Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 5 cited by

Maximizing higher-spin couplings forces resonance spectra onto straight lines.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 10:50 UTC pith:Q2MEJEFC

load-bearing objection Numerically compelling evidence that linear Regge trajectories emerge from the S-matrix bootstrap — but the abstract overstates the gravity case, which is a tree-level/narrow-width result. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2510.07991 v1 pith:Q2MEJEFC submitted 2025-10-09 hep-th

The Rise of Linear Trajectories

Yu-tin Huang , Sara Ricossa , Francesco Riva , Jie-Da Tsai This is my paper
classification hep-th MSC 81T3081T60
keywords S-matrix bootstrapRegge trajectorieshigher-spin resonancesnull constraintssuperconvergencedispersion relationssupersymmetric amplitudesstring theory
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper tries to show that a simple optimization principle—among all narrow-resonance spectra allowed by unitarity, crossing symmetry, and super-convergent high-energy behavior, choose the one maximizing the coupling of the lightest higher-spin states—selects a linear Regge trajectory: squared mass grows in equal steps with spin. The authors test this by numerically optimizing the spin-2 and spin-4 resonance couplings in ten-dimensional supersymmetric scalar scattering, for both half-maximal (photon-like) and maximal (graviton-like) supermultiplets. In every case, the optimal spectrum lines up on a straight line in the (mass², spin) plane, and once gravity is included the line is fixed by the graviton pole. If correct, this means linear trajectories—a hallmark of string theory—emerge from low-energy bootstrap principles rather than being assumed from the outset. The authors state the general claim as a conjecture in the narrow-width approximation.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is the 'linear trajectory conjecture': in the narrow-width approximation, maximizing the leading couplings of higher-spin resonances produces spectra lying on a linear trajectory, m² = a(ℓ−ℓ₀). Concretely, in the 0-subtracted (half-maximal SUSY) setup, maximizing the spin-2 coupling λ₂,₂ with two resonances below a cutoff yields extremal spectra that are linear and extend into the UV, and the coupling drops sharply when linearity would force a spin-4 state above the cutoff. In the three-resonance system, the maximum of the spin-4 coupling λ₃,₄ sits at the midpoint m₂² = (m₁²+m₃²)/2—exactly the linear assignment—with the peak nearly unchanged when the cutoff permits

What carries the argument

The engine is a semidefinite-programming bootstrap on dispersion relations with improved subtractions (0 subtractions for half-maximal SUSY, −2 for maximal SUSY), applied to an ansatz with one or two narrow resonances below a cutoff and an agnostic UV region. The spectral density must satisfy a tower of 'null constraints' that enforce the dual-resonance (tree-level, narrow-width) description; these are what make the bounds quantitative. The key structural inequality is m₁² ≤ 2m₂² − M², which states whether a putative linear trajectory with spin-0, spin-2, and spin-4 states at m₁², m₂², and ≥M² can fit below the cutoff; the sharp drops and peaks in the optimized couplings occur exactly at sat

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the null constraints of Eq. (8) hold exactly for the entire spectral density, including the unmodeled high-energy region; the paper concedes in a footnote that in the presence of massless-particle loops only some of these constraints survive, so the extremal spectra are guaranteed only in the zero-width, tree-level idealization.

