Higher-Spin and Higher-Point Constraints on Stringy Amplitudes

Georgina Staudt; Grant N. Remmen; Ivano Basile

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Higher-Spin and Higher-Point Constraints on Stringy Amplitudes

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Demanding factorization through the second excited level forces the Koba-Nielsen intercept to the bosonic string value α0=−1, and a subleading multipositivity bound forbids the simplest four-point string deformation.

desk verdict Level-two factorization pins α0 = −1 for minimal degeneracy and the subleading multipositivity bound kills the symmetric part of the f̃4 satellite, but the unique-family classification in Sec. IIB still rests on an unproven N>7 conjecture. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.04485 v2 pith:BB3SWLT6 submitted 2026-03-04 hep-th hep-ph

Ivano Basile , Grant N. Remmen , Georgina Staudt This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-thhep-ph

keywords stringamplitudesKoba-NielsenfactorizationReggeinterceptmultipositivityboundshigher-spinstatessatellitedeformationssoftkinematics

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

The paper tries to show that simple self-consistency conditions—factorization into three-point vertices with real couplings, plus a mild spectral assumption—uniquely select the ordinary bosonic string among Koba-Nielsen-type amplitudes. Carrying factorization through mass level n=2 and up to seven external particles, the authors find that the Regge intercept must be α0=−1, exactly the bosonic string value, and that the low-lying three-point couplings are uniquely fixed. The same machinery constrains arbitrary deformations of the worldsheet integrand, leaving a single family of residues consistent with minimal degeneracy, with spacetime dimension constrained by the intercept. For massless superstring scattering, where degeneracy is unavoidable, the paper derives large-level positivity bounds in a soft limit and uses them to show that the simplest factorizable satellite deformation cannot shift the four-point amplitude at all.

What carries the argument

The central object is the half-ladder family of factorization residues, expressed in positive y-variables so that residues are read off by taking y→0 limits. The load-bearing identity is the six-point mismatch formula ∂X2,4∂X2,6(Rλ222−RKN222)=α0(1+α0)/(2(2+α0)), which vanishes only for α0=0 or −1. For the massless analysis, the key mechanism is a saddle-point evaluation of the soft N-point residue at large mass level n, yielding the universal leading form RN,n∼RKN N,n P4* and a first-subleading correction involving P_N and its derivatives; the subleading correction feeds into the 2×2 principal minors of the multipositivity Hankel matrix, producing the inequality (1+z)(2P_N+1(2)−P_N(2)−P_N+2(

What would settle it

Find a real solution of the minimal-degeneracy factorization equations at six and seven points with α0=0. If such a solution exists, the reported nonzero kinematic expression in the six-point mismatch (Eq. 9) would be evaded, and the claim that α0=−1 is uniquely forced would be false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that multiparticle factorization, together with minimal degeneracy (at most one intermediate state of each spin at each mass level through n=2), completely fixes the Regge intercept of Koba-Nielsen amplitudes to α0=−1. This is proven by matching the four- and five-point residues to the three-point ansatz and then evaluating the six-point mismatch, whose kinematic derivative is exactly α0(1+α0)/(2(2+α0)); factorization forces this to vanish, ruling out all intercepts except 0 and −1, and α0=0 is then excluded by a nonvanishing kinematic expression in any dimension. For massless external states with arbitrary degeneracy, the paper computes the leading and first

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion that the intercept must be −1 rests on assuming minimal degeneracy—at most one intermediate state of each spin at each mass level through n=2—which the superstring itself does not satisfy at level two.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Any Koba-Nielsen amplitude with minimal degeneracy through level two and unitarity-consistent factorization is forced to have intercept α0=−1, the bosonic string value; the superstring and Z-theory, with α0=0, must therefore have degenerate spectra at n=2.
The unique real assignment of three-point couplings through level two shows that the low-lying bosonic string couplings are determined by S-matrix consistency, not just by the worldsheet construction.
The subleading multipositivity bound implies the symmetric part of the simplest four-point satellite deformation vanishes identically, so unitarity alone removes that deformation from the space of allowed string amplitudes.
The large-level saddle-point method converts consistency constraints on the infinite tower of higher-spin states into ordinary inequalities on the deformation function and its derivatives, making the entire tower active in bounding any deformation.

