Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Running EFT-hedron with null constraints at loop level

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read One-loop massless corrections deform the null constraints of the shift-symmetric scalar EFT, changing unitarity bounds on dimension-8 and dimension-10 couplings.

desk verdict The deformation of null constraints by massless loops is a real, credible result, but the quantitative bounds in 5D/6D rest on a truncation that fails parametrically at the reported maxima. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09717 v3 pith:BN7INSV4 submitted 2025-01-16 hep-th

Guangzhuo Peng , Long-Qi Shao , Anna Tokareva , Yongjun Xu This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords positivityboundsnullconstraintsone-loopamplitudesmasslessscalarEFTcrossingsymmetrydispersionrelationsEFT-hedronmomentproblem
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 studies a single massless scalar field with shift symmetry and asks how one-loop self-interactions change the positivity bounds that follow from analyticity, causality, and unitarity. Its central claim is that the crossing-symmetry relations known as null constraints, which previous positivity bounds set to zero, acquire non-vanishing right-hand sides proportional to one-loop beta functions. That means massless loops cannot be absorbed just by renormalizing Wilson coefficients: the allowed region for dimension-8 and dimension-10 couplings shifts, and in five and six spacetime dimensions the upper bounds on g2 and g3 change, with the allowed region becoming dependent on g2. In four dimensions, infrared logarithms force the construction of special finite combinations of null constraints; in the weak-coupling limit these reproduce the tree-level bounds on g3/g2 and g4/g2. A sympathetic reader would care because most realistic EFTs have massless states, so the constraints used to test whether an EFT can have a UV completion need a loop-level version.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the null constraint, a linear relation between positive moments of the UV spectral density that full crossing symmetry imposes on the amplitude; at tree level these relations are homogeneous equalities. The machinery is the dispersion-relation identity $M_n(t)=B_n(t)$ between EFT arc integrals and spectral integrals, applied at one-loop level to the shift-symmetric scalar amplitude. From this identity the paper extracts the moment combinations $n_4$, $n_5$, $n_6$; their tree-level zeroes become $\beta$-function-dependent expressions. Because $t$-derivatives of the loop amplitude introduce $\log(-t)$ and $1/t$ terms in $d=4$, the paper forms the IR-finite linear combinations $n_{45}=2g_2^2 n_5+36g_2g_3 n_4$ and $n_{46}=6(24g_2g_4+7g_3^2)n_4-7g_2^2 n_6$, whose forward limits are well defined and can be matched to the corresponding moment brackets. For the numerical bounds on $g_2$ and $g_3$ in $d=5,6$ it uses the L-moment problem with full unitarity $0<\rho_j<2$, whose allowed region is obtained as a Minkowski sum over angular momenta.

What would settle it

Compute the two-loop contribution to the $n=6$ combination for the same shift-symmetric scalar: if the $g_2^3\log^2(-t)$ term in $n_6$ is not negligible relative to the one-loop $g_2g_3$ terms at $\epsilon=1$, then $n_{46}$ gains an uncancelled infrared divergence and the reported 4D weak-coupling bounds fail. A second check is to evaluate Eq. (22) at fixed negative $t$ in an explicit UV completion with known spectral density and compare the arc-integral side with the moment side; any mismatch would show the truncation used for the null-constraint right-hand side is incomplete.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery is that the null constraints of the EFT-hedron are deformed by massless one-loop physics rather than destroyed. At tree level, full crossing symmetry forces certain brackets of partial-wave moments to vanish, for example the n=4 constraint $J^2(J^2-8)/\mu^5$ with $J^2=j(j+1)$. At one loop the same combination equals $2b_2\log(\epsilon^2)-2b_2\log(-t)-3b_2+2c_2\epsilon^2$, with $b_2=g_2^2/(240\pi^2)$ and $c_2=-g_2g_3/(240\pi^2)$. In $d=5$ and $d=6$ the analogous n=4 constraints become $g_2\sqrt{\epsilon^2}(3g_2-g_3\epsilon^2)/(2304\pi^2)$ and $g_2\epsilon^2(2g_2-g_3\epsilon^2)/(13440\pi^3)$. Because these right-hand sides involve the couplings themselves, the relation between EFT coefficients and positive moments becomes nonlinear, and unitarity bounds on $g_2$, $g_3$, and $g_4/g_2$ are modified; in the weak-coupling limit the tree-level constraints are recovered. The paper establishes this by computing the one-loop amplitude, building IR-finite combinations of arc integrals, and solving the resulting moment problem with full unitarity in $d=5$ and $d=6$, while in $d=4$ it shows that the finite combinations $n_{45}$ and $n_{46}$ reproduce the tree-level bounds when $g_2$ is small.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the one-loop amplitude with only the beta functions of $g_2$ and $g_3$ included describes the low-energy side of the dispersion relations well enough at the chosen arc radius; if two-loop corrections or the running of higher-order couplings are not negligible, the modified null constraints and the bounds built on them change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In $d=5$ and $d=6$, the upper bound on $g_2$ from full unitarity becomes finite and $g_2$-dependent; for $g_3=0$ the paper finds max $g_2\approx 2375.6$ in 5D and $\approx 27739.4$ in 6D, with different values for $g_3=4g_2$ and $g_3=-10g_2$.
  • In the weak-coupling regime, the loop-level bounds on $g_3/g_2$ and $g_4/g_2$ coincide with tree-level bounds; in 5D, for $g_2=100$ the loop-corrected region is nearly identical to the tree-level one.
  • In 4D, the forward limit of $n_4$ contains $\log(-t)$, so the raw null constraint cannot be used; the two IR-finite combinations $n_{45}$ and $n_{46}$ are sufficient, with $g_2=0.01$, to reproduce the tree-level bound on $g_3/g_2$ and $g_4/g_2$.
  • When $g_2$ is larger, the allowed region in the $g_3/g_2$--$g_4/g_2$ plane deviates from the tree-level region and becomes non-convex, because the map from moments to Wilson coefficients is nonlinear at loop level.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Going beyond the paper: if one-loop deformations of null constraints are generic, similar beta-function terms should appear in other massless EFTs, where they would link unitarity bounds to the running of dimension-8 operators.
  • Going beyond the paper: the 4D construction suggests a general recipe of taking IR-finite linear combinations of null constraints before matching to moments, which could be tested against explicit UV completions with heavy resonances where the spectral density is known.
  • Going beyond the paper: whether the $\epsilon=1$ bounds survive depends on infinite higher-order beta functions; a numerical evaluation of two-loop terms at fixed arc radius would settle whether the reported $g_2$ maxima are a truncation effect.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript extends the EFT-hedron / null-constraint program to one-loop order for a single massless shift-symmetric scalar. Starting from the one-loop amplitude in Eq. (5), it derives loop-modified null constraints, e.g. Eqs. (22), (29), (30) in four dimensions and Eqs. (33), (37) in five and six dimensions, in which tree-level zero combinations become proportional to beta-function-dependent quantities. Using extremal moment-problem methods and linear programming, it computes allowed regions for g2, g3 and g3/g2, g4/g2 in d=5,6 and constructs IR-finite combinations n45 and n46 to recover tree-level bounds in the weak-coupling limit in d=4. The central conclusion is that massless one-loop effects cannot be absorbed solely into running couplings, because they deform the crossing-symmetry relations.

