Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 45 references

Compton amplitude and Contact term(s) in the Spinor Helicity formalism

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Demanding reference-vector independence — the spinor-helicity form of gauge invariance — fixes the contact term that makes the spin-$S$ electromagnetic Compton amplitude manifestly gauge invariant and pole-free.

desk verdict Useful method, unverified flagship formula: the final amplitude (3.35) is asserted, not derived, and the intro summary disagrees with it. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.12431 v1 pith:2NPMXOWK submitted 2025-06-14 hep-th hep-ph

Aakash Kumar , Arnab Rudra , Rahul Shaw This is my paper
classification hep-thhep-ph
keywords Comptonamplitudespinorhelicityformalismcontacttermsgaugeinvariancehigher-spinparticlesmassivereferencevectorcolor-kinematicsduality
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

In a gauge theory, no physical observable may depend on the gauge-fixing choice; in the spinor helicity formalism that choice enters as the reference vector used to write the polarization of each photon. The paper turns this into a computational tool: it builds the tree-level electromagnetic Compton amplitude for two massive bosonic particles of arbitrary spin $S$ and two photons out of the minimal three-point vertex that governs the soft-photon theorem, and finds that the sum of $t$- and $u$-channel exchange diagrams is not reference-vector independent. The failure is local — the propagator poles cancel in the gauge variation — so it can be cured by a contact term, and the paper constructs that contact term explicitly by solving the reference-vector independence condition. After it is added, the reference vectors drop out of every term and the amplitude (eq. 3.35) is manifestly gauge invariant with no spurious poles. The same principle is then applied to non-abelian gluons and to the $\xi=1$ gauge, where it forces an $s$-channel exchange, a color-kinematics duality structure, and a tower of ghost exchanges.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the massive spinor helicity variables and the reference vector as the incarnation of the gauge choice. A massless polarization is written with an arbitrary null reference vector $r_i$ (eq. 2.11), and changing $r_i$ shifts it by a pure gauge term (B.18); the interaction with a massive leg is encoded in the $x$-factor $x_{ia}(h_i)$ of (2.23), whose change under $r_i\to\tilde r_i$ is given in (2.25) and contains $\langle i|a|i]=-(t+m^2)$ or $-(u+m^2)$, so the exchange-propagator poles cancel in the gauge variation. Each channel's numerator is decomposed as $N^{(t)}(S)=\Omega(S)+\langle 1^{I_1}|4|1^{I_2}]\langle 2^{J_1}|3|2^{J_2}]\,\Upsilon^{(t)}(S)/m^4$, separating a spin-dependent but channel-symmetric piece from channel-specific pieces. The construction of the contact term then reduces to algebra: the Schouten identity splits expressions like $\langle r_3\tilde r_3\rangle\langle 3X\rangle$ into separate $r_3$- and $\tilde r_3$-dependent terms, which converts the gauge-invariance condition into an equation for the local terms $G_\Omega$, $G_{\Upsilon^{(t)}}$, $G_{\Upsilon^{(u)}}$ (eqs. 3.28, 3.30). These contact terms are what make the final amplitude (3.35) manifestly independent of the reference vectors.

What would settle it

Derive the $S=1$ case from the standard Lagrangian of a massive charged vector boson with minimal electromagnetic coupling, where the propagator is known from first principles, and compare with (3.35) after summing over the massive polarizations; any mismatch, residual reference-vector dependence, or surviving spurious pole would refute the claim. A complementary numerical check is to evaluate the $S=2$ amplitude (3.35) at generic kinematics with two different reference vectors and confirm the difference is exactly zero.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that gauge invariance alone — phrased as the requirement that the amplitude not depend on the arbitrary reference vectors of the photon polarizations — fixes the contact term for the tree-level electromagnetic Compton amplitude of two massive bosonic spin-$S$ particles and two photons. Starting from the infrared-minimal three-point vertex, the exchange diagrams are shown to fail reference-vector independence, but their variation contains no poles, which is exactly the signature of a missing local interaction. The authors solve for the contact term, then use the Schouten identity and momentum conservation to rewrite the full amplitude in the explicit form (3.35), in which no reference vector appears anywhere; as a result the amplitude is manifestly gauge invariant and free of spurious poles for every bosonic spin $S$. In particular, the known literature expression (1.2) has a spurious pole in $[3|k_1-k_2|4\rangle$ for $S\ge 3/2$, and the paper's point is that this pole is an artifact of omitting the contact term rather than a physical singularity.

