Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 61 references

Symplectic Grassmannian description of the Coulomb branch three and four point amplitudes

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The three- and four-point Coulomb branch amplitudes of N=4 super Yang-Mills theory are integrals over the symplectic Grassmannians SpGr(3,6) and SpGr(4,8).

desk verdict Genuine but modest step toward a symplectic Grassmannian description of massive amplitudes; the three-point geometry is elegant, but the headline claim overstates what is proven because the displayed equalities carry an unregulated δ(0) in the physical real-mass frame. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.03705 v1 pith:EK3Q5TGM submitted 2025-05-06 hep-th

Veronica Calvo Cortes , Yassine El Maazouz , Subramanya Hegde , Amit Suthar This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords symplecticGrassmannianCoulombbranchN=4superYang-Millsscatteringamplitudeson-shellfunctionsmassivespinor-helicitysix-dimensionalN=(11)SYMsuperamplitudes
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 claims that the three- and four-point scattering super-amplitudes on the Coulomb branch of $N=4$ super Yang-Mills theory are naturally integrals over symplectic Grassmannians: the three-point amplitude is exactly a supercharge-conserving delta function over $\mathrm{SpGr}(3,6)$, and the four-point amplitude is the same type of integral multiplied by a known function of minors. The massive kinematic data, encoded in the angle and square spinor matrices $\tilde\Lambda$ and $\Lambda$, are themselves isotropic two-planes, and for three and four particles their joint row space forms the $n$-plane that defines the symplectic Grassmannian. This matters because it extends the Grassmannian programme for massless amplitudes to massive theories and gives a geometric explanation of the special three-body kinematics and of the mass-conservation conditions. If the description is right, higher-point Coulomb branch on-shell functions should fit the same ansatz once the missing integrand $f_n$ is known.

What carries the argument

The central object is the symplectic Grassmannian $\mathrm{SpGr}(n,2n)$: the space of $n$-planes in a $2n$-dimensional complex vector space that are isotropic for a skew form $\Omega$, i.e. matrices $C_{n\times 2n}$ with $C\Omega C^T=0$. The argument is carried by the three linear conditions $C\Omega C^T=0$, $C\Omega\Lambda^T=0$, and $C\Omega\tilde\Lambda^T=0$, which package mass conservation, momentum conservation, and the relation between angle and square spinors, respectively; the delta functions in the ansatz (4.1) localize $C$ onto the particular matrix $C_*$ built from the external data. The $u$-variables of three-particle special kinematics enter as the parametrization of the one-dimensional intersection of the row spaces of $\Lambda$ and $\tilde\Lambda$, and a Groebner-basis invariant-ring computation shows that no little-group-invariant polynomial of Pluecker coordinates survives on $\mathrm{SpGr}(3,6)$, forcing the integral to be written in a special little-group frame.

What would settle it

Compute the dimension of the joint row space of $\Lambda$ and $\tilde\Lambda$ for a four-particle configuration in which, say, one particle's angle spinors are proportional to another particle's square spinors. If that dimension is less than four, no $C_{4\times8}$ can satisfy $C\Omega C^T=C\Omega\Lambda^T=C\Omega\tilde\Lambda^T=0$, and the claimed equivalence to $\mathrm{SpGr}(4,8)$ fails at that kinematic point. Alternatively, evaluate the four-point integral in a frame with $\langle i_1i_2\rangle\neq-[i_1i_2]$, avoiding the $\delta(0)$, and compare the result with the known amplitude.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is a symplectic-Grassmannian integral representation for Coulomb branch amplitudes at three and four points. For three particles the amplitude collapses to a single supercharge-conserving delta function, $A_3=\delta^6(C_*\,\Omega\,\eta^T)$, where $C_*$ is a $3\times6$ matrix assembled from spinor-helicity variables, $\Omega$ is the $6\times6$ symplectic form, and $C_*\Omega C_*^T=0$ identifies $C_*$ with a point of $\mathrm{SpGr}(3,6)$. For four particles the same delta function appears with a prefactor that is the inverse of a product of two maximal minors of the $4\times8$ matrix $C_*=(\tilde\Lambda;\Lambda)$, so the integral (4.1) evaluates to the amplitude up to a known kinematic factor, or exactly after an explicitly given rescaling. The paper also demonstrates that the kinematic space of these amplitudes is equivalent to $\mathrm{SpGr}(n,2n)$, that the massless MHV and anti-MHV three-point amplitudes are recovered as limits of the massive formula, and that the three- and four-point amplitudes of six-dimensional $N=(1,1)$ SYM, written in four-dimensional variables, display the same symplectic structure.

