Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Smooth Splitting and Zeros from On-Shell Recursion

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 This paper shows that the recently discovered hidden zeros and smooth splitting of tree amplitudes in Tr $\phi^3$, NLSM, YMS, and the special Galileon follow from a single contour-integration argument, once a specially chosen kinematic…

desk verdict A genuinely new contour-based derivation of splitting/zeros via a new kinematic shift, with a solid Tr phi^3/NLSM core and an explicitly conjectural, partly circular YMS/special-Galileon edge that needs referee scrutiny. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.02520 v1 pith:CSCCGWED submitted 2025-05-05 hep-th

Callum R. T. Jones , Shruti Paranjape This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords hiddenzerossmoothsplittingon-shellrecursionkinematicmeshg-vectorshiftsscatteringamplitudesspecialGalileonBCFW
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's central claim is that 'smooth splitting'—the factorization of certain amplitudes into products of lower-point amplitudes when a small set of non-pole kinematic invariants is tuned to zero—and the associated 'hidden zeros' are not accidental algebraic miracles but consequences of a contour integration argument of the same type used in on-shell recursion. The key is a new linear shift of planar Mandelstam variables, the $(X_{ij}, c_{kl})$-shift, which deforms the amplitude while leaving all invariants inside a chosen maximal rectangle of the kinematic mesh fixed. If the shifted amplitude has no pole at infinity, the residue theorem reconstructs the amplitude as a sum over factorization poles; all poles except two carry lower-point amplitudes that vanish by induction, leaving exactly the splitting formula. The paper proves the required UV falloff for Tr $\phi^3$ and NLSM by identifying the shift as a g-vector shift from surfaceology, observes it for the special Galileon, and conjectures it for YMS. If the argument is right, the mysterious zero and splitting structure of these theories is a direct consequence of standard unitarity plus improved UV behavior, and the same mechanism yields new higher-order splitting formulae and new four-dimensional helicity zeros.

What carries the argument

The central object is the $(X_{ij}, c_{kl})$-shift, a linear deformation of the planar Mandelstam variables in two regions of the kinematic mesh by $\mp z$ and $\pm z$, defined relative to a maximal rectangle with bottom $X_B = X_{ij}$ and one relaxed plaquette $c_{kl}$. Its defining property is that all $c$-variables inside the rectangle—the ones set to zero in the hidden-zero locus—are unchanged by the shift, while the two special planar invariants $X_B$ and $X_T$ shift with opposite signs. This makes the contour integral around the shifted amplitude factorize: on every unwanted pole, one factor is a lower-point amplitude evaluated on zero kinematics and vanishes by induction; the only surviving residues at $z = X_B$ and $z = -X_T$ are related by a bonus relation when the amplitude falls as $z^{-2}$ at infinity. The identification of this shift with a g-vector shift, proven for Tr $\phi^3$ and inherited by NLSM through the $\delta$-shift, supplies the needed $z^{-2}$ falloff.

What would settle it

Compute a 10- or 12-point special Galileon or YMS tree amplitude on scalar splitting kinematics, apply an $(X_{eo}, c_{kl})$-shift, and inspect the large-$z$ behavior of the shifted function; a falloff worse than $z^{-2}$ (such as $z^{-1}$ or $z^0$) in any such example would falsify the improved-UV premise and collapse the recursive proof of splitting in that theory.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery is that hidden zeros and smooth splitting are equivalent to improved UV behavior of a carefully chosen deformation. For an amplitude in the kinematic mesh with a maximal rectangle bounded by $X_B$ and $X_T$, an $(X_{ij}, c_{kl})$-shift moves $X$-variables by $\pm z$ so that the interior $c$-invariants defining the zero stay fixed. Deforming the contour in Cauchy's theorem and using factorization on each propagator, every residue except those at $z = X_B$ and $z = -X_T$ contains a lower-point amplitude evaluated on zero kinematics, which vanishes. The remaining two residues combine through a 'bonus relation' provided the shifted amplitude falls at least as $z^{-2}$; reading off the residue at $z = X_B$ reproduces the splitting formula with its kinematic remapping. Setting the relaxed $c_*$ to zero turns splitting into the hidden zero. Since the induction starts at four points, the splitting theorem is proven recursively to all multiplicity whenever the $z^{-2}$ falloff is available: for Tr $\phi^3$ and NLSM the falloff follows from the identification of the shift as a g-vector shift, for YMS it is an explicitly flagged conjecture, and for the special Galileon it is checked at six and eight points.

