Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Circumnavigating Collinear Superspace

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Collinear superspace — the light-cone slice that keeps only half of N=1 supersymmetry manifest — can describe every four-dimensional N=1 supersymmetric Lagrangian, once auxiliary F- and D-term degrees of freedom are housed in exotic…

desk verdict Serious, genuinely new collinear-superspace construction of Wess-Zumino and gauge theories; the main caveat is that RPI-II for the coupled charged-matter action is checked much less explicitly than the rest. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00009 v3 pith:A2CGAKO7 submitted 2019-08-30 hep-th hep-ph

Timothy Cohen , Gilly Elor , Andrew J. Larkoski , Jesse Thaler This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thhep-ph PACS 11.30.Pb
keywords collinearsuperspaceN=1supersymmetryWess-Zuminomodelgaugetheoryauxiliaryfieldsreparametrizationinvariancelight-conesuperfields
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

Collinear superspace writes N=1 supersymmetric theories on a chosen light-cone slice, making only half the supercharges and three Lorentz directions manifest. This paper claims that the restriction costs nothing: with two fermionic auxiliary superfields and one real auxiliary vector superfield, every four-dimensional N=1 Lagrangian—Wess-Zumino models, Abelian and non-Abelian gauge theories, and gauge theories with charged chiral matter—can be reconstructed from purely infrared, collinear data. The new fields carry the F- and D-term auxiliary components that the $\tilde\eta=0$ truncation removes, and component-level reparametrization invariance restores the hidden half of Lorentz symmetry. If correct, the result completes a bottom-up effective field theory for N=1 supersymmetry in which SUSY is manifest even though half of superspace is not.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the collinear superspace expansion itself, together with three new superfields. The coordinate reduction $\theta^\alpha=\xi^\alpha\eta+\tilde\xi^\alpha\tilde\eta$, followed by the collinear slice $\tilde\eta=0$, packages only propagating polarizations into ordinary chiral superfields; the missing degrees of freedom reappear as higher Taylor coefficients in $\tilde\eta$. Specifically, $\tilde{U}$ and $C$ are (up to factors) $\tilde{D}\Phi_{\rm full}|_{\tilde\eta=0}$ and its descendants, while $V_{n\cdot A}$ is $\tilde{\bar{D}}\tilde{D}V^{\rm full}_{\rm WZ}|_{\tilde\eta=0}$. These objects carry the non-propagating $\tilde{u}$, $F$, $n\cdot A$, $\tilde\lambda$, and $D$ components. Because RPI-II is the reparametrization that rotates $\tilde\eta$, it cannot act on superfields after $\tilde\eta=0$, so it is imposed on component actions; this restores Lorentz invariance and forces the normalizations $n_K=n_V=1$ as well as the superpotential derivative structure.

What would settle it

Compute, from Eqs. (4.19) and (7.11), a one-loop scattering amplitude that involves a helicity flip after the auxiliary superfields $\tilde{U}$ and $V_{n\cdot A}$ are integrated out. If that amplitude depends on the chosen light-cone vectors $n$ and $\bar{n}$ after all RPI Ward identities are imposed, or disagrees with the standard N=1 superspace result, then component-level RPI-II is not sufficient to restore full Lorentz invariance. A simpler target is to find any RPI-I/III- and collinear-SUSY-invariant local operator whose component action is RPI-II invariant yet violates a Lorentz Ward identity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Working in collinear superspace, defined by setting $\tilde\eta=0$ in the expansion of the N=1 superspace coordinates, the paper constructs Lagrangians for the full range of N=1 interactions. For Wess-Zumino models it introduces a Grassmann-valued chiral superfield $\tilde{U}$ containing the opposite-helicity fermion and the F-term auxiliary field, together with an almost-chiral superfield $C$ satisfying $\bar{D}C=-i\sqrt{2}\,d_\perp^*\Phi$, whose shift under reparametrization invariance makes superpotential terms consistent. For gauge theories it introduces a real superfield $V_{n\cdot A}$ whose lowest component is the non-propagating light-cone component $n\cdot A$, and uses this superfield to build gauge-covariant derivatives $\tilde{\nabla}$, $\nabla_\perp$, and $\nabla_\perp^*$. The central claim is that these building blocks, with RPI-II imposed at the component level, reproduce the standard N=1 Lagrangians, including the derivative structure $W_j=\partial W/\partial\phi_j$ for superpotentials and the correct charged-matter kinetic terms. From the top down, the exotic superfields are exactly the $\tilde\eta$-derivatives of full N=1 superfields evaluated at $\tilde\eta=0$, which is why the truncation loses no information.