Load-bearing premise

The result rests on assuming that the higher-spin propagator borrowed from earlier work is the right on-shell propagator for a massive boson of any spin in the unitary gauge (for spin two and above it is not derived from any Lagrangian), and that the infrared-minimal three-point vertex is the entire interaction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The reference-vector-independence principle is a general method for finding contact terms: any amplitude whose per-channel numerator has the schematic form (3.13) can be made gauge invariant by the same construction, so the method should transfer to other three-point vertices and to higher-point amplitudes.
  • In the non-abelian case with several massive flavors and massless gluons, gauge invariance of the $\Omega(S)$ piece enforces a specific three-gluon coupling, and the kinematic numerators obey the same identity as the color factors ($\eta_t+\eta_u\pm\eta_s=0$ and $C_t+C_u\pm C_s=0$), i.e. color-kinematics duality holds for arbitrary spin and predicts the corresponding gravitational Compton amplitud
  • For the $\xi=1$ gauge the amplitude is unitary only after adding exchanges of unphysical ghost particles of spins $0$ through $S-1$, with the couplings in (5.2); this is the higher-spin analogue of would-be Goldstone bosons in Higgsed gauge theory.
  • The final amplitude (3.35) has no spurious poles for any bosonic spin $S$, so the pole in $[3|k_1-k_2|4\rangle$ appearing in the standard expression (1.2) for $S\ge 3/2$ is an artifact of a missing contact term, not a physical singularity.
  • The analysis is a perturbative effective-field-theory statement valid below the EFT scale, so the same amplitude describes Compton scattering of composite higher-spin states, such as color-singlet bound states in a large-$N$ gauge theory coupled to photons.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the UV-minimal ($\sqrt{\text{Kerr}}$) three-point vertex's numerators can be brought to the same schematic form (3.13), the same construction should fix its contact term and remove the known spurious pole in the opposite-helicity Compton amplitude; the paper leaves this as a future direction.
  • If the construction extends to the $\sqrt{\text{Kerr}}$ vertex, the classical limit of the corrected amplitude should reproduce the Kerr black-hole multipole structure in photon and graviton scattering, giving an on-shell route to spinning-black-hole observables that does not pass through a Lagrangian.
  • The four-point contact term may not be sufficient once more than two photons are emitted: applying the same reference-vector argument to amplitudes with two massive and $n\ge 2$ massless legs would reveal whether higher-point contact terms are forced or whether the four-point term already closes the calculation.
  • Because the method is entirely on-shell, it can serve as a consistency test for any proposed Lagrangian of massive higher-spin fields: whatever contact terms such a Lagrangian generates must reproduce (3.35) in the infrared-minimal sector.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a method to determine the contact term in the tree-level electromagnetic Compton amplitude for two massive bosonic particles of arbitrary spin S and two photons, using the requirement that the amplitude be independent of the reference vectors used to define the massless polarizations. The authors compute the t- and u-channel exchange diagrams built from the IR-minimal three-point vertex, show that their sum is not reference-vector independent, and construct a local contact term that cancels the reference-vector dependence. They claim that the final amplitude is manifestly gauge invariant and free of spurious poles, with the explicit form given in Eq. (3.35). The paper also extends the analysis to multiple flavours and to non-abelian (gluon) external legs, and discusses the ξ=1 gauge with a tower of auxiliary ghosts.

