Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 minor 72 references

A tale of two exponentiations in ${\cal N}=8$ supergravity

T0 review · 0 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The leading high-energy behavior of the four-graviton remainder function in N=8 supergravity is fixed to all loop orders by the impact-parameter eikonal exponentiation.

desk verdict A clean all-orders explanation of the leading-Regge remainder in N=8 supergravity, with explicit predictions; the only imported assumption is standard eikonal dominance, which the two- and three-loop checks support. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05603 v2 pith:DX2B2ECE submitted 2019-08-15 hep-th

Paolo Di Vecchia , Andrés Luna , Stephen G. Naculich , Rodolfo Russo , Gabriele Veneziano , Chris D. White This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords N=8supergravityfour-gravitonscatteringReggelimiteikonalapproximationimpactparameterremainderfunctionexponentiationtranscendentality
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper explains the origin of unexpected leading high-energy (Regge-limit) contributions to the infrared-finite remainder function of four-graviton scattering in $\mathcal{N}=8$ supergravity. The key observation is that the gravitational $S$-matrix exponentiates in impact-parameter (transverse position) space, not in momentum space, so the momentum-space amplitude is not simply the tree-level factor times the exponential of the one-loop correction. That mismatch forces the remainder function to be nonzero and fixes it, in the leading Regge limit, to all orders in the gravitational coupling and in the dimensional-regularisation parameter $\epsilon$. The paper derives an all-orders formula, confirms the recently computed two- and three-loop remainders, and predicts the leading behaviour at four loops and beyond. If correct, the high-energy limit of the four-graviton amplitude is fixed by a single eikonal phase at every loop order, providing a consistency constraint on future higher-loop calculations.

What carries the argument

The central object is the impact-parameter representation of the high-energy gravitational $S$-matrix, in which the amplitude is a Fourier transform of $e^{i\chi(\mathbf{x}_\perp)}$, with eikonal phase $i\chi(\mathbf{x}_\perp)=-iG_N s\,\Gamma(1-\epsilon)(\pi \mathbf{x}_\perp^2)^\epsilon/\epsilon$, representing the phase shift one graviton acquires in the field of the other. Exponentiation happens in position space; converting order by order to momentum space turns products of phases into convolutions, so the momentum-space amplitude is the tree-level factor times the exponential of the one-loop correction only up to a remainder. The remainder function (3.5) is the ratio between the true eikonal momentum-space sum and that naive exponential, with the curly-bracket gamma-function factors carrying the convolution bookkeeping. Its $\mathcal O(\epsilon^0)$ part is captured by the closed form $F_{4,0}=e^{-2iG_N s\gamma}\Gamma(1-iG_N s)/\Gamma(1+iG_N s)$ and by the generating function $\prod_{j=1}^\infty 1/(1-z^{2j+1})$ for partitions of the loop order into odd integers greater than one.

