Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Massive Helicity-Chirality Spinor Formalism from Massless Amplitudes with On-shell Mass Insertion

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Massive particle amplitudes reduce to massless helicity amplitudes with on-shell mass insertions, one-to-one.

desk verdict The spinor machinery and the QED check are real, but the one-to-one UV-IR correspondence is not established and is contradicted by the paper's own matching examples. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09062 v2 pith:YVUXA67Z submitted 2025-01-15 hep-ph hep-th

Yu-Han Ni , Yi-Ning Wang , Chao Wu , Jiang-Hao Yu This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-th
keywords helicity-chiralityspinorformalismtransversalitymassivescatteringamplitudeson-shellmassinsertionspinor-helicityUV-IRcorrespondencelargeenergyeffectivetheoryQED
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 introduces a spinor formalism in which any scattering amplitude for particles with mass and spin is reassembled from massless spinors, with every mass effect appearing as an on-shell "mass insertion" that flips either helicity or chirality. The new ingredient is a quantum number called transversality, carried by the large and small components of massless spinors that scale as $\lambda \sim \sqrt{E}$ and $\eta \sim m/\sqrt{E}$, giving a power-counting expansion in $m/E$. The central claim is that this expansion is not just a useful approximation: each massive helicity-chirality amplitude corresponds one-to-one to a massless helicity amplitude, possibly with extra Higgs scalars, and the massless amplitude is the unique ultraviolet completion of the massive one. If correct, this resolves a known ambiguity in constructing massive QED amplitudes from on-shell three-point vertices and explains observed mass enhancements in weak decays such as $\pi^+ \to \mu^+ \nu$ and $t \to W^+ b$.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the helicity-transversality spinor, obtained by decomposing a massive spin-transversality spinor into large and small pieces $\lambda$ and $\eta$ that carry a new $U(1)$ "transversality" quantum number; the underlying extended symmetry is $ISO(5,1)$, whose generators $T^\pm$ and $D^-$ relate different transversality values the way Lorentz generators relate helicities. The method proceeds by starting from a highest-weight three-point amplitude, applying helicity and chirality flips (the on-shell mass insertions), and matching the resulting chiral structures to massless ultraviolet amplitudes via the constraint $h_i = t_i$ and on-shell Higgsing.

What would settle it

Compute the tree-level three-point $F\bar F\gamma$ amplitude in massive QED in the two kinematic frames of eq. (4.9) and compare the coefficients of the MHC structures in eq. (4.36) with the predicted $c_6=c_7=c'_6=c'_7=e/m$ and vanishing non-minimal coefficients; any extra non-minimal structure at the same order in $m/E$ would rule out the claimed one-to-one UV-IR correspondence. Alternatively, construct $e^+e^- \to \mu^+\mu^-$ by gluing only the "unwanted" massless UV amplitudes that the paper excludes and show the result changes a physical, polarization-summed observable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that a massive amplitude is completely determined by a massless "ultraviolet" amplitude through the chirality-helicity unification: at high energy, helicity and chirality coincide, so each massive helicity-chirality amplitude is matched one-to-one to an $n$-point massless helicity amplitude, or to a higher-point amplitude with additional Higgs scalars that supply the mass when they acquire a vacuum expectation value. In this picture the familiar mass terms of the amplitude are generated by on-shell mass insertions of two types, helicity flips and chirality flips, which also provide the power-counting expansion of a large-energy effective theory. The same construction fixes the three-point Lorentz structures that the earlier spin-spinor formalism left underdetermined, and the paper shows that selecting the massless QED ultraviolet removes the unwanted ultraviolet structures that had made constructive four-fermion QED disagree with textbook results.

Load-bearing premise

The construction depends on the assumption that every massive single-particle state carries an extra quantum number called transversality, and that the operators that change transversality combine with ordinary Lorentz rotations into the six-dimensional Lorentz group $SO(5,1)$; this identification is a postulate, and if it fails the complete determination of three-point amplitudes and the one-to-one UV-IR map lose their foundation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The extended symmetry determines the three-point massive amplitudes completely, removing the need for ad hoc equation-of-motion reductions in the earlier massive spinor formalism.
  • The one-to-one UV-IR correspondence gives a systematic way to select the physical ultraviolet completion, so constructive QED can reproduce the standard $e^+e^- \to \mu^+\mu^-$ result without extra conditions.
  • The power counting $\eta \sim m/\sqrt{E}$ turns any massive amplitude into a large-energy effective theory with manifest mass-expansion orders, applicable to arbitrary spins.
  • Known decay hierarchies, including the $\mu$ mass enhancement in pion decay and the $m_t/m_W$ suppression pattern in top decay, follow directly from counting helicity and chirality flips.
  • Massless on-shell techniques such as gluing and recursion extend to higher-point massive amplitudes through the derived internal-particle rules.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The one-to-one correspondence suggests a practical matching recipe for SMEFT: expand a massive amplitude to a given order in $m/E$ and read off the required dimension-six coefficients from the selected massless UV amplitudes; the paper does not develop this automated matching.
  • Because the extended symmetry is $ISO(5,1)$, a massive four-dimensional amplitude carries a hidden six-dimensional structure; it would be natural to test whether the correspondence survives at loop level, where the transversality multiplet may acquire anomalous dimensions, a question the tree-level analysis leaves open.
  • A concrete testable extension is to apply the same UV-IR matching to weak-boson scattering $W^+W^- \to W^+W^-$, where an analogous ambiguity had required tree-level unitarity; the formalism predicts the ambiguity is resolved by the same selection of the massless UV amplitude.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Formalized claims in Lean

