Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 95 references

Gravitational Faraday rotation, gravitational spin Hall effect, and spin-refined causality analysis from Magnusian matrix in effective field theories of gravity

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read At one loop, photon and graviton wavenumber kicks in EFTs of gravity do not commute, so a spinning black hole disperses an incoming ray into an elliptical blob instead of splitting it; black-hole spin also tightens IR-causality bounds on…

desk verdict A careful amplitude computation with a genuinely new qualitative effect—noncommutative wavenumber kicks—but the spin-refined causality numbers are overstated because they are evaluated at b=b_c, where the 2PM expansion is not under control. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10871 v1 pith:LXY4SXE6 submitted 2026-08-11 hep-th gr-qc

Kibok Jeong , Jung-Wook Kim , Soochang Lee This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thgr-qc
keywords GravitationalFaradayrotationspinHalleffectMagnusianmatrixEffectivefieldtheoryofgravityScatteringamplitudesKerrblackholeTimedelayIRcausality
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

This paper asks what a spinning black hole does to light and gravitational waves when general relativity is extended by the higher-dimension effective field theory (EFT) corrections $F F R$, $R^3$, and $R^4$, and answers with scattering-amplitude calculations. Using a helicity-matrix version of the Magnusian—the logarithm of the $S$-matrix—the authors derive the polarisation rotation angle, the wavenumber kick (deflection), and the Shapiro/Wigner–Smith time delay at one loop, to linear order in black-hole spin. The central claim is that in these EFTs the parallel and orthogonal components of the wavenumber kick do not commute, $[K^\parallel, K^\perp] \neq 0$, so an incoming ray does not split into two polarisation rays as in general relativity but disperses into an elliptical blob. A second claim is that black-hole spin can be tuned to sharpen infrared-causality bounds on EFT couplings: a roughly 30% tightening of the $|\beta|$ bound and a factor-of-about-580 tightening of the $\alpha'^2$ bound. If true, spin orientation becomes a practical dial for constraining quantum-gravity effects, and the noncommuting kicks give a qualitatively new wave-scattering signature.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Magnusian matrix $\overleftrightarrow{\chi}$, the helicity-space generalisation of the Magnusian $\chi=(\hbar/i)\log S$, with entries $\chi_{IJ}$ for helicities $I,J=\pm$. Observables are generated by the scattering generator equation $O_{\rm out}=e^{\{\chi,\bullet\}}[O_{\rm in}]$, with the wavenumber kick $k_3^\mu=e^{\{\chi,\bullet\}}[k_2^\mu]$ and the time delay $\Delta t=\partial\chi/\partial\omega+\frac12\{\chi,\partial\chi/\partial\omega\}+\cdots$; the matrix structure is needed because helicity-flipping elements make the kick and time-delay operators matrix-valued. The Magnusian matrix is obtained by Fourier-transforming tree-level and one-loop massive–massless Compton amplitudes (massive leg = Kerr black hole, massless leg = photon or graviton) to impact-parameter space, with the amplitudes built by gluing black-hole three-point factors and EFT three- and four-point vertices across $t$-channel cuts and evaluating triangle, box, and crossed-box master integrals. Holomorphic impact-parameter variables $b,\bar b$ and the spin vector parametrisation $\vec S=ma(\sin\psi\cos\theta,\sin\psi\sin\theta,\cos\psi)$ enter the Fourier kernels and determine the ellipse tilt. The noncommutativity (4.9) comes from the fact that the similarity transform diagonalising the Magnusian matrix depends on the impact parameter, so diagonalising before computing kicks and computing kicks before diagonalising are inequivalent operations.

What would settle it

Compute the one-loop Magnusian directly from the modified diagrammatic rules of the Magnusian formalism (not via the eikonal identification) for the $\beta$-corrected photon Compton amplitude, and test whether $[K^\parallel, K^\perp]$ and the eigenvalues of $\partial\chi/\partial\omega$ reproduce Eqs. (4.9), (5.6), and (5.9); a discrepancy would show the blob effect and the spin-refined bounds are artifacts of the identification.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At linear order in black-hole spin and leading order in the EFT couplings, the wavenumber kick matrices in the directions parallel and orthogonal to the impact parameter fail to commute, $[K^\parallel, K^\perp]\neq 0$ (Eq. 4.9), for both photon and graviton scattering. Because the two components cannot be simultaneously diagonalised, a monochromatic incoming ray does not split into two distinct, helicity-resolved rays the way a Stern–Gerlach beam does; instead, the possible polarisation states trace out a solid ellipse in wavenumber space whose centre is the unpolarised kick and whose tilt is set by spin. For photon scattering the effect is driven by the $F F R$ coupling $\beta$ and is present even for a non-spinning black hole, which earlier eikonal treatments missed by diagonalising the phase matrix before taking derivatives. For Faraday rotation, the photon angle reproduces the general-relativity result, while the graviton angle is modified by the parity-even $R^4$ coupling and becomes wavelength-dependent. The paper also finds that black-hole spin refines the infrared-causality bounds on EFT coefficients: the $|\beta|$ bound improves by about 30% and the $\alpha'^2$ bound by a factor of about 580 when prograde orbits at near-critical impact parameters are used, and for $R^4$ graviton corrections the spin refinement correlates the Wilson coefficients $C_{\zeta_1}$ and $C_{\zeta_3}$ rather than bounding them independently.