What would settle it

Compute the four-loop four-graviton remainder function in $\mathcal{N}=8$ supergravity (for example from the five-loop integrand by taking the leading Regge limit) and check whether its order-$\epsilon$ term is exactly $-5(G_N s)^4\zeta_5$; any additional contribution at order $x^0$ would falsify the eikonal all-orders formula. Alternatively, exhibit any non-ladder diagram that contributes to the four-graviton amplitude at order $x^0$ in the Regge limit.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the leading Regge limit of the four-graviton amplitude in $\mathcal{N}=8$ supergravity is governed by the eikonal (crossed-ladder) amplitude, and that the remainder function defined by factoring out the exponential of the one-loop contribution is completely determined by the fact that this eikonal exponentiation occurs in position space. In momentum space each term of the expanded exponential becomes a convolution, so the amplitude differs from the simple exponential of the one-loop amplitude precisely by the remainder function. The paper writes the all-orders expression (3.5) for this remainder function in the limit $x=-t/s\to 0$, verifies that its two- and three-loop expansion matches the data of ref. [31], and reduces the $\mathcal O(\epsilon^0)$ content to the closed form $F_{4,0}=e^{-2iG_N s\gamma}\Gamma(1-iG_N s)/\Gamma(1+iG_N s)$, whose loop-by-loop expansion is equivalent to summing over restricted partitions of the loop order into odd integers. The resulting four-loop prediction is a non-vanishing leading-Regge term $-5(G_N s)^4\zeta_5\,\epsilon$.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that in the strict Regge limit $x\to0$ the full four-graviton amplitude is exactly the crossed-ladder eikonal amplitude with the one-loop eikonal phase, so no non-ladder or subleading-eikonal contribution enters the remainder function at the same order.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The all-orders expression (3.5) is a necessary consistency constraint for any future four-loop or higher calculation of the four-graviton amplitude in $\mathcal{N}=8$ supergravity in the Regge limit.
  • The two- and three-loop expansion of (3.5) reproduces the recently computed remainder function, including the infrared-finite terms $3\zeta_3\epsilon$ at two loops and $-(2/3)i\zeta_3$ at three loops.
  • At $\mathcal O(\epsilon^0)$, the remainder function is exactly $F_{4,0}=e^{-2iG_N s\gamma}\Gamma(1-iG_N s)/\Gamma(1+iG_N s)$, meaning every loop order's leading term is a product of zeta values with odd arguments.
  • The first four-loop prediction is a non-vanishing leading-Regge remainder term $-5(G_N s)^4\zeta_5\,\epsilon$, which can be checked once the $\mathcal O(\epsilon)$ part of the four-loop amplitude is available.
  • The leading Regge remainder respects uniform transcendentality, with total transcendental weight $L+m$ for the $L$-loop contribution at order $\epsilon^m$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: since the leading Regge limit is dominated by graviton exchange and the eikonal phase does not depend on the amount of supersymmetry, the same remainder-function structure should appear in supergravity theories with fewer supersymmetries; a three-loop calculation in such a theory would test this.
  • Editorial inference: the partition formula at $\mathcal O(\epsilon^0)$ hints that the full all-orders remainder admits a purely combinatorial interpretation as a sum over independent convolution factors; making that map explicit could give a diagrammatic proof of eq. (3.5).
  • Editorial inference: the four-loop term could be extracted by taking the leading Regge limit of the existing five-loop four-graviton integrand at order $\epsilon$, without waiting for a complete four-loop amplitude.
  • Editorial inference: because the derivation uses no $\mathcal{N}=8$-specific input beyond the one-loop amplitude, the same mismatch between position-space and momentum-space exponentials should generate analogous remainder terms in other maximally supersymmetric amplitudes, with the relevant eikonal phase replacing the gravitational one.
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

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper explains the leading high-energy (Regge) contributions to the four-graviton remainder function in N=8 supergravity, recently computed at three loops by Henn and Mistlberger, in terms of the well-known impact-parameter (eikonal) exponentiation of the gravitational S-matrix. After reviewing the fixed-order remainder function and the position-space eikonal formula, the authors derive in Eq. (3.5) an all-orders expression for the remainder function in the limit x = -t/s -> 0, reproduce the two-loop O(epsilon) and three-loop O(epsilon^0) coefficients of ref. [31], and predict higher-loop terms, including the O(epsilon) term at four loops. In Section 4 they sum the O(epsilon^0) contributions into the compact closed form F_{4,0} = exp[-2 i G_N s gamma] Gamma(1 - i G_N s)/Gamma(1 + i G_N s), provide an equivalent restricted-partition formula (4.4), and verify the closed form by a direct four-dimensional Fourier transform of the eikonal amplitude. The paper also notes that the leading terms respect the expected uniform transcendentality property.