Load-bearing premise

The entire construction rests on assuming that imposing RPI-II on the component action is sufficient to restore full Lorentz invariance—and hence N=1 supersymmetry—after setting $\tilde\eta=0$, a step the paper verifies case by case rather than proving in general.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every standard N=1 matter and gauge interaction has a collinear superspace Lagrangian: Wess-Zumino models from $\Phi$, $\tilde{U}$, and $C$; Abelian and non-Abelian gauge kinetics from $\Phi_A$, $V_{n\cdot A}$, and $\tilde{U}_\lambda$; and charged matter from covariant derivatives $\tilde\nabla$, $\nabla_\perp$, $\nabla_\perp^*$ together with covariant auxiliary superfields.
  • Superpotential couplings must descend from a single holomorphic function $W$ through $W_j=\partial W/\partial\phi_j$; this is enforced by RPI-II together with chirality and RPI-I, matching the familiar structure of full N=1 superspace.
  • Working in Wess-Zumino gauge and light-cone gauge simultaneously keeps collinear SUSY and residual gauge symmetry manifest, so gauge fixing does not obscure supersymmetry.
  • Top-down, the exotic superfields are exactly the $\tilde\eta$ derivatives of the full N=1 superfields before truncation, so the collinear slice stores no less information than full superspace; the same logic is proposed as a route to N>1 theories.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that the dictionary 'exotic superfield equals a $\tilde\eta$-derivative of the full superfield' is a general expansion formula; if so, any N=1 superfield is recoverable from its $\tilde\eta$ Taylor coefficients, and the same procedure could build collinear superspace descriptions for N>1 theories by choosing which supercharges remain manifest.
  • The paper leaves implicit that the auxiliary multiplets give a clean separation of propagating and non-propagating modes; a natural test is to use $\tilde{U}$, $C$, and $V_{n\cdot A}$ to construct constrained superfields for spontaneously broken SUSY, where F- and D-term expectation values are explicit.
  • The paper leaves implicit that the gauge-covariant derivatives make Wilson lines trivial in Wess-Zumino and light-cone gauge, which suggests a clean effective-field-theory organization of supersymmetric matter-gauge interactions for collider observables.
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

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper extends the collinear superspace formalism to include non-trivial F- and D-term auxiliary fields, with the aim of reproducing all known N=1 theories in four dimensions. For Wess-Zumino models, it introduces a fermionic auxiliary chiral superfield U-tilde and an 'almost chiral' superfield C; for gauge theories, it introduces a real auxiliary superfield V_{n·A} and covariant versions of U-tilde. The constructions are presented both bottom-up from symmetry principles and top-down by reducing full N=1 superspace, with explicit component expansions for the Wess-Zumino model, Abelian gauge theory, and Abelian gauge theory coupled to charged matter. The paper concludes that collinear superspace can describe the full range of N=1 interactions from purely infrared considerations.

