Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 68 references

The paper aims to show that the ambitwistor Penrose transform trivialises conformal symmetry and conservation for four-dimensional twist-two correlators, so that building conserved spinning correlators reduces to choosing admissible log-con

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 11:34 UTC pith:LKJZUOWU

load-bearing objection A real new 4d ambitwistor technology for conserved spinning correlators, verified against many known embedding-space answers; the main caveat is the cohomological status of its log-containing representatives, which the authors themselves flag. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2606.13770 v2 pith:LKJZUOWU submitted 2026-06-11 hep-th gr-qc

4d CFT Correlators from Ambitwistors

Mariana Carrillo Gonz\'alez , Th\'eo Keseman This is my paper
classification hep-th gr-qc MSC 81T4032L25 PACS 11.25.Hf
keywords ambitwistor spacePenrose transformconformal correlatorsconserved currentstwist-two operatorsparity-odd structuresdouble copyCech cohomology
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper aims to show that four-dimensional CFT correlators of conserved, twist-two operators of arbitrary spin become almost trivial objects when written in ambitwistor space, the space of complex null geodesics. It claims that conformal invariance is built into the basic twistor–dual-twistor contractions, that conservation follows automatically from holomorphicity and projective properties of the Penrose transform, and that spin dependence separates cleanly from the remaining functional data. Explicitly, representatives built from products of the invariants Z_i·W_j together with logarithms in the numerator, evaluated by a specific 'one ambitwistor at a time' iterated-residue contour, reproduce the full position-space two- and three-point functions, including all parity-even and parity-odd tensor structures for spin one and spin two. A sympathetic reader should care because this shortens the laborious embedding-space program of enumerating conformal structures and imposing conservation into a small algebraic problem, and because the resulting basis is arranged to make a boundary double copy manifest. The paper also shows how to deform the construction away from twist two to obtain massive AdS boundary propagators and the conformally coupled scalar.

Core claim

The central claim is that the ambitwistor Penrose transform turns conserved spinning correlators into a problem of picking cohomology representatives, and that the admissible ones are logarithmic. The scalar three-point representative log(t12) log(t23) log(t31)/(t13 t21 t32)^2 evaluates to 1/(X12 X23 X31); adjusted powers and a cross-ratio factor give the general spinning two- and three-point correlators. These span all three spin-1 and all five spin-2 structures, satisfy the non-homogeneous Ward identity, and admit a representative-level double copy. The same machinery yields massive integer-twist two-point functions and the Δ=5/2 conformally coupled scalar.

What carries the argument

The central object is the ambitwistor Penrose transform — integrating holomorphic functions of (Z_i, W_j) on the quadric Z·W=0 inside CP^3 × CP^3 over CP^1 × CP^1 fibres. The argument is carried by the admissible Cech representatives: products of the invariant contractions t_ij = Z_i·W_j with logarithms in the numerator, a cross-ratio u, and the 'one ambitwistor at a time' iterated-residue contour. These make the SL(4,C) action trivial (conformal invariance), make the divergence vanish at integrand level (conservation), and separate spin from the remaining function.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the specific logarithmic, partly multivalued Cech representatives, together with the 'one ambitwistor at a time' iterated-residue contour, define a well-defined order-independent pairing that evaluates to the physical correlators — a premise the paper itself flags as not yet derived from first principles (footnote 3 and Appendix B.1), since different residue orders or pole choices can give different answers and the correct one is selected by h

What would settle it

Evaluate the scalar three-point representative (4.5) using a different order of iterated residues from the one prescribed in Appendix B.1 — say integrating λ_2 before π_2 — and compare to 1/(X12 X23 X31); if the result differs, the pairing is not intrinsic. Alternatively, find any q ≠ 0 power of the cross-ratio u whose contour integral is non-vanishing and finite, contradicting §4.1's vanishing claim; or show that the parity-odd projection rule fails to produce a known parity-odd structure for spin (3,0) operators.