Significance. If correct, the loop-deformed null constraints are a genuine extension of the positivity program and are likely to be useful for other EFTs with massless states. The paper's internal checks are strong: the 4D weak-coupling limit reproduces the known tree-level bounds (Fig. 7), and the analytic moment-problem results agree with the numerical linear-programming results in §5.1. Appendix A and B provide a careful distributional justification for the IR-finite combinations, addressing a real technical obstruction. The reason I do not recommend acceptance as is is that the headline quantitative bounds are stated as unconditional unitarity bounds although they rely on a truncation that the paper itself identifies as an assumption; the abstract and §4 overstate the robustness of Table 1 and Figures 4–6.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1, §4.1, Eq. (52), Table 1] The headline bounds are obtained at ε=1, where the loop expansion and the EFT arc computation are both uncontrolled. The arc radius is ε²Λ² and the figure/§3.1 require ε<1 for the EFT computation to be valid, yet §4.1 sets ε=1 to maximize the bounds. At the reported 5D boundary, Eq. (52) gives g2,max ≈ 2375.58 for g3=0; inserting this value, the one-loop term 119g2²/(14336π²) is equal to the tree-level term 2g2 (and the same parametric failure occurs in 6D). Thus Table 1 and the associated 'upper bound on g2' statements are conditional on a regime in which the one-loop-truncated amplitude is not a reliable expansion. The paper acknowledges the general issue in §3.2 and §6, but the numerical results are still presented as unitarity bounds; they should be reframed or supplemented with results at smaller ε and an estimate of neglected higher-loop/higher-derivative terms.
  2. [§3.2, Eq. (30); §6] The modified null constraints used for the strongest bounds are truncated: Eq. (30) explicitly drops two-loop g2³ contributions, and the computation omits the beta functions of all higher-order EFT coefficients. In §3.2 the paper states that only 'small enough ε' suppresses these contributions for granted, while ε=1 is then chosen in §4.1. The central conceptual claim — that null constraints acquire beta-function-dependent right-hand sides — does not depend on this truncation, but the quantitative allowed regions in Figures 4–6 do. Please separate the robust structural result from the numerical bounds, and state explicitly that the latter are illustrative under a weak-coupling/higher-order-suppression assumption.
  3. [§5.2, Eqs. (31)–(32), Fig. 7] The 4D recovery of tree-level bounds is demonstrated only at g2=0.01. The combinations n45 and n46 are constructed after dropping two-loop g2³ terms, and they involve the very couplings (g3, g4) being bounded; their use as constraints is therefore a consistency check in the weak-coupling slice rather than a derivation valid at finite g2. Since §6 identifies two-loop log²(−t) terms as the obstruction to strong-coupling 4D bounds, the paper should state that the finite-combination method has been validated only where those terms are negligible.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (32)] The printed expression contains apparent typesetting corruption with factors like '8g4' and 'g2 · 8g4'; please replace with the intended algebraic expression.
  2. [§5.1] The cross-reference 'Appendix??' should point to Appendix C.
  3. [Table 1] The word 'maximun' should be 'maximum'.
  4. [Fig. 5(b)] The claim that the moment-problem and linear-programming bounds 'match with almost no differences' would be easier to verify if the plot showed the difference or error bars.
  5. [§3.1 and Eq. (6)] The notation ε is used both for the dimensional-regularization parameter in Eq. (6) and for the arc-radius parameter beginning in §3.1; although the paper notes this, the double use makes equations like Eq. (30) difficult to read. A different symbol for the arc parameter would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the loop-modified null constraints are genuine sum rules, and the acknowledged ε=1 truncation caveats are robustness concerns, not circular steps.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense: it starts from a one-loop EFT amplitude (Eq. 5), computes arc integrals through dispersion relations (Eqs. 9, 17), obtains modified null constraints such as Eqs. (22), (33) and (37), and then uses positivity, full unitarity, and moment-problem inequalities to bound Wilson coefficients. Each null constraint is a genuine sum rule: a bracket of positive spectral moments is equated to a function of IR couplings computed from the amplitude. The same couplings (g2, g3, g4) appear on both sides of these equalities, but that is the normal fixed-point structure of positivity bounds, not a fitted-input-called-prediction; no parameter is tuned to reproduce the quoted bounds. The 4D finite combinations n45 and n46 (Eqs. 31, 32) are constructed analytically to cancel IR logarithms, and the weak-coupling limit independently reproduces the tree-level bounds of Refs. [5,9] (Fig. 7). The moment-problem inequalities (Appendix C, Refs. [9,78-80]) and the Minkowski-sum method (Ref. [10]) are external mathematical results, not author-invented uniqueness theorems. Self-citations by the authors ([17,33,38,76]) are peripheral and not load-bearing for the central claim. The paper explicitly flags its own limitation: 'Choosing ε = 1 provides the strongest bounds, however, in order to trust them, one has to assume that infinite number of contributions from further β-functions and multiloop corrections indeed can be neglected' (§3.2), and later states that the upper bounds 'rely on assumption that the higher-derivative terms in EFT are suppressed' (§6). This is an honest correctness/truncation caveat about the strength of the numbers, not a circularity: the derivation does not assume the conclusion, it assumes that neglected corrections are small. The strongest quantitative claims therefore carry model-dependence risk, but the paper's central conceptual result—that massless loops deform null constraints—is derived from an explicit computation rather than being equivalent to its inputs by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced; the analysis uses only the existing massless shift-symmetric scalar and standard partial-wave densities. The main external inputs are the one-loop amplitude from Beadle et al., the dispersion-relation framework, and the moment-problem inequalities from prior EFT-hedron work.