Significance. If the construction is correct, the paper provides a valuable bridge between light-cone/collinear superspace and full N=1 superspace, introducing genuinely new superfield structures and showing how RPI-II invariance reproduces familiar constraints such as the derivative structure of the superpotential and the normalization of kinetic terms. The explicit top-down cross-checks and component expansions make the Wess-Zumino and pure gauge sectors credible, and the parallel treatment of F- and D-term breaking is elegant. However, the strongest claim depends on unverified RPI-II invariance for the charged-matter Lagrangian and on top-down input for general Kähler potentials and for the covariant auxiliary field U-tilde^{cov}, so the breadth of the central claim currently exceeds what is demonstrated in the manuscript.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 7.5, Eq. (7.11)] The RPI-II invariance of the charged-matter Lagrangian is not demonstrated. The top-down derivation is summarized as 'Carrying out the \bar{\tilde{D}} and \tilde{D} derivatives... we find Eq. (7.22)' without the intermediate algebra, and the component expressions in Eqs. (7.27) and (7.28) omit terms with ellipses, precisely the terms needed to check the RPI-II variation. Since the central claim—that collinear superspace reproduces the full N=1 dynamics for gauge theories with charged chiral matter—rests on RPI-II being satisfied by this Lagrangian, this verification is load-bearing and should be supplied in full.
  2. [Sec. 7.2, Eq. (7.6)] The construction of \tilde{U}^{cov}_M is not derived from the bottom-up EFT rules; the text states that 'We are unaware of a simple bottom-up argument that yields this expression beyond simply checking the components directly.' This is a gap in the paper's own stated program of constructing all N=1 theories from purely infrared considerations, because the central gauge-matter Lagrangian relies on this field. The revision should either provide a bottom-up derivation or explicitly qualify the scope of the bottom-up claim.
  3. [Sec. 4.7, Eq. (4.29)] General Kähler potentials are only obtained from the top down; the text concedes that 'it is challenging to find valid Kähler potential interactions from the bottom up.' This undercuts the abstract's unqualified claim that all N=1 theories can be constructed 'from purely infrared considerations' for the Wess-Zumino class. At minimum, the scope of the bottom-up claim should be stated precisely, and the role of top-down input should be acknowledged in the abstract or introduction.
  4. [Sec. 2.5] The sufficiency of RPI-II invariance at the component level as a guarantee of full Lorentz invariance (and hence N=1 SUSY) is assumed rather than proved. The paper verifies this case-by-case for free chiral matter, the Wess-Zumino model, and pure gauge theory, but no general argument is given. Since RPI-II is the bridge between collinear superspace and the full Lorentz-invariant theory, a general proof or a precise statement of its status as an assumption is needed.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.5, Eq. (4.23)] In the displayed example for W = \lambda \phi_1 \phi_2 \phi_3, the term written as C_2 \Phi_1 \Phi_2 should be C_2 \Phi_1 \Phi_3; as printed, the three terms are not the three derivatives of W.
  2. [Sec. 8] The sentence referring to 'the auxiliary superfields C^{cov}_M and \tilde{U}^{cov}_\lambda' likely should refer to \tilde{U}^{cov}_M; the subscript \lambda appears to be a typo in this summary of the charged-matter construction.
  3. [Sec. 2.3] The sentence 'Following Ref. [1], we will working with x^\mu' contains a grammatical typo; it should read 'we will work with x^\mu'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: bottom-up symmetry construction is independent; top-down matching is a cross-check; self-citations are to prior formal results.