Significance. Assuming the imported eikonal-dominance input, the paper's central claim is convincing. The all-orders formula is derived without fitted parameters, and it reproduces the existing two-loop O(epsilon) and three-loop O(epsilon^0) results, including the two-loop epsilon^2 coefficient taken from the ancillary files of ref. [31]. The O(epsilon^0) closed form is supported by an independent Fourier-transform computation in Eq. (4.8). The result gives a nontrivial cross-check of the recent three-loop calculation and provides a concrete, falsifiable prediction at four loops and beyond, which is exactly the kind of consistency constraint that is valuable for future higher-loop computations in perturbative gravity.

minor comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (4.6)] The displayed chain of equalities in Eq. (4.6) contains an algebraic typo: the factor should be Gamma^{-2}(1 + i G_N s), not Gamma^2(1 + i G_N s), in the intermediate expression involving exp[log(pi i G_N s / sin(pi i G_N s))]. As printed the intermediate equality is inconsistent with the final gamma-function ratio; the final closed form and the derivation in Eq. (4.8) are correct.
  2. [Sec. 2.2] The all-orders result (3.5) rests on the standard result of refs. [50,51] that the leading Regge limit is saturated by the one-eikonal-phase ladder sum. Because this is an imported assumption, the paper would benefit from an explicit statement that Eq. (3.5) and the higher-loop predictions are contingent on the absence of non-ladder or subleading-eikonal contributions at the same order in x, even though the two- and three-loop checks support this input.
  3. [Sec. 4] The claim following Eq. (3.5) that the expansion to 16 orders in G_N has all poles in epsilon vanishing is not documented; adding the pole-cancellation check, or at least a brief argument that it follows from the structure of Eq. (3.5), would make the verification transparent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the all-orders remainder formula follows algebraically from an external eikonal input and is checked against independent loop results.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained given its stated input. Eq. (3.5) is obtained by substituting the one-loop eikonal phase (2.9) into the standard impact-parameter exponentiation (2.8), Taylor-expanding, and dividing by the one-loop exponential factor; no parameter is fitted to the remainder-function data. The O(epsilon^0, x^0) closed form (4.6) follows from the direct Fourier transform (4.8), and the expansion (3.6) reproduces the independent three-loop result (2.7) from ref. [31], including the newly evaluated O(epsilon) two-loop term. The only imported premise is that the leading Regge limit is saturated by the eikonal (crossed-ladder) amplitude built from the one-loop phase, cited to refs. [50,51]; this is a standard external result that the paper does not derive, but it is not circular because it does not presuppose the remainder function or the higher-loop amplitudes being 'predicted'. Self-citations such as ref. [19] provide background and are not load-bearing: the three-loop confirmation and the all-orders formula do not reduce to those papers' claims. Hence no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on two established physical assumptions (eikonal dominance and IR exponentiation) plus standard manipulation of gamma functions; the paper itself introduces no new entities and fits no parameters.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The leading Regge limit of the four-graviton amplitude in N=8 supergravity is given by the eikonal impact-parameter expression (2.8) with the one-loop eikonal phase (2.9), built from crossed-ladder graphs.
    Invoked in Section 2.2 to write the all-order Regge amplitude as a Fourier transform of e^{i chi}; the paper cites refs. [50,51] for this standard, but unproved, result.
  • domain assumption The four-graviton amplitude can be written as iM_4 = iM_4^(0) exp[M_4^(1)] F_4, where F_4 is infrared finite, i.e., the infrared-divergent logarithms exponentiate at one loop.
    Eq. (1.2); the paper states this is known from refs. [11,14-19]. Used to define the remainder function whose Regge limit is computed.
  • standard math Standard integral identities for Gamma functions and Fourier transforms, including the integrals used to obtain (3.1).
    Used throughout Section 3; these are standard mathematical results, though not fully derived in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A tale of two exponentiations in ${\cal N}=8$ supergravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DX2B2ECE

@misc{pith2026190805603,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A tale of two exponentiations in $\cal N=8$ supergravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DX2B2ECE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05603}
}
abstract

The structure of scattering amplitudes in supergravity theories continues to be of interest. Recently, the amplitude for $2\rightarrow 2$ scattering in ${\cal N}=8$ supergravity was presented at three-loop order for the first time. The result can be written in terms of an exponentiated one-loop contribution, modulo a remainder function which is free of infrared singularities, but contains leading terms in the high energy Regge limit. We explain the origin of these terms from a well-known, unitarity-restoring exponentiation of the high-energy gravitational $S$-matrix in impact-parameter space. Furthermore, we predict the existence of similar terms in the remainder function at all higher loop orders. Our results provide a non-trivial cross-check of the recent three-loop calculation, and a necessary consistency constraint for any future calculation at higher loops.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05603 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Labelling of 4-momenta for the four-graviton scattering process. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A representative (crossed) ladder graph, where all particles are gravitons. The sum of all [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [31]

