Gravity loop integrands from the ultraviolet

Alex Edison; Enrico Herrmann; Jaroslav Trnka; Julio Parra-Martinez

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 122 references

Gravity loop integrands from the ultraviolet

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 Four-dimensional gravity cuts are one power softer at infinity, and that softness fixes the integrand.

desk verdict A genuinely new D=4 UV scaling property for gravity cuts, with a Gram-determinant mechanism and a non-circular integrand reconstruction that deserves peer review despite the unaudited parameter-count step. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.02003 v4 pith:227TMYLZ submitted 2019-09-04 hep-th

Alex Edison , Enrico Herrmann , Julio Parra-Martinez , Jaroslav Trnka This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-th

keywords N=8supergravitypuregravityloopintegrandsultravioletbehaviorunitaritycutsGramdeterminantBCFWscalingintegrandreconstruction

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 tries to establish that gravity loop integrands are surprisingly tame in exactly four spacetime dimensions: on multi-particle unitarity cuts, as the cut loop momenta are sent to infinity, the maximally supersymmetric N=8 supergravity integrand falls off as $1/t^5$ rather than $1/t^4$, and pure gravity as $t^3$ rather than $t^4$, for two through seven loops. The mechanism is located in the vanishing of a Gram determinant that is nonzero in general dimension but identically zero in $D=4$. The paper then shows that this improved scaling, combined with the known $1/t^2$ behavior of the cut under BCFW deformations of external momenta, uniquely fixes the four-point loop integrand of N=8 supergravity through three loops and the $n$-point MHV integrand at one loop, up to an overall constant. Because every constraint is homogeneous, demanding that an ansatz vanish at particular points rather than match nonzero cut data, the construction offers a possible template for a geometric, amplituhedron-like picture of gravity amplitudes.

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is the multi-particle unitarity cut $F(\ell_k,p_j)$, the residue of the $L$-loop integrand on the $L+1$ on-shell conditions $\ell_1^2=\cdots=\ell_{L+1}^2=0$ with $\sum \ell_k = -(p_1+p_2)$, evaluated in the limit where the on-shell loop momenta are sent to infinity along a chiral shift $\tilde\lambda_{\ell_k}\to\tilde\lambda_{\ell_k}+t z_k \tilde\eta$ with $\sum_k z_k \lambda_{\ell_k}=0$. In general dimension the cut falls off like the worst-behaved contributing integral, but in $D=4$ the leading term is proportional to the square of a Gram determinant, $(\mathrm{Gram}[q_1 q_2 p_1 p_2 p_3])^2$, which vanishes identically and leaves the improved scaling. This improved scaling is then used as a homogeneous constraint on an integrand ansatz built in a triangle-power-counting basis, together with the requirement that the cut scale as $1/t^2$ under BCFW shifts of external momenta and, at one loop, vanishing on forbidden cuts; the vanishing conditions fix the numerator degrees of freedom without any functional matching of the amplitude on cuts.

What would settle it

A concrete check: compute the complete three-loop four-point N=8 supergravity integrand in $D=4$ by an independent method, for example direct double-copy or unitarity matching on a spanning set of cuts, and compare with the reconstruction; any nonzero difference among the 2758 ansatz coefficients would falsify the claim that the homogeneous constraints are complete. A second, cheaper check: evaluate the $t^{-4}$ coefficient of the four-loop four-point multi-particle cut in $D=4$; if it does not vanish, the improved scaling of Eq. (3.9) breaks down at $L=4$, and if it vanishes but is not proportional to $(\mathrm{Gram}[q_1 q_2 p_1 p_2 p_3])^2$, the Gram-determinant mechanism is not the full explanation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that four-dimensional cuts of gravity loop integrands improve by one power of $t$ at large loop momenta compared with their general-dimensional counterparts. Writing the multi-particle unitarity cut as a product of tree amplitudes and deforming the on-shell loop momenta chirally, $\tilde\lambda_{\ell_k} \to \tilde\lambda_{\ell_k} + t z_k \tilde\eta$ with $\sum_k z_k \lambda_{\ell_k}=0$, the paper finds $F_{\rm SUGRA}\sim 1/t^5$ and $F_{\rm GR}\sim t^3$ for $2\le L\le 7$; in general $D$ the corresponding scalings are $1/t^4$ and $t^4$. The extra power of softness is traced to the leading $1/t^4$ term being proportional to $(\mathrm{Gram}[q_1 q_2 p_1 p_2 p_3])^2$, which vanishes identically in $D=4$. The paper further claims that these improved scaling conditions are homogeneous constraints that, together with the $1/t^2$ BCFW scaling of the cut under external shifts, uniquely fix the N=8 supergravity integrand in nontrivial cases: the two- and three-loop four-point amplitudes, with 2757 of 2758 ansatz parameters set by the constraints, and the one-loop $n$-point MHV amplitude, up to one overall constant.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the small set of vanishing-at-infinity conditions (multi-particle cuts, iterated cuts, and BCFW-deformed cuts) is complete enough to separate every numerator degree of freedom in the triangle-power-counting ansatz; the paper verifies this case-by-case by counting parameters, with 2757 of 2758 fixed, but offers no general proof, and Section 4.3 shows the same completeness fails at seven loops.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In four dimensions the multi-particle unitarity cuts of N=8 supergravity scale as $1/t^5$ and of pure gravity as $t^3$ for $2\le L\le 7$, one power better than their general-dimensional counterparts.
The leading-order cancellation is kinematic: the $1/t^4$ term in N=8 supergravity is $(\mathrm{Gram}[q_1 q_2 p_1 p_2 p_3])^2$, which vanishes only because four-dimensional Lorentzian kinematics makes that Gram determinant zero.
The same vanishing conditions that improve the scaling also pin the integrand: they fix 2757 of 2758 parameters in the three-loop four-point N=8 supergravity ansatz, and together with BCFW scaling leave only the overall constant, giving a unique integrand without matching cuts to nonzero values.
At one loop the procedure extends to all multiplicities for MHV N=8 supergravity: the homogeneous constraints (improved scaling, BCFW behavior, and vanishing on forbidden cuts) fix the unique integrand, consistent with the known chiral-box representation.
The method is not universal: at seven loops, and at two loops for sufficiently many external legs, diagrams with no propagators in one loop can appear, so cuts alone no longer determine the integrand and new constraints are needed.