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

If this is right

  • If the representatives are admissible, every conserved spinning two- and three-point correlator in 4d CFT has a compact ambitwistor expression, and constructing spinning correlators reduces to adjusting integer powers in a single scalar template.
  • The parity-even/odd projection rule (averaging over Z_i ↔ W_i with a sign) gives a uniform way to separate parity sectors for arbitrary spin, not just the low-spin examples checked.
  • The representative-level double copy f_2 = f_1 ~ f_1 / ~ f_0 means any equal-spin spin-two three-point correlator can be expressed as a product of spin-one data, providing a basis compatible with a boundary double copy for arbitrary balanced mixed-symmetry representations.
  • The deformations of the two-point representative produce boundary propagators for massive AdS fields of integer twist and for the conformally coupled scalar via a Pochhammer contour, extending the method beyond twist two.
  • The verified Ward identity shows the logarithmic representatives capture the full correlator including contact terms, not just its discontinuity.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • I would expect the 'admissibility' criterion to be equivalent to a statement about twisted cohomology: the logarithms turn the Cech classes into multivalued sections whose pairing requires cycles closed in twisted homology, which would explain why the residue order matters and why the Pochhammer contour appears naturally for non-integer twist.
  • If the parity projection rule extends to higher points, then ambitwistor representatives could organise the much larger space of parity-odd structures at four and more points, where embedding-space enumeration becomes unwieldy; this is a testable extension the paper does not carry out.
  • The paper's observation that the Laplacian generates only half of the available higher-twist three-point structures suggests that a complete massive extension at higher points would need deformations beyond simple weight insertions — a natural next target.
  • The two-point representatives necessarily involve the infinity twistor; a plausible inference is that this is not a limitation of the representatives but a genuine feature of two-point data in any twistor-like description, analogous to three-point amplitudes in flat space.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops an ambitwistor-space formalism for two- and three-point correlators of conserved (twist-two) operators in four-dimensional CFTs. The central claim is that representatives of the form (3.3), supplemented by the logarithmic Cech data in Eqs. (4.5), (4.11), and (4.12), trivialise conformal invariance, conservation, and parity, and reproduce the full position-space correlators for arbitrary conserved spins. The authors verify this explicitly against known embedding-space structures for scalar, spin-1, and spin-2 cases, derive a Ward identity for ⟨OOJ⟩, propose a boundary double-copy basis, and extend the construction to massive two-point functions and to the conformally coupled scalar via a Pochhammer contour.

