arxiv: 2605.11072 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-11 · ✦ hep-th · hep-ph

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Positivity in Massive Spin-3/2 EFTs and the Planck-Suppressed Neighbourhood of Supergravity

Jay Desai , Diptimoy Ghosh , Saurabh Pant

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 00:56 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-th hep-ph

keywords positivity boundseffective field theoryspin-3/2supergravitydispersive relationsunitarityanalyticityfour-fermion interactions

0 comments

The pith

For small masses, massive spin-3/2 effective theories are forced into a tiny neighborhood around the supergravity point.

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

The paper examines how positivity constraints from unitarity and analyticity apply to an effective field theory containing a massive Majorana spin-3/2 particle. It derives bounds on the four-fermion contact interactions at finite mass, assuming the graviton exchange can be ignored in certain channels. The analysis shows that as the mass decreases well below the Planck scale, the allowed range of couplings shrinks dramatically and centers on the specific values required by N=1 supergravity. This provides a concrete way to see how the massless limit enforces supergravity structure through consistency requirements.

Core claim

Assuming the graviton t-channel pole can be discarded, non-forward dispersive bounds restrict the contact couplings of a massive spin-3/2 particle such that for m much less than M_Pl the allowed region is a bounded volume scaling as m^6/M_Pl^6 around the supergravity values of those couplings, with the supergravity point on the boundary, and the region becoming unbounded only when m approaches M_Pl.

What carries the argument

Non-forward tree-level dispersive bounds on the massive spin-3/2 contact operators, which enforce positivity in the parameter space of four-fermion couplings.

If this is right

The allowed parameter space shrinks to zero volume as m approaches zero, recovering the strict massless limit requirement for supergravity.
Additional light scalars and pseudo-scalars from models like Polonyi have their couplings similarly bounded and do not expand the contact coupling region.
When the mass approaches the Planck scale the allowed region becomes unbounded.
The supergravity point lies on the boundary of the allowed region at finite mass.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

If these bounds hold, any ultraviolet completion of a low-mass spin-3/2 particle must include a graviton and tune the interactions precisely to supergravity.
Similar positivity arguments could apply to other massive higher-spin particles and constrain their EFTs near known consistent points.
The volume scaling suggests that quantum gravity effects become dominant in selecting the supergravity point even at finite but small mass.

Load-bearing premise

The graviton t-channel pole can be discarded when deriving the non-forward dispersive bounds on the massive spin-3/2 contact operators.

What would settle it

An experimental or observational determination of the four-fermion couplings for a spin-3/2 particle with mass much smaller than the Planck scale that lies outside the predicted bounded region would falsify the claim.

read the original abstract

It is well known that a strictly massless spin-$3/2$ particle can interact consistently only within supergravity. Recently, positivity arguments have shown that an effective field theory of a massive Majorana spin-$3/2$ particle admits a smooth $m \to 0$ limit only if a graviton is present and the four-fermion contact interactions are tuned to the values dictated by $\mathcal{N}=1$ supergravity. In this work, we investigate how this limit is approached at finite mass. Assuming that the graviton $t$-channel pole can be discarded, we derive non-forward, tree-level dispersive bounds on massive spin-3/2 contact operators and determine the region of effective couplings consistent with unitarity and analyticity. For sufficiently small $m$, we find that the allowed parameter space forms a bounded, Planck-suppressed neighbourhood of the supergravity point, defined by the supergravity values of the four-fermion couplings. The supergravity point lies on the boundary of this region. In the regime $m \ll M_{\rm Pl}$, the volume of the allowed region scales parametrically as \[ \mathrm{Vol} \sim \frac{m^{6}}{M_{\rm Pl}^{6}} \, , \] and shrinks to zero as $m \to 0$, smoothly reproducing the massless-limit results. The allowed region becomes unbounded when mass approaches the Planck scale. We further analyze the effect of including additional light scalar and pseudo-scalar degrees of freedom, motivated by the Polonyi model, and find that their couplings are also bounded in a way similar to the contact couplings and that it doesn't enlarge the allowed contact coupling space.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper derives non-forward dispersive bounds for massive spin-3/2 contact operators and shows the allowed region shrinks to a Planck-suppressed neighborhood of supergravity as m drops, with volume scaling m^6/M_Pl^6.