Significance. If correct, this work would provide a general on-shell strategy for fixing contact terms in arbitrary-spin Compton scattering, with direct relevance for Kerr black-hole computations. The conceptual principle — reference-vector independence as gauge invariance — is clean and generalizable, and the paper is explicit about the ansatz for the contact term. However, the central result is not yet established: the summary expression and the final formula are inconsistent, the transformation to the manifestly gauge-invariant form is not shown for the spin-dependent terms, and no independent check against known low-spin amplitudes is provided. The significance of the paper depends on closing these gaps.

major comments (3)
  1. [1.1, Eq. (1.6) vs Eq. (3.35)] The summary of the main result in (1.6) and the final amplitude (3.35) are mutually inconsistent. For h3=h4=+, (1.6) gives Ω(S)/((t+m^2)(u+m^2)) [34]^2 + Υ(t)(S)/(t+m^2) [1I1 4][2J1 3] + ..., while (3.35) gives −Ω(S)/((t+m^2)(u+m^2)) [34]^2 + Υ(t)(S)/(t+m^2) [1I1 4]^2[2J1 3]^2/m^4 + .... The sign of the Ω term and the powers and mass dimensions of the Υ terms differ. Since the abstract and Section 1.1 present (1.6) as the final answer, the reader cannot determine which expression is the claimed result.
  2. [3.4, Eq. (3.13) to Eq. (3.35)] The derivation of the manifestly gauge-invariant form (3.35) from the gauge-invariant combination M in (3.23) is not carried out for the Υ-dependent terms. In particular, the Υ(t)(S) contribution in (3.13) appears with the prefactor ⟨1I1|4|1I2]⟨2J1|3|2J2]/m^4, whereas (3.35) uses [1I1 4]^2[2J1 3]^2/m^4. No identity is given that transforms the holomorphic brackets into the squared form under the required little-group symmetrization. The identities (3.32) and (3.34) are applied only to the Ω term, and only for h3=h4=+ in (3.31)–(3.33). Thus the central claim of a manifestly gauge-invariant final amplitude is asserted rather than demonstrated.
  3. [2.1, Eqs. (2.20)–(2.22)] The computation relies entirely on the higher-spin propagator inherited from [23], which for S≥2 is not derived from a Lagrangian. The paper acknowledges this in Section 2.1, but it does not provide any independent check of the final amplitude for known low-spin cases (e.g., S=0 or S=1), and the in-house Mathematica package [30] is not publicly available. As a result, the correctness of (3.35) cannot be verified from the text. The authors should give the S=0 and S=1 limits of (3.35) and compare them with standard results, and they should either release the package or supply the essential computational steps.
minor comments (5)
  1. [3.1, Eq. (3.20)] The second denominator in Eq. (3.20) is written as [3 \tilde{r}_i], which should presumably be [i \tilde{r}_i] for a generic massless leg i.
  2. [References, [30]] Reference [30] is cited with the placeholder identifier arXiv:25XX.XXXXX; the actual preprint number should be provided.
  3. [3.4, Eq. (3.35)] In the third line of (3.35), the notation "Hh−3,h4" should be "H_{-h3,h4}" (or an equivalent unambiguous form), as elsewhere in the equation.
  4. [1.1, Eq. (1.6)] If Eq. (1.6) is intended only as a schematic summary rather than an exact formula, this should be stated explicitly; otherwise it must be reconciled with Eq. (3.35).
  5. [2, Eq. (2.9)] The coloured little-group indices used in Eq. (2.9) to distinguish different SU(2)s may not be visible in black-and-white printing; an alternative notation (e.g., different letters or subscripts) should be adopted.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The contact-term construction is a genuine consistency solution rather than a fit, but the central computation imports the S>=2 unitary-gauge propagator from the authors' own prior work [23] and leans on another Rudra self-citation to exclude alternative exchanges; the unshown (3.13)->(3.35) rewriting is a correctness gap, not circularity.