Significance. If the construction can be placed on a well-defined cohomological footing, this would be a significant new tool: it packages conformal covariance, conservation, and spin dependence of CFT_4 correlators in a compact twistor form, and it suggests a natural basis for double-copy and parity decompositions. The paper has real strengths: the explicit checks against external embedding-space results, the reproducible numerical contour algorithm in Appendix B.2, the verification of the non-homogeneous Ward identity, and the demonstration that the representatives span all known spin-1 and spin-2 structures. However, the load-bearing interpretational claim is conditional. The paper itself concedes that the log-containing representatives lie outside H^2(A,O(-2,-2)) (footnote 3), that the product contour is order-dependent (Appendix B.1), and that the admissible pole choice is selected by matching known answers (footnote 9). These issues affect every downstream result and must be resolved before the paper's main assertion is fully supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1, footnote 3; §4.1; Appendix B.1] The central cohomological premise is not established. The representatives in Eqs. (4.5), (4.11), and (4.12) contain logarithms, which the paper explicitly states take them outside H^2(A,O(-2,-2)). The standard Penrose-transform argument that the spacetime field is independent of representative and contour therefore does not apply. The paper's own construction shows the fragility: homogeneous representatives either integrate to zero (q≠0) or diverge (q=0) in §4.1, and logarithms are inserted so that anomalous rescaling terms vanish only inside the integral. The admissibility criterion is that the final answer matches the known position-space correlator, not a derived property of a well-defined pairing. I therefore do not see the claimed trivialisation of conformal symmetry and conservation as proven. A concrete repair would be to define a suitable (possibly twisted or distributional) coho
  2. [Appendix B.1, especially Eq. (B.7) and footnote 9] The iterated-residue contour prescription is not shown to be a well-defined geometric pairing. The text states that the integrations must be performed 'one ambitwistor at a time', that after the first integration the analytic structure of the remaining variables can change, and that one pole choice is taken because the other 'gives infinity'. Footnote 9 further states: 'among the residue prescriptions considered here, this appears to be the admissible Cech realisation'. This is in tension with the claim in §3.1 that pole and contour choices are not additional arbitrary choices. As written, the evaluation is an order-dependent matching prescription, not the evaluation of a cohomology class. I request a proof that the result is independent of the order of iterated residues and of the choice of enclosed pole within a fixed branch-cut specification, or an explicit statement of the additional
  3. [§4.2, Eqs. (4.18), (4.20), (4.23)] The passage from the ambitwistor basis to the physical Yang–Mills, F^3, and Einstein-gravity structures is obtained by matching to the known embedding-space coefficients (Eqs. (4.17), (4.19), (4.21)), as the text acknowledges. The paper does not derive the parameter p or the linear combinations from the ambitwistor formalism itself. This is not by itself an error, but it weakens the claim that the ambitwistor correlators 'furnish a natural basis' for bulk interactions. If the pairing underlying the log representatives is not well-defined, then the coefficients c_YM, c_F3, c_CS, and the analogous GR coefficients are not predictions but curve fits. A full resolution of the issues in the previous two comments is needed before these results can be interpreted as deriving the physical basis.
  4. [§3.2, Eqs. (3.12)–(3.13); §4.2] The parity projection rule is presented as an 'empirical rule' and checked only for s_i ≤ 3. It is used to identify the Chern–Simons, Yang–Mills, F^3, and GR structures. However, the exchange Z_i ↔ W_i is defined on representatives, not on cohomology classes, and since the log-containing representatives are not actual cohomology classes in H^2(A,O(-2,-2)), it is not clear that this operation is well-defined modulo admissible changes of representative. At minimum, the authors should prove that the rule is invariant under the class of representative changes they permit, or formulate it at the level of a well-defined cohomological pairing. Until then, the parity-even/odd decomposition has the status of a checked conjecture rather than a derived statement.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.1] The text says 'we have checked for several non-integer real values of p that the resulting integral does not reproduce the correct answer', but no details are given. This is relevant to the admissibility criterion and should be either tabulated or moved to an appendix with the numerical method.
  2. [Appendix C, Table 2] The notation in Table 2 is hard to parse: the meaning of the entry '1k0' under 'n k' and the definition of n_i in the caption should be made explicit. The reader should not have to reverse-engineer the counting of derivative pairs.
  3. [References] References [4] and [46] appear to be the same paper (Arkani-Hamed et al., The S-Matrix in Twistor Space), and [5] and [43] are both twistor-literature reviews or lecture notes. Please consolidate duplicates and ensure all cited items are distinct.
  4. [§6.2] The conformally coupled scalar computation is interesting but the paper explicitly states that no isomorphism between twisted cohomology classes and the corresponding operators is proved. This is acceptable for an extension, but the claims in the abstract ('extend it to conformally coupled scalars') should be phrased as a concrete construction plus an open interpretational question, which the conclusions do state.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the paper's correlators are checked against external embedding-space results, and its empirical or matched elements are disclosed rather than presented as first-principles predictions.