free parameters (3)
  • epsilon (arc-radius parameter) = 1 for strongest bounds; smaller values for stable bounds
    The integration contour in Eq. (9) is taken at radius epsilon^2 Lambda^2. The paper sets epsilon=1 to obtain compact bounds, while noting that smaller epsilon suppresses unknown higher-beta-function contributions but weakens the bounds.
  • weak-coupling benchmark g2 = 0.01 in the 4D check
    In Section 5.2 the 4D loop-level bound is evaluated at g2=0.01 to approximate the weak-coupling limit and compare with tree-level bounds.
  • sampled g3/g2 ratios = 0, 4, -10
    In Section 4.1 the analytical bound on g2 is computed only for g3=0, g3=4g2, and g3=-10g2 to avoid a full three-dimensional Minkowski sum; these slices do not cover the full parameter space.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Dispersion relation (8) holds with negligible large-arc contribution because A(s,t)/s^2 tends to zero at infinity.
    Invoked in Section 3.1, Eq. (8), using the Martin-Froissart bound as a locality assumption; this is an unproved UV assumption flagged by the authors.
  • domain assumption UV unitarity: 0 <= rho_j(mu) <= 2 for even j and all mu.
    Used throughout Sections 4 and 5 as Eq. (16) to impose positivity and full unitarity on the partial-wave spectral densities.
  • domain assumption Full s-t-u crossing symmetry of the four-particle amplitude.
    Eq. (4) is used to relate branch cuts and to derive null constraints from the identity of different arc-integral representations.
  • domain assumption The one-loop amplitude in Eq. (5), quoted from Beadle et al., is the complete low-energy amplitude up to the order used.
    All M2, M4, and null-constraint expressions in Section 3 are built from Eq. (5), whose trailing ellipsis leaves higher-order corrections uncomputed.
  • ad hoc to paper Higher-order beta functions and multiloop corrections do not affect the null constraints at the chosen epsilon.
    The authors state in Section 3.2 and the Conclusions that an infinite number of beta-function and two-loop contributions are neglected; this is load-bearing for the strongest bounds.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Running EFT-hedron with null constraints at loop level." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BN7INSV4