Load-bearing premise

The argument hinges on the shifted amplitude having no pole at infinity, falling as $z^{-2}$ on the chosen kinematics; this is proven for Tr $\phi^3$ and NLSM, but for YMS it is only conjectured from examples, and for the special Galileon it is checked only at six and eight points.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For Tr $\phi^3$ and NLSM, hidden zeros and near-zero splitting become theorems provable inductively from standard tree-level factorization plus the $z^{-2}$ behavior of g-vector shifts, without needing a positive-geometry argument.
  • Relaxing several zero conditions in the same row of the kinematic mesh produces closed higher-order splitting formulae, including limits in which the amplitude becomes a product of three lower-point amplitudes in both Tr $\phi^3$ and NLSM.
  • If the conjectured $z^{-2}$ falloff for YMS scalar splitting kinematics is established from first principles, the same contour argument gives all-multiplicity smooth splitting in scalar channels of YMS.
  • The four-dimensional analysis identifies exactly which helicity configurations can support hidden zeros in YM and YMS, and proves a new class of helicity zeros that holds in all helicity sectors of Yang-Mills and gravity.
  • The equivalence between splitting and improved UV behavior provides a new organizing principle: any theory whose amplitudes satisfy the required large-$z$ falloff under an $(X_{ij}, c_{kl})$-shift automatically exhibits hidden zeros and smooth splitting.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same contour argument suggests a search strategy for hidden zeros in other theories: any tree amplitude with a chosen maximal rectangle and $z^{-2}$ falloff under an $(X_{ij}, c_{kl})$-shift should exhibit splitting. The paper's checks that DBI and Einstein-Maxwell-Scalar amplitudes scale poorly are natural negative controls for this criterion.
  • The bonus relation between residues at $z = X_B$ and $z = -X_T$ is a UV constraint that may encode a hidden symmetry or soft theorem, analogous to how enhanced cancellations in gravity are captured by bonus relations; extracting that symmetry could explain why the falloff is far better than naive power counting.
  • The four-dimensional checkerboard zeros force non-adjacent pairs of external momenta to become proportional, which suggests the $d$-dimensional hidden-zero locus restricts to 4d as a multi-collinear limit; this may make the zeros visible as constraints in collinear factorization and useful as benchmark identities for numerical amplitude programs.
  • The helicity zeros, which vanish term by term in BCFW expansions, are new selection rules for 4d gluon and graviton amplitudes and appear to be the natural 4d avatar of the hidden-zero phenomenon, likely connecting to flattening limits of positive geometries built from BCFW terms.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a new family of complex kinematic shifts, the (Xij, ckl)-shifts, and uses contour integration in the style of BCFW to argue that the recently discovered 'hidden zeros' and 'smooth splitting' properties of tree amplitudes in Tr phi^3, NLSM, YMS, and the special Galileon follow from standard factorization plus improved large-z behavior. For Tr phi^3 and NLSM the improved UV scaling is argued from the g-vector/surfaceology framework; for YMS it is explicitly left as a conjecture, and for the special Galileon it is checked only at six and eight points. The paper also derives higher-order and triple-splitting formulas, discusses their kinematics in the mesh, and analyzes the realization of hidden zeros and new 'helicity zeros' in four dimensions via BCFW recursion.

Significance. If the improved-UV premises were established at all multiplicities, the paper would provide a unified and conceptual explanation of hidden zeros and smooth splitting across four different theories, with a clear recursive mechanism that also generates new splitting formulas, including triple-splitting formulas and generalized all-multiplicity expressions. The Tr phi^3 and NLSM results are the strongest part: there the argument is genuinely recursive and anchored in the cited g-vector/surfaceology results, so the proof is largely complete modulo external references. The paper is also honest about the conjectural status of the YMS scaling, which is a strength. The 4d helicity-zero claim is new, concrete, and falsifiable, and the BCFW-based reasoning is a promising route even if the general inductive proof is only sketched. The significance is tempered by the fact that the headline claim for YMS and the special Galileon rests on unproven, and for YMS partly circular, UV-scaling assumptions.