  1. Claim #1: The paper's central discovery is that a massive amplitude is completely determined by a massless "ultraviolet" amplitude through the chirality-helicity unification: at high energy, helicity and chirality coincide, so each massive helicity-chirality amplitude is matched one-to-one to an $n$-point massless helicity amplitude, or to a higher-point amplitude with additional Higgs scalars that supply t

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 introduces a 'helicity-transversality' spinor formalism for massive scattering amplitudes, extending the AHH massive spin-spinors by promoting the mass spurions to complex quantities and adding a U(1) 'transversality' quantum number. The authors then identify an SO(5,1) structure generated by the Lorentz generators together with new T± and D− generators, use highest-weight representations to enumerate three-point massive amplitudes, and decompose amplitudes into large λ and small η components with a systematic mass/power-counting expansion. The central advertised result is a one-to-one 'UV-IR correspondence' in which every massive helicity-chirality amplitude is uniquely related to a massless helicity amplitude with or without additional Higgs insertions. Applications include the mass enhancement in π+→μ+ν and t→W+b, and the construction of the massive QED three-point F¯Fγ amplitude and of e+e−→μ+μ−, which is checked against the textbook QED result.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the formalism would be a valuable tool: it provides an explicit power-counting scheme for massive amplitudes, a diagrammatic mass-insertion interpretation, and a potential resolution of the known ambiguity in on-shell constructions of massive QED. The paper contains substantial worked material: detailed three-point constructions in Sections 3 and 4, explicit internal-particle gluing rules in Section 5, and a clear reproduction of the textbook e+e−→μ+μ− result in Eq. (5.65). The assumptions are also unusually transparent: the SO(5,1) identification, the transversality quantum number, and the free coefficients ci are stated rather than hidden. However, the advertised one-to-one UV-IR correspondence is the load-bearing novelty of the paper, and the matching procedure in Section 3.3 demonstrates non-uniqueness rather than uniqueness. The SO(5,1) extension is also a postulate rather than a derived symmetry, and the three-point amplitudes contain undetermined coefficients unless a UV theory is chosen. These issues require substantial revision of the central claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and §3.3] The claimed one-to-one UV-IR correspondence is not supported by the matching procedure in §3.3. The coefficient c4 of the FFS amplitude (Eq. 3.37) is matched to three different massless UV amplitudes—on-shell Higgsing (Eq. 3.44), heavy fermion mixing (Eq. 3.45), and a dimension-6 EFT operator (Eq. 3.46)—all of which reduce to the same IR spinor structure ⟨1η2⟩ with different mass-dependent prefactors. The text itself acknowledges that the problem is 'how to isolate these unwanted UV amplitudes' and later selects 'the correct QED amplitudes' in §4.4. Thus a massive MHC amplitude determines a massless UV amplitude only after the UV theory has already been chosen; the map is not one-to-one as stated. The abstract and Section 3.3 should be revised to state the correspondence as theory-relative, or a proof of uniqueness under the stated symmetry assumptions should be supplied.
  2. [§3.2, Eqs. (3.37)–(3.40)] The highest-weight construction determines a basis of kinematic/chirality structures, not the amplitudes themselves. The FFS amplitude in Eq. (3.37) and the bolded ST form in Eq. (3.40) contain free coefficients c1,...,c8, and §3.3 begins by stating that 'the coefficients of these amplitudes are still not yet determined.' Consequently, the Introduction's claim that SO(5,1) symmetry 'completely determines the Lorentz structures of the 3-pt massive amplitudes' should be understood as determining the functional basis, while the numerical coefficients require an external UV input or a matching calculation. This distinction should be stated explicitly at every occurrence of 'completely determines,' since the undetermined ci constitute a genuine free-parameter set of the formalism rather than a derived output.
  3. [§2.2 and Appendix A] The extended symmetry that organizes transversality multiplets is postulated, not derived. The generators T± and D− are asserted to close with the Lorentz generators into SO(5,1) (Eqs. 2.30–2.33), and the massive states are then restricted by the selection condition in Eq. (2.44). This identification is the foundation of the highest-weight construction in §3.2 and of the claimed uniqueness of three-point structures. Since the paper does not derive this algebra from an underlying quantum field theory or from Wigner's little-group construction, its status as an assumption should be made explicit, and an independent check (for example, a direct Lagrangian or Feynman-diagram realization of a sample process) should be provided to verify that the SO(5,1) multiplet relations hold beyond the kinematic examples considered.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction, p. 3] The text contains several typos and small inconsistencies: 'n-piont' should be 'n-point', 'seperated' in Section 6 should be 'separated', 'constriant' in §3.3 should be 'constraint', and the Summary sentence listing '2-massive-1-massless, 2-massive-1-massless' appears to repeat one case instead of listing the all-massless case.
  2. [§3, 'LEFT' vs 'LEET'] The effective theory is called 'large energy effective theory' and abbreviated LEET in the Introduction and Section 6, but Section 3.1 introduces it as 'denoted as LEFT'; the abbreviation should be made consistent throughout.
  3. [Eq. (3.47) and Appendix C] The coefficient lists in Eq. (3.47) and in Table (C.1) are long and hard to parse; introducing a compact notation for the coefficient families or an indexed table would substantially improve readability.
  4. [§2.2, Eq. (2.24)] The SU(2) generator normalization in Eq. (2.24) is stated without derivation; a brief comment explaining the convention and its consistency with the commutators in Eq. (2.30) would help the reader verify the algebra.
  5. [§4.2, x-factor definitions] The definition of x and x̄ in Eqs. (4.11)–(4.12) involves several choices that affect the power counting and transversality assignments; the paper would benefit from an explicit summary table showing how the alternative choices in Eq. (4.33) change the identification of mass insertions.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Partial circularity in the claimed UV-IR one-to-one correspondence and load-bearing self-citation, but the core QED construction has independent content.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.3, around eqs. (3.44)-(3.46); selection in Section 4.4 around eq. (4.29)]
    ""From the 4-pt UV diagrams, c4 may have three possible UV origins: On-shell Higgsing ... Heavy fermion mixing ... EFT ..." ... "Now we should select the needed UV structures. Since the minimal coupling in massless QED corresponds to helicity categories (±1/2, ∓1/2, +1), we do not need to consider c5 and c8.""