full rationale

The paper's central constructions are bottom-up. The new superfields U-tilde, C, and V_{n.A} are introduced in Secs. 3 and 5 from component-level collinear SUSY, RPI-I/RPI-III, gauge, and mass-dimension requirements, with explicit transformation rules in Tables 2-5. The Wess-Zumino Lagrangian (Eq. 4.12) and Abelian gauge kinetic term (Eq. 6.3) are derived from these symmetry rules, with RPI-II fixing normalizations such as n_K=1 and n_V=1 by requiring cancellation of non-invariant component terms. The top-down sections (3.4, 4.6, 4.7, 5.5, 6.3, 7.4, 7.5) start from the known full N=1 superfield expressions and reduce them to collinear superspace; they therefore act as cross-checks or matching relations, not as inputs that force the bottom-up Lagrangians by definition. Self-citations to the companion paper [1] supply notation, the collinear chiral multiplet form, and some RPI facts, but these are parameter-free formal results that are also re-derived or explicitly argued here, such as the RPI-II incompatibility explained in Sec. 2.5. There is no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness claim is imported solely from the authors' prior work. The main limitations are completeness concerns rather than circularity: Sec. 7.2 explicitly states 'We are unaware of a simple bottom-up argument that yields this expression beyond simply checking the components directly,' showing that the covariant auxiliary superfield for charged matter is partly obtained top-down; and the RPI-II invariance of the full charged-matter Lagrangian (Eq. 7.11) is not explicitly exhibited at component level in Sec. 7.6. These weaken the claim that all N=1 theories are constructed purely from infrared EFT rules, but they do not make the derivation circular: the objects are given explicit definitions and then verified, not defined as whatever reproduces the target N=1 theory. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input by construction, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The central claim rests on three domain assumptions about the collinear superspace program and on the correctness of standard N=1 superspace as a benchmark. The new superfields are derived constructions with component-level evidence, not unconstrained postulates.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption RPI-II invariance at component level implies full Lorentz invariance and N=1 SUSY.
    Invoked in Sec. 2.5 and used throughout to enforce kinetic normalizations and superpotential structure; not proven in general.
  • domain assumption Wess-Zumino and light-cone gauges can be imposed simultaneously while preserving collinear SUSY.
    Central to the gauge theory construction in Sec. 5.1.
  • domain assumption The truncation to eta-tilde=0 with RPI completeness is equivalent to the full N=1 theory.
    Working assumption of the collinear superspace program established in Ref [1] and used here.
  • standard math Standard N=1 superspace component expansions are correct.
    Used as the benchmark for top-down matching in Secs. 3.4, 4.6, 4.7, 5.5, 6.3, 7.5.
invented entities (3)
  • U-tilde (fermionic auxiliary chiral superfield) independent evidence
    purpose: Packages the opposite-helicity fermion and the F-term auxiliary field into a collinear SUSY multiplet for matter.
    Its component expansion matches the known F-term content of a full N=1 chiral multiplet, and it is derived from tilde-D derivatives of the full superfield in Sec. 3.4.
  • C (almost chiral superfield) independent evidence
    purpose: Encodes the same degrees of freedom as U-tilde but with a simpler RPI-II structure, enabling superpotential terms.
    It satisfies the derived almost-chiral constraint bar-D C = -i sqrt(2) d*_perp Phi and is constructed as (1/sqrt(2))(tilde-D Phi_full)|_{eta-tilde=0}.
  • V_{n·A} (auxiliary real superfield) independent evidence
    purpose: Packages the gauge potential n·A, opposite-helicity gaugino, and D-term into a real multiplet to build gauge-covariant derivatives.
    It matches the non-propagating components of the full N=1 vector superfield in WZG and LCG, derived in Sec. 5.5.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Circumnavigating Collinear Superspace." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A2CGAKO7

@misc{pith2026190900009,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Circumnavigating Collinear Superspace},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A2CGAKO7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00009}
}
abstract

In this paper, we extend the collinear superspace formalism to include the full range of $\mathcal{N} = 1$ supersymmetric interactions. Building on the effective field theory rules developed in a companion paper - "Navigating Collinear Superspace" - we construct collinear superspace Lagrangians for theories with non-trivial $F$- and $D$-term auxiliary fields. For (massless) Wess-Zumino models, the key ingredient is a novel type of Grassmann-valued supermultiplet whose lowest component is a (non-propagating) fermionic degree of freedom. For gauge theories coupled to charged chiral matter, the key ingredient is a novel type of vector superfield whose lowest component is a non-propagating gauge potential. This unique vector superfield is used to construct a gauge-covariant derivative; while such an object does not appear in the standard full superspace formalism, it is crucial for modeling gauge interactions when the theory is expressed on a collinear slice. This brings us full circle, by showing that all types of $\mathcal{N} = 1$ theories in four dimensions can be constructed in collinear superspace from purely infrared considerations. We speculate that supersymmetric theories with $\mathcal{N} > 1$ could also be implemented using similar collinear superspace constructions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. geoSCET: Soft Theorems from Power Counting

    hep-th 2026-07 accept novelty 8.0 of 10

    geoSCET derives geometric soft theorems for scalar field theories directly from effective-field-theory power counting and proves they are exact to all orders in perturbation theory when no potential is present.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Navigating Collinear Superspace,

    T. Cohen, G. Elor, A. J. Larkoski, and J. Thaler, “Navigating Collinear Superspace,” arXiv:1810.11032 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  2. [2]

    Monopoles, duality and chiral symmetry breaking in N=2 supersymmetric QCD,

    N. Seiberg and E. Witten, “Monopoles, duality and chiral symmetry breaking in N=2 supersymmetric QCD,” Nucl. Phys. B431 (1994) 484–550, arXiv:hep-th/9408099 [hep-th]

    arXiv 1994

  3. [3]

    Electric - magnetic duality, monopole condensation, and confinement in N=2 supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory,