major comments (4)
  1. [2.2 (YMS bullet); 3.1, Eq. (3.4)] The recursive proof of the YMS splitting formula is not self-contained as written. The z^-2 scaling on scalar splitting kinematics is introduced as an empirical conjecture, and the text explicitly notes that 'If one assumes the splitting formula (2.9) then this scaling follows; to avoid a circular argument it would be preferable to have an independent understanding of this fact.' But in Section 3.1 the bonus relation (3.4) is precisely the z^-2 scaling that is used to derive the splitting formula (2.9). Thus, for YMS the argument proves only the conditional statement: (2.9) implies improved UV behavior, which implies (2.9). An independent derivation of the z^-2 falloff for (Xeo, c*)-shifts, or an alternative argument that avoids the circularity, is needed before the YMS section can support the paper's stated claim.
  2. [3.3, Eqs. (3.36)-(3.37)] The special Galileon splitting claim rests on the same type of unproven premise. The improved z^-2 falloff on split kinematics is verified only for six- and eight-point amplitudes, and the accompanying KLT discussion explicitly does not establish the higher-multiplicity behavior, because it would require cancellations among NLSM amplitudes with different orderings that are not demonstrated. Since the contour argument in Section 3.1 and the conclusion that the special Galileon 'also splits' depend on this falloff at all n, higher-point checks or a proof are required. As it stands, the Galileon result is a conjecture supported by two examples.
  3. [3.2.1, Eq. (3.23)] The all-multiplicity higher-order splitting formula (3.23) is stated as a general result, but the derivation in the text is limited to the 10-point examples (3.18)-(3.22), and the step from examples to the general formula is described only by 'the pattern is clear'. The recursive procedure of Section 3.1 could plausibly supply an inductive proof, but no such induction is written down. As presented, the higher-order splitting formulas beyond the explicitly derived examples are conjectures, not consequences of the contour argument.
  4. [4.3, Fig. 9 and Eq. (4.22)] The claim that BCFW proves helicity zeros in all helicity sectors of YM and gravity is supported by one explicit 8-point YMS example and a 6-point gluon example. The general statement is asserted by saying that the argument 'always follows in the same manner', but the full induction requires a precise specification of the shift, the treatment of all BCFW term topologies, and the base cases for every N^kMHV sector and for gravity. Please either provide the general inductive argument or state the all-sector statement as a conjecture. This matters because the abstract advertises the helicity zeros as proven in all sectors of YM and gravity.
minor comments (5)
  1. [4.2, around Eq. (4.15)] There is an apparent mismatch in the text: Eq. (4.15) is labeled with Zspin(X35), while the following sentence says 'where Zspin(X24) sets...'. Please correct the labels so that the zero condition matches the displayed kinematics.
  2. [3.2.3, paragraph after Eq. (3.27)] In the sentence 'Unlike YMS the direction of the row...', the intended comparison appears to be with NLSM rather than with YMS itself; please clarify the wording.
  3. [3.3, after Eq. (3.33)] The notation c126 in the example (3.34) is not defined; please state that it denotes the Mandelstam invariant (p1+p2+p6)^2 or introduce a general definition for multi-index c-variables.
  4. [2.1, after Eq. (2.9)] The indices in the generic splitting formula (2.9)-(2.10) are used before the ranges of i,j,k,l are fully specified in the paragraph; a reader unfamiliar with the mesh would benefit from an explicit display of the ranges accompanying the formula.
  5. [2.3, g-vector shift derivation] The proof that the (Xij, ckl)-shift is a g-vector shift is constructive but somewhat compressed; explicitly stating the direction vector t in the basis {(Xij)} for a generic rectangle would make Section 2.3 easier to check.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

YMS and special-Galileon splitting proofs use the splitting formula itself to conjecture the required UV falloff; Tr(phi^3)/NLSM falloff rests partly on a load-bearing self-citation.

  1. self definitional [Section 1 (Introduction) and Section 2.2, YMS bullet; used in the bonus-relation step of Section 3.1, Eq. (3.4)]
    "In models like YMS and special Galileon, the lack of a direct surface description makes a proof of enhanced fall-off at infinity difficult. Instead, we use the fact that the amplitude splits to conjecture good UV behavior. ... If one assumes the splitting formula (2.9) then this scaling follows; to avoid a circular argument it would be preferable to have an independent understanding of this fact."

