Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 66 references

Unitarity and hidden-zero conditions fix the exact analytic boundary of infinite-spin-tower amplitudes.

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

2026-08-01 09:57 UTC pith:5ODVVL5G

load-bearing objection A genuinely useful analytic boundary for IST amplitudes, but the maximality claim over the full curve rests on a numerical last-pole check and an unproven separation condition. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.27300 v1 pith:5ODVVL5G submitted 2026-07-29 hep-th

Analytic Boundaries of Infinite-Spin-Tower Amplitudes from Hidden Zero

Long-Qi Shao , Alessandro Vichi This is my paper
classification hep-th MSC 81T3081U20
keywords infinite-spin-tower amplitudeshidden zerossplitting conditionmeromorphic amplitudesunitarityanalytic bootstrapVeneziano amplitudeVirasoro-Shapiro amplitude
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.

The paper studies four-point meromorphic amplitudes that obey the hidden-zero and splitting conditions, which force the amplitude into the form f(s)f(t)/f(s+t). It shows that, together with unitarity, analyticity, crossing symmetry, and polynomial boundedness, the only free parameter is the pole spectrum, and the spectrum itself is constrained: consecutive energy levels must be separated by at least the first mass gap. Under that condition, the largest allowed region for these amplitudes is bounded by an analytic curve corresponding to the sparse spectrum {0,1,2,...,n,r}. The paper argues this curve is the largest possible primal boundary for meromorphic amplitudes without an accumulation point, so the remaining gap to the positivity bounds must be filled by branch cuts or accumulation points rather than simple poles. A sympathetic reader should care because this makes explicit, in closed form, how far unitary meromorphic amplitudes of this class can go, and clarifies what kind of singularity is needed to reach the edge of the positivity region.

Core claim

For meromorphic solutions of the splitting/cocycle equation, unitarity forces the pole spacings to satisfy μ_{k+1}-μ_k ≥ μ_1. Given this separation, the maximum value of X for a fixed Y is achieved by the spectrum {0,1,2,...,n,r}, r≥n+1, yielding the analytic boundary X = H_n^{(3)} + (Y-H_n^{(2)})^{3/2}/Y for H_n^{(2)} ≤ Y ≤ H_{n+1}^{(2)}. The paper proves this spectrum dominates every other separation-compatible spectrum, so the curve is the largest possible boundary for meromorphic amplitudes with no accumulation point. All other points inside the positivity region must therefore contain non-meromorphic singularities, such as an accumulation point (a branch cut) or a genuine branch cut. Th

What carries the argument

The cocycle/splitting equation A(a,b+c)A(b,c)=A(a,b)A(a+b,c) has the general meromorphic solution A(s,t)=C f(s)f(t)/f(s+t). Combined with crossing symmetry and polynomial boundedness, the relevant meromorphic amplitudes take the product form -(s+t)/(st) ∏_{N}(μ_N-s-t)/((μ_N-s)(μ_N-t)). The free data is the ordered pole spectrum {μ_N}; the paper's optimality proof compares any competing spectrum to the extremal one using a partial-summation inequality built from the convexity of x^{3/2}, showing that {0,1,...,n,r} maximizes X at fixed Y.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that unitarity of an IST amplitude requires the energy-level separation condition μ_{k+1}-μ_k ≥ μ_1; if a unitary amplitude could have a denser spectrum, the claimed maximal boundary could be shifted outward.

What would settle it

Find a meromorphic solution of the splitting equation with positive partial-wave residues at every pole whose spectrum violates μ_{k+1}-μ_k ≥ μ_1 (for example {0,1,r} with r<2). A cleaner test is to numerically maximize X at fixed Y over all spectra satisfying the stated conditions and see if any point lies strictly above the curve (15); the paper's proof says this is impossible without accumulation.