Load-bearing premise

The whole calculation assumes the Magnusian equals the eikonal phase at the orders used, an equality the paper notes is not proven, so all kicks and time delays—and the noncommuting-kick and causality conclusions built on them—stand or fall with that identification.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For photon scattering with $C_\beta\neq 0$, the expected wavenumber kicks fill an ellipse; the ellipse collapses to a line in the general-relativity limit $C_\beta\to 0$, so measuring the blob-versus-split structure is a direct test of the $F F R$ coupling.
  • For graviton scattering, EFT corrections to the spin Hall effect are suppressed by $\epsilon_{\rm EFT}^4$ relative to quantum corrections (versus $\epsilon_{\rm EFT}^2$ for photons), so the wave-optics contribution $K^\parallel_3$ dominates in the hierarchy-compatible regime.
  • Tuning the black-hole spin orientation (retrograde versus prograde orbits and adjusted impact parameters) tightens the causality bounds: roughly 30% for $|\beta|$ from photon time delay and about $580\times$ for $\alpha'^2$, with smaller black holes giving stronger constraints.
  • The $R^4$ graviton sector shows that spin effects correlate the Wilson coefficients $C_{\zeta_1}$ and $C_{\zeta_3}$, turning two independent positivity conditions into a correlated condition.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An observational consequence: if the noncommutative kicks persist, gravitational lensing of polarised light or gravitational waves by a spinning compact object in a modified-gravity regime would show depolarisation or an elliptic smeared image rather than two clean images, which could distinguish EFT corrections from general relativity with polarimetry.
  • Because the tightening factors (about 30% and about 580x) come from tuning orbit orientation, observations or experiments with optimally aligned prograde, near-critical orbits would be the most sensitive probes of these couplings.
  • A direct one-loop calculation of the true Magnusian (rather than identifying it with the eikonal phase) would show whether the noncommutativity (4.9) survives; the authors note the identification is an assumption, so the blob effect may shift or disappear at that order.
  • The time-delay definition (2.9) extends to multiparticle kinematics, so a natural next step is to derive causality and positivity constraints on the $\chi$-matrix from 3-to-3 amplitudes, going beyond 2-to-2 subprocesses.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies wave scattering on Kerr black holes in higher-derivative effective field theories of gravity using the Magnusian formalism, promoted to a matrix to track helicity. It computes gravitational Faraday rotation, wavenumber kicks (gravitational spin Hall effect), and Shapiro/Wigner–Smith time delays for photons and gravitons, at tree level and one loop, organized by post-Minkowskian, spin, and wave-optics expansions. The main claims are that EFT corrections make the parallel and orthogonal wavenumber kicks noncommuting for generic helicity states (Eq. 4.9), so a scattered ray disperses into an ellipse rather than splitting, and that black-hole spin can refine IR causality bounds on the EFT coefficients β and α'^2 by about 30% and 580x respectively (Eqs. 5.7–5.10), together with qualitative correlations among R^4 Wilson coefficients (Fig. 10). The computations are checked against published results for the eikonal phase matrix and frame-dragging.