    The recursive proof of the splitting formula (2.9) requires the shifted YMS amplitude to fall as z^{-2} so that the bonus relation (3.4) holds. The only stated basis for that z^{-2} falloff on scalar splitting kinematics is the splitting formula (2.9) itself: the paper explicitly says 'If one assumes the splitting formula (2.9) then this scaling follows.' Thus the premise of the recursion is the conclusion it is supposed to derive, and Eq. (3.4) is effectively Eq. (2.9) repackaged as a UV-scaling assumption. The paper honestly flags the circularity but does not remove it.

  2. other [Section 3.3, special Galileon paragraph (with the Section 1 conjecture of improved UV behavior)]
    "On split kinematics on the other hand, the amplitudes display enhanced fall-off at infinity: M6sGal split ∼ z−2, M8sGal split ∼ z−2. Thus our recursive proof of the existence of zeros and near-zero splitting discussed in Section 3.1 applies, and we see that these properties extend to special Galileon theory."

    For the special Galileon the z^{-2} falloff is not proven; it is observed at 6 and 8 points and conjectured to hold at all multiplicities. Moreover, Section 1 states that in models like the special Galileon the authors 'use the fact that the amplitude splits to conjecture good UV behavior.' So the no-pole-at-infinity premise used to 'extend' the splitting property is itself motivated by the splitting property. At higher multiplicity the recursion is therefore an induction whose only input is the target statement, not an independent derivation of it.

1 more flagged steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Section 2.3, g-vector shifts and surfaceology (Tr(phi^3) and NLSM falloff), citing [43]]
    "The behavior of the amplitude when z→∞ is then determined to be [14, 15, 43] Aˆϕ3n(z)∼z−2 ⇒ Trϕ3 has no pole at infinity."

    For Tr(phi^3) and NLSM, the no-pole-at-infinity premise that powers the contour-integral proof is not derived in the present paper but is imported from reference [43], whose author list includes the present co-author Paranjape. The present paper uses that cited theorem as an external mathematical fact without reproducing its proof, so the recursion argument for these two theories is load-bearing on a self-citation. The same dependency enters the NLSM falloff through the commutativity of g-vector shifts cited to [43]. Non-overlapping references [14,15,44] are also cited, which weakens the circularity, but the specific z^{-2} statement is credited to [43].

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the smooth splitting formula (2.9), and the hidden zeros it implies, follow from a contour integral plus factorization plus improved UV behavior. For Tr(phi^3) and NLSM, the improved UV behavior is established in the cited surfaceology/g-vector literature; that part of the derivation is self-contained only if the cited results are taken as given, and reference [43] overlaps with the present authorship. For YMS and the special Galileon, the UV premise is not independently established. The YMS bullet in Section 2.2 states verbatim that the z^{-2} scaling follows if one assumes the splitting formula (2.9), which is exactly the relation the recursion is meant to prove; using that scaling in the bonus relation (3.4) makes the YMS derivation circular by construction. For the special Galileon, only 6- and 8-point examples are checked, and Section 1 says the good UV behavior is conjectured from the fact that the amplitude splits, so the recursive 'extension' of splitting to all multiplicities is not an independent proof. The 4d BCFW/ helicity-zero material is a separate derivation that does not share this circularity. Overall, the central splitting derivation is partially circular: it is rigorous for Tr(phi^3) and NLSM modulo a load-bearing self-citation, and it reduces to its own input for YMS and for the conjectured all-multiplicity special Galileon statement.

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

No free parameters are fitted in this paper. The central derivation rests on standard factorization, on cited surfaceology and g-vector results, and on conjectured UV falloff for YMS and the special Galileon. No new physical entities are postulated; the new shift is a mathematical operation on kinematic variables.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Tree-level amplitudes factorize on propagators with residues given by products of lower-point amplitudes (Eq. 2.5).
    Used throughout Section 3.1 to evaluate shifted residues; standard unitarity property, not proven in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper For an (Xij,ckl)-shift, shifted amplitudes have improved large-z falloff, specifically z^-2 on split kinematics for YMS and the special Galileon.
    Conjectured from low-multiplicity examples; for YMS it is explicitly tied circularly to the splitting formula itself, and for the Galileon only 6- and 8-point checks are shown.
  • domain assumption Tr phi^3 amplitudes under g-vector shifts scale as z^-2 thanks to projective invariance of the associahedron canonical form.
    Imported from [14,15,43,44]; the paper identifies its shift as a g-vector shift but does not rederive the projective-invariance result.
  • domain assumption NLSM amplitudes arise as the delta-to-infinity limit of Tr phi^3 amplitudes, and the large-z and large-delta limits commute.
    Taken from [2,43] and used in Section 2.3 to transfer z^-2 falloff to NLSM.
  • ad hoc to paper Hidden zeros for lower-point amplitudes in each model are already established.
    Section 3.1 explicitly builds the induction on 'if we assume that for amplitudes with fewer than n external particles the hidden zeros have been proven'; base cases are asserted, not shown.
  • domain assumption YM and YMS amplitudes satisfy BCFW recursion with good large-z behavior.
    Used in Section 4.3 to prove 4d zeros; standard for YM and inherited by the dimensional-reduction YMS model, but not rederived here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Smooth Splitting and Zeros from On-Shell Recursion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CSCCGWED

