Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 52 references

Bounds on the next-to-leading Wilson coefficient in maximal supergravity

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The next-to-leading Wilson coefficient in seven-dimensional maximal supergravity is minimized at the same U-duality symmetric point as the leading coefficient, the D5 point.

desk verdict The two-loop renormalization and the numerical value at D5 are solid, but the global-minimum claim is conditional on an unproved symmetric-point conjecture and a one-line check; the abstract overstates the result. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.17840 v1 pith:QRUX3MNF submitted 2025-04-24 hep-th

Guillaume Bossard , Adrien Loty This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords maximalsupergravityWilsoncoefficientEisensteinseriesnext-to-minimalautomorphicrepresentationU-dualitytypeIIstringtheoryS-matrixbootstraptwo-loopsuperstringamplitude
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

For seven-dimensional type II string theory on a three-torus, the paper identifies where the exact non-perturbative next-to-leading Wilson coefficient $E^{(1,0)}(\varphi)$ takes its smallest value. The coefficient is a specific positive combination of two renormalised SL(5) Eisenstein series, one attached to a minimal automorphic representation and one to a next-to-minimal one. The paper argues, using numerical evaluation on a specially chosen surface and along the unique S5-invariant line joining the two candidate points, that the global minimum lies at the D5 U-duality symmetric point — the same point that minimises the leading Wilson coefficient — and evaluates the minimum as $E^{(1,0)}(H_{D5})\approx 26.2315$. This matters because it shows the next order of the low-energy effective action also selects a single U-duality symmetric point, in line with the expectation that string theory saturates S-matrix bootstrap bounds.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the pair of renormalised Eisenstein series $\hat{E}^{\mathrm{SL}(5)}_{\frac{5}{2}\Lambda_1}$ and $\hat{E}^{\mathrm{SL}(5)}_{\frac{5}{2}\Lambda_3}$ on the symmetric space $SO(5)\setminus SL(5,\mathbb{R})$, the first attached to the minimal automorphic representation and the second to the next-to-minimal one. Their Fourier expansions, expressed with Bessel functions and sums over lattice charges, give the numerical approximations used in the paper. The other central piece is the stratification of the moduli space by stabiliser subgroups: symmetric points — isolated fixed points of finite subgroups of $SL(5,\mathbb{Z})$ — are forced extrema of all automorphic functions, so the paper restricts its scan to the surface $H(r,x)$ containing the irreducible symmetric lattices $D_5$, $D^*_5$, $A_5$, $A^*_5$, $A^{+2}_5$ and $A^{+3}_5$, and to the unique S5-invariant line $x=-2/5$ joining $D_5$ to $D^*_5$. Along that line the derivatives of the two Eisenstein series almost always have the same sign, so the positive combination inherits their minima.

What would settle it

Compute $E^{(1,0)}$ on a fine grid over the full 14-dimensional moduli space, or at least on other symmetric strata such as the three-dimensional family invariant under S4, with a more complete truncation of the lattice sums; any value below 26.2315, or a non-symmetric stationary point with a downward direction, would refute the global-minimum claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's terms, the central discovery is that the next-to-leading Wilson coefficient $$$E^{{(1,0)}}$(\varphi)=\zeta(5)\hat{E}^{\mathrm{SL}(5)}_{\frac{5}{2}\Lambda_1}(H)+\frac{\pi}{15\zeta(5)}\hat{E}^{\mathrm{SL}(5)}_{\frac{5}{2}\Lambda_3}(H)$$ has its global minimum at $H=H_{D5}$, with numerical value $\approx 26.2315$. Here $H$ parametrises the coset $SO(5)\setminus SL(5,\mathbb{R})/SL(5,\mathbb{Z})$, and the hatted Eisenstein series are the finite parts at the singular value $s=5/2$, defined by subtracting the pole dictated by the functional equations. The two ingredients vary almost identically along the S5-invariant line joining the D5 and $D^*_5$ points, so their positive combination has the same local minima; among the symmetric points, D5 is the smallest. The paper states this conclusion under the hypothesis, inherited from its earlier analysis, that all local minima of these automorphic functions occur at symmetric points, and with the help of numerical analysis on the surface $H(r,x)$.