Significance. If the technical assumptions are validated, the paper would provide a substantial extension of the Magnusian approach to helicity-dependent scattering observables, with a genuinely new qualitative prediction (elliptical dispersion due to noncommuting kicks) and a concrete demonstration that spin orientation can be used as a lever to sharpen IR causality constraints. The manuscript is careful in several ways: the master integrals are cross-validated using both Forde's method and LiteRed2, the time-delay and Faraday-rotation formulas are checked against refs. [2,20,21], and the final results are expressed in terms of the original Wilson coefficients without fitted parameters. The spin-refinement mechanism itself is plausible and the qualitative statement that spin tightens causality bounds may well survive; however, the quantitative enhancement factors are evaluated at the edge of the post-Minkowskian expansion and rely on an unproven identification of the Magnusian with the eikonal phase, so the headline numbers should not be taken at face value until those points are addressed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2.1, footnote 2; Sec. 3.3.1] The entire observable pipeline identifies the exact Magnusian χ with the eikonal phase δ: footnote 2 states that the two are 'numerically the same at sufficiently low orders' and that the authors 'will compute the Magnusian as the eikonal phase.' This is a load-bearing assumption because the wavenumber kicks (4.6)–(4.8), (4.17)–(4.18) and the time delays (5.3), (5.14) are extracted from χ_G1 + χ_G2 via the scattering generator equation (2.1). The asserted numerical equality at the one-loop, linear-in-spin order is not demonstrated. If the true Magnusian differs from the eikonal phase at this order, the noncommutativity (4.9) and the causality bounds of Sec. 5 would shift. The authors should either provide a direct computation of the Magnusian at this order (or a proof that the difference starts at higher order), or clearly state that the results are conditional on this identification and discuss the possible size of the correction.
  2. [Sec. 5.1, Eq. (5.1)] The vanishing of the double-bracket term in the time delay, Eq. (5.1), is asserted without a displayed computation: 1/2! {χ_G1,{χ_G1,X_2^0}} = O(C_#^2). This term is needed to justify the simplified time-delay formula (5.2) and hence the causality bounds (5.4)–(5.10). Since nested Poisson brackets are the defining feature of the Magnusian formalism, this is not a minor omission. The authors should show the explicit computation (or provide a reference where it is carried out for these specific χ_G1 and χ_G2) rather than stating the result. If the double bracket has nonzero spin-dependent terms at O(G^2) not suppressed by the EFT couplings, the spin-refinement analysis of Sec. 5 would need to be redone.
  3. [Sec. 5.1, Eqs. (5.7)–(5.11) and footnote 17] The claimed enhancements of the causality bounds are evaluated at the critical impact parameter b = b_c, where epsilon_PM = Gm/b is 1/2 for prograde extremal Kerr and 1/3 for non-spinning Kerr [see Eq. (5.11)]. At these values the post-Minkowskian series is not a convergent expansion, and the one-loop (2PM) result may receive O(epsilon_PM^2) ~ 0.1–0.25 corrections from 3PM terms. Footnote 17 explicitly concedes that subleading post-Minkowskian corrections may invalidate the one-loop time delay as b → b_c and may significantly modify the bounds. Since the 30% and 580x figures are ratios evaluated exactly at b = b_c, they are not established. The authors should either (i) compute or bound the 3PM corrections to the time delay, (ii) show that the optimal spin orientation and the enhancement factors are stable under O(epsilon_PM^2) perturbations, or (iii) replace the quantitative claims with the more modest qualitative statement that spin can refine causality constraints, supported by values at fixed b where the expansion is controlled.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'the gravitational spin Hall effect in EFTs of gravity are qualitatively different' has a subject-verb agreement issue ('effect... are'); please revise to 'is'.
  2. [Sec. 3.1, Eq. (3.1)] The action (3.1) mixes explicit powers of 1/Λ with the expansion of ℏ, which is discussed in Sec. 3.2, but the notation C_# is introduced before its definition. I recommend clarifying immediately after Eq. (3.1) that C_# denotes the dimensionless Wilson coefficients defined in Eq. (3.4).
  3. [Sec. 4.2.2, Figs. 8 and 9] The caption of Fig. 8 refers to 'the hierarchy (3.7)' but the parameters chosen actually violate the hierarchy; the caption says this in the text, yet the first sentence could be read as claiming the opposite. Please rephrase to avoid ambiguity.
  4. [Sec. 5.1, Eq. (5.8)] The values in Eq. (5.8) are presented as reference values for Kerr geodesics, but the text does not specify how the maximum over Euler angles (θ, ψ) is performed or whether the quoted numbers are exact or numerical. Please state the procedure and the precision.
  5. [Sec. 5.2, Eq. (5.20)] The footnote numbering in the sentence preceding Eq. (5.20) refers to footnote 19, but the corresponding footnote marker is missing in the main text; please check the footnote numbering throughout Sec. 5.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the observable predictions follow from explicit amplitude computations and are cross-checked against independent published results, so the minor self-citations do not carry the central claims.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained against its stated inputs. The EFT action (3.1) is a given Lagrangian; the Compton amplitudes are cut-constructed from on-shell seed amplitudes and black hole factors (Sec. 3.3 and App. B); the Magnusian matrix is obtained by the Fourier transform (3.15); and observables are computed through the scattering generator equation (2.1). None of these steps defines an output in terms of the target claim. The identification of the Magnusian with the eikonal phase (footnote 2) is an explicitly stated low-order numerical approximation, not a definitional equivalence that smuggles in the results. The time-delay formulas are checked against independent results in ref. [2] (e.g., the text states the photon time delay (5.3) is consistent with eq. (4.75) of ref. [2], and the graviton result (5.14) with eqs. (4.41) and (4.48)). The causality bounds of Sec. 5 follow from imposing inequality (2.13) on the computed time delay and from extremizing over known Kerr geodesic impact parameters, with the reference values attributed to ref. [72]; these are external geometric inputs, not fits to the paper's own observables. The noncommutativity claim (4.9) is a direct matrix-algebra consequence of the explicit wavenumber-kick matrices (4.7)-(4.8) and (4.17)-(4.18), and it is checked to reduce to the commuting case when the EFT couplings vanish. The self-citations to the Magnusian formalism [1] and black hole factors [19] are methodological inputs with independent content, and the paper does not invoke any self-cited uniqueness theorem to forbid alternatives. Footnote 17 concedes that subleading post-Minkowskian corrections could affect the numerical bounds at b=b_c; that is a robustness limitation, not a circularity. Overall, no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no central result is equivalent to its input by construction, so the appropriate score is 1 rather than 0 only because a few load-bearing methodological inputs come from co-authored papers, which is not itself circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central computation rests on standard amplitudes machinery plus three physical modeling choices: the geometric-optics hierarchy, the linear-in-spin Kerr model, and the IR causality inequality with -1/omega threshold. One computational shortcut (the Magnusian-as-eikonal identification) is flagged by the authors. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • epsilon_UV = O(1); reference values 1/(3*sqrt(3)), 1/7, 1/2 from Kerr geodesics (Eq. 5.11)
    Introduced in Sec. 3.2 and footnote 9 to parametrize the critical impact parameter b_c ~ Gm/epsilon_UV. The causality bounds (5.9)-(5.10) depend sensitively on it, and the ~580 factor comes from comparing the a=0 and extremal prograde reference values.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Standard S-matrix analyticity and unitarity-based cut construction for one-loop Compton amplitudes.
    Invoked in Sec. 3.3.2 to compute the nonanalytic parts of the amplitudes.
  • domain assumption The Kerr black hole is represented by a massive spin particle with covariant spin supplementary condition, expanded to linear order in spin; higher multipole moments are neglected.
    Stated in Sec. 3.2: 'We limit our analysis to linear-in-spin effects to avoid complications related to higher multipole moments.'
  • domain assumption The geometric-optics hierarchy lambda_C << L <~ lambda << a <= Gm < b_c <= b and the associated epsilon expansion (3.8) hold.
    Given in Sec. 3.2, Eqs. (3.6)-(3.8). The entire eikonal interpretation depends on this scale ordering.
  • domain assumption The infrared causality condition (2.13) equates causality with a time delay bound of order -1/omega; violations indicate EFT breakdown rather than acausality.
    Defined in Sec. 2.4, Eq. (2.13), and used throughout Sec. 5.
  • ad hoc to paper The exact Magnusian is numerically identical to the eikonal phase at the orders used, so observable extraction via the scattering generator equation is valid.
    Footnote 2 concedes they are not equivalent but says 'we will compute the Magnusian as the eikonal phase'. The equality at one-loop, linear-in-spin order is asserted, not proved.
  • domain assumption The parity-odd interaction C tilde C is absent, so zeta_+ = zeta_- = zeta in the graviton analysis.
    Stated in Sec. 4.2 immediately before Sec. 4.2.1: 'we assume the absence of the parity-odd interaction C tilde C'.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gravitational Faraday rotation, gravitational spin Hall effect, and spin-refined causality analysis from Magnusian matrix in effective field theories of gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LXY4SXE6

