Two-Loop Iteration of Five-Point N=4 Super-Yang-Mills Amplitudes

D. A. Kosower; M. Czakon; R. Roiban; V. A. Smirnov; Z. Bern

REVIEW

Two-Loop Iteration of Five-Point N=4 Super-Yang-Mills Amplitudes

Z. Bern, M. Czakon, D. A. Kosower, R. Roiban, V. A. Smirnov

High Energy Physics - Theory · Submitted 10 Apr 2006 · 32 references

Pith's verdict: The genuinely new content is the parity-odd sector of the two-loop five-point integrand, and the check that eq. (2) holds there is convincing but reported only as a total-amplitude residual.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash) read the paper on November 11, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 1 major objection · 8 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv IDhep-th/0604074 (version 1)

Pith IDSXS6HWKI, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationD. A. Kosower, M. Czakon, R. Roiban, V. A. Smirnov, Z. Bern. "Two-Loop Iteration of Five-Point N=4 Super-Yang-Mills Amplitudes." arXiv:hep-th/0604074 (2006). https://pith.science/paper/SXS6HWKI

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

The thing to know: this is the five-point completion of the iteration story, and the part that matters is the parity-odd sector. The even terms were already confirmed by Cachazo–Spradlin–Volovich using the old guess for the integrand; what Bern et al. add is the correct odd terms in eq. (3), which they say differ from ref. [10] (that guess only matched the four-dimensional double cuts), and the first test of eq. (2) with those terms included. Since collinear factorization cannot constrain the odd sector, this is the step that was actually missing, and they take it. The method is the right one: full D-dimensional cuts rather than four-dimensional ones, which is exactly why the earlier odd terms were wrong. The MB representations in eqs. (7) and (8) are written with arbitrary propagator powers, so they cover all the integrals in figs. 2 and 3 in one go, and the numbers come out of Czakon's package. That is a clean, well-built piece of work, and the D=10 compactification trick for the regulated cuts is a sensible way around the helicity-state problem, which they flag as unproved at higher loops rather than papering over it. Credit for that; it is the honest way to state it. Soft spots, in order of size. First, the numerical confirmation is reported as a single residual for the total amplitude at three kinematic points, with the points and the even/odd breakdown not given. The stress-test worry is that the odd terms might be a small fraction of the total, so five digits on the sum constrains them to fewer. I think that worry is weaker than it sounds: the odd terms carry R = ε1234 s12s23s34s45s51/G1234, which is not parametrically small at generic kinematics, so they are not buried. Still, splitting the residual costs nothing and would have closed the question. Minor. Second, no companion long paper is cited for the cut derivation, so the integrand in eq. (3) has to be taken on trust at Letter length. Also minor, given the track record. Third, no code or data shipped; the MB package is published, so this is a convenience issue, not a reproducibility one. Nothing here is load-bearing-broken. For anyone working on planar N=4 amplitudes or on the iteration/remainder program, this is a reference you will want. Send it out; the referees should ask for the kinematic points and the even/odd split, and that is about it.

Referee report

Significance

The result is a genuine and nontrivial extension of the evidence for the iteration conjecture. The parity-even sector was already checked in ref. [9]; the parity-odd sector is precisely the part that collinear factorization onto four-point amplitudes cannot reach, so this is the first real test of Eq. (2) at five points. The paper ships concrete, reusable technical output: the complete integrand in Eq. (3), and explicit Mellin-Barnes representations (Eqs. (7) and (8)) valid for arbitrary propagator powers, which subsume the one-loop box and pentagon and the two-loop double box with one massive leg as limits and can be reused by others. The claim is falsifiable in the ordinary sense: a single kinematic point at which the two sides of Eq. (2) disagreed beyond the stated accuracy would refute it. The identification of the 'additional iterative structure' of ref. [9] as a corollary of Eq. (2) with odd terms set to zero is a useful clarification.

Major objections (1)

[Text following Eq. (8), final paragraph before the acknowledgements] The paper's novel content is the parity-odd sector, but the numerical evidence is reported only for the total amplitude: 'We have checked to a numerical accuracy of five significant digits at three independent kinematic points that the iteration formula (2) is indeed correct for the complete amplitude.' Because the odd terms enter the total with a coefficient set by R, five-digit agreement of the total constrains the odd sector only to as many digits as the odd contribution is large relative to the even one, and the reader is given no way to judge this. I ask the authors to report, at the three kinematic points, the separate parity-even and parity-odd contributions to both sides of Eq. (2), or equivalently the residuals obtained with the R-dependent terms retained and with them dropped. This is a reporting request and does not call the result into question; the method (full D-dimensional cuts rather than the four-dimensional cuts that produced the odd terms of ref. [10]) is the right one. But since the odd sector is the load-bearing new claim, the strength of its confirmation should be visible in the Letter rather than inferred.