  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. 2.1 (eqs. 2.20-2.22) and Sec. 3 (eqs. 3.8-3.9); reliance on [23]]
    "As discussed in [23], one can introduce the xi parameter... In the case of spin 1, it is possible to derive this expression from gauge-fixing. However, for S>=2, we do not have any derivation of this from a Lagrangian. ... It has been shown in [23] that the Compton amplitude for spin two and higher spin particles is gauge invariant only for xi=1 and infinity."

    The exchange numerator N^(t)(S) in (3.8)-(3.9) is built from the projector (2.20) whose xi=infinity unitary form is the input taken from [23]. Reference [23] is by the same authors (Kumar, Rudra, Shaw plus Shah), and the quoted text explicitly states that for S>=2 the xi-propagator is an ad-hoc extension with no Lagrangian derivation. Hence the contact terms (3.28)/(3.30) and final amplitude (3.35) are determined only after this self-cited, unverified-for-S>=2 input is assumed. The reference-vector-independence principle fixes the contact terms relative to that propagator; it does not independently establish the propagator. This is load-bearing dependence on a self-citation, though it is not a reduction by construction.

  2. self citation load bearing [Sec. 3.2, first bullet]
    "There exists a non-zero vertex between a massive higher spin particle and two massless photons [32]. However, the exchange diagrams due to that vertex are gauge invariant by itself [33]; it cannot cure this problem."

    This passage is used to exclude massless-exchange corrections and thereby to force the conclusion that a contact term is the only possible cure for the reference-vector non-invariance. The decisive statement that the two-photon--massive-particle exchange is 'gauge invariant by itself' is attributed to Ref. [33], whose authors include Arnab Rudra, one of the present authors. The statement is not re-derived in this paper, so the uniqueness of the contact-term resolution rests in part on a self-citation. The central construction is still independently checkable from the paper's own equations, but this particular load-bearing exclusion is imported from the authors' prior work.

full rationale

The paper's actual derivation chain is: start from the IR-minimal three-point vertex (2.29), glue it with the massive higher-spin projector (2.20) to obtain exchange numerators N^(t)(S) and N^(u)(S), compute the change of the amplitude under a shift of the photon reference vectors, and then solve the linear conditions for local contact terms G_Omega, G_Yt, G_Yu so that Delta_3(M)=Delta_4(M)=0. This is a consistency condition, not a fit to data and not a quantity that is defined in terms of the final amplitude. The nontrivial content is that explicit, local, pole-free contact terms exist and that the combined M can be rewritten in the manifestly reference-vector-independent form (3.35). That part is not circular. The main circularity burden is the imported propagator: for S>=2 the xi-propagator (2.22) is an ansatz from the authors' own Ref. [23], and the paper explicitly says there is no Lagrangian derivation for S>=2. Thus the central claim is conditional on a self-cited assumption. A second, milder self-citation appears in Sec. 3.2, where the exclusion of massless exchanges as a cure relies on Ref. [33] by the same group. The skeptical concern about the step from (3.13)/(3.30) to (3.35) is substantial: (3.13) contains the factor <1^{I1}|4|1^{I2}]<2^{J1}|3|2^{J2}]/m^4, while (3.35) replaces it with [1^{I1}4]^2[2^{J1}3]^2/m^4, and no identity in the text demonstrates this rewriting under little-group symmetrization. Likewise, the abstract/main-result summary (1.6) displays [1^{I1}4][2^{J1}3] without squares or 1/m^4, contradicting (3.35). These are correctness and reproducibility risks, especially because the computations rely on an in-house, not-yet-public package [30], but they are not circularity: an unproven algebraic simplification is a gap, not an equivalence of the result to its input by construction. Overall, the central gauge-invariance mechanism is independently constructed in this paper, so the score is moderate, reflecting load-bearing self-citations rather than definitional circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central construction rests on the massive SH formalism and the xi=infinity higher-spin propagator from prior work [14,23], on the IR minimal three-point vertex, and on the requirement that the four-point amplitude be independent of the reference vectors. The one intermediate coefficient lambda in the gluon extension is fixed by gauge invariance, not fitted to data. The only newly introduced entity is the ghost tower for the xi=1 gauge, a consistency device with no independent observable prediction.