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

If this is right

  • Every unitary meromorphic amplitude of this class lies on or below the curve X = H_n^{(3)} + (Y-H_n^{(2)})^{3/2}/Y in the (X,Y) plane.
  • The boundary is realized by the sparse spectrum {0,1,2,...,n,r}, so the first n massive levels are evenly spaced and a single extra pole is pushed out toward infinity.
  • Any amplitude in the gap between this rule-in boundary and the rule-out positivity region must contain a branch cut or an accumulation point, not just simple poles.
  • The product construction carries over to fully s,t,u crossing-symmetric amplitudes, where the pole distribution must be neither too dense nor too sparse, tying IR graviton physics to UV spectrum constraints.
  • Evenly spaced IST amplitudes are unitary in any dimension for n=1,2, and the critical dimension decreases from ~13.16 at n=3 to 10 as n→∞.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the level-separation condition is only necessary but not sufficient, there could exist unitary amplitudes with denser spectra that push the true primal boundary above Eq. (15); testing spectra with μ_2-μ_1<1 would settle this.
  • The analytic boundary suggests that the numerically observed extremal S-matrix spectra, which contain many high-spin states with exponentially small couplings, may be realized by IST-like amplitudes.
  • The gap between the primal bound and positivity bounds could be closed from the rule-out side if positivity bounds can distinguish poles from branch cuts, effectively sharpening the dual bootstrap.
  • For the fully crossing-symmetric case, the dual constraint on spectral density is a candidate signature of the graviton pole being generated by a dense UV tower, a feature that could be probed on the low-energy Wilson coefficients.

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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies four-point s,t crossing-symmetric meromorphic amplitudes satisfying the hidden-zero/splitting cocycle equation, arguing that they are forced to the infinite-spin-tower (IST) product form (7). With the pole locations as the only free parameters, the authors propose a necessary unitarity condition on the level separation, derive the analytic boundary (15) corresponding to spectra {1,2,...,n,r}, prove unitarity for evenly spaced spectra and for the first n poles of the boundary family, prove unitarity at the final pole for n=1,2 and for r > n(e-1), and report numerical checks in the remaining interval. They conclude that the boundary is the largest possible for meromorphic IST amplitudes and that the gap to the positivity bounds must be due to non-meromorphic singularities. The paper also constructs a fully crossing-symmetric analogue.