@misc{pith2026260810871,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gravitational Faraday rotation, gravitational spin Hall effect, and spin-refined causality analysis from Magnusian matrix in effective field theories of gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LXY4SXE6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10871}
}
read the original abstract

The effects of black hole's spin in effective field theories (EFTs) of gravity are explored through observables of wave scattering on black hole backgrounds in the geometric optics approximation. The considered observables are polarisation rotation angle, wavenumber kick (or deflection angle), and (Shapiro/Wigner--Smith) time delay, each of which are related to gravitational Faraday rotation, gravitational spin Hall effect, and infrared causality. The observables are computed from scattering amplitudes through the Magnusian formalism, where the Magnusian is promoted to a matrix to account for helicity information. It is found that (1) the gravitational spin Hall effect in EFTs of gravity are qualitatively different from that of general relativity due to "noncommutative" wavenumber kicks, and (2) black hole's spin slightly enhances the causality constraints on EFT coefficients.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

95 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    Accettulli Huber, A

    M. Accettulli Huber, A. Brandhuber, S. De Angelis and G. Travaglini,Eikonal phase matrix, deflection angle and time delay in effective field theories of gravity,Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 046014, [2006.02375]

    arXiv 2020

  2. [1]

    J.-W. Kim, R. Patil, T. Scheopner and J. Steinhoff,Magnusian: relating the eikonal phase, the on-shell action, and the scattering generator,JHEP03(2026) 241, [2511.05649]

    arXiv 2026

  3. [3]