@misc{pith2026250109717,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Running EFT-hedron with null constraints at loop level},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BN7INSV4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09717}
}
read the original abstract

Implications of general properties of quantum field theory, such as causality, unitarity, and locality include constraints on the couplings of the effective field theory (EFT) coefficients. These constraints follow from the connections between the infrared (IR) and ultraviolet (UV) theory imposed by dispersion relations for four-particle amplitudes which formally allow us to express EFT couplings through the moments of positive-definite functions (imaginary parts of partial wave amplitudes) forming the EFT-hedron geometry. Previous studies of these positivity bounds were mainly focused on the weakly coupled EFTs, limiting the analysis to tree-level amplitudes of the IR theory. In this work, we extend the scope of positivity bounds including one-loop amplitudes, which is essential especially for the loops of massless particles. Examining a single scalar theory we found that the presence of massless loops cannot be reduced only to the running of EFT couplings because loops modify the crossing symmetry relations (null constraints). Our results demonstrate that while for small coupling constants, the one-loop bounds are in good agreement with the tree-level results, the allowed EFT parameter ranges can be significantly modified if a weak coupling assumption is not additionally imposed. We present the unitarity bounds on dimension-8 and dimension-10 EFT couplings beyond the weak coupling assumption in five and six spacetime dimensions. We discuss the difficulties of obtaining the constraints in forward limit in four dimensions related to the infrared singularities and show how to overcome these problems by constructing finite combinations of null constraints.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09717 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. This figure shows an integration contour used in ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The Minkowski sum of j = 2, 0, 4 regions for rescaled moments. The boundary of the sum can be obtained by ordering the individual boundaries by their slopes. This method can be straightforwardly generalized to an infinite sum of regions for all values of j, as it is performed in detail in [10]. Instead, we directly present the final results in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) The rescaled regions for different j. (b, c) The (a2, n4)-space with four boundary sections is shown. The upper bound on g2 follows from the intersection of the lower boundary (j ≥ 4) with the k = 4 null constraint. The lower boundary L = ∞ corresponds to the case when only positivity of partial waves is taken into account, i.e., there is no upper bound on ρj (s). We plot the following parametric equations corre… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Numerical bounds on g2 and g3 in 5D and 6D. We observe that when both g2 and g3 are small, the tree-level and loop-level bounds coincide. This is expected, as loop corrections are negligible in the weak-coupling regime. However, as the couplings increase, loop effects …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) Allowed region for ˜g3-˜g4 with only positivity included, the blue shaded region denotes tree level bounds, the yellow and green shaded region denote the loop corrected bounds for g2 = 100 and g2 = 600 respectively. (b) Loop corrected bounds for ˜g3-˜g4 for differe…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of positivity bounds and full unitarity bounds. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: ˜g3−g˜4 bounds in 4D in weak coupling limit. Tree level with 1 null constraint is analytic result from [9], the rest region is plotted using numerical linear program method. null constraints. The green region and yellow region matches, showing that our loop level null …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The maximal values of (−g˜3)n4 in ˜g3 − g˜4 bounds. On the left boundary corresponding to the lower bound on ˜g3 the value of n4 is zero. Here we provide a heuristic explanation for such a behavior of the n = 4 null constraint. It is 2There is no contradiction between …

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

  1. (Super)$\,$Gravity from Positivity

    hep-th 2025-07 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    Positivity of scattering amplitudes forces weakly coupled EFTs of a massive spin-3/2 particle to include gravity, and for charged states a gauged photon with g=2 and WGC-saturating charge.

  2. Geometry of effective field theory positivity cones

    math-ph 2025-08 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    For three particle flavors, the positivity cone C_W has exactly three families of extremal rays, one of which yields genuinely new inelastic constraints not implied by elastic bounds.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Causality, analyticity and an IR obstruction to UV completion,

    A. Adams, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dubovsky, A. Nicolis, and R. Rattazzi, “Causality, analyticity and an IR obstruction to UV completion,” JHEP 10 (2006) 014, arXiv:hep-th/0602178

    arXiv 2006

  2. [2]

    The EFT-Hedron,

    N. Arkani-Hamed, T.-C. Huang, and Y.-t. Huang, “The EFT-Hedron,” JHEP 05 (2021) 259, arXiv:2012.15849 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    Positive moments for scattering amplitudes,

    B. Bellazzini, J. Elias Mir´ o, R. Rattazzi, M. Riembau, and F. Riva, “Positive moments for scattering amplitudes,” Phys. Rev. D 104 no. 3, (2021) 036006, arXiv:2011.00037 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    New positivity bounds from full crossing symmetry,

    A. J. Tolley, Z.-Y. Wang, and S.-Y. Zhou, “New positivity bounds from full crossing symmetry,” JHEP 05 (2021) 255, arXiv:2011.02400 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    Extremal Effective Field Theories,

    S. Caron-Huot and V. Van Duong, “Extremal Effective Field Theories,” JHEP 05 (2021) 280, arXiv:2011.02957 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    Crossing Symmetric Dispersion Relations in Quantum Field Theories,