    Four-graviton scattering to three loops in ${\mathcal N}=8$ supergravity

    J. M. Henn and B. Mistlberger, “Four-graviton scattering to three loops in N = 8 supergravity,” JHEP 05 (2019) 023, 1902.07221

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  2. [1]

    Is N = 8 Supergravity Ultraviolet Finite?

    Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon, and R. Roiban, “Is N = 8 supergravity ultraviolet finite?,” Phys.Lett. B644 (2007) 265–271, hep-th/0611086

    work page Pith review arXiv 2007

  3. [2]

    Three-Loop Superfiniteness of N=8 Supergravity,

    Z. Bern, J. Carrasco, L. J. Dixon, H. Johansson, D. Kosower, et al. , “Three-Loop Superfiniteness of N=8 Supergravity,” Phys.Rev.Lett. 98 (2007) 161303, hep-th/0702112

    arXiv 2007

  4. [3]

    The Ultraviolet Behavior of N=8 Supergravity at Four Loops,

    Z. Bern, J. J. Carrasco, L. J. Dixon, H. Johansson, and R. Roiban, “The Ultraviolet Behavior of N=8 Supergravity at Four Loops,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 (2009) 081301, 0905.2326

    arXiv 2009

  5. [4]

    Enhanced ultraviolet cancellations in N = 5 supergravity at four loops,

    Z. Bern, S. Davies, and T. Dennen, “Enhanced ultraviolet cancellations in N = 5 supergravity at four loops,” Phys. Rev. D90 (2014), no. 10, 105011, 1409.3089

    arXiv 2014

  6. [5]

    Ultraviolet Properties of N = 8 Supergravity at Five Loops,

    Z. Bern, J. J. Carrasco, W.-M. Chen, A. Edison, H. Johansson, J. Parra-Martinez, R. Roiban, and M. Zeng, “Ultraviolet Properties of N = 8 Supergravity at Five Loops,” Phys. Rev. D98 (2018), no. 8, 086021, 1804.09311

    arXiv 2018

  7. [6]

    N=4 Yang-Mills and N=8 Supergravity as Limits of String Theories,

    M. B. Green, J. H. Schwarz, and L. Brink, “N=4 Yang-Mills and N=8 Supergravity as Limits of String Theories,” Nucl.Phys. B198 (1982) 474–492

    work page 1982

  8. [7]

    Calculation of graviton scattering amplitudes using string based methods,

    D. C. Dunbar and P. S. Norridge, “Calculation of graviton scattering amplitudes using string based methods,” Nucl. Phys. B433 (1995) 181–208, hep-th/9408014

    arXiv 1995

Show all 72 references
  1. [8]

    Infinities within graviton scattering amplitudes,

    D. C. Dunbar and P. S. Norridge, “Infinities within graviton scattering amplitudes,” Class. Quant. Grav. 14 (1997) 351–365, hep-th/9512084

    1997 arXiv

  2. [9]

    N ≥ 4 Supergravity Amplitudes from Gauge Theory at One Loop,

    Z. Bern, C. Boucher-Veronneau, and H. Johansson, “N ≥ 4 Supergravity Amplitudes from Gauge Theory at One Loop,” Phys. Rev. D84 (2011) 105035, 1107.1935

    2011 arXiv

  3. [10]

    On the relationship between Yang-Mills theory and gravity and its implication for ultraviolet divergences,

    Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon, D. Dunbar, M. Perelstein, and J. Rozowsky, “On the relationship between Yang-Mills theory and gravity and its implication for ultraviolet divergences,” Nucl.Phys. B530 (1998) 401–456, hep-th/9802162

    1998 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Two-loop graviton scattering relation and IR behavior in N=8 supergravity,