Reading between the lines

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

If the Gram-determinant mechanism is the whole story, the improved scaling should persist at all loop orders in $D=4$, since it relies on a kinematic identity rather than on the specific integrand data checked through seven loops; this could be tested by computing the $L=4$ cut coefficient of $t^{-4}$ explicitly.
The observation that the KLT representation of gravity trees inherits good large-$t$ behavior from Yang-Mills while individual BCJ terms do not suggests that the improved UV scaling is not a property of any local diagrammatic expansion; a fully nonlocal or geometry-based formulation may be the natural language for these cancellations.
A concrete extension would be to apply the same homogeneous-constraint program to non-MHV one-loop N=8 amplitudes: the paper notes that the improved $1/t^3$ two-particle cut does not add independent information for MHV but might be necessary for higher MHV degree, so applying it there is a direct test of the method's scope.
If the homogeneous reconstruction extends beyond three loops, it would provide evidence for a gravity analog of the amplituhedron picture in which the integrand is defined by its zeros rather than by factorization data; the seven-loop obstruction marks where that geometric story would have to be modified.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First, the headline: this paper finds a genuinely new property of gravity loop integrands — a D=4-specific improvement in the UV scaling of multi-particle cuts (1/t^5 vs 1/t^4 in general D) that persists through seven loops and is traced to a Gram determinant vanishing. It then shows that homogeneous vanishing conditions — the improved scaling plus BCFW scaling of external momenta — uniquely fix the two- and three-loop four-point N=8 integrands and the one-loop n-point MHV integrand, up to an overall constant. This is real content, not numerology.

What the paper does well: the scaling computations are explicit, the Gram-determinant mechanism is an independent explanation rather than just curve-fitting, and the authors are unusually honest about what is conjectural. They flag the tree-level scaling law (Eq. 5.8) as empirical up to eight points, and they themselves show in Sec. 4.3 that the same homogeneous-cut logic fails at seven loops due to cut-invisible contact terms. The reconstruction is non-circular: the constraints come from tree-level building blocks, not from the ansatz coefficients.

The soft spots are mostly about verifiability. The central uniqueness claim for the three-loop integrand rests on a parameter count — 2757 of 2758 parameters fixed — and no code or data files are provided to audit that count or the scaling results through seven loops. The stress-test concern about degeneracy at generic kinematic points is real: if the chosen evaluation points accidentally satisfy a Gram identity, the nullspace could be larger than reported. That said, this is a standard worry in this area, and the authors' explicit mention of generic values suggests they checked more than one point. Still, an independent rank check would settle it.

The seven-loop failure in Sec. 4.3 is not a flaw; it is a stated limitation. It undercuts any claim that the homogeneous construction is a general theorem, but the paper does not make that claim. It says the constraints work through three loops and conjecturally more generally, with exceptions starting at seven loops. That is a fair statement.

Minor quibbles: the m-line shift scaling (5.8) is presented as 'experimental evidence' — fine as data, but a derivation or sharper conjecture would be welcome. The KLT-based explanation in Sec. 5 is suggestive and consistent with the data.

Who should read this: anyone working on the UV structure of gravity, integrand reconstruction, or recursion relations. It extends the program from [34] and [30] meaningfully. It deserves a serious referee. My recommendation: send it to review, and ask the authors to provide the ancillary files or at least a detailed description of the linear system, the evaluation points, and the nullspace.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the ultraviolet behavior of loop integrands in N=8 supergravity and pure gravity by examining the large-momentum scaling of multi-particle unitarity cuts. Its central claim is that in D=4 the leading scaling is improved by one power over the general-D expectation for L=2 through L=7, with N=8 supergravity cuts scaling as 1/t^5. The paper attributes this improvement to the vanishing of certain Gram determinants, makes this mechanism explicit for L=2 and L=3 in Eq. (3.10), and then uses the improved scaling together with iterated-cut scaling and BCFW scaling of external momenta as homogeneous constraints to reconstruct the four-point N=8 SUGRA integrand through three loops and the n-point MHV integrand at one loop, up to an overall constant. The final part introduces multi-line chiral shifts of tree amplitudes, derives empirical scaling rules, and proposes new recursion relations and bonus relations for gravity tree amplitudes. The paper is careful to flag its conjectural parts, in particular the non-cut-constructibility discussion in Sec. 4.3.

Significance. If the reconstruction claim is correct, the paper establishes a genuinely new property of four-dimensional gravity integrands: the amplitude is fixed by homogeneous vanishing conditions rather than by functional matching on cuts. This is a suggestive step toward a geometric formulation of gravity amplitudes along the lines of the amplituhedron program, and the explicit Gram-determinant mechanism in Eq. (3.10) is an elegant, falsifiable explanation of the D=4 special behavior. The KLT-based explanation of the tree-level scaling in Sec. 5 and the empirical scaling rules for multi-line shifts are also valuable contributions. The low-loop integrands are benchmarked against known results, and the authors are honest about the order-by-order nature of the construction. The main weakness is that the load-bearing uniqueness statement rests on an unaudited 2757/2758 parameter count with no code, data, or independent rank verification accompanying the paper.

major comments (4)