Reading between the lines

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

Inference — The same level-by-level factorization logic, if pushed to higher n, likely rules out any minimal-degeneracy Koba-Nielsen deformation with intercept different from −1, so the α0=−1 result may extend to arbitrary mass level rather than stopping at level two.
Inference — If the unique residue family found through N=7 extends to all multiplicities, it would constitute a new unitarity-consistent minimal-degeneracy deformation of the bosonic string; if it fails at N=8, that failure would be an even sharper rigidity statement than the paper's.
Inference — The subleading bound should also constrain the odd part of the four-point deformation once higher-N data are included, potentially forbidding all four-point deformations entirely rather than only the symmetric part.
Inference — The same soft-limit multipositivity technology could be adapted to closed-string (Virasoro-Shapiro) amplitudes, where the u-variables are more complicated but the saddle-point structure is likely similar.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two results here are worth knowing. First, imposing consistent factorization through level 2 on Koba-Nielsen amplitudes with minimal degeneracy pins the Regge intercept to α0 = −1, the bosonic string value. The six-point mismatch in Eq. (8) is explicit: it vanishes only for α0 = 0 or −1, and α0 = 0 is killed by the displayed six-point residue difference in Eq. (9). That is a clean step beyond Ref. [28], which stopped at level 1 and only got α0 ≥ −1. Second, the subleading saddle-point multipositivity bound (Eq. (29)) applied to the Gross f̃4 satellite gives a neat argument: the bound reduces to w w'' + (w')^2 ≤ 0, and since the integral of (w w')' vanishes with the endpoint conditions, the inequality must be saturated, forcing w = 2 and hence f̃+(x) = 0. So the four-point superstring amplitude cannot be deformed by this satellite. That is a solid result, conditional on the residues being computed correctly. Where are the soft spots? The classification in Sec. IIB is not yet complete. The footnote concedes that at seven points one coupling, λ_{2,2}^{0,1;0}, remains free; the 'single family' conclusion depends on the conjecture that N > 7 factorization fixes it. Without that, the deformation space is a one-parameter family. That is an honest gap, and the α0 = −1 result does not depend on it. The residue algebra lives in supplemental files, so the manuscript alone is not enough to fully verify the coupling tables. That is a practical referee issue, not an indication of error. Also, the minimal-degeneracy assumption excludes the superstring at level 2 — the paper says so explicitly — so the α0 = −1 result should be read as a statement about spectra with minimal degeneracy, not a universal no-go. The massless-section bound assumes P4* never vanishes, a small caveat that probably should not overturn the conclusion. Who is this for? People working on the S-matrix bootstrap program and on rigidity of string amplitudes. It advances the program and, unusually, reports its own limitation clearly. I would send it to a serious referee. The referee should get the supplemental files and check the key residues. If those check out, the paper deserves publication.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the rigidity of tree-level open-string amplitudes. In the first part, assuming minimal degeneracy of same-spin states up to mass level n=2, it uses four-, five-, and six-point factorization of Koba-Nielsen residues to argue that the Regge intercept must be α0=−1 (Eqs. (8)-(9)), matching the bosonic string. It then attempts to classify general worldsheet deformations PN(u) under factorization up to multiplicity N=7, finding the bosonic string and a single family of solutions constrained by Eq. (11). In the second part, for massless external states and arbitrary spectral degeneracy, it derives large-n saddle-point expressions and a subleading multipositivity bound (Eq. (29)), which is applied to the Gross f4 satellite deformation to conclude that its even part f+ must vanish, so that no such four-point deformation is allowed.

