbative four-graviton amplitudes,” JHEP 01 (2023) 113, arXiv:2205.01655 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Bootstrapping the chiral anomaly at large N c,

    T. Ma, A. Pomarol, and F. Sciotti, “Bootstrapping the chiral anomaly at large N c,” JHEP 11 (2023) 176, arXiv:2307.04729 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  65. [73]

    EFT matching from analyticity and unitarity,

    S. De Angelis and G. Durieux, “EFT matching from analyticity and unitarity,” SciPost Phys. 16 (2024) 071, arXiv:2308.00035 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Bounds on scattering of neutral Goldstones,

    F. Acanfora, A. Guerrieri, K. H¨ aring, and D. Karateev, “Bounds on scattering of neutral Goldstones,” JHEP 03 (2024) 028, arXiv:2310.06027 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Gravitational positivity for phenomenologists: Dark gauge boson in the swampland,

    K. Aoki, T. Noumi, R. Saito, S. Sato, S. Shirai, J. Tokuda, and M. Yamazaki, “Gravitational positivity for phenomenologists: Dark gauge boson in the swampland,” Phys. Rev. D 110 no. 1, (2024) 016002, arXiv:2305.10058 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Positivity bounds on parity-violating scalar-tensor EFTs,

    H. Xu, D.-Y. Hong, Z.-H. Wang, and S.-Y. Zhou, “Positivity bounds on parity-violating scalar-tensor EFTs,” JCAP 01 (2025) 102, arXiv:2410.09794 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Extremal Higgs couplings,

    J. Elias Miro, A. L. Guerrieri, and M. A. Gumus, “Extremal Higgs couplings,” Phys. Rev. D 110 no. 1, (2024) 016007, arXiv:2311.09283 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Adding subtractions: comparing the impact of different Regge behaviors,

    B. McPeak, M. Venuti, and A. Vichi, “Adding subtractions: comparing the impact of different Regge behaviors,” arXiv:2310.06888 [hep-th]

  71. [79]

    Full Unitarity and the Moments of Scattering Amplitudes,

    M. Riembau, “Full Unitarity and the Moments of Scattering Amplitudes,” arXiv:2212.14056 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  72. [80]

    String loops and gravitational positivity bounds: imprint of light particles at high energies,

    S. Caron-Huot and J. Tokuda, “String loops and gravitational positivity bounds: imprint of light particles at high energies,” JHEP 11 (2024) 055, arXiv:2406.07606 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Gravity and a universal cutoff for field theory,

    S. Caron-Huot and Y.-Z. Li, “Gravity and a universal cutoff for field theory,” arXiv:2408.06440 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  74. [82]

    Matrix moment approach to positivity bounds and UV reconstruction from IR,

    S.-L. Wan and S.-Y. Zhou, “Matrix moment approach to positivity bounds and UV reconstruction from IR,” arXiv:2411.11964 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  75. [83]

    Non-local positivity bounds: islands in Terra Incognita,

    L. Buoninfante, L.-Q. Shao, and A. Tokareva, “Non-local positivity bounds: islands in Terra Incognita,” arXiv:2412.08634 [hep-th]. 23

    arXiv

  76. [84]

    Analytic bootstrap bounds on masses and spins in gravitational and non-gravitational scalar theories,

    J. Berman and N. Geiser, “Analytic bootstrap bounds on masses and spins in gravitational and non-gravitational scalar theories,” arXiv:2412.17902 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  77. [85]

    Primal S-matrix bootstrap with dispersion relations,

    C. de Rham, A. J. Tolley, Z.-H. Wang, and S.-Y. Zhou, “Primal S-matrix bootstrap with dispersion relations,” arXiv:2506.22546 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  78. [86]

    Splitting Regions and Shrinking Islands from Higher Point Constraints,

    J. Berman, H. Elvang, and C. Figueiredo, “Splitting Regions and Shrinking Islands from Higher Point Constraints,” arXiv:2506.22538 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  79. [87]

    Positive moments for scattering amplitudes,

    B. Bellazzini, J. Elias Mir´ o, R. Rattazzi, M. Riembau, and F. Riva, “Positive moments for scattering amplitudes,” Phys. Rev. D 104 no. 3, (2021) 036006, arXiv:2011.00037 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Non-Forward UV/IR Relations,

    C. Beadle, G. Isabella, D. Perrone, S. Ricossa, F. Riva, and F. Serra, “Non-Forward UV/IR Relations,” arXiv:2407.02346 [hep-th]

  81. [89]

    Positivity bounds in scalar Effective Field Theories at one-loop level,

    Y. Ye, B. He, and J. Gu, “Positivity bounds in scalar Effective Field Theories at one-loop level,” JHEP 12 (2024) 046, arXiv:2408.10318 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Positivity bounds on massive vectors,