[Sec. 4.2, Eqs. (4.18)-(4.22)] The central claim that homogeneous scaling constraints uniquely fix the three-loop four-point N=8 integrand rests entirely on the statement that 2757 of 2758 ansatz parameters are fixed, leaving one overall constant. The manuscript does not provide the linear system, the rank computation, the nullspace dimension, or the kinematic points at which the series expansions were evaluated. Because the constraints are homogeneous, any accidental degeneracy of the sampled constraint matrix would enlarge the nullspace and invalidate the uniqueness claim. The authors should provide a reproducible verification, for example as ancillary data with the ansatz, the constraint equations, and rational-kinematics rank/nullspace computations, and should state explicitly that the result is stable under varying the generic kinematic points.
[Sec. 4.3, Eq. (4.26)] The paper itself demonstrates that the same homogeneous cut constraints are insufficient at seven loops, where integrals with no propagators in one loop enter the ansatz and vanish on all unitarity cuts. This means the three-loop uniqueness is an empirical, order-by-order fact rather than a structural theorem about N=8 SUGRA integrands. Given that the abstract and conclusion use the low-loop construction to suggest a new geometric picture, the authors should either identify a mechanism that protects the low-loop cases from the seven-loop obstruction or clearly restrict the geometric interpretation to the checked orders.
[Sec. 3.2, Eqs. (3.9)-(3.10) and Fig. 2] The explicit Gram-determinant explanation is written out only for L=2 and L=3, while Eq. (3.9) claims improved 1/t^5 scaling for 2 <= L <= 7. The higher-loop entries in Fig. 2 are stated to come from numerical evaluation at generic kinematics, but no code, data, or analytic expressions are provided, and the text concedes that the Gram-determinant form has not been written out beyond L=3. Please either supply the reproducible computations for all seven loops or mark the higher-loop scaling entries as conjectural, with a clear statement of which entries are verified.
[Sec. 4.2, Eq. (4.21)] For the ladder diagram, the text shows that after imposing cut scalings the numerator is reduced to three terms that all scale as t^-6 on the multi-particle cut, and states that BCFW scaling of external momenta fixes them. However, no explicit equations or coefficient-level computation are shown for this step, and it is not demonstrated that the BCFW condition is independent of the cut-scaling conditions on this topology. This is a second instance where the parameter count is the only evidence offered for completeness of the constraint set.

minor comments (4)

[Throughout] The text contains many typographical errors and LaTeX artifacts (for example, missing spaces such as 'four-dimensionaldeformations' in Fig. 2, 't−5' vs. '1/t^5' inconsistencies, and broken equation references in section titles). A careful proofread and consistent use of equation labels would improve readability.
[Sec. 3.2, Fig. 2] The figure is difficult to interpret without a legend that clearly separates the four theories and the D-dimensional versus D=4 cases. The text should state explicitly that the dashed lines are conjectural for the higher-loop D-dimensional scaling, not only for the continuous part.
[Sec. 5.1, Table 2] The table would benefit from a caption stating the precise shift definition and the relation between the L-loop label and the number of external legs. Currently the caption is missing, and the text refers to the table only as 'Tab. 2' without explaining how to read the rows and columns.
[Sec. 4.2, around Eq. (4.13)] The authors should define what is meant by 'triangle power-counting' when applied to reducible numerators, and clarify the statement that the ansatz includes terms beyond triangle power-counting at three loops; the current footnote 9 is ambiguous.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the homogeneous scaling constraints are derived from tree-level and prior-loop data, not from the target integrand coefficients, and the self-citations supply independent inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central reconstruction imposes homogeneous conditions: the improved UV scaling of multi-particle cuts in Eq. (3.9) is obtained by gluing four-dimensional tree-level amplitudes via BCFW/KLT, not by reading off coefficients from the target loop integrand; the BCFW scaling in Eq. (4.22) is likewise inherited from the contributing tree-level amplitudes; and the iterated-cut scalings are adopted from the prior paper [34] as independent data. The ansatz contains the known integrand as a special case, but that is a consistency check rather than a fitting input: the constraints are vanishing conditions at infinity and leave one overall constant. The paper does not exhibit the 2757/2758 parameter count, and Section 4.3 explicitly concedes that homogeneous cut conditions fail at seven loops; however, these are completeness and verification risks, not circular reductions. The self-citations to [34], [58], and [108] supply prior computations and basis facts whose assumptions do not include the target integrand coefficients, so under the stated criteria they count as independent evidence. No quoted equation sets a fitted parameter equal to a predicted quantity by construction, and no central claim reduces to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numerical constants are fitted to data. The paper's scaling laws and integrand coefficients are either derived from known amplitudes or solved from homogeneous constraints. The main assumptions are about the completeness of integrand bases, the validity of unitarity/KLT/BCFW constructions, and the correctness of the cited N=8 integrand representations.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The unitarity cuts of loop integrands are well-defined and, on the spanning set of cuts considered, encode the full integrand.
Used in Section 4.2; the reconstruction assumes that multi-particle, iterated and BCFW-deformed cuts form a complete set of constraints. Section 4.3 acknowledges this fails for high-loop and high-multiplicity cases.
domain assumption The known N=8 SUGRA integrand representations of Refs. [87-89] are correct and representative.
Used as benchmarks for scaling tests and for comparison of the reconstructed integrand in Sections 3.1, 3.2 and 4.2.
standard math KLT and BCFW relations provide valid tree-level graviton amplitudes in four dimensions.
Used in Section 3.2 to compute gravity cuts from Yang-Mills trees, and in Section 5 for tree-level scaling and recursion relations.
ad hoc to paper The integrand basis is complete under triangle power-counting and includes all relevant contact terms.
Assumed in Section 4.2 to limit the ansatz; the authors state it is conservative, but no proof of basis completeness is given.
domain assumption Completeness properties of integrand bases stated in Ref. [58] hold for the power-counting arguments.
Used in Section 4.3 for the non-cut-constructibility argument at seven loops and high multiplicity.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gravity loop integrands from the ultraviolet." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/227TMYLZ