full rationale

I walked the claimed derivation chain and found no step that reduces to its own input by construction. The central Penrose-transform mechanism is anchored to an external mathematical result [38] (the H^2 isomorphism to off-shell divergence-free fields), not to a self-citation. The later 3d twistor program [16-21], including the authors' own [17], is used as motivation and analogy, not as the justification for the 4d correlators. The paper's own flagged limitations are real but do not constitute circularity. Footnote 3 and Section 4.1 explicitly concede that the log-containing representatives lie outside H^2(A,O(-2,-2)) and that the q=0 representative diverges while q≠0 vanishes; the triple-log representative is then selected because it is the first non-vanishing one. This is an admitted constructive search, not a hidden fit. Appendix B.1 concedes that the iterated-residue product contour is order-dependent and that one pole choice is selected because it gives the correct answer ('this appears to be the admissible Čech realisation'), and it states 'it would be desirable to have a better first principles description to choose the representatives.' That is an open well-definedness problem, i.e. a correctness risk, not a circular reduction: the paper does not claim to have derived the contour from first principles. Similarly, the Yang-Mills, F^3 and GR combinations (4.18), (4.20), (4.23) are explicitly said to have been 'obtained by matching to the standard embedding-space tensor structures,' and the parity projection (3.12)-(3.13) is explicitly labelled 'an empirical rule.' These are disclosed identifications against external benchmarks, not unannounced fitted parameters masquerading as predictions. Where the paper does make a nontrivial claim—e.g. the scalar evaluation (B.8) to 1/(X12 X23 X31), the two-twistor degree-three localisation, the Ward-identity check, and the Pochhammer-contour conformally coupled propagator—the computations are carried out explicitly and checked against known unique or independent results. Because every potentially suspicious choice is either independently motivated or explicitly flagged as empirical, and because no equation is asserted to be a prediction while being fixed by that same equation, I find no circularity. Score 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The construction rests on external cohomology input (Baston–Mason), on log-containing representatives that the paper admits lie strictly outside the stated cohomology, on an empirically justified parity rule, on a Künneth-based product contour whose possible obstruction is acknowledged, and on an unproven twisted-cohomology interpretation for the Pochhammer contour. No new physical entities are introduced; the free parameters are the cross-ratio label p and the matching coefficients used to pass to the physical basis.

free parameters (3)
  • cross-ratio power p = integer ≥ p_min (0, 1, 2 used for TTT)
    Labels representatives in (4.8)–(4.12) and (4.22). Physical structures are linear combinations over p; the paper states 'It would be more satisfactory to understand the physical meaning of the parameter p directly' (§4.2). The role of p in reaching YM/F³/GR structures is not derived.
  • YM/F³/GR matching coefficients = YM: (1, −9); F³: (1, 3); GR: (27/4, 189/8, 3375/32)
    Fixed by 'matching to the standard embedding-space tensor structures' (§4.2, Eqs. (4.18), (4.20), (4.23)); not derived from the ambitwistor formalism. These are data-fitted numbers in the sense that they are tuned so the p-basis reproduces known structures.
  • overall normalization (#) = unspecified
    The Penrose transforms fix structure only 'without fixing their overall normalizations' (§1); acceptable for three-point data, but each representative is defined up to a constant set by hand.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Baston–Mason isomorphism: H²(A, O(−s−2,−s−2)) ≅ off-shell divergence-free spin-(s,s) fields (scalar ∆=2 for s=0), from ref [38].
    Invoked at the start of §3.1 ('It was shown in [38] that...') as the foundation for identifying ambitwistor representatives with conserved fields; the paper does not prove or re-derive it.
  • ad hoc to paper Log-containing functions with vanishing anomalous rescaling terms define admissible projective representatives.
    §4.1 introduces log(Z_i·W_j) factors because q≠0 powers of the cross-ratio integrate to zero and q=0 diverges; footnote 3 concedes logs 'strictly speaking take us outside H²(A,O(−2,−2))'.
  • ad hoc to paper Parity even/odd projection by ½[1 ± (−1)^{Σs}(Z↔W exchange)] (Eqs. (3.12)–(3.13)).
    'At present, we regard (3.12) and (3.13) as an empirical rule for the three-point cohomology representatives... The rule passes several non-trivial checks that we performed for s_i ≤ 3' (§3.2); no proof for arbitrary spin.
  • ad hoc to paper Künneth product-contour decomposition H²(CP¹×CP¹,O(a,b)) ≃ H¹⊗H¹ with iterated one-ambitwistor-at-a-time residues.
    Used throughout Appendix B.1; footnote 8: 'a possible obstruction to this decomposition might exist,' and the evaluation is order-dependent in the product contour, with the admissible pole chosen a posteriori.
  • ad hoc to paper Pochhammer contour in twisted homology evaluates the half-integer-twist Penrose transform.
    §6.2: 'we do not prove an isomorphism between the relevant twisted cohomology classes and operators dual to conformally coupled scalar fields'; the contour is used to reproduce the known ∆=5/2 propagator.
  • domain assumption Infinity twistor I_AB is an admissible extra structure at two points; the final correlator is conformally covariant despite the representative's explicit I-dependence.
    §4.3: 'the infinity twistor appears to be unavoidable' for two points; standard in the twistor amplitude literature [4,5], and checked by the final X12^{-2} answer.
  • domain assumption Twist-preserving weight-shifting operators (4.6)–(4.7) generate all spins by multiplication.
    §4.2: 'because of projectiveness, these operators are completely fixed (up to the cross ratio)'; the claim that all allowed structures are spanned is verified only in spin ≤ 2 examples.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 30386 in / 18222 out tokens · 175092 ms · 2026-08-02T11:34:49.539377+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We develop an ambitwistor-space formulation of conserved spinning correlators in four-dimensional CFTs. We show that conformal symmetry and conservation are trivialised by the ambitwistor Penrose transform, and construct the two- and three-point ambitwistor correlators explicitly. We further propose a simple formula for projecting onto parity-even and parity-odd sectors, and verify it in several non-trivial examples. The resulting correlators furnish a natural basis compatible with a boundary double copy for arbitrary spin. At three points, we show that they localise on degree-three curves in a two-twistor representation. We also explain how the formalism incorporates boundary propagators for unitary operators of integer conformal dimension, and extend it to conformally coupled scalars.

