Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 5 cited by

Bootstrapping the Chiral-Gravitational Anomaly

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 A U(1)-gravitational anomaly forces new spin-4 states below a universal cutoff in axion-type EFTs.

desk verdict A serious, well-written bootstrap paper whose central bound is conditional on an unproven positivity condition in the intermediate-spin region; the parametric result is known from time-delay, but the derivation and model implications are worth referee time. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14422 v2 pith:RZ3DQX3E submitted 2024-11-21 hep-th hep-ph

Zi-Yu Dong , Teng Ma , Alex Pomarol , Francesco Sciotti This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thhep-ph
keywords chiral-gravitationalanomalygravitonscatteringamplitudesdispersionrelationssmearingcausalityboundsaxioneffectivefieldtheorylarge-Ncgaugetheoriesholographicmodels
topics Quantum Gravity
open problems Quantum Gravity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to prove that every effective field theory containing a pseudo-Goldstone $\eta$ with a $U(1)$-gravitational anomaly — for example an axion EFT — has a finite causal cutoff $\Lambda_{\rm caus}\sim\sqrt{M_P F_\pi/\kappa_g}$ below which new states of spin 4 or higher must appear. It first shows that the anomaly coefficient cannot be bounded while gravitons are treated as external, non-dynamical probes, making dynamical gravitons essential. The proof uses smeared dispersion relations in graviton-graviton and eta-graviton scattering to convert the graviton's $1/t$ pole into a positive-definite sum rule, yielding explicit bounds on the mass of the lightest such states. If correct, the result gives a universal scale below which axion EFTs break down, explains why large-$N_c$ gauge theories with glueballs evade the bound in a certain limit, and forces new consistency conditions on holographic 5D models.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the smeared dispersion relation for $2\to2$ helicity amplitudes at fixed $t$. Analyticity and unitarity give sum rules in which the imaginary part is a sum over exchanged states weighted by Wigner $d$-functions, but the graviton $t$-channel pole introduces a $1/t$ singularity that forbids the usual $t\to0$ limit and makes the $d$-functions sign-indefinite. Smearing functions $A(t)$, $B(t)$, $C(t)$ — chosen with specific zeros and boundary behaviour, Eqs. (35) and (46) — are integrated over $t\in[-M_u^2,0]$ so that every state's contribution becomes positive and the $1/t$ pole is matched to the low-energy anomaly terms. The whole argument thereby reduces to verifying the positivity inequalities (30)–(31) and (44), which the paper checks numerically for sample spins and analytically at large $J$ through the Darboux form of the $d$-functions.

What would settle it

A numerical scan that computes the smeared integrals in Eq. (29) for the functions Eq. (35) over the full grid of masses $m^2\geq M_u^2$ and spins $J\geq4$ and finds one point with $A_u(m,J)<B_u(m,J)$ would falsify the derivation, since the positivity inequality (31) is the step that converts the sum rule into the bound. Alternatively, a concrete UV model with a $U(1)$-gravitational anomaly that satisfies the smearing inequalities yet has no $J\geq4$ state below $\sqrt{M_P F_\pi/\kappa_g}$ would contradict the paper's central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that a $U(1)$-gravitational anomaly forces dynamical gravity into the problem and cannot be bootstrapped with gravitons as external sources. From smeared dispersion relations in $h^+h^+\to h^+h^+$ and $\eta h^+\to\eta h^+$ scattering it derives explicit bounds — Eq. (38), parametrically $\Lambda_{\rm caus}\sim\sqrt{M_P F_\pi/\kappa_g}$ — on the mass $M_u$ of the lightest $J\geq4$ state coupled to two gravitons, and Eq. (48) for $J\geq2$ states in $\eta$–$h$ scattering. It then shows that in axion EFTs this is a genuine cutoff below the naive perturbative scale, that in large-$N_c$ gauge theories with $N_F\ll N_c$ and a non-large 'tHooft coupling the presence of glueballs can push the quantum gravity scale below $\Lambda_{\rm caus}$ and evade the bound, and that in holographic 5D models $\Lambda_{\rm caus}$ becomes a new scale whose consistency imposes conditions such as Eq. (78) and Eq. (83).