free parameters (1)
  • lambda (gluon s-channel coupling) = ± e_gem/√2
    An ansatz coefficient for the s-channel three-gluon vertex in (4.8), later fixed by gauge invariance in (4.17); not a data fit and not part of the central photon result.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The massive spinor helicity formalism and the higher-spin projector P^(S) in (2.20) correctly represent the on-shell propagator of a massive boson of spin S, including S>=2.
    Used in (3.8)-(3.10) to compute exchange amplitudes. For S>=2 no Lagrangian derivation exists, as acknowledged in section 2.1.
  • domain assumption The IR minimal (Weinberg) three-point vertex (2.29) is the complete interaction governing the Compton amplitude considered.
    The paper restricts to the soft-photon/Coulomb vertex and notes in section 6 that other allowed three-point functions, e.g. UV minimal, are not treated.
  • domain assumption A physical four-point amplitude must be independent of the choice of reference vector for each external massless particle, and any residual dependence must be removable by local contact terms.
    This is the load-bearing consistency principle used in section 3.3 to fix G_Omega, G_Upsilon(t), and G_Upsilon(u).
  • standard math The Schouten identity (2.2) and the massive SH identities (2.5)-(2.7) hold as used, along with momentum conservation.
    They underlie every simplification leading to (3.35); no proof is given, but these are standard.
  • ad hoc to paper For the xi=1 gauge, unitarity requires a tower of auxiliary ghosts of spin 0 to S-1 with couplings (5.2).
    Section 5 postulates these ghosts to restore unitarity; the couplings are chosen to reproduce the missing Upsilon terms of the unitary gauge result.
  • domain assumption The gluon s-channel amplitude is generated by the three-gluon vertex (4.8) with an unspecified coupling lambda, and no other exchanges need to be added.
    Section 4.1-4.2; other possible exchanges are argued to be gauge-invariant by themselves or absent in section 3.2.
invented entities (1)
  • Ghost tower for xi=1 gauge: auxiliary fields of spin S_g = 0, ..., S-1
    purpose: Restore unitarity of the xi=1 higher-spin Compton amplitude by adding ghost exchanges that supply the missing Upsilon contributions.
    Introduced in section 5 following [23]; the couplings (5.2) are chosen to fill in the difference between the unitary gauge and xi=1 amplitudes, and no independent experimental or observable signature is proposed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Compton amplitude and Contact term(s) in the Spinor Helicity formalism." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2NPMXOWK

@misc{pith2026250612431,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Compton amplitude and Contact term(s) in the Spinor Helicity formalism},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2NPMXOWK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.12431}
}
read the original abstract

In gauge theories, contact terms play an important role in ensuring gauge invariance. In the spinor helicity formalism, the choice of a gauge-fixing condition manifests itself in the form of the choice of reference vector to write the massless polarization vector(s). However, this choice must be irrelevant in any gauge-invariant observable. We use this principle to determine contact term for Electromagnetic Compton amplitude. We considered three-point function between two massive particles \& a photon to be one which is responsible for soft photon theorem/Coulomb and demonstrate that it is possible to use the above-mentioned principle to find the contact term for the tree-level Compton amplitude of two bosonic massive spinning particles and two photons. The final result does not suffer from any spurious poles.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [23]

    Compton amplitude for massive bosons of arbitrary spin

    A. Kumar, A. Rudra, M. Shah, and R. Shaw, “Compton amplitude for massive bosons of arbitrary spin,”arXiv:2504.06343 [hep-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv

  2. [34]

    Perturbative Quantum Gravity as a Double Copy of Gauge Theory,

    Z. Bern, J. J. M. Carrasco, and H. Johansson, “Perturbative Quantum Gravity as a Double Copy of Gauge Theory,”Phys. Rev. Lett.105(2010) 061602,arXiv:1004.0476 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2010

  3. [30]