    S. G. Naculich, H. Nastase, and H. J. Schnitzer, “Two-loop graviton scattering relation and IR behavior in N=8 supergravity,” Nucl. Phys. B805 (2008) 40–58, 0805.2347

    2008 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Four-point Amplitudes in N=8 Supergravity and Wilson Loops,

    A. Brandhuber, P. Heslop, A. Nasti, B. Spence, and G. Travaglini, “Four-point Amplitudes in N=8 Supergravity and Wilson Loops,” Nucl.Phys. B807 (2009) 290–314, 0805.2763

    2009 arXiv

  6. [13]

    N ≥ 4 Supergravity Amplitudes from Gauge Theory at Two Loops,

    C. Boucher-Veronneau and L. Dixon, “N ≥ 4 Supergravity Amplitudes from Gauge Theory at Two Loops,” JHEP 1112 (2011) 046, 1110.1132

    2011 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Infrared photons and gravitons,

    S. Weinberg, “Infrared photons and gravitons,” Phys.Rev. 140 (1965) B516–B524

    1965

  8. [15]

    Eikonal methods applied to gravitational scattering amplitudes,

    S. G. Naculich and H. J. Schnitzer, “Eikonal methods applied to gravitational scattering amplitudes,” JHEP 1105 (2011) 087, 1101.1524

    2011 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Factorization Properties of Soft Graviton Amplitudes,

    C. D. White, “Factorization Properties of Soft Graviton Amplitudes,” JHEP 1105 (2011) 060, 1103.2981. 11

    2011 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Collinear and Soft Divergences in Perturbative Quantum Gravity,

    R. Akhoury, S. Ryo, and G. Sterman, “Collinear and Soft Divergences in Perturbative Quantum Gravity,” Phys.Rev. D84 (2011) 104040, 1109.0270

    2011 arXiv

  11. [18]

    All-loop infrared-divergent behavior of most-subleading-color gauge-theory amplitudes,

    S. G. Naculich, H. Nastase, and H. J. Schnitzer, “All-loop infrared-divergent behavior of most-subleading-color gauge-theory amplitudes,” JHEP 1304 (2013) 114, 1301.2234

    2013 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Wilson line approach to gravity in the high energy limit,

    S. Melville, S. Naculich, H. Schnitzer, and C. White, “Wilson line approach to gravity in the high energy limit,” Phys.Rev. D89 (2014) 025009, 1306.6019

    2014 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Exponentiation of eikonal cross sections in nonabelian gauge theories,

    J. Gatheral, “Exponentiation of eikonal cross sections in nonabelian gauge theories,” Phys.Lett. B133 (1983) 90

    1983

  14. [21]

    Nonabelian eikonal exponentiation,

    J. Frenkel and J. Taylor, “Nonabelian eikonal exponentiation,” Nucl.Phys. B246 (1984) 231

    1984

  15. [22]

    Path integral approach to eikonal and next-to-eikonal exponentiation,

    E. Laenen, G. Stavenga, and C. D. White, “Path integral approach to eikonal and next-to-eikonal exponentiation,” JHEP 0903 (2009) 054, 0811.2067

    2009 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Diagrammatic Exponentiation for Products of Wilson Lines,

    A. Mitov, G. Sterman, and I. Sung, “Diagrammatic Exponentiation for Products of Wilson Lines,” Phys.Rev. D82 (2010) 096010, 1008.0099

    2010 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Webs in multiparton scattering using the replica trick,

    E. Gardi, E. Laenen, G. Stavenga, and C. D. White, “Webs in multiparton scattering using the replica trick,” JHEP 1011 (2010) 155, 1008.0098

    2010 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Universal structure of subleading infrared poles in gauge theory amplitudes,

    L. J. Dixon, L. Magnea, and G. F. Sterman, “Universal structure of subleading infrared poles in gauge theory amplitudes,” JHEP 0808 (2008) 022, 0805.3515

    2008 arXiv

  19. [26]