    Guevara, A

    A. Guevara, A. Ochirov and J. Vines,Scattering of Spinning Black Holes from Exponentiated Soft Factors,JHEP09(2019) 056, [1812.06895]

    arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    Chung, Y.-T

    M.-Z. Chung, Y.-T. Huang, J.-W. Kim and S. Lee,The simplest massive S-matrix: from minimal coupling to Black Holes,JHEP04(2019) 156, [1812.08752]

    arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

    P. H. Damgaard, K. Haddad and A. Helset,Heavy Black Hole Effective Theory,JHEP11 (2019) 070, [1908.10308]

    arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    Z. Bern, A. Luna, R. Roiban, C.-H. Shen and M. Zeng,Spinning black hole binary dynamics, scattering amplitudes, and effective field theory,Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 065014, [2005.03071]

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Maybee, D

    B. Maybee, D. O’Connell and J. Vines,Observables and amplitudes for spinning particles and black holes,JHEP12(2019) 156, [1906.09260]

    arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    Aoude, K

    R. Aoude, K. Haddad and A. Helset,On-shell heavy particle effective theories,JHEP05 (2020) 051, [2001.09164]

    arXiv 2020

Show all 95 references
  1. [9]

    Y. F. Bautista, A. Guevara, C. Kavanagh and J. Vines,Scattering in black hole backgrounds and higher-spin amplitudes. Part I,JHEP03(2023) 136, [2107.10179]

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Aoude and A

    R. Aoude and A. Ochirov,Classical observables from coherent-spin amplitudes,JHEP10 (2021) 008, [2108.01649]

    2021 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Cangemi, M

    L. Cangemi, M. Chiodaroli, H. Johansson, A. Ochirov, P. Pichini and E. Skvortsov,Kerr Black Holes From Massive Higher-Spin Gauge Symmetry,Phys. Rev. Lett.131(2023) 221401, [2212.06120]

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    N. E. J. Bjerrum-Bohr, G. Chen and M. Skowronek,Classical spin gravitational Compton scattering,JHEP06(2023) 170, [2302.00498]

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Kim and J

    J.-W. Kim and J. Steinhoff,Spin supplementary condition in quantum field theory: covariant SSC and physical state projection,JHEP07(2023) 042, [2302.01944]

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Haddad,Recursion in the classical limit and the neutron-star Compton amplitude,JHEP 05(2023) 177, [2303.02624]

    K. Haddad,Recursion in the classical limit and the neutron-star Compton amplitude,JHEP 05(2023) 177, [2303.02624]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Z. Bern, D. Kosmopoulos, A. Luna, R. Roiban, T. Scheopner, F. Teng et al.,Quantum field theory, worldline theory, and spin magnitude change in orbital evolution,Phys. Rev. D109 (2024) 045011, [2308.14176]

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    A. Luna, N. Moynihan, D. O’Connell and A. Ross,Observables from the spinning eikonal, JHEP08(2024) 045, [2312.09960]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Akpinar, F

    D. Akpinar, F. Febres Cordero, M. Kraus, M. S. Ruf and M. Zeng,Spinning black hole scattering atO(G 3S2): Casimir terms, radial action and hidden symmetry,JHEP03(2025) 126, [2407.19005]. – 30 –

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Vazquez-Holm and A

    I. Vazquez-Holm and A. Luna,Bootstrapping classical spinning Compton amplitudes with colour-kinematics,JHEP07(2025) 087, [2503.22597]

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Chen, M.-Z

    W.-M. Chen, M.-Z. Chung, Y.-t. Huang and J.-W. Kim,The 2PM Hamiltonian for binary Kerr to quartic in spin,JHEP08(2022) 148, [2111.13639]

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Chen, M.-Z

    W.-M. Chen, M.-Z. Chung, Y.-t. Huang and J.-W. Kim,Gravitational Faraday effect from on-shell amplitudes,JHEP12(2022) 058, [2205.07305]

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Kim,Quantum corrections to frame-dragging in scattering amplitudes,Phys

    J.-W. Kim,Quantum corrections to frame-dragging in scattering amplitudes,Phys. Rev. D 106(2022) L081901, [2207.04970]

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Brandhuber, G

    A. Brandhuber, G. R. Brown, P. Pichini, G. Travaglini and P. Vives Matasan,The Magnus expansion in relativistic quantum field theory,JHEP07(2026) 151, [2512.05017]

    2026

  15. [23]

    P. H. Damgaard, L. Plante and P. Vanhove,On an exponential representation of the gravitational S-matrix,JHEP11(2021) 213, [2107.12891]

    2021 arXiv

  16. [24]

    P. H. Damgaard, E. R. Hansen, L. Plant´ e and P. Vanhove,Classical observables from the exponential representation of the gravitational S-matrix,JHEP09(2023) 183, [2307.04746]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Kim,Manifest symplecticity in classical scattering,JHEP05(2026) 287, [2511.07387]