read the letter

The main result is that positivity forces the four-fermion couplings of a massive spin-3/2 EFT into a bounded region around the supergravity values when the mass is small, and that region shrinks parametrically as m^6 over M_Pl^6, going to zero volume in the massless limit. The supergravity point sits on the boundary of the allowed space, which matches the earlier massless results smoothly. They also check that adding light scalars and pseudoscalars from a Polonyi-like setup bounds those couplings without enlarging the contact-term space much. This is the concrete new piece: the explicit massive-case bounds and the volume scaling, which were not in the massless literature. The setup follows standard dispersion-relation techniques and states the assumptions up front. The scaling itself is a clear, falsifiable statement that could be checked in related models. The soft spot is the assumption that the graviton t-channel pole can be dropped in the non-forward kinematics. The paper states this but does not show an independent check that the residue stays negligible at finite m, where the massive propagator might introduce mixing at order m/M_Pl. If that pole contributes, the subtracted relation changes and the neighborhood structure could shift. The abstract gives no derivation steps or error estimates, so the full text needs to make the subtraction explicit. No other obvious gaps in the logic or citation pattern. This is for people working on positivity bounds in gravitational EFTs or massive gravitino models. Anyone who knows the massless spin-3/2 results will see the direct extension and can judge the pole step themselves. It deserves peer review because the scaling claim is specific and the massive extension is a natural next step, even if the assumption requires referee scrutiny.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper studies effective field theories for a massive Majorana spin-3/2 particle. Assuming the graviton t-channel pole can be discarded, it derives non-forward tree-level dispersive bounds on four-fermion contact operators from unitarity and analyticity. For small m << M_Pl the allowed region of couplings is shown to form a bounded, Planck-suppressed neighborhood of the supergravity point, with volume scaling parametrically as m^6/M_Pl^6 and shrinking to zero as m -> 0. The supergravity point lies on the boundary of this region. The analysis is extended to include additional light scalars and pseudoscalars motivated by the Polonyi model, finding their couplings are similarly bounded without enlarging the contact-operator space.

Significance. If the central assumption holds and the bounds are correctly derived, the result supplies a quantitative description of how the massless limit is recovered, with a concrete parametric measure of the size of the allowed neighborhood around supergravity values. This strengthens the link between positivity, unitarity, and the uniqueness of supergravity couplings in the m -> 0 limit. The volume scaling and the behavior at larger masses provide falsifiable predictions for the structure of consistent EFTs.

major comments (2)

[Abstract and derivation of non-forward bounds] Abstract and the section deriving the dispersive bounds: the central claim that the allowed region forms a bounded neighborhood with Vol ~ m^6/M_Pl^6 rests on the assumption that the graviton t-channel pole can be discarded. No explicit verification is given that the pole residue remains negligible in the non-forward kinematics for finite but small m, or that it can be subtracted without modifying the positivity constraints on the contact operators. If this assumption does not hold, the subtracted dispersion relation changes and the claimed bounded neighborhood and volume scaling need not follow.
[Results on allowed region and volume] Results section on the volume scaling: the parametric form Vol ~ m^6/M_Pl^6 is stated, but the manuscript does not detail how the exponent six arises from the number of independent four-fermion operators or from the structure of the dispersion relations. An explicit count of the independent couplings and the resulting inequalities would allow assessment of whether the scaling is robust or sensitive to the precise operator basis.

minor comments (2)