Load-bearing premise

The $\mathrm{SpGr}(n,2n)$ identification assumes the joint row space of $\Lambda$ and $\tilde\Lambda$ is exactly $n$-dimensional for $n=3,4$ — proven for three points, only asserted as "expected" for four — and the explicit integral is evaluated in the frame $\langle i_1i_2\rangle=-[i_1i_2]$, which introduces a $\delta(0)$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At three points the Coulomb branch amplitude is exactly the supercharge-conserving delta function $\delta^6(C_*\Omega\eta^T)$; no separate prefactor is needed, and the $\mathrm{SL}(3)$ invariance of the amplitude becomes manifest.
  • At four points the same integral ansatz yields the amplitude up to the known factor $-2s_{13}/(s_{12}s_{23})$; an explicitly chosen $f_4$ removes this factor and gives the amplitude exactly.
  • In the massless limit the $\mathrm{SpGr}(3,6)$ description degenerates into the ordinary Grassmannian descriptions of the MHV and anti-MHV three-point amplitudes, recovering $\mathrm{Gr}(2,3)$ and $\mathrm{Gr}(1,3)$ inside the symplectic Grassmannian.
  • The three- and four-point amplitudes of six-dimensional $N=(1,1)$ SYM, expressed in four-dimensional massive variables, take the same $\delta^4(C_*\Omega\eta^T)\delta^4(C_*\Omega\tilde\eta^T)$ form, showing the symplectic structure is not an artifact of the four-dimensional complex-mass framing.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the dimension count generalizes, the same ansatz (4.1) should describe higher-point Coulomb branch on-shell functions; the undetermined $f_n$ would then be fixed by BCFW amalgamation of three-point blocks rather than by direct integration, as in the massless Grassmannian construction.
  • Kinematic loci where the row spaces of $\Lambda$ and $\tilde\Lambda$ have a larger-than-generic intersection form a boundary in amplitude space; on that boundary the $\mathrm{SpGr}(n,2n)$ parametrization must either degenerate or acquire extra data, which could be tested by studying near-collinear massive kinematics.
  • A concrete next test is to evaluate the four-point symplectic integral in a frame without the condition $\langle i_1i_2\rangle=-[i_1i_2]$, i.e. with complex masses; the paper promises this generalization, and matching the known $1/(s_{12}s_{23})$ amplitude there would confirm the $\mathrm{SpGr}(4,8)$ identification beyond the $\delta(0)$-carrying frame.
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 proposes a symplectic Grassmannian formulation of three- and four-point tree-level superamplitudes on the Coulomb branch of N=4 SYM. After reviewing the massive spinor-helicity formalism and the special three-body kinematics, the authors rewrite the three-point amplitude as a single supercharge-conserving delta function and propose a general SpGr(n,2n) integral ansatz in Eq. (4.1). They evaluate this integral for n=3 and n=4 in Appendix D, obtaining the amplitudes of reference [47] up to a kinematic factor, with integrands f3 and f4 chosen specifically for this purpose. The last part expresses six-dimensional N=(1,1) SYM amplitudes in four-dimensional variables, in a form suggestive of SpGr(3,6) and SpGr(4,8) structure, with a detailed dimensional reduction of spinor and supersymmetry variables in the appendices.