Load-bearing premise

The derivation depends on the claim, verified numerically only for sample values and analytically only in the $J\to\infty$ limit, that the smearing functions in Eq. (35) and Eq. (46) satisfy the positivity inequalities $A_s\geq B_s$ and $A_u\geq B_u$ for every allowed spin and mass; a counterexample at intermediate $J$ would void the bound.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every EFT of $\eta$ plus gravitons with $\kappa_g\neq0$ has a cutoff $\Lambda_{\rm caus}\sim\sqrt{M_P F_\pi/\kappa_g}$, so at least one $J\geq4$ state coupled to two gravitons must exist at or below this scale.
  • For axion models ($F_\pi/\kappa_g \sim f_a$) the axion EFT cannot be extrapolated beyond $\sqrt{M_P f_a}$, a scale below the naive perturbative cutoff.
  • In large-$N_c$ gauge theories with $N_F\ll N_c$ and a non-large 'tHooft coupling, glueballs shift the quantum gravity scale below $\Lambda_{\rm caus}$, so no bound on mesonic $J\geq4$ states follows.
  • In holographic 5D duals, $\Lambda_{\rm caus}$ is a new cutoff unless the 5D parameters satisfy conditions such as Eq. (78) for warped models and Eq. (83) for flat models; the D3/D7 string embedding has string states below the bound.
  • If the lightest glueball is the dilaton, the bound constrains its coupling to two gravitons and hence $(a_{\rm UV}-c_{\rm UV})/N_c^2$ when higher-spin states are heavy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • (Editorial extension) The same smearing-dispersion logic should apply to mixed anomalies involving other Goldstones, so the generic scale $\sqrt{M_P F/\kappa}$ is likely a feature of any EFT with a Goldstone–graviton–graviton vertex, not only the $U(1)$ case.
  • (Editorial extension) If the bound holds, axion EFTs used in gravitational-wave or black-hole computations inherit this cutoff, which suggests that experimental searches should consider signatures of $J\geq4$ partners near $\sqrt{M_P f_a}$, even though their couplings are Planck-suppressed.
  • (Editorial extension) The flat-space 5D consistency condition Eq. (83) departs from the naive large-$N_c$ scaling in the paper; checking whether other string or 5D constructions satisfy it would either confirm the bound or reveal where the positivity assumptions fail.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies causality and unitarity constraints on 2→2 amplitudes involving gravitons and a pseudo-Goldstone η with a U(1)-gravitational anomaly coupling κg η h+ h-. It first shows that with gravitons as non-dynamical sources the anomaly coefficient cannot be bounded (Sec. 5). It then uses smeared dispersion relations for h+h+→h+h+ and ηh+→ηh+ scattering with dynamical gravitons to derive an upper bound, Eq. (38), on M_u, the mass of the lightest J≥4 state coupled to two gravitons, and a similar bound, Eq. (48), for J≥2 states in η-graviton scattering. Parametrically the cutoff is Λ_caus ∼ √(M_P F_π/κ_g) (Eq. 50). Applications are discussed for axion EFTs, large-N gauge theories, and 5D holographic models, where the bound becomes a consistency condition on 5D parameters.