@misc{pith2026190902003,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gravity loop integrands from the ultraviolet},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/227TMYLZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.02003}
}

read the original abstract

We demonstrate that loop integrands of (super-)gravity scattering amplitudes possess surprising properties in the ultraviolet (UV) region. In particular, we study the scaling of multi-particle unitarity cuts for asymptotically large momenta and expose an improved UV behavior of four-dimensional cuts through seven loops as compared to standard expectations. For N=8 supergravity, we show that the improved large momentum scaling combined with the behavior of the integrand under BCFW deformations of external kinematics uniquely fixes the loop integrands in a number of non-trivial cases. In the integrand construction, all scaling conditions are homogeneous. Therefore, the only required information about the amplitude is its vanishing at particular points in momentum space. This homogeneous construction gives indirect evidence for a new geometric picture for graviton amplitudes similar to the one found for planar N=4 super Yang-Mills theory. We also show how the behavior at infinity is related to the scaling of tree-level amplitudes under certain multi-line chiral shifts which can be used to construct new recursion relations.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

122 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

[34]

Herrmann and J

E. Herrmann and J. Trnka,UV cancellations in gravity loop integrands, JHEP 02 (2019) 084 [1808.10446]

arXiv 2019
[30]

Z. Bern, M. Enciso, J. Parra-Martinez and M. Zeng,Manifesting enhanced cancellations in supergravity: integrands versus integrals, JHEP 05 (2017) 137 [1703.08927]

arXiv 2017
[1]

’t Hooft and M

G. ’t Hooft and M. J. G. Veltman,One loop divergencies in the theory of gravitation, Ann. Inst. H. Poincare Phys. Theor.A20 (1974) 69

1974
[2]

M. H. Goroﬀ and A. Sagnotti,Quantum Gravity at Two Loops, Phys. Lett. 160B (1985) 81

1985
[3]

M. H. Goroﬀ and A. Sagnotti,The Ultraviolet Behavior of Einstein Gravity, Nucl. Phys. B266 (1986) 709

1986
[4]

A. E. M. van de Ven,Two loop quantum gravity, Nucl. Phys. B378 (1992) 309

1992
[5]

Z. Bern, C. Cheung, H.-H. Chi, S. Davies, L. Dixon and J. Nohle,Evanescent Eﬀects Can Alter Ultraviolet Divergences in Quantum Gravity without Physical Consequences, Phys. Rev. Lett.115 (2015) 211301 [1507.06118]

arXiv 2015
[6]

Bern, H.-H

Z. Bern, H.-H. Chi, L. Dixon and A. Edison,Two-Loop Renormalization of Quantum Gravity Simpliﬁed, Phys. Rev. D95 (2017) 046013 [1701.02422]

arXiv 2017

Show all 122 references

[7]

Cremmer, B

E. Cremmer, B. Julia and J. Scherk,Supergravity Theory in Eleven-Dimensions, Phys. Lett. B76 (1978) 409

1978
[8]

Cremmer and B

E. Cremmer and B. Julia,The N=8 Supergravity Theory. 1. The Lagrangian, Phys. Lett. B80 (1978) 48

1978
[9]

Cremmer and B

E. Cremmer and B. Julia,The SO(8) Supergravity, Nucl. Phys. B159 (1979) 141

1979
[10]

Broedel and L

J. Broedel and L. J. Dixon,R**4 counterterm and E(7)(7) symmetry in maximal supergravity, JHEP 05 (2010) 003 [0911.5704]

2010 arXiv
[11]

M. B. Green, J. G. Russo and P. Vanhove,String theory dualities and supergravity divergences, JHEP 06 (2010) 075 [1002.3805]

2010 arXiv
[12]

Bossard, P

G. Bossard, P. S. Howe and K. S. Stelle,On duality symmetries of supergravity invariants, JHEP 01 (2011) 020 [1009.0743]

2011 arXiv
[13]

Beisert, H

N. Beisert, H. Elvang, D. Z. Freedman, M. Kiermaier, A. Morales and S. Stieberger, E7(7) constraints on counterterms in N=8 supergravity, Phys. Lett. B694 (2011) 265 [1009.1643]

2011 arXiv
[14]

Vanhove,The Critical ultraviolet behaviour of N=8 supergravity amplitudes, 1004.1392

P. Vanhove,The Critical ultraviolet behaviour of N=8 supergravity amplitudes, 1004.1392

arXiv
[15]

Bjornsson and M

J. Bjornsson and M. B. Green,5 loops in 24/5 dimensions, JHEP 08 (2010) 132 [1004.2692]

2010 arXiv
[16]

Bjornsson,Multi-loop amplitudes in maximally supersymmetric pure spinor ﬁeld theory, JHEP 01 (2011) 002 [1009.5906]

J. Bjornsson,Multi-loop amplitudes in maximally supersymmetric pure spinor ﬁeld theory, JHEP 01 (2011) 002 [1009.5906]

2011 arXiv
[17]

Bossard, P

G. Bossard, P. S. Howe, K. S. Stelle and P. Vanhove,The vanishing volume of D=4 superspace, Class. Quant. Grav.28 (2011) 215005 [1105.6087]. – 37 –

2011 arXiv
[18]

Elvang and M

H. Elvang and M. Kiermaier,Stringy KLT relations, global symmetries, andE7(7) violation, JHEP 10 (2010) 108 [1007.4813]

2010 arXiv
[19]

Z. Bern, J. J. Carrasco, W.-M. Chen, A. Edison, H. Johansson, J. Parra-Martinez et al.,Ultraviolet Properties ofN = 8 Supergravity at Five Loops, Phys. Rev. D98 (2018) 086021 [1804.09311]

2018 arXiv
[20]

M. B. Green, H. Ooguri and J. H. Schwarz,Nondecoupling of Maximal Supergravity from the Superstring, Phys. Rev. Lett.99 (2007) 041601 [0704.0777]

2007 arXiv
[21]

Cremmer, J

E. Cremmer, J. Scherk and S. Ferrara,SU(4) Invariant Supergravity Theory, Phys. Lett. 74B (1978) 61

1978
[22]

Marcus,Composite Anomalies in Supergravity, Phys

N. Marcus,Composite Anomalies in Supergravity, Phys. Lett. 157B (1985) 383

1985
[23]