Significance. If the construction is valid in full generality, it would be a significant step toward a Grassmannian geometry for massive amplitudes, connecting the Coulomb branch of N=4 SYM to the six-dimensional symplectic Grassmannian program. The paper contains detailed and apparently correct localization computations in Appendix D, and it is commendably explicit about the non-uniqueness of the integrands and about the delta-function(0) issue in the real-mass frame. However, as discussed below, the central equalities are established only in a restricted frame and the n=4 kinematic-space identification is not proved, so the paper currently establishes an existence result in a special frame rather than a fully general formulation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4 (Eqs. (4.2), (4.3), (4.10); Appendix D)] The integral evaluations that support the central claims are performed in the frame where angle brackets and square brackets satisfy the relation ⟨i1i2⟩ = -[i1i2]. In that frame, which is the real-mass Coulomb branch frame with m̃_i = m'_i = m_i, the two mass-conservation delta functions in Eq. (4.2) are not independent: after imposing the mass-conservation condition Σ m_i = 0, the product δ(Σ⟨i1i2⟩) δ(Σ[i1i2]) contains a factor δ(0)^2, so the equality in Eq. (4.2) is formal. The paper acknowledges this ('Strictly speaking, this would imply the appearance of a δ(0)...') and states that the analysis can easily be generalized, but the generalization is not carried out; the localization of C to C* in Eq. (4.4), the minor identities in Eqs. (4.8)-(4.9), and the evaluations f3|_{C*}=1 and f4|_{C*}=-2s13/(s12s23)^2 all use the restricted frame. The central equalities (4.3) and (4.10) therefore do not yet establish an integral representation for the physical real-mass Coulomb branch amplitudes; a general-frame evaluation, or an argument that the δ(0) factor cancels in a well-defined limit, is needed.
  2. [Section 3.2 and Section 4.2] The claimed equivalence of the four-point kinematic space to SpGr(4,8) rests on the joint row space of Λ and eΛ being four-dimensional. The text states only that this is 'expected' in Section 3.2 and provides no proof, nor does it discuss degenerate kinematics where the intersection of the two row spans is non-zero. Since Eq. (4.10) localizes C to the 4×8 matrix (Λ;eΛ), a lowering of the rank would make C fail to define a point of SpGr(4,8) and would make the constraints C.Ω.C^T=0 and C.Ω.Λ^T=0 overdetermined. A dimension-counting proof for generic kinematics and a treatment of the degenerate cases is required for the statement that the kinematic space is exactly SpGr(4,8).
  3. [Section 4.1 and 4.2] The integrands f3 and f4 are not derived; they are chosen to satisfy f3|_{C*}=1 and f4|_{C*}=-2s13/(s12s23)^2, and the kinematic prefactor -s12s23/(2s13) is inserted into f4 to cancel the factor produced by the integral. The authors explicitly note the non-uniqueness of f3 and call f4 'a (non-unique) choice'. This means the paper establishes the existence of a symplectic Grassmannian integral representation that reproduces the known amplitudes, but not a canonical or predictive formulation: the integrand depends on external kinematics for n=4, multiple choices exist for n=3, and no f_n is known for n>4. This is a limitation rather than a logical flaw, but the conclusions should state it clearly and should not present the representation as a derivation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.2] The claim that Derksen's algorithm found a single generator of the invariant ring, and that this generator vanishes under the symplectic ideal, should be backed by the generator itself or by an ancillary file; as written it cannot be checked from the text.
  2. [Section 1.1] The phrase 'can be written merely as a supercharge-conserving delta function' should be qualified: the rewriting in Eq. (1.1) holds in a specially chosen little-group frame and after dropping an overall sign or normalization.
  3. [Section 5] The notation for C*, \bar C*, u versus \tilde u, and w versus \tilde w is easy to confuse; a summary table of definitions would improve readability.
  4. [Appendix B, Eq. (B.10)] The square roots of m_i/m*_i require a branch choice; please state the phase convention explicitly.
  5. [Section 6] There are typos such as 'Pl¨ cuker' and 'renders the above amplitude two important features'; a careful proofread is recommended.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The SpGr integral formulas are reverse-engineered: f3 and f4 are fitted to the known Coulomb branch amplitudes, making the 'reproduction' true by construction; the n=4 kinematic-space equivalence is only 'expected' and the evaluation carries an acknowledged δ(0).

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 1.1 (Main results) and Section 4.1, Eq. (4.6) and the paragraph 'Comparing the correct three-particle amplitude...']
    "Comparing the correct three-particle amplitude with the integral carried out in (D.1) and (4.5), we infer that f3 should evaluate to identity at the particular solution for C (4.4). For it to be cyclically invariant, the f3 can be one of the following: f3 = 1/((1u2w3w)(2u3w1w)) + 1/((2u3w1w)(3u1w2w)) + 1/((3u1w2w)(1u2w3w))."