    Massive spinor helicity formalism using Mathematica,

    A. Kumar, A. Rudra, and R. Shaw, “Massive spinor helicity formalism using Mathematica,” arXiv:25XX.XXXXX [hep-th]

    work page

  4. [1]

    On-shell Techniques and Universal Results in Quantum Gravity,

    N. E. J. Bjerrum-Bohr, J. F. Donoghue, and P. Vanhove, “On-shell Techniques and Universal Results in Quantum Gravity,”JHEP02(2014) 111,arXiv:1309.0804 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2014

  5. [2]

    Classical Space-Times from the S Matrix,

    D. Neill and I. Z. Rothstein, “Classical Space-Times from the S Matrix,”Nucl. Phys. B877(2013) 177–189,arXiv:1304.7263 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2013

  6. [3]

    General Relativity from Scattering Amplitudes,

    N. E. J. Bjerrum-Bohr, P. H. Damgaard, G. Festuccia, L. Planté, and P. Vanhove, “General Relativity from Scattering Amplitudes,”Phys. Rev. Lett.121no. 17, (2018) 171601, arXiv:1806.04920 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2018

  7. [4]

    Scattering of two spinning black holes in post-Minkowskian gravity, to all orders in spin, and effective-one-body mappings,

    J. Vines, “Scattering of two spinning black holes in post-Minkowskian gravity, to all orders in spin, and effective-one-body mappings,”Class. Quant. Grav.35no. 8, (2018) 084002, arXiv:1709.06016 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2018

  8. [5]

    Spinning-black-hole scattering and the test-black-hole limit at second post-Minkowskian order,

    J. Vines, J. Steinhoff, and A. Buonanno, “Spinning-black-hole scattering and the test-black-hole limit at second post-Minkowskian order,”Phys. Rev. D99no. 6, (2019) 064054, arXiv:1812.00956 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2019

Show all 45 references
  1. [6]

    Scattering of Spinning Black Holes from Exponentiated Soft Factors,

    A. Guevara, A. Ochirov, and J. Vines, “Scattering of Spinning Black Holes from Exponentiated Soft Factors,”JHEP09(2019) 056,arXiv:1812.06895 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  2. [7]

    Black-hole scattering with general spin directions from minimal-coupling amplitudes,

    A. Guevara, A. Ochirov, and J. Vines, “Black-hole scattering with general spin directions from minimal-coupling amplitudes,”Phys. Rev. D100no. 10, (2019) 104024,arXiv:1906.10071 [hep-th]. – 28 –

    2019 arXiv

  3. [8]

    Observables and amplitudes for spinning particles and black holes,

    B. Maybee, D. O’Connell, and J. Vines, “Observables and amplitudes for spinning particles and black holes,”JHEP12(2019) 156,arXiv:1906.09260 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  4. [9]

    Scattering in black hole backgrounds and higher-spin amplitudes. Part I,

    Y. F. Bautista, A. Guevara, C. Kavanagh, and J. Vines, “Scattering in black hole backgrounds and higher-spin amplitudes. Part I,”JHEP03(2023) 136,arXiv:2107.10179 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  5. [10]

    Scattering in black hole backgrounds and higher-spin amplitudes. Part II,

    Y. F. Bautista, A. Guevara, C. Kavanagh, and J. Vines, “Scattering in black hole backgrounds and higher-spin amplitudes. Part II,”JHEP05(2023) 211,arXiv:2212.07965 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  6. [11]

    Holomorphic Classical Limit for Spin Effects in Gravitational and Electromagnetic Scattering,

    A. Guevara, “Holomorphic Classical Limit for Spin Effects in Gravitational and Electromagnetic Scattering,”JHEP04(2019) 033,arXiv:1706.02314 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  7. [12]

    The simplest massive S-matrix: from minimal coupling to Black Holes,

    M.-Z. Chung, Y.-T. Huang, J.-W. Kim, and S. Lee, “The simplest massive S-matrix: from minimal coupling to Black Holes,”JHEP04(2019) 156,arXiv:1812.08752 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  8. [13]