Significance. If the main claim is established, this is a valuable analytic rule-in result: it gives an exact boundary inside the positivity region and sharpens the old question of which UV singularities are compatible with unitarity. The cocycle solution, the boundary formula, and the evenly spaced unitarity proof are clean and largely self-contained. The paper also provides explicit closed-form amplitudes, a high-precision numerical check, and an honest discussion of the gap to the SDPB bounds. The main weakness is that the two load-bearing ingredients — the level-separation necessary condition used in the optimality proof and unitarity at the final boundary pole for generic n — are not fully proven, and these are exactly the ingredients on which the 'largest possible boundary' claim rests.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III, Eq. (14) and Fig. 2] The necessary condition μ_{k+1}-μ_k ≥ μ_1 for unitarity is stated as a claim and supported by a sign-change argument, but it is not formalized as a theorem. The argument shows that if the separation is smaller, the residue at μ_k has a sign change before t=μ_1, which is incompatible with the positive expansion (13). However, the statement is used as an axiom in Appendix B: the optimality proof of Eq. (15) assumes μ_k ≥ k. If a unitary IST spectrum could violate this separation, denser spectra would not be covered and the boundary could be pushed outward. Please either supply a complete proof of the necessity claim or explicitly state the main theorem as conditional on this separation condition.
  2. [§IV.B, Eq. (36) and the numerical paragraph] Unitarity at the final boundary pole s=r is proven analytically only for n=1,2 and for r>n(e-1)≈1.718n. For the interval n+1<r≤n(e-1), which is precisely the part of each boundary segment that connects consecutive integer spectra, the paper relies on a numerical scan for n=3,...,10, r∈[n+1,1.8n], J≤200, with 100-digit precision. This leaves n≥11 completely unchecked, and even for n≤10 positivity of the first 200 partial-wave coefficients does not prove positivity of the full infinite Legendre expansion. Since the abstract claims to 'construct such unitary amplitudes' on the full boundary, this gap must be closed or the claim must be qualified as numerical in this region.
  3. [§III and Appendix B] The sentence just before Eq. (15) states that all other pole distributions give smaller X for fixed Y, and Appendix B proves this assuming the separation condition μ_{k+1}-μ_k ≥ μ_1 (or μ_k ≥ k). The partial-summation proof itself is sound under that assumption. But the overall conclusion that Eq. (15) is the largest possible primal boundary for meromorphic IST amplitudes has exactly the same status as the unproved necessary condition. In addition, the proof takes the number of states to infinity and assumes the sums converge with no accumulation; this is consistent with meromorphicity but should be stated as an explicit assumption. I recommend that the main theorem be restated with its hypotheses clearly separated from numerical evidence.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§I] In the introduction, 'we analytically construct meromorphics, t crossing-symmetric amplitudes' should likely read 'meromorphic, s,t crossing-symmetric amplitudes'.
  2. [§VI] The conclusion contains a duplicated/garbled sentence: 'Both possibilities imply that amplitudes in the gap contain singularities other than poles. that there are singularities other than poles for the amplitudes in the gap.' Please clean this up.
  3. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption 'Energy separation be larger than μ_1 is necessary for unitarity' should be reworded, e.g. 'The energy separation must be larger than μ_1'.
  4. [Eq. (38)] The recurrence in Eq. (38) appears to have a typo: it should be (j+1)Q_{j+1}(x0) = (2j+1)x0 Q_j(x0) - j Q_{j-1}(x0). As written, Q_{j+1} appears on both sides.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the analytic boundary is produced by an optimization over pole spectra under an independent unitarity condition and checked against external positivity bounds.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: hidden-zero/splitting → functional equation (5) → product form Eqs. (6)-(7); a unitarity condition (level separation ≥ mass gap) argued from positivity of residues for t>0 (Sec. III, Fig. 2); an optimization problem over pole distributions under this condition whose solution is Eq. (15) (Appendix B); and analytic positivity checks for most residues (Sec. IV). None of these steps identifies the boundary with an input. Eq. (15) is the solution of a convexity inequality, not a fitted curve; the unitarity checks are performed by partial-wave coefficient positivity, not by imposing Eq. (15). The comparison with the rule-out region is against external SDPB results. The main caveat is that unitarity at the last pole for general n and r∈[n+1,1.8n] is only numerical, as explicitly acknowledged in Sec. IV and the Conclusion; this is a proof gap, not circularity. Appendix B also relies on the unproved but independently motivated spacing condition; if that condition failed, the boundary might move, but that is an assumption rather than a derivation-by-definition. Self-citations (e.g. Vichi's bootstrap methodology papers) are not load-bearing.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The construction is parameter-light but assumption-heavy: no experimental constants are fitted, but maximality rests on two stated assumptions: the level-separation necessary condition and the absence of accumulation points. Unitarity of the last boundary pole is numerically checked, not derived, for general n.