    F. Bertucci, J. Henriksson, B. McPeak, S. Ricossa, F. Riva, and A. Vichi, “Positivity bounds on massive vectors,” JHEP 12 (2024) 051, arXiv:2402.13327 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Graviton loops and negativity,

    C.-H. Chang and J. Parra-Martinez, “Graviton loops and negativity,” arXiv:2501.17949 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  84. [92]

    The EFT Bootstrap at Finite MP L,

    C. Beadle, G. Isabella, D. Perrone, S. Ricossa, F. Riva, and F. Serra, “The EFT Bootstrap at Finite MP L,” arXiv:2501.18465 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  85. [93]

    Bootstrapping Gravity with Crossing Symmetric Dispersion Relations,

    C. Pasiecznik, “Bootstrapping Gravity with Crossing Symmetric Dispersion Relations,” arXiv:2506.09884 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  86. [94]

    Positivity bounds in scalar-QED EFT at one-loop level,

    Y. Ye, X. Cao, Y.-H. Wu, and J. Gu, “Positivity bounds in scalar-QED EFT at one-loop level,” arXiv:2507.06302 [hep-ph]

  87. [95]

    Duality and axionic weak gravity,

    S. Andriolo, T.-C. Huang, T. Noumi, H. Ooguri, and G. Shiu, “Duality and axionic weak gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 102 no. 4, (2020) 046008, arXiv:2004.13721 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Bounding violations of the weak gravity conjecture,

    J. Henriksson, B. McPeak, F. Russo, and A. Vichi, “Bounding violations of the weak gravity conjecture,” JHEP 08 (2022) 184, arXiv:2203.08164 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Is the Standard Model in the Swampland? Consistency Requirements from Gravitational Scattering,

    K. Aoki, T. Q. Loc, T. Noumi, and J. Tokuda, “Is the Standard Model in the Swampland? Consistency Requirements from Gravitational Scattering,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 no. 9, (2021) 091602, arXiv:2104.09682 [hep-th]. 24

    2021 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Reverse Bootstrapping: IR Lessons for UV Physics,

    L. Alberte, C. de Rham, S. Jaitly, and A. J. Tolley, “Reverse Bootstrapping: IR Lessons for UV Physics,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 no. 5, (2022) 051602, arXiv:2111.09226 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Constraints on Regge behavior from IR physics,

    C. de Rham, S. Jaitly, and A. J. Tolley, “Constraints on Regge behavior from IR physics,” Phys. Rev. D 108 no. 4, (2023) 046011, arXiv:2212.04975 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Gravitational Regge bounds,

    K. H¨ aring and A. Zhiboedov, “Gravitational Regge bounds,” SciPost Phys. 16 no. 1, (2024) 034, arXiv:2202.08280 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  93. [101]

    What is the graviton pole made of?,

    K. H¨ aring and A. Zhiboedov, “What is the graviton pole made of?,” arXiv:2410.21499 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  94. [102]

    Asymptotic behavior and subtractions in the Mandelstam representation,

    M. Froissart, “Asymptotic behavior and subtractions in the Mandelstam representation,” Phys. Rev. 123 (1961) 1053–1057

    1961

  95. [103]

    Unitarity and high-energy behavior of scattering amplitudes,

    A. Martin, “Unitarity and high-energy behavior of scattering amplitudes,” Phys. Rev. 129 (1963) 1432–1436

    1963

  96. [104]

    Connection Between the Asymptotic Behavior and the Sign of the Discontinuity in One-Dimensional Dispersion Relations,

    Y. S. Jin and A. Martin, “Connection Between the Asymptotic Behavior and the Sign of the Discontinuity in One-Dimensional Dispersion Relations,” Phys. Rev. 135 (1964) B1369–B1374

    1964

  97. [105]

    The EFT-Hedron,

    N. Arkani-Hamed, T.-C. Huang, and Y.-t. Huang, “The EFT-Hedron,” JHEP 05 (2021) 259, arXiv:2012.15849 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Into the EFThedron and UV constraints from IR consistency,

    L.-Y. Chiang, Y.-t. Huang, W. Li, L. Rodina, and H.-C. Weng, “Into the EFThedron and UV constraints from IR consistency,” JHEP 03 (2022) 063, arXiv:2105.02862 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  99. [107]

    De-projecting the EFThedron,

    L.-Y. Chiang, Y.-t. Huang, L. Rodina, and H.-C. Weng, “De-projecting the EFThedron,” JHEP 05 (2024) 102, arXiv:2204.07140 [hep-th]. 25

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.