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument rests on the unproved conjecture that every local minimum of these Eisenstein series occurs at a symmetric point; under that assumption the paper only scans a special surface and the single S5-invariant line joining D5 to $D^*_5$, so if a nonsymmetric minimum existed the true value could be below 26.2315.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim is correct, the exact value $E^{(1,0)}(H_{D5})\approx 26.2315$ is the smallest possible value of the next-to-leading Wilson coefficient in seven-dimensional maximal supergravity with type II string-theory boundary conditions.
  • The D5 point then simultaneously minimises the leading and next-to-leading Wilson coefficients, making it the natural locus at which string theory would saturate the next order of the S-matrix bootstrap unitary bound.
  • Because the two Eisenstein series vary almost identically along the S5-invariant line, the positive combination in (1.7) inherits its local minima from them; under the stated hypothesis no other symmetric point competes with D5.
  • The renormalisation prescription fixed by matching the two-loop superstring integral removes the logarithmic divergence of two-loop supergravity, leaving a finite Wilson coefficient consistent with the Eisenstein-series formula.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One could test the saturation picture directly by computing the S-matrix bootstrap lower bound for the next-to-leading Wilson coefficient in seven dimensions; if that bound approaches $26.2315$, the D5 point would be confirmed as the locus where string theory saturates unitarity at the next order.
  • Because the two candidate points are nearly degenerate for the $\Lambda_3$ Eisenstein series, one can in principle vary the relative coefficient of the two terms in (1.7) and locate the ratio at which the minimum flips from D5 to $D^*_5$; the physical ratio $\pi/(15\zeta(5))$ sits on the D5 side of that flip.
  • A proof of the symmetric-point-minima conjecture would upgrade the numerical scan to a theorem, and the paper's evidence suggests the same qualitative behaviour holds for other next-to-minimal Eisenstein series, so the method may transfer to higher derivative coefficients.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper computes (numerically) the next-to-leading Wilson coefficient E^(1,0) in the D=7 low-energy expansion of the type II four-graviton amplitude. This coefficient is expressed as a positive linear combination of renormalised SL(5,Z) Eisenstein series attached to the weights Λ1 and Λ3. The authors develop Fourier expansions, including for the next-to-minimal Eisenstein series, evaluate the function on a two-parameter surface H(r,x), and claim that its global minimum is attained at the D5 U-duality symmetric point, with E^(1,0)(H_D5) ≈ 26.2315. Section 3 derives the two-loop string-theory contribution and fixes the renormalisation that removes the supergravity divergence, leading to the coefficient in (1.7).