Significance. If the computations are correct, the paper provides a concrete factorization-based derivation of α0=−1 under a stated spectral assumption, and a new positivity argument that rules out a classic satellite deformation. The paper is unusually transparent about its limitations: it explicitly notes that the minimal-degeneracy assumption excludes actual superstring spectra at level n=2, and it flags the conjectural part of its deformation classification. These are honest scope statements, not hidden assumptions. The main results are conditional on residue algebra that is largely relegated to supplemental files, and on one explicit conjecture for N>7 factorization. The paper therefore contains publishable ideas, but the full strength of the advertised rigidity is not yet established in the manuscript as written.

major comments (2)

[Sec. IIB, footnote 4] The 'single family' conclusion is load-bearing for the paper's rigidity narrative, but the footnote concedes that at N=7 the residues still depend on the coupling λ_{2,2}^{0,1;0} and that fixing it requires an unproven conjecture about N>7 factorization. Without a proof, the deformation space is not yet a single family but a one-parameter family. Please either prove the conjecture (even for one higher multiplicity) or revise the abstract and Sec. IIB to state that the classification holds only modulo this conjecture.
[Secs. IIA-IIB, Eqs. (8)-(9)] The central results—the mismatch in Eq. (8), the exclusion of α0=0 in Eq. (9), the λ-coupling tables, and the seven-point PN(u) classification—are delegated to supplemental files. As the manuscript text contains only the final results, the reader cannot verify the main computations. Please include the residue algebra in an appendix (or at least a substantial sample of the higher-point residues) so that the factorization matching can be checked, or provide the supplemental file with the full derivations and make its location explicit.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract and Sec. IIA] The abstract states that α0 is fixed 'using seven-point factorization', but the explicit derivation in Sec. IIA uses four-, five-, and six-point residues, with Eq. (8) being a six-point condition. Please reconcile the wording.
[Sec. IIIC, Eq. (32)] The definition f+(x)=log(√2 + w(x)/2)/(x(1−x)) appears inconsistent with the stated P4(x,1−x)=(2+w(x))^2/16 and the normalization w(0)=w(1)=2. The natural definition giving that P4 is f+(x)=log((2+w(x))/4)/(x(1−x)). Please check and correct.
[Sec. IIIC, Eq. (33)] The reduction of the multipositivity bound (29) to the differential inequality ww''+(w')^2≤0 is stated without intermediate steps. Since this is the key step in excluding the f4 deformation, please include the algebra or an appendix derivation.
[Sec. IIB, Eq. (11)] The sentence 'the requirement of integer dimension means that Eq. (11) reduces this deformation to a discrete family' would be clearer if the allowed range of D (or α0) were spelled out, given the unitarity window −1≤α0<2/3.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the intercept is solved from factorization and the satellite exclusion is a new subleading positivity argument; the unproven N>7 step is a gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain, I find no step where the output is defined from, or fitted to, the same quantity it is used to predict. The α0=−1 result begins with a free intercept in Eq. (2), a general λ ansatz, matching of four- and five-point residues, and then the requirement that the six-point mismatch vanish: lim ∂X2,4∂X2,6(Rλ222−RKN222)=α0(1+α0)/(2(2+α0)) (Eq. (8)). This is a constraint-solve, not a fit; α0=0 is then excluded by the explicit expression in Eq. (9) and α0=−2 by an imaginary coupling. The minimal-degeneracy assumption is an external restriction and the paper explicitly notes it is not satisfied by the superstring at level 2, so it restricts the theorem rather than importing the bosonic intercept. The massless section relies on the multipositivity framework of Ref. [29], by an overlapping author. That is self-citation, but it is independent support: Ref. [29] derives the Hankel positivity condition from reality of three-point couplings/unitarity for arbitrary degeneracy, and the new subleading computation here (Eq. (29)) plus the saturation argument on w(x)w″(x)+(w′(x))²≤0 does the work of excluding f~+. This is not a restatement of the input. The only real weakness is non-circular: in Sec. IIB the footnote concedes that at seven points the residues depend on λ0,1;0_{2,2}, but the authors conjecture that imposing factorization on the N>7 amplitudes will fix this coupling as well. The single-family classification is therefore not fully closed unless that conjecture is proven, but the α0=−1 result does not depend on it. No fitted-data, definitional, or uniqueness-by-self-citation reduction is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or mediators are introduced; the 'higher-spin tower' and 'satellite deformations' are existing structures. The main external inputs are the minimal-degeneracy restriction, the factorization-equivalence assumption, and the multipositivity framework from prior work.