    N. Seiberg and E. Witten, “Electric - magnetic duality, monopole condensation, and confinement in N=2 supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory,” Nucl. Phys. B426 (1994) 19–52, arXiv:hep-th/9407087 [hep-th]

    arXiv 1994

  4. [4]

    Electric - magnetic duality in supersymmetric nonAbelian gauge theories,

    N. Seiberg, “Electric - magnetic duality in supersymmetric nonAbelian gauge theories,” Nucl. Phys. B435 (1995) 129–146, arXiv:hep-th/9411149 [hep-th]

    arXiv 1995

  5. [5]

    The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,

    J. M. Maldacena, “The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,” Int. J. Theor. Phys. 38 (1999) 1113–1133, arXiv:hep-th/9711200 [hep-th]

    arXiv 1999

  6. [6]

    Generating Tree Amplitudes in N=4 SYM and N = 8 SG,

    M. Bianchi, H. Elvang, and D. Z. Freedman, “Generating Tree Amplitudes in N=4 SYM and N = 8 SG,” JHEP 09 (2008) 063, arXiv:0805.0757 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2008

  7. [7]

    From Linear SUSY to Constrained Superfields,

    Z. Komargodski and N. Seiberg, “From Linear SUSY to Constrained Superfields,” JHEP 09 (2009) 066, arXiv:0907.2441 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2009

  8. [8]

    Rigid Supersymmetric Theories in Curved Superspace,

    G. Festuccia and N. Seiberg, “Rigid Supersymmetric Theories in Curved Superspace,” JHEP 06 (2011) 114, arXiv:1105.0689 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2011

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    The goldstone and goldstino of supersymmetric inflation,

    Y. Kahn, D. A. Roberts, and J. Thaler, “The goldstone and goldstino of supersymmetric inflation,” JHEP 10 (2015) 001, arXiv:1504.05958 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Cosmology with orthogonal nilpotent superfields,

    S. Ferrara, R. Kallosh, and J. Thaler, “Cosmology with orthogonal nilpotent superfields,” Phys. Rev. D93 (2016) no. 4, 043516, arXiv:1512.00545 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  3. [11]

    On the origin of constrained superfields,

    G. Dall’Agata, E. Dudas, and F. Farakos, “On the origin of constrained superfields,” arXiv:1603.03416 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  4. [12]

    The Supersymmetric Effective Field Theory of Inflation,

    L. V. Delacretaz, V. Gorbenko, and L. Senatore, “The Supersymmetric Effective Field Theory of Inflation,” JHEP 03 (2017) 063, arXiv:1610.04227 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Localization of gauge theory on a four-sphere and supersymmetric Wilson loops,

    V. Pestun, “Localization of gauge theory on a four-sphere and supersymmetric Wilson loops,” Commun. Math. Phys. 313 (2012) 71–129, arXiv:0712.2824 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Wilson loops in N=4 supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory,

    J. K. Erickson, G. W. Semenoff, and K. Zarembo, “Wilson loops in N=4 supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory,” Nucl. Phys. B582 (2000) 155–175, arXiv:hep-th/0003055 [hep-th] . – 55 –

    2000 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Supergauge Transformations,

    A. Salam and J. A. Strathdee, “Supergauge Transformations,” Nucl. Phys. B76 (1974) 477–482

    1974

  8. [16]

    Supergauge Multiplets and Superfields,

    S. Ferrara, J. Wess, and B. Zumino, “Supergauge Multiplets and Superfields,” Phys. Lett. 51B (1974) 239

    1974

  9. [17]

    Light Cone Superspace and the Ultraviolet Finiteness of the N=4 Model,

    S. Mandelstam, “Light Cone Superspace and the Ultraviolet Finiteness of the N=4 Model,” Nucl. Phys. B213 (1983) 149–168

    1983

  10. [18]

    N=4 Yang-Mills Theory on the Light Cone,

    L. Brink, O. Lindgren, and B. E. W. Nilsson, “N=4 Yang-Mills Theory on the Light Cone,” Nucl. Phys. B212 (1983) 401

    1983

  11. [19]

    The Ultraviolet Finiteness of the N=4 Yang-Mills Theory,

    L. Brink, O. Lindgren, and B. E. W. Nilsson, “The Ultraviolet Finiteness of the N=4 Yang-Mills Theory,” Phys. Lett. 123B (1983) 323–328