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    1986

  2. [2]

    Witten,Perturbative gauge theory as a string theory in twistor space,Commun

    E. Witten,Perturbative gauge theory as a string theory in twistor space,Commun. Math. Phys.252(2004) 189–258, [hep-th/0312171]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  3. [3]

    Berkovits,An Alternative string theory in twistor space for N=4 superYang-Mills,Phys

    N. Berkovits,An Alternative string theory in twistor space for N=4 superYang-Mills,Phys. Rev. Lett.93(2004) 011601, [hep-th/0402045]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  4. [5]

    L. J. Mason and D. Skinner,Scattering Amplitudes and BCFW Recursion in Twistor Space, JHEP01(2010) 064, [0903.2083]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  5. [6]

    L. J. Mason and D. Skinner,An Ambitwistor Yang-Mills Lagrangian,Phys. Lett. B636 (2006) 60–67, [hep-th/0510262]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  6. [7]

    M. S. Costa, J. Penedones, D. Poland and S. Rychkov,Spinning Conformal Correlators, JHEP11(2011) 071, [1107.3554]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  7. [8]

    Zhiboedov,A note on three-point functions of conserved currents,1206.6370

    A. Zhiboedov,A note on three-point functions of conserved currents,1206.6370

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  8. [9]

    D. J. Binder, D. Z. Freedman and S. S. Pufu,A bispinor formalism for spinning Witten diagrams,JHEP02(2022) 040, [2003.07448]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  9. [10]

    Simmons-Duffin,Projectors, Shadows, and Conformal Blocks,JHEP04(2014) 146, [1204.3894]

    D. Simmons-Duffin,Projectors, Shadows, and Conformal Blocks,JHEP04(2014) 146, [1204.3894]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  10. [11]

    Penedones,Writing CFT correlation functions as AdS scattering amplitudes,JHEP03 (2011) 025, [1011.1485]

    J. Penedones,Writing CFT correlation functions as AdS scattering amplitudes,JHEP03 (2011) 025, [1011.1485]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  11. [12]

    Bzowski, P

    A. Bzowski, P. McFadden and K. Skenderis,Implications of conformal invariance in momentum space,JHEP03(2014) 111, [1304.7760]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  12. [13]