free parameters (2)
  • Pole locations μ_N = μ_1=1; boundary spectrum μ_N=N (1≤N≤n), μ_{n+1}=r=(Y-H_n^(2))^{-1/2}, μ_N=∞ beyond
    The only tunable input in the IST family Eq. (7); different spectra fill the region, and the 'most economical' spectrum saturates the boundary Eq. (15).
  • Last finite pole r = r ∈ [n+1, ∞) continuous
    Parameterizes each segment of the boundary curve; no first-principles value, only constrained by unitarity checks and numerical scans.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Hidden-zero and splitting conditions imply the four-point cocycle equation A(a,b+c)A(b,c)=A(a,b)A(a+b,c) and hence A(s,t)=C f(s)f(t)/f(s+t).
    The paper takes the hidden-zero/splitting conditions from [19,20] as input (Section II) and solves the cocycle equation in Appendix A.
  • domain assumption A(s,t) is meromorphic with only simple poles and is polynomially bounded at fixed t; the product form Eq. (7) follows.
    Defines the class of amplitudes under study; polynomial boundedness is used to fix the entire-function ambiguity and to compare with dispersion-relation positivity bounds.
  • domain assumption Unitarity is equivalent to non-negative partial-wave coefficients at each pole (Legendre/Gegenbauer expansions).
    Standard S-matrix assumption used in Section IV and appendices; no subtleties of full multiparticle unitarity are considered.
  • ad hoc to paper For a unitary IST amplitude the level separation must satisfy μ_{k+1}-μ_k ≥ μ_1.
    Argued in Section III from positivity of residues for t>0 and sign changes at shifted zeros (Eq. (14), Fig. 2); not given a full proof, and it is the foundation of the optimality argument in Appendix B.
  • ad hoc to paper The spectrum has no accumulation point; equivalently the amplitude is truly meromorphic on the s-plane.
    Used in Section III and the Conclusion to claim the derived boundary is the largest primal boundary; if accumulation is allowed, Coon-type amplitudes may sit inside the gap.
  • standard math Known positivity facts for Legendre functions: for z>1, (z-1)(2j+1)Q_j(z)>0; products of functions with non-negative Legendre coefficients have non-negative coefficients; Q_j(y)/Q_j(z) increases in j for 1<y<z.
    Used in Section IV.A/B and Appendix D to establish analytic unitarity of evenly spaced and n=1,2 boundary amplitudes.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 18862 in / 15184 out tokens · 121698 ms · 2026-08-01T09:57:52.766732+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study the general form of meromorphic amplitudes that are compatible with unitarity, analyticity, crossing symmetry, polynomial boundedness and the hidden-zero and corresponding splitting conditions. These amplitudes are infinite-spin-tower (IST) amplitudes and are characterized by the distribution of poles. With infinitely many evenly separated poles, the IST amplitudes reduce to Veneziano amplitudes. We construct such unitary amplitudes in a primal way (rule in) and find the bounds analytically. The allowed region we derive is smaller than, but close to, the region allowed by the positivity bounds (rule out). We argue that, in the absence of an accumulation point in the energy levels, the analytic boundary we derive is the largest possible boundary in the primal construction of meromorphic amplitudes. This type of IST amplitude can also be extended to the fully crossing-symmetric case related to the Virasoro-Shapiro amplitude. We found from the IST amplitudes that graviton pole imposes unitarity constraints on UV spectrum.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27300 by Alessandro Vichi, Long-Qi Shao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The allowed region from positivity bounds [21]. The light grey area is the allowed region [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Starting at t = 0 and increase, the sign of residues changes whenever it hits a zero (numerator or denominator). If µk+1 − µk < µ1, when t reaches µk+1 − µk, the residue changes sign and breaks unitarity. On the contrary, if µk+1 − µk ≥ µ1, it does not break unitarity. Above µ1, the Legendre expansion Eq. (13) diverges, so it does not matter what happens for t > µ1. t Numerators µ1 ￾ µk + ￾ 0 µk+1 ￾ µk + ￾… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The blue region constructed by IST amplitudes. The red dots denote IST amplitudes with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Location of amplitudes Eq. (44) with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Logarithm of partial wave coefficients for different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 57 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Adams, N

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  2. [2]

    Rattazzi, V

    R. Rattazzi, V. S. Rychkov, E. Tonni, and A. Vichi, Bounding scalar operator dimensions in 4D CFT, JHEP12, 031, arXiv:0807.0004 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  3. [3]

    El-Showk, M

    S. El-Showk, M. F. Paulos, D. Poland, S. Rychkov, D. Simmons-Duffin, and A. Vichi, Solv- ing the 3D Ising Model with the Conformal Bootstrap, Phys. Rev. D86, 025022 (2012), arXiv:1203.6064 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  4. [4]

    Poland, S

    D. Poland, S. Rychkov, and A. Vichi, The Conformal Bootstrap: Theory, Numerical Tech- niques, and Applications, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 015002 (2019), arXiv:1805.04405 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

    F. Kos, D. Poland, D. Simmons-Duffin, and A. Vichi, Precision Islands in the Ising andO(N) Models, JHEP08, 036, arXiv:1603.04436 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  6. [6]

    Simmons-Duffin, A Semidefinite Program Solver for the Conformal Bootstrap, JHEP06, 174, arXiv:1502.02033 [hep-th]

    D. Simmons-Duffin, A Semidefinite Program Solver for the Conformal Bootstrap, JHEP06, 174, arXiv:1502.02033 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  7. [7]

    Arkani-Hamed, T.-C

    N. Arkani-Hamed, T.-C. Huang, and Y.-t. Huang, The EFT-Hedron, JHEP05, 259, arXiv:2012.15849 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  8. [8]

    Y. Guo, Z. Li, G. Yang, and G. Zhu, Bootstrapping SU(3) lattice Yang-Mills theory, JHEP 12, 033, arXiv:2502.14421 [hep-th]. 27

    arXiv

  9. [9]