    A. Sinha and A. Zahed, “Crossing Symmetric Dispersion Relations in Quantum Field Theories,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 no. 18, (2021) 181601, arXiv:2012.04877 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Causality, unitarity and symmetry in effective field theory,

    T. Trott, “Causality, unitarity and symmetry in effective field theory,” JHEP 07 (2021) 143, arXiv:2011.10058 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Schm¨ udgen,The Moment Problem

    K. Schm¨ udgen,The Moment Problem . Springer, Cham, 2017

    2017

Show all 84 references
  1. [9]

    Into the EFThedron and UV constraints from IR consistency,

    L.-Y. Chiang, Y.-t. Huang, W. Li, L. Rodina, and H.-C. Weng, “Into the EFThedron and UV constraints from IR consistency,” JHEP 03 (2022) 063, arXiv:2105.02862 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  2. [10]

    De-projecting the EFThedron,

    L.-Y. Chiang, Y.-t. Huang, L. Rodina, and H.-C. Weng, “De-projecting the EFThedron,” JHEP 05 (2024) 102, arXiv:2204.07140 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Evaluation of the Derivative Quartic Terms of the Meson Chiral Lagrangian From Forward Dispersion Relation,

    T. N. Pham and T. N. Truong, “Evaluation of the Derivative Quartic Terms of the Meson Chiral Lagrangian From Forward Dispersion Relation,” Phys. Rev. D 31 (1985) 3027

    1985

  4. [12]

    The Chiral Lagrangian parameters, l1, l2, are determined by the rho resonance,

    M. R. Pennington and J. Portoles, “The Chiral Lagrangian parameters, l1, l2, are determined by the rho resonance,” Phys. Lett. B 344 (1995) 399–406, arXiv:hep-ph/9409426

    1995 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Energy’s and amplitudes’ positivity,

    A. Nicolis, R. Rattazzi, and E. Trincherini, “Energy’s and amplitudes’ positivity,” JHEP 05 (2010) 095, arXiv:0912.4258 [hep-th]. [Erratum: JHEP 11, 128 (2011)]

    2010 arXiv

  6. [14]

    On Renormalization Group Flows in Four Dimensions,

    Z. Komargodski and A. Schwimmer, “On Renormalization Group Flows in Four Dimensions,” JHEP 12 (2011) 099, arXiv:1107.3987 [hep-th]. 34

    2011 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Consistency of the Standard Model Effective Field Theory,

    G. N. Remmen and N. L. Rodd, “Consistency of the Standard Model Effective Field Theory,” JHEP 12 (2019) 032, arXiv:1908.09845 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Positivity of Amplitudes, Weak Gravity Conjecture, and Modified Gravity,

    B. Bellazzini, M. Lewandowski, and J. Serra, “Positivity of Amplitudes, Weak Gravity Conjecture, and Modified Gravity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 no. 25, (2019) 251103, arXiv:1902.03250 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    To Positivity and Beyond, where Higgs-Dilaton Inflation has never gone before,

    M. Herrero-Valea, I. Timiryasov, and A. Tokareva, “To Positivity and Beyond, where Higgs-Dilaton Inflation has never gone before,” JCAP 11 (2019) 042, arXiv:1905.08816 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Beyond Positivity Bounds and the Fate of Massive Gravity,

    B. Bellazzini, F. Riva, J. Serra, and F. Sgarlata, “Beyond Positivity Bounds and the Fate of Massive Gravity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 no. 16, (2018) 161101, arXiv:1710.02539 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Positivity bounds for scalar field theories,

    C. de Rham, S. Melville, A. J. Tolley, and S.-Y. Zhou, “Positivity bounds for scalar field theories,” Phys. Rev. D 96 no. 8, (2017) 081702, arXiv:1702.06134 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  12. [20]

    UV complete me: Positivity Bounds for Particles with Spin,

    C. de Rham, S. Melville, A. J. Tolley, and S.-Y. Zhou, “UV complete me: Positivity Bounds for Particles with Spin,” JHEP 03 (2018) 011, arXiv:1706.02712 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Massive Galileon Positivity Bounds,

    C. de Rham, S. Melville, A. J. Tolley, and S.-Y. Zhou, “Massive Galileon Positivity Bounds,” JHEP 09 (2017) 072, arXiv:1702.08577 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Generalized positivity bounds on chiral perturbation theory,

    Y.-J. Wang, F.-K. Guo, C. Zhang, and S.-Y. Zhou, “Generalized positivity bounds on chiral perturbation theory,” JHEP 07 (2020) 214, arXiv:2004.03992 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  15. [23]

    QED positivity bounds,

    L. Alberte, C. de Rham, S. Jaitly, and A. J. Tolley, “QED positivity bounds,” Phys. Rev. D 103 no. 12, (2021) 125020, arXiv:2012.05798 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Gravitational positivity bounds,

    J. Tokuda, K. Aoki, and S. Hirano, “Gravitational positivity bounds,” JHEP 11 (2020) 054, arXiv:2007.15009 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Positivity in Multifield Effective Field Theories,