    Coriano, L

    C. Coriano, L. Delle Rose, E. Mottola and M. Serino,Solving the Conformal Constraints for Scalar Operators in Momentum Space and the Evaluation of Feynman ’s Master Integrals, JHEP07(2013) 011, [1304.6944]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  13. [14]

    Baumann, D

    D. Baumann, D. Green, A. Joyce, E. Pajer, G. L. Pimentel, C. Sleight et al.,Snowmass White Paper: The Cosmological Bootstrap,SciPost Phys. Comm. Rep.2024(2024) 1, [2203.08121]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  14. [15]

    Heslop and H

    P. Heslop and H. P. Ramisa,A Compact Formula for Conserved Three-Point Tensor Structures in 4D CFT,2512.14618

    arXiv

  15. [16]

    Baumann, G

    D. Baumann, G. Mathys, G. L. Pimentel and F. Rost,A New Twist on Spinning (A)dS Correlators,2408.02727

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  16. [17]

    Carrillo Gonz´ alez and T

    M. Carrillo Gonz´ alez and T. Keseman,Spinning boundary correlators from (A)dS 4 twistors, JHEP03(2026) 131, [2510.00096]

    arXiv 2026

  17. [18]

    A. Bala, S. Jain, D. K. S., D. Mazumdar and V. Singh,3D Conformal Field Theory in Twistor Space,2502.18562

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  18. [19]

    A. Bala, S. Jain, D. K. S., D. Mazumdar, V. Singh and B. Thakkar,A Supertwistor Formalism forN= 1,2,3,4SCFT 3,2503.19970. – 39 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  19. [20]

    Bala and D

    A. Bala and D. K. S,An Ode to the Penrose and Witten transforms in Twistor space for 3D CFT,2505.14082

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  20. [21]

    Ansari, S

    A. Ansari, S. Jain and D. K. S,AdS 4 Boundary Wightman functions in Twistor Space: Factorization, Conformal blocks and a Double Copy,2512.04172

    arXiv

  21. [22]

    Arundine, D

    M. Arundine, D. Baumann, M. H. G. Lee, G. L. Pimentel and F. Rost,The Cosmological Grassmannian,2602.07117

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  22. [23]

    De and H

    S. De and H. Lee,The Vasiliev Grassmannian,2603.24656

    arXiv

  23. [24]

    Huang, C.-K

    Y.-t. Huang, C.-K. Kuo, Y. Liu and J. Mei,Beyond Discontinuities: Cosmological WFCs from the Supersymmetric Orthogonal Grassmannian,2604.08512

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  24. [25]

    Arundine and G

    M. Arundine and G. L. Pimentel,Cosmological Collider in the Grassmannian,2605.21581

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  25. [26]

    A. Bala, S. Jain and D. K. S,The Conformal Grassmannian: A Symplectic Bi-Grassmannian forCF T4 Correlators,2605.06811

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  26. [27]

    Breitenlohner and D

    P. Breitenlohner and D. Z. Freedman,Positive Energy in anti-De Sitter Backgrounds and Gauged Extended Supergravity,Phys. Lett. B115(1982) 197–201

    1982

  27. [28]

    E. J. Schreier,Conformal symmetry and three-point functions,Phys. Rev. D3(1971) 980–988

    1971

  28. [29]

    Giombi, S

    S. Giombi, S. Prakash and X. Yin,A Note on CFT Correlators in Three Dimensions,JHEP 07(2013) 105, [1104.4317]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  29. [30]

    Corian` o, S

    C. Corian` o, S. Lionetti and M. M. Maglio,Parity-odd 3-point functions from CFT in momentum space and the chiral anomaly,Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 502, [2303.10710]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  30. [31]

    Skenderis,Lecture notes on holographic renormalization,Class

    K. Skenderis,Lecture notes on holographic renormalization,Class. Quant. Grav.19(2002) 5849–5876, [hep-th/0209067]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  31. [32]

    D’Hoker and D

    E. D’Hoker and D. Z. Freedman,Supersymmetric gauge theories and the AdS / CFT correspondence, inTheoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics (TASI 2001): Strings, Branes and EXTRA Dimensions, pp. 3–158, 1, 2002, hep-th/0201253