Significance. The claimed result is potentially significant for the S-matrix bootstrap programme: it would identify the next-to-leading Wilson coefficient of maximal supergravity with the minimum of the bootstrap bound at the same self-dual point as the leading coefficient. The renormalisation computation in Section 3 is detailed, and the Fourier-truncation stability check (nmax=4 vs 5) is a genuine strength. The numerical value (1.10) is reproducible in principle from the described expansion. However, the central global-minimum statement is conditional: it relies on an unproved symmetric-point conjecture and on evaluation on a one-dimensional slice of a 14-dimensional moduli space. The value 26.2315 should therefore be read as a candidate minimum until the global claim is established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§1 and §2 (global minimum claim)] The abstract's statement that the next-to-leading Wilson coefficient is minimum at the same point as the leading Wilson coefficient is not supported by the arguments in Sections 1–2. The derivation assumes the conjecture from [34] that local minima of the relevant Eisenstein series occur only at symmetric points, and the numerical work is restricted to the surface H(r,x) and, ultimately, to the S5-invariant line x = −2/5. These restrictions are insufficient for locating a global minimum on the 14-dimensional moduli space. In particular, the two summands in (1.7) have their respective minima at D5 (Λ1 term) and D*5 (Λ3 term at s = 5/2), so positivity alone does not force the minimum of the positive linear combination to lie on that line. The text itself concedes, after (2.21), that proving that D5 and D*5 are the only local minima would require systematic study of the entire moduli space. A full numerical search over a fundamental domain, or a proof that the minimum of the combination occurs at a symmetric point, is required before (1.10) can be reported as a global minimum.
  2. [§2, after Eq. (2.20)] The claim that the renormalised next-to-minimal Eisenstein series has only D5 and D*5 as minima in SO(5)\SL(5) goes beyond what is computed. The numerical results in that section are evaluations on the S4-invariant surface (2.18) and on the line x = −2/5; they do not exclude other local minima, including at the other symmetric points A5 and A*5 or on lower-strata loci. The following sentence acknowledges this gap. Since the Wilson coefficient is a positive combination of this function with the Λ1 Eisenstein series, the Hessian analysis at the symmetric points and the possible existence of off-surface minima are load-bearing for the main conclusion and need to be addressed.
  3. [§2, Fig. 2 and Eq. (2.22)] The determination that the minimum on the line is at H_D5 is graphical: the authors state that the plots of the two summands are nearly identical and that their derivatives nearly always have the same sign. No quantitative bound or error control is provided for this comparison, and the stitching of two dual Fourier representations in Fig. 2 could in principle introduce an artificial feature at the transition point r = 1/5^{1/4}. The quoted value 26.2315 is stable against increasing nmax, but this cutoff stability does not test the restriction of the domain to one line. I would ask for explicit values at D5, D*5, A5, A*5 and at sample points away from the line, together with Hessian eigenvalues or gradient information in off-line directions.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typos: 'in this detail' should be 'in detail' (p.6); 'Madelstam' should be 'Mandelstam' (p.12); and 'hypothesis' should be 'hypotheses' in Section 1.
  2. [§3, Eq. (3.20)] The notation Γ1-loop is used in (3.20) and (3.22) without an explicit definition; it should be defined in the same way as Γ2-loop in (3.4).
  3. [§2, Eq. (2.18)] In Eq. (2.18), x denotes a scalar coordinate while x_N in (2.3) is a vector; a different symbol for the scalar would avoid ambiguity.
  4. [§2, Eq. (2.21)] The phrase 'almost degenerate' for the values at D5 and D*5 should be quantified by giving the numerical difference to the stated precision.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Global minimum claim rests on the authors' own unproved symmetric-point conjecture [34]; the H_D5 value itself is a genuine numerical evaluation.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 1, paragraph beginning 'In [34] we provided strong evidence'; Section 2, paragraph beginning 'Following [34]' (after eq. (2.13)).]
    "In [34] we provided strong evidence for the conjecture that all local minima of E^{SL(5)}_{sΛ1} are located on symmetric points. Assuming this is the case, finding the global minimum amounts to classifying the symmetric points ... Following [34], we shall therefore argue instead that the global minimum must be at a special point and we shall only evaluate this function numerically on a special surface inside SO(5)\SL(5)."

    The paper's headline conclusion, that the next-to-leading Wilson coefficient is minimum at H_D5, is obtained by evaluating the functions only on the surface H(r,x) and then on the single S5-invariant line x = -2/5 inside the 14-dimensional moduli space. The justification for this restriction is the authors' own earlier paper [34], where the same authors proposed, with numerical evidence only, the conjecture that all local minima of the minimal Eisenstein series sit at symmetric points. That conjecture is then extended by analogy to the next-to-minimal series E_{5/2 Λ3} and to the positive linear combination defining E^(1,0). The paper concedes after eq.

full rationale

The computation of E^(1,0)(H_D5) ≈ 26.2315 is not circular: the Wilson coefficient is defined by eq. (1.7) in terms of renormalised Eisenstein series, whose Fourier expansions are taken from external references [26,40], and the plotted functions are evaluated numerically rather than fitted to the claimed minimum. The Section 3 renormalisation of the two-loop integral is an independent derivation with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. What prevents a 0-2 score is that the headline claim, that the global minimum is at H_D5, is not established by the paper's own equations: the search is restricted to a one-dimensional S5-invariant line in the 14-dimensional moduli space, and the justification for that restriction is the authors' earlier conjecture [34] that minima of the minimal Eisenstein series sit at symmetric points, extended here by qualitative analogy to the next-to-minimal series and to a positive linear combination whose two summands have different individual minima (D5 for Λ1 and D*5 for Λ3). The paper explicitly concedes after eq. (2.21) that proving only D5 and D*5 are local minima would require a systematic study on the entire moduli space. Thus the location claim is load-bearing on a self-citation and an unproved structural assumption; it is conditional rather than derived. The central numerical value remains independent, so the score is 4 rather than 6 or higher.