    The integral identity (4.3) gives F3 = f3|_{C=C*} δ^6(C*.Ω.η^T) times momentum/mass delta functions, and the known Coulomb-branch three-point amplitude of [47] is exactly δ^6(C*.Ω.η^T) in this frame. Requiring F3 = A3 therefore only fixes f3|_{C=C*}=1; the paper states 'multiple choices' and 'we infer that f3 should evaluate to identity at the particular solution for C.' Thus the SpGr integral is fitted to the amplitude, and its equality to the amplitude is an input, not an output.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 1.1 (Main results) and Section 4.2, Eq. (4.10), including 'On the solution C∗, this particular f4 evaluates to...']
    "For n = 4, the following (non-unique) choice of f4 gives the correct four-point amplitude: f4 = s12s23 −2s13 ( 1/((11122122)(21223132)(31324142)) +cyclic permutations ). Note it has explicit external kinematic dependence."

    The paper computes f4|_{C=C*} = −2s13/(s12s23)^2 and F4 = (−2s13/(s12s23)) A4, then inserts the prefactor −s12s23/(2s13) into f4 to obtain F4 = A4. The prefactor is not a prediction of the symplectic Grassmannian geometry; it is chosen precisely to cancel the kinematic factor produced by the integral. The authors acknowledge non-uniqueness and external kinematic dependence, but the equality F4=A4 is enforced by construction rather than derived.

full rationale

The paper makes two kinds of claims. The kinematic-space identification for n=3 is an independent derivation: momentum/mass conservation makes the joint row space of Λ and eΛ isotropic of dimension 3, hence a point of SpGr(3,6). This part is not circular and carries real content. The central integral-representation equalities, however, are reverse-engineered. The ansatz (4.1) contains an undetermined function f_n, and the paper fixes f_3 and f_4 by demanding that F_n equal the known amplitudes of [47]; multiple choices are listed and the f_4 prefactor is explicitly external. Hence F_3 = A_3 and F_4 = A_4 hold by construction, not because the symplectic Grassmannian predicts the amplitude. The paper is transparent about this, but transparency does not remove the fitted-input character. Two additional gaps are noted without counting them as circularity: (i) Eq. (4.2) is evaluated in the frame ⟨i1i2⟩=-[i1i2], where Sec. 4 concedes 'Strictly speaking, this would imply the appearance of a δ(0)' and says the analysis 'can easily be generalised' without performing the generalization; (ii) the n=4 kinematic-space equivalence relies on the 'expected dimension' of the joint row space being 4 (Sec. 3.2) rather than a proof. No load-bearing self-citation was found: [50], co-authored by one of the present authors, is used only for a proportionality fact that the paper also obtains directly, and the SpGr expectation cites external work [51-53]. Overall: partial circularity of the integrand-fitting type, with an independent geometric core, giving a score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's main contribution is the integral representation; the integrand functions are fit parameters, and the n=4 kinematic-space identification relies on an unproven dimension count. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • f3 integrand function = e.g., 1/((1u2w3w)(2u3w1w)) + cyclic (multiple choices)
    Chosen by hand so that f3|_{C=C*}=1, reproducing the known three-point amplitude; no derivation fixes it uniquely.
  • f4 integrand and kinematic prefactor = f4 = -(s12 s23)/(2 s13) [1/((11122122)(21223132)(31324142)) + cyclic]
    The prefactor -s12s23/(2s13) is introduced explicitly to cancel the kinematic factor -2s13/(s12s23) produced by the integral, i.e., fitted to the known four-point amplitude.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Known Coulomb branch tree amplitudes from [47] are correct and are the target to be reproduced.
    The integrand functions f3 and f4 are fixed by requiring the integral to equal the amplitudes of [47]; if those amplitudes were wrong, the construction would match the wrong object.
  • domain assumption For n=4, the joint row space of Λ and eΛ is 4-dimensional for the kinematics of interest.
    Section 3.2 states this as 'expected' dimension, not proven; needed to map the kinematic space to SpGr(4,8).
  • ad hoc to paper The integral ansatz (4.1) encodes momentum, mass and supercharge conservation through the delta functions C.Ω.Λ^T = 0, C.Ω.eΛ^T = 0, C.Ω.C^T = 0.
    The form of the symplectic Grassmannian integral is proposed, not derived; the paper notes fn is unknown in general.
  • standard math Symplectic Grassmannian properties: an isotropic subspace of C^{2n} has dimension at most n; SpGr(3,6) can be defined by the symplectic ideal (3.13).
    Standard facts used in Section 3.2.
  • ad hoc to paper The delta function δ(0) arising from imposing ⟨i1i2⟩=-[i1i2] can be interpreted as a harmless compactification factor and the analysis generalizes to the case without this condition.
    Stated in Section 4 without proof: 'the analysis used to construct the integral can easily be generalised to the case without this condition'.
  • domain assumption Macaulay2 computation via Derksen's algorithm shows the invariant ring of Gr(3,6) under SL(2)^3 has a single generator that vanishes under the symplectic ideal.
    Computational check relied upon in Section 3.2 to conclude there are no little group invariant polynomials of Plücker coordinates in SpGr(3,6); no code or transcript shipped.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Symplectic Grassmannian description of the Coulomb branch three and four point amplitudes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EK3Q5TGM