    Snowmass White Paper: Gravitational Waves and Scattering Amplitudes,

    A. Buonanno, M. Khalil, D. O’Connell, R. Roiban, M. P. Solon, and M. Zeng, “Snowmass White Paper: Gravitational Waves and Scattering Amplitudes,” inSnowmass 2021. 4, 2022. arXiv:2204.05194 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  9. [14]

    Scattering amplitudes for all masses and spins,

    N. Arkani-Hamed, T.-C. Huang, and Y.-t. Huang, “Scattering amplitudes for all masses and spins,”JHEP11(2021) 070,arXiv:1709.04891 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  10. [15]

    Helicity amplitudes for QCD with massive quarks,

    A. Ochirov, “Helicity amplitudes for QCD with massive quarks,”JHEP04(2018) 089, arXiv:1802.06730 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  11. [16]

    Compton black-hole scattering for s≤5/2,

    M. Chiodaroli, H. Johansson, and P. Pichini, “Compton black-hole scattering for s≤5/2,”JHEP 02(2022) 156,arXiv:2107.14779 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  12. [17]

    Double copy for massive quantum particles with spin,

    H. Johansson and A. Ochirov, “Double copy for massive quantum particles with spin,”JHEP09 (2019) 040,arXiv:1906.12292 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  13. [18]

    Kerr black holes as elementary particles,

    N. Arkani-Hamed, Y.-t. Huang, and D. O’Connell, “Kerr black holes as elementary particles,” JHEP01(2020) 046,arXiv:1906.10100 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  14. [19]

    From higher-spin gauge interactions to Compton amplitudes for root-Kerr,

    L. Cangemi, M. Chiodaroli, H. Johansson, A. Ochirov, P. Pichini, and E. Skvortsov, “From higher-spin gauge interactions to Compton amplitudes for root-Kerr,”JHEP09(2024) 196, arXiv:2311.14668 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  15. [20]

    Note on the Kerr spinning particle metric,

    E. T. Newman and A. I. Janis, “Note on the Kerr spinning particle metric,”J. Math. Phys.6 (1965) 915–917

    1965

  16. [21]

    Electromagnetic magic: The Relativistically rotating disk,

    D. Lynden-Bell, “Electromagnetic magic: The Relativistically rotating disk,”Phys. Rev. D70 (2004) 105017,arXiv:gr-qc/0410109

    2004 arXiv

  17. [22]

    Dynamical implications of the Kerr multipole moments for spinning black holes,

    T. Scheopner and J. Vines, “Dynamical implications of the Kerr multipole moments for spinning black holes,”JHEP12(2024) 060,arXiv:2311.18421 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [24]

    Photons and Gravitons in s Matrix Theory: Derivation of Charge Conservation and Equality of Gravitational and Inertial Mass,

    S. Weinberg, “Photons and Gravitons in s Matrix Theory: Derivation of Charge Conservation and Equality of Gravitational and Inertial Mass,”Phys. Rev.135(1964) B1049–B1056

    1964

  19. [25]

    Derivation of gauge invariance and the equivalence principle from Lorentz invariance of the S- matrix,

    S. Weinberg, “Derivation of gauge invariance and the equivalence principle from Lorentz invariance of the S- matrix,”Phys. Lett.9no. 4, (1964) 357–359

    1964

  20. [26]

    Scattering Amplitudes,

    H. Elvang and Y.-t. Huang, “Scattering Amplitudes,”arXiv:1308.1697 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  21. [27]

    M. D. Schwartz,Quantum Field Theory and the Standard Model. Cambridge University Press, 3, 2014. – 29 –

    2014

  22. [28]

    Cambridge Lectures on The Standard Model,

    F. Quevedo and A. Schachner, “Cambridge Lectures on The Standard Model,”arXiv:2409.09211 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  23. [29]

    S@M, a Mathematica Implementation of the Spinor-Helicity Formalism,

    D. Maitre and P. Mastrolia, “S@M, a Mathematica Implementation of the Spinor-Helicity Formalism,”Comput. Phys. Commun.179(2008) 501–574,arXiv:0710.5559 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Elvang and Y.-t