    1983

  12. [20]

    Light cone supersymmetry and d-branes,

    M. B. Green and M. Gutperle, “Light cone supersymmetry and d-branes,” Nucl. Phys. B476 (1996) 484–514, arXiv:hep-th/9604091 [hep-th]

    1996 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Quantum integrability in superYang-Mills theory on the light cone,

    A. V. Belitsky, S. E. Derkachov, G. P. Korchemsky, and A. N. Manashov, “Quantum integrability in superYang-Mills theory on the light cone,” Phys. Lett. B594 (2004) 385–401, arXiv:hep-th/0403085 [hep-th]

    2004 arXiv

  14. [22]

    N=8 Supergravity on the Light Cone,

    R. Kallosh, “N=8 Supergravity on the Light Cone,” Phys. Rev. D80 (2009) 105022, arXiv:0903.4630 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Light-Cone Superspace BPS Theory,

    P. Hearin, “Light-Cone Superspace BPS Theory,” Nucl. Phys. B846 (2011) 226–249, arXiv:1008.3877 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Still in Light-Cone Superspace,

    P. Ramond, “Still in Light-Cone Superspace,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A25 (2010) 367–380, arXiv:0910.1993 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Collinear Superspace,

    T. Cohen, G. Elor, and A. J. Larkoski, “Collinear Superspace,” Phys. Rev. D93 (2016) no. 12, 125013, arXiv:1603.09346 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Soft-Collinear Supersymmetry,

    T. Cohen, G. Elor, and A. J. Larkoski, “Soft-Collinear Supersymmetry,” JHEP 03 (2017) 017, arXiv:1609.04430 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Superprojectors,

    W. Siegel and S. J. Gates, Jr., “Superprojectors,” Nucl. Phys. B189 (1981) 295–316

    1981

  20. [28]

    Quantum Superspace,

    L. Brink and J. H. Schwarz, “Quantum Superspace,” Phys. Lett. 100B (1981) 310–312

    1981

  21. [29]

    The Reduction of N = 1 Supersymmetric Yang-Mills Theory to the Light Cone Gauge,

    Y. Hassoun, A. Restuccia, and J. G. Taylor, “The Reduction of N = 1 Supersymmetric Yang-Mills Theory to the Light Cone Gauge,” Phys. Lett. 124B (1983) 197–200

    1983

  22. [30]

    Two-component spinor techniques and Feynman rules for quantum field theory and supersymmetry,

    H. K. Dreiner, H. E. Haber, and S. P. Martin, “Two-component spinor techniques and Feynman rules for quantum field theory and supersymmetry,” Phys. Rept. 494 (2010) 1–196, arXiv:0812.1594 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Reparameterization invariance for collinear operators,

    A. V. Manohar, T. Mehen, D. Pirjol, and I. W. Stewart, “Reparameterization invariance for collinear operators,” Phys. Lett. B539 (2002) 59–66, arXiv:hep-ph/0204229 [hep-ph] . – 56 –

    2002 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Introduction to Soft-Collinear Effective Theory,

    T. Becher, A. Broggio, and A. Ferroglia, “Introduction to Soft-Collinear Effective Theory,” Lect. Notes Phys. 896 (2015) pp.1–206, arXiv:1410.1892 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  25. [33]

    As Scales Become Separated: Lectures on Effective Field Theory,

    T. Cohen, “As Scales Become Separated: Lectures on Effective Field Theory,” PoS TASI2018 (2019) 011, arXiv:1903.03622 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Quantum Electrodynamics in the Infinite Momentum Frame,

    J. B. Kogut and D. E. Soper, “Quantum Electrodynamics in the Infinite Momentum Frame,” Phys. Rev. D1 (1970) 2901–2913

    1970

  27. [35]

    On-shell and Conformal N = 4 Supergravity in Superspace,

    S. J. Gates, Jr., “On-shell and Conformal N = 4 Supergravity in Superspace,” Nucl. Phys. B213 (1983) 409–444

    1983

  28. [36]

    The On-shell N=8 Supergravity in Superspace,

    L. Brink, “The On-shell N=8 Supergravity in Superspace,” in Proceedings for Unification of the Fundamental Particle Interactions , p. 157. 1980