What would settle it

Compute, for the same three-resonance system, the maximal spin-4 coupling under the same constraints but with m₂² deliberately set far from (m₁²+m₃²)/2; if an off-linear spectrum beats the midpoint value, the conjecture fails. Alternatively, include the surviving null constraints of the loop-corrected theory and check whether the optimum remains on the linear/graviton trajectory, or push the null-constraint order well beyond n=18 and look for the sharp peaks and drops to move or disappear.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the conjecture holds, linear trajectories are not assumed but emerge from IR consistency plus coupling maximization, placing Regge behavior on a bootstrap footing.
  • The sharp drops near the linearity threshold mean that any theory with significant higher-spin couplings must have its low-lying states aligned on or very near a linear trajectory; off-linear spectra are strongly suppressed.
  • In gravitational theories, the graviton pole fixes the optimal line, so the bootstrap singles out the trajectory through the graviton and the lightest spin-4 state, matching the structure of the standard closed-string amplitude.
  • The results are framed in D=10 maximal/half-maximal SUSY, but the authors expect the qualitative conclusion to extend to twice-subtracted non-SUSY theories, with the spin-4 state playing the role of the spin-0 resonance.
  • The finite-null-constraint computations show convergence of the peaks while the tails move with increasing constraint order, so the qualitative selection is robust even if precise positions may shift with more constraints.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • An implicit consequence the authors do not spell out: if maximizing higher-spin couplings is the operative principle, linearity can be used as a diagnostic—scanning spectra for near-maximal couplings should automatically reveal whether a theory is 'string-like'.
  • The same optimization could be run with only the surviving null constraints that hold in the presence of massless-particle loops; if the linear selection persists, the conjecture would survive loop corrections, and if not, the zero-width idealization is the load-bearing part.
  • The result suggests a possible route to a bootstrap derivation of string amplitudes: combine maximal-coupling linear trajectories with the known ultra-soft UV assumptions—the linear spectrum may be the IR half of the input needed to pin down string-like amplitudes uniquely.
  • A natural extension is to study daughter trajectories: since a single linear trajectory is inconsistent, the present framework should also organize sub-leading trajectories, an open problem the authors explicitly flag.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies 2→2 scattering of massless scalars in D=10 with N=1 and N=2 supersymmetry, assuming meromorphic narrow-resonance amplitudes with improved super-convergent UV behavior. Imposing unitarity, crossing, and the null constraints of Eq. (8), it maximizes the couplings of the leading spin-2 and spin-4 resonances in spectra with two or three low-lying massive levels below a cutoff M. The numerical bounds show plateaus, peaks, and sharp drops that align with the kinematic condition for a linear trajectory in the (m^2, ℓ) plane; in the maximally supersymmetric case the optimum is associated with the graviton pole. The authors conjecture that, in the narrow-width approximation, maximizing higher-spin couplings generically selects linear Regge trajectories.

Significance. If correct, this is a valuable step toward deriving string-like spectra from bootstrap principles without assuming an infinite tower. The paper contains substantial numerical work: explicit SDP formulations, high-precision sdpb runs, large spin truncations, convergence checks in Figs. 6 and 9, and primal spectrum extraction in Figs. 2 and 7. The linear-trajectory conditions are not imposed by hand; they emerge from the optimization and are visible in the extracted spectra, which mitigates circularity concerns. The main limitations are the zero-width/tree-level domain of the null constraints (footnote 3) and the finite-n truncation of the quantitative tails.