free parameters (2)

Regge intercept α0 = −1 (derived from factorization)
Introduced as an arbitrary parameter in the Koba-Nielsen amplitude (Eq. (2)); the central result is that minimal-degeneracy factorization forces α0=−1, so it is a constrained parameter rather than a fitted one.
λ^{0,1;0}_{2,2} (seven-point deformation-family coupling) = unfixed; conjectured to be fixed by N>7 factorization
In Sec. IIB footnote 4, the authors state that seven-point residues of the 'unique family' depend on this coupling and conjecture that higher-multiplicity factorization fixes it. Until then the family has one free parameter.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Minimal degeneracy through level n=2
At most one state at each spin ≤ n at mass levels n≤2; defines the theory space for the α0=−1 result. The superstring and Z-theory have degeneracy at n=2, so the conclusion does not apply to them.
domain assumption Factorization into three-point amplitudes with real λ couplings is equivalent to tree-level unitarity
The central matching criterion (Sec. II) is borrowed from Ref. [28]: residues must be reproducible from real three-point couplings. No independent proof is given in this paper.
domain assumption Multipositivity Hankel conditions (Eq. (13)) are valid unitarity constraints
Used in Sec. III as the basis for the large-level bounds; established in Ref. [29] by overlapping authors and assumed here.
domain assumption The deformation factor satisfies massless factorization PN(u*)=P4*
Required for the saddle-point residue formula (Eqs. (23)-(24)); the paper states this holds for the satellite theories of Refs. [12,28].
standard math Validity of saddle-point/steepest descent for arbitrary PN(u)
Used to derive Eqs. (23)-(29) for n≫1 with z=t/n fixed; no explicit error bounds or analyticity conditions for general PN are given.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Higher-Spin and Higher-Point Constraints on Stringy Amplitudes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BB3SWLT6

@misc{pith2026260304485,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Higher-Spin and Higher-Point Constraints on Stringy Amplitudes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BB3SWLT6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.04485}
}

read the original abstract

We employ multiparticle factorization to constrain deformations of tree-level open string amplitudes. Assuming minimal degeneracy among intermediate states of the same spin up through the second excited level, we find that the Regge intercept among all amplitudes of the Koba-Nielsen type can be uniquely fixed using seven-point factorization, precisely matching the bosonic string. Moreover, we produce novel constraints on deformations of the worldsheet integrand. We then turn to deformations of superstrings, with massless external states and arbitrary spectral degeneracy, using soft kinematics. Accounting for the infinite tower of higher-spin resonances, we obtain novel multipositivity bounds to leading and subleading order in the large-level limit. We apply these bounds to the simplest factorizable satellite deformation in the family of amplitudes found by Gross, showing that any deformation of four-point string amplitudes of this type is forbidden by unitarity. Our results reinforce the folklore that the higher-spin tower of string excitations is dramatically more rigid than any finite number of species.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.04485 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

Gravitational Faraday rotation, gravitational spin Hall effect, and spin-refined causality analysis from Magnusian matrix in effective field theories of gravity
hep-th 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

In modified-gravity theories, spin Hall deflection of light and gravitational waves by a spinning black hole becomes non-commuting, so a ray disperses into a blob, and black-hole spin direction can tighten causality b...
Gravitational Effective Theories with Maximal Supersymmetry and a Peculiar Parity
hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

Peculiar parity plus N=8 SUSY, tree-level factorization, and finitely many states at the mass gap uniquely select the Virasoro–Shapiro amplitude among weakly-coupled UV completions of N=8 supergravity.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 45 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

[28]

Dualresonantamplitudesfrom Drinfel’d twists,

R.BhardwajandS.De, “Dualresonantamplitudesfrom Drinfel’d twists,”arXiv:2309.07214 [hep-th]

arXiv
[1]

Construction of a crossing-symmetric, Regge-behaved amplitude for linearly rising trajecto- ries,

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

1968
[2]

(15) in the large-nlimit using the Stirling approxi- mation, we find RN,n(nz)∼R KN N,n(nz)P∗ 4 (24) as anticipated