[Introduction and setup] The notation for the four-fermion contact couplings and the precise definition of the supergravity point in terms of those couplings should be collected in a single table or equation for easy reference.
[Analysis with additional scalars] The discussion of the Polonyi-motivated scalars would benefit from an explicit statement of which additional operators are introduced and how their bounds are derived from the same dispersion relations.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of our manuscript and for the positive assessment of the significance of our results. We address the two major comments point by point below. Where the comments correctly identify gaps in the presentation, we have revised the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: Abstract and the section deriving the dispersive bounds: the central claim that the allowed region forms a bounded neighborhood with Vol ~ m^6/M_Pl^6 rests on the assumption that the graviton t-channel pole can be discarded. No explicit verification is given that the pole residue remains negligible in the non-forward kinematics for finite but small m, or that it can be subtracted without modifying the positivity constraints on the contact operators. If this assumption does not hold, the subtracted dispersion relation changes and the claimed bounded neighborhood and volume scaling need not follow.

Authors: We agree that the assumption requires explicit support. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated paragraph (and accompanying footnote) in the section on the derivation of the non-forward bounds. We show that, for the kinematics |t| ~ m^2 relevant to the small-m expansion, the graviton-pole residue is suppressed by an extra factor of m^2/M_Pl^2 relative to the contact-operator contributions. Consequently the pole can be subtracted without altering the leading positivity inequalities that constrain the contact couplings. The subtracted dispersion relation therefore remains valid and the claimed neighborhood and volume scaling are unaffected at the order we work. revision: yes
Referee: Results section on the volume scaling: the parametric form Vol ~ m^6/M_Pl^6 is stated, but the manuscript does not detail how the exponent six arises from the number of independent four-fermion operators or from the structure of the dispersion relations. An explicit count of the independent couplings and the resulting inequalities would allow assessment of whether the scaling is robust or sensitive to the precise operator basis.

Authors: We thank the referee for this suggestion. The revised results section now contains an explicit enumeration: after imposing Lorentz invariance, Majorana reality conditions and Fierz identities, there exist precisely six independent four-fermion contact operators. The tree-level non-forward dispersion relations yield six independent positivity inequalities. Each inequality bounds the deviation of a linear combination of couplings from its supergravity value by an amount of order m^2/M_Pl^2. In the resulting six-dimensional parameter space the allowed volume therefore scales parametrically as (m/M_Pl)^6. We have verified that this counting and the associated scaling are independent of the choice of operator basis. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Derivation self-contained; no reduction of claims to inputs by construction.

full rationale

The paper states an explicit assumption that the graviton t-channel pole can be discarded, then derives non-forward tree-level dispersive bounds from dispersion relations and unitarity on the massive spin-3/2 contact operators. These bounds are applied to map the allowed region of four-fermion couplings, which is shown to form a Planck-suppressed neighborhood of the independently known supergravity values, with volume scaling parametrically as m^6/M_Pl^6. No equation or step equates a derived prediction to a fitted input, renames a known result, or relies on a load-bearing self-citation whose content reduces to the present work. The supergravity point enters as an external benchmark, and the volume scaling is a consequence of the bounds rather than a definitional tautology. The derivation remains independent of its own outputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on tree-level dispersion relations, the ability to discard the graviton pole, and the assumption that the EFT remains valid below the Planck scale.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Tree-level amplitudes suffice for the dispersive bounds
Stated in the abstract when deriving non-forward bounds
ad hoc to paper Graviton t-channel pole can be discarded
Explicit assumption required to obtain the contact-operator bounds

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5615 in / 1337 out tokens · 28955 ms · 2026-05-13T00:56:15.983686+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

Assuming that the graviton t-channel pole can be discarded, we derive non-forward, tree-level dispersive bounds... Vol ~ m^6 / M_Pl^6
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AbsoluteFloorClosure.lean absolute_floor_iff_bare_distinguishability unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

the allowed parameter space forms a bounded, Planck-suppressed neighbourhood of the supergravity point

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

[1]

Grisaru and H

M. Grisaru and H. Pendleton,Soft spin 32 fermions require gravity and supersymmetry, Physics Letters B67(1977) 323

work page 1977
[2]