    Arkani-Hamed, F

    N. Arkani-Hamed, F. Calisto, N. Ussembayev, W. W. Zhao, and Z. Zhou, Surface water wave scattering and the hydrotope, (2026), arXiv:2606.28280 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  10. [10]

    Veneziano, Construction of a crossing - symmetric, Regge behaved amplitude for linearly rising trajectories, Nuovo Cim

    G. Veneziano, Construction of a crossing - symmetric, Regge behaved amplitude for linearly rising trajectories, Nuovo Cim. A57, 190 (1968)

    1968

  11. [11]

    Baker and D

    M. Baker and D. D. Coon, Dual resonance theory with nonlinear trajectories, Phys. Rev. D 2, 2349 (1970)

    1970

  12. [12]

    Caron-Huot, Z

    S. Caron-Huot, Z. Komargodski, A. Sever, and A. Zhiboedov, Strings from Massive Higher Spins: The Asymptotic Uniqueness of the Veneziano Amplitude, JHEP10, 026, arXiv:1607.04253 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  13. [13]

    Cheung and G

    C. Cheung and G. N. Remmen, Veneziano variations: how unique are string amplitudes?, JHEP01, 122, arXiv:2210.12163 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  14. [14]

    Geiser and L

    N. Geiser and L. W. Lindwasser, Generalized Veneziano and Virasoro amplitudes, JHEP04, 031, arXiv:2210.14920 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  15. [15]

    Cheung and G

    C. Cheung and G. N. Remmen, Bespoke dual resonance, Phys. Rev. D108, 086009 (2023), arXiv:2308.03833 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    Chiang, Y.-t

    L.-Y. Chiang, Y.-t. Huang, and H.-C. Weng, Bootstrapping string theory EFT, JHEP05, 289, arXiv:2310.10710 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  17. [17]

    Cheung, A

    C. Cheung, A. Hillman, and G. N. Remmen, Uniqueness criteria for the Virasoro-Shapiro amplitude, Phys. Rev. D111, 086034 (2025), arXiv:2408.03362 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Arkani-Hamed, C

    N. Arkani-Hamed, C. Cheung, C. Figueiredo, and G. N. Remmen, Multiparticle Factorization and the Rigidity of String Theory, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 091601 (2024), arXiv:2312.07652 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    Arkani-Hamed, Q

    N. Arkani-Hamed, Q. Cao, J. Dong, C. Figueiredo, and S. He, Hidden zeros for particle/string amplitudes and the unity of colored scalars, pions and gluons, JHEP10, 231, arXiv:2312.16282 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  20. [20]

    Arkani-Hamed, Q

    N. Arkani-Hamed, Q. Cao, J. Dong, C. Figueiredo, and S. He, Nonlinear Sigma model ampli- tudes to all loop orders are contained in the Tr(Φ3) theory, Phys. Rev. D110, 065018 (2024), arXiv:2401.05483 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    Berman, H

    J. Berman, H. Elvang, and C. Figueiredo, Splitting regions and shrinking islands from higher point constraints, JHEP10, 226, arXiv:2506.22538 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  22. [22]

    Wan and S.-Y

    S.-L. Wan and S.-Y. Zhou, Analytic Bootstrap of the Veneziano Amplitude, (2026), 28 arXiv:2605.11084 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  23. [23]

    Arkani-Hamed, C

    N. Arkani-Hamed, C. Figueiredo, and F. Vaz˜ ao, Cosmohedra, JHEP11, 029, arXiv:2412.19881 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  24. [24]

    Bartsch, T

    C. Bartsch, T. V. Brown, K. Kampf, U. Oktem, S. Paranjape, and J. Trnka, Hidden amplitude zeros from the double-copy map, Phys. Rev. D111, 045019 (2025), arXiv:2403.10594 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Cheung, A

    C. Cheung, A. Hillman, and G. N. Remmen, Bootstrap Principle for the Spectrum and Scat- tering of Strings, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 251601 (2024), arXiv:2406.02665 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    Y. Li, D. Roest, and T. ter Veldhuis, Hidden zeros in exceptional field theories from double copy, JHEP04, 121, arXiv:2403.12939 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  27. [27]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    B. Feng, L. Zhang, and K. Zhou, Hidden zeros and 2-split via BCFW recursion relation, JHEP 08, 205, arXiv:2504.14215 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  29. [29]