    The abstract's headline claim is that any massive helicity-chirality amplitude can be placed in one-to-one correspondence with a massless UV amplitude. But the paper's own matching shows that the same IR coefficient c4 is reproduced by three different UV amplitudes with different mass-dependent prefactors, so the map is not one-to-one unless a UV is preselected. In Section 4.4 the 'correct' massive QED amplitude is obtained by selecting massless spinor QED as an external input and reading off c6=c7=e/m from the massless UV amplitude. That UV choice is the input, not a prediction of the formalism; the claimed 'isolation' of the correct QED UV is therefore equivalent to the matching rule hi=ti plus a hand-picked UV theory.

  2. self citation load bearing [Section 1, third paragraph; the ST-spinor premise; also Section 4 opening sentence]
    ""This is based on the spin and spinor space decomposition of the spin-transversality (ST) spinor, introduced by the authors in Ref. [75]. The ST spinor ... unifies the AHH spin-spinors λIα and ˜λI˙α with different transversality, by the extended Poincaré symmetry, the SO(5,1) symmetry. Unlike the AHH formalism only enumerating various possible 3-pt amplitudes, this SO(5,1) symmetry completely determines the Lorentz structures of the 3-pt massive amplitudes.""

    The central premise that massive one-particle states inherit a new SO(5,1) transversality structure, and the assertion that this symmetry 'completely determines' the three-point Lorentz structures, is attributed to the authors' own companion paper Ref. [75]. That prior paper is not machine-checked or independently verified in the present text, and if the SO(5,1) identification is rejected, the claimed completeness of the 3-point construction loses its foundation. The present paper does re-derive the algebra in Appendix A, so this is load-bearing self-citation rather than a pure definitional identity, but it is not independent external support.

full rationale

The derivation is not globally circular: the U(2) little-group construction, the lambda/eta power counting, the highest-weight enumeration, and the gluing computation of e+e- -> mu+mu- are carried out with explicit algebra, and the final QED amplitude is checked against the textbook result. The coefficients in the QED matching are taken from massless UV amplitudes (e.g., c6=e/m from the massless [13]^2/[12] amplitude), not fitted to the final 4-point IR answer, so the main 4-point result has independent content. The circularity concerns are concentrated in the headline UV-IR 'one-to-one' claim: the same IR coefficient c4 is matched to three different UV origins, so the map is not one-to-one unless a UV is chosen in advance; Section 4.4 then chooses massless spinor QED as an input and reads off the coefficients. Thus the abstract's 'one-to-one corresponded' assertion is closer to a matching prescription with a preselected UV than to a derived bijection, and the 'isolation' of the correct QED UV is circular insofar as the correct UV is supplied rather than predicted. In addition, the SO(5,1)/ST-spinor premise is attributed to the authors' own Ref. [75]; the present paper re-derives the algebra, so this is load-bearing self-citation rather than a definitional identity. Overall there is partial circularity in the central UV-IR claim, with substantial independent construction elsewhere, giving a score of 5.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on four unproved but explicitly stated postulates: the extended symmetry with a new transversality charge, the SO(5,1) ladder structure with the selection rule (2.44), the split momentum conservation (3.4), and the one-to-one UV-IR correspondence. The coupling coefficients c_i are not determined by the formalism and must be matched to external UV data. There are no free numerical parameters fitted to data, but the coefficients act as free symbols in the 3-point amplitudes.