@misc{pith2026250502520,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Smooth Splitting and Zeros from On-Shell Recursion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CSCCGWED}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.02520}
}
abstract

We describe a new approach to understanding the origins of recently discovered "hidden zeros" and "smooth splitting" of tree-level amplitudes in $\text{Tr}\phi^3$, Non-Linear Sigma Model (NLSM), Yang-Mill-Scalar (YMS) and the special Galileon. Introducing a new type of linear shift in kinematic space we demonstrate that the mysterious splitting formulae follow from a simple contour integration argument in the style of on-shell recursion. The argument makes use of only standard notions of tree-level factorization on propagators, but assumes improved UV behavior in the form of the absence of a residue at infinity. In the case of $\text{Tr}\phi^3$ and NLSM this is proven by identifying our shift as a special case of a more general construction called a $g$-vector shift; in the case of YMS it remains an unproven conjecture. This recursive perspective leads to numerous new results: we derive generalizations of the splitting formulae on more relaxed near-zero kinematics, including interesting new kinematic limits in which the amplitude splits into a triple-product; we also demonstrate that the uncolored special Galileon model has improved UV scaling and hence also splits. We also investigate the possible realization of hidden zeros in four dimensions. The conditions under which the dimensionality constraints are compatible with zero kinematics is investigated in detail for $\text{Tr}\phi^3$ and YMS; for the latter we find they can be realized only with certain restrictions on external helicity states. The realizable 4d zeros are proven by a similar recursive argument based on BCFW and is found to generalize to a new class of intrinsically 4d "helicity zeros" present in all sectors of YM and also gravity.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Algebraic versus physical uniqueness of MHV gravity numerators

    hep-th 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10 partial

    Pair-zero and degree conditions admit extra six-dimensional hook solutions at seven points and a two-dimensional plane at eight; Bose symmetry and one normalized physical boundary condition single out the Hodges numerator.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Adler, Consistency conditions on the strong interactions implied by a partially conserved axial vector current, Phys

    S.L. Adler, Consistency conditions on the strong interactions implied by a partially conserved axial vector current, Phys. Rev. 137 (1965) B1022

    work page 1965

  2. [2]

    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 , 2312.16282

    arXiv

  3. [3]

    Bartsch, T.V

    C. Bartsch, T.V. Brown, K. Kampf, U. Oktem, S. Paranjape and J. Trnka, Hidden Amplitude Zeros From Double Copy, 2403.10594

    arXiv

  4. [4]

    Y. Li, D. Roest and T. ter Veldhuis, Hidden zeros in exceptional field theories from double copy , JHEP 04 (2025) 121 [ 2403.12939]

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    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

  6. [6]

    Q. Cao, J. Dong, S. He and C. Shi, A universal splitting of tree-level string and particle scattering amplitudes, Phys. Lett. B 856 (2024) 138934 [ 2403.08855]

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Q. Cao, J. Dong, S. He, C. Shi and F. Zhu, On universal splittings of tree-level particle and string scattering amplitudes, JHEP 09 (2024) 049 [ 2406.03838]

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Britto, F

    R. Britto, F. Cachazo and B. Feng, New recursion relations for tree amplitudes of gluons , Nucl. Phys. B 715 (2005) 499 [ hep-th/0412308]

    arXiv 2005

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Britto, F

    R. Britto, F. Cachazo, B. Feng and E. Witten, Direct proof of tree-level recursion relation in Yang-Mills theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 (2005) 181602 [ hep-th/0501052]