Z. Bern, S. Davies, T. Dennen and Y.-t. Huang,Absence of Three-Loop Four-Point Divergences in N=4 Supergravity, Phys. Rev. Lett.108 (2012) 201301 [1202.3423]

2012 arXiv
[24]

Z. Bern, S. Davies, T. Dennen and Y.-t. Huang,Ultraviolet Cancellations in Half-Maximal Supergravity as a Consequence of the Double-Copy Structure, Phys. Rev. D86 (2012) 105014 [1209.2472]

2012 arXiv
[25]

Bossard, P

G. Bossard, P. S. Howe and K. S. Stelle,Anomalies and divergences in N=4 supergravity, Phys. Lett. B719 (2013) 424 [1212.0841]

2013 arXiv
[26]

Z. Bern, S. Davies and T. Dennen,The Ultraviolet Structure of Half-Maximal Supergravity with Matter Multiplets at Two and Three Loops, Phys. Rev. D88 (2013) 065007 [1305.4876]

2013 arXiv
[27]

Kallosh,Cancellation of Conformal and Chiral Anomalies inN≥ 5 supergravities, Phys

R. Kallosh,Cancellation of Conformal and Chiral Anomalies inN≥ 5 supergravities, Phys. Rev. D95 (2017) 041701 [1612.08978]

2017 arXiv
[28]

D. Z. Freedman, R. Kallosh, D. Murli, A. Van Proeyen and Y. Yamada,Absence of U(1) Anomalous Superamplitudes inN≥ 5 Supergravities, JHEP 05 (2017) 067 [1703.03879]

2017 arXiv
[29]

Z. Bern, S. Davies and T. Dennen,Enhanced ultraviolet cancellations inN = 5 supergravity at four loops, Phys. Rev. D90 (2014) 105011 [1409.3089]

2014 arXiv
[31]

Z. Bern, A. Edison, D. Kosower and J. Parra-Martinez,Curvature-squared multiplets, evanescent eﬀects, and the U(1) anomaly inN = 4 supergravity, Phys. Rev. D96 (2017) 066004 [1706.01486]

2017 arXiv
[32]

Z. Bern, J. Parra-Martinez and R. Roiban,Canceling the U(1) Anomaly in theS Matrix ofN=4 Supergravity, Phys. Rev. Lett.121 (2018) 101604 [1712.03928]

2018 arXiv
[33]

Z. Bern, D. Kosower and J. Parra-Martinez,Two-loop n-point anomalous amplitudes in N = 4 supergravity, 1905.05151. – 38 –

1905 arXiv
[35]

Arkani-Hamed and J

N. Arkani-Hamed and J. Trnka,The Amplituhedron, JHEP 10 (2014) 030 [1312.2007]

2014 arXiv
[36]

Arkani-Hamed and J

N. Arkani-Hamed and J. Trnka,Into the Amplituhedron, JHEP 12 (2014) 182 [1312.7878]

2014 arXiv
[37]

Arkani-Hamed, H

N. Arkani-Hamed, H. Thomas and J. Trnka,Unwinding the Amplituhedron in Binary, JHEP 01 (2018) 016 [1704.05069]

2018 arXiv
[38]

Damgaard, L

D. Damgaard, L. Ferro, T. Lukowski and M. Parisi,The Momentum Amplituhedron, JHEP 08 (2019) 042 [1905.04216]

2019 arXiv
[39]

Arkani-Hamed, C

N. Arkani-Hamed, C. Langer, A. Yelleshpur Srikant and J. Trnka,Deep Into the Amplituhedron: Amplitude Singularities at All Loops and Legs, Phys. Rev. Lett.122 (2019) 051601 [1810.08208]

2019 arXiv
[40]

Arkani-Hamed, Y

N. Arkani-Hamed, Y. Bai, S. He and G. Yan,Scattering Forms and the Positive Geometry of Kinematics, Color and the Worldsheet, JHEP 05 (2018) 096 [1711.09102]

2018 arXiv
[41]

Arkani-Hamed, Y

N. Arkani-Hamed, Y. Bai and T. Lam,Positive Geometries and Canonical Forms, JHEP 11 (2017) 039 [1703.04541]

2017 arXiv
[42]

He and C

S. He and C. Zhang,Notes on Scattering Amplitudes as Diﬀerential Forms, JHEP 10 (2018) 054 [1807.11051]

2018 arXiv
[43]

Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon, D. C. Dunbar and D. A. Kosower,Fusing gauge theory tree amplitudes into loop amplitudes, Nucl. Phys. B435 (1995) 59 [hep-ph/9409265]

1995 arXiv
[44]

Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon and D. A. Kosower,One loop amplitudes for e+ e- to four partons, Nucl. Phys. B513 (1998) 3 [hep-ph/9708239]

1998 arXiv
[45]

Britto, F

R. Britto, F. Cachazo and B. Feng,Generalized unitarity and one-loop amplitudes in N=4 super-Yang-Mills, Nucl. Phys. B725 (2005) 275 [hep-th/0412103]

2005 arXiv
[46]

Z. Bern, J. J. M. Carrasco, H. Johansson and D. A. Kosower,Maximally supersymmetric planar Yang-Mills amplitudes at ﬁve loops, Phys. Rev. D76 (2007) 125020 [0705.1864]

2007 arXiv
[47]

Britto, F

R. Britto, F. Cachazo and B. Feng,New recursion relations for tree amplitudes of gluons, Nucl. Phys. B715 (2005) 499 [hep-th/0412308]

2005 arXiv
[48]

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
[49]

Z. Bern, E. Herrmann, S. Litsey, J. Stankowicz and J. Trnka,Evidence for a Nonplanar Amplituhedron, JHEP 06 (2016) 098 [1512.08591]

2016 arXiv
[50]

Bedford, A

J. Bedford, A. Brandhuber, B. J. Spence and G. Travaglini,A Recursion relation for gravity amplitudes, Nucl. Phys. B721 (2005) 98 [hep-th/0502146]. – 39 –

2005 arXiv
[51]