Minor objections (8)

[Paragraph discussing ref. [10], and Eq. (3)] The paper states that the odd terms of ref. [10] 'do match the four-dimensional double two-particle cuts' but does not say which of those terms are wrong or why the four-dimensional cuts were insufficient to fix them. One or two sentences identifying the discrepancy would let the reader see what the D-dimensional treatment bought, and would make the comparison with ref. [10] more useful.
[Numerical check described after Eq. (8)] Please state the three kinematic points (or at least their region and the range of the invariants), and say whether the check was performed in the Euclidean region or with Minkowski kinematics. Since the parity-odd terms are proportional to eps1234 = 4i eps^{mu nu rho sigma} k1 k2 k3 k4, the comparison involves complex values and depends on the analytic continuation used for the Mellin-Barnes integrals; a sentence on this would make the check reproducible.
[Eqs. (7) and (8)] The paper should state the numerical precision actually achieved by the package of ref. [1] for these integrals, and describe any cross-checks against known results, for example the double box with one massive leg against refs. [27, 30] or the one-loop box against ref. [29]. This would substantiate the five-digit claim independently of the iteration test itself.
[Paragraph on the D=10 compactification] The equivalence between D=10 N=1 super-Yang-Mills compactified on a torus and dimensionally regulated N=4 MSYM in the FDH scheme is asserted without citation. The authors correctly note that no proof exists at higher loops that four- and D-dimensional loop momenta give the same result through O(eps^0), and they address this by working in D dimensions; a citation for the compactification argument, or a sentence on why it preserves the supersymmetry of the regulated theory, would close the remaining gap in the justification of the integrand.
[Eq. (5) and the following paragraph] The one-loop five-point amplitude through O(eps^2) is taken from ref. [23], and the D=6-2eps pentagon is said to be needed through O(eps). It would help to state explicitly that the normalization of Eq. (7) matches that of Eq. (5), since the two are combined in Eq. (2) and a mismatch would be invisible in a total-amplitude check.
[Fig. 2 caption] The caption reads 'the numerical label s on the internal propagators in (c) specify the arbitrary powers ai'; this should be 'labels', and the sentence should also state how the a9 = -1 insertion in Eq. (3) is realized in the representation of Eq. (8).
[Statement about ref. [9]'s 'additional iterative structure'] The observation that the additional structure of ref. [9] follows from Eq. (2) by setting odd terms to zero is interesting but is given in one sentence. A short derivation, or a display of the resulting relation, would make this checkable rather than asserted.
[Numerical sample] Three kinematic points is a modest sample for a five-digit claim. A fourth point in a different region, or a short scan showing the residual stays at the stated level, would strengthen the evidence at little cost.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

The two-loop five-point amplitude in planar N=4 super-Yang-Mills matches the conjectured all-orders iteration formula, including the parity-odd terms that earlier work could not check.

The reading

In a special four-dimensional quantum field theory with the maximum amount of supersymmetry (N=4 super-Yang-Mills), physicists have conjectured that scattering amplitudes at any loop order are determined by the one-loop amplitude plus a small set of universal constants. This 'iteration' conjecture, if true, would be strong evidence that the theory is exactly solvable in the planar (large color) limit. Earlier work confirmed it at four points and, at five points, only for the parity-even part of the amplitude, using a guessed integrand. The parity-odd part is the hard part, because it vanishes in the collinear limits that constrain the even part, so it cannot be fixed by the same consistency conditions. This paper computes the full two-loop five-point integrand from unitarity cuts in D dimensions, obtaining the correct parity-odd terms (which differ from the earlier guess), and then evaluates all the resulting Feynman integrals numerically using Mellin-Barnes representations and an automated package. Comparing the result to the iteration formula at three independent kinematic points, the authors find agreement to five significant digits. The check is numerical rather than analytic, and it covers three points rather than a continuous range, but it is the first test that includes the parity-odd sector, and it passes.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Equation (2), M^(2)_n(eps) = (1/2)(M^(1)_n(eps))^2 + f^(2)(eps) M^(1)_n(2 eps) + C^(2), is asserted to hold for the complete five-point two-loop amplitude including parity-odd terms. The paper states: 'We have checked to a numerical accuracy of five significant digits at three independent kinematic points that the iteration formula (2) is indeed correct for the complete amplitude.' If correct, the two-loop five-point amplitude is fully determined by one-loop data plus the constants f^(2) and C^(2), and the parity-odd sector, which collinear factorization cannot constrain, obeys the same iteration structure.