    2005 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Cheung, K

    C. Cheung, K. Kampf, J. Novotny and J. Trnka, Effective Field Theories from Soft Limits of Scattering Amplitudes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 221602 [ 1412.4095]

    2015 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Cheung, K

    C. Cheung, K. Kampf, J. Novotny, C.-H. Shen and J. Trnka, On-Shell Recursion Relations for Effective Field Theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016) 041601 [ 1509.03309]

    2016 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Berends and W.T

    F.A. Berends and W.T. Giele, Recursive Calculations for Processes with n Gluons , Nucl. Phys. B 306 (1988) 759. – 30 –

    1988

  5. [13]

    Cachazo, P

    F. Cachazo, P. Svrcek and E. Witten, MHV vertices and tree amplitudes in gauge theory , JHEP 09 (2004) 006 [ hep-th/0403047]

    2004 arXiv

  6. [14]

    He and Q

    S. He and Q. Yang, An Etude on Recursion Relations and Triangulations , JHEP 05 (2019) 040 [1810.08508]

    2019 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Yang, Triangulations for ABHY Polytopes and Recursions for Tree and Loop Amplitudes , 1912.09163

    Q. Yang, Triangulations for ABHY Polytopes and Recursions for Tree and Loop Amplitudes , 1912.09163

    1912 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Benincasa, C

    P. Benincasa, C. Boucher-Veronneau and F. Cachazo, Taming Tree Amplitudes In General Relativity, JHEP 11 (2007) 057 [ hep-th/0702032]

    2007 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Cheung, K

    C. Cheung, K. Kampf, J. Novotny, C.-H. Shen and J. Trnka, A Periodic Table of Effective Field Theories, JHEP 02 (2017) 020 [ 1611.03137]

    2017 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Elvang, M

    H. Elvang, M. Hadjiantonis, C.R.T. Jones and S. Paranjape, Soft Bootstrap and Supersymmetry , JHEP 01 (2019) 195 [ 1806.06079]

    2019 arXiv

  11. [19]

    B. Feng, L. Zhang and K. Zhou, Hiden Zeros and 2-split via BCFW Recursion Relation , 2504.14215

    arXiv

  12. [20]

    Herrmann and J

    E. Herrmann and J. Trnka, Gravity On-shell Diagrams , JHEP 11 (2016) 136 [ 1604.03479]

    2016 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Herrmann and J

    E. Herrmann and J. Trnka, UV cancellations in gravity loop integrands , JHEP 02 (2019) 084 [1808.10446]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Trnka, Towards the Gravituhedron: New Expressions for NMHV Gravity Amplitudes , JHEP 04 (2021) 253 [ 2012.15780]

    J. Trnka, Towards the Gravituhedron: New Expressions for NMHV Gravity Amplitudes , JHEP 04 (2021) 253 [ 2012.15780]

    2021 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Paranjape and J

    S. Paranjape and J. Trnka, Gravity Amplitudes from Double Bonus Relations , Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (2023) 251601 [ 2309.05710]

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Carrasco and L

    J.J.M. Carrasco and L. Rodina, UV considerations on scattering amplitudes in a web of theories , Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 125007 [ 1908.08033]

    2019 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Jin and B

    Q. Jin and B. Feng, Boundary Operators of BCFW Recursion Relation , JHEP 04 (2016) 123 [1507.00463]

    2016 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Belayneh, F

    D. Belayneh, F. Cachazo and P. Leon, Computing NMHV gravity amplitudes at infinity , JHEP 08 (2024) 051 [ 2401.06114]

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Cachazo and P

    F. Cachazo and P. Leon, Connecting Infinity to Soft Factors , 2405.00660

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    Z. Bern, S. Davies, T. Dennen and Y.-t. Huang, Ultraviolet Cancellations in Half-Maximal Supergravity as a Consequence of the Double-Copy Structure , Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 105014 [1209.2472]

    2012 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Z. Bern, S. Davies and T. Dennen, Enhanced ultraviolet cancellations in N = 5 supergravity at four loops, Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 105011 [ 1409.3089]

    2014 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Z. Bern, M. Enciso, J. Parra-Martinez and M. Zeng, Manifesting enhanced cancellations in supergravity: integrands versus integrals, JHEP 05 (2017) 137 [ 1703.08927]