    On the renormalization of multiparton webs,

    E. Gardi, J. M. Smillie, and C. D. White, “On the renormalization of multiparton webs,” JHEP 1109 (2011) 114, 1108.1357

    2011 arXiv

  20. [27]

    The Non-Abelian Exponentiation theorem for multiple Wilson lines,

    E. Gardi, J. M. Smillie, and C. D. White, “The Non-Abelian Exponentiation theorem for multiple Wilson lines,” JHEP 06 (2013) 088, 1304.7040

    2013 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Multiple Gluon Exchange Webs,

    G. Falcioni, E. Gardi, M. Harley, L. Magnea, and C. D. White, “Multiple Gluon Exchange Webs,” JHEP 10 (2014) 10, 1407.3477

    2014 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Exponentiation for products of Wilson lines within the generating function approach,

    A. A. Vladimirov, “Exponentiation for products of Wilson lines within the generating function approach,” JHEP 06 (2015) 120, 1501.03316

    2015 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Double-logarithms in Einstein-Hilbert gravity and supergravity,

    J. Bartels, L. N. Lipatov, and A. Sabio Vera, “Double-logarithms in Einstein-Hilbert gravity and supergravity,” JHEP 07 (2014) 056, 1208.3423

    2014 arXiv

  24. [32]

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

    1966

  25. [33]

    Multi - Regge Processes in Gravitation,

    L. N. Lipatov, “Multi - Regge Processes in Gravitation,” Sov. Phys. JETP 55 (1982) 582–590. [Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.82,991(1982)]

    1982

  26. [34]

    Graviton Reggeization,

    L. N. Lipatov, “Graviton Reggeization,” Phys. Lett. 116B (1982) 411–413. 12

    1982

  27. [35]

    Reggeization of N=8 supergravity and N=4 Yang-Mills theory,

    H. J. Schnitzer, “Reggeization of N=8 supergravity and N=4 Yang-Mills theory,” hep-th/0701217

    arXiv

  28. [36]

    Reggeization of yang-mills gauge mesons in theories with a spontaneously broken symmetry,

    M. T. Grisaru, H. J. Schnitzer, and H.-S. Tsao, “Reggeization of yang-mills gauge mesons in theories with a spontaneously broken symmetry,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 30 (1973) 811–814

    1973

  29. [37]

    The Reggeization of Elementary Particles in Renormalizable Gauge Theories: Scalars,

    M. T. Grisaru, H. J. Schnitzer, and H.-S. Tsao, “The Reggeization of Elementary Particles in Renormalizable Gauge Theories: Scalars,” Phys. Rev. D9 (1974) 2864

    1974

  30. [38]

    Reggeization of elementary particles in renormalizable gauge theories - vectors and spinors,

    M. T. Grisaru, H. J. Schnitzer, and H.-S. Tsao, “Reggeization of elementary particles in renormalizable gauge theories - vectors and spinors,” Phys. Rev. D8 (1973) 4498–4509

    1973

  31. [39]

    Dynamical Calculation of Bound State Supermultiplets in N = 8 Supergravity,

    M. T. Grisaru and H. J. Schnitzer, “Dynamical Calculation of Bound State Supermultiplets in N = 8 Supergravity,” Phys. Lett. 107B (1981) 196–200

    1981

  32. [40]

    Bound States in N = 8 Supergravity and N = 4 Supersymmetric Yang-Mills Theories,

    M. T. Grisaru and H. J. Schnitzer, “Bound States in N = 8 Supergravity and N = 4 Supersymmetric Yang-Mills Theories,” Nucl. Phys. B204 (1982) 267–305

    1982

  33. [41]

    Regge behavior of gluon scattering amplitudes in N=4 SYM theory,

    S. G. Naculich and H. J. Schnitzer, “Regge behavior of gluon scattering amplitudes in N=4 SYM theory,” Nucl. Phys. B794 (2008) 189–194, 0708.3069

    2008 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Reggeization of N=8 supergravity and N=4 Yang-Mills theory. II.,

    H. J. Schnitzer, “Reggeization of N=8 supergravity and N=4 Yang-Mills theory. II.,” 0706.0917

    arXiv

  35. [43]

    BCJ duality and the double copy in the soft limit,

    S. Oxburgh and C. White, “BCJ duality and the double copy in the soft limit,” JHEP 1302 (2013) 127, 1210.1110

    2013 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Next-to-soft corrections to high energy scattering in QCD and gravity,

    A. Luna, S. Melville, S. G. Naculich, and C. D. White, “Next-to-soft corrections to high energy scattering in QCD and gravity,” JHEP 01 (2017) 052, 1611.02172

    2017 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Relationship Between Gravity and Gauge Scattering in the High Energy Limit,

    R. Saotome and R. Akhoury, “Relationship Between Gravity and Gauge Scattering in the High Energy Limit,” JHEP 1301 (2013) 123, 1210.8111

    2013 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Color-Kinematics Duality and the Regge Limit of Inelastic Amplitudes,

    A. Sabio Vera, E. Serna Campillo, and M. A. Vazquez-Mozo, “Color-Kinematics Duality and the Regge Limit of Inelastic Amplitudes,” JHEP 1304 (2013) 086, 1212.5103

    2013 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Color-Kinematics Duality in Multi-Regge Kinematics and Dimensional Reduction,

    H. Johansson, A. Sabio Vera, E. Serna Campillo, and M. . Vzquez-Mozo, “Color-Kinematics Duality in Multi-Regge Kinematics and Dimensional Reduction,” JHEP 1310 (2013) 215, 1307.3106

    2013 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Color-kinematics duality and dimensional reduction for graviton emission in Regge limit,

    H. Johansson, A. Sabio Vera, E. Serna Campillo, and M. A. Vazquez-Mozo, “Color-kinematics duality and dimensional reduction for graviton emission in Regge limit,” 1310.1680

    arXiv

  41. [49]

    Diagrammatic insights into next-to-soft corrections,

    C. D. White, “Diagrammatic insights into next-to-soft corrections,” Phys. Lett. B737 (2014) 216–222, 1406.7184

    2014 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Superstring Collisions at Planckian Energies,

    D. Amati, M. Ciafaloni, and G. Veneziano, “Superstring Collisions at Planckian Energies,” Phys. Lett. B197 (1987) 81

    1987

  43. [51]

    High-Energy Unitarity of Gravitation and Strings,

    I. J. Muzinich and M. Soldate, “High-Energy Unitarity of Gravitation and Strings,” Phys. Rev. D37 (1988) 359. 13

    1988

  44. [52]

    Graviton Dominance in Ultrahigh-Energy Scattering,

    G. ’t Hooft, “Graviton Dominance in Ultrahigh-Energy Scattering,” Phys. Lett. B198 (1987) 61–63

    1987

  45. [53]

    Classical and Quantum Gravity Effects from Planckian Energy Superstring Collisions,

    D. Amati, M. Ciafaloni, and G. Veneziano, “Classical and Quantum Gravity Effects from Planckian Energy Superstring Collisions,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A3 (1988) 1615–1661

    1988

  46. [54]

    Higher Order Gravitational Deflection and Soft Bremsstrahlung in Planckian Energy Superstring Collisions,

    D. Amati, M. Ciafaloni, and G. Veneziano, “Higher Order Gravitational Deflection and Soft Bremsstrahlung in Planckian Energy Superstring Collisions,” Nucl. Phys. B347 (1990) 550–580

    1990

  47. [55]

    Scattering at Planckian energies,

    H. L. Verlinde and E. P. Verlinde, “Scattering at Planckian energies,” Nucl. Phys. B371 (1992) 246–268, hep-th/9110017

    1992 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Planckian scattering beyond the semiclassical approximation,

    D. Amati, M. Ciafaloni, and G. Veneziano, “Planckian scattering beyond the semiclassical approximation,” Phys. Lett. B289 (1992) 87–91

    1992

  49. [57]

    Effective action and all order gravitational eikonal at Planckian energies,

    D. Amati, M. Ciafaloni, and G. Veneziano, “Effective action and all order gravitational eikonal at Planckian energies,” Nucl. Phys. B403 (1993) 707–724

    1993

  50. [58]

    High energy scattering in gravity and supergravity,

    S. B. Giddings, M. Schmidt-Sommerfeld, and J. R. Andersen, “High energy scattering in gravity and supergravity,” Phys.Rev. D82 (2010) 104022, 1005.5408

    2010 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Eikonal quantum gravity and Planckian scattering,

    D. N. Kabat and M. Ortiz, “Eikonal quantum gravity and Planckian scattering,” Nucl.Phys. B388 (1992) 570–592, hep-th/9203082

    1992 arXiv

  52. [60]

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

    G. D’Appollonio, P. Di Vecchia, R. Russo, and G. Veneziano, “High-energy string-brane scattering: Leading eikonal and beyond,” JHEP 1011 (2010) 100, 1008.4773

    2010 arXiv

  53. [61]

    High Energy Scattering in Perturbative Quantum Gravity at Next to Leading Power,

    R. Akhoury, R. Saotome, and G. Sterman, “High Energy Scattering in Perturbative Quantum Gravity at Next to Leading Power,” 1308.5204

    arXiv

  54. [62]

    The subleading eikonal in supergravity theories,

    A. K. Collado, P. Di Vecchia, R. Russo, and S. Thomas, “The subleading eikonal in supergravity theories,” JHEP 10 (2018) 038, 1807.04588

    2018 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Eikonal Scattering in Kaluza-Klein Gravity,

    A. Koemans Collado and S. Thomas, “Eikonal Scattering in Kaluza-Klein Gravity,” JHEP 04 (2019) 171, 1901.05869

    2019 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Revisiting the 2PM eikonal and the dynamics of binary black holes,

    A. Koemans Collado, P. Di Vecchia, and R. Russo, “Revisiting the 2PM eikonal and the dynamics of binary black holes,” 1904.02667

    1904 arXiv

  57. [65]

    String Theory Beyond the Planck Scale,

    D. J. Gross and P. F. Mende, “String Theory Beyond the Planck Scale,” Nucl. Phys. B303 (1988) 407–454

    1988

  58. [66]

    Borel Summation of String Theory for Planck Scale Scattering,

    P. F. Mende and H. Ooguri, “Borel Summation of String Theory for Planck Scale Scattering,” Nucl. Phys. B339 (1990) 641–662

    1990

  59. [67]

    High-energy collisions of particles, strings, and branes,

    G. Veneziano, “High-energy collisions of particles, strings, and branes,” Les Houches Lect. Notes 97 (2015) 397–415

    2015

  60. [68]

    Eikonal approximation in quantum field theory,

    M. Levy and J. Sucher, “Eikonal approximation in quantum field theory,” Phys. Rev. 186 (1969) 1656–1670. 14

    1969

  61. [69]

    Cheng and T

    H. Cheng and T. T. Wu, Expanding Protons: Scattering at High Energies . MIT Press, Cambridge, USA, 1987

    1987

  62. [70]

    Double-logarithms in N = 8 supergravity: impact parameter description & mapping to 1-rooted ribbon graphs,

    A. Sabio Vera, “Double-logarithms in N = 8 supergravity: impact parameter description & mapping to 1-rooted ribbon graphs,” JHEP 07 (2019) 080, 1904.13372

    2019 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Simplifying Multiloop Integrands and Ultraviolet Divergences of Gauge Theory and Gravity Amplitudes,

    Z. Bern, J. Carrasco, L. Dixon, H. Johansson, and R. Roiban, “Simplifying Multiloop Integrands and Ultraviolet Divergences of Gauge Theory and Gravity Amplitudes,” Phys.Rev. D85 (2012) 105014, 1201.5366

    2012 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Five-loop four-point integrand of N = 8 supergravity as a generalized double copy,

    Z. Bern, J. J. M. Carrasco, W.-M. Chen, H. Johansson, R. Roiban, and M. Zeng, “Five-loop four-point integrand of N = 8 supergravity as a generalized double copy,” Phys. Rev. D96 (2017), no. 12, 126012, 1708.06807. 15

    2017 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.