    J.-H. Kim,Manifest symplecticity in classical scattering,JHEP05(2026) 287, [2511.07387]

    2026 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Di Vecchia, C

    P. Di Vecchia, C. Heissenberg, R. Russo and G. Veneziano,The gravitational eikonal: From particle, string and brane collisions to black-hole encounters,Phys. Rept.1083(2024) 1–169, [2306.16488]

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Kim,Radiation eikonal for post-Minkowskian observables,Phys

    J.-W. Kim,Radiation eikonal for post-Minkowskian observables,Phys. Rev. D111(2025) L121702, [2501.07372]

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Kim,Phase Space Formulation of S-matrix,2512.23100

    J.-H. Kim,Phase Space Formulation of S-matrix,2512.23100

  21. [29]

    Guo, J.-H

    L. Guo, J.-H. Kim, J.-W. Kim, S. Kim, S. Lee and J.-R. Li,The Diagrammar of Quantum Magnusian,2605.25473

    arXiv

  22. [30]

    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. B425(1994) 217–260, [hep-ph/9403226]

    1994 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon, D. C. Dunbar and D. A. Kosower,Fusing gauge theory tree amplitudes into loop amplitudes,Nucl. Phys. B435(1995) 59–101, [hep-ph/9409265]

    1995 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon and D. A. Kosower,One loop amplitudes for e+ e- to four partons, Nucl. Phys. B513(1998) 3–86, [hep-ph/9708239]

    1998 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Gonzo and C

    R. Gonzo and C. Shi,Scattering and Bound Observables for Spinning Particles in Kerr Spacetime with Generic Spin Orientations,Phys. Rev. Lett.133(2024) 221401, [2405.09687]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Kim, J.-W

    J.-H. Kim, J.-W. Kim and S. Lee,Massive twistor worldline in electromagnetic fields,JHEP 08(2024) 080, [2405.17056]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Kim, J.-W

    J.-H. Kim, J.-W. Kim, S. Kim and S. Lee,Classical eikonal from Magnus expansion,JHEP 01(2025) 111, [2410.22988]

    2025 arXiv

  28. [36]

    S. Kim, H. Lee and S. Lee,Classical eikonal in relativistic scattering,JHEP11(2025) 032, [2509.01922]

    2025 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Landau, E

    L. Landau, E. Lifshitz and L. Pitaevskii,Electrodynamics of Continuous Media, vol. 8. Pergamon Press, 2nd ed., 1984. – 31 –

    1984

  30. [38]

    Dehnen,Gravitational faraday-effect,Int

    H. Dehnen,Gravitational faraday-effect,Int. J. Theor. Phys.7(1973) 467–474

    1973

  31. [39]

    Ishihara, M

    H. Ishihara, M. Takahashi and A. Tomimatsu,GRA VITATIONAL F ARADAY ROTATION INDUCED BY KERR BLACK HOLE,Phys. Rev. D38(1988) 472

    1988

  32. [40]

    M. A. Oancea, C. F. Paganini, J. Joudioux and L. Andersson,An overview of the gravitational spin Hall effect,1904.09963

    1904 arXiv

  33. [41]

    R. J. Eden, P. V. Landshoff, D. I. Olive and J. C. Polkinghorne,The analytic S-matrix. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1966

    1966

  34. [42]

    E. P. Wigner,Lower Limit for the Energy Derivative of the Scattering Phase Shift,Phys. Rev.98(1955) 145–147

    1955

  35. [43]

    F. T. Smith,Lifetime Matrix in Collision Theory,Phys. Rev.118(1960) 349–356

    1960

  36. [44]

    I. I. Shapiro,Fourth Test of General Relativity,Phys. Rev. Lett.13(1964) 789–791

    1964

  37. [45]

    Adams, N

    A. Adams, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dubovsky, A. Nicolis and R. Rattazzi,Causality, analyticity and an IR obstruction to UV completion,JHEP10(2006) 014, [hep-th/0602178]

    2006 arXiv

  38. [46]

    X. O. Camanho, J. D. Edelstein, J. Maldacena and A. Zhiboedov,Causality Constraints on Corrections to the Graviton Three-Point Coupling,JHEP02(2016) 020, [1407.5597]

    2016 arXiv

  39. [47]

    B.-H. Lee, N. A. Nilsson and S. Thakur,There and back again – Closed timelike curves as EFT selection principle,2602.17724

  40. [48]

    Bellazzini, G

    B. Bellazzini, G. Isabella and M. M. Riva,Classical vs quantum eikonal scattering and its causal structure,JHEP04(2023) 023, [2211.00085]

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Mogull, J

    G. Mogull, J. Plefka and J. Steinhoff,Classical black hole scattering from a worldline quantum field theory,JHEP02(2021) 048, [2010.02865]