(23) Reinstating the saddle-point exponential prefactor exp (nS(u∗,z)) = (1 +z) n(1+z)z−nz and comparing with Eq. (15) in the large-nlimit using the Stirling approxi- mation, we find RN,n(nz)∼R KN N,n(nz)P∗ 4 (24) as anticipated. The upshot of this calculation is the positivity bound P4≥0. The matrix of soft residues has equal entries to leading order in ...
[3]

Assuming thatP 4 never vanishes yields Eq. (29). 8 More complicated deformations involve additional func- tions ˜fN(x)forN >4, and the corresponding structure of Eq. (30) guarantees factorization to arbitraryN-point (albeit possibly with imaginary couplings). We now apply the bounds derived in Sec. IIIB to this theory. Remarkably, we will be able to show ...
[4]

Hence, forn≫1, RN,n(nz)∼ √ 1 +z 2πnz enS(u∗,z)P∗
[5]

Stringy dynamics from an amplitudes bootstrap,

C. Cheung and G. N. Remmen, “Stringy dynamics from an amplitudes bootstrap,”Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 026011,arXiv:2302.12263 [hep-th]

arXiv 2023
[6]

Bespoke dual resonance,

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

arXiv 2023
[7]

Unitarity of bespoke amplitudes,

R. Bhardwaj, M. Spradlin, A. Volovich, and H.-C. Weng, “Unitarity of bespoke amplitudes,”Phys. Rev. D110no. 10, (2024) 106016,arXiv:2406.04410 [hep- th]

arXiv 2024

Show all 58 references

[8]

Veneziano variations: how unique are string amplitudes?,

C. Cheung and G. N. Remmen, “Veneziano variations: how unique are string amplitudes?,”JHEP01(2023) 122,arXiv:2210.12163 [hep-th]

2023 arXiv
[9]

Accumulation-point amplitudes in string theory,

J. Maldacena and G. N. Remmen, “Accumulation-point amplitudes in string theory,”JHEP08(2022) 152, arXiv:2207.06426 [hep-th]

2022 arXiv
[10]

Generalized Veneziano and Virasoro amplitudes,

N. Geiser and L. W. Lindwasser, “Generalized Veneziano and Virasoro amplitudes,”JHEP04(2023) 031,arXiv:2210.14920 [hep-th]

2023 arXiv
[11]

The stringy S-matrix bootstrap: maximal spin and superpolynomial soft- ness,

K. Häring and A. Zhiboedov, “The stringy S-matrix bootstrap: maximal spin and superpolynomial soft- ness,”JHEP10(2024) 075,arXiv:2311.13631 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[12]

UV-complete gravity amplitudes and the triple product,

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

2022 arXiv
[13]

Boot- strap Principle for the Spectrum and Scattering of Strings,

C. Cheung, A. Hillman, and G. N. Remmen, “Boot- strap Principle for the Spectrum and Scattering of Strings,”Phys. Rev. Lett.133no. 25, (2024) 251601, arXiv:2406.02665 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[14]

Unique- ness criteria for the Virasoro-Shapiro amplitude,

C. Cheung, A. Hillman, and G. N. Remmen, “Unique- ness criteria for the Virasoro-Shapiro amplitude,”Phys. Rev. D111no.8, (2025)086034,arXiv:2408.03362 [hep- th]

2025 arXiv
[15]

Factorization and the generalized Veneziano model with satellites,

D. J. Gross, “Factorization and the generalized Veneziano model with satellites,”Nucl. Phys. B13 (1969) 467

1969
[16]

Strings from Almost Nothing,

C. Cheung, G. N. Remmen, F. Sciotti, and M. Tarquini, “Strings from Almost Nothing,”arXiv:2508.09246 [hep- th]

arXiv
[17]

Whereistree-level string theory?,

J.Albert, W.Knop, andL.Rastelli, “Whereistree-level string theory?,”JHEP02(2025) 157,arXiv:2406.12959 [hep-th]

2025 arXiv
[18]

Where Is String Theory in the Space of Scattering Amplitudes?,

A. Guerrieri, J. Penedones, and P. Vieira, “Where Is String Theory in the Space of Scattering Amplitudes?,” Phys. Rev. Lett.127(2021) 081601,arXiv:2102.02847 [hep-th]