    2017 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Edison, E

    A. Edison, E. Herrmann, J. Parra-Martinez and J. Trnka, Gravity loop integrands from the ultraviolet, SciPost Phys. 10 (2021) 016 [ 1909.02003]

    2021 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Brown, U

    T.V. Brown, U. Oktem and J. Trnka, Poles at infinity in on-shell diagrams , JHEP 02 (2023) 003 [2212.06840]

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Bourjaily, E

    J.L. Bourjaily, E. Herrmann and J. Trnka, Maximally supersymmetric amplitudes at infinite loop momentum, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 066006 [ 1812.11185]

    2019 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Drummond, J

    J.M. Drummond, J. Henn, G.P. Korchemsky and E. Sokatchev, Dual superconformal symmetry of scattering amplitudes in N=4 super-Yang-Mills theory , Nucl. Phys. B 828 (2010) 317 [ 0807.1095]

    2010 arXiv

  27. [35]

    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. – 31 –

    arXiv

  28. [36]

    Arkani-Hamed, C

    N. Arkani-Hamed, C. Figueiredo, H. Frost and G. Salvatori, Tropical Amplitudes For Colored Lagrangians, 2402.06719

    arXiv

  29. [37]

    Arkani-Hamed, H

    N. Arkani-Hamed, H. Frost, G. Salvatori, P.-G. Plamondon and H. Thomas, All Loop Scattering For All Multiplicity, 2311.09284

    arXiv

  30. [38]

    Arkani-Hamed, Q

    N. Arkani-Hamed, Q. Cao, J. Dong, C. Figueiredo and S. He, Scalar-Scaffolded Gluons and the Combinatorial Origins of Yang-Mills Theory , 2401.00041

    arXiv

  31. [39]

    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]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Arkani-Hamed and C

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

    arXiv

  33. [41]

    Arkani-Hamed, S

    N. Arkani-Hamed, S. He, G. Salvatori and H. Thomas, Causal diamonds, cluster polytopes and scattering amplitudes, JHEP 11 (2022) 049 [ 1912.12948]

    2022 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Cachazo, P

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

    2016 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Paranjape, M

    S. Paranjape, M. Skowronek, M. Spradlin and A. Volovich, Large deformations of Tr( Φ3) and the world at infinity , 2504.11253

    arXiv

  36. [44]

    Arkani-Hamed, Y

    N. Arkani-Hamed, Y. Bai, S. He and G. Yan, Scattering Forms and the Positive Geometry of Kinematics, Color and the Worldsheet , JHEP 05 (2018) 096 [ 1711.09102]

    2018 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Cachazo, S

    F. Cachazo, S. He and E.Y. Yuan, Scattering Equations and Matrices: From Einstein To Yang-Mills, DBI and NLSM , JHEP 07 (2015) 149 [ 1412.3479]

    2015 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Rodina, Hidden Zeros Are Equivalent to Enhanced Ultraviolet Scaling, and Lead to Unique Amplitudes in Tr( ϕ3) Theory, Phys

    L. Rodina, Hidden Zeros Are Equivalent to Enhanced Ultraviolet Scaling, and Lead to Unique Amplitudes in Tr( ϕ3) Theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134 (2025) 031601 [ 2406.04234]

    2025 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Elvang and Y.-t

    H. Elvang and Y.-t. Huang, Scattering Amplitudes, 1308.1697

    arXiv

  40. [48]

    Badger, E.W.N

    S.D. Badger, E.W.N. Glover, V.V. Khoze and P. Svrcek, Recursion relations for gauge theory amplitudes with massive particles , JHEP 07 (2005) 025 [ hep-th/0504159]

    2005 arXiv

  41. [49]

    S. De, S. Paranjape, A. Pokraka, M. Spradlin and A. Volovich, Hidden Zeros of the Cosmological Wavefunction, 2503.23579

    arXiv

  42. [50]

    Arkani-Hamed, J.L

    N. Arkani-Hamed, J.L. Bourjaily, F. Cachazo, A. Hodges and J. Trnka, A Note on Polytopes for Scattering Amplitudes, JHEP 04 (2012) 081 [ 1012.6030]

    2012 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Arkani-Hamed and J

    N. Arkani-Hamed and J. Trnka, The Amplituhedron, JHEP 10 (2014) 030 [ 1312.2007]. – 32 –

    2014 arXiv

Pith tools

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