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

No free parameters are fitted. The load-bearing assumptions are the symmetric-point conjecture from [34], the restriction of the search to a single line, and the numerical truncation; these make the global-minimum claim conjectural rather than proven.

assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper All local minima of SL(5,Z)-invariant automorphic functions on SO(5)\SL(5,R) occur at symmetric points.
    Used to restrict the search for the global minimum to symmetric points; imported from the authors' previous paper [34] and not proved here. Invoked in Section 1 where 'with these hypothesis' the global-minimum claim is made.
  • ad hoc to paper The global minimum of E^(1,0) lies on the S5-invariant line H(r,-2/5) (or the H(r,x) surface).
    The numerical search is performed only on this locus; there is no proof that other regions cannot contain smaller values. See Section 2 and Fig. 2.
  • domain assumption The truncated Fourier expansion with nmax=5 is accurate in the region containing the minimum.
    Numerical truncation is checked by comparing nmax=4 and nmax=5 in the deep interior, but no rigorous error bound is provided. See Section 2.
  • domain assumption The two-loop string amplitude's low-energy limit (3.26) determines the Wilson coefficient in the chosen renormalisation scheme.
    Standard string-amplitude decomposition following [42,44]; footnote 8 notes one unproved degeneration limit used elsewhere, but this term is subleading in D=7.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bounds on the next-to-leading Wilson coefficient in maximal supergravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QRUX3MNF

@misc{pith2026250417840,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bounds on the next-to-leading Wilson coefficient in maximal supergravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QRUX3MNF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.17840}
}
read the original abstract

One expects type II string theory to be the unique ultraviolet completion of maximal supergravity. Motivated by the recent computation of the unitary bound on the leading Wilson coefficient within the S-matrix bootstrap, we analyse the minimum of the next-to-leading Wilson coefficient in string theory in seven spacetime dimensions. We find that the next-to-leading Wilson coefficient is minimum at the same point as the leading Wilson coefficient.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.17840 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The difference between E SL(5) sΛ3 at D∗ 5 and D5 is plotted as a function of s. For small s the function is plotted using the truncated Fourier expansion (2.6) discussed above. However since this approximation becomes bad at large s the function must be plotted using the truncated sum (1.9) where the first 6 layers of charges q with minimum norm are included for D∗ 5 and the first 7 for D5. The two functions are th… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Pullback of E(1,0) along the two dimensional (r, x) surface defined by (2.18) plotted on the symmetric line x = − 2 5 containing HD5 , HA +3 5 , HA +2 5 and HD∗ 5 . Only HD∗ 5 and HD5 are local minima and HD5 is the global minimum. Because the numerical approximation is bad when r is too small, this plot is obtained by stitching together a plot of ζ(5)EbSL(5) 5 2 Λ1 (r, x = − 2 5 ) + π 15 ζ(5)EbSL(5) 5 2 Λ3 (r, x = … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [34]

    Saturating unitarity bounds at U-duality symmetric points

    G. Bossard and A. Loty, “Saturating unitarity bounds at U-duality symmetric points,” JHEP 10 (2023) 110, arXiv:2308.02847 [hep-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  2. [1]

    String universality in ten dimensions,

    A. Adams, O. DeWolfe, and W. Taylor, “String universality in ten dimensions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010) 071601, arXiv:1006.1352 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2010

  3. [2]

    Four-dimensional N = 4 SYM theory and the swampland,

    H.-C. Kim, H.-C. Tarazi, and C. Vafa, “Four-dimensional N = 4 SYM theory and the swampland,” Phys. Rev. D 102 no. 2, (2020) 026003, arXiv:1912.06144 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2020

  4. [3]

    Branes and the Swampland,

    H.-C. Kim, G. Shiu, and C. Vafa, “Branes and the Swampland,” Phys. Rev. D 100 no. 6, (2019) 066006, arXiv:1905.08261 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2019

  5. [4]

    Compactness of brane moduli and the String Lamppost Principle in d > 6,

    A. Bedroya, Y. Hamada, M. Montero, and C. Vafa, “Compactness of brane moduli and the String Lamppost Principle in d > 6,” JHEP 02 (2022) 082, arXiv:2110.10157 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2022

  6. [5]