@misc{pith2026250503705,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Symplectic Grassmannian description of the Coulomb branch three and four point amplitudes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EK3Q5TGM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.03705}
}
read the original abstract

We present a formulation of the three- and four-point amplitudes on the Coulomb branch of N=4 SYM as integrals over the symplectic Grassmannian. We demonstrate that their kinematic spaces are equivalent to symplectic Grassmannians SpGr(n,2n). For the three-point case, we express the amplitude as an integral over the symplectic Grassmannian in a specific little group frame. In the four-point case, we show that the integral yields the amplitude up to a known kinematic factor. Building on the four-dimensional analysis, we also express the six-dimensional N = (1,1) SYM amplitude in terms of four-dimensional variables in a form that makes its symplectic Grassmannian structure manifest.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [47]

    Herderschee, S

    A. Herderschee, S. Koren and T. Trott,ConstructingN = 4 Coulomb branch superamplitudes, JHEP 08 (2019) 107 [1902.07205]

    arXiv 2019

  2. [1]

    Dixon,Calculating scattering amplitudes efficiently, inTheoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics (TASI 95): QCD and Beyond, pp

    L.J. Dixon,Calculating scattering amplitudes efficiently, inTheoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics (TASI 95): QCD and Beyond, pp. 539–584, 1, 1996 [hep-ph/9601359]

    arXiv 1996

  3. [2]

    Elvang and Y.-t

    H. Elvang and Y.-t. Huang,Scattering Amplitudes, 1308.1697

    arXiv

  4. [3]

    Henn and J.C

    J.M. Henn and J.C. Plefka,Scattering Amplitudes in Gauge Theories, vol. 883, Springer, Berlin (2014), 10.1007/978-3-642-54022-6

    doi:10.1007/978-3-642-54022-6 2014

  5. [4]

    Britto, F

    R. Britto, F. Cachazo and B. Feng,New recursion relations for tree amplitudes of gluons, Nucl. Phys. B 715 (2005) 499 [hep-th/0412308]. – 37 –

    arXiv 2005

  6. [5]

    Britto, F

    R. Britto, F. Cachazo, B. Feng and E. Witten,Direct proof of tree-level recursion relation in Yang-Mills theory, Phys. Rev. Lett.94 (2005) 181602 [hep-th/0501052]

    arXiv 2005

  7. [6]

    Parke and T.R

    S.J. Parke and T.R. Taylor,An Amplitude forn Gluon Scattering, Phys. Rev. Lett.56 (1986) 2459

    1986

  8. [7]

    Recursion Relations for Tree Amplitudes in Super Gauge Theories

    M.-x. Luo and C.-k. Wen,Recursion relations for tree amplitudes in super gauge theories, JHEP 03 (2005) 004 [hep-th/0501121]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2005

Show all 61 references
  1. [8]

    Cheung,On-Shell Recursion Relations for Generic Theories, JHEP 03 (2010) 098 [0808.0504]