major comments (3)
  1. [II, Eq. (8); IV; abstract] The null constraints ⟨χ_{n,k}⟩=0 in Eq. (8) are imposed as exact equalities on the full spectral density, including the unmodeled UV region above M. Footnote 3 concedes that in the presence of massless-particle loops only some of these constraints survive, with references [45–48]. Since the gravitational S-matrix of Sec. IV necessarily contains such loops, the abstract's claim 'for gravitational theories, the optimal spectrum is the linear trajectory...' is not established beyond the zero-width/tree-level dual-resonance approximation. The abstract and Sec. IV should either carry this restriction explicitly or present the result as the conjecture of Sec. V.
  2. [App. A2, Fig. 6] Figure 6 shows that the tails of the bounds decrease monotonically as the null-constraint order nmax is increased (16→24 in the 2-state case; 30/40/51 NC in the 3-state case). Thus the quantitative 'sharp drops to zero' and the numerical values in the suppressed regions are not fully converged at finite null-constraint order. The critical endpoint of the plateau and the midpoint peak are stable, so the qualitative conclusion is likely unaffected; nevertheless, the paper should either push the convergence further or explicitly label these as finite-n bounds rather than converged results.
  3. [Sec. IV B; abstract] The term 'graviton trajectory' is used in different ways: the abstract defines it via the graviton and the lightest spin-4 resonance, while Sec. IV A defines it via the graviton pole and (m1^2, ℓ=0). In the 3-state gravity analysis, the peak condition m2^2=(m1^2+M^2)/2 is stated to lie on the graviton trajectory, but with the fixed m3^2=3m1^2 the three massive states (m1,0), (m2,2), (m3,4) are not collinear for M^2>3m1^2. Please give a precise, unambiguous definition of 'graviton trajectory' and explain how it relates to the states whose couplings are actually maximized.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. V, p.6] The sentence 'we do not assume the existence of an entire Regge tower apriori, do we assume any extraordinary UV softness' is ungrammatical; it should read 'nor do we assume,' and 'apriori' should be 'a priori.'
  2. [App. A1] 'programspectrumfrom thesdpbrepository' lacks spaces; should be 'program spectrum from the sdpb repository.' The 10^-5 threshold for detecting zeros in the primal solution should be described as a numerical criterion whose effect on the extracted UV spectra is worth a brief comment.
  3. [Fig. 6] The right panel legend '51 NC, Jmax=1000' etc. should define 'NC' (number of null constraints) in the caption. The axis label 'λ4 2' appears to be a typesetting artifact for λ3,4/g0.
  4. [II, Eq. (8)] The average ⟨·⟩ is used in Eq. (8) before its definition via the spectral density in Eq. (7); consider introducing the notation explicitly before first use.
  5. [III A] The title 'Two-states system' is slightly misleading: the ansatz in Eq. (12) contains two massive levels plus the massless external states, and each massive level has multiple spins. Consider 'two-mass-level system' for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the linear-trajectory maxima are not imposed but emerge from the bootstrap, and they are benchmarked against independent DBI/Virasoro–Shapiro points.

full rationale

The central derivation is a numerical SDP over spectral densities subject to unitarity (Eq. 2), dispersion relations (Eqs. 6–7), null constraints (Eq. 8), and fixed low-lying masses. The maximization variables are λ2,2 and λ3,4; the linear-trajectory condition is not among the constraints. Eq. (13) is only a necessary condition derived from the hypothesis that a linear trajectory (m1²,0), (m2²,2), (m3²≥M²,4) exists, and it is used predictively: the numerically observed drops/peaks align with it, while the extracted primal spectra (Figs. 2, 7) show towers with slopes determined by the two lighter states, not imposed. The DBI and Virasoro–Shapiro amplitudes serve as independent external benchmarks rather than inputs; the optimization does not assume them. The load-bearing null constraints are imported from [4,10,43], not from the authors' prior work; self-citations such as [8] and [28] appear as background or as UV-completion examples and do not carry the central argument. The main weakness is not circularity: footnote 3 concedes that loop effects modify the null constraints, and Sec. V explicitly frames the result as a conjecture in the narrow-width approximation; App. A2 shows finite-n convergence tails. These are robustness/domain limitations, not a reduction of the conclusion to its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper does not invent physical entities; it rests on a stack of domain assumptions (positivity, dual-resonance null constraints, super-convergence, narrow width, D=10 SUSY kinematics) plus hand-chosen scan and truncation parameters. The genuinely new content is the structure of the extremal spectra as a function of these inputs. The two most fragile entries are the exactness of the null constraints (footnote 3) and the finite-n truncation (App. A2).