    X. Li, H. Xu, C. Yang, C. Zhang, and S.-Y. Zhou, “Positivity in Multifield Effective Field Theories,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 no. 12, (2021) 121601, arXiv:2101.01191 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Sharp boundaries for the swampland,

    S. Caron-Huot, D. Mazac, L. Rastelli, and D. Simmons-Duffin, “Sharp boundaries for the swampland,” JHEP 07 (2021) 110, arXiv:2102.08951 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Triple crossing positivity bounds for multi-field theories,

    Z.-Z. Du, C. Zhang, and S.-Y. Zhou, “Triple crossing positivity bounds for multi-field theories,” JHEP 12 (2021) 115, arXiv:2111.01169 [hep-th]

    2021

  20. [28]

    Gravitational effective field theory islands, low-spin dominance, and the four-graviton amplitude,

    Z. Bern, D. Kosmopoulos, and A. Zhiboedov, “Gravitational effective field theory islands, low-spin dominance, and the four-graviton amplitude,” J. Phys. A 54 no. 34, (2021) 344002, arXiv:2103.12728 [hep-th]. 35

    2021 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Moments for positivity: using Drell-Yan data to test positivity bounds and reverse-engineer new physics,

    X. Li, K. Mimasu, K. Yamashita, C. Yang, C. Zhang, and S.-Y. Zhou, “Moments for positivity: using Drell-Yan data to test positivity bounds and reverse-engineer new physics,” JHEP 10 (2022) 107, arXiv:2204.13121 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Causality constraints on corrections to Einstein gravity,

    S. Caron-Huot, Y.-Z. Li, J. Parra-Martinez, and D. Simmons-Duffin, “Causality constraints on corrections to Einstein gravity,” JHEP 05 (2023) 122, arXiv:2201.06602 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Weak gravity conjecture and effective field theory,

    P. Saraswat, “Weak gravity conjecture and effective field theory,” Phys. Rev. D 95 no. 2, (2017) 025013, arXiv:1608.06951 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Causality, unitarity, and the weak gravity conjecture,

    N. Arkani-Hamed, Y.-t. Huang, J.-Y. Liu, and G. N. Remmen, “Causality, unitarity, and the weak gravity conjecture,” JHEP 03 (2022) 083, arXiv:2109.13937 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Massless positivity in graviton exchange,

    M. Herrero-Valea, R. Santos-Garcia, and A. Tokareva, “Massless positivity in graviton exchange,” Phys. Rev. D 104 no. 8, (2021) 085022, arXiv:2011.11652 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  26. [34]

    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 no. 8, (2021) 081601, arXiv:2102.02847 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Rigorous bounds on light-by-light scattering,

    J. Henriksson, B. McPeak, F. Russo, and A. Vichi, “Rigorous bounds on light-by-light scattering,” JHEP 06 (2022) 158, arXiv:2107.13009 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Bridging positivity and S-matrix bootstrap bounds,

    J. Elias Miro, A. Guerrieri, and M. A. Gumus, “Bridging positivity and S-matrix bootstrap bounds,” JHEP 05 (2023) 001, arXiv:2210.01502 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    IR side of positivity bounds,

    B. Bellazzini, M. Riembau, and F. Riva, “IR side of positivity bounds,” Phys. Rev. D 106 no. 10, (2022) 105008, arXiv:2112.12561 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    UV graviton scattering and positivity bounds from IR dispersion relations,

    M. Herrero-Valea, A. S. Koshelev, and A. Tokareva, “UV graviton scattering and positivity bounds from IR dispersion relations,” Phys. Rev. D 106 no. 10, (2022) 105002, arXiv:2205.13332 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Causality bounds on scalar-tensor EFTs,

    D.-Y. Hong, Z.-H. Wang, and S.-Y. Zhou, “Causality bounds on scalar-tensor EFTs,” JHEP 10 (2023) 135, arXiv:2304.01259 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    (Non)-projective bounds on gravitational EFT,

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

    arXiv

  33. [41]

    Carving out the Space of Open-String S-matrix,

    Y.-t. Huang, J.-Y. Liu, L. Rodina, and Y. Wang, “Carving out the Space of Open-String S-matrix,” JHEP 04 (2021) 195, arXiv:2008.02293 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Gravitational positivity bounds on scalar potentials,

    T. Noumi and J. Tokuda, “Gravitational positivity bounds on scalar potentials,” Phys. Rev. D 104 no. 6, (2021) 066022, arXiv:2105.01436 [hep-th]. 36

    2021 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Triple crossing positivity bounds, mass dependence and cosmological scalars: Horndeski theory and DHOST,

    H. Xu and S.-Y. Zhou, “Triple crossing positivity bounds, mass dependence and cosmological scalars: Horndeski theory and DHOST,” JCAP 11 (2023) 076, arXiv:2306.06639 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Capping the positivity cone: dimension-8 Higgs operators in the SMEFT,

    Q. Chen, K. Mimasu, T. A. Wu, G.-D. Zhang, and S.-Y. Zhou, “Capping the positivity cone: dimension-8 Higgs operators in the SMEFT,” JHEP 03 (2024) 180, arXiv:2309.15922 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Finite energy sum rules for gravitational Regge amplitudes,