Significance. If correct, this is a significant result: it turns the chiral-gravitational anomaly into a quantitative lower bound on the mass scale of higher-spin states and gives a causality cutoff below the Planck scale for axion-like EFTs, with concrete, falsifiable parametric predictions. The paper is explicit about the mass scales involved and makes a clear distinction between the non-dynamical and dynamical graviton cases. The main proof strategy is standard (smeared dispersion relations), and Appendix A provides a useful large-J asymptotic analysis. However, the central claim inherits several positivity assumptions that are not fully demonstrated; the result should be viewed as a promising derivation whose rigor depends on closing this gap.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 6.1, Eqs. (29)-(31), Fig. 4] The central inequality Eq. (32), and hence the main bound Eq. (38), requires As≥Bs and Au≥Bu for every exchanged state, i.e. for all allowed J and for all masses above threshold. The paper states that these inequalities have been "checked explicitly ... for general mi and Ji", but it then says that for larger Ji the values are "difficult to get numerically", and Appendix A proves only the J→∞ limit for the case m=M. Since the u-channel integrand is a sign-changing weighted average of d^J_4,4 against the smearing function, positivity is not a consequence of pointwise positivity; a counterexample at intermediate J or for m>M_u would invalidate Eq. (32) and with it the main bound. A complete analytic proof or a reproducible numerical verification (code, high-resolution scans, or explicit tables) for all intermediate J and all m≥M_s,u is needed to support the central claim.
  2. [Sec. 6.2 and Appendix C, Eqs. (44), (104)-(105)] The bounds Eq. (48) and Eq. (49) depend on positivity of Cs,u and on the coupled inequalities Ds,u ≤ √(Cs,u As,u) for all masses and allowed J. The text says these are "simple to verify" for the functions in Eq. (108), but no proof or numerical evidence is presented. Because these inequalities again involve oscillating Wigner d-functions with |t|max equal to the threshold mass, the same gap as in Eqs. (30)-(31) occurs. The authors should provide the verification or explicitly list these as assumptions of the derivation.
  3. [Sec. 6.1, Eqs. (37)-(38) and Eq. (50)] The bound contains the IR regulator M_IR through ln(M_u/M_IR), and the paper assumes that M_IR can be chosen close to M_u so that the logarithm is O(1). This choice is not derived from any physical input, and the coefficient 7 in Eq. (38) depends on it. If the paper claims a "rigorously and precisely derived" bound (Introduction), the status of M_IR should be clarified: either state the bound as M_u^2|κg|/(M_P F_π) ≲ 7√ln(M_u/M_IR) with M_IR an open parameter, or explain how M_IR is fixed. The parametric scale Eq. (50) is unaffected, but the precise statement of the bound is not.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 4] The figure lacks axis labels and panel labels; please specify which panel corresponds to As/Bs and which to Au/Bu, and whether the plotted quantity is A−B or A and B separately.
  2. [Secs. 5-6] The notation M_{++--} is used for the elastic h+h+→h+h+ amplitude in Sec. 6, while the same kind of helicity label appears for the inelastic process in Sec. 5; please define the all-incoming helicity labeling once and use it consistently throughout.
  3. [Section 5 heading] The heading "Attemping to bound κg without dynamical gravitons" contains a typo: it should be "Attempting".
  4. [Sec. 6.2] The phrase "both integrants have the same high-energy behaviour" should read "both integrands".
  5. [Eqs. (1), (38), (48)] The parametric formula Eq. (1) omits the logarithmic factor that appears in Eqs. (38) and (48); please state explicitly that Eq. (1) is the parametric form obtained by taking the logarithm to be O(1).
  6. [Appendix A, after Eq. (89)] The argument that the middle integral vanishes because a and b are zeros of the Wigner d-function needs more detail; please specify how a and b scale with J and why the endpoint contributions dominate uniformly in that limit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Eq. (38) is derived from smeared dispersion relations with κg as an input coupling, and Mu is the solved-for output; no fitted parameter or self-citation chain defines the result.

full rationale

The central bound Eq. (38) is obtained by combining the smeared k=2 and k=3 sum rules, Eqs. (27)-(28), with the positivity inequalities Eqs. (30)-(31). The smearing functions A(t) and B(t) in Eq. (35) are explicitly chosen and tested, not fitted to data, and the anomaly coupling κg is an input fixed by the U(1)-gravitational anomaly while Mu is the derived mass scale. The logarithmic IR factor ln(Mu/MIR) is an O(1) regulator, not a fitted constant. Self-citations to the authors' earlier work [17,18] supply the bootstrap framework and residue-sign conventions, but those inputs are not equivalent to the target bound: the present result is an output of the dispersion relations and is not defined in terms of [18]'s bounds. Parametric agreement with the external time-delay result [32] is disclosed rather than disguised. The unproven part of the argument is the claim that Eqs. (30)-(31) hold for all intermediate J and masses, which is verified only numerically at finite J and analytically at J→∞; this is an unproven assumption or correctness risk, not circularity, because a counterexample would invalidate the derivation rather than make it self-contained by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or conserved quantities. The couplings κ3 and κ5 are standard higher-dimension operators (R^3 and Chern-Simons), not invented entities. The central claim rests on the positivity of smeared kernels and on the tree-level spectral assumption, listed above.

free parameters (2)
  • IR cutoff MIR = assumed O(Mu), not fitted
    Introduced to regularize the logarithmically divergent integral in the smeared dispersion relation; the bound's numerical coefficient depends on ln(Mu/MIR), which is taken to be O(1).
  • Smearing function parameters = 0.885 (Eq. 35); beta~7.2 (Eq. 46); beta~8 (Eq. 108)
    Chosen by hand to satisfy the positivity inequalities and to optimize the bounds. They affect O(1) numerical factors but not the parametric form of Λcaus.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Analyticity, crossing, unitarity, and a spectral decomposition over tree-level exchanges of discrete states (Eqs. 8-11).
    Basis of all dispersion relations in the paper; loop corrections and multi-particle cuts are not included, as explicitly deferred to future work in Sec. 8.
  • domain assumption Regge high-energy behavior: M(s,u)/s^k tends to 0 as |s|→∞ at fixed t for k≥kmin, with kmin=2 for graviton scattering (Eq. 7).
    Needed to drop the contour at infinity; justified by Regge theory with citations [17,22,41], not proven in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper There exist smearing functions A, B, C satisfying the positivity inequalities Eqs. (30)-(31), (44), and (104)-(105) for all J and masses.
    The entire bound Eq. (38) depends on these inequalities, which are verified numerically for sample values and proven analytically only in the J→∞ limit (Appendix A).
  • domain assumption Standard large-N_c counting and holographic dictionary, including glueball dominance of the graviton self-energy (Eqs. 60-63).
    Used in Sec. 7.2 to relate Λcaus to ΛQG and to derive the 5D consistency conditions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bootstrapping the Chiral-Gravitational Anomaly." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RZ3DQX3E

@misc{pith2026241114422,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bootstrapping the Chiral-Gravitational Anomaly},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RZ3DQX3E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14422}
}
abstract

We analyze causality and unitarity constraints in graviton scattering amplitudes, aiming to establish new bounds on theories with $U(1)$-gravitational anomalies, such as axion models or strongly-coupled gauge theories. For this purpose, we show the necessity of coupling these theories to gravity. We obtain a universal scale $\Lambda_{\rm caus}$ at which states with $J\geq 4$ must appear in the theory. We show that this scale can lie below the quantum gravity scale. For axion models, we get $\Lambda_{\rm caus}\sim\sqrt{M_P f_a}$ where $f_a$ is the axion decay constant. In strongly-coupled gauge theories in the large-$N_c$ limit, the presence of glueballs allows to evade these bounds, provided the number of fermions $N_F\ll N_c$ and the 'tHooft coupling is not large. Nevertheless, for models that have a holographic 5D dual (large 'tHooft coupling), $\Lambda_{\rm caus}$ emerges as a new cutoff scale, unless certain conditions on the parameters of the 5D models are satisfied.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14422 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. 4-point amplitudes involving κg (red vertex) due to the exchange of the pseudo-scalar η. We also show the contributions from κ3 (blue vertex) and ordinary gravity (black vertex). These are amplitudes which in principle could allow us to bootstrap κg in the decoupling limit of gravity MP → ∞ (the graviton acting as an external non-dynamical source).2 Unfortunately, as we will show in the next section, we will not be … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. 4-point amplitudes involving κg (red vertex) due to the exchange of the graviton h (in C together with the η exchange). We also show the contributions from κ3 (blue vertex) and ordinary gravity (black vertex). non-dynamical probes. In Section 6 on the other hand, when taking the graviton as a dynamical field, we will have to take this interaction into account. 4 Sum rules from dispersion relations Let us start by re… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Analytic structure of a generic M(s, u) amplitude at fixed t < 0. The positive real s-axis contains s-channel poles, while the negative real s-axis has u-channel poles. We also show the contours used to obtain dispersion relations. Dispersion relations can be derived in the following way. We start with the integral of M(s, −s − t)/sk+1 along the contour C∞ of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Values of As,u and Bs,u, defined in Eq. (29), for the smearing functions Eq. (35). We have taken mi equal to its lowest value, mi = Ms (Mu) in As, Bs (Au, Bu). indicating that each term of Eq. (27) is positive. This shows that the sum rule Eq. (27) is exactly what we w…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Contribution to the graviton propagator due to the exchange of resonances. interactions of η have the same parametric dependence as those of Ri given in Eq. (53), we can estimate F 2 π ∼ M2 /g2 ∗ , κg ∼ 1/g2 ∗ , (54) where M is the mass of the lightest resonance, in pr…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

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

    hep-th 2025-07 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

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

  2. Strings from Almost Nothing

    hep-th 2025-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Ultrasoft, minimally structured scattering amplitudes are forced onto the Veneziano and Virasoro-Shapiro amplitudes of string theory.

  3. The EFT Bootstrap at Finite $M_{PL}$

    hep-th 2025-01 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    One-loop gravity effects make forward-limit positivity bounds ill-defined for massless scalar-gravity EFTs, forcing non-forward dispersion relations that shift the tree-level bounds by order-one factors.

  4. The Rise of Linear Trajectories

    hep-th 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Numerical S-matrix bootstrap shows that maximized couplings of the second and third higher-spin resonances select spectra lying on a linear Regge trajectory, anchored by the graviton in gravitational theories.

  5. Dark Photons and Gravitino Like Particles: Complete EFT Operator Basis

    hep-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new on-shell method using Young tableaux constructs complete EFT operator bases for massive particles of any spin, applied to dark photons and spin-3/2 gravitino-like particles up to dimension 8.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 5 Pith papers

  1. [32]

    Serra, J

    F. Serra, J. Serra, E. Trincherini, and L. G. Trombetta, JHEP08, 157 (2022), arXiv: 2205. 08551

    work page 2022

  2. [1]

    Kruczenski, J

    M. Kruczenski, J. Penedones, and B. C. van Rees (2022), arXiv: 2203.02421

    arXiv 2022

  3. [2]

    M. F. Paulos, J. Penedones, J. Toledo, B. C. van Rees, and P. Vieira, JHEP11, 143 (2017), arXiv: 1607.06110

    arXiv 2017

  4. [3]

    M. F. Paulos, J. Penedones, J. Toledo, B. C. van Rees, and P. Vieira, JHEP12, 040 (2019), arXiv: 1708.06765

    arXiv 2019

  5. [4]

    Doroud and J

    N. Doroud and J. Elias Mir´ o, JHEP 09, 052 (2018), arXiv: 1804.04376

    arXiv 2018

  6. [5]

    A. L. Guerrieri, J. Penedones, and P. Vieira, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 241604 (2019), arXiv: 1810.12849

    arXiv 2019

  7. [6]

    A. L. Guerrieri, J. Penedones, and P. Vieira, JHEP 06, 088 (2021), arXiv: 2011.02802

    arXiv 2021

  8. [7]

    Zahed, JHEP 12, 036 (2021), arXiv: 2108.10355

    A. Zahed, JHEP 12, 036 (2021), arXiv: 2108.10355

    arXiv 2021

Show all 54 references
  1. [8]

    Alvarez, J

    B. Alvarez, J. Bijnens, and M. Sj¨ o, JHEP 2022, 159 (2022), arXiv: 2112.04253

    2022 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Elias Miro, A

    J. Elias Miro, A. Guerrieri, and M. A. Gumus, JHEP 05, 001 (2023), arXiv: 2210.01502

    2023 arXiv

  3. [10]

    He and M

    Y. He and M. Kruczenski (2023), arXiv: 2309.12402

    2023 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Acanfora, A

    F. Acanfora, A. Guerrieri, K. H¨ aring, and D. Karateev, JHEP03, 028 (2024), arXiv: 2310. 06027

    2024

  5. [12]

    A. L. Guerrieri, A. Hebbar, and B. C. van Rees (2023), arXiv: 2312.00127

    2023 arXiv

  6. [13]

    He and M

    Y. He and M. Kruczenski (2024), arXiv: 2403.10772

    2024 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Guerrieri, K

    A. Guerrieri, K. H¨ aring, and N. Su (2024), arXiv: 2410.23333

    2024 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Albert and L

    J. Albert and L. Rastelli, JHEP 08, 151 (2022), arXiv: 2203.11950

    2022 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Fernandez, A

    C. Fernandez, A. Pomarol, F. Riva, and F. Sciotti, JHEP 06, 094 (2023), arXiv: 2211. 12488

    2023

  10. [17]

    Albert and L

    J. Albert and L. Rastelli, JHEP 09, 039 (2024), arXiv: 2307.01246

    2024 arXiv

  11. [18]

    T. Ma, A. Pomarol, and F. Sciotti, JHEP 11, 176 (2023), arXiv: 2307.04729

    2023 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Li, JHEP 01, 072 (2024), arXiv: 2310.09698

    Y.-Z. Li, JHEP 01, 072 (2024), arXiv: 2310.09698

    2024 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Albert, J

    J. Albert, J. Henriksson, L. Rastelli, and A. Vichi, JHEP 09, 172 (2024), arXiv: 2312. 15013

    2024

  14. [21]

    Caron-Huot, D

    S. Caron-Huot, D. Mazac, L. Rastelli, and D. Simmons-Duffin, JHEP 07, 110 (2021), arXiv: 2102.08951. 29

    2021 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Caron-Huot, Y.-Z

    S. Caron-Huot, Y.-Z. Li, J. Parra-Martinez, and D. Simmons-Duffin, JHEP 05, 122 (2023), arXiv: 2201.06602

    2023 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Caron-Huot, Y.-Z

    S. Caron-Huot, Y.-Z. Li, J. Parra-Martinez, and D. Simmons-Duffin, Phys. Rev. D 108, 026007 (2023), arXiv: 2205.01495

    2023 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Beadle, G

    C. Beadle, G. Isabella, D. Perrone, S. Ricossa, F. Riva, and F. Serra (2024), arXiv: 2407. 02346

    2024

  18. [25]

    Henriksson, B

    J. Henriksson, B. McPeak, F. Russo, and A. Vichi, JHEP 08, 184 (2022), arXiv: 2203. 08164

    2022

  19. [26]

    Hong, Z.-H

    D.-Y. Hong, Z.-H. Wang, and S.-Y. Zhou, JHEP 10, 135 (2023), arXiv: 2304.01259

    2023 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Albert, W

    J. Albert, W. Knop, and L. Rastelli (2024), arXiv: 2406.12959

    2024 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Xu, D.-Y

    H. Xu, D.-Y. Hong, Z.-H. Wang, and S.-Y. Zhou (2024), arXiv: 2410.09794

    2024 arXiv

  22. [29]