    H. Elvang and Y.-t. Huang,Scattering Amplitudes in Gauge Theory and Gravity. Cambridge University Press, 2015.http://www.cambridge.org/mw/academic/subjects/physics/ theoretical-physics-and-mathematical-physics/ scattering-amplitudes-gauge-theory-and-gravity?format=AR

    2015

  25. [32]

    Classification of all 3 particle S-matrices quadratic in photons or gravitons,

    S. Chakraborty, S. D. Chowdhury, T. Gopalka, S. Kundu, S. Minwalla, and A. Mishra, “Classification of all 3 particle S-matrices quadratic in photons or gravitons,”JHEP04(2020) 110, arXiv:2001.07117 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Spinning amplitudes from scalar amplitudes,

    M. K. N. Balasubramanian, R. Patil, and A. Rudra, “Spinning amplitudes from scalar amplitudes,”JHEP11(2021) 151,arXiv:2106.05301 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  27. [35]

    A Relation Between Tree Amplitudes of Closed and Open Strings,

    H. Kawai, D. C. Lewellen, and S. H. H. Tye, “A Relation Between Tree Amplitudes of Closed and Open Strings,”Nucl. Phys.B269(1986) 1–23

    1986

  28. [36]

    New Relations for Gauge-Theory Amplitudes,

    Z. Bern, J. J. M. Carrasco, and H. Johansson, “New Relations for Gauge-Theory Amplitudes,” Phys. Rev. D78(2008) 085011,arXiv:0805.3993 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Scattering equations and Kawai-Lewellen-Tye orthogonality,

    F. Cachazo, S. He, and E. Y. Yuan, “Scattering equations and Kawai-Lewellen-Tye orthogonality,” Phys. Rev. D90no. 6, (2014) 065001,arXiv:1306.6575 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Scattering of Massless Particles in Arbitrary Dimensions,

    F. Cachazo, S. He, and E. Y. Yuan, “Scattering of Massless Particles in Arbitrary Dimensions,” Phys. Rev. Lett.113no. 17, (2014) 171601,arXiv:1307.2199 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Snowmass White Paper: the Double Copy and its Applications,

    T. Adamo, J. J. M. Carrasco, M. Carrillo-González, M. Chiodaroli, H. Elvang, H. Johansson, D. O’Connell, R. Roiban, and O. Schlotterer, “Snowmass White Paper: the Double Copy and its Applications,” inSnowmass 2021. 4, 2022.arXiv:2204.06547 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  32. [40]

    New recursion relations for tree amplitudes of gluons,

    R. Britto, F. Cachazo, and B. Feng, “New recursion relations for tree amplitudes of gluons,”Nucl. Phys.B715(2005) 499–522,arXiv:hep-th/0412308 [hep-th]

    2005 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Direct proof of tree-level recursion relation in Yang-Mills theory,

    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,arXiv:hep-th/0501052 [hep-th]

    2005 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Recursion relations for scattering amplitudes with massive particles,

    S. Ballav and A. Manna, “Recursion relations for scattering amplitudes with massive particles,” JHEP03(2021) 295,arXiv:2010.14139 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Recursion relations for scattering amplitudes with massive particles II: Massive vector bosons,

    S. Ballav and A. Manna, “Recursion relations for scattering amplitudes with massive particles II: Massive vector bosons,”Nucl. Phys. B983(2022) 115935,arXiv:2109.06546 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  36. [44]

    M. B. Green, J. H. Schwarz, and E. Witten,Superstring Theory Vol. 1. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press, 2012.http://www.cambridge.org/mw/ academic/subjects/physics/theoretical-physics-and-mathematical-physics/ superstring-theory-25th-anni...

    2012

  37. [45]

    Polchinski,String theory

    J. Polchinski,String theory. Vol. 1: An introduction to the bosonic string. Cambridge University Press, 1998. – 30 –

    1998

Pith tools

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