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  32. [33]

    J. M. Maldacena,Non-Gaussian features of primordial fluctuations in single field inflationary models,JHEP05(2003) 013, [astro-ph/0210603]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  33. [34]

    Deser and A

    S. Deser and A. Waldron,Arbitrary spin representations in de Sitter from dS / CFT with applications to dS supergravity,Nucl. Phys. B662(2003) 379–392, [hep-th/0301068]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  34. [35]

    Minwalla,Restrictions imposed by superconformal invariance on quantum field theories, Adv

    S. Minwalla,Restrictions imposed by superconformal invariance on quantum field theories, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2(1998) 783–851, [hep-th/9712074]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  35. [36]

    Weinberg,Six-dimensional Methods for Four-dimensional Conformal Field Theories,Phys

    S. Weinberg,Six-dimensional Methods for Four-dimensional Conformal Field Theories,Phys. Rev. D82(2010) 045031, [1006.3480]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  36. [37]

    Elkhidir, D

    E. Elkhidir, D. Karateev and M. Serone,General Three-Point Functions in 4D CFT,JHEP 01(2015) 133, [1412.1796]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  37. [38]

    R. J. Baston and L. J. Mason,Conformal Gravity, the Einstein Equations and Spaces of Complex Null Geodesics,Class. Quant. Grav.4(1987) 815–826

    1987

  38. [39]

    Mason and D

    L. Mason and D. Skinner,Ambitwistor strings and the scattering equations,JHEP07(2014) 048, [1311.2564]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  39. [40]

    Adamo, D

    T. Adamo, D. Skinner and J. Williams,Twistor methods for AdS 5,JHEP08(2016) 167, – 40 – [1607.03763]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  40. [41]

    Seet,Twistor Space and Celestial Holography, Ph.D

    S. Seet,Twistor Space and Celestial Holography, Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge U., DAMTP, 2024. 10.17863/CAM.112793

    work page doi:10.17863/cam.112793 2024

  41. [42]

    Geyer, A

    Y. Geyer, A. E. Lipstein and L. J. Mason,Ambitwistor Strings in Four Dimensions,Phys. Rev. Lett.113(2014) 081602, [1404.6219]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  42. [43]

    Adamo,Lectures on twistor theory,PoSModave2017(2018) 003, [1712.02196]

    T. Adamo,Lectures on twistor theory,PoSModave2017(2018) 003, [1712.02196]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  43. [44]

    Penrose and W

    R. Penrose and W. Rindler,SPINORS AND SPACE-TIME. VOL. 2: SPINOR AND TWISTOR METHODS IN SPACE-TIME GEOMETRY. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press, 4, 1988, 10.1017/CBO9780511524486

    doi:10.1017/cbo9780511524486 1988

  44. [45]

    R. S. Ward and R. O. Wells,Twistor geometry and field theory. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press, 8, 1991, 10.1017/CBO9780511524493

    doi:10.1017/cbo9780511524493 1991

  45. [46]

    Arkani-Hamed, F

    N. Arkani-Hamed, F. Cachazo, C. Cheung and J. Kaplan,The S-Matrix in Twistor Space, JHEP03(2010) 110, [0903.2110]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  46. [47]

    Del Duca, L

    V. Del Duca, L. J. Dixon and F. Maltoni,New color decompositions for gauge amplitudes at tree and loop level,Nucl. Phys. B571(2000) 51–70, [hep-ph/9910563]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  47. [48]

    T. N. Bailey,Twistors and fields with sources on worldlines,Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A397(1985) 143–155

    1985

  48. [49]

    N. M. J. Woodhouse and L. J. Mason,The geroch group and non-hausdorff twistor spaces, Nonlinearity1(feb, 1988) 73

    1988

  49. [50]

    L. J. Mason and L. P. Hughston, eds.,Further Advances in Twistor Theory. Volume I: The Penrose Transform and Its Applications. Longman Scientific & Technical and John Wiley & Sons, Harlow and New York, 1990

    1990

  50. [51]