    2021 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Alessio, R

    F. Alessio, R. Gonzo and C. Shi,Dirac brackets for classical radiative observables,Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 104060, [2506.03249]

    2025

  43. [51]

    Bucciotti, P

    B. Bucciotti, P. Creminelli, A. Longo, W. P. McBlain and E. Trincherini,On the Asymptotic Causal Structure in Gravitational EFTs,2605.00089

    arXiv

  44. [52]

    Bonifacio, K

    J. Bonifacio, K. Hinterbichler, A. Joyce and R. A. Rosen,Massive and Massless Spin-2 Scattering and Asymptotic Superluminality,JHEP06(2018) 075, [1712.10020]

    2018 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Hinterbichler, A

    K. Hinterbichler, A. Joyce and R. A. Rosen,Massive Spin-2 Scattering and Asymptotic Superluminality,JHEP03(2018) 051, [1708.05716]

    2018 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Hinterbichler, A

    K. Hinterbichler, A. Joyce and R. A. Rosen,Eikonal scattering and asymptotic superluminality of massless higher spin fields,Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 125019, [1712.10021]

    2018 arXiv

  47. [55]

    de Rham and A

    C. de Rham and A. J. Tolley,Causality in curved spacetimes: The speed of light and gravity, Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 084048, [2007.01847]

    2020 arXiv

  48. [56]

    C. Y. R. Chen, C. de Rham, A. Margalit and A. J. Tolley,A cautionary case of casual causality,JHEP03(2022) 025, [2112.05031]

    2022 arXiv

  49. [57]

    de Rham, A

    C. de Rham, A. J. Tolley and J. Zhang,Causality Constraints on Gravitational Effective Field Theories,Phys. Rev. Lett.128(2022) 131102, [2112.05054]

    2022 arXiv

  50. [58]

    de Rham, S

    C. de Rham, S. Kundu, M. Reece, A. J. Tolley and S.-Y. Zhou,Snowmass White Paper: UV Constraints on IR Physics, inSnowmass 2021, 3, 2022.2203.06805. – 32 –

    2021

  51. [59]

    R. R. Metsaev and A. A. Tseytlin,Curvature Cubed Terms in String Theory Effective Actions,Phys. Lett. B185(1987) 52–58

    1987

  52. [60]

    Brandhuber and G

    A. Brandhuber and G. Travaglini,On higher-derivative effects on the gravitational potential and particle bending,JHEP01(2020) 010, [1905.05657]

    2020 arXiv

  53. [61]

    D. J. Gross and E. Witten,Superstring Modifications of Einstein ’s Equations,Nucl. Phys. B 277(1986) 1

    1986

  54. [62]

    Stieberger,Open & Closed vs

    S. Stieberger,Open & Closed vs. Pure Open String Disk Amplitudes,0907.2211

    arXiv

  55. [63]

    I. T. Drummond and S. J. Hathrell,QED Vacuum Polarization in a Background Gravitational Field and Its Effect on the Velocity of Photons,Phys. Rev. D22(1980) 343

    1980

  56. [64]

    Goon and K

    G. Goon and K. Hinterbichler,Superluminality, black holes and EFT,JHEP02(2017) 134, [1609.00723]

    2017 arXiv

  57. [65]

    F. A. Berends and R. Gastmans,Quantum Electrodynamical Corrections to Graviton-Matter Vertices,Annals Phys.98(1976) 225

    1976

  58. [66]

    Kawai, D

    H. Kawai, D. C. Lewellen and S. H. H. Tye,A Relation Between Tree Amplitudes of Closed and Open Strings,Nucl. Phys. B269(1986) 1–23

    1986

  59. [67]

    J. F. Donoghue,General relativity as an effective field theory: The leading quantum corrections,Phys. Rev. D50(1994) 3874–3888, [gr-qc/9405057]

    1994 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Hsiao, D.-S

    Y.-W. Hsiao, D.-S. Lee and C.-Y. Lin,Equatorial light bending around Kerr-Newman black holes,Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 064070, [1910.04372]

    2020 arXiv

  61. [69]

    J. M. Bardeen,Timelike and null geodesics in the Kerr metric,Proceedings, Ecole d’Et´ e de Physique Th´ eorique: Les Astres Occlus : Les Houches, France, August, 1972, 215-240(1973) 215–240

    1973

  62. [70]

    Perlick and O

    V. Perlick and O. Y. Tsupko,Calculating black hole shadows: Review of analytical studies, Phys. Rept.947(2022) 1–39, [2105.07101]

    2022 arXiv

  63. [71]

    C. A. S. Almeida,Helicity-dependent corrections to black-hole shadows from the gravitational spin Hall effect,2605.02136

    arXiv

  64. [72]