    T. Noumi and J. Tokuda, “Finite energy sum rules for gravitational Regge amplitudes,” JHEP 06 (2023) 032, arXiv:2212.08001 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Snowmass White Paper: UV Constraints on IR Physics,

    C. de Rham, S. Kundu, M. Reece, A. J. Tolley, and S.-Y. Zhou, “Snowmass White Paper: UV Constraints on IR Physics,” in Snowmass 2021. 3, 2022. arXiv:2203.06805 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  39. [47]

    On Capped Higgs Positivity Cone,

    D.-Y. Hong, Z.-H. Wang, and S.-Y. Zhou, “On Capped Higgs Positivity Cone,” 4, 2024. arXiv:2404.04479 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Effective Field Theory islands from perturbative and nonperturbative four-graviton amplitudes,

    Z. Bern, E. Herrmann, D. Kosmopoulos, and R. Roiban, “Effective Field Theory islands from perturbative and nonperturbative four-graviton amplitudes,” JHEP 01 (2023) 113, arXiv:2205.01655 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Bootstrapping the chiral anomaly at large N c,

    T. Ma, A. Pomarol, and F. Sciotti, “Bootstrapping the chiral anomaly at large N c,” JHEP 11 (2023) 176, arXiv:2307.04729 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    EFT matching from analyticity and unitarity,

    S. De Angelis and G. Durieux, “EFT matching from analyticity and unitarity,” SciPost Phys. 16 (2024) 071, arXiv:2308.00035 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Bounds on scattering of neutral Goldstones,

    F. Acanfora, A. Guerrieri, K. H¨ aring, and D. Karateev, “Bounds on scattering of neutral Goldstones,” JHEP 03 (2024) 028, arXiv:2310.06027 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Gravitational positivity for phenomenologists: Dark gauge boson in the swampland,

    K. Aoki, T. Noumi, R. Saito, S. Sato, S. Shirai, J. Tokuda, and M. Yamazaki, “Gravitational positivity for phenomenologists: Dark gauge boson in the swampland,” Phys. Rev. D 110 no. 1, (2024) 016002, arXiv:2305.10058 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Positivity Bounds on parity-violating scalar-tensor EFTs,

    H. Xu, D.-Y. Hong, Z.-H. Wang, and S.-Y. Zhou, “Positivity Bounds on parity-violating scalar-tensor EFTs,” arXiv:2410.09794 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  46. [54]

    Extremal Higgs couplings,

    J. Elias Miro, A. L. Guerrieri, and M. A. Gumus, “Extremal Higgs couplings,” Phys. Rev. D 110 no. 1, (2024) 016007, arXiv:2311.09283 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Adding subtractions: comparing the impact of different Regge behaviors,

    B. McPeak, M. Venuti, and A. Vichi, “Adding subtractions: comparing the impact of different Regge behaviors,” arXiv:2310.06888 [hep-th]

  48. [56]

    Full Unitarity and the Moments of Scattering Amplitudes,

    M. Riembau, “Full Unitarity and the Moments of Scattering Amplitudes,” arXiv:2212.14056 [hep-th]. 37

    arXiv

  49. [57]

    String loops and gravitational positivity bounds: imprint of light particles at high energies,

    S. Caron-Huot and J. Tokuda, “String loops and gravitational positivity bounds: imprint of light particles at high energies,” JHEP 11 (2024) 055, arXiv:2406.07606 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Gravity and a universal cutoff for field theory,

    S. Caron-Huot and Y.-Z. Li, “Gravity and a universal cutoff for field theory,” arXiv:2408.06440 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  51. [59]

    Matrix moment approach to positivity bounds and UV reconstruction from IR,

    S.-L. Wan and S.-Y. Zhou, “Matrix moment approach to positivity bounds and UV reconstruction from IR,” arXiv:2411.11964 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  52. [60]

    Analytic bootstrap bounds on masses and spins in gravitational and non-gravitational scalar theories,

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

    arXiv

  53. [61]

    Non-Forward UV/IR Relations,

    C. Beadle, G. Isabella, D. Perrone, S. Ricossa, F. Riva, and F. Serra, “Non-Forward UV/IR Relations,” arXiv:2407.02346 [hep-th]

  54. [62]

    Positivity bounds in scalar Effective Field Theories at one-loop level,

    Y. Ye, B. He, and J. Gu, “Positivity bounds in scalar Effective Field Theories at one-loop level,” JHEP 12 (2024) 046, arXiv:2408.10318 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Positivity bounds on massive vectors,

    F. Bertucci, J. Henriksson, B. McPeak, S. Ricossa, F. Riva, and A. Vichi, “Positivity bounds on massive vectors,” JHEP 12 (2024) 051, arXiv:2402.13327 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Bounds on photon scattering,

    K. H¨ aring, A. Hebbar, D. Karateev, M. Meineri, and J. a. Penedones, “Bounds on photon scattering,” JHEP 10 (2024) 103, arXiv:2211.05795 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  57. [65]