Load-bearing premise

The D-dimensional unitarity cuts, computed by mapping the theory to D=10 N=1 super-Yang-Mills compactified on a torus, capture every contribution to the four-dimensional amplitude through O(eps^0). The paper itself flags this: 'At one loop, the discrepancy between treating loop momenta in four or D dimensions does not modify the amplitudes of a supersymmetric gauge theory through O(eps^0). No such proof exists for higher loops. Thus, to ensure that no contributions are dropped, we compute the unitarity cuts in D dimensions.' The D=10 compactification argument is stated rather than proved, and it is the step that licenses the whole integrand in eq. (3).

Original abstract

We confirm by explicit computation the conjectured all-orders iteration of planar maximally supersymmetric N=4 Yang-Mills theory in the nontrivial case of five-point two-loop amplitudes. We compute the required unitarity cuts of the integrand and evaluate the resulting integrals numerically using a Mellin--Barnes representation and the automated package of ref.~[1]. This confirmation of the iteration relation provides further evidence suggesting that N=4 gauge theory is solvable.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 2,982 input tokens, $0.0001 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.06 · states limitation 0.17 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.03 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.09 · compares with prior results 0.50 · mentions code or data availability 0.03.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

We confirm by explicit computation the conjectured all-orders iteration of planar maximally supersymmetric N=4 Yang-Mills theory in the nontrivial case of five-point two-loop amplitudes. We compute the required unitarity cuts of the integrand and evaluate the resulting integrals numerically using a Mellin--Barnes representation and the automated package of ref.~[1]. This confirmation of the iteration relation provides further evidence suggesting that N=4 gauge theory is solvable.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	We confirm by explicit computation the conjectured all-orders iteration of planar maximally supersymmetric N=4 Yang-Mills theory in the nontrivial case of five-point two-loop amplitudes.	result 0.78	0.94	0.92	asserted 1.00
s1	We compute the required unitarity cuts of the integrand and evaluate the resulting integrals numerically using a Mellin--Barnes representation and the automated package of ref.~[1].	method 1.00	0.95	0.04	asserted 1.00
s2	This confirmation of the iteration relation provides further evidence suggesting that N=4 gauge theory is solvable.	interpretation 1.00	0.50	0.36	hedged possibility 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.94 · evidence from simulation or computation 0.99.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v1

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

Figures

**Figure 1.** FIG. 1: The three- and two-particle cuts of the five-point

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: The two-loop integrals appearing in the five-point

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: The one-loop integrals required to all orders in

Figures reproduced from arXiv:hep-th/0604074 by the authors.

References

Works cited (32)

[10]

Z. Bern, J. Rozowsky, and B. Yan, hep-ph/9706392

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[4]

C. Anastasiou, Z. Bern, L.J. Dixon, and D.A. Kosower, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91:251602 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[1]

M. Czakon, hep-ph/0511200

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[9]

F. Cachazo, M. Spradlin, and A. Volovich, hep- th/0602228

View on Pith
[2]

G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B72:461 (1974)

View on Pith 1974
[3]

J.M. Maldacena, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2:231 (1998) [Int. J. Theor. Phys. 38:1113 (1999)]; S.S. Gubser, I.R. Klebanov, and A.M. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. B 428:105 (1998); E. Witten, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2:253 (1998); O. Aharony, S.S. Gubser, J.M. Maldacena, H. Ooguri, and Y. Oz, Phys. Rept. 323:183 (2000)

View on Pith 1998
[5]

Z. Bern, L.J. Dixon, and V.A. Smirnov, Phys. Rev. D72:085001 (2005)

View on Pith 2005
[6]

E. Witten, Commun. Math. Phys. 252:189 (2004)

View on Pith 2004
[7]

F. Cachazo, M. Spradlin, and A. Volovich, hep- th/0601031

View on Pith
[8]

Z. Bern, L.J. Dixon, D.C. Dunbar, and D.A. Kosower, Nucl. Phys. B425:217 (1994)

View on Pith 1994
[11]

Z. Bern, L.J. Dixon, D.C. Dunbar, and D.A. Kosower, Nucl. Phys. B435:59 (1995); Z.Bern, L.J. Dixon, and D.A. Kosower, Nucl. Phys. B513:3 (1998)

View on Pith 1995
[12]

Z. Bern, J.S. Rozowsky, and B. Yan, Phys. Lett. B401:273 (1997)

View on Pith 1997
[13]

Z. Bern, L.J. Dixon, and D.A. Kosower, JHEP0408:012 (2004)

View on Pith 2004
[14]

R. Britto, F. Cachazo, and B. Feng, Nucl. Phys. B725:275 (2005). E.I. Buchbinder and F. Cachazo, JHEP0511:036 (2005)

View on Pith 2005
[15]

L. Magnea and G. Sterman, Phys. Rev. D42:4222 (1990); S. Catani, Phys. Lett. B427:161 (1998); G. Sterman and M.E. Tejeda-Yeomans, Phys. Lett. B552:48 (2003)

View on Pith 1990
[16]

T. Kinoshita, J. Math. Phys. 3:650 (1962); T.D. Lee and M. Nauenberg, Phys. Rev. 133:B1549 (1964)

View on Pith 1962
[17]

Z. Bern and D.A. Kosower, Nucl. Phys. B379:451 (1992); Z. Bern, A. De Freitas, L. Dixon, and H.L. Wong, Phys. Rev. D66:085002 (2002)

View on Pith 1992
[18]

W. Siegel, Phys. Lett. B84:193 (1979)

View on Pith 1979
[19]

B. Eden and M. Staudacher, hep-th/0603157

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[20]

N. Beisert and M. Staudacher, Nucl. Phys. B727:1 (2005)

View on Pith 2005
[21]

A.V. Kotikov, L.N. Lipatov, A.I. Onishchenko, and V.N. Velizhanin, Phys. Lett. B595:521 (2004); [Erratum- 5 ibid. B632:754 (2006)]

View on Pith 2004
[22]

Z. Bern and A.G. Morgan, Nucl. Phys. B467:479 (1996); Z. Bern, L.J. Dixon, and D.A. Kosower, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 51C:243 (1996)

View on Pith 1996
[23]

Z. Bern, L.J. Dixon, D.C. Dunbar, and D.A. Kosower, Phys. Lett. B394:105 (1997)

View on Pith 1997
[24]

V.A. Smirnov, Phys. Lett. B460:397 (1999)

View on Pith 1999
[25]

J.B. Tausk, Phys. Lett. B469:225 (1999)

View on Pith 1999
[26]

V.A. Smirnov, Phys. Lett. B567:193 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[27]

V.A. Smirnov, Phys. Lett. B491:130 (2000)

View on Pith 2000
[28]

V.A. Smirnov, hep-ph/0209177; Evaluating Feynman in- tegrals, (STMP 211; Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2004)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[29]

Z. Bern, L.J. Dixon, and D.A. Kosower, Nucl. Phys. B412:751 (1994)

View on Pith 1994
[30]

T. Gehrmann and E. Remiddi, Nucl. Phys. B601:248 (2001)

View on Pith 2001
[31]

C. Anastasiou and A. Daleo, hep-ph/0511176

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[32]

J.A. Minahan and K. Zarembo, JHEP0303:013 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

Forward citations

Cited by 39 Pith papers

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

A Duality For The S Matrix
hep-th 2009-07 conditional novelty 9.0 of 10

A single Grassmannian integral is conjectured to encode the leading singularities of N=4 super Yang-Mills scattering amplitudes at all loop orders, reproducing known tree and one-loop results.
NNLO QCD corrections to three-photon production at the LHC
hep-ph 2019-11 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

Next-to-next-to-leading-order QCD corrections to three-photon production at the LHC bring the Standard Model prediction into agreement with ATLAS 8 TeV data, in the first NNLO calculation for a 2-to-3 process.
A first look at two-loop five-gluon scattering in QCD
hep-ph 2017-12 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

The leading-colour two-loop five-gluon helicity amplitudes in massless QCD are computed and evaluated numerically at one kinematic point, giving the first benchmark numbers for a 2-to-3 process at two loops.
The Two-Loop Six-Gluon MHV Amplitude in Maximally Supersymmetric Yang-Mills Theory
hep-th 2008-03 accept novelty 8.0 of 10

The two-loop six-gluon MHV amplitude in N=4 super-Yang-Mills has a nonzero remainder beyond the BDS ansatz, and that remainder equals the hexagonal Wilson loop remainder to numerical precision.
The Four-Loop Planar Amplitude and Cusp Anomalous Dimension in Maximally Supersymmetric Yang-Mills Theory
hep-th 2006-10 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

A direct four-loop computation in N=4 super Yang-Mills gives a cusp anomalous dimension of -29.34 ± 0.05, refuting the Eden-Staudacher Bethe-ansatz prediction of -26.40.

Show 34 more citing papers

Collinear anatomy
hep-th 2024-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

Derives a collinear factorization formula for near-mass-shell amplitudes in N=4 SYM, including a new ultrasoft correction to the one-loop splitting amplitude.
The two-loop five-point amplitude in $\mathcal{N} =4$ super-Yang-Mills theory
hep-th 2018-12 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

The symbol of the two-loop five-point N=4 super-Yang-Mills amplitude is computed with full color dependence, together with the symbols of all nonplanar five-point master integrals.
A Two-Loop Five-Gluon Helicity Amplitude in QCD
hep-ph 2013-10 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

A D-dimensional generalized-unitarity method yields the compact integrand of the planar all-plus two-loop five-gluon amplitude, with infrared poles confirmed numerically.
The Soft-Collinear Bootstrap: N=4 Yang-Mills Amplitudes at Six and Seven Loops
hep-th 2011-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

A soft-collinear bootstrap, combined with dual conformal invariance and dihedral symmetry, uniquely fixes the four-point integrand in N=4 super-Yang-Mills through seven loops and matches all previously published results.
Maximal Unitarity at Two Loops
hep-th 2011-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

Explicit contour-integral formulas compute the coefficients of the two planar double box basis integrals in a massless four-point amplitude to leading order in the dimensional regulator, from products of six tree amplitudes.
The super-correlator/super-amplitude duality: Part II
hep-th 2011-03 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

Correlation functions of the N=4 stress-tensor multiplet reproduce the integrands of five- and six-point NMHV amplitudes, including the parity-odd six-point one-loop case, supporting a general duality conjecture.
The super-correlator/super-amplitude duality: Part I
hep-th 2011-03 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

The light-cone limit of a supersymmetric correlation function in planar N=4 Yang-Mills reproduces the square of the matching non-MHV scattering super-amplitude, checked explicitly for the n-point NMHV tree amplitude.
More on the duality correlators/amplitudes
hep-th 2010-09 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

The light-cone limit of an (n+l)-point Born correlator with l Lagrangian insertions equals, up to a factor of two, the momentum-twistor integrand of the n-particle l-loop MHV amplitude.
From correlation functions to scattering amplitudes
hep-th 2010-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

Light-cone limits of protected-operator correlators in N=4 SYM reproduce the square of MHV gluon amplitudes, checked at one loop for all n and two loops for n=4,5.
A Two-Loop Octagon Wilson Loop in N = 4 SYM
hep-th 2010-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

The two-loop remainder function of the eight-edged Wilson loop in planar N=4 SYM equals minus pi^4/18 minus half the product of four logarithms of the kinematic variables chi+ and chi-.
Twistor-Strings, Grassmannians and Leading Singularities
hep-th 2009-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

Individual BCFW terms are multi-loop leading singularities supported on nodal twistor curves, and the twistor-string moduli space maps onto the Grassmannian cycles of the ACCK residue formula, bounding new N^pMHV lead...
An Analytic Result for the Two-Loop Hexagon Wilson Loop in N = 4 SYM
hep-ph 2009-11 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

The authors derive the first fully analytic expression for the two-loop six-edged Wilson loop, equivalently the six-point remainder function, in planar N=4 super Yang-Mills, valid in general kinematics.
Universal structure of subleading infrared poles in gauge theory amplitudes
hep-ph 2008-05 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

Subleading infrared poles of gauge-theory form factors equal twice the delta(1-z) coefficient of the splitting kernel plus the eikonal anomalous dimension, up to a short-distance term that vanishes in conformal theories.
Conformal properties of four-gluon planar amplitudes and Wilson loops
hep-th 2007-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

Assuming a hidden dual conformal symmetry of the off-shell four-gluon amplitude, the authors derive the log-squared form of its finite remainder and match it to a light-like Wilson loop at weak coupling.
The two-loop vector form factor in the Sudakov limit
hep-ph 2006-03 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

The two-loop vector form factor in the Sudakov limit is evaluated from Feynman diagrams, yielding a new N3LL linear-logarithm coefficient built from Clausen and zeta constants.
$\text{Tr}(F^3)$ supersymmetric form factors and maximal transcendentality Part I: $\mathcal{N}=4$ super Yang-Mills
hep-th 2018-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Two-loop form factors of Tr(F^3) and its Konishi-descendant supersymmetric completion in N=4 super Yang-Mills are computed for three gluons and shown to exhibit maximal transcendentality.
A Complete Two-Loop, Five-Gluon Helicity Amplitude in Yang-Mills Theory
hep-ph 2015-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

The complete full-colour two-loop five-gluon all-plus integrand in pure Yang-Mills is obtained, with all non-planar numerators derived from known planar ones via tree-level BCJ relations applied inside unitarity cuts.
Are Soft Theorems Renormalized?
hep-th 2014-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

When the soft limit is taken before the epsilon expansion, the leading and sub-leading soft graviton theorems hold unrenormalized at one loop for a five-point N=8 supergravity amplitude through order epsilon^0.
Two-Loop Maximal Unitarity with External Masses
hep-th 2012-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The paper derives explicit projector formulas for extracting the coefficients of two-loop double-box master integrals with up to three massive external legs, extending maximal unitarity beyond the massless case.
On the Integrand-Reduction Method for Two-Loop Scattering Amplitudes
hep-ph 2011-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A four-dimensional algorithm reduces two-loop scattering amplitudes to master integrals by polynomial fitting of cut residues, demonstrated on 4- and 5-point MHV amplitudes in N=4 super Yang-Mills.
Five-Point Amplitudes in N=4 Super-Yang-Mills Theory and N=8 Supergravity
hep-th 2011-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Explicit one- and two-loop five-point integrands for N=4 super-Yang-Mills and N=8 supergravity are constructed so that each diagram's kinematic numerator mirrors its color factor, extending the color-kinematics dualit...
The one-loop six-dimensional hexagon integral and its relation to MHV amplitudes in N=4 SYM
hep-th 2011-04 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

The six-dimensional massless hexagon Feynman integral has a closed-form expression in classical polylogarithms, and first-order differential operators connect it to one- and two-loop integrals in planar N=4 super-Yang-Mills.
The Two-Loop Hexagon Wilson Loop in N = 4 SYM
hep-th 2010-03 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

The two-loop six-edged Wilson loop in planar N=4 SYM is evaluated analytically in general kinematics, yielding the six-point remainder function as an explicit uniform-weight-four Goncharov polylogarithm expression.
Unraveling L_{n,k}: Grassmannian Kinematics
hep-th 2009-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

For any leading singularity of N=4 super Yang-Mills, the paper constructs the Grassmannian subspace whose block structure mirrors the loop graph, checked at tree level, one loop, and in higher-loop examples.
Nine-Propagator Master Integrals for Massless Three-Loop Form Factors
hep-ph 2009-02 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

The three previously unknown nine-propagator master integrals for massless three-loop form factors are computed, with analytic coefficients through weight six for most terms and numerical values with quoted uncertaint...
Two-Loop Polygon Wilson Loops in N=4 SYM
hep-th 2009-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Two-loop lightlike Wilson loops for seven- and eight-sided polygons are computed numerically and shown to depend only on conformal cross-ratios, extending the Wilson loop / scattering amplitude duality beyond six points.
A note on dual superconformal symmetry of the N=4 super Yang-Mills S-matrix
hep-th 2008-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A supersymmetric recursion relation is used to prove that all tree-level N=4 super Yang-Mills superamplitudes, and the box coefficients of one-loop amplitudes, transform covariantly under dual superconformal inversions.
Sharpening The Leading Singularity
hep-th 2008-03 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Leading singularities evaluated one at a time on complex contours, matched against a basis of scalar and generalized scalar integrals, determine multi-loop amplitudes in N=4 SYM by linear algebra alone.
MHV Amplitudes in N=4 Super Yang-Mills and Wilson Loops
hep-th 2007-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

A one-loop Wilson loop around an n-sided lightlike polygon equals the scalar function multiplying the tree-level n-point MHV amplitude in N=4 super Yang-Mills.
AMBRE - a Mathematica package for the construction of Mellin-Barnes representations for Feynman integrals
hep-ph 2007-04 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

The paper releases AMBRE, a Mathematica toolkit that constructs Mellin-Barnes representations of planar multi-loop Feynman integrals loop by loop, with worked examples up to four loops and six external legs.
Numerical Evaluation of Tensor Feynman Integrals in Euclidean Kinematics
hep-ph 2010-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

AMBRE v2.0 and the new CSectors interface automate numerical evaluation of tensor Feynman integrals in Euclidean kinematics, with cross-checks between Mellin-Barnes and sector-decomposition methods on examples up to a...
Generalized Unitarity and Six-Dimensional Helicity
hep-th 2010-10 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Six-dimensional helicity plus unitarity cuts reproduces one-loop QCD four-point amplitudes and confirms the four-loop four-point N=4 super-Yang-Mills amplitude is complete for D <= 6.
More loops and legs in Higgs-regulated N=4 SYM amplitudes
hep-th 2010-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Higgs-regulated planar N=4 SYM amplitudes at four loops (four gluons) and two loops (five gluons) are consistent with a BDS-like all-loop ansatz and confirm the four-loop cusp anomalous dimension.
Scattering Amplitudes, Wilson Loops and the String/Gauge Theory Correspondence
hep-th 2008-07 accept novelty 1.0 of 10

The review organizes evidence that MHV scattering amplitudes in planar N=4 SYM equal expectation values of null polygonal Wilson loops, with dual conformal symmetry controlling the finite parts.

How the literature uses it

44 arXiv papers cite this in 78 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers citing it · 63 sentences without a confident label

Contests it 1 paper

Although the ABDK/BDS ansatz was successfully tested for four particles at two [ref] and three [ref] loops, as well as for five particles at two loops [ref] , some doubts raised in [ref] necessitated an explicit calculation of the two-loop six-particle amplitude [ref] which conclusively demonstrated the incompleteness of the BDS ansatz.

Three-Loop Leading Singularities and BDS Ansatz for Five Particles · Introduction · contest 0.76

Compares with it 4 papers

We compared the resulting expressions to the MHV $n-$gluon scattering amplitudes $A_n$, computed in [ref] – [ref] and rewritten in the dual space moco, for arbitrary $n$ at one loop and for $n=4,5$ at two loops.

More on the duality correlators/amplitudes · Introduction · 0.98
Our result is in agreement with the results of Ref. [ref] , although, in order to match the coefficients given in these references, one must use an modified expression for $Δ_12345678$, in which $c_12345678,1$ multiplies $((q-p_4-p_5) ·p_1)$.

On the Integrand-Reduction Method for Two-Loop Scattering Amplitudes · Five-point Eightfold-Cut · 0.97
Firstly, we have reproduced integrand level expressions for the `all-plus' helicity sector [ref] and against the known integrands in $𝒩=4$ Super-Yang-Mills theory [ref] .

A first look at two-loop five-gluon scattering in QCD · Numerical evaluation · 1.00

Cites it as support 2 papers

The iterative structure of the BDS ansatz has been shown to be correct for the two-loop five-point amplitude through direct numerical calculation [ref] .

The five-gluon amplitude in the high-energy limit · Introduction · 0.96
This has so far been confirmed by an explicit two-loop five-gluon calculation in [ref] .

Conformal properties of four-gluon planar amplitudes and Wilson loops · Summary and discussion · 0.96

Cites it as background 8 papers

In the massless case the structure of the expansion of the five-point amplitude is rather involved due to the presence of the integrals proportional to $ϵ$ [ref] .

Infrared properties of five-point massive amplitudes in N=4 SYM on the Coulomb branch · $n=5$ point amplitude · 0.89
Historically, five-point amplitudes were previously studied in [ref] , while six-point amplitudes were explored in [ref] .

Perturbative Correlation Functions and Scattering Amplitudes in Planar $\mathcal{N}=4$ Supersymmetric Yang-Mills · Introduction · 0.97
In the five-gluon case, the parity-odd part vanishes in the logarithm of the full amplitude, due to a cancellation between one- and two-loop terms [ref] .

The Two-Loop Six-Gluon MHV Amplitude in Maximally Supersymmetric Yang-Mills Theory · Introduction · 0.81

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [10]

Z. Bern, J. Rozowsky, and B. Yan, hep-ph/9706392

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[2] [4]

C. Anastasiou, Z. Bern, L.J. Dixon, and D.A. Kosower, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91:251602 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[3] [1]

M. Czakon, hep-ph/0511200

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[4] [9]

F. Cachazo, M. Spradlin, and A. Volovich, hep- th/0602228

View on Pith

[5] [2]

G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B72:461 (1974)

View on Pith 1974

[6] [3]

J.M. Maldacena, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2:231 (1998) [Int. J. Theor. Phys. 38:1113 (1999)]; S.S. Gubser, I.R. Klebanov, and A.M. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. B 428:105 (1998); E. Witten, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2:253 (1998); O. Aharony, S.S. Gubser, J.M. Maldacena, H. Ooguri, and Y. Oz, Phys. Rept. 323:183 (2000)

View on Pith 1998

[7] [5]

Z. Bern, L.J. Dixon, and V.A. Smirnov, Phys. Rev. D72:085001 (2005)

View on Pith 2005

[8] [6]

E. Witten, Commun. Math. Phys. 252:189 (2004)

View on Pith 2004

[9] [7]

F. Cachazo, M. Spradlin, and A. Volovich, hep- th/0601031

View on Pith

[10] [8]

Z. Bern, L.J. Dixon, D.C. Dunbar, and D.A. Kosower, Nucl. Phys. B425:217 (1994)

View on Pith 1994

[11] [11]

Z. Bern, L.J. Dixon, D.C. Dunbar, and D.A. Kosower, Nucl. Phys. B435:59 (1995); Z.Bern, L.J. Dixon, and D.A. Kosower, Nucl. Phys. B513:3 (1998)

View on Pith 1995

[12] [12]

Z. Bern, J.S. Rozowsky, and B. Yan, Phys. Lett. B401:273 (1997)

View on Pith 1997

[13] [13]

Z. Bern, L.J. Dixon, and D.A. Kosower, JHEP0408:012 (2004)

View on Pith 2004

[14] [14]

R. Britto, F. Cachazo, and B. Feng, Nucl. Phys. B725:275 (2005). E.I. Buchbinder and F. Cachazo, JHEP0511:036 (2005)

View on Pith 2005

[15] [15]

L. Magnea and G. Sterman, Phys. Rev. D42:4222 (1990); S. Catani, Phys. Lett. B427:161 (1998); G. Sterman and M.E. Tejeda-Yeomans, Phys. Lett. B552:48 (2003)

View on Pith 1990

[16] [16]

T. Kinoshita, J. Math. Phys. 3:650 (1962); T.D. Lee and M. Nauenberg, Phys. Rev. 133:B1549 (1964)

View on Pith 1962

[17] [17]

Z. Bern and D.A. Kosower, Nucl. Phys. B379:451 (1992); Z. Bern, A. De Freitas, L. Dixon, and H.L. Wong, Phys. Rev. D66:085002 (2002)

View on Pith 1992

[18] [18]

W. Siegel, Phys. Lett. B84:193 (1979)

View on Pith 1979

[19] [19]

B. Eden and M. Staudacher, hep-th/0603157

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[20] [20]

N. Beisert and M. Staudacher, Nucl. Phys. B727:1 (2005)

View on Pith 2005

[21] [21]

A.V. Kotikov, L.N. Lipatov, A.I. Onishchenko, and V.N. Velizhanin, Phys. Lett. B595:521 (2004); [Erratum- 5 ibid. B632:754 (2006)]

View on Pith 2004

[22] [22]

Z. Bern and A.G. Morgan, Nucl. Phys. B467:479 (1996); Z. Bern, L.J. Dixon, and D.A. Kosower, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 51C:243 (1996)

View on Pith 1996

[23] [23]

Z. Bern, L.J. Dixon, D.C. Dunbar, and D.A. Kosower, Phys. Lett. B394:105 (1997)

View on Pith 1997

[24] [24]

V.A. Smirnov, Phys. Lett. B460:397 (1999)

View on Pith 1999

[25] [25]

J.B. Tausk, Phys. Lett. B469:225 (1999)

View on Pith 1999

[26] [26]

V.A. Smirnov, Phys. Lett. B567:193 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[27] [27]

V.A. Smirnov, Phys. Lett. B491:130 (2000)

View on Pith 2000

[28] [28]

V.A. Smirnov, hep-ph/0209177; Evaluating Feynman in- tegrals, (STMP 211; Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2004)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[29] [29]

Z. Bern, L.J. Dixon, and D.A. Kosower, Nucl. Phys. B412:751 (1994)

View on Pith 1994

[30] [30]

T. Gehrmann and E. Remiddi, Nucl. Phys. B601:248 (2001)

View on Pith 2001

[31] [31]

C. Anastasiou and A. Daleo, hep-ph/0511176

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[32] [32]

J.A. Minahan and K. Zarembo, JHEP0303:013 (2003)

View on Pith 2003