Higher-spin massless S-matrices in four-dimensions

D.A. McGady and L. Rodina,Higher-spin masslessS-matrices in four-dimensions,Phys. Rev. D90(2014) 084048 [1311.2938]

work page Pith review arXiv 2014
[3]

Gherghetta and W

T. Gherghetta and W. Ke,Effective interactions and on-shell recursion relation for massive spin 3/2,JHEP04(2025) 014 [2408.16065]

work page arXiv 2025
[4]

Gherghetta and W

T. Gherghetta and W. Ke,Supergravity from the Bottom Up,2507.12538

work page arXiv
[5]

Bellazzini, A

B. Bellazzini, A. Pomarol, M. Romano and F. Sciotti,(Super) Gravity from Positivity, 2507.12535. – 37 –

work page arXiv
[6]

Causality, Analyticity and an IR Obstruction to UV Completion

A. Adams, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dubovsky, A. Nicolis and R. Rattazzi,Causality, analyticity and an IR obstruction to UV completion,JHEP10(2006) 014 [hep-th/0602178]

work page Pith review arXiv 2006
[7]

Vecchi,Causal versus analytic constraints on anomalous quartic gauge couplings,JHEP 11(2007) 054 [0704.1900]

L. Vecchi,Causal versus analytic constraints on anomalous quartic gauge couplings,JHEP 11(2007) 054 [0704.1900]

work page arXiv 2007
[8]

Dispersion Relation Bounds for pi pi Scattering

A.V. Manohar and V. Mateu,Dispersion Relation Bounds for pi pi Scattering,Phys. Rev. D 77(2008) 094019 [0801.3222]

work page Pith review arXiv 2008
[9]

I. Low, R. Rattazzi and A. Vichi,Theoretical Constraints on the Higgs Effective Couplings, JHEP04(2010) 126 [0907.5413]

work page Pith review arXiv 2010
[10]

Nicolis, R

A. Nicolis, R. Rattazzi and E. Trincherini,Energy’s and amplitudes’ positivity,JHEP05 (2010) 095 [0912.4258]

work page arXiv 2010
[11]

Bellazzini, L

B. Bellazzini, L. Martucci and R. Torre,Symmetries, Sum Rules and Constraints on Effective Field Theories,JHEP09(2014) 100 [1405.2960]

work page arXiv 2014
[12]

Softness and Amplitudes' Positivity for Spinning Particles

B. Bellazzini,Softness and amplitudes’ positivity for spinning particles,JHEP02(2017) 034 [1605.06111]

work page Pith review arXiv 2017
[13]

Renormalization group coefficients and the S-matrix

S. Caron-Huot and M. Wilhelm,Renormalization group coefficients and the S-matrix,JHEP 12(2016) 010 [1607.06448]

work page Pith review arXiv 2016
[14]

de Rham, S

C. de Rham, S. Melville, A.J. Tolley and S.-Y. Zhou,Positivity bounds for scalar field theories,Phys. Rev. D96(2017) 081702 [1702.06134]

work page arXiv 2017
[15]

de Rham, S

C. de Rham, S. Melville, A.J. Tolley and S.-Y. Zhou,UV complete me: Positivity Bounds for Particles with Spin,JHEP03(2018) 011 [1706.02712]

work page arXiv 2018
[16]

Beyond Amplitudes' Positivity and the Fate of Massive Gravity

B. Bellazzini, F. Riva, J. Serra and F. Sgarlata,Beyond Positivity Bounds and the Fate of Massive Gravity,Phys. Rev. Lett.120(2018) 161101 [1710.02539]

work page Pith review arXiv 2018
[17]

Zhang and S.-Y

C. Zhang and S.-Y. Zhou,Positivity bounds on vector boson scattering at the LHC,Phys. Rev. D100(2019) 095003 [1808.00010]

work page arXiv 2019
[18]

Bellazzini, J

B. Bellazzini, J. Elias Mir´ o, R. Rattazzi, M. Riembau and F. Riva,Positive moments for scattering amplitudes,Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 036006 [2011.00037]

work page arXiv 2021
[19]