free parameters (4)
  • UV cutoff M² (scan parameter) = scanned: e.g., 1.2, 1.5, 5/3 × m2² (Fig. 1); 6, 7, 8 × m1² (Fig. 3); 1.0–1.75 × m2² (Fig. 4)
    Bounds and the critical mass m_{1,c}² = 2m2² − M² depend on this hand-chosen cutoff; it changes the numerically observed peak heights, though the plateau itself is M-independent.
  • Mass scan variables m1², m2², m3² = scanned over ranges (e.g., m2² ∈ [m1², m3²] with m3² = 5m1² in Fig. 3; m3² = 3m1² in Fig. 5)
    The extremal couplings λ_{2,2}, λ_{3,4} are computed as functions of these inputs; the claim that the optimum sits at the linear-trajectory value is a statement about the functional dependence on these scan variables.
  • Spectrum-extraction threshold = 10⁻⁵ (× g0 m1²)
    States with couplings below this are omitted from the plotted spectra (Fig. 2 caption, App. A1); the apparent linearity of the extracted towers is threshold-dependent.
  • Numerical truncations (Jmax, Jhuge, mmax, bmax, nmax, kmax) = 40, 5000, 10, 80, 13, 10 (App. B)
    Finite null-constraint and spin cutoffs; App. A2 (Fig. 6) shows tails still shifting with nmax, so the bounds are not saturated at finite truncation.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Unitarity/positivity: λ_{i,ℓ} ≥ 0 and spectral density ρℓ(s) ≥ 0
    Eqs. (2), (7); encoded in SDP positivity constraints (A3), (B5) — the standard bootstrap input.
  • domain assumption Tree-level, narrow-width (zero-width) approximation: amplitude is a sum of simple poles with stable resonances
    Eq. (2) and ansaetze (12), (14); footnote 3 concedes only some null constraints survive with massless loops, so the entire extremal-spectrum picture is confined to this approximation.
  • domain assumption Dual-resonance description implies exact null constraints ⟨χ_{n,k}⟩ = 0 on the spectral density
    Eq. (8), used with n ≤ 18 (k ≤ (n−2)/2 without gravity; n ≥ 4 with gravity). This is the load-bearing equality for every bound in the paper.
  • domain assumption Super-convergent UV behavior: lim_{s→∞} f_N(s,t) s^{2(N−1)} = 0 (Eq. 5)
    Motivated by the δ^{8N}(Q) SUSY structure in D=10 with N=1,2 (Eq. 4); sets the 0- and −2-subtraction scheme that the entire analysis uses. Non-SUSY generalizations (Sec. V) are conjectural.
  • domain assumption D=10, even-spin exchange, N=1/2 SUSY kinematics
    Eq. (4) and restriction to even ℓ in the sums (Eq. 7). The authors expect qualitative generality but provide no evidence outside this regime.
  • domain assumption Agnostic UV above M (positivity only)
    Ansaetze (12), (14) with ρ̃ℓ θ(s−M²); bounds are rigorous for this ansatz class at finite M and are shown to depend on M.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 13929 in / 21054 out tokens · 161555 ms · 2026-08-04T10:50:15.952885+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In this letter, we consider constraints on the low-energy spectrum of amplitudes with higher-spin exchange. Assuming unitarity, crossing symmetry, and super-convergent high energy behavior, reminiscent of the scattering of spin-1 and spin-2 massless helicity states, we demonstrate that the spectrum that maximizes the leading higher spin couplings of the second and third resonances is consistently given by a linear trajectory. Furthermore, for gravitational theories, the optimal spectrum is the linear trajectory defined by the mass and spin of the graviton and the lightest spin-4 resonance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.07991 by Francesco Riva, Jie-Da Tsai, Sara Ricossa, Yu-tin Huang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. Full positivity bounds for anomalous quartic gauge couplings in SMEFT

    hep-ph 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Complete positivity bounds for the 22 aQGC coefficients in SMEFT restrict the viable parameter space to approximately 0.0313% of the naive total.

  2. Positivity with Long-Range Interactions

    hep-th 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Defines IR-finite amplitudes M_E that preserve analyticity and unitarity to derive positivity bounds on EFTs including electromagnetism and gravity in D=4.