    D. Z. Freedman, S. D. Mathur, A. Matusis and L. Rastelli,Correlation functions in the CFT(d) / AdS(d+1) correspondence,Nucl. Phys. B546(1999) 96–118, [hep-th/9804058]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  51. [52]

    Lee and X

    H. Lee and X. Wang,Amplitude basis for conformal correlators,JHEP03(2024) 147, [2312.17312]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  52. [53]

    Diwakar, A

    P. Diwakar, A. Herderschee, R. Roiban and F. Teng,BCJ amplitude relations for Anti-de Sitter boundary correlators in embedding space,JHEP10(2021) 141, [2106.10822]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  53. [54]

    Perj´ es,Twistor variables of relativistic mechanics,Phys

    Z. Perj´ es,Twistor variables of relativistic mechanics,Phys. Rev. D11(Apr, 1975) 2031–2041

    1975

  54. [55]

    Albonico, Y

    G. Albonico, Y. Geyer and L. Mason,From Twistor-Particle Models to Massive Amplitudes, SIGMA18(2022) 045, [2203.08087]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  55. [56]

    Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon and D. A. Kosower,All Next-to-maximally-helicity-violating one-loop gluon amplitudes in N=4 super-Yang-Mills theory,Phys. Rev. D72(2005) 045014, [hep-th/0412210]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  56. [57]

    C. D. White,Twistorial Foundation for the Classical Double Copy,Phys. Rev. Lett.126 (2021) 061602, [2012.02479]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  57. [58]

    Beetar, M

    C. Beetar, M. Carrillo Gonz´ alez, S. Jaitly and T. Keseman,Double copy in AdS 3 from minitwistor space,JHEP03(2025) 125, [2410.23342]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  58. [59]

    Carrillo Gonz´ alez, W

    M. Carrillo Gonz´ alez, W. T. Emond, N. Moynihan, J. Rumbutis and C. D. White, Mini-twistors and the Cotton double copy,JHEP03(2023) 177, [2212.04783]. – 41 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  59. [60]

    C. D. White,The Classical Double Copy. World Scientific, 5, 2024, 10.1142/q0457

    doi:10.1142/q0457 2024

  60. [61]

    Albertini, M

    E. Albertini, M. L. Graesser and G. Herczeg,The Penrose Transform and the Kerr-Schild double copy,2511.14854

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  61. [62]

    Baumann, C

    D. Baumann, C. Duaso Pueyo, A. Joyce, H. Lee and G. L. Pimentel,The Cosmological Bootstrap: Spinning Correlators from Symmetries and Factorization,SciPost Phys.11 (2021) 071, [2005.04234]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  62. [63]

    Hughston and T

    L. Hughston and T. Hurd,A cohomological description of massive fields,Proc. A278(1981) 141–154

    1981

  63. [64]

    Eastwood,On the Twistor Description of Massive Fields,Proc

    M. Eastwood,On the Twistor Description of Massive Fields,Proc. A374(1981) 431–445

    1981

  64. [65]

    Geyer, L

    Y. Geyer, L. Mason and D. Skinner,Ambitwistor strings in six and five dimensions,JHEP 08(2021) 153, [2012.15172]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  65. [66]

    Eberhardt, S

    L. Eberhardt, S. Komatsu and S. Mizera,Scattering equations in AdS: scalar correlators in arbitrary dimensions,JHEP11(2020) 158, [2007.06574]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  66. [67]

    Roehrig and D

    K. Roehrig and D. Skinner,Ambitwistor strings and the scattering equations on AdS 3×S3, JHEP02(2022) 073, [2007.07234]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  67. [68]

    Matsumoto,Introduction to the Intersection Theory for Twisted Homology and Cohomology Groups,10.22323

    K. Matsumoto,Introduction to the Intersection Theory for Twisted Homology and Cohomology Groups,10.22323

  68. [69]

    Pokraka, L

    A. Pokraka, L. Ren and C. Rodriguez,A double copy from twisted (co)homology at genus g, 2509.01598. – 42 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv