Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 86 references

After the large-impact eikonal is fixed, a gravity bootstrap fills residual spectra near a rotating black-hole scale and a Regge ridge, not a featureless continuum.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-11 06:42 UTC pith:MQNUBMAW

load-bearing objection Finite-grid residual SDR after eikonal subtraction finds organized BH-scale and Regge support with an empty expensive gap; real numerical morphology, not continuum physics yet. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.05503 v1 pith:MQNUBMAW submitted 2026-07-06 hep-th

Bootstrapping black holes at low impact parameter

Diptarka Das , Aninda Sinha This is my paper
classification hep-th
keywords gravitational EFTstringy dispersion relationeikonal carrierpartial-wave bootstrapblack-hole scaleRegge ridgepositivity boundslow impact parameter
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.

This paper asks a simple residual question about gravity: once the universal high-energy, large-impact eikonal that carries the graviton pole is supplied by hand, where does the remaining positive spectrum have to live? Using a stringy dispersion relation and a finite linear program with partial-wave unitarity caps, the authors find that extremal spectra are highly organized. Across much of the allowed low-energy coefficient boundary they resolve a cap-saturated low-impact band that tracks an order-one rotating black-hole scale, together with a separate high-spin ridge, while the broad intervening gap—fully available to the optimizer—stays mostly empty. Reduced costs show that filling the gap is expensive and that the black-hole-scale band is pressing against the unitarity cap. The result is offered as finite-grid evidence that the pole-subtracted bootstrap can act as a microscope for small-impact completions of gravity rather than only as a source of coefficient inequalities.

Core claim

After the Einstein eikonal density is prescribed on a trusted large-impact window and its pole fraction is subtracted, the residual capped SDR bootstrap on finite grids selects a branch-dependent, cap-saturated low-impact band near the Giddings–Porto rotating black-hole guide, together with a high-spin Regge-like ridge, and leaves most of the available region between that band and the eikonal layer empty.

What carries the argument

The pole-fraction-adjusted residual sum rule from the stringy dispersion relation (SDR): after the analytic eikonal pole fraction α_E and the finite regular eikonal remainder are moved to the right-hand side, one positive residual density must satisfy all sampled λ collocation constraints simultaneously, subject to the physical box 0 ≤ ρ_phys_tot ≤ 2.

Load-bearing premise

That prescribing the elastic Einstein eikonal density only on a finite large-impact trust region correctly isolates the universal graviton-pole carrier, so residual variables outside that region are a faithful proxy for the small-impact completion.

What would settle it

At fixed grid and coupling, remove or replace the prescribed eikonal carrier (or enrich λ constraints and spin/energy resolution enough that the residual optimum changes): if the cap-saturated band near the rotating black-hole guide disappears, fills the gap, or ceases to track that scale while still saturating the sum rules, the organized residual claim fails.

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

If this is right

  • Low-energy gravitational EFT bounds can be read together with partial-wave support maps that locate residual weight near black-hole and Regge scales.
  • Microstate or strong-gravity models should produce selective support near the rotating black-hole scale, with coherent channels near reflective saturation whose coarse grain can look absorptive.
  • The empty gap between the black-hole band and the eikonal layer becomes a concrete target: viable UV completions should explain why that region is hard to populate under the residual sum rules.
  • Band-averaged Ericson-type fluctuation diagnostics with a width set by the same black-hole scale become natural next tests of the residual spectra.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the residual band survives denser grids and full complex partial-wave reconstruction, the bootstrap would start constraining time delays and phase statistics, not only absorptive densities.
  • The same carrier-separation idea could be tried in other dimensions or with helicity-resolved gravitons to test whether the black-hole-scale tracker is universal.
  • A controlled stringy deformation of the eikonal source that preserves the empty-gap morphology would tighten the link between the residual band and horizon-scale reflection rather than inclusive absorption alone.

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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies residual partial-wave support in gravitational EFTs after the universal large-impact-parameter Einstein eikonal carrier is prescribed and subtracted in a stringy dispersion relation (SDR) sum rule in D=6. On finite collocation grids with a physical partial-wave cap 0≤ρ_phys≤2, the capped linear program yields a leaf-like region in the (X,Y)=(g2,g3)/(8πGN) plane. Along much of the upper boundary (and the positive-X lower branch), primal witnesses show a cap-saturated low-impact band near an order-one Giddings–Porto rotating black-hole guide J_BH^(κ), a separate high-spin ridge, and a largely empty intervening gap that is available to residual variables. Reduced costs, single-bin K2 kernel-profile signs, λ-enrichment plateaus, amplitude-difference checks, no-eikonal controls, and an extended-eikonal diagnostic are used to argue that this organized residual structure is an LP output rather than a featureless continuum, and to interpret the band as a finite-grid small-impact completion of the graviton pole.

Significance. If the residual morphology survives continuum and trust-region stress tests, the work would shift gravitational EFT bootstrap practice from coefficient bounds alone toward spectral support as a diagnostic of strong-gravity completion. The carrier-separated residual question is well posed, the finite-grid framing is explicit, and the paper supplies multiple independent diagnostics (primal heat maps, reduced costs, pre-LP kernel-profile signs, no-eikonal pole-budget controls, amplitude-difference validation) plus a reproducibility pipeline and ancillary code. That combination is a genuine methodological contribution even if the black-hole interpretation remains provisional. The branch asymmetry and the costly empty gap are particularly useful falsifiable finite-grid signatures for follow-up work.

major comments (3)
  1. §2.3, eqs. (21)–(22) and the central claim in Abstract/§1 (claims 3–4)/§5: the residual band and empty gap are defined relative to a hand-chosen active eikonal set E (√σ≥4, J≥20, b≥2, b/RS≥3, χ<χ_max=30). Emptiness of the white region is an LP output only for this E. The χ_max=30→50 check and the extended-carrier scan of §7 are useful but do not replace a systematic production-style ladder that modestly shifts R_min, the J cut, and the energy cut while residual variables remain only outside E. Without that, the organized residual morphology could still be an artifact of the trust-region definition rather than a robust small-impact completion. This is load-bearing for the physical reading of the Abstract.
  2. App. H.1–H.2 and §5.4: the paper correctly frames results as finite-grid evidence, but the dense off-grid residual remains O(0.5) even after targeted λ enrichment, while λJ_max^2 endpoint stress is acknowledged. The central claim that the bootstrap “resolves organized black-hole-scale and Regge-like structures rather than a featureless residual continuum” therefore still rests on the unproven axiom that the harmonic (N_σ,J_max,N_λ) collocation adequately captures continuum residual morphology. A clearer continuum-status statement in the Abstract/Introduction (what is claimed vs. what is deferred) and at least one balanced cutoff ladder focused on support metrics (f_{b/RS<3}, gap occupancy, ridge location), not only Y, is needed before the microscope language is fully earned.
  3. §5.1–5.2 and production choice G_N=4π^2: the capped leaf and near-cap band are reported at a single large coupling where the physical cap does substantial work (uncapped residuals were unphysically large). The kernel-profile edge scaling (51) and the remark about G_max∼O(10^2)π^2 are suggestive, but without a production G_N ladder of residual support morphology it is unclear whether the order-one black-hole tracker and empty gap persist into a weaker-coupling regime more relevant to EFT matching. At least two additional G_N values with the same diagnostics as eq. (45) and Figs. 5–9 would substantially strengthen the claim.
minor comments (6)
  1. Fig. 1 cartoon and §1: the power-law guides J_tree, J_eik, J_BH are helpful, but the figure caption should state explicitly that brown residual support is a finite-grid LP output, not an analytic phase diagram.
  2. Eqs. (14)–(16) and the Kg2/Kg3 projector convention: the “somewhat unnatural” normalization is documented, but a one-line map to the more standard Cx,Cy pole residues of (13) in the main text (not only App. C) would reduce reader friction.
  3. §5.2, κ=3 tracker: App. A explains the choice, but the main text should note earlier that κ is an O(1) orientation parameter and that support fractions are stable for κ=2,3,4 (the check currently appears only late in §5.6).
  4. §7 phase-proxy cos(2δ_proxy)≃1−ρ_res: the caveats are present but easy to miss; a short explicit “not a Wigner–Smith measurement” sentence in the §7.1 opening paragraph would prevent over-reading of Figs. 15–16.
  5. Legacy g6=GN/(8π^2) metadata (App. H) and mixed use of b/RS vs b/RJ in ledgers: a single notation table early in §2 would help external reproducibility.
  6. References [66] and [81] are “in preparation”; for archival claims that rely on them only as outlook this is fine, but any quantitative statement that depends on them should be removed or deferred.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No load-bearing circularity: residual black-hole-scale band is an LP output overlaid with an external guide, not forced by definition or self-citation.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [§2.1, eq. (9); refs. [62], [66]]
    "The dispersion relation used in the calculation is the member of the stringy dispersion relation (SDR) of Ref. [62] needed for the present coefficient sum rules... Higher-subtracted avatars of the same relation can be derived by following Ref. [62], or equivalently the discussion in Ref. [66]"

    The SDR representation is taken from prior work with overlapping authorship (Sinha). This is methodological self-citation of the constraint family, not a uniqueness theorem that forces residual support onto the black-hole scale. The residual band itself is an LP output under those constraints plus eikonal input and the unitarity cap; it is not imported from [62]. Minor and non-load-bearing for the morphology claim.

full rationale

The central claim is that after prescribing a standard Einstein eikonal carrier on a trust region E, the capped residual SDR LP places cap-saturated support near an order-one rotating black-hole scale and leaves the intervening gap empty. That morphology is a finite-grid primal optimum under explicit constraints (sampled SDR sum rules, residual nonnegativity, physical cap 0≤ρ_tot≤2), not a quantity defined in terms of the black-hole guide. Appendix A and §5.2 state that J_BH^(κ) is a visual tracker only—not an LP constraint—and κ=2,3,4 give similar near-cap fractions. The eikonal density 1−cosχ and the cuts defining E are semiclassical inputs, not parameters fitted to residual spectra. Kernel-profile signs (§5.6) are pre-LP single-bin diagnostics; reduced costs (§5.5) are post-solve LP marginals. No-eikonal controls (§6) and branch asymmetry (negative-X lower boundary lacks the band) show the support is not forced by the cap or the SDR alone. Self-citation of the authors’ SDR [62] and related CSDR work supplies the dispersion tool, which is normal methodology citation and does not encode the residual band. Score 1 only for routine self-citation of the representation; the derivation of the residual morphology is independent numerical content.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central residual-support claim rests on standard S-matrix axioms plus a modeling split that inserts Einstein eikonal density on a hand-chosen trust region and solves a capped finite LP with several numerical cutoffs. No new particles are postulated; the black-hole band is an emergent numerical structure compared to an external guide curve.

free parameters (5)
  • χ_max eikonal phase window
    Production runs fix χ_max=30 (and α_E≈0.979), which sets both active eikonal support and the analytic pole fraction; a ladder changes the finite problem (§2.3, App. D).
  • b/R_S trust cut R_min
    Active eikonal set requires b/R_S≥3; this is an order-one hand cut defining residual vs carrier bins (§2.3).
  • rotating-guide parameter κ
    Heat maps draw κ=3 root of the Giddings–Porto rotating-radius equation; not fitted in the LP but used for interpretation (§5.2, App. A).
  • production G_N
    Main capped leaf uses G_N=4π² (with uncapped diagnostics at 0.4π²); finite-G_N scale affects cap and support metrics (§5).
  • finite collocation cutoffs (N_σ, J_max, N_λ) and λ<1/3 window
    Production grid (2160,560,200) and real-angle λ sampling up to 1/3 are numerical choices that define the LP matrices (§2.4, §3).
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Causality, analyticity, unitarity, and crossing for identical scalar 2→2 amplitudes with Regge-compatible growth allowing the SDR representation.
    Stated as the foundational principles and growth class for the SDR (§1, §2.1 eqs. 4–9).
  • domain assumption On a large-impact-parameter trust region the graviton pole is carried by the elastic Einstein eikonal density ρ=1−cosχ.
    Stronger than averaged HZ statements; inserted pointwise as carrier (§2.2–2.3).
  • domain assumption Physical partial-wave absorptive density obeys the unitarity box 0≤ρ_phys_tot≤2.
    Imposed bin-by-bin as the physical cap that turns the residual cone into a leaf (§2.6).
  • ad hoc to paper Finite harmonic spectral grid and sampled-λ collocation adequately represent the continuum residual problem for qualitative support morphology.
    All production claims are finite-grid LP witnesses; continuum uniqueness is not claimed (§3, App. H).

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 49894 in / 3358 out tokens · 34499 ms · 2026-07-11T06:42:55.385390+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study the low-impact-parameter bootstrap for gravitational effective field theories (EFTs) using the stringy dispersion relation (SDR). After incorporating eikonal spectral support, we ask where the residual spectrum is supported in partial-wave space. On finite grids, the extremal spectra are far from featureless: a cap-saturated low-impact band tracking an order-one Giddings-Porto rotating black-hole scale appears across a substantial part of the allowed EFT boundary being examined, accompanied by a separate Regge-like high-spin ridge. A broad region between this black-hole-band and the eikonal input layer is available to the optimizer but remains largely empty. The gap is available but expensive; the black-hole-scale band is capped and useful. Thus the pole-subtracted bootstrap acts as a microscope for the small-impact-parameter completion of gravity: it resolves organized black-hole-scale and Regge-like structures rather than a featureless residual continuum.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.05503 by Aninda Sinha, Diptarka Das.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Cartoon of the regimes expected in 2 ↔ 2 gravitational scattering for D > 4. The brown regions indicate positive spectral density selected by the bootstrap, while the intervening white regions indicate available bins that remain largely unoccupied in the finite-grid witnesses. There is a substantial body of work on gravitational EFT bounds using fixed momentum￾transfer dispersion relations, impact-paramete… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Bounds obtained from the uncapped residual cone after supplying the eikonal input. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Representative uncapped residual support at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Capped GN = 4π 2 fixed-grid leaf at (Nσ, Jmax, Nλ, Ndense) = (2160, 560, 200, 600). The orange and blue curves are the upper and lower capped SDR boundaries. The dashed black lines are fixed-t guides, and the gray band is the fixed-a/CSDR comparison region. Six representative boundary points pass the Nλ = 180, 190, 200 λ-constraint enrichment drift check in section 5.4. 5.2 Spectral witnesses around the le… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Low-σ view of four capped GN = 4π 2 spectral witnesses from the leaf in figure 4. The top panels show upper-boundary witnesses at X = −8 and X = 20; the bottom panels show lower-boundary witnesses at X = −8 and X = 24. Eikonal-active bins and residual bins use the same orange/red temperature scale. The orange curve is the rotating black-hole tracker J (κ=3) BH . The residual variables were available throug… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Wider view of the same four witnesses as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Upper-boundary evolution of the black-hole-guide band in the low- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Wider version of figure 7, with σ ≤ 80 and a local compressed 0 ≤ J ≤ 55 axis in each slice. The positive-X witnesses show a visible broadening of the cap-saturated band above the κ = 3 tracker, while the negative-X witnesses sit more tightly below or near it. Since κ is a guide parameter rather than a constraint, the quantitative amount of “spill” above the curve should not be overinterpreted. The robust … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Boundary morphology of the fixed-grid GN = 4π 2 leaf. Solid curves denote the upper boundary and dashed curves denote the lower boundary. The upper boundary is dominated by low-b/RS, near-cap support over a broad range of X. By contrast, the lower branch near negative X has essentially no low-impact cap-saturated weight; its support is concentrated instead in higher-spin threshold and intermediate-b/RS bin… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Reduced costs and cap marginals for the GN = 4π 2 , X = 20, Ymax boundary point on the (Nσ, Jmax, Nλ) = (2160, 560, 200) grid, shown for σ ≤ 20. The left panel is the primal witness: it shows where the optimizer actually places residual spectral density. The middle panel tests unused residual variables by showing how much the optimized value of −Y would increase if that bin were forced to carry an infinit… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Wider version of figure 10, with σ ≤ 80. It shows the same three diagnostics: primal support, lower-bound reduced costs for empty residual spectral bins, and upper-bound marginals for cap-saturated bins. The wider panel shows that the empty region above the low-impact band remains costly over the displayed range after global reoptimization of the finite LP, while the cap-saturated low-impact band continue… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Single-cell kernel-profile diagnostic for the exact finite- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: No-eikonal finite-cutoff control at GN = 4π 2 , X = 6.5, (Nσ, Jmax, Nλ) = (1200, 320, 120). All finite-grid bins with σ ≤ 1200 are available, ρ phys eik = 0 everywhere, and the only box constraint is 0 ≤ ρ phys res ≤ 2. The left panel shows σ < 20, while the right panel shows σ ≤ 80. Compared with the eikonal-subtracted spectra in section 5, the high-spin low-energy branch is much more visible and becomes… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Residual spectral density ρ phys res for the extended eikonal-carrier scan. The panels show the nonzero residual support in the (σ, J) grid for b/RJ > 0.9, 0.5, 0.25, 0.1, with a common color scale for ρ phys res . The orange curve is the black-hole spin curve JBH(σ). As the eikonal carrier reaches smaller b/RJ , the residual support develops a stronger low-spin oscillatory ridge beneath and near the blac… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Residual-density oscillations as the eikonal carrier is extended to smaller impact [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Distribution of the residual spectral density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Toy string-spreading broadening of the allowed leaf in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p049_17.png] view at source ↗

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

86 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Determination of the pion-nucleon scattering amplitude from dispersion relations and unitarity. General theory,

    S. Mandelstam, “Determination of the pion-nucleon scattering amplitude from dispersion relations and unitarity. General theory,” Phys. Rev.112(1958) 1344

    1958

  2. [2]

    R. J. Eden, P. V. Landshoff, D. I. Olive and J. C. Polkinghorne,The Analytic S-Matrix, Cambridge University Press, 1966

    1966

  3. [3]

    Asymptotic behavior and subtractions in the Mandelstam representation,

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

    1961

  4. [4]

    Extension of the axiomatic analyticity domain of scattering amplitudes by unitarity. I,

    A. Martin, “Extension of the axiomatic analyticity domain of scattering amplitudes by unitarity. I,” Nuovo Cim. A42(1965) 930

    1965

  5. [5]

    Absolute upper bounds for pion-pion scattering,

    L. Lukaszuk and A. Martin, “Absolute upper bounds for pion-pion scattering,” Nuovo Cim. A52(1967) 122

    1967

  6. [6]

    Exact integral equation for pion-pion scattering involving only physical region partial waves,

    S. M. Roy, “Exact integral equation for pion-pion scattering involving only physical region partial waves,” Phys. Lett. B36(1971) 353. 53

    1971

  7. [7]

    Causality, analyticity and an IR obstruction to UV completion,

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  8. [8]

    Positivity Bounds for Scalar Theories,

    C. de Rham, S. Melville, A. J. Tolley and S.-Y. Zhou, “Positivity Bounds for Scalar Theories,” Phys. Rev. D96(2017) 081702, arXiv:1702.06134 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  9. [9]

    Softness and amplitudes’ positivity for spinning particles,

    B. Bellazzini, “Softness and amplitudes’ positivity for spinning particles,” JHEP02(2017) 034, arXiv:1605.06111 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  10. [10]

    Positive Signs in Massive Gravity,

    C. Cheung and G. N. Remmen, “Positive Signs in Massive Gravity,” JHEP04(2016) 002, arXiv:1601.04068 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  11. [11]

    UV complete me: Positivity bounds for particles with spin,

    C. de Rham, S. Melville, A. J. Tolley and S.-Y. Zhou, “UV complete me: Positivity bounds for particles with spin,” JHEP03(2018) 011, arXiv:1706.02712 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  12. [12]

    Positive moments for scattering amplitudes,

    B. Bellazzini, J. Elias Mir´ o, R. Rattazzi, M. Riembau and F. Riva, “Positive moments for scattering amplitudes,” Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 036006, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.036006, arXiv:2011.00037 [hep- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.036006 2021

  13. [13]

    The EFT-Hedron,

    N. Arkani-Hamed, T.-C. Huang and Y.-T. Huang, “The EFT-Hedron,” JHEP05(2021) 259, arXiv:2012.15849 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  14. [14]

    De-projecting the EFThedron,

    L.-Y. Chiang, Y.-T. Huang, L. Rodina and H.-C. Weng, “De-projecting the EFThedron,” arXiv:2204.07140 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  15. [15]

    (Non)-projective bounds on gravitational EFT,

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  16. [16]

    Extremal Effective Field Theories,

    S. Caron-Huot and V. Van Duong, “Extremal Effective Field Theories,” JHEP05(2021) 280, arXiv:2011.02957 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  17. [17]

    Sharp boundaries for the swampland,

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  18. [18]

    Bridging positivity and S-matrix bootstrap bounds,

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

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

    M. F. Paulos, J. Penedones, J. Toledo, B. C. van Rees and P. Vieira, “The S-matrix bootstrap. Part III: higher dimensional amplitudes,” JHEP12(2019) 040, arXiv:1708.06765 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  20. [20]

    S-matrix bootstrap for effective field theories: massless pions,

    A. L. Guerrieri, J. Penedones and P. Vieira, “S-matrix bootstrap for effective field theories: massless pions,” JHEP06(2021) 088, arXiv:2011.02802 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  21. [21]

    Primal S-matrix bootstrap with dispersion relations,

    C. de Rham, A. J. Tolley, Z.-H. Wang and S.-Y. Zhou, “Primal S-matrix bootstrap with dispersion relations,” JHEP01(2026) 027, arXiv:2506.22546 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  22. [22]

    Snowmass White Paper: S-matrix Bootstrap,

    M. Kruczenski, J. Penedones and B. C. van Rees, “Snowmass White Paper: S-matrix Bootstrap,” arXiv:2203.02421 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  23. [23]

    Infrared photons and gravitons,

    S. Weinberg, “Infrared photons and gravitons,” Phys. Rev.140(1965) B516

    1965

  24. [24]

    Photons and Gravitons in S-Matrix Theory: Derivation of Charge Conservation and Equality of Gravitational and Inertial Mass,

    S. Weinberg, “Photons and Gravitons in S-Matrix Theory: Derivation of Charge Conservation and Equality of Gravitational and Inertial Mass,” Phys. Rev.135, B1049-B1056 (1964) doi:10.1103/PhysRev.135.B1049

    doi:10.1103/physrev.135.b1049 1964

  25. [25]

    Graviton dominance in ultra-high-energy scattering,

    G. ’t Hooft, “Graviton dominance in ultra-high-energy scattering,” Phys. Lett. B198(1987) 61

    1987

  26. [26]

    Eikonal quantum gravity and Planckian scattering,

    D. Kabat and M. Ortiz, “Eikonal quantum gravity and Planckian scattering,” Nucl. Phys. B388(1992) 570, arXiv:hep-th/9203082

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1992

  27. [27]

    Superstring collisions at Planckian energies,

    D. Amati, M. Ciafaloni and G. Veneziano, “Superstring collisions at Planckian energies,” Phys. Lett. B197 (1987) 81; “Classical and quantum gravity effects from Planckian energy superstring collisions,” Nucl. Phys. B347(1990) 550

    1987

  28. [28]

    Towards an S-matrix description of gravitational collapse,

    D. Amati, M. Ciafaloni and G. Veneziano, “Towards an S-matrix description of gravitational collapse,” JHEP02(2008) 049, arXiv:0712.1209 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  29. [29]

    The high-energy behavior of string scattering amplitudes,

    D. J. Gross and P. F. Mende, “The high-energy behavior of string scattering amplitudes,” Phys. Lett. B 197(1987) 129

    1987

  30. [30]

    String theory beyond the Planck scale,

    D. J. Gross and P. F. Mende, “String theory beyond the Planck scale,” Nucl. Phys. B303(1988) 407

    1988

  31. [31]

    High-energy string-brane scattering: leading eikonal and beyond,

    G. D’Appollonio, P. Di Vecchia, R. Russo and G. Veneziano, “High-energy string-brane scattering: leading eikonal and beyond,” JHEP11(2010) 100, arXiv:1008.4773 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  32. [32]

    The eikonal approach to gravitational scattering and radiation atO(G 3),

    P. Di Vecchia, C. Heissenberg, R. Russo and G. Veneziano, “The eikonal approach to gravitational scattering and radiation atO(G 3),” arXiv:2306.16488 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  33. [33]

    The gravitational S-matrix,

    S. B. Giddings and R. A. Porto, “The gravitational S-matrix,” Phys. Rev. D81(2010) 025002, arXiv:0908.0004 [hep-th]. 54

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  34. [34]

    Classical black hole production in high-energy collisions,

    D. M. Eardley and S. B. Giddings, “Classical black hole production in high-energy collisions,” Phys. Rev. D 66(2002) 044011, arXiv:gr-qc/0201034

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  35. [35]

    Black holes from colliding wavepackets,

    S. B. Giddings and V. S. Rychkov, “Black holes from colliding wavepackets,” Phys. Rev. D70(2004) 104026, arXiv:hep-th/0409131

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  36. [36]

    Black hole formation in the grazing collision of high-energy particles,

    H. Yoshino and Y. Nambu, “Black hole formation in the grazing collision of high-energy particles,” Phys. Rev. D67(2003) 024009, arXiv:gr-qc/0209003

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  37. [37]

    Improved analysis of black hole formation in high-energy particle collisions,

    H. Yoshino and V. S. Rychkov, “Improved analysis of black hole formation in high-energy particle collisions,” Phys. Rev. D71(2005) 104028, arXiv:hep-th/0503171

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  38. [38]

    High-energy gravitational scattering and black hole resonances,

    S. B. Giddings and M. Srednicki, “High-energy gravitational scattering and black hole resonances,” Phys. Rev. D77(2008) 085025, arXiv:0711.5012 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  39. [39]

    The fuzzball proposal for black holes: an elementary review,

    S. D. Mathur, “The fuzzball proposal for black holes: an elementary review,” Fortsch. Phys.53(2005) 793, arXiv:hep-th/0502050

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  40. [40]

    Causality constraints on corrections to the graviton three-point coupling,

    X. O. Camanho, J. D. Edelstein, J. Maldacena and A. Zhiboedov, “Causality constraints on corrections to the graviton three-point coupling,” JHEP02(2016) 020, arXiv:1407.5597 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  41. [41]

    Positivity Bounds and the Massless Spin-2 Pole,

    L. Alberte, C. de Rham, A. Jaitly and A. J. Tolley, “Positivity Bounds and the Massless Spin-2 Pole,” arXiv:2007.12667 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  42. [42]

    Causality constraints on corrections to Einstein gravity,

    S. Caron-Huot, Y.-Z. Li, J. Parra-Martinez and D. Simmons-Duffin, “Causality constraints on corrections to Einstein gravity,” JHEP05(2023) 122, doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2023)122, arXiv:2201.06602 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep05(2023)122 2023

  43. [43]

    Graviton partial waves and causality in higher dimensions,

    S. Caron-Huot, Y.-Z. Li, J. Parra-Martinez and D. Simmons-Duffin, “Graviton partial waves and causality in higher dimensions,” arXiv:2205.01495 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  44. [44]

    Bounding Violations of the Weak Gravity Conjecture,

    J. Henriksson, B. McPeak, F. Russo and A. Vichi, “Bounding Violations of the Weak Gravity Conjecture,” JHEP08(2022) 184, arXiv:2203.08164 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  45. [45]

    Graviton loops and negativity,

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  46. [46]

    What is the graviton pole made of?

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  47. [47]

    Rigorous parametric dispersion representation with three-channel symmetry,

    G. Auberson and N. N. Khuri, “Rigorous parametric dispersion representation with three-channel symmetry,” Phys. Rev. D6(1972) 2953

    1972

  48. [48]

    Physical pion-pion partial-wave equations based on three-channel crossing symmetry,

    G. Mahoux, S. M. Roy and G. Wanders, “Physical pion-pion partial-wave equations based on three-channel crossing symmetry,” Nucl. Phys. B70(1974) 297

    1974

  49. [49]

    Crossing Symmetric Dispersion Relations in QFTs,

    A. Sinha and A. Zahed, “Crossing Symmetric Dispersion Relations in QFTs,” arXiv:2012.04877 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  50. [50]

    Crossing Symmetric Dispersion Relations for Mellin Amplitudes,

    R. Gopakumar, A. Sinha and A. Zahed, “Crossing Symmetric Dispersion Relations for Mellin Amplitudes,” Phys. Rev. Lett.126(2021) 211602, arXiv:2101.09017 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  51. [51]

    Nonhamiltonian approach to conformal quantum field theory,

    A. M. Polyakov, “Nonhamiltonian approach to conformal quantum field theory,” Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.66 (1974) 23 [Sov. Phys. JETP39(1974) 10]

    1974

  52. [52]

    QFT, EFT and GFT,

    P. Raman and A. Sinha, “QFT, EFT and GFT,” JHEP12(2021) 203, arXiv:2107.06559 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  53. [53]

    Positivity and Geometric Function Theory Constraints on Pion Scattering,

    A. Zahed, “Positivity and Geometric Function Theory Constraints on Pion Scattering,” JHEP12(2021) 036, arXiv:2108.10355 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  54. [54]

    Crossing Symmetric Spinning S-matrix Bootstrap: EFT bounds,

    S. D. Chowdhury, K. Ghosh, P. Haldar, P. Raman and A. Sinha, “Crossing Symmetric Spinning S-matrix Bootstrap: EFT bounds,” SciPost Phys.13(2022) 051, arXiv:2112.11755 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  55. [55]

    Locality and Analyticity of the Crossing Symmetric Dispersion Relation,

    D. Chowdhury, P. Haldar and A. Zahed, “Locality and Analyticity of the Crossing Symmetric Dispersion Relation,” JHEP10(2022) 180, arXiv:2205.13762 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  56. [56]

    Crossing-Symmetric Dispersion Relations without Spurious Singularities,

    C. Song, “Crossing-Symmetric Dispersion Relations without Spurious Singularities,” Phys. Rev. Lett.131 (2023) 161602, arXiv:2305.03669 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  57. [57]

    Celestial insights into the S-matrix bootstrap,

    S. Ghosh, P. Raman and A. Sinha, “Celestial insights into the S-matrix bootstrap,” JHEP08(2022) 216, arXiv:2204.07617 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  58. [58]

    Crossing antisymmetric Polyakov blocks + dispersion relation,

    A. Kaviraj, “Crossing antisymmetric Polyakov blocks + dispersion relation,” JHEP01(2022) 005, arXiv:2109.02658 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  59. [59]

    Bootstrapping high-energy observables,

    F. Bhat, D. Chowdhury, A. Sinha, S. S. Tiwari and A. Zahed, “Bootstrapping high-energy observables,” JHEP03(2024) 157, arXiv:2311.03451 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  60. [60]

    Bootstrapping Gravity with Crossing Symmetric Dispersion Relations,

    C. Pasiecznik, “Bootstrapping Gravity with Crossing Symmetric Dispersion Relations,” arXiv:2506.09884 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  61. [61]

    A Geometric View on Crossing-Symmetric Dispersion Relations,

    J. Elias Miro, A. Guerrieri, M. A. Gumus and A. Zahed, “A Geometric View on Crossing-Symmetric Dispersion Relations,” arXiv:2509.14170 [hep-th]. 55

    arXiv

  62. [62]

    Stringy dispersion relation for field theories,

    F. Bhat, A. P. Saha and A. Sinha, “Stringy dispersion relation for field theories,” Phys. Rev. D113, no.6, 066016 (2026), doi:10.1103/ljzx-q254, arXiv:2506.03862 [hep-th]

    work page doi:10.1103/ljzx-q254 2026

  63. [63]

    Analytic Bootstrap of the Veneziano Amplitude,

    S.-L. Wan and S.-Y. Zhou, “Analytic Bootstrap of the Veneziano Amplitude,” arXiv:2605.11084 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  64. [64]

    On the number of Regge trajectories for dual amplitudes,

    C. Eckner, F. Figueroa and P. Tourkine, “On the number of Regge trajectories for dual amplitudes,” JHEP 02(2025) 103, doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2025)103, arXiv:2405.21057 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep02(2025)103 2025

  65. [65]

    Regge trajectories for UV completions of graviton scattering from polynomial boundedness,

    C. Eckner, F. Figueroa, S. Metayer and P. Tourkine, “Regge trajectories for UV completions of graviton scattering from polynomial boundedness,” arXiv:2512.17828 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  66. [66]

    Low impact parameter physics using the stringy dispersion relation,

    P. Athira, A. P. Saha, S. Saren and A. Sinha, “Low impact parameter physics using the stringy dispersion relation,” in preparation

  67. [67]

    Sampling the Graviton Pole and Deprojecting the Swampland,

    G. Peng, L. Rodina, A. Tokareva and Y. Xu, “Sampling the Graviton Pole and Deprojecting the Swampland,” arXiv:2604.15235 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  68. [68]

    Black holes, black rings and their microstates,

    I. Bena and N. P. Warner, “Black holes, black rings and their microstates,” Lect. Notes Phys.755(2008) 1, arXiv:hep-th/0701216

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  69. [69]

    AdS/CFT duality and the black hole information paradox,

    O. Lunin and S. D. Mathur, “AdS/CFT duality and the black hole information paradox,” Nucl. Phys. B 623(2002) 342, arXiv:hep-th/0109154

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  70. [70]

    Dual geometries for a set of 3-charge microstates,

    S. Giusto, S. D. Mathur and A. Saxena, “Dual geometries for a set of 3-charge microstates,” Nucl. Phys. B 701(2004) 357, arXiv:hep-th/0405017

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  71. [71]

    Lower limit for the energy derivative of the scattering phase shift,

    E. P. Wigner, “Lower limit for the energy derivative of the scattering phase shift,” Phys. Rev.98(1955) 145

    1955

  72. [72]

    Lifetime matrix in collision theory,

    F. T. Smith, “Lifetime matrix in collision theory,” Phys. Rev.118(1960) 349

    1960

  73. [73]

    JT gravity as a matrix integral,

    P. Saad, S. H. Shenker and D. Stanford, “JT gravity as a matrix integral,” arXiv:1903.11115 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1903

  74. [74]

    JT Gravity and the Ensembles of Random Matrix Theory,

    D. Stanford and E. Witten, “JT Gravity and the Ensembles of Random Matrix Theory,” arXiv:1907.03363 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1907

  75. [75]

    Transcending the ensemble: baby universes, spacetime wormholes, and the order and disorder of black hole information,

    D. Marolf and H. Maxfield, “Transcending the ensemble: baby universes, spacetime wormholes, and the order and disorder of black hole information,” arXiv:2002.08950 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  76. [76]

    Random Statistics of OPE Coefficients and Euclidean Wormholes,

    A. Belin and J. de Boer, “Random Statistics of OPE Coefficients and Euclidean Wormholes,” arXiv:2006.05499 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  77. [77]

    Generalized Spectral Form Factors and the Statistics of Heavy Operators,

    A. Belin, J. de Boer, P. Nayak and J. Sonner, “Generalized Spectral Form Factors and the Statistics of Heavy Operators,” arXiv:2111.06373 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  78. [78]

    Quantum Gravity Microstates from Fredholm Determinants,

    C. V. Johnson, “Quantum Gravity Microstates from Fredholm Determinants,” arXiv:2106.09048 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  79. [79]

    Fluctuations of Nuclear Cross Sections in the ‘Continuum’ Region,

    T. Ericson, “Fluctuations of Nuclear Cross Sections in the ‘Continuum’ Region,” Phys. Rev. Lett.5, 430–431 (1960)

    1960

  80. [80]

    A Theory of Fluctuations in Nuclear Cross Sections,

    T. Ericson, “A Theory of Fluctuations in Nuclear Cross Sections,” Annals Phys.23, 390–414 (1963)

    1963

Showing first 80 references.