    1980

  29. [37]

    Scattering Amplitudes,

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

    arXiv

  30. [38]

    Binetruy, Supersymmetry: Theory, experiment and cosmology

    P. Binetruy, Supersymmetry: Theory, experiment and cosmology . Oxford University Press, 2006

    2006

  31. [39]

    The Light Cone Gauge in Yang-Mills Theory,

    G. Leibbrandt, “The Light Cone Gauge in Yang-Mills Theory,” Phys. Rev. D29 (1984) 1699

    1984

  32. [40]

    Super-Tricks for Superspace,

    D. Bertolini, J. Thaler, and Z. Thomas, “Super-Tricks for Superspace,” pp. 421–496. 2013. arXiv:1302.6229 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  33. [41]

    All Possible Generators of Supersymmetries of the S-Matrix,

    R. Haag, J. T. Lopuszanski, and M. Sohnius, “All Possible Generators of Supersymmetries of the S-Matrix,” Nucl. Phys. B88 (1975) 257

    1975

  34. [42]

    Introduction to Noncovariant Gauges,

    G. Leibbrandt, “Introduction to Noncovariant Gauges,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 59 (1987) 1067

    1987

  35. [43]

    Transformation Properties of the Supercurrent,

    S. Ferrara and B. Zumino, “Transformation Properties of the Supercurrent,” Nucl. Phys. B87 (1975) 207

    1975

  36. [44]

    Aspects of supersymmetry and its breaking,

    T. T. Dumitrescu and Z. Komargodski, “Aspects of supersymmetry and its breaking,” Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 216 (2011) 44–68

    2011

  37. [45]

    Spontaneously Broken Supergauge Symmetries and Goldstone Spinors,

    P. Fayet and J. Iliopoulos, “Spontaneously Broken Supergauge Symmetries and Goldstone Spinors,” Phys.Lett. B51 (1974) 461–464

    1974

  38. [46]

    Lectures on the Infrared Structure of Gravity and Gauge Theory,

    A. Strominger, “Lectures on the Infrared Structure of Gravity and Gauge Theory,” arXiv:1703.05448 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  39. [47]

    Soft Theorems from Effective Field Theory,

    A. J. Larkoski, D. Neill, and I. W. Stewart, “Soft Theorems from Effective Field Theory,” JHEP 06 (2015) 077, arXiv:1412.3108 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  40. [48]

    An Effective field theory for collinear and soft gluons: Heavy to light decays,

    C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, D. Pirjol, and I. W. Stewart, “An Effective field theory for collinear and soft gluons: Heavy to light decays,” Phys. Rev. D63 (2001) 114020, arXiv:hep-ph/0011336 [hep-ph]

    2001 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Invariant operators in collinear effective theory,

    C. W. Bauer and I. W. Stewart, “Invariant operators in collinear effective theory,” Phys. Lett. B516 (2001) 134–142, arXiv:hep-ph/0107001 [hep-ph] . – 57 –

    2001 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Soft collinear factorization in effective field theory,

    C. W. Bauer, D. Pirjol, and I. W. Stewart, “Soft collinear factorization in effective field theory,” Phys. Rev. D65 (2002) 054022, arXiv:hep-ph/0109045 [hep-ph]

    2002 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Hard scattering factorization from effective field theory,

    C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, D. Pirjol, I. Z. Rothstein, and I. W. Stewart, “Hard scattering factorization from effective field theory,” Phys. Rev. D66 (2002) 014017, arXiv:hep-ph/0202088 [hep-ph]

    2002 arXiv

  44. [52]

    An Effective Field Theory for Forward Scattering and Factorization Violation,

    I. Z. Rothstein and I. W. Stewart, “An Effective Field Theory for Forward Scattering and Factorization Violation,” JHEP 08 (2016) 025, arXiv:1601.04695 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Perturbation Theory in Supersymmetric QED: Infrared Divergences and Gauge Invariance,

    M. Dine, P. Draper, H. E. Haber, and L. Stephenson Haskins, “Perturbation Theory in Supersymmetric QED: Infrared Divergences and Gauge Invariance,” Phys. Rev. D94 (2016) no. 9, 095003, arXiv:1607.06995 [hep-th] . – 58 –

    2016 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.