    Emergent Strings in Type IIB Calabi–Yau Compactifications,

    B. Friedrich, J. Monnee, T. Weigand, and M. Wiesner, “Emergent Strings in Type IIB Calabi–Yau Compactifications,” arXiv:2504.01066 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  7. [6]

    The Quartic Effective Action for the Heterotic String,

    D. J. Gross and J. H. Sloan, “The Quartic Effective Action for the Heterotic String,” Nucl. Phys. B 291 (1987) 41–89. 10We have generated theSL(5, Z) by multiplying elements of W (D5) and W (A5) stabilising the bilinear forms above. 17

    work page 1987

  8. [7]

    Low energy expansion of the four-particle genus-one amplitude in type II superstring theory,

    M. B. Green, J. G. Russo, and P. Vanhove, “Low energy expansion of the four-particle genus-one amplitude in type II superstring theory,” JHEP 02 (2008) 020, arXiv:0801.0322 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2008

Show all 52 references
  1. [8]

    Modular properties of two-loop maximal supergravity and connections with string theory,

    M. B. Green, J. G. Russo, and P. Vanhove, “Modular properties of two-loop maximal supergravity and connections with string theory,” JHEP 07 (2008) 126, arXiv:0807.0389 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Supersymmetrical String Theories,

    M. B. Green and J. H. Schwarz, “Supersymmetrical String Theories,” Phys. Lett. B 109 (1982) 444–448

    1982

  3. [10]

    Effects of D-instantons,

    M. B. Green and M. Gutperle, “Effects of D-instantons,” Nucl. Phys. B498 (1997) 195–227, arXiv:hep-th/9701093

    1997 arXiv

  4. [11]

    D-instantons, strings and M-theory,

    M. B. Green and P. Vanhove, “D-instantons, strings and M-theory,” Phys. Lett. B408 (1997) 122–134, arXiv:hep-th/9704145

    1997 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Construction of R(4) terms in N=2 D = 8 superspace,

    N. Berkovits, “Construction of R(4) terms in N=2 D = 8 superspace,” Nucl. Phys. B 514 (1998) 191–203, arXiv:hep-th/9709116

    1998 arXiv

  6. [13]

    A note on non-perturbative R4 couplings,

    B. Pioline, “A note on non-perturbative R4 couplings,” Phys. Lett. B431 (1998) 73–76, arXiv:hep-th/9804023

    1998 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Supersymmetry constraints on type IIB supergravity,

    M. B. Green and S. Sethi, “Supersymmetry constraints on type IIB supergravity,” Phys. Rev. D59 (1999) 046006, arXiv:hep-th/9808061

    1999 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Eisenstein series and string thresholds,

    N. A. Obers and B. Pioline, “Eisenstein series and string thresholds,” Commun. Math. Phys. 209 (2000) 275–324, arXiv:hep-th/9903113

    2000 arXiv

  9. [16]

    The Low-energy expansion of the one loop type II superstring amplitude,

    M. B. Green and P. Vanhove, “The Low-energy expansion of the one loop type II superstring amplitude,” Phys. Rev. D 61 (2000) 104011, arXiv:hep-th/9910056

    2000 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Minimal representations, spherical vectors, and exceptional theta series. I

    D. Kazhdan, B. Pioline, and A. Waldron, “Minimal representations, spherical vectors, and exceptional theta series. I” Commun. Math. Phys. 226 (2002) 1–40, hep-th/0107222

    2002 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Recursion Relations from Space-time Supersymmetry,

    A. Basu and S. Sethi, “Recursion Relations from Space-time Supersymmetry,” JHEP 09 (2008) 081, arXiv:0808.1250 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Duality and higher derivative terms in M theory,

    M. B. Green and P. Vanhove, “Duality and higher derivative terms in M theory,” JHEP 0601 (2006) 093, arXiv:hep-th/0510027 [hep-th]

    2006 arXiv

  13. [20]

    R4 couplings and automorphic unipotent representations,

    B. Pioline, “ R4 couplings and automorphic unipotent representations,” JHEP 03 (2010) 116, arXiv:1001.3647 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Small representations, string instantons, and Fourier modes of Eisenstein series,