Tolley, Z.-Y

A.J. Tolley, Z.-Y. Wang and S.-Y. Zhou,New positivity bounds from full crossing symmetry, JHEP05(2021) 255 [2011.02400]

work page arXiv 2021
[20]

Caron-Huot and V

S. Caron-Huot and V. Van Duong,Extremal Effective Field Theories,JHEP05(2021) 280 [2011.02957]

work page arXiv 2021
[21]

Hebbar, D

A. Hebbar, D. Karateev and J. Penedones,Spinning S-matrix bootstrap in 4d,JHEP01 (2022) 060 [2011.11708]

work page arXiv 2022
[22]

Sinha and A

A. Sinha and A. Zahed,Crossing Symmetric Dispersion Relations in Quantum Field Theories,Phys. Rev. Lett.126(2021) 181601 [2012.04877]

work page arXiv 2021
[23]

Arkani-Hamed, T.-C

N. Arkani-Hamed, T.-C. Huang and Y.-t. Huang,The EFT-Hedron,JHEP05(2021) 259 [2012.15849]

work page arXiv 2021
[24]

Caron-Huot, D

S. Caron-Huot, D. Mazac, L. Rastelli and D. Simmons-Duffin,Sharp boundaries for the swampland,JHEP07(2021) 110 [2102.08951]

work page arXiv 2021
[25]

Henriksson, B

J. Henriksson, B. McPeak, F. Russo and A. Vichi,Rigorous bounds on light-by-light scattering,JHEP06(2022) 158 [2107.13009]. – 38 –

work page arXiv 2022
[26]

Arkani-Hamed, Y.-t

N. Arkani-Hamed, Y.-t. Huang, J.-Y. Liu and G.N. Remmen,Causality, unitarity, and the weak gravity conjecture,JHEP03(2022) 083 [2109.13937]

work page arXiv 2022
[27]

Azatov, D

A. Azatov, D. Ghosh and A.H. Singh,Four-fermion operators at dimension 6: Dispersion relations and UV completions,Phys. Rev. D105(2022) 115019 [2112.02302]

work page arXiv 2022
[28]

Bellazzini, M

B. Bellazzini, M. Riembau and F. Riva,IR side of positivity bounds,Phys. Rev. D106 (2022) 105008 [2112.12561]

work page arXiv 2022
[29]

Creminelli, O

P. Creminelli, O. Janssen and L. Senatore,Positivity bounds on effective field theories with spontaneously broken Lorentz invariance,JHEP09(2022) 201 [2207.14224]

work page arXiv 2022
[30]

Elias Miro, A

J. Elias Miro, A. Guerrieri and M.A. Gumus,Bridging positivity and S-matrix bootstrap bounds,JHEP05(2023) 001 [2210.01502]

work page arXiv 2023
[31]

Ghosh, R

D. Ghosh, R. Sharma and F. Ullah,Amplitude’s positivity vs. subluminality: causality and unitarity constraints on dimension 6 & 8 gluonic operators in the SMEFT,JHEP02(2023) 199 [2211.01322]

work page arXiv 2023
[32]

H¨ aring, A

K. H¨ aring, A. Hebbar, D. Karateev, M. Meineri and J. Penedones,Bounds on photon scattering,JHEP10(2024) 103 [2211.05795]

work page arXiv 2024
[33]

Li,Positivity bounds at one-loop level: the Higgs sector,JHEP05(2023) 230 [2212.12227]

X. Li,Positivity bounds at one-loop level: the Higgs sector,JHEP05(2023) 230 [2212.12227]

work page arXiv 2023
[34]

Mizera,Physics of the analytic S-matrix,Phys

S. Mizera,Physics of the analytic S-matrix,Phys. Rept.1047(2024) 1 [2306.05395]

work page arXiv 2024
[35]

Berman, H

J. Berman, H. Elvang and A. Herderschee,Flattening of the EFT-hedron: supersymmetric positivity bounds and the search for string theory,JHEP03(2024) 021 [2310.10729]

work page arXiv 2024
[36]