    S. De, S. Paranjape, A. Pokraka, M. Spradlin, and A. Volovich, Hidden zeros of the cosmo- logical wavefunction, JHEP07, 174, arXiv:2503.23579 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  30. [30]

    Carrillo Gonz´ alez and F

    M. Carrillo Gonz´ alez and F. Ward, Hidden zeros in massive field theories, Phys. Rev. D113, 125018 (2026), arXiv:2601.16860 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2026

  31. [31]

    Caron-Huot and V

    S. Caron-Huot and V. Van Duong, Extremal Effective Field Theories, JHEP05, 280, arXiv:2011.02957 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  32. [32]

    Huang and G

    Y.-t. Huang and G. N. Remmen, UV-complete gravity amplitudes and the triple product, Phys. Rev. D106, L021902 (2022), arXiv:2203.00696 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  33. [33]

    Berman, S

    J. Berman, S. Caron-Huot, A. V. Chandra, H. Elvang, A. Herderschee, L. L. Lin, and R. Morales, Gravitational Effective Theories with Maximal Supersymmetry and a Peculiar Parity, (2026), arXiv:2607.14230 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  34. [34]

    Z. Bern, D. Kosmopoulos, and A. Zhiboedov, Gravitational effective field theory islands, low-spin dominance, and the four-graviton amplitude, J. Phys. A54, 344002 (2021), arXiv:2103.12728 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  35. [35]

    Weinberg, Infrared photons and gravitons, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Infrared photons and gravitons, Phys. Rev.140, B516 (1965)

    1965

  36. [36]

    Bousso, A Covariant entropy conjecture, JHEP07, 004, arXiv:hep-th/9905177

    R. Bousso, A Covariant entropy conjecture, JHEP07, 004, arXiv:hep-th/9905177

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  37. [37]

    Biswas, A

    T. Biswas, A. S. Koshelev, A. Mazumdar, and S. Y. Vernov, Stable bounce and inflation in non-local higher derivative cosmology, JCAP08, 024, arXiv:1206.6374 [astro-ph.CO]. 29

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  38. [38]

    Maldacena and G

    J. Maldacena and G. N. Remmen, Accumulation-point amplitudes in string theory, JHEP08, 152, arXiv:2207.06426 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  39. [39]

    Wang, Triple product amplitude from chiral string, JHEP12, 112, arXiv:2409.11732 [hep-th]

    Y.-P. Wang, Triple product amplitude from chiral string, JHEP12, 112, arXiv:2409.11732 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  40. [40]

    Calisto and C

    F. Calisto and C. Cheung, An Ultraviolet Finite Theory of Scalars, (2026), arXiv:2606.26450 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  41. [41]

    Albert, J

    J. Albert, J. Henriksson, L. Rastelli, and A. Vichi, Bootstrapping mesons at large N: Regge trajectory from spin-two maximization, JHEP09, 172, arXiv:2312.15013 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  42. [42]

    Berman, H

    J. Berman, H. Elvang, N. Geiser, and L. L. Lin, Bootstrapping extremal scalar amplitudes with and without supersymmetry, JHEP05, 149, arXiv:2412.13368 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  43. [43]

    Albert, W

    J. Albert, W. Knop, and L. Rastelli, Where is tree-level string theory?, JHEP02, 157, arXiv:2406.12959 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  44. [44]

    Arkani-Hamed, L

    N. Arkani-Hamed, L. Eberhardt, Y.-t. Huang, and S. Mizera, On unitarity of tree-level string amplitudes, JHEP02, 197, arXiv:2201.11575 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  45. [45]

    Mansfield, Positivity of the Veneziano amplitude in ten dimensions, JHEP07, 179, arXiv:2502.20372 [hep-th]

    G. Mansfield, Positivity of the Veneziano amplitude in ten dimensions, JHEP07, 179, arXiv:2502.20372 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  46. [46]

    H¨ aring and A

    K. H¨ aring and A. Zhiboedov, What is the graviton pole made of?, (2024), arXiv:2410.21499 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    H¨ aring and A