free parameters (1)
  • Coupling coefficients c_i in massive 3-point MHC amplitudes = None; fixed by UV matching
    The SO(5,1) and helicity-chirality construction determines the kinematic Lorentz structures but leaves the coefficients c_i, for example in eqs. (3.37) and (3.39), undetermined. They must be matched to external UV couplings, so the formalism alone does not predict their values.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The massive single-particle Hilbert space extends to ISO(2) x ISO(3,1), with a new U(1) quantum number called transversality and complex mass spurions m, \tilde m, while preserving a U(2) little group.
    Introduced in Section 2.2, eqs. (2.13)-(2.16). This is the foundational postulate that creates the new quantum number and goes beyond the standard Wigner classification.
  • ad hoc to paper The generators T^+, T^- and D^- together with the Lorentz generators close into an SO(5,1) algebra, and the helicity-transversality spinors form representations satisfying the selection rule in eq. (2.44).
    Section 2.2-2.3, eqs. (2.30)-(2.33) and (2.44). The identification of these ladder operators with SO(5,1) and the truncation to |t| <= s is a new postulate that supports the entire highest-weight construction of 3-point amplitudes.
  • domain assumption Momentum conservation in the large-energy effective theory splits as \sum_i p_i = 0 and \sum_i \eta_i = 0 (eq. 3.4).
    Section 3. This split is stated as crucial for the power counting to hold order by order in the mass expansion; it is not derived from the standard \sum_i p_i = 0.
  • domain assumption In the ultraviolet, chirality and helicity unify, so each massive MHC amplitude matches a unique massless amplitude with additional scalar insertions.
    Section 3.3, eq. (3.41). This is the core UV-IR correspondence assumption. It is physically motivated by the high-energy limit but asserted as a one-to-one mapping rather than proven for all n-point amplitudes.
invented entities (2)
  • Transversality quantum number t
    purpose: Labels a new degree of freedom of massive one-particle states and organizes the helicity-transversality spinors into SO(5,1) representations.
    Section 2.2, eqs. (2.15)-(2.18). No direct observable is identified; the physical content is chirality-like and its consequences appear only through the amplitude formalism.
  • Complex mass spurions m and \tilde m as ISO(2) generators, interpreted as 6D momentum components
    purpose: Promote masses to spurions carrying a U(1) phase, enlarging the little group to U(2) and enabling the SO(5,1) structure.
    Section 2.2, eqs. (2.12)-(2.14) and Appendix A eq. (A.26). These are theoretical constructs; physical results are recovered after setting \tilde m = m^* = m for real momenta.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Massive Helicity-Chirality Spinor Formalism from Massless Amplitudes with On-shell Mass Insertion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YVUXA67Z

@misc{pith2026250109062,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Massive Helicity-Chirality Spinor Formalism from Massless Amplitudes with On-shell Mass Insertion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YVUXA67Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09062}
}
abstract

We introduce a helicity-chirality spinor formalism to describe scattering amplitudes for particles of any masses and spins. The massive spin-spinors introduced by Arkani-hamed-Huang-Huang have been extended to the spin/helicity-transversality spinors, in which a new quantum number transversality, closely related to chirality, is introduced by extending the Poincare symmetry. The massive helicity-chirality amplitudes can be written by the large and small components of massless spinors $\lambda$ and $\eta$ following the $\lambda \sim \sqrt{E}, \eta \sim \mathbf{m}/\sqrt{E}$ expansion order by order, which formulate the power counting rules of a large energy effective theory. Diagrammatically the mass expansion in amplitudes originates from the on-shell mass insertion: the helicity flip and chirality flip, which completely determines the three-point massive amplitudes. From the chirality-helicity unification at the UV, any massive helicity-chirality amplitude can be one-to-one corresponded to massless helicity amplitudes with (without) additional Higgs insertion. This UV-IR correspondence explains the mass enhancement in the weak decay processes $\pi^+ \to \mu^+ \nu$ and $t \to W^+ b$, and isolates the correct UV of the three-point massive QED $F\bar{F}\gamma$ amplitudes in Arkani-hamed-Huang-Huang formalism. From massless-massive correspondence, the massless on-shell techniques can be utilized to construct higher-point massive amplitudes.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Massive On-shell Splitting Functions in Spinor-Helicity Formalism

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Massive SM splitting functions are reconstructed from on-shell amplitudes via SW collinear spinors and a Higgs-insertion dictionary.

  2. Massive Gauge Theories from Consistency Conditions of Amplitudes

    hep-th 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Massive vector-boson and scalar amplitudes through four points are uniquely fixed by two on-shell consistency conditions, forcing spontaneously-broken gauge theories — or Stueckelberg theory when scalar masses are equ...