    M. B. Green, S. D. Miller, and P. Vanhove, “Small representations, string instantons, and Fourier modes of Eisenstein series,” J. Number Theor. 146 (2015) 187–309, arXiv:1111.2983 [hep-th] . 18

    2015 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Minimal unitary representations from supersymmetry,

    G. Bossard and V. Verschinin, “Minimal unitary representations from supersymmetry,” JHEP 1410 (2014) 008, arXiv:1406.5527 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  16. [23]

    E∇4R4 type invariants and their gradient expansion,

    G. Bossard and V. Verschinin, “E∇4R4 type invariants and their gradient expansion,” JHEP 03 (2015) 089, arXiv:1411.3373 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Small automorphic representations and degenerate Whittaker vectors,

    H. P. A. Gustafsson, A. Kleinschmidt, and D. Persson, “Small automorphic representations and degenerate Whittaker vectors,” arXiv:1412.5625 [math.NT]

    arXiv

  18. [25]

    The two ∇6 R4 type invariants and their higher order generalisation,

    G. Bossard and V. Verschinin, “The two ∇6 R4 type invariants and their higher order generalisation,” JHEP 07 (2015) 154, arXiv:1503.04230 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Fourier coefficients of minimal and next-to-minimal automorphic representations of simply-laced groups,

    D. Gourevitch, H. P. A. Gustafsson, A. Kleinschmidt, D. Persson, and S. Sahi, “Fourier coefficients of minimal and next-to-minimal automorphic representations of simply-laced groups,” Can. J. Math. 74 no. 1, (2022) 122–169, arXiv:1908.08296 [math.NT]

    2022 arXiv

  20. [27]

    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

  21. [28]

    The S-matrix bootstrap II: two dimensional amplitudes,

    M. F. Paulos, J. Penedones, J. Toledo, B. C. van Rees, and P. Vieira, “The S-matrix bootstrap II: two dimensional amplitudes,” JHEP 11 (2017) 143, arXiv:1607.06110 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  22. [29]

    The S-matrix bootstrap. Part III: higher dimensional amplitudes,

    M. F. Paulos, J. Penedones, J. Toledo, B. C. van Rees, and P. Vieira, “The S-matrix bootstrap. Part III: higher dimensional amplitudes,” JHEP 12 (2019) 040, arXiv:1708.06765 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Flux Tube S-matrix Bootstrap,

    J. Elias Mir´ o, A. L. Guerrieri, A. Hebbar, J. a. Penedones, and P. Vieira, “Flux Tube S-matrix Bootstrap,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 no. 22, (2019) 221602, arXiv:1906.08098 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Where is M-theory in the space of scattering amplitudes?,

    A. Guerrieri, H. Murali, J. Penedones, and P. Vieira, “Where is M-theory in the space of scattering amplitudes?,” arXiv:2212.00151 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  25. [32]

    S-matrix bootstrap for effective field theories: massless pions,

    A. L. Guerrieri, J. Penedones, and P. Vieira, “S-matrix bootstrap for effective field theories: massless pions,” JHEP 06 (2021) 088, arXiv:2011.02802 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Exploring inelasticity in the S-matrix Bootstrap,

    A. Antunes, M. S. Costa, and J. Pereira, “Exploring inelasticity in the S-matrix Bootstrap,” Phys. Lett. B 846 (2023) 138225, arXiv:2301.13219 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Manifest Ultraviolet Behavior for the Three-Loop Four-Point Amplitude of N=8 Supergravity,

    Z. Bern, J. Carrasco, L. J. Dixon, H. Johansson, and R. Roiban, “Manifest Ultraviolet Behavior for the Three-Loop Four-Point Amplitude of N=8 Supergravity,” Phys.Rev. D78 (2008) 105019, arXiv:0808.4112 [hep-th] . 19

    2008 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Exploring transcendentality in superstring amplitudes,

    E. D’Hoker and M. B. Green, “Exploring transcendentality in superstring amplitudes,” JHEP 07 (2019) 149, arXiv:1906.01652 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Transcendentality of Type II superstring amplitude at one-loop,

    E. Claasen and M. Doroudiani, “Transcendentality of Type II superstring amplitude at one-loop,” arXiv:2412.04381 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  30. [38]

    Automorphic properties of low energy string amplitudes in various dimensions,

    M. B. Green, J. G. Russo, and P. Vanhove, “Automorphic properties of low energy string amplitudes in various dimensions,” Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 086008, arXiv:1001.2535 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  31. [39]

    On the question of final ζ-optimality of lattices providing the closest lattice packing of n-dimensional spheres,

    S. Ryshkov, “On the question of final ζ-optimality of lattices providing the closest lattice packing of n-dimensional spheres,” Sib. Math. J. no. 14, (1974) 743–750

    1974

  32. [40]

    Supergravity divergences, supersymmetry and automorphic forms,

    G. Bossard and A. Kleinschmidt, “Supergravity divergences, supersymmetry and automorphic forms,” JHEP 08 (2015) 102, arXiv:1506.00657 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  33. [41]

    On Maximal Finite Irreducible Subgroups of GL(n, Z): I. The five and seven dimensional cases.,

    W. Plesken and M. Pohst, “On Maximal Finite Irreducible Subgroups of GL(n, Z): I. The five and seven dimensional cases.,” Mathematics of Computation 31 no. 138, (1977) 536–551

    1977

  34. [42]

    Two-loop superstrings VI: Non-renormalization theorems and the 4-point function,

    E. D’Hoker and D. H. Phong, “Two-loop superstrings VI: Non-renormalization theorems and the 4-point function,” Nucl. Phys. B 715 (2005) 3–90, arXiv:hep-th/0501197

    2005 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Explizite Bestimmung der Randfl¨ achen des Fundamentalbereiches der Modulgruppe zweiten Grades.,

    E. Gottschling, “Explizite Bestimmung der Randfl¨ achen des Fundamentalbereiches der Modulgruppe zweiten Grades.,” Math. Ann. 138 (1959) 103–124

    1959

  36. [44]

    Infrared divergences and harmonic anomalies in the two-loop superstring effective action,

    B. Pioline and R. Russo, “Infrared divergences and harmonic anomalies in the two-loop superstring effective action,” JHEP 12 (2015) 102, arXiv:1510.02409 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Tropical Amplitudes,

    P. Tourkine, “Tropical Amplitudes,” Annales Henri Poincare 18 no. 6, (2017) 2199–2249, arXiv:1309.3551 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  38. [46]

    On the relationship between Yang-Mills theory and gravity and its implication for ultraviolet divergences,

    Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon, D. C. Dunbar, M. Perelstein, and J. S. Rozowsky, “On the relationship between Yang-Mills theory and gravity and its implication for ultraviolet divergences,” Nucl. Phys. B 530 (1998) 401–456, arXiv:hep-th/9802162

    1998 arXiv

  39. [47]

    The Rankin-Selberg method: a survey,

    D. Bump, “The Rankin-Selberg method: a survey,” in Number theory, trace formulas and discrete groups (Oslo, 1987) , pp. 49–109. Academic Press, Boston, MA, 1989

    1987

  40. [48]

    Modular invariance for interacting bosonic strings at finite temperature,

    B. McClain and B. D. B. Roth, “Modular invariance for interacting bosonic strings at finite temperature,” Commun.Math.Phys. 111 (1987) 539

    1987

  41. [49]

    Moduli dependence of string loop corrections to gauge coupling constants,

    L. J. Dixon, V. Kaplunovsky, and J. Louis, “Moduli dependence of string loop corrections to gauge coupling constants,” Nucl. Phys. B355 (1991) 649–688

    1991

  42. [50]

    Rankin-Selberg methods for closed string amplitudes,

    B. Pioline, “Rankin-Selberg methods for closed string amplitudes,” Proc.Symp.Pure Math. 88 (2014) 119–144, arXiv:1401.4265 [hep-th] . 20

    2014 arXiv

  43. [51]

    On the Rankin-Selberg method for higher genus string amplitudes,

    I. Florakis and B. Pioline, “On the Rankin-Selberg method for higher genus string amplitudes,” Commun. Num. Theor. Phys. 11 (2017) 337–404, arXiv:1602.00308 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  44. [52]

    String theory dualities and supergravity divergences,

    M. B. Green, J. G. Russo, and P. Vanhove, “String theory dualities and supergravity divergences,” JHEP 1006 (2010) 075, arXiv:1002.3805 [hep-th] . 21

    2010 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.