Cachazo and P

F. Cachazo and P. Svrcek,Tree level recursion relations in general relativity, hep-th/0502160

arXiv
[52]

Benincasa, C

P. Benincasa, C. Boucher-Veronneau and F. Cachazo,Taming Tree Amplitudes In General Relativity, JHEP 11 (2007) 057 [hep-th/0702032]

2007 arXiv
[53]

Z. Bern, J. J. Carrasco, D. Forde, H. Ita and H. Johansson,Unexpected Cancellations in Gravity Theories, Phys. Rev. D77 (2008) 025010 [0707.1035]

2008 arXiv
[54]

Passarino and M

G. Passarino and M. Veltman,One Loop Corrections fore+e− Annihilation Into µ+µ− in the Weinberg Model, Nucl. Phys. B160 (1979) 151

1979
[55]

Ossola, C

G. Ossola, C. G. Papadopoulos and R. Pittau,Reducing full one-loop amplitudes to scalar integrals at the integrand level, Nucl. Phys. B763 (2007) 147 [hep-ph/0609007]

2007 arXiv
[56]

Mastrolia, G

P. Mastrolia, G. Ossola, T. Reiter and F. Tramontano,Scattering AMplitudes from Unitarity-based Reduction Algorithm at the Integrand-level, JHEP 08 (2010) 080 [1006.0710]

2010 arXiv
[57]

Ita,Two-loop Integrand Decomposition into Master Integrals and Surface Terms, Phys

H. Ita,Two-loop Integrand Decomposition into Master Integrals and Surface Terms, Phys. Rev. D94 (2016) 116015 [1510.05626]

2016 arXiv
[58]

J. L. Bourjaily, E. Herrmann and J. Trnka,Prescriptive Unitarity, JHEP 06 (2017) 059 [1704.05460]

2017 arXiv
[59]

Arkani-Hamed, J

N. Arkani-Hamed, J. L. Bourjaily, F. Cachazo, S. Caron-Huot and J. Trnka,The All-Loop Integrand For Scattering Amplitudes in Planar N=4 SYM, JHEP 01 (2011) 041 [1008.2958]

2011 arXiv
[60]

Arkani-Hamed, J

N. Arkani-Hamed, J. L. Bourjaily, F. Cachazo, A. B. Goncharov, A. Postnikov and J. Trnka,Grassmannian Geometry of Scattering Amplitudes. Cambridge University Press, 2016, 10.1017/CBO9781316091548, [1212.5605]

2016 arXiv
[61]

A. B. Goncharov, M. Spradlin, C. Vergu and A. Volovich,Classical Polylogarithms for Amplitudes and Wilson Loops, Phys. Rev. Lett.105 (2010) 151605 [1006.5703]

2010 arXiv
[62]

J. M. Drummond, G. Papathanasiou and M. Spradlin,A Symbol of Uniqueness: The Cluster Bootstrap for the 3-Loop MHV Heptagon, JHEP 03 (2015) 072 [1412.3763]

2015 arXiv
[63]

L. J. Dixon, J. M. Drummond and J. M. Henn,Analytic result for the two-loop six-point NMHV amplitude in N=4 super Yang-Mills theory, JHEP 01 (2012) 024 [1111.1704]

2012 arXiv
[64]

L. J. Dixon, J. M. Drummond and J. M. Henn,Bootstrapping the three-loop hexagon, JHEP 11 (2011) 023 [1108.4461]

2011 arXiv
[65]

Caron-Huot, L

S. Caron-Huot, L. J. Dixon, F. Dulat, M. von Hippel, A. J. McLeod and G. Papathanasiou,Six-Gluon amplitudes in planarN = 4 super-Yang-Mills theory at six and seven loops, JHEP 08 (2019) 016 [1903.10890]

2019 arXiv
[66]

Ben-Israel, A

R. Ben-Israel, A. G. Tumanov and A. Sever,Scattering amplitudes ? Wilson loops duality for the ﬁrst non-planar correction, JHEP 08 (2018) 122 [1802.09395]. – 40 –

2018 arXiv
[67]

Tourkine,On integrands and loop momentum in string and ﬁeld theory, 1901.02432

P. Tourkine,On integrands and loop momentum in string and ﬁeld theory, 1901.02432

1901 arXiv
[68]

Herrmann and J

E. Herrmann and J. Trnka,Gravity On-shell Diagrams, JHEP 11 (2016) 136 [1604.03479]

2016 arXiv
[69]

Cachazo,Sharpening The Leading Singularity, 0803.1988

F. Cachazo,Sharpening The Leading Singularity, 0803.1988

1988 arXiv
[70]

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

1996 arXiv
[71]

Anastasiou, R

C. Anastasiou, R. Britto, B. Feng, Z. Kunszt and P. Mastrolia,D-dimensional unitarity cut method, Phys. Lett. B645 (2007) 213 [hep-ph/0609191]

2007 arXiv
[72]

Caron-Huot and K

S. Caron-Huot and K. J. Larsen,Uniqueness of two-loop master contours, JHEP 10 (2012) 026 [1205.0801]

2012 arXiv
[73]

J. L. Bourjaily, A. J. McLeod, M. Spradlin, M. von Hippel and M. Wilhelm,Elliptic Double-Box Integrals: Massless Scattering Amplitudes beyond Polylogarithms, Phys. Rev. Lett.120 (2018) 121603 [1712.02785]

2018 arXiv
[74]

J. L. Bourjaily, Y.-H. He, A. J. Mcleod, M. Von Hippel and M. Wilhelm,Traintracks through Calabi-Yau Manifolds: Scattering Amplitudes beyond Elliptic Polylogarithms, Phys. Rev. Lett.121 (2018) 071603 [1805.09326]

2018 arXiv
[75]

J. L. Bourjaily, A. J. McLeod, M. von Hippel and M. Wilhelm,Bounded Collection of Feynman Integral Calabi-Yau Geometries, Phys. Rev. Lett.122 (2019) 031601 [1810.07689]

2019 arXiv
[76]

Broedel, C

J. Broedel, C. Duhr, F. Dulat, B. Penante and L. Tancredi,Elliptic Feynman integrals and pure functions, JHEP 01 (2019) 023 [1809.10698]

2019 arXiv
[77]

Arkani-Hamed, J

N. Arkani-Hamed, J. L. Bourjaily, F. Cachazo and J. Trnka,Singularity Structure of Maximally Supersymmetric Scattering Amplitudes, Phys. Rev. Lett.113 (2014) 261603 [1410.0354]

2014 arXiv
[78]

Z. Bern, E. Herrmann, S. Litsey, J. Stankowicz and J. Trnka,Logarithmic Singularities and Maximally Supersymmetric Amplitudes, JHEP 06 (2015) 202 [1412.8584]

2015 arXiv
[79]

J. M. Henn,Multiloop integrals in dimensional regularization made simple, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (2013) 251601 [1304.1806]

2013 arXiv
[80]

J. M. Henn,Lectures on diﬀerential equations for Feynman integrals, J. Phys. A48 (2015) 153001 [1412.2296]

2015 arXiv
[81]

Chicherin, J

D. Chicherin, J. M. Henn and E. Sokatchev,Implications of nonplanar dual conformal symmetry, JHEP 09 (2018) 012 [1807.06321]

2018 arXiv
[82]

Abreu, R

S. Abreu, R. Britto, C. Duhr and E. Gardi,Cuts from residues: the one-loop case, 1702.03163

arXiv
[83]

Abreu, R

S. Abreu, R. Britto, C. Duhr and E. Gardi,The algebraic structure of cut Feynman integrals and the diagrammatic coaction, 1703.05064. – 41 –

arXiv
[84]

J. L. Bourjaily, E. Herrmann, C. Langer and J. Trnka,Building Bases of Loop Integrands, 2007.13905

2007 arXiv
[85]

J. M. Drummond, J. Henn, G. P. Korchemsky and E. Sokatchev,Conformal Ward identities for Wilson loops and a test of the duality with gluon amplitudes, Nucl. Phys. B826 (2010) 337 [0712.1223]

2010 arXiv
[86]

J. M. Drummond, J. Henn, V. A. Smirnov and E. Sokatchev,Magic identities for conformal four-point integrals, JHEP 01 (2007) 064 [hep-th/0607160]

2007 arXiv
[87]

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

1998 arXiv
[88]

Z. Bern, J. J. M. Carrasco, L. J. Dixon, H. Johansson and R. Roiban,Manifest Ultraviolet Behavior for the Three-Loop Four-Point Amplitude of N=8 Supergravity, Phys. Rev. D78 (2008) 105019 [0808.4112]

2008 arXiv
[89]

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]

2009 arXiv
[90]

J. L. Bourjaily,Eﬃcient Tree-Amplitudes in N=4: Automatic BCFW Recursion in Mathematica, 1011.2447

arXiv
[91]

Kawai, D

H. Kawai, D. C. Lewellen and S. H. H. Tye,A Relation Between Tree Amplitudes of Closed and Open Strings, Nucl. Phys. B269 (1986) 1

1986
[92]

F. A. Berends, W. T. Giele and H. Kuijf,On relations between multi - gluon and multigraviton scattering, Phys. Lett. B211 (1988) 91

1988
[93]

Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon, M. Perelstein and J. S. Rozowsky,Multileg one loop gravity amplitudes from gauge theory, Nucl. Phys. B546 (1999) 423 [hep-th/9811140]

1999 arXiv
[94]

Cohen, H

T. Cohen, H. Elvang and M. Kiermaier,On-shell constructibility of tree amplitudes in general ﬁeld theories, JHEP 04 (2011) 053 [1010.0257]

2011 arXiv
[95]

Arkani-Hamed and J

N. Arkani-Hamed and J. Kaplan,On Tree Amplitudes in Gauge Theory and Gravity, JHEP 04 (2008) 076 [0801.2385]

2008 arXiv
[96]

D. A. McGady and L. Rodina,Recursion relations for graviton scattering amplitudes from Bose symmetry and bonus scaling laws, Phys. Rev. D91 (2015) 105010 [1408.5125]

2015 arXiv
[97]

Bianchi, H

M. Bianchi, H. Elvang and D. Z. Freedman,Generating Tree Amplitudes in N=4 SYM and N = 8 SG, JHEP 09 (2008) 063 [0805.0757]

2008 arXiv
[98]

Cheung, C.-H

C. Cheung, C.-H. Shen and J. Trnka,Simple Recursion Relations for General Field Theories, JHEP 06 (2015) 118 [1502.05057]

2015 arXiv
[99]

Elvang, M

H. Elvang, M. Hadjiantonis, C. R. T. Jones and S. Paranjape,Soft Bootstrap and Supersymmetry, JHEP 01 (2019) 195 [1806.06079]. – 42 –

2019 arXiv
[100]

Weinberg,Infrared photons and gravitons, Phys

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

1965
[101]

Akhoury, R

R. Akhoury, R. Saotome and G. Sterman,Collinear and Soft Divergences in Perturbative Quantum Gravity, Phys. Rev. D84 (2011) 104040 [1109.0270]

2011 arXiv
[102]

Arkani-Hamed, A

N. Arkani-Hamed, A. Hodges and J. Trnka,Positive Amplitudes In The Amplituhedron, JHEP 08 (2015) 030 [1412.8478]

2015 arXiv
[103]

Anastasiou, J

C. Anastasiou, J. B. Tausk and M. E. Tejeda-Yeomans,The On-shell massless planar double box diagram with an irreducible numerator, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.89 (2000) 262 [hep-ph/0005328]

2000 arXiv
[104]

J. L. Bourjaily, S. Caron-Huot and J. Trnka,Dual-Conformal Regularization of Infrared Loop Divergences and the Chiral Box Expansion, JHEP 01 (2015) 001 [1303.4734]

2015 arXiv
[105]

Z. Bern, J. J. M. Carrasco and H. Johansson,Perturbative Quantum Gravity as a Double Copy of Gauge Theory, Phys. Rev. Lett.105 (2010) 061602 [1004.0476]

2010 arXiv
[106]

Z. Bern, J. J. Carrasco, M. Chiodaroli, H. Johansson and R. Roiban,The Duality Between Color and Kinematics and its Applications, 1909.01358

1909 arXiv
[107]

Z. Bern, J. J. Carrasco, W.-M. Chen, H. Johansson and R. Roiban,Gravity Amplitudes as Generalized Double Copies of Gauge-Theory Amplitudes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 (2017) 181602 [1701.02519]

2017 arXiv
[108]

J. L. Bourjaily, E. Herrmann and J. Trnka,Maximally supersymmetric amplitudes at inﬁnite loop momentum, Phys. Rev. D99 (2019) 066006 [1812.11185]

2019 arXiv
[109]

Z. Bern, N. Bjerrum-Bohr and D. C. Dunbar,Inherited twistor-space structure of gravity loop amplitudes, JHEP 05 (2005) 056 [hep-th/0501137]

2005 arXiv
[110]

Bjerrum-Bohr, D

N. Bjerrum-Bohr, D. C. Dunbar, H. Ita, W. B. Perkins and K. Risager,The No-Triangle Hypothesis for N=8 Supergravity, JHEP 12 (2006) 072 [hep-th/0610043]

2006 arXiv
[111]

Bjerrum-Bohr and P

N. Bjerrum-Bohr and P. Vanhove,Absence of Triangles in Maximal Supergravity Amplitudes, JHEP 10 (2008) 006 [0805.3682]

2008 arXiv
[112]

C. R. Mafra, O. Schlotterer and S. Stieberger,Explicit BCJ Numerators from Pure Spinors, JHEP 07 (2011) 092 [1104.5224]

2011 arXiv
[113]

Z. Bern, J. J. M. Carrasco and H. Johansson,New Relations for Gauge-Theory Amplitudes, Phys. Rev. D78 (2008) 085011 [0805.3993]

2008 arXiv
[114]

N. E. J. Bjerrum-Bohr, P. H. Damgaard, T. Sondergaard and P. Vanhove,The Momentum Kernel of Gauge and Gravity Theories, JHEP 01 (2011) 001 [1010.3933]

2011 arXiv
[115]

Y.-J. Du, B. Feng, C.-H. Fu and Y. Wang,Note on Soft Graviton theorem by KLT Relation, JHEP 11 (2014) 090 [1408.4179]

2014 arXiv
[116]

Risager,A Direct proof of the CSW rules, JHEP 12 (2005) 003 [hep-th/0508206]

K. Risager,A Direct proof of the CSW rules, JHEP 12 (2005) 003 [hep-th/0508206]. – 43 –

2005 arXiv
[117]

Cachazo, P

F. Cachazo, P. Svrcek and E. Witten,MHV vertices and tree amplitudes in gauge theory, JHEP 09 (2004) 006 [hep-th/0403047]

2004 arXiv
[118]

Rodina,Uniqueness from locality and BCFW shifts, 1612.03885

L. Rodina,Uniqueness from locality and BCFW shifts, 1612.03885

arXiv
[119]

J. J. M. Carrasco and L. Rodina,UV considerations on scattering amplitudes in a web of theories, 1908.08033

1908 arXiv
[120]

Z. Bern, J. J. M. Carrasco, W.-M. Chen, H. Johansson, R. Roiban and M. Zeng, Five-loop four-point integrand ofN = 8 supergravity as a generalized double copy, Phys. Rev. D96 (2017) 126012 [1708.06807]

2017 arXiv
[121]

Z. Bern, M. Enciso, H. Ita and M. Zeng,Dual Conformal Symmetry, Integration-by-Parts Reduction, Diﬀerential Equations and the Nonplanar Sector, Phys. Rev. D96 (2017) 096017 [1709.06055]

2017 arXiv
[122]

Z. Bern, M. Enciso, C.-H. Shen and M. Zeng,Dual Conformal Structure Beyond the Planar Limit, Phys. Rev. Lett.121 (2018) 121603 [1806.06509]. – 44 –

2018 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [34]

Herrmann and J

E. Herrmann and J. Trnka,UV cancellations in gravity loop integrands, JHEP 02 (2019) 084 [1808.10446]

arXiv 2019

[2] [30]

Z. Bern, M. Enciso, J. Parra-Martinez and M. Zeng,Manifesting enhanced cancellations in supergravity: integrands versus integrals, JHEP 05 (2017) 137 [1703.08927]

arXiv 2017

[3] [1]

’t Hooft and M

G. ’t Hooft and M. J. G. Veltman,One loop divergencies in the theory of gravitation, Ann. Inst. H. Poincare Phys. Theor.A20 (1974) 69

1974

[4] [2]

M. H. Goroﬀ and A. Sagnotti,Quantum Gravity at Two Loops, Phys. Lett. 160B (1985) 81

1985

[5] [3]

M. H. Goroﬀ and A. Sagnotti,The Ultraviolet Behavior of Einstein Gravity, Nucl. Phys. B266 (1986) 709

1986

[6] [4]

A. E. M. van de Ven,Two loop quantum gravity, Nucl. Phys. B378 (1992) 309

1992

[7] [5]

Z. Bern, C. Cheung, H.-H. Chi, S. Davies, L. Dixon and J. Nohle,Evanescent Eﬀects Can Alter Ultraviolet Divergences in Quantum Gravity without Physical Consequences, Phys. Rev. Lett.115 (2015) 211301 [1507.06118]

arXiv 2015

[8] [6]

Bern, H.-H

Z. Bern, H.-H. Chi, L. Dixon and A. Edison,Two-Loop Renormalization of Quantum Gravity Simpliﬁed, Phys. Rev. D95 (2017) 046013 [1701.02422]

arXiv 2017