    C. Cheung,On-Shell Recursion Relations for Generic Theories, JHEP 03 (2010) 098 [0808.0504]

    2010 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Elvang, D.Z

    H. Elvang, D.Z. Freedman and M. Kiermaier,Recursion Relations, Generating Functions, and Unitarity Sums in N=4 SYM Theory, JHEP 04 (2009) 009 [0808.1720]

    2009 arXiv

  3. [10]

    B. Feng, J. Wang, Y. Wang and Z. Zhang,BCFW Recursion Relation with Nonzero Boundary Contribution, JHEP 01 (2010) 019 [0911.0301]

    2010 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Cheung, D

    C. Cheung, D. O’Connell and B. Wecht,BCFW Recursion Relations and String Theory, JHEP 09 (2010) 052 [1002.4674]

    2010 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Bern, L.J

    Z. Bern, L.J. Dixon, D.C. Dunbar and D.A. Kosower,Fusing gauge theory tree amplitudes into loop amplitudes, Nucl. Phys. B 435 (1995) 59 [hep-ph/9409265]

    1995 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Bern, L.J

    Z. Bern, L.J. Dixon, D.C. Dunbar and D.A. Kosower,One loop n point gauge theory amplitudes, unitarity and collinear limits, Nucl. Phys. B 425 (1994) 217 [hep-ph/9403226]

    1994 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Bern and A.G

    Z. Bern and A.G. Morgan,Massive loop amplitudes from unitarity, Nucl. Phys. B 467 (1996) 479 [hep-ph/9511336]

    1996 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Bern, L.J

    Z. Bern, L.J. Dixon, D.C. Dunbar and D.A. Kosower,One loop selfdual and N=4 superYang-Mills, Phys. Lett. B394 (1997) 105 [hep-th/9611127]

    1997 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Bern, L.J

    Z. Bern, L.J. Dixon and D.A. Kosower,Progress in one loop QCD computations, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.46 (1996) 109 [hep-ph/9602280]

    1996 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Bern, L.J

    Z. Bern, L.J. Dixon and D.A. Kosower,Unitarity based techniques for one loop calculations in QCD, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.51 (1996) 243 [hep-ph/9606378]

    1996 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Bern, J.S

    Z. Bern, J.S. Rozowsky and B. Yan,Two loop four gluon amplitudes in N=4 superYang-Mills, Phys. Lett. B401 (1997) 273 [hep-ph/9702424]

    1997 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Bern, L.J

    Z. Bern, L.J. Dixon and D.A. Kosower,One loop amplitudes for e+ e- to four partons, Nucl. Phys. B 513 (1998) 3 [hep-ph/9708239]

    1998 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Bern, L.J

    Z. Bern, L.J. Dixon, D.C. Dunbar, M. Perelstein and J.S. Rozowsky,On the relationship between Yang-Mills theory and gravity and its implication for ultraviolet divergences, Nucl. Phys. B 530 (1998) 401 [hep-th/9802162]

    1998 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Bern, L.J

    Z. Bern, L.J. Dixon and D.A. Kosower,Two-loop g —> gg splitting amplitudes in QCD, JHEP 08 (2004) 012 [hep-ph/0404293]

    2004 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Britto, F

    R. Britto, F. Cachazo and B. Feng,Generalized unitarity and one-loop amplitudes in N=4 super-Yang-Mills, Nucl. Phys. B 725 (2005) 275 [hep-th/0412103]

    2005 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Bern and Y.-t

    Z. Bern and Y.-t. Huang,Basics of Generalized Unitarity, J. Phys. A44 (2011) 454003 [1103.1869]

    2011 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Berends, R

    F.A. Berends, R. Kleiss, P. De Causmaecker, R. Gastmans and T.T. Wu,Single Bremsstrahlung Processes in Gauge Theories, Phys. Lett. B103 (1981) 124. – 38 –

    1981

  18. [25]

    Arkani-Hamed, F

    N. Arkani-Hamed, F. Cachazo and J. Kaplan,What is the Simplest Quantum Field Theory?, JHEP 09 (2010) 016 [0808.1446]

    2010 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Drummond, J

    J.M. Drummond, J. Henn, G.P. Korchemsky and E. Sokatchev,Dual superconformal symmetry of scattering amplitudes in N=4 super-Yang-Mills theory, Nucl. Phys. B 828 (2010) 317 [0807.1095]