  3. Multipositivity Constrains the Chiral Lagrangian

    hep-th 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

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

  4. The Equivalence Principle at High Energies Completes the Spectrum

    hep-th 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

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

  5. Sampling the Graviton Pole and Deprojecting the Swampland

    hep-th 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A sampling-based bootstrap for graviton poles in EFTs yields non-projective bounds that fix the EFT cutoff scale relative to the Planck mass, with M/M_P ≲ 7.8 in D=5.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 45 linked inside Pith · cited by 5 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Note that Refs

    The approximate linear trajectories persist in the UV. Note that Refs. [30, 38] found analytic constraints on meromorphic spectra from studying dispersion relations withn→∞subtractions. In our setup, these would read (M/m1)2 ≤(m 3/m1)2 ≤(m 2/m1)4, or concretelym2 1 ≤ m2 1,a ≡(5/6,2/3,0.6)m 2 2 forM 2 = (1.2,1.5,5/3)m 2 2. One might wonder if the sharp fal...

  2. [2]

    Lines are plotted with slopes fixed by the two lighter states

    For this value ofM, the solid yellow line is extremalm 2 1 =m 2 1,c = 0.8m2 2, and has linear trajectories that emerge and persist in the UV, just like the sub-extremal light and dark blue lines atm 2 1 < m2 1,c. Lines are plotted with slopes fixed by the two lighter states. In red,m1 > m1,c for which the linear trajectory is not allowed by the largeM, an...

  3. [3]

    The result is shown in Fig. 4. Compared to the 0-subtraction analysis in Fig. 1, we see that here there is no plateau atm2 1 < m2 2/2, indepen- dently ofM 2. Moreover, forM 2 <3m 2 2/2, the curves peak atm 2 1 =m 2 2/2and are followed by a slow-roll slope atm 2 2/2≤m 2 1 ≤m 2 1,c. Instead, forM 2 >3m 2 2/2, the coupling is drastically suppressed. We inter...

  4. [4]

    The result form 2 3 = 3m 2 1 is shown in Fig

    and maximizeλ3,4 with respect tom2 2. The result form 2 3 = 3m 2 1 is shown in Fig. 5. A narrow peak emerges at the critical valuem 2 2 = (m 2 1 +M 2)/2 which satisfies Eq. (13), and also lies on the graviton trajectory. WhenM 2 falls below4m 2 1, the graviton tra- jectory is no longer viable, and the peak drastically de- creases. 6 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ...

  5. [5]

    3, we bound the ratiom−2 3 λ3,4/g0 as a function ofm 2

    Semidefinite Optimisation In Fig. 3, we bound the ratiom−2 3 λ3,4/g0 as a function ofm 2. We use the dispersion relations (7) atp2 = 0to derive the bound, starting from the following equality forg0, ag0 = X i,ℓ λi,ℓ 2a m2 i +b·χ m2 i , ℓ + 2a s +b·χ(s, ℓ) ,(A1) where the sum runs over the states below threshold in the ansatz Eq. (12),χis a vector containi...

  6. [6]

    1 and Fig

    Convergence In Fig. 1 and Fig. 3, we see tails that extend beyond the analytic constraints from Refs. [30, 38]. We study this in more detail in Fig. 6. The left panel shows convergence of the tail on theM2 = 1.2m 2 2 curve from Fig. 1, by increasing the number of null constraints, for fixed spin truncation. We see that the critical point is stable, while ...

  7. [7]

    7 shows the optimal spectra for a selection of points taken on the purple curve in Fig

    Spectra for the 3-state Problem Fig. 7 shows the optimal spectra for a selection of points taken on the purple curve in Fig. 3. For values ofm2 2 above the peak, and up to the kink, we observe that all states—with the exception ofm2 1—lie on linear trajectories, 8 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● nmax  16 ● nmax  18 ● nmax  20 ● nmax...

    2000

  8. [8]

    8, we show the same bound computed for different slopes

    In Fig. 8, we show the same bound computed for different slopes. The height of the peak is not significantly affected by this choice. The position of the peak falls very close tom 2 2 = (m2 1 +m 2 3)/2for each of the curves, indicating that the results found in Fig. 3 are generic and that the bounds exhibit no particular preference for the slope, as long ...