2021 arXiv
[19]

Where is M-theory in the space of scattering ampli- tudes?,

A. Guerrieri, H. Murali, J. Penedones, and P. Vieira, “Where is M-theory in the space of scattering ampli- tudes?,”JHEP06(2023) 064,arXiv:2212.00151 [hep- th]

2023 arXiv
[20]

Shedding black hole light on the emergent string conjecture,

I. Basile, D. Lüst, and C. Montella, “Shedding black hole light on the emergent string conjecture,”JHEP07 (2024) 208,arXiv:2311.12113 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[21]

Density of states, black holes and the Emergent String Conjec- ture,

A. Bedroya, R. K. Mishra, and M. Wiesner, “Density of states, black holes and the Emergent String Conjec- ture,”JHEP01(2025) 144,arXiv:2405.00083 [hep-th]

2025 arXiv
[22]

On the Origin of Species Thermodynamics and the Black Hole - Tower Correspondence,

A. Herráez, D. Lüst, J. Masias, and M. Scalisi, “On the Origin of Species Thermodynamics and the Black Hole - Tower Correspondence,”SciPost Phys.18(2025) ,arXiv:2406.17851 [hep-th]

2025 arXiv
[23]

An excursion into the string spectrum,

C. Markou and E. Skvortsov, “An excursion into the string spectrum,”JHEP12(2023) 055, arXiv:2309.15988 [hep-th]

2023 arXiv
[24]

On the deep superstring spectrum,

T. Basile and C. Markou, “On the deep superstring spectrum,”JHEP07(2024) 184,arXiv:2405.18467 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[25]

On the deep string spectrum,

C. Markou, “On the deep string spectrum,”PoS CORFU2024(2025) 170,arXiv:2505.00177 [hep-th]

2025 arXiv
[26]

Uniqueness of the Veneziano representa- tion,

D. D. Coon, “Uniqueness of the Veneziano representa- tion,”Phys. Lett. B29(1969) 669

1969
[27]

Cutting the Coon amplitude,

C. B. Jepsen, “Cutting the Coon amplitude,”JHEP06 (2023) 114,arXiv:2303.02149 [hep-th]

2023 arXiv
[29]

The Baker-Coon-RomansN-point ampli- tude and an exact field theory limit of the Coon ampli- tude,

N. Geiser, “The Baker-Coon-RomansN-point ampli- tude and an exact field theory limit of the Coon ampli- tude,”JHEP10(2024) 010,arXiv:2311.04130 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[30]

On unitarity of the Coon amplitude,

R. Bhardwaj, S. De, M. Spradlin, and A. Volovich, “On unitarity of the Coon amplitude,”JHEP08(2023) 082, arXiv:2212.00764 [hep-th]

2023 arXiv
[31]

Multiparticle Factorization and the Rigidity of String Theory,

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

2024 arXiv
[32]

Multipositivity bounds for scattering amplitudes,

C. Cheung and G. N. Remmen, “Multipositivity bounds for scattering amplitudes,”Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 016017,arXiv:2505.05553 [hep-th]

2025 arXiv
[33]

Flattening of the EFT-hedron: supersymmetric positivity bounds and the search for string theory,

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

2024 arXiv
[34]

Boot- strapping Extremal Scalar Amplitudes With and With- 10 out Supersymmetry,

J. Berman, H. Elvang, N. Geiser, and L. L. Lin, “Boot- strapping Extremal Scalar Amplitudes With and With- 10 out Supersymmetry,”arXiv:2412.13368 [hep-th]

arXiv
[35]

Corners and islands in the S-matrix bootstrap of the open superstring,

J. Berman and H. Elvang, “Corners and islands in the S-matrix bootstrap of the open superstring,”JHEP09 (2024) 076,arXiv:2406.03543 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[36]

String Theory from Maximal Supersymmetry,

H. Elvang, A. Herderschee, and R. Morales, “String Theory from Maximal Supersymmetry,” arXiv:2601.11705 [hep-th]

arXiv
[37]