    The S-matrix bootstrap. Part III: higher dimensional amplitudes,

    M. F. Paulos, J. Penedones, J. Toledo, B. C. van Rees, and P. Vieira, “The S-matrix bootstrap. Part III: higher dimensional amplitudes,” JHEP 12 (2019) 040, arXiv:1708.06765 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Rigorous Bounds on the Analytic S Matrix,

    A. Guerrieri and A. Sever, “Rigorous Bounds on the Analytic S Matrix,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 no. 25, (2021) 251601, arXiv:2106.10257 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  59. [67]

    From data to the analytic S-matrix: A Bootstrap fit of the pion scattering amplitude,

    A. Guerrieri, K. H¨ aring, and N. Su, “From data to the analytic S-matrix: A Bootstrap fit of the pion scattering amplitude,” arXiv:2410.23333 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  60. [68]

    The O(N) monolith reloaded: sum rules and Form Factor Bootstrap,

    L. Cordova, M. Correia, A. Georgoudis, and A. Vuignier, “The O(N) monolith reloaded: sum rules and Form Factor Bootstrap,” JHEP 01 (2024) 093, arXiv:2311.03031 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Scattering amplitudes from dispersive iterations of unitarity,

    P. Tourkine and A. Zhiboedov, “Scattering amplitudes from dispersive iterations of unitarity,” JHEP 11 (2023) 005, arXiv:2303.08839 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  62. [70]

    The EFT Bootstrap at Finite MP L,

    C. Beadle, G. Isabella, D. Perrone, S. Ricossa, F. Riva, and F. Serra, “The EFT Bootstrap at Finite MP L,” arXiv:2501.18465 [hep-th]. 38

    arXiv

  63. [71]

    Asymptotic behavior and subtractions in the Mandelstam representation,

    M. Froissart, “Asymptotic behavior and subtractions in the Mandelstam representation,” Phys. Rev. 123 (1961) 1053–1057

    1961

  64. [72]

    Unitarity and high-energy behavior of scattering amplitudes,

    A. Martin, “Unitarity and high-energy behavior of scattering amplitudes,” Phys. Rev. 129 (1963) 1432–1436

    1963

  65. [73]

    Connection Between the Asymptotic Behavior and the Sign of the Discontinuity in One-Dimensional Dispersion Relations,

    Y. S. Jin and A. Martin, “Connection Between the Asymptotic Behavior and the Sign of the Discontinuity in One-Dimensional Dispersion Relations,” Phys. Rev. 135 (1964) B1369–B1374

    1964

  66. [74]

    Extension of positivity bounds to non-local theories: IR obstructions to Lorentz invariant UV completions,

    J. Tokuda, “Extension of positivity bounds to non-local theories: IR obstructions to Lorentz invariant UV completions,” JHEP 05 (2019) 216, arXiv:1902.10039 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  67. [75]

    New lower bounds on scattering amplitudes: non-locality constraints,

    L. Buoninfante, J. Tokuda, and M. Yamaguchi, “New lower bounds on scattering amplitudes: non-locality constraints,” JHEP 01 (2024) 082, arXiv:2305.16422 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Non-local positivity bounds: islands in Terra Incognita,

    L. Buoninfante, L.-Q. Shao, and A. Tokareva, “Non-local positivity bounds: islands in Terra Incognita,” arXiv:2412.08634 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  69. [77]

    Softness and amplitudes’ positivity for spinning particles,

    B. Bellazzini, “Softness and amplitudes’ positivity for spinning particles,” JHEP 02 (2017) 034, arXiv:1605.06111 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Momentprobleme f¨ ur ein endliches intervall.,

    F. Hausdorff, “Momentprobleme f¨ ur ein endliches intervall.,”Mathematische Zeitschrift 16 no. 1, (1923) 220–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01175684

    1923 doi

  71. [79]

    ¨ uber fouriersche reihen beschr¨ ankter summierbarer funktionen und ein neues extremumproblem,

    N. Akhiezer and M. Krein, “¨ uber fouriersche reihen beschr¨ ankter summierbarer funktionen und ein neues extremumproblem,” Common. Soc. Math., Kharkov 9 (1934)

    1934

  72. [80]

    N. I. Akhiezer and W. Fleming, Some Questions in the Theory of Moments , vol. 2. American Mathematical Society, 1962

    1962

  73. [81]

    Bertsekas, A

    D. Bertsekas, A. Nedic, and A. Ozdaglar, Convex Analysis and Optimization . Athena Scientific optimization and computation series. Athena Scientific, 2003. https://books.google.com.tw/books?id=c_Q5EAAAQBAJ

    2003

  74. [82]

    Graviton loops and negativity,

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

    arXiv

  75. [83]

    What is the graviton pole made of?,

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

    arXiv

  76. [84]

    11 - integral inequalities,

    “11 - integral inequalities,” in Table of Integrals, Series, and Products (Eighth Edition) , D. Zwillinger, V. Moll, I. Gradshteyn, and I. Ryzhik, eds., pp. 1071–1076. Academic Press, Boston, eighth edition ed., 2014. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B97801238...

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.