  9. [9]

    Rattazzi, V

    R. Rattazzi, V. S. Rychkov, E. Tonni, and A. Vichi, JHEP12, 031 (2008), arXiv:0807.0004 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  10. [10]

    M. F. Paulos, J. Penedones, J. Toledo, B. C. van Rees, and P. Vieira, JHEP12, 040 (2019), arXiv:1708.06765 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  11. [11]

    Hebbar, D

    A. Hebbar, D. Karateev, and J. Penedones, JHEP01, 060 (2022), arXiv:2011.11708 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  12. [12]

    Caron-Huot and V

    S. Caron-Huot and V. Van Duong, JHEP05, 280 (2021), arXiv:2011.02957 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  13. [13]

    Caron-Huot, D

    S. Caron-Huot, D. Mazac, L. Rastelli, and D. Simmons- Duffin, JHEP07, 110 (2021), arXiv:2102.08951 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  14. [14]

    Albert and L

    J. Albert and L. Rastelli, JHEP08, 151 (2022), arXiv:2203.11950 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  15. [15]

    Adams, N

    A. Adams, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dubovsky, A. Nico- lis, and R. Rattazzi, JHEP10, 014 (2006), arXiv:hep- th/0602178

    arXiv 2006

  16. [16]

    Arkani-Hamed, T.-C

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  17. [17]

    Bellazzini, J

    B. Bellazzini, J. Elias Miró, R. Rattazzi, M. Riem- bau, and F. Riva, Phys. Rev. D104, 036006 (2021), arXiv:2011.00037 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  18. [18]

    A. J. Tolley, Z.-Y. Wang, and S.-Y. Zhou, JHEP05, 255 (2021), arXiv:2011.02400 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  19. [19]

    Cheung and G

    C. Cheung and G. N. Remmen, JHEP04, 002 (2016), arXiv:1601.04068 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  20. [20]

    de Rham, S

    C. de Rham, S. Melville, A. J. Tolley, and S.-Y. Zhou, JHEP03, 182 (2019), arXiv:1804.10624 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  21. [21]

    Zhang and S.-Y

    C. Zhang and S.-Y. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D100, 095003 (2019), arXiv:1808.00010 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  22. [22]

    C.Englert, G.F.Giudice, A.Greljo, andM.Mccullough, JHEP09, 041 (2019), arXiv:1903.07725 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  23. [23]

    Bellazzini, F

    B. Bellazzini, F. Riva, J. Serra, and F. Sgarlata, JHEP 10, 189 (2019), arXiv:1903.08664 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  24. [24]

    G. N. Remmen and N. L. Rodd, JHEP12, 032 (2019), arXiv:1908.09845 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  25. [25]

    Huang, J.-Y

    Y.-t. Huang, J.-Y. Liu, L. Rodina, and Y. Wang, JHEP 04, 195 (2021), arXiv:2008.02293 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  26. [26]

    Sinha and A

    A. Sinha and A. Zahed, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 181601 (2021), arXiv:2012.04877 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  27. [27]

    Z. Bern, D. Kosmopoulos, and A. Zhiboedov, J. Phys. A54, 344002 (2021), arXiv:2103.12728 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  28. [28]

    Chiang, Y.-t

    L.-Y. Chiang, Y.-t. Huang, W. Li, L. Rodina, and H.-C. Weng, JHEP03, 063 (2022), arXiv:2105.02862 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  29. [29]

    J.Henriksson, B.McPeak, F.Russo, andA.Vichi,JHEP 06, 158 (2022), arXiv:2107.13009 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  30. [30]

    Caron-Huot, Y.-Z

    S. Caron-Huot, Y.-Z. Li, J. Parra-Martinez, and D. Simmons-Duffin, JHEP05, 122 (2023), arXiv:2201.06602 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  31. [31]

    T. Ma, A. Pomarol, and F. Sciotti, JHEP11, 176 (2023), arXiv:2307.04729 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  32. [32]

    Li, JHEP01, 072 (2024), arXiv:2310.09698 [hep- th]

    Y.-Z. Li, JHEP01, 072 (2024), arXiv:2310.09698 [hep- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    Albert, J