  3. Relativistic Particle on Light-Front

    hep-th 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A front-form construction with a reference null vector makes the massive-to-massless Wigner classification continuous and derives the massless spin-1 polarization shift coefficient from the angle between reference vectors.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

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

    1986

  2. [2]

    Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon, and D. A. Kosower, Progress in one loop QCD computations, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 46 (1996) 109–148, [hep-ph/9602280]

    arXiv 1996

  3. [3]

    L. J. Dixon, Calculating scattering amplitudes efficiently, in (TASI 95): QCD and Beyond, pp. 539–584, 1, 1996. hep-ph/9601359

    arXiv 1996

  4. [4]

    Elvang and Y .-t

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

    arXiv

  5. [5]

    Cheung, TASI lectures on scattering amplitudes., in TASI: Anticipating the Next Discoveries in Particle Physics, pp

    C. Cheung, TASI lectures on scattering amplitudes., in TASI: Anticipating the Next Discoveries in Particle Physics, pp. 571–623, 2018. arXiv:1708.03872

    arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    Travaglini et al., The SAGEX review on scattering amplitudes, J

    G. Travaglini et al., The SAGEX review on scattering amplitudes, J. Phys. A 55 (2022), no. 44 443001, [arXiv:2203.13011]. – 76 –

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Badger, J

    S. Badger, J. Henn, J. C. Plefka, and S. Zoia, Scattering Amplitudes in Quantum Field Theory, Lect. Notes Phys. 1021 (2024) pp., [arXiv:2306.05976]

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Benincasa and F

    P. Benincasa and F. Cachazo, Consistency Conditions on the S-Matrix of Massless Particles, arXiv:0705.4305

    arXiv

Show all 91 references
  1. [9]

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

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

    2004 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Britto, F

    R. Britto, F. Cachazo, and B. Feng, New recursion relations for tree amplitudes of gluons, Nucl. Phys. B 715 (2005) 499–522, [hep-th/0412308]

    2005 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Britto, F

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

    2005 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Kleiss and W

    R. Kleiss and W. J. Stirling, Spinor Techniques for Calculating p anti-p —> W+- / Z0 + Jets, Nucl. Phys. B 262 (1985) 235–262

    1985

  5. [13]

    Hagiwara and D

    K. Hagiwara and D. Zeppenfeld, Helicity Amplitudes for Heavy Lepton Production in e+ e- Annihilation, Nucl. Phys. B 274 (1986) 1–32

    1986

  6. [14]

    Kleiss and W

    R. Kleiss and W. J. Stirling, TOP QUARK PRODUCTION AT HADRON COLLIDERS: SOME USEFUL FORMULAE, Z. Phys. C 40 (1988) 419–423

    1988

  7. [15]

    Dittmaier, Weyl-van der Waerden formalism for helicity amplitudes of massive particles, Phys

    S. Dittmaier, Weyl-van der Waerden formalism for helicity amplitudes of massive particles, Phys. Rev. D 59 (1998) 016007, [hep-ph/9805445]

    1998 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Schwinn and S

    C. Schwinn and S. Weinzierl, Scalar diagrammatic rules for Born amplitudes in QCD, JHEP 05 (2005) 006, [hep-th/0503015]

    2005 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Schwinn and S

    C. Schwinn and S. Weinzierl, SUSY ward identities for multi-gluon helicity amplitudes with massive quarks, JHEP 03 (2006) 030, [hep-th/0602012]

    2006 arXiv

  10. [18]

    S. D. Badger, E. W. N. Glover, V . V . Khoze, and P. Svrcek,Recursion relations for gauge theory amplitudes with massive particles, JHEP 07 (2005) 025, [hep-th/0504159]

    2005 arXiv

  11. [19]

    S. D. Badger, E. W. N. Glover, and V . V . Khoze,Recursion relations for gauge theory amplitudes with massive vector bosons and fermions, JHEP 01 (2006) 066, [hep-th/0507161]

    2006 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Conde and A

    E. Conde and A. Marzolla, Lorentz Constraints on Massive Three-Point Amplitudes, JHEP 09 (2016) 041, [arXiv:1601.08113]

    2016 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Conde, E

    E. Conde, E. Joung, and K. Mkrtchyan, Spinor-Helicity Three-Point Amplitudes from Local Cubic Interactions, JHEP 08 (2016) 040, [arXiv:1605.07402]

    2016 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Basile, E

    T. Basile, E. Joung, K. Mkrtchyan, and M. Mojaza, Spinor-helicity representations of particles of any mass in dS4 and AdS4 spacetimes, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024), no. 12 125003, [arXiv:2401.02007]

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Arkani-Hamed, T.-C

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

    2021 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Durieux, T

    G. Durieux, T. Kitahara, C. S. Machado, Y . Shadmi, and Y . Weiss,Constructing massive on-shell contact terms, JHEP 12 (2020) 175, [arXiv:2008.09652]