    K. H¨ aring and A. Zhiboedov, The stringy S-matrix bootstrap: maximal spin and superpoly- nomial softness, JHEP10, 075, arXiv:2311.13631 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  48. [48]

    Eckner, F

    C. Eckner, F. Figueroa, and P. Tourkine, Regge bootstrap: From linear to nonlinear trajec- tories, Phys. Rev. D111, 126005 (2025), arXiv:2401.08736 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    Eckner, F

    C. Eckner, F. Figueroa, and P. Tourkine, On the number of Regge trajectories for dual am- plitudes, JHEP02, 103, arXiv:2405.21057 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  50. [50]

    Eckner, F

    C. Eckner, F. Figueroa, S. Metayer, and P. Tourkine, Regge trajectories for UV completions of graviton scattering from polynomial boundedness, (2025), arXiv:2512.17828 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    Chiang, Y.-t

    L.-Y. Chiang, Y.-t. Huang, W. Li, L. Rodina, and H.-C. Weng, (Non)-projective bounds on gravitational EFT, (2022), arXiv:2201.07177 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  52. [52]

    Xu, A Dispersive Bootstrap for the Virasoro-Shapiro Amplitude, (2026), arXiv:2606.19283 [hep-th]

    Y. Xu, A Dispersive Bootstrap for the Virasoro-Shapiro Amplitude, (2026), arXiv:2606.19283 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  53. [53]

    Arkani-Hamed, Y.-t

    N. Arkani-Hamed, Y.-t. Huang, J.-Y. Liu, and G. N. Remmen, Causality, unitarity, and the 30 weak gravity conjecture, JHEP03, 083, arXiv:2109.13937 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  54. [54]

    Sinha and A

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  55. [55]

    Caron-Huot, D

    S. Caron-Huot, D. Mazac, L. Rastelli, and D. Simmons-Duffin, Sharp boundaries for the swampland, JHEP07, 110, arXiv:2102.08951 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  56. [56]

    H¨ aring and A

    K. H¨ aring and A. Zhiboedov, Gravitational Regge bounds, SciPost Phys.16, 034 (2024), arXiv:2202.08280 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  57. [57]

    Berman and N

    J. Berman and N. Geiser, Analytic bootstrap bounds on masses and spins in gravitational and non-gravitational scalar theories, JHEP06, 168, arXiv:2412.17902 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  58. [58]

    Chang and J

    C.-H. Chang and J. Parra-Martinez, Graviton loops and negativity, JHEP08, 175, arXiv:2501.17949 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  59. [59]

    Tokareva and Y

    A. Tokareva and Y. Xu, Scalar weak gravity bound from full unitarity, Phys. Rev. D112, 085020 (2025), arXiv:2502.10375 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  60. [60]

    Bellazzini, J

    B. Bellazzini, J. Berman, G. Isabella, F. Riva, M. Romano, and F. Sciotti, Positivity with Long-Range Interactions, (2025), arXiv:2512.13780 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  61. [61]

    G. Peng, L. Rodina, A. Tokareva, and Y. Xu, Sampling the Graviton Pole and Deprojecting the Swampland, (2026), arXiv:2604.15235 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  62. [62]

    M. F. Paulos, J. Penedones, J. Toledo, B. C. van Rees, and P. Vieira, The S-matrix bootstrap. Part III: higher dimensional amplitudes, JHEP12, 040, arXiv:1708.06765 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  63. [63]

    Correia, A

    M. Correia, A. Sever, and A. Zhiboedov, An analytical toolkit for the S-matrix bootstrap, JHEP03, 013, arXiv:2006.08221 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  64. [64]

    A. L. Guerrieri, J. Penedones, and P. Vieira, S-matrix bootstrap for effective field theories: massless pions, JHEP06, 088, arXiv:2011.02802 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  65. [65]

    H. Chen, A. L. Fitzpatrick, and D. Karateev, Nonperturbative bounds on scattering of massive scalar particles in d≥2, JHEP12, 092, arXiv:2207.12448 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  66. [66]

    de Rham, A

    C. de Rham, A. J. Tolley, Z.-H. Wang, and S.-Y. Zhou, Unitary Dual-Resonance S-matrices, (2026), arXiv:2607.24922 [hep-th]. 31

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026