    H¨ aring and A

    K. H¨ aring and A. Zhiboedov (2024), arXiv: 2410.21499

    2024 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Bellazzini, M

    B. Bellazzini, M. Lewandowski, and J. Serra, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 251103 (2019), arXiv: 1902.03250

    2019 arXiv

  24. [31]

    X. O. Camanho, J. D. Edelstein, J. Maldacena, and A. Zhiboedov, JHEP 02, 020 (2016), arXiv: 1407.5597

    2016 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Afkhami-Jeddi, S

    N. Afkhami-Jeddi, S. Kundu, and A. Tajdini, JHEP 04, 056 (2019), arXiv: 1811.01952

    2019 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Kaplan and S

    J. Kaplan and S. Kundu, JHEP 11, 142 (2019), arXiv: 1904.09294

    2019 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Kaplan and S

    J. Kaplan and S. Kundu, JHEP 02, 145 (2021), arXiv: 2008.05477

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Kaplan and S

    J. Kaplan and S. Kundu, Phys. Rev. D 104, L061901 (2021), arXiv: 2009.08460

    2021 arXiv

  29. [37]

    L. J. Dixon, in Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics: Jour- neys Through the Precision Frontier: Amplitudes for Colliders (2015), pp. 39–97

    2015

  30. [38]

    Baratella, C

    P. Baratella, C. Fernandez, B. von Harling, and A. Pomarol, JHEP 03, 287 (2021), arXiv: 2010.13809

    2021 arXiv

  31. [39]

    R. L. Workman et al. (Particle Data Group), PTEP 2022, 083C01 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    Jacob and G

    M. Jacob and G. C. Wick, Annals Phys. 7, 404 (1959)

    1959

  33. [41]

    V. N. Gribov, The theory of complex angular momenta: Gribov lectures on theoretical physics, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2007), ISBN 978-0-521-03703-7, 978-0-521-81834-6, 978-0-511-05504-1. 30

    2007

  34. [42]

    Bellazzini, G

    B. Bellazzini, G. Isabella, M. Lewandowski, and F. Sgarlata, JHEP 05, 154 (2022), arXiv: 2108.05896

    2022 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Caron-Huot and Y.-Z

    S. Caron-Huot and Y.-Z. Li (2024), arXiv: 2408.06440

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    ’t Hooft, Nucl

    G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B 72, 461 (1974)

    1974

  37. [45]

    Witten, Nucl

    E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 160, 57 (1979)

    1979

  38. [46]

    Witten, Nucl

    E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 156, 269 (1979)

    1979

  39. [47]

    Veneziano, Nucl

    G. Veneziano, Nucl. Phys. B 159, 213 (1979)

    1979

  40. [48]

    Karateev, Z

    D. Karateev, Z. Komargodski, J. a. Penedones, and B. Sahoo, JHEP 11, 067 (2024), arXiv: 2312.09308

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Aharony, S

    O. Aharony, S. S. Gubser, J. M. Maldacena, H. Ooguri, and Y. Oz, Phys. Rept. 323, 183 (2000), arXiv: hep-th/9905111

    2000 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Randall and R

    L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3370 (1999), arXiv: hep-ph/9905221

    1999 arXiv

  43. [51]

    W. D. Goldberger and M. B. Wise, Phys. Lett. B 475, 275 (2000), arXiv: hep-ph/9911457

    2000 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Arkani-Hamed, M

    N. Arkani-Hamed, M. Porrati, and L. Randall, JHEP 08, 017 (2001), arXiv: hep-th/ 0012148

    2001

  45. [53]

    Barbieri, A

    R. Barbieri, A. Pomarol, and R. Rattazzi, Phys. Lett. B 591, 141 (2004), arXiv: hep-ph/ 0310285

    2004

  46. [54]

    Kruczenski, D

    M. Kruczenski, D. Mateos, R. C. Myers, and D. J. Winters, JHEP 07, 049 (2003), arXiv: hep-th/0304032. 31

    2003 arXiv

Pith tools

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