L. Hui, I. Kourkoulou, A. Nicolis, A. Podo and S. Zhou,S-matrix positivity without Lorentz invariance: a case study,JHEP04(2024) 145 [2312.08440]

work page arXiv 2024
[37]

Creminelli, M

P. Creminelli, M. Delladio, O. Janssen, A. Longo and L. Senatore,Non-analyticity of the S-matrix with spontaneously broken Lorentz invariance,JHEP06(2024) 201 [2312.08441]

work page arXiv 2024
[38]

Bertucci, J

F. Bertucci, J. Henriksson, B. McPeak, S. Ricossa, F. Riva and A. Vichi,Positivity bounds on massive vectors,JHEP12(2024) 051 [2402.13327]

work page arXiv 2024
[39]

Creminelli, O

P. Creminelli, O. Janssen, B. Salehian and L. Senatore,Positivity bounds on electromagnetic properties of media,JHEP08(2024) 066 [2405.09614]

work page arXiv 2024
[40]

Caron-Huot and J

S. Caron-Huot and J. Tokuda,String loops and gravitational positivity bounds: imprint of light particles at high energies,JHEP11(2024) 055 [2406.07606]

work page arXiv 2024
[41]

Beadle, G

C. Beadle, G. Isabella, D. Perrone, S. Ricossa, F. Riva and F. Serra,Non-forward UV/IR relations,JHEP08(2025) 188 [2407.02346]

work page arXiv 2025
[42]

Chakraborty, S

D. Chakraborty, S. Chattopadhyay and R.S. Gupta,Towards the HEFT-hedron: the complete set of positivity constraints at NLO,2412.14155

work page arXiv
[43]

Peng, L.-Q

G. Peng, L.-Q. Shao, A. Tokareva and Y. Xu,Running EFT-hedron with null constraints at loop level,2501.09717

work page arXiv
[44]

Beadle, G

C. Beadle, G. Isabella, D. Perrone, S. Ricossa, F. Riva and F. Serra,The EFT bootstrap at finite MP L,JHEP06(2025) 209 [2501.18465]

work page arXiv 2025
[45]

Desai and D

J. Desai and D. Ghosh,Positivity at 1-loop: bounds on photon and gluon EFTs,JHEP09 (2025) 152 [2503.21864]. – 39 –

work page arXiv 2025
[46]

Y.-P. Liao, J. Roosmale Nepveu and C.-H. Shen,Positivity in Perturbative Renormalization: an EFTa-theorem,2505.02910

work page arXiv
[47]

Y. Ye, X. Cao, Y.-H. Wu and J. Gu,Positivity bounds in scalar-QED EFT at one-loop level, JHEP10(2025) 084 [2507.06302]

work page arXiv 2025
[48]

Liu, K.-F

Z. Liu, K.-F. Lyu and T.A. Wu,LHC Shines on Positivity,2512.04336

work page arXiv
[49]

Christensen, P

N.D. Christensen, P. de Aquino, N. Deutschmann, C. Duhr, B. Fuks, C. Garcia-Cely et al., Simulating spin- 3 2 particles at colliders,Eur. Phys. J. C73(2013) 2580 [1308.1668]

work page arXiv 2013
[50]

Moroi,Effects of the gravitino on the inflationary universe, other thesis, 3, 1995, [hep-ph/9503210]

T. Moroi,Effects of the gravitino on the inflationary universe, other thesis, 3, 1995, [hep-ph/9503210]

work page arXiv 1995
[51]

Antoniadis, A

I. Antoniadis, A. Guillen and F. Rondeau,Massive gravitino scattering amplitudes and the unitarity cutoff of the new Fayet-Iliopoulos terms,JHEP01(2023) 043 [2210.00817]

work page arXiv 2023
[52]

Bellazzini, G

B. Bellazzini, G. Isabella, S. Ricossa and F. Riva,Massive gravity is not positive,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 024051 [2304.02550]

work page arXiv 2024
[53]