    S. V. Iyer and E. C. Hansen,Light’s Bending Angle in the Equatorial Plane of a Kerr Black Hole,Phys. Rev. D80(2009) 124023, [0907.5352]

    2009 arXiv

  65. [73]

    P. A. Cano, B. Ganchev, D. R. Mayerson and A. Ruip´ erez,Black hole multipoles in higher-derivative gravity,JHEP12(2022) 120, [2208.01044]

    2022 arXiv

  66. [74]

    D. A. Kosower, B. Maybee and D. O’Connell,Amplitudes, Observables, and Classical Scattering,JHEP02(2019) 137, [1811.10950]

    2019 arXiv

  67. [75]

    N. E. J. Bjerrum-Bohr, J. F. Donoghue and P. Vanhove,On-shell Techniques and Universal Results in Quantum Gravity,JHEP02(2014) 111, [1309.0804]

    2014 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Neill and I

    D. Neill and I. Z. Rothstein,Classical Space-Times from the S Matrix,Nucl. Phys. B877 (2013) 177–189, [1304.7263]

    2013 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Forde,Direct extraction of one-loop integral coefficients,Phys

    D. Forde,Direct extraction of one-loop integral coefficients,Phys. Rev. D75(2007) 125019, [0704.1835]

    2007 arXiv

  70. [78]

    R. N. Lee,Presenting LiteRed: a tool for the Loop InTEgrals REDuction,1212.2685

    arXiv

  71. [79]

    R. N. Lee,LiteRed 1.4: a powerful tool for reduction of multiloop integrals,J. Phys. Conf. Ser.523(2014) 012059, [1310.1145]. – 33 –

    2014 arXiv

  72. [80]

    N. E. J. Bjerrum-Bohr, J. F. Donoghue, B. R. Holstein, L. Plant´ e and P. Vanhove,Bending of Light in Quantum Gravity,Phys. Rev. Lett.114(2015) 061301, [1410.7590]

    2015 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Bai and Y

    D. Bai and Y. Huang,More on the Bending of Light in Quantum Gravity,Phys. Rev. D95 (2017) 064045, [1612.07629]

    2017 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Chi,Graviton Bending in Quantum Gravity from One-Loop Amplitudes,Phys

    H.-H. Chi,Graviton Bending in Quantum Gravity from One-Loop Amplitudes,Phys. Rev. D 99(2019) 126008, [1903.07944]

    2019 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Alexander, H

    S. Alexander, H. Bernardo and N. Yunes,Can weak-gravity, causality-violation arguments constrain modified gravity?,Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 104042, [2506.14889]

    2025 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Cheung and G

    C. Cheung and G. N. Remmen,Multipositivity bounds for scattering amplitudes,Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 016017, [2505.05553]

    2025 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Chandrasekaran, G

    V. Chandrasekaran, G. N. Remmen and A. Shahbazi-Moghaddam,Higher-Point Positivity, JHEP11(2018) 015, [1804.03153]

    2018 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Arkani-Hamed, C

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

    2024 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Guerrieri, A

    A. Guerrieri, A. Homrich and P. Vieira,Multiparticle Flux-Tube S-matrix Bootstrap,Phys. Rev. Lett.134(2025) 041601, [2404.10812]

    2025 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Berman, H

    J. Berman, H. Elvang and C. Figueiredo,Splitting regions and shrinking islands from higher point constraints,JHEP10(2025) 226, [2506.22538]

    2025 arXiv

  81. [89]

    L. C. Bresciani, G. Levati and P. Paradisi,Amplitudes and partial wave unitarity bounds, Phys. Rev. D113(2026) L071702, [2504.12855]

    2026 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Basile, G

    I. Basile, G. N. Remmen and G. Staudt,Higher-spin and higher-point constraints on stringy amplitudes,Phys. Rev. D114(2026) 026001, [2603.04485]

    2026 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Elvang, A

    H. Elvang, A. Herderschee and R. Morales,String theory from maximal supersymmetry, JHEP07(2026) 105, [2601.11705]

    2026 arXiv

  84. [92]

    A. P. Saha and A. Sinha,Five-point partial waves, splitting constraints and hidden zeros, JHEP06(2026) 092, [2601.15088]

    2026

  85. [93]

    Cheung, J

    C. Cheung, J. Jeong, P. Ko, A. Pomarol, G. N. Remmen and F. Sciotti,Multipositivity Constrains the Chiral Lagrangian,2605.21582

    arXiv

  86. [94]

    Jeong,Partial Waves for Multipositivity,2608.02719

    J. Jeong,Partial Waves for Multipositivity,2608.02719

    arXiv

  87. [95]

    Arkani-Hamed, T.-C

    N. Arkani-Hamed, T.-C. Huang and Y.-t. Huang,Scattering amplitudes for all masses and spins,JHEP11(2021) 070, [1709.04891]. – 34 –

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.