    2010 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Drummond, J.M

    J.M. Drummond, J.M. Henn and J. Plefka,Yangian symmetry of scattering amplitudes in N=4 super Yang-Mills theory, JHEP 05 (2009) 046 [0902.2987]

    2009 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Arkani-Hamed, F

    N. Arkani-Hamed, F. Cachazo, C. Cheung and J. Kaplan,A Duality For The S Matrix, JHEP 03 (2010) 020 [0907.5418]

    2010 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Arkani-Hamed, J

    N. Arkani-Hamed, J. Bourjaily, F. Cachazo and J. Trnka,Unification of Residues and Grassmannian Dualities, JHEP 01 (2011) 049 [0912.4912]

    2011 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Arkani-Hamed, F

    N. Arkani-Hamed, F. Cachazo and C. Cheung,The Grassmannian Origin Of Dual Superconformal Invariance, JHEP 03 (2010) 036 [0909.0483]

    2010 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Arkani-Hamed, J

    N. Arkani-Hamed, J. Bourjaily, F. Cachazo and J. Trnka,Local Spacetime Physics from the Grassmannian, JHEP 01 (2011) 108 [0912.3249]

    2011 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Arkani-Hamed, J.L

    N. Arkani-Hamed, J.L. Bourjaily, F. Cachazo, A.B. Goncharov, A. Postnikov and J. Trnka, Grassmannian Geometry of Scattering Amplitudes, Cambridge University Press (4, 2016), 10.1017/CBO9781316091548, [1212.5605]

    2016 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Hodges,Eliminating spurious poles from gauge-theoretic amplitudes, JHEP 05 (2013) 135 [0905.1473]

    A. Hodges,Eliminating spurious poles from gauge-theoretic amplitudes, JHEP 05 (2013) 135 [0905.1473]

    2013 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Arkani-Hamed and J

    N. Arkani-Hamed and J. Trnka,The Amplituhedron, JHEP 10 (2014) 030 [1312.2007]

    2014 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Henn,What Can We Learn About QCD and Collider Physics from N=4 Super Yang–Mills?, Ann

    J.M. Henn,What Can We Learn About QCD and Collider Physics from N=4 Super Yang–Mills?, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.71 (2021) 87 [2006.00361]

    2021 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Kleiss and W.J

    R. Kleiss and W.J. Stirling,Spinor techniques for calculating p anti-p —> w+- / z0 + Jets, Nucl. Phys. B 262 (1985) 235

    1985

  30. [37]

    Kleiss and W.J

    R. Kleiss and W.J. Stirling,Top quark production at hadron colliders: Some useful formulae, Z. Phys. C 40 (1988) 419

    1988

  31. [38]

    Arkani-Hamed, T.-C

    N. Arkani-Hamed, T.-C. Huang and Y.-t. Huang,Scattering amplitudes for all masses and spins, JHEP 11 (2021) 070 [1709.04891]

    2021 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Alday, J.M

    L.F. Alday, J.M. Henn, J. Plefka and T. Schuster,Scattering into the fifth dimension of N=4 super Yang-Mills, JHEP 01 (2010) 077 [0908.0684]

    2010 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Kiermaier,The Coulomb-branch S-matrix from massless amplitudes, 1105.5385

    M. Kiermaier,The Coulomb-branch S-matrix from massless amplitudes, 1105.5385

    arXiv

  34. [41]

    Arkani-Hamed, W

    N. Arkani-Hamed, W. Flieger, J.M. Henn, A. Schreiber and J. Trnka,Coulomb Branch Amplitudes from a Deformed Amplituhedron Geometry, 2311.10814

    arXiv

  35. [42]

    Flieger, J

    W. Flieger, J. Henn, A. Schreiber and J. Trnka,Two-loop four-point amplitudes on the Coulomb branch ofN = 4 super Yang-Mills, JHEP 04 (2025) 116 [2501.09454]

    2025 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Boels,No triangles on the moduli space of maximally supersymmetric gauge theory, JHEP 05 (2010) 046 [1003.2989]