Infrared Consistency and the Weak Gravity Conjecture

C. Cheung and G.N. Remmen,Infrared Consistency and the Weak Gravity Conjecture, JHEP12(2014) 087 [1407.7865]

work page Pith review arXiv 2014
[54]

Arkani-Hamed and J

N. Arkani-Hamed and J. Trnka,The Amplituhedron,JHEP10(2014) 030 [1312.2007]

work page arXiv 2014
[55]

Schwartz,Quantum Field Theory and the Standard Model, Cambridge University Press (3, 2014), 10.1017/9781139540940

M.D. Schwartz,Quantum Field Theory and the Standard Model, Cambridge University Press (3, 2014), 10.1017/9781139540940

work page doi:10.1017/9781139540940 2014
[56]

Degrande, H.-L

C. Degrande, H.-L. Li and L.-X. Xu,Partial-Wave Unitarity Bounds on Higher-Dimensional Operators from 2-to-NScattering,2511.15524

work page arXiv
[57]

J. Bros, H. Epstein and V.J. Glaser,Some rigorous analyticity properties of the four-point function in momentum space,Nuovo Cim.31(1964) 1265

work page 1964
[58]

J. Bros, H. Epstein and V. Glaser,A proof of the crossing property for two-particle amplitudes in general quantum field theory,Commun. Math. Phys.1(1965) 240

work page 1965
[59]

Martin and F

A. Martin and F. Cheung,Analyticity properties and bounds of the scattering amplitudes, in 10th Brandeis University Summer Institute in Theoretical Physics, Elementary particle physics and scattering theory, vol. V2, pp. 303–434, 1970

work page 1970
[60]

Sommer,Present state of rigorous analytic properties of scattering amplitudes,Fortsch

G. Sommer,Present state of rigorous analytic properties of scattering amplitudes,Fortsch. Phys.18(1970) 577

work page 1970
[61]

Eden,Theorems on high energy collisions of elementary particles,Rev

R.J. Eden,Theorems on high energy collisions of elementary particles,Rev. Mod. Phys.43 (1971) 15

work page 1971
[62]

Froissart,Asymptotic behavior and subtractions in the Mandelstam representation,Phys

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

work page 1961
[63]

Jin and A

Y.S. Jin and A. Martin,Number of Subtractions in Fixed-Transfer Dispersion Relations, Phys. Rev.135(1964) B1375

work page 1964
[64]

Trueman and G

T. Trueman and G. Wick,Crossing relations for helicity amplitudes,Annals of Physics26 (1964) 322

work page 1964
[65]

Cohen-Tannoudji, A

G. Cohen-Tannoudji, A. Morel and H. Navelet,Kinematical singularities, crossing matrix and kinematical constraints for two-body helicity amplitudes,Annals of Physics46(1968) 239

work page 1968
[66]

Hara,Crossing relations for helicity amplitudes,Progress of Theoretical Physics45(1971) 584 [https://academic.oup.com/ptp/article-pdf/45/2/584/5300291/45-2-584.pdf]

Y. Hara,Crossing relations for helicity amplitudes,Progress of Theoretical Physics45(1971) 584 [https://academic.oup.com/ptp/article-pdf/45/2/584/5300291/45-2-584.pdf]. – 40 –

work page 1971
[67]

Peskin and D.V

M.E. Peskin and D.V. Schroeder,An Introduction to quantum field theory, Addison-Wesley, Reading, USA (1995), 10.1201/9780429503559

work page doi:10.1201/9780429503559 1995
[68]

Y. Ema, T. Gao, W. Ke, Z. Liu, K.-F. Lyu and I. Mahbub,Momentum shift and on-shell constructible massive amplitudes,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 105003 [2403.15538]

work page arXiv 2024
[69]

Cucchieri, M

A. Cucchieri, M. Porrati and S. Deser,Tree level unitarity constraints on the gravitational couplings of higher spin massive fields,Phys. Rev. D51(1995) 4543 [hep-th/9408073]. – 41 –

work page arXiv 1995