    2020 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Christensen and B

    N. Christensen and B. Field, Constructive standard model, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018), no. 1 016014, [arXiv:1802.00448]. – 77 –

    2018 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Franken and C

    R. Franken and C. Schwinn, On-shell constructibility of Born amplitudes in spontaneously broken gauge theories, JHEP 02 (2020) 073, [arXiv:1910.13407]

    2020 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Bachu and A

    B. Bachu and A. Yelleshpur, On-Shell Electroweak Sector and the Higgs Mechanism, JHEP 08 (2020) 039, [arXiv:1912.04334]

    2020 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Ballav and A

    S. Ballav and A. Manna, Recursion relations for scattering amplitudes with massive particles, JHEP 03 (2021) 295, [arXiv:2010.14139]

    2021 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Wu and S.-H

    C. Wu and S.-H. Zhu, Massive on-shell recursion relations for n-point amplitudes, JHEP 06 (2022) 117, [arXiv:2112.12312]

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Ballav and A

    S. Ballav and A. Manna, Recursion relations for scattering amplitudes with massive particles II: Massive vector bosons, Nucl. Phys. B 983 (2022) 115935, [arXiv:2109.06546]

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Liu and Z

    D. Liu and Z. Yin, Gauge invariance from on-shell massive amplitudes and tree-level unitarity, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022), no. 7 076003, [arXiv:2204.13119]

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Bachu, Spontaneous symmetry breaking from an on-shell perspective, JHEP 02 (2024) 098, [arXiv:2305.02502]

    B. Bachu, Spontaneous symmetry breaking from an on-shell perspective, JHEP 02 (2024) 098, [arXiv:2305.02502]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Y . Ema, T. Gao, W. Ke, Z. Liu, K.-F. Lyu, and I. Mahbub,Momentum shift and on-shell recursion relation for electroweak theory, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024), no. 10 105002, [arXiv:2407.14587]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Ochirov, Helicity amplitudes for QCD with massive quarks, JHEP 04 (2018) 089, [arXiv:1802.06730]

    A. Ochirov, Helicity amplitudes for QCD with massive quarks, JHEP 04 (2018) 089, [arXiv:1802.06730]

    2018 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Falkowski and C

    A. Falkowski and C. S. Machado, Soft Matters, or the Recursions with Massive Spinors, JHEP 05 (2021) 238, [arXiv:2005.08981]

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Lazopoulos, A

    A. Lazopoulos, A. Ochirov, and C. Shi, All-multiplicity amplitudes with four massive quarks and identical-helicity gluons, JHEP 03 (2022) 009, [arXiv:2111.06847]

    2022 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Christensen, H

    N. Christensen, H. Diaz-Quiroz, B. Field, J. Hayward, and J. Miles, Challenges with internal photons in constructive QED, Nucl. Phys. B 993 (2023) 116278, [arXiv:2209.15018]

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Y . Ema, T. Gao, W. Ke, Z. Liu, K.-F. Lyu, and I. Mahbub,Momentum shift and on-shell constructible massive amplitudes, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024), no. 10 105003, [arXiv:2403.15538]

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    J. M. Campbell and R. K. Ellis, Top tree amplitudes for higher order calculations, JHEP 10 (2023) 125, [arXiv:2309.03323]

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Shadmi and Y

    Y . Shadmi and Y . Weiss,Effective Field Theory Amplitudes the On-Shell Way: Scalar and Vector Couplings to Gluons, JHEP 02 (2019) 165, [arXiv:1809.09644]

    2019 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Aoude and C

    R. Aoude and C. S. Machado, The Rise of SMEFT On-shell Amplitudes, JHEP 12 (2019) 058, [arXiv:1905.11433]

    2019 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Durieux, T

    G. Durieux, T. Kitahara, Y . Shadmi, and Y . Weiss,The electroweak effective field theory from on-shell amplitudes, JHEP 01 (2020) 119, [arXiv:1909.10551]

    2020 arXiv

  35. [43]

    T. Ma, J. Shu, and M.-L. Xiao, Standard model effective field theory from on-shell amplitudes*, Chin. Phys. C 47 (2023), no. 2 023105, [arXiv:1902.06752]

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Durieux and C

    G. Durieux and C. S. Machado, Enumerating higher-dimensional operators with on-shell amplitudes, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020), no. 9 095021, [arXiv:1912.08827]. – 78 –

    2020 arXiv

  37. [45]

    H.-L. Li, Z. Ren, J. Shu, M.-L. Xiao, J.-H. Yu, and Y .-H. Zheng,Complete set of dimension-eight operators in the standard model effective field theory, Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021), no. 1 015026, [arXiv:2005.00008]

    2021 arXiv

  38. [46]

    H.-L. Li, Z. Ren, M.-L. Xiao, J.-H. Yu, and Y .-H. Zheng,Complete set of dimension-nine operators in the standard model effective field theory, Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021), no. 1 015025, [arXiv:2007.07899]

    2021 arXiv

  39. [47]