    J. Albert, J. Henriksson, L. Rastelli, and A. Vichi, JHEP 09, 172 (2024), arXiv:2312.15013 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    Albert, W

    J. Albert, W. Knop, and L. Rastelli, JHEP02, 157 (2025), arXiv:2406.12959 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Fernandez, A

    C. Fernandez, A. Pomarol, F. Riva, and F. Sciotti, JHEP 06, 094 (2023), arXiv:2211.12488 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  36. [36]

    Bellazzini, G

    B. Bellazzini, G. Isabella, S. Ricossa, and F. Riva, Phys. Rev. D109, 024051 (2024), arXiv:2304.02550 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    Bertucci, J

    F. Bertucci, J. Henriksson, B. McPeak, S. Ricossa, F. Riva, and A. Vichi, (2024), arXiv:2402.13327 [hep- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  38. [38]

    Berman, JHEP08, 066 (2025), arXiv:2410.01914 [hep- th]

    J. Berman, JHEP08, 066 (2025), arXiv:2410.01914 [hep- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Z.-Y. Dong, T. Ma, A. Pomarol, and F. Sciotti, JHEP 05, 114 (2025), arXiv:2411.14422 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    Berman and H

    J. Berman and H. Elvang, JHEP09, 076 (2024), b arXiv:2406.03543 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  41. [41]

    Berman, H

    J. Berman, H. Elvang, N. Geiser, and L. L. Lin, (2024), arXiv:2412.13368 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    Pasiecznik, (2025), arXiv:2506.09884 [hep-th]

    C. Pasiecznik, (2025), arXiv:2506.09884 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Bellazzini, A

    B. Bellazzini, A. Pomarol, M. Romano, and F. Sciotti, (2025), arXiv:2507.12535 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Veneziano, Nuovo Cim

    G. Veneziano, Nuovo Cim. A57, 190 (1968)

    1968

  45. [45]

    Dolen, D

    R. Dolen, D. Horn, and C. Schmid, Phys. Rev.166, 1768 (1968)

    1968

  46. [46]

    Berman and N

    J. Berman and N. Geiser, JHEP06, 168 (2025), arXiv:2412.17902 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    Häring and A

    K. Häring and A. Zhiboedov, SciPost Phys.16, 034 (2024), arXiv:2202.08280 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    Cheung, G

    C. Cheung, G. N. Remmen, F. Sciotti, and M. Tarquini, (2025), arXiv:2508.09246 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    Häring and A

    K. Häring and A. Zhiboedov, JHEP10, 075 (2024), arXiv:2311.13631 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  50. [50]

    Gadde and S

    A. Gadde and S. Jain, (2025), arXiv:2502.18033 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    Albert and L

    J. Albert and L. Rastelli, JHEP09, 039 (2024), arXiv:2307.01246 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    Eckner, F

    C. Eckner, F. Figueroa, and P. Tourkine, JHEP02, 103 (2025), arXiv:2405.21057 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    Bellazzini, M

    B. Bellazzini, M. Riembau, and F. Riva, Phys. Rev. D 106, 105008 (2022), arXiv:2112.12561 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  54. [54]

    Beadle, G

    C. Beadle, G. Isabella, D. Perrone, S. Ricossa, F. Riva, and F. Serra, (2024), arXiv:2407.02346 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2024

  55. [55]

    Beadle, G

    C. Beadle, G. Isabella, D. Perrone, S. Ricossa, F. Riva, and F. Serra, JHEP06, 209 (2025), arXiv:2501.18465 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    Chang and J

    C.-H. Chang and J. Parra-Martinez, JHEP08, 175 (2025), arXiv:2501.17949 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    R. R. Metsaev, M. Rakhmanov, and A. A. Tseytlin, Phys. Lett. B193, 207 (1987)

    1987

  58. [58]

    Simmons-Duffin, JHEP03, 086 (2017), arXiv:1612.08471 [hep-th]

    D. Simmons-Duffin, JHEP03, 086 (2017), arXiv:1612.08471 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017