    R.H. Boels,No triangles on the moduli space of maximally supersymmetric gauge theory, JHEP 05 (2010) 046 [1003.2989]

    2010 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Craig, H

    N. Craig, H. Elvang, M. Kiermaier and T. Slatyer,Massive amplitudes on the Coulomb branch of N=4 SYM, JHEP 12 (2011) 097 [1104.2050]. – 39 –

    2011 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Plefka, T

    J. Plefka, T. Schuster and V. Verschinin,From Six to Four and More: Massless and Massive Maximal Super Yang-Mills Amplitudes in 6d and 4d and their Hidden Symmetries, JHEP 01 (2015) 098 [1405.7248]

    2015 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Caron-Huot and J.M

    S. Caron-Huot and J.M. Henn,Solvable Relativistic Hydrogenlike System in Supersymmetric Yang-Mills Theory, Phys. Rev. Lett.113 (2014) 161601 [1408.0296]

    2014 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Herderschee, S

    A. Herderschee, S. Koren and T. Trott,Massive On-Shell Supersymmetric Scattering Amplitudes, JHEP 10 (2019) 092 [1902.07204]

    2019 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Abhishek, S

    M. Abhishek, S. Hegde, D.P. Jatkar, A.P. Saha and A. Suthar,Loop amplitudes in the Coulomb branch ofN = 4 super-Yang-Mills theory, JHEP 03 (2024) 143 [2308.05705]

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Abhishek, S

    M. Abhishek, S. Hegde, D.P. Jatkar, A.P. Saha and A. Suthar,On-shell functions on the Coulomb branch ofN = 4 SYM, JHEP 05 (2024) 157 [2311.17763]

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Cachazo, A

    F. Cachazo, A. Guevara, M. Heydeman, S. Mizera, J.H. Schwarz and C. Wen,The S Matrix of 6D Super Yang-Mills and Maximal Supergravity from Rational Maps, JHEP 09 (2018) 125 [1805.11111]

    2018 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Schwarz and C

    J.H. Schwarz and C. Wen,Unified Formalism for 6D Superamplitudes Based on a Symplectic Grassmannian, JHEP 08 (2019) 125 [1907.03485]

    2019 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Bering and M

    K. Bering and M. Pazderka,Symplectic Grassmannians, dual conformal symmetry and 4-point amplitudes in 6D, JHEP 09 (2022) 054 [2204.10014]

    2022 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Cheung and D

    C. Cheung and D. O’Connell,Amplitudes and Spinor-Helicity in Six Dimensions, JHEP 07 (2009) 075 [0902.0981]

    2009 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Dennen, Y.-t

    T. Dennen, Y.-t. Huang and W. Siegel,Supertwistor space for 6D maximal super Yang-Mills, JHEP 04 (2010) 127 [0910.2688]

    2010 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Derksen,Computation of invariants for reductive groups, Advances in Mathematics141 (1999) 366

    H. Derksen,Computation of invariants for reductive groups, Advances in Mathematics141 (1999) 366

    1999

  49. [57]

    Macaulay2, a software system for research in algebraic geometry

    D.R. Grayson and M.E. Stillman, “Macaulay2, a software system for research in algebraic geometry.” Available athttp://www2.macaulay2.com

  50. [58]

    Armstrong, J.A

    C. Armstrong, J.A. Farrow and A.E. Lipstein,N = 7 On-shell diagrams and supergravity amplitudes in momentum twistor space, JHEP 01 (2021) 181 [2010.11813]

    2021 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Heslop and A.E

    P. Heslop and A.E. Lipstein,On-shell diagrams forN = 8 supergravity amplitudes, JHEP 06 (2016) 069 [1604.03046]

    2016 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Henn,Dual conformal symmetry at loop level: massive regularization, J

    J.M. Henn,Dual conformal symmetry at loop level: massive regularization, J. Phys. A44 (2011) 454011 [1103.1016]

    2011 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Heydeman, J.H

    M. Heydeman, J.H. Schwarz and C. Wen,M5-Brane and D-Brane Scattering Amplitudes, JHEP 12 (2017) 003 [1710.02170]. – 40 –

    2017 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.