    H.-L. Li, Z. Ren, M.-L. Xiao, J.-H. Yu, and Y .-H. Zheng,Low energy effective field theory operator basis at d ≤ 9, JHEP 06 (2021) 138, [arXiv:2012.09188]

    2021 arXiv

  40. [48]

    H.-L. Li, J. Shu, M.-L. Xiao, and J.-H. Yu, Depicting the Landscape of Generic Effective Field Theories, arXiv:2012.11615

    2012 arXiv

  41. [49]

    H.-L. Li, Z. Ren, M.-L. Xiao, J.-H. Yu, and Y .-H. Zheng,Operator bases in effective field theories with sterile neutrinos: d ≤ 9, JHEP 11 (2021) 003, [arXiv:2105.09329]

    2021 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Accettulli Huber and S

    M. Accettulli Huber and S. De Angelis, Standard Model EFTs via on-shell methods, JHEP 11 (2021) 221, [arXiv:2108.03669]

    2021 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Z.-Y . Dong, T. Ma, and J. Shu,Constructing on-shell operator basis for all masses and spins, Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023), no. 11 L111901, [arXiv:2103.15837]

    2023 arXiv

  44. [52]

    H.-L. Li, Z. Ren, M.-L. Xiao, J.-H. Yu, and Y .-H. Zheng,Operators for generic effective field theory at any dimension: on-shell amplitude basis construction, JHEP 04 (2022) 140, [arXiv:2201.04639]

    2022 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Balkin, G

    R. Balkin, G. Durieux, T. Kitahara, Y . Shadmi, and Y . Weiss,On-shell Higgsing for EFTs, JHEP 03 (2022) 129, [arXiv:2112.09688]

    2022 arXiv

  46. [54]

    De Angelis, Amplitude bases in generic EFTs, JHEP 08 (2022) 299, [arXiv:2202.02681]

    S. De Angelis, Amplitude bases in generic EFTs, JHEP 08 (2022) 299, [arXiv:2202.02681]

    2022 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Z.-Y . Dong, T. Ma, J. Shu, and Y .-H. Zheng,Constructing generic effective field theory for all masses and spins, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022), no. 11 116010, [arXiv:2202.08350]

    2022 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Ren and J.-H

    Z. Ren and J.-H. Yu, A complete set of the dimension-8 Green’s basis operators in the Standard Model effective field theory, JHEP 02 (2024) 134, [arXiv:2211.01420]

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    H. Liu, T. Ma, Y . Shadmi, and M. Waterbury,An EFT hunter’s guide to two-to-two scattering: HEFT and SMEFT on-shell amplitudes, JHEP 05 (2023) 241, [arXiv:2301.11349]

    2023 arXiv

  50. [58]

    J. M. Goldberg, H. Liu, and Y . Shadmi, Dimension-8 SMEFT contact-terms for vector-pair production via on-shell Higgsing, JHEP 12 (2024) 057, [arXiv:2407.07945]

    2024 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Herderschee, S

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

    2019 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Engelbrecht, C

    L. Engelbrecht, C. R. T. Jones, and S. Paranjape, Supersymmetric Massive Gravity, JHEP 10 (2022) 130, [arXiv:2205.12982]

    2022 arXiv

  53. [61]

    M. K. N. Balasubramanian, K. Chakraborty, A. Rudra, and A. P. Saha, On-shell supersymmetry and higher-spin amplitudes, JHEP 06 (2023) 037, [arXiv:2209.06446]

    2023 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Johansson, G

    H. Johansson, G. Kälin, G. Mogull, and B. Verbeek, Two-loop N = 1 SYM Amplitudes via SUSY Decomposition and Massive Spinor-Helicity, arXiv:2312.17219

    arXiv

  55. [63]

    Falkowski, G

    A. Falkowski, G. Isabella, and C. S. Machado, On-shell effective theory for higher-spin dark matter, SciPost Phys. 10 (2021), no. 5 101, [arXiv:2011.05339]. – 79 –

    2021 arXiv

  56. [64]

    G. F. S. Alves, E. Bertuzzo, and G. M. Salla, On-shell approach to neutrino oscillations, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022), no. 3 036028, [arXiv:2103.16362]

    2022 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Bertuzzo, C

    E. Bertuzzo, C. Grojean, and G. M. Salla, ALPs, the on-shell way, JHEP 05 (2024) 175, [arXiv:2311.16253]

    2024 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Guevara, A

    A. Guevara, A. Ochirov, and J. Vines, Scattering of Spinning Black Holes from Exponentiated Soft Factors, JHEP 09 (2019) 056, [arXiv:1812.06895]

    2019 arXiv

  59. [67]

    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, JHEP 04 (2019) 156, [arXiv:1812.08752]

    2019 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Guevara, A

    A. Guevara, A. Ochirov, and J. Vines, Black-hole scattering with general spin directions from minimal-coupling amplitudes, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019), no. 10 104024, [arXiv:1906.10071]