Reaction amplitude for n-mesons: A generalization of the Veneziano-Bardakçi- Ruegg-Virasoro model,

Z. Koba and H. B. Nielsen, “Reaction amplitude for n-mesons: A generalization of the Veneziano-Bardakçi- Ruegg-Virasoro model,”Nucl. Phys. B10(1969) 633

1969
[38]

Reggeized resonance model for the production amplitude,

K. Bardakçi and H. Ruegg, “Reggeized resonance model for the production amplitude,”Phys. Lett. B28(1968) 342

1968
[39]

Explicit construction of theN-point function in the generalized Veneziano model,

H.-M. Chan and S. T. Tsou, “Explicit construction of theN-point function in the generalized Veneziano model,”Phys. Lett. B28(1969) 485

1969
[40]

Open string amplitudes: singularities, asymp- totics and new representations,

N. Arkani-Hamed, C. Figueiredo, and G. N. Rem- men, “Open string amplitudes: singularities, asymp- totics and new representations,”JHEP04(2025) 039, arXiv:2412.20639 [hep-th]

2025 arXiv
[41]

Binary geometries, generalized particles and strings, and cluster algebras,

N. Arkani-Hamed, S. He, T. Lam, and H. Thomas, “Binary geometries, generalized particles and strings, and cluster algebras,”Phys. Rev. D107(2023) 066015, arXiv:1912.11764 [hep-th]

2023 arXiv
[42]

All loop scattering as a counting problem,

N.Arkani-Hamed, H.Frost, G.Salvatori, P.-G.Plamon- don, and H. Thomas, “All loop scattering as a counting problem,”JHEP08(2025) 194,arXiv:2309.15913 [hep- th]

2025 arXiv
[43]

Stringy canoni- cal forms,

N. Arkani-Hamed, S. He, and T. Lam, “Stringy canoni- cal forms,”JHEP02(2021) 069,arXiv:1912.08707 [hep- th]

2021 arXiv
[44]

Scalar-scaffolded gluons and the combinatorial origins of Yang-Mills theory,

N. Arkani-Hamed, Q. Cao, J. Dong, C. Figueiredo, and S. He, “Scalar-scaffolded gluons and the combinatorial origins of Yang-Mills theory,”JHEP04(2025) 078, arXiv:2401.00041 [hep-th]

2025 arXiv
[45]

Hidden zeros for particle/string amplitudes and the unity of colored scalars, pions and gluons,

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,”JHEP 10(2024) 231,arXiv:2312.16282 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[46]

All-order splits and multi-soft limits for particle and string amplitudes,

N. Arkani-Hamed and C. Figueiredo, “All-order splits and multi-soft limits for particle and string amplitudes,” arXiv:2405.09608 [hep-th]

arXiv
[47]

The High-Energy Behav- ior of String Scattering Amplitudes,

D. J. Gross and P. F. Mende, “The High-Energy Behav- ior of String Scattering Amplitudes,”Phys. Lett. B197 (1987) 129

1987
[48]

AbelianZ-theory: NLSM amplitudes andα ′- corrections from the open string,

J. J. M. Carrasco, C. R. Mafra, and O. Schlot- terer, “AbelianZ-theory: NLSM amplitudes andα ′- corrections from the open string,”JHEP06(2017) 093, arXiv:1608.02569 [hep-th]

2017 arXiv
[49]

The bosonic string spectrum and the ex- plicit states up to level 10 from the lightcone and the chaotic behavior of certain string amplitudes,

I. Pesando, “The bosonic string spectrum and the ex- plicit states up to level 10 from the lightcone and the chaotic behavior of certain string amplitudes,”Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025) 371,arXiv:2405.09987 [hep-th]

2025 arXiv
[50]

String Theory Beyond the Planck Scale,

D. J. Gross and P. F. Mende, “String Theory Beyond the Planck Scale,”Nucl. Phys. B303(1988) 407

1988
[51]

Positivity of Curvature-Squared Corrections in Gravity,

C. Cheung and G. N. Remmen, “Positivity of Curvature-Squared Corrections in Gravity,”Phys. Rev. Lett.118(2017) 051601,arXiv:1608.02942 [hep-th]

2017 arXiv
[52]

Single-valued integra- tion and superstring amplitudes in genus zero,

F. Brown and C. Dupont, “Single-valued integra- tion and superstring amplitudes in genus zero,”Com- mun. Math. Phys.382(2021) 815,arXiv:1910.01107 [math.NT]

2021 arXiv
[53]

AdS Virasoro- Shapiro from single-valued periods,

L. F. Alday, T. Hansen, and J. A. Silva, “AdS Virasoro- Shapiro from single-valued periods,”JHEP12(2022) 010,arXiv:2209.06223 [hep-th]

2022 arXiv
[54]

Emergent Worldsheet for the AdS Virasoro-Shapiro Amplitude,

L. F. Alday, T. Hansen, and J. A. Silva, “Emergent Worldsheet for the AdS Virasoro-Shapiro Amplitude,” Phys. Rev. Lett.131(2023) 161603,arXiv:2305.03593 [hep-th]

2023 arXiv
[55]

The AdS Virasoro-Shapiro amplitude,

L. F. Alday and T. Hansen, “The AdS Virasoro-Shapiro amplitude,”JHEP10(2023) 023,arXiv:2306.12786 [hep-th]

2023 arXiv
[56]

Single-valuedness of the AdS Veneziano amplitude,

L. F. Alday and T. Hansen, “Single-valuedness of the AdS Veneziano amplitude,”JHEP08(2024) 108, arXiv:2404.16084 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[57]

The AdS Veneziano amplitude at small curvature,

L. F. Alday, S. M. Chester, T. Hansen, and D.-l. Zhong, “The AdS Veneziano amplitude at small curvature,” JHEP05(2024) 322,arXiv:2403.13877 [hep-th]

2024
[58]

Bootstrap AdS Veneziano Amplitude with ArbitraryKaluza-KleinModes,

B. Wang, “Bootstrap AdS Veneziano Amplitude with ArbitraryKaluza-KleinModes,”arXiv:2508.14968 [hep- th]

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [28]

Dualresonantamplitudesfrom Drinfel’d twists,

R.BhardwajandS.De, “Dualresonantamplitudesfrom Drinfel’d twists,”arXiv:2309.07214 [hep-th]

arXiv

[2] [1]

Construction of a crossing-symmetric, Regge-behaved amplitude for linearly rising trajecto- ries,

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

1968

[3] [2]

(15) in the large-nlimit using the Stirling approxi- mation, we find RN,n(nz)∼R KN N,n(nz)P∗ 4 (24) as anticipated

(23) Reinstating the saddle-point exponential prefactor exp (nS(u∗,z)) = (1 +z) n(1+z)z−nz and comparing with Eq. (15) in the large-nlimit using the Stirling approxi- mation, we find RN,n(nz)∼R KN N,n(nz)P∗ 4 (24) as anticipated. The upshot of this calculation is the positivity bound P4≥0. The matrix of soft residues has equal entries to leading order in ...

[4] [3]

Assuming thatP 4 never vanishes yields Eq. (29). 8 More complicated deformations involve additional func- tions ˜fN(x)forN >4, and the corresponding structure of Eq. (30) guarantees factorization to arbitraryN-point (albeit possibly with imaginary couplings). We now apply the bounds derived in Sec. IIIB to this theory. Remarkably, we will be able to show ...

[5] [4]

Hence, forn≫1, RN,n(nz)∼ √ 1 +z 2πnz enS(u∗,z)P∗

[6] [5]

Stringy dynamics from an amplitudes bootstrap,

C. Cheung and G. N. Remmen, “Stringy dynamics from an amplitudes bootstrap,”Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 026011,arXiv:2302.12263 [hep-th]

arXiv 2023

[7] [6]

Bespoke dual resonance,

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

arXiv 2023

[8] [7]

Unitarity of bespoke amplitudes,

R. Bhardwaj, M. Spradlin, A. Volovich, and H.-C. Weng, “Unitarity of bespoke amplitudes,”Phys. Rev. D110no. 10, (2024) 106016,arXiv:2406.04410 [hep- th]

arXiv 2024