    2019 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Z. Bern, C. Cheung, R. Roiban, C.-H. Shen, M. P. Solon, and M. Zeng, Scattering Amplitudes and the Conservative Hamiltonian for Binary Systems at Third Post-Minkowskian Order, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (2019), no. 20 201603, [arXiv:1901.04424]

    2019 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Maybee, D

    B. Maybee, D. O’Connell, and J. Vines, Observables and amplitudes for spinning particles and black holes, JHEP 12 (2019) 156, [arXiv:1906.09260]

    2019 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Arkani-Hamed, Y .-t

    N. Arkani-Hamed, Y .-t. Huang, and D. O’Connell, Kerr black holes as elementary particles, JHEP 01 (2020) 046, [arXiv:1906.10100]

    2020 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Christensen, A complete set of 4-point amplitudes in the constructive Standard Model, Eur

    N. Christensen, A complete set of 4-point amplitudes in the constructive Standard Model, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024), no. 6 620, [arXiv:2403.07978]

    2024 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Christensen, Field-theory action for the constructive standard model, Phys

    N. Christensen, Field-theory action for the constructive standard model, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024), no. 10 105008, [arXiv:2408.13303]

    2024 arXiv

  66. [74]

    H.-Y . Lai, D. Liu, and J. Terning,The constructive method for massive particles in QED, JHEP 06 (2024) 086, [arXiv:2312.11621]

    2024 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Ni, Y .-N

    Y .-H. Ni, Y .-N. Wang, C. Wu, and J.-H. Yu,Extended Poincare Symmetry Dictates Massive Scattering Amplitudes, arXiv:2412.03762

    arXiv

  68. [76]

    Arkani-Hamed and K

    N. Arkani-Hamed and K. Harigaya, Naturalness and the muon magnetic moment, JHEP 09 (2021) 025, [arXiv:2106.01373]

    2021 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Stöckinger and H

    D. Stöckinger and H. Stöckinger-Kim, On the role of chirality flips for the muon magnetic moment and its relation to the muon mass, Front. in Phys. 10 (2022) 944614

    2022

  70. [78]

    L. J. Hall, V . A. Kostelecky, and S. Raby,New Flavor Violations in Supergravity Models, Nucl. Phys. B 267 (1986) 415–432

    1986

  71. [79]

    Gabbiani, E

    F. Gabbiani, E. Gabrielli, A. Masiero, and L. Silvestrini, A Complete analysis of FCNC and CP constraints in general SUSY extensions of the standard model, Nucl. Phys. B 477 (1996) 321–352, [hep-ph/9604387]

    1996 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Misiak, S

    M. Misiak, S. Pokorski, and J. Rosiek, Supersymmetry and FCNC effects, Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys. 15 (1998) 795–828, [hep-ph/9703442]

    1998 arXiv

  73. [81]

    M. J. Dugan and B. Grinstein, QCD basis for factorization in decays of heavy mesons, Phys. Lett. B 255 (1991) 583–588. – 80 –

    1991

  74. [82]

    E. P. Wigner, On Unitary Representations of the Inhomogeneous Lorentz Group, Annals Math. 40 (1939) 149–204

    1939

  75. [83]

    Bargmann and E

    V . Bargmann and E. P. Wigner,Group Theoretical Discussion of Relativistic Wave Equations, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 34 (1948) 211

    1948

  76. [84]

    Craig, H

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

    2011 arXiv

  77. [85]

    S. R. Coleman and J. Mandula, All Possible Symmetries of the S Matrix, Phys. Rev. 159 (1967) 1251–1256

    1967

  78. [86]

    Jiang, J

    M. Jiang, J. Shu, M.-L. Xiao, and Y .-H. Zheng, Partial Wave Amplitude Basis and Selection Rules in Effective Field Theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (2021), no. 1 011601, [arXiv:2001.04481]

    2021 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Li, Y .-H

    H.-L. Li, Y .-H. Ni, M.-L. Xiao, and J.-H. Yu,The bottom-up EFT: complete UV resonances of the SMEFT operators, JHEP 11 (2022) 170, [arXiv:2204.03660]

    2022 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Li, Y .-H

    H.-L. Li, Y .-H. Ni, M.-L. Xiao, and J.-H. Yu,Complete UV resonances of the dimension-8 SMEFT operators, JHEP 05 (2024) 238, [arXiv:2309.15933]

    2024 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Azatov, R

    A. Azatov, R. Contino, C. S. Machado, and F. Riva, Helicity selection rules and noninterference for BSM amplitudes, Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017), no. 6 065014, [arXiv:1607.05236]

    2017 arXiv

  82. [90]

    L. C. Bresciani, G. Levati, P. Mastrolia, and P. Paradisi, Anomalous dimensions via on-shell methods: Operator mixing and leading mass effects, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024), no. 5 056041, [arXiv:2312.05206]

    2024 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Grzadkowski, M

    B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak, and J. Rosiek, Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian, JHEP 10 (2010) 085, [arXiv:1008.4884]. – 81 –

    2010 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.